Process safety leading indicators survey-February 2013: Center for chemical process safety-white...

Process Safety Leading Indicators

SurveyndashFebruary 2013

Center for Chemical Process SafetyndashWhite Paper

Stevick Kenana and Shakeel KadribaThe Dow Chemical Company KPStevickdowcom (for correspondence)bAir Products

Published online 23 January 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrarycom) DOI 101002prs11654

This article provides an update on the Chemical Industriesuse direction and effectiveness of leading indicators andprovides recommended leading indicators to help drive per-formance in a common direction As the use of leading indi-cators is in its nascent stages it is anticipated thatadditional surveys and updates will be published on a bian-nual basis VC 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers

Process Saf Prog 33 247ndash258 2014

Keywords safety management other hazards evaluationrisk assessment education

PREFACE

The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPSVR ) wasestablished in 1985 by the American Institute of ChemicalEngineers (AIChE) for the express purpose of assisting indus-try in avoiding or mitigating catastrophic chemical accidentsIn 2012 CCPS updated our mission to eliminate processsafety incidents in all industries To accomplish this morethan 150 corporate members around the world have createdand sustain a community committed to process safetyTogether we drive the activities of CCPS

In 2006 the CCPS Technical Steering Committee author-ized a project committee to develop a Guideline book forthe development and use of Leading and Lagging ProcessSafety Metrics That committee identified that a key break-through opportunity for industry was the establishment of anindustry lagging metric that would become the benchmarkacross the chemical and petroleum industry for measuringprocess safety performance To achieve this objective repre-sentatives and members from each of the major chemicaland petroleum trade associations as well as other key stake-holders were engaged

The outcome of that effort was published in December2007 Many companies and organizations have used thosemetric definitions since publication Those definitions estab-lished in 2007 were a key input to the creation of a newANSIAPI standard (ANSIAPI RP 754 [1]) which was final-

ized and released in April 2010 CCPS and several membersof the original CCPS Metric committee were involved in theAPI standard committee

In 2011 CCPS updated the December 2007 publicationwith the intent to align CCPS and API documents A copy ofthis stand-alone document ldquoProcess Safety Leading and Lag-ging MetricshellipYou Donrsquot Know What You Donrsquot Measure [2]rdquois available at the CCPS Website at httpwwwaicheorgsitesdefaultfilesdocsembeddepdfCCPS_ProcessSafety2011_2ndash24-webpdf These documents when used togethercreate a solid foundation for the establishment and use ofboth Leading and Lagging indicators

In 2013 CCPS continues its efforts for the developmentand use of Leading and Lagging Process Safety Metrics withthis update publication focused on the use of leading pro-cess safety metrics

This publication provides an update on the chemicalpetroleum and other process industries use direction andeffectiveness of leading indicators and to provide recom-mended leading indicators to help drive performanceimprovement and lead to the reduction in the number andseverity of process safety incidents As the use of leadingindicators is in its early stages it is anticipated that this topicwill continue to evolve Additional surveys will be conductedand updates published periodically

The members of the CCPS Process Safety Metrics teamthat developed this survey and publication are as follows

Sanjay Choudhary Tata Chemicals sgchoudharytatachemicalscom

Elroy Christie Honeywell ElroyChristieHoneywellcom

Jeffrey Fox Dow CorningCorp

jefffoxdowcorningcom

Eric Freiburger Praxair Eric_FreiburgerPraxaircom

R Wayne Garland EastmanChemical Co

wgarlandeastmancom

Andrew Goddard Arkema andrewgoddardarkemacom

Shakeel H Kadri Air Products KADRISHapcicom

(Continued)

This article was originally presented at the 9th Global Congress onProcess Safety San Antonio TX 29 April to 1 May 2013

