Differences from general industry Confined Space Standards Spur Confusion
When OSHA published their Permit-required Confined Space standard (1910.146), it was inevitable that some people would misunderstand one or more parts of that complex standard. Surprisingly, though, the employers I find who misunderstand the requirements of this OSHA regulation are often not the ones who have implemented a permit-required confined space entry program at their site, but rather the ones who have not! That is because many employers mistakenly believe they do not have confined spaces on their premises, or, they do have permit spaces on their site but think the standard does not apply to them because their employees do not enter those spaces. So in this blog post, I am going to address the three most common myths, mistakes and misinterpretations I have seen made by employers regarding the applicability of OSHA’s permit-required confined space entry standard to their operations.
Mistake #1 – “This standard does not apply to me because I do not have any confined spaces at my facility.”
When many employers think of OSHA’s definition of a confined space, they envision only tanks and silos. And if none of these are present at their work site, then they surmise that the OSHA permit-required confined space standard does not apply to them. But what many employers often overlook are other potential confined spaces that are present at their site, such as but certainly not limited to many crawl spaces, air handlers, duct-work, bag houses, utility vaults and tunnels, chimneys, large mixing vats and blenders, trash compactors, material balers, sump pits, large furnaces, sewer systems, drainage culverts, and even dock leveler pits. Of course, the size and configuration of these spaces will ultimately dictate if they are actual confined spaces or not, but in a nutshell, if the space is hard to get in and out of and is large enough to get your entire body inside, it is a confined space. And if an employer has a confined space at their site, the standard requires the employer to evaluate that space to determine if it is a permit-required confined space.
And don’t fall for the common misconception that a confined space has just one way in or out; as OSHA clarifies for us in the preamble to the permit-required confined space standard, a space can have multiple points of entry or exit, but if those entry/exit points are all difficult to get to and/or through (what OSHA refers to as a “limited” means of entry or exit), then it could still be considered a confined space.
Mistake #2 – “This standard does not apply to me because I have no employees who will be entering a permit-required confined space.”
Even if workers will never enter the permit-required confined spaces at their employer’s site, that employer still has at least one obligation under this standard. At a minimum, they must notify employees of the existence of their permit spaces and prohibitions against entering those spaces, typically by posting a danger sign at or near the entry point of each space to warn employees the space is off limits to everyone except authorized personnel [see 1910.146(c)(2)]. Or they could take other measures to secure the space, such as placing a lock on the entry portal and securing the key so no one can enter. And, as you will see in the next paragraph, the employer will have additional obligations should workers of a different employer (such as an on-site contractor) enter a permit space(s) at the host employer’s site.
Mistake #3 – “I have no obligations under the OSHA confined space standard because I hire outside contractors to perform all work inside permit-required confined spaces at our facility.”
I have already mentioned the requirement for employers to evaluate all confined spaces and identify any that are classified as permit required by posting a sign (or equally effective means), even if none of their employees will enter the spaces. But they have several more obligations under the standard when they have a contractor (or any other employer) come on site to conduct work inside a permit space [see 1910.146(c)(8) & (9)].
First, the host employer at a general industry worksite covered by this standard must notify the on-site contractor of the existence of any permit space(s) at their site, and they must also inform them that entry into any of those spaces is only allowed under a program meeting the requirements of the OSHA permit-required confined space standard. Furthermore, the host employer must explain to the contractor the hazards and experience they might have had with the space the contractor will be entering that make it a permit-required confined space, as well as any precautions or procedures (if any) they have implemented for the protection of any employees located in or near permit spaces where the contractor will be working. And at the end of entry operations, the host employer must debrief the contractor regarding the permit-required confined space procedures followed and any hazards they might have confronted or created in the permit spaces while conducting their entry operations.
As you can see, employers have some level of obligation under the OSHA permit-required confined space standard if there is a confined space at their worksite. At the very least, they must evaluate the space to determine if it is a permit space, and if so, post a sign (or take some other means) to notify employees of its existence and prohibitions for entry. And if on-site contractors will be working in their permit space(s), there is a mandatory exchange of information that must take place between both parties.
So take this opportunity to reexamine your work site to make certain you have not overlooked any confined spaces. We offer several online Confined Space Training courses for anyone wanting additional guidance on identifying confined spaces. And also make certain you have procedures in place to identify all your permit spaces, as well as to make the mandatory contacts, when applicable, with on-site contractors entering permit-spaces at your site.
If you have questions, comments or anything that you want to share on this topic, please scroll down to the “Comments” section below. And last but not least, I encourage you to Share This Blog Post with Others in Your Network who can benefit from this information. Thank you – Curtis
6 thoughts on “Misunderstandings About OSHA’s Confined Spaces Standard”
Question: If I have a confined space with no hazards present other than the equipment must be locked out to prevent inlet flow of materials if someone were to be inside working. Once the equipment is locked out, no atmospheric or other hazards would be present. Is this space now considered a non-permit required confined space?
Hello Michelle. First of all, you are correct in assuming that the space is initially classified as a permit required confined space due to the inlet flow of materials (assuming that creates some sort of hazard such as engulfment). However, to reclassify the space as a non-permit required confined space, simply locking out the equipment may not be enough; you may need to take additional steps to isolate the space from the hazard. Therefore, it critical to understand the OSHA definition of “isolation.”
According to OSHA confined space standards, “isolation” refers to the process of removing a permit space from service and safeguarding it against the release of energy, materials, or potential physical hazards to employees. This can be accomplished in some spaces containing certain physical hazards, such as mixing blades, fan blades, rollers, turbines, conveyor belts, elevator cars, or live electrical circuits, by locking out and tagging hazardous energy sources at their isolation devices, per the OSHA lockout/tagout standard (1910.147). Alternatively, mechanical hazards can be addressed by disconnecting mechanical linkages or immobilizing moving parts.
However, in your scenario, it appears you describe an “engulfment” hazard. In that case, OSHA states that “isolation” involves preventing harmful agents such as liquids or finely divided materials (e.g.: grain, powders . . .) from entering confined spaces by one of several methods, the first of which is blanking or blinding pipes or lines. This technique entails inserting a specialized plate into a pipe flange to block flow. Another approach to isolation is disconnecting, misaligning, or removing a section of pipe, line, or duct on the inlet side to eliminate flow into the space. In addition, a double block and bleed system could be utilized; that involves the installation of two valves in series installed on the inlet pipe, both closed and locked out, with the space between them bled off.
So, if your equipment involved an inflow of material that could engulf an entrant, you wound need to look into utilizing one of the isolation methods mentioned here that goes beyond mere lockout/tagout.
It is important that there not be any engulfment hazard inside the space created by residual materials that may be left inside the space. If there are, then entry must be made under a regular permit system. Also, this reclassification of the space to non-permit status is permissible only if there is no potential atmospheric hazard inside the space, as you mentioned in your question.
Last but not least, be aware that OSHA requires the employer to certify in writing that all necessary steps to isolate the space from the hazards have been taken before reclassification is allowed. You can read more about the certification requirements (and more on isolation) in post #19 of our Confined Space Training Blog at
https://confinedspacetraining.net/blog/how-to-reclassify-a-permit-required-confined-space-to-a-non-permit-space/
. Reclassification of confined spaces using isolation is also covered in depth in our online confined space training courses for entry supervisors.
Question: We have a trash grinder that normally could not allow someone to enter inside as there are internal parts in the way. But, if all the internal parts were removed (e.g. hammers, etc) then someone might be able to fit inside the equipment. Would this be considered a confined space always or only if/when the internal parts were removed from the space?
Interesting question Michelle. Technically, the grinder you described does not become a confined space unless it meets the all of the criteria listed in the OSHA definition of a confined space, the first of which is that the space “is large enough and so configured that an employee can bodily enter and perform assigned work.” And OSHA clarifies in the preamble to the final rule for the 1910.146 confined space standards that “the term bodily enter means the employee can fit entirely inside the space.” Based on this clarification, the grinder would not meet the definition of a confined space until enough of the internal parts were removed so as to allow it to be ‘bodily entered.” Of course, there is no reason you cannot go beyond the standard and proactively post a sign identifying the space as a confined space. You can read more about this topic in post #6 of our Confined Space Training Blog at https://confinedspacetraining.net/blog/understanding-the-osha-definition-of-a-confined-space/.
Opinion:
The company has a robust permitting system consisting of a 3-tier structure: Job Safety Analysis (JSA), Paper Permits, and Electronic Permits. JSAs apply only to routine tasks as defined by company guidelines. Paper and Electronic Permits handle all other permitting needs. A key distinction between the two is that hazardous certificates for Paper Permits require a management wet signature, whereas Electronic Permits accept electronic authorization.
Scenario:
A confined space entry job involved two vessels connected by a single LOTO (Lockout/Tagout) plan. Both vessels were under the same service, and a contractor provided the Entry Attendant. The company supplied air monitoring equipment, which the Entry Attendant was responsible for operating to ensure worker safety and record air monitor readings.
