Approved for Public Release;

Further Dissemination Unlimited

Approved for Public Release;

Further Dissemination Unlimited

By Janis D. Aardal at 3:20 pm, Mar 26, 2013

HNF-54670 Revision 0

Mission Support Alliance Maintenance Management Program

Date Published

March 2013

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy

By

Mission Support Alliance, LLC

This page intentionally left blank.

HNF-54670 REV 0

ES-1

MSA MAINTENANCE PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW

Background

The Hanford Mission Support Contractor (MSC), Mission Support Alliance, LLC (MSA), is under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (RL), to provide direct support to RL, the DOE, Office of River Protection (ORP), and their contractors with reliable cost-effective infrastructure and Site services integral and necessary to accomplish the Hanford Site environmental clean-up mission. The MSA Maintenance Management Program as depicted in Figure ES-1 focuses on the following:

• Operating and maintaining the Hanford infrastructure assets and Services in accordance with the Mission Support Contract, DE-AC06-09RL14728, Section C.2.2, “Site Infrastructure and Utilities”

• Meeting the present and future RL/ORP Mission Service Forecast with reliable cost-effective infrastructure and Site services integral and necessary to accomplish the Hanford Site environmental clean-up mission.

• Providing a Maintenance Management Program that can be adapted and applied across MSA Maintenance Activities.

• Complying with the requirements of DOE O 430.1B, Chg. 2, dated 4-25-11, Real

Property Asset Management, and CRD O 430.1b, Chg. 1 (Supplemental Rev. 1), by applying Availability, Reliability and Maintainability principles and practices to both Plant Upgrades and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Program Phases of Hanford Infrastructure Assets while addressing the following:

− Application of Reliability/Maintainability principles throughout SSC study, design, construction, installation, start up, and turnover phases of plant management

− Requirement for effective O&M Manuals

− Graded use of Vendor Information, O&M Manuals, and Pre-Start-up Maintenance Programs (PSMP) for systems, structures, and components (SSC) based on SSC complexity

− The application of a Reliability Centered Maintenance Program during the active SSC operation or use

− Incorporation of Safety, Health, and Environmental Compliance in keeping with ISMS and VPP principals as represented in each of the referenced Procedures documents throughout this document.

The following definitions, taken from Project Management, A System Approach to Planning,

Scheduling, and Controlling (Kerzner 2009), apply to these terms when used in the text in this program description:

• Operability. The degree to which a SSC can be operated safely

• Availability. The probability that the SSC, when used under given conditions, will perform satisfactorily when called upon

HNF-54670 REV 0

ES-2

• Reliability. The probability of the SSC performing without failure under given conditions and for a set period of time

• Maintainability. The ability of the SSC to be retained in or restored to a performance level when prescribed maintenance is performed.

Addressing requirements, comments/recommendations, findings, and corrective actions identified in the following documents:

• Occurrence Report Number: EM-RL—MSC-General -2011-011 R Report, Four Conduct

of Maintenance Issues

• MSA-11F-2011-0908, Conduct of Maintenance Common Cause Analysis Report, Revision 0, February 15, 2012

• ESRB 2012-011- Action 02 (Revision 3), Engineering Design & Maintenance

Requirements, February 21, 2013

• ESRB 2012-011, PSMP vs. O&M Manuals

• 2015/2020 Visions- Infrastructure End States Attribute- Maintain Reliable Systems

• Facility Condition Assessment Survey.

Mission Support Alliance Maintenance Management Summary

This MSA maintenance program description is intended to establish the maintenance management framework and processes applied by MSA using a graded approach to the maintenance of all Hanford assets as required in CRD O 430.1B, Chg.1, Rev. 1, and depicted in Figure ES-1. The program drivers and bases of operation are as follows:

• The CRD

• ISMS/Maintenance policies cited and described in MSC-CTR-00006, Site Infrastructure

and Utilities ISMS Charter, and MSC-8211, Rev.6, Implementation Table for 10 CFR

830.122 and ISMS crosswalk

• Maintenance procedures and personnel training programs as identified in this document

• The implementation of the program through the use of a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS).

The program principles are implemented through the various attributes used in both the plant improvements and plant O&M phases of the SSC life-cycle, as shown in Figure ES-1.

HNF-54670 REV 0

ES-3

F

igu

re E

S-1

. M

ainte

nan

ce M

anag

emen

t S

um

mar

y.

HNF-54670 REV 0

ES-4

This page intentionally left blank.

HNF-54670 REV 0

i

CONTENTS

1.0� PLANT IMPROVEMENTS ..............................................................................................1�1.1� STUDIES ...............................................................................................................1�1.2� DESIGN ................................................................................................................1�1.3� CONSTRUCTION/INSTALLATIONS ................................................................2�1.4� STARTUP/TURNOVER ......................................................................................2�

2.0� PLANT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................3�2.1� OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS .........................................3�

2.1.1� Availability Model ..................................................................................3�2.1.2� Reliability Model ....................................................................................4�

2.2� VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ..........................................................................4�2.3� CONDITION ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................6�2.4� MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS .............................................................................6�

2.4.1� Failure Mode Effect Analysis Used for Complex, Critical Equipment Items ...................................................................................10�

2.4.2� Lubrication Program .............................................................................10�2.4.3� Predictive Maintenance Applications ...................................................11�2.4.4� Preventive Maintenance ........................................................................12�2.4.5� Corrective Maintenance ........................................................................14�2.4.6� No Maintenance Required.....................................................................14�2.4.7� Redundant Systems ...............................................................................14�2.4.8� Deferred Maintenance ...........................................................................15�2.4.9� ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS, BUDGET, AND

COSTING DATA COMBINED TO GENERATE PRIORIZED BUDGETIZED LIST OF COMPONENTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR IMPROVEMENT ............................................16�

2.5� SPARE PARTS MANAGEMENT .....................................................................20�2.5.1� Spare Parts Availability.........................................................................20�2.5.2� Warehousing .........................................................................................20�2.5.3� Inventory Control ..................................................................................21�2.5.4� Procurement ..........................................................................................21�2.5.5� Insurance Spares....................................................................................21�

2.6� WORK CONTROL SYSTEM ............................................................................22�2.7� MAINTENANCE REPORTING AND METRICS ............................................23�

3.0� INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/MAINTENANCE POLICIES ........................................................................................................................27�

4.0� MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES AND PERSONAL TRAINING .............................28�

5.0� COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .............................30�5.1� EQUIPMENT MODULE ....................................................................................30�5.2� WORK ORDER MODULE ................................................................................30�5.3� SPARES INVENTORY MODULE ....................................................................31�5.4� PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE MODULE ....................................................31�

HNF-54670 REV 0

ii

5.5� PLANS MODULE ..............................................................................................31�5.6� LABOR MODULE .............................................................................................32�5.7� COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MODULE ........................................................32�

6.0� IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE WITH P6 OUTPUTS ............................................33�

7.0� REFERENCES ................................................................................................................37�

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A CRD 430.1B, CHG 1, SUPPLEMENTED REV. 1, CROSSWALK .................. A-i�

FIGURES

Figure 1. Vulnerability Determination Process. ............................................................................ 5�

Figure 2. Graded Approach to Maintenance for Systems, Structures, or Components ................. 7�

Figure 3. Water/Sewer Utilities Maintenance Work Flow. ......................................................... 24�

Figure 4. Electrical Utilities System Maintenance Work Flow. .................................................. 25�

Figure 5. Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility Maintenance Work Flow. .................. 26�

Figure 6. Primavera P6 Implementation Schedule. (3 sheets) .................................................... 34�

TABLES

Table 1. Functional Groups Target Availabilities.......................................................................... 3�

Table 2. Maintenance Activities. ................................................................................................... 8�

Table 3. Relative Ranking for Pair-Wise Comparisons. .............................................................. 18�

Table 4. Sample Comparison Matrix. .......................................................................................... 19�

Table 5. Criteria Weighting Summary. ........................................................................................ 19�

HNF-54670 REV 0

iii

TERMS

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process CACN cost account charge number CAS condition assessment survey CM corrective maintenance CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System DOE U.S. Department of Energy EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FDC functional design criteria FDR final design report FIMS Facilities Information Management System FMEA Failure Modes Effect Analysis IPL Integrated Priority List IRPPL Integrated Reliability Projects Priority List ISAP Infrastructure and Services Alignment Plan ISMS Integrated Safety Management System JCS Job Control System MCC motor control center MSA Mission Support Alliance, LLC MSC Mission Support Contractor O&M operation and maintenance OHC other Hanford contractors ORP U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection OSHA U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PM preventive maintenance PSMP pre-start-up maintenance program RL U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office SME subject matter expert SSC system, structure, and component VPP Voluntary Protection Program WU Water and Sewer Utilities WSCF Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility

HNF-54670 REV 0

iv

This page intentionally left blank.

HNF-54670 REV 0

1

1.0 PLANT IMPROVEMENTS

System, structure, and component (SSC) improvements may require studies, preliminary and detail designs, construction or installation, and start-up and turnover to Operations activities. The projects are defined in accordance with MSC-RD-14988, Project Management

Requirements, and MSC-GD-8005, Project Alignment Process. During the completion of these activities, Project Reviews are conducted in accordance with MSC-GD-8015, Project Reviews, and include a discussion on maintainability and operability which accomplish the following:

• Verify that the maintenance requirements identified in the preliminary engineering stage have been met

• Identify characteristics in the design that could increase operations or maintenance cost

• Verify that the spare parts needs are adequately addressed for startup and maintenance.

