"Our Policy Got Bent"
One reason that OSHA may want to revisit the noise standard is that ever since a 1982 court case (Donovan v. Castle Foods and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission), the agency has had to overcome more hurdles in compelling companies to institute engineering controls.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth District held that the implementation of engineering and/or administrative controls could not be required under the standard without comparing the relative costs and effectiveness of these abatement methods with personal protective equipment.
"That's where our policy got bent," comments an OSHA official.
Anderson says there are now three tests that are used to determine if engineering controls are feasible:
- Technical feasibility, that is, whether the controls are commercially available;
- Economic feasibility;
- Benefit for the worker, which usually means a reduction of at least 5 dB.
The first and third rules pose no special problems, according to Anderson. "But the second test is the most difficult to pinpoint " he explains. "Usually it comes down to whether the company believes it should spend that money for the benefit."
OSHA officials say they do cite companies for failing to use noise-reducing engineering controls, particularly when the noise levels exceed 100 dB. But they also concede it can be a difficult and time-consuming standard to enforce: the agency must monitor sound levels for six to eight hours. OSHA must also ensure the employer, who is aware of the monitoring, does not alter work practices to reduce the noise levels.
John Miles, OSHA's region six administrator, maintains that in his region general industry does a good job complying with the noise standard. "They first try to engineer it out, and we don't see many problems with hearing protection."
Miles adds, however, that "when you get to construction, it's a different deal." It's more difficult to install engineering controls, he says, and harder to induce workers to wear protective equipment.
"In general, the enforcement of the engineering controls provision has been severely hampered," counters Anderson. "The agency has lost a lot of expertise in noise control engineering."
What Is an Effective Program?
The most powerful reason for OSHA to re-examine its noise standard may be that too many workers in hearing protection programs are losing their hearing. OSHA's noise standard permits hearing conservation programs provided they are as effective as engineering controls. There is evidence that current OSHA policy is permitting hearing protection programs that are not as effective as engineered solutions. As a result, a new administration could shift the way it enforces 1910.95.
"What is an effective hearing conservation program?" asks Anderson. "That's the first thing that must be answered."
He points out that under OSHA's definition, an effective hearing conservation program allows 5 percent of the work force to have an STS each year. But, says Anderson, this number is at least five times the annual STS rate of the engineered solution the standard requires.
To put the case in more personal terms, if 5 percent of the work force has an STS each year, after 20 years everyone has had one STS. According to Anderson's research, if engineering controls are used to bring noise levels down to 90 dB, as called for in 1910.95, then just 0.7 to 1 percent of the work force has an STS annually, and only 21 to 29 percent of the work force should have an STS over a 30-year period.
Moreover, the hearing loss OSHA allows officially may be a far cry from what is actually taking place on the shop floor.
Until now, it has been difficult to obtain reliable and comprehensive data on occupational hearing loss. It was not recorded separately on the OSHA log, and because hearing loss does not generally result in a lost workday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not track it.
All this is about to change.
Beginning next year, employers will have to record every STS on the OSHA log. OSHA says by 2005, BLS will have good data on hearing