Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By SteveS
Am I correct in the following:
An employer conducts a noise ra and discovers their employees are exposed to noise at or just above the first action limit. They have done all that is reasonably practicable to engineer out the hazard, so decide to provide hearing protection for their staff on request.
Now this is the bit I need confirmation on:
The employer is now required by law to provide health surveillance in the form of audiometric testing.
What if the employees were only exposed to the noise a few months of the year. Say for arguments sake only 5 months. Would audiometric testing still be required?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
Interesting question. I would say that if you are exposed, then test!
However, surely you would test in order to defend against possible future compo claims against NIHL?
I am not saying that employees will get NIHL, however if you haven't got data to refute any future claim...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Cook
The guidance on Controlling noise at Work Regs, Regulation 9, para 105 (page 27) states "Where exposure is between the lower and upper exposure action values, or where, employees are only occasionally exposed above the upper exposure action values, you should provide health surveillance if you find out that an individual may be particularly sensitive to noise."
My reading of this is that it is up to the individual to "prove" that health surveillance is required and not a statutory requirement on the employer.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
However, best practice is to subject all new employee to hearing tests as part of the employment medical.
Periodic surveillance is also a good idea.
A final test on leaving or retirement will indicate any loss during employment.
However, hearing can be affected by many external factors : shooting grouse or peasants, Saturday night discos, living too close to heathrow, arguing with the wife and kids, riding a 1000 cc motor bike, playing rugby ....
So regular surveillance of the workplace is essential. At least once a year, more often if conditions change.
And if you think you are borderline then you must keep a very close eye on it (or is it "ear-out for it" ?)
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
This interests me, especially shooting peasants?
What about construction operatives who are occasionally exposed to the noise from plant equimpment etc.
Also, bringing the new CDM 2007 into this, the P C does not have to undertake detailed supervision of contractor's work therefore is it safe to assume that contrators have fulfilled all obligations re noise at work if they are competency checked and approved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Crim,
sorry for the spelling mistake. Should have been Pheasants.
Reminds me of the old headline " Prince Phillip shooting peasants in the Irish bogs"
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JasonGould
Health Surveilance has always been a tricky one in the construction industry.
I see plenty of pre employment questionnaires but some companies are still way bit behind on the whole subject,.
I do not have the details and am not 100% positive but I think there are a number of levels of noise health surveillance programmes that a company chooses dependant on the assessment of their work.
I think their is a HS(G)??? on this very subject
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin C
Regular noise level checks need to be carried out and recorded in case it increases. Suitable ear protection must be supplied and employee training given into the danger from noise and correct use of ppe. This training needs to be recorded and repeated as required. Failure to use ear protection should be recorded as a near miss if it is required. Repeated instructions to use ear protection should be given. If someone puts in a claim for NIHL then you need records to show you have done all you could. Claims against companies for NIHL suceed because the company has failed in some aspect of training, inspection, instruction or provision of equipment. Noise surveys will provide evidence, if required, that the matter was taken seriously. Signs should be put up showing that suitable ppe is required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By SteveS
Thanks everyone, but I'm still not sure. Is audiometric testing an absolute requirement in this instance?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dean Cross
The exposure limit is an 8hrTWA for daily or weekly exposure, not monthly or annually.
So I would say yes testing should be conducted where sensitive individuals have been identified.
"Where exposure is between the lower and upper exposure action values, or where employees are only occasionally exposed above the upper exposure action values, you should provide health surveillance if you find out that an individual may be particularly sensitive to noise."
Also, I don't agree with John in that employees should "prove" that health surveillance is required. Surely this onus is on the employer as they're the ones with the responsibility to assess the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Steve
If you think that employees' hearing may be at risk then health surveillance is required. However, the guidance in L108 states that, when exposure is between the lower and upper exposure action values, this should only be required if you find out that an individual is particularly sensitive to noise. The guidance goes on to say that this may be from past medical history, the results of previous audiometric testing, etc. In the first instance, you could ask the employees concerned if they think they are particularly at risk; record their responses for future reference.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By SteveS
Thanks Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Cook
Dean
I used the word prove in quotation marks to try to indicate that it was not meant in the true sense. I was trying to indicate that it may be necessary for the employee to show that they are particularly sensitive to noise in order to get the employer to provide health surveillance.
Many emloyers do not want to spend where they don't have and may not ask the appropriate question.
I am having a similar issue myself at the moment, which is why I answered the question in the way I did.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dean Cross
John,
Apologies I miss read it.
Dean
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.