VC 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers

Process Safety Progress (Vol33 No3) September 2014 247

Darrell Loewe FormosaPlastics

DarrellLftpcfpcusacom

Steve Marwitz FormosaPlastics

SMarwitzftpcfpcusacom

Louisa A Nara CCPS lounaaicheorgTim Overton timoverton

hotmailcomJeff Philiph Monsanto jeffreyephiliph

monsantocomPhilip Rasch BASF Philiprasch

basfcomDaniel E Sliva CCPS slivacapitalnetKenan Stevick The Dow

ChemicalCompany

KPStevickdowcom

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this white paper is to provide an updateon the use direction and effectiveness of Process Safetyleading indicators in the Chemical Industries Leading Indica-tors are intended to help drive performance improvementand lead to reduction in the number and severity of processsafety incidents The information presented in this whitepaper was collected through a survey of CCPS member com-panies As the use of leading indicators is in its early stagesit is anticipated that this topic will continue to evolve Addi-tional surveys will be conducted and updates will be pub-lished periodically

A high percentage of companies recognize the value inutilizing Leading Indicators to assist management in focusingengagement and efforts of the engineering and operationspersonnel Although the survey would indicate that theindustry is still ldquoexperimenting and discoveringrdquo as to whichindicators make the most sense three different focus areasor approaches were identified as most effective in improvingperformance These are as follows

Process safety management (PSM) CompliancendashFollow-upon actions across the spectrum of Process Safety Manage-ment Systems Audit Corrective Actions Process hazard analysis (PHA) Actions Completion of Safety Critical Equipment Inspections or

Calibrations Management of change (MOC) Actions Unplanned Event Corrective or Preventive Actions

Learning Experiences and Management of Deviations Process Safety Near Miss Reporting including fires Challenges to Safety Systems in general and specifically

calling out Safety Instrumented Systems and ReliefDevice Activations

Management Engagementndashpicking the most pertinentmeasures to your operation and getting them in front ofleadership including them in agendas of various opera-tional reviews and ensuring action

The survey indicates there is still work needed to assistcompanies to reach a better understanding of the definitionsintended for certain leading indicators to harmonize theunderstanding and usage Most of the companies respondingindicated they rolled their measures up into meaningfulscorecards prompting management action and reviewedwith senior leadership in some cases all the way up toboard members Most also published the data on internalreview reports websites and in newsletters for communica-tion and action throughout their company

Needless to say it is essential to have managementinvolvement mentoring and conversation with employees

and support in implementation Leading Indicators by theirnature will tend to convey a negative connotation as weak-ness in Management Systems but if considered as opportuni-ties for improvement they start to drive improvements As isthe case with any company program senior managementsupport and commitment are essential for the implementa-tion and sustainability of a successful metrics program

Long-term success in making process safety robust andreliable will involve management commitment to widen thescope of leading indicators and to actively share and learnwith others in the industry

INTRODUCTION PROJECT PURPOSE AND SCOPE

As outlined in the CCPS Process Safety Leading and Lag-ging Metrics publication an essential element of anyimprovement program is the measure of existing and futureperformance Therefore to continuously improve upon pro-cess safety performance it is essential that companies in thechemical and petroleum industries implement effective lead-ing and lagging process safety metrics

The purpose of this white paper is to provide an updateon the Chemical Industries use direction and effectivenessof leading indicators and to provide recommended leadingindicators to help drive performance improvement and leadto reduction in the number and severity of process safetyincidents As the use of leading indicators is in its earlystages it is anticipated that this topic will continue to evolveAdditional surveys will be conducted and updates will bepublished periodically

This white paper summarizes the respondentrsquos surveyinput

Which leading indicators companies are currently utilizingand are finding most effective in driving performanceobjectives Identification of barriers during implementation Strategies used to overcome barriers in the

implementation

This white paper began with a project to perform a broadsurvey of chemical companiesrsquo use of leading metric in orderto determine

Commonalities of approach Areas of potential difference Good practices worthy of consideration and Areas needing Improvement

The anticipated end result of this project is an ongoingupdate of Member Companysrsquo journey on the effective use ofLeading Indicators for this initial report and subsequent reports

