83%
of respondents reported that their organisations do not use a safety observation programme (eg STOP or PACE)
n Books, journals and magazines 59.5% n In-house events and training 47.7% n Safety conferences 40.5% n IChemE events and training 38.7% n Online training 36.9% n Other external events and training 26.1% n Other (please specify) 4.5% n None 0.9%
primary focus
is preventing incidents
One third
72%
n n n n
Yes, moderately safer 52.3% No, the same 22.5% Yes, a lot safer 19.8% No, less safe 5.4%
41
tce
SAFETY
company and integrate safety performance to the evaluation of both individuals and the wider organisation. But how confident are the experts that industry doesnt cut corners on safety? We all know that the financial and reputational risks associated with process safety incidents are high, not to mention the dangers to employees and those in surrounding areas. But, particularly in tough economic times, is it idealistic to assume that organisations will always do the right thing? Some organisations believe that safety management can be an overhead, and that major programmes aimed at reducing occupational accidents should be sufficient, that more investment cannot be justified, says Hamilton. But process safety is not simply an added cost he adds. In complex enterprises, such as those operated in the oil, gas and chemical industries, there is a high reliance on the successful interaction between people, processes and technologies. Lee reveals that investment in safety should be considered as a strategic investment as part of helping an organisation to grow, not simply treated as doing whats necessary to comply with local legal requirements: Its necessary for a company to make sustained investment for not only business profit but also process safety. A company must have a process that ensures senior management reviews and decides how much to invest in process safety. Schwarz feels that senior management has to understand that high performance in process safety does require an input of resources up-front and that this sometimes needs to be explained to those individuals who havent come from production ranks: It is like an investment: you put in the money and the competence first when the process is developed, or the plant is built and optimised, and you earn the interest from this investment during the whole lifetime of that plant in the form of a low incident rate, high on-stream time and yes, even a more loyal workforce. The belief that building the cheapest, lowest investment plant, where safety principles are ignored gets you the biggest profits may still be held by some executives, but it is at best very short-term orientated and simply wrong. I put my money successfully on the opposite end of the scale, he concludes. Bresland, Hamilton, Lee and Schwarz are all keynote speakers at IChemEs 'Hazards Asia Pacific' process safety conference taking place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in April next year. tce Visit www.icheme.org/hazardsap2013 for more information.
Over half of those polled think strong leadership from the CEO is the key to improving process safety
Q: How can safety be improved in chemical and process industries? (upto three choices)
n Strong leadership from CEO 51.9% n Better management and supervision 50.0%
40%
n Better enforcement of existing regulations 44.4% n Improved systems for challenging safety decisions 43.5% n More training for operators 40.7% n A formal process safety qualification 25.9% n Other 12.0% n More regulations 5.6%
Leadership was the number one factor which impacts on safety performance followed by plant design and then human factors Q: To what extent do you think these factors impact on safety performance (1 is least, 5 is most)
Safety management systems
25.0% 27.8% 34.3% 6.5% 6.6% 6.5% 12.3%
11.3%
30.2%
39.6%
Cultural factors
15.9%
3.7%
8.4%
29%
43%
Human factors
33.3%
49.5%
1.9%
7.6%
7.6%
Leadership
16.2%
30.5%
43.8%
5.7%
3.8%
Plant design
12
The majority of respondents believe that companies should have primary responsbility for process safety Q: Who should have primary responsibility for process safety (1 is least, 5 is most)
87.4% 5.4% 2.7% 4.5%
Companies
19.8%
50.5%
15.3%
7.2% 16.7%
7.2%
National government
17.6%
35.2%
20.4%
10.2%
42
13.6%
25.5%
30.0%
22.7%
8.2%