Independence Day for Equipment Modules: Case Study of How a Flexible Batch Application Can Save Costs This presentation was made by Gordon Roney, of Noramco, Inc. and Andrew Blankenship from Innovative Controls, Inc. Noramco, Inc. manufactures active pharmaceutical ingredients, narcotics and medical devices in three production facilities. The oldest of the production facilities, Building 1, is used to produce active pharmaceutical ingredients. In 2002, Noramco began the process of installing a process control system, PCS, for use in Building 1. The operation of the production process, via the PCS, should support both direct operator interaction and the future implementation of a batch application manager. Equipment modules and equipment module phases which have already been qualified and implemented should not require re-qualification when the batch application manager is installed. We used a collapsed version of the S88 model, and extensive use of object oriented programming. Classes define the abstract idea, and objects are the real world application of the class. In this presentation the "class" is the equipment module template. Roney showed some implementations. He showed an implementation of control module templates, and a functional specfication for equipment module templates...and then the implementation and qualification of equipment module templates. We didn't have to fully qualify each instance of an equipment module, since they were all copies of the template. All we did was qualify the differences between the previous module and the current module. Once it was deployed out to the plant we were able to manage change control by changing at the template, and propagating it out to the instances. Safety at the equipment module level. The response of the equipment module can be implemented and tested prior to the implementation of the batch application manager. This is designed for internal or external initiation. But it is NOT intended nor does it serve the functionality of a safety instrumented system. Honest. Cost Savings We found tremendous savings in documentation, engineering implementation, and commissioning and qualification. Case Study One The first case study is the implementation of an agitator with speed control equipment module. Original implementation occurred during 2004 and the second implementation in 2007. Roney showed time reductions in requirements and specifications of about 33%; qualification documentation of about 40%; engineering configuration 50%; and preimplementation testing of 60% for A TOTAL SAVINGS OF MORE THAN 45%! Case Study Two The second case study is the implementation of a tank temperature control equipment module. Original implementation occurred during 2004 and the second implementation in 2005. Again, the saving approached 50%. Case Study Three Implementation of a batch application manager began mid year 2005 and hit full stride during 2007. Less complex and faster qualification of recipes compared to solely recipe driven production processes on-site. Lessons Learned Use of generic names for equipment module templates. Clarity in naming of equipment module instances. Careful selection of equipment module parameters that can be changed and “fixed” parameters. Additional Advantages It has been far easier to deal with problems early on rather than during the production start up of a recipe. Recovery from a batch application manager failure. Simplification of recipe development.