Industrial Process Safety and Automation Company aeSolutions Announces Achievements for 2022 and Plans for 2023: Company to Focus on Expanded Client Services and Employee Development and Recruitment in 2023 Greenville, SC – February 22, 2023 – aeSolutions , a consulting, engineering, and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services, today announced company milestones achieved and overall performance for 2022. The company’s achievements included the launch of two new lines of business, a year-over-year growth of 12 percent, several key hires and promotions, and an increased focus on employee recruitment and development. “In 2022, aeSolutions continued to position itself to better serve our clients and partners,” said Ken O’Malley, president of aeSolutions. “We maintained our focus on oil, renewables, chemicals and petrochemicals, and entered the Green Hydrogen renewable energy and machine safety markets. We established two new business lines – Plant Protection Systems and Migrations and Upgrades – that will enable us to more fully assist our clients with larger, more complex projects, and our revenue has recovered and exceeded pre-covid levels.” New Business Units/Divisions Plant Protection Systems A new Plant Protection Systems business was created by combining the Fired Equipment, Safety Instrumented Systems, and Combustible and Toxic Gas Detection service lines under one senior leader. This single vertical business is responsible for the design and delivery of the critical systems that protect people and the environment. Migrations and Upgrades A new Migrations and Upgrades business was established. This team guides clients to develop phased project road maps that minimize or eliminate the interruption to production and deliver upgraded, future-capable systems. O’Malley added, “Growth in 2023 will come from a tighter alignment of our organizational structure with our well-known brand and service lines, which places a single senior leader at the top level of accountability for delivery and client satisfaction from concept development through turnover and startup. We are excited about the changes and looking forward to an incredibly productive 2023.” Key Personnel Appointments Promotions ● Carolyn Bott, Associate Process Safety Group Manager (GM): A seasoned process safety engineer with a bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering and certification in Safety Engineering, Bott has experience working in the Chemicals, Petrochemicals, Oil & Gas (Onshore and Offshore), and Energy industries. ● Chris Neff, Senior Vice President (VP) of Project Development and Plant Protection Systems: An industry veteran with more than 25 years of experience developing and executing complex projects to create value for customers in diverse industries including refining, chemicals, onshore and offshore oil and gas, liquefied natural gas, syngas/methanol, utilities, infrastructure, power, metals, mining, food, and pharmaceuticals. Appointment ● Ken Whittle, Senior Director of Process Safety: Whittle’s 30-plus years of leadership roles in environment, health, safety and sustainability (EHS&S)/operations comprise experience with mechanical integrity, maintenance excellence, mergers and acquisitions, and leadership coaching and mentoring. Key Product/Deliverable Highlights Available as a turnkey solution, the FGS 1400 MK II is pre-engineered, preconfigured and prepackaged, and is suitable for a wide variety of applications. Scalable from small to large industrial installations, the solution is based on industry standard safety and control system platforms and is designed to provide combustible and toxic gas detection and fire protection. In 2022, the FGS 1400 MK II was updated to utilize Siemens latest generation Simatic ET 200SP HA input/output (I/O) cards. Company Culture/Initiatives In 2022, aeSolutions adopted an employee-opt-in hybrid office model that allowed the company to better align its commercial real estate with the needs and preferences of its business leaders and team members. Restructuring in this way enabled the company to reduce its annual commercial real estate leases by almost half, freeing up resources for investment in employee development and company growth. Additionally, the company formalized a talent development strategy and program that includes the launch of a new learning management system and the rollout of a formal employee-directed coaching program. Plans for 2023 In 2023, aeSolutions will continue to strive to be an employee-centric company with a primary purpose of supporting each stakeholder in the pursuit of their fullest potential. As a company, aeSolutions believes that client success can only come from a supported, valued workforce. About aeSolutions In business since 1998, aeSolutions is a consulting, engineering and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services. They specialize in helping industrial clients achieve their risk management and operational excellence goals through expertise in process safety, combustion control and safeguarding, safety instrumented systems, control system design and integration, alarm management, and related operations and integrity management systems. For more information, visit www.aesolutions.com. Media Contact Kari Walker for aeSolutions Kari@redironpr.com @KariWalkerPR

