NOISE ASSESSMENT OF FLYING W PLASTICS Glenville, West Virginia. Benjamin Ethan Sherman

NOISE ASSESSMENT OF FLYING W PLASTICS Glenville, West Virginia Benjamin Ethan Sherman Problem Report submitted to the College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Industrial Hygiene Warren R Myers, PhD., Chair Kevin Rider, Ph.D. Carrol Wells, CSP. Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering Morgantown, West Virginia 2009 Keywords: Dosimetry; Problem Report; Octave Band; Sound Contour Map

Abstract NOISE ASSESSMENT OF FLYING W PLASTICS Benjamin E. Sherman On January 20 th, 2008, the safety department at Flying W Plastics (FWP) requested a noise study to evaluate noise exposures in the plant and to establish if a hearing conservation program is needed. Employees at FWP were given hearing protection but they had no formal training and the company had no established hearing conservation program. Personal noise dosimetry was conducted to evaluate individual worker exposures. Octave band analysis and area sampling were done to further evaluate the noise exposures for possible control/solution of potential problems. Area noise sampling identified machines that produced high sound pressure levels. These included: A grinding machine and retech machine in the warehouse, The con-air pump and line-3 extruder in the poly-building. Employee dosimetry data indicated that both poly-building and warehouse employees have noise exposures sufficient to require the implementation of some type of control. Dosimetry data also showed all the employees were exposed to noise that exceed both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recommend Action Limit (AL) and Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) at some time during the shift (29 CFR 1910.95). After an initial site visit, four shifts of personal noise dosimetry, and area sound measurements were taken. Findings indicate that there is significant potential for workers to exceed the adjusted OSHA PEL of 87 dba for the 12-hour shift. Given these findings, a hearing conservation program and a combination of engineering and administrative controls were suggested for implementation.

iii Table of Contents SINGATUTE PAGE...i ABSTRACT....ii INTRODUCTION......1 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS/GLOSSARY OF TERMS. 3 OSHA REQUIREMENTS....... 4 METHODS.. 5 SOUND COUNTOUR MAPPING..5 DOSIMETRY...5 ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND ANALYSIS.. 5 AREA SOUND LEVEL MONITORING 5 APPARATUS.....6 RESULTS....8 DISCUSSION...12 CONCLUSIONS...17 RECOMMENDATIONS...18 REFERENCES..19 APPENDIX A 20 APPENDIX B 23 APPENDIX C 28 APPENDIX D...30 APPENDIX E 53

1 Introduction Flying W Plastics produces High Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) and Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) pipes and conduits on automated line operations with approximately 120 employees, who work four, 12 hour shifts per week in groups of 10 to 12 employees per shift. At work, employees are exposed to a number of possible occupational hazards associated with automated machinery, moving vehicles, dusts, vapors, and noise. Two buildings were evaluated to determine noise levels at FWP; the warehouse and the poly-building. The warehouse was constructed of cement block floors, concrete block walls, and exposed ceilings. It contained a retech and a grinder machine, which were connected by a conveyer belt. The retech machine was used to break larger unusable pieces of plastic into smaller pieces for the Grinder to grind into a fine powder for storage. Additional noise sources included forklifts and delivery trucks, which were constantly moving throughout the warehouse. The poly-building produces HDPE and PVC and houses high pressure air pumps, extruders, motors and large cooling fans. This building was also constructed of cement block floors, concrete block walls, and exposed ceilings Additional noise sources also included forklifts and delivery trucks moving throughout the building during of the work shift. In March, 1988, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) request from FWP. NIOSH investigated the facility and identified the aforementioned occupational hazards, including noise. Their investigation indicated that some employees received hazardous noise exposures in excess of OSHA s PEL, ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV) and NIOSH s Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) (Kullman). As a result, NIOSH recommended the following; hearing

2 protection should be used; a hearing conservation program should be established; and certain operations should be enclosed. On February 1, 2008, Sarah Wamsley, Safety Director for FWP requested a second noise survey, due to the different safety concerns affecting the sound level readings. Based on the NIOSH report in 1988, this survey was developed to complete the following objectives: 1. Identify and evaluate noise hazards. 2. Suggest regulatory requirements in efforts to comply with OSHA and to develop a company s hearing conservation program. 3. Recommend noise controls and hearing protector devices. 4. Train employees in the proper use of hearing protection.

3 Operational Definitions Retech Shredders: This piece of machine can be used for wood, paper, or plastics to resize large pieces. Extruder: A machine for producing more or less continuous lengths of plastics sections. It s essential elements are a tubular barrel, usually electrically heated; a revolving screw, ram or plunger within the barrel; a hopper at one where the material extruded is fed to the screw, ram or plunger; and a die at the opposite end for shaping the extruded mass. Grinder: Pieces of plastic from the Retech Shredder are sent to this machine and are broken down to smaller pieces. Air-Pump: Moves gases from lower pressure to higher pressure to operate pneumatic tools. Glossary of Terms Decibel (db): A non-dimensional unit to express sound pressure levels. Dose: A percentage of the maximum allowable noise that a worker can be exposed to per day. This is a computation based on the following variable: Criterion Level, Lower Threshold, and Exchange Rate. Allowable dose is 100%. Time Weighted Average (TWA): A numerical value expressed in db, generated by dosimetry representing actual or estimated noise level exposure over an Eight-hour period. Dosimeter: An instrument used to collect noise measurements in the hearing zone of an individual to determine their level of noise exposure. Sound Level Meter: An instrument used to measure the acoustical characteristics present in any noise source. Octave Band Analyzer: Sound level meter for measuring pressure levels of sound within octave band frequency (Bisesi), that has the ability to split audible spectra.

