aust process safety guidance - final december 2008

7/29/2019 AUST Process Safety Guidance - Final December 2008

1/14

RReessppoonnssiibbllee CCaarree

PPrroocceessss SSaaffeettyy DDeevveellooppiinngg KKeeyy PPeerrffoorrmmaanncceeIInnddiiccaattoorrss

EEddiittiioonn 11

DDeecceemmbbeerr 22000088

GGuuiiddaannccee

The Guidance document is a voluntary document to assist all stakeholders in the management of processsafety risks. No guarantee is made as to the completeness of the information contained within this guidanceand the application thereof to prevent hazards, accidents, incidents or injury to persons or property. Thisguidance does not attempt to provide an inclusive list of recommended measures. Further, the guidance isnot intended as a substitute for requirements under applicable Federal, State or Local legislation.


2/14

PACIA Guidance - Process Safety Developing Key Performance Indicators

Guidance Document

Process Safety Developing Key PerformanceIndicators

Edition 1

December 2008

Contents

Section Title Page

1 Introduction 3

2 Purpose of this Guidance 3

3 How to use this Guidance 3

4 What is a process safety incident? 4

5 A framework for process safety

Figure 1 Process Safety Pyramid 56 Process Safety Key Performance Indicators

Table 1Examples of KPIs for process safety management systems 6

7 Useful reading 8

Appendix 1 Resources for developing process safety performance indicators

US Centre for Chemical Process SafetyUK Health and Safety Executive

9

Appendix 2 Lag and lead indicators 13

2


3/14


3

Process Safety Developing Key Performance Indicators

1. Introduction

Process safety ensures the prevention of harm to people and the environment arisingfrom the normal or abnormal operations of the process.1

Recent incidents in process safety, most notably the BP Texas City (US) refineryincident in 2005, have served to refocus risk management on the prevention of industrialdisasters.

PACIA, the Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association, recognises the need forchemical companies to develop a formal performance approach to process safety, andhas produced Guidance to raise awareness of process safety, and encourage thedevelopment of a process safety measurement program throughout industry.

2. Purpose of this Guidance

This Guidance provides a framework for developing performance measures for processsafety, in order to improve safety and reduce the risk of a process incident. It isapplicable to any major hazard facility (MHF) or business operating in a high risk regime,where hazardous materials

2are used, stored, or manufactured.

The guidance is aimed at senior managers and safety professionals who wish to developperformance indicators to provide assurance that process safety risks are adequatelycontrolled.

3. How to use this Guidance

This Guidance is a resource to assist you to better understand process safety and helpyou develop meaningful indicators to manage process safety risks on site. As such, itdoes not attempt to prescribe performance indicators, as the inherent risks andassociated control measures for any process can only be determined on site byexperienced company personnel.

The Guidance draws on established information resources to assist you undertake theprocess of developing a performance measurement approach, including:

The American Institute for Chemical Engineers, Centre for Chemical Process Safety The United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive

Further information on these resources and how to use them is detailed inAppendix 1.

1 Process safety and personal safety - personal safety describes how an individual interfaces with plant, materials, or theenvironment of the workplace and is measured by OHS performance indicators. The common KPI for personal safety isthe number of Lost Time Injuries (LTIs) or the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR). These are lag indicators and area measure of where we have failed.

2For the purposes of this Guidance, the term hazardous materials is taken to include hazardous substances anddangerous goods.


4/14


4. What is a process safety incident?

In general terms3, a process safety incident is an incident involving hazardous materialsand /or the conditions under which these materials are used, stored or manufactured. Anincident would typically involve failure of a key control measure and may result in a lossof containment, a release of hazardous energy, or operation outside the safe operatingwindow.

Such an incident may produce:(a) a major consequence outcome; or

(b) a minor consequence outcome.

Major consequence incidents are rare. Minor consequence incidents are more frequent.

Minor incidents are important because they can provide an indication of a potentiallylarger, or even catastrophic, event. A large number of minor consequence events shouldbe considered as an indicator of a potentially larger event in the future.

A third event is a Near Miss, which is an event where there was apotentialfor a major

consequence incident to occur. As with minor incidents (above), a large number orincreasing trend in Near Miss events should be viewed as an indicator of higher potentialfor a more significant (major consequence) outcome to occur.

