ModulesPre-Startup Safety ReviewProcess Safety
Safe to start up, item by item.One review, from the first question to the start-up decision.
For start-up leads and process safety engineers: review against your form, class every finding before or after start-up, have a separate team validate, and authorize start-up only when the review reads ready. Readiness is worked out from the answers, never typed.
| Section | Applicable | Yes | No | N/A | Not verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design and installation | Yes | 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Instruments and protections | Yes | 11 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Procedures | Yes | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Training | Yes | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Process safety information | Yes | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Emergency response | Yes | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Civil and structural | No | — | — | — | — |
| Total | 38 | 2 | 6 | 1 |
Not ready · 1 not verified · 1 before-start-up action not done
| Finding | Question | Answer | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| F-1 | PSHH-1405 trip tested at its set point after the valve change | No | AT-0203 · before start-up · Done |
| F-2 | P&ID 101 updated to the new valve trim | No | AT-0204 · after start-up · Open · due 20 Nov 2026 |
Start-up authorization · Not available while the review reads not ready.
The same review, from the first answers to the start-up decision. An example review; the fields are the product’s, the values illustrative.
Where it connects
On the same loop: Workforce and 40 more modules in one workspace.
Method note
Every item closed before start-up, or only the ones that matter? Both schools are right.
Zero open items sounds safe, until a missing label holds a unit down for a week and the list stops meaning anything.
Leandro · Founder, UProcess
One school starts up only with an empty list, so nobody has to judge what can wait. The other splits the punch list: what must be done before energy or material goes in, and what can follow start-up with an owner and a date.
So each action says when it must be done, and only the before-start-up ones hold the decision.
- Before start-upKeeps the review not ready until the work is done.
- After start-upTracked with an owner and a date. It never holds the decision.
- Not verifiedCounts as not ready. A tick without a check is not an answer.
Where Pre-Startup Safety Review usually breaks
Four places a start-up review goes wrong, and what the record does about each.
Start-up before the review is finished.
At Bayer CropScience in 2008, under pressure to resume production, the unit was started before the pre-startup safety review was complete and before valve lineups and equipment checkouts were finished.
Source: U.S. Chemical Safety Board
In UProcess Start-up authorization is its own decision, made after validation, and it cannot be granted while the review reads not ready.
Start-up authorization · PSSR-2026-0007
Not available The review reads not ready.
- 1 question not verified · LAH-201 high-level alarm tested
- 1 before-start-up action not done · AT-0203
Validation approves the review. Authorization is a second decision.
Signed off as if it were done.
Before the Texas City isomerization unit was restarted in 2005, CSB investigators found instrument checks required by the start-up procedure were skipped and signed off as if done, with the level indicator and level alarm already faulty.
Source: U.S. Chemical Safety Board, preliminary findings
In UProcess Not verified is an answer of its own. An applicable required question left unanswered or not verified keeps the review not ready, and each answer can carry its comment and evidence.
Instruments and protections · 3 of 13
Not verified keeps the review not ready, like an unanswered required question.
A known fault waved through to after start-up.
OSHA’s process safety standard asks for equipment deficiencies outside acceptable limits to be corrected before further use, or later only in a safe and timely manner while other means keep the operation safe.
Source: OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119(j)(5), equipment deficiencies
In UProcess A no or not verified answer raises a finding, and each finding needs an action before the review can be submitted. Each action is classed before or after start-up and goes to Action Tracking with an owner and a due date.
Action Tracking · AT-0203
Test PSHH-1405 at its set point after the FV-1410 change
- Owner
- Liam O’Connor
- Due
- 5 Nov 2026
- Start-up impact
- Before start-up
- From
- Pre-Startup Safety Review · PSSR-2026-0007 · F-1
Trip proven at 18.5 barg · test record attached · checker James Walker
A partial review passes as a complete one.
At Williams Olefins, the CSB lists an incomplete pre-startup safety review among the process safety failures that came before the 2013 reboiler rupture.
Source: U.S. Chemical Safety Board
In UProcess Applicable sections are set for each review, and a readiness summary counts yes, no, not applicable and not verified before validation. A separate validation team approves, or returns the review with a reason, and each return adds a revision.
Readiness summary · before validation
| Yes | No | N/A | Not verified | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Answers | 38 | 2 | 6 | 1 |
| Findings, before start-up | 1 | |||
| Findings, after start-up | 1 |
- Prepared
- 0
- Sent to Action Tracking
- 2
- Done
- 1
6 of 7 sections applicable. Civil and structural marked not applicable for this review.
Review PSSR-2026-0007Basis MOC-2026-0031Form Process modification review · v3
| Decision | By | Role | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Submitted for validation · revision 1 | James Walker | Review lead | 3 Nov 2026 |
| Returned · “Pressure test record for FV-1410 missing” | Emma Clarke | Validation | 4 Nov 2026 |
| Submitted for validation · revision 2 | James Walker | Review lead | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Approved | Emma Clarke | Validation | 5 Nov 2026 |
| Start-up authorized | Daniel Okafor | Start-up authority | 6 Nov 2026 · 14:10 |
The record an auditor asks for.
Who reviewed, who validated and who authorized: three decisions, each with a name and a date.
- The review team and its sessions, and the basis of the review: the MOC case and the drawings, studies and procedures behind it.
- Every answer with its comment and evidence, against the form version the review started from.
- Each validation decision, including returns with their reason and the revision they started.
- The start-up authorization, with who decided, when, and the planned and actual start-up dates.
What’s in a review
- Scope
- The type of start-up, such as a modification or a restart after shutdown, the system under review, its boundary, and the basis: the MOC case and the documents behind it.
- Form
- Taken from your form library and fixed in the review when it starts, so a later edit of the form never changes it. Sections are marked applicable per review.
- Answers
- Yes, no, not applicable or not verified, each with a comment and evidence. A question can be set to require evidence.
- Findings
- Raised by a no or not verified, each with actions classed before or after start-up and sent to Action Tracking.
- Decisions
- Readiness worked out from the answers and actions; validation by a separate team; start-up authorized or not authorized, with planned and actual dates.
Questions
Can we start up with open items?
Yes, when they are classed after start-up. They stay in Action Tracking with an owner and a date, and they never hold the decision.
Who validates a review?
The validation team you name for that review. It is separate from the review team, though the same person may sit on both.
Is approving the review the same as authorizing start-up?
No. Validation approves the review. Start-up authorization is a separate decision, recorded with who made it and when.
Can we use our own checklist?
Yes. Write your forms in the form library; each review keeps the version it started from.