Definition of ALARP

“Reasonably practical” is defined in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (s)18 as the following:

“In this Act, reasonably practicable, in relation to a duty to ensure health and safety, means that which is, or was at a particular time, reasonably able to be done in relation to ensuring health and safety, taking into account and weighing up all relevant matters including:

The As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) Risk Assessment Principle enables the triage of risks into a 'pecking order' based upon the priority of action required. As can be seen from the diagram below, there are three separate categories of risk according to the ALARP Principle, being Generally Intolerable Risks, Tolerable Risks and Broadly Acceptable Risks.

The inevitability of the notion of risk occurring is that risks are always present and it is therefore practicably impossible to eliminate all risks. It is therefore accepted practice that risks may be tolerated providing that the risks are known and managed. For a risk to be acceptable it is required that it falls within the Broadly Acceptable Region of the ALARP Principle.

Seven Steps to Apply the ALARP Principle:

1. Identify and assess the nature of the risk:

The nature of the risk must be clearly understood. When assessing risks to determine whether they are ALARP it is important to define the hazards associated with each risk and also investigate the specific cause of each hazard. Each risk could have a range of potential outcomes, ranging from an event that has no impact to an event that could be considered catastrophic. It is prudent to assess the risk by considering the range of credible consequences and select the most significant as a benchmark.

2. Review and evaluate existing controls:

It is imperative to review the controls that are associated with the risk. There are two types of controls being Preventative and Mitigative. Preventative controls are those that prevent a hazard from being realised whilst Mitigative controls are those that minimise the impact of the consequence if a hazard is realised. Controls associated with risks need to be reviewed to identify the risk benefit that they impart (ie how much risk reduction do they actually provide?) and also to determine whether they are actually effective in their role of risk reduction and whether due to risk changes whether there is any course of action to improve their effectiveness. Once the controls have been reviewed, they are to be ranked in terms of their effectiveness.

3. Consider options for further risk reduction:

The ALARP principle is a principle that is proactive as opposed to reactive This means that the mere fact that there are already controls in place does not mean that they are to be left without review. It is not sufficient to assume that existing controls provide adequate mitigation for defined risks. Review of existing controls with the intention of attempting to lower the risk through better controls ensures that the As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) principle is constantly being applied and revised.

4. Decide which controls options will be adopted:

In deciding which control options are to be adopted and therefore implemented, all options discussed (including those rejected) should be recorded and the justification for the decisions for the decisions should also be recorded along with stakeholders consulted to determine why those implemented and those rejected were treated as such. It is prudent to keep these records as controls which are considered prohibitive (regardless of reason) at one stage in time, may become reasonably practicable at some stage in the future perhaps due to technological advances or price reductions. Furthermore in the event of an incident, the original justification for implementing or not implementing controls can be referred back to.

5. Implement controls:

Once the decision has been made as to which controls are to be implemented, they must be implemented as a matter of importance.

6. Develop ALARP argument:

The ALARP argument provides the necessary demonstration that the identified risk has been or will be reduced to a level that is ALARP. The ALARP argument consolidates the information gathered in steps 1-5 to show how the risk has been reduced and provides justification for why further risk reduction is not reasonably practicable. Supporting documentation is also collaborated at this stage to reinforce the decisions made.

7. Monitor/review residual risk:

Residual risk is to be monitored and reviewed at documented intervals and updated within RiskView.

Once it has been determined that the risk is ALARP it can then be attributed to one of the three categories being Generally Intolerable, Tolerable or Broadly Acceptable and can be dealt with accordingly.

See Assessing ALARP for more information on how ALARP is calculated in RiskView

See ALARP Justification for more information on justifying the cost of control to archive ALARP .