Process safety common lead metrics: implementing and learning

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.