Health and Safety
Executive / Commission
Vibration at
work
Attendees: See attachment sheet.
These minutes contain a summary of the day’s events. More detailed account of the discussions is attached to these minutes.
Meeting opened and attendees were welcomed.
Stephen painted a picture of the construction industry and highlighted the risks of hand-arm vibration and its impact on the industry.
Phil provided statistics on the nature of the construction industry and the problems this industry has dealing with HAV. David Smeatham provided an overview of the requirements of the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations and the Control of Vibration at work regulation and their relationship. Phil then went on to describe the successful approach taken with the kerbs campaign.
Andy explained the background to the Traffic Light System and its development to assist small contractors to comply with the vibration regulations. Andy went on to describe some of the problems with the data in the traffic light system, which leads the Construction Confederation working with OPERC to carry out independent tests. Andy finished by saying that there was a need to listen and engage with the group and take the issues forward.
Peter Houldridge described the system developed by Complete Hire Services, which was based on the traffic light system and HSE points and stressed that there was a need for a free database of vibration data produced on a consistent basis.
Terry Penketh (Vinci) said that contractors needed simple accurate information based on real tasks that enabled end-users to mange the risk and that this was a wonderful opportunity.
Rob Caddy (Bell Group) stated that for some tool types there was not test code and there was a need for standards to produce comparable data for real life working practices.
Andrew Bowden (Makita, EPTA, PETMA) explained the work of the electrical tool committees to produce standards based on real operations that provided data indicative of real use and that manufacturers use independent and accredited test houses.
Eric Sparby (Atlas Copco) described the work he has been doing to overcome the shortfalls of the current breaker standard to report in-use vibration based on real operations of the tools operating into concrete and asphalt.
Stuart McNaughton (Martin Plant Hire) said that hirers must have a system that allows them to provide simple information to the end users to manage the risk.
Other people from the floor made comments on the quality of data from the ball bearing test rig and the variation of in-use vibration.
David commented on the success of the traffic light system in raising awareness of HAVS in the construction industry. He felt the traffic light system should stay but the data behind it needed improving and expressed the need to make it easy for the hire company staff to help the customers.
Details of the panel discussion are presented in the attached notes. General discussions were on:
Nominees for the working group are requested before Christmas. The proposal was that the working group be made up of trade associations with provision that anybody with a specific issue can be temporarily co-opted onto the working group. The terms of reference of the group will be discussed at the first meeting and the attendees of the forum and other interested parties consulted. Minutes of the working group will be circulated to the forum attendees and other interested parties
Sue Parkyn thanked everyone for their participation. Arrangements will be made for the working group to issue a press release and urged that individual groups should not issue press releases on the forum. The minutes of the meeting will be circulated prior to Christmas and the first working group meeting will be in January.
Sue Parkyn (HSE – Construction Sector) welcomed all and introduced Stephen Williams, Chief Inspector of Construction.
He had recently taken over as Chief Inspector of Construction but had worked on the sector in the early 90s on the Channel Tunnel, Dartford Bridge and the CDM regs.
Changes in the sector he had noticed on his return included:
[Graph showing govt and industry health and safety targets for the sector]
The targets set by the Government for industry are being achieved although industry not achieving its own targets.
He recognised that there had been tensions between tool manufacturers, hire companies and users but urged all at the forum to put these behind them
To remember that 5 million people are exposed to HAV at work, 2 million are at risk and that there is a personal cost [of HAVS] to the individual worker and a financial cost to companies and to UK plc.
The new Control of Vibration at Work Regulations were introduced in July and require employers to assess risk and introduce controls.
There will be an industry summit this year. The industry will be asked to commit to ownership and partnership. Occupational health will be important. And it will be central how we communicate to the industry on HAV. We will need to show a consistent approach.
I would urge all here today to listen carefully to the points made.
Phil observed that there was generally a good attitude in the construction industry, tool manufacturers and hire companies to dealing with the problem of HAV. He set out some facts:
In order to manage the risk employers need:
Dave described two relevant sets of regulations placing duties on equipment suppliers and users:
Suppliers of machinery have the duty to:
Employers have a duty to:
A new standard for HAV measurement (EN 20643) requires 3 axis measurement and measurement more indicative of real use is to be introduced. In the interim better information is needed for users on likely levels of risk and how to operate tools correctly and safely.
