DOCSLIB.ORG

Preventing Hazardous Noise and Hearing Loss

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preventing Hazardous Noise and Hearing Loss Preventing Hazardous Noise and Hearing Loss during Project Design and Operation Prevention through Design (PtD) Prevention through Design (PtD) Why is PtD Needed? Description of can be defined as designing out Integrating PtD concepts into busi- Exposure or eliminating safety and health ness processes helps reduce injury and hazards associated with processes, Prolonged exposure to high noise levels structures, equipment, tools, or illness in the workplace, as well as costs can cause hearing loss and tinnitus. work organization. The National associated with injuries. PtD lays the Other health effects include headaches, Institute for Occupational Safety foundation for a sustainable culture of fatigue, stress, and cardiovascular and Health (NIOSH) launched a safety with lower workers’ compensation problems [Yueh et al. 2003]. High noise PtD initiative in 2007. The mission expenses, fewer retrofits, and improved levels can also cause workers to be dis- tracted and interfere with communica- is to reduce or prevent occupational productivity. When PtD concepts are in- injuries, illnesses, and fatalities by tion and warning signals. If workers do troduced early in the design process, re- considering hazard prevention in not hear warning signals, they may not the design, re-design, and retrofit of sources can be allocated more efficiently. take precautions to prevent hazards or new and existing workplaces, tools, injuries [NIOSH 1996, 1998; Yoon et al. equipment, and work processes Summary 2015; Cantley et al. 2015]. [NIOSH 2008a,b]. Exposure to high noise levels in the workplace can cause hearing loss and Workers at Risk Contents affect worker productivity and compen- An estimated twenty-two million work- ▶ Why is PtD Needed sation costs. This document describes ers are exposed to potentially damag- ing noise each year [NIOSH 2014a]. ▶ Summary case studies in which noise controls Although any worker can be at risk ▶ Description of Exposure were implemented that reduced worker for noise-induced hearing loss in the noise exposure. NIOSH recommends ▶ Workers at Risk workplace, workers in agriculture, min- ▶ Exposure Limits considering PtD concepts and incorpo- ing, construction, manufacturing and ▶ Protecting Workers from rating engineering noise controls during utilities, transportation, and the military Hearing Loss the project design phase of processes are at greater risk [Masterson et al. 2013; ▶ Case Studies and operations. NIOSH 2001]. ▶ Recommendations ▶ Acknowledgments ▶ References DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Exposure Limits exposure should be cut in half (these are is the most effective way to reduce noise referred to as exchange rates in standards). levels in the workplace [NIOSH 2001]. In the United States, occupational regu- Table 1 illustrates the relationship between According to the hierarchy of controls lations and standards were established sound exposure levels and durations for (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierar- to protect workers against the health both NIOSH and OSHA. chy/), such measures take precedence over effects of exposure to hazardous sub- The Mine Safety and Health Administra- using personal protective equipment such stances and agents when certain values, tion (MSHA) PEL for miners is 90 dBA. as earplugs [NIOSH 2015]. or limits, are reached. NIOSH establishes If a miner’s noise exposure continues to recommended exposure limits (RELs) exceed the PEL despite the use of engi- These noise reduction measures can lower for various hazards, but those limits are neering and administrative controls, the costs associated with workers’ compen- not enforceable by law; they are based mine operator must continue to use the sation for hearing loss, protect workers’ on best available science and practices. engineering and administrative controls to hearing, and improve productivity. Costs The REL for noise is 85 decibels, using reduce the miner’s noise exposure to as low associated with retrofitting noisy equip- the A-weighting frequency response over a level as is feasible [30 CFR § 62.130]. ment are also no longer necessary. an 8-hour average, usually referred to as time-weighted average (TWA); expo- sures at or above this level are considered Protecting Workers Case Studies hazardous [NIOSH 1998]. The Occupa- from Hearing Loss The following case studies demonstrate tional Safety and Health Administration how small design and operational changes Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) (OSHA) sets legally-enforceable permis- can reduce noise levels and reduce is 100% preventable; however, once sible exposure limits (PELs) that require associated costs. acquired, it is permanent and irrevers- employers to