[Federal Register: November 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 228)][Proposed Rules][Page 67351-67425]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28no07-17]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Part 1926
Confined Spaces in Construction; Proposed Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
[Docket ID-OSHA-2007-0026]
RIN 1218-AB47
Confined Spaces in Construction
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing a rule to protect employees from the hazards
resulting from exposure to confined spaces in the construction
industry. Under the proposed rule, employers would first determine
whether there is a confined space at a job site. If there is a confined
space, the employer would determine if there are existing or potential
hazards in the space. If there are such hazards, the employer then
would classify the space according to the physical and atmospheric
hazards found in it. The four classifications are: Isolated-Hazard
Confined Space, Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Space, Permit-Required
Confined Space, and Continuous System-Permit-Required Confined Space.
The proposed requirements for each type of confined space are tailored
to control the different types of hazards.
DATES: Submit comments (including comments to the information-
collection (paperwork) determination described under the section titled
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this notice), hearing requests, and other
information by January 28, 2008. All submissions must bear a postmark
or provide other evidence of the submission date. (See the following
section titled ADDRESSES for methods you can use in making
submissions.)
ADDRESSES: Comments and hearing requests may be submitted as follows:
Electronic: Comments may be submitted electronically to
http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for submitting comments.
Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments
and hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including
attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648; hard copies of these documents are not required. Instead of
transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these
documents (e.g., studies, journal articles), commenters may submit
these attachments, in triplicate hard copy, to the OSHA Docket Office,
Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must
clearly identify the sender's name, date, subject, and Docket ID (i.e.,
OSHA-2007-0026) so that the Agency can attach them to the appropriate
document.
Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery,
and messenger service: Submit three copies of comments and any
additional material (e.g., studies, journal articles) to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket ID OSHA-2007-0026 or RIN No. 1218-AB47, Technical
Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY
number is (877) 889-5627.) Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for
information about security procedures concerning delivery of materials
by express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of
operation for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA Docket ID (i.e., OSHA-2007-0026). Comments and other material,
including any personal information, are placed in the public docket
without revision, and will be available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about
submitting statements they do not want made available to the public, or
submitting comments that contain personal information (either about
themselves or others) such as social security numbers, birth dates, and
medical data.
Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office
at the address above. Documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information and press
inquiries: Contact Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, Office of Communications,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999 or fax (202) 693-
1634.
Technical inquiries: Contact Mr. Garvin Branch,
Directorate of Construction, Room N-3468, OSHA, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-2020 or fax (202) 693-1689.
Copies of this Federal Register notice: Available from the
OSHA Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1888.
Electronic copies of this notice: Go to OSHA's Web site
(http://www.osha.gov), and select "Federal Register," "Date of
Publication," and then "2007."
Additional information for submitting documents: See
section V.I. ("Public Participation") of this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General
A. Table of Contents
The following Table of Contents identifies the major preamble
sections in this notice and the order in which they are presented:
I. General
A. Table of Contents
B. Hearing
II. Background
A. History
B. Need for a Rule Regulating Confined Spaces in Construction
III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard
IV. Issues for Comment
V. Procedural Determinations
A. Legal Authority
B. Summary of the Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Federalism
E. State-Plan States
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Applicability of Existing Consensus Standards
H. Review of the Proposed Standard by the Advisory Committee for
Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH)
I. Public Participation--Comments and Hearings
B. Hearing
Requests for a hearing should be submitted to the Agency as set
forth above under DATES and ADDRESSES.
II. Background
A. History
On March 25, 1980, OSHA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) on confined spaces for the construction industry (45
FR 19266 \1\). The ANPR posed 31 questions concerning confined-space
hazards in the construction industry, and the Agency received 75
comments in response to these questions. However, OSHA took no further
action on this regulatory initiative at the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ "FR" refers to "Federal Register," with the volume
number (for example, 45) before, and the page number (for example,
19266) after, "FR."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA issued the general industry confined-spaces rule (29 CFR
1910.146) on January 14, 1993 (58 FR 4462), as well as a similar rule
for the shipyard industry 29 CFR 1915.7, 11-16) on July 25, 1994 (59 FR
37816). The general industry standard requires employers to classify
hazardous confined spaces as "permit-required confined spaces," and
to implement specific procedures to ensure the safety of employees who
enter them.
It contains detailed procedures for developing a written confined-
space program, monitoring atmospheric hazards, training employees,
preventing unauthorized employees from entering these spaces, providing
for both non-entry and entry rescue, and maintaining records.
The general industry standard specifies a limited exception from
some of the permit-required confined-space requirements when the only
hazard in a confined space is an atmospheric hazard and ventilation
equipment will control the atmospheric hazard at safe levels. It also
provides protection to employees from non-atmospheric (for example,
physical) hazards within non-permit-required, as well as permit-
required, confined spaces. However, the general industry standard does
not apply to construction employers, and, as such, does not specify the
appropriate level of employee protection based on the hazards created
by construction activities performed in confined spaces. Table 1
provides a description of the key differences between the general
industry standard and the proposed standard for confined spaces in
construction.
Table 1.--Key Differences in Regulatory Provisions between the General
Industry and Proposed Construction Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General industry standard Proposed construction standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization of the Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard begins with requirements The proposed standard takes a
for entering PRCSs. step-by-step approach,
explaining how to assess
hazards, determine the
classification for the space,
and how to safely enter it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Exchange
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standard requires a host employer The proposed standard requires
to coordinate entry operations with a the controlling contractor to
contractor when the host employer and coordinate entry operations
the contractor both have employees among contractors who have
working in or near a permit space. employees in a confined space
regardless of whether or not
the controlling contractor has
employees in the confined
space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confined Space with Hazards Isolated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not address working in confined Allows employers to establish
spaces in which the hazard has been an Isolated-Hazard Confined
isolated. Space by isolating or
eliminating all physical and
atmospheric hazards in a
confined space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controlled-Atmosphere Permit-Required Confined Space
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring required as necessary....... Continuous monitoring required
unless the employer
demonstrates that periodic
monitoring is sufficient.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit-Required Confined Spaces (PRCS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No explicit requirement for entry Explicit requirement for entry
supervisor to monitor PRCS conditions supervisor to monitor PRCS
during entry. conditions during entry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requires a written PRCS plan........... No written plan required when
employer maintains a copy of
the standard at the worksite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No specific early-warning requirements Early-warning requirement for
for up-stream hazards. up-stream hazards in sewer-
type spaces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency recognizes that a number of requirements of the proposed
standard for confined spaces in construction duplicate, or are similar
to, the provisions of the general industry standard for permit-required
confined spaces. Nevertheless, OSHA does not believe that the general
industry standard addresses adequately the unique characteristics of
confined spaces in construction. Compared to general industry, the
construction industry experiences higher employee turnover rates, with
construction employees more often working at multiple worksites
performing short-term tasks. Unlike most general industry worksites,
construction worksites are continually evolving, with the number and
characteristics of confined spaces changing as work progresses.
Multiple contractors and controlling contractors are found more often
at construction worksites than at general industry worksites. Also, in
contrast to general industry, OSHA believes that many contractors who
perform construction work in sewer systems are unfamiliar with the
hazards associated with these worksites. Therefore, OSHA placed
more emphasis in this proposed standard on assessing hazards at sewer
worksites than it did in the general industry confined-spaces standard.
The differences in employee and worksite characteristics between
the construction industry and general industry prompted OSHA to develop
a proposed standard for regulating confined spaces in the construction
industry that varied substantially from the general industry confined-
spaces standard as described above in Table 1 of this preamble. Because
of the regulatory differences between this proposed standard and the
general industry standard, the general industry standard would not be
considered a substitute for this proposed construction standard except
where the provisions are essentially the same.
In 1993, as part of the litigation activity surrounding the newly
promulgated general industry standard, OSHA agreed in a settlement with
the United Steel Workers of America to issue a proposed rule to extend
confined-space protection to construction employees. On February 18,
1994, OSHA submitted a draft proposed standard for confined spaces in
construction to the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and
Health (ACCSH) for comment. ACCSH established a work group on March 22,
1994 to address the OSHA draft proposed standard and report its
findings to the full committee.
ACCSH adopted the work group report on May 17, 1994, and
recommended that OSHA incorporate it into a rulemaking docket. In this
report, ACCSH noted that the general industry standard did not meet the
needs of the construction industry because it did not provide adequate
information to contractors for distinguishing among the different types
of confined spaces, or to determine the appropriate level of employee
protection based on the hazards resulting from construction activities
performed in confined spaces. In addition, ACCSH found that confined
spaces encountered or created in construction often are not identified
or classified prior to the beginning of a construction project.
Consequently, ACCSH established a work group to draft a proposed
standard that would meet the unique needs of the construction industry.
The draft proposed standard emphasized identifying different types of
confined spaces encountered in construction (for example, where the
hazard has been isolated, where atmospheric hazards are controlled at
safe levels, and permit-required spaces), inter-contractor information
exchange, and the detailed protections necessary to eliminate or
control specific hazards.
As the result of the ACCSH work group review, a draft proposed
standard for confined spaces in construction was submitted to OSHA in
the winter of 1996 and ACCSH recommended that it be used as a proposed
confined-spaces standard. OSHA determined that the ACCSH draft proposed
standard needed to be reworked to make it easier to understand,
especially for small employers who do not employ a separate safety
staff. The Agency also determined that certain hazards, such as those
encountered in sewer-construction work, were not adequately addressed.
Consequently, OSHA determined that it was necessary to develop a new
draft proposed standard.
In 1998, OSHA completed a new draft proposed standard but
discovered that there were several issues that needed to be resolved
before the draft proposed standard could be finalized. To get feedback
from the construction community, OSHA held three stakeholders meetings
in October of 2000 across the country. The topics discussed were: (1)
Typical confined spaces encountered in construction; (2) whether an
early-warning system should be required for spaces in which an
engulfment hazard cannot be isolated (such as in some sewer
situations); (3) the need for, and cost of, continuous monitoring for
atmospheric hazards; (4) how a confined-spaces standard for
construction could accommodate the needs of small businesses; and (5)
whether an attendant should be permitted to monitor more than one
confined space at a time.
In late 2003, OSHA completed the new draft proposed standard and
convened a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) to solicit comments on it from small business
entities. The SBREFA panel conducted two conference-call discussions,
which were open to the public, in which the small business entities
were invited to express their concerns about the draft proposed
standard and submit written comments to the record that covered the
issues. The SBREFA panel then submitted its recommendations to the
Assistant Secretary in November 2003.
This proposed confined-spaces standard for construction reflects
input from stakeholder meetings, ACCSH, and the SBREFA review process.
For example, a provision that would have addressed working in
hazardous-enclosed spaces (spaces designed for human occupancy but
subject to a hazardous atmosphere), which small business entities
participating in the SBREFA review process considered burdensome and
unnecessary, was eliminated because OSHA believes that existing
construction standards (for example, 29 CFR 1926.55) adequately address
these hazards. This proposed standard uses a confined-space
classification approach that is influenced by ACCSH recommendations.
The proposed standard is organized as chronologically as possible to
help guide the employer, from its initial encounter with a potential
confined space, through the steps necessary to ensure that employees
are adequately protected. In addition, it addresses the need for
coordination and information exchange at construction sites, which
typically have multiple employers.
B. Need for a Rule Regulating Confined Spaces in Construction
Fatality and injury data, OSHA enforcement experience, and advice
from the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH)
indicate that the existing construction standard for confined and
enclosed spaces at 29 CFR 1926.21(b)(6) does not adequately protect
construction employees in confined spaces from atmospheric, mechanical,
and other hazards. In this regard, the existing construction standard
only requires employers to: (1) Instruct their employees about
confined-space hazards, and (2) comply with other OSHA construction
standards that address confined-space hazards. For situations in which
none of these construction standards apply, the employer would have to
comply with the general-duty requirement of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 to "furnish to each of [its] employees employment
and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that
are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to
[its] employees." (29 U.S.C. 654.) Therefore, where the existing
construction confined-spaces standard applies, it requires only
training of employees who work in confined spaces--it does not address
how trained employees are to be protected while working in such spaces.
OSHA has preliminarily determined that employees in the
construction industry who perform work in confined spaces face a
significant risk of death or serious injury, and that this proposed
rule would substantially reduce that risk. At present, approximately
20,000 establishments have employees entering at least one confined
space as defined by the proposed rule. There are an estimated annual
total of 641,000 confined spaces; about half of these confined spaces
would be considered permit-required confined spaces under this proposal
(Ex. OSHA-2007-0026-0003). OSHA estimates that each year there are 6.44
fatalities and 967 injuries experienced by employees working in
confined spaces addressed by this proposed rule. OSHA has preliminary
determined that the proposed rule, when implemented properly by
employers, would reduce the average number of fatalities and injuries
in confined spaces covered by the proposed standard by about 90% (6
fatalities prevented annually and 880 injuries prevented annually).
(For further explanation of the significant-risk calculations, see
section V.B. ("Summary of the Preliminary Economic Analysis and
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis") of this notice and Ex, OSHA-
2007-0026-0003).
III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard
Section 1926.1201--Introduction
Paragraph (a). This paragraph states the general purpose of the
proposed rule. This standard would cover employers who have employees
that work in or near a confined space that is subject to a hazard.
Appropriate precautions are needed to ensure the safety of these
employees. This proposed paragraph also defines a confined space as: a
space that is large enough and arranged in such a manner that employees
can enter the space, has limited or restricted means of entry/exit and
is not designed for continuous employee occupancy.
Spaces with these characteristics are prone to containing hazards
that tend to be unseen and unrecognized until it is too late to escape.
Consequently, it is necessary to assess these spaces to see if there
are actual or potential hazards beforehand, and to implement procedures
designed both to protect construction employees from such hazards and
to rescue them in the event the protective measures do not work as
anticipated.
Paragraph (b). Employers would be required to determine the
classification of each confined space that is subject to a hazard.
Employers must classify such spaces as one of four types specified by
this proposed standard. The classification is based on factors such as
the type and level of hazards present in the confined space. If the
employer determines that a confined space in its natural state is not
subject to a hazard, it would not be classified. (Note that in this
proposed rule, the term "hazard" includes both existing hazards and
hazards that have a reasonable probability of occurring.) The employer
would not have to take any further action unless one of the indications
specified in proposed Sec. 1926.1207 (Reassessment) occurred, in which
case the employer would be required to take certain actions, including
a reassessment of the space. The monitoring of conditions within a
confined space is an ongoing process and is necessary for the employer
to ensure the safety of its employees while working within that space.
Paragraph (b)(1). This proposed paragraph lists the four
classifications of confined spaces ((b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv)).
Paragraph (b)(1)(i). A Continuous System-Permit-Required Confined
Space (CS-PRCS) is a confined space that is a part of, and contiguous
with, a larger confined space (for example, sewers) that the employer
cannot isolate from the larger confined space. It is also subject to a
potential hazard release from the larger confined space that would
overwhelm personal protective equipment and/or hazard controls,
resulting in a hazard that is immediately dangerous to life and health.
The proposed rule includes the CS-PRCS classification to ensure that
the employer recognizes that, as the construction industry has
recognized, there are difficulties associated with isolating the
hazards of other larger spaces connected to the CS-PRCS. Special
precautions are necessary, in addition to the other PRCS requirements,
to ensure adequate protection of the employees.
Paragraph (b)(1)(ii). A Permit-Required Confined Space (PRCS) is a
confined space that has any one of the following: A hazardous
atmosphere that ventilation will not reduce to and maintain at a safe
level; inwardly-converging, sloping, or tapering surfaces that could
trap or asphyxiate an employee; or an engulfment hazard or other
physical hazard.
Paragraph (b)(1)(iii). A Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Space
(CACS) is a confined space where ventilation alone will control its
atmospheric hazards at safe levels. Note also that a confined space
cannot be classified as a CACS if it has a physical hazard (unless that
hazard has been isolated). The proposed rule includes the CACS as a
separate classification from the PRCS because fewer precautions are
needed to ensure the safety of its employees than for PRCSs, but more
precautions are needed than for an Isolated-Hazard Confined Space
(discussed below under paragraph (b)(1)(iv)) because the atmospheric
hazard is controlled but not eliminated. This option is provided to the
employer to allow it to provide a level of employee protection
specifically tailored to, and commensurate with, the hazards within the
confined space. In a space properly classified as a CACS, OSHA believes
that the use of the CACS measures, as compared with the PRCS measures,
would be as protective and typically more cost effective.
Paragraph (b)(1)(iv). An Isolated-Hazard Confined Space (IHCS) is a
confined space in which the employer has isolated all physical and
atmospheric hazards. "Isolated" means the elimination or removal of a
physical or atmospheric hazard by preventing its release into a
confined space. Isolation includes, but is not limited to, the
following methods: Blanking and blinding; misaligning or removing
sections of lines, pipes, or ducts; a double-block-and-bleed system;
locking out or tagging out energy sources; machine guarding; and
blocking or disconnecting all mechanical linkages. Methods must be
implemented to ensure that the hazards remain isolated. Isolation
methods provide the highest degree of assurance that the hazard will be
kept away from the employees in the space, since it consists of methods
that do not depend on the continued, proper operation of machinery
(such as ventilation equipment) or personal protective equipment (such
as respirators). Consequently, this classification of space presents
the lowest hazard level to the employees, and is similar to a "non-
permit space" described in 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(7) of the general
industry standard.
Paragraph (b)(2). This proposed provision gives the employer the
option to classify a confined space in any classification, so long as
all of the characteristics and requirements for that classification are
met. The Agency considered proposing that the employer be required to
try to make the space qualify for the lowest possible classification.
However, after considering comments from small business entities
received through the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) review, OSHA decided to give employers more flexibility;
employers may use any of the classifications, as long as the
requirements for the selected classification are met. OSHA believes it
is important to allow employers the flexibility to classify confined
spaces based on the conditions or circumstances of individual work
environments.
The one exception is that a space with the characteristics of a
Continuous System-Permit-Required Confined Space cannot be given a different
classification. Where a confined space meets the definition of a CS-
PRCS, the employer must classify the space as such and meet all of its
requirements. To meet the definition of a CS-PRCS, the employer must
have determined that the confined space could not be isolated from its
connection to a larger space and its associated hazards. OSHA believes
that since the potential hazards of the larger space will always exist,
the additional CS-PRCS requirements must be met to address the hazards.
Classifying the space to any lower classification would leave the
employees exposed to an engulfment or atmospheric hazard that could
originate in the connected, larger space (that is, the configuration of
CS-PRCSs is such that an employer cannot safely eliminate or isolate
the potential hazards so as to meet the criteria for a lower
classification).
Paragraph (c). The proposed standard specifies precautions that
must be followed if the employees have to enter the space to determine
its classification (see paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1204).
These precautions are necessary because the characteristics and extent
of the hazards that may be present would not yet be known at that
point.
Paragraph (d). If the contractor makes a determination under
proposed Sec. 1926.1204 (Worksite evaluation, information, exchange,
and coordination) that the confined space is not subject to any
hazards, the confined space would not need to be classified. However,
if subsequent to that determination any of the indications specified in
proposed Sec. 1926.1207 (Reassessment) were to occur, the contractor
would be required to conduct a reassessment as specified in proposed
Sec. 1926.1207. This is necessary to ensure that there continue to be
no hazards present when employees are in an unclassified confined
space.
Section 1926.1202--Scope
The proposed standard provides minimum safety and health
requirements and procedures to protect employees who work in or near
confined spaces. It addresses how to protect employees from confined-
space hazards. The proposed standard includes requirements for
training, hazard analysis, classification, entering, working, exiting,
and rescue for confined spaces of various hazard levels.
This proposed standard does not replace the more hazard-specific
construction standards that are already in place. Rather, this proposed
standard is designed to provide additional protections needed to deal
with hazards that may arise when employees are working in or near a
confined space.
Paragraph (a). This paragraph identifies which employers are
covered by the proposed standard. Employers who are engaged in
construction work and have confined spaces at their job sites are
subject to the provisions of the proposed standard. Further, employers
who have confined spaces on their job site and hire subcontractors to
operate within those spaces also would have to meet specific
requirements in the proposed standard. The note to this paragraph
includes a non-exclusive list of potential confined spaces that
commonly occur on a construction worksite. This list provides examples
for employers who may be unfamiliar with confined spaces in
construction.
Paragraph (b). This paragraph explicitly excludes construction work
regulated by 29 CFR part 1926 subpart Y (Diving), non-sewer
construction work regulated by 29 CFR part 1926 subpart P (Excavation),
and non-sewer construction work regulated by 29 CFR part 1926 subpart S
(Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams and Compressed Air)
from the scope of this proposed standard. Employers operating under one
of the three listed exemptions are not required to follow this proposed
standard for work within a confined space. Employers who hire
contractors to perform work covered by these three standards also are
excluded from coverage under this proposed standard. The reason for
these exclusions is that the Agency believes that the existing OSHA
requirements applicable to these activities are sufficient to address
and protect employees from the confined-space hazards in those
situations.
Paragraph (c). This provision would require employers, when an
activity is covered under both the scope of this proposed standard and
the provisions in another OSHA construction standard related to
confined-space hazards, to comply with those provisions as well as the
applicable provisions in this proposed standard. For example, while
subpart D in 29 CFR part 1926 contains requirements for ventilation
when working in potentially hazardous atmospheric conditions, it does
not address other equipment or workplace conditions that are covered by
this proposed standard. Also, some construction standards require the
use of specified systems during operations in a confined space, but do
not set criteria that those systems must meet; in these cases, the
requirements of both the existing construction standard and this
proposed standard would apply. For example, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart J
(Welding) requires that the employer provide a lifeline when an
employee is welding in a confined space entered through a manhole or
other small opening. When working in a PRCS, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart J
also sets criteria for the use of a lifeline system in the confined
space, but does not set criteria for the use of rescue services or
provide any other permit-required space procedures to protect the
employees. Under those circumstances, the rescue service and entry
procedures must meet the requirements of this proposed standard, while
the lifeline system would be required to meet the criteria in 29 CFR
part 1926 subpart J.
Appendix A of the proposed standard contains a list of existing
provisions found in other OSHA construction standards under 29 CFR part
1926 that address work done in confined spaces. This list contains only
current construction provisions, and does not preclude the inclusion of
future confined-space provisions. The purpose of the information in
this appendix is to help employers easily identify other requirements
relevant to confined-space hazards that may also have to be met.
Paragraph (d). This proposed provision clarifies that the duties of
a controlling contractor specified in paragraph (a) of proposed Sec.
1926.1204 are not exclusive. Proposed Sec. 1926.1204(a) delineates a
controlling contractor's duties with respect to the exchange of
information concerning confined spaces with subcontractors on multi-
employer worksites and does not limit or otherwise affect a controlling
contractor's responsibilities under the OSH Act. See OSHA Directive No.
CPL 2-00.124 (Dec. 10, 1999).
Section 1926.1203--Definitions
This proposed section lists definitions for key words used in
describing the requirements of this proposed standard. Most of the
definitions were adopted from the OSHA general industry confined-spaces
standard (29 CFR 1910.146) and from the ANSI Z117.1-2003 confined-
spaces standard. Many other terms in this proposed standard are defined
in other OSHA construction standards, and were included in this
proposed section to minimize the need to reference those other
standards. While most of the proposed terms are self-explanatory or are
consistent with those established in 29 CFR 1910.146 and ANSI 117.1-
2003, OSHA believes that it is necessary to provide an expanded
discussion for several terms used in this proposed standard. The
expanded discussion provides a brief explanation of the defined terms,
justifies any differences between the proposed definitions and those contained
in 29 CFR 1910.146 and ANSI 117.1-2003, and addresses comments received
during the SBREFA process.
"Continuous System-Permit-Required Confined Space (CS-PRCS)" is a
Permit-Required Confine Space that has all of the following
characteristics: Is part of, and contiguous with, a larger confined
space (for example, sewers); the employer cannot isolate it from the
larger confined space; and is subject to a potential hazard release
from the larger confined space that would overwhelm personal protective
equipment and/or hazard controls, resulting in a hazard that is
immediately dangerous to life and health. This classification of space
was mentioned in 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(5)(i), and a sample Permit-Required
Space program for sewers was provided in Appendix C of that standard.
OSHA believes it is important to define this classification of confined
space in a way that emphasizes that it is subject to a potential hazard
release, such as an engulfment hazard, that the employer will not be
able to control.
"Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Space (CACS)" is a confined space
that has all of the following characteristics: Contains no physical
hazards or only isolated physical hazards; and uses ventilation alone
to control atmospheric hazards at safe levels. This term was added to
designate a distinct type of confined space in which only one type of
hazard (atmospheric) is present that requires a specific type of
employee protection--active control of the atmospheric hazard at safe
levels by ventilation equipment. OSHA believes that the space described
by this definition is similar to the space defined by the alternate
procedures specified by paragraph (c)(5) of the general industry
standard for confined spaces. Both of these spaces involve conditions
in which atmospheric hazards are merely controlled by ventilation
instead of eliminated completely. Therefore, if the ventilation system
stops or malfunctions, the atmospheric hazards could reemerge in the
space. Unlike the general industry standard, the proposed standard for
construction assigns a name to the space. OSHA believes that naming the
space a Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Space will effectively alert
employees, especially employees who have little or no experience with
these spaces, to the possibility that atmospheric hazards could
reemerge in the space if the ventilation system stops or malfunctions.
"Controlling contractor" is the employer that has overall
responsibility for construction at the worksite. In addition, the note
to this definition explains that if a host employer has overall
responsibility for construction at the worksite, then it is both a host
employer and controlling contractor. It is a common practice in the
construction industry for there to be a number of contractors working
at a construction site at the same time. Also, there often is one
contractor that has overall authority of the construction site,
including the authority to change worksite conditions and alter work
practices with regard to safety. Under this proposed standard, there
are specific duties that would apply to the controlling contractor, as
distinguished from the host employer and the contractor. Consequently,
there is a need to define the term "controlling contractor."
For the purposes of this preamble, the term "employer" refers to
an employer whose employees are exposed to confined-space hazards.
Employers whose own employees are exposed to a hazard addressed by this
proposed standard would be required to comply with the provisions that
identify an obligation on "the employer." In addition, other
employers may also have responsibilities with respect to such
provisions through operation of OSHA's multi-employer doctrine.
When a proposed provision designates the "host employer" as the
entity responsible for the requirement, only an employer that meets the
proposed definition of a "host employer" would be responsible for
that requirement. Similarly, when a proposed provision designates the
"controlling contractor" or the "contractor" as the entity
responsible, only an employer meeting the proposed definitions of
"controlling contractor" or "contractor" would be responsible for
compliance with the provision. Note that an employer who fits the
definition for more than one of these roles would be required to comply
with the obligations that pertain to each role. The Agency requests
public comment on whether this explanation is clear.
"Early-warning system" is the method used to alert attendants
monitoring a CS-PRCS and authorized entrants in a CS-PRCS that an
engulfment hazard may be developing. Examples of early-warning systems
include, but are not limited to: alarms activated by remote sensors;
and lookouts with equipment for immediately communicating with the
authorized entrants and attendants. The Agency believes these systems
will protect employees from non-isolated engulfment hazards by
providing an effective means of warning attendants and authorized
entrants that an engulfment hazard may be developing "upstream" of
the work area, thereby permitting sufficient time for the authorized
entrants to safely exit the CS-PRCS. As illustrated by the non-
exclusive list of examples of early-warning systems within this
definition, employers would have flexibility as to what type of early-
warning system to use for continuously monitoring such engulfment
hazards. However, as stated in paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of proposed
Sec. 1926.1215, whatever warning system is selected must alert
authorized entrants and attendants in sufficient time for the
authorized entrants to safely exit the CS-PRCS.
"Hazardous atmosphere" means an existing or potential atmosphere
consisting of at least one of the following: A flammable gas, vapor, or
mist in excess of 10 percent of its lower flammable limit; an airborne
combustible dust at a concentration that meets or exceeds its lower
explosive limit; an atmospheric oxygen concentration below 19.5 percent
("oxygen deficient") or above 23.5 percent ("oxygen enriched"); an
airborne concentration of a substance that exceeds the dose or exposure
limit specified by an OSHA requirement; and an atmosphere that presents
an immediate danger to life or health. These levels duplicate those in
the definition of "hazardous atmosphere" in the general industry
confined-spaces standard. The definition clarifies that the concept of
a hazardous atmosphere includes one that has a potential for becoming
hazardous, since it is necessary to anticipate the potential occurrence
of such hazards to effectively protect employees working in a confined
space.
"Host employer" owns or manages the property on which
construction is taking place. As explained in the definition of
"controlling contractor," this definition was added to clarify the
distinction between a "host employer," a "contractor," and a
"controlling contractor" as each of these entities would have
specific obligations under this proposed standard. (See, also, the
discussion under "controlling contractor" above.)
"Inspection information" means information obtained about a space
from blueprints, schematics, and/or similar documents, documents
regarding previous confined-space entries, or physical inspection/
testing. This definition was added in response to SBREFA comments to
clarify the types of documents and information that would be considered
relevant to making the hazard assessments required by this proposed
standard without entering the space.
"Isolated-Hazard Confined Space (IHCS)" is a confined space in
which the employer has isolated all physical and atmospheric hazards.
This classification differs from a "non-permit space" in the general
industry standard that, by definition, does not include confined spaces
that have the potential to contain atmospheric hazards capable of
causing death or serious physical harm. The proposed classification of
IHCS includes confined spaces where that potential continues to exist.
In an IHCS, the potential exists because the atmospheric hazard is only
"isolated," which means that its release is only being prevented. The
use of the term "isolated" in this context is consistent with the
definition of "isolation" in the current American National Standard
Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) standard
titled "Safety requirements for Confined Spaces," ANSI/ASSE Z117.1-
2003. This ANSI/ASSE standard describes the isolation process in part
as follows:
Methods and means shall be selected and used to prevent
flammable, toxic, irritating, or oxygen displacing gases and vapors
from entering the space. All hazardous material, high pressure, high
temperature and other piping that could reasonably be expected to
introduce a hazard shall be isolated by utilizing blinding,
disconnection, removal, or double block and bleed as needed to
prevent entry of material(s) and hazardous contaminant(s).
"Limited or restricted means for entry and exit" refers to a
condition that has a potential to impede an employee's movement into or
out of a space. Such conditions include, but are not limited to poor
illumination, slippery floors, inclining surfaces and ladders. This
phrase is used to describe one of the physical characteristics of a
confined space and was defined to give the phrase greater clarity.
"Permit-Required Confined Space (PRCS)" is a confined space that
has any one of the following characteristics: A hazardous atmosphere;
an inwardly converging, sloping, or tapering surfaces that could trap
or asphyxiate an employee (for example, a space between walls that
narrows towards the base, including, but not limited to, funnels and
hoppers); or an engulfment hazard or other physical hazard. This
definition is similar to the definition in the general industry
standard, but includes more examples of dangerous configurations of
confined spaces.
"Physical hazard" means an existing hazard that can cause death
or serious physical harm in or near a confined space, or a hazard that
has a reasonable probability of occurring in or near a confined space,
and that includes, but is not limited to: Explosives (as defined by
paragraph (n) of 29 CFR 1926.914 (definition of "explosive"));
mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic energy; radiation;
temperature extremes; engulfment; noise; and inwardly converging
surfaces. "Physical hazard" also refers to chemicals that can cause
death or serious physical harm through skin or eye contact (rather than
through inhalation). This definition was added to help employers better
understand the characteristics of this type of hazard.
"Planned conditions" are the conditions under which authorized
entrants can work safely in a PRCS or CS-PRCS, including both hazard
levels and methods of employee protection. The Agency considered using
"acceptable entry conditions," the term used in the general industry
standard, for this concept. However, OSHA is concerned that employers
and employees, especially those who are not often engaged in
construction work in confined spaces, may think "acceptable" means
that conditions are safe for entry without the use of personal
protective equipment or other protective measures. OSHA believes that
the term "planned conditions" more accurately expresses the concept
that a variety of actions may be needed, including the use of
protective measures, for employees to be able to work safely in the
confined space.
"Serious physical harm" means an impairment in which a body part
is made functionally useless or is substantially reduced in efficiency.
Such impairment may include loss of consciousness or disorientation,
and may be permanent or temporary, or chronic or acute. Injuries
involving such impairment would usually require treatment by a
physician or other licensed health-care professional while an illness
resulting in serious physical harm could shorten life or substantially
reduce physical or mental efficiency by impairing a normal bodily
function or body part. OSHA adapted this definition of "serious
physical harm" from its Field Inspection Reference Manual, chapter
III, section C.2.b(2)(c).
"Simulated Permit-Required Confined Space" is a confined space or
a mock-up of a confined space that has all of the following
characteristics: Similar entrance openings, and is similar in size,
configuration, and accessibility, to the PRCS the authorized entrants
enter but does not need to contain any physical or atmospheric hazards.
This definition was included to emphasize that the Simulated PRCSs do
not have to contain actual physical or atmospheric hazards to qualify
for the training required by this proposed standard. OSHA proposes this
clarification to prevent injuries and deaths from occurring during
rescue training.
Section 1926.1204--Worksite Evaluation, Information Exchange, and
Coordination
Paragraph (a). This paragraph sets forth requirements for
exchanging information relevant to construction operations in confined
spaces. Controlling contractors and host employers would have to share
four pieces of information (listed below) before any employee enters
the confined space. This information addresses such issues as: location
of confined spaces, hazardous conditions affecting confined spaces,
precautions taken to address those hazards, and classifications of the
confined spaces. OSHA notes, however, that the proposed standard only
places a duty on controlling contractors and host employers to provide
any information they already have about the confined spaces specific to
their worksite. The Agency makes clear in this proposed paragraph that
"[n]either the controlling contractor nor the host employer is
required to obtain the information listed * * *"; their only
obligation is to provide their contractors with information they
already have about a confined space. OSHA also states in a note to this
proposed paragraph that controlling contractors or host employers are
not required to enter a confined space to collect the relevant
information.
On most construction worksites, there are a number of contractors
and subcontractors performing jobs. In the case of confined spaces,
sometimes employees of different employers will be performing work
within the same confined space. In many instances, employees of a
subcontractor will enter a confined space after another subcontractor's
employees have completed work within the space. On multi-employer
worksites, an employer's actions can affect the health and safety of
another employer's employees. It is critical for the safety of all
employees on a worksite that contractors and subcontractors communicate
with each other. Requiring communication between employers is an
efficient way to ensure that each employer learns important information
about the confined space hazards present so that all employees are
adequately protected. OSHA is proposing these information-sharing
requirements in proposed Sec. 1926.1204 so that construction worksites
with confined spaces remain safe places of employment for all
employees.
The Agency has clear authority to include these multi-employer
provisions in the standard. First, the plain language of the OSH Act
and its underlying purpose support OSHA's authority to place
requirements on employers that are necessary to protect the employees
of others. Second, congressional action subsequent to passage of the
OSH Act recognizes this authority. Third, OSHA has consistently
interpreted its statutory authority as permitting it to impose
obligations on employers that extend beyond their own employees, as
evidenced by the numerous standards, including several construction
standards, that OSHA has promulgated with multi-employer provisions.
Finally, OSHA's authority to place obligations on employers that reach
beyond an employer's own employees has been upheld by numerous courts
of appeals and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
(OSHRC).
The purpose of the Act is to assure so far as possible safe and
healthful working conditions for every working man and women in the
nation. 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the
Secretary to establish mandatory occupational safety and health
standards. The Act broadly defines an OSHA standard as a rule that
"requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices,
means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or
appropriate to provide safe or healthful employments and places of
employment." 29 U.S.C. 652(8). See Building and Constr. Trades Div.,
AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1278 (DC Cir. 1988). OSHA standards
must prescribe measures that are appropriate to protect "places of
employment"; nothing in the statutory language suggests that OSHA may
do so only by regulating an employer's interaction with its own
employees. On the contrary, the Act's broad language gives OSHA almost
"unlimited discretion" to devise means to reach the statutory goal.
See United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1230 (DC Cir.
1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).
Similarly, Section 5(a)(2) provides that each employer "shall
comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under
this Act."\2\ Nothing in this language suggests that compliance is
required only when necessary to protect the employers' own employees,
or that the employer is entitled to endanger other employers' employees
at the worksite. Finally, Section 6(b)(7) of the Act authorizes the
Secretary to "prescribe the use of labels or other appropriate forms
of warning as are necessary to insure that employees are apprised of
all hazards to which they are exposed." 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7) (emphasis
added). Again, this authority is not limited to labels that would warn
the employer's own employees of the hazard. Given the distribution of
potentially hazardous products in commerce, employees are predictably
exposed to hazardous conditions created by other employers. Requiring
employers to include hazard information needed by downstream employees
is a necessary and appropriate means to ensure that the employees are
apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This language is in marked contrast to the language of
Section 5(a)(1) of the Act (known as the "general duty clause"),
which requires each employer to "furnish to each of his employees
employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized
hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious
physical harm to his employees." 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) (emphases
added). See Brennan v. OSHRC, 513 F.2d 1032, 1037-38 (2nd. Cir.
1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, the statute focuses on workplace conditions to effectuate
the OSH Act's congressional mandate, and not on a particular employment
relationship. The OSH Act's underlying purpose is broad--to assure safe
and healthful working conditions for working men and women--and
Congress made clear that it expected the Act to protect all employees.
(H. Rep. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 14-16 (July 9, 1970)).
Numerous references in the legislative history of the Act require
employers to provide a safe and healthful "place of employment" (see,
e.g., S. Rep. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 10 (October 6,
1970)). The OSH Act tasks OSHA with promulgating rules that will create
safe places of employment, notwithstanding the many varied employment
relationships that might exist at a worksite.
Subsequent congressional action has also recognized OSHA's
authority to impose responsibilities on employers to protect employees
who are not their own. For example, Congress directed OSHA to develop a
chemical process safety standard (the PSM standard) requiring employers
to "ensure contractors and contract employees are provided appropriate
information and training" and to "train and educate employees and
contractors in emergency response." (29 U.S.C. note) (quoting Pub.L.
101-549, Title III, Section 304, November 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2576).
This is a clear ratification of the Agency's authority to require
employers to protect the employees of others. Congress also approved of
the Agency's authority when it relied on the provisions of OSHA's
Hazard Communication standard in promulgating the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 U.S.C. 11001-11050) (EPCRA). OSHA's
Hazard Communication standard, among other things, requires a
manufacturer of a hazardous chemical to "inform not only its own
employees of the dangers posed by the chemicals, but downstream
employers and employees as well." Martin v. American Cyanamid Co., 5
F.3d 140, 141 (6th Cir. 1993). Congress incorporated provisions of the
Hazard Communication standard in EPCRA as a basis for triggering
obligations on owners or operators of facilities producing hazardous
chemicals to provide local governments with information needed for
emergency response. Had Congress not approved of the multi-employer
provisions in the Hazard Communication standard, it would not have
approved of it as a basis for obligations in the EPCRA.
Furthermore, OSHA has consistently interpreted the OSH Act as
authorizing it to impose multi-employer obligations in its standards.
In addition to the Hazard Communication standard and PSM standard
discussed above, OSHA included multi-employer provisions in its powered
platforms standard, which requires that a building owner inform
employers that the building installation has been inspected and is safe
to use. 29 CFR 1910.66(c)(3). OSHA has also imposed multi-employer
obligations in other construction standards. For example, in the
construction asbestos standard, OSHA requires building owners/employers
to perform initial monitoring for asbestos and to communicate the
presence of asbestos or presumed asbestos containing materials to
prospective employers whose employees reasonably can be expected to
work in exposed areas. 29 CFR 1101(k)(2). In the recently promulgated
steel-erection standard, OSHA imposed duties on controlling contractors
to ensure that site conditions are safe for steel erection. 29 CFR
1926.752(c). OSHA just recently proposed in updates to its electric-
power transmission and distribution construction standard similar
multi-employer communication provisions. See 70 FR 34947-48. OSHA's
inclusion of multi-employer provisions in this proposed rule is fully
consistent with its past practice of ensuring the safety and
health of all employees at construction worksites.
Finally, OSHA's authority to impose these provisions is confirmed
by the decisions of numerous courts of appeals and the Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission holding that an employer's duties
and OSHA standards may extend beyond an employer's own employees. See
Universal Constr. Co. v. OSHRC, 182 F.3d 726, 728 (10th Cir. 1999)
(following decisions from Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth
Circuits); Access Equip. Sys., 18 BNA OSHC 1718, 1722-24 (No. 95-1449,
1999). But see Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th
Cir. 1981). The DC Circuit suggested in Anthony Crane Rental, Inc. v.
Reich, 70 F.3d 1298, 1306 (DC Cir. 1995), however, that 29 CFR
1910.12(a)--a rule promulgated by OSHA to adopt Construction Safety Act
(CSA) standards as OSHA standards--might limit an employer's
obligations under the construction standards in part 1926 to its own
employees. The court did not reach the issue, noting that the parties
had not briefed it. The proposed confined-spaces in construction
standard will be included in part 1926 Sec. 1910.12(a) is consistent
with the promulgation of requirements that place obligations on
employers necessary to protect the employees of others. The provision
states:
The standards prescribed in part 1926 of this chapter are
adopted as occupational safety and health standards under section 6
of the Act and shall apply, according to the provisions thereof, to
every employment and place of employment of every employee engaged
in construction work. Each employer shall protect the employment and
places of employment of each of his employees engaged in
construction work by complying with the appropriate standards
prescribed in this paragraph.
The language of the provision supports OSHA's interpretation that
an employer's responsibilities can extend beyond the employer's
employees. The first sentence makes the construction standards
applicable to every employment and to every "place of employment" of
every construction employee. This is broad language that does not limit
an employer's obligations to its own employees. The second sentence, by
providing that each employer must protect the employment and the places
of employment of each of his employees, does not limit an employer's
obligations to only protecting his or her employees and does not negate
the broad reach of the first sentence. The two sentences, read
together, require employers to comply with standards at all sites where
they are working in order to protect employees who are predictably
present at those sites.
The sole purpose of the provision was to "adopt and extend"
existing Construction Safety Act (CSA) standards applicable under the
OSH Act. 29 CFR 1910.11. Under the CSA, standards applied only to
employers with Federally funded contracts, and only with respect to
employees engaged on those Federal projects. See 29 CFR part 1926
Subpart B; CH2M Hill, Inc. v. Herman, 192 F.3d 711, 718 n.1 (7th Cir.
