Ageing plant 27
Recognising and addressing the risk
Managing ageing plant through
Risk Based Inspection
A ll plants are susceptible to ageing,
and so are automatically subject to
the risks of mechanical integrity failure
such as loss of containment. Given this,
companies should be taking action to
manage their ageing plant, but at the
same time all companies need more
output for less input; higher production
and less investment, higher reliability
but lower maintenance. Risk Based
Inspection (RBI) may be a solution in
effectively managing ageing plant and
achieving that aspiration of higher
productivity through less down time.
RBI is about inspection of the plant
in a manner which is bespoke to its
needs, and finding the correct and most
efficient inspection regime. This can
remove the need for unnecessary and
costly inspections, especially those
which are legally enforced under PSSR
(Pressure Systems Safety Regulations).
This article from Chilworth Global gives
a real-life example of RBI being used to
examine the inspection requirements
on a mist eliminator in a sulphonation
process, which is highly toxic and
corrosive. This led to significant savings
in parts replacement and in down
time, as well as saving logistical costs
in facilitating invasive-visual-internal
inspection.
Background
Traditionally plant items have been
inspected using prescriptive industry
practices, for example statutory inspections
of ageing at the beginning of the
plants life can increase its design life
in many cases
of boilers and pressure vessels enforced
under the PSSR. Here, the actual inspection
method and interval is documented in the
WSE (Written Scheme of Examination) but
is based on prescriptive practices in most
cases. Prescriptive practices by nature
have fixed methods of inspection and
inspection frequency which are based on
general industrial experience. Although
these prescriptive practices appear inflexible
and potentially inappropriate for specialised
situations, they have on the whole provided
adequate safety and reliability. [1]
However, the prescriptive inspection method
has inherent shortcomings;
99 It does not encourage the analysis of the
specific threats to the integrity of the plant
in question,
99 It does not focus finite inspection
resources on the areas of greatest
concern. [1]
This inefficient usage of resources is shown
in both the inspection time and the financial
outlay to prepare the logistics for inspection
by the Duty Holder, the owner and user of
the equipment.
This problem is further exacerbated by the
fact that statutory inspections have become
an over-commoditised industry. Currently,
inspections of pressurised equipment
are conducted via insurance companies
for most large organisations. Insurance
brokers acting on behalf of their clients,
the plants, seek a deal with insurance
companies in providing the most cost
effective policy. In practice, each relevant
plant item is categorised in a rough group
by equipment type (i.e. reactor, air receiver,
heat exchanger etc.) and each item is
quoted on the number of units, a unit being
a quarter of an hour of an inspectors time.
So X units for air receiver and Y units for
reactor etc. and the PSSR WSE is sold
as a standard commodity along with the
inspection. All of this activity, which is meant
to ensure plant integrity, is carried out
without asking a single question about the
complexity of the plant or how hazardous
the materials handled are in terms of toxicity
and flammability [2]. Instead of engineers
both from the plant and the inspection
company speaking to one another about
what the requirements of the plant really
are, too often it comes down to negotiations
between insurance companies and brokers.
As one would expect, this issue itself leads
to many other problems:
99 The WSE may not be detailed enough to
highlight the specific failure mechanisms
of specialised vessels. Even if that is the
case when the vessel is put in service, as
companies change insurance providers
over time seeking to make savings, WSEs
may be just passed on without being
reviewed. Hence, as plants age, the latest
risks to the plant may not be reflected
in the old WSE. This may then lead to
unnecessary or inadequate inspection
methods and intervals.
99 Companies end up seeing PSSR
inspections as just another legal
requirement. They may feel like they
do not own the risk anymore and thus
become disengaged from taking benefit
from this professional examination;
inspectors are seen as trouble makers
because they stop the plant.
The preparation work for statutory
inspections can also be very costly and
dangerous for those handling toxic and
flammable materials. It is not unusual
for large plants (over 100 vessels) to be
spending over 100,000 in facilitating
invasive-visual-internal inspections. It is
here where applying the RBI method could
address these problems.
www.hazardexonthenet.net

