Company to Continue to Focus on Client Success and Employee Development and Recruitment in 2024 Greenville, SC – February 28, 2024 – aeSolutions , a consulting, engineering, and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services,  today announces company milestones achieved and overall performance for 2023. The company’s achievements in the past year include impressive growth and a continued focus on employee recruitment and development.   “ In 2023, aeSolutions continued to demonstrate extraordinary resilience and to focus on firing on all cylinders in order to continually improve how we serve our partners and clients, ” said Ken O’Malley, president of aeSolutions. “ We have been working to get the right leadership in place, leadership that embraces our core values and our company’s vision as the path for sustainable growth and success. We have it all in place now: the leadership, the culture, and the systems. Our clients are counting on us to help guide them into an uncertain future, and we are ready. ‘Let’s Go!’ is our call for 2024. ”   Company Growth In a year when many process manufacturing companies were struggling with lower demand in the housing and automotive industries, aeSolutions was able to grow its business by 10%. Specifically, the company’s safety system s  ,  fired equipment system s , and its alarm management services  all experienced impressive growth rates in 2023. aeSolutions expects these businesses to continue to demonstrate strong momentum in 2024.   New Markets Minerals processing, especially for the electric vehicle (EV) battery industry, and hydrogen manufacturing continue to be exciting growth areas for the company.   Key Personnel Appointments David Ivester, senior vice president of Sales and Marketing: Ivester’s 30-plus years of experience prior to joining aeSolutions comprised a variety of leadership positions in sales and marketing in the process automation space. As part of its ongoing commitment to employee recruitment and development, in the second quarter of 2024, the company will be announcing additional exciting changes that will bring a balanced focus on client success and the development of our people. Key Product/Deliverable Highlights aeSolutions’ newest product, aeRemoteConnect (aeRC™) , allows engineers to securely and remotely connect to on-site automation systems, reducing response times when troubleshooting or when modifications are urgently needed. The connection can be used by credentialed aeSolutions and client personnel. A secure, end-to-end encrypted tunnel is established via cellular or existing on-site network and key-switch authorization from on-site staff.   aeRC™ provides robust security controls that meet the high security bar set by today’s IT professionals:   • Certificate-based VPN tunnel • Multi-Factor Authentication • Role-based access control • Account auditing • System logging • SOC 2 compliant data center.   With aeRC™, aeSolutions provides a complete solution with all the necessary equipment, licenses, and services. Based on Siemens' SINEMA Remote Connect software and proven industrial networking equipment, this solution is ready for use with any control system platform.   Company Culture/Initiatives In 2023, aeSolutions rolled out its Employee Potential Model, a framework designed to channel and guide employee growth and development. As the company’s plans for 2024 include continued investment in hiring staff, the Employee Potential Model will help new team members quickly learn the skills necessary to help clients be successful, while simultaneously providing real career-enhancing development opportunities. aeSolutions is hiring across all departments, and encourages candidates with automation , process safety, or safety systems experience who are passionate about pursuing their full potential to contact the company’s director of Human Resources, Ben Krisher.   Additionally, the company established a new office in Houston’s Energy Corridor. The relocation is part of the company’s aggressive  strategic growth plans and will serve as a hub for its operations in the Gulf Coast region.   The new office will provide localized client support and offers an ideal location for aeSolutions to engage with a wide range of markets, including traditional and alternative energy sectors, agribusiness, metals, chemicals, and petrochemicals. Plans for 2024 aeSolutions strives to improve industry by guiding clients to increasingly resilient operations and safer communities and thrive delivering products and services to critical applications that others avoid by remaining authentic to its core values. Throughout 2024, aeSolutions will continue to focus on the development of its workforce and the realization of employee potential through the achievement of client success.   About aeSolutions In business since 1998, aeSolutions is a consulting, engineering and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services. They specialize in helping industrial clients achieve their risk management and operational excellence goals through expertise in process safety, combustion control and safeguarding, safety instrumented systems, control system design and integration, alarm management, and related operations and integrity management systems. For more information, visit www.aesolutions.com .   Media Contact RedIron Public Relations for aeSolutions Kari@redironpr.com

December 31st, 2024 — At aeSolutions, our commitment to corporate responsibility goes beyond business as usual. As outlined in our Corporate Responsibility policy , we strive to support our team members, their families, our clients, and the communities where we live and work. In 2024, we amplified this commitment through an enhanced charitable giving initiative, focusing on projects that deliver measurable and sustainable improvements in the areas we serve. Investing in Communities with Purpose aeSolutions is proud to direct charitable contributions to four key areas: Hunger Relief, Health and Human Services, Education, and Military Support. By concentrating our efforts in these vital sectors, we aim to create meaningful and lasting change where it matters most and strive to connect with causes that resonate deeply within our communities. Overcoming Challenges, Driving Results This year, our geographically distributed workforce created a real challenge to making this program strategic and inclusive, but the ingenuity and passion of our employees turned that challenge into an opportunity. We leveraged employee input to shape our giving strategy throughout the year, and our workforce's diverse perspectives allowed us to identify and support causes that reflect the values of our team and the needs of our communities. As Ken O’Malley, CEO, expressed, “ I am so proud of our employees whose compassion brought to life a giving strategy that is meaningful to them .” Contributions That Count Here are just a few highlights of the organizations and initiatives we proudly supported this year: ·         Matching Donation Campaign: We matched employee donations to the American Cancer Society, doubling the impact of our team's generosity in the fight against cancer. ·         Educational Advancement: Contributions to the Society for Women Engineers and sponsorship of the Alaska Science Fair underscore our commitment to fostering STEM education and empowering future leaders. ·         Hunger Relief and Health Services: We continued our longstanding support for the United Way Hands-On-Greenville (HOG) Day, and the Greenville, SC Meals-on-Wheels program, ensuring vital resources reach those in need. In addition to monetary support, several team members in Greenville volunteer their time on a weekly basis to deliver hot meals for community members. ·         Broad Reach: In addition to these key efforts, we supported numerous health and human services organizations across the country, as recommended by our employees, strengthening the safety net for vulnerable populations. Wyatt Smith heading out to deliver Meals on Wheels Looking Ahead Our charitable giving initiative reflects the heart of our company culture — a shared dedication to making a difference. As Joel Read, CFO, noted: “ Our team members exceeded expectations with their support and enthusiasm for our 2024 charitable giving program, and it has been hugely rewarding to have such a positive impact driven by our core values .” By investing in community projects that yield measurable outcomes, we are not just giving back; we are building a foundation for sustainable progress. Together, with our team members, clients, and community partners, we look forward to continuing this important work in the years to come. Christi and Steve Morrison participating in Hands-On Greenville

Updated June 2026 - Discover how unplanned shutdowns can unlock hidden opportunities to enhance safety testing, optimize maintenance schedules, and improve operational reliability. This article explores the following topics: Click here to read the full article on OHSonline.com Using unplanned shutdowns as partial proof tests for safety systems Identifying which safety components can be effectively tested during shutdowns Understanding the limitations and risks of relying solely on shutdown events for validation Integrating unplanned shutdown insights into regular safety testing protocols Balancing operational safety with extended maintenance intervals Read the full article here: Unplanned Shutdowns as Proof Test Credits: What to Know and Steps to Take - OHSonline.com