1999). The function of 29 CFR 1910.12(a) was to adopt the CSA standards
as OSHA standards and in so doing to make it clear that neither of
those limitations would apply. Thus, OSHA stressed that compliance
would broadly extend to each construction employer (not just those with
Federal contracts) and to every construction employee (not just those
working on Federal projects). In no way did OSHA intend for the
language of 29 CFR 1910.12(a) to restrict its authority to promulgate
construction standards that establish obligations extending beyond an
employer's own employees.
Other factors confirm that OSHA had no intention in Sec.
1910.12(a) to bar multi-employer responsibilities under the
construction standards. OSHA issued the regulation without notice and
comment under Section 6(a) of the Act. That section provided authority
only to adopt established federal standards, such as the CSA standards,
without making any substantive changes. Usery v. Kennecott Copper
Corp., 577 F.2d 1113 (10th Cir. 1977). The CSA regulations did not
limit multi-employer responsibilities; the regulations expressly
provided for them. 29 CFR 1926.16. OSHA could not have intended to
limit statutory obligations in an action under Section 6(a).
Moreover, concurrently with issuance of Sec. 1910.12(a), OSHA
issued its initial Field Operations Manual, which expressly directed
issuance of citations to construction employers who created a hazard
endangering their own employees or those of another employer. The
Agency has also consistently promulgated rules in 29 CFR part 1926 that
expressly extend employers' obligations beyond their own employees. The
requirements in proposed Sec. 1926.1204 reflect this consistent
interpretation and will ensure that all employees on construction
worksites are protected from the hazards of confined spaces.
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's recent
decision in Secretary of Labor v. Summit Contractors (OSHRC Docket No.
03-1622 (April 27, 2007), has no application to this proposed rule. In
Summit, a divided Review Commission vacated citations issued to a
controlling employer for violations of a construction standard. The two
Commissioners who joined in this result issued separate opinions; each
read Sec. 1910.12(a) as establishing a limitation on the Agency's
authority to hold controlling employers accountable for violations.
OSHA believes this view is mistaken, and has appealed the OSHRC
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals (8th Cir. No. 07-2191).
Moreover, Summit has no bearing on the duties established under the
proposed rule. The Summit opinions interpreted OSHA's intent under then
existing rules. They did not question OSHA's authority under the Act to
establish multi-employer obligations through rulemaking. OSHA is
exercising its authority under Section 6(b) to issue this proposed
rule, and nothing in Sec. 1910.12(a) limits an employer's compliance
obligations under the rule.
Paragraph (a)(1). The host employer and/or controlling contractor
would be required to provide information to contractors that it has
about the location of each space that it actually knows is a confined
space at the worksite. If the host employer or controlling contractor
does not have this information, it is not required by this proposed
provision to obtain it. For example, if the locations of confined
spaces were obtained by the host employer or controlling contractor
while its own employees had worked in or near the spaces, or if it
obtained the location of a confined space from other contractors who
worked in or near the spaces, that information must be shared with the
next employer it contracts to work in or near those confined spaces.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i). For each confined space identified in
paragraph (a)(1) above, the host employer and controlling contractor
would be required to inform the contractor of any hazards in or near
the space that the host employer or controlling contractor knows about.
These may be known atmospheric or physical hazards. Examples of these
include, but are not limited to: atmospheric contaminants; the presence
of energized electrical conduits; construction operations performed
near the confined space that may result in a ruptured sewer line; or
the existence of construction work that may cause the confined space to
collapse. If the host employer or controlling contractor does not have
this information, it is not required by this proposed provision to
obtain it.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii). The host employer and/or controlling
contractor would be required to provide information that it has to the
contractor about the classifications of previously classified confined
spaces on the worksite. For example, if the host employer or controlling
contractor knows that an employer had previously classified an
electrical vault as an Isolated-Hazard Controlled Space (IHCS), the
controlling contractor would have to provide that information to the
next employer that it contracts to do work in or near that space.
However, if the host employer or controlling contractor does not have
this information, it is not required by this proposed provision to
obtain it.
During the SBREFA process, some small-business representatives
expressed the concern that, as a result of having this provision in the
draft proposed standard, some controlling contractors would require the
contractor to classify all confined spaces as PRCSs, including those
that could be classified as IHCSs or CACSs. This proposed provision
would not require the contractor to base its classification
determination solely on a previous classification that it learned of
from a host employer or controlling contractor. The contractor is
responsible, under other sections of the proposed standard, for
properly classifying the space; the information provided to the
contractor under this proposed paragraph may assist the contractor in
making the classification. However, this proposed standard would not
preclude a controlling contractor from requiring a contractor, for
example, to apply a higher level classification to confined spaces than
the level required under the proposed standard.
Paragraph (a)(2)(iii). The host employer and controlling contractor
would be required to share with all contractors who work inside a
confined space the precautions and procedures, if any, it previously
implemented to enter that confined space. However, this proposed
provision does not require the host employer or controlling contractor
to develop entry programs for its contractors. Also, it is not
mandatory for a host employer or controlling contractor to provide
previously implemented confined-space entry procedures that are not
applicable to the space(s) the contractor must enter (that is, entry
procedures used for a different space.)
Paragraph (b). The contractor would be required to first determine
what spaces are confined spaces and, if so, whether they are subject to
any hazards. Provisions (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this proposed section
spell out the procedures for making these assessments. The Agency
believes that these procedures are necessary to ensure that the spaces
are correctly assessed and to ensure that the employees are protected
while conducting the assessments.
Paragraph (b)(1). The contractor would be required to consider
information provided by the host employer and controlling contractor
(if any), and the contractor's own inspection information (see
following paragraph), to determine if the space is a confined space
and, if so, if there are any physical or atmospheric hazards. OSHA
believes that information obtained from the host employer or
controlling contractor would be useful to contractors because it often
would be based on work previously done safely within the affected
space. Except as noted in paragraph (b)(2) of this proposed section,
this initial evaluation must be done without entry into the space by
the contractor or their employees.
Paragraph (b)(2). In some cases it may not be feasible to make the
required determinations about the space and hazards without entering
the space. When the contractor can demonstrate that obtaining the
information without entering the space is infeasible, employees may
enter, but only to inspect for that information. In doing so, an
employer must ensure that any employee entering the unclassified space
meets the requirements of proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1208 through
1926.1214 for Permit-Required Confined Spaces and, if applicable,
proposed Sec. 1926.1215 for Continuous System-Permit-Required Confined
Spaces.
Entry into the space before identifying its hazards is potentially
dangerous; therefore, OSHA believes it is reasonable to require
contractors to be able to demonstrate that a proper assessment of the
space without entry is infeasible before employees are allowed to
enter. This proposal calls for contractors to follow the entry
requirements of a PRCS (or, where applicable, a CS-PRCS) in these
situations because, with the hazards as yet undetermined, taking these
precautions will ensure the safety of the employees.
Paragraph (b)(3). The contractor would have to determine if there
are any atmospheric hazards in the confined space. It would be required
to comply with proposed Sec. 1926.1205 (Atmospheric testing and
monitoring) below to properly perform atmospheric testing and
monitoring. In following proposed Sec. 1926.1205, all testing of the
internal atmosphere of the confined space must be done without use of
mechanical ventilation or changes to the space's natural ventilation.
This is to ensure that the natural atmospheric conditions within the
space are assessed for hazards that may affect those employees working
in the space.
Paragraph (b)(4). Contractors would be required to meet applicable
OSHA requirements, including training requirements, for the use of
personal and other protective equipment required by paragraph (c)(2) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1213. The training would ensure, as applicable,
that the employees have the understanding, knowledge, and skills
necessary to use the personal and other protective equipment
effectively.
Paragraph (c). This proposed paragraph sets forth the information-
exchange requirements for contractors who classify a space as a PRCS,
CS-PRCS, CACS, or IHCS.
Paragraph (c)(1). Contractors would have to inform the host and
controlling contractor of the procedures the contractors will follow
for entry into the space. This proposed requirement will enable the
host employer and controlling contractor to provide this information to
other contractors who enter the space. Such information would help
other contractors in planning their safe entry procedures.
Paragraph (c)(2). When contractors classify a space as a PRCS, CS-
PRCS, CACS, or IHCS, they would be required, at the conclusion of entry
operations, to inform the host employer and controlling contractor
employer about any hazards that were present or that developed during
the entry operations. This information would be useful to other
employers that the host employer and controlling contractor contracts
to do work within the space since it would be relevant to their hazard
assessments of the space. OSHA believes that the host employer and
controlling contractor are in the best position to disseminate this
information to other affected employers on the site.
Paragraph (d). The controlling contractor would be required to
coordinate confined-space entry operations when multiple contractors
will have employees working within the confined space at the same time.
The Agency believes that the controlling contractor is in the best
position to ensure adequate coordination between contractors whose work
(and associated hazards) may affect one another. Note that this
proposed paragraph does not specify any particular process by which the
controlling contractor would coordinate entry operations. The purpose
of this proposed provision is to ensure that employees are protected
from hazards that could result from a lack of coordination between
contractors in the space. This paragraph works in concert with the
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this proposed section, which
specifies that contractors must inform the controlling contractor and
host employer of their precautions and entry procedures. The controlling
contractor can use this information to coordinate the entry operations
performed by multiple contractors in or near a confined space to ensure
the safety of employees.
Paragraph (e). This proposed paragraph addresses employee
participation and notification, and would require the employer to
provide its employees who enter a confined space, and their authorized
representatives, an opportunity to observe evaluations of the confined
space performed under paragraph (b) of this proposed section,
reassessments conducted under proposed Sec. 1926.1207 (Reassessment),
and any atmospheric testing and monitoring required by this proposed
standard. This proposed paragraph does not require employees and their
authorized representatives to observe the specified activities;
however, it provides employees and their authorized representatives
with the option of observing should they choose to do so. OSHA believes
that allowing employees and their authorized representatives to
participate in this manner will contribute to the successful
implementation of safe entry operations by enhancing their awareness of
the hazards present in the confined space.
Section 1926.1205--Atmospheric Testing and Monitoring
This proposed section prescribes minimum procedures for atmospheric
testing and monitoring that employers would be required to perform to
adequately assess the atmospheric conditions which exist within a
confined space. Information of this type is vital to the identification
of atmospheric hazards within the space, and is also needed to make
accurate determinations for later classification of the space.
Maintaining safe atmospheric conditions is essential to the safety of
all employees working in the space.
Paragraph (a). Employers would be required to test or monitor a
confined space for certain atmospheric hazards in a specific order
(oxygen deficiency, combustible gases and vapors, and toxic gases and
vapors) unless they test or monitor these hazards simultaneously, and
for other atmospheric hazards specified in applicable OSHA requirements
(such as those in other OSHA standards). Employers must test or monitor
for oxygen deficiency, combustible gases and vapors, and toxic gases
and vapors because these are well-recognized atmospheric hazards in
confined spaces (see discussion of atmospheric hazards in the general
industry final rule for confined spaces at 58 FR 4465). Employers must
continue to test or monitor the confined-space atmosphere while
employees are operating in the space.
The Agency adopted the requirement to test or monitor for oxygen
deficiency, combustible gases and vapors, and toxic gases and vapors in
this specific order (unless employers test or monitor these atmospheric
hazards simultaneously) from the general industry and the ANSI Z117.1-
2003 confined-spaces standards. The preamble to the final general
industry confined-spaces standard noted that this procedure represents
generally accepted safe work practices, and explained the specified
order as follows:
A test for oxygen must be performed first because most
combustible gas meters are oxygen dependent and will not provide
reliable readings in an oxygen deficient atmosphere. In fact, the
Johnson Wax Company (Ex. 14-222) stated that "there is [a] specific
(sensor dependent) oxygen level below which the combustible gas
sensor will not respond at all [emphasis was supplied in
original]." Combustible gases are tested for next because the
threat of fire or explosion is both more immediate and more life
threatening, in most cases, than exposure to toxic gases.
(58 FR 4499.) OSHA remains convinced that the priority assigned to
testing or monitoring atmospheric hazards by this proposed provision
remains valid, and is critical to the health and safety of employees
involved in confined-space operations.
Monitoring must be done periodically and as necessary unless other
provisions of this proposed standard or other OSHA requirements specify
differently. "As necessary" refers to the monitoring reasonably
required to detect atmospheric hazards. Some factors that may affect
frequency are: results of tests allowing entry; regularity of entry
(daily, weekly, or monthly); effectiveness of previous monitoring
activity; and knowledge of the hazards that affect the confined space.
Monitoring must be of a frequency and performed in a manner sufficient
to protect employees operating in confined spaces from atmospheric
hazards.
Paragraph (b). Employers would have to provide medical facilities
that treat employees exposed to certain atmospheric hazards (those
hazards that could cause an immediate threat to life and health) with
information the employer is required to keep under proposed Sec.
1926.1219 (Records) regarding such hazards; if the exposure involves a
chemical hazard described by a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) that
the employer must maintain at the job site under 29 CFR 1910.1200
(Hazard Communications), the employer must ensure that the medical
facility receives the MSDS as well. The information must be provided to
the treating medical facilities as soon as is practical after the
exposure. Employers can comply with this proposed provision by having
that information accompany the employee to the medical facility or by
providing it to the facility as soon as practicable after the
employee's arrival there.
The Agency recognizes that such information may already be
available to medical facilities from other sources (such as state
emergency-planning commissions), and that MSDSs or similar written
information may not be available in some instances. However, OSHA
believes that it would be reasonable and prudent to require employers
to provide MSDSs or other written information to a treating medical
facility when such MSDSs or other similar written information already
is required to be kept at the worksite; for example, as noted earlier,
the Agency's Hazard Communication standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200 may
require construction employers to keep MSDSs at the job site. Such
information may significantly help the medical facility correctly
diagnose and treat the employee.
Section 1926.1206--Classification and Precautions
This proposed section would require an employer to use the
information about the space that it obtained under proposed Sec.
1926.1204 (Worksite evaluation, information exchange, and coordination)
and classify the confined space(s) in which their employees will be
working. The employer must then follow the precautions and safety
procedures listed in the applicable section. The classifications are:
Continuous System-Permit-Required Confined Space (CS-PRCS); Permit-
Required Confined Space (PRCS); Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Space
(CACS); and Isolated-Hazard Confined Space (IHCS).
Paragraph (a). This proposed paragraph lists the elements of a
Continuous System-Permit-Required Confined Space (CS-PRCS). A
"confined space," as defined in proposed Sec. 1926.1203 (Definitions
applicable to this subpart), would be classified as a CS-PRCS if it has
all the elements listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this proposed
section. Such spaces would be protected in accordance with the safety
provisions and procedures specified by proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1208
through 1926.1215. The Agency believes that employees in this type of
space are vulnerable to hazards that can migrate from a larger,
contiguous confined space and overwhelm personal protective equipment
and/or hazard controls, resulting in a hazard that is immediately
dangerous to life and health. For example, employees in one part of a
sewer system could be drowned by an unexpected flow of water from
upstream in the system. Therefore, a means of warning the employees
needs to be in place to protect them.
Paragraph (a)(1). The first element of a CS-PRCS is that the
confined space is part of, and contiguous with (connects or contacts),
a larger confined space--irrespective of whether the larger space is a
CS-PRCS, an Isolated-Hazard Confined Space (IHCS), a Controlled-
Atmosphere Confined Space (CACS), or a Permit-Required Confined Space
(PRCS). The space to be classified must be contiguous with part of the
larger system. For example, if an employer were to perform work in a
section of a sewer system, that section would be considered part of and
contiguous with a larger space (the entire sewer). As such, it would
meet this element.
Paragraph (a)(2). The second element of a CS-PRCS is that the space
is not isolated from the larger confined space. In the context of this
proposed paragraph, the term "isolated" means completely sealed off
from the larger space such that passage of the hazards from the larger
space is impossible.
Paragraph (a)(3). The third element of a CS-PRCS is that the space
is subject to a potential hazard release from the larger confined space
that would overwhelm personal protective equipment (PPE) and/or hazard
controls used in the space. In this context, "overwhelm" means that
the PPE and/or hazard controls would not be able to cope with the
hazard and would not protect employees, posing an immediate danger to
the life and health of any employee working in the space. An example
would be where employees are in a confined space that is contiguous
with a sewer and the water level in the space is being maintained at a
safe level with pumping equipment. However, the pumping equipment could
not maintain that safe level if there were a surge of storm water from
the sewer.
Paragraph (b). For confined spaces other than CS-PRCSs, the
employer would have the flexibility to use a PRCS, CACS or IHCS
classification, as long as the applicable classification requirements
are met. The elements of each classification are in proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.1208 (PRCS), 1926.1216 (CACS), and 1926.1217 (IHCS). OSHA had
planned on proposing that the employer be required to classify the
space to the "lowest" classification possible (that is, as an IHCS
or, if that was not possible, then as a CACS, and if that was not
possible, then as a PRCS). However, one of the recommendations that
resulted from the SBREFA review process was that OSHA should consider
allowing employers greater flexibility in this regard. The Agency has
decided that allowing flexibility in choosing the classification will
increase compliance with the standard, and has, therefore, allowed for
flexibility in this proposed provision.
Paragraph (c). The employer would be required to meet the accident-
prevention and -protection requirements applicable to the confined
space as classified. The employer would have to meet those requirements
before any employee enters the space. The accident-prevention and -
protection requirements for each classification are in proposed
Sec. Sec. 1926.1208 through 1926.1214 (PRCS), 1926.1215 (CS-PRCS),
1926.1216 (CACS), and 1926.1217 (IHCS). The Agency structured the
proposed standard in this way so that the accident-prevention and -
protection requirements would be tailored specifically to the space
classification being used. OSHA believes that this approach will both
ensure the protection necessary for the employees and give the
employers some flexibility in selecting the classification.
Section 1926.1207--Reassessment
Paragraph (a). This proposed paragraph would require employers to
reassess the determinations made in proposed Sec. 1926.1204 (Workplace
evaluation, information exchange, and coordination) for a confined
space that the contractor had previously determined did not contain any
atmospheric or physical hazards when there is an indication that the
conditions under which the determinations were made have changed. The
Agency believes that this is necessary because conditions around and
within confined spaces may change, especially when construction
activities are performed around or within it. Consequently, when
indications of changes in the previous conditions arise, and to ensure
that employees are protected, it is necessary to conduct a reevaluation
of the confined space. Such indications include but are not limited to:
(1) A change in the configuration or use of, or the type of work
conducted or materials used in, the confined space; (2) new information
regarding a hazard in or near a confined space; and (3) an employee or
authorized representative provides a reasonable basis for believing
that a hazard determination is inadequate. OSHA believes that, to
ensure the safety of the employees, if any of these three indications
occur it is necessary to check to see if new hazards have arisen in the
confined space.
Paragraph (b). When an employer has made a determination under
proposed Sec. 1926.1204 (Workplace evaluation, information exchange,
and coordination) that a confined space was subject to a hazard and the
employer implemented protective measures and procedures, the employer
would be required to reassess its confined space worksite operations
and procedures if there is an indication that those measures may not
protect employees working in or near the confined space. This proposed
provision lists seven examples of indications that would require the
contractor to reassess the confined space in light of the triggering
event or new information. These events include, but are not limited to:
(1) A change in the configuration or use of, or the type of work
conducted or materials used in, the confined space; (2) new information
regarding a hazard in or near a confined space; (3) an employee or
authorized representative provides a reasonable basis for believing
that a hazard determination or protective measure is inadequate; (4) an
unauthorized entry into a PRCS; (5) detection of a hazard in or near a
PRCS that is not addressed by the entry permit; (6) detection of a
hazard level in or near a PRCS that exceeds the planned conditions
specified in the entry permit; and (7) the occurrence, during an entry
operation, of an injury, fatality or near-miss.
While some specified events, such as the presence of a new hazard
in or near the confined space, detection of a hazard not covered by the
entry permit, or detection of a hazard that exceeds acceptable levels
(see paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of this proposed section,
respectively) may necessitate a full physical and atmospheric retest of
the space, full retesting would not be required in all cases. For
example, it is unlikely that the unauthorized entry into a space
(paragraph (b)(4) of this proposed section) or an accident unrelated to
any atmospheric hazard (paragraph (b)(7) of this proposed section)
would necessitate a complete review of the atmospheric conditions in
the confined space. OSHA recognizes that while working in a confined space,
the environment and/or working conditions may change as a result of
unforeseen occurrences. As such, the employer must identify the need for a
reassessment of the hazards and working conditions based on changes that may
adversely affect safety or health in the confined space.
The indicators specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of
this proposed section are not meant to be a comprehensive list; rather,
these indicators are likely or common events that would require a
reassessment. The employer also would be required to conduct a
reassessment where other, unlisted conditions occur that indicate a
need to reassess the effectiveness of hazard controls used in the
space.
Paragraph (c). This proposed paragraph specifies the requirements
for reassessing a confined space. Prior to performing a reassessment,
the contractor must ensure that all employees exit the confined space
immediately. The proposed provision also requires the contractor to
ensure that no employee reenters the space until the contractor
identifies the physical and atmospheric hazards in accordance with
paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1204; follows the classification
procedures specified by proposed Sec. 1926.1206 (Classification and
precautions); and meets the accident-prevention and -protection
requirements applicable to the space classification selected by the
contractor before any employee reenters the space.
The Agency believes this proposed requirement is necessary because
once an emergency occurs, the protective systems in place in the PRCS
can no longer be relied on to protect the entrants; their safety then
depends on their immediately getting out of the PRCS. The Agency also
believes that this proposed requirement is necessary to ensure that
the: spaces are correctly assessed; employees are protected while
conducting a reassessment; and employees receive appropriate protection
prior to reentering the confined space.
Section 1926.1208--Permit-Required Confined Spaces
This proposed section would establish (1) the criteria for
identifying and classifying a Permit Required Confined Space (PRCS),
and (2) the basis for defining the conditions that would enable
authorized entrants to work safely in the PRCS (the planned
conditions).
Paragraph (a). This proposed paragraph specifies the classification
requirements for PRCSs.
Paragraph (a)(1). This proposed paragraph lists several
characteristics of PRCSs as defined in proposed Sec. 1926.1203
(Definitions applicable to this subpart): a hazardous atmosphere;
inwardly converging, sloping, or tapering surfaces that could trap or
asphyxiate an employee; or an engulfment hazard or other physical
hazard. The presence of any one of these characteristics in a confined
space would require the employer to identify and classify it as a PRCS.
For example, a space between walls that narrows towards the base
(including but not limited to, funnels and hoppers) would be a PRCS.
Paragraph (a)(2). This proposed paragraph sets forth the
requirements regarding physical and atmospheric hazards in PRCSs.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i). In this proposed provision, for each physical
hazard identified under paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1204, the
employer would have to design either an isolation method or use another
method of protecting employees from each hazard. The means and methods
designed by the employer must meet applicable OSHA requirements. For
example, if the confined space contains a physical hazard associated
with electrical equipment, the means of isolation or protection must
comply with the appropriate OSHA electrical standard (e.g., 29 CFR part
1926 subpart K (Electrical)).
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii). In this proposed provision, for each
atmospheric hazard identified under proposed 29 CFR 1926.1205
(Atmospheric testing and monitoring), the employer must isolate or
control the atmospheric hazards within the PRCS by either: (1) Ensuring
that these hazards are reduced to a safe level \3\ in the space without
the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) (see, for example, 29
CFR 1926.55, 1926.152, 1926.1100 through .1152); or (2) using PPE to
protect the employees from the hazard. For example, for non-explosive
atmospheric hazards (such as oxygen deficiency or toxic atmosphere), if
the employer does not reduce the hazard in the space to a safe level,
the method used to protect the employees must include PPE that is
sufficient to protect them in accordance with OSHA requirements
applicable to the hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ "Safe level" is a defined term in proposed 1926.1203
(Definitions applicable to this subpart) of this proposed standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA initially considered requiring employers to isolate all
hazards and meet the accident-prevention and -protection requirements
of proposed Sec. 1926.1217 (Isolated-hazard confined spaces--
classification and accident-prevention and -protection requirements)
unless they could demonstrate that isolation of a hazard is infeasible.
When employers could demonstrate that they could only isolate physical
hazards but not atmospheric hazards, they would have to control the
atmospheric hazard and protect their employees in accordance with
proposed Sec. 1926.1216 (Controlled-atmosphere confined spaces--
classification and accident-prevention and -protection requirements).
Only when they could not isolate or control a hazard could employers
use personal protective equipment (PPE) to meet the requirements of
proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1208 through 1926.1214 and 1926.1215
(requirements for PRCSs and Continuous System-PRCSs). However, during
the SBREFA process, several Small Entity Representatives (SERs) noted
that they and their controlling contractors prefer to classify all
confined spaces as PRCSs, thereby providing consistency in training and
equipment when working in confined spaces.
OSHA's initial position was consistent with other OSHA standards
such as 29 CFR 1926.55 (Gases, Vapors, Fumes, Dusts, and Mists), which
require employers to eliminate hazards first using engineering and
work-practice controls, and only then with PPE. Nevertheless, the
Agency agreed with the comments of the SERs and revised its initial
position to allow employers to meet the accident-prevention and -
protection requirements of an IHCS or CACS as an option to complying
with the PRCS requirements of the proposed standard. OSHA believes this
approach to classification of confined spaces will protect employees
while allowing employers some flexibility in the methods they choose to
manage confined-space hazards. This conclusion is particularly true
given the information the Agency received during the SBREFA process
when the SERs stated that contractors often prefer to classify all
confined spaces as PRCSs so as to provide consistency in training and
work practices. The Agency believes that in the construction industry,
where there are constantly changing work environments, allowing such an
approach may provide additional safety benefits to employees.
Paragraph (b). The two provisions of this proposed paragraph
require the employer to define the planned conditions under which
authorized entrants can work safely in a PRCS.
Paragraph (b)(1). Under this proposed paragraph, the employer would
be required to use the determinations made under paragraph (a)(2) of this
proposed section to define the planned conditions under which the employees
can safely work in the PRCS.
Accordingly, the required information would include the hazard
levels at which employees can safely work and the procedures and
equipment used to protect the employees. For example, when an employer
decides to use PPE to protect employees from an atmospheric hazard, the
planned conditions would typically include the type of PPE to be used
(such as type of respirator) and the levels at which the PPE would
protect the employees from the atmospheric hazard.
Paragraph (b)(2). Employers would be required to determine that, in
the event the ventilation system stops working, the monitoring
procedures will detect an increase in atmospheric hazard levels in
sufficient time for the entrants to safely exit the PRCS. As explained
for a similar provision in the general industry standard (see 29 CFR
1910.146(c)(5)(i)(B)), for the PRCS to be considered safe, the
mechanical ventilation must control the atmospheric hazards at levels
that are below the levels at which they are harmful to entrants (that
is, at a sufficiently low level that entrants will have time to exit
the PRCS safely). In addition, should the forced-air ventilation system
cease to function during entry (such as from a power loss), the
atmosphere must remain at safe levels until monitoring procedures
detect rising atmospheric hazard levels and entrants can safely exit
the space or ventilation is restored. The Agency believes that
monitoring is the primary method for detecting an increase in
atmospheric hazard levels and, therefore, this proposed standard
generally requires the use of monitoring to detect ventilation system
failure. However, other indicators may be useful in detecting such
failures, including changes in noise levels, air flow, and/or pressure;
and signs, symptoms, and characteristic effects of exposure to the
atmospheric hazard.
In the event the control methods fail, meeting the requirements of
this proposed paragraph would provide employees with a safe atmosphere
within the PRCS until they evacuate from the confined space, thereby
reducing the risk of serious injury and death. Nevertheless, OSHA
believes that if the atmospheric hazards would rapidly rise to unsafe
levels in the event of a failure in the mechanical-ventilation system,
and employees could not exit safely from the PRCS under these
conditions, then mechanical ventilation may be an inappropriate method
for controlling atmospheric hazards in the PRCS.
Section 1926.1209--PRCS--Initial Tasks
Paragraph (a). One of the keys to protecting employees from PRCS
hazards is for both employers and employees to know the location of the
PRCSs at the job site, the characteristics of the hazards, and their
associated dangers. The provisions in this proposed paragraph are
designed to achieve this goal.
Paragraph (a)(1). The contractor would be required to notify its
employees that it anticipates will be in or near the PRCS and their
authorized representatives, and the controlling contractor, about the
location of, and the hazards/dangers posed by the PRCSs located at the
job site. The Agency believes that it is important for the contractor
to provide the controlling contractor with this information because the
controlling contractor is in the best position to convey the
contractor's information to other employers at the site. This proposed
provision will help facilitate the effective sharing of this important
information among other contractors at the site, as well as the
employees of these contractors that they anticipate will be in or near
the PRCS. It also ensures that the contractor's own employees who will
be in or near the PRCSs have this information.
Paragraph (a)(2). The employer would be required to post a danger
sign at or near the PRCS entrances, which the Agency believes is
necessary to ensure that employees are warned of the presence and
danger of a PRCS. If the employer can demonstrate that a sign is
infeasible, it would have to use an equally effective means of alerting
employees. The Agency believes that employees need this information to
understand the seriousness of potential hazards in the PRCS. Compliance
with this proposed requirement would ensure that employees who are not
involved in PRCS operations would be sufficiently informed so that they
would not attempt to enter the spaces. However, OSHA notes that only
employees who work in PRCSs would need to know more details about the
potential hazards. Therefore, this proposed provision would not require
employers to list specific PRCS hazards on each sign. The Agency
believes that, when properly warned, employees who are not authorized
to enter the space would avoid entering the PRCS, thereby preventing
harm that could result from the PRCS hazards.
The sign must convey that entering the space is dangerous and that
entry without authorization is prohibited. Language such as "Danger--
Permit-Required Confined Space--Authorized Employees Only" and
"Danger--Do Not Enter Without a Permit" would convey this
information. Similar language that prevents unauthorized entry also
would meet the requirements of the proposed rule.
OSHA considered allowing the use of a posted copy of the entry
permit to meet the sign requirement. However, the Agency rejected this
idea because the entry permit is not designed to serve as a warning
sign. Unlike a sign that reads "Danger--Permit Required Confined
Space--Authorized Employees Only" or "Danger--Do Not Enter Without a
Permit," or similar language, the design and content of an entry
permit is unlikely to clearly express to employees (especially those
not authorized to enter the PRCS) that entering the space could be
dangerous.
When the employer demonstrates that posting a sign at every
possible entrance to a PRCS is infeasible, it instead would be
permitted to use an equally effective means to warn employees of the
presence and danger of the PRCS. Such means must go beyond just generic
training in this standard, for example, since generic training would
not identify the location of permit spaces at a specific worksite.
Therefore, an equally effective means would identify the PRCS locations
so that employees at the job site who may work near the PRCSs would be
aware of these locations and would understand the importance of not
entering them.
Paragraph (b). The employer would be required to decide if any
employees would be authorized to enter the PRCS. If no employees will
be authorized to enter, entry must be prevented by implementing the
three measures specified below in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of
this proposed section. The Agency believes that these measures would
effectively prevent unauthorized entry into PRCSs and so protect
employees from encountering PRCS hazards.
Paragraph (b)(1). The employer would be required to use barriers to
permanently close the PRCS to prevent access to the PRCS. The use of
barriers helps ensure that the PRCS remains inaccessible to employees.
A barrier is a physical obstruction that blocks access to the PRCS; for
example, a plywood sheet could be installed to cover the entrance, or
2x4s installed in such a manner that some or all of the barrier would
have to be removed to easily enter the space.
Paragraph (b)(2). Under this proposed provision the employer would
be required to post danger signs in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1209. The Agency believes that it is necessary to
use such signs in conjunction with the barrier because, without such
signs, an employee may not understand that the purpose of the barrier
is to keep all employees out of the PRCS. Such signs are particularly
important at construction sites, where construction employees are
accustomed to removing material to gain access to an area.
Paragraph (b)(3). Employers would be required to inform their
employees and the controlling contractor of the location of the closed
PRCS and the measures used to prevent entry into the space. The purpose
of this proposed paragraph is to ensure that all employees, including
employees who are not authorized to enter a PRCS, are informed directly
of the locations of the closed PRCSs and the dangers they pose. As a
result, employees, including those employees who have no experience
working near or within a PRCS, would recognize, and avoid entering, a
PRCS.
Paragraph (c). Under this proposed paragraph, if the employer
decides that one or more employees will be authorized to enter the
PRCS, it would be required to implement specific measures to limit
entry into the PRCS to only those employees authorized to enter.
Compared to the general industry standard, the provisions in this
proposed paragraph provide more specific information to employers about
how to limit PRCS access to authorized entrants at construction
worksites.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i). OSHA believes that to effectively limit entry
into a PRCS, it is necessary to make it physically difficult for non-
authorized employees to enter the space since employees may not take
note of other types of warnings (such as signs) before entering the
space. Therefore, under this proposed provision, employers would be
required to use either barriers or high-visibility physical
restrictions, such as warning lines with flags, installed across the
entrances to the PRCS. High-visibility physical restrictions such as
warning lines with flags would be allowed as an option in this proposed
provision since these restrictions allow authorized employees to enter
the space. Unlike the barriers described above in paragraph (b)(1) of
this proposed section, which must prevent any employee from entering
the PRCS, the purpose of the barriers required by this paragraph is to
warn non-authorized employees not to enter the space while allowing
entry into the PRCS by authorized entrants.
This proposed provision serves a different purpose than the barrier
required below in paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 1926.1210. As
discussed below, the barrier in paragraph (c) of proposed Sec.
1926.1210 would be designed to protect authorized entrants from
external hazards presented by pedestrians and vehicles. In contrast,
the barrier or high-visibility physical restriction in this proposed
provision is designed to prevent non-authorized entrants from entering
the PRCS, while allowing authorized entrants ready access to the PRCS.
Paragraph (c)(1)(ii). Employers would be required to post signs
that comply with paragraph (a)(2) of this proposed section at or near
the entrances to the PRCS. The sign required by this proposed paragraph
would warn employees that it is dangerous to enter the PRCS. The sign
would work in conjunction with the physical restrictions specified in
paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this proposed section to communicate the
presence of hazards within the PRCS.
Paragraph (c)(1)(iii). The employer would have to inform its non-
authorized employees and the controlling contractor of the location of,
and hazards in, the PRCS and the measures used to prevent unauthorized
entry. As with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(3) of this
proposed section, OSHA believes that it is important for the employer
to communicate the location and hazards of the PRCS to its non-
authorized employees. In addition, the controlling contractor is
typically in the best position to disseminate the information about the
PRCS to the other affected employers. OSHA believes that inadvertent
entry into the PRCS by non-authorized employees is less likely to occur
where this information is disseminated.
Paragraph (c)(2). The employer would be required to allow only
employees who are "authorized entrants" as defined above under
proposed Sec. 1926.1203 (Definitions applicable to this subpart) to
enter the PRCS. Paragraph (g) of proposed Sec. 1926.1210 would require
the employer to designate which employees are authorized entrants and
to ensure that these individuals are identified on the current entry
permit in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of proposed Sec.
1926.1214. Only these individuals may enter the PRCS. The Agency
believes that this proposed requirement will help maintain safe PRCS
operations, which to a significant extent depend on the entrants
knowing about the hazards and proper PRCS procedures. Non-authorized
entrants would not typically be trained regarding the hazards and
safety procedures required by the applicable sections of this proposed
standard. Consequently, their presence could compromise not only their
own safety and health, but also the safety and health of other
employees in the PRCS.
Paragraph (d). This proposed paragraph establishes an employer's
duties to train employees the employer anticipates will be in or near
the PRCS.
Paragraph (d)(1). The employer would have to ensure that employees
who will be in or near a PRCS acquire the knowledge and skills
necessary for the safe performance of their duties as specified by the
applicable sections of this proposed standard. The proposed provision
specifically identifies "employees who will be in or near a PRCS" as
entry supervisors, attendants, authorized entrants, and rescue-service
employees. The training must also result in the employees understanding
the hazards in the PRCS that they will be working in or near, and the
methods used to isolate, control, or protect them from these hazards.
For example, if an authorized entrant enters the space to isolate an
identified hazard or to set up ventilation to control an atmospheric
hazard, the employer would be required to ensure that the employee is
trained not only in accordance with the PRCS entry requirements, but
also to perform the tasks necessary to isolate and control the specific
hazards in accordance with other appropriate OSHA requirements
applicable to construction. All employees who enter the space
thereafter must also be trained to understand how the hazards within
the space, if any, have been isolated or controlled. OSHA believes that
the training employees receive under this provision will enable them to
associate the signs, symptoms and characteristic effects (discussed
elsewhere in this preamble) to failure of methods to control or isolate
the hazards. Therefore, this training will enable employees to safely
perform their requisite duties while working in or near the PRCS, and
to respond appropriately if the hazard-protection methods fail.
Paragraph (d)(2). Multiple fatalities could occur when one employee
discovers that another employee has been incapacitated inside a
confined space and goes into the space to rescue the victim, only to
become incapacitated as well. OSHA believes one of the ways the
proposed standard would prevent this type of tragic sequence is by
having separate requirements for those employees who are specifically
authorized to enter the PRCS for rescue and those employees who are
not.
Under this proposed paragraph, the employer would be required to
train employees the employer anticipates will be in or near the PRCS,
and who are not authorized to perform entry rescues, about the dangers
of trying to perform a rescue. This training is especially important
for authorized entrants, attendants, and supervisors since they are
most likely the first to become aware that an employee in the PRCS is
incapacitated.
Paragraph (d)(3). This proposed paragraph specifies when the
employees, notably entry supervisors, attendants, authorized entrants,
and rescue-service employees, would have to be trained under the
requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this proposed section.
The provisions of this proposed paragraph are designed to ensure that
the training would be provided before the employees encounter a PRCS
hazard, thereby ensuring that they can respond promptly and
appropriately to hazards, and that they are aware of the dangers of
attempting entry rescues.
Paragraph (d)(3)(i). The employer would have to ensure that
specified employees (that is, entry supervisors, attendants, authorized
entrants, and rescue-service employees) receive the training required
above in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this proposed section prior to
the beginning of PRCS entry operations (that is, when an authorized
entrant enters the PRCS). This proposed requirement ensures that
employees receive adequate training regarding PRCS hazards before
authorized entrants are exposed to these hazards.
Paragraph (d)(3)(ii). Under this proposed provision, if employees
receive a change in assigned tasks and these changes affect the planned
conditions for the PRCS, then the employer must train these employees
before they enter the PRCS on the newly assigned tasks, including how
to maintain the conditions of the PRCS classification when performing
the tasks. For example, an employee's assignment changes so that he/she
must maintain the proper functioning of ventilation equipment in the
PRCS or perform atmospheric monitoring; before reentering the space,
the employee must be trained to perform such tasks and to understand
their significance to safe PRCS entry operations. This additional
training only applies when employees have not received previous
training on these newly assigned tasks. This proposed provision would
ensure that employees have the knowledge and skills necessary to
perform their newly assigned tasks safely within a PRCS, thereby
preventing errors that could result in substantial harm to themselves
and/or other employees.
Paragraph (d)(3)(iii). The employer would be required to ensure
that authorized entrants exit the PRCS when a new hazard is introduced
or occurs in the PRCS for which the authorized entrants have not
previously received training. The employer then would have to ensure
that all untrained employees the employer anticipates will be in or
near the space to complete training that provides the necessary skills
and knowledge regarding the new hazard before the space is reentered.
An example would be authorized entrants working in a PRCS who, in
the course of their work, discover a previously unknown gas line; none
of the authorized entrants has been trained on the hazards associated
with working in a PRCS that has a gas line. This proposed provision
would require that the employees exit the PRCS (not just the area near
the gas line) until they receive the required training.
Paragraph (d)(4). The employer would have to ensure that employees
that the employer anticipates will be in or near the PRCS can
demonstrate proficiency in the duties required by this proposed
standard, including any new or revised PRCS procedures. This proposed
provision would ensure that employees would not enter a PRCS without
being able to apply the knowledge and procedures addressed in their
training. In other words, the employer must determine that, for each
employee, the training has been effective--that it has resulted in the
employee understanding the information sufficiently so that he/she can
apply it and be proficient in the required duties.
Paragraph (d)(5). The employer would be required to maintain
training records for each employee. The training records would have to
meet several requirements specified by this proposed paragraph. As
explained in the following paragraph, the Agency believes that
maintaining such records is necessary to ensure that employees that
need to be trained in PRCS hazards have received the appropriate
training.
Paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (d)(5)(ii). The training records would
have to show that the employee accomplished the training requirements
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this proposed section
when required. This documentation can take any form that reasonably
demonstrates the employee's completion of the training. Examples
include attachment of test scores, a photocopied card certifying
completion of a class, or any other reasonable means. The records would
also have to contain the employee's name, names of the trainers, and
dates of the training. These records may be stored electronically.
OSHA recognizes that the turnover rate for employees on
construction sites is higher than in many other industries, and that
employees are also likely to work at several different worksites based
on the type of work that needs to be performed. For example, an
employer could designate an employee to be an authorized entrant in
several different confined spaces at the same worksite, which may
require the employee to perform different assigned tasks under various
planned conditions. In this situation, OSHA believes that this
documentation is necessary to keep track of whether the employee has
been effectively trained to perform the various tasks under the planned
conditions. Compliance with this provision would provide employers with
an administrative tool that they can use to confirm which employees
will be able to perform the duties required by this proposed standard.
By providing an easily accessible reference for determining employee
training status, this provision would ensure a safer workplace within
the PRCS.
Paragraph (d)(6). The provisions of this proposed paragraph would
require that an employer ensure that employees be retrained when
specified circumstances occur.
Paragraph (d)(6)(i). Retraining would be required when the employer
has reason to believe that the employee has deviated from the PRCS
entry procedures in proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1209 through 1926.1214. By
retraining employees who deviate from entry procedures, the employer
can better ensure the safety of all employees in a PRCS. OSHA believes
that even one employee can adversely affect the safety of others in a
confined space if he/she deviates from correct entry procedures.
Paragraph (d)(6)(ii). Retraining would also be required when the
employer finds indications that the employee does not have adequate
knowledge and skills regarding PRCS entry procedures. OSHA believes
that employees in a PRCS with inadequate knowledge or skills regarding
these procedures could endanger their lives and also the lives of other
employees in the space.
Paragraph (e). Before any employees enter a PRCS, the employer
would be required to complete arrangements for the rescue of these
employees in accordance with proposed Sec. 1926.1213 (PRCS--rescue
criteria). The Agency believes that this proposed provision is
necessary to ensure that rescue and emergency services will actually be
readily available if they are needed. Note that, in paragraph (e)(2)(iv)
of proposed Sec. 1926.1210, the entry supervisor is specifically required
to verify that this arrangement has been made before authorizing a PRCS entry.
