OSHA Ergonomics Program
2005 Ergonomics Conference & Expo Oconomowoc, WI October 19, 2005
Melvin Lischefski
920-734-4521
1
Objectives
Introduce partnerships as an alternative approach to ergonomics Documenting ergonomic interventions The business case for ergonomic improvements
2
Partnerships
Voluntary activities Operated jointly and cooperatively by OSHA and its partners Strength safety and health programs Find solutions to safety and health issues
3
OSHA Partnership Core Elements
ID of Partners Purpose/Scope Goals/Strategies Performance Measures Annual Evaluations Benefits (Incentives) OSHA Verification Management and Operation ER/EE Rights and Responsibilities Term of OSP Signature
What is missing from this list?
4
Partners
Six Foundries in Northeast Wisconsin OSHA Region V – Ergonomist Wisconsin Health Consultation Program Labor Unions OSHA Health Response Team
5
Operation of the Partnership
Each stakeholder
Designates one rep to serve on FEP committee
Has written ergo program Has internal ergonomic committee
Conducts training in the identification of MSDS stressors, signs and symptoms
6
Plant Visits by FEP Committee
FEP Committee meets quarterly and conducts onsite ergo review at host plant Processes are videotaped and digitally photographed All have input on ergonomic solutions WI Health Consultation participates in all onsite visits OSHA office does not participate in inspections
7
Employee Involvement
Union representatives given opportunity to participate Ergo/Safety Committee member participates in onsite activities FEP interviews employees for recommendations Employees trained in procedures for recognizing and reporting MSDs
8
Management Commitment
FEP participants not exempt from programmed inspections. If FEP employer not acting in good faith, a verification inspection will be conducted.
9
FOUNDRY ERGO PARTNERSHIP (FEP)
• Goal #1: Analyze workstations and work processes for ergonomic hazards. Measurement Number of workstation analyzed Number of risk factors/stressors identified Number of stressors reduced or eliminated Reduction in frequency and severity of injuries • Goal #2: Document control measures including administrative controls and work practices. Measurement develop best practices handbook, video, and/or power point presentation illustrating possible solutions. 10
Our First Challenge
Lack of uniformity Some more advanced than others No system in place to collect, report or analyze data
11
Ergonomic Assessment Tool
Washington Ergonomic Assessment Tools
Opinion orientated assessment tools—one focusing on the back, a second focusing on hands and arms. Risk factors are assigned a value of 0 to 8 points by evaluator (ergo committee members, co-workers, operators, etc.). Points are totaled—the higher the score, the greater the stressors.
12
Back
Frequency
Grasp
Twisting
Opinion
Position
Total
Weight Before After
Deg
Freq
Grip
Foot
13
Rating Factors - Back
Weight - <5 is 0, >50 is 8 Position – 8 when arms fully extended or above neck or below knees Frequency – degree refers to angle of back, 8 is more than 40 degrees, O if position can be changed often frequency – 6 or more times per minute is an 8
14
Rating Factors - back
Twist – 6 if twist required, 8 if twist and bend Grasp – good is 0, awkward is 8 Footing – 8 for unstable footing Opinion – 0 is very easy, 2 is easy, 4 is moderate, 6 is hard, 8 is very hard
15
Total Opinion Environment Vibration Force/Grip
Hands And Arms
Wrist Forearm Elbow (side) Elbow (fwd) Back Head Movement Finger Wrist Twist Arm Position
Before
After
16
Hands And Arms Rating
