This document summarizes an Intertek presentation on risk-based inspection for power plants. It discusses how risk-based inspection (RBI) can improve safety and reliability while reducing costs. RBI involves assessing the risk of equipment failure by determining the likelihood and consequences of failure. This informs targeted inspection plans and risk reduction strategies. The document outlines Intertek's RBI methodology and software platform, which goes beyond basic RBI requirements to develop customized inspection and monitoring plans, organize historical data, and provide a flexible program to optimize equipment life.

1. 6/21/2016
Tom Burnett & Nikhil Kumar
Intertek
Risk Based Inspection for Power Plants
AWARE UGM 2016

2. 222
Evolving Business Models
Centralized 
Distributed
CapEx  OpEx
Static/Dumb 
Connected/Smart

3. 3
Intertek Smart Platform
AWARE + CostCom
Condition
Assessment
Failure
Analysis/
BTFR
High Energy
Piping
Flow
Accelerated
Corrosion
Power Plant
Cycling
Fitness for
Service
Econometrics
Life Extension
(Risk
Adjusted)

4. 4
Why do RBI
• Improve plant and worker safety – Avoidance of catastrophic failure
• Increased availability and reliability of equipment
• Better understanding of equipment and processes
• Focus resources in correct areas
• Save money
• Improved turnaround planning
• Specific inspection and maintenance activities
• Avoid failures and downtime
• Detailed equipment inspection plans
• Follow industry best practices
• Make informed management decisions

5. 5
Hazard versus Risk
Hazard Risk

6. 6
What is Risk
Cost
Reliability
Reliability Analysis
Total Cost
Outage Cost
Capital & Maintenance
Cost
Risk = (Likelihood of Failure) x (Consequence of Failure)

7. 7
What about API compliance?
API RP 580 was intended to provide guidance and provide basic elements for
developing and implementing a RBI program. It is an introduction to concepts and
principles of RBI, with the intent of producing a documented methodology.
AWARE is fully compliant with these guidelines.
API 581 has been updated over time and now includes step by step analysis
procedures similar to ASME FFS-1 as well as ASME Section VIII

8. 8
Why was RBI Developed
• Most pressure equipment contain flaws
• Most flaws are innocuous - Don’t cause problems
• Few flaws cause catastrophic failure
• Must find (inspect) those critical flaws in high risk service - Cost effectively
• Typically 80% of the risk is associated with < 20% of the pressure
equipment
Loss of containment events resulting in major
insurance losses in petrochemical process plants.
Only about half of the causes of loss of containment
can be influenced by inspection activities (41% of
mechanical failures plus some portion of the “unknown”
failures). Other mitigation actions are required.

9. 9
• As with other industries, the goal for
the electric generation industry as a
whole is to predict and prevent
failures before they occur.
• The implementations rely on both
Qualitative Risk Analysis, as well as
a Quantitative Risk Analysis, which
includes in-depth reliability and
financial analysis.
• Level I – Qualitative risk, simple
• Level II – Qualitative risk analysis,
supplemented with quantitative
methods
• Level III – Quantitative risk analysis,
in depth analysis
RBI – Qualitative or Quantitative?
Rank
Process
Units
Review and
Adjust COF
Rating
Identify
Consequence
Modifiers
Calculate
Preliminary
Consequence Index
Gather Data for
Consequence
Estimate
Review of
Process and
Operational Data
Consequence
of Failure
(COF)
Risk Rank = COF
x LOF
Development of Equipment
Worksheet
Equipment
Documentation
Review
Review and
Adjust LOF
Rating
Calculate Initial
Damage Rank
Identify
Failure
Modes
Identify Potential
Damage
Mechanisms
Identify Industry Specific
Unit Exp.(Interviews -
Process, Maint.
Engrs./Insp.)
Likelihood of
Failure (LOF)
Risk
Directed
Inspection
Plan -
Scope &

10. 10
What does inspection planning involve:
• Determining risk in terms of
likelihood of failure and
consequence of failure
• Inspection scope, schedule, and
cost planning and risk reduction
estimations
• Presentation of the results in
terms of a risk matrix
• Evaluation of the costs and risk
reduction of countermeasures
Inspection Planning

11. 11
Intertek Approach
AWARE
Decision
Analysis
No detection +
No Repair
Equipment
Failure
Equipment
Risk
Assessment
No detection +
No Repair
Detection + No
Repair
Detection +
Repair
Detection + No
Repair
Equipment
Failure
Equipment
Risk
Assessment
No detection +
No Repair
Detection + No
Repair
Detection +
Repair
No detection +
No Repair
Equipment
Failure
Equipment
Risk
AssessmentDetection +
Repair
Risk
Mitigation
Plan
Inspection
Plan
Risk Matrix
Data
Analysis
[Determine
POF/COF]
Data Input
in AWARE
Data
Collection

