So I write this having come hot-foot from the excellent Manchester Conference where my primary objective was to network with ex-colleagues & acquaintances but also to sit in on what turned out to be Mary Cameron’s highly entertaining ‘fit test’ presentation. Other presentations were equally good I hasten to add.
It begs the question, what will it take to make fit testing mandatory for hearing protection like it is for RPE? I guess that’s partly the job of the UKHCA, BSIF and other stakeholders like the HSE.
Good news is that we have a fit test guidance standard (BS EN 17479:2021 ) which is in the portfolio of the BSI Standards ‘PH/7’ committee which I sit on as the UKHCA’s nominated representative (who knew), chaired by Rachel van Besouw (HSE Specialist Inspector), who has clarified that BS EN 17479 is not yet a requirements standard but that work on it has been paused due to not having funding for a secretariat for CEN/TC 159 Working Group 5.
Standards development is glacially slow and complex but I thought it about time to report on other recent developments.
Quoting directly from the BSI “The work of BSI’s national committee PH/7 is crucial for ensuring that the development of hearing protector standards is aligned with the interests of UK industries to better safeguard and protect worker’s exposure to harmful noise” which also extends to the BS EN 352 series and BS EN 458.
A revision to BS EN 458 ‘Hearing protectors – Recommendations for selection, use, care and maintenance’ is expected to be published in Q1, 2026. Again, the BSI state that “It is a key standard for implementing an effective hearing conservation programme in the workplace and an established benchmark that describes what is expected of duty holders”. Amongst other changes, there are several references to fit testing which will add weight to the ‘mandatory’ call.
I’m a firm believer in the voice of customer mantra; hear it once, that’s happenstance, hear it twice, that’s a coincidence, hear it a third time that’s a trend. I have a particular interest in military noise so the US DoD having made fit testing mandatory (for those on a hearing conservation programme) and NIOSH having updated their own guidance, marks a growing global trend.
One standard not in the scope of PH/7 which escaped my personal radar, was a revision to ISO 9612 Acoustics — Determination of occupational noise exposure — Methodology earlier this year following a near 2 year delay. Some of the key points (according to a LinkedIn post by Michiel van Eeden):-
- Clarification on LEX,8h and LEX,8h,95% e.g. with and without the uncertainty associated with 95% confidence interval
- Reshaping of the requirements for the task based method such as a minimum number of workers to involve, depending on the total numbers of workers making the method more robust
- Additional requirements on the duration of samples for the job based strategy in order to make the method more robust
- A final validation check on the results of the full day measurement method, comparable with the validation criterion for the job based method present in the current text
- Guidance on how to assess the exposure of a more flexible workforce
- Informative guidance on the uncertainty of LCpeak
- A new spread sheet (both open office and MS office) with room for many more measurement results for all three strategies.
I have read that the HSE may revise its L108 Guidance to reflect ISO 9612 but certainly it will need to be aligned with the changes to BS EN 458.
And finally, PH/7 are always looking for new blood and there is a particular call for high noise industry representation – answers on a post card to Rachel please!
Neal Hill
One Plus One Consulting Ltd
Recent Comments