Hand/Arm Vibration
Use of manufacturer’s data plus a K factor: A common approach to addressing the issue above is to add a safety K factor. If a manufacturer declares a K factor, it is worth adding this factor as a minimum, as this generally reflects the manufacturer’s view on the laboratory measurement process and how factors in the real-world environment could lead to higher figures. Other than databases from unregulated commercial organisations, there are no maintained sources of vibration data for tools in real-world use.
Use of the 75th percentile: The HSE laboratories have tested just over 40 tool types which are in common use in construction, forestry, engineering, stone working and wood working. The data gathered has been used to develop an understanding of the range of vibration magnitudes and to determine a 75th percentile value for each tool. This means that 75% of the time the measurements were below this value, i.e. using a value at the upper end of the tool’s possible range without it being at the maximum. While this lessens the chance of a risk assessment understating the hazards, there remains a possibility that users of tools at the upper end will still have their risk understated. Relative to the two options above it will allow an initial risk assessment that is more likely to find where controls are needed.
On-premise tool measurements: Standards exist for trained technicians to carry out measurements of tool vibration. These standards require specific measurement instruments and methods that are intrusive to normal tool use. Some organisations arrange for such measurements to be taken on an annual basis for each tool. While this approach can provide measurements which can be considered accurate, it is expensive. Also, accuracy of a measurement is not what is required for the assessment of risk to the worker. Assessment of risk requires a determination of vibration which is representative of the task undertaken. It is also essential that the annual test method reflects every use of the tool – which can make the process even more expensive and impractical.
Use of HAV monitors: Accelerometer and data processing technologies are now available which can gather data over a full working day of exposure to HAV. Currently, no standards exist for such products, although work is in progress to establish them. Not all monitors have the same capabilities but some, such as the Ideagen Reactec R-Link watch, can give an indication of the vibration magnitude of a tool in use. It is important to have credible validation of the technology relative to measurements made using existing standards. Undertaking a validation exercise using a sample of tools with on-premise measurements would be far less expensive than testing all tools every year, and would provide confidence to carry out much more meaningful regular assessments through monitoring.
THE EMPLOYER’S RESPONSIBILITY
Employers are legally responsible for ensuring vibration risks are assessed adequately so that they can be controlled to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable. Specifically, the legal requirement for these assessments is that they are suitable and sufficient. The topics discussed above on determining representative vibration are key to being able to do a suitable assessment.
19
WWW.TOMORROWSHS.COM
“Sufficient” relates to how much variability exists in a worker’s activities. Remember, the assessment is of a worker’s daily exposure. How many tasks does he do each day? Have all these tasks been risk assessed? Does he perform the same combination of tasks each day? If all this is difficult to determine, then the simplest solution is to monitor their activities. Many organisations recognise this need and will use observers, or ask their employees to fill out daily records of tool use.
It is critical, however, to recognise that monitored HAV exposure data does not mean compliance. It is essential that monitored data informs control measures, and those measures must be implemented and effective.
BEING COMPLIANT EFFICIENTLY Monitoring exposure to HAV is an effective first step toward compliance. Applying the hierarchy of controls to HAV exposure risk includes straightforward measures such as implementing mechanisation, selecting and purchasing appropriate tools, maintaining equipment, providing employee training and introducing task rotation. Effective compliance can be achieved by using monitored exposure risk data to intelligently apply the most impactful controls. Like all data-driven decisions, this ensure outcomes are optimised and achieved the most cost-effective way.
FROM DATA TO ACTION Managing HAV effectively means collecting meaningful data, interpreting it, and acting on it. Exposure to vibration risk is highly variable, so monitoring is an effective first step in managing the risk and achieving compliance. Achieving compliance, however, requires that this information is effectively used to establish controls and demonstrate that they effectively reduce the risk. When deciding to monitor HAV exposure, ensure the approach uses modern methods to monitor risk unobtrusively and in a truly representative manner. This is essential for effective control of the risk.
www.reactec.com/en-us/?mode=gb
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42