Presented by Greg Hardin - Senior Principal Specialist, aeSolutions Why Do Control Systems Go Wrong? The British HSE publication “Out of control - Why control systems go wrong and how to prevent failure” (HSE238) reports the primary cause by phase (specification, design and implementation, installation and commissioning, operation and maintenance, changes after commissioning) of failures of 34 safety systems in different industries. This document is frequently referred to in functional safety activities in the process industries. This presentation will consider just how applicable are the quantitative results presented in HSE238 to the process industries. Keywords: automation, systems integration, upgrade, process safety, process control network, pcn, safety instrumented systems, SIS, systematic failure Auto Generated Transcript: Is that really why control systems go wrong? OK. Out of control, why control systems go wrong and how to prevent failure? That's a publication of the United Kingdom's Health and Safety executive. It is, you know, very well down in the functional safety. Business and I have used this chart. In multiple presentations over the years and what it represents is the percent of particular phase of the lifecycle where things went wrong that resulted in eventually in a serious incident. 6% installation and commissioning 20% modifications after commissioning. 15% operation and maintenance. 15% design and implementation and this is the biggie. That was a surprise to a lot of people when it was published. That the idea that where we were going wrong with. Process safety in related to instrumented protective functions was in specification. So if you take that pie chart, you can do the same thing against. Their safety lifecycle. Specification design and implementation. And then you can break it down a little bit more to show the areas that we're interested in. You know hazard and risk analysis, then sift selection safety instrumented function and safety integrity level determination. Thus Isfel is what we. Used to and still do called the calls. Call the group that I am in. And then device selection safety, integrity, integrity level calculation again. That's assist file function. And then not to cut off half the life cycle. Installation and commissioning. Operation and maintenance modification. I think if you had taken a survey of people before the HSE publication came out, this is where people would have said most of the. Incidents were caused and I'll have a little bit more about that to say about that later in the talk. What really prompted me to want to do the some of the research that led to this talk was what is known as the streetlight of effect. You may be familiar with this little story of someone on their hands and knees. Obviously looking for something along comes a police officer. Ask the person what are they doing and they say they're looking for the car keys that they drop well. The officer wants to help, so he asks where were you standing exactly when you dropped them? And the person replies back up the street. Then why are you looking here? Because the light is better. Are we looking at just at the specification to the exclude, not to the exclusion, but, More giving it more effort than we should, because that's, you know, that's our business. That's what's right, and at least you know my part of the business. That's right, what's right in front of me on my desk or on my computer screen? Is the the sisvel portions of the safety lifecycle that I did just identified? So that's the street light effect? When I was putting this talk together, I said, well, I'm familiar with the Identification of the different incidents in the report. Where they identified that specification is where they went wrong. But I said, well, I probably ought to go ahead and really read the report. And if I read the report. The report is not as exclusive. To the analysis of the various phases as. I was assuming they do say that. Poor hazard analysis of the equipment under control. Inadequate assessment. Systematic approach not used. These are all portions of the specification phase. That when you lump everything together as specification, that's where I started to get worried. If we were. If we were looking where the light was better. So this is the table from that report and. Where they picked up 44 of the incidents that they reviewed were 44% were due to inadequate specification and they said of those twelve were inadequate functional requirements. Specification in and 32 were, 32% were. Inadequate safety integrity requirements specification. Well, if you look at all of the incidents in the report, only one third of the total number of incidents. Which was 15 of the incidents in this case total number only one third of those, or approximately 5 are related to incidents in the chemical or refinery industries. So do the causes of incidents in the process industries follow the distribution given in out of control? That was my promise in starting this. There are lots of Compilations of incidents in the process industries. And there's I will give a list of references at the end of this presentation. But. The granularity of the causes in these compilations is somewhat limited, in other words. Just because a significant incident happened very few cases do the reports, particularly the summary reports that you can find on multiple incidents. Rarely do they give you the detail that you would new need to say. Was this specification related or not? Most of the major incidents, involve a sequence of events they have multiple causes related to organizations and other things and. You know they generate these large reports and again you may find something that says, well, specification of this control or safety function was inadequate. That's almost never the entire story. So I did go through and this is, you know, several of the reference lists, and I did look at 50 incidents in a particular period of time out of this out of loss prevention and the process industries, which is a commonly cited book and I was only able to identify five that were in the least bit instrument related. Based on the description that was given and again. You know, can you say from this was these were these specification related? Possibly there just not enough detail to to tell, so my initial premise that I could. Review the incidents and Compare the results that I could get to the same distribution of incidence of causes in the HSE publication. Turned out to not be very practical, but what can we talk about? Well, here are some of the better known major incidents. I think everybody's probably heard most about most of these, of course, Pasadena in 1989 was the explosion at the Phillips 66 facility here in the Houston area that resulted in the death of Mary Kay O'Connor and eventually the founding of the Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center. The one incident of all of these where you could say that Specifications sure sounds like specification was a good portion of the problem. Was bunch field, but essentially it was a tank overflowed in a fuel depot outside of London and generated and explode a vapor cloud that eventually exploded. And reading the reports on the incident, if you look at it, it's like boy. If this was the consequence Well, did they not recognize the potential consequences of overfilling a tank? Would it have not made sense to have multiple, independent, diverse technology level instruments and communication to the remote Control Center? You know, so I would have to say of the major incidents. That most people are familiar with Bunch Field becomes the closest to being specification related. So where can things go wrong in specifications? Well, you know. Obviously in the hazards assessment. If you don't identify a hazard if you don't identify an initiating event, if you don't accurately. Predict the potential consequences if you give too much credit for your existing safeguards. Well then you regarding ill then you have missed something that will not be addressed in the rest of your project. Risk assessment. People tend to overestimate or underestimate initiating event frequency. We happen to be of all involved in a a project right now. I did some checking on just the other day where we're actually doing some failure mode and effect analysis. Trying to apply some Bayesian statistics to help a client identify the closer. Initiating event frequency to the true value than what you can get just out of looking at the reference books. Obviously you can over under May underestimate the consequence, severity, conditional modifiers and enabling conditions of inappropriately applied to reduce the potential frequency. I've borrowed this chart from the presentation I did a while back on functional safety assessments and this is just. You know, I put this together, it's it's not really a serious analysis. But one thing we run and run into frequently when people ask us to help them do. Safety, integrity level, determination of safety functions related to fired equipment is that they start out assuming that if the slightest bit of uncombusted fuel makes its way into the fire box, then you have a violent explosion that results in a fatality. And if you look at it, it's. Yeah, that makes an awful lot of assumptions, so this just happens to be a specific instance that I've seen several times and people come up with outrageous what seems unnecessarily high. Safety, integrity level requirements beyond that required by the standards. To address this, when if they took a, a more hardheaded look at it, it would not necessarily occur with the frequency or the consequence that they assume. In the safety requirements specification. Systematic errors or your field device is going to be certified to E. C, Six, 1508 or based on prior use. The standard is more forgiving of you if you base them on prior use. However, this is also some place where you can go wrong or go astray, I should say. Because the latest version of ANSI ISA 615 eleven allows you to have a safety integrity level, two function with zero hardware fault tolerance. In other words, no redundancy. Well, that is based on the fact that the failure rates you're using to calculate the safety integrity level are based on prior use, but the standard doesn't stay that very clearly an you know. That's an unfortunate. Weakness I think in the standard, but it's a place where you have