Corrective Action That Closes on Paper Only
Six months ago your audit of a chemical distributor raised a minor nonconformity: secondary containment around two 20,000-liter solvent tanks was cracked and could not hold a full-tank release. The corrective action submitted by the site manager stated 'containment repaired' with a photo of a patched area and a closure date. You are now doing follow-up verification. On site, you find the patch covers only one tank's containment; the second tank's containment still has a visible crack. The site manager says the second tank 'was out of scope because it was installed later.' Records show the second tank was installed eight years ago. The original finding referenced 'two tanks.' The corrective action was marked closed in the tracking system.
1. How do you evaluate the corrective action and its closure, and what do you do now?
Read the worked answer
The corrective action did not address the finding. The original nonconformity named two tanks; the evidence shows only one was repaired, and the 'installed later' explanation is contradicted by the eight-year-old installation record. The closure was therefore invalid - the tracking system recorded closure on the basis of a partial fix and an unsupported scope claim. This is a verification failure as well as a corrective-action failure.
Reopen the finding. Verify the actual condition of both containments, document the crack with photos and measurements, and record that the closure was based on incomplete evidence. Then require a new corrective action that addresses both tanks and, importantly, the root cause: why the scope was narrowed and why closure was accepted without verification of both items. The root-cause question matters more than the patch, because the same pattern will recur.
2. What does this episode tell you about your follow-up process, and what changes would you recommend?
Read the worked answer
The episode shows the follow-up process accepted a self-reported closure with a single photo and no independent check against the original finding's scope. That is a systemic weakness: closure was treated as an administrative status change rather than a verified condition. It also shows the corrective-action review did not test the root cause - a patch addresses the symptom, not why cracked containment persisted or why the scope was misread.
Recommend: require verification evidence that maps to each element of the original finding (both tanks, in this case); require a stated root cause and an action that addresses it; have someone other than the person who closed the action perform or review verification; and audit a sample of closed actions periodically to test whether closure reflects reality. Report this as a finding against the follow-up process itself, not just the tank. Consider whether the original finding's wording ('two tanks') was clear enough, and improve finding descriptions to prevent scope ambiguity.