Arm movement – 8 for constant arm movement more than 30 times per minute (add 4 points for moderate force, 6 points for high force) Twist movement – 8 for constant twisting more than 20 times per minute (also add points for force) Wrist movement – 8 for more than 40 times per minute (also add points for force)
17
Hands And Arms Rating
Finger movement – 8 for more than 60 times per minute (add points for force) Head position – 8 for heat bent backward or bent forward more than 30 degrees (0 if the head and neck position can be changed often) Back position – 8 for more than 20 degrees forward (0 if position changed often)
18
Hands And Arms Rating
Elbow forward – approach 8 as elbow is raised from neutral position to high front or back Elbow from side – 8 for more than 45 degrees Forearm – two charts, one for light and one for heavy Wrist position – 8 for wrist bent more than 30 percent of the time
19
Hands And Arms Rating
Force/Grip – 2 if object weighs more than 1 lb (add 2 points if you wear gloves) Pinch Grip – 8 for an object weighing more than 1 lb (add 2 for gloves) Open Grip – 8 for object weighing more than 1 lb (add 2 for gloves)
20
Hands And Arms Rating
Vibration – 8 for constant or occasional severe Environment – 8 for temperatures below 45 and above 95
21
MSD Cost Analysis 1-1-99 thru 10-1-03
Body Part Back Arm/Wrist Shoulder
Number 128 39 29
Avg. Cost $2,285 $4,941 $5,017
Cost Range $81 - $48,851 $79 - $38,638 $59 - $52,532
22
BEFORE
Problem: Lifting castings (2-110 lbs) out of baskets – back bent at or over 90 degrees 23
AFTER
Solution: 10 lift and tilt units, three load levelers
24
BEFORE
AFTER
COST: $2500 per lift and tilt. $1500 per load leveler. COST RECOVERY TIME: Six months BENEFITS: Greatly reduced bending, lifting & reaching. Reduced strain & fatigue and increased productivity.
Twisting
Frequency
Deg 0 0 Freq 8 8
Grasp
Grip 4 4 Foot 2 2
Opinion
Position
Total
Shot Blast Before After
Weight 6 6
8 6
8 0
6 4
42 30 25
BEFORE
Problem – use hand dollies to manually move product
26
AFTER
Solution: Power dollies
27
BEFORE AFTER COST: $4000 COST RECOVERY TIME: 4-8 months BENEFITS: Reduction of back/shoulder injuries. Increased productivity
Twisting Frequency Grasp
Opinion
Position
Total
Material Handling Before After
Weight
6 2
Deg
6 0
Freq
0 0
Grip
0 0
Foot
0 0
6 2
6 0
4 2
28 6
28
BEFORE
Problem – pushing pattern cart caddy
29
AFTER
Solution – use mule to move carts
30
BEFORE
Problem – sanding 500-1000 castings (2-10 lbs) with many hand movements
31
AFTER
Solution – robotic arm is used to grasp the casting
32
BEFORE
AFTER
COST: $176,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: 6-12 months BENEFITS: Eliminated strain from repetition and force, increased productivity and reduced manpower
Total Opinion Environment Vibration Movement Finishing Dept. Sanding Before After Finger Wrist Twist 4 0 Head Arm 4 0 Position Forearm Elbow (side) Elbow (fwd) Back Wrist Force/Grip
6 0
2 0
8 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
6 0
4 0
2 0
8 4 4 54 0 0 0 0 33
BEFORE
Problem – manually scoop aluminum from furnace and pour into mold
34
AFTER
Solution -internally fabricated lift arms to suspend ladles allowing pourers to merely direct movement of the arm35
BEFORE
AFTER
COST: $5000 COST RECOVERY TIME: Three to six months. BENEFITS: Eliminated all shoulder and back injuries and burns. Reduced cycle times and fatigue which increased production.
Total Twisting Opinion Position Perm Mold Hydraulic Weight Pourer Before 8 After 0 Frequency Deg Freq Grasp Grip Foot
8 2
4 0
0 0
6 0
4 0
8 2
8 2
46 6
36
BEFORE
Problem – two men needed to manually pour molds (40 lbs)
37
AFTER
Solution – automatic pouring machine
38
BEFORE
AFTER
COST: $35,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: Six months BENEFITS: Eliminated burns, shoulder and back injuries, and manpower. Increased production.
