Those who work in high hazard industries are familiar with the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) requirements for routine Process Hazard Analyses (PHA) for their processes. Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) and Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA) are recognized methods for PHA. LOPA is widely used as a semi-quantitative method to identify, assess, and improve the most effective safeguards for higher consequence scenarios identified in a qualitative HAZOP study. One of the important products of a LOPA is a list of Independent Protection Layers (IPL) . When correctly identified, IPLs are devices, systems, and actions that are capable of preventing a hazard scenario from proceeding to the undesired consequence. In layman’s terms, they are the “best” and most effective of the safeguards that were identified in the HAZOP for specific scenarios and initiating events. The core attributes for safeguards to qualify as IPLs are well-known and have criteria including: Independent of the initiating event and of other protection layers Specific to the hazard Functional, dependable, and reliable (including routine testing) Auditable Secure Subject to management of change There are many reputable sources for training for the HAZOP and LOPA methods. Many organizations also have good internal guidance on this subject. But what happens when inadequate guidance, training, or discipline for the correct use of LOPA and identification of IPLs is present? You might be surprised at how often safeguards not meeting the core attributes are specified as IPLs in industry. It’s easy to find advice detailing the complexities of proper IPL selection and management, but without a facilitator well-versed in the basics of IPL selection, LOPA teams can get off on the wrong foot. The Challenges Many companies and LOPA practitioners employ excellent practices to identify and validate IPLs during LOPA. However, it is surprisingly common for significant IPL selection errors to be encountered during externally facilitated revalidation PHAs, audits and other types of process safety reviews. IPL concerns of the following types are entirely possible to occur in LOPA studies if initial selection or follow-up IPL validation is not as it should be: Use of two or more relief devices, all taken with two or more IPL credits. Relief devices are often a highly effective safeguard. However, they are subject to concerns that should limit the credit taken at times, including use in services where "pluggage" or other common cause failures are credible, engineering assumptions on sizing are not as the PHA team assumed, poor-quality or no routine inspections are performed, and other issues. Use of instrumentation whose failsafe failure modes are opposite of that assumed by the PHA team, which may result in an unrecognized IPL failure to the dangerous mode. Selection of one facet of an IPL such as a BPCS alarm, without recognition that other facets are also needed for a complete IPL, such as alarm prioritization and management, training in the specific alarm response, an operating procedure, and proper field instrument functional testing. Selection of a BPCS alarm and Operator response as an IPL, without confirming that sufficient time is present before hazard development to evaluate and respond effectively to the alarm. Selection of IPLs with insufficient independence from the initiating cause of a hazardous scenario, or insufficient independence from another IPL for the same scenario. A classic example of this is selection of an instrument to alarm or interlock of a process condition that could be initiated by a failure of that same instrument. Crediting design pressure and temperature ratings; both are equipment attributes that should normally be taken into account in identifying the scenario consequences, not credited as an IPL. Building Confidence Improperly selected and validated IPLs can result in high hazard scenarios that have far less risk reduction in place than you think you have. Implementing a systematic process to properly vet your IPL candidates for the core attributes is strongly recommended. Engaging experienced PHA/LOPA facilitators and having the right team during the meeting is the first step in proper IPL selection. Further validation of IPLs to confirm they meet the defined criteria can be time consuming but also goes a long way toward increasing your confidence in your most important safeguards for higher consequence scenarios in highly hazardous chemical processes.

