ALARP—What does it really mean?

M. Jones-Lee and T. Aven

Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2011, vol. 96, issue 8, 877-882

Abstract: This paper examines the requirements that might reasonably be regarded as being implied by the ALARP principle. The principle stipulates that those responsible should reduce risks of death and injury for workers and members of the public to levels that are ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’. The main aim of the paper is to resolve the apparent conflict between the ALARP principle on the one hand and, on the other, conventional social cost–benefit analysis. In particular, cost–benefit analysis prescribes that a safety improvement should be undertaken only if the cost of doing so is less than or equal to the resultant benefits, whereas some regulatory agencies interpret ALARP as requiring that the improvement must be undertaken provided that costs are not in ‘gross disproportion’ to benefits, which would clearly include cases in which costs might substantially exceed benefits.

Keywords: ALARP; Cost–benefit analysis; Gross disproportion; Uncertainties (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832011000238
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:reensy:v:96:y:2011:i:8:p:877-882

DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2011.02.006

Access Statistics for this article

Reliability Engineering and System Safety is currently edited by Carlos Guedes Soares

More articles in Reliability Engineering and System Safety from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().