Project Review and Audit Processes

The following sections will describe the project review and audit processes separately, addressing the why, when, and how for each process. 

Process Safety Analysis This part treats the analysis of a process or project from the standpoint of hazards, risks, procedures for making potential damage estimates, and project reviews and audits. It can be helpful to management in assessing risks in a project. It consists of the following ... 

To distinguish between a review and an audit, some definitions will be provided. A review is a critical examination or evaluation of any operation, procedure, condition, event, or equipment item. Reviews can take many forms and be identified as project reviews, design reviews, safety reviews, pre-start-up reviews, and so on. The following discussion of the review process will deal with project reviews associated with capital projects and focus on the area of process safety. 

The scope, organization, format, review method, final report, and frequency are discussed as they apply to research projects. The concept of tailoring the review method to the degree of hazard involved is explained and an example of a Process Hazards Review and a Pre-Startup Review/Process Hazards Audit are given. 

To provide confidence that the project will achieve the required quality level, a queiUty assurance process is implemented. By continuously reviewing (or auditing) the actual implementation of the plan developed during quality planning, qirahty assurance systematically seeks to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the project and its results. 

PSSR (conducted before the modifications are commissioned) is also a part of the MOC procedure. Any new items identified during the PSSR may require further rounds of review and approvals by the reviewers. Completed MOC is an important part of process safety management it needs to be filed in the facility s process safety and project files, and stored for the lifetime of plant operations. These forms are required for future MOC audit and also are useful during future PHA studies. CCPS (1995) and CCPS (2007) presented MOC process and useful check lists. Note that a proper MOC procedure could have avoided the Flixborough incident outlined in Section 3.2 (CCPS, 2007). 

In support of thorough and auditable testing of the models, a Test Plan was developed. Firstly, as part of the models development process, all models were reviewed by domain experts at different stages of the project. 

---