BACKGROUND

Chemical Process Safety Indicators are generally brokendown into the following categories

ldquoLaggingrdquo Metrics1mdasha retrospective set of metrics that arebased on incidents that meet the threshold of severity thatshould be reported as part of the industry-wide processsafety metric

ldquoChallenges to Safety Systems Near Missrdquo and other inter-nal Lagging Metrics1mdashthe description of less severe incidents(ie below the threshold for inclusion in the industry lag-ging metric) or unsafe conditions which activated one ormore layers of protection Although these events are actualevents (ie a ldquolaggingrdquo metric) they are generally consideredto be a good indicator of conditions which could ultimatelylead to a more severe incident

ldquoLeadingrdquo Metrics1mdasha forward looking set of metricswhich indicate the performance of the key work processesoperating discipline or layers of protection that preventincidents

DOI 101002prs Process Safety Progress (Vol33 No3)248 September 2014 Published on behalf of the AIChE

These three types of metrics can be considered as meas-urements at different levels of the ldquosafety pyramid [2]rdquo illus-trated in Figure 1 Although Figure 1 is divided into fourseparate layers (Process safety incidents other incidentsNear miss and Unsafe behaviorsInsufficient operating disci-pline) it is easier to describe metrics in terms of the catego-ries shown above It is strongly recommended that allcompanies incorporate each of these three types of metricsinto their internal process safety management system

Lagging indicators for the industry are fairly well definedand efforts are underway for formally gaining a standardizedglobal definition [1] CCPS has received input from Industrythat publications on Process Safety Metrics are incompleteregarding leading indicator recommendations in its Tier 3(challenges to safety systems) and Tier 4 (Operating Disci-pline) which will present a challenge to implementationAlso in some regions where formal Process Safety Metrics donot apply there is a growing desire for recommended leadingindicators to help drive performance in a common direction

Tier 3 Leading indicators are an actual event or discoveryof a potentially unsafe situation therefore this metric couldbe defined as a ldquolaggingrdquo metric A large number or increas-ing trend in such events could be viewed as an indicator ofa higher potential for a more significant event thereforemany companies use Near Miss metrics as a surrogate for aldquoLeadingrdquo metric Tier 3 incidents by definition are a failureof our process safety management systems and give anexcellent road map to where they need to be strengthened

Tier 4 Leading indicators monitor the health of importantaspects of the process safety management system If meas-ured and monitored data collected for leading metrics cangive early indication of deterioration in the effectiveness ofkey safety systems and enable remedial action to be under-taken to restore the effectiveness of these key barriersbefore any loss of containment event takes place

DATA SUMMARY

The received survey results were tabulated and analyzedto determine the number of leading indicators used by com-panies Of the 43 responding companies 41 used leadingindicators thus indicating broad use of leading indicators

The use of leading indicators varies by company from alow of three leading indicators to as many as 28 leading indi-cators for a company

The chart shown in Figure 2 plots the number of leadingindicators used by companies with Tier 3 leading indicatorsshown in red and Tier 4 leading indicators shown in blue

All 25 leading indicators were used by the responding 43companies However 12 or more leading indicators wereused by 20 of the 41 companies or over 45 of the compa-nies that responded to the survey

The red box on the chart (Figure 2) highlights the 12leading indicators used by the 20 companies

Metrics Found Most EffectiveHow Do You MakeVisible

We received input from 31 of the 43 companies in this areaAlthough the survey would indicate that industry is stillldquoexperimenting and discoveringrdquo as to which indicators make themost sense three different focus areas or approaches were identifiedasmost effective in improvingperformance These are as follow

PSM Compliance

Follow-up on actions across the spectrum of ProcessSafety Management Systems

Audit Corrective Actions PHA Actions Completion of Safety Critical Equipment Inspections or

Calibrations MOC Actions Unplanned Event Corrective or Preventive Actions

Learning Experiences and Management of Deviations

Process Safety NearMss Reporting including fires Challenges to Safety Systems in general and specifically

calling out Safety Instrumented Systems and Relief DeviceActivations

Management Engagement

Picking the most pertinent measures to your operationand getting them in front of leadership including them inagendas of various operational reviews and ensuring action

