Inspection Planning Using Risk-Based Methods

AN A MERICAN NA TIONAL S T AND ARD

ASME PCC-3–2017

(Revision of ASME PCC-3–2007)

ASME PCC-3–2017

(Revision of ASME PCC-3–2007)

Inspection Planning Using Risk-Based Methods

AN AMERICAN NA TIONAL S T AND ARD

Two Park Avenue • New York, NY • 10016 USA

Date of Issuance: December 28, 2017

This Standard will be revised when the Society approves the issuance of a new edition.

ASME issues written replies to inquiries concerning interpretations of technical aspects of this Standard. Interpretations are published on the ASME Web site under the Committee Pages at https://cstools.asme.org/ as they are issued.

Errata to codes and standards may be posted on the ASME Web site under the Committee Pages to provide corrections to incorrectly published items, or to correct typographical or grammatical errors in codes and standards. Such errata shall be used on the date posted.

The Committee Pages can be found at https://cstools.asme.org/. There is an option available to automatically receive an e-mail notification when errata are posted to a particular code or standard. This option can be found on the appropriate Committee Page after selecting “Errata” in the “Publication Information” section.

ASME is the registered trademark of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

This code or standard was developed under procedures accredited as meeting the criteria for American National Standards. The Standards Committee that approved the code or standard was balanced to assure that individuals from competent and concerned interests have had an opportunity to participate. The proposed code or standard was made available for public review and comment that provides an opportunity for additional public input from industry, academia, regulatory agencies, and the public-at-large.

ASME does not “approve,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device, or activity.

ASME does not take any position with respect to the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any items mentioned in this document, and does not undertake to insure anyone utilizing a standard against liability for infringement of any applicable letters patent, nor assume any such liability. Users of a code or standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their own responsibility.

Participation by federal agency representative(s) or person(s) affiliated with industry is not to be interpreted as government or industry endorsement of this code or standard.

ASME accepts responsibility for only those interpretations of this document issued in accordance with the established ASME procedures and policies, which precludes the issuance of interpretations by individuals.

No part of this document may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise,

without the prior written permission of the publisher.

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990

Copyright © 2017 by

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

All rights reserved Printed in U.S.A.

CONTENTS

Foreword v

Committee Roster vi

Correspondence With the Post Construction Committee vii

Summary of Changes ix

Nonmandatory Appendices

1. Damage Mechanism Definitions 47

2. Damage Mechanism and Defects Screening Table 58

3. Table of Examination/Monitoring Methods 65

4. Quantitative Methods Including Expert Opinion Elicitation 71

5. Examples of Risk-Based Inspection Program Audit Questions 79

6. Suggested Practice for Evaluation of Pressure Vessels for Continued Cyclic

Service 80

FOREWORD

ASME formed an Ad Hoc Task Group on Post Construction in 1993 in response to an identified need for recognized and generally accepted engineering standards for the inspection and mainte- nance of pressure equipment after it has been placed in service. At the recommendation of this Task Group, the Board on Pressure Technology Codes and Standards (BPTCS) formed the Post Construction Committee (PCC) in 1995. The scope of this Committee was to develop and maintain standards addressing common issues and technologies related to post-construction activities, and to work with other consensus committees in the development of separate, product-specific codes and standards addressing issues encountered after initial construction for equipment and piping covered by Pressure Technology Codes and Standards. The BPTCS covers non-nuclear boilers, pressure vessels (including heat exchangers), piping and piping components, pipelines, and storage tanks.

The PCC selects standards to be developed based on identified needs and the availability of volunteers. The PCC formed the Subcommittee on Inspection Planning and the Subcommittee on Flaw Evaluations in 1995. In 1998, a Task Group under the PCC began preparation of Guidelines for Pressure Boundary Bolted Flange Joint Assembly, and in 1999 the Subcommittee on Repair and Testing was formed. Other topics are under consideration and may possibly be developed into future guideline documents. The subcommittees were charged with preparing standards dealing with several aspects of the inservice inspection and maintenance of pressure equipment and piping.

This Standard provides guidance on the preparation and implementation of a risk-based inspec- tion plan. Flaws that are identified during inspection plan implementation are then evaluated, when appropriate, using the procedures provided in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness for Service. If it is determined that repairs are required, guidance on repair procedures is provided in ASME PCC-2, Repair of Pressure Equipment and Piping.

