Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Commission, and
Qualification of Critical
Utility Systems
Part I: Overview
B Y D AV I D W. V I N C E N T A N D H E R B E RT M AT H E S O N
INTRODUCTION
Overview of Critical Utility Systems
The use of critical utility systems in the pharmaceutical
industry is very important to final product quality. That is
why the design, construction, commissioning, qualification,
and routine monitoring of these systems is important in enssuring that the end product will maintain a reproducible
quality. Critical utility systems can be considered the backbone of any production facility and should be the first systems to be validated. Without properly functioning utilities,
the quality of any product will be open to question.
Critical utilities found in pharmaceutical, medical device,
and biotechnology production facilities usually support various equipment and processes. These utilities must meet both
quantitative and qualitative specifications in order to be considered satisfactory. The actual criteria may vary from one
utility system to another and may even be influenced by the
particular equipment being supported. The design, construction, commissioning, qualification, and monitoring of each
utility will vary depending on the system. Therefore, it is important to follow a logical, comprehensive scheme when attempting to validate or monitor these systems.
This article will discuss the various phases of design,
construction, commissioning, qualification, and the routine
monitoring of various critical utility systems. While it takes
a great deal of time and effort to qualify most critical utili-
236
M a y 2 0 0 5 Vo l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 3
237
Impact Assessments
Impact assessments are a formal process used to identify
systems and the components of those systems that have a direct impact on product quality. Direct impact systems are
expected to have an impact on the product quality, whereas
an indirect impact system is not expected to have an impact on the product quality. Both systems require commissioning; however, the direct impact system will be subject to
qualification practices to meet the additional regulatory requirements of the FDA and other regulatory authorities. The
impact assessment process decreases the scope of IQ/OQ
protocols by allowing the validation activities to focus on
those systems and components that have been identified as
having a direct impact on product quality, rather than all systems and components within those processes.
Impact assessments should be performed on two levels:
the system level and the component level.
238
System impact assessments are performed to differentiate those systems that have a direct impact on product quality from those having indirect or no impact on product quality. The system impact assessments are preliminary until the
completion of subsequent component impact assessments
for each of the systems. The results of the component impact assessments could change the results of the system impact assessments, which is why the initial system impact assessment should be considered preliminary.
The advantage of performing system impact assessments is that only direct impact systems require qualification. Indirect impact and no impact systems are subject to
less stringent test and inspection procedures based on business risk and typical Good Engineering Practices (GEPs). A
number of utility systems that were commonly qualified in
the past, such as plant steam, chill water, industrial cold
water, and heating hot water, are typically no longer qualified based on the results of system impact assessments.
The following summarizes the system impact assessment process:
Identification of the system and system number:
This information is typically obtained from the
project Process and Instrumentation Diagrams
(P&IDs). Complete the system description with a
general narrative of the system and its major components, design, operation, functional capabilities,
and critical functions.
System Boundary Definition: Identifying the
boundaries and scope of the system is typically
done using the system P&IDs as well as other
drawings and specifications, as appropriate. The
easiest and clearest way to accomplish this is to
mark the system P&IDs to identify the system
boundaries and all components of the system included within those bounds. Specify system
boundaries by inserting a horizontal or vertical line
at the boundary. These lines should be placed to
clearly identify whether or not the adjacent component is part of the system.
Figure
1
______________________________________________________________________________
Impact Assessment Questions
Challenge
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Yes
No
Does the system have direct contact with the product (e.g. air quality) or
direct contact with a product contact surface [e.g.: Clean in Place (CIP)
solution]?
Does the system provide an excipient, or produce an ingredient or solvent
[e.g.: Water For Injection (WFI)]?
Is the system used in cleaning, sanitizing, or sterilizing (e.g.: clean steam)?
Does the system preserve product status (e.g.: nitrogen purge for oxygen
sensitive products)?
Does the system produce data that is used to accept or reject product (e.g.:
electronic batch record system, critical process parameter chart recorder, or
release laboratory instrument)?
Is the system a process control system (e.g., PLC, DCS) or does it contain a
process control system that may affect the product quality and there is no
system for independent verification of control system performance in place?
Is the system expected to not have a direct impact on product quality, but
supports a direct impact system?
System Classification
The system is classified as direct impact, indirect impact, or no impact as follows:
If the response to any of challenges one through six
in Figure 1 is Yes, then the system shall be classified as a direct impact system.
