Div. of WSA Inc., 11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, California 92121 (714)755-9359
Report No. 411F
Evaluation of an Injury Reporting
and Information System (IRIS)
for the Solid Waste Management Industry
Final Report: Publications
. tax
Performed for
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Under Contract No. 68-03-0231
April 1978
-------
Div. of WSA Inc., 11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, California 92121 (714) 755-9359
Report No. 411F
Evaluation of an Injury Reporting
and Information System (IRIS)
for the Solid Waste Management Industry
Final Report: Publications
Performed for
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Under Contract No. 68-03-0231
April 1978
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. QUARTERLY ACCIDENT TRENDS REPORTS 3
III. QUARTERLY SAFETY MANAGEMENT REPORTS^
(QSMR's) 6
IV. IRIS NEWSFLASH 10
V. MONTHLY IRIS NEWS 11
VI. SPECIAL REPORTS ...... 13
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
ACCIDENT TRENDS REPORTS
EXHIBIT 1 Partial Quarter December 1975
EXHIBIT 2 First Quarter 1976
EXHIBIT 3 Second Quarter 1976:
EXHIBIT 4 Third Quarter 1976:
EXHIBIT 5 Fourth Quarter 1976:
dents
EXHIBIT 6 First Quarter 1977:
EXHIBIT 7 Second Quarter 1977:
EXHIBIT 8 Third Quarter 1977:
Accidents
Employee Characteristics
Equipment Related Accidents
Container Handling Acci-
Caught in Packer Accidents
Slips and Falls
Specialized Collection
QUARTERLY SAFETY MANAGEMENT REPORTS
EXHIBIT 9
EXHIBIT 10
QSMR Evaluation
Sample QSMR of User No. 170 for First Quarter
1977
IRIS NEWSFLASH
EXHIBIT 11 Vol,
EXHIBIT 12 Vol,
EXHIBIT 13 Vol.
EXHIBIT 14 Vol,
1, No. 1, January 1977
1, No. 2, May 1977
1, No. 3, June 1977
1, No. 4, September 1977
IRIS NEWS
EXHIBIT 15 Vol,
EXHIBIT 16 Vol,
EXHIBIT 17 Vol,
EXHIBIT 18 Vol.
EXHIBIT 19 Vol.
EXHIBIT 20 Vol.
1, No. 1, April 1977
1, No. 2, May 1977
1, No. 3, June 1977
1, No. 4, July 1977
1, No. 5, August 1977
1, No. 6, September 1977
SPECIAL REPORTS
EXHIBIT 21
EXHIBIT 22
The Use of Personal Protective Equipment and Its
Effect on Accident Reduction
The Occurrence of Back Strains (Overexertions)
in Relation to the Age and Experience of the
Employee
11
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)
EXHIBIT 23 Crew Type Variations in Size, Type of Shift,
and Point of Collection and Their Effects
on Injury Rates
EXHIBIT 24 How Differences in Worker's Compensation Poli-
cies and Wage Continuation Benefits Affect
the Incidence of Injuries
EXHIBIT 25 The Relationship of Injury Rates for Solid Waste
Collection to the Types of Equipment in Use
111
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This Publications volume is submitted in conjunction
with the Final Report on the continuation of Contract No. 63-
03-0231, "Full Scale Operation and Use of an Injury Reporting
and Analysis System for the Solid Waste Management Industry".
This volume contains the IRIS publications of eight Accident
Trends reports, a sample Quarterly Safety Management Report,
six "IRIS News", four "IRIS Newsflashes", and five Special Re-
ports. These were produced as a by-product of IRIS, as de-
scribed in the Final Report.
IRIS is an interactive injury reporting and analysis
system. For their participation in providing the data, IRIS
users receive safety statistics and specific prevention mea-
sures, or countermeasures, on a routine basis on their organi-
zation as well as the industry. The safety information is pre-
sented in the forms of narrative, charts, and tabular and
comparative computer printouts, and users are kept anonymous
except by express permission. In addition to the users, the
IRIS publications are also provided to EPA and national solid
waste management organizations.
The solid waste safety topics addressed in the publi-
cations were chosen for their interest to safety professionals
(e.g., cost effectiveness and injury reduction potential of
personal protective equipment), for their relative severity
1
-------
(e.g., caught in packer injuries), for their relative frequency
of occurrence (e.g., container handling injuries), for inform-
ing users about national solid waste organizations (e.g., Na-
tional Safety Council), and for informing users of standards
affecting the solid waste industry (e.g., ANSI Z245.1 standard
on refuse compaction equipment).
-------
II. QUARTERLY ACCIDENT TRENDS REPORTS
The quarterly Accident Trends reports were developed
to be an adjunct to the QSMR's since they discuss the overall
accident patterns in the solid waste industry. They were to
contain the injury statistics for the quarter, a discussion of
the quarter's accident patterns, and news of interest to the
industry. However, after two issues, the discussion of the
accident patterns for the quarter was deemed too general and
repetitive and would lose the interest of the readers (EXHIBITS
1 and 2).
An alternative concept was introduced. The Accident
Trends reports 1) discussed a different special topic each
quarter, and 2) utilized the whole data base available in the
discussion rather than just the quarter's data. This was in-
troduced by the second quarter 1976 Accident Trends report.
The special topics covered in the following quarters were:
' employee characteristics (EXHIBIT 3)
equipment related accidents (EXHIBIT 4)
container handling accidents (EXHIBIT 5)
caught in packer accidents (EXHIBIT 6)
slips and falls (EXHIBIT 7)
specialized collection accidents (EXHIBIT 8)
Emphasis was placed on narrative discussions of various pre-
vention methods that could be used to reduce specific accident
-------
patterns (e.g., install slip resistant, open mesh steps to
reduce 25% of the slips and falls occurring). Statistics
were used to support the injury reduction potentials of the
prevention methods presented. Types of prevention methods
discussed included:
container regulations (e.g., container
weight limits, size limits, lid require-
ments, etc.)
employee training (e.g., testing the con-
tainer weight, proper lifting techniques,
getting in and out of the cab, etc.)
equipment modifications (e.g., tailgate
latch, hopper flaps, two-handed packer
panel controls, etc.)
applicable equipment standards (e.g., ANSI
Z245.1 standard on refuse collection and
compaction equipment, etc.)
operational alterations (e.g., changing from
backyard collection to curbside collection,
developing retraining policies, etc.)
personal protective equipment (e.g., steel
toed safety shoes, slip resistant gloves,
bump caps, etc.)
In discussing the various prevention measures, em-
phasis was placed on methods that were tested by IRIS users,
as related to IRIS. Their success with them and the problems
encountered in implementation are discussed. A survey of
container regulations and personal protective equipment requir-
ed at the IRIS users were also presented in the narrative dis-
cussions of the topics.- In addition, detailed drawings of
equipment modifications installed by IRIS users were presented,
-------
Therefore, the "pool" of IRIS user solid waste expertise was
fully utilized and related to all the users. Other contacts
the IRIS personnel made at conferences and meetings provided
additional helpful information.
The format of the discussion in Section I of the
Accident Trends reports was not standardized due to the differ-
ent ways of handling the various topics. However, an important
safety tool, the "Task/Hazards Analysis" chart, was developed
as a standard item in three of the reports (see at end of Sec-
tion I in EXHIBIT 4). It serves as a handy reference chart
that has condensed the hazards associated with specific tasks
and identified specific countermeasures for reducing the in-
juries.
-------
III. QUARTERLY SAFETY MANAGEMENT REPORTS (QSMR'S)
This is the only IRIS publication that the IRIS users
receive that is individualized. Each QSMR is comprised of
three basic sections, the narrative "Evaluation of Problem Areas
and Recommendations", the "Overall Injury Rates Compared with
Other IRIS Users" containing printouts that rank the users from
the highest to the lowest injury rates, and the "Identification
of Key Injury Problem Areas" containing printouts on just the
user's injuries for the quarter. In the reporting period of
December 1975 to September 1977, nearly 300 QSMR's were
written.
The time frame for receipt of the QSMR is four months
after the end of the quarter. This is lengthier than the two
months originally anticipated because many users could not meet
the one month deadline on turning in time lost and cost data.
Since one of the main functions of the QSMR is to compare the
users, it is essential that all users have sent in the necessary
injury, time lost and cost, employee and equipment data prior
to analyzing the data. With fewer users, the time frame will
probably be reduced.
Comments solicited from the users by means of QSMR
evaluation forms (EXHIBIT 9) were extremely favorable on the
quality of the reports:
"I evaluate IRIS analysis of injury problems with
an A plus, and I agree with it whole-heartedly."
-------
"The report is concise and easily understood.
There are no points of disagreement; so far,
there appear to be no area(s) that require atten-
tion beyond that given."
"IRIS has provided through the QSMR a view of the
importance of Safety in the solid waste industry.
Management is usually not aware of the high costs
of injuries."
"They provide a guide which can be used to strength-
en our safety program."
In fact, several users have set up committees to review and
evaluate IRIS prevention suggestions.
However, one consistent complaint about the first
few issues was its length. Users found that there were too
many computer printouts, and they did not have the time to
digest them all. Therefore, the QSMR's were streamlined to
contain only the more informative computer printouts. For
instance, it was decided that tabulating the injuries by part
of body and by nature of injury were not as meaningful as by
accident type and by activity. They were subsequently removed
from the QSMR's. Also, the activity and accident type analyses
were altered to compare four quarters of data. A sample QSMR
is included in EXHIBIT 10 that include the alterations.
Section I, the "Evaluation of Problem Areas and Rec-
commendations" is the only section that is written individually
for each user. The narrative evaluates the user's accident
patterns by:
pointing out high frequency, time lost and
direct cost injury categories (e.g./ lifting
container, slipped on same level, etc.) as
compared with the average user
-------
comparing quarterly accident trends at the
user (e.g., increase of slips and falls
during winter)
comparing their injury rates with other
similar systems (e.g., their three man rear-
end loader crews had the second highest OSHA
incidence rate of that type of crew)
comparing their injury rates with other types
of systems (e.g., two man hourly collection
crews were lower in injury rates than two man
task)
comparing their accident patterns with other
similar and dissimilar systems (e.g., their
slips and falls from the vehicle steps were
twice as high as an organization that installed
open mesh, lower steps)
monitoring countermeasures implemented (e.g.,
whether the user's incidence of slips and falls
on ice decreased with issuing "ice creepers").
Specific prevention methods proven to be effective at other
solid waste agencies, or proven by IRIS data to be lower in
injury rates, are suggested for management to consider. The
cost effectiveness of the suggested prevention methods for the
user are also outlined. Therefore, the solid waste managers
are not only made aware of the seriousness of their injury
problems but also how best to correct them.
Another improvement to the QSMR in order to maintain
user interest was in altering the comparative injury rates sec-
tion from quarter to quarter. With the development of a wide
range of computer programs, the injury rates for the IRIS users
could be compared by means of a variety of factors. Some of the
factors included:
-------
age of employee
experience of employee
division (e.g., landfill, street cleaning)
crew size
crew type (e.g., brush collection, residential
collection)
type of shift (e.g., task, fixed hour)
point of collection (e.g., curbside, backyard
with tub)
two factor collection crew type (e.g., two
man brush collection, three man backyard col-
lection, residential task collection)
five factor collection crew type (e.g., two
man residential curbside manual collection
task crew)
standard job classification (e.g., collector
non-driver)
equipment type (e.g., front-end loader).
To compare the injury rates of the users with only
similar users is necessary for a meaningful comparison, since
to compare simply the overall injury rates for the users can
mean that a user that is only reporting collection crew injuries
is being compared to a user that reports collection, disposal
and administration injuries. Therefore, the first user would
appear much worse in injury rates since they only included their
high risk division.
-------
IV. IRIS NEWSFLASH
The IRIS Newflash was conceived in January 1977
when IRIS received two very serious accidents from users. It
was decided that the IRIS users should be aware of the poten-
tial dangers immediately, rather than in the Accident Trends.
The IRIS Newsflash also serves the purpose of describing
alarming trends noted in the accidents. Accidents highlighted
are either severe accidents or near-serious accidents which
the IRIS injury reviewer has noted. The IRIS Newsflash is
published when needed, but at least four times annually.
Topics and accidents discussed in the four IRIS News-
flashes published within the injury reporting period included:
"riding on the step while backing" and "open-
ing tailgate" near-fatal accidents (EXHIBIT 11)
accidents while "packing on the run" (EXHIBIT
12)
exploding bomb in the waste (EXHIBIT 13)
caught in packer accidents while catching waste
and while operating the packer wrongly (EXHIBIT
14)
The IRIS Newsflash was very well received, and one
use that the IRIS users have made of the IRIS Newsflash was to
reproduce them for the collection foremen (or supervisors) to
present at their weekly safety "tailgate sessions".
10
-------
V. MONTHLY IRIS NEWS
The IRIS News is a monthly newsletter first intro-
duced in April 1977. It was also not specified in the con-
tract but was deemed necessary to cover solid waste safety
topics that the Accident Trends reports and five Special Re-
ports would not have enough issues to cover. The safety topics
addressed are short and are presented in newsletter fashion.
The IRIS News is also used to present articles on news of inter-
est to the industry (e.g., National Safety Council, ANSI Z245.1-
1975 standard, etc.), which was originally part of the Accident
Trends report. It also includes a calendar of events, announ-
cing upcoming solid waste conferences and seminars. Another
purpose the IRIS News serves is to maintain the users' interest
on a more timely basis, since both the QSMR's and Accident
Trends reports are quarterly. The two annual IRIS injury stat-
istics (December 1975 through September 1977) are also incor-
porated in two issues of the IRIS News, rather than in the
Accident Trends report.
Topics that have been presented in the IRIS News
include:
equipment modifications (EXHIBIT 15)
the development of solid waste safety manual
by SAFETY SCIENCES for the National Science
Foundation (EXHIBIT 16)
11
-------
charts "evaluating equipment modifications
and the ANSI Z245.1-1975 standard" and a
"task/hazards analysis of overexertions acci-
dents", relating both to IRIS data (EXHIBIT 17)
presenting injury rates for task vs. hourly
collection and a bibliography of solid waste
safety literature (EXHIBIT 18)
1976 annual IRIS injury rates and the National
Safety Council (EXHIBIT 19)
a discussion of safety incentive programs
(EXHIBIT 20)
The IRIS News was very well received, and the major
comment on it was that its brevity made it easily digestible.
With the introduction of the IRIS News, the quarterly Accident
Trends reports may no longer be necessary. The three sections
of the Accident Trends report of the narrative which covers a
special topic, the injury statistics for the quarter, and the
safety news of the industry can and have been incorporated into
the IRIS News. In addition, as the number of IRIS users de-
creased after the end of full EPA funding, the quarterly data
of the users become less useful because of the small sample
size.
A number of safety topics and/or IRIS data findings
can be discussed in each issue of the IRIS News, which ranges
in length from three to fifteen pages. As discussed in Section
3.1.1 of the Final Report, virtually an unlimited number of
data analyses still requires examination, and the IRIS News can
be used as a vehicle to announce the findings to its users, to
EPA and to the industry-
12
-------
VI. SPECIAL REPORTS
It was felt that the limited number of issues of the
Accident Trends report (8) would not allow for enough issues
to cover all of the safety questions of interest to EPA, the
solid waste management industry, or to the IRIS users. There-
fore, an additional five special reports was agreed upon for
addressing industry safety problems in depth. The safety
issues touched upon in the IRIS News, Accident Trends report
and IRIS Newsflash would point out additional areas for examin-
ation (e.g., the container handling accidents issue of the
Accident Trends report indicated that follow up was necessary
for the overexertion accidents, in particular back strains, to
determine the influence of the employee characteristics of age
and experience).
As the injury data base expanded to over 11,000 in-
juries (counting Field Test injuries and first aid injuries)
and close to 40 million man-hours of exposure, detailed opera-
tional system changes at the solid waste agencies (e.g., col-
lection crew types) could be examined.
The five special report topics chosen by OSWMP as
being of deep interest and needed by the solid waste industry
were:
The use of personal protective equipment and
its effect on accident reduction (EXHIBIT 21),
13
-------
The occurrence of back strains (overexertions)
in relation to the age and experience of the
employee (EXHIBIT 22),
How three crew type variations, size, type of
shift, and point of collection, affect injury
rates (EXHIBIT 23),
How differences in worker's compensation poli-
cies and wage continuation benefits affect the
incidence of injuries (EXHIBIT 24), and
The relationship of injury rates to the type
of equipment used (e.g., rear-end loader, side
loader, etc.) (EXHIBIT 25).
(Note: The write-up of the Special Reports included
in this Publications volume is in draft form, and subject to
revision upon OSWMP reviewing their contents.)
14
-------
Accident Trends
4th Quarter 1975
-------
EXHIBIT 1
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
PARTIAL QUARTER: DECEMBER 1 TO 31, 1975
DEVELOPED BY SAFETY SCIENCES, DIVISION OF WSA, INC,
FOR THE U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
UNDER CONTRACT No, 68-03-0231
Division of USA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
SŤn Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
ACCIDENT TRENDS in the Solid Waste Management ,
Industry is developed quarterly using data from
IRIS (the Injury Reporting and Information Sys-
tem for Solid Waste Management). ACCIDENT
TRENDS is designed to summarize and discuss
the data from all IRIS users and to provide
data and conclusions which affect the industry
as a whole. A companion volume, the QSMR,
(Quarterly Safety Management Report) is devel-
oped individually for each IRIS user who repor-
ted injuries during the quarter. Each QSMR
concentrates only on the injuries of the
individual IRIS user for which it is prepared.
-------
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
PARTIAL QUARTER: DECEMBER IST TO 31sT, 1975
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
I. Section I - DISCUSSION OF ACCIDENT CHARACTERISTICS 3
AND PREVENTION METHODS
II. Section II - SUMMARY OF IRIS USER INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA 9
Part I - Frequency, Severity, Costs 9
How to read FIGURE 3 9
How to read FIGURE 3-6 10
Part II - Characteristics of Accidents 14
III. Section III - SAFETY NEWS 30
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
TABLE A:
TABLE B:
FIGURE 1:
FIGURE 2:
FIGURE 3:
FIGURE 4:
FIGURE 5:
FIGURE 6;
FIGURE 7:
FIGURE
8A-C:
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 10
FIGURE
11A-C:
Page
12
15
Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity and Costs
Summary of Accidents by Characteristic -
Characteristics with Highest Percent of
OSHA Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost,
and Direct Costs
Description of Users by Operational
Characteristics
Profile of Accidents by Accident Type,
Activity, Part of Body and Injury Type
Number of Injuries Reported by Type of
Severity - Comparison of 'IRIS1 Users
Average Injury Rates by 'IRIS1 Users
Ranked from Highest to Lowest
Average Workdays Lost Per Lost Workday
Case by 'IRIS' Users Ranked from
Highest to Lowest
Direct Costs by 'IRIS' Users Ranked
from Highest to Lowest
Accident Types Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost, and Direct
Costs
Injury Types Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays'Lost and Direct Costs
Parts of Body Injured Ranked from
Highest to Lowest Percent of OSHA
Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost,
and Direct Costs
Activities Ranked from Highest to 25
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable Injuries,
Workdays Lost, and Direct Costs
Accident Sites Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost, and Direct Costs 26
7
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
111
-------
FIGURE 12: Types of Waste Involved Ranked from
Highest to Lowest Percent of OSHA
Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost,
and Direct Costs
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
This is the ACCIDENT TRENDS in the Solid Waste
Management Industry report for the partial quarter ending
December 31, 1975. Before reading the results the following
points should be noted:
Ť This is the first ACCIDENT TRENDS report developed
under the IRIS program and it covers only a partial
quarter, namely the month of December, 1975. For
these reasons this ACCIDENT TRENDS report may not
be typical of those in the future. Because of the
"short" quarter, there are too few injuries repor-
ted to allow for much evaluation. Because this
is the first ACCIDENT TRENDS report, there is no
previous history from which to report "trends".
During the month of December there were only 11
IRIS users, nine of which reported a total of 58
injuries. At the present there are 41 IRIS users,
and the number continues to grow- Finally, as
this is our first ACCIDENT TRENDS report there
may be areas needing improvement. IRIS welcomes
your comments.
e All IRIS users are identified only by number.
A table giving background information on the
operational characteristics of the IRIS users by
their number is shown in FIGURE 1.
The phrase "AVERAGE" refers to the injury rates or
numbers for all IRIS users combined.
The FIGURES include the injury, time lost and
cost data that was provided to IRIS by January
31, 1976, the "closing date" of this quarter.
Some of the time lost and cost data, therefore,
include "open" cases for which data is not final.
This ACCIDENT TRENDS report is divided into three
sections. SECTION I provides a discussion of the accidents
and prevention methods found during this quarter. SECTION
II summarizes the data received for all IRIS users during
the quarter. SECTION III reviews some of the safety news
of the solid waste management industry.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF USERS BY OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
User
Number
101
111
109
261
212
210
211
207
161
136
236
Municipal=M
Private=P
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geographical
Area
South
Pacific
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Midwest
South
South
Number
of Employees
325
275
600
<25
100
^25
50
200
125
150
100
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard
CS=Curbside
I=Int.Cont.
W=Wheeled
A-BY-C
CS
M-I-W
A-CS
CS-A
A-CS
A-CS
BY-I-W
CS-A
A-CS-I-W
CS
Type
of
Shift
Task/
Fixed
Task
Fixed
Task
Fixed
Task
Fixed
Task
Task
Fixed
Task
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Comm.
4
-
4
-
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Resid.
4
-
4
3
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans, Stn.
L
L
-
L
-
L-T
L
-
L
L
L
FIGURE 1
-------
SECTION I
DISCUSSION OF ACCIDENT
CHARACTERISTICS AND PREVENTION
METHODS
As mentioned in the Introduction, this is the first
ACCIDENT TRENDS report, and it covers a "short" quarter. For
this reason, there are too few accidents to discuss or evaluate
the accidents in much detail. A few comments may be useful,
however.
FIGURE 2 shows profiles of the injuries for all IRIS
users reported during this short quarter. Each of these profiles
gives, in the form of a sentence, the accident type, activity,
part of body, and injury type involved in each accident, and
shows the associated number of OSHA recordable injuries, work-
days lost and direct costs.
Thirteen of the 58 injuries occurred while the employee
was dumping a container or waste into the hopper. Dumping into
hopper was the most frequent activity associated with injuries
(28%), resulting in the greatest number of days lost (30%), and
in the second highest direct costs (21%) . Although many people
feel that the most common overexertion injury in the solid waste
industry is associated with lifting, FIGURE 2 shows that most
of the overexertion injuries were associated with dumping a con-
tainer or waste into the hopper. While there are several types
of injuries associated with dumping into hopper the most frequent
is the strain to the back or shoulder. Several IRIS users em-
phasized that these accidents occur when the employee is turning
or twisting at the same moment he is dumping. In one accident,
the employee was said to be "turning at a 90° angle." Two other
users emphasized the problem of employees tending to lift the
container "high into the air" when dumping the container (pre-
sumably in order to let the refuse fall out easier) resulting
in increased strain to the back. Much attention during training
has been put on teaching employees how to lift, but very little
has been done concerning good dumping procedure. From the com-
ments of IRIS users, it appears that this training should em-
phasize making a deliberate turn, before dumping the container
and holding the container down close to body when dumping. It
is likely that the turn/twist tendency while dumping is greatest
in curbside pickup, because of the location of the containers,
so that special emphasis should be put on this dumping error in
curbside collection systems.
-------
Dumping containers into the hopper is also associated
with being struck by objects flung back from the hopper. Holding
the container high in the air probably increases the chances 01
this type of accident because the refuse hits the hopper with
greater impact. For example, one employee was pulling the
refuse out of a container held high in the air when a juice
bottle fell against the hopper, broke and lacerated_the wrist.
(At least one IRIS user has a work practice forbidding, and
prescribing penalties for using hands to pull refuse out of
the container.) One injury was due to an employee being struck
in the mouth by a can that was ejected from the hopper. In this
case the employee was dumping a container while the hopper was
operating, which is a questionable practice. One IRIS user_has
trained employees to operate the packing mechanism by pressing
the start button with their left hand. This procedure_almost
automatically forces the employee operating the mechanism to
stand at the side of the truck rather than at the back of the
hopper and to turn his head when the packer is operating, thus
reducing the chance of being struck by refuse ejected from the
hopper.
Falls from the step were the second most frequent
type of accident. One injury of this type involved an employee
who ran to catch up to and jump on the step of a packer that
was backing up, slipped and fractured his leg. Although this
particular injury is unusually serious, the accident type is
very common. Falls from the step amounted to approximately
19% of the total number of injuries, 30% of the workdays lost,
and 16% of the costs for all IRIS users during the month of
December, 1975. Moreover, falls while getting on the step,
are just as frequent as those while getting off. (See FIGURE
12.) Falls from the step while getting on the step are usually
due to trying to mount a moving vehicle. Falls from the step
while getting off, are mostly due to unusual surfaces. For
example, one employee fell when he stepped on grease as he
got off the step, another fell "into a hole" as he got off.
This information suggests that injuries while getting on the
step may be easier to prevent. Usually the falls from the
step result in sprains to the ankle, rather than fractured
legs. Employees should be cautioned to get on and off the
step only when it is stopped, and to "let it go" rather than
try to run for a quickly moving vehicle. In several cases,
the injured employee was said to be "reaching up" as he tried
to get on the step and fell. Presumably the employee was
attempting to "reach up" for the grab handle. Reaching up
usually means "looking up," which of course makes it hard
for an employee to watch his footing. Placement of the grab
handle should be reevaluated. Perhaps a long, verticle bar
which the employee could grab at any point could be a solution.
-------
One IRIS user has developed a step modification and special
training programs for getting on and off the step which em-
phasize a body position that allows the employee to see what
he is stepping onto. If you would like more information about
this IRIS user's program, phone the IRIS Central Office.
One fall from the step injury occurred while an em-
ployee was washing snow off the windshield; the employee frac-
tured his ankle. Another injury, bruised thumb, also occurred
when an employee was washing a windshield. Employees should
be cautioned about the hazards of this seemingly innocuous
activity.
Of the 58 injuries, 5 occurred at the landfill and
all of these were nearly of the same type. In each case the
injury was a result of trouble in opening and closing the
tailgate at the back of the packer as a part of emptying the
packer at the landfill. In 4 of these cases the employees
were struck by the tailgate. The fifth case was a result of
overexertion in trying to close the tailgate in which the em-
ployee fractured his wrist. Three of these injuries occurred
in one accident in which the landfill tractor operator un-
latched the door, the door swung shut hitting the blade that
was still out, bounced back and struck three employees, one
very severely (fractured skull). This type of accident is
usually due to the excess pressure put on the tailgate by
leaving the blade within the packer packed tightly against
the refuse while opening the tailgate. If employees could
be trained to release this pressure of the blade until after
the tailgate has been opened, this type of accident might be
avoided. A standard work practice of no more than one em-
ployee behind the tailgate when it is being opened is also
recommended.
One injury resulted in cuts to the leg from glass
protruding from a plastic bag being carried by the employee.
IRIS data indicates that this is the most common type of acci-
dent on "bag routes." Some cities have employed special "chaps"
or extra heavy trousers to avoid this problem.
A more serious injury occurred when an employee was
rolling a 2 yard container to behind the packer to prepare for
emptying it, and the wheel of the container rolled onto his
right foot. This accident appears likely to result in perma-
nent disability at this time. Five accidents of this type
have occurred to other IRIS users who work with bulk con-
tainers. In one case an employee smashed his thumb while
trying to return a bulk container to its enclosure. Two back
strains occurred while pulling a bulk container. In another,
-------
the employee strained his back while trying to get a bulk con-
tainer back up onto its concrete platform (slab). Normally
these accidents result when there is a change in surface level
(e.g., going over a curb, or coming off their platform).
Training concerning mapping out the path of the bulk con-
tainers before pushing them, as well as alerting employees
to the hazards of changes in level may be helpful.
All together, bulk containers were implicated in
eight of the 58 injuries. In two cases the bulk containers
slipped while they were being automatically dumped; one em-
ployee was struck by the barbell used to attach the bulk con-
tainer; the second injury resulted in catching an employee's
hand between the truck and the bulk container. The eighth_
bulk container injury occurred when an employee chose to ride
on the lip of a bulk container which was being held by a
moving front-end loader. The lip broke and the employee fell.
Fortunately, the employee fell to the side of the truck, so
that the driver was able to stop the truck before it ran over
the employee, thus only "accidentally" avoiding a very serious,
possibly fatal accident.
One injury involved an employee who dropped a can
on himself as a result of a dog charging out from behind a
building. Dropping an object, usually the container, on one-
self is also a frequent accident, amounting to 9% of the in-
juries, 17% of the workdays lost and 9% of the direct costs
for all users this quarter. Another employee struck his side
against the truck as a result of being startled by rats jumping
out of the hopper. Being startled by dogs and other animals is
a common occurrence in out-of-doors jobs.
One injury occurred while dumping a water heater
into the hopper. The employee was being assisted by the
driver at the time. Perhaps, special training concerning
lifting and dumping material with another employee should
be considered, as frequently it is the poor coordination
between two employees while lifting that results in strains.
Poor coordination with the driver while getting on the step
may have been the problem in several of the falls from the
step, also. A third type of poor coordination problem
occurred when an injured employee was struck by a wheeled
container being dumped by another employee.
One employee received a chemical burn after shoveling
the refuse back into a packer. The refuse had been dumped be-
cause the packer had caught fire. It is believed that the
chemical used to put out the fire was the irritating agent.
-------
FIGURE 2
PAGE
ALL USERS
PROFILE OF ACCIDENTS
BY ACCIDENT TYPE* ACTIVITY
PART OF BODY AND INJURY TYPE
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1V75
INSTRUCTIONS; EXAMINE THIS DATA TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION'S ACCIDENTS,
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACCIDENT TYPE, ACTIVITY, PART OF BODY INJURED AND NATURE OF INJURY.
PROFILE
STRUCK BY VEHICLE PART WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING SHOULDER RESULTING IN
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
STRUCK BY VEHICLE PART WHILE STANDING/WALKING INJURING SKULL RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHINB
STRUCK BY VEHICLE PART WHILE GETTING OUT OF CAB INJURING TRUNK RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
STRUCK BY VEHICLE PART WHILE STANDING/WALKING INJURING SHOULDER RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
STRUCK BY VEHICLE PART WHILE STANDING/WALKING-INJURING ARM RESULTING IN BRUISE/CUNTUSIQN/CRUSHING
STRUCK BY VEHICLE PART WHILE EMPTYING VEHICLE/PACKER INJURING THUMB RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
STRUCK AGAINST VEHICLE WHILE WASHING EQUIP INJURING FINGERS RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
STRUCK AGAINST VEHICLE WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING HAND RESULTING IN
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
STRUCK BY OBJECT.WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING HAND RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
STRUCK BY OBJECT WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING MOUTH/LIP/TEETH RESULTING IN
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE
STRUCK BY OBJECT WHILE STANDING/WALKING INJURING ARM RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
STRUCK BY OBJECT WHILE CARRYING CONTAINER INJURING EYES RESULTING IN SCRATCHES/ABRASIONS
STRUCK BY OBJECT WHILE PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER INJURING FOOT RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
STRUCK BY OBJECT WHILE PUSHING/PULLING WASTE IN/OUT CONTAINER INJURING WRIST RESULTING IN
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE
OSHA
REC
INJ
WKDYS DIRECT
LOST COSTS
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE DUMPING UNCGNTAINEIUZED WASTE INTO HOPPER INJURING EYES RESULTING IN OBJ IN
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING EYES RESULTING IN OBJ IN EYE
EYE
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED WHILE
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED WHILE
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED WHILE
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED WHILE
CARRYING CONTAINER INJURING LEG RESULTING IN CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE
PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER INJURING THUMB RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
HUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING FINGERS RESULTING IN
LIFTING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE INJURING EYES RESULTING IN SCRATCHES/ABRASIONS
FALL TO DIFFERENT LEVEL WHILE GETTING OUT OF CAB INJURING FOOT RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
GETTING ON STEP INJURING BACK RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
CLEARING INJURING ANKLE RESULTING IN FRACTURE
GETTING OFF STEP INJURING HIPS RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
GETTING ON STEP INJURING KNEE RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER INJURING CHEST/RIBS RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
RIDING ON STEP INJURING ELBOW RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
GETTING ON STEP INJURING LEG RESULTING IN FRACTURE
GETTING OFF STEP INJURING ANKLE RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
FALL TO SAME LEVEL WHILE CARRYING CONTAINER INJURING KNEE RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
FALL TO SAME LEVEL WHILE PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER INJURING BACK RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
FALL FROM
FALL FROM
FALL FROM
FALL FROM
FALL Vo&n
FALL VKOTl
FALL FROM
FALL FROM
STEP WHILE
STEP WHILE
STEP WHILE
STE.P WHILE
s rep' 'WHILE
STEP WHILE-
STEP WHILE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
17
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
18
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
1
0
25
0
35
10
0
2
462
0
25
199
75
54
5
328
36
5
32
42
7,738
0
6 A
45
60
68
50
5
5S
312
504
106
5
.1 ,103
0
867
253
0
56
-------
FALL
FALL
TO
TO
SAME
SAME
OVEREXERTION
OVEREXERTION
OVEREXERT I ON
OVEREXERTION
OVEREXERTION
OVEREXERTION
OVEREXERT.I ON
OVEREXERTION
OVEREXERTION
OVEREXERTION
OVEREXERCION
OVEREXERTION
LEVEL
LEVEL
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
FIGURE '2 CONTINUED
PROFILE
PUSHING/PULLING OTHER RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
CARRYING CONTAINER INJURING SHOULDER RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
PAGE
DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING GENITALIA/GROIN RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
LIFTING UlNTAINER INJURING NfiCK RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER INJURING BACK RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING TRUNK RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING HIPS RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING BACK RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER INJURING GENITALIA/GROIN RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
LIFTING CONTAINER INJURING BUTTOCKS RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
DUMPING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE INTO HOPPER INJURING BACK RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
PUSHING/PULLING OTHER INJURING GENITALIA/GROIN RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
EMPTYING VEHICLE/PACKER INJURING WRIST RESULTING IN FRACTURE
DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING ARM RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC/TOXIC/NOXIOUS SUBSTANCE WHILE USING HAND TOOLS INJURING CHEST/RIBS RESULTING
IN DERMITITIS/RASH
STEP ON SHARP OBJECT WHILE CLEARING INJURING FOOT RESULTING IN CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE
STEP ON SHARP OBJECT WHILE DUMPING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE INTO HOPPER INJURING FOOT RESULTING IN
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE
DROPPED OBJECT ON SELF WHILE CARRYING CONTAINER INJURING KNEE RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
DROPPED OBJECT ON SELF WHILE CARRYING OTHER INJURING FOOT RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
PROPPED OBJECT ON SELF WHILE CARRYING CONTAINER INJURING TOES RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
DROPPED OBJECT ON SELF WHILE PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER INJURING FOOT RESULTING IN BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
OSHA
REC
INJ
i
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WKDYS
LOST
0
20
A
0
2
11
3
5
4
1
33
1
5
5
0
3
0
8
0
24
20
DIRECT
COSTS
0
840
168
15
200
559
213
377
151
42
1^043
42
188
244
32
104
81
336
5
367
9?B
STRUCK BY VEHICLE WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER INJURING FOOT RESULTING IN FRACTURE
203
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY OF IRIS USER
INDUSTRY WIDE
DATA
This section provides a summary of the IRIS data as
it applies to all users, and as it relates to industry wide trends.
It is divided into 2 parts. Part I reviews the frequency,
severity and costs of injuries to the industry. Part II
summarizes the characteristics of the injuries occurring in the
industry. It is important to remember the limitations of this
data both in terms of the number of injuries involved (58) and
the representativeness of the IRIS users from which the data
came, (see FIGURE 1).
PART I - FREQUENCY, SEVERITY, COSTS
FIGURES 3 through 6 summarize the frequency, severity
and costs of injuries reported during this quarter.
How to Read FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3 provides a recap for the quarter. This FIGURE
lists, in order of user number, the number of injuries reported
by each IRIS user and categorizes these injuries by their
severity level (i.e., first aid through death). For each
severity level the percentage of the total injuries reported
is shown. For example, if a percentage of 28% is shown for the
"first aid" severity level, this means that 28% of all the
injuries reported were classified as first aid. The purpose of
this FIGURE is to recap the severity of injuries by user, so
as to make it possible to compare users by the percent of
injuries at certain severity levels. To do this, you should:
(1) read across the page to identify the total number
of injuries reported this quarter and the number
and percent of these injuries classified at various
severity levels.
(2) compare the percent of each IRIS user's injuries
at various severity levels with those of the
"AVERAGE" and with those of other IRIS users.
Obviously the goal is to have a greater percentage
of injuries at the low severity levels. Therefore, a user is
doing "better" than other IRIS users to the extent that
the percent of its injuries at the low
severity levels (i.e., first aid cases and
non-fatal cases without lost workdays) is
greater than this percent for the other
IRIS users; or, conversely,
-------
the percent of its injuries at the high
severity levels (i.e., lost time, permanent
disability, and death cases) is lower than
this percent for other IRIS users.
Moreover a high percentage of first aid cases reported_sug-
gests that a user is probably reporting most of its injuries.
This is because it is the less severe injuries that are the
least likely to be reported, and if these are being_reported at
by a user then it is likely that most of the other in-
juries are being reported.
How to Read FIGURES 4-6
FIGURES 4 through 6 compare users and provide AVERAGES
for injury frequency, severity and costs. In all of these
FIGURES the comparison is done by ranking IRIS user's in order
of highest to lowest injury rates. To use these FIGURES you
should:
(1) identify the type of rate and type of comparison
being made. "OSHA incidence rates" (both overall,
and rates for lost workday -LWD- cases) are
measures of the frequency of injuries. The
"OSHA severity rate," and the "average workdays
lost per lost workday case" are measures of the
severity of injuries. The "average
direct cost per OSHA recordable injury" and the
"average cost per man-year" are measures of the
costliness of injuries.
(2) look for an IRIS user or the AVERAGE and read
across the page to identify the rates.
FIGURES having more than one type of rate
may have the AVERAGE or a given IRIS user on a
different row for each type of rate, because
IRIS users are listed in order of highest to
lowest rates.
(3) determine how each user stands compared with other
IRIS users and the AVERAGE. To do this you can:
check to see on which row a user is listed
for a given type of rate. The row on which a
user is listed is the user's rank compared with
other users. For example, the user listed
first, ranks as having the highest injury rate;
the organization listed 3rd has the third
highest rate, etc.
check to see whether a user is listed above
the AVERAGE rate (meaning it has a rate that is
higher than the AVERAGE) or below the AVERAGE
rate (meaning that it is lower than the
AVERAGE).
10
-------
the best way to evaluate a user's standing is
by checking its AVERAGE RATIO for a given rate.
The average ratio (equal to a user's rate
divided by the AVERAGE rate) tells you how
much higher or lower than the AVERAGE the user's
rates are. For example, an average ratio, of
3.50 would mean that the user is 3% times the
AVERAGE; an average ratio of .33 would mean
that the user is one-third the AVERAGE. An
average ratio of about 1.25 (25% above the
AVERAGE) is normally considered to be "poor",
while an average ratio of below .50 is
considered "good". Average ratios between
.05 and 1.25 are considered average for the
solid waste management industry, as shown by
IRIS data. It should be remembered, however,
that because of the very high injury rate for
the solid waste management industry as a
whole, a "good" or "average" injury rate
compared to the industry may still be a
comparatively high rate.
FIGURE 4 lists three columns of data by user in order
of highest to lowest rates: the OSHA incidence rate for all OSHA
recordable injuries, the OSHA incidence rate for lost workday
cases, and the OSHA severity rate. The meaning of the rates
are explained on the FIGURE.
FIGURE 5 lists the number of cases involving lost
workdays and the average lost workdays per lost workday case by
user in order of highest to lowest average workdays lost per
lost workday case.
FIGURE 6 lists the average direct cost per OSHA
recordable injury by user in.order of-highest to lowest average
cost, and the average cost per man-year (i.e., per 1 full time
employee per year) by user in order of highest to lowest rates.
TABLE A summarizes the data from FIGURES 3-60
In reviewing these FIGURES, the data for the AVERAGE
(shown on the FIGURES as AVG) is the most important because it
summarizes the results for all users combined. After examining
the AVERAGES, it is important to examine how great the range
of rates between users is. Wide ranges are important because
they show that it is possible to achieve lower rates of injury
under given operating systems and safety programs.
11
-------
TABLE A
SUMMARY OF INJURIES
BY FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS
FREQUENCY
There were 58 cases reported by 9 of the 11 IRIS users.
The AVERAGE OSHA incidence rate is 34. This means that
on the average each 100 employees has 34 injuries a year,
or that one out of every 3 employees are injured. The
national OSHA incidence rate for all industries is 10.4,
making the solid waste industry 3 times the average of
industry.
IRIS users range in frequency from User No. 211, which
is experiencing 1.6 injuries per employee per year to
User No. Ill which is experiencing 1.4 injuries for every
10 employees per year.
SEVERITY
There have been 310 days lost so far for injuries occurring
during December, 1975.
57% of the total cases resulted in lost workdays. The
national average for all industries is 33%, making the
fraction of lost workday cases in the solid waste industry
nearly 2 times the average industry. Two IRIS users had
less than 22% lost workday cases, but the rest were higher
than AVERAGE.
The AVERAGE OSHA severity rate (number of lost workdays
per 100 employees) is 224. This means that on the average
each employee is losing 2.2 days per year for injuries.
Three users were as high as nearly 5 days lost per year
per employee; one is losing less than a day a year per
employee.
On the AVERAGE, each lost workday case is resulting in
9-39 workdays lost. This is lower than the national
average for all industries, which is 10.5.
One of the 58 injuries will probably result in permanent
disability.
12
-------
TABLE A
(continued)
DIRECT COSTS (Costs given are not final but represent costs
known as of January 31, 1976. These costs, therefore, may
greatly underestimate the actual.)
So far the costs for injuries occurring in December, 1975
amount to $19,386.
e The AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury is $407.
The AVERAGE cost per man-year is $140. This means that
on the average injuries are costing $140 per full-time
employee, per year.
13
-------
PART II - CHARACTERISTICS OF ACCIDENTS
FIGURES 7 through 12, summarize some of the character-
istics of injuries occurring to all IRIS users during December,
1975. Each FIGURE covers a different characteristic of the
accidents:
FIGURE 7: Accident Type, e.g., falls
FIGURE 8: Injury Type, e.g., bruise
FIGURE 9: Part of Body Involved, e.g., leg
FIGURE 10: Activity, e.g., carrying.
FIGURE 11: Accident Site, e.g., back of the truck.
FIGURE 12: Type of Waste Involved.
Each of these FIGURES is divided into 3 columns.
(FIGURES 7,9,10,and 12 have all three columns on one page.
FIGURES 8 and 11 show the columns on 3 separate pages marked
A,B, and C respectively.) The first column lists the number
and percent of OSHA recordable injuries by characteristic of
the accident in order of highest to lowest percent. The
second column lists the number and percent of workdays lost
(and average workdays lost) by characteristic in order of highest
to lowest percent of workdays lost. The third column lists the
amount and percent of direct costs (and average direct costs)
by characteristic in order of highest to lowest percent of
direct costs. Thus a given characteristic may be in different
rows depending on the percent of injuries, workdays lost and
direct costs associated with that characteristic. For example
in FIGURE 7, "Falls from the Step" amount to the second
highest percent of the injuries (19%), the highest percent of
workdays lost (30%) and the third highest percent of direct
costs (16%), and therefore Falls From the Step are shown in the
second row of the first column, first row of the second column
and the third row of the third column.
TABLE B summarizes the data on FIGURES 6 through 11
for all IRIS users.
-14
-------
TABLE B
SUMMARY OF ACCIDENTS BY CHARACTERISTIC
Characteristics with Highest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost & Direct Costs
TYPE OF
CHARACTERISTIC
Accident Type
Injury Type
Part of Body
Involved
Activity
Accident Site
Type of Waste
Involved
HIGHEST % OF
OSHA RECORDABLE
INJURIES
Overexertion - 28%
Fall from Step - 19%
Struck by Veh. Part
- 11%
Sprain/Strain - 40%
Bruise/Contusion/
Crushing - 34%
Back - 17%
Foot - 15%
Dumping Into Hopper
- 28%
Pushing/Pulling Cart
- 15%
In/On Vehicle - 15%
Glass - 9%
CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE:
HIGHEST % OF
WORKDAYS LOST
Fall from Step - 30%
Overexertion - 30%
Dropped Object on
Self - 17%
Bruise/Contusion/
Crushing - 46%
Sprain/Strain - 34%
Back - 20%
Foot - 15%
Dumping Into Hopper
- 30%
Pushing/Pulling Cart
- 23%
Street at Back of
Truck - 17%
Furniture/Appliances
- 11%
HIGHEST % OF
DIRECT COSTS
Struck by Object - 40%
Overexertion - 20%
Fall from Step - 16%
Bruise/Contusion/
Crushing - 65%
Sprain/Strain - 23%
Foot - 48%
Back - 13%
Pushing/Pulling Cart
- 54%
Dumping Into Hopper
- 21%
Mid Alley - 46%
Furniture/Appliances
- 5%
-------
FIGURE 3 PAGE 1
NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED BY TYPE OF SEVERITY
COMPARISON OF 'IRIS' USERS
REPORTING PERIOD* DECEMBER 1975
INSTRUCTIONS? THE PERCENTAGES ARE A FRACTION OF THE TOTAL. CASES
REPORTED* THEY TOTAL TO APPROXIMATELY 100% IF READ HORIZONTALLY*
COMPARE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PERCENTAGES WITH THE AVERAGE AND WITH
OTHER IRIS USERS* HIGHER THAN AVERAGE PERCENTAGES IN THE LOWER
SEVERITY GROUPS, I*E,? TOWARD THE LEFT, ARE DESIRED, AS ARE LOWER
THAN AVERAGE PERCENTAGES TOWARD THE RIGHT*
IRIS TOTAL. FIRST NON-FATAL LOST WKDY PERM FATALITY
USER CASES AID W/0 LST WKDAY CASES DISAB
MO, RPT'D MO* % NO* % NO* % NO* % NO* %
AVG 58 11 19 13 22 33 57 1 1*72 0 0*00
101 7 002 29 5 71 0 0*00 0 0*00
109 12 1 8 2 17 9 75 0 0*00 0 0*00
111 2 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0*00 0 0*00
136 7 1 14 1 14 5 71 0 0*00 0 0*00
161 1 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0*00 0 0*00
207 9 2 22 2 22 5 56 0 0*00 0 0*00
211 6 00 3 50 3 50 0 0*00 0 0.00
212 5 00 3 60 1 20 1 20*00 0 0*00
236 9 7 78 0 0 2 22 0 0*00 0 0*00
16
-------
FIGURE 4
AVERAGE INJURY RATES BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PORTING PERIOD? DECEMBER 1975
FINITIONSJ AVERAGE RATIO = RATE / AVERAGE FOR THE RATE,
HA INCIDENCE RATE = (NUMBER OF OSHA RECORDABLE CASES /
N-HOURS EXPOSURE ) X 200r000.
UGHI...Y EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER OF CASES PER 100 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES
R YEAR, DOES NOT INCLUDE FIRST AID INJURIES. DOES INCLUDE MEDICAL
EATMENT)' LOST TIME* PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES,
HA SEVERITY RATE = (NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST / MAN-HOURS EXPOSURE) X
lUGHLV EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST PER .1.00 FULL. TIME
iPLOYEES PER YEAR,
1ST RUCTIONSJ FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
iW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS,
GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50,
POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1,25,
'000,
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
I!;; MAN--HOURS RATE
NO EXPOSURE
21 :l.
207
212
136
AVG
236
101
109
161
.1.1.1.
7 y 39.1.
21 v 181
19?905
23v967
276 v 944
14*625
52 i 468
94 :' 436
14*194
28y778
162
66
50
50
34
2,5
14
14
INCIDENCE RATE
AVG IRIS RATE
RATIO USER NO
4,78 211
1,95 207
1,48 136
1,48 236
1,00 AVG
0,81 212
0,79 109
0,69 101
0,42 161
0,41 11.1.
LWC OSHA SEVERITY RATE
AVG IRIS RATE AVG
RATIO USER NO RATIO
8 1
47
42
-) 7
v".. t
"\ r.:m
20
19
1 9
1 4
14
:5 , 3 1 1
1. - 92 1
1. ,70 2
1 . 1 1 2
1*00 2
0*82 1
J,78 A
:),7S 2
0,57 1
;).>57 1
61
36
07
1 2
1 1
1 1
VG
36
09
0 1
493
476
453
342
325
;) o Q
224
137
136
65
2 ,
2 ,
2,
1 ,
1 ,
1,
:!. ,
0,
0,
0,
20
12
02
53
45
02
00
6 1
61
29
17
-------
FIGURE 5
PAGE
AVERAGE WORKDAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED PROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975
INSTRUCTIONS; FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
HOW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS,
A GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50,
A POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1,25*
RANK
IIGHE8T
8
LOWEST
IRIS
USER NO
161
111
207
136
212
236
AVG
109
211
1 01
NO LOST
JKDY CASES
1
1
33
9
AVG WKDYS
LOST
35,00
16,50
12,00
11 ,40
11 ,33
10,00
9,39
7 . 11
4,00
3,40
AVG RATIO
(DAYS / AVG)
3,73
1,76
1,2S
1,21
1 ,21
1,06
1,00
0,76
0,43
0,36
18
-------
FIGURE 6 PAGE .1.
DIRECT COSTS BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
'PORTING PERIOD? DECEMBER 1975
TINITIONS! DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES?
IRKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITST AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
. ,G, INJURY LEAVE) ONLY, INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
:RECT COSTS
iPLOYEE PER
PER MAN-YEAR IS THE
YEAR BASED ON 2*000
COST PER FULL--TIME
HOURS PER YEAR,
SANITATION
'STRUCTIONS? FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
)W IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS,
GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50*
POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1,25,
>G DIREC
: R i s
T COST PER OS HA RE I
NO OS HA
JSER RECORD INJ
NO,
212
1 6 1
AVG
136
207
1 1 1
109
236
1 0 1
2 1 1
"j
1
4 7
6
'7
2
J. 1
2
7
6
;:ORDABLE INJ ! D
. (
AVG AVG R
COST (AVG CO
1 ! 722
S67
407
403
360
317
2 '1 (?
129
1 1 0
106
4,
) ^
J. ,
0,
0 ,
0,
0,
0 ,
0 ,
0 ,
AT 10
ST/AV
23
13
00
99
89
78
54
32
...j ...,
26
! I R I S
G) ! USER
! NO,
i
! 212
! 207
! 136
! 2 1 1
! AVG
! 1 6 1
! 109
! 236
! 1 1 1
! 1 0 1
IRECT
COST
MAN-MRS
EXPOS
19
21
"> "7
7
276
14
9 4
14
28
52
URE P
ť905
p 181
y V (_', /
*391
5,944
v!94
? 436
v625
*778
v468
PER MAN
COSTS
ER M--Y (
865
245
206
173
140
122
5 1
46
44
29
YEAR
AVG
COST
6
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
RATIO
S/AVG)
*
*
fr
<
<
<-
<
<
<
V
20
75
48
24
00
87
37
33
32
21
19
-------
FIGURE 7
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF'
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES* WORKDAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
PARE
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS>ť AND LOST WORKDAYr
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES* WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G.* INJURY LEAVE) ONLY.
INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT TYPE OSHA REC INJ
NO. 7.
WORKDAYS LOST
ACCIDENT TYPE WKDYS LOST AVG/LOST
NO. '/. WKDY CASE
ACCIDENT TYPE
DIRECT COSTS
DIRECT COSTS
AMT. %
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
OVEREXERTION
FALL FROM STEP
STRUCK BY VEH PART
DROPPED OBJ ON SELF
STRUCK BY OBJECT
FALL TO SAME LEVEL
OBJECT IN EYES
HURT BY OBJ HANDLED
O STEP ON SHARP OBJECT
STRUCK AGAINST VEH
FALL TO DIFF LEVEL
CONTACT-NOXIOUS SUBST
STRUCK BY VEHICLE
TOTAL
t-o
13
9
5
4
3
3
2
o
2
1
1
1
1
47
27.66
19.15
10.64
8.51
6.38
6.38
4.26
4.26
4.26
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
100,00
FALL FROM STEP
OVEREXERTION
DROPPED OBJ ON SELF
STRUCK BY VEH PART
FALL TO SAME LEVEL
STRUCK BY OBJECT
STRUCK AGAINST VEH
STEP ON SHARP OBJECT
STRUCK BY VEHICLE
OBJECT IN EYES
TOTAL
92
91
52
22
22
19
4
3
3
2
310
29.
29.
16,
7.
7.
6.
1.
0,
0.
0,
100.
68
35
77
10
10
13
29
97
97
65
00
13,14
7.00
17.33
1 1 . 00
11,00
9.50
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
9.39
STRUCK BY OBJECT
OVEREXERTION
FALL FROM STEP
DROPPED OBJ ON SELF
FALL TO SAME LEVEL
STRUCK BY VEH PART
STRUCK AGAINST VEH
STRUCK BY VEHICLE
STEP ON SHARP OBJECT
HURT BY OBJ HANDLED
OBJECT IN EYES
FALL TO DIFF LEVEL
CONTACT-NOXIOUS SUBST
TOTAL
7*780
3*863
3*151
1*636
896
761
32S
203
185
128
111
58
32
19*132
" 10.66
20.19
16.47
8.55
4.68
3. 98
1.71
1.06
0.97
0,67
0.58
0.30
0.17
100.00
S98
429
630
409
299
254
164
.101
92
128
111
58
32
407
-------
FIGURE 8 A PAGE 1
ALL USERS
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ORTING PERIOD? DECEMBER 1975
INITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
Ł S (I *E, N0N-FA TA L C A SES UIT H 0 UT L 0 ST U0 RKD A YS)r AND L 0ST W0 RK D A Yr
MANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
TRUCTIONSI DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES,
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
TYPE OF INJURY NO, %
AIN/STRAIN 19 40,43
IB E/C0N TU S10 N/CRU S HI NO 16 3 4,0 4
./1... A C E R A T10 N / P U N C T U RE 4 B , S1
CTURE 4 8*51
ECT IN EYE 2 4,26
MI FIT IS/RASH 1 2,13
A T C H E S / A B R A S10 N S 1 2 , 13
AL. 47 100,00
21
-------
FIGURE 8B
PAGE
ALL USERS
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF WORKDAYS LOST
REPORTING PERIOD? DECEMBER 1975
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
CASES CUE, NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)? AND LOST WORKDAY*
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED,
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES,
WORKDAYS LOST
TYPE OF INJURY
''!; R UIS E / C 0 N T U S10 N / C R U S HIN G
SPRAIN/STRAIN
I-RACTURE
C U T / L A C E R A T10 N / P U N C T U R E
OBJECT IN EYE
S C R A T C H E S / A B R A S10 N S
roTAi...
NO*
143
106
55
3
'")
.-.'..
.1.
3 1 0
46
34
1 7
0
0
0
100
%
* 1 3
, 1 9
,74
.97
,65
,32
,00
AVG WKDYS
LOST WKDYS
14,30
6 , 62
13,75
3,00
2,00
1,00
0,00
LOS
Ll
22
-------
FIGURE 8C
PAGE 1
INJURY
ALL
TYPES RANKED
PERCENT OF
USERS
FROM HIGHEST
DIRECT COSTS
TO LOWEST
ORTING PERIOD? DECEMBER
INITIONS* OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
ES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS >r AND LOST WORKDAY y
MANEMT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED*
ECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES!' WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND
E CONTINUATION
NOT INCLUDED,
BENEFITS (E,G,
INJURY LEAVE) ONLY,
INDIRECT COSTS
I' R (.1C T10 N S { D E T E R MIN E Y 0 U R 0 R G A NIZ A T10 N ' S P R 0 B I... E M
A R E A S WIT l-l T H E hi IG H E S T P E R C E N T AGES*
AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
DIRECT COSTS
TYPE OF INJURY
AMI.
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
JIS E / C 0 N T U S10 N / C R U S HIN G
{AIM/STRAIN
ACT LIRE
T /1... A C E R A T10 N / P U N C T U R E
JECT IN EYE
RATCUES/ABRASIONS
RMl TITIS/RASH
TAL
12*530
4 * 4 1 0
1*762
245
32
19 r 132
65,49
23,05
9*21
1,28
0,58
0,22
0 , 17
.00,00
232
93
13
6
23
-------
FIGURE 9
PAGE
ALL USERS
PARTS OF BODY INJURED RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIESr WORKDAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE: CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES U.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)ť AND LOST WORKDAY*
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED. '
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSESr WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G.r INJURY LEAVE) ONLY.
INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
PART OF BODY OSHA REC INJ
NO, /.
BACK
FOOT
GENITALIA/GROIN
EYES
SHOULDER
ARM
WRIST
TRUNK
CHEST/RIBS
HIPS
LEG
ANKLE
SKULL
ELBOW
HAND
THUMB
BUTTOCKS
KNEE
TOES
OTHER
TOTAL
WORKDAYS LOST
PART OF BODY WKDYS LOST AVG/LOST
NO. 7. WKDY CASE
8
7
4
3
3
2
*!>
1>
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
47
17.02
14,89
8.51
6,38
6.38
4.26
4.26
4.26
4.26
4.26
4.26
4.26
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
100.00
BACK
FOOT
SHOULDER
LEG
CHEST/RIBS
TOES
ANKLE
GENITALIA/GROIN
TRUNK
KNEE
ARM
WRIST
HAND
HIPS
EYES
BUTTOCKS
TOTAL
61
44
42
35
25
24
22
16
11
8
5
5
4
4
3
1
310
19.68
14.19
13.55
11 .29
8.06
7.74
7.10
5.16
3, 55
2.58
1.61
1.61
1.29
1 .29
0.97
0.32
100.00
8.71
11.00'
14.00
35.00
25.00
24.00
11 .00
4,00
11.00
8.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
2.00
1.50
1,00
9.39
PART OF BODY
FOOT
BACK-
SHOULDER
CHEST/RIBS
LEG
ANKLE
TRUNK
GENITALIA/QROIN
TOES
KNEE
HAND
ARM
HIPS
WRIST
EYES
THUMB
BUTTOCKS
TOTAL
DIRECT COSTS
DIRECT
AMT.
9,117
2,446
IfSOl
Ifl35
927
757
584
545
367
336
328
319
319
188
153
68
42
19ť132
COSTS
7.
47.65
12,78
7,85
5.93
4.85
3.96
3.05
2.85
1.92"
1.76
1.71
1,67
1.67
0.98
0,80
0.36
0.22
100.00
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
lr!40
349
3/5
378
309
378
292
272
183
168
164
159
319
188
153
68
42
407
-------
FIGURE 1 U
ALL USERS
ACTIVITIES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIESr WORKDAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)r AND LOST WORKDAY*
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL. EXPENSESr WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G.r INJURY LEAVE) ONLY.
INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S WORST AREAS BY IDENTIFYING THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACTIVITY - OSHA REC INJ
NO. %
ACTIVITY
WORKDAYS LOST
WKDYS LOST
NO. %
AVG/LOST
WKDY CASE
ACTIVITY
DIRECT COSTS
DIRECT COSTS
AMT. %
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
DUMPING INTO HOPPER
PUSHING/PULLING CART
GETTING ON/OFF STEP
CARRYING CAN/WASTE
STANDING/WALKING
OTHER
LIFTING CAN/WASTE
WASHING/CLEARING
GETTING IN/OUT CAB
RIDING ON STEP
EMPTYING VEH/PACKER
PUSH/PULL IN/OUT CAN
USING HAND TOOLS
TOTAL
13
7
6
5
3
3
n
rt
2
1
1
1
1
47
27.66
14.89
12.77
10.64
6.38
6.38
4.26
4.26
4.26
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
100.00
DUMPING INTO HOPPER
PUSHING/PULLING CART
GETTING ON/OFF STEP
CARRYING CAN/WASTE
WASHING/CLEARING
LIFTING CAN/WASTE
EMPTYING VEH/PACKER
STANDING/WALKING
OTHER
TOTAL
94
71
55
53
15
11
5
5
1
310
30.32
22.90
17.74
17.10
4.04
3.55
1.61
1.61
0.32
100.00
8.55
11.83
11.00
13.25
7.50
5.50
5.00
5.00
1.00
9.39
PUSHING/PULLING CART
DUMPING INTO HOPPER
CARRYING CAN/WASTE
GETTING ON/OFF STEP
WASHING/CLEARING
LIFTING CAN/WASTE
STANDING/WALKING
EMPTYING VEH/PACKER
GETTING IN/OUT CAB
OTHER
USING HAND TOOLS
TOTAL
10^244
3r973
1ť645
Ir544
608
494
274
188
83
47
32
19,132
53.54
20.77
8.60
8.07
3.18
2.58
1.43
0.98
0.43
. 0.25
0.17
100,00
788
568
274
309
203
165
137
94
41
47
32
407
-------
FIGURE 11 A
PAGE
ALL. USERS
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975
DEFINITIONS! OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
;:: A s E s c i * E , N o N - F ATA i._ c A s E s w i T H o u T L o s T w o R K n A Y s ) ť AN D L o s T w o R K DAY?
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL. CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED,
INSTRUCTIONS? DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES,
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT SITE
IN/ ON VEHICLE
STREET AT BACK OF TRUCK
ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK
CUSTOMER YARD
CUSTOMER DRIVEWAY
LANDFILL? AT BACK OF TRUCK
OTHER
i-'iID ALLEY
ALLEY AT CURB
STREET AT CURB
filD STREET
i... A N D F 1 1... I... P IN/ 0 N U E H I C L E - D U M F' S I T E
TOTAL
NO
/'
6
6
5
b
4
4
O
3
2
1
1
47
1 4 *
12,
12,
1 0 ,
1 0 ,
8,
S,
6,
6,
4,
2 ,
2,
100,
89
77
77
64
6 4
51
51
38
38
26
1 3
1 3
00
26
-------
FIGURE 11B
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF WORKDAYS LOST
DRTING PERIOD? DECEMBER 1975
INITIONS? OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
ES CUE, NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)!- AND LOST WORKDAYv
MANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
TRUCT10NS ? DETERMINE Y0UR 0RGANIZAT10N ' S l::'R0BI...EM AREAS BY IDENT1FYING
A R E A S WIT H T H E HIG H E S T P E R C E N T A G E. S ,
WORKDAYS LOST
ACCIDENT SITE
EET AT BACK OF TRUCK
EY AT CURB
ALLEY
STREET
EY AT BACK OF TRUCK
EET AT CURB
'ON VEHICLE
:TOMER DRIVEWAY
IER
IDFILLv AT BACK OF TRUCK
iTOMER YARD
!DF'.TLL..y IN/ON VEHICLE DUMP SITE
A I...
NO.
AVG WKDYS LOST/
LOST WKDYS CASE
52
4 A
43
35
31
27
23
,.j ..j.
.1. .1.
10
"V
A
3 1 0
1 6
14
13
1 1
1 0
8
..,
7
3
3
->
1
100
,77
.19
* 87
v 29
,00
, 7 1
A '"}
< ' Y .:..
,42
* 5 5
,23
,26
, '? 9
,00
1 0
1 4
1 4
35
6
13
'"}
/
"V
/
11"
5
2
4
0
,40
,67
,33
,00
,20
,50
,67
,67
,50
, 00
,33
,00
,00
27
-------
FIGURE 11C
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
C A S E S (I.E. NGN - F A T A L C A S E S WIT H 0 U T I... 0 S T WORKDAYS)* AN D L.. 0 S T W 0 R K D A Y *
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED,
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES* WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND
WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
-------
FIGURE 12
PAGE
ALL USERS
TYPES OF WASTE INVOLVED RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES? WORKDAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)? AND LOST WORKDAY?
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES? WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G.? INJURY LEAVE) ONLY.
INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
TYPE OF WASTE OSHA REC INJ
NO. '/.
WORKDAYS LOST
TYPE OF WASTE WKDYS LOST AVG/LOST
NO. % WKDY CASE
TYPE OF WASTE
DIRECT COSTS
DIRECT COSTS
AMT. %
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
NOT APPLICABLE
GLASS
SHRUBBERY?UNBUNDLED
DUST/ASHES IN WASTE
NOXIOUS CHEMICALS
ro RATS/HOSTILE CREATURE
^> FROZEN WASTE
FURNITURE/APPLIANCES
TOTAL
36 76.60 NOT APPLICABLE
2
1
1
1
1
1
47
8,51
4.26
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
100,00
FURNITURE/APPLIANCES
RATS/HOSTILE CREATURE
GLASS
SHRUBBERY ? UNBUNDLED
FROZEN WASTE
TOTAL
254 81.94
33 10,65
17 5.48
3 0,97
2 0,65
1 0.32
310 100.00
9,07
33.00
17.00
3.00
2.00
1 .00
9.39
NOT APPLICABLE
17i
FURNITURE/APPLIANCES 1?043
RATS/HOSTILE CREATURE
GLASS
SHRUBBERY ? UNBUNDLED
DUST/ASHES IN WASTE
FROZEN WASTE
NOXIOUS CHEMICALS
TOTAL
462
222
147
45
42
32
89.58
5.45
2.41
1.16
0.77
0.24
0,22
0.17
19?132 100.00
476
261
231
222
147
45
42
32
407
-------
SECTION III
SAFETY NEWS
ANSI Z245.1 STANDARD APPROVED AND AVAILABLE
For approximately two years a volunteer "Consensus"
group of representatives from industry (both public and private),
unions, equipment manufacturers and safety experts have been
working on the development of Safety Standards for Refuse Col-
lection Equipment (the ANSI Z245 standards). The first of these
standards, the ANSI Z245.1, entitled, "Safety Standard for Refuse
Collection Equipment" has now been completed and approved by
ANSI (the American National Standards Institute). Solid Waste
agencies desiring a copy of this standard should write or phone:
American National Standards Institute, Inc.
1430 Broadway
New York, New York 10018
(212) 868-1220
There will be a small charge (<$10.00) to obtain a
copy of the standard.
30
-------
Accident Trends
1st Quarter 1976
-------
EXHIBIT 2
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
QUARTER: JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31, 1976
DEVELOPED BY SAFETY SCIENCES, DIVISION OF WSA, INC,
FOR THE U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
UNDER CONTRACT No, 68-03-0231
01vi$ion of WSA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
ACCIDENT TRENDS in the Solid Waste Management
Industry is developed quarterly using data from
IRIS (the Injury Reporting and Information Sys-
tem for Solid Waste Management). ACCIDENT
TRENDS is designed to summarize and discuss
the data from all IRIS users and to provide
data and conclusions which affect the industry
as a whole. A companion volume, the QSMR,
(Quarterly Safety Management Report) is devel-
oped individually for each IRIS user who report-
ed injuries during the quarter. Each QSMR
concentrates only on the injuries of the
individual IRIS user for which it is prepared.
ACCIDENT TRENDS is based on data received
from many users at great speed. There may be
areas in which misinterpretations or mistakes
have been made. Time lost and cost data are
based on data received to date and are thus often
too low, either because costs were not available
or because cases are still open. These cases are
being followed and the accuracy of cost data will
improve with time. All recommendations on accident
prevention measures are tentative and all must be
evaluated in terms of their applicability and
feasibility for individual users.
-------
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
QUARTER: JANUARY IST TO MARCH 31sT, 1976
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
I. Section I - DISCUSSION OF ACCIDENT CHARACTERISTICS
AND PREVENTION METHODS
Protection Against Objects Ejected from the 5
Hopper
Standing Behind Packer Truck 9
Caught in Packer 11
Step Related Accidents 15
Other Falls 19
Overexertion Accidents 22
Plastic Bags 25
Vehicle Accidents 25
Animal Accidents 27
Preliminary Task/Hazard Analysis 27
II. Section II - SUMMARY OF IRIS USER INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA 45
Part I - Frequency, Severity, Costs 45
How to read FIGURE 5 45
How to read FIGURE 6-8 45
Part II - Characteristics of Accidents 55
III. Section III - SAFETY NEWS 67
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
TABLE A:
TABLE B:
TABLE C:
FIGURE 1:
FIGURE 2:
FIGURE 3:
FIGURE 4:
FIGURE 5:
FIGURE 6:
FIGURE 7:
FIGURE 8:
FIGURE 9:
FIGURE 10
A-C:
FIGURE 11
Preliminary Task I Hazards Analysis
Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity and Costs
Summary of Accidents by Characteristic -
Characteristics with Highest Percent of
OSHA Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost,
and Direct Costs
Description of Users by Operational
Characteristics
Profile of Accidents by Accident Type,
and Activity
Profile of Accidents by Part of Body and
Nature of Injury
Use of Rubber "Mud Guard" Flaps as Protec-
tion Against Objects Ejected from the
Hopper
Number of Injuries Reported by Type of
Severity - Comparison of 'IRIS' Users
Average Injury Rates by 'IRIS' Users
Ranked from Highest to Lowest
Average Workdays Lost Per Lost Workday
Case by 'IRIS' Users Ranked from
Highest to Lowest
Direct Costs by 'IRIS' Users Ranked
from Highest to Lowest
Accident Types Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost, and Direct
Costs
Injury Types Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct Costs
Parts of Body Injured Ranked from
Highest to Lowest Percent of OSHA
Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost,
and Direct Costs
36
49
56
2
28
33
7
50
51
53
54
57
58
61
111
-------
FIGURE 12:
FIGURE 13
A-C:
FIGURE 14:
FIGURE 15:
Activities Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost, and Direct Costs
Accident Sites Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost, and Direct Costs
Types of Waste Involved Ranked from
Highest to Lowest Percent of OSHA
Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost,
and Direct Costs
Diagram of Bak-safe bar on Front-End
Loader
Page
62
63
66
68
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
This is the Accident Trends Report for the quarter
ending March 31, 1976. Before reading the results, the
following points should be noted:
All IRIS users are identified only by number. A
table giving background information on the oper-
ational characteristics of each IRIS user by
their number is shown in FIGURE 1.
This Accident Trends report covers 575 accidents
reported by 35 IRIS users from across the United
States during January 1st to March 31st, 1976.
This QSMR covers the first quarter of 1976. However,
not all users started reporting injuries on January
1st. Some started before this date, and some started
on February 1st or March 1st. The injury rates shown
are comparable, however, because the different start-
ing dates are reflected in the hours of exposure.
Some users who started "late" in the quarter may not
have reported enough injuries this quarter to make
much analysis possible.
The phrase "AVERAGE" refers to the injury rates or
numbers for all IRIS users combined.
The FIGURES include the injury and time lost and cost
data that was provided to IRIS by May 15, 1976, the
"closing date" for this quarter. Some of the time
lost and cost data include "open" cases for which
data is not final. All of the workdays lost and
costs data should therefore be interpreted as gross
underestimates of the actual workdays lost and cost
data.
This ACCIDENT TRENDS report is divided into three
sections. SECTION I provides a discussion of the accidents
and prevention methods found during this quarter. It includes
a Preliminary Task/Hazards Analysis for the solid waste manage-
ment industry. SECTION II summarizes the data received for
all IRIS users during the quarter. SECTION III reviews some
of the safety news of the solid waste management industry.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF USERS BY OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
User
Number
101
111
109
261
212
210
211
207
161
136
236
125
181
171
Municipal=M
Private=P
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geographical
Area
South
West
Midwest
Midwest
West
West
West
West
Midwest
South
South
South
Midwest
Midwest
Number
of Employees
325
275
600
25
100
25
50
200
125
150
100
650
275
375
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard
CS=Curbside
I=Int.Cont.
W=Wheeled
A-BY-C
CS
M-I-W
A-CS
CS-A
A-CS
A-CS
BY-I-W
CS-A
A-CS-I-W
CS
CS
BY-A
CS
Type
of
Shift
Task/
Fixed
Task
Fixed
Task
Fixed
Task
Fixed
Task
Task
Fixed
Task
Task
Task
Fixed/
Task
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Comm.
4
-
4
-
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
-
_
Resid.
4
-
4
3
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
1,3
4
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans-, Stn.
L
L
-
L
-
L-T
L
-
L
L
L
L-I
L
FIGURE 1
-------
DESCRIPTION OF USERS BY OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
User
Number
146
215
204
172
265
260
191
242
140
186
272
235
295
244
Municipal=M
Private=P
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geographical
Area
South
South
West
West
West
West
South
South
South
South
Northeast
South
South
West
Number
of Employees
300
75
50
700
200
175
175
50
850
300
100
125
175
25
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard
CS=Curbside
I=Int.Cont.
W=Wheeled
CS-BY-I
CS-BY-I
M-CS-BY-I-W
M-A-CS-BY
CS-BY-I-W
CS-BY-I
CS
CS-BY-I
CS
CS
CS
BY-A
CS-BY
BY
Type
of
Shift
Task
Task/
Fixed
Fixed
Task/
Fixed
Task
Task
Task/
Fixed
Task/
Fixed
Task
Task
Task
Task
Task/
Fixed
Task
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Comm.
1,2
1
1
-
-
2,3
1
3
-
3
3
3
-
2
Res id.
121
x ť * , J
3
3
1,2,3
1,2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans, Stn.
L-T
-
L
L
L-T
L
L-I
L-T
-
L
L-I
L
L
-
FIGUI." 1 (cont.)
-------
DESCRIPTION OF USERS BY OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
User
Number
286
243
296
292
237
285
283
Municipal=M
Private=P
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geographical
Area
West
Northeast
West
Northwest
Midwest
Midwest
South
Number
of Employees
25
50
50
225
100
75
75
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard
CS=Curbside
I=Int.Cont.
W=Wheeled
-
BY-I
CS-A
CS-BY-I-W
A-BY-I-W
CS-BY-I-W
CS-A
Type
of
Shift
Fixed
Task
Fixed
Fixed
Task/
Fixed
Task
Task
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Comm.
-
1,5
2
2
3
-
1
Resid.
-
1,5
1
1,3
3
3
2
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans, Stn.
L-T
-
-
L
-
-
L-T
*>.
FIGURE 1 (cont.)
-------
SECTION I
DISCUSSION OF ACCIDENT
CHARACTERISTICS AND PREVENTION METHODS
The following is a discussion of the characteristics
of accidents occurring this quarter and of accident prevention
methods (i.e., countermeasures) suggested by IRIS users for
the hazards identified. Selected hazards are discussed in
detail and countermeasures are offered. The hazards and
countermeasures are then systematically compiled in a
Preliminary Task/Hazards Analysis shown in TABLE A.
Figures 2 and 3, shown at the end of Section I,
summarize the accident characteristics for this quarter.
FIGURE 2 is a profile listing each accident type/activity
scenario occurring this quarter and giving the number of
injuries, days lost, and costs for each scenario. FIGURE 3
gives similar data for each injury type/part of body injured
combination.
Protection Against Objects Ejected from the Hopper
As can be seen in FIGURE 2, objects in eye are a
frequent accident type amounting to 9% of the OSHA recordable
injuries. Being struck by objects is also a fairly frequent
accident type. Many of these accidents are the result of
objects being ejected from the hopper. What frequently
happens is that an employee will dump a can of refuse into
the hopper bed and start the packing mechanism. The force
of the packer blade will compress certain items of waste,
especially glass bottles, causing them to shatter and "spit"
out of the hopper hitting the employees standing behind the
truck like shrapnel.
For example, one employee this quarter was knocked
unconscious (possible concussion) as the result of a bottle
flying out of the hopper and hitting him between the eyes.
In this case the bottle had not shattered, but in another
case the employee had pieces of glass fly into his eyes from
out of the hopper after a bottle was shattered by the packer
blade. In 6 other cases the object flying out of the hopper
and into the eye was not identified. Two employees received
severe cuts across the forehead when the packer blade broke a
stick of wood and sent it flying toward the employee. One
employee received a chemical burn to the eyes when what is
believed to be a clorox bottle was crushed by the packer,
-------
spattering the employee. In a related accident the hydraulic
hose line in the hopper blew apart and spattered hydraulic
oil in an employee's eyes. In three cases employees stated
that the packer blade had "popped" the plastic bag they had
just put in the hopper, so that sawdust, ashes, and other
waste flew into their eyes. One IRIS user reported that on
certain types of equipment a "vacuum" is sometimes created
when the packer is operating so that when the cycle is com-
pleted the hopper will "blow out" causing dust and ashes to
be ejected.
Altogether 18 accidents, 2 serious ones, this quarter
were the direct result of being hit by objects flying from the
hopper while the packer blade was operating. Although no
permanent impairments resulted this quarter, it is obvious
that this type of accident has a fairly high potential for
blinding or disfiguring an employee.
A simple device for reducing this hazard has been
developed and is in use by one IRIS user, the City of San
Diego and is shown in FIGURE 4. The cut-away view shows a
loose curtain of heavy rubber flaps which hangs in front of
the packer blade area to stop ejected objects.
The size and location of this locally constructed
curtain can be varied to suit different packing mechanism
designs and the availability of suitable materials. In this
case the flaps are 1 foot strips, mounted on a cross bar,
and suspended by 3 chain lengths. Truck mud guards were used
as the curtain material. The flaps must hang loosely but
securely from chains of at least three links to prevent them
from getting caught on objects in the hopper and from becoming
permanently trapped in the packing mechanism. It must be
emphasized that the flaps are set back in the hopper so that
they do not interfere with dumping.
The city maintenance department designed, produced
and installed these flaps at an estimated cost of 6 hours
labor and $20 in materials per truck. (The city has found
that local truck modifications are often cheaper and better
than changing bid specifications). The city had previously
had about one "hopper ejection" accident a week, but has not
had one accident of this type since the installation of these
"flaps."
The applicability of this device may depend on the
type of packer. Some types of packers have the hopper bed
wall rise, so that the pinch point is automatically protected
at the time the packer blade crushes the material. The city
-------
FIGURE 4
USE OF RUBBER "MUD GUARD" FLAPS
AS PROTECTION AGAINST OBJECTS EJECTED FROM THE HOPPER
-------
of San Diego had some Heil* packers of this type and the
device was not installed on these packers. The Garwood*
packers which this city had, however, did leave the blade
exposed so that items could be ejected.
The city first tried to prevent this accident by
the use of a 'safety door", provided by Garwood, which auto-
matically came down at the edge of the hopper when the packer
was operating. This was not deemed satisfactory however.
The door was expensive and would sometimes require replace-
ment when large objects dented it from the inside. This
apparently does not occur with the flaps. It was reported
that the "safety door" was in fact hazardous in that it
occasionally came down unexpectedly and hit employees.
Employees felt that the door slowed down operations (because
it came down at the edge of the hopper, employees could not
dump while it was down) and therefore it had very low accep-
tance by employees and was frequently deliberately jammed to
make it inoperable. The flaps have apparently met with wide
acceptance by the employees although some have requested that
about a 1/3 of one of the flaps (the one on the far right) be
cut away to enable them to look in at the packer blade. This
request was granted even though it reduces the protection
afforded by the flaps, because acceptance of the safety device
was deemed important.
This device may not be applicable or effective in
all cities but it is believed to be effective in San Diego.
This device is an example of how cities can take the initiative
on safety prevention and with a minimum of costs, skill or
materials prevent accidents. Cities wishing to learn more
about this device may contact the IRIS Central Office or the
city of San Diego directly. The city wishes to emphasize,
however, that no standard drawings or specifications are
available.
Another IRIS user has developed another counter-
measure for the "hopper ejection" accident. Employees in the
city of Milwaukee have been trained to use their left hand to
operate the packing mechanism. This almost forces the
employee operating the packer to stand with his head facing
away from the packer when it is operating, thus reducing the
risk of eye injuries. Although some difficulty in getting
all employees to cooperate was experienced, the city believes
that at least one very serious accident (possible blindness)
*These statements are not an endorsement or criticism of a
particular make. Not all packers of the same make are alike,
The comments mentioned here refer only to the particular
packers used by this city, not to all packers with these
makes.
-------
was avoided because of the use of this work practice.
Related to this work practice rule, is the rule
used by some industries of turning the head to the side
when loading or unloading. Bottling companies often train
employees to turn their head aside as they set down or lift
off a carton of bottles in order to avoid the hazard of flying
glass from bottles of carbonated drinks which occasionally
explode under impact. They have found that employees who
are trained in this practice when they first start will do it
automatically for the rest of their employment. Refuse
collectors might also be trained to turn their head to the
side as they dump containers and waste, thus helping to
protect the eyes from ejecting glass.
A few IRIS users require eye goggles or glasses
and some require bump caps or hard hats. These protective
clothing may also act as a countermeasure against some of the
"hopper ejection" hazards.
Standing Behind Packer Truck
Of course, the best protection against hopper
ejection accidents is to avoid standing behind packer trucks.
As can be seen in FIGURE 13, "in back of truck" is the most
hazardous refuse collection site. Because it is normally
necessary for employees to spend some time behind the truck,
employees forget to minimize the time spent behind the packer.
Some IRIS users apparently have employees who walk behind the
truck all day and never leave this location. This is almost
certainly not necessary. Employers should evaluate their
daily collection methods to see if the time spent behind the
packer can be reduced. Employees should be trained to get
away from the back of the truck as soon as possible and to
only stand there when it is necessary.
Hopper ejection accidents are not the only hazard
to employees standing behind the packer. Six accidents this
quarter occurred due to an employee being unintentionally hit
by another employee's container. In an additional case, an
employee was hit when a chair that another crewman had thrown
in hopper fell back out. This type of accident frequently
occurred as the employee was turning around at the back of the
truck. This type of accident appears to occur less frequently
with smaller crew sizes. Employers with more than 2-man crews
should examine their collection procedures in detail. In
some cases, once this problem is identified a coordinated
walking pattern can be developed between crew members so
that only one crewman is at the back of the truck at a time.
-------
In addition, it may be possible to reduce the times when
employees are behind the truck while another employee is
operating the packer. This 'rhythmmethod" may not be as
hard to encourage as it sounds. Crewmen frequently state
that they develop a rhythm what is needed is to coordinate
the rhythm of several employees. A good crew leader may be
useful in this regard. In most cities which have crew leaders,
however, the driver is the crew leader. This is probably not
the most practical procedure as much of the real need for
leadership appears to take place behind the truck.
Employees standing behind the truck are also subject
to being hit by the truck. One employee this quarter was hit
by the packer when it rolled backwards while he was standing
behind the truck. (Another employee was injured while riding
in the cab, as the packer was backing, when the truck struck
a car. The dangers of these two accidents may have been
reduced by the use of a Bak-Safe device such as the one
described in Section III, Safety News, of this report). An
employee standing toward the rear and side of the truck was
hit by a brick that was flipped up when the truck ran over it.
Another employee, on a hand sweeping crew, was hit
while sweeping between two cars when a car backed into him.
Walking between cars is extremely dangerous, and working
procedures should be designed to avoid this practice.
Exhaust fumes are a hazard to employees standing
behind the packer. Four cases in this quarter involved
exposure to exhaust fumes. In three of the cases the exhaust
system was malfunctioning (two cases at the rear of the truck,
one into the cab). Employees become dizzy and nauseated; in
one case an employee passed out; in another a heart attack
occurred, although this may or may not have been related to
exhaust fumes. Studies in New York City (Cimino, 1974) have
shown an increased likelihood of cardiovascular disease among
refuse collectors. This higher risk has not been explained,
but daily exposure to low levels of carbon-monoxide (contained
in exhaust fumes) is suspected by some investigators. Although
this theory has not been proven, it does suggest that careful
attention to maintenance of exhaust systems and minimizing the
time spent at the back of the truck is advisable.
Training of employees should include awareness of
the dangers at the back of the truck. Employees should be
taught to evaluate their work patterns and to ask themselves
"Do I really need to be standing here?"
10
-------
Caught in Packer
Seven injuries this quarter, including the most
severe accident reported, involved getting caught in the
packing mechanism. One employee reached for paper that had
fallen in front of the blade while the hopper was operating.
His right forearm was caught by the hopper blade and amputated.
Two other employees got their arms caught in the packer (one
fracture, one laceration) while pushing falling waste back into
the hopper. One of these employees got his glove caught on
the blade when pushing waste back into the hopper. Two
additional employees are suspected to have been pushing falling
waste back into the hopper when their hands were cut by the
packer blade. Two employees were riding on the step with their
feet partially in the hopper when the packer blade was activated;
one employee fractured his foot, another bruised his toe.
Another employee broke his heel when he jumped off the step
to avoid getting caught in the packer. The employee was
standing on the rear of the step while the truck was backing
up (a violation of city safety rules for this particular IRIS
user) . The driver had the truck in "power take off", and the
packer activated. The rider had his hand and foot in the
hopper, and got scared and jumped off to avoid the hopper blade.
Two extremely hazardous practices appear to be
responsible for the"caught-in-packer accidents: (1) pushing
falling waste back into the hopper, and (2) riding on the
step with the feet and/or hands partially in the hopper.
Employees should be trained concerning the hazards of getting
caught in the packing mechanism. This should include infor-
mation about the very strong pull that the blade has, as many
employees may assume that they can simply pull their hand
back out if it gets caught. Employees should be told
explicitly that if waste appears to be falling out of the
hopper, "LET IT GO". Most people have a "natural tendency"
to want to save or catch falling materials and unless they are
not only told, but explicitly trained to let falling materials
go, they will "automatically" push it back. One IRIS user
suggested providing a bar with which to push materials back
into the hopper so that employees would not use their hands.
It is possible that the "flaps" over the Backer blade (as M
described above) may reduce the number of caught-in-packer
accidents. Often it is the operation of the packer that
causes objects to fall back out of the hopper, and to the
extent that the flaps keep things from falling out, employees
will be less likely to be caught in the packer while pushing
waste back into the hopper.
11
-------
In some cases employees may have been attempting to
grab an item out of the hopper for scavenging when they were
caught by the packer. Some IRIS users have explicit work
rules prohibiting scavenging and such rules are recommended.
It is often possible to tell if employees are scavenging by
checking the cab for items stowed there. (One employee was
injured this quarter when some bottles he had been saving fell
out on him when he opened the cab door).
Riding on the step with the feet or hands partially
in the hopper is a very dangerous practice. Employees should
be instructed on how to get on and ride the step and explicitly
told not to ride with any body part in the hopper. Certain
IRIS users appear to have many more employees riding in the
hopper than others, indicating that there are means of con-
trolling this practice.
The design and location of the steps and grab
handles should be evaluated to determine if the employee
has sufficient room to stand without feeling unstable. It
is possible that employees may be putting their hands and
feet in the hopper because they feel "safer" (from falling)
in that position. Grab handles should be located so that the
employee feels more secure and comfortable by using the grab
handle than he does using the side of the hopper to hold onto.
Examination should be made of the design of the back corners
of the packers. It may be possible to locate the steps far
enough down the side of the truck or extend the side of the
hopper out far enough to make it very awkward for the rider to
ride partially in the hopper. Care has to be taken to ensure
that the view of the hopper is not blocked to the packer
operator. Also if steps are placed too far down the side of
the truck, employees may use the hopper to ride in instead of
on the step. Certain IRIS users, especially those with larger
crew sizes, do presently allow employees to regularly ride in
the hopper. This practice is strongly discouraged.
The American National Standards Institute Z245.1-1975
Standard entitled "Safety Requirements for Refuse Collection
and Compaction Equipment" has several standards relevant to
caught-in-packer accidents. Section 7.3.3 "Controls" prescribes
7.33 Controls
7.3.3.1 Each control shall be conspicuously
labeled as to its function.
7.3.3.2 Controls (for example, for operating
packer panel, tailgate, point-of-
operation guards, ejector panel, con-
tainer hoists) shall be designed and
located to prevent unintentional
activation.
12
-------
7.3.3.2.1 Start buttons shall be recessed
or located to prevent uninten-
tional activation.
7.3.3.2.2 Stop button controls shall be red,
distinguishable from all other
controls by size and color, and
not be recessed.
7.3.3.3 Packing cycle controls shall be
located so that the operator has
a view of the loading sill. In
order to minimize exposure to normal
traffic, the packing cycle operating
controls shall be located on the side
of the vehicle opposite the normal
traffic side of the vehicle. Two
sets of packing cycle controls shall
not be permitted except for additional
dock height controls located on the
same side and above the packing cycle
controls.
7.3.3.4 Controls for raising the tailgate and
unloading the compacted load shall be
located away from the rear of the
equipment.
7.3.3.5 For emergencies a means of stopping and
moving the packer panel away from the
pinch point (prior to the pinch point)
shall be provided. Emergency stop
controls shall be red, distinctly
labeled as to function, and not be
recessed.
Section 7.3.6, "Point-of-Operation Protection", of the standard
is also designed to protect against"caught-in-packer accidents:
7.3.6 Point-of-Operation Protection. The
employee shall be protected from
pinch points during the packing cycle
by one of the following means:
(1) Deadman control from the initiation of
the packing cycle until the packer
panel clears the loading sill.
(2) An elevating hopper that raises any
pinch point during the packing cycle
at least 5 feet above the working
surface.
13
-------
(3) A movable guard that is interlocked
with the packing cycle so that it is
in place before the packer panel is
within 6 inches of the pinch point.
The movable barrier shall be designed
so that it shall not be hazardous in
itself.
(4) A control that provides an interrupted
cycle. Actuation of the control shall
cause the packer panel to stop not
less than 6 inches or more than 16
inches from the pinch point created
by the packer panel as it moves past
the hopper loading sill. The control
shall require reactivation to complete
the packing cycle by a subsequent
motion by the operator.
(5) Other means, at least as effective as
those given in 7.3.6(1) through 7.3.6(4),
that will protect an employee from the
pinch point.
At least one IRIS user has two-handed controls for
operating the packer. That is, the operator has to have both
hands on the packer controls to activate the packer blade.
This prevents the operator from having his hands in the hopper
when the packer is operating. However, this IRIS user states
that the employees almost invariably jam one of the controls
so that it can be operated with one hand. This is due pri-
marily to the frequent practice of packing while riding on
the step. This practice should be carefully examined. It
is possible that this relatively hazardous practice is in some
ways safer if it reduces the number of employees standing
behind the hopper or dumping refuse when the packer is
operating.
Five accidents this quarter were specifically
related to controls. These employees reported getting their
hands caught in, twisted, jerked, pinched or sprained while
using sweep blade handles, tailgate controls and packer
controls. In one case the control handle broke causing the
employee to smash his finger. In another the employee was
packing and caught his finger in the trip handle that activates
the packer. Design features of these controls should be
reviewed.
The hazard of getting caught in the packer is often
disregarded, even though its severity is recognized, because
14
-------
it is believed to occur so infrequently. About 1% of the
accidents this quarter were "caught-in-packer"accidents
which although low, might be considered relatively high
number for the severity of the accident. Employers should
recognize that at this low rate there may be several years
between 'baught-in-packer" accidents at their establishment,
especially if they are small. The fact that an employer has
not had a "caught-in-packer" accident in some time does not,
therefore, necessarily indicate that his system is protected
from this accident. The IRIS data from a large number of
employers is valuable in that it can indicate low frequency/
high severity accidents to employers before they occur. If
employees at your organization frequently use their hands to
push waste back into the hopper or if they frequently ride
with their feet or hands partially in the hopper, you should
assume that they are at high risk for "caught-in-packer"
accidents and take action to lower this risk before a "caught-
in-packer" accident occurs.
