HEALTH & SAFETY
WHAT DOES ALARP MEAN? The principle of ALARP is the basis for the UK Health and Safety legislative framework. The Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) states that the risk to workers and public should be reduced so far as is reasonable practicable (SFAIRP). SFAIRP and ALARP are generally treated as interchangeable terms.
The term ALARP effectively means that a measure to reduce risk must be undertaken unless it can be demonstrated that the cost of the measure is grossly disproportionate to the risk reduction achieved. This can be simplified to a balance of cost versus risk reduction. Note that we are not just concerned with the direct cost of a control measure but the totality of expenditure and sacrifice which may have to be made to implement and work with that measure. This balance is illustrated in Figure 3.
Risk Reduction £
The key term to remember here is “gross disproportion”. It is not enough to demonstrate that the cost is greater than the risk reduction: it must be grossly disproportionate to the risk reduction to ensure a bias towards safety. The other point to note here is that whilst the cost of a risk reduction measure is relatively simple to evaluate (cost of the engineering, downtime to install, lifetime of the measure, operator training, additional operational delays resulting from use of the system etc.), the value associated with the risk reduction benefit is not so readily estimated. To do so requires a monetary value to be placed on averting harm to people. This is a highly emotive and complex subject and so requires the input from a risk management professional.
OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER Whilst this simple cost/benefit model illustrates how ALARP decisions can be made, it is not as straightforward as it may appear. A number of conflicting issues must be addressed including:
• People’s perception of the risk: could action be interpreted as excessive or inaction interpreted as a fall in standards?
• Industry standards and accepted ‘good practice’: the ALARP process can’t be used to avoid meeting approved codes of practice or legal requirements.
• Wider implications: does the measure introduce other risks that need to be managed?
Risk Reduction £ Risk Reduction £
NO NEED TO IMPLEMENT Cost is in gross
disproportion to the risk reduction
Figure 3 – Balance of Risk Reduction v Cost
Risk Reduction £ IMPLEMENT
As an example, take an existing wind farm with ladder only access to the turbine nacelle. Access lifts are available for retrofit to the turbines which, if implemented and used appropriately, are likely to reduce the risk of a fall from height. It is therefore necessary to investigate whether it would be reasonably practicable to retrofit the lifts.
Simplistically, we could estimate the benefit of
introducing the measure in terms of the reduced potential for falls and compare this with the cost of the modification work, lost generation during installation and through-life operating costs.
However, this would not be presenting a complete picture. Could operators become trapped in the lift? Is there an increased fire hazard? Is there the potential for entrapment of limbs in the mechanisms? To what extent would the lift reduce overall risk (lift use will present a risk as will maintenance and inspection)? How attractive are the associated ‘softer’ benefits (better working conditions and reduced operator exertion)? These factors must be investigated and taken into account.
A COMMON MISTAKE One of the main traps to avoid is sometimes known as “salami slicing”; making small, incremental changes that get a project to a point where to reduce the risk further requires a significant expenditure which could have been avoided had it been addressed earlier. Arguing that a risk reduction measure is not reasonably practicable because the project has already advanced significantly and major rework would be required is not an acceptable position.
In summary, ALARP considerations must ensure a bias towards safety and consider all positive and negative effects of the potential measure over its entire life and accept that in postponing risk reduction considerations you are proceeding at risk of significant financial impact if rework is required. Further guidance on the application of ALARP and the risk reduction process as a whole can be found in the HSE document Reducing Risks, Protecting People (also known as R2P2, Ref. 1).
Ref 1: Reducing Risks, Protecting People (HSE), 2001 (available from
hse.gov.uk).
Andy Smith Risktec Solutions Ltd
www.risktec.co.uk
www.windenergynetwork.co.uk
35
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140