ALARP PROCESSES

An ALARP process is a systematic risk treatment where potential risk reduction

measures (RRM) are collected, evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively and rejected or
accepted is decided. An ALARP process should be documented with focus on
documenting why a RRM is rejected.
An ALARP process should include participants with varied background and knowledge
e.g. designs, operational, process safety and risk management. The participants should
have the mandate to make decisions regarding implementation of the risk reduction
measures. The ALARP process is an important part of risk management system. It is
important to remember that the operator of the facility is the owner of the ALARP
process, its result and the decisions related to whether an RRM shall be included or not.
WQS’s role in ALARP processes is often limited to facilitation of ALARP workshops and
assists with assessing the risk reduction either qualitatively or quantitatively of the
identified RRMs. This identification process is the first stage of the ALARP process. A
successful ALARP process is dependent on involvement from COMPANY side
specifically related to feasibility and cost impact of the identified measures.
ALARP Process Methodology

The different steps in the ALARP process are shown in Figure 5-1 and specific
discussion on each step is described in next subsections. In addition, ALARP Evaluation
Sheets are included in ATTACHMENT 1.
Step 1: Identification of Risk Reduction Measures (RRM)

Identification of RRMs relevant for inclusion in the ALARP process may be done in all
processes in the project. The following sources would be:
• HAZID, HAZOP, SIL or IPF;
• Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) e.g. QRA, FERA, EERA & ESSA;
• HFE, AIV;
• Thermal Radiation, Dispersion & Plume Study; and
• Other safety studies, if applicable.

The RRM that should not be included in the ALARP process are:
• Measures or proposals that are based on COMPANY or authority
requirements/ recommendations; and
• Measures or proposals to reduce the risk where the conclusion to reject or
implement is obvious e.g. when benefits is obvious and cost is very low.
Figure 5 1 ALARP Process Flowchart
Step 2: Register the RRMs in the ALARP Register

An ALARP Register is established for the projects to keep track of identification,

evaluations, and decision made related to a proposed RRM. An editor for the register
should be appointed and should at all times have the latest update of the ALARP
Register. The ALARP Register should include a reference to the specific coarse
assessment performed for the RRM e.g. reference to ALARP Evaluation Sheet. Example
of ALARP Register is enclosed in ATTACHMENT 1

Step 3: Evaluate Possible Risk Reduction for the RRMs

Each RRM entered into the ALARP Register shall be evaluated using a coarse ALARP
Assessment. The intention of the coarse assessment is to be able to make a decision
with minimum resources spent as the assessment may be a qualitative evaluation.
Demonstrating ALARP includes justification that the appropriate hazard management
decisions has been taken. UKOOA – ALARP Decision Framework was developed to
help industry determine the decision context. Once the context has been identified, the
framework can be used to select the most appropriate bases for decision making. The
UKOOA – ALARP Decision Framework is shown in Figure 5-2.

An example of ALARP Evaluation Sheet that will be used for this assessment is attached
in ATTACHMENT 1. Typical elements that will influence the decision are:
• Measures of low costs should be implemented even if impact on risk level is
low;
• Measures assessed estimated to have little/ negligible impact on risk level
should be rejected;
 • If the assessment shows that it is likely that the measure will have medium/
high impact on risk level and the cost is low/ medium, the measure should be
implemented; and
• If the impact on risk level or cost is uncertain, it should be considered to
perform more detailed analysis e.g. in Step 4.

Step 4: Detailed Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

If the decision under Step 3 is not to implement the RRM, the team should decide
whether to perform further analysis or reject the RRM. The reason for rejecting the RRM
should be well documented.

The objective of performing a detailed risk assessment and CBA is to compare the
advantages of implementing the RRM with the disadvantages of not implementing the
RRM. In this step, a detailed risk assessment should be performed to estimate the effect
the RRM may have on the risk level. Such effect could be related to the risk of loss of
personnel, assets, and environment. The risk reducing effect may be represented as a
delta risk e.g. ∆PLL.

Further, the economic effect of the RRM should be estimated. It is important to note that
not only the cost of implementation is relevant when estimating the cost effect. The
following should be considered when estimating the economic effect of implementing the
RRM:
A. Cost of implementing measure;
B. Reduction (in monetary terms) for material damage due to accidents,
deferred drilling due to accidents, maintenance costs.
C. Increase in time available for operation (in monetary terms).
D. Improvement (in monetary terms) in environment, working environment and
reputation.

