By combining mechanical integrity and reliability programs into a single framework, plants can streamline their asset maintenance strategies and mitigate all types of risk
Asset maintenance first hit the headlines during the late 1980s when it became a target for efficiency improvements throughout the chemical process industries (CPI) globally. Initiatives at the time focused on traditional methods of improvement — reducing the numbers of staff and trying to work smarter with fewer resources. Despite these cuts, the pressure remained for asset managers to continue to reduce costs and
increase efficiencies.
Has much changed? While much has certainly improved, the CPI are now faced with a new era in managing risk with scope to achieve far more. The benefits of combining mechanical integrity and reliability programs is a major approach for today’s operators of capital-intensive, high-risk equipment and infrastructure. Those with experience in auditing, assessing and helping improve mechanical integrity (MI) and asset reliability programs have seen first-hand how organizations tend to develop and implement these two programs separately.
When the first process safety regulation was promulgated 30 years ago, it was understandable that many MI programs were developed as standalone systems. Also, with the asset-reliability improvement efforts over the past 10 to 15 years, there was reluctance to include MI activities and systems in the asset reliability programs. But the release of ISO 55000 Asset Management Standards and the increased implementation of ISO 55000 programs are now creating an industry-wide movement toward holistic asset-risk management.
A broader spectrum
MI and reliability programs can help to address a broad spectrum of asset risks, including operational, environmental and regulatory risks. There are also similarities between MI and reliability programs in how effective they are at identifying safety-critical equipment and asset criticality, as well as feeding into management systems and reliability business practices with the use of today’s asset data and data management systems.
Typically, an organization’s mechanical integrity program focuses on compliance with regulatory requirements, while their reliability program efforts focus on equipment reliability and maintenance efficiency. With few exceptions, most organizations do not combine MI and asset reliability programs to create a holistic asset management program.
There likely have been several motivations for maintaining and viewing these programs separately, such as the following:
• The desire or concern of regulator actions relative to combined programs (for instance, a regulator holding an organization accountable for reliability program activities)
• Seemingly competing objectives and goals of different organizational groups, specifically between the MI group and reliability group
• A potential understanding or viewpoint that regulatory and business-performance requirements need to be managed differently
• A lack of understanding of potential efficiencies and benefits of combining these two programs
Defining the scope
The primary objective of both MI and reliability programs is to proactively perform asset maintenance activities to reduce the likelihood of asset failures, and the overall objectives are nearly identical. One of the primary differences, however, is the type and risk level addressed by these two programs. MI programs focus on managing high-consequence events impacting safety and the environment that occur at a lower frequency, while reliability programs focus on lower-consequence events (including economic events), which often happen at a higher frequency.
Some argue that these programs are managing different risks than those mentioned above, as well as some equipment failures. This may be true, but there is likely more commonality than often first realized. For example, the high vibration of a tower reflux pump (discovered via a reliability vibration-analysis program) may appear to be a reliability issue, but the unexpected failure of this pump could result in an over-pressurization of the tower and activation of a safety system, which many would classify as a process-safety near-miss.
Likewise, there are organizations that do not consider a leak (loss of containment) in piping as a reliability issue. In reality, leaking equipment often results in downtime or other production impacts. Therefore, leaking equipment is unreliable equipment (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1. An asset-management program that addresses a broad spectrum of risks — from pipeline leaks to high equipment vibration — can help organizations to better quantify their environmental, economic and safety risks
This concept of an asset-management program that addresses a broad spectrum of risks is not new and is provided in BS ISO 55000 series, Asset Management. One of the requirements of this ISO standard is to identify key stakeholders and then identify each group’s risk. An obvious application of this requirement would be to include all safety risks (process and occupational), environmental risks, economic risks and other operational risks. This standard then outlines requirements for asset management programs that address all identified risks. Holistic asset management can begin by combining MI and reliability programs into a single framework.