4 Exchange Rate (5 db): 5dB exchange rate, indicates the DOSE doubling with every 5dB increase in the time-weighted average. The exchange rate affects the integrated reading LAVG, DOSE, and TWA but does not affect the instantaneous sound level. Lavg: LAVG is simply the average sound level measured over the run time. OSHA Requirements OSHA, has installed guidelines to ensure the safety of noise exposed employees. OSHA based their guidelines on a PEL of 90 dba for an 8-hour work shift which is rated at 100%. The OSHA noise standard 29 CFR 1910.95 also states when workers are exposed to noise levels that exceed the PEL, feasible engineering or administrative controls shall be implemented to reduce the workers exposure levels (Tubs). Doses for other exposures, which are either continuous or periodic, are computed with respect to the PEL, based on a five-dba trading relationship between the noise level and exposure limit (Plog and Quinlan). Each five-dba increase in noise level cuts the allowable exposure time in half, as shown below in table 1: Table 1: PEL for noise given a specific amount of time (29 CFR 1910.95 Table G-16) Duration Per Day (hours) Sound Level, Slow Response (dba) 12 87 8 90 6 92 4 95 3 97 2 100 1.5 102 1 105 0.5 110 <.25 115 OSHA has an additional regulatory level of 85 dba, called the action level (AL). When this noise level is exceeded, the employer must administer a hearing conservation program, which includes monitoring, testing, protection, training, and record keeping.

5 Methods Sound Contour Mapping Data obtained using a Quest Sound Level Meter was used to construct a sound contour map of the warehouse and poly-buildings. Each building was divided into a grid of ten by ten feet squares that identified dominant sources, and classified high noise locations. Dosimetry Over the survey period of four 12-hour shifts, 20 employees had their noise exposure characterized. Factory calibrated dosimeters from the West Virginia University Industrial Hygiene Laboratory were used for dosimeter sampling. After sampling was complete, the exposures were analyzed and recommendations were made for placement in the hearing conservation program and appropriate personal protective equipment. One-Third Octave Band Analysis One-third octave band analysis was completed in the warehouse and the poly-building. In the warehouse, octave band readings were taken at about zero, five, and 10 feet from both the retech and grinding machines. Additionally, in the poly-building, octave band readings were taken at about zero, five, and 10 feet from the line-3 extruder and con-air pump. Area Sound Level Monitoring To support dosimetry readings, area sound level monitoring completed in both the warehouse and poly-buildings using a Quest Sound Level Meter. Sound level readings were taken randomly throughout the course of the shifts. This was done to ensure exposures were the result of work noise and not due to employee interference.

6 Apparatus Five Quest Dosimeters were used to collect personal noise dosimetry over the four shifts. Employees wore the dosimeters throughout the duration of their twelve-hour shift. All dosimeters were factory calibrated to 114.0 dba prior to initial use on the 27 th of February. The dosimeters were pre- and post- calibrated. The pre- and post- calibration data are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Dosimeter Numbers and Calibration Records Date 27-Fed-08 4-Mar-08 16-Mar-08 18-Mar-08 Dosimeter Number Pre- Calibration Post- Calibration Pre- Calibration Post- Calibration Pre- Calibration Post- Calibration Pre- Calibration Post- Calibration 1 114.0 114.2 114.2 114.1 114.0 113.8 114.2 114.1 2 114.0 114.1 114.4 114.2 113.9 114.2 114.0 113.9 3 114.0 114.2 113.8 114.1 114.1 114.3 114.1 114.0 4 114.1 114.0 114.0 113.9 114.0 114.0 114.3 114.2 5 114.0 114.0 114.3 114.1 114.0 114.1 114.1 114.3 The dosimeters were set up as shown in Table 3. Table 3: Dosimeter Channel Settings Dosimeter Channel Settings OSHA HCP (dba) OSHA PEL (dba) ACGIH/NIOSH (dba) Channel 1 2 3 Criterion Level 90 90 85 Criterion Duration (hrs) 8 8 8 Exchange Rate 5 5 3 Threshold 80 90 80 Upper Limit 115 115 115 Weighting A A A Time Constant Slow Slow Slow A Quest Sound Level Meter with a One-Third Octave Band Analyzer filter was used to collect area sound levels and conduct a one-third octave band analysis in the warehouse and

7 poly-building. It was also pre- and post-calibrated according to manufacturer s recommendations.

8 Results From initial surveys and observations, two sound contour maps were developed to identify possible noise sources. The sound pressure level data identified the Grinder, the ReTech, the Line 3 Extruder, and the Con-Air Pump to be the major noise generating sources. The noises for these devices range from 87.5 to 101.3 dba. Specific results obtained for each piece of equipment can be found in Appendix A. Picture 1: Con-Air Pump in the Poly-Building Picture 2: Line-3 Extruder in the Poly-Building Picture 3: Retech Machine in the Warehouse

9 Pictures 4-6 show how broken PVC gets from the Retech to the Grinder Picture 4 Picture 5 Picture 6

10 Personal noise exposures were taken with dosimeters over each of the four, twelve hour shifts. Time Weighted Averages exposures ranged from 58.0 to 97.5 dba and are shown in Tables 4-7. Tables 4-7: Time Weighted Averages (TWA) for the Personal Dosimetry in dba Table 4 Table 5 2.27.08 HCP PEL TWA Lavg Dose TWA Lavg Dose Dosimeter 1 93.1 90.2 153.6 91.6 88.7 124.8 Dosimeter 2 86.8 84 65 75.7 72.9 13.9 Dosimeter 3 88.2 85.4 79 77.7 74.9 18.4 Dosimeter 4 92 89.1 131 89.4 86.5 92 Dosimeter 5 94.1 91.2 176.5 92 89.1 131.9 3.4.08 HCP PEL TWA Lavg Dose TWA Lavg Dose Dosimeter 1 85.6 82.8 55.1 83.1 803 83.9 Dosimeter 2 92 89.2 133.7 87.9 85.1 75.7 Dosimeter 3 89.9 87 98.6 79.3 76.5 23 Dosimeter 4 89.1 86.3 88.3 85.4 82.5 52.8 Dosimeter 5 91.1 88.2 116.4 86.3 83.6 61.5 Table 6 Table 7 HCP 3.16.08 PEL TWA Lavg Dose TWA Lavg Dose Dosimeter 1 90.2 873 102.8 89.8 86.9 97.3 Dosimeter 2 92.6 89.7 143.4 89.5 86.6 93.3 Dosimeter 3 92.7 89.8 145.4 90.6 87.7 108.7 Dosimeter 4 61.2 58.3 1.8 58 55.1 1.18 Dosimeter 5 86.2 83.3 59 73.3 70.4 9.87 HCP 3.18.08 PEL TWA Lavg Dose TWA Lavg Dose Dosimeter 1 90.2 87.3 102.8 89.8 86.9 97.3 Dosimeter 2 90.8 87.9 111.7 85.9 83 56.6 Dosimeter 3 91.6 88.7 124.8 85.7 82.8 55.1 Dosimeter 4 66 63.1 3.59 62.6 59.7 2.24 Dosimeter 5 90.7 87.8 110.2 85.3 82.4 52.1 Random sound level meter readings were taken throughout the shift to backup dosimetry. These data are shown in Table 8.