Company to Focus on Expansion and Core Expertise in 2022 Greenville, SC – February 23, 2022 – aeSolutions , a consulting, engineering, and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services, today announced company milestones achieved and overall performance for 2021. The company’s significant achievements included outstanding client retention, several key hires to help propel the company into the future, and the release of its newest offering, aeAlarm ™ . “In looking back at 2021, aeSolutions emerged smarter, stronger, more focused and even better positioned to serve our clients and partners,” said Ken O’Malley, president of aeSolutions. “aeSolutions remains unparalleled in the industry when it comes to helping industrial clients achieve their risk management and operational excellence goals through our expertise in integrating process safety and automation. Our adaptability and capacity to pivot have demonstrated to our clients that we are a trusted partner and service provider, and they can rely on us to offer continuity and excellence even in difficult times. In a year of continued challenges, aeSolutions enjoyed significant repeat business from 72% of its existing clients, a 3% increase over 2020. Furthermore, 43% of the company’s business came from new clients. Over the past two decades, aeSolutions has focused on growing a solid technical team and delivering resilient solutions to industries’ toughest challenges. To address both, the company has begun offering its clie nts Front End Loading (FEL) co nceptual design services that integrate the expertise of all of its service lines rather than aligning under individual solution silos . a eSolutions has endeavored to streamline its product offerings by organizing around these market-facing teams, which has also meant developing strategic plans and raising the bar on project execution and delivery expertise. As a result, aeSolutions’ clients are better equipped to select the optimum design options for their capital projects. O’Malley went on to add, “W e have seen an uptick in clients seeking our support for projects that had been put on hold, as well as an increase in clients looking to us to bolster their reduced staff and take broader ownership of projects that would have been typically executed in-house. We are excited to continue strengthening relationships with our current clients and look forward to building relationships with the new.” As the pandemic continued into 2021, aeSolutions remained committed to hiring and developing the best talent, regardless of location; as such, the company continues to offer opportunities to work remotely. Additionally, the firm restarted its intern program and i nitiated the Rapid Skills Development program, designed to accelerate the process by which staff members who are early in their career become engaged in project work. Key Personnel Appointments The business added several key hires during 2021. Ben Krisher, Human Resources Director: A Human Resources (HR) expert with more than a decade’s worth of experience. At aeSolutions, he manages a high-performing team of HR professionals across the entire company. He specializes in finding and hiring the best technical talent available in the industrial process safety, combustion, and automation fields. Laura Ankrom, Vice President of Process Safety: An aeSolutions veteran with more than 11 years at the company and over 25 years of experience in the process safety and risk management field, including significant involvement in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Process Safety Management and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Risk Management Program compliance. Laura specializes in and provides technical support in the rollout, implementation, training, and auditing of global and site level process safety and risk management systems and support corporate management systems and leadership development. Roland Stock - Manager of Projects: A specialist in project management with nearly 20 years of experience planning and managing engineering, fabrication, and construction projects focusing on quality, cost containment, adherence to defined scope, and on-time delivery. Roland brings proven leadership and management experience in helping to motivate teams for successful project delivery. aeSolutions Launches Proprietary aeAlarm™ Rationalization Tool In response to a growing market need, aeAlarm was created to support the alarm rationalization process by providing a clear and concise approach to critical alarm documentation. aeAlarm is a control system platform agnostic and is adaptable across all industrial sectors. It is effective for projects of all types and sizes, including small project rationalizations and large site-wide efforts. Additionally, the tool creates a platform to compile process safety information and generates customized reports and tables to expedite data tracking for site-specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Plans for 2022 Heading into the coming year, aeSolutions will continue to strengthen its position as a valued partner to the world’s process manufacturers as they seek to conduct smarter, more resilient industrial operations and contribute to safer communities. To accomplish that, the firm will embrace and expand its renewed emphasis on core consulting and engineering expertise and focus on the growth and expansion of its core business of providing industrial markets with