Awarded Best Paper Award at the 2025 TEES Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center-TAMU (MKO) Safety & Risk Conference Abstract November 2025 — Greg Pajak, aeSolutions Senior Specialist, ICA — 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 Severity Level Safety/Environmental Economic Impact Equipment Damage Catastrophic Fatality/Major Environmental Release >$10M Total Loss Severe Lost Time Injury/Reportable Release $1M-$10M Major Damage Moderate Medical Treatment/Minor Release $100K-$1M Significant Repair Minor First Aid/No Release <$100K Minor Repair 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 Priority Pre-Rationalization Post-Rationalization Reduction Urgent 6,473 45% 571 7% 91.2% High 541 4% 405 5% 25.1% Low 7,259 51% 6,674 87% 8.1% Total 14,273 100% 7,650 100% 46.4% 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 Priority Pre-Rationalization Post-Rationalization Reduction Urgent 2,036 62% 76 5% 96.3% High 377 12% 202 14% 46.4% Low 853 26% 1,164 81% -36.5%* Total 3,266 100% 1,442 100% 55.8% *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.

by Keith Brumbaugh , P.E., CFSE ​ Achieving Safety Integrity Level (SIL) targets can be difficult when proof test intervals approach turnaround intervals of five years or more. However, some process units have planned and predictable unplanned shutdowns multiple times a year. During these shutdowns, it may be possible to document that the safety devices functioned properly. This can be incorporated into SIL verification calculations to show that performance targets can now be met without incorporating expensive fault tolerance , online testing schemes, etc. This can result in considerable cost savings for an operating unit. The problem If a process plant is following the ANSI/ ISA 84.00.0 1 process safety lifecycle (i.e. ISA 84) or similar, as part of the allocation of safety functions to protection layers phase, a SIL assessment (e.g., a Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA)) would be undertaken to assign Safety Integrity Levels (SIL) targets to a Safety Instrumented Function (SIF) . A scenario could occur in the design and engineering phase of the ISA 84 safety lifecycle when performing the SIL verification calculations, that the team discovers the SIFs do not meet their performance target. Assuming the calculation was done properly using valid data and assumptions, something would need to change in order to meet or exceed the required performance targets. This issue could occur in a Greenfield plant when first designing a SIF, but is more likely to be discovered during a revalidation cycle of a brownfield plant. Click here to view the complete whitepaper

Functional Safety & Bayesian Networks Functional safety engineers fol low the ISA/IEC 61511 standard & perform calculations based on random hardware failures. These result in low failure probabilities, which are then combined with similarly low failure probabilities for other safety layers, to show that the overall probability of an accident is extremely low (e.g., 1E-5/yr). Unfortunately, such numbers are based on frequentist assumptions and cannot be proven. Looking at actual accidents caused by control and safety system failures shows that accidents are not caused by random hardware failures. Accidents are typically the result of steady and slow normalization of deviation (a.k.a. drift). It’s up to management to control these factors. However, Bayes theorem can be used to update our prior belief (the initial calculated failure probability) based on observing other evidence (e.g., the effectiveness of the facility’s process safety management process). The results can be dramatic. For example, ass uming a safety instrumented function w ith a risk reduction factor of 5,000 (i.e., SIL 3 performance), and a process safety management program with a 99% effectiveness, results in the function actually having a risk reduction factor of just 98 (i.e., essentially the borderline between SIL1 and SIL 2). The key takeaway is that the focus of functional safety should be on effectively following all the steps in the ISA/IEC 61511 safety lifecycle and the requirements of the OSHA PSM regulation, not the math or certification of devices. Both documents were essentially written in blood through lessons learned the hard way by many organizations. To learn more about the use of Bayesian networks in functional safety , read the full paper here. Click here to view the complete whitepaper

As the share of green energy continues to increase worldwide, the demand for hydrogen is projected to grow rapidly. Production rates in 2022 of nearly 100 mT [1] are expected to triple to 300 mT by 2030 [2]. With such a rapid growth rate, many new players are entering the hydrogen production market. Hydrogen vapors are especially hazardous due to their large flammability range, high reactivity, and low minimum ignition energy. A great need therefore exists for process safety knowledge sharing that is focused on hydrogen safety at such facilities. Hydrogen behaves very differently from other materials. While hydrogen vapors are known to rapidly rise due to its very low molecular weight, liquefied hydrogen (LH2) is known to stay low to the ground including just after evaporating like other cryogenic liquids. Hydrogen has other unique characteristics as well due to a very low normal boiling point. The viscosity of LH2 becomes very low, allowing it to flow with minimal losses of kinetic energy. Altogether, a flammable vapor cloud from a LH2 release can travel a far distance even though it does not form a liquid pool. Advances in hydrogen safety are forthcoming and continue to evolve. In addition, several software vendors have specifically focused on more accurately modeling the properties and consequences of hydrogen releases. A selection of case studies will be shared in which hypothetical indoor and outdoor liquid and vapor hydrogen releases from new hydrogen facilities were evaluated. The case study selection will include an analysis of selection and placement of gas and flame detectors for hydrogen releases and a review of potential hazard preventions and mitigations. Click here to view the complete whitepaper

