Implementing PAS 55 asset

management in 20 plants in Costa Rica

John Woodhouse, TWPL
Jose Antonio Conejo, ICE
Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE)
Fundado en 1949-Comprometida con el
desarrollo del país

Con cobertura nacional en los negocios:

Telecomunicaciones, Información y
Electricidad (verticalmente integrada)

Cuenta con 16,752 trabajadores

Generación con fuentes limpias

SEN 2,766 MW al 2012
 UEN Producción de Electricidad
Administra el mantenimiento y
la operación de 105 unidades en
26 plantas generadoras G GG

HH E
H
H
H
Valor de activos $ 2,875 millones H
H T
T H
T
T
Costo anual de T H TT
H
mantenimiento: $ 38. 4 H
H
millones Potencia Instalada (MW)
581
Capital Humano: 1350 ICE
personas 2056 OTROS

62% hidro, 30% térmico (diesel, bunker)

Sistema Integrado de Gestión 7% geotérmico, 1% eólico / solar
Certificado
Energía 2011 (GWh)
2455 ICE
OTROS
7256
• Founded 1995 by 8 senior managers from Shell, Philips, Defence, Atomic
Energy, Kvaerner Eng.
• Now 35 consultants/trainers, each with >20 years of 1st hand asset
management & operational experience
• Leading edge expertise in Asset Management, Operational Reliability &
Risk Management
– Project Managers for UK Government MACRO project (risk-based AM decisions)
– Project Managers for SALVO project (optimal management of aging assets)
– Chaired development of BSI PAS 55
– >10 years of MSc delivery in Asset Management
– Blue chip client list, in >25 countries & most sectors, almost all by word of mouth

• Experienced multi-industry, multi-cultural: helping organisations to

plan, prioritise & implement good asset management until it is self-
sustaining, normal behaviour

“TWPL provides the grey hair”

 What is ‘good’ asset management?

Good maintenance?

Maximum usage?

Good design?
 PAS 55 Standard
“Optimised management of physical assets”
1st published May 2004
Part 1: Requirements specification
Part 2: Implementation guidance
2006: IAM Maturity scale & Assessment
Method
2007: UK regulatory requirement
2008: Update
50 organisations
15 industry sectors
10 countries
1300 suggestions!
2009-12: Spanish, French, Chinese,
Russian, Portuguese versions
2011-4: basis for ISO 55000…
 Recent history in ICE
• 2005-2007: Audits showed very inconsistent management and
practices in maintenance across UEN PE
• 2008: First training in maintenance strategy (RCM+) for 80 engineers
in operation & maintenance, revealing big opportunities for
improvement
• 2008: Maintenance improvement scope realised to be part of bigger
asset management challenge, so scope established in PAS55
initiative.
• 2010: World-wide review for assistance in planning &
implementation:
1. TWPL selected for guidance, training, tools & facilitation
2. PAS55 asset management model introduced to all 7 business units
3. Field training started in 20 generation plants
4. Change management programme started in parallel
 Primary project structure

1. Diagnosis phase: gaps & existing strengths

2. Quantification (in $$/MW) & prioritisation of “improveability” areas

3. Roadmapping the implementation: 3 year maturity plan

4. Phased development & implementation:

a) Pilots & credibility building,
b) Change management: infectious enthusiasm & leadership
c) Management system integration & consolidation
d) Continual improvement processes & habits
 UEN PE (Generation): progressive integration
PAS 55 / GM+ GAP+
ISO 55000
Projects
Maintenance Operation
(Engineering)

UEN
Generation
x7 centres

Network
UEN UEN UEN
Projects
PYSA Transmission CENCE
(Engineering)

Distribution
companies
 First priorities of integration & improvement
IN+
Business
intelligence

Improve technical
and financial results
Integrated asset management from existing assets

GAP+
GM+ GO+
Maintenance Operations
 Objectives for GM+ workstream

1. Management system & processes:

• Build bottom-up processes, roles, procedures & manual in line with PAS 55
• Rollout and change management process to migrate to this system

2. Technical dimension:
• Training in risk-based maintenance concepts & methods (e.g. RCM, RCA etc)
• Invest in condition monitoring & diagnosis technology & skills

