Many employees are suffering unnecessary hearing damage at work because current risk management procedures are not effective - and are clearly not best practice - despite the resources poured into noise assessments and PPE. The cost of NIHL to the UK economy is estimated at c £5 - £7 billion pa plus it increases the risk of dementia by 9%, making it the largest single modifiable risk factor...
The following three changes to the current default approach are needed to reduce the risk by 75%-90% quickly and at a lower cost than current expenditure.
It has been known for decades that it is virtually impossible to guarantee adequate protection from hearing protectors at noise levels above c 95dB(A). Consequently, it should not have been news that research by the Health and Safety Laboratory (report RR720) proved that the common assumption that PPE is a reliable “solution” to hearing damage risk problems is false. This assumption has left many personnel at risk and companies are open to claims if their hearing conservation policy is based on PPE use. Some of the key findings of the research are:-
The inadequacy of PPE performance in many real-world situations is also born out by the continuing tidal wave of hearing damage claims of £400 million in one year (2014 - IFA UK deafness working party), despite (or even because of) the over-reliance on PPE without understanding the performance limitations away from the lab. This also brings into sharp focus the need to reduce noise levels to reduce risk, even when the levels cannot be reduced to below 85dB(A).
As a rule of thumb, provided effective management systems are in place, most good quality PPE can be made to work up to noise exposure levels of around 90dB(A) - 95dB(A) to reduce operator exposure to below 80dB(A). Above this level, as an attenuation of more than 15dB is required, it becomes increasingly difficult to guarantee adequate protection. At noise levels above c 100dB(A), it is virtually impossible without introducing very stringent, time-consuming controls - and even then it may not be practical...
Manufacturers' PPE data says assumed protection of 27dB. Assumption: we're good for 107dB(A). Reality: they may be providing only 3dB - 10dB of attenuation as used which means adequate protection up to only 83dB(A) - 90dB(A)...
Email us a video from your smartphone for an evaluation of best practice
Subscribe for the latest in techniques and best practice
Search our worldwide best practice options
The key (and very often missing) factors necessary to improve real-world hearing protection are:-
Don't repeat these assessments - or repeat these assessments. Update elements if noise levels have changed significantly. Bear in mind that the HSE says you do not even need to measure with a meter and that you should start to implement noise exposure risk reduction measures as soon as you know the levels are likely to be above 80dB(A). Reports without practical information on noise control are, by definition, inadequate.
Investing in a Noise Control Audit (NCA) is best practice. This is an engineering evaluation that generates a cost/benefit analysis of the noise control options for plant or areas.to provide the information needed to plan the most cost-effective risk reduction programme. This analysis allows you to balance the reduced risk against costs (capital, reduced PPE, audiometry and management costs, improved working conditions, productivity...).
Anyone can make a basic evaluation of the likely control options from online information or by using of our free email analysis service. The regulations state that PPE cannot be used for long-term risk management unless you can prove that noise control is impractical.
General knowledge about modern noise control best practice (even amongst noise specialists ) is abysmal. As a result, good, costed control advice in noise reports is conspicuous by its absence.
The following is the relationship between reduction in noise (dB) and reduction in risk (%).
This means, for example, reducing noise from 97dB(A) to 90dB(A) cuts employee risk by 80%. Whilst personal hearing protection is still required, the risk has been reduced by 80% and it is much easier to guarantee adequate PPE performance. Most organisations can cut risk 50%-90% at little cost (or even at a profit) by using the latest noise control technology. The question is...
Q: "How do I find the best noise control options?"
A: use our free online noise control option analysis service (email smartphone video clip and photos) for a cost/benefit analysis of the options based on current best technology
Many noise problems have simple solutions that can be found online and implemented by any competent engineer e.g. "Detailed solutions to the 10 most common industrial noise problems"
By combining the techniques described above, it is possible to reduce the risks to hearing by 75%-90% or more in virtually every case and at no, or negligible cost. Taking typical examples:-
Food processing plant: 35 staff in area
Noise level = 91dB(A)
PPE attenuation as used was 3dB to 5dB, so operator exposures = 86dB(A)-88dB(A)
Noise level = 84dB(A) via hygienic noise control £3k costing £86/head
PPE attenuation improved to 6dB - 10dB (@ no cost), so operator exposures = 75dB(A)-79dB(A)
Profitable within c 3 months
Heavy industry (power press): 12 staff in area
Noise level = 1 op.@ 102dB(A), 11 ops. > 94dB(A)
PPE attenuation as used was 5dB - 10dB, so operator exposures = 1 @ 92dB(A)-97dB(A), 11 @ 84dB(A)-89dB(A)
Noise level = 1 op.@ 87dB(A), 11 ops.< 83dB(A) (noise control £4k costing £333/head)
PPE attenuation improved to 10dB (@ no cost), so operator exposures = < 77dB(A)
Profitable within c 1 year
Bakery: c 40 staff in area
Noise level = 86dB(A)-96dB(A)
PPE attenuation as used = c 5dB, so operator exposures = 81dB(A)-91dB(A)
Noise level = < 80dB(A) (hygienic noise control £13k costing £325/head)
No PPE required saving c £13k with operator exposures < 80dB(A)
Profitable within 1 year
There is more on the topic of self-financing noise control, including a White paper here.