HAND/ARM VIBRATIONS HAV THE DATA TO HAND? Despite monitoring HAV exposure risks, some companies are not using the
accumulated data to take action. JaquiMcLaughlin Reactec CEO discusses why they should.
Exposure to vibration through the hand and arm system can cause serious vascular, neurological and musculoskeletal damage which is collectively diagnosed as the industrial disease Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome.
The disease became so prevalent with increased use of power tools that the EU in 2002 and the UK in 2005 released regulations to control the potential risk of developing the disease within the workplace. The regulations require employers to carry out suitable and sufficient assessments of risk, implement occupational health screening when the risk is of a certain level and most importantly reduce the risk as low as reasonably practicable.
So how is the risk from exposure to Hand-Arm Vibration (HAV) assessed? This requires a knowledge of the duration of exposure and the probable vibration magnitude during exposure. The term monitoring of HAV generally refers to the collecting of the HAV exposure risk data which combines the time of exposure and probable vibration magnitude.
After the release of regulations many organisations set about monitoring HAV exposure risk in order to meet their obligations to carry out suitable and sufficient risk assessments. Many approaches to monitoring were taken from simple log books to digital tool timers, but they did not necessarily support the need to reduce the risk to their employees from HAV exposure. In fact, the approach of simply collecting data can lead to a false sense of security either because the monitored data is not used to take action against the risk or because the logged data does not reflect the real- world use of the tool by operators.
As a consequence of the poor practise of monitoring for no real purpose, there is a view from those who govern the regulations that monitoring with no action is worse than no monitoring. So why do people monitor and what is the danger of not monitoring? Many organisations will monitor not to be in compliance with the regulations but to provide evidence of their employee’s exposure risk for the purpose of defending civil litigation claims. In an increasingly punitive culture, employers who can evidence what they have exposed their employees to are more likely to fare better when defending claims taken against all previous employers of an individual who can as readily be exposed to HAV in their personal life.
On a more poignant note there is a direct relationship 24
www.tomorrowshs.com
between the level of exposure to HAV and the likelihood of developing what is a debilitating and irreversible disease. Therefore, from an individuals’ perspective the most certain way of ensuring they are not excessively exposed is to monitor their exposure in the same way that you would use gas detectors to monitor dangerous gases or a dive computer to manage your future dive plans.
So, if you have decided on a level of monitoring to manage your employees’ HAV exposure risk how do you make the most out of that monitoring? Firstly, ensure that there is a clear intent supported by allocated responsibilities to act on the information gained from the monitoring. Choose monitoring technologies which will readily allow the most at risk people and greatest risk generators (tool use) to be prioritised in your risk reduction activities.
Secondly ensure that there is a competence within the organisation to choose equipment that will most realistically assess the risk that is being monitored. The key is to appreciate that the vibration level of a tool is not fixed. It depends on the condition of the tool, the accessory used, what the tool is used for and the tool user. Unfortunately, the standards for measuring a tool’s vibration are not suited to monitoring everyday use, however emerging wearable technologies are available. While not as yet covered by a standard, they provide a practical means of monitoring real use data which is more likely to reflect the actual exposure of the tool user. Again, with the right intent, real tool use and exposure data will go further in ensuring the right priorities for operator training, tool maintenance and tool elimination. We are on the fourth industrial revolution where sensors and data-driven decisions can steer effective change.
www.reactec.com
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 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50