resilient solutions that integrate process safety and automation. The goals for the company will include significant growth in headcount across all expertise areas in the first six months of the year and to continue to foster a culture and expectation of continual professional and personal growth. Through the development of the company and its stakeholders, aeSolutions aspires to enhance the way its stakeholders think about the relationship between customer and supplier, to advance the understanding that it is a relationship built on trust, and to have the embodiment of those ideals result in an excellent experience for the customer. About aeSolutions In business since 1998, aeSolutions is a consulting, engineering, and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services. They specialize in helping industrial clients achieve their risk management and operational excellence goals through expertise in process safety, combustion control and safeguarding, safety instrumented systems, control system design and integration, alarm management, and related operations and integrity management systems. For more information, visit www.aesolutions.com. Media Contact Kari Walker for aeSolutions Kari@redironpr.com @KariWalkerPR "Industrial Process Safety and Automation Company aeSolutions Achieves Year of Outstanding Growth and Client Retention"

A natural gas processing and compression facility control rooms had to relocate, which caused many challenges in an application with many potential hazards during the process. Project included control panel upgrades, communication digitalization and moving process control and process safety systems. Control room relocation insights Control room, process control system migration project challenges E-stop migration, process isolation safety complications Project lessons learned: System integration project management Six steps for project success included control system, safety system cutover, factory acceptance test, control panel upgrade Project results: Project management, standardization, control panels Lessons for future projects: Front-end loading, codes and standards by Ted Hoffman, PE , senior project development engineer; Charles Mills , automation control specialist, both with aeSolutions . Edited by Chris Vavra, web content manager, CFE Media and Technology. Read the full article here: Achieving on-stream control room relocations (controleng.com)

The Mary Kay O’Connor Safety & Risk Conference offers attendees the opportunity to join more than 500 researchers and industry representatives from around the world to share the latest innovations and developments in process safety. Several representatives from the company will present at this year’s event and be available to meet at Booth # 12 . Links to the aeSolutions' whitepapers being presented will be added below as they are released. Day 1 - October 11th 10:00 AM Detection & Mitigation of Hydrogen Releases - Presented by Jesse Brumbaugh PE (TX) Topic: Hydrogen Safety Room: North Download Paper 11:30 AM Lunch - Exhibitors Presentation - aeSolutions - Presented by Chris Neff, PMP Day 3 - October 13th 9:30 AM Unrealized Potential of SRS - Presented by Greg Hardin, CFSE Topic: Security Room: South Find aeSolutions at Booth 12 The 2023 Conference will host: ⚬ 26th MKOPSC International Process Safety Symposium ⚬ 78th Instrumentation and Automation Symposium ⚬ 2nd Ocean Energy Safety Symposium More conference info can be found at https://mkosymposium.tamu.edu/

by Chris Neff, PMP In 2012, one of the steam boilers at the Wynnewood Refinery in Oklahoma exploded during a turnaround, resulting in the death of two workers. It was discovered that the boiler in question had a history of “hard starts.” As a result of this avoidable tragedy, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited Wynnewood Refining Company with multiple violations related to the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard under 29 CFR 1910.119. The incident at Wynnewood impacted the families of those harmed, the corporation’s reputation, and the bottom line. It also set a precedent for how facilities should implement PSM applicability, interconnectivity, and proximity for fired equipment. OSHA contended that the boiler was interconnected to a covered process throug h the refinery fuel gas system and steam header. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and ruled on behalf of OSHA that the boundary of a PSM process can extend beyond vessels and piping that contain hazardous chemicals. This ruling determined that utilities and fired equipment posing the risk of a catastrophic release, independent of their connection to hazardous materials, may be drawn into a site’s PSM covered processes. Many facilities rely on prescriptive applications, such as codes provided by the National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA), to manage fired equipment. While facilities have incorporated fired equipment, such as boilers, into their risk assessment process, the focus has historically been on the steam or process side of the equipment. Often the default for the Burner Management System (BMS) is the application of NFPA. Compliance with NFPA does not ensure compliance with OSHA PSM. In light of the Wynnewood ruling, PSM covered facilities must reevaluate their approach to fired equipment. Per NFPA 85*, utilizing the equivalency provision, an