by Melissa Langsdon Senior Principal Specialist In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress required the Occupational, Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to adopt the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard to protect workers and required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect the community and environment by issuing the Risk Management Plan Rule (RMP). PSM and RMP were written to complement each other in accomplishing these Congressional goals. Both the PSM regulation in 29 CFR 1910.119 and the RMP Rule codified in 40 CFR Part 68 are critical aspects of industrial operations, aimed at protecting employees, facilities and communities from potential hazards associated with highly hazardous chemicals and regulated substances, respectively. To ensure adherence to regulatory standards, companies often seek the expertise of PSM/RMP consultants. In this blog post, we will delve into the role of process safety consultants and explore how they assist clients in understanding their compliance gaps, implementing effective safety programs, and continuously reducing risks. Understanding the Need for PSM Consultants PSM/RMP Program Development and Implementation can be overwhelming. In addition, many organizations require additional resources to support existing process safety programs due to a lack of dedicated resources or spending cutbacks. This is where PSM/RMP consultants come in. Their primary goal is to help clients bridge the gap between their existing safety programs and the requirements mandated by regulatory bodies such as OSHA and EPA with regard to process safety. Compliance and Beyond PSM/RMP consultants cater to a wide range of clients with varying objectives. Some clients approach consultants solely to ensure regulatory compliance by meeting the minimum requirements of regulations. Others seek to exceed regulatory requirements and proactively enhance their safety programs. Additionally, there are companies that are entirely new to the regulatory landscape, requiring guidance on implementing PSM/RMP programs for the first time. In some cases, regulatory requirements may even mandate the involvement of third-party auditors. It is worth noting that future changes in regulations may further emphasize the use of third-party auditors. The Dual Perspective of OSHA and EPA OSHA and EPA approach process safety from different angles. OSHA focuses on mitigating workplace-related risks and injuries from highly hazardous chemicals. On the other hand, EPA addresses regulated substances and emphasizes community safety and the prevention of offsite impacts. Process safety consultants possess expertise in both perspectives, ensuring comprehensive safety measures that protect both employees and the community. The Importance of Fresh Perspectives Having an external consultant with a fresh set of eyes is invaluable in identifying potential non-compliance issues and process gaps. Long-standing internal employees may inadvertently overlook certain aspects of the site’s safety program, leading to compliance risks. By bringing in a different viewpoint, process safety consultants can help identify and rectify such issues, ensuring a more robust and effective safety program. Real-Life Implications Real-world incidents, such as the West Texas Fertilizer incident in 2013, have highlighted the need for continuous improvement in process safety. OSHA and EPA have pushed for regulatory changes as a result of these incidents. PSM/RMP consultants play a crucial role in helping facilities reduce their risk of chemical releases, thereby improving workplace and community safety, environmental contamination, and other onsite and offsite impacts. The Capabilities of PSM/RMP Consultants PSM/RMP consultants offer a range of services to assist organizations in enhancing their process safety programs. These include: Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) Facilitation: PSM/RMP consultants facilitate PHA sessions, which are used to identify potential hazards and develop risk reduction strategies. Overall Process Safety Program Development: PSM/RMP consultants assist in the development of comprehensive process safety programs, including management procedures, operating procedure development, and mechanical integrity procedure development. PSM/RMP Compliance Audits: PSM/RMP consultants conduct regulatory required 3-year audits to assess the compliance and effectiveness of PSM and RMP programs, identifying areas for improvement. Training: PSM/RMP consultants provide management-level training and internal training to equip employees with the necessary skills to facilitate PHA sessions and conduct internal audits. Risk Assessment: PSM/RMP consultants perform different types of Risk Assessments including Quantitative Risk Assessments (QRA), Safety Case Development, Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA), and Alarm Rationalization. EPA Risk Management Plans: PSM/RMP consultants prepare initial and 5-year resubmission of EPA required Risk Management Plans, along with the Hazard Assessment for the development of Worst Case Release and Alternative Case Release Scenarios (WCRS and ACRS). As a supplier of complete process safety and risk management solution consultants, aeSolutions is proud to provide engineers from industry with design, maintenance, operating, and process safety backgrounds. Our specialists understand how plants operate because they have actually worked in covered processes and facilities. Their knowledge supports a practical approach to risk reduction solutions for PSM and RMP compliance.

