How low can you go?
Chris Dyer reviews the requirements of draft noise Regulations due to come into force in early 2006.
Hearing loss caused by exposure to noise at work continues to be a significant problem. Such loss is usually gradual, due to prolonged exposure to noise, although it can be caused immediately by sudden, extremely loud, explosive noises such as from guns or cartridge-operated machines. It is irreversible, but preventable. Just over a million people in the UK could be exposed to potentially hazardous noise at work.
The HSC is currently consulting on draft Regulations intended to reduce workers' exposure to noise1. The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 will implement the Physical Agents (Noise) Directive 20032 and are expected to come into force by 15 February 2006. They are designed to stop people exposed to noise at work from damaging their hearing and to protect against the health and safety risks that result when instructions or warnings cannot be heard.
Workers covered will double
The Regulations will repeal and replace the Noise at Work Regulations 1989, reducing significantly the sound pressure levels that are deemed to be without risk to workers' health, and will affect many occupations and industries. The HSE says those sectors most affected will be agriculture, construction, quarries, mining, transport, forestry, drinks and packaging, textiles, potteries, glass, rubber, printing, metalworking, woodworking, steel, entertainment and the armed forces. They may also have an impact in the education and service sectors, for example in call centres. The HSC believes that its proposals will double the number of workers covered by the Regulations to 2.25 million.
The proposed HSE guidance on the Regulations repeats, updates and consolidates that already published on the 1989 Regulations, but introduces some simple "listening rules" to make risk assessments easier and emphasises simple control measures.
The chair of the HSE's engineering industry noise task group, Gary Booton, says that the new Regulations will present a major challenge to manufacturing industry. Booton, who is also the director of health, safety and environment at the EEF (formerly the Engineering Employers' Federation), adds that: "The reality is that many manufacturing businesses have not done all they could to comply with the existing requirements, and the new Regulations set exposure limits that are much lower than the current limits."
Booton highlights several reasons why there has not been full compliance. He says that, often, noise surveys have been undertaken and areas of work where exposure could be an issue have been identified, but the employer's response has been to provide hearing protection in the form of earmuffs or plugs. Employers have made much less use of surveys to assess how noise exposure can be controlled and reduced at source. For example, when new machinery is purchased, many businesses either do not ask about noise outputs or do not pursue suppliers when noise outputs from new machinery turn out to be much higher than claimed by the manufacturers.
Booton's view that existing compliance is only partial is supported by research carried out by the Institute of Employment Studies in 19943. The researchers found that in the manufacturing and other production sectors, around one-third of employers were fully aware of the requirements of the Noise at Work Regulations 1989, which came into force at the beginning of 1990; one-third were partly aware, and one-third had no knowledge. Furthermore:
awareness was lower among smaller employers - less than 50% of organisations with five to 24 employees, rising to 90% where there were at least 300 employees;
more than 25% of employers that acknowledged they had noisy areas or activities in their workplace said they had no knowledge of the Regulations; and
more than half of service sector employers had no knowledge of the Regulations.
Lowering the limits
The 1989 Regulations require employers to carry out a specific risk assessment if employees are likely to be exposed to a noise level greater than 85 dB(A) averaged over a working day - "the first action level". If daily exposure is likely to exceed 90 dB(A) or peak sound pressure is likely to exceed 200 pascals (Pa) - "the second action level" - employers must introduce controls, other than hearing protection, to reduce exposure to the lowest level reasonably practicable. Employers must also provide hearing protection and ensure that it is used.
The 2005 Regulations reduce the two action levels - now called exposure action values (EAVs) - by 5 dB and introduce new exposure limit values (ELVs):
the lower EAVs are a daily or weekly personal noise exposure of 80 dB(A) and a peak sound pressure of 135 dB(C);
the upper EAVs are a daily or weekly personal noise exposure of 85 dB(A) and a peak sound pressure of 137 dB(C); and
the ELVs are a daily or weekly personal noise exposure of 87 dB(A) and a peak sound pressure of 140 dB(C).
Daily total personal exposure to noise at work is normalised to an eight-hour day and takes account of the average levels of noise in working areas and the time spent in them. Unlike the 1989 Regulations, the 2005 Regulations also allow employers to calculate exposures over a week rather than a day. Use of weekly exposure is appropriate in situations where daily noise exposure on one or two working days in a week is at least 5 dB higher than the other days, or the working week comprises three days of exposure or less, or 24 hours or less spread over several days (see box 1 ).
The risk assessment
The 2005 Regulations place duties on employers, and similar duties on the self-employed, to protect their own employees and, so far as is reasonably practicable, other people at work who are affected by their activities, from the risks to health and safety created by exposure to noise in the workplace. Employers must carry out a risk assessment that covers everyone at work who might be exposed, including contractors, people who share the workplace, maintenance personnel and visitors. Employers also need to think about the exposure of their employees when working away from the main site, including any homeworkers.