Also, project design or equipment modification or replacement will require submittal of at least a Pre Startup Maintenance Plan (PSMP) and/or Operation and Maintenance Manual (O&M) manual to optimize the life-cycle maintenance activities and reduce the overall maintenance effort and cost, while providing an effective reliability-centered maintenance program.

1.1 STUDIES

Studies on resolving needs for plant improvements will consider alternatives that account for impacts on maintainability in recommendations for SSCs. Maintenance Engineering’s support to these studies is of utmost importance because the amount of maintenance that will be required for the life of the equipment depends on the design. If the design offers excellent operability and maintainability, the costs to maintain the SSC will be as low as possible.

1.2 DESIGN

Designs (preliminary and detail) shall include Maintenance Engineering inputs and reviews throughout the design effort, including input into the selection of processes and equipment that support efficient and effective reliability-centered maintenance during operations.

The design process will begin identifying the maintenance requirement (design input) in the design requirements documents final design report (FDR)/functional design criteria (FDC) (design input) on a project-by-project basis. Mission Support Alliance, LLC (MSA), also will require the submittal of vendor information, O&M plans, spares lists, or a PSMP as required by current MSA procedure documents or in accordance with the graded plan outlined in the following Mission Support Contractor (MSC) procedures.

• MSC-RD-1819, MSC Engineering Requirements, stipulates that maintenance requirements are included as design outputs and recorded as a design document (e.g. drawings, specification, test/inspection plans, reports, calculations, studies, and vendor information). The referenced documents support or implement these requirements:

− MSC-PRO-20050, Engineering Configuration Management − MSC-PRO-20051, MSC Engineering Selection, Qualification, and Training

HNF-54670 REV 0

2

− MSC-PRO-20052, Design Authority Program

• MSC-PRO-8258, Functional Design Criteria, currently states that maintenance information is required for major equipment by submission of vendor information as described in MSC-PRO-16406, Engineering Vendor Information (VI) Process. The FDC outline includes entries for maintenance criteria for each major piece of equipment and defines the review cycle for maintenance and operation. The procedure is being updated to incorporate design inclusion of maintenance requirements at three levels of system modification: new systems, moderate modification, and component replacement. Upon request a PSMP for systems shall be prepared utilizing the Operations Testing Plan as a baseline.

• MSC-PRO-8336, Design Verification, Requires review for manufacturability, operability, and maintainability.

1.3 CONSTRUCTION/INSTALLATIONS

Input to and review of the Plant Upgrade Project regarding operation and maintenance activities will continue during the construction and installation phase to satisfy the requirements and recommendations of MSC-PRO-8336, MSC-GD-8015, MSC-RD-1819, and MSC-PRO-8258.

1.4 STARTUP/TURNOVER

During the startup/turnover phase, activities identified in the PSMP will be completed. As part of this effort, the O&M manuals will be field reviewed and as-required elements of the plans are tested as part of the OTP.

For the operations manual, the following shall be field verified:

• Start-up and shut-down procedures • Instructional pictorials • Parameters for proper process control • Conditions for and instruction for parameter adjustment • Safety issues and potential hazards.

For the maintenance manual the following shall be field verified:

• Spare parts list with schematics • Suggested spares for stock on hand • Lubrication specifications and frequencies • Fit clearance, if required • Assembly/disassembly drawings and instructions • Bolt torque patterns and limits • Failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) chart • Mounting instructions • Instrument calibrations procedures • Safety issues and potential hazards.

As a result of these reviews, findings, redline markups, and recommendations will be combined with other project documentation to be transferred at start-up or turnover to support both the SSC operation and future maintenance. MSC-PRO-8336, MSC-GD-8015, MSC-RD-1819, and MSC-PRO-8258 will be used during this phase. Engineering can continue to assist Maintenance by providing expertise for root cause failure analysis for the equipment during the O&M phase of the equipment life cycle.

HNF-54670 REV 0

3

2.0 PLANT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Once construction and/or installation are complete, the SSC will be turned over to the appropriate MSA O&M organization to perform its intended use and service in accordance with MSC-RD-10859, Maintenance Management. In addition, , the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), which establishes and applies weighted criteria to the prioritizing maintenance activities on SSCs, will be used for input into the O&M analysis, vulnerability analysis, and maintenance analysis during the Plant O&M SSC life-cycle phase. Maintenance costs, forecasts, and feedback are an integral part of this process. AHP is explained in detail in Section 2.4.9.

2.1 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS

O&M analysis will be focused on addressing the availability and reliability requirements for SSCs. Vender data, preventive maintenance (PM) and corrective maintenance history, and occurrences shall be recorded, maintained, and analyzed to determine the effectiveness, efficiency, and reliability of SSC operation. Based on this analysis and the activities described in the following paragraphs and Section 2.4, adjustments will be made to operating and maintenance procedures to achieve and maintain successful SSC availability and reliability.

2.1.1 Availability Model

Availability is a system’s capability to provide service with minimal interruption. Specific Hanford Site services such as water, sewer, electric, or information technology have their own acceptable availability levels, shown in Table 1, which generally are above the industry standard.

Two system attributes that greatly impact availability are redundancy and the application of an efficient and effective maintenance program. Some Hanford Site infrastructure systems have a high level of redundancy based on the Site’s nuclear operational history. Consequently, those particular systems display high availability without the benefit of an effective, efficient maintenance program. The availability of other Site systems may improve with the implementation of such a program.

Currently, each Functional Group determines its own target for Availability. Guidance criteria for this determination will be developed and documented for determining appropriate acceptable Availability goals for each Functional Group.

Table 1. Functional Groups Target Availabilities.

Functional Area Minimum Acceptable Availability (%)

Electric Utilities 99.9

Water & Sewer Utilities 99.5 (within 24 hours)

Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility 80.0 (on time)

Information Management – VoIP System, Network availability, Key Applications availability

99.0, 99.7, 99.7

VoIP = Voice over Internet Protocol.

HNF-54670 REV 0

4

2.1.2 Reliability Model

MSA will apply a reliability-centered maintenance program to the Hanford Site infrastructure system assets and services. The program takes into account each component’s operational requirements within the parent system. The relative importance of the components is prioritized based on regulatory and personnel safety requirements and the application of five weighted criteria by system managers and subject matter experts (SME).

System reliability depends upon the reliability of each of the individual equipment items that compose the system. The effective maintenance procedures for each item within the system will be selected by the structured process described in Section 2.4.

2.2 VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS

A “Vulnerability” is defined as an at-risk critical component serving a functionally important (primary) system for which no mitigation is in place. Vulnerabilities are dynamic and can change with SSC modifications, additions, failures, or repairs. This program applies an ongoing process that adjusts to changing conditions by regularly identifying vulnerabilities and mitigations. The evaluation process is summarized briefly in the following paragraph. The detailed vulnerability evaluation as of the issue date of this document showing the critical equipment and components, the recommended mitigations, the impacts if unmitigated, mitigation costs and schedules (when available) are presented in HNF-54656, Maintenance

Vulnerabilities – Electric Utilities, Water and Sewer Utilities and Waste Sampling and

Characterization Facility, as are the pertinent preliminary Primavera P61 mitigation schedules.

Water and Sewer Utilities (WU), Electrical Utilities (EU), and the Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility (WSCF) use similar methods to identify their vulnerable/at-risk equipment or components. The process begins by identifying the functionally important systems within the functional unit. The process then identifies critical equipment within those systems whose failure would render the system nonfunctional. Of the critical equipment or components, those with active mitigation strategies that substantially eliminate the risk of significant failure are removed from the lists. The remaining items are the components considered to be vulnerable or at risk. The flow diagram for this process is presented in Figure 1, Vulnerability Determination Process, of this document. References that can be used as guides in identifying at risk or critical items, systems, equipment, or components are AHP results, risk registers, occurrence reports, frequent corrective maintenance records, the Integrated Reliability Projects Priority List (IRPPL), and other system or component historical data, including PM histories.

1P6 is a trademark of Primavera Technologies, Inc., Redwood Shores, California.

HNF-54670 REV 0

5

Figure 1. Vulnerability Determination Process.

Once the data on these components and the systems within an organization have been identified, the following procedure is applied to identify vulnerable/at-risk items.

• Identify functionally important systems within the utility or organization. These are the systems that must be functional for the utility or organization to successfully fulfill its requirements.

• Develop a list of critical components whose failure would debilitate the functionally important system performance.

• Identify proposed or ongoing component mitigations (e.g., spare parts tracking, inventory, maintenance, replacement, redundancy) that eliminate the risk so that system performance can be recovered without significant loss of performance or customer support.

• Eliminate mitigated at-risk critical components from the critical components list, leaving a list of vulnerable items.

• For each vulnerable item, indicate utility, component identification number, location, description, impacted system, preferred mitigations with schedule and cost, system performance, and other Hanford contractor (OHC) impacts if unmitigated. This information is all summarized on the vulnerabilities/risks data sheet.

None of the identified vulnerable SSC falls into the “Facility” category because no facilities were evaluated as critical to a functionally important system in their current state. Vulnerabilities are

HNF-54670 REV 0

6

dynamic and must be evaluated and updated continuously as SSCs are added, modified, maintained, or taken out of service.

