API RP 581 - 3rd Ed.2016 - Add.2-2020 - Risk-Based Inspection Methodology

RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY, PART 2, ANNEX 2.C—LEVELS OF INSPECTION EFFECTIVENESS 2.C-11
Non-metallic Linings
2.C.6.1 Inspection Effectiveness for Non-metallic Linings
Non-metallic lining assessment is important to any RBI analysis as an integral part of the ascribed equipment.
Although inspection effectiveness is not currently used in the calculation of the lining DF, LoIE Table 2.C.6.1
provides an example of inspection effectiveness categories for non-metallic linings.
2.C.6.2 Tables
Table 2.C.6.1—LoIE Example for Corrosion-resistant Non-metallic Liner
Inspection
Category
Inspection
Effectiveness
Category
Intrusive Inspection Example a, b
Non-intrusive Inspection Example a, b
A Highly Effective For the total surface area:
100 % visual inspection
AND
No inspection techniques are yet
available to meet the requirements for
an “A” level inspection
100 % holiday test
AND
100 % UT or magnetic tester for
disbonding for bonded liners
B
Usually
Effective
For the total surface area:
>65 % visual inspection
AND
For the total surface area:
100 % automated or manual
ultrasonic scanning
>65 % holiday test
AND
>65 % UT or magnetic tester for
disbonding for bonded liners
C Fairly Effective For the total surface area:
>35 % visual inspection
OR
For the total surface area:
>65 % automated or manual
ultrasonic scanning
>35 % holiday test
OR
>35 % UT or magnetic tester for
disbonding for bonded liners
D Poorly Effective For the total surface area:
>5 % visual inspection
OR
>5 % holiday test
For the total surface area:
>35 % automated or manual
ultrasonic scanning
OR
>5 % UT or magnetic tester for
disbonding for bonded liners
E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan
was utilized
Ineffective inspection technique/plan
was utilized
a
b
Inspection quality is high.
Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert).