Risk-based Inspection

API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 580 FIRST EDITION, MAY 2002

Risk-based Inspection

Downstream Segment API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 580 FIRST EDITION, MAY 2002

SPECIAL NOTES
API publications necessarily address problems of a general nature. With respect to particular circumstances, local, state, and federal laws and regulations should be reviewed. API is not undertaking to meet the duties of employers, manufacturers, or suppliers to warn and properly train and equip their employees, and others exposed, concerning health and safety risks and precautions, nor undertaking their obligations under local, state, or federal laws. Information concerning safety and health risks and proper precautions with respect to particular materials and conditions should be obtained from the employer, the manufacturer or supplier of that material, or the material safety data sheet. Nothing contained in any API publication is to be construed as granting any right, by implication or otherwise, for the manufacture, sale, or use of any method, apparatus, or product covered by letters patent. Neither should anything contained in the publication be construed as insuring anyone against liability for infringement of letters patent. Generally, API standards are reviewed and revised, reafrmed, or withdrawn at least every ve years. Sometimes a one-time extension of up to two years will be added to this review cycle. This publication will no longer be in effect ve years after its publication date as an operative API standard or, where an extension has been granted, upon republication. Status of the publication can be ascertained from the API Standards Department [telephone (202) 682-8000]. A catalog of API publications and materials is published annually and updated quarterly by API, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, www.api.org. This document was produced under API standardization procedures that ensure appropriate notication and participation in the developmental process and is designated as an API standard. Questions concerning the interpretation of the content of this standard or comments and questions concerning the procedures under which this standard was developed should be directed in writing to the director, Standards Department, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, standards@api.org. Requests for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of the material published herein should also be addressed to the general manager. API standards are published to facilitate the broad availability of proven, sound engineering and operating practices. These standards are not intended to obviate the need for applying sound engineering judgment regarding when and where these standards should be utilized. The formulation and publication of API standards is not intended in any way to inhibit anyone from using any other practices. Any manufacturer marking equipment or materials in conformance with the marking requirements of an API standard is solely responsible for complying with all the applicable requirements of that standard. API does not represent, warrant, or guarantee that such products do in fact conform to the applicable API standard.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Contact the Publisher, API Publishing Services, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.
Copyright 2002 American Petroleum Institute

FOREWORD
This recommended practice is intended to provide guidance on developing a risk-based inspection (RBI) program on xed equipment and piping in the hydrocarbon and chemical process industries. It includes: What is RBI What are the key elements of RBI How to implement a RBI program It is based on knowledge and experience of engineers, inspectors, risk analysts and other personnel in the hydrocarbon and chemical industry. RP 580 is intended to supplement API 510 Pressure Vessel Inspection Code, API 570 Piping Inspection Code and API 653 Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration and Reconstruction. These API inspection codes and standards allow an owner/user latitude to plan an inspection strategy and increase or decrease the code designated inspection frequencies based on the results of a RBI assessment. The assessment must systematically evaluate both the probability of failure and the associated consequence of failure. The probability of failure assessment must be based on all forms of deterioration that could reasonably be expected to affect the piece of equipment in the particular service. Refer to the appropriate code for other RBI assessment requirements. RP 580 is intended to serve as a guide for users in properly performing such a RBI assessment. The information in this recommended practice does not constitute and should not be construed as a code of rules, regulations, or minimum safe practices. The practices described in this publication are not intended to supplant other practices that have proven satisfactory, nor is this publication intended to discourage innovation and originality in the inspection of hydrocarbon and chemical facilities. Users of this recommended practice are reminded that no book or manual is a substitute for the judgment of a responsible, qualied inspector or engineer. API publications may be used by anyone desiring to do so. Every effort has been made by the Institute to assure the accuracy and reliability of the data contained in them; however, the Institute makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection with this publication and hereby expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for loss or damage resulting from its use or for the violation of any federal, state, or municipal regulation with which this Publication may conict. Suggested revisions are invited and should be submitted to the director, Standards Department, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20005, standards@api.org.

iii

CONTENTS
Page

INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Target Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 2

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Referenced Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Other References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2 Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 BASIC CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 What is Risk? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Risk Management and Risk Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 The Evolution of Inspection Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Inspection Optimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Relative Risk vs. Absolute Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 7 7 8 8

INTRODUCTION TO RISK-BASED INSPECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1 Consequence and Probability for Risk-Based Inspection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2 Types of RBI Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3 Precision vs. Accuracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4 Understanding How RBI Can Help to Manage Operating Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.5 Management of Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.6 Relationship Between RBI and Other Risk-Based and Safety Initiatives . . . . . 12 5.7 Relationship with Jurisdictional Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 PLANNING THE RBI ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Establishing Objectives and Goals of a RBI Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Initial Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Establish Operating Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Selecting a Type of RBI Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Estimating Resources and Time Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DATA AND INFORMATION COLLECTION FOR RBI ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . 7.1 RBI Data Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Data Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Codes and StandardsNational and International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Sources of Site Specic Data and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IDENTIFYING DETERIORATION MECHANISMS AND FAILURE MODES . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Failure and Failure Modes for Risk-Based Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Deterioration Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Other Failures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13 13 14 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 20

Page

ASSESSING PROBABILITY OF FAILURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Introduction to Probability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Units of Measure in the Probability of Failure Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Types of Probability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Determination of Probability of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 20 20 21 21 23 23 23 24 24 25 26 26 26 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34

