Workplace Noise Exposure Risk in Industrial Laundry Facility in West Yorkshire

Background

A large UK-based industrial laundry facility commissioned a workplace noise exposure assessment as part of its ongoing commitment to health and safety compliance.

The site processes high volumes of industrial textiles, involving:

• Mechanical washing and drying systems
• Conveyor-based sorting operations
• Manual handling of bins, cages, and pallets

These processes introduced multiple potential noise sources, including machinery, impact noise from handling equipment, and vehicle movements. 

The Challenge

The primary concern was whether employee exposure exceeded legal thresholds under the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, specifically:

• Lower Exposure Action Value (LEAV): 80 dB(A)
• Upper Exposure Action Value (UEAV): 85 dB(A)
• Exposure Limit Value (ELV): 87 dB(A)

Initial observations suggested inconsistent use of hearing protection and uncertainty around whether existing controls were appropriate or excessive.

Assessment Approach

A full occupational hygiene noise survey was conducted, including:

• Personal dosimetry monitoring (real-time employee exposure)
• Spot noise measurements across key operational areas
• Peak sound pressure analysis for high-impact noise events
• Task-based exposure profiling

Instrumentation included calibrated sound level meters and wearable dosimeters positioned at the operator’s ear level to ensure accurate exposure readings. 

Key Findings
1. Areas Exceeding Upper Action Values (≥85 dB(A))

The assessment identified several high-risk zones:

• Automated packing / dry sack filling: ~90 dB(A)
• Loading bay activities: ~86 dB(A)
• Effluent bay: ~85 dB(A)

These areas required mandatory hearing protection zones. 

2. Moderate Risk Areas (80–85 dB(A))

• Soiled sorting and hoisting operations
• Clean sorting and packing zones

These areas fell within advisory hearing protection requirements, meaning protection must be available but not always mandatory. 

3. Noise Source Insights

Interestingly, the highest exposures were not always from machinery alone. Key contributors included:

• Impact noise from bins, cages, and pallets
• Metal bars being dropped during loading operations
• Friction noise from trolley and pallet truck movement

This highlights a common oversight - manual handling processes can drive peak exposure levels just as much as fixed plant.

4. Overprotection Risk Identified

A critical finding was that some hearing protection provided excessive attenuation, reducing noise at the ear below safe communication thresholds (<70 dB).

This created risks such as:

• Reduced awareness of alarms or warnings
• Incorrect or inconsistent PPE use
• Potential behavioural non-compliance

COSHH & Regulatory Implications

Although noise is governed by the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, it sits firmly within a broader COSHH-style risk management framework:

• Hazard identification (noise sources)
• Exposure assessment (dosimetry data)
• Control hierarchy implementation
• Health surveillance (audiometry)

The site had existing surveillance in place, but improvements were needed to ensure alignment with exposure categories and risk groups. 

Recommended Control Measures

Engineering & Process Controls 

• Introduce low-noise equipment procurement policies
• Reduce impact noise (e.g., controlled handling of cages and bars)
• Consider acoustic barriers or isolation where feasible

The Outcome

Following implementation of recommendations, the site achieved:

• Clear designation of mandatory and advisory hearing protection zones
• Improved alignment with HSE inspection expectations
• Reduced risk of long-term hearing damage claims
• Stronger compliance position under UK legislation

Most importantly, the business moved from assumption-based safety to evidence-based decision making - a key differentiator during regulatory inspections.

Key Takeaway

Workplace noise risks are often misunderstood. It’s not just continuous machinery noise that drives exposure - short, high-impact activities can push employees above action values without being obvious.

Without proper measurement, many sites either:

• Under-protect employees (compliance risk), or
• Overprotect them (operational and safety risk)

This case highlights the importance of balanced, data-led occupational hygiene.

If you’re unsure whether your site is compliant, the starting point is simple: measure first, then act.

Because when it comes to noise exposure - you’re usually fine…
until you’re not.