Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

RBI Expert Group Handbook

Contents

Introduction
Purpose and scope
Background
S-RBI Overview
Criticality:
Probability:
Consequence:
Remnant Life Calculation:
Confidence Rating:
Maximum Inspection Interval:
Inspection Interval Factor
Applicability of S-RBI
‘Negligible’
‘Extreme’
House Rules Framework
Help Available – Contacts & Documents
Personnel
Documents
Appendix I
RBI Expert Group Framework
Appendix II
RBI Expert Group House Rules – Check List
Appendix III
Examples of existing ‘House Rules’ (N.B. Some guidance is embedded
within DBRA).
a). Central
b). NSP

Rev 0; 130902
 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Introduction

Purpose and scope

The purpose of this handbook is to give an overview of the S-RBI process,
and provide a framework for agreeing ‘House Rules’ for the Expert Group
sessions as required by the S-RBI methodology (Ref: S-RBI Manual, Report
OP 97-30007, “Guidelines for Risk Based Inspection”; available via Livelink).

Background

During training courses on S-RBI methodology during August 2002, a need

was identified to have available a reference framework for setting ‘House
Rules’ for an Expert Group. More specifically, the framework should give a
checklist of items to be agreed prior to the Expert Group sessions, and where
appropriate give a reference guideline from the S-RBI methodology.

S-RBI Overview

This section is intended to provide a brief overview for personnel not fully
familiar with the S-RBI process, and as a refresher for those who have not
participated in Expert Group (EG) sessions for some time.

Criticality Matrix
High Medium High Extreme Extreme Confidence Rating
Medium Low Medium High Extreme Conf in degradation forecast
Low Negligible Low Medium High (S-RBI section 5.5.1)
Negligible Negligible Negligible Low Medium Low Medium High
Negligible Low Medium High
Consequence Assessment
(S-RBI Questionnaire, App. III)

Probability Assessment
(S-RBI Questionnaire, App. IV)

Low Medium High

Remnant Life Calculation Extreme 0.2 0.3 0.3
S-RBI section 5.4 High 0.3 0.4 0.4 Maximum
(e.g. Corrosion allowance/
Corrosion Rate)
X Medium
Low
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
= Inspection
Interval
Output in units of time Negligible 0.6 0.7 0.8
Inspection Interval Factor
(Unitless Number)

e.g.
120
months X 0.6
= 72 months

Figure 1

For each item to be assessed, the following factors are considered by the
Expert Group;
Criticality: An output of Probability & Consequence (see Figure 1)

Probability: A questionnaire is answered, which deals with the various

possible degradation mechanisms. Each response is scored between 1 (high

Rev 0; 130902
 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

probability) and 4 (Negligible probability), and the lowest of all the scores is
used to plot the ‘Probability’ axis in the criticality matrix.
N.B. Local variations exist to this questionnaire (onshore/ offshore specific
considerations).
The questionnaire versions and all the responses are stored in the RBI
software, which automatically plots criticality from the probability &
consequence inputs.

Consequence: A questionnaire with seven questions is answered covering

‘consequence’ topics (Safety, Environment and Commercial). The responses
are again scored between 1 (high) and 4 (Negligible), and these are then
entered to an algorithm to produce a final score, and plot ‘consequence’ on
the criticality matrix.

Remnant Life Calculation: This is the best estimate of remaining life for the
item (this may vary between different components within the item), and can be
based on the design corrosion allowance or the Minimum Allowable Wall
Thickness according to a suitable FFP calculation.
It is good practice to also apply a ‘retirement delay’ – the amount of time that
would be needed to affect a repair or procure a replacement item is
subtracted from the Remnant Life calculation.
The Remnant Life figure used has a large influence on the final output
‘maximum inspection interval’.

Confidence Rating: This is the confidence that the team has in the
degradation forecast (remnant life), and reflects the volume/ quality of
inspection data, or the confidence in the corrosivity of the fluid in relation to
the materials. This is a subjective judgement, although guidance is given in
the S-RBI manual.

Maximum Inspection Interval: This is the modelled maximum permissible

inspection interval, and can be overridden by the Expert Group as long as the
reasons for doing this are recorded.

Inspection Interval Factor: This is a look up table (see Figure 1) which works
by plotting the criticality against the confidence rating, to give a factor between
0.2 and 0.8. This leads to assigning inspection intervals that are less than the
remnant life of the item.

Rev 0; 130902
 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Applicability of S-RBI

S-RBI Criticality Matrix

‘Out of control’ region – Needs to be managed
S-RBI outwith S-RBI
Effective
Medium High Extreme Extreme
Low Medium High Extreme
Negligible Low Medium High
Negligible Negligible Low Medium
S-RBI not effective – review only

The S-RBI Methodology works most effectively where the criticality has been
assessed as ‘Low’, ‘Medium’ or ‘High’. Outwith this region a decision must be
reached on how the item will be managed, e.g.
‘Negligible’ The Expert Group may conclude that no physical
inspection is required, but that the item should have a desk-based review at a
set interval in order to consider whether any circumstance has changed that
would change the criticality.
‘Extreme’ In this case it is both urgent and important that the
criticality is reduced.
Inspection management will not achieve this and the situation needs to be
managed outwith the S-RBI process.
Currently NSP intend to use the ‘RRM’ guidelines for items falling into this
criticality, as RRM gives a more comprehensive probability and consequence
assessment.
RRM is the updated and enhanced version of S-RBI, which now incorporates
S-RCM and S-IPF. The consequence assessment is common to the three
processes. At the time of writing (September 2002), Expro have NOT
adopted this version, and all RBI assessments should be done according to
the original S-RBI (document 97-30007).

