Page 1 of 4

January 14, 2001

Criticality-Based Maintenance
Criticality-Based Maintenance (CBM) is a four-step process of identifying and
addressing risk and exposure in a facility. These steps are:
1. Equipment Criticality Ranking (ECR)
2. Follow-up action plans
3. Implementation of approved action plans
4. Close-out of completed action plans
CBM is consistent with the following industry standards:
API RP 580: Risk-Based Inspection
NFPA 704: Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for
Emergency Response
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119: Process Safety Management
Equipment Criticality Ranking
Equipment criticality ranking is a qualitative assessment of potential consequences
associated with specific equipment items and the likelihood that those consequences will
occur. Potential consequences are evaluated for each equipment item using a cause-
event-consequence process. Each failure scenario is a combination of a cause and event,
and may have one or more potential consequences. Consequences considered for each
scenario are assessed and given values for consequence severity level and likelihood of
occurrence (Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3). Likelihood is based on a generic equipment
case, i.e. what is typical for the specific type of equipment. The consequence and
likelihood values for each consequence are entered into a risk-rating matrix to give a risk
rating value (Figure 1). The risk rating for a given equipment item is the worst case
rating for all consequences considered. Risk ratings are generated separately for hazard
and process consequences and the respective process and hazard rating values are entered
into a risk-ranking matrix to give equipment criticality rankings (Figure 2).
Risk ratings are also used to assess an order-of-magnitude level of exposure in monetary
terms (Table 4). Exposure is only present at the equipment items where the
consequences occur and must be assessed in that manner. For example, a pressure vessel
protected by a relief valve has a given level of exposure. The relief valve may cause an
overpressure situation in the vessel if it fails to function, but itself does not have
associated exposure.
Figure 1. Risk Rating Matrix Figure 2. Risk Ranking Matrix
VH
3 4 5 6 7
4-7
A A A A A
H
2 3 4 5 6
4
A A A A A
M
1 2 3 4 5
3
B B B A A
L
0 1 2 4
2
C C B A A
C
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
N
0 0 1 2 3
P
C
R
0,1
D C B A A