The HSE's guidance suggests that a suitable and sufficient noise risk assessment is one that:
identifies employees who are exposed at or above the lower EAVs;
where exposures are likely to be at or above the upper EAVs, details measurements of noise levels and the type and duration of exposure for the employees exposed;
identifies measures to eliminate or minimise the risks;
includes the information needed to allow compliance with other duties under the Regulations; and
is based on competent advice.
Measurement of noise levels is not required in all cases (see box 1). If the simple "listening checks" described in the HSE's guidance (see table 1 ) show that exposure:
is below the upper EAVs, then measurements are not needed;
is above the upper EAVs, then measurements must be made;
might be below the upper EAVs, then employers should assume that these values are exceeded and proceed with measurement.
An employer must, wherever reasonably practicable, prevent risk from noise exposure. If the risks cannot be eliminated, the employer must reduce them to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.
Taking action
Where the risk assessment shows an employee's daily exposure to noise is likely to be at or above the lower EAVs, the employer must give information and training to that employee and his or her representatives. This includes the results of the risk assessment, what this means in terms of risk and the possible health effects. The employer must also make hearing protection available.
Where the assessment shows an employee's daily exposure to noise is likely to be at or above the upper EAVs, the employer must reduce exposure to a minimum by establishing and implementing a programme of organisational and technical measures, excluding the provision of personal hearing protectors (see box 2 ).
An employer must not expose anyone to noise above the ELVs. If, in exceptional circumstances and despite the programme of controls, an employee's exposure exceeds an ELV, the employer must take immediate action to reduce exposure below that ELV and prevent it being exceeded in the future. In measuring exposure at or above the ELVs, the attenuation provided by hearing protection is taken into account.
The vital link between the assessment of risks and their control is a noise action plan. This is the main output of the noise risk assessment, and can be thought of as a statement of intent. The HSE recommends that the plan should list the actions needed to eliminate or minimise noise exposure risks, set realistic timescales for the work to be carried out, assign tasks to named persons or post-holders and assign a named person or post-holder overall responsibility for making sure that the plan is competently carried out.
Where exposure lies between the lower and upper EAVs, employers must provide hearing protectors to employees who ask for them, although the proposed Regulations do not make it compulsory for workers to use them. Where employees are exposed at or above the upper EAVs, employers must provide hearing protectors and ensure they are used, and employees have a duty to use the hearing protectors provided (Let's have some quiet ). The use of hearing protection is a last resort and should be deployed only when attempts to control noise at source are insufficient to bring employees' noise exposure below the EAVs, or as an interim measure while other control measures are being implemented.
Hearing protection zones
The risk assessment should identify areas of the employer's premises where employees are likely to be exposed at or above the upper EAVs. These areas must be designated as "hearing protection zones" and access to them restricted so far as is reasonably practicable. If employees must go into a hearing protection zone, their employer must ensure that they wear hearing protectors, even if they enter a zone only briefly.
Hearing protection zones should be marked with signs showing that they are areas where hearing protectors are needed. Signs introduced under the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 referring to "ear protection zones" are acceptable and need not be changed.
Where it is not reasonably practicable to mark hearing protection zones, for example where the work requires people to move the noise sources about, the employer should make alternative arrangements to make sure that employees know where or when protectors should be worn. These could include:
attaching signs to tools instructing users to wear hearing protectors; and
instructions on how to recognise where and when protectors should be worn, for example by designating particular tasks or operations as ones where protectors must be used.
Health surveillance
Under the 1989 Regulations, health surveillance is considered good practice where employees are likely to be exposed at or above 90 dB(A). The proposed 2005 Regulations require that where the noise risk assessment shows there is a risk to the health of any employee, they must be placed under health surveillance. Workers who are regularly exposed above the upper EAVs of 85 dB(A) will be at increased risk of noise-induced hearing loss, and the proposals introduce a specific requirement for health surveillance for employees who are exposed at or above this level.
Where exposure lies between the lower and upper EAVs, or where employees are only occasionally exposed above the upper EAVs, health surveillance will only be required for individuals who may be particularly sensitive to noise-induced hearing loss. Sensitive individuals can be identified from past medical history, the results of audiometric tests from previous jobs, other independent assessments or a history of exposure to noise levels exceeding the EAVs.
Way to go
The EEF's Gary Booton says that the first response of an organisation to the Regulations should be to revisit its original noise-risk assessment. All other things being equal, remeasurement should not be necessary because the 2005 Regulations will not change noise exposure within the organisation.
Where needed, organisations will have to introduce or amend a noise action plan to reduce noise at source over time. Organisations will also need to inform their workforce of any changes in the risk assessment and may need to introduce new demarcation for hearing protection zones.
