PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ISSUES | PLANT INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT

This area of investigation was directed toward addressing the impact of PM practices on the Utility Units’ Asset Management Program. Table lists the issues addressed and the resultant findings.

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ISSUES | PLANT INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT

Inquiry Response
Is there a document governing how maintenance is performed? GI 1000.500 Maintenance Work Order is the guideline that describes the work order process. Interviews with the planners and maintenance organization, and a review of the work order process indicated that the guideline provided a good process.
Is the plant operating data routinely collected
and analyzed? Have any PMs been changed as a result?
Vibration monitoring of equipment is governed by SABP-G-020
Guideline for Vibration Offline Condition Monitoring Program.
The guideline establishes vibration limits by equipment and frequency of readings. While trending of vibration monitoring results and inspection readings is performed regularly, there was no information available that indicated that any specific organization was trending plant components contributing to processing delays and adjusting maintenance frequencies as needed.
Have engineering reviewed PM and recommended changes? How many and what were the bases for the changes. SABP-G-020 Guideline for Vibration Offline Condition Monitoring Program is a new standard issued in 2012. While the guideline was reviewed by the team, given that the guideline had just recently been issued, it was not possible to determine the degree to which it had been implemented.
What is the frequency of equipment inspections and do they always occur on time? Any back log? The frequency is dependent on equipment type and driven by the frequencies provided in SAP. While there is a normally a four to six week work Order (WO) backlog, review of selected maintenance records indicated that equipment inspections were not substantially delayed.
What is the regular lubrication schedule? Any backlog? Monitoring of separate lube oil systems is scheduled. No backlog was evident.
Who identified parts to be adjusted on a periodic basis? Are there any scheduled replacements prior to actual failure? This information is provided by SAP. There was no information available as to who performed the identification or the methodology and criteria for that determination.
Who is responsible for monitoring and trending plant components contributing to processing delays? Is the data analyzed and used to optimize PM frequency, both negatively and positively? There was no evidence that this was accomplished. It is possible that this is one of the functions assigned to the Reliability Group, however the low level of personnel resources in the group does not allow for the evaluations.

The key finding from the Preventive Maintenance area is summarized as follows:
• While trending of vibration monitoring results and inspection readings is performed regularly, there was no information available that indicated that any specific organization was trending plant components contributing to processing delays and adjusting maintenance frequencies as needed.
Recommendation: A process should be developed to review maintenance results and identify trends which may indicate the need for more frequent maintenance activity or, conversely, investigate the risk of accomplishing maintenance tasks less frequently if warranted.


 

Other Info

Document Category Engineering
Document Target Users

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *