Risk Assessment & Risk Management Beyond the Principle of 'ALARP', A discussion!

REMARK-

ALARP MAY NOT BE THE SAME In ALL JURISDICTIONS!

First principle we have to accept that the Risk can never be Zero. 

We need to achieve the risk level to a phenomena called "As low as Reasonably Safe" with additional safety barriers in place (Conventional or unconventional) and being careful and with due regard  to external force that is beyond Human control, that follows firstly the Local and Flag Rules and regulations and company regulations. Which may always vary and may not be same.                                                                                  Capt.Susarla Srinivas

(At Dhikarma we call the term "As Low As Reasonably Safe")

Outside the UK the ALARP principle is often not used; instead standards and 'good engineering practice' are adhered to, and legislation tends to require absolute levels of safety 

Where the ALARP principle is used, it may not have the same implications as in the UK, as "reasonably practicable" may be interpreted according to the local culture, without introducing the concept of gross disproportionality.

Legal challenge

A two-year legal battle in the European Court of Justice resulted in the SFAIRP principle being upheld on 18 January 2007. 

The European Commission had claimed that the SFAIRP wording in the Health & Safety at Work Act did not fully implement the requirements of the Framework Directive. 

The Directive gives employers an absolute duty "to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work", whereas the Act qualifies the duty "So Far As is Reasonably Practicable". The court dismissed the action and ordered the Commission to pay the UK's costs. 

Had the case been upheld, it would have called into question the proportionate approach to safety risk management embodied in the ALARP principle. 

The carrot diagram below is intended to show high (normally unacceptable) risks at the upper/wider end and low (broadly acceptable) risks at the lower/narrower end. The region in between is sometimes called the "ALARP region". 

However, this is misleading because there is no legal requirement for risks to be tolerable, nor any recognition that low risks may be regarded as broadly acceptable. ALARP refers to the principle of testing further risk reduction against the cost of this reduction effort. It therefore applies to all regions, so the diagram is a misinterpretation of UK law

So the Method followed and Criteria used and the evaluation reached subsequently may be different, when we take into account the respective local laws and regulations into account which may not necessarily be conforming to U.K or NZ laws. The result  and outcome may be different and applied differently. 

USA.UAE, JAPAN, CANADA, INDIA have their own Rules and regulations and the criteria to reach the "ALARP" is different.

For a risk to be ALARP, it must be possible to demonstrate that the cost involved in reducing the risk further would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained. The ALARP principle arises from the fact that infinite time, effort and money could be spent in the attempt of reducing a risk to zero; not the fact that reducing the risk in half would require a finite time, effort and money. It should not be understood as simply a quantitative measure of benefit against detriment. It is more a best common practice of judgement of the balance of risk and societal benefit.

ALARP ("as low as reasonably practicable"), or ALARA ("as low as reasonably achievable"), is a principle in the regulation and management of Safety-Critical and Safety involved systems. The principle is that the residual risk shall be reduced as far as reasonably practicable. In UK and NZ Health and Safety Law, it is equivalent to SFAIRP ("so far as is reasonably practicable"). In the US, ALARA is used in the regulation of radiation risks.                              (An article by Kanhoji Angre Research Maritime Academy)