3. Business dimension:
Introduce tools (APT) & skills for business impact quantification, to make better
decisions based on total cost/risk/performance over asset life cycles:
• Critical spares
• Planned maintenance
• Engineering projects & modifications
• Asset replacements
 Element 1: Maintenance management processes
Align how we work & improve delivery efficiency

i.e. do things right

 Element 2: what maintenance to do

Seek improvements in what is done, why

1. Introduce targeted reliability & maintenance strategy reviews

– Integrated, multi-disciplined teams
– Criticality-targeting, using TWPL ‘mejorabilidad’ scope quantification
– i.e. do the right things,
Root cause analysis
– RCM+ for selecting improvement method
2. to the
Introduce asset right &assets
health monitoring early warning systems
– Online & periodic condition montoring programmes
 Element 3: quantify the business case
& optimal timing

Guided capture of tacit knowledge (quantification

of deterioration, performance, risk patterns)

Audit trail for

Uncertainty in costs & assumptions
failure consequences

Utilities to look up hard data, standard &

default rates, operational impact etc

APT-LIFESPAN © Decision Support Tools Ltd 2007-2011

 Demonstrate cost/risk impact
of alternative options

Consequences of delay
Premium ‘cost’ of
(e.g. urgency of renewal)
early intervention

APT-LIFESPAN © Decision Support Tools Ltd 2007-2011

 Element 4: Change management

Defrosting: soften the Mobilizing New Embedding and

status quo Practices Consolidation

1. Create a sense of 5 Train the generalized 8. Anchor new behaviours

urgency to improve actions of key players into organizational
processes & culture

2. Create a coalition of 6 Generate short-term

intent to improve successes 7.

3 Develop the vision and 7 Consolidate results to

strategy ‘pay’ for more change
(showing links to the
4. Communicating the new behaviours)
vision in relevant ways to
all parts of organisation
 After first 12 months…

 Progress ahead of plan

 212 days of training, involving 671 staff
 1300 mandays of technical studies
 >800 failure modes analysed (observed failures + anticipated risks)
 41 plant improvement projects evaluated
 108 critical spares evaluated

 Cultural change programme started

 Management system being rolled out
 Benefits achieved so far #1

Reliability & maintenance studies 7 plants

(RCA & RCM+) completed

 $ 5-figures repairs avoided

 341.5 horas/año downtime reduced
(= 23 GWHr/año additional generation available)
 $ 7-figures/año fuel & operating costs avoided
(compensation costs for failures avoided)
 Impact of reliability/maintenance review
NB >50% of improvements identified are not maintenance solutions
 Example 1 of solution identification

Current situation After RCM+ decision

Use of cheap fuses with poor connections caused 6 failures/year,

(MOIN 5, 6 y 7), with total impact of $516 .000/año,
equivalent to 11 GWHr/año of energy lost

Results: no failures in last 12 months

 Example 2 of solution selection

Before study After…

CP Garabito suffered 12 failures/year in sensors, cabling and regulators

with impact of $139.000/año and 576 MWh/año of generating losses.

Result: no failures since changing configuration & materials standard (at

start of 2012) to a marine (vibration-tolerant) specification
 Benefits achieved so far #2

108 41 Proposed
APT* Critical spares Projects
evaluated evaluated

$ 8-figures Risk reduction through increased spares availability

$ 7-figures Purchases avoided in spares not worth holding

• 27 ‘Approved’ projects demonstrated as genuinely worthwhile

• 11 ‘Approved’ projects demonstrated as not worthwhile
$ 7-8 figures Net benefits from the worthwile cases
$ 7 figures Savings from discontinuing the others (net of risk impact)

* www.decisionsupporttools.com
 Impact of critical spares review

Cantidad
Reducción Costo Beneficios Compra
CG Repuestos
Riesgo Evitada
Evaluados

MOIN 15 $ 1,135,448 $ 605,332

TORO 18 $ 1,258,176 $ 24,100

ARCOSA 17 $ 2,826,671 $0

RIOCAT 15 $ 4,000,362 $ 344,196

GEC 8 $ 1,055,302 $ 50,000

COSABA 35 $ 13,011,636 $ 1,800,000

TOTALES 108 $23,287,595 $2,823,628

 Spares evaluation result – example 1

Spare chillers
Proved that the proposed purchase of a spare unit,
costing US$500,000 is not justified by the risks