Examples of incidents with a major consequence outcome

Flixborough chemical plant, United Kingdom, 1974Seveso herbicide plant, Italy, 1976Bhopal pesticide plant, India, 1984Coode Island chemical storage facility, Melbourne, Victoria 1991Longford gas plant, Victoria, 1998

Texas City refinery, Texas, United States, 2005Buncefield oil storage depot, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom, 2005

Examples of incidents with a minor consequence outcome

Loss of containment causing a spill; this could be a minor or a major spill but it does notlead to any major consequence outcome.

A minor injury arising from a process safety incident for example, a skin burn from aminor leak of caustic in a tank, or accidental exposure to a gas during a tank fillingoperation.

Events with apotentialmajor consequence outcome Near Misses

Opening of a rupture discOpening a pressure safety valve (PSV) to flare or atmospheric release

Trip system failure on testTemperature, pressure, or flow excursions outside the safe operating windowExcursion of process parameters beyond established critical control points or whereemergency shutdown or intervention is indicatedOperation outside equipment design limits

4

3Metrics to calculate a threshold for defining a process safety incident are contained inProcess Safety Leading and LaggingMetrics ...You dont improve what you dont measure, Centre for Chemical Process Safety, 2007 (see Resources, Appendix 1).

This quantitative definition is based on threshold quantities for United Nations Dangerous Goods material hazardclassifications.


5/14


5. A framework for process safety

A framework for process safety, and the development of key performance indicators, isillustrated in the Process Safety Pyramid in Figure 1

(adapted from the Centre for Chemical Process Safety CCPS - Safety Metric

Pyramid).

5

Process Safetyelements of theSafety ManagementSystem:

o Procedures forcritical operation andmaintenance

o Hazard Identificationo Management of

Changeo Permit to Worko Plant Integrityo Critical Controlso Risk Reduction

Action Plano Incident

Investigationo Process Safety

Trainingo Emergency

Preparedness

Figure 1

Process Safety Pyramid

A major consequenceincident

o Fire / explosiono Toxic releaseo Fatality / serious injurieso Significant plant damage

ProcessMeets CCPS metric thresholdfor a reportable processsafety incident

Safety Incident

A minorconsequenceincident

Other Incidents

All other loss of containment

or fires

An event withthepotentialfor a majorconsequenceincident to

occur

Near MissSystem failures which could have led to

a Process Safety incident

Unsafe Behaviours or insufficient operatingdiscipline

Measurements to ensure that safety layers areoperating and operating discipline are being

maintained


6/14


6

6. Process Safety Key Performance Indicators

All four levels of the Process Safety Pyramid can yield a range of measures for processsafety. It is important, however, to select relevant KPIs that measure the integrity of riskcontrol measures and provide early warning of degrading systems or systemic failures.

It is necessary to measure and learn from incidents that have occurred; these areperformance outcomes or lag indicators.

However, it is also important to develop indicators that can provide an early warning of apossible incident occurring. These are performance drivers or lead indicators. Theymeasure the effectiveness of the controls upon which the risk control system relies andprovide assurance that the systems designed to control risks are operating as they areintended to.

The terminology attached to the KPI (ie. lag or lead)4 is secondary to the value of themeasure itself the measure must be meaningful. Learning is provided through acombination of incident data and measuring the effectiveness of the control system.

Performance indicators will change over time as standards change and should beregularly reviewed to ensure they remain relevant.

Process safety control measures KPIs for the safety management system

The safety management system is underpinned by performance indicators thatdemonstrate its effectiveness. Measures should be considered for the following driversof process safety performance:

Procedures for critical operation and maintenance

Hazard Identification

Risk reduction Action PlanManagement of change

Permit to work

Plant integrity

Critical controls

Incident investigation

Process safety training

Emergency preparedness

Examples of KPIs for process safety management systems

Some examples of common KPIs for process safety management systems are providedin the following Table. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list. It should beconsidered as the starting point to consider when developing your own KPIs, appropriateto the on site processes and assessed risks.

As with any system, thorough compliance auditing is essential to confirm the integrity ofthe particular system and ensure any corrective actions are implemented to schedule.

