# Presentation: 543943

## 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

## Partnerships

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

## 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?***

**Notes:**
ID of partners – same
Purpose/Scope – was situation analysis
Goals/Measurements – no change
Annual Eval – no change
Benefits – was incentives; made some changes
OSHA Verification – further discussion
Management and operation was stakeholder involvement
Term of OSH- previously had termination language
Signature – no change

##  Partners

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

## 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**

## 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**

## 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**

## Management Commitment

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

## 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.**

## Our First Challenge

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

## 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.

## Back

|  |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| After |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

- Rated from "0" to "8"

## 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

## 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

## Hands And Arms

|  | Movement |  |  |  | Position |  |  |  |  |  | Force/Grip | Vibration | Environment | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Arm | Twist | Wrist | Finger | Head | Back | Elbow
(fwd) | Elbow
(side) | Forearm | Wrist |  |  |  |  |  |
| Before |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| After |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

- Rated from "0" to "8"

## 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)

## 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)

## 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

## 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)

## Hands And Arms Rating

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

## MSD Cost Analysis

**1-1-99 thru 10-1-03**

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

## BEFORE

**BEFORE**

**Problem:  Lifting castings (2-110 lbs) out of baskets – back bent at or over 90 degrees**

## AFTER

**Solution: 10 lift and tilt units, three load levelers**

## 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.**

**BEFORE**

|  |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Shot Blast | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 6 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 42 |
| After | 6 | 6 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 30 |

**AFTER**

## BEFORE

**Problem – use hand dollies to manually move product**

## AFTER

**Solution:  Power dollies**

## BEFORE

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

_**COST**_**:  $4000**
_**COST RECOVERY TIME**_**:  4-8 months**
_**BENEFITS**_**:  Reduction of back/shoulder injuries.  Increased productivity**

|  |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Material
Handling | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 28 |
| After | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – pushing pattern cart caddy**

## AFTER

**Solution – use mule to move carts**

## BEFORE

**Problem – sanding 500-1000 castings (2-10 lbs) with many hand movements**

## AFTER

**Solution – robotic arm is used to grasp the casting**

## COST:  $176,000

_**COST RECOVERY TIME**_**:  6-12 months**
_**BENEFITS**_**:  Eliminated strain from repetition and force, increased productivity and reduced manpower**

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

|  | Movement |  |  |  | Position |  |  |  |  |  | Force/Grip | Vibration | Environment | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Finishing Dept.
Sanding | Arm | Twist | 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 | 54 |
| After | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – manually scoop aluminum from furnace and pour into mold**

## AFTER

**Solution -internally fabricated lift arms to suspend ladles allowing pourers to merely direct movement of the arm**

## COST:  $5000

_**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.**

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

| Perm Mold |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Hydraulic Pourer | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 8 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 46 |
| After | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6 |

## BEFORE

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

## AFTER

**Solution – automatic pouring machine**

## COST:  $35,000

_**COST**_**:  $35,000**
_**COST RECOVERY TIME**_**:  Six months**
_**BENEFITS**_**:  Eliminated burns, shoulder and back injuries, and manpower.  Increased production.**

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

| Hunter/
DISA |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Pourer | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 8 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 46 |
| After | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – 30 lb ingots were picked up and tossed into furnace**

## AFTER

**Solution – purchase tower jet melt furnace, ingots are loaded into a cart and rolled into an automatic feed**

## BEFORE

**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.**

| Hunter |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Melt | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 4 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 38 |
| After | 8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 20 |

## 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 #)**

## AFTER

**Solution – molds automatically moved down the line, dumped into shaker and removed by hoist**

## BEFORE

**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.**

| Osborn |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Shakeout | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 8 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 46 |
| After | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – two men lift molding jacket sleeve (75 #) off mold after it was poured**

## AFTER

**Solution – one person uses a hydraulic lifting device**

## COST:  $800

_**COST RECOVERY TIME**_**:  Two weeks**
_**BENEFITS**_**:  Elimination of back and shoulder injuries,  reduced manpower and increased productivity.**

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

| Big End/Osborn |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Removing jacket | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 8 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 38 |
| After | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – Manually removing castings from shakeout and placing castings in a basket behind the worker**