RBI Method
The actual methodology used to carry out
RBI studies can be taken from the best
practice published by the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE): CRR 363/2001; Best
practice for risk based inspection as a part
of plant integrity management [1]. The
overview process for conducting an RBI is
shown in Figure 1.1. The discussion of each
stage can be found in reference [1].
RBI in Action
A real-life example of applying the RBI
method is given but it is for demonstration
purposes and so does not include the entire
assessment details.
An RBI study was carried out on a large
(>11 cu.m.) mist-eliminator pressure vessel
in a Sulphonation process subject to
statutory inspections. The study entailed
a review of the process, the historical and
current condition of the vessel, a mechanical
integrity risk assessment and a proposal for
inspection based on the RBI method.
The main reason for the RBI study was to
explore the feasibility and scope in reducing
internal visual inspections. This in turn would
lead to other benefits:
99 Decrease the risk of internal corrosion
by minimising air exposure, because
the reaction chemistry between the
residual material inside of the vessel and
Ageing plant 29
Facilitating the inspection of equipment handling toxic or flammable materials
can be especially resource consuming. Such plant equipment can benefit
greatly from an optimised inspection regime that the RBI method delivers
atmospheric air introduced to the system Using site knowledge and expertise from
when inspecting produces corrosive the inspection company, all potential
sulphuric acid. This serves to diminish degradation mechanisms were then formally
plant ageing. assessed. A sample of the assessment is
99 Reduce exposure of personnel shown in Table 1.
(inspectors and operators) to toxic
atmospheres arising from inspections. Vessel History
99 Achieve financial savings; realised from The historical inspection records for
reducing the need to facilitate an internal the vessel were reviewed; all inspection
inspection every two years which requires certificates and comments were studied in
logistical costs and irreversible damage to detail and taken into account as part of the
the filter causing approximately 10,000 assessment. Furthermore, other identical
in parts costs. vessels in other production lines as well as
those in other sister plants were taken into
Team consideration. The main conclusions were:
The study was carried out in several 99 The only known degradation mechanism
meetings over a period of a month. The is internal corrosion.
team included the site Maintenance Leader, 99 This corrosion is mainly concentrated at the
Process Safety Leader, an Operator and an bottom half of the vessel and at tangents
expert from the inspection company. The to the filters on the shell of the vessel.
final document was then approved by the 99 The vessel appears to have a life of 10-
Principal Engineer of the inspection company. 12 years before requiring refurbishment
work.
Degradation Mechanism Identification & Assessment
Description: Mist Eliminator for Sulphonation Plant on Train 1.
Material of Construction : Carbon Steel
No
.
Degradation
Mechanisms
Causes Consequences Safeguards & Mitigation Recommendations
1 Corrosion Internal -Loss of wall thickness -Internal corrosion allowance by
design
-Develop full
thickness
-Moisture in process air reacting with -Vessel failure and loss of
SO3 to produce sulphuric acid.
Problem cited is exacerbated
containment -Vessel inside building inspection
program
-Personnel injury due to (protection against CUI)
with over temp.
toxic exposure -Routine external inspection by
-During shut downs when opening operators
-Production loss
vessel to atmosphere and
introducing the system to moist
-Periodic statutory inspections
air which reacts to produce -Restricted access to area
sulphuric acid -Emergency shutdown
External procedures
-Corrosion under insulation (CUI)
-Exposed areas in-contact with
atmospheric conditions
2 Fatigue -Cycling (pressure/temperature) -Similar to consequences -Inherent safety; stable running
loading during start-up. of No.1 except no temperatures.
-Physical vibration arising from nearby loss of wall
thickness.
-Continuous running with
equipment minimal few shutdowns per
year.
-Vessel isolated from nearby
plant.
Embrittlement,
Creep, Buckling etc.
Table 1: Identification and
Table assessmentand
1: Identification of assessment
degradation mechanisms
of degradations mechanisms
www.hazardexonthenet.net
 30 Ageing Plant Probability of Failure
Ageing plant 31

Consequence of Failure
Highly Very
Probable Possible Unlikely
Probable Unlikely
Very High
High Probability of Failure Given the vessel is located inside a building Recommendations & RBI can lead to profitable operations through and so care should be taken in ensuring a
Conclusions
Consequence of Failure

HighlyModerate Very
Probable
Probable Possible Unlikely
Unlikely which requiresofauthorisation
Probability Failure for access; it effective maintenance and should be part competent team is formed before making
Probability Probability
Probability
of Failure ofof Failure
Failure
Low was rated as 1. All plants are subject to ageing, and of an integrated strategy for managing the radical changes. Further reading can be

