way the standard was written," says Dan Belcher, president of Noise Suppression Technologies Inc. based in Columbus, Ohio. Originally, the standard was intended to compel employers to reduce noise levels. "We're in this situation because many employers aren't well-educated about the standard, and OSHA is not enforcing it."
The standard states that when employees are exposed to noise that exceeds 90 dB TWA (time-weighted average for an eight-hour period), "feasible administrative or engineering controls shall be utilized." If such controls fail to bring noise down to the permissible exposure level, "personal protective equipment shall be provided and used to reduce sound levels."
The preamble to the hearing conservation amendment to 1910.95, published in the Federal Register Jan. 16, 1981, states: "The agency continues to support the policy, reflected in the existing standard and not affected by this amendment, that engineering control of noise is preferable to the use of personal protective devices."
But because of the difficulty of determining when engineering controls are "feasible," since the 1980's in most cases OSHA has in fact focused on personal protective equipment.
"I have seen no evidence that OSHA is motivating companies to do noise engineering controls," says Robert Anderson, principal with James, Anderson, and Associates, a consulting firm specializing in noise control management that is based in Okemus, Mich.
It is the fear of legal liability, rather than an OSHA citation, that leads most companies to seek engineering solutions to their noise problems.
"Our business is not driven by OSHA," declares Kris Kollevoll, president of BRD Noise and Vibration Control, a company that abates noise for manufacturers and offers training for OSHA compliance officers. "OSHA checks you out for noise very rarely. They just don't have the manpower."
Instead, says Kollevoll, concerns about general liability issues are the most important factors that lead employers to see the value of engineered solutions.
"Compliance 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).
