Level of safety

The use of these techniques is an important element of industrial policy since they contribute to the creation of a business friendly regulatory environment allowing the combination of measures taken for internal organisational reasons and obligations of certification without lowering the level of safety to be achieved. Wlienever possible a choice between product control and quality assurance procedures is offered to manufacturers. 

Finally, under the heading Specific pressure equipment requirements specific requirements are set out for equipment with a risk of overheating, for piping and, last but not least, specific quantitative requirements which set out a series of safety factors for certain pressure equipment. These latter provisions apply as a general rule which means that a manufacturer or a harmonised standard may deviate from these factors if it can be demonstrated that appropriate measures have been taken to achieve an equivalent level of safety. 

In electrogalvanizing, copper foil, and other oxygen-evolving appHcations, the greatest environmental contribution has been the elimination of lead-contaminated waste streams through replacement of the lead anode. In addition, the dimensionally stable characteristic of the metal anode iatroduces greater consistency and simplification of the process, thus creating a measure of predictabiUty, and a resultant iacreased level of safety. 

Relative risk results show only the difference between the levels of safety of one or more cases of interest and a reference, or baseline, case. Relative risk estimates can be used (as can absolute estimates) to determine the most efficient way to improve safety at a facility. But, the use of relative risk estimates alone does little to help ensure that the most efficient way is safe enough unless one of the cases meets qualitative safety criteria (e.g., compliance with relevant codes, standards, and/or regulations consistency with current industry practice). 

To make sure that all contractors and subcontractors maintain a minimum level of safety performance, the client, or general or main contractor, should establish standards for compliance. During the project planning stage, affected prime contractors should have an opportunity to provide input and resolve differences. Cross-cut committees are encouraged to allow prime contractors to standardize or normalize such essential elements as procedures, permit systems, and training. 

If so, has the employer demonstrated that the tagout system aehieves a level of safety equivalent to that obtained by a lookout program ... 

Some systems normally do not have any specific supply airflow, though they could have some air supply. These are used when a volume (normally a room) is intended to have a lower pressure than the surrounding rooms. This so-called pressurization of zones is used when a high level of safety against spreading of contaminants is needed. A high pressure difference between two rooms causes the air to flow into the room with the lowest pressure if some cracks exist or some connection between the two rooms is opened. 

It should be obvious from this discussion that the technique of creating a hazard tree is somewhat subjective. Different evaluators will likely classify conditions and sources differently and may carry the analysis lo further levels of sources. However, the conclusions reached concerning building design, maintenance, layout of traffic patterns, lighting, ok., should be the same. The purpose of developing the hazard tree is to l ocus attention and help the evaluator identify all aspects that must be considered in reviewing overall levels of safety. 

Fire and explosion are much more serious events than pollution. For one thing, fire and explosion can create catastrophes that will lead to poi ludon anyway, but for another thing, they can injure people. We clearl> want to have more levels of safety (that is, a lower probability of occurrence) in the chain leading to fire or explosion than is necessary in the chain leading to pollution. That is, whatever the acceptable risk lor <.)ii pollution, a lower risk is required for fire or explosion. 

Fire tubes can lead to fire or explosion if there is a leak of crude oil into the tubes or failure of the burner controls. An explosion could be sudden and lead directly to injury. Therefore, a high level of safety is required. 

Leaks cannot lead directly to personal injury. They can lead to fire or explosion if there is an ignition source and to oil pollution if there is inadequate containment. Both the immediacy of the hazard developing and the magnitude of the hazard will be smaller with leaks than with overpressure. Thus, although it is necessary to protect against leaks, thi.s protection will not require the same level of safety that is required to protect against overpressure. 

Inflow exceeding outflow can lead to oil pollution if there is inadequate containment. It can lead to fire or explosion and thus to injury by way of creating an oil spill. This type of accident is more time-dependent and lower in magnitude of damage, and thus an even lower level of safety will be acceptable. 

This system has proven to provide adequate levels of safety in the Gulf of Mexico and other similar areas where it is possible to abandon the location during a catastrophic event. In the North Sea where harsh environmental conditions exist, a different approach to safety has evolved which is based on developing a Safety Case and calculating an Individual Risk Rate (IRR) to show that the risk to any individual working in the facility is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). 

