A U.S.-based company with operations in Australia is developing a global PRCS entry policy and procedure. The company is committed to following the “most restrictive” doctrine. During the draft development of the PRCS policy, a conflict in the definition of “entry” arises.

OSHA defines entry into a PRCS as:

the action by which a person passes through an opening into a permit-required confined space. Entry includes ensuing work activities in that space and is considered to have occurred as soon as any part of the entrant's body breaks the plane of an opening into the space.

In contrast, the Australian Work Health and Safety Regulations define entry as “the person’s head or upper body [being] inside the confined space or within the boundary of the confined space.”

The different definitions regarding entry pose a quandary for the global policy. The U.S.-based team members feel that the U.S. definition is more conservative and safer. However, the Australian-based team argues that PRCSs in Australia have been designed (through engineering with risk assessment) to allow employees to place their hand or arm into the space to adjust valves or perform other small tasks such as air monitoring. If the U.S. definition were applied, then small routine tasks would require a burdensome administrative process and not necessarily reduce the chance of injury or death to workers.

In consideration of the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence (maximizing potential benefits and minimizing avoidable harm), we must ask, in this case, does the most restrictive option really minimize harm and reduce risk? In addition, would we maximize benefit by using resources for other safety and health hazards rather than retrofitting valve access points or administering additional permits? These two case studies demonstrate the nuanced challenge of applying ethical standards across multiple nations’ boundaries. The precautionary principle on its face is a logical ethical framework to assist the industrial hygienist with ethical decision-making. However, many situations may require an in-depth examination employing additional ethical principles to elucidate the values that matter to different stakeholders and the potential tradeoffs of different approaches to protecting employees and the public. In these instances, data and ethics can work in harmony to inform choices and increase decision-making confidence, even if a thorough assessment ultimately confirms that multiple options are equally worthy of pursuit.

We invite you to submit your solutions to the confined spaces ethical dilemma. The Joint Industrial Hygiene Ethics Education Committee (JIHEEC) will review the submissions and select some of the best responses for publication in a follow-up article in .

Send your responses to .