August 2025 – By Chris Neff, PMP — When planning your industrial project, a well-defined scope isn’t just a preliminary step — it’s the quintessence of getting your budget, schedule, and project lifecycle established. Done right, scoping helps teams prevent costly overruns, delays, and mismanaged resources. Yet, with competing priorities and complex cross-functional needs, critical aspects of the scoping process often do not receive the attention needed for setting a strong foundation, leaving projects vulnerable to avoidable risks. To address these challenges, implementing a clear project development plan — grounded in best practices — can ensure that scoping is comprehensive and realistic, supporting projects from concept to completion. Below are best practices to build an industrial project scoping strategy. Recognize That Scoping is a Dynamic Process Industrial project scoping isn’t a one-and-done static activity. It’s a dynamic, process that evolves as new information becomes available. It is normal for needs to shift over a project’s lifecycle as functional demands, regulatory requirements, and resource availability changes. Scoping requires teams to regularly revisit and refine an initial project plan, ensuring that organizations remain adaptable in addressing unforeseen challenges incorporating improvements as the project progresses. It’s about a sequence for validations, preventing the likelihood of jumping to conclusions. Implementing Progressive Scoping Reviews To establish a process for your project lifecycle, it’s beneficial to integrate scoping reviews into project milestones. This could mean revisiting the scope after each major phase, such as design, procurement, and initial implementation, or conducting scope checks in response to significant operational or environmental changes. Regular scoping reviews provide an opportunity to validate assumptions, assess performance against key metrics, and adjust for any emerging risks. A Practical Case Study In one case study example, a large industrial client was going through an equipment modernization project that aimed to upgrade multiple thermal oxidizers, incinerators, fired heaters, and boilers. The project’s complexity was compounded by the need to ensure each component adhered to rigorous safety and functional standards. Unfortunately, the initial project scoping had not adequately accounted for cross-functional collaboration, which led to disconnects between design and implementation. Furthermore, the scoping had failed to consider the long-term maintenance requirements necessary to keep the newly modernized systems sustainable. This misalignment in the early stages could have resulted in costly project revisions if the issue hadn’t been caught before detailed design work began. By bringing in additional expertise and refocusing on an aligned scoping strategy, the team was able to avoid these potential pitfalls, highlighting the importance of accurate and comprehensive scoping from the outset. This case exemplifies how asking the right questions early can illuminate critical needs that might otherwise go unnoticed, ensuring that projects are not only feasible but also optimized for a successful project lifecycle Ultimately, a dynamic approach transforms scoping from a preliminary task into an integral part of project success, ensuring each phase builds towards a cohesive, sustainable outcome. Ensure That Your Organizational Culture is Ready For project scoping to truly succeed, an organization’s culture must be primed to support it. This involves fostering a collaborative, integrated, and prioritized approach that connects the organization’s broader objectives and engages all necessary stakeholders. Three guiding concepts, collaboration, integration, and prioritization, are essential to building a resilient project scope that can adapt to changes and overcome the inevitable challenges that arise in complex industrial projects. ·         Collaboration  ensures that all relevant stakeholders have a voice in defining project requirements and identifying potential risks early. This open communication creates a shared understanding of project goals and constraints, reducing misunderstandings and aligning team efforts. ·         Integration  means that the project scope is aligned with broader organizational objectives, such as safety, efficiency, and regulatory compliance. By embedding these goals within the project’s core framework, teams create a unified roadmap that guides decision-making across all stages. ·         Prioritization  helps teams focus on the most critical tasks, especially when resources or timelines are tight. By ranking tasks based on their impact on safety, budget, and schedule, a prioritized approach ensures that the project remains on track and adaptable, even when unforeseen challenges arise. This alignment between culture and process not only enhances the success of individual projects but also reinforces a disciplined, goal-oriented mindset across the organization. Ask the Right Questions to Pressure Test Your Assumptions A well-defined project scope requires more than initial assumptions, it demands a thorough examination of expertise, processes, collaboration, feasibility, and objectives. By asking the right questions, organizations can pressure-test their assumptions and build a scope that anticipates challenges, leverages the right expertise, and aligns with measurable goals. Below are five critical questions to guide an effective scoping process. 1. Do You Have the Right Expertise on Board? Organizations often underestimate the expertise needed for industrial projects. Are the right people in the right rooms and integrated into the right discussions? Before beginning a project, it’s important for team leaders to carefully evaluate whether internal groups would benefit from the addition of consultants to supplement the effort. During the scoping stages of a project, the right expertise can help widen the aperture of an organization’s field of view — which leads to a higher integrity outcome downstream. 2. What Discovery Steps Are Essential for a Detailed Plan? Project scoping will typically begin with a planned set of discovery activities. However, a common mistake is a lack of coordination between efforts, in addition to improper documentation. Even though things are getting done, the order of operations may be suboptimal. The solution is to establish a clear set of steps that produces a detailed plan before the discovery process commences. Typically, a well-formed discovery process entails: ·         In-depth interviews and workshops  with stakeholders such as project sponsors, end-users, operators, and maintenance staff, in addition to workshops and meetings to facilitate open discussion. ·         Functional reviews to examine existing processes, systems, and workflows to identify inefficiencies, bottlenecks, and areas for improvement. ·         Technical evaluations  to help assess equipment, infrastructure, and technology. ·         Regulatory compliance checks , which involve reviewing applicable regulations, standards, and compliance requirements. ·         Objectives-setting and outcome mapping, which connects the organization’s goals to specific organizational objectives. ·         A comprehensive hazard analysis  to identify potential risks that could impact the project. The final stage of the discovery process is to develop a comprehensive project development plan and path to execution. 