Posted By Jason McQueen On a weekend we have no equipment running and the time is used solely for hygiene. Therefore the noise level is reduced to the background levels which is well below the first action level. Therefore the hygiene crews have asked if they can be excused from wearing hearing protection as its not necessary. Part of me agrees but then part of me thinks it opens the possibility of people using it as a loophole in the company policy of compulsory hearing protection. I dont know, perhaps its me being oversensitive and that this is a good opportunity to show that H&S can be reasonable and as long as they abide by the 'spirit' of the policy then fine.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze And that it's not a weekend thing per se but a lack of noise thing due to the machinery being switched off.

Posted By Jason McQueen Thats pretty much the suggestion Tim. At the weekend there is no noise hence no significant risk therefore is there the need for protection? In most cases the answer would be no but the query is that by making an exception for the weekends is there any possibility that this may expose weaknesses or problems elsewhere such as weekend hygiene crews in the week claiming that because the weekend hygiene crews dont have to wear them, they dont either. I was generally looking for affirmation that nobody could see any problems with allowing the non-use of hearing protection at weekends. For example, since all the areas are marked as compulsory hearing protection areas, would a third party raise objection that the since the signs indicate madatory areas (blue and white signs) it should be observed at all times regardless of whether the risk is present at that specific time?

Posted By David-J-Jones Hi Jason My logic would be that presumably a noise survey was undertaken during normal production times which defined the hearing protection issued as appropriate to attenuate noise exposure. As the background level is so much lower on a weekend. The potentially over attenuation provided by the hearing protection worn could be generating a risk in itself. ie not hearing a potential threat therefore your controls are very likely to vary. control has to be proportionate to risk so I dont see any problem with your proposal

Posted By Garry Jason One option could be where you install a noise activated sign. These are the signs that light up when the noise level exceeds the pre determined level. This way your policy could be that when the light is illuminated then hearing protection is mandatory. This may not be feasible but worth a look. Garry