Skip to main content
    QHSEtech
    All templatesCompliance · 3 pages · Updated 20 October 2026

    Management of Change (MOC) Template

    PDF ExcelFree, no email

    Three-page management of change form for one change to a process, plant, equipment, chemical, software, procedure or organisation: change description and type with a replacement-in-kind check, a time limit and return-to-original check for temporary changes, risk scores before, after and during the transition, a five-function approval with the form's own independence rule, training and communication, an implementation plan, a pre-startup review before the change goes live, verification at 30, 90 and 180 days, and closure. Its considerations are modelled on 29 CFR 1910.119(l); what the form adds is labelled as its own. It is not a permit to work and not a safety device bypass record.

    What's inside

    Page 1: the change, its time limit and its risk

    1. Change description: MOC reference number, requestor, date raised, site or unit, change type (temporary, permanent, emergency, with the reason an emergency could not wait), what is changing (equipment, process or set point, software, procedure, organisation), whether it is a replacement in kind and who confirmed it, scope (what and why), the technical basis, and the related permit to work and safety device bypass record numbers
    2. Temporary change: time limit and return to original: planned end, time limit, the maximum your own procedure allows, the original condition to return to, who will check it was restored, and an extension log where each extension is a new approval
    3. Risk evaluation: likelihood, severity, score and "acceptable?" before the change, after it and during the transition, the scale used, the controls that make the score acceptable and other analysis done

    Page 2: approval, communication, plan and review before start-up

    1. Stakeholder review and approval: operations, EHS, engineering, maintenance and the operations manager, each approving or rejecting with a signature and a date, a check that an approver was independent of the requester, the authority level your procedure requires and the conditions set
    2. Training and communication: audience, method, owner, completion date and a confirmation, and who was consulted before the change
    3. Implementation plan: the documents the change makes out of date, then phase, activity, owner, start and finish
    4. Pre-startup review: seven checks before the change goes live (built as specified, procedures in place, people told and trained, documents updated, safety devices in service, temporary end date set, approval conditions met), who did the review and who cleared the start

    Page 3: follow-up, return to original and closure

    1. Verification at 30, 90 and 180 days: verifier, date, whether the change works as intended and the findings, and an action list
    2. Return to original check: whether the original condition was restored, when and by whom, the test after restoration, who checked it and whether mark-ups were removed or made permanent
    3. Closure: closure checks, lessons learned, closed by, date closed, who checked the closure and where the record is kept

    The section titles, the change kinds and the tick options are ours, to change. The independence rule, the extension rule and the 30, 90 and 180 day checks are the form's own and are marked as such on the form.

    What requires or shapes this record

    Management of change is a named requirement in two US process safety rules, with almost identical wording, and a clause of ISO 45001. The US text is short enough to map field by field. No source opened for this page prescribes this form, and a completed form does not show compliance with any law or standard. HSE guidance in Great Britain and CCOHS guidance in Canada describe the same loop in general terms, and HSE adds that organisational change (staffing, roles, contractors) is often analysed less thoroughly than plant change, which is why the form asks what kind of change it is. A temporary-change time limit and a check that the plant went back come from US nonmandatory guidance; the independence rule, the extension rule and the 30, 90 and 180 day checks are this form's own. A permit to work and a safety device bypass record are different records: see the first two rows of the table on the form. This page is general information, not legal advice.

    • 29 CFR 1910.119(l), (i), (b) and nonmandatory Appendix C paragraph 11 (US OSHA), and 40 CFR 68.75 (US EPA); text read through the eCFR, current to 16 October 2026

      US rules that apply only to processes within their scope. For OSHA's process safety management standard that means listed chemicals at or above threshold quantities and certain flammable gases and liquids, with exceptions (paragraph (a)). EPA's Risk Management Program rule has near-identical wording in 40 CFR 68.75(a) to (e), with "stationary sources" in place of "facilities". Paragraph (l)(1) requires written procedures to manage changes, except replacements in kind, to process chemicals, technology, equipment and procedures, and changes to facilities that affect a covered process; paragraph (b) defines a replacement in kind as one that satisfies the design specification. Paragraph (l)(2) requires these considerations to be addressed prior to any change: the technical basis, the impact on safety and health, modifications to operating procedures, the necessary time period for the change and the authorization requirements. Paragraph (l)(3) requires affected operating, maintenance and contract employees to be informed of and trained in the change prior to start-up of the process or affected part; (l)(4) and (l)(5) require the process safety information and the operating procedures to be updated. Paragraph (i) requires a pre-startup safety review for new facilities and for modified facilities when the modification is significant enough to require a change in the process safety information; before hazardous chemicals are introduced it confirms that construction and equipment follow design specifications, that procedures are in place and adequate, that modified facilities meet the management of change requirements and that operator training is complete. Appendix C is a nonmandatory guideline, not a requirement. In paragraph 11 it says temporary changes have caused catastrophes, that a time limit for them should be established and monitored because without control they tend to become permanent, that they are subject to management of change, and that management of change is used to return equipment and procedures to their original or designed conditions at the end of a temporary change. It suggests a change form may include the duration of a temporary change, approvals and authorization, and says a checklist reviewed by an authorized person may be enough where the impact is minor and well understood, while a more complex change may call for a hazard evaluation with approvals by operations, maintenance and safety departments. The standard does not require an independent approver, a maximum duration or any particular form. The standards' own text is not reproduced here.

    • HSE (Great Britain), HSG254 Developing process safety indicators (first edition 2006, free web version), Part 3 worked example, 'RCS: Plant change', pages 46 and 47; and HSE, CHIS7 Organisational change and major accident hazards (2003, https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/chis7.pdf)

      HSG254 is HSE guidance for chemical and major hazard industries. Its Part 3 worked example, for a bulk chemical storage site, lists plant change (including temporary modifications) among the risk control systems and gives critical elements for it: scope and definition set out for temporary and permanent changes, a risk assessment before the change, changes and outcomes documented, changes authorised before they are implemented, and post-change checks that the plant performs as designed. It tracks the share of plant change actions with an adequate risk assessment before the change, documented, authorised before implementation and followed by a post-change check, and notes that retrospective authorisations show where a need to implement changes quickly may create potentially dangerous circumstances. It is a worked example, not a requirement, and sets no form. CHIS7, on organisational change, says changes to roles, staffing, contractors and structure are often not analysed or controlled as thoroughly as plant changes; that both the risks of the change and the risks of the process of getting there need assessing; that staff including contractors should be involved from an early stage; that changes should be phased and not too many made at once; that reviews of plans and assessments by independent internal or external experts should be used because it is hard to stay objective; that effects can be subtle or delayed, for example six months to a year afterwards, so reviews should be planned; and that lessons from the change should be used to amend the organisation's own change procedure. CHIS7 dates from 2003, so check any regulation it names against the current text. HSE's human factors web page on organisational change (https://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/topics/orgchange.htm) gives the same key principles in short form.

    • CCOHS (Canada), OSH Answers fact sheet Process Safety Management (first published and last revised 13 December 2023)

      Canadian general guidance, not a statement of any jurisdiction's legal duties. The fact sheet says that when new processes are introduced or a process is changed, the hazards, risks and control measures need to be revalidated, and that when changes are made to a process, or other changes can affect it, the hazards and risks need to be identified and assessed again and the control measures revalidated, with modifications to the controls made if needed. It names the CSA standard Z767:17 Process Safety Management (title only; the standard's text is not reproduced or described here).

    • ISO 45001:2018, clause 8.1.3

      Outside PSM-covered processes, clause 8.1.3 (management of change) is the clause of the management system standard that deals with the subject. ISO text is not reproduced here, and this record does not show that a system meets it.

    Each source checked on 20 October 2026. Not legal advice; check the text in force for your site.

    Field by field

    Every field below is a printed label on the form. Mapped to the US considerations in paragraph (l)(2): (i) the technical basis is its own box in section 1; (ii) the impact on safety and health is the risk evaluation; (iii) modified operating procedures, and the (l)(4) and (l)(5) updates, are the list of documents the change makes out of date and the implementation plan; (iv) the necessary time period is the planned end in section 2; and (v) authorization is the approval table. The form supplies no maximum duration, risk scale or authority level, so those boxes are blank for your own procedure to fill.

    MOC reference #
    Why: Ties the change to its pre-startup review, permits, any bypass record and marked-up drawings.
    Common mistake: Raising the number after the work is done, a retrospective MOC that nobody reviewed before the change.
    Change type
    Why: A temporary change needs an end date and a check that the plant went back; US nonmandatory guidance says temporary changes are subject to management of change.
    Common mistake: Treating "emergency" as an exemption. Paragraph (l)(2) says "prior to any change" and (l)(1) exempts only replacements in kind, so an expedited route still records each consideration and who authorized it.
    What is changing
    Why: Paragraph (l)(1) covers process chemicals, technology, equipment, procedures and facilities, and HSE notes that organisational change is often analysed less thoroughly than plant change. The boxes make someone name the kind.
    Common mistake: Ticking only "Equipment" for a change that also alters a procedure or who does the job, so the procedure and the training are not updated.
    Is this a replacement in kind?
    Why: Paragraph (l)(1) exempts replacements in kind, which the US standard defines as one that satisfies the design specification. Naming who confirmed it, and against what, turns the exemption into a recorded decision.
    Common mistake: Calling a part with a different specification a replacement in kind.
    Scope (what / why)
    Why: Lets an approver see exactly what they are approving and why it is needed.
    Common mistake: A scope so loose ("upgrade the line") that the approvers cannot tell what changes.
    Technical basis for the change
    Why: Carries the technical basis, (l)(2)(i).
    Common mistake: "Improve reliability" with no engineering basis, or no mention of what the change was checked against.
    Risk evaluation
    Why: Carries the impact on safety and health, (l)(2)(ii). The third column covers the time the plant runs half-changed.
    Common mistake: Scoring only the end state and not the transition, when the plant runs half-changed.
    Planned end of the temporary change
    Why: US guidance asks for a time limit for temporary changes to be established and monitored, and (l)(2)(iv) asks for the necessary time period. The maximum is your own procedure's; the form supplies none.
    Common mistake: Writing "until the new part arrives" with no date, so nothing flags the change when it overruns.
    Stakeholder review and approval
    Why: Carries the authorization requirements, (l)(2)(v); five functions must each say yes or no.
    Common mistake: Approvals given by email outside the form, or one function signing for another who was away.
    Independent of the requester?
    Why: The US text asks for authorization requirements but does not say who must authorise, and HSE says independent reviews of plans and assessments help against loss of objectivity. The rule printed under the table is this form's own.
    Common mistake: Counting an approver who reports to the requester's manager and helped design the change as independent.
    Pre-startup review
    Why: Where paragraph (i) applies, a pre-startup safety review is required for a modified facility when the change is significant enough to alter the process safety information. The first four checks follow its list; the others are the form's own.
    Common mistake: Reviewing after the change is already running, or letting the person who made the change tick every line.
    Training and communication
    Why: Meets (l)(3): affected operating, maintenance and contract employees before start-up.
    Common mistake: Listing "operators" and forgetting the contractor crew who will work on the changed line.
    Implementation plan
    Why: Gives the document updates of (l)(2)(iii), (l)(4) and (l)(5) an owner and a date, next to the work itself.
    Common mistake: Updating the operating procedure but not the maintenance procedure, the inspection plan or the emergency plan; the ticks and the plan lines are there so each document has an owner.
    Verification at 30, 90 and 180 days
    Why: This form's own follow-up convention for checking the change works as intended; HSE notes that effects of change can be subtle or delayed.
    Common mistake: Treating the 30-day check as the pre-startup safety review, which paragraph (i) requires before start-up.
    Return to original check
    Why: US nonmandatory guidance says management of change is used to return equipment and procedures to their original or designed conditions at the end of a temporary change.
    Common mistake: Removing the temporary item but leaving the mark-up on the drawing, the changed set point or the shift instruction.
    Closure checks
    Why: Stops the record closing while an action, a document update, a training line or a temporary change is still open.
    Common mistake: Closing while a temporary change is still installed.
    Lessons learned
    Why: Records what the next similar change should do differently; HSE says lessons from a change should be used to amend the organisation's own change procedure.
    Common mistake: Writing "none", so the next change repeats the same gap.

