LSurvey of Hearing . Conservation Programs In Industry LSrIIRVEY OF HEARING CONSERVATION / PROGRAMS IN INDUSTRY M. E. Schmidek M. A. Layne B. L. Lempert R. M. Fleming U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service Center for Disease Control National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Division of Laboratories and Criteria Development Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Jnne 1975 For sale by the Superintendent of Documentl, U.S. Government Printing Office, Walhlngton. D.C. 20402 HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 75—178 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT I I I I I [I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY O l O O O O I 0 O O 0 I U I D I I O I Selection of Companies Sent Questionnaires . . . . . Manufacturing Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transportation and Construction Sample . . . . . . Mining Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire Results . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ON-SITE INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . Selection of Companies to be visited 0 O O I I O C O The Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noise Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noise Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hearing Testing and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . Check of Equipment and Test Area . . . . . . . . . . EVALUATION OF HEARING TEST EQUIPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTS . . Applicable Test Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specifications for Audiometers . . . . . . . . . . Criteria for Background Noise in Audiometric Rooms Evaluation of Tone Frequency Measurements . . . . Evaluation of Sound Pressure Level Measurements .' Evaluation of Ambient Noise Level Measurements . . »Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES: A. List of SIC Codes B. Questionnaire and Response C. Noise Measurement Sheets D. Noise Specification Sheets E. Use of Noise Control Measures in Fifty-one Manufacturing Companies F. Employee Ear Protector Rating Sheet G. Audiogram Recording Sheets H. Procedure for Obtaining Audiometric and Environmental Noise Data I. Audiometric and Environmental Noise Measurements 111 00027 ' 31 31 31 31 34 34 46 53 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We greatly appreciate the immeasurable assistance and cooperation of the many people in industry who provided us with information concerning hearing conservation programs. We are indebted to those companies and individuals who participated in our interviews for their valuable time and informative reports, and especially to those companies who gave us permission to reproduce their data forms, product specification sheets, and other material. iv 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF FIGURES Nationwide Sample Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Hearing Conservation Practices . . . . . Personnel Making Noise Measurements . . . . . . . . Training of Personnel Making Noise Measurements . . Instrumentation Used to Make Noise Measurements . . Tone Frequency: Means and Standard Deviations of Percent Deviation from the Indicated Frequency . . Accuracy of Tone Frequencies versus Indicated Tone Frequency Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accuracy of Tone Frequency: NIOSH Recommended Frequencies Compared Against Indicated Frequencies Specified in ANSI—3.6 a o o a a o a u a o o a o o Earphone Sound Pressure Levels: Means and Standard Deviations versus Frequency Setting . . . Accuracy of Earphone Sound Pressure Levels versus Frequency Setting: '70' dB' Dial Setting Compared Against All Calculated Levels . . . . . . Accuracy of Earphone Sound Pressure Levels at the '70 dB' Dial Setting versus Frequency Setting: Audiometers Calibrated re. ASA Z24.5 Compared to Audiometers Calibrated re. ANSI $3.6 . . . . . Background Noise Levels: Means and Standard Deviations versus Frequency Setting . . . . . . . Percentage of Audiometric Test Rooms Exceeding Ambient Noise Limits versus Frequency Setting . . Percentage of Audiometric Test Rooms Exceeding Ambient Noise Limits at One or More of the, Frequency Settings Including 250 Hz and Greater . 13 ‘21 22 23 36 37 38 44 45 49 50 52 54 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. LIST OF TABLES Distribution by States and Industries of Number of Companies Sent Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . Hearing Conservation Survey Questionnaire Return . . Number of Responsive Companies Categorized by Size of Work Force and Industry .‘. . . . . . . . . . . Response Distribution of Companies Claiming Noise Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response Distribution of Companies Claiming No Noise Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Companies with Noise Levels of 90 dBA or Above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Employees Reported to be Exposed to Noise Levels of 90 dBA or Above . . . . . . . . . Number of Employees Reported to be Exposed to Noise Levels of 90 dBAvor Above in Manufacturing . . . . Number of Companies Giving Pre—employment Hearing Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Companies Giving Hearing Tests at Least Once Every Two Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Companies Giving Bone Conduction Tests . . Six Companies' Programs of Disciplinary Action for Not Wearing Ear Protectors . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of Periodic Recheck Audiograms . . . . . . Required Output Levels for Audiometers . . . . ._. . Background Noise Level Limits (re ANSI $3.1) . . . . Tone Frequency Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Earphone‘Sound Pressure Levels (re Audiometric Zero): Left and Right, Left Only, Right Only —— '70 dB' Dial Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attenuation Error of Audiometers . . . . . . . . . . Accuracy of Interstep Spacing Measurements at 1000 Hz Test Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Earphone Sound Pressure Levels (re Audiometric Zero) -— Composite Tabulation . . . . . . . . . . Earphone Sound Pressure Levels (re Audiometric Zero): Automatic Versus Manual Audiometers -— '70 dB' Dial Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Earphone Sound Pressure Levels (re Audiometric Zero): Audiometers Calibrated re ASA 224.5 versus Audiometers Calibrated re ANSI 83.6 -- '70 dB' Dial Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ambient Noise Level Evaluation by Frequency Setting vi 10 11 14 15 l6 17 17 18 27 30 32 33 35 39 42 43 47 48 51 ABSTRACT Industrial hearing conservation programs are assessed in terms of the extent of existence, standard practices, problems encountered, and apparent measures of effectiveness. A survey questionnaire was used and site visits were made in order to elicit responses from individual companies in four major indus r 1 categories: manufacturing, construction, transportation and mining: “" ‘ / W M The results indicate that many industries are responding to the need for establishment of hearing conservation programs. Of those companies claiming to have noise problems, the majority have noise reduction programs and a large percentage are planning such programs. -- --- 1:» . '~*'“v“»L‘ seems to '°~f the :V-A . #_ most 1,-._-s..—-..'- deal wi g cm ,olli V ’Vm" I ' 7 s.w “owerances on audlometers and on backgroun no se WleVEIs in test rooms as established by the American National Standards Institute were frequently exceeded at one or more frequencies, indicating a need for more precise calibration check procedures. . ‘ II _- _:,:..,;‘.,‘v ; : Forms and specification sheets provided by some of the companies which were interviewed are presented in several of the appendices to this report. Also, the contents of the questionnaire and data from the calibration checks are included. .0 . x3» I. n» - , - r. 5‘*?r.‘“!‘f‘:“.-’~ff 3" a-émé’tfvv ‘r' $‘5fifififiéfnéf. 3 gm “(aim J” J 4 ’ '" Efiifiétyidafififil ‘ m I. .' .t“.213'«',.,,, _ ~. ' Z INTRODUCTION Hearing conservation has become an integral part of the safety program in many industries which must comply with regulations established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Most established hearing conservation programs include: 1) periodic noise measurements; 2) engineering and/or administrative controls; 3) personal ear protection; and 4) audiometric monitoring. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has conducted a survey to 1) find ongoing industrial hearing conservation programs, 2) assess the extent and nature of the variability in these existing conservation efforts, 3) learn the range of problems involved in establishing such programs, and 4) determine apparent measures of effectiveness. Information relating to the first two purposes was requested in a questionnaire which was mailed to over 4000 selected companies representative of manufacturing, construction, transportation and mining industries. The third and fourth purposes of the survey were achieved by meeting with personnel from companies who were directly involved in hearing conservation programs that had existed for five or more years and by evaluating audiometric monitoring facilities with respect to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) recommendations. During these viSits information was obtained on techniques related to noise measurement, engineering noise control, administrative noise control, equipment calibration, personal ear protection and hearing testing. Results of the survey indicate that many industries were responding 'to the need for well planned, comprehensive hearing conservation programs. 0f the 2074 companies that returned completed questionnaires (48% of those sent), 44% claimed to have noise problems, 27% had noise reduction programs, and 23.5% indicated that they had programs concerned with hearing conservation. Most industries surveyed indicated that the thrust of their hearing conservation effort was the use of engineering procedures to reduce noise exposure. 0f the engineering procedures used, noise control at the source reportedly posed the greatest problems. Often there were not enough funds to implement engineering controls, and sometimes when funds were available, technical expertise was lacking. Nevertheless, many companies had developed a number of innovative engineering methods which helped to reduce noise levels. In addition, there were cases of noise reduction achievements through redesign of machinery to meet other OSHA requirements. It is the general opinion of those interviewed that responsibility for engineering control of noise should be placed on manufacturers of equipment. Although installation of new, quiet equipment in areas with existing old, noisy equipment would not necessarily solve noise problems, it was thought that the new, quiet equipment would give industry a baseline from which they could institute additional corrective procedures. Apparently administative controls had seldom been used with much success, primarily due to the complications which arise when a worker must be shifted to a job which has a different pay rate or classification. Frequently, there were also objections raised by the unions. However, at least two of the companies did indicate success with administrative controls, through cooperation between management and union. ersonal ear protectors were the most widely used single method J contro ' emp oye osure to noise. e ector programs were re 1ve w enwproper use, care, and importance of wearing the ear protector have been demonstrated to the employee. Often this type of program eliminated the need for harsh disciplinary measures for infractions and also improved employee cooperation in the program. Another factor which seemed to affect the willingness of the employee to wear ear protectors was the variety of items offered to him. Many companies supplied a wide range of personal ear protector devices and permitted the employee a trial period to select the one he liked best. Audiometric testing in companies was usually under the auspices of an existing medical department. Audiometric testing on a periodic basis, although not routine, was being used in many instances asla means of monitoring the effects of noise on the worker. In most places visited, audiometry was done by company nurses who performed many other duties besides the administration of audiometric testing programs. Company personnel also indicated that they recognized the need for sound attenuating enclosures for audiometric testing. When the purchase of a prefabricated booth was not feasible, efforts were often made to treat or sound deaden the testing area in any way possible. As a result of measurements made by NIOSH personnel during on-site visits, it was discovered that 80% of the hearing test facilities failed to meet the ANSI criteria for audiometer performance or limits for background noise levels. In general, the results show that automatic audiometers met the criteria more frequently than manual audiometers and that audiometers calibrated re. ANSI 33.6-1969 met the criteria more frequently than those calibrated re. ASA 224.5—1951. All hearing test rooms met the ambient noise level criteria at 2000 Hz and above, but significant percent— ages exceeded the limits below 1000 Hz. These results, coupled with other observations made during the on—site visits, would seem to suggest the need for a better training program for audiometric technicians, which includes not only proper standardized procedures for obtaining thresholds but also such factors as l) importance of various calibration check techniques, 2) effect of extraneous noise on the audiometric test, 3) importance of an appropriate case history, 4) use and care of éar protectors, and 5) procedures for referring employees for further tests and counseling. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY SELECTION OF COMPANIES SENT QUESTIONNAIRES Three different procedures were used for choosing individual companies to be included in the questionnaire survey. These procedures are given below for manufacturing, transportation and construction, and mining samples. It should be noted that the selection procedure was not designed to provide a statistically valid sample of American industry, but instead was intended to provide a manageable mailing list which would hopefully include the vast majority of companies having substantial hearing conserva— tion programs, from which a subsample could later be selected for on— site visits. Manufacturing Sample The manufacturing sample included companies representative of 177 of 220 Standard Industrial Classification codes.* These 177 industries were selected to maximize the probability of existing noise problems. Companies for this sample were chosen on the basis of their worker popula- tion and geographic loeation (see Figure 1). Companies listed as having a worker population of less than 100 employees were not selected. These criteria assured the inclusion of key manufacturing areas such as textile industries from the southea and paper and wood products industries from the northeast, and facili ted travel to those companies where on—site interviews were later ma e. In addition, no more than four plants owned by a given company w re sent questionnaires. Addresses were obtained from computer cards listed in Market Statistics: Key Plants 1970—71 (available from Mar et Statistics, 144 E. 44th Street, New York, New York 10017). Following preliminary selection of a manufacturing sample, meetings were held with representatives of government agencies and trade associations representing over 30 industries. The resulting discussions were concerned with the content of the questionnaire and a method for informing selected companies about the survey. Transportation and Construction Samples Companies involved in air, rail, bus, or trucking transport were included in the transportation sample. The construction sample was representative of companies involved in industrial, commercial and apartment construction. ‘* The Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC) was utilized in choosing the types of operations included in the survey (see Appendix A). ______=__: i _ .____§==$ ___ i... _ =____==___ =__ .___=__ M . A. __=__ =____ . / .\ E. 25.: __i__i_ S _ .i i E“: \‘_ __ i _____.__.______= g E g \ E i _ 2% is \ i ii i... E \M N? g i is 1 _ E: \__\_ _i____.___m_i__________.__§.___ E =7 is: . §§=___. CONSTRUCTION OR TRANSPORTATION — MANUFACTURING , — COAL MINING C - OTHER MINING M Nationwide Sample Distribution Figure 1. These samples were taken from twenty—eight key cities located in the same geographic areas from which the manufacturing sample was selected. These cities were rank ordered by population and the individual companies were then randomly selected from city telephone directories. The number of companies chosen from each city for the samples was proportional to the population of that city. Mining Sample The mining sample included companies representative of metal, non—metal, quarry, gravel and coal mining industries. The mines included in the survey were selected primarily on the basis of geographical location and without consideration of specific worker population. The selection was made from a list provided by the Bureau of Mines, of mines from 18 states. Table 1 shows the list of states represented in the survey and the number of companies which were sent questionnaires in each of the four industrial categories. DESCRIPTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaire (Appendix B) was divided into three sections. Section A requested general information about the company, such as total number of employees and information regarding any personnel working in an industrial safety and health capacity. If there was no hearing conservation program presently in effect and if no program was being planned, the company was requested to complete only Section A of the questionnaire. Section B was to be completed by any industries in the process of planning a hearing conservation program. Questions dealt with the type of program being planned and the personnel who would be establishing and maintaining the program. Section C was to be completed only by those companies who already had an ongoing hearing conservation program. Questions were designed to provide information on occupational noise levels, personal ear protectors, hearing testing, and personnel responsible for the program. QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS A total of 4,299 questionnaires were sent to companies with SIC codes corresponding to manufacturing, construction, transportation and mining industries; 48% were returned. Tables 2 and 3 present the response to the questionnaire by sample group. Appendix B contains a comprehensive breakdown of the responses for each question. Responses are categorized by major industrial groups and are tabulated as percentages. Question 1 from Section C is shown below to illustrate the format of presentation. DISTRIBUTION BY STATES AND INDUSTRIES OF NUMBER OF COMPANIES SENT QUESTIONNAIRES Alabama Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Oregon Pennsylvania Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia TOTAL Mia- 59 23 472 20 128 0 66 13 530 22 0 56 28 .103 193 83 39 103 O 148 150 75 144 156 20 8 70 0 2709 TABLE 1 Mines Constr. Transp. TOTAL Other Coal 8 5 15 11 98 23 0 20 ‘12. 78 16 0 60 47 595 0 5 30 22 77 0 0 10 6 144 23 0 0 V0 23 O 0 25 16 107 3 0 0 0 16 4 5 148 93 780 0 O 15 12 49 0 27 O 0 27 4 0 3O 21 111 1 0 63 31 123 0 0 73 22 198 2 0 86 35 316 0 0 15 10 108 4 0 40 31 114 0 0 29 10 142 10 '0 o o 10 4 0 31 21 204 1 0 0 0 151 1 0 22 14 112 4 20' 33 26 227 6 0 45 34 241 8 2 10 5 45 0 12 15 7 42 5 0 25 ’19 119 0 42 0 0 42 127 118 840 505 4299 TABLE 2 HEARING CONSERVATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN Number Number Returned Number Returned Percentage Returned Samele Groug Sent Completed Blank Completed Manufacturing 2709 1410 149 , 52.0% Construction 840 284 . 53 33.8% Transportation 505 ‘ 241 34 47.7% Mining 245 139 15 1 56.7% TOTAL ' 4299 2074 251 48.2% TABLE 3 NUMBER OF RESPONSIVE COMPANIES CATEGORIZED BY SIZE OF WORK FORCE AND INDUSTRY Number of Companies Number of Employees Manufacturing Construction Transportation Mining Less than 10 5 » 157 100 16 10 to 50 50 89 j 74 10 50 to 250 652 28 36 62 250 to 500 366 6 7 27 Above 500 ‘ 337 4 24 24 TOTAL 1,410 284 241 ' 139 Largest Pogulation: 37,500 1,400 35,000 5,429 Total Work Force: 947,393 11,857 116,034 57,562 ~SECTION C Mfg. Const. Trans. Mng. A11 1. Who developed this hearing conservation program? 19.5% 0.0% 0.0% 27.1% 19.2% a. industrial hygienist 39.7 80.0 50.0 45.8 41.2 b. safety engineer 4.6 0.0 10.0 4.2 4.7 c. physician 4.1 0.0 5.0 0.0 3.6 d. nurse 13.4 20.0 5.0 2.1 12.0 e. insurance underwriter 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.8 f. consultant 5.3 0.0 30.0 18.8 7.7 (g.) personnel manager . 