Step Related Accidents
Getting caught in the packing mechanism is not the
only hazard of riding on the step. There are several other
hazards associated with riding, and getting on and off the
step. Altogether step-related accidents amounted to 14% of
the OSHA recordable accidents, 16% of the workdays lost and
16% of the costs for this quarter. Accidents while getting
off were the most frequent followed by accidents while riding
on the step, accidents while getting out of the cab, and
accidents while getting on the step.
Employees riding on the step are subject to striking
against objects by which the truck passes to closely. Seven
employees were injured this way this quarter. The truck will
frequently come too close to parked cars, trees, telephone
posts, etc. One employee struck against a telephone post
(at approximately 10 miles per hour) because he was leaning
around the side of the truck trying to engage the packing
mechanism while riding on the step. Two employees were struck
against limbs of trees as the truck drove by them. One
employee saw that he was about to be squeezed between the
truck and a parked car; he jumped off and over the car hood
and was badly bruised. Another employee saw that he was
about to hit a building and jumped off only to be squeezed
between the truck and the building. In the last case the
truck was equiped with a warning device, specifically designed
for this type of accident, by which the step rider could
signal the driver to stop. The employee was aware of the
warning device but was too panicked to remember to use it.
15
-------
Such a signal is a useful countermeasure for this type of
accident, but it is obvious from this accident that employees
must not only be informed of the device but be given training
which involves practice in using it. Mock near-misses can be
staged at tailgate training sessions in which employees
practice using the warning devices. Silly as it sounds, this
type of emergency reaction training is essential to train
employees to respond correctly in real life situations.
In most cases it is better for the employee to remain
on the truck, and not jump off the truck when they are about
to hit something. Training should include informing the
employee of this. Training should also include how to ride a
step properly, e.g., to keep the body and arms close to the
truck. The driver should also be included in this training;
he should be taught to judge distances and the effect of
increased speed on the rider. The Bak-safe device described
in the Safety News section of this report may prevent some of
this type of accident.
A related hazard to step riders is when the step
hits the ground and throws the rider either off the step or
against the truck. Three accidents were of this type this
quarter. Drivers should be made aware of this hazard.
Turning corners, rapid changes in the surface grade (e.g., a
dip at the bottom of a hill) and hitting driveways, gutters
and curbs are three situations that may cause the step to hit
bottom which the driver should be aware of. Related to this
accident type were 6 accidents in which the truck lurched and
the rider was thrown against the truck. Turning corners,
hitting bumps, sudden starts and stops are particularly risky
driving situations for this type of accident. Training for
the driver should include practice in gradual acceleration and
deceleration. Increased knowledge of braking distances,
including the effect of increased speed, tonnage, and grade
on braking distance may be of benefit to drivers trying to
reduce this hazard. It must be remembered that human beings
require some amount of extra work surface space on which to
move their feet in order to maintain balance. Thus larger
steps will compensate for lurches or bumps while riding the
step.
In 9 cases the employee fell from the step while
riding the step. In two cases the step broke while the
employee was riding the step. Broken or nearly broken steps
can normally be detected with careful inspection. Many
cities do not have a formalized method for inspecting vehicles,
but wait until something breaks before sending the truck to
maintenance. Careful and systematic inspection at regular
16
-------
intervals is suggested. In one fall case the grab handle was
wet and slippery from the rain. Employers should consider
slip-resistant grab handles as well as steps.
In several of the riding step accidents, the truck
was turning a corner. The situations in which the step is
used should be reviewed carefully. It appears likely that
employees tend to ride the step in precisely the most
hazardous situations such as around corners, up hills, down
streets where cars are parked, etc. Identification of the
situations when a step should be ridden and should not be
ridden is needed. For smaller crew sizes the feasibility of
riding in the cab more often should be examined. Step design
is important, but employers should recognize that riding the
step is an inherently hazardous activity and should encourage
employees to minimize the use of the step.
Accidents to employees getting on or off the step
were of 4 main types: falls or trips from the step; falls or
trips due to changes in surface next to the truck; striking
against the step; striking against yard objects such as mail
boxes. Accidents while getting off the step were far more
frequent than those while getting on. Twenty-four employees
fell or tripped while getting off the step and in over half of
these cases the employee sprained his ankle. Five employees
fell while getting on the step. In 7 of these cases excess
haste was mentioned as the employee attempted to jump on or
off while the truck was still moving (sometimes at speeds
greater than 10 mph). One IRIS user has a reprimand system
for employees caught jumping from moving steps. In two cases
wet and slippery steps were specifically cited. One employee
fell from the step while attempting to dump a container into
the hopper while riding; another employee fell getting on
the step when he tried to mount the step and set a container
down at the same time.
Two employees fell due to stepping in holes as they
got off the truck; in one case the ruts made by heavy equip-
ment in a dirt alley were the cause. One employee slipped
due to the wet grass next to truck, two due to stepping on
rocks or bricks as they dismounted, two due to cracks in the
pavement and two due to loose gravel.
Six employees slipped and struck against the side
of the truck as they got on or off. Three employees ran into
mailboxes, gas meters and sprinklers as they dismounted.
Countermeasures for "fall-from-step" type accidents
must consider the size, shape and location of the steps and
17
-------
handrails. The ANSI Z245.1 standard stipulates:
7.3.7 Riding Steps and Grab Handles
7.3.7.1 The surface and edges of steps shall
have a slip-resistant surface. They
shall be self-cleaning or be protected
against the accumulation of mud, snow,
and ice.
7.3.7.2 Steps shall be designed to carry a
uniformly distributed load of not less
than 1000 pounds.
7.3.7.3 If steps are provided, they shall be
mounted not more than 22 inches above the
road surface.
7.3.7.4 Steps shall have a depth of at least 8
inches and shall provide a minimum of 220
square inches of riding surface area.
7.3.7.5 Grab handles shall be provided in con-
junction with riding steps and be located
so as to provide the employee with a safe
and comfortable riding stance. Each grab
handle shall be capable of withstanding a
pull of at least 500 pounds.
Many IRIS users have trucks with steps much smaller than 220
square inches or narrower than 8 inches. The size of the
steps is often limited due to the width of the packer body
and DOT regulations concerning the width of vehicles. One
IRIS user has solved this problem by developing an extended
step on which employees ride, which can be collapsed after
dismounting so that the extra length does not interfere with
dumping. This IRIS user has significantly reduced its fall
from step injury rate.
Grab handles on many packers are often placed at
the height of the rider when he is on the step, and are a
little wider than a man's fists, so that employees literally
have to grab for the handle. Long vertical bars are suggested
which extend for several feet down the side of the truck where
possible. This reduces the need for the employee to be
looking up, instead of at his feet, when he mounts the truck.
The grab handle design also provides support all the way down
as the employee gets off the truck, and gives the employee a
choice of hand placement so that he is less tempted to use
the side of the hopper to find a comfortable holding space.
Employers should carefully examine (perhaps with videotape)
18
-------
exactly how employees use grab handles for riding and getting
on and off. Specific modifications in handrails may become
obvious with careful observation.
Drivers should be trained to stop at low risk loca-
tions. While it may not be possible to avoid ruts in the
road, it should be possible to avoid stopping in front of
mailboxes, the sides of driveways, trees, etc. For curbside
pick-up, drivers should avoid stopping right in front of the
cans. (Curbside pick-up normally has more "fall-from-step"
accidents as the step is used more often.) For backyard
pick-up, drivers should stop so as to encourage the employee to
use walkways and driveways rather than the yard as these are
normally smoother and do not have as many surprising holes.
One IRIS user has training sessions in how to
mount or dismount the step and cab correctly. For example,
employees are told to leave the cab facing the truck (as on a
ladder, rather than facing outward) and holding onto a special
handrail provided next to the cab door. Stepping out of the
cab facing the truck makes it possible for the employee to
examine his footing and hold the rail for support while dis-
mounting. Many employees use the door instead of a grab rail
for support (largely because they are facing outward); the
door is unstable and its swinging action may precipitate a
fall rather than avoid it. Twelve accidents occurred while
getting out of the cab (none while getting in). In only 1
case was the employee dismounting facing the truck. Employers
should have places where employees frequently leave the cab
carefully inspected and cleaned. Three of the falls while
dismounting the cab were due to employees leaving the cab in
the city yard and slipping on the oil spills of previous
trucks.
Other Falls
Falls and trips of all kinds, were the most frequent
accident type amounting to 26% of the accidents, 34% of the
workdays lost and 32% of the costs, and even exceeding over-
exertion accidents (18%) when falls from the step are included.
Falls are so frequent that they have been divided into several
categories: "falls from the step" (discussed above); "falls to a
different level", which includes falls ftrom the cab, and the
curb; falls to the same level, which are falls where no change
in level is involved; trips/slips/stumbles are falls in which
the employee maintained his balance and did not hit the ground;
and on/against/through objects are falls in which the employee
fell and struck against an object other than the ground.
19
-------
Altogether a total of 136 OSHA recordable accidents were
reported this quarter that involved falls.
Many of the falls were due to winter weather con-
ditions. Thirty-nine of the falls were due to ice or snow-
covered surfaces, seven were due to falls on wet surfaces.
Several of the falls on ice occurred while employees were
carrying more than one can. Employees should be cautioned
that balance is lessened while carrying heavy objects and
should be instructed to carry smaller numbers of cans (with
less weight) when working on icy surfaces. Many of the falls
on ice were due to making a turning or twisting action (such
as dumping) while carrying weight. The lack of traction
meant that the employees kept turning and fell. Bending over
was implicated in the same way. Ice causes containers to
become frozen to the ground; one employee fell and seriously
injured his knee as he attempted to jerk cans loose from the
ground. Many users maintain that it is snow covered ice that
is especially hazardous because it makes the icy surface
difficult to recognize. Employees should be cautioned as to
this hazard when working on newly fallen snow. Three employees
fell on ice while walking down an incline. Usually falls
occur more frequently in backyard collection as the employee
spends more time walking and is exposed to the hazards in the
yard and of changing surfaces. Some IRIS users maintain that
the use of a wheeled cart is safer in these circumstances as
it helps the employee to stablize his balance on icy surfaces.
Wheeled carts do appear to have several other safety advan-
tages compared to tote barrels when backyard collection is
used.
The hazards of walking in the customer's yard com-
pared to walking on the driveway or sidewalk should be
examined carefully. Clearly when no ice is involved, the
sidewalk or driveway is preferred. Customers' yards are
more likely to have extra hazards of sprinklers, sewer holes
(3 falls this quarter), changes in level covered over with
grass, stairs, etc. Fourteen falls this quarter were due'to
objects or surface conditions in the yard. Under icy conditions,
however, it is possible that the extra hazards in the yard are
compensated for by the better traction of snow covered grass
compared to ice covered driveways and walkways. More than
half the ice related falls occurred on driveways and walkways
this quarter. Further review of this problem is necessary.
In any case, training in selecting the pathway to the con-
tainer is recommended.
Ice and snow are responsible for several types of
accidents besides falls. Four cases of frost bite were
20
-------
reported this quarter. Several overexertion accidents were
due to frozen waste and containers stuck to the ground.
Vision and mobility are often impaired in snow conditions.
Even though employees are familiar with snow hazards they
may not consciously think of them until they are well into
the season and have an accident or a near-miss. Special
pre-snow safety sessions are suggested in which hazards and
safety precautions for snow conditions are reviewed.
Seven of the falls occurred as the employee was
stepping off the curb while carrying the container. Curbside
collectors can easily misjudge the curb in frequent turning
back and forth. Employees carrying containers to the curb
often block their vision of the curb with the container. On
the other hand, several falls occurred when the employee was
hoisting the tote barrel up to his back or shoulder.
Fourteen of the falls occurred when the employee
hoisted the can up to dump it into the hopper. In two cases
the employee slipped on waste that had fallen in front of the
hopper. Employees frequently fell when leaning over to give
waste an extra push into the hopper. Employees should be
cautioned not to use the hopper edge to balance themselves.
Several IRIS users have put considerable effort
into selecting footwear that will decrease the chances of
falls. One IRIS user issues a special shoe covering called
"ice creepers". Another has worked on the problem of steel
plated shoes becoming frozen in winter. High ankle shoes
are often recommended to reduce twisted ankles especially
while dismounting the step. Next quarter's ACCIDENT TRENDS
report will feature a special on protective clothing and will
discuss what IRIS users have done in this regard. In general,
however, most IRIS users to date have been disappointed by
"safety shoes" because they have been designed to reduce
indoor hazards such as objects falling on top of the toe.
A suitable outdoor safety shoe is one of the major safety
appliance needs of the solid waste management industry.
Employers should be cautioned against shoes with very high
traction, such as cleats. Such shoes will prevent falls
by keeping the employees feet from slipping but an even
greater hazard - twisted knees from starting to fall and not
having the feet move may occur. This is a very serious hazard
especially while carrying heavy weights. Knee injuries,
whether to Joe Namath or Joe Collector, are often very
difficult to repair.
In general the greatest hope for the immediate
future against falls is training in walking and carrying
21
-------
techniques that keep the body upright (i.e., keep the "center
of mass" over the feet). Training in reducing the number of
times when twisting, bending, pushing or other leaning for-
ward stances are used is needed. Employees need to be trained
to let containers go when they are about to fall so that
their hands can be used for balance. Certain industries even
train employees on how to fall safely. Normally employees
must make a conscious effort to learn to walk and carry safely
on slippery surfaces and must have practiced using the tech-
niques before they will do them automatically.
Overexertion Accidents
Overexertion accidents (i.e., strains while lifting,
dumping, pushing/pulling, etc.) especially to the back and
while lifting were the second most frequent accident type.
This type of accident amounted to 18% of the OSHA recordable
accidents, 19% of the workdays lost, and 23% of the costs
for the quarter. Back strains alone were the most frequent
nature of injury (see FIGURE 4) amounting to 95 accidents,
910 of the workdays lost and $34,000 in costs.
Lifting was the most frequent activity associated
with Overexertion accidents. There were 59 lifting over-
exertion accidents reported this quarter. In about 3/4 of
the cases the container was said to be extra heavy with
weights reported up to 80 pounds. In all cases the can was
full. In a few cases the employee was lifting more than one
can. Most IRIS users tell employees to "get help" when
containers are too heavy, but employees appear not to do this
very often. When employees do get help they must know how
to lift together to avoid injury. Special training and
practice is needed to do this.
About 1/2 of the lifting accidents involved special
heavy types of waste such as dirt, concrete, tree stumps,
papers, wet garbage, large bags of fruit, etc. Several IRIS
users train their employees to test the container before
lifting it. This can be done by bumping the container with
the knee or hand near the bottom and estimating relative
weight by how much the container rocks. Often customers
place the heavier items on the bottom of the container so
that the employee is misled in judging weight by just looking
at the container contents. Bumping the container to test it
is a more effective method. Bumping the container also tells
the employee whether the container is frozen to the ground
and enables the employee to identify containers that are
loosely packed. Often it is the shift of materials within
the containers as they are lifted that causes Overexertion
accidents. In only a few lifting accidents did the employee
test the container; most found out it was heavy by lifting it!
22
-------
Many cities have container regulations but often
they are not enforced. Container regulations should include
weight and size limitations, regulations on the condition
of the container, regulations on acceptable items to put in
the container and how to handle unacceptable items, regulations
on the location of the container, and the requirement for lids.
(Employees should be trained to assume that containers found
without lids after a rainy night or after heavy dew are water
filled and therefore very heavy). Containers not meeting city
rules should be tagged and left rather than picked up. Many
sanitation divisions are forced by the cries of city council-
men (echoing the cries of citizens) to pick up any and all
containers thus making enforcement of container regulations
impossible. Public education programs must therefore accompany
issuance or changes in enforcement of container regulations.
One IRIS user has found public education programs to be
effective.
Besides weight of container, 10 accidents reported
this quarter involved poor condition of the container (ragged
edges, broken handles, etc.). One back injury involved
lifting a container out of a hole in the ground. Certain
cities allow this practice; it almost certainly increases the
risk of back injury and if possible should be prohibited in
container regulations. Approximately 20 accidents reported
involved being hurt by waste that was inadequately wrapped
or bundled. Container regulations should specify how citizens
should handle glass, razors, chemicals like clorox and battery
acid, etc. Shrubbery regulations should require bundling.
Certain shrubbery such as palm fronds are especially hazardous
and special regulations may be required. Container regulations
should prohibit the use of 55 gallon drums. The optimum weight
regulation is not known at this time. The effect of weight
depends in part on complex relationships such as the ratio of
height of the hopper to the height of the employee. Weights
over 30 pounds are frequently hazardous if handled improperly.
Some cities have weight regulations as high as 100 pounds.
Most cities which have weight regulations specify between 60
and 80 pounds.
Much misunderstanding and mistrust between employer
and employees has arisen over back injuries. While it is
true that there are employees who fake back injuries it should
also be remembered that: (1) a back injury can be real and
not show up on an x-ray; (2) back injuries can develop over
time with repeated exertion so that the employee may genuinely
not be able to cite a specific accident which injured his back
(7 accidents of this type were reported this quarter).
Employers in some industries have successfully tried rotating
activities of employees every hour to reduce long term over-
23
-------
exertion accidents. Switching the driver may be useful); (3)
for certain types of back injuries, once an employee has
sustained a back injury he is physically more likely to^
have others, so that an employee may in fact have a series
of back injuries without being "accident prone".
Not many hard and fast countermeasures can be
offered at present for back injuries. Most involve training.
Employees must be trained to lift properly.
The most important modern rule for lifting is to
keep the item close to the body (the old rule about keeping
the back straight is valid precisely because it helps keep
the item close to the body). Employees should be taught not
to jerk up containers but to lift them steadily (most people
will not lift steadily unless trained to do so; the heavier
the object the more people tend to want to jerk it up).
Employees should be trained to avoid twisting or
turning actions when lifting. Twenty of the overexertion
accidents involved dumping the containers. Employees fre-
quently lifted the container from the curb and twisted around
to dump, all in one motion. Training on dumping should be
emphasized (most training sessions only cover lifting).
Employees, especially on curbside crews, should be taught to
lift the container, turn (including moving the feet), and then
dump, not dump-and-turn at once. An additional 11 overexertion
accidents were the result of trying to catch a container that
had started to slip from their hands while dumping. Employees
should be taught to "let the container go" if it starts to
slip. Another 5 overexertion accidents occurred when the
employee was jerking a large or stuck container back out of
the hopper. Jerking action is to be avoided in lifting
activities.
In 18 dumping accidents, waste flew back out while
the employee was dumping it and the employee jerked or fell
to avoid being hit. Employees should be cautioned about the
hazard of placing exceptionally long objects in the hopper.
One employee was seriously injured when he leaped to avoid
being hit by a long board that started to swing around after
the packing blade was started. Many employees hold the
container high in the air when dumping to get refuse out
faster. This practice increases the chance of being hit by
objects flying back after dumping and probably increases the
risk of back strain. Employees should be trained to turn
their head to the side when dumping to protect their eyes
from waste flying back.
24
-------
Plastic Bags
Plastic bags probably reduce the risk of overexertion
accidents because there is a limited amount of weight that can
be placed in a bag. Only 3 overexertion accidents occurred
while handling bags. All 3 were the result of throwing and
twisting at the same time. Employees should be taught to
pick up, carry and carefully place plastic bags rather than
twisting around and throwing bags into the hopper while
remaining at the curb.
Nineteen accidents this quarter involved being cut
by sharp objects, usually glass, penetrating plastic bags.
Most of these occurred to the employees legs, especially if he
was swinging the bag back and forth as he carried it. "Chaps"
on the sides of the trousers are used by one IRIS user to
prevent this type of injury and cities collecting all or nearly
all plastic bags should consider the use of chaps. However,
in order to gain employee acceptance, chaps must be designed
so as to avoid being overly cumbersome or hot. Nylon ballistic
pads are used in some industries. Because of the hazard of
hypodermic needles in hospital or doctor's office waste, it
may be advisable to discourage the use of plastic bags for
these customers.
Vehicle Accidents
For the first time since the development of IRIS,
large numbers of vehicle accidents were reported. IRIS only
covers personal injury accidents so that vehicle accidents
involving only property damage are not reported to IRIS.
Until this quarter only a handful of personal injury accidents
were reported. This quarter 40 employees were injured,
several very seriously, in 24 vehicle accidents. One employee
was hit by a car in crossing the street to pick up containers.
The practice of collecting refuse from both sides of the
street is especially subject to traffic accident hazards
because the employee frequently crosses the street and because
the truck often partially blocks traffic. This practice is
discouraged. Seven employees were injured in snowplow vehicle
accidents; most occurred when the snowplow knocked against
the curbing. In two vehicle accidents, alcohol involvement is
suspected of the employee/driver.
One IRIS user has instituted a special program to
test and train employees about braking distance and how it is
affected by increased speed, tonnage, and grade. It was
recognized that employees were using their brakes while getting to
the route and then driving along at curb speed while collecting
without using their brakes very often. Meanwhile the tonnage,
25
-------
and therefore the braking distance was increasing often
unbeknownst to the driver. When riding to the landfill
the brakes were again used but the doubled weight meant that
the braking distance required has doubled. Many employees
had failed to recognize the difference in braking distance
between going to the route and coming from the route and
were not adjusting their driving habits accordingly- The
training program was started to combat this problem. After
the brake training program was instituted, which included
pre- and post-training tests, the number of brake failure
related accidents dropped from 10 a year to zero for this
user.
Animal Accidents
Seven accidents reported this quarter involved
animal bites. One employee was bitten while petting a dog.
Employees should be instructed not to touch animals. Four
additional employees sustained falls or strains in trying to
outrun or jump away from a dog, or in one case, a cat.
Normally it is best to walk away from animals; running tends
to encourage chase.
One animal injury this quarter could probably take
the prize for being unusual. A driver was stopped at the
curb for container pick-up, when he was bit on the finger by
a monkey who "hopped into the cab unexpectedly" (no kiddingl)
It .is_ perhaps only marginally worth mentioning that the
employee was not wearing safety gloves at the time.
Preliminary Task/Hazard Analysis
The information on hazards and countermeasures has
been systematically compiled and placed in chart form in
TABLE A. It is believed that training programs and other
countermeasures can be more effectively developed if hazards
data is organized around the tasks the employee is performing.
Accordingly a preliminary effort to analyze the hazards of
the solid waste management industry by task has been started.
Only actual hazards which resulted in injuries this quarter
are included (i.e., no hypothetical hazards). No attempt
has been made in this preliminary effort to cover every task
or every hazard. The countermeasures described in detail
in the text are summarized in ':he TABLE. It is the intention
of IRIS to continue to refine the Preliminary Task/Hazard
Analysis as more data is received. Comments from IRIS users
are welcomed. Some IRIS users may wish to use the task
analysis format for evaluating their own injuries.
26
-------
ALL USERS
PROFILE OF ACCIDENTS
BY ACCIDENT TYPE AND ACTIVITY
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACCIDENT TYPE AND ACTIVITY.
PROFILE
NJ
-J
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
STRUCK
BY VEHICLE PART
BY VEHICLE PART
BY VEHICLE PART
BY VEHICLE PART
BY VEHICLE PART
BY VEHICLE PART
BY VEHICLE PART
BY VEHICLE PART
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
AGAINST VEHICLE
BY OBJECT WHILE
BY OBJECT WHILE
BY OBJECT WHILE
BY OBJECT WHILE
BY OBJECT UHILE
BY OBJECT UHILE
BY OBJECT WHILE
BY OBJECT WHILE
BY OBJECT WHILE
BY OBJECT WHILE
BY OBJECT
BY OBJECT WHILE
BY OBJECT WHILE
BY OBJECT WHILE
BY OBJECT UHILE
WHILE OPERATING PACKING MECHANISMS
WHILE EMPTYING VEHICLE/PACKER
WHILE DRIVING/OPERATING EQUIP
WHILE RIDING IN CAB
UHILE STANDING/WALKING
WHILE CARRYING CONTAINER
WHILE GETTING OUT OF CAB
WHILE REPAIRING/MAINTAINING VEHICLE
UHILE GETTING OFF STEP
WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
WHILE RIDING ON STEP
WHILE GETTING ON STEP
WHILE PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER
WHILE RIDING IN CAB
WHILE DRIVING/OPERATING EQUIP
WHILE CARRYING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE
WHILE RIDING IN TRUCK BED
WHILE THROWING/CATCHING
WHILE CARRYING CONTAINER
WHILE REPAIRING/MAINTAINING VEHICLE
WHILE LIFTING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE
WHILE DUMPING UNCONT WASTE INTO OTHER
WHILE STANDING/WALKING
WHILE OPERATING PACKING MECHANISMS
DRIVING/OPERATING EQUIP
STANDING/WALKING
GETTING IN CAB
THROWING/CATCHING
LIFTING UNCDNTAINERIZED WASTE
CARRYING CONTAINER
DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER
RIDING ON STEP
DUMPING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE INTO HOPPER
*
LIFTING CONTAINER
OPERATING PACKING MECHANISMS
REPAIRING/MAINTAINING VEHICLE
RIDING IN CAB
NO.
INJ
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
*p
1
8
7
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
8
1
5
1
1
7
4
2
5
1
1
1
1
1
WKDYS
LOST
0
0
28
9
0
21
0
0
12
94
24
4
21
4
20
3
0
0
3
0
0
1
3
6
0
10
14
0
48
0
1
10
0
0
3
10
12
0
2
34
DIRECT
COSTS
20
0
1ť505
585
. 30
434
72
20
82
Ir623
2rl93
132
427
148
If 076
100
20
0
153
20
20
81
95
101
48
412
3r060
30
IrOBl
20
37
463
109
0
253
335
524
45
135
700
-------
FIGURE 2 (cont.)
to
CO
PROFILE
STRUCK BY OBJECT WHILE USING HAND TOOLS
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT WHILE PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER-
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT WHILE LIFTING CONTAINER
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT WHILE GETTING OFF STEP
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER-
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT WHILE RIDING ON STEP
STRUCK AGAINST-OBJECT
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE DRIVING/OPERATING EQUIP
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE OPERATING PACKING MECHANISMS
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE STANDING/WALKING
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE OPERATING OTHER CONTROLS
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE WASHING EQUIP
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO TUB/CART
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE GETTING OUT OF CAB
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE REPAIRING/MAINTAINING VEHICLE
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE LIFTING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE RIDING ON STEP
OBJECT IN EVES WHILE DUMPING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE INTO HOPPER-
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE RIDING IN TRUCK BED
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE USING HAND TOOLS
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE DUMPING UNCONT WASTE INTO OTHER
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE LIFTING CONTAINER-
OBJECT IN EYES WHILE GUIDING/DIRECTING VEHICLE
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
INTO HOPPER-
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
HURT BY OBJECT HANDLED
WHILE LIFTING CONTAINER-
WHILE THROWING/CATCHING
WHILE DUMPING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE
WHILE LIFTING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE
WHILE CARRYING CONTAINER
WHILE USING HAND TOOLS '
WHILE DUMPING OTHER INTO HOPPER
WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO TUB/CART
WHILE REPAIRING/MAINTAINING VEHICLE
WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO OTHER
WHILE PUSHING/PULLING WASTE IN/OUT CONTAINER
WHILE CLEARING
WHILE PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER
WHILE LIFTING OTHER
WHILE NO SPECIFIC ACT
WHILE CARRYING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE
FALL TO DIFFERENT LEVEL WHILE STANDING/WALKING
FALL TO DIFFERENT LEVEL WHILE CARRYING CONTAINER
NO.
INJ
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
6
10
5
4
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
20
4
1
3
4
1
2
1
10
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
6
WKDYS
LOST
6
15
0
0
1
0
0
7
50
3
2
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
2
0
2
171
6
0
0
58
0
0
0
33
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
109
62
DIRECT
COSTS
428
221
40
42
72
45
30
671
1 >196
300
200
238
54
20
20
40
115
69
270
20
40
85
45
81
6r<435
293
90
43
1ť615
37
54
15
1ť435
40
45
47
75
0
20
59
20
20
5rl89
lrlS3
-------
PROFILE
FALL TO DIFFERENT LEVEL WHILE LIFTING CONTAINER
FALL TO DIFFERENT LEVEL WHILE PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER
FALL TO DIFFERENT LEVEL WHILE GETTING OUT OF CAB
FALL TO DIFFERENT LEVEL
FALL TO DIFFERENT LEVEL WHILE GETTING IN CAB
FALL TO DIFFERENT LEVEL WHILE DUMPING OTHER INTO HOPPER
FALL TO DIFFERENT LEVEL WHILE PUSHING/PULLING WASTE IN/OUT CONTAINER
FALL TO DIFFERENT LEVEL WHILE RIDING IN HOPPER
FALL FROM STEP WHILE GETTING OFF STEP
FALL FROM STEP WHILE GETTING ON STEP
FALL FROM STEP WHILE RIDING ON STEP
FALL FROM STEP WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER
EMPTYING VEHICLE/PACKER
STANDING/WALKING
DUMPING UNCONT WASTE INTO OTHER
DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
CARRYING CONTAINER
USING HAND TOOLS
LIFTING CONTAINER
GETTING OUT OF CAB
PUSHING WASTE BACK INTO HOPPER
WHILE CARRYING CONTAINER
WHILE GETTING OUT OF CAB
WHILE EMPTYING VEHICLE/PACKER
WHILE PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER
WHILE STANDING/WALKING
WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
WHILE LIFTING CONTAINER
WHILE GETTING IN CAB
WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO TUB/CART
WHILE LIFTING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE
WHILE GETTING OFF STEP
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
FALL
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
SAME
SAME
SAME
SAME
SAME
SAME
SAME
SAME
SAME
SAME
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
WHILE
TRIP/STUMBLE/SLIP
TRIP/STUMBLE/SLIP
TRIP/STUMBLE/SLIP
TRIP/STUMBLE/SLIP
TRIP/STUMBLE/SLIP
TRIP/STUMBLE/SLIP
TRIP/STUMBLE/SLIP
TRIP/STUMBLE/SLIP
TRIP/STUMBLE/SLIP
TRIP/STUMBLE/SLIP
TRIP/STUMBLE/SLIP
BODILY REACTION WHILE DRIVING/OPERATING EQUIP
BODILY REACTION WHILE USING HAND TOOLS
BODILY REACTION WHILE PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER
BODILY REACTION
BODILY REACTION WHILE HOOKING/UNHOOKING TRAILER
BODILY REACTION WHILE RIDING IN CAB
BODILY REACTION WHILE LIFTING CONTAINER
BODILY REACTION WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
BODILY REACTION WHILE LIFTING OTHER
DVEREXERTION WHILE LIFTING CONTAINER
OVEREXERTION WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
NO.
INJ
1
9
5
1
1
1
1
1
24
5
11
1
6
1
15
1
8
8
1
2
1
1
7
5
2
6
6
A
A
3
1
2
1
5
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
59
9
WKDYS
LOST
12
8
61
7
3
4
1
19
269
25
82
5
51
0
219
0
14
53
3
0
15
38
14
27
0
30
65
12
9
14-
1
4
6
31
0
3
3
28
1
6
6
2
435
37
DIRECT
COSTS
471
411
3r958
265
80
143
56
Ir784
7r034
2r729
2,011
22
2ť365
53
6,476
67
363
2r401
183
20
626
2,260
699
447
54
1,403
2,369
1,042
339
528
70
190
306
Ir912
40
40
128
426
52
283
373
200
23,369
IF 636
-------
FIGURE 2 (cont.)
oo
o
OVEREXERTION WHILE
OVEREXERTION WHILE
OVEREXERTION WHILE
OVEREXERTION WHILE
OVEREXERTION WHILE
OVEREXERTION WHILE
OVEREXERTION WHILE
OVEREXERTION WHILE
OVEREXERTION WHILE
OVEREXERTION WHILE
OVEREXERTION WHILE
OVEREXERTION WHILE
PROFILE
EMPTYING VEHICLE/PACKER
OPERATING PACKING MECHANISMS
CLEARING
LIFTING OTHER
CARRYING CONTAINER
PUSHING/PULLING OTHER
THROWING/CATCHING
PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER
DUMPING CONTAINER INTO TUB/CART
GETTING ON STEP
LIFTING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE
DUMPING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE INTO HOPPER
CAUGHT IN PACKER WHILE PUSHING WASTE BACK INTO HOPPER
CAUGHT IN PACKER WHILE STANDING/WALKING
CAUGHT IN PACKER WHILE RIDING IN HOPPER
CAUGHT IN PACKER
CAUGHT BETWEEN OR UNDER WHILE PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER
CAUGHT BETWEEN OR UNDER WHILE OPERATING PACKING MECHANISMS
CAUGHT BETWEEN OR UNDER
CAUGHT BETWEEN OR .UNDER WHILE RIDING ON STEP
CONTACT WITH TEMP EXTREME WHILE NO SPECIFIC ACT
CONTACT WITH TEMP EXTREME WHILE REPAIRING/MAINTAINING VEHICLE
CONTACT WITH TEMP EXTREME WHILE WASHING EQUIP
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC/TOXIC/NOXIOUS SUBSTANCE WHILE DUMPING
CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC/TOXIC/NOXIOUS
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC/TOXIC/NOXIOUS
OPERATING PACKING MECHANISMS
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC/TOXIC/NOXIOUS SUBSTANCE WHILE
DRIVING/OPERATING EQUIP
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC/TOXIC/NOXIOUS
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC/TOXIC/NOXIOUS
REPAIRING/MAINTAINING VEHICLE
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC/TOXIC/NOXIOUS SUBSTANCE WHILE STANDING/WALKING
SUBSTANCE WHILE NO SPECIFIC ACT
SUBSTANCE'WHILE
SUBSTANCE WHILE CLEARING
SUBSTANCE WHILE
INSECT BITE WHILE LIFTING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE
ANIMAL BITE WHILE DRIVING/OPERATING EQUIP
ANIMAL BITE WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO TUB/CART
ANIMAL BITE WHILE LIFTING CONTAINER
ANIMAL BITE WHILE PUSHING/PULLING CONTAINER
ANIMAL BITE WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
ANIMAL BITE
STEP ON SHARP OBJECT WHILE CLEARING
NO.
INJ
1
1
1
3
5
3
1
5
2
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
6
2
1
1
4
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
WKDYS
LOST
7
3
0
7
23
65
7
63
0
0
32
1
37
0
86
2
0
44
2
43
3
11
0
80
10
1
0
0
14
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
DIRECT
COSTS
60
191
103
378
693
2ť500
100
4r833
40
20
692
128
7*249
0
2.ť258
91
205
1*553
104
3fl99
213
73
0
1ť 690
482
y
59 |
0 I
0
780
89
15
71
20
248
20
20
. 64
24
-------
U)
PROFILE
STEP ON SHARP OBJECT WHILE STANDING/WALKING
STEP ON SHARP OBJECT WHILE EMPTYING VEHICLE/PACKER
STEP ON SHARP OBJECT
AGGRESSIVE ACT WHILE STANDING/WALKING
AGGRESSIVE ACT WHILE GUIDING/DIRECTING VEHICLE
AGGRESSIVE ACT WHILE AGGRESSIVE ACT
DERMATITIS WHILE NO SPECIFIC ACT
DERMATITIS WHILE DUMPING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE INTO HOPPER
DERMATITIS WHILE JANITORIAL WORK
NO SPECIFIC ACCIDENT WHILE NO SPECIFIC ACT
NO SPECIFIC ACCIDENT WHILE WASHING EQUIP
DROPPED OBJECT ON
DROPPED OBJECT ON
DROPPED OBJECT ON
DROPPED OBJECT ON
DROPPED OBJECT ON
DROPPED OBJECT ON
DROPPED OBJECT ON
INTO HOPPER'
DROPPED OBJECT ON
SELF WHILE LIFTING CONTAINER
SELF WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO TUB/CART
SELF WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
SELF WHILE CARRYING CONTAINER
SELF WHILE PUSHING/PULLING OTHER
SELF WHILE CARRYING OTHER
SELF WHILE DUMPING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE
SELF WHILE HOOKING/UNHOOKING TRAILER
STRUCK BY VEHICLE WHILE RIDING IN CAB
STRUCK BY VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING/OPERATING EQUIP
STRUCK BY VEHICLE WHILE STANDING/WALKING
STRUCK BY VEHICLE WHILE CLEARING
STRUCK BY VEHICLE WHILE DUMPING CONTAINER INTO HOPPER
STRUCK BY VEHICLE WHILE LIFTING UNCONTAINERIZED WASTE
FELL ON/AGAINST/THROUGH OBJECT WHILE STANDING/WALKING
FELL ON/AGAINST/THROUGH OBJECT WHILE CARRYING CONTAINER
FELL ON/AGAINST/THROUGH OBJECT WHILE GETTING OUT OF CAB
FELL ON/AGAINST/THROUGH OBJECT WHILE LIFTING CONTAINER
FELL ON/AGAINST/THROUGH OBJECT WHILE REPAIRING/MAINTAINING VEHICLE
FLASH BURN WHILE REPAIRING/MAINTAINING VEHICLE
UNKNOWN
NO.
INJ
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
2
2
i
1
1
1
1
10
9
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
WKDYS
LOST
1
0
4
4
6
2
0
1
0
95
0
29
4
4
1
0
1
0
2
145
212
15
0
0
32
0
6
0
2
0
0
6
3
DIRECT
COSTS
106
110
254
297
412
72
18
45
10
3r320
20
1ť076
227
207
72
20
58
36
99
3r309
4r340
736
0
20
660
20
286
52
104
45
25
408
125
-------
FIGURE 3
ALL USERS
PROFILE OF ACCIDENTS
BY NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF PART OF BODY AND NATURE OF INJURY.
PROFILE
NO.
INJ
UKDYS
LOST
AMPUTATION INJURING ARM
ANIMAL BITE INJURING FINGERS
ANIMAL BITE INJURING LEG
ANIMAL BITE INJURING ANKLE
ANIMAL BITE INJURING TRUNK
ANIMAL BITE INJURING CHEST/RIBS
INSECT BITE INJURING ARM
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTHSION/CRUSHJNO INJURING
BRUISF/CON1USION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONIUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSIGN/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING INJURING
HEAT BURN/SCALD INJURING EYES
HEAT BURN/SCALD INJURING FACE
HEAT BURN/SCAUD INJURING ARM
DIRECT
COSTS
6,877
HAND
HIPS
CHEST/RIBS
KNEE
FOOT
ELBOU
BACK
ARM
FINGERS
SKULL
LEG
ANKLE
SCALP
SHOULDER
GENITALIA/GROIN
MULTIPLE TYPES OF INJURY
TOES
WRIST
NOSE
EYES
FACE
JAW
MULTIPLE PARTS OF BODY
FOREHEAD
THUMB
NECK
CHEEK
1
3
1
1
1
8
8
10
18
7
11
6
3
12
2
12
5
6
12
2
1
5
1
2
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
i
i
0
3
2
0
0
0
74
36
85
28
30
12
64
11
31
34
77
25
9
75
1
12
70
0
9
42
5
0
59
1
0
0
0
0
ll
o
71
186
1.02
20
64
15
1,835
1,652
3,858
1,193
1,388
601
4,311
316
1,584
720
1,837
1,303
502
3,341
67
2,327
904
57
274
931
250
47
3,481
87
45
.33
20
25
73
zo
-------
UJ
PROFILE
HEAT BURN/SCALD INJURING ABDOMEN
CHEMICAL BURN INJURING EYES
CHEMICAL BURN INJURING ABDOMEN
CONCUSSION INJURING SKULL
CONCUSSION INJURING FOREHEAD
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING FINGERS
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING EYES
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING LEG
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING FOREHEAD
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING FOOT
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING JAW
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING WRIST
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING HAND
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING HIPS
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING ANKLE
CUIVLACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING FACE
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING CHEEK
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING KNEE
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING THUMB
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING SCALP
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING SHOULDER
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING EARS
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE INJURING ARM
DERMATITIS/RASH INJURING GENITALIA/GROIN
DERMATITIS/RASH INJURING HAND
DERMATITIS/RASH INJURING ARM
DISLOCATION INJURING BACK
OBJECT IN
FRACTURE
FRACTURE
FRACTURE
FRACTURE
FRACTURE
FRACTURE
FRACTURE
EYE INJURING EYES
INJURING SKULL
INJURING ANKLE
INJURING ARM
INJURING FINGERS
INJURING THUMB
INJURING FOOT
INJURING CHEST/RIBS
FREEZING/FROSTBITE/OTHER LOW TEMPERATURE INJURING FINGERS
HERNIA/RUPTURE INJURING GENITALIA/GROIN
INFLAMED JOINTS/TENDONS/MUSCLES INJURING HIPS
INFLAMED JOINTS/TENDONS/MUSCLES INJURING LEG
NOSEBLEED INJURING NOSE
SCRATCHES/ABRASIONS INJURING EYES
SCRATCHES/ABRASIONS INJURING EARS
NO.
INJ
1
2
1
1
1
13
4
16
*3
8
1
4
13
*?
1
3
2
3
2
3
1
1
3
1
2
4
1
50
1
1
1
5
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
2
4
2
WKDYS
LOST
0
1
74
77
2
99
1
118
0
6
3
6
26
0
20
7
0
7
0
16
0
0
12
0
7
1
5
89
107
23
0
5
24
97
3
3
36
4
5
3
7
0
DIRECT
COSTS
0
111
If476
993
77
4r961
287
3f328
20
552
183
368
858
35
66Q
212
20
285
0
767
27
45
412
18
237
92
605
4f346
Ir090
308
0
392
1,280
2ť052
197
213
3*746
239
22
148
2ť752
30
-------
FIGURE 3 (.cont.)
PROFILE
U)
,Ł>.
SCRATCHES/ABRASIONS INJURING LEG
SCRATCHES/ABRASIONS INJURING ARH
SCRATCHES/ABRASIONS INJURING HIPS
SCRATCHES/ABRASIONS INJURING ELBOW
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
SPRAIN/STRAIN
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
INJURING
SHOULDER
THUMB
KNEE
BUTTOCKS
BACK
ANKLE
HIPS
TRUNK
NECK
ARM
ABDOMEN
GENITALIA/GROIN
INTERNAL ORGANS
ELBOW
WRIST
FOOT
FINGERS
CHEST/RIBS
LEG
HAND
POISONING INJURING INTERNAL ORGANS
TORN CARTILAGE INJURING KNEE
INJURING MULTIF'LE PARTS OF BODY
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
INJURING BACK
INJURING FACE
INJURING LEG '
INJURING TOES
INJURING ELBOW
INJURING SHOULDER
INJURING FINGERS
INJURING HAND
NO.
INJ
1
1
1
1
18
3
9
1
95
41
3
3
11
5
3
7
1
1
7
3
4
2
2
1
3
1
1
5
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
WKDYS
LOST
38
0
0
0
83
59
44
3
910
303
9
24
141
14
10
23
18
5
54
2
33
38
19
0
10
15
43
14
0
10
4
18
4
3
1
3
0
DIRECT
COSTS
729
20
0
20
8r466
1*336
If471
177
34*389
10r050
246
485
3r673
782
502
506
854
195
4ť226
149
77
3ť297
844
20
4S2
664
1ť902
809
25
424
98
823
154
125
56
20
20
-------
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Dumping into
Hopper
U)
en
HAZARDS
Hopper Ejecting Materials
Falls Against Hopper
Overexertion
Waste Flying Back After
DumpingSwinging of Long
Items
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
"Flaps." Turning head when dumping. Reducing time
spent behind packer. Eye protection.
Pick up waste in front of hopper as soon as it has
fallen. Avoid leaning over or twisting actions while
dumping. Avoid the quick jerk hoisting action.
Avoid twisting while dumping. Avoid jerking the
container up to dumpslow steady lift is best. Train
employees to let falling containers go and not try to
catch containers that slip out of their hands.
Careful placing of waste. Avoid holding container high
in air. Turn head while dumping.
-------
TABLE A (cont.)
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Carrying
HAZARDS
Falls and Slips
Overexertion
u>
CTi
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
Reduce number and weight of containers carried on icy
or wet surfaces. Avoid twisting or leaning forward
positions. If bags are used, avoid swinging them.
Use of wheeled carts may be an advantage in backyard
collection. Use caution when hoisting container to
shoulder. Proper footwear. Avoid walking in customer
yards, use sidewalks and driveways instead, except
under icy conditions.
Normally does not occur while carrying but rather when
dumping or lifting except when twisting as on slippery
surfaces.
-------
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Lifting
HAZARDS
Overexertion
Falls or Slips
OJ
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
Avoid jerking action. Slow steady lifts are best. Test
can for weight before lifting. Keep can close to body
at all times. Avoid twisting action. Get help for
heavy weights; train employees how to lift together.
Enforce container weight regulations. Public education
programs. Plastic bags probably are not as great a
lifting hazard.
Avoid jerks and twisting action. Proper footwear.
-------
TABLE A (cont.)
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Riding on
Step
HAZARDS
Getting caught in Packer
U)
oo
Striking Against Posts,
Trees, Cars as Ride By
Step Hitting Ground and
Throwing Rider
Truck Lerching due to
Sudden Starts and Stops,
Corners, etc., -Throwing
Employee
Step Breaking While Riding
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
Due to placing feet or hands partially in hopper.
Should be prohibited and employees trained how to
ride step properly. Design of step, grab handles and
back corners of packers should be reevaluated to deter-
mine if design could not be developed to make it very
awkward to stand with feet or hands partially in the
hopper. Pinch point protection.
Signaling devices (to driver) that can be activated by
the rider; must be accompanied by training and practice
in their use. Training to not try to jump clean of the
truck. Bak-safe device. Training in keeping body close
to the truck. Driver training in judging distance.
Driver training of hazardous surfaces, e.g., gutters,
corners, driveways, dips. Step height and design.
Increased size of step.
Driver training in gradual acceleration and deceleration,
Training in braking distance. Increased use of the cab
where feasible. Increased size of step.
A formalized maintenance and vehicle inspection program.
-------
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Getting On
and Off
the Step
OJ
Getting Out
of Cab
HAZARDS
Falls or Slips From the
Step due to Haste of
Employee or Moving Truck
Falls due to Stepping into
Changes in Surface Levels.
Falls due to Wet Steps and
Surfaces
Striking Against Side of
Truck
Striking Against Yard
Objects
Slips due to Loss of Foot-
ing
Slips in Oil or Grease in
Employer's Yard
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
Rules against jumping off moving vehicles. Extended hand
rails. Training employees to wait until after the truck
has lerched backward in its stopping motion before' dis-
mounting.
Choice of driveway or walkway rather than yard for stoppii
Slip resistant steps.
Proper stopping procedure training for driver. Extended
hand rails. Slip resistant steps.
Choice of stopping point by driver.
Proper stance (facing truck) getting out of cab. Grab
rails on side of truck near door.
Maintenance and clean up practices.
-------
FIGURE A (cont.)
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Using Plastic
Bags
HAZARDS
Cuts, especially to Legs,
when Glass or Other Sharp
Object Protrudes through
the Bag
Hopper Blade "Popping" Bag
and Sending out a Spray of
Dust, Ashes, and Sawdust,
etc.
Overexertion
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
Chaps on legs. Use of long sleeved shirts and gloves.
Train employees not to swing bags. Public regulations
on use of bags.
"Flaps." Getting away from back of hopper after dumping
bag. Turning head when dumping bag. Eye protection.
Avoid throwing or wide-arc swinging of bags.
-------
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Operating
Packing
Mechanism
HAZARDS
Getting Caught in Packer
Hopper Ejecting Materials
Twisting or Jerking of Hand
by Sweeper Blade
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
Use left hand. Design of operating buttons so that they
cannot be operated while riding on the step. Training
to avoid putting hands or feet in hopper at any time whilŤ-
riding on step. Training to let falling waste go. Use
of two handed operating buttons. Emergency stop buttons.
Pinch point protection.
"Flaps" over packer blade. Use of left hand to operate
packer. Eye protection.
Design of Controls.
-------
TABLE A (cont.)
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Pushing Waste
Back Into
The Hopper
HAZARDS
Getting Caught in the Packer
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
Note: This activity is extremely danagerous and should
be prohibited where possible. Employees should be told
of the hazard of getting caught in the packer. They
should explicitly be told that when they see waste falling
out of the hopper to LET IT GO, stop the packing mechanism
as soon as possible and put the waste back in after the
packer has stopped. "Flaps" over the packer blade may
help reduce the need to push waste back into the packer.
Employees might be furnished with a bar with which to
push waste back in. Regulations against scavenging.
Pinch point protection.
-------
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Standing Be-
hind Packer
Truck
U)
HAZARDS
Hopper Ejecting Materials
Being Struck by Another
Employee or Another
Employee's Container
Being Struck by Truck
Exhaust Fumes
Truck Kicking up Rocks and
Other Materials
SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
Note: Standing behind the packer truck is a dangerous
activity. Employees should be tained to spend the least
amount of time possible behind the truck and to move away
as soon as possible.
"Flaps". Eye protection.
Smaller crew size. Coordination between crew members.
"Rythum method" in their walking patterns. Crew chief
direction.
Bak-safe.
Avoid practice of walking behind packer all day.
exhaust system frequently.
Avoid standing behind truck when it is moving.
Check
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY OF IRIS USER
INDUSTRY WIDE
DATA
This section provides a summary of the IRIS data as
it applies to all users, and as it relates to industry wide trends,
It is divided into 2 parts. Part I reviews the frequency,
severity and costs of injuries to the industry. Part II sum-
marizes the characteristics of the injuries occurring in the
industry.
PART I - FREQUENCY, SEVERITY, COSTS
FIGURES 5 through 8 summarize the frequency, severity
and costs of injuries reported during this quarter.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5 provides a recap for the quarter. This
FIGURE lists, in order of user number, the number of injuries
reported by each IRIS user and categorizes these injuries by
their severity level (i.e., first aid through death). For
each severity level the percentage of the total injuries re-
ported is shown. For example, if a percentage of 28% is
shown for the "first-aid" severity level, this means that
28% of all the injuries reported were classified as first-aid.
The purpose of this FIGURE is to recap the severity of injuries
by user, so as to make it possible to compare users by the per-
cent of injuries at certain severity levels. To do this, you
should read across the page to identify the total number of
injuries reported this quarter and the number and percent of
these injuries classified at various severity levels.
FIGURES 6-8
FIGURES 6 through 8 compare users and provide AVERAGES
for injury frequency, severity and costs. In all of these
FIGURES the comparison is done by ranking IRIS user's in order
of highest to lowest injury rates. To use these FIGURES you
should:
(1) Identify the type of rate and type of comparison
being made. "OSHA Incidence Rates" are measures
of frequency of injuries. The "Severity Rate,"
and the "Average Workdays Lost per Lost Workday
Case" are measures of the severity of injuries.
The "Average Direct Cost per OSHA Recordable
Injury" and the "Average Cost per Man-year"
are measures of the costliness of injuries. (See
descriptions of the FIGURES below.)
44
-------
(2) look for an IRIS user or the AVERAGE and read
across the page to identify the rates. FIGURES
having more than one type of rate may have the
AVERAGE or a given IRIS user on a different row
for each type of rate, because IRIS users are
listed in order of highest to lowest rates.
(3) determine how each user stands compared with
other IRIS users and the AVERAGE.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4 lists three columns of data by user in
order of highest to lowest rates: the OSHA incidence rate for
all OSHA recordable injuries, the OSHA incidence rate for lost
workday cases, and a severity rate. The meaning of the rates
are explained below:
The OSHA incidence rate is the number of OSHA
recordable injuries per 200,000 hours of exposure.
The base figure of "200,000 hours" is the standard
figure used in OSHA statistics. It is roughly
equivalent to 100 full-time employees working a
year or 100 man-years (i.e., 100 employees working
40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year).
OSHA incidence rates can be thought of as being
roughly equivalent to the number of injuries
that will occur to 100 employees during a year.
Therefore, an OSHA incidence rate of "37" means
(roughly) that the organization is having 37
injuries per year for each 100 employees or that
(on the average) 1 out of every 3 employees are
being injured. The national average OSHA
incidence rate for all industries has been
around 10 for the last several years.
An "OSHA recordable" injury is one included in the
OSHA incidence rates as defined by OSHA. First-
aid injuries are not OSHA recordable, but those
requiring medical treatment (even though there
was no lost time) are recordable as are lost
workday injuries and fatalities.
The OSHA incidence rate for lost workday cases
(i.e., "LWC" in Column 2 in FIGURE 6) is exactly
the same as that for all OSHA recordable injuries,
except that only lost time cases are counted.
That is, it shows the number of lost workday
injuries per 100 man-years worked. For organ-
izations familiar with the ANSI (American National.
Standards Institute) Z16.1 injury rates, they
45
-------
will find the OSHA incidence rate for lost
workday cases very nearly equal to 1/5 of the
ANSI rate. Those organizations wishing to
compare OSHA and ANSI rates should multiply
the OSHA rate shown in column 2 of FIGURE 6
by 5 (Note: This is only an approximation
of an ANSI rate).
The "severity rate" (column 3 of FIGURE 6)
is similar to the OSHA incidence rate but
it shows the number of workdays lost, instead
of number of injuries, per 100 man-years
worked (i.e., 200,000 hours). For example,
a severity rate of 500 would mean (roughly)
that an organization is losing 500 workdays
for every 100 employees per year, or that
(on the average) each employee is losing
5 days a year for on-the-job injuries.
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7 shows the average number of workdays lost per
lost workday case by user ranked in order of highest to lowest.
For example, an average workdays lost of "10" would mean that,
on the average, every time an employee has a lost time injury he
loses 10 days. As with all averages, the number of injuries
involved (i.e., number of lost workday cases) must be reasonably
high for the average to have meaning.
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8 shows: 1) the average direct cost per OSHA
recordable injury (column 1) and 2) the direct costs per man-
year (column 2). Direct costs are normally those for which
money was actually expended and include worker's compensation,
medical expenses, and wage continuation benefits (e.g., injury
leave). There are many indirect costs such as down time,
replacement time, lost time by witnesses and supervisors, etc.,
which are not included in these figures. Indirect costs are
estimated to be 5 times the direct costs in cities according
to the National Safety Council. The columns are explained
below:
"Average Direct Costs per OSHA Recordable Injury"
(column 1 in FIGURE 8) means what each injury is
costing on the average. For example, an average
direct cost per OSHA recordable injury of "$500"
means that on the average each OSHA recordable
injury (i.e., in non-first-aid case) is costing
the organization $500!
46
-------
"Direct Cost per Man-year" (column 2) shows the
cost per 2,000 hours or the average cost per
year per employee. Direct cost per man-year of
"$200" would mean that on the average an organ-
ization's injuries are costing $200 per employee
per year.
It should be reemphasized that both the cost and the
workdays lost data are not complete and only cover figures
reported to IRIS as of May 15, 1976. These workdays lost and
costs are thus gross underestimates.
TABLE B summarizes the data from FIGURES 5-8
In reviewing these FIGURES, the data for the AVERAGE
(shown on the FIGURES as AVG) is the most important because it
summarizes the results for all users combined. After examining
the AVERAGES, it is important to examine how great the range
of rates between users is. Wide ranges are important because
they show that it is possible to achieve lower rates of injury
under given operating systems and safety programs.
47
-------
TABLE B
SUMMARY OF INJURIES
BY FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS
FREQUENCY
There were 575 cases reported by 32 of the 35 IRIS users.
The AVERAGE OSHA incidence rate is 37. This means that
on the average each 100 employees has 37 injuries a year,
or that one out of every 3 employees are injured. The
national OSHA incidence rate for all industries is 10.4,
making the solid waste industry nearly 4 times the average of
industry.
IRIS users range in frequency from User No. 244, which
is experiencing 1.6 injuries per employee per year to
User No. 242 which is experiencing 4 injuries for every 100
employees per year.
SEVERITY
There have been 3,680 days lost so far for injuries occurring
during first quarter.
59% of the total cases resulted in lost workdays. The
national average for all industries is 33%, making the
fraction of lost workday cases in the solid waste industry
nearly 2 times the average industry. Two IRIS users had
less than 22% lost workday cases, but the rest were higher
than AVERAGE.
The AVERAGE OSHA severity rate (number of lost workdays
per 100 employees) is 269. This means that on the average
each employee is losing 2.7 days per year for injuries.
One user was as high as 'nearly 11 days lost per year
per employee; several are losing zero days a year per
employee.
On the AVERAGE, each lost workday case is resulting in
10.82 workdays lost. This is lower than the national
average for all industries, which is 10.5.
One of the 575 injuries is a permanent disability.
DIRECT COSTS (Costs given are not final but represent costs
known as of May 15, 1976. These costs, therefore, may
greatly underestimate the actual.)
So far the costs for injuries occurring in the first quarter
1976 amount to $151,164.
The AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury is $296.
The AVERAGE cost per man-year is $111. This means that
on the average injuries are costing $111 per full-time
employee, per year.
48
-------
FIGURE 5
NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED BY TYPE OF SEVERITY
COMPARISON OF 'IRIS' USERS
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
INSTRUCTIONS: THE PERCENTAGES ARE A FRACTION OF THE TOTAL CASES
REPORTED* THEY TOTAL TO APPROXIMATELY 100% IF READ HORIZONTALLY*
COMPARE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PERCENTAGES WITH THE AVERAGE AND WITH
OTHER IRIS USERS* HIGHER THAN AVERAGE PERCENTAGES IN THE LOWER
SEVERITY GROUPS? I.E.r TOWARD THE LEFTr ARE DESIRED* AS ARE LOWER
THAN AVERAGE PERCENTAGES TOWARD THE RIGHT*
IRIS
USER
NO.
AVG
101
109
111
125
136
140
146
161
171
172
181
186
191
204
207
210
211
212
235
236
237
242
244
260
261
265
272
283
285
292
295
296
TOTAL
CASES
RPT'D
575
22
45
13
64
5
61
19
10
26
69
40
17
18
9
32
4
2
23
6
21
4
1
6
22
1
10
3
5
1
6
7
3
FIRST NON-FATAL LOST WKDY
AID W/0 LST WKDAY CASES
NO.
64
12
2
1
3
0
3
1
6
2
0
11
9
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
4
2
1
%
11
55
4
8
5
0
5
5
60
8
0
27
53
6
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
25
0
0
5
0
0
0
60
0
67
29
33
NO.
170
4
14
4
14
0
18
13
4
12
23
9
4
2
6
17
2
1
0
1
2
1
0
2
7
0
5
2
2
0
0
1
0
y-
30
18
31
31
22
0
30
68
40
46
33
22
24
11
67
53
50
50
0
17
10
25
0
33
32
0
50
67
40
0
0
14
0
NO,
340
6
29
8
47
5
40
5
0
12
46
20
4
15
3
15
2
1
22
5
19
2
0
4
14
1
5
1
0
1
2
4
2
7.
59
27
64
62
73
100
66
26
0
46
67
50
24
83
33
47
50
50
96
83
90
50
0
67
64
100
50
33
0
100
33
57
67
PERM
DISAB
NO.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
/.
0,17
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FATALITY
NO.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0,1
0,1
0,1
0.1
0,1
0,1
0.1
0,1
0,1
0,1
O.I
0,1
0,1
0,1
O.I
O.I
O.I
0,1
0,1
0,1
O.I
O.I
0,1
0,1
0,<
0,1
0,1
0,'
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,'
49
-------
FIGURE 6
PAGE 1
AVERAGE INJURY RATES BY "IRIS" USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
ORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
INITIONSJ AVERAGE RATIO = RATE / AVERAGE FOR THE RATE*
A INCIDENCE RATE = (NUMBER OF OSHA RECORDABLE CASES /
-HOURS EXPOSURE ) X 200,000,
GHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER OF CASES PER 100 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES
YEAR* DOES NOT INCLUDE FIRST AID INJURIES* DOES INCLUDE MEDICAL
ATMENT, LOST TIME* PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES,
ERITY RATE = (NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST / MAN-HOURS EXPOSURE) X 200,000.
GHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST PER 100 FULL TIME
LOYEES PER YEAR,
TRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS,
ODD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50,
OCR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1,25,
OSHA INCIDENCE
MAN-HOURS
EXPOSURE
7? 572
7,752
47*613
21,331
80,964
59vl58
60,740
8,685
58,507
7,155
214,417
271,441
4,147
132,040
113,611
2,734,867
241,676
11,563
35,295
388,033
74,202
39,323
151,073
10,162
44,506
134,728
22,662
34,467
92,863
67,090
NO,
INJ
6
4
21
9
32
22
21
3
17
o
A-
58
69
1
29
24
511
43
2
6
61
10
5
18
1
4
12
2
3
8
5
RATE
RATE
158
103
88
84
79
74
69
69
58
56
54
51
48
44
42
37
36
35
34
31
27
25
24
20
18
18
18
17
17
15
INCIDENCE
AVG
RATIO
4,24
2,76
2,36
2,26
2,12
1,99
1,85
1,85
1 , 56
1,50
1.45
1,36
1,29
1,18
1.13
1,00
0,95
0,93
0,91
0,84
0,72
0,68
0.64
0,53
0,48
0,48
0,47
0,47
0,46
0,40
IRIS
USER
NO,
244
236
212
296
210
191
261
260
237
140
207
172
181
235
204
AVG
125
109
171
295
285
136
265
111
292
211
186
101
146
272
NO,
INJ
4
19
T?
A4. *-
9
2
15
1
14
2
40
15
46
20
5
3
341
47
29
12
4
1
5
5
8
2
1
4
6
5
1
RATE
RATE
106
80
74
56
52
51
48
46
46
37
37
34
30
28
28
25
24
24
21
20
20
15
13
12
10
9
9
8
7
6
- LWC
AVG
RATIO
4,24
3,20
2,98
2,24
2,07
2,06
1,93
1,85
1,85
1,50
1.49
1,36
1,21
1,14
1,13
1,00
0,97
0,96
0,85
0,82
0,79
0,60
0,54
0,48
0.38
0.35
0,35
0.30
0.27
0.23
SEVERITY
IRIS
USER-
NO,
236
296
*? l *?
136
140
204
181
172
244
299
1 '?7T>
AVG
125
111
207
211
171
109
191
260
235
237
261
101
186
210
242
295
146
265
RATE
1,080
755
710
575
543
431
420
342
317
285
273
269
253
251
205
203
202
187
178
171
170
161
145
134
106
103
98
97
44
40
AVG
RATIO
4,01
2,80
2,64
2,14
2,02
1,60
1,56
1,27
1,18
1,06
1,01
1,00
0.94
0.93
0.76
0,75
0.75
0.69
0.66
0.64
0.63
0.60
0.54
0.50
0.39
0.38
0.37
0.36
0.16
0.15
50
-------
FIGURE 6 (Continued) PAGE
QSHA INCIDENCE
.IRIS HAN-HOURS NO*
USER EXPOSURE INJ
NO.
101
292
242
286
243
215
RATE INCIDENCE RATE - LWC
RATE AVG IRIS NO. RATE AVG
RATIO USER INJ RATIO
NO.
1 A 0.16
0 0 0.00
0 0 0.00
0 0 0.00
0 0 0.00
0 0 0.00
SEVERITY RATE
IRIS RATE
USER
NO.
159*199
42*096
50x835
2, 363
1 1 f 650
25*949
10
2
1
0
0
0
13
10
4
0
0
0
0.34
0.25
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
242
286
283
243
215
161
285
286
283
243
2.15
161
39
0
0
0
0
0
51
-------
FIGURE 7
AVERAGE WORKDAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
ORTING PERIOD; JANUARY - MARCH 1976
TRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS.
ODD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50.
OOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1.25.
:ANK IRIS NO LOST DAYS AVG WKDYS AVG RATIO
USER NO. WKDY CASES LOST LOST (DAYS / AVG)
:GHEST 272 i A? 47.00 4.34
2 136 5 193 38.60 3.57
3 292 2 60 30.00 2.77
A 242 1 25 25.00 2.31
5 211 1 23 23.00 2.12
6 111 8 169 21,12 1.95
7 101 6 107 17.83 1,65
8 204 3 46 15.33 1.42
9 140 40 582 14.55 1.34
10 181 20 277 13.85 1.28
11 236 19 257 13.53 1,25
12 296 2 27 13.50 1.25
13 186 4 49 12.25 1,13
AVG 340 3ť680 10.82 1.00
14 125 47 491 10.45 0.97
15 172 45 464 10.31 0.95
16 171 12 115 9.58 0.89
17 212 22 210 9.55 0.88
18 109 29 226 7.79 0.72
19 146 5 33 6.60 0.61
20 235 5 30 6.00 0.55
21 207 15 83 5.53 0.51
22 295 4 19 4.75 0,44
23 260 14 52 3.71 0.34
24 237 2 7 3.50 0.32
25 191 15 52 3.47 0.32
26 265 5 15 3.00 0.28
27 261 1 3 3.00 0.28
28 244 4 12 3.00 0.28
29 285 1 2 2.00 0.18
OWEST 210 2 4 2.00 0.18
52
-------
FIGURE 8
DIRECT COSTS BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
DEFINITIONS? DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSESr
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS* AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
(E.G. INJURY LEAVE) ONLY* INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED
DIRECT COSTS PER MAN-YEAR IS THE COST PER FULL-TIME SANITATION
EMPLOYEE PER YEAR BASED ON 2*000 HOURS PER YEAR*
TREATMENT* LOST TIME* PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES,
INSTRUCTIONS? FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
HOW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS.
A GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50.
A POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1,25,
AVG DIRECT COST PER
IRIS
USER-
NO,
242
296
111
212
292
272
140
204
101
136
181
125
236
AVG
172
237
109
235
295
211
186
261
171
244
210
191
260
285
283
146
207
265
161
NO OSHA
RECORD INJ
1
2
12
22
':>
3
58
9
10
5
29
61
21
511
69
3
43
6
5
2
8
1
24
6
4
17
21
1
2
18
32
10
4
OSHA R
AVG
COST (
6*877
835
816
629
600
555
479
455
422
394
362
346
332
296
227
201
191
187
178
164
159
159
147
130
98
87
75
61
59
58
54
50
19
ECORDABLE INJ !
|
AVG RATIO
AVG COST/AVG)
23,25
2,82
2,76
2,12
2,03
1,88
1,62
1.54
1,43
1,33
1,22
1,17
1.12
1,00
0,77
0,68
0,65
0.63
0,60
0,55
0,54
0,54
0,50
0,44
0,33
0,29
0,25
0,21
0,20
0,20
0,18
0,17
0,06
IRIS
USER-
NO.
21 ^
296
204
236
242
140
244
181
111
237
172
AVG
125
210
272
261
109
235
171
136
101
292
260
191
295
207
211
186
283
146
265
285
161
DIRECT COST
MAN-HRS
EXPOSURE
59*158
7*155
21*331
47*613
50*835
214*417
7*572
132*040
134*728
8*685
271*441
2*734*867
388*033
7*752
34*467
4*147
241*676
35*295
113*611
67*090
159*199
42*096
60*740
58*507
39*323
80*964
22*662
92*863
11*563
151*073
74*202
10*162
44*506
PER MAN
COSTS
PER M-Y
468
467
384
293
271
260
205
161
145
139
115
111
109
101
97
77
69
64
63
59
57
57
52
50
45
42
29
27
21
14
13
12
7
YEAR
AVG RATI
(COSTS/AI
1
4,21
4,20
3,45
2,64
2,43
2,34
1,85
1,45
1,31
1,25
1,04
1,00
0,98
0,91
0,87
0,69
0,62
0,57
0,56
0,53
0,52
0,51
0,46
0,45
0,41
0,38
0,26
0,25
0,19
0,12
0,12
0,11
0,06
53
-------
PART II - CHARACTERISTICS OF ACCIDENTS
FIGURES 9 through 14, summarize some of the character-
istics of injuries occurring to all IRIS users during the 1st
quarter of 1976. Each FIGURE covers a different characteristic
of the accidents:
FIGURE 9: Accident Type, e.g., falls
FIGURE 10: Injury Type, e.g., bruise
FIGURE 11: Part of Body Involved, e.g., leg
FIGURE 12: Activity, e.g., carrying
FIGURE 13: Accident Site, e.g., back of the truck
FIGURE 14: Type of Waste Involved
Each of these FIGURES is divided into 3 columns.
(FIGURES 9, 11, 12, and 14 have all three columns on one page.
FIGURES 10 and 13 show the columns on 3 separate pages marked
A, B, and C respectively.) The first column lists the number
and percent of OSHA recordable injuries by characteristic of
the accident in order of highest to lowest percent. The
second column lists the number and percent of workdays lost
(and average workdays lost) by characteristic in order of highest
to lowest percent of workdays lost. The third column lists the
amount and percent of direct costs (and average direct costs)
by characteristic in order of highest to lowest percent of
direct costs. Thus a given characteristic may be in different
rows depending on the percent of injuries, workdays lost and
direct costs associated with that characteristic. For example,
in FIGURE 9, "Hurt by object handled" accidents amount to the
second highest percent of the injuries (10%), the sixth highest
percent of workdays lost (11%) and the fifth highest percent
of direct costs (7%) , and therefore, "Hurt by object handled"
is shown in the second row of the first column, sixth row of
the second column and the fifth row of the third column.
TABLE C
TABLE C summarizes the data on FIGURES 9 through 14
for all IRIS users.
54
-------
TABLE C
ui
TYPE OF
CHARACTERISTIC
Accident Type
Injury Type
Part of Body
Involved
Activity
Accident Site
SUMMARY OF ACCIDENTS BY CHARACTERISTIC
Characteristics with Highest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost & Direct Costs
HIGHEST % OF
OSHA RECORDABLE
INJURIES
CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE:
HIGHEST % OF
WORKDAYS LOST
Type of Waste
Involved
Overexertion - 18%
Hurt by Obj . Handled 10!
Object in Eyes - 9%
Sprain/Strain - 41%
Bruise/Contusion/
Crushing - 23%
Back - 20%
Eyes - 12%
Lifting Can/Waste - 21%
Dumping into Hopper 13%
Street at Back of
Truck - 25%
In/On Vehicle - 17%
Street at Curb - 16%
Glass - 6%
Overexertion - 18%
Struck by Vehicle - 11%
Fall to Same Level - 11%
Sprain/Strain - 49%
Bruise/Contusion/
Crushing - 21%
Back - 27%
Ankle - 10%
Lifting Can/Waste - 20%
Standing/Walking - 12%
Street at Back of
Truck - 27%
In/On Vehicle - 25%
Street at Curb - 18%
Glass - 4%
HIGHEST % OF
DIRECT COSTS
Overexertion - 23%
Fall to Same Level - 10%
Fall to Different level - 9%
Sprain/Strain - 47%
Bruise/Contusion/
Crushing - 22%
Back - 26%
Ankle - 8%
Lifting Can/Waste - 23%
Standing/Walking - 12%
Street at Back of
Truck - 26%
In/On Vehicle - 19%
Street at Curb - 18%
Wood/Logs/Lumber - 5%
-------
FIGURE 9
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIESr WORKDAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES
-------
FIGURE 10A
ALL USERS
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
DEFINITIONSt OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST WGRKDAYr
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES* FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED,
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
TYPE OF INJURY NO, %
SPRAIN/STRAIN 208 40,70
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING 120 23,48
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE 67 13,11
OBJECT IN EYE 47 9,20
OTHER 17 3,33
FRACTURE 10 1,96
SCRATCHES/ABRASIONS 8 1,57
ANIMAL BITE 7 1,37
DERMATITIS/RASH 6 1,17
BURN/SCALD - HEAT 3 0,59
BURN - CHEMICAL 3 0,59
CONCUSSION 2 0,39
FREEZING/FROSTBITE/OTHER LOW TEMPERATURE 2 0,39
INFLAMMATION - JOINTS/TENDONS/MUSCLES 2 0,39
NOSEBLEED 2 0,39
POISONING 2 0,39
AMPUTATION 1 0,20
INSECT BITE 1 0,20
DISLOCATION 1 0,20
HERNIA/RUPTURE 1 0,20
TORN CARTILAGE 1 0,20
TOTAL 511 100,00
57
-------
FIGURE 10B
ALL USERS
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF WORKDAYS LOST
ORTING PERIOD? JANUARY - MARCH 1976
INITIONSJ OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
!ES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)r AND LOST WORKDAYr
,'MANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED*
WORKDAYS LOST
TYPE OF INJURY
RAIN/STRAIN
JISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
r/LACERATION/PUNCTURE
ACTURE
HER
JECT IN EYE
NCUSSION
RN - CHEMICAL
RATCHES/ABRASIONS
RNIA/RUPTURE
PUTATION
RN CARTILAGE
RN/SCALD - HEAT
ISONING
FLAMMATION - JOINTS/TENDONS/MUSCLES
RMATITIS/RASH
IMAL BITE
^LOCATION
EEZING/FROSTBITE/OTHER LOW TEMPERATURE
SEBLEED
TAL
NO, % AVG WKDYS LOST/
LOST WKDYS CASE
Ir792
790
321
259
100
89
79
75
45
36
25
15
11
10
9
8
5
5
3
3
3r680
48,70
21,47
8,72
7,04
2,72
2,42
2.15
2.04
1,22
0.98
0.68
0,41
0,30
0.27
0.24
0.22
0.14
0,14
0,08
0.08
100.00
11.13
9.40
10.35
32.37
6.67
4.68
39.50
37.50
22.50
36.00
25.00
15.00
11.00
5.00
4.50
2.67
2.50
5.00
3,00
3.00
0.00
58
-------
FIGURE IOC
ALL USERS
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)* AND LOST WORKDAYť
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES* FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED,
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSESr WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND
WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G.* INJURY LEAVE) ONLY. INDIRECT COSTS
ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS
TYPE OF INJURY
AMT.
SPRAIN/STRAIN
BRUISE/CONTUSION/CRUSHING
CUT/LACERATION/PUNCTURE
AMPUTATION
FRACTURE
OTHER-
OBJECT IN EYE
HERNIA/RUPTURE
SCRATCHES/ABRASIONS
BURN - CHEMICAL
CONCUSSION
TORN CARTILAGE
DISLOCATION
POISONING
ANIMAL BITE
DERMATITIS/RASH
INFLAMMATION - JOINTS/TENDONS/MUSCLES
FREEZING/FROSTBITE/OTHER LOW TEMPERATURE
NOSEBLEED
BURN/SCALD - HEAT
INSECT BITE
TOTAL
71,535
32*706
12*757
6*877
5*319
4*456
4*326
3r746
3*551
1*587
1*070
664
605
482
443
327
261
173
148
118
15
151*164
47.32
21.64
8.44
4.55
3.52
2.95
2.86
2.48
2.35
1.05
0.71
0.44
0.40
0.32
0.29
0.22
0.17
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.01
100.00
AVG COSTS
OSHA REC INJ
344
273
190
7*696
532
262
92
3r746
444
529
535
664
605
241
63
54
130
86
74
39
15
296
59
-------
FIGURE 11
ALL USERS
PARTS OF BODY INJURED RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES, WORKDAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)* AND LOST WORKDAY,
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES, WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G., INJURY LEAVE) ONLY.
INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
OSHA RECORDABLE
PART OF BODY
BACK
EYES
ANKLE
FINGERS
LEG
SHOULDER
KNEE
HAND
ARM
FOOT
CHEST/RIBS
NECK
ELBOW
WRIST
HIPS
GENITALIA/OROIN
SCALP
FACE
TOES
OTHER
SKULL
FOREHEAD
NOSE
TRUNK
THUMB
ABDOMEN
INTERNAL
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS
EARS
JAW
CHEEK
BUTTOCKS
TOTAL
INJURIES
OSHA REC INJ
NO.
101
61
45
32
32
30
26
20
17
16
13
12
12
12
11
11
9
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
511
X
19.77
11.94
8.81
6.26
6.26
5,87
5.09
3.91
3.33
3,13
2.54
2.35
2,35
2.35
2.15
2.15
1.76
1.17
1.17
1.17
0.78
0,78
0.78
0.78
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.39
0,20
0.20
0.20
100.00
WORKDAYS LOST
PART OF BODY WKDYS LOST AVG/LOST
BACK
ANKLE
LEG
SKULL
FINGERS
SHOULDER
NECK
EYES
FOOT
CHEST/RIBS
HAND
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS
KNEE
ABDOMEN
THUMB
TOES
ARM
WRIST
GENITALIA/GROIN
HIPS
INTERNAL
FACE
OTHER
SCALP
TRUNK-
ELBOW
NOSE
JAW
FOREHEAD
BUTTOCKS
TOTAL
NO.
989
373
278
218
174
159
141
140
135
126
107
102
94
84
83
74
63
60
60
49
28
27
26
25
24
20
12
3
3
3
3,680
DIRECT COSTS
PART OF BODY ' DIRECT COSTS AVG COSTS/
X WKDY CASE
26.87
10.14
7.55
5,92
4.73
4.32
3,83
3.80
3,67
3,42
2.91
2.77
2,55
2.28
2.26
2.01
1.71
1.63
1.63
1,33
0.76
0.73
0.71
0,68
0.65
0.54
0.33
0,08
0.08
0.08
100.00
11.92
10.08
14,63
72.67
10.24
7.57
14.10
5,83
13.50
12.60
11.89
34.00
4.70
42.00
27.67
12.33
9,00
12.00
10.00
5,44
9.33
5.40
5.20
5,00
8,00
2.50
4.00
3.00
1.50
3.00
10.82
BACK
ANKLE
SHOULDER
ARM
EYES
LEG
CHEST/RIBS
FINGERS
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS
WRIST
GENITALIA/GROIN
FOOT
NECK
KNEE
OTHER
HAND
SKULL
THUMB
HIPS
ABDOMEN
INTERNAL
SCALP
TOES
ELBOW
FACE
TRUNK
NOSE
FOREHEAD
JAW
BUTTOCKS
EARS
CHEEK
TOTAL
AMT.
39,677
12,431
11,831
8,514
8,431
7,672
7,416
7,197
5,383
4,651
4,337
4,089
3,706
3,573
3,161
2,920
2,803
2,557
2,117
1,958
1,336
1,269
1,058
921
591
505
422
184
183
177
75
20
151,164
X OSHA REC IN.
26,25
8,22
7.83
5,63
5.58
5.08
4.91
4.76
3.56
3.08
2,87
2,71
2.45
2.36
2.09
1.93
1,85
1.69
1,40
1,30
0,88
0.84
0.70
0.61
0.39
0.33
0,28
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.05
0.01
100.00
393
276
394
501
138
240
570
225
1,794
388
394
256
309
137
527
146
701
852
192
653
445
141
176
77
98
126
105
46
183
177
37
20
296
-------
FIGURE 12
ALL USERS
ACTIVITIES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIESt WORKDAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES AND LOST WORKDAY*
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES/ WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G., INJURY LEAVE) ONLY.
INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED,
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACTIVITY OSHA REC INJ
NO. %
ACTIVITY
WORKDAYS LOST
WKDYS LOST
NO. %
AVG/LOST
WKDY CASE
ACTIVITY
DIRECT COSTS
DIRECT COSTS
AMT. '/.
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
LIFTING CAN/WASTE
DUMPING INTO HOPPER
STANDING/WALKING
PUSHING/PULLING CART
C\ OTHER
H CARRYING CAN/WASTE
DRIVING/OPER EQUIP
GETTING ON/OFF STEP
RIDING ON STEP
GETTING IN/OUT CAB
RIDING IN CAB
OPER PACKING MECH
THROWING/CATCHING
NO SPECIFIC ACTIVITY
DUMP INTO TUB/CART
REPAIR/MAINTAIN VEH
UAfilHUli/n I rtK'lNO
LMCIY1NU VUI/PACNER
USING HAND TOOLS
RIDING IN HOPPER
PUSH WASTE IN HOPPER
RIDING IN TRUCK BED
GUIDE/DIRECT VEH
PUSH/PULL IN/OUT CAN
HOOK/UNHOOK TRAILER
OFFICE/JANITOR WORK
AGGRESSIVE ACT
TOTAL
106
65
47
34
34
33
28
28
23
19
16
11
10
10
8
7
A
S
5
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
. 1
511
20,74
12.72
9.20
6,65
6.65
6.46
5.48
5.48
4.50
3.72
3.13
2.15
1.96
1.96
1.57
1.37
1.17
0, VIJ
0,98
0.59
0.59-
0.39
0.39
0,39
0.39
0.20
0.20
100.00
LIFTING CAN/WASTE
STANDING/WALKING
DUMPING INTO HOPPER
GETTING ON/OFF STEP
DRIVING/OPER EQUIP
CARRYING CAN/WASTE
RIDING IN CAB
PUSHING/PULLING CART
RIDING ON STEP
OTHER
GETTING IN/OUT CAB
NO SPECIFIC ACTIVITY
RIDING IN HOPPER
PUSH WASTE IN HOPPER
THROWING/CATCHING
OPER PACKING MECH
liriflK/IINIIOflK TRATLFR
KLI'Alk/MAlNI/UN VLH
DUMP INTO TUB/CART
USING HAND TOOLS
GUIDE/DIRECT VEH
EMPTYING VEH/PACKER
AGGRESSIVE ACT
PUSH/PULL IN/OUT CAN
TOTAL
751
436
354
333
291
239
209
174
149
127
120
108
105
75
64
51
30
2/
10
9
8
7
2
i
3,680
20,41
11,8'J
9,62
9,05
7.91
6.49
5.68
4,73
4.05
3.45
3.26
2.93
2.85
2.04
1,74
1,39
0,(K!
0./3
0,27
0.24
0.22
0.19
0.05
0.03
100.00
9,75
13.62
8,63
12.33
15.32
10.86
14.93
7.91
12.42
6.05
10.00
15.43
35.00
25.00
10.67
8.50
IS, 00
V.OO
2.50
4.50
4.00
7.00
2,00
1.00
10.82
LIFTING CAN/WASTE
STANDING/WALKING
DUMPING INTO HOPPER
GETTING ON/OFF STEP
PUSHING/PULLING CART
PUSH WASTE IN HOPPER
DRIVING/OPER EQUIP
RIDING ON STEP
CARRYING CAN/WASTE
OTHER
GETTING IN/OUT CAB
RIDING IN CAB
RIDING IN HOPPER
NO SPECIFIC ACTIVITY
OPER PACKING MECH
THROWING/CATCHING
KiTAiu/MAiNiYiiN VF:H
UI.I1NU IIANU IUUL.U
HOOK/UNHOOK TRAILER
GUIDE/DIRECT VEH
DUMP INTO TUB/CART
EMPTYING VEH/PACKER
WASHING/CLEARING
PUSH/PULL IN/OUT CAN
AGGRESSIVE ACT
RIDING IN TRUCK BED
OFFICE/JANITOR WORK
TOTAL
34,893
18,672
10,768
10,538
9,667
9,509
9,011
7,517
7,420
5,883
5,813
5,722
4,042
4,013
2,196
1,627
1,0 A<
6(10
525
493
382
277
201
131
72
20
10
151,164
23.08,
12.35
7.12
6.97
6.40
6.29
5,96
4.97
4.91
3.89
3.85
3.79
2.67
2.65
1.45
1.08
0.71
0.46
0.35
0.33
0.25
0.18
0.13
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.01
100.00
329
397
166
376
284
3,170
322
327
250
173
306
358
1,347
401
200
163
1M
13IJ
262
246
48
55
33
65
72
10
10
296
-------
FIGURE 13A
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
INITIONS! OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
ES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST WORKDAYr
MANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED,
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT SITE NO, 7.
tEET AT BACK OF TRUCK 126 24,66
'ON VEHICLE 88 17,22
;EET AT CURB 82 16,05
(TOMER YARD 47 9,20
IER 40 7.83
.EY AT BACK OF TRUCK 28 5,48
.EY AT CURB 20 3.91
JTOMER DRIVEWAY 17 3.33
) ALLEY 13 2.54
) STREET 10 1,96
MFILLr IN/ON VEHICLE-DUMP SITE 10 1,96
WFILLf AT BACK OF TRUCK 9 1.76
:iNERATOR/TRANSFER STATION/RECYCLING LOCATION
Ť3T* IN/ON VEHICLE (DUMPING FLOOR) 7 1.37
T APPLICABLE 5 0.98
HNERATOR/TRANSFER STATION/RECYCLING LOCATION
^RAGE/SHOP 4 0,78
4DFILL* GATEHOUSE/OFFICE 2 0,39
CUSTOMER RESIDENCE 1 0,20
4DFILL GARAGE 1 0,20
4BFILL, IN/ON VEHICLE-ROAD TO DUMP SITE 1 0,20
FAL 511 100,00
62
-------
FIGURE 13B
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF WORKDAYS LOST
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST WORKDAY*
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES* FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDES,
WORKDAYS LOST
ACCIDENT SITE NO. % AVG WKDYS LI
LOST WKDYS I
STREET AT BACK OF TRUCK 978 26.58 10.19
IN/ON VEHICLE 938 25.49 15.90
STREET AT CURB 658 17.88 10.61
OTHER 287 7.80 11.96
CUSTOMER YARD 196 5.33 6.76
ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK 141 3.83 9.40
MID STREET 133 3.61 19.00
INCINERATOR/TRANSFER STATION/RECYCLING LOCATION
*NDT* IN/ON VEHICLE (DUMPING FLOOR) 55 1*49 18.33
CUSTOMER DRIVEWAY 54 1.47 6.00
ALLEY AT CURB 53 1.44 6.62
LANDFILL* IN/ON VEHICLE - DUMP SITE 52 1.41 6.50
LANDFILL* AT BACK OF TRUCK 40 1.09 6,67
MID ALLEY 33 0,90 4.71
LANDFILLr IN/ON VEHICLE - ROAD TO DUMP SITE 24 0.65 24.00
NOT APPLICABLE 18 0.49 6.00
LANDFILL GARAGE 9 0.24 9.00
INCINERATOR/TRANSFER STATION/RECYCLING LOCATION
GARAGE/SHOP 7 0,19 7,00
IN CUSTOMER RESIDENCE 4 0.11 4.00
TOTAL 3*680 100.00 0.00
63
-------
FIGURE 13C
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
DRTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
[NITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
ES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS>* AND LOST WORKDAY*
1ANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED,
ECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES, WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND
E CONTINUATION BENEFITS
-------
FIGURE 14
ALL USERS
TYPES OF WASTE INVOLVED RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES* WORKDAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES UNBUNDLED
UIOOD/LOGS/LUMBER
OTHER SHARP OBJECT
FURNITURE/APPLIANCES
NOXIOUS CHEMICALS
SHRUBBERYrBUNDLED
ROCKS/CONCRETE
HYPODERMIC NEEDLES
GRASS/WEEDS/LEAVES
PAPER
PALM FRONDS
RATS/HOSTILE CREATURE
POISON IVY/OAK
TOTAL
345
47
29
22
15
13
8
6
6
5
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
511
67.51
9.20
5,68
4.31
2.94
2.54
1.57
1.17
1.17
0,98
0.59
0.59
0.39
0,39
0.39
0.20
0,20
0.20
100,00
NOT APPLICABLE
NO OUTSTANDING CHAR
OTHER
GLASS
NOXIOUS CHEMICALS
WOOD/LOGS/LUMBER
SHRUBBERY r UNBUNDLED
GRASS/WEEDS/LEAVES
SHRUBBERYrBUNDLED
OTHER SHARP OBJECT
ROCKS/CONCRETE
DUST/ASHES IN WASTE
PAPER.
FURNITURE/APPLIANCES
RATS/HOSTILE CREATURE
POISON IVY/OAK
TOTAL
2r643
349
223
130
75
64
48
36
32
31
20
12
10
4
: 2
i
3f680
71,82
9.48
6.06
3.53
2.04
1,74
1,30
0.98
0.87
0.84
0.54
0.33
0,27
0.11
0.05
0.03
100,00
11,06
10.26
15,93
7,65
37.50
9,14
8.00
36.00
32,00
6,20
10.00
2,00
5.00
2.00
.2.00
1.00
10.82
NOT APPLICABLE
NO OUTSTANDING CHAR
WDOD/LOGS/LUMBER
OTHER
GLASS
GRASS/WEEDS/LEAVES
OTHER SHARP OBJECT
ROCKS/CONCRETE
NOXIOUS CHEMICALS
SHRUBBERY r UNBUNDLED
SHRUBBERY,BUNDLED
DUST/ASHES IN WASTE
PAPER
FURNITURE/APPLIANCES
HYPODERMIC NEEDLES
POISON IVY/OAK
PALM FRONDS
TOTAL
105rl78
13f053
8r067
5ť119
4,668
3rB31
3*495
Ir 986
1ť674
1ť562
725
700
553
393
95
45
20
151,164
69,58
8.63
5,34
3,39
3,09
2.53
2.31
1.31
1.11
1.03
0.48
0.46
0.37
0.26
0.06
0,03
0.01
100.00
305
278
IrOOS
233
161
Ir916
583
662
335
120
515
47
277
66
48
45
20
296
-------
SECTION III
SAFETY NEWS
Backing Hazard Protection
Safety devices are available that can help to reduce
hazards associated with backing of refuse trucks and other
vehicles.
A device suitable for multi-man crew operations in-
cludes a push button on the rear side of the truck. This button
must be pressed and held down in order to hold off the service
brakes when the vehicle is in reverse gear. The vehicle will
come to a quick stop if the observer at the rear side of the
truck releases the button because he trips, falls or sees an
obstruction to safe backing.
A more complex system, illustrated in FIGURE 15,
includes a sensing arm across the full width of the back of the
truck. This system automatically applies the truck's air brakes
whenever the arm contacts any solid object while the truck is
backing.
The purpose of the backing safety device system, or
similar device is to stop the backing truck quickly enough to
avoid damage or injury to obstruction hit by the bar. In the
FIGURE the sensing arm hit the post, which stops the truck before
the truck itself hits the post. Similarly if the arm hits a
person, the truck will, in principle, automatically stop before
the truck runs over the person.
Backing safety devices which operate as described
above are commercially available. Bak-Safe Systems Inc. of
Orange, California quotes prices of approximately $300 for
the push button system and $560 for the sensing arm system.*
In order to be effective, safety devices such as those
described above must be (a) in proper working order and (b) used
for the intended purpose. If these conditions are not met, the
presence of the device can lead to new hazards. For example,
a push button which becomes accidentally or deliberately jammed
so that it will hold down in the on position, may give a driver
a false sense of security that an observer is present and that
there are no obstructions to backing. There is some danger
that the sensing arm system may be used routinely as an indicator
*Data concerning commercial products is given for information
purposes only. No endorsement of these products by SAFETY SCIENCES
or by the Environmental Protection Agency is intended. No other
manufacturers of similar devices are known at present. If others
become known their names will be listed in future reports.
66
-------
FIGURE 15
DIAGRAM OF BAK-SAFE BAR
ON FRONT-END LOADER
-------
of safe backing boundaries rather than as an emergency device
to give added protection in the event a backing hazard is
missed by the driver. Note that a driver who relies on the
arm could miss seeing a child who crawls in front of the arm,
but behind the back wheels of the truck, to retrieve a ball
in the roadway for example.
It is concluded that, in order to gain full advantage
from backing safety devices, they must be (a) properly maintained
in working condition, (b) used as intended, and (c) designed and
constructed so as to minimize failures and encourage correct
operation. Within these limitations, they may have a large
potential for reducing equipment damage and, in certain cases,
reducing injuries.
IRIS Users wishing to learn more about the Bak-Safe
system may contact the:
KG & T Industries, Inc.
