“In earning this second certification, maintaining its status of Siemens Process Safety Specialist and continuing to execute successful projects, aeSolutions has demonstrated that they have the engineering and quality practices to implement PCS 7 Failsafe systems correctly the first time utilizing best practices,” said Rich Chmielewski, Siemens USA DCS Solution Partner Program Manager. Read entire story at https://isssource.com/aesolutions-earns-safety-certification/ aeSolutions receives software licensing and training on the newest technologies and best practices as a Siemens certified solution partner, ensuring future-proof solutions. Engineers from aeSolutions took part in an expert workshop to reaffirm best practices as part of their training. aeSolutions will also receive priority hotline support, as well as consulting time with Siemens senior product management, application engineers, and enhanced proposal tools, through Siemens webinars and Partner Portal for existing and new innovations. Siemens facilitates a rigorous, multi-faceted procedure for solution partners to become accredited. Multiple aeSolutions safety projects were reviewed by a Siemens senior consulting engineer from Karlsruhe, Germany, to confirm that project configuration workflow processes met Siemens-documented best practices and international standards. Learn more about our over 20 year partnership: https://www.aesolutions.com/siemens-solution-partner

The analysis of existing gas detection systems has shown that the primary limiting factor in the effectiveness of a system is incorrect detector placement. This factor alone outweighs the probability of failure on demand of the individual system components (sensors, logic solvers, and final elements). Incorrect detector placement can be so detrimental that the system cannot even be credited as an effective independent protection layer. Gas detector location has historically been selected based on rules of thumb and experience. Common rules have been to place detectors: at breathing height for toxic gases one to two feet above ground for gases heavier than air above the leak source, or as high as possible, for gases lighter than air near the ground for cryogenic conditions near air ductwork intakes, or room outlets in areas accessible for maintenance away from locations that can be damaged by general maintenance where to place gas detector The optimal detector location will vary from plant to plant. What is appropriate for a congested offshore platform will be different than for a batch chemical plant with multiple recipes, or a refinery, or a sour production well. Inconsistent approaches have often been found. Existing facilities that have been analyzed have been found to have significant gaps in detector coverage. There has been a growing interest in determining the effectiveness of gas detection systems in a quantitative manner. Our understanding of gas dispersion, and the ability to model and predict the release behavior, has grown significantly. Two approaches have been developed for detector placement; geographic coverage, and scenario-based coverage. Geographic coverage places detectors on a uniform grid. Geographic methods can result in more detectors than are necessary. In addition, geographic methods are based on low or medium reactive materials such as methane or propane. Geographic methods are not suited for high reactivity materials which can achieve a detonation. Furthermore, geographic placements can lead to higher installation and operating expenses. As a result, many companies prefer to use scenario-based coverage over geographic methods. Scenario-based coverage places gas detectors based on computer dispersion modeling. Scenario model selection involves identifying a variety of leak points, hole sizes, and leak directions. The optimal number of detectors can then be placed in the optimal locations. There are limitations of what a gas detection system can reasonably be expected to do, beyond having a highly effective detector coverage. Beyond having a highly effective detector coverage, there are limitations of what a gas detection system can reasonably be expected to do. What is the effectiveness of the mitigation system? To achieve an overall performance of SIL (safety integrity level) 1 or higher, a system would require detector coverage over 90%, and mitigation effectiveness over 90%. To achieve SIL 2 would require both numbers be greater than 99%. This would be over specifying potential performance. ISA-TR84.00.07 advises that a system not be considered an independent protection layer if either value is less than 90%, as SIL 1 will not be possible in such a case. 3D modeling incorporating wake effects from buildings can show a gas plume reaching areas that may not be immediately intuitive, such as air handlers on the back side of a building. Room ventilation patterns may also cause non-intuitive gas behaviors. Using scenario-based coverage dispersion modeling may increase the initial project cost, but it has been shown to offer a lower overall project cost due to reduced detector quantities and reduced maintenance. It also provides a quantitative basis for documenting the rationale behind detector placement decisions. Benefits include reducing life cycle costs, reducing risk to onsite plant personnel, and reducing risk to offsite public receptors. To learn more about this topic, read the full paper “How Can I Effectively Place My Gas Detectors” by clicking here. Learn More about our Gas Detection Services

