Control of noise risk in the printing industry · 2019. 12. 5. · employers managing noise risk in...

Control of noise risk in the printing industry

Prepared by the Health and Safety Executive

RR1102 Research Report

© Crown copyright 2017

Prepared 2017 First published 2017

You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].

Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to [email protected].

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

Machinery used in the printing industry is inherently noisy. Noise levels in this industry have the potential to cause work-related hearing damage, if the risks are not properly assessed and managed. HSE has undertaken a study of noise levels and exposures in the printing industry, to determine noise risks and identify control measures.

The noise levels measured in this study indicate that print workers are exposed to hazardous levels of noise: 93% of the study population had noise exposure estimates exceeding the lower exposure action value (LEP,d 80 dB) specified in the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005.

However, many effective noise control features were observed, which, when fully and properly used, can be effective in reducing noise exposures.

The inherently noisy nature of the industry, even in more modern print works where quieter machinery is used, means that there is likely to be an ongoing requirement for the use of hearing protection. Although hearing protection was observed to be widely provided and used, failure to correctly fit plug-type protection was commonly observed.

Instruction handbooks, obtained for a sample of printing machinery, were found, in most cases, to contain declared noise emission information that would help the user assess and manage real-use risk.

2

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetuer adipiscing elit


Emma Shanks, Gillian Frost and Jacqueline Patel Health and Safety Executive Harpur Hill Buxton Derbyshire SK17 9JN

3

KEY MESSAGES

Traditional printing processes can be inherently very noisy. Although modernisation has introduced quieter processes into the industry, high noise levels and noise exposures remain a health risk; 93% of print workers assessed in this study had noise exposure estimates above the 80 dB(A) lower exposure action value specified in the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. It is possible to control noise exposure in the printing industry by applying the general noise control principles. Many instances were observed where equipment was not being maintained or used effectively, compromising noise control.

Given the inherent noise levels associated with the industry, there is a requirement for ongoing provision of hearing protection. To be effective, hearing protection must be used at all times when required and be properly fitted and maintained. Failings in this respect were found in this study. Instruction handbooks, obtained for a sample of printing machinery, contained declared noise emission information that would help dutyholders to assess and manage noise risks in the workplace.

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objectives

Traditional printing processes can be inherently very noisy. Although modernisation has introduced quieter processes into the industry, high noise levels and noise exposures remain a potential health issue. HSE scientists visited eight printing premises to investigate noise levels, noise exposures and noise controls across a range of different print processes and product types. This information was used to compare noise levels and exposures with a previous study 30 years earlier, determine current levels of noise risk in the printing industry and identify how this can be effectively managed and controlled. Printing machinery instruction manuals were also collected during the site visits to assess the quality of declared noise emission information and its value to employers managing noise risk in the printing industry.

Main Findings

In the 30 years since the previous study of noise in the printing industry there has been a reduction in the noise levels (LAeq) and exposure values (LEP,d) in the industry (in the order of 6 dB for both parameters). However, high noise levels were observed, potentially putting workers at risk of developing work-related hearing damage. The data showed that 54% of the sample population had noise exposure estimates above the upper exposure action value (LEP,d 85 dB) set in the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. An additional 39% of the sample population had noise exposure estimates between the lower and upper exposure action values (80 dB ≤ LEP,d < 85 dB). Therefore a total of 93% of the sample population had noise exposure estimates exceeding the lower exposure action value (LEP,d 80 dB).

This study has shown that, through the effective use, maintenance and management of noise controls from across the hierarchy of control, it is possible to keep the noise exposures of workers to a minimum. Examples included:

• Modern reel stands in acoustic enclosures instead of older, unenclosed reel stands in analready noisy environment.

• Modern, well designed and maintained havens instead of ill-modified and poorlymaintained havens.

• Eliminating the need for print workers to attend presses inside machine enclosures,even for very short durations (minutes over a working day).

Organisational controls could reduce risk by increasing use or effectiveness of acoustic barriers, improving maintenance or improving use of hearing protection.

Each site had a unique set of noise control and management challenges. The challenges largely arose from the combination of the type of product, the machinery (age and maintenance), the built environment, and the utilisation of (existing) noise controls. Common approaches to noise control included the use of machine enclosures, havens and hearing protection. In some cases there were no noise controls.

Despite the uniqueness of each site, it was possible to identify common sources of noise. These sources of unnecessarily high noise risk, likely to dominate a worker’s noise exposure, included:

• Operator controls and workstations inside acoustic enclosures• Operator controls and workstations outside poorly maintained or utilised acoustic

enclosures• Operator controls and workstations around presses with no acoustic controls

5

• Plate hanging task• Operator controls and workstations inside poorly modified and poorly maintained retro-

fit havens• Folders• Open reel stands• Feeders on cut ‘n’ crease machines• Leak on compressed air lines• Unnecessary use of compressed air• Redundant machinery still being powered• Poor layout (e.g. quiet activity adjacent to a noisy activity)

Hearing protection was widely used at all sites visited. Earmuff use, care and maintenance were generally good. However, earplugs were generally poorly or incorrectly fitted and they were not well looked after. This difference between earmuff and earplug use was independent of the safety culture at the different sites. The printing industry is still a high noise industry. It remains likely that some ongoing use of hearing protection will be required.

Noise information from fifteen printing machinery instruction handbooks was collected during the eight printing site visits. The noise emission information in the handbooks was assessed against the requirements of the European Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC. The assessment showed that the majority of handbooks contained declared noise emission information that would help the user assess and manage real-use risk.

Recommendations

Those with responsibility for controlling noise at printing premises should review their risk assessment and take appropriate action to ensure that effective controls are in place.

6

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 8 1.1 Background.............................................................................................. 8 1.2 Overview of industrial printing processes ................................................ 8 1.3 Printing sites for data collection ............................................................... 9 1.4 Overview of observed noise controls ....................................................... 9

2 DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................ 11 2.1 Dosemeters ........................................................................................... 11 2.2 Sound level meters ................................................................................ 12

3 RESULTS .............................................................................................. 13 3.1 Noise levels (LAeq) .................................................................................. 13 3.2 Noise exposures (LEP,d) ......................................................................... 15 3.3 Peak sound pressure levels (LCpk) ......................................................... 17

4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................. 19 4.1 Large web-fed presses .......................................................................... 19 4.2 Noise havens ......................................................................................... 23 4.3 Reel stands ............................................................................................ 24 4.4 Newspaper folders ................................................................................. 25 4.5 Despatch................................................................................................ 27 4.6 Waste processing .................................................................................. 27 4.7 Small scale printing operations .............................................................. 28 4.8 Workstations for other processes .......................................................... 30 4.9 LEP,d estimates for typical roles .............................................................. 37 4.10 Controlling noise and reducing noise exposure ..................................... 41 4.11 Success of the printing machinery standards ........................................ 48

5 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 50

6 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX A: MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT DETAILS .............................. 52

APPENDIX B: DOSEMETER OUTPUTS ....................................................... 54

GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................... 63

7

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Noise can be a problem in the printing industry. The printing industry in the United Kingdom (UK) employs approximately 130,000 people1, many of whom have traditionally worked in noisy printing environments. HSE has undertaken two studies in the last 30 years, to gather noise information from this industry.

The first study was conducted between 1985 and 1994. The information showed that A-weighted noise levels ranged from 81 to 103 dB (median 90 dB) and daily personal noise exposures ranged between 84 and 101 dB (median 90 dB)2. These exposures were sufficiently high to indicate that workers were at real risk of developing work-related hearing damage.

The time period of the first study spanned the introduction of the Noise at Work Regulations 19893, which implemented into British law the requirements of the European Noise Directive4. These Regulations were superseded by the Control of Noise at Work Regulations (CNWR) 20055, which implemented into British law the requirements of the European Physical Agents (Noise) Directive6. The CNWR 2005 set lower noise exposure action values than those set in the 1989 Regulations. A summary of the noise exposure action and limit values for CNWR 2005 is given in Table 1. For full details and guidance HSE publication L1087 should be consulted.

Table 1. Summary of the noise exposure action and limit values in the CNWR 2005 Exposure action or limit value LEP,d (dB)* LCpk (dB)** Lower exposure action value 80 135 Upper exposure action value 85 137 Exposure limit value*** 87 140 * A daily or weekly personal noise exposure, A-weighted** A peak sound pressure level, C-weighted *** Takes account of the likely performance of personal hearing protection

The second study was carried out between March 2010 and July 2011. It is the results of this second study that are reported here. HSE visited eight printing premises to investigate current levels of noise across a range of different print processes and product types. The premises were identified through the British Printing Industries Federation and the Newspaper Publishers Association. At each site, noise measurements were made and information gathered on the use and implementation of noise controls and hearing protection. This information was used to determine current levels of noise risk in the printing industry and identify how this can be effectively managed and controlled. Printing machinery instruction manuals were also collected during the site visits to assess the quality of declared noise emission information and its value to employers managing noise risk in the printing industry.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL PRINTING PROCESSES

There are six main industrial printing processes. These can be distinguished by the general method of image transfer (direct or indirect, the latter also commonly known as offset) and by the general type of image carrier employed (planographic, relief or intaglio). Full details for the terminology can be found in the Glossary.

The six main printing processes are:

1. Lithography (offset/planographic)

8

2. Flexography (direct/relief)

3. Gravure (direct/intaglio)

4. Letterpress (direct/relief)

5. Screen printing (direct)

6. Digital printing

Each printing process contains many elements, for example, loading the substrate (material onto which an image is to be printed) into a printing press, cutting, creasing, folding and gluing (for cardboard packing), laminating (for a glossy finish) and so on. An example of a print process flow chart from virgin substrate to finished product is shown in Figure 1. With the exception of the paper store, each of the elements in Figure 1 may generate hazardous levels of noise which can contribute to potential hearing damage for print workers.

Figure 1. Example flow diagram for a newspaper print process

1.3 PRINTING SITES FOR DATA COLLECTION

HSE visited eight different types of printing premises between 2010 and 2011 to gather data on workplace noise, including noise control measures. Table 2 summarises the primary print processes and the types of output for each site.

