Process Safety Performance Indicators for the

API (American Petroleum Institute) RP 754, 2010. Process Safety Performance Indicators for the Refining and Petrochemical Industries. 

The quality of indicators or performance data has been an issue at stake. According to Fleming (2010), good indicators are accurate (with direct relationship to system status, and difficult to manipulate), productive (related to future system states and performance) and current (giving real-time information). Skogdalen et al. (2010, 121-122) refer to the work of the American Petroleum Institute (API) about developing Process Safety Performance Indicators for the Refining and Petrochemical Industries, and finds that the success of indicators is related to the extent to which they are ... 

The AFPM and API modified their annnal process safety data reporting programs to align with the new ANSl/APl Standard - RP 754 Process Safety Performance Indicators for the refining and petrochemical industries. They assist in the uniform... 

The Baker Panel reported their findings nnder three areas of emphasis The first focus area was Corporate Safety Culture. In the years since this Panel s report Safely Cnlture is being infused into maity organizations via the API RP 754 Process Safety Performance Indicators for Refining and Petrochemical Industries...and other w s. 

The Hull site produces organic acids and derivatives. As part of an initiative launched by the UK Health Safety Executive the site developed a number of Process Safety Performance Indicators (PSPl) in accordance with the Health Safety Executives guidance document HSG 254, which describes a process for the development of PSPI at an individual plant level. This document describes how that activity was undertaken and the subsequent learning s from the process together with the planned wider rollout. 

During the OCM RA, the RA team should develop a list of process safety measures to monitor during and after the transition to assure effective process safety performance is maintained. The measures should be relevant to the change being made and readily indicate effective performance or issues. Ideally, there should be some baseline data from before the change for comparison. Process safety measures might include ... 

Used effectively process safety indicators can provide an early warning, before catastrophic failure, that critical controls have deteriorated to an unacceptable level. The use of process safety performance indicators fits between formal, infrequent audits and more frequent inspection and safety observation programmes. It is not a substitute for auditing, but a complementary activity. 

Organization for Economic Coordination and Development (OECD), Guidance on Safety Performance Indicators related to Chemical Accident Prevention, Preparedness and Response for Industry, 2nd Edition, OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications, Series on Chemical Accidents No. 19, Paris, 2008 Phimister, J. et al., Near-Miss Incident Management in the Chemical Process Industry, Risk Analysis, Vol. 23, No. 3,2003... 

Once the objectives for the process safety system are understood, the next step is to develop a strategy for reaching those objectives. Many actions will likely be proposed to improve performance, but without an unbiased measure to evaluate system performance, the improvement strategies may or may not be effective. This is where the indicators of performance or metrics play a major role in the performance improvement effort. Monitoring the performance of the system elements will provide the important feedback for understanding whether performance improvement plans are effective or may need modification. Metrics are the fundamental data that will help those implementing improvement efforts understand how well these efforts are progressing. 

One documented method uses process safety barriers identification for metrics selection. This concept uses a combination of lagging and leading indicators associated with process safety barriers and incident escalation controls to evaluate the process safety system performance. The basis for this method is documented in the U.K. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) publication HSG254 and illustrated by Figures 4.1-4.3. The strength of this technique arises from using the combination of indicators that provides multiple perspectives for judging the surety of a barrier or escalation control. For example, this basic concept was adopted and modified by BP to focus upon three information sources to assess key control barriers as summarized below ... 

Facility managers use a variety of metrics to monitor operating, maintenance, and process safety performance at their site. These metrics often include a consolidated or aggregated view of metrics as well as some selected detailed data of interest. These reports can indicate the process safety system performance across the site and provide a performance comparison for individual operating units. This allows the site manager to compare performance among the site operating units and use this information to focus performance improvement efforts. Metrics reports often include but are not limited to items such as ... 

Work together to develop two new consensus American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. 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. 

Outcome measures reflect the company s key safety objectives and are used to determine whether the company has reached them. These measures, sometimes referred to as lagging indicators, typically demonstrate the final results of the safety process. They are often commonly recognized or standard measures, such as those quoted in benchmarking studies. They are also the measures that tend to be tracked by CEOs, presidents, and vice presidents. Examples of outcome measures for a safety metrics program include lost workday rates, recordable injury rates, and number of miles driven without an accident. These indicators are referred to as lagging because they measure safety performances that are the result of, or occur after, an activity. 

Major process safety incidents in a chemical manufacturing are infrequent but when they do occur, the consequences can be severe. Corporate performance goals are often measured in such a way that a single plant could operate for many years without a major process accident and still be operating below the required performance standard. Process safety near-misses reporting is intended to be a more sensitive indicator of actual process safety performance. 

The purpose of the use of such indicators is to effectively drive process safety performance (hence process safety culture) to a better place. This chapter cannot do justice to such an important measurement tool and it is hoped that interested individuals will review API-754 for increased imderstanding. 

Process outcome measurements, production rates, loss rates, and positive and negative occupational performance indicators are all organizational parameters which can be measured. The reason measmement is important in the QM process is because it provides quantitative analysis of performance. Knowing the expected value or result of the measurement is important, as arty variation from the expected result will be the starting point for further analysis of the cause of the variation. In relation to safety performance, benchmarking can be done across industry or internally against organizational safety performance indicators. 

Three types of process safety performance metrics are described in the document and the text on their selection and application is extensive. Reference is made to lagging metrics leading metrics, and near miss and other internal lagging metrics. Note that near misses are a metric separate from lagging indicators. This is the only publication found that makes that disfinction. As will be seen, there is a purpose for doing so in the CCPS document. The metrics pertain only to chemical process incidents and near misses, to the exclusion of types of incidents that are not process related. 

---