3. How Will Collaboration Continue Beyond Discovery? Collaboration begins in discovery and continues throughout the project lifecycle. Successful projects require continual input, buy-in, and feedback from stakeholders ranging from engineers to managers, team leaders, process experts, and executives. However, organizations are typically navigating heavy time and resource constraints, which can make stakeholder involvement a challenge. In these situations, the key is to incorporate the right expertise at carefully defined touchpoints. One way to develop an integration protocol is to understand how each stakeholder is impacted from the project. What will be the ongoing maintenance requirements? How will responsibilities shift? In terms of development, it is important to clarify expectations and collaboration parameters upfront. 4. Is the Development Plan Realistic and Achievable? The development plan should include: ·         A clear statement of goals and the desired outcomes to be achieved ·         A review of all complex regulatory and safety requirements ·         A clear, detailed, and precise scope definition that specifies all deliverables, tasks, and milestones ·         A resource allocation strategy that encompasses all personnel, equipment, and budget considerations needed for the successful execution of the project ·         A development schedule including documentation and approval steps that outline stakeholder participation ·         Roles and responsibilities to appropriately allocate the tasks to qualified resources Depending on the project, it may be necessary to create multiple options for comparison. Comparative analysis can help to evaluate the practicality and viability of the options from a technical, financial, and functional perspective to ensure the optimal path forward. 5. Are Your Goals Comprehensive and Measurable? Comprehensive and measurable goals are essential for the success of any industrial project, particularly if a scoping process necessitates a changing roadmap. To make goals measurable, each objective should have specific metrics or milestones that can be tracked and assessed over time. This allows project leaders to monitor progress, make informed adjustments, and hold teams accountable for delivering results. By setting goals that are both comprehensive and measurable, organizations can better manage resources, anticipate challenges, and achieve long-lasting project outcomes. Goals should address all critical aspects of the project, from safety and functional efficiency to regulatory compliance and cost-effectiveness. Connecting the Dots When Scoping Your Industrial Project By adopting these best practices and committing to a structured scoping process, industrial organizations can drive projects toward success with greater clarity, adaptability, and alignment with their strategic goals. Scoping effectively means more than meeting initial requirements; it requires ensuring that every stage of a project is aligned with evolving organizational needs and external demands. This integrated approach allows teams to navigate complex challenges, manage risks, and optimize resources throughout the project lifecycle. Ultimately, a well-defined and dynamic scoping strategy is the foundation for project lifecycle success. The process begins with ensuring your organizational culture is ready to ask the right questions early on. …And If You’re Having Trouble Connecting the Dots Scoping an industrial project is no small feat. But even with the best intentions, many organizations find that they lack the internal capacity or expertise to fully implement the strategies we’ve shared.   If your team recognizes the value in these best practices but lacks the bandwidth or technical proficiency to execute them effectively, engaging external expertise could help bridge the gap.   Working with a comprehensive project development solutions provider like aeSolutions  can help you connect the dots between your goals and execution. By partnering with an experienced project development provider, you can reduce risks, optimize resources, and achieve a cohesive, goal-oriented outcome without overstretching your team.   Scoping your project is paramount to its success, and having the right expertise to support you at every step can make all the difference. If you're ready to enhance your project’s potential, consider reaching out to a trusted partner to help you navigate the path forward with confidence.

Introduction | Control System Migrations | Part 7 | Cutover, Commissioning, and the Final Push August 2025 — by Tom McGreevy, PE, PMP, CFSE — Welcome to part 7 of our Control Systems Migration blog series . In this installment, we’ll be covering the cutover phase, which is where it all comes together. This is the point where months or even years of preparation culminate in the actual replacement of the old control system with the new. It’s a high-stakes, high-pressure moment, and one where success is determined by how well you’ve planned, documented, and executed. The term “ cutover ” covers everything from physical equipment replacement to software commissioning and testing. It’s not just about wiring panels; it’s about making sure every step, from demo drawings to site acceptance testing, is aligned and accounted for. Do I Need to Begin with a Full System Backup? The short answer: Absolutely . Before any equipment is touched, every element of the current system must be backed up. That includes program logic, Human Machine Interface  (HMI) configurations, and current “ as-found ” drawings. Photos of panel internals and field installations can also be valuable, not just as references in case you need to troubleshoot, but as a last-resort rollback option if something unexpected forces you to pause or reset the transition. In a rip-and-replace scenario, rolling back may not be feasible, but having a complete picture of the system you’re decommissioning can still help solve problems when they arise during construction or testing. What Should I Include in a Cutover Execution Plan? Your cutover execution plan should be specific and clearly documented. It must describe step by step how the cutover will proceed and clarify who’s responsible for each task. It should also detail what tools, drawings, resources, and timing are required for each stage. This plan should leave no room for ambiguity. What’s happening to each wire? Which devices stay, which go? Are there