APT-SPARES
result

© Decision Support Tools Ltd

 Spares evaluation result – example 2

PCB cards evaluated Vendor recommends 7 cards (@ $93,000 each) to

be held as spares.
Optimum proved to be 2 spares worth holding

APT-SPARES
result

© Decision Support Tools Ltd

 Impact of project re-evaluations

Cantidad Cantidad Cantidad Cantidad

Beneficios de la Beneficios de la Valor proyectos
CG Proyectos Proyectos Proyectos Proyectos
decision min decision max rechazados
Evaluados Aprobados Rechazados Revisar

MOIN 10 7 3 0 $ 347,292.46 $ 5,954,242.88 $ 3,600,000.00

TORO 4 3 1 0 $ 253,905.77 $ 624,059.13 $ 24,500.00

ARCOSA 4 2 1 1 $ 999,937.70 $ 7,403,833.68 $ 2,500,000.00

RIOCAT 6 5 1 0 $ 376,199.05 $ 1,765,021.84 $ 100,000.00

GEC 7 3 4 0 $ 45,327.60 $ 72,017.00 $ 931,000.00

COSABA 10 7 1 2 $ 6,840,326.54 $ 22,944,956.78 $ 80,925.00

TOTALES 41 27 11 3 $ 8,862,989.12 $ 38,764,131.31 $ 7,236,425.00

 Example of project re-evaluation

Isolation gate To enable maintenance of Toro 1 hydro unit,

an isolation gate was proposed to enable
bypass without closing Toro 2 & 3 units

Canal de desvío
Compuertas y válvulas

APT-PROJECT screening results

Project must not cost >$42,000
Net benefits worth $200-760,000/year (NPV)
Payback period 3-26 months
 Observed changes in ICE
key performance indicators

Garabito Power Plant - measured results

CONFIABILIDAD POR PLANTA DISPONIBILIDAD POR PLANTA

100%
100%
90% 90%

80% 80%

70% 70%

60% 60%

50%
GM+ implementation 50%
GM+ implementation
40% 40%

30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
jun-11

jun-12
may-11

dic-11

may-12
abr-11

ago-11

oct-11

ene-12
feb-12

abr-12

ago-12
jul-11

mar-12

jul-12
nov-11
sep-11

abr-11

abr-12
jul-11
ago-11

oct-11

jul-12
ago-12
jun-11

nov-11

mar-12

jun-12
sep-11

may-12
may-11

dic-11
ene-12
feb-12
 “Intangible” effects reported

 Greater collaboration between operators and maintainers (in work teams to

eliminate failure sources and raise total performance).
 Increased awareness of both the total cost of what is done and the
cost/impact of not doing it. (i.e. business view, not just technical view)
 Participants’ pride in using their experience and knowledge to deliver
quantified $$ benefits and extra MW generating capacity
 Infectious interest to replicate/out-perform in other plants.
 Improved quality of life for the workforce (fewer emergency call-outs).
 Greater cooperation (line of sight) between management team and
engineering/technical staff
 Stages in roadmap: progressive integration

PAS 55 /
ISO 55000
Projects
Maintenance Operation
(Engineering)

GAP+
UEN
Generation
x7 centres

Network
UEN UEN UEN
Projects
PYSA Transmission CENCE
(Engineering)

Distribution
companies
 Next stages
Continued rollout, extending to whole life cycle & whole ICE portfolio:

 Management system: continued extension, implementation and change

management (3 year programme)
 LCC process and cross-disciplinary working (Design/Engineering,
Operations, Maintenance) for new assets - US$10Billion investments
planned
 Condition review of remaining technical life for critical equipment and
obsolescence risks (SALVO process*)
 Optimisation of upgrades & replacement timing decisions, based on life
cycle cost/risk/performance (APT-LIFESPAN*)
 Extend same asset management model to Transmission, Distribution &
Network Control business units, to optimise total portfolio

* www.SALVOproject.org
 Obrigado...

More information:
[email protected]
[email protected]