Two companies indicated that they had not started onTier 3 and Tier 4 measures however they had just imple-mented Tier 1 and 2 metrics and were seeing an immediateimpact that is improved performance One company indi-cated they have seen strong improvements from monitoringldquowork permit auditing statisticsrdquo These points demonstratethe adage ldquoYou donrsquot improve what you donrsquot measurerdquo

Most of the companies responding indicated they rolledtheir measures up into meaningful scorecards prompting man-agement action and reviewed with senior leadership in somecases all the way up to board members Most also publishedthe data on internal review reports websites and in newslet-ters for communication and action throughout their company

Where More Guidance is Needed

The specific survey question asked if further definitionand guidance was needed for ldquochallenges to safety systemsrdquo

As companies start to collect data on metrics specific sit-uations arise which demonstrate that the original definitionsare not sufficient Through dialog between Member Compa-nies agreement can be reached on common definitions andconventions Consistency is needed between companies andwithin companies to ensure that there is a common under-standing of the meaning of a ldquochallenge to a safety systemrdquoso that tracking of progress on this metric will be on a con-sistent basis

Figure 1 Process safety incidents (Tier 1) other incidents(Tier 2) near misses (Tier 3) unsafe behaviorsinsufficientoperating discipline (Tier 4) [Color figure can be viewed in theonline issue which is available at wileyonlinelibrarycom]

Process Safety Progress (Vol33 No3) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 101002prs September 2014 249

Twenty five companies responded to this question andthe responses were mixed on this topic

Fifteen of the responding companies felt that the existingguidance was sufficient Eight of the companies indicatedthey had been using these metrics and were comfortablein their understanding Three companies indicated thatthey were not yet using these metrics Seven companies felt additional guidance would be useful

to ensure that ldquochallenges to safety systemsrdquo was usedconsistently within and between companies The need forinternal understanding and consistency between operatorsand engineers was also raised by one of the companiesthat indicated no additional industry guidance wasrequired Two companies included examples of what they would

consider as challenges to safety systems in their responses

The issue of definitions is also addressed more broadly inthe section on Barriers to Implementation

Barriers to Implementation

Introduction

Of the 43 responders to the CCPS process safety (PS) keyperformance indicator (KPI) Survey 35 either provided

feedback on what types of issuesbarriers they encounteredin their PS KPI implementation activities or shared learningrsquoson what approaches worked best for them As one wouldexpect there were a number of common issues so what fol-lows is a summarization of the survey commentaries forthose common elements

CommitmentSupport

As is the case with any company program senior manage-ment support and commitment is essential for the implemen-tation and sustainability of a successful metrics programFurthermore it also makes sense to undertake an effort toalign the metrics with the company business plan and cultureToo many metrics can result in information overload makingit more difficult for executives to understand the informationand how to apply it in selecting improvement opportunities

Resources

In general the view was that the collection of data totrack a metric takes a large amount of resources in order toreport on them in a timely manner Those companies thatalready had some computerized data collection systems inplace mentioned resource challenges but did so to a muchlesser degree Maintaining trained resources who understoodthe definitions and how to extract the data from the

Figure 2 Blue (Tier 1) red (Tier 2) [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue which is available atwileyonlinelibrarycom]


computer tracking system presented another challenge dueto transfers turnovers and retirements

Definitions

Another key barrier was the differences in understandingthe metrics definitions Comments would indicate there isjust enough vague wording in metrics definitions to causesome companies inconsistencies in their application Compa-nies with a large number of facilities scattered around NorthAmerica had the added issue of reconciling the apparent dif-ferences in which individual facilities viewed the definitionsGlobal companies add yet another layer of complexity todefinition application and the challenge of integrating acqui-sition facilities should not be underestimated