mystery components, the purpose and disposition of which is not 100% understood? Those need to be resolved before the first wire is lifted, or if not, at least addressed as part of your early cutover activities. Most importantly, there is significant value in making sure this plan is in the hands of the right people. Having a perfectly crafted set of work packages and drawings means nothing if the team in the field doesn’t have them. This kind of breakdown in communication is surprisingly common, but fortunately, it is also completely avoidable. What Pre-Shutdown Work Should Be Done Before a Control System Migration? Any construction or staging work that can be done before the shutdown should already be complete. This includes routing and tagging cables, installing panels where possible, staging materials, and setting up temporary facilities like backup power in accordance with OSHA safety guidelines . If it can be done early, do it early. This will reduce the pressure during actual outage windows and create space to address the unexpected. The Details Matter — Down to the Wire One of the most critical aspects of a successful cutover is understanding where every single  wire goes and what it does. If wires aren’t clearly labeled, properly documented, or tied to an understood function, you risk losing control over the tactical situation very quickly. Similarly, you must know the purpose and disposition of every field device. Is it being reused, replaced, or removed? Has it been tagged and labeled correctly? These details feed directly into the accuracy of your demo drawings and revised documentation, which in turn drives construction confidence and efficiency. Even the basics, like wire sizes, must be documented. Tasks like these may seem like a small detail, but mismatched or unlabeled wire sizes can lead to serious setbacks during installation. Construction Documents vs. Loop Sheets It’s also worth noting that loop sheets, while useful for function testing and configuration, are not  construction documents. Teams need full demo drawings, updated termination diagrams, and accurate cable schedules to perform field work efficiently. Relying on loop sheets for installation will almost certainly slow the progress and may invite error and confusion. Mechanical Completion: Knowing When You’re Ready Before applying power to the new system, everyone involved must agree on what defines mechanical completion. At this point, all installation work should be finished, verified, and supported by construction assurance documentation. It’s a formal milestone that marks the transition from building the system to bringing it to life. Assurance activities in support of demonstration of Mechanical Completion include visual inspections, comparison to approved drawings, wiring continuity checks, and proper ground measurements (of both safety and signal ground). Site Acceptance Testing, Commissioning, and Function Checks Once mechanically complete, the system undergoes site acceptance testing  (SAT) the first time it’s powered on in its new environment. This phase confirms that nothing was damaged during shipping or installation, and that devices are behaving as expected at a basic level. From there, teams move into loop checks, verifying that inputs and outputs are correctly wired and responsive. These checks ensure that transmitters, control valves , and I/O points communicate properly with the system and that grounding is correct. This may also include bumping of motors for those motors controlled by the system, and verification of good communications to any and all third-party devices. It is critical that EVERY I/O device that had its wiring touched during the cutover be checked, to give high confidence in wiring integrity and to enable efficient functional testing. Finally, functional testing begins. Depending on the system, this could include “ water runs ,” simulation of Safety Instrumented Functions  (SIFs), and validation of interlocks . Every step should follow a documented test plan, not just for consistency, but to ensure accountability and traceability. The temptation to rush through these tests can be strong, especially during time-constrained shutdowns. But skipping steps here can have serious consequences, ranging from costly mistakes to safety hazards and legal liabilities. The Takeaway The cutover process is considered the most visible and intense phase of a control system migration. It’s where all the planning, documentation, and collaboration either pay off or fall short. When executed well, the cutover is a moment of accomplishment, the grand finale of your migration efforts. But without discipline, rigor, and proper preparation, it can quickly become chaotic, stressful, and, worst of all, dangerous to equipment and people This phase rewards diligence, not improvisation. Success lies in backing up thoroughly, planning clearly, assessing and addressing risk, labeling accurately, executing deliberately, and testing without compromise. If all of that is in place, your team can move forward with confidence, and your process can start up on a solid, resilient foundation .

Introduction | When “Just Fix It” Isn’t That Simple July 2025 — by Emily Henry, PE (SC) , CFSE, Functional Safety Group Manager — This blog is the second installment in our PHA Recommendation Playbook series , which is intended to help Process Safety, EHS, and facility managers overcome the common challenges they face when trying to close Process Hazard Analysis recommendations. If you missed Part 1, we explored how staffing and budget limitations create obstacles  that can stall even the most straightforward resolutions. In this article, we’re focusing on a challenge that doesn’t always get the attention it deserves: technical complexity . While some recommendations from a PHA might seem routine at first glance, others involve engineering considerations, system interdependencies, or implementation feasibility that turn them into long-haul capital project efforts. These complications can extend gap closure timelines, inflate costs, and even introduce new risks if not addressed with requisite knowledge and intentionality. Technical Challenges in PHA Recommendations | What Makes Them So Complex? Technical complexity refers to the engineering depth, system interdependencies, or feasibility issues that complicate the implementation of PHA recommendations . In industrial environments, this might include design changes that require coordination between multiple engineering disciplines, recommendations that call for feasibility studies, or changes to safety instrumented systems that necessitate revalidation. Sometimes, the complexity lies in hidden system dependencies, meaning