Download - OSHA Ergonomics Program

1

OSHA Ergonomics Program2005 Ergonomics Conference & ExpoOconomowoc, WIOctober 19, 2005

Melvin Lischefski920-734-4521

2

ObjectivesIntroduce partnerships as an alternative approach to ergonomicsDocumenting ergonomic interventionsThe business case for ergonomic improvements

3

PartnershipsVoluntary activitiesOperated jointly and cooperatively by OSHA and its partnersStrength safety and health programsFind solutions to safety and health issues

4

OSHA Partnership Core Elements

ID of PartnersPurpose/ScopeGoals/StrategiesPerformance MeasuresAnnual EvaluationsBenefits (Incentives)

OSHA VerificationManagement and OperationER/EE Rights and ResponsibilitiesTerm of OSPSignature

What is missing from this list?

5

Partners

Six Foundries in Northeast WisconsinOSHARegion V – ErgonomistWisconsin Health Consultation ProgramLabor UnionsOSHA Health Response Team

6

Operation of the PartnershipEach stakeholderDesignates one rep to serve on FEP committee

Has written ergo programHas 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 plantProcesses are videotaped and digitally photographedAll have input on ergonomic solutionsWI Health Consultation participates in all onsite visitsOSHA office does not participate in inspections

8

Employee InvolvementUnion representatives given opportunity to participateErgo/Safety Committee member participates in onsite activitiesFEP interviews employees for recommendationsEmployees trained in procedures for recognizing and reporting MSDs

9

Management CommitmentFEP 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.

MeasurementNumber of workstation analyzedNumber of risk factors/stressors identifiedNumber of stressors reduced or eliminatedReduction in frequency and severity of

injuries•Goal #2: Document control measures including administrative controls and work practices.

Measurementdevelop best practices handbook, video,

and/or power point presentation illustrating possible solutions.

11

Our First ChallengeLack of uniformitySome more advanced than othersNo system in place to collect, report or analyze data

12

Ergonomic Assessment Tool

Washington Ergonomic Assessment ToolsOpinion 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.

13

Back

Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

Total

Weight Deg Freq Grip FootBeforeAfter

14

Rating Factors - BackWeight - <5 is 0, >50 is 8Position – 8 when arms fully extended or above neck or below kneesFrequency – 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 - backTwist – 6 if twist required, 8 if twist and bendGrasp – good is 0, awkward is 8Footing – 8 for unstable footingOpinion – 0 is very easy, 2 is easy, 4 is moderate, 6 is hard, 8 is very hard

16

Hands And Arms

Movement Position

Force/Grip

Vibration

Environm

entO

pinionT

otalArm

Tw

ist

Wrist

Finger

Head

Back

Elbow

(fwd)

Elbow

(side)

Forearm

Wrist

Before

After

17

Hands And Arms RatingArm 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 RatingFinger 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 RatingElbow forward – approach 8 as elbow is raised from neutral position to high front or backElbow from side – 8 for more than 45 degreesForearm – two charts, one for light and one for heavyWrist position – 8 for wrist bent more than 30 percent of the time

20

Hands And Arms RatingForce/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 RatingVibration – 8 for constant or occasional severeEnvironment – 8 for temperatures below 45 and above 95

22

MSD Cost Analysis1-1-99 thru 10-1-03

Body Part Number Avg. Cost Cost RangeBack 128 $2,285 $81 - $48,851Arm/Wrist 39 $4,941 $79 - $38,638Shoulder 29 $5,017 $59 - $52,532

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

COST: $2500 per lift and tilt. $1500 per load leveler.COST RECOVERY TIME: Six monthsBENEFITS: Greatly reduced bending, lifting & reaching. Reduced strain & fatigue and increased productivity.

BEFORE

Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

TotalShot Blast

Weight Deg Freq Grip FootBefore 6 8 0 8 8 4 2 6 42After 6 6 0 8 0 4 2 4 30

AFTER

26

BEFORE

Problem – use hand dollies to manually move product

27

AFTER

Solution: Power dollies

28

BEFORE AFTERCOST: $4000COST RECOVERY TIME: 4-8 monthsBENEFITS: Reduction of back/shoulder injuries. Increased productivity

Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

TotalMaterial

HandlingWeight Deg Freq Grip Foot

Before 6 6 6 0 6 0 0 4 28After 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 6

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

COST: $176,000COST RECOVERY TIME: 6-12 monthsBENEFITS: Eliminated strain from repetition and force, increased productivity and reduced manpower

BEFORE AFTER

Movement Position

Force/Grip

Vibration

Environm

entO

pinionT

otalFinishing Dept.Sanding

Arm

Tw

ist

Wrist

Finger

Head

Back

Elbow

(fwd)

Elbow

(side)

Forearm

Wrist

Before 4 4 6 2 8 2 0 0 6 4 2 8 4 4 54After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

COST: $5000COST RECOVERY TIME: Three to six months.BENEFITS: Eliminated all shoulder and back injuries and burns. Reduced cycle times and fatigue which increased production.