take actions to reduce worker ible [NIOSH 1998]. Understanding and exposures. The OSHA PEL for noise is 90 minimizing the risks are the keys to Case Study 1 dBA as an 8-hr TWA [29 CFR* 1910.95]. preventing noise-related injuries and Compressed air is often the most com- hearing loss. Eliminating or lowering Occupational standards specify a maxi- mon noise source in manufacturing plants facility and equipment-related noise at the mum allowable daily noise dose, expressed and other industries. It is used to operate source reduces the risks related to NIHL in percentages. For example, a person ex- equipment, such as air cylinders, air valves, and results in improved safety, produc- posed to 85 dBA per NIOSH or 90 dBA per solenoids, etc., or move parts/product, tivity, and comfort [Tak et al. 2009]. blow off debris, close flaps on corrugated OSHA over an 8-hour work shift, will reach containers (boxes/cases), or perform simi- 100% of their daily noise dose. The noise The best way to reduce noise exposure and lar service-type actions. The noise generat- dose is based on both the sound exposure reduce resulting hearing loss is to address ed by compressed air is caused by turbu- level and how long it lasts (duration) so for noise at the source by considering PtD lence from the mixing of gases with widely each increase of 3-dB (NIOSH) or 5-dB principles. “Engineering out” hazardous different velocities, particularly when the (OSHA) in noise levels, the duration of the noise found in the workplace before the high-velocity air stream flows into the *Code of Federal Regulations. See CFR in exposure occurs (e.g., by installing quieter relatively still surrounding air. Additional References. equipment or building an acoustic barrier) turbulence is created as the compressed air blows against objects, such as parts or sec- tions of the machinery. Table 1. The average sound exposure levels needed to reach the maximum allowable daily dose of 100% Compressed air noise can be controlled by reducing the air velocity to as low as practical while maintaining performance Time to reach Exposure level Exposure level requirements and by treating all open- 100% noise dose per NIOSH REL per OSHA PEL ended discharge lines and ports, including 8 hours 85 dBA 90 dBA standard air jets and nozzles with com- mercially-available quiet-design nozzles or 4 hours 88 dBA 95 dBA pneumatic silencers [IRSST 2015]. Addressing the noise produced by com- 2 hours 91 dBA 100 dBA pressed air provides the greatest noise 1 hour 94 dBA 105 dBA reduction per dollar invested, and can even have a payback in dollars through energy 30 minutes 97 dBA 110 dBA savings and life expectancy of equipment. 15 minutes 100 dBA 115 dBA Blowing compressed air through a 3/8-inch open pipe at a pressure of 71.5 pounds per square inch (psi) uses 109 standard feet per cubic minute (scfm). At an average cost of $0.015 per 35.3 standard cubic feet (scf), and an estimated use time of 40%, this equates to 704 hours of consumption per year. Therefore, the annual cost for the open pipe is: 109 ft3/min x $0.015/35.3 ft3 × 60 min /hr × 704 hours = $1956.44. By us- ing a quiet-design nozzle that provides the same air-flow service, but only uses 55.9 scfm, the resulting annual cost would be $1003.35, a savings of $953.09 per nozzle while reducing noise levels by 20 dBA [Driscoll 2011]. This approach was successfully demon- strated by two of the Safe-in-Sound Excel- lence in Hearing Loss Prevention Award™ (www.safeinsound.us) recipients. One of the recipients (Colgate-Palmolive Compa- ny) created a guidance document to opti- mize system operation, minimize air leaks and provide guidance on appropriate use of air tools. (http://www.safeinsound.us/swf/ Figure 1. Track mounted, air rotary drill rig colgate/). This effort involved (1) measur- ing, documenting, and optimizing air pressure settings for all pneumatic devices, dominant spike in the sound level spec- working near these machines are at greater (2) maintaining the pneumatic equipment trum. The researchers also conducted field risk of developing NIHL. The flight bars and monitoring the optimized settings tests to evaluate noise controls to reduce and the conveyor belt tail rotor were coated over time, and (3) locating and repairing in-cab sound levels. Hydraulic noise sup- with a thick, durable urethane coating to compressed air leaks from cracked hoses, pressors were successfully used to reduce reduce noise and improve the lifespan of failed seals, etc. At the beginning of the the structure-borne noise that is transmit- the equipment. The redesigned chain and implementation phase, worker doses were ted from the structure to the control panel. flight bars reduced sound levels by 6-7dBA reduced from 113 to 90 dBA 8-hr TWA, Further, the hydraulic noise suppressors at the operator ear. The reduction in noise and energy consumption was also reduced. and enhanced soundproofing lessened the allowed the noise exposure to remain This was also one of the approaches taken risk of hearing loss for workers by reduc- within the MSHA PEL [NIOSH 2009]. by another Safe-in-Sound recipient (United ing the in-cab exposure levels by as much Technologies) (http://www.safeinsound.us/ as 4 dBA at high idle and by 1 dBA when Recommendations swf/UTC/index.html) who reduced worker the rig was hammer drilling.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hearing Conservation Program
    HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM Program Element R2-10-207(11)(c) Each agency shall develop, implement, and monitor a Hearing Conservation Program element when applicable. Harmful sound, or noise, must be identified and evaluated with sound pressure level (SPL) monitoring devices when it is present in the workplace. Employers must protect employee hearing via engineering controls, administrative controls, or hearing protection devices (HPDs) when the OSHA Action Limit is met or exceeded in the workplace. Definition: A hearing conservation program is a written program that is designed to prevent hearing loss in employees that work in environments where noise levels above 85 dBA or a daily noise dose of 50% over an 8-hour time- weighted average (TWA) are present. Why do I need this This program is needed to ensure employers have program? assessed noise levels which may result in hearing damage, and to ensure that employees exposed to noise are protected and monitored to prevent hearing loss. How do I know if this Employers must establish and implement a Hearing program applies to my Conservation Program for those employees who are agency and my specific exposed to a sound level greater than the “Action job hazards? Level” of 85 dBA TWA and/or 50% of the Daily Noise Dose. Impulsive noise levels shall not exceed 140 dBC. The key elements of an effective Hearing Conservation Program are: a) Noise exposure monitoring and analysis b) Use of engineering controls c) Use of administrative controls d) Use and selection of proper hearing protection devices (HPDs) e) Initial and annual audiometric testing f) Initial and annual employee training g) Recordkeeping; and h) Annual program evaluation Hearing Conservation Program, R2-10-207(11)(c) Page 1 of 4 January 2015 What are the minimum There are five OSHA required Hearing Conservation required elements and/ Program elements: or best practices for a Hearing Conservation 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Organizational Behavior Seventh Edition
    PRINT Organizational Behavior Seventh Edition John R. Schermerhorn, Jr. Ohio University James G. Hunt Texas Tech University Richard N. Osborn Wayne State University ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 7TH edition Copyright 2002 © John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a data base retrieval system, without prior written permission of the publisher. ISBN 0-471-22819-2 (ebook) 0-471-42063-8 (print version) Brief Contents SECTION ONE 1 Management Challenges of High Performance SECTION FOUR 171 Organizations 81 Organizational Behavior Today 3 Illustrative Case: Creating a High Performance Power 173 Learning About Organizational Behavior 5 Organization 84 Empowerment 181 Organizations as Work Settings 7 Groups in Organizations 87 Organizational Politics 183 Organizational Behavior and Management 9 Stages of Group Development 90 Political Action and the Manager 186 Ethics and Organizational Behavior 12 Input Foundations of Group Effectiveness 92 The Nature of Communication 190 Workforce Diversity 15 Group and Intergroup Dynamics 95 Essentials of Interpersonal Communication Demographic Differences 17 Decision Making in Groups 96 192 Aptitude and Ability 18 High Performance Teams 100 Communication Barriers 195 Personality 19 Team Building 103 Organizational Communication 197 Personality Traits and Classifications 21 Improving Team Processes 105
    [Show full text]
  • 422 PART 227—OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE Subpart A—General
    Pt. 227 49 CFR Ch. II (10–1–20 Edition) by the BLS. The wage component is weight- 227.15 Information collection. ed by 40% and the equipment component by 60%. Subpart B—Occupational Noise Exposure 2. For the wage component, the average of for Railroad Operating Employees the data from Form A—STB Wage Statistics for Group No. 300 (Maintenance of Way and 227.101 Scope and applicability. Structures) and Group No. 400 (Maintenance 227.103 Noise monitoring program. of Equipment and Stores) employees is used. 227.105 Protection of employees. 3. For the equipment component, 227.107 Hearing conservation program. LABSTAT Series Report, Producer Price 227.109 Audiometric testing program. Index (PPI) Series WPU 144 for Railroad 227.111 Audiometric test requirements. Equipment is used. 227.113 Noise operational controls. 