12. 12
Factors:
• Incorrect Design
• Incorrect Material (size, schedule,
metallurgy)
• Construction Defects (lay-up,
welds)
• In Service Induced Defects
(corrosion, erosion, fatigue, creep,
creep/fatigue, etc.)
• Cycling
• Operational and Maintenance
Caused Defects
• Define Damage Potential
• Identify Potential Failure Mechanisms
• Determine Potential Failure Modes for
Damage Mechanisms
• Assign Damage Rank Based on:
• Possibility of Occurrence
• Failure Mode if Undetected
• Consider Mitigating/Aggravating Factors
and Assign an Overall Likelihood of Failure
Rank to Component Considering:
• Corrosion, erosion, fatigue, creep,
creep/fatigue, etc.
• Operating Considerations
• Thermal Cycles, Stress Cycles,
Transients and Off Normal Operations
• Inspection Considerations - Scope,
Frequency, and Technique
• Quality of Documentation and Plant
Experience
Likelihood of Failure

13. 13
− Reliability Models for
certain key equipment
(High Energy Piping or
Pressure Vessels),
where damage
mechanisms and
uncertainties are well
understood and
statistical distributions
are available. In this
scenario, the model uses
the following equation to
determine POF:
• 𝑃𝑓 𝑡 = 𝑔𝑓𝑓. 𝐷𝑓 𝑡 . 𝐹 𝑀,
where 𝑃𝑓 𝑡 is the function
of a generic failure
frequency 𝑔𝑓𝑓, damage
factor 𝐷𝑓(𝑡), and a
management system
factor 𝐹 𝑀
− Statistical Models. These
models are based on
generic data collected
either using frequencies
available in the AWARE
database or other models
developed by Intertek
Engineering. We will also
rely on EPRI data to
develop and determine the
POF.
• Where appropriate, two
parameter Weibull models
will be used to estimate
failure frequency, 𝑃𝑓 𝑡 =
1 − exp[−
𝑡
𝐶𝐿′
𝐵
] ; where:
CL’ is the updated
characteristic life and B is the
shape factor
• For some key boiler pressure
parts Intertek’s probabilistic
failure rate damage models
such as TUBETECH or
SAFESEAM, or SAFEGIRTH
will be used to estimate the
likelihood (i.e., probability,
frequency) of failure
− Expert Judgment. will be
relied upon when the
information on likely
damage mechanism or
failure frequency is
found inadequate.
Likelihood of Failure

14. 14
Possible Consequence:
(a) formation of a vapor cloud that could
ignite, causing injury and equipment
damage
(b) release of a toxic chemical that could
cause health problems
(c) a spill that could cause environmental
damage
(d) a rapid release of superheated steam
that could cause damage and injury
(e) a forced unit shutdown that could
have an adverse economic impact
(f) minimal safety, health, environmental,
and/or economic impact
• Calculate Consequence Value
• Worst Case Pressure &
Temperature
• Volume of Contained Fluid/Gas
• Density Factor
• NFPA Factors (Flammability,
Toxicity, Reactivity, Other)
• Assign Consequence Rank to
Component Considering
Mitigating/Aggravating Factors
• Location Relative to Other
Equipment
• Location Relative to Concentrations
of Personnel
• Environmental Factors (Reportable
Release Quantities)
Consequence of Failure

15. 15
• Calculate Preliminary Consequence
Value (PCV)
• Product of Worst Case: Temperature,
Volume, Pressure and Density
factors.
• Sum of MSDS Factors: Flammability,
Toxicity, Reactivity, Other (steam).
• Final Product (PCV)
• Modify PCV by considering Mitigating,
Aggravating Factors
• Location Relative to Other Equipment
• Location Relative to Concentrations of
Personnel
• Environmental Factors (Reportable
Release Quantities)
• Fire detection and suppression
devices
Estimating Consequence
Four Categories Based Consistent With
Industry Approach
Consequence
of Component
Failure
Considerable 1
Serious 2
Some 3
Minor or No Impact on Personnel 4
Rank Consequence Based on
Potential For Harm to Site
Personnel & Environment

16. 16
RBI pitfalls
RBI will not compensate for
• inaccurate or missing information
• inadequate design or faulty equipment
• improper installation and/or operation
• operating outside the acceptable design envelope
• not effectively implementing the inspection plan
• lack of qualified personnel or team work
• lack of sound engineering or operational judgment
• failure to promptly take corrective action or implement appropriate mitigation
strategies

17. 17
Risk Management
Reducing likelihood of failure is not only restricted to inspections:
• Inspection and Maintenance
• Understanding damage
• Correct NDE techniques
• MOC/Record Keeping/Report
• Repair, Replace, Control
• Operational Controls
• Online Monitoring
• Materials
RBI focuses on “inspectable risk”. RBI is not intended to replace
other practices that have proven satisfactory or substitute for the
judgment of a responsible, qualified inspector or engineer.

18. 18
Life Optimization Program
• What is Intertek’s AIM Life
Optimization Program:
• API 580 Compliant
• System Risk Analysis Tool
• Justification for future maintenance
costs and maintenance planning aid
• A Living document
• Flexible and adaptable to changing
management and operations
• Easy to use and inexpensive, with a
quick ROI.
A typical RBI implementation results in an inspection plan as the primary output. Instead, Intertek’s program
goes beyond the basic requirements of RBI and its objectives are:
• Organizing and maintaining key inspection and overhaul reports from past years
• Developing inspection and real-time data acquisition plans needed to assess equipment health
• Developing a database structure to organize the vast data in a way that is easily retrieved and
disseminated