Table 2. Printing premises details Site ID Main printing processes Type of output

A Lithographic/digital mail Magazine inserts/secure printing B Lithographic Directories C Finishing/silk screen Greetings cards/flyers D Flexographic/finishing Labels: food/pharmaceutical/healthcare

E Gravure (roto)/stitching Magazines: glossy covers/womens’ weeklies/Sunday paper supplements

F Lithographic Newspapers G Lithographic Newspapers H Lithographic/flexographic Packaging: pharmaceutical/healthcare

1.4 OVERVIEW OF OBSERVED NOISE CONTROLS

During the eight site visits several types of noise control were observed. These broadly fell into the categories of:

• Machine enclosure (or acoustic enclosure): where part, or all, of a noisy machine is boxed in using acoustic materials to reduce the amount of noise from the machine entering the general working environment.

Paper store

Reel stand

Presses Dryers Folders Quality control

Finishing Despatch

9

• Haven (or noise haven): an acoustically treated, quiet working area designed to house the workforce, from which all operations can be carried out, minimising the need to leave the haven and enter the noisy work environment.

• Hearing protection: use of personal protective equipment in the form of earmuffs or earplugs, worn by the workforce.

There were also situations observed where no noise or acoustic controls were in place.

Commonly observed anomalous use of the noise controls included:

• Print workers frequently entering and working within noisy machine enclosures • Print workers frequently leaving havens to work in a noisier press environment

Some machine enclosures were poorly utilised, for example, leaving entrance doors or hatches open when they should have been closed. One reason given for poor utilisation was the frequently necessary visits to press controls within the machine enclosure.

Some havens were poorly maintained, for example, door seals were broken and redundant feeder hatches not blocked up. It was not possible to establish the underlying reasons for the poor maintenance.

10

2 DATA COLLECTION

Noise levels were measured using two different methods:

1. Logging personal dosemeters (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

2. Hand-held sound level meter with frequency analysis capabilities (Figure 4).

Figure 2. Dosemeter Figure 3. Dosemeter Figure 4. Sound level meter

The logging dosemeters were used for the personal dosimetry (i.e. they were attached to print workers) whilst the sound level meter was used to gather noise data at workstations and occasionally to investigate the effectiveness of noise control measures. Full equipment details can be found in Appendix A.

All devices were set up to log:

• A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure levels (LAeq), used to assess workers’ noise exposures over a working day (LEP,d), in decibels (dB).

• C-weighted peak sound pressure levels (LCpk), used to assess the risks from single peak noise events such as ‘bangs’ and ‘crashes’, in decibels (dB).

2.1 DOSEMETERS

The dosemeter shown in Figure 2 consists of a small palm-sized data logging unit with a microphone, which is connected by an extension cable. The microphone was attached to the shoulder seam of the worker’s outer layer of clothing as described in HSE publication L108. The cable was passed under the outer layer of clothing to avoid snagging. The data logging unit was either clipped to the worker’s belt or placed securely in their pocket.

The dosemeter in shown in Figure 3 is a single unit with an integral microphone. The complete unit was attached to the end of the shoulder on the seam of the outer layer of the worker’s clothing as described in HSE publication L108.

The dosemeters logged the LAeq and LCpk sound pressure levels at one minute intervals, as well as the overall values for the full measurement period. Measurement durations for the dosemeters were between two and four hours. The durations were intended to provide noise data that were representative of full shifts, which varied between 7½ and 12 hours.

11

At each site, the dosemeters were fitted to workers undertaking a broad range of operational roles. Worker selection was based on a combination of:

• The need for up-to-date information on known and unknown machines or processes.

• Machines or processes anticipated to be, or reported by the site as being, noisy.

• Availability during the site visit.

2.2 SOUND LEVEL METERS

The hand-held sound level meter included frequency analysis capability, which provided information on the level and frequency characteristics of the noise measured.

The sound level meter allows several parameters to be recorded simultaneously including LAeq and LCpk. The sound level meter was used to measure noise at operator controls and workstations and other locations that workers were likely to frequent, based on advice from, and observation of, workers at each site. Measurement durations were between 60 and 120 seconds. The durations were intended to be a snapshot of an activity or process, but were also long enough to obtain a representative measurement of the noise level.

12

3 RESULTS

3.1 NOISE LEVELS (LAeq)

Across the eight sites visited, 377 LAeq measurements were made using a sound level meter. These measurements were taken at locations where operator controls were located or workstations, unless otherwise specified. The distribution of these noise levels is shown in Figure 5 and Table 3. LAeq levels are rounded to the nearest whole number in tables with the actual measured level shown in graphs.

Table 3. Distribution of 377 LAeq levels from eight sites

LAeq (dB) 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Event Freq. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 2 2 5 3 2 7 8 7 14 22 31 21

LAeq (dB) 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Event Freq. 33 31 21 24 18 12 12 10 5 6 4 3 0 5 11 16 15 16 2 3 0 1 0

Figure 5 and Table 3 show two ranges of LAeq levels. The first range is centred on 83 dB. Almost all of the LAeq levels in the second range, 96 to 104 dB, were measured at one of the eight sites (62 of the 69 data points in this range). The site had poor noise control, with equipment approximately 20 years old located in a poor acoustic environment.

Figure 5. Distribution of 377 LAeq measurements from eight sites

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104

Freq

uenc

y of

eve

nt

LAeq, dB

13

It is necessary to look in more detail at the levels associated with particular machines, processes and types of output to determine the effectiveness of existing noise control methods and identify where additional controls are needed. Table 4 and Figure 6 show the range of LAeq levels measured for 24 identified combinations of operator location and process. Table 4 also shows the 75th percentile value, i.e. the value below which 75% of observations lie. The 75th percentile included in Table 4 represents a value that might be used for a preliminary risk assessment. Percentiles have been used rather than means and standard deviations as the data distributions are not statistically normal.

Table 4. Range of LAeq levels by operator location/process with 75th percentile

Operator location/type of process LAeq

range (dB)

75th percentile

(dB)

Figure 6 y-axis

identifier

At operator controls or

workstations for large web-fed presses

At controls outside modern and acoustically well-enclosed presses 77 to 83 80 A

At controls inside acoustic enclosures 76 to 100 98 B At controls outside poorly utilised acoustic enclosures 96 to 101 100 C

At controls around presses with no acoustic controls 76 to 103 97 D

Within noise havens

Modern and effective 64 to 70 69 E Retro-fit some years ago 83 to 87 87 F

At reel stands

Several located within an enclosure 73 to 81 79 G Open (modern installation) 73 to 82 81 H Open (old installation) 84 to 91 90 I Fully enclosed (modern installation) 68 to 80 78 J

Newspaper folders

At inspection points adjacent to enclosed folder 84 to 90 89 K At inspection points or control panels adjacent to unenclosed folder 91 to 102 100 L

Despatch Packing/strapping 74 to 91 86 M Waste

processing Baling trimmings (suction) 78 to 87 84 N

Smaller presses

Flexographic 77 to 90 83 O Silk screen 79 to 85 84 P

At workstations

for other processes

Foilers 71 to 91 83 Q Guillotines 74 to 80 79 R Gatherers/stackers/balers/palletisers 76 to 89 85 S Cut 'n' creasers 78 to 91 83 T Laminators 79 to 81 80 U Inserters 80 to 86 83 V Winders 80 to 82 82 W Gluers 82 to 89 88 X Stripping waste (suction/blowing) 87 to 94 94 Y

14

3.2 NOISE EXPOSURES (LEP,d)

The LAeq levels logged by the dosemeters used across the eight site visits were used to estimate 41 daily personal noise exposures (LEP,d). The estimated LEP,d levels were calculated using the HSE Daily Noise Exposure Calculator7. Duration information was taken from shift lengths for each worker. The distribution of LEP,d estimates is shown in Table 5 and Figure 7. The individual outputs from each dosemeter are given in Appendix B. These time histories show the variation in LAeq and LCpk across the measurement duration.

Table 5. Distribution of 41 LEP,d estimates from eight sites LEP,d (dB) 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Event Freq. 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 4 5 3 8 5 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0

Figure 6. Range of LAeq levels by operator location/process (75th percentile is the level at which the bar changes colour)

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110

ABCDEFGHIJKL

MNOPQRSTUV

WXY

LAeq, dB

15

Figure 7. Distribution of 41 LEP,d estimates from eight sites

The LEP,d estimates were for print workers whose working day was primarily associated with one task, process or machine for a particular type of output, for example, large web-fed presses printing newspapers. It should be noted, however, that if a worker moves around other parts of a site or machine that their LEP,d is likely to be influenced by the noise from the other parts of the site or machine. For example, moving into a quieter location for a period of time will reduce the LEP,d whereas moving into a noisier location for a period of time will increase the LEP,d.

The 41 LEP,d estimates were compared to the noise exposure action and limit values in the CNWR 2005. The comparison showed that of the 41 print workers for whom LEP,d estimates were made:

• 7% were exposed below the lower exposure action value (LEP,d < 80 dB)

• 39% were exposed between the lower and upper exposure action values (80 dB ≤ LEP,d < 85 dB)

• 54% were exposed at or above the upper exposure action value (LEP,d ≥ 85 dB)

The 41 LEP,d estimates were from 10 work areas common to most aspects of the printing industry. These work areas were despatch, insertion, finishing, flexographic printing, gravure printing, laminating, lithographic printing, reel stands, silk screen printing and jet washing. Table 6 and Figure 8 show the range of noise exposure estimates for print workers in these work areas; flexographic, insertion and jet washing are omitted from the Figure 8 due to insufficient data. Within each work area recognised sources of potentially harmful noise were present, for example, noise from newspaper folders. There was insufficient clarity in the LEP,d estimates to

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Freq

uenc

y of

eve

nt

LEP,d, dB

16

single out these types of noise sources. Folder noise was encompassed within lithographic and gravure printing.