A Safety Case is a narrative that literally makes the case that an adequate level of safety has been reached for an installation. It requires looking at all potential hazards which could lead to a loss of the installation, a loss of life, or a major pollution event. A risk analysis is performed on each hazard evaluating the probability of the event occurring and describing the magnitude of the consequences. A discussion is then given of the measure undertaken to lower the probability of occurrence or to mitigate the consequences and a case is made that the risk for the installation meets the ALARP safety criteria. 

The EU will accept applications without supporting pre-clinical and clinical data, if it can be demonstrated that the active substances have been in well-established medical use in the Community for at least 10 years, with recognised efficacy and an acceptable level of safety. This route would be appropriate for many common over-the-counter (OTC) products. Safety and efficacy is supported by providing copies of published scientific literature as part of the submission that is, the submission relies on safety and efficacy data available in the public domain, as opposed to confidential data from authorised applications that is the cornerstone of generic applications. 

False. Fireworks do cause a large number of fires and injury accidents every year. However, if the user follows the Firework Code it is possible to enjoy them with an acceptable level of safety. A non-safety argument for banning them could be made on the grounds that their use often frightens animals and annoys nearby residents. 

The main devices used for mosquito protection in households have been mosquito coils, electric mosquito mats, and liquid vaporizers, all of them methods that vaporize insecticides into the air using heating by means of fire or electricity to control the insects. In recent years, new anti-mosquito products have been commercialized such as fan vaporizers, paper strip type emanators, and resin net type emanators which vaporize insecticides without heating. In all of these products pyrethroid insecticides are used as active ingredients because they are superior in what is called knockdown effect, where noxious insects are rapidly paralyzed and cannot bite, and have a high level of safety for humans. 

The safety and protection of a facility does not need to involve expensive and elaborate systems. All that is desired is a simplistic, practical and economic solution to achieve a level of safety that is acceptable to interested parties. 

To achieve an economical electrical installation which will provide an acceptable level of safety at the lowest possible cost. 

Many limit conditions are already specified and solutions given in technical standards that deal with safeguarding measures. These solutions are recognized as providing an adequate level of safety. The following standards are especially important ... 

Blast resistant design should provide a level of safety for persons in the building that is no less than that for persons outside the building in the event of an explosion. Evidence from past incidents have shown that many of the fatalities and serious injuries were due to collapse of buildings onto the persons inside the building. This objective is to reduce the probability that the building itself becomes a hazard in an explosion. 

The high level of safety and reliability required of nuclear power stations has meant that systematic estimates of polymer lifetime have been performed more widely here than in any other industry. The approach is described in Section 5.3. Many applications of polymers are in locations that cannot be monitored by regular inspection. The practice has been to subject polymers in these regions to independent assessment or environmental qualification , a process in which their potential degradation mechanisms are identified within a worst case environment of 40 °C and high humidity. If the predicted lifetime of a component is less than the design life of 40 years a schedule is laid down for its replacement. 

If physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models cannot be used, interspecies extrapolation is best undertaken by means of scaling according to basal metabolic rate, see Section 5.3.2.3. A second aspect, interspecies variability, should be considered in cases where a higher than average level of safety (achieved by consideration of a higher percentile of the substances) is desired. 

The authors noted that, in comparison with the scaling factor, the traditional 10-fold factor contains an additional extrapolation factor for possible additional toxicokinetic or toxicodynamic variability apart from the basal metabolic rate scaling. This additional factor, which can be interpreted as the traditional 10-fold factor divided by the scaling factor, ranges from approximately 1.5 for the mouse (10/7= 1.4) to approximately 6 for the rhesus monkey (10/1.6 = 6.3). The authors considered that the additional factor thus comprises levels of safety, which are currently nonuniform, and this inhomogeneity is not supported toxicologically. 

Detailed references in published scientific literature are sufficient to demonstrate that the constituents of the product have a well-established medicinal use, with recognised efficacy and an acceptable level of safety or... 

---