Ear Sense: Pending Legalities On The SPL Front
A look at standards in Europe, what they might mean,
and strategies of protection
By
Fred Ampel
|
|
 |
In most cases, hearing damage is a preventable disease/condition,
and the methods of preventing it are both available and relatively
easy to implement. That is, if the pro audio industry wants to do
so. |
Of course, SPL abuse doesn’t occur 100 percent of the time at 100 percent of concert events, but it does occur in such a significantly high percentage that it warrants some serious consideration of what actions are needed to control ourselves before someone else decides we need outside “guidance.”
|
|
|
Given the 90-plus dB levels that seem to be the norm, let’s look
at Figure 1 and Figure 2. (All of these figures were
supplied by Jan A.P.M. de Laat, PhD, Department of Audiology, Leiden
University Medical Center.) |
READING THE CODES
To see how things might well play out in the U.S. with regard to future
SPL regulations, let’s look at the situation in the U.K., where legislation
and workplace protection requirements have been in place for some time.
In 1989, the first version of the Noise at Work Regulations was created
and put into practice. Already existing at that time was a comprehensive
Code of Practice regarding noise at work, but it was largely ignored,
indicated by numerous reports and studies done from its outset.
However, recently the Code of Practice was updated to coincide with new
versions of the regulations and “harmonization” (at least in theory),
with the revised regulations being put into place within the European
Union (EU). Adoption is probably within the next two years or so, although
the “pubs and clubs” industry may be given additional time to comply with
the revised rules. However, this is not guaranteed.
These new regulations refer to a measure, called Daily Personal Noise
Exposure Limit (or LEP-d), that seeks to clarify and more accurately quantify
how much potentially damaging “noise” an individual is exposed to. If
the currently pending rules are adopted the exposure limits would be set
as follows using an A-weighted scale for measurement:
90 dB 8 hours
93 dB 4 hours
96 dB 2 hours
99 dB 1 hour
102 dB 30 minutes
105 dB 15 minutes
Within the new rules are regulations regarding “action levels” which are defined as the exposure points at which various kinds of fines, legal actions, demands for protection, mandatory hearing screenings and so forth might occur. All of these burdens would (and can) be imposed upon the employer by governmental authorities or brought about by complaints by employees. Three “Action Levels” are specified in the regulations:
1) First Action Level of 85 dB(A)
2) Second Action Level of 90 dB(A)
3) Peak Action Level of 200 Pascals (equivalent to 140 dB re 20(Pa).
The First and Second Action Levels are based around the previously mentioned
LEP-d. This is total exposure over an entire working day, taking into
account the varying noise levels in the working environment throughout
that day and how long a person is exposed to them. In calculating the
level of LEP-d, no account is taken of any ear protectors (ear plugs or
ear muffs) being worn.
Under these rules, the potential to seek damages offered to both employees
and (feasibly) to customers is awesome. While it remains to be seen if
anyone can successfully bring such actions, the attempts will and have
been made.
|
|
|
DOING ENOUGH? Is it simply enough to send around brochures, post signs and put warnings up? This is largely the approach taken within our industry to date, and it’s probably going to be sufficient. Is it enough to design a system in a public place so that employees are not necessarily exposed to “actionable levels” and how precisely would that be verified? Studies have been done and data collected, but there is still a huge vague area open to interpretation, which normally implies that somebody will hire sufficiently powerful legal talent to help the process along. |
Realistically, it would seem that the personnel behind any major event, facility or venue would have to demonstrate how they will comply with noise restrictions. Further it would also be likely to expect a demonstration of acceptable techniques to be employed to minimize noise spill and exposure. This, while keeping customers happy.
|
|
|
It seems vital that anyone in the possible “line of fire” of legal
action for SPL abuse should insure that appropriate hearing protection
equipment is available for both employees and customers, and that
operational policy mandates their use. While it’s not reasonable
to think that anyone can be forced to use this protection, mandating
its use could help relieve the legal burden. (The Rhode Island nightclub tragedy only serves to further bring
forward the notion that common sense must be explained to some people.)
|
While none of this should, in any way, be misconstrued as legally valid
advice (consult with a licensed and appropriate legal professional), the
odds say that being able to present a detailed documentation of reasonable
caution will be a solid first line of defense in any legal action. No
guarantees, but acting “prophylactically” improves your position measurably.
ABOUT THE PESKY PUBLIC
Convincing the paying public to use hearing protection is where the powers
of persuasion must be honed to a fine edge. Every venue or act should
be strongly urged to make hearing protection (often available free through
groups like House Ear Institute) available to any ticket holder upon entrance.
Obviously this can’t be forced, and politically, it may not be viable
to provide such protection (a client could misinterpret these actions).
The venue probably has the first liability in this scenario, but anything
that the sound company and its personnel can do to document its hearing
protection procedures and recommendations will help in defense against
actions taken by those lovely ticket holders.
If a client is supportive, by all means do something and/or get the venue
into this process! The sound company and the act will look better, as
well as reduce the size of their target zones for any wallet-seeking lawyer
guided missiles.
It’s incumbent upon sound companies to ask every venue what its hearing
protection policy, if something is being done, and if not, why not. Again
politics come into play, but there are sensible ways of approaching venue
management on the topic, just as other safety issues like pyro and rigging
are discussed. After all, this is a health and safety issue, not just
a legal one.
While some of these issues are outside the control of even the biggest,
most powerful sound companies, at least individually, as an industry it’s
not outside our control. We need to act in concert (no pun intended) on
this and bring as much pressure to bear on as many aspects of this problem
as we can. Only together do we have a chance of keeping our businesses
alive and functioning, and keeping the music fun!
GETTING INFORMED
Start now to create an action plan requiring employees to take a short
class on hearing protection, and document their participation. Most hearing
conservation groups or organizations will be glad to help you find a way
to do this. Try the following for starters:
www.nonoise.org
staff.washington.edu/rneitzel/standards.htm
www.oshadefenseleague.com
www.occupationalhazards.com
www.cdc.gov/niosh
www.hearingconservation.org
www.hei.org
www.hearnet.com In Germany, www.hearsafe.de
Fred Ampel has been involved in the A/V industry for 33-plus years. He heads up Technology Visions and can be reached at www.technologyvisions.com
June 2003 Live Sound International