Does permissible exposure limit for noise need to be lowered?
November 9, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: Hearing, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, OSHA news, What do you think?
PDF The National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA) is calling on OSHA to lower the permissible exposure limits for noise in workplaces.
Specifically, NHCA is calling on OSHA to:
- lower the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for noise to an 8-hour time-weighted average level of 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA) using a 3 dB time/intensity exchange rate.
- apply the revised PEL to all U.S. industrial sectors, including construction, agriculture, oil and gas drilling and servicing, and shipbuilding, which aren’t effectively covered now, and
- rescind the policy in the OSHA Field Operations Manual which permits exposures of up to 100 dBA without employer efforts to implement noise control.
The current PEL for noise is 90 dBA with a 5dB time/intensity exchange rate.
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have both called for an 85 dBA exposure limit. Many other nations have already lowered their noise PELs to that level.
Do you think the noise PEL needs to be lowered? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: National Hearing Conservation Association, noise PEL, permissible exposure limit
Loading ...
November 10th, 2009 at 9:11 am
No… our historical data of more than 10 years, even with many employees using personal headphones have not shown an downward trend.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:20 am
I don’t think it needs to be lowered. Every case I’ve ever had of a threshold shift was because the employee had contributing factors (shooting sports, motorcycle driving, chain saw operation - all w/o protection) and we end up compensating them because the workplace noise “could have caused” the problems. Even though we mandated ear protection, we are deemed to be at fault. It’s just like the asbestos cases - almost everyone claiming asbestos-related conditions was a heavy smoker.
If we lower the PEL companies will be forced to compensate more and more people for their non-work behaviors. Employers shouldn’t have to bear the burdens of these types of situations.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Lowering the PEL to 85 dBA will not make a difference. In the 15 years that I have been doing safety the majority of hearing loss that I have seen has been attributable to “off the job” activities vs. on job activities. We have hearing protection and provide it to everyone, conduct noise sampling on a regular basis and try to isolate extremely noisy pieces of equipment, and discipline people who don’t follow our hearing protection rules.
People have a responsibility to protect themselves outside of work and we encourage employees to take hearing protection home to use it off of the job. Unfortunately, people listen to loud music, shoot guns, ride 4 wheelers & motorcycles, operate power tools and engage in other noisy activities without wearing earplugs. Then, when their hearing test shows a 10 dB shift at the right frequencies, it then becomes the employers responsibility to show that they didn’t cause it. It seems like OSHA needs to realize that people are the biggest problem when it comes to hearing loss, not the workplace.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:58 am
To say that lowering the PEL will not be protective ignores the science behind the 3dB exchange rate. For companies that have been diligent to the OSHA standard, a review of hearing loss cases shows that, even accounting for off-the-job exposures, work-related hearing loss is still occuring. Our company gives hearing protectors away and in a small town like ours, you can see employees using hearing protectors at other events. Is that true in every case? Of course not and the converse isn’t true either.
To leave the PEL at 90 with a 5 dB exchange rate ignores solid science that has been verified for more than 30 years. I read the preamble to the OSHA rulemaking on hearing conservation and concluded that the 5 dB rate was based on a political compromise and not the science.
I’ve worked on both sides of the fence (enforcement and the regulated) and my experience is that employers tend to rely on sound level measurements instead of solid noise dosimetry and octave band analysis to characterize noise exposures. Of course sound level measurement is the minimum required by OSHA; however, unless measured for the entire shift, the noise of the workday is not accurately characterized by sound level (snapshot) measurements.
The standard should require noise dosimetry and not just a sound level assessment.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
“ppm stands for parts per million.
% stands for parts per cent or parts per hundred.
1 % = 10000 ppm”
April 6th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
It depends. We live in a small town that has a very large grain elevator in it and the fans are so loud we can’t hardly talk to each other when we are out doors. We have small kids living here that play out side.The fans are turned on every day at 4pm and turned off at 7am excepton Fridays the fans are turned on at 4pm and are not turned off until Monday morning at 7am.They are not turned off on Sundays or Hollidays.
So yes something needs to be looked at for people that live around the noise created invirenment.