Health and Safety
Executive / Commission
Local authority circulars
To: Directors of Environmental Health/ Chief Environmental Health Officers of London, Metropolitan, District and Unitary Authorities and Chief Executives of County Councils.
For the attention of: Environmental Services /Trading Standards /Fire Authorities /Other
This circular gives advice to local authority enforcement officers
To
AFQ Inspectors
Specialist Group Inspectors (Noise and Vibration)
| This SIM revises and replaces joint SIM 3/2001/05/ SIM 6/2001/02. It updates and extends information, particularly in relation to chipping hammers, for a project being undertaken by FOD field inspectors to reduce exposure to vibration. The project concentrates on a few high risk tools and is part of the FOD Priority Programme for Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS). It should be read in conjunction with the free leaflet INDG 338 Power Tools. How to reduce vibration health risks. Guide for employers (file 246) and OC 246/31 Reducing risk of hand-arm vibration injury from hand-held power tools. Version 2 makes the SIM fully open. |
1 The FOD Priority Programme for Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) Plan for 2002/03 includes two key projects aimed at reducing exposure to vibration. The core of this plan is a continuation of two projects in the Engineering and Utilities and Metals and Minerals Sector Strategic Plans for 2001/02. Together the two projects are designed to stimulate:
(1) demand from users for data describing the vibration risk (useful in their vibration risk assessment) in accordance with the requirements of the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 as amended; and
(2) improved supply of equipment with data describing the vibration risk.
2 Concentrating on a few types of high vibration tool is intended to:
(1) achieve reduction in risk at premises visited; and
(2) create demands on equipment suppliers for vibration data that describes the vibration risk.
3 This SIM addresses the project aimed at users of hand-held power tools. It runs together with one targeted at suppliers (including manufacturers, importers and tool hire firms) of the same tools.
4 This 'user' campaign will focus on the selection, purchase and use of suitable hand-held power tools for the work undertaken and the requirements of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 98) reg.4. The aim is to persuade users to avoid use of unnecessarily high vibration emission power tools when 'suitable' lower vibration types are available. An aide-memoire for the project is attached as Appendix 1.
5 Contract Research Report 232/99 Hand-transmitted vibration: occupational exposures and their health effects in Great Britain reports that:
(1) nearly 5 million people are exposed to hand-transmitted vibration in a one-week period;
(2) more than 1.2 million of these exposed in excess of HSE action level;
(3) nearly 800,000 people showed symptoms of vibration white finger (VWF) of these about 20,000 with advanced disability; and
(4) hand-held power tools are a major source of vibration exposure, which can lead to hand-arm vibration (HAV) injury.
6 In comparison to many other industrial diseases, HAVS has relatively rapid onset, typically ten years, and so this campaign has potential to make an impact on the incidence of work-related ill health within the time frame of Securing Health Together (SH2) and Revitalising Health and Safety. It will in particular contribute to the compliance programme of SH2 by building on the HAVS element of the Good Health is Good Business (GHGB) campaign (see OC 246/30).
7 As part of the overall aim to reduce exposure to vibration at those companies visited, the objectives of the project are:
(1) the regular exposure of employees in engineering/fabrication, stonemasons (architectural/restoration NOT memorial or cast stone premises) and foundries to vibration should be generally below the HSE Action Level of 2.8 m/s2 A(8) - achieved by the changing of processes to eliminate or minimise use of hand-held power tools and by minimisation of exposure to vibration by the replacement of high hazard tools (this project concentrates on grinders, chipping hammers, and needle scalers) with 'suitable' reduced vibration tools;
(2) essential hand-held power tools should be selected on their overall suitability for the job but the risk from vibration should be assessed during the final tool selection using residual vibration risk data from the supplier, etc or elsewhere, vibration emission data from suppliers etc, vibration emission data from trade associations, etc or measurements made by or for the user;
(3) where replacement reduced-vibration tools are provided, adequate instruction in their use is given;
(4) in foundries, that adequate assessment of exposure to vibration has been carried out; and
(5) in foundries, that consideration has been given to reduction in the need to fettle castings.
8 Industries identified in Contract Research Report 232/99 Hand-transmitted vibration: occupational exposures and their health effects in Great Britain as contributing the largest numbers exposed to hand transmitted vibration include foundries, motor vehicle repair (MVR) body shops, metal fabrication workshops, and manufacturers of transport equipment. These industries are targeted as hand-held power tools are the main source of vibration exposure in them.