that fixing one issue inadvertently introduces another. Compatibility concerns also surface, particularly when legacy systems aren’t designed to accommodate newer technology. Complicating matters further, many of these challenges aren’t fully apparent during the PHA session itself. A recommendation may seem simple on the surface — “install a relief valve”  or “update control logic” — but as the team attempts to move forward with recommendation implementation, the depth of technical complexity becomes clear. The Compliance Cost of Complexity | What Are the Risks of Unresolved PHA Recommendations? Delays caused by technical complexity come with consequences. Regulatory expectations require timely closure of PHA recommendations or, at the very least, well-documented justifications for delays. Facilities that fail to address these recommendations in a structured way may face unexpected audit findings, regulatory scrutiny, or even fines. Beyond compliance, unresolved technical items can increase safety risks. A partially implemented fix or an unaddressed hazard can lead to new vulnerabilities or process weaknesses. From an operational standpoint, unresolved recommendations may lead to unplanned downtime, deferred maintenance, or extended outage windows. Over time, these delays can cause friction between departments and erode trust in the process. How Should You Navigate Complex Technical PHA Recommendations Internally? Handling complex recommendations starts with engaging the right people early. Engineering, operations, maintenance, and safety teams must be aligned on what’s practical, what’s required, and what constraints exist. Cross-functional collaboration is essential for identifying implementation barriers before a plan is set in motion. Conducting feasibility reviews internally can reveal potential problems with space, access, process compatibility, or cost. These reviews don’t have to be overly formal, but they should be consistent and thorough enough to inform the feasibility of implementation of the recommendation at a high level. Documenting known interdependencies also helps ensure one recommendation doesn’t inadvertently conflict with another. Instead of treating each recommendation as a siloed task, consider how they fit into the broader operational strategy. Iterative planning, where adjustments are made as new information surfaces, can help prevent bottlenecks and avoid over-committing resources. When Does Technical Complexity Require External Expertise? There are times when a PHA recommendation goes beyond internal capacity, whether due to staffing limitations or the depth of technical expertise required. Yet not all third-party support is created equal. Some firms deliver a report and walk away, leaving your team with a list of action items and little else in the form of background education. Working with an experienced third-party can change the dynamic. The right partner doesn’t just identify risks; they help you engineer prioritized solutions that are feasible, effective, and aligned with your facility’s operations. A third-party familiar with system interdependencies can offer practical mitigation strategies that don’t introduce new problems elsewhere. Execution also matters. A partner that provides project management oversight can track progress, maintain accountability, and deliver documentation that supports audit defensibility. By helping prioritize what matters most and sequencing efforts strategically, an experienced partner can support smarter capital planning and more efficient implementation. Collaboration with a third-party should never feel like you’re relinquishing control. Instead, it should feel like gaining clarity with a clear line of sight from risk to resolution, with results your team can stand behind. What Are Proactive Strategies to Minimize Technical Implementation Risks? Managing technical complexity isn’t only about reacting once a challenge appears. Many of the difficulties associated with implementation can be mitigated through proactive planning. Three core proactive strategies include: Integrating front-end engineering and risk assessment into your safety processes. This helps identify potentially complex recommendations earlier in the lifecycle. Flagging technically intensive items during the PHA itself or revalidation workshops, so that additional analysis can be scoped and scheduled. Allocating budget and time for follow-up studies, such as feasibility analyses, LOPA updates, or HAZOP reviews, when recommendations involve significant system changes. Maintaining clear documentation is also essential. It not only aids internal decision-making but strengthens your position during audits or external reviews. Finally, it helps to reframe these efforts not just as compliance tasks but as opportunities to improve long-term reliability and operational resilience of your facility. From Risk to Resilience | Technical PHA Resolution Isn’t Just a Fix—It’s a Foundation Facilities that manage technical complexity well don’t just avoid problems, they build stronger, safer operations. When engineering, safety, and operations teams work together to resolve complex PHA recommendations, the resulting improvements often go beyond the immediate fix. Systems become more reliable. Cross-team collaboration improves. Equipment failures and unplanned outages decrease. Moreover, facilities gain stronger footing in the face of audits or regulatory reviews. Well-documented resolutions with traceability to risk assessments show diligence and intent, both of which matter when follow-up questions are asked. When resolutions are handled with care, the outcome shouldn’t feel like a temporary workaround. It should feel like progress. The Takeaway | Moving from Technical Complexity to Technical Confidence Technical complexity is one of the more nuanced challenges in PHA recommendation resolution. It’s also one of the easiest to underestimate. The surface-level simplicity of a recommendation often belies the engineering coordination, feasibility analysis, and systems thinking required to see it through. By planning ahead, involving the right teams, and knowing when to seek experienced, third-party expertise , your facility can navigate even the most intricate recommendations without losing momentum. And when you do choose to bring in third-party support, working with a team that understands engineering, project delivery, and compliance can be the difference between checking a box and building something truly defensible. At its best, technical resolution doesn’t just close a gap, it builds a stronger foundation. From risk to resilience, the path is clearer when the process is collaborative, strategic, and informed.

