guideline srcm tr 109795 v2

5/20/2018 Guideline Srcm Tr 109795 v2

1/128

EPRIGEN 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10416, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA800.313.3774 650.855.2121 [email protected] www.epri.com

Streamlined Reliability-CenteredMaintenance (SRCM)

Implementation Guidelines

TR-109795-V2

Final Report, December 1998

Project ManagerR. Pflasterer

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in

accordance withSection 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance withSection 734.7 of the U.S. ExportAdministration Regulations. As a resultof this publication, this report is subject to only copyrightprotection and doesnot require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes theexport control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material noticesembedded in thedocument prior to publication.


2/128

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORKSPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY EPRIGEN, INC. NEITHER EPRIGEN, THE ELECTRIC POWERRESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI), ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW, NORANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITHRESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEMDISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULARPURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNEDRIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS PACKAGE ISSUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDINGANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRIGEN OR ANY EPRIGEN REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEENADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OFTHIS REPORT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEMDISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT

Erin Engineering & Research, Inc.

ORDERING INFORMATION

Requests for copies of this package should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive, P.O.Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (925) 934-4212.

EPRI is a registered service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright 1998 EPRIGEN, Inc. All rights reserved.


3/128

iii

CITATIONS

This report was prepared by

Erin Engineering & Research, Inc.2033 N. Main Street, Suite 1000Walnut Creek, California 94596

Principal InvestigatorG. Toomey

This report describes research sponsored by EPRIGEN.

The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in thefollowing manner:

Streamlined Reliability-Centered Maintenance (SRCM) Implementation Guidelines, EPRIGEN,Palo Alto, CA: 1998. Report TR-109795-V2.


4/128


5/128

v

REPORT SUMMARY

Following EPRIs philosophy of using and developing existing technology where itmakes economic sense, EPRIGENs Plant Maintenance Optimization Target hasadopted a reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) process called streamlined RCM orSRCM that maintains and improves all the basic steps of traditional RCM. SRCMprovides a utility a cost-effective process to determine the optimum maintenancestrategy for plant systems and equipment based on their importance to businessobjectives.

BackgroundDeregulation and increasing competition have prompted a drive to control operationand maintenance (O&M) programs among electric utilities. For fossil-fired plants,controlling O&M includes the transition from reactive maintenance to apreventive/predictive maintenance strategy. To help its member utilities make thetransition and become more competitive, EPRIGEN has initiated development effortsunder the Plant Maintenance Optimization Target (Target in 1998 and Target 75 in1999). These efforts are intended to help utilities reduce production costs by developingand demonstrating cost-effective maintenance methods. This project is part of that

program.

ObjectivesTo develop an integrated program based on RCM methodology that assists a utility incost-effectively developing and maintaining an optimized maintenance program.

ApproachVolume One of this report, already published, described the development status ofSRCM for fossil plants at the end of 1997. For Volume Two of this report, the projectteam compiled guidelines for the implementation of SRCM. The guidelines include anoutline of the SRCM process, an account of current utility participation, and adescription of SRCM project tools currently available or under development. The teamalso analyzed the benefits of SRCM at three utilities.

ResultsBy using SRCMs logical step-by-step approach to determine the maintenance strategyfor plant/systems, utilities are able to document the basis for the maintenance program,more effectively manage change to the plant maintenance program, and focus resources


6/128

vi

on doing the right task at the right time on the right equipment. This report describeshow all of the SRCM tools and processes work together and provides information onthe status of utility projects and tool development. Several tools have been completed toenhance the performance and maintenance of SRCM analysis. Both system level andcomponent level templates have been developed to provide efficiency and consistency

in analysis. A Living Program module in the SRCM Workstation has been developed toassist and automate the updating of the initial SRCM analysis.

EPRI PerspectiveAs of the end of 1998, 22 utilities have participated in the EPRI SRCM program. Someplants that have had essentially no formal plant maintenance program are using SRCMto create a program for the first time; other plants have used SRCM to optimize theirexisting plant maintenance program. All utilities anticipate a reduction in unscheduledbreakdown maintenance. Other intangible benefits include improved communicationbetween key plant staff concerning system functions, equipment failure causes, and

their significance. Additionally, most utilities that have applied SRCM have estimated apayback of less than one year.

TR-109795-V2

Interest CategoriesFossil Steam Plant Performance OptimizationFossil Steam Plant O&M Cost Reduction

KeywordsMaintenance optimizationPerformancePredictive maintenance


7/128

EPRIGEN Licensed Material

vii

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1

2 SRCM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Why SRCM? ................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 The SRCM Process ..................................................................................................... 2-2

Data Collection and Plant History Review....................................................................... 2-3

Identify Functional Failures ............................................................................................. 2-4

Critical Analysis............................................................................................................... 2-4

FMEA .............................................................................................................................. 2-5

Non-Critical Analysis ....................................................................................................... 2-5

PM Task Recommendations ........................................................................................... 2-6

Task Comparison ............................................................................................................ 2-6

2.3 What Does It Take To Conduct SRCM? ...................................................................... 2-7

2.4 Training and Analysis Support ..................................................................................... 2-9

3 UTILITY PROJECT STATUS .............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Current Utility Project Participation .............................................................................. 3-1

4 DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT STATUS OF SRCM PROGRAM TOOLS............... 4-1

4.1 Overall SRCM Program ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 SRCM Process and Software Products ....................................................................... 4-3

4.2.1 SRCM Workstation................................................................................................ 4-3

PMO WORKSTATION DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... 4-3

4.2.2 System Templates ................................................................................................ 4-4

4.2.3 Component Type Templates................................................................................. 4-9

4.2.4 Industry Data....................................................................................................... 4-10

4.3 SRCM Implementation and Living Program............................................................... 4-11


8/128


viii

4.3.1 SRCM Implementation ........................................................................................ 4-11

4.4 Living Programs Process and Software ..................................................................... 4-14

5 SRCM PROGRAM BENEFITS ............................................................................................ 5-1

Case Study 1 ...................................................................................................................... 5-1Case Study 2 ...................................................................................................................... 5-2

Case Study 3 ...................................................................................................................... 5-2

A SYSTEM TEMPLATE .........................................................................................................A-1

B COMPONENT TYPE TEMPLATES ....................................................................................B-1


9/128


ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 EPRIs SRCM Program ........................................................................................ 1-2