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 (h.) plant mgr.; superintendent 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 (i.) safety supervisor 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 (j.) industrial relations 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (k.) other 395* 5* 20* 48* 468* * Total number of companies responding The following examples show how to interpret the tabulated values: — under the column heading "All" it is shown that 41.2% of the 468 companies who answered this question gave letter b, safety engineer, as the answer. - similarly, within the Manufacturing (Mfg.) category, 3.0% of 395 companies gave letter f, consultant, as the answer. In general, the five columns of.numbers to the left of the questions show the results for the four industrial categories and the combined results for all respondents. The percentage values in each column are the percentages of companies giving the corresponding answers. At the bottom of each column is the total number of companies answering the question. These numbers are not always the same for every question since a few companies did not answer all questions in a given section. Parentheses around some of the answers indicate that these choices were not listed in the questionnaire that was mailed out, but were created. during the process of data tabulation, based on "write-in" answers given by many of the respondents. Responses to questions 6 and 7 (Section A) of the questionnaire were compiled and divided into two groups: those claiming noise problems and those claiming no noise problems. The responses were then further divided into three groups depending on whether the company had a hearing conservation program, was in the process of planning one, or neither has nor was planning a hearing conservation program. These results are presented in Tables 4 and 5. 0f the companies claiming noise problems, only 52% have a program for noise reduction, and 19% are not planning any type of noise control program. OI Industrz Manufacturing Construction Transportation Mining TOTAL TABLE 4 RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION OF COMPANIES CLAIMING NOISE PROBLEMS Companies Companies Companies with Noise Planning Noise with No Program or Reduction Program Reduction Program Plan for Noise Reduction No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage 404 56%. 216 30% 100 14% 6 10% 9 14% 48 76% 20 44% 8 18% 17 38% 47 50% 37 41% 8 9% 477 52% 270 29% 173 19% II TABLE 5 RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION OF COMPANIES CLAIMING NO NOISE PROBLEMS Companies Companies Companies with Noise Planning Noise with No Program or Industry Reduction Program , Reduction Program Plan for Noise Reduction No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage Manufacturing ' 66 10. oz 46 7 . oz ' 578 83 .02 Construction 3 1. 5% 1 0.5% 217 ' 98.0% Transportation 6 3.0% 2 1.0% 188 96.0% Mining 10 21.0% 6 13.0% 31 66.0% TOTAL 85 7.0% 55 5.0% 1014 88.0% Figure 2 shows questionnaire results based on responses from companies with an existing hearing conservation program. Results were divided into four categories: noise measurement, exposure control (engineering or administrative controls), audiometric monitoring and ear protectors. The majority (76%) of companies returning the questionnaire had no hearing conservation program, but 18% of these companies are in the process of planning such a program. The responses from companies planning hearing conservation programs (Section B) are very similar to the responses of companies who already had hearing conservation programs. The most outstanding difference is in the area of noise measurement where 83% were planning to measure noise only in dBA and 16% were planning to use both dBA and octave band measurements compared to 65% and 34%, respectively. A question about worker noise exposure to 90 dBA or more was included in Section C. Table 6 lists information reported by 430 of the 502 respondents claiming to have hearing conservation programs. The other 72 companies elected not to respond to the question. The number of employees reported to be exposed to noise levels of 90 dBA or above are shown in Table 7 for the four major industries in the survey: manufacturing, construction, transportation, and mining. In addition, manufacturing companies were separated by the individual SIC codes and the results are shown in Table 8. These tables are not an attempt to present exact figures as to how many workers are exposed to hazardous noise levels; rather, they substantiate the fact that noise is indeed a common occupational hazard which could affect a large number of workers. However, in interpreting the results which appear in the tables, the following points must also be considered: 1. The answers from this question cannot be used to accurately determine how many workers are incurring hazardous noise expo— sures because information concerned with length of the exposure is not available. 2. Each plant made its own noise level evaluations and it is unlikely that a single standard procedure was used universally. 3. Many other plants involved in this questionnaire survey could not or did not answer this question. 4. The projections in the last column of Table 8 are not based on a statistically valid sample. Other information obtained in Section C of the questionnaire concerned audiometric monitoring. Tables 9, 10, and 11 provide information about pre—employment tests, frequency of tests, and bone conduction tests. 12 ET / COMPANIES HAVING A HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM Now IN EFFECT \ NOISE EXPOSURE AUDIOMETRIC EAR MEASU’REMENT CONIROL MONIT,ORING PROCTECTORS YES NO YES NO YES "0 YES "0 89% ||% 68% 32% '00.]. 0% 94% 6% TYPE OF TESTING MEASUREMENTS USA 0:22? dgA LOCATION SCHEDULING 0.3. co. OUT- PRE— R. . PRE‘ 65% I % 34% OWNED CL'N'C m ”E °°c “235:. 58 % 42 '5 34 % 5 56 6| 'lo PROCEDURE AUersngETER 1' E s T E R MANUAL AUTO- M.D Agggm’ NURSE OTHER 79% 2! °/o 7 % 8 °/o 74 “/0 II '/o Figure 2. Summary of Hearing Conservation Practices TABLE 6 NUMBER OF COMPANIES* WITH NOISE LEVELS OF 90 dBA OR ABOVE Number of Employees Exposed to 90 dBA or Above Number of Companies Manufacturing? Construction Transportation Mining None 39 3 12 16 Less than 10 48 1 4 6 10 to 50 107 2 —— 13 50 to 250 71 f- 1 10 Above 250 86 -- 7 4 TOTAL 351 6 24 49 * This table illustrates the response to Question 3, Section C of the questionnaire and therefore only represents responses of companies who claimed to have a hearing conservation program. 14 ST TABLE 7 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES REPORTED TO BE EXPOSED TO NOISE LEVELS OF 90 dBA 0R ABOVE Number of Total Number Number Located Estimated 2 Total No. Projected Plants Included of Employees in Areas 90 dBA of Workforce WOrk to be in in Sample in Sample or Above Exposed* Force Areas 90 dB Manufacturing 351 513,166 72,188 14.9 16,546,400 2,470,681 Construction 6 755 82 10.9 3,480,000 377,960 Transportation 24 86,640 16,936 19.5 2,193,600 427,752 Mining 49 26,455 3,994 15.0 378,545 56,732 TOTAL 430 627,016 93,200 14.7 22,598,545 3,333,125 * These percentages are calculated by dividing Total WOrk Force into No. Projected. 91 TABLE 8 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES REPORTED TO BE EXPOSED TO NOISE LEVELS OF 90 dBA 0R ABOVE IN MANUFACTURING Percentage No. Projected No. Located of Work to be No. of Total No. in Areas Force Total Located in Plants of Empl. 90 dBA Exposed Work ~Areas 90 dBA SIC CODE in Sample in Sample and Above in Sample Force and Over 22 Textile Mill Products 23 12,764 5,634 44.1 963,300 424,815 29 Petroleum & Coal Products 17 24,193 6,675 27.6 _ 192,800 53,212' 24 Lumber & Wood Products 14 5,654 1,460 25.8 601,000 155,058 20 Wood & Kindred Products 16 22,433 5,769 25.7 1,898,600 487,940 25 Furniture & Fixtures 11 10,374 1,849 17.8 465,400 82,841 34 Fabricated Metal Products 58 41,428 7,079 17.1 1,335,000 228,285 32 Stone, Clay & Glass Products 5 2,502 416 16.6 643,800 106,870 33 Primary Metal Industries 54 74,736 11,081 14.8 1,190,000 176,120 30 Rubber & Plastic Products 5 8,691 1,105 12.7 589,500 74,867 37 Transportation Equipment 46 199,212 23,445 11.8 1,705,500 201,249 36 Electrical Equip. & Supplies 7 8,790 973 11.1 1,778,100 197,369 28 Chemicals & Allied Products 9 3,851 324 8.4 1,014,400 85,210 23 Apparel & Other Textile Products 1 50 5 10.0* (1,353,100) 26 Paper & Allied Products 22 15,277 1,400 9.2 687,300 63,240 19 Ordnance & Accessories 12 39,403 3,480 8.8 193,900 17,063 38 Instruments & Related Products 6 3,254 193 5.9 433,800 25,594 35 Machinery Except Electrical 39 25,327 1,043 4.1 1,768,000 72,488 27 Printing & Publishing 6 15,227 257 1.7 1,085,900 18,460 TOTAL: , 351 513,166 72,188 ** 16,546,400 2,470,681 * Insufficient data for projection ** Based on No. Projected and Total Work Force, the estimated percentage of total work force exposed is 14.9% TABLE 9 NUMBER OF COMPANIES GIVING PRE-EMPLOYMENT HEARING TESTS Number of Years Practice Followed Number of Companies Manufacturing Transportation Mining 0 to 1 103 5 8 l to 5 55 2 ll 5 to 10 63 5 12 10 or more 68 7 6 TOTAL 289 19 37 Longest reported time for giving this test 30 years 37 years 20 years TABLE 10 NUMBER OF COMPANIES GIVING HEARING TESTS AT LEAST ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS Number of Years Practice Followed Number of Companies ‘ Manufacturingy Transportation ' Mining 0 to l 88 3 5 l to 5 41 3 4 5 to 10 38 4 6 10 or more 35 7 3 TOTAL 202 l7 l8 Longest reported time for giving this test 25 years 37 years 17 years 17 TABLE 11 NUMBER OF COMPANIES GIVING BONE CONDUCTION TESTS Number of Years Practice Followed Number of Companies Manufacturingr Transportation Mining 0 to 1 147 1 3 1 to 5 10 -— —— 5 to 10 4 __ l 10 or more 9 —- 1 TOTAL 37 1 6 Longest reported time for giving this test 19 years -- 17 years 18 ON-SITE INTERVIEWS SELECTION OF COMPANIES TO BE VISITED Following the questionnaire survey on—site interviews were made with personnel of 80 companies from among the 2074 respondents. These com- panies were representative of transportation, manufacturing, and mining industries, with the bulk of the interviews being conducted with manufacv turing companies. Construction companies were not included in this on—site survey due to their poor response to the questionnaire survey (possibly due to their high mobility). The criterion for selection of companies for visits was that they had conducted, for over five years, on—going hearing conservation programs, including audiometric monitoring. Only companies having long term experience in the area of hearing conserva— tion were selected because of their unique ability to provide data concerning the problems and solutions related to the maintenance of such programs. Information relevant to noise control and audiometric monitoring in each hearing conservation program was requested, calibration of the companies' audiometers was checked, and measurements of background noise in the audiometric.test rooms were taken. THE INTERVIEW Initial contact for the interview was made by letter and always was addressed to the person indicated on the questionnaire as having involvement with the formulation or maintenance of the hearing conservation program. Those interviewed usually consisted of an industrial hygienist, a safety director, a physician, a personnel representative, or any combination of these; however, occasionally management representatives were present. The visits were approximately 2 hours in duration with about 1 1/2 hours devoted to a discussion of the aspects of the hearing conservation program and 1/2 hour for the calibration check of audiometric equipment, ambient noise measurements in the test area, and subsequent explanation of the results. The interview was divided into four parts: noise measurement, noise control, hearing testing and monitoring, and personal ear protection. The following sections provide a more detailed explanation of each part in addition to the general results obtained. Due to variability encountered with each program, it was not possible to obtain exactly the same types of information from all plants for each part of the interview. Noise Measurement In obtaining information relating to environmental noise measurements, three basic areas were investigated: (1) background and training of .persons taking the noise measurements, (2) instrumentation and calibration procedures used, and (3) number and type of noise survey made each year. Six questions were asked concerning these areas. Results of the first 19' three questions are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5, which illustrate who makes noise measurements, methods of training for those people, and types of instrumentation used. The majority of people are safety personnel or industrial hygienists, are self—taught or trained by university or government sponsored seminars, and use general purpose sound level meters with A-weighting networks. Not included in Figure 5 is the percentage of those who also have access to more elaborate equipment systems. Some of this additional equipment included graphic level recorders, oscilloscopes, and third octave band analyzers. The fourth question related to methods of calibration. Seventy-four percent of those interviewed stated that calibration was done with a calibrator purchased with the sound level meter, while 23% had access to a calibrating unit either through corporate headquarters or the equipment supplier. Three percent had no means of calibrating their instruments. Calibration was performed before each use or before and after each use, except on those instruments which had to be sent out for calibration. In these instances, calibration was generally performed on an annual or semi-annual basis. The fifth question asked about the use of dosimeters. Results show that 22% use personal dosimeters to define exposure to hazardous noise, and 3% use some type of stationary monitor. In most instances, use of dosimeters was in an incipient stage, and many comments were noted questioning the validity of the measurements based on calibration difficulties, possible temperature sensitivity, and use in intermittent noise. The sixth question requested information on how often noise surveys were conducted. In general, companies conduct noise surveys at the request of an employee or when new equipment is purchased and installed. However, some of the companies take complete noise surveys on an annual or biannual basis. Included in Appendix C is a collection of noise measurement forms which were provided by several of these companies. Noise Control Companies were asked if they used written noise specifications in the purchase of new equipment. 0f the 80 companies interviewed, 61 stated that some sort of written specification was used. In most cases the specifications were a part of the purchase orders, but sometimes a separate publication would be attached to the purchase orders. The majority of written noise specifications simply state that noise levels should not be in excess of Federal regulations. Some specified a particular dBA level as a maximum acceptable limit. This level was usually 90 dBA although in one instance a company had written an 80 dBA specification, but it had not yet been used. Appendix D contains several noise level specifications forms generously supplied by several of the companies. 20 OTHERS 8% 3? % SAFETY PERSONNEL INSURANCE CARRIERS I2% ENVIRONMENTAL 8% SPECIALISTS I 2% ENGINEERS 23% INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS Figure 3. Personnel Making Noise Measurements 21 INSTRUMENT 30 % MANUFACTURERS 0R SALESMEN SELF TAUGHT COMPANY PERSONNEL |3°/o 32% UNIVERSITY OR GOVERNMENT SPONSORED SEMINAR Figure 4. Training of Personnel Making Noise Measurements 22 68% GENERAL PURPOSE SOUND LEVEL METER WITH A-WEIGHTED NETWORK .mllm- 2% 2% ' 28% GENERAL PURPOSE SOUND LEVEL HETER WITH ' OCTAVE BAND ANALYZER Figure 5. Instrumentation Used to Make Noise Measurements 23 Although most did specify noise level limits, the general Opinion seemed to be that such specifications were of little value at this time because they were unenforceable, due to the fact that no equipment was available which met the specifications or because the manufacturing market was non—competitive. Another frequent comment was that when manufacturers did meet the specified level, often the machine would still contribute to the noise problems when placed in a noisy area. One company preferred to order machinery without regard to its noise level and concentrate efforts on noise reduction after installment. If machinery not meeting specifications was delivered, it was never refused, but several companies did delay acceptance of a product until noise levels conformed with, the specifications. After machinery is installed, there are three basic methods of controlling noise exposure: (1) engineering procedures; (2) administrative procedures; and (3) issuance and use of personal ear protection. Prior to discussing these specific procedures, information regarding noisy areas (over 90 dBA) was obtained. Questions concerned: (1) type of operation creating the noise; (2) average dBA level in these areas; (3) duration of excessively high levels per 8—hour day; (4) type of noise generally encountered (i.e., continuous, intermittent, or impact); (5) number of employees exposed on a routine basis to this noise; and (6) methods employed to remedy these situations. Answers were not obtained for all of the questions from each company because of the differences in programs. However, considerable information was furnished concerning the methodologies employed in handling noise problems and the number of employees in the general workplace who are expoSed routinely to levels greater than 90 dBA. All information relating E0 the six questions is presented in Appendix E. Engineering controls were reportedly tried by almost every company before any other procedures were instituted. The engineering procedures ranged from replacing worn machinery parts to changing the process. The main complaints about use of engineering procedures were difficulty in finding qualified consultants to solve difficult noise problems, the uncertainty of available technology to solve certain problems, and the expense. Cost of successful engineering procedures ranged from minimal (replacement of worn parts) to $40,000 (investment in acoustical screens and curtains). 0f the companies which considered substitution of an innovative new process for the older, noisier one, most found it to be too expensive. Companies mentioned that it was difficult to predict accurately the resulting attenuation from engineering controls. In one instance, a $35,000 investment for quieting one noise source only reduced the overall noise level by 2—3 dBA. In instances where companies find that engineering procedures are not economically feasible or do not sufficiently lower the noise levels, administrative procedures can be implemented. Of the eighty companies visited, only four were effectively making use of these measures to limit exposure by rotating workers in and out of noisy environments. 