Foundries
- Table 1: Alternative processes to avoid / reduce use of vibrating equipment
- Table 2: Management of HAV risks where use of vibrating equipment is unavoidable
Table 1: Alternative processes to avoid / reduce use of vibrating equipment
This table identifies alternative methods for specified high risk activities or processes; and links to further information and case studies.
| Activity or process | Alternative methods | Further information (links) |
|---|---|---|
Knock-off, cut-off and fettling castings using: Large angle grinders Large straight grinders Chipping hammers Pedestal grinders |
Eliminate or reduce the need for manual knock-off/cut-off or fettling using, where appropriate:
Substitute alternatives to manual fettling using, for example:
Design of casting and runner systems should allow for these methods. Note: These methods for elimination and substitution will usually be reasonably practicable for large production runs; some may also be appropriate in jobbing foundries. |
|
| Knocking off ceramic mould shells with chipping hammer: | Hands-free alternative processes:
Frame-mounted breaker |
|
| Furnace/cupola descaling/lining removal with breaker or chipping hammer | Eliminate the use of hand-operated tools:
Reduce the frequency of lining renewal or slag chipping by:
|
|
Ramming moulds with: Sand rammers Electric demolition hammers |
In jobbing foundries, where hand-ramming of moulds cannot be eliminated, the risk can be controlled by;
|
Note: Changes of process to eliminate or reduce vibration may introduce other hazards to safety or health or safety (eg chemical, fume, spatter, noise, dust) which must be addressed and managed.
Table 2: Management of HAV risks where use of vibrating equipment is unavoidable
| Issue | Expectation | References and related guidance |
|---|---|---|
| Selection of work equipment | Tool selection can make a substantial difference to the vibration level but the tool must be suitable for the task and used correctly. Employers should demonstrate a sound procurement policy for power tools and hand-guided machines, showing they have considered the following:
|
|
| Limiting daily exposure time | Restricting exposure time ("finger-on-trigger" time) may be required to bring exposures below the ELV, even after all reasonably practicable measures to reduce vibration levels are in place. Maximum times can be determined using the exposure points system or supplier's "traffic lights" tool categories, but these should be derived from sound "real use" vibration emission values. Note: Employers tend to ask "How long can we use this tool?" The exposure must be reduced to the lowest level that is reasonably practicable (Reg 6(2)), so the ELV should not be used as a target, if a lower exposure is reasonably practicable. |
|
| Other risk controls | Control of HAVS risk by means other than reducing vibration exposure:
|
|
| Information, instruction and training | Employees at risk from vibration should have received information on:
Look for evidence that tools are being used correctly, as recommended by the manufacturer. This may require operators to receive specified training – are operators and their supervisors aware of the need? For example, if an unsuitable abrasive is used, operators may resort to "bumping" the grinder against the casting; this can result in distortion of the wheel and increased vibration, and there is also a risk of wheel breakage. |
|
| Health surveillance | Required where the EAV is likely to be exceeded. Expect to see, as a minimum:
|