Hunter/ DISA Pourer Before Weight 8 Frequency Grasp Twisting Opinion Position 8 Total
Deg 4
Freq 0
Grip 4
Foot 8
6
8
46
After
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
BEFORE
Problem – 30 lb ingots were picked up and tossed into furnace
40
AFTER
Solution – purchase tower jet melt furnace, ingots are loaded into a cart and rolled into an automatic feed
41
BEFORE
AFTER
COST: $276,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: 7-12 months BENEFITS: Reduced fatigue and strain of lifting and throwing ingots. Eliminated burns. Also reduced smelt loss and natural gas use while aluminum melted quicker.
Total
Twisting
Opinion
Position
Hunter Melt Before After Weight 4 8
Frequency Deg 2 2 Freq 8 0
Grasp Grip 4 0 Foot 2 2
6 6
8 0
4 2
38 20
42
BEFORE
Problem – manually pushed molds off a conveyor, broke molds up over grating, picked up casting by hand (molds 200 to 600#, castings – 30 to 150 #)
43
AFTER
Solution – molds automatically moved down the line, dumped into shaker and removed by hoist
44
AFTER BEFORE COST: $30,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: Six months BENEFITS: Eliminated all back/shoulder strains and burns. Reduced manpower and fatigue. Productivity increased and new business created.
Twisting Osborn Frequency Grasp Opinion Position Total
Shakeout
Before After
Weight 8 0
6 0
Deg 8 0
Freq 2 0
6 0
Grip 4 0
Foot 4 0
8 0
46 0 45
BEFORE
Problem – two men lift molding jacket sleeve (75 #) off mold after it was poured
46
AFTER
Solution – one person uses a hydraulic lifting device
47
BEFORE
AFTER
COST: $800 COST RECOVERY TIME: Two weeks BENEFITS: Elimination of back and shoulder injuries, reduced manpower and increased productivity.
Big End/Osborn Removing jacket Before After Frequency Grasp Twisting Opinion Position 8 2
Total
Weight 8 0
Deg 8 0
Freq 2 2
0 0
Grip 2 0
Foot 4 0
6 2
38 6 48
BEFORE
Problem – Manually removing castings from shakeout and placing castings in a basket behind the worker
49
AFTER
Solution – robotic arm to grasp castings and put in basket
50
BEFORE
AFTER
COST: $25,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: 8-12 months BENEFITS: Eliminated strains from bending & lifting and burns, reduced silica exposure
Shakeout Weight Before After 8 2 Frequency Deg 6 0 Freq 2 2 Grasp Grip 4 2 Foot 4 2 Twisting Opinion Position 8 2 Total
6 0
6 4
44 14
51
BEFORE
Problem – robotic arm did not eliminate all stressors
52
AFTER
Solution – automated shakeout
53
BEFORE
AFTER
COST: $125,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: 2 years BENEFITS: Eliminated strains. Eliminated employee exposure to silica.
Twisting DISA Shakeout Weight Before 2 Frequency Deg 0 Freq 2 Grasp Grip 2 Foot 2 Opinion Position 2 Total
0
4
14
After
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
BEFORE
Problem – used hand clamp to remove castings from die, great deal of strain on shoulders and arms
55
AFTER
Solution – robotic arm to remove casting from die
56
BEFORE AFTER COST: $25,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: 6 months BENEFITS: Eliminated strains from reaching & lifting. Reduced exposure to burns and increased productivity.
Perm Mold Remove Casting Before After Weight 8 2
Frequency Deg 4 2 Freq 2 0
Grasp Grip 4 2 Foot 8 2
Twisting
Opinion
Position 8 6
Total
0 0
8 2
42 16 57
BEFORE
Problem – lifting parts off a hook conveyor to a knockout operation (casings weigh 110 # with core)
58
AFTER
Solution – pneumatic lift arm and clamp, vibrator
59
AFTER BEFORE COST: $20,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: 6-12 months BENEFITS: Elimination of shoulder/arm injuries and reduction in burns. Also reduces fatigue which increased production. Vibrator eliminated need for shakeout
Twisting Opinion Position
Perm Mold Shakeout
Before After
Frequency Deg
2 2
Grasp Grip
4 2
Total
Weight
6 2
Freq
2 2
Foot
6 6
6 2
6 0
4 2
36 18 60
BEFORE
Problem – small pneumatic hand grinders to finish parts, strain on the wrist and shoulder
61
AFTER
Solution – trim die used to trim parts
62
AFTER BEFORE COST: $40,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: 6-12 months BENEFITS: Reduced cycle time, eliminated ergonomic stressors including vibration, poor posture, and force.