9 In an attempt to make maximum impact both the 'user' and 'supply' projects will concentrate on the same hand-held power tools:
(1) hand-held grinders;
(2) needle guns; and
(3) chipping hammers
10 Hand-held grinders are the second most popular hand-held power tool in use in the UK. Vibration levels have been found to be high in readily identified circumstances and reduced vibration models are available. Grinders are widely used throughout the target industries in a variety of processes for metal removal. Extensive use is often either in connection with finishing of surfaces or preparation for fitting components together, eg by welding. A typical angle grinder is shown at Appendix 2, Figure 1.
11 Needle scalers are not widely used but are easily identified. Long standing designs do produce high levels of vibration and greatly reduced vibration models are now available. Needle scalers are mainly used for surface preparation prior to coating, often where surfaces are corroded, and there is a need to return to bare metal. They may also be used for the removal of slag and spatter after welding. As such they are most likely to be encountered in fabrication work and often where work is associated with repair. Fabricators regularly employ contractors for this type of work but may also use hired tools. A typical needle scaler is shown at Appendix 2, Figure 2.
12 Chipping hammers probably account for a significant proportion of injury cases but UK figures are not yet available. Chipping hammers are easily identified during inspection but may also be known as caulking tools. Vibration reduced chipping hammers are available but these may remain high risk if operated by holding the chisel. Chipping hammers are traditionally used where rapid and large scale metal removal is required. They may be used for removal of defects in welds or in back gouging of double sided welding and in removal of damaged or corroded metal prior to repair (either in metal fabrication or MVR body shops). Chipping hammers are also used in stone working, where they are usually known as stone hammers. A typical chipping hammer is shown at Appendix 2, Figure 3.
13 Paragraphs 14-17 aim to help inspectors to identify high hazard tools. Grinders, needle guns and chipping hammers manufactured to the latest standards are not regarded as of the highest risk. Inspectors should enquire of the age of such tools and where any appear to pre-date the many vibration reduced designs introduced since the mid 1990s, Inspectors are asked to challenge the continued use of such tools with a view to users justifying this. Failure to justify adequacy of selection should attract enforcement as in para 42. Beware of new tools that may be manufactured to old designs and may also present high vibration hazard.
14 Grinders can be categorised by disc diameter from 75 mm (3²) to 230 mm (9²). Priority attention should be given to 180 mm (7²) to 230 mm grinders. Experience shows that machines of this type manufactured to old designs are likely to generate the highest vibration levels (sometimes exceeding 15 m/s²). Grinders with isolated handles may reduce levels of vibration emission. Isolating mounts might be fitted at the support and/or control handles and are present if there is flexibility between the handle and the grinder body - there may be a visible 'rubber' bush.
15 Where there is evidence, eg in assessments, that levels of vibration emission at the tool for a task exceed 5 m/s² in any size category, the grinder in use should be challenged. Justifiable higher exposures may occur for some tasks, say edge grinding. See also para 19.
16 The use of needle scalers should always be challenged. Models (new or used) pre-dating the mid 1990s are almost certain to produce high levels of vibration emission for a task - perhaps on occasion exceeding 18 m/s². Experience also demonstrates that hired tools may be of older design and users should be asked about assessment of hired tools.
17 Exposures are high in metal working but even higher during stone working. Typical levels of vibration emission on the handle are in the range 8-25 m/s2, sometimes higher. However, the very highest levels are encountered when the chisel is not shrouded and is held by the operator. This method of work is usually adopted where the chisel is not captive in the tool and is typical in stone working. Inspectors should establish whether this method of work is practised.
18 Pneumatically powered 230 mm (9²) grinders were introduced in the mid 1990s with significantly lower vibration levels, but perhaps lower efficiency, than the equivalent electrically powered tools of the time.
19 Vibration reducing features have been introduced to electric tools since the introduction of large pneumatic grinders and further vibration reducing features are continuing to be introduced on both electric and pneumatic tools. It is possible to achieve levels of vibration emission for a task generally below 5 m/s² in all size categories of both pneumatic and electric tools; the best tools being below 3 m/s².
20 Larger capacity electric tools are often heavy and may best be used with tensioners or other supporting devices. This will reduce the grip and feed forces required by the operator leading to a reduction in the transmission of vibration into hands and arms and possibly to a reduction in the overall risks from manual handling.