Table 6. Range of LEP,d estimates by work area with 75th percentile Work area LEP,d range (dB) 75th percentile of LEP,d (dB) Reel stand 76 to 86 85 Finishing 79 to 87 86

Gravure printing 80 to 85 85 Lithographic printing 80 to 94 89 Silk screen printing 80 to 82 82

Despatch 82 to 83 83 Laminating 82 to 87 86

Insertion 84 n/a Flexographic printing 79 n/a

Jet wash 93 n/a

3.3 PEAK SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS (LCpk)

The LCpk sound pressure levels measured using the sound level meter did not reach the exposure action and limit values set in the CNWR 2005 (the maximum measured was 121 dB).

Figure 8. Range of LEP,d estimates by work area

(75th percentile is the level at which the bar changes colour)

60 70 80 90 100 110

Reel stand

Finishing

Gravure

Lithographic

Silk screen

Despatch

Laminating

LEP,d, dB

17

While the majority of the LCpk sound pressure levels measured with the dosemeters did not exceed exposure action and limit values in the CNWR 2005, two values were logged at 135 dB and 139 dB respectively. The source of these LCpk values is unclear and not substantiated by the sound level meter LCpk values; they were not considered to be representative of peak noise events in the printing industry.

The LCpk sound pressure levels in the printing industry were not considered further in the analysis presented here.

18

4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

All the information and data presented and discussed was obtained during site visits to eight printing premises. They have been grouped based on similar outputs and processes, rather than by site. All LAeq levels were measured at operator controls or workstations unless otherwise specified. LAeq levels are rounded to the nearest whole number in tables with the actual measured level shown in graphs.

4.1 LARGE WEB-FED PRESSES

Large web-fed presses can be single or multi-storey, made up of a number of colour and/or black ink towers. They are typically used for printing newspapers. Noise control at these presses often takes the form of an enclosure. This could be a noise haven inside which operators work, shielded from potentially harmful noise (covered in 4.2) or an acoustic machine enclosure, designed to keep machine noise inside the enclosure and operators outside the enclosure. The design of the machine enclosure, and the location of machine controls, is critical to successful noise reduction and optimum use of the enclosure. If poorly designed, or if operators have to frequently enter machine enclosures to use press controls, operators’ noise exposure will increase.

4.1.1 Operator controls and workstations outside modern and acoustically well-enclosed presses

Table 7 and Figure 9 show the LAeq levels at operator controls and workstations outside modern and acoustically well-enclosed presses. Measurement 3 ‘folder output line 2’ was influenced by (leaking) compressed air noise. Measurement 5 ‘waste transfer chute’ was influenced by the rattling of a loose cover panel at the base of the chute.

Table 7. LAeq levels at operator controls and workstations outside modern and acoustically well-enclosed presses

Figure 9 y-axis identifier

Measurement location LAeq (dB)

1 Operator station 77 2 Folder output line 1 77 3 Folder output line 2 78 4 Collation station 80 5 Waste transfer chute 83

19

Figure 9. LAeq levels at operator controls and workstations outside modern and acoustically

well-enclosed presses

4.1.2 Operator controls and workstations inside poor acoustic enclosures

The noise levels inside a poor acoustic enclosure, for example one that is incomplete, poorly modified or maintained, or that requires an operator to regularly enter to use press controls within the enclosure, can present a high risk to print workers who access the machinery whilst it is running. Table 8 and Figure 10 show the LAeq levels at operator controls and workstations inside poor acoustic press enclosures.

During the site visits, print workers were observed frequently entering poor acoustic enclosures to attend to the presses located inside that were running at full speed. Time spent in such high noise levels will increase a worker’s LEP,d.

Table 8. LAeq levels at operator controls and workstations inside poor acoustic enclosures Figure 10

y-axis identifier Press and enclosure description LAeq range

(dB) 1 Press in incomplete enclosure #1 88 to 98 2 Press in incomplete enclosure #2 89 to 90 3 Press in poorly maintained enclosure (top storey) #3 96 to 99 4 Press in poorly maintained enclosure (mid-level) #3 92 to 100 5 Press in poorly maintained enclosure (ground floor) #3 97 to 100 6 Press in poorly maintained enclosure (top storey) #4 85 to 88 7 Press in poorly maintained enclosure (mid-level) #4 91 to 99 8 Press in poorly maintained enclosure (ground floor) #4 98 to 100

1

2

3

4

5

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85LAeq, dB

Rattling panel

With compressed air noise

20

Figure 10. LAeq levels at operator controls and workstations inside poor acoustic enclosures

4.1.3 Operator controls and workstations outside poorly utilised acoustic enclosures

Noise levels can also be hazardous at operator controls and workstations located outside a poorly utilised enclosure, for example where doors to the enclosure are left open. Table 9 and Figure 11 show LAeq levels for this situation.

Table 9. LAeq levels at operator controls and workstations outside poorly utilised acoustic enclosures


Press enclosure description LAeq range (dB)

1 Access door into enclosure #1 propped open 83 to 86 2 Access panels in enclosure #2 propped open 83 to 87

Figure 11. LAeq levels at operator controls and workstations outside poorly utilised acoustic

enclosures

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

80 85 90 95 100 105LAeq, dB

Shielded from noise by

machinery

Press running up

Opposite open door

1

2

75 80 85 90 95LAeq, dB

21

4.1.4 Operator controls and workstations around web-fed presses with no acoustic controls

The workers at operator controls or workstations are potentially exposed to high levels of noise where machines have no acoustic controls. Table 10 and Figure 12 show LAeq levels for these locations. In all cases the presses were located in large open warehouse (factory) environments.

Table 10. LAeq levels at operator controls and workstations around web-fed presses with no acoustic controls


Press description LAeq range (dB)

1 Single storey press #1; central location 82 to 84 2 Single storey press #2; central location 82 to 90 3 Single storey press #3; central location 84 to 87 4 Multi-storey press #1; central location 86 to 103 5 Multi-storey press #2; central location 76 to 100

Figure 12. LAeq levels at operator controls and workstations around presses with no acoustic

controls Plate hanging was identified as a very noisy activity and most likely to contribute to workers’ noise exposures. In plate hanging a print worker positions print plates at the point of use, ready to load onto the press rollers for the next print run. This preparation is carried out whilst the presses are operating. The worker is located between two running rollers, spaced approximately 1 m apart. The data in Figure 12 show the high LAeq levels associated with this activity. Higher levels were measured when the activity was carried out in an enclosed space, where an overhead gantry effectively made the plate hanging location a reverberant box. Lower LAeq levels were measured in semi-open spaces. Examples of the two types of plate hanging locations are shown

1

2

3

4

5

75 80 85 90 95 100 105LAeq, dB

Plate hanging (enclosed space)

22

in Figure 13 and Figure 14. The associated machines for semi-open spaces, as shown in Figure 13, were sheet-fed; the associated data are therefore not shown in Table 10 or Figure 12. The LAeq range for the semi-open plate hanging activities was 85 to 91 dB.

Figure 13. Semi-open plate hanging Figure 14. Enclosed plate hanging

4.2 NOISE HAVENS

A well-designed noise haven can provide a quiet working environment for print workers. However, if the haven is not maintained, or operations change and the haven is not modified, the noise levels within the haven can increase. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show two different havens. Table 11 and Figure 17 provide details on the range of LAeq levels within these two different havens.

Figure 15. Haven 1 Figure 16. Haven 2

23

Table 11. LAeq levels within different havens Figure 17

y-axis identifier Haven environment description LAeq range

(dB)

1 (Figure 15)

A modern and effective haven well-designed and well maintained. Intended to include all press and quality controls with minimal need for workers to visit the presses.

64 to 70

2 (Figure 16)

A retro-fit haven poorly modified and poorly maintained. Originally intended to include all press and quality controls, but no longer used in this way.

83 to 87

Figure 17. LAeq levels within different havens

The noise levels within the two havens differed by an average of 18 dB. It is highly likely that the observed differences are due to the design of the havens and how they were used. Noise levels outside both havens were similar, ranging from 86 to 103 dB outside Haven 1 and 92 to 100 dB outside Haven 2.

4.3 REEL STANDS

Reel stand operators load large rolls of paper (webs) onto the reels of a print press. The reel stands are located either at one end of a single-storey press or at the base of a multi-storey press. Figure 18 to Figure 21 show four different reel stand set ups. Table 12 details the LAeq levels measured at the reel stands and information about the reel stand environment. The LAeq levels are also shown in Figure 22.

Figure 18. Reel stand 1 Figure 19. Reel stand 2

1

2

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95LAeq, dB

24

Figure 20. Reel stand 3 Figure 21. Reel stand 4

Table 12. LAeq levels at reel stands


Reel stand environment description LAeq range (dB)

1 (Figure 18)

The entire reel stand area was boxed in, creating a very large room acoustically separate from the rest of the press machinery. The ceiling of the room had some acoustic treatment that was in a poor state of repair.

73 to 81

2 (Figure 19)

A relatively new press, where the reel stands were open to the rest of the workplace, located in a large warehouse type building. 73 to 82

3 (Figure 20)

An old press, where the reel stand area had no acoustic treatment, and where the whole of the press structure was tightly fitted into a pre-existing concrete and steel building.

84 to 91

4 (Figure 21)

A relatively new installation, in a custom-modified building with the reel stands located in acoustic enclosures. 68 to 80

Figure 22. LAeq levels at reel stands

4.4 NEWSPAPER FOLDERS

Newspaper folders are traditionally a source of high noise levels in the printing industry. They are located at the end of a print line, often adjacent to a delivery station. A product is often quality control checked at the folder, potentially exposing a worker to high noise levels. Table 13 provides information on the folder location environments together with LAeq data. Figure 25 shows the LAeq data for the folders. The LAeq data was taken at inspection points or control panels adjacent to the folders. Figure 23 shows an example of a fully acoustically enclosed

1

2

3

4

65 70 75 80 85 90 95LAeq, dB

25

folder. Figure 24 shows an example of an unenclosed folder (the visible screen is not an acoustic barrier). Inspection points next to unenclosed newspaper folders yielded the highest LAeq levels. Acoustically enclosing the folder could reduce the LAeq by 10 to 15 dB.