alternative design to meet the requirements of the code can be accomplished where all the following are provided: (1) Approval of the authority having jurisdiction. (2) A documented hazard analysis that addresses all the requirements of the code. (3) A documented life-cycle system safety analysis that addresses all requirements of the code and incorporates the appropriate application-based safety integrity level (SIL) for safety instrumented systems (SIS). The NFPA codes (85, 86, and 87 ) all reference ISA/IEC 61511 as a recognized methodol ogy for achieving equivalency. Likewise, OSHA also recognizes ISA/IEC 61511 as Recognized and Generally Acceptable Good Engineering Practice (RAGAGEP) for PSM covered processes. The Wynnewood ruling points to one distinct conclusion: PSM covered facilities should evaluate the applicability of their PSM and NFPA management systems for their fired equipment to determine if they are in conformance with OSHA’s declared expectations. * Reference Added to clarify equivalency: NFPA 85 Boiler and Combustion System Hazard Code 2019 Annex A, A4.11. Keywords: Process Analysis, Process Safety Management, Combustion, Boilers, Fire Alarm Interconnected Systems, Fired Equipment, Safety Instrumented Systems, ISA/IEC 61511 , NPFA 85, NFPA 86, NFPA 87, ISA 84, OSHA,

by Keith Brumbaugh Functional safety specialists may be stuck in the past and doing industry a disservice. The current industry trend is to only consider random hardware failures in safety integrity level probability of failure on demand calculations. But are random hardware failures the only thing that cause a safety instrumented function to fail? What if our assumptions are wrong? What if our installations do not match generic data or vendor assumptions? What else might we be missing? How might we address systematic (human) failures? Is anyone updating assumptions as operating experience is gained? One obvious problem with incorporating systematic failures is their non-random nature, hence the difficulty in including them in standard calculations. Many functional safety practitioners claim that systematic errors are addressed (i.e., minimized or eliminated) by following all the pr ocedures in the ISA/IEC 61511 standard . Yet even if the standard were strictly adhered to, could anyone realistically claim a 0% chance of a SIF failing due to a systematic issue? Some will say that systematic errors cannot be predicted, much less modeled. But is that true? Traditional PFD calculations are a useful starting point, but it is possible to incorporate systematic errors into a SIF’s real-world performance model. One can use Bayes’ theorem to capture data after a SIF has been installed — either through operating experience or incidents — and update the function’s predicted performance. This methodology can incorporate both objective and subjective observations. It can also be used to justify prior use of existing and non-certified equipment. To learn more about the use of Bayes’ theorem in SIF performance evaluations, read the full paper here. Other papers you may like: Reverend Bayes, meet Process Safety. Use Bayes’ Theorem to establish site specific confidence in your LOPA calculation Bayes’ Theorem is an epistemological statement of knowledge, versus a statement of proportions and relative frequencies. It is therefore a method that can bridge qualitative knowledge with the rare-event numbers that are intended to represent that knowledge. Bayes’ Theorem is sorely missing from the toolbox of Process Safety practitioners. This paper will introduce Bayes’ Theorem to the reader and discuss the reasons and applications for using Bayes in Process Safety related to IP Ls and LOPA . While intended to be introductory (to not discourage potential users), this paper will describe simple Excel™ based Bayesian calculations that the practitioner can begin to use immediately to address issues such as uncertainty, establishing confidence intervals, properly evaluating LOPA gaps, and incorporating site specific data, all related to IPLs and barriers used to meet LOPA targets. https://www.aesolutions.com/post/reverend-bayes-meet-process-safety-use-bayes-theorem-to-establish-site-specific-confidence-in-lopa

The ISA/IEC 61511 Safety Life Cycle starts with a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) and a Risk Assessment. What is a PHA? Why do we do it? =================================================== Excerpt taken from the webinar: Choosing a Risk Assessment Methodology In the full recording the ANSI/ISA 61511 Safety Life Cycle is shown to start with a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) and a Risk Assessment. This was the first webinar of our 3 part series and details the purpose of Risk Assessment and examines the advantages and limitations of various methodologies including Risk Graph, Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA), Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) , and others. See all our full recent webinars on https://www.aesolutions.com/webinars As a supplier of complete process safety and risk management solutions, we pride ourselves on providing engineers from industry with design, maintenance, operating, and process safety backgrounds. Our specialists understand how plants operate because they have actually worked in covered processes and facilities. Learn more-- https://www.aesolutions.com/process-s...