Figure 2-1 Classical RCM versus SRCM ............................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-2 SRCM Process ..................................................................................................... 2-3

Figure 4-1 Integrated Maintenance Work Management Flow Chart ...................................... 4-2

Figure 4-2 Screen- selecting system template option ............................................................ 4-6

Figure 4-3 Screen- selecting a specific system template ....................................................... 4-7

Figure 4-4 Screen - Electronic flowchart and review options for system templatemodification..................................................................................................................... 4-8

Figure 4-5 Screen - Maintenance Component Type Template ............................................ 4-10

Figure 4-6 Sample Implementation Template ...................................................................... 4-13

Figure 4-7 Screen - Living Program Options........................................................................ 4-15

Figure 4-8 Screen - Living Program PM History Review...................................................... 4-16

Figure 4-9 Screen - Living Program PM Program Change Recommendation Form ............ 4-17


10/128


11/128


xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 SRCM Analysis Labor Requirements..................................................................... 2-8

Table 2-2 Typical SRCM Project Schedule............................................................................ 2-9


12/128


13/128


1-1

1

INTRODUCTION

As the electric power industry evolves into a non-regulated industry, extreme pressuresare being placed on plant organizations to reduce costs for competition whilemaintaining or enhancing plant performance. Several utilities have gone through staffreductions as a first line of action for cost reduction. This has prompted a drive tocontrol the operation and maintenance (O&M) programs. For the fossil fired plants inthe industry the controlling of the O&M program includes the transition from reactivemaintenance as the main stay to a preventive/predictive maintenance strategy. Worldclass facilities know having the proper mix of maintenance is key to cost-effective andenhanced maintenance. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) embarked on aprogram to assist member utilities in making the transition and becoming morecompetitive.

This project is part of EPRIGENs Plant Maintenance Optimization development effortsunder Target 54 (1998), Plant Maintenance Optimization, and Target 75 for 1999, whichis intended to help utilities reduce the cost of production by developing anddemonstrating cost-effective maintenance methods. Over the past three years, severalutilities have embarked on the implementation of SRCM at their various plants. These

utilities are at various stages of the program. As more utilities participate in the EPRIprogram, process and product refinements will evolve to provide enhanced tools todevelop and maintain a RCM-based maintenance program.

A key element of EPRIs maintenance optimization program is the use of reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) technology to guide a utility in improving and optimizingtheir maintenance program. Utilizing EPRIs philosophy to use and grow existingtechnology if it makes economic sense the Plant Maintenance Optimization Target hasadopted a RCM process called Streamlined RCM or SRCM. SRCM allows a utility toanalyze down to the level required to make a maintenance strategy decision while

maintaining all of the basic steps of traditional RCM. Accompanying this process is:software, program management, system and component templates, implementationsupport, training and living program development. All of these integrated productsassist a utility in cost-effectively optimizing and maintaining an optimized maintenanceprogram. Figure 1 shows how these tools and support provide EPRI members withcost-effective solutions when developing or refining systems and equipment strategies.


14/128


Introduction

1-2

Utility Identifies needfor Improved

Maintenance Strategy

Identifies Systems/Equipment to

Review

Identifies SRCM as

Method of Evaluation

Conducts SRCM

Analysis by System

System Templates Component Type

Templates

Implementation

Support (what, when& why)

M & D CenterPDM Assessment

Implement Results

via CMMS, PDM,

etc.

PMO Workstation

Establish Process to

Update Maintenance

Program (Living

Program)

Industry SRCM Data

via EPRI Database

653

Figure 1-1EPRIs SRCM Program

Each utility and plant needs to decide on objectives and goals when conducting aSRCM program. Usually utilities use SRCM as one means to achieve competitiveproduction costs through maintenance optimization. SRCM will optimize maintenanceby utilizing the following principles:

Concentrate maintenance resources where they will do the most good.

Eliminate unnecessary and ineffective maintenance tasks.

Devise the simplest and most cost-effective means of maintaining equipment, ortesting for degradation focusing on predictive or condition monitoring activitieswhen applicable.


15/128


Introduction

1-3

Develop a documented basis for the maintenance program.

Utilize plant maintenance and contractor experience when determining PM tasksand frequencies.

In order to achieve the goal of an improved maintenance program at a plant, it isnecessary to select systems that will meet the specified goals of the program. Thesystems typically selected for review are:

1. Main Steam

2. Fuel Handling

3. Circulating Water

4. Ash Handling

5. Sootblowing

6. Boiler Air and Gas

7. Feedwater Heater Drains/Extraction Steam

8. Coal Handling

9. Feedwater

10. Condensate

The criteria for selecting these systems is: overall importance to plant operation, safety,reliability and historical maintenance costs. Cost-effective maintenance is the programobjective.

A real, but difficult to document, benefit is that the SRCM process involves andimproves communication between the key plant staff functions (operations,maintenance and tech support in traditional organizations, and Production andSupport Teams in more recent organizations) concerning system functions, equipmentfailure causes and their significance. The need for and benefits of, participation by keyplant staff in the SRCM process can not be over-emphasized.

Volume One of this report, published in early 1998, described the developmentprogram status of SRCM for fossil plants at the end of 1997.

This report provides the latest status of utility program development, current status ofSRCM process tools and software as well as some documented benefits from the


16/128


Introduction

1-4

program. Integration of other EPRI programs, such as predictive maintenance activitiesand the interfaces and plant processes affected by the SRCM programs, are becomingclear. Several utilities have embarked on multi-plant projects which have caused thedevelopment of several new tools to provide efficiency and consistency.


17/128


2-1

2

SRCM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

2.1 Why SRCM?

EPRIs experience with RCM methodology began in 1983 with trial applications withnuclear power plant systems. These applications were a direct transfer of existingmethodology from the commercial airline industry. Since then, numerous utilities haveapplied RCM principles to their nuclear plants. In 1991, EPRI responded to utility

concern that classical RCM requires too many resources to perform an analysis on anaverage system. As a result, EPRI embarked upon a major project to investigatepossible methods of lowering the cost to perform an RCM analysis while maintainingthe technical integrity of the process and results. One approach that resulted from thisproject was the SRCM process. The SRCM process was validated against classical RCMby applying both methods independently on the same plant system. This comparisonfound essentially identical PM recommendations with only minor differences driven bythe two analysts different knowledge of the plant and equipment involved. Athorough knowledge of basic RCM methodology is necessary to ensure accurate resultswhen performing SRCM. Figure 2-2 shows a comparison of the two methods.