What do we want to achieve today?
In the case of manual handling of heavy kerbstones (70Kg) we brought the suppliers together and worked out a solution. HAV may be more complicated but we can try to work together to overcome these problems.
Andy welcomed the idea of working in partnership and said that people often found it difficult to find time to sort out these problems. People across the industry need to take time out to talk to each other about these sorts of problems and welcomed HSE’s involvement.
Andy explained that the traffic light system had emerged from a working group involving MCG, hirers and tool manufacturers set up about 3 years ago. It was clear that HAV was a complex subject and that small builders couldn’t cope with it without help. The traffic light system was developed and was welcomed by small firms. It was easily understandable by workers and managers and provided a reasonable indication of exposure.
In 2005 they had identified some problems with the quality of data going into the traffic light system and that a system for obtaining better work place emission data was needed. A commitment was made to work with Hilti and OPERC (Loughborough University) to test tools independently using realistic tests which would provide information better suited to employers risk assessments. The resultant data would be made freely available to the public. The data was not intended to replace the test code data tool manufacturers supply, but to provide benchmarks of typical use. We want to work with manufacturers and believe that the work will benefit them as well. There has been a lot of support for the initiative, e.g. from MCG, HAE, Speedy Hire, JCB, Milwaukee tools, Hilti and others. MCG is committed to continue to work with others. But we accept that some feel they were not consulted or have not had the chance to raise points of detail. We need to listen and the working group to engage with the group here and others and take the issues forward.
Peter explained that his business was a recently set up plant hire business in Hull. He had worked in the hire industry for 17 years and had been dealing with low vibration issues for 8 years.
He had been keen to introduce a system to help end users deal with HAV and to supply vibration information to users. He had adopted a system combining the traffic light system and the HSE points system.
The colour coding identified the vibration range the tool fell into and the points system gave a points value for 15 minutes of use for each tool, allowing multiple tool use to be easily managed. A daily usage form was available to be signed by the worker and monitored by the supervisor/employer. The records could be stored and retained for future reference. The system was particularly suitable for small to medium sized businesses.
Peter asked some of his customers what they would like to see emerge from today’s conference. The consensus was:
One customer said that he had hired the same type of plate vibration from 3 different sources and the vibration data was different for all three. This made it very difficult for them to do a risk assessment.
There was a clear need for a free database of vibration data produced on a consistent basis.
Terry explained that Vinci plc was the largest contractor in the world. He was there to represent project managers and workers who need to make sense of HAV. They want:
But how accurate was the information? Data from suspended grinders and breakers in buckets of ball bearings were not useful.
This was a wonderful opportunity to fix these inaccuracies and get rid on unreal tests.
They use manufacturers data (triaxial) for comparing equipment. He mentioned EN 500-4:2001.
But there were no test codes for testing road saws or vibrating pokers. They are willing work with standards data but need the standards to be produce comparable data for real life working practices.
Andrew explained that previous vibration data required by the Machinery Directive was single axis data. Some are produced under “load” conditions and some are produced under “no load” conditions. The data was not meant to measure workplace emissions.
Andrew then went on to explain that the “C” type standards now require 3 axis sum measurements (requirement of EN 20643). The UK has been pressing for new standards for 3 years (CENELEC WG3). New standards (EN 60745) are to be published in December and through to mid 2006.
Type A standards use the ISO 5349 measurement standard. This sets out general principles for measurement but doesn’t specify such things as where to place transducers on the handles etc.
The new “C” type standards (EN 60745) sets out:
EN 60754-2-1 for drills rotary percussion, vertically drilling in steel and concrete
EN 60754-2-6 for rotary hammers, vertically drilling steel and concrete.
EN 12096 is used to declare the spread of the vibration data.
Manufacturers also use independent test houses but they have to be accredited
Andrew finished by saying he was looking forward to working together to get verifiable data which is legally robust.
Eric highlighted the gap between what the manufacturers had and what the users needed and used an example of the difference between single axis data and sum of three axis data.
For manufacturers to be able to assist, specific test codes for each tool type were needed. Atlas Copco have created its own sub-set of tests for breakers, breaking either concrete or asphalt. It was important that the operators used for testing were properly trained to use the equipment optimally. For each test, three different operators would be measured. Different power sources would be tested (pneumatic, hydraulic and petrol). The whole work cycle would be tested eg, start, break, stop, move, start, break, stop move etc.