24 Several companies have used a type of administrative control which limits extremely noisy operations to Sundays or night shifts in order to minimize the number of exposed workers. However, it was the general consensus of the companies that administrative controls are not often usable because of various pay rates, job classifications and objection to this method by both the employees and the union. The use of personal ear protectors was the most frequently encountered means of controlling the worker's noise exposure. Most companies interviewed relied heavily on personal ear protectors, realizing that they are a temporary measure and that engineering controls are required where feasible. Each company visited was requested to supply information concerning type of ear protectors used, reasons for choosing them, and their cost. Most companies made available a variety of personal ear protectors to the employees. These consisted of one or more types of ear muffs, earplugs (including molded and pre-sized types), or ear—stuffing material. In most instances companies let the employees choose their own type of ear protectors. Some companies did stipulate, however, that only ear muffs could be used in high level noise areas, and others required use of a specified type based on the nature of the job. One example of such a restriction was-at a company which disallowed the use of earplugs because the work demanded constant use of acids and alkalines. Common problems encountered in use of ear protectors were associated with fit, irritation, worker acceptance, and monitoring difficulty. Average cost and range of prices for the three basic types of ear protectors are given below. Cost varied greatly depending on the quantity of the purchase and any contract agreements between the company and the supplier. Average Cost Range Ear Plugs $0.6l/pr. $0.35 — 0.93 Ear Muffs $6.12/pr. \ $3.40 - 12.85 Individually Molded $5.50/pr. Insufficient data The most common reasons for choosing a particular type of ear protector was the attenuation provided. The attenuation data available to these companies usually consisted of information from state or Federal publications, research done by a corporate or independent research firm, or data supplied by the manufacturers of ear protectors. Other reasons given include discount agreements with the manufacturers of the personal ear protectors, satisfaction with other safety products made by a particular manufacturer, comfort of the various protectors, and cost. It should be noted, however, that there was no uniformity among the companies interviewed as to either 25 the particular brands or types of ear protectors provided or the reasons given by the companies for their preferences of certain types. Acceptance of ear protectors by the employees was said to be related mainly to the type of monitoring technique employed, especially when a disciplinary program is in effect, and to the amount of personal attention qgiven in the fitting of protectors. Experience has shoWn company personnel that acceptance is greater where individual molded earplugs are being used than where ear protectors are distributed without personal fitting. Appendix F shows an employee ear protector rating sheet used for an evaluation of worker attitudes. Companies use different methods for dispensing different types of ear protectors. Usually ear stuffing material is located at a work area in a bulk dispenser so that there is no means of controlling the amount used. At companies where ear plugs are fitted by a nurse, records of the distribution of plugs is usually kept. In most cases distribution of ear muffs is closely monitored, and often this distribution is controlled through the tool crib. There was no charge to the employee for an initial set of ear protectors in any of the companies that were visited. Many places, however, charged the employee the replacement cost of any ear muffs which were assigned to him. Most companies reported that although repair was almost never required, ear protectors were frequently misplaced. Occasional "loss" of personal ear protectors was not a major concern, as the companies felt it probably indicated that the employee was protecting his hearing off of the job, also. Disciplinary actions for not wearing ear protectors were generally the same standard procedures used in the overall safety program (e.g., for the habitual "forgetting" of hard hats or eye protection). The amount and severity of each disciplinary action varied greatly with each company; the least severe being a verbal warning with no provision for any type of follow—up, and the most severe being termination of employment without further warning. Examples of the disciplinary programs used in many industries are listed in Table 12. Ideally, the employee's own regard for his safety and well-being should be the motivation for wearing ear protectors; but, in actual practice, this is seldom the case. Companies which have taken it upon themselves to enforce such programs are doing so not only to protect themselves from any Violation of OSHA regulations, but also to protect the employee who will not protect himself, and to protect the company from subsequent compensation claims. Part of a company's program is education of employees about the importance of wearing personal ear protection. Information was given generally at the regularly scheduled safety meetings. Some program directors showed pamphlets, films and slides which dealt with the function and importance of the total hearing mechanism. This material was provided 26 LZ TABLE 12 SIX COMPANIES' PROGRAMS 0F DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR NOT WEARING EAR PROTECTORS 1 Oral Warning Letter in Personnel Folder Two-Day Suspension Five-Day Suspension Ten—Day Suspension 2 Call to Employee's Attention Notify Foreman of Infraction Verbal Warning Written, Warning in Personnel Folder 3 Two Verbal Warnings Formal Written Warnings Transfer or Termination Written Warning in Personnel Folder 4 Verbal Warning Written Warning if within Six Months of No. Three-Day Suspension if within Six Months of No. Five-Day Suspension if within Six Months of No. ~Discharge if within Six Months of No. i Supervisor Report to Union Union Responsible for any Disciplinary Action 6 Verbal Warning Formal Letter in Personnel File Letter to Safety Supervisor Termination of Employment by safety concerns or manufacturers of ear protectors. Ear protection fitting was often demonstrated and specific safety rules were presented. One company used their own employees to make a film demonstrating the importance of hearing, and it was well received by the workers. The medical department often played an important role in the education of employees. At the periodic or pre—employment audiometric examination the nurse would remind the employee of the effects of noise on hearing, check the fit of his ear protectors, and instruct him on the proper use of his type of protector. Hearinngesting and Monitoring MOSt of the personnel who administered the audiometric examinations were registered nurses and this activity represented only a portion of their various duties. Other personnel, including audiologists, corporate safety managers or even security guards were found to be responsible for performing the audiometric testing. In the industries surveyed much emphasis seemed to have been placed on training of personnel doing the audiometric testing. An attempt was made to document the various types of training received by each tester, however, it was difficult to ascertain because many did not remember the details of their training program. During the interview each tester was specifically questioned as to his qualifications and educational background. Because of the various types of "certification" existing, it was impossible to determine whether all technicians had received the same amount of training. Seventy— one percent of the audiometric technicians interviewed held some type of certification, and some had more than one certificate. The length of the training courses to obtain this "certification" varied from one day to two weeks. Further discussion and observation revealed that general knowledge and practical experience varied a great deal. In the interview with each tester, questions were asked regarding testing technique, scheduling, record keeping practices and referral procedures. Actual procedures for performing audiometric tests differed markedly. The more thorough programs included an extensive case history, consistent measuring of audiometric thresholds by an accepted method, indoctrination of the worker to the care and proper use of ear protectors, regular biological and periodic exhaustive calibration of equipment and evaluation of factors capable of affecting consistency and accuracy of patient ' response. Factors affecting patient response include recent noise exposure, head colds, misunderstanding of instructions, or excessive ambient noise levels in the testing area. Other programs, also administered by "certified" audiometric technicians, consisted of some combination of the above points. ' Several inaccuracies were noted during the interviews with the audio— metric technicians. In one instance, a tester was unfamiliar with the audiometer and was unable to identify the tone interrupter switch. 28 This tester obtained most audiograms by using the power switch in lieu of the tone interrupter switch. It is obvious that such procedures would invalidate any tests performed. Another technician reported that better thresholds were obtained when the subject was permitted to sit facing the audiometric dials (no sound treated enclosure was used in this instance). After situating the employee, the technician stood beside the audiometer and manipulated the dials (while being careful not to obstruct the view of the person being tested) until a consistent response was obtained. Testing technique depended greatly on the type of audiometer used. Equipment used was relatively standard and consisted of portable audiometers for obtaining air conduction thresholds. Seventy percent of these audio— meters were manual and thirty percent were self—recording (automatic). Some of these audiometers were equipped to perform bone conduction measure- ments, however, in no instance was bone conduction testing done as a routine part of a hearing conservation program. In all instances but one, routine pre-employment audiograms were obtained.. The administration of recheck audiograms was highly variable. Some companies did no rechecks while others did them only at the request of the physician. In most companies, rechecks were performed on a periodic schedule. The frequency of these rechecks varied greatly depending upon the size of the industry and the manpower available to obtain them. Table 13 presents a breakdown of the frequency of periodic recheck audiograms. The audiograms were kept in the general medical file to facilitate compari— son between the periodic and pre—employment audiograms. Many technicians commented that they made no reference to the original audiogram until after the recheck audiogram was performed. This actually represents an informal check on the reliability of their testing technique. In Appendix G are presented several types of audiometric recording sheets which were provided by the companies for inclusion in this report. Referral procedures used by each company were similar, however the criteria on the reference points for referrals, i.e., the magnitude of shift and number of frequencies demonstrating such shifts, appear to be very inconsistent among the companies. In some instances "intuition" appeared to be a determining factor. The standard procedure for referral was to refer to the company physician those persons who showed evidence of a change in hearing acuity according to the company's and/or tester's criteria. If he believed it to be necessary, a further referral to a specialist was made. The service of specialists was usually paid for by the company. Most of these companies used a small prefabricated sound treated room for testing, however occasionally a quiet room was used. It was the general opinion of these companies, though, that a sound treated booth or acoustically treated room was necessary for obtaining accurate thresholds. 29 TABLE 13 FREQUENCY OF PERIODIC RECHECK AUDIOGRAMS Basis for Interval Between Audiograms ' Percentage Annual 23 Biannual 13 Occupational (performed on those in high noise level environments only) 26 Age 10 Other: 28 Every 5 years for those in noisy areas Every 6 months Annual test for high noise areas, every 6 months for engine testing Noisy areas every 6 months; all on reissuance of ear plugs Those with medical problems, by request and by departments CHECK OF EQUIPMENT AND TEST AREA The last part of each site visit was used for checking the calibration of audiometers by measuring coupler sound pressure levels* and tonal frequency and for determining the ambient noise levels found in audio— metric testing areas. Procedures and instruments used in obtaining these audiometric and environmental data are presented in Appendix H. In Appendix I are complete lists of the actual measurements. The next section in this report presents an analysis and evaluation of these measurements. *Earphone and coupler attachments conform to Figure l in ANSI 83.6—1969. 3O EVALUATION OF HEARING TEST EQUIPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTS APPLICABLE TEST STANDARDS Two standards published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) are applicable to the evaluation of hearing test equipment and environments performed in this study: "Specifications for Audiometers" (ANSI 83.6—1969) and "Criteria for Background Noise in Audiometric Rooms" (ANSI 83.1-1960 R—1971). In addition, an earlier standard for audiometers by the American Standards Association, ASA 224.5-1951, was used prior to ANSI 53.6, and many audiometers were still calibrated to the ASA standard. Reference levels for both audiometer standards are given in Table 14. These standards contain measurement procedures which were followed in making the check of audiometer calibration and in measuring noise levels in hearing test rooms. Also, specifications are given in terms of tolerances in performance and maximum permitted noise levels. Specifications for Audiometers Wide range, pure—tone, air conduction audiometers were the only type in use at the companies which were visited. In Section 4, ANSI $3.6, "Requirements for Pure—Tone Audiometers" are presented. The audiometric data was compared against the accuracy requirements of this section for tone frequencies and earphone sound pressure levels. For the indicated tone frequencies 250, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 3000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hertz (Hz), these requirements are: a. Each frequency generated shall be within 3 percent of the indicated frequency. b. The sound pressure produced by an earphone as referred to the standard reference level-(see Table 14) shall not differ from the indicated value of sound pressure level at any reading of the hearing threshold level dial by more than 3 dB at the indicated frequencies 250 through 3000 Hz, by more than 4 dB at 4000 Hz, or by more than 5 dB at indicated frequencies above or below this range. c. The difference between two successive interstep spacing measurements shall be within three—tenths of the dial interval measured in decibels ('interval test'). (This requirement was applied only to manual audiometers.) Criteria for Background Noise in Audiometric Rooms As recommended in Section 3 of ANSI S3.1, "Conditions for Sound Pressure Level Measurements," measurements in an audiometric room were made when the worst possible ambient noise conditions presumably existed under which hearing tests might be conducted. These measurements were compared against the octave-band background noise level limits specified for no masking at 0 dB hearing level (re ASA 224.5) using a standard audiometer. These limits are shown in Table 15. 31 ZS TABLE 14 REQUIRED OUTPUT LEVELS FOR AUDIOMETERS Standard Reference Levels Minimum Upper Limit Frequency Sound Pressure Levels in of Hearing Threshold in Hz ' Decibels Relative to 0.0002 Microbar Level in Decibels ANSI 83.6—1969 ASA Z24.5—1951 ANSI 83.6-1969 (re WE-709) (re WE-709) (re TDH-39)* 125 45.5 54.5 45.0 70 250 24.5 39.5 ' 25.5 90 500 11.0 25.0 11.5 100 1000 6.5 16.5 7.0 100 1500 6.5 16.5 6.5 100 2000 8.5 17.0 9.0 100 3000 7.5 16.0 10.0 100 4000 9.0 15.0 9.5 100 6000 8.0 17.5 15.5 90 8000 9.5 21.0 13.0 80 * The TDH—39 earphone sound pressure levels represent corresponding reference levels to the WE—709 earphone, as recommended in ANSI 33.6-1969. All data in the table are based on measurements made with the earphones fitted with the MX—41/AR earphone cushion using a NBS 9—A coupler. ' SE Audiometric Test Frequency 125 BACKGROUND NOISE LEVEL LIMITS (re ANSI 83.1) 250 500 750 TABLE 15 1000 1500 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 Octave Band Cutoff Frequencies 75 150 150 300 300 600 600 1200 600 1200 1200 2400 1200 2400 2400 4800 2400 4800 4800 10000 4800 10000 Maximum Sound Pressure Level 40 40 40 40 40 42 47 52 57 62 67 EVALUATION OF TONE FREQUENCY MEASUREMENTS The results of tone frequency measurements (see Appendix I, Part 1) are shown in Table 16. Illustrated in Figure 6 are these means and standard deviations of tone frequency measurements expressed as percentage deviations from the indicated values shown on audiometer dial settings. In Figure 7, portions of the bar graph above the abscissa represent the percentage of audiometers whose tone frequencies were within the allowable tolerance specified in ANSI 83.6; those portions falling below the abscissa represent the percentage of audiometers that exceeded allowable tolerance. These results were combined in order to determine the percentage of audiometers which exceeded the specified tolerance at one or more of the test frequencies usually used in a hearing conservation program; that is, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hertz. As shown in Figure 8, 20% (15) of 74 audiometers did exceed this criteria. When test frequencies of 250, 1500, and 8000 Hertz were also included, 32% (24) of 74 audiometers failed the test. 0f the 9 additional audiometers exceeding the tolerance test, 7 failed only at 250 Hz, 1 failed only at 1500 Hz, and 1 failed only at 8000 Hz. EVALUATION OF SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 0f 74 audiometers tested, 52 were manual (21 calibrated re ASA Z24.5— 1951, 31 re ANSI S3.6—l969) and 22 were automatic (8 calibrated re ASA Z24.5, 14 re ANSI 83.6). All but one of these audiometers were matched with TDH—39 earphones. Since the audiometer specifications of ANSI 53.6 can be most conveniently expressed in terms of hearing levels, all measurements of coupler sound pressure levels (see Appendix I, Parts 2 and 3) were converted to earphone sound—pressure—levels—re audiometric zero using the reference threshold levels shown in Table 14 (i.e., sound pressure levels are expressed re audiometric zero rather than re 20 micropascals). Table 17 shows sound pressure'level means and standard deviations for left and right earphones, left earphones only, and right earphones only. Also, percentages of audiometers exceeding ANSI $3.6 sound pressure level range limits are given. For the 'left—and—right earphone' analysis the percentage failing values are representative of the percentage of audiometers from which measurements in either the left or right earphone exceeded ANSI 83.6 range limits. Comparison of 'left earphones only' percent failing versus 'right earphone only' percent failing reveals that right earphone measurements exceeded ANSI 83.6 range limits more frequently than left earphone measurements at all frequency settings except 500 and 8000 Hertz. In general, failure occurred 5% more frequently. Attenuation accuracy of audiometers was evaluated in terms of means and standard deviations of differences between interstep spacing measurements and corresponding measurements at the 70 dB dial setting of 52 manual audiometers. As shown in Table 18, the mean error of the attenuation 34 TABLE 16 TONE FREQUENCY ACCURACY PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY MEAN HZ STANDARD DEVIATION No. FAILING 125 123.7 2.6 45 16% 250 249.4 , 11.3 59 ' 24% 500 502.3 23.0, 75 112 750 753.5 13.8 36 6% 1000 1001.9 17.0 74 7% 1500 1491.3 26.2 43 9% 2000 1997.3 40.1 75 72 3000 3006.1 448,7 74 8% 4000 3991.0 77.8 75 12% 6000 5990.0 123.6 74 9% 8000 7947.1 258.8 58 16% 35 99 PERCENT DEVIATION I I I I I I I I I I I I |25 250 500 750 |000 I500 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 FREQUENCY SETTING IN Hz Figure 6. Tone Frequency: Means and Standard Deviations of Percent Deviation from the Indicated Frequency I00- r12 8000 6000 4000 3000 2000 I500 |000 750 500 250 I25 w .nw 5 52¢. wz_._.mm2 ox. mu a :20 w.nm .mz< 02.1.2... oxo IN HERTZ Accuracy of Tone Frequencies Versus Indicated Tone FREQUENCY Frequency Setting Figure 7. T 2 . A H M . an. n. .1 .................... 5 m 5 w wawwwwwmmuwmmuwmwmmmmwmmmmmwmmwm 3 O 3 O Nun“unnumununnunnnnnnnnunnnInInmlnluununlnlnlwm S 6 S 4 ”INN.”muuunununmunnwwn“nununnnnnnunnunnnunnu I R I 0.. unnuuuununununnnnunHunnnnnnnnnnnuuunnununnunnnunnnu m 0 m m Hunnnmuuuuuunuuulu.mumInmmununnuuuunnunwnuuunu A m A 3 G G .. O 0 .m 4 m 0 u... . H. O O 2 m m m o. L M 3 m 0 H E 0.. E 5 O c o c 9 o R O R 0 O E 2 E O P . P m 8 . 0 - . _::: nu me nu an 3:: m w w o _ a “NW .31: o H . m :: o IHIH o o _,_____ 5 u... a e . _ _ . _ _ 0 0 0 0 0 rNU nnfi. afid nlL III pzuomua mm 3.6 NIOSH Recommended Frequencies Compared Against Indicated Frequencies Specified in ANSI - Accuracy of Tone Frequency: Figure 8. 