Planned Maintenance Optimization project I facilitated at Siemens Power Operations $500 million San Lorenzo CCGT facility located in Batangas City, Philippines. The project consisted of executing a thorough operations and maintenance strategy review of the fuel gas system and plant air system. This was a great project with regards to our findings from the review … we discovered a safety critical component in the fuel-gas system that had been misidentified … failure of this component would have been catastrophic under emergency conditions … this was a bit frightening, considering the consequences (life threatening) that could have occurred had this not been discovered …
San Lorenzo CCGT Power Facility
The $500 million San Lorenzo CCGT facility is now generating 500MW electrical power. It is located in Batangas City, along the Batangas Bay, around 100km from the Philippine capital Manila. The plant is adjacent to the Santa Rita Project (same property). This strategic location allows it to share common facilities such as the tank farm and fuel jetty, thereby eliminating the need to duplicate various operational facilities. The power station uses a Siemens GUD.1S.3A model gas turbine, a steam turbine and a horizontal heat recovery boiler (HRSG) in each power generation unit. Two power generation units have a single-shaft configuration.
Fuel for both the 1,000MW Santa Rita and 500MW San Lorenzo power plant is supplied from the Shell Philippines Malampaya Deep Water Gas-to-Power project, which represents the largest and most significant industrial investment in the history of the Philippines. It heralds the birth of the country’s natural gas industry that will enable the supply of clean, environment-friendly fuel slated to provide 2,700 megawatts of power to Luzon for a period of 20 years starting January 2002. This meets 30% of the whole country’s power generation requirements …
Siemens Power Operations, Philippines comments on the Planned Maintenance Optimization project we conducted:
Adrian Traves, Technical Support Manager for Siemens Power Operations Inc / Philippines, maintains just how beneficial the Planned Maintenance Optimization (PMO) Workshop was to Siemens Power Operations, Philippines.
With regard to the PMO Workshop and PMO Training, on behalf of Siemens Power Operations, Philippines I would like to express my thanks to Steve, Mark Jones and Tony for all the hard work and effort put into the preparation and delivery of the PMO Workshop. The whole project was professionally done, and overall Siemens Power Operations, Philippines was very pleased with the PMO Workshop both in terms of content and delivery. It met all the expectations that we had, and moreover delivered some further benefits that we hadn’t anticipated. Equally important, those who attended (myself included) enjoyed it - something that is often underestimated, but which actually is the critical factor in whether the knowledge will be retained and used!
Siemens Power Operations, Philippines has benefited, and will continue benefit, from what I consider to four key elements of PMO:
The process is simple, systematic and above all practical. Rather than sweeping aside all of our operating and maintenance experience, the PMO process uses this as the foundation for an optimized program. Coupled with a focus on consequences (“what happens if it fails”) rather than components (“what is the standard way for maintaining this equipment”) this has enabled us to rapidly work through our systems to fill omissions, remove duplications, and target schedules at what are the true causes of costs or downtime.
As a result of the PMO process we occasionally discovered components that were not on any maintenance schedule, or interface components that were not being scheduled in accordance with the needs of both systems that they served. In one instance, we discovered a safety critical component in a fuel-gas system that had been misidentified during data entry to our maintenance program, and thus was listed only for breakdown maintenance rather than scheduled maintenance. Failure of this component would have been catastrophic under emergency conditions, and therefore I feel that this finding alone has justified the outlay for running the PMO Workshop.
Our employees have benefited greatly from working on systems in-depth as a part of a mixed team. As well as improving the general level of teamwork and inter-departmental co-ordination there has also been a noticeable increase in motivation to know and understand what the other departments do. Overall, implementing the PMO has brought a significant increase in cross-training and knowledge transfer.
The process of PMO is straightforward to implement: despite the newness of the concept and size of our groups, we were “running” with it and getting genuine and meaningful results within days. Moreover, it is easy to move people between groups (to accommodate shift patterns, vacation, training etc) and also to bring into an existing group new people who were previously unfamiliar with PMO.
Finally, as you know, Siemens Power Operations, Philippines has taken the concepts and processes of PMO and used them within our own operation and maintenance planning software (BFS++). While some may see this as a deviation from the “standard product”, the fact that PMO can still be applied, even if the “implementation software” is different, is, in my opinion, a major strength of PMO, and was a key reason why SPO chose PMO for the optimization of our maintenance. Given the results that can be attained with it, I expect to see many more power stations using PMO in the near future.
Planned Maintenance Optimization Defined:
The activity of defining and reviewing a maintenance program is one that is generally very poorly done. Not surprisingly, done properly, this process alone can be the most effective means of generating company profits through greater output from the same assets. It is a fact that no amount of clever planning and scheduling can account for a low value-adding maintenance program. In reality completing 100% of a poor program can drive a company backwards particularly if it contains the wrong type of maintenance.
The problems usually start in the design or acquisition phase where the definition or consideration of maintenance programs is poorly funded. Equipment is often delivered and commissioned without a formal maintenance program at all. In some cases one is provided, but it has been done in an inappropriate fashion and is worthless. During the following years of operation, the maintenance program develops. This often happens in an “ad hoc” manner and results in a program that lacks focus and is inefficient. Without some means of reviewing this situation, organisations can find themselves uncompetitive either because maintenance costs are too high, or the plant is unreliable.
The review of maintenance programs and failure history is an activity that most organisations undertake and no doubt have undertaken since formal maintenance was first performed. Some organisations do this continuously whilst others do so in large chunks as needs arise. Unfortunately, some organisations do not perform any reviews whatsoever. The problems of most attempts at review are that the review is done in an informal manner with little or no set procedure and an absence of useful decision logic.
Until now, the only accepted means of defining a maintenance program was to use RCM. However, there is now a realisation that RCM is a tool designed for use in the design phase of the equipment life cycle (Ref RCM II Moubray 1997 2nd edition page 19) and not for use where equipment is already in use. OMCS’s pmOPTIMISATION methodology (PMO2000™) is specifically designed for reviewing maintenance programs and failure history for equipment that is in use and has a formal or informal system of maintenance albeit misdirected. For this reason PMO2000™ is also very effective at defining the initial maintenance program for new equipment where similar equipment is in use somewhere.
Enjoy!
