Noise risk assessment practices of four South African manufacturing and utilities companies.

BACKGROUND:  The South African Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) Regulations, mandates employers to conduct a noise risk assessment, which records specific variables for determining the status of exposure and the need for implementation of control measures. OBJECTIVES:  The study evaluated company noise risk assessment practices for alignment with legal requirements and specific risk assessment guidelines. METHOD:  Convenience sampling was used to select the four manufacturing and utilities companies that participated in the study. The participating companies submitted latest noise risk assessment records for evaluation through the READ approach. RESULTS:  The noise risk assessment records of three of the four companies omitted the recording of factors such as the reasonable deterioration in or failure of control measures, adequate control and formalisation of hearing conservation programmes (HCPs). When evaluated against the South African National Standard 31000 Risk Assessment guidelines, the risk assessment processes of the respective companies were lacking in addressing aspects related to establishing communication and consultation, evaluation, adapting, continually improving, leadership and commitment, and integration. CONCLUSION:  The recorded information on the noise risk assessment reports from the four participating companies were incomplete, negatively affecting subsequent HCP management processes and decision-making. Future studies should investigate other aspects such as the implementation status of recommended noise controls as well as their effectiveness as recorded in the noise risk assessment records.Contribution: This study provided firsthand insights of company noise risk assessment practices, specifically identifying functional and technical areas requiring improvement to enhance current efforts directed towards the minimisation of NIHL within HCPs. The study highlighted that the current practices on recording noise risk assessment information remain incomplete, adversely diminishing the impact of the assessment as an important decision-making tool. The identified technical issues specifically, when addressed, will increase trust on the decisions derived from noise risk assessments.

Hearing Conservation Programme Costs at Selected South African Companies.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act 1993 and its attending Regulations in South Africa, require employers to conduct cost analysis studies to inform decision-making related to exposure control for occupational health hazard such as noise. Cost analysis, as per South African National Standard/ISO 31000 risk assessment guideline, is an important input for the decision-making process of the risk management process. The costs of administrating a hearing conservation programme intended to minimise noise-induced hearing loss is an example of a cost analysis. This study enrolled four companies from the South African manufacturing and utilities sectors with the aim of establishing whether cost analysis is included during the noise risk assessment process; and determining administration costs of HCP administration. A HCP cost questionnaire was completed by each company's occupational hygiene professionals and risk officers. None of the companies in the study included cost analysis in their respective risk assessment processes. The overall costs, derived from the HCP cost item questionnaire, was much greater for Company A (4 290 014 Rands) than all of the other companies combined (970 685 Rands). Hearing protection device expenditures across the four companies were the greatest expense, while audiometry was the smallest expense owing to service internalisation. The HCP expenditures are incurred on periodic basis, yearly or biennial, and are internalised in companies as direct costs. Cost analysis can enhance the noise risk assessment process by providing additional input to support the decision-making process related to noise control. This challenges the occupational hygiene profession to pursue new frontiers and decision-making models in the scope of noise risk management, beyond noise measurements and hearing protection device use recommendation.

Noise risk assessments within the adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies.

Background: The entire risk assessment process is fraught with methodological and technical uncertainties, exacerbated by the introduction in legislation of ambiguous technical terms such as adequately controlled and reasonably practicable. The combination of these factors renders the risk assessment process opaque regarding required employer actions for securing legal compliance within the noise risk assessment context. Aim: This study aims to evaluate how companies are applying and interpreting the adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies within the context of hearing conservation programmes (HCPs) and noise risk assessment processes. Setting: Four manufacturing and utilities companies. Methods: The four companies, selected through convenience sampling, submitted noise risk assessment records for evaluation through document analysis to determine the companies' interpretation of the adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies. Results: In the reviewed noise risk assessment records, the adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies were poorly discerned. Specifically, the hierarchical approach for noise control outlined in the noise induced hearing loss regulations, for which the basis for adequately controlled philosophy ensues, remains misinterpreted by employers. Furthermore, cost-benefit analysis, which enables decision-making on the tolerability of risk within the reasonably practicable philosophy, was also omitted in the assessments. Conclusion: The adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies were poorly applied and interpreted by the participating companies, to the detriment of tangible noise control. Contribution: This study provides insights on company application and interpretation of the adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies, and HCPs, which contributes to inaction on noise control.

Occupational Health and Safety Statistics as an Indicator of Worker Physical Health in South African Industry.

Operations in general industry, including manufacturing, expose employees to a myriad of occupational health hazards. To prevent exposure, occupational health and safety regulations were enacted, with both employers and workers instituting various risk reduction measures. The analysis of available occupational disease and injury statistics (indicators of worker physical health) can be used to infer the effectiveness of risk reduction measures and regulations in preventing exposure. Thus, using the READ approach, analyses of occupational disease and injury statistics from South African industry, derived from annual reports of the Compensation Fund, were conducted. The publicly available database of occupational disease and injury statistics from the South African general industry is unstructured, and the data are inconsistently reported. This data scarcity, symptomatic of an absence of a functional occupational disease surveillance system, complicates judgement making regarding the effectiveness of implemented risk reduction measures, enacted occupational health and safety regulations and the status of worker physical health from exposure to workplace hazards. The statistics, where available, indicate that workers continue to be exposed to occupational health impacts within general industry, notwithstanding risk reduction measures and enacted regulations. In particular, worker physical health continues to be impacted by occupational injuries and noise-induced hearing loss. This is suggestive of shortcomings and inefficiencies in industry-implemented preventive measures and the regulatory state. A robust national occupational disease surveillance system is a regulatory tool that should detect and direct policy responses to identified occupational health hazards.

Occupational Health Hazards: Employer, Employee, and Labour Union Concerns.

This review paper examines the extent of employer, worker, and labour union concerns to occupational health hazard exposure, as a function of previously reported and investigated complaints. Consequently, an online literature search was conducted, encompassing publicly available reports resulting from investigations, regulatory inspection, and enforcement activities conducted by relevant government structures from South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Of the three countries' government structures, the United States' exposure investigative activities conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health returned literature search results aligned to the study design, in the form of health hazard evaluation reports reposited on its online database. The main initiators of investigated exposure cases were employers, workers, and unions at 86% of the analysed health hazard evaluation reports conducted between 2000 and 2020. In the synthesised literature, concerns to exposure from chemical and physical hazards were substantiated by occupational hygiene measurement outcomes confirming excessive exposures above regulated health and safety standards in general. Recommendations to abate the confirmed excessive exposures were made in all cases, highlighting the scientific value of occupational hygiene measurements as a basis for exposure control, informing risk and hazard perception. Conclusively, all stakeholders at the workplace should have adequate risk perception to trigger abatement measures.