If the response to challenges one through six is
No, but the response to challenge seven is Yes,
the system shall be classified as an indirect impact system.
If the response to challenges one through seven is
No, the system shall be classified as a no impact system.
Based on the above criteria, the hypothetical nitrogen
system would be classified as direct impact because it has
direct product contact. Document the reasons for this classification with a brief explanation to ensure the understanding of future reviewers and approvers.
M a y 2 0 0 5 Vo l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 3
239
System Classification
A positive answer to any questions in Figure 2
identifies the component as a critical component
that should be verified during IQ and OQ testing.
When answers to all the questions in Figure 2 are
in the negative, the component is thereby identified
as a non-critical component of the system that does
not require verification during IQ and OQ testing.
Component Approval
The construction contractors translate the project specifications and design documents created by the A/E team
into a completed facility. The project specifications created
by the A/E team are typically detailed and often specify a
component to a specific manufacturer and model, allowing
the use of an approved equal. The construction contractors are required to submit to the A/E team technical data on
the components that they intend to use during the construction of the facility so that the A/E team can approve the proposed components.
Due to a number of legitimate reasons, including cost
and availability, the components that contractors submit for
use often do not match all the detailed specifications created
by the A/E team. The A/E team reviews the technical data
provided by the contractor to determine whether the proposed components are acceptable for use. Oftentimes, the
Figure
2
______________________________________________________________________________
Component Criticality Assessment Questions
Challenge
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
240
Yes
No
Submittal Review
A review and approval of the submittals by the building
owner is a useful process to resolve these discrepancies and
to improve the efficiency of the IQ process. A submittal review should be completed for each of the critical components identified by the component criticality assessment.
The submittal review process proceeds as follows:
Identify the critical component by description and
tag number as appropriate.
Identify the system that contains the component.
Identify the specification number that applies to the
critical component.
Identify the submittal number that applies to the
critical component.
In a Specified Attribute column, list the critical
attributes of the component as indicated in the applicable specification, such as manufacturer, model
number, materials of construction, capacity, etc.
In an Actual Attribute column, enter the existent
component information for each of the critical attributes as determined by the component vendor.
Note: It is especially important to identify
where the component varies from the specified attribute in order for reviewers to make
an informed decision as to the acceptability
of the component.
M a y 2 0 0 5 Vo l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 3
241
Figure
3
______________________________________________________________________________
Impact Analysis
Summarize risks and associated controls in an impact and complexity analysis. Rate the impact of the
equipment on product quality, safety, and purity, and on the safety of personnel and equipment. Evaluate
the systems in place to control those risks.
A. Quality Impact
Score
No impact: Equipment will not be directly or indirectly associated with cGMP activity.
Minimal impact: Equipment indirectly affects cGMP processes or procedures. (Non-direct
product impact)
Potential Impact: Equipment performs or directly supports a cGMP process or procedure;
failure could potentially affect product quality. Equipment failure could negatively impact
operational efficiency or costs. (Indirect product impact)
Direct Impact: Equipment is an essential component of a cGMP process or procedure, or
is in direct contact with the drug substance or product. Equipment failure could result in
loss of product; safety hazard; damage to materials, equipment, or facility; or negative inspection findings. (Direct product impact)
B. Quality Risk Management
1
2
3
Score
242
0
1
2
3
Figure
4
______________________________________________________________________________
Complexity Analysis
Describe the technological risks and controls associated with the equipment. The complexity analysis
evaluates the risk of failure due to technical sophistication of the equipment, and the relative difficulty of
maintaining the equipment in a state of control.
C. Technology Risk
Score
0
1
2
3
Score
0
1
2
3
Risk Score
The calculation used to evaluate the overall risk (as seen in Figure 4) of the equipment combines the individual impact and complexity scores in the following formula:
(A + B) x (C + D)
Where:
A = Quality Impact
B = Quality Risk Management
C = Technology Risk
D = Technology Risk Management
M a y 2 0 0 5 Vo l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 3
243
Validation Requirements
Identify the qualification requirement for the equipment based on the impact and complexity analysis as
shown in Figure 5. For smaller, less complex system qualification, protocols can be combined into I/OQ or
IQ/OQ and Procedure Qualification (PQ) protocols. Any additional information to support and justify the validation requirements should be included.
