measuring process safety api rp-754 - sfpe …sfpe-sac.org/process-safety/section4.pdf7/10/2015 1...

MEASURING PROCESS SAFETY

API RP-754

SECTION 4

7/10/2015

1

Measuring Process Safety

What is behind API RP-754?

In the CSB report after the Texas City Explosion

• 2005-4-I-TX-R6 to API, Unions et al“In the first standard, create performance indicators for process safety in the refinery and petrochemical industries. Ensure that the standard identifies leading and lagging indicators for nationwide public reporting as well as indicators for use at individual facilities. Include methods for the development and use of the performance indicators.”

From an article on financial management

• “You can't manage what you don't measure. It is an old management adage that is accurate today. Unless you measure something you don't know if it is getting better or worse. You can't manage for improvement if you don't measure to see what is getting better and what isn't.” --- Paraphrase of Lord Kelvin’s statement on measuring applied to management

7/10/2015

2

You get what you inspect not what you expect

ØAuthor unknown

Business Case for PSM• PS Incidents have the highest

potential for:o Multiple injuries & deathso Environmental disasterso Vast property damageo Debilitating damage to reputation and market

share

Text• Guidelines for Process

Safety Metrics ©2010• Chapters 1-4• Excerpts from later chapters

7/10/2015

3

Lagging IndicatorsAn event that occurs because of gaps in barriers (holes in the cheese)

Pyramid of Process Safety Process Safety

Incident(s)

Other Incidents

Near Misses

Unsafe Behaviors/ Insufficient Operating Discipline

Other Leading Indicators

Why??• Hazards may not be readily evident• Status of containment is not generally visible• Must maintain reliable Process Safety management

practices• Most effective approach

Page 10

The key process safety objective is to identify failures, gaps or conditions and to correct them before they contribute to a major process safety incident.

7/10/2015

4

Goal• Eliminate process safety incidents and the

catastrophic impacts on the environment, people, and equipment

• Enable safe process design• Enhance reliable process operations

Process Safety Incidents Disrupt

• Lose time and production• Severe incidents cause loss of life, property and

damages the environment and adjacent infrastructure

Benefield Oil Terminal U.K. 2005 losses ₤ 1 Billion (1.8 USD)BP Texas City Refinery Explosion 2005 $2.18 Billion + $71 million in fines + 3years loss of production

Benefits of MeasurementPlan

Do

Check (measure)

Correct

7/10/2015

5

Challenges Remaining in PSM• Comprehensive solutions to strengthen process

safety systems• Data to develop comprehensive strategies and

plans• Financial justifications• Tendency to focus on a single improvement area

“squeaky wheel” and distract resources• Complacency in “lucky” companies

If you are not managing process safety well, you

are probably not managing other things

well

Page 16

Lagging Metric

Near Misses

Lesser Near Misses

System Performance Indicators (leading metrics)

MetricsA process safety metric” is an observablemeasure that provides insights into a concept --process safety– that is difficult to measure directly. [page 19]

7/10/2015

6

Lagging indicators• Outcome oriented retrospective [history]

measureso Must be easily and objectively measured

• Fire• Explosion• Product release or spill

“Near Miss”• “Almost” an incident • A broad and clear definition is necessary• Examples

o Activation of a relief valveo Interlock activatedo External barrier impacted but not breached

• Can be both Leading and Lagging Indicatoro Historical – laggingo Indicative of system weaknesses - leading

Good Leading Indicators are:• Forward looking• Indicate performance of key work processes• Indicates operational discipline• Evaluates performance of layers of protection• Forecasts future performance in lagging indicators

Regardless of whether a particular metric is classified as lagging, leading, or a near miss, the purpose of the metric is to establish good indicators of

conditions that could ultimately lead to a severe event. Page 21

7/10/2015

7

Swiss Cheese

BarriersIncident

Damages

Weakness or “holes”

Activity Metrics• Leading indicators• Measure compliance with the

prescribed management system

Outcome Indicators• Lagging Indicator (history)• Measure “Is the system working?:

7/10/2015

8

Internal vs. External• Internal

o In the organizationo Compare facilities with in a companyo Self comparison over time