Blending programs
Synergies between the two approaches relate to managing the risks associated with asset degradation and failures. There are also many synergies at the program-design, implementation and execution levels of these two programs. A key aspect of both programs is the implementation of management systems (the commonly used term in the process-safety world) or business processes (the commonly used term in the reliability world). Asset management systems define the overall asset management policies and objectives and the systems and processes needed (who, what and how) to implement the asset management policies and achieve the program objectives.
ISO 55001 addresses the elements of an asset management program (the “what”) and ISO 55002 provides specifics regarding the “how” of the asset management program. Most holistic reliability programs include their management teams in core elements, such as work management, inventory management, equipment maintenance plans (such as predictive and preventive maintenance plans) and implementation of the computerized maintenance-management system (CMMS). Figure 2 shows the relationship between key elements of an asset management system.
FIGURE 2. There is clear synergy between the core elements of a robust asset-management system
So what are the common attributes between ISO-55000, MI and reliability-program management systems? Looking at Table 1, it can be seen how plants can leverage and integrate activities from these three programs with a few examples of the common elements from each of these three programs. While the strategic and conceptual similarities between reliability and MI programs are interesting, the important synergies are related to the tactical activities that influence the day-to-day implementation of these two programs.
Synergizing examples
Considering the example of a process pump in hazardous chemical service, two potential areas of synergy between asset reliability and MI activities include common reliability activities, such as operator walks (visual inspection) and vibration analysis. Both of these practices are also MI-related activities because they help to detect and prevent loss-of-containment events. Another example is instrumentation and control-system reliability practices, such as periodic sensor calibration and functional checks. When these practices are applied to safety-critical instruments and controls (such as safety instrumented systems), MI requirements are incorporated.
The common MI practices for fixed equipment, such as a shell-and-tube heat exchanger or pressure vessel, would include API-type inspections and testing, including visual inspection and pressure boundary-thickness non-destructive testing (NDT). Leaks in a heat exchanger or pressure vessels during operation can result in unplanned downtime (which is a reliability impact). Also, these API inspections and tests help predict the end-of-life for these equipment items, which allows for planning and proactive equipment replacement (which is a reliability issue). There are also common reliability practices related to managing the condition of heat-exchange fluids (such as cooling water) and the periodic cleaning of heat-exchange surfaces. These activities can reduce thinning and degradation of the shell and tube and lower the probability of a process safety event, such as loss of containment.
Asset data
A key area between MI and reliability programs is asset data management, where both programs require compilation, verification and management of asset data to be effective. This data-management effort involves developing a master asset list and then populating this list with relevant asset-related data.
Master asset lists typically involve the following elements:
1. Reviewing the piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) to identify assets
2. Compiling asset information from engineering, maintenance and operational files and records
3. Performing field walk-downs to verify the asset list and collecting missing data
4. Establishing the master asset list and data in the data-management systems
5. Organizing and associating the relevant data (including drawings and documents from original equipment manufacturers) in the data-management systems
While the steps for developing the master asset management list for MI and reliability purposes are similar, each program has slightly different data needs and sources based on equipment type.
In addition to the slightly different data needs for MI and reliability programs, two data-management systems are typically needed to store the asset data and manage the programs. These two systems are the CMMS and the inspection data management system (IDMS).
While these two data-management systems have many similar attributes, they are used for different purposes and operate differently. The CMMS is a software application that helps maintenance organizations manage their maintenance activities in one place. The CMMS provides a platform to manage the data around site maintenance, repair and operations (MRO), including preventative, predictive and reactive maintenance.
Having accurate and complete asset data is crucial to building a CMMS, not to mention having the ability of the CMMS to communicate with other software systems within the organization, including the IDMS. The CMMS system also serves as a repository for implementing, executing and improving maintenance work processes (work, asset lifecycle, MRO inventory and so on), which drive the activities and dictate how maintenance is performed.
