The Baker Panel Report - ABSA

(3) “periodically update”—The leading and lagging indicators selected should not be considered static. Rather, the effectiveness and value ofeach performance indicator should be evaluated regularly, and at least every two years. Over time, the effectiveness of the set of indicatorsshould improve, with resulting improvements in process safety performance.(4) “monitoring . . . by BP’s refining line management, executive management (including the Group Chief Executive), and Board ofDirectors”—Because of the potential catastrophic nature of process safety incidents, performance of the U.S. refineries against selectedindicators should be reviewed carefully and analyzed for trends within individual refineries and BP’s refineries as a group. Performance andinformation regarding trends should be reported to, and monitored by, BP’s executive management (including the Group Chief Executive), andBoard of Directors. In order to monitor process safety management effectively, BP should develop minimum performance targets for eachchosen indicator, even though BP’s ultimate goal may be perfection, and hold line management accountable for meeting at least theseminimum targets.(5) “work with the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and with industry, labor organizations, other governmental agencies,and other organizations to develop a consensus set of leading and lagging indicators” —The Panel believes that the development of aconsensus set of leading and lagging performance indicators would benefit not only BP, but also both the refining and chemicals industries. Asa result, in addition to developing leading and lagging indicators for its own use, the Panel recommends that BP work with other stakeholders todevelop a consensus set of leading and lagging indicators. The Health and Safety Executive in the United Kingdom, working in conjunction withBritish industry, has recently provided valuable guidance in the area of developing process safety performance indicators. In addition, the CCPShas included a discussion of metrics in its soon to be published Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety book and has begun a project relatingto the development of process safety metrics. In addition, the USW, public interest organizations, and/or organizations from other industries,such as the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) in the nuclear electric generating industry, have expertise and experience in metricsthat would be valuable resources. The Panel believes that the CSB should provide leadership in developing a consensus set of leading andlagging indicators for process safety performance for use in the refining and chemicals industries. BP should work with the CSB and withindustry, labor organizations, other governmental agencies, and public interest organizations in this process. BP should include in the set ofperformance indicators that it uses from time to time any such consensus set of leading and lagging indicators.Panel’s Recommendations C 254