Emerson RBI Methodology

Introduction
This document serves to familiarise MPC employees with the Risk Based Inspection process
which is proposed for use during the inspection plan development process.

It is based on API 510, API 571 & API 580 recommended practices. It applies a qualitative risk
ranking process.

Process

The process is comprised of 7 distinct steps. The responsibilities are assigned at each step.

The steps are as follows:

Step 1: Populating the Emerson Risk Based Inspection Database
Responsibilities:
Emerson: Source data from MPC/Worley-Parsons and input it into database
MPC: Provide information on request from Emerson

Information required:
- Material Specifications (From the ASME codes)
- Pipeline Specifications (Obtained from MPC)
- Fluid properties (Obtained from MPC)
- Design & Operating Parameters of Equipment & Pipelines
- Setting up of component types
- Failure modes
- Degradation mechanisms
- Design Codes

Source of information:
- P&IDs
- PFDs
- Vendor drawings
- Operating information

Scope:
Complete database for each MPC plant.

Step 2: Risk determination
Determination of initial risk associated with each piece of equipment by focusing on its operating
conditions, material of construction and fluid conveyed.

Responsibilities:
Emerson: Source data from MPC/Worley-Parsons and input it into database
MPC: Provide information on request from Emerson

Information required:
- Prioritization results for equipment (MPC/Emerson sessions)
- Pipeline Specifications (Obtained from MPC)
- Operating Conditions

This is done by assessing the probability of failure, as well as the consequence of
failure following the following rating structure.


2.1 Probability of Failure
Internal Corrosion:
This rating focuses on the probability that internal corrosion will affect the ability of the
pressure envelope to contain the fluid based on its remaining useful life. In other words if
the vessel is brand new the current probability that the vessel will fail from internal corrosion
in the near future is Very Unlikely if we assume that it was designed for a 20year life.

The specific internal corrosion which may affect the pressure envelope will be addressed
during the identification of the specific degradation mechanisms in step 4.

Rating Description
Highly probable: Allowable loss is already used up
Probable: Remaining life 3 - 5 years
Possible: Remaining life 5 7 years
Unlikely: Remaining life 7 10 years
Very unlikely: Remaining life > 10 years

Fatigue:
This rating focuses on the probability that fatigue caused by cyclic duty has affected the
ability of the pressure envelope to contain the fluid.

If this vessel is not in cyclic duty service we will say that it is Very Unlikely to fail, if however
it might be in cyclic service such as regeneration of catalyst (high to low temperature
swings) we will consider its operating vs. design life. In the case of MPC the fatigue rating
should not be higher than Unlikely if we consider these criteria and the age of the plant.

Rating Description
Highly probable: Operating life > 60% Design life
Probable: Operating life < 60% Design life
Possible: Operating life < 40% Design life
Unlikely: Operating life < 20% Design life
Very unlikely: Not considered significant

Stress Corrosion Cracking:
This rating focuses on the probability that SCC may be caused by the fluid contained in side
the vessel.

This rating focuses on the material of construction and the fluid contained, i.e. 304 Stainless
Steel and Caustic Soda. The rating is based on industry experience, as well as API 571
recommendations.

Rating Description
Highly probable: Experience of wide spread cracking in similar vessels
Probable: Experience of very localised cracking in similar vessels
Possible: Very little experience of cracking in similar vessels
Unlikely: No experience of cracking in similar vessels
Very unlikely: Not considered significant

The individual probability of failure is now combined to obtain the overall probability of failure.




2.2 Consequence of Failure
Impact on production:
This rating focuses on the impact on production when a failure does occur. In the case of
vessels the priority ranking obtained from MPC/Emerson prioritization sessions will be
used.

In the case of pipelines additional sessions will be held between MPC/Emerson to obtain
these ratings.

Rating Description
4: Sudden failure possible Prolonged repair Major damage with no standby
system
3: Sudden failure possible Short repair Minor damage
2: Predictable failure Planned repair Minor leak, mitigating actions can be applied
1: Standby plant Little or no impact Switch over to the spare equipment

Location - Personnel:
This rating focuses on the impact on personnel that may be in the vicinity when a failure
does occur.

The site plot plan will be used to determine if personnel will have to be in the vicinity and
what amount of time they will spend there.

Sessions will be held between MPC/Emerson to obtain these ratings.

Rating Description
3: Heavily populated
2: Routinely accessible
1: Inaccessible without clearance

Location - Equipment:
This rating focuses on the impact on surrounding equipment that may be affected when a
failure does occur. The site plot plan will be used to determine the concentration of
equipment.

Emerson will input these values.