Figures for a 25 Kg breaker were:
Erik mentioned that in most cases the tool was only used for half and hour per day in real life. He said that a test code had only been developed for this particular tool type. He felt that the gap between what the manufacturer could provide and what the user needed had to be reduced. He believed all manufacturers needed to agree the [new, realistic] not necessarily ISO standards, but on the way toward them. He believed it would take 1-3 years to achieve. Doing “real work” tests under current test codes would be a compromise. He believed it would need BCAS and PETMA to regulate that.
Stuart explained that his company neither make the equipment nor use it. But they do supply it and have duties to provide health and safety information with the equipment. Thus vibration data is very important. He didn’t criticise the traffic light system - only the quality of data used in it.
His view was that hirers must have a system which allowed them to provide simple information to the end user to manage the risk properly. He felt it was important that manufacturers’ data should be open to independent verification and should have nothing to fear.
Alan said that his company has found that the OPERC data gave very similar results compared to the ball bearing test code (within 1 m/s 2).
Mike felt that any standard was only as good [accurate – repeatable] as the conditions on the day, [operator skill, blunt tools etc]. Therefore their was a responsibility on site to manage.
John pointed out that he had estimated that there could be over one thousand combinations of variables for each tool taking account of such things as the range of consumables, tool speed, materials being worked. Asked how you could advise customers using a traffic light system based on a single data set and expressed concern over where the information was going to come from.
Paul commented that B&D have 150 employees in its design centre and 40 of these are using the tools every day. Therefore they had a strong interest in protecting their employees from HAV.
David commented that he had, earlier in the year, suggested to Dave Smeatham of HSE that a small forum might be useful to re-examine the traffic light system. He was amazed at the response today.
Two years ago hire companies had been phoning him to ask what “white finger” was. Nowadays they were asking him to explain the difference between single axis and tri axis measurements (a sign of how things had moved on).
He felt that the traffic light system would stay but the data going into it would change. He commented that he found that most manufacturers were helpful. Customers were asking “how long can I use the tool?” Hirers can only provide customers with the information manufacturers give us. We need to make it easy for hire company staff to help their customers.
Sue said she had heard clearly from all speakers that there was a willingness to move forward. It was not clear what the immediate answer was, and it would be necessary to form a working group to try to resolve the issues.
The following are notes which attempt to capture the emphasis of the general discussion. They are not verbatim record.
Phil explained that the afternoon session was a chance to question a panel comprised of:
Mark asked how the working group would be formed, and why it would only include trade associations. In response Phil Burgess explained that this would be set out with a slide later.
Peter explained that he was leading a group working on standards for breakers. He wanted to see the working group working in parallel with the ISO standard development and was happy to share the work already completed by the ISO committee.
In response Terry Penketh (Vicci) said that we couldn’t wait 2-3 years for the new standards and this work should not impede an interim solution being found.
In response Andrew Bowden said that for electrical tools a new standards for drills and rotary hammers would be ready in December or January. Circular saws and jig saws standards would be ready in June- July 2006.
OPERC have started to measure a number of tools using ISO 5349. The results will be published on www.operc.com in 2006 and would be free of charge. The measurements would be tested carrying out typical operations found in construction using a range of attachments on a range of materials as specified by the tool manufacturers. A range of values will be published for each tool with information on the points system and duration of use. The data can be used for the traffic light system.
In response Andy Sneddon asked if the information will be fit for purposes for end users and consolidate a lot of variables as it needs to be made simple.
Patrick Fogarty (Hitachi) said the end user may want a single value. If OPERC are setting test methods how will it affect others who are using their own test methods? The traffic light system needs one value [for each tool] ISO 60745 will produce that value.
In response David Edwards said that they consult with the manufacturers of the tool on their typical application and test in accordance with conditions they describe. Our aim is not to create problems for manufacturers.
Mark Owen (Shepherd Construction) said if manufacturers say a tool is designed for a particular task it will be tested doing that task. We need to know what the likely HAV levels are for particular tools.
In response David Edwards said that OPERC were being open and transparent and they welcomed collaboration with others.
