Hearing Loss Claim at Royal Opera House

[sandall]

I watched (or at least tried to) "Easter from Kings" yesterday. The dynamic range as broadcast was so great that if you set the volume for speech & solos the organ & choir were painfully loud, & if you set the volume for the choir everything else was inaudible. Had to give up in the end - pity.

[Simon Lewis]

...When the PSA was involved in talking to government about the introduction of NAW 2005 to the live music sector, which we were exempt from until 2008....

 

The key thing there though, was that the original NAW 1989 regs applied to music, and continued to do so up to 2008.... :-)

 

 

 

[GridGirl]

So the ROH is appealing the judgement, as I thought they would (my counterpart there said they were looking into it last time I spoke with him): https://www.thestrad.com/news/royal-opera-house-will-take-landmark-hearing-damage-case-before-court-of-appeal/8286.article

 

We are following with great interest...particularly as we've just done our annual round of hearing tests for all players!

[Simon Lewis]

We are following with great interest...particularly as we've just done our annual round of hearing tests for all players!

 

Also watching with considerable interest...

Accepting a defence that ‘the noise produced by the professional orchestra is not a by-product of its activities, it is the product’ and therefore has to be that loud for artistic reasons is likely to throw up a host of complications.

 

By and large, neither the human ear nor the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 differentiate between wanted and unwanted sound...

[Brian]

By and large, neither the human ear nor the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 differentiate between wanted and unwanted sound...

 

Or imposed and self-imposed sound...

[Simon Lewis]

Or imposed and self-imposed sound...

 

... one of the very good reasons why companies should carry out a baseline audiometric test when new employees start.

It's not unheard of for workers to try and claim compensation for industrial noise induced hearing loss, when they've engaged in hobby based clay pigeon shooting without ear protection.

[Bryson]

I haven't been following closely; Was the use of a plexiglass shield considered / attempted in this case? Like this: http://www.canadianaudiologist.ca/shields-screens-and-baffles/

 

They seem to be the most "musical" of the possible control measures.

[GridGirl]

I haven't been following closely; Was the use of a plexiglass shield considered / attempted in this case? Like this: http://www.canadianaudiologist.ca/shields-screens-and-baffles/

 

They seem to be the most "musical" of the possible control measures.

 

The plexiglass shields are awful - they slap back the sound to the player behind them, increasing their noise exposure by a lot. Fine for the person in front of them, but not for whoever is behind it. I can't put them in our pit without causing players to walk out in mutiny. There are soft shields called GoodEars available (designed in Australia - there's a link on that page to them) which we use and they're very good, but they can cause sightline issues obviously. I know the ROH has all sorts of different sound protection available for players, but from what I've heard, their pit is not spacious and so you can't always get a screen in where one would be ideal. It's fraught, really. We have a culture (and it's taken a long time to develop) where players will stand up and say "this is unsafe, something needs to be done about the seating" but from what I gather, it's not necessarily the same in other orchestras.

 

Baseline tests are vital - we've been doing them for a long time, and we also block book hearing tests for our players annually.

[Simon Lewis]

I haven't been following closely; Was the use of a plexiglass shield considered / attempted in this case? Like this: http://www.canadiana...ns-and-baffles/

 

That article is pretty good - and substantiates GridGirl's assertion that in partially assuaging one problem, it exacerbates another. The shields by and large do not absorb sound, they redirect, and the relatively small size means that for them to be effective at the receiver, they must be positioned within a few inches of the receiver's ear. The reflected noise is heard by the sound producer. For a screen to offer some level of noise reduction, it would need to be of suitable size and most likely opaque from sound absorbing material / cloth cover etc. which would disrupt sight lines.

 

I would not want to try and second guess the outcome of the overall legal process, but the argument that a concert has to be of a certain sound pressure level because of its artistic merit does appear somewhat specious. It has been used before (a judge dealing with an environmental noise complaint, said that the outdoor opera "would only be as loud as it needed to be". His remarks were met with some bemusement by those who wondered what the outcome would have been, were it an outdoor electronic dance music event.

 

Specifically, I would like to hear the legal argument in the context of the following parts of CONAWR 2005:

 

• Employers must ensure that risk from the exposure of his employees to noise is either eliminated at source or, where this is not reasonably practicable, reduced to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.
• If any employee is likely to be exposed to noise at or above an upper exposure action value, the employer must reduce exposure to as low a level as is reasonably practicable by establishing and implementing a programme of organisational and technical measures, excluding the provision of personal hearing protectors, which is appropriate to the activity. (a) other working methods which reduce exposure to noise; (b) choice of appropriate work equipment emitting the least possible noise, taking account of the work to be done; © the design and layout of workplaces, work stations and rest facilities; (d) suitable and sufficient information and training for employees, such that work equipment may be used correctly, in order to minimise their exposure to noise; (e) reduction of noise by technical means; (f) appropriate maintenance programmes for work equipment, the workplace and workplace systems; (g) limitation of the duration and intensity of exposure to noise; and (h) appropriate work schedules with adequate rest periods.
• The provision of hearing protectors is a last resort, to be used where the preferred methods of reducing noise exposures are not reasonably practicable. Hearing protection zones must be marked and employees must wear the protection provided when in the zones.
• The exposure limit values (87 dB(A) LEP,d or 87 dB(A) LEP,w ; 140 dB© LCpeak ) must never be exceeded. If a limit value is exceeded the employer must identify the reason and take steps to ensure that it cannot happen again.
• If the risk assessment indicates that there is a risk to the health of his employees who are, or are liable to be, exposed to noise, the employer shall ensure that such employees are placed under suitable health surveillance, which shall include testing of their hearing.
• (as part of the explanatory note to the Regulations) The Regulations provide for transitional periods for the commencement of their operation as follows — (a) for the music and entertainment sectors only they shall not come into force until 6th April 2008 and the provisions listed for amendment and revocation in regulation 15 and Schedule 3 shall remain in force unaltered until that date (regulations 1(a) and 15(3));
   
  (sections in bold = my emphasis)

The judge noted that " the ROH showed failure to undertake any monitoring of noise levels in the cramped orchestra pit with a new orchestral configuration which had been chosen for artistic reasons". whilst the ROH claims that, "the music peaked at a volume well below that specified under the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005".

 

The fact that the music and entertainment sectors were deliberately and explicitly included in the 2005 regulations is rather telling, and somewhat confronts the "noise vs music" argument.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Simon Lewis

[Bryson]

I haven't been following closely; Was the use of a plexiglass shield considered / attempted in this case? Like this: http://www.canadianaudiologist.ca/shields-screens-and-baffles/

 

They seem to be the most "musical" of the possible control measures.

 

The plexiglass shields are awful - they slap back the sound to the player behind them, increasing their noise exposure by a lot. Fine for the person in front of them, but not for whoever is behind it. I can't put them in our pit without causing players to walk out in mutiny. There are soft shields called GoodEars available (designed in Australia - there's a link on that page to them) which we use and they're very good, but they can cause sightline issues obviously. I know the ROH has all sorts of different sound protection available for players, but from what I've heard, their pit is not spacious and so you can't always get a screen in where one would be ideal. It's fraught, really. We have a culture (and it's taken a long time to develop) where players will stand up and say "this is unsafe, something needs to be done about the seating" but from what I gather, it's not necessarily the same in other orchestras.

 

Baseline tests are vital - we've been doing them for a long time, and we also block book hearing tests for our players annually.

 

Thank you - that explains it perfectly!