HNF-54656 presents a “snapshot” of vulnerabilities as of the date of this document for WU, EU, and the WSCF.

2.3 CONDITION ASSESSMENTS

CRD 430.1B, Chg. 1, requires condition assessments to be performed on SSCs on a 5-year cycle. Facility assessments are performed by the accepted the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) condition assessment survey (CAS) protocol, as detailed in MSC-PRO-35415, Real Property

Asset Management Maintenance, with results being reported to the Facilities Information Management System (FIMS). A similar protocol performed by the responsible Functional Groups applies to Infrastructure that falls into the category of structures, i.e. roads, reservoirs, piping systems. These structures shall be placed into FIMS. Procedures covering these assessments must be developed and documented by the Functional Groups.

At the system and component level, this program’s on-going maintenance activities will be used as the basis of the condition assessments on the appropriate SSCs. If the predictive technologies are applied as spelled out in previous sections, the real time information they produce will provide the condition assessment. Output from these assessments, whether the result of maintenance activities or CAS protocols, will act as input to the work control system. Each functional group will prepare a report annually showing the current condition assessment status of all SSCs along with a schedule for satisfying the requirements of CRD 430.1B, Chg. 1. Metrics on deferred, actual, and required maintenance on SSC will be provided to the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL), as required.

2.4 MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS

As part of its ongoing maintenance program, MSA applies the contractor maintenance requirements from DOE CRD 430.1B, Chg. 1, which state that “the Maintenance Strategy shall provide a logical and consistent process for periodic maintenance. The strategy shall demonstrate a graded approach that supports the most appropriate and cost-effective means to achieve overall maintenance objectives. The strategy is intended to identify essential equipment that may be overlooked or become degraded and, in other cases, identify resources that may be wasted on equipment no longer important.” Figure 2 illustrates MSA’s graded approach to maintenance and Table 2 describes the types of maintenance activities to be performed.

HNF-54670 REV 0

7

F

igu

re 2

. G

raded

Appro

ach t

o M

ainte

nan

ce f

or

Syst

ems,

Str

uct

ure

s, o

r C

om

ponen

ts (

per

CR

D-O

-430.1

b, C

hg. 1, R

ev. 1).

HNF-54670 REV 0

8

Table 2. Maintenance Activities.

Type of Activity Description

Lubrication Application of lubrication routes and proper training.

Predictive maintenance Monitoring of derivative equipment attributes that may indicate performance deficiencies (e.g., temperatures, vibration analysis, acoustic evaluation, oil analysis).

Preventive maintenance Planned and scheduled inspections used to gain equipment condition information.

Corrective maintenance Repair of deficient components or equipment.

No further maintenance required Asset is not of adequate significance to continue to support beyond failure.

MSA’s graded approach will be “based on requirements basis analysis, determining appropriate periodic maintenance methods, techniques, and parameters to establish a safe, effective, and efficient maintenance program.” The maintenance strategy for a SSC will be based on the following parameters:

• System Safety • Regulatory • Mission • Cost/risk.

With the application of this maintenance management approach to the Hanford Systems, there will be a shift from preventive maintenance to predictive maintenance, efficient lubrication routes, or no maintenance required as documented in the MSA 5-Year Maintenance Plan.

The MSA 5-year plan Maintenance will focus on several goals. These goals include maintaining or improving availability by instituting a reliability-centered maintenance program, controlling the use of material and financial resources by operating that program to optimize maintenance results, eliminate the current deferred maintenance over a maximum period of 5 years, reduce the rate of maintenance backlog generation, and reduce the occurrence and duration of vulnerabilities.

Currently, the MSA 5-year Maintenance Plan does not exist as a unified document. HNF-44238, Infrastructure and Services Alignment Plan (ISAP), and the DOE/RL-2012-29, Ten-Year Site

Plan, are two key instruments that will provide input for the plan. Also additional required activities are identified in the Vulnerabilities, IRPPL, and the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS), As part of the Integrated Priority List (IPL) cycle each year Functional Group will develop/or update a 5-year Maintenance Plan to meet the requirements of CRD O 430.1B Chg 1, including budget and cost analysis. In particular the program addresses identifying and scheduling required CASs, updating the FIMS, and managing and eliminating the recurrence of deferred maintenance backlogs.

HNF-54670 REV 0

9

The 5-year Maintenance plan will also address the following:

• Application of predictive techniques for rotating and electrical equipment along with the lube routes which will eliminate the need for PM tasks on rotating equipment and reduce electrical PM requirements to a minimum. These displaced PM tasks will be cancelled allowing the resources consumed by the PM tasks to be redirected to other tasks.

• Cancel any other unnecessary PM tasks. The few remaining PM tasks should cover the requirements brought about by regulatory mandates and special cases, such as emergency diesel generators. Reasonable application should prevail. (See MSC-PRO-19304, Periodic Maintenance Process.)

• Work packages carried in the backlog over 90 days will be considered for cancelation, if the work has not been completed in the 90-day period and the equipment is still functioning.

• Planned shutdowns for critical equipment maintenance, recapitalization of worn out components, and elimination of deferred maintenance.

In addition as part of the 5 year Maintenance Plan a 5-year rolling recapitalization plan based on condition assessments of critical SSC and its expected useful life until closure will be provided. This action provides a means to prioritize capital dollar requests and scheduling necessary lead times for assembling project planning documents. The process should include the following tasks:

• Develop a list of the equipment items that need to be rebuilt or replaced because they are worn out or so obsolete that replacement parts are not available.

• Estimate the associated costs for each item and provide the order of replacement according to the criticality of the system/item.

A long-range look at the needs of the MSA Infrastructure Systems will apply the available dollars in the most effective manner.

Currently as documented in MSA Procedures the Maintenance Analysis Process consists of the following elements which are described in the below paragraphs:

• FMEA • Lubrication Program • Predictive Maintenance Applications • Preventive Maintenance • Corrective maintenance procedures • Spare parts availability • No Maintenance Required • Redundant System Maintenance.

The process for choosing the best maintenance functions for a specific equipment item (e.g., a pump) is to assume it has been placed in a room by itself with no other complicating factors. Next, ask the following questions:

1. What maintenance functions will best perpetuate the life cycle of this item and at what

frequency?

HNF-54670 REV 0

10

2. How can the condition of this item, both interior and exterior, best be monitored over its

life cycle and at what frequency?

Select the answers to questions 1 and 2 from the following list in their respective order:

• Lubrication tasks • A predictive technique • Preventive tasks • Preventive tasks.

Once the functions are chosen, ask Question 3:

3. Has/have the most cost efficient choice/s been made?

Repeat this process for each equipment item. (See MSC-GD-16276 Periodic Maintenance and

Calibration Program Implementation Guide, and MSC-PRO-490, Calibration Management

Program.)

2.4.1 Failure Mode Effect Analysis Used for Complex,

Critical Equipment Items

If the item that was isolated is a complex, critical piece of equipment and its multiple failure modes are not obvious to an SME, a tool that can assist in simplifying the process is called FMEA. A FMEA chart is developed that lists all the possible modes that can cause an equipment item to fail. For each listed failure mode, the chart tells what tasks are required to restore functionality and what can be done to identify a potential failure or prevent a failure of the same nature from reoccurring. A procedure for applying FMEAs will be developed and documented as stated in Section 4.0.

2.4.2 Lubrication Program

To sustain the required reliability of a friction producing equipment item, lubrication is the first line of defense. MSA will establish a lubrication (lube) program that provides the lubrication specifications for each lube point on an individual equipment item, separates the lube tasks from the PM tasks and routes lube tasks for ease of scheduling.

As part of the MSA lube program the following information is determined for each lube point associated with an equipment item.

• Correct lubricant • Frequency of application • Correct amount of lubricant • Effective routing.

This information normally comes from a survey of the equipment requiring lubrication. The survey will determine the correct lubricant, frequency of application, and the amount of lubricant to use for each application.

Having identified the frequency, the lubricant to be used, and the amount, the next step is to establish the schedules that will be used to implement the program. Because most procedures are performed daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and semi-annually MSA will construct lube routes based on these frequencies. Secondary consideration in routing is the type of lubricant.

HNF-54670 REV 0

11

The route will be developed as a work package, using the PM module in Maximo. The work package could be titled “Lube Route #XX” and includes all the equipment items selected to form that route. One task line will be used for each piece of equipment by entering the equipment number, the number of lube points, the type of lubricant, and the amount to be applied. The equipment is to be listed in the sequence that it is to be serviced. The route is then developed so that servicing all the equipment items on the route is estimated to take 1 person 2 hours or less, making it easier to fit into a daily schedule.

To ensure that the proper frequencies are adhered to weeklies will be scheduled to be performed each Monday, monthlies on the first Tuesday of each month, quarterlies on the second Wednesday of January, April, July, and October, and semi-annuals on second Thursday in April and October. A procedure for applying lube routes will be developed and documented as stated in Section 4.0.

2.4.3 Predictive Maintenance Applications

Predictive maintenance is the use of nonintrusive diagnostics to monitor the condition of equipment items without disrupting normal operations. After the lubrication requirements are completed for a given equipment item, the next step is applying the proper predictive technology based on the equipment type, its criticality, and its failure modes. Predictive technologies include vibration analysis, infrared surveys, oil analysis, surge comparison, motor current analysis, and ultrasonic leak detection as described in Sections 2.4.3.1 through 2.4.3.4.