BEFORE AFTER

Perm Mold Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

Total

Hydraulic Pourer Weight Deg Freq Grip Foot

Before 8 8 4 0 6 4 8 8 46After 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 6

37

BEFORE

Problem – two men needed to manually pour molds (40 lbs)

38

AFTER

Solution – automatic pouring machine

39

COST: $35,000COST RECOVERY TIME: Six monthsBENEFITS: Eliminated burns, shoulder and back injuries, and manpower. Increased production.

BEFORE AFTER

Hunter/DISA

Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

Total

Pourer


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

BEFORE AFTER COST: $276,000COST RECOVERY TIME: 7-12 monthsBENEFITS: Reduced fatigue and strain of lifting and throwing ingots. Eliminated burns. Also reduced smelt loss and natural gas use while aluminum melted quicker.

Hunter Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

Total

Melt Weight Deg Freq Grip Foot

Before 4 6 2 8 8 4 2 4 38After 8 6 2 0 0 0 2 2 20

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 AFTERCOST: $30,000COST RECOVERY TIME: Six monthsBENEFITS: Eliminated all back/shoulder strains and burns. Reduced manpower and fatigue. Productivity increased and new business created.

Osborn Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

TotalShakeout


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

COST: $800COST RECOVERY TIME: Two weeksBENEFITS: Elimination of back and shoulder injuries, reduced manpower and increased productivity.

BEFORE AFTER

Big End/Osborn Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

TotalRemoving

jacketWeight Deg Freq Grip Foot

Before 8 8 8 2 0 2 4 6 38After 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 6

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

COST: $25,000COST RECOVERY TIME: 8-12 monthsBENEFITS: Eliminated strains from bending & lifting and burns, reduced silica exposure

BEFORE AFTER

Shakeout Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

Total


52

BEFORE

Problem – robotic arm did not eliminate all stressors

53

AFTER

Solution – automated shakeout

54

COST: $125,000COST RECOVERY TIME: 2 yearsBENEFITS: Eliminated strains. Eliminated employee exposure to silica.

BEFORE AFTER

DISA Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

TotalShakeout


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: $25,000COST RECOVERY TIME: 6 monthsBENEFITS: Eliminated strains from reaching & lifting. Reduced exposure to burns and increased productivity.

Perm Mold Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

TotalRemove

CastingWeight Deg Freq Grip Foot

Before 8 8 4 2 0 4 8 8 42After 2 6 2 0 0 2 2 2 16

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

BEFORE AFTERCOST: $20,000COST RECOVERY TIME: 6-12 monthsBENEFITS: Elimination of shoulder/arm injuries and reduction in burns. Also reduces fatigue which increased production. Vibrator eliminated need for shakeoutPerm Mold Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

TotalShakeout


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: $40,000COST RECOVERY TIME: 6-12 monthsBENEFITS: Reduced cycle time, eliminated ergonomic stressors including vibration, poor posture, and force.

Movement Position

Force/Grip

Vibration

Environm

entO

pinionT

otalGrinder/ ChipperDie Press Op

Arm

Tw

ist

Wrist

Finger

Head

Back

Elbow

(fwd)

Elbow

(side)

Forearm

Wrist

Before 8 0 8 2 6 8 2 8 4 8 2 8 4 6 74After 2 0 2 2 0 6 4 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 24

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

AFTER BEFORECOST: $130,000COST RECOVERY TIME: 8-12 monthsBENEFITS: Eliminated repetitive use of hand grinders, poor posture, vibration and force. Greatly increased production

Movement Position

Force/Grip

Vibration

Environm

entO

pinionT

otalGrinder/ ChipperDie Press Op

Arm

Tw

ist

Wrist

Finger

Head

Back

Elbow

(fwd)

Elbow

(side)

Forearm

Wrist

Before 8 0 8 2 6 8 2 8 4 8 2 8 4 6 74After 2 0 2 2 0 6 4 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 24

67

BEFORE

Problem – permanent mold dies were opened with pry bar or pipe

68

AFTER

Solution – open dies hydraulically

69

BEFORE AFTERCOST: $3,000-$6,000COST RECOVERY TIME: 4-8 monthsBENEFITS: Eliminated strains, reduced fatigue and burns. Increased productivity.

Perm Mold Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

TotalDie

OpeningWeight Deg Freq Grip Foot

Before 6 8 0 0 0 4 2 4 24After 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 6

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

COST: $51,000COST RECOVERY TIME: 8-12 monthsBENEFITS: Eliminated strain from repetition, vibration and poor posture, increased productivity, increased scrap metal recovery for resale, reduced silica exposure.

BEFORE AFTER

Lump Crusher Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

Total


73

BEFORE

Problem – manually attaching components to cooker with screw driver

74

AFTER

Solution – pneumatic drivers

75

BEFORE AFTERCOST: $900COST RECOVERY TIME: One weekBENEFITS: Eliminated all wrist/shoulder strains. Productivity increased.

