ccps metric pres customizable[1]

8/10/2019 CCPS Metric Pres Customizable[1]

1/24

January 24, 2008 slide 1

Global Process Safety MetricsDriving Consistency and Improvement


2/24


Global Process Safety MetricsDriving Consistency and Improvement

Presented by:

[Name]

[CCPS Metrics Committee Member][or CCPS TSC Member]

[Name of CCPS Sponsor Company]

Presented to:

[Audience]

[Date]


3/24


Process Safety Metrics

Can you answer the following question?

Which companies are becoming safer?

Is this company becoming safer?

How does one companys process safetyperformance compare to others?

Is a company headed for a major accident?

Is the industry/country/world improving its

process safety performance?


4/24


Process Safety Metrics

Several companies and some tradeorganizations have process safety metricsprograms, but these programs:

Differ from organization to organization Are likely based upon incident definitions that are

not well aligned to the actual hazard of the event


5/24


Process Safety Metric Project

Project conceived by CCPS Advisory Board

Goal: Develop commonly acceptable laggingand leading process safety metrics that:

Drive improvement Provide meaningful trend data

Establish common format to enablecomparison and amalgamation

Strive for broad stakeholder buy-in


6/24


Stakeholders Represented

CCPS member companies in North America,Europe, India, and Brazil

American Chemistry Council (ACC), AmericanPetroleum Institute (API), National Petrochemicaland Refiners Association (NPRA)

US OSHA, EPA, CCCHD and Chemical SafetyBoard

A chemical operators labor union (USW) European Process Safety Centre (EPSC)

CONCAWE (European HSE organization) Health Safety Executive of UK Wharton Business School, Texas A&M Safety

Center Members/staff of the Baker Panel


7/24January 24, 2008 slide 7

Problems with Existing Metrics

High threshold for fire and explosion

Chemical release threshold quantities based onremediation priority (e.g., EPA CERCLA RQs), notaccident severity

TQ for some chemicals too low, e.g., 10 lb. chloroform TQ for some too high, e.g., 5000 lbs for HCL or

flammables

Although some common approaches within tradegroups for lagging metrics, no common leading and

near-miss metrics exist Low number of reported eventsunless the

company is very large, results in insufficient eventsto measure statistically shifts in performance.



CCPS PS Metrics Project

Three Key Deliverables (for 2007) Common Industry-Wide Lagging Metric

Near-Miss or Other Lagging Metrics

Draft of Leading Metrics

Format Pamphlet with Recommendations in

the three areas mentioned above(Leading metrics, Lagging Metrics,Near Miss reporting) - COMPLETE!

www.aiche.org/ccps/metrics/index.aspx

Guideline Book - by EOY 2008

NEW



Recommended Common LaggingProcess Safety Metric #1

Count of Process Safety Incidents (PSI)

Any releases of material or energy from a processunit resulting in:

Employee lost time injury(s), or

Fire or Explosion resulting in $25,000 US of directcost to the company, or

Chemical release from the primary containment(i.e., vessel or pipe), greater than chemical release

threshold quantities per next slide Excluding releases to designed control device specifically

designed for that event (e.g., flare, scrubber, or PSVdesigned per API 521 or equivalent),



Thresholds

Material Hazard classification as defined by United NationsDangerous Goods definitions:

"Process Safety incident TQAll TIH Class A materials 5 kg (11 lbs.)All TIH Class B materials 25 kg (55 lbs.)

All TIH Class C materials 100 kg (220 lbs.)All TIH Class D materials 200 kg (440 lbs.)"Packing Group I" materials & Flammable Gas 500 kg (1100 lbs.)"Packing Group II" materials & Flammable Liquid 1000 kg (2200 lbs.)"Packing Group III" materials &Combustible Liquid 2000 kg (4400 lbs.)

& Division 2.2 - Nonflammable, Nontoxic Gases

Note: Flexibility to use either the NFPA-30, UN Dangerous Goods, or GHSdefinitions for flammable gas, flammable liquid, or combustible liquid.The results will be very similar, but one method may be easier to implementinitially. The expectation is that companies will migrate to the GHSdefinitions over time.