21 Many of the larger capacity grinders are now fitted with auto-balancing devices. These are usually more beneficial for low load work (ie where the operator does not press too hard) but become progressively less useful as feed forces increase.
22 Reduced vibration models of needle scaler were introduced in the mid 1990s. It is possible to achieve vibration levels generally below 7 m/s² and levels of 3-5 m/s² are achievable.
23 Reduced efficiency was an issue with some early models of reduced vibration needle scaler but fully effective reduced vibration models have been available for several years.
24 Reduced vibration is claimed for some models. For metal working, vibration levels as low as 5 m/s2 might be achieved but vibration levels below 15 m/s2 may not be achievable in all applications. This probably represents a huge range of risk but even this modest success will eliminate much higher risks likely from tools currently in use with vibration levels well over 20 m/s2. Even so, if the chisel is held, very high levels will be encountered at that hand (often so high that they cannot be measured). If this practice cannot be avoided, resilient sleeves are available which can have the potential to reduce vibration levels to 13 m/s2 (see HS(G)170 Vibration solutions - page 29).
25 For stone working, the lowest levels on the hammer handle are likely to be between 4 and 10 m/s2. As for metal working, selecting tools with these lower levels in the first instance is likely to eliminate much higher risk tools where vibration levels up to 35 m/s2 can occur. Holding the chisel is more prevalent in stone working than in metal working. At least two companies have recently introduced chisels with sprung sleeves for stone working. These have been shown to reduce vibration levels at the chisel hand to less than 10 m/s2.
26 Data on vibration levels fromhand-held power toolsis available from several sources. Data collected from as many sources as possible will establish a corroborated emission level and an idea of the likely magnitude range. See also OC 246/31 Information Document (ID) paras 7-11 and Foundries Information Sheet 10.
27 Suppliers data will likely be produced to EN 50144-2-3 for electric tools and EN ISO 8662-4 for pneumatic tools. The tests in these standards usually under represent vibration hazard and a vibration hazard should be assumed even if the supplier reports vibration 'less than 2.5 m/s2'. Users should have other data to corroborate any values they assume, particularly below 2.5 m/s2 (see OC 246/31 Information Document paras 7-11). If suppliers data includes a high vibration emission this should be taken to indicate presence of vibration hazard that requires further workplace assessment.
28 Supplier data will likely be produced to EN ISO 8662-14. The tests usually under-represent vibration hazard and a vibration hazard should be assumed until independent data shows otherwise. Supplier's data is usually for the main handle but the highest vibration is often found where it is held on the body.
29 Suppliers data for chipping hammers is produced to EN 50144-2-6 for electric tools and EN ISO 8662-2 or EN ISO 8662-14 for pneumatic tools depending on intended use. The tests usually indicate the presence of a vibration hazard but often hugely under-represent its magnitude. Note: for stone working hammers, EN ISO 8662-14 usually provides more realistic emission values than EN ISO 8662-2. A high-vibration hazard should be assumed until independent data shows otherwise. Supplier's data is usually for the main handle but the highest vibration is often found where it is held on the body or, in some operations, where the chisel is held directly.
30 Assessment of vibration risk using vibration emission data supplied with the equipment should be undertaken with care to avoid being misled by limitations of the data. A common error is for employers to assume the reported data is an 'in-use' vibration figure when making their assessments without independent corroboration. Basic guidance on this is given in INDG 338 supplemented by OC 246/31 ID paras 20-32.
31 High vibration hazard hand-held power tools should be replaced with reduced vibration level types within 2 years where the tools expose employees to excessive levels of vibration and significantly reduced vibration models can be substituted. Account should be taken of evidence claiming that a high vibration tool is the only tool suitable for the job. Where health surveillance results demonstrate the absence of symptoms of vibration injury and exposures are below 5.7 m/s2 A(8), replacement of tools should be advised but not pursued.
32 When purchasing replacement tools, occupiers should follow the guidance in INDG 338 and OC 246/31. For foundries, see Foundries Information Sheet 12.
33 Where high vibration tools are replaced by ones of reduced vibration design, employees will often sense a difference and adopt a negative view, suspecting poor performance. They may therefore misuse the replacement tool and negate the potential benefits.
34 Employers have a duty under PUWER 98 Regs.8 and 9 to give instruction in the correct method of working with any new tools. Particular emphasis should be given to ensuring that excessive grip force is not adopted. Supervisors should be given similar instructions.
