Simon Lunken

BPIF Head of Health & Safety

Health and Safety Forum Update December 2013

Noise and Noise Claims in the Industry

Workplace Noise

The Printing sector for many years has been aware of workplace noise

issues generated by machinery and processes.

HSL study during 2011/12 has shown that noise levels have reduced,

but more can still be done.

In the North of England and parts of the Midlands a campaign has been

targeting a number of industries where exposure to noise is an

issue.(Print is one of those)

Part of the campaign is to invite employees from those industries to a

free hearing test, followed by consultation with a view to a PI claim for

noise induced hearing loss, or tinnitus.

Claims

A small number of BPIF members have approached the Federation

One member in the Midlands currently has three PI claims all involving

injury due to high levels of noise.

Key points:

- Noise claims dating back from noise exposure during 1964 to1992

- Knowledge of noise in the industry

- Legislation - Factories Act 1961, Health and Safety at Work etc Act

1974, Noise at Work Regulations 1989.

Issues

No evidence of :

- Provision of hearing protection

- Education and training

- Assessments of noise levels

- Not aware of who their Broker/insurer was at the time of employment

- Conflicting points of the purpose of the employee’s role

BPIF – article to members

Ongoing advice

Industry Committee - PIAG Update

PIAG

Programme of work:

- Continue to review documents relating to the Printer’s Guide

to Health and Safety (now web based)

- Machine guarding incidents review (BPIF) – Case study

BGP/Polestar Bicester

- Focus plan to be discussed and agreed for 2014

- Next meeting to be held 12th December 2013

HSE's Fee for Intervention (FfI cost

recovery scheme)

HSE’s ‘Fee for Intervention’ scheme, which is to

recover its involvement/investigation costs from

businesses it finds to be in breach of health and safety

law (introduced 1st October 2012)

HSE’s Manufacturing Sector Strategy (Print sector in

B and D, 2011/12)

Has it changed regulatory involvement?

FfI The HSE has invoiced UK firms more than £5.5 million for

health and safety failings under its Fee for Intervention

(FFI) scheme

Following a Freedom of Information request made by

ELAS, it has been revealed that businesses were fined a

total of £5,532,565 for health and safety failings since

October 2012.

Breaches ranged from slips, trips and falls to not providing

enough toilets or washing facilities. The sectors that

received the most fines were manufacturing (38 per cent)

and construction (36 per cent), while at the bottom of the

list were water and waste management (3 per cent) and

agriculture (2 per cent).

FfI HSE visit plan is based on:

- RIDDOR incidents

- National and Local campaigns - Legionella

- Complaints/whistle blowing

- Number of reportable incidents

- No reporting of RIDDOR incidents which would be expected

Be aware, inspectors should not visit the company just because the inspector is in the area.

- BPIF has received a small number of complaints from members in the East/South East region over visits and FfI

- BPIF has requested certain information from HSE under a FOI Act request

HSE Statistics

Printing (SIC 18) - Injury rates compared to Manufacturing overall

Printing Major

Printing O3D, O7D

Printing overall

Mfr Major

Mfr O3D, O7D

Mfr overall

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Injury rates 2012-13 (provisional)

Printing compared to other industries

Printing (SIC 18) - Injury rates compared to

Manufacturing over 5 yrs* NB O7D from 1 Apr 12

Printing – SIC 18 RIDDOR severity * NB O7D from 1 Apr 12

Printing – SIC 18 RIDDOR kind 2012-13p * NB O7D from 1 Apr 12

Printing (SIC 18) RIDDOR kind

2011-12 and 2012-13 (provisional)

Printing (SIC 18) RIDDOR kind - Majors

2004-05 to 2012-13 (provisional)

Printing (SIC 18) Notices since 1 April 2012

89 Notices since 1 April 2012

PNs INs Total

2012-13 13 45 58

2013-14 part 2 29 31 (includes 15 not on public register)

26 % PUWER

24% COSHH

13% MHSW

Rest: EAW, DSEAR, WAH, LOLER, NAWR, PSSR,

Welfare, Transport, Radiation

BPIF and Other work

Submission to HSE on consultation documents

- RIDDOR (through CBI)

- Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations

- Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmosphere

Regulations (DSEAR)

Health and Safety Guidance document for the label

sector (John Bambery, BPIF Labels)

CBI – no lobbying topics at present

HSE Prosecutions

Prosecutions for this year (including end of

2012)

- CCL Label Ltd (November 2012) - Machine operative was cleaning a central impression

drum and feeling for any loose or foreign objects as it rotated so his fingers/hand became

trapped at the nip point. Nip guard had been removed. Breach under Regulation 11(1) of

the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined

£4,000 and ordered to pay £2,141 in costs.

- Tenza Technologies Ltd (December 2012) had failed to properly maintain a printing

machine, which was involved in an incident in which a worker had his fingers crushed

during a cleaning task. Breach under s2(1) of the HSWA 1974, fined £4,000 and ordered

to pay £3,613 in costs.

- Berkshire Labels Limited - Machine operative was attempting to clean a coating roller on

a finishing machine, He tried to brush off the dried substance from the roller while it was

in situ on the working machine, but his right hand was caught and pulled between two

rollers. Guard had been removed, fined £7,000 and ordered to pay £5,637 in costs after

pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work

Equipment Regulations.

Prosecutions for this year

- Merley Paper Converters Ltd - female worker's death at a paper manufacturing

warehouse after racking collapsed and she was hit by heavy boxes. Breach of the Health

and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 - Fined £70,000 and ordered to pay costs of £30,974

- Swallowtail Print Ltd - Access to moving drive belts and pulleys, almost severing his right

index finger, in an unguarded machine. Organisation fined for safety failings under 2(1) of

the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Fined £6,700 and ordered to pay £3,030.10

costs and a £120 victim surcharge.

- Howard Hunt City Group - Press operatives hand drawn into unguarded inking rollers.

Fixed guard had been removed, no machine risk assessment - Breach of the Provision

and Use of Work Equipment Regulations, reg 11, fined £9,000, breach of Management

of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, reg 3, fined £2,000, prosecution costs of

£4,399 and victim charge of £120.

- Alexir Print Packaging - Operators fingers caught in machine mechanism during setting.

Interlock guard had been overridden. Breach of the Provision and Use of Work

Equipment Regulations, reg 11- access to dangerous parts of machinery, fined £5,000

and £3,000 HSE investigation costs.

Thank you

Mr Simon Lunken

BPIF Head of Health & Safety

07957 564979