Rating Description
3: Dense installation
2: General installation
1: Remote installation

Fluid Characteristics:
This rating focuses on the impact on the health of employees and surrounding areas by
considering the health risks posed by the release of the fluid contained. The information is
obtained from MSDS of chemicals contained, as well as the prescribed hazardous chemical
substances lists.

Emerson will input these values.

Rating Description
3: Hazardous (Steam/Acids/Toxic etc.)
2: Hydrocarbons neither inert nor hazardous
1: Inert/less than 100C

Fluid Hazard - Contents:
This rating focuses on the regulatory requirements which relates to the maximum quantity
of fluid/gas that can be released into the environment which requires it to be reported to a
regulatory institution. This is based on the volume of the fluid contained under normal
operating conditions.

Emerson will input these values.

Rating Description
3: Notifiable substance > prescribed quantity
2: Notifiable substance < prescribed quantity
1: No notifiable substance

Fluid Hazard - Pressure:
This rating focuses on the consequence of an uncontrolled release of pressure contained
within the pressure envelope. The information is obtained from the P&IDs, PFDs and other
vendor information that was input into the database in step 1. The rating is automatically
calculated.

Rating Description
3: > 30 Bar
2: > 7 Bar < 30 Bar
1: < 7 Bar

Final Consequence Rating:
The consequence rating is determined by adding the results from the individual
consequence assessments together.

Rating Description
Very high: 16 19
High: 13 15
Moderate: 10 12
Low: 8 10
Very low: 6 8

Overall Risk Rating:

The results from the probability and consequence ranking are then plotted utilising the matrix
below to determine the overall risk posed by the particular piece of equipment.

Risk Matrix
Probability of failure
Highly
Probable
Probable Possible Unlikely Very
unlikely
Consequence
of failure
Very high Very high Very high High Moderate Low
High Very high High Moderate Low Low
Moderate High Moderate Moderate Low Very Low
Low Moderate Low Low Low Very Low
Very Low Low Low Very Low Very Low Very Low






Step 3: Compile list of equipment risk analysis
Responsibilities:
Emerson: Review results and compile an critical equipment list based on
the risks associated.
MPC: Review list compiled by Emerson.

Information required:
- Results from Risk Analysis

Scope:
Emerson will review the list of equipment based on their risk ranking to determine which
equipment needs to have a detailed inspection plan compiled and which equipment can be
grouped together and covered through sampling inspections.

Deliverable:
List of equipment ranked according to its risk to personnel and equipment

Step 4: Compile Inspection Plan
Responsibilities:
Emerson: Identify degradation mechanisms, subsequent failure modes, inspection
techniques and CMLs
External Corrosion Expert: Identify degradation mechanisms, subsequent failure modes,
inspection techniques and CMLs
MPC Corrosion Expert: Review degradation mechanisms, subsequent failure modes,
inspection techniques and CMLs identified by Emerson

Information required:
- Equipment Design Drawings
- Isometric Drawings

Scope:
Definition of equipment specific inspection plan focussing on the degradation mechanisms
likely to be present and the subsequent failure modes which can be detected through the
application of inspection techniques such as UT/VT/MT/PT etc.

This process will be applied to each individual piece of equipment having a risk of
moderate, high and very high.

The frequencies of the inspection will be based on the risk, type of equipment and fluid
being contained.

The frequencies will be optimised to coincide with scheduled catalyst changes if internal
inspections are recommended or other warrentee requirements. These requirements will be
obtained through discussion with MPC process personnel, as well as from vendor
documentation.

For equipment that has got a low and very low risk a representative inspection might be
recommended for similar equipment in similar service.

Deliverable:
Inspection plan complete with frequencies


Step 5: Review of inspection plan by MPC
Responsibilities:
MPC: Review and approval of proposed inspection plan. Upload of
inspection tasks to Oracle.

Step 6: Recording of Baseline Results
Responsibilities:
MPC: Source results of CML baseline readings from manufacturer or EPC if additional
readings were taken. Input results into suitable database for future calculations.
Arrange for additional readings to be taken at CMLs for baseline (where required). Compile
inspection drawings to be imported into database.

Information required:
- List of CML points (From inspection plan)
- Equipment Inspection Drawings
- Isometric Drawings
- Equipment databooks

Scope:
Creation of CML points in suitable inspection database. Recording of base line inspection
results.

NOTE:
Base line inspection results can be obtained from original manufacturing documents such as plate
material certificates supplied as part of the code databook or generally accepted thickness for new
piping based on the design schedule.

Step 7
Maaden should review and update RBI requirements after each inspection.