Laura Brumsey, Senior VP, Compressed Gas Association (CGA): How Standards Keep People Safe Every Day

Behind every medical oxygen cylinder, industrial gas system, and countless products we rely on every day are standards that help keep people safe.

In this episode of the IFAN Podcast, IFAN speaks with Laura Brumsey, Senior Vice President of the Compressed Gas Association (CGA), about the critical role standards play in protecting lives, supporting innovation, and building trust across industries.

Laura shares her unexpected journey into the world of standardization, reflects on the vital role standards played during the COVID-19 pandemic in ensuring access to medical oxygen, and explains why collaboration between users, industry experts, and standards developers is essential.

The conversation also explores:

•  Why standards are fundamental to safety in the industrial and medical gases sector 
•  How users can shape better standards 
•  The opportunities and challenges created by AI and digital transformation 
•  Why engaging the next generation of standards professionals is more important than ever 
•  Laura's vision for the future of global standardization 

G

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:05

Hello and welcome to The Voice of Standard Users, a podcast by iFan. I'm Jaim Oren, your host, and in each episode I speak with leaders shaping industries through standards and practice. I'm privileged today to introduce our guest, Miss Laura Brumsy. She is a senior vice president at the Compressed Gas Association, the CGA, which was founded more than 100 years ago. Is that correct? In 1913, the CGA develops and promotes safety standards, codification, and technical information regarding the manufacturing, transportation, storage, and safe handling of compressed, liquefied, and psychorganic gases. Laura has more than 18 years of experience in the industrial gases sector, where she has built a reputation for advancing safety through standard development and industry collaboration. Laura deeply engaged in broader standards community, serving in the board of directors of the Society for Standardization Professionals, the SES, and contributing to several American National Standards Institute initiatives. Laura also is a frequent speaker on topics like engaging the next generation of standard professionals and evolving standard processes to keep pace with emerging technologies. And here are three interesting facts about Laura. The first one, she didn't actually set out to work at standards. Wow, that's a surprise. It was a 2008 economic slowdown and a critically led her to CGA. What a coincidence. The second personal fact about Laura is one of the most meaningful moments for her was during COVID when they were helping facilitate access to medical oxygen. It really showed her that even though standards work is often behind the scenes, it has really a significant impact. And last but not least, on a more personal note, she admits that she genuinely enjoys digging into details, especially if it involves complex data and spreadsheets. And she said in a quote, that's kind of my happy place. So Laura, welcome to iFund Voice of Standard Users Podcast.

SPEAKER_00 2:49

Thank you so much. I'm so happy to be here with you today. I appreciate the opportunity.

SPEAKER_02 2:54

Great. So let's start. Could you tell us how you first become involved in standards in the industrial gases and medical sector?

SPEAKER_00 3:06

Absolutely. So you mentioned in my introduction that I kind of stumbled into standards a little unexpectedly. Um, early in my career during the 2008 downturn, I was looking for something stable and came across a role at the Compressed Gas Association. I didn't know anything about industrial gases or standards at the time, but it quickly hooked me because of how tangible the impact of standards are. I remember sitting in one of my early technical committee meetings and listening to a presentation on a major safety incident that had taken place. And what really struck me in that moment was the clear responsibility the presenting company felt to share this information with their competitors to make sure no other person was subjected to that same risk. And afterward, the technical committee immediately convened to determine what standards needed to be developed or revised to address the learnings from that incident. And so it was clear from very early in my role at CGA that our industry felt passionately about advancing safety and sharing learnings with each other. And that made me feel good about the work I was doing then and is a huge part of why I've stayed with CGA for more than 18 years.

SPEAKER_02 4:18

18 years, great. So for our listeners that aren't familiar with this industrial industrial and medical gases sector, could you please explain what role standards play in ensuring safety and reliability in your sector?

SPEAKER_00 4:35

Absolutely. So this is a really unique industry. And it, you know, I'm I still explain to my family, I think on an almost daily basis, what the industrial gases industry actually is.

SPEAKER_02 4:46

Yeah, the name sounds mystical, yeah.

unknown 4:48

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 4:49

So just at a very basic level, the industrial medical, food, and specialty gases industry is about producing and delivering gases that people and businesses rely on every day, often without even realizing it. Um, a lot of people like to say that gases are the invisible ingredient of society. Um, and there are a lot of gases that people are familiar with if you dig into it a little bit. So most people are familiar with oxygen, which you might think of in a hospital setting, helping patients breathe. Um we've got carbon dioxide, which puts the fizz in your soda or your other beverages. And helium, of course, which people know from balloons, and those are all part of our industry. Um, we address over 60 gases in our publications and the work that we do. So that's just a small example, but those are usually ones that people recognize. And so what our industry does is take these gases, produce them at scale, store them safely, and deliver them where they're needed, whether that's to a hospital, a manufacturing plant, a food processor, a research lab. Um, and standards really are the backbone of safety in our industry. We're dealing with gases that can be high pressure or flammable or critical for patient care. And so consistency really matters. Um, and the way I like to think about it is standards are the things that you don't notice when they're working, but you definitely would notice if they weren't there. So for us, it might be a cylinder that you see being delivered to a hospital or a bulk storage tank at an industrial site. You know that there's always a whole framework behind that vessel and the gas in it, making sure that it's safe and reliable.

