SolutionsJune2012H (2)

How Plant Reliability Affects a Lean

Implementation

4

Risk and Reliability of Transformers

8

The $25 Billion Profit Pot

14

The magazine by practitioners for practitioners.

June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3 www.smrp.org

Meeting Customer Needs Through Equipment Reliability

Meeting Customer Needs Through Equipment Reliability

Reliability and maintenance training for the manufacturing and process industry.

www.idcon.com 1-800-849-2041

We don’t sell engineering services, parts, tools, equipment or software...our independence translates into objective and credible advice and training.

Training

IDCON’s Best Practice Open Seminar Schedule for 2012Course Dates/Raleigh, NCMaintenance Planning and Scheduling / Reliability Based May 9-11, 2012 Spare Parts and Materials Management and November 12-14, 2012Preventive Maintenance / Essential Care and Condition Monitoring May 7-8, 2012 and September 10-11, 2012Root Cause Problem Elimination Training™ September 12-13, 2012 and November 15-16, 2012

For on-site training please call1-800-849-2041

ing pleas041

call

Features

4 How Plant Reliability Affects a Lean Implementation Discover the outcome of Lean implementation through a plant manager’s perspective at two different manufacturing plants. Owned by the same Fortune 500 corporation, the two facilities have surprising results. PAUL BORDERS, CMRP

8 Risk and Reliability of Transformers Learn how Alan Ross gains a unique perspective on transformer risk and reliability by joining a transformer maintenance company that has evolved its practices over a 45-year period. Explore the four categories of risk in this feature. ALAN ROSS

14 The $25 Billion Profit Pot Rod Ellsworth, vice president for global asset sustainability at Infor, looks at some of the biggest culprits of energy waste in manufacturing plants, and highlights the colossal opportunity to turn waste into profit. Energy is the single largest operating and maintenance expense, forming 60% of a typical manufacturer’s O&M budget. Research shows that up to 80% of this energy is wasted. This article will delve into the biggest culprits of energy. ROD ELLSWORTH

Departments2 OffIceRs And dIRecTORs

2 fROm THe cHAIR Did You Know? STAN MOORE, CMRP

19 BOK cORneR Adding Value to Membership through SMRP’s Library of Knowlege. BRUCE HAWKINS, BEST PRACTICES COMMITTEE CHAIR

20 memBeR sPOTLIgHT Meet Steve Carter, CMRP

21 fROm THe eXAm TeAm Improve Your Personal OEE. TERRy HARRIS, CMRP

22 memBeR cORneR

24 new! cHAPTeR ROund-uP

26 weLcOme new memBeRs SMRP welcomes new executive and individual members.

30 new cmRPs SMRPCO welcomes new certificants.

32 ceRTIfIcATIOn uPdATe CMRP & CMRT Paper Exams: Turnaround Time from SMRP

32 smRPcO susTAInIng sPOnsORs

SMRP Solutions ( ISN#1552-5082) is published bi-monthly by the Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals, exclusively for SMRP members. The annual subscription rate is $15 for members, which is included in dues. The Society was incorporated as an Illinois not-for profit corporation in 1992 for those in the maintenance profession to share practitioner experiences and network. The Society is dedicated to excellence in maintenance and reliability in all types of manufacturing and services organizations, and promotes maintenance excellence worldwide. SMRP’s Mission is to develop and promote leaders in Reliability and Physical Asset Management.

The products featured in SMRP Solutions are not endorsed by SMRP, and SMRP assumes no responsibility in connection with the purchase or use of such products. The opinions expressed in the articles contained in SMRP Solutions are not necessarily those of the editor or SMRP.

Back Issues: The current issue and back issues of SMRP Solutions can be downloaded from the library area of the SMRP Web site. Original versions of the current issue and some back issues of Solutions are available by contacting SMRP Headquarters ($5 per copy for members, $10 per copy for non-members).

SEND ADDRESS CHANGES AND INQUIRIES TO: SMRP Headquarters, 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30342, 800-950-7354, Fax: 404-252-0774 E-mail: [email protected].

June 2012 Volume 7, Issue 3

4

14

8

2 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3

FRoM the ChaiR

Did You Know?By stan moore, CmrP ChaIr of smrP 2011-2012

I thought it would be good to take this

opportunity to update you on some of the

inner workings of SMRP. A primer of sorts,

in a Q&A format. I trust that you, as a

member, will find this beneficial.

D id you know that you can make tax

deductible contributions to the SMRP

Foundation? It is a great way to support our

Foundation as we strive to drive education

in the reliability and maintenance profession. The SMRP consists of both a 501(c)

(3) Foundation and a 501(c)(6) Society. These are IRS designations pertaining to

organizations. In general terms, donations to a 501(c)(3) organization such as the

SMRP Foundation can be considered tax deductible. 501(c)(3) organizations can be

characterized as charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for

public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and

preventing cruelty to children or animals. Specific to our Foundation, the focus and

emphasis is on education in the reliability and maintenance profession. Our Body of

Knowledge is organized under the Foundation. Additionally, our scholarship program

is funded and supported by the Foundation. Our other major focus areas, including

the annual conference, certifications, and membership are organized under the Society.

Did you know that we award scholarships each year? In an effort to encourage

academic institutions and their students to consider careers in maintenance and

reliability, and to further encourage professionalism in the field, the SMRP will annu-

ally award various scholarship monies to selected individuals who have applied for

such funds and for which the SMRP Board of Directors acting through the Academic

Liaison Committee have deemed deserving. In addition to these awards, the SMRP

also offers another scholarship that will be granted to an individual student, enrolled

in an accredited college or university, regardless of his/her concentration. Historically,

applications for our scholarships have been relatively low, so I encourage you to visit the

SMRP Web site for additional information. The deadline for applicants is August 15,

2012. You can also find this information under the Education link on www.smrp.org.

Did you know that we are a volunteer organization? Our officers, directorates

and committee members are all volunteers with a passion to advance the reliability

and maintenance profession. We all have full-time jobs and employers that graciously

allow us to support SMRP and the advancement of our profession. It is rewarding to

see that many companies continue to see the benefits of the SMRP and the return

on investment. We are also supported by a great team from Kellen, our management

company, and Howe & Hutton, our legal counsel. Our Board is comprised of a

balanced mix of both service providers and end-users, all with their CMRP. Want to

get involved? Get plugged into a committee or volunteer to work as a track leader at

our annual conference. It is professionally and personally rewarding and I encourage

you to get involved.

Did you know that our fiscal year is July to June? Three years ago when we

reorganized into the Foundation and Society, we moved our fiscal year to start in

July rather than in January. We chose to do this to better balance our revenue and

expenses within the fiscal year.

2012 SMRP officers & Directors

ChairStan Moore, CMRP

Ascend Materials

[email protected]

256-552-2173

immediate Past Chair,

advisory CommitteeRick Baldridge, CMRP

Cargill, Inc.

[email protected]

952-984-6356

Vice ChairShon Isenhour, CMRP

GP Allied, Inc.

[email protected]

843-810-4446

treasurerNick Roberts, CMRP

DuPont

[email protected]

251-753-2922

SecretaryCraig Seibold, CMRP

Johns Manville

[email protected]

303-978-2641

Certification & Standards DirectorGreg Yeager, CMRP

Cargill, Inc.

[email protected]

952-984-2850

Body of Knowledge DirectorRon Leonard, CMRP, PE

Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.

[email protected]

843-744-7110

education DirectorButch DiMezzo, CMRP

Management Resources Group, Inc.

[email protected]

704-995-2262

Member Services DirectorEdward Foster, CMRP

The Mundy Companies

[email protected]

281-530-8711

outreach DirectorHoward Penrose, CMRP

Dreisilker Electrical Motors

[email protected]

630-469-7510

3 SMRP SolutionSJune 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3

Did you know that this is our 20th anniversary? SMRP had

its start in 1992 as a group of industry professionals looking

for a way to advance the reliability and maintenance profession

across corporate boundaries for the benefit of all. The Society

for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals (SMRP) came to

be as a result of discussions between senior officers of HSB

Reliability Technologies and Applied Technology Publications,

the publisher of MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGY, which took

place near the end of 1991 and into early 1992. The two found-

ing companies invited a number of their clients and associates

to attend a meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Chicago to

discuss the need for an association that would be directed to

maintenance and reliability personnel. We are looking forward

to our annual conference this year, celebrating 20 years of

professional growth and development in the maintenance and

reliability profession.

Did you know that we are seeing renewed interest in our

Special Interest Groups or SIGs? SIGs are groups with a very

defined focus of interest. Where a Chapter will have members

from many industry sectors and interests, a SIG is more nar-

rowly focused within an industry sector or interest. Our first

SIG, Petrochemicals, Oil and Gas, is seeing renewed interest. We

recently launched the Pharma and Biotech SIG and, even more

recently, the Reliability Analytics of SIG. These are just a few of

the ways that SMRP is working with membership to bring value

and a forum for information exchange.

Final thoughts and considerations. The Board is wrap-

ping up the budgeting process for the 2013 fiscal year. This

is always an exciting time as we look to the future and how

we can grow the organization. Nick Roberts, our treasurer,

has done a great job this year pulling together an aggressive

budget. Ed Foster, our member services director, has been a

great addition to your Board and is working on several fronts

to improve member value. Howard Penrose, our outreach direc-

tor, is working with Kellen to improve our marketing strategy,

including our Web presence. Craig Seibold, our secretary, has

been leading a review of our policies and bylaws, ensuring they

are current and germane.

We recently participated in the USA Science and Engineering

Festival held in April in Washington D.C. (See Member Corner,

“SMRP Booth Educates Children,” page 22.) Shon Isenhour,

our vice chair, recognized the need for SMRP to have a

presence at this event. Our annual conference, under the

leadership of Butch DiMezzo, continues to grow and is shaping

up to be our best conference yet. All of these efforts require

dedication and focus from our volunteers. I am proud to serve

and represent such a team.

Oil Sight Glasses Solve Oil Inspection and Contamination Problems!

Esco Products, Inc. | 800.966.5514 | www.oilsightglass.com

Scan for more information.

Esco’s Oil Sight Glasses will prolong the life of your equipment.

•Installstodrainportinminutes•Nomaintenance•Constantvisualmonitoringofoil•Easydischargeofaccumulatedwater•Useonpumps,gearboxesoranyfluid

lubricatedmachinery



How Plant Reliability Affects a Lean

ImplementationBy: Paul Borders, CmrP

this article examines the experience of a plant manager who had the opportunity to lead two dif-

ferent manufacturing plants. The plants were similar in numerous ways. They were both build-

ing products manufacturing facilities, both were continuous processes, both had roughly 300 hourly

workers, and they were both owned by the same Fortune 500 corporation. The important difference

between the two facilities was that one plant had a relatively mature manufacturing reliability pro-

gram in place prior to the Lean implementation and the second plant was a typical North American

plant that was highly reactive in its maintenance processes.

The outcome of the Lean implementation at the two locations could not have been more dramati-

cally different. The Lean implementation at the reliable plant was powerful and transforming, while

the Lean implementation at the non-reliable plant did not deliver long-term results.

This article describes the plant manager’s experience in leading two separate plants and why he

reached the conclusion that it’s critical to have a reliable facility for a successful Lean manufacturing

implementation.

Blitz events were conducted very similarly in the two plants. Whether they were 5S events or

Kaizen events focusing on a process or problem area, they were typically three to five days in length,

facilitated by either a consultant or a corporate continuous improvement leader, and had roughly

eight to 16 hourly employees engaged in the event.

Blitz Events in a Non-Reliable PlantThe blitz events in the non-reliable plant were tougher to pull together. The first real challenge was

getting participants to take part in the event. Because the work days were tough and challenging in

the reactive environment, most employees were reluctant to come in and work days in excess of what

they were scheduled. Managers and supervisors sponsoring the event would often have to assign

employees to work on the blitz event instead of having them volunteer for the project.


how Plant reliabil ity af fects a lean Implementation

An additional problem with blitz events

in the non-reliable plant was establishing a

baseline of performance for processes. The

leadership team wanted to measure the

improvements made over the course of the

event, but there were many times this was

not possible because of equipment down-

time or process upset occurring in either

the baseline measurement or during the

measurement of the “after improvements”

section. This always resulted in deflation

for the participants of the event because

“the equipment messed up.”

A particularly aggravating problem

that occurred in blitz events in the non-

reliable plant was participants getting

pulled from the event because of equipment

problems. Electricians, mechanical crafts-

men, and area supervisors were especially

hard hit with this phenomenon because

their skills were either needed to get the

equipment back up or their expertise was

required to juggle the production schedule

or shipping schedule to react to the down-

time. Needless to say, it was disappointing

to the team when someone who had been

in on all the discussions during the event

would “get yanked out of the event” to go

take care of the day’s problems.

Probably the most insidious and

damaging aspect of blitz events performed

in the non-reliable plant was difficulty

in sustaining the gains made during the

event. Because the workplace was so often

either reacting to, or recovering from, a sig-

nificant equipment problem, managers and

supervisors struggled with executing the

critical leadership behaviors that were nec-

essary to sustain the gains that were made

in blitz events. The eventual deterioration

of the area or process that had improved

was visible to both hourly employees

and the managers. This would, in turn,

reinforce the reluctance for employees to

participate in future events because they

felt their efforts were in vain. The manage-

ment team’s credibility suffered as well.

Blitz Events in a Reliable PlantBlitz events in the reliable plant were dra-

matically different.

The leadership team enjoyed much

more management credibility with hourly

employees. This was largely because of the

progress that had been made in the prior

two years with implementing reliability.

Hourly employees’ daily work lives had been

deeply impacted by the improvements in

machine condition and the operational sta-

bility that resulted. They were very happy

with results of implementing the principles

of reliability, even after the first year.

This credibility resulted in hourly

employees who were much more eager to

participate in blitz events. People were

excited about the opportunity to impact

their work lives in a positive way. The

scheduling challenges of backfilling par-

ticipants’ normal jobs persisted in some

cases but there were many participants

whose jobs were not backfilled for the event

because the stability of the plant did not

require them to be on their jobs all the time.

It made an enormous difference to have

all the participants remain in the event

for the entire duration. The team dynam-

ics were much more positive; it was rare

for someone to have to leave the event to

“take care of problems.” This allowed all

the participants to own the results, and

more importantly, own the changes made

in the event so they could maintain the

improvements and provide insight to other

employees about changes that were made

and why they took that direction.

As the facility performed more and

more successful blitz events, employees’

willingness to participate and actually lead

events increased because they saw the

positive changes that were implemented

and they saw the results being sustained.

KanbanThe opportunity to create a Kanban system

in finished goods existed in both plants.

Both had fairly typical inventory strategies.

The sites produced inventory to match a

sales forecast or to react to working capital

directives. There was a dramatic difference,

however, in the ability of the plants to capi-

talize on the opportunity to utilize Kanban

for producing to actual customer demand.

Kanban in a Non-Reliable PlantAs previously discussed, machine con-

ditions in the non-reliable plant were

unstable and the resulting downtime

made frequent schedule changes neces-

sary. Often a machine breakdown would

limit the plant’s ability to produce some

products. As a result, the plant would

sometimes run products that were not

needed for orders simply because it needed

to produce products to hit gross production

targets stated in pounds.

There was no way the plant could have

implemented a Kanban system to produce

to the Kanban signal. While the plant still

provided excellent customer service as

measured by order fill rates and shipping

dates, this was largely made possible by

having very large inventories that served

as buffers to absorb the impact of a chaotic

production schedule.

Kanban in a Reliable PlantAfter three years of persevering in the im-

plementation of its reliability program, the

ability to produce the production schedule

grew very strong. At the encouragement of

the site’s Continuous Improvement Leader,

the plant implemented a Kanban system for

one of its very popular product lines. There

were certainly some formidable “mental

challenges” that needed to be overcome.

Warehouse personnel and scheduling

personnel had grown accustomed to a

cushion in inventory, and the very thought

of taking inventory levels down produced

much fear that needed to be managed.

Hourly employees’ daily work lives had been deeply impacted by the improvements in machine condition and the operational stability that resulted.


Once the team was engaged and trained

in the Kanban concept and the workings

of the signal for inventory replenishment

were created, they simply started running

the system. While there were a few tweaks

of the system over the first few months,

the facility quickly gained confidence in its

ability to produce and work with the much

lower resulting inventory levels.

On the front end of implementing the

Kanban system, leadership felt that improved

financials were going to be the primary

benefit because of the reduction in working

capital. In reality, while leadership quickly

realized the financial impact, the improve-

ment in working conditions for plant

warehouse staff became “the big win.”

With much lower inventory, unanticipated

benefits included:

� Wider aisles for the forklift drivers to

maneuver forklifts;

� less stress for the forklift drivers due

to more room to work;

� less finished product damage;

� less property damage because of

better visibility; and

� less investment in finished product

storage costs.

Even with much lower inventory levels,

the plant continued to provide high levels

of customer service.

The absolute key to this process was

the ability to produce the right products for

customers at the right time. With reliable

production machinery, this plant was able

to produce what the schedule called for.

ConclusionThe experience of leading these two similar,

but very different facilities really under-

scored the importance of having a plant be

reliable before implementing Lean manu-

facturing. The cadence of execution that is

learned by the organization through having

equipment maintenance work planned,

scheduled, completed, and closed out,

becomes a cornerstone of organizational

discipline that is fundamental when the

elements of Lean manufacturing are

utilized.

Paul Borders is principle consultant

for life Cycle engineering. Paul helps

companies sustain performance

improvements by driving culture

change to ensure new systems

become a fundamental way of life.

Certified by Prosci as a Change

management leader, Paul is also a

facilitator with the life Cycle Institute,

where he uses high impact learning

techniques to teach courses including

reliability excellence for managers

(rxm).

how Plant reliabil ity af fects a lean Implementation


Risk and Reliability of

TRANSFORMERSBy: alan ross


R eliability engineers and maintenance professionals have

developed unique solutions for most of their productive assets.

Whether mining, refining, metals processing, chemical processing

or simply manufacturing assembly, the time and attention paid to

critical productive assets has been rewarded with less unplanned

downtime and better asset planning.

An asset group that was missed in the best of these mainte-

nance and reliability systems plans is transformers—the heart of the

electrical system. Transformers were overlooked primarily because

of their long-lasting durability and effectiveness. For utilities, they

are a critical component of the product they make and distribute. For

industry, they are considered important assets, but until lately, have

also been one of the most “taken-for-granted” in the production cycle.

Today, it is precisely because of the historical reliability of trans-

formers that the risks are greater than anticipated and significantly

more important to manage.

Risk and Reliability of

TRANSFORMERSthe author refleCts on how he gaIned a unIque PersPeCtIVe on transformer rIsk and relIaBIlIty By JoInIng a transformer maIntenanCe ComPany that has eVolVed Its PraCtICes oVer a 45-year PerIod Beyond strICtly ChemICal oIl testIng to a multI-faCeted aPProaCh InCorPoratIng eleCtrICal and meChanICal faCtors.

10 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3

risk and reliabil ity of transformers

Recently, I participated in three day-long seminars:

“Transformer Risks and Reliability,” conducted by Munich Re.

Why would one of the largest, if not THE largest, insurer and re-

insurer of transformers conduct these seminars in New York, San

Francisco, and Houston? Quite simply, they have seen the future,

and if recent trends are any indication, the future looks “risky.”

The Risk Factors Chart presents four categories of risk. If we

can determine the biggest risks, develop standardized testing and

preventive maintenance plans, we can reduce risk, or at a mini-

mum, better prepare for the eventual failure of a transformer.

We will address both “transformer life extension” and “end of

life reaction planning” later. For now, let’s consider the four catego-

ries of risk:

Risk #1: Application Application Risk stems from the impact on the business if a

specific transformer fails. It can be calculated and predicted and

should also identify which transformers in your fleet would cost

the most in unplanned down-time if failed. Application risk is the

cost of failure to your production. Amazingly, it is not uncom-

mon for smaller transformers operating key lines or production

processes to have a much higher application risk than most would

believe. Ask the question: “If this transformer would fail, what

would be the impact on productive output?”

Recently, we reviewed a customer’s transformer risk factor. We

found the greatest application risk came from a smaller special-

ized unit powering one of its furnaces that is subject to some of

the harshest operating cycles from peak demand requirements.

A relatively new transformer in good condition ran the line for

the furnace. If it ever went down, millions of dollars to rework the

furnace and its line would have to be spent.

Risk # 2: Failure When transformers fail with increased frequency, the law of

unintended consequences is often in play. Fire damage, safety,

and environmental issues can lead to losses and downtime much

greater than just the impact of the transformer failure itself.

Even without an explosion failure, a transformer leaking oil

outside a dammed area would likely be considered a hazardous

waste violation. Now you must deal with penalties enacted by

local, state, and even federal environmental agencies.

