2.C.2.

3 Tables
Table 2.C.2.1—Inspection Effectiveness Categories
Inspection Effectiveness Inspection Effectiveness
Category Description

A Highly Effective

B Usually Effective

C Fairly Effective

D Poorly Effective

E Ineffective

NOTE On an inspection effectiveness Category E, the terminology of Ineffective may refer to one or more of the following cases.
1. No inspection was completed.
2. The inspection was completed at less than the requirements stated above.
3. An ineffective inspection technique and/or plan was utilized.
4. An unproven inspection technique was utilized.
5. Insufficient information was available to adequately assess the effectiveness of the inspection.
ffectiveness Categories

Description

The inspection methods will correctly identify the true damage state in nearly every
case (or 80 % to 100 % confidence)
The inspection methods will correctly identify the true damage state most of the time
(or 60 % to 80 % confidence)
The inspection methods will correctly identify the true damage state about half of the
time (or 40 % to 60% confidence)
The inspection methods will provide little information to correctly identify the true
damage state (or 20 % to 40 % confidence)
The inspection method will provide no or almost no information that will correctly
identify the true damage state and are considered ineffective for detecting the specific
damage mechanism (less than 20 % confidence)

E, the terminology of Ineffective may refer to one or more of the following cases.

he requirements stated above.

an was utilized.
ed.
uately assess the effectiveness of the inspection.
 2.C.3.1 Tables
Table 2.C.3.1—Inspection and Testing Effectiveness for Pressure-relief Devices
Inspection
Effectiveness Component Type

Highly Effective A Pressure-relief device

Rupture disk

Usually Effective B Pressure-relief device

Rupture disk

Fairly Effective C Pressure-relief device

Rupture disk

Ineffective D Pressure-relief device

Rupture disk

NOTE 1 This table does not prescribe specifically to the five effectiveness categories as discussed in this annex. However, given the methodology presented, i
is in agreement with the division of those categories.
NOTE 2 This table assumes the PRD is in fouling service. If the PRD is in a documented, non-fouling service, the owner–user may decide to waive the inlet an
outlet piping inspection requirement.
spection and Testing Effectiveness for Pressure-relief Devices

Description of Inspection

A bench test has been performed on the PRD in the as-received condition from
the unit, and the initial leak pressure, opening pressure, and reseat pressure
have been documented on the test form. The inlet and outlet piping has been
examined (e.g. visual or radiographic techniques) for signs of excessive plugging
or
fouling .
2

No inspection methods are available to meet the requirements for an A level

inspection.

A bench test has been performed; however, the PRD was cleaned or steamed
out prior to the bench test. Additionally, a visual inspection has been performed
where detailed documentation of the condition of the PRD internal components
was made. The inlet and outlet piping has been examined (e.g. visual or
radiographic techniques) for signs of excessive plugging or fouling . 2

An in situ test has been performed using the actual process fluid to pressurize the
system. The inlet and outlet piping has been examined (e.g. visual or
radiographic techniques) for signs of excessive plugging or fouling . 2

The rupture disk is removed and visually inspected for damage or deformations.
The inlet and outlet piping has been examined (e.g. visual or radiographic
techniques techniques) for signs of excessive plugging or fouling . 2

A visual inspection has been performed without a pop test, where detailed
documentation of the condition of the PRD internal components was made. The
inlet and outlet piping has been examined (e.g. visual or radiographic techniques)
for signs of excessive plugging or fouling . 2

An assist-lift test or in situ test has been performed where the actual process fluid
was not used to pressurize the system.

No inspection methods are available to meet the requirements for a C level

inspection.

Valve overhaul performed with no documentation of internal component

conditions; No pop test conducted/documented.
Any test (bench, assist-lift, in situ, or visual test) performed without examining the
inlet and outlet piping for excessive plugging or fouling.