6E TABLE 17 EARPHONE SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS (RE AUDIOMETRIC ZERO): LEFT AND RIGHT, LEFT ONLY, RIGHT ONLY — '70 dB' DIAL SETTING FREQUENCY IN KHZ (.125) (.250) .500 1.0 (1.5) 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 (8.0) LEFT—AND-RIGHT EARPHONES Mean 64.6 67.1 68.6 70.7 70.9 70.4 68.5 70.6 66.2 70.6 S.D. 10.0 7.2 4.4 2.3 2.7 2 1 2 9 2.4 4 4 4.5 N = 87 118 148 146 86 148 146 148 146 1 8 Percentage Failing 36% 36% 31% 23% 28% 20% 39% 11% 42% 22% ***** LEFT EARPHONES ONLY Mean 66.1 67.3 68.9 70.6 70.8 70.4 68.6 70.7 66.2 70.7 S.D. 8.2 7.3 4.6 2.2 2.4 1.9 .3.0 2.1 4.5 4.4 N = 42 59 74 73 43 74 73 74 73 59 Percentage Failing 24% 22% 24% 14% 14% 11% 27% 5% 35% 15% * * * * * RIGHT EARPHONES ONLY Mean 63.2 67.0 68.3 70 7 71 1 70.5 68.5 70.5 66.2 70.6 S.D. 11.3 7.2 4.2 2.5 2 9 2.2 2.8 2.6 4.2 4.7 N = 45 59 74 73 43 74 73 74 73 59 Percentage Failing 33% 32%' 24% 16% 23% 17% 32% 11% 36% 14% TABLE 18 ATTENUATION ERROR OF AUDIOMETERS SgigiNG 1000 HZ TEST SETTING OTHER HZ SETTINGS* ALL HZ SETTINGS MEAN 3.0. N MEAN S.D. N MEAN S.D. N 100 —0.1 1.9 31 -0.9 3.4 7 -0.2 2.2 38 95 ,-0.1 ‘1.8 33 0.0 1.2 , 7 0.0 1.7 40 90 -0.2 1.5 33 0.5 1.0 '9 0.0 1.4 42 85 —0.4 3.1 33 0.5 1.8 7‘ -0.2 2.9 40 80 -0.2 0.7 34 0.3 0.7 9 -0.1 0.7 43 75 —0.1 0.7 35 0.5 0.8 7 0.0 0.7 42 70 -- —— 41 -- -- 11 —- —- 52 65 0.1 0.8 41 0.2 0.8 9 0.1, 0.8 50 60 0.0 0.6 41 0.2 0.4 11 0.0 0.6 52 55 0.1 0.8 41 0.8 2.1 9 0.3 1.1 50 50 0.1 1.2 41 0.6 1.7 11 0.2 1.3 52 45 0.4 2.1 41 0.6 2.2 ' 9 . 0.5 2.1 50 40 0.4 3.1 41 0.1 1.2 11 0.3 2.8 52 35 0.3 1.5 40 .0.2 2.1 9 0.2 1.6 49 30 0.2 1.8 40 -0.1 2.3 11 0.1 1.9 51 25 0.4 1.9 40 —0.4 3.1 8 0.3 2.1 48 * Other settings include: 50 Hz, N = 1; 1500 Hz, N = 4; 2000 Hz, N E 4; 3000 Hz, N = 2. ' 40 (relative to the 70 dB dial setting) is less than 1 dB from the indicated dial setting for 41 audiometers tested at a 1000 Hz frequency setting and for 11 audiometers tested at other frequency settings. Further evaluation of attenuation accuracy indicated that 25% (13) of 52 audiometers failed to meet the ANSI S3.6 specification concerning‘the difference between successive interstep spacing measurements which should be within three—tenths of the indicated dial interval ('interVal test'). Shown in Table 19 are means and standard deviations of the actual earphone sound pressure levels and percentages of audiometers exceeding ANSI 83.6 range limits. The results are given as a function of dial setting for 41 audiometers tested at the frequency setting of 1000 Hz. The composite review of earphone sound pressure levels, presented in Table 20, was developed using all actual measurements of both left and right earphone sound pressure levels. Most measurements were made at the 70 dB dial setting. In cases where interstep spacing measurements were made, attenuation differences were used to project earphone sound pressure levels at other frequencies as a function of dial setting. The following example shows a typical calculation. Determination of 4000 Hz earphone SPL's using differences between interstep spacing measure— ments (given that the 4000 Hz earphone is 71 dB at the '70 dB' intensity dial setting). ‘Attenuation Intensity Difference 4000 Hz Dial Setting from the 70 dB Earphone (I.D.S.) I.D.S. SPL 100 +29 71 + 29 = 100 dB 90 +20 - 71 + 20 = 91 dB 80 +10 71 + 10 = 81 dB 70 --- 71 dB 60 4 -10 71 - 10 = 61 dB 50 —21 71 — 21 = 50 dB 40 —30 71 - 30 = 41 dB Figure 9 illustrated means and standard deviations of earphone sound pressure levels as a function of frfiquency setting for all actual meas— urements made at the 70 dB dial setting and as a function of dial setting for all calculated earphone sound pressure levels at 1000 Hz. Figure 10 illustrates a comparison at each frequency of the percentage of audiometers exceeding ANSI 83.6 range limits only at the 70 dB dial setting versus the percentages of audiometers exceeding range limits at one or more of the dial settings. The differences between percentage calculations indicate that an additional 8% to 17% exceed ANSI 83.6 range limits, depending upon the frequency setting, except at 125 Hz and 1500 Hz which have differences of 4% and 29%, respectively. 41 TABLE 19 ACCURACY OF INTERSTEP SPACING MEASUREMENTS AT 1000 HZ TEST SETTING PERCENTAGE DIAL SETTING MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION No. FAILING 100 100.6 3.5 31 13% 95 95.6 3.3 33 12% 90 90.5 3.3 33 9% 85 85.3 4.6 33 15% 80 80.5 3.4 34 9% 75 75.6 3.4 35 14% 70 70.5 3.4 41 12% 65 65.6 3.4 41 15%, 60 60.5 3.5 41 15% 65 55.6 3.6 41 15% 50 50.6 4.0 41 [15% 45 45.9 4.5 41 17% 40 40.8 - 5.6 41 22% 35 35.6 3.5 40 18% 30 30.5 4.0 40 28% 25 I 25.7 4.1 . 40 28% 42 TABLE 20 EARPHONE SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS (RE AUDIOMETRIC ZERO) -- COMPOSITE TABULATION EAHPHUNE SOUND PthSURE LEVELQ HE. AUDIO*ETR1C [£40 UIAL DAIA ALL EARS SEIFING ...o....-.............FHEQUtNCV IN KHZ...................... (.125)(.250) .500 1.0 (1.5) 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 (4.0) 100.0 MEAN 95.1 100.6 100.0 100.1 96.0 100.6 8.0. 5.2 2.7 2.8 2.3 3.5 2.5 1= 76 7a 60 76 76 76 95.0 MEAN 93.0 95.7 96.2 96.3 93.1 96.5 5.0. 5.9 2.. 2.6 2.4 3.1 2.5 N= ' an 76 6. so 00 60 90.0 MEAN “6.0 00.0 90.7 91.1 90.3 HH.2 90.6 n6.6 5.0. 6.0 5.9 2.4 2.6 2.u 5.9 2.5 «.9 N= 80 a“ 62 k 5“ A“ A“ 10 55.0 MEAN 50.0 02.8 $5.5 56.9 49.1 02.9 05.6 .7 «3.7 «6.3 «1.2 «6.0 5.0. 10.3 7.7 5.6 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.6 2.9 4.9 0.9 N= 77 100 100 95 H0 100 9A 100 9H 100 «0.0 MEAN 36.6 36.9 35.7 90.9 61.5 00.5 35.6 «1.2 36.2 MI.H 5.0. 10.0 7.5 5.4 3.“ 3.7 3.1 3.9 3.3 5.0 5.1 m: 77 100 104 102 do 100 102 100 102 100 35.0 MEAN 30.0 32.1 39.3 35.7 36.4 35.6 33.3 36.0 30.9 33.6 5.0. 10.1 7.6 8.1 2.3 2.3 2.0 3.1 2.7 a.“ 6.9 N: 75 9d 9H 96 7M 96 Qh 06 9h Qr 30.0 MEAN 24.V 27.0 28.5 30.6 31.2 30.3 25.3 30.9 db.” 30.7 5.0. 10.1 7.7 5.0 2.7 2.9 2.6 3.4 2.9 4.5 “.9 ' 96 N- 75 102 100 7a 102 100 102 100 95 25.0 MEAN 19.9 22.0 23.: 25.7 26.0 25.0 23.« P6.0 20.) 25.7 5.0. 10.1 7.5 5.1 "2.6 3.2 2.7 3.3 2.9 4.6 h.‘1 N= 73 96 96 9a 76 96 9. 96 94 96 77 DIAL SETTING IN DECIBELS (dB) l20 ||0 l00 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 125 I 250 Figure 9. mmwmwwwm ' F?4 l l I 500 |000 l500 2000 3000 4000 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ Earphone Sound Pressure Levels: versus Frequency Setting Means and Standard Deviations l 6000 J 8000 97 53.6 °/o MEETING ANSI °/o FAILING ANSI $3.6 l00 ALL LEVELs >20dB 70 dB I25 250 500 |000 I500 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ Figure 10. Accuracy of Earphone Sound Pressure Levels Versus Frequency Setting: '70 dB' Dial Setting Compared Against All Calculated Levels Tables 21 and 22 show two additional comparisons of earphone sound pressure level statistics for left and right ear measurements made at the 70 dB dial setting. Table 21 is a comparison of automatic versus manual audiometers; Table 22 is a comparison of audiometers calibrated re ASA Z24.5 versus audiometers calibrated re ANSI 83.6. The manual audiometers appear to be significantly less accurate with respect to ANSI 83.6 range limits at 125, 250, 3000, and 6000 Hz than automatic audiometers (18% to 29% additional audiometers failing); however, the differences between standard deviations appear to be significantly greater only at 125 and 250 Hz. Similarly, audiometers calibrated re ASA Z24.5 show significantly greater standard deviations only at 125, 250, and 500 Hz when compared to audiometers calibrated re ANSI S3. 6, although all frequencies except 1000 Hz show from 10/ to 42% more audiometers calibrated re ASA Z24. 5 exceeding ANSI S3. 6 range limits. Figure 11 illustrates the latter comparison of audiometers. In addition to high percentages failing at each frequency, all audiometers calibrated re ASA Z24.5 exceeded the ANSI 83.6 range limit requirements at one or more frequency settings including 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. For the purpose of comparison, 53% (24) of 45 audiometers calibrated re ANSI S3.6 exceeded range limit requirements at one or more of these frequency settings; and, with the inclusion of 250, 1500, and 8000 Hz, only one additional audiometer failed. These differences could be explained partially by recognizing that audiometers calibrated re ASA Z24.5—l951 may not have been checked as recently as audiometers calibrated re ANSI 33.641969. Also, some of the inaccuracies could be traced to the personnel who periodically perform the calibration _ check since, in a few cases, audiometers were out of calibration even 'T when they had been checked recently. EVALUATION OF AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The ambient noise level measurements obtained (see Appendix I, Part 4) were compared against octave-band noise level limits of ANSI 83.1—1969 (R—1971). However, this standard is prescribed for no masking at 0 dB hearing level in terms of the audiometer specifications presented in ASA Z24.5—l951; so an adjusted criteria for no‘masking at 0 dB hearing level was also used, based upon the ANSI 33.6-1969 definition of audio— "fipmtric zero. To obtain the adjusted criteria, the differences between “audiometric zero referenced to ANSI 53.6 and ASA Z24.5, were subtracted from the corresponding octave—band sound pressure level limits of ANSI S3.l given in Table 15. This adjusted criteria was used because it was considered to be more appropriate in view of the redefinition of audio~ metric zero. However, recently an ANSI working group has proposed a new standard, and the noise limits for all three criteria are shown in Figure 12. An evaluation of ambient noise level measurements is shown in'Table 23. ‘Figure 12 illustrates the means and standard deviations of ambient noise levels as a function of octave—band frequencies. Figure 13 presents 46 [7 Mean S.D. N: Percentage Failing Mean S.D. N: Percentage Failing EARPHONE SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS (RE AUDIOMETRIC ZERO): TABLE 21 MANUAL AUDIOMETERS -- '70 dB' DIAL SETTING FREQUENCY IN KHZ AUTOMATIC VERSUS (.125) (.250) .500 1.0 (1.5) 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 (8.0) AUTOMATIC AUDIOMETERS 67.5 69.9 69.1 70.9 69.6 70.9 69.3 70.1 67.0 71.3 3.7 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.0 2.1 1.9 4.5 2.0 10 18 44 44 6 44 44 44 44 18 20% 11% 30% 26% 33% 17% 26% 4% 26% 22% MANUAL AUDIOMETERS 64.2 66.6 68.4 70.5 71.0 70.2 68.2 70.8 65.9 70.5 10.5 7.7 4.9 2.3 2.7 2.1 3.1 2.5 4.3 4.9 77 100 104 102 80 104 102 104 102 100 38% 40% 31% 22% 28% 21% 45% 13% 49% 22% 87 EARPHONE MEan S.D. N = Percentage Failing Mean S.D. N: Percentage Failing SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS (RE AUDIOMETRIC ZERO): VERSUS AUDIOMETERS CALIBRATED RE ANSI $3.6 -- '70 dB' DIAL SETTING TABLE 22 FREQUENCY IN KHZ AUDIOMETERS CALIBRATED RE ASA Z24.5 (.125) (.250) .500 1.0 (1.5) 2.0 3.0 ‘ 4.0 6 0 (8.0) AUDIOMETERS CALIBRATED RE ASA Z24.5 62.9 64.8 67.0 70.1 71.4 70.2 67.2 70.5 63.6 70.9 11.3 9.4 5.6 2.3 3.3 2.5 3.2 3.0 3.6 4.3 34 44 58 56 36 .58 56 58 56 44 50% 50% 45% 21% 44% 31% 64% 17% 68% 36% AUDIOMETERS CALIBRATED RE ANSI 33.6 65.6 68.5 69.6 71.0 70.6 70.5 69.4 70.7 67.8 70.6 8.9 5.0 2.9 4 2.3 2.1 1.7 2.4 1.9 4.0 4.7 63 74 90 90 50 90 90 90 90 74 27% 27% 22% 24% 16% 13% 24% 7% 26% 14% CALIBRATION: RE. ANSI $3.6-l969 36 Z6 64 5 l95 RE. ASA 224 . — . — - l00 r , _ 5 0 5 _ 7 5 2 0 wfim .mZ< 02....mm2 o\o 5 50‘- raw 7 w.mm .mz< 623.57% | 250 500 l000 l500 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ curacy of Earphone Sound Pressure Dial Setti ’ Figuré 11. the '70 dB' Clb d Frequency Settin : ASA 224.5 Compared to Audiometers a 1 rate ng Versus d re Ac Calibrate re ANSI 53,6 49 OS PRESSURE LEVEL SOUND 70 so so 40 so 20 I0. I I I I I 32 63 I25 250 500 l000 2000 4000 8000 FREQUENCY Figure 12. -—A--ANSI S3.|. AMBIENT NOISE LIMITS FOR NO MASKING AT '0 THRESHOLD RE ASA l95| . men-AMBIENT NOISE LIMITS FOR NO MASKING AT 0 THRESHOLD RE ANSI l969 (ISO I964). --D--NEWLY PROPOSED AMBIENT NOISE LIMITS FOR NO MASKING AT 0 THRESHOLD RE ANSI |969. Background Noise Levels: Means and Standard Deviations Versus Frequency Setting IS TABLE 23 AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL EVALUATION BY FREQUENCY SETTING Freguencx Mean SPL Standard Deviation ES; Percentage Failing Re. ASA '51 Re. ANSI '69 31 60.9 7.4 19 63 52.3 ' 6.8 20 125 42.6 7.7 49 57% 98% 250 32.1 8.2 51 18% , 82% 500 - 24.6 8.6 65 8% 28% 1000 20.3 ‘ ' 7.4 , 65 2% 12% 2000 18.9 . 6.0 66 0% 0% 4000 17.5 4.4 66 0%. . 0% 8000 17.5 5.7 ' 64 0% ' 0% ZS PERCENT I.___._____ —_—_——__————-I __:_.—._—.._—____. _____-____r .____._____I ANSI $3.1 Ambient noise limits for no masking at 0 threshold re ASA I95| 11:23:? ._.________.—4 55333333335333; E::::::::::::::I Ambient noise limits for no masking 23333323252333}? at 0 threshold re ANSI I969 (ISO I964) 5: ”vfihmchh”...u... .H NONE': NONE : NONE : I25 250 500 000 2000 400) 8000 FREQUENCY Noise Limits Versus Frequency Setting a comparison of the percentage of test rooms exceéding ANSI S3.l noise level limits versus the percentage exceeding the adjusted limits (modi— fications as described above) at each frequency. Of 65 test rooms in which noise levels were measured at frequencies of 500 Hz or greater, 8% exceeded ANSI S3.l limits at one or more frequency settings, and 28%, when the modified criteria were applied. Likewise, for the 51 test rooms in which noise levels were measured at frequencies of 250 Hz or greater, 18% exceeded ANSI 33.1 limits, and 84%, using the modified criteria. The latter comparison is illus- trated in Figure 14. 0f the specific 51 rooms mentioned above, 8% (4) exceeded ANSI $3.1 limits at one or more frequency settings in— cluding 500 Hz and above. . Comparison of ambient noise level measurements with the noise limits of the newly proposed ANSI standard does.not yield significantly dif- ferent results from those obtained using the modified limits discussed above, with one exception. At 500 Hz, 48% of the ambient noise level measurements exceeded the newly proposed limits versus 28% for the modified limits (see Figure 12 and Table 23). COMMENTS Figures 7 and 9 show that tone frequencies and earphone sound pressure levels most frequently exceeded allowable tolerances near the ends of the tone frequency spectrum. This fact should be taken into account when frequencies are chosen for industrial audiometric testing. The use of extreme frequencies can be invalidated by the fact that they are often out of calibration. Evaluations of the accuracy of sound pressure level measurements at various dial settings shown in Table 19 and Figure 10 indicate that SPL measurements at the 70 dB dial setting may be within ANSI 33.6 SPL range limits while failing to be within tolerances at other dial settings, particularly at the lower intensity dial/settings. Based on these results, it is recommended that interstep spacing measure— ments be included in a calibration check procedure (see Appendix H, Part D). Results of comparing ambient noise level measurements with respect to ANSI 33.1 versus the modified criteria (as shown in Figures 13 and 14) or versus the recently proposed ANSI criteria indicate the inadequacy of many audiometric test rooms to accurately measure thres— hold hearing levels of 0 dB or lower at frequency settings of 125, 250 and 500 Hz. 53 ANSI $3.1 Ambient noise limits for no masking of 0 threshold re ASA I95l ‘ Ambient noise limits lllllll lllllll [IIIHUH for no masking at 0 threshold re ANSI i969. IOO- 80- up Percentage of Audiometric Test Rooms Exceeding Ambient Noise Limits Figure 14. at One or More of the Frequency Settings Including 250 Hz and Greater An overall evaluation of similar measurements obtained from 65 companies indicated that for 80% of the companies, one or more of the following criteria was exceeded: 1. ANSI $3.6 tolerance for tone frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. 2. ANSI $3.6 earphone sound pressure level range limits at tone frequency settings of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. 3. ANSI 83.1 limits for octave-band background noise levels meas- ured at octave-band frequency settings of 500 Hz or greater. 55 NUMBER OF ZUESTIONNAIRES SENT APPENDIX A -- LIST OF SIC CODES Ammunition, exc. for small arms, nec Canned fruits and vegetables Distilled liquor, except brandy Bottled and canned soft drinks Weaving and finishing mills, wool Womens hosiery, except socks Mens and boys suits and coats Mens and boys shirts and nightwear Womens and misses suits and coats Corsets and allied garments Fabric dress and work gloves Automotive and apparel trimmings Logging camps and logging contractors Sawmills and planing mills, general 4 DIGIT SIC CODE TYPE OF INDUSTRY 1925 Complete guided missiles 1929 1931 Tanks and tank components 1951 Small arms 1961 Small arms ammunition 2011 Meat packing ‘ , 2031 Canned and cured sea foods 2032 Canned specialties 2033 2082 Malt liquors 2084 Wines, brandy 2085 2086 2111 Cigarettes 2211 Weaving mills, cotton 2221 Weaving mills, synthetics 2231 2241 Narrow fabric mills 2251 2252 Hosiery, nec 2253 Knit outerwear mills 2254 Knit underwear mills 2256 Knit fabric mills 2259 Knitting mills, nec 2271 WOven carpets_and rugs 2272 Tufted carpets and rugs 2279 Carpets and rugs 2281 Yarn mills, except wool 2282 Throwing and winding mills 2283 Wool yarn mills 2284 Thread mills 2311 . 2321 2331 Womens and misses dresses 2337 2342 2381 2393 Textile bags 2394 Canvas products 2395 Pleating and,stitching 2396 2411 2421 2426 Hardwood dimension and flooring A—l Prefabricated wood structures Nailed wooden boxes and shook Upholstered household furniture Wood partitions and fixtures Metal partitions and fixtures Paper mills, except building paper Corrugated and solid fiber boxes Commercial printing, ex lithographic Commercial printing, lighographic Engraving and plate printing Cut stone and stone products Blast furnaces and steel mills Electrometallurgical products Steel wire and related products Cold finishing of steel shapes NUMBER OF 4 DIGIT QUESTIONNAIRES SENT SIC CODE TYPE OF INDUSTRY 18 2431 Millwork 19 2432 Veneer and plywood 7 2433 3 2441 6 2442 Wire bound boxes and crates 43 2511 Wood household furniture 26 2512 6 2521 Wood office furniture 9 2522 Metal office furniture 12 2531 Public building furniture 10 2541 7 2542 2 2611 Pulp mills 16 2621 8 2631 Paperboard mills 16 2641 Paper coating and glazing 16 2642 Envelopes 15 2643 Bags, except textile bags 30 2651 Folding paperboard boxes 8 2652 Set-up paperboard boxes 29 2653 27 2711 Newspapers 3 2732 Book printing 57 2751 47 2752 7 2753 9 2822 Synthetic rubber 28 2834 Pharmaceutical preparations 11 .2841 Soap and other detergents 5 2871 Fertilizers 42 2911 Petroleum refining 8 3011 Tires and inner tubes 42 3141 Shoes, except rubber 7 ‘ 3211 Flat glass 11 3221 Glass containers 5 3255 Clay refractories 8 3281 51 3312 4 3313 6 3315 13 3316 17 3317 Steel pipe and tubes Secondary nonferrous metals Aluminum rolling and drawing Nonferrous rolling and drawing Nonferrous wire drawing and insulating Brass, bronze and copper castings Plumbing fittings and brass goods Heating equipment, except electric Fabricated structural steel Fabricated plate work (boiler shops) Bolts, nuts, rivets and washers Metal coating and allied services Misc. Fabricated wire products Metal barrels, drums and pails Fabricated pipe and fittings Fabricated metal products, nec NUMBER OF 4 DIGIT QUESTIONNAIRES SENT SIC CODE TYPE OF INDUSTRY 40 3321 Gray iron foundries 4 3322 Malleable iron foundries 30 3323 Steel foundries 3 3331 Primary copper l 3332 Primary lead 5 3334 Primary aluminum 2 3339 Primary nonferrous metals 6 3341 12 3351 Copper rolling and drawing 7 3352 10 3356 15 3357 21 3361 Aluminum castings 5 3362 20 3369 Nonferrous castings 21 3391 Iron and steel forging 2 3392 Nonferrous forging 6 3399 Primary metal products 15 3411 Metal cans 5 3421 Cutlery 16 3423 Hand and edge tools 2 3425 Hand saws and saw blades 28 3429 Hardware 4 3431 Metal sanitary ware 10 3432 22 3433 60 3441 26 3442 Metal doors, sash and trim 35 3443 31 3444 Sheet metal work 17 3449 Miscellaneous metal work 15 3451 Screw machine products 32 3452 67 3461 Metal stampings 16 3471 Plating and polishing 8 3479 34 3481 4 3491 9 3493 Steel springs 31 3494 Valves and pipe fittings 2 3496 Collapsible tubes 2 3497 Metal foil and leaf 10 3498 21 3499 3 3511 Steam engines and turbines Elevators and moving stairways Conveyors and conveying equipment Hoists, cranes and monorails Industrial trucks and tractors Machine tools, metal cutting type Machine tools, metal forming type Special dies, tools, jigs and fixtures Household refrigerators and freezers Electric housewares and fans Motor vehicle parts and accessories Aircraft engines and engine parts Aircraft propellers and parts Ship building and repairing Boat building and repairing Motorcycles, bicycles and parts Surgical and medical instruments Surgical appliances and supplies NUMBER OF 4 DIGIT QUESTIONNAIRES SENT SIC CODE TYPE OF INDUSTRY 6 3519 Internal combustion engines 16 3522 Farm machinery 23 3531 Construction machinery 10 3532 Mining machinery 32 3533 Oil field machinery 8 3534 13 3535 7 3536 17 3537 22 3541 23 3542 28 3544 21 3551 Food products machinery 7 3552 Textile machinery 9 3553 Woodworking machinery 5 3554 Paper industries machinery 12 3555 Printing trades machinery 25 3559 Special industry machine 28 3561 Pumps and compressors 14 3562 Ball and roller bearings 20 3564 Blowers and fans 16 3612 Transformers 27 3621 Motors and generators 6 3623 Welding apparatus 1 3632 l 3633 Household laundry equipment 11 3634 2 3635 Household vacuum cleaners 3 3636 Sewing machines 25 3711 Motor vehicles 1 3712 Passenger car bodies 8 3713 Truck and bus bodies 59 3714 11 3715 Truck trailers 16 3721 Aircraft 15 3722 3 3723 73 3729 Aircraft equipment 23 3731 6 3732 13 3742 Railroad and street cars l 3751 9 3791 Trailer coaches l 3799 Transportation equipment 17 3841 17 3842 5 3843 Dental equipment and supplies A-4 Completed Section A: N Completed Section B: N Completed Section C: NOTES: APPENDIX B —- QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSE QEESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 2074 (all) companies 367 companies planning a hearing conservation program 2 II 502 companies have a hearing conservation program The number of manufacturing companies responding in Sections B and C do not match the response to question number eight of Section A. The following reasons explain these discrepancies: l. 2. 