It is virtually impossible to monetize the cost of a transformer

failure because so much depends on the type of failure. Examples

include an automatic shut-down with transformer housing intact,

oil leakage from a bushing, or a catastrophic explosion.

Certain transformers, due to their size, location, load, and con-

dition, have a greater failure risk than others. For these types of

transformers, we should create a higher degree of monitoring and

testing to prevent a catastrophic failure. There are enough proven

methods for reaction planning to get the maximum life of that unit

ApplicationThe cost or impactto production

FailureBoth direct and indirect

Condition-BasedThe cost of assessing

the current conditionto avoid failure

End-of-LifeThe cost to getting

back up and running

Risk FactorsThe four risk factors when analyzed together can give

Risk Managers a better picture in viewing the overall risk of transformer and electrical failure and how best to minimize it.

The four risk factors—when analyzed together—can give risk managers a better picture in viewing the overall risk of

transformer and electrical failure, and how best to minimize it.


while implementing the end of life plan for that specific unit.

Recently, a company experienced the failure of one of its

single transformer units caused by a fire. This led to the complete

destruction of its entire line of transformers. The overall cost

exceeded $19 million, which was well beyond the replacement cost

of the single transformer alone. With several insurance carriers

involved, and the complexities of determining fault, it took two

years of litigation to determine liability. The legal costs to protect

the company’s best interest also became an added cost of the

failure.

One of the most often overlooked failure risks is the safety of

personnel—both company employees and contractors. Recently

in Florida, a Load Tap Changer failure caused the death of one

employee and one contractor.

We also asked one of the largest transformer rewind and repair

companies in the world whether or not it had ever rebuilt and

rewound a transformer that had not failed. The answer was an

emphatic “No!”

Then we asked: “What would the potential cost savings be

should an at-risk large distribution transformer unit be taken out

of service prior to failure?” The answer was that the cost sav-

ings would run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. This clearly

demonstrates that much of the severity from failure risks can and

should be prevented.

Risk #3: End-of-LifeTransformer manufacturing and installation peaked in America in

the 1960s and 1970s with the rapid expansion of industry. Many

of these units are no longer in production, have very tight physical

footprints due to the building of productive infrastructure around

them, and may not even be able to travel the current roads and

rails necessary. Given the recently revised weight limits on bridges,

the elimination of thousands of miles of rail spurs and load limits

on overweight and oversized trucks, the transportation rules that

applied when the transformers were installed in the 1960s and

1970s are much different today.

When we evaluated the end-of-life risks for transformers at a

metal processing facility, the transformers with the high applica-

tion risk were not the one with the highest end-of-life risk. They

were several rectifier transformers built in the 1990s considered

specialty transformers with unique design characteristics that

were no longer standard line transformers from manufacturers. If

they failed, it would take 26 weeks of production time to replace

them; therefore, the end-of-life risk for these units was tremen-

dously high.

One important consideration was transportation costs. The

old rail spur ended seven miles from the plant, so moving the unit

out and back via rail completely was not an option. Transport via

specialty truck requiring extensive specialty permits would prove

more costly than the entire re-production itself.

When the end-of-life risk and application risk were combined,

we monetized the cost of developing the reaction plan with the

department head. We expect that cost decision to be made at a

much higher level since capital budgets with major operational

costs typically get approved within the annual planning process

and not departmentally.

is it better to plan ahead by developing a reaction plan consisting of budgetary costs for unit rebuild or replacement and under-standing and budget for transportation and contractor access? or, is it better to wait until something happens?


Is it better to plan ahead by developing a reaction plan con-

sisting of budgetary costs for unit rebuild or replacement and

understanding and budget for transportation and contractor

access? Or, is it better to wait until something happens?

Obviously, in this instance, a good reaction plan would save

tremendous amounts of time and money while allowing corporate

management to develop capital budget plans over years rather

than within days of a failure.

Risk #4: Condition-Based Can transformer failures be avoided? Can life extension mitigate

this risk? Since joining SD Myers, I am tremendously biased when

it comes to maximizing the life of a transformer. I have seen first-

hand how effective it is to develop standards, rigorously test and

track the condition of the fleet of transformers, and maintain that

fleet to those standards. Quite simply, the easiest risk to mitigate

is the condition-based risk.

At SD Myers, we maintain our productive assets with

increasing rigor, yet too often even our best customers con-

fuse chemical or electrical testing of a transformer with its

maintenance.

There is so much more to a complete condition assessment

than trended oil tests. While that is a great and important

first step, the next steps are as equally critical. Is recom-

mended maintenance on oil processing standard throughout

the company, or is it left up to each individual responsible for

maintaining one plant?

Not all oil processing is alike. While some contractors clean

the oil, others may process on the unit until they address issues

in the paper and the oil. Since the life of the transformer is depen-

dent on the life of the paper, processing on oil alone is often a false

sense of security. Acids, gases, and moisture leach back into the

oil from the paper, thus even routine oil processing maintenance

is highly dependent on a rigorous set of processing standards that

should be based on your standard test results.

What criteria should be used for electrical testing to create

a “best practices” testing and maintenance protocol? What data

is available from the manufacturer at assembly and installa-

tion to determine changes over time? A simple Sweep Frequency

Response Analysis (SFRA) test can serve as the baseline for future

condition assessment, yet too often we do not have that data. It is

a matter of developing a reliable system that can address the con-

dition of the unit without a lot of added costs or down-time during

the life of that unit: Not at the end of life. It is all about assess-

ment, planning, and systems.

For one of our customers who operated multiple transformers

at multiple sites, we were asked to develop a standard of testing

and maintenance for their units that had a great deal of com-

monality. For more than seven years, we had performed chemical

testing on the units to track their condition. When we began to

address the complete condition of each unit, we asked for their

electrical test data. The customer told us they had never con-

ducted electrical tests.

While oil testing could be considered critical with 75% of the

data required to make good maintenance and planning deci-

sions, electrical testing provides another important 25%. This

disintegrated approach to transformer maintenance is one of the

most significant changes we are bringing to reliability and systems

management.

Can You Achieve Risk Equilibrium?In the Risk Factors Chart (p. 10), it appears that all risks are

equal, which is seldom or hardly ever the case. Some risks are

projections of the future and others are based on assessment

of the past. When you combine a higher condition-based risk

with any of the other risks, you create a multiplier effect. But

starting out with condition-based risks for all units may be

time and cost prohibitive. Which transformers are at greatest

application risk? What will the impact be on production if that

unit goes down? This requires an impact assessment to deter-

mine the specific impact on the business that the most critical

units support.

Certainly, a catastrophic loss to a unit is not desirable. But,

losing a smaller padmount unit that supports a back parking lot is

not as critical to the business as losing a unit powering the main

production line.

An impact assessment must go even deeper into the risk by

looking at potential transportation, availability of spares or repair

facilities, and myriad of other issues arising if this critical unit

were to fail. Thus, determining criticality must be one of the first

steps in the assessment process.

In reality, there is no such thing as risk equilibrium. There is

only risk balancing or mitigation.

Life Extension: A Universal ConcernObviously, the first and most important take-away from trans-

former risk analysis is that you are doing everything possible and

economically-feasible to extend the life of these critical assets.

Even a company with one unit is at risk if it happens to run its

data center off of it.

How long can most of us go if our data and/or Emergency

Response Plan (ERP) systems shut down for a couple of weeks?

Consider the call from the CEO on that one.

Earlier, the term “life extension” was mentioned. The

subject of “transformer maintenance and life extension” has

been a term defined in many different ways in many different

markets. Today, the perspective on transformer maintenance

and life extension is becoming a universal concern. The

motivating factors behind the unification of strategy on

transformer maintenance and life extension has been driven

by some common factors including the aging population of

transformers and a higher-than-expected failure rate from

newer replacement units.

The general aging inventory of electrical power equipment,

given that the infrastructure building peaked more than 40

years ago as pointed out earlier, means a great potential for

failure over the next decade. Prior to developing impact assess-

ments, condition assessments, and reaction plans, we should

first consider a life extension system to develop and maintain

the necessary testing and preventive maintenance practices as a

priority.


SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3


Older units need this system since

the tighter parameters and design criteria

on newer transformers include closer

tolerances, a reduction in case sizes and

internal clearances, and newer units

requiring an even more robust system.

alan ross is the vice president of

sd myers, Inc. responsible for

developing and executing long-term

strategies, alan progresses next

generation leadership for all operating

units, domestically and internationally

for sd myers, Inc. alan is an executive

member of smrP with a mechanical

engineering (me) degree from georgia

Institute of technology (ga tech)

and an mBa in international business

and marketing from georgia state

university.

Developing A Reliable System

So where does that leave us? What should a company dependent upon the safe,

reliable, and uninterrupted use of electrical power do?

Four Suggestions:

1. Understand the short- and long-term, direct and indirect impact and costs

associated with unplanned power outages from the loss of a transformer.

2. Develop and implement a set of standards for determining the operating

condition of transformer(s) through the use of intrusive and non-intrusive

testing.

3. Develop a preventative maintenance plan.

4. Implement the plan company-wide, giving reliability professionals the tools

they need to monitor and maintain this critical and often overlooked asset

class.

5. Develop a reaction plan for every critical transformer in your area of

responsibility and control.


Noria Training Calendar

International Council for Machinery Lubrication

ICML certification testing is available after most of the courses listed.

Please visit www.lubecouncil.org for more information on certification and

test dates.

-- Jimmy Coltrain, Reliability Coordinator, Weyerhaeuser

Fundamentals of Machinery Lubrication

June 12-14, 2012Orlando, FL

July 10-12, 2012Milwaukee, WI

July 24-26, 2012Toronto, ON Canada

August 7-9, 2012Nashville, TN

Sept. 18-20, 2012Myrtle Beach, SC

October 23-25, 2012Las Vegas, NV

Advanced Machinery Lubrication

August 7-9, 2012Nashville, TN

Practical Oil Analysis

July 10-12, 2012Milwaukee, WI

October 23-25, 2012Las Vegas, NV

For the most up-to-date Training Schedule, visit noria.com or call 800-597-5460

‘‘This training is an extremely important part of any reliability lubrication program. The course was full of valuable information while the instructor was very friendly and took the time to answer all the questions at every level of expertise.

June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3


The$25 Billion Profit Pot

By: rod ellsworth

Cut to the Bone

D riven by economic pressures that pre-

ceded and continued throughout the

recession, there is a view the manufacturing

industry has cut costs back to the bone, a

fact which has been partly responsible for its

recovery. But while it might appear that the

sector has exhausted all avenues of inef-

ficiencies, this perception is only valid in the

context of the parameters through which pro-

ductivity is traditionally measured. In fact,

evidence suggests the majority are incurring

excessive, unnecessary costs to the tune of a

staggering $25 billion.

As economic conditions seem set to

remain tough for some time yet, manufactur-

ers cannot afford to ignore the possibility

of untapped profit if they are to maintain a

competitive edge and avoid stalling the sec-

tor’s recovery.

New Opportunities The reason this untapped pool of savings

exists is because traditional metrics look pri-

marily at productivity as the key variable in

driving operational costs down, but typically

do not include energy usage. Energy is seen

as a fixed cost that sits outside of operational

overheads, rather than a potential area for

inefficiencies to be stripped.


The$25 Billion Profit Pot

By broadening the parameters within which manufacturers look

for savings, research highlights plenty of potential to cut waste.

Energy is the single largest operating and maintenance

expense, forming 60% of a typical manufacturer’s O&M budget.

Research shows that up to 80% of this energy is wasted. To put

that into solid figures, for the worst performing manufacturers, of

every $100 in the O&M budget, $48 is spent on wasted energy.

With electricity prices up 30% since 2003, failure to address

energy waste means that its relative cost to the business will only

increase.

The Usual Suspects? Singling Out the CulpritsWhile energy wastage occurs universally, there are a few notable

areas that can claim responsibility for a large proportion. Energy-

hungry three-phase motors that are used in equipment, ranging

from industrial fans, blowers, and pumps, account for a hefty 60%

of electricity consumption in the world.1

Manufacturers typically use thousands of these of motors

in their plant equipment, and the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE) estimates they lose over 12% of their energy due to phase

imbalance caused by loose connections. Overall, this equates to

$25 billion worth of wasted energy each year – a huge potential

savings. So bear in mind this is just one, albeit a major source of

waste, and the potential gains start to come into sharp focus.

But the real culprit lays in how energy use is measured.

Energy reduction strategies are often comprised of a utility bill-led

approach, which while valid, is limited in what it can actually tell

you about where inefficiencies and wastage are occurring. This

‘energy bill down’ approach does not include the detailed energy

consumption patterns of individual plant assets that can identify

when and where most wastage occurs. Without this detail, there

is no way of knowing how much of the energy consumed is being

wasted, and therefore what can be eliminated without impacting

the running of day-to-day operations.

Unlocking the Savings Because most manufacturers don’t track energy consumption at

the asset level, let alone what proportion of that energy is wasted,

many find themselves in virgin territory when tasked with exploit-

ing this opportunity.

To realize the full extent of energy waste, it is important to

fully understand the problem, identify which assets require atten-

tion and remain alert to the need to fix.

For example, an operations manager in charge of a large

portfolio of facilities across multiple manufacturing operations

would inevitably find it impossible to devote attention to all the

facilities or operations at the same time. Time and resources must

be focused on those that warrant the most attention, or those

that appear to be using most energy. To identify those facilities

or operations most in need of attention, one of the first things to

ascertain is which facilities or operations are using excessive

energy. A simple comparison of the total annual utility costs

might identify these, but would not answer the question “why?”

This is important because the facilities or operations that

spend the most on energy may not be the right ones to focus

resources on. They may spend the most on energy for a number of

reasons. For example, they may be the largest facility, they may

have a specific use, or they may be subject to different operating

constraints. It would be much wiser to identify those facilities that

spend the most per square foot per year, or the most per product

produced—a calculation known as energy intensity.

The process of comparing energy intensity across an enter-

prise or with external operations is referred to as benchmarking,

which identifies the facilities or operations that are the most

inefficient across an operation, enabling resources to be focused

on the areas that will deliver the highest return. This is where the

inefficiencies of three-phase would be highlighted, if monitored.

This sounds relatively straightforward in theory but the prac-

tice can be a different matter. The granularity demanded by such

an approach is impossible to translate into meaningful informa-

tion through using traditional tools. The level of data necessary

requires sophisticated collation and analysis, which is only avail-

able through the latest breed of enterprise asset management and

asset sustainability software.

Fed by sensors that can measure anything from electricity to

steam, these applications quickly benchmark assets and entire

facilities. The business can then remove or change inefficient

processes, parts, and machines that are disproportionately

energy hungry. This also extends the lifecycle of assets through

an evaluation of running costs against efficiency levels.

Winding Up The number of new legal and regulatory targets and standards

pertaining to energy usage means that failure to address energy

conservation isn’t really an option.

For example ISO 50001 now establishes a framework for

industrial plants, commercial facilities, or entire organizations to

manage energy. It is estimated that the new standard could influ-

ence up to 60% of the world’s energy use.

But rather than viewing compliance with these initiatives as a

cost or additional pressure, smart manufacturers will exploit the

opportunity to stem wasted energy from their equipment and in

doing so, take a portion of the $25 billion profit pot that is there

for the taking.

rod ellsworth is Vice President of global asset sustainability

at Infor, the third largest provider of business software and

services. he brings over 30 years of related energy and

enterprise asset management experience and spearheaded

the development and application of Infor’s global asset sus-

tainability solution, Infor eam enterprise sustainability (www.

infor.com). 1. Department of Energy

16 SMRP SolutionS June 2012 | Volume 7, Issue 3Registration will be open in June 2012. Save the Date and Plan To Join Us!


2012 SMRP SPonSoRShiP FoRM

i. 2012 SPonSoRShiP oPPoRtunitieS Instructions: Please check the sponsorship(s) you are interested in and list the value ($) at the end:

Each sponsor will receive:• recognition on the sponsorship page of the SMRP conference Web site (www.smrp.org)• recognition from the podium at the General & Closing Session• signage with your company logo at sponsored event(s)• opportunity to display product literature on an exclusive sponsor display board• sponsor ribbons for company representatives

PLATINUM SPONSORSHIP PACKAGES: q $15,000 – The Most Maintained Sponsorship .............................................................................. $ ________Includes overall conference sponsorship signage, logo/hyperlink on conference Web site, logo in onsite brochure, 10x20 exhibit booth,(4) complimentary conference registrations, overall golf sponsorship, (2) golf hole sponsorships, (1) Silver Sponsorship

q $10,000 – The Most Reliable Sponsorship .................................................................................. $ ________Includes overall conference sponsorship signage, logo/hyperlink on conference Web site, logo in onsite brochure, 10X10 exhibit booth,(2) complimentary conference registrations, (1) Silver Sponsorship, (1) golf hole sponsorship

q $5,000 – The Most Professional Sponsorship .............................................................................. $ ________Includes overall conference sponsor signage, logo/hyperlink on conference Web site, sponsorship mention & logo on event marketing materials, (2) complimentary conference registrations (1) Silver Sponsorship, (1) golf hole sponsorship

GOLD SPONSORSHIPS:q Memory Stick (electronic proceedings) – $9,000 ............................................................................................................... $________q Hotel Keycard (room key w/company logo/graphic) – $8,000 ............................................................................................ $________q Opening Keynote – $5,000 ............................................................................................................................................... $________q Padfolio (with company logo) – $3,000 (2 available) .......................................................................................................... $________q Hotel Door Hangers (with company logo and text) – $3,000 ............................................................................................... $________

SILVER SPONSORSHIPS:q Signage (company logo on all conference signage) – $2,500 ................................................................................................................. $________q Monday Welcome Reception – $2,500 (2 available) ............................................................................................................................... $________ q 20th Anniversary Toast at the closing session – $2,500 (2 available) ...................................................................................................... $________q Floor Decals – 5 2’x3’ floor decals in conference area – $2,500 (4 avail.) ............................................................................................... $________q Wall Clings – 5 2’x3’ wall decals in conference area – $2,500 (4 avail.) .................................................................................................. $________q Pen for Padfolio with company logo – $2,000 ......................................................................................................................................... $________q Tuesday Reception – $2,000 (2 available) .............................................................................................................................................. $________q Conference Lanyards w/company logo – $2,000 .................................................................................................................................... $________

With more than 1,000 decision makers in the maintenance and reliability industry attending SMRP’s 20th Annual Conference, your company will not want to miss out on amazing sponsorship opportunities. Ensure maximum exposure for your company through high visibility sponsorship opportunities with your target audience! Through these partnerships, SMRP is able to develop strong workshops and advocate M&R initiatives to benefit the community as a whole.

Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals


BRONZE SPONSORSHIPS:q Exhibitor Lounge – $1,500 ..................................................................................................................................................... $________q Track Sponsorships – $1,500 (6 available, 1 per track) ........................................................................................................................... $________q Workshop Sponsorships – $1,500 (19 available, 1 per workshop) .......................................................................................................... $________q Closing Session/Raffle – $1,000 (3 available) ......................................................................................................................................... $________q Job Fair – $1,000 (2 available) ............................................................................................................................................................... $________q Lunch: Tues_____ Wed_____ – $1,000 (1 avail. each day) ............................................................................................................ $________q Breakfast: Tues____ Wed____ Thurs____ – $750 (1 avail. each day) ................................................................................................. $________q Breaks: Tues AM____ Tues PM____ – $500 (1 avail. per break) ...................................................................................................... $________q Breaks: Wed AM____ Wed PM____ – $500 (1 avail. per break) ...................................................................................................... $________q Padfolio insert – $250 (10 available) ..................................................................................................................................................... $________

GOLF SPONSORSHIPS:q $2,500 – Overall Golf Event Sponsorship ............................................................................................................................................... $________q $2,000 – Golf Cart Sponsorship ............................................................................................................................................................ $________q $350 – Closest to the Hole Sponsorship ................................................................................................................................................ $________q $350 – Longest Drive Contest ............................................................................................................................................................... $________q $350 – Beverage Cart Sponsorship ....................................................................................................................................................... $________q $150 – Hole Sponsorship (18 available) ................................................................................................................................................ $________

TOTAL SPONSORSHIPS ............................................................................................. $________Don’t see a sponsorship opportunity that fits your needs? We’ll be happy to customize one for you!Please contact Sandy Stevens: [email protected] • 678-303-3039

ii. ContaCt inFoRMation Name: ______________________________________________________ Company: _____________________________________

Title: _______________________________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________ State: __________ Zip Code: _____________________

Phone: __________________________ Fax:_______________________ Web site: _____________________________________

iii. PayMent inFoRMation

Payment. Sponsorships are to be paid in full before we can confirm your sponsorship. Payment may be made via credit card or check. Please make checks payable to SMRP and mail with completed application to: SMRP Attn: Sandy Stevens 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30342

Payment by credit card: q American Express q Visa q MasterCard q Discover TOTAL SPONSORSHIPS: $ _______________

Card Number: ________________________________________________ Exp. Date: _____________________________________

Name as it appears on card: _____________________________________ Authorization Signature: __________________________

Credit card payments may be called in to 678-303-3039 or faxed to 404-252-0774. SMRP will send written confirmation of your sponsorship once payment has been processed.

iV. how to Send the FoRM:


Mail: Attn: Sandy Stevens1100 Johnson Ferry RoadSuite 300 Atlanta, GA 30342

Fax: 404-252-0774

email:[email protected]


BoDY oF KnowleDge (BoK) CoRneR

SMRP’s Body of Knowledge Directorate

oversees three active committees

that work concurrently to help develop

knowledge-based products that add value

to members and the overall maintenance

and reliability community. Members can

easily access these products through the

Knowledge Based Library on SMRP’s Web

site at http://library.smrp.org.