Introduction | Compliance in the Face of Limited Teams and Tight Funds May 2025 — by Emily Henry, PE(SC), CFSE, Functional Safety Group Manager — Welcome to the first entry in our multipart blog series, designed as a guide for process safety, EHS, and facility managers who are in the process of resolving PHA recommendations. Each installment will address one of the most common practical, technical, or organizational challenges faced when closing the recommendation gaps of a PHA study. In part one, we will discuss one of the most frequent hurdles: resource constraints, particularly staff and budget limitations . PHA Primer A Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) serves as a mechanism for identifying and mitigating risks in industrial environments. OSHA mandates both initial PHAs and regular revalidations  for facilities that handle hazardous chemicals or operate under process safety management (PSM) regulations. The recommendations that stem from these analyses are not optional — they are necessary actions required to close safety gaps and prevent incidents. Yet, the journey from recommendation to resolution is rarely straightforward. Among the most common early challenges are staff shortages and budget limitations, both of which can stall progress and jeopardize compliance. Staff and Budget Limitations: A Common Roadblock in Resolving PHA Recommendations Resource constraints, particularly in the form of personnel and budgetary limitations, present persistent barriers to the stewardship and closure of PHA recommendations. These constraints are rarely isolated issues. Instead, they tend to surface across departments and project phases, especially when expertise is scarce, or budgets are tight. In the industrial and manufacturing sectors, managers are often asked to do more with less, juggling compliance deadlines with daily operations. Delays in addressing PHA recommendations can result in increased exposure to safety or operational risks, missed regulatory deadlines, and a higher likelihood of enforcement actions. The cost is more than administrative; it can reverberate throughout the organization, increasing the potential for incidents and ultimately impacting the bottom line. Resolving PHA Recommendations with Limited Staff and Technical Expertise Staffing limitations can significantly hamper the PHA resolution process, especially when specialized technical skills are required. For facilities with high-severity hazards, recommendations often involve complex engineering assessments, equipment modifications, or the implementation of advanced safety protocols. These activities call for experienced professionals, typically engineers, safety specialists, or technicians with niche expertise. When internal teams lack the required personnel or technical depth, recommendation resolution will certainly lag. The risks are not hypothetical; delayed action can mean extended periods where known hazards lack the necessary layers of protection, increasing the possibility of an unmitigated hazard consequence occurring. Over time, this not only erodes safety culture , but can put the entire operation under scrutiny from regulators, insurers, or even the public. Dealing with Budgetary Restriction Headaches for PHA Recommendations Budget limitations can be equally as challenging as personnel constraints. Many PHA recommendations require upgrades or modifications to equipment or investments in new safety systems. When budgets are stretched, it’s tempting to defer or downsize these actions. However, the potential consequences of postponement are rarely minimal. Financially, the long-term risks can outweigh any short-term savings. Delaying investments in safety may lead to regulatory fines, incident-related expenses , or increased insurance premiums. Facilities that consistently operate with unresolved risks may also face reputational harm if non-compliance becomes public or results in an adverse event. Additionally, legal risks escalate if known issues are a contributing factor in an incident. Navigating Resource Constraints Internally Effective management of resource constraints begins with prioritization. Not all PHA recommendations carry the same weight or urgency. By ranking actions based on risk severity and regulatory impact, managers can ensure that the most critical items receive attention first. Tying implementation timelines to budget cycles also helps align resources with compliance needs. Another best practice involves communicating risk in clear, compelling terms to decision-makers. Presenting the business case for timely resolution — not only as a regulatory obligation but as a risk mitigation strategy  — can help secure funding and staffing. In short, thorough planning and a clear understanding of the resources required can empower managers to justify funding requests and advocate for staff allocation in a focused, strategic way. The Support Advantage: Leveraging Third-Party Partners for PHA Resolution While many facilities strive to resolve recommendations internally, there are times when third-party expertise can be invaluable. Not all PHA providers offer the same level of post-study support; many simply deliver a report and move on, leaving your team with a daunting list to decipher and prioritize. Partnering with an experienced provider can offer several benefits . External experts often bring specialized credentials and the ability to mobilize skilled personnel quickly, ensuring that urgent PHA recommendations do not drag on unresolved. A knowledgeable partner can also help optimize budgets by identifying targeted, cost-effective options — often with strategic solutions that can resolve multiple recommendations with one move .   Furthermore, partnering with an experienced company can support your team in developing practical resolution plans and provide tools , resources, and expert guidance tailored to your facility’s needs. This approach not only reduces the internal burden but positions you as a champion of compliance and safety within your organization — saving time, money, and stress. Planning Ahead: Proactive Strategies to Mitigate Staff and Budget Limitations Proactive resource planning can make a significant difference. Integrating anticipated PHA recommendations into annual budgets and resource allocation processes can help ensure that funds and personnel are available when needed. Establishing clear internal procedures for escalating and addressing urgent recommendations helps prevent bottlenecks. Investing in skill development and cross-training internal staff broadens your facility’s capabilities. These measures collectively strengthen the ability to resolve recommendations in a timely, efficient manner. Lean Teams, Big Gains: The Benefits of Overcoming Staff and Budget Barriers Successfully managing staff and budget limitations pays dividends beyond OSHA compliance. Facilities that close PHA recommendations efficiently will see a reduced regulatory risk, enhanced operational resilience, and ultimately, fewer incidents. Cost savings accrue through avoided penalties and proactive safety management, while the organization’s reputation is bolstered by a demonstrated commitment to safety and continuous improvement. The Takeaway | Limited Resources, Unlimited Potential Staff and budget limitations do not have to be the challenge that prevents your facility’s PHA recommendations from being resolved. With strategic planning, clear prioritization, and — when needed  — the support of a capable external partner, facilities can bridge the gap between recommendations and resolution. For those facing persistent resource challenges, now is the time to review your internal capacity and consider the value of experienced collaboration. By doing so, you not only safeguard compliance and safety but also lead your organization with resilience and integrity, turning every challenge into an opportunity for growth. Be sure to keep an eye out for the next article in this series, where we will discuss strategies to prevent technical complexities from slowing your PHA recommendation resolution progress. In the meantime, check out this article on the five facets of an efficient process hazard analysis .