5. One company did not answer question eight, but responded in Section C. One company answered (b) in question eight, but responded in Section C rather than B. ‘ Seven companies answered (c) in question eight, and responded in Section B. Two companies answered (c) in question eight, and responded in Section C. Nine companies answered (c) in question eight, and responded in both Sections B and C. Parentheses around some of the answers indicate that these choices were not listed in the actual questionnaire but were given frequently as "write—in" answers. SURVEY‘OF HEARING CONSERVATION IN INDUSTRY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH SECTION A Mfg. Const. Trans. Mng. All 947,393+ 11,857+ 116,034+ 57,562+ 1,132,846+ 1. How many employees comprise See Table 3 (p. 8) your total workforce at the above location? 2. Do you employ personnel who serve in the capacity of industrial hygienists? 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 3.3% a. Yes, at this location 6.1% 0.0% 1.7% 18.7% 5.6% b. Yes, at corporate headquarters 5.7% 0.5% 1.7% 2.2% 4.2% c. Yes, on a consulting basis 1.7% 0.5% 1.0% 5.0% 1.6% d. Yes, other (specify) 82.3% 99.0% 96.0% 67.7% 85.2% e. No 1410* 284* 241* 139* 2074* 3. Do you employ personnel who serve in the capacity of safety engineer? 35.0% 8.1% 16.6% 58.3% 30.8% a. Yes, at this location 10.4% 5.0% 17.8% 15.8% 10.8% b. Yes, at corporate headquarters 8.6% 3.9% 4.6% 3.6% 7.1% c. Yes, on a consulting basis 46.0% 83.1% 61.1% 22.3% 51.2% d. No 1410* 284* 241* 139* 2074* 4. Do you employ a physician? 5.0% 0.0% 6.6% 7.2% 4.7% a. Yes, full time on day shifts 11.2% ’1.0% 3.3% 10.1% 8.8% b. Yes, part—time 28.4% 3.5% 19.5% 43.9% 25.0% c. Yes, on call 55.3% 96.1% 70.5% 38.8% 61.5% d. No 1410* 284* 241* 139* 2074* T Totals for all companies responding 1* Total number of companies responding to question Mfg. Const. Trans. 31.1% 0.0% 7.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.5% 3.2% 0.5% 4.6% 64.3% 99.6% 88.1% 1410* 284* 241* 51.1% 22.2% 18.7% 48.9% 77.8% 81.3% 1410* 284* 241* 33.3% 3.2% 10.8% 18.6% 3.5% 4.1% 48.1% 93.3% 85.1% 1410* 284* 241* 29.0% 2.1% 10.4% 20.1% 1.8% 3.3% 50.9% 96.1% 86.3% 1409* 284* 241* * Total number of companies responding to question 66.2% 33.8% 139* 40.3% 31.7% 28.1% 139* 35.3% 38.1% 26.6% 139* All 23.0% 1.2% 3.4% 72.5% 2073* 44.4% 55.6% 2074* 27.0% 15.7% 57.2% 2074* 23.5% 16.9% 59.6% 2073* B-3 Do you employ a nurse? a. Yes, full time on day shifts b. Yes, part-time a Y$,oncfl1 d. No Do you believe that noise problems exist in your job operations? a. Yes b. No Do you have a program concerned with reduction of noise levels? a. Yes b. No, but such a program is in the planning stage c. No, and no such program is being planned Do you have a program concerned with hearing conservation? a. Yes b. No, but such a program is in the planning stage c. No, and no such program is being planned IF YOUR WORKPLACE HAS NO HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM AND NO PROGRAM IS BEING PLANNED AT THIS TIME, THE REMAINDER OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE NEED NOT BE COMPLETED. IF A HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING PLANNED, PLEASE COMPLETE SECTION B, BUT NOT SECTION C. IF A HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM IS NOW IN EFFECT, PLEASE SKIP SECTION B AND COMPLETE SECTION C. ' SECTION B . Mfg. Const. Trans. th. All 1. Who is developing and organizing your hearing conservation program? 6.4% 0.0% 16.7% 12.5% 7.4% a. Industrial hygienist 41.1% 0.0% 35.3% 58.3% 43.0% b. Safety engineer 6.4% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 5.6% c. Physician 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% d. Nurse 17.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 14.5% e. Insurance underwriter 4.3% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% f. Consultant 8.9% 66.7% 33.3% 20.8% 11.6% (g.) Personnel manager 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% (h.) Plant manager or Superintendent 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 3.0% (i.) Safety supervisor 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 2.1% (j.) Industrial relations 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 1.5% (k.) Other 280* 3* 6* 48* 347* 2. Who will supervise the program after it is established? 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 3.6% a. Industrial hygienist 43.9% 0.0% 33.3% 64.6% 46.3% b. Safety engineer 5.4% 0.0% 16.7% 2.1% 5.1% c. Physician 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% d. Nurse . 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% e. Insurance underwriter 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% f. Consultant 8.6% 100.0% 50.0% 16.7% 11.3% (g.) Personnel manager 12.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.1% (h.) Plant manager or Supt. 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 5.1% (i.) Safety supervisor 4.3% V0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 3.9% (j.) Industrial relations 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 3.3% (k.) Other 278* 3* 6* 48* 335* * Tota1,number of companies responding to question Mfg. 47.9% 23.0% 29.1% 282* 67.2% 9.4% 17.8% 5.6% 287* Const. 66.7% 3* 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 3* 0.0% 16.7% 6* 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 6* 16.7% 50.0% 16.7% 16.7% 6* 64.6% 18.8% 16.7% 48* 9.6% 3.8% 52* 0.0% 80.4% 13.72 5.92 51* 67.3% 6.1% 16.3% 10.2% 49* 0‘. \uom . . . #090 o°Na“ 49.3% 22.4% 28.3% 339* 14.5% 7.3% 344* 7.0% 82.3% 6.7% 4.1% 345* H 6.7% 344* 3. * Total number of companies responding to question B-5 Will the program include pre—employment audiometric hearing tests? a. Yes, for all employees b. Yes, for all employees in* work areas which are noisy (i.e., above 90 dBA) c. No Will the noise levels in work areas be measured periodically during the year? a. Yes, using sound level meters with measurements in dBA b. Yes, using measurements in octave bands (or narrower frequency bands) c. Yes, using both dBA and octave band measurements d. No Will personal ear protectors be supplied to employees? a. Yes, to all employees b. Yes, only to employees in work areas which are noisy (i.e., above 90 dBA) c. Yes, only if employee requests them d. No Are you making any engineering changes (e.g., use of mufflers, enclosures or vibration isolators) and/or administrative changes (e.g., job schedule rotation) in attempting to reduce noise levels? a. Yes b. No, they are not needed c. No, the operations performed here make this impractical d. Other (specify) SECTION C EEE' Const. Trans. Mmg. All 1. Who developed this hearing conservation program? 19.5% 0.0% 0.0% 27.1% 19.2% a. Industrial hygienist 39.7% 80.0% 50.0% 45.8% 41.2% b. Safety engineer 4.6% 0.0% 10.0% 4.2% 4.7% c. Physician 4.1% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 3.6% d. Nurse 13.4% 20.0% 5.0% 2.1% 12.0% e. Insurance underwriter 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% ' 2.8% f. Consultant 5.3% 0.0% 30.0% 18.8% 7.7% (g.) Personnel manager 3.5% p 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% (h.) Plant manager or supt. 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% (1.) Safety supervisor -3.0% 0 0% 0.0% 0.01 2.6% (j.) Industrial relations 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% (k.) Other 395* 5* 20* 48* 468* 2. Who is now primarily responsible for this hearing conservation program? 10.2% 0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 10.1% 3. Industrial hygienist 43.3% 80.0% 50.0% 56.3% 45.3% 'b. Safety engineer 5.6% 0.0% 5.0% 4.2% 5.4% c. Physician 5.9% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.2% d. Nurse 3.1% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 2.8% e. Insurance underwriter 1.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1.1% 'f. Consultant 6.6% 20.0% 30.0% 25.0% 9.7% (g.) Personnel manager 8.1% 0.0% 0 0% 0.0% 6.9% (h.) Plant manager or supt. 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% (1.) Safety supervisor 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% (j.) Industrial relations 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%- (k.) Other 393* 5* 20* 48* 466* See Table 6 (p. 14) 3. How many of your employees are located in areas where noise levels are 90 dBA or above? * Total number of companies responding to question B-6 THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS MIGHT BEST BE ANSWERED BY THE PERSONNEL DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE PARTICULAR PROCEDURES (HEARING TESTING, NOISE MEASURING AND DISPENSING PERSONAL EAR PROTECTION). Mfg. Const. Trans. Mng. 57.1% 60.0% 31.8% 72.9% 1.0% 20.0% 0.0% 2.1% 32.0% 0.0% 18.2% 20.8% 10.0% 20.0% 50.0% 4.2% 410* 5* 22* 48* 6.6% 25.0% 0.0% 6.5% 27.3% 0.0% 27.3% 39.1% 34.2% 75.0% 18.2% 28.3% 31.7% 0.0% 54.5% 26.1% 366* 4* 11* 46* 20.3% 0.0% . 9.1% 19.6% 41.6% 100.0% 36.4% 50.0% 38.1% 0.0% 54.5% 30.4% 375* 4* 11* 46* 73.3% 20.0% 85.7% 66.7% 6.1% 20.0% ‘ 4.8% 14.6% 2.2% 20.0% 0.0% 2.1% 18.1% 40.0% 9.5% 14.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 409* 5* 21* 48* All 57.5% 1.2% 29.9% 11.3% 485* 6.6% 28.3% 33.7% 31.4% 427* ~19.7% 46.9% 37.4% 436* 72.7% 7.0% 2.3% 17.6% 0.5% 483* MEASURING NOISE LEVELS * Total number of companies responding to question B—7 Are the noise levels in your workplace measured (in dB - decibels) periodically? a. Yes, using sound level meters with measurements in dBA b. Yes, using measurements in octave bands (or narrower frequency bands) c. Yes, using both dBA and octave band measurements d. No If the answer to the previous question is "yes," how often are these measurements taken? a. Mbnthly b. Semi-annually c. Annually d. Other (specify) Who takes the measurements? a. Industrial hygienist b. Safety engineer c. Other (specify) In designing an industrial process or purchasing new equipment, do you consider noise levels that may be generated? a. Yes b. No, because the equipment produced by different manufacturers was very similar in producing noise c. No, it was not considered d. No, but the policy will be followed in the future e. Other specify PERSONAL EAR PROTECTION 66.4% 13.5% 17.4% 2.7% 482* Mfg. Const. Trans. th. 66.3% 80.0% 70.0% 64.6% 12.7% 0.0% 25.0% 16.7% 18.6% 20.0% 0.0% 14.6% 2.4% 0.0% 5.0% 4.2% 409* 5* 20* 48* 12.6% 0.0% 14.3% 6.3% 29.1% 40.0% 33.3% 37.5% 53.5% 60.0% 38.1% 43.8% 4.8% 0.0% 14.3% 12.5% 413* 5* 21* 48* 11.5% 60.0% 17.6% 18.2% 22.4% 20.0% 0.0% 13.6% 65.4% 20.0% 82.4% 68.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.07 0.0% 393* 5* 17* 44* * Total number of companies responding to question 52.0% 6.0% 487* 12.9% 20.7% 65.8% 0.5% 459* 10. Have you made any engineering changes (e.g., use of mufflers, enclosures, or vibration isolators) and/or administrative changes (e.g., job schedule rotation) in attempting to reduce noise levels? a. Yes b. No, the operations performed here make this impractical c. No, but plans for the future will consider this point d. Other (specify) Are personal ear protectors supplied to your employees? a. Yes, if the employee requests b. Yes, all employees working in noisy areas (90 dBA or above) are given ear protectors c. Yes, all employees working in noisy areas (90 dBA or above are required to wear ear protectors d. No If the answer to the previous question was "yes," what types of ear protectors are made available to your employees? a. Muffs b. Plugs c. Muffs and plugs d. Other (specify) 11. 1.0% 22.1% 5.5% 30.0% 6.3% 35.2% 457* HEARING TESTING Mfg. Const. Trans. th. 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.5% 40.0% 5.9% 31.8% 5.6% 0.0% 5.9% 4.5% 33.8% 0.0% 5.9% 9.1% 7.2% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 31.0% 60.0% 76.5% 54.5% 391* 5* 17* 44* 56.3% 0.0% 59.1% 68.8% 11.7% 0.0% 27.3% 6.3% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 29.9%.1. 100.0% 13.6% 22.9% 412* 5* 22* 48* See Table 9 (p. 17) 21.6% .0% 25.0% 20.5% 35.9% 0.0% 35.0% 10.3% 8.3% 0.0% 20.01 15.4% 1.3% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 32.9% 100.0% 15.0% 53.9% 301* 5* 20* 39* See Table 10 (p. 17) 12. 57.1% 11.7% 2.1% 29.2% 87* 13. 14. 15. * Total number of companies responding to question B-9 Who dispenses the ear protectors to the employees? 3. Industrial hygienist b. Safety engineer c. Physician d. Nurse (e.) ”Tool crib" personnel (f.) Other Are pre-employment audiometric tests performed? a. Yes, for all employees b. Yes, for employees in noisy work areas (90 dBA or above) c. Yes, for employees with histories of hearing trouble d. No If the answer to the previous question was "yes," how many years has this practice been followed? Do you give periodic hearing tests to your employees at least once in two years? a. Yes, to all b. Yes, to those working in noisy areas (90 dBA or above) c. Yes, if employee requests it d. Yes, for employees with history of hearing trouble e. No If the answer to the previous question was "yes," how many years has this practice been followed? Mfg. Const.+ Trans. Mng. 1.0% 0.0% 2.6% 11.4% 5.0% 12.8% 87.6% 95.0% . 84.6% 299* 20* 39* See Table 11 (p. 18) 21.1% 18.8% 303* 47.5% 46.3% 1.6% 4.7% 257* 47.4% 39.5% 0.0% 0.0% 21.1% 21.1% 31.6% 39.5% 19* 38* 66.7% 36.1% 13.3% 22.2% 6.7% 13.9% 13.3% 27.8% 15* 36* All 1.1% ‘ll.1% 87.7% 358* 55.0% 2.2% 21.1% 21.7% 360* 47.1% 41.9% 3.2% 7.8% 308* 16. 17. 18. 19. Are bone conduction tests also performed? a. Yes, for all b. Yes, for some c. No If the answer to the previous question was "yes," how many years has this practice been followed? Where is the hearing test performed? a. In a company owned testing facility b. In a central facility, jointly supported by neighboring plants or companies c. In a private hearing clinic d. Other (specify) When during the workday might the employee who works in a noisy area (90 dBA or above) have his hearing tested? a. At any time during the workday b. At the beginning Of the shift c. At the end of his shift d. Other (specify) IF THE HEARING TESTING PROGRAM IS PERFORMED AT A COMPANY OWNED FACILITY OR AT A FACILITY JOINTLY SUPPORTED BY YOUR COMPANY AND NEIGHBORING COMPANIES, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS 20.8% 78.0% 1.2% 168* 20.0% 6.3% 60.0% 93.8% 20.0% 0.0% 10* 16* 19.6%, 78.4% 2.1% 194* 20. * Total number of companies responding to question ** The actual questionnaire provided only a blank to fill in the answer to this question + Performed no audiometric tests; see questions 12 and 14 B—lO What brand(s) and model(s) audiometer is/are used?** (a.) Automatic (b.) Manual (c.) Both Mfg. Const.+ Trans. Mng 60.1% 30.0% 31.3% 29.8% 70.0% 25.0% 10.1% 0.0% 43.8% 168* 10* 16* 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 16.6% 20.0% 18.8% 71.6% 80.0% 43.8% 7.7% 0.0% 37.5% 169* 10* 11* 6.4% 0.0% 12.5% 8.1% 20.0% 0.0% 76.7% 50.0% 62.5% .8.7% 30.0% 25.0% 172* 10* 16* 52.1% 40.0% 18.8% 10.7% 10.0% 31.3% 10.7% 10.0% 6.3% 26.6% 40.0% 43.8% 169* 10* 16* 9.3% 10.0% 37.5% 13.4% 10.0% 6.3% 75.6% 80.0% 56.3% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 172* 10* 16* All 56.2% 31.4% 12.4% 194* 3.6% 16.9% 69.7% 9.7% 195* 6.6% 8.1% 74.2% 11.1% 198* 48.7% 12.3% 10.3% 28.7% 195* 11.6% 12.6% 74.2% 1.5% 198* 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. * Total number of companies responding to question i Performed no audiometric tests; see questions 12 and 14 B-ll When was the audiometer last calibrated? a. One to six months ago b. Seven to twelve months ago c. Other (specify) Who last calibrated the audiometer? a. Industrial hygienist b. Consultant c. Manufacturer of audiometer d. Other (specify) Who performs the hearing testing? a. Physician b. Audiologist c. Nurse d. Other (specify) When did this hearing tester last attend a course or training program concerned with audio— metric testing techniques? a. One year ago b. Two years agO‘ c. Three years ago d. Other (specify) What type of test environment is used for hearing testing? a. In office or similar quiet test area b. In sound treated room, non—prefabricated c. In prefabricated sound treated booth d. Other (specify) NOISE SURVEY APPENDIX C -- NOISE MEASUREMENT SHEETS Date: Sound Level Meter Department Mode; - T Cali rater ype mAGRAM: , . Shownwwufinn Calibrat1on: Check at 93.6 dba 2::T"*hh Before After Operator: iSignaturei MAXIMUMtLEVELS AS MEASURED ON THE "A5" SCALE OF THE SOUND-LEVEL METER, IF THE READING IS BETWEEN LEVELS SPECIFIED, USE THE HIGHER LEVEL. ,1 umm PEUMIS‘ , MAX sULEI HO RS Location Meter db Scale Remarks . LEVEL PEQLA¢ (Bldg. 6 Floor) Time A B C (Distance from Source-Employee-Exppsure T1me) . OVER 115 NONE 115 V4 110 % 105 1 102 1% 100 2 97 3 95 4 92 5 90 8 NOTE$ RECOMMENDAWON$ Z—O PACKING ROOM NOISE MEASUREMENTsl Plant: Measurements by: day Here Readings Case Packer Case Packer Size Taken When 1 Carton Feed Reject Hopper, or Case Load- Vacuum Pumps, Line Being Or More Lines Operator Standing Next ing Operator Standing Next Date No. Packed Were Running Position3 to it Operator to them 3 Other & Comments All measurements to be taken on the A scale, slow response at ear level. Fluctuations of less than 6 dBA should be read as the "eyeball" average of the needle fluctuation. greater than 6 dBA should be recorded as a range, e.g., 88-95 dBA. 92erating position means best estimate of where operator spends most of his time. Next to means standing adjacent to a described equipment. Fluctuations 5-D SOUND SURVEY RECORD PLANT DEPARTMENT SECTION DATE PAGE NO. SURVEY MADE BY ENVIRONMENT (Type of Building, Kind of Wall Surfaces, Ceilings, Etc.) DESCRIPTION OF SECONDARY NOISES (Background) BATTE FIY V0 LTAG E METER . TYPE MANUFACTURER MICROPHONE TYPE USED SERIAL NO. SERIAL No. CAUBRATED_ TYPE MANUFACTURER DATE OF LAST CALIBRATION WITH ' SERIAL No. Bv WHOM SOUND LEVEL (Decibels) ITEM MACH'NE No' ‘COLUMN AND/0R LOCATION OF MEASUREMENT NO TYPE OF MACHINE OR OTHER (W k. P .. F F N . . IDENTIFICATION or Ing osmon, eet rorn else Source, Etc.) "DEGREE 0F INCIDENCE A° A90 Bo B90 C0 c90 NOTE: Fast or Slow Meter Response Should be Indicated as F or S. Use Fast Response on C Scale for Impact and Slow Response on A Scale for Continuous Noise. ' An Additional Descriptive Diagram for Identification of Measurement Point may be needed. Attach it to This Sheet. ‘ ‘ Incidence = direction noise enters ears. OCTAVE BAND ANALYSIS :) SOUND LEVEL METER USED TYPE DATE SERIAL N‘oI .. _ I . MANUFACTURER MICROPHONE TYPE DATE OF LAST CALIBRATION SERIAL No. OCTAVE BAND : MANUFACTURER ' TYPE ANALYZER USED , SERIAL NO. 0" (1') TOTAL BACKGROUND OVERALL "'FREOUENCY RANGES (C s, - OVERALL ITEM C NUMBER EXPOSURE (P) , (T) NOISE NOISE p NOISE PERSONS PERMISSIBLE , . NO. OR EXPOSED TIME/DAY HOURS/DAY" (P) LEVEL ~ I LEVEL I (HOURS) ”A" “c" "C" SCALE 20- 75- 150- A 300- ‘600- 1200- 2,400» 4800- ”C" scA LE SCALE SCALE 75 150 300 600 1200 2400 4800 1OKC C-ZI ‘ ’ 'Use Center Frequencies When New Equipment is Calibrated for Use of Such Frequencies (63, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000. 4000, 8000) ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘C = Continuous Noise. I = Impact Noise. Background Noise Shouid be Measured on ”Siow" Meter Response. 'r~ .\,_. 7". ...v‘ ‘7 KEAA ;._,.v ;’ DUE.“ V ISIWELS ME} DLWATTON 9-D ERIE-EASY NOISE 93 50mm: 23m . mm cc: . OPERATION 320335 #2 #3 “9:. In / /’ / / / / / / / / _‘__ / / ’ / / / / / / I ,-’ a: CM... _ ...”--.m-‘ ./’ / / / / / x / ’ / / / / / ,’ / / / / / / / / / / , / —’ / ----..M“, MW. .....__~.M,-_fl___..r 6/ .... /_. .. ‘ / /./ . / A V. / / / // , / ’/ / /,/ / / / . / / 4w.“ . M-“ .w ._".........w_ (MW. / ”...”... // / / / / / ’/ / / / / / / ’1," 3/ / / , // // "/ / / ’ ’ / / // ”I.” _ /. , z/ - 3’.“ _,., _.- " ” / / / ./ , / / 1 / / , / 1/ / / / / , n, _ (....--m «f... WWW...