API Process Safety Indicators

Presentation to:
OGP - Asset Integrity
Key Performance Indicators Workshop
September 8, 2009
Presented by: Ed Spoelker, Marathon

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 1

U.S. Chemical Safety Board’s
Recommendation to API & USW

“Work together to develop two new consensus

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
standards. In the first standard, create
performance indicators for process safety in the
refinery and petrochemical industries. Ensure that
the standard identifies leading and lagging
indicators for nationwide public reporting as well as
indicators for use at individual facilities. Include
methods for the development and use of the
performance indicators.”
1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 2
API’s Three-Phase Project
•
Phase 1 -- began in June 2006 and was designed to
identify a key lagging process safety indicator that
could be aggregated and reported on an industry-wide
basis (data collection began with 2008 data)
•
Phase 2 -- began in November 2007 with an industry
effort that focused on leading process safety
indicators (the work somewhat carried into phase 3,
the ANSI standards phase)
•
Phase 3 -- began in July 2009 with the kick off of the
ANSI team, a multi-stakeholder process, whose work
is to define both lagging and leading Process Safety
indicators.

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 3

Phase 1 -- Lagging PS Indicator
•
In December 2007, API published a “Guide to
Measure Process Safety Performance Indicators “
•
The Guide defines a reportable Process Safety
Incident (PSI) lagging indicator and focused on
refining and chemical plants
–
January 1, 2008—Companies were asked to
collect PSI data to report to API
–
First report from API with this 2008 data was
issued earlier this year
•
General agreement and alignment among API,
CCPS, NPRA and ACC

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 4

API Process Safety Incident (PSI)
A loss of primary containment (LOPC) resulting in
one or more of the following:
•
Fatality or days away from work case or 3rd party
hospital admission
•
Fire and/or explosion that causes $25 K in direct
costs
•
Acute release of:
–
Flammable or combustible liquids
–
Flammable gas or vapor
–
Toxic gas, vapor or aerosol

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 5

Phase 2 – Leading PS Indicators
Key Attributes
•
Few, Simple and Well Defined – few in number, easy
to understand, and indicating a symptom or condition
based upon observable phenomena
•
Useful – data should be valuable to multiple
stakeholders and allow internal and external
benchmarking
•
Ample Data – sufficient number of events to be useful
for continuous improvement
•
Alignment – where possible, align with recent
publications on industry metrics (e.g., CCPS, UK HSE)

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 6

Safety Incident Pyramid Applied to
Process Safety •
Depicts the relationship between
the incident severity and frequency
•
Top of the pyramid indicators are
more “lagging” or outcome / results
oriented
•
Bottom of the pyramid indicators
are more “leading” or predictive in
nature
•
Lower tiers of the pyramid are
“leading” indicators of performance
at higher tiers, resulting in a
continuum of leading and lagging
indicators

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 7

 Top Tier – Reportable PSE (Generally in place 1/1/08)
•
Main Use: Industry level lagging indicator (trending, etc.)
•
Reportable Process Safety Incident – per definition in API
Guide. A loss of primary containment (New ANSI definition
will vary slightly):
–
Fatality or days away from work case or 3rd party hospital
admission
–
Fire and/or explosion that causes $25 K in direct costs
–
Acute release of:
•
Flammable or combustible liquids
•
Flammable gas or vapor
•
Toxic gas, vapor or aerosol

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 8

 2nd Tier – Other LOPC
•
Main Use: Facility level indicator (Lagging and leading)
•
An unplanned or uncontrolled loss of primary
containment with a consequence severity approximately
an order of magnitude lower than that of an API
Reportable PSI.
–
An employee, contractor, or sub-contractor OSHA
recordable injury
–
Any unintended fire resulting from a loss of primary
containment in process areas
–
An acute release (less than one hour) of
approximately 10% of the reportable PSI threshold

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 9

3rd Tier – Near Miss
(Challenge to Safety Systems)

•
Main Use: Internal reporting leading indicator

•
An event or set of conditions that did not result in a

LOPC, but could have under slightly different
circumstances. There are two primary examples:
–
Demand on Safety Systems
–
Process Deviations or Excursions

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 10

3rd Tier – Near Miss -- EXAMPLES
Demand on Safety System
Activation of Safety System intended to protect against LOPC events

•
Pressure Relief Device release (e.g. Pressure Relief Valves; Rupture

Discs; Deflagration Vents; Explosion Suppression Systems; Over-
speed Trip Linkages)

•
Safety Instrumented System challenge (e.g. Critical Elements of

Burner Management Systems; Emergency Depressurization Systems;
Emergency Reactor Quench Systems; Compressor Anti-surge
protection Systems; Vibration detection and shutdown Systems; High
Integrity Pressure Protection Systems (HIPPS); Automated Low
Temperature Trip Systems that protect against brittle fracture).