to be careful. It makes a difference in how you evaluate hardware, fault tolerance, architectural constraints. Whether you're basing your failure rates. Are they certified devices or are they based on prior use? Is your failure rate data reasonable? Boy, that's something that we deal with very frequently. Clients will come to us sometimes with a manufacturer certificate that has a. Dangerous undetected failure rate for a device that's one or two orders of magnitude lower than what we're used to seeing even for certified devices. And sometimes it can be difficult to get the client to recognize the risk that they're taking in the past. Sometimes I have performed the calculation with their data and then with more reasonable data and showed them the difference. And like I say, you're trying to identify the risk. That the client is assuming by using this potentially unreasonable failure rate that the device can't really maintain in the field. Test intervals. Are people really thought through? You know, that's one of the knobs that they want us to change. Is test intervals? Well, yeah, I can't see you know. Well, let's make this the test interval shorter and we'll get the safety integrity level down. Well yeah, that's true. Or mean up increases. Excuse me, but is that really? You know, if you've got a five year turn around frequency and that's the only time that you can test some of your safety functions well. D. I'll just changing the number. Doesn't really do you anything if you can't actually operate that way. Test coverage is. That's another place where people want to say oh, our test coverage. We're night. We cover 99% of the potential failures. Well, if you look at the possible, hopefully the manufacturers safety manual, that's possibly not. Reasonable, we had a good presentation to spend some time ago about vendor talking about the work that has been done in the nuclear industry about what it takes to obtain test, you know, proof test coverage for shut off valves, and they're not even to get to the highest. Proof test coverage takes an awful lot of work and an awful lot of resources. Hardware resources. Process safety time. Is it accurate digit? Is it considered in the design to the valves really closed fast enough? All process operating modes consider. Do you consider startup and shutdown? Are there times when one piece of equipment is out of service but not another will tripping this safety function at that time? Create a hazard you hadn't anticipated. So in summary. Are 44% of the incidents in the process industries do just to a specification error of a safety function? Doubtful. Most have complex causes noticed. I'm saying serious incidents. Out of control, focused attention on the specification portion of the safety lifecycle, and that was a good thing because before that I think most people would have said that operation and maintenance and problems with management of change where where the main causes of serious incidents were happening and when reason for that is. Well, you know things don't blow up during the Specification's age. They have to be operating and being maintained before you have a serious incident, and so that's tends to be where the focus is. That doesn't mean that the chain that led to the incident did not start back in the specification phase. So out of control, I still consider it a valuable reference.

Updated November 2024 — Written by Judith Lesslie, CFSE, CSP — Those who work in high hazard industries are familiar with the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) and EPA Risk Management Plan (RMP) requirements for routine audits to assess and verify compliance with these regulations. In Part 1 blog, we reviewed specific types of concerns that have been identified at many manufacturing sites for several of the PSM/RMP elements. In Part 2 we review the following elements: MOC/PSSR, Process Safety Information, Operating Procedures, Mechanical Integrity, Process Hazard Analysis, and Training. This blog is Part 2 of a series. If you missed part 1, you can find it here.   Reviewing Key PSM/RMP Elements for Compliance: MOC/PSSR, Process Safety Information, and More Management of Change (MOC) and Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR) Management of Change (MOC)  and Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR) are two elements that are joined at the hip. Almost all sites have occasional one-off failings in their MOC and PSSR systems, but very common program-level failures occur around failure to conduct adequate PSSRs prior to approval for startup; failure to follow-up or document punch list items from PSSRs; and failure to conduct or document adequate training or informing of affected personnel prior to startup. While organizational changes are not specifically required to be included in a site’s MOC system, organizational change management is considered RAGAGEP for PSM facilities, so it behooves covered sites to ensure that changes to personnel and changes to the organizational structure are managed appropriately. Process Safety Information (PSI) Like MOC and PSSR, most sites have occasional failings in the Process Safety Information (PSI) element, which describes information pertaining to the HHC that is required to be available. Larger gaps of PSI are present more often than you might think, including such areas as a clear electrical area classification map, basic process control system alarm documentation (including those identified in process hazard analyses), poor instrumentation documentation, failure to identify safety upper and lower operating limits and the consequences of deviations from those limits, failure to ensure that the process safety time available for Operator response to alarm safeguards (as identified in PHAs) is adequate. Ventilation system design information is another area where documentation is frequently lacking as well. Operating Procedure Operating Procedure element failures often echo the PSI failures mentioned above, most particularly in the areas of identification of safety upper and lower operating limits, the consequences of deviations from those limits, and the steps required to correct or avoid deviations. In a similar vein, safety systems and their functions are sometimes not well-covered in operating procedures. It is also relatively common to identify procedures that do not explicitly cover operating phases, such as startup, shutdown, temporary or emergency operations. Finally, a surprising number of facilities fail to annually certify that operating procedures are current and accurate. Mechanical Integrity Mechanical Integrity (MI) is a huge element, covering vessels, tanks, piping systems, relief devices, emergency shutdown systems, controls, and rotating equipment. While MI programs for mechanical equipment are typically better developed than those for instrumentation and control systems, there are still relatively common concerns identified for mechanical equipment. These include non-code-compliant inspection reports, failure to use appropriately certified inspection personnel, and failure to include components such as hoses, expansion joints, check valves, or other less common mechanical components in the program when they are critical to covered processes. Mechanical Integrity program concerns with controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks) and emergency stop functions are even more common. These include failures to categorize criticality, failure to test or inspect (including very serious failures to test process safety e-stops, instruments, and interlocks), and failure to align process hazard analysis (PHA) safeguards with the equipment included in the Mechanical Integrity program. Process Hazard Analysis A Process Hazard Analysis an area where quality varies widely across facilities. While most sites do have PHA reports, it is far too common to find covered process PHAs that are of poor quality, that use non-standard practices, and that are neglected once completed. PHAs are overdue more frequently than you might anticipate as well. There are many sources of good PHA practices and initiating cause data. It behooves facilities to ensure that the personnel responsible for executing the PHA program are well-trained in current industry practices and have good software tools for executing PHAs. It is also important that PHA recommendations and actions to ensure the integrity of identified safeguards are a part of the program expectations. Related to this, PHA recommendations should receive a high level of management attention to ensure they are completed to expectations in a timely manner. Training The Training element is one of those typically in pretty good shape at many facilities. However, it is not uncommon to find that employees involved in operating the process are not involved in determining the appropriate frequency for refresher training. The Stakes The PSM and RMP regulations have proven over time that they are excellent practices to drive the reduction of serious process safety incidents. It is far better for a company and sites to find and correct their own PSM and RMP system deficiencies than for a serious incident to occur or for a regulatory agency to identify it. Are you positive that the commonly found concerns reviewed above are not present at your facility? Leveraging Expert Support for Comprehensive PSM/RMP Compliance Assessments If you have not previously taken a deep dive into the assessment of the topics above at your site, now would be a good time to do so. If you do not have the right expertise in your staff to assess PSM and RMP compliance in these areas, consider selecting a process safety consultancy with deep experience and expertise to assist you . Their range of experience enables external auditors to share the general methods proven to drive good PSM and RMP compliance across industry. 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 more efficient compliance with the necessary standards.