Process Safety Culture Improvement Blog 3 - by Judith Lesslie, CFSE, CSP, CCPSC This article continues a series of blogs around practical suggestions and methods to drive improvement of the process safety culture at manufacturing facilities. This is a big subject with many facets, and you can look forward to more bite-size potential improvement guidance for your own process safety culture in this series. The Challenges – A Process Safety Road Map In our last blog on strong process safety culture development, I described an organizational structure with a central committee and multiple process safety element committees, with the central committee driving the overall improvement cycle and each element committee interacting with the central committee to drive process safety performance while focusing on individual element performance and improvements. A supporting document for this structure is a process safety roadmap. A roadmap is a systematically written document outlining the process safety elements and systems that apply at your facility, potentially identifying gaps in documentation or system performance that should be improved. It could be a stand-alone document or an appendix to an existing process safety program document. What it needs to be is a living, controlled document that undergoes at least an annual review by SMEs in order to incorporate ongoing process safety enhancements and help establish new improvement goals. A sample roadmap for a portion of the Process Safety Information (PSI) element might look like this: A process safety roadmap of this type ideally includes all the applicable elements and supporting systems from the PSM and/or RMP standards. It can yield a number of benefits well beyond its obvious uses in self-verification and audit activities. It provides a structure for your process safety programs; it can be used in training and orientation activities for newly assigned professionals in technical, supervisory, and management roles; it helps to identify risks due to subpar documentation or compliance issues; it helps identify technical initiatives and goals for future resourcing; and it can even help prioritize improvement initiatives if you include your corporate risk ranking scores or another prioritization method with the potential gaps. Circling back to audit support, a roadmap also provides an easy method to identify that elusive documentation that is always needed before and during the recurring audits required under the PSM and RMP regulations. The development and easy availability of a process safety roadmap for your facility is likely to yield numerous improvement opportunities. An effective roadmap is an invaluable tool for site personnel and particularly to your staff involved in process safety element committees. This tool is also an excellent method of fostering more employee participation, which is undeniably one of the most important pillars of process safety. The Stakes The stakes for a strong process safety culture are higher than ever. A single significant loss of primary containment could have potential impacts ranging from serious on-site and off-site injuries and illnesses, to environmental damage, to company reputational impact, to financial costs from equipment damage, to production loss, and even lawsuits filed against the company. So Now What? Consider the development of a systematic process safety roadmap at your facility. Development and control of a document of this type has benefits well beyond the obvious uses in self-verification and audit activities. Adopting the roadmap structure exactly as shown may not be the best fit for your facility, but variations on it are within the reach of organizations of widely varying sizes and with or without a corporate governing structure. There is much to gain with a strong process safety culture and process safety performance with a roadmap! If you feel that your corporate or internal knowledge of the PSM and/or RMP regulations is not up to the job of developing a roadmap as described, including the identification of improvement opportunities, consider involving one of our expert process safety professionals in the work. aeSolutions staff members have wide experience of both regulations, including compliance methods found to be efficient in the real world at sites like yours. Future blogs in this series on process safety culture will address more aspects of the overall process safety improvement cycle, examine aspects of individual process safety programs, and offer suggestions on both bigger and smaller efforts and methods to drive improvements. Stay tuned for more!