35 Suppliers, etc have a duty under the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 to provide instructions on safe use and indicate whether any particular training is required including equipment maintenance, selection and maintenance of cutting tools (grinding disks, chisels, etc.) where this can greatly change the vibration emission or efficiency and hence exposure duration and risk.
36 Guidance on other issues to be included in information and training for employees is given in INDG175(Rev1) Health risks from hand-arm vibration. The video Hard to Handle is a useful general training aid in relation to vibration.
37 The following is a guide to when enforcement action may be appropriate in relation to the objectives set out in para 7 and the target tools in para 9. It is based on Operational Version 3.0 of the Enforcement Management Model (EMM) and OC 130/5 General guidance on the application of EMM principles to health risks (to be issued shortly). Any action taken should reflect any subsequent changes to the EMM and its supporting documents. The application of principles to health specifically discusses HAVS and should be consulted when considering HAVS. The final decision on enforcement action should also take account of duty holder factors and the strategic factors in para 52.
38 Model Improvement and Prohibition Notices for the scenarios in are given at Appendix 3 paras 39-48. These notices aim only to achieve the enforcement scenarios in these paragraphs. These scenarios also illustrate where risk control indicator statement 1 (see para 56) has not been met. If inspectors wish to undertake enforcement action for other situations, they should follow OC 246/30 and consult their specialist group inspectors (noise and vibration) (see also para 51).
39 Long term regular exposure above 2.8 m/s2 A(8) will lead to a proportion of the work force suffering permanent injuries. The risk of injury increases with the daily exposure level and with the years of exposure. A probable risk of serious personal injury will exist where there is a regular daily exposure of over 5.7 m/s2 A(8).
40 Inspectors should consider issuing a prohibition notice (PN) when they are of the opinion that there is probable risk of serious personal injury - see EMM Chapter 2 Section 2. Specialist group inspectors (noise and vibration) are happy to discuss examples where they would provide retrospective support for a PN. Evidence to support such an opinion will exist where:
(1) regular use for more than 3½ hours per day, of a 180 mm (7²) to 230 mm (9²) grinder where the spindle is clearly bent (see Appendix 3 para 1); or
(2) extensive and regular use of tools with a high risk of vibration injury that have a well established reduced vibration alternative, eg use for more than 2½ hours per day of a needle scaler that is identified, perhaps by age, as a high vibration model (see Appendix 3 para 2).
41 Suitable tools in conjunction with management of residual risk will allow exposure to be controlled to below 2.8 m/s2 A(8) and the EMM guidance on application to health risks (see para 37) advises that the benchmark set should be considered as a 'remote' risk of serious personal injury if exposure is controlled to below 2.8 m/s2 A(8). Exposures above 5.7 m/s2 A(8) would give rise to a probable risk and between 2.8 and 5.7 m/s2 A(8) to a possible risk of serious personal injury.
42 The EMM Chapter 2 Section 3 considers gap analysis. The risk gap is derived from table 2.1. Some key scenarios are considered at paras 43-48 below. Inspectors may use these scenarios as a guide when making their assessment of actual risk, and the subsequent risk gap. However, inspectors must ensure that they base their assessment of risk on the factors they find at site. Model Prohibition and Improvement Notices for use with these scenarios are at Appendix 3.
43 Use of an old design (see para 13) of 180 mm (7²) to 230 mm (9²) grinder is likely to give rise to a vibration emission in the order of 12-16 m/s2. Where such a tool is regularly used for 3½ hours or more per day, the daily exposure will be at least 8 m/s2 A(8). Such exposure will give rise to an actual risk of probable serious personal injury. When compared to the benchmark (see para 41), a substantial risk gap arises. Inspectors will note the similarity of this scenario to that in para 40(2).
44 Using an old design (see para 13) of 180 mm (7²) to 230 mm (9²) grinder, but for the lesser period of 60 minutes or more per day, the daily exposure will be at least 4 m/s2 A(8). Such exposure will give rise to an actual risk of possible serious personal injury. When compared to the benchmark (see para 41), a moderate risk gap arises.
45 Use of an old design (see para 13) of chipping hammer for metal working is likely to give rise to a vibration emission in the order of 8-30 m/s2. Where such a tool is regularly used for 2 hours or more per day, the daily exposure will be at least 4 m/s2 A(8). Such exposure will give rise to an actual risk of possible serious personal injury. When compared to the benchmark (see para 41), a moderate risk gap arises.