Inspired by “Conducting an Effective Functional Safety Assessment” presented at 2019 ISA PIC 2019—Process Industry Conference. by Greg Hardin The ISA/IEC 61511 standard defines a functional safety assessment as [an] “investigation, based on evidence, to judge the functional safety achieved by one or more safety instrumented systems and/or other protection layers.” The standard describes five stages where functional safety assessments may be performed: After the hazard and risk assessment has been carried out, the required protection layers have been identified and the safety requirements specification has been developed. After the safety instrumented system has been designed. After the installation, pre-commissioning and final validation of the safety instrumented system has been completed and operation and maintenance procedures have been developed. After gaining experience in operating and maintenance. After modification and prior to decommissioning of a safety instrumented system. The earlier the assessments are done, the sooner potential problems may be identified, and the quicker, easier, and cheaper it will be to implement any potential changes. After all, it’s easier and cheaper to fix things on paper rather than after the system is built. The first edition of the standard mandated an assessment only at stage 3. That’s simply too late to achieve any real benefit. The second edition also mandated stage 4. Stage 4 was added to ensure that assumptions made in the design phase were not unrealistic (as experience has shown they often have been). This also misses the potential benefits that could be achieved in performing stage 1 and/or 2 assessments. But what about a stage 0 assessment? While not covered in the standard, a stage 0 assessment could be used to identify problems even earlier. Stage 0 would be after clause 9 “allocation of safety functions to protection layers”. This would be after safety functions have been identified and SIL targets have been set, yet before detailed specification and design begins. A stage 0 assessment could identify where frequency and/or severity assignments may have been too conservative resulting in the over-specification of safety instrumented functions. One example would be the specification of unusually high safety integrity level (e.g., SIL 3) burner management system purge functions. Similarly, if too much credit were taken for non-instrumented protection layers, the performance of the associated instrumented functions may be understated. A stage 0 assessment could prevent people from avoiding even entering the proverbial rabbit-hole (i.e., starting with an incorrect design) altogether!

Ammonia is used throughout the process industries. However, an ammonia release has the potential to cause health concerns to those on site as well as those in the surrounding community. Safety systems are often implemented to minimize the impact of such a release. A corporate safety review of a brownfield pressurized ammonia storage facility determined that a new leak detection, occupant notification, equipment isolation, and hazard suppression system was required. aeSolutions provided a system that automatically monitors and detects a release, along with weather and wind conditions, and mitigates the effects. This particular system includes point and line of sight gas detectors, product isolation valves, and electronically operated water cannons. Field devices are monitored and controlled using a purpose built aeSolutions FGS 1400 MK II fire and gas panel. The system was configured using SIMATIC PCS 7 and Safety Matrix. The system meets NFPA 72 for fire alarming and mitigation control, and is FM approved to NFPA 72 for fire protection, combustible, and toxic gas measurement. The system is centered around redundant Siemens 410-HF safety certified PLCs with redundant OS servers and two OS clients. The system interfaces with (10) point gas detectors using 4-20 mA signals, (11) laser beam gas detectors using Modbus, and controls (11) isolation valves incorporating partial and full stroke testing, and (14) 3-axis 2,000 GPM water cannons. The water cannons provide 340 degrees of rotational movement, vertical movement, and each has a dedicated flow control valve. The water cannons are used to dilute the ammonia and knock it to the ground, allowing it to be contained in the diked area around the tanks and spheres. Control room personnel are also able to control the spray nozzles remotely. The FGS 1400 MK II Safety Instrumented Fire & Gas System from aeSolutions is a pre-engineered, pre-configured and pre-packaged system that is suitable for a wide variety of applications and is available as a turnkey solution. The FGS 1400 MK II provides the same demanding levels of performance required by the ISA and IEC