Capital Project Safety Review

This review is a gate in a larger programme. Using it for work that belongs to a neighbouring template, or holding it once at the end of a project, produces a paper trail that cannot show where a defect was actually missed.

ISO 45001 cl.8.1.3 requires OH&S risks from planned changes to be assessed before the change is implemented; this review treats a capital project as that planned change, with adjacent clauses covering hazard elimination and worker participation.

A safety review chaired in one country does not automatically satisfy the equipment law of another. The instrument that actually bites depends on where the capital asset is designed, built and installed, which is worth settling before the design freezes.

The form will accept a submission with most of these questions answered Partly. Whether that submission should ever carry an Approved To Proceed of Yes is a judgement call, not a data-entry step.

The same six gaps recur across capital project reviews, most of them visible in the record itself rather than needing a site visit to spot.

A new filling line went through its concept review with Guarding Designed In answered Partly, on the basis that the supplier's standard drawing would be reviewed properly at procurement stage. No condition was entered under Changes Required Before Proceeding, and Design Acceptable was recorded as Yes.

The procurement-stage review never happened, because the template treats each project as effectively singleton and no one raised a second record. The gap surfaced at commissioning, when the installed guard failed to isolate a nip point that the supplier's standard drawing had never covered. The fix needed a shutdown window, a contractor visit and a Management of Change record that traced back to a decision made eight months earlier, at concept, for the cost of a drawing note that was never made.

The form is the easy part. Chasing the right disciplines into the room, remembering which project stage is due next, and holding the design decision against the record that follows it is the work that actually slips.

KnowMaintain

Holds the capital project safety review against the project record, tracks which gate is next, and keeps the design decision linked through to commissioning and handover.

KnowSafe

Flags a design approved with changes that has no entry under Changes Required Before Proceeding, and chases the missing sign-off before the next gate opens.

KnowContractor

Ties the review's guarding, isolation and access findings to the contractor scope for installation, so a design gap does not surface for the first time on site.

Ella

Coordinates the crew across gates, rolls attendance and completeness into one view of project readiness, and holds every write for your approval before it touches a record.

Hierarchy of controls

The ranked order of hazard control measures — elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, then PPE — with elimination and engineering controls preferred because they do not depend on a worker doing the right thing every time.

Hygienic design

Equipment design that can be cleaned and inspected without dismantling, with no hollow sections, correct drainage falls and materials that meet food-contact requirements, so contamination risk is designed out rather than managed by procedure.

Management of Change (MOC)

The formal process that assesses a modification against its safety, quality and regulatory impact before it is implemented, triggered whenever a capital project is not a like-for-like replacement.

Design gate

A defined point in a project — concept, design, procurement, installation or commissioning — where spend or progress to the next stage depends on a documented decision, rather than work simply continuing by default.

Essential Health and Safety Requirements (EHSRs)

The mandatory technical requirements under EU machinery law that equipment must meet before it can carry a CE mark, covering guarding, emergency stops, ergonomics and stability among other things.