Figure
5
______________________________________________________________________________
Qualification and Validation Justification
Risk Score
Qualification Requirements
Document installation
and commissioning
1 to 3
IQ
4 to 6
IQ/OQ
IQ/OQ/PQ
244
Documentation maintained by
users or Facilities Department.
Installation, commissioning,
maintenance, and change control
documentation maintained by
QA.
Operate, maintain, and calibrate
according to written SOPs.
Document preventive and
corrective maintenance and
calibration according to SOPs.
Apply change control procedures
according to SOPs and change
control programs.
Perform operation, maintenance,
calibration, and performance
verification tasks according to
written procedures.
Document preventive and
corrective maintenance and
calibration according to SOPs.
Apply change control procedures
according to SOPs and change
control programs.
Project specifications
Vendor or manufacturer submittals
Manufacturer mechanical specifications
Purchase orders
Vendor test reports
M a y 2 0 0 5 Vo l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 3
245
Material certifications
Calibration data
State and local code compliance
ASME, ANSI, and other certifications
Pipe specifications
Cleaning and passivation reports
Stainless steel weld documentation
Instrumentation specifications
Drawings
Material and finish verification
MSDS
Any other useful documentation
Audit the construction site for cleanliness and compliance with specified construction sequences, practices, and craftsmanship standards. Enter observations into a Construction Site Audit Log.
Document and report any problems that may affect
the construction schedule or have a negative impact
on the qualification phase of the project.
Figure
6
______________________________________________________________________________
Tests Required for Two Common Critical Utility Systems
System
Test or Inspection
HVAC
WFI
246
Project Specifications
Project specifications are provided by the architect(s) of the project and serve as guidelines for construction. Only those project specification sections
applicable to the CQ system should be included.
Purchase Orders
All available purchase orders for equipment and
materials within the system will be included. Each
individual purchase order will be included in a separate subsection. Dollar amounts may be removed.
Purchase Specification
The Purchase Specifications section will immediately follow "Purchase Orders." Purchase specifications should include documentation provided from
the vendors, contractors, and manufacturers.
Purchase specifications should serve as succeeding
documentation for the Installation Qualification (IQ)
protocol of the CQ system. In addition, those areas
of the purchase specification giving direct evidence
to IQ requirements should be highlighted, using a
single color.
Test Reports
The Test Reports section will immediately follow
Purchase Specifications. Test reports include documents such as pressure test reports, factory test reports, and certifications. Test reports included in CQ
packages should depict the static attributes of the
system, not operational testing. Wherever practical,
the CQ coordinator or validation team member
should witness tests.
Drawings
The Drawings section will be the final section of the
CQ package. Drawings will be classified as either
reference or as built. Reference drawings should be
reviewed and signed by at least one person, while
as-built drawings should be reviewed and signed
(and red lined, if necessary) by at least one person.
(It is desirable to have two reviewers for as-built
drawings.)
Figure
7
_____________________________________
Table of Contents Example for a Typical CQ
Package
Section 1 - General
1. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
2. PURCHASE ORDERS
Section 2 - Equipment
3. EQUIPMENT DATA SHEETS
4. EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
5. SPARE PARTS LIST
6. VENDOR TEST REPORTS
7. VENDOR CERTIFICATION
ASME
ANSI
MATERIAL CERTIFICATIONS
8. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
MANUALS
9. DRAWINGS
Section 3 - Piping and Duct
10. SPECIFICATION LIST/INDEX
11. MATERIAL CERTIFICATIONS
12. WELD DOCUMENT
WELDER QUALIFICATIONS
WELD LOG
WELD INSPECTIONS
WELD AUDIT
13. HYDROSTATIC TEST REPORTS
14. CLEANING REPORTS
15. PASSIVATION REPORTS
16. LINE SLOPE VERIFICATION
17. VALVE LABEL VERIFICATION
18. LINE LABEL VERFICATION
19. TAG INSPECTION
20. LINE SUPPORT
Section 4 - Drawings
21. PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION
DIAGRAMS
22. ISOMETRIC
23. RED-LINED DRAWINGS
Additional Sections
Any additional sections will be included in the CQ
between the Test Reports and the Drawings sections.
M a y 2 0 0 5 Vo l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 3
247
Review
Once each document is received and verified, it
should be stamped "CONSTRUCTION QUALIFICATION Reviewed by" the CQ coordinator with
signature and date.
