Noise Standards
A Brief History of Noise Standards Development
Noise standards came out of a desire to protect individuals primarily from hearing damage that would affect communication.
The United States began formalising Hearing Conservation regulations in the late 1960s. Internationally since 1969, noise standard developments have weighed the acceptable levels of risk against the cost to implement a safer practice.
Noise standard calculations relate to the individual's exposure to sound levels over the course of a 40-hour working week throughout their working life. While many countries choose to calculate based solely on exposure times, the USA OSHA standards factor in taking breaks away from the noise.
Definitive data on human sound exposure tolerances are difficult to obtain without risking research participant’s permanent hearing.
While the effect that noise exposure levels have on hearing is well documented, the determination of responsibility for managing and facilitating hearing protection for live-sound personnel differs internationally.
The United States began formalising Hearing Conservation regulations in the late 1960s. Internationally since 1969, noise standard developments have weighed the acceptable levels of risk against the cost to implement a safer practice.
Noise standard calculations relate to the individual's exposure to sound levels over the course of a 40-hour working week throughout their working life. While many countries choose to calculate based solely on exposure times, the USA OSHA standards factor in taking breaks away from the noise.
Definitive data on human sound exposure tolerances are difficult to obtain without risking research participant’s permanent hearing.
While the effect that noise exposure levels have on hearing is well documented, the determination of responsibility for managing and facilitating hearing protection for live-sound personnel differs internationally.
New Zealand Noise Standards
Safety Standards protect individuals and the environment. In New Zealand, more than one regulation refers to noise. The 1995 Health and Safety in Employment Regulations and Worksafe NZ provide general noise exposure recommendations. Section 322 and 326 of the Christchurch City Council Resource Management Act are shown here as examples of local NZ council regulations that refer to noise.
Health and Safety, and Worksafe NZ
The 1995 Health and Safety in Employment Regulations in New Zealand state that employers should take all reasonable steps to ensure that employees are not consistently exposed to noise above 85 dB (LAeq) for an 8-hour working day, whether or not the employee is wearing a hearing protection device (e.g. earmuffs or earplugs). Health & Safety Regulations set a maximum peak noise level limit of 140 dB.
The public, customers and attendees are included in Worksafe NZ standards as 'other persons'.
Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (22-25)
Employers ... have a duty to weigh up the likelihood or risk concerning the degree of harm from a hazard/ risk that they ought to know ... resulting in the loss of a bodily function.
Section 6 of the HSE Act requires employers to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of employees at work and to provide a safe working environment.
Worksafe New Zealand
PCBU (Persons Conducting a Business) primary duty of care:
- is for workers and non-workers (other persons). Section 22 lists the relevant health and safety matters they are to weigh.
- Section 23 lists the loss of a bodily function as a category that PCBUs must protect.
Local Council Plan
- Christchurch: The CCC Resource Management Act details in Section 326 that excessive noise is any noise under human control ... that may … interfere with the peace, comfort, and convenience of any person.
- Section 322 mentions an abatement notice may be served on any person … if an activity is likely to be noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable … to the extent that it has an adverse effect on the environment.
Points to note on New Zealand Regulations
- The Health and Safety Work Act 2015 should recognise hearing as a 'bodily function'.
- The local Christchurch City Council Plan contains some ambiguity in quantifying what excessive noise is, and seems concerned with possible adverse effects to the environment over any adverse effects on the health and safety of individuals.
- LAEQ85 over 8 hours still contains an 8% risk of damage.
- Acoustic shock (symptoms a person may experience after hearing unexpected or loud sounds) and instantaneous hearing loss can occur at a lower SPL than LCpeak 140 dB.
International Noise Standards
Most countries allow higher noise exposure levels than the World Health Organisation's recommendations. The following examples demonstrate a few of the differences between international noise standards: block, write your own text and edit me.
Brussels
Brussels has three different categories of sound levels:
- LAeq15" for <85 dB - no requirements.
- LAeq15" for 85-95 dB, LCeq15" for 100-110 dB - must display sound levels.
- LAeq15" for 95-100 dB, LCeq15" for 110-115 dB - display sound level. Provide earplugs for free or at cost price and provide a rest area.
France
- LAeq15" <102 dB, LCeq15" <118 dB - max. level.
- LAeq15" <94 dB, LCeq15" <104 dB - max. level for under six-year olds.
- Inform the audience. Provide free headphones. Offer a quiet zone that is <80 dB. Record and store A and C-weighted levels.
Switzerland
- Limit the average hourly sound levels to 100 dBA;
- Measure and record sound levels;
- Provide free earplugs to the audience;
- Prominently display information and posters on safe listening; and
- Provide “quiet areas” for events whose duration exceeds three hours.
Recognising Low Frequencies in Noise Standards
The UK, France and Belgium recognise by using C-weighted scales that low-frequency has an impact on potential hearing damage while A-weighted scales used by many countries do not.
Europe Noise standards as of Sept 2024, can be downloaded at: www.live-dma.eu/sound-regulations-in-europe/
Enforcement and Responsibility
New Zealand
- Local City Councils monitor SPL at the event/public boundaries to limit the event's interference on the peace and comfort of neighbours and not within the event boundary.
- there is ambiguity on what constitutes ‘excessive noise’,
- there is ambiguity surrounding the PCBU's 'weighing up all relevant matters' with respect to SPL and hearing safety at events,
- in NZ, any litigation regarding noise control is to be funded by the complainant, and
- identifying the responsibility for any participant's hearing damage is difficult to connect to a particular event, as the participant’s total noise exposure also includes the contribution of personal audio devices, workplace and environmental noise.
Internationally
Internationally, the enforcement of noise standards varies significantly, and some impose financial penalties for exceeding local standards.
Landmark High Court Case
In 2018, a UK landmark High Court case found that those responsible for oversight at the UK Royal Opera House, were at least partly responsible for a viola player’s hyperacusis (hypersensitivity to noise). The damage was caused during the rehearsal of an orchestral piece that peaked at 137 dB.
This legal precedent acknowledges that the responsibility for personal hearing protection is shared with live-performance management.
SC - Audio Engineer - Showbiz Christcurch
You only get one shot to give them a positive experience.
David Scheirman, mix engineer/system consultant