Figure 23. An acoustically enclosed folder Figure 24. An acoustically unenclosed folder

Table 13. LAeq levels for four folders


Folder type & acoustic control description LAeq range (dB)

1 Inspection point adjacent to an acoustically enclosed folder 84 to 90 2 Inspection point adjacent to an acoustically unenclosed folder 99 to 102 3 Inspection point adjacent to an acoustically unenclosed folder 96 to 101 4 Control panel at an acoustically unenclosed folder 91 to 97

Figure 25. LAeq levels for four newspaper folders

1

2

3

4

75 80 85 90 95 100 105LAeq, dB

26

4.5 DESPATCH

Despatch operations largely encompass packing and strapping and some finishing operations immediately prior to the point of despatch. Table 14 provides information on the despatch environment with LAeq data. Figure 26 shows LAeq levels for two despatch operations.

Table 14. LAeq levels in despatch Figure 26

y-axis identifier Despatch environment description LAeq range

(dB)

1 Small enclosed area with primarily packing and strapping activity. No acoustic controls. Immediately adjacent to presses. 85 to 86

2 Very open area with a number of different activities including strapping, packing winding, trimming – some machinery was fitted with acoustic controls.

74 to 91

Figure 26. LAeq levels in despatch

4.6 WASTE PROCESSING

Large scale waste clearing operations can be required where, for example, a large amount of material is trimmed. A large baler was used at one site visited. The baler was located in a large empty space known as a ‘bale house’. Waste trimmings, extracted from the trimming location using suction, were fed to the top of the bale house. The trimmings fell into a hopper at the top of the baling machine. When enough trimmings were in the baler, they were baled. Some trimmings fell out of the hopper and onto the floor of the bale house and required clearing manually at floor level into a scavenger fan (essentially a large suction hose). Manual clearing into the scavenger fan could be carried out using a broom or a compressed air hose. Table 15 details the LAeq levels from the bale house operations.

Table 15. LAeq levels from the ‘bale house’ operations Measurement location details LAeq

(dB) Corner of ‘bale house’; broom storage (not baling) 78 Baling machine; operator controls (not baling) 81 Operator with compressed air hose clearing trimmings to a scavenger fan (not baling) 87 In the ‘bale house’ outside an office (baler operational) 84 At rear of baler; operator access (baler operational) 84

When the baler was not baling, the noise reported in Table 15 was from the continuously running scavenger fan (a vacuum) and the compressed air hose. The use of the compressed air

1

2

70 75 80 85 90 95LAeq, dB

27

hose to manually clear trimmings that had fallen from the hopper unnecessarily exposed the operator to high noise levels (brooms were also available). The noise generated during baling operations was steady at 84 dB.

4.7 SMALL SCALE PRINTING OPERATIONS

Smaller scale printing operations tend to be used for shorter print runs. They are generally sheet-fed rather than web-fed and also tend to be more specialised, for example printing greetings cards, small box packaging, labels etc.

4.7.1 Flexographic

Flexographic presses are usually single storey installations. Table 16 and Figure 27 show the LAeq levels for ten flexographic print lines. In all cases the flexographic print lines were located in open warehouse (factory) environments.

Figure 27 shows that the LAeq levels across the flexographic lines had a range of 8 dB. In flexographic lines 1 and 3 the LAeq levels above 83 dB were all due to the label separation process. Flexographic line 7 had a known maintenance issue with a noisy turn bar.

Table 16. LAeq levels for ten flexographic print lines Figure 27

y-axis identifier Measurement location detail LAeq range

(dB) 1 Flexographic line #1; central location 80 to 84 2 Flexographic line #2; corner location 81 to 84 3 Flexographic line #3; corner location 77 to 85 4 Flexographic line #4; central location 79 to 82 5 Flexographic line #5; central location 82 6 Flexographic line #6; central location 81 7 Flexographic line #7; corner location 78 to 83 8 Flexographic line #8; central location 81 to 79 9 Flexographic line #9; central location 79

10 Flexographic line #10; central location 79

28

Figure 27. LAeq levels for ten flexographic print lines

4.7.2 Silk screen

Silk screen presses are usually single storey installations. Table 17 and Figure 28 provide LAeq levels for two silk screen print lines.

The LAeq levels relating to the compressed air pumps for both silk screen lines are identified in Figure 28. The original compressed air pump for the second line had been replaced with a lower noise pump. The difference between the old and new pumps was 1 dB, with all machinery operational. The benefit of the new pump was reduced to 1 dB, likely due to a lack of further control elsewhere.

Table 17. LAeq levels for silk screen print lines Figure 28

y-axis identifier Silk screen press environment LAeq range

(dB)

1 Located next to a wall; standard installation compressed air pump 79 to 85

2 Located next to Silk screen 1; installed with a reduced noise compressed air pump 81 to 84

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

70 75 80 85 90 95LAeq, dB

Turn bar

Label separator

29

Figure 28. LAeq levels for two silk screen print lines

4.8 WORKSTATIONS FOR OTHER PROCESSES

4.8.1 Foilers

Foiling involves laying a thin film of metallic foil onto a substrate, such as for greetings cards. Table 18 and Figure 29 show LAeq levels measured for four foiling lines.

Table 18. LAeq levels for foiling Figure 29

y-axis identifier Foiler type LAeq range

(dB) 1 Foil stamper 80 to 91 2 Foil blocker #1 76 3 Foil blocker #2 72 4 Foil blocker #3 71 to 76

Figure 29. LAeq levels for foiling

The two highest LAeq levels for the foil stamper were due to compressed air nozzles. Compressed air, forced through two flat nozzles located either side of a stack of sheet substrate, was used to separate the sheets of the substrate (Figure 30). The nozzle on the right of the substrate stack had an air leak, which increased the noise generated by that nozzle and resulted in increased LAeq levels for this foiler. Replacing the leaking nozzle, which is a small, low cost component, would reduce the noise level from this foiler.

1

2

70 75 80 85 90 95LAeq, dB

Compressed air pump

1

2

3

4

70 75 80 85 90 95LAeq, dB

Compressed air nozzle: no air leak

Compressed air nozzle: with air leak

30

Figure 30. Air nozzles at sheet delivery of the foil stamper

4.8.2 Guillotines

Table 19 contains LAeq levels measured for two powered guillotines.

Table 19. Guillotine LAeq levels Guillotine ID Measurement operating conditions LAeq (dB)

1 Machine powered and set-up 80 2 An average over six cuts 74

4.8.3 Finishing activities

Table 20 shows LAeq levels measured for finishing activities such as gathering, stacking, baling and palletising. These data are also shown in Figure 31.

Table 20. Finishing activities Figure 31

y-axis identifier Type of finishing activity LAeq range

(dB) 1 Slitting/rewind 77 to 86 2 Inserting/trimming/palletising 81 to 84 3 Inserting/palletising/stacking 78 to 82 4 Pallet wrap 76 5 Binding/trimming 82 6 Gathering 82 to 87 7 Cutting 89

31

Figure 31. LAeq levels for finishing activities

The LAeq levels broadly fall within the range 80 to 85 dB. LAeq levels measured above this range were due to specific identifiable events or noise sources. For example on finishing line 6, the level of 87 dB was due to compressed air.

4.8.4 Cut ‘n’ creasers

Table 21 contains LAeq levels measured for cut ‘n’ crease activities with information about the measurement environment. These data are also shown in Figure 32. The LAeq levels broadly fall within the 79 to 85 dB range. LAeq levels measured above this range were due to specific identifiable events or noise sources. For example, the higher levels are almost all due to the feeder end of the cut ‘n’ crease lines. The noise levels generally decreased from the feeder end to the delivery end of the lines. Cut ‘n’ creaser 4 had a turntable with a switchable vibrator. Switching the vibrator on increased the local noise level by 3 dB.

Table 21. LAeq levels for cut ‘n’ crease Figure 32

y-axis identifier Description of measurement environment LAeq range

(dB) 1 Delivery end located next to a wall; machines on one side 79 to 84 2 Delivery end located next to a wall; machines on one side 78 to 91 3 Delivery end located next to a wall; machines either side 80 to 83 4 Located against a wall along full length of machine 79 to 82 5 Located centrally with machines either side 79 to 85 6 Located centrally with machines either side 78 to 83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

75 80 85 90LAeq, dB

Cutter

Air noise

Idling

Adjacent to machine

Measured whilst

followingoperators

32

Figure 32. LAeq levels for cut ‘n’ crease

4.8.5 Laminators

Figure 33 shows the LAeq levels measured along the length of a laminator. Table 22 gives information on the measurement locations. The LAeq levels were between 79 and 81 dB along the length of the machine. The laminator was located under a partial mezzanine floor with the full length of the machine up against a wall. The hard, flat surfaces of the wall and the underside of the mezzanine floor will reflect noise from the machine into the work environment.

Table 22. LAeq levels along the length of a laminating line Figure 33

y-axis identifier Measurement location LAeq

(dB)

1 Machine feeder 80 2 Feeder operator station 79 3 Nipper operator station 81 4 Delivery operator station 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

75 80 85 90 95LAeq, dB

Feeder

Turntable with vibrator running

Feeder

Turntable without vibrator running

33

Figure 33. LAeq levels along the length of a laminating line

4.8.6 Inserters

Inserters were part of the digital mail process in the printing sites visited. Table 23 contains LAeq levels measured for seven insertion lines with a description of their location within the measurement environment. The data are also shown in Figure 34.

Table 23. LAeq levels for seven insertion lines Figure 34

y-axis identifier Inserter location description LAeq range

(dB) 1 Middle of a large open warehouse type space 80 to 83 2 Large open warehouse type space; against a wall 80 to 84 3 Middle of a large open warehouse type space 81 4 Large open warehouse type space; against a wall 80 to 86 5 Large open warehouse type space; against a wall 82 to 86 6 Middle of a large open warehouse type space 85 7 Middle of a large open warehouse type space 86

1

2

3

4

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85LAeq, dB

34

Figure 34. LAeq levels for seven insertion lines

4.8.7 Winders

Table 24 contains LAeq levels measured for a stand-alone winder unit, similar to that shown in Figure 35.

