Hi, be good to hear some advice on an issue I am dealing with.  The location where I work has 3 subterranean lift pits.  The pits themselves are approx 6 feet deep and are provided with fixed ladders and house task lighting for the pit and electrical systems (not HV) for the corresponding passenger lift.  I am required to complete on site a 'Confined Spaces Register' for the site and I have included these pits in that register.  I have done this for two reasons.  1. The pit itself has limited access and is predominently enclosed, other than the open pit cover when access is required.  The specified risk is a risk of fire and explosion as contractors (a big multinational lift supply and servicing company) may carry out live electrical working to fault find.  2. In case of a medical emergency, lets say heart attack it would be difficult to rescue the person to use a defib on them which we have on site to give them the best chance of survival.

I have pushed the contractors to detail on their risk assessment (we operate a permit to work system) how they expect to rescue a casualty from the lift pit without using a harness (which we would provide) and we could then use our rescue tripod to effect a rescue if required.

Question 1: Do you consider that the lift pit is a confined space under the Regs?

Question 2: Irrespective of whether the lift pit is a confined space or not, under a risk assessment do you consider requiring contractors to wear a harness so we can rescue if necessary is over burdonsome?

Happy to hear views from fellow professionals.

Question 1 - Yes

National Classification 2 (NC2) - Medium Risk (Could be NC3 dependant if there is a further movement in the hole.

Question 2 - Yes.  Moving an unconcious body is difficult at the best of times.  Harrnesses are required just to get the dumbass out that is even before I can try and get him breathing again...in an emergency you can use anything to effect the extraction as there is a threat to life.. 

Why are construction guys so obsternate...I am all for pragmatism but macho doesn't go well when thier mate is in the back of an ambulance or coroners van...ever heard of 'recklessly endangering the life of another'...if they need justification I will try and post some relevant accident cases if I can find the links...

Sorry for the rant wasn't really directed at you...been a long week 

Originally Posted by: stevedm

Question 2 - Yes.  Moving an unconcious body is difficult at the best of times.

Being difficult to move an uncoscious body from the space is not one of the specified risks, however.  It would be difficult to get an unconscious casualty off the flat roof of our office (hatches, ladders, walkways etc) but I very much doubt anyone would classify the flat roof of a building as a confined space.

With respect to the original posting - my undertsanding is that it's normal to take the defib to the casualty, not extract the casualty from wherever they are and take them to the defib.

I don't classify our lift shaft or pit as a confined space.  However, I don't know the arrangement at yours that might lead to it being reasonably foreseeable that it fills up with flammable fumes. An electrical fault in ours is less likely to start a fire than an electrical fault almost anywhere else in the building - there's less fuel in the bottom of the lift pit (bare concrete walls etc) and I can't foresee it filling with flammable fumes.  There are oil drip pans under the guide rails, but the thread inspired me to have a look and there's very little in them.

Originally Posted by: stevedm

still has at least 2 specified risks - asphixiation, and loss of conscousness arising from an increase in body temperature. 

Why is the risk of those things greater in the lift pit than in (say) the corridor outside the lift pit?