This paper shares risk management experience to the process of critical scenarios and will emphasize the role of corporate governance and leaders in performance and high-risk management scenarios. The paper will outline the relationship between industry and the leader in Health and Safety and line leaders in promoting and developing the criteria, concepts and practical application of process safety management and leadership for senior executives within the industry.
While we have seen degrees of fluctuation among the top strategic objectives for improving EHS performance among the manufacturers surveyed, a few things are clear. Improving operational performance continues to be the top objective for bolstering EHS performance. Achieving sustained regulatory compliance is also a key driver, and that aligns well with many of the motivations to improve product compliance and, ultimately, product stewardship.
1.1 EHS leaders in manufacturing continue to focus on operational performance and regulatory compliance
1.2 Industry Challenges to Improving EHS Performance
Outside of industry drivers, on the other side of the coin there are top challenges in achieving EHS objectives. Here, there is a different story, but one that aligns with the objectives discussed in the previous section. For instance, ranking highly is poor collaboration across departments—something seen as a regular issue throughout enterprise management programs, be it Asset Performance Management (APM), Quality Management, Manufacturing Operations Management (MOM), and more. In addition, connecting disparate management programs to achieve common goals despite different high-level operational objectives continues to present a problem for manufacturers. All this is in spite of the fact-improved collaboration between departments will ultimately help businesses achieve universal enterprise objectives. Second is the need to provide clear return-on-investment (ROI) objectives for improvement. So not only is there the need to improve interdepartmental collaboration to achieve EHS objectives, manufacturers need to establish bottom-line value for senior and department-level leadership to motivate them to aspire towards achieving those objectives. There is value here in integrating EHS and Operational Excellence into enterprise and operational models across departments and establishing value within those approaches. However, if poor collaboration across departments is identified as an issue within individual enterprise performance alone, it can only be imagined how it would manifest across the supply base, where it is arguably just as essential, especially in regards to challenges discussed later in this eBook.
1.3 Analyzing potential actions that leaders can do to process safety culture development
Once it is understood that only a progressive EHS management program intrinsically tied to overall Operational Excellence goals will help manufacturers achieve compliance with regulatory requirements, minimize the costs associated with negative events (including supplier failures and noncompliance), and boost brand perception, businesses need to take the next logical steps in order to improve their performance in this regard. Some initial considerations include :
COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE ORGANIZATION
2.1 Governance of Process Safety Who needs to know what?
Analyzing the recommendations above related to information and what has to be manager by leaders and other functions, stimulate HES leaders to propose the HES management process be done by strategic, tactic and operational committees in order to have a systemic approach for these themes.
2.2 Active Monitoring of Critical Controls
Simple and objective controls that will assure better results for leaders, workers and environmental.
REAL CASE – IMPROVING PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
• The acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for ones actions and decisions;
• Being answerable for the results of ones actions and decisions;
• Doing the right thing.
• Beliefs and Values;
• Clarity of Purpose;
• Defined Roles & Responsibilities;
• Empowerment & Ownership;
Improving Personal Accountability
• Procedures and Programs Alone are not Sufficient;
• Employees must Possess the Skills to Safeguard Themselves and Fellow Employees;
• Each Employee must Continuously Challenge and Test Work and the Work Environment.
• Inconsistent Actions and Message;
• Value Placed on Safety Fluctuates;
• Limited Involvement “Only a few rowing the boat”;
• Performance Evaluation is not Aligned to Desired Outcomes;
• Fear and/or Incentives;
• Excessive Reliance on HSE, Committees and Employee Task Forces;
• Limited or Non-existent Measurement;
• Roles and Responsibilities are not Clearly Defined;
• Limited Coaching and Mentoring; •
Poor MOC of Personnel.
ACCEPTANCE OF PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Definitions of Discipline
• Instruction, to train or develop;
• A subject that is taught;
• Training that corrects or perfects;
• Control through obedience or order;
• Prescribed conduct or pattern of behavior;
• Rules that govern activity;
• Reward or punishment.
