Process Safety KPI’s

Determination based on the

Bow Tie methodology

Arthur Groot04 februari 2014

04 februari 2014

From HAZARD to HARM

04 februari 2014

Methodology and key-elements Identification and monitoring KPI’s

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 BowTie- methodology

Dedicated Bow-Tie software

Mandate and commitment Training programs ISO 31000 Approach in 4 phases

Plant en site management

C-level

BU-level

04 februari 2014

Approach in 4 phases to determine the KPI’s for process safety

1. Identification and scoping (setting up BowTie’s)

2. Analysis of barriers and selection of KPI’s (leading and lagging)

3. Set-up criteria and reporting of KPI’s4. Evaluation and review

04 februari 2014

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

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

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

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

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

Performance standard

Grades, scoring methods & assessment criteria

Very Good Good Moderate Bad Very Bad

Effectiveness of barrier Performance criteria  Design Integrity Operational

Condition of barrier is very bad  i.e procedure not updated last 4 years

 Not audited on performance  Not trained operators

Condition of barrier is bad  i.e. procedure not updated last 2 years

 Not audited in the last year

 Operator trained not in last 2 years

Condition of barrier is moderate  i.e.producedure  Not audited this year

Operators trained last year

Condition of barrier is good  Etc.Etc. Etc.

Condition of barrier is very good Etc.Etc. Etc.

04 februari 2014

Phase 3, integration ofKey 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

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.

Phase 3, integration Performance Indicators process safety

04 februari 2014

Phase 4, Start reporting, evaluationand review

Starting with risk optimization Starting improvement cycle (Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle) Transparency check Integrating incident data for risk management

04 februari 2014

Phase 4, ‘live’ data of the (HSE) management system into the Bow-Tie

Management System

04 februari 2014

Phase 4: reporting levels process safety

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 LevelPlant en site management

C-level

BU-level

04 februari 2014

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

Policy and strategy•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

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

Culture• SHWE growth model (based

on Hearts and Minds)• Safety culture scan• Incident analysis (TRIPOD)•Management system audits•Compliance Audits

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)

Services Royal HaskoningDHV