Imagine you have just completed, after 6-months of team time, your PHA and LOPA for your largest and most profitable unit. A much deserved congratulatory pat on the back is warranted. After a very brief respite and celebration, the real work begins in order to cost effectively remove risk from the unit. Your study has identified 10’s to 100’s of hazardous scenarios that do not meet your corporate risk criteria. Some of these include recommendations by the study team. However, depending on your organization, not every scenario that fails to meet the corporate risk criteria has to have a recommendation. Let’s call all of these scenarios that fail to meet your corporate risk criteria your “inherited gaps”.
On our blog you will view engaging content and articles from our leaders in the process safety industry. Our blog writers utilize their knowledge to provide insight into using our application to solve many of the problems experienced in the industry today.
Safety System Bad Actor Identification – Frequent Failures
Your company has started the journey for compliance to the IEC 61511 safety lifecycle, but it’s a long and arduous path to get organizational alignment around the benefits of the safety lifecycle. So, what’s a relatively quick win you could get that will help demonstrate to management some of the end game benefits? You’ve identified all of your SIFs and are testing them, and so far you’ve collected 3 failures. Is this good? Is this bad? How do we quickly assess? If we simply calculate the percentage of failures out of total devices tested, it’s a very small figure, and management might incorrectly jump to the mindset of “let’s start extending test intervals.” What if we could quickly and easily identify a simple pass/fail target of number of failures/year for your SIF field devices?
Benefits of a Database Driven Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Calculation Engine
The overall goal of the safety lifecycle is to cost effectively remove risk from the business. One of the key components of this is fully understanding how your instrumentation in your process conditions with your maintenance practices are performing compared to the assumptions made in your risk analysis. This blog highlights why a database driven SIL Calculation engine is mandatory.
Safety System Bad Actor Identification – Demands
Your company has started the journey for compliance to the IEC 61511 safety lifecycle. But, it’s a long an arduous path to get organizational alignment around the benefits of the safety lifecycle. So what’s a relatively quick win you could get that will help demonstrate to management some of the end game benefits of the safety lifecycle?
Safety System Bad Actor Identification – Late Testing
Let’s face facts – in the real world not all instrumentation in a Safety Instrumented Function (SIF) gets tested at the assumed test interval per the Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Calculations. Why is this? Well, a variety of reasons are typically tossed about.
Safety System Bad Actor Identification – Time in Bypass
Your company has started the journey for compliance to the IEC 61511 safety lifecycle. But, it’s a long and arduous path to get organizational alignment around the benefits of the safety lifecycle. So what’s a relatively quick win you could get that will help demonstrate to management some of the end game benefits of the safety lifecycle?
What’s the Purpose of a Functional Test Plan?
So your company has decided to follow ISA S84 / IEC 61511 and you find yourself trying to decide if your current test plans are “good enough” as-is. So this raises the question of what makes a functional test plan “good”? While some of the answers are things one would definitely want their test plans to address, some of the requirements conflict with one another. The primary purpose of a functional test plan is to “detect dangerous undetected failures”. Keeping this concept in mind, it becomes much easier to answer the question of what makes a functional test plan “good”.
How to ‘close the loop’ on testing safety critical equipment
In a previous white paper authored by my colleague, Mike Scott focused on five key tenants to achieve sustainable, cost effective compliance with IEC 61511/ ISA-84. The purpose of this blog is to focus on testing and how to leverage aeShield for maximum value add regarding test procedure development, monitoring testing intervals, and collecting failure data for future analysis. In future blogs, I will explore the other four...
Large Initiative Paralysis
Have you ever received such a large task that you become overwhelmed to the point of paralysis? I know whether I’m leading a project or a contributing member, the question of, “where do I even begin?” or a long line of “BUTs” start spreading like wild fire. Next thing you know, you and/or your team is spun around the axle and your initiative is in jeopardy before you start. The simple truth is, becoming ISA-84 compliant and implementing a lifecycle solution is a monumental effort. However, the fact remains, it is nearly impossible to maintain critical process safety data without a lifecycle solution. Therefore, that should be your mission… to avoid paralysis. Knowing that you need a tool to help you through revision control, to transfer data from one technical owner to the next, and to provide an audit trail...
Taking our Mission to Reality
I have been very lucky in my career to have had the opportunity to have a variety of experiences to learn from. I have worked for single manufacturing facilities, supported capital projects, lead product development teams, and eventually found my way to process safety. One of the most rewarding aspects of my career at aeSolutions, and very different from my past experience, is the positive impact I am able to contribute to process safety initiatives across the industry. aeSolutions’ mission statement reads, “To continuously improve the process safety performance of industry”, and I can tell you with conviction...