Paragraph (f). The employer would have to develop procedures for
safely terminating entry operations under both planned and emergency
conditions. For example, if ventilation equipment is being used to help
control an atmospheric hazard, safe termination procedures under
planned conditions or emergency conditions would include sequencing
shut-down operations so that the ventilation was not turned off until
the end of the termination process (that is, after employees exit the
PRCS).
Section 1926.1210--PRCS--Preparing for Entry
Once the initial tasks under proposed Sec. 1926.1209 (PRCS--
initial tasks) have been completed, the employer would then have to
meet several requirements under this proposed section before allowing
an employee to enter a PRCS.
Paragraph (a). Before any authorized entrant enters a PRCS, the
employer would be required to prepare an entry permit that meets the
requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.1214 (PRCS--entry permits), and
then post this entry permit where the authorized entrants enter the
PRCS. OSHA believes that making the permit available to all authorized
entrants is necessary because they need to know, and be able to refer
back to, the information that is in the permit to work safely in the
PRCS.
Paragraph (b). This proposed paragraph would require, prior to
removing an entrance cover, that employers eliminate any condition that
makes it unsafe to remove the entrance cover. For example, conditions
such as heat and pressure within the PRCS may pose a danger to
employees removing an entrance cover. In such cases, the cover may be
blown off in the process of its removal, or superheated steam may
suddenly escape and burn the employee. Another example would be where a
sealed cover is removed and toxic gases are released.
To protect employees from these hazards inside the PRCS, the
employer would be required to make a hazard assessment before any cover
is removed. Removal of the cover to the PRCS would not be permitted
until the employer identifies any hazardous conditions related to the
cover's removal and then eliminates those hazards.
Paragraph (c). The purpose of this proposed paragraph is to protect
employees in and around the PRCS from being struck by individuals or
objects outside the PRCS that may fall into the space, or that could
injure the employees when they are near the PRCS. When necessary to
achieve this purpose, this proposed provision requires employers to
promptly: use guardrails or covers as specified in 29 CFR 1926.502
(Fall protection systems criteria and practices) of subpart M (Fall
Protection) to guard holes and openings into the space from falling
individuals and objects, and institute measures to control pedestrian
and vehicle traffic in accordance with the requirements in 29 CFR Part
1926 subpart G (Signs, Signals, and Barricades).
Paragraph (d). Employers would be required to ensure that a safe
method of entering and exiting a PRCS (such as stairways or ladders) is
provided and used, and that it meets applicable OSHA requirements (such
as 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart X (Stairways and Ladders)). For example,
where the employees are working in an underground vault, the employer
would be required to provide and ensure the use of a safe means of
entry into and exit from an underground vault, and, if applicable,
ensure that the method complies with OSHA standards.
This proposed paragraph also would require that if a hoisting
system is used, it must be designed and manufactured for personnel
hoisting. This proposed provision also allows for the use of job-made
hoisting systems if these systems are approved for personnel hoisting
by a registered professional engineer prior to use in PRCS entry
operations.
However, commercial hoisting systems not designed and manufactured
specifically for personnel hoisting would not be permissible under this
proposed provision because OSHA believes they cannot be used safely for
this purpose. This proposed requirement would eliminate further
injuries and deaths of employees that could occur from the use of a
hoisting system that was not designed specifically for personnel
hoisting. The provision would give the employer flexibility in its
choice of personnel hoisting systems by allowing a registered
professional engineer to approve a job-made system. OSHA believes that
either option would ensure that the personnel hoisting system will meet
the design specifications needed for employees to safely access the
PRCS.
This proposed provision would ensure that authorized entrants
always have a safe and effective means of entering and exiting the
space, including escaping from it in an emergency. These means include
systems that are designed and manufactured for personnel hoisting and
job-made hoisting systems approved by a registered professional
engineer, even when these systems are not covered by an OSHA standard.
Paragraph (e). The provisions under this proposed paragraph
delineate the requirements for an entry supervisor. These proposed
requirements focus overall coordination of PRCS entry operations on the
entry supervisor, and provide that person with authority to terminate
PRCS entry operations and to cancel the entry permit. By centralizing
these duties in a single individual who is highly knowledgeable
regarding PRCS entry operations, these proposed requirements would
substantially enhance the safety of affected employees, especially
authorized entrants.
Paragraph (e)(1). The employer would be required to assign at least
one entry supervisor for each worksite where there is a PRCS. OSHA
believes that many of the accidents that occur in confined spaces are
the result of an employer's failure to implement confined-space entry
procedures. To help prevent such accidents, the Agency believes that it
is necessary for the employer to not only establish safe procedures for
PRCS entry, but to also ensure that these protective procedures are
implemented. Therefore, to ensure that the protective entry procedures
are implemented, this proposed paragraph requires the employer to
assign an entry supervisor for the PRCS who would coordinate procedures
for entering the PRCS. Accordingly, the entry supervisor has specific
duties that must be fulfilled to ensure a safe workplace for those
employees the employer anticipates will be in or near the PRCS. The
employer would be required to ensure that the assigned individual meets
the qualifications and performs the duties specified in paragraph
(e)(2) of this proposed section.
Paragraph (e)(2)(i). The employer would be required to ensure that
the entry supervisor knows the physical and atmospheric hazards in the
PRCS. It is essential for the entry supervisor to know this information
since it forms the basis for the PRCS procedures that would be used to
protect the affected employees.
Paragraph (e)(2)(ii). The employer would be required to ensure that
the entry supervisor knows how the hazards enter the body (for example,
by skin contact or inhalation), as well as the signs, symptoms, and
characteristic effects (including behavioral effects) of exposure to
these hazards. As an individual with the authority to order the
evacuation of the PRCS and cancel the entry permit, it is essential
that the entry supervisor recognize hazardous conditions and telltale
indications (signs, symptoms, and characteristic effects) that a hazard is
affecting employees in or near the PRCS operations. By meeting the
knowledge requirements of this proposed paragraph, the entry supervisor
would be better prepared to identify emergency situations by observing
employees involved in entry operations.
Paragraph (e)(2)(iii). The employer would have to ensure that the
entry supervisor verifies (by checking appropriate entries in the
permit) the completion of atmospheric testing specified in the entry
permit, that the conditions in the PRCS are within the planned
conditions as defined in accordance with paragraph (b) of proposed
1926.1208 and as listed in the entry permit, and that any other
procedures and equipment specified in the entry permit are in place.
These preliminary checks are necessary to ensure that the conditions in
the space are within the planned conditions--hazard levels are as
planned, and protective measures are already in place, working
properly, and are effective--before entry operations commence.
Paragraph (e)(2)(iv). The employer would be required to ensure that
the entry supervisor verifies that the entry rescue service (selected
in accordance with paragraph (e) of proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1209 and
proposed 1926.1213) is available to perform their rescue duties and
that the means for timely summoning the entry rescue service is
operating properly. Since the employer would be required to assign
authority for safe permit entry operations to the entry supervisor, it
is reasonable and consistent with the rescue provisions to specify that
the entry supervisor verify that the entry rescue service is available
and the means of summoning it in a timely manner is functioning
properly.
Paragraph (e)(2)(v). After the entry supervisor makes the
verifications required by paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) and (e)(2)(iv) of this
proposed section, the employer would be required to ensure that the
entry supervisor signs the entry permit to authorize employees to enter
the PRCS. OSHA believes that it is important for all employees the
employer anticipates will be in or near the PRCS to be able to know who
the persons are who have authority and responsibility with respect to
maintaining safe conditions during entry operations. If an employee
discovers an unsafe condition or symptoms caused by an unsafe
condition, it is important for the employee to be able to notify a
person (such as the entry supervisor) with the authority and
responsibility for correcting the hazard and for evacuating the PRCS.
In addition, the signature requirement underscores to the employer and
the entry supervisor the importance of their determination that the
prerequisites for safe entry listed in the permit have been met.
Paragraph (e)(2)(vi). The employer would be required to ensure that
the entry supervisor terminates PRCS entry operations in accordance
with paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1212 (Supervisor
requirements) of this proposed standard. For an explanation of this
proposed requirement, see the discussion under paragraph (b) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1212 of this preamble.
Paragraph (f). The provisions of this proposed paragraph specify
the requirements for attendants. These proposed requirements would help
to ensure the safety of employees in or near the PRCS.
Paragraph (f)(1). The employer would be required to station an
attendant outside the PRCS for the duration of the entry operation. The
rationale for assigning attendants to a PRCS is similar to the
rationale for assigning entry supervisors to these confined spaces (see
paragraph (e)(1) of this proposed section). Although an attendant does
not have the overall responsibility for employee safety and health
assigned to the entry supervisor, the attendant is a crucial link in
the communication chain between the entry supervisor, rescue
operations, and the authorized entrants.
It is extremely important that the attendants understand their
duties, stay in contact with the entrants, and remain alert to
conditions inside and outside the PRCS. The attendant may be in the
best position to warn the entrants of hazardous conditions developing
outside the space and impending danger within the space, and to
recognize physical and behavioral changes in the entrants that would
indicate that conditions within the space may be deteriorating. In
cases where the entrant becomes incapacitated, the attendant often is
an entrant's only contact with individuals outside the confined space.
Without the attendant, many emergencies in the space would not be
detected and help would not be summoned until it is too late.
One of the main duties of the attendant is to recognize hazardous
conditions that are occurring inside the PRCS and to communicate this
information to rescue personnel in emergency situations. If the
attendant was inside the space, the attendant could become
incapacitated if an emergency occurred and rendered unable to perform
the very duties that are necessary to protect the other employees. The
attendant would often be the first (and sometimes only) person to
recognize unacceptable conditions or signs of hazardous conditions
within the space. Therefore, it is imperative that the attendant remain
outside of the PRCS to monitor the space and to contact and help
coordinate rescue personnel during times of emergency.
Paragraph (f)(2). The employer would be required to ensure that the
attendant knows the hazards associated with the PRCS, how these hazards
enter the body, and the signs, symptoms, and characteristic effects
that can result from those hazards. Knowing this information is crucial
for the attendants to perform their duties because they must be able to
recognize when there are indications that the planned conditions in the
PRCS are not being met--that something is wrong with the system of
employee protection. Because attendants would be able to easily
communicate with entrants and entry supervisors, their recognition of
deviations from the planned conditions and of the signs, symptoms and
characteristic effects that might indicate exposure to a hazard will
help enable a timely evacuation of the PRCS.
Paragraph (f)(2)(i). The employer would be required to ensure that
attendants know the physical and atmospheric hazards in the PRCS. OSHA
believes that knowing the hazards within the space includes being able
to both recognize and understand them.
Paragraph (f)(2)(ii). The employer would be required to ensure that
attendants know how the hazards may potentially enter the body (for
example, skin contact and inhalation), the signs and symptoms of coming
into contact with a hazard, and characteristic effects (including
behavioral effects) of the hazards. OSHA believes this proposed
requirement is necessary because the attendant is likely to be in a
position to quickly recognize deteriorating conditions within the space
and communicate the need for an immediate evacuation. For instance,
subtle behavioral changes/effects detected in an entrant's speech or
deviations in established communication procedures could alert the
attendant that it is necessary for the entrant to evacuate the space or
to be rescued.
Paragraph (f)(3). Under this proposed provision, the employer would
be permitted to assign a single attendant to monitor more than one PRCS
only when the requirements in this proposed paragraph are met. OSHA
acknowledges that, although it is best to have one attendant outside
each PRCS, there may be situations when one attendant can
effectively monitor multiple PRCSs. The ability to monitor multiple
PRCS sites allows employers maximum flexibility in providing for the
safety of employees where site-specific factors permit the attendant to
do so. For instance, in some circumstances a single attendant equipped
with modern technologies such as automated monitor/alarm systems and
audio-video equipment may be able to monitor multiple sites and react
to emergency conditions as effectively as a single attendant at each
space.
Paragraph (f)(3)(i). The employer would be required to ensure that
attendants are able to completely and accurately perform all duties
assigned to them under paragraph (f) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211
(Attendant duties). The attendants must be able to perform these duties
at each individual PRCS without compromising the performance of their
duties at any other PRCS site they are responsible for monitoring.
Therefore, OSHA believes that to effectively monitor multiple PRCSs
without compromising the safety of the entrants in any one of the
PRCSs, employers must meet the requirements of paragraph (f) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1211 for each PRCS.
Paragraph (f)(3)(ii). The employer would be required to provide the
equipment and procedures needed by an attendant to respond to an
emergency affecting any of the PRCSs he/she is assigned to monitor.
Examples of such equipment include electronic equipment (for example,
electronic audio and video tools) that enables the attendant to detect
what is occurring inside the multiple PRCSs without the attendant
having to simultaneously be physically present at each PRCS entrance.
If an employer chooses to require an attendant to monitor multiple
PRCSs, the employer would have to provide all of the equipment
necessary for the attendant to fulfill the required duties. OSHA
believes that it is unrealistic to expect an attendant to be able to
adequately perform those duties without the equipment necessary to
accomplish the tasks assigned in paragraph (f) of proposed Sec.
1926.1211. z
Paragraph (g). The provisions of this proposed paragraph address
requirements regarding authorized entrants. OSHA believes that these
employees face the greatest danger from the PRCS because they will be
working in or near the hazards that pose serious safety and/or health
risks. To ensure safe PRCS entry operations it is necessary for
employers to limit PRCS entry to those employees who have the requisite
knowledge about the hazards.
Paragraph (g)(1). The employer would be required to designate which
employees are authorized to enter a specific PRCS. For example, when
there is a worksite with five separate PRCSs where employees will be
performing construction activities, the employer would be required to
designate the specific employees who are authorized to enter specific
PRCSs. Only those employees whom the employer designates as authorized
(and are documented in the entry permit) are allowed to enter the
designated PRCS.
Paragraph (g)(2). This proposed paragraph would require the
employer to ensure that the authorized entrants know about the hazards
associated with the PRCS they will be entering, and the characteristics
associated with each particular hazard. This knowledge would afford
authorized entrants with the information they need to protect
themselves from these hazards.
Paragraph (g)(2)(i). The employer would be required to ensure that
the authorized entrants know the physical and atmospheric hazards in
PRCSs they are authorized to enter. This proposed requirement is
similar to requirements described above for entry supervisors and
attendants in Sec. Sec. 1926.1210(e) (Entry supervisor) and (f)
(Attendant) of this proposed section.
Paragraph (g)(2)(ii). The employer would be required to ensure that
authorized entrants know how the hazards may enter the body (skin
contact, inhalation), as well as signs and symptoms, and characteristic
effects (including behavioral effects) that the hazards may cause. This
proposed provision is similar to paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii)
of this proposed section, which specify knowledge requirements for
entry supervisors and attendants. It is particularly important for the
authorized entrants to have this knowledge, since it may help them
avoid PRCS hazards. For example, if an accident occurs in which an
employee's protective equipment is cut, a hazardous chemical gets on
his/her skin, and the employee knows that the chemical can enter the
body through skin contact, the likelihood that the employee will
immediately seek help is enhanced. Another example is if an authorized
entrant sees unusual behavior in another authorized entrant and knows
that the behavior is a symptom of exposure to a hazard, the authorized
entrant will more likely recognize that an emergency is occurring and
take appropriate action.
Paragraph (h). This proposed paragraph sets forth the criteria for
assigning simultaneous roles to authorized entrants, attendants, and
entry supervisors.
Paragraph (h)(1). The employer would be required to ensure that
employees do not serve as authorized entrants and attendants
simultaneously. OSHA believes that the roles of authorized entrant and
attendant are fundamentally incompatible since, under paragraph (f)(1)
of proposed Sec. 1926.1210, the attendant must be stationed outside
the space for the duration of the entry operation (as explained in the
discussion of paragraph (f)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.1210). In
addition, the Agency believes that trying to perform both roles
simultaneously would be too distracting to perform either position
effectively.
Paragraph (h)(2) and (h)(3). An employer would be permitted to have
an attendant or authorized entrant serve simultaneously as an entry
supervisor only if the employer ensures that the person meets all the
requirements under this proposed standard applicable to that person's
assigned roles. These provisions would, in effect, require employers to
first assess the type and extent of the assigned tasks associated with
each role and determine that the roles do not interfere with each
other.
Paragraph (i). OSHA is reserving this paragraph because it is
difficult for readers to have to distinguish if the letter (i) is being
used as a letter or as a roman numeral.
Paragraph (j). The employer would be required to provide, and
ensure the use of, equipment necessary to maintain safe conditions in a
PRCS. OSHA believes that providing such equipment, and using it
correctly, would prevent injuries and fatalities in PRCSs. Accordingly,
the purpose of this proposed paragraph is to ensure the availability
and proper use of whatever equipment is necessary to reduce the dangers
posed by PRCSs.
Paragraph (j)(1). The employer would be required to provide
communication equipment necessary for compliance with paragraphs
(f)(5), (g)(2), and (h)(2) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211 (requirements
for entrant-to-attendant communication and rescue-service summoning
requirements, respectively). Such equipment may be of a variety of
types (for example, cell phones, two-way hand-held radios), so long as
it is effective. If there is weak or unpredictable signal strength
where the device is used, the device would not meet the requirements of
the proposed standard. Properly operating communication equipment is
essential in relaying information to persons of authority regarding
potentially dangerous changes in the PRCS conditions. Such information is
necessary to monitor the hazards within the space and to provide guidance
on methods appropriate for protecting or removing employees from those hazards.
Paragraph (j)(2). The employer would be required to provide
lighting equipment to illuminate PRCSs that provides the illumination
levels specified by 29 CFR 1926.56 (Illumination). OSHA believes that
this proposed requirement would assist employees in conducting safe
PRCS operations, including safe escape from a PRCS if necessary.
Paragraph (j)(3). The employer would be required to provide
railings, covers, or barriers as required in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1209 and paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 1926.1210.
OSHA believes that this proposed requirement is necessary to keep
unauthorized employees from entering the PRCS and to help protect
employees inside the PRCS from being struck by objects and individuals
falling into the PRCSs. When providing this equipment, employers must
ensure that it complies with the requirements of other applicable OSHA
standards (for example, guardrails must meet the requirements of 29 CFR
1926.502(b) (Guardrail systems), covers must conform to 29 CFR
1926.502(i) (Covers)).
Paragraph (j)(4). The employer would be required to provide and
ensure the use of equipment, such as ladders, needed for safe entry
into and exit from the PRCS. In doing so, employers must ensure that
this equipment, including its use by employees, complies with the
requirements of the applicable OSHA standards (for example, 29 CFR Part
1926 subpart X for ladders and stairways, 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart L
for scaffolds). This equipment is critical under emergency-egress
conditions to ensure that employees exit a PRCS in a timely and safe
manner.
Paragraph (j)(5). The employer would be required to provide rescue
and emergency equipment that complies with proposed Sec. 1926.1213
(PRCS--rescue criteria), unless an entry rescue service provides its
own rescue and emergency equipment. This proposed paragraph would
ensure that the proper equipment is provided for rescuing authorized
entrants in the event of an emergency in a PRCS.
Paragraph (j)(6). The employer would be required to provide any
other equipment necessary for the safe rescue of employees working in
or near a PRCS. OSHA believes this proposed requirement would address
hazards that are unique to a PRCS rescue, thereby ensuring that
employees receive adequate protection from these hazards under
emergency conditions. Accordingly, the employer would have to identify
this additional equipment, if any, after conducting an assessment of
the PRCS as required by the applicable sections of this proposed
standard.
Paragraph (k). The employer would be required to document in the
entry permit determinations made and actions taken pursuant to the
paragraphs (b) through (j) of this proposed section. OSHA believes that
proper implementation of these complex and critical safe-entry
procedures depends on adequate documentation. Therefore, this proposed
provision requires employers to document relevant information about the
PRCS in the permit that it obtains while preparing for entry
operations; this information pertains to the isolation of hazards,
planned conditions, and other information required for safe PRCS entry.
For example, the actions an employer takes to remove a pressurized or
extremely heavy manhole cover (a physical hazard) as required by
paragraph (b) of this proposed section is the type of information that
employers would have to include in the entry permit. In contrast, this
provision would not require employers to document all the information
specified in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this proposed section,
"only determinations made" and "actions taken"; for example,
employers would not have to document on the entry permit whether an
entry supervisor meets the requirements specified in paragraph (e)(2)
of this proposed section (Entry supervisor requirements) before
assigning the applicable duties, nor would they have to document
information already required under paragraph (a) of proposed Sec.
1926.1214. (See the sample entry permit in Appendix B of this proposed
standard for an example of the type of information that may be required
under this proposed provision.)
The information provided in the entry permit under this proposed
paragraph would help the entry supervisor ensure that all required
safety steps are complete before authorizing entry into the PRCS.
Furthermore, including this information in the entry permit provides a
ready reference for questions that may arise from authorized entrants
and their authorized representative about whether conditions in or
around the PRCS deviate from planned conditions and, if so, for the
entrants to initiate an evacuation of the PRCS.
Section 1926.1211--PRCS--During Entry
This proposed section details the requirements that would apply
while any employee is in a PRCS. The proposed requirements address the
duties of entry supervisors, attendants, and authorized entrants, as
well as hazard monitoring and rescue.
Paragraph (a). The employer would be required to ensure that
physical and atmospheric hazards in the PRCS remain isolated or
controlled, or that the employees remain protected from them, in
accordance with the determinations made under proposed Sec. 1926.1208
(Permit-required confined spaces), while any employee is in the PRCS.
If the employer cannot maintain isolation or control of the physical
and atmospheric hazards, or protect employees from these hazards,
within the parameters established under proposed Sec. 1926.1208, then
the employer would be required to terminate the entry.
Paragraph (b). The employer would be required to monitor
atmospheric hazards in accordance with the requirements specified in
proposed Sec. 1926.1205 (Atmospheric testing and monitoring) while
employees are in the PRCS. Monitoring must be continuous unless the
employer can demonstrate that the equipment is not commercially
available or periodic monitoring is sufficient. In contrast to many
general industry PRCSs, in the typical PRCS construction setting, it is
often difficult for the employer to predict with reasonable certainty
the levels of hazardous atmospheres. In many instances the employer
will have little or no past experience with the particular PRCS, and
will lack reliable historical data on hazard levels. Also, the PRCS may
be altered as construction work progresses in ways that may cause
unexpected increases in hazard levels. For example, changes to the wall
of a PRCS may allow hazardous gasses to enter the space at higher
levels than before the wall was altered.
In addition, construction equipment in the space may not operate as
expected and may discharge hazardous gasses at a higher rate than
anticipated. In short, construction work tends to follow a less
predictable course than work covered by the general industry standard
and, thus, requires atmospheric monitoring more frequently. Because of
this high level of unpredictability, OSHA believes that continuous
monitoring will normally be needed to ensure that affected employees,
especially the entrants, are protected. This proposed provision
would enable deteriorating conditions to be recognized quickly and new
atmospheric hazards identified in time to take the actions required to
protect the employees.
The Agency recognizes, however, that in some PRCSs, especially when
the same PRCS has been repeatedly entered and monitored and found to
have a stable atmosphere (such as a remote location that is not
proximate to potential sources of atmospheric hazards), the employer
may be able to show that periodic monitoring will be sufficient to
ensure that the conditions in the PRCS remain within planned
conditions. However, when periodic monitoring is used, it must be of
sufficient frequency to ensure that atmospheric hazards are being
controlled as planned and that new hazards would be detected in time to
protect the employees. In some cases, continuous monitoring may not be
possible; for example, continuous monitoring typically is not available
when the atmospheric hazard is a particulate. Therefore, when the
employer can show that periodic monitoring is adequate, or demonstrate
that the technology for continuous monitoring is not available, OSHA
would permit the employer to use effective periodic monitoring instead
of continuous monitoring.
Paragraph (c). This proposed paragraph specifies that the employer
must document the procedures used, and the monitoring results obtained,
under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this proposed section by entering this
information in the entry permit in accordance with paragraph (a) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1214 (Contents). OSHA believes that it is important
that the entry supervisor have before him/her readily available
evidence that pre-entry conditions have been checked and the results of
the tests noted. Additionally, the authorized entrants will be able to
check the permit to confirm that testing has been done and that safe
conditions exist. The entrants and attendants would have this
information readily available to facilitate identifying when current
conditions in or near the confined space begin to deviate from pre-
entry conditions and take appropriate precautions.
Paragraph (d). This proposed paragraph specifies the duties of the
entry supervisor that the employer would have to ensure are met while
employees are in the PRCS.
Paragraph (d)(1). The entry supervisor would have the duty of
ensuring that entry conditions are being properly monitored and that
they remain consistent with the planned conditions specified in the
entry permit. By requiring the employer to have an individual on site
with this authority, the likelihood that the required monitoring and
adherence to planned conditions will be met, which is critical to the
successful implementation of safe PRCS procedures, would be enhanced.
Paragraph (d)(2). The employer would be required to ensure that the
entry supervisor removes individuals who are not authorized entrants
who enter or attempt to enter a PRCS. Unauthorized entrants lack the
safety training necessary to work in the PRCS, and their presence was
not planned for in developing the entry permit. Their presence not only
poses a danger to themselves, but may also endanger the authorized
entrants in the space.
Paragraph (d)(3). The provisions of this proposed paragraph
identify the conditions under which employers are to ensure that an
entry supervisor evacuates authorized entrants from a PRCS as quickly
as possible. For example, the employer would be required to ensure that
the entry supervisor orders authorized entrants to exit the PRCS when
the entry supervisor detects (such as by seeing a reading on a gas
monitor) or learns of (such as by hearing a warning from an employee)
one of the conditions listed in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this proposed
section. OSHA believes that each of these conditions represents
potential precursors to serious safety hazards that threaten the health
and well being of employees working in and near the PRCS.
Paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A). The employer would be required to ensure
that the entry supervisor orders authorized entrants to exit the PRCS
when the entry supervisor detects or learns of an unplanned condition
(for example, a new hazard or a hazard level that exceeds the planned
level) in or near the PRCS. Employees need to be removed from the PRCS
as quickly as possible in such cases because the safety procedures
delineated in the permit are designed to work in the context of
conditions in the space staying within the planned parameters.
Paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B). The employer would be required to ensure
that the entry supervisor orders the PRCS evacuated if he/she detects
or learns of a sign, symptom, unusual behavior, or other effect of a
hazard in authorized entrants. OSHA believes that these effects may
indicate that conditions within the PRCS are deviating from the
conditions specified in the entry permit. Such indications may result
from a new hazard, a hazard level that exceeds planned levels, or from
personal protective equipment that is not working as planned. In such
circumstances, removal from the space is necessary to protect the
employees.
Paragraph (d)(3)(i)(C). The employer would be required to ensure
that the entry supervisor orders authorized entrants to exit the PRCS
when an evacuation alarm, if used, indicates an emergency. These alarms
may be atmospheric or engulfment-hazard monitor alarms or alarms
manually activated by an authorized entrant or other employee. This
proposed provision would provide protection to entrants by removing
them from a PRCS in the event of a warning of impending danger.
Paragraph (d)(3)(i)(D). The employer would be required to ensure
that the entry supervisor orders the authorized entrants to exit the
space when a situation outside the PRCS occurs that could endanger the
entrants. OSHA recognizes that the work environment on construction
sites often involves multiple tasks occurring simultaneously, often by
different contractors. Sometimes conditions or activities outside the
PRCS can pose a hazard for employees inside the PRCS. Some examples are
equipment or materials blocking a PRCS entrance, dangerous approaching
storms, and exhaust from vehicles or generators. Another example that
would trigger this proposed requirement would be a spilling of a toxic
chemical outside the PRCS where there is a possibility that the
chemical or its gasses could migrate into the PRCS.
Paragraph (d)(3)(ii). The employer would be required to ensure that
the entry supervisor orders the authorized entrants to exit the space
if the entry supervisor can no longer perform effectively and safely
all of the duties specified by paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Sec.
1926.1210 (Entry supervisor requirements), and no new entry supervisor
was immediately available to serve as a replacement. OSHA believes this
proposed requirement is necessary because of the importance of the
entry supervisor in implementing safe entry procedures.
Paragraph (d)(4). Under this proposed paragraph, employers must
ensure that the entry supervisor cancels the entry permit under the
three specified circumstances. Nothing in this proposed standard
precludes an entry supervisor from being given authority to cancel
permits for additional reasons not specified by this proposed
paragraph. However, under this proposed provision, if any of these
three circumstances occurs, then the employer must ensure that the
entry supervisor cancels the entry permit.
If an evacuation is required under paragraph (d)(3) of proposed
Sec. 1926.1211 (Evacuation), or any of the conditions that require a
reassessment under paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1207 occurs,
the entry supervisor would be required to cancel the entry permit. This
proposed requirement is necessary because if either of these
circumstances arises, safe operations cannot be assured until the entry
conditions and entry procedures are reassessed. It also is necessary to
cancel the entry permit once the entry operations covered by the entry
permit have been completed because, at the completion of those
operations, conditions in the space may have changed. Safe re-entry
would, therefore, necessitate a new permit.
Paragraph (e). In the event that supervisor duties are transferred
from one entry supervisor to another entry supervisor, the employer
would be required to ensure that the new entry supervisor meets the
requirements specified for entry supervisors before assuming these
duties. OSHA recognizes that entry supervisors will need to be replaced
occasionally for various reasons (for example, shift changes, lunch
breaks, and regular rotations to other tasks at the job site). This
proposed requirement is necessary to ensure that the new entry
supervisor has the requisite knowledge and authority to assume this
role.
Paragraph (e)(1). The employer would be required to ensure that a
new entry supervisor meets the requirements specified in paragraph
(e)(2) of proposed Sec. 1926.1210 (Entry supervisor requirements). In
such cases, it is imperative that the replacement supervisor have the
requisite knowledge and authority for serving as the entry supervisor.
Paragraph (e)(2). The employer would be required to ensure that the
new entry supervisor reviews the entry permit and verifies that entry
conditions are consistent with the planned conditions specified in the
entry permit. OSHA believes that it is important for a new entry
supervisor to review the entry permit and determine whether the planned
entry conditions have been maintained, just as it was important for the
original entry supervisor to do so upon initial entry into the space.
Furthermore, by reviewing the permit the new entry supervisor will
become familiar with the current entry conditions and check for
consistency with the planned entry conditions specified in the permit.
By ensuring that each entry supervisor verifies entry conditions
immediately upon taking responsibility for the PRCS, the overall
continuity of safety can be better maintained.
Paragraph (e)(3). The employer would be required to ensure that the
new entry supervisor also signs the entry permit. The purpose of this
proposed requirement is to distinguish the current entry supervisor on
the job site from the individual he/she has replaced. Because the entry
supervisor may need to be summoned in time of emergency, it is a
benefit to have information about the conditions of the PRCS, and the
persons responsible for safe entry into the space, available in one
place. In addition, the signature requirement underscores to the
employer and the entry supervisor the importance of his/her
determination that the prerequisites for safe entry listed in the
permit are being met.
Paragraph (f). The provisions of this proposed paragraph list the
duties an attendant must perform to maintain a safe work environment in
the PRCS while any authorized entrant is in a PRCS.
Paragraph (f)(1). The employer would be required to ensure that
each attendant continuously maintains an accurate count of the
authorized entrants who are in the PRCS. A continuously accurate count
is necessary because, in the event of an evacuation, it would be needed
to ascertain if all of the entrants have exited the space.
Paragraph (f)(2). The employer would be required to ensure that the
attendant has the means to accurately identify authorized entrants who
are in the PRCS; paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of proposed Sec. 1926.1214
(Personnel, equipment, and procedures) provides information regarding
methods that employers may use to meet this proposed requirement. The
Agency believes that this proposed requirement is necessary because in
some instances, in the event of an evacuation in which not all
authorized entrants exit the space, having the names of the authorized
entrants can help in determining the location of the employees who
remain in the PRCS, thereby assisting in their rescue.
Paragraph (f)(3). The employer would be required to ensure that an
attendant remains at a location outside of the PRCS that allows the
attendant to fully perform the duties and responsibilities specified in
this proposed section, and does so until properly relieved by another
attendant. Accordingly, the attendant would be prohibited from entering
the PRCS while performing attendant duties. The reasons for prohibiting
the attendant from entering the space were explained above with respect
to paragraph (f) of proposed Sec. 1926.1210 (Attendant). The attendant
also is prohibited from entering for rescue purposes unless all of the
following occur: He/she is relieved of his/her assignment as an
attendant and replaced by another attendant, and has been trained and
equipped to perform an entry rescue in accordance with proposed Sec.
1926.1213 (PRCS--rescue criteria).
Note that, under this proposed provision, an attendant must remain
outside the PRCS and therefore is prohibited from simultaneously
serving as an attendant and authorized entrant. This prohibition is
needed because the two functions are incompatible. The attendant must
be outside the space at all times so that, if an unsafe condition
arises in the space, the attendant will not be affected by that
condition. As the key link in arranging for the rescue of the entrants,
it is critical that the attendant not be affected by those conditions.
Paragraph (f)(4). The employer would be required to ensure that an
attendant monitors entry conditions to determine if they are consistent
with the entry permit. Given the speed with which some PRCS hazards can
incapacitate and kill authorized entrants, it is essential that the
attendant recognize any changes in entry conditions that would indicate
that the PRCS must be evacuated. OSHA believes that the earlier the
attendant detects changes in entry conditions, the more probable that
self-rescue of the entrants can be achieved in lieu of performing other
rescue procedures. Monitoring the conditions within the PRCS is a
critical element in such a system.
Paragraph (f)(5). The employer would be required to ensure that the
attendant communicates with authorized entrants as necessary to monitor
their status and to alert them of the need to evacuate the PRCS as
specified below in paragraph (g)(2) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211. OSHA
believes that an authorized entrant's communication with the attendant
provides information that the attendant needs to determine if the entry
can be allowed to continue. For example, subtle behavioral changes
detected in the entrant's speech or deviation from set communication
procedures could alert the attendant that it is necessary to evacuate
or rescue the entrant. In addition, if the need arises, the attendant
must communicate an order to evacuate to the entrants since the
entrants may not know that there is an emergency.
Paragraph (f)(6). The employer would be required to ensure that the
attendant monitors activities inside and outside the PRCS to determine
if the PRCS remains safe for authorized entrants. This proposed requirement
is similar to paragraph (f)(4) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211, except the focus
is on activities that may adversely influence conditions in the PRCS. As
explained below regarding paragraph (f)(12)(i)(D) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211,
activities outside the space may pose dangers to the authorized entrants in
the PRCS. Typically, the authorized entrants will not be able to see or hear
what is going on outside the PRCS, and will be preoccupied with their tasks
in the space. Also, the authorized entrants may not be aware of adverse
effects of activities that are taking place inside the space.
Consequently, the attendant needs to have a high level of awareness
about how activities occurring inside and outside the space may affect
the authorized entrants.
Paragraph (f)(7). The employer would be required to ensure that the
attendant informs the employer when a non-entry or entry rescue begins,
or when an authorized entrant may need medical aid or assistance in
escaping from the PRCS. Initiation of a rescue, or a belief by the
attendant that there may be a need for medical assistance or assistance
in escaping the PRCS, signals a serious incident in which additional
help may be needed. That information needs to be conveyed to the
employer so that arrangements for such additional help, if necessary,
can be facilitated. It also informs the employer that the PRCS may need
to be reassessed before additional work can take place inside the
space.
Paragraph (f)(8). This proposed provision would require employers
to ensure that the attendant performs non-entry rescues as specified
below by paragraph (h)(1) of this proposed section and by paragraph (a)
of proposed Sec. 1926.1213 (Non-entry rescue criteria). When properly
executed, the attendant's performance of non-entry rescue can be the
fastest and most effective means of successfully rescuing an entrant,
while preventing injuries and deaths that may result from improperly
executed entry rescue operations.
Paragraph (f)(9). The employer would be required to prohibit the
attendant from entering the PRCS for rescue purposes unless the
employer provides the appropriate training and equipment specified
below in paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 1926.1213 (Protecting and
training rescue-service employees), and ensures that another attendant
properly relieves the attendant prior to performing the entry rescue.
As discussed above in paragraph (f)(3) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211, the
attendant must remain outside of the PRCS during a rescue operation
until relieved by another attendant. Only when the relieved attendant
is equipped and trained to perform a rescue in accordance with this
proposed standard would that person be permitted to enter the PRCS for
a rescue.
OSHA believes that these requirements are necessary to prevent
multiple fatalities occurring when an untrained and unequipped
attendant discovers that a co-worker has been incapacitated inside a
PRCS and enters the PRCS to rescue the victim, only to also become
incapacitated. Proper training and equipment, as well as an attendant
outside the space, are prerequisites for safely rescuing, and rendering
appropriate medical assistance to, the injured or incapacitated
authorized entrant.
Paragraph (f)(10). The employer would be required to prohibit the
attendant from performing any task that would interfere with the
primary duty of monitoring and protecting the authorized entrants. The
Agency believes that authorized entrants will be endangered if the
attendant is distracted from these duties. If an attendant performs a
task that diverts his/her attention from the attendant duties, an
emergency condition inside or outside the space could go undetected
until it is too late. OSHA also recognizes that some tasks,
particularly those that enhance the attendant's knowledge of conditions
in the permit space, can be performed safely by the attendant. For
example, passing tools to authorized entrants and remote monitoring of
the atmosphere of the PRCS are among the types of duties that would be
permitted, provided that the attendant does not enter the PRCS.
Activities requiring close and/or prolonged concentration, or those
requiring that the attendant be away from his/her post outside the
PRCS, would likely interfere with attendant duties and, thus, could
generally not be assigned to or performed by an attendant.
Paragraph (f)(11). The employer would be required to ensure that an
attendant warns any individual who is not an authorized entrant and
approaches the PRCS to stay away from the PRCS. If a person enters the
space who is not an authorized entrant, the attendant must tell the
individual to exit the space immediately and inform the entrants and
entry supervisor of the unauthorized entry. OSHA recognizes that there
are individuals who may mistakenly believe that they are supposed to
work on a task in the space or who may simply wander by or into the
space unaware of the dangers of the PRCS. Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed
Sec. 1926.1209 would require the employer to notify the controlling
contractor and the employees the employer anticipates will be working
in or near the PRCS, and their authorized representatives, about the
location of and dangers posed by the space. However, if someone other
than an authorized entrant happens to approach the PRCS, OSHA believes
it is necessary to have the attendant make that individual aware that
he/she must stay away from the PRCS.
Because an attendant may not have supervisory authority, or because
the errant individual may work for another contractor at a multi-
employer construction site, an attendant may not have the authority to
stop unauthorized individuals from entering the PRCS or require them to
exit once they are inside. Therefore, the proposed provision would
require the attendant to notify the entry supervisor, along with the
authorized entrants, of this situation.
Paragraph (f)(12). The employer would be required to ensure that
the attendant orders the authorized entrants to exit the space as
quickly as possible when any of the conditions listed in provisions
(f)(12)(i) or (f)(12)(ii) of this proposed paragraph exist. This
responsibility mirrors the requirements for entry supervisors specified
in paragraph (d)(3) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211 (Evacuation).
Paragraph (g). Under the provisions of this proposed paragraph, the
employer must ensure that authorized entrants perform specific duties
that will ensure their safety during entry operations, or during
evacuation or rescue from the PRCS. These duties include using
retrieval equipment properly, communicating regularly with the
attendant for monitoring purposes, informing the attendant of the
effects of a hazard, and knowing the conditions requiring evacuation
from the PRCS.
Paragraph (g)(1). The employer would be required to ensure that the
authorized entrant properly uses the retrieval equipment as required in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of proposed Sec. 1926.1213. OSHA
believes that proper use of such equipment is essential for preventing
a rescue attempt itself from harming the incapacitated authorized
entrant. An example of how many employers meet this obligation is
through the implementation of safe work practices, and effective
enforcement of those practices.
Paragraph (g)(2). The employer would be required to ensure that the
authorized entrant communicates with the attendant as necessary to help
the attendant effectively monitor the authorized entrant's status and,
if necessary, so that the entrant can be told to evacuate the PRCS
according to paragraph (f)(5) of this proposed section. OSHA believes
that the authorized entrant's communication with the attendant provides
information that the attendant needs to know to determine whether there
is a need to evacuate the PRCS.
Paragraph (g)(3). The employer would be required to ensure that
each authorized entrant informs the attendant of any sign, symptom,
unusual behavior, or other effect of a hazard. In some instances, a
properly trained authorized entrant may be able to recognize and report
his/her own symptoms, such as headache, dizziness, or slurred speech,
and take the required action. In other cases, the authorized entrant,
once the effects begin, will be unable to recognize or report them. In
cases in which other, unimpaired, authorized entrants are in the PRCS,
this proposed provision would require employers to ensure that these
authorized entrants are properly trained to recognize signs, symptoms,
and other hazard-exposure effects in other authorized entrants, and
report these effects to the attendant.
Paragraph (g)(4). Under this proposed paragraph, employers would be
required to ensure that authorized entrants evacuate the space as
quickly as possible when any of the conditions described below in
proposed paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (g)(4)(ii) are present.
Paragraph (g)(4)(i). The employer would be required to ensure that
each authorized entrant exits the PRCS as quickly as possible when the
entry supervisor or the attendant orders the authorized entrant to
evacuate the space. (Entry supervisors and attendants would have
authority to order authorized entrants to evacuate the PRCS under
paragraphs (d)(3) and (f)(12) of this proposed section, respectively.)
It is essential that the authorized entrants understand the urgency of
compliance with the command to evacuate, particularly because the
attendant or entry supervisor may be aware of a hazard that the
authorized entrant does not detect on his/her own. Even when there is
disagreement between the entry supervisor and attendant as to whether
to evacuate, the authorized entrant would be required under this
proposed provision to evacuate if either the entry supervisor or the
attendant orders the entrants to do so. OSHA believes that this
proposed provision is necessary because emergencies within a confined
space are time-sensitive, and the entry supervisor and attendant may
have differing information as to the types of the hazards within the
PRCS.
Paragraph (g)(4)(ii). This proposed provision lists the three
conditions under which an employer would be required to ensure that an
authorized entrant evacuates the PRCS. These conditions mirror the
conditions under which an entry supervisor or attendant must order the
entrants to exit the space specified above by paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(A)
through (d)(3)(i)(C) and (f)(12)(i)(A) through (f)(12)(i)(C) of this
proposed section. OSHA discussed the rationale for these conditions
previously in this preamble under paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(A) through
(d)(3)(i)(C) of this proposed section.
Paragraph (h). The provisions of this proposed paragraph specify
the requirements for non-entry and entry rescue.
Paragraph (h)(1). This proposed paragraph sets forth the
requirements for non-entry rescue.
Paragraph (h)(1)(i). According to this proposed provision, the
employer must make available procedures and equipment for non-entry
rescue that meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of proposed Sec.
1926.1213 during the period when authorized entrants are in the PRCS.
OSHA believes that compliance with the rescue requirements in paragraph
(a) of proposed Sec. 1926.1213 would enable an employer to extricate
authorized entrants in a timely manner from PRCSs when uncontrolled
hazards arise, thereby preventing the adverse consequences of exposure
to these hazards.
The Agency recognizes that an employer who complies fully with this
proposed standard may never need to rescue an authorized entrant.
However, even with full compliance, problems could arise during entry
operations resulting in a situation where employees are unprotected.
Such extraordinary circumstances could subject an employee to hazards
within the PRCS without warning, and leave the employee incapacitated.
OSHA believes it is necessary to require employers to provide this
critical non-entry rescue function for employees who work in PRCSs.
Paragraph (h)(1)(ii). This proposed paragraph would require that,
unless the conditions specified in paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of this
proposed section are present, the employer must initiate a non-entry
rescue if there is either a need to evacuate the PRCS pursuant to
paragraphs (d)(3), (f)(12), or (g)(4) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211 and
the employee is unable to evacuate without assistance; or a reasonable
probability exists that an employee may need immediate medical aid and
is unable to exit the PRCS without assistance. In many cases entry
rescue would take longer than non-entry rescue. This provision is
necessary to ensure that the authorized entrants are rescued as soon as
possible to maximize their chance of survival and limiting their
injuries, as well as minimizing risk of injury to the rescue-service
employees.
Paragraph (h)(1)(iii). This proposed provision would prohibit the
initiation of a non-entry rescue if doing so would present a greater
hazard to the employee than sole reliance on entry rescue (for example,
where the configuration of the space would cause the retrieval lines to
not work or result in greater injury to the employee than injury from
waiting for entry rescue). This proposed provision acknowledges that
there are specific situations where non-entry rescue would not be
appropriate; it is aimed at preventing additional injuries or
fatalities to an authorized entrant caused by use of non-entry
equipment and methods that are incompatible with the conditions of the
PRCS.
Paragraph (h)(2). This proposed paragraph specifies the following
four situations in which employers would have to immediately summon an
entry rescue service: (1) A non-entry rescue is initiated; (2) there is
a need to evacuate pursuant to paragraphs (d)(3), (f)(12), or (g)(4) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1211, and the employee is unable to evacuate
without assistance; (3) there is a reasonable probability that an
employee may need immediate medical aid and is unable to exit the PRCS
without assistance; or (4) if a non-entry rescue is prohibited as
specified in paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of this proposed section.
In the first situation, a non-entry rescue may not be successful--
that is, for unforeseen reasons, the attendant may not be able to get
the authorized entrant out quickly, or at all. To prevent such a
situation from resulting in injury or death, it is necessary that an
entry rescue service already be in the process of responding to the
emergency. Summoning the entry rescue service at the same time that the
non-entry rescue is initiated minimizes the likelihood of additional
injuries or death.
If an employer fails to initiate a non-entry rescue as required by
paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(A) and (h)(1)(ii)(B) of this proposed section,
under the second and third situations, they must still summon an entry
rescue service when: there is a need to evacuate the PRCS pursuant to
paragraphs (d)(3), (f)(12), or (g)(4) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211, and
the employee is unable to evacuate without assistance; or a reasonable
probability exists that an employee may need immediate medical aid and
is unable to exit the PRCS without assistance. This proposed provision
emphasizes an employer's continuing responsibility to ensure that employees
are rescued from a PRCS when necessary.
In the event that an authorized entrant needs to be rescued but the
employer is precluded from initiating a non-entry rescue under
paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of this proposed section, the fourth situation
would require the employer to summon the entry rescue service because
it is the only means of rescuing the authorized entrant.
Section 1926.1212--PRCS--Terminating Entry
This proposed section specifies what, at a minimum, needs to be
done at the completion of work within a PRCS to ensure a safe
termination of entry.
Paragraph (a). The requirements described in this proposed
paragraph cover procedures for terminating entry into a PRCS under both
planned and emergency conditions. Before entry, an employer must have
in place procedures for safely terminating entry into the PRCS.
Paragraph (f) of proposed Sec. 1926.1209 (Safe termination procedures)
requires that this procedure be developed before entry into the PRCS.
The employer must implement these procedures when warranted by either
planned or emergency conditions. The safe termination of entry
operations includes preventing any further entry into the PRCS by
employees (except for entry rescue services), and, when required, the
safe evacuation of employees in the affected PRCS. This proposed
provision is necessary to ensure that employees are not harmed in the
process of terminating the entry. For example, it may be necessary for
certain construction operations and tools near an entrance/exit to be
stopped and secured before employees begin to exit.
Paragraph (b). This proposed provision specifies that the employer
must ensure that a PRCS entry supervisor terminates the entry and
cancels the permit when the entry operation covered by the permit has
been completed in the designated PRCS, upon expiration of the entry
permit, completion of entry operations covered by the permit, any of
the indications that require a reassessment under paragraph (b) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1207, or evacuation required under paragraph (d)(3)
of proposed Sec. 1926.12ll, whichever occurs first. When the time
limit specified by the entry permit expires, even when work remains to
be performed in the PRCS, the entry supervisor must terminate entry,
cancel the permit, and re-issue a new permit in accordance with
paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 1926.1210 (Entry permit) before
allowing further work in the PRCS. In addition, the employer must keep
all cancelled entry permits in accordance with the requirements
proposed below in paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1219 (Retaining
entry permits). Requiring the entry supervisor to terminate the entry
permit under the specified conditions ensures that the employees will
exit the space in accordance with planned conditions or to avoid
encountering hazards arising from unplanned conditions within the PRCS.
This proposed paragraph also contains a note stating that no
employees can reenter the space until the employer: identifies the
physical and atmospheric hazards in accordance with paragraph (b) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1204; follows the classification procedures
specified by proposed Sec. 1926.1206 (Classification and precautions);
and meets the accident-prevention and -protection requirements
applicable to the space classification selected by the employer. This
note serves to remind employers that it is necessary to ensure that the
spaces are correctly assessed and that employees receive appropriate
protection prior to reentering the space.
Section 1926.1213--PRCS--Rescue Criteria
Paragraph (a). This proposed paragraph would require the employer
to ensure that the training, equipment, and procedures specified for a
safe non-entry rescue are fulfilled. OSHA believes that meeting these
criteria would decrease the risk that an incapacitated entrant would
sustain an injury or be killed as a result of the rescue.
Paragraph (a)(1). This proposed paragraph would require the
employer to ensure that attendants and other employees designated to
perform non-entry rescue acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for
the safe performance of non-entry rescue. This proposed requirement is
necessary to ensure that these employees perform non-entry rescue
safely and effectively.
Paragraph (a)(2). This proposed paragraph lists minimum criteria
for a retrieval system that OSHA believes are essential for ensuring
the safe non-entry retrieval of employees during an emergency. The
criteria are listed below in proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through
(a)(2)(iv).
Paragraph (a)(2)(i). The retrieval system would be required to be
available as soon as needed by the attendant or other rescue service.
This proposed requirement is an important element of a preplanned
rescue since it would eliminate further risk of injury and death
resulting from time consumed in locating a retrieval system and
bringing it to the PRCS.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii). The retrieval system used would have to be
designed and manufactured for personnel retrieval. This proposed
provision also allows for the use of job-made hoisting systems if these
systems are approved for personnel hoisting by a registered
professional engineer prior to use in PRCS entry operations. However,
commercial hoisting systems not designed and manufactured specifically
for personnel hoisting would not be permissible under this proposed
provision because OSHA believes they cannot be used safely for this
purpose. This proposed requirement would eliminate further injuries and
deaths of employees which could occur from the use of retrieval
equipment that was not designed specifically for personnel retrieval.
The provision would give the employer flexibility in its choice of
retrieval system by allowing a registered professional engineer to
approve a job-made system. OSHA believes that either option would
ensure that the retrieval system will meet the design specifications
needed to operate safely during a non-entry rescue as required by this
proposed standard.
Paragraph (a)(2)(iii). The employer would be required to provide a
retrieval system that the attendant or other rescue service can operate
effectively. This proposed provision would eliminate employee injuries
and deaths by ensuring that the retrieval system is usable and
effective. For example, this proposed provision would prohibit a system
that requires too much strength or stamina to operate, such as a hand-
cranked winch with insufficient gearing. The system must also be
effective; for example, if a particular system pulled at such a slow a
rate that an entrant could not be retrieved in time to prevent further
injury, it would violate this proposed provision.
Paragraph (a)(2)(iv). The employer would be required to ensure that
the retrieval system includes the use of a chest or full-body harness
and a retrieval line. OSHA believes that it is necessary for such a
device to be used as part of the retrieval system to prevent employees
from suffering further injuries during a rescue that result from
unequal distribution of force on the body. This proposed requirement
would be consistent with the requirements specified for fall-protection
systems in 29 CFR 1926.502 (Fall protection systems criteria and
practices) of 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart M (Fall Protection). OSHA believes
that when an employee must be suspended, even during a rescue, a chest or
full-body harness is needed to prevent further injury to the employee.
Paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(A). The employer would be required to have one
end of the retrieval line attached to the chest or full-body harness in
a manner that allows the attendant or other rescue service to remove
the entrant from the PRCS without causing further injury. This proposed
provision is similar to paragraph (k)(3)(i) of the general industry
standard for confined spaces in that the proposed provision allows some
flexibility in how the retrieval line must be connected to the chest or
full-body harness of the employee in need of rescue. OSHA believes that
requiring the retrieval line to be attached at the center of the
entrant's back near shoulder level, or above an entrant's head, is too
limiting. For example, extracting an employer from the confined space
head first during a horizontal retrieval could cause more injuries to
the employee. Accordingly, this proposed provision does not limit the
methods utilized by the employer to safely rescue employees who perform
construction work in various PRCS configurations. Therefore, OSHA
proposes a performance-based provision that it believes would maintain
the level of required employee protection while allowing employers
flexibility in choosing effective retrieval systems.
Paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(B). The employer would be required to have the
other end of the retrieval line attached to a mechanical retrieval
device or fixed anchor point outside the PRCS in a manner that allows
rescue to begin as soon as the attendant or other rescue service
detects or learns of the need for rescue. Movable equipment (for
example, earth-moving equipment), that is sufficiently heavy to serve
as an anchor point, may be used for this purpose only if effectively
locked out or tagged out. This proposed provision would minimize the
elapsed time between an attendant determining that a rescue is needed
and commencing the PRCS rescue operation by requiring the essential
parts of the retrieval system to already be in place and attached. This
proposed requirement would eliminate further injury or death due to the
delay resulting from locating and attaching retrieval system parts and
equipment. While the provision would allow the use of suitably heavy
moveable equipment (such as earthmoving equipment) to serve as an
anchor point, it would require that such equipment be effectively
locked out or tagged out to ensure that the equipment is not moved
while serving as an anchor point.
Paragraph (a)(3). For retrievals involving vertical distances over
five feet (1.52 m), a mechanical retrieval device would be required to
be provided and used. This device must not be used for entry into the
PRCS unless it is designed for that purpose. OSHA believes that
securing the line to an anchor point or using a simple pulley for this
purpose could endanger the authorized entrant because most attendants
do not have sufficient strength and stamina to lift a disabled entrant
over a vertical distance of more than five feet. Therefore, the
proposed requirement would ensure that the attendant or other rescue
personnel be assisted by a mechanical device so that the entrant can be
successfully extracted. The Agency considered that there will often be
difficulties in setting up such equipment due to the general lack of
room to position the equipment above the entry point of a PRCS, as well
as the need to keep that entry clear for the attendant to observe the
authorized entrants while they are working. Nevertheless, OSHA believes
that the mechanical device is critical for entrant rescues involving
these vertical spaces. However, powered winches, overhead cranes, fork
trucks, and similar devices are not appropriate for this purpose
because they may harm attendants (for example, impale them, damage
limbs).
Paragraph (a)(4). This proposed paragraph would clarify the types
of equipment that are unsuitable and prohibited for use in a PRCS
retrieval system. OSHA believes that by providing this information,
injuries and deaths that result from the use of unsuitable retrieval
equipment during rescue operations would be reduced. Descriptions of
unsuitable retrieval equipment are provided below in paragraphs
(a)(4)(i) through (a)(4)(iii).
Paragraph (a)(4)(i). The use of equipment that increases the
overall risk of entry or impedes rescue of an authorized entrant would
be prohibited. This proposed provision would eliminate injuries and
deaths that would occur when such equipment is used for rescue.
Paragraph (a)(4)(ii). The use of retrieval lines that have a
reasonable probability of becoming entangled with the retrieval lines
used by other authorized entrants, or due to the internal configuration
of the PRCS, would be prohibited. The Agency believes that there are
situations where the retrieval lines of two or more employees can get
entangled, such as where the employees' work necessitates them moving
around each other. There are also a variety of situations where the
configuration of the PRCS would inhibit a non-entry rescue and cause
further serious injury to authorized entrants in need of rescue. For
example, the PRCS may have objects or equipment protruding from its
walls or sharp corners that may damage rescue equipment or inhibit the
use of certain types of non-entry rescue equipment.
Paragraph (a)(4)(iii). Wristlets or ankle straps would be
prohibited from being used as attachment points for retrieval lines,
unless the employer can demonstrate that: the use of a harness is
infeasible or creates a greater hazard for safe rescue than wristlets
or ankle straps; and wristlets or ankle straps are the safest
alternative available. The Agency believes that this proposed
requirement is necessary due to an increased risk of an employee being
injured during a rescue when the retrieval lines are attached to
wristlets or ankle straps as compared with being attached to a harness.
Paragraph (a)(5). The employer would be required to ensure that the
employees designated to perform non-entry rescue (including attendants,
if applicable) have access to the PRCS the authorized entrant will
enter or to a Simulated PRCS, to develop appropriate rescue plans and
practice rescue operations prior to beginning entry operations. OSHA
believes a rescue service needs to know the location, configuration,
and other relevant aspects of a PRCS to develop and practice effective
rescue procedures.
Paragraph (b). The employer would be required to ensure that
specified minimum requirements must be met by the entry rescue service
so that it can effectively perform entry rescues. The provision also
specifies information the employer would be required to provide to the
entry rescue service before an entry rescue is made. In short, the
employer must make sure that, whichever rescue service is used, it has
the necessary rescue capabilities.
Paragraph (b)(1). This proposed paragraph contains requirements
that would ensure that the entry rescue service can effectively perform
entry-rescue tasks in the PRCS. OSHA notes that during the rulemaking
for the general industry confined-spaces standard, a question was
raised as to whether an entry rescue service is limited to off-site
rescue teams. The Agency made clear in that rulemaking that an employer
could use an onsite team as long as all the criteria outlined in the
standard were met. That rationale is equally applicable to this
proposed rule. Consequently, the term "rescue service" in this
proposed standard does not exclude the use of an onsite entry rescue service.
Paragraph (b)(1)(i). Under this proposed provision, in evaluating
the entry rescue service, the employer would be required to determine
that the entry rescue service can respond to a rescue summons in a
timely manner. The provision defines timeliness as a function of how
quickly an entry rescue service needs to reach an employee to prevent
further serious physical harm that may result from hazards in the PRCS
while waiting to be rescued.
Paragraph (b)(1)(ii). Prior to using an entry rescue service for
entry-rescue purposes, an employer would be required to provide the
entry rescue service with access to the PRCS the authorized entrants
will enter, or to a Simulated PRCS that is representative of the
particular PRCS. OSHA believes that this proposed provision will allow
the entry rescue service to become familiar with the configuration and
features of the PRCS to which the employer may summon it to perform
rescue operations, and thereby develop appropriate rescue plans and
practice rescue operations. Access to the PRCS or a Simulated PRCS
during planning and practice increases the probability that rescue
operations will proceed more efficiently and effectively, thereby
reducing the probability of serious injury or death to authorized
entrants during an actual entry-rescue operation. Practicing rescues in
a PRCS or Simulated PRCS also highlights deficiencies in rescue
procedures, and allows for revisions of those procedures before they
could adversely affect the safety of rescue-service employees and
employees in need of rescue during an actual rescue operation.
Paragraph (b)(2). Prior to the entry rescue service entering a PRCS
for any purpose, the employer would be required to inform the entry
rescue service of any physical and atmospheric hazards it is likely to
confront in the PRCS, as well as any other relevant information known
by the employer. This proposed provision would provide the entry rescue
service with available information about hazards and conditions within
the confined space so as to protect the rescue-service employees who
enter the confined space for training, entry operations, or any other
purpose.
Paragraph (c). This proposed paragraph would require employers who
use their own employees as a rescue service to provide those employees
with the training and equipment needed to safely perform entry-rescue
operations. OSHA believes that by meeting these minimum training and
equipment requirements, the employer will eliminate employee injuries
and deaths that could result from a lack of proficiency in the
implementation of rescue procedures and the use of related rescue
equipment. These training and equipment requirements are described
below in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6)(ii)
Paragraph (c)(1). The employer would be required to provide its
rescue-service employees with the personal protective equipment (PPE)
and rescue equipment necessary for them to enter and safely perform
PRCS rescue operations. OSHA believes the provisions in the proposed
paragraph will help the employer prevent injuries and deaths that could
occur without the appropriate PPE and equipment needed to safely
perform PRCS entry rescues.
Paragraph (c)(2). The employer would be required to train its
rescue-service employees in the proper use of the PPE and rescue
equipment required in paragraph (c)(1) of this proposed section.
Training regarding the proper use of rescue equipment would include the
care and inspection of breathing and ventilation gear, as well as
emergency-evacuation equipment, and the use of two-way radios and fire-
fighting equipment. OSHA believes that requiring employee proficiency
in the use of necessary PPE and rescue equipment will help the employer
eliminate injuries and deaths caused by the improper use of such
equipment.
Paragraph (c)(3). An employer would be required to train the
members of its rescue service to perform any rescue duties assigned to
them. This proposed provision would ensure that rescue-service
employees can perform their assigned duties proficiently and safely
under hazardous PRCS conditions. Lack of such training would endanger
both the rescue-service employees, as well as others affected by the
PRCS rescue operations.
Paragraph (c)(4). The employer would be required to train its
rescue-service employees in basic first-aid and in cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR). The Agency believes this proposed requirement is
necessary because of the hazards and resultant injuries that may occur
in PRCSs. This proposed requirement also would improve the probability
that the injured employees would survive until higher levels of medical
attention become available.
Paragraph (c)(5). Employers would be required to ensure that at
least one of the rescue-service employees who participates in the
onsite rescue operations holds current certification in first-aid,
including CPR. OSHA believes that, in combination with the requirement
in paragraph (c)(4) of this proposed section, there would be sufficient
first-aid and CPR capability at a rescue scene. This proposed provision
is identical to paragraph (k)(1)(iv) of the general industry confined-
spaces standard, and also meets the requirements for first-aid services
specified by 29 CFR 1926.50(c).
Paragraph (c)(6). Under this proposed paragraph, employers would be
required to ensure that the rescue-service employees practice rescue
operations at least once prior to the beginning of entry operations and
at least once every 12 months thereafter. OSHA believes this training
requirement for entry rescue-service employees is necessary to maintain
proficiency in entry-rescue procedures and rescue equipment use. This
training would also ensure that the entry rescue-service employees are
trained on all revisions to entry-rescue procedures and are cognizant
of any other new information regarding entry rescue.
In a related requirement, proposed Sec. 1926.1213(b) specifies
that employers must ensure that an entry rescue service can effectively
perform an entry rescue in the PRCS that authorized entrants will
enter. Confirming that the entry rescue service meets this requirement
prior to any authorized entrants entering the PRCS provides a means of
verifying that an entry rescue service can effectively perform a rescue
at the employer's worksite.
Paragraph (c)(6)(i). Employers would be required to ensure that
rescue-service employees practice the removal of dummies, mannequins,
or people from a PRCS or from a Simulated PRCS in compliance with the
requirements of this proposed standard. By definition, Simulated PRCSs
must also, with respect to size, configuration, entrance openings, and
accessibility, conform to the types of PRCSs from which actual rescues
would be performed. When any PRCS used for practice contains hazards,
even if no other work/tasks are performed within the PRCS, the employer
must ensure that the PRCS requirements of this proposed standard are
met before any rescue-service employees enter the PRCS. The Agency
believes that this type of practice is necessary to ensure that the
entry rescue service will have the capability to perform an actual
rescue in a PRCS.
Paragraph (c)(6)(ii). Employers would be required to ensure that
the same PPE, retrieval, and rescue equipment that will be used to
perform an actual rescue is used for practicing rescues. This proposed
requirement would ensure that rescue-service employees' training is
directly applicable to an actual PRCS rescue operation, thereby
minimizing confusion and errors that could lead to injuries and deaths
when performing actual rescue operations.
Paragraph (d). This proposed paragraph would exempt an employer
from providing the practice required above in paragraph (c)(6) of this
proposed section when the rescue-service employees, within the previous
12 months, properly performed a rescue operation in a similar or the
same PRCS the authorized entrants will enter. OSHA believes the
effective performance of such previous PRCS entry rescues would be at
least the equivalent of the practice required under paragraph (c)(6) of
this proposed section. In contrast, the unsatisfactory performance of a
rescue operation during the preceding 12-month period (for example,
rescue team members improperly used rescue equipment) would indicate
the need for further practice, and would not meet the requirements of
this proposed exemption.
Section 1926.1214--PRCS--Entry Permits
Paragraph (a). The provisions of this proposed paragraph specify
the required contents of entry permits. Entry permits provide key
information about hazards in the PRCS, the methods used to protect
employees from those hazards, and specify who is authorized to perform
work within the PRCS, their duties, and the extent of their authority
with respect to safety in and around the PRCS. OSHA believes the use of
this administrative tool would be essential to the employer in its
efforts to ensure that work within a PRCS will be completed safely.
Making the information on this document accessible to employers and
employees affected by the hazards in and around the PRCS also allows
them to maintain an elevated awareness of the conditions within the
PRCS, as well as the equipment and procedures necessary for safe PRCS
entry operations.
Paragraph (a)(1). This proposed provision lists the general-
information requirements for entry permits.
Paragraph (a)(1)(i). The employer would be required to ensure that
the entry permit contains the identification of the PRCS to be entered;
the location of the PRCS could serve as its identification. This
information would be needed to ensure that the correct permit is used
for the PRCS.
Paragraph (a)(1)(ii). Employers would be required to list in the
entry permit the purpose of the PRCS entry, including the tasks or jobs
authorized entrants are to perform in the PRCS. This information is
needed to confirm that the performance of each specific construction
activity has been considered in the hazard assessment of the PRCS. The
performance of construction activities within the PRCS that have not
been evaluated for their effect on the conditions within the space
could result in serious injury or death.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iii). The employer would be required to provide in
the entry permit the effective date and the authorized duration of the
permit. The effective date is the date on which authorized entrants may
enter the PRCS as specified by other provisions of this proposed
standard. The duration of the permit may not exceed the time required
to complete the tasks or jobs identified above in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
of this proposed section, including the time necessary to set up and
dismantle any tools or equipment required to perform the tasks or jobs.
The employer need not list duration in terms of time, but instead may
describe it in terms of the completion of tasks identified in the
permit. For instance, the employer could describe the duration as
"welding and repair of water main" or "upgrading equipment in an
electrical vault." One purpose of this provision is to ensure that
employees engaged in PRCS operations are informed of the period during
which conditions in the PRCS must meet planned conditions as specified
in the entry permit. A second purpose is to place some reasonable limit
on the duration of the permit, since a permit of unlimited duration is
not likely to account for changed PRCS conditions.
Paragraph (a)(2). The employer would be required to specify in the
entry permit the planned conditions necessary for safe entry into the
PRCS. This proposed requirement would ensure that the authorized
entrants, attendants, and entry supervisors have key information that
can be readily referenced to confirm that the planned conditions within
the PRCS are maintained.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i). The employer would be required to document
information on entry permits regarding the physical and atmospheric
hazards, methods of isolating, eliminating, and/or controlling these
hazards, as well as hazard monitoring and testing results, and the
levels at which hazards are to be maintained.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A). Employers would be required to identify the
physical and atmospheric hazards in the PRCS in the entry permit. This
list, which must be consistent with proposed Sec. 1926.1206
(Classification and precautions) and paragraph (a) of proposed Sec.
1926.1208 (Permit-required confined spaces), must include all hazards,
regardless of whether the employer protects the authorized entrants
from the hazards by isolation, control, or personal protective
equipment.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B). Employers would be required to state the
methods used to isolate or control hazards, or used to protect
authorized entrants from the hazards within the PRCS. This information
must be consistent with the requirements specified in paragraph (a) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1208 (Permit-required confined spaces) and proposed
Sec. 1926.1210 (PRCS--preparing for entry), and must include the
methods used to isolate or control the hazards, the type of personal
protective equipment provided, the methods used to monitor each hazard
(including the use of early-warning systems, if required by proposed
Sec. 1926.1215 (Continuous-system PRCS)), and how frequently each
hazard is to be monitored. (Note that under paragraph (b) of proposed
Sec. 1926.1211, monitoring of atmospheric hazards is required to be
continuous unless the employer demonstrates that periodic monitoring is
sufficient.) The permit need only refer to the procedures used to meet
the requirements of this proposed paragraph in sufficient detail to
enable employees to determine what measures are to be taken and how to
perform those measures.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C). Employers would be required to state in the
entry permit the atmospheric-testing and -monitoring results obtained
in paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1204, paragraph (a) of proposed
Sec. 1926.1211, paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211, and
paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.1215. In addition, the employer
must include the type and brand of the equipment used to perform
atmospheric testing or monitoring; the names and signatures or initials
of those individuals who performed the testing and monitoring; and the
date and time (or time period for continuous monitoring) they performed
each test and conducted monitoring.
Entering the testing and monitoring results in the permit enables
the entry supervisor, attendants, and authorized entrants to determine
readily whether planned conditions exist with regard to atmospheric
hazards in the PRCS. This information could also be used to identify
atmospheric conditions within the PRCS that need to be monitored
frequently because atmospheric conditions tend to rise rapidly to
hazardous levels. Providing information on the type and brand of
equipment used for atmospheric testing and monitoring would enable the
entry supervisor to determine whether testing and monitoring are being
conducted correctly, that is, according to the equipment manufacturer's
instructions. Listing the names of those who performed the testing and
monitoring would identify a point of contact to which entry supervisors
and attendants can direct questions they may have regarding the results
and procedures. The date and time (or, for continuous monitoring, a
time period) would provide a basis for detecting dangerous trends in
atmospheric conditions that may indicate that more frequent observation
of the atmospheric data is necessary.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(D). Employers would be required to list the
conditions under which authorized entrants can work safely in the PRCS,
including hazard levels and methods of employee protection, consistent
with the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of proposed Sec.
1926.1208 (Planned conditions). The list would include the levels which
oxygen, flammable gases and vapors, and other hazardous substances must
meet before and during PRCS entry. Additional information regarding
PRCS conditions would include, for example, the methods used to
maintain a water hazard at safe levels. This proposed provision also
requires employers, when applicable, to provide the ventilation-
malfunction determinations made in paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Sec.
1926.1208. Providing these determinations would inform employees (for
example, entry supervisors, attendants, and authorized entrants)
regarding the time required for the entrants to evacuate the PRCS
should the ventilation system fail. Compliance with these proposed
provisions would allow authorized entrants, attendants, and entry
supervisors to reference the planned conditions stated in the permit
and respond quickly to any deviations in these conditions, including
ventilation-system failure.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii). The provisions of this proposed paragraph
would require the employer to ensure that entry permits identify the:
authorized entrants, attendants, and entry supervisor; methods used to
maintain contact between authorized entrants and attendants; the rescue
service and the methods, including communication equipment and
telephone numbers, for summoning this service; and other equipment
required to perform PRCS entry operations.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A). Employers would be required to identify by
name or other effective identifier (such as initials or an
identification number) the authorized entrants currently in the PRCS.
This proposed requirement can be met by referring in the entry permit
to a system such as a roster or tracking system used to keep track of
who is currently in the PRCS. The availability of this information
would enable the attendant or entry supervisor to quickly and
accurately account for entrants who might still be in the PRCS when an
emergency occurs. A second purpose is to provide assurance that all
authorized entrants have exited the PRCS at the end of entry
operations.
OSHA believes that, as long as the system accurately tracks who is
in the PRCS at any given moment, and as long as the attendant has
immediate access to the system, the attendant will be able to confirm
the complete evacuation of a space. Additionally, the rescue service
will be able to account for all employees working inside the PRCS in
the event of an emergency. A tracking system that lists the names of
the employees who the employer designates as authorized entrants, but
does not accurately account for the number of employees inside the PRCS
at all times, would not meet the requirements of this proposed
paragraph. Merely maintaining a list of authorized entrants, who may or
may not be on the job site or inside the PRCS, would not help the
employer determine how many authorized entrants are left inside the
PRCS should an evacuation be necessary. Accordingly, OSHA believes that
it is extremely important for the employer to be able to confirm that
all authorized entrants have exited the PRCS during an evacuation.
However, a tracking system that only keeps count of the number of
authorized entrants inside the PRCS, without providing their names or
other identifiers, also is not acceptable; knowing the name or other
identifier of each entrant makes it easier for the rescuers to
determine where the entrant is assigned to work in the PRCS, and
thereby determine the entrant's probable location.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B). The employer would be required to list the
names of the current attendants in the entry permit. This proposed
requirement would facilitate identifying attendants quickly and easily,
thereby expediting communications with them, which is necessary for the
performance of safe PRCS entry operations and for the performance of
specified duties during emergency situations. Without this proposed
requirement, valuable time could be wasted attempting to find the
attendant responsible for protecting authorized entrants during an
emergency.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C). The employer would be required to ensure
that the entry permit contains the name of the current entry supervisor
and the entry supervisor who originally authorized entry into the PRCS.
In addition, this proposed paragraph would require the signature or
initials of both of these individuals. In the event that the original
entry supervisor and the current entry supervisor are the same
individual, his/her name must appear twice in the entry permit: once as
the original entry supervisor, and again as the current supervisor.
These proposed requirements serve the same purpose described above for
attendants in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) of this proposed section. It is
unnecessary to list the names of individuals who could assume entry-
supervisor responsibilities or the names of individuals who have
assumed these responsibilities between the original and current
supervisors. Therefore, the names of the current entry supervisor and
the original entry supervisor, with no other entry supervisor names,
are the only names required to be in the permit.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D). Employers would be required to ensure that
the entry permit contains a list of the communication methods used to
maintain contact between attendants and authorized entrants during
entry operations. OSHA notes that establishing a routine for
maintaining contact between attendants and authorized entrants would
help attendants detect problems within the PRCS. The Agency has not
prescribed any particular means or procedure for communication because
OSHA anticipates that the procedures chosen will need to vary according
to the circumstances of the particular workplaces. However, the means
of communication chosen must enable the attendants and the entrants to
maintain effective and continuous contact.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(E). This proposed paragraph would require that
employers list in the entry permit the rescue service that is to be
summoned in an emergency, and the methods (including the communication
equipment to use and the telephone numbers to call) for summoning this
service. Identification of the rescue service and the methods for
summoning it would enable attendants to summon the rescue service
immediately in case of emergency. Including the other pertinent
information, such as communication equipment and emergency telephone
numbers, in the entry permit would allow attendants to avoid errors and
delays in contacting the rescue service.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(F). Under this proposed paragraph, employers
are to ensure that the permit contains a list of equipment to be
provided for PRCS operations as determined under paragraph (j) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1210 (Equipment) and proposed Sec. 1926.1218
(Equipment). This equipment would typically include, for example,
personal protective equipment, testing equipment, communications
equipment, alarm systems, rescue equipment, and other equipment that
the employer would provide to ensure compliance with paragraph (j) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1210 above. This proposed requirement provides
employees with a ready reference to the equipment required for safe
entry operations.
Paragraph (a)(3). The two provisions of this proposed paragraph
specify additional safety-related information to include in the entry
permit. This information is necessary to ensure that employees involved
in entry operations are aware of the hazards and procedures associated
with the PRCS.
Paragraph (a)(3)(i). Employers would be required to identify in the
entry permit any other active permits issued to perform work in the
PRCS (for example, hot-work permits). If the employer identifies
additional permits, these additional permits may be, but are not
required to be, attached to the entry permit to provide information
about the activity covered by the permit to employees involved in the
entry operations so they can take appropriate precautions.
Paragraph (a)(3)(ii). Employers would be required to list in the
entry permit other safety-related information not required under
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3)(i) of this proposed section,
including any problems encountered. Examples of such information may
include: problems encountered in the PRCS; problems that an attendant,
entry supervisor, or authorized entrant believes may be relevant to the
safety of the entrants working in the space; or any other information
that may be relevant to employee safety under these conditions.
Paragraph (b). According to the two provisions of this proposed
paragraph, employers must review, at least annually, PRCS entries made
during the previous 12 months. The employer must use the information
described in these two provisions to perform this review. The purpose
of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of protection provided
to employees involved in PRCS entries during this period. This proposed
requirement would help ensure that future PRCS entries are completed in
a similar way if the entries were successful, or are improved if any
problems or concerns are discovered.
Paragraph (b)(1). To accomplish the entry-permit review, this
proposed provision would require employers to use cancelled entry
permits retained according to paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1219
(Retaining entry permits) below. This proposed requirement would be an
important tool for identifying deficiencies in entry procedures used
during the review period.
Paragraph (b)(2). Employers would be required to review any other
information retained from previous entry operations. Employers would
obtain this information from sources other than cancelled permits. For
instance, any near-miss information would be helpful to determine what
actions may be necessary to eliminate or reduce hazard exposure during
PRCS entries.
These proposed provisions are necessary to ensure that employers
use effective methods for protecting employees against the hazards in
the PRCS. In this regard, many construction employers may not do PRCS
work regularly, and it is important to use available information,
including information from previous PRCS entries, to determine the
effectiveness of the protection afforded to employees by previous
practices before they begin new PRCS operations.
Paragraph (c). Employers would be required to retain entry permits
in accordance with paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1219 (Retaining
entry permits). (See paragraph (b) of proposed 1926.1219 for an
explanation of this proposed requirement.)
Paragraph (d). Employers would be required to cancel entry permits
in accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211 (Entry
permit cancellation). (See paragraph (d)(4) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211
above for an explanation of this proposed paragraph.)
Section 1926.1215--Continuous System--PRCS
The provisions of this proposed section cover the requirements for
Continuous System-Permit-Required Confined Spaces (CS-PRCSs). Because
these spaces are a special type of PRCS, employers would be required to
meet these proposed provisions, as well as the requirements for PRCS
entry prescribed by proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1208 through 1926.1214.
One example of this type of system is a sewer in which a storm at
another location could send water or hazardous materials to the CS-PRCS
where employees are working. Accordingly, the following proposed
paragraphs would provide employees with protection from the unique
hazards associated with CS-PRCSs.
Paragraph (a). Under this proposed paragraph employers would be
required to both meet the requirements in proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1208
through 1926.1214 and the additional requirements listed in this
proposed section.
Paragraph (a)(1). Employers would be required to monitor CS-PRCSs
continuously for atmospheric hazards. These spaces, relative to PRCSs,
have an enhanced risk of unexpected changes in hazard levels because of
atmospheric hazards that could migrate uncontrolled from other areas of
the CS-PRCS. By monitoring the space continuously, employers would
detect rising levels of a hazardous atmosphere or the introduction of a
new atmospheric hazard before it is too late to warn the authorized
entrants and evacuate them from the space (see discussion of proposed
paragraph (b)(1) below). Employers may use periodic monitoring for this
purpose if they can demonstrate that equipment for continuously
monitoring a hazard is not commercially available; for example,
continuous monitoring may not be available when the atmospheric hazard
is a particulate. In such a case, the employer must be able to
demonstrate that the periodic monitoring is of sufficient frequency to
ensure that the atmospheric hazard is being controlled at safe levels
as planned.
Paragraph (a)(2). Employers would be required to monitor
continuously for non-isolated engulfment hazards using an early-warning
system. (See the definition of "early-warning system" at proposed
Sec. 1926.1203 (Definitions applicable to this subpart).) Employers
have flexibility in determining what type of early-warning system to
use based on information they receive about the space and its hazards,
as well as the employer's previous experience with CS-PRCSs. In some
instances, the early-warning system can be as simple as posting
lookouts with communication equipment at distances far enough upstream
from the CS-PRCS to effectively communicate a warning to authorized
entrants regarding any engulfment hazards. Another method would be to
position detection and monitoring devices in areas connected to the CS-
PRCS that will warn entrants effectively of an engulfment hazard in
sufficient time for them to exit the space successfully.
Paragraph (b). This proposed paragraph specifies requirements for
additional equipment for a CS-PRCS. This equipment addresses migrating
engulfment and atmospheric hazards that are present in CS-PRCSs. For
example, these hazards can result when runoff from a heavy storm
upstream in a sewer flows downstream into the area in which employees
are working. Another example is when hazardous material is used in one
part of a sewer and the hazardous atmospheres formed by the material
migrate to the area in which the employees are working, causing serious
harm. OSHA believes that migrating hazards, especially from distant
areas, are common in CS-PRCSs. Accordingly, these requirements are
necessary to protect authorized entrants from the additional hazards
associated with CS-PRCSs, including engulfment and atmospheric hazards.
Paragraph (b)(1). The employer would be required to provide the
equipment necessary to monitor atmospheric hazards in CS-PRCSs. The
primary reason OSHA believes this proposed requirement is necessary is
because of the increased potential for a hazardous atmosphere to
migrate unpredictably into the work area after the employer assesses a
CS-PRCS and work has begun. Because these work areas are susceptible to
being suddenly affected by hazards from elsewhere in the system, OSHA
believes that effective monitoring is the only way to ensure that such
hazards will be detected before it is too late to warn and evacuate the
entrants. An additional reason for including this proposed requirement
is that construction crews often have limited or no experience working
in a particular CS-PRCS. As a result, unlike many general industry
settings, there may be little or no historical monitoring data
available to help accurately predict probable peak hazard levels.
Paragraph (b)(2). The employer would be required to provide an
early-warning system to monitor for non-isolated engulfment hazards.
The employer has flexibility in determining what type of system to use
based on information it has received about the CS-PRCS and its hazards,
and based on the employer's experience with working within CS-PRCSs of
this type. The system can be as simple as posting observers with
communication equipment at distances far enough upstream from the work
area to timely communicate a warning to the entrants working
downstream. Another method would be to use detection/monitoring devices
upstream that will trigger alarms at the entrants' work area in
sufficient time for them to safely avoid upstream engulfment hazards
moving in their direction.
Section 1926.1216--Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Spaces--Requirements
for Classification and Accident Prevention and Protection
Paragraph (a). The provisions of this proposed paragraph would
require employers to meet specific criteria to classify the space as a
Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Space (CACS), and to protect employees
from CACS hazards by implementing specific accident-prevention and -
protection methods. When employers have determined that the atmospheric
hazards can be controlled and the physical hazards can be isolated or
eliminated, the proposed standard provides this alternative
classification option, the CACS, which may be more efficient and less
costly to implement than complying with the requirements for a PRCS.
Note that when employers can identify and implement both the isolation
methods for physical hazards and the control methods for atmospheric
hazards without entering the space, they would not be required to
comply with the PRCS requirements during that identification/
implementation process. Also, the Agency considers the provisions
proposed for CACS entry to be minimum safety requirements, and the
employer may elect to comply with proposed PRCS requirements.
Paragraph (a)(1). Using the physical-hazard information obtained
under paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1204, the employer would be
required by this proposed provision to determine and implement methods
for isolating physical hazards found in the CACS. By isolating the
physical hazards, employers would provide employees with reliable and
effective protection from such hazards.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i). Employers would be required to test for
atmospheric hazards in the CACS using the methods specified above in
proposed Sec. 1926.1205 (Atmospheric testing and monitoring), and to
use ventilation equipment to verify that ventilation alone is
sufficient to control the atmospheric hazards at safe levels.
Additionally, ventilation must consist of continuous forced-air
mechanical systems that meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.57
(Ventilation). Because the atmospheric hazard is controlled at safe
levels but the hazard is still present to some degree, it is vital that
the employer confirm that the ventilation system alone is maintaining
the safe atmospheric-hazard level (with no other protective measure in
use for protecting entrants from the atmospheric hazard).
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii). Employers would be required to determine
that, in the event the ventilation system stops working, the monitoring
procedures will detect an increase in atmospheric hazard levels in
sufficient time for the entrants to safely exit the CACS. As explained
for a similar provision in the general industry standard (see 29 CFR
1910.146(c)(5)(i)(B)), for the CACS to be considered safe, the
mechanical ventilation must control the atmospheric hazards at levels
that are sufficiently below the levels at which they are harmful to
entrants so that, should the forced-air ventilation system cease to
function during entry (such as from a power loss), the atmosphere will
remain at safe levels until monitoring procedures detect rising
atmospheric hazard levels and entrants can safely exit the space or
ventilation is restored. The Agency believes that monitoring is the
primary method for detecting an increase in atmospheric hazard levels
and, therefore, requires the use of monitoring to detect ventilation
system failure. However, other indicators may be useful in detecting
such failures, including changes in noise levels, air flow, and/or
pressure; and signs, symptoms, and characteristic effects of exposure
to the atmospheric hazard.
In the event the atmospheric hazard-control methods fail, meeting
the requirements of this proposed paragraph would provide employees
with a safe atmosphere within the CACS until they evacuate the confined
space, thereby reducing the risk of serious injury and death. By
ensuring that employees evacuate safely from the CACS under these
conditions, this proposed provision makes it unnecessary for employers
to arrange for a rescue service as required for PRCSs under paragraph
(e) of proposed Sec. 1926.1209. Nevertheless, OSHA believes that if
the atmospheric hazards rapidly rise to unsafe levels without
mechanical ventilation, then mechanical ventilation may be an
inappropriate method for controlling atmospheric hazards, and the space
should be classified as a PRCS.
Paragraph (a)(3). Employers would be required to verify in writing
that they isolated all physical hazards, and controlled atmospheric
hazards with ventilation alone, in the CACS as required by paragraphs
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this proposed section; in addition, employers
would have to make this documentation available to all employees who
are entering the space, and to their authorized representatives. The
provision specifies that the verification document must contain the:
Location of the CACS, identity of the physical hazards, methods for
isolating the physical hazards, date and time the physical hazards were
isolated and name and signature/initials of the individual who completed
the isolation work, the identity and safe levels of the atmospheric hazards,
methods for controlling the atmospheric hazards, atmospheric-testing results,
date and time of atmospheric testing and the name and signature/initials of
the individual who completed the atmospheric testing, the determinations
made under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this proposed section, name and
signature/initials of the person who completed this document, and date
and time the document was completed.
The information on the verification document establishes a baseline
to determine whether conditions specified in this document remain
constant throughout subsequent entry operations. Also, making the
document available to employees who enter the space and their
authorized representatives would help ensure that the conditions
established during initial CACS entry remain constant. It would do this
by providing a readily available reference document for employees
working in or near the CACS so they have the information necessary to
detect developing hazards while they are engaged in CACS entry
operations.
Paragraph (b). The provisions proposed under this paragraph list
the requirements for notifying and warning employees of the locations
of CACSs and their dangers, and training employees regarding CACS
safety.
Paragraph (b)(1)(i). This proposed provision would require the
employer to inform employees who the employer anticipates will be
working in or near a CACS, and their authorized representatives, about
the location of, and the dangers posed by, the CACS at the job site. In
fulfilling this proposed requirement, the employer must first identify
the employees it anticipates will be working in or near the CACS,
including employees who: perform work in a CACS; deliver materials,
supplies, and tools in or near a CACS; and may detect, and act to save,
an incapacitated entrant during an emergency. Secondly, the employer
must select an effective method to relay this information to the
employees; these methods may range from tool-box talks to formal
training. This proposed provision ensures that employees who may be in
or near CACSs know the location of, and the dangers associated with,
these spaces. This information would help prevent entry into a CACS by
employees not authorized to do so, and would ensure that employees who
perform work in CACSs can recognize these dangers and exit the CACS
when the dangers materialize.
Paragraph (b)(1)(ii). Employers would be required to post danger
signs near the outside of the entrance of the CACS that read,
"Danger--Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Space--Authorized Employees
Only," or similar language. When the employer can demonstrate that a
danger sign is infeasible, the employer must use an equally effective
means of warning employees of the dangers. This proposed requirement
would augment the employee protection afforded under paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this proposed section, especially by preventing non-
authorized employees from entering a CACS.
Paragraph (b)(2). The requirements of this proposed paragraph
define the training responsibilities of employers with regards to CACS
entry.
Paragraph (b)(2)(i). Employers would be required to provide
employees who enter a CACS with the knowledge and skills necessary to
safely perform CACS entry operations. The training must ensure that
these employees understand the hazards in the CACS that they will enter
and the methods used to isolate or control these hazards. For employees
who enter CACSs, this proposed paragraph would ensure that they know
the characteristics of the hazards and the adverse effects the hazards
have on the human body, and that they have the ability to recognize
when the methods used to control or isolate identified hazards are not
effective. OSHA believes that this training will aid the employees in
understanding the importance of performing assigned tasks related to
the maintenance of safe entry conditions and recognizing how hazards
associated with the performance of construction activities affect
conditions within the CACS. Without this information, employees are
more likely to perform tasks that may compromise the safe conditions
within the CACS and injure themselves or other employees. This proposed
paragraph also provides the employees with information about the
identified hazards which could indicate that an evacuation and
reassessment is necessary to prevent injury to anyone in or around the
CACS.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ii). Under this proposed provision, the employer
is required to train the employees that the employer anticipates will
be in or near the CACS and who are not authorized to perform entry
rescues about the dangers of such rescues. For instance, when an
employee works outside a CACS but is not trained to perform rescue
operations, the employer must train that employee about the dangers
associated with attempting such a rescue. OSHA believes that employees
who are unaware of the dangers associated with attempting a rescue in a
confined space are likely to suffer injury or death from trying to
rescue an incapacitated employee in a CACS. Therefore, OSHA believes
that it is imperative that these employees have knowledge of such
dangers to prevent them from attempting rescues and being injured or
killed as a result.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iii). The requirements of this proposed paragraph
specify when an employer must provide employees with CACS-related
training.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A). Employers would be required to train
employees to perform their tasks safely before their initial entry into
a CACS, thereby ensuring that these employees have the requisite
knowledge and skills to safely perform entry operations within the
CACS. OSHA believes that it is essential that employees understand
their responsibilities regarding safe operations within the CACS, and
that they be able to recognize the signs of ineffective isolation and
control methods, before work within the space has commenced. Without
this prior knowledge of how the performance of assigned tasks affects
conditions within the CACS, an employee may endanger himself/herself or
other employees who are in and around the CACS.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B). Under this proposed provision, if an
employee the employer anticipates will be in or near a CACS receives a
change in assigned tasks and these changes affect the control of
hazardous atmospheres and/or the isolation of physical hazards (that
is, the conditions necessary for a CACS classification), then the
employer must train these employees on the newly assigned tasks before
they enter the CACS, including how to maintain the conditions of the
CACS classification when performing the tasks. For example, an
employee's assignment changes so that he/she must maintain the proper
functioning of ventilation equipment in the CACS or perform atmospheric
monitoring; before reentering the space, the employee must be trained
to perform such tasks and to understand their significance to safe CACS
operations. This additional training only applies when employees have
not received previous training on these newly assigned tasks. This
proposed provision would ensure that employees have the knowledge and
skills necessary to perform their newly assigned tasks safely within a
CACS, thereby preventing errors that could result in substantial harm
to themselves and/or other employees.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C). This proposed provision would require
employers to ensure that employees exit a CACS when a hazard arises in
the space for which they have received no previous training. Training
on the new hazard must be completed before the employee may reenter and
resume work in the CACS. For example, when a process or material
introduced into the space discharges hazardous fumes or vapors into the
atmosphere of the CACS, employees who have not had training on such
hazards must exit the CACS and receive the requisite training even if
the hazard levels are being controlled within safe limits by the
mechanical ventilation. In another example, employers would have to
follow the same procedure when a power line is exposed inadvertently
within the space. OSHA believes this proposed paragraph would protect
employees from injury or death by requiring the employer to remove them
from the CACS until they have the requisite knowledge and skills
regarding the hazard.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iv). Employers would be required to ensure that
employees can demonstrate proficiency in the CACS-related duties
required by this proposed standard, including any new and revised
procedures. For example, the employer may wish to include a testing
component in its training. OSHA believes this proposed requirement is
necessary to ensure that the overall objectives of required training
have been accomplished and the employee understands and is able to
apply what he/she has learned.
Paragraph (b)(2)(v). The two provisions of this proposed paragraph
list the information that employers must include on training records
maintained in accordance with paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 1926.1219
below. OSHA believes that documentation of employee training is an
essential administrative tool for ensuring that employees have received
the requisite training. It is particularly important that an employer
be able to verify training for employees working in a CACS because a
heightened level of employee awareness is needed when an atmospheric
hazard is being controlled rather than isolated. As discussed during
the SBREFA process, the construction industry is characterized by high
employee turnover rates and a tendency among employees to perform
short-term tasks at multiple worksites. Therefore, without this
documentation, it may be difficult for an employer to keep track of
which employees have had the required training. This documentation
would aid the employer in ensuring that no untrained employees are
assigned to do work within a CACS, thereby preventing risk of injury
and death to themselves and other employees. The dangers associated
with untrained employees have been discussed in previous paragraphs of
this proposed section.
Paragraph (b)(2)(v)(A). Employers would be required to ensure that
the training records show that an employee accomplished the training
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this proposed section before entering
a CACS. This information would allow employers to verify that an
employee received the necessary training before the employee encounters
CACS hazards.
Paragraph (b)(2)(v)(B). Employers would be required to include in
the training records the employee's name, names of the trainers, and
dates of the training. OSHA believes that this information is necessary
to identify the specific training received by each employee so that
employers select only employees with appropriate knowledge and skills
to enter a CACS. Having the names of the trainers on the training
record serves to corroborate the record, and also provides a reference
should the employer have any questions about the training received by
an employee. Including the date in the record allows an assessment of
whether the employee may need updated or refresher training before
entering the CACS. Finally, this documentation would assist employers
in determining whether the training program in general meets the needs
of the employees and results in safe and effective CACS entry
operations.
Paragraph (c). The requirements of this proposed paragraph address
general preparation for CACS entry.
Paragraph (c)(1). This proposed paragraph would require, prior to
removing an entrance cover, that employers eliminate any condition that
makes it unsafe to remove the entrance cover. The employer would be
required to evaluate the hazards that may be associated with removing
the cover, and then take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that
these hazards are eliminated. For instance, if high-pressure exists
inside the CACS, the employer would have to determine and implement
measures to address that hazard so that the cover could be removed
safely.
Paragraph (c)(2). The purpose of this proposed paragraph is to
protect employees in and around the CACS from being struck by
individuals or objects outside the CACS that may fall into the space,
or that could injure the employees when they are near the CACS. When
necessary to achieve this purpose, this proposed provision requires
employers to promptly: Use guardrails or covers as specified in 29 CFR
1926.502 (Fall protection systems criteria and practices) of subpart M
(Fall Protection) to guard holes and openings into the space from
falling individuals and objects, and institute measures to control
pedestrian and vehicle traffic in accordance with the requirements in
29 CFR Part 1926 subpart G (Signs, Signals, and Barricades).
Paragraph (c)(3). Employers would be required to ensure that a safe
method of entering and exiting a CACS (such as stairways or ladders) is
provided and used, and that it meets applicable OSHA requirements (such
as 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart X (Stairways and Ladders)). For example,
where the employees are working in an underground vault, the employer
would be required to provide and ensure the use of a safe means of
entry into and exit from an underground vault, and, if applicable,
ensure that the method complies with OSHA standards.
The proposed paragraph also would require that if a hoisting system
is used, it must be designed and manufactured for personnel hoisting.
This proposed provision specifies an exception to this requirement that
allows for the use of job-made hoisting systems if these systems are
approved for personnel hoisting by a registered professional engineer
prior to use in CACS entry operations. However, commercial hoisting
systems not designed and manufactured specifically for personnel
hoisting would not be permissible under this proposed provision because
OSHA believes they cannot be used safely for this purpose. This
proposed requirement would eliminate further injuries and deaths of
employees which could occur from the use of a hoisting system that was
not designed specifically for personnel hoisting. The provision would
give the employer flexibility in its choice of personnel hoisting
systems by allowing a registered professional engineer to approve a
job-made system. OSHA believes that either option would ensure that the
personnel hoisting system will meet the design specifications needed
for employees to safely access the CACS.
This proposed provision would ensure that authorized entrants
always have a safe and effective means of entering and exiting the
space, including escaping from it in an emergency. These means include
systems that are designed and manufactured for personnel hoisting and
job-made hoisting systems approved by a registered professional
engineer, even when these systems are not covered by an OSHA standard.
Paragraph (d). The requirements of this proposed paragraph would
ensure that employers achieve conditions in a CACS before entry that
are consistent with the determinations made, and the isolation and
control methods implemented, during the classification of the space
under paragraph (a) of this proposed section.
Paragraph (d)(1). The employer would be required to ensure that the
physical hazards identified above under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1204 remain isolated as required by paragraph
(a)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.1216 above. Because there may be a gap in
time between when the employer isolates the hazard and when entry
begins, the Agency believes that it is necessary to require that the
employer ensure immediately before entry that the physical hazards
remain isolated.
Paragraph (d)(2). Employers would be required to test for
atmospheric hazards using the methods specified above in proposed Sec.
1926.1205 (Atmospheric testing and monitoring) to ensure that the
ventilation system is controlling the atmospheric hazards at safe
levels. This requirement would ensure that, when the employees enter a
CACS, the atmosphere is safe to breathe.
Paragraph (d)(3). The employer would be required to control the
atmosphere at safe levels using only ventilation, and must provide
ventilation using a forced-air mechanical system that complies with 29
CFR 1926.57 (Ventilation). OSHA believes that use of mechanical
ventilation that meets the criteria of 29 CFR 1926.57 to control
atmospheric hazards at safe levels is a reliable means of ensuring a
safe atmosphere. The use of mechanical ventilation is necessary because
of the inherent variability of natural ventilation.
Paragraph (d)(4). Employers would be required to verify in writing
that the physical hazards are isolated and the ventilation system is
properly controlling the atmospheric hazards. This written verification
must contain: the location of the CACS, identity of the physical
hazards, methods for isolating the physical hazards, date and time of
determining that physical hazards remain isolated and the name and
signature/initials of the individual who made this determination,
identity and safe level of atmospheric hazards, methods for controlling
the atmospheric hazards, atmospheric-testing results, date and time of
atmospheric testing and the name and signature/initials of the
individual who completed the atmospheric testing, name and signature/
initials of the individual who completed this document, and the date
and time the document was completed. Employers would be required to
make this documentation available for review by each employee entering
the space and to that employee's authorized representative. This
document shall be maintained until the work in the CACS has been
completed (see the proposed recordkeeping requirements under paragraph
(d) of proposed Sec. 1926.1219). These proposed procedures would
ensure that: conditions in the CACS are safe for employee entry; the
employer, employees, and OSHA can direct questions regarding the
information to the individual who completed the document; and the
information is available for assessment purposes (for example, to
evaluate the effectiveness of the ventilation system).
The information required by this proposed paragraph duplicates much
of the information required to classify a CACS as specified above in
paragraph (a)(3) of this proposed section. However, the information
required by this proposed paragraph addresses conditions in the CACS
just prior to beginning entry operations. OSHA believes that
documenting these conditions is necessary because employers would use
this information to compare these conditions to the baseline conditions
documented in proposed paragraph (a)(3), thereby alerting them to
differences that may indicate poor hazard control or isolation. To
lessen the paperwork burden of this proposed requirement, employers do
not have to document CACS information that remains fixed, and only need
to document information that is likely to vary from the information
used to classify the CACS (see the sample verification document in
proposed Appendix B). Therefore, employers do not need to document the
location of the CACS, identity of the physical hazards, methods for
isolating the physical hazards, identity and safe level of atmospheric
hazards, and methods for controlling the atmospheric hazards, but must
document the date and time of determining that physical hazards remain
isolated and the name and signature/initials of the individual who made
this determination, atmospheric-testing results, the date and time of
atmospheric testing and the name and signature/initials of the
individual who completed the atmospheric testing, the name and
signature/initials of the individual who completed the verification
document, and the date and time the document was completed.
Paragraph (e). The provisions of this proposed paragraph establish
the minimum safety requirements that employers must follow after
employees enter a CACS.
Paragraph (e)(1). This proposed provision would require the
employer to ensure that physical hazards identified above under
paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1204 remain isolated during entry.
This proposed provision would provide employers and employees with
assurance that the physical hazards, if any, within the CACS continue
to be isolated.
Paragraph (e)(2). The employer would be required to monitor
atmospheric hazards as specified in proposed Sec. 1926.1205
(Atmospheric testing and monitoring) to ensure that forced-air
mechanical ventilation alone effectively controls atmospheric hazards
at safe levels. This proposed paragraph specifies that employers are to
use continuous monitoring unless they can demonstrate that the
equipment for continuously monitoring a hazard is not commercially
available or periodic monitoring is sufficient. For example, when an
employer demonstrates that atmospheric-testing results in the past for
the CACS have consistently indicated that the change in atmospheric
levels occurs slowly and predictably, periodic monitoring may be
permissible. The Agency believes that this proposed requirement for
continuous monitoring is necessary for the same reasons discussed with
respect to paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211 (Monitoring).
Paragraph (e)(3). The employer would be required to complete a
written verification of the determinations made under paragraphs (e)(1)
and (e)(2) of this proposed section. The employer would also be
required to ensure that this written verification contains: The
location of the CACS, identity of the physical hazards, methods for
isolating the physical hazards, date and time of determining that
physical hazards remain isolated and the name and signature/initials of
the individual who made this determination, identity and safe level of
atmospheric hazards, methods for controlling the atmospheric hazards,
atmospheric-monitoring results, date and time of atmospheric monitoring
and the name and signature/initials of the individual who completed the
atmospheric monitoring, name and signature/initials of the individual
who completed this document, and the date and time the document was
completed. Lastly, the employer must make the document available to
each employee entering the space and to the employee's authorized
representative.
The information in this verification document would serve as a
reference to help employees recognize developing hazards (for example,
increases in atmospheric hazards) during entry operations, so that
entrants would know to exit the CACS. Also, after completing an entry
operation, employers could use the information to evaluate the effectiveness
of methods used to isolate physical hazards and control atmospheric hazards,
or to determine the cause of an accident; in either case, the information
would assist the employer in identifying the necessary corrective action.
Making the documentation available to employees and their authorized
representatives would help ensure that employees have the reference
information necessary to recognize when hazards are developing while
engaged in entry operations.
To lessen the paperwork burden of this proposed requirement,
employers do not have to document CACS information that remains fixed,
and only need to document information that is likely to vary from the
information used to classify the CACS (see the sample verification
document in proposed Appendix B). Therefore, employers do not need to
document the location of the CACS, identity of the physical hazards,
methods for isolating the physical hazards, identity and safe level of
atmospheric hazards, and methods for controlling the atmospheric
hazards, but must document the date and time of determining that
physical hazards remain isolated and the name and signature/initials of
the individual who made this determination, the results of atmospheric
monitoring, the date and time of atmospheric monitoring and the name
and signature/initials of the individual who completed the atmospheric
monitoring, the name and signature/initials of the individual who
completed the verification document, and the date and time the document
was completed.
Paragraph (f). This proposed paragraph specifies requirements
employers must follow when an emergency occurs during entry operations,
including the presence of a non-isolated physical hazard or an
atmospheric hazard at unsafe levels.
Paragraph (f)(1). Under this proposed provision, when an emergency
requires evacuation from a CACS, employers would be required to ensure
that employees exit the space immediately. The Agency believes this
proposed requirement is necessary because once an emergency occurs, the
protective systems in place in the CACS can no longer be relied on to
protect the entrants; their safety then depends on their immediately
getting out of the CACS.
Paragraph (f)(2). This proposed paragraph requires employers to
identify the physical and atmospheric hazards in accordance with
paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1204. Under paragraph (b)(2) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1204, employers must reclassify the space as a PRCS
when it is necessary for the entrant to enter the space to obtain the
required information. The Agency believes that this proposed
requirement is necessary to ensure that the spaces are correctly
assessed, and to ensure that the employees are protected while
conducting the assessments.
Paragraph (f)(3). This proposed provision requires an employer to
use the information about the confined space that it obtained above
under paragraph (f)(2) of this proposed section, and reclassify the
evacuated space as either a CS-PRCS, PRCS, CACS, or IHCS. The employer
must then follow the precautions and safety procedures listed for the
space classification in the applicable sections of this proposed
standard. The employees cannot reenter the space to perform their
assigned tasks until the employer determines that the conditions within
the confined space meet the classification and prevention/protection
requirements specified for the space. This requirement would ensure
that employees receive appropriate protection prior to reentering the
confined space.
Section 1926.1217--Isolated-Hazard Confined Spaces--Requirements for
Classification and Accident Prevention and Protection
Paragraph (a). The provisions of this proposed paragraph specify
the requirements for classifying a confined space as an Isolated-Hazard
Confined Space (IHCS). When an employer isolates or eliminates all
atmospheric and physical hazards in a space, the space would qualify
for the IHCS classification. Employers applying that classification
would be required to comply with these proposed provisions before an
employee enters the space. The Agency believes that, in some instances,
employers will meet IHCS classification requirements instead of
classifying a space as a PRCS or CACS; the IHCS classification will
sometimes be more efficient and less costly to implement than the PRCS
or CACS requirements.
Paragraph (a)(1). The employer would be required to isolate each
physical hazard in the space identified under paragraph (b) of proposed
Sec. 1926.1204. The definition of the terms "isolate" or
"isolation" provided in paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1203
(Definitions applicable to this subpart) is "the elimination or
removal of a physical or atmospheric hazard by preventing its release
into a confined space. Isolation includes, but is not limited to, the
following methods: Blanking and blinding; misaligning or removing
sections of lines, pipes, or ducts; a double-block-and bleed system;
locking out or tagging out energy sources; machine guarding; and
blocking or disconnecting all mechanical linkages." In some
situations, employers may perform isolation by de-energizing machinery
or systems using appropriate lockout-tagout procedures (for example, 29
CFR 1926.417 (Lockout and tagging of circuits)).
While the proposed provision would allow employers flexibility in
the methods and procedures they use to identify and isolate physical
hazards, it would not relieve them from conducting a thorough
assessment of the space and identifying hazards that include, but are
not limited to: Existing or potential liquids, solid materials, and
electricity associated with processes; the use of equipment, ductwork,
and conduits with exposed valves or that terminate in the confined
space; exposed and energized electrical conduits; connected rooms and
reservoirs that present engulfment hazards; and any other recognized
hazards covered by OSHA construction standards. OSHA believes that
isolating all the physical hazards within the space protects employees
while working in the IHCS.
Paragraph (a)(2). This proposed provision would require employers
to isolate the atmospheric hazards identified in the space as specified
in paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1204. In doing so, the employer
must make a determination regarding atmospheric hazards, and adopt an
appropriate method of isolating these hazards that would prevent their
release into the confined space. Properly identifying and implementing
an isolation method increases the likelihood that employees will be
safe while working within the IHCS because all atmospheric hazards will
have been isolated or eliminated.
Paragraph (a)(3). The employer would be required to isolate the
atmospheric and physical hazards without entering the space. However,
when the employer demonstrates that it is infeasible to isolate the
hazards without entering the space, it may only enter the space if it
complies with the requirements for PRCSs in proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.1208 through 1926.1214 or, when applicable, the requirements for
CS-PRCSs in proposed Sec. 1926.1215. Even when the employer is able to
isolate some of the hazards without entering the space, the space would
remain a PRCS until the employer isolates every physical and atmospheric
hazard in the space. By maintaining the PRCS classification for these
spaces until the employer completes hazard isolation, this proposed
provision would protect employees from any atmospheric and/or physical
hazards during the isolation process.
Paragraph (a)(4). Employers would be required to verify in writing
that all of the physical and atmospheric hazards in the space have been
isolated as required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this proposed
section, and to make this documentation available to each employee who
is entering the space, and to their authorized representatives. The
proposal specifies that the verification document must contain the:
Location of the IHCS, identity of the physical hazards, methods for
isolating the physical hazards, date and time the physical hazards were
isolated and name and signature/initials of the individual who
completed the isolation work, the identity of atmospheric hazards,
methods for isolating the atmospheric hazards, the date and time the
atmospheric hazards were isolated and the name and signature/initials
of the individual who completed the isolation work, name and signature/
initials of the individual who completed this document, and the date
and time the document was completed.
OSHA believes the information on the verification document would
ensure that employers confirm the effectiveness of protective measures
implemented prior to IHCS entry. This proposed provision is necessary
as an administrative tool to ensure that employees are protected from
physical or atmospheric hazards upon initial entry into an IHCS, and
that the space remains safe during entry operations. The testing
results would also serve as a baseline against which employers and
employees could compare current conditions within the IHCS during entry
operations. The proposed requirement to make the documentation
available to employees and their authorized representatives would
ensure that entrants have the information necessary to detect
developing hazards while they are working in the space. OSHA believes
that when employers and employees have access to these verification
documents, deficiencies in isolation methods can be readily identified,
which would reduce the probability that employees will be injured by
hazards within the IHCS.
Paragraph (b). The provisions of this proposed paragraph list the
minimum IHCS training requirements. The employer would be required to
ensure that employees performing this work meet these proposed training
requirements before they enter an IHCS, thereby expediting recognition
of hazardous conditions and development of appropriate responses.
A note to this proposed paragraph states that employers do not need
to document the IHCS training requirements, unlike the training
provisions proposed for PRCSs, CS-PRCSs, and CACSs, which do require
documentation. However, in contrast to PRCSs, CS-PRCSs, and CACSs,
IHCSs contain no hazards or contain isolated hazards. The Agency
believes that IHCS conditions afford employees optimum protection
because the likelihood of employee exposure to a hazard during entry
operations is extremely low. In addition, the training requirements
proposed for IHCSs, which are informational only, are similar to the
training provisions currently specified for confined and enclosed
spaces by 29 CFR 1926.21(b)(6), which does not require training
documentation. OSHA concludes that requiring employers to document this
minimal training requirement would discourage them from classifying
confined spaces as IHCSs, thereby denying employees the safety and
health benefits associated with this classification.
Paragraph (b)(1). Employers would be required to ensure that
employees who enter IHCSs acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to
recognize the signs, symptoms, and characteristic effects associated
with exposure to the hazards identified under paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this proposed section, and to understand the methods used to
isolate these hazards. OSHA believes that this training is necessary to
prevent accidents caused by an employee's inexperience with working in
an IHCS. This training would allow employees to detect failures in the
methods used to isolate IHCS hazards, and to recognize the physical and
behavioral effects that result from these failures.
Paragraph (b)(2). Employers would be required to train employees
the employer anticipates will be in or near the IHCS, and who are not
authorized to perform entry rescues, about the dangers of attempting
such rescues. This requirement would deter untrained employees from
attempting entry rescues, thereby preventing them from being
incapacitated, injured, or killed from the hazards in the space.
Paragraph (c). The requirements of this proposed paragraph address
general preparation for IHCS entry.
Paragraph (c)(1). This proposed paragraph would require, prior to
removing an entrance cover, that employers eliminate any condition that
makes it unsafe to remove the entrance cover. The employer would be
required to evaluate the hazards that may be associated with removing
the cover, and then take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that
these hazards are eliminated. For instance, if high-pressure exists
inside the IHCS, the employer would have to determine and implement
measures to address that hazard so that the cover could be removed
safely.
Paragraph (c)(2). The purpose of this proposed paragraph is to
protect employees in and around the IHCS from being struck by
individuals or objects outside the IHCS that may fall into the space,
or that could injure the employees when they are near the IHCS. When
necessary to achieve this purpose, this proposed provision requires
employers to promptly: Use guardrails or covers as specified in 29 CFR
1926.502 (Fall protection systems criteria and practices) of subpart M
(Fall Protection) to guard holes and openings into the space from
falling individuals and objects, and institute measures to control
pedestrian and vehicle traffic in accordance with the requirements in
29 CFR Part 1926 subpart G (Signs, Signals, and Barricades).
Paragraph (c)(3). Employers would be required to ensure that a safe
method of entering and exiting an IHCS (such as stairways or ladders)
is provided and used, and that it meets applicable OSHA requirements
(such as 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart X (Stairways and Ladders)). For
example, where the employees are working in an underground vault, the
employer would be required to provide and ensure the use of a safe
means of entry into and exit from an underground vault, and, if
applicable, ensure that the method complies with OSHA standards.
The proposed paragraph also would require that if a hoisting system
is used, it must be designed and manufactured for personnel hoisting.
This proposed provision specifies an exception to this requirement that
allows for the use of job-made hoisting systems if these systems are
approved for personnel hoisting by a registered professional engineer
prior to use in IHCS entry operations. However, commercial hoisting
systems not designed and manufactured specifically for personnel
hoisting would not be permissible under this proposed provision because
OSHA believes they cannot be used safely for this purpose. This
proposed requirement would eliminate further injuries and deaths of
employees which could occur from the use of a hoisting system that was
not designed specifically for personnel hoisting. The provision would give
the employer flexibility in its choice of personnel hoisting systems by
allowing a registered professional engineer to approve a job-made system.
OSHA believes that either option would ensure that the personnel hoisting
system will meet the design specifications needed for employees to safely
access the IHCS.
This proposed provision would ensure that employees always have a
safe and effective means of entering and exiting the space, including
escaping from it in an emergency. These means include systems that are
designed and manufactured for personnel hoisting and job-made hoisting
systems approved by a registered professional engineer, even when these
systems are not covered by an OSHA standard.
Paragraph (d). The three provisions of this proposed paragraph
address the requirements that employers would be required to follow
prior to having employees enter an IHCS.
Paragraph (d)(1). Employers would be required to ensure that the
physical hazards identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this proposed
section remain isolated. This proposed requirement would ensure that
employees are safe from exposure to physical hazards after entering an
IHCS.
Paragraph (d)(2). Employers would be required to confirm, through
testing, that the atmospheric hazards identified in paragraph (a)(2) of
this proposed section are isolated. In conducting this testing,
employers must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1205. This proposed provision would protect
employees from atmospheric hazards during initial entry into an IHCS.
Paragraph (d)(3). Employers would be required to verify in writing
the determinations made and the actions taken under paragraphs (d)(1)
and (d)(2) of this proposed section. The information provided in this
documentation must include the: Location of the IHCS, identity of the
physical hazards, methods for isolating the physical hazards, date and
time the physical hazards were isolated, date and time of determining
that physical hazards remain isolated and the name and signature/
initials of the individual who made this determination, identity of the
atmospheric hazards, methods for isolating the atmospheric hazards,
date and time the atmospheric hazards were isolated, date and time of
determining that atmospheric hazards remain isolated and the name and
signature/initials of the individual who made this determination, name
and signature/initials of the individual who completed this document,
and date and time the document was completed. In addition, the document
shall be made available by posting or other methods to employees
entering the IHCS and to the employee's authorized representative.
This proposed requirement would provide assurance that the IHCS is
safe to enter, as well as information that could be used to detect a
developing hazard (for example, indication of an atmospheric
contaminant during subsequent entry operations). Therefore, this
information would provide employees with protection against physical or
atmospheric hazards while entering an IHCS. Other employers, including
subcontractors, may benefit from this information since it would be
relevant to (though not a substitute for) their own hazard assessment
of the space.
This information nearly duplicates the information specified above
in paragraph (a)(4) of this proposed section. To lessen the paperwork
burden of this proposed requirement, employers do not have to document
IHCS information that remains fixed, and only need to document
information that is likely to vary from the information used to
classify the IHCS (see the sample verification document in proposed
Appendix B). Therefore, employers do not need to document the location
of the IHCS, identity of the physical hazards, methods for isolating
the physical hazards, date and time the physical hazards were isolated,
identity of atmospheric hazards, methods for isolating the atmospheric
hazards, and date and time the atmospheric hazards were isolated, but
must document the date and time of determining that physical hazards
remain isolated and the name and signature/initials of the individual
who made this determination, the date and time of determining that
atmospheric hazards remain isolated and the name and signature/initials
of the individual who made this determination, name and signature/
initials of the individual who completed the verification document and
the date and time the document was completed.
Paragraph (e). This proposed paragraph contains two provisions
regarding IHCSs during entry operations. Employers would be prohibited
from having employees continue to engage in entry operations unless
these proposed provisions are met.
Paragraph (e)(1). Employers would be required to ensure that the
physical and atmospheric hazards identified in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this proposed section remain isolated during entry
operations. For example, following the requirements of paragraph (a) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1205 would allow an employer to determine the
effectiveness of methods used to isolate atmospheric contaminants; for
some physical hazards, employers may perform periodic inspections of
blocking, blanking, and lockout-tagout methods to ensure their
continuing effectiveness. By requiring employers to ensure that
physical and atmospheric hazards remain isolated, this proposed
provision would prevent physical and atmospheric hazards from entering
an IHCS occupied by employees.
Paragraph (e)(2). This proposed paragraph specifies requirements
employers must follow when an emergency occurs during entry operations,
including the presence of a non-isolated physical hazard or an
atmospheric hazard.
Paragraph (e)(2)(i). Under this proposed provision, when an
emergency requires evacuation from an IHCS, employers would be required
to ensure that employees exit the space immediately. The Agency
believes this proposed requirement is necessary because once an
emergency occurs, the protective systems in place in the IHCS can no
longer be relied on to protect the entrants; their safety then depends
on their immediately getting out of the IHCS. This provision would
ensure that employees minimize their exposure to physical or
atmospheric hazards.
Note that this proposed provision does not require employers
engaged in IHCS operations to have a rescue service available during
emergencies. OSHA believes that, unlike PRCSs and CS-PRCSs, IHCSs
contain no hazards or contain isolated hazards. The Agency believes
that IHCS conditions afford employees optimum protection because the
likelihood of employee exposure to a hazard during entry operations is
extremely low. OSHA believes that requiring employers to have entry
rescue services available during IHCSs entry operations would
discourage them from classifying confined spaces as IHCSs, thereby
denying employees the safety and health benefits associated with this
classification. Nevertheless, employers must be able to rescue
employees during IHCS operations when required to do so by other OSHA
standards. For instance, if employers use fall-arrest systems in IHCSs,
then 29 CFR 1926.502(d)(20) requires that they promptly rescue
employees who experience an arrested fall, or assure that the employees
are able to rescue themselves.
Paragraph (e)(2)(ii). This proposed paragraph requires employers to
identify the physical and atmospheric hazards in accordance with paragraph
(b) of proposed Sec. 1926.1204. Under paragraph (b)(2) of proposed
Sec. 1926.1204, employers must reclassify the space as a PRCS when it
is necessary for the entrant to enter the space to obtain the required
information. When doing so, employers must comply with the accident-prevention
and protection requirements specified for PRCSs by proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1208
through 1926.1214 (and, if applicable, proposed Sec. 1926.1215 for CS-
PRCSs). The Agency believes that this proposed requirement is necessary
to ensure that the spaces are correctly assessed and to ensure that the
employees are protected while conducting the assessments.
Paragraph (e)(2)(iii). This proposed provision requires an employer
to use the information about the confined space that it obtained under
paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this proposed section, and reclassify the
evacuated space as either a CS-PRCS, PRCS, CACS, or IHCS. The employer
must then follow the precautions and safety procedures listed for the
space classification in the applicable sections of this proposed
standard. The employees cannot reenter the space to perform their
assigned tasks until the employer determines that the conditions within
the confined space meet the classification and prevention/protection
requirements specified for the space. This requirement would ensure
that employees receive appropriate protection prior to reentering the
confined space.
Section 1926.1218--Equipment
Paragraph (a). The provisions of this proposed paragraph specify
the equipment employers would have to provide for confined-space
operations. These proposed provisions also require employers to
properly maintain, calibrate, and use the equipment required by this
proposed standard.
Paragraph (a)(1). The employer would be required to provide and
ensure the use of the atmospheric-testing and -monitoring equipment
needed to comply with this proposed standard. OSHA believes that this
equipment is essential for protecting employees from atmospheric
hazards.
Paragraph (a)(2). The employer would be required to provide forced-
air mechanical ventilation equipment when needed to meet the
requirements of this proposed standard. For example, the employer would
be required to provide such equipment if it is needed to meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) and (d)(3) of proposed Sec.
1926.1216 (for control of atmospheric hazards such as dusts, fumes,
mists, vapors, or gases). Forced-air mechanical-ventilation equipment,
when used appropriately under proposed Sec. 1926.1216 (Controlled-
atmosphere confined spaces--requirements for classification and
accident prevention and protection), would protect employees from the
atmospheric hazards. The employer would also be required to provide it
where it is used to help establish planned conditions for entry
operations under proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1208 through 1926.1214
(PRCSs) or proposed Sec. 1926.1215 (CS-PRCSs). In those instances, use
of the equipment would be a significant factor in protecting the
employees.
Paragraph (a)(3). The employer would be required to provide
personal protective equipment (PPE), including respirators, when needed
to comply with this proposed standard. When employees use respirators,
the respirator requirements in 29 CFR 1926.103 (Respiratory protection)
must be met.\4\ For example, failure to use the appropriate filters in
a respirator can render its use ineffective, and would be a violation
of 29 CFR 1926.103. OSHA believes that when the appropriate PPE is
provided, maintained, and used in accordance with OSHA standards that
address the identified hazard, the employees will be protected from
serious injury or death. (Note: The issue of employer payment for PPE
is the subject of a separate rulemaking (see 64 FR 15402). The Agency
has indicated that it will complete that rulemaking in the near
future.)
Paragraph (a)(4). The employer would be required to provide any
equipment not already mentioned that is necessary for safe confined-
space operations. OSHA believes this proposed requirement would ensure
that the appropriate equipment is available at the job site so
employees receive adequate protection from hazards present during
confined-space operations. Accordingly, the employer would have to
identify this additional equipment after conducting an assessment of
the confined space as required by the applicable sections of this
proposed standard, and then provide and ensure the use of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 29 CFR 1926.103 cross-references OSHA's Respiratory
Protection Standard at 29 CFR 1910.134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (b). This proposed paragraph specifies requirements for
equipment, including maintenance, calibration, and use, needed to
comply with this standard. OSHA believes the use of improperly
maintained or calibrated equipment could severely compromise the
testing and monitoring of conditions within the space and result in
employee injury or death. For example, if a gas monitor is not properly
calibrated, it may fail to indicate a dangerous hazard level, leading
employees to incorrectly believe that it is safe to enter the space.
Under this proposed provision, employers also must ensure that
employees use equipment properly to meet the requirements of this
proposed standard. For instance, the cords of electrical equipment must
not be used to suspend or lower other equipment into a confined space,
or the exhaust from powered equipment shall not be used to provide heat
for employees inside a confined space. Meeting the requirements of this
provision would ensure that employees would not be injured or killed
due to the unsafe use of equipment while performing work in and around
confined spaces.
Paragraph (b)(1). Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), the employer
would be required to ensure that equipment used to meet requirements of
this standard complies with other applicable OSHA requirements with
regard to maintenance, calibration, and use. Accordingly, the employer
must adhere to other OSHA standards that provide criteria for equipment
such that the equipment will not injure or kill employees who must use
it. For example, ventilation systems and any fall protection used must
meet the requirements of appropriate OSHA standards.
Paragraph (b)(2). This proposed provision would provide employers
with alternatives in case no applicable OSHA standard is available to
regulate the maintenance, calibration, and use of equipment required by
this proposed standard.
Paragraph (b)(2)(i). This proposed provision would require
employers to use manufacturers' instructions as the principal
alternative when an OSHA standard is not available. Equipment
manufacturers are most familiar with the components, configuration, and
safe and healthful operation of their equipment; this information
places them in the best position to specify the proper maintenance,
calibration, and use of this equipment when an appropriate OSHA
standard is not available.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ii). If neither an OSHA standard nor
manufacturers' instructions are available to maintain, calibrate, and
use equipment, this proposed provision would require employers to
follow the recommendations of a qualified individual. As required by 29
CFR 1926.32(m), a properly qualified individual would possess the
recognized training, education, professional standing, experience and/
or demonstrated ability necessary to make decisions that will ensure
the proper maintenance, calibration, and use of equipment used in
confined spaces. In making these recommendations, a qualified
individual may refer to other available sources such as national
standards and industry-recognized safe work practices. The Agency
believes that the recommendations of a qualified individual, in absence
of applicable OSHA standards and manufacturers' instructions, would
assure that equipment required by this proposed standard functions as
it is designed to do, thereby providing safe working conditions for
employees in confined spaces.
Section 1926.1219--Records
Paragraph (a). This proposed provision would require that the
employer either maintain a copy of this standard at the job sites where
there is a confined space or maintain a copy of a written confined-
space program at the sites that incorporates the standard's
requirements. This proposed standard was drafted and organized to
direct employers through the steps necessary to protect their employees
from confined-space hazards, especially employers who are unfamiliar
with confined-space work and may not initially recognize the potential
dangers of working within a confined space.
OSHA believes that when an employer has a copy of the construction
confined-spaces standard at the job site, along with the documentation
required for each section, there is no need to also have a written
program. However, if an employer instead prefers to maintain a copy of
a written confined-space program at the job site, the proposed
provision gives such employers that option so long as that program
incorporates the requirements of the proposed standard applicable to
the employer's work at the site. For example, if an employer works
within chemical tanks that are not CS-PRCSs, and prefers to treat them
as PRCSs (rather than meeting CACS or IHCS requirements), such an
employer may opt to maintain a written program at that site that
addresses the requirements for PRCSs but does not address CACS and IHCS
requirements. Whichever option the employer chooses, the Agency
believes that it is necessary for a written copy of this standard or
the written confined-space program be available at the site as a
reference for employees who are involved with implementing safe entry
procedures.
Paragraph (b). The employer would be required to retain for at
least one year entry permits for all PRCS work performed by their
employees. The one-year time period would begin on cancellation of the
entry permit for any reason (for example, evacuation of the space or
completion of the work specified by the permit). Employers that perform
PRCS work must retain entry permits to conduct the required 12-month
review specified by paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec. 1926.1214.
The note to this paragraph states that, when an entry permit meets
the definition of an "employee exposure record" as defined by 29 CFR
1910.1020(c)(5), employers must retain the applicable entry permits for
the period specified in 29 CFR 1910.1020(d) (Preservation of records).
(The provisions of 29 CFR 1910.1020 (Access to employee exposure and
medical records) are made applicable to construction operations by 29
CFR 1926.33.) OSHA believes that requiring employers to maintain these
exposure records will give healthcare providers, in the event of an
emergency, access to information about the substances and exposure
levels the employee may have experienced while working within a
confined space. This information is needed to enable medical care to be
effectively administered to injured employees.
Paragraph (c). Employers would be required to maintain training
records in accordance with proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1209(d)(5) (PRCSs)
and 1926.1216(b)(2)(v) (CACSs). OSHA believes that employee training
records are an important administrative tool for tracking which
employees have received required training. Accordingly, these training
records need only be maintained during the time in which the employee
continues to be employed by his/her employer. Requiring employers to
maintain employee training records for a longer period is especially
burdensome to construction employers because of the high employee
turnover rates they typically experience.
This proposed paragraph requires employers to maintain employee
training documents only for employees who work in PRCSs and CACSs, not
for employees who work in IHCSs. The proposed paragraph did not include
training records for employees who work in IHCSs because, unlike PRCSs
and CACSs in which hazards are still present during confined-space
operations, IHCSs either contain no hazards or employers isolate any
hazards that are identified. Therefore, employees who perform work in
an IHCS are not exposed to any physical or atmospheric hazards related
to conditions within the IHCS, and OSHA believes that requiring
construction employers to maintain employee training records when they
are not required by other OSHA standards would subject them to an
unnecessary burden.
Paragraph (d). This paragraph would require documents mandated in
paragraphs (a)(3), (d)(4), and (e)(3) of proposed Sec. 1926.1216
(CACSs) and paragraphs (a)(4) and (c)(3) of proposed Sec. 1926.1217
(IHCSs) to be maintained by the employer until the work in the confined
space is completed. OSHA believes these documents are important
administrative tools for employers who perform work in these types of
confined spaces. Employees who work within or around these types of
confined spaces will be able to better recognize deficiencies in
isolation and control methods, or changes in the conditions within the
confined space, when they can reference these documents.
The Agency recognizes, however, that confined spaces that are
classified as CACSs or IHCSs typically involve more predictable and
less complex hazard-protection scenarios than those usually associated
with CS-PRCSs and PRCSs. Therefore, unlike PRCS entry permits, the
Agency believes that it is not necessary for employers to maintain the
CACS and IHCS verification documents for review and evaluation after
the work is completed. Similar to the note to paragraph (b) of this
proposed section, the note in this proposed paragraph requires that
these documents be maintained for longer periods if they constitute
exposure records under 29 CFR 1910.1020 (Access to employee exposure
and medical records).
Paragraph (e). Employers would be required to make all documents
required to be retained under this proposed standard available to the
Secretary of Labor upon request. The request from the Secretary or the
Secretary's designee (for example, OSHA) may be either oral or written.
Unless another provision of this proposed standard requires a document
to be maintained at the worksite, these documents may be kept off site
as long as they can be readily produced by the employer. These
documents pertain to the determinations made and actions taken
regarding hazards. They provide valuable information to those
inspecting the worksite in determining whether elements of this
proposed standard have been met.
IV. Issues for Comment
OSHA requests comments from the public on any issues related to
this proposed standard. However, OSHA is specifically requesting the public
to comment on, and provide additional information regarding, the issues
listed below. Please provide a detailed rationale for each response
made to these issues.
1. Comparison to subpart P. In a recent regulatory review of 29 CFR
part 1926 subpart P (Excavations), a commenter stated that the Agency
should clarify that trenches are not confined spaces, while another
commenter recommended that, for ease of use, OSHA combine the
excavation standards in subpart P and this proposed standard for
confined spaces into a single standard (Ex. 2-7, OSHA Docket No. S-
204A). In addition, another commenter noted that 29 CFR
1926.651(g)(1)(iii) of subpart P states that the lower flammable limit
(LFL) is 20 percent for an atmosphere containing a flammable gas, while
the definition of "hazardous atmosphere" in paragraph (b) of the
general industry confined-spaces standard specifies an LFL of 10
percent for a flammable gas, vapor, or mist (Ex. 2-4, OSHA Docket No.
S-204A). This proposed standard for confined spaces in construction
adopts an LFL of 10 percent in its definition of "hazardous
atmosphere," which is the same LFL as in the general industry standard
and in the ANSI Z117.1-2003 industry consensus confined-spaces
standard. The commenter requested that OSHA make these LFL requirements
similar.
In section III ("Summary and Explanation of the Proposed
Standard") of this proposal, the Agency notes that paragraph (b) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1202 clearly states that excavations covered by
subpart P are not confined spaces covered by this proposed standard.
OSHA believes that subpart P provides sufficient protection from
confined-space hazards during excavation work. However, the Agency
would be interested in comments on this proposed exception, as well as
on the recommendation to combine the excavation standard and this
proposed standard into a single standard. Additionally, OSHA requests
comment on the advisability of reconciling the difference in LFLs
between the excavation standard in subpart P and this proposed
standard, including which LFL (that is, 10 percent or 20 percent)
should be adopted.
2. Equipment necessary for a single attendant to monitor multiple
PRCSs. Paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of proposed Sec. 1926.1210 requires
employers to provide the equipment needed by an attendant to respond to
an emergency affecting any of the PRCSs the attendant is monitoring. In
the preamble discussion of this proposed provision, OSHA states that
this equipment may include electronic equipment, such as electronic
audio and video tools, and that it is unrealistic to expect a single
attendant to monitor multiple PRCSs and to accomplish the other tasks
assigned to him/her in paragraph (f) of proposed Sec. 1926.1211
without the assistance provided by this electronic equipment. OSHA is
requesting public comment on what means (other than electronic
equipment) are available that employers could use that would allow an
attendant to effectively monitor multiple PRCSs and to accomplish other
assigned tasks, while simultaneously providing employees with the same
level of protection they would receive when an attendant monitors only
a single PRCS.
3. Mechanical device for vertical retrieval during rescue.
Paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Sec. 1926.1213 would require that
employers use a mechanical device for retrieving employees from a PRCS
when such retrieval involves vertical distances over five feet (1.52
m). In the preamble discussion of this proposed paragraph, OSHA noted
that securing the retrieval line to an anchor point or using a simple
pulley for this purpose could endanger the authorized entrant because
most attendants do not have sufficient strength and stamina to lift a
disabled entrant over a vertical distance of more than five feet.
However, the Agency also noted in this discussion that it recognizes
that using the required mechanical devices may present problems to
employers because some PRCSs may lack room to position the equipment
above the entry point, or employers may need to keep the entry clear
for the attendant to observe the authorized entrants while they are
working. Therefore, OSHA is requesting commenters to provide
information on other alternatives (other than using anchor points and/
or simple pulleys) that employers could use for this purpose that would
not occlude the PRCS entrance, or would be less obtrusive than the
mechanical devices required by this proposed provision.
4. Timely response to a rescue summons. Paragraph (b)(1)(i) of
proposed Sec. 1926.1213 specifies that the employer must ensure that
the rescue service can respond to a rescue summons in a timely manner,
and defines the term "timeliness" as a function of how quickly a
rescue service needs to reach an employee to prevent further serious
physical harm that may result from hazards in the PRCS while waiting to
be rescued. OSHA is soliciting comments on this definition, especially
whether it is adequate as proposed, should remain performance based as
proposed but revised in some fashion, or should specify an exact time
for the rescue service to respond to the summons (for example, three
minutes).
5. Maintaining CACS and IHCS verification documents. The
requirements of paragraph (d) of proposed Sec. 1926.1219 (Records)
states that employers need only maintain CACS and IHCS verification
documents until they complete the work in the confined space. In
justifying this requirement, OSHA notes that CACSs or IHCSs typically
involve more predictable and less complex hazard-protection conditions
than PRCSs; consequently, the need to review and evaluate CACS and IHCS
verification documents is less than for PRCS entry permits, which
employers must maintain for at least one year to evaluate the safety
and efficacy of entry operations. Therefore, the Agency believes that
it is not necessary for employers to maintain the CACS and IHCS
verification documents for review and evaluation after the work is
completed. OSHA is seeking comment on whether CACS and IHCS entry
operations warrant maintaining the verification documents for a longer
period than specified by this proposed provision. If so, the Agency is
requesting commenters to identify these conditions and recommend how
long the period should be.
6. Rescue Service Preparation and Changes in Confined-Space
Configuration. The requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.1213(b)(1)
states that employers "must ensure that the entry rescue service can
effectively perform entry-rescue tasks in the PRCSs the authorized
entrant(s) will enter." In addition, proposed Sec.
1926.1213(b)(1)(ii) requires employers to ensure that the entry rescue-
service: "Prior to beginning operations, has access to the PRCS the
authorized entrants will enter or to a Simulated PRCS so the entry
rescue service can develop appropriate rescue plans and practice rescue
operations." OSHA estimates that the majority of construction
employers who perform work within confined spaces will rely upon
public-sector emergency services to perform rescue services.
Accordingly, the Agency is seeking comments from the public regarding
any difficulties employers have experienced with public-sector
emergency services being unable to perform entry rescues in confined
spaces that rapidly change in configuration during the construction
process. For example, have instances occurred when public-sector
emergency services were unable to perform entry rescues because the
configuration of a space changed during the performance of construction
activities, and the size and type of the rescue service's equipment was
unsuitable for the reconfigured space? Is it feasible for employers to
plan for changes in the configuration of confined spaces, and to
communicate this information to public-sector emergency services so
that the rescue services can properly train and equip themselves to
perform entry rescues in the changing spaces?
V. Procedural Determinations
A. Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,
("the Act"; 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), is "to assure so far as possible
every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources." (29 U.S.C. 651(b).)
To achieve this purpose, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to
promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (29
U.S.C. 655(b) and 658.)
Under the Act, a safety or health standard is a standard "which
requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices,
means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or
appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment or places of
employment." (29 U.S.C. 652(8).) A standard is reasonably necessary or
appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8) when it substantially
reduces or eliminates significant risk, and is technologically and
economically feasible, cost effective, consistent with prior Agency
action or supported by a reasoned justification for departing from
prior Agency action, and supported by substantial evidence; it also
must effectuate the Act's purposes better than any national consensus
standard it supersedes (see International Union, UAW v. OSHA (LOTO II),
37 F.3d 665 (DC Cir. 1994; and 58 FR 16612-16616 (March 30, 1993)).
Rules promulgated by the Agency must be highly protective (see 58 FR
16612, 16614-15 (March 30, 1993); LOTO II, 37 F.3d 665, 669 (DC Cir.
1994)). Moreover, Section 8(g)(2) of the Act authorizes OSHA "to
prescribe such rules and regulations as [it] may deem necessary to
carry out its responsibilities under the Act" (see 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2)).
OSHA based the proposed rule on evidence that its provisions are
necessary to ensure proper employee protection when they are exposed to
confined spaces. Accordingly, the Agency believes that the proposed
provisions will substantially reduce the significant risk faced by
employees working in confined spaces (see Industrial Union Dept. v.
American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 655 (1980); International
Union v. Pendergrass, 878 F.2d 389, 392-93 (DC Cir. 1989); Building and
Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1264-65 (DC
Cir. 1988)). OSHA also made a preliminary finding that the proposed
rule is technologically feasible because the protective measures it
requires already exist (see American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. OSHA
(Cotton Dust), 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981); American Iron and Steel
Institute v. OSHA (Lead II), 939 F.2d 975, 980 (DC Cir. 1991)).
The Agency believes that the proposed rule is economically feasible
because the construction industry can absorb or pass on the costs of
compliance without threatening its long-term profitability or
competitive structure (see Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 530 n. 55 (1981);
Lead II, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (DC Cir. 1991)). Moreover, the preliminary
economic analysis of the proposed rule describes the benefits and costs
of the proposed rule (see section V.B. of this preamble, "Summary of
the Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis"). Based on this information, OSHA made a preliminary
determination that the proposed rule is an economically feasible means
of meeting its statutory objective of reducing the risk associated with
employee exposure to confined spaces (see Cotton Dust, 453 U.S. at 514
n. 32 (1981); LOTO II, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (DC Cir. 1994)).
B. Summary of the Preliminary Economic Analysis and the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under Section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 ("the Act"; 29 U.S.C. 655), OSHA must ensure and demonstrate
that standards promulgated under the Act are reasonably necessary or
appropriate, as well as technologically and economically feasible.
Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act also require OSHA to estimate the costs, assess the
benefits, and analyze the impacts of certain rules that the Agency
promulgates. Accordingly, OSHA has prepared a Preliminary Economic
Analysis (PEA) for this proposed standard. The complete PEA can be
found in OSHA Docket OSHA-2007-0026 (Ex. OSHA-2007-0026-0002); a
summary of the analysis is presented here. OSHA based the PEA largely
on research conducted for this purpose by CONSAD Research Corporation
(Ex. OSHA-2007-0026-0003).
Need for Regulation
Employees in work environments addressed by the proposed standard
are exposed to a variety of significant hazards that can and do cause
serious injury and death. The risks to employees are excessively large
due to the existence of market failures, and existing and alternative
methods of alleviating these negative consequences have been shown to
be insufficient. After carefully weighing the various potential
advantages and disadvantages of using a regulatory approach to improve
upon the current situation, OSHA preliminarily concludes that in this
case the proposed mandatory standard represents the best choice for
reducing the risks to employees.
Affected Industries
The proposal would affect employers and employees in a variety of
different construction industries in which confined spaces are entered
as part of the performance of work duties. These industries include
firms involved in construction projects such as multi-family housing;
industrial buildings and warehouses; other non-residential buildings;
highway and street construction; water, sewer, power, and communication
line construction; and other construction projects in which confined
spaces may be present. The firms that would be primarily affected by
the proposed standard would be those that have overall responsibility
for the work done on a particular construction project involving a
confined space, including the work of their own employees and that of
any subcontractors.
Benefits, Net Benefits, and Cost Effectiveness
The proposed standard is expected to result in an increased degree
of safety for the affected employees. Compliance with the relevant
provisions of the standard is expected to reduce the numbers of
accidents, fatalities, injuries, and illnesses associated with the
affected projects (Ex. OSHA-2007-0026-0002).
Preliminary estimates indicate that about six fatalities and 880
injuries could be avoided annually through full compliance with the
provisions of the proposed standard. Applying an average monetary value
of $50,000 per prevented injury, and an average monetary value of $6.8
million per prevented fatality, results in an estimated monetized
benefit of about $85 million annually.
Additional benefits associated with this rulemaking involve
providing updated, clear, and comprehensive information about
appropriate safety requirements and procedures regarding construction
work in confined spaces to the relevant employers, employees, and
interested members of the public. OSHA believes that the updated
standard would enhance employee safety and would be easier to
understand and to apply than the various requirements currently
applicable to such work. They will benefit employers and employees by
facilitating compliance, while improving safety. The benefits
associated with providing updated and clear safety standards have not
been monetized or quantified.
Table 2 below provides a summary of the costs and benefits of the
proposed standard, and shows the net benefits and cost effectiveness of
the standard. Net benefits are estimated to be $8.2 million annually.
The cost effectiveness of the standard can be expressed as the
prevention of approximately one fatality and 147 injuries per $13
million in costs, or alternatively, $1.11 of benefits per dollar of
cost.
Table 2.--Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation, classification, and $5.6 million.
notification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue permits, verify safety, and $6.1 million.
review procedures.
Provide ventilation and isolate hazards $6.0 million.
Atmospheric monitoring................. $11.7 million.
Attendant.............................. $14.0 million.
Respiratory protection................. $10.0 million.
Rescue capability...................... $9.6 million.
Training............................... $8.1 million.
Other requirements..................... $5.7 million.
Total annual costs.............. $76.8 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of fatalities prevented......... 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of injuries prevented........... 880.
Monetized benefits (assuming $6.8 $85 million.
million per fatality and $50,000 per
injury prevented).
OSHA standards updated and clarified... Not quantified.
Total annual benefits.................. 6 fatalities and 880 injuries
prevented.
Net annual benefits (benefits minus $8.2 million.
costs).
Cost effectiveness..................... 1 fatality and 147 injuries
prevented per $13 million or
$1.11 of benefits per $1.00 of
cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Costs represent 2002 dollars.
OSHA recognizes that uncertainties may be associated with estimates
of benefits. Therefore, OSHA is asking for public comment on the
overall estimates of benefits addressed by the proposed standard, and
the methodology used to determine the effectiveness of the standard in
preventing death and injury.
Compliance Costs
The estimated compliance costs for this proposed standard represent
the additional costs necessary for employers to achieve full
compliance. They do not include costs incurred by employers who already
are complying with the new requirements that would be imposed by the
proposed standard (Ex. OSHA-2007-0026-0002).
The total annual cost of compliance with the proposed standard is
estimated to be about $77 million. The major provisions involving
compliance costs include the evaluation, classification, and
notification of confined spaces ($5.6 million); issuing entry permits,
verifying the safety of spaces, and reviewing procedures ($6.1
million); isolating hazards and providing sufficient ventilation ($6.0
million); conducting atmospheric monitoring ($11.7 million); providing
an attendant ($14.0 million); providing a complete respiratory-
protection program as required by 29 CFR 1926.103 ($10.0 million);
providing rescue capability ($9.6 million); providing training ($8.1
million); and other requirements ($5.7 million).
Economic Impacts
To assess the effects and magnitude of the economic impacts
associated with compliance with the proposed rule, OSHA developed
quantitative estimates of the potential economic impact of the
requirements on entities in each of the affected industry sectors (Ex.
OSHA-2007-0026-0002). The estimated costs of compliance were compared
with industry revenues and profits to provide an assessment of
potential economic impacts.
The costs of compliance with the proposed rule are not large in
relation to the corresponding annual financial flows associated with
the regulated activities. The estimated costs of compliance represent
about 0.1 percent or less of revenues for each affected industry.
Alternatively, the compliance costs represent less than 1 percent of
profits for most affected industries, and no more than 2.5 percent of
profits for any affected industry.
The economic impact of the proposed rule is most likely to consist
of a small increase in prices for affected construction projects of
less than 0.03 percent on average. It is unlikely that a price increase
on the magnitude of 0.03 percent or less will significantly alter the
services demanded by the public or any other affected customers or
intermediaries. If the compliance costs of the proposed rule can be
substantially recouped with a minimal increase in prices, there may be
little or no effect on profits.
OSHA concludes that compliance with the requirements of the
proposed rule is economically feasible in every affected industry
sector. In addition, based on an analysis of the costs and economic
impacts associated with this rulemaking, OSHA preliminarily concludes
that the effects of the proposed standard on international trade,
employment, wages, and economic growth for the United States would be
negligible.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended in 1996, requires the
preparation of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for
certain proposed rules. (5 U.S.C. 601-612.) Under the provisions of the
law, each such analysis shall contain:
1. A description of the impact of the proposed rule on small
entities;
2. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
3. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
4. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
6. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed
rule; and
7. A description and discussion of any significant alternatives to
the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and that minimize any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities, including:
(a) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities;
(b) The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities;
(c) The use of performance rather than design standards; and
(d) An exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for such small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act further states that the required
elements of the IRFA may be performed in conjunction with or as part of
any other agenda or analysis required by any other law if such other
analysis satisfies the relevant provisions. The following paragraphs
discuss each of the elements of the IRFA.
1. Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities.
OSHA has analyzed the potential impact of the proposed standards on
small entities. The total annual cost of compliance with the proposal
for small entities is estimated to be $42.4 million, as shown by
industry in Table 3. To assess the potential economic impact of the
proposal on small entities, OSHA calculated the ratios of compliance
costs to profits and to revenues. These ratios are presented for each
affected industry in Table 3. OSHA expects that among small entities
potentially affected by the proposal, the average increase in prices
necessary to completely offset the compliance costs would be 0.02
percent. The average price increase necessary to completely offset
compliance costs would not exceed 0.12 percent among small entities in
any industry.
Table 3.--Potential Economic Impacts for Small Entities (SBA Definition)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs as a Costs as a
Small entity Small entity percent of percent of
Industry code Industry name Compliance costs revenues ($000) profits revenues profits
($000) (%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC 1522............................... Residential Housing--Multi-family $5,725,951 $11,495,106 $505,785 0.05 1.13
SIC 1541............................... Industrial Buildings and 5,866,386 19,360,399 793,776 0.03 0.74
Warehouses.
SIC 1542............................... Other Nonresidential Buildings... 11,180,340 91,307,565 3,287,072 0.01 0.34
SIC 1611............................... Highway and Street Construction.. 6,010,530 26,957,228 1,186,118 0.02 0.51
SIC 1622............................... Bridges, Tunnels, and Elevated 4,842,583 3,933,715 110,144 0.12 4.40
Highways.
SIC 1623............................... Water, Sewer, Power, and 1,494,314 18,867,729 641,503 0.01 0.23
Communication Lines.
SIC 1629............................... Heavy Construction, Not Elsewhere 5,304,682 15,031,723 977,062 0.04 0.54
Classified.
SIC 1791............................... Structural Steel Erection 2,023,887 5,160,641 258,032 0.04 0.78
Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \1\.......................... ................................. 42,448,675 192,114,106 7,759,492 0.02 0.55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For all Affected Industries.
Only to the extent that such price increases are not possible would
there be any effect on the average profits of small entities. Even in
the unlikely event that no costs could be passed through, the
compliance costs could be completely absorbed through an average
reduction in profits of 0.55 percent. In most affected industries the
compliance costs could be completely absorbed through an average
reduction in profits of less than 1 percent; the reduction would be no
more than 4.4 percent in any of the affected industries.
To further ensure that potential impacts on small entities were
fully analyzed and considered, OSHA also separately examined the
potential impacts of the proposed standards on very small entities,
defined as those with fewer than 20 employees. To assess the potential
economic impact of the proposed standards on very small entities, OSHA
calculated the ratios of compliance costs to profits and to revenues.
These ratios are presented for each affected industry in Table 4. OSHA
expects that among very small entities potentially affected by the
proposed standards, the average increase in prices necessary to
completely offset the compliance costs would be 0.03 percent.
Table 4.--Potential Economic Impacts on Very Small Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs as a Costs as a
Very small Very small percent of percent of
Industry code Industry name Compliance costs entity revenues entity profits revenues profits
($000) ($000) (%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC 1522............................... Residential Housing--Multi-family $3,654,087 $7,366,193 $103,127 0.05 3.54
SIC 1541............................... Industrial Buildings and 2,790,417 8,612,408 310,047 0.03 0.90
Warehouses.
SIC 1542............................... Other Nonresidential Buildings... 5,186,374 36,053,770 1,117,667 0.01 0.46
SIC 1611............................... Highway and Street Construction.. 1,880,936 6,869,911 82,439 0.03 2.28
SIC 1622............................... Bridges, Tunnels, and Elevated 1,234,911 797,366 45,450 0.15 2.72
Highways.
SIC 1623............................... Water, Sewer, Power, and 531,241 6,186,875 327,904 0.01 0.16
Communication Lines.
SIC 1629............................... Heavy Construction, Not Elsewhere 4,256,837 10,014,249 80,114 0.04 5.31
Classified.
SIC 1791............................... Structural Steel Erection 817,833 2,023,377 22,257 0.04 3.67
Contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \1\.......................... ................................. 20,352,635 77,924,149 2,089,005 0.03 0.97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For All Affected Industries
Only to the extent that such price increases are not possible would
there be any effect on the average profits of very small entities. Even
in the unlikely event that no costs could be passed through, the
compliance costs could be completely absorbed through an average
reduction in profits of 0.97 percent among affected very small
entities.
2. A Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency is Being
Considered
Employees performing construction work in confined spaces are
potentially exposed to a variety of significant hazards that can and do
cause serious injury and death. Based on research conducted by CONSAD
(Ex. OSHA-2007-0026-0003), OSHA estimates that an average of 967
serious injuries and 6.5 fatalities occur annually among these workers,
and that an estimated six fatalities and 880 injuries would be
prevented annually through full compliance with the proposed standard.
Additional benefits associated with this rulemaking involve
providing updated, clear, and comprehensive safety standards regarding
construction work in confined spaces to the relevant employers,
employees, and interested members of the public. The existing OSHA
standards for the construction industry do not directly address work in
confined spaces in a comprehensive manner. An additional and more
complete discussion of the reasons why this standard is being proposed
by the Agency is provided in other sections of the preamble of this
proposal.
3. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Rule
The primary objective of the proposed standard is to provide an
increased degree of occupational safety for employees performing
construction work in confined spaces. As stated above, an estimated 880
injuries and six fatalities would be prevented annually through
compliance with the proposed standard. Another objective of the
proposed rulemaking is to provide updated, clear, and comprehensive
safety standards regarding construction work in confined spaces to the
relevant employers, employees, and interested members of the public.
The legal basis for the rule is the responsibility given the
Department of Labor through the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)
Act of 1970. The OSH Act authorizes and obligates the Secretary of
Labor to promulgate mandatory occupational safety and health standards
as necessary "to assure so far as possible every working man and woman
in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our
human resources." 29 U.S.C. 651(b). The legal authority can also be
cited as 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 40 U.S.C. 333.
4. Description of and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rule Will Apply
OSHA has completed a preliminary analysis of the impacts associated
with this proposal, including an analysis of the type and number of
small entities to which the proposed rule would apply, as described
above. In order to determine the number of small entities potentially
affected by this rulemaking, OSHA used the definitions of small
entities developed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for each
industry.
For the construction industry generally, SBA defines small
businesses using revenue-based criteria. For most of the affected
construction industries, including those which are mostly comprised of
general contractors, firms with annual revenues of less than $28.5
million are classified as small businesses. For specialty contractors,
such as structural steel erection contractors, firms with annual
revenues of less than $12 million are considered to be small
businesses.
The proposed standard would primarily impact firms that are general
contractors on projects for which employees must enter confined spaces
for purposes of performing construction work. Based on the definitions
of small entities developed by SBA for each industry, the proposal is
estimated to potentially affect a total of 86,012 small entities, as
shown in Table 5. Included in this number are an estimated 74,088
entities with fewer than 20 employees.
Table 5.--Profile of Potentially Affected Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Number of
small Establishments Number of very small employees
Industry code Industry name entities operated by employees entities of very
(SBA small of small (<20 small
definition) entities entities employees) entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC 1522............ Residential Housing-- 7,328 7,334 46,593 6,879 29,734
Multi-family.
SIC 1541............ Industrial Buildings 8,342 8,353 80,498 7,254 38,290
and Warehouses.
SIC 1542............ Other Nonresidential 29,483 29,523 311,451 25,710 144,477
Buildings.
SIC 1611............ Highway and Street 10,068 10,113 149,342 7,940 46,735
Construction.
SIC 1622............ Bridges, Tunnels, and 996 1,001 20,360 673 5,192
Elevated Highways.
SIC 1623............ Water, Sewer, Power, & 10,582 10,597 144,659 8,470 51,427
Communication Lines.
SIC 1629............ Heavy Construction, 15,173 15,194 120,414 13,888 96,629
Not Elsewhere
Classified.
SIC 1791............ Structural Steel 4,040 4,043 48,514 3,274 19,604
Erection Contractors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.......... ...................... 86,012 86,158 921,831 74,088 432,088
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CONSAD (Ex. OSHA-2007-0026-0003), Tables 7.1 and 7.2.
5. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
OSHA is proposing a standard that would address the work practices
to be used, and other requirements to be followed, for performing
construction work in confined spaces. Employers would be required to
keep records associated with work in confined spaces as specified by
the standard. Records would include entry permits and verification
documents. Regular reporting would not be required by the proposed
standard; however, employers would be required to demonstrate
compliance with the recordkeeping requirements as part of OSHA
compliance inspections.
Other compliance requirements of the proposed standard include, as
required, the evaluation and classification of confined spaces,
isolating hazards and providing sufficient ventilation, conducting
atmospheric monitoring, providing an attendant, providing respiratory
protection, providing rescue capability, and providing training.
The preamble to the proposed standard provides a comprehensive
description of, and further detail regarding, the provisions of the
proposed rulemaking. A description of the types of entities that would
be subject to the new and revised requirements, and the types of
professional skills necessary for compliance with the requirements, is
presented in greater detail in the preliminary economic analysis (Ex.
OSHA-2007-0026-0002).
6. Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
OSHA recognizes that this proposed standard may overlap with
provisions in other part 1926 standards, such as those generically
addressing obligations to provide training or to provide respiratory
protection when appropriate. OSHA has clarified the relationship
between the proposed standard and other pre-existing construction
standards that may be applicable in a confined space. In Sec.
1926.1202(c), as well as Appendix A, OSHA has explained how overlapping
standards would interact with each other, and the obligations of an
employer in such situations. OSHA has also explained in the preamble
how practical situations would be evaluated under the requirements of
the draft standard when it overlaps with another OSHA requirement. OSHA
has not identified any other Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with the proposal, and requests comments from the public
regarding this issue.
7. Alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities
OSHA evaluated many alternatives to the proposed standards to
ensure that the proposed requirements would accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes and would minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposal on small entities. In developing the
proposal, and especially in establishing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that affect small entities, the resources
available to small entities were taken into account. Compliance and
reporting requirements under the proposal applicable to small entities
were clarified, consolidated, and simplified to the extent practicable.
Wherever possible, OSHA has proposed the use of performance rather than
design standards. An exemption from coverage of the rule for small
entities was not considered to be a viable option under the OSH Act
because the safety and health of the affected employees would be unduly
jeopardized. The OSH Act contains no explicit provision that permits an
exemption of small entities for purposes of setting safety and health
standards.
Many other specific alternatives to the proposed requirements were
considered and discussed elsewhere in the preamble. The Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel, which was convened for purposes of soliciting
comments on the proposal from affected small entities, addressed
several alternatives. A discussion of these alternatives is provided
below in Table 6. Nonregulatory alternatives were also considered in
determining the appropriate approach to reducing occupational hazards
associated with construction work in confined spaces. These
alternatives were discussed in Chapter III of the preliminary economic
analysis (Ex. OSHA-2007-0026-0002).
Recommendations of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
On September 26, 2003, OSHA convened a Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel ("Panel") for this rulemaking in accordance with the
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), as codified at 5 U.S.C 601 et seq. The Panel
consisted of representatives of OSHA, of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
and of the Office of Advocacy within the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA). The Panel received oral and written comments on a
draft proposal and a draft economic analysis from small entities that
would potentially be affected by this rulemaking. The Panel, in turn,
prepared a written report which was delivered to the Assistant Secretary
for Occupational Safety and Health. The report summarized the comments
received from the small entities, and included recommendations from the
Panel to OSHA regarding the proposal and the associated analysis of
compliance costs. Table 6 below lists each of the recommendations made
by the Panel and describes the corresponding answers or changes made by
OSHA in response to the issues raised.
Table 6.--Summary of Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
Recommendations and OSHA Responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panel recommendation OSHA's response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The SERs generally believed that The Agency relied on the
OSHA had underestimated the costs of comments from the SERs to help
the draft proposed standard. OSHA is ensure that the estimated
committed by law to develop its costs of compliance with the
analyses using the best available proposed standard would
evidence, and it will consider reflect the actual costs that
carefully the SER comments in the businesses could be expected
light of this test. The Panel to incur when complying with
recommends that OSHA revise its the requirements specified by
economic and regulatory flexibility the draft proposed standard.
analysis as appropriate to reflect the OSHA incorporated the comments
SERs' comments on underestimation of from the SERs in the
costs, and that the Agency compare development of the proposed
OSHA's revised estimates to standard and the associated
alternative estimates provided by the analysis in three ways. First,
SERs. For those SER estimates that some requirements (such as
OSHA does not adopt, OSHA should those addressing hazardous-
explain its reasons for preferring an enclosed spaces) were eased or
alternative estimate, and solicit eliminated altogether in light
comment on the issue. of the information provided
and issues raised by the SERs
with regard to achieving
compliance in real-world
situations. Second, some
requirements (such as those
involving communications to/
from controlling employers and
the classification of spaces)
were revised or clarified to
avoid the potential for
misinterpretations regarding
the applicability of
requirements and the specific
actions necessary to ensure
compliance, which appeared to
be a source of
misinterpretation among the
SERS when they reviewed the
estimates of compliance costs
in the draft proposed
standard. Third, OSHA revised
upwards the estimated costs of
compliance associated with
some requirements (such as
those involving training and
atmospheric monitoring). The
revisions are each discussed
in further detail below in the
responses to the specific
Panel recommendations
separately addressing each of
these issues.
2. Many SERs observed that OSHA had The Agency reviewed its
underestimated the cost of training. estimates of the costs of
They were concerned particularly about complying with the training
the length of time required for requirements in the proposed
training, training the trainers, standard in light of the
renewal training, and multilingual additional information
training. The SERs also noted that provided by the SERs. Many
much retraining could be avoided if SERs expressed that they
OSHA adopted the general industry rule already train employees to
because most firms already have comply with the general
trained their employees on that rule. industry standard. While some
Some SERs also noted that they still new terms, equipment, and
need to train employees on the general information exchange
industry standard because some of requirements have been
their work would come under the introduced in the proposed
general industry standard. In these construction standard, the
situations, they would need to core provisions in the
continue training on the general proposed construction standard
industry standard while adding are already required by the
training on the Construction standard, general industry standard.
and on how employees should determine Therefore, OSHA believes that
which standard applies. Because OSHA's because the proposed standard
economic analysis examined training on retains most of the
a project basis, it is difficult to requirements of the general
compare OSHA's cost estimates to the industry standard, there will
estimates provided by the SERs. The be only minimal additional
Panel recommends that OSHA carefully costs for employers in
analyze the SERs' comments on training training employees to comply
costs by developing methods for with the construction
comparing these cost estimates to standard. As such, it is
those estimates provided in OSHA's anticipated that employers who
economic analysis. OSHA then should are already familiar with the
compare these costs to its present general industry standard will
cost estimates, and revise its find that they already comply
training costs as necessary based on with the draft construction
all of the available information. standard in everyday work,
therefore minimizing the
amount of possible
"retraining" necessary.
However, under the proposed
standard, OSHA has decided not
to allow compliance with the
general industry standard in
lieu of compliance with the
construction industry standard
for construction projects
since there are situations
where the general industry
standard would not adequately
protect construction employees
because of the unique
characteristics of
construction work (see section
II.B. ("History") of this
notice for a discussion of
this issue.).
As a result of the comments
submitted by the SERs, OSHA
incorporated additional cost
elements in its estimates of
training costs that
effectively doubled the cost
estimates initially provided
to the SERs. To facilitate
comparability, OSHA also
converted the estimated costs
from project-based estimates
to employer-based estimates.
Under the proposed standard,
on an average annual basis,
estimated training costs would
be equivalent to ten hours of
employee time plus one hour of
supervisor time for each
employee; in addition, 32
hours of supervisory time plus
eight hours of clerical time
(or an equivalent cost) would
be spent every five years to
develop and review the
training program.
3. Many SERs stated that OSHA had The Agency reviewed its
neglected some elements of monitoring estimates of the costs of
costs, such as the need for a complying with the atmospheric-
competent person to conduct the monitoring requirements in the
monitoring, the need for the entire proposed standard in light of
crew to wait while a supervisor the additional information
performs the monitoring, the short provided by the SERs. As a
life span in the field of monitoring result of the comments
equipment, and costs associated with submitted by the SERs, OSHA
calibrating the equipment. Those SERs incorporated additional cost
affected by the hazardous-enclosed elements in its estimates of
spaces portion of the draft proposed monitoring costs that
rule were concerned particularly about increased the cost estimate
increased monitoring costs. The Panel initially provided to the SERs
notes that if the SERs' views about by almost $6 million per year.
the life of equipment and the need for The costs associated with
the entire crew to suspend work during setting up monitoring
monitoring are correct, and no other equipment were increased to 20
assumptions are changed, the costs of minutes (instead of 10
monitoring would be three to five minutes) to reflect the
times higher than OSHA estimated, possibility of additional
adding $6 to $12 million to the cost losses of productive work time
of the draft proposed standard. The by other employees. The costs
Panel recommends that OSHA consider associated with purchasing and
these factors and revise its maintaining the necessary
monitoring-cost estimates accordingly, monitoring equipment were
and that monitoring costs reflect the doubled from $1,400 every five
total actual costs associated with years to $1,400 every 2.5
conducting monitoring, including the years to reflect various
cost of transporting and maintaining incidental costs identified by
equipment, and the costs associated the SERs, and to reflect less-
with crew members waiting for the than-ideal real world
completion of monitoring activities. conditions and unanticipated
occurrences that can increase
actual costs. OSHA also
doubled the costs associated
with periodic calibration of
the equipment to reflect
possible additional time and
costs associated with the
transportation of equipment
and other incidental expenses.
4. Many SERs were concerned that the As recommended by the Panel,
hazardous-enclosed spaces provisions OSHA carefully examined the
of the draft proposed rule would hazardous-enclosed space
result in extensive costs with few portion of the draft proposed
benefits. Some SERs thought the standard. OSHA also reexamined
provisions required little applicable existing
recordkeeping beyond what they requirements, the effects and
currently do. Also, some SERs noted extent of occupational risks
that OSHA had underestimated the costs involved, and the potential
associated with recordkeeping. The for risk reduction with the
Panel is concerned that the hazardous- promulgation of additional
enclosed spaces provision would regulatory requirements for
require major atmospheric-testing and - hazardous-enclosed spaces.
monitoring burdens not identified in Based on this reexamination,
the cost analysis. The Panel the Agency concluded that, for
recommends that OSHA carefully examine now, no new or additional
the benefits and costs of this portion requirements will be proposed
of the rule, and compare these for hazardous-enclosed spaces.
requirements carefully to what is OSHA believes that potential
required under other existing hazards associated with these
regulations, and to existing spaces are adequately covered
construction industry practice. by other standards (for
example, 29 CFR 1926.55).
Therefore, all requirements
involving hazardous-enclosed
spaces have been eliminated
from the proposed standard for
confined spaces in
construction.
5. Most SERS were concerned that the The Agency has since clarified
treatment of controlling employers in the duties of the controlling
the draft proposed standard would employer in Sec. 1926.1204
result in additional costs for of the proposed standard (Work
controlling employers in the form of evaluation, information
increased monitoring and supervision exchange, and coordination).
of subcontractor activities. SERs also In addition to explaining in
were concerned with the costs and time paragraph (a) of this proposed
required to meet the coordination and section that the controlling
communication requirements of the employer is only required to
draft proposed standard. The Panel share specific information it
recommends that, if OSHA does not may already have about the
clarify these provisions, then it space with its subcontractors,
should examine further the possible OSHA has further clarified in
costs of the controlling-employer a note to this paragraph that
provisions in the draft proposed rule. the controlling or host
Also, OSHA should be certain that it employer is not required to
has accounted for all of the burdens enter a confined space to
associated with this provision. collect the specified
information for its
subcontractors. Therefore, we
believe that compliance with
proposed Sec. 1926.1204
would not be an added cost to
controlling employers. Its
purpose is to aid them in
their duties to safely
coordinate the activities of
their subcontractors within
the space.
6. Many SERs were concerned that the The Agency has revised the
increased complexity of the classification system to
classification system would add not clarify and simplify how
only to the training costs but also to confined spaces are to be
the costs associated with classifying classified. The Agency
confined spaces. The Panel recommends believes that this system is
that, if the classification process is an improvement over the
not simplified, OSHA should further general industry standard when
analyze the costs associated with applied to the construction
classifying confined spaces. industry because it explicitly
defines possible
classifications, some of which
enable compliance burdens for
employers to be reduced where
appropriate.
7. OSHA estimated that the draft As noted in the Agency's
proposed standard potentially affects response to item 4 above, the
small entities performing construction requirements addressing
work in confined and enclosed spaces. hazardous-enclosed spaces that
Small entities in eight specific the Panel believed may impose
construction industry classifications a burden on the industrial
were identified as being potentially sector for General Contractors
affected by the draft proposed for Single Family Homes have
standard. These classifications been deleted from the proposed
include Residential Housing (SIC standard.
1522); Industrial Buildings (SIC
1541); Other Nonresidential Buildings
(SIC 1542); Highway and Street
Construction (SIC 1611); Bridge and
Tunnel Construction (SIC 1622); Water,
Sewer, and Pipeline Construction (SIC
1623); Other Heavy Construction (SIC
1629); and Structural Steel Erection
(SIC 1791). For each of these industry
classifications, Table 3 in the Panel
report shows estimates of the total
number of small firms in the industry,
the number of establishments operated
by these firms, the number of
employees of these firms, and the
total sales of these firms. These
figures represent the best available
estimates for the numbers of
potentially affected small entities
meeting the definition of a small
entity established by the Small
Business Administration for these
particular industry sectors. In
summary, an estimated 86,012 small
entities are potentially affected by
the draft proposed standard. These
firms operate an estimated 86,158
establishments, employ an estimated
921,831 employees, and generate total
sales estimated at $192 billion. In
addition to the small entities
identified above, small entities in
another industry classification,
General Contractors for Single Family
Homes (SIC 1521), may be affected by
the provisions of the draft proposed
standard addressing hazardous-enclosed
spaces. The Panel recommends that
prior to publishing a proposed
standard, OSHA should clarify these
requirements and include the
associated compliance costs, impacts,
and benefits in the analysis of the
proposal.
8. Almost all of the SERs found the OSHA addressed the concerns of
draft proposed standard difficult to the SERs about the difficulty
follow. The SERs stated that they in following the text of the
currently were using the general proposed standard. OSHA has
industry standard and were familiar reorganized the regulatory
with it. A few SERs saw some text in such a manner that an
advantages to the differences between employer will be led step-by-
the draft proposed standard and the step through the
general industry standard, but even classification and safety-
these SERs did not believe that these precaution requirements for
advantages were sufficient to justify each type of confined space.
the amount of training the draft In addition, OSHA has included
proposed standard would require. The sample forms (Appendix B) to
Panel recommends that OSHA either make aid employers in following the
the standard easier to follow, proposed standard. OSHA has
consider a standard closer to the recognized and addressed
general industry standard, or develop problematic situations common
a standard in which the classification to construction sites that are
provisions that provide greater not clearly addressed by the
flexibility to employers are optional general industry standard
rather than required. (i.e., sites where there is no
host, the kind of information
that needs to be exchanged
between entities, doing the
initial hazard assessment of a
previously unclassified space,
etc.). OSHA has adopted many
of the general industry
provisions, and adjusted them
for use on a construction
worksite.
9. Most SERs were confused by the OSHA has revised the regulatory
distinctions between types of confined text to allow an employer to
spaces. One SER referred to the choose, to a degree, the level
distinctions as "metaphysical." The of protection provided by a
Panel recommends that if these classification of a confined
distinctions are retained, they should space that is most appropriate
be made clearer, or OSHA should for the hazards within the
consider making such classifications space. One exception is, as
optional. stated in proposed Sec.
1926.1206(a)(1), employers
must classify any confined
space as a CS-PRCS if that
space meets the definition of
a CS-PRSC. For all other
spaces, proposed Sec.
1926.1206(a)(2) allows
employers to classify a space
as a PRCS or, alternatively,
as a CACS or IHCS if the
employer can meet the
applicable requirements.
10. Many SERs noted that the hazardous- See the Agency's response to
enclosed spaces requirements would item 4 above.
result in a major recordkeeping
burden. Some SERs believed that these
requirements represented major new
requirements for many contractors.
OSHA notes that a few of the SERs
seemed unacquainted with some of the
requirements of existing regulations.
The Panel notes that the requirement
to evaluate each potentially hazardous
space, implicit in Sec.
1926.1225(a)(3), could radically alter
the compliance requirements and the
costs of the rule in ways not
reflected in OSHA's Preliminary
Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. The Panel recommends that
OSHA more carefully explain the
relation of these requirements to
existing requirements and practice,
and explain the need for different
requirements.
