We Need to Make More Noise About Noise

What did you say?

While it’s true that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has made major progress protecting workers over the last 53 years of its existence, it’s a common misconception that OSHA has been successful in regulating many of the major hazards workers face.  There is much that has been left undone.

The effects of loud noise on workers’ hearing is a good example of what’s been left undone.

New studies published by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) show that 20% of workers currently suffer from work-related hearing loss and the percentages are even higher in construction (23%) and the utilities industry (25%) with even higher rates in some subsectors (37% in the hydroelectric power industry, 62% in oil and gas pipeline construction).

This is despite efforts made by OSHA over the last 40 years to prevent work-related hearing loss.

OSHA and NIOSH

Soon after OSHA and NIOSH were created, exposure to noise was addressed by both agencies.  NIOSH published a “Criteria Document” in 1972 and in 1974 OSHA published exposure limits to noise.  The OSHA exposure limits were clearly inadequate.  NIOSH estimated that about 25% of workers exposed to the OSHA limits would suffer from hearing loss.

The best solution would have been to lower the Permissible Exposure Limit.  Currently OSHA allows exposures to 90 decibels (dBA).  NIOSH recommended back in 1972 an exposure limit of 85 dBA over 8 hours. But court challenges resulted in decisions that allowed the use of hearing protection (like earplugs) instead of engineering controls, such as quieter equipment, for example air nozzles that are engineered to be much quieter.

New studies published by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health show that 20% of workers currently suffer from work-related hearing loss and the percentages are even higher in construction.

Reliance on hearing protection instead of engineering controls upends the hierarchy of controls which calls for prioritizing the most effective forms of protections like eliminating the hazard or engineering it out. Personal protective equipment like ear plugs is last on the hierarchy of controls because they are less effective to use than engineering controls.

OSHA subsequently published a “Hearing Conservation Amendment” in the early 1980s that laid out the elements of an effective hearing conservation program, although the amendment did not apply to construction, agriculture or the oil and gas industry.

The Obama administration put hearing protection for construction workers on the Regulatory Agenda in 2016, but the Trump administration removed it.

Why are so many workers allowed to be exposed to conditions that cause hearing loss? The Supreme Court in the Benzene decision stated that a risk of work-related death of 1 in 1000 should be considered a “significant risk” which OSHA could regulate.  So how are we still allowing between one-third to one fifth of workers to suffer permanent hearing loss?

Part of the problem is the regulatory constipation that beset OSHA as a result of Congressional and White House efforts over the years (often bipartisan) to stifle rulemaking, as well as adverse legal decisions. These changes required increasingly complex risk, economic and feasibility analyses, analysis of the impact of standards on small businesses and evaluation of paperwork requirements. And if the agency can get through all that, the Gingrich era Congressional Review Act gave Congress the authority to just overturn regulations they didn’t like.

Business lobbyists have long argued that all regulations are bad — stifling profits, abusing small businesses and killing jobs.  OSHA has shown, however, that regulations don’t kill workers, workplace hazards do.  Regulating hazards like noise that affect so many workers and businesses costs more money and generates more opposition than a standard that may affect a relative small number of workers.

Of course, the chances of issuing more regulations to protect workers is far less likely now with a Republican Congress and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that have mad reducing regulations a priority.

Hearing Loss Isn’t Taken Seriously

Another issue is that although hearing loss is a significant problem, it doesn’t kill workers outright (although there is evidence that hearing loss can result in reduced situational awareness and has caused workers to be killed, for example, getting backed over by vehicles on noisy construction sites).

Yet hearing loss can have a dramatic impact on workers and their families and we don’t take it seriously enough.  Many construction workers, for example, retire with significant hearing loss which reduces their ability to enjoy retirement.

Hearing loss can have a dramatic impact on workers and their families and we don’t take it seriously enough.  Many construction workers, for example, retire with significant hearing loss which reduces their ability to enjoy retirement.

At a 2000 conference on hearing loss in construction, sponsored by the Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund of North America, NIOSH and OSHA, the Laborers Apprenticeship Director recounted his experience losing his hearing from using jackhammers in metal buildings. He described how, when his sister was dying of cancer, he could not hear her dying words to him.

Hearing loss has more recently been linked to an increased risk of dementia.

Other Efforts to Control Noise

Reducing noise levels would be the best solution and back in the 1970s Congress passed the Noise Control Act in 1972 and Quiet Communities Act in 1978 which aimed to do just that.  EPA had an Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) which began promulgating regulations reducing noise levels from portable air compressors and heavy trucks.  But this office was zero-funded by the Reagan Administration and, despite repeated attempts in Congress, was never reinstated.   (Congress also used to have a Hearing Health Caucus).

Electrification of cars, trucks, leaf blowers, and construction equipment seems to be coming quickly and could help. Other attempts to push industry to reduce noise levels (NIOSH’s Buy Quiet program and Safe-in-Sound award), while helpful, have only made a dent in this problem.

What Is To Be Done?

So how can we address this problem and reduce the horrible toll of work-related hearing loss?  First, we have to educate the public about the problem and the serious nature of it.  There have been some attempts at this in the past (for example, the “Dangerous Decibels” program to teach high school students and efforts by the National Institute for Deafness and Communication Disorders (NIDCD) in the 1990s-2000s).

Second, for workers who have already suffered work-related hearing loss, the good news is that hearing aids are getting better and cheaper with over-the-counter options. Unfortunately, neither Medicare nor most insurance plans cover hearing aids.

Third, we need to educate Congress to force OSHA to move forward on a more protective standard that expands coverage to construction, maritime and agricultural workers. While the current Congress seems unlikely to force OSHA to issue more regulations, it’s never too late to educate our representatives about the preventable hazards that are harming this nation’s workforce.

And finally, we need to stop focusing only on the hazards that result in fatalities.  Over 5,000 workers are killed on the job each year, but millions are suffering from work-related hearing loss.  They deserve much more attention.