The economic effect may be estimated by the following equation:

Economic Effect or Net Cost of Option = B + C + D – A

In detailed risk assessment, Potential Loss of Life (PLL) provides comparison between
options and the level of risk reduction between options. Where the safest option is more
expensive than a less safe option, it becomes important to gauge the relative worth of
both options. By combining the improvement in risk with the cost of each option will
enable each option or risk reduction measure to be ranked in order of cost effectiveness.
Implicit in this assessment is the estimation of the cost to avert a potential fatality. The
Implied Cost of Averting Fatality (ICAF) is expressed in terms of monetary value, per
statistical fatality averted.

PLL should be utilised to calculate ICAF, a measure of the cost effectiveness of a

potential design change, modification or upgrade and method to demonstrate ALARP.
The relationship between ICAF and PLL is as follows:

ICAF = Net of Cost Option or Economic Effect / Potential Saving of Life (∆PLL)

Where the Potential Saving of Life is equivalent to the difference between the initial and
reduced PLL values.

The derived ICAF values for the proposed options may then be ranked and compared
against the COMPANY criteria for ICAF. The typical ICAF value used by UK HSE is
6,000,000 GBP (32,000,000 MYR), where the UK HSE provides value for life of
1,000,000 (5,200,000 MYR) and represents the limit of reasonably practicable risk
reduction measure that saves a life over the lifetime of the installation (Ref. /2/). Hence,
any risk reduction measure that costs significantly more than 32,000,000 MYR is grossly
disproportionate and is not justified if it only saves one life over the project lifetime.

A low ICAF for a proposed risk mitigation and control measure implies that it is highly
effective, because the cost is low compared to the risk reduction achieved. Conversely,
a high ICAF implies relatively ineffective risk reduction measure indicating that perhaps
the money should be diverted to an alternate.

The ICAF values that have been proposed by COMPANY guidelines are as follows (Ref.
/3/):
Table 5-1 ICAF Guidelines (Ref. /3/)

ICAF (MYR) Guidance

<32,000 Highly effective – always implement

32,000 – 320,000 Effective – always implement

320,000 – 3,200,0000 Effective – implement unless individual risk is negligible

3,200,000 – 32,000,000 Consider – effective if individual risks are high

32,000,000 – 320,000,000 Consider at high individual risk levels or when there are other
 ICAF (MYR) Guidance

benefits

> 320,000,000 Ineffective

Step 5: Implement the RRM

If a decision is to implement the RRM is made following the evaluations in Step 3 and 4,
the RRM should be closed out in the ALARP register and immediately be included in the
project’s design change process for implementation.
Step 6: Reject the RRM

If a decision to reject the RRM is made following the evaluations in Step 3 and 4, the
RRM should be closed out in the ALARP register. The reason for rejecting a RRM after
Step 3 should be well documented.

REFERENCES
[1] Center for Chemical Process Safety, Guidelines for Developing Quantitative
Safety Risk Criteria, John Wiley & Sons, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-740-26140-8.
[2] UK HSE Offshore Information Sheet No. 2/2006, Offshore Installations (Safety
Case) Regulations 2005 Regulation 12 Demonstrating Compliance with Relevant
Statutory Provisions.
[3] PETRONAS E&P, Technical Standard for Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA),
EP HSE SG 06 14, Revision 0.0, February 2014.

ATTACHMENTS
List of attachments are follows:
 ALARP-XX: XX
Problem Definition
IDENTIFY

HSE Issues and Potential Risk

HSE Standards, Good Practice and Tolerability Criteria

•

Assessment of Decision Type (Using the Decision Framework)

By utilising the Decision Framework, this type of assessment falls under a Type B where lifecycle
implications and risk trade off should be considered and assessed using existing codes and
standards, good practice and risk based analysis.

Options Considered
ASSESS

Two options have been considered for XXX.

Basis of Selection and Uncertainties

Justification for Chosen Option

Residual HSE Risks

•
CONTROL AND
EVALUATION

Recommendations for Next Project Phase

•

Requirements for the Operations HSE Plan

•