And it has begun… With OSHA’s new Confined Space construction standard, they stated in 1926.1203(a) that…
Before it begins work at a worksite, each employer must ensure that a competent person identifies all confined spaces in which one or more of the employees it directs may work, and identifies each space that is a permit space, through consideration and evaluation of the elements of that space, including testing as necessary.
OSHA was even kind enough to define the term “Competent Person“. It means
one who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has the authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them.
Now we can see that OSHA has not applied any type of an official qualification that would demonstrate one is a “Competent Person” to perform CS evaluations. Oddly enough, we have already had several requests for a “CSP” or “CIH” from SAFTENG to perform a formal and documented site-wide CS assessment for both 1910.146 and 1926.1203. When asked why they have specified a “CSP” or “CIH” must perform this evaluation, the responses were interesting, to say the least.
One company attorney was convinced that OSHA was finally on the “professional designation” bandwagon and that this new standard proved that these evaluations were proof of this. Now this attorney is a SMART man; he is a CSP and a PE, so when I asked him how many questions he dealt with on his ASP and/or CSP exam (including his prep classes), that would VALIDATE his ability to be a “Competent Person” to perform these CS evaluations he quickly realized that OSHA might not have a “grand plan for the CSP designation” after all. He did not disrespect our profession; he routinely calls me to discuss safety and OSHA compliance matters.
The CSP designation in NO WAY qualifies or disqualifies someone from being a “Competent Person.” But I know many CSPs who are just not that “in to” confined spaces like some of us are; it just ain’t their thing! I also know some CSPs who live in Confined Space safety daily and could do these evaluations as well as anyone walking the face of this earth. But it is not their CSP designation that makes them a “Competent Person”; their education, training, and experience WORKING WITH CONFINED SPACES and PRCSs make them a “Competent Person” to perform these critical CS evaluations.
OSHA recognized the need to define somehow who could do these evaluations, as this is the most CRITICAL PATH in the Permit-Required Confined Space safety process. After all, if a space is not evaluated PROPERLY, then the rest of the program has NO CHANCE of being successful as it will not be applied to that space. We still see a lot of confusion in 2015 about what makes a space a CS and what makes a CS a PRCS, and YES, IT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE and should not be brushed off lightly – that is understanding the evaluation methodology!
Here is OSHA’s take on a “competent person” from the Construction Preamble…
Final Sec. 1926.1203(a) requires an employer to have a competent person evaluate the spaces in which employees it directs may work, and requires a two-step process for the evaluation: (1) The competent person must evaluate whether a space meets the definition of a confined space, and if so, (2) the competent person must identify, in accordance with other provisions of this final rule, any confined spaces that are PRCSs through consideration and evaluation of the space, including testing of the space as necessary. The final construction rule specifies both the two-step approach and the competent-person requirement more explicitly than in the general industry standard. OSHA added the competent-person requirement in response to several comments noting that the analysis required for these evaluations necessitated some level of expertise. (See ID-025, p. 2; -028, p. 4; -095, p. 2; -097, p. 3; -140, p. 3; -150, p. 2.) A “competent person,” which Sec. 1926.1202 defines under this standard, must be capable of identifying the hazards of permit spaces and have the authority to eliminate them promptly. Because final Sec. 1926.1203(a) requires the competent person to conduct initial testing as necessary, the competent person also must be knowledgeable about appropriate testing. The correct initial identification of permit spaces is an important part of preventing unauthorized entry into those spaces and ensuring that authorized entrants have adequate protection.
…
Final Sec. 1926.1203(a) also differs from the general industry rule in that it explicitly specifies that the competent person must identify confined and permit spaces through consideration and evaluation of other elements of the confined space, and testing as necessary.
…
Final Sec. 1926.1203(a) also requires the competent person to consider and evaluate other elements of the confined space to determine
if it is a permit-required confined space. Such elements include the configuration of the space and any physical hazards or obstacles to
egress from the space. Both the testing and consideration of the space are essential in making an initial determination whether a confined
space is a permit-required space; the Agency believes that requiring these basic steps will ensure that employers correctly identify PRCSs.
…
The initial evaluation of spaces under final Sec. 1926.1203(a) includes a competent-person requirement because of the critical need to identify confined and permit spaces early in the work at the site, and because the requirement to evaluate spaces also applies to employers who are not entry employers and who are, thus, not covered under the permit-space requirements of this final rule.
…
… Third, to provide consistency with the requirement that an employer use a competent person to conduct the initial evaluation of the space, the final rule specifies that a competent person must also conduct the reevaluation and reclassification of the space.
Now I do not know how OSHA plans to enforce this (no CPL out yet), but I can imagine two paths they could take. Of course, if they come to investigate an accident inside a PRCS and it was evaluated incorrectly and not recognized as a PRCS, that would be an easy one to cite – regardless of the credentials of the person who performed the evaluation! But what if they are on-site and they come across work inside a space they feel is a PRCS, yet the official evaluation says otherwise? Will they actually issue a citation against 1926.1203(a)? I am guessing yes, but it would be based on the incorrect classification and probably NOT on the “abilities of the competent person” who did the evaluation. Now all bets are off when they sit down and interview this “competent person,” and it becomes clear they can not define a CS or know the characteristics which make a CS a PRCS. Then I am betting they would issue a citation that our “competent person” was not competent in CS evaluations.
So please be careful about who gets the job of conducting these evaluations. It should not be the summer intern or the recent college grad who may have never even been inside a CS/PRCS. It needs to be someone with the education, training, and experience WORKING WITH CONFINED SPACES and PRCSs doing our evaluations.