4 See Appendix 2 for further discussion of lag and lead indicators.


7/14


7

Table 1 Examples of KPIs for process safety management systems

Procedures for critical operation and maintenance

% of critical operational and maintenance procedure reviews completed to schedule

% compliance with critical procedures

Hazard Identification

% of risk assessments reviewed to schedule

Risk reduction Action Plan

% of risk assessment corrective actions completed to schedule

Management of Change (MOC)

% of MOC documents compliant with procedure

% of temporary changes overdue

% of MOC physically installed but awaiting completion of documentation

Permit To Work

% of PTW compliant with procedure

Plant Integrity

% of inspections or tests completed to schedule

Critical controls

All critical controls for process safety identified

% of controls inspected to schedule

% of controls outside tolerance (ie. failure on test or demand)

Incident Investigation

% of overdue incident investigations

No. of repeat incidents occurring

% of follow up corrective actions completed to schedule

Process safety training

Mandatory training completed to schedule

eg. fire fighting training, PTW authorities, Hazard Id/Risk Assessment training, etc

Emergency preparedness

No of emergency exercises/desktop exercises completed to schedule

Emergency plan reviewed to schedule


8/14


7. Useful reading

The American Institute for Chemical Engineers, Centre for Chemical Process SafetyProcess Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics ...You dont improve what you dontmeasure, Centre for Chemical Process Safety, 2007 (see Appendix 1 or Click here)

HSE (UK Health and Safety Executive) (2006)Developing process safety indicators: astep-by-step guide for chemical and major hazard industries (see Appendix 1 or Click here)

Baker, J (2007) The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety ReviewClickhere

Hopkins, A (2007) Thinking About Process Safety Indicators, Working Paper 53,National Research Centre for OHS regulation, Australian National University, CanberraClick here

Hopkins, A (2008) Failure to Learn: TheBP Texas City Refinery Disaster, CCH

Publishing Click here

Trevor A. Kletz various, including:

o Learning from Accidentso What Went Wrong : Case Studies of Process Plant Disasterso Still Going Wrong :Case Histories of Process Plant Disasters and How They Could

Have Been Avoidedo Process Plants : A Handbook for Inherently Safer Design

Available through www.amazon.comOECD Guiding Principles for Chemical AccidentPrevention, Preparedness and Response for Industry,including Management and Labour, Public Authorities,Communities and other stakeholdersOECD Guidance on Developing Safety Performance

Indicators for Industrya tool to assist industrial enterprises, public authorities, andcommunities near hazardous installations develop andimplement a means to assess the success of their chemicalsafety activities. This Guidance is NOT prescriptive; rather,it provides suggestions related to the elements that might beincluded in a voluntary Safety Performance Indicator (SPI)Programme and provides general guidance on the process ofestablishing and implementing such a Programme.

8
http://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/CCPS/Metrics/CCPS_metrics%205.16.08.pdfhttp://www.hsebooks.com/Books/product/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=HSEBooks&category%5Fname=&product%5Fid=4828http://www.bp.com/bakerpanelreporthttp://www.bp.com/bakerpanelreporthttp://www.ohs.anu.edu.au/publications/pdf/wp%2053%20-%20Hopkins.pdfhttp://www.coop-bookshop.com.au/bookshop?basket_name=5846615&user_id=1229358283116&_frames_=no&_next_page_=GetSingleBook&_key_=9781921322440http://www.amazon.com/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/37/2789820.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/37/2789820.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/37/2789820.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/37/2789820.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/57/41269710.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/57/41269710.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/57/41269710.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/57/41269710.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/37/2789820.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/37/2789820.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/37/2789820.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/37/2789820.pdfhttp://www.amazon.com/http://www.coop-bookshop.com.au/bookshop?basket_name=5846615&user_id=1229358283116&_frames_=no&_next_page_=GetSingleBook&_key_=9781921322440http://www.ohs.anu.edu.au/publications/pdf/wp%2053%20-%20Hopkins.pdfhttp://www.bp.com/bakerpanelreporthttp://www.bp.com/bakerpanelreporthttp://www.hsebooks.com/Books/product/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=HSEBooks&category%5Fname=&product%5Fid=4828http://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/CCPS/Metrics/CCPS_metrics%205.16.08.pdf


9/14


9


10/14


Appendix 1Resources for developing process safety performance indicators

Centre for Chemical Process Safety

CCPC Process Safety Beacon

The CCPS Process Safety Beacon is a resource aimed atdelivering process safety messages to plant operators and othermanufacturing personnel. The monthly one-page Process SafetyBeacon covers the breadth of process safety issues. Each issuepresents a real-life accident, and describes the lessons learned andpractical means to prevent a similar accident in your plant.

Register for the BeaconhereRegistration is quick and easy. After you register, the Beacon willbe sent to you FREE each month via email.

GUIDE - Process Safety - Leading and Lagging Metrics (2008) You don'timprove what you don't measure

The lagging metrics are based on incidents that have already occurred. These incidents, says theCCPS document, meet a threshold of severity that should be reported as part of the industry-wideprocess safety metric. Leading metrics look toward the future. They indicate the performance ofwork processes, operating discipline or layers of protection designed to prevent incidents. Theless robust these preventative processes, the more likely a threshold incident will occur. Bothlagging and leading indicators are seen as critical to driving continuous improvement in processsafety.

10
http://www.aiche.org/CCPS/index.aspxhttp://www.aiche.org/ccps/publications/beacon/index.aspxhttp://www.aiche.org/apps/ccps/safetybeaconfrm.asphttp://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/CCPS/Metrics/CCPS_metrics%205.16.08.pdfhttp://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/CCPS/Metrics/CCPS_metrics%205.16.08.pdfhttp://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/CCPS/Metrics/CCPS_metrics%205.16.08.pdfhttp://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/CCPS/Metrics/CCPS_metrics%205.16.08.pdfhttp://www.aiche.org/apps/ccps/safetybeaconfrm.asphttp://www.aiche.org/ccps/publications/beacon/index.aspxhttp://www.aiche.org/CCPS/index.aspx


11/14


CCPS Process Safety Metrics

ContentsIntroduction

I. Lagging Metrics

1.0 Process Safety Incident (PSI):Chemical or Chemical Process Involvement

Reporting ThresholdsLost Time Injuries and Fatality Incidents CriteriaLocationAcute Release

2.0 Process Safety Incident Severity3.0 Definitions4.0 Rate Adjusted Metrics5.0 Industry Process Safety Metrics6.0 Applicability7.0 Interpretations and Examples

II. Leading Metrics

1.0 Mechanical Integrity2.0 Action Items Follow-up

3.0 Management of Change4.0 Process Safety Training and Competency5.0 Safety Culture

III. Near Miss Reporting and other Lagging Metrics

Definition of a Process Safety Near MissExamples of Process Safety Near MissMaximizing Value of Near Miss Reporting

Guidelines for the Management of Change for Process Safety (April 2008)

Guidelines for the Management of Change for Process Safetyprovides guidance on theimplementation of effective and efficient Management of Change (MOC) procedures,

which can be applied to improve process safety.Process Safety Incident Evaluation ToolBased on the metrics in the above Guide, CCPA has developed a spreadsheet tool todetermine whether any incident (past) meets the CCPS criteria for a process safetyincident, and the severity index of the incident.

11
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470043091.htmlhttp://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/CCPS/Metrics/PSI%20Evaluation%20Tool%20(v3.01).xlshttp://www.aiche.org/uploadedFiles/CCPS/Metrics/PSI%20Evaluation%20Tool%20(v3.01).xlshttp://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470043091.html


12/14


United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive

GUIDE -Developing process safety indicators: a step-by-step guide forchemical and major hazard industries, 2006

Developing process safety indicators

This guide is intended for senior managers and safety professionals within organisations thatwish to develop performance indicators to provide assurance that major hazard risks are undercontrol. A small number of carefully chosen indicators can monitor the status of key systems andprovide an early warning should controls deteriorate dangerously.

Although primarily aimed at major hazard organisations, the generic model for establishing aperformance measurement system described in this guide can equally be applied to otherenterprises requiring a high level of assurance that systems and procedures continue to operateas intended.

