Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp Great thread and it goes to show the diversity of opinions.
My pennyworth, I would like to know how wide the pit is, which was not clear on the original thread. However, without any obvious hazards it appears that it would not fall under the category of 'confined spaces' as per the regulations. Safe access and egress should suffice.
The second confined space is more problematical and needs to be checked out more thoroughly. Although I suspect it still does not conform to a confined space per se.
Emergency procedures? Assuming the above and the area has been barriered off, a person to monitor work with some form of external communication as a minimum.
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48 James,
"there arises a reasonably foreseeable specified risk;" is the line between needing controls or not.
One would have thought that if vehicle inspection pits (VIP)were subject to the strict entry controls of a confined space that this would appear in all the various guidance that exists about controls for this type of work area. They are so common that they would appear to be a good example to use in the guidance from HSE if they are indeed to be treated as subject to CSR 1999 and full entry control? If such exists I have not seen it, nor have I ever come across any garage that controls VIP under the CSR 1999. There are lots of risk controls around VIP but they focus on preventing the things that could add to the risks to people entering the VIP. Draining of motor spirit over a pit for example. Use of extractors for vehicle exhausts. Flameproof standard lighting etc. Encouragement to replace pits with ramps or hoists is another approach to removing the risks. The same goes for your stand alone pit. Provided that your assessment does not clearly identify a reasonably foreseeable specified risk then you do not have to put into place all the formal entry and escape controls. It seems unlikely from a distance of this forum page that it would require full controls but you have to make the final decision on that. You quote the example of entry into drains; there we have a known hazard, hence the entry controls are required. The use of such procedural controls relies upon high levels of personal discipline, consistency of supervisory support, testing of equipment, training of personnel. The cost and effort of maintaining of such controls has to be matched to real quantified risks and not just worst case qualitative assessment.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By James Midlake All
Many thanks - some very interesting comments. I think I have more idea now of where I am going ( possibly on a one confined space awareness course!!! - joke ).
Midlake
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.