EHJ July 2005, pages 16-17

Over a million UK workers could be exposed to potentially damaging noise levels. New regulations introduced in February 2006 aim to reduce personal exposure but the music and entertainment sector has been given a two-year grace period to comply. Nick Warburton investigates

During one of the Who's North American tours, drummer Keith Moon demonstrated his unique distinction between "noise" and "music". Standing in a hotel lobby, Moon was blasting out the group's music on his portable cassette player, when he was curtly informed to turn "the noise" down to a respectable level. Unperturbed, Moon continued to assault staff and guests with the ear-splitting music until warned by a hotel rep that he would call the police if "the noise" persisted. Moon agreed as long as the rep would accompany him to his room on the ninth floor. After asking him to wait outside, Moon soon emerged swiftly followed by a huge explosion from his bathroom. As the horrified rep stood in disbelief, and smoke filled the hallway, Moon calmly explained: "That my friend is noise. This on the other hand," pointing to his cassette player, "is the Who".

What this story illustrates is a perception that loud music is an acceptable part of people's day-to-day lives and is distinct from noise. As anyone attending a live rock concert, a busy pub or nightclub will readily agree, a large part of the attraction, if not the main reason for going, is the loud music. But music is still a noise and evidence shows that regular and long periods of exposure to high levels of noise can cause permanent damage to people's hearing.

As Andrew Maxey from the Health and Safety Executive's injuries reduction programme explains, there is a quantifiable risk of hearing damage from regular exposure at 85dB(A) and the risk accelerates as noise levels increase. There is also a risk below 85dB(A) but it becomes minimal below 80dB(A).

Under current legislation, the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 set specific provisions for noise levels in the workplace, but these are set to change on 15 February 2006 when the European Union's Physical Agents (Noise) Directive is implemented with new regulations. The regs, however, will not be applied in all sectors immediately. The music and entertainment sector, covering bars, pubs and nightclubs, has a two-year grace period after extensive industry lobbying during negotiation of the directive.

According to Mr Maxey, an extension period was applied to this sector so that practical guidelines enabling it to comply with the regulations from April 2008 could be developed. The HSE is now working with the music and entertainment sector to develop this guidance, which applies specifically to employees. Members of the public who choose to be exposed to loud music in pubs and clubs will be exempt.

The regulations could not come soon enough. Noise overload, a report published in December 2004 by the Trade Union Congress and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, a charity that represents 9 million deaf and hard of hearing people in the UK, shows that people working in Britain's bars, clubs and pubs are being exposed to noise levels as high as 110dB(A). To make matters worse, the RNID carried out a covert survey of 15 nightclubs in five UK cities - London, Manchester, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast in April 2004 and found that even in chill out areas (where they were provided), noise levels averaged 92.3dB(A), over 12 decibels higher than the 80dB(A) average recommended for the workplace.

The new regulations seek to tackle this problem by setting a personal level of exposure, based on a daily or weekly average. A new exposure limit value of 87dB(A), which takes into account the reduction afforded by hearing protection, has been introduced, and any club or bar that exceeds this value will be in breach of the law and could face enforcement action.

The regulations also reduce the lower exposure action value (EAV) for personal daily exposure from 85 to 80dB(A) and the upper exposure action value from 90dB(A) to 85dB(A). One of the actions at 85dB(A) is a requirement for employers to provide hearing protection for employees and a failure to take action in this area could also lead to enforcement action. The Health and Safety Commission estimates that the updated regulations will extend protection from harmful noise at work to an additional one million workers.

From April 2008, employers will have to eliminate or reduce the risks posed by noise, for example, by adopting alternative work methods or using quieter equipment. If noise exposure levels are likely to be above the upper EAV, employers will have to carry out a noise assessment to measure the levels precisely. Making noise assessments, however, is already problematic under existing laws.

Managers who carry out noise assessments themselves often only have basic training in the use of sound level meters, which means that the competency of the assessments cannot always be ensured. For this reason, environmental health teams often recommend that they employ qualified noise consultants to carry out noise assessments, but even this isn't as straightforward as it sounds. As one might expect, employers may ask EHPs to recommend a good noise consultant, but doing so could be seen as a breach of their neutrality. EHPs may decided instead to point the business in the general direction, but there's still no guarantee that the manager will get someone who knows what they are doing and/or do the right job. Cost is an additional factor.

Local authorities have come under fire from the TUC and the RNID for failing to enforce the current noise at work regulations and both organisations have expressed concern that the new laws will also be ineffective in protecting workers' hearing if local authorities do not enforce properly. But EHPs have no easy task in a sector where arguably there is a cultural acceptance towards loud noise and resistance to controls on music volumes.

Nevertheless, clubs do need to take action to comply with both the existing laws and the new regulations and examples of control methods show that reducing exposure to noise levels can be achieved without invading civil liberties.

As Mr Maxey points out, there are a range of control methods at clubs' disposal, such as separating the bar area from the music area, putting up baffles to deaden the noise and arranging working patterns of shifts or breaks that reduce staff exposure. Another option is the use of directional speakers, which project the sound on to the dance floor away from the bar area. Many clubs already do this, but the equipment can be costly to install.

In their campaign, the RNID and TUC call for club owners to provide chill out spaces where noise levels don't exceed 80dB(A) and to publish noise levels for the dance floor, the bar and chill out area, where they can be seen by staff and the public. They also want to see consumer-friendly signs advising about hearing protection.

Earplugs are increasingly being recognised as one of the most practicable forms or protection even if the regulations stress that hearing protection is a last resort when it comes to noise control. Ideally, noise should be controlled at source or managers should reduce the time staff spends in loud areas. But for security staff monitoring for trouble and glass collectors, reducing their exposure time to noise remains a practical dilemma. While it's possible to rotate staff, some experts argue that even a couple of hours in this environment will put them above the limits set out in the new regulations. Earplugs may be the only way forward.

The music and entertainment sector has several years to get its house in order before the new laws come in to force. Nevertheless, EHPs need to do much more in terms of enforcing the current noise at work regulations to protect employees' hearing. Serving improvement notices and even closing venues that show scant disregard for its staff's hearing sends out a strong message that such behaviour will not be tolerated