46 Use of an old design (see para 13) of chipping hammer for stone working is likely to give rise to a vibration emission in the order of 15-35 m/s2, possibly higher on the chisel. Where such a tool is regularly used for 2 hours or more per day, the daily exposure will be at least 8 m/s2 A(8). Such exposure will give rise to an actual risk of probable serious personal injury. When compared to the benchmark (see para 41),a substantial risk gap arises.
47 Use of an old (pre-1994) design (see para 13) of needle scaler is likely to give rise to a vibration emission in the order of 15 m/s2. Where such a tool is regularly used for 2½ hours or more per day, the daily exposure will be at least 8 m/s2 A(8). Such exposure will give rise to an actual risk of probable serious personal injury. When compared to the benchmark (see para 41), a substantial risk gap arises. Inspectors will note the similarity of this scenario to that in para 40(2).
48 Using an old (pre 1994) design (see para 16) of needle scaler for the lesser period of 30 minutes or more per day, the daily exposure will be at least 4 m/s2 A(8). Such exposure will give rise to an actual risk of possible serious personal injury. When compared to the benchmark (see para 41), a moderate risk gap arises.
49 The EMM Chapter 2 Section 4 addresses the IEE. The following are relevant to deriving the authority of standards for use in EMM table 5.1 and hence for deciding the IEE:
| Title | Authority |
|---|---|
| Guidelines for the measurement and assessment of human exposure to hand-transmitted vibration International Standard ISO 5349 1986 | Established |
| Measurement and evaluation of human exposure to vibration transmitted to the hand British Standard BS 6842:1987 | Established |
| HSG 88 'Hand-Arm Vibration' Health & Safety Executive 1994 | Interpretative |
| HSW Act s.2(1) | Interpretative |
| Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations | Interpretative |
Note: Both documents assigned by the EMM as having 'established' authority have been replaced by a new document 'Mechanical vibration - Measurement and evaluation of human exposure to hand-transmitted vibration - Part 1: General requirements' International Standard ISO 5349-1:2001. The HAVS EMM is under review and it is expected that this new standard will be assigned 'established' authority.
50 The EMM considers risk assessment as an administrative measure. The standard for risk assessment is a defined standard, being found in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Any absence, or inadequacies with an assessment should be considered using the EMM table 5.2.
51 Provided that inspectors have evidence that tools subject to notices are of the type described and are used as described in the scenarios in paras 43-48, then specialist group inspectors (noise and vibration) need not be asked to support the notice before it is served. Inspectors requiring assistance or wishing to enforce beyond these scenarios should request SG support in the usual way.
52 Inspectors are asked to bear in mind that this project is part of a national campaign which also aims to secure compliance by suppliers with the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992. Failure to consistently issue improvement notices for all of the scenarios in paras 43-48 (even where the IEE does not suggest) might have a negative impact upon suppliers attitudes. This should be considered as a strategic factor for the purposes of the EMM table 7.
53 Where improvement notices are issued for those scenarios for which paras 43-48 produce a risk gap of 'substantial', they should aim to secure reduction of exposure to below 2.8 m/s2 A(8) within one month. In other cases, improvement notices should aim to have the high vibration hazard hand-held power tools replaced by reduced vibration emission types within a period to be negotiated on the basis of the lifetime of the tools in that workplace but in any case within 2 years.
54 New risk assessment evidence claiming that the high vibration tool is the only tool suitable for the job should be considered when assessing compliance with an improvement notice.
55 Guidance on HAVS is given in:
| Reference | Title |
| HS(G)88 | Hand-arm vibration |
| HS(G)170 | Vibration solutions |
| INDG126(rev1) | Health risks from hand-arm vibration advice for employees and the self-employed |
| INDG175(rev1) | Health risks from hand-arm vibration advice for employers |
| INDG 338 | Power Tools. Reduce vibration health risks. Guide for employers |
| HSE Video | Hard to handle |
| HSE CD-ROM | The successful management of hand-arm vibration (file 246) |
| OC 246/30 | Hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS): hazard identification, risk assessment, control measures and enforcement |
| OC 246/31 | Reducing risk of hand-arm vibration injury from hand-held power tools |
| HAV Database | database of 'in-use' vibration maintained by HSL |
| Foundry Information Sheet (FIS) 10 | Foundry-specific guidance (generic information on vibration tools in the industry) |
| Foundry Information Sheet (FIS) 11 | HAVS reduction at furnace and ladle relining |
| Foundry Information Sheet (FIS) 12 | A purchasing policy for vibration reduced tools in foundries |
| FIAC | Hand Arm Vibration in Foundries |
| IS Misc 102 | Stonemasonry-specific guidance |
56 The risk control indicators for the HAVS Programme inspections are:
(1) use of power tools eliminated or where not reasonably practicable, use of high risk tools eliminated and employee exposure to vibration less than HSE action level;
(2) where tools have been or need to be replaced duty holder has or is aware of the need to request relevant vibration data from the supplier;
(3) information obtained from supplier is consistent with OC 246/31 Appendix and includes real use data or EN/ISO data supplemented by information on any residual risk and measures to protect against this.
