Navy gas-free certification for shipyard hot work

March 11, 1993

MEMORANDUM FOR: JAMES W. LAKE
Regional Administrator

THROUGH: LEO CAREY, Director
Office of Field Programs

FROM: ROGER A. CLARK, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs

SUBJECT: U.S. Navy Gas Free Engineering Program and Related Failure to Abate Citation

This is in response to your subject memorandum which was dated October 26, 1992.
The Navy's gas free engineering standards, NAVSEA S6470-AA-SAF-010, require that a Navy Gas Free Engineer certify fuel spaces for hot work. The ongoing discussions with the Navy concerning gas free engineering involve two principal issues: (1) whether a Navy Gas Free Engineering Technician is equivalent to a "competent person" under the provisions of 29 CFR [1915.7], and (2) whether a Navy Gas Free Engineer is equivalent to an NFPA Certified Marine Chemist (required in 29 CFR 1915.14). OSHA agrees that the Navy Gas Free Engineer meets or exceeds the requirements for and is equivalent to a "competent person" under the provisions of 29 CFR [1915.7].
It is emphasized that the Navy requires a Gas Free Engineer and not a Gas Free Engineering Technician to certify fuel spaces as safe for hot work. OSHA and the Navy are not at issue with respect to whether a Gas Free Engineering Technician is equivalent to an NFPA Certified Marine Chemist. Both OSHA and the Navy agree that a Gas Free Engineering Technician is not equivalent to an NFPA Certified Marine Chemist, and, therefore, not allowed to certify spaces which previously contained fuel as safe for hot work.
The Navy's assertion that NAVSEA S6470-AA-SAF-010 meets the "intent of the standard" involves a variety of issues, most of which have been resolved through extensive negotiations between OSHA and the Navy. However, the assertion by Puget Sound Naval Shipyard that issues involving the "intent of the standard" include a determination of whether a Gas Free Engineering Technician is equivalent to an NFPA Certified Marine Chemist is unfounded. This issue is not under consideration by either OSHA or the Navy, and as a consequence, the overall intent of the Navy's standards shall not be considered with respect to such a situation where the noted hazards were in violation of both OSHA standards and Navy standards.

[Requester letter reproduced on OSHA page; omitted here.]