safety standards for safety critical applications. Learn more about the FGS 1400 MK II Benefits of aeSolutions Fire & Gas Systems: • Scalability provides you with customization options • Listed for use with a wide variety of end devices for maximum flexibility • Customized functionality and listings available • Siemens PCS7 platform integration for increased operator visibility • FM-Listed for Fire & Gas detection and suppression to satisfy regulations • Industrial grade hardware for increased reliability in plant applications • Factory training available to enable end users to maintain their systems • The FGS 1400 MK II is listed for Fire Command Center and proprietary Supervising Station functions. To see how aeSolutions can help you with your unique gas detection and mitigation needs, please contact us. *Updated from earlier post

What’s a HIPPS and where are they used? There are two common applications for a High Integrity Pressure Protection System (HIPPS). First, many process facilities have expanded to the point where the original pressure relieving and flare system may no longer be able to handle a potential event. Preventing a potential overpressure through the use of a HIPPS can be done at a much lower cost compared to installing a new flare and header system. Second, many subsea and land based pipelines are not designed to withstand full wellhead pressure. So a HIPPS measures pressure (usually using redundant transmitters), utilizes a logic solver (many technologies and configurations are acceptable), and closes valves. While such designs are allowed per current codes, the justification of such a system requires careful analysis by a team of specialists. The justification and analysis of a HIPPS must consider all operating and upset conditions that might cause an overpressure. Process dynamics must be analyzed to determine if the HIPPS can respond quickly enough to prevent the hazard. Some cases may be quite complex with multiple scenarios and multiple HIPPS. Without an adequately sized conventional relief system, the HIPPS represents the last line of defense against an overpressure event. Subsequently, many end users require an independent, third party review of the justification of such a system. How good is good enough? A HIPPS should offer performance as good or better than the conventional relief system it may be replacing. The performance of relief valves in the process industries varies considerably depending upon the application. Published sources of data show that relief valves in some applications offer performance no better than the equivalent of Safety Integrity Level 1 (SIL 1). Considering the uncertainty of the data, many specify that HIPPS meet SIL 3 performance. This requires the use of fault tolerant sensors and valves. The use of a SIL 2 system is still a possibility, with significantly lower capital and operational costs. Questions to ask yourself Do you have a case where the existing relieving system is unable to adequately handle the load, and has this been documented in a thorough hazards analysis? Is the vessel in air, water or steam service? (If yes, the use of a HIPPS is not permissible.) Is approval of local authorities required? Do you have a case where a pipeline is not rated for the full wellhead pressure? Have you performed a SIL selection study to determine the level of performance that will be required by the HIPPS? aeSolutions is here to help aeSolutions can help you determine whether a HIPPS is a viable option for your application. If justified, we can work with you to develop the requirements specification and deliver a system that will meet your specific safety and cybersecurity needs. #HIPPS Updated from previous blog post.

Due to potential blast hazards to plant personnel, the control rooms of one of the world’s largest natural gas (NG) processing and compression facilities had to be relocated to a Blast Resistant Module (BRM). This complex cutover for personnel protection needed to be completed without shutting down (S/D) either of two interdependent NG production facilities. A S/D would result in a process upset at 12 oil production facilities which rely on the natural gas feed for their operation. Challenge The facility feeds large volumes of compressed natural gas to 12 oil production facilities through sections of piping that are up to 5 feet in diameter with compression being achieved by enormous turbines. The number of drawings, valves, interconnecting wires, and control schemes that needed to be evaluated was extensive and complex. Normal gas operation controls such as turbine controls, panel boards, and valve interfaces such as the main gas header valves feeding the plant had to be migrated which included Basic Process Control Systems (BPCS), safety systems, Fire & Gas (F&G) systems, Halon fire suppressant circuits, and Emergency Shutdown (ESD) circuits. A misstep on these critical systems could have brought the entire facility down which would have cascaded to downstream facilities which rely on the natural gas for their operation. Furthermore, the NG facility equipment spanned 50 years of modifications, and many upgrades which were