Overzealous miss-reading of requirements.

DSEAR if flammable paints used. Zone 1 around the painter then Zone 2 for the rest of the spray booth. However if its a small spay booth, it might be better to call the whole booth a Zone 1. It makes little practical difference.

Confined space - no.

2m³ is quite a small spray booth especially if totally enclosed. E.g. with a door for entry as opposed to be an open booth with permanent opening. The standard giving you all the information you require for both liquid and powder booths is BSEN 16985 (2018) Spray booths for organic coating material Safety Requirements.

Regarding DSEAR even if artificially ventilated you will need to calculate the release rate of liquid into the both and the ventilation rate to identify the hazardous zone. This calculation is in Annex C of the above standard and is for calculating the average concentration of flammable substances.

If the ventilation rate of the booths achieves a concentration threshold limit value for solvents within the booth of ≤25% Lower Flammable Limit (LFL) it is a Zone 2, if it is >25% and ≤50% LFL it is a Zone 1 therefore you need to do the calculation and know your ventilation rate to apply the correct hazardous zone.

In regard to L101 the word spray booth only appears once in the context mentioned above however according to the spray booth safety requiements there is no reference to confined space risk mentioned and that standard is for all significant hazards, hazardous situations and hazardous events relevant to spray booths for the applicaton of organic liquid  and powder coating materials, when they are used as intended and under the conditions foreseen by the manufacturer including reasonably foreseeabel misuse. 

It therefore it appears that confined space is not recognised as a significaint hazard regarding the use of spray booths which is what i would expect and have never come across one managed or recognised as a confined space.

Chris you are making an assumption that a "booth" automatically has a door.

I viewed this from my experience of a hood style arrangement with three or fewer sides and open operator entry.

It is primarily car repair shops who adopt what is a room in which spraying is conducted.

Hi Glassy

I think this is an example of many scenarios where it might be better to think about the risks and appropriate precautions rather than to focus on exactly which legislation might apply.

Whilst not directly comparable it seems to me that a spray booth might be considered along similar lines to a place that would be categorised NC4 under Water UK guidance. Occasional Guidance Note: The Classification & Management of Confined Space Entries (2019) | Water UK

In normal operation one needs to control the fire/explosion risk and any occupational health risks, with the focus typically being on suitable local exhaust ventilation and in some circumstances supplementing that with RPE.

Suppose you have those risks adequately controlled (inclusive of means of dealing with an emergency event), I can't see anyone with an ounce of common sense grilling you about what you are doing about a notional confined space risk.

The DSEAR has already been covered, so I have nothing to add regarding this. The confined space may be one of those cases regarding the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. For example, as Chris has already stated, the L101 ACOPS could be construed as a spray booth being applicable to the regs. I recognise that modern car paints are water-based; however, occasionally, solvent-based paints are used, and paint thinners can be added to the paints. In addition, sometimes solvent-based gun cleaners are used in the spray booth.

A spray booth is a space used all the time with known hazards, and you wouldn’t normally have controls such as entry permits, positive communications, gas monitors or emergency oxygen rescue supplies like you would for non-routine confined space entry. It’s the same as you wouldn’t issue hot work permits in a welding workshop, where routine hot work and known risks occur. But you would issue a permit if a welder were to go to a worksite, for example.

I have been involved in car body shops and spray booths for many years and have never considered them confined spaces (to the extent of the confined space legislation).

In essence, the most significant risk in body shops/accident repair centres is the paint mixing room, where solvents are used, and these rooms are small.

Surely the issue with a confined space is that there is risk of being trapped inside the confined space with the specified hazard. If you can just step out to safety, then it’s not a confined space by definition. If the spray booth has a door which tend to jam shut then that could be a confined space.

Edited by user 19 February 2025 10:28:37(UTC)  | Reason: terrible spelling and grammar

Paint spray booths aren't confined spaces because, as others have, pointed out - for walk in spray booths etc there is a design standard that effectively mitigates the risks of a confined space. So for new booths no action is required.

Looking at the HSE guidance in the CSWR Acop, you have to stretch the various examples given of confined spaces to include a purpose designed paint spray booth.

Personally I would stick to the traditional image of a confined space - inside tanks/process vessels, sewers, trenches, temporary enclosure (with defined risks) etc.

PAra 20 of the confined spaces ACOP gives a list of confined spaces examples. In true HSE fashion they give the usual open ended catch all statment that there may be other examples of confined spaces.

Note that spray booths are not mentioned in the list at para 20. Ultimately if you wanted to, just about any indoor work space could be classed as a confined space if the right circumstances are present.

All that I can repeat I don't know anybody that classifies a purpose designed spray booth as a confined space, I certanly don't

To clarify the interpertution of May in leagal jargon to help clarify my previous post I have copied a brief interperation from legal doctrun below.

1. Introduction

As well as rules which forbid certain actions or impose certain duties, all modern legal systems include power-conferring rules, which grant rights without imposing norms of behaviour. The distinction between obligations and rights is commonly expressed in statutory language, as in ordinary speech, through the use of modal verbs.

In English statutes, shall is normally used to impose an obligation, while may is generally used to confer a discretionary or enabling power. This use is illustrated uncontroversially, for example in “A local authority may within their district [...] construct a public sewer [...].” (Public Health Act 1936 s15[1]) [my emphasis] 1

The modal verb is here seen as conferring a right, rather than as imposing an obligation. The question occasionally arises as to whether in particular circumstances the holder of the power, in this case the local authority, could be legally obliged to act under the relevant statute, and if so whether and in what sense enabling expressions like may could then be said to impose a duty.

Various courts have held that in certain circumstances there may indeed be an obligation to exercise a statutory discretion. In such cases, the statutory may is said to have a coercive meaning similar to must. Surprisingly, this is the first sense given under ‘may’ in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (Stroud: 1986). This reference book gives as synonyms various other legal expressions normally used to grant a discretionary power, including ‘it shall be lawful’, and ‘shall hereby have power’.

Where shall occurs in such contexts, it does not have the effect of creating a new legal obligation or duty, but functions as part of an enabling expression to create a new legal power. Linguists commonly accept that expressions literally signifying permi ssion can be used to imply an obligation.

However, they would be reluctant to accept the more radical claim implicit in the relevant judgments, that, under certain conditions, may can be understood, in its literal meaning, as including not just a permissive but also a coercive sense.