11. SERs were concerned that the As stated above, OSHA has
provisions addressing controlling clarified the responsibilities
employers would require general of controlling employers in
contractors to develop confined-space proposed Sec. 1926.1204. In
expertise and provide confined-space addition to sharing specific
supervision. OSHA's intent with these information that it may have
provisions was not to change existing about the space with its
relations between general contractors affected subcontractors, the
and their subcontractors, but rather note to that section clearly
to assure that general contractors states that employers are not
provide subcontractors with the required to enter a confined
information they possess relevant to space to gather such
confined spaces. Some SERs agreed that information for its
additional information could be subcontractors. OSHA's intent
useful. The Panel recommends that OSHA is not to change existing
clarify this requirement to indicate relations between general
that the role of the controlling contractors and their
employer is only to provide any subcontractors, but rather to
information they possess concerning assure that general
confined spaces. contractors provide
subcontractors with the
information they possess
relevant to their
subcontractors working safely
within a confined space. The
proposed standard does not
require controlling employers
to develop "confined-space
expertise" to fulfill their
duties in the proposed
standard.
12. OSHA's Hazard Communication OSHA recognizes that the draft
standard also provides guidance to proposed standard may overlap
employers on the use of certain with provisions in other 1926
chemicals in the workplace. However, standards. OSHA has clarified
OSHA does not see any conflict between the relationship between the
this standard and the draft proposed draft proposed standard and
standard. The Hazard Communication other pre-existing
standard provides general construction standards which
precautionary information regarding may be applicable in a
the use of certain chemicals and confined space. In Sec.
products; the draft proposed standard 1926.1202(c), as well as
provides more explicit requirements Appendix A, of the proposed
for conditions specific to confined standard, OSHA has explained
and enclosed spaces. Also, many how overlapping standards
construction contractors still will would interact with each
need to follow the general industry other, and the obligations of
standard [for confined spaces] in some an employer in such
types of work, and thus need to train situations. OSHA has also
their workers in using two different explained in the preamble of
standards, and when to apply each the proposal how practical
standard. The SERs identified other situations would be evaluated
federal standards that they believe under the requirements of the
address the hazards associated with proposed standard when it
confined and enclosed spaces, overlaps with another OSHA
including OSHA standards for requirement. OSHA is currently
Ventilation (Sec. 1926.57) and for unaware of any other Federal
Gases, Vapors, Fumes, Dusts, and Mists agency standards that overlap
(1926.55), and EPA and HUD rules on or conflict with those of
abatement work. Accordingly, the Panel OSHA.
recommends that OSHA clarify the exact
relation between the draft proposed
standard and other standards affecting
work by construction employers in
confined or enclosed spaces, including
the Hazard Communication standard, the
general industry standard, the
Permissible Exposure Limit standards,
the Ventilation standard, the Gases,
Vapors, Fumes, Dusts, and Mists
standard, and applicable EPA and HUD
standards.
13. Alternatives to adopting the draft OSHA considered alternatives to
proposed standard developed by OSHA drafting its own confined-
include adopting the draft proposed space standard for
standard developed by the Advisory construction. The general
Committee for Construction Safety and industry standard was
Health [ACCSH], the industry consensus considered, but found to be
standard developed by the American unsuitable for the
National Standards Institute [ANSI], construction industry. OSHA
or the existing OSHA general industry believes that the general
standard [for confined spaces]. industry standard does not
Additional alternatives include adequately address some
modifying the OSHA draft proposed problematic situations common
standard by removing provisions to construction sites. These
addressing hazardous-enclosed spaces, concerns include multiple
removing the requirement to classify subcontractors working within
spaces in the least hazardous one space and hazards created
category, revising requirements for as a confined space is built
atmospheric monitoring to allow around employees. ANSI is
periodic monitoring instead of presently considering whether
continuous monitoring, and/or reducing it is feasible to begin
or eliminating recordkeeping drafting a confined-spaces
requirements. The Panel recommends standard for application
that OSHA continue to consider these specifically in construction.
alternatives, and discuss and solicit OSHA addressed major concerns
comment on them in the proposed rule. of the SERs regarding the
hazardous-enclosed space
requirements in the draft
proposed standard by removing
that section completely. As
previously stated above, OSHA
has also revised the draft
proposed standard to allow
employers greater flexibility
in choosing the classification
of a confined space that
provides the best protection
for its employees from the
hazards within the particular
space. Finally, OSHA has
worked to reduce employers'
recordkeeping requirements by
minimizing the time necessary
for employers to maintain
documentation. For example, in
proposed Sec. 1926.1218, an
employer will only be required
to maintain entry permits for
one year, while verification
documents must only be kept so
long as there is ongoing work
in that confined space.
14. Most SERs indicated a preference As stated before, the draft
for using the general industry proposed confined-spaces
standard for construction work, as standard for construction
opposed to the draft proposed addresses some concerns that
standard. OSHA is concerned that not are unique to the construction
all construction employers are as industry. OSHA believes that
familiar with the general industry the reorganization of the
standard as the SERs are, and that proposed standard and the
some employers might benefit from a elimination of the section on
standard designed to provide greater hazardous-enclosed spaces
compliance flexibility. The Panel address the safety concerns of
recommends that OSHA consider the confined spaces in
alternative of adopting the general construction in a manner that
industry standard and, if this makes it easier to read and to
alternative is not adopted, discuss comply with than the general
and solicit comment on this industry standard for confined
alternative in the proposed rule. If spaces.
OSHA does not adopt a standard closer OSHA requests that the public
to the general industry standard, the submit comments regarding the
Panel recommends that OSHA revise its degree of flexibility granted
comparative cost analysis of the to employers in classifying
general industry rule and the draft confined spaces. In addition,
proposed standard to take account of OSHA solicits comment on how
SERs' concerns about the increased an alternative standard
training, communication, and similar to the general
classification costs associated with industry standard could be
the draft proposed standard. The Panel adapted to the construction
also recommends that OSHA solicit sector. [Note that the general
comment on how an alternative standard industry standard and other
similar to the general industry alternatives to the proposed
standard could be adapted to the rule are discussed above under
construction sector. In addition, the item 13 of this table. In
Panel recommends that OSHA analyze and addition to the general
solicit comment on the nonregulatory industry standard, other
alternative of not issuing a final alternatives include the ANSI
standard, relying instead on existing and draft ACCSH standards for
standards and improved outreach. confined spaces. The
applicability and relationship
of the general industry
standard and the other
alternative standards to this
proposed standard are
discussed elsewhere in this
preamble (i.e., in the section
entitled "History" for the
general industry and draft
ACCSH standards, and in the
section entitled
"Applicability of Existing
Consensus Standards" for the
ANSI standard).]
15. The SERs were confused by the The Agency has reduced the
variety of distinctions among confined number of classifications by
spaces, and generally believed that removing the classification of
the training required by these "Hazardous-Enclosed Space."
provisions negated any advantages that We have further clarified the
might arise from the flexibility of four remaining categories by
different types of confined spaces. reorganizing the text of the
The Panel recommends that OSHA examine proposed standard to ensure
and solicit comment on alternatives that all requirements for each
that reduce the number of types of classification type can be
confined spaces, and that OSHA found in one section. OSHA
consider alternatives that would allow requests that the public
employers the choice of using or submit comments regarding
ignoring these provisions. other alternatives to the
proposed rule. The Agency
believes that, because the
proposed standard is based on
many of the requirements
already required in the
general industry standard,
there will be minimal
additional costs for employers
to train their employees on
the proposed construction
standard.
16. Many SERs viewed the requirements As recommended by the Panel,
for hazardous-enclosed spaces as OSHA has removed the
highly burdensome. The Panel provisions for Hazardous-
recommends that OSHA remove this Enclosed Spaces.
provision unless OSHA can (1) clarify
exactly how the requirements of this
provision are different from other
existing requirements and practices;
(2) develop a detailed cost analysis
of this provision; (3) quantify the
hazards associated with hazardous-
enclosed spaces; and (4) explain how
the hazardous-enclosed space
provisions can serve to reduce these
hazards. If OSHA retains this
requirement or one like it, OSHA also
should solicit comment on the need for
the recordkeeping requirements in the
provision. In addition, OSHA should
solicit comment on removing this
provision entirely.
17. Most SERs were concerned that the As stated previously, proposed
provisions for controlling employers Sec. 1926.1204(a), and the
would alter the existing relationship note to that section, clarify
between contractors and subcontractors the duties of the controlling
with little gain in reduced risk to employer and explain that a
employees. OSHA notes that the purpose controlling employer will not
of this provision was only to ensure be required to enter a
that contractors share available confined space to gather the
information at multi-employer specified information for the
worksites. OSHA cannot regulate subcontractor. [As noted above
contractual matters between parties or in the preamble discussion to
prevent terms of contracts that proposed Sec. 1926.1204(a),
require subcontractors to follow employees of subcontractors on
instructions of general contractors. multi-employer worksites,
Some SERs agreed that information which are common in the
sharing would be helpful, but were construction industry, may
concerned that the OSHA draft went far enter a confined space after
beyond this purpose. The Panel another subcontractor's
recommends that OSHA consider removing employees have completed work
this provision or clarifying the within the space. In these
purpose of this provision, and solicit confined space situations, the
comment in the proposal on the need completed work can affect the
for this provision. health and safety of employees
who subsequently enter the
confined space. Therefore, it
is critical for the safety of
all employees on a worksite
that contractors and
subcontractors communicate the
following information with
each other: the location of
confined spaces, hazardous
conditions affecting confined
spaces, precautions taken to
address those hazards, and
classifications of the
confined spaces. Requiring
communication between
employers is an efficient way
to ensure that each employer
learns important information
about the confined space
hazards present so that all
employees are adequately
protected.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed Confined Spaces in Construction Standard contains
collection-of-information (paperwork) requirements that are subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ("PRA-95"), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act
defines "collection of information" as "the obtaining, causing to be
obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or
the public of facts or opinions by or for an agency regardless
of form or format * * *" (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). OSHA submitted the
collection-of-information requirements identified in the NPRM to OMB
for review (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OSHA solicits comments on the
collection-of-information requirements and the estimated burden hours
associated with these collections, including comments on the following:
Whether the proposed collection-of-information
requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's
functions, including whether the information is useful;
The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
cost) of the information-collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply,
for example, by using automated or other technological techniques for
collecting and transmitting information.
The title, description of the need for and proposed use of the
information, description of the respondents, and frequency of response
of the information collections are described below, along with an
estimate of the annual reporting burden and cost as required by 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2).
Title: Confined Spaces in Construction (29 CFR part 1926 subpart
AA).
Description and Proposed Use of the Collections of Information: The
proposed standard would impose new information-collection requirements
for purposes of PRA-95. The collection-of-information requirements in
the proposed standard have not been approved by OMB. These provisions
are needed to protect the health and safety of employees who work in
confined spaces at construction worksites.
The paperwork requirements would impose a duty to produce and
maintain records on employers who implement controls and take other
measures to protect employees from confined-space hazards in
construction. Accordingly, each construction business that has
employees who enter a confined space would be required to have, as
applicable, the following documents on file and available at the job
site: entry permits that contain atmospheric-testing and -monitoring
information; documentation regarding classification of the space;
inspection information identifying physical hazards; signed
verifications regarding atmospheric- and physical-hazard determinations
and the methods used to protect employees from these hazards;
information required to be communicated to contractors and controlling
contractors; a copy of the standard or written permit-required
confined-space (PRCS) entry program; information provided to medical
facilities; an annual review of PRCS entries, and training records for
each employee. The documents would have to be made available for review
by the affected employees and their authorized representatives before
employees enter the space. OSHA also would have access to the records
to determine compliance. An employer's failure to generate and disclose
the information required in this standard will affect significantly the
Agency's effort to control and reduce injuries and fatalities related
to confined spaces in construction.
Table 7 below identifies and describes the new collections of
information contained in the proposed standard.
Table 7.--Collection-of-Information Requirements of the Proposed
Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 1926.1204(c): Contractors must provide confined-space
information to controlling contractors and host employers.
Paragraph 1926.1205(b)(1): Employers must provide or communicate
atmospheric-hazard information to medical facilities treating employees
for exposure to atmospheres that are immediately dangerous to life and
health.
Paragraph 1926.1209(a)(2): Employers must post PRCS danger signs.
Paragraph 1926.1209(d)(5): Employers must maintain records containing
specified PRCS training information.
Paragraph 1926.1209(f): Employers must develop safe PRCS termination
procedures.
Paragraph 1926.1210(a): Employers must prepare and post PRCS entry
permits containing specified information.
Paragraphs 1926.1210(e)(2)(v) and 1926.1211(e)(3): Entry supervisors
must sign the PRCS entry permits.
Paragraph 1926.1211(c): Employers must document exposure-monitoring
results in the PRCS entry permits.
Paragraphs 1926.1211(f)(5), (f)(6), (f)(7), and (f)(11): Attendants
must: communicate with authorized entrants under specified conditions;
inform PRCS rescue services when a non-entry or entry rescue is
required; inform employers when non-entry or entry rescue begins, and
the need to provide medical aid or escape assistance to authorized
entrants; warn individuals who are not authorized entrants to stay away
from, or to exit, PRCSs; and warn authorized entrants and entry
supervisors of any unauthorized PRCS entry.
Paragraphs 1926.1211(g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4)(i): Authorized entrants
must: communicate with attendants under specified conditions; and
inform attendants of any signs, symptoms, unusual behavior or other
effect of a hazard.
Paragraph 1926.1211(h)(2): Employers must summon PRCS entry rescue
services under specified conditions.
Paragraph 1926.1213(b)(2): Employers must provide PRCS entry rescue
services with specified information regarding the PRCSs in which the
services conduct rescue operations.
Paragraph 1926.1214(b): Employers must review PRCS entry permits at
least annually using specified documents and information.
Paragraph 1926.1216(a)(3): Employers must verify and document specified
CACS initial conditions.
Paragraph 1926.1216(b)(1)(ii): Employers must post CACS danger signs.
Paragraph 1926.1216(b)(2)(v): Employers must maintain records containing
specified CACS training information.
Paragraphs 1926.1216(d)(4) and (e)(3): Employers must verify and
document specified CACS conditions before entry and during entry.
Paragraphs 1926.1217(a)(4) and (c)(3): Employers must verify and
document specified IHCS initial conditions and conditions before entry.
Paragraphs 1926.1219(a), (b), and (d): Employers must: maintain a copy
of the standard or a written confined-space program at the worksite;
retain PRCS entry permits for at least one year; and maintain CACS and
IHCS verification documents until the confined-space work is completed.
Paragraph 1926.1219(e): On request from the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary's designee, employers must disclose documents required to be
retained by the standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
Number of Respondents: 90,760.
Frequency: On occasion (for most of the information-collection
requirements; determined by the onset of confined-space operations);
annually (for reviewing PRCS entry permits).
Average Time per Response: Varies from one minute to maintain a
training record to one hour to develop a written confined-space
program.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1.04 million hours.
Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): $0.
Submitting comments. Members of the public who wish to comment on
the paperwork requirements in this proposal must send their written
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn:
OSHA Desk Officer (RIN 1218-AB47), Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. The Agency
encourages commenters to also submit their comments on these paperwork
requirements to the rulemaking docket, along with their comments on
other parts of the proposed rule. For instructions on submitting these
comments to the rulemaking docket, see the sections of this Federal
Register notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES.
Docket and inquiries. To access the docket to read or download
comments and other materials related to this paperwork determination,
including the complete Information Collection Request (ICR) (containing
the Supporting Statement (describing the paperwork determinations in
detail), OMB-83-I Form, and attachments) use the procedures described
under the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES. You also may obtain
an electronic copy of the complete ICR by visiting the Web page http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Scroll under "Currently Under
Review" to "Department of Labor (DOL)" to view all of the DOL's
ICRs, including those ICRs submitted for proposed rulemakings. To make
inquiries, or to request other information, contact Mr. Todd Owen,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
D. Federalism
The Agency reviewed the proposed rule according to the most recent
Executive Order ("E.O.") on Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43225).
This E.O. requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible,
refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States before
taking actions that restrict their policy options, and take such
actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem
is national in scope. The E.O. allows Federal agencies to preempt State
law only with the expressed consent of Congress. In such cases, Federal
agencies must limit preemption of State law to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ("the
Act"; 29 U.S.C. 667) expressly provides OSHA with authority to preempt
State occupational safety and health standards to the extent that the
Agency promulgates a Federal standard under Section 6 of the Act.
Accordingly, Section 18 of the Act authorizes the Agency to preempt
State promulgation and enforcement of requirements dealing with
occupational safety and health issues covered by OSHA standards unless
the State has an OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plan
(namely, is a State-Plan State). (See Gade v. National Solid Wastes
Management Association, 112 S. Ct. 2374 (1992).)
With respect to States that do not have OSHA-approved plans, the
Agency concludes that this proposed rule would conform to the
preemption provisions of the Act. Additionally, Section 18 of the Act
prohibits States without approved plans from issuing citations for
violations of OSHA standards; the Agency finds that the proposed
rulemaking would not expand this limitation. Therefore, for States that
do not have approved occupational safety and health plans, this
proposed rule would not affect the preemption provisions of Section 18
of the Act.
OSHA has authority under E.O. 13132 to promulgate the proposed rule
in 26 CFR part 1926 because the employee exposures to confined spaces
in the construction industry addressed by the proposed requirements are
national in scope. The Agency concludes that the requirements in this
proposed rule would provide employers in every State with critical
information to use when protecting their employees from the risks of
exposure to confined spaces. However, while OSHA drafted the proposed
requirements to protect employees in every State, Section 18(c)(2) of
the Act permits State-Plan States and Territories to develop and
enforce their own standards for confined spaces in construction
provided these requirements are at least as effective in providing safe
and healthful employment and places of employment as the final
requirements that result from this proposal.
In summary, this proposed rule complies with E.O. 13132. In States
without OSHA-approved State Plans, Congress expressly provides for OSHA
standards to preempt State job safety and health rules in areas
addressed by the Federal standards; in these States, this rule limits
State policy options in the same manner as every standard promulgated
by the Agency. In States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this
rulemaking does not significantly limit State policy options.
E. State-Plan States
Section 18(c)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2)) requires State-Plan States to adopt mandatory
standards promulgated by OSHA. Accordingly, the 24 States and two
Territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health
plans would have to adopt provisions comparable to the provisions in
this proposed rule within six months after the Agency publishes the
final rule that it develops from this proposal. The Agency believes
that the proposed rule would provide employers in State-Plan States and
Territories with critical information and methods necessary to protect
their employees from the physical and atmospheric hazards found in and
around confined spaces during construction. The 24 States and two
Territories with State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Connecticut, New
Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans
that apply to State and local government employees only. Until a State-
Plan State/Territory promulgates its own comparable provisions base on
the final rule developed from this proposal, Federal OSHA will provide
the State/Territory with interim enforcement assistance, as
appropriate.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 ("UMRA"; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive
Order 12875 (58 FR 58093). As discussed above in section III of this
preamble ("Summary of the Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis"), the Agency estimates that
compliance with this proposed rule would require private-sector
employers to expend about $77 million each year. However, while this
proposed rule establishes a federal mandate in the private sector, it
is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Section
202 of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532).
Under voluntary agreement with OSHA, some States enforce compliance
with their State standards on public sector entities, and these
agreements specify that these State standards must be equivalent to
OSHA standards. Thus, although OSHA has included compliance costs for
the affected public sector entities in its analysis of the expected
impacts associated with the proposal, the proposal would not involve
any unfunded mandates being imposed on any State or local government
entity. Consequently, this proposed rule does not meet the
definition of a "Federal intergovernmental mandate" (see Section
421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))). Therefore, for the purposes of
the UMRA, the Agency preliminarily certifies that this proposed rule
does not mandate that State, local, and tribal governments adopt new,
unfunded regulatory obligations, nor does the proposed rule increase
the expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million a
year.
G. Applicability of Existing Consensus Standards
Section 6(b)(8) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
("the Act"; 29 U.S.C. 655(b(8)) requires OSHA to explain "why a rule
promulgated by the Secretary differs substantially from an existing
national consensus standard," by publishing "a statement of the
reasons why the rule as adopted will better effectuate the purposes of
the Act than the national consensus standard." The Agency is not
proposing to adopt the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
Z117.1 consensus standard ("Safety Requirements for Confined Spaces")
as the OSHA confined-spaces-in-construction standard for several
reasons:
1. The Agency believes that the ANSI standard concentrates on
confined spaces with oxygen-deficient atmospheres, or with potential
overexposures to air contaminants. In this regard, OSHA concurs with
the findings it published in the preamble to the general industry
confined-spaces standard (58 FR 4464). After reviewing relevant
publications by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, the ANSI Z117.1 standards (both the 1989 and the 1977
editions), and the relevant guidelines developed by other
organizations, the Agency decided to diverge from the approach used by
those standards-setting groups because their documents do not provide
sufficient guidance for employers to distinguish among the several
types of confined spaces that may be encountered, and among the variety
of hazards associated with each type of confined space.
2. OSHA believes that the structure and organization of the ANSI
standard is not sufficiently user-friendly for small businesses,
especially those that rarely deal with confined spaces.
3. The ANSI standard does not adequately address construction-
specific hazards, such as those posed by CS-PRCSs.
OSHA understands that ANSI is developing a consensus standard for
confined spaces in construction. Should ANSI publish this consensus
standard after the comment period for this proposed standard ends but
prior to completing a final rule, OSHA will determine whether it is
appropriate to reopen the rulemaking record based on its careful review
of the ANSI standard.
H. Review of the Proposed Standard by the Advisory Committee for
Construction Safety and Health
The proposed subpart would add requirements to the existing
standards in 29 CFR part 1926 that protect employees from exposure to
confined-space hazards found in the construction industry. Accordingly,
OSHA's regulation governing the Advisory Committee on Construction
Safety and Health (ACCSH) at 29 CFR 1912.3 requires OSHA to consult
with the ACCSH whenever the Agency proposes a rule that involves the
occupational safety and health of construction employees. At the
regular meeting of the ACCSH on October 19, 2004, OSHA briefed the
members on the proposed subpart using a slide presentation, and then
responded to their questions. It subsequently provided the members of
the ACCSH with copies of the slides and the proposed regulatory text
for their review. At the ACCSH's next regular meeting on February 17,
2005, the OSHA staff answered additional questions from the members;
the members then recommended that OSHA proceed with publishing the
proposal, taking into consideration written and oral comments provided
by them during the meeting.
I. Public Participation--Comments and Hearings
OSHA encourages members of the public to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting comments on the proposal and documentary
evidence. In this regard, the Agency invites interested parties having
knowledge of, or experience with, confined spaces in construction to
participate in this process, and welcomes any pertinent data and cost
information that will provide it with the best available evidence on
which to develop the final regulatory requirements.
Comments. The Agency invites interested parties to submit written
data, views, and arguments concerning this proposal. In particular, the
Agency welcomes comments on its determination of the economic or other
regulatory impacts of the proposed rule on the regulated community.
When submitting comments, follow the procedures specified above in the
sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES. The comments must clearly identify
the provision of the proposal being addressed, the position taken with
respect to each issue, and the basis for that position. Comments, along
with supporting data and references, received by the end of the
specified comment period will become part of the proceedings record,
and will be available electronically for public inspection at the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov), or may be read
at the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington. (See the section of this Federal Register notice titled
ADDRESSES for additional information on how to access these documents.)
Informal Public Hearings. Requests for a hearing should be
submitted to the Agency as set forth above under the sections of this
notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926
Construction industry, Occupational safety and health, Safety.
Authority and Signature
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this notice. The
Agency is issuing this proposal under the following authorities:
Sections 4, 6(b), 8(c), and 8(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.); Section 4
of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008); and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC on November 2, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
For the reasons stated in the preamble of this proposed rule, the
Agency is proposing to amend 29 CFR part 1926 by adding subpart AA to
read as follows:
PART 1926--[AMENDED]
Subpart AA--Confined Spaces in Construction
Sec.
1926.1200 [Reserved]
1926.1201 Introduction.
1926.1202 Scope.
1926.1203 Definitions applicable to this subpart.
1926.1204 Worksite evaluation, information exchange, and
coordination.
1926.1205 Atmospheric testing and monitoring.
1926.1206 Classification and precautions.
1926.1207 Reassessment.
1926.1208 Permit-required confined spaces.
1926.1209 PRCS--initial tasks.
1926.1210 PRCS--preparing for entry.
1926.1211 PRCS--during entry.
1926.1212 PRCS--terminating entry.
1926.1213 PRCS--rescue criteria.
1926.1214 PRCS--entry permits.
1926.1215 Continuous System-PRCS.
1926.1216 Controlled-atmosphere confined spaces--requirements for
classification and accident prevention and protection.
1926.1217 Isolated hazard confined spaces--requirements for
classification and accident prevention and protection.
1926.1218 Equipment.
1926.1219 Records.
Appendix A to subpart AA of part 1926--List of Confined-Space
Requirements in Other Construction Standards that Supplement the
Requirements of subpart AA (Mandatory)
Appendix B to subpart AA of part 1926--Sample Entry Permit for PRCSs
and CS-PRCSs and Sample Verification Document for CACSs and IHCSs
(Non-Mandatory)
Subpart AA--Confined Spaces in Construction
Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159); and 29
CFR Part 1911.
Sec. 1926.1200 [Reserved]
Sec. 1926.1201 Introduction.
(a) This standard sets out safety precautions that must be taken
when working within or near a confined space that is subject to a
hazard. Wherever the term "hazard" is used in this standard, it means
an existing hazard or a hazard that has a reasonable probability of
occurring in or near a confined space. A confined space is a space that
has all of the following characteristics: Is large enough and so
arranged that an employee can bodily enter it, has limited or
restricted means for entry and exit, and is not designed for continuous
employee occupancy.
(b) A confined space that is subject to a hazard must be
classified. The classification determines what accident-prevention and
-protection requirements apply to that space.
(1) There are four classifications:
(i) Continuous System-Permit-Required Confined Space (CS-PRCS).
(ii) Permit-Required Confined Space (PRCS).
(iii) Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Space (CACS).
(iv) Isolated-Hazard Confined Space (IHCS).
(2) The employer has the option of selecting any of these
classifications, as long as the employer meets the applicable
requirements for the classification selected . The one exception is
that a space with the characteristics of a CS-PRCS cannot be given a
different classification.
(c) There are precautions that must be followed if employees have
to enter a space when in the process of determining which
classification will be used (see Sec. 1926.1204(b)(2)).
(d) If the contractor determines under Sec. 1926.1204 that the
confined space is not subject to any hazards (in which case the
confined space need not be classified), the contractor must complete a
reassessment of that determination upon the occurrence of any of the
indications for reassessment specified in Sec. 1926.1207(a).
Sec. 1926.1202 Scope.
(a) This standard applies to employers engaged in construction work
and who have confined spaces at their job site, unless one of the
exceptions in paragraph (b) of this section applies.
Note to Sec. 1926.1202(a): Examples of locations where confined
spaces may occur include, but are not limited to, the following:
Bins; boilers; pits (such as elevator, escalator, pump, valve or
other equipment); manholes (such as sewer, storm drain, electrical,
communication, or other utility); tanks (such as fuel, chemical,
water, or other liquid, solid or gas); boilers; incinerators;
scrubbers; concrete pier columns; sewers; transformer vaults;
heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) ducts; storm
drains; water mains; precast concrete and other pre-formed manhole
units; drilled shafts; enclosed beams; vessels; digesters; lift
stations; cesspools; silos; air receivers; sludge gates; air
preheaters; step up transformers; turbines; chillers; bag houses;
and/or mixers/reactors.
(b) Exceptions. This standard does not apply to:
(1) Construction work regulated by 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart Y
(Diving).
(2) Non-sewer construction work regulated by 29 CFR part 1926
subpart P (Excavations).
(3) Non-sewer construction work regulated by 29 CFR part 1926
subpart S (Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams and
Compressed Air).
(c) Where this standard applies and there is a provision that
addresses a confined space hazard in another applicable OSHA standard,
the employer must comply with both that standard's provision(s) and the
applicable provisions of this standard.
Note to Sec. 1926.1202(c): A list of confined-space provisions
in other construction standards is in Appendix A to this subpart.
(d) The duties of controlling contractors under this standard
include, but are not limited to, the duties specified in Sec.
1926.1204(a).
Sec. 1926.1203 Definitions applicable to this subpart.
Atmospheric hazard (see the definition of Hazardous atmosphere).
Attendant is an employee stationed outside one or more PRCSs who
performs the duties specified in Sec. 1926.1211(f) (Attendant duties).
Authorized entrant is an employee who the employer authorizes to
enter a PRCS and performs the duties specified in Sec. 1926.1211(g)
(Authorized entrant duties).
Barrier means a physical obstruction that blocks or limits access.
Blanking or blinding means closing a pipe, line, or duct by
covering its bore with a solid plate that can withstand the maximum
pressure inside the pipe, line, or duct without leaking. A plate may be
a spectacle blind or a skillet blind.
Confined space is a space that has all of the following
characteristics:
(1) Is large enough and so arranged that an employee can bodily
enter it.
(2) Has limited or restricted means for entry and exit.
(3) Is not designed for continuous employee occupancy.
Note: There are four confined space classifications: Isolated-
Hazard Confined Space, Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Space, Permit-
Required Confined Space and Continuous System-Permit-Required
Confined Space.
Continuous System-Permit-Required Confined Space (CS-PRCS) is a
Permit-Required Confined Space that has all of the following
characteristics:
(1) Is part of, and contiguous with, a larger confined space (for
example, sewers).
(2) The employer cannot isolate it from the larger confined space.
(3) Is subject to a potential hazard release from the larger
confined space that would overwhelm personal protective equipment and/
or hazard controls, resulting in a hazard that is immediately dangerous
to life and health.
Contractor is an employer who has employees engaged in
construction, and is neither a controlling contractor nor a host
employer.
Control is the action taken to reduce the level of any hazard
inside a confined space using engineering methods (for example, by
isolation or ventilation), and then using these methods to maintain the
reduced hazard level. Control also refers to the engineering methods
used for this purpose. Personal protective equipment is not a control.
Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Space (CACS) is a confined space
that has all of the following characteristics:
(1) Contains no physical hazards or only isolated physical hazards.
(2) Uses ventilation alone to control atmospheric hazards at safe
levels.
Controlling contractor is the employer that has overall
responsibility for construction at the worksite.
Note: If the controlling contractor owns or manages the
property, then it is both a controlling employer and a host
employer.
Double block and bleed means (with regard to lines, ducts, and
pipes) closing two in-line valves and locking or tagging them in the
closed position, and then opening the drain or vent in the line between
the two closed in-line valves and locking or tagging it in the open
position.
Early-warning system is the method used to alert authorized
entrants and attendants that an engulfment hazard may be developing.
Examples of early-warning systems include, but are not limited to:
Alarms activated by remote sensors; and lookouts with equipment for
immediately communicating with the authorized entrants and attendants.
Emergency is any occurrence, inside or outside a confined space,
that could cause death or serious physical harm to employees whose work
is covered by this standard. For example, an emergency occurs if an
employer fails to isolate a physical hazard or if ventilation or
atmosphere-monitoring equipment malfunctions.
Engulfment hazard is a physical hazard consisting of a liquid or
flowable solid substance that can surround and capture an individual.
Engulfment hazards may cause death or serious physical harm if: the
individual inhales the engulfing substance into the respiratory system
(drowning, for example); the substance exerts excessive force on the
individual's body resulting in strangulation, constriction, or
crushing; or the substance suffocates the individual.
Entrant (see the definition of Authorized entrant).
Entry occurs when any part of an employee's body breaks the plane
of an opening into a confined space. Entry (or entry operations) also
refers to the period during which an employee occupies a confined
space.
Entry permit means the document used by the employer to control
entry into a PRCS as specified in Sec. 1926.1214 (PRCS--entry
permits).
Entry rescue occurs when a rescue service enters a PRCS to rescue
employees.
Entry supervisor means a qualified individual who the employer
assigns to control entry into PRCS as specified in Sec.
1926.1210(e)(2) (Entry supervisor requirements).
Hazard means a physical hazard or hazardous atmosphere. See
definitions below.
Hazardous atmosphere means an existing or potential atmosphere
consisting of at least one of the following:
(1) A flammable gas, vapor, or mist in excess of 10 percent of its
lower flammable limit.
(2) An airborne combustible dust at a concentration that meets or
exceeds its lower explosive limit.
(3) An atmospheric oxygen concentration below 19.5 percent
("oxygen deficient") or above 23.5 percent ("oxygen enriched").
(4) An airborne concentration of a substance that exceeds the dose
or exposure limit specified by an OSHA requirement.
(5) An atmosphere that presents an immediate danger to life or
health.
Host employer owns or manages the property where construction is
taking place.
Note: If a host employer has overall responsibility for
construction at the worksite, then it is both a host employer and
controlling contractor.
Immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) is a condition that
occurs when an employee is exposed to a physical or atmospheric hazard
that could result in any one of the following effects:
(1) An immediate threat to life.
(2) Irreversible adverse health effects.
(3) Serious physical harm.
(4) Impaired ability to escape unaided from a confined space.
Identify a hazard means determining the type, quantity, and
characteristics of a hazard, including the likelihood that a hazard
currently absent from a confined space could enter the confined space.
Inspection information means any information obtained about a
space, including, but not limited to, blueprints, schematics, and/or
similar documents, documents regarding previous confined space entries,
or physical inspection/testing.
Isolate or isolation means the elimination or removal of a physical
or atmospheric hazard by preventing its release into a confined space.
Isolation includes, but is not limited to, the following methods:
Blanking and blinding; misaligning or removing sections of lines,
pipes, or ducts; a double-block-and-bleed system; locking out or
tagging out energy sources; machine guarding; and blocking or
disconnecting all mechanical linkages.
Isolated-Hazard Confined Space (IHCS) is a confined space in which
the employer has isolated all physical and atmospheric hazards.
Limited or restricted means for entry and exit refers to a
condition that has a potential to impede an employee's movement into or
out of a confined space. Such conditions include, but are not limited
to, hazards, poor illumination, slippery floors, inclining surfaces and
ladders.
Lower flammable limit or lower explosive limit means the minimum
concentration of a substance in air needed for an ignition source to
cause a flame or explosion.
Monitor or monitoring means the process used to identify and
evaluate the atmosphere in a confined space after an authorized entrant
enters the space. This is a process of checking for changes in the
atmospheric conditions within a confined space and is performed in a
periodic or continuous manner after the completion of the initial
testing of that space.
Non-entry rescue occurs when a rescue service, usually the
attendant, retrieves employees in a PRCS without entering the PRCS.
OSHA requirement means an OSHA standard or regulation that applies
to construction, or the general duty clause of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (paragraph (a)(1) of 29 U.S.C. 654).
Permit-Required Confined Space (PRCS) is a confined space that has
any one of the following characteristics:
(1) A hazardous atmosphere.
(2) Inwardly converging, sloping, or tapering surfaces that could
trap or asphyxiate an employee. For example, a space between walls that
narrows towards the base (including, but not limited to, funnels and
hoppers).
(3) An engulfment hazard or other physical hazard.
Physical hazard means an existing hazard that can cause death or
serious physical harm in or near a confined space, or a hazard that has
a reasonable probability of occurring in or near a confined space, and
that includes, but is not limited to: explosives (as defined by
paragraph (n) of Sec. 1926.914, definition of "explosive");
mechanical, electrical, hydraulic and pneumatic energy; radiation;
temperature extremes; engulfment; noise; and inwardly converging
surfaces. Physical hazard also refers to chemicals that can cause death
or serious physical harm through skin or eye contact (rather than
through inhalation).
Planned conditions are the conditions under which authorized
entrants can work safely in a PRCS or CS-PRCS, including hazard levels
and methods of employee protection.
Protect or protection means keeping an employee safe in the
presence of a physical or atmospheric hazard using methods other than
control (for example, using personal protective equipment).
Rescue means retrieving, and providing medical assistance to,
employees who are in a PRCS.
Rescue service means the onsite or offsite personnel who the
employer designates to engage in non-entry and/or entry rescue of
employees from a PRCS.
Retrieval system means the equipment, including mechanical
retrieval devices, used for non-entry rescue of authorized entrants
from a PRCS.
Safe level is an employee exposure to an atmospheric or physical
hazard that meets OSHA requirements.
Serious physical harm means:
(1) An impairment in which a body part is made functionally useless
or is substantially reduced in efficiency. Such impairment includes,
but is not limited to, loss of consciousness or disorientation, and may
be permanent or temporary, or chronic or acute. Injuries involving such
impairment would usually require treatment by a physician or other
licensed health-care professional; or
(2) An illness that could shorten life or substantially reduce
physical or mental efficiency by impairing a normal bodily function or
body part.
Simulated Permit-Required Confined Space is a confined space or a
mock-up of a confined space that has all of the following
characteristics:
(1) Has similar entrance openings, and is similar in size,
configuration, and accessibility to the PRCS the authorized entrants
enter.
(2) Need not contain any physical or atmospheric hazards.
Standard means this subpart unless otherwise specified.
Test or testing means the process used to identify and evaluate the
atmosphere in a confined space before an authorized entrant enters the
space.
Unplanned condition means a deviation from the planned conditions.
Ventilate or ventilation means controlling a hazardous atmosphere
using continuous forced-air mechanical systems that meet the
requirements of 29 CFR 1926.57 (Ventilation).
Sec. 1926.1204 Worksite evaluation, information exchange, and
coordination.
(a) Neither the controlling contractor nor the host employer is
required to obtain the information listed in this paragraph. However,
if they have it, they must provide it to the contractor for the
contractor's evaluation before the contractor first enters a confined
space:
(1) The location of each space that the controlling contractor or
host employer actually knows is a confined space.
(2) For each of the spaces identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section:
(i) Any hazards, if known, that affect that space.
(ii) The classification of the space, IHCS, CACS, PRCS, or CS-PRCS,
if previously classified.
(iii) Any precautions and procedures that the controlling
contractor or host employer previously implemented for entering the
space.
Note to Sec. 1926.1204(a): Unless a controlling contractor or
host employer has or will have employees in a confined space, they
are not required to enter any confined space to collect the
information specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(b) The contractor must determine if there are confined spaces and
if these spaces are subject to any hazards, using the following
procedures:
(1) Without entering the space, the contractor must consider
information, if any, from the host employer and controlling contractor,
and use inspection information (see paragraph (b)(2) of this section),
to:
(i) Determine if the space meets the definition of a confined
space.
(ii) Identify any physical and atmospheric hazards.
(2) If the contractor can demonstrate that obtaining required
information without entering the space is infeasible, employees may
enter to inspect for that information only if the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 1926.1208 through 1926.1214 (PRCSs) and, if applicable,
Sec. 1926.1215 (CS-PRCSs), are met.
(3) To determine if there are atmospheric hazards, the contractor
must follow the atmospheric-testing and -monitoring requirements in
Sec. 1926.1205. This testing must be done without using mechanical
ventilation or altering the natural ventilation in the space.
(4) The contractor must meet other applicable OSHA requirements,
including training requirements, for the use of personal and other
protective equipment, as required in Sec. 1926.1213(c)(2).
(c) If the contractor classifies a space as an IHCS, CACS, PRCS, or
CS-PRCS, it must:
(1) Inform the controlling contractor and host employer of the
precautions and procedures the contractor will follow for entry into
the space.
(2) At the conclusion of entry operations, inform the controlling
contractor and host employer about any hazards that were present, or
that developed, during entry operations.
(d) If more than one employer will have employees in the space at
the same time, the controlling contractor shall coordinate entry
operations with the contractors.
(e) Employee participation and notification. The employer must
provide its employees who enter a confined space, and their authorized
representatives, with an opportunity to observe the evaluations of the
space (Sec. 1926.1204(b)), any reassessment conducted pursuant to
Sec. 1926.1207, and atmospheric testing and monitoring required by
this standard.
Sec. 1926.1205 Atmospheric testing and monitoring.
(a) When testing or monitoring atmospheric hazards in a confined
space, the employer must:
(1) Test or monitor in the following order: Oxygen, combustible
gases and vapors, and toxic gases and vapors, unless testing or
monitoring is conducted simultaneously.
(2) Test or monitor for other atmospheric hazards as specified by
applicable OSHA requirements.
(3) Monitor periodically and as necessary, unless applicable OSHA
requirements or other provisions of this standard specify a different
frequency.
(4) Test or monitor using a properly calibrated, direct-reading
instrument(s).
(b) If a medical facility treats an employee exposed to an
atmosphere that is immediately dangerous to life and health, then the
employer must:
(1) Provide or communicate to the medical facility any information
that the employer is required to retain regarding the atmosphere (for
example, the name of and level of exposure to atmospheric contaminants,
and the information required by 29 CFR 1910.1200 (Hazard
Communications) to be provided on Material Safety Data Sheets).
(2) Do so as soon as practical after the exposure.
Sec. 1926.1206 Classification and precautions.
(a) Using the information obtained in Sec. 1926.1204, the employer
must classify the space as a Continuous System-Permit-Required Confined
Space (CS-PRCS) if the space has all of the following characteristics:
(1) Is part of, and contiguous with, a larger confined space (for
example, sewers).
(2) Is not isolated from the larger confined space.
(3) Is subject to a potential hazard release from the larger
confined space that would overwhelm personal protective equipment and/or
hazard controls, resulting in a hazard that is immediately dangerous to
life and health.
(b) For confined spaces other than a CS-PRCS, the employer must use
the information obtained in Sec. 1926.1204 to classify the space as a
PRCS (Sec. 1926.1208) or, alternatively, as a CACS (Sec. 1926.1216)
or IHCS (Sec. 1926.1217) if the space meets the applicable
requirements for the classification selected.
(c) The employer must meet the accident-prevention and -protection
requirements applicable to the space classification before any employee
enters the space, unless otherwise specified.
Sec. 1926.1207 Reassessment.
(a) If the contractor made a determination under Sec. 1926.1204
that the confined space was not subject to any hazards, the contractor
must reassess that determination if there is an indication that the
conditions under which the determination was made have changed. Such
indications include, but are not limited to:
(1) A change in the configuration or use of, or the type of work
conducted or materials used in, the confined space.
(2) New information regarding a hazard in or near a confined space.
(3) An employee or authorized representative provides a reasonable
basis for believing that a hazard determination is inadequate.
(b) If the contractor made a determination under Sec. 1926.1204
that the confined space was subject to a hazard, the contractor must
reassess the determinations, procedures, and equipment used to protect
employees in or near a confined space if there is an indication that
the measures taken may not protect employees. Such indications include,
but are not limited to:
(1) A change in the configuration or use of, or the type of work
conducted or materials used in, the confined space.