For the first couple of days, the work proceeded without issues. However, on the third or fourth day, the confined space monitor’s oxygen (O2) sensor triggered an alarm. Alarmingly, the Entry Attendant failed to initiate an evacuation of the workers inside. Fortunately, company safety personnel in the field heard the alarm, responded quickly, and evacuated the vessel. An investigation revealed that the Entry Attendant was not certified for the role.
Concern:
The job was entirely shut down after this incident. The investigation uncovered additional alarming failures:
Work had been completed on the first vessel, and operations personnel were instructed to begin testing the completed vessel. However, because both vessels were covered under one LOTO plan, the connecting piping between them had not been isolated.
Either the LOTO plan or the job plan failed. Ideally, each vessel should have been isolated under separate LOTOs or blinds installed in the connecting piping during the planning phase. This issue was raised during planning but dismissed to save time.
Recommendations:
The job scope should explicitly include warnings and reminders to prevent the introduction of inert gases (e.g., nitrogen for air freeing) until all work is completed and signed off by authorized personnel.
Each vessel should have been placed under its own LOTO or had blinds installed in the connecting line before testing began.
My Issue:
This incident was treated as a “lessons learned” scenario, but I strongly believe it should have been reported as a near miss.
The permitting system and contractor have solid track records, but the same person who managed the LOTO also made the decision to introduce nitrogen into the vessel. This decision was likely driven by the pressure of a tight outage timeline.
The connecting piping issue was raised during the planning stage, but the decision was made to cover both vessels under one LOTO to save time, skipping the installation of blinds.
While there were no injuries, equipment damage, production loss, or environmental impact, the situation could have easily escalated into a tragedy if safety personnel had not been present.
Near misses are not about assigning blame; they are opportunities to identify and rectify vulnerabilities before they result in harm. Ignoring such incidents undermines their importance and rewards luck rather than robust safety practices.
Conclusion:
The company must treat near misses with the seriousness they deserve. They are gifts—opportunities to improve and prevent future incidents. Reporting this as a near miss, rather than merely a lesson learned, would reinforce the importance of accountability, meticulous planning, and adherence to safety protocols.
Question:
Based on the information above, should this incident have been recorded and reported to OSHA?
Wow, what a story! However, you make no mention as to if one or more employee was seriously injured, suffered a severe illness, or was killed because of this incident (or if you did mention that, I somehow missed it).
That is important information to know, because in the United States, OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) does not typically require employer reporting or recording of workplace accidents that do not result in a worker being seriously affected. Instead, OSHA only requires employers to record and/or report workplace injuries, illnesses, and fatalities affecting one or more of their employees under specific circumstances.
Here’s an overview of the OSHA requirements for each:
Recordable Incidents: Here is a list of events that must be recorded on their employer’s OSHA 300 Log (these apply only if one or more of their employees has a qualifying event that is work related):
1. Death – Any work-related fatality.
2. Any incident causing the worker to lose consciousness.
3. When an employee cannot work for one or more days beyond the date of the injury or illness.
4. When an employee is unable to perform their routine job functions or is assigned to a different job.
5. When the employee received medical treatment beyond first aid. This includes treatments like prescription medications, stitches, or physical therapy. First aid (e.g., bandages, antiseptics) does not count.
6. A worker receives a significant diagnosed injuries or illnesses. Examples include: cancer, chronic irreversible diseases, fractured bones or teeth, or other serious conditions diagnosed by a healthcare professional.
7. Specific health-related conditions, such as needlestick injuries involving contaminated objects, cases of tuberculosis, hearing loss (if the Standard Threshold Shift is met), or work-related skin disorders like rashes or burns.
Reportable Incidents: Here is a list of serious incidents must be reported directly to OSHA within strict time frames (again, assumes their employee has an event that is work related):
1. Fatalities must be reported within 8 hours of the employer learning of the death.
2. Work-related injuries or illnesses requiring in-patient hospitalization of one or more employees must be reported within 24 hours.
3. Amputations (the loss of a body part, even if it does not involve hospitalization), must be reported within 24 hours.
4. Loss of an Eye must also be reported within 24 hours.
So simply having an incident such as you described, while unfortunate, does not require any notification to OSHA or recording on the log if no one suffered a recordable or reportable event. Those two duties only apply if and when one or more of their employees has a qualifying injury or illness. Hope this answers your question.