Noise risk assessment template: record exposure and the control plan

A workplace noise risk assessment should identify who is exposed, estimate their representative daily or weekly and peak exposure, compare it with the GB action and limit values, and decide what control, protection, training and health surveillance are needed. Copy and complete the form below with a competent assessor. It is not a sound meter, an exposure calculator or evidence that a worker is below a limit merely because a hearing protector is issued.

The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 set a lower action value of 80 dB(A) daily or weekly personal exposure and 135 dB(C) peak; an upper action value of 85 dB(A) and 137 dB(C) peak; and exposure limit values of 87 dB(A) and 140 dB(C) peak. These are personal exposure and peak values, not a rule that a single tool reading of 85 dB automatically equals a worker's daily dose. Hearing protection is taken into account for the limit values, not when comparing exposure with the lower or upper action values. HSE explains the distinction. Recheck current law before publication.

This page owns the fillable assessment and action record. The live Complys noise action-values guide owns the explanatory threshold article, the generic risk assessment template owns cross-hazard assessment, and the noise software page is the relevant money page. Avoid making a near-copy of those owners.

Decide whether more evidence is needed

Start by identifying loud activities and the people who do them or work nearby. Ask workers whether they must shout to be heard, have ringing ears after work, or find hearing protection difficult to use. These are indicators, not a substitute for an exposure estimate. HSE's assessment guidance says the estimate must represent what employees actually do and how it varies between days. Reliable information may come from suitable workplace measurements, comparable work or supplier data, with competent interpretation. Measurements are not necessary in every case, but weak or unrepresentative information may require them.

Assess separate tasks and combined exposure. A short very loud activity can matter alongside quieter work for the rest of the shift. Include peaks where there are impacts or explosive sounds. Record the source, duration, people affected, how the estimate was derived, its uncertainty and the competent person who checked it. A phone app reading at one point in a room does not establish a worker's daily personal exposure. Use HSE calculators or competent specialist advice where the calculation is not straightforward.

Copyable GB workplace noise assessment

Replace brackets with observations and decisions. Attach survey sheets, measurement methods or calculations rather than inventing values to fill the table.

A. Premises, tasks and assessor

Do not create a single “factory noise” number if workers rotate between a press, maintenance and quieter assembly. Describe the pattern. If an occupational-health concern or previous hearing change is known, obtain competent advice and protect confidential clinical information.

B. Source and personal exposure record

Record whether data are measured at the worker, taken from a suitable representative survey or estimated from reliable comparable information. Explain how multiple tasks were combined into the daily or weekly estimate. HSE says the assessment must compare a reliable estimate with action and limit values. If the range could straddle an action value, the competent assessor should resolve uncertainty rather than defaulting to a low category. A peak pressure requires its own consideration; it is not captured by an average alone.

C. Compare with current GB values

These figures should be rechecked against current legislation at use/publication. Do not subtract an advertised hearing-protector rating from a measured tool level and call that a competent exposure calculation. Check fit, compatibility, wear time and the approved calculation method. If a limit is exceeded, HSE's L108 guidance says reduce exposure immediately and investigate; work may need to stop while controls are corrected.

D. Eliminate or reduce noise at source

Consider eliminating a noisy stage, buying quieter equipment, enclosing the source, maintaining worn machinery, isolating vibration, separating people from a process, changing the work method or reducing the time people spend in a noisy area. HSE's control guidance gives priority to alternative processes and equipment and requires a planned control programme at or above the upper action values. Hearing protection is an additional defence when source and organisational controls do not reduce the risk enough; it should not be the whole plan. Test whether a new enclosure or maintenance change actually reduces exposure.

E. Hearing protection and zones

HSE warns against both too little and excessive protection: overprotection can isolate workers and hinder communication. Choose equipment for the actual task and frequency, then verify that it is used properly. The risk assessment must also consider warning signals and other safety communication. Do not make protection compulsory across every room just because one machine is loud; designate areas based on the assessment and applicable duties.

F. Health surveillance, information and review

HSE's checklist includes health surveillance for employees at risk and information and training on safe practice. The assessment should say who needs what and why; it should not attach identifiable audiograms to a general document circulated among supervisors. HSE's risk-assessment page says review when changes affect exposure and regularly to confirm controls remain suitable. Even where nothing obvious changes, HSE advises not leaving it more than about two years without checking whether a review is needed; this is guidance for considering review, not a universal expiry certificate.

Worked example: workshop saw and assembly area

A small manufacturer uses a saw for batches of timber, with assembly workers nearby. The assessor observes a typical busy day and a quieter day, records the saw's operating time and the assembly workers' exposure, and uses competent measurements or suitable reliable data to estimate personal daily exposure. The saw operator's estimate approaches or exceeds the upper action value. Rather than issuing earplugs alone, the employer checks blade condition, maintenance, extraction/enclosure design and whether cutting can be segregated or scheduled when fewer people are present. A suitable control plan is assigned with dates; interim hearing protection and zones are set according to the assessment. The assessor repeats the exposure check after changes. The assembly workers are assessed separately because their exposure may differ. If a survey shows an unexpected peak, that is recorded and addressed rather than hidden in the average.

Errors that weaken the form

• Treating a tool's sound-power or marketing value as the worker's daily personal exposure.
• Recording only an average and ignoring relevant peak noise.
• Comparing an action value after subtracting hearing protection; the legal distinction applies to limits.
• Issuing hearing protection without considering quieter methods and source controls.
• Choosing maximum-rated protection without checking compatibility and overprotection.
• Recording a survey with no task duration, representative worker or uncertainty.
• Failing to name who owns a noise-control action and how its effect will be measured.
• Circulating confidential hearing-test details in a broad risk-assessment file.

The Complys noise at work page is the relevant commercial destination for organising assessments and follow-up. Verify its current implementation and terms before claiming live measurement, audiometry or automatic legal conclusions. A platform can hold the assessment and actions; competent people must estimate exposure, choose controls and check results in the workplace.

Source, claim, owner, product, links and writer-side QA

Terminal writer-side disposition: READY.