As low as reasonably practicable

Last updated

As low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), or as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), is a principle in the regulation and management of safety-critical and safety-involved systems. [1] [2] The principle is that the residual risk shall be reduced as far as reasonably practicable. In UK and NZ Health and safety law, it is equivalent to so far as is reasonably practicable (SFAIRP). In the US, ALARA is used in the regulation of radiation risks.

Contents

For a risk to be ALARP, it must be possible to demonstrate that the cost involved in reducing the risk further would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained. [3] The ALARP principle arises from the fact that infinite time, effort and money could be spent in the attempt of reducing a risk to zero; not the fact that reducing the risk in half would require a finite time, effort and money. It should not be understood as simply a quantitative measure of benefit against detriment. It is more a best common practice of judgement of the balance of risk and societal benefit.

Factors

In this context, risk is the combination of the frequency (likelihood) and the consequence of a specified hazardous event.

Several factors are likely to be considered when deciding whether or not a risk has been reduced as far as reasonably practicable: [3] [4]

Another factor is often the cost of assessing the improvement gained in an attempted risk reduction. In extremely complex systems, this can be very high, and could be the limiting factor in practicability of risk reduction, although according to UK HSE guidance, cost alone should never be a justification for taking extra safety risks.

Determining that a risk has been reduced to ALARP involves an assessment of the risk to be avoided, of the sacrifice (in money, time and trouble) involved in taking measures to avoid that risk, and a comparison of the two. This is a cost–benefit analysis (CBA). A difficulty arising in CBAs is assigning a meaningful and agreed financial value to human life. A CBA exercise, in the context of ALARP, must have a means of assigning financial values to impacts to the environment, physical assets, production stoppage, company reputation, etc., which also presents significant challenges to the analyst. [5]

Origin in UK law

The term ALARP arises from UK legislation, particularly the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which requires "Provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health". The phrase So Far As is Reasonably Practicable (SFARP) in this and similar clauses is interpreted as leading to a requirement that risks must be reduced to a level that is As Low As is Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).

The key question in determining whether a risk is ALARP is the definition of reasonably practicable. This term has been enshrined in the UK case law since the case of Edwards v. National Coal Board in 1949. The ruling was that the risk must be significant in relation to the sacrifice (in terms of money, time or trouble) required to avert it: risks must be averted unless there is a gross disproportion between the costs and benefits of doing so. [6]

Including gross disproportion means that an ALARP judgement in the UK is not a simple cost benefit analysis, but is weighted to favour carrying out the safety improvement. However, there is no broad consensus on the precise factor that would be appropriate: the HSE recommends that the bias towards safety "has to be argued in the light of all the circumstances applying to the case and the precautionary approach that these circumstances warrant". [7]

Use outside the UK

The ALARP or ALARA principle is mandated by particular legislation in some countries outside the UK, including Australia, the Netherlands and Norway. Where the ALARP principle is used, it may not have the same implications as in the UK, as "reasonably practicable" may be interpreted according to the local culture, without introducing the concept of gross disproportionality. [8]

The term ALARA, or "as low as reasonably achievable" is used interchangeably in the United States of America. It is used in the field of radiation protection. [9] Its application in the regulation of radiation risk in some areas has been challenged. [10]

Health Canada's Medical Devices Directorate is transitioning from the ALARP standard to AFAP ("As Far As Possible") in the regulation of risk of medical devices. [11] [12] The ALARP concept can be interpreted to promote financial consideration in higher regard than of the requirements of safety and performance of medical devices[ citation needed ]. Contradicting this approach, AFAP requires that all ventures of safety must be addressed in the intent of the consumer and effectiveness of the product rather than capital gain of the corporation. Risks previously deemed 'negligible' may be ignored under the old standard but must be taken into account and included in risk analysis under the newer AFAP-based standard. Under AFAP standards there are two defined justifications for the lack of implementation of risk-preventative measures. The first indicates that the additional risk control will not provide additional support for the system, such as an additional alarm when a previous alarm is functioning. The second states that a risk control system does not have to be implemented if there is a more effective risk control that can not be simultaneously executed due to various scenarios such as spatial boundaries. By implementing this new standard of risk mitigation, companies must demonstrate that they have considered and implemented all necessary means of addressing risk of a product or developed system.[ citation needed ]

In Australia the Work Health & Safety Act 2011 introduced the term So Far As Is Reasonably Practical (SFAIRP) based on the UK legislation. In some industry sectors the term SFARIP has become the common usage and can be used interchangeably with ALARP, but some people believe that SFAIRP and ALARP are two different legal tests. [13]

A two-year legal battle in the European Court of Justice resulted in the SFAIRP principle being upheld on 18 January 2007. [14]

The European Commission had claimed that the SFAIRP wording in the Health & Safety at Work Act did not fully implement the requirements of the Framework Directive. The Directive gives employers an absolute duty "to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work", whereas the Act qualifies the duty "So Far As is Reasonably Practicable". The court dismissed the action and ordered the commission to pay the UK's costs. [14] [15]

Had the case been upheld, it would have called into question the proportionate approach to safety risk management embodied in the ALARP principle.

Carrot diagrams

Carrot diagram Carrot Diagram.svg
Carrot diagram

'Carrot diagrams' show high (normally unacceptable) risks at the upper/wider end and low (broadly acceptable) risks at the lower/narrower end, with a 'tolerable' or 'ALARP' region in between. They were originally developed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to illustrate their framework for the Tolerability of Risk (TOR), which set out the HSE's approach to regulating safety risks. While the ALARP principle applies at all levels of risk under UK health and safety law, the TOR framework captures the concept that some risks are too great to be acceptable, whatever the benefit; while others are so low as to be insignificant. The HSE, as regulators, would not usually require further action to reduce these broadly acceptable risks unless reasonably practicable measures were available, although they would still take into account that duty holders must reduce risks wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so. Between the two extremes, risks can be tolerated in order to secure benefits, so long as they have been risk assessed and are kept ALARP. [16] [7]

Carrot diagrams are sometimes known as 'ALARP Triangles'. [17] [18] [19] However, this can be misleading because they illustrate the Tolerability of Risk framework rather than the ALARP principle itself, and can be misinterpreted as meaning either that ALARP legally applies only in the tolerable region, or that risks in tolerable region are automatically ALARP.

See also

Related Research Articles

The value of life is an economic value used to quantify the benefit of avoiding a fatality. It is also referred to as the cost of life, value of preventing a fatality (VPF), implied cost of averting a fatality (ICAF), and value of a statistical life (VSL). In social and political sciences, it is the marginal cost of death prevention in a certain class of circumstances. In many studies the value also includes the quality of life, the expected life time remaining, as well as the earning potential of a given person especially for an after-the-fact payment in a wrongful death claim lawsuit.

Risk assessment determines possible mishaps, their likelihood and consequences, and the tolerances for such events. The results of this process may be expressed in a quantitative or qualitative fashion. Risk assessment is an inherent part of a broader risk management strategy to help reduce any potential risk-related consequences.

Radiation protection, also known as radiological protection, is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "The protection of people from harmful effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, and the means for achieving this". Exposure can be from a source of radiation external to the human body or due to internal irradiation caused by the ingestion of radioactive contamination.

The Ladbroke Grove rail crash was a rail accident which occurred on 5 October 1999 at Ladbroke Grove in London, England, when two passenger trains collided almost head-on after one of them had passed a signal at danger. With 31 people killed and 417 injured, it was one of the worst rail accidents in 20th-century British history.

Cost–benefit analysis (CBA), sometimes also called benefit–cost analysis, is a systematic approach to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives. It is used to determine options which provide the best approach to achieving benefits while preserving savings in, for example, transactions, activities, and functional business requirements. A CBA may be used to compare completed or potential courses of action, and to estimate or evaluate the value against the cost of a decision, project, or policy. It is commonly used to evaluate business or policy decisions, commercial transactions, and project investments. For example, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission must conduct cost-benefit analyses before instituting regulations or deregulations.