Example of new TQs

A few examples:

Current API/ACC TQs:

EPA CERCLA TQ(or

5000 lb. flammable)

UN Dangerous

Goods hazard

categories

UN Dangerous

Goods hazard

categories

total release amount total release amount

total release

amount

Acetaldehyde 5000 1100 -

Acetone 5000 2200 -Acrolein 1 11 +

Acrylonitrile 100 1100 +

Ammonia 100 440 +

Arsine 100 11 -

1,3-Butadiene 5000 1100 -

Carbon monoxide 5000 440 -

Carbon tetrachloride Not Covered 2200 -

Chlorine 10 55 +

Chloroform 10 4400 +

Chloropicrin Not Covered 55 -Cyclohexane 5000 2200 -

Cyclohexene 5000 2200 -

Epichlorohydrin 100 2200 +

Ethanolamine Not Covered 4400 -

Ethyl alcohol 5000 2200 -

Ethylamine 5000 1100 -

Ethyl chloride 5000 1100 -

Substance

Change vs.

CERCLAThreshold Quantities (lbs.) based upon:

A few examples:

Current API/ACC TQs:

EPA CERCLA TQ(or

5000 lb. flammable)

UN Dangerous

Goods hazard

categories

UN Dangerous

Goods hazard

categories

total release amount total release amount

total release

amount

Ethylene oxide 10 440 +

Formaldehyde 100 4400 +

n-Hexane 5000 2200 -

Hydrogen chloride 5000 220 -

Hydrogen sulfide 100 55 -

L.P.G. 5000 1100 -Methyl alcohol 5000 2200 -

Methyl chloride 5000 1100 -

Methyl isocyanate 10 11 unch

Methyl mercaptan 100 220 +

Nitrogen dioxide 10 11 unch

n-Pentane 5000 2200 -

Petroleum distillates (naphtha) 5000 2200 -

Phenol 1000 2200 +

Phosgene 10 11 unch

Propane 5000 1100 -Propylene oxide 100 1100 +

Styrene 5000 4400 -

Sulfur dioxide 500 220 -

Toluene 5000 2200 -

Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate 100 2200 +

Gasoline 5000 2200 -

Naptha 5000 2200 -

Hydrogen fluoride, anhydrous 100 220 +

Decrease 27Increase 13

Unchanged 3

Substance

Change vs.

CERCLAThreshold Quantities (lbs.) based upon:



Recommended CommonLagging Metric #2

Process Safety Incident Rate (PSR)

Count of incidents per man-hour unit

Include both full employee and contractorman-hours

Total count of all PS incidents x 200,000 .

Total employee, contractor & subcontractor work hours


13/24


Recommended CommonLagging Metric #3

Process Safety Severity Rate (PSSR)

The cumulative severity-weighted rate of processsafety incidents per the formula described within

this document. Assign score of 1, 3, 9, or 27 points in each

category per following slide. Maximum score 108

Sum the scores of each incident

Divide by the same man-hour unit as PSRTotal severity score for all PS incidents x 200,000

Total employee, contractor & subcontractor work hours


14/24


Table 2: Process Safety Incidents & Severity Categories

Severity Level

(Note 4)

Safety/Human Health

(Note 5)

Fire or Explosion

(including

overpressure)

Potential chemical

impact

(Note 3)

Community/environment impact

(Note 5)

NA Does not meet or exceed Level4 threshold

Does not meet orexceed Level 4threshold

Does not meet or exceedLevel 4 threshold

Does not meet or exceed Level 4 threshold

4(1 pointused in

severity ratecalculations for each

of the attributes whichapply to the incident)

Injury requiring treatmentbeyond first aid to employee orcontractors associated with aprocess safety incident(In USA, incidents meeting thedefinitions of an OSHA recordableinjury)

Resulting in$25,000 to$100,000 of directcost

Chemical released withinsecondary containment orcontained within the unit -see Note 2A

Short -term remediation to address acuteenvironmental impact.No long term cost or company oversight.Examples would include spill cleanup, soiland vegetation removal.

3(3 pointsused in



Lost time injury to employee orcontractors associated with aprocess safety event

Resulting in$100,000 to1MM ofdirect cost.

Chemical release outsideof containment butretained on company

propertyORflammable release withoutpotential for vapor cloudexplosives - see Note 2B

Minor off-site impact with precautionaryshelter-in-place

OR

Environmental remediation required withcost less than $1MM. No other regulatoryoversight required.

ORLocal media coverage

2(9 pointsused in



On-site fatality - employee orcontractors associated with aprocess safety event; multiplelost time injuries or one or moreserious offsite injuries

associated with a processsafety event.