Rev 0; 130902
 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

House Rules Framework

The framework is detailed in Appendix I of this document, and gives a list of

items that should be discussed and agreed within the Expert Group, prior to
carrying out assessments. It also contains reference information on using the
DBRA and ACET databases, and the framework is broken into 5 sections as
follows;
1. Pre RBI Session requirements, agreements and communication
2. Methodology
3. Meeting Management
4. Database Mechanics (DBRA version 5.1)
5. ACET Inspection Dates

Help Available – Contacts & Documents

Personnel
There are a number of people across the asset groups who have experience
in carrying out the RBI process, primarily the Asset Integrity Team Leaders.
Support is also available from the E&M support group from:

Jake Stewart, UEAE12, (01224) 883698

Willie Hughson, UEAE12, (01224) 881103

DBRA and ACET application support is available from OIS plc (01224
238000).

Documents
All the following documents are available electronically;
• S-RBI Manual, Report OP 97-30007, Guidelines for Risk Based
Inspection (available via Livelink)
• Code of Practice, Periodic Examination and Testing of Equipment
(Standards One Stop Shop)
• NDT Manual (available via Shell Wide Web link to KSLA server)
• Degradation Library (available via LiveLink)
• NII Manual (available via LiveLink)

Rev 0; 130902
 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Appendix I
RBI Expert Group Framework

Rev 0; 130902
 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

S-RBI 'House Rules' Framework

Ref. Description Framework S-RBI Guideline Comments
1.00 Pre RBI Session Requirements, Agreements & Communication
Important for efficient inspection planning purposes that
Team objectives in context of Asset Shutdown plans, asset reference plans etc. should be
1.01 (None) shutdown frequency/ duration and decommissioning plans are
objectives available to the EG to assist in decision making.
clear.
Deliverable should be a clear inspection plan for the items
assessed, and assessments should be complete by the target
House Rules need to state what the deliverables and date. Best practice (Ref. HSE 363/ 2001 document) is to also
timescale are. These should include: include random checks for unexpected deterioration
What to look for mechanisms.
Where to look
1.02 Deliverables (None)
When to look (could be different times for different SAP change requests may be required, and should be
degradation mechanisms) generated if necessary.
How to look - inspection technique (this may require a more
detailed consideration via the NII methodology) Additionally communication may be required with Safety
personnel, Management etc. on issues uncovered during the
assessments

Agree the quorum and whether same personnel are required Section 2 (P7)
at each session, or whether back to backs are acceptable. Identify Safety/ Production Chemistry/ Maintenance etc.
Materials/ corrosion Engineer contacts which may be required occasionally (name, phone
Minimum: Plant Inspector extension).
1.03 Composition of team (quorum)
Materials/ corrosion Engineer Process technologist
Plant Inspector Plant Operator Need to appoint team member who has reporting link to
Process technologist Maintenance Engineer Safety team (ref. 363/2001 B3.5).
Plant Operator Others as required

Obtain management commitment to releasing the required A plan or diary is helpful, along with a benefits/ deliverables
1.04 Commitment of personnel (None)
personnel for the Expert Group sessions. statement for management.
Agree what needs to be done prior to session;
Pre load database with inventory
Pre load database with inspection results
Preparation required prior to Expert Group Aim is to make the sessions more efficient and effective by
1.05 Pre load process/ ops information (None)
sessions taking 'donkey work' offline.
Drawings and reference documents which are required
during the session
Do initial assessment without whole Expert Group?
- Need to plan meetings in order to keep process 'live'
Important that Expert Group take OWNERSHIP of the
- Frequency will be determined by various factors such as:
1.06 Frequency of Expert Group meetings (None) process, and that meetings are held at a frequency which
volume of inspection activity; availability of personnel;
keeps process 'Live'.
management expectations of deliverables etc.

Agree under what circumstances an EG session is required;

- To review equipment not previously subject to EG
assessment
- All recently inspected items to be reviewed by Expert
When is an Expert Group session Agree regular sessions and what circumstances will trigger an
1.07 (None) Group? e.g. Could do 'catch all' session 6 or 12 monthly
required? additional session.
- Any proposed change to inspection interval requires EG
session?
- Any significant change noted from inspection results
- Any significant operations or process change

Appendix I Last Updated: WH 130902

 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Ref. Description Framework S-RBI Guideline Comments

2.00 Methodology

S-RBI software may give large modelled inspection intervals -

this can be 'capped' to an agreed maximum by the Expert
Maximum permissible inspection interval Agree maximum interval that is permissible for this plant
2.01 (None) Group.
(default) (need to set this 'default' in DBRA)
N.B. If RBI is not carried out, then default maximum interval
from the Code of Practice is 12 years for most equipment.