Updated November 2024 — Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA) has become an i mportant tool used in industry, often in conjunction with a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) . It is used to evaluate high severity or high risk consequences with additional rigor of review to assess that safeguards and systems are adequately in place to meet the company’s risk tolerance requirements. During a LOPA, safeguards are identified to interrupt an initiating event from progressing to an undesired consequence. These safeguards must meet the following five core attributes to be credited in a LOPA for risk reduction and classified as Independent Protection Layers (IPLs). Independence Independence is used to assure the effects of the initiating event, or of other IPLs, do not interact with a specific IPL and thereby degrade its ability to perform its function. Independence requires that an IPL’s effectiveness is independent of; The occurrence, or consequences, of the initiating event; and The failure of any component of an IPL already credited for the same scenario. Dependability Dependability is used to assure the IPL is available when needed to prevent the hazard scenario from occurring. Protection provided by the IPL shall reduce the identified risk by at least ten-fold. Specificity Specificity is used to verify the IPL can prevent the cause from progressing to the undesired consequence. Auditability Auditability is used to verify the IPL is routinely tested/inspected at an adequate frequency through the process lifecycle to maintain its dependability. An IPL component, system or action shall be auditable to demonstrate that it meets the risk mitigation requirements of a LOPA IPL. The auditing process shall confirm effectiveness of the IPL through review of the design, installation, functional testing, and maintenance systems of the IPL. Security Security is used to verify the IPL has controls in place that prevent unauthorized changes. The IPL shall be managed by design or by administrative procedure to ensure unauthorized changes are not made that affect the integrity of the IPL, its availability, or any of its properties. Typically during a LOPA, the team does not have the time or resources to assess each IPL to verify they meet these requirements. IPL validation is a process to examine the key elements that qualifies a safeguard as an IPL to ensure they will function when needed and prevent propagation of a hazardous scenario. Good industry practice is to manage, test, and document IPLs through the lifecycle of the process. IPL validation is based on guidelines established under the International Society of Automation ISA-84.91.01 and OSHA Process Safety Management , 29 CFR 1910.119. It is important to note that validation of Safety Instrumented Function (SIF) IPLs are specifically managed under requirements for ISA 84.00.01 and not part of this validation. IPL validation typically uses a set of questions to evaluate if a safeguard meets the five core attributes of an IPL. At aeSolutions, we approach IPL validation using checklists with specific questions for each type of IPL (e.g. alarm, check valve, dike, procedure, etc.). Our associates work closely with each site to gather and review the necessary data to complete the checklists. If an affirmative answer to a question cannot be proven with site documentation, the item is listed as a gap and recommendations are generated. The recommendations are communicated to the facility for further action. Through our work on various IPL validation projects, it has often surprised facilities to discover the areas IPLs do not meet validation criteria. LOPA Teams make every effort to use up-to-date process safety information. They use P&IDs to identify available safeguards, such as relief or indicating devices, however during the IPL validation process discover that the device has been removed, modified or is not functioning properly. Further investigation would be recommended to resolve the risk and evaluate the potential gaps in process safety information, the management of change process, etc. Another example is when a BPCS related IPL (alarm or software action) is identified as being on the same Input/output (I/O) card as another credited IPL or the initiating event device. Typically, the LOPA team does not have the ability, due to time or resource constraints, to review automation logic diagrams during their meeting. So unless a LOPA team member is reviewing the automation logic diagrams this common cause would never be found. The team would feel confident the risk of the hazard scenario is sufficiently mitigated, when in actuality it is not. However, during the IPL validation, review of the I/O card would reveal the lack of independence and require either the selection of a new IPL or a modification to the I/O card arrangement. These examples show that while the LOPA team may identify IPLs to sufficiently manage the risk of the hazard, more evaluation is needed to verify these IPLs as existing or to identify deficiencies. Corrective actions from IPL validation can range from adding IPLs to the site’s mechanical integrity program to revisiting the LOPA and selecting a more reliable IPL. IPL validation is a good industry practice to verify that your IPLs are properly managed, tested, and documented. The IPL validation checklists are also a great reference for future PHA and LOPA studies. #ISA #LOPA #pha #SafetyInstrumentedFunction Learn More About aeSolutions Process Safety

Everyone wants to provide a safe atmosphere for workers, facilities and the surrounding environment. The greatest risk in many process facilities comes from fired equipment. Burner management systems (BMSs) are the safety instrumented systems specific to fired equipment. The greatest challenge many asset owners face while evaluating the adequacy of their existing BMS designs comes from the inconsistency of results from one type of fired device to another of the same type (e.g., a heater or boiler) when using a risk assessment technique such as hazard and operability study (HAZOP ) or layer of protection analysis (LOPA) . Findings an d recommendations should be similar for similar installations. The largest contributors of inconsistency are the qualitative nature of the techniques and the strong opinions of the team members. This is even more of a challenge when different teams are used in different risk assessments. However, there are ways to introduce consistency to the studies without turning them into detailed and expensive quantitative risk assessments. The Environmental Protection Agency has developed simplified protocols for risk management planning to help with this. These protocols utilize equivalent TNT methodologies as contained in the Federal Emergency Management Agency “Handbook of Chemical Analysis Procedures”. Use of this resource can provide the empirical basis needed to drive consistency in the assessment of fired equipment from one asset to another, one facility to another, and one risk assessment team to another. This technique can be simplified in a seven-step method to yield consistent results for fired equipment. These can be summarized as: Step 1: Calculate the vapor cloud explosion effect zone of the fired equipment. Step 2: Calculate the physical explosion and deflagration effect zone. Step 3: Calculate the pool fire effect zone (for liquid fuels only). Step 4: Calculate the personnel density in the effect zone and determine extent of impact. Step 5: Perform a LOPA to determine the frequency for each hazardous event. Step 6: Determine the required probability of failure on demand (PFD) for each safety instrumented function (SIF). Step 7: Determine the required safety integrity level (SIL) for each SIF. Any SIL selection method adopted by a company needs to be easy to use and yield quick results. To make the seven-step method described above easier to utilize, it is recommended that companies develop the following set of tools and procedures: A spreadsheet application for each type of the most common types of fuels the company utilizes in their fired equipment to calculate each of the three effect zones A supporting procedure on calculation of personnel densities A spreadsheet application that provides a framework for LOPA for each of the standard SIFs in BMSs A supporting procedure to include guidance on how to perform LOPA A cost / benefit analysis spreadsheet to support project justification Adopting this methodology will allow a company to quickly, efficiently and consistently evaluate their BMSs and make the most cost-effective business decisions. For more details on how to make the right selections, read the paper “ Burner Management System Safety Integrity Level Selection .”

The Value of Facility Siting Studies Updated November 2024 - Process industry history is sprinkled with catastrophic incidents that acted as drivers of regulatory change, such as the 1974 Flixborough explosion , the 1984 Bhopal toxic release disaster , and the 2005 Texas City Refinery flammable material release and explosion . Lack of process safety management, damage, and deaths were the commonalities among these incidents. The OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard and EPA Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations were promulgated in response to these types of devastati ng accidents. These regulations were supplemented in the US by industry standards such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practices 752, 753, and 756, and with guidance developed by the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). These standards and guidance documents became the consensus industry practices for performing facility siting (FS) studies . Facility siting studies analyze potential toxic, fire, and explosion hazards to personnel from releases of hazardous chemicals. From a regulatory perspective, facility siting is required in the US by OSHA PSM and EPA RMP for facilities that meet the qualifying definition. A checklist is often utilized during Process Hazard Analyses (PHAs) to meet the regulatory requirements for facility siting; however, a facility siting study provides a more detailed analysis of specific facility siting concerns and should be referenced during PHA scenario development. Facility Siting | A Commitment to Your Team & Your Community Irrespective of regulation, it is best practice to conduct a facility siting study to understand the implications of a release of hazardous materials at your facility. While PHAs develop hazard scenarios that could potentially result in loss of containment, a FS study assumes a release has occurred and evaluates the outcomes accordingly. aeSolutions utilizes the following general approach to performing a facility siting study: Identify chemicals of concern Collect information on site-specific conditions (e.g., equipment and process data, building construction and occupancy data, equipment and building locations on the facility) Identify potential hazard event scenarios from a review of PHAs, incident investigation reports, discussions with experienced personnel, and other pertinent sources of information Identify and classify occupied buildings Perform the hazardous material release consequence analysis Perform the risk analysis if a risk-based approach is used Package the results in a way that the results can be understood and review the results with the client Discuss with the client options to reduce risk For the consequence analysis, software can be used to model the discharge, dispersion, and impacts of an accidental release of flammable or toxic material. Limiting the analysis to the consequence analysis, the facility siting study results are consequence-based , which provides a measure of the severity of the hazard. Taking the assessment, a further step, a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) can apply release event frequencies and appropriate probabilities, such as probability of ignition and vulnerability of people to the various effects, to quantify the risk associated with a release scenario. A consequence-based facility siting study is simpler and requires less resources to perform, but the results of a consequence-based FS study may set a higher bar to address and necessitate additional action or protection at a facility. A risk-based QRA requires more expertise and resources to perform the study, but the benefit gained is that the study often finds that the event likelihood of many scenarios is so low that the hazard meets the company risk criteria and additional means of protection that a consequence-based study concludes is needed are not required after all (i.e., less resources spent on addressing facility siting study results). The Takeaway | Facility Siting Studies Conducting a facility siting with a practical approach to study methodology and risk mitigation can balance the cost and course of action to protect personnel and facility assets. This enables company leaders to better make reasonable decisions on how to protect their employees. For instance, relocating all personnel to blast resistant modules can become expensive and may not be necessary in all cases; an alternative combination of innovative solutions may accomplish the risk reduction. Protection can come in different forms, such as increasing airflow through a building for preventing flammable vapor or gas accumulation or utilizing shelter-in-place for toxic concerns. Facility siting requires a pragmatic evaluation of the nature and level of hazard and what would be best for personnel and the plant. Facility siting regulations and standards have improved significantly since the Flixborough, Bhopal, and Texas City Refinery catastrophic incidents and continue to evolve to ensure toxic, fire, and explosion hazards are appropriately mitigated in the future. Ultimately, a detailed facility siting study can help you understand the hazards of potential releases, how those hazards can impact occupied buildings, and most importantly, determine effective solutions to protect your valued workforce.

Introduction | Control System Migrations | Part 3 October 2024 — by Tom McGreevy, PE, PMP, CFSE — If you’ve made it through justifying the cost for your control system migration project  and mitigating risks through front-end loading (FEL) , you are probably well aware that control system migrations are complex projects that require careful planning and strategic decision-making to ensure a successful outcome. Whether upgrading legacy systems or implementing new technology, organizations are faced with several choices throughout the migration process. From deciding whether to handle tasks internally or outsource them, to selecting the right vendor(s) and structuring procurement, each decision plays a vital role in the overall success of the project. In part three of our control system migration series , we take a look at procurement specification and vendor selection considerations such as the make-or-buy decision, specification development, comparing bids, managing purchase orders, and selecting between an OEM or systems integrator. This blog will help operators navigate the challenges of control system migrations and make informed decisions that align with their project goals, budget, and long-term operational needs. To Make or To Buy — That is the Question One of the biggest questions that operators must ask themselves during any control system migration project is whether to perform key tasks internally (" make ") or to outsource them to external engineering firms (" buy "). This decision impacts not only the project’s cost structure but also the timeline, resource allocation, and overall risk management. In-House Expertise vs. External Support The first question any organization must ask is whether they have the internal expertise to first develop the necessary procurement specifications, and later to perform critical tasks like hardware and software configuration, testing, construction or construction oversight, and finally commissioning and startup. If a company has a seasoned in-house team with experience in these areas, then it might make sense to handle much of the work internally. However, the reality for many organizations is that, while in the past they may have had this level of specialization in-house, years of corporate downsizing has resulted in a plant that is staffed to operate and maintain, but not to change or grow. This is where external partners can offer value. Developing Functional and Hardware Specifications Many clients seeking to replace or upgrade their control systems find that developing detailed functional specifications and hardware requirements is one of the most daunting challenges. It has become more common for organizations to partner with engineering firms like aeSolutions to provide these services, ensuring that the right foundation is set for successful vendor engagement and implementation. Whether you decide to develop specifications internally or bring in external help largely depends on your team’s capacity to handle such detail-oriented work in the time required to complete it. Project Scope and Complexity Projects that involve complex control system migrations, especially those operating in regulated or highly specialized industries, often benefit from third-party expertise to manage risk. The make-or-buy decision can also hinge on how familiar your internal team is with new technology or compliance requirements. Resource Allocation and Timeline Time is a critical factor. Even if you have the expertise to, for instance, develop the specifications internally, does your team have the bandwidth to dedicate to such a significant task? External vendors can accelerate this process, as they often have pre-existing frameworks, tools, and processes to expedite specification development, procurement planning, and system integration.   The decision to "make or buy" in a control system migration project is multifaceted, involving an assessment of internal capabilities, the scope of the project, and the available resources. Partnering with an external engineering firm can significantly help operators navigate these decisions by offering specialized services in functional specification development, hardware design, and project management. For companies without the necessary in-house resources, opting for external support can ensure that projects stay on time and within budget, while minimizing risk and ensuring compliance with industry standards.   