1150-D West Briardale
Orange, California 92685
Phone: (714) 998-3121
68
-------
Accident Trends
2nd Quarter 1976
-------
EXHIBIT 3
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
EMPLOYEE CHARACTERISTICS
QUARTER: APRIL 1 TO JUNE 30, 1976
DEVELOPED BY SAFETY SCIENCES, DIVISION OF WSA INC,,
FOR THE U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
UNDER CONTRACT No, 68-03-0231
Division of USA Inc..11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 I 452-1010
-------
Accident Trends in the Solid Waste Management Industry is
developed quarterly using data from IRIS (the Injury Re-
porting and Information System for Solid Waste Management).
Accident Trends is designed to summarize and discuss the
data from all IRIS users and to provide data and conclu-
sions which affect the industry as a whole. A companion
volume, the QSMR (Quarterly Safety Management Report) , is
developed individually for each IRIS user who reported
injuries during the quarter. Each QSMR concentrates only
on the injuries of the individual IRIS user for which it
is prepared.
IRIS is currently made up of 42 users. All possible care
is taken to insure data quality. The nature of the data
and the reports, however, precludes complete accuracy. Not
all cases are closed by the end of the quarter. These acci-
dents continue to be monitored. Occasionally, full lost
time and cost data is not available. Consequently, the tot-
als for these categories may be underestimates. A concerted
effort is made to correct the lost time and cost figures
and improve IRIS collection methods. The recommendations and
countermeasures presented are suggestions that must be eval-
uated in terms of individual user's needs.
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications is to dis-
seminate new ideas and alternative methods in the solid waste
field. IRIS serves as a clearinghouse in this regard, but
does not promote or endorse any method or product. Imple-
mentation of QSMR suggestions should be done only after
careful evaluation by each user and at each user's discre-
tion.
-------
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
EMPLOYEE CHARACTERISTICS
QUARTER: APRIL 1, 1976 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1976
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION iv
I. DISCUSSION OF INJURY RATES BY EMPLOYEE
CHARACTERISTICS AND PREVENTION METHODS .... i_l
1. Age 1-1
2. Experience 1-6
3. Height 1-11
4. Weight 1-15
II. SECOND QUARTER IRIS USER INDUSTRY-WIDE
DATA 2-1
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES 1-1
to 1-3:
Injury Rates by Age Group for the
Collection Division
FIGURE 1-4: Distribution of the Employees' Ages
FIGURES 1-5
to 1-7:
FIGURE 1-8:
FIGURES 1-9
to 1-11:
FIGURE 1-12
FIGURES 1-13
to 1-15
FIGURE 1-16;
FIGURE 2-1:
FIGURE 2-2:
FIGURE 2-3:
FIGURE 2-4:
FIGURE 2-5:
Injury Rates by Experience Group for
the Collection Division ,
Distribution of the Employees' Exper-
ience
Injury Rates by Height Group for the
Collection Division
Distribution of the Employees'
Heights
Injury Rates by Weight Group for the
Collection Division ,
Distribution of the Employees'
Weights
Description of Users by Operational
Characteristics
Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity, and Costs
Comparison of Injury Rates and OSHA
Days Lost for All Users ......
Comparison of Direct Costs by Reporting
Period for All Users
1-2
1-5
1-7
1-10
1-12
1-15
1-16
1-19
2-4
2-8
2-10
2-12
Summary of Accident Factors for
Selected Accident Characteristics with
Highest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct
Costs
2-14
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
This is the Accident Trends report for the second
quarter of 1976 (April 1 to June 30). This report is divided
into two sections, a discussion of the special feature topic,
Injury Rates by Employee Characteristics and Their Prevention
Measures and a summary of the data for the quarter. The dis-
cussion in SECTION I will encompass the data since the insti-
gation of IRIS in December 1975, but SECTION II relates only
the injury rates and figures applicable to the second quarter
of 1976.
Of the 42 IRIS users on-line during second quarter,
36 users reported injuries. Since the injury rates are based
on man-hours of exposure, they reflect the various start-up
periods of the IRIS users.
The time lost and direct costs shown on the FIGURES
were provided as of September 30, the "closing date" for
receiving data for the second quarter. Any cases where the
time lost or direct cost data is incomplete are being monitored
for updating.
IV
-------
SECTION I
DISCUSSION OF INJURY RATES BY EMPLOYEE
CHARACTERISTICS AND PREVENTION METHODS
This is the Accident Trends report for the solid waste
management industry for the second quarter of 1976. The injury
factors addressed in this report are the employee characteris-
tics of age, experience, height, and weight. An examination
of how each employee characteristic affects the overall injury
rates of the collection division is performed. Possible pre-
vention methods to reduce the injury rates are also discussed.
Employee characteristics need to be examined to
determine if the make-up of the collection work force affect
the injury rates. If so, possible countermeasures can include
employee selection and establishing standards for the employee
characteristics.
The discussion in SECTION I encompasses the entire
reporting period (from December 1975) while SECTION II presents
the injury statistics for only the second quarter.
1. AGE
The age of a person is known to correlate with the
person's ability to perform strenuous tasks such as garbage
collection. The IRIS data (FIGURES 1-1 through 1-3) show a
marked difference between the injury rates of older employees
vs. younger employees. The younger age groups have more in-
juries but the older age groups have more severe injuries.
This was also the findings of the Field Test of IRIS, which
collected over 2,000 injuries. FIGURE 1-4 shows that the col-
lection division employees are widely distributed in ages with
slightly more employees under 35 years old.
Examining the OSHA incidence and lost workday cases
rate (FIGURE 1-1), it is apparent that the employees above age
29 have less injuries, and the employees being least injured
fall in age group "60-64 years". Also, the injury rates for
the age groups after age 35 were all below the average line.
The distance between the two graphs' points was much wider
for the age groups under 30 years old. This indicates that
the younger employees' injuries result in non-lost time more
often than the older employees'. The slope of the decline of
the graph decreased steadily after age 29 except at two points,
"55-59 years" and ">64 years".
1-1
-------
FIGURE 1-1
OSHA INCIDENCE RATES FOR OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
AND LOST WORKDAY CASES BY AGE GROUP
*COLLECTION DIVISION*
64
Age Group
-------
FIGURE 1-2
OSHA SEVERITY RATES
BY AGE GROUP
*COLLECTION DIVISION*
S
Ł
O
§
w
720-
700-
680-
660-
640-
620-
600-
580-
56°-
540-
520-
500-
480-
460-
440-
420-
400-
380-
360-
340-
320-
300-
280-
260-
240-
220-
200-
180-
160-
140-
120-
100-
80-
60-
40-
20-
Rate
<20 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 >64
Age Group
1-3
-------
FIGURE 1-3
DIRECT COST PER MAN-YEAR
BY AGE GROUP
COLLECTION DIVISION*
<20
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64
Age Group
1-4
-------
FIGURE 1-4
DISTRIBUTION OF THE EMPLOYEES' AGE
% Man-Hours of
Age Group ExposufiT
<20 YEARS 2%
20-24 YEARS 14%
25-29 YEARS 16%
30-34 YEARS 14%
35-39 YEARS 13%
40-44 YEARS 12%
45-49 YEARS 11%
50-54 YEARS 10%
55-59 YEARS 6%
60-64 YEARS 3%
>64 YEARS <1%
The low incidence of injury for the older age groups
is probably a function of the hazard risks of their respective
jobs. The younger age groups are the collectors or laborers
who have not built up seniroity while the older employees are
the drivers who do not collect. The two tasks have a wide
difference in the amount of exposure to hazards such as over-
exertions while handling containers.
The severity rates (FIGURE 1-2) show more pronounced
peaks. The older age groups still show lower severity rates,
but increasing age does not affect it as dramatically. A sim-
ilar curve also emerges with the direct cost per man-year
graph (FIGURE 1-3). In all three FIGURES the highs and lows
of the graphs were basically at the same points, but their
relationship to each other, or the slope, varied.
There can be no suggested countermeasures with these
results because age is not a factor that can be judged by it-
self. For instance, to resolve the problem of varying expo-
sure to hazards, the age groups should be examined in cross
tabulation with job classification, in particular the "collector
non-drivers". The employee's physical abilities is both a
function of age and physical condition. However, except for
new hires, the employee's physical condition is maintained
very well with the strenous work.
1-5
-------
2. EXPERIENCE
The experience of the newly hired employees with
collecting waste prior to beginning their jobs is of great
concern to solid waste managers because of high turnover rates
(14% of the work force had been on the job less than a year,
FIGURE 1-8) and how much individual training, besides "on-the-
job", should be provided. In addition, for the experienced
employees, their retraining needs to be considered.
Experience refers to how long the employee has been
working with the collection division at the organization. A
separate study* performed by SAFETY SCIENCES on the effects of
experience on injury rates for several high risk industry es-
tablishments revealed that the incidence rates were very high
for the inexperienced employees. In fact, the new employees
(less than one month's experience) had the highest, and the
incidence rates dropped rapidly after a few months.
FIGURES 1-5 through 1-7 present the injury rates for
the various experience groups. Note that the length of exper-
ience for each point on the bottom axis increases logarithmi-
cally rather than linearly, emphasizing the first few months
of work experience.
The incidence rates shown in FIGURE 1-5 indicate also
that the employees with less work experience have more injuries.
In particular, the less than one month's experience employees
had at least a fifth more injuries than any other experience
group. The injury incidence rates also do not drop appreciably
until after five years of experience. In fact, the injury rates
remained above the average line until after five years of
experience.
The width between the same points on the two curves
represent the medical treatment only cases (non-lost time).
The two curves indicate that the inexperienced employees were
receiving more medical treatment cases than the employees that
have been there over two years.
The severity and direct cost rates show a different
trend. Instead of the most inexperienced employees suffering
the high workdays lost rates, the peaks appeared at "2-3 months"
and "2-10 years". As for the direct cost per man-year rates,
an extremely high peak ($2,376) occurs at "2-3 months" experi-
ence that dwarfs the rest of the curve. This peak is due to
*Study performed for the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the
"feasibility of securing data from employer records on the re-
lationship between length of employment (experience) and the
occupational injury incidence rate" in 1970.
1-6
-------
FIGURE 1-5
OSHA INCIDENCE RATES FOR OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
AND LOST WORKDAY CASES BY EXPERIENCE GROUP
*COLLECTION DIVISION*
en
QJ
Q)
>i
O
H
ft
e
QJ
o
o
(U
0)
H
100-
90-
80-
70-
60-
Average OSHA
Incidence 50-
Rate
40-
Average OSHA
Lost Workday
Cases Rate 30-
20-
10-
--K
<1 1-2 2-3 3-6 6-12 1-2 2-5 5-10 >10
mo mo mo mo mo yr yr yr yr
Experience Group
= OSHA Incidence Rate
+ = OSHA Lost Workday Cases
Rate
1-7
-------
FIGURE 1-6
OSHA SEVERITY RATE
BY EXPERIENCE GROUP
*COLLECTION DIVISION*
<1 1-2 2-3 3-6 6-12 1-2 2-5 5-10 >10
mo mo mo mo mo yr yr yr yr
Experience Group
1-8
-------
FIGURE 1-7
DIRECT COST PER MAN-YEAR
BY EXPERIENCE GROUP
*COLLECTION DIVISION*
$2,380
$2,376
a
Ł
0)
o
H
Q
820-
800-
780-
760-
740-
720-
700-
680-
660-
640-
620-
600-
580-
560-
540-
520-
500-
480-
460-
440-
420-
400-
380-
360-
340-
320-
300-
280-
260-
240-
220-
200-
180-
160-
140-
120-
100-
<1 1-2 2-3 3-6 6-12
mo mo mo mo mo
1-2 2-5 5-10 >10
yr yr yr yr
Experience Group
1-9
-------
the fatality that occurred during this quarter. (The employee
was clearing waste from behind the blade while standing inside
the packer body of a side loader. The blade is operated from
the cab, and his coworker thought he heard him say go ahead.
He started the blade and found the employee caught between the
blade and the hopper door. He might have slipped when he was
stepping out. In any case, the coworker should not have start-
ed it until he saw that the employee was safely out.) A second
slight peak occurred from "2-10 years" experience, but it is
unknown whether it would have been higher than the other peak
if the fatality did not occur there.
FIGURE 1-8
DISTRIBUTION OF THE EMPLOYEES' EXPERIENCE
% Man-Hours of
Experience Group Exposure
<1 MONTH 2%
1-2 MONTHS 1%
2-3 MONTHS 1%
<3 MONTHS 4%
3-6 MONTHS 3%
6-12 MONTHS 7%
1-2 YEARS 9%
2-5 YEARS 19%
5-10 YEARS 24%
>10 YEARS 30%
The conclusions that can be reached concerning ex-
perience is that nine out of ten of the newly hired employees
are likely to get injured on the first month of collecting
waste. However, even after two years of experience two out
of three of the employees were still being injured. In addi-
tion, for some unevaluated reason the employees receive more
severe, and therefore more costly, injuries during the period
of "2-3 months" experience and "2-10 years" experience. These
two peaks need to be examined for the accident types occurring
to determine whether certain accident types, such as back
strains develop with time.
In any case, preliminary structured training of new-
ly hired employees is indicated by the data. This needs to
be performed prior to the employees beginning work. The train-
ing area that requires the most emphasis because of its fre-
quency of injury as well as because it can be affected by
1-10
-------
training is container handling: testing the container, lift-
ing the container properly, and dumping the container properly.
Forty percent of the injuries this quarter occurred as the em-
ployees were lifting or dumping the container.
In addition, the data indicates that the experienced
employees were still experiencing high (above average) injury
rates. The sharp dip in incidence rates after five years of
experience may only be a reflection of job class changes due
to promotion. For instance, the newly hired employees are
usually hired into the more hazardous job class of "collector
non-driver" while with time he can be promoted to a less haz-
ardous position of "driver non-collector".
The severity rate curve indicates retraining may be
most effective after two months on the job and after two years.
Additional data may be necessary to determine whether this
trend holds true. The retraining of employees, of course, re-
quires the safety department to maintain adequate records on
the date of hire into a specific job class and when the employee
was trained on what. An additional entry on the employee cards
could also indicate previous injuries. With an adequate record-
keeping system, the employees who need training can be spotted
easily.
Another training consideration is the automatic re-
training of an injured employee specifically on the correct
method of performing the task he was performing when injured.
This should be effected prior to his returning to full duties.
Once training is performed, however, responsibility
does not end. Supervision is also an integral part of train-
ing to reinforce the training. Reverting to old incorrect
methods could be controlled with supervision.
3. HEIGHT
The height of the employee may be a factor in rela-
tionship to certain tasks that require having the use of the
lower spine such as in lifting and dumping. A taller person's
fulcrum of bending over, and therefore the stress placed on
the lower back muscles, is at a higher point. He has to bend
further to lift or dump the container than a shorter person.
FIGURE 1-12 indicates that the average solid waste worker was
between 5'7" and 6' in height.
1-11
-------
FIGURE 1-9
OSHA INCIDENCE RATES FOR OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
AND LOST WORKDAY CASE BY HEIGHT GROUP
*COLLECTION DIVISION*
rfl
0)
8
cu
QJ
0
rH
s
o
o
nH
\
w
0)
H
f 1
c
H
100-
90-
80-
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
^\
Average OSHA ^+~^ s^ \
Incidence Rate ^^~^^~~^*~~^ s^ \
^^+ "* *^ ^^ \
^ ^^"^Average OSHA \
Lost Workday ^~"\ \
Cases Rate (-""""" \ \
+ + -^ -* + -^ V
\ *
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
V
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Height Group
= OSHA Incidence Rate
+ = OSHA Lost Workday Cases Rate
1-12
-------
FIGURE 1-10
OSHA SEVERITY RATE
BY HEIGHT GROUP
*COLLECTION DIVISION*
Id
800-
760-
720-
68°~
640-
600-
560-
52°-
480-
440-
400-
360-
f~i
> 320-
w
o 280-
240-
200-
160-
120-
80-
40-
W
n
5'3-5'4 5'5-5'6 5'7-5'8 5'9-5'10 5'll-6
Height Group
6'l-6'2 6'3-6'4 >6'4
1-13
-------
FIGUEE 1-11
DIRECT COST PER MAN-YEAR
BY HEIGHT GROUP
COLLECTION DIVISION*
$500-
480-
460-
440-
420-
400
ti 380-
Q)
* 360-
oi 340-
cu
0) 320-
^,300-
o
^280-
I 260-
y 240-
^ 220-
-P
g 200-
8 160-
-H 140-
Q
120-
100-
80-
60-
40-
20-
5'3-5'4 5'5-5'6 5'7-5'8 5'9-5'10 S'll-
Height Group
6'l-6'2 6'3-6'4
1-14
-------
FIGURE 1-12
DISTRIBUTION OF THE EMPLOYEES' HEIGHTS
% of Man-Hours of
Height Group Exposure
<5'3" 1%
5'3" - 5'4" 3%
5'5" - 5'6" 12%
5'7" - 5'8" 21%
5'9" - 5'10" 23%
5'11" - 6' 22%
6'1" - 6'2" 12%
6'3" - 6'4" 3%
>6'4"
FIGURES 1-9 through 1-11 present the injury rates by
the various height groups, which were in increments of two
inches. They appear to indicate that the over six feet tall
employees, in particular 6'3"-6'4", were having problems with
injuries. This height group had the highest OSHA incidence
and lost workday cases rates. It also shows corresponding
peaks for the severity rate and direct cost per man-year rates.
However, the first height group, 5'3"-5'4", had the highest
severity and direct cost per man-year rates.
These FIGURES may indicate the unsuitability of the
work for the short and tall employees. There are no standards
for employee selection in this industry, but further data analy-
ses is necessary before IRIS can make any recommendations. For
instance, only the employees that handle the containers (e.g.,
collector non-drivers) should be examined. This group of in-
juries can be examined for the type of container for the lift-
ing accidents and the sill height of equipment for the dumping
accidents. This, however, requires a much larger data base to
be statistically valid.
4. WEIGHT
The weights of the employees being injured may have
some correlation to injury rates. However, the data did not
prove conclusive. The weights of the employees could probably
not be analyzed in a useful way without being linked to the
height of the employee at the same time. FIGURE 1-16 shows
that the average weight of the solid waste worker ranged from
150-200 pounds.
1-15
-------
FIGURE 1-13
OSHA INCIDENCE RATES FOR OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
AND LOST WORKDAY CASES BY WEIGHT GROUP
*COLLECTION DIVISION*
100-
90-
o> 80-
70-
0)
OJ
0)
60-
50-
= OSHA Incidence Rate
+ = OSHA Lost Workday Case
Rate
Average OSHA
Incidence Rate
o
o
rH
\
in
Q)
H
S-l
40-
30-
20-
10-
Average OSHA
Lost Workday
Case Rate
<130
Ibs.
130-
139
140-
149
150-
159
160-
169
170-
179
180-
189
Weight
190
199
200- 210- 220- 230- 240- >249
209 219 229 239 249
-------
FIGURE 1-14
OSHA SEVERITY RATE
BY WEIGHT GROUP
*COLLECTION DIVISION*
760-
740-
n 72°-
?, 70°-
2 680-
n 660-
0) 640-
620-
S 60°
249
219 229 239 249
-------
FIGURE 1-15
I
(-
oo
QJ
04
$480-
460-
440-
420-
400-
380H
360-
to
300-
280-
260-
240-
220-
g 180-
Q 160-
140-
120-
100-
DIRECT COST PER MAN-YEAR
BY WEIGHT GROUP
*COLLECTION DIVISION*
<130 130- 140- 150- 160- 170- 180- 190- 200- 210- 220- 230-
Ibs. 139 149 159 169 179 189 199 209 219 229 239
Weight Group
240- >249
249
-------
FIGURE 1-16
DISTRIBUTION OF THE EMPLOYEES' WEIGHTS
% of Man-Hours of
Weight Group Exposure
<130 Ibs. 1%
130-139 Ibs. 4%
140-149 Ibs. 8%
150-159 Ibs. 12%
160-169 Ibs. 15%
170-179 Ibs. 14%
180-189 Ibs. 14%
190-199 Ibs. 10%
200-209 Ibs. 7%
210-219 Ibs. 5%
220-229 Ibs. 4%
230-239 Ibs. 2%
240-249 Ibs. 2%
>249 Ibs. 2%
FIGURES 1-13 through 1-15 show the injury rates pat-
terns by the various weight groups which were in increments of
10 pounds. FIGURE 1-13 shows higher incidence rates for the
lighter employees and lower incidence rates for the heavier
employees. FIGURE 1-14 and 1-15 show three consistently low
points for severity and direct cost per man-year rates at 150-
159, 210-219, and 230-239 Ibs. The peaks in injury rates,
however, varied between the two graphs.
1-19
-------
SECTION II
SECOND QUARTER IRIS USER
INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA
The accidents received by IRIS from 42 users are covered
in this section. FIGURE 2-1 gives operational background data
on the IRIS users.
FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS RATES
FIGURES 2-2 through 2-5 recap the frequency, severity
and costs of injuries for this quarter:
FIGURE 2-2: Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity and Costs. Compares the solid waste
management industry with the national average
for all industries.
FIGURE 2-3: Comparison of Injury Rates and
OSHA Days Lost for All Users. Compares the
rates and days lost for the first two quarters
of 1976, for each user, in user number order.
FIGURE 2-4; Comparison of Direct Costs by
Reporting Period for All Users. Compares
the total costs and cost rates for the first
two quarters of 1976, for each user, in user
number order.
FIGURE 2-5: Summary of Accident Factors for
Selected Accident Characteristics with Highest
Percent of OSHA Recordable Injuries, OSHA Days
Lost and Direct Costs.
A few definitions of the terms used in the following
FIGURES are:
OSHA Recordable Injury. Defined by OSHA as
a non-first aid injury.
2-1
-------
OSHA Incidence Rate. It is a measure of the
frequency of injuries. The OSHA incidence rate
is the number of OSHA recordable injuries per
200,000 hours of exposure. The base figure of
"200/000 hours" is the standard figure used
in OSHA statistics. It is roughly equivalent to
100 full-time employees working a year or 100
man-years (i.e., 100 employees working 40 hours
per week for 50 weeks per year).
OSHA incidence rates can be thought of as being
roughly equivalent to the number of injuries
that will occur to 100 employees during a year.
Therefore, an OSHA incidence rate of 37 means
that the organization is having 37 injuries
per year for each 100 employees or that, on
the average, 1 out of every 3 employees are
being injured. The national average OSHA
incidence rate for all industries has been
around 10 for the last several years.
Severity Rate. The severity rate is similar
to the OSHA incidence rate, except that it
reflects the number of OSHA days lost (i.e.,
workdays lost and light duty days), instead
of the number of injuries, per 100 man-years
worked. For example, a severity rate of 500
would mean roughly that an organization is
losing 500 workdays for every 100 employees
per year, or that on the average each employee
is losing 5 days a year for on-the-job injuries.
Direct Costs. Direct costs are normally those
for which money was actually expended and in-
clude worker's compensation, medical expenses,
and wage continuation benefits (e.g., injury
leave). There are many indirect costs such as
down time, replacement time, lost time by wit-
nesses and supervisors, etc., which are not
included in these figures. Indirect costs are
estimated to be 5 times the direct costs in
cities according to the National Safety Council.
Average Direct Costs per OSHA Recordable Injury.
An average direct cost per OSHA recordable injury
of $500 means that on the average each OSHA record'
able injury (i.e., a non-first aid case) is
costing the organization $500!
2-2
-------
Direct Cost per Man-Year. It shows the
cost per 2,000 hours or the average cost per
year per employee. A direct cost per man-year
of $200 would mean that on the average an
organization's injuries are costing $200
per employee per year.
In reviewing these FIGURES, the data for the AVERAGE
(shown on the FIGURES as AVG) is the most important because
it summarizes the results for all users combined. After
examining the AVERAGES, it is important to examine how
great the range of rates between users is. Wide ranges are
important because they show that it is possible to achieve
lower rates of injury under given operating systems and
safety programs.
2-3
-------
FIGURE 2-1
DESCRIPTION OF USERS BY OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
User
Number
101
109
111
125
136
140
146
143
161
171
172
H=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
South
Midwest
West
South
South
South
South
Northeast
Midwest
Midwest
West
No. of
Employees
325
500
280
650
140
644
295
267
125
370
700
Point of Collection:
M= Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A
BY/BYC
CS
CS
M/A
CS
CS/A
CS
CS/A
A
M/CS/A
Type
of
Shift
T/F
F
T
T
F
T
T
T
T
T/F
T/F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
4
4,3
2
3,1
3
1,2,3
3,1
3
1,2,3
Comm.
4
1
1
1,2
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
4
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L,I
L
L,T
L
L
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
H amber
181
186
191
204
207
210
211
212
215
217
235
236
M=Hunicipal
P PT*I \raf-o
*- JL J. VcttG
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
Midwest
South
South
West
West
West
West
West
South
South
South
South
No. of
Employees
278
297
177
52
205
15
40
130
60
820
125
103
Point of Collection:
M= Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o interned, can
DYT=Backyard-Tub
B YC=B ackyard- Cart
CS=Curbside
BY
CS
CS/A
CS/A/M
BYC
CS
CS/A
CS/A
CS/BY/BYT
CS/A/BY
BYT/A/CS
CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
T/F
F
T
T
T
F
T/F
F
T
T/F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
4
3
3
1,3
3
2
3
1,2,3
3
3
Comm.
3
1
1,3
2
2
1
3
1
Resid.
&
Comm.
1,2
2
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L
L
L
L,T
L
L
N)
I
Ul
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
237
242
244
260
261
265
272
275
283
285
286
292
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
Midwest
South
West
West
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Northwest
No. of
Employees
90
101
30
168
8
200
127
40
72
79
8
225
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
A/BYC
CS/BY/BYT/A
BYT/BYC
CS/BYT/A/M
CS/A
CS/BYT/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
A/BYT/BYC
CS/A/BYT/BYC
Type
of
Shift
T/F
T/F
T
T
T
T
T
T
T/F
T
F
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
3
2
1,2
3
1,2
3
3
2
3
1,3
Conim.
3
1,2
2,3
2
3
3,1
2
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L,T
L
L
L,T
L,I
L,T
L,T
L
to
I
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
295
296
316
324
325
329
330
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
P
M
P
M
Geograph.
Area
South
West
Northeast
Midwest
Northwest
West
South
No. of
Employees
179
43
475
17
45
20
60
Point of Collection:
M= Mechanical
A=Alley
ŤŤ .ť j/j i j
x3 x Dei City circi w/ o mcerinGQ. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/BY
CS/A/BY
CS/A/BYT
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/A
CS
A/CS
Type
of
Shift
T
F
F
T
F
T
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
4
1
2,3
2,1
3
3
Comm.
2
2,1
2,3
1,2,3
2,1
3
Resid.
&
Comm.
1,2
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L
N)
I
-J
-------
FIGURE 2-2
SUMMARY OF INJURIES
BY FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS
FREQUENCY
There were 1,189 cases reported by 36 of the
IRIS users on-line: 279 first aid cases, 355
non-fatal cases without lost workdays, 550 lost
workday cases, 4 permanent disability cases, and
1 fatality. Total man-hours for this quarter
were 4,133,800.
The AVERAGE OSHA incidence rate was 44 for this
quarter. This means that two out of every five
solid waste industry employees will experience
a non-first aid injury a year. The national rate
for all industries was 10.4. Therefore, the
solid waste industry is experiencing almost
four times as many injuries as the average in-
dustry.
IRIS users ranged in frequency rates from User
No. 204 which was experiencing 1.4 injuries per
employee per year, to User No. 292 which was
experiencing 11 injuries per 100 employees per
year.
SEVERITY
(Days lost given are not final. These figures reflect
what was received from IRIS users by December 31, 1976 and
may be gross underestimates. For example, in the months
since the publication of the first quarter Accident Trends
for 1976, the OSHA severity rate has increased from 269 to
410, and not all cases are final yet.)
So far, 555 cases this quarter incurred 8,150
workdays lost and light duty days.
47% of the total cases resulted in workdays
lost and/or light duty days. The national
average for all industries is 33%. This means
that the solid waste industry has almost 1.5
times as many lost workday injuries as the
average industry.
2-8
-------
The AVERAGE OSHA severity rate was 394. This
means that on the average, each employee is
losing 3.9 days per year for injuries. One
user's rate was as high as 29 days lost per
year per employee; several are losing zero days
a year per employee.
On the AVERAGE, each lost workday case resulted
in 14.71 workdays lost so far.
DIRECT COSTS
(Costs given are not final. These figures reflect
what was received from IRIS users by December 31, 1976, and
may be gross underestimates. For example, first quarter of
1976's AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury has gone up
from $296 to $537.)
Total direct costs so far for injuries that
occurred during the second quarter was
$466,603.
The AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury
was $512.
The AVERAGE cost per man-year was $226. This
means that the average solid waste injury
(non-first aid) cost $226 per full-time employee
per year so far.
2-9
-------
STARTING: JANUARY, 1976
FIGURE 2-3
COMPARISON OF INJURY RATES AND OSHA DAYS LOST FOR ALL USERS
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
USER ! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 3
101
109
111
125
136
140
146
148
161
171
172
181
186
191
204
207
210
211
212
215
217
235
236
237
242
244
260
261
265
272
275
12
36
65
31
0
31
26
13
44
50
44
13
57
79
78
104
9
79
0
7
88
15
4
93
68
48
34
ll
33
49
74
35
0
55
21
23
41
62
56
50
24
46
136
96
0
68
44
0
44
55
104
33
0
57
54
0
46
15
6O
UTK 1
47
195
1048
875
0
347
536
0
209
476
369
69
189
342
576
467
539
759
0
11
1478
35
100
170
759
145
245
243
yrK z
391
176
1293
378
0
680
137
151
33
229
1116
148
279
150
84
251
0
281
488
0
193
0
665
152
0
199
519
0
300
11
636
QTR 4
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 3 QTR 4
UTK -L
6.50
8.03
23.39
35.54
0.00
15.37
66.50
0.00
9.58
14.56
11.48
12.25
4.00
13.00
10.30
9.00
62.00
9.65
0.00
3.00
18.53
3.50
25.00
2.75
19.42
3.00
8. 64
32. OO
(JTK ^
27.00
8.15
24.79
13.19
0.00
16.56
20.60
12.86
1.60
5.96
27.51
4.26
22.00
5.11
8.00
5.35
0.00
4.71
11.00
0.00
11.22
0.00
8.86
6.40
0.00
3.50
16.20
0.00
7. 80
1 . 50
10.67
o _ o o
-------
USER !
ro
I
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
286
292
295
296
316
324
325
329
330
AVG.
0
3
17
19
34
0
11
20
76
53
79
42
37
25
44
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
0
284
64
476
410
0
20
20
2943
608
0
134
37
82
394
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 3 QTR 4
UTK i.
0.00
86.00
4.75
25.00
17.45
UiK Ł
0.00
4.33
2.00
51.50
17.05
0.00
4.75
2.00
5.00
14.68
-------
FIGURE 2-4
COMPARISON OF DIRECT COSTS BY REPORTING PERIOD FOR ALL USERS
Starting: January, 1976
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVG. COST PER OSHA REC. INJ,
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 3 QTR 4
101
109
111
125
136
140
146
148
161
171
172
181
i 186
M 191
204
207
210
211
212
215
217
235
236
237
242
244
260
261
265
272
275
283
285
4,210
13,513
57,185
54,614
0
39,842
14,050
135
3,582
27,167
11,510
1,295
1,475
2,481
4,523
1,445
794
14,297
0
251
12,768
604
6,877
706
2,317
159
2,820
1,861
119
: 61
29,631
12,994
42,448
27,060
0
69,843
5,442
3,577
815
6,376
58,431
5,081
8,021
1,685
517
9,636
0
1,987
7,138
0
87,684
725
9,550
1,813
0
904
5,620
0
8,216
109
1,437
1, 346
o
386
312
1,190
895
0
711
739
18
148
393
391
143
86
275
141
361
758
621
0
125
608
201
6,877
117
110
159
214
620
59
i 61
986
213
771
375
0
688
340
255
80
163
749
153
471
120
39
235
0
248
549
0
956
48
329
259
0
226
330
0
455
27
239
147
o
yj.K j.
51
112
776
280
0
219
188
5
65
197
176
18
49
217
110
374
68
488
0
9
536
30
274
109
75
76
72
70
7
4
^TK ^
330
104
567
131
0
382
72
60
33
102
416
76
113
55
54
226
0
168
243
0
419
26
341
86
0
128
180
0
210
4
142
75
o
-------
K)
I
I
U>
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVG. COST PER OSHA REC. INJ.
! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
286
292
295
296
316
324
325
329
330
AVG.
0
7,327
911
1,982
290,881
0
894
578
16,786
37,857
92
2,159
153
1,053
467,658
0
3,663
177
991
537
0
127
96
2,098
630
30
359
66
351
512
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 3 QTR 4
yiK i
0
121
30
188
183
giK f.
0
13
19
1,598
337
24
151
28
86
226
-------
FIGURE 2-5
SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT FACTORS FOR SELECTED ACCIDENT
CHARACTERISTICS UITH HIGHEST PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABTTTNJURIES
OSHA DAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
Type of
Characteristic
Factors With The:
Highest % of OSHA
Recordable Injuries
Highest % of
OSHA Days Lost
Highest % of
Direct Costs
NJ
I
Activi ty
Accident Type
Accident Site
Nature of Injury
Part of Body
Lifting or dumping container - 40%
Getting off equipment - 8%
Riding on equipment - 7%
Overexertion involving container - 20%
SIip on same level - 6%
Fall to a different level - 6%
On collection route at back of truck - 36%
On collection route at curb - 18%
In customer's yard - 10%
Sprain or strain - 43%
Cut or puncture - 20%
Bruise - 19%
Back - 22%
Eyes - 8%
Leg - 8%
Lifting or dumping container - 33%
Riding on equipment - 10%
Carrying container - 8%
Overexertion involving container - 26%
Fall to a different level - 9%
Vehicle movement involved accident - 8%
On collection route at back of truck - 42%
On collection route at curb - 14%
On collection route on step of vehicle - 11%
Sprain or strain - 64%
Fracture - 12%
Bruise - 10%
Back - 48%
Knee - 8%
Multiple body parts - 5%
Lifting or dumping container - 29%
Dislodging waste from container - 12%
Riding on equipment - 7%
Overexertion involving container - 23%
Caught between objects - 21%
Fall to a different level - 7%
On collection route at back of truck - 36%
On collection route at curb - 13%
In customer's yard - 9%
Sprain or strain - 54%
Multiple injuries - 13%
Fracture - 13%
Back - 41%
Multiple body parts - 16%
Foot - 7%
-------
Accident Trends
3rd Quarter 1976
-------
EXHIBIT 4
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
EQUIPMENT RELATED ACCIDENTS
QUARTER: JULY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1976
DEVELOPED BY SAFETY SCIENCES, DIVISION OF WSA, INC,
FOR THE U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
UNDER CONTRACT No, 68-03-0231
Division of WSA Inc, 11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, California 92121 (714) 755-93594.452-1010
-------
Accident Trends in the Solid Waste Management
Industry is developed quarterly using data from
IRIS (the Injury Reporting and Information Sys-
tem for Solid Waste Management). Accident Trends
is designed to summarize and discuss the data
from all IRIS users and to provide data and con-
clusions which affect the industry as a whole.
A companion volume, the QSMR (Quarterly Safety
Management Report), is developed individually
for each IRIS user who reported injuries during
the quarter. Each QSMR concentrates only on
the injuries of the individual IRIS user for
which it is prepared.
IRIS is currently made up of 53 users. All
possible care is taken to insure data quality.
The nature of the data and the reports, however;
precludes complete accuracy. Not all cases are
closed by the end of the quarter. These accidents
continue to be monitored. Occasionally, full lost
time and cost data is not available. Consequently,
the totals for these categories may be underestimates,
A concerted effort is made to correct the lost time
and cost figures and improve IRIS collection methods.
The recommendations and countermeasures presented are
suggestions that must be evaluated in terms of in-
dividual user's needs.
-------
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
QUARTER: JULY IST, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1976
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION Page
I. Section I - DISCUSSION OF EQUIPMENT RELATED
ACCIDENTS AND PREVENTION METHODS
Lifting to Dump Container 2
Dumping Container 5
Dismounting 7
Standing or Walking 11
Lifting to Dump Waste 13
Riding 14
Mounting 19
Driving 21
Operating Controls 22
Other Equipment Related Activities 26
II. Section II - THIRD QUARTER IRIS USER
INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA 68
Part I - Frequency, Severity and Costs Rates 68
Part II - Characteristics of Accidents 85
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1:
FIGURE 1-2:
FIGURE 1-3:
FIGURE 1-4:
FIGURE 1-5:
FIGURE 1-6:
FIGURE 1-7:
FIGURE 1-8:
FIGURE 1-9:
FIGURE 1-10:
FIGURE 1-11:
FIGURE 1-12:
FIGURE 1-13:
FIGURE 1-14:
FIGURE 1-15:
Use of Rubber "Mud Guard" Flaps as
Protection Against Objects Ejected
from the Hopper
Detailed Description of Lifting-to-
Dump Container Accidents
Detailed Description of Dumping
Container Accidents
Detailed Description of Dismounting
Accidents
Detailed Description of Standing
or Walking Accidents
Detailed Description of Lifting-to-
Dump Waste Accidents
Detailed Description of Riding
Accidents
Detailed Description of Mounting
Accidents
Detailed Description of Driving
Accidents
Detailed Description of Operating
Controls Accidents
Detailed Description of Repairing
Equipment Accidents
Detailed Description of Checking
Equipment Accidents
Detailed Description of Opening
Equipment Part Accidents
Detailed Description of Emptying
Equipment Accidents
Detailed Description of Washing
Vehicle Accidents
12
30
35
39
42
45
48
50
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
111
-------
Paqe
FIGURE 1-16:
FIGURE 1-17:
FIGURE 1-18:
FIGURE 2-1:
FIGURE 2-2:
FIGURE 2-3:
FIGURE 2-4:
FIGURE 2-5:
FIGURE 2-6:
FIGURES 2-7A
TO 2-7C:
FIGURES 2-8A
TO 2-8C:
FIGURES 2-9A
TO 2-9C:
Detailed Description of Closing
Equipment Part Accidents 59
Detailed Description of Hooking
or Unhooking Equipment Accidents 60
Equipment Related Accidents -
Preliminary Task/Hazard Analysis 61
Description of Users by Operational
Characteristics 71
Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity, and Costs 76
Number of Injuries Reported by Type
of Severity - Comparison of 'IRIS1
Users 78
Comparison of Injury Rates and OSHA
Days Lost for all Users 80
Comparison of Direct Costs by
Reporting Period for All Users 82
Summary of Accident Factors for
Selected Accident Characteristics with
Highest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct
Costs 84
Activities Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct
Costs 86
Accident Types Ranked from Highest
to Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct
Costs 92
Accident Sites Ranked from Highest
to Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct
Costs 98
IV
-------
Page
FIGURES 2-10A
TO 2-10C: Injury Types Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct
Costs 104
FIGURE 2-11: Parts of Body Ranked from Highest
to Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct
Costs 107
v
-------
INTRODUCTION
This is the Accident Trends report for the third
quarter of 1976 (July 1 to September 30). Before reading the
results, the following points should be noted:
The special feature selected for third quarter's
Accident Trends report is equipment related acci-
dents. Although the actual FIGURES reflect only
third quarter's accidents, the narrative discusses
accidents from IRIS users since the instigation of
IRIS in December, 1975 through September, 1976.
IRIS users are only identified by number. A table
giving background information on the operational
characteristics of each user is shown in FIGURE 2-1.
44 out of 52 IRIS users on-line reported a total
of 1,083 injuries. Not all users started reporting
injuries at the same time. Many users began re-
porting injuries during previous quarters, and
others began on August 1st or September 1st. The
injury rates shown are comparable, however, be-
cause the different starting dates are reflected
in the hours of exposure. Total hours of exposure
for the third quarter is 3,795,819.
The phrase "AVERAGE" refers to the injury rates
or numbers for all IRIS users combined.
The FIGURES include the injury and time lost and
costs data that were provided to IRIS by December 31,
1976, the "closing date" for receiving data for the
third quarter. Some of the cases are "open," for
which data is not final. All of the time lost and
costs data should, therefore, be interpreted as
low in regard to the actual data. Open cases
are followed until the data is final.
This Accident Trends report is divided into two sections.
SECTION I provides a discussion of equipment related accidents and
prevention methods. It includes a Preliminary Task/Hazards Analysis
for the solid waste management industry. SECTION II is a summary
of the data received for all IRIS users during the quarter.
Accompanying the Accident Trends report is a separate
handouts of Proposed Recommended Safe Work Rules. It was compiled
from the safety rules that were requested from all IRIS users.
-------
SECTION I
DISCUSSION OF EQUIPMENT RELATED ACCIDENTS
AND PREVENTION METHODS
Equipment related accidents were chosen as the special
feature topic for third quarter's Accident Trends Report because
of the large toll they take on frequency of injuries, days lost
and direct costs of solid waste industry injuries. During the
third quarter of 1976, accidents that were directly related to
interaction between the injured employee and the sanitation
vehicle (e.g., driving, mounting, dismounting, riding accidents)
accounted for a full 30% of the OSHA recordable injuries, days
lost and direct costs. To include other accidents that were
indirectly related to sanitation vehicles (e.g., overexertion
due to dumping in the hopper or struck by object that fell out
of the con'tainer or vehicle while dumping in the hopper) as
equipment related accidents increases the overall percentage
by as much as 15%.
The following is a discussion of the various equipment
related accidents that occurred throughout the year. It is sep-
arated into sections by the tasks the injured employees were per-
forming. The hazards related to each task are discussed in detail,
and accident prevention methods (i.e., countermeasures) are offered,
Many of the countermeasures given were suggested by IRIS users. The
hazards and countermeasures are condensed for easy reference in a
Preliminary Task/Hazards Analysis shown in FIGURE 1-18.
FIGURES 1-1 through 1-17 included at the end of Section I
provide detailed descriptions of the equipment related accidents
occurring this quarter. Each FIGURE centers on a specific task.
The descriptions are given in profile form (i.e., sentence) and
includes the activity, accident type, injury type and part of body.
The FIGURES also provide the total number of injuries, the days
lost and the direct costs that correspond to each profile.
The FIGURES and the discussion are ordered from the
highest to the lowest percent of OSHA recordable injuries that
occurred for a specific task (see FIGURE 2-7A).
Lifting to Dump Container (FIGURE 1-1)
The term "lifting-to-dump" describes the continuous
motion that begins with lifting the container and ends with the
container in a tilted position for dumping into the hopper or
an intermediate container. Many users refer to this action as
"loading."
-------
As can be seen by FIGURE 1-1, almost all lifting-
to-dump container accidents occur when the employee was in the
process of trying to dump into the hopper. This activity often
is the second or third major cause of accidents occurring in
the solid waste industry. It also is frequently ranked high
in days lost and costs. During the third quarter, an average
lifting-to-dump container injury resulted in 11 days lost and
$270 in direct costs. However, since these cases tend to re-
main open due to the large number of strains incurred, these
figures are low. For instance, an average lifting-to-dump
container injury that occurred during second quarter resulted
in 15 days lost and $393, since revised days lost and cost
figures were supplied for the previous quarters' injuries.
Since December 1975, 165 cases of lifting-to-dump
container injuries were reported. This was 5.6% of the total
number of injuries reported. During the third quarter, this
task accounted for 11.8% of the injuries reported.
The major hazard in performing this task is losing
control of the container. The most common injuries are strains
to the back or shoulder. Fifty percent of the lifting-to-dump
accidents were overexertions. Half of these occurred as the
employee was twisting or turning while lifting to dump. Thirty-
three overexertions occurred as the employees were throwing con-
tainers into the hopper.
Many users have found the need to train employees on
proper lifting techniques. Throwing is not allowed. The users
recommend that employees have feet apart, and one foot forward
when lifting. Employees should not jerk or twist when lifting
the container and should keep their backs straight and knees
bent. The container should be kept close to the body. Employees
should lift with the legs rather than the back.
Another hazard produced by turning while lifting to
dump is striking against the vehicle. Thirteen injuries of this
nature occurred. This may in part be due to haste in which the
employee is not properly judging the location of the truck.
Employees should take a step when turning to dump rather than
twisting the body around. Keeping the container close to the
body should also reduce elbows and hands striking against the
truck.
Forty-two overexertions involved lifting overweight
containers. Several users have safety rules for "testing" the
weight of the container. They recommend rocking the container
with the knee to approximate the weight. Overweight containers
are not easily recognizable because many times there may be wet
-------
yard clippings or rocks hidden in the borroms of the containers.
If a container is found to be overweight, employees should be
instructed to GET HELP- However, employees also need to be
trained in lifting in unison, as injuries frequently occur from
noncoordinated lifting efforts. One employee, when lifting an
overweight container with a coworker, struck his wrist against
the hopper, fracturing it.
To aid in reducing the number of overweight containers,
a city can be encouraged to pass container regulations on the
size, weight, condition and location of the containers. Other
regulations can encompass unacceptable waste items that must be
handled separately and requiring lids for all containers. If
lids are required on containers at all times, it will prevent
water-filled containers in rainy weather. If a city adopts
container regulations, they must be enforced. Containers that
do not meet city regulations should be tagged and left. One
IRIS user found that public education programs aided in citizen
acceptance of new container regulations.
Employees must have a firm grip on the container while
lifting to dump. Six injuries occurred when the container slipped
from the employee's grasp and dropped on his foot or caught his
fingers against the edge of the hopper. Employees should step
out of the way of falling containers. Safety shoes with rein-
forced protection for toes are recommended since these accidents
could have resulted in a serious injury to the employee's toes.
Gloves are recommended for protection against ragged
edges of cans and glass protruding from plastic bags. When
lifting-to-dump plastic bags, do not put hand beneath bag and
do not swing bag into hopper, as protruding glass will cut the
leg as it brushes by. One user utilizes chaps, another aprons,
to effectively reduce cuts to the legs. Employees should be
trained to place the bags in the hopper rather than throwing
them into the hopper as they pick them up at the curb.
Another type of injury that occurred when lifting-to-
dump containers was when the employees lost their balance and
strained themselves or fell. Two of the slips were due to icy
surfaces, four due to wet surfaces. Again, the proper lifting
technique is recommended. A slow, steady lift minimizes
imbalance.
Employees also should watch their step when at the
back of the vehicle. Six injuries were due to employees stepping
on rocks, boards with nails, nails and brush. Employees should
be trained to pick up any waste that has dropped from the con-
tainer or the vehicle immediately, in order to prevent himself
or a coworker from being injured from it.
-------
Eye protection is recommended any time employees are
working in the hopper vicinity. One employee had a piece of
pipe strike his eye when it was ejected from the hopper; he
could easily have lost his sight. Not only does the hopper
eject materials (seven injuries) but dust is generated in the
hopper as containers are being dumped (five objects in eye in-
juries) . Employees should be trained to keep their heads turned
to the side when lifting to dump. Do not dump if the hopper is
operating. Employees should stand to the side of the hopper"
rather than immediately behind, to avoid ejected waste when the
hopper is packing. Plastic bags tend to "pop" when packed,
ejecting dust and other materials.
Dumping Container (FIGURE 1-2)
Dumping container accidents had the third highest per-
centage (11%) of OSHA recordable injuries for the third quarter
(see FIGURE 2-1 A} . The average dumping injury during the third
quarter resulted in 9 days lost and $242 in direct costs. Since
IRIS began, 250 cases of dumping injuries occurred, or 8.4% of
all cases reported. Almost all the dumping container accidents
were while dumping into the hopper rather than into an inter-
mediate container.
The major hazard in dumping containers is also losing
control of the container. The major accident type was over-
exertion (22%). Employees should be taught to:
1. not shake the container while dumping; roll
the container back and forth instead,
2. rest the container on the hopper sill while
dumping so that the weight of the container
is supported,
3. keep the container close to the body to pre-
vent awkward body positions that put undue
stress on the back,
4. keep a firm grip on the container at all
times, and
5. GET HELP if the container is overweight.
Fifty percent of the overexert ions 'while dumping, containers were
due to overweight containers. Coordination is essential to two-
man lifts, however. Again, container regulations against over-
weight containers are highly recommended. In cases where employe65
dump their intermediate containers into the hopper, two-man lifts
are recommended or a mechanical lifting device adapted to the
hoppers.
-------
Ten percent of the dumping container accidents
occurred when the container slipped from the employee's grasp.
In three cases the handles on the containers broke. Employees
should be taught to not try to catch a falling container and
to keep hands and feet clear of the container once they have
lost control of the container. Four back strains occurred
when employees were trying to catch their falling containers.
One employee was actually trying to hold up a bulk container
when the pin came out of the chain! Ten employees had their
fingers pinched between the container and the edge of the
hopper when their containers slipped.
Eight percent of the dumping container accidents
were fingers and hands caught between the container and the
edge of the hopper. When employees initially lean the con-
tainers on the hopper sill, prior to rolling the containers
to dump, they should be careful of their hand position; it
should not be underneath the top of the container as it
definitely will be caught, nor should it be to the side
since it will be pinched when the container is rolled.
Employees should be warned against haste. Two in-
juries occurred when the container "bounced back" from the
hopper and struck against the employee. This implies that
the containers had been thrown.
There should not be two employees dumping into the
hopper at the same time. Four percent of the dumping container
accidents were where the employee was struck by or struck against
a coworker's container. In one case, the injured employee re-
quired stitches to his head. It also is safer to stay clear of
the coworker when he is dumping. One injury was due to an em-
ployee standing directly behind a coworker who was dumping his
cart. The cart slipped out of the coworker's hands and struck
the employee's arm.
Again, eye protection is essential for anyone who
works at the back of the vehicle. Five percent of the dumping
container injuries were due to being injured by objects ejected
from the hopper. Several cases involved large objects that
were ejected such as bottles and boards. Glass narrowly missed
two employees' eyes. Employees should not be allowed to dump
while the hopper is operating. The dangers of being near an
operating packer cannot be stressed enough. In addition, em-
ployees should be trained to spend as little time in front of
the hopper as possible. Fourteen percent of the injuries were
due to receiving objects in the eye while dumping; the hopper
was not operating at the time.
-------
Employees need to beware of objects protruding from
the hopper. Three employees cut their arm on broken bottles
that were protruding from the vehicle. One employee struck
against a branch.
If employees use the proper dumping technique of
resting the container on the hopper sill and rolling the con-
tainer back and forth, several other injuries could have been
prevented. Fourteen injuries occurred when the employees were
struck by objects that fell out of the container or the vehicle.
Employees should not hold the containers high, as this causes
the garbage to "spill" out. It is also an awkward body position.
Employeer were also bumping into the truck as they
were dumping their containers. Eight percent of the dumping
container accidents were of this nature. Nine injuries were
from the employees striking their elbows on the edge of the
hopper. This could be prevented by keeping the container
close to the body and not shaking the container while dumping.
Six employees were handling overweight containers at the time
and may have found them awkward to dump. They should have re-
quested help.
Another rule to remember while dumping is to keep
the feet firmly planted on the ground and parted for balance.
Thirteen injuries involved the employees losing their footing
as they were dumping, three involved ice on the ground, two
wet surfaces and one oil on the ground.
Dismounting (FIGURE 1-4)
Dismounting from the vehicle resulted in 8% of the
OSHA recordable injuries for the third quarter. This was the
fourth highest percentage of OSHA recordable injuries. Approxi-
mately half of the injuries occurred while the employee was dis-
mounting from the step and half while dismounting from the cab.
The average dismounting accident resulted in seven days lost
and $201 during the third quarter.
Dismounting from step. A total of 108 accidents where
the employees were hurt when stepping off the rear or side steps
of the vehicle have been reported since IRIS began.
The major hazard encountered when employees are dis-
mounting from the step is lack of sure footage. Forty-five
percent of the injuries were caused by "unfavorable roadway con-
ditions (e.g., objects on the ground, uneven surfaces, slippery
surfaces).
-------
When dismounting, employees should be trained to:
1. look where they are stepping,
2. dismount backwards rather than forwards,
3. maintain a firm grip on the handhold until
both feet are securely placed on the ground,
4. place feet flatly on the surface.
On no account should they dismount while the vehicle is still
in motion; they should wait until after the truck has completed
its backward lurching motion in stopping.
Equipment design factors must also be considered in
aiding the employee in mounting and dismounting. Are the hand-
rails on the vehicles conveniently located and long enough to
be held onto until the employee is firmly situated on the ground,
or are they so high that they can only be held onto while the
employee is riding on the step? Are the steps on the vehicles
located at such a height that it causes an awkward mounting or
dismounting stance?
The American National Standards Institute Z245.1-1975
standard entitled, "Safety Requirements for Refuse Collection,"
has standards relevant to step design. It stipulates:
7.3.7 Riding Steps and Grab Handles
7.3.7.1 The surface and edges of steps shall
have a slip-resistant surface. They
shall be self-cleaning or be protected
against the accumulation of mud, snow,
and ice.
7.3.7.2 Steps shall be designed to carry a
uniformly distributed load of not less
than 1000 pounds.
7.3.7.3 If steps are provided, they shall be
mounted not more than 22 inches above
the road surface.
7.3.7.4 Steps shall have a depth of at least 8
inches and shall provide a minimum of 220
square inches of riding surface area.
-------
7.3.7.5 Grab handles shall be provided in con-
junction with riding steps and be located
so as to provide the employee with a safe
and comfortable riding stance. Each grab
handle shall be capable of withstanding a
pull of at least 500 pounds.
Review your organization's step and grab handles' designs to
see if they meet the above guidelines.
Employees were not looking at where they were stepping,
In 33 cases, employees lost their balance when they stepped down
onto bricks, rocks, potholes in the pavement, drainage holes,
cracks in the sidewalk and edges of curbs. One employee stepped
down on a container, fell and fractured his ankle. Seven other
employees slipped when they stepped onto loose gravel, oil spots
and icy and wet pavements. In seven other cases, employees
punctured their feet when they stepped on date thorns, nails
and boards with nails.
When employees are dismounting onto a known slippery
surface, they should place their feet flat on the surface to
decrease slippage. Safety shoes with high ankles are strongly
recommended (many users require them) not only to give added
support to the ankle when mounting and dismounting, but also
to reduce puctures to the foot. Several users issue special
high traction shoes designed for walking on the snow and ice
and have found them useful in reducing their slips and falls.
However, it must also be recognized that although slip resistant
shoes may be useful in inclement weather conditions, they should
not be used in good weather because of the opposite effect of
knee injuries occurring from too much traction. Therefore,
different safety shoes should be issued depending on seasonal
weather changes.
Employees should not be allowed to get on or off the
step while the truck is still in motion. Nor should they be
allowed to jump on or off the step. One accident that could
have resulted in a serious injury occurred when the truck
driver drove off as the employee was dismounting, and the
wheel of the truck ran over his foot. Fortunately, the acci-
dent only resulted in a bruised foot. Two employees fell when
they got off the step before the truck stopped. In six cases,
employees were jumping off the step when they sprained their
ankles. Several users give reprimands or warnings for these
types of accidents where the employees were in direct violation
of safety rules. Repeated warnings would result in suspension.
To make any safety rules meaningful, violations of the rules
must be acted upon immediately.
-------
Injuries can also occur from twisting or turning the
body when dismounting. Two employees turned as they stepped
down in order to pick up cans from the curb; one slipped and
fell, the other strained his knee.
Slippery steps is another hazardous condition that
is particularly prominent in wet and icy weather conditions.
Several users have modified their steps to make them more slip
resistant. Some users are utilizing abrasive adhesive material
on steps and others use open-mesh steps that do not accumulate
snow or water. An important point to recognize with the abrasive
material is maintenance. The material wears down periodically
and, therefore, should be checked and replaced on a regular basis,
Dismounting from cab. The accidents occurring are
distinguished from dismounting from the step accidents by two
new factors being introduced:
1. increased dismounting height, and
2. a movable vehicle part, the door.
Because of the increased difficulty in dismounting from the
cab as opposed to dismounting from the step, the proper dis-
mounting procedure is even more important. There is increased
likelihood of being off balance as one "climbs" out of the cab
instead of simply stepping down. Equipment design factors to
be considered for this activity are also long, vertical grab
handles and slip resistant steps.
Thirty employees slipped on the running board and
fell while they were dismounting. They accounted for close
to a third of the dismounting from cab injuries. In a majority
of the cases, the accidents were caused by the employees dis-
mounting forwards, rather than backwards. The advantages to
dismounting backwards are that the person can look at where he
is stepping as_ he is getting out of the cab, and he can use a
stationary handrail for support rather than a door that might
swing from his grasp. Again, maintaining a firm grip on the
handhold at all times and stepping down firmly and steadily
are important in maintaining balance. In addition, make sure
that the cab door is opened completely before dismounting.
Five employees had their hands caught by the closing door,
and one was struck on the side by the door, while they were
dismounting from the cab.
Eight injuries were due to stepping on objects on
the ground, two were due to oily surfaces and five were due
to stepping in holes in the pavement. Employees should watch
for these hazardous surface conditions when they are dismounting.
10
-------
Another three injuries occurred as the employees
jumped out of the cab, and one employee's foot was run over
by the still-moving vehicle. Employees should be instructed
against haste. One user has a safety rule that makes the
driver responsible for the safety of his passenger. The
driver does not allow his rider to get out of the cab unless
the vehicle is completely stopped. Accidents can be reduced
by training the employees on each crew to work as a "team"
in looking out for each other's safety.
Three other injuries were due to the employees'
clothing being caught while they were getting out of the cab.
Two employees caught their gloves in the door handle, and one
employee was tripped up when his pant leg caught on something.
Again, dismounting backwards might have prevented these acci-
dents by the employees relying on the handrails for support
rather than the door handles. Employees should not wear pants
that are cuffed or excessively loose at the ankles, as they
will catch easily on protruding objects.
Standing or Walking (FIGURE 1-5)
"Standing or walking" is an activity description
that is used only if the employee is not doing anything else.
For instance, if an employee is standing at the curb, waiting
for the packing cycle to end before he lifts the container to
dump it, his activity fits under this category. Had he been
actually carrying the already dumped container back to the
curb, his activity would be categorized instead as "carrying
container."
Standing or walking accidents accounted for 7% of
third quarter's OSHA recordable injuries, but the actual per-
centage of these accidents that were equipment related were
under 2%.
The majority of the injuries were caused by being
struck by waste ejected from the hopper. One user reduced
this hazard by installing "mud flaps" (see FIGURE 1-1) over
the hopper. When the hopper is packing, the rubber flaps
contain the waste and prevent waste from flying out of the
hopper or falling out. In the time since this countermeasure
was discussed in first quarter's Accident Trends, several
other users decided on modifying their equipment with mud
flaps also.
Other safety countermeasures include:
1. eye protection at all times.
2. spend as little time in front of the hopper
as possible, and
11
-------
FIGURE 1-1
USE OF RUBBER "MUD GUARD" FLAPS
AS PROTECTION AGAINST OBJECTS EJECTED FROM THE HOPPER
-------
3. stand to the side of the hopper with head
averted until the cycle is finished.
In addition, the packer operator should be responsible for
making sure that no one is at the back of the vehicle when the
packer is operating. A signal should be worked out whereby he
informs his coworkers that he is going to start the packer
before operating the packer. Three employees had their fingers
caught by the packer blade while walking behind the truck with
their hand resting on the hopper sill.
A special mention also needs to be made on five cases
in which employees were struck by private vehicles as they were
walking from around the back of the vehicle or walking across
the street. Employees should only pick up containers from one
side of the street at a time, thus eliminating the hazard of
them walking back and forth across busy thoroughfares. The
driver should put on his emergency blinkers and pull off to
the side as much as possible when he is at a collection stop.
The blinkers warn motorists to proceed with caution. Employees
should wear traffic vests that are bright and easily noticed by
motorists, particularly during early morning and later afternoon
hours and during inclement weather when visibility is poor. In
addition, any employee who is walking from around the vehicle
into oncoming traffic should look both directions to make sure
the way is clear before stepping forward.
One serious injury occurred when the employee was
struck by the tailgate as it flew open, fracturing his hand.
His injury resulted in 16 days lost and $1,960 in costs. Appar-
ently, the turnbuckles were not latched properly after the load
had been dumped. Employees should make sure that all turnbuckles
are latched properly before leaving the landfill, and, once back
on the route, recheck them before dumping into the hopper. Em-
ployees should in addition check the turnbuckles as a regular
part of checking the vehicle before leaving the yard.
Lifting-to-Dump Waste (FIGURE 1-6)
Lifting-to-dump waste accidents accounted for 6% of
the OSHA recordable injuries for the third quarter. However,
only a fifth of these injuries were directly related to the
vehicle. Because the employees handle uncontained waste, many
of the injuries are puncture wounds to the hands from boards
with nails and cuts to the legs from carrying brush.
Several equipment related injuries were the result of
throwing. Two employees fell when they thre chairs onto the
open body truck. They were on bulky item collection. One em-
ployee was throwing a vacuum cleaner.onto the truck, and the
13
-------
hose struck his face. Employees should not be allowed to throw
items. This action is a twisting motion that not only puts
stress on the shoulders and back but also leaves the body off
balance.
One of the most serious injuries that occurred during
third quarter was when an employee was loading a washing machine
onto an open body truck; it fell on his foot, fracturing it.
Another employee was loading an ice box when he set it down on
his finger. When employees are required to collect heavy, bulky
items, the two-man crews should be trained on how to lift in
unison. Many IRIS users have hydraulic lifts at the back of
the trucks because the increased sill height on the open body
trucks can easily cause strains. Some users employ a ramp and
dolly method instead.
Employees also need to keep their elbows close to the
body and to avoid sudden turning or jerking motions. Four em-
ployees struck their elbows and hands against the truck while
loading.
Special caution should be taken in handling ceramic
waste (e.g., toilet bowls, wash basins). In three cases, the
ceramic waste slipped when employees were lifting to dump; it
struck the edge of the truck, broke and cut the employee's hand
or arm. If the item is too bulky or heavy, employees should
get help, and ceramic waste items should be placed in the truck
rather than thrown.
Again, two employees were loading waste while the
hopper was operating. They were struck by items that swung
around when the packer was operating. No one should be dumping
in the hopper when it is operating.
Riding (FIGURE 1-7)
Riding on equipment accidents include riding on the
step and riding in the cab. Riding accidents accounted for
5.4% of all accidents since IRIS began. It was the eighth
highest in OSHA recordable injuries for the third quarter. The
average riding accident resulted in 15 days lost and $472 in
the third quarter. However, the proportion of riding on the
step accidents to riding in the cab accidents was three to one.
Riding on step. Riding on the side or rear step
accidents have totaled 116 or 3.9%. This is slightly higher
than the dismounting from step total.
14
-------
When employees are riding on the step they should:
1. maintain a firm grip on the handhold with both
hands,
2. keep their bodies close to the truck, and
3. stand with feet placed squarely on the step
and slightly apart.
Employees should not ride on the step if the truck is moving
beyond two blocks' distance; they should ride in the cab.
Another consideration for safety and comfort of the employee
while riding on the step is step and handrail design (see dis-
cussion under dismounting from step).
A large percentage (35%) of the riding on step acci-
dents were due to the vehicle jerking suddenly and throwing the
rider off balance. These accidents do not include vehicle acci-
dents. In 15 cases, the truck stopped suddenly (three were
while avoiding pedestrians and cars). The sudden stops resulted
in the employees falling off (one fractured his elbow), striking
against the truck (one fractured his ribs) , and spraining their
backs. One accident that was nearly serious occurred when the
employee's foot flew up in the air when the truck stopped sud-
denly (his shoes had oil on them); the packer was operating at
the time and caught his foot, but his foot, luckily, was only
cut by the blade. Eight accidents resulted when the truck hit
a bump in the road, causing the employees to fall off. Seven
accidents occurred when the truck went over chuckholes, and the
employees fell off. Three employees fell off as the vehicle
was making a turn; one fractured his foot. In six cases the
truck went over a curb. In two cases the truck "downshifted"
suddenly.
All of the above accidents are related to the driving
ability of the driver. He needs to be aware of the fact that
any jolts produced by the vehicle will affect the rider on the
step. Several users require their driver to take a defensive
driving course. However, the drivers should in addition be
required to retake the course periodically, as they tend to
relax their defenses with time. Any defensive driving course
for sanitation truck drivers should include the following com-
mon sense rules that could have prevented most of the riding
on step accidents:
1. Observe the posted speed limit.
2. Slow down when approaching any bumps or holes
in the road.
15
-------
3. When shifting gears, be sure the speed range
is in the correct zone for shifting in order
to avoid jerks.
4. When driving in residential neighborhoods, be
on the lookout for children playing.
5. Trucks should be in low gear when going down
inclines, and drivers should "pump" the brakes.
6. Drivers should be alert to low hanging and pro-
truding branches when driving through narrow
streets. Warn employees by sounding horn. If
the limbs cannot be avoided, have the employees
ride in the cab. Fourteen accidents occurred
as the employees were struck by tree limbs. In
two cases, the truck broke off a limb that struck
the employee.
7. Drivers should not drive so close to the side
of the road as to endanger their riders. One
case in point occurred when the driver drove
too close to a parked car. The employee riding
on the side step had to resort to jumping over
the car hood to avoid being caught between the
two vehicles.
8. When passing intersections, drivers should be
on the alert for cars running the stop sign or
light.
9. Drivers should also be aware of the difference
in truck movement produced by a truck with a
full load as opposed to an empty truck. The
stopping distance required increases with in-
creased weight, and drivers should turn corners
slowly when carrying a full load, as the load
may shift when turning.
10. Drivers should maintain a distance of one car
length per ten miles of speed between the sani-
tation vehicle and the vehicle in front; in-
crease this distance as the load increases.
11. Drivers should decrease their driving speed
during foul weather.
12. Drivers and passengers in the cab should wear
seat belts.
16
-------
In addition, employees should not be allowed to ride
on the step any time while the vehicle is backing. Seven acci-
dents occurred due to this unsafe act. The employee was caught
between the truck and a tree, a telephone pole, a sign and
another truck in five cases. One employee must have been dis-
mounting at the same time since he caught his foot between the
step and the curb as the truck backed up. One near-serious
accident occurred as the employee was riding illegally on the
step while the driver was backing. The driver started the
packing mechanism. This startled the employee who had his
hand and foot near the hopper. He jumped off and broke his
heel.
Many users have safety rules against riding on the
step while the driver is backing. Their safety rules specify
instead that:
1. the employee be visible to the driver at all
times, whether directly or by means of the
side mirrors,
2. the employee directs the driver in his backing
by means of hand signals, rather than verbal,
3. the employee is not walking backwards as he
directs,
4. the employee has a clear view of the ground
that the driver is backing over, and
5. the driver utilize the horn or back-up alarms
when backing.
In addition, they specify that drivers are not to back up in-
clines. One user also suggests that instead of backing out of
alleys into the flow of traffic, that the driver backs into the
alley or dead-end street.
Drivers should not allow their riders to ride on vehicle
parts that were not designed for riding. One employee was riding
on the hopper sill. The packing mechanism was malfunctioning and
threw him to the ground. Another employee was illegally riding
on the step of the bin in front of the front loader. The step
broke off, and the driver fortunately was able to stop short of
running him over. Employees need to be supervised to make sure
that they are not disobeying the safety rules. Once caught in
violation, immediate action should be taken to reprimand the
employee, since safety rules are only effective if they are
enforced.
17
-------
Two accidents occurred from the step collapsing. The
welds and/or braces on the steps need to be periodically checked
for cracks.
Employees should not be engaged in other activities
while they are riding on the step. One employee turned around
to see who was shouting and struck his head against a cement
pole. Another employee was waving at a car and caught his hand
in the packer blade. Another employee was trying to knock some
mud off his boots as the truck was going up an incline. He fell
off the side step and the truck ran over his leg. He sustained
a bruise. In one other case the employee was leaning around
the side, trying to operate the packing mechanism, when he was
struck by a telephone pole. In one last case, the employee
was packing the garbage when his glove became caught in the
blace and trapped his arm in the hopper.
Because of the inherent danger of being next to the
hopper when it is packing, employees should not be allowed to
operate the packing mechanism if anyone is riding on the step.
Several employees were careless of where they placed their hands
or feet as the packer was operating. One employee was standing
oh the step with his foot on the hopper rail when the blade
fractured his foot. Another employee had his toe bruised badly
in a similar accident. Then there was the case mentioned earlier
of the employee jumping off and fracturing his heel when the
driver started the packing mechanism. Step and grab handle
designs need to be re-examined to determine whether employees
can ride comfortably on the steps. It may be that employees
are resorting to riding with their hand on the side of the
hopper and their foot on the hopper sill because it is more
comfortable.
Several vehicle accidents occurred while employees
were riding on the step. In five cases the sanitation truck
was struck by private vehicles, and in two cases the truck hit
light poles. Equipment design must be considered to make sure
that when the employees are riding on the step, they do not
block the rear signal lights. Drivers should be cautious when
pulling back into traffic. They should make sure the way is
clear before moving forward and should use their turn signals.
Drivers should check their brake, signal and emergency lights
on a regular basis, and any malfunction should be reported
and repaired immediately.
Riding in cab. Forty-four accidents occurred while
employees were riding in the cab since users began reporting
injuries to IRIS. This was 1.5% of all injuries.
18
-------
Of these, 60% were due to vehicle accidents. In five
cases employees were injured when the sanitation truck struck
another vehicle; in eleven cases, the sanitation truck was struck
by a private vehicle. Three other accidents were due to the
driver losing control of his vehicle and overturning; in one
case excessive speed was at fault. Two other cases were that
the truck swerved to avoid a car and ran into a post. It is
highly recommended that employees wear seat belts when they
ride in the cab, as this reduces the severity of vehicle acci-
dents. Defensive driving courses are again recommended for
drivers.
Employees should make sure that they latch the door
properly when they close the cab door. In two cases, the em-
ployees fell out of the door when it opened while the truck
was turning a corner. If the door locking mechanism is defec-
tive, employees should report it to the garage immediately.
Five other injuries were due to sudden jerking motions
of the vehicle. In three cases the snowplow blade struck the
curb, in one case the snowplow blade struck a manhole cover and
in one case the truck struck a rock.
When the truck is at the landfill or transfer station
to dump, the windows should be kept closed. Two employees re-
ceived objects in their eyes when another vehicle drove by.
Windows should also be kept closed when driving in areas with
overhanging limbs. Two employees were struck in the eye by
limbs when the vehicle passed through an alley.
Mounting (FIGURE 1-8)
Mounting equipment injuries resulted in the tenth
highest number of OSHA recordable injuries (3.5%) for the third
quarter. The average mounting injury resulted in 10 days lost
and $296 during the third quarter so far. Approximately half
the mounting injuries occurred while the employee was getting
on the step and half while the employee was getting in the cab.
Mounting step. A total of 41 accidents occurred while
the employee was getting on the step in the last three quarters.
A prominent factor in mounting the step injuries was
interaction between the driver and the injured employee. In
eight cases, the employees were hurrying to get on the step
because the truck was pulling away. The employees either fell
off or struck against the truck.In one case the truck was
backing while the employee was mounting, and the employee
slipped off the wet step, striking his knee on the step. That
19
-------
employee could easily have been run over by the truck. Driver-
rider coordination needs to be established. The driver should
not move the truck until both employees are securely placed on
the steps. The employees should signal to him that they are
prepared for him to move forward.
When mounting the step employees should:
1. not get on until the truck is at a complete
stop,
2. grasp the handrail firmly,
3. watch where they place their feet, and
4. step up firmly and steadily.
Employees should not be allowed to jump on. Extra caution
should be observed when mounting onto a known wet or icy step.
Again, step and handrail design (see dismounting step discussion)
must be considered.
Eighteen injuries occurred when the employees slipped
on the step as they were getting on. Five accidents were due to
the employee misstepping when getting on the step and striking
their legs on the step.
Two additional mounting step injuries occurred when
the step collapsed. As mentioned previously, the welds and
braces supporting the steps should be periodically inspected
for cracks.
Getting in cab. A total of 45 accidents have been
reported in which the employees were injured while they were
getting into the cab. This accounts for 1.5% of all accidents
reported.
Fourteen employees slipped on the running board and
struck against the vehicle as they lost their balance. Another
11 injuries were due to striking against the vehicle while
mounting. In another four cases, the employees were struck by
the closing door. As mentioned under dismounting from the cab,
to help employees maintain their balance while mounting, equip-
ment should have convenient grab handles and slip resistant
running boards.
When getting into the cab the employees should:
1. not mount unless the vehicle is completely
stopped,
20
-------
2. make sure the cab door is completely opened
before mounting,
3. maintain a firm grasp on the handrail at all
times,
4. watch to make sure their feet clear the step,
and
5. step up firmly and steadily.
Driving (FIGURE 1-9)
There were 92 total driving accidents, which is 3%
of all accidents reported. The average driving accident in
the third quarter resulted in 7 days lost and $308.
A third of the injuries were due to sudden jerking
movements of the vehicle. Six cases involved the steering
wheel spinning when the truck struck a curb, rock, brick or
hole, one employee's thumb was fractured. Five accidents
occurred at the landfill. The compactor and dozer operators
sustained strains when the equipment jerked as it struck a
rock or log; one dozen operators slipped a disc in his back
when driving over rough terrain. One truck and trailer jack-
knifed at the landfill. Another truck was enroute from the
incinerator to the landfill with a load of ashes when the truck
overturned due to the ashes shifting, and yet another sweeper
truck overturned when attempting a U turn. As recommended under
the riding on step discussion, drivers should be made aware of
the above hazards of driving through training. Defensive driving
not only will reduce injuries to the drivers but also to their
passengers.
Eleven accidents were due to collisions in which a
private vehicle struck the sanitation truck, and only three
accidents occurred in which the truck struck a car. One vehicle
became out of control during rainy weather and collided with
three cars before coming to a standstill. In two other cases,
the drivers were injured when avoiding collision with another
vehicle. One driver braked suddenly, but the other slid out
of control. He was fired for drunk driving and for "tailgating."
Drivers should be particularly careful driving when the road con-
ditions are slippery and be on the lookout for swerving vehicles-
While driving, the employee should not be distracted;
he should keep his attention on the road. One employee was ad-
justing the side mirror while driving and had his hand scraped
when it was caught between the wall ramp and the mirror. Another
driver turned to look out the window. His cigarette hit the
steering wheel, throwing ashes into his eyes. He could have
lost control of the vehicle.
21
-------
Several drivers received objects in their eye while
at the landfill and on windy days. They should keep their
windows closed when excessive dust is encountered.
Three accidents to landfill equipment operators
occurred when their vehicles' tires threw up objects. Eye
protection is essential to these equipment operators since
the cab of their vehicles are not enclosed. In addition,
equipment modifications should be considered in order to
provide screen guards for the vehicles.
A special mention should be made of the accidents
that were due to equipment malfunction. In one case, the
packer lid on the front loader was partially up. The lid
caught on an overhead cable while the truck was going around
a corner, causing the truck to overturn. The driver was se-
verely bruised. Another accident was due to brake failure
when the driver was attempting to stop at a red light; the
truck rolled forward and struck a vehicle. In another case
the hand brake broke off when the driver pulled on it at the
stop; the truck rolled forward and was struck by a car. The
drive shaft broke in another accident, causing the driver to
lurch forward into the windshield. When the brakes locked
on another driver, he drove off the road to avoid striking
other vehicles and overturned. In another case, the seat
fell in and the driver immediately slammed on his brakes,
causing a sprain to his back. The accelerator stuck on
one driver and his truck struck a fence. In one case, the
back end of the vehicle fell off, causing the truck to stop
suddenly and injuring all three crew members. All of these
accidents could have resulted in very serious injuries. It
must be emphasized that any problems with the vehicle should
be reported immediately.
Operating Controls (FIGURE 1-10)
Almost all operating controls accidents were accidents
that occurred as the employees were operating the packing mecha-
nism. Although this activity resulted in less than 1% of the
overall injuries, it caused several serious dismemberment in-
juries that were very high in days lost and costs.
All of the caught in packer accidents need to be dis-
cussed in detail. One fatality occurred in the second quarter
to an employee who was cleaning behind the blade on a side
loader. The driver claims that the employee told him to go
ahead and operate the packing mechanism, but the employee was
apparently still in the body, attempting to climb out, when
the blade caught him. Another employee was attempting to
dislodge a box that became caught between the blade and bed.
22
-------
He was backing the blade up in order to push the box in, but
he did not take his right hand off the lever. His hand, slipped
and activated the packing mechanism which amputated his hand.
Another employee was reaching for paper that had fallen in front
of the blade while the hopper was operating; it resulted in an
amputation to his forearm. In another case, the employee was
pushing garbage into the hopper when a coworker started the hop-
per; he bruised his hand. In still another case, the employee was
rearranging boxes in the hopper while the packer was operating;
he fractured his arm. Another employee was pushing garbage in
with his left hand while his right hand rested on the lever;
his hand slipped and activated the packing mechanism which
fractured his hand. All of these injuries could easily have
been prevented through adequate training and/or equipment
modifications aimed at preventing caught-in-packer accidents.
The American National Standards Institute Z245.1-1975
Standard entitled "Safety Requirements for Refuse Collection and
Compaction Equipment" has several standards relevant to caught-
in-packer accidents. Section 7.3.3,"Controls" prescribes:
7.3.3 Controls
7.3.3.1 Each control shall be conspicuously
labeled as to its function.
7.3.3.2 Controls (for example, for operating
packer panel, tailgate, point-of-operation
guards, ejector panel, container hoists)
shall be designed and located to prevent
unintentional activation.
7.3.3.2.2 Stop button controls shall be red, dis-
tinguishable from all other controls by
size and color, and not be recessed.
7.3.3.3 Packing cycle controls shall be located
so that the operator has a view of the
loading sill. In order to minimize ex-
posure to normal traffic, the packing
cycle operating controls shall be lo-
cated on the side of the vehicle opposite
the normal traffic side of the vehicle.
Two sets of packing cycle controls shall
not be permitted except for additional
dock height controls located on the same
side and above the packing cycle controls.
23
-------
7.3.3.4 Controls for raising the tailgate and
unloading the compacted load shall be
located away from the rear of the
equipment.
7.3.3.5 For emergencies a means of stopping and
moving the packer panel away from the
pinch point (prior to the pinch point)
shall be provided. Emergency stop con-
trols shall be red, distinctly labeled
as to function, and not be recessed.
Section 7.3.6, "Point-of-Operation Protection," of the standard
is also designed to protect against caught-in-packer accidents:
7.3.6 Point-of-Operation Protection. The em-
ployee shall be protected from pinch
points during the packing cycle by one
of the following means:
(1) Deadman control from the initiation of
the packing cycle until the packer panel
clears the loading sill.
(2) An elevating hopper that raises any pinch
point during the packing cycle at least 5
feet above the working surface.
(3) A movable guard that is interlocked with
the lacking cycle so that it is in place
before the packer panel is within 6 inches
of the pinch point. The movable barrier
shall be designed so that it shall not be
hazardous in itself.
(4) A control that provides an interrupted
cycle. Actuation of the control shall
cause the packer panel to stop not less
than 6 inches or more than 16 inches
from the pinch point created by the
packer panel as it moves past the hopper
loading sill. The control shall require
reactivation to complete the packing
cycle by a subsequent motion by the
operator.
(5) Other means, at least as effective as
those given in 7.3.6(1) through 7.3.6(4),
that will protect an employee from the
pinch point.
24
-------
One IRIS user modified their packer controls such
that the operator is required to use both hands to operate
the packing mechanism. Therefore, he will not have a free
hand to insert in the hopper. However, employees must not
be allowed to jam the controls so that it can be operated
with one hand. Other industry equipment manufacturers solved
this problem by programming the controls to not function un-
less the pressure on the controls are periodically relieved.
Several IRIS users have safety rules aimed at re-
ducing the caught-in-packer accidents. They train their em-
ployees to:
1. operate the controls with the left hand if
the controls are located on the right side,
2. keep head averted from the hopper,
3. wear eye protection,
4. never try to dislodge, catch or push back
waste while the packer is operating,
5. signal to coworkers that he is starting the
packer before operating, and
6. keep all employees away from the hopper while
it is in operation.
In addition, the packer should be activated as soon as the
hopper becomes filled. Overfilling the packer results in the
excess garbage being pushed out and jamming in the blade as
the packer is pushing the load into the body of the vehicle.
Twelve cases occurred in which the packer operator
was struck by objects ejected from the hopper. One employee
was avoiding a board that was ejected when he fell. Employees
in addition need to be aware of objects that may swing around
in the hopper when packed, such as branches.
Two other employees were struck by the tailgate when
it broke loose as they were operating the packing mechanism.
As mentioned previously, the employees should recheck the turn-
buckles or latches after returning to the collection route from
the landfill. Be certain that they are latched securely before
approaching the rear of the truck.
25
-------
Other Equipment Related Activities (FIGURES 1-11 to 1-17)
A brief discussion follows on other activities that
were related to working with the equipment. Each resulted in
less than 1% of the OSHA recordable injuries.
Repairing equipment (FIGURE l-llj_. Although this
activity resulted in less than 1% of the OSHA recordable in-
juries during third quarter, the average injury resulted in
12 days lost and $366. The equipment maintenance section's
employees account for less than 10% of the IRIS workforce.
Therefore, the frequency of repairing equipment injuries was
quite high. Employers should reevaluate their safety rules
for the maintenance shop. Perhaps the supervision has de-
clined and employees need to be retrained.
Nearly 20% of the injuries were objects in the eye.
Since employees frequently work under the vehicle, they are
likely to receive dislodged particles in the eye while repairing.
Rust particles were mentioned in four of the cases. Eye pro-
tection is recommended for all personnel repairing equipment.
Face masks are recommended when welding, for additional pro-
tection to the face.
Six cases involved the handtool slipping from the
employee's grasp and four cases involved vehicle parts falling.
Employees should apply firm, steady pressure as wrenches are
used. They should also ask for help in handling heavy or
awkward vehicle parts.
Three cases involved the jack slipping. Whether the
employees are positioning the jacks under the frame correctly
and whether they block the wheels need to be examined.
Checking equipment malfunction (FIGURE 1-12). Four
injuries occurred as the employees were burned by the hot
radiator water when they were checking the overheating engines.
Employees should be trained to not open the radiator cap while
the engine is still hot. When the engine has cooled, the radia-
tor cap can be removed with caution. Employees should cover the
cap with a cloth, turn the cap a quarter of a turn to release
pressure first and then slowly remove the cap, standing to one
side. In addition, the radiator water level should be checked
periodically, the radiator should be flushed regularly and the
proper proportion of antifreeze added. A radiator overflow
system can be installed also to reduce evaporation and to by-
pass having to open the radiator cap to check the water level.
26
-------
Two other accidents were due to the employees being
struck by the hood. Employees should use the safety catch to
support the hood before placing any part of their body under
the hood.
Opening equipment part (FIGURE 1-13) . The employees
were opening the tailgate or rear door in three quarters of the
cases. The compacted load in the truck is under tremendous
pressure. Therefore, employees must relieve the pressure be-
fore attempting to open the tailgate. Employees should relieve
pressure by pulling the ejector blade forward toward the cab
before unlatching the turnbuckles. In addition, when opening
the tailgate, keep all body parts away from the swing arc of
the back door.
Additional caution should be used when unlatching a
rear door that hinges on the side rather than the top, since
they are usually not hydraulically opened and tend to spring
open once unlatched. One employee had his hand fractured in
this manner. Four employees were struck by the turnbuckles
or latches while unlatching the tailgate. Employees should
unlatch the tailgate slowly and with steady pressure.
Control design modifications should be considered in
reducing opening and closing the tailgate accidents. Several
new front end loader models hydraulically unlatch the tailgate
from the cab. Although this may reduce latching and unlatching
tailgate injuries, it is recommended that the lever used to
raise the tailgate be located on the side of the vehicle such
that the operator may have a partial view of the rear of the
truck. This will reduce injuries to other employees from the
opening tailgate. Some sort of warning device such as flashing
lights should also be operated when the tailgate is raised or
lowered.
Two employees strained their backs when opening the
tailgate. Employees should be utilizing their legs while lift-
ing and avoid any jerking motions. Employees should also be
sure they have a firm footing before beginning the lift.
In four other cases the employees strained their
backs lifting the cab of the vehicle. This activity should
be re-examined to determine if two-man lifts should be a
requirement.
Emptying equipment (FIGURE 1-14) . Almost all the
injuries sustained while unloading the packer were due to the
hazards of the location. Eight employees received objects in
their eyes, and two employees slipped while walking to the
27
-------
levers. Eye protection should be required, and employees should
watch their step in walking on uneven terrain.
Employees should NOT stand beneath the lifted tailgate,
One accident occurred in which three people were injured by the
tailgate. After dumping the load, the hinge on the tailgate
collapsed, and the door swung shut, hitting the ejector blade
which was still out. The door bounced back, striking three
employees who were standing next to it.
When backing the vehicle to position it for unloading,
employees should follow the backing vehicle procedures outlined
under the riding on step discussion. One employee was run over
by another vehicle as he stepped back after operating the un-
loading mechanism. That IRIS user has since decided to install
backup horns instead of bells in order to provide a louder
warning device.
Washing vehicle (FIGURE 1-15). A total of ten acci-
dents occurred as employees were washing vehicles. Three falls
from the wet vehicle occurred as employees were attempting to
wash the windshield. Employees should not be climbing on the
vehicle to clean; they should be provided with cleaning tools
that have long handles to eliminate this hazard. They should
also be aware of the slippery conditions of the surface produced
by the mixture of water and detergent. They should be provided
with slip resistant footwear. In addition, the washing area
should be inspected for adequate drainage.
Two other employees were injured by the water hose.
One employee dropped it on his foot, cutting his ankle. The
other burned his foot with the steam hose while turning it off;
he was disobeying his organization's safety rules by not wearing
boots.
Closing equipment part (FIGURE 1-16) . Nine accidents
occurred while employees were securing an equipment part. Eight
injuries involved closing the tailgate; four employees had their
fingers caught while latching the turnbuckle. One of these em-
ployees fractured three of his fingers while pushing the tail-
gate into the lock pin with the help of a coworker. Another
got on the truck to secure the tailgate and fell off. In a
third case, the employee was on the truck fastening the turn-
buckle while the truck was in motion and fell off. Employees
should be reminded not to climb on the vehicle to close the
turnbuckle, especially when THE VEHICLE IS iMOVING. Again,
control designs should reevaluated to determine if manual
latching can be eliminated.
28
-------
Hooking or unhooking equipment part (FIGURE 1-17).
Eight out of 11 of the hooking or unhooking equipment part
accidents involved trailers. In three cases the trailer tongue
slipped, causing strains to the employees. In one case, the
trailer tongue fell on one employee's ankle. In the other four
cases, the employee strained his back or hand. When handling
trailers, employees should obtain help. Extra caution should
be taken to avoid hooking or unhooking the trailer on an un-
even surface that would cause the trailer tongue to jerk sud-
denly while being handled.
One very serious accident occurred when a commercial
collection crew employee was hooking a bulk container by having
the vehicle back up. The truck fork struck his hand, resulting
in an amputation to his finger. This practice should not be
allowed. The employees should position the bulk container into
the forks rather than positioning the vehicle into the bulk
container.
Preliminary Task/Hazard Analysis
The hazards and countermeasures that relate to equipment
have been systematically compiled in outline form in a Preliminary
Task/Hazard Analysis (FIGURE 1-18) . IRIS collects injury data
from many users in order that general industry injury trends can
be analyzed and countermeasures developed. Each user is encour-
aged to analyze their injury patterns by separating the injuries
as to what task the employee was performing at the time of the
injury. Not only nay IRIS be used to correct problem areas,
but it is also an excellent source for designing an accident
prevention system. Individual users, by reviewing the data in
Accident Trends may be alerted to problems that other users have
experienced and which are possibly potential high risk areas for
them. Necessary steps may :-hen be taken in order to prevent the
need for countermeasures. A final way IRIS data can help users,
is in the collection of data on serious but infrequent accidents.
By increasing users' awareness of accidents of this type they
hopefully may be prevented before they occur. Any suggestions
or comments you may have regarding Accident Trends or any other
facet of IRIS are welcomed.
29
-------
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
USER NO. ALL
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
LIFTING-TO-DUMP CONTAINER ACCIDENTS
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY, ACCIDENT SITEr ACCIDENT TYPE* NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
OJ
o
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN CUSTOMER'S YD FELL FROM WET LOADING DOCK ONTO PAVEMENT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STB MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE
RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN
STING TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN CUSTOMER'S YD INJURED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BOX IN ST AT CURB MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING CARDBOARD
BOX WHICH WAS FULL AND WAS FALLING RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND WAS WET RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT CURB INJURED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH UAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND HAD PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR S'lRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT 3 EDGE OF
HOPPER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY STD MTL CONT WHICH
WAS FULL RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG,
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH UAS HVY (WOOD) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST STEP OF VEH
RESULTING IN DISLOCATION TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN DISLOCATION TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH CONTAINER LID
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY SHARP OBJ WHICH
FELL OUT OF CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK UAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD
FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS HVY (YARD CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL
CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,1
1
1
1
ws
64-
0
29
14
0
0
13
35
26
11
0
0
5
4
O
4
0
0
0
22
0
4
COSTS
3029
0
454
866
12
50
617
1644
679
225
0
0
320
242
159
130
0
12
0
676
33
212
-------
PAGE 2
PROFILE NO, INJ DAYS COSTS
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO HUMP TOTE BARREL IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL
WHICH WAS FULL AND WAS UNUSUALLY LARGE RESULT ING '! SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HACK. 1 4 67
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND WAS BEING HNDL..D U OTHER CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULBE 1 3 155
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG
WHICH WAS HVY (YARD CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. 1 54 858
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BOX IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK FELL WHILE ON OILY GROUND AND STRUCK
AGNST RUNNING BOARD RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW. 1 7 252
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG
WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG, 4 A 415
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBJi BOX IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. 1 16 415
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM. 1 6 164
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP TOTE BARREL IN CUSTOMER'S YD INJURED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS
FULL AND HAD SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO KNEE. 100
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO HUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ADDOMEN. 1 0 30
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG
WHICH WAS HVY (WOOD) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK. 1 16 560
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO CHEST. 1 0 10
EMPLOYCE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH
HAD PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TG LEG. 6 4 324
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS FULL AND WAS BEING HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FOOT. 1 29 1324
M EMPLOYEE ins LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT CURB FELL WHILE ON WET CURB AND STRUCK AGNST BACK
Qi-' VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST. 1 55 234
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT
RESULTING IN POISONING OR ALLERGIC REACTION TO ARM. 1 3 88
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP TOTE BARREL IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND HAD BOUNCED BACK FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW. 100
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH WAS
EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS. 1 2 155
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT CURB INJURED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO KNEE. 100
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BOX IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD
BOX WHICH WAS HVY (PAPER) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. 1 5 170
EMPLOYEE WiV-'- i IFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BOX IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. 1 12 100
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP WHEELED CART IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART
WHICH WAS FULL AND WAS UNUSUALLY LARGE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. 1 6 409
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BOX IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING CARDBOARD BOX
WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS RESULIIN-3 IN CUT/PUNCTURE TG ARM. 1 0 48
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN CUSTOMER'S YD WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING
TO ARM. 1 0 36
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS. 1 10 276
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL
OUT OF CONT RESULTING IN BERHATITIS TO LEG. 1 2 &
RESULT ING IN BRUISE TO PkRM.
