Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi, We have recently purchased an item that according to its manual has a vibration level of 6.75 m/s2. Based on a daily exposure of 4 hours the HSE ready reckoner is saying this is a high risk and very close to the daily exposure limit value. However the equipment is used once a week not daily. Stupid question but is this relevant? Does the daily ELV cover a signle days use or does it cover use every day? Hope that makes sense...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi Steve 6.75 for 4 hours gives 91 exposure points per hour a daily exposure of 4.8 and total exposure points of 365 - these are amber warning territory on the HSE calculator.
The calculator looks solely at daily exposure and the duty is to manage the risk of HAV's to as low as is reasonably practicable Is the total trigger time actually 4 hours or is this how long the operator is on task?
When I compared what was described as a days work with actually measured trigger time we identified there were only 35 minutes from a complete shift - the rest of the time was moving, securing, measuring etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Steve 6.75 for 4 hours gives 91 exposure points per hour a daily exposure of 4.8 and total exposure points of 365 - these are amber warning territory on the HSE calculator.
The calculator looks solely at daily exposure and the duty is to manage the risk of HAV's to as low as is reasonably practicable Is the total trigger time actually 4 hours or is this how long the operator is on task?
When I compared what was described as a days work with actually measured trigger time we identified there were only 35 minutes from a complete shift - the rest of the time was moving, securing, measuring etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Steve....lol Its a 4 hour task....constant 4 hour expoure once a week...Im thinking its too high tbh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Irrespective, there is a statutory requirement to reduce risk to ALARP levels. Can the task be shared by 4 or more operatives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi its a one man job, Im thinking we will have to reduce exposure to about an hour per day (based on the calculator) or source lower vibration equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
To answer the question, extract from L140 (5) Paragraph (4) shall not apply where the exposure of an employee to vibration is usually below the exposure action value but varies markedly from time to time and may occasionally exceed the exposure limit value, provided that –
(a) any exposure to vibration averaged over one week is less than the exposure limit value;
(b) there is evidence to show that the risk from the actual pattern of exposure is less than the corresponding risk from constant exposure at the exposure limit value;
(c) risk is reduced to as low a level as is reasonably practicable, taking into account the special circumstances; and
(d) the employees concerned are subject to increased health surveillance, where such surveillance is appropriate within the meaning of regulation 7(2),
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: stonecold  according to its manual has a vibration level of 6.75 m/s2.
I have found that you can't always rely on what the manual says, the tools I have had tested usually came back with higher magnitudes although a few did come back lower.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Below the ELV, if the magnitude is correct and no other exposure then its fine. Just measure and record
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user 
|
If you can, suggest measuring actual vibration. Is equipment new, has it been maintained? All relvant in relation to the actual vibration. The previous posts have covered well. Look at vibration task asessment based on measured value if possible and try to put the controls in place. Split task, reduce exposure time, Tool or equipmet with lower vibration magnitude, etc. HSL have recently confirmed that no exposure is acceptable, but for the practicalities of life, we should aim for as low as reasonably practicable always.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: chris42 To answer the question, extract from L140
(b) there is evidence to show that the risk from the actual pattern of exposure is less than the corresponding risk from constant exposure at the exposure limit value;
(d) the employees concerned are subject to increased health surveillance, where such surveillance is appropriate within the meaning of regulation 7(2),
Chris
Aye, and there's the rub. Where do you get that evidence?
What constitutes "increased" health surveillance? Greater frequency, or greater clinical intervention, or both?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.