Risk Reduction Techniques-ALARA

In one of our previous blogs < http://quakeschool.blogspot.com/2010/11/approaches-in-risk-reduction-alarp.html> we spoke of some Risk Reduction concepts, and discussed ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) as an approach for risk reduction- this being our attempt to explore various approaches and concepts of use today in the Risk Management sector. The other widely used and known concepts are- ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) and SFAIRP (So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable). The main aim of these concepts is to assist clarity when an attempt is made to achieve Safety.

Let us discuss ALARA in this post.

ALARA is a risk reduction technique used in the field of ‘Radiation Protection’ to minimize the risk of radioactive exposure to humans. While, all the social and economic factors are taken into consideration with their own uncertainties involved, it requires that all reasonable steps are taken for protection; in other words, all must be done to lower radiation exposures below dose limits. ALARA is a regulatory requirement for almost all radiation safety programs the world over, and is found to be a sound safety principle. The risk is persistent; therefore, ALARA becomes a stricter standard than ALARP.

For example, the North Carolina State University (NCSU) <http://www.ncsu.edu/ehs/radiation/forms/alara.pdf> has its radiation safety program which attempts to lower radiation exposure received by workers by using cost effective measures. Every radiation exposure can have unfavorable effects which may result in increased risk of genetic mutation and cancer. ALARA also requires commitment to safety by all those involved. North Carolina code contains guidelines and regulations that require radiation workers to adhere to legal dose (exposure) limits as part of regulatory compliance.

Have a closer look again at the diagram. There is a clear distinguishing line between ‘Tolerable Region’ and ‘Un acceptable Region’, because in the former, risk is undertaken only if a benefit is desired; and in the latter, level of risk is not acceptable and is subject to continuous monitoring. To understand this, one can compare safety protocols needed in a simple ‘Office Building’ to a ‘Hospital or a School Building’.

Keywords

ALARA, ALARP, Risk Reduction Techniques, As Low As Reasonably Practicable, As Low As Reasonably Achievable, Radiation Protection

Owner’s responsibility and School Safety Audits in India

In the India of today, we notice that a perseverant and systematic approach towards school safety or for that matter safety in educational habitats is required. Today, one can argue and probably agree at the same time that even the best of the nations struggle to come up with a strategy to effectively deal with this issue, and probably there is no end. The suggestions which come to us range from easy sounding ones such as creating law and legislative mechanisms to perhaps the most complex such as creating opportunities for the educational spaces owners to take responsibility; thus, as a collective towards achieving ‘Zero Life Loss’. Then one recalls the figures overwhelming in India, one can add other educational spaces, approximately 1.2 Million reported Secondary Schools* (figure source: DISE’s http://www.schoolreportcards.in/).

The following five form important components of conducting safety audits at individual schools, placed in order of priority, we think at this moment:

1. The robustness of building structure
2. The school assumes responsible stance during an emergency
3. There exists an Emergency Management Plan within the school
4. Help from external resource agencies such as firefighting, life saving and health, and rescue teams is available
5. Awareness and training programmes, and school habitat improvement is a continual activity

A detailed audit as above is important, but for schools a simple checklist like this (link) can be useful to its owners. While, many known agencies have been doing this important work at higher/top/policy levels, there is a dire need for a harder push and implementation at the ground level as well. There is a significant cost at the field implementation/grassroots level, which needs to be put in to operational and management plans. When risk and benefits are compared, this cost becomes trivial compared to its usefulness.

One can also argue, that it is actually the school’s own responsible stance which is helping to date, and to an extent sporadic and periodic work by responsible individuals which has helped this process. If one collects recent statistics, it may come out that perhaps schools in India are one of the safest in the world, but there still remains a lot to do as one cannot afford to get complacent in the light of rapid development and changes being seen in this part of the world, or for that matter any part of the world.

---

*Formal schooling system in India: Kindergarten for three years, then twelve years of school, thereafter college and higher education.

