PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT

WEIGHTING FACTOR
1 PROBABILITY RANKING – Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC)

POSSIBLE SCORE

% of TOTAL
POINTS

TOTAL
Oxygen/Water content 2
1-1 Do you add water >0.2%? YES 0
If Is water/oxygen content in the safe area (EFMA-fig. 10
NO 5)? NO or NOT ANALYZED
Tank filled with only own NH3from the NH3 plant, 0
frequently (at least once / month)
If Tank filled with only own NH3from the NH3 plant, 5
YES infrequently
Tank filled with imported NH3 frequently (every 0
shipload or every 50 rail tank cars)
Tank filled infrequently with imported NH3 from 5
ships or rail tank cars or road tankers
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PP SIMTECH - October 2013 RBI INSPECTION INTERVAL Assessment using EFMA Guidance page 1 of 10
 Materials, welding and pre-commissioning 1.5
Low Strength Plate Materials (YS < 300 MPa) 0
1-2 Medium Strength Plate Material (YS > 300 & < 360 MPa) 1
High Strength Plate Materials (YS > 360 MPa) 2
Welding Consumables (see EFMA-appendix 1) Low 0/2/4
Strength / Medium Strength / High Strength
Have you performed and documented construction 0/2
welding control for the tank? (YES / NO)
Did you carry out repairs during pre-commissioning? 0/2
NO/YES
Manhole and Pipe Connections 0.5
1-3 Pipe connections pre- made and stress relieved before
0/5
installation. (YES / NO)
Manhole pre-made and stress relieved before 0/5
installation. (YES / NO)
Inspection Issues 1.5
No SCC was found; Inspection scope for SCC was in 0
1-4
accordance with EFMA recommendations
No SCC was found; Inspection scope for SCC was NOT in 5
accordance with EFMA recommendations
No SCC was found; But NO inspection for SCC done 10
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PP SIMTECH - October 2013 RBI INSPECTION INTERVAL Assessment using EFMA Guidance page 2 of 10
 SCC was found; But small number of defects, < 5 5
defects & scope in accordance with EFMA guide
SCC was found; Several defects 10
Repairs after First Commissioning 0.5
NO Repairs carried out 0
1-5 Repairs carried out without welding 2
Minor weld repairs carried out and repaired areas stress 2
relieved (PWHT)
Minor weld repairs carried out, but repaired areas not 6
stress relieved (PWHT)
Major* weld repairs carried out and repaired areas 4
stress relieved (PWHT)
Major* weld repairs carried out, but repaired areas not 10
stress relieved (PWHT)
Total Score for Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC)
*Major means extensive areas or deep grinding (>20% of the wall thickness)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PP SIMTECH - October 2013 RBI INSPECTION INTERVAL Assessment using EFMA Guidance page 3 of 10
PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT

WEIGHTING FACTOR
POSSIBLE SCORE
2 PROBABILITY RANKING–Other Degradation Mechanisms (DMs)

% of TOTAL
POINTS

TOTAL
External Corrosion of NH3 Containment Tank 0.2
2-1 No corrosion was reported
0
Yes, corroded location was recoated 4
Yes, no coating applied 10
Mechanical Damage 0.2
2-2 No mechanical damage
0
Yes, with well-controlled repairs 5
Yes, without repairs 10
Low Cycle Fatigue 0.2
2-3 Flexible pipe connections? (YES / NO)
0/5
Variations in NH3 level to minimum and maximum; NOT 0/5
FREQUENT / FREQUENT (> 15/year)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PP SIMTECH - October 2013 RBI INSPECTION INTERVAL Assessment using EFMA Guidance page 4 of 10
 Brittle Fracture 0.8
2-4 Do you have LT certified materials/welds, or have
performed Charpy tests at -330C (or lower) using 0/10
material with the same charge number that satisfies the
requirements in the design code? (YES / NO)
External Conditions 0.2
Do external factors like extreme weather conditions 0
leading to stress exist? NO
2-5
YES, but additional constructive improvements or 2
simulations made
YES, but no additional constructive improvements or 4
simulations made
Have you observed settling/subsidence phenomena? No 0
YES, but additional constructive improvements or 2
simulations made
YES, but no additional constructive improvements or 6
simulations made
2-6 Previous Inspections 0.4
Have you performed any internal inspections after 0/10
commissioning for other DMs? (YES/ NO)
Total Score for Other Degradation Mechanisms
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PP SIMTECH - October 2013 RBI INSPECTION INTERVAL Assessment using EFMA Guidance page 5 of 10
 PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT

WEIGHTING FACTOR
3 PROBABILITY RANKING – Operational Issues

POSSIBLE SCORE

% of TOTAL
POINTS

TOTAL
3-1 Pre commissioning control 0.4
Hydro tested? (YES / NO) 0/10
Commissioning Procedure 1.2
Do you have a procedure for Decommissioning and Re- 0/10
commissioning? (YES / NO)
The Tank Evaporate the remaining ammonia in a way
3-2 Decommis that ensures uniform and slow heating, not 0/2
sioning exceeding 1 0C/hour (YES / NO)
Procedure Purge with warm NH3 gas or N2 until all
as per liquid NH3 is removed. The bottom area 0/2
EFMA may need to be cleaned first to get all the
Guidelines ammonia gas out. (YES / NO)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PP SIMTECH - October 2013 RBI INSPECTION INTERVAL Assessment using EFMA Guidance page 6 of 10
 Purge with N2 until the measured Oxygen in
The Tank the discharge gas is < 4%. 0/2
Re- (YES / NO)
commissio Purge with NH3 gas until the measured
ning Oxygen in the discharge gas is < 0.5%. (yes / 0/2
Procedure No)
as per Cool the tank down to as low a
EFMA temperature as possible (preferably by 0/2
Guidelines using a spray system), at a cooling rate
lower then 1 0C/hour. (yes / No)
Operating Experience 0.4
3-3 Have you experienced operating problems that may
have resulted in unfavourable condition in the tank, for 0/10
example lifting of relief valves or over/under pressure or
overfilling or prolonged failure of floor heating, etc? If
one of these incidents has occurred, the score is 10.
Total Score for Operational Issues

Total Score – PROBABILITY OF FAILURE

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PP SIMTECH - October 2013 RBI INSPECTION INTERVAL Assessment using EFMA Guidance page 7 of 10
CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT

WEIGHTING

% of TOTAL
POSSIBLE
CONSEQUENCE RANKING – Extra External safety

FACTOR
POINTS
SCORE

TOTAL
(additional containment); LBB; Location of Tank

1 Release of Ammonia to the Atmosphere / Extra External Safety 5

Steel tank with full height concrete bund wall with 2
a) capacity to contain full contents of the tank and the
space between the tank and the bund having
impervious floor and roof covering (EFMA-Fig.2)
b) Steel tank housed within another steel tank to 2
b) contain full contents of the tank, with a single roof (cup
in tank) or independent roofs (EFMA-Fig. 3)
c) Steel tank with a partial height concrete bund wall 6
c) with impervious floor within the contained area and no
roof over the space (EFMA-Fig.4)
d) Steel tank with an embankment of earth to contain 8
d) full contents of the tank and no roof over the space
between the tank and the embankment (EFMA-Fig.5)
e) e) Single steel tank without bund wall (EFMA-Fig.6) 10
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PP SIMTECH - October 2013 RBI INSPECTION INTERVAL Assessment using EFMA Guidance page 8 of 10
 2 Leak-Before-Break (LBB) Assessment Consideration 2.5
a) Fracture Mechanics based LBB assessment performed 0
and conclusion “Leak before break”
b) Fracture Mechanics based LBB assessment performed 7
but “Non-conclusive”
c) Fracture Mechanics based LBB assessment performed 10
and conclusion “Break before leak”
d) No Fracture Mechanics based LBB assessment has been 10
carried out to date
3 Location of Tank 2.5
a) Not close to external population (2km), not close to 0
water (200m)
b) Not close to population and close to water 2
c) Close to population between 1 and 2 km, not close to 5
water
d) Close to population less than 1km, not close to water 8
e) Close to population between 1 and 2 km, close to water 7
f) Close to population less that 1 km, close to water 10
Total Score – CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PP SIMTECH - October 2013 RBI INSPECTION INTERVAL Assessment using EFMA Guidance page 9 of 10
 EFMA – Risk Based Inspection Interval Matrix for NH3 Storage Tanks
81 – 100 Inspection Interval
Consequence of Failure (COF)

Red
< 5 years

61 – 80 Orange
Inspection Interval
increasing

5 – 10 years max.
41 – 60 Yellow
Inspection Interval
10 – 15 years max.

21 – 40 Green
Inspection Interval
15 – 20 years max.

0 – 20 Dark Inspection Interval

Green 20 – 25 years max.

Risk Based 0 – 24 25 – 36 37 – 48 49 – 60 61–100

Inspection
Interval Probability of Failure (POF)
Increasing

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PP SIMTECH - October 2013 RBI INSPECTION INTERVAL Assessment using EFMA Guidance page 10 of 10