SMRP’s vision is for the Library to

become the ultimate resource for the M&R

community.

“If you have an M&R issue, you can

visit the library and find real time, up-to-

date answers at your fingertips. If your

plant is just starting the reliability journey,

you can search for metrics you need to put

in place,” said Ron Leonard, chair of the

SMRP Body of Knowledge Directorate. “If

you have been working on a reliability pro-

gram and need to know how you’re doing,

you can click over to benchmarking and

participate in the Benchmarking Study. If

you come up against a problem that you’ve

never encountered before, you can search

various publications for answers.”

Available Now in the Library

• The Benchmarking Study for

Maintenance & Reliability

The new online evergreen format for

SMRP’s M&R Study opens new opportunities

for both the practitioner and consultant.

From an individual small plant operation to

multinational corporations, or from individual

consultant to large consulting firm, the new

Benchmarking Study provides value to all.

Participation in the Benchmarking

Study is free and includes 300 data elements

and 54 maintenance & reliability questions.

Key features of the study include:

� Separate surveys for maintenance of

production equipment and mainte-

nance of facilities;

� ability to track single owner-multiple

sites;

� standardized definitions to ensure

valid comparisons;

adding Value to Membership through SMRP’s library of KnowledgeBy: laura keane, ProduCt & BusIness deVeloPment manager, smrP

� world-class technology through partner-

ship with eNetrix, a division of Gallup;

� intuitive online data entry interface;

� dynamic customized reporting for on-

the-fly ad-hoc reporting;

� subscription-based access to data,

allows for unlimited reports and data

searches;

� save entry that allows data entry in

multiple sessions if necessary; and

non-participants can subscribe to the

database.

To facilitate data entry and ease the

data collection process, a PDF of the

assessment tool is available to participants

before participating. This facilitates the

gathering data prior to entry. The ability

to enter data in multiple sessions gives

the participant the opportunity to delegate

responsibilities for data collection and

entry if desired.

Once enough data has been gathered,

dynamic reports can be accessed through-

out the year. The end user can generate

customized reports by simply clicking the

desired criteria. Results can be seen and

downloaded immediately.

The Benchmarking Study can be

accessed in the Library under the

Benchmarking Tab or at

https://smrpbenchmarking.enetrix.com.

• SMRP Consensus-Based Metrics

The SMRP Best Practices Committee

recently finished the initial publication

of 67 consensus Best Practices, 29 of

which were harmonized with European

Federation of National Maintenance

Societies (EFNMS). These standardized

metrics/KPIs lay the foundation for mean-

ingful comparisons between organizations.

The committee is currently working on

world-class target values for the metrics/

KPIs that lend themselves to such. Once

completed, the existing metrics will be

updated to include these target values.

SMRP Metrics (including Harmonized

Metrics) are available via subscription,

which includes online access and

download capabilities for one year. This

new option allows subscribers immediate

access to the latest, most updated version

of all metrics 365 days a year. Access a

single metric or a collection of metrics at

http://library.smrp.org.

Published compilations of SMRP

Metrics are still available under the

Publications tab in the Library. However,

unlike the online version, these documents

will only be updated annually. For direct

access to the PDF, go to http://library.

smrp.org/publications.

Corporate access to metrics is also

available. For more information contact

[email protected].

• Guide to the Maintenance &

Reliability Body of Knowledge (BoK)

Developed by the Maintenance &

Reliability Knowledge (M&RK) Committee

and based on the five pillars of knowledge,

this Guide outlines levels 1 and 2 of the

BoK. It also outlines the subject areas to be

mastered by a Certified Maintenance and

Reliability Professional (CMRP). Currently

the committee is working on level 3 of the

BoK. Once complete, the entire BoK will be

the definitive source for information for

maintenance and reliability professionals.

Access to the Guide is under the Publications

tab in the Library or go directly to http://

library.smrp.org/publications.

As a member of SMRP, you have the

unique opportunity to participate in the

committees that develop these products.

Benefits to Committee Participation include

the opportunity to:

� Expand M&R knowledge base;

� network with some of the most respected

reliability professionals in the world;

� network with peers in other industries;

and

� network with other individuals com-

mitted to continuous learning and

improvement.

If you are interested in participating on

a Body of Knowledge Committee, contact

[email protected].

BRONZE SPONSORSHIPS:q Exhibitor Lounge – $1,500 ..................................................................................................................................................... $________q Track Sponsorships – $1,500 (6 available, 1 per track) ........................................................................................................................... $________q Workshop Sponsorships – $1,500 (19 available, 1 per workshop) .......................................................................................................... $________q Closing Session/Raffle – $1,000 (3 available) ......................................................................................................................................... $________q Job Fair – $1,000 (2 available) ............................................................................................................................................................... $________q Lunch: Tues_____ Wed_____ – $1,000 (1 avail. each day) ............................................................................................................ $________q Breakfast: Tues____ Wed____ Thurs____ – $750 (1 avail. each day) ................................................................................................. $________q Breaks: Tues AM____ Tues PM____ – $500 (1 avail. per break) ...................................................................................................... $________q Breaks: Wed AM____ Wed PM____ – $500 (1 avail. per break) ...................................................................................................... $________q Padfolio insert – $250 (10 available) ..................................................................................................................................................... $________

GOLF SPONSORSHIPS:q $2,500 – Overall Golf Event Sponsorship ............................................................................................................................................... $________q $2,000 – Golf Cart Sponsorship ............................................................................................................................................................ $________q $350 – Closest to the Hole Sponsorship ................................................................................................................................................ $________q $350 – Longest Drive Contest ............................................................................................................................................................... $________q $350 – Beverage Cart Sponsorship ....................................................................................................................................................... $________q $150 – Hole Sponsorship (18 available) ................................................................................................................................................ $________

TOTAL SPONSORSHIPS ............................................................................................. $________Don’t see a sponsorship opportunity that fits your needs? We’ll be happy to customize one for you!Please contact Sandy Stevens: [email protected] • 678-303-3039

ii. ContaCt inFoRMation Name: ______________________________________________________ Company: _____________________________________

Title: _______________________________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________ State: __________ Zip Code: _____________________

Phone: __________________________ Fax:_______________________ Web site: _____________________________________

iii. PayMent inFoRMation

Payment. Sponsorships are to be paid in full before we can confirm your sponsorship. Payment may be made via credit card or check. Please make checks payable to SMRP and mail with completed application to: SMRP Attn: Sandy Stevens 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30342

Payment by credit card: q American Express q Visa q MasterCard q Discover TOTAL SPONSORSHIPS: $ _______________

Card Number: ________________________________________________ Exp. Date: _____________________________________

Name as it appears on card: _____________________________________ Authorization Signature: __________________________

Credit card payments may be called in to 678-303-3039 or faxed to 404-252-0774. SMRP will send written confirmation of your sponsorship once payment has been processed.

iV. how to Send the FoRM:


Mail: Attn: Sandy Stevens1100 Johnson Ferry RoadSuite 300 Atlanta, GA 30342

Fax: 404-252-0774

email:[email protected]


MeMBeR SPotlight

Meet Steve Carter, CMRPSMRP’s new Chapter Relations Chair Plant Maintenance Manager for Showa Denko Carbon, Inc.and Chair of Carolinas Chapter

“i have reached a point in my career

where I think it is important to give

something back to the profession by seek-

ing opportunities to share what I have

learned with SMRP and other maintenance

professionals,” said Steve Carter, a member

of SMRP since 1996. Steve recognizes the

next generation needs to be afforded the

same level of training and challenging work

experiences in order to maintain our posi-

tion as a world leader in manufacturing.

After 21 years of operating and main-

taining U.S. Navy nuclear submarines,

Steve decided to join the civilian industry

working as a plant maintenance manager

for Showa Denko Carbon. He is responsible

for overseeing all aspects of maintaining

an 80-acre heavy industrial facility, which

produces 45,000 metric tons of finished

electrodes per year. His particular interests

lie in root cause analysis, manufacturing

reliability improvement, and change man-

agement processes.

As the Carolinas Chapter Chair and

recently elected Chapter Relations Chair,

Steve eagerly seeks opportunities to share

his experience with other SMRP main-

tenance professionals. “SMRP is a great

vehicle for networking with individuals who

share my interest in continuous improvement

and elevating the status of the profession,”

Steve noted. He is hooked on the value

of being involved with SMRP and enjoys

volunteering his time to help fulfill the

organization’s goals.

“Becoming a Certified Maintenance &

Reliability Professional incurs an obliga-

tion to continue your education and to

maintain it,” Steve said about the CMRP

designation. He actively encourages others

to pursue the CMRP designation, and

believes M&R professionals gain respect

among those who are familiar with the

certification process. Steve said, “If you

don’t pass on the first try, at least you will

gain some insight on where to focus your

efforts to become more knowledgeable

about the maintenance business.” He said

that having the CMRP designation may

be the deciding factor between you and

another job candidate.

Steve is married with two grown daughters

and lives in Goose Creek, S.C. Steve

enjoys restoring antique motorcycles in

his spare time. He recently completed the

restoration of a 1957 Ariel Square Four,

and is currently looking for his next project.

He also enjoys helping his wife with her

landscaping projects.

“smrP is a great

vehicle for

networking with

individuals who

share my interest

in continuous

improvement and

elevating the status

of the profession.”