Data Collection

Data collection systems often did not readily produce theinformation companies wanted to track that is designed forinjury tracking but not for Process Safety incidents Developinggood metrics often involves changing and standardizing systemsso that the scope of what is and is not included is consistent Sig-nificant time and money are needed in the development of datacollection systems to enable easier collection of informationrelating to leading indicators Automated data output is alsoessential if company management is to utilize the information ina timely manner It is essential to be clear as to why the data isbeing collected and how it will be used If the need for meas-uring performance is not seen it will not be done

Communication to the workforce about the criteria forinclusion can take a lot of time and effort Providing trainingopen communication channels and recognizing that dataconsistency will not be perfect from the start but willimprove over time are important messages that employeesat all levels need to hear

The result from the collected information needs to be pre-sented in a format that those who are expected to act on it canreadily surmise the messages Simplified charts and graphicrepresentations as opposed to heavily detailed charts workedbest Likewise any accompanying interpretation statementswhich are concise and not overly detailed are recommended

Reluctance to Implement

Starting a new or modifying an existing safety programalmost always has some resistance to change Because of thepotential performance aspects of tracking KPIrsquos a few com-panies indicated the presence of a lingering cultural heritageat some sites that may have discouraged reporting becauseof the connection to discipline Progress has been made andwill continue in this regard as management demonstrates aclear focus on system weaknesses rather than simply acqui-esce to human error It takes a while to change culture Takeit slow implement simple metrics and try not to implementtoo many metrics at once

Metrics Discarded and New Metrics Being ConsideredThe choice of which leading metrics are the most effec-

tive for an organization is expected to change over time forany number of good reasons including implementing effec-tive change so that the value of tracking the performance ofthat particular metric has diminished value

Revising Metrics Which Become ldquoHabit Strengthrdquo

Thirty three of the companies responded to the questionldquoDo you switch metrics after performance improves or theManagement System reaches lsquohabit strengthrsquordquo

Twelve of these companies responded yes and cited thefollowing reasons for doing so

Due to substantial improvements the earlier leading met-rics no longer represent areas where focus or improve-ment efforts were needed This was decided afterperiodic reviews of performance and prioritization effortsto identify the areas of higher need Some companies have evolved their leading metrics to

better focus on the issues While staying close to the origi-nal issue the emphasis may be changed to better alignwith an improved understanding of the underlying issuethat was intended to be addressed As performance improved on key metrics these metrics

are often moved to the background and others broughtforward for additional emphasis Even as this is done theold metrics often are continued to ensure that progress ismaintained Some leading metrics are used to help drive the manage-

ment system improvementsmdashfor instance early on there isoften an emphasis on data collection in a given topicarea Over time data collection improves and the metriccan be redirected at a related issue which is more indica-tive of the PSM performance As metric performance shows full implementation or com-

pliance these offer the opportunity to sunset these met-rics and implement others A few companies stated they dropped a few leading met-

rics because they did not see value in continuing to moni-tor that particular issuemetric

Those companies who have not yet changed their leadingmetrics (21) typically felt they were too early in the processto make changes rather were still gaining experience andassessing what the leading metrics were indicating

Discarding Metrics

Twenty eight companies responded to the questionregarding discarded metrics Twenty two stated that they hadnot discarded any metrics at this time but some metrics hadbeen de-emphasized since tracking had started

Six of the responding companies stated that they hadchanged their leading metrics and cited the following rea-sons for doing so

The initial metric was intended to be only useful over theshort-term to drive certain initiatives and when sufficientmomentum was attained the metric was intended to bechanged The metric was modified to make it more useful but the

underlying intent remained much the same Some metrics were found to have limited usefulness and

were of much less value than the effort to collect thedata

Discarded Leading Indicators

The following are metrics which the responding compa-nies have chosen to discard as they were not felt to lead toimproved performance

Fatigue Risk Management Number of MOCrsquos completed Maintenance Costs Number of contractor audits performed Number of audit findings Ratio of safety critical emergency work orders to total

work orders Average time to complete incident investigations Presence in PSM related committees