No details of the internal component were documented.

he five effectiveness categories as discussed in this annex. However, given the methodology presented, it

vice. If the PRD is in a documented, non-fouling service, the owner–user may decide to waive the inlet and
2.C.4.1.3 Tables
Table 2.C.4.1—Inspection Effectiveness and Uncertainty
Inspection Effectiveness Uncertainty (%)
A—Highly Effective 5
B—Usually Effective 10
C—Moderately Effective 20
D—Usually Not Effective 30
E—Ineffective 50
Atmospheric Storage Tank Components
on Effectiveness and Uncertainty
 2.C.5.2 Tables
Table 2.C.5.1—LoIE Example for AST Shell Course Internal Corrosion
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness
Category
A Highly Effective

B Usually
Effective

C Fairly Effective

D Poorly Effective

E Ineffective
NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.
 Table 2.C.5.1—LoIE Example for AST Shell Course Internal Corrosion

Inspection 1

Both inspections shall be done:

— intrusive inspection—good visual inspection with pit depth gage measurements at suspect
locations
— UT scanning follow up on suspect location and as general confirmation of wall thickness

Both inspections shall be done:

— external spot UT scanning based on visual information from previous internal inspection of this AST
or similar service ASTs
— internal video survey with external UT follow-up

External spot UT scanning based at suspect locations without benefit of any internal inspection
information on AST type or service
External spot UT based at suspect locations without benefit of any internal inspection information on
AST type or service
Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized
s high.
 Table 2.C.5.2—LoIE Example for AST Shell Course External Corrosion
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Insulated Tank Inspection Example 1

Category
A Highly Effective — >95 % external visual inspection prior to removal of
insulation
— Remove >90 % of insulation at suspect locations
OR
>90 % pulse eddy current inspection
— Visual inspection of the exposed surface area with
follow-up by UT or pit gauge as required

B Usually Effective — >95 % external visual inspection prior to removal of

insulation
— Remove >50 % of insulation at suspect locations
OR
>50 % pulse eddy current inspection
— Visual inspection of the exposed surface area with
follow-up by UT or pit gauge as required

C Fairly Effective — >95 % external visual inspection prior to removal of

insulation
— Remove >30 % of insulation at suspect locations
OR
>30 % pulse eddy current inspection
— Visual inspection of the exposed surface area with
follow-up by UT or pit gauge as required

D Poorly Effective — >95 % external visual inspection prior to removal of

insulation
— Remove >10 % of insulation at suspect locations
OR
>10 % pulse eddy current inspection
— Visual inspection of the exposed surface area with
follow-up by UT or pit gauge as required

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

e External Corrosion
Non-Insulated Tank
Inspection Example 1

>95 % visual inspection of the

exposed surface area
AND
Follow-up by UT or pit gauge as
required

>50 % visual inspection of the

exposed surface area
AND
Follow-up by UT or pit gauge as
required

>25 % visual inspection of the

exposed surface area
AND
Follow-up by UT or pit gauge as
required

>10 % visual inspection of the

exposed surface area
AND
Follow-up by UT or pit gauge as
required

Ineffective inspection technique/plan

was utilized
 Table 2.C.5.3—LoIE Example for Tank Bottoms
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Soil Side 1

Category

A Highly Floor scan >90 %

Effective AND
UT follow-up
NOTE
— Include welds if warranted from the results on
the plate scanning
— Hand scan of the critical zone

B Usually Floor scan >50 %

Effective AND
UT follow-up

OR
Extreme value analysis (EVA) or other
statistical method with floor scan follow-up (if
warranted by the result)

C Fairly Effective Floor scan 5 to 10+% plates

AND
Supplement with scanning near shell
AND

UT follow-up
OR
Use a “Scan Circle-and-X” pattern
(progressively increase if damage found
during scanning)

Other testing:
— Helium/argon test
— Hammer test
— Cut coupons
D Poorly Possible testing:
Effective — Spot UT
— Flood test

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was

utilized
NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.
E Example for Tank Bottoms

Product Side 1

Bare plate:
— Commercial blast
— Effective supplementary light
— Visual 100 % (API 653)
— Pit depth gauge
— 100 % vacuum box testing of suspect welded joints
Coating or liner:
— Sponge test 100 %
— Adhesion test
— Scrape test

Bare plate:
— Brush blast
— Effective supplementary light
— Visual 100 % (API 653)

— Pit depth gauge

Coating or liner:
— Sponge test >75 %
— Adhesion test

— Scrape test
Bare plate:
— Broom swept
— Effective supplementary light
— Visual 100 %
— Pit depth gauge

Coating or liner:
— Sponge test 50 % to 75 %
— Adhesion test
— Scrape test

Bare plate:
— Broom swept
— No effective supplementary lighting
— Visual >50 %
Coating or liner:
— Sponge test <50 %
Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized
 2.C.6.2 Tables
Table 2.C.6.1—LoIE Example for Corrosion-resistant Non-metallic Liner
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