Failure
Highly Very

Failure
Very High Highly Probable Possible Unlikely Very

Consequence of Failure

Failure
Highly Highly Probable ProbableProbable Probable Possible Very Very
Unlikely Unlikely
High
Very Low Probable
ProbableProbable
Possible Possible UnlikelyUnlikely Unlikely
UnlikelyUnlikely addressing this risk should be seen as an risk of ageing plants. Implementing the RBI found in CRR 363/2001.
Very High Similarly, the consequence rating for all opportunity to interrogate the inspection methodology does require expertise

ofof
Table
Moderate 2: Risk matrix used for the assessment VeryHigh High Probability of Failure
Very High Very

of Failureof
Consequence
High
other categories Possible(i.e. impact on production, regime of the plant. Currently, statutory

Consequence
Highly Very

Consequence
Low High
Rating
High High
Description Moderate Probable
Probable Unlikely
Unlikely References
Very Low Moderate Moderate
Moderate hazards of material etc.) was considered. inspections of pressurised equipment are 1. CRR 363/2001, Best practice for risk based inspection as a part of plant integrity management, HSE.
Highly probable Allowable lossVery is already
Low High used up
Table 2: Risk matrix used for the assessment Low Low
Low These ratings were added up and the total prescriptive and under the influence of 2. SAFeds Approach to Ageing Plant, May 2012, Miles Gardiner.

Consequence
Table 2: Risk matrix
Probable used for the assessment
remaining life 3 - 5 years High
Very Low
Very Low 3. RR823, Plant Ageing Study; Phase 1 Report, 2010 HSE.
Possible remaining life ratings
5 7 years given
Very Low in Table
Very
ModerateLow 3 also correspond to was 15 (i.e. High using Table 3). an over-commoditised industry. The Duty
Risk Assessment
Rating
Highly probable
Unlikely remaining life
Description
Allowable loss is already
a Table 2: Risk matrix
description
Table
2:7 Table
Table used 2:
10matrix
Risk Risk
years matrix
up 2: Riskused
Low used
which
matrix
for the is
used
for the assessment
identical
for
usedassessment the to that
assessment
for the assessment given Holders best course of action is to question
Very Low
The riskremaining
Probable assessment
Very unlikely
life was carriedremaining
3 - 5 years out using
life in theyears
> Rating
10 5x5 risk matrix (Table 2),Description and thus the Taking the results from the probability of the WSE they are following and ensure it
Rating Rating Rating Description Description
a semi-quantitative approach: the 5x5 risk overall
Table 2:
Highly risk Risk
probable can be
matrix used for theDescription
determined. assessment
Allowable loss is alreadyfailureused (Unlikely)
up and consequence of failure calls for a level of inspection which highlights
Possible remaining life 5 7 years ProbabilityHighly Highly probable
of Failureprobable
Highly probable Allowable Allowable
Allowable
loss is already lossisused
loss isalready
already
up used usedupup
Probable remaining life 3 - 5 years
matrix remaining
Unlikely shown inlife table 2: 7 10 years Probable
Rating remaining life 3 - 5 years
Description (High), and using Table 2 the overall risk the degradation mechanisms that are really
Consequence of Failure