11 Table 8: Random Sound Level Reading Warehouse Poly-Building Dosimeter 1 4 2 3 5 87.8 92.4 89.8 83.6 90.1 84.5 87.8 81.3 84.5 81.3 89.7 88.1 81.9 84.6 83.4 2.27.08 90.1 88.5 71.8 87.7 71.8 89.8 90.4 87.4 85.4 82.2 77.1 75.4 85.3 84.5 78.2 92.1 87.2 83.7 86.6 84.2 76.1 72.2 82.2 84.7 78.3 83.5 76.5 87.1 84.8 82.2 3.4.08 81.7 78.2 89.6 82.3 87.3 77.7 77.9 82.1 87.3 87.6 68.1 86.6 83.7 85.6 84.4 75.8 77.1 82.5 86.7 83.5 76.4 75.5 61.6 85.8 82.4 72.7 76.1 86.1 86.3 87.2 72.1 76.3 82.3 89.7 86.2 3.16.08 72.2 77.3 63.4 87.5 83.6 82.1 75.2 87.9 89.1 84.5 76.4 76.3 88.1 89.1 88.3 75.3 73.4 84.7 88.4 87.3 70.8 72.2 84.5 89.7 83.7 3.18.08 76.4 73.6 83.8 82.5 82.1 66.1 73.4 83.4 82.5 87.4 70.9 75.5 82.2 81.4 83.9 One-third octave band analysis was completed in the four areas which generated the highest noise levels. They were the grinder, retech, line-3 extruder, and the con-air pump. The measured sound pressure levels were measured from about two, five, and 10 feet away from each source. Specific data can be found in Appendix B.

12 Discussion Grinder and retech machines were located in the upper left (grinder) and top center (retech) of the warehouse and were picked for this survey due to the amount of sound they produce during shift (APPENDIX A). While the machines were running, the noise level in the top quadrant of the warehouse exceeds the OSHA AL of 85 dba and PEL of 87 dba for the 12- hour shift. The warehouse exceeded the AL and PEL as a result of the machines location, size, and performance. These two pieces of heavy machinery operated during the entirety of the shift producing an increased likelihood for noise exposure. Both machines were located next to concrete painted block walls, which is an efficient reflecter of sound. Given the dimensions and construction of the warehouse the average absorption coefficient was calculated from equation one below (Berger et al.). Where S is the surface area and A is the absorption coefficient for a given surface in table 9 (Department of Defense): Table 9: Absorption Coefficients of Material at Different Frequencies Absorption Coefficients at Different Frequencies Material 125 250 500 1000 200 4000 Concrete block, coarse (floor) 0.36 0.44 0.31 0.29 0.39 0.25 Sheet Metal (front wall) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 Sheet Metal (ceiling) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 Aavg = ((S1A1+S2A2+.+SnAn)) (S1+S2+.+Sn) Where: A1 = surface area of the ceiling A2 = surface area of the floor A3 = surface area of the front wall Eq. 1 = ((16000*0.02) +(16000*0.29) +(3200*0.02)) (16000+16000+3200) Aavg at 1000 Hz = 0.14

13 The absorption coefficient is used to describe the ability of a surface area to absorb sound energy. By definition, the absorption coefficient is the ratio of acoustical energy absorbed by a surface to the acoustical energy incident on the surface (Berger et al.). Absorption coefficient ranges from zero to one, zero corresponds with no absorption and one corresponds with no reflection. Once determined, the possibility for controls are feasible The calculated Aavg tells whether more reflection or absorption is present. The more reflection that is present, the more pores / absorbent material we want on the surfaces. Another reason why the sound levels are so high is the size of the retech machine. The size of the retech machine leads to multiple problems when using engineering controls though some controls are feasible. To enclose the retech machine, you would lose the functionality for an individual to load PVC into the top of it. A device could be installed that would pick up and load the PVC while the operator used a control. Additionally, a conveyer belt could also be installed to load PVC into the re-tech machine, while the operator is using hearing protection. Line-3 extruder is located in the bottom right corner and the con-air pump is situated in the top left corner of the poly-building both produce noise levels that exceed the OSHA AL and PEL. From the contour map, it shows that the extruder emits sound in a larger area. This could be due to size, make-up, location, and possible additional sources close to the extruder. The size and make-up of the extruder shows an immense probability for sound. The extruder consists of many large moving parts that are made out of metal and steel. The location of the extruder is located adjacent to another concrete painted block corner which in turn decreases the probability for absorption and Line-3 extruder is located in the bottom right corner and the con-air pump is situated in the top left corner of the poly-building both produce noise levels that exceed the OSHA AL and PEL. From the contour map, it shows that the extruder emits sound in a larger