-------
NJ
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG
WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDED BOX IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN
STING TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH
HAD A PROTRUDING HYPODERMIC NEEDLE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY ACID WHICH FELL OUT
OF CONT RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK SLIPPED WHILE ON WET PAVEMENT AND
STRUCK AGNST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK SLIPPED WHILE ON STEP OF VEH AND
STRK AGNST STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT CURB INJURED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT CURB OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH
WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN CUSTOMER'S YD SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET PAVEMENT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AT UNK SITE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN CUSTOMER'S YD WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING
TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT CURB OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH
WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG
WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT FRONT OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC
BAG WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC
BAG WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG
WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS HVY (WOOD) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF
HOPPER (CONT WAS FALLING) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP P'.ASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLED BY
COWORKER RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL
OUT OF CONT RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO LEG.
INJ
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
DAYS
4
12
0
0
0
2-
25
6
0
13
14
0
0
33
41
0
0
0
11
3
17
10
0
6
1
0
0
UUSIb
185
297
20
6
24
80
1144
448
119
677
492
38
30
1549
1443
77
0
22
515
146
750
469
0
318
65
0
10
-------
PAGE 4
PROFILE NO. IK'J DAYS COSTS
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH
HAD PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE 10 !
-------
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOU.
WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD HTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK UAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT
WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
TOTAL
NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
1 0 0
1 12 355
128 779 28185
U)
-------
MAST3SALL 63
FIGURE 1-3
USER NO, ALL
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
DUMPING CONTAINER ACCIDENTS
PAGE 1
REPORTING PERIOD? JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY* ACCIDENT SITE, ACCIDENT TYPE. NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
LO
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK FELL ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO WRIST.
EM°LOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN
DISLOCATION TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN CUSTOMER'S YD WAS STRUCK BY SHARP OBJ WHICH FELL OUT OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF
CONT RESULTING IN DERMATITIS TO UNK BODY PART.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY CERAMIC WASTE WHICH FELL OUT
OF CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK O^ TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY PIECE OF METAL WHICH WAS
EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTUkL TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH
WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC CHEMICAL
RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN
EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING 300 GAL PLASTIC CONT IN ST AT CURB OVEREXERTED SELF WITH 300 GAL PLASTIC CONT
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND WAS UNUSUALLY LARGE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT FRONT OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO
CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING WHEELED CART IN ST AT BACK. OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH
WAS UNUSU.-M.LY HEAVY AND WAS UNUSUALLY LARGE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS HUMPING PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK FELL ON ROCKY GROUND RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO CHEEK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY TAILGATE RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOREHEAD.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC CAN IN CUSTOMER'S YD OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS HVY
(TIGHTLY PACKED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE HAS BUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN
EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WftS DUMPING STB MTU CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO
EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS CUMPING STD MTL CQNT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK UIAS CAUGHT
HOPPER RESULTING IN SRUISEI TO p-INGELKS.
INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
DAYS
0
1
83
0
0
1
2
6
12
0
12
23
0
0
0
14
8
0
3
1
&
COSTS
61
48
4429
37
0
33
156
324
456
12
94
1055
48
57
26
440
48
22
186
133
*J3-4
BEZTWEEIN CONT &
-------
UJ
tnf-'LUrtt WAS, DUMPING STD MIL CONT IN CUSTOMER'S YD STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN UUI/t-UNU I UKC. m ruu,.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD HTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY WASTE HANDLED BY COWORKER
RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH
WAS FULL AND HAD SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTUKE TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH
WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CGNT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD
MTL CONT WHICH WAS EMPTY AND WAS FALLING RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT ON STEP OF VEH FELL FROM SLIPPERY STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT & EDGE'OF
HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT CURB WAS INJURED IN OTHER TYPE OF ACCIDENT RESULTING IN
ELECTRIC SHOCK TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH
WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT Ł EDGE OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLED BY COWORKER
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN
ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF CONT
RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING LITTER CAN IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT & EDGE OF HOPPER
(CONT WAS UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN MIDALLEY WAS STRUCK BY COWORKER (UNINTENTIONALLY) RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING TOTE BARREL IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO MOUTH,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL
CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND l!AS FALLING RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM,
EMPLOYEE WAG DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH
HAD PROTRUDING WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST CONT HANDLED BY COWORKER
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY ROCKS/CONCRETE/DIRT WHICH
FELL OUT OF CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING OIL DRUM IN CUSTOMER'S YD OVEREXERTED SELF feITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND WAS UNUSUALLY LARGE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT & EDGE OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING WHEELED CART IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO
WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY PARTICLES IN WASTE
UHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
38
48
36
0
17
0
7
0
2
6
0
5
2
0
158
0
1714
1604
1295
54
580
24
43
55
67
229
20
177
86
90
0
0
0
6
9
1
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
20
147
548
139
86
20
31
16
143
-------
A.GE 3
U)
-J
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO ELBOW,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AT UNK SITE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING LITTER CAN IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER
(COIfT WAS UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FINGERS,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY WAS STRUCK BY CABLE RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT CURB OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT UHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC CHEMICAL
RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE UAS DUMPING BULK CONT (11-25 YD) ON STEP OF VEH WAS STRUCK BY STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS EMPTY
AND WAS FALLING RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS nUMTTdfj BULK f)NT (1-10 YD) IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING
BULK CONTAlNF.itd-lO YD WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND WAS UNUSUALLY LARGE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR ST
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN CUSTOMER'S YD WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO CHEEK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY WOOD RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO MOUTH,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK UAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTUR:. TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO OBJFCTS
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN,
EMPLOYEE UAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING
TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE UAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT CURB UAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH
RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH
HAD A PROTRUDING HYPODERMIC NEEDLE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNC7iJKŁ TO URlbT.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT & EDGE OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT CURB UAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH RESULTING
IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH
UAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE UAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK UAS STRUCK BY WOOD RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING
TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING TOTE BARREL IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK UAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL UHICH UAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESULTING IN CHEMICAL ! c!,',-i TO EYt. .
EMPLOYEE UAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK wAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO
HAND.
EMPLOYEE UAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN CUSTOMER'S YD OVEREXERTED SELF UITH STD MTL CONT UHICH WAS
FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK UAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO EL&OW.
EMPLOYEE UAS DUMPING ST0 MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTEB SELF UITH STD MTL CONT WHICH
UAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EHPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STB MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT
UHICH UAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
2 19 1199
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
I
1
I
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
13
1
6
7
0
0
8
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
A
8
0
0
0
0
2
10
7-
499
108
314
76
7
0
322
20
111
33
72
39
36
0
57
38
99
96
219
297
33
0
0
72
147
54S
302
-------
WHICH 'WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST, 1 5 260
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MIL CONT IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG. 1 1 43
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH
WAS FULL AND HAD BOUNCED BACK FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO GROIN. 1 0 27
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH BROKE AGAINST
THE VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYES. 1 0 22
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY CERAMIC WASTE WHICH FELL OUT
OF VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM. 1 1 108
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING WHEELED CART IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH
WAS FULL AND WAS UNUSUALLY LARGE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ELBOW, 1 0 20
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER
(CONT WAS UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND, 1 6 289
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO HAND. 100
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO
FOREHEAD. 100
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER
(CONT WAS UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS. 1 0 12
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY BOTTLE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOREHEAD. 1 4 372
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY ACID WHICH FELL OUT OF
CONT RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO .J PH , 100
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN CUSTOMER'S YD INJURED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES, 100
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING WHEELED CART IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH
WAS FULL AND WAS UNUSUALLY LARGE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER. 1 11 562
ijj EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING CARDPD BOX IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO ARM. 1 0 50
00 EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS. 1 6 181
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT CURB INJURED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND
(IAD SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM. 1 0 20
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING
TO HAND. 100
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS EMPTY
AND HAD BOUNCED BACK FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS. 100
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH
WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER. 1 10 662
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO ARM. 1 3 2B4
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC CAN IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS AND WAS FALLING RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM. 1 0 25
EMPLOYEE WAS. DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT S EDGE OF HOPPER
(CONT WAS UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FINGERS. 1 0 44
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING WHEELED CART IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET GROUND RESULTING
IN HERNIA TO ABDOMEN, 1 2 70
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT IN CUSTOMER'S YD OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. 1 2 154
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING TOTE BARREL IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND WAS UNUSUALLY LARGE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. 1 10 100
, EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING TOTE BARREL IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER
(CONT WAS HVY-WATER FILLED) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO THUMB. 1 2 154
TOTAL 117 512 23741
-------
FIGURE 1-4
PAGE
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
DISMOUNTING ACCIDENTS
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITYr ACCIDENT TYPEr NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
U>
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON SLIPPERY PAVEMENT WHILE STEPPING
DOWN RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF
INJURY TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET GROUND WHILE STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF CAB DF VEH AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RES'J' TTNG IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF TRUCK BED AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON TRUCK BED AND STRUCK AGNST SIDE OF VEH
RESULTING IN DRUISE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND WHILE STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE FELL WHILE ON STEP OF VEH AND STRUCK AGNST RUNNING
BOARD RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF CAB OF VEH AND HE STRUCK AGAINST CAB DOOR RESULTING IN BRUTSE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
INTERNAL ORGANS.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF TRUCK BED AND HE FELL FROM TRUCK BED ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN iP ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAf: 'luTTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED IN OTHER TYPE OF ACCIDENT RESULTING IN BURN
FROM HEAT TO FOOT,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF CAB OF VEH AND HE STRUCK AGAINST CAB DOOR RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON CURB WHILE STEPPING DOWN RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STKAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
ANKLE,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE FELL WHILE ON RUNNING BOARD AND STRUCK AGNST RUNNING
HUARP RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND WHILE STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO TRUNK,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF TAILGATE AND HE FELL FROM TAILGATE ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN CONCUSSION
TO SKULL.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND WHILE STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON UNEVEN PAVEMENT WHILE STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE UAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON WET RUNNING BOARD AND STRUCK AGNST
SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEB.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE UAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ROOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTIMG OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION WHILE: STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SH-RAIN OR STRAIN TO ftNKLEI .
NO. INJ
1
1
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
!
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
l
i
DAYS
o
1
0
8
29
0
6
39
0
0
0
7
0
2
0
14
19
3
1
1
11
21
2.3
COSTS
151
16
0
618
942
8
471
1061
0
60
20
96
44
109
43
233
607
168
65
50
27S
5&G
5S><4
-------
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE: WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SHARP OBJ RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE STEPPED ON BOARD WITH NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE
10 FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO CURB RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH' AND HE SLIPPED FROM OILY STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL ON DEPRESSION WHILE STEPPING DOWN RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE FELL ON WASTE ON GROUND WHILE STEPPING DOWN RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF
INJURY TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON METER WHILE STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE STEPPED ON UNK OBJECT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE STEPPED ON PALM FRONDS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE UAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON SLIPPERY FLOOR WHILE STEPPING
DOWN RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE MADE SUDDFN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD .AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN CAB DOOR RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON OILY STEP OF VEH AND STRUCK AGNST SIDE
OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING DOARD AND HE FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND WHILE STEPPING DOWN RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE FELL WHILE ON STEP OF VEH AND STRK AGNST FENDER
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT WHILE STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OK' STRAIN TO NECK'.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON COLLAPSING PAVEMENT WHILE STEPPING
DOWN RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE STRUCK AGAINST UNK VEH PART RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE
TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF CAB OF VEH AND HE STRUCK AGAINST CAB DOOR RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF
INJURY TO ELBOW,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON SLIPPERY GRAVEL WHILE STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
'EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WAS HIT BY ANOTHER VEH RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE UAS INJURED IN OTHER TYPE OF ACCIDENT RESULTING IN
UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO FOOT,
NO. INJ DAYS
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
0
3
0
13
0
5
0
0
1
0
COSTS
Ł.^_
0
364
20
3V
20
715
16
106
37
0
107
53
655
0
0
2
0
0
10
17
0
0
5
13
0
3
0
0
27
15
9^
0
157
8
30
366
1272
20
0
407
246
35
447
59
132
406
66
-------
PAGE 3
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING Ui-T STEP OF VEH AND HE
OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING DFF RUNNING BOARD AND
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND
BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP CF VEH AND HE
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND
FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE
FRACTURE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF SU:P OF VEH AND HE
VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE
TO ANKLE,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE,
TOTAL
PROFILE
FELL FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
STRUCK AGAINST STEP OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUTRE TO FOOT.
HE FELL FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
HE SLIPPED WHILE ON WET RUNNING BOARD AND STRUCK AGNST
TO SCALP,
SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT WHILE STEPPING DOWN
HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION WHILE STEPPING DOWN
FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND WHILE STEPPING DOWN RESULTING IN
FELL WHILE ON WET STEP OF VEH AND STRUCK AGNST STEP OF
STRUCK AGAINST SIDE. OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
SLIPPED STEPPING ON CURB RESULTING IN SKr.AiN OR STRAIN
FELL ON PAVEMENT WHiLE STEPPING DOWN RESULTING IN
NO, INJ DAYS COSTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-
79
18
1
2
1
6
4
0
20
0
0
7
1
3Q5
404
48
106
115
338
241
16
668
41
38
61
65
14257
-------
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
USER NO. ALL
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
STANDING OR WALKING ACCIDENTS
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY, ACCIDENT SITEr ACCIDENT TYFEr NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY,
NJ
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN OFFICE WAS STRUCK BY OTHER OBJECT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE,
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING AT HEADQUARTERS SL.IPPED FROM WET STAIRS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT CURB STEPPED ON HYPODERMIC NEEDLE RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT CURB WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT CURB WAS STRUCK BY WHEELED CART RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO
KNEE,
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN YARD FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN FRACTURE
TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN YARD WAS STRUCK BY FURNITURE WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ALLEY AT CURB WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT CURB SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S YD WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN YARD STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG,
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING NEXT TO VEH AT DUMP SITE STEPPED ON GLASS RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN MIDSTREET FELL ON SLIPPERY WASTE ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN- ST AT CURB FELL FROM WET CURB ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN 10 ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE
IRRITATION TO EYES,
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S -YD STEPPED ON BOARD WITH NAIL RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY SLIPPED STEPPING ON OILY PAVEMENT RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN MIDSTREET STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT CURB MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT CURB WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
NO, INJ DAYS
1 0
1 4
1
2
37
0
COSTS
0
24?
5004
36
170
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
15
0
19
1
2
24
0
1
0
0
12
0
4
0
4
0
0
25
0
178
867
37
327
83
210
646
20
92
0
52
459
B3
200
20
238
0
82
-------
PAGE 2
PROFILE NQ. INJ DAYS COSTS
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S YD WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
ARM. 1 0 27
EMFLOYKE WAS STANDING OR WALKING NEXT TO VEH AT DUMP SITE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN
EYE IRRIGATION TO EYES. 1 0 67
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY PARTICLES IN WASTE WHICH WAS
EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO FACE. 1 i 73
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN MIDSTREET STEPPED ON GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT. 1 1 46
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S YD FELL FROM GRASS INTO DEPRESSION RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO LEG. 1 17 737
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO CHEST. 1 10 470
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN MIDALLEY STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO TOES, 1 0 32
EMPLOYEE WAS SI V-'niNG OR WALKING ON STEP OF VEH FELL I'ROM STAIRS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ANKLE. 1 1 142
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE
TO FOOT. 2 2 129
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S YD WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
KNEE. 1 0 24
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT PACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY WOOD WHICH WAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOREHEAD, 2 1 43
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ALLEY AT CURB STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
CHEST. 1 3 209
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OP ',.:<, KING IN OFFICE FFLL FROM STAIRS RESULTING IN BRUISF ",* MULTIPLE BODY PARTS. 1 10 900
EMPLOYEE WAS SiAiUUNG Or '.;, ..KING IN :-. j AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY WASTE HANDLED BY COWORKER
WHICH FELL OUT OF CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO MOUTH, \ 1 87
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ALLEY AT CURB WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO LEG. 1 5 453
EMPLOYEE HAS STANDING OR WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S YD STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT. 1 0 31
EMPLOYEE WAS S :Y .-."I/O OR WALKING IN ST AT CURB STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTUAL: TO FOOT. 1 1 64
^EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S YD STEPPED ON FLUORESCENT BULB RESULTING IN
J^ CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT. 100
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY STEPPED ON BOARD WITH NAIL RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO TOOT, 100
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING ON SIDEWALK WAS INJURED FROM AGGRESSIVE ACT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
MULTIPLE BODY FARTS. 1 0 47
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE 'rr '.L?;. 1 0 33
EMPLOYEE WAS STf,;.:' : WALKING IN YARD STEPPED ON BOARD WITH NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT. 100
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STEPPED ON GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE
TO FOOT. 1 4 50
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH WAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO EYES. 100
EMPLOYEE Wfo yrflNPrNG OR WALKING IN ST A'f BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES. 1 0 33
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND, 100
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH UAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESCUING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO JAW. 1 0 22
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO
SHOULDER. 1 -0 1&
"EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING IN'MIDSTREET WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO ANKLE. i 51 1753
EMPLOYEE '''AS STANDING OR UALKING IN CUSTOMER'S YD WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO ELBOW. 1 0 21
EMPLOYEE '.JAS STANDING OR UALKING IN CUSTOMER'S YD WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS. 1 <4 3-16
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDINO OR MALKINO IN YARD SLIPPED WHILE ON COLLAPSING OTHER SURFACE AND STRK AGNST
FENCE RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST. 1 O O
-------
SRUIFE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR
RESULTING IN BRUISE
EMPLOYEE UAS STANDING OR
CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
EMPLOYEE UAS STANDING OR
FRACTURE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE UAS STANDING OR
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT
EMPLOYEE UAS STANDING OR
INJURY TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR
EMPLOYEE WAS ST/.NDING OR
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
TOTAL
WALKING IN MIDSTREET STRUCK AGAINST MATTRESS WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH
TO KNEE.
WALKING ON VEHICLE FELL FROM COLLAPSING TRUCK BED RESULTING IN
WALKING ON COLLECTION ROUTE SLIPPED STEPPING DM DEPRESSION RESULTING IN
ANKLE.
WALKING AT DUMP SITE FELL ON OBJ PROTRUDING FROM GRND RESULTING IN
WALKING IN YARD PARKING LOT SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN
ANKLE.
WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S YD WAS INJURED FROM AGGRESSIVE ACT RESULTING IN
LEG.
WALKING IN MIDSTREET WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
WALKING IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK STEPPED ON GLASS RESULTING IN
<
WALKING IN SHOP/GARAGE FELL ON OILY FLOOR RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF
WALKING IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STEPPED ON BOARD WITH NAIL RESULTING IN
WALKING NEXT TO VEH WAS STRUCK BY TAILGATE RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO HAND.
WALKING IN YARD STEPPED ON GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S YD WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
WALKING IN CUSTOMER'S YD SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET GROUND RESULTING IN
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
WALKING IN ST AT CURB SLIPPED STEPPING ON .OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN
ANKLE.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
81
2
0
2
10
9
2
0
0
11
0
16
1
0
0
A
304
160
46
88
542
902
20
20
19
295
0
1960
40
16
0
108
19234
-------
l)AOT3tALL
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER
FIGURE 1-6
USER NO. ALL
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
LIFTING-TO-IIUMP WASTE ACCIDENTS
PAGE
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITYr ACCIDENT SITE, ACCIDENT TYFEy NATURE OF INJURY AMD PART OF BODY,
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP BOARD WITH NAIL IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING BOARD
WITH NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PALM FRONDS IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING PALM FRONDS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUilDLED SHRUBBERY ON COLLECTION ROUTE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO LUMP UNKNOWN WASTE AT OTHER SITE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN
EYE IRRITATION' TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CERAMIC WASTE IN ST AT PACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY CERAMIC WASTE WHICH
BROKE AGAINST THE VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE , fj ARM,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ST AT CURB GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING
IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP WOOD IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE
TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNKNOWN WASTE IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK STEPPED ON BOARD WITH NAIL
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP BOARD WITH NAIL IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING BOARD WITH
NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP WOOD IN ST AT CURB STEPPED ON BOARD WITH NAIL RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP GLASS IN ST AT BACK ur TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING GLASS RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
.EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP FURNITURE IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY FURNITURE WHICH FELL
OUT OF VEH RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY UNBUNDLED
SHRUBBERY WHICV ""3 EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING , DUMP WOOD IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY WOOD WHICH FELL OUT OF
VEH RESULTING IN 1'RUISE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP POISON IVY/OAK IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK CONTACTED ALLERGENIC POISON
IVY/OAK RESULTING IN DERMATITIS TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP FURNITURE IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY PIECE OF METAL WHICH
FELL OUT OF >VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH
UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP OTHER WASTE ON TRUCK BED AT DUMP SITE WAS INJURED IN UNK ACCIDENT
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO BUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING
IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK CONTACTED ALLERGENIC
UNBUNDLED SHRURBF.RY RESULTING IN DERMATITIS TO MULTIPLE BOI.Y P^RTS.
NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
i
0
0
i
1
5
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
14
o
o
35
37
138
91
286
19
20
35
28
27
32
35
20
35
82
35
65
127S
19
1 2
-------
CTl
EMPLOYEE: WAS LIFTING TO DUMP FURNITURE IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH FURNITURE
F,T:SULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP WOOH IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING BOARD WITH NAIL
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP HOARD WITH NAIL IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING BOARD WITH
NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP PRINTED MATTER IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PRINTED
MATTER RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH UNBUNDLED
SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CF.RAMIC WASTE IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY CERAMIC WASTE WHICH
BROKE AGAINST THE VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS,
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP PRINTED MATTER IN YARD FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP FURNITURE IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP APPLIANCE IN ST AT CURB INJURED SELF WITH APPLIANCE RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO FOOT.
-EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH
UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP WOOD IN YARD OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WOOD RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY UNBUNDLED
SHRUBBERY WHICH WAS SWINGING AROUND IN HOPPER RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP FURNITURE IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH FURNITURE
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP WOOD IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WOOD RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH
UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP EQUIPMENT FART IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH
EQUIPMENT PART RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK UAS STUNG BY INSECT
RESULTING IN STINO TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP BUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH
BUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP KURNITURE IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING FURNITURE WHICH
FELL OUT OF VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP BOARD WITH NAIL IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING BOARD
WITH NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS,
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP APPLIANCE IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK FELL ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
FRACTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP BUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ST AT CURB WAS HURT BY HANDLING BUNDLED SHRUBBERY
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUTUERY IN ST AT BACK'OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH UNBUNDLED
SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP EQUIPMENT PART ON VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY ACID RESULTING IN CHEMICAL
BURN TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE: UAS LIFTING TO DUMP RUG IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH RUG RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO BUMP WOOD IN ALLEY AT CURB SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE UAG LIFTING TO DUMP BUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH BUNDLED
SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO ARM,
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNKNOWN WASTE IN ST AT CURB SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
NO. INJ
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
DAYS
9
0
0
11
2
0
0
2
0
1
18
0
0
0
1
2
0
38
8
0
34
0
1
0
23
0
0
3
COSTS
498
0
0
515
196
20
0
136
0
52
440
89
43
20
59
35
0
1229
16
35
3030
23
57
60
281
0
0
74
-------
PAGE 3
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP GLASS IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY WAS HURT BY HANDLING GLASS RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO PUMP WOOD IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK STEPPED ON BOARD WITH NAIL RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOUT.
EMPLOYEE WAS IIFTING I'D DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH
UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PALM FRONDS IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING PALM FRONDS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO WRIST,
EMPLOYEE HAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS STRUCK BY UNBUNDLED
SHRUBBERY WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CERAMIC WASTE IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK WAS HURT BY HANDLING CERAMIC
WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP BUNDLED SHRUBBERY IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK OVEREXERTED SELF WITH
UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STR.'uM TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PALM FRONDS IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK INJURED SELF WITH PALM FRONDS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG,
TOTAL
NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
135
16
32
32
20
69
35
40
6
9527
-------
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
FIGURE 1-7
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
RIDING ACCIDENTS
t-Tibt 1
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY.- ACCIDENT TYPEr NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
CO
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WAS HIT BY ANOTHER VEH RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK,
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON TRUCK BED AND HE WAS STRUCK BY APPLIANCE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG,
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE FELL FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO GROUND RESULTING IN
FRACTURE TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL WHILE ON COLLAPSING GROUND AND STRUCK AGNST BACK OF
VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WENT OVER A DUMP OR DEPRESSION
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS STRUCK BY SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FACE.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON RUNNING HOARD AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY
TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH BECAME OUT OF CONTROL RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WENT OVER A BUMP OR DEPRESSION
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE WAS INJURED WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WAS HIT BY ANOTHER VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE WAS STRUCK BY SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN 01 HER TYPE
OF INJURY TO EARS.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS STRUCK BY SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FACE.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING C1N RUNNING BOARD AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON STEP OF VEH AND STRUCK AGNST BACK OF VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WENT OVER A BUMP OR DEPRESSION
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS RHUMB ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH MADE SUDDEN STOP RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS,
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WENT OVER ROUGH TERTCAIN RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE HAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WENT OVER ROUGH TERRAIN RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN MOVING VEH AND OBJ RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HiŁ WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN MOVING VEH AND OBJ RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN PACKER BLADE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN POISONING OR ALLERGIC
REACTION TO KNEE,
INJ
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAYS
0
7
0
72
8
19
0
0
0
35
7
0
1
0
0
1
0
6
0
0
6
0
7
0
2?
3
COSTS
35
312
49
3970
218
633
0
70
84
2008
464
73
71
35
47
69
0
100
10
15
184
20
474
9
1605
100
-------
PAGE 2
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE UAS RIDING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE CONTACTED HOT EXHAUST PIPE RESULTING IN BURN FROM HEAT
TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH Mil) HE UAS INJURED WHEN VEH WAS HIT BY ANOTHER VEH RESULTING IN
MULTIPLE INJURIES TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS,
EMPLOYEE UAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH MADE SUDDEN TURN RESULTING IN
FRACTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE UAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH JERKED SUDDENLY RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL FROM WET STEP OF VEH ONTO,PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
SCALP.
EMPLOYEE WAS- RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE UAS STRUCK BY SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE UAS INJURED WHEN VEH COLLIDED WITH OBJ RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOREHEAD,
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH MADE SUDDEN TURN RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO SKULL,
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION
TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAP P'TDTNG ON STEP OF VEH AND HE UftS STRUCK BY SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES,
EMPLOYEE UA° .'I.;:ING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE UAS STRUCK BY SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND,
EMPLOYEE WAS KIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH MADE SUDDEN STOP RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH MADE SUDDEN STOP RESULTING IN OTHER
TYPE OF INJURY TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE UAS INJURED WHEN VEH MADE SUDDEN STOP RESULTING IN
FRACTURE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE UAS RIDING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH HIT ANOTHER VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE UAS RIDING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH HIT ANOTHER VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO LEG,
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH HIT CURBING RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
LEG.
EMPLOYEE UAS RIDING DM STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH COLLIDED WITH OBJ RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WAS HIT BY ANOTHER VEH RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON TRUCK BED AND HE UAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS RIDING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE UAS INJURED WHEN VEH MADE SUDDEN STOP RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO LEG.
TOTAL
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
53
YS
0
54
35
0
0
20
34
0
0
1
16
3
0
0
2
51
7
2
2
1
1
4
0
COSTS
55
1296
385V
50
9
1030
21^69
25
2
35
665
42
33
20
140
2992
110
177
152
72
130
157
40
3
437
45
24075
-------
REPORTING PERIOD} JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
FIGURE 1-8
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
MOUNTING ACCIDENT
PAGE
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY* ACCIDENT TYPEr NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
Ui
O
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON RUNNING BOARD AND STRUCK AGNST SIDE
OF VEH RESULTING IN MULTIPLE INJURIES TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL FROM OILY STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE STRUCK AGAINST INSIDE OF CAB RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CAB DOOR RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE STRUCK AGAINST STEP OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE STRUCK AGAINST OTHER VEH PART RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON WET RUNNING BOARD AND STRUCK AGNST
SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON STEP OF VEH AND STRUCK AGNST STEP OF
VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH MADE SUDDEN STOP RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO KNEE,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE FELL WHILE ON RUNNING BOARD AND STRUCK AGNST SIDE OF
VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE STRUCK AGAINST CAB DOOR RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE STRUCK AGAINST RUNNING BOARD RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE FELL FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON VEHICLE AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON SLIPPERY VEHICLE AND STRK AGNST OTHER VEH
PART RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN CAB DOOR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE STRUCK AGAINST RUNNING BOARD RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON VEHICLE AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL WHILE ON SLIPPERY STEP OF VEH AND STRUCK AGNST BACK
OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE STRUCK AGAINST HANDLE ON VEH RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO
THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE STRUCK AGAINST HANDLE ON VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON TRUCK BED AND HE FELL FROM TRUCK BED ONTO GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED FROM WET STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
FRACTURE TO ANKLE.
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
0
7
0
0
7
0
0
0
19
5
15
&
1
6
0
15
0
0
5
4
0
1
0
3
16
0
2
12
COSTS
20
30
42
0
195
51
63
0
615
211
611
216
20
121
35
830
20
0
328
372
20
35
0
254
645
55
124
450
-------
PAGE 2
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE FELL WHILE ON WET RUNNING BOARD AND STRUCK AGNST SIDE
OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL FROM WET STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON RUNNING BOARD AND STRUCK AGNST
RUNNING BOARD RESULTING IN INFLAMMATION OF THE JOINTS TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON STEP OF VEH AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN MOVING VEH AND OBJ RESULTING IN
UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO FOOT. .
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON OILY RUNNING BOARD AND STRUCK AGNST
SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE,
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE STRUCK AGAINST CAB DOOR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON WET RUNNING BOARD AND STRUCK AGNST
SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK.
TOTAL
INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
36
DAYS
2
0
4
50
0
19
16
215
COSTS
159
20
120
1270
16
1692
839
9479
U1
-------
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
FIGURE 1-9
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
DRIVING ACCIDENTS
PAGE 1
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY* ACCIDENT TYPEť NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
Ui
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN STEERING WHEEL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH ACCELERATOR PEDAL RESULtlNG IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS STRUCK BY OBJ THROWN UP BY MOVING EQUIP RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH BECAME OUT OF CONTROL RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING CAB OF VEH AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING CAB OF VEH AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING CAB OF VEH AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN BURN FROM HEAT TO
EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS STRUCK BY STEERING WHEEL RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH COLLIDED WITH OBJ RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH HIT CURBING RESULTING IN BRUISE TO MULTIPLE BODY
PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH HIT CURBING RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW,
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WENT OVER ROUGH TERRAIN RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH COLLIDED WITH OBJ RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS STUNG BY INSECT RESULTING IN STING TO EARS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH OVERTURNED RESULTING IN BRUISE TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE STRUCK AGAINST INSIDE OF CAB RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS STRUCK BY OBJ THROWN UP BY MOVING EQUIP RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS STRUCK BY OBJ THROWN UP BY MOVING EQUIP RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE
TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH OVERTURNED RESULTING IN MULTIPLE INJURIES TO
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH MADE SUDDEN STOP RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WAS HIT BY ANOTHER VEH RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH HIT ANOTHER VEH RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING CAB OF VEH AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WAS HIT BY ANOTHER VEH RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WAS HIT BY ANOTHER VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HIPS.-
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH WAS HIT BY ANOTHER VEH RESULTING IN MULTIPLE
INJURIES TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
TOTAL
INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
A
i
1
i
1
1
i
i
27
DAYS
0
6
0
0
17
0
0
4
1
0
2
0
0
4
2
0
15
0
0
0
8
4
12
0
8
4
0
87
COSTS
0
235
20
20
1454
22
22
144
65
39
98
0
0
372
137
24
2379
0
0
0
316
259
436
75
315
24
20
6476
-------
MAST3
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
FIGURE 1-10
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
OPERATING CONTROLS ACCIDENTS
PAGE 1
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY, ACCIDENT TYPE* NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING PACKING MECH LEVER AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PARTICLES IN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTD
FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING BOOM CONTROLS AND HE WAS STRUCK BY UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN
DERMATITIS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING PACKING MECH LEVER AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN PACKER BLADE RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING PACKING MECH LEVER AND HE WAS STRUCK BY TAILGATE RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING PACKING MECH LEVER AND HE WAS STRUCK BY UNKNOWN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING PACKING MECH LEVER AND HE WAS STRUCK BY SHARP OBJ WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING PACKING MECH LEVER AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOREHEAD.
EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING PACKING MECH LEVER AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO EARS.
EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING PACKING MECH LEVER AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE
IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS OPERATING PACKING MECH LEVER AND HE WAS STRUCK BY TAILGATE RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST.
NO. INJ
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAYS
1
0
6
3
0
0
2
0
0
1
COSTS
141
15
289
320
44
22
117
16
24
65
TOTAL
12
13
1053
-------
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
FIGURE 1-11
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
REPAIRING EQUIPMENT ACCIDENTS
PAGE
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY* ACCIDENT TYPE. NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
Ui
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS REPAIRING EQUIP U HANDTOOL AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING HANDTOOL RESULTING IN BURN FROM
'HEAT TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS REPAIRING EQUIP U HANDTOOL AND HE INJURED SELF WITH EQUIPMENT PART RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS REPAIRING EQUIP U HANDTOOL AND HE CONTACTED HOT RADIATOR CAP RESULTING IN BURN FROM
HEAT TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE UAS REPAIRING EQUIP U HANDTOOL AND HE FELL FROM VEHICLE ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS REPAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN ABRASIONS
TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE UAS REPAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING EQUIPMENT PART RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOREHEAD.
EMPLOYEE WAS REPAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL AND HE CONTACTED HOT HANDTOOL RESULTING IN BURN FROM HEAT
TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS REPAIRING EQUIP U HANDTOOL AND HE CONTACTED HOT EQUIPMENT PART RESULTING IN BURN FROM
HEAT TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS REPAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL AND HE INJURED SELF WITH HAMMER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE
TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS REPAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL AND HE INJURED SELF WITH WRENCH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE
TO CHEEK.
TOTAL
NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
2
0
10
0
0
0
5
43
2
0
62
82
0
195
0
79
20
103
2380
49
20
2928
-------
MAST3
FIGURE 1-12
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
CHECKING EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTION ACCIDENTS
REPORTING PERIODS JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY* ACCIDENT TYPE* NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
PAGE 1
EMPLOYEE WAS CHECKING EQUIP
IRRITATION TO EYES,
EMPLOYEE WAS CHECKING EQUIP
EMPLOYEE WAS CHECKING EQUIP
TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS CHECKING EQUIP
EMPLOYEE WAS CHECKING EQUIP
EMPLOYEE WAS CHECKING EQUIP
EYE IRRITATION TO EYES
EMPLOYEE WAS CHECKING EQUIP
EMPLOYEE WAS CHECKING EQUIP
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
EMPLOYEE WAS CHECKING EQUIP
PROFILE
MALFNCTN AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE
MALFNCTN AND HE CONTACTED HOT WATER RESULTING IN BURN FROM HEAT TO HAND.
MALFNCTN AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO
MALFNCTN AND HE STRUCK AGAINST UNK VEH PART RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ARM.
MALFNCTN AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN HOOD OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
MALFNCTN AND HE CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC HYDRAULIC FLUID RESULTING IN
MALFNCTN AND HE CONTACTED HOT WATER RESULTING IN BURN FROM HEAT TO ARM.
MALFNCTN AND HE FELL FROM SLIPPERY VEHICLE'WHILE STEPPING DOWN
ELBOW.
MALFNCTN AND HE CONTACTED HOT GREASE RESULTING IN BURN FROM HEAT TO EYES,
NO, INJ DAYS COSTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
5
24
0
0
1
2
i
0
309
325
929
0
62
126
106
167
60
Ul
Ul
TOTAL
42
2084
-------
REPORTING PERIODt JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
FIGURE 1-13
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
OPENING EQUIPMENT PART ACCIDENTS
PAGE 1
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITYr ACCIDENT TYPE, NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
EMPLOYEE WAS OPENING
CUT/PUNCTURE TO
EMPLOYEE WAS OPENING
EMPLOYEE WAS OPENING
EMPLOYEE WAS OPENING
EMPLOYEE WAS OPENING
EMPLOYEE WAS OPENING
TOTAL
TAILGATE AND
SCALP.
TAILGATE AND
TAILGATE AND
CAB DOOR AND
TAILGATE AND
TAILGATE AND
PROFILE
HE WAS STRUCK BY UNKNOWN WASTE WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH RESULTING IN
HE WAS INJURED IN OTHER TYPE OF ACCIDENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
HE INJURED SELF WITH CAB DOOR RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
HE WAS STRUCK BY TAILGATE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO CHEEK.
HE INJURED SELF WITH TAILGATE RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST.
NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
121
44
58
20
61
304
ui
-------
MAST3
FIGURE 1-14
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
EMPTYING EQUIPMENT ACCIDENTS
REPORTING PERIOD? JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY, ACCIDENT TYPE, NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY,
PAGE 1
EMPLOYEE WAS EMPTYING VEH
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS EMPTYING VEH
EMPLOYEE WAS EMPTYING VEH
EMPLOYEE WAS EMPTYING VEH
EMPLOYEE WAS EMPTYING VEH
EMPLOYEE WAS EMPTYING VEH
PROFILE
AND HE CONTACTED ALLERGENIC PARTICLES IN WASTE RESULTING IN DERMATITIS TO
AND HE CONTACTED HOT EXHAUST PIPE RESULTING IN BURN FROM HEAT TO ARM.
AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
AND HE STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
AND HE WAS CAUGHT OTHER VEH PART RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES,
NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
80
0
165
15
64
145
TOTAL
469
-------
FIGURE 1-lb
PAGE
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1974
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
WASHING VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY, ACCIDENT TYPE, NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
EMPLOYEE WAS WASHING EQUIP
EMPLOYEE WAS WASHING EQUIP
EMPLOYEE WAS WASHING EQUIP
EMPLOYEE WAS WASHING EQUIP
EMPLOYEE WAS WASHING EQUIP
EMPLOYEE WAS WASHING EQUIP
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS,
EMPLOYEE WAS WASHING EQUIP
TOTAL
PROFILE
AND HE STRUCK AGAINST POST RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
AND HE CONTACTED HOT STEAM RESULTING IN BURN FROM HEAT TO FOOT.
AND HE CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC ACID RESULTING, IN CHEMICAL BURN TO EYES.
AND Ht CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC DETERGENT RESULTING IN DERMATITIS TO ARM.
AND HE FELL ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ARM.
AND HE FELL FROM WET VEHICLE ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
AND HE FELL ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST.
INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAYS
0
2
1
3
5
0
0
COSTS
0
94
139
60
237
0
20
11
550
Ln
oo
-------
MAST3
FIGURE 1-16
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
CLOSING EQUIPMENT PART ACCIDENTS
PAGE i
REPORTING PERIOD! JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY? ACCIDENT TYPEf NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS CLOSING CAB DOOR AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN CAB DOOR RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CLOSING TURNBUCKLE AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN TAILGATE RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CLOSING TAILGATE AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN TAILGATE RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CLOSING TAILGATE AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN TAILGATE RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
TOTAL
NO. INJ DAYS
22
0
39
0
61
COSTS
337
41
2255
20
2653
Ui
10
-------
FIGURE 1-17
PAGE
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
HOOKING UK UNHOOKING EQUIPMENT ACCIDENTS
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITYr ACCIDENT TYPE* NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS HOOKING OR UNHOOKING TONGUE OF TRAILER AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TONGUE OF TRAILER
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS HOOKING OR UNHOOKING TRAILER RAMP AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TRAILER RAMP RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
TOTAL
NO.;INJ DAYS COSTS
2 :- 19 615
1 0 20
3 19 635
-------
FIGURE 1-18
EQUIPMENT RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
1. Driving
2 Riding
a. Struck by objects thrown up by
wheels of moving equipment
(e.g., compactors and bull-
dozers operating at the
landfill).
b. Received objects in eye on
windy days or while at landfill
emptying equipment.
c. Strained muscles from going
over rough terrain, bumps in
the road, rocks and bricks in
the road, etc.
Motor vehicle accidents (e.g.,
being struck by another vehicle,
colliding with other vehicle,
hitting curb, making sudden
stops)
Struck by tree limb.
Screen guards around cabs
Keep windows closed under those conditions
Drive slower and try to avoid these hazards,
Wear seat belts.
Take defensive driving course,
belts.
Wear seat
b. Received object in eye,
c. Caught between truck and object
as truck was backing (riding on
step) -
Keep body close to vehicle when riding on rea
or side steps for short distances. Driver
should be aware of hazard to coworker and
should drive defensively. Where hazard canno
be avoided (narrow alleys) have employee(s)
ride in cab instead.
Wear eye protection, especially when environ-
mental condition is dusty.
Do not ride on step when truck is backing. Em-
ployee (s) should be on the ground, visible to
-------
EQUIPMENT RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
Riding
(contd.)
fO
Mounting step
d. Fell off step or struck against
truck when truck went over a
bump or depression.
e. Fell off step when truck turned
corner, made sudden stop, made
sudden start or hit curb.
f. Fell off wet step or fell due
to wet handhold or gloves.
Fell when step collapsed.
h. Caught hand or foot in packing
mechanism,
i. Motor vehicle accidents.
a. Struck against truck when
jumping on step to catch truck
that was pulling away.
b. Slipped on or fell off wet
step.
Defensive driver training. Keep firm grip on
handhold. Ride in cab if distance is more
than a couple of blocks. Drive slower on
roads known to be rough.
Defensive driver training. Keep firm grip on
handhold. Ride in cab if distance is more
than a couple of blocks.
On rainy days, ride in cab as much as possible
Slip resistant steps. Replace material when
worn or install open-mesh steps that will not
accumulate water, snow or oil.
Check welds or braces for steps on a regular
basis.
Do not operate packing mechanism while anyone
is riding on the rear step.
Driver training.
Better coordination between driver and
rider(s): signal given by rider(s) when they
are secure on the step before driver pulls
away.
Slip resistant steps and replace material when
worn. Or install open-mesh steps that will
not accumulate water, snow or oil. Make sure
handhold is secure before mounting and step
up on step firmly.
-------
EQUIPMENT RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
Dismounting
step
Ul
Mounting cab
6.
Dismounting
cat>
Sprained ankle when jumped off.
Stepped down on sharp object
(e.g., board with nail, glass)
puncturing foot.
Stepped on object on ground or
other uneven surface (e.g.,
rock, brick, uneven sidewalk,
drainage hole, edge of curb,
hole in ground) spraining ankle.
Stepped on slippery surface
(e.g., loose gravel, oil, wet
grass) spraining ankle or
falling.
a. Struck by door
b. Struck against door, door
handle or step while mounting
c. Slipped on running board and
struck against truck or fell.
a. Foot run over by truck that was
still moving forward.
Safety rules against haste in jumping of f step,
Extended hand rails.
Safety shoes.
dismounting.
Safety shoes
dismounting.
Look where stepping when
Look where stepping when
Extended hand rails. Use when dismounting.
Look where stepping when dismounting.
Make sure door is completely open.
Make sure door is fully opened before mounting.
Watch where stepping.
Slip resistant running boards. Install ex-
tended hand rails. Make sure handhold is
secure before mounting and step up on running
board firmly.
Safety rule against dismounting from truck
until truck has come to a complete stop and
has completed its back lurching motion.
-------
EQUIPMENT RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
6. Dismounting
cab (contd.)
7. Dumping
container
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Misstepped and fell.
Slipped on running board and
sprained ankle or back or fell
Stepped on sharp object on
ground puncturing foot.
Stepped on object on ground or
other uneven surface spraining
ankle.
Stepped on slippery ground
spraining ankle or falling.
Struck by waste that fell out
of the hopper or container.
Struck by container being
dumped by coworker or thrown
by coworkero
Object in eye (not ejected).
Struck by packer that rolled
back when parked on an incline
Struck against truck when
turning to dump.
Extended hand rails. Use when dismounting.
Dismount backwards rather than forwards, and
look where stepping.
Slip resistant running boards. Replace when
material is worn. Extended hand rails. Have
firm grip on handhold before dismounting back-
wards, and look where stepping.
Safety shoes.
mounting.
Look where stepping when dis-
Extended hand rails. Have firm grip on hand-
hold before dismounting backwards, and look
where stepping.
Extended hand rails. Have firm grip on hand-
hold before dismounting backwards.
Do not overfill hopper. Operate the packing
mechanism as soon as the hopper is full.
Avoid holding the container too high.
Better coordination between coworkers while
dumping at the back of the truck. Safety
rule against throwing containers.
Eye protection. Turn head when dumping.
Set emergency brakes when packer is stopped
on an incline.
Avoid haste.
action.
Avoid the quick-jerk hoisting
-------
EQUIPMENT RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
Dumping con-
tainer (contd)
m.
Threw plastic bag into hopper:
bag burst and was struck by
waste.
Hand caught between container
and edge of hopper.
Struck by waste ejected by the
hopper.
Falls against hopper due to
slipping on waste on ground.
Falls against hopper due to
wet, icy or oily surfaces.
Overexertion while lifting to
dump.
Overexertion while catching a
falling container.
Fell off step of side loader.
Eye protection. Turn head when dumping.
Safety rule against throwing.
Avoid jerking the container up to dump. Get
a firm grip on the handles, use the proper
stance, and lift to dump in one steady, con-
tinuous motion. Help in lifting the container
should be obtained if container is overweight.
Stand clear of the back of the truck while the
packing mechanism is operating. Eye protec-
tion. Install "flaps."
Clean up waste as soon as it has fallen.
Avoid jerking the container up to dump.
Avoid jerking the container up to dump.
Avoid jerking the container up to dump. Avoid
twisting while dumping.
Train employees to let container fall and to
step away from the path of the falling
container.
Slip resistant step.
tainer up to dump.
Avoid jerking the con-
-------
EQUIPMENT RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
8.
CTl
9.
Dumping un-
contained
waste
Operating
packing
mechanism
10. Opening or
closing
equipment
part
a.
b.
c.
Struck by sharp waste (e.g.,
ceramic toilet bowls, mirrors,
fluorescent bulbs) that
shattered as it struck the
hopper edge).
Struck against the back of the
truck.
Struck by furniture or
appliance while loading them
onto open bed truck.
Struck by waste ejected from
hopper o
Caught hand in packing
mechanism.
Overexertion when lifting cab
of vehicle.
Struck by tailgate when
opening tailgate.
Caught fingers in tailgate
latch when closing tailgate.
Safety rule against throwing. Train employee!
on the hazards of these specific wastes.
Safety rule against throwing.
Use lift gate
Eye protection. Keep head turned away from
the hopper. Operate the lever with the left
hand. Install "flaps" over packer blade.
Train employees not to try to push back waste
that is falling out. Use two-handed operating
buttons. Install emergency stop buttons.
Obtain aid of coworker in lifting; train em-
ployees on how to lift in unison.
Release pressure first. Stand away from the
swing arc of the tailgate as it opens.
Check position of hands before closing
tailgate.
-------
EQUIPMENT RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURE(S)
11. Hooking or
unhooking
equipment
12. Standing or
walking be-
hind vehicle
CTl
Overexertion when hooking or
unhooking trailer.
Overexertion when hooking or
unhooking bulk containers.
Struck by object ejected by the
packing mechanism.
b. Overcome by exhaust fumes,
Struck by private vehicle.
Obtain aid of coworker. Keep trailer from
slipping. Do not attempt on incline.
Obtain aid of coworker. Keep container from
slipping. Do not attempt on incline.
Train employees to stay clear of the back of
the vehicle when the hopper is operating. In-
stall "flaps." Eye protection.
Spend as little time behind the truck as
possible. Check exhaust systems on a
regular basis.
Wear traffic vests. Only pick up from one
side of street at a time. Employ caution
when walking from the back of the truck into
the flow of traffic. Turn on emergency
flasher lights when stopped.
-------
SECTION II
THIRD QUARTER IRIS USER
INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA
The accidents received by IRIS from 44 users are
covered in this section. The data is presented at two levels
of detail. Part I compares the frequency, severity and costs
rates of individual users and compares their averages as they
relate to industry-wide trends. Part II summarizes individual
accident characteristics for frequency, days lost and costs.
FIGURE 2-1 gives operational background data on the
IRIS users.
PART I - FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS RATES
FIGURES 2-2 through 2-5 recap the frequency, severity
and costs of injuries for this quarter:
FIGURE 2-2: Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity and Costs. Compares the solid waste
management industry with the national average
for all industries.
FIGURE 2-3: Number of Injuries Reported by
Type of Severity. Lists the IRIS users by
number, and shows what percentage of injuries
each user had in each severity level (e.g.,
first aid case, nonfatal case without lost
workdays, lost workday case, permanent dis-
ability case and fatal case).
FIGURE 2-4; Comparison of Injury Rates and
OSHA Days Lost for All Users. Compares the
rates and days lost for the first three
quarters of 1976, for each user, in user
number order.
FIGURE 2-5: Comparison of Direct Costs by
Reporting Period for All Users. Compares
the total costs and costs rates for the first
three quarters of 1976, for each user, in
user number order.
A few definitions of the terms used in the following
FIGURES are:
68
-------
OSHA Recordable Injury. Defined by OSHA as
a non-first aid injury.
OSHA Incidence Rate. It is a measure of the
frequency of injuries. The OSHA incidence rate
is the number of OSHA recordable injuries per
200,000 hours of exposure. The base figure of
"200,000 hours" is the standard figure used in
OSHA statistics. It is roughly equivalent to
100 full-time employees working a year or 100
man-years (i.e., 100 employees working 40 hours
per week for 50 weeks per year).
OSHA incidence rates can be thought of as being
roughly equivalent to the number of injuries
that will occur to 100 employees during a year.
Therefore, an OSHA incidence rate of 37 means
that the organization is having 37 injuries
per year for each 100 employees or that, on
the average, 1 out of every 3 employees are
being injured. The national average OSHA
incidence rate for all industries has been
around 10 for the last several years.
Severity Rate. The severity rate is similar
to the OSHA incidence rate, except that it
reflects the number of OSHA days lost (i.e.,
workdays lost and light duty days), instead
of the number of injuries, per 100 man-years
worked. For example, a severity rate of 500
would mean roughly that an organization is
losing 500 workdays for every 100 employees
per year, or that on the average each employee
is losing 5 days a year for on-the-job injuries.
Direct Costs. Direct costs are normally those
for which money was actually expended and in-
clude worker's compensation, medical expenses,
and wage continuation benefits (e.g., injury
leave). There are many indirect costs such as
down time, replacement time, lost time by wit-
nesses and supervisors, etc., which are not
included in these figures. Indirect costs are
estimated to be 5 times the direct costs in
cities according to the National Safety Council.
Average Direct Costs per OSHA Recordable Injury.
An average direct cost per OSHA recordable injury
of $500 means that on the average each OSHA recor-
able injury (i.e., a non-first-aid case) is costing
the organization $500!
69
-------
Direct Cost per Man-Year. It shows the cost
per 2,000 hours or the average cost per year
per employee. A direct cost per man-year of
$200 would mean that on the average an organi-
zation's injuries are costing $200 per employee
per year.
In reviewing these FIGURES, the data for the AVERAGE
(shown on the FIGURES as AVG) is the most important because it
summarizes the results for all users combined. After examining
the AVERAGES, it is important to examine how great the range
of rates between users is. Wide ranges are important because
they show that it is possible to achieve lower rates of injury
under given operating systems and safety programs.
70
-------
FIGURE 2-1
DESCRIPTION OF USERS BY OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
User
Number
101
109
^jlll
M
125
136
140
146
148
161
171
172
179
X81
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
\
Geograph.
Area
South
Midwest
West
South
South
South
South
Northeast
Midwest
Midwest
West
Northeast
1 MdL
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED,
Jser
umber
191
197
-J204
tvj
207
210
211
212
215
217
221
235
236
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geo graph.
Area
South
West
West
West
West
West
West
South
South
West
South
South
No. of
Employees
177
86
52
205
15
40
130
60
820
210
125
103
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A
CS
CS/A,M
BYC
CS
CS/A
CS/A
CS/BY/BYT
CS/A/ BY
CS
BYT/A/CS
CS
Type
of
Shift
Task/
Fixed
Task
Fixed
Task
Task
Task
Fixed
Task/
Fixed
Fixed
Task
Task
Task/
Fixed
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
3
2
1,3
3
2
3
1,2,3
2
3
3
Comm.
1
2,1
1,3
2
2
1
3
1
Resid.
&
Conun.
2
1,2
2
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L
___
L,T
L
L
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED,
User
Number
237
242
-j
w 244
260
261
265
272
275
283
285
286
292
M-Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
Midwest
South
West
West
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
South
Midwest
M 1 West
M. 1 West
\ \
No. of
Employees
90
101
30
168
8
200
272
40
72
79
8
225
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
A/BYC
CS/BY/BYT/A
BYT/BYC
CS/BYT/A
CS/A
CS/BYT/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
A/BYT/BYC
CS /A./BYT/BYC
Type
of
Shift
Task/
Fixed
Task/
Fixed
Task
Task
Task
Task
Task
Task
Task/
Fixed
Task
Fixed
Fixed
,
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
3
2
1,2
3
1,2
3
3
2
3
1,3
Comm.
3
1,2
2,3
2
3
3,1
z
I
Resid.
&
Comm.
3,4
2
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L,T
L
L
L,T
L,I
L,T
L
L,T
L.
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED,
j User
umber
295
296
->316
*ť
318
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
M Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
Geo graph.
Area
South
West
Northeast
West
Midwest
West
South
South
Midwest
West
South
Midwest
No. of
Employees
179
43
475
48
17
45
23
140
33
20
60
35
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/BY
CS/A/BY
CS/A/BYT
A/CS
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/A
CS
CS
CS
CS
A/CS
CS/A
Type
of
Shift
Task/
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Task
Task
Task/
Fixed
Task
Fixed
Task
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
4
1
2,3
3
2,3
3
3
2,1
3
3
3
Comia.
1
2,1
2,3
3
1,2,3
3
2,3
2
2
3
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
1,2
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L
L
L,I
T
L
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED,
User
Number
333
337
338
-j
01339
341
343
M-Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geo graph.
Area
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
West
West
No. of
Employees
43
141
120
151
35
17
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
BY
CS
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
Type
of
Shift
Task
Task
Task
Task
Task
Fixed
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
3
3
3
3
2
1
Comm.
3
2
2
Resid.
&
Coitirn.
Disposal
IXLandfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
__._
-------
FIGURE 2-2
SUMMARY OF INJURIES
BY FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS
FREQUENCY
There were 1,082 cases reported by 44 of the 52 IRIS users
on-line: 171 first aid cases, 351 nonfatal cases without
lost workdays, 559 lost workday cases and 1 permanent
disability case. Total man-hours for this quarter was
3,795,819.
The AVERAGE OSHA incidence rate was 48 for this quarter,
the highest of all previous quarters. This means that one
out of every two solid waste industry employees will exper-
ience a non-first aid injury a year.The national OSHA in-
cidence rate for all industries was 10.4. Therefore, the
solid waste industry was experiencing nearly five times as
many injuries as the average industry.
IRIS users ranged in frequency rates from User No. 341
that was experiencing 1.2 injuries per employee per year,
to User No. 136 that was experiencing 3 injuries per 100
employees per year.
SEVERITY (Days lost given are not final. These figures reflect
what was received from IRIS users by December 31, 1976, and may
be gross underestimates. For example, in the six months since
the publication of the first quarter Accident Trends, the OSHA
severity rate has increased from 269 to 393, and not all cases
are final yet.)
So far, 560 cases this quarter incurred 5,366 workdays lost
and light duty days.
53% of the total cases resulted in workdays lost and/or
light duty days. The national average for all industries
is 33%. This means that the solid waste industry has
more than 1 1/2 times as many lost workday injuries as
the average industry.
The AVERAGE OSHA severity rate (number of lost workdays
and light duty days) was 283. This means that on the
average, each employee is losing 2.8 days per year for
injuries. One user's rate was as high as 24 days lost
per year per employee; several are losing zero days a
year per employee.
76
-------
On the AVERAGE, each lost workday case was resulting in
9.58 workdays lost so far. This was lower than the national
average for all industries, which was 10.5.
DIRECT COSTS (Costs given are not final. These figures reflect
what was received from IRIS users by December 31, 1976, and may
be gross underestimates. For example, first quarter's AVERAGE
cost per OSHA recordable injury has gone up from $296 to $454.)
Total direct costs so far for injuries that occurred
during the third quarter was $252,753.
The AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury was $277.
The AVERAGE cost per man-year was $133. This means that
the average solid waste injury, that was non-first aid
for this quarter, was costing $133 per full-time employee
per year so far.
77
-------
PAGE 1
FIGURE 2-3
NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED BY TYPE OF SEVERITY
COMPARISON OF 'IRIS' USERS
EPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
INSTRUCTIONS: THE PERCENTAGES ARE A FRACTION OF THE TOTAL CASES
jEPORTED. THEY TOTAL TO APPROXIMATELY 100% IF READ HORIZONTALLY,
PHPARE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PERCENTAGES WITH THE AVERAGE AND WITH
THER IRIS USERS* HIGHER THAN AVERAGE PERCENTAGES IN THE LOWER
EVERITY GROUPSť I.E.ť TOWARD THE LEFTr ARE DESIRED, AS ARE LOWER
HAN AVERAGE PERCENTAGES TOWARD THE RIGHT,
RIS
SER
NO,
,VG
,01
.09
.11
.25
.36
L46
L48
L61
171
172
179
181
186
191
197
204
207
210
211
215
221
236
237
244
260
265
272
275
283
292
295
296
316
318
324
TOTAL
CASES
RPT ' D
If 082
45
72
68
105
1
33
3
28
39
101
24
48
28
31
6
6
32
2
7
3
9
24
17
3
33
49
6
6
11
12
' 6
8
117
18
3
FIRST NON-FATAL LOST WKDY
AID W/0 LST WKDAY CASES
NO,
171
1
0
5
10
0
7
0
12
0
0
6
3
10
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
5
1
7
0
0
22
1
0
2
7
0
2
46
7
0
%
16
2
0
7
10
0
21
0
43
0
0
25
6
36
3
0
0
0
0
43
0
56
4
41
0
0
45
17
0
IS
58
0
25
39
39
0
NO.
351
32
35
17
19
0
15
3
11
20
45
8
18
9
14
1
5
11
0
0
0
0
10
3
1
12
4
1
3
3
1
4
2
32
0
0
'
32
71
49
25
18
0
45
100
39
51
45
33
37
32
45
17
S3
34
0
0
0
0
42
18
33
36
8
17
50
27
8
67
25
27
0
0
NO*
559
12
37
46
76
1
10
0
5
19
56
10
27
9
16
5
1
21
2
4
3
4
13
7
2
21
23
4
3
6
4
2
4
39
11
3
**/
52
27
51
68
72
100
30
0
18
49
55
42
56
32
52
83
17
66
100
57
100
44
54
41
67
64
47
67
50
55
33
33
50
33
61
100
PERM
DISAB
NO*
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.09
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
3.03
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FATALITY
NO,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.
0,00
0*00
0*00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0*00
0*00
0*00
0*00
0*00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0*00
0*00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
78
-------
PAGE 2
IRIS TOTAL FIRST NON-FATAL LOST WKDY PERM FAT<
USER CASES AID W/0 LST WKDAY CASES DISAB
NO, RPT'D NO* % NO, '/. NO, % NO* % NO,
325
329
330
333
337
338
339
341
343
7
6
9
A
14
9
10
14
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
9
3
3
0
S3
0
0
0
0
20
21
60
3
0
5
3
0
0
0
1
0
43
0
56
75
0
0
0
7
0
4
1
4
1
14
9
8
10
2
57
17
44
25
100
100
80
71
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
-------
COMPARISON OF INJURY RATES AND OSHA DAYS LOST FOR ALL USERS
USER !
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 !
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 !
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
101 !
109 !
Ill !,
125 !
129 !
136 !
140 !
146 !
148 !
161 !
171 !
172 !
179 !
oo 181 !
0 186 !
191 !
197 !
204 !
207 !
210 !
211 !
212 !
215 !
217 !
221 !
235 !
236 !
237 !
242 !
244 !
260 !
261 !
265 !
12
35
69
31
0
15
47
24
13
43
50
44
19
58
81
78
103
9
79
0
34
89
45
4
140
69
48
34
34
48
78
35
0
55
22
37
44
62
55
50
24
47
139
97
0
68
44
0
45
56
105
34
0
59
55
0
47
46
51
83
42
3
35
5
68
57
70
34
64
25
96
59
50
72
49
34
22
36
75
43
0
44
103
0
66
48
192
1123
495
0
577
525
30
0
208
453
369
105
192
350
579
464
148
739
0
169
1492
106
99
256
659
145
252
310
175
816
348
0
680
139
237
35
228
684
148
279
153
86
253
0
281
444
0
194
0
672
154
0
206
525
0
308
72
200
556
358
24
144
0
106
290
444
241
264
102
236
493
58
429
926
94
419
163
253
94
0
190
1128
0
412
! 6.50
! 8.03
23.73
20.45
0,00
38,60
15.37
4.40
0,00
9.58
13,89
11.48
12.25
4.00
13.00
10.30
9.00
17.00
9.39
.0.00
6.00
18.53
3.50
25.00
2,75
16,67
3,00
! 8,64
20,92
8,15
16.97
12.07
0.00
16,56
20,60
12,86
1,60
5,96
16,84
)
4,26
22,00
5,11
8.00
5.35
0.00
4.71
10.00
0.00
10.89
0.00
8,86
6.40
0.00
3,50
16,20
0,00
7,80
5.75
7.65
9.17
10,58
8,00
9.82
0.00
5,00
10,53
11.39
12,70
6,89
8,22
4,62
10,00
7,00
9,05
19,00
2,75
19,00
4,50
6,00
3.14
0.00
6.50
17,29
0.00
7.30
-------
USER !
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR A
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR A \
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
272
275
283
285
286
292
295
296
316
318
324
325
326
oo 327
H 329
330
331
333
337
338
339
341
343
AVG.
! 17
34
20
0
9
26
56
40
15
182
50
0
0
11
20
76
81
79
66
0
106
73
46
19
59
51
0
7
20
58
60
79
71
50
0
0
17
70
0
101
68
50
36
118
76
48
196
0
39
0
594
98
1398
393
11
1944
134
0
0
20
20
1800
874
0
208
0
106
245
345
99
79
119
0
15
66
221
362
2456
236
372
0
0
102
78
0
50
633
391
186
1402
151
283
17.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
63.50
4.75
25.00
14.25
1.50
10.67
8.00
0.00
0.00
4.33
2.00
31,50
16,05
0.00
4,75
0.00
2.00
5.00
12,41
6.50
2.67
3,50
0,00
2.75
10.00
5.75
10.92
31.09
3.33
13.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
2,50
0.00
2,00
9,29
7.78
5.12
13,10
2,00
9,58
-------
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVG. COST PER OSHA REC, INJ.
! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 !
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
00
101
109
111
125
129
136
140
146
148
161
171
172
179
181
186
191
197
204
207
210
211
212
215
217
221
235
236
237
242
244
260
261
265
4*210
13*327
47*749
37*713
0
1*970
39*842
1*839
135
3*582
24*829
11*510
1*295
1*475
2*481
4*297
1*445
794
14*222
0
1*185
12*768
604
6*877
706
2*321
159
2*820
19*848
12*693
28*972
24*356
0
69*843
5*442
3*577
815
6*376
37*382
5*081
8*021
1*685
517
4*626
0
1*987
6*013
0
83*867
750
9*550
1*813
0
904
5*620
0
8*216
4*555
19*383
20*696
27*641
205
3*060
110
1*313
9*486
28*166
4*749
9*759
2*950
2*101
2*502
226
3*855
1*977
600
3*391
1*045
8*223
1*583
0
736
7*398
0
14*019
386
307
993
618
0
394
711
102
18
148
359
391
143
86
275
134
361
758
617
0
197
608
201
6*877
117
110
159
214
660
208
526
338
0
688
340
255
80
163
485
153
471
120
39
112
0
248
462
0
914
50
329
259
0
226
330
0
455
103
269
327
290
205
117
36
80
243
278
262
216
163
70
417
37
120
988
145
1*130
253
357
153
0
245
224
0
519
51
109
684
194
0
58
331
24
6
64
180
176
27
50
222
104
372
68
486
0
66
541
91
271
164
76
76
74
226
100
409
119
0
382
73
94
35
V101
266
76
113
56
55
109
0
168
205
0
414
27
345
87
0
133
181
0
216
47
137
272
123
6
40
1
55
137
196
90
138
40
66
246
18
87
481
51
249
94
266
67
0
107
229
0
343
-------
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 4
oo
u>
JSER
272
275
283
285
286
292
295
296
316
318
324
325
326
327
329
330
331
333
337
338
339
341
343
AUG.
! QTR 1
! 1*313
!
119
61
0
5*439
911
2r006
250*004
QTR 2
109
1*437
1*205
0
0
894
578
9*534
34*048
92
2*159
0
153
1*053
399*216
QTR 3
1*224
277
1*028
0
483
1*092
1*312
19*999
14*061
491
4*736
0
0
378
480
0
223
11*442
6*431
3*152
5*874
341
252*753
AVG, COST PER OSHA REC. INJ.
! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 !
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
437
27
239
244
46
59
61
0
2*719
177
1*003
454
132
0
0
127
96
1*191
558
30
359
0
66
351
437
114
0
96
182
218
281
1*278
163
676
0
0
338
53
0
55
817
714
394
534
170
277
! 75
i
! 20
! 12
! 0
! 254
! 46
! 560
!
!
!
i
!
I
!
!
l
!
j
!
!
!
!
! 180
4
436
67
0
0
13
19
907
452
24
236
0
81
257
201
46
27
58
0
6
36
125
170
1*009
115
339
0
0
64
37
0
56
557
359
143
628
128
133
-------
FIGURE 2-6
SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT FACTORS FOR SELECTED ACCIDENT
CHARACTERISTICS WITH HIGHEST PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES,
OSHA DAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
Type of
Characteristic
Factors With The:
Highest % of OSHA
Recordable Injuries
Highest % of
OSHA Days Lost
Highest % of
Direct Costs
CO
*ť
Activity
Accident Type
Accident Site
Nature of Injury
Part of Body
Lifting or dumping container - 35%
Getting off equipment - 8%
Standing or walking - 7%
Overexertion involving container - 17%
Struck by waste - 7%
Struck self with container being
handled - 5%
On collection route at back of truck - 39%
On collection route at curb - 16%
On collection route in/on vehicle - 14%
Sprain or strain - 37%
Cut or puncture - 23%
Bruise - 19%
Back - 18%
Leg - 9%
Arm - 7%
Lifting or dumping container - 39%
Riding on equipment - 8%
Carrying container - 8%
Overexertion involving container - 25%
Fall to a different level - 7%
Caught between objects - 7%
On collection route at back of truck - 48%
On collection route at curb - 18%
On collection route in/on vehicle - 14%
Sprain or strain - 48%
Bruise - 17%
Cut or puncture - 9%
Back - 26%
Multiple body parts - 9%
Ankle - 7%
Lifting or dumping container - 35%
Riding on equipment - 10%
Carrying container - 9%
Overexertion involving container - 23%
Caught between objects - 10%
Fall to a different level - 8%
On collection route at back of truck - 44%
On collection route in/on vehicle - 19%
On collection route at curb - 18%
Sprain or strain - 43%
Bruise - 16%
Cut or puncture - 11%
Back - 22%
Multiple body parts - 14%
Foot - 8%
-------
PART II - CHARACTERISTICS OF ACCIDENTS
FIGURE 2-6 summarizes the frequency, days lost and
costs of third quarter's OSHA recordable injuries by accident
characteristics. Each of the following FIGURES covers a dif-
ferent characteristic of the accident:
FIGURES 2-7A to 2-7C: Activity, e.g., lifting
to dump container.
FIGURES 2-8A to 2-8C: Accident Type, e.g.,
overexertion involving container.
FIGURES 2-9A to 2-9C: Accident Site, e.g.,
on the collection route at the back of the
vehicle.
FIGURES 2-10A to 2-10C; Injury Type, e.g.,
cut or puncture.
FIGURE 2-11: Part of Body, e.g., back.
85
-------
FIGURE 2-7A PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACTIVITIES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
PORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
ť
FINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
SES
-------
THUJC. Ł
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACTIVITY ' NO* "/.
LIFTING VEH PART 2 0.22
LIFTING OBJECT 2 0*22
DUMPING WASTE 2 0,22
COMPACTING WASTE IN CONT 2 0.22
MOWING 2 0,22
PUSHING OR PULLING VEH PT 1 0.11
PUSHING OR PULLING OBJECT 1 0*11
SHAKING WHILE DUMPING CONT 1 0.11
CATCHING CONT 1 0*11
CATCHING WASTE 1 0*11
ARRANGING LOAD 1 0*11
COMPACTING WASTE IN VEH 1 0,11
WASHING CONT 1 0*11
DIRECTING VEH 1 0*11
UNLOADING WASTE 1 0,11
TOTAL 911 100*00
87
-------
FIGURE 2-7B
PAGE
ALL USERS
ACTIVITIES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
PORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
:FINITIONS: A LOST DAYS CASE is ONE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE INCURRED
IRKDAYS LOST AND/OR LIGHT DUTY DAYS DUE TO THE ACCIDENT,
OSHA DAYS LOST
ACTIVITY
NO,
AVG DAYS LOST/
LOST DAYS CASE
:FTING CONTAINER
:FTING TO DUMP CONTAINER
JMPING CONTAINER
[DING ON EQUIP
DRYING CONTAINER
ITTING OFF EQUIP
JSHING OR PULLING CONTAINER
FANEiING OR WALKING
:TTING ON EQUIP
[FTING TO DUMP WASTE
DING REPETITIOUS WORK
3ING OTHER TYPE OF ACTIVITY
GIVING EQUIP
[CKING UP LOOSE WASTE
JSHING OR PULLING WASTE
^PAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL
-OSING EQUIP PT
SiRRYING WASTE
HECKING EQUIP MALFNCTN
DIMMING SHRUBBERY
DUING
IFTING OBJECT
LEARING WASTE W HANDTOOL
DOKING OR UNHOOKING EQUIP
IFTING WASTE
EFUELING VEH OR ROUTINE MAINT
OING NO ONE ACTIVITY
MAKING WHILE DUMPING CONT
PERATING CONTROLS
IFTING VEH PART
ISLODGING WASTE FROM VEH
ASHING EQUIP
USHING OR PULLING VEH PT
ATCHING CONT
OING JANITORIAL WORK
RRANGING LOAD
OMPACTING WASTE IN CONT
MPTYING VEH
807
779
512
437
427
385
330
304
215
185
145
105
87
71
70
62
61
42
42
38
34
29
29
19
16
14
14
13
13
12
11
11
8
8
8
7
3
3
15,04
14,52
9,54
8,14
7,96
7,17
6,15
5,67
4.01
3,45
2,70
1.96
1.62
1,32
1,30
1.16
1.14
0,78
0,78
0,71
0,63
0,54
0,54
0,35
0.30
0.26
0.26
0,24
0,24
0,22
0.20
0.20
0.15
0,15
0.15
0.13
0,06
0.06
9.07
10.82
8.68
15.07
10.67
8.95
11,79
8,00
9,77
7.71
10.36
11.67
6.69
8,87
23.33
12.40
30.50
14.00
7.00
9.50
17.00
14.50
5,80
19,00
5.33
7.00
2.80
13.00
2.60
6.00
5.50
2,75
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.00
3,00
1.50
88
-------
PAGE 2
OSHA DAYS LOST
ACTIVITY
OPENING EQUIP PT
RUNNING
CARRYING OBJECT
CATCHING WASTE
COMPACTING WASTE IN UEH
WASHING CONT
TOTAL
NO*
3
3
1
1
1
1
51366
LOST
DAYS
0,06
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.02
0,02
100.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
9,58
89
-------
FIGURE 2-7C
PAGE
ALL USERS
ACTIVITIES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
PORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
-INITIONSS OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
3ES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)* AND LOST WORKDAY*
\-MANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
^ECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES* WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND
3E CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G.* INJURY LEAVE) ONLY. INDIRECT COSTS
E NOT INCLUDED.
STRUCTIONSJ DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
E AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
DIRECT COSTS
ACTIVITY
FTING CONTAINER
FTING TO DUMP CONTAINER-
DING ON EQUIP
MPING CONTAINER
RRYING CONTAINER
ANDING OR WALKING
TTING OFF EQUIP
UNO. OTHER TYPE OF ACTIVITY
ISHING OR PULLING CONTAINER
:FTING TO DUMP WASTE
:TTING ON EQUIP
:IVING EQUIP
iCKING UP LOOSE WASTE
PAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL
.OSING EQUIP PT
IING REPETITIOUS WORK
1ECKING EQUIP MALFNCTN
DRYING WASTE
:FTING WASTE
-EARING WASTE W HANDTOOL
DIMMING SHRUBBERY "
JWING
DERATING CONTROLS
toKING WHILE DUMPING CONT
HNG NO ONE ACTIVITY
JSHING OR PULLING WASTE
ISLODGING WASTE FROM VEH
JOKING OR UNHOOKING EQUIP
IFTING VEH PART
^FUELING VEH OR ROUTINE MAINT
ASHING EQUIP
ETCHING CONT
1PTYING VEH
IFTING OBJECT
AMT,
90
37 f 797
28*123
24 * 075
23*676
21*817
19*209
14*257
14*189
13*543
9*521
9*479
6*476
2*998
2*928
2*653
2*313
2*084
1*580
1*518
1*422
1*410
1*186
1*053
1*029
819
818
662
635
575
559
550
509
454
452
14.97
11.14
9.53
9.38
8.64
7.61
5.65
5.62
5.36
3.77
3.75
2.56
1.19
1.16
1.05
0.92
0,83
0,63
0.60
0,56
0.56
0,47
0.42
0.41
0.32
0.32
0.26
0.25
0,23
0.22
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.18
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
315
270
472
242
352
287
201
1*014
356
180
296
308
231
366
663
128
260
316
95
109
282
593
88
1*029
68
204
331
212
287
112
110
509
91
226
-------
PAGE 2
DIRECT COSTS
ACTIVITY
AMT,
DOING JANITORIAL WORK
OPENING EQUIP PT
ARRANGING LOAD
PUSHING OR PULLING VEH PT
CATCHING WASTE
CARRYING OBJECT
RUNNING
DISLODGING WASTE FROM CONT
PUSHING OR PULLING OBJECT
DUMPING WASTE
DOING UNK ACTIVITY
UNLOADING WASTE
WASHING CONT
COMPACTING WASTE IN VEH
COMPACTING WASTE IN CONT
DIRECTING VEH
TOTAL
336
304
255
205
165
156
136
106
97
95
70
60
56
50
36
12
0,13
0.12
0.10
0.08
0,07
0.06
0,05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0,02
0.02
0.02
0,01
0,00
252^508 100,00
91
-------
PAGE 1
FIGURE 2-8A
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF'OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
INITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
ES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST WORKDAY,
MANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED,
ITRUCTIONSt DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES,
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT TYPE NO, %
IK'EXERTIOM INVOLVING CONT 155 17*01
iUCK BY WASTE 62 6.81
5UCK SELF WITH CONT BEING HANDLED 48 5,27
\'UCK AGAINST VEH PART 42 4,61
[P ON SAME LEVEL 41 4.50
JGHT BETWEEN OBJECTS 36 3,95
IICLE ACCIDENT 34 3,73
SECT BITE 34 3,73
-L TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL 31 3,40
-L ON SAME LEVEL 31 3,40
OILY REACTION 30 3,29
IMAL BITE 23 2,52
rl MOVEMENT INVOLVED ACCIDENT 22 2,41
3T BY HANDLING CONT 22 2.41
RT BY HANDLING WASTE 21 2,31
RTICLES IN EYE, 19 2,09
EREXERTION IS 1,98
EPPED ON SHARP WASTE 17 1,87
DILY REACTION IN CATCHING CONT 16 1,76
EREXERTION INVOLVING WASTE 16 1.76
EPPED ON SHARP OBJ 16 1.76
RUCK SELF WITH WASTE BEING HANDLED 14 1,54
NTACT WITH ALLERGENIC WASTE 13 1,43
LL AGAINST VEH PART 11 1*21
IP AND STRUCK AGAINST VEH PART 11 1*21
IP TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL 9 0,99
EREXERTION INVOLVING OBJ 9 0,99
RUCK BY VEH PART 8 0,88
RUCK BY OBJ 8 0,88
STE PARTICLES IN EYE 8 0.88
RUCK AGAINST WASTE 7 0,77
POSURE TO WEATHER EXTREMES 7 0,77
RUCK AGAINST OBJECT 6 0,66
EREXERTION INVOLVING VEH PART 6 0,66
HER ACCIDENT TYPE 6 0,66
RUCK BY CONTAINER 5 0.55
RUCK SELF WITH OBJ BEING HANDLED 5 0,55
92
-------
PAGE 2
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT TYPE
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC SUBSTANCE
CONTACT WITH HOT SUBSTANCE
STRUCK AGAINST CONTAINER-
STRUCK SELF WITH VEH PT BEING HANDLED
HURT BY HANDLING OBJ
SLIP AND STRUCK AGAINST CONT
CONTACT WITH HOT OBJ
DEVELOPED INJURY OVER TIME
FALL AGAINST OBJ
FALL AGAINST CONT
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC WASTE
CONTACT WITH ALLERGENIC SUBSTANCE
CONTACT WITH HOT VEH PART
RESULT OF AGGRESSIVE ACT
UNKNOWN ACCIDENT TYPE
HURT BY HANDLING VEH PART
TOTAL
NO,
5
5
A
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
1
0.55
0,55
0,44
0.33
0.33
0,33
0.33
0,33
0,22
0,22
0,22
0,22
0,22
0,22
0,22
0*11
911 100,00
93
-------
6-B
FIGURE 2-8B
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
ORTING PERIOD? JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
INITIONSJ OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
ES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS>> AND LOST WORKDAYf
MANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES* FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED*
TRUCTIONSJ DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
OSHA DAYS LOST
ACCIDENT TYPE
NO, % AVG DAYS LOST/
LOST DAYS CASE
:REXERTION INVOLVING CONT
.L TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
IGHT BETWEEN OBJECTS
IICLE ACCIDENT
IP ON SAME LEVEL
\ MOVEMENT INVOLVED ACCIDENT
ťILY REACTION
tUCK AGAINST VEH PART
IUCK SELF WITH CONT BEING HANDLED
[REXERTION
-L AGAINST VEH PART
iHLY REACTION IN CATCHING CONT
*UCK BY WASTE
IREXERTION INVOLVING WASTE
-L ON SAME LEVEL
[P TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
IPPED ON SHARP WASTE
?T BY HANDLING CONT
<1TACT WITH HOT OBJ
*UCK SELF WITH VEH PT BEING HANDLED
4TACT WITH ALLERGENIC WASTE
[P AND STRUCK AGAINST VEH PART
?UCK SELF WITH WASTE BEING HANDLED
iREXERTION INVOLVING VEH PART
EREXERTION INVOLVING OBJ
SECT BITE
IP AND STRUCK AGAINST CONT
*UCK BY VEH PART
^UCK AGAINST OBJECT
iPPED ON SHARP OBJ
*TICLES IN EYE
MTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC WASTE
*T BY HANDLING WASTE
SOSURE TO WEATHER EXTREMES
IHAL BITE
HER ACCIDENT TYPE
1*359
390
360
294
267
239
929
203
198
158
156
149
146
138
132
90
75
72
63
60
51
44
37
37
35
33
29
26
25
24
23
23
21
21
18
17
25,33
7.27
6.71
5.48
4.98
4.45
4.27
3,78
3.69
2.94
2.91
2.78
2.72
2.57
2.46
1,68
1.40
1.34
1.17
1*12
0.95
0.82
0.69
0.69
0.65
0,61
0.54
0,48
0.47
0,45
0.43
0.43
0.39
0,39
0.34
0.32
10.30
16.25
16.36
11.76
8.34
14.06
10,90
7.25
8.61
10.53
17.33
12.42
5.03
11.50
8.80
12.86
8,33
5.14
21.00
60.00
8,50
8,80
5.29
9,25
11.67
3.67
9.67
6.50
8.33
4.00
2.87
23.00
5.25
4.20
3.00
5.67
94
-------
PAGE 2
OSHA DAYS LOST
ACCIDENT TYPE
NO.
STRUCK BY CONTAINER
WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE
UNKNOWN ACCIDENT TYPE
STRUCK AGAINST CONTAINER
HURT BY HANDLING OBJ
STRUCK BY OBJ
CONTACT WITH HOT VEH PART
CONTACT WITH HOT SUBSTANCE
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC SUBSTANCE
DEVELOPED INJURY OVER TIME
STRUCK AGAINST WASTE
FALL AGAINST OBJ
FALL AGAINST CONT
STRUCK SELF WITH OBJ BEING HANDLED
RESULT OF AGGRESSIVE ACT
TOTAL
16
16
16
12
11
10
10
10
5
5
3
3
3
2
2
0*30
0.30
0.30
0.22
0.20
0,19
0,19
0.19
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.04
0,04
5f366 100.00
95
-------
FIGURE 2-8C
PAGE
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
PORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
FINITIONSJ OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
SES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)!- AND LOST WORKDAY?
RMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
RECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES* WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND
GE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G., INJURY LEAVE) ONLY. INDIRECT COSTS
L: NOT INCLUDED.
STRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
E AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
DIRECT COSTS
ACCIDENT TYPE
AMT.
'EREXERTION INVOLVING CONT
lUGHT BETWEEN OBJECTS
iLL TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
iH MOVEMENT INVOLVED ACCIDENT
:HICLE ACCIDENT
.IP ON SAME LEVEL
'RUCK AGAINST VEH PART
IDILY REACTION
'RUCK BY WASTE
IDILY REACTION IN CATCHING CONT
'RUCK SELF WITH CONT BEING HANDLED
TPPED ON SHARP WASTE
ťLL ON SAME LEVEL
'EREXERTION INVOLVING WASTE
ILL AGAINST VEH PART
-IP TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
JRT BY HANDLING CONT
TRUCK BY VEH PART
3NTACT WITH HOT OBJ
/EREXERTION
^SECT BITE
-IP AND STRUCK AGAINST VEH PART
INTACT WITH ALLERGENIC WASTE
-IP AND STRUCK AGAINST CONT
TRUCK SELF WITH WASTE BEING HANDLED
EREXERTION INVOLVING VEH PART
FEPPEB ON SHARP OBJ
MKNOWN ACCIDENT TYPE
4STE PARTICLES IN EYE
ARTICLES IN EYE
XPOSURE TO WEATHER EXTREMES
MIMAL BITE
URT BY HANDLING WASTE
59r277
24? 379
19,420
13*927
12x173
11,730
11 y 026
10,456
9,929
7,742
7? 360
6,299
5,789
4? 834
4, 334
4,237
3,013
2,806
2,733
2,693
2,465
1,857
1 , 705
1,511
1,450
1,445
1,444
1,387
1,329
1,314
1,241
1,174
1,074
23.48
9.65
7.69
5.52
4.32
4.67
4.37
4.14
3.93
3.07
2.91
2.49
2.29
1.93
1.72
1.68
1.19
1.11
1.08
1,07
0.98
0.74
0.68
0.60
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.55
0.53
0.52
0.49
0.46
0.43
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
332
677
626
633
353
2S7
263
349
160
434
153
371
137
305
394
471
137
351
913
150
72
169
131
504
104
241
90
693
166
69
177
51
51
96
-------
PAGE 2
DIRECT COSTS
ACCIDENT TYPE
AMT,
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC WASTE
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT
QVEREXERT10N INVOLVING OBJ
STRUCK AGAINST CONTAINER
CONTACT WITH HOT SUBSTANCE
STRUCK BY CONTAINER
HURT BY HANDLING OBJ
STRUCK BY OBJ
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC SUBSTANCE
STRUCK SELF WITH VEH PT BEING HANDLED
STRUCK AGAINST WASTE
OTHER ACCIDENT TYPE
CONTACT WITH HOT VEH PART
STRUCK SELF WITH OBJ BEING HANDLED
DEVELOPED INJURY OVER TIME
FALL AGAINST OBJ
FALL AGAINST CQNT
RESULT OF AGGRESSIVE ACT
HURT BY HANDLING VEH PART
CONTACT WITH ALLERGENIC SUBSTANCE
TOTAL
Ir062
If 051
961
761
695
682
568
494
429
369
353
292
250
236
190
163
149
67
39
34
252? 508
0,42
0,42
0,38
0,30
0,28
0,27
0,22
0,20
0,17
0.15
0,14
0,12
0,10
0,09
0,08
0 - 06
0 , 06
0,03
0.02
0,01
100,00
97
-------
FIGURE 2-9A pAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
iNITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
[S (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST WORKDAY*
IANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
RUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT SITE NO. %
COLLECTION ROUTE
ST AT BACK OF TRUCK 263 28.87
ST AT CURB 111 12.18
ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK 88 9.66
CUSTOMER'S YD 73 8.01
STEP OF VEH 50 5.49
VEHICLE 33 3.62
ALLEY AT CURB 32 3.51
ISIDE CAB OF VEH 29 3.18
! CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY 24 2.63
MIDSTREET 17 1.87
RUNNING BOARD 13 1.43
SIDEWALK 7 0.77
TRUCK BED 5 0.55
MIDALLEY 4 0.44
ST AT FRONT OF TRUCK 2 0.22
ALLEY AT FRONT OF TRUCK 1 0.11
SUBTOTAL 782 85.84
;:OUTE BETWEEN SITES
^SIDE CAB 6 0.66
M TRUCK BED 2 0.22
N STEP OF VEH 1 0.11
SUBTOTAL 9 0.99
LANDFILL
N YARD 11 1.21
EXT TO VEH AT DUMP SITE 9 0.99
N VEHICLE 8 0.88
EXT TO VEH 6 0.66
T DUMP SITE 4 0.44
NSIDE CAB OF VEH 3 0.33
N STEP OF VEH 2 0.22
NROUTE TO DUMP SITE 2 0.22
N OFFICE/GATEHOUSE 1 0.11
N SHOP/GARAGE 1 0.11
NSIDE CAB AT DUMP SITE 1 0.11
)N TRUCK BED AT DUMP SITE 1 0.11
SUBTOTAL 49 5.38
98
-------
PAGE 2
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT SITE
NO,
AT INCINERATOR
IN PLANT
IN YARD
AT DUMPING FLOOR
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
IN OFFICE/GATEHOUSE
IN SHOP/GARAGE
ON VEHICLE AT DUMPING FLOOR-
SUBTOTAL
AT TRANSFER STATION
ON VEHICLE
NEXT TO VEHICLE
IN YARD
SUBTOTAL
AT RECYCLING STATION
IN PLANT
SUBTOTAL
AT HEADQUARTERS
IN YARD PARKING LOT
IN SHOP/GARAGE
ON VEHICLE
NEXT TO VEH
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
AT WASHRACK
ON STEP OF VEH
IN OFFICE
AT REFUELING STATION
SUBTOTAL
IN ROADWAY/FIELD
SUBTOTAL
AT OTHER SITE
AT UNKNOWN SITE
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
6
3
2
1
1
1
1
16
1
1
1
3
0,66
0,33
0.22
0,11
0,11
0,11
0,11
1,76
0.11
0,11
0,11
0,33
0,11
0,11
13
8
4
A
i
2
1
1
1
37
1,43
0,38
0,44
0,44
0,22
0,22
0,11
0,11
0,11
4,06
0,99
3 0,33
5 0.55
911 100,00
99
-------
FIGURE 2-9B
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
ORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
'INITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
iES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST WORKDAY?
IMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
JTRUCTIONSJ DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
; AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES,
OSHA DAYS LOST
ACCIDENT SITE
NO,
AVG DAYS LOST/
LOST DAYS CASE
COLLECTION ROUTE
v| ST AT BACK OF TRUCK
N ST AT CURB
N ALLEY AT. BACK OF TRUCK
N STEP OF VEH
N CUSTOMER'S YD
N VEHICLE
N ALLEY AT CURB
N CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY
NSIDE CAB OF VEH
N MIDSTREET
N RUNNING BOARD
N MIDALLEY
N SIDEWALK
N ST AT FRONT OF TRUCK
N TRUCK BED
N ALLEY AT FRONT OF TRUCK
SUBTOTAL
IROUTE BETWEEN SITES
JN STEP OF VEH
-rNSIDE CAB
SUBTOTAL
f LANDFILL
CN YARD
iNROUTE TO DUMP SITE
3N VEHICLE
^EXT TO VEH AT DUMP SITE
NEXT TO VEH
3N TRUCK BED AT DUMP SITE
ON STEP OF VEH
ftT DUMP SITE
INSIDE CAB AT DUMP SITE
IN OFFICE/GATEHOUSE
Ir
4?
327
778
732
383
290
225
164
156
113
79
42
37
36
10
2
*>
543
24.73
14,50
13,64
7,14
5,40
4.19
3.06
2.91
2.11
1.47
0.78
0,69
0,67
0.19
0.04
0.04
34.66
54
32
86
61
52
50
33
19
14
13
10
6
1
1.01
0,60
1,60
1,14
0,97
0.93
0,61
0,35
0,26
0.24
0.19
0.11
0,02
3,09
9,97
14.08
13.21
7.44
11.84
10.25
9.75
5,14
7,18
3,40
13,50
9,00
10,00
1,00
2,00
9.41
54,00
6,40
14.33
10,17
26,00
10,00
3,25
6,33
14,00
13,00
10.00
6.00
1,00
100
-------
PAGE 2
OSHA DAYS LOST
ACCIDENT SITE
NO,
SUBTOTAL
AT INCINERATOR
IN PLANT
AT DUMPING FLOOR
IN YARD
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
IN SHOP/GARAGE
SUBTOTAL
AT TRANSFER STATION
IN YARD
SUBTOTAL
AT RECYCLING STATION
IN PLANT
SUBTOTAL
AT HEADQUARTERS
IN YARD PARKING LOT
IN SHOP/GARAGE
ON VEHICLE
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
NEXT TO VEH
IN OFFICE
ON STEP OF VEH
AT UASHRACK
SUBTOTAL
IN ROADWAY/FIELD
SUBTOTAL
AT OTHER SITE
AT UNKNOWN SITE
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
259
23
12
10
3
2
50
43
-43
90
13
14
4.83
0.43
0,22
0.19
0.06
0,04
0,93
0,06
0,06
0,80
0,80
147
41
32
22
20
10
1
1
278
2.74
0.76
0.60
0,41
0.37
0,19
0,02
0,02
5,13
1.6S
0,24
0.26
12,Ł
5,366 100,00
101
-------
FIGURE 2-9C
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT SITES. RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
"ORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER i??6
-INITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
BES
-------
PAGE 2
DIRECT COSTS
ACCIDENT SITE
AMT.
7.