Given the success of SRCM in the nuclear sector of the power industry, EPRIs fossilgroup funded several pilot SRCM applications at fossil plant systems. The pilotprojects confirmed the cost effective applicability of SRCM to fossil units. Over the pastthree years, the EPRI-sponsored SRCM process has been applied or is in progressapplying SRCM to over 400 systems at 22 utilities. These successful SRCM applications,together with the high level of utility acceptance, has prompted EPRI to develop severaladditional tools and enhancements of a commercial RCM software tool specificallydesigned to support the SRCM process. This commercial tool known as the PMOWorkstation, developed by ERIN Engineering and Research, Inc., has been used tosupport the EPRI projects and is now available to members. The software

enhancements, funded by EPRI, consist of system and component task selectiontemplates as well as a living program module.


18/128


SRCM Program Description

2-2

Identify Ke y

Import ant Function s

Pe rf orm Critical

Analysis

Perform Non-Critical

Analysis

Non-Critical

Evaluation

Non-Critical

Task Selection

Task Comparison Task Comparison

Im ple me nta tion Im ple me nta tion

RC M SRCM

System/SubsystemPartitioning

Functional Failure

Analysis (FFA )

Failure Mo des and

Effects An alysis (FM EA)

Critical TaskSelection

Figure 2-1Classical RCM versus SRCM

2.2 The SRCM Process

The SRCM produced PM plan must support an individual units mission (base load orload following, etc.) to assure the unit performance in compliance with its intended useor mission. Thus, a units mission provides the basis for determining componentcritically and subsequent PM task selection.

The following describes the PMO process and Figure 2-3 illustrates the steps of theprocess.


19/128



2-3

Data

Collection

Identify Key

Important Functions

Perform Non-Critical

Analysis

Compare SRC M R esults

W ith Existin g

M aintenance Program

Perform Critical

Analysis

Implement

Changes

Review Plant H istory

and Co nduct P lant

Reviews and Interviews

Establish Living

Program

Figure 2-2SRCM Process

Data Collection and Plant History Review

The same system data is required to perform this streamlined analysis as is needed fora standard RCM analysis. In order to facilitate this streamlined analysis process and

maximize the associated cost benefit, the analyst should perform a detailed review ofall the pertinent system information including corrective maintenance and existing PMand surveillance programs prior to starting the main analysis process steps.

Documentation or data required to support this analysis are:

System Description


20/128



2-4

System Drawings (P&IDs, electrical schematics, logic diagrams, etc.)

Component Listing (electronic)

Component Corrective Maintenance History (3-5 yrs. if available)

Existing Preventive Maintenance and Surveillance program (PM and PdM tasks,operator rounds, etc.)

Commitments/Requirements for existing PM/Surveillance tasks

Information not readily available from the above sources is obtained by interview ofknowledgeable plant people.

Identify Functional Failures

The identification of system functional failures is performed in the same manner as instandard RCM. This process varies from standard RCM by focusing the analysisresources on the 'important' functional failures. The analyst identifies all applicablefunctions for the system and then sorts the functions into two groups with appropriatejustification: (1) Important functions and (2) Non-important functions. The criteria fordetermining whether a function is important can be modified by the organizationperforming the analysis. Generally, any function that directly affects plant safety,environmental limits, or power production is considered important. Non-importantfunctions typically include such items as local indication or secondary systemfunctions. Components that support important functions will be evaluated in the

Critical Analysis module. The remaining system components that support non-important functions may still be analyzed in the Non-critical Analysis module.

One way to provide additional benefit in analysis effort is to limit identified functions toonly those that are important for plant operation and safety. This can be done by firstcharacterizing the functions in fairly general terms and only using resources to identify thefunctions that are important. This avoids wasting time identifying functions that are notgoing to be analyzed in the Critical Analysis module, while the remaining systemcomponents get analyzed through the Non-Critical Analysis module.

Critical Analysis

Following the standard RCM analysis methodology, the determination that a systemcomponent is 'critical' places heavy emphasis on the overall plant effect caused by aspecific failure mode of the component. However, in this streamlined process, only thefunctions that are identified as 'important' are evaluated with a streamlined FailureModes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to determine critical equipment. In this


21/128



2-5

streamlined process, the standard FMEA and LTA have been combined into onerecord. The following discusses the FMEA portion of the component record and theLTA process is described in the PM task recommendation section:

FMEA

In standard RCM analysis, the analyst typically has an individual FMEA record foreach dominant failure mode and the resultant local, system, and plant effects. Thisdocumentation provides direct linkage of the Functional Failure Analysis (FFA),specific component failure mode, and the local, system, and plant effects for eachseparate component-failure mode combination to determine component criticality.However, in the SRCM process, the analyst identifies every component that supportsthe functional failure and lists only the most significant failure modes for eachcomponent, along with the most dominant plant effects for the failure modes, all in onecomponent record. The analyst determines the component criticality based on the

various failure mode/plant effect combinations and the cumulative significance of thecomponents failure of the specific function.

If a component is determined to be critical, the next step is to identify appropriatecauses for the potential failure modes to allow the analyst to identify applicable andeffective maintenance tasks for the failure modes and causes that are consideredimportant to identify or eliminate. If a component is determined to be non-critical, it isevaluated further in the non-critical analysis. Task selection for critical components isdiscussed in detail later.

As with standard RCM, it is important and beneficial to receive engineering andoperations review and input into the critical evaluation of the systems components.

Non-Critical Analysis

The non-critical evaluation applies a different set of criteria which places moreemphasis on equipment level economic considerations for the components that weredetermined to be non-critical in the critical analysis or components that support non-important functions. These new criteria will evaluate the benefit of maintainingexisting PM tasks or identifying new PM tasks rather than allowing the component torun to failure to help provide a basis for a complete PM program. The criteria used forthe non-critical evaluation can be modified to meet plant specific requirements. If thecomponent does not meet any of the non-critical criteria, then the determination ismade to allow this component to run-to-failure and perform corrective maintenancewhen required. If there is a 'yes' response to one of the non-critical evaluation criteria,an appropriate PM task recommendation is made. The identification of appropriatePM task for non-critical equipment will be described in more detail below.