Highly Probable Probable

remaining
Description Very
remaining
life life 3 -Rating
5 years 3 - 5 years
Probable Possible Unlikely
Possible remaining
Very unlikely remaining Probable Highly probable Unlikely life 5 7 years loss is already used up
Allowable
life > 10 years Possible
Possible remaining
Possible remaining
Veryremaining
life
high life
life 5 16 7 years
19 5 7 years
5 7 years assessed was Low. present and is proportional to the risk. WSEs
Unlikely remaining
remaining life 7 - 510years
years
Probability of Failure
Probable life 3
Very High Unlikely
Unlikely Unlikely
remaining remaining
remaining
life life
life 7 13
10years 7710 10years
years should be reviewed periodically to ensure
Possible High
Very unlikelyremainingremaining
life life 15> 107 years
5 years
Inspection Plan
High Very unlikely Very
Very unlikely
remaining
unlikely remaining
remaining
life life life life
> 10 years >
>71010 years
years
For each of the identified degradation Description Rating Moderate
Unlikely remaining 10 12 10 years they are still meaningful; this point itself
Moderate
mechanisms, Low the probability of failure
Very highwas 16 19Very unlikelyLow remaining life 8 10 > 10 years The overall risk rating should influence the touches at the heart of RBI and can lead to
Description Rating
assessed using Very Lowthe assessment High tables given 13 15 Very low Description
6 8 Description
Description
Very high
Rating Rating inspection method(s) and interval, but there
Rating
16 19
many ancillary benefits.
Veryhighhigh16 19 1616
inTable
CRR 363 [1],
Table e.g. 3:for internal
Consequence
2: Risk matrix used for the assessment
Moderate
corrosion:
of failure 10 rating
12
3: Consequence of failureVery
Tabletable. ratinghighVery
Description
High is 19
Rating
13
19
currently
15 no guidance which translates
Low 8 10 High Very High
high
High 13 15 13risk 13
16 1519
15
Moderate 10 12rating to inspection plan. The inspection In this example, the RBI method was used on
High
Rating Description Very low 68 Moderate
ModerateModerate 10 12 1013 10 1215 12
Rating Description For example, the consequence of failure
Low
Moderate 8plan 10 depends on the judgement of the team a mist eliminator in a Sulphonation process
Highly3:probable
Table Consequence of failure Allowable loss istable.
rating already used up Low Low 8 10 810
Low 8 101012
3
Probable remaining life Heavily
3 - 5 years populated arising from location of the plant on
VeryLow
Verylow
low
low6 8
8and
6 8
10 competent person carrying out the RBI. which led to savings of approximately
Very lowVery 6 6 8 8
Possible remaining2life 5 Routinely
7 years accessible personnel
Table
Table 3:
3: was
Consequence
3: Consequence
Consequence assessed of
of using
failure
failure the
rating Verybelow
table.
ratingtable.
table.
low 68 10,000 in filter replacement charges
Rating Description Table 3: Consequence
Table of failureof rating
failure
Table 3: Consequence of failure rating table.
table.
rating
Unlikely remaining life 7 10 years
1 Inaccessible without clearance criteria: The most important part of the inspection weeks in down time, and logistical costs in
3 Very unlikely
Heavily
remainingpopulated
life > 10 years
Rating Description
Rating Description plan is ensuring that each degradation facilitating invasive-visual-internal inspection.
2 Routinely accessible Rating Rating Description
Rating Description
Description
In this particular case, experience had shown 3 Heavily populated
3Heavily populated
Heavilypopulated
populated mechanism identified has a suitable
1 Inaccessible
Failure without
Mode clearance Rating
Description 3Scope of 33 Heavily
Heavily populated
that the vessel only requires refurbishment 2 Examination and Periodicity
Routinely accessible inspection methodology and interval.
Very high 16 19 2 22RoutinelyRoutinely
Routinely accessible
accessibleaccessible
Internal Corrosion Conduct comprehensive LFET clearance(Low Frequency Electromagnetic Technique)
work once every 10-12 years. The last time 1 Inaccessible without The inspection plan proposed for the mist-
High 13 15 1around11Inaccessible
all parts Inaccessible
of the vessel
Inaccessible
without without
clearance
without clearance by Ultrasonic
followed
clearance Thickness inspection. The
the vessel
Failure Mode was refurbished Scope was
Moderate in June
10 12 2009,
of Examination and Periodicity
location of these tests shall be as indicated in the drawing eliminator (not is included
shown below: here).
so the estimated
Internal Corrosion next date Lowfor comprehensive
Conduct refurbishment
8 10 Frequency:
LFET (Low Frequencyevery Electromagnetic
26 months. Technique)
around Failure Mode Scope of Examination and Periodicity
Very lowall parts6 of8 the vessel followed by Ultrasonic
Failure Mode Thickness inspection. The
ScopeofofExamination
Examination andPeriodicity
Periodicity
work is June 2019 - approximately location of these 7 tests
years Failure Mode
shallConduct Failure
be as indicated
Internal
Mode
thoroughinCorrosion
the drawing
Scope of Scope
internal Examination
(notinspection