Booton believes that noise is a developing issue for manufacturers and that awareness has increased in recent years. He says that manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to new health and safety legislation because of its implications for increased civil liability.
Although noise control is improving, he acknowledges that it would be naive to suggest that adopting the Directive and implementing the Regulations will automatically lead to the desired change. "The fact that there are going to be a new set of Regulations with more stringent requirements in terms of sound pressure won't of itself create a sea change in the way the compliance takes place," says Booton, although he adds that publicity initiatives surrounding the launch of the new Regulations will provide an opportunity to emphasise this area of responsibility.
More fundamentally, there has been no comprehensive assessment across the EU of compliance with, and the effectiveness of, the existing requirements introduced by the 1986 noise Directive. During the negotiation of the 2003 Directive, the UK tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade other member states of the need first to assess properly the effectiveness of the 1986 Directive in protecting workers' health before introducing new requirements. While the 2005 Regulations will become law in a little over 18 months' time, how much they will improve workers' protection against the health and safety risks of noise exposure at work is unknown.
Chris Dyer is editor of HSB and a freelance journalist.
1 "Proposals for new Control of Noise at Work Regulations implementing the Physical Agents (Noise) Directive (2003/10/EC)", CD 196, HSE Books, free or at www.hse.gov.uk/consult/index.htm. Comments should reach Andie Michael by 25 June 2004 at HSE, Physical Agents Policy Unit, Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS, tel: 020 7717 6250, email: noise.directive@hse.gsi.gov.uk .
2 "Council and Parliament Directive 2003/10/EC of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise)", OJ L42/15.2.03.
3 "The cost and benefits of the Noise at Work Regulations 1989", CRR 116/1996, Institute of Employment Studies, HSE Books, ISBN 0 7176 1266 X, £50 or free at www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_htm/index.htm.
|
The UK must implement EC Directives in full and there is limited scope for amending the proposed noise Regulations where they directly transpose the Directive's requirements. There are some issues where there is flexibility and the HSC is seeking comments on these. Calculating exposure The Regulations allow the use of weekly exposure for comparison with limit values in situations where "the exposure of an employee to noise varies markedly from day to day". The HSC asks whether employers should be left to decide for themselves, with HSE guidance, whether weekly exposure is appropriate. Measuring noise levels Employers must take specific actions at the exposure action and exposure limit values. But the risk of hearing loss is low around the lower exposure action value and measurement of actual noise exposure would need a trained person with suitable equipment. The HSC proposes that measurements are made when assessment shows that it is possible, but not certain, that exposure might exceed the upper action or exposure limit values. The HSE's guidance gives some simple "listening checks" that give a broad indication of whether exposure is likely to be around the exposure action or limit values. Employers would be free to undertake measurement at the lower exposure action level, but it would not be a legal requirement. The HSC asks whether this is an acceptable approach to assessment and measurement. Updating risk assessments The Regulations require that the risk assessment be updated when circumstances change. The HSC is proposing that reassessment should be part of an ongoing control programme that will pick up changes as they happen. It wants to know whether integrating reassessments with other management activities is sensible. Health surveillance Where an assessment shows that there is a risk to the health of an employee, the Regulations require that the employer put them under suitable health surveillance. The HSC is recommending that employers provide health surveillance for all workers regularly exposed above 85 dB(A)/140 Pa and for especially vulnerable workers exposed above 80 dB(A)/112 Pa. The HSC believes that this level of provision is proportionate to the risks. The HSC is proposing that health surveillance should not have to be supervised by a doctor. It suggests that a suitably qualified audiometrist could carry out most initial health surveillance, ideally under the supervision of an occupational health professional but, where this is not possible, a system of referral to a doctor if a problem is identified should be adequate. The HSC is seeking views on whether this is an acceptable way to approach when and how health surveillance is carried out. Transition periods The HSC is proposing a blanket two-year transition period for the "music and entertainment" sector, and wants to know if this is acceptable. Miscellaneous issues The HSC would also welcome comments on other issues, for example on how the Regulations will affect businesses and any quantification of costs. |
|
Box 2: Measures to minimise risk The Regulations list control measures that must be included in any consideration of the steps needed to minimise risk where an employee is likely to be exposed at or above the upper EAVs. These include: other working methods that eliminate or reduce exposure to noise; choice of appropriate work equipment emitting the least possible noise, taking account of the work to be done; the design and layout of workplaces, workstations and rest facilities; suitable and sufficient information and training for employees, so that work equipment may be used correctly, in order to minimise their exposure to noise; reduction of noise by technical means, including the use of shields, enclosures and sound-absorbent coverings, in the case of airborne noise, and damping and isolation in the case of structure-borne noise; appropriate maintenance programmes for work equipment, the workplace and workplace systems;
appropriate work schedules with adequate rest periods. Source: HSC. |