2.4.3.1 Vibration Analysis

MSA will expand a vibration analysis program for rotating equipment. This program requires special equipment and software and specifically developed skills to take the proper readings and analyze the associated spectrums using the software. Including all rotating equipment (e.g., restroom fans, metering pumps) in the Vibration Analysis Program is not cost effective, so MSA will use experience-based judgment in applying vibration analysis.

Vibrations Analysis routes will be determined and executed to set the baselines for each equipment item, take the data readings at an established frequency, analyze the spectrums using the appropriate software, and provide a report that identifies potential failures. The report will be sent to a designated person, in the maintenance department, who will write a corrective work order to initiate the proper repairs to alleviate the defect before it leads to a functional failure. A procedure for applying vibration analysis will be developed and documented as stated in Section 4.0.

2.4.3.2 Infrared Thermography

MSA will expand its infrared thermography surveys as a troubleshooting tool to monitor the integrity of all electrical connections. These surveys are currently performed on all high-voltage equipment, including transmission lines, substations, and distribution lines and respective associated equipment at frequencies that meet industry standards. The current program will be expanded to include all low-voltage (480V and less) switch gear and distribution equipment.

Establish survey routes composed of motor control centers (MCC), power panels, lighting panels, control panels, and any other items that have electrical termination points. Configure the routes such that travel time is minimized and each route can be completed in approximately 2 hours. Efficient performance of the route survey will require a camera operator and two

HNF-54670 REV 0

12

electricians, one to open enclosures and one to close them when the camera operator is finished. (See DOE-0359 Hanford Site Electrical Safety Program, Section 5.7.2, Exemptions, and DOE-0336, Hanford Site Lockout/Tagout, Appendix C, Section 1.6.) When pointed at the termination points in the panel, the camera will record any temperature differential from ambient as a “hot spot.” After completing a route, any hot spots identified will be noted, with their location, a photo, and estimated severity. The route report will consist of defects only and be provided to Maintenance (reliability engineer). A corrective work order will be written to initiate repairs at earliest convenience. An acceptable frequency for each survey route should be annually. A procedure for applying infrared thermography will be developed and documented as stated in Section 4.0.

An option to be considered is installing infrared windows in all electrical panels. Then an infrared camera operator alone could perform the route survey. The arc-flash issues identified in NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, are diminished. The specifications for all new or replacement switchgear are to include infrared windows.

2.4.3.3 Oil Analysis

MSA has an established oil analysis program for equipment items that have large-volume, circulating oil systems such as: turbines, generators, hydraulic systems, diesel/gas engines, gearboxes, and transformers. This analytical activity will be outsourced to a reputable laboratory which will supply sample containers, labels, and mailing cartons. Each sample will be analyzed for viscosity, acid and base numbers, effectiveness of oil additives, wear particles (metals), water content, specific gravity, and silicon level. A procedure for applying oil analysis will be developed and documented as stated in Section 4.0. The following should be included in the procedure: “If the cost of an oil change is less than twice the analysis cost per sample, do not include the equipment item in the oil analysis program. Exceptions might be transformers suspected of containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and diesel/gas engines driving standby generators where wear particle analysis is appropriate.”

2.4.3.4 Other Predictive Techniques

MSA will apply or expand a motor current analysis program to provide nonintrusive condition monitoring of the internal integrity of critical motors.

Also surge comparison will be used to provide condition analysis of the insulation on feeder cables and motor windings and is conducted annually.

In addition airborne ultrasonic detection will be used to identify leaks in air, steam, vacuum, and hazardous pressurized gas systems. MSA will conduct this activity using an ultrasonic detection instrument or outsource a survey of pressurized gas systems at least annually.

2.4.4 Preventive Maintenance

MSA will consider PM tasks and frequencies only after the lube specifications and routes and the application of the pertinent predictive techniques are established. PM tasks are necessary only if they add equipment condition information that could not be discerned from the predictive techniques applied. For examples, if the lubrication tasks are in place and vibration analysis is being performed on a piece of rotating equipment or infrared thermography and surge comparison are being performed to monitor electrical switchgear, panels, cables, and motor windings, this equipment would not require a PM program because no value is gained.

HNF-54670 REV 0

13

The time required to perform all PM tasks should consume less than 25 percent of the available craft hours.

PM lists will be purged annually to eliminate non-value-added PM tasks that are consuming valuable craft resources.

For preventive maintenance efforts to be efficient and effective, MSA will ensure that the following take place:

• PM tasks are planned and scheduled inspections.

• PM is used to gather data from meters and dials, including readouts, and measurements, that can be used in trending equipment condition.

• A PM program does not contain any corrective maintenance tasks (e.g., filter replacement). The PM task, in this case, would be to record the pressure drop across the filter.

• A PM task does not consume any spare parts; however, it can use consumable materials (e.g., rags, cleaning items, chart paper, tape).

• PM procedures are not written because a vendor says they should.

• PM procedures are not written because someone thought it was a good idea or wrote a paper stating they were required.

• PM procedures are written to comply with regulatory requirements such as the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

• PM procedures are written if they can contribute to the condition-based monitoring of equipment items.

• PM tasks on “worn out” equipment items serve no purpose.

Frequencies assigned to PM tasks will be continuously monitored and adjusted based on whether the PM is generating valuable information about the condition of a particular equipment item. If the PM provides pertinent information that assists in identifying potential defects, the frequency is correct. If the PM is not generating pertinent information, the frequency should be decreased (e.g., weekly to monthly, monthly to quarterly). Regulatory frequency requirements are fixed.

If a PM inspection on an equipment item continually reports no defects, yet the item experiences functional failures over a period of time, the PM tasks are incorrect or incomplete and need to be adjusted.

For scheduling PM MSA has developed surveillance routes. Because most PM procedures are performed daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and semi-annually, MSA will construct the surveillance routes based on these frequencies.

Also the routes will be developed as a work package using the PM module in Maximo. The work package will be titled “Surveillance Route #ZZ” and will list all the equipment items selected to form that route on the first task line. In cases where building components are being inspected (e.g., fire extinguishers, exit lights), list the building numbers/names on the first task line. In addition list the equipment items/buildings in the sequence in which they are to be serviced and list the tasks to be performed beginning on task line 2. The routes will be

HNF-54670 REV 0

14

developed so that 1 person can to service all the equipment items on the route in 2 hours. This makes it easier to fit into a daily schedule.

To ensure that the proper frequencies are adhered to, weeklies are scheduled to be performed each Monday, monthlies on the first Tuesday of each month, quarterlies on the second Wednesday of January, April, July, and October, and semi-annuals on second Thursday in April and October.

PMs written to calibrate instrument loops on a time-interval basis will also be addressed. If the instrument loop is performing its function and the process is within control limits, leave the loop alone. Instruments require recalibration/calibration when one of the following happens:

• Outage or process upset is caused by control problems • Reengineering/configuration of a system to which the loop belongs • Existing instrument components in the loop are replaced • New instrumentation is installed or • When required by Regulation.

A procedure for applying PMs will be developed and documented as stated in Section 4.0.

2.4.5 Corrective Maintenance

Corrective maintenance (CM) will be subjected to the same work management process as planned maintenance. The affected SSC will have been prioritized for planned maintenance and that prioritization score can be used to assign a relative priority to the required CM. Judgment of the Functional Group SMEs supplements the prioritization process, taking into account any imminent needs resulting from the SSC failure. Other Hanford contractor (OHC) impacts are a prime consideration. Once prioritized, the work management system protocols are used in validating, planning, scheduling, performing, costing, reporting, and evaluating the completed job.

2.4.6 No Maintenance Required

The Hanford Site has equipment components that perform a needed function, but the criticality of that function to the operation of the site process is low. These items require no maintenance and, when they fail, they are replaced in kind as the schedule allows. MSA will develop a list of these items and ensure that they have no impact to operations except their own replacement.

2.4.7 Redundant Systems

A redundant SSC is defined as an SSC that is capable of providing the same service as that of a Primary SSC. The existence of an active redundant SSC acts as a mitigation to the criticality of the primary SSC, which contributes to the sustained reliability of the overall system. The reliability of redundant systems and equipment items is improved if each redundant item is kept in sound condition by periodic operation. A system that is idled for a long period of time has a tendency to experience more difficulties at startup. The ability of the idle item to start immediately if the running item goes down is always in question until it starts. MSA will run each system periodically for a long enough duration to exercise its components. If the redundant systems are run at intermittent intervals, log the run time for each system and select a run time in hours at which to alternate the equipment use.

HNF-54670 REV 0

15

2.4.8 Deferred Maintenance

One of the key functions required of the MSA Maintenance Management Program relates to the management of deferred maintenance. This activity focuses on identifying necessary existing deferred maintenance, prioritizing it, and executing the MSA Maintenance Management Program to eliminate the current backlog in at most 5 years. At the same time, proper execution of the MSA Maintenance Management Program will include minimizing the growth of a new deferred maintenance backlog. Results of maintenance and SSC conditions will be reported as required to the FIMS data to keep current the item condition and status within that system.

Also the work that is intentionally deferred will be identified so that it can be flagged in the backlog and not be considered for the weekly schedule. Proper identification will require the following information:

• Work order/work package number • Criticality of associated equipment item • Short description of work scope • Craft hours estimated by craft • Reason work was deferred.