Movement Grinder/ Chipper Die Press Op Before After Finger Wrist Twist 0 0 Head Arm 8 2 Position Total Opinion Environment Vibration Force/Grip
Forearm
Elbow (side) Elbow (fwd) Back
Wrist
8 2
2 2
6 0
8 6
2 4
8 2
4 0
8 2
2 0
8 4 6 74 0 2 2 2463
BEFORE
Problem – small pneumatic hand grinder to finish parts, strain on the wrist and arms
64
AFTER
Solution – punch press used to trim parts
65
BEFORE AFTER COST: $130,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: 8-12 months BENEFITS: Eliminated repetitive use of hand grinders, poor posture, vibration and force. Greatly increased production
Movement Grinder/ Chipper Die Press Op Before After Finger Wrist Position Forearm Elbow (side) Elbow (fwd) Back Wrist Head Total Opinion Environment Vibration Force/Grip
Twist
0 0
Arm 8 2
8 2
2 2
6 0
8 6
2 4
8 2
4 0
8 2
2 0
8 4 6 74 0 2 2 24 66
BEFORE
Problem – permanent mold dies were opened with pry bar or pipe
67
AFTER
Solution – open dies hydraulically
68
BEFORE AFTER COST: $3,000-$6,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: 4-8 months BENEFITS: Eliminated strains, reduced fatigue and burns. Increased productivity.
Twisting Perm Mold Die Opening Before Weight 6 Frequency Deg 0 Freq 0 Grasp Grip 4 Foot 2 Opinion Position 8 Total
0
4
24
After
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
6
69
BEFORE
Problem – jack hammer to break up air set core from casting, 4-8 hours per day
70
AFTER
Solution – core lump crusher
71
BEFORE AFTER COST: $51,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: 8-12 months BENEFITS: Eliminated strain from repetition, vibration and poor posture, increased productivity, increased scrap metal recovery for resale, reduced silica exposure.
Twisting Opinion Position Lump Crusher Weight Before After 4 0 Frequency Deg 8 0 Freq 4 0 Grasp Grip 4 0 Foot 4 0
Total
4 0
0 0
6 0
34 0
72
BEFORE
Problem – manually attaching components to cooker 73 with screw driver
AFTER
Solution – pneumatic drivers
74
BEFORE
AFTER
COST: $900 COST RECOVERY TIME: One week BENEFITS: Eliminated all wrist/shoulder strains. Productivity increased.
Total Opinion Environment Vibration Movement Cooker Department Before After Finger Position Forearm Elbow (side) Elbow (fwd) Back Wrist Head Force/Grip
Wrist
Twist 8 0
Arm 2 2
8 0
4 2
6 4
2 2
2 0
2 0
0 0
4 2
2 2
0 0 4 44 0 0 0 1475
BEFORE
Problem – cooker snaps were manually installed and 76 seated by pulling a lever
AFTER
Solution – developed a fixture to automatically insert and affix clamps
77
AFTER BEFORE COST: $5,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: One month BENEFITS: Eliminated all wrist/shoulder strains. Productivity increased by 40%.
