How safe is safe enough in design and operation of hazardous facilities? In many jurisdictions where goal-based safety regulation is enacted, risks must be reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), i.e., all identified risk reduction measures should be put in place until the cost of further risk reduction is grossly disproportionate to the safety benefit gained. This empirical study investigates what ALARP means in practice for a group of expert risk practitioners in the Australian pipeline industry. Drawing on the theory of legal endogeneity, the results show that methods for demonstration of ALARP are driven by the professional values of a small group of expert consultants. Approaches vary but they embrace the subjective nature of risk-based decision making and make sure the right people with the right mindset are involved. The most common approach is a combination of quantitative analysis and structured expert judgment. The results are driven more by ethics than simple considerations of legal compliance. The underacknowledged subjectivity of such forms of analysis means that the influence of the consultants is underestimated and yet they drive company decision making, which is also typically accepted by regulators.