    Worked example

    IllustrativeTemporary flexible hose in place of a corroded pipe section (invented plant)

    SectionEntry
    Change descriptionMOC-2026-052 · Temporary · raised 8 June by the area engineer · Replace a corroded 3 m section of DN50 solvent transfer pipe with a flexible hose assembly for up to 21 days while a new section is made. Technical basis: the new section has an 18-day lead time; the hose assembly is rated above the line's design pressure and temperature, is compatible with the solvent and has a test certificate. Not a replacement in kind: a different type of component. Related permit: PTW-1187 for cutting out the old section (the permit controls that job; this record approves the temporary hose). No bypass record.
    Temporary change: time limit and return to originalStart 10 June · planned end 1 July (21 days) · maximum under the site's own procedure 28 days. Return to: DN50 carbon steel section per drawing P&ID-114 revision C, pressure tested before it goes back in service. Restoration checked by the maintenance supervisor.
    Risk evaluationPre-change 2 × 4 = 8. With the hose and no extra controls 4 × 4 = 16. With restraints at both ends, a daily inspection and an exclusion zone while pumping, 3 × 4 = 12, accepted for 21 days only. Transition (old section out under the permit) 2 × 4 = 8.
    ApprovalOperations, EHS, engineering and maintenance approve on the form on 9 June · Operations manager approves 9 June · The area engineer who raised the change does not sign; the engineering approver is a piping engineer from another team and is recorded as the independent approver · Condition: daily inspection signed on the round sheet
    Pre-startup review, training and communication10 June before the first transfer: hose certificate and both restraints checked by the maintenance supervisor, not the requester; operating procedure OP-12 marked up; all four shift crews and the contract tank-cleaning crew told about the daily check and the exclusion zone.
    Implementation planMark the hose on the P&ID-114 working copy (engineering, 10 June) · Add the daily inspection to the round sheet (operations, 10 June) · Fit the hose and restraints (maintenance, 10 June) · Remove the hose, fit the new section and pressure test it (maintenance, by 1 July)
    Return to original and closure1 July: hose removed, new section fitted, pressure test passed, checked by a second maintenance technician; P&ID mark-up and round-sheet entry removed; crews told. 30, 90 and 180 day checks marked N/A: temporary change reversed on 1 July. Lesson: keep a spare section for this line. Closed 2 July by EHS, checked by someone other than the requester.

    Scored on the bands of the risk assessment matrix template: 16 is Extreme (stop work, executive sign-off) and 12 is High (controls required before proceeding), which is why the hose could not go in until the restraints, the daily inspection and the exclusion zone were in place. The dates add up: 10 June plus 21 days is 1 July, inside the 28-day maximum.

    When a spreadsheet stops being enough

    Spreadsheet MOC registers fail in a predictable place: temporary changes that outlive their end date because nothing reminds anyone, and approvals collected by email that cannot be tied to the version of the change that was approved.

    A software record can hold the approval sequence and refuse an approval from the requester, hold the start until every approval is in, list temporary changes past their end date, and refuse closure until each consideration, the pre-startup review where one applies, the document updates and the return-to-original check are signed off.

    In a demo, ask to see a change rejected by one function and resubmitted, a temporary change extended and re-approved, and what the history then shows. Ask also whether a related permit to work or bypass record can be linked to the change and whether the change shows when they are open.

    Same rule for every product: tagged “Management of Change”, with a sourced management-of-change capability in its record, or one the vendor stated to us, labelled as vendor-stated. Documented and conditional capabilities qualify; check the linked scope before treating a module as included.

    Ordered by how closely our sources document this process, not by quality. Sponsored placements are labelled. How lists are ordered

    All 10 matching profiles are shown. Documentation review, not hands-on testing or a claim of compliance.

    Reuse and credit

    Licensed CC BY 4.0: copy, adapt and share this template, also commercially, if you credit it, link to the licence and say if you changed it, without suggesting that QHSEtech endorses you. What the licence covers.

    Credit line

    Management of Change (MOC) Template by QHSEtech (https://qhsetech.com/templates/management-of-change-template), licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

    HTML for a web page

    <a href="https://qhsetech.com/templates/management-of-change-template">Management of Change (MOC) Template</a> by <a href="https://qhsetech.com">QHSEtech</a>, licensed under <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY 4.0</a>

    Related guides