Table 24. Winder LAeq levels Measurement location description LAeq (dB)

At the operator seat location 80 In the middle of the room in which the winder was located 82

Figure 35. Example of a stand-alone winder

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

75 80 85 90LAeq, dB

35

4.8.8 Gluers

Noise measurements were made at a number of workstations on a gluing line, similar to that shown in Figure 36. The LAeq levels are shown in Figure 37 and Table 25. The measurement locations defined in Figure 37 and Table 25 are given sequentially along the length of the gluing line, from the feeder to the packing area. The gluing line was located next to a wall that ran along the length of the machine. The hard, flat surface of the wall will reflect noise from the machine into the work environment.

The noisiest parts of the gluing line process were the gluing point and two specified workstations. Workers would typically be located at the specified workstations during normal operation of the machine.

Figure 36. Example of a gluing line

Table 25. LAeq levels along the length of a gluing line


Measurement location LAeq (dB)

1 Feeder 85 2 Workstation 1 88 3 Workstation 2 88 4 Gluing point 89 5 Packing station 82

Figure 37. LAeq levels along the length of a gluing line

4.8.9 Strip waste capture

Strip waste capture is when the waste stream from a labelling line, for example, is drawn away from the label printing machinery directly into a waste receptacle. Two examples of strip waste capture were observed during the site visits. Both methods used compressed air, which can generate high levels of noise. Figure 38 shows a system that blows waste into a receptacle

1

2

3

4

5

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90LAeq, dB

36

through a short cylinder; Figure 39 shows one that sucks waste into a receptacle through a tube. The two methods generated LAeq levels of 87 dB and 94 dB respectively.

Figure 38. Blowing of strip waste

(LAeq at 0.5m: 87 dB) Figure 39. Suction of strip waste

(LAeq at 0.5m: 94 dB)

4.9 LEP,d ESTIMATES FOR TYPICAL ROLES

The LAeq levels logged by the dosemeters across the eight site visits were used to estimate 41 daily personal noise exposures (LEP,d). The LEP,d estimates were calculated using the HSE Daily Noise Exposure Calculator8. Duration information was taken from shift patterns for each dosemeter wearer. The individual outputs from each dosemeter are given in Appendix B and show the variation in LAeq and LCpk across the measurement period.

According to HSE guidance7, when estimating a worker’s LEP,d information is needed on:

• The average noise level (LAeq) to which the worker is exposed during the tasks that make up the working day; and

• The length of time the worker spends on each of these tasks.

Account should also be taken of other possible influences on noise exposure, for example, break times, carrying out duties not normally associated with their assigned role etc.

Some workers do have very defined roles, keeping them at a particular location or with a specific piece of machinery, for example job roles identified as ‘No.1 Printer’ or ‘Assistant Printer’. Others can be much more mobile with multiple roles and responsibilities, for example ‘Printer (small press)’. The acoustic environment can also greatly influence a worker’s noise exposure. A long period of time spent in a reverberant working environment is likely to result in a higher noise exposure than a long period of time in a non-reverberant environment. Examples of this combination of role, acoustic environment and duration are given in Sections 4.9.1 to 4.9.5.

It was observed that folder noise was high. In some lines the folder was enclosed but operators had to enter the enclosure to access controls. Folder noise appears to contribute greatly to the noise exposure of the ‘printer team leader’, ‘No1. Printer’, ‘No.2 Printer’, ‘No.1 & No.2 Printer (combined role)’, ‘Assistant Printer’ and ‘Printer (large press)’.

Table 26 and Figure 40 detail 41 LEP,d estimates from the eight site visits.

37

Table 26. LEP,d estimates for typical job roles Job role Estimated LEP,d (dB) Printer team leader 89 No1. Printer 82 85 91 89 80 No.2 Printer 85 85 94 No.1 & No.2 Printer (combined role) 85

Assistant Printer 84 85 Printer (large press) 87 91 86 86 81 Printer (small press) 80 82 79 Stacker 85 Reel stand operator 85 83 86 76 Despatch operator 83 Finisher 83 82 83 85 79 Cut ‘n’ crease operator 83 81 86 86 Laminator 87 82 Inserter 84 84 87 Jet wash operator 93

Figure 40. LEP,d estimates for typical job roles

75

80

85

90

95

L EP,

d, dB

Lower Exposure Action Value Upper Exposure Action Value

38

4.9.1 No.1 Printers

Large presses often have a team of printers to ensure their smooth running. Within the team there has traditionally been a hierarchical structure:

• No.1 printer/team leader who has overall responsibility for the team of printers and the output from the press.

• No.2 printer who has a more hands-on role, seeing to the press when required. • Assistant who may work for more than one team and whose role is fully ‘hands-on’,

spending the most time seeing to the press, ensuring it is running optimally for the item in production.

Five LEP,d estimates for No. 1 printers are included in Figure 40. Details of the work environments in which these printers were working are given in Table 27. The results demonstrate the importance of effective acoustic enclosures, as LEP,d estimates inside a poor acoustic enclosure can be as high as 91 dB. The results also show the importance of understanding working patterns. For example, the LEP,d for one printer working in an environment with no acoustic controls was 80 dB. However, this was because he had spent a large proportion of the time over which the dosemeter was logging in a quieter environment (see Figure B6 in Appendix B).

Table 27. LEP,d estimates for five “No.1 Printers” Report section

reference Working environment description LEP,d

(dB)

4.1.4 Large open warehouse; several single storey web-fed presses adjacent to each other; no acoustic controls 80

4.1.1 Large open warehouse; several multi-storey web-fed presses adjacent to each other; operator controls and workstations outside modern and acoustically well enclosed presses

82

85

4.1.2 Large multi-storey presses adjacent to each another; operator controls and workstations inside poor acoustic enclosure

89

4.2 91

4.9.2 Printer (large press)

Presses can be attended by one person, a “Printer”, sometimes with an assistant who works across a number of presses. The Printer assumes the traditional roles of No.1 and No.2 Printers; and if there is no assistant, the assistant role too.

Five LEP,d estimates for Printers working at large presses are included in Figure 40. Details of the environments in which these printers were working are given in Table 28.

39

Table 28. LEP,d estimates for five “Printers (large presses)” Report section


(dB)

4.1.4

Large open warehouse; lone single storey web-fed press adjacent to wall along entire length of press; no acoustic controls 81

Large open warehouse; several large multi-storey web-fed presses adjacent to each other; no acoustic controls 86

Large open warehouse; several single storey web-fed presses adjacent to each other; no acoustic controls 87

4.1.2 Single storey press; one of several adjacent to each another; operator controls and workstations inside poor acoustic enclosure

86 91

It is likely that the higher LEP,d estimates were influenced by high noise levels inside a poor acoustic enclosure. It is difficult to comment further without knowing in more detail the movements of each worker throughout their normal working day. For example, the location of a press in a large warehouse partially separated by storage and racking, can result in lower noise exposures.

4.9.3 Printer (small press)

Smaller presses are more likely to be attended by a single “Printer”. Figure 40 includes three LEP,d estimates for “Printer (small press)”. Table 29 provides additional information for these data.

Table 29. LEP,d estimates for three “Printers (small presses)” Report section


(dB)

4.7.1 At one of several flexographic lines adjacent to each other in a large open warehouse 79

4.7.2 Two separate silk screen presses, each attended by a Printer; adjacent to each other in a large warehouse type environment

80 4.7.2 82

Smaller presses typically generate lower levels of noise (Table 4). They also have more down time than larger presses. Consequently the daily personal noise exposures are likely to be lower, in the region of 79 to 82 dB.

4.9.4 Reel hands

The role of a reel hand, or reel stand operator, is to ensure a constant supply of web to a large web-fed printing press. On large, multi-storey presses, the reel stands and reel hands are usually located at ground floor or subterranean level.

Table 30 contains the LEP,d estimates obtained for reel hands working in different the printing environments shown in Figure 18 to Figure 21 and described in Table 11.

For reel hands working at older presses and those located in poor acoustic environments, LEP,d estimates were between 83 and 86 dB. Lower noise exposures were observed for reel hands working at reel stands located in acoustic enclosures; LEP,d estimates were 76 dB.

40

Table 30. LEP,d estimates for four reel hands at four large multi-storey presses Reel stand Reel stand environment description LEP,d

(dB)

1. The entire reel stand area was boxed in, creating a very large room acoustically separate from the rest of the press machinery. The ceiling of the room had some acoustic treatment in a poor state of repair.

85

2. A relatively new press, where the reel stands were open to the rest of the environment, located in a large warehouse type building. 83

3. An old press, where the general environment had no acoustic treatment, and where the whole of the press structure was tightly fitted into a pre-existing concrete and steel building.

86

4. A relatively new installation, in a custom-modified building with the reel stands in acoustic enclosures. 76

4.9.5 Jet wash operator

The screens used in silk screen printing can be prepared and cleaned using a hand-held high power jet washer. The activity was carried out in a dedicated small and fully enclosed room known as the jet wash bay. A single worker was assigned to the jet wash bay. When not jet washing, the worker carried out general printing duties.

The LEP,d estimate for a jet wash operator was 93 dB. Figure B41 in Appendix B shows that the jet washing activity made a significant contribution to this exposure level with LAeq levels up to 101 dB.

4.10 CONTROLLING NOISE AND REDUCING NOISE EXPOSURE

4.10.1 Use and improvement of existing controls to maximum effect

Where equipment has been provided for noise control, the CNWR 2005 place a legal duty on employers to maintain the noise control equipment, to ensure it remains effective. Figures 40 to 47 show examples from the printing industry of poorly maintained equipment. Based on these examples, the following measures have been identified, that could reduce noise levels:

• Repairing broken seals on acoustic doors (Figure 41) • Fitting acoustic tunnels to openings cut into noise havens or enclosures to minimise

noise leaks • Resealing openings cut into noise havens when they are no longer used (Figure 42) • Keeping absorptive acoustic panels clean and not painted over (Figure 43) • Ensuring silencers are fitted to airline exhausts • Sealing leaks in compressed air lines (Figure 44) • Refitting rattling panels (Figure 45) and replacing broken panels (Figure 46) • Repairing or replacing noisy air pumps, clutches, turn bars, etc

41

Figure 41. Broken acoustic door seal Figure 42. Disused opening into haven

Figure 43. Painted over acoustic panels Figure 44. Air leak from supply pipe

Figure 45. Fixing bolts missing Figure 46. Broken glass panel

At some printing sites, the doors to noise havens or machine enclosures were propped open as shown in Figure 47 and Figure 48. In addition to maintaining existing equipment, using noise controls as intended is also necessary to effectively control noise.

