Why Prior Use matters
A typical refinery has 5000-20000 field instruments. Replacing all of them with IEC 61508-certified equivalents to deploy a SIS would be financially impossible. IEC 61511 anticipated this : Route 2H allows an operator to keep using legacy instrumentation in a SIS IF they can prove its reliability empirically rather than by analytical certification.
But “we’ve had a pressure transmitter installed for 20 years and never had a problem” is not evidence. NE 130 turns hand-waving into rigor by specifying :
- What data to collect (failures, operating hours, environmental context)
- How long (5000 device-years OR equivalent)
- How to classify failures (safe/dangerous, detected/undetected)
- How to compute confidence-bounded MTBF
- What documentation survives an audit (FSA Stage 3 reviewer or competent authority)
Statistical population requirements
For a given device type + application context, NE 130 recommends:
| Target | Minimum data | Equivalent |
|---|
| SIL 1 | ~1000 device-years | ~50 devices × 20 years |
| SIL 2 | ~5000 device-years | ~250 devices × 20 years, or 500 × 10 years |
| SIL 3 | ~25000 device-years | Usually requires aggregated industry data, not single site |
This is why SIL 3 via Prior Use is rare — single sites cannot accumulate 25k device-years of comparable installations. SIL 2 via Prior Use is achievable in mature plants. SIL 1 is essentially always possible.
Operational profile drift
A key NE 130 requirement is that Prior Use evidence applies only within the operational profile of the original installation. If the new application differs in :
- Ambient temperature range
- Process medium (different chemistry, vibrations, viscosity)
- Mounting orientation
- Maintenance regime
- Process pressure / temperature swing range
…then the Prior Use claim is only partially valid and needs supplementary justification (e.g., supplementary lab testing, or FMEDA for differing aspects).
This is why a transmitter qualified by Prior Use in tank level service can’t be silently moved to slurry flow service. The operator must reassess.
Practical implementation
- Asset register with installation date, environmental context, application type, tagged failures
- Failure capture process : maintenance work orders explicitly tag “this work order is a failure / not a failure”
- Periodic review (annual) : compile statistics by device family + application
- Documentation : Prior Use Justification document for each device family used in SIS, kept up-to-date and reviewed at FSA Stage 3
Modern CMMS systems (SAP PM, IBM Maximo, Aveva ERM) can be configured to support this but most installations need explicit workflow adjustments.
How the future Asset Management app will help
The planned Asset Management app (assets.industryhub.cloud, planned 2026) is being designed around NE 130 from day one:
- Failure tagging built into the work-order workflow
- Auto-computed MTBF with confidence bounds per device family + application
- Operational profile audit (alerts when a device is moved to differing service)
- Prior Use Justification report generation per FSA Stage 3 requirements
For now, the FIT ↔ MTBF calculator in our Tools section gives you the basic conversion math.