New Leading Indicators

Thirty three companies responded to the question regard-ing which leading indicators are being considered for thefuture Twenty nine stated that they were considering newmetrics

Of the companies who are considering new leading indi-cators some had very specific areas that they wanted tofocus on and others were vaguer

Specific examples included

Preventive Maintenance activities which reveal a deficiency Alarm management including nuisance alarms and dis-

abled alarms Senior leadership time in the field Measure the performance of Independent Protection Layers Reporting of Process Safety near misses PHA recommendation progress (number open number

closed time to closure) Fatigue risk management

Examples of less specific leading indicators which arebeing considered include

Process Safety Culture Tier 3 and Tier 4 metrics Improve the quality of the measures currently used Monitor procedures [quality] Incident investigation quality

In summary key metrics tend to be more dynamic forcompanies who have been collecting data longer as theyhave a better understanding of what metrics are important todrive the changes they want to effect Many of these compa-nies continue to collect data on their earlier metrics butoften will move these to the background as new metrics areadded to their portfolio

Companies with less experience are still learning how tocapture the data and assess if the data is providing meaning-ful information as such they tend to keep their initial set ofleading metrics

CONCLUSIONS

A high percentage of companies recognize the value inutilizing Leading Indicators to assist management in focusingengagement and efforts of the engineering and operationspersonnel Although the survey would indicate that industryis still ldquoexperimenting and discoveringrdquo as to which indica-tors make the most sense three different focus areas orapproaches were identified as most effective in improvingperformance These are as follows

PSM ComplianceFollow-up on actions across the spectrum of Process

Safety Management Systems




Process Safety Near Miss Reporting including fires Challenges to Safety Systems in general and specifically


Management EngagementPicking the most pertinent measures to your operation

and getting them in front of leadership including them inagendas of various operational reviews and ensuringaction

The survey indicates there is still work needed to assistcompanies to reach a better understanding of the definitionsintended for certain LIs to harmonize the understanding andusage Most of the companies responding indicated theyrolled their measures up into meaningful scorecards prompt-ing management action and reviewed with senior leader-ship in some cases all the way up to board members Mostalso published the data on internal review reports websitesand in newsletters for communication and action throughouttheir company

Needless to say it is essential to have managementinvolvement mentoring and conversation with employeesand support in implementation Leading Indicators by theirnature will tend to convey a negative connotation asweakness in Management Systems but if considered asopportunities for improvement they start to drive improve-ments As is the case with any company program seniormanagement support and commitment are essential for theimplementation and sustainability of a successful metricsprogram


FUTURE STEPS

The following activities are scheduled to continue thefocus on the development of leading indicators in the chemi-cal industry

Paper Presentation in the 9th Global Congress on ProcessSafety by the end of February Publication of the White Paper in CCPS website for

comments Communication to CCPS Member companies to adopt the

lead indicators and inform the list of indicators adoptedalong with the definitions and examples The members of this Project Team to share their own

company experiences in use of leading indicators The review to be included in the 2014 Global Congress

on Process Safety Biannual Survey from the CCPS members

APPENDIX A PROCESS SAFETY METRICS LEADING INDICATORSURVEY DATA

Process Safety Metrics Leading Indicator Survey Data canbe provided by contacting ccpsaicheorg


APPENDIX B NUMERIC DATALEADING INDICATORS USED IN FIGURE 2 [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue which is available atwileyonlinelibrarycom]

Leading IndicatorsNumber of Companies

Using Leading Indicators

1 Percentage of start-ups following plant changes where no safety problems relatedto the changes were encountered during recommissioning or start-up 5

2 Number of Extended Shifts 53 Length of time plant is in production with items of safety critical plant or equip-

ment in a failed state as identified by inspection or as a result of breakdown 74 Fatigue Risk Education 75 Procedures Clear Concise and Include Required Content 126 Percentage of audited changes that used the sitersquos MOC procedure prior to making

the change 137 Failure to follow proceduressafe working practices 138 Percentage Overtime 149 Percentage of audited MOCs that satisfied all aspects of the sitersquos MOC procedure 17