Category
A Highly Effective For the total surface area: 100 % visual inspection
AND
100 % holiday test
AND
100 % UT or magnetic tester for disbonding for
bonded liners

B Usually For the total surface area:

Effective >65 % visual inspection
AND
>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
>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
OR
>5 % UT or magnetic tester for disbonding for
bonded liners

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert).
metallic Liner

Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

No inspection techniques are yet available to meet

the requirements for an “A” level inspection

For the total surface area:

100 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning

For the total surface area:

>65 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning

For the total surface area:

>35 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

ledgeable individual (subject matter expert).

 2.C.7.2 Tables
Table 2.C.7.1—LoIE Example for Buried Components
Inspection Inspection Intrusive
Category Effectiveness Inspection
Category Example 1

A Highly 100 % internal inspection

Effective via state-of-the-art
pigging and in-line
inspection technologies
(UT,
MFL, internal rotary UT,
etc.)

B Usually Internal inspection via

Effective pigging and in- line
inspection technologies
(UT, MFL, internal rotary
UT, etc.) of selected
areas/sections, combined
with statistical analysis or
EVA

C Fairly Effective Partial inspection by

internal smart pig or
specialized crawler
device, including a
representative portion of
the buried pipe (<25 %)

D Poorly Hydrostatic testing

Effective
E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized
NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.
NOTE 2 “NDE technologies” include, but are not limited to, UT thickness measurement such as handheld devices at close-interval grid locations, UT B-scan,
automated ultrasonic scanning, guided-wave UT global search, crawler with circumferential inspection technology such as MFL or lamb-wave UT, and digital
radiography in more than one direction.
le 2.C.7.1—LoIE Example for Buried Components
Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1

100 % external inspection of equipment that is only partially buried using an

NDE crawler with circumferential inspection technology (MFL, lamb-wave UT)
— Complete excavation, — Cathodic protection (CP) 100 % external
visual system maintained and inspection, and 100 %
managed by NACE certified
inspection with NDE personnel and complying with technologies 2

NACE SP0169 [14] includes

— Sample soil and water
stray current surveys on a resistivity and chemistry
regular basis

measurements along — Pipe-to-soil potentials should entire structure

be measured at properly
determined intervals

External inspection of equipment that is only partially buried using an NDE

crawler with circumferential inspection technology (MFL, lamb-wave UT) on
selected areas/sections, combined with statistical analysis or EVA
— Close interval survey — CP system maintained and used to assess
the managed by NACE certified performance of the CP
personnel and complying with system locally and NACE SP0169 [14]

includes
utilized to select the stray current surveys on a excavation sites
(based regular basis
on the findings)
— Sample soil and water
— Excavation at “selected” resistivity and chemistry locations, 100 %
measurements along entire
external visual, and structure
100 % inspection with
— DC voltage gradient (DCVG) NDE technologies
2
to
determine coating damage

Partial excavation guided-wave UT global search inspection in each direction of

pipe. Corrosion inspection and maintenance managed by NACE certified and
CP specialist, or equivalent.

Spot check with conventional NDE technologies equipment of local areas

2

exposed by excavation.
spection technique/plan was utilized

ed to, UT thickness measurement such as handheld devices at close-interval grid locations, UT B-scan,
search, crawler with circumferential inspection technology such as MFL or lamb-wave UT, and digital
 2.C.8.2 Tables
Table 2.C.8.1—LoIE Example for General Thinning
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,2,3,4
Category

A Highly Effective For the total surface area:

>50 % visual examination (partial internals
removed)
AND
>50 % of the spot ultrasonic thickness
measurements

B Usually For the total surface area:

Effective >25 % visual examination
AND
>25 % of the spot ultrasonic thickness
measurements

C Fairly Effective For the total surface area:

>5 % visual examination
AND
>5 % of the spot ultrasonic thickness measurements

D Poorly For the total surface area:

Effective <5 % visual examination without thickness
measurements

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Inspection points (CMLs, scans, etc.) are set up by knowledgeable individuals.
NOTE 3 That the number of CMLs and area for scanning (UT or profile radiography) is one that will detect damage if occurring. NOTE 4 Percentage refers to
percent of established CMLs examined (e.g. for spot UT) or the percent surface area examined.
ple for General Thinning

Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,2,3,4

For the total surface area: 100 % UT/RT of CMLs

OR
For selected areas: 10 % UT scanning
OR
10 % profile radiography

For the total surface area:

>75 % spot UT
OR
>5 % UT scanning, automated or manual
OR
>5 % profile radiography of the selected area(s)

For the total surface area:

>50 % spot UT or random UT scans (automated or
manual)
OR
random profile radiography of the selected area(s)

For the total surface area:

>25 % spot UT

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

.
one that will detect damage if occurring. NOTE 4 Percentage refers to
amined.
 Table 2.C.8.2—LoIE Example for Local Thinning
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,2,3,4

Category

A Highly For the total surface area:

Effective 100 % visual examination (with removal of internal
packing, trays, etc.)
AND
100 % follow-up at locally thinned areas

B Usually For the total surface area:

Effective >75 % visual examination
AND
100 % follow-up at locally thinned areas

C Fairly Effective For the total surface area:

>50 % visual examination
AND
100 % follow-up at locally thinned areas

D Poorly For the total surface area:

Effective >20 % visual examination
AND
100 % follow-up at locally thinned areas

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Percentage coverage in non-intrusive inspection includes welds.
NOTE 3 Follow-up inspection can be UT, pit gauge, or suitable NDE techniques that can verify minimum wall thickness. NOTE 4 Profile radiography techniqu
is sufficient to detect wall loss at all planes.
mple for Local Thinning

Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,2,3,4

For the total suspect area:

100 % coverage of the CMLs using ultrasonic
scanning or profile radiography

For the total suspect area:

>75 % coverage of the CMLs using ultrasonic
scanning or profile radiography

For the total suspect area:

>50 % coverage of the CMLs using ultrasonic
scanning or profile radiography

For the total suspect area:

>20 % coverage of the CMLs using ultrasonic
scanning or profile radiography

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

an verify minimum wall thickness. NOTE 4 Profile radiography technique

 2.C.9.2 Tables
Table 2.C.9.1—LoIE Example for Amine Cracking
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

Category

A Highly Effective For the total weld area:

100 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of relevant
indications

B Usually For selected welds/weld area:

Effective >75 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

C Fairly Effective For selected welds/weld area:

>35 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

D Poorly Effective For selected welds/weld area:

>10 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert).
ple for Amine Cracking

Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

For the total weld area:

100 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning

For selected welds/weld area:

>75 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
AE testing with 100 % follow-up of relevant
indications

For selected welds/weld area:

>35 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>35 % radiographic testing

For selected welds/weld area:

>10 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>10 % radiographic testing

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

wledgeable individual (subject matter expert).

 Table 2.C.9.2—LoIE Example for ACSCC
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

Category

A Highly Effective For the total weld area:

100 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of relevant
indications

B Usually For selected welds/weld area:

Effective >75 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

C Fairly Effective For selected welds/weld area:

>35 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

D Poorly Effective For selected welds/weld area:

>10 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert).
xample for ACSCC

Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

For the total weld area:

100 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning

For selected welds/weld area:

>75 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
AE testing with 100 % follow-up of relevant
indications

For selected welds/weld area:

>35 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>35 % radiographic testing

For selected welds/weld area:

>10 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>10 % radiographic testing

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

wledgeable individual (subject matter expert).

 Table 2.C.9.3—LoIE Example for Caustic Cracking
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,2,3

Category

A Highly Effective For the total weld area:

100 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of relevant
indications

B Usually For selected welds/weld area:

Effective >75 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

C Fairly Effective For selected welds/weld area:

>35 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

D Poorly Effective For selected welds/weld area:

>10 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 Cold bends may
need inspection also for caustic cracking.
le for Caustic Cracking

Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,2,3

For the total weld area:

100 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning

For selected welds/weld area:

>75 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
AE testing with 100 % follow-up of relevant
indications

For selected welds/weld area:

>35 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>35 % radiographic testing

For selected welds/weld area:

>10 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>10 % radiographic testing

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

wledgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 Cold bends may

 Table 2.C.9.4—LoIE Example for CLSCC
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,8,a

Category

A Highly Effective For the total surface area:

100 % dye penetrant or eddy current test with UT
follow-up of relevant indications

B Usually For selected areas:

Effective >65 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with
UT follow-up of all relevant indications

C Fairly Effective For selected areas:

>35 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with
UT follow-up of all relevant indications

D Poorly Effective For selected areas:

>10 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with
UT follow-up of all relevant indications

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 Internal stress
corrosion cracking.
xample for CLSCC

Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,8,a

No inspection techniques are yet available to meet

the requirements for an “A” level inspection

For selected areas:

100 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
AE testing with 100 % follow-up of relevant
indications

For selected areas:

>65 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>65 % radiographic testing

For selected areas:

>35 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>35 % radiographic testing

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

wledgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 Internal stress

 Table 2.C.9.5—LoIE Example for PTA Cracking
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,2,3

Category
A Highly Effective For the total surface area:
100 % dye penetrant or eddy current test with UT
follow-up of relevant indications

B Usually For selected areas:

Effective >65 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with
UT follow-up of all relevant indications

C Fairly Effective For selected areas:

>35 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with
UT follow-up of all relevant indications

D Poorly Effective For selected areas:

>10 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with
UT follow-up of all relevant indications

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 There is no high
effective inspection without a minimum of partial insulation removal and external VT and PT.
mple for PTA Cracking
Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,2.3

No inspection techniques are yet available to meet

the requirements for an “A” level inspection

For selected areas:

100 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
AE testing with 100 % follow-up of relevant
indications

For selected areas:

>65 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>65 % radiographic testing

For selected areas:

>35 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>35 % radiographic testing.

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

wledgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 There is no highly

PT.
 Table 2.C.9.6—LoIE Example for SSC
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

Category
A Highly Effective For the total weld area:
100 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of relevant
indications

B Usually For selected welds/weld area:

Effective >75 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

C Fairly Effective For selected welds/weld area:

>35 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

D Poorly Effective For selected welds/weld area:

>10 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert).
Example for SSC
Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

For the total weld area:

100 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning

For selected welds/weld area:

>75 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
AE testing with 100 % follow-up of relevant
indications

For selected welds/weld area:

>35 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>35 % radiographic testing

For selected welds/weld area:

>10 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>10 % radiographic testing

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

wledgeable individual (subject matter expert).

 Table 2.C.9.7—LoIE Example for HIC/SOHIC-H2S Cracking
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,2,3

Category

A Highly Effective For the total surface area:

— >95 % A or C scan with straight beam
— Followed by TOFD/shear wave
— 100 % visual

B Usually For the total surface area:

Effective — >75 % A or C scan with straight beam
— Followed by TOFD/shear wave
— 100 % visual

C Fairly Effective For the total surface area:

— >35 % A or C scan with straight beam
— Followed by TOFD/shear wave
— 100 % visual
OR
— >50 % WFMT/ACFM
— UT follow-up of indications
— 100 % visual of total surface area

D Poorly Effective For the total surface area:

— >10 % A or C scan with shear wave
— 100 % visual
OR
— >25 % WFMT/ACFM
— UT follow-up of indications
— 100 % visual of total surface area

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 Inspection area:
welds and plates that are susceptible to the damage mechanism.
 for HIC/SOHIC-H2S Cracking

Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,2,3

For the total surface area:

— SOHIC:
— >90 % C scan of the base metal using advanced
UT
— For the weld and HAZ—100 % shear wave and
TOFD
AND
— HIC: Two 1-ft areas, C scan of the base metal
2

using advanced UT on each plate and the heads

For the total surface area:

— >65 % C scan of the base metal using advanced
UT
AND
— HIC: Two 0.5-ft areas, C scan of the base metal
2

using advanced UT on each plate and the heads

For the total surface area:

— >35 % C scan of the base metal using advanced
UT
AND
— HIC: One 1-ft area, C scan of the base metal
2

using advanced UT on each plate and the heads

For the total surface area:

— >5 % C scan of the base metal using advanced
UT
AND
— HIC: One 0.5-ft area, C scan of the base metal
2

using advanced UT on each plate and the heads

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

nowledgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 Inspection area:

 Table 2.C.9.8—LoIE Example for HSC-HF Cracking
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

Category

A Highly For the total weld area:

Effective 100 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of relevant
indications

B Usually For selected welds/weld area:

Effective >75 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

C Fairly For selected welds/weld area:

Effective >35 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

D Poorly For selected welds/weld area:

Effective >10 % WFMT/ACFM with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert).
 e for HSC-HF Cracking

Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

For the total weld area:

100 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning

For selected welds/weld area:

>75 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
AE testing with 100 % follow-up of relevant
indications

For selected welds/weld area:

>35 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>65 % radiographic testing

For selected welds/weld area:

>10 % automated or manual ultrasonic scanning
OR
>35 % radiographic testing

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

wledgeable individual (subject matter expert).

