Whitepaper: Achieving 84-92% Urgent Alarm Reduction Through Comprehensive Lifecycle Implementation: A Dual-Unit Midstream Case Study
- gradymoore7
- 4 hours ago
- 9 min read
Abstract
November 2025 — A midstream facility implemented a systematic alarm rationalization program across two critical units, achieving unprecedented reductions in urgent alarm loads. Unit A reduced urgent alarms from 45% to 7% (84% reduction), while Unit B decreased from 62% to 5% (92% reduction). This paper presents the methodology, implementation approach, and quantified results of applying the ANSI/ISA-18.2-2016 alarm management lifecycle in a brownfield LNG facility. The comprehensive approach integrated automation, process safety, and operations perspectives, resulting in significant improvements in operator effectiveness and process safety performance. Cross-functional teams utilized the Maximum Severity Method for consistent, risk-based prioritization across 48,156 potential alarm points in Unit A and 7,009 points in Unit B. The project eliminated over 5,900 nuisance urgent alarms in Unit A and 1,960 in Unit B, transforming alarm systems from sources of operator overload into effective tools for abnormal situation management. Results demonstrate that properly implemented alarm management programs can achieve transformational improvements in operational safety and efficiency, providing a replicable model for the LNG industry.
1. Introduction
The liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry faces unique operational challenges due to cryogenic processes, flammable materials, and complex interdependencies between process units. Effective alarm management becomes critical for maintaining safe operations while preventing operator overload during abnormal situations. Despite widespread recognition of alarm management importance following major incidents like Texas City (2005) and Buncefield (2005), many facilities struggle to fully implement comprehensive alarm management lifecycles.
This Facility recognized that partial alarm management efforts yield limited benefits and committed to systematic implementation of the complete ANSI/ISA-18.2-2016 lifecycle. As a brownfield site with existing legacy systems, the facility faced additional challenges requiring thorough re-evaluation of alarm configurations across multiple platforms including Honeywell Experion DCS, SCADA systems, and Safety Manager.
This paper presents results from two major alarm rationalization projects: Unit A and Unit B The scope encompassed all facility alarms interacting with normal process operations, excluding only fire and gas system alarms addressed separately. The rationalization effort aimed to ensure each alarm met the fundamental definition: "An audible and/or visible means of indicating to the operator an equipment malfunction, process deviation, or abnormal condition requiring a response."
2. Background and Literature Review
2.1 Alarm Management Standards Evolution
The process industries have developed comprehensive standards for alarm management, with ANSI/ISA-18.2-2016 and IEC 62682:2022 representing current best practices. These standards define a complete lifecycle approach encompassing ten stages: Philosophy, Identification, Rationalization, Detailed Design, Implementation, Operation, Maintenance, Monitoring and Assessment, Management of Change, and Audit.
Research demonstrates that facilities implementing partial lifecycle elements achieve limited improvements, while comprehensive implementation yields transformational results. The Abnormal Situation Management (ASM) Consortium estimates that poor alarm management contributes to $20 billion annually in lost production and incidents across the process industries.
2.2 LNG Industry Specific Challenges
LNG facilities present unique alarm management challenges due to:
Cryogenic temperature operations requiring precise control
Vapor management systems with rapid dynamics
Integration between liquefaction, storage, and regasification
Stringent environmental compliance requirements
Post-incident regulatory scrutiny
These factors necessitate alarm systems that support rapid, accurate operator response while minimizing cognitive load during upset conditions.
2.3 Quantifying Alarm Management Performance
Industry benchmarks established by the Engineering Equipment and Materials Users Association (EEMUA) Publication 191 define acceptable alarm system performance metrics:
Average alarm rate: <1 alarm per 10 minutes
Peak alarm rate: <10 alarms per 10 minutes
Alarm priority distribution: ~80% Low, ~15% Medium, ~5% High
However, many facilities operate far outside these guidelines, with urgent/critical alarms often comprising 30-60% of total alarm load, creating conditions where operators cannot effectively respond to genuine process upsets.
3. Methodology
3.1 Project Scope and Timeline
The alarm rationalization encompassed two major operational units:
Unit A: Conducted January 29 - March 26, 2024
Unit B: Conducted March 11-15, 2024
Both projects utilized hybrid in-person and remote participation via Webex to accommodate team members across multiple locations.
3.2 Team Composition
Cross-functional teams included:
Process Controls Engineering
Process Engineering
Operations personnel
Operations Management
Third-party facilitators (Applied Engineering Solutions) experienced in alarm rationalization methodology
This diverse composition ensured comprehensive evaluation incorporating technical design, operational experience, and process safety perspectives.
