My instinct was that of course if someone is exposed to carbon monoxide (which can kill you)  in a workplace it should be reported. So I quickly went through the regs  to check and now I don’t think it is. I might have missed something, and I am sure it used to be a requirement but not now. This means that you can be exposed to a toxic gas at work, and it is not reportable but if you twist your ankle and have to take a week off it is reportable-who says RIDDOR makes sense?

Originally Posted by: RVThompson

other than through the combustion of flammable liquids or gases.

But this was because of combustion of a flammable liquid or gases! The section for gas seems to imply an installation and so this does not seem covered. Unless possibly the generator was powered by gas.

So, unless they lost consciousness from asphyxiation or they have more than 7 days off, then it does not appear to be reportable. That does not seem right, but hay, RIDDOR is there to stretch our minds.

Chris

Firmly in the realms of COSHH

https://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/hazardous-substances/carbon-monoxide.htm

But surprisingly unless it is a fixed installation/pipework not apparently covered by RIDDOR

Does sound like one of those "it'll be alright" moments when the contractor was asked about generator exhaust

I'm kind of glad I'm not the only one struggling with this, means I am not totally missing something.

I have had an update on the pregnant lady and she was discharged from hospital at midnight so looks a little better than originally thought. 

however, staff today are now complaining of headaches and we have had 10 people walk out to go A+E as advised by their doctors, due to doctors not being able to fit them in today - has anyone else had experience of this type of thing previously? Would you expect people to have an after effect when they originally said they felt ok yesterday?

Remember the source of the issue has now been removed, and we have CO2 monitors in place which have not sounded out any issues at all, so it isn't due to a continued leak or anything

If the genny is no longer in use the carbon monoxide should have dispersed unless the room is airtight or something. Assuming that the area has had a chance to vent your staff could be suffering from “Royal free disease” which basically means once one person feels unwell the rest of the group join. Note this is not  people playing up but genuine although psychosomatic symptoms.

Had this issue years ago in an office where staff were convinced that the photocopier was emitting ozone or something else noxious. After much testing we realised it was down the fact that the boss in that office was a total **** and staff were subconsciously looking for an excuse not to work there. Again this was not a conscious decision on their part and most rejected this assessment as  (not surprisingly) did the office boss!

Originally Posted by: John Elder

release of exhaust fumes into the occupied building area was unintentional

I would argue that in the absence of a planned extraction for the exhaust fumes their release was very intentional as it was reasonably forseeable the plant would emit fumes during its operation.

Had an extraction system been in place and operational and exhaust fumes then filled the area due to a break or hole in the ducting system that would be unintentional.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: John Elder

release of exhaust fumes into the occupied building area was unintentional

I would argue that in the absence of a planned extraction for the exhaust fumes their release was very intentional as it was reasonably forseeable the plant would emit fumes during its operation.

Had an extraction system been in place and operational and exhaust fumes then filled the area due to a break or hole in the ducting system that would be unintentional.

I agree but that will not help in the RIDDOR Issue e.g. if I therefore intended my scaffold to collapse then I dont have to report it if someone is injured as i intended it to happen..

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: John Elder

Hazardous escapes of substances (27) The unintentional release or escape of any substance which could cause personal injury to any person other than through the combustion of flammable liquids or gases.

Given that people drown, if one is going to interpret this requirement that precisely, then you'll need to be reporting each spilled glass of water:

1: unitentinal release or escape - yes

2: substance which could cause death - yes

3: combustion - no.

I would argue that generator fumes are not an unintentional release - nothing 'escaped'.  If the generator fumes didn't exit the generator, the generator wouldn't run.  This was a 100% intentional release of fumes.   If you need a precisely nuanced leval of pedantry to read the words just precisley enough to include the thing, but not precisely enough to exclude it another way, I feel that it is not the intended reading of the words.

I'm quite surprised that running a generator in a warehouse causes a problem - carbon monoxide is lighter than air - if any was accumulating it should have been accumulating up at the ceiling (that's why your CO monitor instructions tell you to fix it to the ceiling or at the top of the wall).  I'd be astonished if enough to affect health was still tehre next day - but you could just take a trip down to B&Q and buy a handful of monitors to reassure staff.

It we consider why we have the RIDDOR System it is to ensure that if deemed necessary things can be looked into and hopefully prevented from happening again.

An unintentional release of a substance is an escape due to the loss of the designed containment system or structure and the substance has managed to get out.

Yes, the fumes from the generator are an intended function of the plant but consider this.

Bearing in mind that the term a Reasonable Man has a status in health and safety law what would a reasonable man do. Would he paint a line across the factory as a boundary and command with hands raised to heaven that “No fumes shall pass”, or would he erect an approved separation screen as per the originators initial post to control the dust temperature and perhaps incorrectly any fumes and vapours.

If as I believe that is the case otherwise he is not a reasonable man and was therefore in failing in his duty of care and is now negligent, the approved separation screen (Containment) let the fumes and vapours out of the work area e.g. a loss of containment and therefore as it was designed if not incorrectly, to keep in the fumes and vapours it is then an unintentional release of a substance which has potentially caused injury.

