NOISE MONITORING Feel the noise

15 MINS MINS

Feel

Peter Wilson is angry. The technical eter Wilson is angry. The technical director of the Industrial Noise director of the Industrial Noise and Vibration Centre is a veteran and Vibration Centre is a veteran in noise reduction and helped in noise reduction and helped to write the IOSH ‘Noise at work to write the IOSH ‘Noise at work – risk assessment and management’ – risk assessment and management’ course, yet he fi nds himself frustrated course, yet he fi nds himself frustrated by the global approach to noise-induced by the global approach to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). hearing loss (NIHL).

‘I’ve been doing this for 40 years and ‘I’ve been doing this for 40 years and have become increasingly disillusioned have become increasingly disillusioned with the whole industry,’ he says. ‘Too many with the whole industry,’ he says. ‘Too many people treat risk assessment as a boxpeople treat risk assessment as a boxticking exercise. People are still going deaf ticking exercise. People are still going deaf needlessly and it is 100% preventable.’ needlessly and it is 100% preventable.’ WORDS W O RD S STEVE SMETHURST S TEVE S METH U R S T

The impact of failing The impact of failing to monitor noise for to monitor noise for employees is a major employees is a major public health issue. What public health issue. What needs to change?thenoise needs to change?

Dr David Greenberg, chief executive Dr David Greenberg, chief executive of noise management technology of noise management technology company Eave, is equally passionate company Eave, is equally passionate about the subject of hearing loss. Before about the subject of hearing loss. Before founding Eave, he practised as an NHS founding Eave, he practised as an NHS audiological clinician and gained a PhD audiological clinician and gained a PhD in auditory neuroscience. in auditory neuroscience.

He spells out the consequences of He spells out the consequences of hearing loss: ‘Accidents in the workplace hearing loss: ‘Accidents in the workplace rise with increased hearing loss. If you rise with increased hearing loss. If you have normal hearing, you have a 2.4% have normal hearing, you have a 2.4% chance of having a workplace accident in chance of having a workplace accident in a three-month window. If you have a lot a three-month window. If you have a lot of trouble with your hearing, the chance of trouble with your hearing, the chance doubles to 4.8%. doubles to 4.8%.

‘Employment rates for men are badly ‘Employment rates for men are badly affected, too. Across almost the entire age affected, too. Across almost the entire age range, if you have hearing loss you are less range, if you have hearing loss you are less likely to be employed. Those with hearing likely to be employed. Those with hearing loss are more likely to retire early, feel loss are more likely to retire early, feel shame, embarrassment and have a lack shame, embarrassment and have a lack of self-worth.’ of self-worth.’

David adds that, in a 2020 LancetDavid adds that, in a 2020 Lancet t report report on dementia, the number-one controllable on dementia, the number-one controllable risk factor in dementia was hearing loss. risk factor in dementia was hearing loss. ‘When we’re exposed to noise, the inner ‘When we’re exposed to noise, the inner ear, the cochlea, is affected. It has hair cells ear, the cochlea, is affected. It has hair cells that have a direct link to the brain. Once that have a direct link to the brain. Once these cells are damaged, they don’t recover. these cells are damaged, they don’t recover. If we eliminated hearing loss, we’d reduce If we eliminated hearing loss, we’d reduce

PHOTOGRAPHY: GETTY / ALAMY the number of people with dementia One diffi culty for employers can by 9%. We really need to start paying be that workers might accept a noisy attention to aspects like this, because it environment as ‘part of the job’ and is a public health issue.’ disguise the signs associated with NIHL. Simon says people can assume Crimes and punishment that it doesn’t apply to a particular Occupational noise is responsible industry. ‘If you look at nightclubs, for for 16% of disabling hearing loss in example, there can be a perception that adults. In Europe alone, says EU- it doesn’t apply as it’s hospitality. But if OSHA, approximately one-quarter to you’re working as a bar manager then one-third of the workforce is exposed you are likely to be exposed to high to hazardous levels of noise at least a levels of noise,’ he says. quarter of the time. The majority are ‘Another problem is if you don’t wear in industries such as manufacturing, the noise protection for the entire shift. construction, oil and gas, and mining. It’s not simply a case of, “If it’s off for

In the UK, the main noise legislation 25% of the time, then only 25% of the is the Control of Noise at Work damage occurs” – it can cause much Regulations 2005 more than that over a (see Dialling it down, page 59). ‘There are People short period of time.’ two main noise levels,’ says solicitor Simon are still How do we fi x it? Tina Morgan, an Ellis, a partner at going deaf agency manager for Hugh James and head of the fi rm’s military needlessly NFU Mutual and chair of the IOSH claims department. ‘The fi rst is a daily or and it is 100% Rural Industries Group, says that weekly personal noise preventable employers should look exposure of 80 decibels for signs that a worker (A-weighted). The is fi nding it diffi cult employer is under a duty to identify that to hear conversations from a normal fact, to make employees aware of it, and operating distance. to make ear protection available to them ‘The employee may ask for things and to make sure training is offered. to be repeated or seem to fi nd

‘The next trigger is 85 decibels conversations diffi cult, especially in (A-weighted). At this point, employers environments where there is additional have to make sure hearing protection background noise,’ she says. is used by the workforce in the areas ‘There may be misunderstandings identifi ed as noisy.’ and near-misses or accidents recorded

Failure to comply with legislation can where they have failed to react to be expensive. Simon leads a department warning signals or alarms.’ IOSH’s noise of 40 people looking after military toolkit has more details on signs and hearing loss. In 2019, he recovered more symptoms (see Resources, page 60). than £500,000 for a hearing-impaired Tina says employers should ensure former Royal Marine. He has more than that they consult with staff and inform 3500 cases on his books. them what level of noise is considered

KEY MESSAGE

UK HSE on risk control

The important message relating to noise-induced hearing loss from the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is that inspectors are looking for one thing – that duty holders are controlling risk.