3.3 Rationalization Methodology
The team employed a knowledge-based Maximum Severity Method for alarm prioritization. This approach evaluates each alarm against multiple consequence categories:
Table 1: Severity Level Matrix
The highest severity across all categories determines final alarm priority, ensuring conservative risk assessment.
3.4 Documentation and Analysis Tools
The rationalization process utilized:
Existing Honeywell Experion alarm database exports
Current Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs)
aeAlarm software (Sphera PHA-Pro® based) for systematic documentation
Historical alarm activation data to validate setpoints
Each credible alarm was documented with:
Purpose and process deviation addressed
Consequence of no operator action
Required operator response
Time available for response
Priority assignment rationale
3.5 Alarm Qualification Criteria
Alarms were evaluated against the site's Alarm Management criteria:
Does the condition require operator action?
Is the operator the primary respondent?
Is there sufficient time for operator response?
Will the operator know what action to take?
Can the operator take the required action?
Points failing these criteria were reclassified as events, journals, or removed entirely.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Unit A Alarm Reduction Results
This rationalization achieved dramatic improvements in alarm system performance:
Table 2: Unit A: Alarm Distribution - Before and After Rationalization
The 91.2% reduction in urgent alarms represents elimination of 5,902 nuisance or improperly classified alarms that previously competed for operator attention during critical situations.
Figure 1: Unit A Alarm Priority Distribution Transformation
4.2 Unit B Results
Unit B demonstrated even more dramatic improvements:
Table 3: Unit B Alarm Distribution - Before and After Rationalization
*Low priority alarms increased as urgent alarms were properly reclassified
The 96.3% reduction in urgent alarms eliminated 1,960 improperly configured alarms, dramatically improving the signal-to-noise ratio for genuine process upsets.
Figure 2: Unit B Alarm Priority Distribution Transformation
4.3 Systematic Improvements Identified
The rationalization process identified 129 total action items across both units:
UNIT A: 58 action items
UNIT B: 71 action items
Common improvement categories included:
Elimination of redundant alarms on single process deviations
Proper configuration of alarm deadbands and delay timers
Reclassification of informational points to events/journals
Integration of alarm response procedures with operator training
Correction of alarm priority inversions
4.4 Operational Impact Assessment
The rationalized alarm system has fundamentally transformed the operating environment at this facility. While specific quantitative metrics are proprietary, the qualitative improvements in operational performance have been significant. The dramatic reduction in alarm load, particularly in the urgent category, has created a calmer, more focused control room environment where operators can effectively manage the process rather than simply reacting to constant alarms.
Compliance and Documentation Benefits
100% of remaining alarms now have documented response procedures
Full traceability established for regulatory audits
Alarm system performance now aligns with EEMUA 191 guidelines
Complete audit trail maintained through aeAlarm documentation
5. Implementation Lessons and Best Practices
5.1 Critical Success Factors
1. Executive Sponsorship and Resource Commitment Full lifecycle implementation requires significant time investment from operations and engineering personnel. Executive support ensured adequate resource allocation and schedule priority.
2. Operator Engagement Throughout Process Including experienced operators in every rationalization session captured critical institutional knowledge and ensured practical response procedures.
3. Systematic Methodology Application Consistent application of the Maximum Severity Method prevented subjective priority assignment and ensured conservative risk assessment.
4. Integration with Existing PSM Systems Linking alarm rationalization with Management of Change, PHA revalidation, and operator training programs embedded improvements in operational practice.
5.2 Common Challenges and Solutions
Challenge 1: Securing Adequate Time from Key Personnel Solution: The primary challenge was obtaining large blocks of time from busy operational staff. The project succeeded by using flexible scheduling, breaking sessions into manageable durations, and emphasizing the long-term operational benefits of participation.
Challenge 2: Resistance to Removing "Historical" Alarms Solution: Data-driven demonstration of alarm flooding impact during actual events convinced stakeholders to eliminate non-critical alarms. The involvement of extremely knowledgeable staff who understood both process and operations proved invaluable in making these decisions smoothly.
Challenge 3: Data Consistency Across Systems Solution: Careful verification processes ensured alignment between disparate PLC systems and the master alarm database, preventing loss or duplication of critical alarm information.
5.3 Technology and Tool Considerations
The aeAlarm rationalization tool proved essential for:
Maintaining consistency across multiple sessions
Tracking action items and implementation status
Generating operator response documentation
Supporting regulatory audit requirements
Integration with existing Honeywell Experion systems required careful configuration management to preserve rationalization decisions during system updates.