The first review of an item should include a lot of detail
(Process/ Ops, location, geometry, accessibility etc etc.).
2.02 Level of detail of assessments
Further reviews should check this for accuracy and update as
appropriate. A full inspection history should be recorded.
A rule of thumb is that the level of detail recorded should be
sufficient that a completely 'changed out' Expert Group
(None)
carrying out an update review on this item, understand clearly
the thinking at the time of this review.

Guidance on setting the Confidence Rating is given in the S-

RBI Manual, however local variations are allowable if based
2.03 Confidence Rating interpretation Section 5.5.1 (p18)
on sound engineering practices, and shall be agreed within
the Expert Group.
Agree how many 'Inspection Types' the group will work
with:
1 Thorough
2 Intermediate
3 Special
4 Review Only First four in list are recommended, detail of the actual
Inspection types (Thorough, Intermediate
2.04 (None) requirement is a subset of these four.
etc.)
Sub inspection types:
5 NII
6 External Visual
7 External Visual under normal working conditions
8 Internal Visual
etc. etc.
Need to be aware of standards/ procedures/ legislation -
Standards, references, procedures etc. to identify and have available if required.
2.05 (None)
be used; applicable legislation etc. (S-RBI; CoP Periodic Inspection & Testing of equipment; SI
1996/ 913; PS5500; ASME B31.3 etc. etc.).
S-RBI gives guidance on Remnant Life calculations, however
Retirement delay is likely to vary greatly depending on the
a 'Retirement Delay' factor should also be considered - this is
item under consideration.
analogous to the time required to effect a repair or the time
2.06 Remnant Life Calculation Section 5.4 (p16)
required to procure, install and commission a new item.
Calculated Remnant Life may vary by component within an
Therefore the Remnant Life is the calculated time minus the
item, and the resulting inspection strategy should reflect this.
'retirement delay'.

Appendix I Last Updated: WH 130902

 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Ref. Description Framework S-RBI Guideline Comments

3.00 Meeting Management
Appoint a facilitator (usually from the Expert Group team) to
control direction and duration of sessions
Facilitator to ensure that House Rules are complied with
Facilitator responsible for pre and post meeting
How meetings will be run (facilitator?) & communications
3.01 (None)
location 'Offsite' location tends to give less distractions and more
productive meetings
Agree times and durations of breaks
Ensure room used has suitable facilities/ equipment etc., and
that there is access to a phone
Need to record clearly what the action is against the item,
who is expected to respond and by when. House rules should S-RBI software has an in built facility for recording and
3.02 How to deal with queries/ actions be clear how this will be communicated/ reminders etc., and (None) tracking actions. Sessions should start with a review of
how the response will be dealt with - data update only or progress against outstanding actions.
review by EG? This will vary case by case
Expert Group personnel carrying out the assessment should
Recording of Expert Group personnel S-RBI software has an in built facility for recording EG
3.03 be recorded (name & discipline) for future reference/ queries (None)
carrying out assessment. personnel.
etc.
Essential that the decision is recorded along with justification
on why this decision has been reached.
Recording of group decisions (software & A rule of thumb is that the level of detail recorded should be S-RBI software has an in built facility for recording EG
3.04 (None)
who/ how during session) sufficient that a completely 'changed out' Expert Group decisions.
carrying out an update review on this item, understand clearly
the thinking at the time of this review.
House Rules need to state by what method differences of
opinion will be dealt with;
Postpone decision pending further information
How to resolve differences of opinion in Consult independent expert, accept recommendation Need to agree strategy prior to sessions and enforce it
3.05 (None)
order to reach a consensus Majority vote throughout.
Compromise
Facilitator decision
Line manager decision

Appendix I Last Updated: WH 130902

 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Ref. Description Framework S-RBI Guideline Comments

4.00 Database mechanics (DBRA version 5.1)
DBRA Access2000 databases can be found in the shared
drive area the path is \europe.shell.com\europe\E & P\SUKEP
4.01 S-RBI database locations, e.g. DBRA Aberdeen\Department\UEAE Eng and (None)
Maint\Support\Inspection & Corrosion\, then (installation
specific)

A "User Name" and "User Password" must be set up by the

database Custodian for full read/write privileges. A visitor can
4.02 Logging onto DBRA access DBRA through by-passing the log on screen. In this (None)
event only read only access is granted, a number of options
are disabled and certain fields are "greyed out"

From the Menu drop-down buttons, the RBI Group Member

Pool can be established. Once established in the Pool then
the Current RBI group can be registered. This registered
4.03 Registering RBI Expert Group (None)
Current RBI Group should be revised if members leave the
session during the proceedings. All subsequent decisions are
logged against this RBI Group.
From the Configuration button on the Main Menu screen set See Code of Practice 3801-002
4.04 Default Inspection Interval
the Default Inspection Interval section 3/4
From the Configuration button on the Main Menu screen set
4.05 Default Retirement Delay Time (None)
the Default Retirement Delay Time
From the Configuration button on the Main Menu screen
4.06 Choose correct questionnaire
ensure the "Offshore Questionnaire" is chosen
Endeavour to group similar vessel together for S-RBI
4.07 Conduct S-RBI (DBRA) session evaluation. This will ease data input especially if Asset Copy
facility is used.
Attention to postscript identification for heat exchangers and
4.08 Select Asset (vessel tag) Ensure the correct vessel tag is selected
pig launchers, e.g. E-1001(T); t for tubes, is required.
The culmination of the S-RBI (DBRA) session is achieved This will normally be associated with and inspection plan
4.09 Record Expert Group Decision
after the Expert Group decision is reached. scope or inspection scope of work.
The Access2000 database will automatically safe any
4.10 Logout of S-RBI Exit the database via the OK buttons and finally Exit.
changes you have made during the session.

