The Baker Panel Report - ABSA

perceptions regarding various aspects of process safety culture in their workplace. The statements were grouped into six categories: processsafety reporting, safety values/commitment to process safety, supervisory involvement and support, procedures and equipment, workerprofessionalism/empowerment, and process safety training. A survey participant could choose one of five responses for each statement:“Agree”; “Tend to Agree”; “?” (“do not know or do not have an opinion”); “Tend to Disagree”; or “Disagree.”> Survey administrationOn behalf of the Panel, ISR administered the survey concurrently at each of BP’s five U.S. refineries during the two-week period beginning May 8,2006. Prior to administration of the survey, the Panel and ISR provided the refineries with information relating to the upcoming survey. Thisinformation included a video that educated the refinery workforce about the Panel, announced the upcoming survey and its importance to thePanel’s work, and encouraged refinery workers to participate in the survey. The video included statements from Secretary Baker, the Panel’sChairman; Carolyn W. Merritt, Chairman of the CSB; and Leo W. Gerard, USW President. ISR encouraged potential participants to view the videobefore completing the survey instrument.During the administration period, two-person (or, in the case of Texas City, four-person) teams from ISR introduced the survey, addressing (1) steps taken to promote the integrity of the survey and the anonymity of survey respondents and(2) how the survey differed from surveys administered previously by or on behalf of BP; described the Panel’s intent in conducting the survey; showed the video; and responded to potential participants’ questions or needs relating to the survey.For the convenience of refinery workers and to facilitate the Panel’s goal of a high response rate, ISR administered the survey in both paper- andWeb-based formats. A refinery worker with Internet access could complete the survey in either format. To maintain the integrity of the surveyresults, the survey system permitted submission of only one completed survey from each refinery worker. Finally, ISR team members scheduledsessions at each refinery site for completion of the survey in paper format. A majority (61 percent) of survey respondents completed surveys inpaper format.> Survey response ratesThe overall survey response rate was 72 percent, with 7,451 of 10,298 refinery employees and contractors taking the survey. The response ratewas 67 percent at Carson (1,031 of 1,544); 74 percent at Cherry Point (1,078 of 1,450); 76 percent at Texas City (3,467 of 4,553); 71 percent atToledo (531 of 751); and 65 percent at Whiting (1,292 of 2,000).> Description of survey responsesThe wording of each survey item determined whether a particular response to the item was positive or negative from a process safety cultureperspective. Some survey items were worded positively, and others were worded negatively, from both a grammatical and a process safetystandpoint. As a result, an “agree” or “tend to agree” response to a survey item was not always positive from a process safety cultureperspective, and a “disagree” or “tend to disagree” response was not always negative from a process safety culture perspective. Someexamples of actual survey items illustrate this point. Survey Item 1: “This refinery provides adequate training on hazard identification, control and reporting.” This item is wordedpositively, both from a grammatical and a process safety culture standpoint. As a result, responding “agree” or “tend to agree”The Panel’s Review C 8