6. Industry Applications and Recommendations
6.1 Scalability to Other LNG Facilities
The methodology demonstrated here scales effectively to other facilities by:
Adapting severity matrices to site-specific risk tolerances
Adjusting team composition based on organizational structure
Phasing implementation based on unit criticality
Leveraging common control system platforms
6.2 Recommended Implementation Approach
Based on our experience, optimal implementation follows this sequence:
Phase 1: Foundation (Months 1-2)
Develop site-specific alarm philosophy
Establish performance baselines
Form cross-functional team
Select rationalization tools
Phase 2: Pilot Implementation (Months 3-4)
Select representative unit/system
Complete full rationalization cycle
Validate methodology and tools
Refine procedures based on lessons learned
Phase 3: Full Deployment (Months 5-12)
Systematically address remaining units
Implement approved changes
Train operators on new alarm schemes
Establish monitoring systems
Phase 4: Sustainment (Ongoing)
Monthly performance reviews
Quarterly alarm health assessments
Annual philosophy updates
Continuous improvement initiatives
6.2 Return on Investment Considerations
While specific project costs are proprietary, the business case for alarm rationalization is compelling.
The investment in this project is minor compared to the potential costs of:
Operator hours spent managing nuisance alarms
Extended troubleshooting time during process upsets
Potential incidents resulting from operator overload
Regulatory penalties for non-compliance with RAGAGEP
Industry benchmarks demonstrate typical returns including:
Reduced operator errors through improved situational awareness
Decreased unplanned downtime from better upset management
Lower incident investigation costs
Invaluable improvement in regulatory compliance position
7. Conclusions
This alarm rationalization project demonstrates that systematic implementation of the ANSI/ISA-18.2-2016 lifecycle can achieve transformational improvements in alarm system performance. The 84-92% reductions in urgent alarm loads across two major units significantly exceed typical industry achievements, validating the comprehensive approach.
Key conclusions from this implementation:
Full lifecycle implementation is essential - Partial efforts yield marginal benefits while comprehensive programs achieve step-change improvements.
Cross-functional engagement drives success - Integration of operations, engineering, and process safety perspectives ensures practical, sustainable solutions.
Quantified baselines enable continuous improvement - Detailed before/after metrics demonstrate value and guide ongoing optimization.
Brownfield challenges are surmountable - Legacy systems can be successfully rationalized with proper methodology and commitment.
Operator effectiveness improvements justify investment - Enhanced situational awareness and response capability directly improve process safety performance.
The dramatic reductions achieved here establish new benchmarks for alarm management excellence in the Midstream industry. As facilities face increasing operational complexity and regulatory scrutiny, comprehensive alarm rationalization becomes not just best practice but operational necessity.
8. Future Work
Building on current achievements, future initiatives include:
Advanced Alarm Management Techniques
Implementation of state-based alarming for startup/shutdown
Dynamic alarm suppression during known process transitions
Predictive analytics for alarm flood prevention
Integration with Digital Transformation
Incorporation of machine learning for nuisance alarm identification
Real-time alarm performance dashboards
Mobile operator notification systems
Industry Collaboration
Development of LNG-specific alarm management guidelines
Benchmarking studies across multiple facilities
Knowledge sharing through industry forums
Continuous Improvement Metrics
Correlation of alarm performance with safety incidents
Operator workload quantification studies
Economic impact validation
The success achieved through systematic alarm rationalization provides a foundation for continued advancement in operational excellence and process safety performance.
References
ANSI/ISA-18.2-2016, Management of Alarm Systems for the Process Industries, International Society of Automation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
IEC 62682:2022, Management of alarm systems for the process industries, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland.
EEMUA Publication 191, Alarm Systems - A Guide to Design, Management and Procurement, 3rd Edition, Engineering Equipment and Materials Users Association, London, UK, 2013.
Rothenberg, D.H., "Alarm Management for Process Control: A Best-Practice Guide for Design, Implementation, and Use of Industrial Alarm Systems," Momentum Press, New York, 2018.
Hollifield, B., and Habibi, E., "The Alarm Management Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide," PAS, Houston, TX, 2011.
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, "Investigation Report: Refinery Explosion and Fire," Report No. 2005-04-I-TX, Washington, DC, 2007.
Health and Safety Executive, "The Buncefield Incident 11 December 2005: The final report of the Major Incident Investigation Board," Bootle, UK, 2008.
Abnormal Situation Management Consortium, "Effective Alarm Management Practices," Honeywell Process Solutions, Phoenix, AZ, 2019.
Center for Chemical Process Safety, "Guidelines for Safe Automation of Chemical Processes," 2nd Edition, AIChE, New York, 2017.
Stauffer, T., and Sands, N.P., "Alarm Management and ISA-18.2: Management of Alarm Systems for the Process Industries," ISA Automation Week Proceedings, 2014.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the dedication of operations and engineering personnel who committed extensive time to the rationalization process. Special recognition goes to Applied Engineering Solutions for their expert facilitation and the operations teams who provided invaluable institutional knowledge. This project's success reflects the organization's commitment to operational excellence and process safety leadership.
Comments