needed to universalize and modernize the many generations of equipment, including digitalizing hardwired signals into a new PLC-based BPC. The greatest challenge was migrating the hardwired emergency stop (E-stop) circuits to the new control room with minimal transition time and without a widespread outage. In fact, because of the hazards and complexities involved in a complete shut down and restart, the NG facility had only been shut down twice since being placed into service many decades earlier, and it had been over a decade since the last complete outage. E-stops are used by operators as a last resort in response to a critical process excursion. The E-stop circuit, when tripped by the operators, opens valves to the flare relief system, closes isolation valves, and shuts down running equipment. Complicating matters is the fact that E-stop circuits are designed fail-safe, meaning if any circuit is opened, the E-stop actions are triggered. Solution aeSolutions designed the new control room and took responsibility for all stages of the project, managing tasks from conceptual and preliminary engineering to detailed design and managing on-site activity and personnel during the complex cutover. Beginning with a comprehensive survey of the existing facilities, aeSolutions cataloged all equipment and systems that needed to be relocated, identified all stakeholders and resources who would need to be involved, and then created a detailed plan for cutover without requiring plant downtime. Specifically, aeSolutions: Performed a detailed option analysis to evaluate potential best solutions Analyzed existing terminations and every wire to understand what it does and temporary bypasses to be put into place; maintained a well-documented log to track what had been completed Developed step-by-step cutover procedures and checklists and an integrated schedule that identified specific people and detailed daily tasks over the entire year leading up to the cutover of both NG facilities. Impacted stakeholders included facility engineers, operators, support staff, design team, contractors, vendors, construction crew, and IT networking crew. A comprehensive responsibility matrix was maintained to coordinate all tasks at the level of detail required for success. Developed a contingency plan to guard against emergency events and mitigate risk of valves changing position during the cutover process for safety purposes; had personnel man all the valves during the cutover process and used a closed-circuit television (CCTV) system to monitor and detect potential process hazards. Processing natural gas is an exercise in precision, and even the smallest changes in pipeline pressure, flow rates, temperature, and gas composition can have huge impacts Set up a local integration center, i.e., Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) lab, to convene equipment and everyone involved; determined ways to install additional panels; designed, fabricated, tested, and provided the new control panels that were needed for the programmable logic controller (PLC) and control systems as well as safety systems such as E-stops and F&G system; developed a scheme of transitioning existing terminations to new termination locations without causing a S/D; prepared all personnel involved within the FAT lab to ensure a smooth cutover process during implementation in the field Managed on-site activities helping direct the cutover process while implementing the cutover plan, including directing facility operators, engineers, support staff, construction, and even IT staff Result aeSolutions’ role evolved from system integrator to becoming the focal point of coordinating schedules and staffing and choreographing the entire cutover project. aeSolutions started by surveying the existing equipment and systems. By having a single point of contact for project management, the client benefited from standardization of approaches and technology, a higher degree of coordinated activity, and a shortened timeframe. aeSolutions developed an execution strategy and found ways to integrate multiple teams into the plan while handling the conceptual engineering, preliminary engineering, detailed design, and ultimately manufacturing and implementing the required components. The local FAT lab was instrumental in enabling the team to confirm how equipment worked, verify detailed FAT plans and test procedures, and developing methods to quickly (dis)connect test panels with everyone in the same room. Equipment was evaluated during and after the assembly process to verify it was built and operated in accordance with design specifications. The FAT lab provided an off-site opportunity to reconcile and unify all the moving parts involved with the unit before the equipment was shipped to the site. This cost-effective integration strategy saved time and travel costs to successfully cutover the controls on a NG operating plant without impact to production. In the end, the project achieved its two objectives 1) the NG facility employees were safely relocated to the new BRMs and 2) the project was completed without a shutdown or process upset of the operating facilities.

