Download
1 / 19
200 likes | 202 Views
O Rikhotso; Dr JL Harmse; Prof JC Engelbrecht Are industry implemented hearing conservation programmes effective? Industry evaluation. CONTENT. Background Research question Study design Results and discussion Implications of results for stakeholders Conclusion Recommendations
E N D
O Rikhotso; Dr JL Harmse; Prof JC Engelbrecht Are industry implemented hearing conservation programmes effective? Industry evaluation
CONTENT • Background • Research question • Study design • Results and discussion • Implications of results for stakeholders • Conclusion • Recommendations • Acknowledgements
Research Question Based on presented NIHL statistics – are industry HCPs achieving stated goals/purpose i.e. NIHL mitigation & prevention of hearing threshold deterioration HCP: Elements • Government policy and company policy • Noise exposure monitoring • Noise control • Provision of HPDs – selection and use • Audiometric testing programme • Training programme • Record keeping • Ethical approval (FCRE 2016/03/012(SCI))
Results: HPD rating labels - Single number methods 1 HPD labelled with “NNR”
Results: Rating labels: Assumed protection values 2 HPDs without APVs (UVEX3000H & Profit earplug)
Pass/Fail criteria for HPDsHPDs used in RSA: SANS 1451-1, 1451-2, 1451-3 (EN 352 equivalent)
ResultsNOISE LEVELS * Above noise rating limit
Calculation procedures & HPD adequacy rating scale Calculation procedures HPD adequacy rating scale • HSE (HML method, SNR method) • NIOSH (NIOSH method 2 & 3) • OSHA (Appendix V – OSHA adjusted method) • OBM (HSE, OSHA & NIOSH) – similar across • Safety factors
Results: Adequacy rating outcomes Table 1: : NIOSH & OSHA NRR methods
Results: Adequacy rating outcomes Table 2: SNR and HML methods
Results: Adequacy rating outcomes Table 3: Octave band method
CONCLUSION • Compensation statistics indicate gaps in industry implemented HCPs • HPD selection and use not always correct • Multiple adopted ratings contributes to incorrect selection and use • Regulatory uncertainty contribution – AS/NZS case country statement • Employers (embraced self-regulation) partly bear responsibility for uncertainty • Study demonstrated that HCP effectiveness only possible if all elements are in place
RECOMMENDATIONS Regulatory • Regulator to propose a common rating scheme: Basis for legal compliance. HPD policy informed by regulator guidance • Regulatory system: goal setting or a combination. Voluntary protection propramme, Cooperative compliance programme • Noise regulation should require formal HCP evaluation. Advocate for progress reports on noise reduction initiatives • Adopt the AS/NZS approach. Merge SANS 10083 with SANS 11688 parts 1, 2 and 3/ SANS 11690 parts 1 & 2 mandatory. Employers forced to consider noise engineering controls • Introduce intra-company NIHL incidence rate as measure for HCP effectiveness. NIHL incidence rate proposal: <3dB PLH shift 2%; 3- <9db PLH shift 1%; 10dB PLH shift 3% • Country compendium of HPDs approved for use in SA industry.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • Dr JL Harmse and Prof JC Engelbrecht for their academic supervision. • Prof Karabo Shale (now with MUT): Academic guidance and encouragement during initial stage of project. THANK YOU!