The IDMS is used to track and manage asset condition over time to determine future inspection and testing schedules. The software system uses equipment condition assessments (for instance, thickness data) to calculate rates of degradation (such as corrosion) to assess the expected remaining life of the asset before failure. Additionally, the IDMS can be used to calculate the current and future risk of assets in order to optimize inspection and test plans, including risk-based inspection (RBI). These inspection and test plans (including the type of activity and due date) are sent to the CMMS for scheduling and execution planning. This transfer of information is either performed manually (meaning plans are manually transferred from one system to another) or digitally (where information is automatically transferred).
When inspection and testing results are uploaded to the IDMS, recommendations that require corrective actions to resolve equipment deficiencies are sent to the CMMS via work order for execution and tracking, and then ideally the CMMS communicates back to the IDMS when the action is completed to satisfy regulatory recording requirements.
Motivating a change in mindset
Organizations that do combine their MI and reliability programs typically achieve tangible and intangible benefits. The tangible benefits relate to efficiencies in asset cost and programs, described in the following sections.
Reducing unplanned downtime. Implementing both MI and reliability asset management plans and executing the plans as scheduled reduces both losses of containment and functional asset failures
Reducing planned downtime. Both MI and reliability asset plans include the implementation of activities related to assessing asset condition, such as thickness monitoring (MI-related activity) and vibration monitoring (reliability-related activity). Once implemented, these types of activities reduce the need for intrusive activities (which then require assets to be offline), and help to predict capital and operational expenses associated with asset replacement.
Program efficiencies. Combining programs reduces the level of effort needed to develop and maintain program operational activities, such as asset lists, maintenance work instructions, asset management plan execution, asset deficiency process and so on. The use of different work processes and data systems to operate the MI and reliability programs results in duplicated efforts.
In terms of intangible benefits, there are also several organizational and cultural benefits, as described below.
Program confidence. A combined program provides the key organizational stakeholders (for example, plant management, executive management) with more confidence that regulatory compliance requirements are being met; asset-failure risks are being managed; and holistic asset conditions are known and being managed.
Program view. Creating a “single source” of the asset integrity and reliability provides program executors, plant management, and executive management with a single view of the asset management program.
Improved program direction. Combining the programs can reduce confusion about which system needs to be followed and provides clear, unified expectations for the asset management program.
The bottom line is that combining the MI and reliability programs can reduce the cost of asset maintenance and help reduce the perception that the MI program is only a cost. Also, the intangible benefits allow organizations to move from viewing the MI program as a burden to the view that both programs make business sense.
Tomorrow’s view
The safety we expect in our everyday lives depends on things working — and working properly. From the offshore rig drilling for oil, the processes used for refining petroleum, to the power stations and plants near our homes, all must be built, operated and managed with risk and safety in mind. Society in general is becoming less tolerant of preventable incidents causing harm or death, or incidents leading to environmental degradation.
Companies need to be able to also make high-confidence asset-integrity decisions, enabling them to increase the profitability and productivity of the asset base while minimizing the exposure to the risk of catastrophic events. Failure to do so will allow competitors to gain a significant lead with regulators, financial markets, stakeholders and profitability. In the future when things go wrong, questions will be asked — and in contrast to the past, it is likely that there will be a requirement for greater accountability of individuals and organizations and transparency on their processes.
Taking a holistic view of risk and the management of physical assets, including selection, maintenance, inspection and renewal, plays a key role in determining operational performance, safety and profitability.
Edited by Mary Page Bailey
Author
Randy Montgomery is the senior director of oil, gas and chemical services at ABS Group (1701 City Plaza Drive, Spring, TX 77389; Website: www.abs-group.com). He has more than 30 years of experience in reliability, maintenance, integrity management, process safety, operations and process engineering, including 13 years of industrial experience. His responsibilities at ABS Group include identifying, developing and delivering technical solutions to help industry clients preserve their right to operate and improve their return on investment. He is a co-author of the Center for Chemical Process Safety’s Guidelines for Effective Mechanical Integrity Programs and has coauthored several technical papers in the field of maintenance and reliability. Montgomery holds a B.S.Ch.E. from the University of Cincinnati.