Resulting in $1MMto 10MM of directcost.

Chemical release withpotential for injury off siteor flammable releaseresulting in a vapor cloudentering a building or

potential explosion site(congested/confined area)with potential for damageor casualties if ignited -see Note 2C

Shelter-in-place or community evacuationOR

Environmental remediation required andcost in between $1MM - 2.5 MM. Stategovernment investigation and oversight of

process.OR

Regional media coverage or brief nationalmedia coverage.

1(27 pointsused in



Off-site fatality or multiple on-site fatalities associated with aprocess safety event.

Resulting in directcost >$10MM

Chemical release withpotential for significant on-site or off-site injuries orfatalities - see Note 2D

National media coverage over multiple daysOR

Environmental remediation required andcost in excess of $2.5 MM. Federalgovernment investigation and oversight of

process.OR

Other significant community impact


15/24


RecommendationsLaggingMetrics

CCPS recommends that all companies andtrade associations collect and report thethree lagging metrics

While the metrics may not be perfect,CCPS recommends that they be used for 2-3 years to establish a base of experiencebefore improvements are considered


16/24


Proposed Leading IndicatorCategories

Mechanical Integrity Inspections done / Inspections due Time safety critical equipment in failed state/total

operating time

Action Items Follow-up

# of past due action items/total action items Management of Change

% MOCs satisfying MOC policy

Operator Competency % operators trained on schedule

Safety Culture By survey (to be defined)

Challenges to the Safety System Activations of safety systems and relief valves Deviations outside of operating limits


17/24


Strong industry support

Process safety is a key focus area for the American Chemistry Counciland its members,said Jack N. Gerard, President and CEO of ACC. Weve been voluntarily tracking andpublicly reporting process safety performance of our companies for many years now underthe Responsible Care program. CCPS should be commended for its work in producing thisvaluable tool, which will allow all of industry to better track, benchmark and report onprocess safety performance. ACC will assure that its process safety measure is alignedwith this cross-industry approach to measuring process safety.

APIPresident and CEO Red Cavaney, whose organization has published an annual report on

process safety related incidents since 1999, said keeping employees, contractors andneighbors safe has always been a top priority for the oil and natural gas industry. We areoptimistic that the broad industry alignment on the lagging metrics developed by CCPSwill lead to even greater progress in our efforts to minimize the risks to our workersand surrounding communities.

NPRAPresident Charles T. Drevna praised the industrys cooperation in developing analigned process safety lagging metric. Process safety is a top priority for NPRAmembers, Drevna said. We appreciate the opportunity to work with CCPS on such animportant issue. This metric provides industry with a reliable benchmark in our effortto achieve even greater safety performance and will be incorporated into the NPRASafety Awards Program.

EPSCregards the work of the CCPS Metrics group as a global milestone in managingprocess safety performance for the major hazard industries, said Manager Lee Allford

Indications of likely support from SOCMA, CEFIC, and Contra Costa County CAERorganization.

International companies (e.g., SASOL) already planning to implement Numerous othergroups and companies showing interest


18/24


What Next?

Please test drive the new metrics, and we look

forward for your feedback

Although weve received strong

indications of support, several

companies and trade groups are

testing the waters

We are asking them to dive

in and implement the new

metrics immediately


19/24


Future Actions

Working with ACC, API, NPRA, SOCMAand global organizations (e.g. CCPA) toalign metric programs

Begin work on the text of the CCPSGuideline Book


20/24


Thank You!Metrics document available at:

www.aiche.org/ccps/metrics/index.aspx

For more information:

212-591-7237 or [email protected]


21/24

Fl bl /C b tibl


22/24


Flammable/CombustibleLiquid Definitions

API proposal of definition of flammable materials:

Flammable Vapor Flammable Liquid Combustible Liquid

Flammable gas or flammable Low-flash liquids [flash point High-flash liquids [flash

vapor arising from flammable below 100 deg. F (38 deg.C)], point 100 deg.F (38 deg.C)liquid and high-flash liquids [flash or higher] at temperatures

point 100 degF(38 deg.C) or more than 15 degF (8 degC)

higher] at temperatures above below their closed cup (Pensky-

or within 15 degF (8 degC) of Martens) flash point.

their closed cup (Pensky-Martens)

flash point.

Proposed Threshold quantities:

500 kg / 1100 lbs. 1000 kg / 2200 lbs. 2000 kg / 4400 lbs.

