Definition of Reasonably Practicable Hse
But that doesn`t mean you don`t have to do anything to control the risk. There may be other controls that would be easier to implement to minimize risk. If such measures are proportionate, they would be reasonably practicable. We then compare sacrifice (cost) and risk reduction (benefit). In a standard CBA, the usual rule is applied that the measure should only be adopted if the benefits outweigh the costs. However, in ALARP, the rule is that the measure must be adopted unless the victim is manifestly disproportionate to the risk. The costs may therefore outweigh the benefits, and the introduction of the measure could still be reasonably feasible. The amount of costs that can outweigh the benefits before they are deemed manifestly disproportionate depends on factors such as: the magnitude of the risk (the greater the risk, the greater the mismatch between cost and risk). This is the key to understanding general tasks in the context of occupational health and safety, etc. 1974 Act and numerous supporting regulations. According to HSWA 1974, for example, employers must protect the health and safety of workers “to the extent possible” by eliminating or reducing workplace hazards. If the risk is very low and you have to spend a lot of the money and time to completely eliminate the risk, you will not be expected to take the control measure to eliminate the risk.
As you can see, things aren`t always as simple as they seem. The options that first come to mind are often not practical in reality. Still confused about the reasonably practicable term? Just because something is possible doesn`t mean it`s reasonably convenient to set it up. The cost or consequences of controlling a hazard can far outweigh the low risk it poses. But just because something is expensive or time-consuming doesn`t mean you`re not supposed to do it. We are expected to do our best to keep the risk as low as reasonably possible (ALARP). Okay, but what does it look like in practice? The use of the term “reasonably achievable” allows us to set goals for bondholders rather than being prescriptive. This flexibility is a great advantage. It allows bondholders to choose the method that suits them best, thus supporting innovation, but it also has its drawbacks.
Deciding whether a risk is ALARP can be difficult, as we and bondholders need to exercise judgment. The key question in determining whether a risk is ALARP is the definition of reasonably achievable. This term has been enshrined in British case law since Edwards v. National Coal Board in 1949. The verdict was that the risk to the victim (in terms of money, time or effort) required to avoid it must be significant: the risks must be avoided unless there is a glaring mismatch between costs and benefits. [5] The Court of Appeal`s decision in Edwards v. The National Coal Board described a risk scale and measures to avoid risk, so assessing whether you have fulfilled the obligation “to the extent reasonably possible” requires a careful assessment of the balance between the two. ALARP is the abbreviation of as low as reasonably possible. If you search through health and safety regulations, you will often find that the term is also reasonably possible (SFAIRP). These two terms usually mean the same thing.
No particular level is reasonably achievable. It is not prescriptive. It doesn`t tell you exactly what`s expected. For example, it doesn`t say as little as 2 accidents a year. Or already 7 sick days a month. What is reasonably achievable for one risk may not be sufficient for another. In principle, employers and companies (and other PECs) should always try to eliminate health and safety risks in the workplace to the extent that this is reasonable and feasible. In fact, a cost-benefit analysis determines whether measures are reasonably feasible. According to the HSWA, employers are not expected to completely eliminate all workplace hazards.
You need to assess the level of risk, what can be done and what makes sense. The Occupational Health and Safety Act 1974 (HSWA) imposes an obligation on employers to ensure the health, safety and well-being of all their employees at work to the extent possible. That`s the first duty under the law, so you might think it`s quite important. Hopefully, this case study shows the evaluation process of determining whether different options are reasonably viable for your business. The results of proceedings due to non-performance of the obligation under § 2 para. 1 The hsw Workers Act, to the extent reasonably possible, ensures the safety in the workplace, including safety from the risks associated with the movement of vehicles in the joist, of all its employees. The region between the top and the base is generally recognized as the “lowest possible region”. Ladders are not safe working platforms. So if you`re working from a ladder to fix something at height, is the risk ALARP? As low as reasonably possible? I don`t think so. For this reason, a ladder should only be used for access and very short work (max. 30 minutes). Anything that requires long or repetitive work at height, a tower scaffolding, MEWP or fixed scaffolding may be more suitable.
This will significantly reduce the risk. His good practice. And that`s why it`s reasonably achievable. When we look at what is practical, we must take into account the time, cost and effort of each option. Note that removing the filter from the air conditioner only takes about 2 minutes per unit. The concept of “reasonably achievable” is at the heart of the UK`s health and safety system. This is an essential part of general occupational health and safety tasks, etc. Law of 1974 and many health and safety regulations that we and local authorities enforce. HSC`s policy is that any proposed regulatory action (regulations, APEC, guidelines, campaigns, etc.) should be based on what is reasonably achievable. However, in some cases, this may not be possible because the regulation implements a European directive or other international measure that adopts a risk control standard that is different from “reasonably achievable” (i.e., different from what ALARP is).
In our reasonably feasible example, it would make sense for the company to simply choose a more appropriate leader. They have proven that the other options are not practical. Remember that weighting should always be aimed at taking action and reducing risk, unless the actions are manifestly disproportionate and the risk is insignificant. Not only will this help you comply with the law by applying measures that are “reasonably achievable,” but it will also help keep your workforce safe and productive. The first example is Edwards v. National Coal Board in 1949. We start with that because he defined the meaning of reasonably practicable, which is the cornerstone of ALARP. “`Reasonably practicable` is a narrower term than `physically possible`. The owner must make a calculation in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the victim associated with the necessary measures to avoid the risk (whether in money, time or effort) is placed on the other scale, and that if it is proven that there is a glaring discrepancy between them – the risk is insignificant compared to the victim – the defendants bear the burden on them. “Deciding whether something is safe enough (i.e., the risk is reduced by ALARP) is a separate exercise from the search for continuous improvement of standards.