10 Training Competency Assessment 1711 Primary Containment Inspection or Testing Results Outside Acceptable Limits 1811 Activation of Mechanical Shutdown System 2013 Number of past due andor having approved extension of regulatory issue 2014 Safe Operating Limit Excursions 2115 Activation of a Safety Instrumented System 2416 Procedures Current and Accurate 2517 Training for Process Safety Management (PSM) Critical Positions 2618 Demands on Safety Systems 2719 Activation of Pressure Relief Device (PRD) Not Counted as a Process Safety Inci-

dent (PSI) or Loss of Primary Containment (LOPC) 2720 Number of outstanding incident investigation action items closed 2921 Number of inspections of safety critical items of plant and equipment due during

the measurement period and completed on time 3122 Number of past due andor having approved extension of PHA action items 3323 Number of past due andor having approved extension of audit action items 34

NOTE Tier 3 indicators shown in red Tier 4 indicators shown in blue


APPENDIX C PROCESS SAFETY METRICS SURVEY FORM





APPENDIX D ldquoPROCESS SAFETY LEADING ANDLAGGING METRICS YOU DONrsquoT KNOW WHATYOU DONrsquoT MEASURErdquo VC 2011

ldquoProcess Safety Leading and Lagging Metrics You DonrsquotKnow What You Donrsquot Measure [2]rdquo is available at the CCPSWebsite at httpwwwaicheorgsitesdefaultfilesdocsembedded-pdfCCPS_ProcessSafety2011_2ndash24-webpdf

LITERATURE CITED

1 CCPS Process Safety Leading and Lagging MetricsAICHE New York 2011 Available at httpwwwaicheorgccpsresourcesoverviewprocess-safety-metricsrecommended-process-safety-metrics Accessed 20September 2013

2 CCPS Process Safety Leading and Lagging MetricsAICHE New York 2011 Available at httpwwwaicheorgccpsresourcesoverviewprocess-safety-metricsrecommended-process-safety-metricsAccessed 20 September 2013


Darrell Loewe FormosaPlastics

DarrellLftpcfpcusacom

Steve Marwitz FormosaPlastics

SMarwitzftpcfpcusacom

Louisa A Nara CCPS lounaaicheorgTim Overton timoverton

hotmailcomJeff Philiph Monsanto jeffreyephiliph

monsantocomPhilip Rasch BASF Philiprasch

basfcomDaniel E Sliva CCPS slivacapitalnetKenan Stevick The Dow

ChemicalCompany

KPStevickdowcom

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this white paper is to provide an updateon the use direction and effectiveness of Process Safetyleading indicators in the Chemical Industries Leading Indica-tors are intended to help drive performance improvementand lead to reduction in the number and severity of processsafety incidents The information presented in this whitepaper was collected through a survey of CCPS member com-panies As the use of leading indicators is in its early stagesit is anticipated that this topic will continue to evolve Addi-tional surveys will be conducted and updates will be pub-lished periodically

A high percentage of companies recognize the value inutilizing Leading Indicators to assist management in focusingengagement and efforts of the engineering and operationspersonnel Although the survey would indicate that theindustry is still ldquoexperimenting and discoveringrdquo as to whichindicators make the most sense three different focus areasor approaches were identified as most effective in improvingperformance These are as follows

Process safety management (PSM) CompliancendashFollow-upon actions across the spectrum of Process Safety Manage-ment Systems Audit Corrective Actions Process hazard analysis (PHA) Actions Completion of Safety Critical Equipment Inspections or

Calibrations Management of change (MOC) Actions Unplanned Event Corrective or Preventive Actions

Learning Experiences and Management of Deviations Process Safety Near Miss Reporting including fires Challenges to Safety Systems in general and specifically

calling out Safety Instrumented Systems and ReliefDevice Activations

Management Engagementndashpicking the most pertinentmeasures to your operation and getting them in front ofleadership including them in agendas of various opera-tional reviews and ensuring action

