ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Noise exposure and hearing loss prevention programmes after 20 years of regulations in the United States

W E Daniell¹, S S Swan¹, M M McDaniel², J E Camp¹, M A Cohen¹, J G Stebbins³

¹ Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
² Pacific Hearing Conservation, Seattle, WA, USA
³ Policy and Technical Services, Department of Labor and Industries, Olympia, WA, USA

Correspondence to:
Dr W E Daniell
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Box 357234, Seattle, WA 98155, USA; bdaniell{at}u.washington.edu

Objectives: To evaluate noise exposures and hearing loss prevention efforts in industries with relatively high rates of workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss.

Methods: Washington State workers’ compensation records were used to identify up to 10 companies in each of eight industries. Each company (n = 76) was evaluated by a management interview, employee personal noise dosimetry (n = 983), and employee interviews (n = 1557).

Results: Full-shift average exposures were 85 dBA for 50% of monitored employees, using Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) parameters with a 5 dB exchange rate (L_ave), but 74% were 85 dBA using a 3 dB exchange rate (L_eq). Only 14% had L_ave 90 dBA, but 42% had L_eq 90 dBA. Most companies conducted noise measurements, but most kept no records, and consideration of noise controls was low in all industries. Hearing loss prevention programmes were commonly incomplete. Management interview scores (higher score = more complete programme) showed significant associations with percentage of employees having L_ave 85 dBA and presence of a union (multiple linear regression; R² = 0.24). Overall, 62% of interviewed employees reported always using hearing protection when exposed. Protector use showed significant associations with percentage of employees specifically required to use protection, management score, and average employee time spent 95 dBA (R² = 0.65).

Conclusions: The findings raise serious concerns about the adequacy of prevention, regulation, and enforcement strategies in the United States. The percentage of workers with excessive exposure was 1.5–3 times higher using a 3 dB exchange rate instead of the OSHA specified 5 dB exchange rate. Most companies gave limited or no attention to noise controls and relied primarily on hearing protection to prevent hearing loss; yet 38% of employees did not use protectors routinely. Protector use was highest when hearing loss prevention programmes were most complete, indicating that under-use of protection was, in some substantial part, attributable to incomplete or inadequate company efforts.

Abbreviations: DLI, Department of Labor and Industries; FTE, full-time equivalent; NIOSH, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health; OHL, occupational hearing loss; OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Keywords: noise; hearing loss; government regulation; ear protective devices; occupational health

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Edelson, J., Neitzel, R., Meischke, H., Daniell, W., Sheppard, L., Stover, B., Seixas, N. (2009). Predictors of Hearing Protection Use in Construction Workers. ANN OCCUP HYG 53: 605-615 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Neitzel, R., Daniell, W., Sheppard, L., Davies, H., Seixas, N. (2009). Comparison of Perceived and Quantitative Measures of Occupational Noise Exposure. ANN OCCUP HYG 53: 41-54 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Sbihi, H, Davies, H W, Demers, P A (2008). Hypertension in noise-exposed sawmill workers: a cohort study. Occup. Environ. Med. 65: 643-646 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Palmer, K. (2006). Work in brief. Occup. Environ. Med. 63: 297-297 [Full Text]