Chris Steel, a noise and vibration specialist at the HSE, says: ‘All too often, health surveillance fi nds occupational noise-induced hearing loss.

‘Failings that have led to hearing loss should be identifi ed and corrected, including appropriate use of grouped, anonymised health surveillance fi ndings. Measurement and monitoring of noise are essential but should be minimal and only used when necessary to inform control actions.’

The HSE lists three fundamental factors duty holders should take into account to ensure that the risk posed by noise is controlled:

The most effi cient and effective way of controlling noise is by technical and organisational means reducing noise at source.

When purchasing or hiring machinery, quieter machines should be preferred.

Hearing protection is a last resort but necessary to prevent deafness in many workers.

To be effective, hearing protection programmes must be supported by appropriate health surveillance and suffi cient information, instruction and training. For more information about HSE expectations and guidance, visit

hse.gov.uk/noise

harmful, the effects of exposure and the control measures required to ensure safety.

‘They must also ensure that they have noise levels checked regularly, as even well-controlled noise can increase as a result of defective machinery such as a worn motor, damaged bearings, lack of greasing or lubrication. While basic measurements can be taken by anyone, it is important to ensure that detailed measurements and analysis are carried out by a competent noise assessor and that any consultants have professional indemnity insurance,’ she says.

‘Employers should also incorporate health screening into their safety management system as part of an occupational health programme. Good practice would be to have all new employees undergo a hearing check and to ensure that they can report any symptoms without recrimination.’

IOSH has a range of relevant courses and workshops (see Resources, page 60). Keith Foster, safety and risk consultant at Powys Safety Solutions, says that education is crucial, with examples of penalties for non-compliance. He would also like to see rewards for staff complying with good safety practices, including RoSPA awards. ‘We are always quick to chastise poor practices and discipline staff for transgressions, but what about congratulating them on safe working? We should celebrate the safety culture,’ he says.

The last line of defence

The subject of PPE can be contentious. ‘Doing the measurements is easy,’ Peter says. ‘The diffi cult bit is changing things to reduce the risk. The level of knowledge about noise control is abysmal. Everyone falls back on high-cost palliatives. As a simple example of low-cost engineering noise control, sound-damped steel can be hugely effective. It’s laminated steel, which looks like steel or stainless steel, but it sounds like rubber and can be

UK REGULATIONS Dialling it down

The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 and the Control of Noise at Work Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 require employers to eliminate or reduce the risks to health and safety from noise in the workplace. Employers are required to:

Carry out a risk assessment where exposure to noise is likely to be at or above the lower exposure action value

Take action to eliminate noise or to reduce exposure so far as is reasonably practicable

Introduce control measures, based on a hierarchy of control, to reduce exposure

Maintain equipment and ensure its correct use

Where required, provide hearing protection and hearing protection zones Provide employees with information, instruction, training and supervision Undertake health surveillance where a risk assessment indicates that there may be a risk.

used on chutes, hoppers, guards and so on. It has been around for 45 years but very few people know about it.

‘Likewise, a conventional risk assessment might recommend enclosures. All too often, the conclusion is that it would result in terrible hygiene and access, plus it would cost a fortune. So nothing changes. Using noise control “scalpels” such as sound-damped steel and effi cient air nozzles instead of blunt instruments such as enclosures can

RESOURCES

Free advice to help employers tackle noise at work:

bit.ly/IOSH-noise-toolkit

Practical ways to eliminate or reduce risk: bit.ly/IOSH-noise-

control-measures

Learn about best practice in measurement and management:

bit.ly/IOSH-noise-workshop

Identify potential problems before it’s too late: bit.ly/IOSH-noise-

early-intervention

actually help to save a fortune.’

David agrees that measurements are not useful by themselves, ‘particularly if they are just going to sit on a shelf in a report. You need to know where your problem is and how big a problem it is, so you can do something about it.’

Even as a PPE manufacturer, he acknowledges that it is the least effective way to reduce risk. ‘It is the absolute last resort, the last line of defence, which means that if it fails, the person is exposed. So if the company has failed to eliminate the hazard at source, then they’d better make damn sure the PPE works.’

Ultimately, David believes that if things are going to change, it can’t be left to education and awareness alone. ‘Education is great and you’ll capture the percentage who see that it makes sense, but what’s required, in my view, is legislation.

‘NIHL is eligible for industrial injuries disablement benefi t but it’s not reportable under RIDDOR. In the eyes of the law, we can disable people so much that they need to go on benefi ts, but you don’t need to tell anyone about it. That’s got to change.’

SHIP RECYCLING GYC

Deaf to the danger

The World Health Organization has noted that one occupation often criticised for noiseinduced hearing loss is ship recycling. Mostly carried out in Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan and Turkey, it is done ‘for the most part without effective occupational safety regulation’.

It quoted Joydeep Majumder, a workplace noise and audiometry expert at the National Institute of Occupational Health in Ahmedabad, India. He reported that oxy-fuel torch cutters tended to work in the same area all day and could be exposed to levels of sound exceeding 140 decibels for prolonged periods.

He said: ‘Workers do not want to use ear plugs or ear muffs because they cannot hear each other and because of the humidity. They are sweating heavily and the ear plugs are uncomfortable. They also fear getting ear infections.

‘The majority of these workers are not even aware that they have a problem. They typically come from rural areas and are surrounded by other hearingimpaired people and they are all shouting, and they do not realise what is happening until they go back to their families.’

Joydeep has been trying to boost awareness and encourage greater use of PPE by conducting on-site training.