HSE - Noise Exposure
Monitoring in Malaysia
The Factories and Machinery Act 1967 (Noise Regulations) 1989 in Malaysia requires that
noise exposure assessments and monitoring are carried out. This paper discusses the
importance of giving due consideration to health and safety earlier in the design
chain for noise and the trend in results from installations offshore. Standards for the
measurement of noise sources are summarised, as well as the comfort and amenity levels
that could be implemented in design stage. A proposal for the role that technology can
play in the future of noise exposure monitoring is also discussed.
A
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
RAMS
Feature
continuous supply of energy, products,
consumables and commodities benefits
our modern lifestyle: personal transport;
industrialisation; heating and cooling.
The average power demands in Malaysia from 1990
to 1999 and from 2000 to 2009 increased by a factor
of about 2.5. Industrial energy demand increased
at a faster rate than the demand by Malaysia as a
whole. The increasing number of power station developments by the fastest growing consumer of energy, the industrial sector, is driven by this need for
energy and oil and gas. Nearly 40% of Malaysia’s
total revenue derived from petroleum resources.
All developments pose a similar challenge: to
achieve a balance between operational performance
and minimizing any adverse impact to the health
and safety of employees. One of the many aspects
of the occupational health and safety process associated with the energy production and industrial
sector is the assessment of noise exposure.
Noise exposure is normally taken into account
during the Front End Engineering Design (FEED)
stages in order to gauge and prevent any potential
problems during both construction and operational
stages. However, ensuring noise exposure impacts
are controlled during the FEED stages is secondary
to achieving operational requirements, due to the
fast track nature of energy and oil and gas related
projects and the correlation between the growth of
oil and gas industry and economic performance.
Methods to predict the expected noise exposure
70
and evaluate operational noise exposure are listed
in a comprehensive set of international standards
such as ISO. Usually, a client will explicitly require
assessments to be carried out according to those
standards. However, alternative criteria have been
sought in many countries to step away from conventional international harmonising procedures in
order to seek a compliance and assessment tool that
reflects the national context due to the political will
informed by economic and sociological factors.
Malaysia’s Factories and Machinery Act 1967
(Noise Regulations) 1989
The noise regulations are enforced by Malaysia’s
Department of Occupational Safety and Health,
Ministry of Human Resources and require that employers carry out noise exposure assessments.
The current parameters and criteria for Malaysia
are presented in Table 1 along with examples of the
legislation in various countries in order to enable a
comparison of the approaches. Data for 30 countries
was analysed to identify common criteria. The results are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. A comparison of jurisdictions with harmonised
international criteria to those with differing criteria
november/december 2013
Visit our website at www.safan.com
From Figure 1, it is obvious that the number of
jurisdictions that have harmonised their criteria is
roughly equal to the number of jurisdictions that
have implemented their own criteria.
Malaysia is yet to implement the 3 dB exchange
rate and 85 dB(A) exposure criteria over 8 hours.
The regulations are considered by many to be outdated and not representative of current best practice. Consequently many companies define corporate standards for noise exposure assessments that
are harmonised with.
An update to Malaysia’s noise exposure regulations is expected in 2014. The update to the occupational health and safety requirements for noise
shall comprise changes to the exchange rate and
noise exposure criteria. This will bring it generally
in accordance with the recommendations made in,
which concludes by stating the importance of harmonising noise exposure criteria internationally.
As Malaysia progresses towards becoming
a developed nation by the year 2020,
the economic and sociological factors
which formerly acted as a barrier
against adopting the criteria recommended by reduce in significance.
Also, it is noted in that noise is a demonstrably useful marker of status
and class. Overall it is expected that
Malaysia’s progress towards a developed nation will be in parallel with a
higher awareness on the importance
of noise within the workplace, and,
the adoption of criteria that are harmonised internationally.
There are a number of unresolved
ambiguities in the existing noise regulations of Malaysia mainly related to
the physical definition of parameters
for measurement. For instance, the following are not defined: the weighting
network (A, C or Z) to be used for the
measurement of the peak noise level;
the definition of noise; the technical references and standards to be followed
for the measurement of noise exposure
and area noise levels; and the scope of
industrial application of the noise exposure criteria.
These unresolved ambiguities can imply differences of more than 5 dB in measurement of
peak noise levels between one of the A-, C- or
Z-weighting filters.
The definition used in the existing noise regulations is, “Noise level means sound level”. This
definition makes no reference to the health and
safety aspect of the noise to be considered. Therefore the proposed definition is, “Noise is a sound
pressure level that has the potential to cause damage to hearing”.