10 ASSESSING CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Introduction to Consequence Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Types of Consequence Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Units of Measure in Consequence Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Volume of Fluid Released . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Consequence Effect Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 RISK DETERMINATION, ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Determination of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Risk Management Decisions and Acceptable Levels of Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 Risk Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 Establishing Acceptable Risk Thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 RISK MANAGEMENT WITH INSPECTION ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 Managing Risk by Reducing Uncertainty Through Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 Identifying Risk Management Opportunities from RBI and Probability of Failure Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 Establishing an Inspection Strategy Based on Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4 Managing Risk with Inspection Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 Managing Inspection Costs with RBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 Assessing Inspection Results and Determining Corrective Action . . . . . . . . . . 12.7 Achieving Lowest Life Cycle Costs with RBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 OTHER RISK MITIGATION ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 Equipment Replacement and Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 Evaluating Flaws for Fitness-for- Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 Equipment Modication, Redesign and Rerating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 Emergency Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 Emergency Depressurizing/De-inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7 Modify Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8 Reduce Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9 Water Spray/Deluge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10 Water Curtain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.11 Blast-Resistant Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.12 Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

14 REASSESSMENT AND UPDATING RBI ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1 RBI Reassessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 Why Conduct a RBI Reassessment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 When to Conduct a RBI Reassessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . 15.1 Team Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 Team Members, Roles & Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 Training and Qualications For RBI Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 RBI DOCUMENTATION AND RECORD-KEEPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 RBI Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3 RBI Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 Assignment of Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 Assumptions Made to Assess Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 Risk Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 Mitigation and Follow-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 Codes, Standards and Government Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A Figures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tables 1 2 3 4

34 34 34 35 35 35 35 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 38

DETERIORATION MECHANISMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Management of Risk Using RBI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Risk Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Continuum of RBI Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Risk-based Inspection Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Example Event Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Example Risk Matrix Using Probability and Consequence Categories to Display Risk Rankings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Risk Plot when Using Quantitative or Numeric Risk Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Thinning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stress Corrosion Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metallurgical and Environmental Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mechanical Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 41 43 45

vii

Risk-based Inspection
1 Introduction, Purpose and Scope
1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to provide users with the basic elements for developing and implementing a risk-based inspection (RBI) program. The methodology is presented in a step-by-step manner to the maximum extent practicable. Items covered are: a. An introduction to the concepts and principles of riskbased inspection for risk management; and b. Individual sections that describe the steps in applying these principles within the framework of the RBI process: 1. Planning the RBI Assessment. 2. Data and Information Collection. 3. Identifying Deterioration Mechanisms and Failure Modes. 4. Assessing Probability of Failure. 5. Assessing Consequence of Failure. 6. Risk Determination, Assessment and Management. 7. Risk Management with Inspection Activities. 8. Other Risk Mitigation Activities. 9. Reassessment and Updating. 10. Roles, Responsibilities, Training and Qualications. 11. Documentation and record-keeping. The expected outcome from the application of the RBI process should be the linkage of risks with appropriate inspection or other risk mitigation activities to manage the risks. The RBI process is capable of generating: a. A ranking by risk of all equipment evaluated. b. A detailed description of the inspection plan to be employed for each equipment item, including: 1. Inspection method(s) that should be used (e.g., visual, UT, Radiography, WFMT). 2. Extent of application of the inspection method(s) (e.g., percent of total area examined or specic locations). 3. Timing of inspections/examinations. 4. Risk management achieved through implementation of the inspection plan. c. A description of any other risk mitigation activities (such as repairs, replacements or safety equipment upgrades). d. The expected risk levels of all equipment after the inspection plan and other risk mitigation activities have been implemented. 1.1.1 Key Elements of a RBI Program Key elements that should exist in any RBI program are: a. Management systems for maintaining documentation, personnel qualications, data requirements and analysis updates. b. Documented method for probability of failure determination. c. Documented method for consequence of failure determination. d. Documented methodology for managing risk through inspection and other mitigation activities. However, all the elements outlined in 1.1 should be adequately addressed in RBI applications, in accordance with the recommended practices in this document. 1.1.2 RBI Benets and Limitations The primary work products of the RBI assessment and management approach are plans that address ways to manage risks on an equipment level. These equipment plans highlight risks from a safety/health/environment perspective and/or from an economic standpoint. In these plans, cost-effective actions for risk mitigation are recommended along with the resulting level of risk mitigation expected. Implementation of these plans provides one of the following: a. An overall reduction in risk for the facilities and equipment assessed. b. An acceptance/understanding of the current risk. The RBI plans also identify equipment that does not require inspection or some other form of mitigation because of the acceptable level of risk associated with the equipments current operation. In this way, inspection and maintenance activities can be focused and more cost effective. This often results in a signicant reduction in the amount of inspection data that is collected. This focus on a smaller set of data should result in more accurate information. In some cases, in addition to risk reductions and process safety improvements, RBI plans may result in cost reductions. RBI is based on sound, proven risk assessment and management principles. Nonetheless, RBI will not compensate for: a. b. c. d. e. f. Inaccurate or missing information. Inadequate designs or faulty equipment installation. Operating outside the acceptable design envelope. Not effectively executing the plans. Lack of qualied personnel or teamwork. Lack of sound engineering or operational judgment.