Join some of the aeSolutions team as we hold a panel discussion on the New Engineering Business, held as part of Engineers Week 2021. Engineers Week is “dedicated to ensuring a diverse and well-educated future engineering workforce by increasing understanding of and interest in engineering and technology careers.” Moderated by Ben Burris & Emily Henry. Founded by National Society of Professional Engineers in 1951, Engineers Week is dedicated to ensuring a diverse and well-educated future engineering workforce by increasing understanding of and interest in engineering and technology careers. Learn more from the NSPE At aeSolutions, we know that our success is a result of having talented, dedicated and passionate team members driving our projects. If working for a company that takes on complex challenges in nearly every capacity interests you, we would love to talk to you. We are proud to have over 50 certified engineers on staff.

May 2025 - Check out our contributed content in Processing Magazine . This article, written by Tom McGreevy, explains five tips to include in your conversation with leadership to secure their support for control system migration projects. Click here to read the full article in Processing Magazine Written by Tom McGreevy, PE, PMP, CFSE Senior Project Manager at aeSolutions . Read the full article on Processing Magazine here: The Need for a Control System Migration: Building the Case to Upper Management

May 2025 - Check out our coverage in Chemical Processing's "How They Made It Work" series that features our FGS 1300 Fire and Gas alarm controller . This article dives into how the FGS 1300 was implemented in a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility's boiler house as a natural gas leak-detection and isolation system, based on a PHA recommendation. Click here to read the full article in Chemical Processing Written by Warren Johnson, PE, PMP, Senior Project Manager at aeSolutions . Read the full article here: How They Made It Work: aeSolutions' FGS 1300 Fire and Gas Alarm Controller

Introduction | Process Hazard Analysis Revalidation April 2025 — by Carolyn Bott, Process Safety Group Manager — In the world of industrial operations, hazards are a given — but unmanaged hazards are a risk no facility can afford. A well-executed Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) is a vital safeguard, helping teams identify potential risks and define the controls needed to mitigate them. But a PHA isn’t a one-time event. As facilities and operations evolve, so must the analysis. That’s where a PHA Revalidation comes in. What is a PHA Revalidation? A PHA revalidation is a systematic update of an existing PHA study to ensure that it accurately reflects current operations, risks, and safeguards. Mandated under OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard  (29 CFR 1910.119), PHA revalidations are required at least once every five years. This ensures that facilities consistently assess whether existing safeguards and Independent Protection Layers  (IPLs) are still appropriate and effective. Unlike a first-time PHA, a revalidation starts with reviewing the previous study. The team evaluates modifications — be it process design, control systems, staffing, procedures, or incident history — and determines whether those changes introduce new risks or warrant updates to the previous Process Hazard Analysis study. It should be noted that in some cases, a facility may determine that the existing PHA is no longer a reliable baseline — perhaps because of major modifications, process redesign, or poor quality in the original study. In these situations, a full PHA redo may be the better option. Methodologies Commonly Used in PHA Revalidations Several risk assessment methodologies are used during PHA revalidations, depending on process complexity and organizational preference. These include: HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Study) : A systematic, guideword-based approach for continuous and batch processes LOPA (Layers of Protection Analysis) : A method for evaluating the effectiveness of protection layers in reducing the frequency or consequence severity of hazardous events What-If and Checklist Analyses : Useful for simpler systems or as supplementary tools HAZID (Hazard Identification Study) : Often applied in the early design phase or as a high-level review FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) : Focuses on component-level failure scenarios Bowtie Analysis : Visual mapping of causal pathways and safeguards for major hazards These methodologies are not mutually exclusive — they are often used in combination. The chosen methodology(s) should match the process and risk profile. Regulatory Requirements and OSHA Expectations for PHA Revalidations According to OSHA, a PHA must be revalidated at least every five years to ensure it remains consistent with the current process. The revalidation must be conducted by a team with expertise in engineering, operations, and hazard analysis methodology. The team should evaluate changes in equipment, procedures, and materials; verify that recommendations from previous PHAs have been resolved; and confirm that documentation and drawings (such as P&IDs) are current. OSHA further clarifies that a PHA revalidation doesn’t need to start from scratch. It can build upon the previous PHA, provided the review is thorough and documented. Failing to properly revalidate — whether by missing the five-year deadline or conducting an insufficient review — can lead to citations and increased risk exposure. Should I Revalidate Sooner Than Five Years? While the five-year cycle is the regulatory minimum, some facilities choose or need to revalidate more frequently. Situations that may warrant earlier review include: -          Significant process changes such as new equipment, revised control strategies, or major throughput adjustments -          Facility expansions or new unit operations -          Introduction of new chemicals or process conditions -          Recurring incidents or near misses suggesting underlying hazards were missed -          Internal audits that identify PHA gaps or non-compliance -          Evolving industry standards or new safety guidance that impact existing risk assessments In such cases, updating the PHA before the five-year mark can strengthen safety performance and demonstrate due diligence to regulators and insurers. Five Common Challenges in PHA Revalidations Executing a quality PHA revalidation takes planning, expertise, and cross-functional engagement. Below, we describe five common challenges that facilities face when conducting a Process Hazard Analysis Revalidation. 1.      Inadequate Documentation and Information Management  A revalidation is only as good as the information available. If the previous PHA scenarios were poorly documented or if process safety information (P&IDs, chemistries, etc.) hasn’t been kept current, the team will struggle. Without complete, up-to-date data on what has changed since the last PHA, important scenarios might be overlooked, or the team may waste time reconfirming basic facts. 