February 2025 - Learn about best practices for industrial facilities undertaking boiler fuel conversion projects to enhance efficiency and ensure compliance. This article, written by Shahid Saeed of aeSolutions and published in Engineered Systems News , explores the following topics and more: Early Engagement of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs):  Involving experienced professionals at the project's inception ensures practical insights and effective planning. Click here to read the full article in Engineered Systems News Understanding Conversion Drivers:  Recognizing factors such as environmental regulations, economic considerations, and safety concerns that necessitate fuel conversions. Proactive Planning and Risk Assessment:  Conducting early evaluations and structured risk analyses, like Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP) and Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA), to identify potential issues and design effective safeguards. Stakeholder Alignment:  Ensuring clear communication and alignment among all parties involved to facilitate smooth project execution. Regulatory Compliance:  Adhering to environmental and safety regulations throughout the conversion process. Continuous Improvement:  Implementing lessons learned and best practices to enhance future projects. Written by Shahid Saeed, CFSE, Senior Principal Specialist at aeSolutions . Read the full article here: 6 Strategies for Boiler Fuel Conversion Projects: How to Maximize Efficiency and Strategic Alignment - Engineered Systems News

Introduction | Control System Migration | Part 5 February 2025 — by Tom McGreevy, PE, PMP, CFSE — Training is a crucial but often overlooked aspect of control system migrations. A well-planned training strategy ensures that operators, maintainers, and engineers can effectively manage and optimize the new system. Rather than being treated as an afterthought, training should be integrated into the project from the outset to facilitate a smooth transition, reduce risks, and maximize efficiency. In part five of our control system migrations series , we explore the primary considerations for training during a system migration, addressing the different needs of various roles, the significance of simulation, location strategies, and optimal timing. Operators vs. Maintainers Organizations vary in size and structure, which means there’s no one size fits all  approach to training requirements. In smaller facilities, a single individual or a small team may be responsible for engineering, maintenance, and IT functions, while larger operations such as refineries and chemical plants, often have dedicated departments that require specialized training. Operators transitioning to a new control system will face numerous changes, even if their previous system was relatively modern. The new system may introduce different human-machine interface  (HMI) graphics, alarm handling, and security protocols, all of which require thorough training. They will also need to familiarize themselves with updated navigation structures, logging in/out procedures, and the enhanced capabilities of the new system. Maintenance personnel, whether in instrumentation, electrical, or general maintenance, must understand the core changes in the control system, including remote I/O systems, ethernet-based field devices, and new diagnostic tools. The potential shift from traditional fuses to electronic fusing and overload protection further necessitates comprehensive training. Engineers responsible for long-term maintenance and system modifications will require in-depth training on new programming languages, control system architecture, and system backup procedures. If the migration involves a transition from Ladder Logic to Function Block Diagram (FBD) or Sequential Function Chart  (SFC) programming, engineers must gain proficiency in these new methods to effectively manage system changes. IT teams also play an essential role in modern control systems. They must be trained in virtualized servers, cybersecurity protocols, and data historian integration. Given the increasing interconnectivity between control and business networks, IT professionals must be prepared for more sophisticated cybersecurity requirements and system failover procedures. Balancing Hardware and Software Training Training strategies should distinguish between hardware and software learning. Maintenance personnel often require hands-on experience mostly, with hardware components, such as controllers, networking equipment, and sensors, to handle troubleshooting and repairs effectively, but some software familiarity training is also valuable for troubleshooting purposes. On the other hand, engineers and IT staff will need to focus primarily on software training covering system configuration, programming, and optimization, but also with enough hardware training to support hardware specification decisions as well as possible implications to operations. Ensuring that the right personnel receive the appropriate training based on their roles is vital for long-term system sustainability. Investing in role-specific training ensures that employees can operate and maintain the new system effectively from day one. The Role of Simulation in Training Simulation-based training provides a risk-free environment for personnel to familiarize themselves with the new control system. By replicating system logic and offering scenario-based learning, simulations enable operators and engineers to develop hands-on experience without disrupting real-world operations. This method is particularly valuable for troubleshooting exercises and emergency response training. While simulation systems tend to be a significant investment, they are especially beneficial for large organizations or multi-site migration programs. Some vendors may offer simulation systems at reduced prices as an incentive to select their platform, making it a worthwhile consideration for long-term training strategies. Lower cost, although likely less realistic, simulation is also possible through the use of a desktop or laptop computer setup with a copy of the new system’s engineering and operating environments, connected to a simulated PLC. On-Site vs. Vendor’s Location Training Determining where training should take place is another decision in the control system migration process. On-site training offers convenience and customization, allowing employees to train on a replica of the actual system furnished by the vendor. However, there is a risk that trainees may be called away for operational emergencies or troubleshooting, disrupting the learning process. Training at the vendor’s location provides access to comprehensive resources and a focused environment. While this approach eliminates workplace distractions, it requires additional travel and accommodation expenses. Some organizations opt for a hybrid model, combining initial training with online training modules, followed by more advanced, in-person sessions to maximize efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Timing: When to Train Each Group The timing of training significantly impacts knowledge retention and system adoption. A structured training sequence ensures that personnel acquire the necessary skills when they need them most. Typically, engineers should be trained earliest in the project lifecycle, as their expertise influences system design and architecture. Maintenance personnel should follow, enabling them to contribute to installation and validation efforts. Operators should receive training last, ensuring their knowledge remains fresh for commissioning and site acceptance testing  (SAT). Additionally, IT teams should undergo cybersecurity and virtualization training before deployment to prepare for system integration and data security measures. The Takeaway | Control System Migrations Training Control system migrations introduce new capabilities but also add complexity. A well-structured training strategy is essential to ensuring that all stakeholders — operators, maintainers, engineers, and IT personnel  — can effectively manage the new system. Training should be planned early to accommodate costs and scheduling. Different roles require distinct training approaches, including hands-on hardware experience, software proficiency, and cybersecurity readiness. Although simulation-based training offers high-value learning opportunities, organizations must weigh its costs and benefits. Training location choices should balance convenience with effectiveness, and the timing of training should align with project phases to maximize retention. The cost of some training may be capitalized, depending on trainee roles and an organization’s interpretation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. By investing in a structured and well-timed training approach, organizations can ensure a successful transition, improved efficiency, and long-term system reliability.

