China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Governance
Published in John P.T. Mo, Ronald C. Beckett, Engineering and Operations of System of Systems, 2018
The “as low as reasonably practicable” (ALARP) principle is self-explanatory. The implementation of ALARP requires some evaluation (qualitative or quantitative) of the reduction in risk associated with adopting some particular measure, and a clear view of the costs. In some circumstances, both safety risk and the marginal cost or efforts to improve safety can be realistically assessed in numerical terms; in others, risk reduction can only be judged qualitatively—for example, the simple addition of a further safety feature, which costs relatively little, is obviously worthwhile. The principle that safety should be improved beyond the baseline criteria so far as is reasonably practicable is used in the application the primary UK occupational safety act, commonly known as Health and Safety at Work. A risk is considered to be ALARP when it has been demonstrated that the cost of any further risk reduction, including the loss of defense capability as well as financial or other resource costs, is grossly disproportionate to the benefit obtained from that risk reduction.
Process Safety Systems
Published in James A. Klein, Bruce K. Vaughen, Process Safety, 2017
James A. Klein, Bruce K. Vaughen
Generally, if process hazards are present, zero risk for a hazardous event cannot exist. Risk can be very low, as described above, such as 1 fatality in 1,000,000 years, but some level of risk is present if the process hazard is present. Reduction of risk to an acceptable level is therefore an important activity of an effective process safety program. “Acceptable” is often better described as “tolerable,” indicating the risk is low enough that no further risk reduction is required. Criteria for defining tolerable risk levels are based on regulatory, industry, or most commonly, specific organization guidelines [4]. As shown in Figure 3.1, these criteria usually present a target level of risk where risk becomes tolerable, and in many applications, achieving tolerable risk levels is possible. In some cases, regulations in some countries and/or industry practice may also recognize the concept of ALARP, which is an acronym for “As Low As Reasonably Practicable” [5]. ALARP represents a level of risk which may be considered higher than desired because any further realistic risk reduction efforts and benefits are ultimately impractical because of cost or other factors. An example might be the handling of a hazardous material where further risk reduction efforts could preclude use of the material at all because of the high costs or impractical features associated with additional safeguards.
Risk management of new hydropower dams on the White Nile Cascade – A case study of Isimba & Karuma Hydropower Dams in Uganda
Published in Jean-Pierre Tournier, Tony Bennett, Johanne Bibeau, Sustainable and Safe Dams Around the World, 2019
W. Manirakiza, F. Wasike, N.A. Rugaba, J. Sempewo, H.E. Mutikanga, L. Spasic-Gril
The PFMA process is used as a dam safety assessment tool and provides the basis for development of a “Surveillance and Monitoring Plan”, risk reduction plan and an Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) for this project. It is a process that progresses into risk assessment and identification of risk mitigation measures, if needed to be applied to reduce the risk to As Low As Reasonably Practical (ALARP). Identification, description and evaluation of site specific PFMs is the most important step in Risk Analysis.
The international convention for the safety of life at sea: highlighting interrelations of measures towards effective risk mitigation
Published in Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping, 2021
Anish Joseph, Dimitrios Dalaklis
However, risks cannot be wholly eliminated/extinguished, but with the help of various mitigation measures can be kept to the ALARP level. With ongoing technological advances, electronically aided collisions could be recorded in the future as another navigation risk. When considering the “ordinary” distractions from numerous equipment on the ship’s bridge, human errors associated with failure to interpret the information accurately, or even lack of training and inability to maintain proper navigational watch, now there is a need to deal with “new distractions”, such as looking/answering a smartphone phone. Such an evolving issue would need to be constantly addressed as most of the navigational incidents are clearly linked to human errors. Even though SOLAS 1974 is associated with very strict safe manning provisions under Chapter V regulation 14, the number of personnel involved with navigational watchkeeping task is most commonly maintained to the absolute minimum; this approach is deployed to keep costs down, but when factoring in issues like fatigue and/or information overload from the bridge equipment can result into devastating effects. Here the issue of effective training, working in unison with the further built-up of certain “soft skills” can provide the solution.
Managing the Intervention Costs of Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Hospital Workplace
Published in IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 2021
Kyriakos Koklonis, Michail Sarafidis, Maria Vastardi, Stamatis Philippakis, Dimitrios Koutsouris
The high incidence of MSDs among the workers in the healthcare sector was confirmed by this study. The need for the reduction of the relative risk to a level that is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) is a constant challenge (Reniers & Brijs, 2014; Roy & Gupta, 2020). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in which linear programming and established methods for risk assessment of work-related MSDs have been combined with the knowledge, experience, and audit reports of the organization’s legally established safety engineer (or OSH auditor or consultant). Hence, the existing literature on this topic is extremely limited and looks at a variety of methods that have been implemented and evaluated for OSH cost management. However, most of these studies focused more on calculation, benefit, and effectiveness analysis than on the allocation process. This process is of key importance in OSH cost management, since the investment for the OSH interventions is predefined in most of cases, with a slight margin of change, especially when these interventions are related to preventive and not corrective measures. In many cases, OSH decision making is targeting maximum reduction of risk values across all potential hazards, within the constraint of a given safety investment budget. There are several OSH interventions (Soler-Font et al., 2019; Van den Broek, 2020; Van Eerd et al., 2016), but in every case their selection should be based on OSH expert experience and knowledge (Van Eerd et al., 2016).
Proposal of Guidelines for the Evolution of Robustness Framework in the Future Generation of Eurocodes
Published in Structural Engineering International, 2019
João Pereira Cabanas Gonçalves André, Michael Havbro Faber
The application of the LQI should be done within the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle for regulation of life safety risk acceptance.21 The ALARP principle establishes upper and lower risk levels, corresponding to unacceptable (activity must be stopped or not initiated) and broadly acceptable levels (design code provisions are applicable), respectively. Within these two limits, risks should be limited to ALARP levels, which can be attained when further reductions of risks are proved to be disproportionally expensive or technologically infeasible (although existing best practice technology should always be applied).