14 area. This is due to the size, metal construction, and location of the extruder. In addition to the line-3 extruder in that area, line-4 extruder is present and contributes a large amount of sound as well. By using the values present in the sound contour map, the Total Sound Pressure Level (SPL) from both sources were determined by using equation 2 (Berger et al.). SPLt = 10*(LOG((10^(SPL1/10))+(10^(SPL2/10))+.+(10^(SPLn/10)))) =10*(LOG((10^(90.5/10))+(10^(87.0/10)))) SPLt = 92.10 dba The con-air pump emits impulse-type noise. Meaning, impulses are time dependent in that they are the product of force and the time during which the force is applied. Dosimeters one and four were used in the warehouse and measured a wide range of TWA s from 93.1 to 59.7 dba throughout the course of the survey. These levels were based off the Hearing Conservation Program (HCP) and PEL criteria for noise dosimetry (Table 3). This wide range of values are due to individuals not consistently working next to the grinder or retech machines. There were times when no PVC was being ground. During these times individuals got caught up with housekeeping and administrative duties in other areas of the plant. Dosimeters two, three, and five were used in the poly-building and measured a smaller range of TWA s from 94 to 73.3 dba based off the HCP and PEL criteria for noise dosimetry (Table 3). These values possibly were a result of task changes throughout different location of the building. Dosimetry data can be more closely defined by looking at the differences between Dose, Lavg, and TWA. Dose is a measure of cumulative noise exposure over a stated time period, and takes into account both the intensity of sound and the duration of the exposure. It begins at 0.0% at the start of the sampling event and increases when sound above the threshold level are measured. Eq. 2

15 The OSHA PEL has a threshold of 90 dba; sound levels that contribute to the dose will not be calculated until noise levels reach 90 dba, similarly, the OSHA HCP dose will not be calculated until its threshold of 80 dba is reached. That is why there are two different Doses, Lavg, and TWA s for the same dosimeter Lavg is the average sound level in dba for the time sampled. It is represented by the following equation with t being the time sampled in hours and D representing the Dose shown in equation 3. Lavg = 16.61 * (Log (D/12.5t)) + 90 Eq. 3 Time Weighted Average (TWA) is the average sound level in dba and is based upon the concentration of exposure and the length of exposure represented by equation 4. TWA = 16.61 * (Log (D/100)) + 90 Eq. 4 Individuals using dosimeters one and four had random sound levels ranging between 92.4 and 66.1 dba which closely relates to their dosimeter TWA range of 93.1 to 59.7 dba. Individuals using dosimeters two, three, and five had random sound levels ranging between 90.1 and 71.8 dba which closely relates to their TWA range of 94 to 73.3 dba. One-Third Octave Band Analysis was conducted showing the loudest contribution from all four sources between 1000 Hz 4000 Hz with ranging dba s of 96.6 to 76.4 once the A- Weighting Correction factor was implemented (Appendices B and C). The overall dba was again calculated by using equation 2 demonstrating the total sound pressure level.

16 The noise contribution that was found in the study was similar to the frequencyresponse characteristics for the A-weighting networks demonstrated in frequency response curve (Figure 1). Showing between the frequencies of 1000 Hz 4000 Hz the contribution was again the loudest. The A-weighting correction factor for sound level was used because it has become the most popular in the assessment of overall noise hazards (Berger and Royster). It is thought to provide a rating of industrial broadband noises that indicates the injurious effects such noise has on human hearing. Figure 1: A-Weighting Frequency Response Curve

17 Conclusion Employees at FWP received noise exposures in excess of the OSHA PEL s, ACGIH TLV s, and NIOSH REL. Job categories working in the areas with hazardous noise levels would include grinder, retech, line-3 extruder, and the con-air pump. After an initial site visit of FWP, four shifts of personal noise dosimetry, and area sound level measurements were taken, it is recommended that a hearing conservation program should be implemented.

18 Recommendations Establish a Hearing Conservation Program. Ensure all employees wear correct personal protective equipment when working in the Poly-Building and Warehouse. When the Retech and Grinder machines are running on a consistent basis, change production schedules or rotate jobs so that individual workers exposure times are reduced. Change production schedule. Enclose the Con-Air pump to capture the high frequency noise. By placing a wooden box around the pump with high density foam on the inside of it. Enclose the area feeding the material into the Grinder off the conveyor belt. Install a device that loads PVC into the Re-tech machine via a control Install a conveyer belt to the Re-tech machine so the operator can be out of the way. Hearing Protection Devices (HPD s) should be used following equation 5. from the OSHA Technical Manual. Estimated Exposure (dba) = TWA(dBA) [(NRR-7) X 50%] Eq. 5 = 95 dba [(29-7) X 50%) Estimated Exposure = 84 dba

19 References Berger, E.H., Royster, L.H., Royster, J.D., Driscoll, and M. Layne. The Noise Manual. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Assoisation, 2003. Bisesi, Michael S. Industrial Hygiene Evaluation Methods. New York: Lewis Publishers, 2004. Department of Defense. Noise and Vibration Control Technical Manual. 26 May 1995: 33 Kullman, Greg J. Health Hazard Evaluation Report Flying W Plastics Company. Mar. 1989: 7-20. Plog, Barbara A., and Patricia J. Quinlan. Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene. New York: National Safety Council, 2002. Tubbs, Randy L. Health Hazard Evaluation Report Neiman Sawmills, Inc.. Apr. 1991: 1-23. United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 29 CFR 1910.95. Washington: GPO. 2003. United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration Technical Manual for Noise Sampling

20 APPENDIX A SOUND CONTOUR MAPS

21 Figure 2: Noise Contour Map of the Warehouse FWP Warehouse Noise Contour Map (dba) 97-102 92-97 87-92 82-87 77-82 Each Square represents 10 x 10

22 Figure 3: Noise Contour Map of the Poly-Building FWP Poly Building Noise Contour Map (dba) 90-95 85-90 80-85 75-80 70-75 Each Square represents 10 x 10

