Can you improve reliability focusing on safety 1st, environmental preservation 2nd, and production 3rd

My first job as a Maintenance Engineer at the first chemical plant I worked in involved making extremely toxic chemicals. We had an accident that resulted in a loss of containment of one of its toxic products. The release caused issues in the plant and the surrounding community. After the incident, post-mortem and investigations by OSHA and EPA, the Plant Manager observed that, as a facility, we were focused on the wrong priorities. Therefore, he issued new priorities in this order:

1. Safety
2. Environmental Protection
3. Production

The audits by the regulators took time, but out of it all came a very reliable plant after several years with the above priorities. This all took place in the early to mid-1990s. Here we are in the 2020s, and these priorities are still found in a minority of refineries, petrochemical, and chemical plants in the U.S. Many companies already say “safety first.” Yet their work selection, deferral practices, and incentives still optimize for production.

Therefore, the question above is valid: can using this priority scheme improve reliability? Yes, but only if the organization is willing to reorder how decisions actually get made, not just how priorities are stated. This is what happened in my facility.

Real reliability improvement happens when the asset management system consistently enforces this hierarchy:

1. Preventing harm to people
2. Preventing harm to the environment
3. Produce on plan

When this order is operational, not just cultural, reliability usually improves as a byproduct. Below is what works in high-hazard process industries.

Why this priority order improves reliability (not hurts it)

It may seem counterintuitive, but plants that truly lead with safety and environmental protection often achieve higher mechanical availability because they:

• Fix degradation earlier
• Avoid forced outages
• Reduce emergency work
• Prevent damage escalation
• Maintain design margins

The key insight being:

 Most unplanned downtime originates from previously known integrity problems.

When safety and environmental risk drive work selection, those problems get addressed sooner. What must be structurally changed?

 1) Risk-based work selection must override production pressure.

In strong programs, integrity-critical work is schedule-protected. Therefore, the following must be implemented:

• Risk ranking embedded in work management
• Automatic elevation of high-consequence degradation
• Hard rules for overdue MI work
• Weekly leadership review of integrity backlog
• “No silent deferral” policy

Weak programs have the following characteristics:

• Production-driven reprioritization
• Blanket deferral authority
• Backlog measured only in total count
• Work orders without risk tagging

2) Redefine the primary reliability KPI

Many sites optimize the wrong metric. Here are some common but misleading performance markers:

• Mechanical availability
• Throughput vs. plan
• Maintenance cost per barrel/pound/ton
• Turnaround duration

 Here are some better leading indicators:

• Past-due integrity work by risk level
• Time from detection to repair
• Temporary repair population age
• Repeat damage findings
• Inspection effectiveness metrics

When these improve, uptime usually follows.

3) Tighten execution on known degradation

This is the single biggest reliability lever. To get this done, high-impact work process controls should be instituted:

• Automatic work order creation from critical inspection findings
• Required-by dates tied to corrosion life
• Formal deferral review board
• Expiration tracking for temporary repairs
• Engineering triage of service level agreements (SLAs) for fitness for service (FFS) assessments

 What world-class sites recommend as KPIs to monitor weekly:

• Median days from thickness alert to fix
• Number of aging temporary repairs
• MI work >30/60/90 days overdue
• Circuits with repeated thinning trends

4) Integrate process data with mechanical integrity

 Safety-first reliability requires dynamic awareness of damage mechanisms. Here are some high-value data and work process integrations that will help:

• Corrosion monitoring tied to process excursions
• Injection point performance tracking
• Dead-leg temperature monitoring
• Alarm history feeding damage reviews
• Feedstock change triggers for DMR review

This is where many programs remain too static.

5) Strengthen damage mechanism discipline

Reliability collapses when the wrong damage mechanism is assumed or when it is not anticipated. Therefore, to maintain up-to-date damage mechanisms, here are some recommended best practices:

• Make sure to review each inspection report for damage mechanisms that suddenly crop up
• Periodic full damage mechanism revalidation
• Formal review after process changes
• Independent technical challenge
• Circuit granularity that reflects real risk
• Special emphasis on “silent killers” (e.g., under-insulation, sulfidation, HTHA)

Plants that get the mechanisms right rarely suffer surprise failures.

6) Treat temporary repairs as reliability debt

Temporary fixes are sometimes necessary, but they accumulate hidden risk. Therefore, to minimize this, you need strong governance. The recommended requirements are:

• Central registry of all temporary repairs
• Qualified life tracking
• Mandatory retirement planning
• Risk ranking by consequence
• Leadership visibility

The reliability reality is that growing temp-repair populations almost always precede major failures.

7) Align incentives with the stated priority order

Culture follows incentives. If leaders truly want: 1) Safety, 2) Environment, and 3)  Production, then their performance systems must reflect it. Here are some high-impact, high-level work process actions that can be implemented:

• No bonus credit for interval extension alone
• Leadership metrics include overdue MI risk
• Reward early problem identification
• Track quality of inspection, not just completion
• Penalize unjustified deferrals

This last one is often the hardest to do but provides the most powerful change.

What “best in class” behavior looks like on the ground

You know this priority order is real when these things happen automatically:

• Operations escalates integrity concerns proactively
• Engineers challenge optimistic RBI assumptions
• Inspectors are encouraged to call questionable data
• Turnaround scope grows when risk justifies it
• Leadership asks first about overdue risk, not cost
• Deferrals require technical, not production justification

As an old mentor used to say, “Bad news travels fast”, but in this case, that is exactly what we want.

Practical 90-day improvement actions

 If an organization wants rapid impact, here is a high-level plan to get started:

 Within 30 days

• Identify all past-due MI work by risk
• Inventory temporary repairs and age
• Measure detect-to-correct cycle time
• Review top corrosion circuits with repeat findings

Within 60 days

• Implement deferral review discipline
• Add risk tagging to work orders
• Establish engineering triage targets
• Audit inspection effectiveness assumptions

Within 90 days

• Re-baseline highest-risk aging assets
• Integrate process excursions into corrosion review
• Update leadership dashboards to leading indicators
• Challenge top RBI interval extensions

These steps typically reveal the largest hidden reliability risks.

Bottom line

You can improve reliability while truly prioritizing:

• Safety first
• Environment second
• Production third

However, only if the organization enforces that order in work selection, metrics, and incentives, not just in slogans. When done correctly, reliability usually improves because the plant stops allowing manageable degradation to become forced outages.

Bibliography

1. American Petroleum Institute (API). API Recommended Practice 580: Risk-Based Inspection. Latest edition.
2. American Petroleum Institute (API). API Recommended Practice 581: Risk-Based Inspection Technology. Latest edition.
3. American Petroleum Institute (API). API Recommended Practice 571: Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry. Latest edition.
4. American Petroleum Institute (API). API Recommended Practice 579-1/ASME FFS-1: Fitness-For-Service. Latest edition.
5. S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 29 CFR 1910.119 — Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals.
6. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety. AIChE, 2007.
7. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Mechanical Integrity Systems. AIChE, 2016.
8. S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). Investigation Reports and Safety Bulletins (multiple years) highlighting maintenance and integrity failures as causal factors.
9. European Federation of National Maintenance Societies (EFNMS). Maintenance Key Performance Indicators (EN 15341). Latest edition.
10. ISO 55000/55001 Asset Management — Overview, Principles and Requirements. Latest edition.

Be the first to comment

There are no comments for this article.