CQ Section Index
The CQ Section Index listing all major CQ sections
should be included immediately following the CQ
Summary Sheet.
Aspects of Commissioning
Commissioning and Startup
The ISPE Baseline Guide, Volume 5, defines commissioning as:
"A well planned, documented, and managed
engineering approach to the start-up and
turnover of facilities, systems, and equipment
to the end-user that results in a safe and
functional environment that meets established design requirements and stakeholder
expectations."
The commissioning phase of the project, which typically occurs after mechanical completion of the system and
prior to turnover of the system to the owner, is another opportunity to integrate qualification activities into the facility
construction, commissioning, and start-up process. While
the qualification activities during the construction phase of
the project primarily support IQ, qualification activities during the commissioning and start-up phase will primarily
support Operational Qualification (OQ).
Pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities, laboratories,
and even office buildings demand a complete program of
start-up, functional challenge, training, documentation, and
turnover. It is incumbent upon the individuals responsible
for design and construction to finish the job by handing over
a completely operable and documented facility so that validation activities can follow with minimal problems. Too
often, an owner's project manager will move on to his or her
next big project before the whole job is finished, leaving
maintenance technicians, facility operators, and validation
personnel with the tasks of: struggling to locate as-built
documents, making equipment work, calling vendors for
training, working off the punch list, and attempting to enforce warranties.
248
Commissioning Team
Every project team needs a leader who is empowered by
the company to manage the project from start to finish, from
inception to completion. "Completion" should be defined as
a time when the appropriate signatures on all punch lists,
commissioning documents, as-built drawings, validation
protocols, and SOPs are attained. The project leader or project manager should not leave the project until the "ink is dry"
on each of those documents. Organizing and planning for
commissioning are the keys to a successful project. Each of
the project members should report to one individual, who
can ensure that all project objectives (cost, quality, schedule,
safety, etc.) are continuously considered in decision making.
Commissioning suffers when the project team does not
plan or organize itself early enough. The commissioning
manager must be selected early and should report to the project manager. By early selection, the commissioning manager
Pre-Delivery Activities
Provide detail and instructions for each pre-delivery activity.
Examples of pre-delivery activities include:
Control of specifications
Review of vendor submittals
Vendor audits
Third party inspections of off-site fabrication
Module and equipment vendor quality control and
inspections
Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT)
Factory inspection plan
Commission Plan
Equipment and Material Receipt Control
The commission plan is, properly, one of the most important criteria documents that will be used on the project.
The commissioning plan should indicate the various commission activities for both GMP and non-GMP systems.
The plan should identify the overall commissioning strategy
for the project and complement the Validation Master Plan
(VMP) to identify the integration of commissioning and
validation activities. It also should define the roles and responsibilities of each functional department and their vendors as they relate to the commissioning and integration of
the qualification activates.
The following items describe the key elements of successful commissioning plan:
A description of the equipment and systems to be commissioned including their means of automation
A description of the methods and tools to be used in
commissioning execution
A detailed description of the commissioning strategy including integration of commissioning and validation activities
Overall sequence of commissioning activities
A detailed description of project deliverables including
identification of the parties responsible for providing the
deliverables
Roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in the
commissioning effort throughout construction and commissioning
The commissioning plan should include a strategy for
integrating the qualification phase into the commissioning
activities.
M a y 2 0 0 5 Vo l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 3
249
Commissioning Execution
Pre-Commissioning
A pre-commissioning phase includes the completion of tasks necessary to verify that the system is
mechanically complete and ready for the initiation
of subsequent commissioning activities.
These activities include:
Mechanical completion
Safety reviews
Code inspections
Site Acceptance Testing
Tagging and labeling verification
Valve or damper lineups
Installation of temporary strainers and filters
Walk down of the system
This section of the commission plan should describe, in detail, the commissioning documents and
requirements for turnover packages.
Components may include:
Commissioning Documentation that specifies the
requirements for commissioning including: required documentation, references, documentation practices, and final reports.
Turnover Packages, which provide an outline of
the procedures and requirements for the assembly and turnover of system manuals and other
turnover packages.
Commissioning Completion and Turnover to Owner
This section of the commission plan should describe, in detail, the commissioning completion
and turnover to owner. Project closeout procedures,
deliverables, and responsibilities must be clearly
defined well before construction commences. The
method of project turnover, whether phased or in
single project completion turnover package, should
be clearly defined in this section.