4. In the month of October, second-quarter 227.115 Hearing protectors. wage data are obtained from the STB. For 227.117 Hearing protector attenuation. equipment costs, the corresponding BLS rail- 227.119 Training program. road equipment indices for the second quar- 227.121 Recordkeeping. ter are obtained. As the equipment index is APPENDIX A TO PART 227—NOISE EXPOSURE reported monthly rather than quarterly, the COMPUTATION average for the months of April, May and APPENDIX B TO PART 227—METHODS FOR ESTI- June is used for the threshold calculation. 5. The wage data are reported in terms of MATING THE ADEQUACY OF HEARING PRO- dollars earned per hour, while the equipment TECTOR ATTENUATION cost data are indexed to a base year of 1982. APPENDIX C TO PART 227—AUDIOMETRIC BASE- 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Tinnitus Characteristics at High-And Low-Risk Occupations from Occupational Noise Exposure Standpoint
    PERSPECTIVE DOI: 10.5935/0946-5448.20210016 International Tinnitus Journal. 2021;25(1):87-93 Tinnitus characteristics at high-and low-risk occupations from occupational noise exposure standpoint Mehdi Asghari ABSTRACT Introduction: The aim of the present study was to compare tinnitus characteristics in high- and low-risk occupations from the occupational noise exposure standpoint, considering demographic data, hearing loss and concomitant diseases. Methods: Demographic data, characteristics of tinnitus, hearing and concomitant diseases were recorded in the questionnaires. Their pure tone air conduction thresholds were determined using a double-channel diagnostic Audiometer and the Bone Conduction was assessed using a B-71 bone vibrator. Results: Totally, 6.3% subjects (6.8% high-risk group and 5.6% low-risk group) had subjective tinnitus, mainly as whistling sound. In the high-risk group, tinnitus was mainly left-sided (41.18%) and hearing loss was mild. Bilateral tinnitus (52.63%) and slight hearing loss were observed predominantly in the low-risk group. Conclusions: The study showed higher incidence of tinnitus in high-risk professions regarding with occupational noise exposure. Keywords: Tinnitus; Loudness; Hearing loss; Noise exposure; High-risk occupations. 1Department of Medical Sciences, Arak University, Iran *Send correspondence to: Mehdi Asghari Department of Medical Sciences, Arak University, Iran. E-mail: [email protected], Phone: +81302040753 Paper submitted on February 07, 2021; and Accepted on April 18, 2021 87 International Tinnitus Journal, Vol. 25, No 1 (2021) www.tinnitusjournal.com INTRODUCTION 20 to 60 years referred to XXX Occupational Medicine Centers in 2018, Arak, Iran. Inclusion criteria included Tinnitus is a sound sensation in the ears or head in the age ≥18, at least a fifth grade education, wok experience absence of an external auditory or electrical source.
    [Show full text]
  • Inter.Nobe 99 Lggg December 06-08
    j' This is a preprint or reprint of a paper intended for presentation at a conference. Because changes may be made before formal publication, this is made available with the understanding that it will not be cited or reproduced without the permission of the author. Fort Lauderda|e, Florida, USA inter.nobe 99 lggg December 06-08 ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE AT THE NASA GLENN RESEARCH CENTER: A FIVE-YEAR PROGRESS SUMMARY (1994-1999) Beth A. Cooper NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field Cleveland, OH 44135 U.S.A. Donald W. Hange Robert P. Madison International, Inc. NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field Cleveland, OH 44135 U.S.A. John J. Mikulic NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field Cleveland, OH 44135 U.S.A. INTRODUCTION At the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field (formerly the Lewis Research Center), experimental research in aircraft and space propulsion systems is conducted in more than 100 test cells and laboratories. These facilities are supported by a central process air system that supplies high-volume, high-pressure compressed air and vacuum at various conditions that simulate altitude flight. Nearly 100,000 ft 2 of metalworking and specialized fabrication shops located on-site produce prototypes, models, and test hardware in support of experimental research operations. These activities, comprising numerous individual noise sources and operational scenarios, result in a varied and complex noise exposure environment, which is the responsibility of the Glenn Research Center Noise Exposure Management Program. Hearing conservation, community noise complaint response and noise control engineering services are included under the umbrella of this Program, which encompasses the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard on occupational noise exposure, §29CFR 1910.95[ 1], as well as the more stringent NASA Health Standard on Hearing Conservation[2].
