NOTE: The sponsor of this content may contact you with more information on this topic. Click here to opt out of sharing your email address with this sponsor. (This link will not unsubscribe you from any other BIC email list).
When the first process safety regulation was promulgated 30 years ago, it was understandable that many mechanical integrity (MI) programs were developed as stand-alone systems.
In addition, with the asset reliability improvement efforts over the past 10 to 15 years, there was reluctance to include MI activities and systems in the asset reliability programs. However, with the release of ISO 55000 Asset Management Standards and the increased implementation of ISO 55000 programs, especially within international organizations, there is now an industry-wide movement toward holistic asset risk management. Combining MI and reliability programs address a broad spectrum of asset risks, including operational, environmental and regulatory risks.
Typically, organizations’ MI program efforts focus on compliance with regulatory requirements, while their reliability program efforts focus on equipment reliability and maintenance efficiency. With few exceptions, organizations do not often combine efforts for these two programs into a holistic asset management program. There likely have been several motivations for maintaining and viewing these programs separately, such as:
- Desire/concern of regulator actions relative to combined programs (e.g., regulator holding an organization accountable for reliability program activities)
- Seemingly competing objectives and goals of different organizational groups (e.g., MI group, reliability group)
- Potential understanding/viewpoint that regulatory and business performance requirements need to be managed differently
- Lack of understanding of potential efficiencies and benefits of combining these two programs
Combining MI and asset reliability programs provide a holistic asset management approach that:
- Addresses a broader spectrum of risks (potentially resulting from asset failures)
- Improves efficiency of MI and reliability programs
- Makes business and regulatory sense
Asset risks
The primary objective of both MI and reliability programs is to proactively perform asset maintenance activities to reduce the likelihood of asset failures. Specifically, process safety management (PSM) regulations require (1) the implementation and management of process maintenance activities that are designed to proactively prevent asset failures resulting in a catastrophic event, (2) proper management of deficient equipment (e.g., failed equipment) and (3) assurance equipment maintenance is properly performed. Similarly, reliability programs aim to (1) implement and manage maintenance activities to prevent equipment failures resulting in unnecessary downtime, as well as safety and environmental impacts, (2) manage the repair of failed equipment, and (3) increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the maintenance activities performed (including performed correctly the first time).
So, the overall objectives are nearly identical. One of the primary differences is the type and risk level addressed by these two programs. MI programs focus on managing high-consequence events impacting safety and the environment that thankfully occur at a lower frequency, while reliability programs focus on lower-consequence events (including economic events) which often happen at a higher frequency.
While some may argue that these programs are managing different risks and for some equipment failures this may be true, there is likely more commonality than often realized. For example, the high vibration of a tower reflux pump (discovered via the reliability vibration analysis program) may appear to be a reliability issue, but the unexpected failure of this pump could result in an over pressurization of the tower and activation of a safety system (which many would classify as a PSM near-miss). Likewise, many organizations do not consider a leak (loss of containment) in piping as a reliability issue. In reality, leaking equipment often results in downtime (or other production impacts); therefore, leaking equipment is unreliable equipment.
This concept of an asset management program that addresses a broad spectrum of risks is not new and is provided in BS ISO 55000 series, Asset Management. One of the initial efforts required by this ISO standard is to identify key stakeholders and then identify each group’s risk. An obvious application of this requirement would be to include all safety risks (process and occupational), environmental risks, economic risks, and other operational risks. This standard then outlines requirements for asset management programs that address all identified risks. Holistic asset management can begin by combining MI and reliability programs into a single framework.
Synergy between MI and reliability programs
Overall synergy relates to managing the risks associated with asset degradation and failures. There are also many synergies at the program design, implementation and execution levels of these two programs.