• Externalo Broadly reportedo Primarily lagging indicators

Absolute vs. Normalized• Absolute

o Count of data

• Normalized o Catalyst for comparisono Differing organizations expressed the same wayo Expressed per some normalizing factor

• Per labor hours• Per tons of product• % inspections acceptable• Etc.,

o Use of per 200.000 labor hours very standard

Using only normalized data to evaluate process safety

performance should be approached cautiously

Page 27

Good Metrics are:

• Reliable• Repeatable• Consistent• Independent of other

metrics• Relevant• comparable

• Appropriate for the company

• Robust (have enough data)

• Appropriate for the intended audience

• Timely• Easy to use• auditable

Pages 28-30

7/10/2015

9

Choosing Appropriate Metrics

It is a process

Set Goals• Define the Process Safety Goals for the Organization

o High level goalso Related to the elements of Process Safety

• E.g. For Hazard Identification Goal: Find and Correct all process hazards which could cause Loss of Primary Containment (LOPC).

GOALSfeed

OBJECTIVESfeed

STRATEGIES

“ZERO process safety incidents” is a powerful, long-term inspirational goal for the processing

industries.

Page 34

Set Objectives• Stages of progress toward the goal• Use risks of the process to define objectives• Consider regulatory requirements as minimums• Use baselines• Use investigation results• Utilize audit results

• Example objective for process hazards: Review and update all Hazards Analyses within a 3 year period.

A process that frequently challenges

quality limits will eventually challenge

the process safety limits.

Page 41

7/10/2015

10

Validate Objectives• Do the objectives deal with the highest priority risks?• Do objectives deal with identified hazards and the

search to identify all hazards?• Do objectives deal with safeguard weaknesses?• Have objectives been reviewed and endorsed by

the stakeholders?• Do objectives address improvement trends within

the industry?

Metrics Strategy• Define improvement areas• Define responsibilities• What are the indicators of performance?• How can those be measured?

Metrics must relate directly to process safety objectives and provide accurate performance

information

Page 43

Inappropriate Metrics can Hurt

• Give the wrong picture• Lead to poor or incorrect decisions• Give low value to the program

7/10/2015

11

Test First• Pilot test at one location• Set “proper” expectations• Collect by using available resources

Choose Metrics Appropriate for the Organization

• Should reflect problems most likely to arise

• Considers staff to collect and analyze the data

Example 1 Large highly automated continuous operation

o PSEs and Near Misseso Status of mech. Integrity systemo Adequacy of PHAso Reliability of automationo Percent of critical instruments calibrated on

time…o Percentage of critical instruments found to be out

of correct calibration..o Interlocks found bypassed

(page 47)

7/10/2015

12

Example 2 Large less automated continuous

operation with reliance on procedures

• PSEs and near Misses• Timely training and competency

demonstration• Mechanical integrity system status• Adequacy of PHAs• Metrics on “MOC”

(page 47)

Use Barrier Concept

Barriers

Incident

Damages

Weakness or “holes”

Leading

Lagging

Page 49

Implementation of Metrics

Management Support

Implement. Strategy

Develop a Framework

Implement. Analysis

Prepare for Rollout Rollout Evaluate

7/10/2015

13

Management Support

Management Support• Understanding Need• Leadership• Resources

Implementation Strategy• Goals and objectives• Management Strategy• Implementation

milestones

Develop a Framework• Scope• ID Leaders• Stakeholder support

and commitment

Implementation Analysis• System and Logistics• Existing Data• Validated• Resources ID• Communicate

Prepare for Rollout• Secure Resources• Train and

communicate• Trial collection of data

Rollout• Collect data• Mgmt. review of data• Monitor and adjust

Evaluate

Implementation Strategy


Implementation Strategy• Goals and

objectives• Management

Strategy• Implementation

milestones


and commitment



communicate• Trial collection of

data


Evaluate

Develop a Framework


Implementation Strategy• Goals and objectives• Management Strategy• Implementation

milestones

Develop a Framework

• Scope• ID Leaders• Stakeholder

support and commitment



communicate• Trial collection of data


Evaluate

7/10/2015

14

Implementation Analysis

Management Support• Understanding

Need• Leadership• Resources

Implementation Strategy• Goals and

objectives• Management


milestones

Deve lop a Framework• Scope• ID Leaders• Stakeholder

support and commitment

Implementation Analysis

• System and Logistics

• Existing Data• Validated• Resources ID• Communicate



data

Rollout• Collect data• Mgmt. review of

data• Monitor and adjust

Evaluate

Potential Data systems to leverage:• MI inspection and testing• Process control historians