“ / / / / ’/ / / /. / ‘ / / ,/ x / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I ' / / / / / / / / / / / / / / , 7/ / / / / / / / // / / / / / 1/ , / / r’ "I, /‘/ / : .. // / / / / /. / / / / /, STORAGE ' & SHIPPING RANGE 70-92 DBA-MEAN‘M DBA‘ ASSEMBLY RANGE 8|-||5 DBA‘MEAN 95 DBA m f SMALLHNTER. PRESS E :5 RANGE 9|‘ll0 DBA-MEAN 99 08A "’ 55 MAJOR PRESS .8: ; RANGE 90-I08 DBA-MEAN 9708A MAJOR BLANKING RANGE 84-!” DEA-MEAN 96 DBA STEEL REc’ING & STORAGE RANGE 8|~95 DBA-MEAN 88DBA AVERAGE STAMPING PLANT NOISE EXPOSURE C‘—6 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 APPENDIX D -- NOISE SPECIFICATION SHEETS EQUIPMENT NOISE SPECIFICATION GENERAL This Specification is a means of establishing the limiting value of noise (unwanted sound) generated by equipment to be installed in an industrial plant. It also provides a uniform method of conducting and recording noise tests to be made on Such machinery. Application of Specification. This Specification describes limits and methods of measuring sound emission in the purchase of equip- ment. Tests are to be made by the vendor and witnessed by pur— chaser unless otherwise specified. Confirming or additional measure— ments by purchaser shall be permissible. American Standards Association. Noise measurement sections 2 and 3 of this Specification are based on ASA 224.7—1950. INSTRUMENTS A Sound Level Meter as specified in ASA 51.4—1961 when used alone measures over-all noise levels only. An Octave Band Analyzer, as specified in ASA 224.10—1953, is the preferred instrument for measuring broad band noise by this Specification, used in conjunction with a sound level meter. A Narrow Band Analyzer in conjunction with a Sound Level Meter is used to identify Narrow Band or Pure Tone sounds. Instruments shall be calibrated as recommended by the instrument manufacturer. Over—all calibrations of the instruments, including the microphone and internal calibration of the meters, shall be made before and after the test of each piece of equipment. NOISE TESTS Ordinarily, the test will be made at the factory or in a test room provided by the vendor at his expense. The test room should preferably provide conditions free of extraneous sounds and mini- mize the conveyance and reverberation of sounds emitted by the equipment under test which tend to increase the sound level in the test environment. 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 5.1 Ambient sound levels within the test room should be 8 dB or more below the sound level that prevails when the tested equipment is in operation. Unless otherwise specified, equipment tested should be at full load. The placement of the microphone during the test should be such as to protect it from air currents, vibration, electric or magnetic fields, and other disturbing influences that might affect the readings obtained. Positioning of the microphones at ear level and a horizontal distance of 3 feet from the nearest major surface is usually satisfactory. The entire area surrounding the equipment should be explored to insure that the maximum noise levels are measured. Measurements shall be made at’a minimum of 6 points approximately 60 degrees apart in the plane specified in paragraph 3.4, starting with the line of maximum noise level. Additional readings will be specified when a directivity pattern is to be established. When multiple similar units are to be purchased, tests on more than one might be requested. RECORDS Records of tests for each piece of equipment shall include the information and readings called for in this speuification. Test results are to be reported to the purchaser for analysis and acceptance before equipment is shipped unless otherwise specified. SOUND LEVEL SPECIFICATIONS The location and orientation of the microphone for measurements of total (ambient plus machinery) and ambient noise levels shall be identical. If either the machine or ambient noise levels fluctuate appreciably, maximum levels shall be recorded. If the difference between total and ambient readings is less than 3 dB the ambient elvel is unsatisfactory for measuring the noise produced by the machine. If the difference is 10 dB or more the higher readings are essentially-the noise levels generated by the machine. For differences of 3 to 10 dB, the machinery noise levels shall be determined by applying the correction values indicated below. 5.2 Unless otherwise specified, octave band analysis will be used to measure equipment sOund levels. Maximum levels suitable for the application intended shall be specified by purchaser for each purchase. Sound level specifications for.equipment to be installed in various environments are to be supplied by purchaser. Correction Values Allowed for High Ambient Sound Levels Difference between Total and ‘ Correction to be Subtracted Ambient Noise Levels, dB from Total Sound Level, dB 3 3 4-5 2 6—9 1 10 O NOISE CONTROL SCOPE: This standard defines the acceptable limits for noise generated by machinery and equipment supplied to the Company. The basis of the numbers cited relate to Federal Safety and Health regulations to protect the hearing of employes. APPLICATION: This standard is applicable to all machines, power tools, and equipment. It shall be used for the purpose of protecting employe hearing by limiting noise exppsure from all sources to comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. REQUIREMENTS: 3_.1 All steady state or cyclical noise levels produced by machinery or equipment at the operator's position, and at all other points three feet from the equipment, shall not exceed 84 decibels when measured by a sound level meter meeting ANSI 14-1961, "Specification for General Purpose Sound Level Meters; " set to "A" weighting and slow response. 3.2 Impulse noise levels, as measured at the positions stipulated for steady state or cyclical noise levels, shall not exceed 115 dBC when read with a sound level meter conforming to ANSI 1. 4— 1951 set to fast response, nor shall they exceed 130 dBC as measured with an approved impact instrument. Exceptions to requirements 3.1 and 3.2 are specialequipment as outlined in Section 5 of this standard. as Noise measurements shall be the responsibility of the supplier. Actual noise levels shall be submitted to the requisitioning activity prior to shipment of any unit covered in this standard. Certification of the measurements shall be available upon request. An octave band analysis, when required, shall be made with a filter set conforming to ANSI 81.11-1966. $1 The quotation shall include any added costs required to meet this noise standard, stated as an alternate and separate item to the cost of the supplier's standard product. Such additions shall be identified in the quotation in sufficient detail to permit a complete evaluation by the purchaser. MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES: 4.1 The noise measurements, instrumentation, and reporting of data shall be in accordance with the National Machine Tool Builders' Association's document "NMTBA Noise Measurement Techniques," issued June 1970 or latest edition. L. 2 Noise levels shall be measured during the simultaneous operation of all components and applicable accessories when running under all anticipated operating conditions. 4.2.1 Unloaded Measurement shall be made at all probable unloaded modes such as idle or maximum traverse. J) N Loaded The various rated load modes of operation shall also be measured as per Section 3, unless otherwise specified. The supplier shall state whether the load conditions were actual or simulated; and if simulated, shall state the means of simulation. The supplier shall be provided a reasonable quantity of parts or materials by the purchaser, if these are peculiar to the purchaser. Exceptions to Section 4 are special equipment as outlined in Section 5. SPECIAL MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES: 21 Compressors Compressors shall not exceed 84dBA sound preSSure level, when measured at the loudest location on the envelope as defined in section 7.4.1 of the CAGI‘PN EU ROP Test Code for the Measurement of Sound from Pneumatic Equipment. ,All measurements and reporting of data shall be in accordance with the CAGI-PNEUROP Test Code, latest edition. Pneumatic Tools Air motors, hand grinders, screwdrivers, nutsetters, impact wrenches, etc., shall not exceed 85dBA, sound pressure level, at any of the microphone positions specified in section 5.6.1 of the CAGl-PNEUROP Test Code. All measurements shall be taken with the tool operating at an air pressure of 85 p.s.i., in a free running, no load condition. Data shall be reported in accordance with the CAGl-PNEUROP Test Code, latest edition. Fans (Nonducted) Exhaust and supply nonducted air moving devices shall not exceed 30 sones at 5 feet from the acoustic center of the fan when converted in accordance with AMCA Standard 301 from sound power levels obtained in accordance with AMCA Standard 300. Fans (Ducted) 5.4.1 Exhaust and supply ducted air moving devices shall not exceed 90dBA sound pow level, (ref. 10'1 watts) total of inlet and outlet power. Measurements and reporting of data shall be in accordance with AMCA Standards 300 8r 301. 5. .2 The sound p___ovv__er* level (ref. 1012 watts) at each system terminal shall not exceed 85dBA. Prefabricated duct silencers or acoustical plenums may be used to meet this requirement. The ASHRAE procedure (ref. ASHRAE Guide and Data Book, 1965, 1966, chapter 14) shall be used for estimating the sound power level at each terminal. All calculations shall be submitted to the requisitioning activity prior to the installation of the system. 01 h 00 In all cases, the quietest fan shall be considered in order to limit the noise as much as possible at the source. Electric Motors 5.5.1 The sound pow ewr‘ level (ref. 10‘12 watts) of electric motors, 1800 rpm and less, shall not exceed 85dBA on frames 405 and smaller, and 88dBA on frames 444 and 445. . D-5 5.5.2 The sound levels specified shall be measured in accordance with IEEE Publication No. 85, latest edition, and ANSI Standard 812-1962. 6. VARIATION FROM REQUIREMENTS: .64 6.2 *Note: All quotations shall clearly state any exceptions regarding the ability of the prospective supplier in complying with this standard. If the supplier cannot meet the noise level requirements of this standard, it shall be his responsibility to investigate known resources outside the Company before requesting assistance from the purchaser. When he can demonstrate that he has fully explored engineering solutions with unsuccessful results, he shall provide the purchaser with a complete octave band analysis, together with identification of probable noise sources. The data shall include readings at each test point for each load condition along with noise Revel duration per work cycle in sufficient detail to permit calculations of equivalent daily exposures. if it is mutually concluded that no engineering solutions are feasible, the supplier shall furnish corrective schemes, such as enclosures, that the purchaser may elect to use after installation. The cost of such corrective measures shall be the responsibility of the supplier unless the item was identified in the accepted quotation and purchase order as an exception. The supplier must obtain written permission from the purchaser to ship any unit covered in this standard that will operate above the specified noise limitations. To obtain dBA sound power level, adjust each octave band power level, according to the weighting of the "A" network and combine the resultant values. 1. General 1.1 These specifications control the permissible noise level of industrial equipment and are in accordance with the latest editions of the following: Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards; Part 50-204 Safety and Health Standard for Federal Supply Contracts Standards for Calibration of Sound Meters (ASA 3.1.4-1961 and IEC S.R.123) 1.2 The purpose of noise control is two-fold: to prevent the hazard of permanent hearing damage, and to improve employee comfort and work efficiency 1.3 The absolute unit of sound pressure is BAR=DNYISQ.CM. Experiments have shown that the human ear responds logarith- mically to a stimulus loudness, therefore the sound pressure level of noise measurement is established as follows: SPL = 20 Log P/Po (Decibel) ~ 20 log P + 74 where SPL = dB P =yu Bar P0 = .0002 “ Bdr as ref. pressure 2. Permissible Noise 2.1 Noises with high frequencies are more damaging to the human ear than the same sound pressure level at low frequencies, thus necessitating a specification and control of sound pressure levels in relation to octave bands. The influence of sound power and intensity is evaluated by determining the noise levels at 3' and 15' radii from the source of the noise. 2.2 Permitted noise levels for 40-hour weekly exposure Frequency Band Noise Level (dB) Max. created by the Equipment Cycles per Sec. 3' from Equip. 15' from Equipment C.P.S. for all Equip. Assy. Floor Equip. Press Shop Eq. 20 - 75 105 90 95 75 - 150 100 90 95 150 - 300 95 90 95 300 - 600 90 85 90 600 - 1200 85 82 85 1200 - 2400 85 82 85 2400 — 4800 85 82 85 4800 - 9600 85 82 85 2:3 For new equipment, the following noise levels, excluding background noises, are permissible. The noise is measured in a flat frequency level (dBA, see Dept. of Labor Standard Par. 50-204.10); Tool Idle Noise Full Load Noise or (dBA) Max. (dBA) Max. Equipment 3' from Equipment ' 3' from Equipment Air Hand Tools 82 85 Chipping Tools 84 85 Conveyors 80 83 Drilling Machine 80 82 Grinders 80 84 Hydraulic Unit' 85 85 Kellering Machine 82 85 Milling Machine 82 85 Presses 84 85 Sawing Machine 82 _ 85.,_ Shears 84 85 __n Shot Blasting 83 85 Tumbling 80 85 3. Control of Noise Level 3.1 All purchased equipment shall be tested by vendor with respect to noise level and approved prior to shipment to The Budd Company. 3.2 All pneumatic components with pressure relief exhausts shall be equipped with noise silencer. D—8 Plastic grinder Screw machines Header Calsh wire draw Braiding cloth cover Extenders- 110 , manual 98-102, auto 92—98 96 96+104f>110 92-97 91—93 86-111 NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # l ‘ Vertical turret lathe 90-100 20-25 30 min. Recommended Grinding operation 80-90 E Recommended Test cell 130, inside 2 times Required 75-80, outside COMPANY # 2 Power press (500 1b) 95-100 7 hr. Recommended Automatic screen 92-93 7 hr. COMPANY # 3 ' Punch press 92—95, idle 1 5-7 hr. Insulators on wire SHXHGHDOHd TOHLNOD KSION d0 HSfl - H XIGNHddV SHINVdNOO SNIHHLDVEHNVN ENC-ALJIJ NI NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMEANY # 4 Braiding machine 95—99 120 7 hr. Recommended COMPANY # 5 Metal turning 4-5. COMPANY # 6 Arc welding 105 6 4 hr. (IO—15 '*. min. periods) Sand blasting 95 3-4 hr; Test cell 80 - 115—120, 6 min. eng. idle COMPANY # 7 Sifting & conveyors 92 2 6 hr. IRecommended Sealing process 97 l 6 hr. Recommended Copper carton stuffer 106 none Bottle filling 97 Recommended Tablet counter 90-95 1 6 hr. Y . Recommended Bottle washer 92-95 2 741/2 hr. Recommended Labeler machine 92 1 6 hr. Recommended NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # 7 gcont'd) Mill (pulverizing) 92-95 1 6 hr. Recommended Slugging 90-97 1 1 hr. Recommended COMPANY # 8 Compressors 100 2 1 hr. Required Tablet coating 100 12 Fiberglass & canvas outside, paint in- side reduced levels to 85 dBA Computer room 95 6—8 False ceiling, sound absorbing panels on machine-reduced levels to 84 dBA COMPANY # 9 Compressor heaters 103—105 Acoustical ductwork on intake & exhaust, acoustical plumbing enclosures Steam exhausts 130-132 24 2 min. Installation of (not daily) mufflers reduced levels to 92—94 dBA Packing & grease 92-97 7 no Required _ NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # 10 Riveting 6-7 COMPANY # 11 850 Palatizers 93-95 no Required Cost $500,000 Line pack 92-101 no Depressors 99-100 no Lithograph 87-100 no Body makers 103-105 no Line 89-97 no Strip presses 102-103 no COMPANY # 12 Canning oil 96 29 4 hr. yes Replaced metal with webbing, coated divider with foam rubber, cut back air lift, replaced header, routed air stream Furnace 98-100 Silencers on vent stack and air flow reduced levels to 86-88 dBA 9-H 92,-background NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # l3 Riveting >90 24 8 hr. Required 95-100 Magnetic hammer 140 dB peak <50 20 imp./4 hr., Required 2 day/mo. High pressure release 125 15-16 5-10 sec., Required 1—2 day/mo. COMPANY # 14 Electric furnace 90-108 115 5-1/2 hr. no Recommended Sound proofing ‘ control rooms -— lead 1/2" thick Nail mill 90-106 65 Enclosures of plywood, lead, & foam; in- stalled hydraulic lift -— $3,000 Ball complex 90—110 39 Protective coating on trays from trough conveyor belt Rope mill 104-105 90 Air flow changes COMPANY # 15 Hydraulic pump 100, operating 4 no Recommended NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # 15 scont'dz Riveting 130 yes Recommended Sheet lead mufflers Engine testing 120, front 300 6 hr. no Required Installation of 130, back mufflers reduced levels to 90 dBA Drop hammer 140 dB peak 10 no Required COMPANY # 16 Flight line 90—92 ‘ 24 <1 hr. no Required Engine testing 90 8 1 hr. no Required Insulated test shack 120 dB, sometimes Final assembly >90 1 hr./wk. Acoustic arena 6 no Sound absorbing material COMPANY # 17 Air foil mills 102-103 3 >90 - 50% Flightlines 115-120 4 1-1/2 hr./ Required 2-3 days Sand blasting 92-95 10-15 Required Shock pads, sound- treated rooms, rubber mounts, acoustic curtains NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # 18 Furnaces 98—104 4 1 no Required Muffler mutes Process control valves 130 dB peak Gas & steam turbines 5 Hoods - fire hazard COMPANY # 19 Pneumatic tools Required Pump house >90 40 Fiberglass castors, ceiling baffles COMPANY # 20 Metal working plant >90 Required Air flow noise Enclosures - fire hazard - cost $35,000 Punch presses >90 15% 7-1/2 hr. 'Required COMPANY # 21 Riveting 90-114 175 no Recommended Punching/shearing 88—99 7 1 day/ several wks. Blanking/punching 90-103 94 1 day/ several wks. Flighting machine 100 7 1—2 days/mo. Heavy equipment Kilns NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # 22 Heaters Installed mufflers Electric motors 98 Installed mufflers which reduced levels to 78 dBA Canning 101 24 no Covered gear brakes with asphalt COMPANY # 23 Cleaning mills 108-112 110 7 hr. no Coated with foam (not successful), mufflers Tapping 100—103 80-85 7 hr. no COMPANY # 24 Kiln 93 - 26 4 hr. Required Hoise Quarry Mill COMPANY # 25 Fans 25 no Required Enclosures NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # 26 Tent tunnel 2 hr. Required Rocket launching 8 Required COMPANY # 27 Nygren printing press 92-98 12 no Required Horizontal braider 93-105 10 no Required Sound reducing enclosures reduced levels to 93-105 dBA Snow track test area 78-93 no Required Enclosures reduced ' levels to 78-93 dBA Vacuum scrap removal system 95-99 13 no Required Enclosures reduced levels to 95-99 dBA Machine shop grinder no Required Enclosures reduced levels to 15 dB red White side wall buffer 100 no Required Enclosures (cost $5,000) reduced levels to 100 dBA Scrap chopper 8 no Required Enclosures (cost - $14,000) reduced levels to 94 dBA COMPANY # 28 Control valves 101 Insulation Compressors 101 Mufflers OI-H Recommended NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE. CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # 29 Engine testing Acoustical baffles COMPANY # 30 Machining operation 115 18 Insulated with rubber 80-84 tubing COMPANY # 31 Glass forming 13 7 hr. Required Change from air cooling to liquid cooling, enclose blower Bandsaw 98-100 3-4 7 hr. Required Enclosed blowers Container inflation 104—107 Required Liquid coating COMPANY # 32 Locomotives 100 2 4 hr. Mufflers and enclosures (lead shielding) COMPANY # 33 Gear noise Recommended Enclosures, plastic components Presses and rimrolls 92-106 40 8 hr. TT-H NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN‘ USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB‘OPERATION , dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # 33 (cont'd) Bandlines 94-102 24 7 hr. Recommended Screens (acoustic) reduced by 2 or 3 dB at a cost of $150; hoods, curtains and Styrofoam reduced levels to 85 dBA at a cost of $200 Heavy equipment 95—100 4 hr. COMPANY # 34 Electric furnace Acoustical enclosures attenuated level by 45 dBA - cost was $30,000 Blast furnace 100 25 2 hr. Metal forming operation 100 4 hr. COMPANY # 35 Can-making 95 Plastic lines and rails Filling operation 100 130 8 hr. Required Punch press 96-97 42 8 hr. Required COMPANY # 36 Grinder 94 Use of exhaust muffler reduced levels to 83 dBA ZT-H JOB OPERATION COMPANY # 36m(cont'd) Saw COMPANY # 37 30 ton pump 50 ton motor COMPANY # 38 Grinders COMPANY # 39 Riveting Drop hammer COMPANY # 40 Riveting Air motor drill NUMBER OF DAILY dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE 126 104 104 88-96 105-120 130 dB peak 860110 110-115 ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL Added tile to blade guard which reduced levels to 106 dBA Changed valves reduced levels to 92 dBA Large motor replaced by small motors reduced level to 92 dBA Silicone rubber ST-H NUMBER OF DALLY AUMLN. uon ur BAA uuulnuunlnv JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # 41 Can packing 95 Can feeding 93 Oil packing 96 COMPANY # 42 Electric furnace 98—102 Pneumatic painters 90—96 Chipping 94-109 COMPANY # 43 Hi—speed air blower 104 Rubber trimming 94 Rubber mills 86-95 Jack hammer (on concrete) lZO COMPANY # 44 Air-operated equipment >90 35 5 hr. no Modification of air jets with mufflers and suppressors Channel straightening 92 Soundproof enclosure Bar casting area ,95 VT-H NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # 45 Riveting 95-105 1500-2000 3 hr. Required Experimenting with (quasi-steady) electro-magnetic riveting reduced levels 2 to 3 dB MEtalizing procedure 105—120' 400—500 2 hr. Required Enclosures, isolation COMPANY # 46 Test cells 115-120 yes Required Burr room 96 Required COMPANY # 47 Cutting (with saw) 105-113 50 4 hr. Required Heavy equipment l04 10 4 hr. Recommended Power shovel 95-101 3 5 hr. Recommended Yarding and loading 95 38 Recommended Modified exhaust systems, accustic lining in cabs Log sorting 93 8 3 hr. Mufflers, modified exhaust systems Chippers 95 8 7-1/2 hr. Required Tightened bearings, changed lubricants and saw scarves Pony off-bearer 95—103 7—1/2 hr. Trimmer 98-101 2 5 hr. Planing mill 85—105 10 6-1/2 hr. ST-fl NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL COMPANY # 48 Tissue mill (finishing) 82-96 198 7-1/4 hr. Required Napkin manuf. 