Appendix I Last Updated: WH 130902

 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Ref. Description Framework S-RBI Guideline Comments

5.00 ACET Database: Objective - steps to arrive at the next due date for corrosion loops/ circuits
5.01 S-RBI team OIS Tech Services / ACET
5.02 Step Activity Step Activity
Use DBRA spreadsheet (Dave H.) -see sheet DBRA_EA and Eacor Obtain Corrosion Loop/circuits marked up PID's (Daley) and Corrosion
5.03 10
attached
10
Loop/circuit listings
5.04 20 Populate probabilites from FCM for each corrosion loop/circuit 20 Obtain ACET line list
Populate Consequences for each Corrosion Circuit via "expert group" or
5.05 30
use DBRA vessel data where appropriate
25 Prioritise, order HC then WI then utilities

5.06 35 Input consequneces back into FCM 30 Associate individual ACET lines with a corrosion loop/circuit
5.07 40 Determine confidence rating
note 1
and populate spreadsheet 40 Associate ACET process streams to corrosion loops/circuits
5.08 45 Input confidence rating back into FCM's
5.09 50 Generate "criticality" by spreadsheet
5.10 55 Input "criticality" back into FCM's
5.11 60 Generate "Interval Factor" by spreadsheet
5.12 70 Transfer all spreadsheet data fields into ACET user defined fields
Determine "remnant life" note 2 by either a) empirical based on inspection
5.13 80 data and CA
note 3
, or b) Theorectical (assumed) CA note 3 via Corrosion 50 This step to coordinate with S-RBI step 80
Engineers and S-RBI giudelines -see attached sheet
Determine the next inspection due date, IF * RL in ACET, - note no HC
5.14 90
system can be greater than 144 months.
5.15 Note 1 Confidence rating as per S-RBI manual section 5.5.1
Remanent life calculations as per S-RBI manual section 5.4.1.1
5.16 note 2
"Calculating Remnant life - Piping".
CA (Corrosion Allowance) is the maximum allowable loss of material to
5.17 note 3
MAWT, NOT the design CA

Appendix I Last Updated: WH 130902

 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Appendix II
RBI Expert Group House Rules – Pro Forma

Rev 0; 130902
 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Ref. Description Expert Group Agreed Practice Comments

1.0 Pre RBI Session Requirements, Agreements & Communication

Team objectives in context

1.1
of Asset objectives

1.2 Deliverables

Composition of team
1.3
(quorum)

1.4 Commitment of personnel

Preparation required prior

1.5
to Expert Group sessions

Frequency of Expert Group

1.6
meetings

When is an Expert Group

1.7
session required?

Appendix II Last Updated: WH 130902

 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Ref. Description Expert Group Agreed Practice Comments

2.0 Methodology

Maximum permissible
2.1
inspection interval (default)

Level of detail of
2.2
assessments

Confidence Rating
2.3
interpretation

Inspection types (Thorough,

2.4
Intermediate etc.)

Standards, references,
2.5 procedures etc. to be used;
applicable legislation etc.

2.6 Remnant Life Calculation

Appendix II Last Updated: WH 130902

 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Ref. Description Expert Group Agreed Practice Comments

3.0 Meeting Management

How meetings will be run

3.1
(facilitator?) & location

How to deal with queries/

3.2
actions

Recording of Expert Group

3.3 personnel carrying out
assessment.

Recording of group
3.4 decisions (software & who/
how during session)

How to resolve differences

3.5 of opinion in order to reach
a consensus

Appendix II Last Updated: WH 130902

 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Appendix III
Examples of existing ‘House Rules’ (N.B. Some guidance is embedded within
DBRA).
a). Central
b). NSP

Rev 0; 130902
 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

DBRA
Terms of Reference for “S-RBI Team”
Inspection Mission
“To safeguard the technical integrity of all facilities in such a manner as to assist Asset Owners to
maximise returns and minimise total costs over the life cycle of the company assets” ref. 1

Inspection Vision
Where ever practical Non-Intrusive Inspection techniques (NII) will be adopted in preference to an
intrusive man entry. This approach reduces the risk of unnecessary exposure of personnel and plant to
shutdown conditions, purging and cleaning operations (especially where TENORM may be present).

“S-RBI Team” Decisions

All decisions will be reached through consensus. All decisions will be recorded using the “Record expert
group decision” facility in DBRA. Failure to reach agreement will result in referral to the CBU
“Nominated Manager” ref. 2

Default Inspection interval (yr.)

This is the maximum period between inspection, currently set in at 144months (12 years). This default
should be set at the start of the “S-RBI Team” session.