22/128



2-6

A Maintenance Engineer reviews of the non-critical evaluation are important to ensurea well documented evaluation. This should be performed in conjunction with thereview of the critical evaluation to maximize the efficiency of the process. Dependingupon the task developed for the non-critical evaluation, it may also be desired to havethe responsible Operations personnel available to provide input on some of the

maintenance related criteria in the non-critical evaluation.

PM Task Recommendations

Once a component has been determined to be critical, or non-critical but not allowed torun-to-failure, the next step is to recommend applicable and effective preventivemaintenance tasks based on the component's importance. Selecting the type of task tobe performed and the frequency of the task can be accomplished in several manners.

The approach will utilize preventive maintenance templates as much as possible (see

Section 4.2.3). SRCM projects use generic templates that combine EPRIs current in-house templates with capabilities and maintenance philosophies of the plant. Becausethe maintenance templates do not identify specific component failure modes or links toany specific plant effect, careful consideration must be exercised to ensure that theanalyst selects preventive maintenance tasks that will prevent specific dominant failuremodes and causes to ensure they are adequately addressed by the preventivemaintenance programs. These failure modes and causes can be incorporated fromspecific facility experience or generic industry experience on similar equipment.

For critical equipment, the analyst selects failure causes associated with the dominantfailure modes and effects that are desired to address through the preventivemaintenance program. The analyst then identifies the applicable and effectivepreventive maintenance tasks that are recommended to address the failure mode andcause combinations (failure mechanisms) of concern. A similar step is performed fornon-critical equipment that has been identified as requiring a PM task except no failurecauses need to be identified.

Another method available to determine the appropriate preventive maintenance tasksfor each component is the standard RCM Logic Tree Analysis (LTA). This method canalso be used for any component type that does not have a maintenance template.

Task Comparison

After the SRCM PM recommendations have been identified, the final step in the processis to reconcile these recommendations with the existing PM program. The existing PMprogram should consist of every task performed on a component that has the ability toidentify or prevent potential component failures and adverse effects (e.g. PreventiveMaintenance tasks, surveillance tasks, lubrication, condition monitoring, etc.). This


23/128



2-7

report becomes the basis for the actions required to implement the finalrecommendations after approval from the appropriate station personnel. Appendix Acontains an example of SRCM work products.

2.3 What Does It Take To Conduct SRCM?

Performance of SRCM on any plant system entails a coordinated effort between plantpersonnel and the analyst. The plant personnel involved include craft, engineering,operations personnel, as well as those directly responsible for the project (Core Team).In order to obtain the most thorough and accurate information about the system underanalysis, the analyst must solicit input from these various organizations. For this tohappen, the project lead/manager must coordinate schedules such that, for the mostfavorable impact on the project, the personnel most knowledgeable are available foranalysis reviews (Criticality, Task selection and Task Comparison) and Maintenanceinterviews. This can, at times, be a substantial investment of manpower into the SRCM

analysis, therefore, it is vital that the reviews and interviews be conducted efficiently,without sacrificing quality for speed.

Typically, the Core Team make-up consists of personnel from engineering, operations,planning and maintenance (including supervisors, foremen and craft personnel). Thesepersonnel are empowered to make decisions and implement changes in themaintenance program (change existing PM tasks, add new tasks, purchase PdMtechnology/equipment, etc.). The Core Team will also know which personnel areexpert on a particular system, and will ensure that these experts are available toparticipate in the analysis. Most often, the analyst will perform the analysis with

predetermined steps identified as review points. Usually, these points are theCriticality Analysis, Task Selection and Task Comparison. The reviews are usuallyconducted by the analyst with the Core Team and any other personnel as appropriate.Quite often, the Criticality Analysis is reviewed by the analyst with only arepresentative from Operations. This is acceptable, as Criticality is a functionaldetermination based on the effects of failure on the operation of the plant. However,the criticality review and determination should involve all members of the Core Team,as this will ensure that all members of the group understand the reasoning behind acomponents criticality. Task Selection and Task Comparison, however, require fullCore Team participation in the reviews.

As part of the Task Selection process, it is necessary for the analyst to conductinterviews with the system experts to identify problems, design deficiencies, ineffectivemaintenance tasks and practices, as well as suggestions for improvement of themaintenance performed. These experts are usually senior craft personnel or foremen/supervisors from the mechanical, electrical and instrumentation disciplines, operationsand engineering. The interviews are conducted individually or collectively, dependingon availability and the goal is to collect information to determine equipment


24/128



2-8

performance and make recommendations as to what maintenance should beperformed.

Table 2-1 lists the typical man-hour requirements for performing an SRCM systemanalysis.

Table 2-1SRCM Analysis Labor Requirements

ACTIVITY HOURS

Analyst Resource/Core Team

Data Collection 24 8

Critical Analysis and Task Selection 80 20

Non-Critical Evaluation and Task Selection 16 8

Analysis Reviews 16 16

Task Comparison and Review 24 12

Implementation -- 20-200 (1)

Totals 152 76-256 (1)

(1) The number of hours required for implementation is utility-specific and driven by a variety of factors,including the scope of changes to the PM program, purchase and installation of new PDM equipment,training in the use, upkeep and interpretation of PDM data, interface between the SRCM software and the

utilitys maintenance management software, etc. Some systems may require as little as 20 hours.


25/128



2-9

Table 2-2Typical SRCM Project Schedule

Note: 2 systems/per phase

The key to success for multi-system SRCM projects of this nature is to allow acontinuous flow of analysis and recommendations that can be reasonably implemented.The timeline below depicts the overall project schedule for a typical 10 system project.

The timeline above shows the process used to complete 2 systems per phase. Note thatphase 1 is longer due to OJT training. Also note this is a nominal timeline, the actualschedule for a specific phase may be shorter or longer depending on the system sizes,data collection, and availability of plant staff.

During each phase, the EPRI contractor conducts several meetings on-site. Typically,there are 3 one-week long meetings. The first is at the beginning of the phase to finishthe task comparison of the previous phase of systems and collect the data for the nextphase of systems. The second meeting is to review the FMEA portion of the analysis

along with potential task selection. The final meeting is to complete task selection andcomparison.

