with OSHA doesn't preclude hearing loss or liability for hearing loss," Kollevoll explains. "That's one of the misconceptions out there."
Labor union pressure is an additional reason manufacturers are seeking engineered solutions. "I've been in this business for 15 years, and workers are more educated now. They know loud noise will damage their ears. They either demand quieter machines, or us," says Belcher. He points to another liability pressure on employers: the threat that their insurance carriers will drop their coverage unless the noise level is abated.
Complacency about OSHA's noise standard reveals a second, subtler risk for employers, according to Anderson. "For so long, business has seen this as a medical standard. We have few resources for engineering controls," he says. "If a new administration were to change its enforcement policy, companies would be caught flat-footed, because they don't know how to evaluate engineering solutions."
Will OSHA Revise the Noise Standard?
Bill Ament works in the Washington, D.C. office of Organization Resource Counselors Inc., a consulting company that specializes in workplace safety. "Whether OSHA revises this standard, I think, is an open question, and that's the reason we're concerned," he says.
Ament points out a number of reasons that changes to OSHA's noise standard are possible:
- NIOSH's Criteria for a Recommended Standard document calls for numerous changes to OSHA's rule, including a recommended noise exposure that is 85 dB TWA;
- The Mine Safety and Health Administration has a new noise standard;
- OSHA has published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on hearing protection for construction workers.
"One issue OSHA raised on construction noise is whether to follow the NIOSH criteria document," comments Ament. "We argued that to avoid confusion, any changes should apply to general industry as well." ORC has OSHA's ear when it comes to hearing protection: the agency adopted ORC's proposal on the new criteria for recording standard threshold shifts (STS).
"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,