Process safety common lead metrics: implementing and learning
Steven FogartyQuadrant Energy.
The APPEA Journal 56(2) 544-544 https://doi.org/10.1071/AJ15050
Published: 2016
Abstract
No matter which major accident event investigation is looked into, some common themes concerning the requirements for process safety metrics present themselves. For example, the recent Macondo investigation by the US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) examined both API 754 and IOGP 456, and re-iterated that metrics need to be developed to capture the health of barriers and management systems. The effectiveness of barriers and management systems needs to be assessed, as does the frequency that these barriers are being called upon to make sure that the risk is being properly managed.
Both API 754 and IOGP 456 use the four-tier system, where the top two tiers are lagging, and tiers three and four are more leading. Both standards focus on reporting and benchmarking the lagging metrics; however, the selection of leading metrics is left to be determined by individual companies.
Recent work completed by the IChemE Safety Centre (ISC) focuses on these leading metrics, but takes a different approach by developing a suite of 21 common lead metrics that allows for developments to occur. By having common metrics across companies and across industries, ISC and its member companies are at the groundbreaking point where benchmarking and identification of best practice can begin. APPEA is leading the charge with a unanimous agreement by the CEOs at the April CEO meeting to implement the common lead metrics across the APPEA companies.
Quadrant Energy is well underway with its journey, and this extended abstract discusses the process being undertaken to commence reporting on all 21 of these process safety common lead metrics.
Steve Fogarty has spent the past five years as the Assets Engineering Manager for Quadrant Energy, the newly formed company that has taken-over ownership of Apache’s previously owned Australian assets. With 20 years’ experience working in operational, engineering and project roles, Steve oversees the asset integrity of the Varanus Island, Devil Creek, Stag and Ningaloo vision assets. With an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering from the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Steve also has an MBA in technology management from La Trobe University. He has been heavily involved with functional safety engineering, having received CFSE and FSEng qualifications. Steve is a committee member of STFS, and a founding board member of the IChemE Safety Centre, as well as project sponsor of the recently published Lead Process Safety Metrics – Selecting, Tracking and Learning. |
References
American Petroleum Institute (API), 2010—Recommended practice (RP) 754, process safety performance indicators for the refining and petrochemical industries. Washington, D.C.: API.Appea and Stand Together For Safety Initiative, 2016—Process safety: who’s responsible – a good practice guide – 2016. Perth: APPEA and Stand Together for Safety Initiative.
Center For Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 2007—Process safety leading and lagging metrics… you don’t improve what you don’t measure. New York: CCPS.
Gomez, M.R., 2012—Summary of CSB evaluation of ANSI/API recommended practice 754. Presentation at CSB Public Hearing on Process Safety Indicators, Houston, Texas, 23 July.
Health and Safety Executive, 2006—Developing process safety indicators: a step-by-step guide for chemical and major hazard industries. Series code HSG254. Surrey: Health and Safety Executive.
Institution of Chemical Engineers (ICHEME) Safety Centre, 2014—Process safety and the ISC. Published June 2014. Melbourne: IChemE Safety Centre.
Institution of Chemical Engineers (ICHEME) Safety Centre, 2015—Lead process safety metrics – selecting, tracking and learning 2015. Melbourne: IChemE Safety Centre.
International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, 2011—Process safety – recommended practice on key performance indicators. Report number 456, November 2011. London: OGP.
Reason, J., 1997—Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
U.S. Chemical Safety Board, 2016—Drilling rig explosion and fire at the Macondo well. Volume 1–4. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Chemical Safety Board.