Definition of flammable materials based upon UN Dangerous Goods Hazard category definitions:

Flammable Vapors Flammable Liquids Flammable Liquids

& Flammable Liquids (Packing Group II) (Packing Group III)(Packing Group I)

Gases which are ignitable Boiling Point > 95 degF Boiling Point > 95 degFwhen in mixture of 13% (or (35 deg C.) (35 deg C.)

less) by volume with air

Flammable liquid with boiling Flash point (closed cup) 74 DegF < Flash Point < 140 DegFpoint < 35 deg C < 74 degF (23 deg. C) (23 DegC < Flash Point < 60 DegC)

Proposed Threshold quantities:

500 kg / 1100 lbs. 1000 kg / 2200 lbs. 2000 kg / 4400 lbs.

Decision by team to define TQ amounts in

terms of Flammable Vapor, Flammable

Liquid, and Combustible Liquid, with

flexibility given regarding which definitions

were used. The expectation is that users

(at least in the USA) may initially use the

NFPA definitions, but migrate over time to

the GHS definitions as these are morebroadly utilized in regulations.

Very Little Impact upon results


23/24


Relief Device Discharges

Several committee members wanted to exclude vapors andgases released to atmosphere from safety valves, high-pressure rupture disks, and similar safety devices as longas the release did not result in (1) a liquid carryover thatcreated a reportable PSI related to the liquid (e.g., lost timeincident, fatality, a fire or explosion that caused $25,000 ormore of direct cost, liquid release or toxic aerosol releaseat or above threshold amounts, etc.), or (2) activation of ashelter-in-place response on-site, or (3) public protectivemeasures taken.

Rationale for exclusion is that these scenarios should notrepresent an acute hazard.

Historically, these have been counted by most companiesunder the ACC PSCM reporting metric. (There was somevariability in reporting, so ACC issued a FAQ in their 2005reporting guidelines to ensure reporting of these type ofevents

New API RP 521 word ing:

The principles in 6.3 and 6.7 shall be used when selecting the vent stack height and location. The

siting of vent stacks discharging to atmosphere should consider personnel health and safety, noise,potential odor, potential ground level concentrations, potential liquid carryover, ignition sources, andthermal radiation. Dispersion modeling, consequence analysis, and/or risk analysis are valuable toolsfor evaluating whether vapors discharged from the vent stack pose flammable, toxic, or other hazardsto personnel. These systems often handle a wide range of relief loads. The dispersion analyses andconsequence assessments shall evaluate the range of conditions (flow rate, composition,temperature, etc.) the stack is expected to handle.

NOTE: Smaller releases result in a lower discharge velocity, which can have a tendency for the plumeto drop to grade level in a hazardous concentration.The height and location of the vent stack shall be selected so that the concentration of vapor at a pointof interest is below the lower flammable limit of the vapor. The lower threshold for flammabilityconcerns can be satisfied by ensuring the concentration at potential sources of ignition, personnellocation or other vulnerable areas does not exceed 0,1 times to 0,5 times the lower flammable limit.Electrostatic ignition of atmospheric releases is discussed in 6.3.4.1.4. In any case, the radiant heatintensity for vent stacks shall be evaluated for an ignitable vapor. This shall be done by the samemeans as used for flare stacks, and the same limits of radiant heat intensity shall apply. Radiant heat

levels rather than dispersion can sometimes govern the vent stack design in determining stack height.Toxic thresholds are generally much lower than the flammability thresholds in certain applications andcan become the governing factor.If dispersion and consequence analyses indicate that flammable or toxic or radiant heat levels mightbe exceeded, the design needs to be improved. Design options include but are not limited toelimination of relevant relief cases (via HIPS, redesign of equipment, etc.), removal of relevant reliefdevices from the vent system, or elimination of the vent system (e.g., connection to a flare).

Decision by team to accept Relief Device

Discharge Exclusion with addition of

specific language that relief discharge mustbe designed and operated per API 521 or

equivalent.


24/24

January 24 2008 slide 24

1-hr rule for acute release

API had planned to defined an acuterelease as occuring in 1-hour (i.e., releaseRQ must be exceeded in 1-hour to betreated as a PSI)

ACC historically used a 24-hour rule (i.e.,release RQ must be exceeded in 24-hours to be treated as a PSI)

Decision by committee to accept 1-hour

definition for acute releases

ccps metric pres customizable[1]

Documents