The identified work will be sorted according to the reason work was deferred. The reason for deferral may be classified into one or more of the following categories:

• Craft hours not available • Criticality of equipment is low (no maintenance required) • Demolition of equipment is short-term • Money to rebuild/replace is unavailable • Waiting on convenient shutdown time.

To eliminate deferred work the unnecessary portion will be identified and eliminated from the backlog.

Backlog is the amount of known work, in craft hours, to be performed in a given time period.

MSA definitions of the different backlog categories are as follows: Total backlog includes a rolling 12 months of lube routes, predictive assessments, and PM tasks, plus corrective and deferred maintenance. True backlog includes 2 weeks of lube routes, predictive assessments, and PM tasks, plus all corrective maintenance and any carryovers from the previous week’s schedule. The average true backlog will always be used to justify craft levels. For example, an average of 1,600 hours in true backlog divided by 80 hr/2wk justifies 20 Craft personnel.

Within the true backlog is a ready-to-work backlog, which means that all parts/materials required are on site and the work can be put on the weekly/daily schedule for implementation.

The total cost of the remaining backlog of deferred maintenance will be evaluated using the approved DOE CAIS system or approved equal and planned into the budget over the next 5 years. As possible, additional available funds can be used to accelerate completion of the work. The reduction of the backlog and actual deferred load would be approached in a way similar to the example described below. Multiple options may be available to reduce the deferrals:

HNF-54670 REV 0

16

Under certain circumstances using deferred maintenance may be acceptable. Examples would be when the demolition of the equipment is soon or when waiting on a convenient shutdown time to perform the work. All conditions should be part of the evaluation.

In addition a decision to defer a maintenance activity that impacts OHC operations must be made in an informed environment. Any maintenance deferral under consideration must be analyzed to determine possible impacts on customers (OHCs). If such an impact is anticipated, the Interface Management Plan objective of resolving the problem at the lowest level possible with the least impact should be implemented. This course requires early communication through proper channels, management and interface management, and active coordination with the customer to mitigate or eliminate the impact.

Similarly, any vulnerabilities that either are identified or develop within the system that may impact OHCs should be handled to mitigate the vulnerability while communicating its presence while it exists.

A procedure for deferred maintenance and backlog will be developed and documented as stated in Section 4.0.

2.4.8.1 Planned Outages/Shutdowns

Even with the system redundancies that exist at the Hanford Site, planned annual or biannual shutdowns may be necessary based on the system conditions and requirements. Situations will be considered on a case by case basis to determine when shutdowns may be required for necessary maintenance.

2.4.9 ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS,

BUDGET, AND COSTING DATA COMBINED

TO GENERATE PRIORIZED BUDGETIZED

LIST OF COMPONENTS FOR

MAINTENANCE OR IMPROVEMENT

This MSA Maintenance Program will be applied to SSCs across the Hanford Site. The program functions and outputs consist of the following:

• Graded system identification including prioritization • Component analysis for appropriate maintenance activities • Costed, graded, prioritized maintenance list • Maintenance list to MCCS • Application of budget constraints • Scheduling explanation • Feedback description • Explanation of iterative process.

MSA preventive and corrective maintenance are identified by the appropriate utilities group, but may be performed by the utility/functional group, the MSA Maintenance group, outside contractors, or some combination of these. Projecting the required budget for maintenance has been problematic.

To characterize its projected maintenance budgets, MSA is implementing this integrated maintenance system that enables it to prioritize system component maintenance and establish

HNF-54670 REV 0

17

costs for the activities. This system provides a means for projecting the cost of maintaining prioritized system components and comparing that cost to available funding. The comparison will enable MSA to identify the maintenance that must be deferred at given budget levels so they and their client can make appropriate adjustments.

Each discrete system is identified within the functional group or utility. The functional importance of the system is evaluated so that system SSC criticality can be assessed in the prioritization process.

Each SSC should be broken down to its most basic components, equipment, or items—those that require specific individual maintenance actions for continued reliable performance. These items should be uniquely labeled, recorded, and evaluated.

The prioritization system applies a combined, weighted-criteria evaluation of each system component to produce a relative prioritization total that is comparable to totals for all components. The list is then prioritized from highest (most important) to lowest (least important). Costs for all activities associated with maintenance of the items are entered and totaled. The totals for the prioritized items can then be evaluated cumulatively. A line can be set in the list, with maintenance items falling above the line being executed within a given budget.

Criteria for the evaluation process were developed from CRD O 430.1B, Chg 1. The criteria were weighted using the AHP, which is explained in the following paragraphs. The criteria are defined as follows:

• Regulatory (Screening)

− Reliance on the component results from application of regulation, law, or standard. − Reliance on the component impacts personnel safety.

• Component Criticality (Weighted). This criterion considers whether the component is required for serving a functionally important (primary) system, a redundant (secondary) system, or a nonessential system. This criterion also takes into account such things as whether the component is a single-source point of failure for its system.

• System Safety Impact (Weighted). This criterion considers the impact on equipment or system safety (not personnel safety) in the event of a component failure.

• Mission Support (Weighted). This criterion considers the impact on mission support of the failure of the component, which allows the SME to differentiate the relative importance of components to the support of mission objectives or tasks.

• Benefit/Cost (Weighted). This criterion considers the relative value of the benefit derived from avoiding the component failure as compared to the cost of performing maintenance.

• Management Emphasis (Weighted). This criterion takes into account the relative importance of nontechnical concerns or preferences presented by MSA management.

Ranking values are determined for each component. The values entered into the prioritization spread sheet under Regulatory criteria for each component are either 0 or 10, meaning that either the component fits into the Regulatory category (10) or it does not (0). The AHP method is used for developing the weights to be applied to each remaining criterion in calculating the prioritization total for each component that rated a 0 for the regulatory criteria. For the balance

HNF-54670 REV 0

18

of the prioritization totals, an AHP analysis is run. AHP involves SMEs performing pair-wise comparisons with each criterion being compared to each other criterion, where the relative importance of the criteria being compared is assigned based on the ranges listed in Table 3 with high numbers representing a positive evaluation.

Table 3. Relative Ranking for Pair-Wise Comparisons.

Level Value

High 7-9

Medium 4-6

Low 1-3

Non-Essential 0

The results of the comparisons are entered into a matrix using the following process. To perform the evaluations, each criterion in the first column is compared to the other criteria individually as they are listed in the subsequent columns. As the ranking process moves down the first column of the matrix, each row of comparisons is completed. As the comparisons are done, only the columns where the Column 1 criterion is favored should be rated. The reciprocal of that rating is later entered into the inverse matrix cell. As an example “Component Criticality” in the first column is compared to each of the other criteria in the balance of the columns:

• “Component Criticality” in Column 1 is judged equal to “Component Criticality” in Column 2, so a “1” is entered in that block.

• “Component Criticality” in Column 1 is favored over “Safety Impacts” in Column 3 by a medium rating of “6”, so a “6” is entered in that block.

• “Component Criticality” in Column 1 is favored over “Benefit/Cost” in Column 4 by a medium rating of “4”, so a “4” is entered in that block.

• “Component Criticality” in Column 1 is favored over “Mission Support” in Column 5 by a high rating of “7”, so a “7” is entered in that block.

• “Component Criticality” in Column 1 is favored over “Management Emphasis” in Column 6 by a high rating of “8”, so an “8” is entered in that block.

Comparisons in each row are completed similarly. The row that starts with “Mission Support” in column 1 is used as an additional example.

• “Mission Support” in Column 1 is judged less favorable than “Component Criticality” in Column 2. In this case, since the criteria in column 1 is judged less favorable, the reciprocal of the value in Row 2, Column 5 or ‘1/7” (0.14) is entered into this block.

• “Mission Support” in Column 1 is judged less favorable than “Safety Impact” in Column 3. In this case, since the criteria in column 1 is judged less favorable, the reciprocal of Row 3, Column 5 or ‘1/6” (0.17) is entered into this block.

• “Mission Support” in Column 1 is favored over “Benefit/Cost” in Column 4 by a low rating of “3”, so a “3” is entered in that block.

HNF-54670 REV 0

19

• “Mission Support” in Column 1 is judged equal to “Mission Support” in Column 5, so a “1” is entered in that block.

• “Mission Support” in Column 1 is favored over “Management Emphasis” in Column 6 by a medium rating of “4”, so a “4” is entered in that block.

The balance of the matrix is filled out according to this process. Table 4 shows the results.

Table 4. Sample Comparison Matrix.

Component

Criticality

Safety

Impact Benefit/Cost

Mission

Support

Management

Emphasis

Geometric

Mean

Normalized

Weight

Component

Criticality E 6.00 4.00 7.00 8.00 4.22 0.54

Safety

Impact 0.17 1.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 2.04 0.26

Benefit/Cost 0.25 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.05

Mission

Support 0.14 0.17 3.00 1.00 4.00 0.78 0.10

Management

Emphasis 0.13 0.14 3.00 0.25 1.00 0.42 0.05

AHP Data and Weighting Results. Once the comparison matrix is complete, the geometric mean is calculated for each criterion listed in Column 1 and a normalized weighting factor for the criterion is calculated. Results indicated that the criteria were weighted for individual component evaluations in accordance with Table 5.

Table 5. Criteria Weighting Summary.