Process Safety Culture Improvement Blog 1 - by Judith Lesslie, CFSE, CSP, CCPSC This article kicks off a series of blogs around practical suggestions and methods to drive improvement of the process safety culture at manufacturing facilities. This is a big subject with many facets, and there is plenty of professional reading available to help with it. I would point out, in particular, a fine work from the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety (Wiley, 2007, 1st edition). This book provides an excellent framework for establishing a systematic approach to process safety program elements. The Challenges – A Systematic Approach to a Strong and Effective Process Safety Culture What do I mean by a systematic approach? Let’s take a look at leadership commitment as an example. In a process safety culture that is systematically improving, senior facility management demonstrates a strong commitment to process safety by visibly prioritizing safety over production targets, allocating resources for process safety activities and initiatives, and actively participating in process safety programs and their improvement. How do you do that in the real world? There are many ways to tackle the topic, but let’s begin with a structured approach. In a strong process safety culture, there will typically be a routine management review process that; assesses the effectiveness of a variety of systems, including process safety programs, feeds improvement opportunities back into the applicable programs, executes improvements, and tests the changes on an ongoing basis: This process is demonstrated as follows: Figure 1: Routine management review process A process safety management cycle of this type takes a close look at process safety trends: near misses and incidents, together with the investigations and completion of actions; assessment of regulatory compliance, including audit results, findings, and follow-up actions; effectiveness of the facility risk management processes, including PHAs, the health of critical safeguard systems, and follow-up actions the health of mechanical integrity at the site; and the adequacy of safety policies and regulations, together with checking on the health of the safety training system; among other potential topics Preparing for and completing a review of this type is likely to yield a numerous corrective actions and continuous improvement opportunities. If this sounds to you a bit like a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) approach, you are right on target.  Think of the overall systematic approach to effective leadership of process safety and culture as a number of individual program continuous improvement processes running within the larger structure of an overall leadership improvement cycle. The Stakes The stakes for a strong process safety culture are higher than ever.  A single significant loss of primary containment could have potential impacts ranging from serious on-site and off-site injuries and illnesses, to environmental damage, to company reputational impact, to financial costs from equipment damage, to production loss, and even lawsuits filed against the company. So Now What? The upcoming series of blogs on process safety culture will address more aspects of the overall process safety improvement cycle, examine aspects of individual process safety programs, and offer suggestions on both bigger and smaller efforts and methods to drive improvements.  Click here for Part 2: Structuring Your Process Safety Programs

Process Safety Culture Improvement Blog 2 - by Judith Lesslie, CFSE, CSP, CCPSC This article continues a series of blogs around practical suggestions and methods to drive improvement of the process safety culture at manufacturing facilities.  This is a big subject with many facets, and you can look forward to more bite-size potential improvement guidance for your own process safety culture. The Challenges – What is Process Safety Structure and Why Does It Matter? What do I mean by a process safety structure?  I cannot do much better than build on the concept described in a fine work from the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety (Wiley, 2007, 1st edition).  This book provides an excellent visualization of process safety program elements: Graphic from https://www.aiche.org/ccps/resources/publications/process-safety-summaries In this structure, there is a foundation of leadership underpinned by foundational blocks of commitment to process safety, understanding and management of process risks, and a learning and improvement cycle driving continuous improvement for all pillars. Each foundational block includes the pillars that support the overall structure, including all of the PSM and RMP elements that we are familiar with and some supporting elements to help keep those main elements on track. In a high-performing process safety culture, subject matter experts (SMEs) are available for each element or pillar.  In the best facility organizations I have seen, each SME chairs one or more element committees assigned to monitor and drive improvements in element performance. A central committee composed of facility leadership and the SMEs regularly monitors and helps encourage progress by each pillar committee.  Sometimes that central committee monitors a broader range of health, safety, and environmental aspects than the process safety pillars depicted above, which is a model that I have also seen work well.  Here is a way to visualize one potential central and element committee structure, with the central committee driving the overall improvement cycle and each element committee focusing on and interacting with the central committee: In this type of systematic structure, there is an expectation that the element committees will have a set of meaningful leading and lagging measures that will be monitored and trended on a routine basis (monthly to quarterly) and used as a basis for driving continuous improvement planning.  Pillar metrics, planning, and resource needs are routinely reported to the central committee, and there is a further expectation that improvement planning will be reviewed, agreed and resourced as needed by the central committee.  You can think about this as a continuous two-way feedback cycle.  The assignment of a senior leadership team member as day-to-day liaison with each element committee is another enhancement I have seen work well to deliver results. Worthy of special notice, in a strong process safety culture, there will typically be an annual management review process that assesses the overall effectiveness of process safety. This process feeds improvement opportunities back into the applicable pillar committees for testing against line perspectives, executing improvements, and monitoring and assessing results.  This is easily visualized as the Review step of the central committee. Does this sound like a lot of work?  You’re absolutely right!  Will it improve your process safety culture and deliver strong performance results?  Right again!  There are other benefits as well.  As the central committee and SMEs recruit and develop enhanced process safety capability in facility personnel (including line personnel) participating in committees, you gain organizational competency; you are able to demonstrate strong employee participation, one of the key elements of process safety; and you provide a channel for line personnel to demonstrate leadership and technical qualities that might not otherwise be apparent.  There is a lot to gain by structuring your process safety programs as described. The Stakes The stakes for a strong process safety culture are higher than ever.  A single significant loss of primary containment could have potential impacts ranging from serious on-site and off-site injuries and illnesses, to environmental damage, to company reputational impact, to financial costs from equipment damage, to production loss, and even lawsuits filed against the company. So Now What? Consider reviewing this structure with your facility’s senior and extended leadership team.  Adopting the structure exactly as described may not be the best fit for your facility, but variations of it are within the reach of organizations of varying sizes.  There is much to gain in process safety performance with wide personnel involvement in improvement activities! Future blogs in this series on process safety culture will address more aspects of the overall process safety improvement cycle, examine aspects of individual process safety programs, and offer suggestions on both bigger and smaller efforts and methods to drive improvements.  Stay tuned for more!

