Explain how ALARP thinking challenges residual risk after controls are selected.
The move: do not confuse 'accepted' with 'as low as reasonably practicable.' ALARP thinking sits between zero-risk fantasy and casual risk acceptance. It recognizes that industrial operations carry residual risk, but it also requires a serious look at further reduction. A control is not rejected just because it is inconvenient. The question is whether the sacrifice is grossly disproportionate to the benefit of reducing the risk. In operations, use ALARP as a challenge prompt. What stronger control exists? Is it used elsewhere? What would it reduce: likelihood, consequence, exposure time, detection delay, or escalation? What uncertainty remains in the scenario?…
Sign up free — one personalized lesson every day, matched to your role and goals.
Already have an account? Sign in