The regulations require that the technician carrying out the noise exposure assessment apply a
measurement methodology provided by NIOSH
Malaysia. However the methodology does not
guide the technician to a set of detailed technical
references or standards to be followed in all scenarios likely to be encountered on a range of sites.
The scope of application of the noise exposure
regulations are expected to include workers at
entertainment venues, where, for example, reproduced sound levels can exceed 100 dB(A) by
design intent.
The Importance of Giving Due Consideration to
Noise Earlier In the Design
Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) is the process of conceptual development of offshore projects
november/december 2013
71
and involves developing sufficient strategic information with which owners can address risk
and make decisions.
In it is asserted that, “owners with high Front
End Planning usage on average spend 8% less
than those with low usage”. This cost saving is
significant when considered over the lifetime of
an installation.
The importance of controlling an adverse noise
impact at source is recognised as the best approach
from a geometrical and temporal perspective and
requires the consideration of noise emissions and
noise exposure impacts as early in the design chain
as possible.
From an engineering perspective, there is more
flexibility in the implementation of noise control
measures during the design phase compared to the
‘as built’ scenario. During FEED options can be assessed without the restraints of a physical built environment on any noise control options.
Even a combination of noise control measures
may not be enough to attenuate noise emissions
and noise exposure levels to comply with criteria.
An example combination to attenuate noise would
be by implementing measures to the propagation
path and to complement that with personal hearing protection. The combination could be assessed
at design stage to allow informed decisions to be
made on the feasibility of implementing further
measures to reduce the noise level. Whereas in
the as built and operational scenario it is often
not the case that true control of noise at source
can be implemented.
In specific recommendations related to design
were made and summarised as follows:
1. At the design stage of any new installation,
consideration should be given to sound and
vibration isolation between noisier and quieter areas of activity.
2. The purchase specifications for all new
and replacement machinery should contain
clauses specifying the maximum emission
sound power level and emission sound pressure level at the operator’s position when the
machinery is operating.
The first point has been discussed. Point 2
relies upon the implementation of machinery
purchase specifications that would have been
formed from the results of a design assessment
for noise.
RAMS
Feature
72
november/december 2013
Table 2 Notes:
a Walkways. In-module walkways/access ways (e.g. between skids): a limit
equivalent to the adjacent area applies, provided acceptable PA system audibility is maintained.
b Laydown area. In-module laydown area: allow noise limit maximum 80 dB(A)
provided that in-module laydown area is not the main laydown area.
c The highest permissible noise limit, 110 dB(A), should only be allowed in
connection with brief inspections or work tasks that are to be carried out in
an area where there is no passage through to other areas. Provisions should
be made for noise deflection of noisy equipment when maintenance or other
work is carried out in the area.
d 85 dB(A) is preferred in order to ensure that the individual employee’s maximum exposure to noise during a 12 hour working day is 83 dB(A). Where the
lower limit is not feasible, a maximum area noise level limit of 90 dB(A) shall
apply.
e For mobile offshore installations, the noise requirement during operations is
5 dB(A) higher than the one given in the table.
f For crane cabins, the requirement refers to the equivalent sound level to
which the crane driver is exposed during a time period defined by a typical
crane cyclus.
g For rooms dedicated to coarse pot and pan washers that are unattended
when operating, a limit of 84 dB(A) can be applied.
h Intermittently manned and normally unmanned offices in work areas can
allow 55 dB(A).
Visit our website at www.safan.com
Comfort and Amenity Criteria for Installations
Malaysia Offshore
There are no Malaysian regulations that provide acceptable noise levels within offshore
accommodation areas. Comfort and amenity
criteria take into account various international
standards and are deemed to preserve their general principles. The criteria presented below are
from and are considered to be suitable for offshore Malaysia.
International Standards for the Measurement
of Noise
In noise exposure assessments, the data acquisition tools, methodology and recordkeeping
can vary with the context of the noise level measurement in terms of its location. For example,
whether a noise level measurement is to be performed at a location offshore, on board a ship, at
an industrial plant or along a factory production
line can involve different approaches, which are
usefully provided for in international standards
and guidelines.
International standards for noise measurement
instrumentation that should be complied with
are in the references. The standards should be
listed as the required technical reference by noise
exposure monitoring regulations for both manufacturers of the noise measurement equipment
and for practitioners of the regulations.
Standards to measure noise emitted by equipment and machinery at workplaces as well as for
the measurement and assessment of noise exposure are in references16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21.
Strategies and case studies for the monitoring
of noise exposure are available in [6] and good
practices presented in [22]. Additional standards
exist for specific machinery.
Technology and the Future of Noise Exposure
Monitoring In Malaysia
Employers are required to control the noise exposure impact by engineering methods if above
the action level and it is feasible to do so. However, observations show that compliance with these
regulations varies between oil and gas operators
and individual assets.
We believe it is possible to realise the development of an inspection tool to be used as a benchmark for occupational health and safety and in-
RAMS
Feature
74
november/december 2013
dustrial hygiene inspectors, Malaysia’s DOSH
registered noise competent technicians, and those
with responsibilities for dealing with offshore
noise compliance issues.
Currently, the control of noise is primarily
through the means of personal hearing protection. With the inspection tool, connected to a
centralised database, it would be possible to determine whether the employee noise exposure
level or the absolute area noise level on an offshore installation are high in comparison with
the industry benchmark.
Stakeholders, owners and operators may also
find the technology useful as part of their review of noise exposure monitoring assessments,
and, the decision making process for the control
of noise risks as well as the veracity of reported
measured data.
To develop the technology it would be necessary to establish the industry norm for Malaysia
offshore. This could be carried out by a review of
the available literature and reports, supplemented by site visits to a sample of installations. The
data required would be split into the following
main categories:
• Area noise levels.
• This data would detail the noise level of the
functional modules on board offshore installations.
• Personal noise exposure levels.
• This data would detail the noise level of the
various trades on board offshore installations.
• Average offshore installation noise exposure
level.
This data would present the results of the data
analysed by installation type.
The data, once collated for the above categories, may then be processed into a suitable manner of presentation in order to assist the end user.
A box and whisker plot would be most suitable
to assist in the presentation to Client and stakeholders of the decision making process. The second and third quartiles together with the outliers would be calculated based on the data for
the main categories. Software would then compare the level of the measured noise level and
propose a decision based on its position in the
data range.
An example is presented in Figure 2 for illustration purposes only. The red line indicates the
Visit our website at www.safan.com
measured noise level at pipedeck for an installation offshore Malaysia. The box and whisker plots
indicate the data range and decision making outlined in Table 3.
From Figure 2 the measured level falls in the third
quartile, therefore the recommendation is to consider reducing the noise exposure levels. Similarly, the
same analysis process and decision making could
be carried out for personnel by job title.
In the example, should the recommendations
have been made in line with the current noise regulations of Malaysia, it would have been stated,
among other recommendations, that: engineering
control measures would need to be considered;
hearing protection device assessment would have
to be carried out; and audiometric testing annually
for those employees with pipedeck noise exposure
the dominant contribution to their personal noise
exposure level.
This decision making tool is that it enables insight
into the measured noise levels of all noise exposure assessments: The recommendation would acknowledge that for the offshore industry of Malaysia as a whole, the measured area noise level would
not be cause for immediate concern and reducing
the noise level should be a consideration only.
Noise Results From Installations Malaysia
Offshore
A total of five offshore installations were used to
compile the results presented here. The installations
are categorised as the following:
• One (1) Drilling rig
• Two (2) Central processing platforms
• One (1) Well head platform
A list of noise concerns has been compiled and is
presented below:
• High pressure gas flow – HP Flare Drum
• Fire water pumps, crude oil transfer pumps
• HVAC equipment generated noise
• Helideck during activities
• Crane cabin
• Compressors
• Significant production capacity increase
• Exposure experienced by Operations / Production / Maintenance technicians
• Exposure experienced by Crane operators
• Exposure experienced by Compressor
technician
• Exposure experienced by E&I personnel
• Exposure experienced by Central Control Room
personnel.
november/december 2013
75
Noise data has been grouped into a limited
number of categories and some of the categories
may not exhibit complete homogeneity.
From the above plot, the average exposures on
a drilling rig are similar to those on a production
platform. Also, the average exposure on a well
head platform is expected to be approximately
half that likely to be experienced on a drilling rig
or production platform.
From the above plot, production personnel have
a slightly lower risk than operations and maintenance. Also, the upper quartile of operations personnel is higher than that for maintenance. This
suggests that some operations personnel actually
experience higher noise levels than maintenance
technicians.
This approach allows for the risk of noise exposure to be determined. It acts as a useful decision making tool for the purposes of compliance assessments, additional noise exposure
monitoring work and for the proposal of noise
attenuation measures.
Further work
We believe that the technological tool for noise
exposure assessments has great potential in solving many of the problems related to the outcomes
of noise exposure measurement results. At the same
time, we are aware that there are several issues to be
improved such as:
• The relatively small data sample available for
this paper. Collaboration with stakeholders
would ensure more and better data sets.
• Automation of the technological tool with a
graphic user interface to enable a seamless experience for users.
• Removing the manual data entry method.
The use of intrinsically safe touch screen devices would be a time saving procedure for
analysis of personal noise exposure and area
measurements.
