1 / 128

OSHA Ergonomics Program

OSHA Ergonomics Program. 2005 Ergonomics Conference & Expo Oconomowoc, WI October 19, 2005. Melvin Lischefski 920-734-4521. Objectives. Introduce partnerships as an alternative approach to ergonomics Documenting ergonomic interventions The business case for ergonomic improvements.

essien
Download Presentation

OSHA Ergonomics Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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

More Related