As it is a clear cut issue, indicator 2 above is to be marked as 1 or 4.
57 The FOD Programme manager (Roger Sykes 0191 202 6239) would appreciate information about any process changes made by companies which have resulted in the elimination of the use of hand held power tools or of any other novel changes made which have reduced previous high exposures to below the action level.
APPENDIX 1 (para 2)
Information received in response to the following key questions will assist inspectors in reaching conclusions required for the purposes of HAVS inspections.
1 Are high vibration hazard tools in use (see paras 8-17).
2 Has an assessment of risks from all high vibration hazard tools been carried out see INDG338 Power Tools. Reduce vibration health risks. Guide for employers and OC 246/31 Information Document.
3 If an assessment has been carried out (particularly where tools have been replaced in the last 2 years), what vibration emission data for the tools was used (see OC 246/31 ID paras 9 to 13).
4 Is there evidence (from the assessment or otherwise) that exposure due to use of tools exceeds the HSE action level of 2.8 m/s2 A(8).
5 Is replacement of tools by reduced vibration design appropriate (see paras 18-25 and 31-32).
6 If tools have been replaced in the last 2 years, did suppliers provide information comparable to OC 246/31 Appendix.
7 If any tools have been replaced in the last 2 years, please send name and address of supplier to HAVS Programme Manager (Roger Sykes).
8 If any tools have been replaced in the last 2 years, has adequate instruction in use been given to workers and supervisors (see paras 33-36).
9 Is health surveillance carried out where exposures exceed 2.8 m/s2 (see paras 31 and 55).
APPENDIX 2 (paras 10, 11 and 12)
Figure 1 Typical angle grinder
Figure 2 Typical needle scaler
Figure 3 Typical chipping hammer
APPENDIX 3 (paras 38 and 42)
1. For use in relation to defective tools (para 40(1) and (2)).
hereby give you notice that I am of the opinion that the following activities namely:
the use of [identification of tools]
involve, or will involve, a risk of serious personal injury, and that the matters which give rise/will give rise to the said risk(s) are:
Persons employed by you to use said [identity of tools] are exposed to high levels of vibration
and the said matters involve/will involve contravention of the following statutory provisions:
The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Regulation 5
because
These tools have not been maintained in good repair and persons using them are at foreseeable risk of suffering hand arm vibration injury
2. For use in relation to high vibration model tools (paras 40(2) and 43, 45 and 47).
hereby give you notice that I am of the opinion that the following activities namely:
the use of [identification of tools]
involve, or will involve, a risk of serious personal injury, and that the matters which give rise/will give rise to the said risk(s) are:
Persons employed by you to use said [identity of tools] are exposed to high levels of vibration
and the said matters involve/will involve contravention of the following statutory provisions:
The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Regulation 4
because
These tools are not constructed so as to be suitable for the purpose and duration for which they are used in that persons using them are at foreseeable risk of suffering hand arm vibration injury
Improvement notice
3. For use in relation to high vibration model tools (para 44, 45 and 48).
you as an employer, are contravening/have contravened in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated, the following statutory provisions:
The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Regulation 4
The reasons for my said opinion are:
The [specify tools] are not constructed so as to be suitable for the purpose and duration for which they are used in that persons using them are at foreseeable risk of suffering hand arm vibration injury
In order to comply with this Improvement Notice you shall ensure that the following measures are taken:
1. Replace [specify tool] by suitable new equipment the selection of which takes account of vibration emission when used for the purposes for which it is provided.
OR ALTERNATIVELY
2. You shall take any other measures which are equally effective in achieving compliance with this legislation.
Further information relevant to this Notice is contained in the HSE publication INDG338 and Information Document 246/31