Criteria Weight Factor

Component Criticality 0.54

Safety Impact 0.26

Benefit/Cost 0.05

Mission Support 0.10

Management Emphasis 0.05

Criteria Weighting Factors Summary. This means that 54 percent of the prioritization is based on component criticality, 26 percent is based on safety impact, 5 percent on Benefit/Cost, 10 percent on Mission Support, and 5 percent on Management Emphasis.

All components that were rated a 10 for the regulatory criteria are assigned an evaluation total of 10. All others components are then evaluated with values of 1 through 9 (9 being most important) for each criterion. The evaluation total for the component is calculated by multiplying each criterion rating by its weight factor and totaling results for that component.

HNF-54670 REV 0

20

The components can then be prioritized for maintenance by sorting based on component evaluation total from highest to lowest.

The complete analytical results for a Utility offer a tool to MSA to understand the priority rankings for maintenance on various system components and to see projected total costs for maintenance and to identify what can be accomplished for their budget.

IPL Integration. The results of AHP effort will be used to develop inputs for the MSA IPL planning and execution cycle. As part of these activities, MSA must gauge the maintenance metrics against the financial costs. During the execution of the IPL Maintenance cost account charge number (CACN), the agreed-on metrics and related costs will be monitored, reviewed, and reported on regularly as feedback for course adjustment within the Maintenance CACN.

The Maintenance cost and budget projections developed in conjunction with the MSA IPL process will be presented to RL.

2.5 SPARE PARTS MANAGEMENT

2.5.1 Spare Parts Availability

The availability of spare parts and consumable materials is a major contributor to the effectiveness of the MSA maintenance effort. The warehousing, inventory control, and procurement of these is key to MSA meeting its service commitments. A procedure for Spare Parts management will be developed and documented as stated in Section 4.0. The procedure shall incorporate appropriate guidance offered in MSC-GD-11124, Maintenance Resource

Allocation Guide.

2.5.2 Warehousing

Warehousing facilities include the physical aspects of the storerooms, the layout, the storage media, and the environment and are to meet the following expectations:

• There are controlled satellite storerooms or delivery systems, which ensure efficient accessibility to spares and materials near the point of use.

• The storeroom environment is conducive to parts protection and preservation (i.e., free from excess dust and humidity).

• Provisions are made for storing hazardous materials.

• Adequate space is available for receiving, staging, storing, issuing, and preparing parts and materials.

• The layout minimizes storage and retrieval labor.

• The storage medium is suitable and marked with aisle, bin, and shelf locations. Aisles are usually designated alphabetically (A, B, C). Bins are numbered (1, 2, 3) from some fixed point such as a wall. Shelves are numbered (1, 2, 3) from the floor upward.

• Materials handling equipment is readily available as needed.

• There is a safe, efficiently located receiving dock suitable for the type of materials received.

HNF-54670 REV 0

21

2.5.3 Inventory Control

Inventory control is achieved when the dollar value of the inventory is minimized while balancing with the level of support necessary for Maintenance to sustain the required equipment reliability. To achieve this, MSA has or will establish the following expectations:

• MSA procedures have been or will be developed to cover the following:

− Stock issue, reorder, and receipt − The reservation, kitting, staging, and delivery of parts for planned jobs − Return of unused materials to storerooms − Vendor returns − The handling of repairable spares − Vendor consignments and restocking arraignments − Vendor stocking off Site − Determination of which spares to stock − How maximum/minimum stock levels are set − New stock item initialization − Auditing inventory levels and obsolescence surveys.

• Computer search functions are or will be available to maintenance crafts, supervisors, planners, stores and procurement personnel.

• The inventory level of stock items will turn over at least once a year. Insurance and salvaged spares are not included.

• Requisitioning and inventory management are computerized.

• The inventory control system is or will be fully integrated with the work order and procurement systems.

A procedure for Inventory Control and Management will be developed and documented as stated in Section 4.0.

2.5.4 Procurement

MSA Procurement basically performs two functions for maintenance. One is to purchase stock items when the stock count in inventory drops below the minimum. The other is to direct buy items that are not stocked or are needed in an emergency.

As such lead times are important especially when direct buying; therefore, MSA insures the lead times for critical equipment spares have been identified and documents.

2.5.5 Insurance Spares

MSA Infrastructures Service has a small number of very expensive, highly critical equipment items. The specifications are so unique and/or the cost is so high that finding a replacement in stock at a local vendor’s warehouse is not probable. These replacement items are known as “insurance spares.” Normally a failure of any one of these items would constitute an emergency situation. Manufacturing lead times are probably long because demand is low.

Insurance spares will be handled two ways:

HNF-54670 REV 0

22

• Buy the spares and warehouse them on-site in the event they are needed.

• Develop a list of the required items along with their specifications and team with Procurement to locate a manufacturer, another government site, or an industrial plant with compliable items. Work out agreements to share these spares, the procedures to acquire each of the spares if/when the need arises and later replace them, and the logistics to transport the spares to the point of use.

The nature of the Hanford Site being in a closure mode provides the opportunity to utilize equipment items, components, and parts that are salvaged from the demolition of shutdown systems. These salvaged spares will be individually tagged with the following information: date removed from service, part name, equipment it is used on, manufacturer, and any other characteristics that might identify other possible uses (e.g., horsepower, voltage, revolutions per minute.

These spares will be cataloged and entered into the spare parts module of Maximo. They will be stored in any warehouse as long as they are segregated from new parts and are identified as “salvage” somewhere in the catalog description. Only spares that are operable will be cataloged and warehoused.

2.6 WORK CONTROL SYSTEM

Maintenance work requests come to the Work Control Center and are transformed into work orders through the validation process. A planner assembles a work package that goes into the backlog. Using a pre-established priority system, the scheduler selects the work packages from the ready-to-work backlog and places them on the weekly/daily schedule for execution. On completion of the work scope, the work order is closed and archived in the work history file. Data collected during all maintenance activities will be reviewed and analyzed at the end of each individual cycle. The analysis of the information will lead to either increased scheduled maintenance efforts and reduced corrective maintenance or decreased scheduled maintenance at no cost to reliability. (See MSC-PRO-12115, Work Management, for details.)

Currently MSA’s WU, EU, and WSCF functional groups use the following Maintenance Management Process, for planning and performing maintenance activities. The processes are depicted in Figure 5-7.

• WU maintenance work orders generally originate either from WU or the CMMS (Maximo) in the form of work packages. The work is planned and scheduled by the MSA Maintenance group and is performed by either the MSA Maintenance Group or WU staff, as shown in Figure 3. Larger projects may be passed to the Projects group for design and construction. Maintenance on specialized equipment may be outsourced. For example, back-up generators may be partly maintained by an independent source or interpreting vibration analysis is performed by an outside contractor.

• EU maintenance work orders generally originate either from EU or from the EU-maintained CMMS (Maximo). The work is planned, scheduled, and performed by EU staff because of the specialized nature of their systems and qualifications. Larger projects may be passed to the Projects group for design and construction. The EU flow is illustrated in Figure 4.

HNF-54670 REV 0

23

• WSCF maintenance work orders originate from either the WSCF staff or from MSA planners and schedulers assigned to WSCF full time. A separate CMMS system, Job Control System (JCS), is used to manage the work. The work is performed by MSA Maintenance Group Crafts personnel who are assigned to WSCF full time. Scheduled down time is used for performing some maintenance activities. A significant amount of the maintenance on laboratory instruments and critical facility equipment (e.g., elevators and chillers) is outsourced. Larger projects may be passed to the Projects group for design and construction. The WSCF flow is illustrated in Figure 5.

The overall results of the MSA Maintenance Management Program across the Hanford Site will be to improve system and component availability.

2.7 MAINTENANCE REPORTING AND METRICS

Maintenance reporting originates from data collected and stored in the CMMS and covers deferred maintenance, actual maintenance, and required maintenance. Data concerning performance metrics, work order costs, individual equipment item maintenance costs, rolled up system maintenance costs, mean time between failures, mean time to repair, and equipment failure history will be available for formatting reports and to provide trending capabilities to maintenance management. The following reports are currently available: CMs, PMs, Basis, and Backlog. As more representative metrics are developed and more modules are used for additional data collection, an expanded set of reports will be available.

Maintenance Metrics are developed and used to show how effectively a maintenance department is functioning and as inputs into the Computer Automated Surveillance System reporting system. Improved maintenance metrics will be developed and documented as stated in Section 4.0. Some metrics to be considered are:

• Systems/equipment availability should be > 98 percent.

• Rework should be < 2 percent. (Rework is the ratio of the hours of work required to redo a previous work order scope vs. total hours worked for the week.)

• Weekly schedule compliance should be > 90 percent. (Schedule compliance is the ratio of work orders completed as scheduled vs. total work orders scheduled on weekly schedule.)

Craft utilization should be > 50 percent. (Utilization is the craft workers’ time spent directly advancing the completion of a work scope.)The values illustrated above are typical for industrial operations. Actual target values will be developed by Functional Groups with program implementation.

HNF-54670 REV 0

24

F

igu

re 3

. W

ater

/Sew

er U

tili

ties

Mai

nte

nan

ce W

ork

Flo

w.

HNF-54670 REV 0

25

F

igu

re 4

. E

lect

rica

l U

tili

ties

Sys

tem

Mai

nte

nan

ce W

ork

Flo

w.