N L M H VH

0,1 2 3 4 4-7

Frequency

HCR
Page 2 of 4
January 14, 2001
Table 1. Safety and Environmental Consequence Categories
Category Select highest category for which one criterion is satisfied
Very High Multiple fatalities of company or associated personnel.
Severe injury, illness, or fatalities of one or more members of the community.
Catastrophic environmental impact requiring a full-scale response by outside
agencies.
High Death of one company or associated person.
Severe injury or illness of multiple plant personnel.
Major reportable environmental incident requiring significant company resource
commitment as defined by EH&S guidelines. Notification of regulatory agencies,
negative press coverage. Any hydrocarbon, produced water, or drilling fluid spill
greater than 12 bbl within the facility boundaries or any spill outside the facility
boundaries. Any spill of acid, caustic, or hazardous chemicals > 0.2 cubic meters
regardless of location
Medium Medical treatment required for personnel.
Minor reportable environmental incident as defined by EH&S guidelines. Any
hydrocarbon, produced water, or drilling fluid spill greater than 12 bbl within the facility
boundaries or any spill outside the facility boundaries. Any spill of acid, caustic, or
hazardous chemicals > 0.2 cubic meters regardless of location.
Low Minor medical treatment or first aid required for plant personnel.
Non-reportable environmental incident.
Negligible No safety or environmental consequences.
Table 2. Process Consequence Categories
Category Select highest category for which one criterion is satisfied
Very High Major production loss.
Financial impact at a corporate level.
400,000 4,000,000+
BBL
$10
7
- $10
8
+ USD
High Significant loss of production capacity (50-100%) for short
term (<48 hours).
Loss of production capacity (<10-50%) for long term (>48
hours).
Financial impact at a facility level.
40,000 400,000
BBL
$10
6
- $10
7
USD
Medium Loss of production capacity (10-50%) for short term (<48
hours).
Minor loss of production capacity (<10%) for long term
(>48 hours).
Financial impact at a unit level.
4,000 40,000 BBL
$10
5
- $10
6
USD
Low Minor loss of production capacity (<10%) for short term
(<48 hours).
400 4,000 BBL
$10
4
- $10
5
USD
Negligible Process capability not impacted. < 400 BBL
< $10
4
USD
Table 3. Likelihood Categories
Category Likelihood of Consequence
Very High One or more occurrences are credible annually
High Several occurrences are credible in the facility lifetime
Medium One occurrence is credible in the facility lifetime
Low Not expected to occur in the facility lifetime but not outside the realm of possibility
Negligible Practically impossible
Page 3 of 4
January 14, 2001
Table 4. Exposure Matrix (Consequence x Likelihood)
VH
1.00E+08 $1,000 $10,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $10,000,000
H
1.00E+07 $100 $1,000 $10,000 $100,000 $1,000,000
M
1.00E+06 $10 $100 $1,000 $10,000 $100,000
L
1.00E+05 $1 $10 $100 $1,000 $10,000
C
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
N
1.00E+04 $0 $1 $10 $100 $1,000
1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01
N L M H VH
Frequency/Probability
Total Exposure = (Hazard & Process Risk Amounts)
Furthermore, due to the qualitative nature of the ECR assessment, careful consideration
must be given as to whether the sum of the exposure of subsets of systems equals the
total exposure for the system. For example, the Mainline Pipeline has been evaluated by
piping segments between valve stations. The maximum consequence level associated
with each segment leak was very high. The likelihood of such a consequence was
considered as Medium: one occurrence is credible in the facility lifetime, based on that
fact that such failures are known to occur in industry. It would be inaccurate to state that
the level of exposure of the Mainline Pipeline is the sum of the exposure level determined
for each segment. Exposure level for this item would instead be the maximum exposure
level of its components.
Follow-up Action Plans
Follow-up is a process of reviewing high-risk equipment items and preparing and
implementing action plans for risk reduction. Figures 1 and 2 identify Red, Gray,
and White zones associated with criticality ratings for each equipment item. Action
plans should be brought forward for items in the red and gray zones; no action is required
for white-zone items as they are at acceptable risk levels. In general, all red zone items
should be reduced to a minimum of gray zone. Gray zone items should all be evaluated
for risk reduction, but in some cases risk cannot be feasibly reduced.
Preparation of Action Plans
Action plans are used to identify a course of action for reducing risk; they do not include
a design package for recommended changes, but rather bring forward a plan for risk
reduction for approval by management. The action plan is prepared as a document that
identifies the current situation and level of risk, proposed action, and residual risk once
the action has been implemented.
Actions plans should be prepared with the low-cost solution in mind. The first step is to
do more detailed analyses of equipment items in question to see if action is warranted.
Some review questions might be:
Were assumptions too conservative?
What is the specific versus generic case likelihood of the consequence?
Is the design basis adequate where it was assumed inadequate in the ECR study?
Are spare parts inventory levels adequate?
Page 4 of 4
January 14, 2001
If analyses show that action is warranted, low cost solutions should be reviewed first.
These might include:
Implementation of procedures
Implementation or improvement of predictive or preventive maintenance.
Adjustment of spare parts inventory levels
Exhausting these possibilities, facilities changes should be evaluated.
Approval of Action Plans
Action plans are presented to a management forum for approval in a sign-off meeting.
Typical attendees at a sign-off meeting include engineering, production, and maintenance
managers.
As a rule-of-thumb, a minimum of 100 actions plans should be presented at each meeting.
These should be grouped for expeditious presentation, typically by type of action. Sign-
offs are generally done by groups of action types once management is comfortable with
the basis and rationale for the respective types.
As part of the approval process, action plans should be assigned to specific people and
given completion dates.
Implementation of Action Plans
Once action plans are assigned to the appropriate people, implementation becomes the
responsibility of the assignee. However, the CBM Lead Engineer has responsibility for
monitoring the status of all action plans.
When risk for a given equipment item is reduced by implementing new procedures,
inspections, by taking credit for protective equipment, etc., the following considerations
must be taken:
1. Effectiveness of risk reduction measure. Use as a guideline the procedures
outlined in API Recommended Practice 580, Risk-Based Inspection.
2. Risk reduction via procedure or inspection requires that the procedure or
inspection assume the criticality of the risk that it reduced prior to implementation
of that procedure or inspection.
Management of Change procedures must accompany any facilities changes.
Close-Out of Completed Action Plans
After disposition of approved action plans, process safety information (PSI) must be
finalized and confirmed. Confirmation is documented by attaching appropriate copies of
process safety information to an Action Plan Resolution Form. The Action Plan
Resolution Form gives a statement of the initial condition, the action taken, and a
summary of before and after risk. The CBM Lead Engineer signs off the Action Plan
Resolution Form when the action has been satisfactorily implemented and applicable PSI
updated.