    [Show full text]
  • Buy Quiet Procedure Esperance
    BUY QUIET PROCEDURE ESPERANCE BUY QUIET PROCEDURE - ESPERANCE DOCUMENT CONTROL Version Description Reviewed by Approved by Revision Issue Date Number Date 0 First Draft to include D Lindkvist A Byers Feb 2016 Feb 2016 reference to Environmental Noise 1 Comments section 1 used A Byers A Byers Feb 2016 Feb 2016 equipment 2 Environmental noise A Leonard A Byers Feb 2016 Feb 2016 3 Insertion of: Responsible A Leonard J Oldfield Jan 2017 Jan 2017 Person, role of Environmental Department and using broadband “croaker” reversing alarms. 4 Minor amendments. A Leonard A Leonard Nov 2017 Nov 2017 Document Facilitator: Environment Manager Version No: 04 Issue Date: 17/11/2017 Authorised by: Environment Manager Record No: D17/595 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Page 2 of 7 BUY QUIET PROCEDURE - ESPERANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS DOCUMENT CONTROL .............................................................................................. 2 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 4 2. SP NOISE LEVEL GOAL ................................................................................ 4 3. TEAM RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................ 4 3.1. Requestor ....................................................................................................... 4 3.2. Appointed Noise Officer .................................................................................. 4 3.3. Environmental Department ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Noise Control Methods for Shipbuilding
    Noise Control Methods for Shipbuilding Final Report NSRP Subcontract Agreement No. 2012-424 Presented To: National Shipbuilding Research Program Operated by Advanced Technology Incorporated Prepared By: Daniel O. Chute, CIH, CSP Atrium Environmental Health and Safety Services, LLC Atrium Environmental Health and Safety Services, LLC 11495 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 210 Reston, VA 20190 November 1, 2012 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Final Report Noise Control Methods for Shipbuilding; NSRP Agreement No. 2012‐424 November 1, 2012 Page 2 of 14 Abstract Noise control has always been a big issue in shipyards. OSHA regulations for Occupational Exposure to Noise in 29CFR 1910.95 define specific requirements for shipyard employment, including surveillance, audiometric testing, training and use of approved PPE for exposures exceeding 85 dBA over a full shift. Experience has demonstrated that uncontrolled exposure represents a major loss-control issue by contributing to Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL), citations, lower productivity and costly compensation claims. A wide variety of equipment and operations commonly found in shipbuilding have the potential to produce excessive noise levels requiring OSHA compliance action and the use hearing protection unless employers have sampling data to document their equipment operates below the action thresholds. The goal of this project was to accurately measure and characterize representative noise levels generated by common shipyard manufacturing and maintenance processes, to define both representative exposure levels and to evaluate and describe the most effective control methods which are currently in place. This work is designed to promote effective and beneficial technology transfer, so that techniques and processes that may have been proven in one or two locations may be passed along to other sites to promote noise exposure reduction, where possible, with reduced trial-and-error, better innovation and ultimately, reduced exposure time before implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work Code of Practice 2021 Page 2 of 54
    Managing noise and preventing hearing loss at work Code of Practice 2021 PN12640 ISBN Creative Commons This copyright work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit creativecommons.org/licenses. In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to Safe Work Australia and abide by the other licence terms. Managing noise and preventing hearing loss at work Code of Practice 2021 Page 2 of 54 Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Who has health and safety duties in relation to noise? .......................................... 5 1.2 What is involved in managing noise and preventing hearing loss?........................ 7 1.3 Information, training, instruction and supervision ................................................... 8 2. Noise and its effects on health and safety ..................................................................... 9 2.1 How does hearing loss occur? ................................................................................ 9 2.2 How much noise is too much? ................................................................................ 9 2.3 Other effects of noise............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Practice Designing out Hazards in the Real World
    Prevention Through Design Peer-Reviewed Practice Designing Out Hazards in the Real World By Anjali Lamba IOSH is leading a national initiative, development, implementation, employee training launched in July 2007, called Prevention and surveillance (Schulte & Heidel, 2009). NThrough Design (PTD). This initiative has As awareness of the PTD concept grows, more engaged the government, academia and industry SH&E professionals are calling for a concerted em- in promoting the concept of designing out and phasis on the engineering and technical aspects minimizing occupational risks. Following is a com- of a safe design during the planning phase, which prehensive definition of PTD: reduces risks and minimizes hazards throughout The optimal method of preventing oc- a facility’s life. This requirement is illustrated by a cupational illnesses, injuries and fatal- recent request for proposal for work at the Ports- ities is to “design out” the hazards and mouth Naval Shipyard that specified, “If it is not risks; thereby, eliminating the need to feasible to eliminate or prevent the need to work control them during work operations. at heights with its subsequent exposure to fall haz- This approach involves the design of ards, control measures shall be included in the de- tools, equipment, systems, work pro- sign to protect personnel conducting maintenance cesses and facilities in order to reduce work after completion of the project.” or eliminate, hazards associated with Research conducted in the U.S., European Union and some countries in the British Commonwealth IN BRIEF work. (Young-Corbett, 2011) has linked a good percentage of construction inju- •This article provides real- The purpose of PTD is to eliminate haz- ries and fatalities to decisions made before any con- world examples of preven- ards and reduce risk at the source by con- struction work started.
