Volume 1, Number 3

December, 2000
 



Industry Speaks...OSHA Listens!

"Stakeholder's Meeting Discusses Confined Space in Construction"

An editorial by R. Ronald Sokol, C.S.P., CSC/TC General Manager

On October 11, 2000, I had the privilege to represent CSC/TC and the American Society of Safety Engineers at a stakeholder’s meeting with OSHA, held in Houston, to discuss the topic of a revised standard for "Confined Spaces in Construction." This meeting was the second of three stakeholder’s meetings to discuss this topic, with the other locations being Washington, D.C. on October 4, 2000, and Boston, MA on October 24, 2000. OSHA had petitioned interested parties to comment on five specific issues.

The willingness of OSHA to listen to safety experts before even beginning the rule making process shows me that there is really a "new OSHA". My dealings with the OSHA staff in Washington, D.C. prior to this meeting in Houston revealed a dedicated, hard working staff, desiring to write the best standard possible for the construction industry and the construction worker.

OSHA was prepared to hear up to thirty-five industry experts and planned to allot more time if necessary. Sad to say, only six people at the Houston meeting spoke before OSHA to render opinions on these five issues:
1. The agency seeks information concerning the characteristics of confined spaces in the construction industry such as:
Examples of confined spaces that you encounter
The defining characteristics of confined spaces in construction
Examples of obstructions that impair entering or exiting confined spaces
2. It is our understanding that there are engulfment hazards, such as in sewers, that often cannot be effectively isolated (blocked off). We are considering a requirement that, in those situations, employers use an early-warning system to continuously monitor the non-isolated hazard. Such a provision would specify that the system must alert entrants and attendants of the engulfment hazard in time to safely exit the confined space. Examples of such systems would be a remotely-activated alarm, or a lookout who has a communication link to the attendant. We are considering the following questions:
Is there a need for an early-warning system in these situations?
What early-warning systems are available for use in spaces such as sewers?
How often, and under what conditions, are they used?
Are the available systems effective?
3. For atmospheric hazards, the general industry standard allows periodic (rather than continuous) monitoring in some circumstances. Since that standard was adopted, monitoring technology has advanced, and costs for continuous monitoring equipment have declined. As a result, we are considering requiring continuous monitoring in all cases under the construction standard. We are considering the following questions:
Would continuous monitoring better protect employees than periodic monitoring?
Are there labor cost savings associated with using continuous monitors?
What do continuous monitors cost?
4. Are there ways to make it easier for small businesses to protect their employees from confined space hazards without compromising safety?
5. OSHA is considering a requirement that would permit an attendant to monitor more than one permit required confined space (PRCS) at a time, and allow an attendant or entry supervisor to serve simultaneously as an entry supervisor and attendant. Such duties would be permitted if the employer: (1) can ensure that the attendant can fully perform such duties and responsibilities, (2) provides the means and procedures for the attendant to respond to an emergency affecting any of this permit-required confined spaces, and (3) the attendant or entry supervisor can perform the critical tasks of their principal jobs. We are considering the following questions:
What are the maximum number of PRCSs an attendant can effectively monitor?
Have any emergencies occurred in which an attendant’s ability to perform rescue-related tasks was compromised because they were responsible for monitoring several PRCSs?
at experience does the construction industry have with attendants or authorized entrants also serving as entry supervisors?
Are there circumstances where this arrangement should be prohibited?
In response to these issues highlighted by OSHA, it would be easy to recommend use of the OSHA General Industry Standard 29CFR1910.146 "Permit Required Confined Spaces" for the construction industry. This may fit the "construction" confined spaces found in the petrochemical industry but may not be entirely applicable for highway construction, renovation, sewer work or other confined spaces found in the construction industry.

Speaking as the Administrator of the Construction Specialty Practice of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), our position was that the ANSI Standard Z117.1 - 1995 "Safety Requirements for Confined Spaces" should adopted or given due consideration during the rulemaking process. This standard is well written, easier to read and provides comparable employees protection as the OSHA General Industry Rule. A key component of the ANSI Standard is the role of the Qualified Person in determining hazard assessment, exposure and control of the confined spaces. A copy of this ANSI Z117.1 - 1995 Standard is available through ASSE.

There are many issues to discuss involving confined spaces in construction. This stakeholder’s meeting gave us the opportunity to speak up! I encourage safety professionals to speak up and participate in the OSHA rulemaking process or forever hold your peace!

R. Ronald Sokol, C.S.P.
General Manager
Contractors Safety Council of Texas City