HNF-54670 REV 0

26

F

igu

re 5

. W

aste

Sam

pli

ng a

nd C

har

acte

riza

tion F

acil

ity M

ainte

nan

ce W

ork

Flo

w.

HNF-54670 REV 0

27

3.0 INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM/MAINTENANCE POLICIES

Maintenance policies are integrated with MSA Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) in that environment, safety, and health considerations are integrated into the Maintenance work planning and execution of all Maintenance work scopes. MSA ISMS and Maintenance objective to “Do Work Safely” ensure the protection of workers, the public, and the environment. The philosophy of adequately maintaining systems, structures, and components is in alignment with ISMS. Controlled and planned maintenance introduces fewer hazards to the operations and maintenance personnel as opposed to unplanned and reactive maintenance actions. The safety culture promoted by MSA ISMS and Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) covers all activities from identifying necessary maintenance, through work planning, execution, and reporting. Great emphasis is placed on identifying and mitigating hazards by all means possible from the planning stage though job completion. See MSC-CTR-00006 and MSC-8211 for more information.

HNF-54670 REV 0

28

4.0 MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES AND PERSONAL TRAINING

Maintenance procedures consist of all the work processes that define how the Maintenance Department conducts its day-to-day business. Each maintenance procedure describes the steps required to complete a specific work process. Combining these procedures with MSA technical, procedural, and safety training (ISMS-related training) ensures the process is executed safely and consistently. For more information, see MSC-CTR-00006, Site Infrastructure and Utilities,

MSC-8211, Implementation Table for 10 CFR 830.122 and ISMS Crosswalk, MSC-PRO-12115,

and MSC-GD-12116, Work Planning Guide.

MSC-PRO-12115 implements the work management requirements of the following documents:

• MSC-5173, MSC Radiological Control Manual • MSC-MP-599, Quality Assurance Program Description • MSC-RD-10859 • MSC-RD-14988 • MSC-RD-15332, Environmental Protection Requirements • MSC-PRO-066, Electrical Utilities Lock and Tag Program • MSC-PRO-079, Job Hazard Analysis • DOE-0336 • DOE-0343, Stop Work • DOE-0346, Hanford Site Fall Protection Program (HSFPP) • DOE-0359 • DOE-RL-92-36, Hanford Site Hoisting and Rigging Manual.

Additional links to related procedures are given in this document.

In addition procedures will either be modified or developed for the following subjects: the following subjects:

• Developing FMEA charts

• Developing and scheduling routes:

− Lubrication − PM − Surveillance − Vibration − Infrared

• Document control: Accessing, updating, protecting, controlling the document inventory

• Outsourcing special maintenance services (e.g., elevators, chillers, vibration analysis, and laboratory equipment)

• Identifying and sorting deferred maintenance work: Reason for deferring

• Spare parts inventories

− Stock issue, reorder, and receipt (See MSC-PRO-140, Utilizing General Supplies,

Spare Parts, and Convenience Storage Inventories) − Parts numbering system − The reservation, kitting, staging, and delivery of parts for planned jobs − Return of unused materials to storerooms (See MSC-PRO-140)

HNF-54670 REV 0

29

− Vendor returns − The handling of repairable spares − Vendor consignments and restocking arraignments − Vendor stocking off Site − Determination of which spares to stock − How max/min stock levels are set − New stock item initialization (See MSC-PRO-140) − Auditing inventory levels and obsolescence surveys (See MSC-PRO-140) − Insurance spares − Salvaged spares

• Use of Maximo

− Equipment hierarchy and numbering system − What is expected from each module

• Maintenance metrics: Define each metric and method of tracking

• Developing a rolling 5-year maintenance plan

• Work order process (See MSC-PRO-12115 and include Maximo requirements)

− Work flow − Work request − Opening work order − Developing work package − Closing work order.

Personnel training on the procedure is conducted in accordance with TPD-0036, MSA

Work Management.

Document Control. Readily accessible technical documentation contributes to the efficiency and quality of maintenance performance. MSA will establish a technical library to collect, inventory, and protect all important equipment documentation. The documentation in this library will include the following:

• Original equipment manufacturermanuals

• Startup, shutdown, and other operating procedures

• Spare parts list with schematic

• Process and instrumentation diagrams, schematics, layouts, assembly, and other drawings

• Hard copy maintenance procedures (e.g., work flow).

This Library should be composed of two sections. One section will house an original copy of all the documentation and is under lock and key as a “safe file.” The other section will have a duplicate copy of all the documentation and is used by maintenance personnel as a working file.

Develop and implement document control procedures that will maintain the integrity of both library sections. These procedures are site-specific and include how to access, update, protect, and control the document inventory. (See MSC-RD-210, Records Management Program, for more information.)

HNF-54670 REV 0

30

5.0 COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The current MSA Maximo system is capable of managing the maintenance function in all areas. The exception is the Fleet organization, which presently uses a fleet package (BFM) for maintaining rolling stock.

At present, Maximo’s capability is being used only to build work packages or manage maintenance data by some MSA Service Organizations. As required MSA will populate the following modules:

• Equipment • Work Order • Spares Inventory • Preventive Maintenance • Preventive Maintenance • Labor • Compliance Assurance • Any other available modules can be used as appropriate.

5.1 EQUIPMENT MODULE

Here the hierarchy will be established that allows maintenance costs to be rolled up by equipment item, system, area, or Site wide. To get the most from this module, its fields must be populated with the pertinent equipment data: equipment number, name, and location, vendor information, installation date, criticality, serial number, model number, purchase order number, and physical characteristics (e.g., horsepower, voltage, revolutions per minute, diameter, ratio, and size). Pay particular attention to the screen fields that allow you to sort.

A logical equipment numbering system is used so that equipment types and locations are obvious. For example, PU-3W-101 is a pump located in Area 3 West and sits on Pad 101.

5.2 WORK ORDER MODULE

To be considered for implementation, all work must be covered by a work order. The process starts with a work request, which can be entered by anyone. The work request will be transmitted to the Work Control Center where it is converted to a work order through the established validation process. If an estimate of craft hours or total costs is requested before validation, the work order is sent to Planning for the estimate then back to validation. Validated work orders go to Planning so that a work package (job plan) can be developed and the work can be scheduled for implementation. After the work scope has been implemented the work order will be identified as “completed” and, after all the costs associated with that particular work order are accumulated, the work order is closed out and relegated to the history file for future reference. MSC-PRO-12115, Rev. 8, has a good work flow.

The history file can be used to supply trending data for select equipment items, identify those equipment items with high maintenance costs, and provide information for root cause analysis.

HNF-54670 REV 0

31

5.3 Spares Inventory Module

Spare parts and materials consumed by the work order process will be controlled through the inventory module. Therefore all spare parts and materials used on Site need to be a unique part number and included in the inventory. This will allow for work order cost tracking. The inventory module functions best when the following information is available for each item in inventory:

• A brief description (noun, adjective, adjective format) • A locator (storeroom, aisle, bin, shelf) • The manufacturer’s part number (simplifies reordering) • Restocking vendor information • Individual item cost including freight/shipping • Maximum/minimum (reorder point is minimum less one) • Economic order quantity.

Average cost should be used for each inventory item which simplifies cost tracking. Storage in a controlled environment, near the point of use is most efficient; hence, the use of multiple storerooms is highly recommended. Direct-buy items are channeled through one of the storerooms and show a stocking maximum/minimum of 1/0, which negates the automatic reorder flags, yet allows the items to be tracked.

5.4 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE MODULE

This is basically a scheduling module and contains the following data items:

• PM tasks and frequencies

• Lube routes, tasks, and frequencies

• Any surveillance routes and frequencies that may have been developed

• Reminder flags that outsourced services, such as vibration, infrared, and special equipment maintenance are due to be scheduled.

5.5 PLANS MODULE

This module provides a place to store reusable data that planners can access at a later date when similar situations occur. This saves resource time by mitigating the need to reinvent the wheel. The following items are stored in this module:

• Job plans • Work packages • Safety plans (e.g., automated job hazard analyses (AJHA), lockout/tagout (LOTO)) • Instrument calibration procedures • Equipment startup and shutdown procedures • Any other repeatedly used documents.

HNF-54670 REV 0

32

5.6 LABOR MODULE

This module stores the labor rates by individual, by average per craft, or through a single rolled up average craft rate per hour that includes the maintenance overhead. The rolled-up rate is most often used for calculating work order costs.

5.7 COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MODULE

This module is used to track regulatory compliance activities and creates a clear, complete audit trail. Some examples of its uses are as follows:

• Material requirements • Craft hours by craft type • Special tools and equipment • Special work procedures • Regulatory requirements • Any special equipment preparations.

A weekly or daily schedule should be developed using 100 percent of the available craft hours for the week or day. The acceptable variation between the hours scheduled and the hours actually required is less than 20 percent.

Only ready-to-work jobs are scheduled meaning all materials/parts are on-site and the equipment is available. Work is scheduled by priority as follows:

• Priority 1 (emergency). Work must be done with all possible haste to prevent a possible life-threatening situation or injury to personnel or an immediate loss of equipment reliability

• Priority 2 (urgent). Work must be done to prevent disruption of equipment reliability or a hazard to personnel

• Priority 3 (essential). Work must be done in a timely manner to prevent potential loss of equipment reliability

• Priority 4 (routine). Work includes other approved work to be scheduled as backlog permits

• Priority 5 (shutdown). Work comprises turnaround or major rebuild work that is to be done at the next scheduled shutdown.

