Rank: Forum user 
|
My engineers use, SDS drills, Angle Grinders, Impact Drills etc. Varying in use on a daily basis, specifically if installing electrical containment on projects on commerical and industrial sites. From my understanding, if the noise level iis at 115dB's, whilst using a grinder to cut containment and they wear hearing protection which is at 30dB (SNR).
Then they wouldnt need health surviellence as this is reduced below the UAV? Any help greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I don't see how you can assert that the exposure is below the upper action value. The SNR is just a guide to selecting the right PPE; it isn't a reliable enough indicator to just subtract it from the noise and confidently say what the exposure is. Even if you could do that, this would be right on the edge anyway. On top of that, there may be some individuals who are particularly vulnerable for reasons such as existing hearing loss.
With such high noise levels, there is surely a risk of hearing loss and health surveillance would be needed.
|
 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Health surveillance is necessary as your proof that the control measures you have put in place are effective. Health surveillance is necessary to identify those individuals who are not following controls (not using hearing protection, using it incorrectly) or have non-work interests that could lead to hearing loss - shooting, rock concerts, motor sports, aeroplanec spotting etc. Too late when the claims for hearing loss start rolling in and you have no evidence of monitoring and interaction,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Health surveillance is necessary as your proof that the control measures you have put in place are effective. Health surveillance is necessary to identify those individuals who are not following controls (not using hearing protection, using it incorrectly) or have non-work interests that could lead to hearing loss - shooting, rock concerts, motor sports, aeroplanec spotting etc. Too late when the claims for hearing loss start rolling in and you have no evidence of monitoring and interaction,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To answer your question directly... 85 dB(A) is at the Upper Exposure Action Value (UEAV) — not below it.
This means: - Workers are still at the upper threshold, not below the UAV.
- You must implement:
- Hearing protection mandatory and properly fitted.
- Hearing protection zones where applicable.
- Audiometric health surveillance (hearing checks) for employees regularly exposed at or above the upper action value.
So, yes, health surveillance is required if workers are regularly exposed to this level — even if PPE brings them just to 85 dB(A).
To avoid surveillance, you’d need exposure below 85 dB(A) after accounting for PPE and exposure time (i.e. short-duration tasks could result in a lower daily LEX,8h). In your example: If the grinder (115 dB(A)) is used: - For ≤ 2 hours/day, even after realistic 30 dB protection, exposure is below 80 dB(A) -- no health surveillance required.
- At 4 hours/day, effective exposure is 82 dB(A) - offer surveillance if requested.
- At 8 hours/day, it reaches 85 dB(A) - mandatory health surveillance.
You need a noise risk assessment or assessment of the worker daily exposure to base your program on as even short term use can cause hearing issues...
|
1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi jk, to add to what Steve and others have written: On the basis of what you have posted it appears that nobody actually knows what the exposure might be. So, you say that the level is 115dB for one particular type of activity but that might be a spot measurement in ONE location on ONE day and may not be representative of that particular type of activity and you haven't specified whether it is pure dB, or weighted e.g. as dB(A) or dB(C). If for a moment we ignore the fact that some people may be more susceptible to hearing damage, either inherently, or perhaps more often as they have ALREADY suffered such damage, then what you need is an assessment of each person's predictable exposure to noise at work by day and week, so that you can compare your assessments with the action values and exposure limits set out in the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 (assuming that this is for work in Great Britain) or such legislative standards that apply (if in some other jurisdiction). There IS a place for spot measurements, usually to give you a first indicator of what, if any, more detailed measurement is appropriate. Possibly the actuality is that you have done more extensive assessment, but that hasn't translated into how well readers of your thread are interpreting your words. If that is the case, perhaps you might elaborate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Michael -posing as actual person of Nigerian ancestry, you have been very quick to quote me verbatim and add nothing unless I can't see some hidden link. Assuming you migth be reported to Daniel Osemeke who at least posted something of their own drafting. REPORTED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.