(2) New information regarding a hazard in or near a confined space.
(3) An employee or authorized representative provides a reasonable
basis for believing that a hazard determination or protective measure
is inadequate.
(4) An unauthorized entry into a PRCS.
(5) Detection of a hazard in or near a PRCS that is not addressed
by the entry permit.
(6) Detection of a hazard level in or near a PRCS that exceeds the
planned conditions specified in the entry permit.
(7) The occurrence, during an entry operation, of an injury,
fatality or near-miss.
(c) If the contractor must reassess the confined space based on
paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, then the contractor must ensure
that:
(1) All employees exit the confined space immediately.
(2) No employee reenters the space until the contractor:
(i) Identifies physical and atmospheric hazards in accordance with
Sec. 1926.1204(b).
(ii) Follows the classification procedures specified by Sec.
1926.1206 (Classification and precautions).
(iii) Meets the accident-prevention and -protection requirements
applicable to the space classification selected by the contractor
before any employee reenters the space.
Sec. 1926.1208 Permit-required confined spaces.
(a) Permit-required confined space (PRCS) classification
requirements. (1) A PRCS is a confined space that has any one of the
following characteristics:
(i) A hazardous atmosphere; or
(ii) Inwardly converging, sloping, or tapering surfaces that could
trap or asphyxiate an employee. For example, a space between walls that
narrows towards the base (including, but not limited to, funnels and
hoppers); or
(iii) In engulfment hazard or other physical hazard.
(2) The requirements for a confined space classified as a PRCS are:
(i) For each physical hazard that was identified using the
procedures in Sec. 1926.1204(b), the employer must determine an
isolation method or a method of protecting employees from the physical
hazard that meets applicable OSHA requirements.
(ii) For each atmospheric hazard that was identified using the
procedures in Sec. 1926.1205, the employer must determine an isolation
method or a method for controlling the hazard at a safe level or
protecting employees from the atmospheric hazard with personal
protective equipment.
(b) Planned conditions. (1) Using the determinations made in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the employer must define the
conditions under which authorized entrants can work safely in the PRCS,
including hazard levels and methods of employee protection (that is,
"planned conditions").
(2) The employer must determine that, in the event the ventilation
system stops working, the monitoring procedures will detect an increase
in atmospheric hazard levels in sufficient time for the entrants to
safely exit the PRCS.
Sec. 1926.1209 PRCS--initial tasks.
(a) Notification and posting danger signs. (1) The contractor must
notify its employees that it anticipates will be in or near the PRCS
and their authorized representative, and the controlling contractor,
about the location of, and the hazards/dangers posed by, the PRCSs
located at the job site.
(2) The employer must post a danger sign to warn employees about
the PRCS. Posting signs at or near the entrances to the PRCS that read,
"Danger--Permit-Required Confined Space--Authorized Employees Only"
or "Danger--Do Not Enter Without a Permit," or similar language, will
meet this requirement. If the employer demonstrates that a sign is
infeasible, then an equally effective means of warning employees must
be used.
(b) Prohibiting entry. The employer must decide if employees will
be authorized to enter the PRCS. Where no employees will be authorized
to enter, the following steps must be taken:
(1) Use barriers to permanently close the PRCS.
(2) Post danger signs that comply with paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(3) Inform the employees and the controlling contractor of the
location of that PRCS and the steps used to prevent entry.
(c) Limiting entry. (1) Where one or more employees will be
authorized to enter the PRCS, the employer must prevent the non-
authorized employees from entering the PRCS by taking the following
steps:
(i) Across the entrances to the PRCS, use barriers or high-
visibility physical restrictions, such as warning lines with flags.
(ii) Post danger signs that comply with paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(iii) Inform the non-authorized employees and the controlling
contractor of the location of, and hazards in, the PRCS, and the steps
used to prevent unauthorized entry.
(2) Only employees who are "authorized entrants" are to be
permitted to enter the PRCS.
(d) Training. (1) The employer must ensure that employees the
employer anticipates will be in or near a PRCS (i.e., employees who
have duties specified by the applicable sections of this standard
(entry supervisors, attendants, authorized entrants, and rescue-service
employees)) acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for the safe
performance of these duties. This training must result in an
understanding of the hazards in the PRCS and the methods used to
isolate, control or in other ways protect employees from these hazards.
(2) Hazards of rescue. The employer must train employees the
employer anticipates will be in or near a PRCS who are not authorized
to perform entry rescues about the dangers of attempting such rescues.
(3) When to train under paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this
section:
(i) Prior to initial entry into the PRCS.
(ii) If an employee the employer anticipates will be in or near a
PRCS receives a change in assigned duties that relate to maintaining
the planned conditions, any additional training necessitated by the
change in duties must be completed before the employee re-enters the
PRCS.
(iii) If a new hazard is introduced or occurs in the PRCS for which
the employees the employer anticipates will be in or near a PRCS
received no previous training, the authorized entrant must exit the
space immediately and this training must be completed before resuming
work in the space.
(4) The employer must ensure that the employees the employer
anticipates will be in or near a PRCS can demonstrate proficiency in
the duties required by this standard, including new and revised PRCS
procedures.
(5) Training records. The employer must maintain training records
for each employee. The training records must:
(i) Show that the employee accomplished the training requirements
specified above in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this section.
(ii) Contain the employee's name, names of the trainers, and dates
of the training.
(6) Retraining. Before employees continue with PRCS entry
operations, the employer must train those employees it has reason to
believe:
(i) Deviated from the PRCS entry procedures specified in Sec. Sec.
1926.1209 through 1926.1214 of this standard; or
(ii) Do not have adequate knowledge and skills of PRCS entry
procedures.
(e) Rescue preparations. Before any authorized entrant enters the
PRCS, the employer must complete arrangements for providing for the
rescue of these employees in accordance with Sec. 1926.1213.
(f) Safe termination procedures. For each PRCS that authorized
entrants will enter, the employer must develop procedures for safely
terminating entry operations under both planned and emergency
conditions.
Sec. 1926.1210 PRCS--preparing for entry.
Before entry, the employer must ensure that the following
requirements are met:
(a) Entry permit. Prepare and post an entry permit where the
authorized entrants enter the PRCS. Entry permit requirements are in
Sec. 1926.1214.
(b) Removing entrance covers. Prior to removing an entrance cover,
eliminate any condition (for example, high pressure in the PRCS) that
makes it unsafe to remove the cover.
(c) Guarding holes and openings. Outside the space, when necessary
to protect employees working in and around the space, promptly: use
guardrails or covers as specified in 29 CFR 1926.502 (Fall protection
systems criteria and practices) of subpart M (Fall Protection) to guard
holes and openings into the space from falling individuals and objects
and institute measures to control pedestrian and vehicle traffic in
accordance with the requirements in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart G (Signs,
Signals, and Barricades).
(d) Safe access. Ensure that a safe method of entering and exiting
a PRCS (such as stairways or ladders) is provided and used, and that it
meets applicable OSHA requirements. If a hoisting system is used, it
must be designed and manufactured for personnel hoisting; however, a
job-made hoisting system is permissible if it is approved for personnel
hoisting by a registered professional engineer prior to use.
(e) Entry supervisor. (1) Assign an entry supervisor to supervise
PRCS entry operations.
(2) Entry supervisor requirements. Ensure that each entry
supervisor:
(i) Knows the physical and atmospheric hazards in the PRCS.
(ii) Knows how these hazards enter the body (such as skin contact
and inhalation), signs and symptoms, and characteristic effects (such
as behavioral effects) of exposure to these hazards.
(iii) Verifies that the conditions in the PRCS are within the
planned conditions as defined under Sec. 1926.1208(b) and specified in
the entry permit by checking the appropriate entries in the entry
permit, verifying completion of the atmospheric testing specified in
the entry permit, and verifying that any other procedures and equipment
specified in the entry permit are in place.
(iv) Verifies that the rescue service is available and that the
means for summoning the rescue service works.
(v) Signs the entry permit to authorize entry into the PRCS.
(vi) Terminates PRCS entry operations in accordance with Sec.
1926.1212(b) (Supervisor requirements) of this standard.
(f) Attendant. (1) Assign an attendant to be stationed outside the
PRCS for the duration of the entry operation.
(2) Hazard awareness. Ensure that each attendant knows:
(i) The physical and atmospheric hazards in the PRCS.
(ii) How the hazards enter the body (such as skin contact and
inhalation), signs and symptoms, and characteristic effects (including
behavioral effects) of exposure to these hazards.
(3) Attending multiple PRCSs. If a single attendant is assigned to
monitor multiple PRCSs, then ensure that:
(i) The attendant can fully perform the duties specified by Sec.
1926.1211(f) (Attendant duties).
(ii) The equipment and procedures are provided to enable an
attendant to respond to an emergency affecting any of the PRCSs the
attendant is monitoring.
(g) Authorized entrant. (1) Designate which employee(s) are
authorized entrants in the PRCS.
(2) Hazard awareness. Ensure that each authorized entrant knows:
(i) The physical and atmospheric hazards in the PRCS.
(ii) How the hazards enter the body (such as skin contact and
inhalation), signs and symptoms, and characteristic effects (such as
behavioral effects) of exposure to these hazards.
(h) Criteria for assigning simultaneous roles. (1) Employees are
prohibited from serving as authorized entrants and attendants
simultaneously.
(2) Authorized entrants may serve simultaneously as entry
supervisors only if the employer ensures that they meet the
requirements of both Sec. Sec. 1926.1210(e) (Entry supervisor) and
1926.1210(g) (Authorized entrant).
(3) Attendants may serve simultaneously as entry supervisors only
if the employer ensures that they meet the requirements of both
Sec. Sec. 1926.1210(e) (Entry supervisor) and 1926.1210(f)
(Attendant).
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Equipment. In addition to the equipment required in Sec.
1926.1218, the employer shall provide and ensure the use of the
following equipment:
(1) Communication equipment for compliance with paragraphs (f)(5),
(g)(2) (entrant-to-attendant communication requirements), and (h)(2)
(Entry rescue--when to summon) of Sec. 1926.1211.
(2) Lighting equipment needed to comply with 29 CFR 1926.56
(Illumination).
(3) Railings, covers, or barriers as required in Sec. Sec.
1926.1209(b) (Prohibiting entry) and (c) (Limiting entry), and
1926.1210(c) (Guarding holes and openings).
(4) Equipment, such as ladders, needed for safe entry to and exit
from a PRCS.
(5) Rescue and emergency equipment required to comply with Sec.
1926.1213 (PRCS--rescue criteria), unless a rescue service provides its
own rescue and emergency equipment.
(6) Any other equipment necessary for safe rescue operations in or
near PRCSs.
(k) Document the determinations made and the actions taken in
paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section by entering the information
in the entry permit as required in Sec. 1926.1214(a).
Sec. 1926.1211 PRCS--during entry.
While any authorized entrant is in a PRCS, the employer must ensure
that the following requirements are met:
(a) The physical and atmospheric hazards remain isolated or
controlled, or the employees remain protected from them, in accordance
with the determinations made in Sec. 1926.1208 (Permit-required
confined spaces).
(b) Monitoring. Atmospheric hazards are monitored as specified in
Sec. 1926.1205 (Atmospheric testing and monitoring). Monitoring must
be continuous unless the employer can demonstrate that the equipment
for continuously monitoring a hazard is not commercially available or
that periodic monitoring is of sufficient frequency to ensure that the
atmospheric hazard is being controlled at safe levels.
(c) The procedures and monitoring results in paragraphs (a) and (b)
are documented by entering the information in the entry permit as
stated in Sec. 1926.1214(a).
(d) Entry supervisor duties. Each entry supervisor:
(1) Ensures that entry conditions are being properly monitored and
that these conditions remain consistent with the planned conditions
specified in the entry permit.
(2) Removes individuals who are not authorized entrants who enter,
or who attempt to enter, a PRCS.
(3) Evacuation. Orders authorized entrants to exit the PRCS as
quickly as possible if required under either paragraph (d)(3)(i) or
(d)(3)(ii) of this section, as follows:
(i) The entry supervisor detects or learns of any of the following:
(A) An unplanned condition.
(B) Any sign, symptom, unusual behavior or other effect of a hazard
in an authorized entrant.
(C) An evacuation alarm.
(D) A situation outside the PRCS that could endanger the authorized
entrants.
(ii) The entry supervisor cannot effectively and safely perform all
the duties required by Sec. 1926.1210(e)(2) (Entry supervisor
requirements) and cannot be immediately replaced.
(4) Entry permit cancellation. Cancels the entry permit upon the
occurrence of any of the following:
(i) An evacuation is required under this section.
(ii) Any of the indications that require a reassessment under Sec.
1926.1207(b).
(iii) The entry operations covered by the entry permit have been
completed.
(e) Transfer of supervisory responsibilities. If responsibility for
the entry operation is transferred to another entry supervisor, then
the new entry supervisor must:
(1) Meet the requirements specified above in Sec. 1926.1210(e)(2)
(Entry supervisor requirements).
(2) Review the entry permit and verify that entry conditions are
consistent with the planned conditions specified in the entry permit.
(3) Sign the entry permit.
(f) Attendant duties. Each attendant:
(1) Continuously maintains an accurate count of authorized entrants
who are in the PRCS.
(2) Has a means to accurately identify authorized entrants who are
in the PRCS (Sec. 1926.1214(a)(2)(ii)(A) specifies the means for doing
so).
(3) Remains at a location outside the PRCS that allows the
attendant to fully perform the duties and responsibilities specified in
this section and does so until properly relieved by another attendant.
(4) Monitors entry conditions to determine if they are consistent
with the entry permit.
(5) Communicates with authorized entrants as necessary to monitor
entrant status and to alert entrants of the need to evacuate the PRCS
as specified below in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(6) Monitors activities inside and outside the PRCS to determine if
the PRCS remains safe for authorized entrants and informs the rescue
service whenever a non-entry or entry rescue is required.
(7) Informs the employer if a non-entry or entry rescue begins or
an authorized entrant may need medical aid or assistance in escaping
from the PRCS.
(8) Performs non-entry rescue as required in paragraph (h)(1) of
this section and in accordance with Sec. 1926.1213(a) (Non-entry
rescue criteria).
(9) Does not enter a PRCS for rescue purposes unless the employer:
provides the attendant with the appropriate training and equipment
specified below in Sec. 1926.1213(c) (Protecting and training rescue-
service employees), and ensures that another attendant properly
relieves the attendant prior to performing the entry rescue.
(10) Performs no duties that could interfere with the primary duty
to monitor and protect the authorized entrants.
(11) Warns any individual who is not an authorized entrant, and who
approaches a PRCS during entry operations, to stay away from the PRCS.
If the individual enters the PRCS, the attendant must tell the
individual to exit immediately, and inform the authorized entrants and
entry supervisor of the unauthorized entry.
(12) Evacuation. Orders authorized entrants to exit the PRCS as
quickly as possible if required under either paragraph (f)(12)(i) or
(f)(12)(ii) of this section, as follows:
(i) The attendant detects or learns of any of the following:
(A) An unplanned condition.
(B) Any sign, symptom, unusual behavior or other effect of a hazard
in an authorized entrant.
(C) An evacuation alarm.
(D) A situation outside the PRCS that could endanger the authorized
entrants.
(ii) The attendant cannot effectively and safely perform all the
duties required by this section and cannot immediately be replaced.
(g) Authorized entrant duties. During PRCS entry operations, each
authorized entrant:
(1) Properly uses the retrieval equipment required below in
paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of Sec. 1926.1213 (requirements for
non-entry retrieval systems).
(2) Communicates with the attendant as necessary so that the
attendant can monitor the authorized entrant's status and alert the
entrant of the need to evacuate the PRCS, as required above in
paragraph (f)(5) of this section (requirements for attendant-to-
authorized entrant communications).
(3) Informs the attendant of any sign, symptom, unusual behavior or
other effect of a hazard.
(4) Evacuation. Exits from the PRCS as quickly as possible if
either:
(i) The entry supervisor or the attendant orders the authorized
entrant to evacuate the PRCS; or
(ii) The authorized entrant detects or learns of any of the
following:
(A) An unplanned condition (for example, a new hazard) in or near
the PRCS.
(B) Any sign, symptom, unusual behavior or other effect of a
hazard.
(C) An evacuation alarm.
(h) Rescue. Non-entry rescue and entry rescue is provided as
follows:
(1) Non-entry rescue.
(i) Provide non-entry rescue capability during the period that
authorized entrants are in the PRCS that meets the requirements of
Sec. 1926.1213(a).
(ii) Except where the conditions specified in paragraph (h)(1)(iii)
of this section are present, non-entry rescue must be initiated if
required under paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) or (h)(1)(ii)(B) of this
section, as follows:
(A) There is a need to evacuate pursuant to paragraphs (d)(3),
(f)(12), or (g)(4) of Sec. 1926.1211 and the employee is unable to
evacuate without assistance; or
(B) There is a reasonable probability that an employee may need
immediate medical aid and is unable to exit the PRCS without
assistance.
(iii) Non-entry rescue shall not be initiated if doing so would
present a greater hazard to the employee than sole reliance on entry
rescue (for example, where the configuration of the space would cause
the retrieval lines to not work or result in greater injury to the
employee than injury from waiting for entry rescue).
(2) Entry rescue--when to summon. Ensure that an entry rescue
service has been summoned immediately if any of the following occurs:
(i) A non-entry rescue is initiated.
(ii) There is a need to evacuate pursuant to paragraphs (d)(3),
(f)(12), or (g)(4) of Sec. 1926.1211 and the employee is unable to
evacuate without assistance.
(iii) There is a reasonable probability that an employee may need
immediate medical aid and is unable to exit the PRCS without
assistance.
(iv) Non-entry rescue is prohibited under conditions specified in
Sec. 1926.1211(h)(1)(iii).
Sec. 1926.1212 PRCS--terminating entry.
(a) The employer must implement procedures for safely terminating
PRCS entry operations under both planned conditions and in an
emergency.
(b) Entry supervisor requirements. The employer must ensure that an
entry supervisor terminates entry and cancels the entry permit upon
expiration of the entry permit, completion of the entry operations
covered by the permit, any of the indications that require reassessment
under Sec. 1926.1207(b), or an evacuation required under Sec.
1926.1211(d)(3), whichever occurs first.
Note to Sec. 1926.1212(b): After entry is terminated, no
employees can reenter the space until the employer: Identifies the
physical and atmospheric hazards in accordance with Sec.
1926.1204(b); follows the classification procedures specified by
Sec. 1926.1206 (Classification and precautions); and meets the
accident-prevention and -protection requirements applicable to the
space classification selected by the employer.
Sec. 1926.1213 PRCS--rescue criteria.
(a) Non-entry rescue criteria. For non-entry rescue, the employer
must meet the following requirements:
(1) Ensure that attendants and employees designated to perform non-
entry rescue acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for the safe
performance of non-entry rescue.
(2) Use a retrieval system that:
(i) Is available as soon as needed by the attendant or other rescue
service.
(ii) Is designed and manufactured for personnel retrieval; however,
a job-made hoisting system is permissible if it is approved for
personnel hoisting by a registered professional engineer prior to use.
(iii) The attendant or other rescue service can operate
effectively.
(iv) Has a chest or full-body harness and a retrieval line. The
retrieval line must have:
(A) One end attached in a manner that allows the attendant or other
rescue service to remove the entrant from the PRCS without causing
further injury.
(B) The other end attached to a mechanical retrieval device or
fixed anchor point outside the PRCS in a manner that allows rescue to
begin as soon as the attendant or other rescue service detects or
learns of the need for rescue. Movable equipment (for example, earth-
moving equipment), that is sufficiently heavy to serve as an anchor
point, may be used for this purpose only if effectively locked out or
tagged out.
(3) For retrievals involving vertical distances over 5 feet (1.52
m), a mechanical retrieval device must be provided and used. This
device must not be used for entry into the PRCS unless it is designed
for that purpose.
(4) Equipment that is unsuitable for retrieval, including the
following equipment, must not be used:
(i) Equipment that increases the overall risk of entry or impedes
rescue of an authorized entrant.
(ii) Retrieval lines that have a reasonable probability of becoming
entangled with the retrieval lines used by other authorized entrants,
or will not work due to the internal configuration of the PRCS (see
Sec. 1926.1211(h)(1)(iii)).
(iii) Wristlets or ankle straps used as attachment points for
retrieval lines, unless the employer can demonstrate that: Use of a
harness is infeasible or creates a greater hazard for safe rescue than
wristlets or ankle straps; and wristlets or ankle straps are the safest
alternative available.
(5) Prior to beginning entry operations, ensure that the employees
designated to perform non-entry rescue (including attendants, if
applicable) have access to the PRCS the authorized entrant will enter
or to a Simulated PRCS, so it can develop appropriate rescue plans and
practice rescue operations.
(b) Entry rescue: Preparing rescue-service employees. (1) The
employer must ensure that the entry rescue service can effectively
perform entry-rescue tasks in the PRCSs the authorized entrant(s) will
enter. Accordingly, the employer must ensure that the entry rescue
service:
(i) Can respond to a rescue summons in a timely manner. Timeliness
depends on how quickly serious physical harm may result from the
physical or atmospheric hazards in the PRCS.
(ii) Prior to beginning entry operations, has access to the PRCS
the authorized entrants will enter or to a Simulated PRCS so the entry
rescue service can develop appropriate rescue plans and practice rescue
operations.
(2) Prior to the entry rescue service entering a PRCS for any
purpose, the employer must inform them of the physical and atmospheric
hazards they are likely to encounter when performing rescue operations
in the PRCS, and other relevant information actually known by the
employer.
(c) Protecting and training entry rescue-service employees.
Employers of entry rescue-service employees must:
(1) Provide them with the personal protective equipment (PPE) and
rescue equipment (including retrieval lines if necessary) required to
make safe rescues.
(2) Train them in the proper use of the PPE and rescue equipment.
(3) Train them to perform assigned rescue duties.
(4) Train them in basic first aid and in cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR).
(5) Ensure that at least one member of the entry rescue service who
participates in the onsite rescue operations holds current
certification in first aid (including CPR).
(6) Ensure that the entry rescue-service employees practice rescue
operations at least once prior to beginning entry operations and at
least once every 12 months thereafter. This practice must involve:
(i) Removing dummies/mannequins or individuals from the PRCS the
authorized entrants will enter, or from a Simulated PRCS. In doing so,
comply with the requirements of this standard that apply to the
confined space used for this purpose.
(ii) Using the same PPE, retrieval, and rescue equipment they would
use to perform retrieval or rescue operations in the PRCS.
(d) Exemption from practice. An employer is exempt from the
requirement to practice rescue operations if the entry rescue-service
employees properly performed a rescue operation during the last 12
months in the same PRCS the authorized entrant will enter, or in a
similar PRCS.
Sec. 1926.1214 PRCS--entry permits.
(a) Contents. Employers must ensure that the entry permits for
PRCSs include the following:
(1) General information--(i) An identification of the PRCS to be
entered.
(ii) The purpose (including the tasks/job) of entering the PRCS.
(iii) The effective date and the authorized duration of the entry
permit. The duration of the permit is prohibited from exceeding the
time required to complete the tasks/job identified in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of this section.
(2) Planned conditions for entry--(i) Hazard information.
(A) Identify the physical and atmospheric hazards the PRCS is
subject to (that is, all physical and atmospheric hazards, regardless
of how they have been isolated or controlled, or how authorized
entrants are protected from them) consistent with the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 1926.1206 (Classifications and precautions) and 1926.1208(a)
(Permit-required confined space (PRCS) classification requirements).
(B) State the methods used to isolate or control hazards, or used
to protect authorized entrants from hazards in the PRCS. This
information must be consistent with the requirements specified in
Sec. Sec. 1926.1208(a) (Permit-required confined space (PRCS)
classification requirements) and 1926.1210 (PRCS--preparing for entry),
and must include, as applicable, the methods used to isolate or control
the hazards, the type of personal protective equipment provided, the
methods used to monitor each hazard (including the use of early-warning
systems, if required by Sec. 1926.1215), and how frequently each
hazard is to be monitored.
(C) State the atmospheric-testing and -monitoring results obtained
in Sec. Sec. 1926.1204(b) (requirements for determining confined-space
hazards), 1926.1211 (PRCS--during entry), and 1926.1215(a)(1)
(requirements for continuous atmospheric monitoring of CS-PRCSs).
Include the type and brand of the equipment used, the names and
signature/initials of the individuals who performed these functions, as
well as the date and time (or time period, for continuous monitoring)
they performed them.
(D) List the conditions under which authorized entrants can work
safely in the PRCS, including hazard levels and methods of employee
protection, consistent with the requirements specified in Sec.
1926.1208(b) (Planned conditions). In addition, when applicable, the
determinations made in paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1926.1208.
(ii) Personnel, equipment, and procedures.
(A) Identify by name (or other effective identifier) each
authorized entrant who is currently in the PRCS. This requirement can
be met by referring in the entry permit to a system, such as a roster
or tracking system, used to keep track of who is currently in the PRCS.
(B) List the names of the current attendants.
(C) Clearly indicate the name of the current entry supervisor and
the entry supervisor who originally authorized entry into the PRCS. In
addition, include the signatures or initials of both of these
individuals.
(D) Identify the methods used during entry operations to maintain
contact between authorized entrants and attendants.
(E) Identify the rescue service that will rescue workers during
emergencies, and the methods for summoning this service, including the
communication equipment to use and the telephone numbers to call.
(F) Identify the equipment needed (see Sec. Sec. 1926.1210(j)
(Equipment) and 1926.1218 (Equipment), and, for CS-PRCSs, Sec.
1926.1215(b)).
(3) Other information--(i) Identify additional permits issued to
perform authorized work in the PRCS (for example, hot-work permits).
(ii) Provide any other information necessary to ensure employee
safety in or near the PRCS, including notations of any problems
encountered.
Note to Sec. 1926.1214(a): Appendix B to this subpart provides
an example of an entry permit.
(b) Annual PRCS review. The employer must review, at least
annually, PRCS entries made during the previous 12 months to determine
if there are deficiencies in the employer's entry operation procedures.
For this review, the employer must use:
(1) Canceled entry permits retained as required by Sec.
1926.1219(b) (Retaining entry permits).
(2) Any other information retained regarding entry operations.
(c) Retaining entry permits. Entry permits must be kept in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 1926.1219(b).
(d) Canceling entry permits. Entry permits must be cancelled in
accordance with Sec. 1926.1211(d)(4).
Sec. 1926.1215 Continuous System--PRCS.
(a) For a Continuous System-PRCS (CS-PRCS), the employer must
complete all requirements in Sec. Sec. 1926.1208 through 1926.1214, as
well as:
(1) Monitor continuously for atmospheric hazards; employers may use
periodic monitoring for monitoring an atmospheric hazard if they can
demonstrate that equipment for continuously monitoring that hazard is
not commercially available.
(2) Monitor continuously for non-isolated engulfment hazards using
an early-warning system. The system must alert authorized entrants and
attendants in sufficient time for the authorized entrants to safely
exit the CS-PRCS.
(b) Equipment. In addition to the equipment required in Sec. Sec.
1926.1210(j) and 1926.1218, the employer shall also provide:
(1) Equipment necessary for monitoring of atmospheric hazards.
(2) An early-warning system for continuous monitoring of non-
isolated engulfment hazards. The system must alert authorized entrants
and attendants in sufficient time for the authorized entrants to safely
exit the CS-PRCS.
Sec. 1926.1216 Controlled-atmosphere confined spaces--requirements
for classification and accident prevention and protection.
(a) The requirements for classifying a Controlled-Atmosphere
Confined Space (CACS) are:
(1) For each physical hazard that was identified using the
procedures specified in Sec. 1926.1204(b), determine and implement an
isolation method.
(2) Ventilation.
(i) Test the atmosphere while using ventilation equipment to verify
that ventilation alone is sufficient to control these atmospheric
hazards at safe levels. Ventilation must consist of continuous forced-
air mechanical systems that meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.57
(Ventilation).
(ii) Determine that, in the event the ventilation system stops
working, the monitoring procedures will detect an increase in
atmospheric hazard levels in sufficient time for the entrants to safely
exit the CACS.
Note to Sec. 1926.1216(a)(2)(ii): The following paragraph
requires documentation of this determination.
(3) Document that all physical hazards have been isolated and that
ventilation alone is sufficient to control the atmospheric hazards. The
documentation must contain: The location of the CACS, identity of the
physical hazards, methods for isolating the physical hazards, date and
time the physical hazards were isolated and name and signature/initials
of the individual who completed the isolation work, the identity and safe
levels of the atmospheric hazards, methods for controlling the
atmospheric hazards, atmospheric-testing results, date and time of
atmospheric testing and the name and signature/initials of the
individual who completed the atmospheric testing, the determinations
made under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, name and signature/
initials of the person who completed this document, and the date and
time the document was completed. The documentation shall be made
available by posting or other methods to each employee entering the
space and to that employee's authorized representative.
Note to Sec. 1926.1216(a)(3): Appendix B to this subpart
provides an example of a verification document.
(b) Accident-prevention and protection requirements. The employer
must:
(1) Notification and posting danger signs.
(i) Notify the employees that the employer anticipates will be in
or near the CACS and their authorized representatives about the
location of, and the dangers posed by, all CACSs located at the job
site.
(ii) Post danger signs to notify employees about a CACS. Posting
signs near the outside entrances to the CACS that read, "Danger--
Controlled-Atmosphere Confined Space--Authorized Employees Only," or
similar language, will meet this requirement. If the employer
demonstrates that a sign is infeasible, then it must use an equally
effective means of warning employees.
(2) Training. (i) Ensure that each of its employees who enter a
CACS acquires the knowledge and skills necessary for the safe
performance of CACS entry operations. This training must result in an
understanding of the hazards in the CACS that the employee will enter,
the methods used to isolate or control these hazards, and recognition
of signs, symptoms, and characteristic effect (such as behavioral
effects) of exposure to these hazards.
(ii) Hazards of rescue. Train the employees that the employer
anticipates will be in or near the CACS and not authorized to perform
entry rescues about the dangers of such rescues.
(iii) When to train under paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of
this section:
(A) Prior to the employee's initial entry.
(B) If an employee the employer anticipates will be in or near a
CACS receives a change in assigned tasks and additional training is
necessitated by the change in tasks, any additional training that
relates to maintaining the conditions necessary to comply with the
requirements of the CACS classification must be completed before the
employee enters the CACS to perform these newly assigned tasks.
(C) If a new hazard is introduced or occurs in the CACS for which
the employee received no previous training, the employee must exit the
space and complete the training before resuming work in the space.
(iv) Ensure that the employee can demonstrate proficiency in the
duties required by this standard, including new and revised procedures.
(v) Training records. Maintain training records for each employee.
The training records must:
(A) Show that the employee accomplished the training requirements
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section before entering a CACS.
(B) Contain the employee's name, names of the trainers, and dates
of the training.
(c) General preparations for entry. Before any employee enters a
CACS, the employer must:
(1) Prior to removing an entrance cover, eliminate any condition
(for example, high pressure in the space) that makes it unsafe to
remove the entrance cover.
(2) Outside the space, when necessary to protect employees working
in and around the space, promptly: Use guardrails or covers as
specified in 29 CFR 1926.502 (Fall protection systems criteria and
practices) of subpart M (Fall Protection) to guard holes and openings
into the space from falling individuals and objects and institute
measures to control pedestrian and vehicle traffic in accordance with
the requirements in 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart G (Signs, Signals, and
Barricades).
(3) Ensure that a safe method of entering and exiting a CACS (such
as stairways or ladders) is provided and used, and that it meets
applicable OSHA requirements. If a hoisting system is used, it must be
designed and manufactured for personnel hoisting; however, a job-made
hoisting system is permissible if it is approved for personnel hoisting
by a registered professional engineer prior to use.
(d) Before entry. Immediately before any employee enters a CACS,
the employer must:
(1) Ensure that the physical hazards identified in Sec.
1926.1204(b) remain isolated.
(2) Test for atmospheric hazards as specified in Sec. 1926.1205(a)
to ensure that the ventilation is controlling the atmospheric hazards
at safe levels.
(3) Control the atmospheric hazards at safe levels using
ventilation alone. Ventilation must consist of continuous forced-air
mechanical systems that meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.57
(Ventilation).
(4) Document that the physical hazards are isolated and the
atmospheric hazards are being controlled. The documentation must
contain: The location of the CACS, identity of the physical hazards,
methods for isolating the physical hazards, date and time of
determining that physical hazards remain isolated and the name and
signature/initials of the individual who made this determination,
identity and safe level of atmospheric hazards, methods for controlling
the atmospheric hazards, atmospheric-testing results, date and time of
atmospheric testing and the name and signature/initials of the
individual who completed the atmospheric testing, name and signature/
initials of the individual who completed this document, and the date
and time the document was completed. The documentation shall be made
available by posting or other methods to each employee entering the
space and to that employee's authorized representative.
(e) During entry. While any employee is in a CACS, the employer
must:
(1) Ensure that the physical hazards identified above in Sec.
1926.1204(b) remain isolated.
(2) Ensure that ventilation alone is controlling atmospheric
hazards at safe levels by monitoring for atmospheric hazards as
specified above in Sec. 1926.1205(a) (requirements for atmospheric
testing and monitoring). Monitoring must be continuous unless the
employer can demonstrate that the equipment for continuously monitoring
a hazard is not commercially available or periodic monitoring is
sufficient. Where periodic monitoring is used, it must be of sufficient
frequency to ensure that atmospheric hazards are being controlled at
safe levels.
(3) Document the determinations made above in paragraphs (e)(1) and
(e)(2) of this section by completing a written verification that
contains: The location of the CACS, identity of the physical hazards,
methods for isolating the physical hazards, date and time of
determining that physical hazards remain isolated and the name and
signature/initials of the individual who made this determination,
identity and safe level of atmospheric hazards, methods for controlling
the atmospheric hazards, atmospheric-monitoring results, date and time
of atmospheric monitoring and the name and signature/initials of the
individual who completed the atmospheric monitoring, name and signature/initials
of the individual who completed this document, and the date and time the
document was completed. The documentation shall be made available by
posting or other methods to each employee entering the space and to
that employee's authorized representative.
(f) Emergencies. In the event an emergency occurs during entry
operations, including the presence of a non-isolated physical hazard or
atmospheric hazard at unsafe levels, then the employer must:
(1) Ensure that the employees exit the CACS immediately.
(2) Identify the physical and atmospheric hazards in accordance
with Sec. 1926.1204(b).
(3) Using the information obtained in the preceding provision,
follow the classification procedures specified by Sec. 1926.1206
(Classification and precautions), and meet the accident-prevention and
-protection requirements applicable to the space classification
selected by the employer before any employee reenters the space.
Sec. 1926.1217 Isolated hazard confined spaces--requirements for
classification and accident prevention and protection.
(a) The requirements for classifying a confined space as an
Isolated-Hazard Confined Space (IHCS) are:
(1) For each physical hazard that was identified using the
procedures in Sec. 1926.1204(b), determine and implement an isolation
method.
(2) For each atmospheric hazard that was identified using the
procedures in Sec. 1926.1205(a), determine and implement an isolation
method.
(3) The employer must accomplish the isolation of the hazards in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section without entering the IHCS,
unless it can demonstrate that this is infeasible. If it is infeasible
to do this work without entering the IHCS, then the employer must
follow the requirements for a PRCS (Sec. Sec. 1926.1208 through
1926.1214) and, if applicable, for a CS-PRCS (Sec. 1926.1215) to
protect employees entering the space to do this work.
(4) Document that isolation of all hazards has been accomplished.
The documentation must contain: The location of the IHCS, identity of
the physical hazards, methods for isolating the physical hazards, date
and time the physical hazards were isolated and name and signature/
initials of the individual who completed the isolation work, the
identity of atmospheric hazards, methods for isolating the atmospheric
hazards, the date and time the atmospheric hazards were isolated and
the name and signature/initials of the individual who completed the
isolation work, name and signature/initials of the individual who
completed this document, and the date and time the document was
completed. The documentation shall be made available by posting or
other methods to each employee entering the space and to that
employee's authorized representative.
(b) Training. Before any employee enters an IHCS, the employer
must:
(1) Ensure that the employee acquires the knowledge and skills
necessary to recognize signs, symptoms, and characteristic effects
(such as behavioral effects) of exposure to these hazards. This
training must also result in an understanding of the methods used to
isolate these hazards.
(2) Hazards of rescue. Train employees the employer anticipates
will be in or near the IHCS and not authorized to perform entry rescues
about the dangers of attempting such rescues.
Note to Sec. 1926.1217(b): No documentation is required for
this training.
(c) General preparations for entry. Before any employee enters an
IHCS, the employer must:
(1) Prior to removing an entrance cover, eliminate any condition
(for example, high pressure in the space) that makes it unsafe to
remove the entrance cover.
(2) Outside the space, when necessary to protect employees working
in and around the space, promptly: Use guardrails or covers as
specified in 29 CFR 1926.502 (Fall protection systems criteria and
practices) of subpart M (Fall Protection) to guard holes and openings
into the space from falling individuals and objects and institute
measures to control pedestrian and vehicle traffic in accordance with
the requirements in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart G (Signs, Signals, and
Barricades).
(3) Ensure that a safe method of entering and exiting an IHCS (such
as stairways or ladders) is provided and used, and that it meets
applicable OSHA requirements. If a hoisting system is used, it must be
designed and manufactured for personnel hoisting; however, a job-made
hoisting system is permissible if it is approved for personnel hoisting
by a registered professional engineer prior to use.
(d) Before entry. Before any employee enters an IHCS, the following
must be met:
(1) Ensure that the physical hazards identified above in Sec.
1926.1217(a)(1) (requirements for isolating physical hazards) are
isolated.
(2) Ensure through testing that the atmospheric hazards identified
above in paragraph (a)(2) of this section are isolated.
(3) Document the determinations made and the actions taken above in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section by completing a written
verification that contains: The location of the IHCS, identity of the
physical hazards, methods for isolating the physical hazards, date and
time the physical hazards were isolated, date and time of determining
that physical hazards remain isolated and the name and signature/
initials of the individual who made this determination, identity of the
atmospheric hazards, methods for isolating the atmospheric hazards,
date and time the atmospheric hazards were isolated, date and time of
determining that atmospheric hazards remain isolated and the name and
signature/initials of the individual who made this determination, name
and signature/initials of the individual who completed this document,
and date and time the document was completed. The documentation shall
be made available by posting or other methods to employees entering the
space and to the employees' authorized representative.
(e) During entry--(1) Hazard isolation. Once any employee enters an
IHCS, the employer must ensure that the physical and atmospheric
hazards identified above in Sec. 1926.1217(a) (requirements for
classifying IHCSs) remain isolated.
(2) Emergencies. In the event an emergency occurs during entry
operations, including the presence of a non-isolated physical or
atmospheric hazard, then the employer must:
(i) Ensure that the employees exit the IHCS immediately.
(ii) Identify the physical and atmospheric hazards in accordance
with Sec. 1926.1204(b).
(iii) Using the information obtained in the preceding provision,
follow the classification procedures specified by Sec. 1926.1206
(Classification and precautions), and meet the accident-prevention and
-protection requirements applicable to the space classification
selected by the employer before any employee reenters the space.
Sec. 1926.1218 Equipment.
(a) The employer must provide and ensure the use of the following
equipment:
(1) Atmospheric-testing and -monitoring equipment needed to comply
with this standard.
(2) Forced-air mechanical ventilation equipment where needed to
meet the requirements of this standard.
(3) Personal protective equipment, including respirators, if needed
to comply with this standard. If employees use respirators, then the
respirator requirements in 29 CFR 1926.103 (Respiratory protection)
must be met.
(4) Any other equipment necessary for safe confined space
operations.
Note to Sec. 1926.1218(a): There are additional equipment
requirements for PRCSs (Sec. 1926.1210(j)) and for C-PRCSs (Sec.
1926.1215(b)).
(b) Equipment maintenance, calibration, and use. The employer shall
ensure that all equipment needed to comply with this standard is
maintained, calibrated, and used as specified by:
(1) Applicable OSHA requirements.
(2) In the absence of applicable OSHA requirements, in accordance
with:
(i) The manufacturer's instructions; or
(ii) If manufacturers' instructions are not available, the
recommendations of a qualified individual as defined by 29 CFR
1926.32(m).
Sec. 1926.1219 Records.
(a) Copy of this standard. For sites where there is a confined
space, the employer must maintain a copy of this standard at the site.
Alternatively, the employer may maintain a copy of a written confined
space program at the site that incorporates the requirements of this
standard.
(b) Retaining entry permits. The employer must retain entry permits
for at least one year from the date the permit is cancelled.
Note to Sec. 1926.1219(b): With regard to retention and access
to employee exposure records, the employer must comply with the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1020 (Access to employee exposure and
medical records), which are made applicable to construction by 29
CFR 1926.33.
(c) The employer must maintain training records, as specified in
Sec. Sec. 1926.1209(d)(5) (PRCSs) and 1926.1216(b)(2)(v) (CACSs), for
the period of time the employee is employed by them.
(d) The employer must maintain verification documents required in
Sec. Sec. 1926.1216(a)(3), (d)(4), and (e)(3) (CACSs) and
1926.1217(a)(4) and (c)(3) (IHCSs) until the work in the confined space
is completed.
Note to Sec. 1926.1219(d): With regard to retention and access
to employee exposure records, the employer must comply with the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1020 (Access to employee exposure and
medical records), which are made applicable to construction by 29
CFR 1926.33.
(e) The employer must make the documents required to be retained in
this standard available on request to the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary's designee.
Appendix A to Subpart AA of Part 1926--List of Confined-Space
Requirements in Other Construction Standards That Supplement the
Requirements of Subpart AA (Mandatory)
The construction standards listed below have confined-space
requirements for the performance of specific activities and
equipment. Employers must comply with these provisions, as well as
this subpart.
Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls
Process safety management requirements: Sec. Sec. 1926.64(f)(4)
and (j) HAZWOPER requirements: Sec. Sec. 1926.65(b)(4)(ii)(I), (c)
through (p), and (j)(9).
Subpart J--Welding and Cutting
Sec. Sec. 1926.353(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).
Subpart V--Power Distribution and Transmission
Sec. Sec. 1926.956(a) and (b).
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28NO07.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28NO07.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28NO07.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28NO07.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28NO07.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28NO07.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28NO07.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28NO07.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28NO07.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28NO07.050
[FR Doc. E7-21893 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
