OSHA Ergonomics Program

1
OSHA Ergonomics Program

• 2005 Ergonomics Conference Expo
• Oconomowoc, WI
• October 19, 2005

Melvin Lischefski 920-734-4521
2
Objectives

• Introduce partnerships as an alternative approach
  to ergonomics
• Documenting ergonomic interventions
• The business case for ergonomic improvements

3
Partnerships

• Voluntary activities
• Operated jointly and cooperatively by OSHA and
  its partners
• Strength safety and health programs
• Find solutions to safety and health issues

4
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?
5
Partners

• Six Foundries in Northeast Wisconsin
• OSHA
• Region V Ergonomist
• Wisconsin Health Consultation Program
• Labor Unions
• OSHA Health Response Team

6
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

7
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

8
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

9
Management Commitment

• FEP participants not exempt from programmed
  inspections.
• If FEP employer not acting in good faith, a
  verification inspection will be conducted.

10
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.

11
Our First Challenge

• Lack of uniformity
• Some more advanced than others
• No system in place to collect, report or analyze
  data

12
Ergonomic Assessment Tool

• Washington Ergonomic Assessment Tools
• Opinion orientated assessment toolsone 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 totaledthe higher the score, the
  greater the stressors.

13
Back
Rated from "0" to "8"
14
Rating Factors - Back

• Weight - lt5 is 0, gt50 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

15
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

16
Hands And Arms
Rated from "0" to "8"
17
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)

18
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)

19
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

20
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)

21
Hands And Arms Rating

• Vibration 8 for constant or occasional severe
• Environment 8 for temperatures below 45 and
  above 95

22
MSD Cost Analysis 1-1-99 thru 10-1-03
23
BEFORE
Problem Lifting castings (2-110 lbs) out of
baskets back bent at or over 90 degrees
24
AFTER
Solution 10 lift and tilt units, three load
levelers
25
AFTER
BEFORE
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.
26
BEFORE
Problem use hand dollies to manually move
product
27
AFTER
Solution Power dollies
28
BEFORE
AFTER
COST 4000 COST RECOVERY TIME 4-8
months BENEFITS Reduction of back/shoulder
injuries. Increased productivity
29
BEFORE
Problem pushing pattern cart caddy
30
AFTER
Solution use mule to move carts
31
BEFORE
Problem sanding 500-1000 castings (2-10 lbs)
with many hand movements
32
AFTER
Solution robotic arm is used to grasp the
casting
33
BEFORE
AFTER
COST 176,000 COST RECOVERY TIME 6-12
months BENEFITS Eliminated strain from
repetition and force, increased productivity and
reduced manpower
34
BEFORE
Problem manually scoop aluminum from furnace
and pour into mold
35
AFTER
Solution -internally fabricated lift arms to
suspend ladles allowing pourers to merely direct
movement of the arm
36
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.
37
BEFORE
Problem two men needed to manually pour molds
(40 lbs)
38
AFTER
Solution automatic pouring machine
39
BEFORE
AFTER
COST 35,000 COST RECOVERY TIME Six
months BENEFITS Eliminated burns, shoulder and
back injuries, and manpower. Increased
production.
40
BEFORE
Problem 30 lb ingots were picked up and tossed
into furnace
41
AFTER
Solution purchase tower jet melt furnace,
ingots are loaded into a cart and rolled into an
automatic feed
42
AFTER
BEFORE
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.
43
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 )
44
AFTER
Solution molds automatically moved down the
line, dumped into shaker and removed by hoist
45
BEFORE
AFTER
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.
46
BEFORE
Problem two men lift molding jacket sleeve (75
) off mold after it was poured
47
AFTER
Solution one person uses a hydraulic lifting
device
48
AFTER
BEFORE
COST 800 COST RECOVERY TIME Two
weeks BENEFITS Elimination of back and shoulder
injuries, reduced manpower and increased
productivity.
49
BEFORE
Problem Manually removing castings from
shakeout and placing castings in a basket behind
the worker
50
AFTER
Solution robotic arm to grasp castings and put
in basket
51
BEFORE
AFTER
COST 25,000 COST RECOVERY TIME 8-12
months BENEFITS Eliminated strains from bending
lifting and burns, reduced silica exposure
52
BEFORE
Problem robotic arm did not eliminate all
stressors
53
AFTER
Solution automated shakeout
54
BEFORE
AFTER
COST 125,000 COST RECOVERY TIME 2
years BENEFITS Eliminated strains. Eliminated
employee exposure to silica.
55
BEFORE
Problem used hand clamp to remove castings from
die, great deal of strain on shoulders and arms
56
AFTER
Solution robotic arm to remove casting from die
57
BEFORE
AFTER
COST 25,000 COST RECOVERY TIME 6
months BENEFITS Eliminated strains from
reaching lifting. Reduced exposure to burns
and increased productivity.
58
BEFORE
Problem lifting parts off a hook conveyor to a
knockout operation (casings weigh 110 with core)
59
AFTER
Solution pneumatic lift arm and clamp, vibrator
60
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
61
BEFORE
Problem small pneumatic hand grinders to finish
parts, strain on the wrist and shoulder
62
AFTER
Solution trim die used to trim parts
63
BEFORE
AFTER
COST 40,000 COST RECOVERY TIME 6-12
months BENEFITS Reduced cycle time, eliminated
ergonomic stressors including vibration, poor
posture, and force.
64
BEFORE
Problem small pneumatic hand grinder to finish
parts, strain on the wrist and arms
65
AFTER
Solution punch press used to trim parts
66
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
67
BEFORE
Problem permanent mold dies were opened with
pry bar or pipe
68
AFTER
Solution open dies hydraulically
69
BEFORE
AFTER
COST 3,000-6,000 COST RECOVERY TIME 4-8
months BENEFITS Eliminated strains, reduced
fatigue and burns. Increased productivity.
70
BEFORE
Problem jack hammer to break up air set core
from casting, 4-8 hours per day
71
AFTER
Solution core lump crusher
72
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.
73
BEFORE
Problem manually attaching components to cooker
with screw driver
74
AFTER
Solution pneumatic drivers
75
BEFORE
AFTER
COST 900 COST RECOVERY TIME One
week BENEFITS Eliminated all wrist/shoulder
strains. Productivity increased.
76
BEFORE
Problem cooker snaps were manually installed
and seated by pulling a lever
77
AFTER
Solution developed a fixture to automatically
insert and affix clamps
78
BEFORE
AFTER
COST 5,000 COST RECOVERY TIME One
month BENEFITS Eliminated all wrist/shoulder
strains. Productivity increased by 40.
79
BEFORE
Problem boxes were stapled on the bottom,
flipped, and stapled on the top
80
AFTER
Solution tape machine tapes top and bottom
simultaneously
81
BEFORE
AFTER
COST 6,000 COST RECOVERY TIME One
month BENEFITS Eliminated all
wrist/shoulder/back strains. Productivity
increased.
82
BEFORE
Problem - Employees used straight line hand-held
grinders on a wide variety of castings.
83
AFTER
Solution - 90 grinders were purchased to gain
greater access in the castings and the operators
can maintain wrist and arms in a more neutral
posture.
84
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 grasp and utilize.
85
AFTER
Solution - Ergonomic sanders are lighter in
weight, absorb some vibration, and have a more
comfortable handle.
86
BEFORE
Cost - 267 Cost Recovery -2 to 4 months
Cost - 1,135 Cost Recovery 6 to 12 months
AFTER
87
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.
88
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.
89
Workers Adjust Work Stations, Pad Tools, Stand On
Pallets
90
Workers adjust
91
Injuries traced to the use of non-adjusting
pickoffs was the leading contributor to Lost work
days and Workers Comp costs in the Coreroom.
92
AFTER
Solution pick offs have an adjustment range of
18
93
BEFORE AFTER
Risk score reduced from 36 to 18 Cost - 95,000
(38 machines) Cost recovery time 2 years
94
BEFORE
Problem pushing carts weighing 4,500 lbs so
that forklift drivers could pick them up
95
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 manually
96
BEFORE AFTER
Cost - 100 Cost recovery time 2 weeks
97
BEFORE
Problem crawling up core machine to clean hopper
98
BEFORE
Problem lifting hot box sand hopper weighing
over 100 lbs
99
AFTER
AFTER
Solution installed a hydraulic lift and ladder
100
BEFORE AFTER
Risk score reduced from 40 to 0 Cost - 17,000
(14 machines) Cost recovery time 1 year
(estimated)
101
BEFORE
Problem lifting banding spool, 106
102
AFTER
Solution pneumatic lifting carriage
103
BEFORE AFTER
104
BEFORE
Corewash Tank Problem filling and hand
dipping cores
105
AFTER
Solution automatic fill and dip
106
BEFORE AFTER
107
BEFORE
Problem removing sprue with hammer
108
AFTER
Solution cut gates and risers with automatic
nipper
109
BEFORE AFTER
110
Shaker wing gate
BEFORE
Problem reaching for castings
AFTER
Solution channeled castings closer
111
BEFORE AFTER
112
Casting Grinding
Casting Grinding
BEFORE
113
AFTER
114
Container lifts
115
New pallet/rack lifts
116
New pallet/rack lifts
117
(No Transcript)
118
(No Transcript)
119
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
• Costs
• Cost of ergonomic change
• Cost savings (workers comp., productivity, other
  injuries and illnesses, reduced turnover, etc)
• Develops an ergonomic data base

120
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

121
Outcomes
122
All Foundries
123
Incidence Rates
Plant A
Total Days Away and Restricted
124
Incidence Rates
Plant D
Total Days Away and Restricted
Note Employment increased by 70 in 2004
125

• With the changes that have been made the number
  of ergonomic injuries has gone down dramatically

126
(No Transcript)
127
Real Benefits

• Thousands of dollars savings in workers comp
  costs alone
• More profitable company
• Ergonomic improvements having a payback
  (investment)

128
Quote
I am personally convinced that our safety
program was truly re-borne 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.