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. 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 OSHA Partnership Core Elements 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 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 Rated from "0" to "8"

14. 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

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. 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.

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