Warren Johnson, senior project manager for consulting, engineering and integration firm aeSolutions, was featured in CONTROL magazine discussing his presentation covering the essential aspects of gas detection system design at the 2019 Siemens Automation Summit. [ In the United States, it’s the role of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to set limits on employee exposure to toxic and hazardous substances, but it’s up to industry to ensure that those standards are met, said Warren Johnson, senior project manager for consulting, engineering and integration firm aeSolutions, in a presentation covering the essential aspects of gas detection system design at the 2019 Siemens Automation Summit. ‘OSHA doesn’t tell you how to detect gas or how to alarm,” Johnson explained. “It’s up to your engineering group to make it happen.” The presentation and article cover things such as Detector selection & placement,  Architectural aspects to consider, and a bit about the relevant regulations. Read the whole article at www.controlglobal.com Do you have a project you’d like to discuss? Contact Us here

An effective gas detection system protects on-site personnel from toxic and combustible gas releases. Gas detectors that are fit for purpose with the proper technology, measurement level, and location can provide an early detection and warning to personnel to evacuate or take appropriate action in the event of an accidental release. Shortcomings of the Geographic Approach The placement of gas detectors is never a straightforward analysis. A common rule of thumb for hydrocarbon releases (methane and propane) is the 5-meter cloud Geographic Approach; however, this approach is not valid for non-hydrocarbon releases and tends to over-specify the number of gas detectors required. A facility may require a gas detection system for varying chemicals with uncommon properties and parameters. The Geographic Approach does not consider building ventilation, geometry, or obstructions that can significantly impact the dispersion of gas plumes. CFD Scenario Modeling Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) scenario modeling is an alternative method to the Geographic Approach that delivers a more accurate number and placement of combustible and toxic gas detectors. Although there is a larger upfront investment, CFD modeling saves costs over the long term by reducing the number of gas detectors required and the expense of their calibration and maintenance. CFD modeling also provides an auditable record of assumptions such as material properties, leak size, leak origin, wind speed, and building ventilation; this can be beneficial in the event of an actual leak incident since the original assumptions can be revisited and revised if the actual leak behavior deviates significantly from the modeled leak dispersion. The CFD modeling results may reveal unexpected behaviors from the vapors of concern compared to what was reasonably predicted. For example, a simple approach might place gas detectors near the roof for gases that are lighter than air. Yet, CFD modeling may demonstrate that ventilation effects pull the gas downward instead, requiring detectors to be placed at lower elevations. In similar fashion, it might be assumed that a remote warehouse building does not require a gas detection system if there are no chemicals of concern within the building; however, a gas leak in another area may disperse farther than expected, resulting in the gas cloud traveling to the unprotected warehouse building. In this case, gas detectors in the warehouse’s ventilation intakes might be advisable. The Takeaway CFD scenario modeling is the best investment for large facilities with specialty gases to ensure gas detectors are appropriately located and perform optimally. It is the most effective tool to have high confidence in protecting personnel from toxic and combustible gas releases, while minimizing the long-term maintenance costs for the gas detection system. Dispersion modeling results may challenge the predictions of simpler, less quantitative methods, and documented modeling assumptions can be referred to and updated throughout the life of the facility.

Those who work in high hazard industries are familiar with the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) standard requirements for Process Hazard Analyses (PHA) for their covered processes. These studies are required to be completed initially, then revalidated, typically on a five-year schedule. Good practice implemented at many companies is to follow a similar scheme for processes containing hazardous materials that are not covered by the standard. During revalidation PHAs, among other things, it is expected that any changes or new learnings (from incidents, for example) for the area under study will be incorporated so that the study represents the state of the process at the time of the PHA. It is also expected during revalidation that resolution of prior recommendations will be verified and any safeguards that have been improved or implemented will be integrated and documented. Collecting, reviewing, and incorporating five years’ worth of changes, learnings, and updates to recommendations and safeguards for the process can be challenging and very distracting to a PHA revalidation team. An alternate method of managing PHA review of changes and learnings to a process is to incorporate them into the PHA as changes are underway or learnings occur. This method is often called an Evergreen PHA or Continuous PHA Revalidation. The Benefits Evergreen PHAs have valuable benefits, including: - It is a big time saver at revalidation time since changes, learnings, and the status of recommendations and safeguards are current - The PHA is always current for internal reference, as well as for auditors or regulatory agencies - The PHA always matches the current P&IDs for the process - The preexisting PHA helps teams who are assessing changes to a process to not go beyond the scope of the change and not to issue “wish list” recommendations that are not