103 35 7—1/2 hr. Required Changed embossing materials at a cost of $18,000 — reduced level to 96.5 dBA Roll & folded towels 96 40 7-1/2 hr. Required Used sandwich type , foam & lead barriers, enclosed gears on machinery — reduced level to 92 dBA at a cost of $8,000 Bale weighing 92 4 2 hr. yes Paper mill 94-103 80 COMPANY # 49 Paper machines 84-104 16 4 hr. Required Use of newer design parts - cost $9,000 COMPANY # 50 Pot liners 102 4 2 hr. Required Strander 91-98 3 5 hr. Required 3" insulating material Stone saw 101-102 1 Required Fed through lead loaded vinyl enclbéures“—’reduced levels to 45 dBA Fans & extrusion presses 91-97 45 Required 9I-3 NUMBER OF DAILY ADMIN. USE OF EAR ENGINEERING, JOB OPERATION dBA LEVELS EMPLOYEES EXPOSURE CONTROLS PROTECTORS CONTROL Companz # 50 (Cont'd) Rodding , 82-96 15 Required Rubberized.matting, mufflers at point of air exchange, acoustic cabinet around station, sprayed sound—deadening material Saws 95 3 Required Checked blades, replaced worn teeth COMPANY # 51 Tube bender 95 2 8 hr. Required Punch press - blanking 99 1 8 hr. Required Shaped die, ' bi-directional shear angles - cost $3.00 Press 92-94 1 Replaced worn parts in gears — reduced to under 90 dBA at a cost of $2,500 Air detection noise 92 1 1-1/2 hr. Equipped with mufflers ' ‘ at a cost of $5 to $8 Shear Dept. 95 l 5 hr. Mufflers & repair of air leaks Fin press 92—99 ‘ 1 8 hr. Required Enclosing bottom with plywood and acoustic lining Force Flo expanding table 98 1 Muffler APPENDIX F -- EMTLOYEE EAR PROTECTOR RATING SHEET TO: FROM: Safety Department SUBJECT: (Molded) Ear Protectors You have been fitted with personally molded ear protection known as (____). Will you please answer the following questions and return_guestionnaire to the Safety Department. Please check appropriate box. 1__j I. Have you been wearing them? a. Daily .L::7 b. Part Time .1::7 c. Not at All 1::7 II. Have you worn other types of hearing protection? a. Yes L7 b. No _/:_7 III. What type? a. Muffs / / b. Plugs / / we. Swedish wool / / d. Other (Write in) IV. If you wore other type, did you wear them: a. Daily 1::7- b. Part Time .£::7 V. How do you compare (the molded plug) with other types? a. Equal 1::7 b. Better 1::7 c. Not as Good 1::7 VI. Are (the molded plugs) comfortable? a. Yes 1: b. No _/__—:/_ VII. Are (the molded plugs) easy to insert and remove? a. Yes _£::7 b. No 1::7 VIII. According to their effectiveness, what type would you prefer? Give number according to preference - 1, 2, 3, etc. a. Plugs / / b. Muffs / / c. Swedish Wool / / d. (the molded plug) / / e. Other (Write in type) IX. Additional Remarks APPENDIX G -- AUDIOGRAM RECORDING SHEETS This audiogrom is plotted on the AUDIOGRAM basis of I969 reference thresholds. INTERNATIONAL SCALE Ch kF I u o ( 'c "“5”“, c° "m" ’° ) 250 500 I000 2000 4000 3000 Freq. Decibel Loss Freq. O 0 Right I Let: :0 so 250 250 3 20 20 if. '6’ s 500 500 3 so 30 a a u c: uooo I000 5;; , 40 40 a; .J a 7' r-II.” I500 I500 I; _, .3 so so g '3' g 0 :0 2000 2000 3 .2. g 60 60 EE 0 3000 3000 5.3 5 7° 7° :5 =3: -' so so 3_ 4000 4000 E z :2 e _ ‘90 90 "'3 2 600° 6°90 g I00 lOO g 8000 8000 i; ”o no 5 Frequency ISOO 3000 6000 Right Left Red Blue 0 X Prospective Employee ( ) Rehire ( ) Recheck ( ) Name Social Security No. Date of Birth Sex Occupation Military Service Length of Servie Assignment History of exposure to noise How often do you use firearms ? Ever had: Head noises ? Deafness in Family ? Running ear ? Ever treated by a Doctor for ear trauble ? Doctor's name: Address Technician Location Make of Audiometer Date Time Day of week Remarks PURE TONE AUDIOGRAM Practice Form Name: Tested by: Date: Audiometer used: Validity of test: ISO 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 .6000 10 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Key: _A_1_r_ Conduction 0 Right Ear --- Red 0; A w/masking at :18 Left Bar -- Blue'x;[::]w/mask1ng at: dB Bone Conduction —- Right Ear > w/masking at (15‘ Left Ear < w/masking at d8 \L If no response at maximum intensity. Remarks: Recommendations: G-2 AUDIOGRAM RECORD PRE mp NAME BI-ANNUAL SEX > EIRTHDATE OTHER TIME SINCE 1408? REg’Efi'r Ho'fSE EXPOSURE DURATION ofuoscr RECEgT NOISE EXPOSURE 0-20 min. 1 hr. 13-? hrs. 1 Day 0-20 min. 1 hr. 14 7 hrs. 1 Day 21-50 min. 2-3 hrs. 8-16 hrs. 2—3 Days 21-50 min. 2-3 hrs. 7+ hours AGE DATE DAY OF WEEK TIME OF DAY WAS EAR PROTECTION WORN ABOVE YES NO RIGHT EAR ' LEFT EAR 250 500 1000 2000 3000 h000 6000 250 500 1000 2000 300 1:000 6000 AUDIOMETER BELTONE MODEL 10D LAST CALIBRATED ISO: SERIAL NO. 22180 TESTED BY: ASCENDING TECHNIQUE N0 BONE CONDUCTION DONE DATE: COMMENTS: :I—ANNUAL OTHER # __ TIME SINCE MOST RECENT NOISE EXPOSURE DURATION OF MOST RECENT NOISE EXPOSURE O-20_min. 1 hr. [4—7 hrs. 1 Day 0-20 min. 1 hr. h—‘T hrs. 1 Day 21-50 min. 2-3 hrs. 8-16 hrs. 2-3 Days 21-50 min. 2-3 hrs. 7+ hours AGE DATE DAY OF WEEK TIME 01" DAY WAS EAR PROTECTION WORN ABOVE YES NO RIGHT EAR ' LEFT EAR 250 500 1000 2000 3000 h000 6000 250 500 1000 2000 3000 I4000 6000 AUDIOMETER BELTONE MODEL 10D LAST CALIBRATED ISO: SERIAL NO. 22180 TESTED BY: ASCENDING TECIDIIQUE NO BONE CONDUCTION DONE DATE: COMMENTS: BI-ANNUAL OTHER r _ TIME SINCE MOST RECENT NOISE EXPOSURE DURATION OF MOST RECENT NOISE EXPOSURE 0-20 min. 1 hr. h-T hrs. 1 Day 0-20 min. 1 hr. h—T hrs. 1 Day 21-50 min. Z-Qrs. 8-16 hrs. 2—3 Days 21-50 min. 2-3 hrs. 7+ hours AGE DATE DAY OF WEEK TIME OF DAY WAS EAR PROTECTION WORN ABOVE YES NO RIGHT EAR LEFT EAR 250 ,500 1000 2000 3000 1:000 6000 . 250 500 1000 2000 3000 '4000 6000 ( L AUDIOMETER BELTONE MODEL 10D LAST CALIBRATED ISO: SERIAL NO. 22180 TESTED BY: ASCENDING TECHNIQUE N0 BONE CONDUCTION DONE DATE: COMMENTS: G—3 PREVIOUS NOISE EXPOSURE AND MEDICAL HISTORY LAST THREE.JOBS TYPE OF WORK NOISE EXPOSURE PROTECTION WORN DURATION FREQUENT USE OF FIREARMS DO YOU RIDE A MOTORCYCLE WEAR A HELMET MILITARY SERVICE: BRANCH NOISE EXPOSURE RECHECK AUDIOS DURATION 'PROTECTION WORN DONE: YES NO HEARING LOSS IN FAMILY: HISTORY OF HEAD INJURY MALFORMATION OF EARS HISTORY OF PERFORATED EAR DRUM: RIGHT LEFT DRAINAGE OR CHRONIC INFECTION: RIGHT LEFT TINNITUS FOLLOWING NOISE EXPOSURE: COMMENTS: BI—ANNUAL OTHER CURRENT NOISE EXPOSURE JOB TITLE DEPARTMENT TIME ON JOB? YEARS EMPLOYEE'S ESTIMATE OF OWN MONTHS HEARING: GOOD FAIR POOR TYPE OF NOISE EXPOSURE STEADY NOISE 'IMPULSE NOISE PERCENT OF JOB TIME EXP.PROTECTION WORN CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE CONTINUOUS 0 10 20 30 no 50 60 YES INTERMITTENT EXPOSURE INTERMITTENT 70 80 90 100 HOW LONG NO BI—ANNUAL OTHER ' CURRENT NOISE EXPOSURE JOB TITLE DEPARTMENT TIME ON JOB? YEARS EMPLOYEE'S ESTIMATE OF OWN MONTHS HEARING: GOOD FAIR POOR TYPE OF NOISE EXPOSURE STEADY NOISE IMPULSE NOISE CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE INTERMITTENT EXPOSURE INTERMITTENT EXPOSURE PERCENT OF JOB TIME EXP. PROTECTION WORN 0 10 20 3O ho 50 60 YES 70 80 90 100 HOW LONG N0 AUDIOGDAM _,.. NAME DATE AGE __ SEX __________ REF. ADDRESS OCCUPATION YEARS DEAF ‘ DEAFNESS VARIABLE CAUSE OF DEAFNESS HEARS IN CHURCH HEARS IN SINGLE HEARS IN GROUP AND THEATER _______ CONVERSATION CONVERSATION NOW USING H.AI.__________ SINCE____ MAKE __________ RESULTS FENESTRATION_______ DATE BY _ TINNITIJSCI SUPPURATIVE EARCI DRUMD OTOSCLEROSISU cououcnve El NERVEU MIXED U REMARKSI NAME AND TITLE ‘ AUDOIMETER 0F TECHNICIAN MAKE I25 250 500 mm 2000 4000 8000 LEFT RIGHT ‘ ’0 "0 EAR EAR NOR- BLUE RED ->< 0 I0 l0 AIRWT MASKI‘N: D A 20 20 <1 9 0 MASKING J 30 30 on u, INTENSITY «MASKING 9 40 40 U 3 50 5° A.M.A °/.HEARING LOSS Z 60 so L-——- R.—.. COMB.— — 70 7o LEFT RIGHT In EAR EAR 3 80 80 S R.T:_.: .J . ,, 9° 9° M.C.L I00 F R E QU E NC Y I500 3000 cooo I2oool°° T, D DEFICIENCY IN ACUITY AS ESTIMATED FROM ABOVE GRAPH LEFT EAR ._____ DECIBELS RIGHT EAR “DECIBELS G-S 9'0 RECORD AUDIOGRAM Plant /Division Nani: Clock No. Date of Birth Date Hired RIGHT EAR LE" EAR YES NO YES no Don drum look normal 1 Is a povfovotlon present f Common" . E O 3 2 :5 5 § §§ : g RIGHT EAR LEFT EAR ; §§ Z 3 3 z 3 E. 3 4 u e o .5: 8 ° 3 0 '5 ¢ §8§§§§§§§§88§ §~§ézgazg on-Nnv‘wa) —NS w‘ng'flz’ Technlcol No" and” common): any ”any: a! job or anything Ma! has has happened since (as! exam that may all“! Mo hearing. MEDICAL DEPARTMENT PRE PLACEMENT EXAMINATION Dot. NAME No. AGE DATE OF BIRTH SEx TELEPHONE IN CASE or EMERGENCY. Honrv: E! M E] F ADDRESS FAMILY M.D. I MARITAL STATUS DEPARTMENT El U C! D D M s w DSEP. FAMILY HISTORY NO. AGE(S) NATE AGE AND'CAUSE OF DEATH I-IAs ANYONE 0N EITHER SIDE OF FAMILY HAD: MOTHER YeS No Yes No Yes No Allergy D 0 Heart Usease U ‘3 ObeSin (oVer wt)0 0 Anemia or FATHER Blood Dis.D [I High Blood Pres. E] El Rheuma'ic Fever [II D BROTHERS Arthritis D D Stroke D D Tuberculosis D E] Cancer 13 El Kidney Disease D D Typhoid Fever E! El D‘ b I ' SISTERS '° ° '5 D ‘3 EWIOPSY D D Other Usease D 1:! Migraine Hoadacho D I] COMMENTS: SPOUSE CHILDREN OCCUPATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL HISTORY SOCIAL HISTORY (FULL AND CHRDNOLOGICAL ORDER) - DO YOU: SMOKE— HOW MUCH— HOW LONG USE ALCOHOL___ HOW MUCH USE MEDICINE— WHAT KIND SLEEP WELL____HOW MANY HOURS HOBBIES LAST VACATION PAST HISTORY HAVE YOU EVER: . YES NO HAVE YOU EVER HAD: BEEN HOSPITALIZEO n D YES NO YES No TREATED FOR ALCOHOL'SM '3 '3 TUBERCULOSIS D D THYROID DISEASE D D TREATED FOR DRUG ADDICTION u n PLEURISY D DIABETES D BEEN ADVISED TO HAVE AN OPERATION u u PNEUMON'A D ‘3' CANCER ‘3 '3' T D D REQUIRED PSYCHIATRIC CARE n a ”mom FEVER D D UMOR DIPHTHERIA D D EPILEPSY D D / DRUG SENS'T'V'TY . a D MEASLES D D ALLERGY D D BEEN REFUSED OR RATED UP FOR LIFE INSURANCE u :2 CHICKEN POX D D NERVOUS DISORDER D D RECEIVED DISABILITY PAYMENT OR COMPENSATION D E! RHEUMATIC FEVER U ‘3' ANEM'A 0R BLOOD D'5~ U C‘ D D RECEIVED A MEDICAL DISCHARGE FROM ARMED FORCES a u “ALARM a D VENEREA" D'SE‘SE POLIO E] El OTHER U C] HAD INOCU LATIONs a COMMENTS: CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE G—7 REVIEW OF SYSTEMS PAGE 2 Do You HAVE, OR HAVE You EVER HAD: Yes No Yes No Yes No FREQUENT HEADACHES CI CI SWELLING OF ANI ' 500 I000 2000 4000 6000 500 I000 2000 4000 6000 8000 < 3 (YEARS) (E) 9:313:55..ng 'ro NOISE HISTORY YES No HAVE YOUR EARS EVER RUN? RIGHT EAR WHEN? TREATED BY WHOM? (FROM INFECTION OR INJURY) LEFT EAR WHEN? TREATED BY WHOM? ’ BY WHOM? HAVE YOU HAD ANY OPERATIONS ON EARS? WHEN? RESULTS— HAVE YOU EVER HAD DIZZINESS? . WHEN? TREATED FOR IT? HAVE YOU EVER HAD NOISES IN YOUR EARS? WHEN? TREATED FOR IT? HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE MILITARY SERVICE? WHEN? EXPOSED TO ANY SORT OF GUNFIRE? HAVE YOU EVER HAD A SEVERE HEAD INJURY? WHEN? TYPE HAVE YOU EVER HAD HEARING TROUBLE? WHEN? RECEIVED ANY TREATMENT? DO YOU NOW HAVE ANY TROUBLE HEARING? IF YES, DESCRIBE DIFFICULTY. HAVE YOU EVER WORKED IN A NOISY INDUSTRY? WHEN? FOR WHOM? HOW LONG? HAVE YOU DONE ANY DEEP SEA DIVING? WHEN? ANY INJURIES? DO YOU VISIT NOISY DANCING HALLS (BEATLES OR ' COMBO MUSIC) ETc.? HOW OFTEN? HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK? RIGHT EAR LEFT EAR EXAMINA'HON YES NO YES No COMMENTS IS THE EAR DRUM VISIBLE‘.I IS THE EAR DRUM INTACT‘.I IS THE CONE OF LIGHT VISIBLE? IS THE MALLEUS NORMAL? IS THE EXTERNAL CANAL NORMAL? DOES THE EAR APPEAR NORMAL? G—14 ST-E) W 1.?— B/P: z VISION : SPLFR: AUDIOGRAM sgngard : VER.PRORIA F UNCORRECTPI): RE: :: L: DATE: TIME SINCE DURATION OF ‘ LAST ERR: LAST gm: A CORRECTED: RE: :: = LAT. PRORIA 00 10 o 2 00 000 6 E R COLOR: g: DEPTH: L 5 O 900 3 0 A“ 000 N “CORRECTED: RE: :: LE: VER.PR0RIA 'l R E A CORRECTED: RE: :: LE: R LAT. PHORIA 1: Him: 1 _ SPLER QDIOGRAM SW 13/2: [ VISION GLASSE-g DATE: DATE TIME SINCE DURATION OF VER.PR0RIA : @T Exp: LAST EYPCGURE: F UNCORRECTED :RE: i : LE: am 500 1000 2000 3000 34000 6000 L A CORRECTED: RE: 3; LE: _ L LAT. PHORIA R h g COLOR: :: DEPTH: R g UNCORRECTED: RE: :: LE: VER.PHORIA Bilate al= ‘ E CORRECTED: RE: :: LE: ' It LAT. PHORIA TIME ON JOB AS 0?: YES: M$= AVERAGE NOISE EEPOSURE TIME: . NAME: ::EMP #: ' SEIE ESTIMATE OF HEARING: ____GOOD/ FAIR:__/ PO0R___ STATION::___________/ TITLE:: HISTORY: OTOSCOPIC EXAMINATION: FINDINGS & RECOIMENDATIOIB 0N REVERSE. DATE (1? BIRTH: TYPE CF CLASSES- WORN: / LAST CHECKED (over) 9T-9 6-6—0-0-0-0-0-0—0-0—0-0—0—0-0—0—0—0—0-0-0—0-0—0—0—0-0—0-0—0—0-0- 0-0-0-0—0-0-0-0-0—0-0—0-0-0-0-0—O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 CO 10 EXAMINATION: FINDINGS: REMARKS: RECOMMENDATIONS: ETC HETQEZ; gm 2 a a: / VISION GLASSES: gym spun-.- AUDIOGRAM Stagdgrd: VER. moan F unconnmm): an: 2; m: DATE TIME SINCE DURATION w LAST 10?: LAST EYPOEURE: L CORRECTED: RE: -- LE: MT. PHORIA a coma: ”DEPTH L 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 1 VER.BHORIA a N uncomcm: RE=____;; LE: E L CORRECTED“ RF}: -- m: LAT PHORIA . - 1311;;ng = R l i APPENDIX H -— PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING AUDIOMETRIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE DATA A. Preliminary: 1. Remove earphone cushion and record model number (this will generally be TDH—39 but always make sure). 2. Replace earphone cushion. 3. Set up equipment and allow a warm—up period. Make sure that all connections are secure. B. Calibration of Sound Level Meter: (use of 4144 microphone) 1. Set weighting selector of the sound level meter to SLOW. 2. Set the meter dial to 120. 3. Perform a battery check on the B & K 4220 pistonphone by turning the switch to the "check" position. Listen for a change in frequency which indicates proper battery function. 4. Mount the B & K 4144 microphone on the artificial ear. 5. Carefully place the pistonphone on this microphone and turn pistonphone switch to "on." Read output on the VU meter of the SLM and, using the calibration set screw, adjust the meter until it reads 124 dB (the intensity output of the pistonphone). Remove the pistonphone, mount 6 cc coupler on the artificial ear. This completes the calibration procedure for measuring sound pressure level outputs. C. Sound Pressure Level Measurements: 1. Carefully place the earphone on the artificial ear, center and level it. 2. Place the 420 gm weight on the earphone. 3. Set the weighting selector of the sound level meter to EXTERNAL FILTER. 4. Set the intensity dial of the audiometer to:* 70 dB (re ANSI 83.6—1969) 60 dB (re ASA 1951) *In cases where a self recording audiometer is used, make sure the pen falls on the 70 dB line of the data card by substituting a specially made switch for the subject response button. H—l 7. '1 Set the presentation mode of the audiometer-to continuously on" or its equivalent. Record sound pressure levels at the above intensity settings at all frequencies for both ears. Record frequency readings from the frequency counter simultaneously. D. Check on Interstep Spacing: l. 2. Set the frequency dial of the audiometer at the selected frequency. Starting at an intensity dial setting of 100 dB on the audio— meter, record sound pressure levels at 5 dB increments until reaching a level where the needle on the SLM* fluctuates. This usually occurs at around 30-25 dB HL. At this point, ambient noise levels in the room are affecting the readings registering on the sound level meter. This completes this procedure. E. Calibration of Sound Level Meter: (for use of 4145 microphone) l. 6. Remove all equipment not necessary for obtaining ambient noise levels in the testing area. Place the B & K 4145 microphone on the sound level meter. Follow calibration procedures listed in Section B. Make sure maximum noise conditions are present (fans, air conditioners, typing, etc.). Hold SLM in'a position so that the microphone is approximating the subject's ear. Measure and record octave band levels from 125—8000 Hz. F. Instrumentation** Used in the Evaluation of Hearing Test Equipment and Environments: 1. 2. Bruel & Kjaer 2203 Sound Level Meter Bruel & Kjaer 1613 Octave Band Filter *Sound Level Meter **Mention of the names of commercial concerns or products does not consti— tute endorsement by the U. S. Public Health Service. H—2 Bruel & Kjaer Bruel & Kjaer Bruel & Kjaer Bruel & Kjaer Monsanto 150A 4152 Artificial Ear with 6cc coupler 4144 Microphone (for measuring audiometer output) 4145 Microphone (for making test area measurement) 4220 Pistonphone frequency counter APPENDIX I -- AUDIOMETRIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE MEASUREMENTS APPENDIX I. PART 1. SURVEY NUMBER 125 1 6.9 2 699 3 908 4 124 5 113 6 123 7 120 8 125 9 124 10 124 11 ##ii 12 989 13 123 14 123 15 125 16 122 17 125 18 124 19 121 20 126 21 888 22 122 23 123 24 124 25 124 26 126 27 124 25 898 29 123 30 122 31 122 32 125 33 898 34 998 35 120 36 126 ,37 120 38 125 39 129 40 126 41 124 42 127 43 125 44 124 45 121 46 §§§ 47 589 43 699 49 999 50 968 51 689 52 898 53 999 54 888 55 899 56 «a: 57 968 53 899 59 125 60 998 61 126 62 124 63 125 64 127 65 122 66 126 67 §§§ 68 127 71 999 72 989 73 998 74 989 75 489 76 122 77 96* 250 245 499 499 249 233 245 230 252 247 245 252 254 243 258 251 243 320 251 238 248 252 244 251 250 249 254 247 246 244 244 247 240 258 248 238 255 241 255 >259 248 240 252 257 248 243 984 ififi “#9 G69 §9§ *Gfi fififi §§§ 9*” 9%” 6*” §*# *§§ 244 247 254 250 250 258 237 250 Qfi“ 254 255 250 248 253 253 240 257 500 491 504 502 500 466 499 477 501 492 520 507 498 498 498 502 506 680 502 475 510 509 486 500 501 502 510 494 508 495 500 492 508 502 486 487 504 502 508 516 512 477 507 513 496 500 493 498 496 500 494 502 493 505 491 510 496 511 503 482 490 500 501 499 514 498 500 495 499 514 507 509 507 510 496 514 750 «up «94 6&6 fififl ”f“ 755 “#9 755 730 765 fififi *§§ iflfi 736 765 766 760 759 f§§ 742 “#Q 739 747 755 755 723 736 ##G *G“ 761 “i“ 742 fififi ”*§ *9” 760 759 748 754 §§# 746 759 755 759 757 §§* §§§ 9%“ ”#9 §fl§ EGG fiéfi fififl “é“ ififi “fifi fififi é?” 741 757 759 755 759 744 807 761 ##fi 756 §§§ #§* §¢* *6” fififi ”it fififi 1000 1005 989 1010 1001 951 1005 938 1044 977 999 1009 1021 1003 1008 1005 §#*§ 1007 1008 989 1013 984 983 1023 1003 1004 986 995 980 993 1017 1021 997 1012 993 969 1014 1007 1019 1015 1013 974 1015 997 988 1005 998 984 988 984 1002 1008 985 997 991 1008 988 1009 1009 1027 1027 1008 1004 1010 991 1020 1011 1005 1010 1012 1033 1022 1001 1004 1007 1009 I-1 1500 6996 §§§§ 8466 8999 898» 1489 1387 1512 1437 1524 999» l9§# 1503 1506 1510 1507 1482 1501 1480 1512 9899 1491 1490 1507 1511 1445 1474 4988 1478 1511 1475 1479 8464 9858 1445 1501 1514 1489 1501 1522 1474 1501 1507 1511 1509 988* fifi}! ‘80“ fifihfi {89* ##GG G89“ §§§# fifiifi 68¢“ ##96 iii“ “88* 1458 1508 1513 1509 1481 1483 1497 1486 fifiéfi 1505 Ofiéfi “*9“ #688 fififii ##QG *#*¢ ##68 2000 2001 2001 2070 1981 1770 1986 1899 2014 1957 2025 2010 2011 1992 2014 2030 2005 1977 1993 1960 2008 2017 1984 2047 1998 2001 1914 1964 2019 1969 2019 2026 1993 2014 1980 1951 2000 2011 2018 2055 2022 1926 2054 2017 1985 2004 1994 1976 1997 1985 2003 2013 2003 1995 1988 2043 2007 2043 2053 1944 2018 2007 2000 1974 1999 1991 1980 2011 2012 2030 1986 2010 2013 2020 1995 2015 3000 2988 3012 3127 2990 4999 3002 2876 3030 2932 3020 3025 3008 3048 3075 2995 3009 2986 3014 2999 3010 3032 3014 3049 3012 3006 2871 2951 3011 2999 3078 3024 2965 3010 2972 2867 3048 3035 3006 3057 3064 2882 3056 3005 2986 3021 2984 2993 3000 2985 2995 3001 3043 2992 2976 3072 3044 3082 3117 2923 3020 3024 3009 3005 2972 2999 2964 3022 3012 3075 2939 3011 3017 3011 2981 3016 4000 4001 3992 4157 3991 3858 4008 3811 4012 3850 4052 4002 4001 4090 4110 4032 4097 3965 4022 3875 4022 4016 4004 4015 4021 4016 3700 3936 4022 3981 4013 4033 3967 4042 4024 3743 4025 4017 3956 3987 4049 3906 4040 3889 4036 4009 3972 3977 3970 3958 3993 3987 4053 4003 3979 4069 4059 4091 4157 3830 3910 4012 3983 4030 3973 4024 3924 4000 4023 3917 3971 4007 4016 4021 4019 4002 6000 5990 6013 6271 5975 fi§§§ 6011 5521 6027 5844 6092 6019 6040 6074 6153 5973 5939 5989 5947 5932 6045 6041 5966 5942 6033 5976 5631 5975 6017 5921 6060 6040 5977 6016 6059 5771 6049 6018 5985 6063 6032 6038 6074 5956 5881 5982 5975 5990 5967 5945 6021 5995 6129 6071 6013 6127 6135 6141 6293 5997 5757 6027 5978 6055 5891 6037 5875 6002 6010 5975 5547 6014 6033 6022 5836 6042 oo-ooo-c-oounocINDICATED TONE FREQUENCY IN HERTZocoooooooooconou 8000 7974 8989 ‘00. 