A key aspect of both programs is the implementation of management systems (the commonly used term in the process safety world) or business processes (the commonly used term in the reliability world). Per ISO 55000, these asset management systems define the overall asset management policies and objectives and the systems and processes needed (who, what and how) to implement the asset management policies and achieve the program objectives. ISO 55001 addresses the elements of an asset management program (the “what”) and ISO 55002 provides specifics regarding the “how” of the asset management program. Similarly, most holistic reliability programs include management related to core elements, such as work management, inventory management, equipment maintenance plans (e.g., predictive and preventive maintenance plans), and computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) implementation.
Likewise, process-safety regulators expect that organizations implement management systems (work processes) to manage the MI requirements, which include:
- MI program scope (i.e., process safety-critical equipment)
- Written instructions for process maintenance activities
- Training
- Inspection and testing program
- Equipment deficiency management
- Quality Assurance
So, what are the common attributes between ISO 55000, MI, and reliability program management systems? And how do you leverage and integrate activities from these three programs? An example would be an asset portfolio (ISO 55000), master asset list (reliability program) and mi covered equipment (MI program). Or similarly corrective actions (ISO 55000), work management (reliability program) and equipment deficiency management (MI program).
While the above examples illustrate the commonality between these three asset management systems, ISO 55000 provides comprehensive strategic guidance for asset management systems (primarily due to the broad applicability to the wide breadth of asset-intensive operations) versus the detailed tactical program activities needed for reliability and MI programs in the process industry sector.
While the strategic and conceptual similarities between reliability and MI programs are interesting, the important synergies are related to the tactical activities that influence the day-to-day implementation of these two programs. The realization of the synergies is aided by the application of the risk view discussed in the previous section – reliability focuses on low-medium consequence events often occurring at a higher frequency and integrity focuses on high-consequence events with a low frequency of occurrence.
To illustrate this concept, let’s consider a few examples of potential synergy between asset reliability and MI activities. Let’s start with reliability practices. For example, a process pump (in a hazardous chemical service) includes these common reliability activities: (1) operator rounds (visual inspection) and (2) vibration analysis. Both of these practices are also MI-related activities as they help to detect and prevent loss of containment events. Another example is instrumentation and control system reliability practices, such as periodic sensor calibration and functional checks. When these practices are applied to safety-critical instruments and controls (e.g., safety instrumented systems), MI requirements are incorporated.
A holistic approach to asset risk management: The benefits of combining mechanical integrity and reliability programs
Let’s now look at the synergy between MI activities and asset reliability. For example, let’s consider MI practices for fixed equipment; specifically, a shell-and-tube heat exchanger and pressure vessel. The common practices would include API-type inspections and testing such as visual inspection and pressure boundary thickness NDT. Obviously, heat exchanger and pressure vessel leaks (during operation) can result in unplanned downtime (a reliability impact). Also, these API inspections and tests help predict the end-of-life for these equipment items which allows for planning and proactive equipment replacement (which is a reliability issue). In addition, there are common reliability practices related to managing the heat exchange fluid (e.g., cooling water) condition and/or periodic cleaning of heat exchange surfaces. These activities can reduce the shell and tube thinning/degradation and therefore lower the probability of a process safety event (e.g., loss of containment).
Another key area with potential synergy between MI and reliability programs is asset data management. Both programs require compilation, verification and management of asset data to be effective and efficient. This data management effort involves developing a master asset list (MAL) and then populating this list with relevant asset-related data. MAL development typically involves (1) reviewing the P&IDs (to identify assets), (2) compiling asset information from engineering, maintenance, operational, etc. files and records, (3) performing field walk-downs to verify the asset list and collecting missing data, (4) establishing the MAL and data in the data management systems, and (5) organizing and associating the relevant data (e.g., drawings, OEM) in the data management systems. While the steps for developing the MAL list for MI and reliability purposes are similar, each program has slightly different data needs and sources based on equipment type.
In addition to the slightly different data needs for MI and reliability programs, two data management systems are typically needed to store the asset data and manage the programs. These two systems are (1) the computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) and (2) the inspection data management system (IDMS). While these two data management systems have many similar attributes, they are used for different purposes and operate differently.