FRoM the exaM teaM


i recently proctored a CMRT exam venue

for a pharmaceutical company. The

main reason for giving the exams was to

measure the knowledge levels in the

different areas of the CMRT Body of

Knowledge. The exams were given to find

out what areas and skills the maintenance

team may be strong or weak. With the

information obtained from the exams,

training programs can be developed to

improve specific skill areas.

In the case of pass or fail on the exam,

it will make no difference in the training

plan. Even if the exam is passed and the

certification is obtained, there will still be

weak areas that need to be developed. The

CMRT exam has Body of Knowledge areas

in the following topics:

• Maintenance Practices;

• Preventive and Predictive Maintenance;

• Troubleshooting and Analysis; and

• Corrective Maintenance.

Each of these BOK areas are broken

down into sub areas in which questions

are developed and tested for use on the

exam. Through the guidance of the CMRT

Exam Team, the questions have been

reviewed and determined that they are

good questions that fit all manufacturing

business maintenance personnel.

The Exam Team is always

looking for good questions

improve your Personal oeeBy terry harrIs, CmrP exam dIreCtor, smrPCo

to add to the CMRT exam. If you have

skills you think are important for the

person doing these skills at your facility

please send them to me.

As I do training with maintenance

personnel, I realize the tasks they perform

is what keeps our plants operating.

But the skill level and knowledge of these

people also determine how efficient and

effective our plants operate. I recently

was called back to a plant I performed a

three-day reliability training course over

four years ago. When I arrived at the plant,

I listened to their success stories and the

way they have gone from 73% OEE to 89%

OEE. A great success story! But what did

they want to do now? The question is what

can we do to get better? What are the next

steps and how can we get to 93% OEE?

They were at the point where we need

to move to the next level of training and

processes. They now must again access

skill levels and develop new training pro-

grams to bring them to these higher levels.

There are other process areas to improve,

but the people part is key in getting to

these higher levels.

Many companies use the CMRP exam

in the same way. Both these certifications

are excellent assessment tools for any

plant. We as CMRPs should have looked

at our results even if we passed the exam

and improved our

areas of weakness.

Just like the plant

that improved its

OEE, we should all

be improving our OEE

to help our companies

and our own personal

goals.

the exam team is

always looking for

good questions to

add to the Cmrt

exam.


MeMBeR CoRneR

SMRP Booth educates Children about engineering & Manufacturingthe USA Science & Engineering Festival, the nation’s largest

celebration of science and engineering, was hosted at the Walter

E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C., April 27-29,

2012 with SMRP represented.

A Platinum Sponsor, Society of Maintenance and Reliability

Professionals (SMRP) presented “Are You Hot or Are You Cool?” to

showcase infrared camera technology and ultrasonic detection

technology. Another interactive activity built into the booth was an

airplane-making workshop demonstrating the manufacturing pro-

cess and how engineers can improve processes over time. The exhibit

attracted the attention of thousands of festival attendees’ of all ages.

In the exhibit booth, SMRP maintenance and reliability

professionals engaged and educated middle school students, high

school students, and families about science and engineering from

a maintenance and reliability perspective. Attendees stood in front

of cutting-edge technology to explore heat transmission through

various objects, while others listened to high frequency sound waves

captured by the ultrasonic gun that humans typically cannot hear.

“When this opportunity presented itself, SMRP wanted to

take advantage of educating students about the maintenance and

reliability engineering world and informing these potential future

leaders about the abundance of career opportunities available in

manufacturing.” said Shon Isenhour, CMRP, vice chair of SMRP

and director of education for GPAllied, Inc. We were able to share

with the students and their parents what SMRP does for industry,

as well as how we can help them with scholarships and educa-

tion opportunities,” Over the three-day festival, more than 700

paper airplanes were built and discussion between M&R profes-

sionals with 150,000 plus festival

goers revolved around SMRP career

& scholarship opportunities, the

importance of SMRP in the com-

munity, and the art behind the

technology used in the M&R field.

wanted: SMRP Memorabilia for 20th anniversary

w e need your help! In highlighting our members and SMRP’s

impact over the past 20 years, please send old photos,

keepsakes, and memorabilia to personally celebrate SMRP’s 20th

Anniversary. Include your name, company, and description of the

photograph or keepsake, and send to Christine Wang

([email protected]).

Established in 1992, SMRP

is honored to celebrate its 20th anniversary

this year. This milestone is a path to celebrating

the excellence SMRP has accomplished by providing value for

individual practitioners and sustaining maintenance and reliability

best practices for companies.

A conference attendee listens to high frequency sound waves as instructed by Shon Isenhour, SMRP vice chair.

Photos by Christine Wang.

SMRP’s booth at the USA Science and Engineering Festival.

i t’s time to announce the Call for Nominations

for the 2012-2013 SMRP Board of Directors.

Don’t miss your chance to be a part of the exciting

changes and growth of your organization. This

October, three (3) Director Positions (BoK Director,

Education Director, Certification Director) and one

(1) Secretary Position will open on the SMRP Board

of Directors.

We invite member input on identifying qualified

and motivated nominees and encourage each SMRP

member to consider serving as a Board member or

officer to help SMRP remain vital and prosperous.

Nominations for these seats must be made by

July 13, 2012. Please send your nominations to

Shon Isenhour, [email protected] or Jon

Krueger, [email protected].

Call for Board and officer nominations


MeMBeR CoRneR

Smithsonian Support Center’s Secrets Revealed to SMRP MembersFor the second Executive Meeting of the year, SMRP members

congregated in Washington, D.C. and had the chance to expe-

rience an exclusive tour of the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum

Support Center (MSC). Dedicated in 1983 in Suitland, Md. on four

and a half acres of land, the MSC hosted a tour typically not open

to the public. Featuring a combination of more than 30 million of

the nation’s treasures stored in the giant collection storage pods,

the tour allowed members to gain an understanding of not only

the treasure but also the complexity in operating and maintaining

the facilities that house collections and artifacts.

The morning started off with introductory remarks by the

Smithsonian Facilities Manager, followed by a presentation by

Dr. Marion Mecklenburg on the effect and impact of building

environment on collections, materials, and structures. He sum-

marized his research in this area, especially in regard to artwork.

Following Mecklenburg’s presentation, Liz Dietrich discussed the

purpose, mission, and organization of the MSC. After this initial

round of presentations, the members were broken up into two

groups to visit specific locations arranged by Leslie Schuhmann.

Specific areas visited were the Anthropology storage areas and

collections in Pods 1 and 4, and Mineral Science and LAB/

Biorepository in Pod 3.

Comments from SMRP members were highly favorable. Being

able to see “behind the scenes” at the Smithsonian, SMRP mem-

bers left with an appreciation of the depth of the Smithsonian that

goes well beyond its walls.

Pharma & Biotech Sig adds new Value to SMRP

the Pharma/Biotech SIG has made quick progress in estab-

lishing an active group of industry practitioners. With a full

agenda of topics, the group met at Eli Lilly in Indianapolis this

past March, followed up with bi-weekly conference calls. The group’s

active agenda includes fostering several sub teams focusing on:

Commissioning and Qualification (C&Q) links to maintenance

and reliability, Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis

(FMECA) in Pharmaceuticals, Good Manufacturing Practices

(GMP) work management, and pharma/biotech benchmarking.

With early success, the group is now looking to grow its member-

ship. If you are interested in joining, please send your name,

company, and your interests to [email protected].

During the SMRP Executive Meeting, members were given a behind-the-scenes tour of the Smithsonian’s treasures.

Photo by Rick Fary

a Benefit to Students: the SMRP Scholarship Program to encourage academic institutions and their students to con-

sider careers in maintenance and reliability, and also provide

a way to offer a great benefit to SMRP member families, the SMRP

annually awards three scholarships for the upcoming school year:

� The SMRP Scholarship and SMRPCO Scholarship offer M&R

students a chance to pursue a career in the M&R industry.

� The Higher Standards Scholarship is granted to a student

from an SMRP member regardless of college/university major.

To apply for SMRP scholarships, visit www.smrp.org under

the Education tab, then Scholarships tab for application forms.

Deadline for scholarship applications is August 2012. For more

information, contact Devane Casteel [email protected]).

SMRP executive Meeting to Feature Jack Daniels Distillery tourthe next Executive Meeting will be held July 24-26 in

Huntsville, Ala. The three-day event will include a joint ses-

sion of SMRP and Calhoun Community College in Decatur,

Ala. with a tour of the college, a Board and Foundation Meeting,

Executive Member reception, and an executive tour and group

lunch at the Jack Daniels Distillery in Lynchburg, Tenn. If you are

an Executive Member of SMRP and would like to register, contact

Marella Bivins at [email protected].

By P

ractitio

ners for Practitioners

SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP

Pharma and Biotech


houSton ChaPteR

The Houston Chapter hosted its 2012 second

quarterly luncheon May 10 at Battleground

Golf Course Club at the San Jacinto

Battleground, where Texas won its indepen-

dence from Mexico on April 21, 1836. Featuring

guest speaker Kim Hoyt, manager of manufacturing excellence

for Huntsman Performance Products, the luncheon served as

an educational opportunity for the 67 attendees on improving

safety and productivity of the processes at Port Neches facili-

ties. Attendees also learned about improving equipment uptime,

eliminating incidents, and Project Zero - a four square mile

chemical facility located in southeast Texas.

uPCoMing eVentS:What: Houston Chapter - MaRS 2012 Conference,

SMRP 6th Annual Maintenance & Reliability Symposium

When: August 22- 24, 2012

Where: Moody Gardens Hotel and Convention Center

7 Hope Blvd., Galveston, Tex.

The Maintenance and Reliability Symposium (MaRS) is an

annual meeting produced by the SMRP Houston Chapter.

MaRS 2012 Conference, SMRP 6th Annual Maintenance and

Reliability Symposium, will be held August 22–24 at Moody

Gardens Hotel and Convention Center in Galveston. MaRS

is the Houston chapter’s fulfillment of its mission to provide

educational opportunities for current industry practitioners

and future maintenance and reliability professionals. The

MaRS event is supported by the Texas Chemical Council (TCC)

and the Associated Chemical Industry of Texas (ACIT) for its

training value and networking opportunities for the industry’s

newest generation of maintenance and reliability engineers.

Additionally, proceeds from MaRS are used to provide schol-

arships for engineering students and technicians enrolled in

degree plans/programs in related fields of study.

Attendance at MaRS is open to all interested parties. You do

NOT have to be a member of SMRP.

