Risk Management 49006

Risk tolerability

A/Prof David Eager

David.Eager@uts.edu.au
www.eng.uts.edu.au/~deager

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

Tolerability does not mean acceptability
It refers to a willingness to live with a risk so as to
secure certain benefits and in the confidence that it
is being properly controlled
To tolerate a risk means that we do not regard it as
negligible or something we might ignore, but rather
as something we need to keep under review and
reduce still further if and as we can
For a risk to be acceptable on the other hand
means that for purposes of life or work, we are
prepared to take it pretty well as it is

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

Whenever we do something that involves taking a
risk - even stepping off a footpath when there may
be traffic - we usually do so because we believe
there is some benefit that outweighs the risk
We are likely to take the consequence for granted,
to estimate the risk, however instinctively, and then
see if we can reduce or avoid it
These simple principles apply to all risks

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

All products, services and systems include hazards,
and some residual risk
The risk associated with those hazards should be
reduced to a tolerable level
Tolerable risk is determined by the search for an
optimal balance between the ideal of absolute safety
and the demands to be met by a product, service or
system, and the factors such as benefits to the user,
suitability for the purpose, cost effectiveness, and
conventions of society concerned

Note: The concept of reducing risk to a tolerable level varies

significantly depending on whether the product or system is used
in the workplace, in the public environment, or by a consumer in
the home
Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

After the risk reduction measures have been
implemented, their effectiveness should be validated
to ensure they are effective
The outcome of a risk assessment should be
documented
The document should demonstrate the procedure
that has been followed, the hazards identified and
the risk reduction measures employed to reduce risk
to an acceptable level

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

When considering safety aspects for products,
processes and services, the foreseeable uses and
potential misuses of the product shall be considered
Foreseeable use takes into consideration the
developmental stage of the intended user since
different age groups interact differently with products
based on their behavioural, skill and physical
capabilities
To many suppliers this may manifest itself as the
user is not using the product for its intended
purpose rather than normal expected behaviour that
needs to be considered when designing a product

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

All product suppliers shall consider safety aspects
for the intended uses and the reasonably
foreseeable misuses of the product, and to apply
risk reduction measures to achieve a tolerable risk
level
Product suppliers should also consider reasonably
foreseeable uses of the product which although may
not be intended uses are readily predictable based
on the user population
In particular, when determining the risk posed by a
consumer product, special consideration should be
given for products that are intended for, or are used
by, children and vulnerable consumers who are
often unable to understand the risks involved

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

The minimum necessary risk reduction is the
reduction in risk that has to be achieved to meet the
tolerable risk (acceptable risk) for a specific situation
The concept of necessary risk reduction is of
fundamental importance in the development of the
safety requirements for products and systems
The purpose of determining the tolerable risk
(acceptable risk) for a specific hazardous event is to
state what is deemed reasonable with respect to
both components of risk

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Reduction Phases

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

The tolerable risk (acceptable risk) will depend on
many factors: for example, severity of injury, the
damage to property or the environment, the
frequency at which a person or people are exposed
to danger and the duration of the exposure, and the
practicability of the technical means to reduce the
risk
When several risks have to be dealt at the same
time, caution shall be taken to ensure that the risk
reduction measures chosen for one risk has not
increased or introduced another risk

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

If there is more than one option for risk reduction the
Engineer should endeavour to clearly show the client
the principles of implementing a risk assessment so
that they can conduct a thorough investigation to
determine the most appropriate method of reducing
risk to a tolerable level
In such cases suppliers have increased responsibility
for the safety of their products and systems
It may also be appropriate for the supplier to
determine the most appropriate risk reduction
measure if the equipment in question is particularly
complex as they will have the best knowledge of its
specific characteristics and components

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

Besides the risks each of us willingly takes to secure
benefits we want, we also face a degree of risk from
naturally occurring hazards
There is, for example, a chance of one in 10 million
each year that any one of us will be killed by
lightning
Because lightning generally kills only one person at
a time, and the risk to each of us is very low, we
treat it as negligible (ie apart from taking certain
simple precautions the possibility of dying in this
way does not influence our behaviour)

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

We also know 3 other important things about risk:
There is no such thing as nil risk (no matter what
we are doing)
No matter how remote a risk, it could just turn up
(remote risk is not the same as no risk at all)
That our own chances may be either more or less
than the average, depending on where we live,
whether we are more nimble, or younger, or have
better sight, and so on