Retirement Delay (yr.)

This retirement delay is analogous to an item purchase lead-time. This should be set at the start of the “S-
RBI Team” session.

Queries and Actions

Where further information is required and is not immediately available to the “S-RBI Team” then a Query
or action will be raised.

Registration of the “S-RBI Team”

All members of the “S-RBI Team” will be registered before the start of each session. Member’s who had
to withdraw during the session should be removed from the active list.

Composition of the “S-RBI Team”

A self-imposed quorum should be present to constitute an “S-RBI Team”. These should include as a
minimum:-
Safety Critical Elements (as defined in the Safety Case)
• Facilitator
• Inspection Engineer/Authorised Inspector
• Operations Representative
• Corrosion Engineer
• Safety Engineer
• Process Engineer

Non-Safety Critical Items

• Facilitator
• Inspection Engineer/Authorised Inspector or Corrosion Engineer
• Operations Representative
• Process Engineer

Appendix IIIa
 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Confidence levels

High An intrusive inspection , multiple non-intrusive inspection 3 or more

Medium Non-intrusive inspection, 1 or 2
Low No records, (no actions taken), unknown deterioration levels

Criticality rating and inspection frequency

Inspection interval suggested by DBRA tool is considered to be the maximum interval to the next
Thorough inspection. NII or intermediate inspections can be set at shorter intervals and are included to
support the Thorough inspection interval. The final inspection interval will be determined from the “S-
RBI Team” discussions, in principal it should not exceed the DBRA maximum inspection interval
suggestion. This “S-RBI Team” decision of the maximum inspection interval will be accompanied with
and Inspection Reference Plan (Level 3 plan)

Usage
Launcher /receiver usage.

High More frequent than once per month

Low Less frequent than once every six months

Inspection types 4

• Thorough: A thorough and comprehensive examination of the items and associated safety
equipment. In specific cases this may require an intrusive man entry inspection but wherever
possible NII should be considered. In instances where the S-RBI assessment have identified
item criticality as “Negligible” a review will be used as the Thorough inspection.

Note: The Thorough inspection date is the latest date that the item can be kept in service
without the use of a deferment notice. All items will have a Thorough date imposed.

• Intermediate: Non-intrusive inspection, ostensibly used to confirm deterioration rates or

threats. Both external visual examination and NDT inspections should be used.

• Special: One-off inspection conducted in light of new information or possible threat.

Inspection technique to be specified by the new threat.

• Review: Office based review of the operational/corrosion/integrity conditions pertaining to

the vessel. This is an opportunity to reset the inspection plan.

SAP Maintenance Plan categories

• Thorough Category 0 (-10% float)

• Intermediate (SCE) Category 1 (10%, max 1 year)

(Non SCE) Category 2(25%, max 1 year)

• Special (SCE) Category 1

(Non SCE) Category 2

• Review Category 3 (50% ,max 1 year)

Appendix IIIa
 Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Inventory

This is the operational inventory size including all pipework up to the first isolation valve

Deliverables

To be prepared from the S-RBI team review by the Facilitator

• SAP- PMR change request required to reflect new inspection reference plan 3.

• CBU Verification and Examination Scheme - Amendment Notice required, for Safety Critical
Elements only.

Inspection Scopes

An inspection reference plan to be devised from the “S-RBI Team”, using a combination of the four main
inspection types, detailing where, when and which inspection procedure should be employed. This will
form the level 3 plan.

References

1. “Periodic Inspection and Testing of Equipment” section 1.1.1

2. “Periodic Inspection and Testing of Equipment” section 1.5.2
3. PCM-SCF-00-187, Determination of “Inspection Reference Plans” for Process
Equipment..\..\..\..\..\..\Appdata\MANSYS\PCM\CHRIS\SCF187.xls
4. C.03.01.01 “Examination of Pressure Vessels, Heat Exchangers and Tanks”

5. PCM-109 - Integrity Assurance Pressure vessels (to be reviewed)

Appendix IIIa
UEGP/52 SL Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

DBRA Management Guidelines

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this document is to provide the Expert Groups (EG’s) and other DBRA users with
background information to record/highlight the assumptions/models/procedures that have been used by
the respective plants in carrying out risk based assessments with the DBRA system. This will also
provide a reference for future users to develop a clearer understanding of historical decisions and to
provide relevant background information to facilitate their own decision-making processes.

These notes are intended as guidelines to provide transparency in decision-making but it is recognised
that other experiences may prove more effective. It is therefore important these are captured within this
document via the custodian Stefan Lewandowski UEGP/52. To this end all Expert Group members are
urged to highlight all learning points so that the guidelines can reflect the most up to date practices.

Originally the procedures were based on St. Fergus and Mossmorran experience. However, in the
interim the DBRA system has been introduced at Bacton and the procedures have been updated to
reflect Bacton experience.

Modifications/additions to the Guidelines will be accompanied by the date of change (20/3/00).

2.0 Inspection History

For St. Fergus & FNGL, the first (base line) inspections, usually carried out within ~ 4 years of
commissioning, were excluded from consideration as it was felt that they would not provide a
representative condition statement after such a short operational period. Therefore tags with only a
baseline inspection were given a low confidence rating unless there were compatible vessels with a
more extensive history, which could be used to increase confidence in the condition of the tag, in
question. Refer 3.2 below – “Stratification”.