by Tom McGreevy All automation projects ideally follow a process that reflects the classic systems engineering V model, whereby a need is identified, which drives requirements. Requirements are analyzed and broken down so that they can be allocated to a functional solution. In this manner, the classic “How do you eat an elephant?” problem can be tackled with a “one bite at a time” strategy. Once all requirements are allocated to an agreeable solution, the work to realize the solution can begin. Starting with the smallest subsystems identified in the analysis and allocation phases, the full solution comes together as subsystems are integrated to form a complete system that is not only built correctly, but provides a solution to the original need. Critical to the ultimate success of any automation project is appropriate testing as the system is being realized. In the industrial automation world, two very common terms are factory acceptance testing (FAT) and site acceptance testing (SAT). The FAT is typically performed at the facility of the system provider, either by an OEM or a control system integrator. A properly performed FAT will provide… >> Read the full blog on AutomationWorld.com #aesolutions #ThoroughSystemTesting

In the evolving world of chemical processing, companies face a formidable challenge as they strive to keep pace with ever-evolving industry demands, develop novel formulations and deliver innovative products to market. Meeting customer needs often requires adjustments to production processes, including new plants, facility expansions and equipment upgrades. The successful execution of such projects hinges upon comprehensive planning, particularly when it comes to evaluating process safety risks. Complex assessments, such as studies of overpressure relief devices, facility sitings and process safety procedure development, are crucial elements in this process. However, plant operators are primarily experts in running chemical plant operations, not project planning. To shed light on this critical aspect, Chemical Processing recently spoke with Chris Neff, senior vice president of project development for aeSolutions. In this discussion, Neff delves into the intricacies of the project-planning process and outlines methods for chemical manufacturers to integrate safety seamlessly into their projects. "I think one of the biggest challenges is the belief that process safety is a cost rather than an integral part of the operation." The full interview is available on chemicalprocessing.com as well as an audio podcast:

Excerpt from automation.com: Review by external auditors with wide-ranging experience has proven at many sites to provide the best-case outcome of an audit, resulting in findings and best practice recommendations that drive true compliance with right-sized resource needs. In many cases, external auditors can also offer specific methods and techniques for efficient and speedy resolution of concerns identified at sites. Their range of experience enables external auditors to share the general methods proven to drive good PSM and RMP compliance across industry. Companies with lean or less-experienced workforces or that are unsure where they stand versus industry norms for PSM and RMP compliance may benefit from engaging a firm with experienced auditors. This independence from the site and company has the best probability of a careful assessment with fresh eyes on the relevant critical systems and leads to efficient compliance with the necessary standards. Read full article->>When it Comes to Process Safety Audits, External Auditors Maximize Safety. Here’s How. (automation.com) Full PSM Services

In the machinery industry, a safety function is a control function that reduces the risk of injury, exposure to hazards, or harm to the operator. To classify a safeguard identified in the risk assessment as a safety function, refer to the aeSolutions blog post "Machinery Safety – Is it a Safety Function?". Functional safety is a methodology used to design, specify, implement, validate, and maintain safety functions. Conformity to functional safety standards helps analyze safety function failure rates and provides assurance that the design and integration of safety functions are reliable and effective for the life of the safety function. The two most commonly used standards in the machinery safety realm of functional safety are ISO 13849-1 and -2, which are a sector-specific versions of the broader functional safety standard IEC 61511. ISO 13849-1 describes Performance Levels (PLs) that are analogous to Safety Integrity Levels (SIL) in process safety. Each safety function identified in the risk assessment and the Safety Related Parts of the Control System (SRP/CS) is assigned a required PL depending on the risk assessment and risk ranking structure. PLs use discrete levels to represent the range of the Probability of Dangerous Failure per Hour (PFHd) of the safety function. In practical terms, the PL signifies the reliability of the function and probability that a safety function will fail (i.e., not perform when needed). There