Metrics incidents reported

INCIDENT REPORTING METRICS Process Safety Incidents Process Safety Near Misses Incident/ Near-Miss Subcategories and Cause Types... 

Chemists are not alone. The Mars Climate Orbiter crashed into Mars in September 1999 following a confusion in programming of software that modeled forces in English units instead of the metric units that were expected by the thruster controllers and other programs. This incident is related in the delightfully titled NASA document Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Report. (Stephenson 1999) The mishap cost around 125,000,000. 

Incidents which meet the threshold of severity which should be reported as part of the process safety metric. 

Lagging Metrics—process safety incidents that meet the threshold of severity and shouid be reported as part of the process safety metric Near-Miss Incidents—incidents that did not meet the definition of process safety incident metric... 

Commonly reported near misses include such events as exceeding operating limits, a release of a chemical or other hazardous substance that does not meet the threshold for a process safety incident metric, activation of relief valves, interlocks, or ruptured disks. Companies may establish near-miss metrics based on the specifics of their operation, based on their observations of frequent upsets or failures, or to track and correct observed unsafe practices or behaviors. 

An absolute measure is one in which a simple count of events is recorded and reported. This would include the number of occurrences of a specific type of incident per year (e.g., release, loss of containment, fire) or activity (e.g., how many employees were trained, whether a mechanical integrity evaluation was conducted). Absolute metrics do not necessarily provide information on the quality of an activity or a change or trend in the activity over time. Absolute metrics also may be difficult to compare meaningfully across the organization. However, regulatory agencies and the public may be very interested in some absolute metrics. For example, the public wants to know the number of releases from a facility and the quantity of the release—particularly from a facility in their community. However, how a given release or a facility s release record compares with facilities outside the community may be of minimal, if any, interest. 

The ultimate goal of the process safety system is to prevent process safety incidents. The Center for Chemical Process Safety s Process Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics Report (CCPS, 2007b) defines a consensus from several chemical and allied processing industries for definitions of process safety incidents and process safety near misses. If an organization adopts these definitions, a... 

Metrics should relate to the elements of the process safety system. Poorly selected metrics that do not specifically relate to the execution of process safety elements will not provide an accurate evaluation of process safety system performance. Occupational injury and illness reporting rates are sometimes used to judge overall safety performance, and this metric does track the incidence of employee injuries quite well. However, this rate does not reflect the effectiveness of the process safety system. Occupational safety is quite important to the health and well-being of employees, but the metrics involved in assessing the occupational safety performance are not appropriate for process safety system evaluation the detailed elements of a process safety program differ markedly fl-om an occupational safety program (as discussed in Chapter 3). 

Many companies participate in industry organizations that require reporting of specific process safety metrics. These industry organizations define criteria and collect and publish process safety data. For example, the member requirements for American Chemistry Council Responsible Care require reporting process safety incidents (ACC, 2009). The company needs to decide if it will publish information beyond that required by an industrial organization. 

The CSB report claimed that OSHA inspections failed to focus on compliance with process safety standards. The report also identified nine organizational factors for BP that contributed to the incident. Among the factors was Safety campaigns, goals, and rewards focused on improving personal safety metrics and worker behaviors rather than on process safety and management safety systems. ... 

The HSE study, Findings From Voiuntary Reporting of Loss of Containment Incidents 2004/05, reported that 32% of loss-of-containment events were caused by process and safety equipment failure, which occurred due to inadequate design and maintenance. SIS equipment performance is limited by the rigor, timeliness, and repeatability of mechanical integrity activities. Key performance indicators are recommended as a means to ensure that the various requirements of ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004 are implemented as expected. Sustainable operation is achieved by focusing on indicators that provide realtime indication of compliance to expectations. Example indicators are provided in Table 1 for the SIS. Additional recommended indicators have been published by CCPS in Guidelines for Process Safety Metrics. ... 

More specific typing is required. Injuries can usually be typed in a manner that matches the reports of the workers compensation carrier. Examples include lacerations, bruises, amputations, and burns. The tracking forms must also consider other metrics that could be central in identifying trends and determining causation. These usually include day, time, supervisor, process or machine-operated activity before accident, and many others. On this form, the data should actually be metrics used to track and compare incidents within the facility or company. Other contributing factors can be listed on the investigation form. 

Four of the quantitative metrics in Table 3.9— hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions, process safety incidents, distribution incidents, and OSHA-reportable incidents—speak to the two product stewardship goals in... 

Removing personal blame from incidents that set the stage for personal injury will enable more proactive reporting, evaluahng, and correcting. When your periodic environmental audits show less and less property damage, you can be assured you are preventing injuries. In fact, I am convinced this is actually a more reliable and valid metric for safety improvement than the standard injury and illness rates derived from employees self reports and visits to the plant infirmary. So a comprehensive safety measurement system... 

---