Types of Discipline
• Positive: Positive reinforcement, acknowledgement of a job well done, etc.
• Negative: With holding of positive, lack of acknowledgement, etc.
• Punitive/Punishment: Progressive discipline process, seldom learning specific, etc.
The Project was divided into 4 Phases:
A sampling of Major Hazard Scenarios were identified for each site, logistics installations, terminals, and transportation facilities. For America sites, this sampling was conducting in conjunction with the 2011 diagnosis audits with the source data being PHA HAZOP/LOPA.
For each scenario, the preventive and mitigating barriers were identified and assessed for integrity resulting in a % conformance.
Develop a Site Action Plan for the Recommendations of the Phase 2 Report:
– Owner: Site Leader
– Site Lead: TBD by Site Leader
– Required Site Resources: Safety Lead, Process Safety Engineer, DCS Engineers, Maintenance & Reliability Engineers, Process Engineers
– Required BU Support
– Timing: Complete Action Plan
– Deliverable: Communicate Action Plan to Industrials Team
In phase 1, were asked the following main information from each plant:
– Risk Studies (qualitative and quantitative) in the units in the last 5 years;
– If there are no studies in the last 5 years, previous studies;
– Process flow diagram of the plant;
– Inventory list of products;
– Layout of the units;
– Aerial photos with the region around the unit;
– PMP scenario.
In Second Phase – Identification and Evaluation of Barriers Integrity
– For each scenario defined previously, the protection and mitigation barriers will be identified, through studies of risk information and validation with the teams of the plants involved;
– The Audit of Barriers methodology applied will be used for monitoring the condition of each barrier, proposing recommendations to improve the barrier integrity condition, if necessary;
– It will set a frequency for monitoring of these barriers, for keeping the integrity of them. If necessary LOPA and SIL studies can be applied to better support these settings;
– In the monitoring phase, the recommendations generated in risk studies will also be evaluated, regarding the status of implementation;
– For the scenarios, which have their barriers audited in less than one year, only the status of recommendations will be evaluated.
In Third Phase – Strategic Governance for Major Hazard Scenarios
– Information and indicators will be established to be used for monitoring the condition of the scenarios, considering the different processes of governance, defined in the element 02, the organizational synergy (plant, the industrial unit and the Executive Committee);
– The frequency of monitoring, form of governance and information flow will be set.
In Fourth Phase – Quantitative Studies
Prepare, or complement, quantitative studies of the units, so for the units in which there is no complete or recent study, in the selection of scenarios included in the previous steps will be validated / added the new scenarios identified.
– For road transport: the calculation will be done for up to 30 scenarios, each one defined by product and location of leakage;
– For pipelines: the calculation will be done for up to 10 different points of leakage;
– For processing plants and terminals: accidental scenarios which have potential to achieve residential or industrial areas, outside fans, with effect of 1% fatality or lower flammable limit, will be included.
Initially the LOPA study must be applied for all PHRs (Potential High Risk Scenarios) identified in the plant, complementing the other scenarios, as requirements of Risk Matrix and Five-Year Plan.
After this project, the process safety and HES committees changes the way of manage and redesign leaders and employees responsibilities related to process safety and preventive culture.
CONCLUSION AND HIGHLIGHTS
Senior leaders, including the company’s senior operating committee, where applicable, monitor process safety performance. Routine evaluation of process safety management systems, independent of regulatory audits, is performed to confirm that desired results are achieved, using appropriate leading and lagging indicators. Results are reviewed at planned intervals to determine progress against process safety performance expectations and to take
action to improve performance when needed.
Some specific recommendations to improve PSM:
- Leadership and all other people directly involved with clear focus on Process Safety;
- Emergency system well maintained with clear routines;
- Identified clear routines and procedures to develop risk assessment, considering the use of LOPA, and quantitative risk analysis, aligned with corporate risk matrix;
- Implementation of mechanical integrity process helping the units to prioritize activities and systems.
About the author:
Américo Diniz Carvalho Neto – Executive Director at RSE Consulting Group