Minutes of the 3rd Construction Hand-arm Vibration Working Group Meeting, HSE, Manchester, 30/05/06

Attendees: Phil Burgess (HSE), Andrew Simpson (Belle Group), Peter Houldridge (Complete Hire Services), Kevin Minton (HAE), Mark Turnbull (Speedy Hire), Hans Fairley (Stihl, AEA), Greg Bordiak (BCAS), Peter Alford (JCB), Pete Waldron (Partner Dimas), Andrew Bowden (Makita (UK), EPTA), Ulrich Betten (Hilti), David Edwards (OPERC), Shelly Atkinson-Frost (Construction Confederation), David Smeatham (HSE), Mark Owen (Shepherds Construction, MCG).

The meeting was based around an agenda circulated prior to the meeting.

Welcome

Meeting opened and attendees were welcomed. Members of the group introduced themselves and stated whom they were representing. The agenda was presented to the group.

Previous meeting minutes

The group accepted these.

Matters arising

None

Where are we and what are the options for the way forward

This item dominated the remainder of the meeting and contained lengthy discussions regarding a number of options for the way forward.

The discussion was started by presenting the terms of reference agreed during the meeting in Manchester 27/02/06. A general discussion ensued regarding the difference between the approach taken by OPERC and that proposed by the working group. It was suggested the that the tasks of the group could be split into three functions

• Tool testing to supply appropriate data
• Verification process to ensure consistency
• Hosting of the data (custodian)

Data

It was recognised that the long-term solution to the provision of vibration magnitude was through the development of standards that provide three axis data representative of upper-quartile (75 percentile) of intended use of the machinery in accordance with EN 20643.

In the interim, until these standard are produced there is a need to inform end-users of the typical in-use vibration of the tools. The decision at previous meetings of the working group was to develop tests to provide the upper-quartile vibration. This was seen as both providing data suitable for end-users to use as an initial exposure assessment and also aid the development of standards.

The working group discussed the differences between the proposed way forward that the approach being taken by OPERC where tests are being conducted to ISO 5349 whilst performing specific tasks defined through discussions with the Construction Confederation and the tool manufacturer.

Key issues during the discussion included:

• What ever the method adopted there must be confidence in the data.
• Target tools and processes need to be identified to ensure that effort is focus on those tools/processes that present the greatest risk to the biggest number of operators
• The adopted method needs to take account the knowledge of manufacturers
• The method should be open to all
• An objection was made to the use of the upper-quartile figure in that it was considered not suitable for the expected statistical distribution of the vibration data. It was explained that the upper-quartile figure can be obtained for any distribution and it is accepted throughout Europe (in EN 20643) that it should be the target for new vibration emission standards.
• The group thought that, where possible, indicators of tool productivity should be included. However, it was indicated that the measurement of productivity is difficult for certain classes of tools.

These discussions did not reached conclusion and it was suggested that technical members of the group should meet to discuss the relative merits of both approaches.

Action

D Smeatham to arrange a meeting to discuss relative merits of the two approached to providing data suitable for an initial exposure assessment.

Verification

It was recognised that there should be a fundamental assumption that the data provided by test houses is trustworthy. The suggestion was made that data would be accepted from test houses meeting specific criterion enabling an audit trail approach to be adopted. There is also a need for a verification process to be carried out periodically to check data consistency where possible. A proposal for verification was presented to the working group. It was recognised that the verification method would not necessarily identify tools that had not been declared with correct vibration (e.g. if the majority of tools within a class of tools were declared at 10 m/s 2 and a specific tool’s upper-quartile vibration was 20 m/s 2 but was declared as having a vibration of 10 m/s 2 then the proposed verification routine would not identify the tool as a problem). It was suggested that the following information should be reported to aid verification:

• Generic tool type
• In-use vibration according to the agreed test method (see above)
• Nature of the test including operating and work conditions
• Noise
• Weight
• Productivity where possible
• Declared data according to the harmonised test code
• Tested by

The suggestion was made of a virtual administrator where data is compiled from different sources (i.e. HAVTEC, EPTA, BCAS etc) onto a website. However it was thought that manual administration might be better initially. The option of compiling a database through trade associations was suggested with the trade association carrying out some level of verification.

Action

A verification procedure needs to be developed. This will be carried out following a resolution from the technical meeting.

Host

It was agreed that a specification for the hosting of the HAV management system was required. This specification should include administrative functions and definition of responsibilities and the host should be an independent body.

AOB

The technical group will meet on 20/07/06 at Loughborough University at 10:30. An agenda with directions will be circulated before the meeting.

The date of the next working group meeting will be announced after the technical group meeting.