For Bacton, the majority of tags have been subjected to multiple (intrusive) inspections and therefore a
“high” confidence in the inspection history could be assumed with/without consideration on early
inspections.

St. Fergus & FNGL have developed inspection strategies based on wall thickness (WT) checks, key
points and weld Non Destructive Testing (NDT) whereas Bacton has little such data, having
concentrated efforts on intrusive inspection. However, in future a common strategy between all three
plants will be adopted combining intrusive and non-intrusive inspection techniques.

It is planned that inspection reports will be copied into DBRA by the plant inspectors as a routine. Re
assessment will be performed by the EG . However, findings from interim inspections, such as
“External Visual Inspections” (EVI’s), will be reported by exception (20/3/00).

3.0 Confidence Rating

3.1 Heat Exchanger Tubes

To determine the level of confidence associated with internal visual/Centest/IRIS inspections of tubes
decide if the number of tubes inspected are </> the statistical model requirements. If > apply a high
confidence factor. If < apply a medium confidence factor. Medium rather than low in order to take
credit for the inspection. Low should only be used where there has been no inspection carried out.

24/6/02 For shell heat exchanger tubes, at all plants, CA is based on tube design thickness based on
the assumption of corrosion to perforation. Several reasons for this approach; TEMA makes no
allowance for “CA” and determination of a CA proved too contentious. On the positive side, only
isolated tubes have exhibited corrosion pitting; to date no corrosion has been found throughout a tube
bundle. Therefore it is highly likely that should corrosion perforation occur it would be due to an
isolated case(s).

Appendix IIIb
UEGP/52 SL Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

In the case of fin fan (air cooled) tubes where perforations would lead to release to atmosphere this is
considered to be unacceptable. Therefore for the purpose of determining IDD’s, a corrosion allowance
of 25% wall loss will be adopted.

(9/7/02) Bacton Chiller Tubes.

E 1550 – T corrosion degradation to be used as basis for representative corrosion rates for all Bacton
Streams as follows;
On shell side (propane) loss of 0.5mm reported = 0.02 mm/year.
On tube side (methane) 15% wt loss = 0.03 mm/year.

(23/7/02) Stainless Steel Heat Exchangers.

Following also applicable to SS vessels. DBRA cannot provide rate related methods for addressing
Chloride pitting which needs to be considered predominantly for external corrosion. Therefore the
following guidance should be applied;
Austenitic Stainless Steel
Operating Temp (continuous) = /<0 oC – Risk of pitting considered negligible. Coincide coating
checks with external UT. Recommended window for Coating remedial work 4 Years.

Infrequent excursions 0’C >T<50‘C, - Chloride concentration may increase due to evaporation of water
with consequent increased risk of chloride pitting. Classify risk as low. Acceptable coating life
extension 8yrs between inspections. Recommended window for remedial work 2 years.

Continuous 0’C >T<50‘C, - Chloride concentration may increase due to evaporation of water with
consequent increased risk of chloride pitting. Classify risk as low. Acceptable coating life extension
8yrs between inspections. Mandatory remedial work within 2 years.

Operation 50 oC – 60oC - Risk of pitting considered to be medium . Acceptable coating life

extension 4 yrs between inspections. Immediate coating repair mandatory.

Operation > 60oC – Risk of pitting considered to be high Acceptable coating life extension between
inspections 4 years, no allowance for stratification. Coating defects require mandatory immediate
remedial action.

22Cr Duplex

Operating Temp = /< 50 oC – Risk of pitting considered low.

“ “ > 50oC - 100oC - Risk of pitting considered to be medium
“ “ > 100oC – Risk of pitting considered to be high

25Cr Duplex

Operating Temp = /< 50 oC – Risk of pitting considered low.

“ “ > 50oC - 120oC - Risk of pitting considered to be medium
“ “ > 120oC – Risk of pitting considered to be high

Inspection Due Dates (IDD’s) should be determined from consideration of the material grade, operating
temperature, coating type and maintenance history and inspection history.

3.2 Shells/Headers

Appendix IIIb
UEGP/52 SL Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

At SF & FNGL, with criticalities 1 & 2, confidence factors were restricted to “Medium” in accordance
with S-RBI Guidelines. However, at Bacton the EG considered that Confidence should not be restricted
by the criticality and should be at the discretion/consensus of the EG.

Shell/ header inspection intervals may be different in view of criticality and condition. However, to
facilitate scheduling, the header(s) and shell will be inspected at the same interval.

3.3 Stratification (20/3/00)

The process of stratification has been used to boost the confidence factor by taking credit for
inspections carried out on similar vessels. To date stratification has been restricted to reinforce
Confidence Factor by cross-referencing to compatible tags and their histories.

4.0 Criticality Assessments

These have been established via the Expert Groups. In the case of heat exchangers, at St Fergus and
FNGL, effort has been concentrated on the shell sides and it has been assumed, for the sake of
expediency, that the criticalities of the headers and tube sides are the same. This may not always be the
case as was proven by Bacton and the criticalities of SF/MM tubes will be re-assessed accordingly.