The CMMS is a software application that helps maintenance organizations manage their maintenance activities in one place. The CMMS provides a platform to manage the data around your maintenance operation, including preventative, predictive, and reactive maintenance. Having accurate and complete asset data is crucial to building a CMMS as it forms the foundation as well as enables the capabilities of the CMMS, such as the ability of the CMMS to communicate with other software systems within the organization (e.g., IDMS). In addition to providing the foundational data, the CMMS system also serves as a repository for implementing, executing and improving maintenance work processes (work, asset lifecycle, MRO inventory, etc.), which drive the activities and dictate how maintenance is performed.
The IDMS is used to track and manage asset condition over time to determine future inspection and testing schedules. The software system uses equipment condition assessments (e.g., thickness data) to calculate rates of degradation (e.g., corrosion) to assess the expected remaining life of the asset before failure. Additionally, the IDMS can be used to calculate the current and future risk of assets in order to optimize inspection and test plans (e.g., risk-based Inspection [RBI]). These inspection and test plans (e.g., type of activity and due date) are sent to the CMMS for scheduling and execution planning. This transfer of information is either performed manually (e.g., plans are manually transferred from one system to another) or through a direct connection (e.g., information is automatically transferred). Additionally, when inspection and testing results are uploaded to the IDMS, recommendations that require corrective actions to resolve equipment deficiencies are sent to the CMMS via work order for execution/tracking, and then ideally the CMMS communicates back to the IDMS when the action is completed to satisfy regulatory recording requirements.
Benefits associated with combining MI and reliability programs
We discussed the bases for combining, and the potential synergies between, the MI and reliability programs. Now we’ll look at the motivation for combining these two programs – benefits.
Based on ABS Group’s experience, the organizations that have combined their MI and reliability programs typically realize both tangible and intangible benefits. The tangible benefits primarily relate to asset cost and program efficiency, such as:
- Reducing unplanned downtime – implementing both MI and reliability asset management plans and executing the plans as scheduled reduces both losses of containment and functional asset failures.
- Reducing planned downtime – both MI and reliability asset plans include the implementation of activities related to assessing asset condition (e.g., thickness monitoring [MI-related activity], vibration monitoring [reliability-related activity]). These types of activities, once implemented, reduce the need for intrusive activities - which require assets to be offline- and help predict capital/operational expenses associated with asset replacement.
- Program efficiencies – combining the programs reduces the level of effort needed to develop and maintain program operational activities such as asset lists, maintenance work instructions, asset management plan execution, asset deficiency process, etc. The use of different work processes, data systems, etc. to operate the MI and reliability programs results in duplicated efforts.
In terms of intangible benefits, there can be several organizational and cultural benefits, such as:
- Program confidence – a combined program offers the key organizational stakeholders (e.g., plant management, executive management) greater confidence that (1) regulatory compliance requirements are being met, (2) asset failure risks are being managed, and (3) complete asset conditions are known and being managed.
- Program view – creating a “single source” of the asset integrity and reliability provides program executors, plant management, and executive management with a single view of the asset management program.
- Improved program direction – combining the programs can reduce confusion within the organization (e.g., which system needs to be followed) and provides clear, unified expectations for the asset management program
The bottom line is that combining the MI and reliability programs can reduce the cost of asset maintenance and help reduce the perception that the MI program is only a cost. Also, the intangible benefits allow organizations to move from viewing the MI program as a burden and transitioning to the view that both MI and reliability programs make business sense.
Planning for synergy and success
Some organizations have already realized that MI and reliability programs can be combined and have completed (or are on the path to completing) this journey. However, many organizations may have kept these programs separate because they did not (1) see the synergy (and the potential benefits) and/or (2) understand how and where to combine these programs.
Learn more at abs-group.com.