[GridGirl]

 

(snip)

 

Specifically, I would like to hear the legal argument in the context of the following parts of CONAWR 2005:

 

• [*]Employers must ensure that risk from the exposure of his employees to noise is either eliminated at source or, where this is not reasonably practicable, reduced to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.[*]If any employee is likely to be exposed to noise at or above an upper exposure action value, the employer must reduce exposure to as low a level as is reasonably practicable by establishing and implementing a programme of organisational and technical measures, excluding the provision of personal hearing protectors, which is appropriate to the activity. (a) other working methods which reduce exposure to noise; (b) choice of appropriate work equipment emitting the least possible noise, taking account of the work to be done; © the design and layout of workplaces, work stations and rest facilities; (d) suitable and sufficient information and training for employees, such that work equipment may be used correctly, in order to minimise their exposure to noise; (e) reduction of noise by technical means; (f) appropriate maintenance programmes for work equipment, the workplace and workplace systems; (g) limitation of the duration and intensity of exposure to noise; and (h) appropriate work schedules with adequate rest periods.[*]The provision of hearing protectors is a last resort, to be used where the preferred methods of reducing noise exposures are not reasonably practicable. Hearing protection zones must be marked and employees must wear the protection provided when in the zones.

 

Reducing exposure to as low a level as practicable is, I think, the way that things are headed. Yes, there is NOTHING like the sound of seventeen brass players going crazy on Ride of the Valkyries, and the volume levels are part of that, but more and more there are ways around it. We almost always mark brass parts down, particularly in ballets; we now have a very sophisticated sound system in the theatre (the Vivace system) which through some very complicated technical wizardry, a patron hears what sounds like a natural sound from their seat but it's actually amplified in such a way that you hear the balance that you expect to hear (so if you're closer to the brass, you hear more of them) rather than a flat amplification the same throughout the theatre. This means that our guys can play more quietly but the operator can boost their sound accordingly but in a much more "realistic" way. We've only had it in place since January and it's still settling in, but with an assistant conductor in the hall during rehearsals to work with the operators, we've been getting some pretty good results. The hardest part is getting the conductor to realise that what they hear on the podium is NOT what the audience is hearing - some of them struggle with this.

 

The rest period thing is also vital. The ROH system of rostering (where each player has a buddy and the workload is split between the two players by mutual agreement) doesn't take this into account at all, IMHO. We roster far more strictly to give players respite - for instance, on a show we know is going to be loud, we will do our absolute utmost to avoid anyone doing double days, or worse, the Friday evening-Saturday matinee-Saturday evening triple whammy. It takes time, energy and can make your brain hurt (it's like a twisted Sudoku puzzle most of the time) but it has to be done.

[Simon Lewis]

GridGirl,

 

Your feedback and detail on how you manage noise exposure in such a demanding professional environment is not only inspirational and a great example of good practice, but also provides a wonderful case study...

 

I hope you won't mind if I quote your work in one or two lectures on venue acoustics and noise exposure control ? :-)

 

Simon Lewis

[GridGirl]

GridGirl,

 

Your feedback and detail on how you manage noise exposure in such a demanding professional environment is not only inspirational and a great example of good practice, but also provides a wonderful case study...

 

I hope you won't mind if I quote your work in one or two lectures on venue acoustics and noise exposure control ? :-)

 

Simon Lewis

 

Not at all! If you want any more detail (I haven't quite put all of it here!) feel free to drop me a line.

[J Pearce]

The work you're doing is probably deserving of some proper academic research and publication (and if it's already happening, tell us where we can read the papers!).

 

As a tech/tutor in a music and drama conservatoire I am reading with much interest.

[Junior8]

I would not want to try and second guess the outcome of the overall legal process, but the argument that a concert has to be of a certain sound pressure level because of its artistic merit does appear somewhat specious. It has been used before (a judge dealing with an environmental noise complaint, said that the outdoor opera "would only be as loud as it needed to be". His remarks were met with some bemusement by those who wondered what the outcome would have been, were it an outdoor electronic dance music event.

 

The fact that the music and entertainment sectors were deliberately and explicitly included in the 2005 regulations is rather telling, and somewhat confronts the "noise vs music" argument.

 

It may be specious but I suspect from the final para in the article linked by Gridgirl alerting us to the appeal it's likely to make an appearance in the case!