(33c) Using Data-Based Indicators to Improve Process Safety Performance

Using Data-based Indicators to Improve Process Safety Performance

Erin P. Collins and Paul J. Amico

JENSEN HUGHES

Performance indicators (also referred to as performance
metrics) have proven to be the key to successful performance-based management. They
establish clear goals for objectively measuring achievement of program
objectives without constraining the performer with prescriptive requirements,
allowing the performer to take ownership of the approach to achieving those
goals.

Even if a more prescriptive approach is taken for
requirements, performance indicators (PIs) measure whether meeting those
requirements is delivering the desired performance.  PI programs vary greatly in scope.  Initially used almost exclusively for
measuring safety performance, they are now often used to measure all aspects of
operational performance as part of continuous process improvement programs,
such as Six Sigma.

The application of PIs to the safe operation of nuclear
power production reactors was initiated in October 1997 by the American Society
for Quality, leading to a document issued in 1999 that recommended “the
implementation…of selected basic leading PIs… in three cross-cutting issues
[of] problem identification and resolution, safety conscious(ness in the) work
environment, and human performance.” 
Consistent with the ASQ effort, initial guidance for the Performance
Indicator program used by the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) production
reactors at Hanford and Savannah River, was issued in 1992.  This program has since been developed further
by the Training Resources and Data Exchange (TRADE) special interest group for
both the DOE and the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs into a handbook
of techniques and tools for performance measurement. This effort was extended
still further into a performance metrics manual developed by Westinghouse
Savannah River Company for the Energy Facility Contractors Group (EFCOG), which
includes a data dictionary with suggested and required performance metrics for
submittal to DOE Headquarters. 

Color thresholds are often used to characterize performance
– such as green, white, yellow, red by the nuclear industry– and signify
increasing degradation of safety.   For
example, the DOE performance reporting process utilizes the following standard
colors and definitions:

Blue: “Outstanding” - Performance which significantly
exceeds expectations.

Green: “Good” - Performance which meets or exceeds
expectations. Generally requires only normal management attention to maintain
performance.

Yellow: “Marginal”. Yellow can be used to denote either of
two conditions:

• Borderline or declining performance, which needs increased management attention and resources to achieve desired performance or to reverse a negative trend.
• Acceptable performance that relies on a set of conditions which could change and quickly send performance into the “Red” category.

The authors conducted an independent evaluation of
safety-related PIs for a client with several sites involved in processing
chemicals and waste streams. The following five key focus areas of safety
performance indicators were identified as a result of research conducted into
the topic:

·      
Personnel Safety

·      
Public Safety

·      
Emergency Preparedness

·      
Physical Protection

·      
Safety Culture

This paper will discuss the process used to identify
candidate safety performance indicators and underlying data requirements for each
of these five focus areas.