• Maintenance previously managed independently by facilities through
budget allocations • CMP concept / implementation plans briefed at CRISP (Feb 2015) and MMWG (May 2015) meetings • Implementation Status – FY15 Implementation focused on Direct Maintenance – FY16 Implementation expands to Indirect Maintenance • CMP Key Attributes – Centralized management and budget – Consistent maintenance management – Improved risk-informed prioritization of Corrective Maintenance (CM) – Facilitates early planning and development of CM project pipeline – More efficient use of limited resources – Increased predictive maintenance posture – Integrated input and peer review through Direct and Indirect Maintenance Program Integration Boards (PgIBs) • Program to be rolled out to other areas across the site – Mercury – Forward Area – U1a – North Las Vegas
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
|
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
|
Maintenance Metrics
Facilities Control System (FCS)
|
The Evolution of Maintenance Planning
Current process for work order approvals •Building Managers/Facility Representatives identify issues that require maintenance attention and submit a work order. •Work Control fields the request and sends it to a planner. •The Planner plans the work, ensuring that all steps have been addressed to provide consistency within the work packages. •The completed work package is then routed for approvals based on type of work being performed. •Once all approvals have been made, the work order can then be set to a Ready to Work status and distributed to Craft Supervision for pre-job briefings and execution of work. Opportunities identified to gain efficiencies •As part of a cost saving initiative, maintenance procedures were reviewed to identify areas where processes could be streamlined, and time/resources could be better utilized. •The following observations were made during this analysis: •Much of the corrective maintenance on specific systems is repetitive in nature. •Tracking down to the asset level on these recurring issues is very difficult because “blanket” type work orders may be used. •In many cases, work orders are planned multiple times for the same issues, resulting in redundant planning and approvals. •Many times resources are wasted in the approval routing process due to “walking a package” through to completion. •The availability of approvers from other organizations to act quickly when approving incoming work has dwindled as all organizations face resource shortfalls. The How: The future of templates (pre-approved work orders) in corrective maintenance •The process will still involve the initial steps in the current work order flow, adhering to all requirements. •Proposed templates will be dispositioned, planned, and routed as a corrective work order for approvals. •Once the approvals are received, the creation of the template will occur (this is an additional step that will be performed once per year for each template) •Required labor resources and material will be added. •Template will be tied to Problem/Cause/Resolution code. •Template will remain valid for 1 year controlled by an effective date and status. |
Skill of the Craft-VS-Competent Worker Program
*DOE Handbook recognizes “Skill of the Worker” as basic discipline-specific competencies, defined by the contractor organization for each Worker which would include proficiency, experience, knowledge, skill and ability. •LLNL has a DOE recognized Skill of the Craft program •Describes technical required proficiencies, experience, knowledge, skill and abilities •Worker is required to complete the Skill of the Craft program prior to the Competent Worker Program, this is tracked through our L-Train process *Competent Worker is an OSHA term: a worker capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards and applying controls for commonly performed tasks within their discipline. •LLNL’s Competent Worker Program describes the required proficiencies, knowledge, skill and abilities to perform work safely Competent Worker (CW) Program Problem: •Currently, controls are written to the same level and detail in all WCDs, regardless of how familiar the work group is with the hazards associated with their work. •Inclusion of extremely familiar low risk hazards and controls can detract from higher-risk hazards and job-specific controls, which can impede worker buy-in. Solution: •Identify work groups that can be batched by discipline/training/experience/common routine activities, and qualify them as competent in their discipline. •Trained/Qualified Competent Workers can be recognized as a Control *CW programs are owned by payroll / discipline organizations •A senior manager is identified as the owner of the content and final arbiter of skills, knowledge and ability to perform the job safely •A Mentor is identified and qualified through a “train the trainer” course •Mentor is responsible for confirming individuals have successfully completed all of the requirements for the CW qual card *Qualification is documented in a qual card, consisting of required reading, training courses, and documented OJT •Skill of the Craft is a prerequisite training requirement •Completion of the CW qual is also tracked in L-Train •OJT is drawn from low-risk tasks common to a discipline *Qualifications are maintained annually, and are revocable •Annual maintenance includes required reading / lessons- learned, and supervisor certification •Skill of the Craft is also maintained annually through the Performance Appraisal process Process for developing a CW program The CW programs are drafted by workers and supervisors with deep knowledge of the activities. The current IWSs are a starting point. Common tasks are identified and described, along with limitations listed •A Job-Hazards Analysis (JHA) is developed for each task •The JHA is reviewed by the discipline org and the ES&H Team. Final JHAs are approved by the ES&H Team Leaders •A Mentor Guide is developed to assist mentors in qualifying the CWs. This serves as the answer key •The senior manager approves the entire package of Qual Card, JHA, and Mentor Guide, with WP&C FAM concurrence •The completed qual package is placed under configuration management, as part of the work control system |
