Process Safety Kpi

14,276 views

Published on

Process Safety Kpi

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
14,276
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
88
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
869
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Process Safety Kpi

  1. 1. Process Safety KPI’s Determination based on the Bow Tie methodology Arthur Groot 04 februari 2014
  2. 2. From HAZARD to HARM 04 februari 2014
  3. 3. Methodology and key-elements Identification and monitoring KPI’s   C-level   BU-level  Plant en site management 04 februari 2014     Bottom-up approach Direct connection between safety management system and risks Compliance with legislation (Seveso II), HSG 254 methodology and CCPS Identification of relevant KPI’-s process safety by using BowTiemethodology Dedicated Bow-Tie software Mandate and commitment Training programs ISO 31000 Approach in 4 phases
  4. 4. Approach in 4 phases to determine the KPI’s for process safety 1. 2. 3. 4. Identification and scoping (setting up BowTie’s) Analysis of barriers and selection of KPI’s (leading and lagging) Set-up criteria and reporting of KPI’s Evaluation and review 04 februari 2014
  5. 5. Phase 1: identification  Setting-up BowTie’s in 12 steps at operational installation level by using the following reports:  HAZOP/HAZID’s  Safety reports (Seveso II)  SIL/LOPA assesments  FMECA analysis Result: a set of barriers including escalation factor control 04 februari 2014
  6. 6. Phase 2, Key Performance Indicators  Starting point: “You don’t improve what you don’t measure”  Indicators:   Leading indicators: “performance of barriers before the consequence” Lagging indicators: “number of near misses or the consequences itself” 04 februari 2014
  7. 7. Phase 2, analysis of barriers and selection of KPI’s   Selection of KPI’s, leading (barriers), max. 1 per threat or consequence line and lagging (consequences) Connecting barriers (KPI’s) to business model (safety management system) 04 februari 2014
  8. 8. Phase 3, Set-up criteria and reporting of KPI’s   Setting up PR (performance requirements) for the KPI’s,. the FISM (Functionality, Integrity, Survivability and Management) methodology Setting-up PS (performance standards) for (KPI’s) defining grades, scoring and assessment criteria 04 februari 2014
  9. 9. Performance requirements     Functionality  definition the expected task(s) Integrity  definition of the reliability of the barrier Survivability  describes the barrier during an incident Management  description of the processes, activities, procedures, competences to control the barrier 04 februari 2014
  10. 10. Performance standard  Grades, scoring methods & assessment criteria Effectiveness of barrier Condition of barrier is very bad Condition of barrier is bad Performance criteria Design i.e procedure not updated last 4 years i.e. procedure not updated last 2 years Condition of barrier is good Etc. Condition of barrier is very good Etc. Very Good 04 februari 2014 Good Moderate Etc. Etc. i.e.producedure Operational Etc. Condition of barrier is moderate Integrity Not audited on performance Not audited in the last year Not audited this year Etc. Not trained operators Operator trained not in last 2 years Operators trained last year Bad Very Bad
  11. 11. Phase 3, integration of Key Performance Indicators Generic KPI’s related to management systems  Percentage of completed HSE audits  Implementation of lesson learned TRIPOD investigations (progress)  Validation of procedures for operational and maintenance tasks (progress is parameter)  Percentage of underperforming operational documents noticed during (HSE) audits  Job-specific trained personal (percentage)  Etc. 04 februari 2014
  12. 12. Phase 3, integration Performance Indicators process safety Related to technical integrity  Percentage of completed tests according to schedule (software, safety relief valves, pressurized tanks, fire fighting equipment, etc.)  Combination of completed test and percentage of tested equipment that pass/fail the test  Status of follow-up actions from risk analyses such as HAZOP’s;  Number of risk analyses executed according to schedule (HAZOP, SIL, LOPA, etc.)  Number of (un)controled releases/emissions/spills  Etc. 04 februari 2014
  13. 13. Phase 4, Start reporting, evaluation and review     Starting with risk optimization Starting improvement cycle (Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle) Transparency check Integrating incident data for risk management 04 februari 2014
  14. 14. Phase 4, ‘live’ data of the (HSE) management system into the Bow-Tie Management System 04 februari 2014
  15. 15. Phase 4: reporting levels process safety  C-level BU-level Plant en site management 04 februari 2014 Summary of CCPS standard (based on information form BowTie level)  Summary level from BowTie level, e.g. CCPS examples (based on information form BowTie level)  BowTie Level
  16. 16. Conclusions KPI’s    Bottom-up approach Identification of relevant KPI’-s (process) safety by using BowTie- methodology Compliance with (HSE) legislation. i.e. (Seveso II), HSG 254 methodology (HSE) and meets criteria set by CCPS 04 februari 2014
  17. 17. Services Royal HaskoningDHV Policy and strategy Culture •Development of Environment & Safety Policy •Corporate Environment Plan •Stakeholder Analysis •Carbon Capture and Storage •REACH and GHS •Corporate Social Responsibility •Carbon Trading •Policy on the Prevention of Serious Accidents •Energy •SHWE growth model (based on Hearts and Minds) •Safety culture scan •Incident analysis (TRIPOD) •Management system audits •Compliance Audits Organization and processes •Environmental Management Systems •Safety Management Systems •Occupational Health Management Systems •HSE Risk Management •Interim HSE Management •Training and Coaching •Environmental and Sustainability Reporting •Process safety management 04 februari 2014 Compliance •Environmental impact assessment (EIA) •Environmental permitting •Safety Report •Fire Report •QRA/external Safety •EIA •Emission studies •Noise/odor dispersion studies •IPPC studies HSE engineering •Safety Case •HAZID and HAZOP •ENVID •Fire Protection Analyses •QRA, IRPA •Technical Safety Review •Process Hazard Analysis •Hazard Consequence Modeling •Asset integrity studies (SIL, IPF and LOPA) •Reliability, Availability & Maintainability Studies (RAMS) •FME(C)A studies •BowTie Risk Analyses •Escape, Evacuation & Rescue Analysis (EERA)

×