Risk Assessment: Work in (Low Risk) Confined Space¶
Document Information
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document Reference | RA24 |
| Issue Number | 2 |
| Issue Date | 1 June 2026 |
| Next Review | 1 June 2027 |
| Prepared By | Sean Ashton |
| Approved By | Aaron Mason, Director |
Risk Assessment Table¶
| Activity/Process | Hazard | Who/What Affected | Existing Controls | Pre-Control Risk (S/L/R) | New Controls Required | Post-Control Risk (S/L/R) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classification and identification of confined spaces | • Misclassification of confined spaces leading to inadequate controls • Failure to identify confined space hazards |
Site personnel could be exposed to unrecognized hazards if spaces are incorrectly classified as low risk. Escalation of risk during work could go unnoticed | • Formal classification system based on Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 • Risk assessment by competent person • Classification considers physical dimensions, access/egress, ventilation, and potential hazards • Low risk spaces include meter pits with adequate ventilation and simple access • Classification confirmed before entry and reassessed if conditions change • Higher risk spaces subject to separate assessment • Physical characteristics documented in confined space register |
5/3/15 (High) | • Provide enhanced training on confined space classification to all supervisors Specialised training providers, within 3 months • Cross reference with Method Statement 2.24 |
5/2/10 (High) |
| Pre-entry assessment and gas monitoring | • Failure to detect hazardous atmospheres • Changes in atmospheric conditions after initial testing |
Site personnel could be exposed to oxygen deficiency, toxic gases, or explosive atmospheres. Risk of asphyxiation, poisoning, or injury from fire/explosion | • Calibrated gas monitor used before entry • Monitor lowered and left for 5 minutes before reading • Testing includes oxygen, flammable gases, H₂S, and CO • No entry if monitor alarms or readings outside parameters • Continuous monitoring during work • Personnel trained in gas monitor use • Additional testing if conditions change • Work ceases if alarm sounds during occupancy |
5/3/15 (High) | • Consider deploying continuous monitoring systems with remote alerts for high-risk or extended duration work Directors evaluation |
5/2/10 (High) |
| Entering and exiting confined spaces | • Falls during entry/exit • Physical injury from climbing • Entrapment due to inadequate access/egress |
Site personnel could suffer injuries from falls or physical exertion during entry/exit. Risk of being unable to exit quickly in emergency | • Ladders in good order, suitable, and inspected • Ladders secured to prevent movement • Three points of contact maintained • Step irons checked for security • Equipment not carried unless safe system established • Adequate lighting at entry/exit points • Access points kept clear • Assessment of physical dimensions vs. PPE/equipment • Alternative access for restricted spaces |
4/3/12 (High) | • Consider installing permanent anchor points at frequent access locations to improve ladder security Directors evaluation |
4/2/8 (Moderate) |
| Working inside low-risk confined spaces | • Physical injury from restricted movement or awkward postures • Fatigue from working in enclosed environment • Prolonged exposure to damp or cold conditions |
Site personnel could suffer musculoskeletal injuries from restricted working positions. Risk of fatigue affecting judgment. Hypothermia in cold/wet conditions | • Work periods limited to prevent fatigue • Job rotation for demanding tasks • Adequate rest breaks programmed • Suitable PPE for ground conditions • Task-specific ergonomic assessment • Adequate lighting provided • Communication maintained inside/outside • Work methods adjusted for restrictions |
3/4/12 (High) | • Consider engaging occupational health specialists to assess high-risk tasks and recommend ergonomic improvements HR Department, within 4 months |
3/3/9 (Moderate) |
| Emergency response and rescue | • Delayed or inadequate emergency response • Injury during attempted rescue • Inability to communicate emergency |
Site personnel could suffer worsened outcomes if emergency response is delayed. Would-be rescuers at risk of becoming casualties | • Emergency response plan before work • Self-rescue emphasized for low-risk spaces • Communication system established • No lone working permitted • Alarm raising means established • Emergency services contacts available • Personnel trained in emergency procedures • Emergency access kept clear • First aid equipment available • No entry without proper equipment/training |
5/3/15 (High) | • Cross reference with Method Statement 2.24 Immediate implementation |
5/2/10 (High) |
| Use of tools and equipment in confined spaces | • Electric shock from power tools in damp conditions • Build-up of exhaust fumes from petrol/diesel equipment • Restricted movement increasing risk when using tools |
Site personnel could suffer electric shock in damp conditions. Risk of asphyxiation from equipment fumes. Increased injury risk in restricted space | • 110V equipment or RCD protected • No combustion engines in confined spaces or within 2m of openings • Battery equipment preferred • Tools inspected before use • Adequate lighting for tool operation • Cables/hoses routed to prevent hazards • Regular breaks when using tools awkwardly • No smoking/naked lights in or near spaces |
4/3/12 (High) | • Consider introducing permit system for powered tools in confined spaces HSQE evaluation |
4/2/8 (Moderate) |
| Working in confined spaces during adverse weather | • Flooding during heavy rainfall • Increased humidity affecting working conditions • Heat stress during hot weather |
Risk of drowning if space floods. Reduced visibility due to condensation. Heat stress affecting judgment and physical capability | • Weather forecast monitored before entry • No work in flooding risk areas during heavy rain • Additional ventilation in hot weather • Regular cool rest breaks in hot weather • Humidity considered for work time limits • Additional lighting if condensation affects visibility • Evacuation plan considers weather risks • Alternative work if conditions unsafe |
5/3/15 (High) | • Consider installing permanent water level monitoring at high-risk locations with remote alerts Directors evaluation |
5/2/10 (High) |
| Training and competence assessment | • Inadequately trained personnel undertaking confined space entry • Lack of awareness of emergency procedures |
Site personnel at risk due to lack of knowledge or skills. Potential for incorrect response in emergencies | • All personnel completed confined space training • Training includes hazards, gas monitoring, entry procedures, emergency response • Training refreshed at appropriate intervals • Site-specific briefing before each entry • Competence assessed before authorization • Training records maintained and checked • Additional training for specific hazards • Medical questionnaire before authorization |
4/3/12 (High) | • Consider implementing mentoring system for newly trained confined space workers Directors evaluation, within 2 months |
4/2/8 (Moderate) |
Key:¶
- S = Severity (1-5 scale)
- L = Likelihood (1-5 scale)
- R = Risk Rating (S × L)
- Risk Levels:
- Low (1-3)
- Moderate (4-8)
- High (9-15)
- Very High (16-25)
Related Documents¶
- Confined Spaces Regulations 1997