are five (5) performance levels (a, b, c, d, e). PLa is assigned to safety functions required for low-risk hazards and has the least stringent design requirements, whereas PLe is assigned for high-risk hazards and requires a high performance level of the safety function. PLs are dependent on the hardware and structure of the circuit, and the circuit components are characterized by the circuit categories (B, 1, 2, 3, 4) and failure data such as the Mean Time to Dangerous Failure (MTTFd), Diagnostic Coverage (DC), and Common Cause Failure (CCF). The chart below from the ISO 13849-1 standard illustrates the relationships between these factors. Each circuit category requirement (x-axis on chart) is associated with specific performance level(s) (y-axis on chart). Category B is the most basic circuit category, with a single channel, low and medium MTTFd, and non-applicable DC. The resulting PL is either a PLa or PLb. Category 1 achieves higher reliability than Category B, and each circuit category progressively increases its requirements. Category 4 corresponds to a PLe and has the most safety function requirements, as it is a dual-channel circuit with high MTTFd and high DC. Once the actual PL of the designed safety function has been determined, it needs to be verified that it meets the required PL per the risk assessment. There are also software tools available that assist in PL calculation. If a gap exists between the safety function PL and required PL, the design needs to be reiterated to increase the PL, such as increasing diagnostic coverage or re-evaluating the circuit categories. Design factors, including process, operating stress, environmental conditions, and operating procedures, should also be considered. The next step is the most common mistake made in machinery functional safety – skipping the validation. Validation occurs after the safety function is designed, verified, installed, and programmed. A validation procedure analyzes and tests the safety function and can include a simulation of faults and verification that the safety function responds as expected under all scenarios. It is critical for those responsible for functional safety to validate that the function is acting as intended, as there is still potential for error at the end. The second part of the standard, ISO 13849-2, provides guidance on the validation procedure to ensure the category and performance level is achieved by the SRP/CS in accordance with the function’s design criteria established in ISO 13849-1. Following validation, maintaining these systems and applying regular preventative and corrective maintenance plans is also very important to keep the safety functions working in a safe and effective manner. Functional safety is necessary in the manufacturing and machinery industry to have assurance that the design and integration of safety functions are reliable and effective when called upon to reduce the risk of human injury or risk of exposure to hazards. PLs are a benchmark for performance that the safety function is required to meet; without benchmarks, it would be challenging to understand whether safety functions are achieving their purpose. The ISO 13849-1 and -2 standards must be applied to ensure that a safety function is both designed properly and validated to test that its intended performance is being achieved (do not make the mistake of skipping this step!) and maintained throughout its life.

Company to Continue to Focus on Employee Development and Recruitment and Growing Client Services as it Looks to the Future Greenville, SC – July 13, 2023 – aeSolutions, a consulting, engineering, and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services, today announced that the company is celebrating the 25th anniversary of its founding. Founded by Brian Merriman, Mike Scott, and current president Ken O'Malley, the company opened its first office location in Greenville, South Carolina, in 1998. With a focus on value-driven engineering, aeSolutions set out to solve the complex challenges faced by industrial clients. The company’s commitment to serving clients nationwide quickly drove expansion into new locations and ventures. In 2001, aeSolutions opened a 14,000 square foot fabrication shop, which allowed the company to provide cost-effective and safe solutions for integrated Burner Management Systems (BMS) and Combustion Control Systems (CCS). Two additional office locations followed, first in Anchorage, Alaska (2007), and then in Houston, Texas (2010), and during the Alaska oil market boom, the company grew to 175 employees. The company’s service offerings began to expand rapidly with the addition of a Process Safety Management division. That team grew to include other new areas of expertise and knowledge in areas such as Process Risk Management and Alarm Management. When the leadership team at aeSolutions recognized the need in the process industry for a database-driven safety lifecycle platform, one that was created by engineers for engineers, the aeShield software solution was born. aeShield, which has helped to greatly improve the