API-580 Questions and Answers

API 580 clearly identifies this capability:

“The RBI process is capable of generating:

a) a ranking by relative risk of all equipment evaluated.”​

Additionally, Section 4.6 explains that:

“Calculating absolute risk can be very time-consuming and costly… RBI is focused on a systematic determination of relative risk.”

Section 5.3.6 of API 580 states:

“Use of expert opinion will typically be included in most risk assessments regardless of type or level.”

This confirms that expert judgment is a fundamental component across all levels of RBI, whether qualitative, semi-quantitative, or quantitative.

API 580, Section 9.3.3 provides clear guidance:

“In the case [of] insufficient failure data… general industry, company, or manufacturer failure data is used. This failure data should be adjusted and made specific to the equipment being analyzed… Qualified persons should make these modifications on a case-by-case basis.”​

Therefore, the standard mandates expert-driven adjustments to general data for it to be useful and accurate for the specific context.

API 580, Section 9.1 states:

“The POF analysis shall address all credible damage mechanisms to which the equipment being reviewed is or can be susceptible.”

This confirms that the analysis focuses only on damage mechanisms that are realistically applicable to the equipment—i.e., credible mechanisms based on process, materials, and operating conditions—not every possible or theoretical mechanism.

API 580 Section 4.4 states:

“Therefore, the risk analysis should be validated before decisions are made based on the analysis results.”

Validation ensures that the risk analysis is accurate and reliable for decision-making. While sensitivity analysis is valuable (Option C), it does not substitute the need for validating the overall analysis.

API 580 Section 14.3.2 clearly states:

“Users should set default maximum time periods for reassessments. The governing inspection codes (such as API 510, API 570, and API 653) and jurisdictional regulations, if any, shall be reviewed in this context.”

This means the codes and regulations are explicitly consulted to determine maximum allowable intervals between RBI reassessments. This ensures compliance with inspection frequency expectations across different jurisdictions and standards.

API 580, Section 13.2 (Equipment Replacement and Repair) states:

“When equipment deterioration has reached a point that the risk of failure cannot be managed to an acceptable level, replacement/repair is often the only way to mitigate the risk.”

This confirms that when deterioration is severe and other mitigation efforts cannot reduce the risk to acceptable levels, replacement or repair is the only effective solution.

Option B (FFS) may apply in earlier deterioration stages.

Option C (shortened inspection) is a monitoring method, not risk elimination.

Option D (rerating) helps in select cases but not when deterioration is too advanced.

According to API 580, Section 13.4, equipment modification is used to mitigate the probability of failure (PoF):

“Modification and redesign of equipment… can provide mitigation of POF. Examples include: … c) removal of deadlegs…”

The purpose of removing deadlegs is to reduce locations where stagnant flow can cause localized corrosion or fouling — in turn lowering the likelihood of failure.

According toAPI 580, Section 7.3, thequality of datais explicitly identified as having adirect relationto therelative accuracyof the RBI analysis:

“The data quality has a direct relation to the relative accuracy of the RBI analysis.Although the data requirements are quite different for the various types of RBI analysis, quality of input data is equally important no matter what approach to RBI is selected.”​

The section also emphasizes the need forvalidation of data inputs and assumptions by qualified personnel, underscoring the fact thatdata quality—not merely its precision or origin—is the key influencerof the reliability of results.

Therefore:

Data precision (A)andData validation (D)support reliability but arenot as foundationalto accuracy as overalldata quality.

Data sources (C)contribute to quality but are not as decisive as quality itself.

Correct and verified per API 580 Section 7.3.

As per Section 9.2 of API 580:

“POF is typically expressed in terms of frequency. Frequency is expressed as a number of events occurring during a specific timeframe.”

Further clarified in the same section:

“For probability analysis, the timeframe is typically expressed as a fixed interval (e.g. one year) and the frequency is expressed as events per interval (e.g. 0.0002 failures per year).”

This confirms thatfrequencyis the correct term used to express probability of failure in RBI. Other options like deterioration rate or time are influencing factors but not the standard unit of expression.

API 580 Section 6.6 specifies:

“The resources and time required to implement an RBI assessment will vary widely between organizations depending on a number of factors including... g) degree of precision required.”