23 APPENDIX B 1/3 OCTAVE BAND ANALYSIS

24 Normal Frequency (Hz) CON-AIR PUMP Table 10: 1/3 Octave Band Analysis of the Con-Air Pump Distance Away From Source (ft) 2 5 10 A Weighting Correction (db) Actual dba 2 5 10 31.5 49.2 48.4 48.9-39.4 9.8 9 9.5 63 58.4 58 56.9-26.2 32.2 31.8 30.7 125 79 72.7 73.9-16.1 62.9 56.6 57.8 250 85 77.4 74.7-8.6 76.4 68.8 66.1 1000 91.9 86.5 85 0 91.9 86.5 85 2000 87.8 86.4 85 1.2 89 87.6 86.2 4000 88.9 88.7 84.7 1 89.9 89.7 85.7 8000 79.9 76.9 78.1-1.1 78.8 75.8 77 Overall dba 95.4 93.0 90.6 Figure 4: 1/3 Octave Band Analysis of the Con-Air Pump Poly-Building Con-Air Pump Sound Level dba 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 31.5 63 125 250 1000 2000 4000 8000 Hz 2ft 5ft 10ft

25 Normal Frequency (Hz) LINE-3 EXTRUDER Table 11: 1/3 Octave Band Analysis of the Line-3 Extruder Distance Away From Source (ft) 2 5 10 A Weighting Correction (db) Actual dba 2 5 10 31.5 51.8 48.2 49.6-39.4 12.4 8.8 10.2 63 54.6 55.2 56.1-26.2 28.4 29 29.9 125 64.8 70.2 72.6-16.1 48.7 54.1 56.5 250 85.2 77.4 76.8-8.6 76.6 68.8 68.2 1000 94 88.6 89.8 0 94 88.6 89.8 2000 95.8 92.1 90.6 1.2 97 93.3 91.8 4000 95.6 87.2 81.3 1 96.6 88.2 82.3 8000 86.9 80.2 86.8-1.1 85.8 79.1 85.7 Overall dba 100.9 95.6 94.8 Figure 5: 1/3 Octave band Analysis of the Line-3 Extruder Poly-Building Line 3 Extruder 120 100 Sound Level dba 80 60 40 20 2ft 5ft 10ft 0 31.5 63 125 250 1000 2000 4000 8000 Hz

26 Normal Frequency (Hz) GRINDER Table 12: 1/3 Octave Band Analysis of the Grinder Distance Away From Source (ft) 2 5 10 A Weighting Correction(dB) Actual dba 2 5 10 31.5 58.6 53.3 53-39.4 19.2 13.9 13.6 63 55.3 57.7 48.2-26.2 29.1 31.5 22 125 65.2 73.1 75.5-16.1 49.1 57 59.4 250 71.8 83.6 75.5-8.6 63.2 75 66.9 1000 79.2 82.9 79.4 0 79.2 82.9 79.4 2000 85.3 81.7 78.1 1.2 86.5 82.9 79.3 4000 88.9 79.5 80.3 1 89.9 80.5 81.3 8000 85.2 78.9 73.7-1.1 84.1 77.8 72.6 Overall dba 92.5 87.7 85.2 Figure 6: 1/3 Octave Band Analysis of the Grinder Warehouse Grinder Sound Level dba 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 31.5 63 125 250 1000 2000 4000 8000 Hz 2ft 5ft 10ft

27 Normal Frequency (Hz) RETECH MACHINE Tabel 13: 1/3 Octave Band Analysis of the Retech Machine Distance Away From Source (ft) 2 5 10 A Weighting Correction (db) Actual dba 2 5 10 31.5 54.2 68.2 48.7-39.4 14.8 28.8 9.3 63 62.8 67.2 55.1-26.2 36.6 41 28.9 125 67.6 70.4 74.1-16.1 51.5 54.3 58 250 81.4 84.1 75.4-8.6 72.8 75.5 66.8 1000 89.1 84.8 78.6 0 89.1 84.8 78.6 2000 88.2 81.8 75.2 1.2 89.4 83 76.4 4000 84.8 81.3 80.9 1 85.8 82.3 81.9 8000 83.2 76.9 74.8-1.1 82.1 75.8 73.7 Overall dba 93.5 88.7 84.8 Figure 7: 1/3 Octave Band Analysis of the Retech Machine Warehouse Retech Sound Level dba 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 31.5 63 125 250 1000 2000 4000 8000 Hz 2ft 5ft 10ft

28 APPENDIX C OCTAVE BAND A-WEIGHTING CONVERTION

29 Table 14: A-Weighting Correction Factors Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) 31.5 63 125 250 1000 2000 4000 8000 A- Weighting Correction -39.4-26.2-16.1-8.6 0 1.2 1-1.1

30 APPENDIX D HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM

31 HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM Name of Agency/Institution/Campus/Center Prepared by: Date: I. PURPOSE This purpose of this hearing conservation program is to prevent occupational hearing loss and comply with the COMM/OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.95 - Occupational Noise Exposure. II. AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 CFR 1910.95 Dept. of Commerce Chapter 32 III. APPLICATION The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Occupational Noise Exposure standard 29 CFR 1910.95 establishes a permissible exposure limit(pel) for occupational noise exposure, and requirements for audiometric testing, hearing protection, and employee training if those sound levels are exceeded. This regulation defines an "action level" (AL) as a "dose" of 50%, which is equivalent to an eight-hour time weighted average of 85 dba. When noise levels exceed this amount, an effective hearing conservation program is required, which includes as a minimum: Requirement Section 1. Noise monitoring 29 CFR 1910.95(d)(e)(f) 2. Audiometric testing 29 CFR 1910.95(g)(h) 3. Hearing protectors 29 CFR 1910.95(i)(j) 4. Education and training 29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1) 5. Recordkeeping 29 CFR 1910.95(m) Note: The OSHA regulation only indicates a minimum level of hearing protection and focuses on permanent hearing loss. Short durations of noise, especially sharp bursts of noise at these levels can not only induce hearing loss but can also affect an employee's health and safety in other ways (See Table # 1 on page 15).