42

Figure 47.

Machine enclosure doors left open Figure 48.

Machine enclosure doors left open

At some sites, partial enclosures were installed around print presses, but were missing a roof (Figure 49). The enclosures could be improved by completing them with the installation of an enclosure roof.

Figure 49. Partial machine enclosure

A common reason given for propping open the door to a machine enclosure was that print workers needed to access press controls inside the enclosure, where the noise level was much higher. A comparatively small amount of time spent in high noise levels can have a large impact 43

on a print worker’s noise exposure. Eliminating the need to enter the enclosure reduces the noise exposure. An example is shown in Figure 50. This is a time history for a ‘Printer (large press)’ and was 2 hours 20 minutes long (described in Table 28 as “single storey press; one of several adjacent to each another; operator controls and workstations inside poor acoustic enclosure”; also shown in Figure B14 in Appendix B). The dashed black line is the original data with an LAeq (average noise level) over the 2 hours 20 minutes, of 84.7 dB. The sharp peaks in the dashed black line, at or exceeding 90 dB, represent 6 minutes spent inside a machine enclosure, accessing press controls. The LAeq (average noise level) will be reduced by eliminating the need to enter the machine enclosure, for example by relocating the press controls, redesigning the enclosure, or redesigning the process. The solid grey line is an artificial manipulation of the same time history, representing the print worker not entering the enclosure. The noise levels for the 6 minutes spent inside the enclosure have been replaced with the lower noise levels outside the enclosure. The LAeq (average noise level) for the 2 hours 20 minutes is reduced to 80.8 dB.

Figure 50. Time history for a ‘Printer (large press)’; 2 hours 20 minutes

To estimate the print worker’s noise exposure, LEP,d, the shift length and the LAeq (average noise level) information can be used with the HSE Daily Noise Exposure Calculator8. The print worker had a 12 hour shift. If the print worker enters the machine enclosure, and therefore has an LAeq of 84.7 dB over a 12 hour shift, their LEP,d will be 86 dB, exceeding the Upper Exposure Action Value. If the print worker does not enter the machine enclosure, and has a lower LAeq of 80.8 dB over a 12 hour shift, their LEP,d will be 83 dB, between the Lower and Upper Exposure Action Values.

4.10.2 Use of organisational controls

Organisational controls are ones that do not rely on technological solutions or advances. Examples of where organisational controls could be implemented included:

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101

105

109

113

117

121

125

129

133

137

dB

Minutes

2hr 20min LAeq = 80.8 dB 2hr 20min LAeq = 84.7 dB

44

• Turning off noisy machinery when not in use. Ancillary equipment for a print press undergoing maintenance was still running. There was no need for the ancillary equipment to run and it could have been switched off.

• Decommissioning and removing redundant machinery from site. A section of chain link ran through a despatch area. The section of chain link was no longer required.

• Managing noise exposure for all employees. A worker assigned to cleaning duties was observed moving around a press hall, manually cleaning up small spillages and ensuring a clean working environment. The worker was frequently in the vicinity of operational presses, folders and other noisy machinery. Whilst the press team were able to retreat to a noise haven it was not clear if or how the cleaner’s noise exposure was being assessed, controlled or managed.

• Reducing the doubling of effort. During print quality checks, a print operator checked copy at a folder whilst another checked copy at a forwarding station within a noise haven. This appeared to be a doubling of effort, unnecessarily exposing the operator at the folder to noise levels 15 dB higher than in the noise haven.

4.10.3 Use and provision of hearing protection

The printing industry is a high noise industry and it is likely that hearing protection will be needed. The use of hearing protection was observed at all of the sites visited. At more modern sites, where technical and organisational means of reducing noise were already in place, hearing protection use was only required for activities identified as noisy, meaning it was only used when necessary. At sites where older machinery and technology was in use, hearing protection was relied on as the primary control measure. Using hearing protection in this way is not acceptable as a long-term solution and must not be used an alternative to controlling noise by technical and organisational means. For hearing protection to be effective it must be worn all of the time when in the noisy environment.

At some sites it was evident that routine use of hearing protection was an accepted and integral part of the safety culture. At other sites, it was less clear if the safety culture supported and managed the use of hearing protection or if it was left to workers to decide if they wanted or needed hearing protection.

Correct fitting of hearing protection varied across all sites, irrespective of the routine nature of use (or not). Earmuffs were generally correctly fitted, earplugs were not. All sites that used earplugs had varieties that required rolling down prior to insertion into the ear canal. The difficulties associated with correctly fitting this type of earplug make it difficult to achieve the anticipated attenuation. Examples of hearing protector fit from the sites visited are shown in Figure 51 to Figure 53.

45

Figure 51. Poorly fitted roll

down earplug Figure 52. Well fitted earmuff Figure 53. Poorly fitted roll

down earplug Correct care and maintenance of hearing protection was varied. For hearing protection to be effective it must be kept in good condition. This is particularly the case for reusable hearing protection such as earmuffs or reusable earplugs. Single use earplugs must not be re-used multiple times. Roll down earplugs are prone to contamination, for example transfer of printing ink from fingers to the earplug. Earmuffs ought to be stored in a clean and dry place such as a storage locker, when not in use. Examples of poor condition hearing protection are shown in Figure 54 and Figure 55.

Figure 54. Roll down earplug with ink

contamination Figure 55. Abandoned earmuff

Appropriate selection of hearing protection was not studied as part of the visits, nor was the provision of training.

Table 31 summarises the types of hearing protection observed in use at each site, whether its use was routine, an indication of how well the hearing protection was fitted and its general condition.

46

Table 31. Summary of hearing protection use at the eight printing sites

Site ID Types of hearing protector Routine use Fit

Condition of the protection

observed A Earmuffs & earplugs Yes Earplugs ill fitted Satisfactory B Earmuffs & earplugs Yes Earplugs ill fitted Unsatisfactory

C Earmuffs & earplugs Only at jet wash bay but available throughout if required.

Earplugs ill fitted Unsatisfactory

D Earmuffs & earplugs Yes, in Hearing Protection Zone. Earplugs ill fitted Satisfactory

E Earmuffs & earplugs Yes Earmuffs good. Earplugs ill fitted. Satisfactory

F Earmuffs & earplugs Yes Earmuffs good. Earplugs ill fitted.

Mostly satisfactory

G Earmuffs & earplugs Yes

Earmuffs good. Earplugs ill fitted. Induction video showed an incorrect earplug fit.

Satisfactory

H Earmuffs & earplugs Yes Earmuffs good. Earplugs ill fitted. Satisfactory

Hearing Protection Zones (HPZ) are required where workers are likely to be regularly exposed at or above the Upper Exposure Action Value (85 dB LEP,d). They must not be used as an alternative to controlling noise by technical and organisational means. All the printing premises visited as part of this study had areas designated as HPZ. Their extent varied from whole departments to particular machines to specific areas of a specific machine. Table 32 describes the HPZ implemented at the eight sites.

47

Table 32. Summary of the HPZs observed at the eight printing sites Site ID Extent of HPZ

A • Whole department (20 machines)

B • Each of four multi-storey presses • Cutter / folder areas

C • Jet wash bay

D • One particular single storey press (with a known maintenance issue) • Waste blowers

E

• Inside the noise enclosures for each of five multi-storey presses • At the reel stands for each of five multi-storey presses (not covered by the noise

enclosure) • Throughout a finishing department (five machines)

F • Whole press hall (two multi-storey presses) • Reel stands • In a despatch area (four machines)

G • Whole press hall (six multi-storey presses) • Reel stands • In an insertion area (nine machines)

H • Each of four single storey presses • In a cut ‘n’ crease department (seven machines) • At a single storey press

4.11 SUCCESS OF THE PRINTING MACHINERY STANDARDS

Noise information from fifteen printing machinery instruction handbooks was collected during the eight printing site visits. The noise emission information in these instructions was assessed against the requirements of the Machinery Directive9 to:

• Review the noise-related clauses within safety standards for printing machinery to identify what manufacturers are required to do with regard to measuring and reporting machinery noise.

• Assess declared noise emission information against the noise-related requirements of the Machinery Directive.

• Establish whether the noise emission information provided with printing machinery would enable purchasers to adequately assess and manage the risks from noise.

The results of this assessment are reported separately10, 11. A summary is included here.

Harmonised safety standards and a noise test code exist for printing machinery: EN 1010 series, EN 1034 series and EN 13023:2003+A1:2010. Compliance with the normative clauses of these standards, within the limits of the scope of the standards, enables manufacturers to demonstrate conformity with the essential health and safety requirements for noise defined in the Machinery Directive.

48

Nine of the fifteen instructions collected from the printing sites contained noise emission values that were traceable to appropriate harmonised standards or noise test codes and credible with regard to the stated operating conditions.

The operating conditions specified in EN 13023:2003+A1:2010, the noise test code for printing machinery, represent normal use. The declared noise emission values in eleven of the fifteen instruction handbooks were comparable with real use noise levels measured for the same machines. The declared noise emission data were generally considered to be a reliable indicator of real use risk.

Information on protective measures was included in eleven of the fifteen instruction handbooks. This included information on using hearing protection, acoustic enclosures and sound covers.

Residual risk information was not required for eleven of the fifteen machines assessed. However, machine-specific information to help assess and manage real use risk was not provided where the emission data did not reflect real use risk.

The assessment of a sample of instruction handbooks for printing machinery showed that the majority contained declared noise emission information that would help the user assess and manage real use risk.

