Thread: Safety frustration at the mens shed

FWIW I'm using an iPhone with a Sound pressure App (Soundmeter) from Faber Acoustic. According to an Article in the American acoustical society this app is one of only 4 available that are considered accurate enough for OHS work.

Originally Posted by BobL

This morning there were 19 members and 4 visitors at the mens shed.

At one point it was very noisy so I did a quick sound survey all at about operator ear level.

SCMS cutting MDF 97dB
Triton circular cutting 16mm ply 108dB
Bosch corded drill drilling 35 mm Jarrah 97dB
14" bandsaw cutting 50 mm thick Jarrah 87dB
5" angle grinder on 6 mm steel plate 104dB
12" disc sander on 20 mm thick pine 84 dB
Biscuit cutter on 19 mm jarrah 94 dB

Only one of these people was wearing any hearing protection and one member was not wearing eye protection.

I announced my findings at morning tea and afterwards I notice everyone wearing muffs / plugs and eye protection.

It really helped that a retired chippie chimed in and said he had lost more than 50% of his hearing left from using circulars in the trade.

I was thinking of putting a microphone in the centre of the shed to a display so the general sound level could be shown continually.

Sound pressure measurements are affected significantly by the distance from the source of the sound and I note you said the measurements were taken at about operator ear level. However even at double the distance from a single machine the sound pressure levels greatly exceed the recommended 85dB for the 8 hour exposure to some of the tools/machines.

I think using the microphone and a display will give users of the shed a false sense of security that levels are OK at the microphone position when in fact at the operators normal working position they may well exceed acceptable levels. Sometimes nothing is better than "something."

All users of the shed should be encouraged to wear hearing protection when any of the tools / machines are in use. They all should wear safety spectacles or googles or facshield or preferably a combination of face shield and safety spectacles when in the working areas of the mens shed.

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

I think using the microphone and a display will give users of the shed a false sense of security that levels are OK at the microphone position when in fact at the operators normal working position they may well exceed acceptable levels. Sometimes nothing is better than "something."

Good point, also a lot of our machines are on wheels and about half the time the blokes are using these outside in the 2 car parks. This does help reduce the overall noise inside the shed.

Originally Posted by BobL

This morning there were 19 members and 4 visitors at the mens shed.

At one point it was very noisy so I did a quick sound survey all at about operator ear level.

SCMS cutting MDF 97dB
Triton circular cutting 16mm ply 108dB
Bosch corded drill drilling 35 mm Jarrah 97dB
14" bandsaw cutting 50 mm thick Jarrah 87dB
5" angle grinder on 6 mm steel plate 104dB
12" disc sander on 20 mm thick pine 84 dB
Biscuit cutter on 19 mm jarrah 94 dB

Only one of these people was wearing any hearing protection and one member was not wearing eye protection.

Can I put some perspective on those measurements?
Using data from https://www.safework.sa.gov.au/uploa...ngLossWork.pdf

12" disc sander on 20 mm thick pine 84 dB -- noise level is below the 85 dB considered acceptable for a daily 8 hour continuous exposure

14" bandsaw cutting 50 mm thick Jarrah 87dB -- noise level is below the 88 dB considered acceptable for 4 hours cumulative exposure over a day

Biscuit cutter on 19 mm jarrah 94 dB -- noise level is at the 94 dB considered acceptable for 1 hour cumulative exposure over a day

SCMS cutting MDF 97dB
Bosch corded drill drilling 35 mm Jarrah 97dB -- noise level is at the 97 dB considered acceptable for 30 minutes cumulative exposure over a day

5" angle grinder on 6 mm steel plate 104dB -- noise level is above the 103 dB considered acceptable for 7.5 minutes cumulative exposure over a day (at 104 dB the time limit for a day would be about 6 minutes)

Triton circular cutting 16mm ply 108dB -- noise level is 1 dB less than the 109 dB considered acceptable for a maximum of 110 seconds per day.

my point?
in an industrial setting, only some of those activities would require that operators wear hearing protection, and only the last one or two would require visitors to wear hearing protection -- not that hearing protection is not a good idea. But unless your shed is operating like a factory where most of the noise generating activities are continuous, you risk going a bit overboard with hearing protection.

Notwithstanding, the noise levels you have measured indicate that the shed needs to implement some engineering and administrative controls on noise generation.

For starters, you need to seriously consider replacing the Triton circular saw with something much less noisy or banning its use inside the shed. One member wishing to cut up some ply shouldn't force all members to don hearing protection.
Likewise, you might investigate a quieter SCMS, or alternatively put additional distance or noise baffles between the saw and other work stations

Angle grinder cutting might be relegated to being an outside the shed only activity. Or a noise baffle erected between the metal working space and the rest of the shed.

at any rate, food for thought

Originally Posted by ian

Can I put some perspective on those measurements?
Using data from https://www.safework.sa.gov.au/uploa...ngLossWork.pdf

Thanks Ian, I'm aware of the cumulative exposure recommendations, problem is no one is going to continually monitor what people are using and their respective SPL levels in such an environment.

The recommendations don't guarantee zero hearing loss they're just a level that minimises losses for the average age worker with average learning loss.
The more hearing loss any worker has, and the older the blokes are the more hearing loss they will have which is why they don't perceive loud sound as such, the more protection they need.

I would prefer not to get into an argument with individuals over what they should be wearing. I don't like blanket ruling like Muffs must be worn at all times. It would just be easier if our policy that said something like anyone using a power tool or working next to a power tool wears hearing protection. I will put that to the committee.

BTW the guy on the angle grinder was wearing muffs but was at it for waaaaaay more than 6 minutes - I'd say it was closer to an hour - I won't tell you what he was doing because writing it down would make my blood curdle. Grinder was being used in a separate metal workshop so the impact on the greater number of people in the woodworking area was reduced.

The guy with the Triton was using it outside.

When it's that noisy I feel sorry for the guys that go there to use hand tools, and it irritates me especially when what is being done has not really been thought through and a power tool is being over used.

Ian, Bob,

I wasn't going to mention the permitted exposure times at noise level thresh holds, or recommended distances from noise sources, because in a factory style work place with typically dedicated work stations it is easier to monitor levels and implement controls. In a Mens Shed with adhoc arrangements that are perhaps constantly changing it is much better to err on the cautious side. Much easier to monitor & control a safety protocol of "every body (on this side of the shed) must wear ear muffs when the Triton or angle grinder is in use." or "only use this machine or perform such & such task outside" etc. KISS principle.

The other thing to consider is that a fair proportion of users / operators in a Mens Shed have already suffered significant hearing loss and are wearing hearing aids to improve their situation. Excessive noise levels at particular frequencies may significantly impact upon wearers of hearing aids.

Originally Posted by ian

.....

my point?
in an industrial setting, only some of those activities would require that operators wear hearing protection, and only the last one or two would require visitors to wear hearing protection -- not that hearing protection is not a good idea. But unless your shed is operating like a factory where most of the noise generating activities are continuous, you risk going a bit overboard with hearing protection......

at any rate, food for thought

Good Morning Ian

Usually I like your posts and welcome your views, but in this case I think that you have expressed a very legalistic, pedantic and dinosauric opinion. Deliberately provacative ??

One explanation could be that the Work Place Safety legislation is lagging behind community expectations. How do the exposure levels that you quote compare with the modern standards in Germany and Scandinavia, which presently appear to be leading the world ?

Another explanation could be that the WPS legislation in Australia only contains half the standards. The law of torts, judge made common law of damages, also imposes very real standards. It is civil law where proof 'on the balance of probabilities' only is required (very different from 'beyond reasonable doubt') and if someone has a hearing impairment and it can reasonably be attributed to their workplace, then the employer may be liable.

I am now retired but when working as an accountant listened to many small business owners rail about the uncertainty of their liabilities and responsibilities. "Whenever an employer gets sued he usually loses and the judge raises the standards."

A specific story. Panel beating is a noisy and dusty industry and hearing and lung problems are endemic. Five years ago a then client replace all of his grinding and sanding equipment (mainly Rupes) - both air and electric - with Festool gear because the dust collection was much better and he thought the sound outputs were more acceptable. Total investment was over $200,000. His explanations were:

• Insurance never covers everything - "the bastards are weasels",
• I have to equip for what a judge might say the standard is in ten or twenty years, not what WPS say it is now,
• I do not want any of my workers to suffer sicknesses or injuries,
• My workers should not be forced to sue me.

All real and valid commercial risks which he took steps to minimise.


Fair Winds

Graeme

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

The other thing to consider is that a fair proportion of users / operators in a Mens Shed have already suffered significant hearing loss and are wearing hearing aids to improve their situation. Excessive noise levels at particular frequencies may significantly impact upon wearers of hearing aids.

That's what I said above.

I noticed one of the octogenarians was sometimes taking his hearing aid out instead of wearing muffs. I explained to him that this does not help and can even make things worse. At first I thought he hadn't heard me but now I notice when he is around he is a regular wearer of muffs,

Originally Posted by BobL

Thanks Ian, I'm aware of the cumulative exposure recommendations, problem is no one is going to continually monitor what people are using and their respective SPL levels in such an environment.

snip

I would prefer not to get into an argument with individuals over what they should be wearing. I don't like blanket ruling like Muffs must be worn at all times. It would just be easier if our policy that said something like anyone using a power tool or working next to a power tool wears hearing protection. I will put that to the committee.

snip

When it's that noisy I feel sorry for the guys that go there to use hand tools, and it irritates me especially when what is being done has not really been thought through and a power tool is being over used.