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
A review of Malaysia’s noise regulations
has been carried out with Malaysia’s approach
compared to international norms, and, ambiguities have been identified with alternatives
suggested to resolve those points. It is expected
that Malaysia will move towards greater harmony with international standards. A review
of material on the importance of placing emphasis on the design stage has identified that
an 8% reduction in spending is likely over
the lifespan of an installation. Criteria to pre-
RAMS
Feature
serve the comfort and amenity of installations
offshore have been identified and presented.
Internationally accepted standards for the measurement of noise have been put forward. A proposal for the role of technology and the future
of noise exposure monitoring in Malaysia has
been made in the form of a decision making tool
that would assist owners in finding the balance
between operational requirements and health and
safety concerns.
Finally, the main drawback of using the technological tool proposed is that it requires collaboration with a number of stakeholders responsible for enforcement of health and safety
and regulation of the oil and gas industry in
Malaysia. Therefore its potential will only be
realised by close collaboration and engagement
with stakeholders.
76
november/december 2013
The author would like to extend his gratitude to
Gary Strong and their peers and colleagues at the
Malaysian Industrial Hygiene Association and Bureau Veritas Malaysia Sdn Bhd for their support and
introduction to the world of occupational health
and safety.
References
1. Factories and Machinery Act 1967 [Act
139] P.U.(A) 1/89 Factories and Machinery (Noise Exposure) Regulations 1989 InVisit our website at www.safan.com
corporating latest amendments – P.U.(A)
106/89, 1989.
2. Abd Rahim N., Md. Hasanuzzaman, “Energy Situation in Malaysia: Present and Its
Future”, Country Report, Sustainable Future
Energy 2012 and 10th Sustainable Energy
and Environment Forum, Brunei Darussalam
(November 2012).
3. Take 5 Oil and gas, Volume 1 – Issue 2 – 5 June
2013, Ernst & Young.
4. Publication 97-1, “Technical Assessment of
Upper Limits on Noise in the Workplace,”
International Institute of Noise Control Engineering (December 1997).
5. w w w . d o s h . g o v . m y _ i n d e x . p h p _
option=com_content&view=articl.pdf
accessed 12:10 hours, 22nd October 2013.
6. Hansen C. H., Goelzer B., Schmidt G. A.,
“Occupational Exposure to Noise: Evaluation, Prevention and Control”. Special Report – S 64, World Health Organisation.
7. The Unwanted Sound of Everything We
Want: A Book About Noise, Public Affairs
(March 2012).
8. CII Best Practices Guide, “Improving Project
Performance”, Ver. 4, page 17, Construction
Industry Institute (2012).
9. NORSOK Standard S-002 Rev.4 Working Environment (2004).
10.IEC 61672-1 Electroacoustics – Sound level
meters – Part 1: Specifications.
11.IEC 61672-2 Electroacoustics – Sound level
meters – Part 2: Pattern evaluation tests.
12.IEC 61672-3 Electroacoustics – Sound level
meters – Part 3: Periodic tests.
13.IEC 61260 Electroacoustics – Octave-band
and fractional-octave-band filters.
14.IEC 61252 Electroacoustics – Specifications
for personal sound exposure meters.
15.IEC 60942 Electroacoustics – Sound calibrators.
16.I SO 11201 Acoustics – Noise emitted by
machinery and equipment – Determination of emission sound pressure levels at
a work station and at other specified positions in an essentially free field over a
reflecting plant with negligible environmental corrections.
17.ISO 11202 Acoustics – Noise emitted by machinery and equipment – Determination of
emission sound pressure levels at a work station and at other specified positions applying
approximate environmental corrections.
18.ISO 11202 Acoustics – Noise emitted by machinery and equipment – Determination of
emission sound pressure levels at a work
station and at other specified positions applying accurate environmental corrections.
19.ISO 9612 Acoustics – Determination of occupational noise exposure – Engineering method.
20.ISO 1999 Acoustics – Estimation of noiseinduced hearing loss.
21.ISO 2923 Acoustics – Measurement of noise
on board vessels.
22.G ood Practice Guide for Strategic Noise
Mapping and the Production of Associated Data on Noise Exposure, European
Commission Working Group Assessment
of Exposure to Noise (WG-AEN) (January 2006).
23.Noise Exposure and Control in the Offshore
Oil and Gas Industry, Health & Safety ExPET
ecutive, UK.
This publication thanks Eyad Hasbullah, Senior Acoustics & Vibration Consultant, Bureau
Veritas (M) Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for providing this paper which was presented at the 7th RAMS Asia Conference and
Exhibition held in Kuala Lumpur on the 23rd
– 24th September 2013.
11/12-03
ENQUIRY NUMBER:
Have you read
our other magazine?
see us on the web at
http://www.safan.com
november/december 2013
77