safety of the process industry, has grown into its own organization and is now headed by co-founder Mike Scott. Along with its remarkable successes, aeSolutions has experienced its share of difficulties. The combination of the death of Chief Executive Officer Brian Merriman in 2014, followed immediately by the oil market crash in 2015, created a challenging time for the company. Combined, these two events required aeSolutions to develop new leaders and to diversify in new geographies and markets all at the same time. These challenges helped forge the company into a more mature and resilient organization. “Throughout aeSolutions’ ups and downs, the thing I have been most proud of is the consistency with which we have prioritized the retention and development of our people. We have many long-tenured employees who could work anywhere, and they choose aeSolutions as their professional home. Our Company Vision places our employees as top priority with the understanding that if we treat our employees well, our clients will be the beneficiaries,” said O’Malley. “And when it comes to our clients, we work every problem from a risk-management approach, always striving to be a guide and not a guard. Our clients trust us to be a relentless and inclusive partner that holds the entire project team accountable in pursuing the right solution - which isn’t always the easiest - while balancing risk and reward. I am very proud of my company’s ethical and even-keeled behavior even during the very hardest of times.” “Leading this company has been a humbling experience. People do not follow the smartest person or even the person with the best ideas. They follow the person they trust to be of consistent character, someone who shows enthusiasm for the future and has a vision for what is possible,” O’Malley continued. “I am so proud of our employees and leadership team, who inspire me by consistently putting the greater good ahead of their own interests. They all seek to embody aeSolutions’ core values.” As aeSolutions celebrates and looks beyond the quarter-century mark, the company will continue to prioritize supporting its employees in pursuit of their full potential. The leadership team at aeSolutions understands that its people are the company’s most important resource and that its people provide the depth and breadth of the company’s domain expertise. Accordingly, the company will continue to make significant investments in creating and improving employee development programs and creating new opportunities for growth. Additionally, aeSolutions will continue to strive to be guides for its clients’ success both in their projects and overall. aeSolutions is a stand-alone when it comes to its expertise in areas of regulatory compliance and critical automation and safety systems. Areas of expertise include guiding clients in the development of Process Safety Management programs; facilitating hazards analysis workshops; and designing, building, configuring, testing, and starting these systems up in the field. Going forward, the company will work to continuously improve the linking of its front-end consulting services with its back-end engineering and automation teams in order to execute larger, more complex projects and to ultimately bring real, lasting value to its clients on a larger scale. “aeSolutions has come a long way from its days as a start-up when we would meet in the bonus room at Brian Merriman’s house. We had little to no air conditioning and had to contend with squirrels eating the electrical wiring in Brian’s attic. We spent as much time trying to catch squirrels as we did executing project work,” said O’Malley. “To see what the company has become fills me with tremendous pride. We have consistently been a steadfastly hard-working, ethical, high-value, dependable partner and are always seeking win-win outcomes. I am thankful for the support of our employees, leadership team and clients, and I look forward to the exciting future we have ahead of us.” 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 Kari Walker for aeSolutions Kari@redironpr.com @KariWalkerPR

We asked a few our engineers to answer: Why did you get into Engineering? How do we/engineers make an impact on the greater community? Founded by NSPE in 1951, EWeek(link is external) (February 19–25, 2023) is dedicated to ensuring a diverse and well-educated future engineering workforce by increasing understanding of and interest in engineering and technology careers. Today, EWeek is a formal coalition of more than 70 engineering, education, and cultural societies, and more than 50 corporations and government agencies. Dedicated to raising public awareness of engineers' positive contributions to quality of life, EWeek promotes recognition among parents, teachers, and students of the importance of a technical education and a high level of math, science, and technology literacy, and motivates youth, to pursue engineering careers in order to provide a diverse and vigorous engineering workforce. Each year, EWeek reaches thousands of schools, businesses, and community groups across the U.S.