SPEAKER_02 6:32

Very interesting. So, can you share with us a practical example where standards directly improve safety or operational performance in your sector?

SPEAKER_00 6:44

Absolutely. And you touched on this a bit in the introduction here, but I'll I'll dive a little deeper. Um, an example that I think is really relatable for everyone was the COVID-19 crisis. Uh, during that time, we saw a skyrocketing demand for medical oxygen. Um, we were seeing temporary healthcare facilities get set up, sometimes in the parking lots of hospitals and places that weren't traditional healthcare venues. And during that time, there was a whole network of standards that were ensuring that patient safety remained the first priority. And so when hospitals were constructing those temporary patient care facilities, we were there with standards on oxygen piping and the cleanliness requirements and things like that. Um, at times throughout that crisis, there were shortages of medical oxygen cylinders. And so we had a standard that was available on transitioning cylinders from other types of service and then cleaning the cylinders that came back that had been potentially contaminated with pathogens. Um federal lawmakers had issues and questions about supply and reliability, we were there to educate them about the unique safety issues related to oxygen and there to kind of help them in their problem-solving approach to making sure that no hospital went without product. And I think the success of our response to that time really came down to two things. And one was our industry's willingness to collaborate and work with each other to find solutions to problems, but it was also our ability to rely on an established safety practices that were already available through our standards as we navigated those unusual circumstances.

SPEAKER_02 8:30

Right. So you're basically responsible for a mission critical element for healthcare, for hospitals, for food industry. Is that correct?

SPEAKER_00 8:40

That's correct. Um we we provide a lot of mission-critical gases. And I think you know, a lot of people hear, for instance, carbon dioxide and they think about the negative parts of it like global warming and some of the environmental impacts. But it carbon dioxide plays a role in many medical settings. It's used a lot in food preparation and preservation, and so there are a lot of these gases that are woven into our day-to-day life that we don't even realize are out there.

SPEAKER_02 9:12

Right. We're not aware of that. Okay, so let's move on. What makes collaboration between users, industry experts, and standards developers so important in your sector?

SPEAKER_00 9:27

Yeah. I think one of the places where we're really seeing the importance of collaboration is with when we're dealing with something broad and emerging, like hydrogen as a potential clean energy transition. No single organization covers the entire landscape in any of these spaces. You have different standards development organizations focusing on different pieces of the puzzle. So, like production, storage, transport, fueling, and in-use may each have a different SDO that's operating, a different industry that's involved in that piece. I've been involved in part of conversations like a standards workshop that was held by ANSI earlier this week, where standards organizations, government officials, and industry stakeholders are coming together to compare approaches and make sure we're aligned and that we're not creating conflicting requirements. Because from a user's perspective, the standard system has to work as a whole. It doesn't matter to them which organization or which piece. It's how they can fit fit those pieces together to actually match their reality.

SPEAKER_02 10:35

You want the unified value proposition, right?

SPEAKER_00 10:38

Yes. And so you and I think as standards organizations, when we just have our own industry at the table or we're we're writing standards with the narrow scope in mind of our particular industry, you lose that in-user perspective of kind of the reality of what the application of that product looks like on the ground. Um and so we really see that coordination is critical. Uh, without it, we risk gaps or overlaps that can slow development or create confusion. Um, but when that coordination works well, it really helps us accelerate safe adoption by giving industry and regulators a more coherent, complete framework to work from.

SPEAKER_02 11:20

Right.

SPEAKER_00 11:21

Okay.

SPEAKER_02 11:23

IFAN focuses strongly on the voice of standard users. Why, in your opinion, is user participation essential in the development of effective standards for the industrial gases and medical sector?