It is presumed that companies using this guide already have appropriate safety managementsystems in place; the emphasis of this guide is therefore to check whether the controls in placeare effective and operating as intended.

Too many organisations rely heavily on failure data to monitor performance. The consequence ofthis approach is that improvements or changes are only determined after something has gonewrong. Often the difference between whether a system failure results in a minor or a catastrophic

outcome is purely down to chance. Effective management of major hazards requires a proactiveapproach to risk management, so information to confirm critical systems are operating asintended is essential. Switching the emphasis in favour of leading indicators to confirm that riskcontrols continue to operate is an important step forward in the management of major hazardrisks.

The main reason for measuring process safety performance is to provide ongoing assurance thatrisks are being adequately controlled. Directors and senior managers need to monitor theeffectiveness of internal controls against business risks. For major hazard installations andchemical manufacturers, process safety risks will be a significant aspect of business risk, assetintegrity and reputation. Many organisations do not have good information to show how well they

12


13/14


are managing major hazard risks. This is because the information gathered tends to be limited tomeasuring failures, such as incidents or near misses. Discovering weaknesses in control systemsby having a major incident is too late and too costly. Early warning of dangerous deteriorationwithin critical systems provides an opportunity to avoid major incidents. Knowing that processrisks are effectively controlled has a clear link with business efficiency, as several indicators canbe used to show plant availability and optimised operating conditions.

The method of setting indicators outlined in this guide requires those involved in managingprocess safety risks to ask some fundamental questions about their systems, such as:

What can go wrong? What controls are in place to prevent major incidents? What does each control deliver in terms of a safety outcome'? How do we know they continue to operate as intended?

Contents

Foreword

Part 1: Introduction

Structure and contentMeasuring performance - early warning before catastrophic failureWhat's different about this guide?

Part 2: Six steps to performance measurement

Step 1: Establish the organisational arrangements to implement indicatorsStep 2: Decide on the scope of the indicatorsStep 3: Identify the risk control systems and decide on the outcomesStep 4: Identify critical elements of each risk control systemStep 5: Establish data collection and reporting system

Step 6: Review

Part 3: Worked example

Risk control systemsReferences and further information

Developing process safety indicators

Published: October 2006 HSE 254, ISBN 0717661806

Available from HSE BooksOrder here

13
http://www.hsebooks.com/Books/product/product.asp?catalog_name=HSEBooks&category_name=&product_id=4828http://www.hsebooks.com/Books/product/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=HSEBooks&category%5Fname=&product%5Fid=4828http://www.hsebooks.com/Books/product/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=HSEBooks&category%5Fname=&product%5Fid=4828http://www.hsebooks.com/Books/product/product.asp?catalog_name=HSEBooks&category_name=&product_id=4828


14/14


Appendix 2

Lead and lag indicators

A lead indicatoris a proactive measure of the performance of a key work process orsystem against an internal standard. It aims at finding problems before incidents or nearmisses occur.

It provides assurance that the process is operating within specified performancestandards.

Lead indicators are considered the "drivers" of lagging indicators. Improved performancein a leading indicator will drive better performance in a lagging indicator.

When measured and monitored effectively, lead indicators provide data to enableeffective intervention to address or reverse a negative trend before it results in injury,

damage or loss.

A lag indicatoris a reactive measure of some aspect of a process that hasfailed. These failures can have little or no consequences, such as a near miss, or canhave large consequences such as a loss of containment or a fire. The common aspectof these events is that a layer of protection of a process safety system has actuallyfailed.

This group of events includes activation of relief valves, critical alarms and minor spillsas this means that the at least one layer of protection has failed for this to occur.

For lagging indicators the level of investigation into the causes of the event will vary.The investigation into a fire could be different to a minor spill. The minor spill is stillimportant to be investigated and recorded. Trends for near misses should berecorded. An example could be several minor spills from one operating area. This maybe an indication of a larger systemic failure in a maintenance system, which could in turnlead to a major process safety event. If these minor issues are not recorded and trendsconsidered then an emerging systemic failure pattern may not be recognised.

A lead indicator is a performance DRIVER. A lag indicator is an OUTCOMEmeasure.

14

aust process safety guidance - final december 2008

Documents