|
        
|
|
Executive Report: Safe and secure EHN reports on the Plant 07 conference which discussed methods for protecting both site equipment and operators from various risks. As last month’s Crosshire article highlighted, there remains a real need for the wider adoption of anti-theft measures to protect machinery and equipment, and this was a principal topic discussed at the recent Plant 07 conference. Organised by Construction News and held in Birmingham, the event covered key subjects regarding security, skills and safety. Detective Constable Ian Elliott, from the Stolen Vehicle Unit of the Metropolitan Police Specialist Crime Directorate, stated that insurance industry figures suggest that plant to the value of £750m is stolen each year, with a recovery rate of less than 5%. He outlined obstacles that often caused difficulties, such as determining exactly when and from where an item had been stolen from site, obtaining the specific make and model details, and knowing where records were kept. He explained how in 2006 a new initiative to tackle the problem was established. Companies were invited to tender to the Plant Theft Action Group, comprising representatives from the construction industry, manufacturers, hirers, insurers, industry associations and the Police, to implement a dedicated plant security and registration scheme. Datatag (www.datatag.com) was the winning company with CESAR (Construction Equipment Security and Registration Scheme) for road-going or towed machinery, and which was officially launched in April. National database Under the Scheme, each item is listed on a national plant registration database that can be accessed at any time to check ownership details via a single point of contact. Information is also kept on the DVLA Off-Road Register, allowing the Police National Computer to be updated, although this currently applies only to self-propelled equipment rather than towable items like generators and bowsers. Visible Datatag marking on machines gives Police sufficient information to consult the register without having to know the make, model or vehicle identification number. Equipment is also protected by numerous measures, including a glass tag, roughly the size of a grain of rice and containing a code number; tamper-proof plant identification plates; and ‘microdots’ that can be applied to any surface making them virtually impossible to locate and remove. An interactive website enables instant notification of theft. Claimed benefits of using CESAR include fraud reduction, lower insurance premiums, faster and free plant recovery, and less disruption. Another speaker, Kevin Clancy, Joint Managing Director of The Clancy Group, suggested that interest in anti-theft systems would grow because of heightened security awareness surrounding events like the Olympic Games and associated construction activity. He also suggested that local authorities could make it a requirement that contractors only use appropriately registered equipment. Access platform safety Turning attention to topical Health & Safety issues, International Powered Access Federation (IPAF) Managing Director, Tim Whiteman, called for all users of boom type access platforms to wear a full body harness with a short restraint lanyard attached to a suitable anchor point. He also urged hirers to attach appropriate warning stickers to such equipment. The initiative is part of the Clunk Click! campaign, organised jointly by IPAF and the Construction Plant-hire Association (CPA). It highlights the risk of operators being catapulted from the platform basket if the machine strikes obstacles, kerbs or potholes. "We have enough stickers printed for every boom in the UK," said Mr Whiteman, “and full campaign details are given in technical guidance note H1, available at www.ipaf.org.” Shaun Knott, Business Manager with monitoring equipment supplier Casella CEL (www.casellacel.com), provided an overview of legislation governing workplace noise and the need for proper risk assessment. As EHN explained last month in our Market Report on noise, the Control of Noise at Work Regulations introduced new upper and lower noise exposure limits. The lower exposure action value (EAV) is 80dB and at this level employers must assess the risk to workers' health, provide information, instruction and training and observe a peak sound pressure of 135dB. Employers also have a responsibility at the 80dB lower limit to provide personal protective protection (PPE) on request and ensure its correct use. The upper daily or weekly average exposure level, at which employers must provide hearing protection and hearing protection zones, has been lowered by 5dB to 85dB, with a peak sound pressure of 137dB. All duties identified for the lower action values must be implemented, along with measures to reduce exposure. Again, PPE must be provided to all workers exposed to these levels. Employers must also introduce health surveillance for all employees likely to be regularly exposed to levels above the upper EAVs, or who are at risk for any reason, such as already suffering from hearing loss. A new absolute exposure limit value (ELV), above which workers must not be exposed, has been set at 87dB (taking into account any reduction provided by hearing protection), with a peak sound pressure of 140dB. Shaun Knott stated that “14% of the population exposed to noise in the workplace will suffer some long term hearing damage.” He said that care was needed in choosing appropriate hearing protection, where its use was necessary, and that it was essential to provide equipment that gave optimum attenuation. Too great a reduction in hearing could actually make people unaware of other potential hazards around them, such as moving vehicles, and they might not be able to hear warnings. Several speakers at the event discussed the risks associated with dust in the workplace. David Vowles, Senior Policy Advisor – Air Quality with the Greater London Authority, described measures to control dust and emissions from construction and demolition. Dr Robert Ellis, from the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) Disease Reduction Programme outlined the risk from silica dust, respiratory disease and the associated legal requirements, while Neil Thompson, Brand Manager with Speedy Hire, described the issue from a hirer’s perspective. (Hirers’ dust control initiatives are discussed in a dedicated article in this issue.) Successful HAV management Dr Chris Nelson, HM Specialist Inspector (Noise & Vibration) with the Health & Safety Executive, offered advice on the successful management of hand arm vibration (HAV). He explained that measuring tool vibration should not be the main focus of attention; priority should be given to ensuring good practice, such as alternative work methods that eliminate or minimise exposure, with health surveillance where workers are likely to reach the specified exposure action values. Attention should also be given to aspects such as tool maintenance, the selection of appropriate accessories and the training of operators in correct operation of equipment in order to minimise vibration. Managers should first choose the best method or process for a task and then select according to vibration values and other relevant factors. Managers should not simply assume that an operator could work until exposure limit values were reached; the answer to the question ‘How long can this tool be used for?’ should be ‘As short a time as possible’. Dr Nelson explained that vibration was included in HSE’s 2006-07 workplace inspection campaign, focusing on good practice. This has provided much information on techniques and practical solutions addressing HAV risks, details of which, as well as case studies, are provided on the HSE website (www.hse.gov.uk/vibration/hav/campaign). Continuing the HAV theme, Dr David Edwards of OPERC (Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre) explained the information available on the Centre’s HAVTEC database listing ‘real life’ vibration levels of power tools under the ISO 5349 standard. He said that a steadily increasing number of manufacturers were submitting equipment for testing at OPERC’s laboratory at Loughborough University. By consulting the database (which can be found via www.operc.com) people can choose a particular tool and accessory combination and see a range of data, such as time taken to reach the exposure action value and exposure limit value, the corresponding number of points under the HSE exposure assessment system, and the productivity of the tool under known conditions and on specified materials. The website also offers freely available educational materials, including a comprehensive guide to HAV (produced in association with members of the Major Hire Companies Group (MHCG) within OPERC, including A-Plant, Brandon, HSS, Hewden, Hire Station and Speedy), a self-study module, and a vibration exposure assessment guide. Soon to be released is an HAV guide aimed specifically at managers, sponsored by Speedy (who also sponsored the Plant 07 conference). Dr Edwards concluded by saying that future plans included the creation of on-line reports enabling comparisons between different tools, and listings of vibration data relating to used equipment. • Executive Hire News › Archives › May 2007 › Executive Report › Safe and secure
|