In functional safety, safety integrity level (SIL) is defined as the relative level of risk-reduction provided by a safety instrumented function (SIF), i.e. the measurement of the performance required of the SIF.

IEC 61508 is an international standard published by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) consisting of methods on how to apply, design, deploy and maintain automatic protection systems called safety-related systems. It is titled Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-related Systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that as of 2011 defines the fundamental structure and authority for the encouragement, regulation and enforcement of workplace health, safety and welfare within the United Kingdom.

The Ionising Radiations Regulations (IRR) are statutory instruments which form the main legal requirements for the use and control of ionising radiation in the United Kingdom. There have been several versions of the regulations, the current legislation was introduced in 2017 (IRR17), repealing the 1999 regulations and implementing the 2013/59/Euratom European Union directive.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is an independent, international, non-governmental organization, with the mission to protect people, animals, and the environment from the harmful effects of ionising radiation. Its recommendations form the basis of radiological protection policy, regulations, guidelines and practice worldwide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 is a United Kingdom Statutory Instrument which states general requirements imposed on employers to protect employees and other persons from the hazards of substances used at work by risk assessment, control of exposure, health surveillance and incident planning. There are also duties on employees to take care of their own exposure to hazardous substances and prohibitions on the import of certain substances into the European Economic Area. The regulations reenacted, with amendments, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Work Regulations 1999 and implement several European Union directives.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Portable appliance testing</span> Procedure in which electrical appliances are routinely checked for safety

In electrical safety testing, portable appliance testing is a process by which electrical appliances are routinely checked for safety, commonly used in the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia. The formal term for the process is "in-service inspection & testing of electrical equipment". Testing involves a visual inspection of the equipment and verification that power cables are in good condition. Additionally, other tests may be done when required, such as a verification of earthing (grounding) continuity, a test of the soundness of insulation between the currentcarrying parts, and a check for any exposed metal that could be touched. The formal limits for a pass/fail of these electrical tests vary somewhat depending on the category of equipment being tested.

A job safety analysis (JSA) is a procedure that helps integrate accepted safety and health principles and practices into a particular task or job operation. The goal of a JSA is to identify potential hazards of a specific role and recommend procedures to control or prevent these hazards.

In the United Kingdom there are several pieces of regulation relevant to health and safety at work. Prior to Brexit, many of these gave effect to European Union directives.

Edwards v. National Coal Board was an important case in English case law. The 1949 case revolved around whether it was "reasonably practicable" to prevent even the smallest possibility of a rock fall in a coal mine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lancs Industries</span>

Lancs Industries is a manufacturer of protective clothing, containments, gloveboxes, enclosures, lead shielding, and other supplies used for reducing risk and increasing safety of workers in potentially hazardous environments.

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Commercial offshore diving</span> Professional diving in support of the oil and gas industry

Commercial offshore diving, sometimes shortened to just offshore diving, generally refers to the branch of commercial diving, with divers working in support of the exploration and production sector of the oil and gas industry in places such as the Gulf of Mexico in the United States, the North Sea in the United Kingdom and Norway, and along the coast of Brazil. The work in this area of the industry includes maintenance of oil platforms and the building of underwater structures. In this context "offshore" implies that the diving work is done outside of national boundaries. Technically it also refers to any diving done in the international offshore waters outside of the territorial waters of a state, where national legislation does not apply. Most commercial offshore diving is in the Exclusive Economic Zone of a state, and much of it is outside the territorial waters. Offshore diving beyond the EEZ does also occur, and is often for scientific purposes.