The importance of playgrounds in school spaces

India is a big country with a growing population as a concerning issue. There is an increase in construction activities such as, construction of flats, malls bungalows and so on. With land becoming scarce in these areas there is an increase in traffic, and problems of parking, pollution, and so on.

One of India’s biggest cities Ahmedabad, with a population of 52,52,197 has total number of schools at around 2323. (Gujarat Revenue Department) It has been reported that in the country, 52% schools do not have a playground. The same may be applied to Ahmedabad as well (India together). It is also interesting to see a British study (Find Articles) suggesting almost 60% to 80% students injured on school playgrounds. These same playgrounds generally have an important role in mental and physical growth of a child. When children are not involved in any co-curricular activities, they may also suffer from depression, and the proportion of such children according to an Australian study is 8.4%. (Medicine Net). One can note that playgrounds provide an avenue for a child’s mental and physical growth, which can help them bring out their various potentialities. Playgrounds are also useful during emergencies.

If a school does not have a playground, in an emergency situation, school authorities can make provisions for a party-plot, garden, or any such empty space close by so that children can be assembled during emergencies and their safety/security can be assured.

Sources:

• http://revenuedepartment.gujarat.gov.in/applications/content.asp?Content_Id=763&T itle_Id=195&language=G&SiteID=8
• http://www.indiatogether.org/2004/aug/edu-firesafe.htm
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1145/is_n4_v33/ai_20552693/
• http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=118570

Approaches in Risk Reduction (The ALARP approach)

Activities at work or play can be hazardous, with it being in our nature to take precautions to protect ourselves from the unexpected accidents or disasters. There always exists a risk, but then a question can be asked- does one need to put efforts so as to reduce this risk, which may result in life, injuries or monetary losses to a minimal, if not zero? If yes, then what kind of effort and how much of it is needed?

In view of these, one can talk of approaches, or one can say frameworks which can be used in defining approaches towards risk reduction. Some of these well known approaches used are –

1. As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP),
2. As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA),
3. So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable (SFAIRP), and
4. There can be more.

Let us discuss ALARP in this post. ALARP, “As Low As Reasonably Practicable”, can be defined as an approach to reduce the risk to as low as possible using best available practices and standards. Here, “best Practice” can be referred to the best available technology in the best practicable environmental conditions. See Knol for a good explanation. Also see the figure below.

It is interesting to look at the HSE, UK for the definition of ALARP, and see how it came into existence. The case law of Edwards V. National Coal Board in 1949 became an act in 1974. The blog by Safety Health Environment Ltd, is useful to look at where Edward’s fatal accident, when a section of the road on which he was traveling subsided. The section of road concerned had no timber support although other sections were properly supported. Lord Asquith (the judge in National Coal Board) decided that it was not all of the roadways that needed shoring up; just the ones that required it. The Court of Appeal then decided that if the ‘consequences’ and the ‘degree of the risk’ are small and the ‘cost of the measures’ to reduce the risk is very expensive, it would be unreasonable to incur that cost. The UK legislation (Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974) then defined ALARP where they ensured that all plants/equipments and systems at work are safe and without risks to health, or life.

In monetary terms, ALARP is subject to cost-benefit based risk reduction; where the benefit should outweigh the cost.

Figure: A typical Risk Reduction Approach Diagram

Therefore, it is more a best common practice of judgement to balance risk and benefit. ALARP is not used in the same way by other countries as in the UK, for it may be interpreted according to the local culture. There are similar other approaches like ALARA and SFAIRP which will need mentioning.

Other Reference Sources and Links:

1. Health and Safety Executive (http://www.hse.gov.uk)
2. Knol (http://knol.google.com/k/alarp-as-low-as-reasonably-practicable-risk#)
3. Risk Portal.com (http://www.riskportal.com/images/stories/new-insights/ALARP.jpg)
4. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARP)
5. A blog by Safety Health Environmental Services (http://safety-health-environment-law.blogspot.com/2010/01/edwards-v-national-coal-board.html)
6. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (http://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm)