The annual valve programme review

1. What the review covers

The annual review is a management step, not a field job. It sits between the year's work and next year's budget. You read records, not valves, and you invite the people who did the work.

Before the meeting, pull the whole year into one place. Gather treatments, pressure responses, survey findings, emergency call-outs, and any seat-leak tests. Good records make the review; weak records turn it into guesswork. The article on recording valve maintenance in a CMMS lists the fields that matter.

1. Which valves needed treatment, and why?
2. Which treatments held through the year, and which did not?
3. What did emergency work cost against planned work?
4. Which valves could not be treated in service at all?

2. Reading the year's results honestly

Results fall into two groups: what the field observed, and what a test proved. Keep the two groups separate when you write the review. A valve that seems tighter after treatment, judged by sound or downstream pressure, suggests success. The observation is screening evidence, not proof of seat tightness.

The confirming step is a seat-leak test under agreed conditions. Examples include pressure decay across the closed valve, and double block and bleed monitoring. A witnessed leak test also serves when the stakes are higher. API 598 and ISO 5208 remain factory acceptance references, not field verdicts.

The year's results contain three groups worth counting separately. Some valves held without repeat treatment, some needed a second visit, and some never responded. The third group is your true backlog, and it deserves assessment, not another injection.

3. Trends worth acting on

In an annual review, trends matter more than the raw totals. A flat total of passing valves can hide one line where findings rose sharply. Read the data by population: station, line, valve type, and service.

1. Repeat findings at the same valve or station.
2. Rising seat leakage in one service, such as dry gas, where organic sealants can harden and seize valves.
3. Emergency call-outs that keep displacing planned work.

A valve that returns to the findings list deserves attention first. Where the site runs leak detection and repair, compare those records too. The article on integrating valve maintenance with LDAR programmes explains the crossover.

4. Compare your failure mix with industry patterns

The year's findings, counted by failure mode, have a shape. Count the valves found passing, seized, or leaking externally, then compare the mix with published work. A risk-based valve integrity study of upstream and midstream sites, published by Valve World, offers a benchmark. It reported 61% passing, 28% seized, 6% external leakage and 5% other.

Distributions vary by population, so treat these numbers as a reference, not a target. A close match is mildly reassuring, but a mismatch is more useful. Many seized valves in a programme built around seat sealing suggest the wrong emphasis.

5. From trends to next year's plan

The output of the review is a changed programme, not a filed report. Where failures clustered, shorten the intervals for that valve group. Where valves held, lengthen them and spend the hours elsewhere. Where valves rarely move, add a cycling routine, because idle valves are the ones that seize.

Any wider in-service treatment still has to clear the basic gates. Fittings must be sound, the design and service must suit injection, and permits must allow the work. Where the maker's documents exist, consult them for limits and warranty terms.

The last step is costing the plan against next year's budget. The article on justifying a valve maintenance budget shows how to present this evidence. Many sites fix the review date inside an annual maintenance contract, so it cannot slip. A review that cannot fund next year's work has only half succeeded.

6. What the review cannot settle

A good review also states clearly what it cannot settle. A records review cannot prove seat tightness, cannot inspect internals, and cannot decide replacement alone. A valve that failed repeated treatment needs proper assessment. Some valves will need workshop attention or replacement.

That outcome is normal, and it is not a programme failure. The next evidence step is a condition survey, or witnessed seat-leak tests on the worst performers. Our valve condition surveys provide that baseline before next year starts. We carry out this work across the Middle East, Asia and Africa. An engineer can scope a survey from your year's records.

For the wider framework, see the overview of valve integrity management. The annual review is one recurring loop inside that framework.