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 11

3rd Tier – Near Miss -- EXAMPLES
Safe Operating Envelope Exceedance
Operating Envelope Excursions

•
Exceeding Alarm limits on tube metal temperature

•
Exceeding High Priority High Level Alarms on tanks and vessels
•
Activation of Pre-alarms on Minimum Safe Operating Temperatures
•
Activation of Rotating equipment vibration high priority pre-alarms
•
Operation of piping / vessels below minimum wall thickness required for
design pressure containment
•
Operation of process streams outside pH limits set to prevent excessive
corrosion rates

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 12

4th Tier – Protective Barriers
•
Main Use: Site-specific Indicators (Internal
Reporting)
•
Measures to ensure that safety protection layers
and operating discipline are being maintained.
•
Provide guidance on the selection and
implementation of quantitative leading protective
barrier indicators such as
–
Mechanical Integrity (% Inspections overdue)
–
Safety Critical Device (PM compliance)
–
Competency (% Required Training completed)
–
Management Of Change (% of MOC that meet
requirements)

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 13

Phase 3 – ANSI Standard Process
Began again, with an expanded, multi-stakeholder
team. And again identified Key attributes valued for
our indicators which aligned with previous work:
•
Few, Simple and Well Defined – few in number, easy to
understand, and indicating a symptom or condition based
upon observable phenomena
•
Useful – data should be valuable to multiple stakeholders and
allow internal and external benchmarking
•
Ample Data – sufficient number of events to be useful for
continuous improvement
•
Alignment – where possible, align with recent publications on
industry metrics (e.g., CCPS, UK HSE)

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 14

Safety Incident Pyramid Applied to
Process Safety
•
Top of the pyramid indicators
are more “lagging” or
Tier 1
outcome / results oriented
LOPC Events of
Significant
Consequence •
Bottom of the pyramid
Tier 2 indicators are more “leading”
or predictive in nature
LOPC Events of Minor
Consequence
•
Lower tiers of the pyramid are
Tier 3 “leading” indicators of
Challenges to Safety Systems and performance at higher tiers,
LOPC Events with Minimal Consequence resulting in a continuum of
Tier 4
leading and lagging indicators
Operating Discipline & Management System
Performance Indicators

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 15

DRAFT ANSI Tier 1 Performance Indicator—
Process Safety Event (T-1 PSE) - Overview

An unplanned or uncontrolled release of any material, whether or not on the UNDGL (e.g.,
steam, hot condensate or compressed air) from a process which results in one or more of
the consequences listed below:

–
An employee, contractor or subcontractor days away from work injury and/or fatality,
or
–
Hospital admission and/or fatality of a third-party; or
–
Officially declared community evacuation or community shelter-in-place; or
–
Fires or explosions resulting in greater than or equal to $25,000 of direct cost to the
Company; or
–
A pressure relief device discharge to atmosphere greater than the threshold quantities
described in Table 2 that:
•
contained liquid carryover; or
•
was discharged to an unsafe location; or
•
resulted in an on-site shelter-in-place or process area evacuation; or
•
resulted in public protective measures (e.g., road closure); or
–
An acute release of material greater than the chemical release threshold quantities
described in Table 2.

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 16

DRAFT ANSI Tier 2 Performance Indicator –
Process Safety Events (T-2 PSE) - Overview
An unplanned or uncontrolled release of any material whether or not on the UNDGL (e.g.,
steam, hot condensate or compressed air) from a process that results in one or more of the
consequences listed below and is not reported in Tier 1:

–
Any employee, contractor or subcontractor recordable injury; or

–
Any fire or explosion; or
–
A relief device discharge to atmosphere greater than the threshold quantities described in
Table 3 that:
•
contained liquid carryover; or
•
was discharged to an unsafe location; or
•
resulted in an on-site shelter-in-place or process area evacuation; or
•
resulted in public protective measures (e.g., road closure); or
–
A relief device discharge, greater than the threshold quantity in Table 2 in Section 6, to a
downstream destructive device that does not function as intended resulting in::
•
liquid carryover; or
•
unsafe release; or
•
an on-site shelter-in-place or process area evacuation; or
•
public protective measures (e.g., road closure); or
–
An acute release of flammable, combustible, toxic or corrosive chemicals from primary
containment greater than the chemical release threshold quantities described in Table 3.

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 17

DRAFT ANSI Tier 3 Performance Indicators –
Challenges to Safety Systems - Overview
Examples of Tier 3 PSEs – Not intended to be collected
(Committee work in progress)
•
Safe Operating Limit Excursions
•
Unanticipated Primary Containment Inspection or Testing
Result
•
Demands on Safety Systems
–
Activation of Safety Instrumented System
–
Activation of Mechanical Shutdown System
–
Activation of Pressure Relief Device Not Counted as
Tier 1 or Tier 2
•
De Minimis LOPC Events

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 18

DRAFT ANSI Tier 4 Performance Indicators –
Operating Discipline & Management System -
Overview
Examples of Tier 4 PSEs - Not intended to be collected
(Committee work in progress)
•
Process Hazard Evaluations Completion
•
Process Safety Action Item Closure
•
Training Completed on Schedule
•
Procedures Current and Accurate
•
Work Permit Compliance
•
Safety Critical Equipment Inspection
•
Safety Critical Equipment Deficiency Management
•
Management of Change (MOC) and Pre-start-up Safety
Review (PSSR) Compliance
•
Completion of Emergency Response Drills
•
Fatigue Risk Management

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 19

Path Forward
Phase 1
•
Evaluate lagging data collected for 2008 and issue
the first report in 2009. Continue data collection…..
Phase 2
•
Served as a technical resource to the industry reps
on the ANSI committee….
Phase 3 - ANSI Process
•
Draft to be turned over to API for editing and
formatting to make it ready for balloting and
publication (October 2009). The intentions are to
have industry groups collect only Tier I and Tier II
data

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 20

Please note that API standards based on the ANSI process have
yet to be finalized and may be modified, therefore content in this
slide pack may change, particularly Slides 16-19.
If your company would like an update on progress of the API
standards process, please contact either person below.
Ed Spoelker
[email protected]
+1-713-296-1939
or
Karen M. Haase
[email protected]
+1-202-682-8478

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 21