Other listed factors include knowledge and training, data availability, and complexity of analysis, but not the number of mitigation activities or whether CoF or PoF is the dominant risk driver.

API 580 Section 14.3.3 clearly states:

“Once a mitigation strategy is implemented it is prudent to determine how effective the strategy was in reducing the risk to an acceptable level. This should be reflected in a reassessment of the risk and appropriate update in the documentation.”

Thus, option B is correct. Updating standards or team members is not a listed reassessment trigger, and sensitivity analysis alone is a supporting tool, not a trigger.

According to API 580 Section 10.3.3:

“Cost is commonly used as an indicator of potential consequences. Consequence may be expressed in relative monetary units (e.g. dollars)… This will permit adding the different consequences of a single event and facilitate comparisons of risk from one process unit to another.”

Cost can represent multiple consequence dimensions, including production loss, emergency response, equipment damage, fines, and more. This method enables direct comparison of diverse consequence types on a unified basis, making it the most commonly applied indicator in practice.

API 580 highlights that while cost reduction is a potential benefit of RBI, the true focus is risk management and equipment integrity. From Section 12.5:

“Inspection costs can be more effectively managed through the use of RBI… The user should recognize that while there is a potential for the reduction of inspection costs through the utilization of RBI, increased equipment integrity and inspection cost optimization should remain the focus.”

This confirms that the main driver for RBI is not cost elimination, but rather the intelligent allocation of inspection resources to preserve equipment integrity.

Option B is incorrect because RBI does not guarantee elimination of internal inspections — only that some may be deferred or replaced with alternative methods.

Option C generalizes effectiveness without case-by-case evaluation.

Option D is false; RBI is designed to optimize, not increase costs.

According to API 580 Section 10.6.1:

“The consequences of releasing a hazardous material can be estimated in six steps... including:

b) estimate total volume of fluid that will be released.”

This step is essential to quantify the severity of potential loss and to assess the overall consequence of a hazardous material release.

API 580, in Section 5.1 and throughout the risk evaluation process, uses the term “risk driver” to refer to dominant contributors to the overall risk ranking or score. Specifically:

“The expected outcome from the application of the RBI process should be the linkage of risks with appropriate inspection… The RBI process is capable of generating: … identification of risk drivers.”

These risk drivers are the key parameters (such as a specific damage mechanism, operating condition, or component failure mode) that most significantly impact either the probability or the consequence component of the risk. Hence, the correct interpretation aligns with Option A.

Section 15.2.2 of API 580 clearly states:

“The main function of the team leader should be to integrate the inputs, outputs, organizational structure, and communications of the assessment team.”

Thus, the primary role is facilitation and coordination across the RBI team, ensuring structured and coherent execution of the process.

Section 11.5 of API 580 clearly states:

“Assumptions or estimates of input values are often used when consequence and/or POF data are not available.”

This allows an RBI team to proceed with analysis in the absence of complete data while noting that all assumptions must be documented and agreed upon to avoid misrepresentation.

API 580, Section 12.4 states:

“Depending on factors such as the remaining life of the equipment and type of damage mechanism, risk management through inspection may have little or no effect.”

Examples include:

Instantaneous failures

Equipment at end of life

Damage mechanisms not detectable through inspection

API 580, Section 6.1 and 6.2 clearly states:

“At the conclusion of the planning portion of the development of the RBI program the following should have been completed:

b) identify the physical boundaries;

c) identify the operating boundaries...”

Thus, one of the primary deliverables of the planning stage is defining boundaries to scope the risk evaluation.

As defined in Section 3.1.59 of API 580:

“Risk assessment: The systematic use of information to estimate risk and conduct risk evaluation.”

Option A refers more closely to hazard identification, C is the definition of risk management, and D describes part of the risk analysis process, but not the full definition of risk assessment.

According to API 580, Section 10.6.1:

“The consequences of releasing a hazardous material can be estimated in six steps…

a) estimate the release rate;

b) estimate total volume of fluid…

c) determine if the fluid disperses…”

Therefore, “Estimating the release rate” is the first step in the consequence evaluation process and is essential for modeling potential impact scenarios.