Registration for MaRS is $200 per person before August 1

and $250 after August 1. Please visit www.smrphouston.org to

register, sponsor, and for more information.

ChaPteR RounD-uP

Kim Hoyt of Huntsman Performance Products, discussed safety and process productivity.

The Indiana Chapter hosted its 5th Annual

Maintenance and Reliability Conference March

20 at the Eli Lilly MQ Learning Center in

Indianapolis. IndyCon received the highest

attendance of the five conferences to date with 109

attendees (84 conference attendees and 25 vendors). IndyCon

featured keynote speaker Ed Stanek, president of LAI

Reliability Systems, Inc. He presented, “Obtaining Balance:

Process Efficiency While on the Road to Reliability.” Other

practical presentations relating to current maintenance and

reliability issues and opportunities to take CMRP or CMRT

exams were also offered to attendees.

uPCoMing eVentS:

What: Indiana Chapter June Meeting

When: June 12, 2012

Where: Polaris Laboratories, Zionsville, Ind.

The Board of Directors of the SMRP Indiana Chapter has set

up a tour of the Polaris Laboratories for the first meeting of

inDiana ChaPteR

• Chapter ContaCts

Steven Eubanks [email protected]

Jimmy Jernigan [email protected]

Doug Henry [email protected]

Greg Dunn [email protected]

Ed Foster [email protected]

Clay Naiser [email protected]

Chair:

Vice-Chair:

Secretary:

Treasurer:

Program Chair:

Past Chair:


ChaPteR RounD-uP

The Northeast Florida Chapter held a

maintenance conference and plant

tour, May 24 at the JEA Northside

Generating Station in Jacksonville,

Fla. For the event, there was an exten-

sive maintenance conference agenda planned out for SMRP

members and non-members to attend. Topics of planning

and scheduling, asset management, fluid cleanliness man-

agement, and a full tour of JEA Power Station were covered.

The lunch and learn also included a demonstration of Pall’s

HLP6 Fluid Conditioning Purifier, which is critical to operation

and reliability of systems involved in power generation. The next

chapter event will be held in September.

The North Texas 2012 Kick-Off Meeting was a

great success at the Coca-Cola Syrup Plant in

Dallas, April 12. Featuring a well-received speaker

from the chapter membership, Al Poling, of Solomon

Associates, presented “Reliability and Maintenance -

The Path to World Class Performance” based on his studies as

the project manager for Solomon’s International Study of Plant

Reliability and Maintenance Effectiveness (RAM Study). Al was

formerly the technical director for SMRP from 2008 to 2010,

where he worked with reliability and maintenance professionals

through the Best Practices, Benchmarking, and Maintenance

and Reliability Knowledge committees. Attendees also had the

opportunity to tour

one of Coca-Cola’s

well thought of facili-

ties, which has been

in operation in Dallas

for many years.

The North Texas Kick-off Meeting was held at a Coca-Cola syrup plant in Dallas.

ne FloRiDa ChaPteR


Rick Kocken [email protected]

Kevin Clark [email protected]

Dennis Clark [email protected]

Earl Hill [email protected]

Jeff Haverly [email protected]

Dave Humphrey [email protected]

Jim Shackelford [email protected]

Jim Taylor [email protected]

Chair:

Vice-Chair:

Treasurer:

Secretary:

Past Chair:

Board Member:

Board Member:

Board Member:

the year. On June 12, the Indiana Chapter

will give members an opportunity to revisit

the principles and tools involved in tribology

or the science of lubrication.

Please contact Earl Hill, 317-726-1236,

[email protected], if you would like

to attend.


Doc Palmer [email protected]

Robert Schindler [email protected]

Walter Simpson [email protected]

Debbi Gray [email protected]

Roger Collard [email protected]

Chair:

Vice-Chair:

Secretary:

Treasurer:

Historian:


Kirk Blankenship [email protected]

Heath Williams [email protected]

Kevin Alewine [email protected]

Todd Bowman [email protected]

Scott Schaffer [email protected]

Scott Meador [email protected]

Larry Goodpasture [email protected]

Rob Wallin [email protected]

Chair:

Co-Chair:

Director of

Membership:

Board Member:

Board Member:

Board Member:

Board Member:

Board Member:

noRth texaS ChaPteR

to be an SMRP chapter member,

you must join SMRP. if your chapter

has an event to talk about or for more

information on chapter membership,

contact Christine wang at

[email protected].


Enobong Agbasonu

Shell Petroleum Development Company, Nigeria

Manuel Rosas Aguilar

Offshore Technical Assistance

Haroon Akhtar

Honeywell

Mohammed Al-Hajri

Saudi Aramco

Ahmad Alkhaldi

Kuwait National Petroleum Company (KNPC)

Oscar Antunez

Dow Chemical

Elsa Anzalone

Invensys Operations Management

David Armstrong

Hendrickson Canada ULC

Matt Arndt

Materion

Mike Aroney

GPAllied

Mike Barok

eMaint Enterprises, LLC

Michael Berkey

Merck & Co., Inc.

Douglas Berlin

Reliability Resource Consultants of GA LLC

Dave Bertolini

People and Processes, Inc.

Jeff Blaske

Accenture

John Bowen

Merck & Co., Inc.

William Brown

Elliott Company

James Brown, II

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Jimmie Bowling

GPAllied

Alison Buckle

Anheuser-Busch Inc.

Manuel Lopez Buenrostro

Serco S.A. de C.V

Brian Bulman

Flowserve

Mike Burchfield

Gerdau

Kyle Burnett

Michael Bybee

Schreiber

Chris Callaway

Corning

Christine Cartwright

Enterprise Products

Brian Cashimere

Carestream Health Inc.

Christopher Channell

Thomas Cline

Roche

Joseph Coffman

Francis Concemino

Inland Empire Utilities Agency

Kevin Cowger

Merck & Co., Inc.

Patrick Craig

Willy Davidson

Oiltanking Partners, L.P.

Roger DeBlois

Flowserve

David Dezarn

Caraustar Industries, Inc.

Darrell Dial

Johan Dreyer

ARMS Reliability

Chad Driskill

Sekisui Specialty Chemicals

Andre Droste

Dmitri Dubin

General Mills

Garland Edgerton

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Lawrence Eidson

Jay Electric

James Elliott

Henkel

Mike Emert

Gerdau

Donald Enslen

Merck & Co., Inc.

Joseph Ervin

Roche

Marc Esplin

Merck & Co., Inc.

Udayashankar Ganapathy

Suncor Energy

Jeremy Gartman

ATK

Jose Garcia Garza

Serco, SA de CV

Mike Gehloff

GPAllied

Lance Dean Ginest

Orange County Sanitation District

MARCH 17, 2012 – MAy 21, 2012 new MeMBeRS


Larry Goodpasture

GPAllied

Daniel Goodrich

CTC- Vibration Analysis Hardware

Daniel Gonzalez

Quanterion Solutions

Javier Gonzalez

Chevron

Carole Gorman

Honeywell

Samuel Greene

Lane Limited

Earnest Grenier

Genzyme

Maureen Gribble

UE Systems

Rick Guzman

Schreiber Foods, Inc.

Jimmie Hanks

MRG Solutions

Daniel Harbaugh

The City of Havelock

Don Hataway

Ensco International

John Heideman

Control Southern

Gregorio Herrera Hernandez

Serco S.A. de C.V.

Bradley Hill

Schlumberger

Steve Hivner

Carestream

John Holmes

Mainnovation Inc.

Derek Iltis

Life Cycle Engineering, Inc.

Alexander Ionov

TNK-BP

Chris Jackson

Luminant

Erin Johnson

Merck & Co., Inc.

James Johnson

Merck & Co., Inc.

Robert Johnson

Eddy Packing Company

Michael Johnston

T.A. Cook

Preston Jolly

Technology Transfer Services, Inc

William Jones

StarTech Instrument

Park Joy

Merck & Co., Inc.

William Keeter

GPAllied

Bill Kilbey

GPAllied

Robert Kimbrough

Michelin Tire Corp

Clark Kimmel


David Kite

Merck & Co., Inc.

Shannon Klabnik

MIPRO Consulting

Edmund Knetig

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.


305-591-8935 • www.ludeca.com

WatchVIDEOS

Online

ShaftAlignment

Rotalign® ULTRA

VIBXPERT® II

& GeometricMeasurement

VibrationAnalysis

& Balancing

Easy-to-usesolutions for your

maintenance needs!Sales • Rentals • Services

continued on page 28



Chuck Kooistra

GPAllied

Daniel Kurtz

Gerdau

Rodolfo Landa

Offshore Technical Assistance S.C.

Robert Latham

RSL Consulting, LLC

Mike Lazarakis

Joseph Leeth

Merck & Co., Inc.

Steven Lindborg, CMRP, CPMM

GPAllied

Jeffrey Madere

Delta Airlines

Darin Maheu

Hanover Insurance Group

Paul Marino


Luis Mas

Roche

Brian McBroom

Williams Midstream

Yolanda Enriquez Mendez

Serco S.A. de C.V.

Frank Mignano

SKF Reliability Systems

Bart De Moor

GPAllied

Todd Moran

Roche

Oratile More

Debswana Diamond Company

Thomas Moss

Alcan Cable

Dennis Mullins

PdM Condition Monitoring, LLC

Raed Mustaffa

Collins Mwamba

Cargill

Tarairwa Ndewere

Minerals and Metals Group

Bailey Oladunni

Lyondell Basell Chemical Company

Richard Overman

Core Principles, LLC

Andy Page

GPAllied

Timothy Page

UGL Services

Gene Pargas


Robert Park

Capital Power Corporation

Trino Pedraza

Tammi Pickett


Doug Plucknette

GPAllied

David Porter

McCain Foods Ltd (USA)

Jason Price

Priceless Enterprises LLC

Carey Repasz

GPAllied

John Rhea

Gerdau

Gerardo Salerno

MedImmune

Michelle Salmon

Roche

Randy Sampson

Meridium, Inc.

Jahir Sanchez

Confipetrol S.A.

Jeffrey Sanford

Chzm Hill

Sarah Schaill

Allied Reliability, Inc.

Erich Scheller

GPAllied

Steve Schimsky

Joe Scoff

United States Gypsum

Ryan Shepherd

Gerdau

Christopher Sheridan

HDR Engineering

Jeff Shiver


Bradley Shy

Merck & Co., Inc.