The Importance of an Apples-to-Apples Comparison of Bids If you’ve decided to work with an external vendor for your control system migrations project, you’ll need to be prepared to solicit and compare bids. The process of comparing these bids can become complex if the requirements are not clearly defined or standardized across vendors. The key to a fair comparison is ensuring that the procurement specifications are well-documented, precise, and conveyed in a way that all bidders understand and respond to similarly. Establishing Clear and Consistent Requirements A well-defined procurement specification is essential to level the playing field for all potential vendors. The goal here is to outline your system’s requirements in enough detail so that bidders know exactly what you need. Even if every detail isn't fully defined at the outset, sharing a clear overview of the project's scope and expectations can prevent wide variations in vendor proposals. If the procurement specifications are vague or too open-ended, you may end up receiving a wide range of responses — from proposals that only cover the absolute bare minimum to others that offer high-end, premium solutions that far exceed the project’s actual needs. This spectrum of responses can make it challenging to make an apples-to-apples comparison of the bids and determine which one offers the best value for your organization. Balancing Price and Value Without precise specifications, vendors may interpret your project needs differently, leading to bids that range from cost-effective solutions to more feature-rich —  and more expensive  — options. For instance, one bidder might propose the minimum viable solution to meet basic operational requirements, while another might propose an advanced system that exceeds your actual needs. The challenge lies in striking a balance between affordability and value. While the lowest bid may seem attractive from a budgetary perspective, it may not meet all the functional requirements. Conversely, the highest bid may offer unnecessary features that inflate the overall cost. By defining the requirements clearly from the start, you can ensure that all vendors are bidding on the same or a very similar scope, which in turn allows you to make a fair comparison. The process of comparing bids is more than just identifying the lowest price — it's about ensuring that the bids align with the project's requirements and offer the best value. By taking the time to develop a detailed procurement specification, you can help ensure that all vendors are bidding on the same scope, enabling a fair and effective comparison. This ultimately helps reduce the risk of selecting a solution that either underperforms or overextends your budget without adding proportional value.   One Purchase Order or Several? When planning a control system migration, contracting strategy is an area that can significantly impact project execution, specifically, whether to issue one purchase order covering all aspects of the project or to break it down into several purchase orders, each targeting specific phases or services. This decision is largely influenced by how much control an organization wants over individual project elements and the resources available for managing multiple contractors or vendors. In recent years, it has become more common for clients to solicit bids that cover the entire project scope — functional specification, configuration, construction, and testing  — under one proposal. This trend is driven by a desire to reduce management complexity and place responsibility on a single contractor, who may either perform all the work or manage subcontractors on behalf of the client. Choosing to issue a single purchase order means entrusting a single entity with managing the entire project, from developing the functional requirements specification to system configuration, construction, and even system testing. This centralized approach can streamline communication and coordination, as one vendor takes responsibility for delivering the full scope of the project. This option can reduce the burden on the operator/project manager(s), who won't need to oversee multiple contractors or manage complex interdependencies between different service providers. It is likely that most bidders responding to a “one purchase order” solicitation will themselves have to partner with others to bring the full set of skills needed. For instance, it is a rare systems integrator who is also a fully qualified electrical contractor and has its own craft labor, so the SI may have to sub-contract the construction and perform a construction management role. In these circumstances, the ability of the bidding “prime” contactor to manage sub-contractors should be fully investigated. Alternatively, opting for several purchase orders allows the client to maintain more direct control over each phase of the project. For example, one organization might handle the functional specification, another would take care of configuration, a separate electrical contractor could be hired for construction, and yet another vendor could handle system fabrication and testing. By compartmentalizing the work across multiple vendors, the client can select specialists for each task, potentially increasing the quality of each deliverable. However, this approach demands more from the client in terms of project management and coordination, as they will need to ensure seamless handoffs between each contractor and resolve any issues that arise between different teams. Benefits of a Single Purchase Order Streamlined Communication and Management : With a single PO, there’s one main point of contact and fewer layers of coordination, making it easier to maintain clarity and avoid misunderstandings. Reduced Administrative Overhead : Managing multiple POs can create administrative challenges, from contract negotiation to handling project milestones and payments. A single contract reduces the complexity. Accountability : A single vendor is accountable for the entire project, meaning they are responsible for both the high-level planning and the detailed execution. This can lead to better overall project alignment and fewer disputes over scope or responsibility. With a well-developed scope, you likely will have structured your commercial terms to be mostly “fixed fee”, with some exceptions (typically commissioning and startup support are performed on a “time and expense” basis). This transfers risk to the seller, but you are likely to pay marginally more for that risk reduction than you would otherwise by managing several vendors through multiple purchase orders. Benefits of Multiple Purchase Orders Specialization and Expertise : By issuing separate POs for functional specification, configuration, construction, and fabrication, clients can hire specialized organizations with the expertise to excel in each area. This can lead to higher-quality outputs for each phase of the project. Greater Control : Multiple POs give the client more control over the contracting process and each project's stage. For organizations that want tight oversight or are managing a particularly complex or high-risk control system migration, this level of control can help mitigate potential risks. If your organization has the skills and bandwidth to manage multiple vendors, and with a well-defined scope, you may save money by assuming the coordination efforts and associated project risk. Flexibility in Vendor Selection : When using several purchase orders, the client can select different vendors based on their strengths and price points for specific tasks. Deciding What’s Right for Your Control System Migration Project The decision between one purchase order or several is often determined by the company’s internal resources and its desired level of control. Some companies prefer the simplicity and efficiency of a single purchase order, especially if they have limited resources for managing multiple vendors. Others, particularly those with more complex projects or specific performance requirements, may prefer to split the project into smaller parts, ensuring they have direct control over each critical phase.   