 Table 2.C.9.9—LoIE Example for HIC/SOHIC-HF Cracking
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

Category

A Highly Effective For the total surface area:

— 100 % A or C scan with straight beam
— Followed by TOFD/shear wave
— 100 % visual

B Usually For the total surface area:

Effective — >65 % A or C scan with straight beam
— Followed by TOFD/shear wave
— 100 % visual

C Fairly Effective For the total surface area:

— >35 % A or C scan with straight beam
— Followed by TOFD/shear wave
— 100 % visual
OR
— >50 % WFMT/ACFM
— UT follow-up of indications
— 100 % visual of total surface area

D Poorly Effective For the total surface area:

— >10 % A or C scan with shear wave
— >50 % visual
OR
— >25 % WFMT/ACFM
— UT follow-up of indications
— 100 % visual of total surface area

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Inspection points (CMLs, scans, etc.) are set up by knowledgeable individuals. NOTE 3 Inspection area: welds and plates that are susceptible to the
damage mechanism.
or HIC/SOHIC-HF Cracking

Non-intrusive Inspection Example 1,2

For the total surface area:

— SOHIC:
— >90 % C scan of the base metal using
advanced UT
— For the weld and HAZ— 100 % shear wave
and TOFD
AND
— HIC: Two 1-ft areas, C scan of the base metal
2

using advanced UT on each plate and the heads

For the total surface area:

— >65 % C scan of the base metal using
advanced UT
AND
— HIC: Two 0.5 ft areas, C scan of the base
2

metal using advanced UT on each plate and the

heads.

For the total surface area:

— >35 % C scan of the base metal using
advanced UT
AND
— HIC: One 1-ft area, C scan of the base metal
2

using advanced UT on each plate and the heads

For the total surface area:

— >5 % C scan of the base metal using
advanced UT
AND
— HIC: One 0.5-ft area, C scan of the base
2

metal using advanced UT on each plate and the

heads

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 3 Inspection area: welds and plates that are susceptible to the
 Inspection Effectiveness For External Damage

2.C.10.1 Use of the Inspection Effectiveness Tables

LoIE Tables 2.C.10.1 through 2.C.10.4 are example for levels of inspection effectiveness for external damage mech

2.C.10.2 Tables
Table 2.C.10.1—LoIE Example for External Corrosion
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness
Category
A Highly Effective

B Usually
Effective
C Fairly Effective

D Poorly Effective

E Ineffective
NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

Table 2.C.10.2—LoIE Example for External CLSCC Cracking

Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness
Category
A Highly Effective

B Usually
Effective
C Fairly Effective

D Poorly Effective

E Ineffective
NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.
NOTE 2 Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 Inspection area:
welds and plates that are susceptible to the damage mechanism.
or External Damage

the Inspection Effectiveness Tables

.1 through 2.C.10.4 are example for levels of inspection effectiveness for external damage mechanisms.

Table 2.C.10.1—LoIE Example for External Corrosion

Inspection 1

Visual inspection of >95 % of the exposed surface area with follow-up by UT, RT, or pit gauge as
required
Visual inspection of >60 % of the exposed surface area with follow-up by UT, RT, or pit gauge as
required
Visual inspection of >30 % of the exposed surface area with follow-up by UT, RT, or pit gauge as
required
Visual inspection of >5 % of the exposed surface area with follow-up by UT, RT, or pit gauge as
required
Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized
high.