2.4 Training and Analysis Support

A Typical 10 system project provides detailed SRCM training at multiple levels. TheCore Team members receive extensive training. Others will have training


26/128



2-10

commensurate with their level of participation. Training for Core Team members isprovided at the plant and is performed in a workshop environment in which utilitypersonnel would obtain actual experience performing SRCM analyses on a simplifiedsystem. The workshop includes:

System function and functional failure determination

Equipment failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and criticality determination

Component task selection

Implementation

Living program development

Effect based analysis (criticality checklist)

This training is conducted over one (1) day and provides employees a firmunderstanding of RCM/SRCM concepts.

The primary training method used is on-the-job (OJT) training. Training is held duringsite visits for reviews and interviews of the system studies. This OJT will provide CoreTeam members required knowledge for implementing results and supporting theremaining phases of system studies.

To complement the training of core team members, it is important for plant staff tohave an understanding of the SRCM process. While at the plant site, EPRI provides a 1-2 hour training session to as many plant staff members as desired. The presentationmaterial are left with the utility to continue training by core team members for futureneeds.

The following minimal support options are available and are not intended asequivalent to full service support. Even though the PMO Workstation is free of chargeto Target 54(98)/(Target 75 in 99) members, EPRI requires a member to at least havethe minimal training.

1. Software provided without enhancements for immediate use (PMO Workstation,

Version 4.0) with one week of training consisting of 1 days on SRCM process, plus day on workstation, plus 1 day of facilitation, and 1 day of off-site paper reviewof final product. Note: if personnel to do system study received SRCM training viaEPRI SRCM workshop, then the option changes to 2 days of facilitation supportinstead of 1 day. It is intended that the plant actually perform and SRCM analysis(as time permits) on a unit system during the week of training.


27/128



2-11

2. Facilitation support consisting of 3 one-week hands-on training on-site at one plant.

3. Pilot project where utility personnel conduct 1 to 2 systems analysis in parallel withan ERIN analyst performing analysis on 1 to 2 different systems.

4. Pilot project where ERIN conducts 3-5 system studies with utility training.

5. Total unit project where ERIN conducts 10 system studies.

6. All plants/units analysis conducted by ERIN - cost subject to number ofunits/plants and similarity of units.


28/128


29/128


3-1

3

UTILITY PROJECT STATUS

3.1 Current Utility Project Participation

Over the past 3 years since the EPRI initiation of the SRCM program, numerous utilitieshave participated in the program. The participation ranges from attending an EPRIsponsored SRCM workshop to full plant analysis and implementation support. Thefollowing table lists the utilities that have started an SRCM program. Note some

utilities are working at multiple plants.

Utility Single or MultipleSites

Type of Participation Status

PG&E single analysis work finished

FPC single analysis & implementation finished

OG&E multiple analysis finished

PECO single analysis finished

PSE&G single analysis in progress

Union Electric single analysis finished

DECO multiple facilitation training finished

C&SW single facilitation & analysis finishedHL&P multiple analysis & implementation in progress

Penn Power single facilitation training finished

Georgia Power multiple facilitation training in progress

Mid-American single analysis finished

First Energy multiple analysis & facilitation finished

Associated Electric single facilitation finished

Hoosier Energy single facilitation finished

Salt River Project multiple analysis in progress

Kentucky Utilities single analysis in progress

New Century single facilitation finished

PS of New Mexico single analysis finished

PEPCO single facilitation in progressTucson Electric single analysis in progress

BG&E single facilitation in progress


30/128


Utility Project Status

3-2

Given the fact that the SRCM methodology was a proven process and the early projectsat FPC and PG&E validated that the process worked at a fossil plant, EPRI hascontinued the project for many reasons. The major focus at this time is to improve theprocess by developing more cost efficient tools and processes such as templates and theliving program module, gain useful experience data such as task selection informationand implementation practices and to further integrate the process into other focusessuch as predictive maintenance and maintenance management processes.

It should be pointed out that not all of these projects have been fully successful. Projectsuccess limitations, however, are mostly driven by either insufficient upper and mid-management level support including sustained, long-term support and a lack ofequipment and/or resources to fully utilize the results of the SRCM analysis. Thus, themore successful utilities are the ones who dedicate the necessary resources for not onlythe initial project results but also the living program and sustain management supportuntil the process and results become the way to do business.


31/128


4-1

4

DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT STATUS OFSRCM PROGRAM TOOLS

4.1 Overall SRCM Program

A SRCM program requires as previously mentioned, commitment by all levels ofmangement as well as dedicated resources. It also requires several infrastructureprocesses and programs to fully utilize and effectively achieve the maximum resultsfrom the program. Key maintenance management programs that should be in placeare: planning and scheduling; root cause failure analysis (RCFA); computerizedmaintenance management system (CMMS); operator rounds/logs; engineeringperformance testing; predictive maintenance (PdM); post maintenance testing (PMT);and condition monitoring (CM). All of these programs are required to some level ofimplementation to truly obtain maximum volume from the SRCM results. Integrationof the SRCM results in how the plant performs the work should happen to effect andmaintain the bases and decisions made during the initial SRCM analyses. Figure 4-1demonstrates how the various maintenance management processes could be organized

with SRCM program requirements including to the initial analyses and living program.


32/128


Description and Development Status of SRCM Program Tools

4-2

INTEGRATED MAINTENANCE WORK MANAGEMENT FLOW CHART

RCM ENGCondition

Data Analysis& Proactive

W/O generation

Data Inputs( s in Ops, PdM, etc.)