Update Provides a Migration Path for Existing FGS 1400 Installations Greenville, SC – October 10th, 2022 – aeSolutions, a consulting, engineering, and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services, today announced the release of an update to its FGS 1400 MK II Safety Instrumented Fire & Gas System (FGS) solution. Scalable for large industrial installations, the solution is designed to provide fire and gas protection based on a safety-rated control system. Available as a turnkey solution, the FGS 1400 MK II is pre-engineered, pre-configured, and pre-packaged, and is suitable for a wide variety of applications. The system has been updated to utilize Siemens process automation Simatic ET 200SP HA input/output (I/O) cards in place of existing I/O cards that are on Siemens’ mature product list and are being phased out. To ensure continuity of operations, the update will provide existing aeSolutions clients with an upgrade path to maintain their existing FGS 1400 MK II products. As the update is rolled out, aeSolutions can supply migration fabrication kits that will enable end users to easily migrate to the ET 200SP HA I/O cards. Moving forward, aeSolutions’ product lines will only offer the new ET 200SP HA I/O cards in the FGS 1400 products. “When spare parts are no longer available, this important update to the FGS 1400 MK II provides a migration path to future aeSolutions’ product lines that will only offer the new ET 200SP HA I/O cards,” said Warren Johnson, senior project manager at aeSolutions. “Our customers come from a range of sectors and include companies in the oil and gas, chemical, pharmaceutical, agricultural chemical, and hydrogen production industries. Businesses with a need for industrial-grade fire and gas systems look to aeSolutions to offer products that meet and exceed industry standards and expectations. While not all fire and gas systems are required to conform to ISA and IEC safety standards, our customers recognize the benefits of such a high-reliability system even for lower-risk applications. aeSolutions is proud to continue to set the standard by providing our customers with superior, up-to-date products.” As the premier solution for fire and gas alarm and control, the FGS 1400 MK II can be built on demand and combines required functionality into the latest generation of TÜV-certified safety programmable logic controller (PLC). The FGS 1400 MK II was designed to the same levels of safety availability and reliability as the systems that aeSolutions designs for Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS). By using the latest generation of a safety integration level (SIL) 3 safety-certified PLC as the logic solver, the FGS 1400 MK II provides the same demanding levels of performance required by the International Society of Automation (ISA) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) safety standards for safety-critical applications. Additionally, the FGS 1400 MK II meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for fire protection, has Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) certification for fire and gas, and is Factory Mutual (FM)-approved to be in conformance with the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72 and FM 3010 standards for fire alarming and mitigation control. The FGS 1400 MK II has also been FM-approved to be in conformance with FM Approvals’ Combustible Gas Standard 6320, Toxic Gas Detection Standard 6340, and American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ISA 12.13.01 Performance Requirements for Combustible Gas Detectors standard. The FGS 1400 MK II has approval for either simplex or redundant processors, a variety of I/O configurations, including remote I/O, and a battery back-up/ charger subsystem. A critical component of the system is an FM-approved secondary power supply system consisting of a charger panel and an associated self-contained battery system. To support system design, aeSolutions has developed an FM-approved battery sizing tool that confirms the battery system design based on the specific requirements of each application. By using the same hardware/software platform as the Siemens Simatic PCS7 series, the FGS 1400 MK II can be integrated into the entire plant system solution. It offers the advantages of common Human Machine Interfaces (HMIs), spare parts, training, engineering/configuration tools, maintenance, and procedures to produce a dramatic saving in both installed costs as well as lifecycle costs. For more information about aeSolutions’ FGS products, visit https://www.aesolutions.com/fire-gas-products. 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 Kari Walker for aeSolutions Kari@redironpr.com @KariWalkerPR

(and where picking safety integrity levels on burner management systems makes sense) Safety is always a primary concern at any industrial site, and for good reason. But how much should you pay for that safety? While that question may have seemed blasphemous in days gone by, in today’s highly competitive business environment, unnecessary costs of any kind cannot be tolerated – and that includes safety instrumented systems, of which burner management systems are one type. Businesses want to optimize every dollar spent and maximize every dollar in return. A right sized safety system delivers the right amount of protection that a facility needs, requiring only the amount of money that can deliver the most risk reduction. This line of thinking becomes especially relevant when trying to identify the correct amount of risk reduction for a legacy burner management system. Selection of an overly conservative replacement system following prescriptive standards can have significant cost impact often without significant additional risk reduction over a BMS that is chosen based on valid safety integrity level selection techniques. The costs associated with upgrading according to prescriptive requirements typically originate from the significant mechanical rework that is required. Sometimes the cost is so high that it doesn’t get management approval. This is where the red flags in the executive suites can start to rise as they start sensing unjustified cost escalations or unmitigated risk exposure. Yes, they want safety, but they want it in context of what they need – enough safety that makes the risk tolerable for the business. “Right sizing” your BMS starts from a good targeted risk assessment of the BMS and fired equipment operation. A good assessment is the one that has a reasonably accurate estimate of likelihood and consequence. If the estimated likelihood is too frequent, or the consequence too severe, the safety integrity level (SIL) target may be set too high. This will result in an overly conservative and unnecessarily expensive system. On the other hand, if the consequence or likelihood is judged too low, the facility’s risks may not be adequately reduced. This also exposes the business to risks that could be ruinous; risks that the business is trying to mitigate. At the same time, the system design also needs to be consistent for similarly situated, similar types of fired equipment. The current prevalent techniques of assessing risk needs to be paired with the right amount of empirically backed experience to achieve this. This is where it pays to have a competent engineering partner that can help calibrate and deliver a right sized solution. Find more info on our Fired Equipment Services Page.