A Functional Safety Assessment (FSA) is defined by the IEC 61511 standard as an “investigation, based on evidence, to judge the functional safety achieved by one or more SIS and/or other protection layers.” The ultimate goal of an FSA is to make the team confident that their instrumented safety system will reliably achieve the risk reduction needed. While many organizations understand the importance of FSAs, not everyone realizes the significant advantages of conducting one, especially when initiated earlier in the design process. Starting the assessment early allows for more thorough safety considerations and ensures safety measures are ingrained in the project from the beginning. Why Do You Conduct Functional Safety Assessments? The primary motivation is to ensure the Safety Instrumented Functions being implemented actually address the hazards for which they are designed. It might seem routine, but a Functional Safety Assessment is not just a box to check in your development process; it's a powerful tool that can enhance your organization’s safety, compliance, and cost-efficiency. The benefits include: Safety Assurance The primary and most critical reason for conducting FSAs is to ensure the safety of people, property, and the environment. By identifying and addressing potential hazards, we can prevent accidents and reduce the impact of failures. Standard and Regulatory Compliance: Conducting FSAs helps organizations comply with these regulations, reducing the risk of legal and financial repercussions. Cost Reduction: While implementing safety measures can require an initial investment, it often leads to long-term cost savings. Preventing accidents and failures can significantly reduce downtime, repair costs, and potential liability claims. Innovation and Competitive Advantage: Functional safety assessments can drive innovation by pushing engineers and developers to create more robust and reliable systems. FSA Stages The standard requires 5 stages of FSAs to be performed over the lifetime of a SIS at key phases of the project lifecycle. Stage 1 – After the Hazard and Risk Assessment has been carried out, the required protection layers have been identified, and the SRS has been developed Stage 2 – After the SIS has been designed (typically after Factory Acceptance Testing) Stage 3 – After the installation, pre-commissioning, and final validation of the SIS have been completed, and operation and maintenance procedures have been developed (typically during the Pre-Startup Safety Review) Stage 4 – After gaining experience with the operation and maintenance of the system Stage 5 – After modification and prior to decommissioning of a SIS These stages are sequentially depicted in Figure 7 from ANSI/ISA-61511-1-2018 - Safety Lifecycle Phases and FSA Stages: https://blog.isa.org/hs-fs/hubfs/Imported_Blog_Media/ANSI-ISA-84_00_0-1-2004-IES-61511-Mod-Safety-Life-Cycle.jpg A typical Stage 1 FSA compares the content of the SRS to the hazardous scenario outlined in the risk assessment. For example, Stage 1 will review whether the IPLs are truly independent, whether the SIF will protect against the stated hazard, etc. A Stage 2 will be completed after the detailed engineering is complete and will review the detailed design against the SRS. Identifying and rectifying safety issues at the initial stages of development is significantly more cost-effective than addressing them later in the process or, worse, post-construction. In summary, it’s most cost effective to assess the design while it is still on paper. Late-stage changes can be expensive, lead to project delays, and sometimes even necessitate a complete redesign. In addition to the practical benefits, by addressing safety concerns from the outset, you foster a proactive approach to safety that can be carried forward into future projects, enhancing overall safety awareness and practices. An FSA Stage 3 is done after installation, commissioning, and validation is complete, typically during the Pre-Startup Safety Review. Conducting a Stage 3 reviews work done during the installation and pre-commissioning phases. The Stage 3 FSA ensures the installed system matched the design package. There is now a greater emphasis on FSAs in the standard than previously. IEC 61511 formerly only required the FSA Stage 3 before the introduction of hazards to the process. With the latest version of the standard, FSA Stages 1, 2, and 3 are now required. If the project has advanced beyond the design phase, Stage 1 and 2 can be done congruently along with the Stage 3. By performing FSAs early in your project's lifecycle, you reduce risks and demonstrate your commitment to safety and quality. While these stages of FSAs are a requirement of the 61511 standard, they deliver significant value beyond standard compliance as they provide meaningful advancements towards protecting people and assets. Related: How About a Stage Zero Functional Safety Assessment (FSA)? Don’t Dismiss Stage 4 of an SIS Functional Safety Assessment!