The survey indicates there is still work needed to assistcompanies to reach a better understanding of the definitionsintended for certain leading indicators to harmonize theunderstanding and usage Most of the companies respondingindicated they rolled their measures up into meaningfulscorecards prompting management action and reviewedwith senior leadership in some cases all the way up toboard members Most also published the data on internalreview reports websites and in newsletters for communica-tion and action throughout their company

Needless to say it is essential to have managementinvolvement mentoring and conversation with employees

and support in implementation Leading Indicators by theirnature will tend to convey a negative connotation as weak-ness in Management Systems but if considered as opportuni-ties for improvement they start to drive improvements As isthe case with any company program senior managementsupport and commitment are essential for the implementa-tion and sustainability of a successful metrics program


INTRODUCTION PROJECT PURPOSE AND SCOPE

As outlined in the CCPS Process Safety Leading and Lag-ging Metrics publication an essential element of anyimprovement program is the measure of existing and futureperformance Therefore to continuously improve upon pro-cess safety performance it is essential that companies in thechemical and petroleum industries implement effective lead-ing and lagging process safety metrics

The purpose of this white paper is to provide an updateon the Chemical Industries use direction and effectivenessof leading indicators and to provide recommended leadingindicators to help drive performance improvement and leadto reduction in the number and severity of process safetyincidents As the use of leading indicators is in its earlystages it is anticipated that this topic will continue to evolveAdditional surveys will be conducted and updates will bepublished periodically

This white paper summarizes the respondentrsquos surveyinput

Which leading indicators companies are currently utilizingand are finding most effective in driving performanceobjectives Identification of barriers during implementation Strategies used to overcome barriers in the

implementation

This white paper began with a project to perform a broadsurvey of chemical companiesrsquo use of leading metric in orderto determine

Commonalities of approach Areas of potential difference Good practices worthy of consideration and Areas needing Improvement

The anticipated end result of this project is an ongoingupdate of Member Companysrsquo journey on the effective use ofLeading Indicators for this initial report and subsequent reports

BACKGROUND

Chemical Process Safety Indicators are generally brokendown into the following categories

ldquoLaggingrdquo Metrics1mdasha retrospective set of metrics that arebased on incidents that meet the threshold of severity thatshould be reported as part of the industry-wide processsafety metric

ldquoChallenges to Safety Systems Near Missrdquo and other inter-nal Lagging Metrics1mdashthe description of less severe incidents(ie below the threshold for inclusion in the industry lag-ging metric) or unsafe conditions which activated one ormore layers of protection Although these events are actualevents (ie a ldquolaggingrdquo metric) they are generally consideredto be a good indicator of conditions which could ultimatelylead to a more severe incident

ldquoLeadingrdquo Metrics1mdasha forward looking set of metricswhich indicate the performance of the key work processesoperating discipline or layers of protection that preventincidents






DATA SUMMARY








PSM Compliance






















Introduction



CommitmentSupport


Resources





Definitions


Data Collection


















Discarding Metrics






















CONCLUSIONS














FUTURE STEPS





























LITERATURE CITED








DATA SUMMARY








PSM Compliance






















Introduction



CommitmentSupport


Resources





Definitions


Data Collection


















Discarding Metrics






















CONCLUSIONS














FUTURE STEPS





























LITERATURE CITED










Introduction



CommitmentSupport


Resources





Definitions


Data Collection


















Discarding Metrics






















CONCLUSIONS














FUTURE STEPS





























LITERATURE CITED





Definitions


Data Collection


















Discarding Metrics






















CONCLUSIONS














FUTURE STEPS





























LITERATURE CITED















CONCLUSIONS














FUTURE STEPS





























LITERATURE CITED























LITERATURE CITED











LITERATURE CITED









LITERATURE CITED








LITERATURE CITED







LITERATURE CITED






LITERATURE CITED




Date post:	03-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	shakeel
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times

Process safety leading indicators survey-February 2013: Center for chemical process safety-white...

Documents