Strategies for Optimizing Inspection Budgets

With the ebbs and flows of any industry, many organizations face pressure to cut costs, including inspection budgets. When the fundamental driver for inspection is regulatory requirements and risk management, cutting inspection scopes can be challenging. The approach must be to optimize, not sacrifice. Inspection optimization doesn’t mean compromising safety; with risk-informed strategies rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, companies can reduce costs while still protecting critical assets and ensuring safe operation.

Below are three key approaches to consider when optimizing inspection scopes without sacrificing safety.

Utilize American Petroleum Institute (API) methods for optimizing time-based inspection intervals. 

Roughly 85% of all mechanical integrity programs in North America are a time-based program, which are driven by a set of regulatory requirements. The American Petroleum Institute (API) provides inspection requirements scheduled at regular intervals along with methods for optimization to allow organizations to adjust inspection schedules without compromising compliance. These include:

• Inspection Deferral: Postponing non-critical inspections to a later date is a viable option, especially if safety is not immediately at risk.
• On-Stream in lieu of internal: Internal inspections are costly given the requirement to shutdown the equipment. One consideration is to conduct an external inspection paired appropriately with the correct Non-Destructive Examination (NDE) technique instead of an internal inspection, which will allow the inspection to be performed at a lower cost. Organizations typically see a 10-20% reduction in cost using this method.
• Similar Service Optimization: With this approach, equipment is grouped into inspection groups based on like-equipment in same or similar service. Inspections are then performed on a representative asset within the group, and inspection credit can be applied to the rest of the equipment in that inspection grouping. This approach can reduce inspection efforts by up to 60% when applied correctly.

Use risk assessments as the basis for inspection scope optimization.

Risk-based inspection (RBI) is a strategic approach that focuses on identifying and prioritizing high-risk assets. RBI tailors inspection frequency and methods based on the equipment’s risk profile, which is determined by factors such as operating conditions, corrosion rates, and potential failure consequences. RBI can be implemented holistically across a facility, or using a strategic “surgical” approach such as:

• RBI on Inspections Due: Let’s say you have 100 inspections due this year based on a time-based approach – how do you know which ones can be deferred, and which are critical? This can be achieved by conducting an RBI analysis on the specific equipment due and letting risk optimize the due dates of the equipment as well as the inspection methods required based on the damage mechanisms.
• RBI on Critical Processes: Applying RBI to essential systems, such as those with known damage mechanisms, can yield substantial scope reductions. In some cases, RBI can reduce inspection scopes by as much as 80%.
• Unit-by-Unit RBI: Implementing RBI program on a unit-by-unit basis allows organizations to address the most critical units first, ensuring safety and reliability while optimizing inspection scopes.

Perform engineering calculations to pinpoint inspection deferrals and intervals.

This approach focuses on in-depth engineering assessments of individual assets, particularly those with known issues. Engineering-based methods can be extremely valuable for addressing “problem child” equipment which an organization may want to defer to address budget constraints.

• MAWP Calculations: Identify the Maximum Allowable Working Pressure (MAWP) for the equipment and its components with the corrosion mechanism deterioration to pinpoint inspection interval.
• Equipment Re-rate: Use engineering practice to re-rate the equipment for operation and update the inspection interval.
• Special Emphasis Programs: Targeting specific risks such as dead legs or corrosion under insulation (CUI) allows for more targeted resource allocation and inspection scheduling.

Conclusion

Justin Daarud – Director of Asset Integrity & Reliability 

Justin is an experienced mechanical engineer with over 17 years of experience in the asset and mechanical integrity program management field. He specializes in defining programs to help reduce inspection costs while increasing production availability and safety performance. Justin leads the asset integrity and reliability team for Cognascents.

At Cognascents, we have the expertise to meet your needs. Explore the variety of related services we offer and discover how our tailored approach can support your business.

Our mission is to empower our clients with innovative solutions that enhance process safety, reliability, asset integrity, and technical business acumen. To elevate your engineering solutions, please contact us today.

Contact Us