This article is part of a series on Action Tracking in business . Read 'Multiple uses for Action Tracking in Business' to learn more
Process safety fails when known gaps don’t get closed, or when safeguards exist only on paper.
Whether actions come from HAZOP/LOPA, incident investigations, audits, MOC reviews, asset integrity findings, barrier health checks, or regulatory inspections, the pattern is the same:
Risk only reduces when actions are implemented, verified, and sustained.
“Closed” isn’t the same as “controlled”
A process safety action can be marked “closed” while the underlying risk is unchanged:
- A procedure was updated, but not trained, adopted, or audited.
- A trip was specified, but not commissioned, proof-tested, or set with the right limits.
- A relief study was completed, but the hardware datasheet never changed.
- A management action was agreed, but no one can show the evidence trail.
If closure is based on assertion, you end up with paper safeguards and a false sense of control.
The goal: safeguard intent achieved
The best way to think about process safety actions is not “did we do the task?” but:
Did we achieve the intended safeguard outcome for the hazard scenario?
That means each action should remain tied to:
- The hazard scenario / major accident hazard
- The intended control (barrier)
- What “effective” looks like
- How it will be verified
- Who is accountable
What good looks like across process safety actions
1) Actions are specific, testable, and tied to barrier intent
Avoid vague commitments (“review”, “consider”, “ensure”). Write actions so someone can objectively confirm completion.
Example
- Weak: “Improve overpressure protection.”
- Strong: “Confirm PSV sizing for scenario X; update datasheet; verify installed PSV matches spec; attach calc + approved datasheet + field check record.”
2) Ownership is real (single accountable owner, named verifier)
Process safety actions often span disciplines. That’s normal. But accountability still needs a single owner, plus an independent verifier appropriate to risk (TA, process safety, operations leadership, etc.).
3) Risk-based prioritisation isn’t optional
Process safety actions shouldn’t sit in the same queue as routine tasks. Use a risk lens:
- Major accident potential / barrier criticality
- Regulatory exposure
- Time sensitivity (e.g., temporary deviations)
Then apply escalation rules that match the consequence.
4) Evidence is required
Evidence supports closure decisions, making them defensible. Typical evidence bundles include:
- updated P&IDs / C&E / logic narratives
- commissioning records, FAT/SAT, loop checks
- proof test updates and test intervals
- updated operating/maintenance procedures + training records
- inspection photos / field verification sign-off
- MOC packs and approvals
5) Verification checks effectiveness, not paperwork
Implementation says “we did it.” Verification says:
- the safeguard exists in the field
- it’s configured correctly
- it works under the intended conditions
- it’s maintainable and will be sustained (testing, competency, spares, etc.)
This is where a lot of “closed” actions fall down.
If you want the wider picture of where action tracking fits across a business read about multiple uses for action tracking in business
6) Link to MOC when change is involved
Many process safety actions are changes: hardware, logic, procedures, limits, organisational controls. If they bypass MOC, traceability and assurance weaken fast.
If you want a practical workflow for action closure which you can standardise read our article about audits and traceability
Common Issues
“We updated the document, but operations didn’t change”
Fix: require training and an adoption check (supervisor confirmation, audit sampling, field verification).
“Engineering deliverable done; installation lags behind”
Fix: split actions into staged deliverables (design → procurement → install → commission → verify), each with evidence.
“Temporary safeguards become permanent”
Fix: time-box temporary deviations, force escalation as due dates approach, and require explicit extension approvals with compensating measures.
“Actions lose their hazard context over time”
Fix: keep the action linked to the scenario/barrier so reviewers can judge closure decisions years later.
Related Reading - Common challenges in Process Safety Action Tracking
Bottom line
Process safety is won (or lost) in the follow-through. A great study, audit, or investigation is only the start.
If you want fewer repeat findings and fewer “we thought it was handled” moments, treat action closure as a safety-critical process: context-rich, evidence-based, independently verified, and built to sustain the safeguard.
If you need evidence-based closure and independent verification built into the workflow the Pisys Action Tracker has been supporting process safety worldwide for decades.