Mike Skuratovich

Eastern Oil Company

Tom Sloan

GPAllied

Ricky Smith

GPAllied

Ben Staats

West Fraser Cariboo Pulp

Doug Stangier

Weyerhaeuser

continued from page 27

Steve Thames

Freeport McMoran Cooper & Cooler

Douglas Tutwiler

Merck & Co., Inc.

Jason Verly

Davisco Foods

Cindi Vinette

Internet4Associations

Frank Vitucci

SKF Reliability

Joseph Walsh

ByteManagers, Inc.

James Wang

Coca-Cola Bottlers

Josh Watson

Schreiber Foods

Brandon Weil

GPAllied

Lynn White

Schreiber

George Williams

Bristol-Myers Squibb

Billy Wise

General Electric/Bently Nevada

Larry Wleczyk

Green Bay Packaging

Ricky Wright

Merck & Co., Inc.

Ricky Zarate

David Zimny

IRISS, INC.


Time Management Plus! See the future and act. Identify bearing failure, energy waste

and flashover potential before it happens!!

Call 800.223.1325,

E-Mail [email protected], or visit www.uesystems.com/sm1


MARCH 17, 2012 – MAy 21, 2012 new CMRPs

Adil Alkiyumi, CMRP

Petroleum Development Oman

Hussain Al-Hasni, CMRP

Petroleum Development Oman

Kenneth Bannister, CMRP

Engtech Industries Inc.

Ernest Baptiste, CMRP

Moris Behar, CMRP

Rio Tinto

Michael Berkey, CMRP

Merck

Daniel Blackford, CMRP

Allied

David Bonfante, CMRP

Georgia-Pacific

John Bowen, CMRP

Merck & Co., Inc.

James Brown, II, CMRP

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Mark Browning, CMRP

Ascend Performance Materials

Kevin Cowger, CMRP

Merck & Co., Inc.

John Crossan, CMRP

John Crossan Consulting

Robert Crull, CMRP

MRG

Vien Dang, CMRP

Rio Tinto

David Dezarn, CMRP

Caraustar

Donald Enslen, CMRP

Merck & Co., Inc.

Marc Esplin, CMRP

Merck & Co, Inc.

Leo Faykes, CMRP

GoldCorp/Musselwhite Mine

Brian Flett CMRP

Ivara

Frederic Fortin, CMRP

ArcelorMittal Mines Canada

Julie Fowden, CMRP

Rio Tinto - Kennecott Utah Copper

Rick Gamble, CMRP

AEDC/ATA

Daniel Hernandez, CMRP

Consultores Asociados A.C.

Jeremy Hine, CMRP

MillerCoors

Alexander Ionov, CMRP

TNK-BP

Chris Jackson, CMRP

Luminant Power

James Johnson, CMRP

Merck & Co., Inc.

Greg Julich, CMRP

Pfizer

Martin Kearney, CMRP

ArcelorMittal Mines Canada

Chad Kellner, CMRP

MedImmune, LLC

Edmund Knetig, CMRP

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Felix M. Laboy de la Plaza, CMRP

Vibranalysis

Jason Langhorne, CMRP

Allied Reliability

Luis Laracuente, CMRP

Bristol Myers Squibb

Kai MacMurray, CMRP

Kennecott Utah Copper

William Marrs, CMRP

Intrepid Potash

Robert McAmis, CMRP

AEDC/ATA

George McCarty, CMRP

Georgia-Pacific

Joseph McGroarty, CMRP

Plant Services Magazine


MARCH 17, 2012 – MAy 21, 2012 new CMRPs

Michel Michaud, CMRP

ArcelorMittal

Scott Mohr, CMRP

GPAllied

Roberto Molina, CMRP

Celanese

Thomas Mundy, CMRP

Luminant Energy

Tarairwa Ndewerem, CMRP

MMG

Boudewijn Neijens, CMRP

Copperleaf Technologies

Jameson Newhouse, CMRP

Allied Reliability

Gregg Pacelli, CMRP

Allied Reliability

Miguel Padierna, CMRP

Offshore Technical Assistance S.C.

Luis Perafan, CMRP

Serco S.A. de C.V.

David Porter, CMRP

McCain Foods

Casey Raiford, CMRP

Georgia-Pacific

Ajit Sahoo, CMRP

Agrium

Randy Sampson, CMRP

Meridium

Thomas Sasman, CMRP

Cargill, Inc.

Patrick Schreiber, CMRP

Allied Reliability

Christopher Sheridan, CMRP

HDR Engineering

Bradley Shy, CMRP

Merck & Co, Inc.

Ismael Solis, CMRP

Pall Corporation

Thomas Steveley, CMRP

Gallatin Steel Co.

Thomas Sutton, CMRP

RF Micro Devices

John Szewc, CMRP

PepsiCo

James Thompson, CMRP

UGL Services

Joey Traughber, CMRP

Plymouth Engineered Shapes

Gerald Trodd, CMRP

Agrium Inc.

Douglas Tutwiler, CMRP

Merck & Co, Inc.

Ramanathan Viswanathan, CMRP

Meridium Inc.

Michael Weise, CMRP

ATS

Jeffrey Wheless, CMRP

Novozymes

Darrin Whisman, CMRP

Robert Williamson, CMRP

Strategic Work Systems, Inc

Hudson Woodfin, CMRP

Ascend Materials

NEW CMRTs

Jamie Barth, CMRT

Quaker Oats/PepsiCo

Russell Boehm, CMRT

Eli Lilly & Co.

Jason Brandon, CMRT

PepsiCo

Linden Ellis, CMRT

Metro Wastewater Reclamation District

Scott Kacere, CMRT

PepsiCo

Guy Koett, CMRT

Metro Wastewater Reclamation District

Charles Naber, CMRT

PepsiCo

SMRPCo Sustaining SponsorsThe SMRP Certifying Organization (SMRPCO) has developed a program of benefits for companies or organizations wishing to provide support to the mission of SMRPCO. For an annual contribution of $1,000, sponsors receive discounts on exams, recertification fees, and much more! To learn more, please visit: www.smrp.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3315

aBB relIaBIlIty serVICes

adVanCed teChnology serVICes, InC.

aedC/ata

aesseal, InC.

agrIum

alCoa InC.

allIed relIaBIlIty, InC.

aramark faCIlIty serVICes

asCend PerformanCe materIals

asoCIaCIon ColomBIana de IngenIeros (aCIem)

austIn IndustrIal, InC.

BarrICk gold CorP.

BhP BIllIton

BP - gulf of mexICo

Bunge

CaCI, InC

CargIll, InC.

CarVer Pa CorPoratIon

delta aIr lInes

des-Case

dreIsIlker eleCtrICal motors InC.

duPont

elI lIlly & ComPany

emerson ProCess management

fluor CorPoratIon

genon energy

gPsg - Johnson & Johnson

greenwood, InC.

gulf soCIety of maIntenanCe ProfessIonals (gsmP)

holCIm us, InC.

hormel foods

IrVIng PulP and PaPer

IVara CorPoratIon

JaCoBs

JaCoBs/maf

JesCo maIntenanCe CorPoratIon

kraft foods

lIfe CyCle engIneerIng

louIs dreyfus CommodItIes

los alamos natIonal laBoratory

lumInant Power

maInnoVatIon InC.

management resourCes grouP, InC.

marshall InstItute

mead Johnson nutrItIon

merIdIum, InC.

merCk & ComPany, InC.

moBIus InstItute north amerICa

mosaIC

nexen InC.

noVelIs, InC.

owens CornIng

PePsICo

PfIZer, InC.

PredICItIVe serVICes

relogICa

rIo tInto

saBIC InnoVatIVe PlastICs

strategIC asset management, InC. (samI)

the dow ChemICal ComPany

turner IndustIres

ue systems

ugl serVICes

wells enterPrIses InC.

wyle laBoratorIes

The SMRP Certifying Organization (SMRPCO) and

SMRP strive to score, process, and mail exam results to CMRP

and CMRT candidates within a reasonable amount of time—four

to five weeks—from when the exam was administered. There are a

number of variables that may impact the rate at which these results

are received. 1

For the eight paper exam sessions held in April 2012 (47 exams),

results were mailed from SMRP, on average, three weeks (21

days) following the exam date.

Here are some ways candidates can help ensure their results are

mailed and received in a timely fashion:

� Check the address on the application to make sure it is

complete and accurate. The address the candidate places on

the application is where the results will be sent.

� Include your email and phone number so that staff can reach

you if there are questions about your application.

� Pay the exam fee before you sit for the exam. Nonpayment will

delay the mailing of results.

� Remember, results are not released via phone or email.

Candidates will be notified of their results by mail only.

CMRP & CMRt Paper exams: turnaround time from SMRP

1. Turnaround time is defined by the day the exam was administered to when the results were mailed from SMRP.

CeRtiFiCation uPDate


Discover thehidden treasurein your company

Watch the VDM Inside demowww.mainnovation.com

The maintenance manager is under a lot of pressure. The current credit crunch

forces you to improve. But where to start? How can you find the hidden treasure in

your maintenance department? VDM Inside is the Maintenance KPI Dashboard that

provides you with real maintenance intelligence of your cost drivers, performance killers

and underlying causes. With VDM Inside you will finally get a grip on your maintenance

performance. Want to know more? Go to www.vdminside.com

CONTROLLING MAINTENANCE, CREATING VALUE.

MAINNOVATION ad(Eng) 162x229mm.indd 1 07-12-2011 14:54:09

Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 300Atlanta, GA 30342 USAwww.smrp.org

Executive DirectorJon Krueger

678-303-3045

[email protected]

Associate DirectorJayne Gillis

678-303-2979

[email protected]

Certification and EducationTim Kline

678-303-3017

[email protected]

Executive Vice PresidentRuss Lemieux

678-303-3041

[email protected]

Exam DirectorTerry Harris, CMRP

937-371-1644

[email protected]

Product & Business Development ManagerLaura Keane

[email protected]

281-384-5943

Solutions Editorial DepartmentDan Anderson

Chair, Communications Committee

Life Cycle Engineering

[email protected]

Jayne Gillis

Editor-in-Chief

678-303-2979

[email protected]

Christine Wang

Editorial Assistant

678-303-3060

[email protected]

SMRP StAff

Houston Chapter “Call for Panelists” for MaRS 2012Requests Due: June 30, 2012

Contact: [email protected]

eVent CalenDaR www.SMRP.oRg

July Executive MeetingJuly 24-26, 2012

Huntsville, Ala.

MaRS 2012 Conference (Houston Chapter)August 22-24, 2012

Moody Gardens

Galveston, Tex.

Documents

SolutionsJune2012H (2)