Deadlines met through concurrent engineering and procurement while maintaining adherence to the Safety Lifecycle by Chris Hickling, PMP Implementing Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) and Burner Management Systems (BMS) within tight deadlines and supply chain disruptions has become a challenge in the industrial space. A recent project implementing a Safety Instrumented BMS met strict safety standards despite tight deadlines and supply chain delays. The initial goal of the project was focused on converting the boiler fuel from coal to natural gas with a BMS provided by the boiler equipment supplier.  While the project was underway, requirements to apply risk and performance-based Process Safety Management (PSM) protocols were added to the project.  The client approached aeSolutions for application of the PSM protocol employing the equivalency clauses provided in the NFPA code for the BMS. This change required a strategic shift incorporating a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) and Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA), and Safety Instrumented Burner Management System (SI-BMS) implementation. Integrated planning with our client and the boiler equipment supplier was key to achieving the fast-track schedule, including concurrent engineering and early procurement of long-lead system components. PSM, SIS, and BMS experts addressed the safety and code requirements of the design, working together with systems engineering and panel design experts. The multi-discipline team efficiently produced the deliverable, aligning with the project's enhanced safety within the original project timeline. The Challenges The new additional project objective was to implement an SI-BMS using a Siemens PCS 7 Platform, meeting all the Safety Lifecycle requirements within a highly compressed schedule. Traditionally, the project would unfold sequentially, starting with a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) followed by a Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA), then continue with SIS Front End Loading (FEL), conducting Demand Rate Verification (DVR) SIL calculations, and completing the Safety Requirements Specification before moving on to Detailed Design. However, given the schedule constraints, a new strategy was required.   The strategy employed concurrent development of the PHA/LOPA, SIS deliverables, and early identification and procurement of long-lead items to achieve the existing deadlines of the project.   Additionally, early detailed planning and expedited deliveries were necessary to ensure that BMS was built and commissioned during the scheduled plant outage. Having all of the requisite expertise for each of the project analysis, engineering, procurement, fabrication, and commissioning steps within aeSolutions was critical to this fast track approach. Results A key takeaway from this project was the development of an integrated schedule to manage all activities effectively, significantly reducing the risk of late changes. Close collaboration between the client, the boiler equipment supplier, and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in SIS and BMS was necessary to maintain a fast-tracked schedule while meeting all the Safety Lifecycle requirements. This unified approach created a rapid turnaround on approvals for drawings and fabrication of the system for the project's tight timeline.  By employing a firm with the needed expertise in all these areas, delays due to processing and learning curves as well as the risk of rework associated with handoffs were avoided. The ability to assemble the appropriate SME expertise at the earliest stage of discovery while managing collaboration with the boiler equipment supplier and the client-enabled fast approval processes. Effective planning and all stakeholder’s cooperation were key to achieving all the project objectives.  The strategies and insights gained from overcoming these challenges offered valuable lessons for future similar projects.