aeSolutions - A consulting, engineering and system integration company that provides industrial process safety, fired equipment and automation lifecycle solutions and tools. Applied Engineering Solutions Toxic Gas Detection, Machinery Safety, Alarm Management, Safety Instrumented Systems Improving industry by guiding our clients to increasingly resilient operations and safer communities How We Can Help Our Story Engineering Company Integrating Process Safety, Automation & Fired Equipment Success Stories 25+ Years Strong 40+ Certified Experts 2000+ Clients Served 600+ Projects per Year Our Services Process Safety Automation & Control Functional Safety Fired Equipment Alarm Management Fire & Combustible Toxic Gas Feature Stories Engineered Systems News: 6 Strategies for Boiler Fuel Conversion Projects: How to Maximize Efficiency and Strategic Alignment Control System Migrations | Part 5 | Training Making a Difference: Our 2024 Charitable Giving Initiative Safety Culture: Examining Common Shortcomings | Industrial Equipment News Unplanned Shutdowns as Proof Test Credits: What to Know and Steps to Take | OH&S Control System Migrations | Part 4 | Managing Scope, Schedule, Budget Client Success Built With Trusted Expertise aeSolutions is an engineering consulting and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services. We specialize in helping industrial clients achieve their site’s risk management and operational excellence goals. Process Safety As a supplier of complete process safety management (PSM) 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. Alarm Managem ent Our clients recognize the relationship between the process safety performance of their facilities and the implementation of effective alarm management techniques and alarm philosophy. Our alarm management services help clients improve the performance of their alarm systems and increase the situational awareness of their operators. Machinery Safety Clients who operate and maintain machinery and robotics list safety is a top priority. We help manufacturing facilities achieve safe machine operation through risk assessments, application of the hierarchy of control, and sensible safeguard design. Our scalable programs address client’s specific needs and the machinery lifecycle to provide tailored solutions aligned with international and United States’ standards. DCS/PLC Migrations and Upgrades aeSolutions can provide the system integration methodology, technical services, and resources to accomplish the objectives of your automation project. We work with you from project inception to final commissioning through a proven project delivery model integrating diverse hardware, software, and services from multiple vendors and stakeholders into a unified, integrated system. Safety Instrumen ted Systems aeSolutions has a unique process to design and implement ISA84/IEC 61511-compliant safety instrumented systems (SIS). We integrate our knowledge and experience in PHA/LOPA along with control system hardware and field instrumentation to ensure that Safety Instrumented Functions (SIFs) are clearly defined. We define, design, and document the safety functions to meet your safety and online reliability requirements for 61511 and regulatory compliance. Fired Equipment From up-front engineering to end-user compliance testing, aeSolutions has helped clients create and maintain safe, efficient fired equipment and associated processes. With our extensive engineering knowledge of the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) and other regulations, aeSolutions is uniquely qualified to advise on virtually all combustion-related codes and other hazard assessments. Combustible & Toxic Gas The aeSolutions Fire and Combustible & Toxic Gas Detection team deliver a unique blend of experience in philosophy, technology selection, and geographic/scenario-based modeling. Beginning with a Gas Detection Philosophy development or review and update, we design a system that is fit for purpose, cost-effective, and has a defined basis that can be updated as the plant evolves.

