Trying to implement ISA’s Alarm Management standard? This working subgroup is exploring why it’s difficult to implement and identifying options to make implementation easier with the ultimate goal of documenting recommended practices.
Several member companies were finding it difficult to implement the ISA 18.2 Standard: Alarm Management for the Process Industries. A team from numerous member organizations (BP, Chevron, FHR, Koch Ag, BASF, Marathon, Yokogawa, and Emerson) met several times over the course of a year to define the issues that the companies were having, the potential solutions, and arranging them to match the sections of the 18.2 Standard. Several of the key items brought forward was not to use all the KPIs provided in 18.2 (overwhelmed management), methods to determine if alarm history data was valid, and cautions in using both alarm suppression and alerts as substitutes for proper alarm management. Creation of alarm templates, as was started for the Advanced Alarming project, to speed rationalization was seen as a possible follow-on.
The team will hold group discussions to help define issues that inhibit adoption of 18.2 in order to identify potential projects to address those issues.
Can alarm rationalization be done faster and with less need for the operators?
Are the current metrics listed in 18.2 the correct metrics?
What is the risk reduction for alarm management (benefit)?
ISA18.2, Alarm Management for the Process Industries was issued in 2009 to enable process plants to better design their alarm systems. Since that time some plants have successfully implemented the standard, but many have not. This internal working group is attempting to define options to enable plants to achieve many of the objectives of 18.2 in less time and with less demand on resources.
Potential projects and associated RFPs to speed compliance with ISA18.2 objectives.