Health and Satety Executive 8 The main focus is on risks to the safety of people, particularly where activities present potential major accident hazards. Avoiding loss of containment will also improve environmental protection and reduce business interruption, 9 The effectiveness of an isolation system depends on the adequacy of other arrangements, Including work conttol systems (especially permit-to-work), operating procedures, training and competence, management of change and contingency plans. The References and further reading section glves sources of more detailed guidance on such topics. Terms ‘should’, ‘may' and ‘must’ 10 Throughout this publication, verbs with specific meanings are used | should ~ primary verb for statements of guidance; lH may — where the guidance suggests options; and must — only where there is a specific egal/statutory requitement for the measures described, or where the dangers of not taking that course of action are self-evident, Legal considerations 11. Relevant legisiation is listed in Appendix 1 Contractors and subcontractors 12. The client company is tesponsible for operational health and safety, inespective of where its resources come from — whether its own staff, contract, subcontract (oF agency staff or sel-employed workers. Duties in relation to contract staff (eg training, provision of information, co-operation between employers) are further discussed in Management of heath and safety at work." Risk reduction and ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP) 19. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and associated legislation, requites duty holders to reduce tisk, $0 far as is reasonably practicable. The qualification as low as reasonably practicable (AL ARP), which has been used throughout this document, is interpreted in the sane way. 14 To show that you have reduced risks to this level, you must identify the risk reduction measures available and determine the lovel of risk reduction that can be achieved and the associated cost. Unless the sacrtice involved in implementing, the risk reduction measure is grossly disproportionate to the benefits of the tisk reduetion, then you must imploment the measute. Whore available measures aro not taken, you must justiy this decision, 18 The greater the potential hazard, the more effective, secure and controlled the 'solation should be. Where a number of options for risk redtuction exist, you must se the lowest-tisk option tha is reasonably practicable. Engineering solutions are proferted to procedural controls or to reliance on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). 16 In some circumstances, the risks associated with an isolation may be intolerable.” In such cases the work should not go ahead. No individual step iin an isolation procedure shoukd be associated with an intolerable risk, Instead, you should find an alternative approach (ag plant shutdown) that doss not involve intolerable risk. This guidance does not attempt to define a criterion for isolations of intolerable risk. These wil be situation-spectic The sa lscaton of plant and equipment Page Bot 8