What a PSM Host Owes Under 1910.119(h)(2), and the Audit Trail That Proves It

A turnaround crew arrives at a covered process on Monday, and your safety coordinator asks the contractor's supervisor for training records. The request feels like diligence, and the written procedure says the same. It is also the wrong question under 1910.119(h)(2), which asks the host for an evaluation and never for proof that a contractor's employees were trained.

That distinction decides which documents an inspector expects, and plants satisfy the wrong duty in good faith. Collecting a certificate for every contract employee gathers evidence the contract employer already had to prepare under (h)(3)(iii). Meanwhile the host's own 6 duties stay undocumented, and those are the ones you will be asked for.

Turnarounds make that gap worse for a plant of any size. Run a site in manufacturing and energy and several contractors pass through one covered process in a week, each with its own safety program and its own reporting line. The fragments then end up in as many separate systems as there are contractors. Those requirements divide between 2 employers, and half belong to you.

What 1910.119(h)(2) Assigns to the Host

Those duties are worth reading together, because each produces a document the plant controls. Scope is the first thing to settle. (h)(1) applies the paragraph to contractors doing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation or specialty work on or adjacent to a covered process. Anything outside that description falls outside the paragraph entirely.

The same subparagraph excludes incidental services, naming janitorial work, food and drink, laundry, delivery and other supply services. A catering contractor in the administration building falls outside all 6 duties. Scope is the cheapest place to lose an argument with an inspector.

The 2 Duties That Recur on a Clock

2 of those duties differ in their timing, and the difference decides how many records each leaves. Selection under (h)(2)(i) happens once and produces a single dated record. Periodic evaluation repeats for as long as that contractor works on the process, measuring the contract employer against its own (h)(3) obligations. A plant that does the first and skips the second holds a prequalification file with no oversight behind it.

Those first 2 aside, the other 4 duties split by the kind of record each leaves:

• (h)(2)(ii) and (h)(2)(iii) are communications, so the evidence is what was sent and on what date.
• (h)(2)(iv) and (h)(2)(vi) are standing systems, so the evidence is the written practice and the log it generates.

Evaluating a program and verifying a person's training are different acts, and confusing them is where most plants lose the audit. Evaluation belongs to the host, and verification to the contract employer. Reading the 2 paragraphs side by side is the fastest way to see which documents you should be writing.

Where Evaluation Stops and the Contractor's Record Begins

That line is drawn deliberately, since evaluation under (h)(2) operates on the contract employer's programs while verification under (h)(3) operates on individual employees. The contract employer employs those people and knows what each was taught. A host assumes the opposite, and that assumption produces the wrong file.

The standard puts that record with the contract employer and specifies its contents. (h)(3)(iii) requires the identity of the contract employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify the employee understood it. Asking for those records is reasonable while you evaluate performance under (h)(2)(v), and it never moves your own duty across.

Traffic runs the other way too, because (h)(3)(v) requires the contract employer to advise the host of any unique hazards its work presents. The same subparagraph also covers hazards that the work itself uncovers. Neither paragraph lets either employer hold the other's records.

Both records exist in a compliant file, and they answer to different paragraphs:

• A folder of training certificates evidences the contract employer's compliance with (h)(3)(iii).
• A note that the plant reviewed those certificates, on a date, with a conclusion, evidences the host's compliance with (h)(2)(v).

Only the second of those belongs to the host, and it is the one most plants cannot produce on request. A certificate folder can be assembled at any time, because the contract employer keeps the originals and will send them again. A dated review with a conclusion in it can only be written on the day the review happened, so the gap becomes permanent once that moment passes.

The Documentation an Inspector Asks the Host to Produce

That permanent gap shows up in a predictable place, because OSHA's process safety management enforcement directive sets out the contractor-related documentation an inspector requests from the host, item by item. That list comes from the agency's own inspection procedure, which makes it a fair description of a compliant file. The directive lists 6 items it expects the employer to hand over:

1. Information relating to contract employers' safety performance and programs.
2. Methods of informing contract employers of known potential hazards related to the contractor's work and the process, and of the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan.
3. Safe work practices to control the entrance, presence, and exit of contract employers and contract employees in covered process areas.
4. Evaluation of contractor employer performance in fulfilling responsibilities required by the standard.
5. Contract employee injury and illness logs related to work in process areas.
6. A list of unique hazards presented by contractors' work or hazards found in the workplace.

What the List Says About the Host's Own Paperwork

Reading that list against the standard shows the pattern. Every item is generated by the host, and 4 of the 6 exist only where somebody wrote them down at the time. The directive then asks what action the employer took to correct deficiencies it had identified in contractor performance.

No certificate file anywhere answers that question. A plant that evaluated a contractor, found a gap and fixed it in a phone call has done what (h)(2)(v) asks while keeping no way to show it. The work happened and the evidence for it never existed at all. That is the commonest form a contractor finding takes.

The injury and illness log appears in the same directive as a direct question, cross-referenced to (h)(2)(vi). It asks whether the employer maintains one for the contractor's work in process areas. An absent log shows up on the inspection report.