Movement Position

Force/Grip

Vibration

Environm

entO

pinionT

otalCookerDepartment

Arm

Tw

ist

Wrist

Finger

Head

Back

Elbow

(fwd)

Elbow

(side)

Forearm

Wrist

Before 2 8 8 4 6 2 2 2 0 4 2 0 0 4 44After 2 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 14

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 AFTERCOST: $5,000COST RECOVERY TIME: One monthBENEFITS: Eliminated all wrist/shoulder strains. Productivity increased by 40%.

Movement Position

Force/Grip

Vibration

Environm

entO

pinionT


Arm

Tw

ist

Wrist

Finger

Head

Back

Elbow

(fwd)

Elbow

(side)

Forearm

Wrist

Before 2 2 2 2 4 4 8 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 32After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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 AFTERCOST: $6,000COST RECOVERY TIME: One monthBENEFITS: Eliminated all wrist/shoulder/back strains. Productivity increased.

Movement Position

Force/Grip

Vibration

Environm

entO

pinionT


Arm

Tw

ist

Wrist

Finger

Head

Back

Elbow

(fwd)

Elbow

(side)

Forearm

Wrist

Before 6 2 4 4 2 4 4 8 4 2 2 2 0 4 48After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Cost - $267Cost Recovery -2 to 4 months

Cost - $1,135Cost Recovery – 6 to 12 months

BEFORE

AFTER

87

BEFORE

AFTER

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 Worker’s 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 - $100Cost 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

Solution – installed a hydraulic lift and ladder

AFTER

100

BEFORE AFTER

Risk score reduced from 40 to 0Cost - $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

Position

Frequency Tw

isting

Grasp Opinion

TotalBanding

SpoolWeight Deg Freq Grip Foot

Before 8 8 8 0 0 4 0 0 28After 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 6

104

BEFORE

Corewash Tank Problem – filling and hand dipping cores

105

AFTER

Solution – automatic fill and dip

106

BEFORE AFTER

Movement Position

Force/Grip

Vibration

Environm

entO

pinionT

otal Corewash

Arm

Tw

ist

Wrist

Finger

Head

Back

Elbow

(fwd)

Elbow

(side)

Forearm

Wrist

Before 8 8 4 4 2 2 4 0 4 8 2 0 0 4 50After 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 0 2 4 2 0 0 2 26

107

BEFORE

Problem – removing sprue with hammer

108

AFTER

Solution – cut gates and risers with automatic nipper

109

BEFORE AFTER

Movement Position

Force/Grip

Vibration

Environm

entO

pinion

Total Sprue table

Arm

Tw

ist

Wrist

Finger

Head

Back

Elbow

(fwd)

Elbow

(side)

Forearm

Wrist

Before 6 2 6 2 2 8 8 6 2 0 2 6 4 6 60After 4 0 4 4 2 4 6 2 2 0 2 6 4 4 44

110

Shaker – wing gate

BEFORE

AFTER

Problem – reaching for castings

Solution – channeled castings closer

111

BEFORE AFTER

Position

Frequency Tw

istingGrasp O

pinion

TotalShaker

Wing Gate Weight Deg Freq Grip FootBefore 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 54After 6 4 4 8 0 2 0 2 26

112

Casting Grinding Casting Grinding

BEFORE

113

AFTER

Movement Position

Force/Grip

Vibration

Environm

entO

pinion

Total

Auto-grinder

Arm

Tw

ist

Wrist

Finger

Head

Back

Elbow

(fwd)

Elbow

(side)

Forearm

Wrist

Before 8 6 8 8 6 6 4 4 6 6 8 8 8 8 94

After 4 2 2 0 2 2 2 4 2 2 0 0 4 2 28

114

Container lifts

115

New pallet/rack lifts

116

New pallet/rack lifts

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 impactCosts 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 impactSimple and understandable way to communicate with upper managementReturn on investment figures are critical to obtain management supportDespite high costs, return on investment is relatively shortAppropriation requests for capitol $$ require ergonomic consideration

122

All Foundries

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2002 2003 2004

DARTErgo DARTDAFWIIErgo DAFWII

1230

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2002 2003 2004

TotalErgo

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2002 2003 2004


Plant A

Total Days Away and Restricted

Incidence Rates

1240

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2002 2003 2004

TotalErgo

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2002 2003 2004


Plant D

Total Days Away and Restricted

Note: Employment increased by 70% in 2004

Incidence Rates

125

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2000 2001 2002 *2003

#of injuries Lost days Rest. Days

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

2000 2001 2002 *2003

W/C Costs

126ISSI

OSHA 200 & 300 LOG SUMMARYBody Part Injured by Strain

NUMBER OF CLAIMS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4037

15 15

3

2001 2002 2003

BACKLEGCHEST

SHLDRNECK

ARMHANDWRIST

GROIN

1 CHEST

14 SHOULDER

2 ANKLE

30 BACK

4 ARM

4 KNEE

1 FINGER4 HAND6 WRIST

3 GROIN

1 NECK

127

Real BenefitsThousands of dollars savings in workers comp costs aloneMore profitable companyErgonomic improvements having a payback (investment)

128

“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.”

Quote

Download - OSHA Ergonomics Program

Top Related