7922 7200 7987 7326 8103 7704 8138 8024 8000 8110 8187 7879 7970 9198 7919 7885 6125 7980 7934 7901 8026 7964 7386 7991 7988 7827 8137 8105 7794 8007 8176 7640 8027 *2.” 7799 7827 7923 8132 8007 7663 8069 8025 b9§§ 6996 §§§§ 9999 *fififi «994 989* §¢§§ 4949 9948 4989 9999 «999 7920 7722 7925 7944 8104 7794 8014 7838 §§ifl 7977 8182 7613 7975 7996 8002 7961 7988 Q APPENDIX/I. PART 2. SUN VEY 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1a 19 20 21 22 23 25 - AUD. CAL. TYPE STU. MANUAL ANSI -1959 AUTO. ASA -1951 AUTO. ASA -1951 AUTO. ANSI -1969 MANUAL ASA -1951 AUTO. ASA -1951 MANUAL ANSI -1969 MANUAL ASA -1951 MANUAL ASA -1951 MANUAL ASA -1951 MANUAL ASA -1951 MANUAL ANSI '1969 MANUAL ANSI -1969 MANUAL ASA -1951 MANUAL ANSI -1969 MANUAL ASA -1951 MANUAL ANSI -19b9 MANUAL ANSI -1969 MANUAL ASA -1951 MANUAL ANSI -l969 MANUAL ASA -1951 MANUAL ASA -1951 MANUAL ASA —1951 MANUAL ANSI -1969 MANUAL ANSI —1959 EAR- PHONE .0... LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT kleT LEFT NIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT. L.LE£JL *111.0 v.1 w COUPLER SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS RE. 08' DIAL SETTING '70 ANSI $3.6: (SEE NOTE AT END OF APPENDIX PART B) 00.00.000.00....FREQUENCY SETTING IN HERTZCCOCOUCOOOCCCCOC 125 éifi§§ fiééfifi A§¢§fi éfififih §#§#§ ##éfifl 115.0 114.0 115.5 117.5 105.9 105.9 109.0 107.8 ##5## §#§§§ 114.0 116.0 113.0 112.5 fifiififi ##5## #4504 ##5## 115.0 114.0 §§§*§ 75.5 115.5 111.5 116.0 114.5 82.5 75.5 107.0 103.5 105.5 105.5 117.0 115.5 fifififié §§#*§ 115.0 113.0 117.0 115.5 114.5 114.0 113.0 250 97.0 97.5 445*” §**§§ fififififi *§*** 95.0 93.5 98.0 99.0 94.9 95.2 98.4 97.2 88.4 87.5 96.0 96.0 90.5 92.0 96.0 96.0 96.5 96.0 98.0 97.5 60.5 07.5 93.5 93.5 94.5 83.0 72.0 71.0 93.0 90.5 88.5 88.5 97.0 96.0 95.0 95.0 93.5 94.0 9705 98.0 96.0 95.5 83.5 92.0 500 82.0 82.5 80.5 80.5 82.5 52.0 81.5 80.0 HZCO 83.5 82.2 81.0 32.6 81.4 75.3 75.0 82.0 83.0 76.0 78.5 82.0 82.0 82.5 82.5 53.0 82.0 58.0 66.0 80.0 80.0 86.5 84.0 70.5 69.0 81.5 5200 76.0 76.5 52.3 81.0 61.0 77.5 83.5 83.5 BloU 80.0 79.0 1000 I... 78.5 79.0 76.0 77.5 80.0 79.5 78.5 77.5 78.5 80.0 75.9 77.3 82.3 81.6 75.3 75.7 77.0 80.5 74.5 76.5 79.0 78.5 78.0 73.0 78.5 78.5 71.5 81.0 76.0 75.5 555* to». 83.5 81.5 77.5 79.0 74.5 75.0 77.5 76.5 77.5 77.0 77.0 77.5 79.5 80.0 78.5 78.5 78.5 77.5 1500 §§§§ «55* 5.5% 44*» «#44 *4.“ 59*. 4.9% #488 #559 75.6 77.8 75.2 74.3 73.9 73.5 76.5 82.0 78.0 79.0 5.44 §§§§ iififi *##§ 80.0 79.0 74.0 80.0 76.5 76.0 83.5 83.5 81.5 83.5 75.0 76.5 74.0 74.5 76.5 75.0 §§*§ §§#§ 77.0 77.0 79.5 81.0 78.0 78.0 76.5 76.5 2000 50.0 50.5 80.5 80.0 53.0 82.5 79.5 79.0 81.0 30.0 79.1 80.9 31.5 79.7 78.7 77.1 78.5 84.0 75.0 82.5 50.0 80.0 82.0 81.5 80.5 79.5 72.5 79.0 75.0 75.0 84.5 85.0 75.0 30.5 75.5 77.5 75.5 75.5 79.0 75.0 80.0 79.0 75.5 76.0 81.5 32.5 80.5 00.5 50.0 80.0 3000 80.5 80.5 76.5 78.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 80.0 .5». *§§§ 76.0 75.3 84.9 82.4 78.5 76.9 76.5 82.5 76.0 74.0 78.0 78.0 32.0 81.0 32.5 32.0 63.5 71.5 74.5 75.0 83.0 84.5 74.0 74.5 77.0 77.5 75.5 74.5 81.0 80.0 79.0 79.5 79.0 79.0 80.5 80.5 78.0 78.0 76.0 76.5 4000 81.0 80.5 79.0 80.0 82.5 50.0 80.0 79.0 86.5 88.5 77.5 77.4 79.5 78.7 79.4 78.3 80.5 74.0 77.5 75.5 81b5 81.5 82.0 82.0 83.5 83.5 75.5 86.0 78.5 78.5 85.5 85.5 81.5 79.5 84.5 85.0 78.5 79.0 82.0 81.0 81.5 81.5 83.5 82.5 81.5 81.5 79.5 79.5 79.0 77.5 6000 85.5 86.0 81.0 82.0 84.5 84.5 87.0 88.0 .56» *i“ 81.0 78.5 87.9 86.8 78.1 77.2 78.0 83.0 82.0 82.5 77.5 74.5 85.0 82.5 86.5 85.0 66.5 78.5 79.0 79.5 82.5 87.0 78.0 78.0 87.0 85.5 79.0 77.5 83.0 82.0 79.5 79.0 80.5 79.5 81.5 82.5 80.0 79.5 82.0 80.0 8000 82.0 82.5 a... ...* “**§ fififif 85.0 84.0 87.0 89.0 3803 85.0 82.5 82.1 75.7 74.7 79.0 85.5 85.5 85.5 87.5 84.0 84.0 83.0 86.0 85.0 75.0 87.0 85.0 85.0 92.5 95.0 61.0 58.5 82.5 82.5 81.0 80.0 84.0 83.5 86.0 85.5 82.5 82.0 88.0 89.0 85.0 84.5 87.5 86.5 APPENDU(I. PART 2. COUPLER SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS RE. ANSI 63.6: SUP VEY 26 27 23 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 4e 49 50 '70 08' UIAL SETTING (SEE NOTE AT END OF APPENDIX PART 8) - AUD. CAL. EAR- COO...DOD-IIIIIOFKEQUtNCY SETTINb IN HERTZDOCOOOOOOOOCOCOI TYPE STD. PHONE 125 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 I... .10. no... 0000 a... O... I... O... I... I... c... O... o... MANUAL ANSI LEFT 111.8 100.4 87.6 79.3 74.5 76.6 76.2 77.6 69.5 91.8 '1969 RIGHT 112.0 100.5 87.3 77.4 74.0 78.1 76.9 77.5 72.7 92.0 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 116.6 95.4 81.7 77.6 76.0 79.0 80.2 80.1 84.7 82.5 ‘1969 RIGHT 116.7 95.9 61.7 77.5 7130.3 79.2 80.3 50.0 5409 5205 MANUAL ANSI LEFT ***** 93.0 79.3 74.8 **** 79.3 81.0 77.3 79.7 82.2 -1959 RIGHT “***§ 92.2 78th 7405 “MIT?“ 7004 611.4 77.4 80.5 8103 MANUAL ASA LEFT 110.2 93.2 81.3 79.8 79.8 77.9 75.3 80.2 71.7 84.7 ‘1951 RIGHT 98.0 90.5 83.0 76.3 76.0 77.3 76.7 80.0 78.8 85.9 MANUAL ASA LEFT 115.5 95.0 81.5 77.0 78.0 81.5 77.5 81.0 80.0 $84.5 '1951 RIGHT 113.0 94.0 81.0 76.0 76.5 82.5 76.5 81.0 81.0 .81.0 AUTO. ANSI LEFT 116.5 97.0 82.5 80.5 79.5 83.0 83.0 81.5 89.5 88.5 ‘1969 RIGHT 115.0 97.0 82.5 80.0 76.5 83.5 82.0 81.5 88.0 83.5 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 90.0 84.0 85.5 80.0 78.5 80.5 81.0 82.0 88.0 83.0 '1969 RIGHT 87.0 80.0 77.0 86.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 83.0 85.0 80.0 MANUAL ANSI LEFT ***** 96.8 83.6 79.5 “*9“ 82.6 78.8 82.5 81.0 85.2 “1969 RIGHT ***** 96.8 82.9 80.1 **** 81.7 78.4 82.8 83.0 85.6 MANUAL ASA LEFT ***** 94.7 80.4 77.4 **** 79.2 77.1 82.2 75.8 85.7 -1951 RIGHT ”**** 95.5 79.7 77.7 **** 79.9 78.6 81.8 78.9 86.7 MANUAL ASA LEFT 112.5 94.7 79.8 77.0 76.8 78.2 75.5 79.8 81.3 85.9 '1951 RIGHT 113.2 95.1 80.4 77.3 77.3 79.0 76.9 80.8 81.9 85.9 MANUAL ANSI LEFT “**** 92.0 79.4 75.4 74.6 79.1 78.4 80.0 84.2 80.0 "1969 RIGHT 90.0 92.5 83.8 77.9 76.3 79.0 79.9 80.9 84.0 82.0 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 102.0 92.5 80.0 76.0 77.0 79.0 75.0 78.0 80.5 86.0 '1969 RIGHT 102.5 93.5' 81.0 77.0 78.0 79.5 75.0 78.0 81.0 89.5 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 114.5 93.0 80.5 77.5 76.5 78.8 78.2 81.5 84.0 82.0 ' -1969 RIGHT 116.0 94.0 80.5 77.0 77.5 78.0 79.5 80.0 84.5 83.0 AUTO. ANSI LEFT 113.5 93.0 79.5 76.5 74.0 77.5 78.5 76.5 87.5 82.0 -1969 RIGHT 114.0 92.5 73.5 78.5 73.0 78.5 78.0 79.0 84.0 82.0 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 113.5 93.5 82.5 77.5 78.5 78.0 81.5 79.0 84.5 85.0 '1969 RIGHT 113.0 93.0 82.0 77.5 78.0 78.5 81.0 78.5 85.0 84.5 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 116.5 96.5 83.0 77.0 77.5 79.5 80.0 80.5 84.5 80.5 -1969 RIGHT 116.5 97.5 82.0 78.5 77.5 80.5 81.5 80.5 86.0 82.0 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 115.0 95.0 81.0 76.5 79.0 79.0 80.0 82.0 86.5 86.5 -1969 RIGHT 114.5 95.0 81.0 76.5 78.5 79.0 81.0 81.0 89.5 86.5 MANUAL ASA LEFT 109.5 92.0 77.0 72.0 74.0 75.5 74.5 75.0 80.0 77.4 '1951 RIGHT 107.5 89.0 76.5 71.5 72.0 73.5 72.5 74.5 77.5 79.0 MANUAL ASA LEFT 114.0 96.5 83.5 77.0 76.5 78.0 78.5 77.5 80.5 84.0 '1951 RIGHT 115.0 96.0 83.0 75.5 75.0 78.5 76.0 79.5 79.0 86.0 MANUAL ASA LEFT 107.0 94.5 80.5 78.5 79.0 80.0 79.0 82.0 78.5 84.5 '1951 RIGHT 106.0 91.5 82.0 78.5 79.0 81.5 74.0 82.5 82.0 83.0 AUTO. ANSI LEFT “**“* ***** 82.5 80.5 ”9*” 80.0 78.0 78.5 77.0 **** '1969 RIGHT **“** ***** 76.5 74.5 **** 76.5 76.0 75.0 69.0 **** AUTO. ANSI LEFT “*“** ***** 77.0 85.0 **** 83.5 80.0 80.0 85.5 ”9““ '1969 RIGHT ***§* ***** 75.0 87.0 **** 85.0 80.0 80.5 83.5 **** AUTO. ASA LEFT **“** ***** 79.5 75.5 “*9“ 77.5 76.5 79.0 75.5 **** “1951 RIGHT ***** ***** 74.5. 82.0 “*4” 79.5 78.0 79.0 71.5 “*** AUTO. ASA LEFT ***** ***** 78.5 74.5 **** 77.5 80.0 77.5 75.5 “*9” "1951 RIGHT ”“9”“ ***** 78.0 74.5 **** 77.5 79.0 77.0 77.5 **** AUTO. ANSI LEFT *“*** ***** 81.5 77.5 “*9“ 80.0 80.5 80.0 84.5 *“”* '1969 RIGHT “*““* ***** 82.5 81.0 **** 80.5 80.0 80.0 85.5 **”“ -LNDIX I.PART 2. ‘ COUPLER SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS RE. ANSI 53.6: '70 08' DIAL SETTING (SEE NOTE AT END OF APPENDIX PART 8) SUH- AUDI CALI EAR- IO.IUOOOOOOCOIOIF‘REQUENCY SETTING IN HfiRTZOOIOOOUOOOCCOOOO VEY TYPE STD. PHONE 125 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 0.. O... O... 0.... O... I... I... I... O... O... O... O... I... C... 51 MANUAL ANSI LEFT ***** ***** 82.0 81.5 **** 79.0 80.5 80.5 86.0 **’* -1969 RIGHT ***** ***** 81.5 77.0 **** 79.5 81.0 81.0 84.5 **** 53 AUTO. ANSI LEFT ***** “**** 78.2 75.3 **** 78.2 75.7 76.2 79.4 ***“ '1969 RIGHT ***** “***“ 78.8 74.9 **** 78.2 75.5 76.1 79.7 **“* 54 AUTO. ASA LEFT ***** ***** 79.6 75.4 **** 77.3 76.9 78.0 78.1 *““* '1951 RIGHT ***** ****“ 80.4 76.9 **** 77.5 77.4 78.7 76.4 **** 55 AUTO. ASA LEFT ***** ***** 80.0 77.0 *“** 79.0 77.5 78.5 80.5 **“* ' '1951 RIGHT ***** ***** 80.0 77.0 **** 80.0 78.5 77.5 81.0 **“* 56 AUTO. ANSI LEFT ***** ***** 81.0 77.0 **** 80.5 83.0 79.5 86.5 “8*“ '1969 RIGHT ***** ***** 82.0 77.0 ***” 77.5 79.0 80.5 82.5 *““* 57 AUTO. ASA LEFT ***** **§*° 76.5 76.0 ***“ 80.0 79.5 81.5 83.5 *“*” '1951 RIGHT ***** ***** 77.0 77.5 “*** 80.0 78.5 81.0 82.5 **** 58 AUTO. ANSI LEFT ”**** “**** 82.0 77.5 ”*** 79.5 81.0 80.5 86.5 *°** ‘1969 RIGHT ***** ***** 82.0 78.0 °*** 79.5 81.0 81.5 85.0 **** 59 MANUAL ASA LEFT 111.0 93.5 78.0 75.5 76.0 77.0 74.5 77.5 80.0 82.5 “1951 RIGHT 114.0 96.0 78.0 73.5 75.5 76.5 72.5 76.0 78.0 81.0 60 MANUAL ASA LEFT ***** 65.0 64.0 78.0 84.5 81.5 77.5 79.0 70.5 82.5 '1951 RIGHT 82.0 66.0 66.0 79.0 84.5 80.5 74.0 81.5 74.5 83.5 61 MANUAL ASA' LEFT 82.5 81.0 69.0 81.0 80.7 80.5 78.0 79.5 81.0 82.0 -1951 RIGHT 78.5 75.0 62.5 78.0 82.0 76.0 77.5 81.0 80.5 75.5 62 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 116.0 95.0 90.0 77.5 76.0 79.0 81.0 80.0 88.0 81.0 -1969 RIGHT 116.0 95.0 82.5 77.5 76.0 79.0 81.0 80.0 87.0 80.5 63 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 114.5 95.0 82.0 77.2 76.0 78.5 80.5 81.5 85.0 81.0 -l969 RIGHT 114.5 96.0 82.5 76.5 75.5 78.5 79.0 81.5 86.0 84.0 64 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 115.0 97.0 82.0 77.0 76.5 80.0 80.5 80.0 87.5 82.5 '1969 RIGHT 114.0 94.0 80.5 76.0 76.5 78.0 79.0 79.0 86.5 82.0 65 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 114.5 95.5 80.0 76.5 77.5 79.0 76.5 79.5 80.0 84.0 '1969 RIGHT 113.5 97.0 81.0 77.5 78.5 79.5 76.5 79.5 80.0 85.0 66 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 114.0 95.0 81.0 77.5 79.0 78.0 79.5 80.5 81.5 87.0 -1969 RIGHT 109.0 95.0 81.5 78.0 79.0 80.0 79.5 82.0 80.0 87.0 67 MANUAL ANSI LEFT ***** ***** 81.0 77.0 *“** 80.0 80.0 81.5 85.5 **** ‘1969 RIGHT ***** ***** 81.0 77.0 **** 80.0 80.0 80.5 85.5 *”** 68 MANUAL ANSI LEFT 115.5 96.0 81.5 77.5 76.5 80.0 81.0 82.0 86.0 84.0 '1969 RIGHT 115.5 96.5 82.0 78.5 77.0 79.5 81.0 82.0 85.5 83.5 71 MANUAL ANSI LEFT V“*** 93.0 80.5 78.0 **** 80.0 79.0 80.5 78.5 88.0 -1969 RIGHT ***** 92.0 77.0 75.5 **“* 74.5 76.0 77.5 76.0 84.5 72 MANUAL ANSI LEFT ***** 94.5 78.5 76.5 **** 79.5 77.0 78.5 78.5 89.0 '1969 RIGHT *“*** 90.0 75.0 72.0 **** 75.5 74.0 74.5 74.0 83.5 73 AUTO. ANSI LEFT ***** 96.5 83.3 77.5 **** 78.5 77.5 81.0 82.0 81.5 '1969 RIGHT ***§* 94.5 80.1 77.0 “*4“ 82.5 78.5 80.3 82.0 81.5 74 AUTO. ANSI LEFT “*‘*“ 96.5 83.3 78.5 ***‘ 81.0 81.5 81.5 84.5 85.5 -1969 RIGHT “**** 96.0 83.0 77.8 ***9 81.0 82.0 81.0 85.0 85.5 75 AUTO. ANSI LEFT ****“ 98.0 83.0 79.0 **** 81.0 81.0 83.0 86.5 84.5 -1969 NIGHT ****” 98.0 82.5 77.8 **** 81.5 82.5 82.5 86.0 84.0 76 AUTO. ANSI LEFT 112.5 94.5 81.0 77.0 ‘*** 79.5 80.0 80.0 84.0 83.5 -1969 RIGHT 112.5 95.5 81.5 76.5 *“** 78.0 80.5 79.6 84.5 83.0 77 AUTO. ANSI LEFT ***** 91.0 88.5 81.0 ***” 81.5 81.8 81.3 84.5 84.0 -l969 RIGHT ***** 97.8 82.0 78.0 **** 81.0 80.8 81.0 88.8 85.5 §*NOTE** MEASUREMENTS SHOWN IN PART 8 OF THIS APPENDIX WHICH WERE OBTAINED FROM AUDIOMETERS CALIBRATEU RE. ASA 224.5-1951 WERE USUALLY TAKEN AT A DIAL SETTING OF 60 U8. EACH SUCH MEASUREMENT WAS INCREASED #10 DB AND THEN ALL MEASUREMENTS UdTAINEU FHUM AUDIUMETERS CALIBRATED RE. ASA Z24.5 WERE ADJUSTED HY THE "ANSI VS ASA-1951" DB DIFFERENCES IN REFERENCE THRESHOLD LEVEL SHOWN IN APPENDIX E OF ANSI 53.6-1969: " SPECIFICATION FOH AUDIOMETEHS." 1—4 APPENDIX 1. PART 3. SUR- FREQ. VEY (H2) 1 1000 5 1000 7 2000 8 1000 9 1500 10 1000 11 1000 12 1000 13 1000 14 1000 15 1000 16 2000 17 1000 18 1000 19 1000 20 1000 21 1000 22 1000 23 2000 24 1000 25 1000 26 500 27 1000 28 1000 29 1500 30 3000 32 1000 33 1000 34 1000 35 1000 36 1500 37 1500 38 1000 40 1000 41 1000 42 1000 43 1000 44 1000 45 1000 51 3000 59 1000 60 1000 61 1000 62 1000 63 1000 64 1000 65 1000 66 1000 67 2000 68 1000 71 1000 72 1000 EAR- PHONE RIGHT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT RIGHT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT RIGHT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT RIGHT LEFT LEFT RIGHT LEFT LEFT RIGHT WIGHT RIGHT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT LEFT RIGHT LEFT LEFT RIGHT NIGHT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT RIGHT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT RIGHT COUPLER SOUND PRESSURE.LEVEL MEASUREMENTS RE. ANSI $3.6 (SEE NOTE AT END 0F~APPENDIX PART B) OIOOOOOIIIOIIOOIIIID.OIOIOUQIIOODIAL SETTING IN DB.onoaIoonooooooooo-coo-olouoooooo 100 109.0 “D468 113.2 104.8 106.0 108.5 108.5 108.5 108.0 110.5 106.0 111.0 112.5 108.5 108.5 107.5 107.5 106.5 113.5 109.0 108.5 116.7 107.7 104.4 106.3 104.0 114.5 110.0 6.06% 106.9 #9696 Gfifiéfi ##fifii ifififii 9&6“! fifibifi 69646 ”#666 ##6## flflfififi 105.0 108.0 99933 105.0 104.0 107.0 104.5 107.0 §§§§6 107.5 109.0 102.0 95 103.8 «#569 107.2 100.5 101.5 104.0 104.0 103.0 103.0 105.5 101.0 109.5 107.5 103.5 101.5 102.5 102.5 101.0 108.5 103.0 103.0 112.0 102.6 99.4 101.0 102.5 110.0 105.0 99399 101.6 #9930 §¢§§§ 9933* 99994 93690 §*6§9 99339 «399* 103.5 #3939 100.5 101.0 103.5 101.5 101.5 102.5 99.0 101.5 93954 103.0 104.0 97.5 90 99.0 fiifififi 101.7 95.4 96.5 97.0 99.0 93.0 93.0 100.0 96.0 106.0 102.5 93.5 95.0 97.0 97.5 95.5 103.0 98.5 93.0 107.0 93.2 94.4 96.2 93.0 105.0 100.0 ##6## 96.3 ifi... *QQQG fififi§§ fifiifl. fifififi. fififlfifi GGGGQ iifififi 99.0 102.5 95.5 95.5 93.0 .96.5 96.0 97.0 95.0 -96.5 101.0 97.5 99.0 92.5 85 93.5: Qfifififi 96.6 90.7 92.5 91.5 94.0 93.0 93.5 95.5 91.0 101.5 93.0 93.0 89.0 92.5 92.5 91.0 99.0 93.3 93.5 102.7 92.3 89.3 91.2 92.0 100.0 95.0 096“} 93.4 “60%. ”Vi”. flfifififi #6060 Oflfififi *Gfififl “fibfifi ##fiifl 93.5 §§§§§ 91.0 90.0 93.5 91.5 92.0 92.0 30.0 92.0 fifififli 92.5 94.0 37.5 80 33.3 GGGQ 91.5 35.5 36.5 34.0 39.0 33.0 33.5 90.0 36.0 96.5 93.0 37.5 34.5 37.0 37.5 35.0 93.0 33.5 33.0 97.3 33.3 34.3 86.2 37.5 94.5 90.0 33.2 37.5 9“!“ #“flfi §**¢ “66¢ 0966 #fl## ”9*“ fl§§§ 39.0 91.5 35.5 39.5 39.0 86.5 36.0 36.0 35.5 36.5 90.0 37.5 39.0 32.5 75 33.5 33.0 86.7 31.0 32.5 79.0 34.0 33.0 34.0 35.5 31.0 91.5 33.5 32.5 79.5 32.5 32.0 30.5 33.5 33.0 33.0 92.7 32.5 73.3 31.2 32.5 90.0 35.0 33.0 32.4 “94% ““0” §§*§ Qflfifi #66“ fifififi fifififl “Qifi 33.5 ##§§ 31.0 34.0 33.5 32.5 31.0 32.0 31.0 32.0 Qfififi 32.5 34.5 77.5 1+5 70 79.0 78.5 81.5 75.8 76.5 74.5 79.0 78.0 78.5 81.0 76.0 86.0 83.5 77.5 74.5 77.0 77.5 76.5 82.0 79.0 78.0 87.2 77.8 74.0 76.4 77.5 84.5 80.0 77.8 77.5 76.3 77.0 77.0 77.5 78.5 76.5 72.0 75.5 73.0 80.5 75.5 79.4 79.0 77.5 76.5 76.0 76.5 77.5 80.0 77.5 79.0 72.0 65 73.5 74.0 76.3 71.5 72.5 69.5 73.5 72.5 73.5 76.0 71.0 79.5 78.5 72.5 70.0 72.5 72.0 72.5 78.0 74.0 73.0 82.9 72.7 68.7 71.5 72.0 80.0 75.0 72.6 72.1 71.8 73.0 72.0 72.5 74.0 71.5 67.5 71.0 74.0 9999 71.0 74.5 73.5 70.5 72.0 72.0 71.5 73.0 «993 72.5 74.0 67.0 60 68.5 68.5 71.2 65.0 66.5 64.0 69.0 68.0 68.0 71.0 66.0 76.0 73.5 67.5 64.5 67.5 67.0 67.0 71.5 69.5 68.0 77.4 67.6 63.7 66.0 67.5 74.5 70.0 67.8 67.3 66.8 68.0 67.0 67.5 68.5 66.5 62.0 65.5 69.0 72.0 65.5 69.5 68.5 67.0 67.5 66.5 65.5 63.0 70.0 67.5 69.0 62.0 55 63.0 63.5 69.9 60.5 62.5 60.0 6305 62-5 63.5 65.5 61.5 71.5 69.0 63.0 59.0 63.0 62.0 62.0 66.5 64.5 64.0 72.6 62-0 58.4 61.0 63.5 71.0 65.0 62.5 62.0 62.0 63.5 62.5 62.0 64.0 61.5 57.5 61.0 63.5 §§§§ 61.0 64.0 64.0 62.0 62.5 62.0 61.0 63.5 §§.. 6360 64.0 51.0 50 58.5 58.5 64.9 55.5 57.0 55.0 59.0 57.5 58.5 60.5 56.0 66.0 64.0 57.5 54.0 57.5 57.0 56.0 61.0 58.0 60.0 67.3 57.5 53.5 56.0 59.5 66.0 60.0 57.9 57.5 57.4 57.0 57.0 56.5 58.5 56.5 51.0 55.5 59.0 60.5 56.0 59.0 58.7 58.0 57.5 56.5 55.5 58.5 60.5 57.5 59.0 52.0 45 53.0 52.0 59.9 51.4 52.5 51.5 54.0 52.5 '54.0 55.5 51.5 60.5 59.5 53.0 49.0 53.0 51.5 52.0 56.5 53.5 54.5 62.4 52-1 48.2 51.5 54.5 67.0 55.0 52.8 56.5 52.4 51.0 52.5 51.5 54.0 51.5 47.0 51.0 54.0 9953 51.5 54.0 53.5 52.5 53.0 52.0 51.0 54.0 «966 53.0 54.0 47.0 40 48-0 4635 50-5 4637 4700 4500 5005 47.5 49.5 51.0 46.5 55.5 5335 43.0 43.5 4735 47.0 44.0 50-5 48.5 50.5 57.2 46.2 43-2 4569 5000 67.0 5000 48.2 47.0 47.8 4630 47.0 “6.5 48.5 66.5 4130 45-0 49.0 50.5 45.5 5000 49.0 4830 4730 46.5 4630 50-0 51.0 4860 4930 42.0 35 63.0 42-0 45-0 41.8 43-0 41.5 44.0 42-5 44.5 47.0 42.0 49.5 4900 4365 37.5 4360 41-5 41.5 45-5 44.5 4530 52.8 42-5 3560 4032 43.5 5..“ “5.0 43-2 46.3 42-7 41.0 42.5 41-0 44.0 41.5 3665 40.5 44.0 .§§§ 41-0 45.0 43-5 62.5 42.0 42.5 “2.0 44.0 ’§§* 4360 4430 37.0 30 38.0 36.5 45.0 37.0 37.0 34.5 40.5 37.5 40.5 42.0 36.5 43.0 44.0 38.0 31.5 37.5 36.5 36.0 40.0 40.0 40.5 47.2 36.6 33.0 34.2 39.0 in.» 40.5 38.2 41.2 37.5 36.0 36.5 36.0 39.0 36.5 30.5 35.0 39.0 40.0 35.5 40.0 39.0 38.0 38.5 36.5 36.0 39.0 41.0 38.0 39.0- 32.0 25 0.60 32.5 31.5 34.0 32.0 33.0 31.0 34.0 32.5 36.0 37.0 32.0 39.0 41.0 33.5 25.5 33.0 31.0 31.5 #666 35-5 35.5 4266 3207 28.0 28.5 34.0 §G§fi 35.6 33.3 32.0 33.0 31.0 31.5 31.0 34.5 31.5 26.5 30.5 34.0 Qiéfl 31.0 36.0 34.0 34-0 34.5 32.0 33.0 34.0 #D§* 33.0 35.0 27.0 APPENDIX I. PART 4. AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MILASUREMENTS SURVEY IIOIOIIOUIODOFHEUUENCY bETTING IN HELRTZOOOOCOIOOI... 606656 31 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 6000 1 ** ** 44 29 17 13 14 13 11 2 ** ** 43 29 22 12 16 16 16 3 ** ** 44 29 21 16 13 14 14 4 ** ** 4* ** 20 ‘15 19 17 16 5 ** ** 43 43 37 33 24 20 16 6 56 52 40 31 30 17 26 19 29 7 53 55 47 29 23 16 16 13 13 6 ** ** 33 21 16 14 15 15 16 9 ** ** 35 25 19 17 16 16 16 10 *6 ** 34 26 24 24 22 24 24 11 ** 6* 42 26 24 16 14 12 12 12 ** ** 36 26 20 14 12 12 12 14 ** ** 49 34 20 19 16 15 20 15 ** ** 36 30 22 16 15 14 14 16 ** ** 34 19 16 16 16 14 14 17 ** 6* 42 ’33 16 12 12 14 14 19 ** ** 44 44 26 16 14 11 10 20 ** *9 42 32 1 21 16 12 14 14 22 ** ** ** ** 10 10 10 1o 10 23 ** ** ** ** 21 16 16 16 19 24 4* ** ** 37 26 15 16 15 17 25 ** ** ** ** 31 22 20 23 15 26 ** ** ** ** 46 41 34 20 20 27 ** *6 ** *5 17 15 2o 16 16 26 ** ** ** 4* 20 25 22 16 20 29 ** 2* ** ** 20 21 21 22 6 30 ** ** *6 ** 32 16 22 20 20 32 ** 9* 41 36 36 32 24 16 16 33 66 6o 57 46 45 35 33 26 24 34 60 51 50 43 42 37 29 25 26 35 60 53 32 16 5* 9* ~20 15 ** 36 56 47 4o 30 24 16 21 19 22 37 64 54 36 26 19 26 17 17 19 36 66 56 51 32 41 3o 26 26 33 39 76 62 56 50 4o 26 23 16 18 40 66 so 50 26 20 22 22 25 2o 43 66 64 53 36 22 26 22 22 22 44 60 46, 46 31 24 21 26 26 25 45 56 43 34 26 16 16 16 14 14 46 {2% #9? 1”? #i’ 26 26 15 15 #{t 47 *4 ** ** ** 15 17 12 14 17 46 v ** ** ** ** 26 11 19 11 13 49 ** 6* ** 44 10 10 10 1o 11 5o ** ** ** ** 26 26 24 22 2o 51 ** ** 35 15 12 12 12 12 11 52 ** 49 41 35 22 16 17 16 16 53 63 6o 43 39 25 20 2o 21 22 54 59 61 , 49 47 4o 35 3o 26 26 55 66 52 44 32 22 22 22 24 2o 56 49 41 30 22 16 17 13 13 13 57 56 49, 56 44 34 27 20 20 4o 56 47 42 37 23 16 19 16 17 12 59 ** ** 37 24 15 15 12 14 12 60 ** ** *6 32 24 20 16 16 19 61 9* ** 49 36 26 19 16 22 20 62 ** ** 41 36 24 16 16 15 14 63 44 9* 36 26 16 17 14 16 16 64 ** ** 62 46 34 37 36 24 21 65 ** ** 34 39 25 14 13 16 15 66 *6 ** 34 26 22 14 14 16 17 67 ** ** 40 26 16 14 14 13 15 66 ** 44 33 25 32 20 20 18 12 69 9* ** ** ** 19 18 20 16 23 70 ** ** 55 45 42 34 29 21 19 71 ** ** so 40 32 26 24 17 14 72 ** ** 39 ' 26 20 13 12 12 10 1'6 if U. 5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-657-6011/5561 Region No. 5-! I CUE‘ILE‘WBLB U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service Center for Disease Control National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 75—178