included
Conducthere).
and Periodicity
once
comprehensive
and
every five (Low
LFET yearsFrequency
in alignment with the
Electromagnetic Technique)
Table 3: Consequence of failure rating table. Internal Corrosion Conduct comprehensive LFET (Low Frequency Electromagnetic Technique)
from the date of assessment. Frequency: Consequently,
every 26 months. filter change.
Internal Internal
Corrosion Internal
Corrosion Conduct inspection
Conduct
comprehensive
around
around all
around
all
all
shall
parts
parts
be
comprehensive
partsLFET
of carried
of the
of
(Low
the
the
LFET
vessel
vessel
vessel
out
Frequency
(Low
followed
followed
followed
in June
Frequency
by 2014,
Electromagnetic
by Ultrasonic
by
Ultrasonic
Ultrasonic
or at theTechnique)
Electromagnetic
Technique)
Thickness
Thickness
Thickness
inspection.
inspection. The
inspection.
The
first opportunity where the vessel
around location
allaround
parts of
location allof
is the
of these
available
parts
vessel tests
of tests
these the shallinternal
for
followed
vessel
shall be as
followed
byas
be indicated
Ultrasonic
by
indicated in the
inspection the drawing
Ultrasonic
Thickness
in drawing
Thickness (notinspection.
ifinspection.
before (not included
The
included TheThe
here).
here).
the rating is Unlikely. Conduct thorough internalthen. inspection once every five years location oflocation
Frequency:
location
these tests
in alignment
Frequency:
of
ofwith these
every
these
shall tests
26
thetests
every be26as
shall
months.
shall be
indicated
months.
as indicated
be as indicated
in the drawing in the
in the (not drawing
drawingincluded (not included
(not included
here). here). here).
Rating Description Frequency: every2626months.
months.
filter change. Internal inspection shall be carried out Frequency:
in JuneFrequency:
every
2014, or26at every
months.
the
3 Heavily populated Conduct thorough internal inspection once every five years in alignment with the
General Condition, first opportunity where the vessel is available for internal inspection Conductif before
thorough internalinspection
inspectionshall oncebeevery fiveout
years in alignment with
The same style of assessment thethe
etc. was carried
filter change.
Conduct Internal
thorough internalinspection
inspection once carried
every in June 2014, or at
2 RoutinelyFatigue,
accessible then.
... Conduct Conduct
thorough thorough
internal
filteropportunity
first change. inspection
internal
Internal
where the
once
inspection every
vessel is shall
oncefiveevery
beyears
available
infive
five
carried
for internal
years
alignment
years
out inin
in
June
alignment
alignment
with theifor
2014,
inspection
withwith
thethe
at the
before
filter change. Internal inspection shall be carried out in June 2014, or thethe
at
out
1 for the other identified
Inaccessible without clearance degradation filter change.filter
first
then. change.
Internal
opportunity
firstopportunity
inspection
Internal
opportunity where
where theinspection
shall
vessel
thevessel
be carried
shall
is beout
carried
available
vesselis isavailable
available
infor
June out2014,
in June
internal or at
2014,
the orifatbefore
inspection
General Condition, first opportunity
first
then. where thewhere vesseltheis available for forfor
internal internal
inspection
internal ifinspection
inspection if before
before if before
mechanisms.
Fatigue, ... etc. All of the results were General Condition, then. then.
then.
then collated together and a qualitative Fatigue, ... etc.
General Condition,
General Condition,
Failure Mode Scope of Examination and Periodicity General General
Condition,
Fatigue, Condition,
... etc.
assessment of the overall failure probabilityFatigue, Fatigue, Fatigue,
... etc. ... ... etc.
etc.
Internal Corrosion Conduct comprehensive LFET (Low Frequency Electromagnetic Technique)
made. In this casearound
thealloverall
parts of theprobability
vessel followed byof Ultrasonic Thickness inspection. The
location of these tests shall be as indicated in the drawing (not included here).
failure was deemed to be Unlikely.
Frequency: every 26 months.

Conduct thorough internal inspection once every five years in alignment with the
Consequence of Failure
filter change. Internal inspection shall be carried out in June 2014, or at the
first opportunity where the vessel is available for internal inspection if before
The consequences then.of failures were similarly
assessed using guide words given in
General Condition,
the practice
Fatigue, ... etc. and then rated numerically.
The consequences considered different
categories which included: location and
personnel, impact on production, and others
which took into account fluid pressures,
temperatures and hazards.

These consequences were individually rated

External pitting (corrosion) on carbon steel vessels is inevitable and can eat
numerically and then collated to obtain an away the wall thickness if untreated. Anti-corrosive paints can be especially
overall rating using Table 3. The numerical helpful in inhibiting external corrosion

www.hazardexonthenet.net www.hazardexonthenet.net