As for the glass of water the RIDDOR would be more likely due to dying as the result of a slip trip or fall or such fall causing a major break of a major bone and not drowning on the contents of the spill.

 Let’s consider a release from a large tank filling a compartment and an unsuspecting person within the compartment did not drown or die but was hospitalised for a day or two due to hypothermia as it took time to get them out of the compartment.

Now let’s say the cause of the release was an intentional action by a person.

Would a reasonable man release the contents of the tank knowing someone could become trapped in the compartment? I think not. Now if there was no way to tell that someone was in the compartment or that checks were not carried out to prove that there was someone in the compartment the ignoring negligence the consequence of the deliberate release was unintentional otherwise its murder.

If the consequence of the release is unintentional and if we considered that a reasonable man would not have released the substance knowing the consequence of his actions and having been unable to prove any different then in law the actual deliberate release of the substance becomes an unintentional release and its only manslaughter and not murder as you didn’t do enough or control or remove the risk.

The resulting RIDDOR due to an unintentional release of a substance bear in mind nobody died, would hopefully get to the bottom of what went wrong and improve things to prevent it happening again whereas you under your reasoning you might not report it as to you it might have been considered a deliberate action.

Edited by user 08 December 2021 20:19:38(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Originally Posted by: Hayley_777

There is still an outside wall and now an approved seperation screen slightly within the current warehouse to reduce loss of temp and control of debris from the extention works.

So not a gas screen - Question is whose approval? For what purpose? To which standard?

Chris its a linguistic illusion: like an optical illusion but with words, instead of a picture which could be an old woman  or  sleeping cat or what ever.  I can read it as referring to an unintentional release etc. but which  excludes anything that is the  result of combustion OR  it refers to an unintentional release etc which  excludes any release that creates a combustion risk. You see English is very subtle language which means even we don’t understand it some of the time.

And yes, the idea that a screen might stop the spread of  a gas like carbon monoxide is rubbish. The genny should either located outside or fitted with a suitable extraction system.   

Originally Posted by: chris42

The carbon monoxide is a direct result of burning gasses and liquids in the generator as far as I can see, otherwise where is the carbon monoxide coming from?

No designer sets out to build equipment that is intrinsically unsafe, in the case of a combustion engine you want maximum efficiency through complete combustion where sufficient oxygen is present to fully oxidise the carbon compounds in the fuel.

Generation of Carbon Monoxide is possible if the air / fuel mixture is incorrect through incorrect set-up / maintenance or operation (hence gas safety inspections for fixed appliances) - release would be unintentional.

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

Carbon monoxide (CO) results from incomplete combustion - in very simple terms there is not enough oxygen in the mix.

Modern highly computerised petrol engines will produce very little.  I'm far from convinced that's the case on a typical small site generator, though I have no qunatified data.

Originally Posted by: chris42

Ok But I still read it the same way release of a substance (CO in this instance) through the combustion of a gas or liquid.

There's more ways you can read it than that - is it the release that is 'through' combustion, or the harm that is through combustion?  That is, it could mean a release that could cause harm, unless the harm that it could cause would be through combustion (e.g. burns).

I think diesels are less prone to CO than petrol - it's a much slower burn, so probably less prone to an incomplete burn. That may not be the case for the highly instrumented computerised modern car, but I think a ropy old diesel produces less CO than a ropy old petrol.  Of course, they produce plenty of other things beside CO that you wouldn't want to be breathing in...

Purely from a CDM point of view the contractor is negligent and if there is a a principal contractor they are also negligent.  the contractor is working under CDM even if not a reportable project.

I would report the issue to HSE on the basis the contractor has caused serious danger to your employees.

I always ensure generators are YSWCsited ourside in fresh air and never inside a building, unless proper extraction is fitted and tested.

Carbon Monoxide poisoning does not usually show right away, it can take many hours to make a person feel the effects.  It is normal to have a headache the following day. 

Thank you to everyone who has put their opinion up on here.

Again the investigations are still ongoing, the area is fully secured and clear, and we have not had written confirmation of anyone actually having CO poisoning.

All staff are back in work now with no further complaints, it looks more to be hysteria within the workplace, however their are some people who did genuinely feel an effect of the fumes but again no evidnece so far to fully confirm poisoning was the cause.

Monitoring of the situation is ongoing and contractors and their H+S fully informed and on high alert. 

Im still in debates of reporting... however I would like full confirmation from all effected that their own results were negative before making that final decision.

Originally Posted by: firesafety101

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: firesafety101

Purely from a CDM point of view the contractor is negligent and if there is a a principal contractor they are also negligent. 

Personally, I would be hesitant to make such definitive statements from the evidence available in this thread,

As I said this is purely from a CDM point of view.

There should be a risk assessment for the generator that would include either adequate extraction for the fumes or placing the generator outside in fresh air and away from doors and windows.

I have not mentioned the staff being ill.  

I don't understand you know that there was no risk assessment and inadequate ventilation from teh information in the thread.  I would be hesitant to make such definitive statements from the evidence available in this thread.