    [Show full text]
  • FAA/OSHA Aviation Safety and Health Team, First Report
    FAA / OSHA Aviation Safety and Health Team First Report Application of OSHA’s Requirements to Employees on Aircraft in Operation December 2000 FAA/OSHA Aviation Safety and Health Team (First Report) Table of Contents Executive Summary. ..................................................................................................ii Introduction. .............................................................................................................. iv Discussion....................................................................................................................1 Issue 1 - Recordkeeping. .........................................................................................2 Issue 2 - Bloodborne pathogens. .............................................................................6 Issue 3 - Noise. ......................................................................................................11 Issue 4 - Sanitation. ...............................................................................................14 Issue 5 - Hazard communication. ..........................................................................18 Issue 6 - Anti-discrimination. ................................................................................22 Issue 7 - Access to employee exposure/medical records.......................................25 Matters for Further Consideration. .......................................................................27 Appendices. A. FAA/OSHA Memorandum of Understanding, August 7, 2000. ...................29
    [Show full text]
  • MARCH, 1970 Ilini’Tj-Ljiril’ Jleu/S Qtie U\Lmgty-Cafmes^
    MARCH, 1970 Ilini’tj-lJiriL’ Jleu/s QTie u\lmGty-cAfmes^. umn March, 1970 Speaking of potential, have you •w heard about Turi Wideroe? A most at­ As I sit here about to start my tractive young lady Airline Captain Monthly Message to you, the sun is from Oslo, Norway. Hope she will shining on glistening white snow and become a Ninety-Nine and let us all the temperature is zero. There isn’t a in on her secret to success. I know you all join me in wishing her well MARCH, 1970 cloud in the sky and I’m thinking in her new assignment. We’re all so ahead a couple of hours and the fact proud of our feminine accomplish­ THE NINETY-NINES, Inc. that I will be flying today and this ments in the field of aviation. After all Will Rogers World Airport brings to mind how very hard a long this is what our Ninety-Nines’ Museum International Headquarters win’er is on people. I guess people just Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73159 is made of. aren’t like bears content with hiberna­ Sectional Meeting time is here and Headquarters Secretary tion. It seems easy to let little things “Project Awareness” will be our LORETTA GRAGG begin to bother you when you feel theme. You know the best way to learn couped up and winter is that kind of a subject is to teach it. So get involved Editor thing at times. With Spring in the air in this Seminar on Ninety-Nineman- HAZEL McKENDRICK let’s all get the cob-webs out of our ship.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing Loss Prevention, Chapter 296-817
    Chapter 296-817 WAC Introduction Hearing Loss Prevention (Noise) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 296-817 WAC Hearing Loss Prevention (Noise) (Form Number 414-117-000) This book contains rules for Safety Standards for hearing loss prevention (Noise), as adopted under the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (Chapter 49.17 RCW). The rules in this book are effective December 2015. A brief promulgation history, set within brackets at the end of this chapter, gives statutory authority, administrative order of promulgation, and date of adoption of filing. TO RECEIVE E-MAIL UPDATES: Sign up at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/WADLI/subscriber/new?topic_id=WADLI_19 TO PRINT YOUR OWN PAPER COPY OR TO VIEW THE RULE ONLINE: Go to https://www.lni.wa.gov/safety-health/safety-rules/rules-by-chapter/?chapter=817/ DOSH CONTACT INFORMATION: Physical address: 7273 Linderson Way Tumwater, WA 98501-5414 (Located off I-5 Exit 101 south of Tumwater.) Mailing address: DOSH Standards and Information PO Box 44810 Olympia, WA 98504-4810 Telephone: 1-800-423-7233 For all L&I Contact information, visit https://www.lni.wa.gov/agency/contact/ Also available on the L&I Safety & Health website: DOSH Core Rules Other General Workplace Safety & Health Rules Industry and Task-Specific Rules Proposed Rules and Hearings Newly Adopted Rules and New Rule Information DOSH Directives (DD’s) See http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety-Health/ Chapter 296-817 WAC Table of Contents Hearing Loss Prevention (Noise) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 296-817 WAC Safety Standards for Hearing Loss Prevention (Noise) WAC Page WAC 296-817-099 Noise definitions.
    [Show full text]