Table 2.C.10.2—LoIE Example for External CLSCC Cracking

Inspection 1,2

For the suspected surface area: 100 % dye penetrant or eddy current test with UT follow-up of relevant
indications
For the suspected surface area: >60 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications
For the suspected surface area: >30 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications
For the suspected surface area: >5 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with UT follow-up of all
relevant indications
Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized
high.
be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 Inspection area:
ceptible to the damage mechanism.
 Table 2.C.10.3—LoIE Example for CUI
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Insulation Removed 1,2,3,4

Category
A Highly For the total surface area:
Effective 100 % external visual inspection prior to removal of
insulation
AND
Remove 100 % of the insulation for damaged or
suspected areas
AND
100 % visual inspection of the exposed surface area
with UT, RT, or pit gauge follow-up of the selected
corroded areas

B Usually For the total surface area:

Effective 100 % external visual inspection prior to removal of
insulation
AND
Remove >50 % of suspect areas
AND
Follow-up of corroded areas with 100 % visual
inspection of the exposed surface area with UT, RT,
or pit gauge

C Fairly Effective For the total surface area:

100 % external visual inspection prior to removal of
insulation
AND
Remove >25 % of suspect areas
AND
Follow-up of corroded areas with 100 % visual
inspection of the exposed surface area with UT, RT,
or pit gauge

D Poorly For the total surface area:

Effective 100 % external visual inspection prior to removal of
insulation
AND
Remove >5 % of total surface area of insulation
including suspect areas
AND
Follow-up of corroded areas with 100 % visual
inspection of the exposed surface area with UT, RT,
or pit gauge

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

NOTE 2 Suspect area shall be considered the total surface area unless defined by knowledgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 Suspect areas
include damaged insulation, penetrations, terminations, etc.
NOTE 4 Surface preparation is sufficient to detect minimum wall for the NDE technique used to measure thickness.
Example for CUI

Insulation Not Removed 1,2,3,4

For the total surface area:

100 % external visual inspection
AND
100 % profile or real-time radiography of
damaged or suspect area
AND
Follow-up of corroded areas with 100 % visual
inspection of the exposed surface with UT, RT,
or pit gauge

For the total surface area:

100 % external visual inspection
AND
Follow-up with profile or real-time radiography of
>65 % of suspect areas
AND
Follow-up of corroded areas with 100 % visual
inspection of the exposed surface with UT, RT,
or pit gauge

For the total surface area:

100 % external visual inspection
AND
Follow-up with profile or real-time radiography of
>35 % of suspect areas
AND
Follow-up of corroded areas with 100 % visual
inspection of the exposed surface with UT, RT, or
pit gauge

For the total surface area:

100 % external visual inspection
AND
Follow-up with profile or real-time radiography of
>5 % of total surface area of insulation including
suspect areas
AND
Follow-up of corroded areas with 100 % visual
inspection of the exposed surface with UT, RT, or
pit gauge

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

edgeable individual (subject matter expert). NOTE 3 Suspect areas

sed to measure thickness.

 Table 2.C.10.4—LoIE Example for CUI CLSCC
Inspection Inspection
Category Effectiveness Insulation Removed 1

Category
A Highly Effective For the suspected area:
100 % external visual inspection prior to removal of
insulation
AND
>100 % dye penetrant or eddy current test with UT
follow-up of relevant indications

B Usually For the suspected area:

Effective 100 % external visual inspection prior to removal of
insulation
AND
>60 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with
UT follow-up of all relevant indications

C Fairly Effective For the suspected area:

100 % external visual inspection prior to removal of
insulation
AND
>30 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with
UT follow-up of all relevant indications

D Poorly Effective For the suspected area:

100 % external visual inspection prior to removal of
insulation
AND
>5 % dye penetrant or eddy current testing with UT
follow-up of all relevant indications

E Ineffective Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

NOTE 1 Inspection quality is high.

Inspection Effectiveness Tables for High Temperature Hydrogen Attack

Damage

2.C.11.1 Use of the Inspection Effectiveness Tables

Currently there is no LoIE for HTHA damage. Please refer to Part 2, Section 19, which has a discussion on HTHA as i
pertains to this document. It is the owner–user’s responsibility and accountability to develop an effective inspection p
for assets potentially affected by HTHA and document their methodology, investigation, and results.
mple for CUI CLSCC
Insulation Not Removed 1

No inspection techniques are yet available to meet

the requirements for an “A” level inspection

No inspection techniques are yet available to meet

the requirements for a “B” level inspection

No inspection techniques are yet available to meet

the requirements for a “C” level inspection

No inspection techniques are yet available to meet

the requirements for a “D” level inspection

Ineffective inspection technique/plan was utilized

age

s
Part 2, Section 19, which has a discussion on HTHA as it
y and accountability to develop an effective inspection program
heir methodology, investigation, and results.