ON STEP OF VEH
AT DUMP SITE
INSIDE CAB AT DUMP SITE
IN OFFICE/GATEHOUSE
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
IN SHOP/GARAGE
SUBTOTAL
AT INCINERATOR
IN PLANT
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
AT DUMPING FLOOR
IN YARD
IN SHOP/GARAGE
ON VEHICLE AT DUMPING FLOOR
IN OFFICE/GATEHOUSE
SUBTOTAL
AT TRANSFER STATION
IN YARD
ON VEHICLE
NEXT TO VEHICLE
SUBTOTAL
AT RECYCLING STATION
IN PLANT
SUBTOTAL
AT HEADQUARTERS
IN YARD PARKING LOT
IN SHOP/GARAGE
IN OFFICE
ON VEHICLE
NEXT TO VEH
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
AT UASHRACK
ON STEP OF VEH
AT REFUELING STATION
SUBTOTAL
IN ROADWAY/FIELD
SUBTOTAL
AT OTHER SITE
AT UNKNOWN SITE
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
735
623
256
79
77
20
15*445
2*002
447
398
252
82
60
20
3*281
168
46
20
234
1*380
1*380
6*762
900
845
814
757
159
142
41
12*586
3*086
557
685
0.29
0,25
0,10
0,03
0.03
0,01
6.12
0,79
0,18
0,16
0,10
0,03
0.02
0,01
1,30
0,07
0,02
0,01
0,09
0.94
0.94
2.68
0.76
0.36
0,33
0,32
0,30
0.06
0.06
0.02
4.98
1.22
0,22
0,27
252*508 100,00
103
-------
PAGE 1
FIGURE 2-10A
ALL USERS
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
PORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
FINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
SES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST WORKDAY*
RMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
STRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
E AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
TYPE OF INJURY NO. %
RAIN OR STRAIN 339 37.21
IT/PUNCTURE 206 22.61
;UISE 169 18.55
'ING 31 3.40
'E IRRITATION 30 3.29
JACTURE 25 2.74
JRASIONS 18 1.98
[RMATITIS 16 1.76
JRN FROM HEAT 13 1.43
WNDWN TYPE OF INJURY 10 1.10
JLTIPLE INJURIES 9 0.99
nSONING OR ALLERGIC REACTION 8 0.88
HEMICAL BURN 7 0.77
EAT STROKErEXHAUSTION OR CRAMPS 7 0.77
[SLOCATION 5 0.55
FHER TYPE OF INJURY 4 0.44
3PHYXIATION OR DROWNING 3 0.33
iPUTATION 2 0.22
DNCUSSION 2 0,22
iRNIA .2 0.22
SECTION 2 0.22
^FLAMMATION OF THE JOINTS 2 0,22
-ECTRIC SHOCK 1 0,11
DTAL 911 100,00
104
-------
IR-I-B
FIGURE 2-1OB
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: A LOST DAYS CASE is ONE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE INCURRED
WORKDAYS LOST AND/OR LIGHT DUTY DAYS DUE TO THE ACCIDENT,
OSHA DAYS LOST
TYPE OF INJURY
NO,
SPRAIN OR STRAIN
BRUISE
CUT/PUNCTURE
FRACTURE
MULTIPLE INJURIES
DISLOCATION
BURN FROM HEAT
UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY
AMPUTATION
OTHER TYPE OF INJURY
EYE IRRITATION
.DERMATITIS
HERNIA
STING
CHEMICAL BURN
POISONING OR ALLERGIC REACTION
HEAT STROKE*EXHAUSTION OR CRAMPS
ABRASIONS
INFLAMMATION OF THE JOINTS
CONCUSSION
INFECTION
TOTAL
27601
922
493
472
207
127
86
82
75
59
39
37
37
27
27
27
21
14
6
5
2
5ť366
48.47
17.18
9,19
8.80
3.86
2,37
1,60
1.53
1.40
1.10
0.73
0,69
0.69
0,50
0.50
0,50
0.39
0.26
0.11
0.09
0,04
100.00
9,89
8,70
5,87
22.48
34,50
25,40
8,60
13,67
37.50
19,67
3,25
4,62 -
18,50
3,86
6,75
6,75
4,20
2,00
3,00
2.50
2,00
9,58
105
-------
FIGURE 2-10C
PAGE
ALL USERS
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
NITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
S (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)y AND LOST WORKDAYr
ANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED,
CT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSESy WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND
CONTINUATION BENEFITS 516
If 309
If241
lylSl
998
943
648
160
141
103
24
252>50S
42,84
16,37
11.37
8,82
7,68
3,13
1,53
1,29
1 , 1 1
0,91
0,39
0,75
0,60
0,52
0,49
0,46
0,40
0,37
0,26
0,06
0,06
0,04
0,01
100,00
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
319
245
139
891
2f 156
1*604
298
816
93
230
73
944
217
82
177
64
125
471
324
80
47
51
24
277
106
-------
IR-12B
FIGURE. 2-11 PAGE 1
ALL USERS
PARTS OF BODY INJURED RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIESr WORKDAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES , AND LOST WORKDAY,
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES, FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSESf WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G., INJURY LEAVE) ONLY,
INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
OSHA RECORDABLE
PART OF BODY
BACK
LEG
ARM
EYES
ANKLE
FOOT
FINGERS
KNEE
SHOULDER
HAND
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS
WRIST
CHEST
NECK
ELKOU
GROIN
TOES
INTERNAL ORGANS
FOREHEAD
ABDOMEN
HIPS
THUMB
CHEEK
MOUTH
EARS
SKULL
FACE
TRUNK
SCAUP
JAU
NOSE
UMK BODY f*ART
INJURIES
OSHA REC INJ
NO,
160
78
68
63
60
57
51
50
48
43
41
27
26
19
19
17
14
11
8
8
8
7
5
4
4
3
3
3
2
1
1
i.
%
17.56
8.56
7.46
6.92
6.59
6.26
5.60
5.49
5.27
4.72
4.50
2,96
2.85
2.09
2.09
1,87
1.54
1.21
0.00
0.83
0.83
0.77
0.55
0.44
0.44
O.33
O.33
O.33
O.22
0.11
0*11
0 . ą 1.
WORKDAYS LOST
PART OF BODY UIKDYS LOST AVG/LOST
BACK
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS
ANKLE
HAND
FOOT
SHOULDER
LEG
KNEE
CHEST
ARM
WRIST
FINGERS
GROIN
TOES
HIPS
NECK-
EYES
ELBOW
THUMB
ABDOMEN
SKULL
INTERNAL ORGANS
TRUNK
CHEEK
FOREHEAD
EARS
MOUTH
FACE
OTHER BODY PART-
SCALP
UNK BODY PART
TOTftL
NO.
1,384
461
387
375
367
336
313
281
201
192
192
164
121
108
99
83
68
52
48
42
21
21
18
8
8
7
3
2
2
1
l
=5 r 3<&<&
DIRECT COSTS
PART OF BODY DIRECT COSTS AVG COSTS/
7. WKDY CASE
25.79
8.59
7.21
6,99
6.84
6,26
5.83
5,24
3.75
3.58
3.58
3.06
2.25
2,01
1.84
1.55
1.27
0.97
0 . 89
0.78
0.39
0.39
0.34
0.15
0.15
0.13
O.O6
O.O4
O.O4
O. 02
O . 02
1 OO - OO '
10.56
18.44
8.00
13.39
10.79
9.88
7,45
8,78
11.82
7,68
11.29
7.45
11.00
12.00
19.80
5.93
2.72
5.20
9.60
7.00
7.00
4.20
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.OO
1 .50
1 .00
2.OO
i .00
1 . OO
^ - 3<3
BACK-
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS
FOOT
SHOULDER
HAND
KNEE
LEG
ANKLE
WRIST
ARM
FINGERS
GROIN
CHEST
EYES
HIPS
NECK
ELBOW
TOES
THUMB
SKULL
INTERNAL ORGANS
ABDOMEN
TRUNK
FOREHEAD
MOUTH
FACE
EARS
CHEEK
3CALP
OTHER BODY PftRT
ISJCISE:-
LJMK^ &rtx3ir f=-s*F*-r
AMT.
56,327
34,083
20,976
16,801
16,128
15,438
14,636
13,696
8,619
6,892
6,719
6,594
6,249
5,134
4,780
3,754
3,388
3,199
2,258
1,603
1,402
931
922
772
262
249
241
142
14O
<6s*
-t-4
^^ .
7. OSHA REC INJ
22.31
13.50
8,31
6.65
6.39
6.11
5.80
5.42
3,41
2.73
2.66
2,61
2.47
2.03
1.89
1.49
1.34
'1.27
0.89
0.64
0.56
0,37
0.37
0.31
O.10
O.1O
o. 10
o . oe>
o. o
-------
PROPOSED RECOMMENDED SAFE WORK RULES
FOR SOLID WASTE WORKERS
The following work rules were compiled from the data
sent in from IRIS users. All work rules received from users
were greatly appreciated, and any recommended improvements are
welcome.
These work rules are intended only to be suggestions.
They may not represent all aspects of the safety problem in the
solid waste management industry and should be adapted to indi-
vidual user's needs.
-------
DRIVING
1. Use seat belts.
2. Drive slowly over bumpy roads, chuckholes or humps, especially
if carrying passengers.
3. Watch out for low hanging branches or wires as well as other
objects close to the path of vehicle. Alert men riding on
rear steps of any of these approaching hazards by sounding
horn and reducing speed.
4. Use four-way flashers while collecting.
5. Loaded vehicles handle differently and require additional
caution when cornering and stopping.
6. Park as close to curb as possible to collect. Do not block
traffic.
7. Do not move vehicle forward until both helpers indicate that
they are securely standing on the steps.
8. Report any malfunctions promptly to the maintenance department,
9. If necessary to stop on an incline, set emergency brakes.
10. Always drive with extreme caution and reduced speed during
poor weather, when roadways are slippery due to rain, ice
or snow.
11. When braking on slippery roads, apply the brakes lightly
with a pumping action.
12. Maintain interval of one truck length between you and vehicle
ahead for each ten miles per hour of speed.
13. Drive in low gear on soft surfaces and going up or down steep
hills.
-------
RIDING
1. Do not operate the packer while riding on the step.
2. Do not ride on the hopper sill or in the hopper. Do not
ride on other vehicle parts that are not designed to carry
passengers (e.g., fenders, lift gates, running boards).
3. Only one person per step allowed.
4. Use proper stance with both feet on the step and both hands
firmly on the holding bar.
5. Keep hands and feet away from the hopper.
6. Containers should not be picked up while riding on the
truck.
7. Helpers should ride in cab if distance travelled is more
than a couple of blocks,or if roadway is narrow.
8. Keep steps free from waste, grease, ice and snow.
9. Watch out for low hanging tree branches or other obstacles
close to truck.
10. Do not give signal for truck to move until both you and your
partner are safely set in position.
-------
LIFTING
1. Size the weight by testing. Rock container with knee. Get
help if container is overweight.
2. Watch for jagged edges and unbalanced loads.
3. Remove any hazardous objects extending from container, e.g.,
lumber, wire, fencing, palm fronds, etc. Lighten load where
necessary by removing magazines or other heavy refuse.
4. In handling containers consider all of the following:
a. Be sure of firm fo ting, with your feet spaced about
shoulder width apart for side to side balance and one
foot slightly forward of the other for front to rear
balance.
b. Take a firm grip on the top edge of the container or
handle with one hand; tip the container, and grasp
the bottom edge with the other hand.
c. Keep your back straight. Bend your knees. Start the
main lift with your feet, lower legs, and arm; follow
through with your large upper leg muscles. Keep the
load close to your body. Avoid twisting your back to
move the load. When it is necessary to turn while
lifting, take a step with the load to avoid twisting
your back. The upper part of your leg may be used as
an assist when boosting the weight into the hopper.
d. Double or two-man lift should be used only when the
shape or weight of the load make it necessary, because
a double lift increases the hazards. When necessary
to use a double lift, lift together on signal.
5. Waterproof or plastic bags should be handled with care;
a. When lifting, keep the bags away from your body as
much as possible.
b. Watch for holes and protruding objects in the bags.
c. Test the weight of the bags as there may be heavy
objects hidden from view. In hot weather the bags
may stretch and tear.
d. Avoid placing your hands underneath the bags.
-------
6. Be extra careful of your grip when handling wet containers.
7. Wear gloves and long-sleeved shirts. It is also suggested
that you wear protective clothing such as chaps and aprons
for your legs.
8. When handling brush or lumber, be careful of thorns and
nails.
-------
LOADING
1. Do not throw containers.
2. Coordinate loading at the back of the packer so that not
more than one person is dumping at a time.
3. Wear eye protection.
4. Do not dump containers when packer is operating. Stand
to side of hopper with head turned.
5. Do not overload hopper; pack load as soon as hopper is
full.
6. Watch out for objects protruding from the hopper or falling
out.
7. Place the container on the edge of the hopper and roll or
shake as needed to empty.
8. When emptying containers, keep your fingers out of positions
where they can be pinched between the container and the hopper,
9. Do not load the packer body above the recommended weight
allowance.
10. Look both ways when walking from in back of truck into
traffic.
-------
MOUNTING/DISMOUNTING
1. Never get on or off the vehicle if the vehicle is still
in motion.
2. Never jump on or off the vehicle.
3. When stepping on the vehicle, obtain a secure grip on the
handholds, step firmly and shift the body weight evenly.
4. Keep steps free of waste, oil, ice and snow.
5. Open the cab door completely before mounting or dismounting,
6. Observe the surface you are dismounting onto for;
a. Loose objects (e.g., rocks, waste on ground).
b. Slippery substances (e.g., ice, oil, water).
c. Change in levels (e.g., meter, drainage hole, curb,
cracks in sidewalk, chuckhole).
7. Wear safety shoes.
-------
OPERATING PACKING MECHANISM
1. Other helpers are made aware by agreed signal that operator
is ready to operate the packer.
2. Other helpers are not at the back of the truck when the
packer is operating.
3. Operator should wear eye protection.
4. Operator should turn head away from hopper.
5. If lever is located on the right side, use left hand to
operate; if on left, use right hand.
6. Never rest hand on hopper rail while packer is operating.
7. Do not attempt to catch waste that is falling out of the
hopper when blade is in motion.
8. Do not attempt to push waste that is falling out the back.
9. Avoid branches or wood that may be swinging around when
the packer is in motion.
-------
BACKING
1. Drivers should back out of traffic rather than backing into
it. For example, back into dead end streets, and drive out.
2. Do not back up an incline.
3. In a one-man operation, driver should walk to rear of vehicle
to see if area is clear; slowly back up, and blow horn; check
both rear view mirrors while backing.
4. In a two-or-more man operation;
a. Helper may not ride on step as truck is backing.
b. Use helper to guide in backing.
c. Helper should have clear view of ground over which
truck is backing.
d. Helper should use hand signals rather than voice or
whistle.
e. Helper should be located in a position that is visible
directly to the driver or visible in one of the rear
view mirrors.
f. Helper should maintain eye contact with the driver.
g. Where possible, helper should station himself at the
point where the backing maneuver is to end.
h. Helper should not walk backwards while directing
vehicle in backing.
i. Driver should not back up unless he also knows where
additional helpers are located.
j. Back up slowly and blow horn.
k. if helper should disappear from view, stop the truck
immediately and do not resume backing until he is
again in view and in a position to signal properly.
-------
DUMPING VEHICLE
1. Make sure truck is on level ground when raising back end
to dump load/ as truck could tip over.
2. Make sure no one else is standing near rear door.
3. Release excess pressure in packer body before opening by
pulling the ejector blade as far forward toward the cab
as possible.
4. Open tailgate with caution; stand clear of swing path of
door when opening.
5. When dumping the load, stay clear of the back; do not at
any time stand under the open tailgate.
6. Before moving vehicle from dump site, latches and turn-
buckles must be secure.
\
7. Whenever it is necessary to clear blade of waste, use
extreme caution. Use long object (e.g., wood), and at
all times protect upper part of body by keeping it clear
of tailgate.
8. Wear eye protection.
9. Allow at least distance of six feet between the next
vehicle.
10. Helpers should only ride in the cab, not on the step,
while at the landfill or transfer station.
-------
Accident Trends
4th Quarter 1976
-------
EXHIBIT 5
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
CONTAINER HANDLING ACCIDENTS
QUARTER: OCTOBER 1 TO DECEMBER 3L 1976
DEVELOPED BY SAFETY SCIENCES, DIVISION OF WSA, INC,
FOR THE U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
UNDER CONTRACT No, 68-03-0231
Division of VISA Inc. ,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San 01ego, CA 92121 (7H) 755-9359 S 452-1010
-------
Accident Trends in the Solid Waste Management Industry is
developed quarterly using data from IRIS (the Injury Re-
porting and Information System for Solid Waste Management).
Accident Trends is designed to summarize and discuss the
data from all IRIS users and to provide data and conclusions
which affect the industry as a whole. A companion volume,
the QSMR (Quarterly Safety Management Report), is developed
individually for each IRIS user who reported injuries during
the quarter. Each QSMR concentrates only on the injuries of
the individual IRIS user for which it is prepared.
IRIS is currently made up of 84 users. All possible care is
taken to insure data quality. The nature of the data and the
reports, however, precludes complete accuracy. Not all cases
are closed by the end of the quarter. These accidents con-
tinue to be monitored. Occasionally, full lost time and cost
data is not available. Consequently, the totals for these
categories may be underestimates. A concerted effort is made
to correct the lost time and cost figures and improve IRIS
collection methods. The recommendations and countermeasures
presented are suggestions that must be evaluated in terms of
individual user's needs.
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications is to dis-
seminate new ideas and alternative methods in the solid waste
field. IRIS serves as a clearinghouse in this regard, but
does not promote or endorse any method or product. Implemen-
tation of QSMR suggestions should be done only after careful
evaluation by each user and at each user's discretion.
-------
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
QUARTER: OCTOBER 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1976
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ....................... V
I. DISCUSSION OF CONTAINER HANDLING ACCIDENTS
AND PREVENTION METHODS ............. 1-1
1. Employee Training ............. 1-1
1.1 Testing the Container ...ť .... 1-2
1.2 Proper Lifting Techniques ...... 1-5
1.3 Proper Dumping Techniques ...... 1-5
1.4 Proper Carrying Techniques ...... 1-6
1.5 Training for Intermediate
Containers . ....... 1-6
1.6 Team Lifting and Dumping 1-7
1.7 Proper Bulk Container Handling . . . . 1-7
2. Protective Clothing ............ 1-8
2.1 Gloves ................ 1-10
2.2 Footwear ....... 1-11
2.3 Eye Protection ............ 1-12
2.4 Leg Protection ............ 1-13
2.5 High Visibility Clothing 1-14
3. Container Regulations ........... 1-14
3.1 Container Weight Limit ........ 1-14
3.2 Container Size Limit ......... 1-20
3.3 Container Type ............ 1-20
3.4 Container Condition 1-20
3.5 Waste Regulations ..... 1-21
3.6 Lid Requirement 1-22
3.7 Container Location . 1-22
3.8 Public Acceptance Campaign ...... 1-23
3.9 Enforcement 1-23
3.10 Supervision on the Route ....... 1-24
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4. Altering. Operational Procedures ...... 1-24
4.1 Collection Methods 1-24
4.2 Altering Safety Rules ........ 1-27
4.3 Employee Performance Records 1-27
4.4 Redesigning Safety Program ...... 1-27
II. FOURTH QUARTER IRIS USER INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA . . 2-1
ill
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1
FIGURE 1-2
FIGURE 1-3
FIGURE 1-4
FIGURE 1-5
FIGURE 1-6
FIGURE 1-7
FIGURE 1-8
FIGURE 1-9
FIGURE 1-10
FIGURE 1-11
FIGURE 2-1
FIGURE 2-2
FIGURE 2-3
FIGURE 2-4
FIGURE 2-5
Page
Employee Training ....... 1-3
Protective Clothing ............ 1-9
Container Regulations ........... 1-15
Container Regulations of IRIS Users .... 1-16
Altering Operational Procedures ...... 1-26
Container Related Accidents - Preliminary
Task/Hazard Analysis ........... 1-29
Detailed Description of Lifting Container
Accidents ................. 1-37
Detailed Description of Dumping Container
Accidents ................. 1-48
Detailed Description of Lifting to Dump
Container Accidents ...... 1-59
Detailed Description of Carrying Container
Accidents 1-69
Detailed Description of Pushing or
Pulling Container Accidents ........ 1-76
Description of Users by Operational
Characteristics .............. 2-4
Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity, and Costs ............ 2-11
Comparison of Injury Rates and OSHA
Days Lost for All Users 2-13
Comparison of Direct Costs by Reporting
Period for All Users ........... 2-16
Summary of Accidents Factors for
Selected Accident Characteristics with
Highest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct
Costs 2-19
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
This is the Accident Trends report for the fourth
quarter of 1976 (October 1 to December 31). This report is
divided into two sections, a discussion of the special feature
topic, container handling accidents and their preventative
measures and a summary of the data for the quarter. Section I
includes a Preliminary Task/Hazards Analysis for container
handling accidents. The discussion in Section I will encom-
pass all .container handling accidents since the instigation
of IRIS in December 1975, but Section II relates only the
rates and figures applicable to the fourth quarter of 1976.
Of the 81 IRIS users on-line fourth quarter, 80
users reported 1,547 injuries. Since the injury rates are
based on man-hours of exposure, they reflect the various
start-up periods of the IRIS users.
The time lost and direct costs shown on the FIGURES
were provided as of May 1, the "closing date" for receiving
data for the fourth quarter. Any cases where the time lost
or direct cost data are incomplete are being monitored for
updating.
v
-------
SECTION I
DISCUSSION OF CONTAINER HANDLING ACCIDENTS
AND PREVENTION METHODS
Since the solid waste industry deals almost solely in
handling containers of waste, IRIS is examining these activities
(e.g., lifting, dumping, carrying, etc.) that resulted in injury
in the fourth quarter Accident Trends report. A condensed version
of the following discussion is given in FIGURE 1-6, the Prelim-
inary Task/Hazards Analysis for container handling accidents.
During the 13 months (December 1975 - December 1976)
of operation of IRIS, container handling accidents resulted in
1,868 (50%) OSHA recordable injuries, 14,111 (47%) days lost
and $638,481 (41%) in direct costs. FIGURES 1-7 through 1-11
included at the end of Section I provide detailed descriptions
of the container handling accidents. Each FIGURE features a
specific container handling task, and the FIGURES are ordered
from the highest frequency of injury to the lowest. The descrip-
tions are given in profile form (i.e., sentence) and includes the
activity, accident type, injury type and part of body. The
FIGURES also provide the total number of injuries, days lost
and direct costs that correspond to each profile.
The following discussion is divided into four types
of preventative measures that are components in reducing con-
tainer handling accidents: employee training, protective
clothing, container regulations and altering operational
procedures.
1. EMPLOYEE TRAINING
Specific training in proper container handling should
be provided as part of the newly hired employee's orientation
program. Preliminary training should be provided at the office
first rather than on the route and should be accompanied with
visual demonstrations. Many users employ slides, films, charts
or props (e.g., models of the spine) to reinforce their training,
The newly hired employee should also "run through" the motions
of lifting or dumping the container with the instructor crit-
ically evaluating his motions until his movements are corrected.
Then the employee can be put on the route with an experienced
employee as his team mate for a set number of days to test what
1-1
-------
he learned. The team mate, of course, should be an employee
who observes the prescribed container handling procedures.
Another area of concern in employee training is
supervision on the route to ensure that what the employees
learn is being used. Supervisors should take the attitude
that they are responsible for the safety of their employees,
and, therefore, should correct any unsafe acts observed by
demonstrating the correct methods. Another reinforcement
technique tested by some users is to take "candid" photos
of the employees violating safe procedures and using them
in the weekly safety tailgate sessions.
Specific areas of employee training for container
handling accidents are given in FIGURE 1-1.
1.1 Testing the Container
Testing the container prior to lifting is a simple
and quick operation that will prevent the employee from being
"surprised" by a heavy container. Since it is believed that
the unexpectedness of the occasional heavy container the em-
ployee encounters causes the employee to overexert himself,
the employee should test the container for possible hidden
rocks or water at the bottom. Once he has determined its
weight, he can decide whether to leave the container if it
is above the weight limit regulation or to ask the aid of a
coworker if it is heavy but within the weight limit. In 21.51
of the container handling accidents, the container was indi-
cated as heavy. These accidents resulted in 28% of the days
lost and 28% of the direct costs.
Testing or "bumping" the container to determine its
weight involves pushing the container away from the body, near
the top, with the fingertips of the right hand, if right handed
It only requires tipping the container approximately 30% from
the vertical and observing its rocking motion as it steadies.
With practice, experienced waste collectors can approximate
the container's weight within 5 Ibs. They can determine its
weight by the amount of resistance to the push as well as
the angle of the rocking motion. The heavier the container,
the less it rocks.
1-2
-------
FIGURE 1-1
CONTAINER HANDLING COUNTERMEASURES
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
1. TESTING THE CONTAINER
a. feump container with hand
b. Observe rocking motion
2. PROPER LIFTING TECHNIQUES
a. Avoid inclined or slippery surfaces
b. Feet placement - shoulder length apart, one
foot forward
c. Firm grip
d. Straight back
e. Knees bent
f. Slow steady lift
g. Keep container close to body, elbows tucked
h. Avoid jerking or twisting
i. D.o not throw
3. PROPER DUMPING TECHNIQUES
a. Firm grip
b. Avoid twisting
c. Do not lift too high
d. Bring down on edge of hopper
e. Do not dump while hopper is operating
f. Do not shake
g. Do not overfill hopper
4. PROPER CARRYING TECHNIQUES
a. Routing - avoid hazardous surfaces
b. Keep container close to body
c. Keep back straight
5. TRAINING FOR INTERMEDIATE CONTAINERS
a. proper carrying of tote barrels
b. pushing or pulling training for wheeled carts
c. proper lifting techniques
d. proper dumping techniques
6. TEAM LIFTING AND DUMPING
a. One person supervises
b. Done in unison on signal
1-3
-------
FIGURE 1-1 (Continued)
7. PROPER BULK CONTAINER HANDLING
a. TWO man crew
b. One man directs
c. Push away rather than pull
d. Keep hands and feet away, from pinch points
8. CLEANING SPILLED WASTE
1-4
-------
1.2 Proper Lifting Techniques
Currently, there is a controversy concerning utilizing
deep knee bends in lifting due to possible knee injury as the
result of frequent practice. The general consensus appears to
be the rule of "if the container tests as being heavy, use the
deep knee bends." Otherwise, use the method "most comfortable"
for the individual. But the other proper lifting technique
rules should be observed during any lifting procedure. They
include keeping the feet shoulder length apart with one foot
forward, maintaining a firm grip at all times and keeping the
back straight with the elbows tucked. At no time should the
employee throw the container, jerk the container up or twist
his body while lifting.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of the container handling
accidents occurred as the employee was lifting or lifting-to-
dump a container. They resulted in 48% of the days lost and
50% of the direct costs.
1. 3 Proper Dumping Techniques
Nearly a quarter of the container handling injuries
occurred as the employee was dumping the container. This in-
dicates a need for specific dumping training, which is not
normally provided at an organization.
Proper dumping training includes maintaining a firm
grip on the container, keeping the hands away from pinch points
(e.g., caught between the container and the edge of the hopper
resulted in 10% of the dumping accidents) and not dumping with
the container held too high. Several users train their em-
ployees to bang the edge of the container, with the container
upright, against the edge of the hopper. This shakes the
waste out, thus not requiring the employee to hold and shake
the container to loosen stuck waste. Shaking the container
puts strain on the back. The container should not be held
high when dumping as this will allow waste to spill out onto
the employee and possibly cause overexertions when tilting
the body away from the center of gravity. Employees should
avoid twisting motions; rather than lifting and dumping from
the curb, they should take a step closer to the hopper.
Other dumping hazards include objects being ejected
from the hopper (5% of dumping accidents) and being struck by
waste falling from the hopper or the container (8%) . Employees
should not be allowed to dump into an operating hopper. For
1-5
-------
packers with hoppers that raise when operating, it means em-
ployees are dumping into a higher sill height, thus increasing
overexertion accidents, if they attempt to dump into the hopper
before it finishes cycling. For this reason, also, employees
on side loader crews should be encouraged to use the loading
step, thus reducing the sill height. Employees should not
overfill the hopper. Overfilling the hopper increases the
likelihood of objects falling from the hopper or bouncing out
of the container onto the employee and objects being ejected
as the packer cycles.
1.4 Proper Carrying Techniques
In 13% of the container handling accidents, the em-
ployee was carrying a container, and 40% of the carrying con-
tainer accidents resulted in slips and falls.
The slips and falls that occurred as employees were
carrying containers indicate routing as a major training area
to concentrate. Employees can be trained to first "look over"
the terrain for possible hazardous areas (e.g., oil spots, ice
patches, wet grass, sprinkler heads, meter holes, objects on
the ground, etc.) and plan their paths to avoid the hazards.
In addition, they should keep the container close to their
body with their elbows tucked and back straight.
1.5 Training for Intermediate Containers
Because intermediate containers were designed to
carry more than one container full of waste, they are nec-
essarily heavier and bulkier than regular household containers
handled by curbside collectors. Therefore, their handling re-
quires special training. For instance, with tote barrels, em-
ployees have one option of carrying the container on the
shoulder. Without proper training, the employee is likely
to drop the container or sustain a back strain maneuvering
it onto his shoulder.
Intermediate containers were involved in 5% of the
container handling accidents. But the numbers given for bulk
containers and intermediate containers, although low, are
significant due to their low hours of exposure.
1-6
-------
1.6 Team Lifting and Dumping
IRIS encourages asking the aid of a coworker to help
handle a particularly heavy or bulky container. However, IRIS
also recognizes the problems associated with coordination be-
tween coworkers in a mutual effort. Therefore, IRIS encourages
specific training in team lifting and dumping. In particular,
the effort must be a united one such that both employees are
lifting, pushing or dumping together. This requires one em-
ployee to give the command signals and both employees to obey
the signals simultaneously- Team coordination training is
particularly important for frequent two-man operations such
as in handling bulky items and commercial bins.
1.7 Proper Bulk Container Handling
Half of the pushing or pulling container accidents
involved bulk containers which were not handled with a coworker.
Due to their massiveness many problems are encountered when
maneuvering the bulk containers into dumping position (e.g.,
wheels stuck in pot hole, lost control of it on incline,
rolling it over foot, caught between container and vehicle or
wall). IRIS recommends that commercial bins be maneuvered by
two-man crews. Of note is the increased severity and costs of
the overexertions while pushing or pulling bulk containers. It
resulted in 24% of the pushing or pulling container accidents,
57% of the days lost and 56% of the direct costs. As with any
team operation, one of the employees should give the signals
and both employees act in unison.
In 11% of the pushing/pulling container accidents,
the employee was caught between the container and wall or
vehicle, and in another 4% the employee rolled the bin over his
foot. The employees should push rather than pull the bins,
thus avoiding placing body parts in pinch points. They should
push in increments in order to tilt their center of gravity as
little as possible.
Another pinch point hazard is with the bulk container
lids falling and catching the employee's hand (4%). The bins
should not be moved if the lid is in an open position; the lid
should be closed first, and hands should never be placed in
pinch points.
To reduce slips and falls, employees should clean up
spilled waste immediately. Each truck can be provided with a
broom and dust pan to facilitate this.
1-7
-------
A last item to consider in employee training is
retraining. With experience, employees are not necessarily
safer. Any training should be followed by periodic monitor-
ing and reinforcement. Some users set a prescribed time
span such as six months for mandatory safety retraining of
their employees. Others require that if an employee has been
given more than three written warnings for a specific safety
violation, such as not lifting correctly, he has to re-enroll
in that safety training class. Still others require that if
an employee sustains a back injury while lifting, he has to
be retrained in the correct lifting methods. Users can and
do incorporate variations of the above methods as well as
combinations of them in their safety programs.
2. PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
When choosing personal protective equipment for em-
ployees, several factors need to be considered:
1. The degree of protection it affords.
2. The ease and comfort with which it can
be worn.
3. Acceptance by the employees. This includes
employee awareness as to its necessity as
well as policies for its frequency of use,
4. Supervision to insure that employees use and
maintain the equipment properly.
5. Replacement when worn.
IRIS is presently taking a poll of the users on what
types of protective clothing are being provided to the employees,
their effectiveness, what users recommend, etc. This more de-
tailed discussion of personal protective equipment will be pub-
lished later in a special report.
In the following discussion of specific protective
clothing, the protective clothing will be related to specific
accident hazards, and cost effectiveness may, therefore, be
reviewed.
1-8
-------
FIGURE 1-2
CONTAINER HANDLING COUNTERMEASURES
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
1. GLOVES
a. Slip Resistant
b. Durable
2. FOOTWEAR
a. Slip Resistant
b. Durable
c. High Ankled
d. Steel Toed
3. EYE PROTECTION
a. Impact Resistance
b. Side Protection
c. Aeration
4. HIGH VISIBILITY CLOTHING
a. Traffic Vest
b. Bright Colored Clothes
1-9
-------
2.1 Gloves
Obviously, cuts to the hands from sharp objects in
the plastic bag, sharp waste falling from a container when
dumping, and ragged edges on containers can be reduced through
the use of gloves by employees. These accidents resulted in
2.8% of the direct costs ($18,031) for container handling
accidents during this reporting period. However, it must be
emphasized that indirect costs such as the injured employee's
time, witness time, supervisory time, etc. is not taken into
consideration.
Other accidents in which gloves could have been a
contributing factor in reducing their incidence were: dropping
containers while carrying, lifting, etc. and bruising fingers
or hand when caught hand between container and vehicle while
dumping. These accidents resulted in 2% of the direct costs
($24,105).
What users look for in a good pair of work gloves
is:
1. Slip resistance to provide adequate grip on
containers, especially during wet weather.
What some users do to resolve this issue
is to provide two pairs of gloves, one
leather and one rubber, with the rubber pair
to be used during wet weather. The leather
pair, or normal wear pair, is usually made of
canvas material with leather or suede inset
for slip resistance.
2. Durability is better provided by the leather
or suede. Users normally have a policy of
replacing the gloves as soon as they are worn
rather than on a regular schedule.
3. Protection to fingers and hands from sharp
objects can be better provided with gloves
that have wire mesh. However, the degree of
protection must be weighed against whether
heavier gloves will interfere in the employees'
movements as well as the added cost. The
length of the glove should also be considered.
Gloves which expose the employees' wrists to
cuts will not protect the employees during
dumping operations where waste may puncture
their wrists or fall into the gloves.
1-10
-------
2.2 Footwear
Many users do not provide their employees with
safety shoes but do provide discounts on certain brands
of safety shoes, instead. This was their compromise to
what they considered as exorbitant costs. Of course,
their safety rules and regulations at least specify that
the employees wear leather shoes with hard soles, and not
allow canvas shoes or sandals. Punitive measures for
violations for users include written reprimands and dis-
missals for the day. Other users feel that the degree of
protection provided to their employees far outbalance
the cost. Other side benefits of providing protective
footwear is the increased morale of the employees, which
can be a factor in reducing injury rates at an organization.
When considering purchasing footwear or providing
discounts, the following safety shoe characteristics should
be examined:
1. Slip resistance of the shoe is dependent
not only on the material of the shoe sole
but also on the pattern of grooves, notches,
spikes, etc. Climatic conditions (e.g.,
snow, ice, rain) at an organization must
be considered when deciding on the degree
of slip resistance required. Several users
provide more than one kind of safety shoes
to allow for prolonged inclement weather,
issuing shoes with higher slip resistance
for the winter months. Users also provide
a separate pair of rubber boots for wet
weather. The problem with high slip
resistance is that the shoes are adapted to
a slippery surface and cannot be used in
good weather. Otherwise, the employees'
feet will "stick" to the pavement and cause
increased knee problems. One user provides
"ice creepers" or cleats that strap onto
safety shoes to give better grip when
walking on ice or snow.
Slips and falls accounted for 12% of the OSHA
recordable..injuries, 14% of the days lost,
and 14% of the direct.costs as employees were
handling containers. A further discussion
of slips and falls is planned for the first
quarter Accident Trends.
1-11
-------
2. Durability with use, depending on the
type of terrain an employee encounters
on the route. To test durability, many
users test the different safety shoes
on the route with a certain section of
the employees wearing a certain type.
3. Ankle protection is provided by high
ankled safety shoes not only against
sprained ankles but also against cuts
to ankles from falling waste. There were
59 cases of sprained ankles, resulting in
324 days lost and $14,076 in direct costs.
4. Steel toed safety shoes are standard equip-
ment in industries where the employees are
handling heavy materials which may fall and
crush their toes. In the solid waste indus-
try, toes may even be amputated when an
employee's foot gets caught by the hopper
blade while riding. Steel toe impact resis-
tance is addressed by ANSI (American National
Standards Institute) standards covering
safety shoes in the "American National Stand-
ard for Men's Safety-Toe Footwear," (ANSI Z41.1-
1967, reaffirmed 1972).
2.3 Eye Protection
Eye injuries have the potential to be one of the most
costly injuries in the solid waste industry. Fortunately,
most eye injuries only result in scratches and irritation.
The employees are frequently exposed to this injury when work-
ing near the hopper, where objects are being ejected from the
operating packing mechanism. Eye protection is strongly
recommended for these employees. In 2% of the OSHA recordable
injuries, the employees were struck in the eye by an object
ejected from the hopper. These accidents resulted in 1% days
lost and 1% direct costs. Another 10% of the accidents were
from waste or airborne particles getting into the employee's
eye.
Many users recognize the need for this protection and
provide safety glasses or goggles to their employees free of
charge and replace them regularly. Some users, however, only
provide safety prescription glasses.
1-12
-------
Some guidelines to consider in choosing eye pro-
tection include:
1. Its impact resistance should be such that
it cannot easily be shattered. Safety
glass lens must be made of plastic rather
than glass so that glass slivers cannot
penetrate the eye upon the lens shattering.
2. Safety glasses can protect against objects
being ejected from the hopper but glasses
with side protection would, in addition, aid
in the reduction of objects getting in the
eye on windy days or in unpaved areas.
3. Aeration is important in gaining acceptance
of goggles by the employees since a common
complaint of goggles is that they mist up
on hot days and become wet and slippery,
particularly to employees unused to wearing
glasses. Some users find that providing
their employees with sweat bands reduces
this problem. Certain types of goggles are
provided with holes on the sides to allow
some air flow. Another complaint that has
not resolved by glasses design is that in
arid climates, the glasses or goggles tend
to have dust cling to them, which reduces
visibility. Eye protection also tends to
fog up on cold mornings or in cold weather.
Eye glass suppliers do have anti-fogging
sprays or rubbing cloths to alleviate this
problem.
2.4 Leg Protection
Leg protection can reduce the cuts to the legs
caused by sharp objects (mainly glass) protruding from plas-
tic bags or from the ragged edges of cans. These accidents
resulted in 1% of the days lost and 2% of the direct costs.
Two types of leg protection are in use: leather^
aprons and "chaps." However, employee acceptance to them is
low because they are bulky, heavy and tend to be hot on warm
days. For many users, these characteristics, along with the
high costs, outweighed their effectiveness. Users instead
provide their employees with pants or jumpsuits of a certain
weight of material that affords some degree of protection
against cuts.
1-13
-------
2.5 High Visibility Clothing
Although traffic accidents involving private vehicles
striking employees have not been frequent (3% injuries, 23%
days lost and 2% direct costs) , the potential for serious
injury such as death is very apparent. Therefore, high visi-
bility clothing for the employees is recommended, particularly
if the employees are allowed to pick up from Doth sides of the
street or are working during dawn or dusk hours.
Users utilize several types of high visibility clothing:
1. Orange traffic vests.
2. Bright colored (e.g., light blue, orange)
jumpsuits.
3. Orange shirts.
Providing appealing as well as safety oriented
uniforms have proven to be effective in increasing employee
morale, also. Some users go a step further by embroidering
the employee's name on his shirt or jumpsuit and providing
summer as well as winter uniforms.
3. CONTAINER REGULATIONS
Container regulations covering size, weight, con-
dition and location are standard at organizations. However,
as to how specific the regulations are or what upper limits
are placed, they vary greatly from organization to organiza-
tion. FIGURE 1-4 details the container regulations in use
by IRIS users.
Detailed container regulations are necessary as
one of the components in making the work environment safer
for the sanitation employee, especially since the employee's
major task involves handling containers.
3.1 Container Weight Limit
As shown in FIGURE 1-4, the container weight limit
of IRIS users (if there was one) ranged from a high of 130
Ibs. to a low of 45 Ibs. for a 32 gallon container. In 21.5%
of the container handling accidents, the employee was lifting,
carrying or dumping a "heavy" container. These accidents re-
sulted in 28% of the days lost and 28% of the direct costs.
-------
FIGURE 1-3
CONTAINER HANDLING COUNTERMEASURES
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
1. CONTAINER WEIGHT LIMIT
a. Maximum weight for cans
b. Maximum weight for plastic bags
2. CONTAINER SIZE LIMIT
a. Maximum gallons
b. Maximum dimensions
3. CONTAINER TYPE
a. Not allowing oil drums
b. Not allowing cardboard boxes
c. Plastic bags must be of a certain
thickness
4. CONTAINER CONDITION
a. Replace if have ragged edges
b. Replace if have missing handles
c. Plastic bags must be tied
d. Replace if have holes on bottom
5. WASTE REGULATIONS
a. Bundle waste
b. Bulky waste require special collection
c. Handling of hazardous wastes
6. LID REQUIREMENT
7. CONTAINER LOCATION
a. Level surface
b. Public address announcements
8. PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE CAMPAIGN
a. Leaflets
b. Public address announcements
9. ENFORCEMENT
a. Tagging and leaving containers
violating regulations
b. Citations for Repeated Violators
10. SUPERVISION ON THE ROUTE
1-15
-------
FIGURE 1-4
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OF IRIS USERS
USER NO.
101
103
109
111
113
115
125
133
140
141
146
148
149
152
157
161
170
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
CONTAINER SIZE
30 gal.
30 gal.
20-32 gal.
45 gal.
30 gal.
30 gal.
35 gal.
32 gal.
30 gal.
32 gal.
10-30 gal.
10-30 gal.
15 gal.
None
32 gal.
20 gal.
20-30 gal.
20-32 gal.
10-30 gal.
40 gal.
30 gal.
27 gal.
None
32 gal.
WEIGHT
LIMIT
60
65
100
80
60
60
75
70
100
None
50
70
65
None
75
60
70
100
60
82
50
60
100
75
LID
REQUIRED
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
HANDLES
REQUIRED
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
1-16
-------
FIGURE 1-4 (continued)
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OF IRIS USERS
USER NO.
186
191
197
201
204
207
210
211
215
217
221
226
235
236
237
242
244
260
261
265
272
275
283
285
CONTAINER SIZE
30 gal.
10-32 gal.
32 gal.
32 gal.
80 gal.
31 gal.
20-40 gal.
None
None
30 gal.
20-45 gal.
32 gal.
32 gal.
10-30 gal.
20-32 gal.
30 gal.
32 gal.
32 gal.
20 gal.
30 gal.
None
32 gal.
32 gal.
35 gal.
WEIGHT
LIMIT
75
70
60
130
None
65
50
85
40
75
80
75
None
50
75
100
75
70
75
60
75
50
45
50
LID
REQUIRED
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
HANDLES
REQUIRED
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
1-17
-------
FIGURE 1-4 (continued)
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OF IRIS USERS
USER NO.
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
357
358
359
360
362
363
CONTAINER SIZE
10-20 gal.
30 gal.
30 gal.
32 gal.
30 gal.
32 gal.
45 gal.
32 gal.
None
30-35 gal.
30 gal.
30 gal.
32 gal.
30 gal.
20 gal.
30 gal.
40 gal.
25 gal.
20 gal.
10-32 gal.
WEIGHT
LIMIT
60
70
50
60
60
60
50
60
50
50
40
50
80
None
70
50
75
50
50
None
LID
REQUIRED
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
HANDLES
REQUIRED
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
1-18
-------
FIGURE 1-4 (continued)
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OF IRIS USERS
USER NO.
292
295
296
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
CONTAINER SIZE
20-28" x
16-18"
30 gal.
20-40 gal.
32 gal.
2 cu. ft.
32 gal.
20" x 35"
20-30 gal.
32 gal.
30 gal.
20 gal.
20 gal.
32 gal.
20-32 gal.
32 gal.
30 gal.
10-25 gal.
None
None
None
None
None
27 gal.
20-32 gal.
WEIGHT
LIMIT
75
50
60
50
None
65
30
75
100
50
30
60
60
None
60
75
50
None
None
100
100
100
70
60
LID
REQUIRED
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
HANDLES
REQUIRED
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
1-19
-------
The weight of the containers not only is a contribu-
ting factor to overexertion accidents but also to slips and
falls when carrying and strains that develop over the course
of the day (not included in calculations).
Several users have also realized that lower weight
limits should be set for plastic bags as opposed to galvanized
or plastic cans. They set a 60 Ib. weight limit for plastic bags.
Problems encountered with plastic bags include the bags tearing
during hot weather or when something extra heavy is at the bottom
and the temptation on the employee's part to throw them.
3.2 Container Size Limit
The size allowed for cans and cardboard boxes are
related both to how much waste a householder can pack in
(weight) and to how awkward it will be for the employees to
handle. The average size limit for plastic or metal cans
among IRIS users was 30-32 gallons.
Users that allow backyard collection with the use
of intermediate containers need to examine their practice
with these hazards in mind since 'intermediate containers are
approximately twice the size of a customer's container, and
thus twice the weight.
3.3 Container Type
The type of container which is acceptable for pick
up should be specified in the container regulations in order
to rub out unsafe containers such as oil drums which are
heavy, bulky and without proper grip edges. Many users also
do not allow cardboard boxes to be used as a receptacle.
Problems encountered with cardboard boxes include the box
falling apart in wet weather, glass protruding from the sides,
waste protruding from the top, and staples protruding. If
cardboard boxes are allowed, the maximum accepted dimensions
should be specified. Plastic bags should be of a minimum
thickness. This not only reduces the number of injuries due
to the bags tearing but also better prevents objects from
protruding. The Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste Manage-
ment developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
recommends a change to the National Sanitation Foundation
standards on plastic bag minimum thickness from 1.5 to 2.0
mils.
3.4 Container Condition
An organization can also have regulations concerning
the condition of the container. For instance, many IRIS
users'.container regulations detail that containers with un-
1-20
-------
safe conditions (e.g., ragged edges, missing handles, holes
on the bottom, untied plastic bags, waste protruding) will
not be dumped. These conditions have to be corrected by re-
placing the unsafe container or by obeying the regulations.
One organization, upon examining their injury record,
made the determination that they need not require handles to be
on containers. Their injury record revealed that they had
very costly injuries when handles broke as employees were
lifting or dumping containers, resulting in back strains. There-
fore, they decided to instruct their employees not to maneuver
the containers by the handles. Each organization should examine
their injury records for similar trends.
3.5 Waste Regulations
Wastes such as brush and furniture and appliances
which cannot be containerized require separate regulations.
Many users require that brush be bundled, which will facil-
itate its pickup by the regular collection crews or by a
special brush collection crew that comes by more infrequently.
Furniture and appliances, however, usually require special
handling, and many users require that customers call up, re-
questing this service. The bulky item crew will then go out
and pick the item up, sometimes charging a fee. Other cities
combine brush and bulky item collection, while some will allow
customers to put anything out.
The National Solid Waste Management Association
developed a preliminary draft of the "Recommended Draft Guide-
lines for Householders in disposing of some difficult to
handle wastes on October 31, 1975:
Discarded Item Recommended Method
Aerosols It is recommended that the instructions on
the container be explicitly followed; for
example, "Do Not Puncture", "Do Not Incin-
erate", or whatever is noted. Aerosols
in addition to re-capped alcoholic beverage
and other bottles become a potential ex-
plosion hazard.
Broken Glass Sweep with hand brush and dust pan, collect
in paper sack, and deposit with trash. Wet
paper towel to collect small slivers.
Cleaning and Flush down toilet or drain.
Washing
Products
Gasoline Call fire department or solid waste disposal
facility for advice.
1-21
-------
Discarded Item Recommended Method (continued)
(continued)
Hypodermic Dispose of in separate, specially marked
Needles boxes or containers.
Liquids When in small quantities liquids can us-
ually be disposed of by flushing them
down the toilet or sink drain. For
householders with septic tanks and tile
fields and when disposing of more than
one-half gallon, it might be best to con-
sult the local solid wastes collection
and disposal organization or fire department
for advice.
Razor Blades Insert into slot on container for razor
blades. Otherwise wrap in several layers
of facial or toilet tissue and dispose with
other solid waste from household.
3.6 Lid Requirement
Almost all users required lids to be on containers
(FIGURE 1-4). The reasons behind this requirement are:
1. Lids will keep rain water or snow from entering
the containers, thus keeping containers from
getting overly heavy-
2. Lids keep insects and rodents out of the waste.
3. Lids can be used by the employees to compact
down protruding waste, thus avoiding the hazard
of cutting their hands on sharp waste.
3.7 Container Location
Container location regulations include both the acces-
sibility of the container and the surface conditions of its
location. For instance, surface conditions can specify that the
containers be located on a level surface. Slips and falls occur
more frequently on inclined surfaces which become even more
hazardous when the surfaces are wet, icy, snow covered or oily-
1-22
-------
A level surface requirement is especially important for bulk
containers which will be difficult to control when the con-
tainer has a tendency to roll. Accidents such as straining
backs when attempting to catch the bulk container and getting
hands caught between the container and wall can be reduced.
The surface should also not contain slippery material, such
as loose gravel.
The containers must be accessible. This means that
in backyard collection, regulations can include that the con-
tainers cannot be inside fenced yards with loose dogs or be-
hind locked gates. Neither should the containers be up a flight
of stairs or down in the basement. Many users have also out-
lawed recessed containers, which have resulted in back strains.
Another container location regulation is the distance
the container is from the street, whether the collection is
curbside, alley or backyard. Setting a maximum distance mini-
mizes how far the collector has to walk or carry.
3.8 Public Acceptance Campaign
To instigate an effective change in the container
regulations, they must be accompanied by a comprehensive public
acceptance campaign. Most users, when a customer starts collec-
tion service, provide the customer with a leaflet or brochure
on the rules and regulations. Giving reasons for why the
regulations were deemed necessary (e.g., reducing overexertion
injuries with low weight limit, protruding brush from containers
can get in an employee's eye, etc.) will make them more under-
standable and acceptable.
A separate leaflet should be developed to announce
a change to a regulation, also with the reasoning behind it
(e.g., changing from backyard to curbside to reduce operating
costs and therefore reduce fees to customers). Any major changes
in collection or container regulations should also be announced
through other media such as radio, television, and local news-
papers. Container rules and regulations that do not gain public
acceptance are useless.
3.9 Enforcement
To be effective, container regulations must also be
enforced, and enforcement details should be described in hand-
outs and public address announcements.
1-23
-------
Many users simply do not pick up containers or waste
that are in violation. However, to curb customer protests,
they tag the containers with the reasons they were left checked.
Some users utilize a color-coded system of tags denoting how
many times the same violation has occurred, with the third time
being the last time before pick up is discontinued. The users
also have the foreman of the area discuss violations with the
customers, to lessen the harshness as well as to clarify the
violations.
Some users go as far as to give out citations to
serious repeat offenders, levying a fine. However, what they
have found problems with is the slowness of their judicial
system which tended to negate the citation's effectiveness.
Enforcement is another means of insuring a safer work
environment for the sanitation employee. A tough enforcement
program boosts employee morale since they realize that their
safety is important to their employer.
3.10 Supervision on the Route
The employees while working should feel the influence
of their supervisor. Their immediate supervisor can and should
be made responsible for the safety of their employees. Super-
vision of the enforcement of container regulations includes not
allowing employees to pick up containers which are in violation
(e.g. have ragged edges, oil drums which are not allowed, etc.).
The supervisor should project the image of principally having
the welfare of his employees on his mind.
4. ALTERING OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
After reviewing the injury performance record at an
organization, management decisions to modify or alter the exist-
ing procedures should be made with reducing injuries and their
corresponding high costs in mind. Accidents which are frequent
with high costs(e.g. overexertions) as well as accidents that are
infrequent with high costs (e.g. amputations, vehicle accidents)
must be weighed against the projected costs of effecting the
change. Many users project eventual return on their initial
investment as far as five or ten years in the future.
4.1 Collection Methods
The following is a graduated listing of improvements
to a collection system. A particular organization can be located
at one or more steps (if they are phasing in a new system):
1. If backyard collection,provide intermediate
containers. Reduces collection time and
exposure to'slips and falls (average cost per
slip or fall injury was $583). Preliminary
1-24
-------
IRIS analysis indicates reduced rates for slips
and falls for backyard collection with tubs or
carts vs without:
OSHA
Incidence
Rate
Backyard without intermediate container - 31
Backyard with tub - 18
Backyard with wheeled cart - 13
2. Reduce size of intermediate containers.
Reduces weight and bulkiness in handling
intermediate containers, particularly tote
barrels.
3. Provide wheeled carts instead of tote barrels.
Reduces carrying accidents (e.g. slips and
falls, overexertions).
4. Change from backyard to curbside collection.
Reduces incidence of slips and falls:
OSHA
Incidence
Rate
Curbside and alley collection - 13
Backyard collection - 17
5. Change from task to fixed hour system or
modified task system (e.g. crews in section can
come in when all crews in section have finished).
Reduction in injury rates (see IRIS News, August
issue).
6. Change from curbside to semi-mechanical
collection (provide special wheeled carts to
customers, adapt equipment). Reduces exposure
to overexertion accidents (average cost per
overexertion injury was $596).
7. Change from semi-mechanical or curbside
collection to mechanical collection (provide
special containers, adapt or buy new equipment,
reduce crew size). Virtually eliminates
container handling (half of all accidents).
Preliminary IRIS analysis substantiates this:
OSHA
Incidence
Rate
Mechanical collection - 29
Curbside or alley collection - 59
Backyard collection - 94
1-25
-------
FIGURE 1-5
CONTAINER HANDLING COUNTERMEASURES
ALTERING OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
1. COLLECTION METHODS
a. If backyard collection without intermediate
containers, provide intermediate containers.
b. Reduce size of intermediate containers.
c. Provide wheeled carts instead of tote barrels.
d. Change from backyard to curbside collection.
e. Change from task to fixed hour system or modified
task system.
f. Change from curbside to semi-mechanical collection,
g. Change from semi-mechanical or curbside collection
to mechanical collection.
2. ALTERING SAFETY RULES
a. Requiring two man operation in handling bulk
containers.
b. Collect from one side of street at a time.
3. EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE RECORDS
a. Safety rule violations.
b. Training given.
c. Injury record - mandatory retraining.
d. Periodic retraining.
e. Pre-employment physical.
4. REDESIGNING SAFETY PROGRAM
a. Determining need.
b. Monitoring progress.
1-26
-------
4.2 Altering Safety Rules
Altering safety rules can include requiring a two
man operation for the handling of bulk containers (an average
bulk container handling accident costs $1,191) and having employees
only collect from one.side of the street at a time (an average
struck by vehicle accident costs $1,549).
4.3 Employee Performance Records
Many users that have active safety departments have
altered their personnel folders to include employee performance
records (e.g. safety rule violations, absenteeism, training
given, injury record, etc.) or set up separate filing systems.
They feel that examinations of employees' employment history
can give better insight into the injury causal factors as well
as allowing the safety department to identify and correct problems
more effectively.
Guidelines for effective corrective measure, however,
have to be developed also. For instance, employees who have
received five written safety rule violations (e.g. not wearing
safety shoes, collecting from other side of street, jamming
safety controls, etc.) can be suspended from work for a set
number of days without pay or dismissed.
What types of training and the dates an employee
received them should be kept track of in order to instigate a
thorough training and retraining program. Once an employee
receives a specific injury such as overexertion while lifting,
he can be retrained for correct lifting procedures. However,
this program should not replace a periodic retraining program
aimed at correcting the employee who has slipped back into bad
habits. This program is a long-termed and detailed program
that is done in-house.
Many users also require pre-employment physicals
(including back x-rays) that may show a previous back injury or
indicate congenital back problems. For instance, once these
back problems have been identified, these employees may be given
jobs that would reduce strain to their backs, or they may be
"targeted" for intensive overexertion training.
4.4 Redesigning Safety Program
The elements of a dynamic safety program include:
1. Determining need by examining injury records.
Comparisons with previous time periods and
other organizations with similar operations.
2. Effecting changes can include altering
operational procedures or safety rules once
a problem has been identified.
1-27
-------
3. Monitoring progress over time is necessary
to determine the effectiveness of any change
This is accomplished through the monitoring
of injuries.
1-28
-------
CONTAINER RELATED ACCIDENTS*
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
Percent of Total "
% No.
% Days
Lost
Percent of Task
% Direct
Costs
% No.
% Days
Lost
% Direct
Costs
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
1. LIFTING CONTAINER
14% 14% 13%
% of Cont. Accidents
29% 29% 32%
a. Overexertion
65% 67% 70%
(1) Heavy Container**
49% 54% 54%
(2) Large Container
(tote barrel,
cart, etc.)**
11% 10% 10%
(3) Interaction**
2% 3% 2%
b. Slipped or fell on wet,
icy, or oily surface
3% 2% 2%
c. Cut hand on rough
edges of cans or
objects protruding from
container
8% 15% 9%
Proper lifting tech-
niques
Test weight. Tag and
leave heavy containers
Ask aid of coworker.
Train on proper lifting
techniques and team
lifting.
Do not overfill inter-
mediate container. If
heavy, obtain aid.
Train on proper liftimj
techniques and team
lifting.
Team lifting coordin-
ation
Proper foot placement.
Container weight limit
Public acceptance
program.
Container size limits.
Slip resistant, high
ankled safety shoes.
Gloves
Change to mechanical
or semi-mechanical
collection
Same as above.
Change from backyard
to curbside or to
mechanical or semi-
mechanical collection
Change to mechanical
or semi-mechanical
collection.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Not allow containers
with ragged edges.
Require plastic bags
to be of a certain
thickness.
A recordable injuries, 30,258 days lost and $1,563,888 in direct
* IRIS reporting period was December 1975 to December 1976. It includes 3,763 OS ...... .
costs. Of these figures, 1,868 OSHA recordable injuries, 14.111 days lost and $638,481 in direct costs were incurred as employees were handling containers
** Overlapping numbers - 1 -
-------
CONTAINER RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Percent of Total
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
1. LIFTING CONTAINER
continued
2. DUMPING CONTAINER
in 9% 8%
% of Cont. Accidents
23% 19% 18%
HAZARDS
Percent of Task
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
d. Struck self with
container or objects
protruding from plastic
bags
6% 5% 6%
e. Dropped can on foot
2% 1% 2%
a. Overexertion
23% 41% 43%
(1) Heavy Container**
10% 14% 14%
(2) Large Container**
4% 5% 6%
b. Object in eye (not
ejected)
15% 1% 4%
c. Caught hand between
container and vehicle
10% 11% 7%
d. Struck by waste falling
from container or
hopper
8% 8% 9%
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
Proper lifting tech-
niques.
Proper lifting tech-
niques.
Proper dumping tech-
nique.
Proper dumping tech-
nique.
Do not overfill inter-
mediate containers.
Avert head while
dumping.
Proper dumping tech-
nique.
Do not overfill hopper
Do not raise container
too high.
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Leather apron or chaps
to protect legs.
Steel -toed safety
shoes. Slip resistant
gloves.
Eye protection.
Gloves.
Gloves. Safety shoes.
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
Require separate
handling of glass and
other sharp wastes.
Container weight
limits.
Container size limits.
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
Change to mechanical
or semi-mechanical
collection.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
I
U)
o
Overlapping numbers
- 2 -
-------
CONTAINER RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Percent of Total
% No. % Days X Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
2. DUMPING CONTAINER
continued
HAZARDS
Percent of Task
* No. X Days X Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
e. Struck against vehicle
756 4% 5X
f. Struck by waste ejected
from hopper
5% 1% 2%
g. Fell or slipped on wet,
icy or oily surface
3% 3% 4%
h. Struck by container
handled by coworker
2X
-------
CONTAINER RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
Percent of Total
Percent of TasR
% No.
Inj.
% Days
Lost
% DTrect
Costs
%No.
Inj.
% Days
Lost
% Direct
Costs
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
3. LIFTING TO DUMP
CONTAINER
10% 10% 8%
% of Cont. Accidents
20% 21% 19%
I
u>
tO
. Overexertion while
handling heavy
container
24% 40% 35%
b. Overexertion while
handling large contain-
er
3% 1% 1%
c. Overexertion while
handling multiple
containers.
-------
CONTAINER RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Percent of Total
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
Inj.
Lost
X Direct
Costs
% No.
Inj.
Percent of Task
% Days
Lost
% Direct
Costs
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
I
u>
U)
3. LIFTING TO DUMP
CONTAINER
continued
4. CARRYING CONTAINER
6% 7% 6%
% of Cont. Accidents
13% 15% 14%
Overlapping numbers
g. Twisting/ turning**
5% 8% 11%
h. Throwing plastic bags*1
14% 14% 12%
1. Slipping or falling on
wet, icy or oily
surfaces
4% 8% 8%
j. Struck by object
ejected from hopper
1% \% 1%
k. Dropped heavy container
on leg or foot
2% 2%
a. Slipped or fell
40% 42% 43%
(1) While handling
tote barrel**
13% 4% 3%
Proper lifting tech-
niques
Not allowing.
Proper foot placement.
Not allowing employees
at back of truck while
hopper is operating.
Test weight. Tag and
leave heavy containers
Routing. Proper carry
ing techniques.
Do not overfill.
Routing. Proper carry
ing techniques.
- 5 -
Slip resistant, high
ankled safety shoes.
Eye protection.
Slip resistant gloves.
Steel-toed safety
shoes.
Slip resistant, high
ankled safety shoes.
Same as above.
Container weight
limits. Public accept
ance campaign.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Change from backyard
to curbside with
mechanical or semi-
mechanical collection.
Change from tote
barrels to wheeled
carts or to mechanical
or semi-mechanical
collection at curbside
-------
CONTAINER RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Percent of Total
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
4. CARRYING CONTAINER
continued
HAZARDS
Percent of Task
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
(.2) On wet, icy or
oily surfaces**
19% 22% 22%
(3) On waste on
ground**
9% 5% 6%
(4) On depression**
5% 4% 4%
(5) On inclined sur-
face**
3% 8% 10%
(6) On uneven sur-
face**
3% 4% 2%
b. Struck against vehicle
8% 3% 3%
c. Struck self with
container
14% 5% 5%
(1) Dropped container
on self**
3% 1% <1%
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
Routing. Proper
carrying techniques.
Routing. Clean spilled
waste immediately.
Proper carrying tech-
niques.
Routing. Proper
carrying techniques.
Routing. Proper
carrying techniques.
Routing. Proper
carrying techniques.
Proper carrying
techniques.
Proper carrying
techniques.
Maintain firm grip.
Proper carrying tech-
niques.
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Slip resistant, high
ankled safety shoes.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Steel toed safety
shoes. Slip resistant
gloves.
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
Change from backyard tt
curbside with mechan-
ical or semi -mechan-
ical collection.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as above.
U)
Overlapping numbers
- 6 -
-------
CONTAINER RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Percent of Total
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
4. CARRYING CONTAINER
continued
5. PUSHING OR PULLING
CONTAINER
4% 6% 5%
% of Cont. Accidents
8% 13% 13%
HAZARDS
Percent of Task
% No. * Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
(2) Protruding
waste**
9% 3% 3%
d. Overexertlon while
handling heavy contain-
er
9% 12% 14%
e. Struck by vehicle
3% 12% 14%
a. Bulk containers
(1) Overexertion
24% 57% 56%
(2) Overexertion while
handling with
coworker
4% 3% 4%
(3) Caught between
container and wall
or vehicle
11% 12% 10%
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
Proper carrying tech-
niques.
Tag and leave heavy
containers. Proper
carrying techniques.
Collect from one side
of the street at a
time.
*
Handle with coworker.
Team pushing/pulling
training.
Push rather than pull
to keep body away from
pinch points.
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Leather aprons or
chaps to protect legs.
Traffic vests or other
high visibility
clothing.
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
Separate handling of
glass and other sharp
wastes.
Container weight
limits. Public accep-
tance campaign.
Container accessibil-
ity regulations. Con-
tainer location
regulations-level sur-
face requirement.
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
Rule to collect from
only one side of the
street. Change to
mechanical or semi-
mechanical collection.
Require two man
operation.
I
UJ
Ul
** Overlapping numbers
- 7 -
-------
CONTAINER RELATED ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
Percent of Total
Percent of Task
% No.'
% Days
Lost
% Direct
Costs
% No.
% Days
Lost
% Direct
Costs
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
5. PUSHING OR PULLING
CONTAINER
continued
(4) Rolled bulk con-
tainer over foot
4% 4% 11%
(5) Struck by bulk
container lid
4% n 3%
b. Wheeled cart
(1) Slipped or fell
17% 7% 7%
Push rather than pull.
Keep hands away from
pinch points.
Routing.
Steel toed safety
shoes.
Slip resistant, high
ankled shoes.
Change to curbside
collection or to
mechanical or semi-
mechanical collection
- 8 -
-------
FIGURE 1-7
PAGE
AM. II^ERT.
DETAIL ETi JJCSCRIPTION OF
LIFTING CHMTATNER ACCIDENTS
Or.HA RECORDABLE INJURIES ONLY
REPORTING PERIOD* DECEMBER 1775 DECEMBER 1976
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY* ACCIDENT TYPE* NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
PROFILE
SELF WITH STO MTL.
CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
I
U)
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO PROIN.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFT TNG PLASTIC DAG AND HE FELL ON OILY PAVEMENT IN STEPPING DOWN RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO HACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STP MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WTTII STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH QTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS STUCK OR
FROZEN TO GRND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BUTTOCKS,
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND HNDI.D WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC DAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING 300 GAL PLASTIC CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH 300 GAL PLASTIC CONT WHICH
UAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY L.6 RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BUTTOCKS.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING STB MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN TORN CARTILAGE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIPTTNG LINK CONT TYPE AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH LINK CONT TYPE WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING PLASTIC DAG AND HE UAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS FULL AND STRK
AGNSr PACKING MECHANISM RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC CAN AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC CAN WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC DAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC HAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC HAG WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
PROTRUDING Gl ASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG,
EMPLOYEE WAS ITFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
OLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST UNK OBJECT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FACE.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STH MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ELBOW,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC HAG RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO ABDOMEN.
NO. INJ DAYS
9
1
02
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
10
1
IAYS
84
5
960
4
1
1
10
3
15
4
3
7
0
253
0
2
20
15
4
COSTS
4093
152
47164
321
100
70
416
177
654
15
178
332
20
9209
20
33
668
952
172
7
0
5
0
139
30
195
20
20
-------
PAGE
00
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND ME MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
FULL AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND
HAD PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS'LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD A PROTRUDING
HYPODERMIC NEEDLE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALIY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
PROIRIIDING WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYE? WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON WET PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST WALL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE WAS INJURED IN UNK ACCIDENT RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE
OF INJURY TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN HANDLE OF CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OILY PAVFfMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE: OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN OTHER TYPE
OF INJURY TO OTHER BODY PART.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
.EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RFSIII.TING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC DAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS,
.EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STB MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HF STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STB MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STB MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STB MIL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON ICY PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST GARBAGE CAN RK
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT ANB HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESIJLTINO IN BRUISE TO TOES.
EMPLOYF.tr WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT ANH IIC WAS STRUCK BY ROCKS/CONCRETE/DIRT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
FOOT.
FMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING HTD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN HANDLE OF CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
LIETIMC STH MTL CON T AND HE MADE rilinDEN MOVEMENT TN CATCHTNR f!Tn MTL. CONT WHICfl WAR
FULL ANtl HAD ILIPPEII FROM HIS IIAND13 RESULTING IN HPRAT.N OR DTRAJM TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAI I IFTING PLASTIC BAG AND I IE WAS HURT UY HANDLING PLASTIC ťAO WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
OLABS REE51.ILTINO TN CUT XF-IJNOTIJRE TO LEG.
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
4
1
3
7
2
1
29
1
1
1
l
1
YS
2
7
0
0
30
70
9
0
COSTS
117
289
20
20
2061
1541
493
20
3
4
18
95
2
69
4
6
22
16
0
171
2
11
12
3
4
125
173
487
3052
119
3699
199
232
1064
554
58
8376
166
268
589
3OB
24 a
-------
PAGE
I
Ul
ID
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC DAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS FULL AND
UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC DAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTTC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING TN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING WHEELED CART AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS FULL AND
UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST OTHER OBJECT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SHARP F.DGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (TIGHTLY
PACKED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTl.. CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WA1'. LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC ACID RESULTING IN EYE
IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CRATE AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CRATE WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND
UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYFF WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL ANI"
UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND RECESSED RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CONT LID AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL. CONT WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED FROM CURB ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
CMPLOYFF: WAS LIFTING sin MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST POST RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO SCALP,
EMPLOYE): WAS LIFTING OIL DRUM AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND IINDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
FMPI.OYFF WAS LIFTING CARDBD BOX AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY ROCKS/CONCRETE/DIRT WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF
CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
CMPLOYEt: WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL. CONT WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL. CONT AND HE SLIPPED FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ANKLE.
FMPI OYFF WAS LIFTING PLASTTC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
13
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
YS
0
3
2
7
1
A
6
17
65
0
16
12
73
18
1
COSTS
123
176
87
87
73
203
802
758
4998
53
547
789
345
677
59
0
0
0
24
25
0
1
5
3
14
28
73
67
5
1115
823
51
52
196
135
799
2532
-------
PAGE
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HFAVY
AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS) AND
HMDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS)
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CARDBD BOX AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING CARDBOARD BOX WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH GTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL. AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS)
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING NSTB MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH NSTD MTL. CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL' CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
FILLED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD A PROTRUDING
HYPODERMIC NEEDLE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH WAS HVY
(ROCKS) AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK DY STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
.EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH ST.9 MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS)
RESULTING TM SPPA1M OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS L If i\l>G !.: 1H HI I. CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD Mil. CONT WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
.EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS I .TFTINO STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STB MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC KAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN HERNIA TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE UAG LIFTING BTP MTL CONT ANť HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY TM STEPPING IlflUN PEfJIJITINR TM OPRATN OR STRAIN TO WACK .
FtlPLOYrr UAS LIFTING STB MTL CONT ANP ME OMEREXERTEP SELF WITH STO MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULT rUC TM SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GIIOUI..DER.
JYFE WAS LIFTING BTD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF" WITH
FTLLCn> RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR OTKAIN TO PACK.
NO. INJ
5
1
A
3
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
6
1
1
1
1
3
J
1
DAYS
40
10
5
18
11
0
4
8
1
8
0
6
0
0
0
1
116
25
3
0
9
0
2
3
36
COSTS
3750
401
588
1011
216
64
164
436
45
311
34
407
56
35
28
64
4130
2007
71
25
258
20
269
345
STD If Tl COWT WHICH UAS MVY (WATER
-------
PAGE
PROF 11 E
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE PARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE PARREL WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
AND UNUSUALLY LO RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO AltJiriMFN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO TRUNK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STO MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BOTTLE WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING DEAD ANIMAL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH DEAD ANIMAL IN STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH CSTD. MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAG LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND BEING HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS t TFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT 8 EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS HVY-YARD
CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OTHER CONT TYPE AND ME OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH WAS HVY
(ROCKS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO TRUNK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT 8 EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WT SHIFTED)
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
FILLED) AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPI.OYI.~E WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON UNEVEN PAVEMENT IN STEPPING DOWN RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
IN STEPPING DOWN RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYfE WAG LIFT TNG STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
FTLLEID RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYFE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS AND
KFING HNBLD U OTHER CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
FYFS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OIL DRUM AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND
UNUSUALLY I..G RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CRAfE AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CRATE WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYFE WAS LIFTING STO MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BOTTLE WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYFE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC DAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING WASTE
RESULTING IN INFECTION TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES.
NO. INJ DAYS
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
12
6
4
25
7
2
7
21
3
3
5
6
11
0
0
8
0
3
17
4
0
0
0
3
COST~
4
72
25
24
173
32;
12;
33;
143
178
176
207
743
27
132
863
17
171
884
870
76
69
28
134
-------
PAGE
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY OTHER OBJECT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CARDBB BOX AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING CARDBOARD BOX WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CARDBD BOX AND HE WAS HURT BY HANBLING CARDBOARD BOX WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC ACID RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN
TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND IN
WHICH WEIGHT SHIFTED RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD HIL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MIL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
ANN SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE FELL ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN HANDLE OF CONT (CONT WT SHIFTED) RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
H-1 EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
^ RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
to EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND RECESSED RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
FILLED) AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CARDBD BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) AND HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING 'STB MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BOTTLE WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING WASTE
RESULTING IN DERMATITIS TO ARM,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST CERAMIC WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT 8 EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT HANDLE
BROKE! RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY IIFAUY AND HAD THU BOTTOM FALL OUT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN,
FMPLOYlF WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS) AND
HAW SI IPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTIHI3 TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE UAS STRUCK BY WOOD WHICH FELL OUT OF BOTTOM OF CONT
""""' JA^NLIFTTNGU10TETBARRELEANn HE OVEREXERTED SELF UltTH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
FXLLEIJ> RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
NO. INJ DAYS
5
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
5
6
0
0
5
53
5
10
6
0
9
0
0
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
O
COSTS
294
219
369
19
56
347
7813
132
472
203
41
592
79
50
316
38
37
38
59
153
93
203
4O
so
-------
PAGE
x PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT TN CATCHING GTfi MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND THE HANDLE BROKE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OIL DRUM AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS FULL AND SLIPPERY
(WET) RESULTING TN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY (PAPER)
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CARDBD BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING
TN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS)
RESULTINO IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE FELL WHILE ON OILY PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST POST RESULTING
IN CRUISE TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO OTHER BODY PART.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STB MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET GRASS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING APPLIANCE AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OIL DRUM AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND
UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN DISLOCATION TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
FULL AND THE HANDLE BROKE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG ANB HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING WASTE
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OIL DRUM AN!) HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING LITTER CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH LITTER CAN WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
FILirCO AND IINDLI.I WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CARDBD BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
FMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPING!"-) AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS IIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CARDBD BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARBBOARD BOX WHICH WAS HVY (PAPER)
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING
TN STRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESIJI TING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYTF WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL. CONT WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS)
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF BOTTOM OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
2
7
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
8
2
10
40
52
31
0
2
3
0
0
0
7
18
10
5
18
12
0
0
0
8
5
10
0
0
COSTS
434
133
204
2318
2880
1757
20
69
41
38
249
35
314
1262
394
283
949
590
30
135
130
71
313
992
12
55
-------
PAGE 8
Fiu_rn>
EMPLOYEE UAC
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING.PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY ROCKS/CONCRETE/DIRT WHICH FELL OUT OF BOTTOM
OF CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN.
LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND
RECESSED RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO DACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON GROUND RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYE!.: UAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS) AND
HNBLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL. CONT WHICH WAS HVY (TIGHTLY
PACKED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OIL DRUM AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH UAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND
Sl.TPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL. CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND HAD SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO WRIST,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH UAS HVY
(PAPER) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC CAN AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH HAD A PROTRUDING NAIL
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH UAS HVY
(TIGHTLY PACKED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO DACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC DAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD) WHICH UAS FULL
AND IINDLD WITH COURKR RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING WHEELED CART AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING WHEELED CART WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND IINDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO UR.IST,
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING CARDBD BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH UAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST FENCE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CARBBD BOX AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING CARDBOARD BOX WHICH UAS
UNUSUAL! Y HEAVY AND HAD THE BOTTOM FALL OUT RESULTING IN SPRAtN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND I IE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CARBBD BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH UAS FULL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO DACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL. CONT WHICH
FULI AND HAD SIIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPl OYFF UAG I IFTING WOOD AND HF. (IVI RITXF.R TED SELF WITH WOOD RESULT TNG TN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CCINT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT TN CATHHTNG STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UHť"i':llrM LY I-IFAWY AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRATH OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE'UAr. LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON DEPRESSION AND STRK AGNST STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS,
NO, INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
4
23
8
3
7
4
0
1
15
3
3
0
124
23
2
0
3
5
3
7
34
O
15
O
o
COSTS
57
105
71
1070
540
180
102
303
13
20
556
199
317
79
7764
1955
229
53
522
474
206
309
2344
19
604
31
73
-------
PAGE
Ui
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CfJNT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING WHEELED CART AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HFAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CARDBD BOX AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING CARDBOARD BOX WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
r.l ASS AND SLIPPERY ( WE T > REQUITING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYrr WAS LIFTING OIL DRUM ANU I IE WAS HURT BY HANDLING OIL DRUM WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND
HAD SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE PARREL AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC PAG AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS FULL
AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HAND:! RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE:: WAS LIFTING CARDED BOX ANU HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
FILLED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST,
EMPLOYrr: WAS LIFTING BULK CONT LID AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONT LID RESULTING IN HEART
ATTACK TO INTERNAL ORGANS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS EMPTY AND HAD
SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN NOSEBLEED TO NOSE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CONT LID AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL. CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAG LIFTING CARDED BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BARREL. WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY ANfi UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AMU HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND RECESSED RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD SLIPPED
FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYET: WAS LIFTING CARDBD BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD POX WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND IINDLD WITH COUIRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPI OYEF WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL HONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT ANU HE: SLIPPED STEPPING ON SLIPPKRY WASTE ON GROUND RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAB ANO HE STRUCK AGAINST BUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO
NO. INJ DAYS
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL ANB HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTF BARREL WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST,
EMPI OYff" WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT ANn HE WAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLHi BY COWORKER RESULTING IN
CUT /PUNCTURE TO I CO .
EMPI riYCt: UAS I TFTINR TOTET BARRfTI AND HF.'HADr SUDDEN MOVEMENT Rf'SUITING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYE!." WAS LIFTING PLASTIC CAN ANn HU SLIPPED WIIII . E ON WET CURB ftND STRK AGNST BACK OF VEH
RESULTING IN DENIAL INJURY TO MOUTH.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
5
0
5
0
0
0
12
0
0
COSTS
40
128
419
86
264
16
0
46
847
63
115
0
3
2
20
0
17
0
50
0
0
7
0
2
125
242
88
919
214
334
16
1270
63
35
393
30
156
1
2
53
129
65
-------
PAGE 10
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TCni. BARREL WHICH WAS UNUSUAI I. Y HEAVY
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH TOTL BARREL WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH WAS EMPTY
AND UNUSUAL! Y 1.0 RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH BULK CONT(1~10 YD) WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO DACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL. CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
FILLED) RESULTING TN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STO MTL. CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH WAS FULL AND
IINDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STP MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
FILLED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE. WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL. CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO TRUNK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT- WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING WHEELED CART AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS FULL AND
UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING WHEELED CART AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS,
-EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING CARDBD POX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING TN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAIi AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING WASTE
RESULTINGťIN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG,
FMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF MITII TOTE BARREL WHICH MAS HVY (WATER
FILLED) ANU UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO TIVMMK,
EMPI OYEE UAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING WASTE
JYEE UAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE UAS STRUCK HI ~~-.~ **,
BRUISE TJ8 KNEE.
NO, INJ DAYS
1 2
1 5
1 16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
25
10
5
0
6
0
1
11
1
3
0
0
1
3
16
J3
2
1
O
3
7
COSTS
45
331
977
1947
900
164
24
214
41
53
503
109
107
232
94
12
37
16
202
/.74
686
112
71
70
37
33
-------
PAGE 11
PROFILE N0' 1NJ DAYS COSTS
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STO MTL CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ARM. 1 J
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET CURB RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO ANKLE. 1 5 147
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
FILLED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. l u 275
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING OTHER CONT TYPE ANB HE WAS STRUCK BY GLA::;
-------
FIGURE 1-8
PAGE 1
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1.976
AM i.ir:r-Rs;
inn ATI. Em nt SCRIPT KIN or
DUMPING CONTAINER ACCIDENTS
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES ONLY
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY* ACCIDENT TYPEr NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY,
PROFILE NO, INJ DAYS
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL. CONT AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
EYES. 43 19
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT ANB HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STB MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO TRUNK. 2 12
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH WAS EMPTY AND
HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FOOT. 1 29
EMPtOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEII RESULTING IN BRUISF TO SHOULDER. 1 17
EMPLOYEE WAS BUMPING STB MTL. CONT ANB HE OVEREXERTEB SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HIPS. 1 1
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MIL CONT ANB HE OVEREXERTEB SELF WITH STB MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. 14 120
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING CARDJtri BOX AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEII RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FOOT. 1 3
EMPLOYEE WAS BUMPING BULK CONT <1-10 YB) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT & VEH (CONT WAS FALLING)
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND. 1 19
^ EMPLOYEE WAS BUMPING WHEELED CART ANB HE OVEREXERTEB SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
^ HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER. 1 0
CD EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO HAND, 1 52
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL. CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO EYES. 1 0
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MIL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL. CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN HPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. 16 160
EMPLOYEE WAS BUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OP STRAIN TO ARM, 2 10
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYES. 1 0
EMPLOYEE WAS BUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE MABE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN AVOIDING ANIMAL RESULTING IN OTHER
TYPE OF INJURY TO BACK, 1 3
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STB MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO ABDOMEN. 2 181
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING WHEELED CART AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW. 1 1
EMPLOYEE WAS BUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW. 4 6
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING BULK CONT O.-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT 8 VEH RESULTING IN
.FRACTURE TO FTNOFRS. 1 3
EMPLOYEE WAS BUMPING STB MIL CONT ANB HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON INCLINED GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK. 1 0
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING NSTB MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PARTICLES IN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES. 1 O
EMPLOYEE UAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT 8 EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS. 4 O
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD BOUNCED
T.K FM HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SCALP. 1- 4
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLED BY COWORKER RESULTING IN
DUMPING PLASTIC CAN AND HE SLIPPED WHILE! ON WET F-AVEMENT AND STRK AGNST BACK OF UEM ^ ^
IN^SF-RAIN OR STRAIN TO FINOERS.
COSTS
3109
624
1391
917
67
5279
203
722
214
1218
22
9017
598
7
394
7550
(10
1549
191
760
OS
299
2OB
-------
PAOC
VD
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING CARDED BOX AND FIE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN HERNIA TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY DOTTLE WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FACE,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTI. TONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HHDLD
WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC UNKNOWN WASTE RESULTING IN
DERMATITIS TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE'WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT 8 EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS
UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS HUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING
IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO CHF.EK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO PACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC DAG AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAG DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ROCKY GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
INFLAMMATION OF THE JOINTS TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION
TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT HANDLE
BROKF.) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MIL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH f>TD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND BEING HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAG DUMPING STD MTL. CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT 8 EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS
UNUSUALLY IIVY) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM,
EMPLOYEE; WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK AGAINST UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY WHICH WAS PROTRUDING FM
VEII RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLED BY COWORKER RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAR DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
FMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLED BY COWORKER RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO ELBOW.
FMPt OYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH FiTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
INJ
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
DAYS
26
18
1
4
A
130
0
1
3
0
1
4
0
23
17
0
14
13
6
1
0
10
5
0
4
27
COSTS
1855
75
66
154
192
210
20
70
153
32
153
232
43
10 60
76
63
639
16
27(3
72
72
410
157
60
231
085
-------
PACE
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MIL CONT AND ME FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON GRAVEL RESULTING tN BRUISE TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE UA3 DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
BLAGS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE UAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT Ť EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
OTHER TYPE OP INJURY TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PLASTIC DAG RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FACE.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING CARDBD BOX AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE UAS DUMPING LINK CONT TYPE AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION
TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMP[NO STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAG DUMPING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONT(1-10 YD) RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN DERMATITIS TO ARM,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
FULL AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING WHEELED CART AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW,
EMPI OYEE UAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE UAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLED BY COWORKER RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO ARM,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL. CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR .STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS
FALLING) RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
FMPlOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STti MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE UAS DUMPING BULK CONT <1-1O YD) AND HE STRUCK AGAINST MECHANICAL ARM RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO ARM.
EMCl OYEE UAr, DUMPING BULK CONT <1-1O YD> AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF
CONT RESULTING IN DERMATITIS TO ARM.
EMFLOYEF UAS DUM^NB STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT WHICH Uf>S
FULL AND HAff SLIPPED FROM HTR MC.Nr.ss a^**in -I-TM.* , *, =^^^.T^I tin, Ť>-ť.& TťI -rn B-=.r=
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
7
1
2
11
0
12
0
2
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
4
0
0
9
0
10
4
O
96
O
COSTS
62
309
200
30
297
44
101
159
66
6B
20
44
20
84
122
176
64
677
235
57
27
254
20
641
94
63
56
49
-------
PAGE
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BLADE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FTNGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PIECE OF METAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH GTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN DISLOCATION TO ELKOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT 8 EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH HAD PROTRUDING WASTE
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK DY PARTICLES IN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BOTTLE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING
IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING WHEELED CART AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING WHEELED CART WHICH WAS
UNUGl.mi.LY HEAVY AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE I ELL WHILE ON PAVEMENT ANM STRK AGNST SIDE OF VEH
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STp MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT & EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS
UNUSUALLY L.G) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC CAN AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS FULL
AND HAD THE POT TOM FALL OUT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT ť EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS
UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAG DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOREHEAD.
EMPLOYEE WAG DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT Ť EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAG DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC AMMONIA RESULTING IN
ASPHYXIATION OR DROWNING TO INTERNAL ORGANS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN INFECTION TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING CARDDD BOX AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS
UNUGUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
HOUNCED BK FM HOPPER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOREHEAD.
EMPLOYEE WAS! DUMPING STD MTL tlONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT % EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS
UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT & EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS
FALLING) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
NO. TNJ DAYS
1 2
1
1
4
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
7
1
0
2
0
14
2
25
0
7
1
0
0
0
11
3
14
5
0
43
0
COSTS
174
50
32
174
28
82
537
141
58
132
100
644
152
1413
20
347
5S
29
33
77
269
102
494
201
55
1731
52
-------
PAGE s
PROFILE NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING BULK CONT
-------
PAGF
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND' HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN DERMATITIS TO UNK BODY PART.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CERAMIC WASTE WHICH FELL OUT OF BOTTOM OF
CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPl OYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PIECE OF METAL WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON WET GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC CHEMICAL RESULTING IN CHEMICAL
HURN TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING 300 GAL PLASTIC CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH 300 GAL PLASTIC CONT WHICH
WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO ARM,
EMPLOYEE. WAR DUMPING WHEELED CART AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE FELL ON ROCKY GROUND RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO CHEEK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY TAILGATE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOREHEAD.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS HVY (TIGHTLY
T" PACKED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
Ln EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY WASTE HANBLFD BY COWORKER RESULTING IN
UJ ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH HTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
EMPTY AND HAM SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL FROM SLIPPERY STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MIL CONT AND HE FELL FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
f LBOIJ.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT ANH HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND I IE WAS INJURED IN OTHER TYPE OF ACCIDENT RESULTING IN
ELECTRIC SHOCK TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PIECE OF METAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CdNT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLED DY COWORKER WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
FMPLOYEF WAP DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPl OYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RF.SUI TING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING LITTER CAN AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT S EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS UNUSUALLY
HVY) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS BUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY COWORKER (UNINTENTIONALLY) RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STB MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
NO. INJ DAYS
1 1
1 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
6
0
12
23
0
0
14
8
0
2
0
6
COSTS
33
156
324
37
94
1067
57
59
440
40
22
3
2
33
4(3
5V
0
0
17
0
0
261
150
1770
1604
161)0
10(3
44
590
24
23
67
42
264
20
177
06
27
-------
PARC
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND' HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH HAH PROTRUDING
WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO WRIST,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO KNEE.
EMPLOYE! WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST CUNT HANDLED BY COWORKER WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY ROCKS/CONCRETE/DIRT WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF
CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING OIL DRUM AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND
HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING WASTE AND
HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PARTICLES IN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTD
FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X VEH (CONT WT SHIFTED) RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO THUMB,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING LITTER CAN AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT S EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS UNUSUALLY
HVY) RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING DULK CONT (1--10 YD) AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CABLE RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC CHEMICAL RESULTING IN EYE
IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING BULK CONT (1-10 YB) AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING BULK CONT (1-10 YD)
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY, HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY WOOD RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO MOUTH.
-EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH RESULTING IN
ABRASIONS TO EYES,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT * EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO ELBOW,
EMPLOYEE HAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
I'irSIII TING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM,
EMPLOYEE HAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT 8 EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS HUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY WOOD RESULTING IN DRLIISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
FIJI I RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
BOUNCFD BK FM HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH DROKE AGAINST THE VEH RESULTING
IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYES.
.EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAB AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CERAMIC WASTE WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH RESULTING
JH CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING WHEELED CART AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ELBOW .
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT S EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS
UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
A
0
7
1
0
0
1
2
1
11
0
e
0
2
0
15
0
5
2
8
2
5
0
O
1
147
20
548
139
8A
18
1A
145
108
439
7
408
41
111
3A
277
38
151
9A
297
147
300
27
22
1OB
20
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE
RESULTING IN CUTXPUNCTURE TO ARM.
3 STD MTL CONT WHICH
-------
PAGE 8
I
in
in
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND >
-------
PAGE
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT * EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS
UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING.- STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT % EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
FRACTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY OTHER WASTE WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY AND HE WAS STRUCK BY UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY WHICH FELl OUT OF
VEH RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYi:S.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS HUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY WHICH FELL OUT OF VEII
RESULTING IN ACRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING UNK CONT TYPE AND HE FELL ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY
TO HIPS,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPl OYEE WAS DUMPING STB MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT X EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT WAS
FALLING) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN DISLOCATION TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING CARDBD BARREL AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BOTTLE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING
IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EARS,
EMPLOYEE UA;:; DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PARTICLES IN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM
IIOITT.R RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYES,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING TOTE DARNEL AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PARTICLES IN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST EDGF OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN PRUISE TO CHEST,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL. WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN EYF IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN INFECTION
TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL. CONT WHICH WAS
HVY (YARD CLIPPINGS) AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING TOTE BARREL AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VCH RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MIL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VF.H RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN AVOIDING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
FULL AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPl OYEE WAS DUMPING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING
IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAG DUMPING TOTE BARREL AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
EMPLOYEEUWASNDUMPINI3FPLASTIC BAG AND HE*STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAH PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING It* CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
i
DAYS
13
12
0
0
9
10
1
5
0
17
145
0
0
0
20
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
o
COSTS
660
374
53
18
449
169
46
420
20
989
3603
41
80
If.
979
50
39
87
38
124
176
93
29
115
-------
PAGE 10
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE
IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING TOTE BARREL AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS PUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS INJURED IN UNK ACCIDENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO EARS,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING WHEELED CART AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING
IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EARS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING CARDBD BARREL AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING CARDBD BARREL AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS INJURED FROM AGGRESSIVE ACT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SKULL.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING OIL DRUM AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT. WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN GR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WrtT DUMPING WHEELED CART AND HE STRUCK AGAINST STEP OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
E"MM OYrr WAG HUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RET.UL. TING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM,
FMPLOYEr WAS DUMPING STD MTL. CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING CARDBD BOX AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN PACKER BLADE RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPINGNSTD MTL CONT AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN INFECTION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON WET RUNNING BOARD AND STRK AGNST SIDE OF
HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC BAG AND HE FELL ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING BULK CONf (1--10 YD) AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON OBJ ON GROUND AND STRK AGNST BACK
OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAG DUMPING TOTE BARREL AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT 8 EDGE OF HOPPER (CONT HAD BOUNCED
BK FM HOPPER) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FINGERS.
FMPLOYEr WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND THE
HANDLE BROKE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
BOUNCED BK FM HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BULK CONT(1-10 YD) RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING
IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES..
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST BLADE OF VEH
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
8
74
8
0
0
0
0
15
0
12
23
6
93
2
9
0
6
0
0
3
0
2
1
1
25
COSTS
15
469
3821
253
20
16
85
26
16
100
768
16
903
956
219
1630
183
351
162
20
215
16
25
289
17
144
108
128
838
-------
PAGE 11
I
cn
oo
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING HULK CONT <1-10' YD) AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT S EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
INFECTION TO FINGERS,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPTNG STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING WHEELED CART AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE
OF INJURY TO UNK BODY PART,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND
UNUSUALLY L.C RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS)
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE HAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON ICY GROUND AND STRK AGNST BACK OF VEH
RESUI TING IN BRUISE TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS HUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST BLADE OF VEH
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC DAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS HUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BOTTLE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING
IN FRACTURE.TO NOSE,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC CAN AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE HAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY UNKNOWN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN EYE I.RR] (ATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE HAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEO.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST POST RESULTING IN BRUISE TO MULTIPLE BODY
PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING TOTE BARREL AND HE STRUCK AGAINST TOTE BARREL RESULTING IN DRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING PLASTIC CAN AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON ICY GROUND AND STRK AGNST STEP OF VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING TOTE BARREL AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BLADE OF VEH RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MIL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN AVOIDING ANIMAL RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
FULl AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH MADE SUDDEN START RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BULK CONT(1-10 YD) RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO HAND,
EMPLOYEE WAS DUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS PUMPING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY UNKNOWN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTU FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYES.
TOTAL
NO. INJ DAYS
12
COSTS
740
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
422
0
2
9
15
1
0
77
2
3
1
1
5
4
6
0
0
2
13
0
0
2
0
o
o
2451
43
196
489
2223
63
20
3692
100
284
144
108
200
220
346
20
20
142
750
24
37
118
49
16
3 if,
1171O1
-------
FIGURE 1-9
PAGE
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
LIFTING TO DUMP CONTAINER ACCIDENT S
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES ONLY
REPORTING PERIOD I DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY* ACCIDENT TYPE rNATURE OF INJRURY AND PART OF BODY.
I
01
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND H MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLAf.S RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET STAIRS RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ANKLE,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND STRK AGNST STEP OF VEH RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO TRUNK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS FULL
MISSING HANDLES RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC EXHAUST FUMES RESULTING
OR DROWNING TO INTERNAL ORGANS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND IN WHICH WEIGHT SHIFTED RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO THUMB,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY
(WATER FILLED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDED BOX AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING CARDBOARD BOX WHICH
WAS HVY (WATER FILLED) AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND
HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL. CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO OTHER BODY PART,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDED BOX AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING CARDBOARD BOX WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BARREL WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
AND HAD
EMPLOYEE WAS
IN ASPHYXIATION
NO. INJ
1
2
28
25
1
24
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
DAYS
17
4
340
229
0
75
0
12
0
18
0
4
35
8
2
1
7
14
68
17
6
0
COSTS
417
75
14269
10207
20
4256
49
509
49
361
46
120
2698
692
145
86
158
156
2457
785
243
12
-------
PAGE
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
BOUNCED BK FM HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO GROIN,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP OIL DRUM AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON UNEVEN GROUND AND STRK AGNST STEP
OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP WHEELED CART AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAR LIFTING TO DUMP ST11 MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF
CONT RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON WET RUNNING BOARD AND STRK AGNST STD
MTL CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY
(YARD CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH UAS FULL
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD A PROTRUDING
HYPODERMIC Nf TPIF ^ESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTINO 10 DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY
(YARD CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY
(YARD CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND BEING HNDLD U OTHER CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE GOT UASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE
IRRITATION TO EYES. , ,_m =Ť,..ť=^iťv RE-euL-rrNO xn SF-rtaxn
EMPLOYEE WAS l^IFTXNO TO ULIMR STD MTL CONT AND HE STER
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
i
1
1
6
3
6
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
ťYS
0
1
2
19
0
0
16
0
0
0
6
2
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
12
79
COSTS
45
47
16
770
43
43
543
45
20
35
20
338
461
284
55
83
64
32
72
334
458
419O
32
Z4O
OR STRAIt
TO ANKLE.
-------
PAGE
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS FULL IN
STEPPING DOWN RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO APDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC DAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT 8 EDGE .OF HOPPER (CONT WAS
UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO HAND,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS HVY
(ROCKS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
HAND,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN JiPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS FULL
AND BEING HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BOTTLE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC DAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY WHICH FELL OUT OF
TOP OF CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD A PROTRUDING
HYPODERMIC NEEDLE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP TOTE BARREL AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP OIL DRUM AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON OILY PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST OIL DRUM
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
2
1
6
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
2
0
26
36
1
29
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
5
59
5
1
4
28
6
59
14f
42
123E
955
57
1450
32
71
61
36
27
52
12
30
82
1639
280
125
167
1432
159
2784
-------
EMPLOYEE MAS I. IFTING TO DUMP STD MTL I.70NT AND HE WAP CAUGHT HI TWtTM rťNT & VEH lfFRDI.TI.NO TN
FRACTURE TO FINGERS
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ONSTEP OF VEH AND STRK AGNST STEP OF
VEH REJUU.TTNG IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLED BY COWORKER RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN AVOIDING ANIMAL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE WAS STRUCK BY OTHER CONT TYPE WHICH WAS EMPTY
AND HAD BOUNCED BK FM HOPPER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUBING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY
(WOOD) AND HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BOX AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CARDBOARD BOX WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH
. RESULTING IN BRUISE TO THUMB,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY SHARP OBJ WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP NSTD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE FELL FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN' TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC DAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND HAD PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY STD MTLCONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEO.
UAS LA FTINO TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF
OD > RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHO.J. nŤ-~ -
11
. 1
1
6
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ą
26
0
3
26
0
53
0
17
18
1
1
195
5
53
8
2
2
84
13
0
88
29
14
13
26
ii
s
1265
50
163
900
74
3834
20
543
717
63
65
4512
299
2910
133
104
151
497
672
5
4140
454
s
864
730
A79
Z2S
3ZO
JITH STD
1ICH WAS
-------
PAGE
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE GOT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE
IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST STEP OF VEH RESULTING IN
DISLOCATION TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH CONTAINER LID RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN
w CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND
HAD SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ABBOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP PLASTIC BAG ANB HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY
(WOOD) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG ANB HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND
BEING HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC DAG AND HE FELL WHILE ON WET CURB ANB STRK AGNST BACK OF VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP STD MTL CONT ANB HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP CARDBD BOX ANB HE OVEREXERTED SELF .WITH CARBBOARD BOX WHICH WAS HVY
(PAPER) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP CARBBD BOX ANB HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARBBOARD BOX WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP WHEELED CART AND HE OVEREXERTEB SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP CARDBB BOX AND HE WAS HURT BY HANBLING CARDBOARD BOX WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT ANB HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF
CONT RESULTING IN DERMATITIS TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
ARM.
NO. INJ DAYS
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
YS
0
4
0
0
22
0
0
3
54
7
26
6
0
COSTS
85
130
12
88
676
45
36
153
858
252
1200
164
30
16
0
8
29
55
2
5
13
11
0
10
2
1
5?3
10
374
1380
234
155
170
100
722
48
276
69
70
-------
PAGE
I-1
I
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST HANDLE ON VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD A PROTRUDING
HYPODERMIC NEEDLE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BOX AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE
IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY ACID WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON WET PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST EDGE
OF HOPPER RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN
INFLAMMATION OF THE JOINTS TO THUMB,
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON STEP OF VEH AND STRK AGNST STD
MTL CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC DAG AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO DACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO r'MMF f.TD MTL CONT AND HE WAS INJURED IN CITHER TYPE OF ACCIDENT RESULTING IN
OTHER TYPE OF INJURY 10 NOSE.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY
(ROCKS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN FRACTURE
TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY
(WOOD) RESULTJNŤ TN f^RAJ.N OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING tO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLED BY COWORKER RESULTING
IN ABRASIONS TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CHEMICAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF
CONT RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOREHEAD.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY
(ROCKS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING STD MTL CONT
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO TRUNK,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PARTICLES IN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTD
FROM HOPPER RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST PACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE UAS CAUGHT IN HANDLE OF CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
ni? "STRAIN TO FINGERS.
INJ
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
DAYS
2
1
7
0
0
0
2
25
6
59
14
33
27
0
11
17
15
1
0
0
3
24
12
O
o
4
COSTS
90
108
331
6
18
24
80
1154
448
4937
494
1589
1475
13
527
750
665
65
10
37
145
493
594
39
AS
aio
-------
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC EXHAUST FUMES RESULTING
IN ASPHYXIATION OR DROWNING TO INTERNAL ORGANS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN CONT & EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STEPPED ON BOARD WITH NAIL RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND
HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO WRIST,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY' RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
7 SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
cr> EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PIECE OF METAL WHICH FELL OUT OF VEH
Ui RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST BACK OF
VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC CAN AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS FULL AND THE
HANDLE BROKE RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD HOX AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOREHEAD.
EMPLOYfE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
AND HAD SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBB BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED PELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS EMPTY
AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND BEING HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN DISLOCATION TO BACK.
NO. INJ DAYS
2 21
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
o
o
A
A
1
12
0
0
1
4
0
7
0
0
1
0
28
3
0
0
1
0
5
0
BB
COSTS
550
1O4
20
258
134
67
355
57
56
39
147
35
209
141
37
71
1122
1749
170
43
20
116
24
341
15
358
-------
PAGE 8
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY TAILGATE RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO ARM,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP GTD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
. RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS,
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST EDGE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY
(PAPER) AND HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD BOX AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING CARDBOARD BOX WHICH
WAS FULL AND HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP CRATE AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CRATE WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTTNG TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OILY FLOOR RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBB BOX AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH CARDBOARD BOX WHICH WAS FULL
AND HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST GARBAGE CAN RACK RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO LEG/
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
BOUNCED BK FM HOPPER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FACE.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
HAND.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BOTTLE WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT
RESULTING IN AVULSION TO ELBOW,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC CAN AND HE FELL ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND
HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTTNH TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN HANDLE OF CONT (CONT UAS UNUSUALLY
HVY) RESULTING IN RPIJTSf TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY UNKNOWN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOREHEAD,
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY
(WATER FILLED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TQ DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN HANDLE OF CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH UAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE UAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
EttPlOYEeUUASNLIFTINGUTOEDUMP WHEELED CART AND HE WAS STRUCK BY SHARP OBJ WHICH WAS PROTRUDING I-M
VEH RESULTING IN INFECTION TO HAND.
NO. INJ DAYS
1
i
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
lYS
50
0
1
18
0
38
4
7
41
0
0
0
0
0
25
3
18
0
7
0
2
0
O
2
1
COSTS
766
54
63
942
35
1480
106
389
1937
84
20
26
2
2
91
20
59
3
21
3
12
1
34
82
S7
-------
PAGE 9
PROFILE N0Ť INJ DAYS COSTS
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND. l 0 20
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON ICY PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST BACK
OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SCALP. 1 0 55
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN INFECTION
TO EYES. 1 0 38
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF HOPPER RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO ARM. 1 5 212
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF BOTTOM OF
CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO WRIST, 1 0 104
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN
UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO KNEE, 1 13 345
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP WHEELED CART AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE
IRRITATION TO EYES. 1 0 23
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON WASTE ON GROUND RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE
TO ARM. 1 0 62
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE FELL ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO HAND. 1 4 271
EMPLOYEE.WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ARM. 1 0 17
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
,_, UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST. 1 4 63
I EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STB MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
<^> RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST, 1 0 20
^ EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STB MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STB MTL CONT WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK. 1 3 104
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HIPS, 1 6 171
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAB
PROTRUDING WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS. 1 0 32
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP TOTE BARREL ANB HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN EYE
IRRITATION TO EYES. 1 0 16
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS HVY
(WATER FILLED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. 1 4 213
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PIECE OF METAL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP
OF CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT. 1 3 107
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPEB STEPPING ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN UNKNOWN
TYPE OF INJURY TO LEG. 1 0 83
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP UNK CONT TYPE AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE. 1 0 35
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
ANB HAB SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO WRIST. 1 0 20
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP NSTB MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK, 1 0 62
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST WHEELEB CART RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
ELBOW. 1 0 16
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY ANB HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE. 1 0 20
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO BUMP PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD A
PROTRUDING HYPODERMIC NEEDLE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HANB. 1 0 39
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STB MTL CONT ANB HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OILY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE. 1 8 358
-------
PAGE 10
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY UNKNOWN WASTE WHICH WAS EJTD FROM
HOPPER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STB MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
AND HAD SHARP EDGES RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND THE
HANDLE BROKE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
TOTAL
NO
. INJ
1
1
1
375
DAYS
0
0
0
2961
COSTS
20
60
20
121230
CTl
00
-------
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
CARRYING CONTAINER ACCIDENTS
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES ONLY
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 197*
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITYr ACCIDENT TYPE* NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON UNEVEN PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON UNEVEN CURB IN STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON INCLINED GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SKULL.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON WET PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST STEP OF VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED FROM WET CURB ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL AND
UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS EMPTY AND HAD
, SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES.
CTN EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON UNEVEN PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
VO OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN DISLOCATION TO SHOULDER.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLED BY COWORKER RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO ELBOW.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS EMPTY
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
-EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON INCLINED GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SHOULDER.
-EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING STD MTL CONT WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED FROM CURB ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING OIL DRUM AND HE FELL FROM WET CURB ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC CAN AND HE FELL ON OILY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON WET PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE SLIPPED FROM WET CURB ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING HANDTOOL AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON STEP OF VEH AND STRK AGNST BACK OF VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ARM.
NO. INJ
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAYS
12
10
2
62
0
6
12
17
0
1
14
53
IS
0
5
99
10
13
8
3
4
3
10
8
2
4
3
10
14
0
COSTS
541
462
143
758
20
286
471
793
29
72
912
421
684
60
206
750
313
301
169
67
188
211
80
374
61
542
52
407
1024
20
-------
PAGE 2
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE FELL WHILE ON PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST PLASTIC BAG
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON OBJ PROTRUDING FROM GRND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING UNK CONT TYPE AND HE WAS STRUCK BY UNK CONT TYPE WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING AND HE WAS STRUCK BY HANDTOOL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FACE,
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON COLLAPSING INCLINED GROUND RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE,
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL FROM WET INCLINED GRASS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL FROM COLLAPSING OTHER SURFACE ONTO PAVEMENT
RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON DEPRESSION AND STRK AGNST SIDE OF VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLASS RESULTING IN INFECTION TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON SLIPPERY PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST EDGE OF
HOPPER RESULTING IN MULTIPLE INJURIES TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS,
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER RESULTING
IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG,
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STEPPED ON HANDTOOL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC DAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
-EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING Sfn MTL CONT AND HE STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO TOES.
-EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO WRIST,
-EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO
CHEST,
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO MULTIPLE BODY
PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STEPPED ON BOARD WITH NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON UNEVEN PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST STD MTL
CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE UAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FOOT.
-EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL_CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET PAVEMENT IN STEPPING DOWN
CAUGHT BETWEEN MOVING VEH AND OBJ RESULTING IN
INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
11
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
DAYS
0
28
0
0
1
0
148
0
0
8
32
6
10
0
88
0
1
37
0
2
10
127
6
0
6
COSTS
11
917
50
23
98
55
7439
36
20
519
1584
159
466
20
3394
77
32
2255
44
107
535
2263
369
55
289
2
1
34
5
14
205O
so
sis
EMPLOYEE
MULTIPLE INJURIES TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
CRRRYXNO STD 1
CONT (=ťNR
-------
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE MAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) AND BEING HNDLD U OTHER CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST EDGE OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN OTHER TYPE OF INJURY TO TOES.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS HVY (WATER
FILLED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING CARDBD BOX AND HE FELL ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON GRAVEL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND SLIPPERY
-------
PAGE
N)
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE DARREL WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING CARDBD BOX AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND BEING HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT IN STEPPING DOWN RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON STEP OF VEH AND STRK AGNST SIDE OF VEH
RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO JAW.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING CARDBD BOX AND HE FELL WHILE ON GROUND AND STRK AGNST OBJ PROTRUDING FRM GRND
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO NECK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON SLIPPERY OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN
DISLOCATION TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL FROM WET INCLINED GRASS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
. RESULTING IN DISLOCATION TO KNEE,
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING COMPRSD WASTE BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH COMPRESSED WASTE BAG WHICH HAD
PROTRUDING GLASS RESULTING IN INFECTION TO LEG.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET GRASS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
SHOULDER.
:EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS INJURED IN OTHER TYPE OF ACCIDENT RESULTING IN
ASPHYXIATION OR DROWNING TO INTERNAL ORGANS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT AND HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WASTE ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL FROM CURB ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO KNEE.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS EMPTY
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO DACK.
-EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD A PROTRUDING
HYPODERMIC NEEDLE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY BOARD WITH NAIL WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF
CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY
AND HAD THE BOTTOM FALL OUT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK. ,=.? -rn
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY ANB HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
KNEE.
NO. INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
i
DAYS
28
46
4
5
17
34
0
3
2
2
9
31
0
0
7
8
0
14
24
10
0
0
4
3
0
13
O
4
COSTS
1268
565
189
241
329
1568
55
143
234
111
610
2915
23
20
404
441
37
695
2015
911
0
72
151
205
10
1134
3A
21 Z
-------
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE HAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL OH GRAVEL RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE MAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED FROM WET STAIRS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
WRIST.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ARM.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED FROM WET CURB RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND BEINQ
HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON CURB IN STEPPING DOWN RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET WASTE ON GROUND RESULTING IN
UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING WASTE
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK,
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON GROUND RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO EYES.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON WASTE ON GROUND RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY
AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN DISLOCATION TO BACK.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST BACK OF VEH
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON WET DEPRESSION IN STEPPING DOWN RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT.
.EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL FROM WET INCLINED GRASS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS,
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
GLASS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ABDOMEN.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND
BEING HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING WASTE
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SUPPED STEPPING ON INCLINED GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON INCLINED GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND IN STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
o
18
19
2
A
128
2
4
3
2
0
9
5
0
1
0
0
0
51
3
12
0
4
1
10
O
0
2
3
0
0
2
COSTS
20
93
941
103
377
35
5960
74
132
107
111
69
462
273
0
66
92
37
90
1532
29
85
115
425
92
348
69
20
118
239
26
94
107
-------
PAGE 6
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN STEPPING DOWN RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST SIDE OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOREHEAD.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST EDGE OF HOPPER
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON WET GRASS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL WHILE ON RUNNING BOARD AND STRK AGNST RUNNING BOARD
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS HURT BY HANDLING PLASTIC BAG WHICH HAD PROTRUDING
WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CONT HANDLED BY COWORKER RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO THUMB.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON UNEVEN CURB RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON CURB AND STRK AGNST STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON BRICK WALKWAY AND STRK AGNST STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO GROIN.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON SLIPPERY WASTE ON GROUND AND STRK AGNST
STEP OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL WHILE ON ICY PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST STEP OF VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO KNEE,
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST OBJ PROTRUDING FROM GRND RESULTING IN
FRACTURE TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY (YARD
CLIPPINGS) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING OIL DRUM AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND HAD
SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STU MTL CONT AND HE FELL WHILE ON WET GROUND AND STRK AGNST STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE CONTACTED CAUSTIC OR TOXIC OTHER SUBSTANCE RESULTING IN
EMPLOYEDwI^CAR^YINB* STB MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON ICY BRICK WALKWAY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO CHEST*
INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
DAYS
0
13
0
1
4
8
3
0
2
3
2
2
1
0
2
0
99
3
0
2
1
1
3
6
0
10
7
7
COSTS
20
721
69
49
208
235
207
15
10O
96
63
150
194
16
81
58
9947
37
63
125
83
248
264
20
182
513
30O
31 V
-------
PAGE
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET GRASS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BACK OF VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK AGAINST FENDER RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL WHILE ON ICY OBJ ON GROUND AND STRK AGNST TOTE BARREL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE FELL ON INCLINED GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON SLIPPERY CURB RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO KNEE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE STEPPED ON NAIL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO HAND.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON WET PAVEMENT IN STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO FOOT.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING PLASTIC BAG AND HE FELL ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK,
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO LEG.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON ICY GRASS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FINGERS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING'STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO SCALP.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE FELL ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HIPS.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD
SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO SHOULDER,
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER.
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES.
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
3
2
1
0
25
5
0
4
9
3
5
73
3
12
0
3
O
1
1
COSTS
16
88
127
93
65
20
105
161
134
212
273
210
380
1863
131
1211
20
20
35
71
58
TOTAL
239
2086
91641
-------
FIGURE 1-11
PAGE
ALL USERS
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
PUSHING OR PULLING CONTAINER ACCIDENTS
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES ONLY
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITYr ACCIDENT TYPEť NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO THUMB .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON OBJ ON GROUND AND STRK AGNST
WHEELED CART RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL AND BECAME STUCK RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE
' OF INJURY TO UNK BODY PART .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING BULK
CONTU-10 YD) AND HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS FULL
AND BECAME STUCK RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL FROM ICY STAIRS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
SHOULDER .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE STRUCK AGAINST WHEELED CART RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO LEG ,
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BULK CONTU-10 YD)
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO WRIST .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH CONTAINER LID RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO KNEE .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OILY PAVEMENT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT & VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL FROM ICY STAIRS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HIPS
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE WAS STRUCK BY CONTAINER LID RESULTING IN
FRACTURE TO FINGERS .
EMPLOYEE UAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT U-1O YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT S LID
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULUING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESUUTING IN
EMPLOYEE*iAS°PulHING%R%ULLINo'TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN 0% STRAIN TO ANKLE .
NO. INJ DAYS
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
42
64
2
COSTS
16
1760
198
5
18
29
262
8
IS
11
5
6
4
0
1
25
12
14
275
7738
1291
11142
426
968
32
265
370
193
57
60
337
853
652
3
8
55
O
o
148
484
1865
<40
29
ą03
-------
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-1O YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF UITH BULK CONTC1-1O YD)
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND BECAME STUCK RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-1O YD) AND HE UAS CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO FINGERS .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN AVOIDING ANIMAL
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-1O YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT 8 WALL
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE STRUCK.AGAINST POST RESULTING IN BRUISE TO NECK
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT S WALL
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT <1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTd-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING CARDBD BOX AND HE FELL ON PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON UNEVEN GROUND RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HAND .
-EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT <1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT & WALL
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FINGERS .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN HANDLE OF BULK CONTAINER
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON PAVEMENT AND STRK AGNST BACK OF
VEH RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE FELL ON SLIPPERY PAVEMENT AND HNDLD WITH
COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
HVY (YARD CLIPPINGS) AND BEING HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK .
-EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONT(1-10 YD)
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY
(YARD CLIPPINGS) AND BEING HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO TOES .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR FULLING WHEELED CART AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND BECAME STUCK RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT & LID
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO THUMB ,
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONT(1-10 YD)
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND IN STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO HIPS .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BULK CONT(1-10 YD)
RESULTING IN UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO FOOT ,
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING OIL DRUM AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND SLIPPERY (WET) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK ,
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTd-10 YD)
WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE ,
:EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT ft VEH
RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FINGERS ,
;ŁMPJ-OYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO
FOOT .
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
33
0
4
O
78
23
COSTS
12
43
101
42
197
33
542
5554
1202
12
0
2
0
1
O
18
0
6
3
1
0
209
5
7
4
3
0
10
529
32
129
41
99
43
601
20
204
154
76
51
11978
68
52
235
201
16
446
-------
PAGE 3
I-1
I
^J
00
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONT(1-10 YD)
WHICH WAS EMPTY AND BECAME STUCK RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONT(1-10 YD)
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING PLASTIC BAG AND HE FELL FROM VEHICLE ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO CHEEK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK AGAINST BULK CONTU-10 YD)
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING OIL DRUM AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY AND BECAME STUCK RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO ELBOW .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT 8 VEH
RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO WRIST .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING OIL DRUM AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH OIL DRUM WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY
HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (11-25 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONT(11-25
. YD) WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND BECAME STUCK RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS
..EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING 300 GAL PLASTIC CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH 300 GAL PLASTIC
CONT WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL FROM CURB ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN HANDLE OF BULK CONTAINER
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE STRUCK AGAINST GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ELBOW .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING PLASTIC BAG AND HE SLIPPED FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTd-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE STRUCK AGAINST STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO KNEE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE WAS INJURED IN UNK ACCIDENT RESULTING IN
UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY TO FOOT .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT & VEH
RESULTING IN MULTIPLE INJURIES TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONT(1-10 YD)
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT 8 LID
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONT(1-1O YD)
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND HNDLD WITH COWRKR RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT LID AND HE MAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT & LID RESULTING
JN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FINGERS .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLINB WHEELED CART AND HE STRUCK AGAINST WHEELED CART WHICH WAS FULL
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
i
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
YS
A
&
0
0
0
16
0
31
2
0
38
2
COSTS
179
314
20
44
20
842
26
1287
278
48
1777
109
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FINDERS
25
4
2
0
30
3
2
106
0
5
1
O
22
i
o
1334
227
109
72
1497
177
238
3394
25
200
79
73
1303
92
40
CART WHICH HAD
j
-------
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN MULTIPLE
INJURIES TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLINO BULK CONT <1-1O YD) AND HE MAS STRUCK BY BULK CONTŤ1-1O YD> WHICH
WAS FULL RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING OTHER CONT TYPE AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH OTHER CONT TYPE RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL ON OBJ PROTRUDING FROM GRND RESULTING IN
MULTIPLE INJURIES TO MULTIPLE BODY PARTS .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
FULL AND BEING HNDLD W OTHER CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HAND .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLINO BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING BULK
CONT<1-10 YD) WHICH WAS EMPTY AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO MULTI
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
EMPTY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK ť
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING PLASTIC CAN AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS
EMPTY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING STD MTL CONT AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING PLASTIC CAN
WHICH WAS EMPTY AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG ,
^EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT ť VEH (CONT
WAS UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS STRUCK BY VEH RESULTING IN
AMPUTATION TO FINGERS ,
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING 300 GAL PLASTIC CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH 300 GAL PLASTIC
CONT WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL ON WET GRASS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO SHOULDER .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE RESULTING IN
EYE IRRITATION TO EYES .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT IN HANDLE OF BULK CONTAINER
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN BRUISE TO THUMB .
-EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE .
.EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONT(1-10 YD)
WHICH WAS HVY (WATER FILLED) RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH BULK CONT(1-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN FRACTURE TO FOOT .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL ON WET GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO FOOT ,
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING TOTE BARREL AND HE WAS STRUCK BY TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL
RESULTING IN ABRASIONS TO NECK ,
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL AND BECAME STUCK RESULTING IN OTHER TYPE OF INJURY TO CHEST .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONT(1-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN HERNIA TO ABDOMEN .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL AND STUCK OR FROZE TO GRND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK AGAINST POST RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO ELBOW .
NO. INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAYS
1
O
O
3
0
6
4
3
11
0
6
1
0
15
3
0
6
0
1
0
2
55
25
5
47
0
91
0
'8 " COSTS
1
o
o
3
0
6
A
3
11
0
6
1
0
15
3
195
6O
O
248
51
295
257
16
605
68
216
81
49
398
192
33
224
109
54
96
30
1536
918
49
4184
20
993
66
-------
PAGE
00
O
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT & WALL
(CONT WAS UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN BRUISE TO HAND .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL FROM INCLINED GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO HIPS .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH BULK CONTd-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN BRUISE TO TOES .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING NSTD MTL CONT AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS
EMPTY AND BECAME STUCK RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT S VEH
RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND ,
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL FROM INCLINED PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER ,
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND UNUSUALLY LG RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT & WALL
.(CONT WAS UNUSUALLY HVY) RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT & VEH
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO THUMB .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN BULK CONT & WALL
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO THUMB .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHICH WAS
UNUSUALLY HEAVY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE SLIPPED WHILE ON ICY GROUND AND STRK AGNST
FENCE RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE ,
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE STRUCK SELF WITH BULK CONTd-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS EMPTY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING CRATE AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING BULK CONT (1-10 YD) AND HE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BULK CONTU-10 YD)
WHICH WAS FULL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO GROIN .
TOTAL
NO. INJ DAYS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
142
lYS
25
1
0
10
0
9
17
20
5
7
3
19
1
1
89
4
0
1
COSTS
1575
44
16
48
16
327
700
1123
20
448
71
349
63
68
4828
88
271
20
1825 87403
-------
SECTION II
FOURTH QUARTER IRIS USER
INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA
The accidents received by IRIS from 81 users are covered
in this section. FIGURE 2-1 gives operational background data
on the IRIS users.
FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS RATES
FIGURES 2-2 through 2-5 recap the frequency, severity
and costs of injuries for this quarter:
FIGURE 2-2; Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity and Costs. Compares the solid waste
management industry with the national average
for all industries.
FIGURE 2-3; Comparison of Injury Rates and
OSHA Days Lost for All Users. Compares the
rates and days lost for the first four
quarters of 1976, for each user, in user
number order.
FIGURE 2-4; Comparison of Direct Costs by
Reporting Period for All Users. Compares
the total costs and cost rates for the first
four quarters of 1976, for each user, in
user number order.
FIGURE 2-5; Summary of Accident Factors for
Selected Accident Characteristics with Highest
Percent of OSHA Recordable Injuries, OSHA Days
Lost and Direct Costs.
A few definitions of the terms used in the following
FIGURES are;
OSHA Recordable Injury. Defined by OSHA as
a non-first aid injury.
2-1
-------
OSHA Incidence Rate. It is a measure of the
frequency of injuries. The OSHA incidence rate
is the number of OSHA recordable injuries per
200,000 hours of exposure. The base figure of
"200,000 hours" is the standard figure used
in OSHA statistics. It is roughly equivalent to
100 full-time employees working a year or 100
man-years (i.e., 100 employees working 40 hours
per week for 50 weeks per year).
OSHA incidence rates can be thought of as being
roughly equivalent to the number of injuries
that will occur to 100 employees during a year.
Therefore, an OSHA incidence rate of 37 means
that the organization is having 37 injuries
per year for each 100 employees or that, on
the average, 1 out of every 3 employees are
being injured. The national average OSHA
incidence rate for all industries has been
around 10 for the last several years.
Severity Rate. The severity rate is similar
to the OSHA incidence rate, except that it
reflects the number of OSHA days lost (i.e.,
workdays lost and light duty days), instead
of the number of injuries, per 100 man-years
worked. For example, a severity rate of 500
would mean roughly that an organization is
losing 500 workdays for every 100 employees
per year, or that on the average each employee
is losing 5 days a year for on-the-job injuries.
Direct Costs. Direct costs are normally those
for which money was actually expended and in-
clude worker's compensation, medical expenses,
and wage continuation benefits (e.g., injury
leave). There are many indirect costs such as
down time, replacement time, lost time by wit-
nesses and supervisors, etc., which are not
included in these figures. Indirect costs are
estimated to be 5 times the direct costs in
cities according to the National Safety Council.
Average Direct Costs per OSHA Recordable Injury.
An average direct cost per OSHA recordable injury
of $500 means that on the average each OSHA record-
able injury (i.e., a non-first aid case) is
costing the organization $5001 *
2-2
-------
o Direct Cost per Man-Year. It shows the
cost per 2,000 hours or the average cost per
year per employee. A direct cost per man-year
of $200 would mean that on the average an
organization's injuries are costing $200
per employee per year.
In reviewing these FIGURES, the data for the AVERAGE
(shown on the FIGURES as AVG) is the most important because
it summarizes the results for all users combined. After
examining the AVERAGES, it is important to examine how
great the range of rates between users is. Wide ranges are
important because they show that it is possible to achieve
lower rates of injury under given operating systems and
safety programs.
2-3
-------
FIGURE 2-1
DESCRIPTION OF USERS BY OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
User
Number
101
103
NJ
jL 109
111
113
115
125
133
136
140
146
148
149
152
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M ť
Geograph.
Area
South
Midwest
Midwest
West
Midwest
South
South
Northwest
South
South
South
Northeast
Midwest
Midwest
No. of
Employees
325
80
500
280
33
300
650
86
140
844
295
267
65
63
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A
BY/CS/A
BY/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS/A/ BY
M/A
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
CS
Type
of
Shift
T/F
T
F
T
T
T/F
T
T
F
T
T
T
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
4
3
4,3
2
1,2
3
2
3,1
3
1,2,3
2
Comm.
4
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
2
, / 1
Resid.
&
Cornm.
2
3
4
. i
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L,I
L,I
L
L
L,T
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
157
161
170
ill 171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
M-Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
Midwest
South
Midwest
West
South
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
South
South
West
Northeast
No. of
Employees
203
125
1481
370
700
629
532
278
470
308
297
177
86
120
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o interned, can
BYT-Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS/A
CS/BYC/A
A
M/CS/A
CS
CS
BY
CS
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
T
T/F
T/F
T
T
T
T
T
T
T/F
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
2
3,1
1,2,3,4,
5
3
1,3,2
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
Coituti.
2
2,3,4,5
2
3
2
3
1
2,1
Resid.
&
Connn.
2
2
Disposa]
L=Landfill
I=Incinerat
T=Trans. St
L,T
L
T
L
L,I
I,T
L
L
L
L
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
204
207
210
Ł211
212
215
217
221
226
235
236
237
242
M=Municipal
P-Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
244 \ M '
Geograph.
Area
West
West
West
West
West
South
South
West
South
South
South
Midwest
South
West
No. of
Employees
52
205
15
40
130
60
820
210
87
125
103
90
101
3O
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY-Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=3ackyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A/M
BYC
CS
CS/A
CS/A
CS/BY/BYT
CS/A/BY
CS
CS
BYT/A/CS
CS
A/BYC
CS/ BY /BYT/ A
BYT/ BYC
Type
of
Shift
F
T
T
T
F
T/F
F
T
T
T
T/F
T/F
T/F
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
1,3
3
2
3
1,2,3
2
3
3
3
3
2.
Comm.
1,3
2
2
1
1,3
3
1
3
1,2
Resid.
&
Comm.
1,2
2
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L,T
L
L
1 L,T
/
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
260
261
K.265
i
^272
275
283
285
286
292
295
296
299
316
318
M-Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Northwest
South
West
Northeast
Northeast
Northwest
No. of
Employees
168
8
200
127
40
72
79
8
225
179
43
113
475
48
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/BYT/A/M
CS/A
CS/BYT/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
A/BYT/BYC
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/BY
CS/A/ BY
CS
CS/A/ BYT
A/CS
I
Type
of
Shift
T
T
T
T
T
T/F
T
F
F
T
F
T
F
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
1,2
3
1,2
3
3
2
3
1,3
4
1
3
2,3
3
Comm.
2,3
2
3
3,1
2
2
2,1
3
2,3
3
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerat
T=Trans. Si
L
L
L,T
L,I
L,T
L,T
L
L
L
L
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
323
324
325
NJ
cL326
327
, 328
329
330
331
332
333
335
336
337
M-Municipal
P=Private
M
P
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
P
P
, M *
Geograph.
Area
Northeast
Midwest
Northwest
South
South
Midwest
West
South
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
No. of
Employees
171
17
45
23
140
33
20
60
35
14
43
24
51
4O5
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard Xtf/o intermed. can
BYT=3ackyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/A
CS
CS
CS
CS
A/CS
CS/A
-
BY
CS
-
CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
F
T
T
T/F
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
F
1
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
2,1
3
3
2,1
3
3
3
3
3
3
I
Comm.
1,2,3
3
2,3
2
2,1
3
2
1
2,1
/
Resid.
&
Contra.
3
1,2
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
1= Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L
I,L
T
L
L
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
West
Midwest
West
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Northeast
West
Midwest
West
West
Midwest
No. of
Employees
405
405
318
35
25
17
40
38
70
60
35
40
57
10
52
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
CS/A
-
A/CS
CS
CS/A
CS/BYT
CS
CS/A
CS/A
Type
of
Shift
F
F
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
3
3
3
2
1
1
2,3
2
1,2,3
2
2
2
3
Corrun.
2,1
2
1
1
2
1
3
Resid.
&
Comm.
2
4
2
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L.I.T
L
T
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
353
354
355
CO
l 356
H
O
358
359
360
361
362
363
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
P
P
M
P
P
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
South
Midwest
Northwest
West
Northeast
South
No. of
Employees
20
30
70
21
18
71
30
44
76
75
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
BYT
CS/BY
_
BYC/CS
CS
-
-
CS
CS/A/BY
Type
of
Shift
F
T
T
F
T
T
F
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
3
2
3
2
4,3
1,4
Conun.
1,2
1
2
1,2
1
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=.Trans. Stn.
L,T
L.T
-------
FIGURE 2-2
SUMMARY OF INJURIES
BY FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS
FREQUENCY
There were 1,547 cases reported by 81 of the 84 IRIS
users on-line: 348 first aid cases, 498 nonfatal cases
without lost workdays, 695 lost workday cases and 6
permanent disability cases. Total man-hours for this
quarter were 7,223,094.
The AVERAGE OSHA incidence rate was 33 for this quarter,
the lowest of all previous quarters. This means that
one out of every three solid waste industry employees
will experience a non-first aid injury a year. The
national rate for all industries was 10.4. Therefore,
the solid waste industry is experiencing more than
three times as many injuries as the average industry.
IRIS users ranged in frequency rates from User No. 210
which was experiencing 1.5 injuries per employee per
year, to User No. 362 which was experiencing 4 injuries
per 100 employees per year.
SEVERITY (Days lost given are not final. These figures
reflect what was received from IRIS users by July 1, 1977
and may be gross underestimates. For example, in the months
since the publication of the first quarter Accident Trends,
the OSHA severity rate has increased from 269 to 463, and not
all cases are final yet.)
So far, 699 cases this quarter incurred 8,713 workdays
lost and light duty days.
45% of the total cases resulted in workdays lost and/or
light duty days. The national average for all industries
is 33%. This means that the solid waste industry has
more than 1 1/3 times as many lost workday injuries
as the average industry.
The AVERAGE OSHA severity rate was 242. This means that
on the average, each employee is losing 2.4 days per
year for injuries. One user's rate was as high as 42
days lost per year per employee; several are losing
zero days a year per employee.
2-11
-------
On the AVERAGE, each lost workday case resulted in
12.46 workdays lost so far.
DIRECT COSTS (Costs given are not final. These figures
reflect what was received from IRIS users by July 1, 1977,
and may be gross underestimates. For example, first quarter's
AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury has gone up from
$296 to $509.)
Total direct costs so far for injuries that occurred
during the fourth quarter was $487,615.
The AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury was $405.
The AVERAGE cost per man-year was $135. This means
that the average solid waste injury (non-first aid)
cost $135 per full-time employee per year so far.
2-12
-------
FIGURE 2-3
COMPARISON (DP INJURY RATES AND OSHA DAYS LOST FOR ALL USERS
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
SEVERITY RATE
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
SER ! QTR 1
101 : 12
103
109 36
111 68
113
115
125 31
1.33
136 15
140 47
146 26
148
149
152
157
161 13
170
171 44
172 50
178
179
181 44
182
183
186 19
191 57
197
201
204 79
207 79
210 104
211 9
212 79
QTR 2 C
34
49
77
35
0
55
21
35
42
63
56
50
24
46
136
97
0
68
44
?TR 3
45
51
81
42
3
34
5
63
57
69
38
67
25
94
39
48
73
49
34
QTR 4 : QTR 1
20 48
109
21 194
54 1112
28
29
20 743
19
577
525
36 381
18
125
87
16
54 0
23
47 209
38 475
18
30
51 369
12
38
23 105
47 188
32
8
30 342
98 582
148 467
63 539
759
QTR 2
394
176
1203
375
0
680
138
224
34
230
1087
148
279
1 50
84
253
0
281
488
QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 1 QTR 2 GTR 3 QTR 4
102 121 6,50 27,00 8,33 17.57
375 3.44
199 124 8,03 8.15 7,65 6.27
882 221 23,73 22,05 14,93 10,87
0 0,00
152 11,00
523 343 30,06 13,03 15,45 24,94
131 10.50
24 38.60 0,00 8,00
15.37 16.56
143 250 47.17 20.60 9.82 12,93
0 61 12,86 0,00 9,25
886 10,22
355 8,14
90 6,29
99 38 0,00 1,60 5,00 1,11
171 9.58
294 590 9.58 5,96 10.53 18.42
444 362 14.56 26.81 11.23 20.85
106 11.07
429 314 22.60 17,55
264 427 11,48 4,26 6,89 13.04
22 4.60
161 6.31
102 108 12.25 22,00 8,22 7,36
232 505 4,00 5,11 4,62 15.73
324 592 10,00 23,25
245 61,00
55 273 13,00 8,00 7,00 12,00
628 351 10.30 5.35 13.19 8.53
1347 3142 9.00 0,00 27,50 29,80
94 211 62,00 4,71 2.75 3.86
9.65 11. 00
-------
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
SEVERITY RATE
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
USER QTR 1
215 t 0
217
221
226
235 66
236 89
237 45
242 4
244 135
260 68
261 48
265 34
N> 272 17
M 275
-** 283 34
285 20
286 J 0
292 J 9
295 : 26
296 t 56
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
328
329
330
331
333
336
QTR 2
0
44
56
105
34
0
57
54
0
47
15
182
50
0
0
11
20
76
80
79
62
106
73
QTR 3
22
60
33
40
74
47
0
42
104
0
65
19
59
51
0
7
20
58
60
79
71
47
0
17
71
0
1O1
QTR 4
0
43
78
18
36
57
36
5
56
117
48
70
40
93
19
39
5
29
55
45
29
46
8
46
46
24
0
50
44
0
99
23
QTR 1
0
330
1492
105
100
247
759
145
249
368
0
39
0
814
97
1398
QTR 2
0
195
0
671
153
0
199
519
0
305
11
.1.944
134
0
0
20
20
2943
907
0
196
106
245
QTR 3
419
.1.54
147
0
250
94
0
184
.1.190
0
407
99
79
118
0
15
102
221
426
2458
236
351
0
102
79
0
50
QTR 4
0
34
1022
0
51
51
129
18
183
1296
429
522
150
384
10
0
7
212
1765
158
300
346
54
23
771
48
0
17
850
O
1 2 :L 9
Ł2
QTR 1
0*00
6,00
18.53
3 . 50
25 . 00
2 , 75
19.42
3 . 00
8 , 64
32.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
86.00
4.75
25.00
QTR 2
0.00
11.22
0,00
8,86
6.40
0.00
3.50
16.20
0.00
7,80
1.50
10.67
8.00
0,00
0,00
4.33
2,00
51,50
17,05
0,00
4,75
2.00
5,00
QTR 3
19.00
12,38
4.50
0.00
6,00
3.14
0.00
6.50
17,64
0,00
7,30
6.50
2.67
3,50
0,00
2.75
15.50
5,75
12.82
3.1.09
3.33
13.00
0.00
6.00
2.50
O.OO
2.OO
QTR 4
0.00
4.19
13.07
0.00
2.80
1.78
4,83
3.50
6.50
14.26
9.00
10.55
6.83
9.25
2.00
0.00
3.00
13.33
32.17
28 , 00
16.32
7.57
13.00
1.00
23,60
2.00
0,00
1.00
23.40
O.OO
37.OO
2. Ł>7
-------
USER !
NJ
1
1,1
un
337
338
339
340
341
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
353
354
355
358
359
361
362
363
AVG,
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 (
67
48
36
117
76
40
46
'50
R 4
38
25
36
29
58
75
11
10
29
20
34
50
42
51
35
129
33
88
57
23
4
10
33
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3
624
376
184
2073
151
463 404 315
QTR 4 :
262
191
202
296
737
50
80
627
95
20
192
125
96
101
122
388
16
4230
447
0
305
0
9,49
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
9,29
7*78
5,12
19,50
2,00
6,92
7,57
5,67
28,37
12,75
2,00
7,00
65,00
3,25
3 , 00
8,50
10,00
3,00
2,00
7,00
9,00
1,50
145,00
12,43
0,00
72.00
0,00
16,65
14.40
11,46
12,43
-------
FIGURE 2-4
COMPARISON OF DIRECT COSTS BY REPORTING PERIOD FOR ALL USERS
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
AVG* COST PER OSHA REC. INJ.
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
USER !
ioi :
103 :
109 :
111 J
113 J
115 J
125 :
133 :
136 ;
1-40 :
to 146 J
' 148 :
c* 149 :
152 J
157 :
16.1. :
170 :
171 :
172 I
178 J
179 :
181 J
182 :
183 J
186 ;
191 :
197 :
201 :
204 J
207 J
21O t
21 1 J
212 t
QTR 1 QTR 2
4? 210 25*973
13*513 12? 994
53 t 238 41 y 227
48 * 0.1.0 25 F 734
1 * 970 0
39*842 69 y 843
12*010 5*442
3*577
135 815
3*582 6*376
26 y 708 42*735
11*510 5*081
1*295 8*021
1*475 1*685
2*481 517
4*523 9*636
ąy445 O
' 794 1ť987
14 r 297 7F130
QTR 3
5*735
19*851
29*520
43*854
205
3*060
110
1 * 526
9*486
27*413
8*499
9*833
2*950
2*101
2*654
300
12ť908
3y218
600
QTR 4
4*271
3*627
12*834
11*963
102
6*336
28*740
638
8*171
2*092
2 * 952
3 * 056
2*957
663
21*541
20*018
71*487
7*087
20 * 983
15*322
1*032
7*505
3*370
3 * 702
43*237
2*571
2*142
& > 786
9 ť 079
1 F6S7
QTR 1
386
312
1*108
787
394
711
632
18
148
387
391
143
86
275
141
361
758
S
-------
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR A
AVG* COST PER OSIIA REC* INJ.
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR A J
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR A
215
217
221
226
235
236
237
242
244
260'
261
265
272
275
283
285
286
292
295
296
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
328
329
330
331
333
336
0
1*185
12*768
604
6*877
706
2*317
159
2*820
1*861
: H9
f 61
0
7*327
911
1*982
0
86*968
725
9 * 550
1*813
0
904
5*620
0
8 * 2 1 6
109
1*437
1 * 346
0
0
894
578
16*786
35*939
92
2*159
153
1*053
4*846
29*978
1*045
240
8*223
1*583
0
748
8*797
0
14*019
1*224
272
1*890
0
483
1*172
1*256
24*016
14*061
491
4*736
0
378
480
0
223
0
9*707
14*110
60
886
1*442
1 * 925
278
962
17*683
960
9*500
1 * 424
1*297
173
80
376
5*257
10*471
2*010
17*902
4*218
893
62
5*069
91
0
194
2*822
0
2*044
60
0
197
608
201
6*877
1 1 7
1 1 0
.1.59
214
620
59
61
0
3*663
177
991
0
948
48
329
259
0
226
330
0
455
27
239
147
0
0
127
96
2*098
598
30
359
66
351
1*615
211
253
21
357
143
0
249
258
0
519
2 4 4
45
210
0
96
195
209
338
1*278
163
676
0
338
53
0
55
0
86
491
20
88
80
218
139
240
442
960
306
129
144
43
80
94
477
1*745
125
511
587
205
31
716
91
0
64
470
0
340
20
0
130
54.1.
90
274
158
75
76
74
107
20
12
0
{ 346
J 46
554
>
0
418
26
344
86
0
128
180
0
213
4
436
75
0
0
13
19
1*598
478
24
222
81
257
356 0
128 37
85 393
3
8 31
263 45
67 85
0 7
105 135
269 518
0 457
339 213
46 52
26 134
106 8
0 30
6 4
38 139
120 957
56
204 149
1*010 275
18
115 14
319 331
0 22
0
64 32
37 205
0 0
56 336
4
-------
to
I
H
CO
USER ! QTR 1
337
338
339
340
341
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
353
354
355
358
359
361
362
363
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVG. COST PER OSIIA REC. INJ,
QTR 1 QTR 2
11,442
6s-431
3.-152
9 y 864
341
7*664
4t968
6ť265
10*803
4 ?644
453
318
1?670
619
331
1*172
729
393
64
238
1*193
165
3 .-953
2x061
40
1*934
31
AVG.J
280:
4431-123 335? 214 487,,
R 3
817
714
394
896
170
QTR 4
638
709
522
491
572
151
318
1 f 670
154
110
390
182
98
64
1 1 9
198
27
1ť 317
187
20
i.i-934
31 J
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
549
345
141
1 s-048
128
509
485
313
405 I
204
223
155
241
178
186
140
335
113
36
161
45
22
132
91
41
32
41
256
9
1,153
105
,4
81
135
-------
FIGURE 2-5
SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT FACTORS FOR SELECTED ACCIDENT
CHARACTERISTICS WITH HIGHEST PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
OSHA DAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
Type of
Characteristic
Factors With The:
Highest % of OSHA
Recordable Injuries
Highest % of OSHA
Days Lost
Highest % of
Direct Costs
Activity
Accident Type
Accident Site
Nature of injury
Part of Body
Lifting or dumping container - 36%
Carrying container - 8%
Getting off equipment - 8%
Overexertion involving container - 17%
Slip on same level - 7%
Fall on same level - 6%
On collection route at back of truck - 31%
On collection route at curb - 15%
On collection route in customer's yard-11%
Sprain or strain - 41%
Bruise - 22%
Cut or puncture - 17%
Back - 19%
Eyes - 9%
Leg - 8%
Lifting or dumping container - 29%
Riding on equipment - 11%
Getting off equipment - 11%
Overexertion involving container - 22%
Vehicle accident - 16%
Slip on same level - 9%
On collection route at back of truck : 23%
3n collection route at curb - 12%
On collection route in customer's yard-11%
Sprain or strain - 51%
Bruise - 14%
Fracture - 14%
Back - 28%
_eg - 10%
nee - 8%
Lifting or dumping container - 23%
Riding on equipment - 16%
Opening equipment part - 10%
Vehicle Accident - 21%
Overexertion involving container - ]7l
Struck by vehicle part - 10%
On collection route at back of truck - 20%
On collection route on step of vehicle - 13%
At landfill next to veh. at dump site - 97,
Sprain or strain - 40%
Bruise - 14%
Fracture - 11%
Back - 22%
Leg - 17%
Multiple body parts - 12%
-------
Accident Trends
1st Quarter 1977
-------
EXHIBIT 6
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
CAUGHT IN PACKER ACCIDENTS
QUARTER: JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31, 1977
DEVELOPED BY SAFETY SCIENCES, DIVISION OF WSA INC,,
FOR THE U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
UNDER CONTRACT No, 68-03-0231
Division of USA Inc..11772 Sorrento Valley Roid
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
Accident Trends in the Solid Waste Management Industry is
developed quarterly using data from IRIS (the Injury Re-
porting and Information System for Solid Waste Manage-
ment) . Accident Trends is designed to summarize and
discuss the data from all IRIS users and to provide data
and conclusions which affect the industry as a whole.
A companion volume, the QSMR (Quarterly Safety Management
Report), is developed individually for each IRIS user who
reported injuries during the quarter. Each QSMR concen-
trates only on the injuries of the individual IRIS user
for which it is prepared.
IRIS is currently made up of 82 users. All possible care
is taken to insure date quality. The nature of the data
and the reports, however, precludes complete accuracy.
Not all cases are closed by the end of the quarter. These
accidents continue to be monitored. Occasionally, full
lost time and cost data is not available. Consequently,
the totals for these categories may be underestimates. A
concerted effort is made to correct the lost time and cost
figures and improve IRIS collection methods. The recommend-
ations and countermeasures presented are suggestions that
must be evaluated in terms of individual user's needs.
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications is to dis-
seminate new ideas and alternative methods in the solid
waste field. IRIS serves as a clearinghouse in this regard,
but does not promote or endorse any method or product.
Implementation of QSMR suggestions should be done only after
careful evaluation by each user and at each user's discre-
tion.
-------
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
CAUGHT IN PACKER ACCIDENTS
QUARTER: January 1 through March 31, 1977
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ....................... iv
I. DISCUSSION OF CAUGHT IN PACKER ACCIDENTS
AND PREVENTION METHODS ............. 1-1
1. Equipment Modifications and the ANSI
Z245.1-1975 Standard ........... 1-7
1.1 Point of Operation Protection . . . . 1-7
1.2 Packing Cycle Controls ........ 1-10
1.3 Riding Steps and Handholds ...... 1-10
2. Employee Training and Supervision . . . . . 1-14
2.1 Proper Riding Stance . . . . . . . . . 1-15
2.2 Operating the Packing Mechanism
Controls Safely ........... 1-15
2.3 Packer Operator Responsibility . . . . 1-16
2.4 Supervision ............. 1-16
3. Altering Operational Procedures ...... 1-16
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 1-17
JI. FIRST QUARTER IRIS USER INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA . . . 2-1
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1
FIGURE 1-2
FIGURE 1-3
FIGURE 1-4
FIGURE 1-5
FIGURE 2-1
FIGURE 2-2
FIGURE 2-3
FIGURE 2-4
FIGURE 2-5
"Caught in Packer" Accident Descrip-
tions
Two Handed Packing Mechanism
Controls .....'........,
1-3
1-9
Retractable Riding Step .......... 1-12
Bi-Level Riding Step ........... 1-13
Hopper Step and Guard ........... 1-14
Description of Users by Operational
Characteristics ......... ..... 2-4
Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity, and Costs ............ 2-11
Comparison of Injury Rates and OSHA
Days Lost for All Users .......... 2-13
Comparison of Direct Costs by Reporting
Period for All Users ........... 2-19
Summary of Accident Factors for
Selected Accident Characteristics with
Highest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct
Costs ................... 2-25
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
This is the Accident Trends report for the First
quarter of 1977 (January 1 to March 31). This report is
divided into two sections, a discussion of the special
feature topic, caught in packer accidents, their preventa-
tive measures and a summary of the data for the quarter.
Section I includes detailed descriptions of the caught in
packer accidents since the instigation of IRIS in December
1975, but Section II relates only the rates and figures
applicable to the First quarter of 1977.
Of the 82 IRIS users on-line first quarter, 80
users reported 1,595 injuries. Since the injury rates are
based on man-hours of exposure, they reflect the various
start-up periods of the IRIS users.
The time lost and direct costs shown on the FIG-
URES were provided as of June 1, the "closing date" for
receiving data for the first quarter. Any cases where the
time lost or direct cost data are incomplete are being
monitored for updating.
IV
-------
SECTION I
DISCUSSION OF CAUGHT IN PACKER ACCIDENTS
AND PREVENTION METHODS
Caught in packer accidents are one of the most
traumatic accidents that can occur to solid waste workers.
They are low in frequency, but because of their high sever-
ity (including one fatality) an in-depth study of them can
help IRIS users to understand why they are occurring and
how they can be prevented.
The IRIS injury reporting period of 12/75 through
3/77 was chosen, since most of the cases would have been
closed by now. The closing date of the time lost and direct
cost data was the end of 1977. A total of 36 "caught in
packer" accidents (.7%) occurred during this reporting period.
These accidents ranged in severity from cuts and bruises to
amputations and resulted in:
A total of 1,326 days lost (4%) and
$147,907 in direct costs (8%). The
percentages were derived from using
total collection crew injuries.
An OSHA incidence rate of .36, or 3.6
employees out of 1,000 full time col-
lection employees a year will sustain
a caught in packer accident that is
OSHA recordable (19,567,739 man-hours
of exposure).
An OSHA severity rate of 13.6. This
means that the users are losing an
average of .14 days lost per employee
on the payroll due to injuries from
employees being caught by the packer
blade.
Direct costs per OSHA recordable injury
of $4,108.
Direct costs per man-year of $15,011.
This means that each user is spending
an average of $15 per employee on the
payroll due to caught in packer accidents.
Seven amputations, eight fractures and
one fatality.
1-1
-------
FIGURE 1-1 gives the actual descriptions of the
accidents. With these particular accidents, often times
the employee was performing two activities at the same time,
which is difficult to code in a manner that would describe
the accident completely. For instance, the injured employee
may have been "riding on the step" as well as "pushing waste
back into the hopper," but only one activity category can
be used. Therefore, the actual injury decriptions are more
revealing.
Upon examining the 36 "caught in packer" accident
descriptions, several notable accident causal factors can
be singled out in order of highest to lowest frequency. Note
that some accidents fall in more than one category:
Improperly placed hand or foot - 13
Riding or standing on step - 10
Operating packing mechanism - 8
Catching and pushing back falling waste - 7
Interaction with coworker - 5
Clearing jammed packer blade - 4
Dumping into hopper at the time - 4
Pushing wrong control button - 1
1-2
-------
FIGURE 1-1
"CAUGHT IN PACKER" ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONS
1. Employee was walking behind packer with his hand on
packer sill with packer operating. Packer blade
caught two fingers.
2. Dumping at the Landfillcardboard lodged in hopper.
He reached in to dislodge it, and bar fell down on
his hand.
3. Standing on dockkicking refuse into hopper. Packer
starting to move, caught foot, and fractured toe.
4. Employee was activating packer and speaking to fellow
employee. He forgot his hand was still on truck, and
packer blade struck his index finger.
5. Employee activated the hopper to check to see if it
was functioning correctly when he unconsciously put
his hand on the inside of the hopper. As the hopper
came down, it cut him on the middle finger.
6. Cleaning trash out from behind compacter blade. Engine
was started by coworker, and he was crushed behind
blade of side loader. Fatality.
7. As hopper was coming down, employee got his skin caught
between hopper and edge of blade. Employee was stand-
ing on rear step.
8. Standing with foot on bucket rail when hopper came down
on it and fractured foot. Unknown distraction.
9. Caught finger in blade; mashed finger. Had hand resting
back of truck while hopper was operating.
10. Employee was riding on rear step, and had his hand on
the packer blade. Apparently the blade shifted, and it
pinched his finger.
11. Employee was riding on vehicle, had foot on edge of the
hopper, and packer was operating. Blade cut off his
left big toe. Driver had left power take-off on. Em-
ployee can operate packer from rear while riding when
power take-off is on.
1-3
-------
12. Employee was getting a plastic bag which was stuck in
the hopper. When he was pulling the bag, he accidently
pushed the wrong button and caught his left arm and
hand in the hopper.
13. Employee was putting brush into the hopper when the
blade came down,, cutting his left arm and hand.
14. Riding on rear step, and while they were moving, they
were cycling the hopper. His hand got pinched between
packer blade and hopper.
15. Got hand caught in hopper. Unknown activity.
16. "Dogs" fell and amputated his finger. (Thinks it was
caught in the hopper because hopper was not operating
smoothly). Hopper was jittering around. He had his
hand where it shouldn't be. He was operating the hopper
system after dumping garbage.
17. Hopper was stuck. Tried to free it with hand, and when
he did, the hopper moved and cut his finger.
18. Packing trucktrying to keep garbage from falling from
bucket. Caught right arm in packer blade and cut it.
19. Employee riding on trucksweeper blade had been acti-
vatedtruck made left turn, employee lost his balance.
As he attempted to regain his balance, he launched back
into the truck. His foot was placed on hopper, and
blade fractured his foot.
20. Employee activated sweep blade on packing unit and a box
got caught in the hopper between blade and bed. He
backed blade up and pushed box in so blade would clear.
His right hand was on packing lever, and while shoving
the box in with left hand, the sweep blade activated,
catching his left hand between the blade and bed. Amput-
ation.
21. While dumping container, employee hit return button on
packer with knee. Hopper went back the other way catch-
ing glove under hopper inspection cover. He had stitches
for severe cutthey felt gloves might be factor as to
why it wasn't amputated. This is a Shu-pak.
22. Pushing garbage into hopper with left hand. Right hand
slipped off lever, and left hand was caught between
hopper and blade. Garbage was falling out. Fracture.
1-4
-------
23. Standing on back of truck and packer blade caught his
big toe mashing it.
24. Employee had his foot on hopper of truck. Another man
started the packer, and it caught his right foot and
broke it. Was just standing with foot on truck.
25. Employee went to grab garbage which was falling out of
hopper. As he did so, his finger got caught in packer
blade, resulting in the tips of two fingers being cut
off.
26. Truck made right turn out of south end of alley (truck
steps drag at this point). Employee was aware of this,
and to assure himself that his foot would not accidently
be caught between truck step and pavement, he put it on
the edge of the hopper. He was running packing unit
through its cycle at the same time. He misjudged the
location of his foot, and the packing blade caught the
end of his left foot. Employee did not take advantage
of safety devices. He ran packing unit through cycle
without allowing it to stop. The safety arm was jammed.
27. Truck was packing. He was holding the tailgate, and the
packer blade caught his finger on right hand.
28. Employee was pushing trash into hopper with hand when
coworker activated packer. Resulted in contusion of hand.
29. Rearranging boxes in packer when packer was operating.
Fractured arm.
30. Employee was on bed of truckgoing to bathroom. Driver
activated the packer and came around and found employee
caught between blade and door.
31. Putting boxes into truck. Packer blade, caught right arm.
32. The packer was packing and the blade came over and
caught his finger, employee was pushing waste back into
hopper at the time of the accident.
33. Employee was pushing garbage into hopper, to keep it from
falling outwhen his finger was caught between the
hopper and sill.
34. Employee was making repairs to packing systems. His foot
slipped and bucket came down on hand, cutting finger.
35. Curb trash fell in front of packer blade. Employee
reached in front of blade to get some paper, and blade
caught his right arm On return stroke, resulting in loss
of right arm from elbow down.
1-5
-------
36. Employee had oil on shoes. When driver stopped sud-
denly, employee on step slipped. His foot went up in
the air, and packer blade was coming down. It cut his
foot.
1-6
-------
As the highest causal factor category indicates,
many of the accidents occur when employees unconsciously
place their hand or foot in the way of the operating packer
blade. Because of the serious nature of the injuries invol-
ved, the operating packer panel has been the target of many
equipment safeguards as well as intensive training methods.
No personal protective equipment is of aid, but an opera-
tional procedures change (e.g., not allowing "packing on the
run") would help reduce the occurrence of this accident type,
The following discussion is divided into these
three types of preventative measures to aid in the reduction
of caught in packer accidents: equipment modifications and
the ANSI Z245.1-1975 standard, employee training and super-
vision, and altering operational procedures.
1. EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS AND THE ANSI Z245.1-1975
STANDARD
Three types of equipment modifications can be in-
stalled to provide protection against caught in packer acci-
dents, point-of-operation protection, altering controls, and
providing more comfortable riding steps and handholds. The
ANSI Z245.1-1975 standard entitled, "Safety Requirements for
Refuse Collection and Compaction Equipment" addresses these
areas. It must be remembered that this is a consensus standard
developed by solid waste safety professionals for the industry -
It, however, does not address the chassis nor the maximum
hopper sill height. The standard applies to mobile equipment
manufactured after March 1978. Implementation of the ANSI
Z245.1-1975 standard is voluntary, but it has been cited in
court cases and can be adopted into federal and state standards
(see the June 1977 and March 1978 issues of the "IRIS News").
1-1 Point-of-Operation Protection
For point-of-operation protection, the ANSI Z245.1-
1975 standard states:
7.2.6 Point-of-Operation Protection. The employee shall
be protected from pinch points during the packing cycle
by one of the following means:
(1) Deadman control from the initiation of the
packing cycle -until the packer panel clears the loading
sill. (Deadman controls are such that the control
must be continually depressed in order to function.
Problems associated with this control is that the
1-7
-------
workers jam the control in place.)
(2) An elevating hopper that raises any pinoh point
during the packing cycle at least 5 feet above the working
surface. (An example of this is the Heil rear
loader truck.)
(S) A movable guard that is interlocked with the
packing cycle so that it is in place before the packer
panel is within 6 inches of the pinch point. The movable
barrier shall be designed so that it shall not be hazardous
in itself. (An example of this was the safety door
which came down whenever the packer panel was oper-
ated. Problems associated with this was the safety
door malfunctioning and coming down on the employee
as he was dumping into the hopper.)
(4) A control that provides an interrupted cycle.
Actuation of the control shall cause the packer panel to
stop not less than 6 inches or more than 16 inches from
the pinch point created by the packer panel as it moves
past the hopper loading sill. The control shall require
reactivation to complete the packing cycle by a subse-
quent motion by the operator.
(5) Other means, at least as effective as those given
in 7.3.6(1) through 7.3.6(4), that will protect an employee
from the pinch point.
Combinations of the points-of-operation protection given above
can be used. For instance/ the deadman controls can be used
on a truck that has an elevating hopper.
In addition to these points-of operation protection
given in the standard, one IRIS user, the City of San Diego,
has installed a manually operated second control on their rear
loading trucks that have a packer blade that sweeps 360
(FIGURE 1-2). When the second control is not pushed before
the sweep blade comes down to the pinch point, the two metal
bars protruding into the side of the hopper stops the blade.
Therefore, two hands are required to complete the packing
cycle.
Another two-handed control that San Diego has in-
stalled on their rear loaders with push button controls is a
separate push button that has to be depressed along with the
start button in order for the packer panel to function
(FIGURE 1-2). All controls are deadman controls.
Two handed deadman controls have an advantage over
only deadman controls in that the packing mechanism operator
1-8
-------
is not able to reach out unconsciously when he sees waste
falling out of the hopper and try to push it back in. With
only deadman controls, the employee is still able to reach
out with his left hand, as his right hand keeps the controls
depressed. At least 8 of the caught in packer accidents
involved the injured employee operating the packing controls
as he was at the same time pushing protruding waste back in
or clearing jammed waste.
FIGURE 1-2
TWO HANDED PUSH
BUTTON CONTROLS;
ADDITIONAL SAFETY
BUTTON MUST BE
PRESSED BEFORE THE
SWEEP BLADE WILL
START AND GO PAST
THE PINCH POINT
LEVER CONTROLS:
THE UPPER HANDLE MUST
BE PUSHED TO RELEASE
A "DOG" IN THE HOPPER
SIDE AND ALLOW THE
SWEEP BLADE TO PASS
THE PINCH POINT
TWO HANDED PACKING MECHANISM CONTROLS
1-9
-------
1.2 Packing Cycle Controls
For specifications on the packing cycle controls,
the ANSI Z245.1-1975 standard states:
7.3.3 Controls
7.3.3.1 Each control shall be conspicuously labeled
as to its function.
7.3.3.2 Controls (for example3 for operating the
packer panel, tailgate, point-oj--operation guards, ejector
panel, container hoists) shall be designed and located to
prevent unintentional activation. (Unintentional acti-
vation caused one accident.)
7.3.3.2.1 Start buttons shall be recessed or located
to prevent unintentional activation. (One user installed
a guard around the start buttons of their side load-
ers such that they became recessed.)
7.3.3.2.2 Stop button controls shall be red,
distinguishable from all other controls by size and color,
and not be recessed.
7.3.3.3 Packing cycle controls shall be located so
that the operator has a view of the loading sill, In order
to minimize exposure to normal traffic, the packing cycle
operating controls shall be located on the side of the
vehicle opposite the normal traffic side of the vehicle.
Two sets of packing cycle controls shall not be permitted
except for additional dock height controls located on the
same side and above the packing cycle controls.
7. 3. 3.5 For emergencies a means of stopping and
moving the packer panel away from the pinch point (prior
to the pinch point) shall be provided. Emergency stop
controls shall be red, distinctly labeled as to function,
and not be recessed.
1.3 Riding Steps and Handholds
With nearly a third of the caught in packer accidents
occurring as employees were riding or standing on the rear steps,
an examination of why these occurred is necessary. It is
particularly important to understand why the employees were
unconsciously placing their hands on the sides of the hopper
or their feet on the hopper sill. Apparently, they were attemp-
ting to attain a more comfortable riding position. Recognition
of this fact has led many users to modify their riding steps!
and grab handles. A more comfortable riding position can also
reduce other riding related accidents, e.g., falling off the
step when the vehicle made a sudden start, stop, or swerve.
The ANSI Z245.1-1975 standard does identify certain
criteria for the step and handhold design:
1-10
-------
7.3. 7 Riding Steps and Grab Handles
7. 3. 7. 1 The surface and edges of steps shall have
a slip-resistant surface. They shall be self-cleaning or
be protected against the accumulation of mud, snow, and
ice.
7.3.7.2 Steps shall be designed to carry a uniformly
distributed load of not less than 1,000 pounds.
7.3.7.3 If steps are provided, they shall be mounted
not more than 22 inches above the road surface.
7.3.7.4 Steps shall have a depth of at least 8 inches
and shall provide a minimum of 220 square inches of riding
surface area. (The dimensions of the riding step is
important in providing the employee with a firm
riding stance, rather than a precariously small
and narrow riding step.)
7.3.7.5 Grab handles shall be provided in conjunction
with riding steps and be located so as to provide the employee
with a safe and comfortable riding stance. Each grab handle
shall be capable of withstanding a pull of at least 500 pounds.
(Several users have modified their grab handles'
location and design to provide added riding comfort
by providing more than one grab handle and providing
vertical instead of horizontal grab handles. If the
grab handles are comfortable, employees are less
likely to place their hands around the edge of the
hopper.)
Modifications to grab handles should be done in
conjunction with improved step design modifications to provide
total riding comfort. Several users have installed unique
step designs on their collection vehicles to provide maximum
riding surface and comfort. One user installed a "retractable"
riding step which can be pulled out or pushed in by the use
of a pin that holds it in place (FIGURE 1-3). It lengthens
the step. However, several problems are associated with the
retractable step. Employees will leave the step in the elong-
ated position rather than push it in and out. This can result
in the step being bent upwards as the vehicle dips from going
over bumps, causing increased maintenance, as well as resulting
in unsafe riding steps. In addition, when the step is left in
the nonretracted position, the employees can bang their shins
against it when attempting to go around it to get to the hopper
to dump.
1-11
-------
FIGURE 1-3
RETAINING
PIN
RETRACTABLE RIDING STEP
Another user provides bi-level steps on their
trucks (FIGURE 1-4) that allow the rider to place one foot
higher than the other. The theory behind this is that when
one foot is raised higher, it relieves pressure from the
back, making the employee more comfortable. This may be a
reason why employees will unconsciously place one foot on
the hopper sill, which is generally higher than the riding
step. In addition, if not enough riding step surface is
provided for the employee to place both feet firmly on the
step, he may resort to placing one foot on the hopper sill.
1-12
-------
FIGURE 1-4
TWO
LEVEL
STEP
STEP EXTENDED TO
PROVIDE MORE
RIDING SPACE
BI-LEVEL RIDING STEP
The third step modification also provides a bi-
level riding step, except that the second level step is not
connected to the side step (FIGURE 1-5) . This step design
takes advantage of the fact that their employees prefer
placing one foot on the hopper sill and protects against
their feet being caught by the packer blade by the added
installation of a hopper guard next to the second step. It
was only installed on the left side of the hopper, away from
the pick up side to reduce problems of the employees hitting
against it when they are dumping into the hopper.
1-13
-------
FIGURE 1-5
EXTRA STEP (SELF-
CLEANING OPEN MESH)
WITH GUARD
HOPPER STEP AND GUARD
An important safety concern with riding step modi-
fications that allow the employee to ride further back on the
vehicle (nearer to the hopper opening) is that employees may
be more likely to place one foot on the hopper. And if a user
allows packing on the run, sustaining caught in packer acci-
dents is very likely.
2.
EMPLOYEE TRAINING AND SUPERVISION
The "state of the art" of safety engineering on
collection vehicles is not such that it can eliminate all
caught in packer accidents. Therefore, training the employees
to increase their safety awareness and to use the equipment
properly goes in conjunction with providing safer equipment.
1-14
-------
Three areas of training are indicated by the types
of caught in packer accidents occurring:
Proper riding stance,
Operating the packing mechanism controls safely,
and
Packer operator responsibility
Written rules developed and utilized by an establishment to
present these safety awareness issues are much more effective
than verbal instructions. In addition, employee training
should include more than just "on the job" training. The
newly hired employee or the retraining of employees should
ensure that the employees understand completely how to operate
the equipment as well as the safe procedures to follow before
they are allowed to go on the route.
2.1 Proper Riding Stance
1. Maintain firm grip on grab handles. Do not use
edge of hopper to hold.
2. Place feet firmly on the riding step with feet
slightly apart for better balance. Do not place
foot on hopper sill.
3. Do not place any body parts within the sweeping
range of the packer panel, including getting
hands pinched along the side of the hopper and
elbows being struck by an elevating hopper.
2.2 Operating the Packing Mechanism Controls Safely
1. Make sure no one is in front of the hopper before
operating the packer.
2. On right sided controls, operate with the left
hand. (This makes it less likely for the opera-
tor to reach out to push back falling waste or
to unjam the packer panel without stopping the
packing mechanism first.)
3. Avert head from hopper. (Reduce objects getting
in eyes and being struck by objects ejected from
the hopper.)
1-15
-------
4. Keep fellow employees away from hopper when it
is in operation.
2.3 Packer Operator Responsibility
As outlined above, not only should the packer oper-
ator know and utilize safe operating procedures, he should
also be responsible for the safety of his fellow employees.
He should not allow his coworkers to stand near the hopper,
as accidents have happened from a coworker pushing back waste,
avoiding objects (e.g., boards, branches) swinging around in
the hopper, or was unaware of its activation.
2.4 Supervision
Employee adherence to safety rules cannot be achieved
from mere training. Reinforcement of the safety rules is most
effective through on the job supervision. Supervision, however,
need not have connotations of "policing" the routes. Super-
vision can mean simply spotting incorrect behavior and showing
the employee the safer procedure, but where repeated violations
of the safety rules occur, particularly when they might result
in a caught in packer accident, a means of enforcing the safety
rules must be available to the supervisor.
Punitive measures are frequently used to enforce
adherence to safety rules. These can range from written re-
primands, to suspension of pay for a day, to reviewing job
performance after repeated violations, to denying of raises,
to firing from the job. On the other hand, users also employ
reward systems for safe behavior. Sometimes this method proves
more effective. Incentives can involve contests for the safest
crew or individual prizes, such as cash awards for so many hours
worked without injury. Incentives do not necessarily require
monetary awards since acknowledgement of good work through pins
or safety certificates provide welcomed recognition.
3. ALTERING OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
The one operational procedure that was implicated as
contributing to caught in packer accidents was allowing packing
on the run. This is allowed by many users, in spite of the
safety hazards, to increase productivity. However, solid waste
safety professionals who recognize the hazard potential of this
procedure come out strongly against packing on the run. (In
fact, the solid waste safety manual being developed by SAFETY
SCIENCES under funding by the National Science Foundation oppose
this activity.)
1-16
-------
Accidents that occur to employees who are allowed to
pack the refuse as the vehicle is in motion and the employee(s)
is on the riding step include not only hands and feet caught
by the packer panel but also the employee being thrown into
the packer blade pinch point when the vehicle swerved.
4. CONCLUSION
Any countermeasure being considered for implementation
must be weighed for accident reduction potential (cost effect-
iveness) as well as monitored to ascertain effectiveness. Some-
times altering procedures or equipment can produce unexpected
results that may require re-evaluation of the countermeasure.
Countermeasures given in this IRIS report may or may not be
suited to an organization's operation and therefore, need to
be evaluated individually-
1-17
-------
SECTION II
FIRST QUARTER IRIS USER
INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA
The accidents received by IRIS from 82 users are covered
in this section. FIGURE 2-1 gives operational background data
on the IRIS users.
FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS RATES
FIGURES 2-2 through 2-5 recap the frequency, severity
and costs of injuries for this quarter:
FIGURE 2-2: Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity and Costs. Compares the solid waste
management industry with the national average
for all industries.
FIGURE 2-3; Comparison of Injury Rates and
OSHA Days Lost for All Users. Compares the
rates and days lost for the first quarter of
1977, for each user, in user number order.
FIGURE 2-4: Comparison of Direct Costs by
Reporting Period for All Users. Compares
the total costs and cost rates for the first
quarter of 1977, for each user, in user
number order.
FIGURE 2-5; Summary of Accident Factors for
Selected Accident Characteristics with Highest
Percent of OSHA Recordable Injuries, OSHA Days
Lost and Direct Costs.
A few definitions of the terms used in the following
FIGURES are:
OSHA Recordable Injury. Defined by OSHA as
a non-first aid injury.
OSHA Incidence Rate. It is a measure of the fre-
quency of injuries. The OSHA incidence rate is
the number of OSHA recordable injuries per
200,000 hours of exposure. The base figure of
2-1
-------
"200,000 hours" is the standard figure used
in OSHA statistics. It is roughly equivalent
to 100 full-time employees working a year or
100 man-years (i.e., 100 employees working
40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year).
OSHA incidence rates can be thought of as
being roughly equivalent to the number of in-
juries that will occur to 100 employees during
a year. Therefore, an OSHA incidence rate of
37 means that the organization is having 37
injuries per year for each 100 employees or
that, on the average, 1 out of every 3 employees
are being injured. The national average OSHA
incidence rate for all industries has been
around 10 for the last several years.
Severity Rate. The severity rate is similar
to the OSHA incidence rate, except that it
reflects the number of OSHA days lost (i.e.,
workdays lost and light duty days), instead
of the number of injuries, per 100 man-years
worked. For example, a severity rate of 500
would mean roughly that an organization is
losing 500 workdays for every 100 employees
per year, or that on the average each employee
is losing 5 days a year for on-the-job
injuries.
Direct Costs. Direct costs are normally those
for which money was actually expended and in-
clude worker's compensation, medical expenses,
and wage continuation benefits (e.g., injury
leave). There are many indirect costs such as
down time, replacement time, lost time by wit-
nesses and supervisors, etc., which are not
included in these figures. Indirect costs are
estimated to be 5 times the direct costs in
cities according to the National Safety Council.
Average Direct Costs per OSHA Recordable Injury.
An average direct cost per OSHA recordable injury
of $500 means that on the average each OSHA
recordable injury (i.e., a non-first aic case) is
costing the organization $5001
Direct Cost per Man-Year. It shows the cost per
2,000 hours or the average cost per year per
employee. A direct cost per man-year of $200
would mean that on the average an organization's
injuries are costing $200 per employee per year.
2-2
-------
In reviewing these FIGURES, the data for the AVERAGE
(shown on the FIGURES as AVG) is the most important because
it summarizes the results for all users combined. After
examining the AVERAGES, it is important to examine how
great the range of rates between users is. Wide ranges are
important because they show that it is possible to achieve
lower rates of injury under given operating systems and
safety programs.
2-3
-------
FIGURE 2-1
DESCRIPTION OF USERS BY OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
User
Number
101
103
109
NJ
1
* 111
113
115
125
133
136
140
146
148
149
152
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
rf
Geograph.
Area
South
Midwest
Midwest
West
Midwest
South
South
Northwest
South
South
South
Northeast
Midwest
Midwest
No. of
Employees
325
80
500
280
3.3
300
650
86
140
844
295
267
65
63
Point of Collection!
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYOBackyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A
BY/CS/A
BY/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS/A/BY
M/A
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
CS
Type
of
Shift
T/F
T
F
T
T
T/F
T
T
F
T
T
T
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
4
3
4,3
2
1,2
3
2
3,1
3
1,2,3
2
2
Conun.
4
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
2
Resid.
&
Comnio
2
3
4
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L,I
L,I
L
L
L,T
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
157
161
170
i
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
Midwest
South
Midwest
West
South
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
South
South
West
Northeast
No. of
Employees
203
125
1481
370
700
629
532
278
470
308
297
177
86
120
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS/A
CS/BYC/A
A
M/CS/A
CS
CS
BY
CS
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
T
T/F
T/F
T
T
T
T
T
T
T/F
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid .
2
3,1
1,2,3,4
5
3
1,3,2
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
Comm.
2
2,3,4,5
2
3
2
3
1
2,1
Resid,
&
Comnu
2
2
Disposa
L=LandŁil3
I=IncinerŁ
T=Trans . Ł
L,T
L
T
L
L,I
I,T
L
L
L
L
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
204
207
210
IV)
<^ 211
212
215
217
221
226
235
236
237
242
244
. . _
M Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
K
Geograph.
Area
West
West
West
West
West
South
South
West
South
South
South
Midwest
SoutVi
West
No. of
Employees
52
205
15
40
130
60
820
210
87
125
103
90
101
3O
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A/M
BYC
CS
CS/A
CS/A
CS/BY/BYT
CS/A/BY
CS
CS
BYT/A/CS
CS
A/ BYC
CS/BY/BYT/A
BYT/ BYC
Type
of
Shift
F
T
T
T
F
T/F
F
T
T
T
T/F
T/F
T/F
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid,
1,3
3
2
3
1,2,3
2
3
3
3
3
2.
Comm.
1,3
2
2
1
1,3
3
1
3
1,2
Resid.
&
Comm.
1,2
2
3
I
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incineratoi
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L,T
L
L
L,T
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
260
261
265
^j 272
275
283
285
286
292
295
296
299
316
318
vr -u
M Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Northwest
South
West
Northeast
Northeast
Northwest
No. of
Employees
168
8
200
127
40
72
79
8
225
179
43
113
475
48
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/BYT/A/M
CS/A
CS/BYT/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
A/BYT/BYC
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/BY
CS/A/BY
CS
CS/A/BYT
A/CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
T
T
T
T/F
T
F
F
T
F
T
F
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
1,2
3
1,2
3
3
2
3
1,3
4
1
3
2,3
3
Comm.
2,3
2
3
3,1
2
2
2,1
3
2,3
3
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
Dispos;
L=Landfil
I=Inciner
T= Trans.
L
L
L,T
L,I
L,T
L,T
L
L
L
L
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
323
324
325
i
00 326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
235
336
337
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
P
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
P
p
\
Geograph.
Area
Northeast
Midwest
Northwest
South
South
Midwest
West
South
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
"NOT ttieas t
No. of
Employees
171
17
45
23
140
33
20
60
35
14
43
24
51
405
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY-Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/A
CS
CS
CS
CS
A/CS
CS/A
-
BY
CS
-
CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
F
T
T
T/F
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
*
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
2,1
3
3
2,1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Corom.
1,2,3
3
2,3
2
2,1
3
2
1
2,1
Resid.
Comm,
3
1,2
3
i
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incineratoi
T=Trans. Stn
L
L
L
I,L
T
L
L
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
338
339
340
NJ
I
vo 341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
M
M
Geo graph.
Area
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
West
Midwest
West
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Northeast
West
Midwest
West
West
Midwest
No. of
Employees
405
405
318
35
25
17
40
38
70
60
35
40
57
10
52
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
CS/A
-
A/CS
CS
CS/A
CS/BYT
CS
CS/A
CS/A
Type
of
Shift
F
F
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
3
3
3
2
1
1
2,3
2
1,2,3
2
2
2
3
Comm.
2,1
2
1
1
2
1
3
Resid.
&
Comm.
2
4
2
3
Disposa]
L=Landfill
I=Incinerat
T=Trans. St
L
L,I,T
L
T
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
353
354
355
ro
I
Ł 356
358
359
360
361
362
363
M-Municipal
P=Private
M
M
P
P
M
P
P
M
M
M
\
Geograph.
Area
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
South
Midwest
Northwest
West
Northeast
South
No. of
Employees
20
30
70
21
18
71
30
44
76
75
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
BYT
CS/BY
BYC/CS
CS
-
-
CS
CS/A/BY
Type
of
Shift
F
T
T
F
T
T
F
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
3
2
3
2
4,3
1,4
Comra.
1,2
1
2
1,2
1
Resid.
&
Co mm.
3
i
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=.Trans. Stn.
L,T
L,T
-------
FIGURE 2-2
SUMMARY OF INJURIES
BY FREQUENCY; SEVERITY AND COSTS
FREQUENCY
There were 1,595 cases reported by 82 of the
IRIS users on-line: 296 first aid cases, 521
non-fatal cases without lost workdays, 774 lost
workday cases, 3 permanent disability cases, and
1 fatality. Total man-hours for this quarter
were 7,175,014.
The AVERAGE OSHA incidence rate was 36 for this
quarter. This means that one out of every three
solid waste industry employees will experience
a non-first aid injury a year. The national rate
for all industries was 10.4. Therefore, the
solid waste industry is experiencing more than
three times as many injuries as the average in-
dustry.
IRIS users ranged in frequency rates from User
No. 352 which was experiencing 1.25 injuries per
employee per year, to User No. 242 which was
experiencing 2 injuries per 100 employees per
year.
SEVERITY
(Days lost given are not final. These figures reflect
what was received from IRIS users by September 30, 1977 and
may be gross underestimates. For example, in the months
since the publication of the first quarter Accident Trends
for 1976, the OSHA severity rate has increased from 269 to
413, and not all cases are final yet.)
So far, 778 cases this quarter incurred 10,198
workdays lost and light duty days.
49% of the total cases resulted in workdays
lost and/or light duty days. The national
average for all industries is 33%. This means
that the solid waste industry has almost 1%
times as many lost workday injuries as the
average industry-
2-11
-------
The AVERAGE OSHA severity rate was 284. This
means that on the average, each employee is
losing 2.8 days per year for injuries. One
user's rate was as high as 29 days lost per
year per employee; several are losing zero days
a year per employee.
On the AVERAGE, each lost workday case resulted
in 13.12 workdays lost so far.
DIRECT COSTS
(Costs given are not final. These figures reflect
what was received from IRIS users by September 30, 1977, and
may be gross underestimates. For example, first quarter of
1976's AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury has gone up
from $296 to $522.)
Total direct costs so far for injuries that
occurred during the first quarter was
$545,935,
The AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury
was $425.
The AVERAGE cost per man-year was $154. This
means that the average solid waste injury
(non-first aid) cost $154 per full-time employee
per year so far.
2-12
-------
Starting: January, 1976 FIGURE 2-3
COMPARISON OF INJURY RATES AND OSIIA DAYS LOST FOR ALL USERS
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
SEVERITY RATE
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
SER !
101
103
1.09
111
113
1 1 5
1.25
133
136
1.40
1.46
1.48
149
1.52
1.57
1 6 1
1.70
1 7 1
1.72
1.79
179
1. 8 1
1.02
183
186
191
197
201
204
207
2 1 0
2 1 1
T> 1 1>
QTR 1
12
36
68
31
0
31
26
1 3
44
50
44
1.3
57
79
78
104
9
79
QTR 2
33
48
76
35
0
55
21
23
42
62
55
49
24
45
134
96
0
67
44
QTR 3
44
50
79
42
0
34
5
63
58
69
1.3
66
24
93
38
47
71
48
34
QTR 4 J QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTK 4
20 : 47 387 1.01 145 6,50 27.00 8.33 21. .14
106 J 365 3.44
22 : 195 174 197 126 8,03 8.15 7.65 6.27
54 I 1089 1.182 667 292 23.39 22,05 11.. 59 14.62
28 J 0 0.00
29 1 1.60 10.55
20 I 876 370 560 446 35.54 1.3.03 16.72 32.48
12 J 86 10.50
t 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
t 347 673 15.37 16.56
36 : 537 136 1.42 250 66.50 20.60 9.82 12.93
18 J 149 0 61 12.86 0.00 9.25
125 J 1.146 13.22
87 *. 355 8,14
1.6 J 90 6.29
54 J 0 33 98 38 0,00 1.60 5.00 1.11
23 J 172 9.64
47 : 209 226 291 625 9,58 5.96 10,53 19.58
38 : 477 1104 439 570 14,28 27,51 11,23 32,79
18 t 1.06 1.1.07
29 I 142 431 1.9.1.7 24,21
51 I 369 147 261 427 11.48 4.26 6,89 13.04
12 t 22 4.60
38 I 161 6,31
23 t 69 276 101 108 12.25 22,00 8.22 7.36
47 : 188 1.49 230 505 4,00 5,11 4,62 15,73
31 J 31.7 1232 10,00 49,00
8 : 242 61.00
30 : 342 83 55 273 13.00 8,00 7,00 12,00
97 t 579 249 618 350 10,30 5.35 13.19 8,53
148 ; 467 0 1332 31.42 9,00 0,00 27,50 29.80
63 J 539 278 93 211 62,00 4.71 2.75 3.86
I 759 483 9,65 11,00
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
JSER
215
2 1 7
221
226
235
236
237
2 4 .2
244
260
261
265
272
275
283
285
286
29?
295
296
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
328
329
330
331.
333
336
! QTR 1
0
23
89
15
4
93
68
48
34
1 1
1 2
7
0
3
17
19
QTR 2
0
43
56
103
33
0
56
54
0
46
15
59
50
0
0
10
20
75
53
78
43
37
25
QTR 3
22
59
1 0
40
73
4 6
0
42
103
0
65
1 9
59
50
0
7
19
57
60
78
70
47
0
17
70
0
66
QTR 4 ?
o :
43 i
76 I
18 I
36 J
57 J
35 J
5 J
56 Ł
1 1 7 I
48 I
70 ;
40 i
93 ?
^ A *
.-;. ' J t
*
39 J
5 J
29 ?
55 J
44 !
29 J
46 J
9 I
46 ?
46 I
1 8 ?
0 1
50 I
44 I
0 J
99 t
23 J
QTR 1
0
113
1492
35
.1.00
170
"7 1"' f*\
/ J 7
145
249
243
0
13
0
284
64
476
QTR 2
0
192
0
6 6 .:>
150
0
197
5.1.3
0
301
11
629
133
0
0
19
20
2911
606
0
135
37
83
QTR 3
1587
152
47
0
248
92
0
182
1178
0
403
98
78
1 1 7
0
14
10.1.
2 1 8
425
2431
234
347
0
101
78
0
33
QTR 4
0
70
993
0
51
51
128
1 8
183
1296
429
522
150
384
1 0
0
7
212
1765
155
336
346
56
23
732
36
0
1 7
748
0
.1. 2 1 9
62
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
0,00 0,00 72,67 0,00
11,22 12.38 8,67
4.50 13.07
0,00
6,00 0,00 0,00 2,80
18,53 8,86 6,00 1,78
3,50 6,40 3,14 4,83
25,00 0,00 0,00 3,50
2,75 3.50 6.50 6,50
19.42 16,20 17.64 14.26
3,00 0.00 0,00 9,00
8.64 7,80 7.30 10.55
32,00 1,50 6,50 6.83
10,67 2,67 9.25
0,00 8.00 3,50 2,00
2,00 0,00
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
86,00 4.33 2,75 3,00
4,75 2,00 15,50 13,33
25,00 51,50 5,75 32,17
28.00
17,05 12,82 18,14
31,09 7,57
13,00
0,00 3,33 1,QO
4,75 13,00 18,67
0,00 2,00
0,00
2.00 6.00 1.00
5,00 2,50 20.60
0.00 0,00
2,00 37,00
2,67
-------
(tjontinuea;
USER
OS HA
QTR .1.
to
1
1 1
Ul
337
338
339
340
341.
343
344
345
346
347
349
349
350
351
353
354
355
358
359
36:1
362
363
AVG.
INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
44 38
32 25
"> ~z -z <-.
A- O ^..' *J
29
77 58
50 75
11
10
29
20
34
49
42
51
35
33
88
57
23
34
.44
45
33
QTR
SEVERITY RATE
1 QTR 2 QTR
3 QTR 4
410
246
.1.18
19.1.
198
691
737
50
80
632
95
20
192
121
96
101
| '!>'!>
388
16
1230
447
0
301
0
281
AVERAGE OSIIA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
7.78
5,12
19.50
2.00
17,34
14,48
1.1. ,60
6.92
7.57
5,67
66.37
12.75
2.00
7.00
65.00
3,25
3,00
8.50
10.00
3.00
2,00
7.00
9.00
1.50
145,00
,1.2,43
0,00
7.2,00
0,00
14,52
-------
STARTING: JANUARY? 1977
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF INJURY RATES AND OSHA DAYS LOST FrOR ALL USERS
USER !
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR -4
M
101
103
109
111
113
115
125
133
146
148
149
152
157
161
170
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
204
2O7
21O
211
215
21V
221
17
88
14
38
28
32
26
38
23
13
124
58
48
58
31
42
52
4
36
44
15
64
35
65
25
25
24
84
22
88
t o
t 41
s *?o
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 GTR 3
60
175
79
346
339
516
301
608
393
163
1197
283
97
318
276
291
237
65
426
245
86
162
158
415
130
53
O
457
22
399
O
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 4 J QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
13,00
5.60
5,83
13.65
24.00
19.37
13,81
31.60
30,30
24.25
17,86
8.80
4.18
13.67
10.19
9,16
13.00
15.50
17.05
9.67
8.90
4.82
7.31
8.24
5.25
6.50
O.OO
12.47
1 .00
8. 33
o. oo
5. -40
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
USER ! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
SEVERITY RATE
226 1
235
236
237
242
244
260
265
272
275
283
V 286
^ 292
296
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
328
329
330
331
333
336
337
338
339
340
341
343
35
46
61
45
0
54
80
54
11
62
24
0
9
27
72
46
33
17
23
73
51
0
17
21
30
49
16
35
33
45
36
101
J 72
QTR 1
191
502
263
683
0
2871
714
339
11
591
34
0
195
36
144
759
273
200
680
612
2700
0
0
332
0
0
23
216
240
329
280
1885
24
QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
11.00
12,91
7.82
33.40
0.00
105.50
14.24
10.40
1.50
14,25
2.33
0.00
26.17
2.00
5.20
23.15
13.67
27.00
29.00
9.20
52.67
0,00
0.00
23.50
0.00
0.00
3.00
7.44
8.12
7.86
18.55
21.83
1.00
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
USER !
QSHA INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR
00
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
358
361
362 !
363 j
69
59
118
34
62
94
77
52
125
18
83
11
58
11
21
33
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3
552
285
213
68
718
1175
1902
0
589
200
0
6
232
0
267
98
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 4 QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
8.00
5.80
4,14
3.33
11.50
25.00
43.50
0,00
33.00
11.00
0.00
1.00
4.00
0.00
15.75
5.00
AVG.J
36
284
13,09
-------
Starting: January,
1976 FIGURE 2-4
COMPARISON OF DIRECT COSTS BY REPORTING PERIOD FOR ALL USERS
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
SER
101
103
109
1 1 1
.1. 1 3
115
1.25
133
136
1.40
146 -
148
1.49
1.52
1.57
1 6 1
1.70
1 7 1
172
1.78
1.79
181
1.82
1.83
1.86
1.9.1.
197
201
204
207
210
211
21.2
QTR 1
4x2.1.0
13x513
59x293
50x760
0
39 x 842
9x041
135
3v582
27 x 167
1 1 x 5 1 0
1x295
1x475
2x481
4x523
1. ť445
794
1.4x297
QTR 2
29x63.1
12x994
4 2 r034
25x734
0
69x843
5x442
3x577
81.5
6x376
58x431
5x081.
8x021
1x685
51.7
9x636
0
1x987
7x138
QTR 3
5 x 735
1.9x851
30x744
47x226
0
3x060
1 1 0
1 x 526
9x486
27x413
8x661
9x833
2x950
2 x 1 0 1
2x71.0
300
12?908
3 x 2 1 8
600
QTR 4
5x260
3x627
.1.2x958
14x888
102
6x895
36x174
638
8x171
2x092
4x202
3x365
2x977
683
22x212
21x455
39x375
7x107
35x411.
15x586
.1. x 032
7x505
3?550
4x879
64x080
2x571
2x142
6 x 786
9x667
1x687
QTR 1
386
3 1 2
1x234
832
0
711
475
1 8
148
393
391
1.43
86
275
1 4 1
361
758
621
AW, COST PER OSHA REC* INJ,
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
213
764
0
688
340
80
163
749
133
471
120
235
0
248
549
130
275
487
497
0
117
93
237
274
412
209
163
70
451
50
403
1/609
145
263
203
345
346
51
328
753
212
291
190
323
240
372
48
325
6 1 3
263
737
432
82
312
208
304
12x816
1*285
535
150
1 x381
195
51
112
836
260
0
219
121
197
18
49
217
110
374
68
488
326
103
577
123
0
378
100
411
76
111
54
53
224
0
167
241
57
138
384
208
0
40
1
59
137
188
53
.1.38
40
65
171
23
288
779
50
51
240
78
185
14
95
150
105
34
404
209
61
26
74
285
OKťO
JU. V_" A"-
48
21 7
'' 21
9
119
47
142
4x028
102
162
146
2x038
131
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
USER
2 1. 5
2 1. 7
221.
226
235
236
237
242
244
260
26.1.
V 265
K) '> 7 ')
O *" ""
275
283
285
286
2 9 2
295
296
299
3 1 6
3 1. 8
323
324
325
326
328
329
33O
331
333
33A
QTR :l
0
1. *185
.1.2*768
604
6*877
706
2*31.7
1.57
2*820
1*86.1.
1. 1. 9
61.
0
7*327
91.1.
1*982
*
*
TOTAL IN
QTR 2
0
87*664
725
9*550
1 * 8 1. 3
0
904
5*620
0
8*21.6
109
1*437
1 ?346
0
0
894
578
16*786
37*757
92
2*1.59
153
1 .053
JURY COS
QTR 3
5*725
36*71.3
1*045
240
8*223
1*583
0
748
8*797
0
.1.4*01.9
1*224
27.2
1. * 890
0
483
1*1.72
1*256
24*016
14*061.
491.
4*736
0
378
48O
O
*-* '-* 3
TS
QTR 4
0
1.8*3.1.7
1. 4 * 1. 1. 0
60
886
1*442
1. * 9.25
278
962
1.7*683
960
9*500
1*444
1*297
1.73
80
376
5*257
1.0*471
2*01.0
21*089
4 * 258
893
62
5*701.
91.
0
194
2 r 6 1 2
O
2 , O44
..:)
1.77
991 2
PER OS HA REC.
FR 2 QTR 3 Q
0 1*908
956 259
253
48 21.
329 357
259 1.43
0 0
226 249
330 258
0 0
455 51.9
27 244
239 45
147 210
0
0 0
127 96
96 1.95
*098 209 1
629 338
1*278
30 163
359 676
0
66 338
35.1. 53
O
55
INJ*
FR 4
0
1.63
491
20
88
80
2 1. 8
1.39
240
442
960
306
1. 3 1
1.44
43
80
94
477
*745
1.25
602
593
205
31
806
91
0
64
435
O
340
20 i
AVERAGE
QTR .1.
0
44
541
30
274
109
75
76
74
70
.7
4
0
121.
30
1.88
COST
QTR 2
0
415
26
340
85
0
127
1.78
0
2 1. 1
4
141
74
0
0
1 3
1 9
1*581.
335
23
153
28
87
PER MAM
QTR 3
41.6
155
27
8
261
66
0
104
266
0
335
46
26
105
0
6
38
119
203
999
1.14
316
0
63
37
O
36
YEAR
QTR 4
0
70
382
3
32
45
84
7
135
518
457
213
52
134
8
30
4
139
957
55
1.77
277
19
14
372
16
0
32
189
O
336
A
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS AVG,
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 ! QTR
COST PER
.1 QTR 2
to
I
NJ
I-1
337
338
339
340
341
343
344
345
346
347
343
349
350
351
353
354
355
358
359
361
362
363
AVG,
11.442
6 i'4 31
3 y .1.52
9v864
341
7*664
4? 968
6*265
15*012
4ť84S
453
318
1 ?670
619
331
1 y .1.72
729
481
64
238
1*193
285ť060 465*798 347*437
2*061
40
1 *934
31
' 5 * 5 21
510
A REC
R 3
817
7 :!. 4
394
896
170
324
* INJ,
QTR 4
638
709
522
682
597
15:1.
313
IF 670
154
1 1 0
390
132
120
64
1 1 9
198
27
1 v317
187
20
1*934
31
436
AVERAGE COST
QTR 1 QTR 2
PER MAN
QTR 3
360
226
90
691
84
YEAR
QTR 4
241
173
182
195
350
113
36
162
45
180
223
147
88
51
32
41
256
9
1*153
105
4
80
144
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF DIRECT COSTS BY REPORTING PERIOD FOR ALL USERS
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR A
N>
101
103
109
111
113
115
125
133
146
148
149
152
157
161
170
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
204
2O7
210
211
215
217
221
2,808
2,399
9,361
19,743
1,286
17,674
26,994
9 , 022
21,552
3,669
7,598
3,265
3,006
3,770
32,198
10,280
23,439
3,233
22,753
10,171
3,337
6,558
4,388
4,182
1,124
741
350
6,857
SO
3ť3O6
O
t 1 1 r 7197
458
584
359
130
251
353
311
282
538
392
328
222
156
168
190
281
123
116
175
8O
3OO
O
10V
70A
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
150
53
249
181
247
113
346
279
61
727
210
63
146
110
130
147
22
142
143
32
100
59
124
69
30
27
147
17
264
O
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
226
235
236
237
242
244
260
265
272
275
283
M 286
it, 292
w 296
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
328
329
330
331
333
336
337
338
339
340
341
343
1 * 276
6*068
12*041
13*784
0
15*247
6*984
6*452
160
1*872
473
0
3*533
440
2*275
50*532
1*566
2*676
312
8*345
34*976
0
40
1*749
56
79
40
5*740
4*213
6*495
13*006
18*009
154
AVG, COST PER OSHA RECť INJť
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR A
466
602
1,253
0
3*811
258
258
53
312
94
0
504
146
87
918
313
380
312
758
11*658
0
40
583
28
26
20
521
468
433
500
1ť 286
51
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
73
214
367
564
0
2r074
206
140
6
193
22
0
43
39
63
424
104
66
73
555
5*977
0
6
123
8
12
3
185
155
194
178
1*295
37
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
344 J
345 t
346 J
347 I
348 I
349 :
350 J
351 J
to 352 :
i 353 t
E 354 J
355 t
358 I
361 :
362 t
363 i
2,687
Ir672
IrlOl
662
3f870
2^833
6r595
20
3r593
252
206
108
495
20
2ť888
715
AVG. COST PER OSHA REC. INJ.
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
447
278
68
132
645
354
942
20
256
252
51
54
247
20
577
143
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
308
164
81
45
402
332
720
10
320
45
42
5
143
2
122
46
AVG.J 547*400
420
152
-------
FIGURF. 2-5
SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT FACTORS FOR SELECTED ACCIDENT
CHARACTERISTICS WITH HIGHEST PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
OSIIA DAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
Type of
Characteristic
Factors with the:
Highest % of OSHA
Recordable Injuries
Highest % of OSHA
Days Lost
Highest % of
Direct Costs
I
to
Ui
Activity
Accident Type
Accident Site
Nature of Injury
Part of Body
Lifting or dumping container - 35%
Getting off equipment - 9%
Standing or walking - 8%
Overexertion involving, container - 18%
Fall on same level - 10%
Slip on same level - 7%
On collection route at back of truck - 32%
On collection route at curb - 22%
On collection route in customer's yard - 11%
Sprain or strain - 43%
Bruise - 24%
Cut or puncture - 15%
Back - 22%
Eyes - 8%
Knee- 7%
Lifting or dumping container - 31%
Getting off equipment - 11%
Standing or walking - 10%
Overexertion involving container - 24%
Fall on same level - 13%
Fall to a different level - 9%
On collection route at back of truck - 26*
On collection route at curb - 18%
On collection route in customer's yard - 11%
Sprain or strain - 52%
Bruise - 17%
Fracture - 9%
Back - 35%
Ankle - 8%
Shoulder - 6%
Lifting or dumping container - 29%
Getting off equipment - 11%
Carrying container - 9%
Overexertion involving container - 22%
Fall on same level - 12%
Fall to a different level - 11%
On collection route at back of truck - 26%
On collection route ah curb - 22%
On collection route in customer's yard - 9%
Sprain or strain - 49%
Bruise - 15%
Fracture - 11%
Back - 34%
Leg - 11%
Shoulder - 6%
-------
Accident Trends
2nd Quarter 1977
-------
EXHIBIT 7
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
"SLIPS AND FALLS"
QUARTER: APRIL 1 TO JUNE 30, 1977
DEVELOPED BY SAFETY SCIENCES, DIVISION OF WSA INC,,
FOR THE U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
UNDER CONTRACT No, 68-03-0231
Division of WSA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
Accident Trends in the Solid Waste Management Industry is
developed quarterly using data from IRIS (the Injury Re-
porting and Information System for Solid Waste Management).
Accident Trends is designed to summarize and dicuss the
data from all IRIS users and to provide data and conclu-
sions which affect the industry as a whole. A companion
volume/ the QSMR (Quarterly Safety Management Report), is
developed individually for each IRIS user who reported
injuries during the quarter. Each QSMR concentrates only
on the injuries of the individual IRIS user for which it
is prepared.
IRIS is currently made up of 65 users. All possible care
is taken to insure data quality. The nature of the data
and the reports, however, precludes complete accuracy. Not
all cases are closed by the end of the quarter. These acci-
dents continue to be monitored. Occasionally, full lost
time and cost data is not available. Consequently, the tot-
als for these categories may be underestimates. A concerted
effort is made to correct the lost time and cost figures
and improve IRIS collection methods. The recommendations and
countermeasures presented are suggestions that must be eval-
uated in terms of individual user's needs.
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications is to dis-
seminate new ideas and alternative methods in the solid waste
field. IRIS serves as a clearinghouse in this regard, but
does not promote or endorse any method or product. Imple-
mentation of QSMR suggestions should be done only after
careful evaluation by each user and at each user's discre-
tion.
-------
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
SLIPS AND FALLS
QUARTER: APRIL L 1977 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1977
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ........................ iv
I. DISCUSSION OF SLIPS AND FALLS AND PREVENTION
METHODS ..................... 1-1
1. Identifying the Problem ........... 1-1
1.1 Hazardous Surface Conditions ...... 1-2
1.2 Task/Hazards Analysis for Slips
and Falls .......... 1-3
1.3 Seasonal Variations in Injury
Rates for Slips and Falls ....... 1-9
1.4 Type of Collection Injury Rates
for Slips and Falls 1-10
1.5 Type of Injury ............. 1-12
2. Countermeasures for Slips and Falls
(Prevention Methods) ............ 1-13
2.1 Employee Training ........... 1-13
2.2 Personal Protective Equipment ..... 1-15
2.3 Equipment Modifications ........ 1-17
2.4 Altering Operational Procedures .... 1-18
II. SECOND QUARTER IRIS INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA ...... 2-1
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1
FIGURE 1-2
FIGURE 1-3
FIGURE 1-4
FIGURE 1-5
FIGURE 1-6
FIGURE 2-1
FIGURE 2-2
FIGURE 2-3
FIGURE 2-4
FIGURE 2-5
Slips and Falls Injury Rates for ;':to
Collection Division ............. 1-2 ',
'5i
i[Ťi
Slips and Falls Hazardous Surface Con- ^
ditions for the Collection Division ..... 1-3 :fl5S
,j[jlj
Slips and Falls Preliminary Task/ ./^
Hazard Analysis Collection Division ..... 1-4 :'L
Injury Rates for Slips and Falls by
Quarter for the Collection Division ..... 1-10
Injury Rates for Slips and Falls by :i!J_
Type of Collection ............. l-ll *''
Ten Most Common Injuries for Slips
and Falls .................. 1-12 'ap
:>:>i?
Description of Users by Operational !'
Characteristics ............... 2-4 "f
Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity, and Costs ............. 2-11
Comparison of Injury Rates and OSHA
Days Lost for All Users ........... 2-13
Comparison of Direct Costs by Reporting
Period for All Users ............ 2-19
Summary of Accident. Factors for
Selected Accident Characteristics with
Highest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct
Costs .................... 2-25
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
This is the Accident Trends report for the second
quarter of 1977 (April 1 to June 30). This report is divid-
ed into two sections, a discussion of the special feature
topic, slips and falls and their preventative measures and
a summary of the data for the quarter. Section I includes a
Preliminary Task/Hazards Analysis for slips and falls. The
discussion in Section I will encompass the data since the
instigation of IRIS in December 1975, but Section II relates
only the rates and figures applicable to the second quarter
of 1977.
Of the 65 IRIS users on-line second quarter, 62
users reported 1,485 injuries. Since the injury rates are
based on man-hours of exposure, they reflect the various
start-up periods of the IRIS users.
The time lost and direct costs shown on the FIGURES
were provided as of September 30, the "closing date" for
receiving data for the second quarter. Any cases where the
time lost or direct cost data is incomplete are being monitored
for updating.
IV
-------
SECTION I
DISCUSSION OF SLIPS AND FALLS
AND PREVENTION METHODS
The topic chosen for this quarter's Accident Trends
report for the solid waste management industry is the group
of injuries that occur from slips and falls. Slips and falls
are the second most frequent group of accidents, second only
to overexertions. For the IRIS reporting period of 1/76
through 3/77, slips and falls resulted in 957 OSHA record-
able injuries (14.6%), 9,932 days lost (19.7%), and $470,540
in direct costs (17.7%).
This report will first analyze the accident patterns
of the slips and falls in terms of hazardous surface condi-
tions, tasks, seasonal variation, type of collection, and
type of injury. Then the discussion will cover preventative
measures for reducing slips and falls. They include employee
training, personal protective equipment (safety shoes), equip-
ment modifications, and altering operational procedures.
1. IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM
Solid waste employees, particularly collectors, are
required to walk nearly constantly from collection stop to
stop and to get on and off the equipment. This exposes them
to a variety of climatic and surface condition hazards that
cannot be controlled. Therefore, other factors that enter
into their job must be considered to reduce their exposure to
slips and falls such as providing slip resistant safety shoes
or installing self-cleaning, slip resistant steps on the
vehicles.
The following injury rates* were derived from using
man-hours of exposure for only the collection division:
*See Section II for explanations of the injury rates
1-1
-------
FIGURE 1-1
SLIPS AND FALLS
INJURY RATES
FOR COLLECTION DIVISION
OSHA Incidence Rate 9.9
OSHA Lost Workday Cases 7.0
OSHA Severity Rate 103
Average Workdays Lost Per Lost
Workday Case 14.6
Average Direct Cost Per OSHA
Recordable Injury $492
Average Direct Cost Per Lost
Workday Case $673
Direct Cost Per Man-Year $49
The injury rates show that slips and falls should
be of major concern to solid waste managers since they cause
one out of ten collection employee's non-first aid injuries
a year, and two-thirds of the slips and falls result in lost
time. Slips and falls on the average will result in a day
lost per collection employee on the payroll per year and an
average days lost of 14.6 per lost workday injury- This
group of injuries also cost the average solid waste organi-
zation $49 per collection employee per year.
1.1 Hazardous Surface Conditions
As the following chart indicates, icy and wet sur-
face conditions were by far the leading hazardous surface con-
ditions. However, if the columns were totaled, the hazardous
surface condition categories given only account for 61% of the
OSHA recordable injuries, $(.--: of the days lost, and 52^- of the
direct costs for their respective totals for the slips and
falls. This means that alloving for some of the missing per-
centages to be categorized under miscellaneous categories (e.g-
collapsing surface, object protruding from ground, etc.) nearl
a third of the injuries did not involve a hazardous surface
condition.
1-2
-------
FIGURE 1-2
SLIPS AND FALLS
HAZARDOUS SURFACE CONDITIONS
FOR THE COLLECTION DIVISION
Icy Surface
Wet Surface
Depression
Rock on ground
Oily surface
Inclined surface
Waste" on ground
24
14
8
7
4
2
2
% Days
Lost
25
14
5
5
5
1
1
% Direct
Costs
25
13
4
4
4
1
1
Total
957
9932
$470,540
1.2
Task/Hazards Analysis for Slips and Falls
The Task/Hazards Analysis in FIGURE 1-3 is ordered
from the task with the highest frequency of slips and falls
to the lowest. Two types of percentages are given, percent
of total (e.g., 38% OSHA recordable injuries for "getting on/
off vehicle" is 38% of all slips and falls injuries) and per-
cent of task (e.g., 18% OSHA recordable injuries for "wet
surface" to the right of "cab or running board" is 18% of all
slips and falls as the employee was getting on or off the cab
or running board). This type of analysis is especially useful
in identifying training needs, but each organization should
perform a similar analysis to identify their own training needs
or to- tailor their training programs to have added emphasis in
the problem areas identified.
The Task/Hazards Analysis reveals that, surprisingly,
getting on and off the vehicle had the highest frequency, days
lost and direct costs for slips and falls. An examination of
the hazards column indicates that for getting in and out of
the cab (or running board), the majority of the accidents were
due to the running board being wet, icy or oily, in that order.
Comparing hazardous conditions between the running board and
1-3
-------
SLIPS AND FALLS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
COLLECTION DIVISION*
TASK
1. Getting on/off vehicle
A. Cab or Running Board
PERCENT OF TOTAL
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
38% 40% 36%
20% 24% 20%
HAZARDS
1 . Wet Surface
a. Running Board
b. Ground
2. Icy Surface
a. Running Board
b. Ground
3. Object on Ground
4. Oily Surface
a. Ground
b. Running Board
5. Depression
6. Collapsing Running
Board
7. Waste on Ground
PERCENT OF TASK
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
1 8% 1 0% 1 6%
1 6% 9% 1 5%
O Ol *" 1 -\ Of
L-/0 ^1/0 ^1/0
1 7% 1 5% 1 4%
13% 12% 10%
4% 2% 4%
7% 3% 3%
5% 8% 8%
3% 6% 5%
3% 2% 3%
4% 9% 5%
1% <1% <1%
<1Ť 1% 1%
-------
MINU
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
COLLECTION DIVISION
TASK
B. Riding Step
C. Truck Bed or Tail-
gate
2. Carrying Container
PERCENT. OF TOTAL
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
14% 12% 11%
1% 1% 1%
20% 1 9% 20%
HAZARDS
1 . Wet Surface
a. Riding Step
b. Ground
2. Depression
3. Object on Ground
4. Icy Surface
a. Ground
b. Riding Step
5. Oily Riding Step
6. Collapsing Step
1. Wet Truck Bed
2. Waste on Ground
1 . Icy Surface
2. Wet Surface
3. Collapsing Surface
4. Depression
PERCENT OF TASK
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
13% 16% 18%
1 1 % 15% 1 7%
2% <1% 2%
12% 8% 9%
8% 14% 7%
8% 6% 7%
4% 4% 5%
4% 2% 2%
4% 3% 4%
1% 3% 4%
1 3% 3% 4%
13% 2% 10%
34% 32% 36%
14% 9% 9%
11% 11% 13%
1 0% 8% 7%
I
(J1
-------
SLIPS AND FALLS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
COLLECTION DIVISION
TASK
2. Carrying Container (cont.'
3. Standing/Walking
4. Lifting Container
PERCENT OF TOTAL
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
14% 14% 15%
10% 10% 10%
HAZARDS
5. Object on Ground
6. Inclined Surface
7. Waste on Ground
8. Oily Surface
1 . Icy Surface
2. Depression
3. Wet Surface
4. Object on Ground
5. Oily Surface
6. Waste on Ground
7. Incl ined Surface
8. Collapsing Surface
1 . Icy Surface
2. Wet Surface
3.. Oily Surface
4. Object on Ground
PERCENT OF TASK
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
8% 8% 6%
3% 1% 1%
2% 1% 2%
1% <1% 1%
42% 49% 54%
1 3% 6% 6%
8% 7% 6%
8% 5% 5%
6% 8% 2%
2% <1% <1%
-------
SLIPS AND FALLS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
COLLECTION DIVISION
y
TASK
4. Lifting Container (cont.)
5. Pushing/Pulling Container
A. Wheeled Cart
B. Bulk Container
6. Riding on Step
7. Dumping Container
PERCENT. OF TOTAL
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
6% 4% 4%
3% 2% 2%
1% 1% 1%
4% 4% 3%
4% 4% 3%
HAZARDS
5. Depression
6. Waste on Ground
1. Icy Surface
2. Inclined Surface
3. Wet Surface
4. Objects on Ground
5. Depression
1 . Oily Surface
2. Wet Surface
3. Icy Surface
1. Wet Step
2. Collapsing Step
3. Icy Step
1.. Wet Surface
2. Icy Surface
PERCENT OF TASK
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
2% 2% 1%
1% 0% <1%
21% 53% 61%
1 2% 7% 8%
9% 18% 14%
9% 6% 5%
9% 4% 2%
25% 40% 26%
25% 2% 3%
25% 0% 3%
15% 18% 25%
11% 6% 7%
6% 3% 5%
25% 8% 14%
18% 15% 18%
-------
FIGURE 1-3 (Continued)
SLIPS AND FALLS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
COLLECTION DIVISION
TASK
7. Dumping Container (cont.)
PERCENT OF TOTAL
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
HAZARDS
3. Depression
4. Object on Ground
5. Inclined Surface
PERCENT OF TASK
% No. % Days % Direct
Inj. Lost Costs
1 0% 6% 3%
5% <1% <1%
1% 2% 5%
I
CO
-------
ground, 33% of the injuries occurred due to the running board
being slippery while 21% of the injuries were due to hazardous
surface conditions on the ground that the employees were step-
ping onto. The missing percentage of approximately 45% of
the accidents while performing this activity did not cite any
hazardous conditions.
Slips and falls while getting on and off the riding
step, however, cited less hazardous surface condition causes.
20% of the accidents occurred due to wet, icy, oily and collap-
sing steps while 26% were due to hazardous surface conditions
on the ground, and over 50% of the injuries did not report any
hazardous surface conditions.
Knowing the frequency of the getting on and off vehi-
cle accidents is not only useful in analyzing training needs
but also in identifying equipment modifications needs. However,
the discussion of the data in conjunction with prevention methods
will be handled under the individual prevention methods sub-
sections.
Two other activities, "carrying container" and "stand-
ing/walking" , require extensive walking and resulted in 20%
and 14% of the slips and falls injuries, respectively. Counter-
measures for these injuries can include providing slip resistant
safety shoes or reducing the amount of carrying or walking by
altering some operational procedures (e.g., change from back-
yard to curbside). Ice was a causal factor in at least a third
of each activity's slips and falls, and at least four-fifths
of these injuries cited a hazardous surface condition.
Of the four remaining activities, three involved
handling containers ("lifting container", "pushing/pulling
container", and "dumping container"). Ice was the major sur-
face condition responsible for slips and falls that occurred
while the injured employee was lifting the container and while
pushing/pulling containers, but wet surfaces caused more of the
riding on step and dumping container slips and falls.
1.3 Seasonal Variations in Injury Rates for Slips and
Falls
Analyzing the injury rates by the IRIS quarters of
first quarter equaling January through March, etc., the fol-
lowing chart shows that the first two quarters of the year has
the greatest incidence, severity and direct costs for slips
and falls. In addition, the first quarter has more slips and
falls than the second quarter. The majority of the slips and
falls occurring during the first two quarters of the year was
due to snowfall at most of the IRIS users.
1-9
-------
The incidence rate, surprisingly, is only a quarter
higher between the high and low quarters. However, the sever-
ity and direct cost per man-year rates are nearly double for
the first quarter when compared to the third quarter.
FIGURE 1-4
INJURY RATES FOR
SLIPS AND FALLS BY QUARTER
FOR THE COLLECTION DIVISION
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
76 & 77 76 76 76
OSHA Incidence Rate 11.7 9.6 8.2 8.6
OSHA Lost Workday Cases
Rate 3.7 6.6 5.1 6.2
OSHA Severity Rate 122 108 71 78
Avg. Workdays Lost Per
Lost Workday Case 15.2 16.4 14.1 12.7
Avg. Direct Costs Per
OSHA Recordable
Injury $541 $511 $429 $423
Avg. Direct Costs Per
Lost Workday Case S713 $722 $669 $566
Direct Costs Per
Man-Year $63 $49 $35 $36
1.4 Type of Collection Injury Rates for Slips and Falls
Of the four types of collection analyzed, backyard
collection, as expected, has the highest incidence, severity
and direct costs per man-year rates for slips and falls.
Backyard collection employees have higher exposure to slips
and falls not only because they walk more but also because
they are carrying or pushing/pulling containers as they walk
and type of surface they have to walk on (e.g., wet grass).
Curbside employees also perform a great deal of walking from
stop to stop, but because they collect from a larger number
1-10
-------
of customers, and hence a larger area, they have increased
slip and fall hazards from getting on and off the vehicle,
stepping on spilled waste, and stepping on and off the curb.
FIGURE 1-5 presents the injury rates for slips
and falls by type of collection. The injury rates were
higher for backyard collection than for curbside collection,
and there were nearly five times more employees who collect
from the curbside and/or alley than from the backyard. The
injury rates for the commercial and mechanized collection
(e.g., Rapid Rail) were much lower in incidence but high in
severity and direct costs.
FIGURE 1-5
INJURY RATES FOR SLIPS AND
FALLS BY TYPE OF COLLECTION
Curbside
& Alley Backyard Commercial Mechanized
OSHA Incidence Rate 12 16 6 2
OSHA Lost Workday Cases
Rate 8 13 4 2
OSHA Severity Rate 102 133 128 253
Avg. Workdays Lost Per
Lost Workday Case 12.8 10.3 32.6 112
Avg. Direct Cost Per
OSHA Recordable
Injury $422 $406 $1,611 $2,257
Direct Cost Per Man-
Year $49 $69 $97 $51
Man-Hours of Exposure 5,000,700 1,067,842 763,475 88,452
The ranking of the incidence rates for the four types
of collection follows the employees' exposures to slips and
falls. In commercial bulk collection, the employees would have
to climb out of the vehicle to position the bulk containers onto
the lifters while in mechanized collection, the employee seldom
is required to leave the cab. The employee might be exposed to
slips and falls in having to turn a wheeled container around,
1-11
-------
in changing from right to left hand drive/ to unjam the packer
panel, or to unload at the landfill. This amounts to very
little time walking, and this type of collection only received
one slip or fall during this reporting period.
1.5 Type of Injury
The following FIGURE lists the ten most common inj-
uries that occurred from slips and falls in order of highest
to lowest frequency. The days lost and direct costs are also
given. As can be seen, the two most common injuries by far
were sprained ankles and strained backs. In fact, the common
injury types were mostly sprains and bruises, although more
serious injury types occurred also (e.g., fractures, dislo-
cations, concussions, cuts, etc.).
FIGURE 1-6
TEN MOST COMMON INJURIES
FOR SLIPS AND FALLS
No. % No... .No. ..Days %Days Direct %Direct
Inj . Inj . Lost Lost Costs Costs
1. Sprained ankle 214 22 1,675 17 $68,246 15
2. Strained back 146 15 2,459 25 117,163 25
3. Bruised knee 58 6 392 4 21,228 5
4. Strained knee 47 5 671 7 35,183 7
5. Bruised back 39 4 241 2 14,885 3
6. Bruised leg 29 3 192 2 7,683 2
7. Bruised shoulder 28 3 148 1 5,765 1
8. Sprained shoulder 20 2 122 1 6,394 1
9. Sprained foot 19 2 131 1 6,674 1
10. Bruised chest 18 2 278 3 10,764 2
Total for slips
and falls 957 9,932 $470,540
Even though sprained ankles were much higher in fre-
quency of occurrence to strained backs, the strained backs re-
sulted in far more days lost and direct costs. The average days
lost and direct costs per OSHA recordable injury for the two
were:
1-12
-------
Avg. Days Avg. Direct
Lost Costs
Sprained ankle 7.8 $319
Strained back 16.8 $802
2. COUNTERMEASURES FOR SLIPS AND FALLS (PREVENTION
METHODS)
Now that the problem of slips and falls is better
defined, the various prevention methods available can be
weighed for maximum impact, or accident reduction potential.
It should also be recognized that the countermeasures discussed
can not only make an impact on slips and falls but on other
types of accidents as well. For instance, altering the col-
lection methods from curbside to mechanical collection not
only reduces the hazard of slips and falls but also of over-
exertions.
2.1 Employee Training
Hazards recognition training is the main training
requirement for reducing slips and falls. As mentioned previ-
ously, the outdoors environment that the solid waste collector
is exposed to is largely uncontrollable when analyzing preven-
tion methods. Therefore, if hazardous surface conditions cannot
be removed, they should be avoided where possible. On the route,
the collector can slip off the riding step, fall when walking on
ice, water or oil, slip on waste at the back of the truck, step
onto a rock or depression, or slip off the curb. Of these con-
ditions, all except for slippery steps or inclement weather
can be avoided by looking ahead of where he is stepping and
avoiding these known hazardous surface conditions. In particu-
lar, the employees need to look where they are stepping when
getting off the vehicle. They must be discouraged from jump-
ing off, especially if the vehicle is moving (See IRIS News-
flash, March 1978) .
Hazards recognition training for the backyard collector
can include altering his routing to the backyard depending on
the surface conditions. When the grass is wet early in the morn-
ing, he could walk up the driveway part of the way or stay on
the walkway to the backyard. Also, if he has a choice between
walking on ice on the driveway or on a frosted lawn, the lawn
may be less slippery. If forced to walk on inclines or stair-
ways during inclement weather (wet, icy), the employee can slow
1-13
-------
down his pace and make sure of his footing. He should avoid
walking on the edge of the steps. Also, other studies on slips
and falls performed by SAFETY SCIENCES indicate that the most
dangerous steps in a flight of stairs are the first and last
steps, when the employee is required to change his pace.
The Task/Hazards Analysis can be used to determine
the impact of hazards recognition training. Presuming that
wet and icy surface conditions are marginally affected by
hazards recognition, the major impact of this training would
occur in reducing injuries that were caused by such hazardous
surface conditions as object on the ground (usually a rock) ,
a hole in the ground (or depression), an oil spot, and waste
on the ground. These conditions caused 9% of the slips and
falls while the employees were getting on and off the vehicle,
4% of the carrying container, 4% of the standing/walking, 1.3%
of the lifting container, .5% of the pushing/pulling container,
and .6% of the dumping container. (These are percentages of
the total slips and falls injuries.) Therefore, by recogniz-
ing and avoiding these hazardous surface conditions, the em-
ployers would see a 19% reduction in slips and falls injuries.
Falls cannot be eliminated completely, and therefore,
another method for reducing their severity (and therefore their
costs) is training the employees on how to fall safely. The
natural tendency for a person who is slipping or falling to do
is to resist the fall. This can result in severe back injuries
from the strain imposed (15% of the injuries). Therefore, fall-
ing safely training is simply that the employees relax and roll
with the fall and buffering the fall with the shoulders rather
than putting out a hand to break the fall. Rolling is important
in dissipating the energy from the impact of the fall. Of
course, the employees may be reluctant to follow this method
if they are handling a container at the same time. They will
probably unconsciously attempt to hold the container upright so
that the waste does not spill. However, your training should
stress the fact that it is more important for the employees to
avoid the injury than to avoid spilling the waste.
Another area of employee training, of course, is the
specific training on how to perform the task or activity cor-
rectly. This is where the Task/Hazards Analysis is invaluable.
Referring back to it, the major emphasis should be on getting
on and off the vehicle (38% of the slips and falls). Points
in the training should emphasize:
1. Do not jump on or off the vehicle.
2. Do not get on or off the vehicle if it is
in motion.
1-14
-------
3. Avoid stepping on the edges of the
steps, where it is the most slippery -
4. Make sure footing is secure when dis-
mounting before releasing the hand-
hold.
5. Use the handhold(s) available during
the entire operation of getting on or
off the cab or riding step.
6. Look at the ground surface conditions
before stepping down and avoid such
hazardous conditions as rocks of the
ground, potholes, oil spots, drainage
grates, meter holes, and spilled waste.
7. Dismounting from the cab should be
backwards rather than forwards.
8. Do not step from the riding step or
running board onto the edge of the curb.
These training points should have an impact on the slips and
falls injuries (50%) while getting on and off the vehicle
that did not cite any hazardous surface conditions, since
they may be due to improper techniques instead.
Slips and falls training for the other tasks that
involved handling containers (e.g., carrying container, lift-
ing container, pushing/pulling container, and dumping contain-
er) mainly involves maintaining a firm grip on the container
and placing the feet squarely on the surface before lifting or
dumping. However, for pushing bulk containers, IRIS recommends
that it be done with the aid of a coworker and that they push
rather than pull the container. Also, the bulk container
should be pushed in increments so that better control over the
container is maintained and so the employee does not place
himself in an awkward body position.
2.2 Personal Protective Equipment
Slipping and falling occurs at the junction between
the employee and the surface, or the shoe sole and the surface.
The coefficient of friction generated by the two surfaces deter-
mine the likelihood of a slip or fall. Factors that can vary
the coefficient of friction are:
1. The degree of wear or slip resistance
of the shoes.
1-15
-------
2. The shoe sole material (e.g., leather,
neoprene, crepe, etc.)
3. The type of surface (e.g., concrete,
asphalt, wood, brick, dirt, gravel,
etc.)
4. The surface condition (e.g., wet, icy-
oily, inclined, etc.)
5. The movement or exertion of the employee
(e.g., walking, running, jumping, pushing,
pulling, lifting, etc.)
6. And the movement of the surface (e.g.,
vehicle in motion).
As discussed previously, some of these factors can
be avoided through training the employee, but the variable-
ness of the surface conditions cannot always be avoided when
inclement weather prevails. Therefore, a very necessary and
viable prevention method for reducing slips and falls is
providing employees with slip resistant safety shoes. Refer-
ring back to the Task/Hazards Analysis, slip resistant safety
shoes can have an impact on the accidents that occurred as
the result of water, ice and oil on the ground. These resulted
in 2.6% of the getting on/off vehicle slips and falls, 9.8% of
the carrying container, 7.8% of the standing/walking, 55% of
the lifting container, 1.7% of the pushing/pulling container,
and 2.1% of the dumping container. Therefore, providing slip
resistant safety shoes can have an impact on nearly 30% of
the slips and falls occurring.
Once the need for slip resistant shoes is determined,
the type of safety shoes which would provide the maximum slip
resistance, safety and comfort requires discussion. There is
no one all-purpose slip resistant shoe. This is due to the
fact that climatic conditions, and therefore surface conditions,
vary from place to place, and an organization must choose a
degree of slip resistance in the safety shoes to be enough to
reduce slips on wet or icy surfaces but not too slip resistant
as to cause knee and ankle problems. To protect against dry as
well as slippery conditions would therefore require the provi-
sion of more than one type of safety shoes, depending on the
weather. Many solid waste organizations handle this situation
by providing a second pair of safety shoes depending on whether
their organization encounters mostly snow or rain. For snow,
they provide safety shoes with cleats or strap-on cleats; for
rain, they provide rubber boots with high traction. Snow boots
1-16
-------
are also available. In any case, any safety shoe chosen must
be tested on the route with a few crews before they are wide-
ly required.
There are no standards that have been developed for
the slip resistance of shoe sole materials. The research that
has been conducted only tested the materials on dry surfaces.
Another consideration when determining whether to
require slip resistant safety shoes is their cost. Many solid
waste organizations are reluctant to require safety shoes for
fear that they might have to provide them free of charge to
the employees. However, most solid waste organizations temper
cost effectiveness with accident reduction potential by pro-
viding discounts on the approved shoes or allotting a certain
amount of allowance a year per employee towards the purchase
of safety shoes.
Providing safety shoes is of no value unless employees
are required by rules and regulations to wear them on the job,
and this requirement is enforced by their supervisors.
There are also many other safety features to the
safety shoes (e.g., steel toe, puncture protection, high ankle,
and metatarsal protection) that should be considered at the
time of purchase, since they also can be provided for a few
dollars more. (Their injury reduction potential and cost effec-
tiveness are discussed in an upcoming special report on personal
protective equipment.) Since 22% of the slips and falls resulted
in sprained ankles, high ankle support on the safety shoes is
recommended. The February 1978 issue of IRIS News showed that
there can be at least a reduction of three sprained ankle
injuries per 200 employees per year if employees who walk
continuously are required to wear safety shoes with ankle
support.
Other personal protective equipment does not necess-
arily prevent slips and falls but may aid in preventing inj-
uries (e.g., bump caps can protect the employee who hits his
head against the step when he falls from the riding step).
Therefore, their accident reduction potential cannot be easily
measured.
2.3 Equipment Modifications
As discussed in previous IRIS reports,, step and
handhold designs on the collection vehicles should be evalu-
ated by each solid waste organization with the intention of
modifying them to allow easier access in and out of the cab
1-17
-------
and on and off the riding steps as well as be slip resistant.
IRIS recommends that the handholds be long and vertical instead
of horizontal so that employees are able to slide their hands
up and down on them during the entire procedure of mounting
and dismounting. The location of the handhold should also be
carefully considered and whether more than one would be better.
One set of standards, the ANSI Z245.1-1975 standard
entitled, "Safety Requirements for Refuse Collection and Com-
paction Equipment", addresses the step and handhold designs
of the body but not the chassis:
7.3.7 Riding Steps and Grab Handles
7.3.7.1 The surface and edges of steps
shall have a slip-resistant surface. They
shall be self-cleaning or be protected against
the accumulation of mud, snow, and ice. (Many
users have installed the diamond patterned,
open meshed steps on their vehicles.)
7.3.7.2 Steps shall be designed to carry
a uniformly distributed load of not less than
WOO pounds.
7.3.7.3 If steps are provided, they shall
be mounted not more than 22 inches above the road
surface. (A lower height for the steps
reduces fatigue as well as "missteps"
that can cause slips and falls.)
7.3.7.4 Steps shall have a depth of at
least 8 inches and shall provide a minimum of
220 square inches of riding surface area.
(Employees can therefore place their feet
securely on the step rather than always
use the edge of the step, where it is the
most slippery.)
7.3.7.5 Grab handles shall be provided
in conjunction with riding steps and be located
so as to provide the employee with a safe and
comfortable riding stance. Each grab handle
shall be capable of withstanding a pull of at
least 500 pounds.
2.4 Altering Operational Procedures
Operational changes can be major or minor and can be
effected immediately or over the course of several years. Most
users do not effect operational changes at their solid waste
organization simply because of the safety factor. They have
to consider cost effectiveness in terms of productivity instead.
However, simply to consider productivity and to ignore the
1-18
-------
health, safety, and happiness of the employees is not very
wise. These factors can also affect productivity. Therefore,
when considering operational changes, their effect on the safe
working environment of the employees should be considered.
This discussion centers on the effects of certain
operational changes on slips and falls. Obviously, the most
direct way would be to reduce the employees' exposure to
slips and falls. As the injury rates in FIGURE 1-5 indicate,
slips and falls can be reduced by the following graduated
steps in altering the collection methods:
1. Provide wheeled intermediate containers
for backyard collectors.
2. Change from backyard to curbside col-
lection.
3. Change from backyard or curbside
collection to semi-mechanical col-
lection (e.g., mobile Toter system),
4. Change from semi-mechanical to fully
automated collection.
1-19
-------
SECTION II
SECOND QUARTER IRIS USER
INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA
The accidents received by IRIS from 65 users are covered
in this section. FIGURE 2-1 gives operational background data
on the IRIS users.
FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS RATES
FIGURES 2-2 through 2-5 recap the frequency, severity
and costs of injuries for this quarter:
FIGURE 2-2; Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity and Costs. Compares the solid waste
management industry with the national average
for all industries.
FIGURE 2-3: Comparison of Injury Rates and
OSHA Days Lost for All Users. Compares the
rates and days lost for the first four
quarters of 1976 and the first two quarters
of 1977, for each user, in user number order.
FIGURE 2-4: Comparison of Direct Costs by
Reporting Period for All Users. Compares
the total costs and cost rates for the first
four quarters of 1976 and the first two quart-
ers of 1977, for each user, in user number
order.
FIGURE 2-5: Summary of Accident Factors for
Selected Accident Characteristics with Highest
Percent of OSHA Recordable Injuries, OSHA Days
Lost and Direct Costs.
A few definitions of the terms used in the following
FIGURES are:
OSHA Recordable Injury. Defined by OSHA as
a non-first aid injury.
2-1
-------
e OSHA Incidence Rate. It is a measure of the
frequency of injuries. The OSHA incidence rate
is the number of OSHA recordable injuries per
200,000 hours of exposure. The base figure of
"200,000 hours" is the standard figure used
in OSHA statistics. It is roughly equivalent to
100 full-time employees working a year or 100
man-years (i.e., 100 employees working 40 hours
per week for 50 weeks per year).
OSHA incidence rates can be thought of as being
roughly equivalent to the number of injuries
that will occur to 100 employees during a year.
Therefore, an OSHA incidence rate of 37 means
that the organization is having 37 injuries
per year for each 100 employees or that, on
the average, 1 out of every 3 employees are
being injured. The national average OSHA
incidence rate for all industries has been
around 10 for the last several years.
e Severity Rate. The severity rate is similar
to the OSHA incidence rate, except that it
reflects the number of OSHA days lost (i.e.,
workdays lost and light duty days), instead
of the number of injuries, per 100 man-years
worked. For example, a severity rate of 500
would mean roughly that an organization is
losing 500 workdays for every 100 employees
per year, or that on the average each employee
is losing 5 days a year for on-the-job injuries.
o Direct Costs. Direct costs are normally those
for which money was actually expended and in-
clude worker's compensation, medical expenses,
and wage continuation benefits (e.g., injury
leave). There are many indirect costs such as
down time, replacement time, lost time by wit-
nesses and supervisors, etc., which are not
included in these figures. Indirect costs are
estimated to be 5 times the direct costs in
cities according to the National Safety Council.
Average Direct Costs per OSHA Recordable Injury.
An average direct cost per OSHA recordable inju:
of $500 means that on the average each OSHA red
able injury (i.e., a non-first aid case) is
costing the organization $5001
2-2
-------
Direct Cost per Man-Year. It shows the
cost per 2,000 hours or the average cost per
year per employee. A direct cost per man-year
of $200 would mean that on the average an
organization's injuries are costing $200
per employee per year.
In reviewing these FIGURES, the data for the AVERAGE
(shown on the FIGURES as AVG) is the most important because
it summarizes the results for all users combined. After
examining the AVERAGES, it is important to examine how
great the range of rates between users is. Wide ranges are
important because they show that it is possible to achieve
lower rates of injury under given operating systems and
safety programs.
2-3
-------
FIGURE 2-1
DESCRIPTION OF USERS BY OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
User
Number
101
103
M109
i
""111
113
115
125
133
136
140
146
148
149
152
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
South
Midwest
Midwest
West
Midwest
South
South
Northwest
South
South
South
Northeast
Midwest
Midwest
No. of
Employees
325
80
500
280
33
300
650
86
140
844
295
267
65
63
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A
BY/CS/A
BY/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS/A/ BY
M/A
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
CS
Type
of
Shift
T/F
T
F
T
T
T/F
T
T
F
T
T
T
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
4
3
4,3
2
1,2
3
2
3,1
3
1,2,3
2
2
COTtDTl.
4
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
2
Resid.
&
Cotnm.
2
3
4
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L,I
L,I
L
L
L,T
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
iumber
157
161
ho170
CXJ
1
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
MM ' 1
rl rlunjLClpa J.
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
Midwest
South
Midwest
West
South
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
South
South
West
Northeast
No. of
Employees
203
125
1481
370
700
629
532
278
470
308
297
177
86
120
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS/A
CS/BYC/A
A
M/CS/A
CS
CS
BY
CS
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
T
T/F
T/F
T
T
T
T
T
T
T/F
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
2
3,1
1,2,3,4
5
3
1,3,2
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
Coroni.
2
2,3,4,5
2
3
2
3
1
2,1
Resid.
&
Conun.
2
2
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incineratc
T=Trans. Str
L,T
L
T
L
L,I
I,T
L
L
L
L
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
204
207
M210
i
^211
212
215
217
221
226
235
236
237
242
244
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
West
West
West
West
South
South
West
South
South
South
Midwest
South.
West
No. of
Employees
52
205
15
40
130
60
820
210
87
125
103
90
101
3O
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A/M
BYC
CS
CS/A
CS/A
CS/BY/BYT
CS/A/BY
CS
CS
BYT/A/CS
CS
A/BYC
CS/BY/BYT/A
BYT/ BYC
Type
of
Shift
F
T
T
T
F
T/F
F
T
T
T
T/F
T/F
T/F
T ,
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
1,3
3
2
3
1,2,3
2
3
3
3
3
2 ,
Comm.
1,3
2
2
1
1,3
3
1
3
1.2 1
Resid.
&
Cornm.
1,2
2
3
'
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L,T
L
L
L,T
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Slumber
260
261
M265
i
^ 272
275
283
285
286
292
295
296
299
316
318
M . .
ri Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Northwest
South
West
Northeast
Northeast
Northwest
No. of
Employees
168
8
200
127
40
72
79
8
225
179
43
113
475
48
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/BYT/A/M
CS/A
CS/BYT/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
A/BYT/BYC
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/BY
CS/A/BY
CS
CS/A/BYT
A/CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
T
T
T
T/F
T
F
F
T
F
T
F
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
1,2
3
1,2
3
3
2
3
1,3
4
1
3
2,3
3
Comm.
2,3
2
3
3,1
2
2
2,1
3
2,3
3
Resid.
&
Comm.
-
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerati
T=Trans. Sti
L
L
L,T
L,I
L,T
L,T
L
L
L
L
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
323
324
325
to
1
°°326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
335
336
337
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
P
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
P
P
M
Geograph.
Area
Northeast
Midwest
Northwest
South
South
Midwest
West
South
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
NOT theast
No. of
Employees
171
17
45
23
140
33
20
60
35
14
43
24
51
405
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/A
CS
CS
CS
CS
A/CS
CS/A
Ť
BY
CS
-
CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
F
T
T
T/F
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
2,1
3
3
2,1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Comm.
1,2,3
3
2,3
2
2,1
3
2
1
2,1
i
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
1,2
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L
I,L
T
L
L
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
338
339
340
341
to
^342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
M vr i
n riunicxpaj.
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
M
M
Geo graph.
Area
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
West
Midwest
West
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Northeast
West
Midwest
West
West
Midwest
No. of
Employees
405
405
318
35
25
17
40
38
70
60
35
40
57
10
52
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
CS/A
-
A/CS
CS
CS/A
CS/BYT
CS
CS/A
CS/A
Type
of
Shift
F
F
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
3
3
3
2
1
1
2,3
2
1,2,3
2
2
2 !
3
Coram.
2,1
2
1
1
2
1
3
Resid .
&
Comni.
2
4
2
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerat
T=Trans. St
L
L.I.T
L
T
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
353
354
to355
i
o 356
358
359
360
361
362
363
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
P
P
M
P
P
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
South
Midwest
Northwest
West
Northeast
South
No. of
Employees
20
30
70
21
18
71
30
44
76
75
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed, can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
BYT
CS/BY
-
BYC/CS
CS
-
-
CS
CS/A/BY
Type
of
Shift
F
T
T
F
T
T
F
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
3
2
3
2
4,3
1,4
i
Comm.
1,2
1
2
1,2
1
i
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
1= Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L,T
L,T
-------
FIGURE 2-2
SUMMARY OF INJURIES
BY FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS
FREQUENCY
There were 1,485 cases reported by 65 of the
IRIS users on-line: 222 first aid cases, 537
non-fatal cases without lost workdays, 723 lost
workday cases and 3 permanent disability cases.
Total man-hours for this quarter were 6,079,504.
The AVERAGE OSHA incidence rate was 42 for this
quarter. This means that over four out of every
ten solid waste industry employees will experi-
ence a non-first aid injury a year. The national
rate for all industries was 10.4. Therefore, the
solid waste industry is experiencing almost four
times as many injuries as the average industry.
IRIS users ranged in frequency rates from User
No. 103 which was experiencing 2 injuries per
employee per year, to User No. 272 which was
experiencing 7 injuries per 100 employees per
year.
SEVERITY
(Days lost given are not final. These figures reflect
what was received from IRIS users by September 30, 1977 and
may be gross underestimates. For example, in the months
since the publication of the first quarter Accident Trends
for 1976, the OSHA severity rate has increased from 269 to
413, and not all cases are final yet.)
So far, 726 cases this quarter incurred 7,055
workdays lost and light duty days.
49% of the total cases resulted in workdays
lost and/or light duty days. The national
average for all industries is 33%. This means
that the solid waste industry has almost 1%
times as many lost workday injuries as the
average industry.
The AVERAGE OSHA severity rate was 232. This
means that on the average, each employee is
2-11
-------
losing 2.3 days per year for injuries. One
user's rate was as high as 20 days lost per
year per employee; several are losing zero
days a year per employee.
On the AVERAGE, each lost workday case re-
sulted in 9.72 workdays lost so far.
DIRECT COSTS
(Costs given are not final. These figures reflect
what was received from IRIS users by September 30, 1977, and
may be gross underestimates. For example, first quarter of
1976's AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury has gone up
from $296 to $522.)
Total direct costs so far for injuries that
occurred during the first quarter was
$392,793.
The AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury
was $311.
The AVERAGE cost per man-year was $130. This
means that the average solid waste injury
(non-first aid) cost $130 per full-time employee
per year so far.
2-12
-------
Starting: January, 1976 FIGURE 2-3
COMPARISON OF INJURY RATES AND OSHA HAYS LOST FOR ALL USERS
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
SEVERITY RATE
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
SER !
101 ?
103
109
1 1 1
113
1.15
125
133
136
140
146
148
149
152
157
1 6 1
170
171
172
178
179
.1. 8 1
.1.82
183
186
1. 9 1
197
201
204
207
210
211
212
QTR 1
12
36
68
31
0
31
26
13
44
50
44
13
57
79
78
104
9
79
QTR 2
33
48
76
35
0
55
21
23
42
62
55
49
24
45
134
96
0
67
44
QTR 3
44
50
79
42
0
34
5
63
58
69
13
66
24
93
38
47
71
48
34
QTR 4 QTR 1
20 47
106
22 195
54 1089
28
29
20 876
12
0
347
36 537
18
125
87
1 6
54 0
23
47 209
38 477
18
op
/- /
51 J 369
12 ?
38 I
23 J 69
47 1 188
31 t
8 J
30 J 342
97 : 579
148 J 467
63 I 539
{ 759
QTR 2
387
174
1182
370
0
673
136
149
33
226
1104
147
276
149
83
249
0
278
483
QTR 3
101
197
667
560
0
142
0
98
.291
439
142
261
101
230
317
55
618
1332
93
QTR 4 J
145 I
365 <
126 S
292 ,
0 J
160 J
446 J
86 I
4
4
4
4
250 J
61 J
1146 t
355 :
90 J
38 :
172 J
625 I
590 {
106 J
431 J
427 I
22 J
161 ;
108 J
nr A t:r 4
vj 0 i J *
.1. A*ť O .w. 4
2 4 2 ť
273 :
350 t
3142 J
211 :
4
4
QTR 1
6,50
8,03
23,39
35,54
0,00
15,37
66 , 50
0.00
9,58
14.28
11.48
12.25
4.00
13.00
10.30
9.00
62,00
9.65
QTR 2
27.00
8.15
22 . 05
13.03
0,00
1 6 , 56
20.60
12,86
1 , 60
5,96
27,51
4 , 26
22.00
5.11
8.00
5,35
0.00
4.71
11.00
QTR 3
8 . 33
7,65
11,59
16,72
0.00
9,82
0,00
5.00
10,53
1 1 . 23
19,17
6,89
8 , 22
4 . 62
10.00
7.00
13,19
27,50
2,75
RTR 4
21.14
3.44
6.27
14.62
0.00
10.55
32.48
10.50
12.93
9.25
13.22
8.14
6,29
1,1.1
9,64
19,58
32,79
1 1 . 07
24,21
13.04
4 , 60
6,31
7 . 36
15.73
49.00
61.00
12,00
8.53
29.80
3,86
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
JSER ! QTR 1
215 0
217
i1? )
226
235 23
236 89
237 15
2-12 4
244 93
260 68
261 48
265 34
272 11
275
283 12
285 7
286 0
OOO "7
A- / Al. O
295 17
296 19
299
316
318
323 I
324 J
325 J
326 t
328 J
329 t
330 J
331 :
333 t
336 *,
QTR 2
0
43
56
103
33
0
56
54
0
46
15
59
50
0
0
10
20
75
53
78
43
37
25
QTR 3
,-><)
59
10
40
73
46
0
42
103
0
65
.1.9
59
50
0
7
19
57
60
78
70
47
0
17
70
0
66
QTR 4 QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 J QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
0 00 1507 0 0*00 0*00 72.67 0.00
43 192 152 70 11.22 12*38 8.67
76 47 993 4.50 13.07
18 0 0.00
36 .1.13 0 0 51 6.00 0.00 0.00 2.80
57 1492 663 248 51 18.53 8.86 6.00 1.78
35 35 150 92 128 3,50 6.40 3.14 4.83
5 100 0 0 18 25.00 0.00 0.00 3,50
56 170 197 182 183 2,75 3.50 6.50 6.50
117 759 513 1178 1296 19.42 16.20 17.64 14.26
48 145 0 0 429 3.00 0.00 0.00 9.00
70 249 301 403 522 8.64 7.80 7.30 10.55
40 243 11 98 150 32.00 1.50 6.50 6.83
93 629 78 384 10.67 2.67 9.25
20 0 133 117 10 0.00 8.00 3.50 2.00
13 0 2.00 0.00
39 0 0 0 0 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
5 t 284 19 14 V 86.00 4.33 2.75 3.00
29 J 64 20 101 212 4,75 2.00 15.50 13.33
55 J 476 2911 218 1765 J 25.00 51.50 5,75 32,17
44 ? 155 t 28.00
29 J 606 425 336 t 17.05 12,82 18.14
46 J 2431 346 t 31.09 7.57
9 J 56 I 13.00
46 J 0 234 23 .* 0,00 3.33 1,00
46 J 135 347 732 J 4,75 13.00 18.67
18 t 0 36 J 0,00 2.00
0 t 0 J 0.00
50 J 37 101 17 1 2.00 6.00 1.00
44 t 83 78 748 J 5.00 2.50 20.60
0 t 0 0 t 0,00 0.00
99 ! 33 1219 : 2.00 37.00
23 J 62 J 2,67
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
USER .'
to
1
J 1
U1
337 :
338
339
340
341
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
353
354
355
358
359
361
362 t
363 !
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
44
32
23
77
50
AVG, I
34
44
38
29
58
75
11
10
29
20
34
49
42
51
35
:L29
33
88
57
23
4
33
SEVERITY RATE
QTR .1. QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
4:1.0
246
1:1.8
1367
99
262
191
198
691
737
50
80
63.2
95
20
192
121
96
101
.1 O/->
.1. .1.. A'..
388
.1.6
4230
447
0
301
0
<
*
*
o ':>
* / AM
281 \
17,34
14,48 11.60
6,92
7.57
5,67
66.37
12.75
2.00
7.00
65.00
3,25
3,00
8,50
10,00
3,00
2,00
7,00
9,00
1,50
145,00
12.43
0,00
72ť00
0.00
14,52
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF INJURY RATES AND OSHA DAYS LOST FOR ALL USERS
Starting: January, 1977
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE SEVERITY RATE AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
USER ! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 J QTR 1 QTR 2 ttTR 3 QTR 4 : QTR .1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR A
101 }
103 :
109 :
in :
113 J
us :
125 :
133 J
146 {
148 :
149 {
Mi52 :
i 157 :
Ł 161 }
170 :
171 :
172 J
178 :
179 J
181 I
182 ,
183 J
186 :
191 :
197 t
201 .
204 :
207 J
210 :
211 t
215 t
217 :
221 t
17
88
14
38
28
32
26
38
23
13
124
58
48
58
31
42
52
4
36
44
15
64
35
65
25
25
24
84
22
88
O
41
90
25
208
18
47
0
26
30
15
10
145
76
42
51
64
37
25
72
17
87
12
47
58
92
37
O
55
72
60
175
79
346
339
516
301
608
393
163
1197
283
97
318
276
291
237
65
426
245
86
162
158
415
130
53
0
457
22
399
O
41
12<69
67
2035
252
205
0
188
141
70
21
835
467
206
358
220
311
154
256
41
277
129
317
313
369
73
0
48
1433
13*00
5*60
5.83
13.65
24.00
19.37
13.81
31.60
30.30
24.25
17.86
8.80
4.18
13.67
10.19
9.16
13.00
15.50
17.05
9.67
8.90
4.82
7.31
8.24
5.25
6.50
0.00
12,47
1.00
8.33
O.OO
5.40
14.18
23,00
14.29
16.26
7.68
0.00
9.20
6.17
8.00
3.25
9.20
10.57
6.50
8.16
11.94
8.33
7.36
5.24
3.87
4.18
10.50
16.00
9,12
5.00
3.33
O.OO
4.67
20.69
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
USER ! QTR 1 GTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
226 :
235 J
236 ,
237 ,
242
244
260
265
272
275
283
286 ,
292 ,
296 ,
299 t
316 .
318 t
323 J
324 I
325 J
326 J
328 t
329 t
330 .
331 I
333 I
336 :
337 {
338 :
339 :
340 J
341 :
343 :
35
46
61
45
0
54
80
54
11
62
24
0
9
27
72
46
33
17
23
73
51
0
17
21
30
49
16
35
33
45
36
101
72
47
62
24
94
84
7
0
37
14
8
93
51
38
0
64
16
121
48
20
15
16
15
26
18
54
48
96
191
502
263
683
0
2871
714
339
11
591
34
0
195
36
144
759
273
200
680
612
2700
0
0
332
0
0
23
216
240
329
280
1885
24
352
316
56
336
466
4
0
0
16
220
236
618
876
0
185
0
1048
0
13
0
0
15
293
89
248
302
72
11,00
12.91
7.82
33.40
0.00
105.50
14.24
10.40
1.50
14.25
2.33
0.00
26.17
2.00
5.20
23.15
13.67
27.00
29.00
9,20
52.67
0.00
0.00
23,50
0.00
0.00
3.00
7.44
8.12
7.86
18,55
21.83
1.00
7.57
18.67
4,67
4.17
7.77
1,00
0.00
0,00
7,00
26,00
8.71
18.27
27,40
0,00
4,14
0.00
13,00
0.00
1.00
0,00
0,00
2,00
11.37
4.80
6,38
12,69
1.50
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
USER ! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3
49
40
59
50
46
50
153
48
27
32
17
AVG.: 36 42
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3
QTR 4
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
Ni
1
h-1
00
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
358
361
362
363
*
*
*
*
+
+
*
t
*
*
:
Ť
*
ť
*
ť
*
ť
Ť
#
*
#
Ť
ť
ť
ť
4
ť
69
59
118
34
62
94
77
52
125
18
83
11
58
11
21
33
552
285
213
68
718
1175
1902
0
589
200
0
6
232
0
267
98
284
312
20
388
249
0
299
612
263
0
394
0
232
8.00
5.80
4.14
3.33
11.50
25.00
43.50
0.00
33.00
11.00
0.00
1.00
4.00
0.00
15.75
5.00
6.40
1.00
9,83
8,33
0,00
7.50
6.00
16,33
0,00
20.00
0.00
13,09
9,72
-------
Starting: January, 1976 FIGURE 2-4
COMPARISON OF DIRECT COSTS DY REPORTING PERIOD FrOR ALL USERS
N)
I
USER !
101
103
109
111
113
115
125
133
1.36
140
146
148
.149
152
157
161
170
171
172
178
179
181
.1.82
183
186
191
197
201
204
207
210
211
^ 12
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
OTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVG, C09,T PER OSHA REC. INJ.
! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
4*21.0 29x631
13*513 12*994
59*293 42r034
50*760
135
1 * 295
2*481
4? 523
1x445
794
.1.4*297
'734
0 0
39*842 69*843
9s-04:1. 5*442
3v577
815
3*582 6*376
27r167 58*431
11t510 5*081
8 * 021
If 685
5:1.7
9*636
0
IF 987
7*138
5 * 735
19*851
30*744
47y226
0
3*060
110
1 *52 6
9*486
27*413
8? 661
9*833
2*950
2*10.1.
2*7.1.0
300
12*908
'2
600
5*
3*
12*
14*
6*
36 *
8*
2,
4*
3*
3*218
21*
39*
7*
35*
15*
1*
7*
3*
4*
64 *
9*
1*
260
627
958
888
102
895
174
638
1.7:1.
092
202
365
977
683
212
455
375
107
41.1
586
032
505
550
879
080
571
142
786
667
687
386
3:12
1*234
832
0
71.1.
475
18
148
393
391
143
86
275
.1.41
361
758
621
986
213
764
357
0
688
340
80
163
749
153
471
120
39
235
0
248
549
130
275
487
497
0
.1.17
36
93
237
274
41.2
209
1.63
70
451
50
403
1*609
145
263
203
345
346
51
328
753
212
291
190
323
240
372
48
325
613
667
263
737
432
82
3.1.2
208
304
12*816
1*285
535
150
1*381
.1.95
QTR 1
51
112
836
260
0
2.1.9
121
5
65
.1.97
1 76
18
49
217
110
374
68
488
QTR 2
326
103
577
123
0
378
72
59
33
.1.00
4 1 1
76
1 1 1
54
53
224
0
167
241
QTR 3
57
138
384
208
0
40
1
59
.1.37
188
53
138
40
65
171
23
288
779
50
QTR 4
51
240
78
185
14
95
150
26
105
34
404
209
61
26
74
285
252
48
217
221
9
1 .1. 9
47
142
4*028
102
162
146
2*038
131
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
to
i
to
o
USER ! -QTR 1
215
217
.\\. ft- .1
226
235
236
237
242
244
260
261
265
2.72
275
283
285
286
292
295
296
299
3.1.6
318
323
324
325
326
328
329
33O
331
333
0
1*185
12*768
604
6*877
706
2*317
159
2 * 820
1*86.1.
1 1 9
61
0
7*327
911
1*982
-r-ar jf. *
QTR 2
0
87*664
725
9*550
1*8.1.3
0
904
5*620
0
8*21 6
109
1*437
1*346
0
0
894
578
16*786
37*757
92
2*159
153
1 , 053
QTR 3
5*725
36*713
1*045
240
8*223
1*583
0
748
8*797
0
14*0.1.9
1*224
f\ Ťy f\
A*.". / .V..
1*890
0
483
1 * 1 72
1*256
24*016
14*061
491
4*736
0
378
480
O
223
QTR 4
0
18*317
14*110
60
886
1*442
1 * 925
278
962
17*683
960
9*500
1*444
1*297
173
80
376
5*257
10*47:1.
2*010
21*089
4 * 258
893
62
5*701
91
0
194
2 9 6 1 2
O
2 , O44
60
1
4
fr
I
#
*
4
*
*
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
*
4
*
4
*
*
*
c-
4
4
4
4
*
t
4
*
4
;
4
*
*
c-
*
t
4
ť
*
*
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
*
J
#
*
AVG* COST PER
QTR 1
0
197
608
201
6*877
1 1 7
1 1 0
159
214
620
59
61
0
3*663
177
991
QTR 2
0
956
48
329
259
0
226
330
0
455
27
239
147
0
0
127
96
2*098
629
30
359
66
351
OSHA REC. INJ.
QTR 3
1*908
259
253
2.1.
357
143
0
249
258
0
519
244
45
210
0
96
195
209
338
1*278
163
676
0
338
1=53
O
55
QTR 4
0
163
491
20
88
80
218
139
240
442
960
306
131
144
43
80
94
477
1*745
125
602
593
205
31
806
91
0
64
435
0
34O
20
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
fr
{
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
J
*
t-
i
AVERAGE COST PER MAN
QTR 1
0
44
541
30
274
109
75
76
74
70
7
4
0
121
30
188
QTR 2
0
415
26
340
85
0
127
178
0
2.1.1
4
141
74
0
0
13
19
1*581
335
23
153
28
87
QTR 3
416
155
27
8
261
66
0
104
266
0
335
46
26
105
0
6
38
119
203
999
114
316
0
63
37
O
36
YEAR
QTR 4
0
70
382
3
32
45
84
7
135
518
457
213
52
134
8
30
4
139
957
55
177
277
19
14
372
16
0
32
189
o
33<6
A
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL .INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
to
i
NJ
H
337
338
339
340
34:1.
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
353
354
355
358
359
36.1.
362
363
11x442 7x664
6x43:1. 4x968
3x152 6x265
15x0:1.2
9x864 4x848
34:1. 453
318
1x670
619
331
1x172
729
481
64
238
1x193
165
3 x 953
2x061
40
1x934
31
285x060 465x798 347x437 525x521
AVG* COST PER OSHA REC* INJ.
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR
R 3
817
714
394
896
170
QTR 4
638
709
522
682
597
151
313
If 670
154
110
390
182
120
64
119
198
27
1x317
187
20
1x934
31 J
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
360
226
90
691
84
241
178
182
195
350
113
36
162
45
T-)
A.. /...
132
88
5.1.
32
41
256
9
1x153
105
4
80
110
324
436 J
180
,,J ^J H,
IV. A., \,t
147
.1.44
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
f
COMPARISON OF DIRECT COSTS BY REPORTING PERIOD FOR ALL USERS
Starting: January, 1976
USER ! QTR 1
to
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVG, COST PER OSMA REC. INJ.
! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 3 QTR 4
101
103
109
111
113
115
125
133
146
148
149
152
157
161
170
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
204
207
21O
211
215
217
221
*
J
{
*
4
#
;
*
#
#
*
}
j
#
f
j
*
*
*
{
*
:
{
j
:
j
:
t
#
*
*
#
*
t
:
i
t
2*808
2*399
9*361
19*743
1 * 286
17*674
26*994
9*022
21*552
3*669
7*598
3*265
3*006
3*770
32*198
10*280
23*439
3*233
22*753
10*171
3*337
6*558
4*388
4*182
1*124
741
350
6*857
80
3*306
O
11 ť798
24 r 1AQ
4*636
39*823
30*631
11*102
0
16*606
2*336
4*187
554
3*761
4*585
29*022
13*837
15*074
11*531
5*931
6*981
1*628
2*910
1*458
1*911
4*792
1*767
547
O
12ť2O4
31 F783
: 147
167
356
658
643
734
442
902
1*197
458
584
359
130
251
353
311
282
538
392
328
222
156
168
190
281
123
116
175
80
30O
O
t 1O9
J 7O6
136
1*137
968
284
0
259
292
347
92
235
382
237
3.14
139
427
228
162
125
100
729
159
165
353
1O9
O
75
1 ,059
QTR 1
25
150
53
249
181
247
113
346
279
61
727
210
63
146
110
130
147
22
142
143
32
100
59
124
69
30
27
147
17
264
O
44
r
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVG. COST PER OSHA REC. INJ,
! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 I
226
235
236
237
242
244
260
265
272
275
283
286
292.
296
to 299
Nť 316
W 318
323
324
325
326
328
329
330
331
333
336
337
338
339
340
341
343
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
:
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1,276
6,068
12,041
13,784
0
15,247
6,984
6,452
160
1,872
473
0
3,533
440
2,275
50,532
1,566
2,676
312
8,345
34,976
0
40
1,749
56
79
40
5,740
4,213
6,495
13,006
18,009
154
9,807
11,395
902
1,799
8,258
80
0
20
1,333
1,364
2,317
41,512
5,393
50
3,049
4
644
102
139
34
43
40
8,350
1,622
7,744
7,610
479
212
466
602
1 , 253
0
3,811
258
258
53
312
94
0
504
146
87
918
313
380
312
758
1 1 , 658
0
40
583
28
26
20
521
468
433
500
1 , 286
51
700
517
150
257
196
40
0
20
111
1 , 364
96
628
898
0
304
4
214
34
46
34
43
20
1,043
324
430
237
119
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
325
321
36
241
165
2
0
7
15
115
89
318
344
11
194
0
259
16
9
4
7
3
269
59
231
113
115
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
:
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
73
214
367
564
0
2,074
206
140
6
193
22
0
43
39
63
424
104
66
73
555
5,977
0
6
123
8
12
3
185
155
194
178
1 . 30'=:
37
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR
AVG, COST PER OSHA REC. INJ,
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR A
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
358
M 361
ro 362
*> 363
AVG.
2*687
1*672
1*101
662
3,870
2*833
6*595
20
3*593
252
206
108
495
20
2*888
715
547*400
1*265
322
2*067
1*086
181
1*907
800
3*199
8
9*407
129
394*058
{ 447
278
68
132
645
354
942
20
256
252
51
54
247
20
577
143
420
253
80
229
217
45
381
266
355
8
1*175
43
311
308
164
81
45
402
332
720
10
320
45
42
5
143
2
122
46
123
31
135
108
20
189
407
171
2
370
7
152
129
-------
FIGURE 2-5
SLHWRY OF ACCIDENT FACTORS FOR SELECTED ACCIDENT
CHARACTERISTICS WITH HIGHEST PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
OSHA DAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
Type of
Characteristic
I
bj
On
Activi ty
Accident Type
Accident Site
Nature of Injury
Part of Body
Factors with the:
Highest % of OSHA
Recordable Injuries
Lifting or dumping container - 39%
Getting off equipment - 8%
Standing or walking - 7%
Overexertion involving container - 19%
Struck by waste - 5%
Slip on same level - 5%
On collection route at back of truck - 32%
On collection route at curb - 19%
On collection route in customer's yard - 11%
Sprain or strain - 41%
Cut or puncture - 21%
Bruise - 17%
Back - 18%
Leg - 10%
Eyes - 8%
Highest % of OSHA
Days Lost
Lifting or dumping container - 40%
Getting off equipment - 14%
Carrying container - 8%
Overexertion involving container - 29%
Fall to a different level - 8%
Slip on same level - 8%
On collection route at back of truck - 31%
On collection route at curb - 24%
On collection route in customer's yard - 11%
Sprain or strain - 58%
Bruise - 14%
Fracture - 8%
Back - 31%
Knee - 8%
Foot - 7%
Highest % of
Direct Costs
Lifting or dumping container - 38%
Getting off equipment - 12%
Carrying container - 7%
Overexertion involving container - 27%
Vehicle accident - 12%
Slip on same level - 7%
On collection route at back of truck - 34%
On collection route at curb - 21%
On collection route in customer's yard - T
Sprain or strain - 55%
Bruise - 13%
Amputation - 8%
Back - 29%
Leg - 13%
Knee - 8%
-------
Accident Trends
3rd Quarter 1977
-------
EXHIBIT 8
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
SPECIALIZED COLLECTION ACCIDENTS
QUARTER: JULY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1977
DEVELOPED BY SAFETY SCIENCES, DIVISION OF WSA INC.,
FOR THE U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
UNDER CONTRACT No, 68-03-0231
Division of USA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego. CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
Accident Trends in the Solid Waste Management Industry is
developed quarterly using data from IRIS (the Injury Re-
porting and Information System for Solid Waste Management).
Accident Trends is designed to summarize and discuss the
data from all IRIS users and to provide data and conclu-
sions which affect the industry as a whole. A companion
volume, the QSMR (Quarterly Safety Management Report), is
developed individually for each IRIS user who reported
injuries during the quarter. Each QSMR concentrates only
on the injuries of the individual IRIS user for which it
is prepared.
IRIS is currently made up of 65 users. All possible care
is taken to insure data quality. The nature of the data
and the reports, however, precludes complete accuracy. Not
all cases are closed by the end of the quarter. These acci-
dents continue to be monitored. Occasionally, full lost
time and cost data is not available. Consequently, the tot-
als for these categories may be underestimates. A concerted
effort is made to correct the lost time and cost figures
and improve IRIS collection methods. The recommendations and
countermeasures presented are suggestions that must be eval-
uated in terms of individual user's needs.
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications is to dis-
seminate new ideas and alternative methods in the solid waste
field. IRIS serves as a clearinghouse in this regard, but
does not promote or endorse any method or product. Imple-
mentation of QSMR suggestions should be done only after
careful evaluation by each user and at each user's discre-
tion.
-------
ACCIDENT TRENDS
IN THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
SPECIALIZED COLLECTION ACCIDENTS
QUARTER: JULY 1, 1977 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1977
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ........ ..... iv
I. DISCUSSION OF SPECIALIZED COLLECTION
ACCIDENTS AND PREVENTION METHODS ....... 1-1
1. Commercial Collection .......... 1-2
1.1 Accident Types 1-2
1.2 Countermeasures .......... 1-4
2. Brush Collection . ...... 1-14
2.1 Accident Types 1-15
2.2 Countermeasures 1-20
3. Bulky Waste Collection ... 1-21
3.1 Accident Types . 1-21
3.2 Countermeasures ..... 1-22
II. THIRD QUARTER IRIS USER INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA . . 2-1
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1
FIGURE 1-2
FIGURE 1-3
to 1-5
FIGURE 1-6
FIGURE 1-7
to 1-9
FIGURE 1-10
FIGURE 1-11
to 1-13
FIGURE 2-1
FIGURE 2-2
FIGURE 2-3
FIGURE 2-4
FIGURE 2-5
Injury Rates for Specialized Col-
lection . . 1-1
Common Commercial Collection Crew
Accidents . . . . Ť 1-4
Injury Rates for Commercial Collection
for All Users 1-5
Common Brush Collection Crew
Accidents 1-15
Injury Rates for Brush Collection for
All Users ..... ..... 1-17
Common Bulky Waste Collection Crew
Accidents . ............... 1-21
Injury Rates for Bulky Waste Collection
for All Users . 1-23
Description of Users by Operational
Characteristics 2-4
Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity, and Costs ........... 2-11
Comparison of Injury Rates and OSHA
Days Lost for All Users ......... 2-13
Comparison of Direct Costs by Reporting
Period for All Users .......... 2-19
Summary of Accident Factors for
Selected Accident Characteristics with
Highest Percent of OSHA Recordable
Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct
Costs 2-25
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
This is the Accident Trends report for the third
quarter of 1977 (July 1 to September 30). This report is
divided into two sections, a discussion of the special fea-
ture topic, specialized collection accidents (commercial,
brush and bulky waste collection) and their prevention
measures and a summary of the data for the quarter. The
discussion in SECTION I will encompass the data since the
instigation of IRIS in December 1975, but SECTION II relates
only the injury rates and figures applicable to the third
quarter of 1977.
Of the 65 IRIS users on-line second quarter, 54
users reported injuries. Since the injury rates are based
on man-hours of exposure, they reflect the various start-up
periods of the IRIS users.
The time lost and direct costs shown on the FIGURES
were provided as of December 31, the "closing data" for
receiving data for the second quarter. Any cases where the
time lost or direct cost data is incomplete are being monitored
for updating.
IV
-------
SECTION I
DISCUSSION OF SPECIALIZED COLLECTION ACCIDENTS
AND PREVENTION METHODS
In the past, the Accident Trends reports have exa-
mined overall accident patterns for the whole collection
division. However, for specialized collection (bulky waste
collection, brush collection, and commercial collection are
the main three), there are unique accident patterns associ-
ated with the type of container handled, the type of waste
handled, or the type of equipment used which should be dis-
cussed separately. In addition, some of the most serious
accidents that occurred to IRIS users were in their spec-
ialized collection.
FIGURE 1-1 presents the injury rates for these
three specialized collection types, comparing them against
each other and against the injury rates for the whole collec-
tion division. The man-hours of exposure indicates that each
specialized collection type does not comprise a large percent-
age of the overall collection exposure hours: commercial col-
lection (15%), brush collection (11%), and bulky waste collec-
tion (5%). It is the residential collection's injury rates
which make the all collection's injury rates higher than the
individual specialized collections.
FIGURE 1-1
Injury Rates For
Specialized Collection
All Commercial Brush Bulky Waste
Collection Collection Collection Collection
1. OSHA incidence
rate 86 23 29 32
2. OSHA lost work-
day cases rate 51 14 12 18
3. OSHA severity
rate 579 278 166 245
4. Days lost per
lost workday
case 11.42 20.45 13.84 13.76
5. Average direct
cost per OSHA
recordable inj-
ury $359 $1,093 $280 $282
6. Direct cost per
man-year $308 $256 $81 $89
7. Man-hours of
exposure 10,090,102 1,521,670 1,081,820 475,584
1-1
-------
The following discussion of these three types of
specialized collection will first describe their accident
patterns and then suggest countermeasures to reduce specific
accidents. The IRIS data reporting period examined was
October 1976 through September 1977.*
1. COMMERCIAL COLLECTION
Commercial collection involves the collection of
waste from commercial establishments. Frequently, the type
of container being handled is a bulk container and the type
of equipment used is a front end loader. Commercial collec-
tion crews consist of either one or two men who usually work
on an hourly system rather than incentive. The containers
they pick up are fewer in number and further apart from stop
to stop than residential collection. Therefore, the employees
spend less time actually handling containers and more time
riding in the cab (there is no rear step for front end loaders
and container delivery trucks) than residential collectors.
The commercial collection division data examined does not in-
clude data from crews that collect from both residential and
commercial establishments.
1.1 Accident Types
Figure 1-2 shows the top five, accident types that,
occurred on commercial collection. They comprised 71% of the
OSHA recordable injuries, 85% of the days lost, and 92% of the.
direct costs.
Overexertion accidents almost always occurred as the
injured employee was maneuvering a bulk container. Bulk con-
tainers, to begin with, weigh several hundred pounds. There-
fore, if any circumstances hinder the progress of the container,
it can cause severe strains. (There were three back strains
that resulted in over 100 days lost each, and overexertions
resulted in an average of 18 days lost and $1,044 in direct
costs.) Typical causes for overexertions while pushing the
bulk containers were:
the surface was inclined
the wheel became stuck in a pothole
*A1 though the crew types of the injured employees were collected
prior to the fourth quarter of 1976, the crew type collection
exposure hours were not. Therefore, all data analyses on crew
types are relevant only from October 1976.
1-2
-------
lack of team coordination between the
two coworkers
the wheel was defective, and the bulk
container was harder to push
Another cause of back strains when maneuvering the bulk con-
tainers was "sudden body movements", most commonly as the
employee was attempting to catch and stop the rolling of the
container down an incline. This is not considered an overex-
ertion accident because it resulted from "the assumption of
an unnatural position or from involuntary motions" (ANSI Z16.2
definition, "Method of Recording Basic Facts Relating to the
Nature and Occurrence of Work Injuries").
Slips and falls were almost as frequent as overex-
ertions. Approximately half of these occurred as the employee
was getting in and out of the cab (the running board was wet,
icy or oily) . Another quarter of the slips and falls occurred
when the employees were pushing or pulling the containers.
Struck by accidents included two severe injuries.
One employee was struck by the sudden popping open of the
tailgate as he was opening the tailgate of a container deliv-
ery truck, and it paralyzed him from the neck down (IRIS News-
flash, Vol. 1, No. 1). The second employee was struck by a
bulk container that fell off the lifters and fractured his
foot. However, half the struck by accidents were due to ob-
jects ejecting from the hopper of rear loading commercial
collection equipment or objects that fell out of the container.
The struck by objects ejected from the hopper accidents are
more frequent (3%) for commercial collection than for regular
collection (2%). Another source of struck by accidents were
the turnbuckles as the employee was opening or closing the
tailgate (three accidents). This is a high incidence of this
accident type since this activity requires only a small frac-
tion of the time during the day.
The caught between accidents occurred mostly as the
employee was pushing or pulling the bulk container towards the
vehicle for dumping or back towards its storage location. The
employees got caught between the vehicle or wall and bulk con-
tainer.
The object in eye accidents occurred as the employees
were operating the controls on the vehicles for dumping the
bulk containers.
1-3
-------
FIGURE 1-2
COMMON COMMERCIAL COLLECTION CREW ACCIDENTS
1. Overexertions
2. Slips and Falls
3. Struck by
4. Caught between
5. Object in eye
TOTAL
No.
In j .
39
33
20
18
16
178
%No.
Inj .
22
19
11
10
9
100%
No. Days %Days Direct %Direct
Lost Lost Costs Costs
721
531
416
123
4
2,115
34
25
20
6
$40,717
39,898
91,832
5,062
576
100% 194,578
21
21
47
3
100%
FIGURES 1-3 to 1-5 analyze the injury rates for commercial
collection by user. Therefore, users can compare their injury
rates with other similar commercial collection operations as
well as the AVERAGES for all users.
1.2
Countermeasures
Requiring two men to maneuver the bulk containers.
In order to reduce the most frequent and costly of the bulk
container handling injuries (overexertions), the employees
need to use help. IRIS data indicates that the injury rates
for two man bulk container collection was lower than for one
man (OSHA incidence rates of 27 and 23, respectively). There-
fore, an organization switching to two man bulk container col-
lection can expect a reduction of 4 non-first aid injuries per
100 employees per year. In addition, the two man-collection
should also be able to collect from more stops. Requiring two
men commercial collection crews can also aid in reducing the
caught between accidents which presumably occurred when the
employees lost control of the bulk container.
Pushing bulk container training. The employees should
push rather than pull the bulk container, and it should be done
in increments such that they maintain control of the bulk con-
tainer during the entire maneuver. Pulling the bulk container
causes "struck self" accidents where the employees run the wheel
over their feet. They are also less likely to get their hand
caught between the container and wall or vehicle. In addition,
the bulk container lid should not be half-open, which could
cause it to swing shut on the employee's hand. Coordination
between the two employees is essential in not introducing new
hazards such as strains caused by the uneven exertions of the
1-4
-------
FIGURE 1-3
AVERAGE INJURY RATES BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
COMMERCIAL CREW
[PORTING PERIOD? OCTOBER 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1977
FINITIQNS: AVERAGE RATIO = RATE / AVERAGE FOR THE RATE.
3HA INCIDENCE RATE = (NUMBER OF OSHA RECORDABLE CASES /
W-HOURS EXPOSURE ) X 200ť000* ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO
IE NUMBER OF CASES PER 100 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES PER YEAR*
)ES NOT INCLUDE FIRST AID INJURIES, DOES INCLUDE MEDICAL
(EATMENT, LOST TIME? PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES,
VERITY RATE = (NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST / MAN-HOURS EXPOSURE) X 200.000,
HIGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST PER 100 FULL TIME
1PLOYEES PER YEAR,
ISTRUCTIONSJ FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
)U IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS,
GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50,
POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1
;IS
;ER
10,
.'10
;>25
;!99
;:n
;.49
?07
529
!!41
"!55
::;5s
:>28
i'.25
:!60
,91
!36
101
:.46
5536
:?35
;13
!.33
^15
W3
m
:.V/
;.S6
!59
.83
M4
OSHA INC
MAM --HOURS
EXPOSURE
6v570
19/606
4? 171
33 v 371
2,607
53,400
7,973
11 y 78 4
20,857
6:' 779
4.171
Si-343
106v 371
10*011
1 0 y 4 2 9
2 7 y. 1.1 4
112*629
52*873
13*766
22 y 421
29,965
67,577
8,350
1 c5?] i 670
34,675
18,771
11,395
23,881
12,514
IDENCE
NO,
IN. J
6
14
2
13
1
">p
-r
ť:>
4
""?
o
.c.
1
O
23
o
A..
2
5
18
8
2
T
o
4
9
1
178
4
n
1
o
1
RATE
RATE
!
133
143
96
78
/ /
75
75
6S
67
59
48
43
43
40
33
37
32
30
29
27
27
27
24
T5T
'""I "T
.^. _.'
21
18
17
16
AVG
RATIO
7 , 8 1
6 , 1 0
4,10
~7. TT
..r , \.J *J
T O O
>..' , iU '-1
-y t~, f,
^> , .>..-:.
~r o -1
..r , .<.. J.
2,90
2,87
o nr '"i
^ i- -.'.d
2,05
2,05
1,85
1,71
1,64
1 nro
.1. V I..' W
1,37
.1. , 29
1,24
1,14
1 . 1 4
1.14
1 ,02
1 ,00
0,99
0,91
0,75
0,72
0,63
I NCI
IRIS
USER
NO,
210
325
149
341
211
2 0 7
323
125
353
133
329
146
1 c?~?
260
101
355
236
336
244
AVG
115
296
113
283
1S3
204
3 1 6
292
DENCE
NO,
INJ
/t
*v
11
^
0.
4
f">
7
15
1
O
1
A
1
13
4
12
T
*J
7
1
5
1
108
4
?
1
1
1
1
3
1
RATE
RATE
1 .ą. 2
112
, ,
.-' /
68
54
51
,1 o
v '.,.'
48
30
27
25
23
23
23
OT>
19
19
19
16
14
12
10
r^i
9
8
,$
J
3
- LUC
AVG
RAT 1C
3,58
~.' i~* -i
/ , 7 1
5v40
'i "7 O
-i , / O
3 , 30
T .' 'I
ťi , oŤi
T "V i~\
Jj , oC'
"r "r i~i
O , OO
2 , 08
1 ,88
1,77
I/ ~T
* GO
1,63
1 ,59
1,56
1 , 35
1,35
1,33
1,13
1,00
0,33
0,68
0,63
0,61
0,59
0,27
0,22
0,21
SEVER I
IRIS R
USER
NO,
244 3*
210 2v
197 2*
325 1,
" ~\,> [
o-^O J. Ľ
J'f ~v -t
. ^ ^ 1 y
") "> /
260
146
207
101
12.5
341
211
AVG
149
113
358
115
204
-7 -I /
:> 1 o
T T; /.
\j O u.1
"T CT ITT
OvJvJ
296
. . , , -V
^QO
133
329
292
TV R
ATE
303
233
169
o*j /
199
031
767
596
574
455
391
360
339
306
278
230
214
89
33
77
~"?
49
43
33
-* itr
OO
25
'> rr-
12
ATE
AVG
RATIO
11 ,90
3,21
7,80
4,38
4,31
3,39
"1 "V /
-C V / O
2,14
2,06
1,64
1,41
1,29
j ^ ^n
1.10
1,00
0,83
0,77
0 , 32
0,30
0,28
0,26
0,18
0 , 1 7
0,14
0,13
0,09
0,09
0,04
1-5
-------
FIGURE 1-3 (Continued) PAGE 2
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
IRIS MAN-HOURS NO, RATE
USER EXPOSURE INJ
NO*
296
330
326
2S3
7) Q^
204
316
Alt 714
18i-771
21? 274
22*943
67 > 369
52^143
191*886
3
1
1
1
*1
.ii.
1
3
14
11
9
9
6
4
3
INCIDENCE RATE - LUC
AVG IRIS NO* RATE AVG
RATIO USER INJ RATIO
NO *
0*61
0*46
0*40
0*37
0*25
0*16
0*13
SEVERITY RATE
IRIS RATE AVG
USER RATIO
NO * f
178 176,660 2 20.
1-6
-------
FIGURE 1-4
AVERAGE WORKDAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
COMMERCIAL CREW
EPORTING PERIOD: OCTOBER 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1977
NSTRUCTIONSI FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
DW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS*
GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN .50*
POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1.25.
RANK
HIGHEST
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
. 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
LOWEST
IRIS
USER NO.