SPEAKER_00 11:40

I think that having users involved, especially as our gases get closer and closer to that end user, is so important. You know, for a long time our our industry was kind of this niche industry. A lot of our products were used in industrial settings by people who were familiar with the risks and hazards. Um, but now we have things like hydrogen that are, you know, in some states that's being pumped into passenger cars as a fuel or or maybe coming through your utility uh gas pipeline. And so having users involved, they're the ones who are living with the implications of those standards every day. And so they're often the first to spot what works and what doesn't. And so if their voices aren't in the room, we risk creating something that looks good on paper but is really difficult to implement in practice. Um, I think a good example for us is our work on a CGA standard called G2.1, which covers the storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia. My membership is largely industrial, so we have really strong expertise in manufacturing and large-scale operations. But ammonia is also widely used in agriculture, especially as a fertilizer. And so in that case, it was really important to bring agricultural users into that conversation. I remember discussions where requirements that made perfect sense from an industrial perspective needed to be rethought for a farming environment where conditions are different or resources might be more limited, operations are often more mobile or seasonal. Their input really helped us clarify the language, adjust the expectations, and make sure that that standard was usable in the field and not just technically correct. And I think that's just one example of the value of user participation. And it really does ground the work in reality and ultimately makes the standard more effective and safer.

SPEAKER_02 13:51

Great. So let's dig deeper. What barriers prevent more companies or professionals from participating in standards activities today?

SPEAKER_00 14:04

I think there are a lot of barriers to participation from time and resources to people's perspectives of whether they're the right person to participate, um, to convincing management or whoever may be approving that cost process of the value of being at the table. The biggest issue that we see regularly impacting standards participation are time and resource constraints.

SPEAKER_01 14:28

Right.

SPEAKER_00 14:29

So standards work can be a really slow process, and it can be really challenging to get people engaged when they don't see an immediate return. These subject matter experts often have higher priority demands from their day jobs, uh, you know, not surprising that their bosses want them to do some company work too. And so participating in that standards work is is expensive, not only from a travel and accommodation perspective, but in terms of time away from the office and their core duties.

SPEAKER_01 15:03

Right.

SPEAKER_00 15:05

I think that the companies that are participating in standards work effectively think of it as part of their business strategy, but we can't ignore the resource load that this work places on them. And it's critical that we as standards organizations continue to evolve our work processes to allow for more autonomous participation and to focus on participant resources, on the parts of the work that really benefit from human engagement. So really focusing the meeting time on the pieces that need conversation or need debate and figuring out how we can allow more flexible input in other parts of the work process. I think another issue is that I hear people say, I'm just not sure I'm the right person to be at that table. And there's this perception that everybody involved in standards development has to be this senior subject matter expert in their field. And I think the reality is we need a wide range of perspectives, not just the most senior or most technical voices. Our standards get used by people who are new to the industry or unfamiliar with gases. And so for us, having a fresh set of eyes on our content is closer to that user type and make sure that our content is digestible for them too. The other piece of this is that participating in standards work is such a fantastic opportunity to learn from the people who are those leading subject matter experts in their fields. And so I always encourage people to get engaged and to really dive into that process, even if they don't feel like they're they're that SME at the table.

SPEAKER_02 16:49

Right. You have spoken a lot about evolving standards processes. What changes are needed to keep standards development aligned with the rapidly changing industries and technologies in today's hyperchange environment?

SPEAKER_00 17:08

This is a dangerous question because I think I could do a monologue on this one alone. So I'm gonna try and keep my comments brief here. I think the most important thing is that we have to figure out how to be more agile without compromising the rigor of the consensus-driven process. And it's a tricky balance because standards have traditionally been very deliberate, these strict consensus processes, yeah, and that takes time. Uh, but the pace of innovation today doesn't always wait for that. Um, and so there are a few things that I think we need to think about. I really think we have to look at how to shorten development and update cycles. How could we jumpstart content development instead of having a committee start with a blank page? Is that a role for AI? Instead of thinking of a standard as something that gets revised every five or ten years, do we move more towards continuous maintenance? Can we define when a standard is mature enough not to undergo routine revision and take up resources, both in terms of the work needed to revise it and the work needed to ingest it into the companies? We also, I think, need to think about standards in a more modular way. Instead of these very large documents, we could break things into more focused pieces and make it easier to update specific areas without having to reopen a massive document. And that would make the whole system more responsive. Another important shift is earlier engagement. A lot of times standards are reactive, we're following the industry, technology develops, and then standards come in afterward to formalize practices. But that puts us in the position of being kind of in the back seat and often being delayed for what an industry needs. So now a lot of us are trying to engage earlier when technologies are still emerging. And this allows standards and even pre-standards activity to help shape the pathway forward rather than just catching up. But this also requires some caution to make sure that we're not blunting innovation by standardizing too much too soon. Um I my my last little piece on this is that I think we we also really have to think about digital tools and the role that they play in the standards process. Even something as simple as how we manage comments, share drafts, or collaborate across organizations can make a big difference in speed and accessibility. And so over time, I think we'll see more interactive digital first standards that are easier to navigate and apply in real world, real world settings. Um but this is really just about staying relevant. If standards are going to support rapidly evolving industries, whether that's hydrogen or advanced manufacturing, we have to be prepared to evolve alongside them and not behind them.