Think Through Getting Keys to Your New System When planning a control system migration, it is natural for an organization to focus on the design, configuration, and installation phases. However, it’s equally important to think through what happens when the project is complete and the “ keys ” to the new system are handed over. This handoff represents not only the culmination of the technical work but also the point where the organization takes full responsibility for operating and maintaining the system or has appropriately arranged for contracted maintenance support. Beyond Design and Configuration The process of " getting the keys " involves much more than simply having a control system delivered and installed. Organizations must consider the resources needed for successful cutover, site testing, startup, and ongoing support once the project is complete. It’s not enough to just focus on the technical aspects leading up to the handover. Teams must think ahead about the operational and maintenance requirements once the vendor steps back. In many cases, a company might not have the internal resources or expertise to fully support the new system, especially if it's significantly different from what was in place before. This lack of resources has become more common, which makes planning for post-handover support essential. Planning for Post-Commissioning Support One important consideration is whether your organization will need follow-on support contracts. Although the system may be handed over in a fully operational state, it’s important to have a plan in place for ongoing maintenance and troubleshooting. For many organizations, this means working with the vendor to establish a support contract that extends beyond the handover period. In some cases, the first year of support can be capitalized as part of the control system migration project itself. This can be a significant advantage, as capitalizing the support allows organizations to fund it through the project’s capital budget rather than requiring additional operating expenses after the project is complete. However, it’s important to consider this early in the planning process. If your organization decides that a support contract is needed, this needs to be factored into the overall project budget and submitted for capital approval before the project begins. Early involvement by your company’s accounting department may prevent difficult discussions later regarding capitalizing or expensing support contracts.  Whether it's planning for site testing, securing support contracts, or ensuring proper training, the handoff should be seen as the start of ownership rather than the end of the project. This proactive approach will set the stage for sustained success well beyond the initial migration.   Defining System Specification and Functional Specification With any control system migration project, there are two subsets of the overall procurement specification — the system specification and the functional specification. These two areas serve distinct purposes and must be clearly defined to ensure a successful control system migration. The terms for these project documents vary in name and format, but the content is critically important. System Specification: Defining the Hardware and Software Requirements The system specification, sometimes referred to as the hardware specification, focuses on the technical aspects of the control system — specifically, what hardware and software are required to meet the control system migration project’s goals. This specification details the necessary components, such as controllers, servers, communication networks, and software platforms, ensuring that the system will meet the operational and performance requirements laid out by the client. The development of the system specification is usually a more straightforward process compared to the functional specification. Owners can rely heavily on the expertise of their chosen OEMs or systems integrators, as they are familiar with the capabilities of the control platforms they work with. Although not as necessary as with the functional specification aspect, it is still beneficial for a client to work with the vendor to ensure that the specification aligns with the project’s overall objectives and operational constraints. Functional Specification: Defining What the System Needs to Do The functional specification, on the other hand, focuses on the operational requirements of the system — what it must do to meet the company’s needs . A functional specification document answers critical questions about how the system should behave, how processes will be controlled, and how new or existing functionalities will be managed within the system. For example, if the project involves a legacy system upgrade, the functional specification must outline what the system currently does and any additional functionalities that the new system needs to perform. To a greater extent than the system specification, the development of the functional specification requires collaboration between the owner and the vendor. It should be noted however, that vendors and systems integrators, while experts in control systems and platforms, are not typically process experts. They may have extensive knowledge of the systems they engineer, but they may not have the same depth of understanding about the specific chemical or mechanical processes that the system must control. This is why functional specification development requires input from both parties. The client, who has a thorough understanding of the processes involved, must work closely with the vendor to ensure that the control narratives and operational requirements are fully captured. This collaboration is critical to avoid misunderstandings or gaps in the system’s functionality, which could lead to delays or operational issues during startup. Exceptions do exist, so you may find an OEM or a systems integrator with deep process knowledge of your industry. If so, consider yourself fortunate, as functional specification development is often an area where a dearth of owner resources or expertise can bog down the progress and result in schedule delays, or worse, improperly specified functional requirements.  System and functional specifications are fundamental to the success of a control system migration project. While the system specification focuses on the hardware and software requirements, the functional specification defines how the system will operate and meet the owner's needs. Developing these specifications requires a balance between technical expertise and process knowledge, with close collaboration between the owner and vendor. By selecting a vendor that understands both the platforms and the importance of collaboration, owners can ensure a smoother, successful migration process.   Understanding the “As-Is” State of a System One of the more challenging elements of a control system migration is documenting the current, or “ as-is ” state of the system — both the physical and the logical (the programming) . The accuracy of the existing system’s documentation impacts the success of the migration process, particularly during detail design and implementation. Unfortunately, for systems that have been in place for decades, such documentation may be incomplete, outdated, or exist only in the form of internal team knowledge passed down informally within the organization. Project teams and vendors should have a clear understanding of the physical layout, wiring, and system configuration before beginning any detailed design work. This includes capturing details such as I/O points, control panels, network architecture, and wiring diagrams. In some cases, the hardware may have undergone ad-hoc modifications over the years that were never formally documented, further complicating the process. The configuration (programming) of the system must also be documented, so that all parties can understand how the process is currently controlled, even if significant changes are planned. For these reasons, documenting the as-is state of the hardware and software must happen during the Front-End Loading  (FEL) phase. Doing so helps ensure that the team has a solid foundation to work from when transitioning to the new system. The risk of skipping this step, or relying on incomplete documentation, is that errors will arise during cutover — especially during time-critical turnarounds  — which can lead to expensive delays or operational disruptions. Options for Capturing the As-Is State Companies must make a decision early in the project about how to approach capturing the as-is state. If the system documentation is poorly maintained, as is often the case with older systems, the owner needs to assess whether they have the internal resources and expertise to update and complete the documentation themselves. This effort can be time-consuming and requires a deep understanding of both the process and the control system architecture. Alternatively, the owner may choose to outsource this work to third-party vendors who specialize in control system migrations.   Vendor Migration Options The process of evaluating vendor migration options involves not only selecting the right platform (a vendor may offer several variations), but also defining the stages of migration and determining how much flexibility or structure you want to allow in the vendor proposals. The goal is to ensure that vendors understand the scope of the project and are equipped to meet both your technical and operational needs. Platform Choices: Balancing Cost and Capability The choice of platform for your control system migration is one that will impact the cost, capability, and future flexibility of the system. There is a wide range of options, from more affordable, bare-bones platforms to premium, highly capable systems with extensive features and flexibility. By clearly defining your platform requirements, you can guide vendors to propose solutions that meet both your budgetary and operational needs. However, it’s important to strike a balance — although low-cost solutions may be attractive, they may not offer the long-term benefits or reliability needed for your specific industry. Staging the Migration Process Another important consideration is determining the stages of the migration process. Operators should define an execution strategy that outlines the sequence of steps: which parts of the system will be migrated first, second, third, and so on. This approach allows you to ensure a smooth transition and minimize disruptions during the migration. If vendors aren’t provided with enough detail about how the migration will unfold, they may make assumptions that lead to misaligned or faulty bids that may not be executable if the migration stages and sequence aren’t properly communicated.  