32 IV. BACKGROUND Occupational noise can cause hearing loss, and increase the worker's susceptibility to other workplace problems including physical and psychological disorders, interference with speech and communication, and disruption of job performance associated with excessive noise intensities. This exposure to noise produces hearing loss of a neural type involving injury to the inner ear hair cells. The loss of hearing may be temporary or permanent. Brief exposure causes a temporary loss. Repeated exposure to high noise levels will cause a permanent loss. Permanent hearing loss is preventable with the continued use of proper hearing protection and reduction of workplace noise levels to below 85 decibels. This will benefit not only employees who can listen and communicate well throughout there lifetimes, but also helps the employer in terms of reduced exposure to hearing loss compensation claims and a potential for increased general safety and job performance. V. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE The administration of this program will be the responsibility of (Position designated). Administrative responsibilities include: 1. Coordination and supervision of noise exposure monitoring. 2. Identification of employees to be included in the Hearing Conservation Program. 3. Coordination and supervision of audiometric testing program. 4. Supervision of hearing protector selection. 5. Development of policies relating to the use of hearing protectors. 6. Supervision of employee training programs. 7. Coordination and supervision of required recordkeeping. 8. Periodic evaluation of overall program. 9. Coordination of required changes/improvements in the program. VI. NOISE MONITORING

33 1. When information indicates that any employee's exposure may equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer shall develop and implement a monitoring program. 2. Employers shall identify employees for inclusion in the hearing conservation program and to enable the proper selection of hearing protectors. 3. All continuous, intermittent and impulsive sound levels from 80 decibels to 130 decibels shall be integrated into the noise measurements. 4. Instruments used to measure employee noise exposure shall be calibrated to ensure measurement accuracy. 5. Monitoring shall be repeated whenever a change in production, process, equipment or controls increases noise exposures to the extent that: i. Additional employees may be exposed at or above the action level; or ii. The attenuation provided by hearing protectors being used by employees may be rendered inadequate to meet the requirements (explained in section IX). 6. The employer shall notify each employee exposed at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels of the results of the monitoring. 7. The employer shall provide affected employees or their representatives with an opportunity to observe any noise measurements conducted. 8. Monitoring will be coordinated by (Position designated) with assistance from. 9. The results of the noise exposure measurements will be recorded on Form # 1. VII. AUDIOMETRIC TESTING The employer shall establish and maintain an audiometric testing by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour timeweighted average of 85 decibels. The program shall be provided at no cost to employees. Audiometric tests shall be performed by a licensed or certified audiologist, otolaryngologist, or other physician, or by a technician who is certified by the Council of Accreditation in Occupational Hearing Conservation, or who has satisfactorily demonstrated competence in administering audiometric examinations, obtaining valid audiograms, and properly using, maintaining and checking calibration and proper functioning of the audiometers being used. A technician who operates microprocessor

34 audiometers does not need to be certified. A technician who performs audiometric tests must be responsible to an audiologist, otolaryngologist or physician. Baseline audiogram Within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, the employer shall establish a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared. Mobile test van exception Where mobile test vans are used to meet the audiometric testing obligation, the employer shall obtain a valid baseline audiogram within 1 year of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level. Where baseline audiograms are obtained more than 6 months after the employee's first exposure at or above the action level, employees shall wearing hearing protectors for any period exceeding six months after first exposure until the baseline audiogram is obtained. Testing to establish a baseline audiogram shall be preceded by at least 14 hours without exposure to workplace noise. Hearing protectors may be used as a substitute for the requirement that baseline audiograms be preceded by 14 hours without exposure to workplace noise. The (Position designated) shall notify employees of the need to avoid high levels of nonoccupational noise exposure during the 14-hour period immediately preceding the audiometric examination. Annual audiogram Audiograms will be conducted at least annually after obtaining the baseline audiogram for each employee exposed at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels. The (Position designated) will maintain a record of all employee audiometric test records. This record will include: 1. Name and job classification of the employee. 2. Date of the audiogram. 3. The examiner's name. 4. Date of the last acoustic or exhaustive calibration of the audiometer.

35 5. Employee's most recent noise exposure assessment. VIII. AUDIOMETRIC EVALUATION 1. Each employee's annual audiogram will be compared to his/her baseline audiogram by qualified evaluator to determine if a Standard Threshold Shift (STS) has occurred. This comparison may be done by a technician. 2. A Standard Threshold Shift is defined by OSHA as a change in hearing threshold relative to the baseline of an average of 10dB or more at 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz either ear. 3. In determining if a Standard Threshold Shift has occurred, an allowance can be made for the contribution of aging (presbycusis). The age correction values to be used are found in Appendix F of 1910.95. 4. The audiologist, otolaryngologist, or physician shall review problem audiograms and shall determine whether there is a need for further evaluation. The employer shall provide to the person performing this evaluation the following information: a. A copy of the requirements for hearing conservation as set forth in the standard. b. The baseline audiogram and most recent audiogram of the employee to be evaluated. c. Measurements of background sound pressure levels in the audiometric test room as required in Appendix D: Audiometric Test Rooms. d. Records of audiometer calibrations 5. If the annual audiogram shows that an employee has suffered a standard threshold shift, the employer may obtain a retest within 30 days and consider the results of the retest as the annual audiogram. 6. Unless a physician determines that the standard threshold shift is not work related or aggravated by occupational noise exposure, the employer shall ensure that the following steps are taken when a standard threshold shift occurs: a. Employees not using hearing protectors will be trained, fitted, and required to use hearing protectors if they are exposed to an 8 hour TWA average sound level of 85 decibels or greater.