Specialty Chemical Site’s Increasingly Complicated Cutover When a project that began with standard safety system upgrades quickly expanded to a much broader scope of engineering with tight deadlines, aeSolutions responded with an experienced engineering workforce to deliver above-quality expectations while meeting key deadlines. Challenge The initial project scope included providing the client with instrumentation specifications and wiring and cutover plans to facilitate the cutover to a new system. Due to incomplete and outdated instrument lists, a significant and unexpected change in scope became required to include instrument specification services, which nearly doubled the time and manpower needed to reach the goal by the client’s deadline. Solution aeSolutions efficiently identified and conveyed the necessary adjustments to the project with clear and concise communication, enabling the client to swiftly make informed decisions, modify the scope, and adjust staffing accordingly. Our team quickly deployed resources to provide the following deliverables within the original schedule: • Instrument Specifications • Instrument Field Wiring • Cutover Mapping • Cutover Wiring In addition, aeSolutions designed custom cabinets for the cutover at the request of the client once it became apparent that the field loops would be doubled. During construction, aeSolutions assisted the client with locating and providing quality drawings for cutover installation and commissioning. Results Upon completion, the clients informed aeSolutions that the provided support was indispensable for a smooth start-up, and the subcontractors confirmed that aeSolutions specifically contributed to one of the most efficient cutovers they’ve ever commissioned. The client had large projects going on, and aeSolutions was able to save them costs by hitting their shutdown dates and not requiring additional shutdown time. Learn more about how aeSolutions could help you with a similar a Systems Integration / Migration & Upgrade project. Industry: Specialty Chemical Geography: Southeast Unit Operation: Safety System Upgrade Governing: ISA/IEC 61511 Read more about aeSolutions' comprehensive hydrogen risk management and hazard mitigation services Previous Story Next Story

Multi-Fuel Boiler BMS Upgrade for Chlor Alkali Production Facility A multi-fuel boiler project for a chlor alkali production facility resulted in significant modernization and operational improvements. The client's legacy relay-based Burner Management System (BMS) was upgraded to a DeltaV CHARM Safety Logic Solver, providing enhanced visibility, safety, and operational flexibility. This project not only modernized the client's system but also ensured compliance with NFPA 85 codes and met all Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) requirements. Challenge The client’s existing BMS was based on outdated relay logic technology, limiting visibility into critical boiler parameters. Operators struggled with frequent system trips but lacked the ability to identify the root causes. Their legacy system provided no direct diagnostics, forcing operators to visually inspect equipment and restart the system manually. Additionally, the client required operational flexibility to switch between multiple fuel types — natural gas, hydrogen, and oil — without system shutdowns. The client sought improved support and expertise with a configuration provider with SI-BMS experience. Their need for seamless integration, combined with complex fuel-switching requirements, posed significant technical challenges. Solution aeSolutions successfully delivered a comprehensive upgrade of the client’s BMS, integrating it into the existing DeltaV platform. Key elements of the solution included: • Integration with DeltaV: The new BMS was implemented using DeltaV’s CHARM Safety Logic Solver, ensuring compatibility with the client’s existing system and reducing the learning curve for operators. • Enhanced System Visibility: Operators gained real-time insight into key metrics such as pressure levels and temperature through custom Dynamos on the control room interface. First-out diagnostics were also added, enabling quicker root-cause analysis and reducing downtime. • NFPA 85 Code Compliance: The upgrade ensured the boiler system met the latest NFPA 85 safety codes, enhancing both safety and reliability. • Multi-Fuel Flexibility: The system was designed to allow seamless fuel switching between hydrogen, natural gas, and oil without requiring shutdowns. Custom Safety Instrumented Functions (SIFs) were implemented to manage the complexities of multiple fuel types safely. • Close Client Support: aeSolutions was able to provide prompt, on-site technical support as needed, ensuring smooth project delivery and ongoing assistance. Results The results of this project provided significant benefits to the client by improving both safety and operational efficiency. The upgraded BMS ensured compliance with NFPA 85 codes, enhancing safety and reducing the risk of boiler-related incidents. With the ability to switch seamlessly between hydrogen, natural gas, and oil, the system offered the client greater operational flexibility. The inclusion of real-time diagnostics and first-out alarms allowed for faster troubleshooting, reducing downtime, and improving system availability. Additionally, the operators benefited from a streamlined process, as they could now manage startups from the control room, minimizing manual interventions. To ensure a smooth transition, aeSolutions replicated the client's existing control graphics through custom Dynamos, maintaining familiarity for operators and preventing workflow disruptions. These enhancements collectively improved safety, reliability, and ease of operations for the client. Learn more about how aeSolutions could help you with a similar project Industry: Chlor Alkali Production Geography: Southeast Unit Operation: Burner Management System (BMS), DeltaV Read more about aeSolutions' comprehensive hydrogen risk management and hazard mitigation services Previous Story Next Story