For Bacton, the RBA EG has carried out separate assessments for tubes/shell/headers. All tags were re-
assessed as analysis of initial work scopes highlighted discrepancies in the original Consequence factor.

Consequence Assessment;

In the course of this exercise a discrepancy between IPF and RBA consequence “Population Hazard”.
The Bacton EG decided to give credit for the control systems in the plant in contrast to the IPF model,
which assumes ignition. The anomaly between the respective models has been highlighted for
reconciliation.

For inventory determination the following model was applied; where specific inventories could be
determined, these were input. For small inventories estimated < 1 tonne, a minimum of 1 tonne was
specified. For inventories estimated > 5 tonnes, a value of 6 tonnes was input with a clarification note
that the inventory was > 5 tonnes.

At St. Fergus and FNGL, vessel inventories were assumed not ESDV inventories =>
credit taken for the isolation systems. At Bacton. inventories were estimated to the
nearest isolation.

Probability Assessment;

The dominant degradation mechanisms for all plants are internal and external corrosion. For
determination of external corrosion probability the following model was used; If the coating
system had been refurbished and there was no evidence of coating breakdown it was assumed
that external corrosion would only occur under upset conditions i.e. when the coating system
deteriorated => a weighting of “3”. Where there was no evidence that the coating had been
refurbished and was breaking down => a weighting of “2”.

20/5/02. It was recognized by the SF RBA EG that, with the predominance of corrosion under
insulation a more detailed analyses of CUI probability should be adopted;

Determining the Probability of a CUI Failure

The following Probability matrix uses a points system to quantify the contribution of each of the
probability factors to the overall probability of failure. Each probability factor heads a column of
the matrix. For each factor, move down the column until you find the description that matches
the vessel, equipment or piping being evaluated. Then move across to the Points column (right
hand side of the matrix) to determine the number of points for that probability factor. repeat this
procedure for each factor in the matrix and add all the point. the total number of points gives the
overall probability score.

Appendix IIIb
UEGP/52 SL Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

High Probability ((1) : > 26 Points

Medium Probability (2): 20 - 26 Points
Low Probability (3): 12 - 19 Points
Negligible Probability(4): 5 - 11 Points

For fin fanned tubes in carbon steel category 2 assumed – susceptible under normal operating
conditions.

Thermal cycling probability questionnaire – Need to clarify whether the questionnaire refers to
the temperature swing range or absolute temperatures. SF EG agreed to adopt temperature swing
range.

5.0 Queries

It has been agreed that outstanding queries will be given a six-month period for close out from the time
that they are raised. It is recognised that query management should form a key performance indicator
and that there needs to be a dynamic policing and notification system in operation so that the
responsible parties are kept informed which queries need to be closed out as a priority.

In the case of Bacton, three key dates were established 30/11/99, 31/12/99 & 31/3/00. However, in
view of the number of queries raised - ~ 1/tag – it is recognised that it is unlikely that these dates will
be achieved and therefore it is recommended that the above six month deadline should also be the KPI
for close out of all queries raised between Sept – Dec ’99.

6.0 Data Quality Checks

Experience has shown that data quality checks must be regarded as a routine procedure of continuous
improvement. In the case SF & FNGL RBA EG it has been recognised that some of the data is
questionable despite best efforts. Therefore it has been agreed that the RBA EG’s will meet quarterly
and as part of the review procedure will re-check the data of at least 25 tags. In the case of Bacton who
are in the process of implementing the RBA DBRA system, data quality checks will be an integral
procedure of the assessment process. On completion of the first pass the level of satisfaction with data
quality will be assessed to determine subsequent level of checking.

It is recommended that the respective EG’s when updating RBA’s with latest inspection histories
routinely review the key edit/design/process/inspection history menus.

Appendix IIIb
UEGP/52 SL Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

7.0 Base Date Selection

The Bacton EG established the following procedure for base date selection – Where there is evidence
from an inspection history of commencement of corrosion select the day after the previous inspection
date as the base date. Where the inspection history shows no evidence of corrosion, use the date of the
last inspection as the base date.

8.0 Estimation of Corrosion Allowances

At Bacton the following procedure was adopted where corrosion allowance (CA) could not be
determined from the design data; where ultrasonic WT data was available, a CA was determined from
the minimum recorded wt less manufacturing tolerance less design thickness. Where there was no CA
from the data base the practice was to assume a minimum of 1.6 mm and raise a query to confirm
CA/Minimum Allowable Wall Thickness followed by re – assessment by the EG.

At SF/FNGL , the EG assumed a minimum of 1 mm CA on the basis that this is the minimum CA that
is applied on these plants.

9.0 Determination of Qualitative/Descriptive Corrosion

The Bacton EG discovered that the historical inspection reports tended to record corrosion in either
quantitative or descriptive terms. In the latter case this was usually related to “slight/rough” degrees of
corrosion and the procedure was agreed by which this was defined 0.25-mm wt loss. However, in the
Criticality-Probability determination “slight/rough” degrees are considered as category 3 weightings.

