This was seen at a concrete products manufacuters. It is used for applying post tensioning to the rebar tendons in concrete beams, prior to pouring the concrete. It is air powered. I need to work out the vibration exposure on it but cannot find anything on Speedyhire or similar that looks remotely like this. My initial thought is that it is a nut runner on steroids ! Pic here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/57414649@N08/5283248596/ Any thoughts?

U are supposed to measure the V level yourself as using data from others is not the way to go even where it gives a base line

Y do U need to id the tool etc especially if a competent person has indicated their response I would leave the onus on the policy holder and if there is a problem in the future it would be up to them to qualify areas

I would go to the manufacturer. If the user refuses to supply even this infrmation then take the equipment off the insurance schedule. Bob

Not my field, but various Google searches came up with this company http://www.enerpac.com/en-US/home-1 If the product is not one they sell, they may be able to help you to identify it and give it a name.

bob Y and Bob L EL insurers insure the civil legal liabilities arising out of a policyholders business. You insure the whole lot without exclusion or conditions. There is no schedule to speak of - I suspect you are thinking about engineering insurance covers for statutory inspections. Bob Y - post 10. We specialise in high risk trades for construction, diving, aerial work, waste etc. If we refused to give cover because of something we didn't like or an area where the policyholder was deficient, we would not insure very much at all. Instead my employers use me to educate policyholders and devise risk improvement programmes to help them manage their legal liabilities better. At the end of the day we pick up the civil liabilities - they still pick up the fines for their criminal acts. Son of skywalker - I know - I thought this would be an easy one. Jane - thanks for the link. Nothing similar on that site but I'll drop them an email. Makes me suspect the tool use has been improvised. If you are applying rotary torque to a rebar tendon (to pre-tension it) surely it must follow that vibration will occur when the tool is under load. All other such tools - impact wrenches, nut runners, drills etc that are subject to rotary forces and torque give off vibration. Unfortunaterly the tool carried no markings and I just got a blank stare when I asked the H&S manager what it was.

Have you tried the HAVTEC website as there is some very good field based vibration readings on this site, and if my memory serves me right its also endorsed by the HSE.

By the way Stevie you describe a pre tensioning process and refer to post tensioning - could you be precise on which process is being followed. The use of air jacks to put tension into tendons in cast concrete is a common operation but I think I would be more concerned with LOLER/PUWER certifications as the failure under load can be catastrophic. Once the tendons are fixed to the abutments the risks start to decline. Bob

Bob - a UK EL policy cannot exclude risk undertaken by the employees as part of the business simply because the insurer does not like the risk. To do so would mean the business did not carry EL cover for that task or operation. Levels of H&S awareness in industry is variable as I'm sure you are aware. Clients are not aware of their legal duties. I assess the extent to which they are complying with legislation / managing the risks. If they are deficient in one or more areas, I advise them on the steps they need to take to improve. They then have som many months to improve to our satisfaction or we come off cover - usually at the next renewal. We do not have the luxury of pre-cover surveys before the policy incepts because clients often arrange cover at the last minute. I simply want to know what the tool is so I can do some research to see if there is a vibration exposure from this kit and what sort of magnitude. If the manufacturer gives the vibration frequency I can check the ready reckoner to see where we are in relation to the EAV and EAL. If it is high, we will ask the client to carry out a specific HAVS assessment and implement suitable control measures. For clarification, it is used for pre-tensioning the tendons prior to concrete pouring. The product is concrete bridge beams. Finally, charging an additional premium for a poor risk does not make the risk any better. You do not have the option to underwrite the risk (increased excesses etc as you could do for PL cover) and so you manage the client. At the end of the day, I'm creating work for H&S professionals (since most firms decide to either employ someone or contract the work out to a consultant) so why the need to justify the question is beyond me.

To those posters who seem to be querying why the insurer is getting involved in H&S my answer is quite simple: spending time and money educating and guiding a willing client is preferable to paying claims for harm that could have been avoided. There are some insurers who do this very well, others less so or not at all. At the risk of opening a floodgate to abuse, this seems to me to be in line with the Young report. Sadly, I have nothing to contribute to the original question.

So the photo shows an Air Jack then? Could you not have said this on the 23rd of December. Re your last point - kind of proves the point in reverse does it not? Asbestosis claims would be dealt with if you were the EL insurer at the time. Accidental exposures occur in all kinds of industry - waste, construction etc. so you cannot blanket exclude. Demolition contractors who do asbestos stripping will form a separate trading entity for that part of the job. The demolition contractor EL risk is insured as per usual and the asbestos stripper EL risk is placed with an insurer that is prepared to write the risk. I'll say it again, you can exclude what you like on a public / products liability policy but if you are an EL insurer with a valid policy in place, you cannot hide behind exclusions if a claim is made. The matter is simply decided on civil liabilities not policy contract conditions.

Bob - I think you've missed Stevie's point. His original question was simply asking if anyone knew what the tool was, so how could he use his "knowledge about air jacks" if he didn't actually know it WAS an air jack? Seemed like a simple enough question to me (though I did not know the anwer!). Goodness knows how we've ended up arguing about something totally unrelated, but that seems to be the way forum threads often go these days...