2.     Loss of Key Knowledge and Stakeholder Engagement It isn’t uncommon to find that the team who performed the initial PHA has transferred, retired, or simply moved into new roles by the time of revalidation. If a PHA Reval is not documented effectively, nor involves the appropriate process experts, understanding of the process risks can be lost. This type of insufficient stakeholder engagement can result in missing insights into how the process truly operates or deviates. Every PHA relies on the collective knowledge of its team and if that’s weakened, the revalidation may miss hazards or misunderstand the adequacy of IPLs. 3.     Poor or Inconsistent Methodology Application If your PHA revalidation isn’t executed with consistent and up-to-date methods, gaps can occur. In some cases, the prior PHA might have used a different method or risk criteria than what the company uses now, causing confusion. For example, if the initial PHA methodology was misapplied or too simplistic for the process, it can result in the need for substantial correction down the road. Ensuring a comprehensive and systematic approach is applied during revalidation is vital to avoid leaving gaps. 4.     Underestimating Time and Resources Required PHA revalidations can be resource intensive. A common mistake is assuming a revalidation will be quick since “ we’ve done this before ”, and then not allocating enough time or personnel knowledgeable in the process. The result can be rushed sessions, incomplete reviews, or missing documentation. If an organization doesn’t budget adequate time (including for pre-work and team meetings), the five-year deadline can sneak up. 5.     Failure to Close Gaps from Previous PHA Recommendations A situation that many face during a PHA revalidation is discovering that some recommendations or gaps  from the last PHA were never implemented or fully resolved. Not only does this pose an ongoing risk, but it also complicates the analysis — the team might find themselves re-discussing hazards that should have been mitigated. OSHA expects that existing PHA recommendations are tracked and completed before revalidation ​. If that hasn’t happened, your facility faces both compliance issues and potentially repetitive findings. This issue often stems from lack of a robust management system for PHA action items. Anticipating and addressing these challenges early can significantly improve the quality of your PHA revalidation process. Best Practices for an Effective PHA Revalidation To mitigate the challenges described above, facilities should adopt several best practices for PHA revalidations: Prepare thoroughly : Update your process safety information, drawings, procedures, and incident history before the first team meeting. Performing this type of “ mini   audit ” of changes and process safety performance since the last PHA will help drive the revalidation scope. Engage experienced facilitators : Facilitators with expertise in the methodology selected for the reval can guide the process and ensure consistency across nodes and scenarios. Ultimately, your PHA Reval team should consist of experienced operations personnel, engineers familiar with the process, and a competent facilitator. Additionally, involving members from the original PHA team and/or certified PHA leaders can benefit the effort. Involve stakeholders:  Cross-functional support from those in operations, engineering, maintenance, and even management stakeholders who understand the process will increase your ability to maintain consistency and accuracy throughout the revalidation process. Verify implementation of past recommendations:  A revalidation is an opportunity to check the status of all previously identified hazards. Best practice is to explicitly review how each risk scenario identified last time has been addressed. The team should verify that no known hazard has been forgotten. If some recommendations were deferred or not resolved, this is the time to reassess those risks and decide on an action. Additionally, incorporate any relevant incident learnings (from your site or industry) to enhance the prior analysis​. By looping back on past findings and new learnings, the revalidation closes gaps and solidifies your facility’s risk baseline. Document and track everything : Just as you review old recommendations, establish a strong process for following through on new PHA recommendations coming out of the revalidation. This includes clearly prioritizing them (e.g. using a risk matrix or LOPA results to rank urgency), assigning responsibility, and setting deadlines. Remember, OSHA requires documented resolution of PHA recommendations​ — having a tracking system not only aids safety but keeps your facility compliant. Consider partnering with a qualified PHA facilitator : One of the best investments for a successful PHA revalidation can be partnering with a skilled facilitator. An experienced, third-party PHA facilitator can provide a litany of benefits — including chemical and process knowledge across industries. Beyond providing expert guidance, facilitators can also serve as an objective, unbiased perspective. When considering an external PHA facilitator, look for a provider who goes beyond “ checking the boxes. ” Facilitators should also offer effective prioritization of risks and recommendations. Additionally, a facilitator should be able to present an actionable gap closure game plan that includes recommendations for trusted engineering solutions providers  who can support resolving identified issues.     You’ve Completed Your PHA Reval — What Next? A successful PHA revalidation doesn’t end when the last worksheet is signed. The real value comes from implementing recommendations and closing identified gaps. At this stage, facilities should: -          Prioritize recommendations  using risk matrices or LOPA to focus efforts on high-consequence scenarios -          Develop actionable plans  for implementation, assigning ownership, and tracking progress -          Work with a facilitator or engineering partner  who can help close common recommendations such as SIS upgrades, BPCS changes, Alarm Management improvements, BMS modifications, Facility Siting enhancements, and Fire & Gas system updates. -          Document closure , including verification of effectiveness and updates to procedures or training as needed Without follow-through, a PHA revalidation becomes a compliance checkbox rather than a meaningful tool for reducing risk. The Takeaway | Turn Your PHA Reval Findings into Forward Motion Process safety isn’t static — and your PHA shouldn’t be either. Regular, well-executed PHA revalidations are essential to staying compliant with OSHA, maintaining operational continuity, and safeguarding personnel and assets. For facilities navigating complex changes, aging infrastructure, or resource constraints, engaging with experienced PHA facilitators  can bring structure, insight, and measurable outcomes to the revalidation process. When done right, PHA revalidations don’t just ensure compliance — they create a roadmap for safer, smarter operations.