Andrew said that there are concerns that the tests codes are not realistic but he want to emphasise that the new tests use real materials eg metal, concrete, wood. The figures that the new standards produce will be qualified to indicate whether they are around the upper quartile of the vibration in use. What they are concerned about is that there will be differences between OPERC test data and what is produced under the new test codes. The data has to be robust to meet any legal cases that arise. The working group need to come to a conclusion to get the best way forward.
The traffic light system will continue and the OPERC data will be used for that. But we need more information for users other than saying a particular tool is coded as red and that its use must be cleared by a supervisor. We need more detailed guidance for the supervisor to help manage the tools use.
Regarding emerging new standards and test codes, OPERC will need to monitor these closely. The working group will need to work in parallel with the standards development.
Their main market was in manufacturing metal products. The Groups companies were large, with many static manufacturing activities with little variation in task on each site but with a wide range of applications across the group. Management were sympathetic to the HAV risk. But the needs of the manufacturing sector may be different [to those of the construction sector]. How will WG take care of the manufacturing industry?
In response Andrew Bowden explained that the new standards would test nut runners on real nuts and bolts, Grinders would have lots of “round robin” tests with various accessories and a new dummy wheel used at maximum speed.
In response Terence Libby said there are very many accessories and different materials and the onus will be primarily on the user [to assess risk] as manufacturers will not be able to assess for the millions of combinations for each tool.
Peter invited MCG and OPERC on to the group developing the new standard for breakers so that interested parties are informed and to avoid any disparity between the new standard and the “quick-fix” tests.
Alan’s view was that manufacturers must publish and give data to the customer. He believed that their own field testing was producing results very close to those of OPERC.
In response Andrew Bowden stated that the new standard tests use real materials but there will be a short gap before they [the new electrical tool test codes] are ready.
Andy emphasised that standard test data [from manufacturers] and workplace data were different and it was unreasonable for manufacturers to test for every possible use. The OPERC data is for end users but the two data sets can mutually co-exist.
John said ISO 5349 does not give guidance on exact test procedure, e.g. where to fit transducer on the tool handle, materials to be tested on etc. This raises questions about repeatability and there could be large differences in test results. If you use an impact wrench with a socket, with an extension or with a universal joint attachment there will be big differences in vibration measured. The working group need to think about this issue.
Bruce said manufacturers’ are not expected to produce data on 1000s of tool uses. But users do need confidence in the information provided. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 section 6 requires suppliers of equipment to provide information on safe use. Important also to follow the CDM Regs to plan ahead [to avoid the need for HAV exposure during construction]. Also, “green” tools that are used for more than 2 hours per day will exceed the EAV and employers must introduce health surveillance for those regularly exposed at this level. The traffic light system allows workers to exceed the EAV by a factor of 4.
In response David Pierre said to remember it must be made simple for hire staff [and for users] and that HSE were on the traffic light system working Group.
In response Bruce Appleton said it was important that tool use is managed even before the tool is picked up. And not all hire companies advise customers about the need for health surveillance.
In response David Pierre stated that changes have been made in the last 12 months.
OPERC have produced a DVD on HAVS
Are there any new issues that should be discussed?
Phil made a proposal that the membership should include trade associations representing:
A suggestion was made that a Union representative should be on the working group. This got wide acceptance.
Phil requested that delegates should send nominations to him by Christmas
Minutes of the WG meetings will be circulated or posted on the web and anyone with specific issues to raised to the working group could be temporarily co-opted onto the group. It was proposed that a similar event is organised in July 06.
The terms of reference of the group were set out in the letter of invitation for today’s meeting. But the WG will need to set out its own terms of reference and then circulate them to all for comment.
David stated that the traffic light system needs to remain.
David said that good data can be used to feed the points system and the traffic lights system
Concern was raised that this work won’t address other sectors needs. Sue Parkyn said it may be transferable but our purpose is to assist the construction sector, and we can’t impose anything on other sectors.
How will you deal with legal challenges? In response Andy Sneddon said the traffic light system is purely indicative - the responsibility for the risk assessment lies with the end user. Others expressed concerns over liability of data and the terms of reference of the working group.
It will be up to the working group to work out its terms of reference and circulate to the wider group for consultation. We will issue a press statement from the working group about its planned work. Sue asked people not to go to press about today’s Forum. The first Working Group meeting will be in January and another Forum will be arranged mid 2006 to report back.
Minutes of the Forum will be available before Christmas.