ASME PCC-3 concerns inspection planning using risk-based methods. It does not turn every NDT result into a remaining-life assessment, and it is not a general approval route for an AI inspection system. The practical starting point is a clearly bounded asset and a stated planning decision.
Identify the equipment, materials, operating envelope, credible damage mechanisms and relevant inspection history. Keep the assumptions visible: missing thickness history and uncertain service conditions are different problems and should not be hidden behind a single risk score.
Describe the coverage and limitations of previous examinations. A nominal thickness value without a location, date and measurement basis is a weak input for a future inspection plan.
Specify what the next examination is intended to detect or measure, where it will be performed and what would trigger follow-up. A method suited to general wall loss may not address a small crack in the area that controls the decision.
Inspection effectiveness should be justified for the expected condition and access. Do not infer capability from the method name alone. The responsible integrity team must also determine how regulations and the asset’s governing requirements constrain the plan.
Record who owns the risk assessment, who approves inspection intervals and which changes require review. A process change, an unexpected indication or a newly inaccessible area can matter even if the previous inspection date has not expired. Atlantis NDT can discuss examination procedures and data records; an engineering RBI or fitness-for-service assessment needs its own competent, authorised scope.
ASME’s PCC-3 scope and contents provides further background. Use the governing specification and approved procedure for the actual job.
Discuss the examination scope. Include the component, material, service history and decision the inspection needs to support.