Tolerability of risk

Unfortunately, even if everyone agrees on a tolerable risk value, there are many other subjective factors that influence our understanding (and tolerance) of risk. If 1 fatality per year were tolerable from causes such as falls, electrocutions, or asphyxiations, would TOO fatalities be... 

U.K. Health and Safety Executive. The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations. 

Differences of opinion are common among epidemiologists based on what appears to be similar, if not comparable, data. In spite of the numerous large-scale and long-term investigations, the debate eontinues over whether there is a safe (threshold) level for asbestos or other fibrous materials, or if there is a linear dose-response relationship in the induction of cancer. Conclusions and interpretations of this body of data usually reflect personal philosophy and tolerance of risk. 

Wolff, J. (2002) Railway safety and the ethics of tolerability of risk , study commissioned by the Rail Safety and Standards Board, www.rssb.co.uk, accessed October 2006... 

The constraints of science, technology and society (e.g., risk identification, efficacy of risk management control risks, tolerability of risk). 

Human Cognition Characteristics Person-task compatibility, individual tolerance of risk, control role, innate human limitations. 

Also, in communicating with decision makers, it would be well to understand their perceptions and tolerance of risk, and appreciate that perceived risks as well as elements of employee and public fear and dread, along with client interests, may impact on risk decisions. 

Gibson, S.B., 1976. The design of new chemical plant using hazard analysis. Process Industry Hazards, Symposium Series No. 47. 135 (IChemE. Rugby. UK). HSE, 1992, Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations, revised edition. Pantony, M.F.. Scilly. N.F. and Barton. J.A.. 1989. Safety of exothermic reactions a UK strategy, Int Symp on Runaway Reactions. 504—524 (CCPS, AIChE. USA). Kauffman, D. and Chen, H-J.. 1990, Fault-dynamic modelling of a phthalic anhydride reactor, J Loss Prev Process hid. 3 386-394. 

What is Wrong with Criterion FN-Lines for Judging the Tolerability of Risk... 

The method adopted in many industries is to use a Value of Preventing a Fatality (VPF). The VPF is the amount that an organisation will spend to reduce risk by a single fatality, and is used in cost benefit analysis (CBA) to assess reasonable practicability. The costs and benefits of a potential risk control are evaluated, and if the cost per life saved is less than or roughly equal to the VPF, the risk control is regarded as reasonably practicable and must therefore be implemented. The quantitative approach was formalised by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in its 1988 paper (updated in 1992) The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations and its 1989 paper Quantified Risk Assessment its Input to Decision Making Whilst the 1988 paper was developed for the nuclear industry, its principles have been applied widely. 

Railway Safety and the Ethics of the Tolerability of Risk - a study by Jonathan Wolff, Professor of Philosophy at University College, London... 

As per ISO 31000 one needs to consider project objective, whether some activity needs to be undertaken, need for risk treatment (if any), priorities of treatment, tolerability of risk to others, and decide if it is acceptable. 

Flood risk management deals with the analysis and governance of the flood hazards, the flood vulnerability (the resilience of a particular group of risk receptors) and the resulting flood risk. It considers all natural and societal processes related with the flood issues of a coastal cell. Based on such a risk analysis, the tolerability of risk has to be assessed and risk reduction options to be defined. Decision-making, implementation, and control of actions are also parts of flood risk management. 

Some variants of the LOPA methodology determine the harm more precisely in terms of harm caused to people and harm to the environment. This approach, which is required by the tolerability of risk framework for human safety. Reducing risks, protecting people, requires consideration of additional factors such as the probability of ignition, the performance of containment systems, and the probability of fatality. For a similar perspective of environmental issues assessors should consult the relevant Environment Agency sector BAT guidance. All of these factors may be subject to considerable uncertainty, and the way the LOPA is carried out needs to reflect this uncertainty. Uncertainties are present in all calculations but sensitivity analysis can be used to help understand the uncertainty. 

For each in scope tank with the potential of an explosion following an overflow, the tolerability of risk of the major accident hazard scenario must be assessed. A risk assessment should address the categories described in paragraph 25. 

C. Haddon-Cave QC, The Nimrod Review, HMSO, London, (2009). The philosophical basis of risk and safety management in hazardous industries is set down, e.g., in the following two documents.The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations, HMSO l 1992. Reducing Risks, Protecting People, HMSO l 2001. 

HSG 65, Successful health and safety management, HSE books, 1997 Reducing Risks, Protecting People HSE Books, 2001 The tolerability of risk from nnclear power stations, HMSO, 1992 Guidelines for the development and application of Health, Safety and Environmental Management Systems, report 6.36/210, E P Forum, 1994 lEC 61508, Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programable electronic safety-related systems, second ed 2010... 

HSE, 1988. FISE (Health and Safety Executive). The tolerability of risk form nuclear power stations. Available from www.hse.gov.uk/nucleartolerability.pdf Accessed 12/01/2014. 

The public inquiry into nuclear power plant safety established this tolerable level for fatalities, HSC (1988) The tolerability of risk from nuclear power stations. HMSO London, Figure 6 pp 34. 

HSE 88] Health and Safety Executive "Tolerability of risk from nuclear... 

There are two reasons why there does not appear to be a market failure for employee safety. The first is that railroad risks are primarily physical injuries about which workers should be well informed. The second is that the high rate of unionization in the railroad industry should provide for higher-than-average levels of safety as unions are typically thought of as representing the inframarginal worker who will be less tolerant of risk than the marginal worker who determines safety in a competitive market. 

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. 

HSE (Health and Safety Executive, UK) (1992) The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Station. Report of Health and Srfety Executive, United Kingdom, HMSO, 1992. 

---