36 b. Employees already using hearing protectors shall be retrained, refitted, and required to use hearing protectors and provided with hearing protectors offering greater attenuation if necessary. c. The (Position designated) will inform the employee, in writing, within 21 days of this determination, of the existence of a permanent Standard Threshold Shift. (See Form # 2) A copy of the STS letter will also be sent to the employee's supervisor. d. The (Position designated) will counsel the employee on the importance of using hearing protectors and refer the employee for further clinical evaluation if necessary. 7. Persistent significant threshold shifts must be entered on the OSHA 300 Log if determined to be work related. 8. If subsequent audiometric testing of an employee whose exposure to noise is less than an 8-hour TWA of 90 decibels indicates that a Standard Threshold Shift is not persistent, the (Position designated): a. Shall inform the employee of the new audiometric interpretation. b. May discontinue the required use of hearing protectors for that employee. IX. PROTECTION EQUIPMENT A. The (Position designated) shall ensure that hearing protectors are worn: 1. By any employee who is subjected to sound levels equal to or exceeding an 8-hour TWA of 90 decibels. 2. By any employee who has experienced a persistent Standard Threshold Shift and who is exposed to 8-hour TWA of 85 decibels or greater. 3. By any employee who has not had a initial baseline audiogram and who is exposed to 8-hour TWA of 85 decibels or greater. B. Employees will be given the opportunity to select their hearing protectors from a variety of suitable hearing protectors at no cost to them. C. The (Position designated) will provide training in the use and care of all hearing protectors. D. The (Position designated) will ensure proper initial fitting and supervise the correct use of all hearing protectors.

37 E. Employees will be held accountable for not properly using and maintaining the equipment furnished. F. The (Position designated) will evaluate the attenuation characteristics of the hearing protectors to ensure that a given protector will reduce the individual's exposure to the required decibels. (See Form # 3) 1. If the 8-hour TWA is over 90 decibels, then the protector must attenuate the exposure to at least an 8-hour TWA of 90 decibels or below. 2. If the protector is being worn because the employee experienced a Standard Threshold Shift, then the protector must attenuate the exposure to a 8-hour TWA of 85 decibels or below. 3. If employee noise exposures increase to the extent that the hearing protectors provided may no longer provide adequate attenuation, the employee will be provided more effective hearing protectors. G. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure that hearing protectors are worn by all employees who are exposed to noise levels at or above an eight hour TWA of 90 decibels or if the employee experienced a permanent STS or has not yet had a baseline audiogram. X. EMPLOYEE EDUCATIONAL TRAINING An annual training program for each employee included in the hearing conservation program will be conducted by (Position designated) and will include information on: 1. The effects of noise on hearing. 2. The purpose and use of hearing protectors. 3. The advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types of protection. 4. Instruction in the selection, fitting, use and care of protectors. 5. The purpose of audiometric testing and an explanation of the test procedures. Form #4 will be used to record the training dates and the employees in attendance. Information provided in the training program shall be updated to be consistent with changes in protective equipment and work processes. XI. RECORDKEEPING

38 Noise exposure measurement records will be retained for two years. Audiometric test records will be retained for the duration of the affected workers employment plus thirty years. Access to records. All records required by this section shall be provided upon request to employees, former employees, representatives designated by the individual employee, and the Assistant Secretary. *XII. PROGRAM EVALUATION At least annually, the Hearing Protection Program will be evaluated by (Position designated) using a Program Evaluation Checklist (See Form # 5). After the evaluation, the changes/revisions to the program deemed necessary will be made as soon as possible. This written program may be adapted to fit the particular needs of your facility. NOTE: An asterisk (*) indicates that that particular section is not required by the Hearing Conservation Standard.

39 Form # 1 Noise Exposure Measurements Organization: Location Process/Operation Noise Exposure Levels in Decibels

40 Form # 2 Sample Standard Threshold Shift (STS) Letter Dear, Your most recent audiometric test result was compared to your baseline audiogram. This comparison indicates that your hearing has deteriorated to the point where your hearing impairment constitutes a standard threshold shift. This is defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as a relative hearing loss of an average of 10 decibels in either ear at the frequencies of 2000, 3000 and 4,000Hz. An audiogram cannot define why you have a hearing loss, but there are many possible reasons such as infection, wax buildup in your ear and noise. By taking the necessary action now, we can try to stop hearing loss from getting worse. Consequently, we want to fit you with hearing protectors. Please call to arrange an appointment with. Whenever you are in a work environment that would result in noise exposure that equals or exceeds an 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) of 85 decibels, hearing protection must be used. Loss of hearing will affect you life. Preserve your hearing while you still have a chance. Our Department will attempt to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely,

41 Form # 3 Hearing Protection Equipment Summary Organization: Type (muff/cap/plug) Name (Brand and Model) Noise Reduction Rating

42 Form # 4 Hearing Conservation Training Record Organization: Name of Employee Job Classification Department Trainer: Date: Form # 5

43 Annual Hearing Conservation Program Evaluation 1. Noise exposure level monitoring has been completed in all areas and rechecked as necessary after any alterations which may have resulted in a change in noise levels. Yes No If no, what action will be taken to complete the monitoring? 2. Baseline audiograms (if required) have been completed on all employees hired this year. Yes No If no, what arrangements will be made to complete the audiograms? 3. Annual audiograms (if required) have been completed on all employees who are included in the hearing conservation program. Yes No If no, what arrangements will be made to complete the audiograms? 4. All employees included in the hearing conservation program have been provided with hearing protection. Yes No If no, what action will be taken to provide this protection? 5. All employees who are required to wear hearing protection are wearing them correctly. Yes No

44 If no, what action(s) will be taken to enforce this requirement? 6. All employees included in the Hearing Conservation Program have received initial and annual training in the use of hearing protection, the effects of noise on hearing and the purpose of audiometric testing if applicable. Yes No If no, what will be done to complete this training? 7. Standard Threshold Shifts (STS) have been identified. Yes No If no, what action will be taken with these employees? 8. Employees with STS s have been notified in writing and fitted with the proper hearing protectors. Yes No If no, what action will be taken to notify these employees? Review Completed by: Date:

