Risk Engineering Body of Knowledge

Engineers Australia with the support of the Risk Engineering Society have embarked on a project to develop a Risk Engineering Book of Knowledge (REBoK). Register to join the community.

The first REBoK session, delivered by Warren Black, considered the domain of risk and risk engineering in the context risk management generally. It described the commonly available processes and the way they were used.

Following the initial presentation, Warren was joined by R2A Partner, Richard Robinson and Peter Flanagan to answer participant questions. Richard was asked to (again) explain the difference between ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) and SFAIRP (so far as is reasonably practicable).

The difference between ALARP and SFAIRP and due diligence is a topic we have written about a number of times over the years. As there continues to be confusion around the topic, we thought it would be useful to link directly to each of our article topics.

Does ALARP equal due diligence, written August 2012

Does ALARP equal due diligence (expanded), written September 2012

Due Diligence and ALARP: Are they the same?, written October 2012

SFAIRP is not equivalent to ALARP, written January 2014

When does SFAIRP equal ALARP, written February 2016

Future REBoK sessions will examine how the risk process may or may not demonstrate due diligence.

Due diligence is a legal concept, not a scientific or engineering one. But it has become the central determinant of how engineering decisions are judged, particularly in hindsight in court.

It is endemic in Australian law including corporations law (eg don’t trade whilst insolvent), safety law (eg WHS obligations) and environmental legislation as well as being a defence against (professional) negligence in the common law.

From a design viewpoint, viable options to be evaluated must satisfy the laws of nature in a way that satisfies the laws of man. As the processes used by the courts to test such options forensically are logical and systematic and readily understood by engineers, it seems curious that they are not more often used, particularly since it is a vital concern of senior decision makers.

Stay tuned for further details about upcoming sessions. And if you are needing clarification around risk, risk engineering and risk management, contact us for a friendly chat.

R2A Event 2014

Following on from the success of our client and colleagues function in 2013, we will be hosting another event on Thursday, 6th February 2014 from 3pm to 5pm.

Richard will launch the 2014 update of the R2A Text.  R2A has concluded that the risk and liability world is changing so fast at the moment that, until further notice, the text will be updated annually at least.

Matters of interest include:

• The introduction of the Rail Safety National Law which is complimentary but subordinate to the model WHS legislation.
• The expected approval in the new year of the Engineers Australia Safety Case Guideline (3 Edition). This specifically rejects the Risk Management Standard (AS 31000) as being able to positively demonstrate due diligence for high consequence – low frequency events.
• Why SFAIRP (so far as is reasonably practicable) can never equal ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) legally.
• The logical limitations of Monte Carlo simulation for demonstrating project due diligence.

Richard will also outline the outlook for 2014.

We expect a lively discussion so please pencil in the date, RSVP and join us on the 6th February.

ALARP

Does ALARP = Due Diligence?

---

Does ALARP equal due diligence? Well yes, if ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) is redefined, as appears to be presently occurring.

Once upon a time ALARP meant achieving an acceptable or tolerable level of risk (consequence and likelihood). It was classically articulated by the UK HSE (Health and Safety Executive) in 1988 in the document The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations. The HSE suggested the limit of tolerable risk to a worker is 10-3 per year; the limit of tolerable risk to a member of the public is taken as 10-4 per year. The risk to a member of the public that might be regarded as acceptable, as opposed to tolerable, is then taken as 10-6 per year.  Such a concept was then taken up extensively in Australia, for example the NSW land use planning guidelines (2008).

However to satisfy the courts after the event, various caveats have been added to this approach. For example, from the NSW guidelines, … irrespective of numerical risk criteria, the broad aim should be to 'avoid avoidable risk.'  Another common caveat is to say that, irrespective of the level of risk, the value of further precautions should always be considered.

Effectively this means that ALARP is being redefined to mean the level of risk which is achieved if all reasonable practicable precautions are in place, that is, a demonstration of due diligence. Of course, ALARP remains a hazard based concept.  It talks about the level of risk, not the level of precautions, the court based concept. This means ALARP typically remains subject to at least two primary conceptual errors, namely:

1. Risk AssessmentRisk assessment is not scientific. Two risk experts independently assessing the risk never come up with the same answer. Risk assessments are not repeatable. So what does a risk assessment mean?  How can it be right?
2. Risk CriteriaRisk assessments are then normally compared to criteria. But such criteria are generally just statistical interpretations.  They are not statements of truth. The old adage, that there are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics applies.

It is a very complex process to chart a course through the hazard based process that can arrive at a due diligence position.  It needs at least the two caveats described above to be applied to what is a tortuous, error prone path.