49

5 CONCLUSIONS

The sites visited in this study were a mixture of modern and traditional printing premises with a wide variety of outputs. The outputs ranged from newspapers to glossy inserts to specialist finishing to pharmaceutical packaging. Each site had a unique set of noise control and management challenges. The challenges largely arose from the combination of the type of output, the machinery (age and maintenance), the structure and layout of the workplace, and the utilisation of (existing) noise controls. Despite the uniqueness of each site, it was possible to identify common sources of noise, likely LAeq levels associated with those noise sources and commonly applicable and effective noise controls.

In the 30 years since the previous HSE study of noise in the printing industry there has been a reduction in the noise levels (LAeq) and exposure values (LEP,d) in the industry (in the order of 6 dB for both parameters). However, high noise levels and exposures are still observed, potentially putting printing machinery workers at risk of developing work-related hearing damage. Data from this study showed that 54% of the sample population had noise exposure estimates above the upper exposure action value (LEP,d 85 dB). An additional 39% of the sample population had noise exposure estimates between the lower and upper exposure action values (80 dB ≤ LEP,d < 85 dB). Therefore a total of 93% of the sample population had noise exposure estimates above the lower exposure action value (LEP,d 80 dB).

This study has shown that, through the effective use, maintenance and management of noise controls from across the hierarchy of control, it is possible to keep the noise exposures of workers to a minimum. Examples included:

• Modern reel stands in acoustic enclosures instead of older, unenclosed reel stands in an already noisy environment.

• Modern, well designed and maintained havens instead of ill-modified and poorly maintained havens.

• Eliminating the need for print workers to attend presses inside machine enclosures, even for very short durations (minutes over a working day).

Organisational controls could reduce risk by increasing use or effectiveness of acoustic barriers, improving maintenance or improving use of hearing protection.

Hearing protection was widely used at all sites visited. Earmuff use, care and maintenance were generally good. However, earplugs were generally poorly or incorrectly fitted and they were not well looked after. This difference between earmuff and earplug use was independent of the safety culture at the different sites. The printing industry is still a high noise industry. It remains likely that some ongoing use of hearing protection will be required.

Noise information from fifteen printing machinery instruction handbooks was collected during the eight printing site visits. The noise emission information in the handbooks was assessed against the requirements of the European Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC. The assessment showed that the majority of handbooks contained declared noise emission information that would help the user assess and manage real-use risk.

Those with responsibility for controlling noise at printing premises should review their risk assessment and ensure that appropriate controls are in place.

50

6 REFERENCES

1. British Printing Industries Federation. “STRONGER TOGETHER, UK PRINTING THE FACTS & FIGURES”. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/34253176/here-british-printing-industries-federation. Accessed November 2017.

2. Shanks, E. 2013. Noise in the United Kingdom printing industry: then and now. Proceedings of InterNoise 2014. ISBN 978-0-909882-04-4. http://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/INTERNOISE2014/index.htm. Accessed November 2017.

3. The Noise at Work Regulations 1989. Statutory Instrument 1989 No. 1790.

4. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 12 May 1986 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work (86/188/EEC).

5. The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1643.

6. Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise).

7. Controlling Noise at Work. The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. Guidance on Regulations. L108. HSE Books.

8. HSE Daily Noise Exposure Calculator. http://www.hse.gov.uk/noise/calculator.htm Accessed November 2017.

9. Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast).

10. Brereton P and Patel J. 2015. Noise risk as described in instructions for printing machinery supplied in Europe. Proceedings of EuroNoise 2015. ISSN 2226-5147.

11. Patel, J. 2016. Noise risk as described in instructions supplied with printing machinery. Research Report RR1086. HSE Books: Sudbury. http://www.hse.gov.uk/researcH/rrhtm/rr1086.htm. Accessed November 2017.

51

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/34253176/here-british-printing-industries-federation

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/34253176/here-british-printing-industries-federation

http://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/INTERNOISE2014/index.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/noise/calculator.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/researcH/rrhtm/rr1086.htm

APPENDIX A: MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT DETAILS

The eight site visits took place between 17 March 2010 and 04 July 2011. The equipment used and its calibration status is detailed in Table A1.

Table A1. Measurement equipment and the calibration intervals Equipment type Manufacturer Model Serial No. NVI

No. Last

calibration Calibration

due Site A – 17 March 2010 Dosemeter CEL 360 075795 - Feb 2009 Feb 2011 Dosemeter CEL 360 075793 - Jan 2009 Jan 2011 Dosemeter CEL 460 0691608 691F Feb 2010 Feb 2012 Calibrator CEL 110/2 026392 733 Feb 2010 Feb 2011 Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2260 2305154 701 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2294166 702 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2309005 703 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Site B – 18 March 2010 Dosemeter CEL 360 075795 - Feb 2009 Feb 2011 Dosemeter CEL 360 075793 - Jan 2009 Jan 2011 Dosemeter CEL 460 0691608 691F Feb 2010 Feb 2012 Calibrator CEL 110/2 026392 733 Feb 2010 Feb 2011 Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2260 2305154 701 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2294166 702 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2309005 703 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Site C – 15 July 2010 Dosemeter CEL 360 95157 - Jan 2009 Jan 2011 Dosemeter CEL 360 075793 - Jan 2009 Jan 2011 Dosemeter CEL 460 0691603 - Jun 2010 Jun 2012 Calibrator CEL 110/2 026392 733 Feb 2010 Feb 2012 Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2260 2305154 701 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2294166 702 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2309005 703 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Site D – 12 October 2010 Dosemeter CEL 460 691605 691C Mar 2010 Mar 2012 Dosemeter CEL 460 691607 691E Mar 2010 Mar 2012 Dosemeter CEL 460 691608 691F Feb 2010 Feb 2012 Dosemeter CEL 350 1261624 - Jun 2010 Jun 2012 Calibrator CEL 110/2 026392 733 Feb 2010 Feb 2012 Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2260 2305154 701 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2294166 702 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2309005 703 Jun 2009 Jun 2011

52

Equipment type Manufacturer Model Serial No. NVI No.

Last calibration

Calibration due

Site E – 11 January 2011 Dosemeter CEL 460 691605 691C Mar 2010 Mar 2012 Dosemeter CEL 460 691607 691E Mar 2010 Mar 2012 Dosemeter CEL 460 691608 691F Feb 2010 Feb 2012 Calibrator CEL 110/2 095651 - Feb 2010 Feb 2012 Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2260 2305154 701 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2294166 702 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2309005 703 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Sound Level Meter 2 Brüel & Kjær 2250-L 2620720 - May 2010 May 2011 Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4950 2606533 - May 2010 May 2011 Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2610074 - May 2010 May 2011 Site F – 03-04 March 2011 Dosemeter CEL 360 075793 - Jan 2011 Jan 2013 Dosemeter CEL 360 075795 - Jan 2011 Jan 2013 Dosemeter CEL 460 691608 691F Feb 2010 Feb 2012 Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2260 2305154 701 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2294166 702 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2309005 703 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Site G – 04 May 2011 Dosemeter CEL 460 691603 691B Jun 2010 Jun 2012 Dosemeter CEL 460 691605 691C Mar 2010 Mar 2012 Dosemeter CEL 460 691606 691D Mar 2010 Mar 2012 Calibrator CEL 110/2 26392 733 Mar 2010 Mar 2012 Sound level meter Brüel & Kjær 2260 2305154 701 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2294166 702 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2309005 703 Jun 2009 Jun 2011 Site H – 04 July 2011 Dosemeter CEL 460 691607 691E Mar 2010 Mar 2012 Dosemeter CEL 350 1261624 - Jun 2010 Jun 2012 Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2260 2305154 701 Jun 2009 Jun 2011* Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 2294166 702 Jun 2009 Jun 2011* Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2309005 703 Jun 2009 Jun 2011* Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250-L 2620720 - Apr 2011 Apr 2012 Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4950 2606533 - Apr 2011 Apr 2012 *Equipment checked to BS7580-2 by HSL. Full calibration in July 2011 fully compliant.

53

APPENDIX B: DOSEMETER OUTPUTS

The dosemeter outputs show the variation in LAeq and LCpk across the measurement duration. The measurement durations were between two and four hours. The durations were intended to be representative of full shifts, which varied between 7½ and 12 hours. The data are grouped by role, using the same groupings as in Figure 40 and Table 26 (Section 4.9) (i.e. across different sites for similar operations). For all graphs the x-axis denotes a logging point at 1 minute intervals. Times and dates of logging have been removed to maintain site anonymity. For all graphs the y-axis range is 70 to 140 dB, i.e. the measurement range of the dosemeters. Data falling below 70 dB were outside the measurement range of the dosemeter. For each output the estimated LEP,d is also shown.

B1 Printer team leader

Figure B1. Print team leader (LEP,d 89 dB)

B2 No.1 Printer

These outputs are for five separate No.1 printers.

Figure B2. No.1 Printer (LEP,d 82 dB) Figure B3. No.1 Printer (LEP,d 85 dB)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100

103

106

109

dB

Logging point

LAeq dB, (A) LCpk dB, (C)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63

dB

Logging point

CPEAK dB, (C) Leq dB, (A)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101105109113

dB

Logging point


54


Figure B6. No.1 Printer (LEP,d 80 dB)

B3 No.2 Printer

These outputs are for three separate No.2 printers.


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101

105

109

113

117

121

125

129

133

137

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100

103

106

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101105109113

dB

Logging point


55

Figure B9. No.2 Printer (LEP,d 94 dB)

B4 No.1 and No.2 printer

This output is for one worker who assumed the roles of both the No.1 and No.2 Printers.

Figure B10. No.1 & No.2 Printer (LEP,d 85 dB)

B5 Assistant printer

These outputs are for two separate Assistant Printers.

Figure B11. Assistant Printer (LEP,d 84 dB) Figure B12. Assistant Printer (LEP,d 85 dB)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100

103

106

109

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103

109

115

121

127

133

139

145

151

157

163

169

175

181

187

193

199

205

211

217

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100

109

118

127

136

145

154

163

172

181

190

199

208

217

226

235

244

253

262

271

280

289

298

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91

dB

Logging point


56

B6 Printer (large press)

These outputs are for five separate Printers at large presses.

