Some competencies in the P.Eng. Competency‑Based Assessment (CBA) process are harder to pass than others. Competency 1.6: Regulations, Codes and Standards is one of the most frequently rejected, because it expects you to show, in detail, how you used safety regulations in real engineering work – not just that you know they exist.
Assessors also treat 1.6 as a Canadian or equivalent competency. If you use international examples, they still want to see how you link those standards back to Canadian safety expectations.
If you want an overview of all 34 competencies and how 1.6 fits into the bigger picture, visit the CBA competencies guide.
Why 1.6 gets rejected
From assessor comments, common rejection reasons for Competency 1.6 include:
- No clear Canadian safety context. The applicant mentions company rules or international standards, but there is no evidence that they understand Canadian safety regulations (e.g. provincial OH&S requirements).
- Only “following codes” in general terms. Responses say “we followed all applicable standards” but give no specific regulation names, clauses, or authorities having jurisdiction.
- Management systems instead of safety regulations. Candidates focus on ISO / management system certifications and audits, but do not show how actual safety regulations guided their engineering decisions.
- No real safety issues discussed. The example is about general project management or quality, with no clear hazards, risks, or safety measures described.
- Missing safety training and renewal details. Applicants mention confined space or other safety training but do not explain the content, how they applied it on the job, or how often it must be renewed.
- Too much “we”, not enough “I”. The narrative describes what the team or company did, without clearly stating what you personally did to apply safety regulations, codes, and standards.
What assessors really want to see for 1.6
A strong 1.6 example convinces the assessor that you can actively use safety regulations to reduce risk. In practice, that means showing that:
- You know the key safety regulations, codes, and standards for your discipline and location (for example, OH&S regulations, provincial safety codes, CSA, NFPA, IEC / ISO where relevant).
- Those requirements clearly shaped your design or field decisions – sizing, layout, protection systems, access, monitoring, shutdowns, etc.
- You used regulations as part of a structured hazard and risk assessment, not just a box‑ticking exercise.
- If you used international standards, you compared or connected them to Canadian safety expectations instead of treating them as separate worlds.
- You took concrete technical actions yourself – calculations, drawings, changes, inspections – to make the work safer and compliant.
How to structure a strong 1.6 example
Pick one project where safety was critical and write in first person (“I + verb”). A good 1.6 story usually covers:
- Project context: Briefly describe the project, your role, and the main safety risks involved (for example, confined space, high voltage, pressure, traffic, lifting, fall hazards).
- Regulations and standards used: Name the key regulations and standards you applied and why they were relevant. Where possible, include specific parts (for example, “Part X of the OH&S Regulation, Section Y on confined spaces” or the relevant CSA / NFPA / IEC standard).
- Design or field decisions driven by codes: Explain specific design changes or field decisions you made because of those requirements – for example, guardrail design, lock‑out procedures, clearances, ventilation, interlocks, alarms.
- Risk assessment process: Describe how you identified hazards (e.g., site walk‑down, task analysis) and used regulations to set acceptance criteria or choose safeguards.
- Safety measures implemented and verified: Give one concrete example of safety measures you designed or checked, and how you confirmed they met the regulation or standard (inspections, calculations, tests, checklists).
- Training and competence: If safety training was required (for example, confined space entry), state what training you completed, how you applied it, and how often it must be renewed.
- Outcome and follow‑up: Summarize how your actions reduced risk and how you monitored or maintained compliance over time.
You need to prove that you do not just know safety codes, but that you actively use them to guide your engineering work and protect people, property, and the environment.
Mini example: weak vs stronger 1.6 evidence
Weak: “Our company is ISO‑certified and follows all safety standards. I attended safety meetings and made sure the team complied with procedures.”
This tells the assessor almost nothing about which safety regulations applied, what the actual hazards were, or what you did as an engineer.
Stronger: “On a wastewater pumping station project, I was responsible for the confined space entry design for the wet well. I reviewed the provincial OH&S regulation section on confined spaces and the applicable CSA standard for fall protection. Based on those requirements, I added a fixed access ladder with a self‑closing gate, specified an anchored fall‑arrest system, and required continuous gas monitoring before and during entry. I developed a confined space entry checklist that referenced the specific OH&S clauses and walked the contractor through it onsite. During commissioning, I verified clearances and anchor locations against the standard and updated the as‑built drawings to document the safety features.”
Next step: get help with Competency 1.6 (and the rest of your CBA)
If you are unsure whether your Competency 1.6 example shows enough concrete use of safety regulations, you are not alone – it is frequently rejected across multiple provinces.
Inside the CBA Blueprint course you will find:
- Accepted 1.6 examples you can model your own writing on.
- Guidance on common rejection reasons for each competency, including 1.6.
- Tools to help you organize hazards, map them to regulations, and write clearer, more focused responses.
Start the CBA Blueprint to reduce the risk of resubmissions and keep your P.Eng. timeline moving.