This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.
| 1 minute read

Are We Measuring Safety or Measuring Accidents?

Earlier this month, while reading the newly published fourth edition of API Recommended Practice 754, Process Safety Performance Indicators for the Refining and Petrochemical Industries, I was reminded of an important process safety challenge: measuring not only what has happened, but also what may be developing beneath the surface.

The update is relevant not only because it provides a common framework for measuring process safety performance, but also because it reinforces a distinction that deserves greater attention across our industry: the difference between measuring past outcomes and identifying emerging risks.

This raises a simple question:

Are we measuring safety, or are we measuring accidents?

A facility can go months, sometimes years, without experiencing a major process safety event. That is certainly positive. However, the absence of an incident does not necessarily mean that risk is decreasing.

Equipment continues to age. Corrosion progresses. Inspection recommendations accumulate. Safety-critical maintenance may be deferred. Operating conditions evolve. Temporary repairs remain in service longer than intended. Inspection intervals are extended. Small deviations gradually become normalized.

Individually, none of these conditions will necessarily lead to an incident. Collectively, however, they may reveal important information about the health of the barriers designed to prevent one.


Looking backward is necessary. Looking forward is critical.

We are very good at measuring outcomes:

  • How many leaks occurred?

  • How many equipment failures?

  • How many unplanned shutdowns?

  • How many incidents?

These metrics matter. They help us learn from experience and benchmark performance. But by the time they appear on a dashboard, the opportunity for prevention may already have passed.

Today, we can capture more information about industrial assets than ever before. Yet, data alone has little value unless it leads to better decisions. Data creates visibility, visibility enables action, and action delivers results.

One of the most important lessons behind the leading-indicator concept is that safety performance should not be understood solely through the events that occur. We should also ask whether the systems designed to prevent those events are becoming stronger or weaker.

The fourth edition of API RP 754 reinforces the importance of learning from incidents, but perhaps its greatest contribution is the reminder that we should also learn from the conditions that exist before incidents occur. The most valuable process safety indicators are not those that explain what went wrong yesterday, but those that provide the visibility and insight needed to act before something goes wrong tomorrow. Achieving that level of foresight requires a structured approach to asset integrity, supported by digital solutions such as Intertek AWARE, which enable organizations to turn asset data into meaningful operational intelligence and make better-informed risk decisions before failures occur.

 

The tracking and analysis of incidents and leading indicators are critical because process safety incidents can impact workers, nearby communities, the environment, and facility operations. Used together, these indicators can help companies spot patterns earlier and apply lessons learned to strengthen process safety safeguards.

Tags

process safety management, refinery operations