Figure B13. Printer (large press) (LEP,d 81 dB) Figure B14. Printer (large press) (LEP,d 86 dB)

Figure B15. Printer (large press) (LEP,d 87 dB) Figure B16. Printer (large press) (LEP,d 86 dB)

Figure B17. Printer (large press) (LEP,d 91 dB)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101

105

109

113

117

121

125

129

133

137

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91

dB

Logging point


57

B7 Printer (small press)

These outputs are for three separate Printers at small presses.

Figure B18. Printer (small press) (LEP,d 79 dB) Figure B19. Printer (small press) (LEP,d 80 dB)

Figure B20. Printer (small press) (LEP,d 82 dB)

B8 Stacker

Figure B21. Stacker (LEP,d 85 dB)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101

105

109

113

117

121

125

129

133

137

141

145

dB

Logging point


58

B9 Reel hand

These outputs are for four separate reel hands at four separate reel stands.

Figure B22. Reel hand (LEP,d 85 dB) Figure B23. Reel hand (LEP,d 83 dB)

Figure B24. Reel hand (LEP,d 86 dB) Figure B25. Reel hand (LEP,d 76 dB)

B10 Despatcher

Figure B26. Despatcher (LEP,d 83 dB)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101

105

109

113

117

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100

109

118

127

136

145

154

163

172

181

190

199

208

217

226

235

244

253

262

271

280

289

298

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101

105

109

113

117

121

125

129

133

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

1401 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103

109

115

121

127

133

139

145

151

157

163

169

175

181

187

193

199

205

211

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101

105

109

113

117

121

125

129

133

137

141

145

dB

Logging point


59

B11 Finisher

These outputs are for five separate finishers.

Figure B27. Finisher (LEP,d 83 dB) Figure B28. Finisher (LEP,d 82 dB)

Figure B29. Finisher (LEP,d 83 dB) Figure B30. Finisher (LEP,d 85 dB)

Figure B31. Finisher (LEP,d 79 dB)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100

103

106

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63

dB

Logging point


60

B12 Cut ‘n’ crease operator

These outputs are for four separate Cut ‘n’ Crease (C’n’C) operators.

Figure B32. C‘n’C operator (LEP,d 83 dB) Figure B33. C‘n’C operator (LEP,d 81 dB)

Figure B34. C‘n’C operator (LEP,d 86 dB) Figure B35. C‘n’C operator (LEP,d 86 dB)

B13 Laminator

These outputs are for two separate Laminators.

Figure B36. Laminator (LEP,d 87 dB) Figure B37. Laminator (LEP,d 82 dB)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779818385

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 111315171921232527293133353739414345474951535557596163656769717375777981

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100

103

106

dB

Logging point


61

B14 Inserter

These outputs are for three separate Inserters.

Figure B38. Inserter (LEP,d 84 dB) Figure B39. Inserter (LEP,d 84 dB)

Figure B40. Inserter (LEP,d 87 dB)

B15 Jet wash operator

Figure B41. Jet wash (LEP,d 93 dB)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 111315171921232527293133353739414345474951535557596163656769717375777981838587

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567697173757779818385

dB

Logging point


70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101105109113

dB

Logging point


62

GLOSSARY

This glossary was compiled from information available on the British Printing Industries Federation website and the Fine Print NYC website (both accessed August 2015). http://www.britishprint.com/page.asp?node=2954&sec=Print_Process http://fineprintnyc.com/terms/a

Method of image transfer

Direct Ink is transferred from the image carrier directly to the substrate.

Indirect (or offset) Ink is transferred to the substrate from a blanket that carries an impression from the printing plate, rather than directly from the printing plate itself.

Type of image carrier

Intaglio A method of printing in which an image or letter is cut into the surface of wood or metal, creating tiny wells. Printing ink sits in these wells, and the paper is pressed onto the plate and into the wells, picking up the ink. When touched, a 3-D effect printed effect is felt.

Planographic A method for printing ink onto paper in which the image sits on the same surface as the printing plate. The image area is greased to attract ink, while the rest of the plate attracts water and repels ink. As the paper is pressed onto the flat surface of the plate, it picks up ink from the greasy image areas and a small bit of water from blank areas. This is the printing process used in lithography and offset lithography.

Relief A method for printing ink on paper, using images that rise above the surface of the printing plate. Ink sits on top of these raised surfaces, and as the paper is pressed onto them it picks up ink. Letterpress, flexography, and rubber stamps all use relief plates. In letterpress, intense pressure can cause images to be slightly debossed or depressed below the surface of the paper.

Screen A method of printing in which the image is transferred to the substrate by pushing ink through a porous screen, such as nylon, which carries the pictorial or typographic image.

Printing processes

Digital printing Digital printing is a type of printing, which uses a digital imaging process that transfers the image directly onto plain paper immediately, without traditional offset rollers and plates.

Flexography (direct / relief) Flexography is a direct (not offset) printing method, which uses relief plates, similar to rubber stamps, that are made from rubber or photopolymer. The flexible plates are wrapped around a cylinder on the printing press. Flexography works best when printing large areas of solid colour, making it popular for printing plastic bags, wrapping paper, and milk cartons. It is also used for the Sunday colour comics, newspaper inserts and printing onto rubber.

63

http://www.britishprint.com/page.asp?node=2954&sec=Print_Process

http://fineprintnyc.com/terms/a

Foiling (blocking or stamping) Foil blocking: a process for stamping a design on a book cover without ink by using a coloured foil with pressure from a heated die or block.

Foil stamping: a process for covering paper with a thin, flexible sheet of metal or other material. The foil, which may be clear or opaque, comes in a range of colours, and is carried on a plastic sheet. Stamping separates the foil from the plastic and makes it adhere to the paper. Foil stamping can be combined with embossing or debossing as an added design element.

Gravure (direct / intaglio) Gravure is a printing process that uses intaglio, or recessed, image carriers. The image carrier, which is flat or cylindrical, moves through an ink pool. A blade scrapes excess ink off the plane of the plate, leaving ink in the recessed wells. A second cylinder presses the paper onto the plates, where it picks up ink from the wells. The high speed of gravure presses and the durability of the metal intaglio plates make gravure an economical printing method suitable for large print runs (more than two million copies). The process is also known as roto-gravure.

Lamination Laminating is the process of bonding a plastic film to a printed sheet with heat and pressure. This gives the printed sheet protection and a glossy finish.

Letterpress (direct / relief) Letterpress printing is carried out using cast metal type or plates on which the image or printing area is raised above the non-printing areas. Ink rollers touch only the top surface of the raised areas; the non-printing areas are lower and do not receive ink. The inked image is transferred directly to the page, resulting in the type of images that may actually be depressed or debossed into the paper by the pressure of the press.

Lithography (offset / planographic) Lithography is a printing process in which an inked image is transferred from a plate onto a blanket cylinder and then onto paper. It is based on the principle of the natural aversion of water to grease. The image to be lithographed is created on the plate with greasy material that repels water. Water is run over the plate, and the non-image areas absorb it. When the oily ink hits the plate, it is attracted to the similarly greasy image, and repelled by the rest of the wet plate. When paper is pressed onto the plate, it picks up the ink (and a bit of the water). This process is now used primarily for limited-edition prints.

Screen printing (direct) Screen printing, also called silk screening, is where ink is transferred through a porous screen, such as nylon, onto the surface to be decorated. An emulsion or stencil is used to block out the negative or non-printing areas of the screen. A squeegee forces ink through the open areas of the screen and onto the substrate.

Miscellaneous

Cut ‘n’ crease Cut: the process of scoring a substrate. Crease: machine made linear indentation in thick paper to create a hinge.

Despatch The finalised product is prepared for distribution.

64

Folding Folding involves doubling up a sheet of paper so that one part lies on top of another. Folding stresses the paper fibres. To create a smooth, straight fold, heavy papers need to be scored before they are folded. Multiple fold strength is important in printed pieces like books, maps, and pamphlets. It is far less important in one-fold operations like greeting cards or envelopes, where fold cracking is the vital consideration. Folding strength is negatively affected by the drying heat of various printing and finishing operations.

Gluing The process of applying a glue or sealing substance to the substrate to permanently fix two surfaces together.

Guillotine A machine used to trim stacks of paper. A cutting blade moves between two upright guides and slices the paper uniformly as it moves downward.

Inserting A process whereby a printed piece, or insert, is physically placed into a publication or another printed piece by a machine called an inserter.

Sheet-fed press A press that prints single sheets of paper, rather than a continuous roll or web of paper. A sheet-fed press prints more slowly than a web-fed press and is typically used for shorter runs.

Trimming The process of cutting paper after printing to make all sheets the same or a specified size. After binding printed papers, the head, foot, and edge of a book are often trimmed in a guillotine to make all the pages even.

Web-fed press A press that prints onto a continuous roll of printing paper, known as a web.

Winding The operation of winding the paper from the reel on to a core, to produce rolls of the desired width, diameter and tension.

65

66

Published by the Health & Safety Executive 12/17


Machinery used in the printing industry is inherently noisy. Noise levels in this industry have the potential to cause work-related hearing damage, if the risks are not properly assessed and managed. HSE has undertaken a study of noise levels and exposures in the printing industry, to determine noise risks and identify control measures.

The noise levels measured in this study indicate that print workers are exposed to hazardous levels of noise: 93% of the study population had noise exposure estimates exceeding the lower exposure action value (LEP,d 80 dB) specified in the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005.

However, many effective noise control features were observed, which, when fully and properly used, can be effective in reducing noise exposures.

The inherently noisy nature of the industry, even in more modern print works where quieter machinery is used, means that there is likely to be an ongoing requirement for the use of hearing protection. Although hearing protection was observed to be widely provided and used, failure to correctly fit plug-type protection was commonly observed.

Instruction handbooks, obtained for a sample of printing machinery, were found, in most cases, to contain declared noise emission information that would help the user assess and manage real-use risk.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

www.hse.gov.uk

RR1102

http://www.hse.gov.uk/

Date post:	21-Jul-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Control of noise risk in the printing industry · 2019. 12. 5. · employers managing noise risk in...

Documents