Collection and Incident Analysis Methods

Another publication produced by the Center for Chemical Process Safety, Guidelines for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents (CCPS, 1992d), is directed at achieving similar objectives but from a differing perspective and with differing emphasis. Both sources of information can be used in a complementary manner to improve the quality of data collection and incident analysis in the CPI. 

This chapter is divided into the following sections  

This section provides an overall structure within which the different aspects of data collechon and incident analysis methods can be integrated. The importance of effective data collection systems as part of the continuous improvement process in Total Quality Management. 

The major categories of data collection systems are described. These include  

This section discusses the company culture that is necessary to support effective data collection and root cause analysis. 

---

Chapter 6, Data Collection and Incident Analysis Methods, examines the pitfalls involved in collecting data on human error and suggests possible approaches to improving the quality of the data. 

This chapter has adopted a broad perspective on data collection and incident analysis methods. Both qualitative and quantitative aspects of data collection have been addressed, and data collection approaches have been described for use with large numbers of relatively low-cost incidents or infrequently occurring major accidents. 

This is a highly recommended text. Chapter 6 is titled Data Collection and Incident Analysis Methods. Elsewhere, comments are made on types of human error causal factors, their nature, and how to identify and analyze them. 

The STEP procedure, described by Hendrick and Benner (1987), was developed from a research program on incident investigation methods. STEP is based on the mulHple events sequence method and is an investigative process which structures data collection, representation, and analysis. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics Handbook of Methods provides detailed information on the various statistical and sampling procedures the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses to summarize the incidence of occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in the United States. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been collecting this type of data since the 1940s. However, it wasn t until the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 when the Bureau of Labor Statistics was given the responsibility of developing a formal data collection and analysis system (Bureau of Labor Statistics 1997,71). 

We will later apply the accident-analysis framework in a review of different types of methods used in the collection and analysis of data of accident risks. We will start at the output side of the model by reviewing the different types of classification systems used to document the consequences of accidents and different measures of loss. We will then continue by looking into the classification systems used to document incidents and deviations. Finally, we will review the different classification systems for contributing factors and root causes. Our aims will be twofold first, to be complete, i.e. by presenting all alternative means of measuring and classification, and second, to give specific advice on the preferred method. The reader will find recommended alternatives in shaded tables and checklists. 

Most of the applications of electron diffraction intensities for structure analysis rely on a kinematical approximation and thus do not account for the effects of dynamical multiple diffraction. The use of intensities which may be strongly perturbed by multiple scattering results in many cases in poor or misleading structure indications in the direct methods results. One approach which can be shown to reduce dynamical effects somewhat is to use precession electron diffraction (RED) [67] which involves conical rotation of the incident beam about a zone axis direction and thus avoids the strongly dynamical direct zone axis orientation. Although the intensities collected with this technique are still significantly perturbed by dynamical effects [68, 69] results obtained by this approach for zeoHtes are encouraging [70-72]. 

Solids. Conventional near-infrared reflectance analyzers use a variety of methods to position the sample into the incident collimated beam and collect reproducibly the diffusely reflected radiation to measure the absorption which takes place in the body of the sample traversed. Solid samples are ground with care to achieve reproducible and reasonably uniform granulation for calibration and analysis measurements. The overall scattering characteristics of the sample which shift the reflectance baseline and control the depth of sample penetration and opportunity for absorption become a part of the method and the empirical analytical equation (6,9). Solid sampling is summarized on the following table. 

---