250
Start-up date
Applicable system number (cross reference)
Instrument List
Instrument tag number
Instrument name
Critical or non-critical?
P&ID reference
Vendor name
Manufacturer submittal received (date and time)
Local or panel mounted
M a y 2 0 0 5 Vo l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 3
251
Figure
8
______________________________________________________________________________
Typical Validation Flowcart
Engineering
Validation
Generate
and Address
Snag List
Generate
and Address
Snag List
Protocol Development
Install
Commission
Generate
and Address
Snag List
252
Strategies
The following section includes some detailed strategies
that could be followed to reduce project resource requirements and improve the efficiencies of the commissioning
and validation programs.
Integrate Validation Schedules into the Overall Project
Schedule
The project manager, with support of team members,
should ensure the development of a commissioning and validation plan as an integral part of the project plan and schedule. Integrating validation into the overall project schedule
can save both time and money. Integrated schedules should
be developed with input from the construction and validation project teams and be maintained and updated at regular
intervals.
IQ/OQ may be conducted as part of the physical com-
pletion of the facility, thus tying IQ/OQ closely to the construction contractors scope of work that includes commissioning. To avoid the effort and inconvenience of discovering and rectifying basic problems, it is recommended that
all systems go through an informal shakedown phase before
IQ/OQ commences. This will help ensure a smooth transition between IQ and OQ, and will minimize the number of
deviations that may occur during the IQ and OQ phases.
Scheduling of PQ is particularly critical because PQ
testing is often the most time consuming part of the qualification. Scheduling should take into account any prerequisites that should be achieved prior to PQ execution (such as
commissioning of all support systems, availability of SOPs,
system interdependencies). The PQ protocol often receives
the greatest amount of scrutiny from the approval team.
Again, it is important that IQs and OQs are completed and
that there are no major deviations that may have negative
impact on the PQ phase.
Integrate Commissioning with Validation Activities
There are considerable advantages of time, cost, and
quality in integrating the many functions carried out by
skilled resources, such as engineering, contractor, and validation teams. The responsibility for timely and appropriate
execution should be a combination of both the validation and
engineering teams, this will reduce the time spent on validating the facility and scaling up to production. The use of a
competent, expert, multi-disciplinary team will ensure that
best practice is deployed and that duplication of activities is
avoided.
Integrating activities such as Design Qualification, Construction Qualification, Factory Acceptance Testing, Site Acceptance Testing and commissioning into qualification and
validation activities can control validation costs and minimize project delays. Instruments, components, and equipment can be verified at the vendor site during the FAT and
CQ phases of the project. This reduces delays caused by
identifying potential problems before equipment is delivered
to the job site. If these items are not altered or dismantled in
any way for transport, these checks, if properly documented,
could be used in support of SAT or qualification activities.
For OQ, the duration of the testing can be shortened by
identifying the critical operational criteria that require testing prior to the facility, utility, or equipment being used in
production and planning the schedule accordingly. This
can be performed by determining which functional controls are critical and non critical in the early stages of the
DQ phase of the project. Testing the non-critical functions
M a y 2 0 0 5 Vo l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 3
253
Figure
9
______________________________________________________________________________
Commissioning and Qualification Integration Approach
Commissioning Phase
Qualification Phase
CQ
FAT
SAT
IQ
PQ
OQ
DQ = Design Qualification
OQ = Operational Qualification
M a y 2 0 0 5 Vo l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 3
255
References
1. Center for Drugs and Biologics, Center for Devices and
Radiographic Health, "Guidelines on General Principles
of Process Validation," FDA Rockville, Maryland, 1987.
2. "cGMP Compliance in Architecture and Construction of
Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Facilities" BioPharm,
Prepared January-February, 1993.
3. "Code of Federal Regulations Section 21 Parts 200 to
299 and Parts 600 to 799," Food and Drugs Administration (FDA).
4. "Guidelines for Bulk Drug Manufacturers," Food and
Drugs Administration (FDA).
5. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for
256
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Office of Regulatory Affairs, "Guidelines on Sterile Drug Products Produced by Aseptic Processing," FDA Rockville, Maryland, June 1987.
6. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Office of Regulatory Affairs, "Guidelines on Sterile Drug Products Pro-
M a y 2 0 0 5 Vo l u m e 11 , N u m b e r 3
257