## AFTER

**Solution – robotic arm to grasp castings and put in basket**

## COST:  $25,000

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

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

| Shakeout |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 8 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 44 |
| After | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 14 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – robotic arm did not eliminate all stressors**

## AFTER

**Solution – automated shakeout**

## COST:  $125,000

_**COST**_**:  $125,000**
_**COST RECOVERY TIME**_**: 2 years**
_**BENEFITS**_**:  Eliminated strains.  Eliminated employee exposure to silica.**** **

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

| DISA |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Shakeout
 | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 14 |
| After | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – used hand clamp to remove castings from die, great deal of strain on shoulders and arms**

## AFTER

**Solution – robotic arm to remove casting from die**

## BEFORE

**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 |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Remove
Casting | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 8 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 42 |
| After | 2 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 16 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – lifting parts off a hook conveyor to a knockout operation (casings weigh 110 # with core)**

## AFTER

**Solution – pneumatic lift arm and clamp, vibrator**

## BEFORE

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

_**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**

| Perm Mold |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Shakeout | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 6 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 36 |
| After | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 18 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – small pneumatic hand grinders to finish parts, strain on the wrist and shoulder**

## AFTER

**Solution – trim die used to trim parts**

## BEFORE

**BEFORE**

**AFTER **

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

|  | Movement |  |  |  | Position |  |  |  |  |  | Force/Grip | Vibration | Environment | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Grinder/ Chipper
Die Press Op | Arm | Twist | 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 | 74 |
| After | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 24 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – small pneumatic hand grinder to finish parts, strain on the wrist and arms**

## AFTER

**Solution – punch press used to trim parts**

## AFTER 

**AFTER **

**BEFORE**

_**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 |  |  |  | Position |  |  |  |  |  | Force/Grip | Vibration | Environment | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Grinder/ Chipper
Die Press Op | Arm | Twist | 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 | 74 |
| After | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 24 |

## BEFORE

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

## AFTER

**Solution – open dies hydraulically**

## BEFORE

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

_**COST**_**:  $3,000-$6,000**
_**COST RECOVERY TIME**_**:  4-8 months**
_**BENEFITS**_**:  Eliminated strains, reduced fatigue and burns.  Increased productivity.**

| Perm Mold |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Die
Opening | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 6 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 24 |
| After | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – jack hammer to break up air set core from casting, 4-8 hours per day**

## AFTER

**Solution – core lump crusher**

## COST:  $51,000

_**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.**

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

| Lump Crusher |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 4 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 34 |
| After | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – manually attaching components to cooker with screw driver**

## AFTER

**Solution – pneumatic drivers**

## BEFORE

**AFTER**

_**COST**_**:  $900**
_**COST RECOVERY TIME**_**:  One week**
_**BENEFITS**_**:  Eliminated all wrist/shoulder strains. Productivity increased.**

|  | Movement |  |  |  | Position |  |  |  |  |  | Force/Grip | Vibration | Environment | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cooker
Department | Arm | Twist | 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 | 44 |
| After | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – cooker snaps were manually installed and seated by pulling a lever**

## AFTER

**Solution – developed a fixture to automatically insert and affix clamps**

## BEFORE

**AFTER**

_**COST**_**:  $5,000**
_**COST RECOVERY TIME**_**:  One month**
_**BENEFITS**_**:  Eliminated all wrist/shoulder strains. Productivity increased by 40%.**

|  | Movement |  |  |  | Position |  |  |  |  |  | Force/Grip | Vibration | Environment | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cooker
Department | Arm | Twist | 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 | 32 |
| After | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – boxes were stapled on the bottom, flipped, and stapled on the top**

## AFTER

**Solution – tape machine tapes top and bottom simultaneously**

## BEFORE

**AFTER**

_**COST**_**:  $6,000**
_**COST RECOVERY TIME**_**:  One month**
_**BENEFITS**_**:  Eliminated all wrist/shoulder/back strains. Productivity increased.**

|  | Movement |  |  |  | Position |  |  |  |  |  | Force/Grip | Vibration | Environment | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cooker
Department | Arm | Twist | 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 | 48 |
| After | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

