Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 12 December 2005 19:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Aidan Toner
Presently trying to get to grips with the Vibration Regs and specifically L140-'Guidance To Vibration Regulations'.
Presently stumped when I look at section 148 which is all about situations when exposures are likely to exceed the exposure action level (EAV). Section 148 talks about-An action plan showing the priorities for introducing vibration control measures,incorporating;
Immediate actions to control vibration exposure(eg LIMITS ON PERSONAL EXPOSURE TIMES);
The guidance then goes on to talk about subsequent planned actions of a PLANT ELIMINATION OR MODIFICATION NATURE.
Can use of the words 'immediate' and 'planned' be justifable in changing the established hierarchal control order as outlined in the Management Regs and ACOP for Regulation 3.????
Maybe the 2 day IOSH course is needed to shake me up and let it sink in?? All comment welcome.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 12 December 2005 20:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Aidan

Immediate management action can be taken to reduce the risk to employees; as you suggest, limiting exposure time is one option. Such actions will be necessary pending engineering controls which will need to be devised and implemented. If the engineering controls are very expensive, some financial planning may be required. In the meantime, the management controls should limit any further risk to employee health.

The same principles can be applied to, say, COSHH, where PPE (the last line of defence) can be provided pending an engineering solution to a chemical exposure. The PPE can provided some protection while a more suitable and permanent solution is put in place.

Paul
Admin  
#3 Posted : 13 December 2005 10:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Aidan Toner
Thanks Paul-What you say makes good sense.I could go along totally with what you are saying IF section 148 referred to 'exposures approaching the ELV Exposure Limit Value' rather than the EAV Exposure Action Value.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.