This Standard is based on API 580, Risk-Based Inspection. By agreement with the American Petroleum Institute, this Standard is closely aligned with the RBI process in API 580, which is oriented toward the hydrocarbon and chemical process industries. In the standards development process that led to the publication of this Standard, numerous changes, additions, and improve- ments to the text of API 580 were made, many of which are intended to generalize the RBI process to enhance applicability to a broader spectrum of industries.

This Standard provides recognized and generally accepted good practices that may be used in conjunction with Post-Construction Codes, such as API 510, API 570, and NB-23.

ASME PCC-3–2007 was approved by the American National Standards Institute on October 4, 2007.

This 2017 edition was approved by the American National Standards Institute on May 11, 2017.

ASME POST CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE

(The following is the roster of the Committee at the time of approval of this Standard.)

STANDARDS COMMITTEE OFFICERS

C. Becht IV, Chair

C. D. Rodery, Vice Chair

S. J. Rossi, Secretary

J. Arnold, Niantic Bay Engineering, LLC

1. Becht IV, Becht Engineering BT, Inc.

2. L. Berger, Consultant

M. A. Boring, Kiefner & Associates, Inc.

W. Brown, Integrity Engineering Solutions

N. Y. Faransso, KBR

B. Hantz, Valero Energy Corp.

E. W. Hayman, Consultant

D. King, Furmanite America, Inc.

D. E. Lay, Hytorc

D. T. Peters, Structural Integrity Associates

J. T. Reynolds, Intertek/Moody

S. C. Roberts, Shell Global Standards US, Inc.

1. D. Rodery, BP North American Products, Inc.

   STANDARDS COMMITTEE PERSONNEL

   1. Roux, Roux Engineering

C. W. Rowley, The Wesley Corp.

J. Taagepera, Chevron Energy Technology Co.

G. M. Tanner, M & M Engineering Associates

K. Oyamada, Delegate, The High Pressure Gas Safety Institute of Japan

T. Tahara, Delegate, T & T Technology

J. Batey, Contributing Member, Consultant

C. D. Cowfer, Contributing Member, Consultant

W. J. Koves, Contributing Member, Pi Engineering Software, Inc.

E. Michalopoulos, Contributing Member, Consultant

K. Mokhtarian, Contributing Member, K. Mokhtarian Consulting, LLC

C. C. Neely, Contributing Member, Becht Engineering BT, Inc.

S. J. Rossi, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers J. R. Sims, Contributing Member, Becht Engineering BT, Inc.

INSPECTION PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE

D. T. Peters, Chair, Structural Integrity Associates

J. Arnold, Vice Chair, Niantic Bay Engineering, LLC

E. Lawson, Secretary, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers

L. P. Antalffy, Fluor

D. L. Berger, Consultant

F. L. Brown, Consultant

F. Duvic III, Vessel Statistics

M. Edel, BakerRisk

M. Kowalczyk, UOP, LLC

K. Oyamada, The High Pressure Gas Safety Institute of Japan

B. Ray, Marathon Petroleum Co.

J. T. Reynolds, Intertek/Moody

I. Roux, Roux Engineering

G. M. Tanner, M & M Engineering Associates

J. Batey, Contributing Member, Consultant

P. Chaku, Contributing Member, Lummus Technology, Inc.

D. Cowfer, Contributing Member, Consultant

G. A. Montgomery, Contributing Member, PPS Engineers, Inc.

C. C. Neely, Contributing Member, Becht Engineering BT, Inc.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE POST CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE

General. ASME Standards are developed and maintained with the intent to represent the consensus of concerned interests. As such, users of this Standard may interact with the Committee by requesting interpretations, proposing revisions, and attending Committee meetings. Corre- spondence should be addressed to:

Secretary, Post Construction Standards Committee The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Two Park Avenue

New York, NY 10016-5990

https://go.asme.org/Inquiry

Proposing Revisions. Revisions are made periodically to the Standard to incorporate changes that appear necessary or desirable, as demonstrated by the experience gained from the application of the Standard. Approved revisions will be published periodically.

The Committee welcomes proposals for revisions to this Standard. Such proposals should be as specific as possible, citing the paragraph number(s), the proposed wording, and a detailed description of the reasons for the proposal, including any pertinent documentation.