HNF-54670 REV 0

33

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE WITH P6 OUTPUTS

The following high-level schedules of Figure 6 are presented as a typical first estimate for the implementation of the MSA Maintenance Management Program for each Functional Group. Actual start dates will be determined based on budgetary limits. Individual input for detailed schedules will be obtained from and applied to EU, WU, Fleet, Fleet Maintenance, Roads and Grounds, Bio-Controls, Facilities, Warehousing, B Reactor, Crane and Rigging, Refrigeration Equipment Services, Information Technology, Fire Maintenance, Security Maintenance, the Volpentest HAMMER Training and Education Center, WSCF, Radiological Site Services, and Public Safety & Resource Protection. It is anticipated that final implementation durations for each group may vary from months to years, based on levels of effort and funding availability. Figure 6 represents the estimated average durations.

The projected average implementation duration for each Functional Group is estimated to be 1 year at an average cost of $100,000.00. It is anticipated that the implementation for all the groups will be spread over several years. The most likely total implementation period will cover from 2013 through 2016. The order of implementation for the Functional Groups will be determined based on cost benefit analyses, funds availability, and other criteria to be determined by management.

With the exception of the AHP prioritization process, most of the elements of this Maintenance Program are currently being used at some level. The Program will focus on gaining the best advantage in reliability as reflected by availability and cost by prioritizing the required maintenance and applying appropriate maintenance techniques to the prioritized SSC maintenance. This should optimize the system reliability efficiently and effectively.

HNF-54670 REV 0

34

F

igu

re 6

. P

rim

aver

a P

6 I

mple

men

tati

on S

ched

ule

. (

3 s

hee

ts)

HNF-54670 REV 0

35

F

igu

re 6

. P

rim

aver

a P

6 I

mple

men

tati

on S

ched

ule

. (

3 s

hee

ts)

HNF-54670 REV 0

36

F

igu

re 6

. P

rim

aver

a P

6 I

mple

men

tati

on S

ched

ule

. (

3 s

hee

ts)

HNF-54670 REV 0

37

7.0 REFERENCES

DE-AC06-09RL14728, 2008, Mission Support Contract, as amended, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE O 430.1B, 2003, Real Property and Asset Management, Change 1, Supplemented Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE O 430.1B, 2011, Real Property and Asset Management, Change 2, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

DOE-0336, 2008, Hanford Site Lockout/Tagout, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

DOE-0343, 2010, Stop Work, Rev. 2, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

DOE-0346, 2010, Hanford Site Fall Protection Program, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Richland, Washington.

DOE-0359, 2012, Hanford Site Electrical Safety Program (HSESP), Rev. 2, Reissue, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-92-36, 2012, Hanford Site Hoisting and Rigging Manual, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE/RL-2012-29, 2012, Hanford Ten-Year Site Plan, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

EM-RL—MSC General-2011-011R, 2011, Four Conduct of Maintenance Issues, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management and U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

ESRB 2012-011 - Action 02, 2013, Engineering Design & Maintenance Requirements, Rev. 3, PowerPoint Presentation, February 21, 2013, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland Washington.

ESRB 2012-011 – PSMP vs. O&M Manuals, PowerPoint Presentation, February 21, 2013, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland Washington.

HNF-44238, 2012, Infrastructure and Services Alignment Plan, Rev. 3, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

HNF-54656, 2013, Maintenance Vulnerabilities – Electric Utilities, Water and Sewer Utilities

and Waste Sampling and Characterization Facility, Rev. 0, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

Kerzner, Harold, PhD, 2009, Project Management, A System Approach to Planning, Scheduling,

and Controlling, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hohoken, New Jersey.

MSA-11F-2011-0908, 2012, Conduct of Maintenance Common Cause Analysis Report, Rev. 0, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-5173, 2012, MSC Radiological Control Manual, Rev. 6, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

HNF-54670 REV 0

38

MSC-8211, 2013, Implementation Table for 10 CFR 830.122 and ISMS Crosswalk, Rev. 6, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-CTR-00006, 2010, Site Infrastructure and Utilities ISMS Charter, Rev. 2, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-GD-8005, 2012, Project Alignment Process, Rev. 1, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-GD-8015, 2012, Project Reviews, Rev. 1, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-GD-11124, 2009, Maintenance Resource Allocation Guide, Rev. 0, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-GD-12116, 2012, Work Planning Guide, Rev. 5, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-GD-16276, 2012, Periodic Maintenance and Calibration Program Implementation Guide, Rev. 1, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-MP-599, 2013, Quality Assurance Program Description, Rev. 8, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-066, 2012, Electrical Utilities Lock and Tag Program, Rev. 2, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-079, 2012, Job Hazard Analysis, Rev. 8, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-140, 2010, Utilizing General Supplies, Spare Parts, and Convenience Storage

Inventories¸ Rev. 1, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-490, 2012, Calibration Management Program, Rev. 1, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-8258, 2010, Functional Design Criteria, Rev. 1, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-8336, 2010, Design Verification, Rev. 0, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-12115, 2012, Work Management, Rev. 8, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-16406, 2010, Engineering Vendor Information (VI) Process, Rev. 1, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-19304, 2012, Periodic Maintenance Process, Rev. 3, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-20050, 2013, MSC Engineering Configuration Management, Rev. 3, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-20051, 2012, Engineer Selection, Qualification, and Training, Rev. 4, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

HNF-54670 REV 0

39

MSC-PRO-20052, 2012, Design Authority Program, Rev. 3, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-PRO-35415, 2012, Real Property Asset Management Maintenance, Rev. 1, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-RD-210, 2010, Records Management Program, Rev. 1, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-RD-1819, 2012, MSC Engineering Requirements, Rev. 3, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-RD-10859, 2010, Maintenance Management, Rev. 0, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-RD-14988, 2010, Project Management Requirements, Rev. 1, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

MSC-RD-15332, 2013, Environmental Protection Requirements, Rev. 8, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

NFPA 70E, 2012, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts.

TPD-0036, 2013, MSA Work Management, Rev. 8, Mission Support Alliance, LLC, Richland, Washington.

HNF-54670 REV 0

A-i

APPENDIX A

CRD 430.1B, CHG 1, SUPPLEMENTED REV. 1,

CROSSWALK

HNF-54670 REV 0

A-ii

This page intentionally left blank.

HNF-54670 REV 0

A-1

APPENDIX A

CRD 430.1B, CHG 1, SUPPLEMENTED REV. 1,

CROSSWALK

Table A-1 is a compliance matrix that shows how the Program Description complies with the success criteria.

Table A-1. Compliance Matrix.

1.2.1.b - Program Description Success Criteria Crosswalk

Sections Pages Comments

1. Crosswalk with 430.1B

Annual reporting of deferred Maintenance

2.3, 2.4, 2.7

7, 9,16, 24

Annual reporting of actual Maintenance 2.3, 2.7 7, 24

Annual reporting of required Maintenance 2.7 24

2. Enhance Program to

align with the following

430.1 attributes

Safety

ES, 2.7, 3.0

ES-1, ES-2, ES-3, 25, 26, 27, 28

Health

ES, 2.7, 3.0

ES-1, ES-2, ES-3, 25, 26, 27, 28

Environmental Compliance

ES, 2.7, 3.0

ES-1, ES-2, ES-3, 25, 26, 27, 28

Cost Effectiveness

ES, 1.0, 1.1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.9,

ES-1, 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17,18, 20,

Availability Impacts 2.1.1 4

HNF-54670 REV 0

A-2

Table A-1. Compliance Matrix.

1.2.1.b - Program Description Success Criteria Crosswalk

Sections Pages Comments

Process Attributes 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0

1 – 3, 4 – 27, 28, 29 - 33

Property Preservation ES

ES-1, ES-2, ES-3

Reflect system Availability Impacts 2.11 4

3. Schedule and Outline 30%, 60%, and 90% completed.

4. Align with DOE O

430.1B, Chg. 1,

Subparagraph 5

Key Attributes Section 2

4 - 27

Graded Application 2.4.9

17-21

Management approach - staffing, labor, budgeting, parts, and equipment 2.4

7 - 21

Crosswalk with 430.1B Appendix A

High level implementation schedule 6 34

OHC Availability impacts 2.2, 2.4.5, 2.4.8

5, 15, 16, 17

Condition Assessment(CA) inventory ES, 2.3, 2.4

ES-2, 7, 10

Needed CAs - inventories over 5 year cycle 2.3, 2.4 7, 9

Work Control System 2.3, 2.6, 5.2

7, 23, 31

Deferred maintenance Management

2.3, 2.4, 2.4.8, 2.4.9, 2.7, 4.0

7, 10, 16,17, 18, 24, 29

HNF-54670 REV 0

A-3

Table A-1. Compliance Matrix.

1.2.1.b - Program Description Success Criteria Crosswalk

Sections Pages Comments

Maintenance prioritization

2.0, 2.1.2, 2.2, 2.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.8, 2.4.9, 5.7, 6.0

4, 5, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 33, 34

Budget and track Maintenance Expenditures 2.0, 2.4, 2.7

4, 9, 24

5-year maintenance, repair and funding for all maintenance including reduction in deferred maintenance 2.4, 2.4.8, 9, 16