truly needed to mitigate risks. MOC PHA teams who have a model in an evergreen PHA are more likely to focus on the task at hand. - The preexisting PHA helps teams who are assessing incidents to rapidly translate incident learnings into the PHA in a way that works to align the incident root & contributing causes and consequences with existing information in the PHA. It is most efficient to accomplish this work while the incident investigation participants have the information fresh on their minds, rather than asking a revalidation PHA team to accomplish it perhaps years later. The Challenges Evergreen PHAs are a concept that sounds appealing on the surface, and they do indeed provide many safety and resource benefits. Many sites successfully manage their evergreen PHA in a way that allows them to obtain the maximum benefit from the practice. But if improperly managed or executed, “not so evergreen” PHAs can suffer from failures such as lack of control of the master file and archived files, lack of a designated “owner” of the file, failure to track file updates, or failure to include a change, learning, or updated action status at the right time. These flaws can all lead to confusion and difficulties in management of the PHA. This in turn can lead to suboptimal use of people’s time and in the worst case, misunderstandings about the process hazards and their safeguards. This has the potential to lead to safety gaps and even process safety incidents. Get Off on the Right Foot Start your evergreen PHAs off right by incorporating good practices and good usage discipline in your PHA program, including: - A single designated storage location and “owner” for the file(s) - A narrative, ideally embedded in the PHA file, clearly describing the changes from the baseline or most recent revalidation PHA with relevant MOC, project, and incident references included - Revision tracking methods, including for the file, the nodes that were revised, new safeguards and recommendations, and even the scenarios that were added or revised - Predetermined conventions for how new or revised scenarios and safeguards should be marked as revisions - A tracking method for the status of recommendations and proposed safeguards - A tracking method for new recommendations developed during changes to the baseline PHA or most recent revalidation - A predetermined method for how to incorporate future changes that may be implemented at different times, for example turnaround projects vs. projects that are expected to be completed while a process is running - Retention of old file versions, in the event that a change is canceled before implementation - Provision of updated documentation from the updated PHA to affected staff - A method to familiarize affected staff with the changes made to the baseline PHA or revalidated PHAs If your software product does not currently support the evergreen PHA concept, help is available to improve your templates and even to manage your files and the incorporation of changes in many cases. Properly managed evergreen PHAs can go a long way toward increasing the value of, and your confidence in, one of your most important process safety program elements. Tackle it soon! by Judith Lesslie, CFSE, CSP Process and personal safety professional with more than 35 years’ experience in HSSE leadership, process safety and instrument engineering, project management, and maintenance in the petrochemicals industry.

Greenville, SC – February 1st, 2023 – Cigna has selected aeSolutions as a recipient of their Bronze level Healthy Workforce Designation for demonstrating a strong commitment to improving the health and well-being of its employees through a workplace wellness program. aeSolutions has shown a focus on the vitality & well-being of their workforce. This allowed employees to not only be healthier but to be more productive and engaged. “aeSolutions is driven by supporting every stakeholder in the pursuit of their full potential,” shared Ken O’Malley, President, and Founder. “This means we want our employees to thrive both professionally and personally. Providing a robust, year-round wellness program which supports and encourages the physical, mental, social, and financial health of not just our employees, but also their family members, is a critical component of our business’ success. I’m very proud that our results have been recognized and appreciated, by Cigna and by our team members.” Investing in an effective workplace well-being program drives value for employers. Senior executives surveyed as part of an Economist Impact study commissioned by Cigna reported greater productivity, stronger staff morale and motivation, and greater retention and loyalty as the most significant business outcomes of a healthy workforce. Additionally, a Gallup Report finds that on average, companies with high employee engagement are 23 percent more profitable. “As a consultative growth partner, Cigna knows that a healthy workforce is critical to business growth,” said Cindy Ryan, executive vice president and chief human resources officer. “We are honored to recognize organizations like aeSolutions who share our commitment to workplace wellness. Creating a healthy work culture is of critical importance, and many employers are seeing increased employee engagement, productivity, and retention as a result of whole person health wellness initiatives.” The Cigna Healthy Workforce Designation, formerly known as the Cigna Well-Being Award, evaluates organizations based on the core components of their well-being program, including leadership and culture, program foundations, program execution, and whole person health. Organizations recognized with this designation set the standard of excellence for whole-organization health. Cigna is proud to honor aeSolutions with the Bronze level designation for having made good progress towards a healthy work culture by establishing and growing their employee well-being and engagement program. About aeSolutions In business since 1998, aeSolutions is a consulting, engineering, and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services. They specialize in helping industrial clients achieve their risk management and operational excellence goals through expertise in process safety, combustion control and safeguarding, safety instrumented systems, control system design and integration, alarm management, and related operations and integrity management systems. For more information, visit www.aesolutions.com. Media Contact RedIron PR for aeSolutions Kari Ritacco kari@redironpr.com