## BEFORE

**Problem - Employees used straight line hand-held grinders on a wide variety of castings.**

## 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.**

## 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.**

## AFTER

**Solution - Ergonomic sanders are lighter in weight, absorb some vibration, and have a more comfortable handle.**

## Cost - $267

**Cost - $267**
**Cost Recovery -2 to 4 months**

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

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

## BEFORE

**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.**

## 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.

**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.**

## Workers Adjust Work Stations, Pad Tools, Stand On Pallets

## Workers adjust

##  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.

**Notes:**
For many employees the pick offs were shoulder height, which meant that in order to take the core off the pick off they had to work above shoulder level.

## AFTER

**AFTER**

**Solution – pick offs have an adjustment range of 18”**

**Notes:**
Ergonomic Committee members, operators, and maintenance developed a pickoff that was approved and is now on all core machines.  The risk analysis was 36 and is now18

## BEFORE                               AFTER

**Risk score reduced  from 36 to 18 **
**Cost - $95,000    (38 machines)**
**Cost recovery time – 2 years**

## BEFORE

**Problem – pushing carts weighing 4,500 lbs so that forklift drivers could pick them up**

## 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**

## BEFORE                                     AFTER

**Cost - $100**
**Cost recovery time – 2 weeks**

## BEFORE

**Problem – crawling up core machine to clean hopper**

## BEFORE

**Problem – lifting hot box sand hopper weighing over 100 lbs**

## AFTER

**Solution – installed a hydraulic lift and ladder**

**AFTER**

## BEFORE                      AFTER

**Risk score reduced from 40 to 0**
**Cost - $17,000 (14 machines)**
**Cost recovery time – 1 year (estimated)**

## BEFORE

**Problem – lifting banding spool, 106 #**

## AFTER

**Solution – pneumatic lifting carriage**

## BEFORE                 AFTER

|  |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Banding
Spool | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 8 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 28 |
| After | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 |

## BEFORE

**Corewash  Tank **
**Problem – filling and hand dipping cores**

## AFTER

**Solution – automatic fill and dip**

## BEFORE                   AFTER

|  | Movement |  |  |  | Position |  |  |  |  |  | Force/Grip | Vibration | Environment | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Corewash | Arm | Twist | 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 | 50 |
| After | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 26 |

## BEFORE

**Problem – removing sprue with hammer**

## AFTER

**Solution – cut gates and risers with automatic nipper**

## BEFORE                     AFTER

|  | Movement |  |  |  | Position |  |  |  |  |  | Force/Grip | Vibration | Environment | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Sprue table | Arm | Twist | 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 | 60 |
| After | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 44 |

## Shaker – wing gate

**BEFORE**

**AFTER**

**Problem – reaching for castings**

**Solution – channeled castings closer **

## BEFORE                 AFTER

|  |  | Position | Frequency |  | Twisting | Grasp |  | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Shaker
Wing Gate | Weight |  | Deg | Freq |  | Grip | Foot |  |  |
| Before | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 54 |
| After | 6 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 26 |

## Casting Grinding 

**Casting Grinding**

**BEFORE**

## AFTER

|  | Movement |  |  |  | Position |  |  |  |  |  | Force/Grip | Vibration | Environment | Opinion | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Auto-grinder | Arm | Twist | 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 |

## Container lifts

## New pallet/rack lifts

## New pallet/rack lifts

## Slide 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
- Costs
- Cost of ergonomic change
- Cost savings (workers comp., productivity, other injuries and illnesses, reduced turnover, etc)
- Develops an ergonomic data base

## 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

## Outcomes

##  All Foundries 

## Plant A

**Plant A**

**Total Days Away and Restricted**

**Incidence Rates**

## Plant D

**Plant D**

**Total Days Away and Restricted**

**Note:  Employment increased by 70% in 2004**

**Incidence Rates**

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

**Notes:**
With these improvements we have seen the # of CTD fall from 34 in 2000 to 5 this year and cost reduction from $148,000 to $5000.  Lost and restricted days show a good trend

## Slide 126

## Real Benefits

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

## Quote