The Need for PMO Equipment Reliability (ER) –Current equipment reliability yields 160 operating days –Projected reliability is +200 operating days in 3 years –Focus maintenance to optimize resources –Use ATR to develop process for the Laboratory Develop a Master Equipment List (MEL) for all components –Engineering Owns –One Database (Asset Suite) for Engr, Ops, Maint, –Standardize specific fields –All components included (35,000) –Accept risk that there are more components (20%) The PMO Process •Identify Functional Equipment Groups (FEGs) –Identify function for ER classification –Identify components required for the function –Identify component types (29 types) •Perform ER Classification for FEG components –Critical (Nuclear Safety, Mission Critical) [10-15%] –Non-Critical (Regulatory, Best Management) [20-25%] –RTF (All others) •Develop a PM Basis –Start with Critical –Establish Scope & Frequency for component groups •Use industry data (EPRI, petro-chemical, pharma, etc.) –Include Predictive Monitoring (basis for frequency change) –Match PM scope to risk (Some scope adds marginal value) •Develop PM Justifications (Engineering) –Specific components –Use history if available •Develop PMs for each critical component –Scope with multiple frequencies •Integrate with existing PM Program –Add, delete, revise •Acquire “Craft PM Feedback” of As-Found Condition –Use to adjust future frequencies –Use data to look at component types Process to Implement •Remove RTF from the PM program •Reduce Non-Critical PM Frequency –Free up craft and planning resources •Major impact to planning The Value & Future Plans VALUE –Focus first on high risk to safety and mission –Component types allow cross system comparisons –Craft have objective evidence of ownership –Higher efficiency allows different work to be done PLANS –Expand to other laboratory complexes •Materials and Fuels Complex •Research and Education –Develop PM Basis for Non-Critical Component Types •Accept much higher level of risk for failure |
Prioritization Scoring Criteria
Business Impact •5 – Security, Code or Life Safety Compliance Issue- Failure to implement will stop the ability to complete all ultimate user mission requirements, generate a fine imposed by federal, state or city regulators, or create an event that is immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH). Determined by the Authority having Jurisdiction (i.e Security, HSE, or Sr. Mgmt). •4 – High Production Impact. Driven by a requirement to modify a production area and/or building in order to support current mission. Needed to meet current Design Agency requirements. Project impacting the ability of KCP to complete its current mission or level 2 milestone, as determined by Senior Management. (i.e. PEP). Continuous Improvements with a substantial HSE / Security Impact or driven by Sr. Management. •3 – Medium Production Impact. Needed to meet future Design Agency requirements, installation of new equipment for future Design Agency requirements. Project supports a plant-wide initiative as determined by Senior Management (i.e. STRAP). Continuous Improvement activities with a substantial business impact in terms of cost savings/avoidance, efficiency, or reduction in risk. •2 – Low Production Impact. Continuous Improvement Activities supports Production, HSE, or other drivers based on minor cost savings/avoidance, efficiency, or reduction in risk. •1 – Nice to have items, not required to meet mission or code requirements, continuous improvement ideas with limited impact, other low priority modifications. Schedule Impact •5 – Emergency or Immediate Response Required. Response time or meeting schedule is vital to meeting KCP Mission and Worker Safety Goals and/or eliminating possible imposed fines by federal, state or city regulators. •4 – Time Sensitive. Project Due Date driven by current Design Agency or Customer Requirements. Current schedule performance used as part of PEP criteria. Could be regulatory driven if in near term. Example, Capital Equipment Installation is driven by a KCFO 60-Day Installation Goal. •3 – Average schedule requirements. Due date driven by future product / contractual / regulatory requirements. Work could occur at any point in current and/or future Fiscal Year and meet requirements. KCP Plant-wide initiative per STRAP. •2 – No specific schedule requirements or schedule requirements are long / drawn out. May not be required in current and/or future fiscal year. •1 – Schedule not a driver in the evaluation. Business Need •Significant Investment in a NEW Facility •Maximize Operations & Maintenance Value •Responsive Infrastructure to Support Evolving Mission •Vast Amount of Data Goals Configuration Management System that is: •Accurate Represents the best available information to an appropriate level of accuracy •Efficient Model structure focused on minimizing hands-on maintenance •Adaptable Can adapt to changing technology and evolving plant layout •Available Usable output from current model is always available without special request |