The 3-Year Audit and the Record of the Response

That report is not the first place those records get tested. Testing starts with the compliance audit under 1910.119(o), which examines the contractor file as a whole. (o)(1) requires certification at least every 3 years that the procedures developed under the standard are adequate and being followed.

Because that audit covers the contractor duties alongside everything else, a gap in the (h)(2) records surfaces internally first. Plants that treat that audit as a paperwork exercise lose the cheapest chance they get to find one. An internal finding costs a morning of somebody's time, and the same finding raised by an inspector costs a great deal more than that.

What (o)(4) and (o)(5) Each Require

2 subparagraphs govern what happens to those findings, and they collapse into one step in most plants. (o)(4) requires the employer to promptly determine and document a response to each finding, and to document that deficiencies have been corrected. (o)(5) requires retaining the 2 most recent audit reports.

The enforcement directive asks for all 3 of those together, requesting the 2 most recent reports, the documented response to each finding, and the verification that every deficiency was corrected. Most plants hold the reports and can produce neither of the other 2. A report on its own is the easiest of the 3 to keep and the least useful to an inspector who wants to know what you did about it.

A plant holding only the report therefore holds a third of what it owes:

• The report on its own answers (o)(5).
• The documented response to each finding answers (o)(4).
• Verification that a deficiency was corrected is a further record again, and it is the one that closes the finding out.

Meeting PSM Contractor Training Requirements as Contractors Change

Each of those records is created by a different person at a different moment. Those moments belong to a procurement lead evaluating safety performance at selection, a process engineer sending the hazard information, and a safety coordinator running the periodic evaluation.

None of them has process safety compliance as their main job. That is why the (h)(2) file usually exists in fragments across 4 separate systems, and why an audit 3 years later ends up asking 1 person to reassemble all of it.

Plants that survive that reassembly keep those fragments in 1 place, and the list is short:

1. Keep the dated selection record showing that contractor safety performance was obtained and evaluated.
2. Record what hazard information and emergency action plan provisions went to each contract employer, and when.
3. Evaluate each contract employer against its (h)(3) obligations on a schedule, and write down the conclusion you reached.
4. Keep the contract employee injury and illness log for process areas.
5. File the audit findings, your documented response to each one, and the verification that deficiencies were corrected.

Those 5 records are assignments before they are documents, and each needs an owner and a date. KC LMS holds contractor training records alongside the plant's own assignments, so an evaluation under (h)(2)(v) comes due against a named contractor. The completion date it leaves behind is the record a host can produce.

OSHA publication 3132 states the same 6 duties in plain language, which helps when briefing a procurement lead. The same publication covers the plan explained under (h)(2)(iii), which is the written emergency action plan 1910.38(b) requires to be kept in the workplace. For the workplace discipline underneath that plan, our guidance on safety training programs and on OSHA safety training for manufacturing covers it.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Does a PSM host employer have to verify contractor training?

No. 1910.119(h)(2)(i) requires the host to obtain and evaluate information on the contract employer's safety performance and programs at selection, and (h)(2)(v) requires periodic evaluation of that employer's performance of its (h)(3) obligations. The record showing each contract employee received and understood the training is prepared by the contract employer under (h)(3)(iii).

2. Which contractors does 1910.119(h) cover?

Under (h)(1) the paragraph applies to contractors performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on or adjacent to a covered process. It does not apply to contractors providing incidental services that do not influence process safety, such as janitorial work, food and drink services, laundry, delivery, or other supply services.

3. How often is periodic evaluation under (h)(2)(v) required?

The standard says periodically without naming an interval, so the plant sets one it can defend and then keeps to it. OSHA's process safety management enforcement directive asks what action the employer took to correct deficiencies it identified in contractor performance, which means the evaluation needs a written conclusion. Many plants align it with the 3-year compliance audit cycle in 1910.119(o)(1) and run it more often for contractors working on the process continuously.

4. What does the host have to keep after a compliance audit?

Three things, under 2 subparagraphs. 1910.119(o)(5) requires retaining the 2 most recent compliance audit reports, and (o)(4) requires documenting an appropriate response to each of the findings and documenting that deficiencies have been corrected. OSHA's enforcement directive requests all 3 together.

5. Is the contract employee injury and illness log the same as the OSHA 300 log?

No. 1910.119(h)(2)(vi) requires the host to maintain a contract employee injury and illness log related to the contractor's work in process areas, which is a PSM record about contractors working on a covered process. OSHA's enforcement directive asks about it as a separate inspection question cross-referenced to (h)(2)(vi).

References

1. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "29 CFR 1910.119, Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals." osha.gov
2. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "PSM Compliance Directive CPL 02-02-045, process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals, compliance guidelines and enforcement procedures." osha.gov
3. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "Process Safety Management, OSHA 3132." osha.gov
4. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "29 CFR 1910.38, Emergency action plans." osha.gov
5. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "Standard interpretation, February 16, 2022, process safety management contractor and safe work practice requirements." osha.gov