A hazard scenario-based, drill-down audit can uncover systematic issues brewing beneath the surface not often uncovered from a traditional compliance audit. This methodology exposes the pain points and, most importantly, the sources of those points by digging deep into the management system processes around Process Hazard Analysis (PHA)/Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA), Process Safety Information (PSI), Mechanical Integrity, Operating Procedures, and Management of Change (MOC). The audit findings provide a basis for revising the work flow to achieve the risk management objectives. A drill-down audit focuses on a trail that begins with the PHA/LOPA and the credited Independent Protection Layers (safeguards), then drills down through the management systems to ensure their integrity.  It checks the health of communications and data exchanged at the interfaces of the processes and the people. This approach provides visibility – and proof – into whether the information in the PHA/LOPA has been fully integrated into the process safety lifecycle. The audit methodology validates IPLs (Independent Protection Layers) are embedded in an organization’s operating discipline, meet all defined criteria, are inspected and tested, and are functioning as intended. The following are examples of a drill down audit trail for an Alarm IPL: A review of the PHA/LOPA should verify the operator, alarm sensor, and final elements used by the operator are independent of the Initiating Event and other IPLs for the scenario. A review of PSI would confirm alarm sensors are maintained on the critical IPL list and on the piping and instrumentation diagram; sensor data sheet and final elements are in place; and the basis for the Probability of Failure on Demand is well documented. Review of the mechanical integrity information should verify calibration and proof test procedures are available; testing, calibration and inspections are scheduled at a routine frequency; and calibration and proof test records are reviewed, actioned if required, and maintained.   The auditor interviews maintenance employees to see if they recognize the criticality of the alarm loop, it’s inspection and reliability. The auditor must confirm the alarm, along with consequences of deviation, intended operator action, and specific parameters/authorization for bypass of the alarm are documented in the appropriate operating procedures. The auditor confirms that the operator is formally trained on the alarm and the intended actions, but most importantly interviews operators to check their experience and intended action in the event they get an alarm. Much like a standard compliance audit, the auditor will also need to track a MOC to determine if changes to the alarms credited as IPLs are managed appropriately. Finally, the auditor needs to check the security of the IPL; its access control and with increasing emphasis it’s cyber security. Ultimately, organization’s need to ensure their hazardous processes are being operated within accepted risk tolerance and have a sense of assurance they are effectively managing their risks, identifying pain points, and relieving any undue pressure.

