Broadly acceptable risk

These levels can be described as unacceptable , tolerable , and broadly acceptable risk [16]. 

The ALARP principle is often applied, involving a safety goal with a hmit (maximum acceptable risk) and an objective (broadly acceptable risk). 

At the lower end of the risk scale, a Broadly Acceptable Risk is nearly always defined. This is the risk below which one would not, normally, seek further risk reduction. It is approximately two or three orders of magnitude less than the total of random risks to which one is exposed in everyday life. 

A typical assessment confined to employees on a site might use the recommended 10 pa Maximum Tolerable Risk (for 1—2 fatalities) but may address 10 sources of risk to an individual in a particular place. Thus, an average of 10 pa would be used as the Maximum Tolerable Risk across the 10 hazards and, therefore, for each of the 10 safety functions involved. By the same token, the Broadly Acceptable Risk would be factored from 10 pa to 10 pa. 

A Maximum Tolerable Risk target of 10 pa has been set for a particular hazard which is likely to cause three fatalities. The Broadly Acceptable Risk is 10 pa. 

Address the ALARP calculation where the assessed risk is greater than the broadly acceptable risk. Paragraph No. 

There are several methodologies concerning risk assessment in PT, a widely used one being the methodology developed in COUNTERACT, a project funded by the European Urrion through Framework Programmer 6 (FP6). The product, an improved and broadly accepted risk assessment methodology, has proven to be very successful and fit to be the standard practice in the PT context. 

It is central to the goal-setting approach to safety regulation that the employer or operator should make an assessment of risks and then take appropriate measures to ensure health and safety "so far as is reasonably practicable", in the words of HSWA. This is usually expressed as making risks As Low As Reasonably Practicable, or ALARP in the words of HSE s guidance on the tolerability of risks from nuclear installations. ALARP is associated with the concepts of intolerable and broadly acceptable risks. 

Broadly acceptable risk. A risk which is generally acceptable without further reduction. 

Tolerability region. A region of risk which is neither high enough to be unacceptable nor low enough to be broadly acceptable. Risks in this region must be reduced ALARP. 

People are more willing to accept risks from which they will receive a direct, tangible benefit. A one-company town will likely have widespread community support for the company and accept the risks of its business—it directly or indirectly provides the livelihood for most families in the community. This may not be the case in an area having a broad-based manufacturing and service economy. Here the relatively small public benefit from a new plant may be outweighed by the public s perception of the plant s risk. People are unwilling to tolerate a given level of risk unless there is a direct benefit to themselves. 

Since 1970 tlie field of healtli risk assessment Itas received widespread attention witliin both tlie scientific and regulatoiy committees. It has also attracted tlie attention of the public. Properly conducted risk assessments have received fairly broad acceptance, in part because they put into perspective the terms to. ic, Itazard, and risk. Toxicity is an inlierent property of all substances. It states tliat all chemical and physical agents can produce adverse healtli effects at some dose or under specific exposure conditions. In contrast, exposure to a chemical tliat lias tlie capacity to produce a particular type of adverse effect, represents a health hazard. Risk, however, is tlie probability or likelihood tliat an adverse outcome will occur in a person or a group tliat is exposed to a particular concentration or dose of the hazardous agent. Tlierefore, risk can be generally a function of exposure and dose. Consequently, healtli risk assessment is defined as tlie process or procedure used to estimate tlie likelihood that... 

Risk management is understood in a broad sense in this context i.e. risk prevention or risk avoidance, dealing with accepted risks (risk management in a narrower sense) or reduction of intolerable risks. 

Any attempt to provide a summary of safety information on botanicals will encounter certain prejudices and inaccuracies in the published record. One such prejudice, often repeated in reviews of herbal medicines and dietary supplements, is the view that consumers have been led to believe the myth that "anything natural is safe" (Barnes 2003 Dasgupta and Bernard 2006). While one survey of consumer attitudes in Canada found that 7 percent of respondents completely agree that there is no risk associated with products made with natural ingredients (Anon. 2005), there are no published analyses of consumer beliefs that indicate that there is broad acceptance of any such assumption. 

Individually and collectively we are risk acceptors. And risk acceptance is situational Variations in the risk levels that individuals and organizations accept in given situations are exceptionally broad. Nevertheless, in an attempt to promote an understanding of the acceptable risk concept, this chapter does the following ... 

We should recognize that a universally applicable definition of an acceptable risk level cannot be attained, other than in broad general terms, because of the many variables in individual risk situations. 

But, there may also be a down side for behaviorists if the Krause premise is broadly accepted. Some safety professionals may rationalize that if the concentration should properly be on improving the interrelationship between people, equipment, materials, and the work environment, why are behaviorists needed at all They may conclude that operational efficiency requires that such interrelationships be approached directly through the means available in good safety management, rather than through a costly employee observation system. Obtaiiung the knowledge of the workers to help identify hazards and risks would continue to be an important part of those endeavors. 

The ALARP principle is applied for events in the intermediate area. For those near the broadly acceptable limit, the risks are considered tolerable if the cost of risk reduction would exceed the improvement gained. For those near the maximum tolerable hmit, the risks are considered tolerable only if risk reduction is impracticable or implementation of risk reducing measures would lead to disproportionate costs compared with safety benefits gained. 

If we should have used this terminology for decision making concerning intangible risk in electricity distribution systems, we would most probably be talking about decisions under uncertainty - since the knowledge and data available rarely will provide known probability distributions. However, the broadly accepted term for such analyses is risk analyses, and hence we shall use this term in this paper. 

Show that the sum of all risks from the system is in the broadly acceptable class. 

However, in recent years the concept of acceptable risk has been interwoven into internationally apphed standards and guidehnes for a very broad range of types of equipment, products, processes and systems. That has occurred in recognition of the fact that risk-related decisions are made constantly in real-world applications and that society benefits if those decisions achieve acceptable risk levels. In this chapter ... 

---