Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Ian Clay1
IHow do people out there deal with this? I carry out the risk assessments and need good data to put a limit value on each tool.
Do other people out there use consultants or do it in house and what is the average cost per day or per tool for the outside consultancies.
i prefer to use independent data than manufacturers as their seems to be good opinions that manufacturers data is a little out of line with indepentant data?
Any help please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Ian
I went to a BOHS Technical Seminar in December and was told that manufacturers' data should be multiplied by two before using it in a risk assessment.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
Feedback at safety group meetings and seminars suggests that it isn't really necessary to measure.
Take the manufacturer's figures and double them is the general 'advice'.
Have you looked at L140?
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Trevor Muddimer
I assume that there are proven examples (multiple tests) of manufacturers data being 50% out in their figures?
If this is a true and consistant issue it should be addressed, as eventually a case will require risk assessment data and just doubling it may or may not be correct.
Manufacturers are surely are at risk in law if they publish figures so far below the actual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gary L
Good morning
We use a BOSCH hammer drill on a number of materials including concrete, paving, brick and tarmac. We had to set daily exposure limits from 44 minutes per day down to SEVEN minutes per day. In my opinion manufacturers figures cannot be relied upon - there are too many variables. We found that in some cases exposure varied between operators by as much as 50%! just by the way they held the drill and the pressure they exerted.
Regards Gary
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
I think the guidance to double the manufacturer's figures is based on an assumption that those will be the best that can be achieved whilst in normal use the users will likely be exposed to increased levels due to different methods of working, such as using a tighter grip, etc.
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Ian and all
Please be very aware that the Standards [BS or ENs] used to determine the noise and vibration output of tools and plant have very little relationship to use in the real work world for a whole range of reasons - this does not mean that the standards are no good, it means that people who quote them most frequently don't understand what they are really intended to achieve or are salespeople.
They are excellent for enabling comparison between different tools; they are excellent for demonstrating a committment to reducing imported risk; they are a very good means of evaluating wear, tear and maintenance on the tool - but they do not mean that the figures can reliably be translated into the workplace as definitive levels.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By EE
Frank
I agree with your comments fully & this poses another question regarding occupational health - vibration / noise / chemicals.
Standards generally used to determine the occupational exposures have very little relationship to use in the real work world for a whole range of reasons - this does not mean that the standards are no good, it means that people who have to refer to them (espeically non-EHS professionals) don't understand theri limitations.
Is the hearing of a person exposed to 84.9dB(A) for 8 hours shift safe? When did you last measure a noisy environment and got a constant level of 84.9dB(A) - normally in these situaitons we err on the side of caution.
Chemical safety (COSHH) is a messier business (SIC) - exposure levels are based on laboratory conditions & book values - most people are normally exposed to a cocktail of chemicals & knowing someone who has a PhD in this topic - absolute safety is at best pure guess work.
Only if you have a really competent occ health team can you get even clsoe to having pragmatic results - scary for the 1,000s of SME businesses who will at best read an MSDS sheet produced to cover the back-side of the supplier.
EE
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Dunckley
Had a job recently that required continuous use of vibrating tools breaking
out concrete, where possible High pressure water jetting was used which caused
other problems. But due to the high profile of the job the HSE PI for noise
and vibration visited the site and through an improvement notice required that
assessments were carried out for all equipment used at the workface. This was
carried out as required, and we also monitored the exposure times which were logged
to comply with the notice. The HSE would not accept any figures produced by
manufacturers. We now have a set of actual figures for exposure rates for
differing equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus
Brian,any chance of sending me a copy of the list and findings, fax 01462 474 742.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Harwood
I have been informed by our Occupational Hygienist that manufacturers vibration levels for tools are quoted for operation not under load.
As an example, imagine holding an angle grinder in the air and pressing the trigger. This is the vibration level quoted by the manufacturer. Now apply the grinder to a workpice and from experience the results increase dramatically.
This is the rational for doubling the values, but there are other significant factors to consider that will affect the results including surface preparation and material type.
The only way to accurately demonstrate control is by conducting monitoring for each piece of equipment using a tri-axial device. As a previous respondant correctly pointed out different operators will produce different readings depending on the grip and technique used when performing the operation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Woodage
Ian,
I am in the same position at the moment, it is my proposal to attend training in the use of accelorometers and then hire or purchase the necessary kit. Now comes the tricky bit as above so many factors can effect the actual level recieved by the operative including process, bits / tools used, materials to be worked etc. Therefore I propose to gather several results for each tool in various scenarios and then draw an average. I can hear you all now, I know this is probably not ideal but how can you do it any other way. It is surely better than the manufactures ball bearing test at no load and doubling it and at least it proves you have addressed the issue practically and not just from a desk. This then also means you can focus more attention on the higher risk items and carry out refined testing to those processes at greatest risk. I am sure some bright fellow will say this does not comply but we have to be practical. Finally lets all win one battle at a time for my own guys the first step was to make them realise that they are actually damaging there health, I've done this for forty years etc. Now I am moving on to the second stage of trying to get them to appreciate rough time scales they should use each tool in a day. then the third stage will be to mark equipment after testing with more accuarate exposure levels. Education is the key not finite scientific measurement, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Clay1
Thank you for your responses. Does anyone know of companies who carry out testing and a rough cost per day/per tool?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By George Wedgwood It's worth talking to one of the HSE's specialist Inspectors, Andrew J Thompson, on 01752 276300 (also at andrew.thompson@hse.gsi.gov.uk), based in Plymouth. I went to a Revitalising Sector Conference last week and he gave a very useful view on this. Data is being developed all the time and some of it is now available through the HSE, for use in assessments. please don't rely on manufacturers' data as in the HSE's view, it is 'c--p'!! Hope this helps, George
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Derrick Robinson
The difficulty with using manufacturers data with any multiplication factor is that it only takes account of one of the factors which is affecting the HAV risk in a work situation. Some small scale tests we have done suggest that operator, the condition of the machine, the accessories and the work all can have a greater importance than the acctual basic vibration level of the machine. For example we did some tests with 125mm grinders using 2 machines, 1 new and 1 a year old, 2 different disc types and 2 operators, 1 experienced and 1 novice. The differance in measured levels was a low of 5, pretty much spot on the the manufacturers stated level, for the experienced man using the new machine with the best disc and a high of over 17 for the novice with the older machine and the less good disc. It is clearly not practical to measure all possible combinations in any given workplace but for all except the most limited situations we probably need some measure of field testing on which to base our assessments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus
many thanks Brian, have a good weekend
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Clay1
many thanks to all for the information. i am going to source a supplier of the measuring service or as there seems to be a lack of people doing it mayve have a go at the training and do it myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.