Greenville, SC – October 28, 2021 – aeSolutions, a consulting, engineering, and systems integration company, is excited to announce the release of aeAlarm, a proprietary alarm rationalization tool. aeAlarm is control system platform-agnostic and is adaptable across all industrial sectors. It is effective for projects of all types and sizes, including small project rationalizations and large site-wide efforts. Additionally, the tool creates a platform to compile process safety information and generates customized reports and tables to expedite data tracking for site specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Poor alarm management has been a critical factor in major process safety incidents throughout history. With the introduction of aeAlarm, rationalization teams have easy access to customized templates and dropdowns for severities and maximum time to respond, along with automatic population of alarm priority. aeAlarm processes unique tags one by one and allows the user to fill in consequences, causes, and operator actions. User-defined data fields can be added to incorporate site-specific requirements while maintaining compliance with the recommended documentation described in IEC 62682 and ISA/ANSI 18.2. The template feature allows users to create a rationalization spreadsheet with fields similar to the site’s alarm list. These fields can be filtered to facilitate a consistent rationalization of similar points such as fire and gas, rate of change alarms, safety showers, etc. “aeAlarm, was created to support the alarm rationalization process by providing a clear and concise approach to critical alarm documentation,” said Sarah Manelick, a Principal Specialist at aeSolutions, ISA IC39C Course Instructor and member of the ISA 18 Committee. “Additionally, aeAlarm uses a unique-to-the-industry consequence-based rationalization methodology that is much faster than legacy tag-based methods. This approach leaves more time for implementation and advanced alarm design techniques which together even further improves overall process safety performance.” aeSolutions offers comprehensive Alarm Management Services, including: · Alarm Philosophy Development · Gap Assessment of existing Alarm Philosophy · Alarm Management and Rationalization Training · Facilitation of Alarm Rationalizations using aeAlarm · Alarm Management Program Gap Assessments aeSolutions’ alarm management services help customers improve the performance of their alarm systems and increase the situational awareness of their operators. aeSolutions’ clients recognize there is a direct relationship between the implementation of effective alarm management techniques and the process safety performance of their plant. 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

by Kelvin Severin PE Time is constantly working against operating equipment in a plant. Over time, components of the equipment reach the end of their useful lifespan and need to be replaced. Manufacturers go out of business or are no longer producing parts for antiquated equipment. The technology advances, and new and improved standardized models are developed, causing components to become outdated or obsolete. Many processing facilities in the United States were built decades ago and have never been upgraded. Maintaining aging equipment can be a challenge as parts for the old equipment are often no longer available or very expensive. For example, the manufacturer may no longer exist, or they may no longer produce the parts, or the components do not meet the newest revision of a regulatory standard. If aging equipment is not managed properly in relation to its expected lifespan, it can result in avoidable safety incidents, or maintenance and reliability issues. Most equipment has a specified life expectancy and pushing it beyond its useful life can put an operating facility at risk. Some older systems and instrumentation do not have the technology for diagnostics and therefore have no ability to query or troubleshoot the operating issue, resulting in extended shutdowns. Additionally, companies may face a loss of production and revenue in the event of mechanical issues with a piece of antiquated operating equipment, systems, or instrumentation that causes the process to go offline. A cost-effective first step to address aging equipment is a conceptual level screening checklist, that evaluates equipment systematically to identify deficiencies in the components. Facilities may be unaware of serious issues, and this checklist allows companies to make informed decisions and prioritize potential upgrades to aging equipment. This applies to both long-standing operating facilities as well as companies who recently purchased an existing facility, as they may not recognize the condition of all assets and/or older equipment they acquired. Refer to the aeSolutions blog, “Prioritizing Fired Equipment Upgrades Using Screening Checklists,” for further detail: https://www.aesolutions.com/post/prioritizing-fired-equipment-upgrades-using-screening-checklists After identifying areas of improvement, a plan can be developed for replacing the obsolete components that are approaching the end of their useful life. This plan should assess the safety concerns, mechanical concerns, and operational risks to the facility. It should also include a timeline for how soon the antiquated components should be replaced. The best replacement option is provided with qualities such as reliability and resilience to assure a long lifespan, aligning with regulatory codes, and adaptability to future system upgrades installed at the facility. Every facility should review its equipment to verify its life expectancy and ensure it is safe and reliable for continued operation. Suppose a facility is unable to find replacement parts or utilizes replacement parts sourced outside of the normal supply chain from the manufacturer to adapt to the existing system. In that case, this short-term solution could potentially perpetuate the mechanical and reliability issues. A conceptual level screening checklist can assess the status of aging equipment components, and proactive replacement measures can be taken to create a system of longevity and resilience going forward. Keywords: Obsolescence, Resilience, Robust, Outdated, Antiquated equipment, NFPA 85, NFPA 86, NFPA 87