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

Individuals are prepared to tolerate some risks
under certain circumstances in return for specified
benefits
The simplest risk criteria divides risks that need
treatment from those which do not
This gives attractively simple results but does not
reflect uncertainties either in estimating risks or in
defining the boundary between those that require
treatment and those that do not

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

A common approach is to divide risks into three
bands:
(a) An upper band where adverse risks are intolerable
whatever benefits the activity may bring, and risk
reduction measures are essential whatever their cost
(b) A middle band (or grey area) where costs and
benefits are taken into account and opportunities
balanced against potential adverse consequences
(c) A lower band where positive or negative risks are
negligible or so small that no risk treatment measures
are needed

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

The ALARP Principle carrot diagram

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
University of Technology, Sydney

10

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

ALARP Quantification values

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

For risks with significant potential work, health,
safety or environmental consequences, this is
expressed as the As Low As Reasonably
Practicable or ALARP concept (it is also applicable
for other risks)
The width of the cone indicates the size of risk and
the cone is divided into bands
When risk is close to the intolerable level the
expectation is that risk will be reduced unless the
cost of reducing the risk is grossly disproportionate
to the benefits gained

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

11

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

Where risks are close to the negligible level then
action may only be taken to reduce risk where
benefits exceed the costs of reduction
The concept of practicability in ALARP contains
within it the ideas of practicality (ie can something
be done) as well as the costs and benefits of action
or inaction (ie is it worth doing something in the
circumstances)
These two aspects need to be balanced carefully if
the risks the organization is treating are related to
an expressed or implied duty of care or the
reasonably practicable test

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

Lord Justice Asquith as far as 1949 provided the

now famous definition for reasonably practicable:
Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than physically
possible and it seems to me to imply that a computation must
be made by the owner, in which the quantum of risk is placed
on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures
necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or
trouble) is placed in the other; and that if it be shown that
there is a gross disproportion between them the risk being
insignificant in relation to the sacrifice the defendants
discharge the onus on them

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

12

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

ALARP principle is the point where the incremental
risk reduction achieved by additional Risk
Management resources is outweighed by the cost of
these resources
The essence is that there is a demonstration that
risks have been reduced ALARP is to show that the
cost of improving safety further would be grossly
disproportionate to the benefits that would accrue
from implementing any further options for
improvement or change to the status quo
This does not mean that a detailed analysis is
necessary: the emphasis must be on an analysis
which is fit for purpose

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

The following principles should be addressed (in most
cases):
The application of ALARP can only be to risks which
you control
Affordability ie the cost of implementing the
improvement
ALARP demonstrations ought to consider the
various options which could improve the level of
safety, and implement the option or combination of
options which achieves the lowest level of residual
risk provided this is reasonably practicable
The timescale for implementation may be a factor in
the choice of options
Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
University of Technology, Sydney

13

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

(cont.)
Options may include partial implementation or
implementation of more than one measure as
appropriate (not valid to argue that a solution
requires only a whole or single measure)
You will need to demonstrate the consequences of
accidents (the detriments), in terms of deaths/
injuries, food bans etc, so that you can justify/
compare these with the sacrifice entailed with the
implementation of any measures
The ALARP case should be fit for purpose

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

(cont.)
If the risks are high then a demonstration of ALARP
would need to be more rigorous than if the risks are
low
The degree of rigour should also depend on the
consequence level
For higher consequence situations the
consequences should weigh more heavily than the
frequency estimates
Furthermore thought should be given to the
robustness of the conclusions with respect to
uncertainties and to any assumptions employed in
the demonstration
Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
University of Technology, Sydney

14

Risk Tolerability - ALARP

How effective is your ALARP, ask these questions:
Where are you pitching your controls Elimination or
PPE?
How good are the controls you have in place?
Are the controls actually available?
Are the controls reliable, resilient and effective?
Does the control actually address the hazard?
Will the controls be used?
Will the control survive the initial accident or incident?
Does the control rely on the intervention of a person eg
the operator, or are they automatic?
Do your controls meet legislative requirements?
Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
University of Technology, Sydney

The End J
Risk tolerability

A/Prof David Eager

David.Eager@uts.edu.au
www.eng.uts.edu.au/~deager

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Technology, Sydney

15