RCM ENGMaintenance

Program

Change Control

MonthlyOperatingStatistics

RCM Monthly Reports

SRCM Analyses

Perform PostMaintenance Test

RCM Condition Monitoring& Perf. Test Program

(Predictive Maintenance)W/O to RCM Engineer

File Reports

PM Program & Oil Samples

(Preventive Maintenance)CMMS Generates PM Work

Sheets (No W/Os) & AsFound/As Left Close Out With

PM Feedback Rating

RCM Scheduled Overhaulor NDE Inspection

(Proactive Maintenance)Planned CMMS Work Order.Record As Found/As Left

Operating Crew

Supervisor Generates & CloseOut CMMS W/O Document

As Found/As LeftInitiate RCA

RCM Engineer

Coordinate RCA Studies forimmediate issues

Admin. Staff DocumentsResults in CMMS

32498

Maintenance Planner

Close Out W/OEnter As Found/As Left Info

Schedule Post Maintenance Test

Maintenance

Planned, W/O Defines WorkDocument As Found/As Left

Assist RCA Process

Maintenance Planner

Plan and Schedule CMMSW/O Attach As Found/As LeftForm, Initiate RCA Process for

CM W/O

Do

R

RCM Surveillence Program

Data Logger InitiatesRounds and Records Data(No W/Os)

OperatorsLog BookOn Line DASand PIN DataTrends & Flags

Operating Crew

Performed RequiredCorrective Maintenance or

Generate W/O Request

C

IsWork


33/128



4-3

The intent of this discussion is to show an example model of how SRCM is to beintegrated into the daily processing of maintenance activities. Each box on the figurerequires certain data inputs and outputs, roles and responsibilities, procedures andactions. EPRI is working on several of these boxes and particularly relevant to SRCM,several tools, processes and databases are developed or in the process of beingdeveloped to assist in achieving maximum effectiveness. There are products thatsupport the initial SRCM analysis and implementation efforts, products for theupdating and maintenance of the living programs and initial databases for industrymaintenance practices. The following sections describe work to date and thedevelopment status of each product.

4.2 SRCM Process and Software Products

There have been three major areas of focus to date in improving and enhancing the

execution of performing an initial SRCM analysis on a plant system. The three areasare SRCM workstation, system templates and component type templates. An emergingfourth area is compiling industry data on maintenance practices. This area is focusedon providing a member with readily available information on industry practice ofapplying various maintenance strategies (i.e. task content and frequency) and taskinstruction data.

4.2.1 SRCM Workstation

The SRCM program at EPRI includes the use of ERINs PMO Workstation. Through a

cross license, EPRI has obtained a no-cost to member license for the installation and useof the PMO Workstation at a members plants.

PMO WORKSTATION DESCRIPTION

The Plant Maintenance Optimizer (PMO) Workstation Version 4.0 is an MS-Windowsrelational database management software package for the PC that uses ACCESS filestructures. The PMO Workstation provides an on-line data entry, storage, retrieval,and report generating capability. The principle PMO tools are: Functional FailureAnalysis (FFA), Criticality Analysis, Non-Critical Evaluation, Critical and Non-CriticalTask Selection, PM Task Comparison, and Implementation Tracking. Lookup files areused to store common information such as component descriptions, failure modes,failure causes and effects, and the current maintenance program for the system(s) beinganalyzed.

The PMO Workstation is designed to be used efficiently with simple manipulations of amouse, thus minimizing keystrokes. PMO has extensive built-in reports which may bemodified by the user through a separate report generation software package. Reports


34/128



4-4

are printed using standard MS-Windows fonts and may be viewed in their entiretyprior to printing through the PMO View Report window. In addition, reports may befiltered to isolate any portion of the database.

The PMO Workstation is completely self-contained and requires no additional database

software. To assist with setting up new system analyses, certain data files may beimported by the user by using flat files in ASCII comma-delimited format. This dataincludes System Component Lists, Current Maintenance Program data, and CorrectiveMaintenance History data, if desired. Additionally, many of the lookup files are pre-loaded with standard data based on the EPRI work to date for fossil generation. Thesefiles consist of codes and corresponding descriptions that are used to simplify the dataentry in many PMO modules. The lookup databases including Component Types,Failure Effects, Failure Causes, Task Bases, Recommended PM Tasks, and PMORecommendation Justifications were developed by ERIN Engineering to provide a setof commonly used choices for these fields and to provide a foundation for developing

plant-specific lookup databases for PMO Workstation users. NOTE: As with PMOWorkstation databases in general, the contents of any lookup files may be customizedby the user at any time.

The EPRI project related enhancements to the PMO Workstation are the system andcomponent type templates and the living program module. All software will be year2000 ready.

4.2.2 System Templates

The task for system templates involves the development and automation of SRCManalysis templates by system (e.g. boiler feedwater, circulating water, etc.) usingpreviously performed system studies for the bases. These system templates will bearranged by various types (e.g. circulating water - Type A is no redundant pumps,Type B - redundant pumps) allowing the user to select the type that most closelyreflects the users system. The generic system templates will be electronically availablethrough the PMO workstation and once selected, electronic guidance via analysischecklists/questionnaires, etc. will be used to guide the user in the conversion of thegeneric study to plant specific. Currently, there are generic system templates for 3systems analyzed with automated guidance. Additionally, as more systems areanalyzed via EPRIs SRCM program, the use and expansion of available system

templates can occur.

The three systems are listed below:

1. Electric Distribution

2. Service Water


35/128



4-5

3. Feedwater

Each system type consists of variations in system configuration. The types are bysystem and allow the user to select a system type closest to his to begin his ownanalysis. Once a type has been selected, the Workstation generates the appropriate

copy of the data to allow change for specific aspects of analysis. The workstationprompts the user to review the template for appropriate changes of minor configurationdifferences, operational and maintenance use/strategies, specific history differences,and equipment identification. Once the analyst has completed his review, a specificsystem study is ready for implementation. Appendix A contains an example of asystem template.

The following screens illustrate the system template software features. Figure 4-2shows the tool bar option of selecting system templates to initiate a system analysis.Figure 4-3 shows how to select a system to begin the process of converting the closesttemplate to an actual system study. Figure 4-4 illustrates how the software provideselectronic flowchart guidance for the conversion process. For each step of an SRCManalysis (i.e. FFA, criticality analysis, non-critical evaluation and task selection), theanalyst can review the template data and modify the data based on his actual systemthat is being analyzed.


36/128



4-6

Figure 4-2Screen- selecting system template option


37/128



4-7

Figure 4-3Screen- selecting a specific system template


38/128



4-8

Figure 4-4 Screen - Electronic flowchart and review options for system template modification


39/128



4-9

4.2.3 Component Type Templates

The second kind of template developed is the component type maintenance templates.These templates consist of maintenance strategies for various component types. These

templates are based on system studies previously analyzed via the SRCM program.The templates will be expanded as more information becomes available, particularly bymake and model or new component types. The templates are specific to fossil unitexperience and include component types unique to fossil such as pulverizers, fuelhandling, scrubbers, etc. The templates are automated and provide user customizationof templates based on user criteria such as technology capabilities and level ofconservatism desired in their maintenance program.