Total Opinion Environment Vibration Movement Cooker Department Before After Finger Wrist Twist 2 0 Head Arm 2 0 Position Forearm Elbow (side) Elbow (fwd) Back Wrist Force/Grip
2 0
2 0
4 0
4 0
8 0
0 0
2 0
2 0
0 0
0 0 4 32 0 0 0 0
78
BEFORE
Problem – boxes were stapled on the bottom, flipped, 79 and stapled on the top
AFTER
Solution – tape machine tapes top and bottom simultaneously
80
AFTER BEFORE COST: $6,000 COST RECOVERY TIME: One month BENEFITS: Eliminated all wrist/shoulder/back strains. Productivity increased.
Total Opinion Environment Vibration Movement Cooker Department Before After Finger Wrist Twist 2 0 Head Arm 6 0 Position Forearm Elbow (side) Elbow (fwd) Back Wrist Force/Grip
4 0
4 0
2 0
4 0
4 0
8 0
4 0
2 0
2 0
2 0 4 48 0 0 0 0
81
BEFORE
Problem - Employees used straight line hand-held grinders on a wide variety of castings.
82
AFTER
Solution - 90° grinders were purchased to gain greater access in the castings and the operators’ can maintain 83 wrist and arms in a more neutral posture.
BEFORE
Problem - pneumatic hand grinders are used to finish parts, exerting strain on the wrists and arms due to the weight of the sander, vibration, and forces applied to 84 grasp and utilize.
AFTER
Solution - Ergonomic sanders are lighter in weight, absorb some vibration, and have a more comfortable handle.
85
BEFORE
Cost - $267 Cost Recovery -2 to 4 months
Cost - $1,135 Cost Recovery – 6 to 12 months
AFTER
86
AFTER
BEFORE PROBLEM: Standard grinding disk is used to grind a wide variety of castings. SOLUTION: A heavier, mineral coated grinding disk is used on brass castings. This disk greatly reduces the amount of time and force applied when grinding. COST: $530 COST RECOVERY TIME: 2-4 months BENEFITS: Increased productivity rates due to efficiency of grinding disks.
87
Current Project: Finishing Area with adjustable work benches. Getting air hoses and work tools away from workers by overhead tool racks with balancers to reduce weight of tool and air lines.
88
Workers Adjust Work Stations, Pad Tools, Stand On Pallets
89
Workers adjust
90
Injuries traced to the use of non-adjusting pickoffs was the leading contributor to Lost work days and Worker’s Comp costs in the Coreroom.
91
AFTER
Solution – pick offs have an adjustment range of 18”
92
BEFORE
AFTER
Risk score reduced from 36 to 18 Cost - $95,000 (38 machines) Cost recovery time – 2 years
93
BEFORE
Problem – pushing carts weighing 4,500 lbs so that forklift drivers could pick them up
94
AFTER
Solution - put lights at the end of each workstation. The lights would be turned on to signal the forklift drivers that a rack needed to be moved. Racks no longer moved 95 manually
BEFORE
AFTER
Cost - $100
Cost recovery time – 2 weeks
96
BEFORE
Problem – crawling up core machine to clean hopper
97
BEFORE
Problem – lifting hot box sand hopper weighing over 100 lbs
98
AFTER
AFTER
Solution – installed a hydraulic lift and ladder
99
BEFORE
AFTER
Risk score reduced from 40 to 0
Cost - $17,000 (14 machines)
Cost recovery time – 1 year (estimated)
100
BEFORE
Problem – lifting banding spool, 106 #
101
AFTER
Solution – pneumatic lifting carriage
102
BEFORE
AFTER
Frequency Deg Freq
Grasp Grip Foot
Twisting
Opinion
Position
Total
Banding Spool
Weight
Before After
8 0
8 0
8 4
0 0
0 0
4 0
0 0
0 2
28 6
103
BEFORE
Corewash Tank Problem – filling and hand dipping cores
104
AFTER
Solution – automatic fill and dip
105
AFTER