(challenges)• Environmental release and loss

of containment events

Page 62

Prepare for Rollout

Management Support• Understanding

Need• Leadership• Resources

Implementation Strategy• Goals and objectives• Management


milestones


and commitment

Implementation Analysis• System and

Logistics• Existing Data• Validated• Resources ID• Communicate



data



Evaluate

Implementation Rollout




milestones

Deve lop a Framework• Scope• ID Leaders• Stakeholder support

and commitment




data

Rollout• Collect data• Mgmt. review

of data• Monitor and

adjust

Evaluate

7/10/2015

15

Audit




milestones

Deve lop a Framework• Scope• ID Leaders• Stakeholder support

and commitment




data



Evaluate

Communication

Communicating process safety results is a

critical element for a process safety

improvement strategy

Who, What, Why, When, Where?

• What is the value for a given audience?• What is the correct amount of data?• Should metrics be aggregated or detailed

o Percentage or normalized?o Absolute or Δ

• What frequency of communication?• Most effective communication strategy

o Emailo Formal hard copy reportso Other means

• Balance of effort and value

7/10/2015

16

Communication Analysis•PS Metrics

summarized across a corporation

Corp

• PS Metrics summarized across a business segment. E.g. refining. E&P

Business Segment

•PS metrics collected in detail;

Operating site

• Target Audience• Interpretations for

metrics data• Reporting Results

o Frequencyo Timing

• Characteristics• Report differently for

different audiences• Tools

Using Metrics to Drive Performance Improvements

Identify weakness

Accountability

Management review Safety culture

Commitment

Managements visible responses to problems identified by metrics

are as important—if not more important– than the metrics

themselves


Accountability

Identify weakness


Commitment

7/10/2015

17


Identify weakness

Accountability


Leadership Commitment


Identify weakness

Accountability

Management review

Safety culture

Commitment


Identify weakness

Accountability


Commitment

7/10/2015

18


Identify weakness

Accountability


Commitment

Communicate


Identify weakness

Accountability


Commitment

7/10/2015

19

METRICS FOIR INDUSTRY-WIDEIMPROVEMENT

• BENCHMARKING• COMPARISONS• SHARING DATA ACROSS THE INDUSTRY

7/10/2015

1

By the numbers

1.1 GeneralThis recommended practice (RP) identifies leading and lagging process safety indicators useful for driving performance improvement, As a framework for measuring activity, status or performance, this document classifies process safety indicators into four tiers of leading and lagging indicators. Tiers 1 and 2 are suitable for nationwide public reporting and Tiers 3 and 4 are intended for internal use at individual sites…

1.2 Applicability» Refining and petrochemical industries˃ May be useful to others where loss of containment has the potential

to cause harm˃ Individual companies where colocated+ Applies to joint ventures

7/10/2015

2

» Releases form pipelines out side the facility

» Marine transport» Truck and rail transport» Routine emissions

allowed by regs/permit» Personal safety events

» Non-process facility events (shop, office, etc.)

» LOPC from non-process equipment

» Laboratories» Retail service stations» On-site fueling

Indicators should:» Drive process safety performance improvement

and learning» Be relatively easy to implement and easily

understood by all stakeholders» Be statistically valid» Be appropriate for the industry

» Incidents rarely are caused by a single catastrophic event but rather multiple events that coincide.

Flixborough, UK 1974

7/10/2015

3

» API 521/ISO 23251 Guide for Pressure Relieving and Depressuring Systems.

» AIChE Process Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics, Appendix B, 2008

» Regulatory documents from Europe and the US

Selected Definitions» Containment, primary – a tank, vessel, pipe, truck,

rail car or equipment intended to serve as the primary container or used for processing or transfer of a material

» Containment, secondary – Exists to contain or control a release from primary containment. Secondary containment systems include dikes, curbing, drainage collection systems, the outer wall of double walled tanks, etc.