The workstation accommodates an unlimited number of component templates allowingexpansion. The templates support the task selection activity for critical and non-criticalequipment. The templates look similar to Figure 4-5 and the following is a list ofcurrently available component type templates. These templates are provided inAppendix B.

1. Relief Valves 17. Vertical Pumps

2. Heat Exchangers 18. Switchgear

3. AOVs 19. Compressors

4. Switches (various) 20. Fans

5. Electronic Controllers 21. Oil-Cooled Transformers

6. 480v Circuit Breakers 22. Coal Feeders

7. AC Motor 23. Igniters

8. Pulverizers 24. Car Dumper

9. Boiler 25. Scales

10. Sootblowers 26. Coal Belts

11. Relays (various) 27. Electrical Precipitator

12. SOVs 28. High Voltage Breakers

13. Check Valves 29. 480v Switchgear

14. Turbines 30. Instrument Loops

15. 120v Dist. Panels 31. Horizontal Pumps16. MOVs 32. Boiler Controls


40/128



4-10

Figure 4-5Screen - Maintenance Component Type Template

4.2.4 Industry Data

The PMO Workstation has built into it fields that will allow the development ofindustry data and general task instructions suitable for use in a CMMS. The industrydata will consist of a compilation by component type and task type the frequencies atwhich plants are performing these tasks. This data does not reflect the optimumfrequency necessarily between reliability and cost but provides some indication of what

the norm might be. To illustrate, assume that a plant is currently performing clean,inspect and lubricate tasks of their 480v motors at two years. The database in the PMOWorkstation will show the frequencies of the current data set is performing the sametask on similar equipment. This will be shown as below:


41/128



4-11

480v Motor Clean, Inspect and Lubricate

FREQUENCY

All 480v motors (500 motors total) 10% of population @ 1 yr, 60% @ 3 yrs, 30% @ 5 yrs

480v motors (ash system) (100 total) 40% @ 6 months, 20% @ 1 yr, 40% @ 2 yrs

480v motors (lube oil) (70 total) 50% @ 2 yrs, 50% @ 0 yrs

This illustration will show how the data can be used to potentially change thefrequency of 2 years in general application to 3 years. Granted there is no informationas to whether there is equivalent reliability (i.e. no impact between 2 years vs. 3 years)but at least the basis would be there to say that 60% of the population performs the taskat 3 years.

The level of detail for each component type/task combination will be contingent on theprojects (e.g. system studies) of the SRCM program. A separate initiative to developthis data further as well as reliability data could expand and enhance this source.

4.3 SRCM Implementation and Living Program

4.3.1 SRCM Implementation

The results from an SRCM analysis include the addition of new PM tasks or thedeletion, modification, or retention of existing tasks. For the tasks to be retained, noeffort is required for implementation other than ensuring the tasks are packaged andplanned appropriately. For new tasks, determining whether it is for a criticalcomponent or not and the type of PM task (e.g., condition monitoring, operator rounds,PdM, time-directed, or testing task) is necessary to understand the importance andeffort required for implementation. In fact, these recommendations tend to be the mosttime consuming, particularly when the recommendation is for a new PdM activity. Formodification or deletion of current tasks, the activity is merely updating the taskfrequency or deleting the task from the CMMS. Task information contained in theCMMS may include specific direction to the maintenance crafts on what maintenance

actions are required as well as what maintenance history information is needed.Emphasis is placed on what actions are required not on how to perform the actions.

Full implementation is achieved when an executable PM program is contained withinthe CMMS or other appropriate programs such as operator rounds, test procedures, etc.using the SRCM analyses as its bases. This will in-turn require updating the SRCM


42/128



4-12

analyses when changes of the maintenance program are required. The living programis designed to manage the change to the SRCM analyses.

The ongoing work under EPRI and utility funded SRCM projects providesrecommendations for continued maintenance program improvements. One such

improvement opportunity has been identified which allows a utility to ensure adequateand optimum implementation of the SRCM analysis. As part of the current SRCMprojects, EPRI is gathering the task instructions developed during the projects.

As mentioned earlier, the PMO Workstation will have a structure to hold a generic taskinstruction for each component type/task combination. Figure 4-6 below is an exampleof a generic implementation task instruction. These instructions will be linked to thework plan button of the component type templates shown in Figure 4-5.


43/128


Description and Develo

PUG M ILL DISCH CNVR

Recommendation: PERFORM CLEAN, INSPECT & LUBRICATE.

Sequence Ins truc tions Com bo rewCo tManH Materials MaterialsDe

10 Verify lockout/tagout MECH 20.00

20 Visually inspec t components MECH 0.00

30 Clean all com ponents MECH 0.00

40 Check belt scrapper for excess ive wear MECH 0.00

41 Check tip of sc rapper for excessive wear MECH 0.00

50 Check belt wear MECH 0.00 81-1947 Belt Conv. #3

51 Look for grooves, exposed cords, rips , holes, MECH 0.00

and exces sive wear

60 Check Troughing Idler MECH 0.00 80-8513 Troughing Idler

35 deg.

61 Check for cleanliness , lubrication, and rusty holes MECH 0.0070 Check Return Idlers MECH 0.00 80-11053 Return Idlers

80 Check for cleanliness , lubrication, and rusty holes MECH 0.00

90 Sound gear box ; Listen for grinding, c linking, and MECH 0.00

vibration s ounds

100 Make minor adjustments and repairs MECH 0.00

Figure 4-6Sample Implementation Template


44/128



4-14

4.4 Living Programs Process and Software

As shown in Figure 4-1, the SRCM analyses become the basis for the maintenanceprogram. Because this bases needs to be maintained to be current and reflect actual

practices and activities, a living program is needed that is integral to the workmanagement process.

EPRI has two products that can be used or customized to assist a utility in starting aliving program. The first is a procedure that provides guidance on updating the SRCManalyses given various data inputs such as CM and PM history, design and operationalchanges, industry experience, etc. The procedure also provides an exampleadministrative control and roles and responsibilities requirements. This example isbased on a single individual at a unit/plant that is authorized to update the SRCManalyses and ultimately authorizes changes to the maintenance program. Any plant

personnel can request a change but only this living program or RCM coordinator canactually make the changes. Forms are provided for requesting and documenting theprocess and decisions.

