Steam Trap Maintenance Program Improvements

1
Steam Trap Maintenance Program Improvements

• Chris HeckDuPont Facilities Services Real
  EstateWilmington, Delaware

2
Issue Overview

• Problem Statement To improve upon the numerous
  methods being utilized to manage and test steam
  traps. This inefficiency results in poor HVAC
  control, increased steam usage, failed equipment
  and pressurized condensate returns.
• Goal To manage to a 5 failure rate, equal to
  the industry average for a well managed steam
  trap program.
• Organizations involved Engineering,
  Maintenance, Energy Operations, Building tenants.
• Other pertinent facts Six Sigma Green Belt
  project originally initiated at our Experimental
  Station in late 2003 and then translated to three
  other Wilmington area locations in 2005.

3
Alternatives or Options Considered
The project used Six Sigma, a data-driven
methodology in which statistical problem-solving
tools are applied to determine solutions so it
was not as much a matter of developing options
as a matter of using the data to indicate the
correct revisions our processes.

• Agree problem to be solved or opportunity to be
  addressed

• Set the improvement target
• What data do we have today and how good is it?
• What more data do we need?

2
1
5

• Implement improvement plans
• Monitor to ensure benefits are locked in

• Gather The Voice of the Customer (VOC)
• Analyze the data
• Decide what is Critical to Quality (CTQ)

3
4

• Prioritize improvement opportunities
• Generate action plans for most important

4
Key Factors (Vital Few Xs)

• Use of a cause and effect diagram, followed by
  use of a QFD tool indicated the following were
  key factors in ensuring steam traps were
  functioning properly
• Technicians performing testing must have a good
  understanding of steam, condensate and piping
• Steam pressure and saturation temperature
  programmed into inspection instrument must be
  accurate
• All traps must be entered into program and tested
  when first identified in the field
• Data flow is critical must be received by
  accountable individual (team leader) and
  accurately programmed into TLV database
• All repair work must be promptly planned and
  scheduled

5
Cause and Effect Diagram (Fishbone)

• Trap in database
• Valid SOP for inspection route testing
• Trap entered and tested when first identified in
  the field
• Data received by team leader
• Data accurately entered into TLV database

• TLV Programming
• Adequate TLV TM5 training
• Saturation temperature for steam is accurate
• Route is organized

• People
• Limited churn in the workforce
• Adequate training
• Understanding of condensate, steam, and piping
• Familiarity with buildings

Mechanically functional trap

• Repair Process
• Valid SOP for repairs
• Work order backlog within guidelines
• Test reports are accurate
• Work planned and scheduled

• Tests Low Temp
• Piping is not in good condition
• Control devices are not demanding flow
• Heating coil is not programmed for 0 psig
• Incorrect percent of steam saturation temperature

• Tests Blocked
• TLV TM5 programming error
• Piping is not in good condition
• Control devices are not demanding flow
• Steam line is not active

6
Cause and Effect Diagram (Fishbone)

• Trap in database
• Valid SOP for inspection route testing
• Trap entered and tested when first identified in
  the field
• Data received by team leader
• Data accurately entered into TLV database

• TLV Programming
• Adequate TLV TM5 training
• Saturation temperature for steam is accurate
• Route is organized

• People
• Limited churn in the workforce
• Adequate training
• Understanding of condensate, steam, and piping
• Familiarity with buildings

Mechanically functional trap

• Repair Process
• Valid SOP for repairs
• Work order backlog within guidelines
• Test reports are accurate
• Work planned and scheduled

• Tests Low Temp
• Piping is not in good condition
• Control devices are not demanding flow
• Heating coil is not programmed for 0 psig
• Incorrect percent of steam saturation temperature

• Tests Blocked
• TLV TM5 programming error
• Piping is not in good condition
• Control devices are not demanding flow
• Steam line is not active

7
Implementation Process

• Improvement method
• Organize new inspection routes
• Re-name and tag all steam traps
• Create location maps
• Test the traps
• Resources required
• Facility Engineer
• Maintenance Planner/Database Manager
• Steam Trap Inspection Technicians
• TLV TM5 and TrapManager Software
• TLV training resources
• Timeline for implementation
• First project 4 months design, training and
  piloting and 2 months to implement
• Leveraged projects 2 months design and 5
  months to implement

All consistent with new Work Process Maps and
Control Plan
8
Lessons Learned

• Limiting churn and providing the right training
  to technicians is essential the old program
  developed a high defect rate through the constant
  change in personnel and the limited training.
• Routes must be developed, and traps must be
  active at the time of testing.
• Rigorous processes to capture the addition and
  removal of traps is required we uncovered 20
  undocumented traps.
• Good documentation of trap location within the
  database with corresponding CAD drawings
  permitted transition to outside provider for
  testing of traps.
• Ownership and accountability for the process is
  necessary this cannot be a tertiary duty for an
  individual.
• Hard savings for the first project were 115,000
  (net gross savings were 195,000) and the
  leverage project were 150,000 (net gross
  savings were 270,000). Expect net annual
  savings to increase over time.