Quick Links
Customer Centres
A Multidisciplinary Study of Factors Influencing Hazard Reduction Strategies, Using Noise Exposure and Hearing Loss as a Model
RS2005-SC03
Final Report Date: October 2009
| Principal Investigators: | Hugh W. Davies and Jean A. Shoveller (University of British Columbia) |
| Co-Investigators: | Meghan Winters, Catherine M. Trask, Murray R. Hodgson, Tom Knight (University of British Columbia) |
For more information about this project, or to obtain a copy of the video, please contact Dr. Hugh Davies.
Issue
Noise exposure is a serious problem in many B.C. workplaces. Although workplaces have hearing conservation programs in place as required by law, these programs often fail to include engineered noise controls (ENCs) to the extent they could. ENCs reduce the noise exposure of workers by stopping noise at the source, and are an effective way to prevent occupational-related hearing loss. This study explored barriers to the use of ENCs, through interviews with staff and audits of hearing conservation programs at eight BC workplaces in the food and beverage manufacturing sector.
Key findings
- Hearing conservation programs were in place in participating workplaces but did not include all seven program components, i.e., risk assessment (noise exposure measurement), noise exposure reduction, provision of personal protective equipment, warning signs in noisy areas, employee education, health surveillance (routine hearing tests, or hearing testing) and regular program evaluation.
- All participating workplaces used some ENCs, but not as a part of a systematic effort to assess and reduce noise exposure. Options to stop noise at the source appeared to be rarely considered.
- Barriers to implementing ENCs included:
- Acceptance and expectation of noise exposure by workers
- Low risk perception regarding noise – and perception that noise exposure is a low priority health hazard
- Over-reliance on hearing protection devices (HPDs)
- Over-emphasis on individual worker responsibility to assess and report noise hazards
- Limitations in channels of communications between workers and management (e.g., employees reluctant to complain about noise concerns)
- Weak understanding of ENCs and ENC options
- Assumptions that ENCs are not practicable
- Poor knowledge of regulatory requirements
- Based on the findings, the researchers recommend:
- Educating employees about noise-induced hearing loss risk, ENCs, and all hearing conservation programs components
- Providing employers with information and support relating to noise control options and how to obtain relevant expertise for programmed engineered solutions
- Ensuring that hearing conservation programs are being implemented in a systematic way and include all components
- Educating equipment manufactures about the risk of noisy equipment and the potential marketing benefits of quieter equipment
Objectives
- To identify barriers to implementing ENCs in workplaces
- To learn about employees’ and managers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices about workplace noise and hearing loss
- To recommend interventions to promote the adoption of ENCs in B.C. workplaces
Methods
Eight food and beverage manufacturing workplaces accepted a written invitation to participate in the study.
An audit of the hearing conservation program in each participating workplace was conducted by an occupational hygienist. This included sound level measurements, individual noise exposure measurements, observations of noise sources and noise reduction and protection efforts, and a review of Health and Safety Committee meeting minutes and other documents. The audit also looked at whether compressed air nozzle silences were available, as a key example of the adoption of ENCs in the workplaces. Each participating company received a hearing conservation program review report including recommendations for reducing noise, based on the audit.
Interviews were conducted with a total of 55 partcipants. The interviews were about 20 to 90 minutes long and focused on the acoustic environment, organizational culture, noise complaints, compensation claims and participants’ knowledge, attitides and skills related to preventing noise-induced hearing loss. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed to identify key barriers to implementing ENCs as well as related attitudes, beliefs and practices.
Results
- All companies had hearing conservation programs but had fully implemented no more than three of the seven program components, which are: risk assessment (noise exposure measurement), noise exposure reduction, provision of personal protective equipment, warning signs in noisy areas, employee education, health surveillance (routine hearing tests, or hearing testing) and regular program evaluation.
- The most widely adopted component was hearing tests and the least adopted were worker education and annual review.
- ENCs were used to some degree by all participating workplaces but not as a part of a systematic effort to assess and reduce noise exposure.
- Participant comments suggest that ways to stop noise at the source are rarely considered.
- Only one company was using compressed air silencers, although these are a readily available and relatively inexpensive way to reduce noise levels.
- Several barriers to implementing ENCs were identified:
- Acceptance and expectation of noise exposure by workers
- Low risk perception regarding noise – and perception that noise exposure is a low priority health hazard
- Over-reliance on hearing protection devices (HPDs)
- Over-emphasis on individual worker responsibility to assess and report noise hazards
- Limitations in channels of communications between workers and management (e.g., employees reluctant to complain about noise concerns)
- Weak understanding of ENCs and ENC options
- Assumptions that ENCs are not practicable
- Poor knowledge of regulatory requirements
Conclusions
Key shortfalls in the hearing conservation programs included a lack of systematic planning and implementation, an over-reliance on personal protective equipment and hearing tests, an emphasis on individual workers to identify noise hazards, and only limited adoption of ENCs for reducing noise exposure.
Barriers to the adoption of ENCs exist at the systemic level (such as the regulatory and economic environment), the organizational level (such as the company policy and culture), and the individual level (such as personal skills and knowledge).
Recommendations
Based on the findings, the researchers recommend the following interventions:
- Educate employees about noise-induced hearing loss risk, the need to lower noise levels at the source through ENCs, and the hearing conservation programs components beyond HPDs, including the employee’s role in each of these.
- Provide employers with information and support relating to noise control options, including how to obtain relevant expertise for planning and implementation of programmed engineered solutions.
- Ensure, through action by regulatory bodies, that workplace hearing conservation programs are being implemented in a systematic way, and include all components.
- Educate equipment manufactures about the risk of noisy equipment and the potential marketing benefits of quieter equipment.
Future directions
Several areas were identified for future research including:
- More effective methods for evaluating the current hearing conservation program approach to the prevention of occupational noise-induced hearing loss.
- Ways to support improved compliance with the noise reduction aspect of hearing conservation program requirements.
- Evidence about whether and how well personal protective equipment protects against other non-hearing related effects of noise exposure, such as stress, hypertension, and heart disease.
Publications and Presentations
Public Seminar presentation: UBC School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, March 2, 2007
Project website: www.cher.ubc.ca/noise