SPEAKER_02 20:23

That brings me to the next question. How are digital transformation and AI influencing standard development today? That must be a critical factor.

SPEAKER_00 20:35

It really is. And I think we're just starting to see how digital tools are going to change how standards are developed and used. Internally for us, even simple things like managing comments or comparing drafts across documents is becoming more efficient with digital tools. And I think looking ahead, AI will help us identify patterns or gaps we might miss manually. So I think there's that aspect of the behind-the-scenes work that goes on in the in the standards program. Some of the editorial work and things like that will become easier. I really do think, though, that AI is going to fundamentally change the way standards are written and consumed. There are already commercially available products that help users parse through codes and standards to find the exact requirements that apply to their scenarios.

SPEAKER_01 21:26

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 21:27

And my standards are often 40 pages long. And so I have to think about how that content needs to change if it's going to be drilled down to a list of 12 requirements. How do we still share the critical context around those requirements without bogging down a user who is now looking for a concise piece of information? And how do I need to adapt the data attached to my standards to help make sure those AI tools are getting the right answers? As standards organizations, we have a tendency to be more conservative on the adoption of technologies. There are some standards organizations that are very progressive and some that are really, really conservative and restrictive. And I like to think we're we're somewhere in the middle. But I think as a community, we're going to have to resist the urge to respond defensively to AI. And I know the concerns. I lose a lot of sleep myself thinking about protecting our intellectual property and wondering about the what-ifs of AI getting a critical safety issue wrong. But at the end of the day, my job is working with our members and our standards users to understand how their needs are changing. So understanding how they are applying AI to our standards and what they want to be able to do in the future and facilitating changes to the way we deliver our standards to better support them. I think we have to figure out how to work effectively with AI rather than throwing up our hands and trying to push back.

SPEAKER_02 23:09

Very challenging. You are very passionate about engaging younger professionals in standardization. Why is this especially important right now?

SPEAKER_00 23:23

Yeah, in our industry, and I think a lot of technical industries, we're at a really important inflection point. We have a lot of experienced professionals starting to retire. And at the same time, we have this rapid evolution of some of our industries. So in thinking about the importance of engaging the next generation, I obviously have a pretty selfish interest. Maintaining a pipeline of experts and other contributors at the table in our standards work is critical to my business. Without committee members at the table, my current work model fails. But I think the bigger implication of getting young people involved in standards work is giving them the opportunity to learn from the generation before them. You hear a lot of people say that standards are written in blood or standards are history lessons. And that's true. Just like my early memory that I talked about earlier of committee meetings, a lot of the requirements in our standards are written because something bad happened or something bad almost happened.

SPEAKER_01 24:30

Right, yes.

SPEAKER_00 24:32

If the next generation isn't in the room when these standards are being written, they don't know the basis for why that seemingly annoying requirement exists. Why does this gas have to be separated from these other gases? And that puts the industry at risk and creates the potential for having to relearn some of those extremely hard lessons. And I think that is really the point, at least for us, that's most important about getting this generation involved. And I've had the chance to work with younger professionals. We have a Young and Emerging Professionals Committee. And I think what's really encouraging is how quickly they are bringing value and new perspective to the conversations that we're having. And in every aspect, you know, from the technical issues that we're dealing with on our committees to suggestions for new ways of collaborating or different technologies that we should be thinking about, they really have gotten engaged and involved in the decision and the discussion in a meaningful way quickly. And once they see the impact they can have, they tend to get engaged and stay in that standards process.

SPEAKER_02 25:49

Right. Well, we are nearing the end of this very exciting podcast, and I'd like to ask you, Laura, what gives you the optimism about the future of standards community?

SPEAKER_00 26:05

I think there's a growing recognition of how essential standards are, especially as we tackle big challenges like the energy transition. You know, in the US right now, we're in a bit of a deregulatory environment, and that shifts a lot of the responsibility to standards organizations to make sure that there's that consistency and application of safety or technology across their industry. I think what gives me the most optimism, though, is the willingness to collaborate. Even in competitive industries, people come together around safety issues. And I've seen firsthand in our committee work that people kind of check their company logo at the door and work together to solve shared problems and make sure that everybody comes out with an understanding of the best practices. And I think when you add the next generation coming in with fresh ideas, it really does feel like the community is evolving in a positive way. Um, and that we have a real chance to evolve and make new impacts moving forward.

SPEAKER_02 27:15

What a nice way to end this podcast. So I would like to thank you, Laura, for your insights and strategic perspective. It was a real pleasure speaking with you, and I wish you a lot of success in leading CGA. For our listeners, stay tuned for more exciting episodes and follow us on the iPhone LinkedIn page. See you soon.