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

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

Greenville, SC – October 28, 2021 – aeSolutions, a consulting, engineering, and systems integration company, is excited to announce the release of aeAlarm, a proprietary alarm rationalization tool. aeAlarm is control system platform-agnostic and is adaptable across all industrial sectors. It is effective for projects of all types and sizes, including small project rationalizations and large site-wide efforts. Additionally, the tool creates a platform to compile process safety information and generates customized reports and tables to expedite data tracking for site specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Poor alarm management has been a critical factor in major process safety incidents throughout history. With the introduction of aeAlarm, rationalization teams have easy access to customized templates and dropdowns for severities and maximum time to respond, along with automatic population of alarm priority. aeAlarm processes unique tags one by one and allows the user to fill in consequences, causes, and operator actions. User-defined data fields can be added to incorporate site-specific requirements while maintaining compliance with the recommended documentation described in IEC 62682 and ISA/ANSI 18.2. The template feature allows users to create a rationalization spreadsheet with fields similar to the site’s alarm list. These fields can be filtered to facilitate a consistent rationalization of similar points such as fire and gas, rate of change alarms, safety showers, etc. “aeAlarm, was created to support the alarm rationalization process by providing a clear and concise approach to critical alarm documentation,” said Sarah Manelick, a Principal Specialist at aeSolutions, ISA IC39C Course Instructor and member of the ISA 18 Committee. “Additionally, aeAlarm uses a unique-to-the-industry consequence-based rationalization methodology that is much faster than legacy tag-based methods. This approach leaves more time for implementation and advanced alarm design techniques which together even further improves overall process safety performance.” aeSolutions offers comprehensive Alarm Management Services, including: · Alarm Philosophy Development · Gap Assessment of existing Alarm Philosophy · Alarm Management and Rationalization Training · Facilitation of Alarm Rationalizations using aeAlarm · Alarm Management Program Gap Assessments aeSolutions’ alarm management services help customers improve the performance of their alarm systems and increase the situational awareness of their operators. aeSolutions’ clients recognize there is a direct relationship between the implementation of effective alarm management techniques and the process safety performance of their plant. About aeSolutions In business since 1998, aeSolutions is a consulting, engineering and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services. They specialize in helping industrial clients achieve their risk management and operational excellence goals through expertise in process safety, combustion control and safeguarding, safety instrumented systems, control system design and integration, alarm management, and related operations and integrity management systems. For more information, visit www.aesolutions.com. Kari Walker for aeSolutions Kari@redironpr.com @KariWalkerPR

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