Total Opinion Environment Vibration Force/Grip Wrist Forearm Elbow (side) Elbow (fwd) Back Head Movement Finger Position 4 2 Before After 8 2 Corewash 8 2 Arm 4 2 Twist 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 0 0 8 4 2 2
BEFORE
Wrist
0 0 4 50 0 0 2 26
106
BEFORE
Problem – removing sprue with hammer
107
AFTER
Solution – cut gates and risers with automatic nipper 108
Total Opinion Environment Vibration 6 4 6 2 0 2 6 8 8 2 Movement 2 Wrist Twist Arm Sprue table 6 2 6 Before After 4 0 4 4 2 4 6 2 2 0 2 Force/Grip Wrist Forearm Elbow (side) Elbow (fwd) Back Position 6 4 4
AFTER
Head Finger
BEFORE
44 109
60
Shaker – wing gate
BEFORE
Problem – reaching for castings
AFTER
Solution – channeled castings closer
110
BEFORE
AFTER
Frequency
Grasp
Twisting
Opinion
Position
Total
Shaker Wing Gate Before After
Weight 6 6 8 4
Deg 8 4
Freq 8 8
Grip 6 2
Foot 6 0 6 2 54 26
111
6 0
Casting Grinding
Casting Grinding
BEFORE
112
8 8 8 8 94 6 6 4 4 6 6 8 8 6 8 Before After 4 2 2 0 2 2 2 4 2 2
Total Opinion Environment Vibration Force/Grip Wrist Forearm Elbow (side) Elbow (fwd) Back Head Movement Finger Wrist Twist Arm Position
AFTER
Autogrinder
0 0 4 2 28
113
Container lifts
114
New pallet/rack lifts
115
New pallet/rack lifts
116
117
Documenting Ergo Interventions
Assessment tool
Consistent, uniform, simple to apply Requires all stressors be examined Show what stressors were addressed, changes in overall score helps demonstrate impact
Cost of ergonomic change Cost savings (workers comp., productivity, other injuries and illnesses, reduced turnover, etc)
Costs
Develops an ergonomic data base
119
Making The Business Case for Ergonomic Improvement
Follow-up after ergonomic improvements to determine impact Simple and understandable way to communicate with upper management Return on investment figures are critical to obtain management support Despite high costs, return on investment is relatively short Appropriation requests for capitol $$ require ergonomic consideration
120
121
All Foundries
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2002 2003 2004 DART Ergo DART DAFWII Ergo DAFWII
122
16 14 12 10
Incidence Rates
8 6 4 2 0 2002 2003 2004
DART Ergo DART DAFWII Ergo DAFWII
Plant A
1600 1400 1200 1000 800 Total Ergo
Total Days Away and Restricted
600 400 200 0 2002 2003 2004
123
8 7 6 5 DART Ergo DART DAFWII Ergo DAFWII
Incidence Rates
4 3 2 1 0 2002
3000 2500
Plant D
Total Days Away and Restricted
2003
2004
2000 1500 1000 Total Ergo
Note: Employment increased by 70% in 2004
500 0 2002 2003 2004
124
With the changes that have been made the number of ergonomic injuries has gone down dramatically
600
$160,000
500 400
$140,000 $120,000 $100,000
300 200
$80,000 $60,000 $40,000
100 0 2000 #of injuries 2001 Lost days 2002 *2003
$20,000 $0 2000
Rest. Days
2001
2002
*2003
W/C Costs
125
OSHA 200 & 300 LOG SUMMARY Body Part Injured by Strain
NUMBER OF CLAIMS
40
37
35 30 25 20
1 NECK 14 SHOULDER 1 CHEST 4 ARM 30 BACK 6 WRIST 4 HAND 1 FINGER
15
10 5 0
15
15
3 GROIN
3
2 ANKLE BACK LEG CHEST SHLDR NECK ARM HAND WRIST GROIN
4 KNEE
2001
2002
2003
126 ISSI
Real Benefits
Thousands of dollars savings in workers comp costs alone More profitable company Ergonomic improvements having a payback (investment)
127
Quote
“I am personally convinced that our safety program was truly reborne when we joined the FEP. The goals we have set for ourselves and the constant employee involvement have made all the difference in our program.”
128