Bob, I was more railing against the mandatory wearing of hearing protection when the more appropriate response would be to "banish" the noisy equipment / activities to locations where the noise only effects the operator -- otherwise known as engineering and administrative controls.

I find it a little offensive that many sheds consider hearing protection for all is an appropriate response.

As you note, the guys there to use hand tools or just socialise shouldn't be disturbed by prolonged noise making -- to my mind a few minutes of biscuit jointer use might be acceptable, 30 minutes cutting with an angle grinder is not.

Originally Posted by ian

Bob, I was more railing against the mandatory wearing of hearing protection when the more appropriate response would be to "banish" the noisy equipment / activities to locations where the noise only effects the operator -- otherwise known as engineering and administrative controls.

I find it a little offensive that many sheds consider hearing protection for all is an appropriate response.

As you note, the guys there to use hand tools or just socialise shouldn't be disturbed by prolonged noise making -- to my mind a few minutes of biscuit jointer use might be acceptable, 30 minutes cutting with an angle grinder is not.

I agree and the management are of a like mind but OTOH I think they are a little too slack - most have no idea of what a dB is.

We do have strict down time - i.e. everyone stops for morning and arvo tea and lunch at the same time. The crib room is reasonably well insulated sound wise so if someone wants to have a sit down and a second cuppa its no problem.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Good Morning Ian

Usually I like your posts and welcome your views, but in this case I think that you have expressed a very legalistic, pedantic and dinosauric opinion. Deliberately provacative ??

Hi Greame

yes, I was being a little "deliberately provocative".

As I said in my reply to Bob, I find the attitude that everyone in the shed can wear hearing protection and it'll be all OK somewhat offensive. Given the social objectives of Men's Sheds, hearing protection should not be seen as a panacea.

What I was trying to convey was that some of the noise levels reported by Bob would be considered "acceptable" in an industrial environment, while others fall into the "management must take action to reduce the noise exposure to others" category. Individual hearing protection should be seen as a last resort to be implemented after engineering and administrative controls have proved ineffective.


I'm also mindful that this thread started life as an expression of Bob's frustration at the number of blatantly unsafe acts occurring at his shed.
I remain of the view that although generally exempt from Work Place Safety requirements, the management of a Men's Shed (principally the daily supervisors) should manage the shed as though it were a factory. With that mindset noise and dust and restricted movement around the shed and unsuitable and/or blunt tools become things that have to be fixed, not things accepted as the way it is. (You may recall that one of Bob's examples of an "unsafe act" was an octogenarian falling after sitting on an unstable pile of MDF. In a "factory environment" a pile of MDF would normally be stable or inaccessible as a seat.)


I appreciate your anecdote regarding your former Panel beating client. I too am now retired and at times reflect on the level of employee risk I considered "acceptable" or "cost effective" early in my career.

Originally Posted by ian

Hi Greame

yes, I was being a little "deliberately provocative".

As I said in my reply to Bob, I find the attitude that everyone in the shed can wear hearing protection and it'll be all OK somewhat offensive. Given the social objectives of Men's Sheds, hearing protection should not be seen as a panacea.

...............

Nice response, Ian

We are on the same wavelength as, I think, is Bob.


Cheers

Graeme

The sound issues in the Men's shed are a prime example of where some administrative proceedures are called for - something like segregating noisy activities to particular sessions of the week. Then that creates a them and us mentality / situation which is contrary to the inclusive culture that Men's Sheds are promoting.

It will always be a tight rope walking exercise balancing WHS obligations against the ideal socially inclusive environment.

Originally Posted by BobL

That's what I said above.

I noticed one of the octogenarians was sometimes taking his hearing aid out instead of wearing muffs. I explained to him that this does not help and can even make things worse. At first I thought he hadn't heard me but now I notice when he is around he is a regular wearer of muffs,

Bob, my point is that excessive noise or even not so excessive noise in a particular range of frequencies may be the issue not the overall levels for individuals with hearing aids or other conditions. I have mates who are bothered by noise levels that do not exceed recommended levels and in one case the noise level in that frequencey range is well below typical ambient levels. A workmate was driven nuts by a rumble in our work airconditioning that the rest of us could only notice if we really attuned our attention to it.

Noise does not have to exceed a preset threshold to present a problem to individuals who have sensitivities. People with autism and similar conditions typically experience such sensitivities to sound "when the world won't shut up!"