Managing Noise at Work in Australia: WHS Duties and Controls

Workplace noise can damage hearing gradually or through a very loud event. The practical task is to identify noisy work, assess workers' exposure, reduce noise at its source where reasonably practicable, and check whether additional duties such as audiometric testing apply. Issuing earmuffs and closing an assessment is not a complete noise-management process.

Safe Work Australia's model WHS Regulations address noise in Part 4.1. The model exposure standard includes an 85 dB(A) eight-hour equivalent and a 140 dB(C) peak component. Those are different measurements. A brief loud impulse can be important even when the daily average seems lower. The model rules have legal effect only through jurisdictional implementation. Victoria has its own OHS noise framework, so check the regulator and current rules where the work occurs.

Find noise before choosing a control

Walk the tasks and ask workers when conversation becomes difficult, whether temporary ringing follows shifts, which equipment is loudest, and whether operations occur near other teams. These observations signal a need to investigate; they are not calibrated exposure measurements. The Safe Work Australia model noise code explains when a noise assessment and competent measurement are useful. Include mobile workers and people who move through several areas rather than assessing a machine in isolation.

A workshop saw may produce noise only during a short cut, but a worker using several machines may accumulate exposure across a shift. A warehouse can change its noise profile after moving compressors indoors. An assessment should reflect the real work pattern and equipment, not a supplier's noise figure detached from the workplace.

Understand the exposure standard without turning it into a safety guarantee

The model regulation's 85 dB(A) value is an eight-hour equivalent exposure standard. It is not a universal “safe until 85” promise and cannot be judged accurately from how loud the room feels. The peak component addresses short, intense sound. The applicable local law may have specific calculation, measurement and control requirements. If exposure is uncertain or appears high, obtain a suitable assessment and protect people while the uncertainty is resolved.

Record the work and assumptions behind a measurement: which tasks, workers, shift patterns, equipment, conditions and controls were included. If the measured exposure changes after a process modification, the old result may no longer describe current work. A number without its context is a poor basis for selecting hearing protection or declaring compliance.

Reduce noise before relying on hearing protectors

Consider removing the noisy activity or replacing equipment with a quieter process. Engineering measures such as enclosure, damping, isolation and maintenance can reduce sound at the source or along its path. Planning noisy work away from other people can reduce exposure for bystanders. Hearing protectors may still be needed, but should be selected, fitted, maintained and supervised as part of an overall control strategy.

The model code gives a hierarchy of controls and practical examples, but the choice for a site requires a competent assessment. A sign marked “hearing protection area” does not remove the source. If protectors are required while quieter equipment is being installed, document the interim arrangement and when the stronger control will be completed.

When is audiometric testing required?

Under model regulation 58, the audiometric-testing duty applies where workers are frequently required to use personal hearing protectors to control a risk of hearing loss associated with noise above the exposure standard. That is a conditional trigger, not a universal rule requiring an audiogram for everyone in a noisy-sounding workplace. The model code's audiometric section explains baseline and follow-up testing in that context. Verify the local regulation and timing rather than copying a model interval into a state-specific policy.

Testing does not replace noise control. Results can indicate whether exposure management may be failing, but individual results are health information that needs appropriate confidentiality. A clinician or competent testing provider should interpret findings. Software cannot diagnose hearing loss or determine that a control programme is legally sufficient.

Victoria and other jurisdiction differences

WorkSafe Victoria identifies an exposure standard under its OHS Regulations 2017 and separate audiometric duties. Similar headline numbers do not mean every procedural detail is identical to the model WHS Regulations. For a business operating across states, maintain a location-specific noise assessment, regulator source and testing rule rather than one national form with a single citation. Safe Work Australia's law page links to the jurisdictional framework.

Example: a workshop changes its cutting process

A workshop replaces hand cutting with a faster powered saw. The new equipment shortens each cut but increases the sound level, and a second team now works nearby. The manager should revisit who is exposed, obtain a suitable assessment if needed, examine quieter equipment or acoustic controls, and decide on interim protection. If hearing protectors become routinely necessary to control above-standard exposure, the local audiometric-testing duty must be checked. The old survey of the hand-cutting process is evidence of the past, not the current exposure.

Evaluate Complys Australian WHS software for the broader management workflow.