Close this window to return to previous page
FORTH and TAY DISTRICT
of
EDINBURGH BRANCH
16th meeting
Gateway Centre, North Methven Street, Perth: 7:30pm Thursday 6th November 2003.
Sederunt:
S Chisholm A Milne D Mann D Devey B Davies G McGeorge R McDonnell K McDonnell R Greer A McFarlane K Lloyd S Dunn T Mellon P Szazwloski K Paterson D Collin (guest speaker)
Kirsten Paterson, Chairperson, welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the fire procedures, reminded all to sign the attendance register and outlined the programme for the evening.
1. Apologies
J Goddard B Johnson R Stainton N Doherty
2. Minutes of previous meeting
Kirsten asked whether all had received the minutes of 15th meeting and Dave Devey apologised for the lateness in producing them. Barry Davies praised the thoroughness of the report of Bruce Reekie�s presentation. The minutes were agreed as being correct and Dick Mann proposed to accept them seconded by Barry Davies.
Barry Davies announced that he had now confirmed arrangements for the Annual Industrial visit in June 2004 with Tayside Fire Brigade in Perth, where a new RPE test centre had been recently commissioned.
3. Secretary�s report
a) Dave Devey sadly notified members of the sudden death of Ray Carroll on 31 October, which Dave had learned from an e-mail response by Ray�s son to the reminder of this meeting. Members expressed condolences and Dave assured those present that he had already done this on behalf of the District and notified Branch Secretary.
b) Dave reminded all present that the next meeting would be the AGM in February and that nominations for District officers and committee members were needed before Christmas so that nominations could be notified to Branch at least 28 days before the AGM. He advised that forms were available for the process. Kevin Lloyd confirmed that forms could be obtained from Branch Secretary and that he would ask Max Bancroft to send some to Dave anyway.
4. Branch Liaison Officer�s Report
Karen McDonnell described the Branch Education Advisers� meeting at Leicester on 26th September and outlined the content of the five presentations.
i) Hazel Harvey had explained routes to IOSH membership and the broadening of routes to Fellowship. The changes reflected IOSH�s emphasis on core competence and CPD.
ii) Caroline Welch, Professional Development Manager, affirmed that CPD would remain the framework for managing professional competency and reminded attendees that CPD would be piloted from April 2004 and become compulsory for MIOSH retention about June 2005 and that non-RSP members should start preparing to meet this new requirement. She noted that while the current CPD scheme needed development, the four prime areas for classifying CPD would be: self management, core professional skills, new professional skills and other transferable skills development. Karen offered to provide copies of presentations to anyone interested and had a folder of information available.
iii) Stephen Vickers of NEBOSH discussed keeping NEBOSH exams relevant to the needs of health and safety and the diversity of routes to MIOSH. He showed interest in the international recognition of NEBOSH/IOSH qualifications in health and safety.
iv) Hazel Harvey spoke about the non-NEBOSH routes to MIOSH with particular emphasis on the 30 UK, 7 Irish and other universities currently offering degrees in health and safety. She explained how these establishments were monitored for standards, consistency and syllabus every five years.
v) A long-serving Yorkshire Branch Education Adviser then described mentoring IOSH members seeking advancement both professionally and in job applications, which had run successfully in that area for some years.
5. Technical updates
Kirsten drew members� attention to the recent Draft Code of Practice and Guidance for the DSEAR 2002, and suggested that there was little that was totally new in its 117 pages, but that members should comment during the consultation period. She also noted that retrospective fitting of additional safety devices to woodworking machinery under PUWER had to be completed by the end of the month and referred those interested to HSE�s web site for details. She also noted the consultation period for the proposals to revise the First Aid at Work Regulations was nearly over and encouraged feedback.
Steve Dunn observed that one change introduced by DSEAR was a stricter definition of competence for those doing risk assessments under these regulations. This meant that the assessor should have practical experience of dealing with explosive atmosphere problems. Members agreed that such experience was difficult to obtain outside a few industries. Steve referred to the recent HSE publication HSG 103 on the topic.
Steve also reminded members of the impending May 2004 deadline for building owners to take up their duty to manage asbestos, and that there would be an enforcement campaign for those defaulting. Steve noted the expansion of the Government-sponsored Healthy Working helpline and web site, and that there were now 8 Regional Advisers contracted by the Scottish Executive to visit and advise small businesses free of charge.
The meeting adjourned for refreshments while the Guest Speaker, Dougie Collin of C/Chec, set up his presentation equipment.
6. Guest Speaker, Dougie Collin of C/Chec - Good Vibrations
Dougie started by explaining his background, practical experience and interest in vibration measurement and his close relationship with HSE and other expert bodies in the development of guidance to meet the Physical Agents Directive and any transposition of this into UK Regulations. He noted the slippage in HSE�s implementation programme and that any time shortfall would likely limit consultation time, so urged members to obtain and read the Consultative Document, remain alert and not miss the opportunity to comment on the forthcoming more onerous regulations. He expected implementation of new legislation by mid 2005.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/vibration was the root web address to access information.
Dougie first described the general approach to compliance that he recommended.
Firstly, sensible action to control risk. This did not mean overuse of consultants and buying lots of new equipment. It depended on using the available information about vibration levels intelligently to minimise costs and use management controls, such as job rotation, to limit individual exposure. Local managers and supervisors were by far the best people to make these judgements because they knew and understood the work and the activities needed.
Secondly, he advised that measurement of vibration should only be undertaken when really necessary because of the costs, variability of results under real task conditions, and because there were more effective ways of spending money to control the problem, such as ensuring that good planned maintenance was carried out and recorded. Manufacturers� literature would provide measurements done under ISO test conditions, not in the field, so although not strictly transferable, did provide a comparison between tools and a starting point for scoping the scale of potential problems. He suggested that where a number of similar pieces of equipment were maintained to a high standard and tasks using them were broadly similar, measurement of a sample of these tools would suffice, and it was much cheaper to maintain all and measure a few than to measure all.
Dougie emphasised that an employer finding a piece of equipment with vibration levels quoted as over 5.0 ms-2 should not assume they cannot use that kit, but should manage exposure to the vibration by limiting time of use, rotating labour etc. He explained that the fractional exposure for each task could be calculated in the same way as noise exposures, so that the daily exposure could be compared with the standards.
As a guide, Dougie estimated that a consultant might be able to measure the vibration levels on up to 20 pieces of equipment a day under optimum conditions, but in practice fieldwork difficulties would reduce this drastically. Also the test equipment was fragile in some situations and breakage of a single data lead was both expensive and halted measurements until it could be replaced.
Recognition of these difficulties prompted Dougie and many others keen to see reduction of vibration injuries to contribute vibration data to publicly accessible databases kept by trade associations, research institutes and other bodies.
http://www.umetech.niwl.se/vibration/havhome.html and
http://www.liaa.de/karla being two he recommended.
Dougie then went on to explain the new Exposure Action Value (EAV) and the Exposure Limit Value (ELV) which are both based on the 8 hour working day, and the transition from the previous recommended standard.
While 2.8 ms-2 over an 8 hour day was the measurement above which exposure was considered dangerous, the EAV is now 2.5 ms-2 and the ELV 5.0 ms-2 both over 8 hours. Where it was not reasonably practicable to comply with the new standards there would be an exemption up until July 2007, and in some cases this could be extended to 2010. The enforcement policy on the practicability of compliance would be viewed on a trade or industry and scale basis, therefore if one small metalworking firm could comply there would be no leniency on another metal worker of similar size. This strategy had encouraged trades to band together and ask for dispensations across their industry.
A further complication is that while EU countries agree that the measurement is taken as an average over three axes, the USA measures only over the dominant vibration axis, thus confusing people about the values quoted by manufacturers or suppliers. There is a difference by a factor of roughly 1.4 between the existing 2.8ms-2 measured through the dominant axis and the new standards measured through the averaging of three axes.
Thus 2.5 A(8) = 1.7 ms-2 single axis and
2.8 A(8) = 4.0ms-2 3 axis scale.
What is more important is to recognise that there is no lower limit of danger and that a residual risk of injury exists below the EAV. The legal requirement will be to reduce exposure to vibration as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).
Looked at simply,
Below 2.5 � residual risk, reduce ALARP
2.5 -5.0 � significant risk, reduce ALARP, have formal programme of control and at least apply health surveillance
over 5.0 � unacceptable. Stop exposure now.
Health surveillance can initially be done by a carefully worded questionnaire, which repeats the same questions in different ways to ensure honesty in reporting and consistency. If exposure is routinely over 2.5 the workers should be referred to an OH nurse who has call upon an OH physician as necessary. Exposure above 5.0 warrants immediate referral to an OH physician and cessation of exposure.
Dougie pointed out the importance of employers benchmarking the health of all employees who might be exposed to vibration, firstly to detect any health deterioration quickly and prevent severe symptoms, but secondly to protect themselves against allegations that injury had occurred during this employment. HAVS is an irreversible disease with disabling consequences for sufferers.
Actions to be taken if EAV is being equalled
Actions to be taken at ELV
The clinical stages of HAVS or VWF range from:
Stage 1 � slight symptoms confined to fingertips sometimes only detectable by sophisticated tests.
Stage 2 � loss of feeling in fingers to halfway down finger
Stage 3- loss of feeling for whole length of fingers.
The draft Guidance consists of:
Appendices
HSE have produced a useful exposure calculator on the web site as an Excel spreadsheet. The inputs are vibration magnitudes and lengths of exposures and the outputs can be read of as exposure points, partial and total A(8) values and as time to EAV and ELV
The audience asked the following questions:
Due to the imminent closure of the Gateway Centre, Kirsten ended the question session and asked Sandy Chisholm to propose a vote of thanks. As an experienced person on vibration problems, Sandy thanked Dougie for such a clear, helpful and practical talk, which had been full of down to earth ways of dealing with both the problem and the incoming legislation. The audience applauded loudly, then Kirsten presented Dougie with a gift and certificate of thanks from the District.
Kirsten announced that Edinburgh Branch wanted to draw everyone�s attention to their Road Risk seminar on 27th and that places were being booked rapidly. Due to this event, the usual Branch meeting for November had been cancelled.
Kirsten closed the meeting at 9.20pm, thanked members for their attendance and wished them a safe journey home.
7. Next Meeting
District AGM Thursday 6th February 2004 at the Gateway Centre
18.30 � 19.30 Buffet
19.30 � 20.15 AGM
20.15 � 21.30 Guest Speaker Mr Jim Dewar, Managing Health and Safety In Forestry
|
Dave Devey |
Kirsten Paterson |
|
Secretary |
Chair |