The second product is a living program (LP) module that is part of the PMOWorkstation. The LP module will provide electronic guidance and decision retentionfor updating the SRCM analysis. Guidance is provided for PM and CM history, newPdM technology application, design changes, industry experience, operating procedurechanges, equipment replacement and vendor recommendations. This electronicguidance steps the reviewer through a series of operations and directs them to theappropriate part of the analysis for update. Electronic request forms and tracking is

provided. Historical records of all requests and changes will be kept for futurereference.

The LP module is currently ready for beta testing. A test plan has been developed foruse by a participating utility. As part of the beta test, an interface with the specifictesters CMMS will be developed to allow efficient transport of available CMMS data.

The following screens show the software features of the living program module.Figure 4-7 shows the various data input options under the LP menu. Figure 4-8 is anexample of the electronic guidance provided in the software. Certain fields will be

loaded with CMMS data such as work order number, as-found/as-left data, etc. Eachmenu option in Figure 4-7 has this level of guidance specific to the data to be reviewed.Figure 4-9 is the PM Recommendation form that can be used to track a maintenanceprogram change from any requester either electronically or hard copy.


45/128



4-15

Figure 4-7

Screen - Living Program Options


46/128



4-16

Figure 4-8Screen - Living Program PM History Review


47/128



4-17

Figure 4-9Screen - Living Program PM Program Change Recommendation Form


48/128


49/128


5-1

5

SRCM PROGRAM BENEFITS

The benefits from applying SRCM at the various plants has included both qualitativeand quantitative benefits. Not all utilities track costs to perform an effectivequantitative analyses, thus there is a small set of information relative to quantifying thecost benefit, however, in all cases that have calculated cost benefit, a less than one yearpayback was seen.

The following provides some examples of where the savings have been calculated:

Florida Power Corp. - Crystal River Units 4 & 5 (11 systems applied to two units)Total Annual Savings: $343,962Estimated Payback on Investment: < 1 year

Mid American Energy - Council Bluffs (10 systems)Estimated Payback on Investment: < 1 year

Centerior - 11 units (135 systems)Estimated Payback on Investment: < 1 year

Qualitatively several areas are affected by the analysis. The analysis has providedinsights and direction for work management, design changes, operational philosophy,enhanced condition monitoring and other non-maintenance task activities. Thefollowing are examples from various projects:

Case Study 1

Plant - 2 Unit Coal Fired Power Plant

System - Fuel Handling (Pulverizers)

Component - Coal Pulverizers

Existing PM Program - 6 month overhaul, monthly lube oil analysis, quarterly vibrationmonitoring.


50/128


SRCM Program Benefits

5-2

RCM Recommendation - take advantage of current lube oil and vibration analysis todetermine component health. During next overhaul make the upgrade to the stronger,more expensive, wear components that were available from the vendor.

Results - using the existing condition monitoring/predictive maintenance tools, the

good operating history and the improved wear components that will be added, theoverhauls were extended from 6 months to annually.

Cost Savings - the total cost savings including the additional cost of the more expensivewear components was $50,000/year/unit.

Case Study 2

Union Electric - Rush Island Unit 1Boiler Draft and Pulverized Fuel Systems

For all of the large motors in both systems (and for all systems to be subsequentlyanalyzed), the time based intrusive motor overhauls will be phased out in favor ofelectrical diagnostic testing using various testing including motor current waveformsignature analysis and oil analysis.

For the Induced Draft Fan Lube Oil Skid, a recommendation was made andapproved to re-evaluate the control scheme. A re-design may be required to ensurea standby lube oil pump auto start, a low lube oil pressure fan trip and alarms.

Case Study 3

Mid American Energy Co. - Council Bluffs Energy Center Unit 3

Ten Systems

In the Boiler Steam and Water System, more frequent leak monitoring wasrecommended for high energy steam valves. Also, a program will be initiated forhigh energy traps.

In the Boiler Air and Gas System, a shift to condition monitoring with vibration and

lube oil analyses and NDE to extend frequency of overhauls and intrusiveinspections on the Fans and Motors has been recommended and approved.

A reliability problem with the Circulating Water Recycle Pump was identified andaddressed with performance testing and an evaluation into pump monitoringdesign changes.


51/128


SRCM Program Benefits

5-3

In the Fuel Handling System, an increased reliance on vibration monitoring andlube oil analysis has been recommended for the Conveyors, Crushes, and Feeders(and their motors and gearboxes), as well as simple tasks performed by the CoalHandlers to monitor equipment operation during daily walkdowns.

Increased condition monitoring will enable the plant to comfortably extend theMain Turbine overhaul to seven years. (Input was solicited from GE by CBEC onmonitoring techniques and diagnostics.)


52/128


53/128


A-1

A

SYSTEM TEMPLATE


54/128


System Template

A-2


55/128


System Template

A-3


56/128


System Template

A-4


57/128


System Template

A-5


58/128


System Template

A-6


59/128


System Template

A-7


60/128


System Template

A-8


61/128


System Template

A-9


62/128


System Template

A-10


63/128


System Template

A-11


64/128


System Template

A-12


65/128


System Template

A-13


66/128


System Template

A-14


67/128



68/128


System Template

A-16


69/128



70/128


System Template

A-18


71/128



72/128


System Template

A-20


73/128



74/128


System Template

A-22


75/128



76/128


System Template

A-24


77/128



78/128


System Template

A-26


79/128



80/128


System Template

A-28


81/128



82/128


System Template

A-30


83/128



84/128


System Template

A-32


85/128



86/128


87/128


B-1

B

COMPONENT TYPE TEMPLATES


88/128


Component Type Templates

B-2


89/128



90/128



B-4


91/128



92/128



B-6


93/128



94/128



B-8


95/128



96/128



B-10


97/128



98/128



B-12


99/128



100/128



B-14


101/128



102/128



B-16


103/128



104/128



B-18


105/128



106/128



B-20


107/128



108/128



B-22


109/128



110/128



B-24


111/128



112/128



B-26


113/128



114/128



B-28


115/128



116/128



B-30


117/128



118/128



B-32


119/128



120/128



B-34


121/128



122/128



B-36


123/128



124/128



B-38


125/128



126/128



B-40


127/128



128/128