15.1Drivers for Improvement
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been established for the AI-PSM programme within PDO. AI-PSM KPIs consist of:
A set of KPIs defined by Operational and Functional Leadership, collected on a uniform basis at all assets (Corporate KPIs).
Any additional asset-specific KPIs targeted at the key risks of that asset.
Typical AI-PSM KPIs include:
Number of Process Safety incidents reported YTD.
Number of Process Safety near misses reported YTD.
Percentage compliance with Level 2/3 audit schedule.
Number of deviations/non-compliance with PTW discovered during worksite visits (in the quarter).
Number of approved waivers, forces and safeguarding overrides in place.
Safety Critical Element corrective maintenance compliance.
Safety Critical Element preventive maintenance compliance.
Number of overdue actions arising from Process Safety studies (HAZOP, OBRA, FERM, TI-HBV, PSBR, Incident investigations, LEVEL 1/2/3 AI-PSM audits, PSUA).
Number of SCEs that failed to meet Performance Standard (per quarter).
15.2Remedial Actions
Action items can be raised during compilation of a new HSE Case or review and update of an existing HSE Case. These areas for improvement in the systems or controls in place to manage Major Accident Hazards need to be addressed to ensure that operations continue to be maintained at ALARP.
All action items raised shall be reviewed and approved by the action party and the HSE Case Custodian prior to be entered into the HSE Case and the action tracking system (FIM) for close out. The HSE Case Administrator is responsible for ensuring that actions are closed out in a timely manner. The HSE Case Custodian has overall responsibility for ensuring all technical information within the action close out is correct and complete.
Target dates are dictated by the most reasonably practicable timescale within which the actions can be completed. Items in the remedial action plan (RAP) must be rectified in accordance with the timescales set out. Where an action is not to be taken because the cost and resources required to complete the action are not considered reasonably practicable in view of the benefits gained in risk reduction (ALARP evaluation), this is stated in the RAP.
15.2.1Qualitative Analysis of RAP Items
Risk reduction measures, and in particular those warranting the implementation of additional safeguards, shall be compared against a simplistic cost benefit matrix, as detailed in the ‘Cost, Benefit, Effort Multiplier’ in Table 11 . This results in each of the potential risk reduction measures being categorised as:
Do - Implement the option
Study - Investigate the option further and implement if practicable
Pass – Review category to confirm rating, if still assessed as Pass, record decision making process and do not invest further effort. Review in future for practicability.
The decision on whether to take the action shall be dependent on the resulting score. The multiplication results in a numerical score from 1 (most attractive) to 27 (least attractive).
The result of this iterative process shall be tabulated in the Remedial Action Plan within the HSE Case.
Table 11: Cost * Benefit * Effort Multiplier
Score
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
Cost (over 3 years)
|
<$50K
|
$50-$500k
|
>$500k
|
Benefit
|
High
|
Medium
|
Low
|
Effort
|
Quick fix
|
Simple Fix
|
Complex
|
|
Solution Matrix
Cost x Effort
|
H Benefit
1
|
M Benefit
2
|
L Benefit
3
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
6
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
9
|
4
|
4
|
8
|
12
|
6
|
6
|
12
|
18
|
9
|
9
|
18
|
27
|
Sample Score Assignments
Range
|
Proposed Action
|
1-4
|
Do
|
6-9
|
Study
|
12 or greater
|
Pass
|
|
15.2.2Interpreting the RAP
The remedial actions shall be included in a table as described below so that actions and targets appear in a consistent format.
Table 11: Example Remedial Action Plan
Item no.
|
Bowtie ref.
|
Action Description
|
Strategy to Achieve the Action
|
Measure / Indicator
|
C
|
B
|
E
|
S
|
Resource
|
Action Owner
|
Target Date
|
Comments / Status
|
1
|
H-01.005b
H-01.003a
H-01.003d
H-01.005d
H-04.002
H-10.016
|
Ensure compliance of speed limits inside NRPS. Speed limits within NRPS are currently not complied with.
Conduct drive to further communicate hazards of speeding within NRPS.
|
Develop and implement program to reinforce awareness of speed limits inside NRPS.
Implement PDO consequence management procedures for speeding.
Install speed limits signs (if not present).
|
Developed and implement program to reinforce awareness of speed limits inside NRPS.
PDO consequence management procedures for seeding implemented.
Speed limits installed (if required).
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
OSO
|
OSS
|
Q1’09
|
Closed
12/09/2009
PDO consequence matrix implemented. Drive for road safety (within the 4MW). Various campaigns and posters displaying consequences for breaking road rules (includes speeding).
|
Table 11: Interpreting the RAP
Title
|
Scope/Comments
|
Action No
|
Sequential action number or FIM reference
|
Bow-Tie Ref
|
Reference number of the Bow-Tie diagram where the action was raised
|
Action Description
|
Description of action
|
C
|
A qualitative assessment of the cost of implementation, derived using the Qualitative ALARP matrix (Section )
|
B
|
A qualitative assessment of the HSE benefit from implementation, derived using the Qualitative ALARP matrix (Section )
|
E
|
A qualitative assessment of the effort of implementation, derived using the Qualitative ALARP matrix (Section )
|
S
|
A qualitative score derived using the Qualitative ALARP matrix (Section )
|
Action Resource
|
The person responsible for carrying out the action
|
Action Owner
|
The individual who is accountable for the completion of the action.
|
Date Action Was Logged
|
The date when the action was raised.
|
Target Date
|
Date at which the target will be reached and action completed. Timescales can be revised at the annual review stage of the action plan. If an action is no longer applicable and/or the target cannot be met, clear reasoning and steps to resolve must be given.
|
Comments/Risks
|
Opportunities and risks if action is not undertaken.
|
Share with your friends: |