Permit-to-work (PTW) refers to a management system procedure used to ensure that work is done safely and efficiently. It is used in hazardous industries, such as process and nuclear plants, usually in connection with maintenance work. It involves procedured request, review, authorization, documenting and, most importantly, de-conflicting of tasks to be carried out by front line workers. It ensures affected personnel are aware of the nature of the work and the hazards associated with it, all safety precautions have been put in place before starting the task, and the work has been completed correctly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reclaiming Health and Safety For All</span>

Reclaiming Health and Safety For All also known as the Löfstedt Report is a 2011 report commissioned by the British government to review existing health and safety legislation and its impact upon businesses. The report was written by Ragnar Löfstedt and recommended the revocation of regulations that were of no benefit, updating of approved codes of practice and the abolition of the "strict liability" to mitigate all risks. The report resulted in a review of all Approved Codes of Practice by the Health and Safety Executive and the revocation of two regulations that were perceived to be of no benefit.

References

  1. ↑ "ALARP Guidance Note" (PDF). Commonwealth Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2009. NOPSEMA. June 2015. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 June 2016. Retrieved 20 May 2016.
  2. ↑ "ALARP Guidance". UK Health and Safety Executive. Archived from the original on 28 October 2020. Retrieved 29 June 2007.
  3. 1 2 "Reasonably Practicable" (PDF). WorkSafe New Zealand. March 2016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 October 2016. Retrieved 7 October 2016.
  4. ↑ "The Meaning of Reasonably Practicable" (PDF). Safe Work Australia. 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2016. Retrieved 7 October 2016.
  5. ↑ Yasseri, Sirous (2013). "The ALARP Argument" (PDF). FABIG Newsletter (61). Retrieved 17 July 2023.
  6. ↑ Edwards v. National Coal Board. Archived 10 April 2019 at the Wayback Machine (1949) All ER 743 (CA)
  7. 1 2 Reducing risks, protecting people: HSE’s decision-making process (PDF). Sudbury: HSE Books. 2001. ISBN   978-0717621514.
  8. ↑ Risk Acceptance Criteria: Overview of ALARP and Similar Methodologies as Practiced Worldwide (PDF) (White Paper). Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center. January 2020.
  9. ↑ Kathren RL (December 2002). "Historical Development of the Linear Nonthreshold Dose-Response Model as Applied to Radiation". University of New Hampshire Law Review. 1 (1).
  10. ↑ Oakley1, Paul A.; Harrison, Deed E. (April 2020). "Death of the ALARA Radiation Protection Principle as Used in the Medical Sector". Dose-Response. 18 (2): 1559325820921641. doi:10.1177/1559325820921641. PMC   7218317 . PMID   32425724.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  11. ↑ Crabtree, Vincent (19 December 2014). "How to Handle Medical Device Risk Management and the change from ALARP to AFAP". BLOGARITHMIC THINKING. StarFish Medical. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
  12. ↑ Devanathan, Rajeswari (Raje); Anastassova, Virginia (1 October 2022). "ALARP to AFAP, the MDR and ISO 14971:2019+A11:2021". BLOGARITHMIC THINKING. StarFish Medical. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
  13. ↑ Robinson, Richard; Francis, Gaye (January 2014). "SFAIRP vs ALARP" . CORE 2014: Rail Transport for a Vital Economy. Conference on Railway Excellence. Adelaide: Railway Technical Society of Australasia. pp. 661–668.
  14. 1 2 Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007. Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Case C-127/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:338
  15. ↑ Press release Archived 3 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine by the UK Health and Safety Executive
  16. ↑ The tolerability of risks from nuclear power stations (PDF) (Report). HMSO. 1992 [1988].
  17. ↑ Valeur, Jens R; Petersen, Johannes (13 October 2013). "Use of the ALARP Principle for Evaluating Environmental Risks and Impacts of Produced-Water Discharged to Sea". Oil and Gas Facilities. 2 (6): 92–100. doi:10.2118/167263-PA.
  18. ↑ "ALARP : Is the risk as low as reasonably practicable?". BMT. 14 September 2021. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
  19. ↑ "As Low As Reasonably Practicable – What Does ALARP Really Mean in Digital Health Compliance?". Safehand Consulting Limited. 31 July 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.