CML Reduction – Are you planning to fail?

17 likes 2 comments

By Grady Hatton at Versa Integrity Group, and Marc McConnell, P.E. at Versa Integrity Group. This article appears in the November/December 2016 issue of Inspectioneering Journal


The story of Rip Van Winkle is a useful metaphor in the saga of Condition Monitoring Location (CML) evolution.  Many of us have witnessed the implementation of CML reduction programs in past years.  The Industry has reduced the quantity of CML’s and we are now waking up after many years to see what has happened to this program.

For many years, the industry expectation was for steady incremental improvement in CML placements, improvement of the information provided, and a reduction of costs due to more efficient CML planning and execution.  In recent years, we’ve seen CML numbers reduced, but only to later realize that good data was also reduced.  Just like Rip Van Winkle, who fell asleep and woke up in a new time: we are waking up and seeing the unfortunate results of years of CML reduction programs.

The concept of reducing CMLs is totally misguided.  The number and location of CMLs should be OPTIMIZED, not systematically reduced.  CML allocation in piping can be much like walking through a maze. That is, without a good process you can run into a lot of dead ends before arriving at your intended destination.

Notice the Red circles?  They look like CML location markers.  But look at the red lights.  Notice that they are placed in changes of direction possible injection or mix points.
Full article available to subscribers.

Subscribe to Inspectioneering

Comments and Discussion

Posted by Randal Batiste on January 10, 2017
Hey Marc good read! Thanks Log in or register to read the rest of this comment.

Posted by Jake Davies on January 10, 2017
Nice article. I completely agree with you.... Log in or register to read the rest of this comment.

Add a Comment

Please log in or register to participate in comments and discussions.