45 Table # 1 Permissible Noise Exposures 29 CFR 1910.95 Table G-16(a) Duration (Hours) Sound Level Slow Response 32.0 80 27.9 81 24.3 82 21.1 83 18.4 84 16.0 as 13.9 86 12.1 87 10.6 88 9.2 89 8.0 90 7.0 91 6.2 92 5.3 93 4.6 94 4.0 95 3.5 96 3.0 97 2.6 98 2.3 99 2.0 100 1.7 101 1.5 102 1.4 103 1.3 104 1.0 105 0.87 106 0.76 107 0.66 108 0.57 109 0.5 110 0.44 111 0.38 112 0.33 113

0.29 114 0.25 115 0.22 116 0.19 117 0.16 118 0.14 119 0.125 120 0.11 121 0.095 122 0.082 123 0.072 124 0.063 125 0.054 126 0.047 127 0.041 128 0.036 129 0.031 130 46

47 HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION CHECKLIST Training and Education Failures or deficiencies in hearing conservation programs (hearing loss prevention programs) can often be traced to inadequacies in the training and education of noise-exposed employees and those who conduct elements of the program. Has training been conducted at least once a year? Was the training provided by a qualified instructor? Was the success of each training program evaluated? Is the content revised periodically? Are managers and supervisors directly involved? Are posters, regulations, handouts, and employee newsletters used as supplements? Are personal counseling sessions conducted for employees having problems with hearing protection devices or showing hearing threshold shifts? Yes No Supervisor Involvement Data indicate that employees who refuse to wear hearing protectors or who fail to show up for hearing tests frequently work for supervisors who are not totally committed to the hearing loss prevention programs. Have supervisors been provided with the knowledge required to supervise the use and care of hearing protectors by subordinates? Do supervisors wear hearing protectors in appropriate areas? Have supervisors been counseled when employees resist wearing protectors or fail to show up for hearing tests? Are disciplinary actions enforced when employees repeatedly refuse to wear hearing protectors? Yes No Noise Measurement For noise measurements to be useful, they need to be related to noise exposure risks or the prioritization of noise control efforts, rather than merely filed away. In addition, the results need to be communicated to the appropriate personnel, especially when follow-up actions are required. Were the essential/critical noise studies performed? Was the purpose of each noise study clearly stated? Have noise-exposed employees been notified of their exposures and appraised of auditory risks? Are the results routinely transmitted to supervisors and other key individuals? Are results entered into health/medical records of noise exposed employees? Yes No

48 Are results entered into shop folders? If noise maps exist, are they used by the proper staff? Are noise measurement results considered when contemplating procurement of new equipment? Modifying the facility? Relocating employees? Have there been changes in areas, equipment, or processes that have altered noise exposure? Have follow-up noise measurements been conducted? Are appropriate steps taken to include (or exclude) employees in the hearing loss prevention programs whose exposures have changed significantly? Engineering and Administrative Controls Controlling noise by engineering and administrative methods is often the most effective means of reducing or eliminating the hazard. In some cases engineering controls will remove requirements for other components of the program, such as audiometric testing and the use of hearing protectors. Have noise control needs been prioritized? Has the cost-effectiveness of various options been addressed? Are employees and supervisors appraised of plans for noise control measures? Are they consulted on various approaches? Will in-house resources or outside consultants perform the work? Have employees and supervisors been counseled on the operation and maintenance of noise control devices? Are noise control projects monitored to ensure timely completion? Has the full potential for administrative controls been evaluated? Are noisy processes conducted during shifts with fewer employees? Do employees have sound-treated lunch or break areas? Yes No Monitoring Audiometry and Record Keeping The skills of audiometric technicians, the status of the audiometer, and the quality of audiometric test records are crucial to hearing loss prevention program success. Useful information may be ascertained from the audiometric records as well as from those who actually administer the tests. Has the audiometric technician been adequately trained, certified, and recertified as necessary? Do on-the-job observations of the technicians indicate that they perform a thorough and valid audiometric test, instruct and consult the employee effectively, and keep appropriate records? Are records complete? Are follow-up actions documented? Are hearing threshold levels reasonably consistent from test to test? If not, are the reasons for inconsistencies investigated promptly? Are the annual test results compared to baseline to identify the presence of an OSHA standard threshold shift? Yes No

49 Is the annual incidence of standard threshold shift greater than a few percent? If so, are problem areas pinpointed and remedial steps taken? Are audiometric trends (deteriorations) being identified, both in individuals and in groups of employees? (NIOSH recommends no more than 5% of workers showing 15 db Significant Threshold Shift, same ear, same frequency.) Do records show that appropriate audiometer calibration procedures have been followed? Is there documentation showing that the background sound levels in the audiometer room were low enough to permit valid testing? Are the results of audiometric tests being communicated to supervisors and managers as well as to employees? Has corrective action been taken if the rate of no-shows for audiometric test appointments is more than about 5%? Are employees incurring STS notified in writing within at least 21 days? (NIOSH recommends immediate notification if retest shows 15 db Significant Threshold Shift, same ear, same frequency.) Referrals Referrals to outside sources for consultation or treatment are sometimes in order, but they can be an expensive element of the hearing loss prevention program, and should not be undertaken unnecessarily. Are referral procedures clearly specified? Have letters of agreement between the company and consulting physicians or audiologists been executed? Have mechanisms been established to ensure that employees needing evaluation or treatment actually receive the service (i.e., transportation, scheduling, reminders)? Are records properly transmitted to the physician or audiologist, and back to the company? If medical treatment is recommended, does the employee understand the condition requiring treatment, the recommendation, and methods of obtaining such treatment? Are employees being referred unnecessarily? Yes No Hearing Protection Devices When noise control measures are infeasible, or until such time as they are installed, hearing protection devices are the only way to prevent hazardous levels of noise from damaging the inner ear. Making sure that these devices are worn effectively requires continuous attention on the part of supervisors and program implementors as well as noise-exposed employees. Have hearing protectors been made available to all employees whose daily average noise exposures are 85 dba or above? (NIOSH recommends requiring HPD use if noises equal or exceed 85 dba regardless of exposure time.) Yes No