Interpretations. Upon request, the Post Construction Standards Committee will render an inter- pretation of any requirement of the Standard. Interpretations can only be rendered in response to a written request sent to the Secretary of the Post Construction Standards Committee.

Requests for interpretation should preferably be submitted through the online Interpretation Submittal Form. The form is accessible at https://go.asme.org/InterpretationRequest. Upon sub- mittal of the form, the Inquirer will receive an automatic e-mail confirming receipt.

If the Inquirer is unable to use the online form, he/she may mail the request to the Secretary of the Post Construction Standards Committee at the above address. The request for an interpretation should be clear and unambiguous. It is further recommended that the Inquirer submit his/her request in the following format:

Subject: Cite the applicable paragraph number(s) and the topic of the inquiry in one or two words.

Edition: Cite the applicable edition of the Standard for which the interpreta- tion is being requested.

Question: Phrase the question as a request for an interpretation of a specific requirement suitable for general understanding and use, not as a request for an approval of a proprietary design or situation. Please provide a condensed and precise question, composed in such a way that a “yes” or “no” reply is acceptable.

Proposed Reply(ies): Provide a proposed reply(ies) in the form of “Yes” or “No,” with explanation as needed. If entering replies to more than one question, please number the questions and replies.

Background Information: Provide the Committee with any background information that will assist the Committee in understanding the inquiry. The Inquirer may also include any plans or drawings that are necessary to explain the question; however, they should not contain proprietary names or information.

Requests that are not in the format described above may be rewritten in the appropriate format by the Committee prior to being answered, which may inadvertently change the intent of the original request.

Moreover, ASME does not act as a consultant for specific engineering problems or for the general application or understanding of the Standard requirements. If, based on the inquiry

information submitted, it is the opinion of the Committee that the inquirer should seek assistance, the inquiry will be returned with the recommendation that such assistance be obtained.

ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of any interpretation when or if additional information that might affect an interpretation is available. Further, persons aggrieved by an interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME Committee or Subcommittee. ASME does not “approve,” “certify,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device, or activity. Attending Committee Meetings. The Post Construction Standards Committee regularly holds meetings and/or telephone conferences that are open to the public. Persons wishing to attend any meeting and/or telephone conference should contact the Secretary of the Post Construction

Standards Committee.

ASME PCC-3–2017 SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Following approval by the ASME Post Construction Committee and ASME, and after public review, ASME PCC-3–2017 was approved by the American National Standards Institute on May 11, 2017.

The 2017 edition of ASME PCC-3 includes revisions that are identified by a margin note, (17). The following is a summary of the latest revisions and changes.

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ASME PCC-3–2017

INSPECTION PLANNING USING RISK-BASED METHODS

1. SCOPE, INTRODUCTION, AND PURPOSE

   1. Scope

      The risk analysis principles, guidance, and implemen- tation strategies presented in this Standard are broadly applicable; however, this Standard has been specifically developed for applications involving fixed pressure- containing equipment and components. This Standard is not intended to be used for nuclear power plant com- ponents; see ASME BPV, Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components. It pro- vides guidance to owners, operators, and designers of pressure-containing equipment for developing and implementing an inspection program. These guidelines include means for assessing an inspection program and its plan. The approach emphasizes safe and reliable operation through cost-effective inspection. A spectrum of complementary risk analysis approaches (qualitative through fully quantitative) should be considered as part of the inspection planning process.

      
      

   2. Introduction

      This Standard provides information on using risk analysis to develop and plan an effective inspection strategy. Inspection planning is a systematic process that begins with identification of facilities or equipment and culminates in an inspection plan. Both the probability1 of failure and the consequence of failure should be evalu- ated by considering all credible damage mechanisms that could be expected to affect the facilities or equip- ment. In addition, failure scenarios based on each credi- ble damage mechanism should be developed and considered.

      The output of the inspection planning process con- ducted according to these guidelines should be an inspection plan for each equipment item analyzed that includes

      1. inspection methods that should be used

      2. extent of inspection (percent of total area to be examined or specific locations)

      3. inspection interval (timing)

      4. other risk mitigation activities

      5. the residual level of risk after inspection and other mitigation actions have been implemented