7/10/2015

4

» Loss of Primary Containment (LOPC) – an unplanned or uncontrolled release of any material from primary containment including non-flammable and nontoxic materials

» Process Safety Event (PSE) -- An unplanned or uncontrolled LOPC of any material including non-flammable and nontoxic materials(e.g. steam, hot condensate, nitrogen, compressed CO2 or compressed air) from a process or an undesired event conditions that under slightly different circumstances could have resulted in a LOPC of a material.

» LOPC– loss of primary containment» MOC— management of change» PRD– pressure relief device» PSE– Process Safety Event» SIS– Safety Instrumented System» SOL– Safe Operating Limit

7/10/2015

5

Tier 1 & Tier 2 EventsOutline• Pyramid Review• Criteria for selection• Tier 1 PSE

• Definition• Key terms

• Identifying a Material Threshold Release Category• Applicability

Outline (Continued)• Tier 2 PSE Indicators• Data Capture for Tier 1 and 2 PSE• Examples

7/10/2015

6

BROAD ACCESS PUBLIC REPORTING

Tiers 1 & 2 are standardized definitions (RP-754)

Tiers 3 & 4 are company defined indicators

5.1 Indicator Purpose• The count of Tier 1 process safety events is the most lagging

performance indicator and represents incidents with greater consequence resulting from actual losses of containment due to weaknesses in the barriers. When used with lower tier indicators, it can provide a company with an assessment of its process safety performance.

Selection of Indicators• Objective, few and simple• Well defined and capable of being applied consistently• Useful to drive performance improvement• Allows internal and external benchmarking• Statistically valid

7/10/2015

7

5.2 Tier 1 Indicator Definition and Consequence• A Tier 1 Process Safety Event (T-1 PSE) is a loss of primary

containment (LOPC) with the greatest consequence as defined by this RP. A T-1 PSE is an unplanned or uncontrolled release of any material, including non-toxic and non-flammable materials (e.g. steam, hot condensate, nitrogen, compressed CO2 or compressed air), from a process that results in one or more of the consequences listed below:

Consequences• An employee, contractor or subcontractor days away from

work injury and/or fatality.• Hospital admission and/or fatality of a third party• Officially declared community evacuation or community

shelter in place;• A fire or explosion resulting in greater than $25000 (USD) of

direct cost to the company

And…• A pressure relief device (PRD) discharge to the atmosphere whether

directly or via a downstream destructive device that results in one or more of the following consequences:• Liquid carryover• Discharge to a potentially unsafe location• An on-site shelter in place• Public protective measures (e.g. road closure)

• PRD discharge greater thatn threshold quanities in Table 1 or• Release of a material greater than the threshold quantities in Table

1 in any one-hour period.

7/10/2015

8

Table 1

7/10/2015

9

7/10/2015

10

5.3 Calculting Tier 1 PSE rate• Tier 1 PSE rate = ( Total Tier 1 PSE Count/ Total Work Hours) x

200,000 hours

5.4•Optional Severity Rate --

Tier 2 Performance Indicator• 6.1 The count of Tier 2 process safety events represents LOPC

events with lesser consequence. Tier 2 PSEs, even those that have been contained by secondary systems, indicate barrier system weaknesses that may be potential precursors of future more significant incidents. In that sense Tier 2 PSEs can provide a company with opportunities for learning and improvement of its safety performance,

7/10/2015

11

6.2 Tier 2 Process Safety Event• An unplanned or uncontrolled release of any material, including

non-toxic and non-flammables materials from a process which results in one or more of the consequences listed below and is not reported in Tier 1:

Tier 2 Consequences• An employee, contractor or subcontractor recordable injury; or• A fire or explosion resulting in greater than or equal to $2,500 of

direct cost to the Company; or• A pressure relief device (PRD) discharge to atmosphere whether

directly or via a downstream destructive device that results in one or more of the following four consequences:

• Liquid carryover, or • Discharge to a potentially unsafe location, or• On-site shelter-in-place, or• Public protective measures (e.g., road closure); • and a PRD discharge quantity greater than the threshold quantities

in Table 2; or • A release of material greater than the threshold quantities described

in Table 2 in any one-hour period

7/10/2015

12

measuring process safety api rp-754 - sfpe …sfpe-sac.org/process-safety/section4.pdf7/10/2015 1...

Documents