Greenville, South Carolina, USA – July 13, 2018 – aeSolutions®, a consulting, engineering and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety, cybersecurity and automation products and services, announced today that they have earned the Siemens SIMATIC PCS 7 Process Safety Specialist certification. “As customers require PCS 7 safety instrumented systems, we can recommend aeSolutions, our certified Process Safety Specialist Solution Partner, knowing that they have the engineering and quality practices to execute the project right the first time using best practices,” says Rich Chmielewski, Siemens USA PCS 7 Solution Partner Program Manager. “aeSolutions was able to demonstrate and pass all of the requirements from our partner program to achieve the status of Siemens Process Safety Specialist. This certification provides confidence to the market that aeSolutions can offer quality and complete safety lifecycle services per the IEC 61511 functional safety standard for the process industries along with strong technical expertise using Siemens process safety technology,” says Charles M. Fialkowski, CFSE, Siemens National Director for Process Safety. Learn more about aeSolutions' partnership with Siemens what we can do together: https://www.aesolutions.com/siemens-solution-partner About aeSolutions In business since 1998, aeSolutions is a consulting, engineering and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety, cybersecurity and automation products and services. They specialize in helping industrial clients achieve their risk management and operational excellence goals through expertise in process safety, industrial cybersecurity, safety instrumented systems, control system design and integration, alarm management, and related operations and integrity management system. About Siemens Siemens Corporation is a U.S. subsidiary of Siemens AG, a global powerhouse focusing on the areas of electrification, automation and digitalization. One of the world’s largest producers of energy-efficient, resource-saving technologies, Siemens is a leading supplier of systems for power generation and transmission as well as medical diagnosis. With approximately 372,000 employees in 190 countries, Siemens reported worldwide revenue of $92.0 billion in fiscal 2017. Siemens in the USA reported revenue of $23.3 billion, including $5.0 billion in exports, and employs approximately 50,000 people throughout all 50 states and Puerto Rico. ### Media Contact: For more information, contact Christi Morrison of aeSolutions at info@aesolns.com or (864) 404-3014. #pcs7 #Siemens #SIMATIC

aeSolutions Sharpens Focus on its Process Safety and Automation Business Greenville, SC – Aug. 5, 2021 – aeSolutions, a consulting, engineering and systems integration company, today announced the sale of its Industrial Cybersecurity (IC) division, aeCyberSolutions, to Deloitte Risk & Financial Advisory. The acquisition will allow aeSolutions to focus on the growth and expansion of its core business of providing process safety consulting and automation engineering services to the industrial markets. “Our decision to sell aeCyberSolutions serves in the best interests of our industrial cybersecurity team and the customers they serve. Deloitte’s brand and access to the market and labor force made it a natural fit for that business and will expand the breadth and depth of those services,” said Ken O’Malley, Founder and President of aeSolutions. “Going forward, aeSolutions will pursue some exciting transformational opportunities for our company with an eye on geographic expansion and growth into new strategic markets.” aeSolutions plans to leverage today’s digitalization technologies for better insights and smarter decision-making to continually improve customer onstream production to compete and win in today’s hyper-fast-changing landscape. Additionally, aeSolutions plans to have a renewed focus on its core consulting and engineering expertise serving the world’s process manufacturers as a valued partner for smarter, more resilient industrial operations and safer communities. aeSolutions was founded in 1998 as an automation company serving the process industry. With strong roots in oil exploration, the company later began focusing on growing its chemicals business. aeSolutions created its aeCyberSolutions division in 2014 with a single employee and experienced significant growth that included attracting a team of top talent. Terms of Deloitte Risk & Financial Advisory’s acquisition of aeCyberSolutions were not disclosed. aeSolutions was represented by FOCUS Investment Banking, LLC. The transaction was facilitated by legal firm Krieg Devault with Clayton McKervey serving as the CPA. About aeSolutions In business since 1998, aeSolutions is a consulting, engineering and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services. They specialize in helping industrial clients achieve their risk management and operational excellence goals through expertise in process safety, combustion control and safeguarding, safety instrumented systems, control system design and integration, alarm management, and related operations and integrity management systems. For more information, visit www.aeSolutions.com. Kari Walker for aeSolutions Kari@redironpr.com @KariWalkerPR As used in this document, each of “Deloitte” and “Deloitte Risk and Financial Advisory” means Deloitte & Touche LLP, a subsidiary of Deloitte LLP. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of our legal structure. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting.