No council wants to find itself in front of the Health & Safety Executive for breaches in workforce care. Unfortunately, the reality is that this continues to be the case.

One of the most high-profile recent judgements happened in May, when Lancashire County Council was fined £50,000 (plus costs of £10,366.78) for failures in monitoring and supervision of workers exposed to vibration. This is in addition to the more than half a million pounds worth of fines and costs handed out to local authorities in the last five years, not to mention the undisclosed compensation claims paid out.

These employees now suffer from Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) – sometimes known as ‘White Finger’ – a debilitating and permanent condition which causes significant pain and impacts on even everyday tasks.

Take it from me, it’s not an easy thing to live with. I suffer from HAVS, as well as a related condition called Dupuytren’s Contracture: a thickening of the subcutaneous tissue layers at the base of fingers, which causes permanent curling. I developed these as a young man, working in the mining industry.

Fast-forward several decades, and it’s distressing to see that not only are other workers suffering in the same way, but also that organisations such as councils are still facing significant legal and financial punishment.

There’s no need for either of these things to still be happening. Technology exists today that can make HAVS – as well as Whole-Body Vibration (WBV), an equally damaging condition – things of the past. This isn’t to say that exposure to vibration itself can be eliminated. It’s an inevitable side-effect of using power tools. What can be controlled is our level of exposure to vibration, in order to provide manageable limits that protect the worker from long-term risk, and therefore also protect their employer from culpability.

Knowing when to stop

The HSE stipulates two key criteria for vibration exposure. The first is a worker’s Exposure Action Value (EAV), the point at which it is vital for the worker (or their employer) to take action. The second is the Exposure Limit Value (ELV): the absolute daily limit at which a worker must down tools.

Understanding the difference between these two is critical to avoiding conditions such as HAVS. A worker could, in theory, work flat-out until they hit their ELV and then stop – but it wouldn’t be practical from a time management viewpoint, as the limit might be reached one hour into an eight-hour shift. Nor would it really help long-term, as the consistent, continual vibration would eventually have a negative impact on health.

Monitoring the EAV provides both the ability and the opportunity to mitigate and manage, risk. As the name implies, action must be taken. This action can vary. It might be the cue to rotate workers’ shifts, conduct a risk assessment, or check the state of consumables to see if (for example) a drill bit should be replaced. It may also be an indicator that the tool requires a service. In the longer-term, action might be a matter of training in the optimal use of tools to minimise vibration.

The role that technology plays is to make sure that everybody who needs to know, knows when a worker is nearing their EAV or ELV. There are various ways of achieving this. At HAVSPRO, we believe that simplicity is best: an amber light for EAV, a red light for ELV. These warnings are also texted and emailed to whoever needs them.

Knowing where to measure

Some form of warning system is integral to all HAVS and WBV monitoring technology. The key differentiator is in the choice of what, and where, to measure. One school of thought is that vibration should be measured on the workers themselves. This requires wearable tech, such as a wrist-strap sensor, to sense vibrations exposure. The values are then calculated using an algorithm matching the HSE’s ready reckoner.

Such a method won’t provide an accurate, real-time vibration value which will be different depending on several variables such as, the specific job being worked on, the condition of the tool or how the operator is using it. Also, anecdotally we’ve heard that some workers really hate having to use wearable tech and become frustrated when they have to swap wrists when they change tools or jobs.

The alternative is to attach a sensor onto the tool. Each time an individual operator uses a specific tool, they simply click the sensor onto the tool. As a result, employers receive accurate, real-time data, linked to the personalised profile of the user, and recorded to the cloud via an on-site beacon. This allows employers and users to take informed actions, in real time, to reduce the risk of HAVS.

Ultimately, the reason for monitoring vibration levels is to gain the best protection – both for the worker, and for the employer. The best way to achieve this is to measure continuously. By making this as simple, and as accurate, as possible, the use of the technology can fulfil both roles. That means fewer people suffering from HAVS, and fewer councils facing five-figure fines.

Russ Langthorne is from HAVSPRO