References: AS2885.6 Section 4 AS2885.6 Appendix I
Is ALARP in line with SFAIRP?
(Peter Tuft) As outlined by Jan Hayes during the seminar, the key words are "reasonably practicable". They are the essence of the requirement, regardless of the little words preceding them. So as said in other contexts, ALARP is not inconsistent with SFAIRP.
Are there issues with the Victorian Regulator (ESV) using As Far As Practicable (AFAP) as opposed to ALARP?
(Jan Hayes) That’s really a question for ESV but we should note that they were represented on the ME-038-01 committee during the development of Part 6 (circa 2015 - 2018).
Does AS2885 ALARP follow the risk management direction in ISO 31000 - 2018?
(Jan Hayes) ISO 31000 is a very general risk management standard covering not only risks to be avoided but also risks to be taken deliberately in order to achieve increased financial returns (for example). This means that it says very little on the question of risk acceptance criteria and nothing about ALARP which is specific to safety. Having said that, the way ALARP is dealt with in AS2885 is not inconsistent with the broad principles of ISO 31000.
How does the Standard ensure that the determination of ALARP and risk are consistent?
(Susan Jaques) Determination of ALARP and risk are dependent on the nature of the threat, and, we must realise, the people doing the assessment. This is a hard truth about judgement-based decisions, but when we are dealing with managing the behaviours of other people (which create the most difficult threats to control, i.e. third party excavator drivers), it is almost impossible to have a black&white yes/no answer. That is the nature of judgement based decisions. Consistent application of the safety management process, and a now more expansive description in AS 2885.6 (Section 4 and Appendix I) of how to demonstrate ALARP will help to standardise the outputs from ALARP and risk assessments.