The above is applicable for internal corrosion. However, in the case of external corrosion a default of
0.5mm has been agreed (SL 18/6/02)

10.0 Nil Inspections

In certain cases such as the Bacton desalination units no degradation/failure mechanisms could be
anticipated by the EG. However, where nil inspection was not considered to be an option and therefore
in order to determine a minimum inspection work scope, a theoretical pitting corrosion assumed.

11.0 Tube Inspections

Whereas for unit shell/headers external corrosion is related to fabric condition, for tubes this is
obviously not the case. Although the same descriptions “internal/external” are retained within DBRA
the different interpretation should be noted.

Bacton EG gave consideration to the potential threat(s) on the tube side - defined as “internal” - and
shell side – defined as external corrosion. The same procedure will be applied to SF & FNGL Tubes,
which remain outstanding.

Inspection scopes specify use of Boroscope/IRIS/CENTEST. The inspection scopes do not specify
whether they should be used individually or in combination. This is at the discretion of the inspector
and dependent on the circumstances.

12.0 External Corrosion

At Bacton both internal and external corrosion were considered at the same time (At SF/MM external
corrosion review is outstanding). However, the DBRA system was designed for internal corrosion
management and as a result it was difficult to clearly demonstrate both internal and external corrosion
on the existing “Criticality Rating and Inspection Frequency” (CR & IF) menu. Therefore, when
external corrosion was the dominant mechanism a clarification note was included in the “Confidence”
note box.

Appendix IIIb
UEGP/52 SL Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

As a result Nick Curley UESC/9 will expand the CR & IF menu to accommodate both internal and
external corrosion and provide a composite corrosion rate. The new menus will be made available in
March’00. It is planned to progressively update the menus in the course of EG meetings (27/3/00).

(20/3/00)
The external corrosion model was completed in March’00. For all the plants it is intended to
progressively apply the model. However, in the case of Bacton, where both internal/external RBA were
determined, the following default external substrate Inspection Intervals were applied;

Insulated

• Operating Temperature Range 30 o C > T </= 120 o C - I.I. = 5 years.

• Operating Temperature Range 0 o C > T </= 30 oC - I.I. = 10 years.
• Operating Temperature Range T </= 0 oC - I.I. = 15 years.
• Where insulated (T </= 0 o C) and housed – 20years.

Uninsulated

• Housing – 15 years
• External – 10 years

This model will be maintained for tags that have fallen within the 2000 & 2001 inspection work scopes.
The DBRA model will be applied to all other tags where external corrosion has been detected.
However, where there is no inspection history and it is not possible to stratify, the above model could
also be used as a default.

13. 0 Internal Corrosion Classification (21/3/00)

The two primary internal corrosion mechanisms experienced in all the plants are described in DBRA
as pitting corrosion and general corrosion. The statistical models call for area scanning techniques
for pitting and key point checks for general corrosion. In order to ensure the likelihood of detecting
corrosion preference has been given to scanning techniques. As a result pitting corrosion has been
designated in preference to general corrosion

13.0 Recording Expert Group Decisions

In Q’3 1999, the DBRA system was modified to record E G membership and the decisions made per
tag. While the EG decisions for Bacton have been fully recorded, the decisions with respect to the
1998-99 RBA’s of St Fergus and FNGL have not been recorded. The intention is to progressively
record the EG decisions as planned inspections are carried out. This will commence from Dec’99 when
the SF & FNGL EG’s commence inputting 1999 inspection histories and updating the current tag RBA
status. (21/3/00) With each re assessment, the EG decisions will be updated to provide a brief
explanation of the significant change(s).

Coating system Lifecycles (19/6/02)

Assume in general for a full coating system a default of 8 years based on full surface preparation.
Where surfaces have been mechanically prepared 5 years.
For single coated primer application assume as per above where operating temp < - 5oC. Where
operating temperature > -5oC assumes 5 years and 3 years respectively.

Appendix IIIb
UEGP/52 SL Expro RBI Expert Group Handbook

Default Corrosion rates (18/6/02)

Where there is no inspection history to provide representative corrosion rates, the following default
corrosion rates will be applied;

External
Default CR’s adopted from Excorr RBA . Although this is for pipe work, the CR’s can also be
considered as appropriate for static equipment

Under Insulation Default Corrosion Non Insulated Default Corrosion

Rate Rate
T< -5 oC 0.1 mm/yr T< 15 oC 0.51mm/yr
-5oC>/=T<60oC 0.38mm/yr T>/=15oC 0.15mm/yr
60oC>/=T< 120oC 0.57 mm/yr
T>/=120oC 0.38mm/yr

14.0 Expert Group Review Process 25/6/02

The inspectors at each plant input the latest inspection report(s).

Where there is no change in condition reported, the inspector will update the RBA process.
Where there is a change in condition reported, the inspector will convene and EG session .

The practical difficulties of convening a fully representative EG are recognized and as a consequence
the following EG reviews can be in several phases to ensure that conclusions are fully challenged. An
example is the procedure adopted in 2002 at Bacton;
Plant Inspector and UEGP/52 corrosion engineer carry out initial assessment and record EG decisions.
Advise UEGP/52 Senior Inspector of review.
Senior Inspector reviews and, if necessary challenges decision and/or calls for additional discipline
review.
Senior inspector records resolution.

Appendix IIIb