Providing Flexibility for Vendors While some companies may know exactly what they need and dictate a rigid scope, others may want to give vendors the flexibility to propose creative solutions or cost-saving ideas. In these cases, it’s important to structure the procurement specifications to allow for both a base bid and optional upgrades or alternative strategies. For example, the base bid would cover the minimum requirements, while vendors could offer additional features or enhancements as options. This approach ensures that vendors meet the project’s essential needs but also allows room for innovation, enabling the owner to consider creative or cost-effective solutions that may not have been previously identified. Choosing the right vendor migration options involves a balance between defining project requirements, an execution sequence that aligns with business needs, and allowing vendors the flexibility to propose creative solutions. Owners need to determine the most appropriate platform based on budget, capability, operational constraints (allowed downtime for migration activities), and future needs, while also structuring the procurement specifications to allow for both base bids and optional enhancements. By clearly defining the stages of migration and establishing guidelines for vendor proposals, owners can avoid the pitfalls of inconsistent or inexecutable bids and ensure a smoother, more predictable migration process.   OEM vs. Systems Integrator Another decision companies face with any control system migration project where a “buy” decision has been made is whether to partner with an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or a systems integrator (SI) to perform the implementation. This decision depends on several factors, including the size and complexity of the project, budget constraints, and the need for local versus global availability. Working with an OEM OEMs are the original providers of the hardware and software platforms running the vast majority of the world’s automated control systems. These companies have deep knowledge of their products and can provide comprehensive support for implementing and configuring their systems. However, partnering with an OEM often comes with higher costs. Large OEMs typically have higher hourly labor rates, and their teams may not be located locally, which can add travel expenses to the project. Additionally, OEMs are sometimes more focused on larger, high-value projects, and they may not find smaller migration projects as attractive. This means that for smaller projects, you might not receive the same level of attention or priority from the OEM. Despite these potential downsides, the advantage of working with an OEM is the assurance that you’re working with the team that knows the platform inside and out. They can often provide direct access to new features, updates, and the highest levels of technical support, which can be critical for highly complex or high-risk projects. Additionally, if your company is taking on migrations as a strategic business initiative at multiple sites concurrently, an OEM partnership, with its deep resources, may make the most sense.  Working with a Systems Integrator Alternatively, many organizations choose to partner with a systems integrator (SI) for their control system migration projects. SIs are typically smaller, more localized or regional firms that specialize in implementing and integrating control system platforms, often in partnership with one or more OEMs. They can provide a more cost-effective option, particularly for small to mid-sized projects, as their labor rates tend to be lower than those of the large OEMs. One key benefit of working with a systems integrator is their proximity. A local or regional SI can offer more hands-on, timely support throughout the migration process. They are also likely to be more flexible and responsive to smaller projects, which might not be a priority for the OEM. Additionally, because they maintain relationships with the OEM, they can often provide the necessary expertise while still offering a more personalized and cost-effective service. It’s also important to consider the relationship that an SI has with the OEM. Many SIs have deep experience with specific platforms and work closely with the OEMs to ensure they are up to date on the latest technologies and standards. This allows them to act as an extension of the OEM’s expertise, but with the added benefit of being more focused on your specific needs.   The Takeaway | Control System Migration Procurement Specification & Vendor Selection Control system migrations are complex, multifaceted projects that require careful planning, strategic decision-making, and collaboration with the right partners. From deciding whether to manage tasks in-house or outsource to engineering experts, to developing well-written procurement specifications, choosing between single or multiple purchase orders, and selecting the right vendor migration options, every decision impacts the project’s chances of success. Organizations must carefully consider their internal resources, the complexity of the system, and their long-term operational needs to determine the best approach. By taking the time to document the "as-is" state, clearly define system and functional specifications, and engage the right vendors — whether OEMs or systems integrators — companies can navigate the challenges of control system migrations effectively. The key to success lies in thorough preparation, informed vendor selection, and strategic execution to ensure a smooth transition and sustainable outcomes.

Updated June 2026 - Discover how to leverage unplanned shutdowns to facilitate proof testing of safety instrumented functions, improving safety protocols and minimizing downtime. This article explores the following topics: Click here to read the full article on ChemicalProcessing.com Utilizing unplanned shutdowns for safety instrumented function (SIF) proof testing Reducing maintenance frequency by leveraging these events as safety tests Ensuring regulatory compliance through proper documentation and test validation Applying software tools and data analytics to optimize safety testing Exploring future trends like AI and automation in safety management Read the full article here: Leverage Unplanned Shutdowns to Enhance Safety Testing - ChemicalProcessing.com

Updated June 2026 - Imagine discovering a critical flaw in your safety system design before your plant goes operational. This scenario, while nerve-wracking, underscores the importance of early intervention in the design phase. This article explores the following topics: Click here to read the full article on ISSSource.com How FSA Stage 1 can discover critical flaws early How FSA Stage 1 can reduce incidents The process steps for FSA Stage 1 How FSA Stage 1 can help prevent costly fixes How FSA Stage 1 can help prevent unknown renewable energy risks Read the full article here: Functional Safety Assessment Stage 1 can Discover Critical Flaws Early (ISSSource.com)

Reports of accidental releases involving hazardous chemicals at fixed facilities in the US reached all-time highs during the 2023 fiscal year. For these reasons and others, process safety improvements are top of mind in the industrial sector. So how can organizations prioritize limited resources, people-power, and time to take action? This article explores the following topics: Rising Incidents and the Importance of Safety : Reports of process safety incidents have been increasing, with a 51% rise in reportable incidents in 2023, including significant increases in injuries (11%) and deaths (78%), highlighting the urgent need for improved process safety practices. Leadership Commitment : Strong leadership is essential for a robust process safety culture. Senior management must prioritize safety over productivity, dedicating resources, time, and direction to safety initiatives to avoid incidents that could cause serious harm and financial losses. Real-World Data Application : Organizations should implement a structured approach like the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle to assess process safety systems, execute improvements, and continuously monitor outcomes using real-world data to drive safety progress. Employee Empowerment : Engaging and empowering employees at all levels, especially those interested in becoming subject matter experts (SMEs), fosters a more inclusive safety culture. Educating staff on process safety can bridge knowledge gaps and accelerate improvement efforts. Start Small for Bigger Wins : Focusing on smaller, more manageable process safety improvements can lead to early successes. These wins help organizations build momentum and prepare for tackling more complex safety challenges in the future. Continuous Improvement (CI) System : Utilizing continuous improvement methodologies, like Kaizen and Lean Manufacturing, helps organizations make incremental changes that enhance safety and operational efficiency. Choosing a suitable CI approach and sticking with it is key to long-term success. Focus on Culture : A high-performing process safety program relies on a culture of continuous improvement, employee engagement, and early wins. Starting small and sustaining progress is critical to enhancing both safety and overall operational performance. by Judith Leslie, CFSE, CSP, CCPSC , senior principal specialist with aeSolutions . Read the full article here: Enhancing Process Safety: Five Tips to Build a Better System (Powderbulksolids.com)