244
197
133
236
260
328
146
113
316
AVG
204
210
101
325
207
115
125
211
341
296
292
283
358
183
149
336
355
329
NO LOST
WKDY CASES
1
4
4
1
12
1
13
1
3
101
1
4
3
11
9
3
2
9
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
1
DAYS
LOST
207
376
162
40
317
25
323
24
69
2r065
20
75
53
133
85
26
15
51
20
8
4
4
3
3
3
13
5
1
AVG WKDYS
LOST
207.00
94.00
40.50
40.00
26.42
25.00
24.85
24.00
23.00
20.45
20.00
18.75
17.67
12.09
9.44
8.67
7.50
5.67
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.60
2.50
1.00
AVG RATIO
(DAYS / AVG)
10.12
4.60
1.98
1.96
1.29
1.22
1,22
1.17
1.12
1.00
0.98
0.92
0.86
0.59
0.46
0.42
0.37
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.05
1-7
-------
FIGURE 1-5
DIRECT COSTS BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
COMMERCIAL CREW
REPORTING PERIOD: OCTOBER 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1977
DEFINITIONS: DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES,
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS? AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
(E.G. INJURY LEAVE) ONLY. INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS PER MAN-YEAR IS THE COST PER FULL-TIME SANITATION
EMPLOYEE PER YEAR BASED ON 2*000 HOURS PER YEAR.
INSTRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
HOW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS.
A GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN .50.
A POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1.25.
AVG
IRIS
USER
NO.
197
244
236
133
204
316
146
AVG
210
325
260
125
328
113
341
101
296
358
211
207
283
292
115
149
183
329
299
363
330
359
186
DIRECT COST/OSHA
NO. OSHA
RECORD
INJ
4
1
2
4
1
3
18
178
6
14
23
2
1
3
4
5
3
2
13
22
1
2
9
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
AVG
COST
22,292
14,907
3,612
2,267
1,263
1,230
1,154
1,093
995
831
595
519
458
442
356
345
234
227
199
194
177
174
164
131
80
66
60
53
40
34
27
RECORDABLE INJ
AVG RATIO
(AVG COST/AVG)
20.39
13.64
3.30
2.07
1.16
1.13
1.06
1.00
0.91
0,76
0.54
0.47
0.42
0.40
0.33
0.32
0.21
0.21
0.18
0,18
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.12
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0*04
0.03
IRIS
USER
NO.
197
244
210
236
325
133
146
260
AVG
125
341
328
211
207
358
101
113
149
299
329
204
115
316
296
283
355
183
363
292
191
0.03 ! 336
DIRECT COST
MAN-HRS
EXPOSURE
34,675
12,514
6,570
10,429
19,606
29,965
112,629
106,371
1,521,670
8,343
11,784
4,171
33,371
58,400
6,779
27,114
22,421
2,607
4,171
7,978
52,143
67,577
191,886
41,714
22,943
20,857
23,881
8,350
67,369
10,011
52,873
PER MAN
COSTS
PER M-Y
5,143,13
2,382,40
1,818.26
1,385.42
1,186.29
605.38
368.88
257.32
255,91
248.84
241.85
219.59
157.92
145,99
133,95
127,09
118,28
100.49
58*01
49,64
48,44
45.73
38,46
33,66
15.43
14.38
13.40
12.69
10.36
7,99
6,05
YEAR
AVG RATH
< COSTS/AVi
20,10
9,31
7,11
5,41
4,64
2,37
1,44
1,01
1,00
0,97
0,95
0,86
0,62
0,57
0,52
0,50
0,46
0,39
0,23
0,19
0.19
0,18
0,15
0,13
0,06
0,06
0.05
0,05
0.04
*ť
0.03
Oy\rt
,02
1-8
-------
FIGURE 1-5 (Continued)
PAGE
!G DIRECT COST/OSHA
IIS
5ER
10.
,78
155
136
,91
135
126
NO. OSHA
RECORD
INJ
2
7
8
2
2
1
AVG
COST
25
21
20
20
12
4
RECORDABLE INJ
AVG RATIO
(AVG COST/AVG)
0*02
0,02
0*02
0,02
0,01
0*00
IRIS
USER
NO,
359
186
330
235
178
326
DIRECT COST
MAN-MRS
EXPOSURE
11 r 395
18,771
18f 771
13,766
176ť660
21r274
PER MAN
COSTS
PER M-Y
5.97
5.86
4,26
3,63
0,58
0,38
YEAR
AVG RATIO
(COSTS/AVG)
0,02
0,02
0,02
0,01
0,00
0,00
1-9
-------
two employees or one employee pushing the container into the
second. In team pushing of the bulk container, one person
should be giving the signals for pushing simultaneously, and
they should both agree on the best way to maneuver the con-
tainer in the right position. On no account should an employee
be in front of or near the lifting arms when it is in motion.
An accident occurred where the employee was holding the bulk
container in position as his coworker maneuvered the lifters
into the slot. However, the lifting arm caught and amputated
his finger when it pinched his hand against the container.
Hazardous surface avoidance. The employees should
observe the surface the bulk container must be maneuvered over
and look for hazardous surface conditions such as potholes,
ice patches, or waste on the ground. With planning, these
can be maneuvered around and avoided. With this hazardous
surface recognition and avoidance training, overexertion as
well as slip and fall accidents can be reduced.
Personal protective equipment. Commercial collection
employees have higher exposure to industrial wastes, or toxic
chemicals. It can spill out of the bulk container as it is
being pushed or dumped, be ejected from the hopper, or be dis-
persed in the air when the container is being emptied. There-
fore, the employees should wear long sleeved shirts and eye
protection. Protection against inhaling toxic fumes should
also be considered (e.g., respirator), although acceptance to
them because of discomfort is low. Bump caps are recommended
because of the overhead hazards of waste falling down f-rom
emptying the container into a front end loader, striking against
the lifting arms, the container falling off the lifters, the
cable on a winch system breaking and striking the employee, or
the lifting arms malfunctioning and striking the employee on
the head. Slip resistant, steel toed safety shoes are recom-
mended. Metatarsal protection should be considered, also.
Employees can have the container be pushed over their feet or
have the container fall off the lift arms. Slip resistance is
especially important for jobs that require horizontal push and
pull forces (e.g., pushing the bulk container) because the acti-
vity decreases the coefficient of friction between the shoe sole
and surface, thus increasing the likelihood of slips and falls.
Gloves should definitely be standard personal protective equip-
ment for all collection employees.
Equipment modifications. The running boards should
be slip resistant and self-cleaning (e.g., open meshed) to pre-
vent the accumulation of water and snow. In addition, adequate
handholds should be provided to"aid. in getting in and out of
the cab.
Maintaining bulk containers. Defects on the bulk
containers should be reported to the garage immediately and
1-10
-------
it should be repaired immediately. In particular, the wheels
must be functioning properly for ease of pushing, and the
hinges on the lids should not make it hard to open and close
the lid. Rusty containers should be replaced immediately.
Container location regulations. Hazardous surfaces
such as gravel and inclines (causing overexertions and slips
and falls) as well as confined spaces (causing caught betweens)
can be regulated such that the bulk container must be located
in an accessible, level area.
Dumping bulk containers into the vehicle. On rear
end loaders, the employee should be trained to operate the
packing mechanism lever with the left hand (if two handed con-
trols are not provided) so the employee is not tempted to reach
his left hand out to unjam the waste or push the falling waste
back in without stopping the packer panel. Eye protection is
essential in this operation. Employees have also been known
to get their hand caught between the trunion and the hopper
sill and to overexert themselves when attempting to hold up
a container that was falling off the lifting arms. Let the
container fall.
Emptying the vehicle at the disposal site. The em-
ployees should park the vehicle at least six feet away from
another vehicle on each side. Before unlatching the tailgate,
he should make sure that no one is standing in the way of the
swing arc of the tailgate. Remember that the refuse is under
great pressure and can cause the tailgate to pop open with a
great deal of force, particularly with side opening single or
double doors. The ejector blade should be in the forward (to-
wards cab) position to relieve pressure on the refuse, and the
tailgate should be opened slowly. Tailgate latches for the side
swinging doors should be designed such that the employee will
not be in front of the doors and/or that the tailgate has a
restraining device that only allows the tailgate to open a few
inches. The excerpt from the IRIS Newsflash (Vol. 1, January,
1977) on the serious accident where the employee was paralyzed
after the tailgate struck him follows:
This injury occurred to a commercial collection
worker and involved a roll-off truck. Accord-
ing to the accident report, the employee appar-
ently was at the landfill opening up the rear
door of the 32 cubic yard compactor bin. The
door was hinged on the right. The container
was picked up from a department store that
tended to overfill the container. There were
no witnesses, and the injured employee was
discovered near the truck. The compactor door
was slightly ajar. According to the investigation
1-11
-------
findings, it is believed that what happened
is probably as follows: He pushed up on the
handle to release the rear door. The handle
is located three feet from the rear on the left
side. Thinking that the door was opened, he
went to the rear, and the door "popped open".
The investigators believe that the overfilling
of the container "hung up" the door momentarily.
The employee was struck on the chin by the door
knob, knocking him down. He has lost the use
of all his limbs and requires a respirator. It
is anticipated that his injury may cost up to
$250,000.
ANSI Z245.3 standard for the stability of refuse bins.
This standard was discussed in the June 1977 issue of "IRIS
News". It is important to remention it here because of the
passing of Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) regu-
lations concerning it which becomes effective on June 13, 1978
in which all refuse bins "in commerce" that are in violation
will have to be retrofit. The ANSI Z245.3 standard was drawn
up in response to the impending legislation. Although the
ANSI Z245.3 is a voluntary standard and the CPSC regulations
may not apply to your organization, you should still retrofit
the bins in violation because of insurance liability.
The ANSI Z245.3 standard, which was approved in
December 1976, directs itself primarily at bins designed to
be mechanically emptied into rear or side loading refuse col-
lection compaction vehicles. Typically, such bins are slope-
sided to facilitate use with the vehicle hopper configuration
and to empty the contents more efficiently. The flaw in the
design is that it is very easy for young children, who are
playing on the containers, to tip them over onto themselves.
In fact, there have been several deaths as a result of this
accident.
The ANSI Z245.3 standard requires that the slope-
sided bins do not tip when subjected to a force of 70 pounds
exerted horizontally and 191 pounds exerted vertically from
the leading edge of the bin. In each case, the test is to
be done with the bin empty and the wheels and covers in their
most adverse position. The standard also requires that appro-
priate safety markings be affixed to the container.
Because of the seriousness of the hazard of these
bins, the new ANSI requirements will apply not only to the
manufacturer, but also to the owner, collector, or customer
who uses these containers. Existing bins must be brought
1-12
-------
within the standard through a retrofit program, or they must
be adequately protected from unauthorized access and accident-
al tipping.
The suggested deadline for this standard reflects
priority given to bin locations where children are most likely
to congregate. The proposed implementation schedule contained
in the standard is as follows:
Locations
Schoolyards
Parks and Playgrounds
Apartment Developments
All Other Locations
Date
September, 1977
March, 1978
September, 1978
March, 1979
Since all slope-sided bins manufactured after this June must
comply with the standard, you should include the ANSI Require-
ments in your bidding specifications. Copies of both standards
may be obtained by writing to:
American National Standards Institute, Inc.
Sales Department
1430 Broadway
New York, New York 10018
1-13
-------
2. BRUSH COLLECTION
The term brush collection is used here to cover
crews that collect strictly brush from residential areas.
This is accomplished in several ways by the users:
By the.regular residential collection
crews one day a week, not using spec-
ial equipment.
By a separate brush collection crew
that visits the same location approx-
imately once a month. The crew works
a different route each day.
By means of "trash stations" located
in convenient areas for residents to
dump their brush. Then a brush crew
picks up the brush once a week.
Various pieces of equipment as well as number and
type of personnel can make up a brush collection crew:
A regular rear end loader crew of
two collectors and a driver.
An open body truck crew with col-
lectors that use handtools (e.g.,
rake, pitchfork).
A crew using two types of equipment,
a front loader that has a bucket to
scoop up the brush and a trash trailer
that has more than one trailer for
dumping the brush in. Besides the
driver of the two vehicles, a manual
collector with a pitchfork is also
needed to move the brush so that it
is more accessible to the loader. In
addition, another vehicle is required
to transport the loader between routes.
More than one trailer is required so
that the brush pick up will not need
to be stopped as the brush is taken
to the disposal site, and two trailers
can also be hauled off at the same
time.
1-14
-------
A crew using a trash crane and more
than one dump truck. This crew also
requires laborers or "groundmen" to
clean up what the crane cannot pick
up.
A crew that uses a chipper that grinds
up the brush. The collectors feed
brush into the chipper. However, the
hazards of objects being ejected in-
creases with the chipper, and employees
should at least wear a face shield
around the machine.
Referring back to FIGURE 1-1, brush collection
had the lowest severity and direct cost rates of the three
types of specialized collection.
2.1
Accident Types
FIGURE 1-6 gives the top six accident types for
brush collection. Again, overexertions ranked the highest.
These six accident types account for 79% of the OSHA record-
able injuries, 71% of the days lost, and 75% of the direct
costs for brush collection.
FIGURE 1-6
COMMON BRUSH COLLECTION CREW ACCIDENTS
1. Overexertion
2. Slips and falls
3. Struck by
4. Struck self
5. Object in eye
6. Stepped on sharp
object
TOTAL
14
156
%NO.
Inj .
21
14
13
11
11
9
100%
No. Days %Days Direct
Lost Lost Costs
435
79
61
38
18
3
896
49
9
7
4
2
$21,999
3,924
2,714
2,320
1,582
<1 555
100% $43,757
;Direct
Costs
50
9
6
5
4
100%
Overexertion accidents occurred usually as the em-
ployee was "lifting to dump" shrubbery or using a pitchfork
1-15
-------
to load the vehicle with brush. The overexertion accidents
resulted in an average of 13 days lost and $667 in direct
costs each. These figures are lower than those for over-
exertions occurring in commercial collection.
Slips and falls occurred mostly as employees were
getting on and off the vehicle due to wet steps or the ground
was wet or oily or there was a rock or a depression. In addi-
tion, while handling shrubbery, the employees slipped or fell
when the pavement was wet or oily. Falls to a different level
also interestingly included three falls from the truck bed as
the employees were unloading waste; one fell into the incin-
erator pit.
Struck by accidents were due to a number of reasons.
A quarter of them occurred from objects (brush) ejecting from
the operating hopper; another quarter was from brush falling
off the open bed truck or from the crane bucket. Other struck
by accidents were from the brush swinging around the hopper
as it was being compacted, being struck by brush handled by a
coworker, and being struck by the cab door.
Struck self accidents occurred as the employees were
handling shrubbery, as they poked themselves in the eyes and
face with it or dropped it on their feet. This accident type
category is slightly different from "hurt by handling" acci-
dents where the employees puncture or cut their hands while
handling brush.
Object in eye accidents occurred as frequently as
the struck self accidents and are more frequent in brush col-
lection than in commercial collection. Over half of the object
in eye accidents occurred while the employees were handling
shrubbery either by hand or with a handtool.
Stepped on sharp object accidents occurred 9% of
the time to injured employees. This accident type occurred
only 2% of the time to commercial collectors. The brush col-
lection employees were stepping on nails and boards with nails
that were mixed up with the shrubbery in the waste.
FIGURES 1-7 to 1-9 analyze the injury rates for brush
collection by user, and users can refer to these figures to
compare their injury rates with other similar brush collection
operations and with the AVERAGES of the rates for all users.
1-16
-------
FIGURE 1-7
AVERAGE INJURY RATES BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
BRUSH CREW
[PORTING PERIOD? OCTOBER 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1977
-FINITIONS; AVERAGE RATIO = RATE / AVERAGE FOR THE RATE*
3HA INCIDENCE RATE = (NUMBER OF OSHA RECORDABLE CASES /
W-HQURS EXPOSURE ) X 200*000* ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO
' NUMBER OF CASES PER 100 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES PER YEAR,
']ES NOT INCLUDE FIRST AID INJURIES, DOES INCLUDE MEDICAL
$EATMENTť LOST TIME* PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES,
VERITY RATE = (NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST / MAN-HOURS EXPOSURE) X 200*000
HIGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST PER 100 FULL TIME
1PLOYEES PER YEAR,
teTRUCTIONSt FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
OW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS,
:GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50,
SPOOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1,25,
US
3ER
10,
M2
541
'.46
172
204
'.01
?36
WG
179
125
170
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
MAN-HOURS NO, RATE
EXPOSURE INJ
A a
6?
2Q.i
258 <<
1.3:'
203.
18 t
It 08 1 ,
54 >>
75 r
323 ,
171
257
075
629
771
571
771
320
750
086
494
'p
T
.'.)
"?
.'
63
4
44
3
156
4
5
21
O /
/' O
96
70
49
43
42
32
9Q
15
13
13
AVG
RATIO
3
3
':>
1
1
:l.
1
1
0
0
0
,32
,32
,42
,69
,43
, '; Q
.11
,00
,51
,46
,45
INCIDENCE RATE -
IRIS NO, RATE
USER INJ
NO,
341
242
146
172
AVG
179
125
236
.1.70
1 0 1
~.
1
3
30
66
3
.}
V
1
15
7
64
48
30
"*' ".?"
12
11
11
11
9
/
LUC
AVG
RATIO
b
w
">
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
,24
,93
,45
,90
* 0 0
Of\
, 1 'J
S'"J
/'
,S7
,76
,55
, . i l t r- f , -r ~i" \ / Pi
O |Ť V C. l\ 1 i I 1
A,. V
-"?
*^- 4
1 .
1,
1 *
0,
0 ,
0,
0,
0,
71
32
1 6
02
00
56
53
49
A A
06
1-17
-------
FIGURE 1-8
AVERAGE WORKDAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
BRUSH
REPORTING PERIOD? OCTOBER 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1977
INSTRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
HOW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS*
A GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN .50*
A POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1*25*
RANK
HIGHEST
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
LOWEST
IRIS
USER NO*
146
236
101
172
341
AVG
125
170
179
242
NO LOST
WKDY CASES
3
1
7
30
2
61
4
11
2
1
DAYS
LOST
340
41
150
581
32
844
48
85
14
4
AVG WKDYS
LOST
113*33
41*00
21*43
19*37
16.00
13*84
12*00
7*73
7*00
4*00
AVG RATIO
(DAYS / AVG)
8*19
2.96
1.55
1.40
1.16
1.00
0.87
0.56
0.51
0.29
1-18
-------
FIGURE 1-9
DIRECT COSTS BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
BRUSH
PORTING PERIOD: OCTOBER 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1977
HNITIONS! DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES,
IRKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS* AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
:.G, INJURY LEAVE) ONLY, INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED,
;RECT COSTS PER MAN-YEAR is THE COST PER FULL-TIME SANITATION
IPLOYEE PER YEAR BASED ON 2*000 HOURS PER YEAR,
ISTRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
)U IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS,
GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50.
POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1,25,
ť6
IIS
>ER
JO,
J41
.72
>VG
.70
.25
.79
.01
!42
!04
.46
!36
DIRECT COST/OSHA
NO, OSHA
RECORD
INJ
3
63
156
21
&
4
44
2
4
7
3
AVG
COST
485
455
280
263
172
166
121
87
81
78
73
RECORDABLE INJ
AVG RATIO
(AVG COST/AVG)
1.73
1,62
1.00
0,94
0.61
0.59
0,43
0,31
0,29
0,28
0,26
IRIS
USER-
NO,
341
172
''42
AVG
146
101
204
170
179
236
125
DIRECT COST
MAN-HRS
EXPOSURE
6*257
258*629
4*171
1*081*820
20*075
208*571
18*771
323*494
54*750
18*771
75*086
PER MAN
COSTS
PER M-Y
464.75
221.55
83.42
81,01
54,60
51,26
34,52
34,10
24,33
23.44
22,88
YEAR
AVG RATIO
(COSTS/AVG)
5,74
2.73
1,03
1,00
0,67
0,63
0.43
0.42
0.30
0,29
0.28
1-19
-------
2.2 Countermeasures
Personal protective equipment. Gloves is a must for
employees who will be manually handling the brush to prevent
punctures and abrasions. In areas where palm fronds are abun-
dant, a more puncture proof pair of gloves should be provided.
Bump caps or hardhats should also be provided for the ground
crew that will be working under cranes and loaders or next to
open body trucks, all of which can drop branches or lumber
onto the employees. Safety shoes with puncture protection
should also be provided because of the frequency of stepped
on sharp object accidents for these employees. Long sleeved
shirts can provide minimum protection against scratches and
abrasions. Safety glasses or face shields are also recommend-
ed for brush collection crews that use chippers or packers.
Reducing manual collection. Since overexertions were
the majority of the accidents, reducing these accidents should
be of primary concern. To reduce the hazards of handling heavy
and bulky shrubbery, the brush collection crew can be provided
with equipment that can scoop up brush and place it onto trucks
such as front loaders and trash cranes. The use of open body
trucks with collectors that use handtools has the additional
hazard of the high loading sill that they have to pitch the
brush over. As the data showed, they were lifting to dump
brush at the time of the overexertions, and this type of col-
lection is conducive to throwing the brush which causes more
overexertions and slips and falls. Using more efficient equip-
ment of course is also more productive. In addition, if open
body trucks or trailers are being used, they should have a
raised bed so that employees do not have to climb on and off
the tailgate to load and unload the vehicle (reduces these high
severity falls).
Separate brush collection. Users who do not collect
brush separately should consider one of the methods outlined
previously. The abundance of brush in the waste is seasonal
and can be quite heavy during certain times of the year (e.g.,
leaves in the fall, yard trimmings after spring rains). There-
fore, to collect the heavy, bulky waste with regular collection
increases the hazards for the collector as well as increases
his work load. How frequent the brush collection should be has
to be gauged individually by each solid waste organization
since the amount of brush found in the waste varies widely by
area and climatic conditions.
Waste regulations. If the type of brush collection
is manual, regulations concerning the length of the brush that
will be acceptable (4 feet), the bundling of it and the bundle
size (30" diameter) should be formulated for ease of handling.
This is also important for organizations that do not have sep-
arate brush collection.
1-20
-------
3.
BULKY WASTE COLLECTION
Bulky waste collection handles wastes that are too
heavy or bulky for regular collection (e.g., furniture, appli-
ances, mattresses, rugs). The common types of equipment used
are the open body truck and rear loaders with high compaction.
FIGURE 1-1 shows that of the three types of special-
ized collection, bulky waste collection had the highest incid-
ence rate (one out of three employees suffered a non-first aid
injury a year). However, it ranked second in severity and
direct cost rates, behind commercial collection.
3.1
Accident Types
FIGURE 1-10 ranks the top four accident types for
this type of collection. They comprised 64% of the OSHA re-
cordable injuries, 59% of the days lost, and 55% of the direct
costs.
FIGURE 1-10
COMMON BULKY WASTE COLLECTION
CREW ACCIDENTS
No.
1. Overexertions
2. Slips and falls
3. Struck by
4. Struck self
TOTAL
15
12
12
9
75
%No. No. Days %Days Direct %Direct
Inj. Lost Lost Costs Costs
20
16
16
12
100%
257
78
6
8
582
44
13
1
1
$7,221
3,476
604
511
100% $21,159
34
16
3
2
100%
Overexertion accidents, unlike the overexertions in
the other two types of specialized collection, involved the
coworker helping at the time of the accident in over half the
accidents. This is due to the heaviness and awkwardness of the
waste involved, since items such as furniture and appliances
cannot be handled alone.
Slips and falls resulted in several serious fractures
when employees fell off the vehicle, particularly from the tail-
gate.
1-21
-------
Struck by accidents occurred most frequently as the
employee was loading the item onto the truck when it fell off,
or it knocked some other object off.
The struck self accidents involved losing control
of the bulky item to where it fell onto the employee as he
was lifting or lifting to dump it.
3.2 Countermeasures
Provide equipment to aid in handling bulky items.
In manual bulky waste collection, it should be viewed essen-
tially the same as the moving industry. In other words, the
employees should be provided with a heavy duty dolly that has
a wrap around cord to move such items as appliances. The em-
ployees should not be lifting heavy or bulky items alone.
The vehicle should have either a hydraulic lift gate or a
ramp to carry the item or push the dolly up onto the truck
bed. Employees should not be expected to lift the bulky
waste onto vehicle beds that are higher than three feet (height
of hopper sill) as found on open body and pick up trucks. These
alterations can provide a more efficient as well as safer oper-
ation and will reduce overexertions as well as struck by and
struck self accidents.
Automate bulky waste collection. Bulky waste col-
lection can also be accomplished with a system that utilizes
a trash crane and a truck to load the bulky waste onto. This
should greatly reduce the injuries to this collection type.
Requiring two man lifts. Much of the bulky wastes
being collected are much heavier than the 60 Ib. weight limit
for containers. Not only that, but their size also make them
extremely awkward to handle alone. Therefore, two men should
be required to lift and handle most of the bulky items, but
especially furniture and appliances. Again, team coordination
is essential, and employees should be specifically trained on
this as well as how to properly use the dolly and how to stack
the bulky items in the truck properly.
Personal protective equipment. Gloves should be
standard equipment to reduce abrasions and cuts to hands in
handling the bulky wastes. Gloves may also somewhat buffer
pinching accidents that result in bruises. Safety shoes with
steel toes and metatarsal protection should be required because
of the likelihood of setting furniture on their feet and bulky
waste dropping on their feet. However, metatarsal protection
can cause discomfort and possibly fatigue due to the increased
weight and should be tested and monitored for these adverse
effects before they are required.
1-22
-------
FIGURE 1-11
AVERAGE INJURY RATES BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LQUEST
BULKY ITEM CREW
EPORTING PERIOD? OCTOBER 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1977
EFINITIONS ? AVERAGE RATIO =- RATE / AVERAGE FOR THE RATE.
3HA INCIDENCE RATE = (NUMBER OF OSHA RECORDABLE CASES /
W-HQURS EXPOSURE ) X 200*000, ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO
' NUMBER OF CASES PER 100 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES PER YEAR,
]EG NOT INCLUDE FIRST AID INJURIES, DOES INCLUDE MEDICAL
3EATMENT* LOST TIME* PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES,
':VERITY RATE = (NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST / MAN-HOURS EXPOSURE) X 200*000.
DUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST PER 100 FULL TIME
1PLOYEES PER YEAR,
MSTRUCTIONS; FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
3W IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS,
GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50v
POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1,25,
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE INCIDENCE RATE - LUC SEVERITY RATE
SIS MAN-HOURS NO, RATE AVG IRIS NO, RATE AVG IRIS RATE AVG
3ER EXPOSURE INJ RATIO USER INJ RATIO USER RATIO
\'0, NO, NO,
341
221
146
149
362
171
299
179
1.97
,181
191
186
'AVG
3
2
1
o
A'.,
101
10
18
^.t
9
62
6
475
S34
*963
., Q H A
* 6 6 9
y 346
*679
*311
*771
*285
*386
*571
*257
*584
'*>
3
2
1
1
40
4
6
1
ry
11
1
75
479
1 5 1
137
120
85
79
78
64
61
43
35
32
32
15
4
4
3
o
r>
r>
o
1
1
1
1
.1.
,20
,80
"7 A
< u> -v
,80
,70
,49
,46
, 03
,93
,35
,11
,01
,00
341
221
*i 'i '"'
.1. -vv 7
197
181
171
299
179
1 86
191
AVG
o
**r
1
1
2
21
2
T
1
7
43
479
151
120
61
43
41
39
.::> 2
32
2,2
13
26,
8,
C) i-
3 ,
*^'. *
A- *
^J. *'
1 V
1,.
1,
1,
51
37
63
37
36
28
15
/ /
/ /
^ .-:' '.
00
'' d L
341
149
299
179
181
171
AVG
197
191
186
5* 753
-3 > 596
2 ? 2 7 7
1*474
1*374
511
350
245
122
74
64
23
14
9
6
5
'?
1
1
0
0
0
,51
,69
, 30
,02
, 62
,09
,43
,00
,50
,30
,26
340 9*386 1 21 0,68
1-23
-------
FIGURE 1-12
AVERAGE WORKDAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
BULKY WASTE
REPORTING PERIOD: OCTOBER 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1977
INSTRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
HOW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS*
A GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50,
A POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1,25,
RANK
HIGHEST
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LOWEST
IRIS
USER NO,
197
179
341
299
221
149
AVG
181
171
191
186
NO LOST
WKDY CASES
1
2
1
2
3
1
41
2
21
7
1
DAYS
LOST
378
126
46
76
114
*?*?
564
24
178
23
2
AVG WKDYS
LOST
378,00
63,00
46,00
38,00
38,00
22,00
13,76
12,00
8,48
3,29
2.00
AVG RATIO
(DAYS / AVG)
27,48
4,58
3,34
2,76
2.76
1,60
1,00
0.87
0,62
0.24
0.15
1-24
-------
FIGURE 1-13
DIRECT COSTS BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
BULKY WASTE
EPORTING PERIOD: OCTOBER 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1977
EFINITIONSJ DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSESr
ORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS* AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
E.G. INJURY LEAVE) ONLY* INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED*
IRECT COSTS PER MAN-YEAR IS THE COST PER FULL-TIME SANITATION
HPLOYEE PER YEAR BASED ON 2*000 HOURS PER YEAR*
INSTRUCTIONS? FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
OW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS.
GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN .50.
POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1.25,
VG DIRECT COST/OSHA
JUS
iSER
'NO,
1221
149
181
179
341
299
AVG
171
197
191
186
146
340
362
NO. OSHA
RECORD
INJ
3
1
9
6
2
A
75
40
1
11
1
2
1
1
AVG
COST
1*809
718
594
500
405
398
282
178
144
90
77
29
28
20
RECORDABLE INJ
AVG RATIO
(AVG COST/AVG)
6.41
2.55
2.11
1.77
1.44
1.41
1.00
0.63
0.51
0.32
0.27
0.10
0.10
0.07
IRIS
USER
NO.
221
341
149
179
299
181
171
AVG
197
146
191
186
362
340
DIRECT COST
MAN-HRS
EXPOSURE
3*963
834
1*669
18*771
10*311
9*386
101*679
475*584
3*285
2*920
62*571
6*257
2*346
9*386
PER MAN
COSTS
PER M-Y
2*739.44
1*944.18
860.62
319.42
309.17
253.36
139.70
89.04
87.67
40.41
31.68
24.61
17.05
5,97
YEAR
AVG RATIO
(COSTS/AVG)
30.76
21.83
9.67
3.59
3.47
2,85
1.57
1.00
0.98
0.45
0.36
0.28
0.19
0.07
1-25
-------
SECTION II
THIRD QUARTER IRIS USER
INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA
The accidents received by IRIS from 54 users are covered
in this section. FIGURE 2-1 gives operational background data
on the IRIS users.
FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS RATES
FIGURES 2-2 through 2-5 recap the frequency, severity
and costs of injuries for this quarter:
FIGURE 2-2; Summary of Injuries by Frequency,
Severity and Costs. Compares the solid waste
management industry with the national average
for all industries.
FIGURE 2-3: Comparison of Injury Rates and
OSHA Days Lost for All Users. Compares the
rates and days lost for the four quarters
of 1976 and the three quarters of 1977, for
each user, in user number order.
FIGURE 2-4; Comparison of Direct Costs by
Reporting Period for All Users. Compares
the total costs and cost rates for the four
quarters of 1976 and the three quarters of
1977, for each user, in user number order.
FIGURE 2-5; Summary of Accident Factors for
Selected Accident Characteristics with Highest
Percent of OSHA Recordable Injuries, OSHA Days
Lost and Direct Costs.
A few definitions of the terms used in the following
FIGURES are:
OSHA Recordable Injury. Defined by OSHA as
a non-first aid injury.
2-1
-------
e OSHA Incidence Rate. It is a measure of the
frequency of injuries. The OSHA incidence rate
is the number of OSHA recordable injuries per
200,000 hours of exposure. The base figure of
"200,000 hours" is the standard figure used
in OSHA statistics. It is roughly equivalent to
100 full-time employees working a year or 100
man-years (i.e., 100 employees working 40 hours
per week for 50 weeks per year).
OSHA incidence rates can be thought of as being
roughly equivalent to the number of injuries
that will occur to 100 employees during a year.
Therefore, an OSHA incidence rate of 37 means
that the organization is having 37 injuries
per year for each 100 employees or that, on
the average, 1 out of every 3 employees are
being injured. The national average OSHA
incidence rate for all industries has been
around 10 for the last several years.
e Severity Rate. The severity rate is similar
to the OSHA incidence rate, except that it
reflects the number of OSHA days lost (i.e.,
workdays lost and light duty days), instead
of the number of injuries, per 100 man-years
worked. For example, a severity rate of 500
would mean roughly that an organization is
losing 500 workdays for every 100 employees
per year, or that on the average each employee
is losing 5 days a year for on-the-job injuries.
Direct Costs. Direct costs are normally those
for which money was actually expended and in-
clude worker's compensation, medical expenses,
and wage continuation benefits (e.g., injury
leave). There are many indirect costs such as
down time, replacement time, lost time by wit-
nesses and supervisors, etc., which are not
included in these figures. Indirect costs are
estimated to be 5 times the direct costs in
cities according to the National Safety Council.
Average Direct Costs per OSHA Recordable Injury.
An average direct cost per OSHA recordable injury
of $500 means that on the average each OSHA record
able injury (i.e., a non-first aid case) is
costing the organization $500!
2-2
-------
Direct Cost per Man-Year. It shows the
cost per 2,000 hours or the average cost per
year per employee. A direct cost per man-year
of $200 would mean that on the average an
organization's injuries are costing $200
per employee per year.
In reviewing these FIGURES, the data for the AVERAGE
(shown on the FIGURES as AVG) is the most important because
it summarizes the results for all users combined. After
examining the AVERAGES, it is important to examine how
great the range of rates between users is. Wide ranges are
important because they show that it is possible to achieve
lower rates of injury under given operating systems and
safety programs.
2-3
-------
FIGURE 2-1
DESCRIPTION OF USERS BY OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
User
Number
101
103
^109
i
^111
113
115
125
133
136
140
146
148
149
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geo graph.
Area
South
Midwest
Midwest
West
Midwest
South
South
Northwest
South
South
South
Northeast
Midwest
No. of
Employees
325
80
500
280
33
300
650
86
140
844
295
267
65
Point, of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A
BY/CS/A
BY/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS/A/BY
M/A
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
Type
of
Shift
T/F
T
F
T
T
T/F
T
T
F
T
T
T
.T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
4
3
4,3
2
1,2
3
2
3,1
3
1,2,3
2
Conun.
4
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
2
Resid.
&
Comm.
2
3
4
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L
L,I
L,I
L
L
L,T
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued.)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
'umber
157
161
s,170
^j
i
jn
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
Midwest
South
Midwest
West
South
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
South
South
.West
Northeast
No. of
Employees
203
125
1481
370
700
629
532
278
470
308
297
177
86
120
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS/A
CS/BYC/A
A
M/CS/A
CS
CS
BY
CS
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
T
T/F
T/F
T
T
T
T
T
T
T/F
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
2
3,1
1,2,3,4
5
3
1,3,2
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
Contm.
2
2,3,4,5
2
3
2
3
1
2,1
Resid.
&
Coimn.
2
2
Disposa
L=Landfill
I=Incinera
T=Trans. S
L,T
L
T
L
L,I
I,T
L
L
L
L
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
204
207
^210
i
**211
212
215
217
221
226
235
236
237
242
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
West
West
West
West
South
South
West
South
South
South
Midwest
South
No. of
Employees
52
205
15
40
130
60
820
210
87
125
103
90
101
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A/M
BYC
CS
CS/A
CS/A
CS/BY/BYT
CS/A/BY
CS
CS
BYT/A/CS
CS
A/BYC
CS/BY/BYT/A
Type
of
Shift
F
T
T
T
F
T/F
F
T
T
T
T/F
T/F
T/F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
1,3
3
2
3
1,2,3
2
3
3
3
3
Comm.
1,3
2
2
1
1,3
3
1
3
Resid.
&
Comm.
1,2
2
3
i
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerato:
T=Trans . S tn
L
L
L,T
L
L
L,T
-------
-fr--LGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
260
261
265
M
1
vj 272
275
283
285
286
292
295
296
299
316
318
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Northwest
South
West
Northeast
Northeast
Nbrthwest
No. of
Employees
168
8
200
127
40
72
79
8
225
179
43
113
475
48
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/BYT/A/M
CS/A
CS/BYT/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
A/BYT/BYC
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/BY
CS/A/BY
.CS
CS/A/BYT
A/CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
T
T
T
T/F
T
F
F
T
F
T
F
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
1,2
3
1,2
3
3
2
3
1,3
4
1
3
2,3
3
Coinm.
2,3
2
3
3,1
2
2
2,1
3
2,3
3
Resid.
&
Coinm.
-
.
3
Dispos
L=Landfil
I=Inciner
T=Trans .
L
L
L,T
L.I
L,T
L.T
L
L
L
L
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
323
324
325
to
l
<ť326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
335
336
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
P
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
P
p
Geo graph.
Area
Northeast
Midwest
Northwest
South
South
Midwest
West
South
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
No. of
Employees
171
17
45
23
140
33
20
60
35
14
43
24
51
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/A
CS
CS
CS
CS
A/CS
CS/A
-
BY
CS
-
Type
of
Shift
T
T
F
T
T
T/F
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
2,1
3
3
2,1
3
3
3
3
3
Co nun.
1,2,3
3
2,3
2
2,1
3
2
1
2,1
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
1,2
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerato
T=Trans. Stn
L
L
L
I,L
T
L
L
-------
User
Number
338
339
340 '
341
NJ
1342
VD
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
West
Midwest
West
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Northeast
West
Midwest
West
West
Midwest
No. of
Employees
405
405
318
35
25
17
40
38
70
60
35
40
57
10
52
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
cs
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
CS/A
-
A/CS
CS
CS/A
CS/BYT
CS
CS/A
CS/A
Type
of
Shift
F
F
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
3
3
3
2
1
1
2,3
2
1,2,3
2
2
2
3
Co nun.
2,1
2
1
1
2
1
3
Res id.
&
Comm.
2
fť
2
3
I Disposal
" L=Landf il
I=Inciner
T=Trans .
L
L.I.T
L
T
-------
FIGURE 2-1 (Continued)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
353
354
^355
i
^356
358
359
360
361
362
363
1
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
P
P
M
p
B
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
South
Midwest
Northwest
West
Northeast
South
No. of
Employees
20
30
70
21
18
71
30
44
76
75
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backya.rd w/o intermed, can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
BYT
CS/BY
-
BYC/CS
CS
tm
-
CS
CS/A/BY
Type
of -
Shift
F
T
T
F
T
T
F
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
3
2
3
2
4,3
1,4
Comm.
1,2
'l
2
1,2
1
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
.
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L,T
L.T
-------
FIGURE 2-2
SUMMARY OF INJURIES
BY FREQUENCY, SEVERITY AND COSTS
FREQUENCY
There were 1,541 cases reported by 54 of the 65
IRIS users on-line: 273 first aid cases, 520
non-fatal cases without lost workdays, 747 lost
workday cases, and 1 permanent disability case.
Total man-hours for this quarter was 6,602,171.
The AVERAGE OSHA incidence rate was 38 for this
quarter. This means that more than one out of
every three solid waste industry employees will
experience a non-first aid injury a year. The
national rate for all industries was 10.4.
Therefore, the solid waste industry is exper-
iencing more than three times as many injuries
as the average industry.
IRIS users ranged in incidence rates from User
No. 103 which was experiencing 174 non-first aid
injuries per employee per year, to User No. 182
which was experiencing 2 injuries per 100 em-
ployees per year.
SEVERITY
(Days lost given are not final. These figures reflect
what was received from IRIS users by December 31, 1977 and
may be gross underestimates. For example, in the months
since the publication of the first quarter Accident Trends
for 1976, the OSHA severity rate has increased from 296 to
413, and not all cases are final yet.)
So far, 748 cases this quarter incurred
workdays lost and light duty days.
48% of the total cases resulted in workdays
lost and/or light duty days. The national
average for all industries is 33%. This means
that the solid waste industry has almost a
third times as many lost workday injuries as
the average industry.
2-11
-------
The AVERAGE OSHA severity rate was 219. This
means that on the average, each employee is
losing 2.2 days per year for injuries. One
user's rate was as high as 13.5 days lost per
year per employee; several are losing zero days
a year per employee.
On the AVERAGE, each lost workday case resulted
in 9.65 workdays lost so far.
DIRECT COSTS
(Costs given are not final. These figures reflect what
was received from IRIS users by December 31, 1977, and may
be gross underestimates. For example, first quarter of
1976's AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury has gone up
from 269 to 522.)
Total direct costs so far for injuries that
occurred during the first quarter was
$360,966.
The AVERAGE cost per OSHA recordable injury
was $284.
The AVERAGE cost per man-year was $110. This
means that the average solid waste injury
(non-first aid) cost $110 per full-time employee
per year so far.
2-12
-------
Starting: January, 1976 FIGURE 2-3
COMPARISON OF INJURY RATES AND OSHA HAYS LOST FOR ALL USERS
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
USER ! QTR 1
NJ
1
V-
U)
101
103
109
1 1 1
113
1 1 5
125
133
136
140
146
148
149
152
157
161
170
171
172
> -| O
.1. /-
r
t 36
68
31
0
31
26
13
44
50
178
179
181 44
182
183
186 13
1.91 57
197
201
204 79
207 78
2.1.0 104
211 9
212 79
QTR 2 QTR 3
33
48
76
35
0
55
2.1
23
42
62
55
49
24
45
134
96
0
67
44
44
50
79
42
0
34
5
63
58
69
.1.3
66
24
93
38
47
71
48
34
QTR
A J
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3
20
106
22
54
23
29
20
12
36
18
25
87
16
54
23
47
33
18
29
51
38
23
47
31
0
30
97
148
63
1 1> J
I. A*.. fr
47
195
1089
876
0
547
137
0
209
477
369
69
188
342
579
467
539
759
387
174
1182
370
0
673
136
149
33
226
1104
147
276
149
83
249
0
278
483
101
197
667
560
0
.1.4.2
0
98
,291
439
142
261
101
230
3.1.7
618
:332
93
QTR 4 J
145
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3
QTR 4
126
273
350
3142
211
0
.1.60
446
86
250
61
1146
355
90
38
172
625
590
106
43.1.
427
22
161
108
505
.1 s-yrf)
.1* A., W .V..
,
,
4
,
*
,
4
,
,
f
4
Ť
4
("
,
ť
,
Ť
,
,
Ť
ť
,
,
,
,
,
*
ť
Ť
,
A
,
,
4
,
4
,
t
,
t
4
*
Ť
,
242 ť
6*50
8*03
23*39
0,00
15,37
66,50
0,00
9,58
14,28
11,48
2,25
4,00
13,00
10,30
9.00
62,00
9,65
27,00
8,15
22,05
35,54 13,03
0,00
16,56
20,60
12,86
1,60
5,96
27,51
4,26
22,00
5,11
8.00
K** **y n
(.1 * ,5 vJ
0,00
4.71
11.00
8.33
7,65
11.59
16,72
0.00
9,82
0,00
5.00
10,53
11,23
19,17
6,89
8,22
4,62
10,00
7,00
13,19
27,50
2,75
21.14
3,44
6,27
14.62
0.00
10,55
32,48
10,50
12,93
9,25
13,22
8,14
6.29
1,11
9,64
19.58
32,79
11,07
24,21
13,04
4,60
6,31
7,36
15,73
49,00
61,00
12,00
8,53
29.80
3,86
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
USER !
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
OTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 ' QTR 4
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 3 QTR
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
215 I
2.1.7 J
221 J
226 t
235 J
236 :
237 t
242 t
244 J
260 f
261 J
265 J
272 J
275 J
283 J
285 :
286 J
O91?
VŤ / A.. *
295 *
296 J
299 :
316 ?
318 J
323 I
324 :
325 t
326 J
320 :
329 t
330 ,
331 J
333 ?
336 t
0
23
89
15
4
93
68
48
34
11
12
7
0
3
17
19
0
43
56
103
33
0
56
54
0
46
15
59
50
0
0
10
20
75
53
78
43
37
25
A*. AH
59
10
40
73
46
0
42
103
0
65
19
59
50
0
7
19
57
60
78
70
47
0
17
70
0
66
0 t
43 :
76 ;
18 J
36 :
57 J
35 :
5 J
56 t
117 t
48 J
70 J
40 i
93 J
20 J
J
39 J
5 t
29 I
55 *
44
29 J
46 J
9 J
46 ť
46 t
18 J
0 J
50 ?
44 t
0 i
99 J
23 *
0
.1.13
1492
35
100
170
759
145
249
243
0
13
0
284
64
476
0
192
0
663
150
0
197
513
0
301
11
629
133
0
0
19
20
2911
606
0
135
37
83
1587
152
47
0
248
92
0
182
1178
0
403
98
78
117
0
14
101
218
425
2431
234
347
0
10.1.
78
0
33
o :
70 J
993 :
0 .
51 J
51 J
128 .
18 J
183 J
1296 J
429 t
522 J
150 J
384 J
10 J
*
0 t
7 *
212 J
1765 J
155 J
336 I
346 t
56 J
23 J
732 *
36 J
o :
.1.7 J
748 J
0 J
1219 I
62 I
0.00
6.00
18.53
3,50
25.00
2.75
19*42
3.00
8 . 64
32.00
0.00
2.00
0*00
86 , 00
4 * 75
25*00
0*00
11*22
0*00
8 * 86
6*40
0.00
3 * 50
16*20
0.00
7,80
1.50
10.67
8.00
0.00
0,00
4 . 33
2.00
51,50
.1.7*05
0.00
4,75
2 . 00
5.00
72.67
12.38
4.50
0.00
6 . 00
3.14
0*00
6 . 50
17,64
0,00
7.30
6.50
2.67
3,50
0,00
2.75
15.50
5.75
12.82
31*09
3 , 33
13,00
0,00
6.00
2,50
0,00
2 , 00
0,00
8 . 67
13.07
0.00
2.80
1.78
4.83
3*50
6.50
14.26
9.00
10,55
6.83
9.25
2.00
0.00
3 , 00
13.33
32,17
28.00
18.14
7,57
13.00
1 , 00
18,67
2.00
0.00
1,00
20 . 60
0.00
37.00
2,67
-------
FIGURE ^
USER .'
337
338
339
OSHA INC.THENCE RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 RTR 3 QTR 4
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
3 SO
351
353
354
355
359
359
361
362
363
44
32
23
77
50
38
35
29
58
75
11
10
29
20
34
49
42
51
35
129
33
88
57
23
4
*
fr
*
fr
*
*
*
Ť
*
*
4
fr
*
*
4
<
*
V
4
*
4
<
4
<
4
{>
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3
410
246
118
1367
99
QTR 4
AVERAGE QSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
262
191
198
691
737
50
80
632
95
20
192
121
96
101
122
388
16
230
447
0
301
0
,
,
*
V
,
V
ť
t
Ť
Ť
,
,
Ť
*
,
Ť
,
<
,
,
,
Ť
*
ť
,
,
4
*
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
*
,
,
9*29
7,78
5,12
19,50
2,00
6,92
7.57
5,67
66,37
12,75
2,00
7,00
65,00
3,25
3,00
8,50
10,00
3,00
2,00
7,00
9,00
1,50
145,00
12,43
0 , 00
72 , 00
0,00
45
33 t
4:1.3
386
281 t 17ť34 14,43 11,60
14,52
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF INJURY RATES AND OSHA DAYS LOST FOR ALL USERS
Starting: January, 1977
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
USER ! QTR 1
QTR 3 QTR 4
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 4 J
101
103
109
111
113
115
125
133
146
148
149
to 152
H 157
°^ 161
170
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
204
2O7
21O
211
215
217
221
*
4
4
*
*
4
*
*
f
f
*
4
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
J
4
4
:
}
*
ť
,
,
,
,
,
,
Ť
,
,
,
:
4
4
4
4
4
4
:
4
4
t
I
:
*
*
17
88
14
38
28
32
26
38
23
13
124
58
48
58
31
42
52
4
36
44
15
64
35
65
25
25
24
84
22
88
0
41
9O
25
208
18
47
0
26
30
15
10
145
76
42
51
64
37
25
72
17
87
12
47
58
92
37
O
55
72
18
174
22
82
0
23
0
30
0
105
44
53
58
61
11
32
2
59
0
65
57
43
36
65
O
54
83
QTR 1
60
175
79
346
339
516
301
608
393
163
1197
283
97
318
J 276
J 291
t 237
J 65
J 426
245
86
162
158
415
130
53
0
457
22
399
0
-41
1269
QTR 2
67
2035
252
205
0
188
141
70
21
835
467
206
358
220
311
154
256
41
277
129
317
313
369
73
O
48
1-433
QTR 3
22
1226
227
613
0
225
0
51
0
254
399
241
199
422
212
234
.1.1
168
0
326
1063
229
107
213
O
30
449
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
*
t
*
4
*
4
*
*
4
4
*
4
4
t
*
4
4
4
4
4
*
*
4
4
t
4
*
*
4
4
*
*
*
4
*
4
4
4
*
4
4
*
t
*
*
*
*
f
4
4
*
*
t
*
f
ť
*
*
#
*
*
*
:
13,00
5.60
5.83
13.65
24.00
19.37
13,81
31.60
30,30
24,25
17.86
8.80
4,18
13,67
10.19
9.16
1 3 . 00
15.50
17.05
9.67
8,90
4.82
7.31
8.24
5.25
6.50
0.00
12.47
1.00
8.33
O.OO
5.4O
14. 18
23.00
14.29
16.26
7,68
0.00
9.20
6*17
8.00
3.25
9.20
10.57
6.50
8.16
11,94
8.33
7.36
5.24
3.87
4.18
10.50
16.OO
9.12
5.00
3.33
0.00
4.67
2O. 69
3.20
10.13
11.10
11,08
0,00
11,15
0,00
8,80
0,00
4,83
21.33
6,86
4.75
12.77
32.09
7.33
12.00
4.39
0.00
6.82
18,50
59.00
3.OO
6.60
O.OO
4.3O
5.39
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
USER ! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 I
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 OTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 {
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
226
235
236
237
242
244
260
265
272
275
283
286
V 292
IU 296
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
328
329
330
331
333
336
337
338
339
340
341
343
*
ť
J
J
J
*
:
:
:
,
;
j
j
:
+
ť
:
*
t
*
*
t
#
*
*
t
f
t
*
*
*
*
*
*
i
,
;
ť
:
j
35
46
61
45
0
54
80
54
11
62
24
0
9
27
72
46
33
17
23
73
51
0
17
21
30
49
16
35
33
45
36
101
72
47
62
24
94
84
7
0
37
14
8
93
51
38
0
64
16
121
48
20
15
16
15
26
18
54
0
96
18
62
67
77
32
0
0
12
0
38
49
55
47
79
0
40
0
25
0
15
7
19
7
29
104
44
I 191
: 502
263
683
0
2871
714
339
11
591
34
0
195
36
144
759
273
200
680
612
2700
0
0
332
0
0
23
216
240
329
280
1885
24
352
316
56
336
466
4
0
0
16
220
236
618
876
0
185
0
1048
0
13
0
0
15
293
89
248
0
72
21
147
226
664
175
0
0
24
0
200
433
148
234
194
0
0
0
430
0
0
0
262
40
318
.1073
244
11,00
12.91
7,82
33,40
0,00
105,50
14,24
10.40
1 , 50
14,25
2,33
0,00
26,17
2,00
5,20
23,15
13.67
27,00
29.00
9.20
52.67
0.00
0.00
23.50
0.00
0.00
3.00
7.44
8.12
7.86
18.55
21.83
1.00
7.57
18.67
4.67
4,17
7.77
1,00
0.00
0,00
7,00
26 , 00
8,71
18,27
27,40
0.00
4.14
0.00
13.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0,00
2 , 00
11,37
4,80
6,38
0,00
1.50
8.00
4,22
4,25
11,45
8.17
0,00
0,00
7,67
0,00
18.50
13.67
8,00
10.00
2.91
0,00
0,00
0.00
23 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.83
5.50
13.62
15.00
11.00
-------
FIGURE 2-3 (Continued)
USER !
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 I
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
to 358
M361
ro362
363
AVG,
: 69
: 59
J 118
I 34
62
94
77
52
125
18
83
11
58
11
21
33
36
49
40
59
50
46
50
153
48
27
17
40
88
39
38
87
49
58
50
99
10
0
23
38
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 J
552
285
213
68
718
1175
1902
0
589
200
0
6
232
0
267
98
284
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
312
20
388
249
0
299
612
263
0
394
0
1349
39
102
1084
425
471
0
99
77
0
152
186
8.00
5.80
4,14
3.33
1 1 * 50
25 . 00
43.50
0.00
33.00
11.00
0.00
1 . 00
4.00
0.00
15.75
5.00
6.40
1.00
9.83
8.33
0.00
7.50
6.00
16,33
0,00
20,00
0,00
15.40
2.00
5.33
12.50
17.50
12.25
0,00
5.00
8,00
0.00
10,00
18*00
225
219
13.09
9,65
9.65
-------
Starting:
January, 1976 FIGURE 2-4
COMPARISON OF DIRECT COSTS BY REPORTING PERIOD FOR ALL USERS
TOTAL. INJURY COSTS
AVGť COST PER OSHA RECt INJ.
USER
101
103
109
1 1 1
113
115
H *-)K*
J- A*u W
133
136
140
146
K> 148
1 149
^ t !" f\
VD 1 o 2
157
161
170
171
172
178
179
181
182
183 *
186 I
191 J
197 {
201 J
204 1
207 :
210 J
211 :
212 t
! -QTR 1
4y210
13 y 513
59*293
50 y 760
0
39 y 842
9y041
135
3*582
27 y 167
11 y 510
Iy295
1 y 475
2y481
4*523
1*445
794
14y297
QTR 2
29 y 631
12 y 994
42y034
25 y 734
0
69 y 343
5*442
3 y 577
815
6 y 376
58 y 431
5*081
8y021
1*685
517
9*636
0
1*907
7*138
QTR 3
5 y 735
19*851
30 y 744
47 y 226
0
3*060
110
1*526
9*486
27 y 4 13
8*661
9*833
2*950
2*101
2*710
300
12*908
3x213
600
QTR 4
5*260
**/ / OT
12 v 958
14*888
102
6*895
36 y 174
638
8*171
2*092
4*202
3*365
2 y 977
633
22 y 2. 1.2
21 y 455
39 y 375
7*107
35 y 411
15 y 586
1 y 032
7*505
3>S50
4*879
64 y 030
2*571
2*142
6 y 736
9*667
1*687
i
ť
Ť
t
J
J
I
*
*
J
Ť
J
4
J
J
4
4
J
4
J
J
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
I
4
4
J
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
QTR 1
306
312
1*234
832
0
711
475
IS
148
393
391
.1.43
86
275
141
361
753
621
TR 2
986
213
764
357
0
688
340
255
SO
163
749
153
471
120
39
235
0
248
549
QTR 3
130
275
487
497
0
1 1 7
36
93
237
274
412
209
163
70
451
50
403
1*609
145
QTR 4 J
263 J
203 J
345 J
346 J
51 J
323 I
753 J
212 4*
4
*
291 :
190 I
323 J
240 J
372 J
48' I
325 J
613 J
667 J
263 I
737 I
432 t
O ť'.. 4
312 J
208 J
304 J
12 y 316 ?
1*285 J
535 J
150 I
1*381 J
.1.95 :
4
4
AVERAGE COOT PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 GTR 2 GTR 3 DTR 4
112
836
260
0
219
121
65
197
176
IB
A?
217
110
374
68
408
326
103
577
123
0
378
72
59
33
100
411
76
111
54
53
224
0
167
24.1.
57
138
334
208
0
40
1
59
137
188
53
133
40
65
171
23
283
779
50
51
240
78
185
14
95
150
26
105
34
404
209
61
26
74
285
252
48
2:1.7
221
9
119
47
142
4*02(3
102
162
146
2? 038
131
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
USER
215
217
221
o ') /.
Al. A'.. O
235
236
237
242
244
260
261
265
272
275
283
285
286
292
295
296
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
328
329
33O
33 1
333
~T-r JL
\
*
+
*
V
*
I-
#
*
fr
*
V
4
t
*
*
#
7 1>
*.. / A..
1*890
0
483
1*172
1*256
24/016
14*06.1.
491
4*736
0
379
480
O
223
QTR 4
0
18*317
.1.4*110
60
886
1*442
1*925
278
962
17*683
960
9*500
1 *444
1*297
173
80
376
5*257
10*471
2*010
21*089
4*258
893
62
5*701
91
0
194
2*612
0
2x04-4
x.ri
1
4
J
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
V
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
t
4
4
f
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
t
4
4
AVGť COST PER
QTR 1
0
197
608
201
6*877
117
1 1 0
159
214
620
59
61
0
3*663
177
991
QTR 2
0
956
48
329
259
0
226
330
0
455
27
239
147
0
0
127
96
2*098
629
30
359
66
351
OSHA RE
QTR 3
1*908
259
253
21
357
143
0
249
258
0
519
244
45
210
0
96
195
209
338
1*278
163
676
0
338
53
O
55
C* INJ
QTR 4
0
163
491
20
88
80
218
139
240
442
960
306
131
144
43
SO
94
477
1*745
125
602
593
205
31
806
91
0
64
435
0
3-4O
AVERAGE COST PER MAN
4
4
J
{
4
4
4
J
4
4
4
j*
4
4
4
4
4
;
I
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
V
\
4
4
\
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
QTR 1
0
44
541
30
274
109
75
76
74
70
7
4
0
121
30
188
QTR 2
0
415
26
340
85
0
127
178
0
211
4
1 4 1
74
0
0
13
19
1*581
335
23
153
20
87
QTR 3
416
155
27
8
261
66
0
104
266
0
335
46
26
105
0
6
38
119
203
999
.1.14
316
0
A3
37
O
3&
YEAR
QTR 4
0
70
382
3
32
45
84
7
135
518
457
213
52
134
8
30
4
139
957
55
177
277
.1.9
14
372
16
0
32
1Q9
O
336
-------
FIGURE 2i-4 (Continued)
USER ! -QTR 1.
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3
QTR
AVG. COST PER OSHA REC. INJt
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR A
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
337 t
338 J
339 t
340 J
341 :
343 J
344 J
346 {
347 J
348 t
34? t
350 J
351
353
354
355
358
359
361
362
363
.tic 442
6 * 43:1.
3*152
9 y 864
34:1.
7*664
4*968
6? 265
15*012
4*848
453
318
.1x670
619
331
:U172
729
481
64
238
1*193
165
3*933
2*061
40
.1*934
31
817
714
394
896
170
638
709
522
682
597
151
318
1*670
154
110
390
182
120
64
119
198
27
1*317
187
20
1*934
31
*
*
Ť
ť
#
ť
ť
*
+
>
4
ť
Ť
fr
Ť
ť
*
ť
Ť
Ť
*
#
ť
fr
*
*
+
*
*
*
ť
*
Ť
ť
360
226
90
691
84
241
178
182
195
350
113
36
162
45
.ť'.. A*ť
132
88
51
32
41
256
9
1*153
105
4
SO
1
AVG.t 285*060 465*798 347*437 525*52:1. !
P.- '>'>
t J A'.. ť..
510
324
436 J
180
147
144
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF DIRECT COSTS BY REPORTING PERIOD FOR ALL USERS
Starting: January, 1977
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR
AVG, COST PER OSHA REC. INJ.
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
101
103
109
111
113
115
125
133
146
148
149
152
157
161
170
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
204
2O7
21O
211
215
217
221
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
{
4
J
J
{
;
{
j
;
j
*
#
:
i
4
4
4
4
J
*
t
ť
#
*
ť
*
ť
:
t
Ť
*
*
t
*
*
*
2*808
2*399
9*361
19*743
1*286
17*674
26*994
9*022
21*552
3*669
7*598
3*265
3*006
3*770
32*198
10*280
23*439
3*233
22*753
10*171
3*337
6*558
4*388
4*182
1*124
741
350
6*857
80
3*3O6
O
11ť798
24 > 148
4*636
39*823
30*631
11*102
0
16*606
2 * 336
4*187
554
3*761
4*585
29*022
13*837
15*074
11*531
5*931
6*981
1*628
2*910
1*458
1*911
4*792
it 767
547
O
12ť 2O4
31*783
2*897
10*622
34*905
36*324
0
22*679
0
4*093
0
2*886
2*952
28*544
8*544
34*719
9*636
9*126
505
5*557
0
3*482
5*301
1*693
437
1*6OO
O
12*465
9*688
:
4
*
#
*
*
+
Ť
*
*
*
*
f
j
Ť
ť
Ť
f
j
#
*
*
*
*
t
t
*
4
J
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
f
*
*
J
+
*
*
f
+
*
#
#
*
ť
J
:
j
*
*
147
167
356
658
643
734
442
902
1*197
458
584
359
130
251
353
3.1.1
282
538
392
328
222
156
168
190
281
123
116
175
80
3OO
0
109
7O6
136
1*137
968
284
0
259
292
347
92
235
382
237
314
139
427
228
162
.1.25
100
729
159
165
353
109
O
75
1 rO59
111
318
759
490
0
359
0
157
0
240
421
175
155
315
535
380
252
129
0
151
530
153
218
16O
O
70
235
Ť
ť
>
4
*
t
Ť
ť
Ť
*
Ť
f
ť
J
*
ť
*
*
*
ť
Ť
*
4
*
#
ť
*
4
*
t
4
4
4
4
:
*
ť
ť
Ť
ť
j
4
4
{
4
4
4
4
t
4
ť
4
*
4
*
#
*
25
150
53
249
181
247
113
346
279
61
727
21.0
63
146
110
130
147
22
142
143
32
100
59
124
69
30
27
147
17
264
O
AA
635
33
2*362
175
134
0
66
88
52
9
341
289
99
159
89
159
56
117
21
87
89
75
96
325
39
0
41
758
19
559
178
402
0
83
0
47
0
252
184
93
89
191
57
121
4
76
0
97
304
65
78
1O3
O
38
196
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVG. COST PER QSHA REC, INJ
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 4
226
235
236
237
242
244
260
265
272
275
283
286
K> 292
M 296
w 299
316
318
323
324
325
326
328
329
330
331
333
336
337
338
339
340
341
343
*
J
:
:
*
J
t
*
*
:
*
J
#
j
t
*
*
*
*
*
f
*
*
j
Ť
ť
{
*
;
ť
ť
ť
ť
Ť
j
t
1,276
6,068
12,041
13,784
0
15,247
6,984
6,452
160
1,872
473
0
3,533
440
2,275
50,532
1,566
2,676
312
8,345
34,976
0
40
1,749
56
79
40
5,740
4,213
6,495
13,006
18,009
154
9,807
11,395
902
1,799
8,258
80
0
20
1,333
1 , 364
2,317
41,512
5,393
50
3,049
4
644
102
139
34
43
40
8,350
1,622
7,744
0
479
2,312
2,664
1 ,346
13,292
2,456
0
0
1,584
0
2,160
29,613
1,411
889
5,235
0
65
0
2,394
0
20
20
7,757
1,085
10,665
8,972
40
J 212
t 466
t 602
: 1,253
: o
3,811
258
258
53
312
94
0
504
146
87
918
313
380
312
758
11,658
0
40
583
28
26
20
521
468
433
500
1,286
t 51
700
517
150
257
196
40
0
20
111
1,364
96
628
898
0
304
4
2.1.4
34
46
34
43
20
1,043
324
430
0
119
330
162
269
324
272
0
0
144
0
154
455
156
444
402
0
65
0
598
0
20
20
1,292
542
1,066
560
20
QTR 1
73
214
367
564
0
2,074
206
140
6
193
22
0
43
39
63
424
104
66
73
555
5,977
0
6
123
8
12
3
185
155
194
: 178
I 1 r 295
: 37
QTR 2
325
321
36
241
165
2
0
7
15
115
89
318
344
1 1
194
0
259
16
9
4
7
3
269
59
231
0
115
QTR 3
60
102
179
248
87
0
0
16
0
58
223
86
207
316
0
25
0
149
0
3
1
244
39
310
583
8
-------
FIGURE 2-4 (Continued)
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVG. COST PER OSHA REC. INJ.
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
ro
I
NJ
Ł*
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354 J
355 J
358 J
361 J
362 J
363 :
2f687
If672
If 101
662
3f870
2f833
6f595
20
3f593
252
206
108
495
20
2f888
715
If 265
322
2f067
If 086
181
1ť 907
800
3f 199
8
9f407
129
6f04S
348
120
4f288
2ť726
2r041
20
587
699
0
If 808
If 369
447
278
68
132
645
354
942
20
256
252
51
54
247
20
577
143
253
80
229
217
45
381
266
355
8
If 175
43
604
87
20
428
681
340
20
117
349
0
301
273
: 308
J 164
81
45
402
332
720
10
320
45
42
5
143
2
122
46
123
31
135
108
20
189
407
171
2
370
7
529
33
7
371
330
196
10
115
33
0
68
70
AVG.J 547f400 386f448 362f686
420
313
284
152
127
109
-------
FIGURE 2-5
SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT FACTORS FOR SELECTED ACCIDENT
CHARACTERISTICS WITH HIGHEST PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
OSHA DAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
Type of
Characteristic
Factors with the:
Highest % of OSHA
Recordable Injuries
Highest % of OSHA
Days Lost
Highest % of
Direct Costs
I
to
Ul
Activity
Accident Type
Accident Site
Nature of Injury
Part of Body
Lifting or dumping containers - 41/6
Getting off equipment - 7%
Standing or walking - 7%
Overexertion Involving container - 19%
Insect bite - 8%
Struck by waste - 5%
On collection route at back of truck - 36%
On collection route at curb - 13%
On collection route in customer's yard - 12%
Sprain or strain - 40%
Cut or puncture - 18%
Bruise - 17%
Back - 18%
Leg - 8%
Arm - 7%
Lifting or dumping container - 36%
Riding on Equipment - 8%
Standing or walking - 7%
Overexertion involving container - 20%
Fall on same level - 8%
Vehicle movement Involved accident - 8%
On collection route at back of truck - 30%
On collection route at curb - 12%
On collection route 1n customer's yard - 10%
Sprain or strain - 52%
Bruise - 17%
Fracture - 9%
Back - 25%
Hand - 8%
Ankle - 7%
Lifting or dumping container - 36%
Getting off equipment - 8%
Carrying container - 8%
Overexertion involving container - 21%
Fall on same level - 8%
Slip on same level - 6%
On collection route at back of truck - 31%
On collection route at curb - 12%
On collection route 1n customer's yard - 10%
Sprain or strain - 53%
Bruise - 17%
Cut or puncture - 9%
Back - 25%
Leg - 7%
Shoulder - 7%
-------
User Number
EXHIBIT 9
QSMR EVALUATION
How do you evaluate IRIS analysis of your injury problem? Do you agree or
disagree with it? Is there any area that should receive more attention?
What injury reduction programs have you, or do you plan to implement? Were
they the result of IRIS recommendations?
Has your organization made any operational changes, e.g., backyard to curb-
side collection, rear to side loader? Please let IRIS know so that we can
accurately evaluate your injury problem areas.
411.061077
-------
Sample QSMR
-------
EXHIBIT 10
Q S M R
QUARTERLY SAFETY MANAGEMENT REPORT
FOR USER No, 170
QUARTER: JANUARY 1 TO MARCH 31, 1977
DEVELOPED BY SAFETY SCIENCES, DIVISION OF WSA INC,,
FOR THE U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
UNDER CONTRACT No, 68-03-0231
Division of USA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
The QSMR (Quarterly Safety Management Report)
is developed quarterly for your organization
using data gathered through IRIS (the Injury
Reporting and Information System for solid
waste management) from all users. This QSMR
was developed individually for your organiza-
tion (other IRIS users have their own QSMR)
and concentrates on injuries related only to
your establishment. A companion volume,
ACCIDENT TRENDS for the solid waste manage-
ment industry, is also published quarterly
and accompanies this volume. It summarizes
the data developed from IRIS for all users
combined.
IRIS is currently made up of 82 users. All
possible care is taken to insure data quality.
The nature of the data and the reports, however,
precludes complete accuracy. Not all cases are
closed by the end of the quarter. These accidents
continue to be monitored. Occasionally, full lost
time and cost data is not available. Consequently,
the totals for these categories may be under-
estimates. A concerted effort is made to correct
the lost time and cost figures and improve IRIS
collection methods.
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications
is to disseminate new ideas and alternative
methods in the solid waste field. IRIS serves as
a clearinghouse in this regard, but does not
promote or endorse any method or product. Imple-
mentation of QSMR suggestions should be done only
after careful evaluation by each user and at each
user's discretion.
-------
TOUR ORGANIZATION'S
INJURIES FOR FIRST QUARTER
USER NO. ;
QUARTER: January 1 through March 31, 1977
START-UP DATE;
This quarter your organization reported //5"" injuries;
.31 during January ^p during February, and
for March. Of this number:
g2t5"' were first-aid cases
Required medical treatment but did not result in
lost time (i.e., non-fatal without lost workday
cases)
were lost time cases
j2 were premanent disability cases
Q were fatalities
We have only compiled the time lost and direct costs figures known as
of June 1, 1977, not the final costs. From data obtained so far this
quarter, your organization's injuries have resulted in:
workdays lost and light duty days
$ , 3ft 4-(^D _ for medical expenses, Workmen's Compensation
benefit's and pay for leave taken because of injuries.
So far the average lost time injury at your organization resulted in
workdays lost. The average "non-first-aid" injury cost
L ,\%% ~ per injury.
Your organization's injury incidence rate was about J3/ "non-
first-aid" injuries per year for every 100 full-time employees. This
rate is about //% ^>^>fer^ ~) the average, which was 35. This means
your organization has the zU-~th-2.c*,-)s*/jŁ- the average, which was 256. This means that your
organization has the ^-^^/-^fr^rinjury severity rate.
So far your organization's injury cost rate was about $ / 6
year for every 100 full-time employees. This rate is about
the average, which was $13,900. This means that your
organization has the ^$**-J *r^f^T injury cost rate
11
-------
Q S M R
IRIS USER NO.: 170
QUARTER: First, January 1 to March 31, 1976
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY ii
INTRODUCTION vi
I. Section I - DETAILED EVALUATION OF PROBLEM
AREAS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1-1
II. Section II - IDENTIFICATION OF KEY INJURY
PROBLEM AREAS 2-1
III. Section III - OVERALL INJURY RATES 3-1
APPENDIX A - DETAILED DEFINITIONS A-l
APPENDIX B - OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS B-l
111
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1
FIGURE 1-2
FIGURE 1-3
FIGURE 1-4
FIGURE 1-5
FIGURES 2-1A-
2-1C:
FIGURES 2-2A-
2-2C:
FIGURES 2-3A-
2-3G:
FIGURES 2-4A-
2-4C:
FIGURE 2-5
FIGURE 3-1
FIGURE 3-2
FIGURE 3-3
FIGURE 3-4
Detailed Description of First Quarter
Accidents
Detailed Description of Fall on the
Same Level
Detailed Description of Fall to a
Different Level
Detailed Description of Slipped on
Same Level
Detailed Description of Slipped to
Different Level
Activities Ranked from Highest to Lowest
Percent of OSHA Recordable Injuries,
Workdays Lost and Direct Costs
Accident Types Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable In-
juries, Workdays Lost and Direct Costs
Accident Sites Ranked from Highest to
Lowest percent of OSHA Recordable In-
juries/ Workdays Lost and Direct Costs
Injury Types Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable In-
juries, Workdays Lost and Direct Costs
Parts of Body Ranked from Highest to
Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable In-
juries, Workdays Lost and Direct Costs
Number of Injuries Reported by Severity-
Comparison of "IRIS" Users
Average Injury Rates by "IRIS" Users
Ranked from Highest to Lowest
Average Workdays Lost per Lost Workday
Case by "IRIS" Users Ranked from Highest
to Lowest
Direct Costs by "IRIS" Users Ranked from
Highest to Lowest
Page
1-5
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-12
2-2
2-5
2-9
2-12
2-15
3-2
3-4
3-7
3-9
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Page
FIGURE 3-5 Direct Costs for Lost Day Cases by "IRIS"
Users Ranked from Highest to Lowest 3-12
FIGURES 3-6A- Comparison of Injury Rates and OSHA Days
3-6B: Lost for All Users (1976 & 1977) 3-14
FIGURES 3-7A- Comparison of Direct Costs by Reporting
3-7B: Period from All Users (1976 & 1977) 3-20
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Quarterly Safety Management Report provides an individual
injury analysis and specialized computer printouts. In Section I
problem areas are identified and evaluated. Injury reduction
measures tailored to the specific problem are suggested. An
IRIS developed printout form known as "profiles" describes
each injury in a sentence-like form and gives an overview of
all injuries. Individual medical and lost time costs are
listed for all injuries.
Section II takes the analysis begun in Section I a step further.
Key injury problems are identified by the computer. All OSHA
recordable cases are analyzed in terms of activity, accident
type, accident site, injury type and parts of body. Each in-
jury characteristic (e.g., activity) has a number of injury
factors (e.g., lifting container) which are ranked from high-
est to lowest percent in terms of (a) OSHA Recordable Injuries,
(b) OSHA Days Lost, (c) Direct Costs.
During the first quarter of 1977, 1^71 injuries were reported
by 82 users whose man-hours of exposure totaled 7,266,342. The
data represented by these figures appears in Section III and
allows a comparison of injury frequency, severity and direct
costs with other IRIS participants and the quarter's AVERAGE.
Each user is identified by number only. Average ratios (or-
ganizational rate divided by the average rate) can be used to
evaluate rates. The printouts for the most part are self-
explanatory and include term definitions.
For more detailed explanations and examples of these terms see
APPENDIX A. To facilitate comparison APPENDIX B, "Operational
Characteristics" provides background information on each user.
VI
-------
SECTION I
DETAILED EVALUATION OF PROBLEM AREAS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This quarter your organization reported 115 injuries, 25 of
which were first aids. As the summary at the front of this
QSMR indicates, your organization again has a good injury
record. Your only rate which was above the average for all
users was the severity rate of 274, which was 7% above the
average. You can compare this quarter's injury rates with
last quarter's in FIGURES 3-6 through 3-7.
Reviewing your more severe injuries (more than 10 days lost)
this quarter, there are several injury patterns to be noted:
Ť Lifting container - 8 injuries, 194 days
lost, $6,993.
Ť Traffic Accident - 4 injuries, 153 days
lost, $5,339.
Falls - 6 injuries, 116 days lost, $3,862.
e> Caught in packing mechanism - 2 injuries,
30 days lost, $2,075.
Lifting Container Accidents - In only one of the lifting con-
tainer accidents, the employee was handling a tote barrel.
All of these indicated that the container was heavy, two of
the containers had frozen waste and one had rocks. You
should review the fourth quarter Accident Trends for speci-
fic countermeasures (e.g., employee training to test the
container weight limits, etc.). Another contributing
factor to your overexertion injuries is your collection
method of backyard collection with the use of intermediate
containers. This collection method has two drawbacks that
contribute to overexertion injuries:
1. When lifting the customer's container to dump
into a tote barrel, the employee has to lift
it high. Consideration is given to sill
heights of packers in the hopes of reducing
overexertions at the back of the truck so the
same should be applied to how high the employee
has to lift at the backyard.
2. In your collection system the employee is hand-
ling a tote barrel which is two to three times
heavier than the customer's container. The
employee still has to lift this to dump into
1-1
-------
the hopper. (You have eliminated one extra
handling step by providing wheeled carts.)
This method is defeating the purpose of
regulating the weight of containers, espe-
cially since employees try to "pack" their
intermediate containers.
Traffic Accidents - Your most severe injury this quarter was
a traffic accident (99 days lost, $3,449 so far). The
employee was driving when the V-bolt broke, causing the
chassis to separate, overturning the packer. The report only
indicated bruises to multiple parts of his body, and no other
employees injured. A similar accident happened with one of
the other IRIS users, causing three injuries. If this par-
ticular packer model is prone to this defect, all packers of
this type should have their V-bolts examined immediately and
checked on periodically-
Another traffic accident (29 days, $1,142) involved trying
to avoid a car in the wrong lane. Again, no one else was
indicated as injured. Since IRIS does not collect non-injury
costs of traffic accidents (e.g., vehicle damage costs,
property damage, etc.), the high cost of vehicle accidents
is not accurately portrayed. In addition, employees can sus-
tain very severe accidents, as our IRIS Newsflash repeatedly
points out.
Two traffic accidents indicated that possibly employees need
to pay better attention to where they stand in relation to
the flow of traffic. One employee was coming from the back
of the truck when a taxi hit his cart, and the cart struck
his leg (14 days, $409). The other employee was walking away
after "hitting the packer button" and a car ran over his foot.
In three other cases, the drivers were careless. In one case,
the injured employee was in back of the truck when the driver
shifted into reverse by mistake. In the second case the in-
jured employee was placing brush into the packer when the
truck rolled back into his leg; hand brakes should have been
used. In the last case the driver went over a speed bump,
which knocked the injured employee off the riding step. For-
tunately, he only sustained a bruised arm.
Slips and falls are also prevalent with your type of collec-
tion because of the increased exposure to slippery surfaces
(e.g., wet grass, oily driveways), objects on the ground
(e.g., boards, nails, glass), uneven surfaces (e,g., cracked
sidewalks, holes), and objects protruding from the ground
(e.g., sprinkler heads). However, your organization has^ a
lower than average incidence of slips and falls. Can you ex-
plain this? Is it perhaps due to the use of safety shoes by
most of your employees?
1-2
-------
Thirty-one out of the 115 injuries this quarter were either
slips or falls. Twenty-three of these were OSHA recordable
and resulted in 234 days lost (30%) and $8,777 in direct
costs (29%). Six of those were the result of ice, four of
of wet surfaces, five of objects on the ground, five of
depressions and one of an oily surface. In nine cases the
employee was either getting on or off the vehicle.
Two dismounting cab accidents indicates the need for addi-
tional safety instructions. One employee jumped off and
fractured his foot (22 days, $770 so far).Another em-
ployee failed to wait until the vehicle came to a complete
stop before dismounting and sprained her back.
An in-depth analysis of slips and falls is planned for the
first quarter Accident Trends report. It will cover seasonal
comparisons as well as regional. The FIGURES at the end of
this section single out various types of slips and falls.
Packing Mechanism Accidents - IRIS noted several accidents
that involved disregard for the dangers of an operating
packing mechanism. Your organization should take steps to
reduce these before a permanent disability results.
In the most serious accident (17 days, $632), several safety
rules were broken. The employee was pulling on a plastic
bag that was stuck in the hopper. However, he did not re-
lease his grip on the controls and accidentally pushed the
wrong button. His arm and hand were out and bruised by the
blade. Employee training on the proper procedure in oper-
ating the packing mechamism as well as a possible equipment
modification to recess the start button are effective coun-
termeasures against this accident.
Two other accidents involving handling brush indicates em-
ployees consider it "safe" to dump brush into an operating
hopper. One employee was putting brush in when the blade
came down and cut his arm and hand (13 days, $1,443 so far).
The second employee was putting a limb into an operating
hopper when it swung around and hit him in the eye. Since
your employees do not wear safety glasses, he was lucky to
not permanently injure his eye (no days lost, $37).
Your orgnaization appears to have a low incidence of being
struck by objects ejected (only one this quarter). Is this
due to strict safety rules concerning this or equipment
modifications?
1-3
-------
Brush Collection - IRIS noted that your organization has
several injuries this quarter from the use of forks in brush
collection (two overexertions, 39 days, $1,292). Has
your organization considered separate brush collection
with the use of specialized equipment (e.g., front loaders)?
1-4
-------
REPORTING PERIODS JANUARY - MARCH 1977
USER NO, 170
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
FIRST QUARTER ACCCIDENTS
INSTRUCTIONS: EXAMINE THIS DATA TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION'S FIRST QUARTER ACCCIDENTS.
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACCIDENT TYPE, ACTIVITY, NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
I
UI
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY WHILE LIFTING STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (WATER FILLED) WHILE LIFTING STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM WET VEHICLE ONTO PAVEMENT WHILE REFUELING VEH OR ROUTINE MAINT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (FROZEN WASTE) WHILE LIFTING STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS STRUCK BY BLEACH WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT WHILE LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN CHEMICAL BURN TO EYES .
EMPLOYEE FELL ON ICY GROUND WHILE CARRYING STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAG INJURED WHEN VEH OVERTURNED WHILE DRIVING RESULTING IN BRUISE TO CHEST ,
EMPLOYEE FELL ON ICY PAVEMENT WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST .
EMPLOYEE VEH WAS HIT BY ANOTHER VEH AND HE STRUCK AGNST VEH WHILE RIDING ON CAB OF VEH RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO KNEE ,
EMPLOYEE WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL WHILE LIFTING TOTE BARREL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM ICY INCLINES GROUNB WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
SHOULDER ,
EMPLOYEE FELL ON ICY PAVEMENT WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK .
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO GROUND WHILE GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
LEG .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY AND HNBLD WITH COWRKR WHILE
DUMPING NSTD MTL CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST .
EMPLOYEE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH FELL OUT OF TOP OF CONT WHILE DUMPING STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND .
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM ICY INCLINED PAVEMENT WHILE PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO LEG ,
EMPLOYEE WAS INJURED WHEN VEH BECAME OUT OF CONTROL AND HE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT WHILE DRIVING
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE FELL ON OBJ ON GROUNB WHILE CARRYING STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY WHILE LIFTING STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (FROZEN WASTE) WHILE DUMPING STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ELBOW ,
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM WET INCLINED GROUND WHILE PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO LEG ,
EMPLOYEE FELL ON ICY GROUND WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM .
EMPLOYEE FELL ON WET PAVEMENT WHILE PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL WHILE CARRYING STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM ,
EMPLOYEE FELL ON DEPRESSION IN STEPPING DOWN WHILE GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN CATCHING EQUIPMENT PART WHILE LIFTING OTHER VEH PART RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO THUMB .
EMPLOYEE WAS CAUGHT IN PACKER BLADE WHILE OPERATING PACKING MECH LEVER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
ARM .
EMPLOYEE STRUCK SELF WITH CTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL AND HAD SLIPPED FROM HIS HANDS WHILE LIFTING
STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO FOOT .
NO. INJ
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAYS
84
8
0
25
2
IS
99
28
1
0
11
7
0
3
3
5
29
9
5
1
3
0
41
0
0
0
17
1
COSTS
2566
324
0
1619
1B2
464
3449
858
74
34
459
364
0
133
107
215
1142
349
209
71
122
0
1393
23
0
64
632
49
-------
I
CF\
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAG STRUCK BY VEH WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE STEPPED ON GLASS WHILE CARRYING UNK CONT TYPE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT .
EMPLOYEE SLIPPED FROM SLIPPERY CURB ONTO PAVEMENT WHILE PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE STRUCK AGAINST OTHER OBJECT WHILE DOING JANITORIAL WORK RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM WET INCLINED GROUND WHILE CARRYING FURNITURE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE STRUCK AGAINST GLASS WHILE COMPACTING WASTE IN TOTE BARREL RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND
EMPLOYEE WAS CAUGHT IN PACKER BLADE WHILE REFUELING VEH OR ROUTINE MAINT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE
TO FINGERS .
EMPLOYEE DOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE WHILE EMPTYING VEH RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES .
EMPLOYEE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION WHILE PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM INCLINED GROUND WHILE PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS HURT BY HANDLING CARDBOARD BOX WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS WHILE PUSHING OR PULLING
CARDED BOX RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FINGERS ,
EMPLOYEE WAS STRUCK BY WHEELED CART WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN BRUISE TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE MADE SUDDEN MOVEMENT IN STEPPING DOWN WHILE GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE WHILE PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES ,
EMPLOYEE COT AIRBORNE PARTICLES IN EYE WHILE CHECKING EQUIP MALFNCTN RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO
EYES .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY WHILE DUMPING STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN npUAIN OR STRAIN TO TRUNK .
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM LiHITLKY RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT WHILE GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD RESULTING
IN BRUISE TO KNEE ,
EMPLOYEE FELL ON OILY PAVEMENT WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL WHILE DUMPING TOTE BARREL RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC CAN WHICH WAS FULL WHILE DUMPING PLASTIC CAN RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HAND .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH HANDTOOL WHILE CLEARING WASTE W IIANDTOOL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS IIVY (ROCKS) WHILE LIFTING STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ABDOMEN ,
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL WHILE DUMPING STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE FELL ON GROUND WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST .
EMPLOYEE WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE FELL ON DEPRESSION WHILE CARRYING STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG. .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (PAPER) WHILE LIFTING STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK ,
EMPLOYEE STRUCK SELF WITH TAILGATE WHILE REPAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT .
EMPLOYEE STRUCK SELF WITH OTHER OBJECT WHILE GETTING OFF CAB OF VEII RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FACE .
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM SLIPPERY INCLINED GRASS WHILE PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS) WHILE LIFTING STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO HACK .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS IIVY (YARD CLIPPINGS) WHILE LIFTING STD MTL
CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER .
EMPLOYEE WAS STRUCK BY UNBUNDLED SIIRUBEERY WHICH WAS SWINGING AROUND IN HOPPER WHILE PUSHING OR
PULLING UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EYCS .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WOOD WHILE LIFTING WOOD RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER .
EMPLOYEE WAS STRUCK BY FURNITURE WHILE LIFTING TO DUMP FURNITURE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO EARS .
NO.
INJ
1
1
1
1
i
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
*?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
DAYS
8
2
2
1
21
2
2
1
0
4
7
14
12
2
0
8
0
10
3
4
26
0
2
*!>
0
0
7
0
0
9
30
1
0
7
1
COSTS
299
78
64
47
691
71
12.2
44
0
301
258
409
368
112
24
270
0
626
140
139
073
35
130
125
-',0
0
224
0
0
322
985
45
37
2Z3
49
-------
PROFILE NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
EMPLOYEE. OVEREXERTED SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL WHILE LIFTING NSTD MTL CONT RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OK STRAIN TO BACK . 1 A 21a
EMPLOYEE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND IN STEPPING DOWN WHILE GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH RESULTING
IN-SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE . 1 3 17Q
EMPLOYEE ŁELL. FROM TAILGATE ONTO PAVEMENT WHILE UNLOADING RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK . 100
EMPLOYEE STftUC'K SELF WITH BUNDLED SHRUBBERY WHILE LIFTING BUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN EYE
IRRITATION TO EYES . 1 0 0
EMPLOYEE SLIPPED WHILE ON CAB OF VEH AND STRK AGNST INSIDE OF CAB WHILE DRIVING RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO ANKLE . 100
EMPLOYEE STEPPED ON NAIL WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO TOES , 1 0 15
EMPLOYEE FELL ON WASTE ON GROUND WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW , 1 5 163
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM CAB OF VEH ONTO FLOOR WHILE DRIVING RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO SHOULDER . 1 19 620
EMPLOYEE WAS STRUCK BY GLASS WHICH WAS EJTD FROM HOPPER WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO FACE . 100
EMPLOYEE WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS WHILE LIFTING TO DUMP CARDBD SLATS RESULTING IN BRUISE TO
FINGERS . 1 0 20
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH SHOVEL/FORK WHILE LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO CHEST . 1 13 39?
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH SHOVEL/FORK WHILE CLEARING WASTE W HANDTOQL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO TRUNK . 100
EMPLOYEE WAS STRUCK BY VEH WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN BRUISE TO FOOT . 1 3 124
EMPLOYEE WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL WHILE LIFTING UNK CONT TYPE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG . 1 2 75
EMPLOYEE CONTACTED ALLERGENIC UNKNOWN WASTE WHILE DOING REPETITIOUS WORK RESULTING IN DERMATITIS TO
HAND . 1 1 51
EMPLOYEE FELL ON WASTE ON GROUND WHILE CARRYING STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE . 1 1 49
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY WHILE LIFTING TO DUMP TOTE
BARREL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK . 1 IS 441
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT WHILE GETTING OFF CAB OF VEM RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK . 100
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH TOTE BARREL WHICH WAS FULL WHILE LIFTING TOTE BARREL RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO TRUNK . 100
EMPLOYEE WAS CAUGHT IN PACKER BLADE WHILE DUMPING UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
ARM . 1 13 1443
EMPLOYEE WAS STRUCK BY VEH WHILE LIFTING TO DUMP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE . 1 11 339
EMPLOYEE FELL ON WASTE ON GROUND WHILE LIFTING BUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
WRIST . 1 1 47
EMPLOYEE SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT IN STEPPING DOWN WHILE GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE . 100
EMPLOYEE WAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO ARM . 1 3 142
EMPLOYEE STRUCK SELF WITH NSTD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY WHILE LIFTING TO DUMP NSTD MTL
CONT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE , 1 11 345
EMPLOYEE FELL ON DEPRESSION WHILE STANDING OR WALKING RESULTING IN CRUISE TO KNEE . 1 4 156
EMPLOYEE STRUCK SELF WITH HAMMER WHILE REPAIRING CONT W HANDTOOL RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ANKLE . 1 3 122
EMPLOYEE SLIPPED FROM CAB OF VEH IN STEPPING DOWN WHILE GETTING OFF CAB OF VEH RESULTING IN
FRACTURE TO FOOT . 1 22 770
EMPLOYEE WAS STRUCK BY OBJ HANDLED BY COWORKER WHILE CLEARING WASTE W HANDTOOL RESULTING IN BRUISE
TO EYES . 100
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH EQUIPMENT PART WHILE LIFTING OTHER WASTE RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK . 1 5 170
EMPLOYEE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION WHILE CARRYING TOTE BARREL RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
ANKLE . 1 5 170
EMPLOYEE STRUCK SELF WITH UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY WHILE LIFTING TO DUrtP UNBUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING
IN ABRASIONS TO NOSE . 100
EMPLOYEE STEPPED ON GLASS WHILE GETTING ON RUNNING BOARD RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO FOOT . 1 4 174
-------
PAGE
I
00
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY (ROCKS) WHILE LIFTING PLASTIC BAG
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE UAS INJURED WHEN VEII WENT OVER BUMP OR DEPRESSION AND HE FELL WHILE RIDING ON STEP OF VEII
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ARM .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS FULL WHILE LIFTING TO DUMP STD MTL CONT
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS HVY (TIGHTLY PACKED) WHILE LIFTING PLASTIC BAG
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH STD MTL CONT WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY WHILE LIFTING TO DUMP GTD MTL
CONT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH WHEELED CART WHILE DUMPING WHEELED CART RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE GOT WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE WHILE DUMPING STD MTL CONT RESULTING IN EYE IRRITATION TO EYES .
EMPLOYEE WAS HURT BY HANDLING SHARP OBJ WHILE PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO
FINGERS ,
EMPLOYEE FELL FROM STEP OF VEII ONTO PAVEMENT WHILE GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE 10 IV.CK .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS UNUSUALLY HEAVY WHILE LIFTING PLASTIC BAG
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER .
EMPLOYEE OVEREXERTED SELF WITH BUNDLED SHRUBBERY WHILE LIFTING TO DUMP BUNDLED SHRUBBERY RESULTING
IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO SHOULDER ,
EMPLOYEE UAS HURT BY HANDLING PRINTED MATTER WHICH HAD PROTRUDING GLASS WHILE LIFTING PRINTED
MATTER RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO HAND .
EMPLOYEE UAS BITTEN BY ANIMAL WHILE CARRYING NSTD MTL CONT RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO LEG .
TOTAL
INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAYS
3
0
0
1
37
2
0
0
7
1
4
0
0
COSTS
115
20
20
54
1382
76
0
0
259
49
138
0
0
115
791
30460
-------
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY -.MARCH 1977
FIGURE 12
USER NO. 17O
DETAILEP DESCRIPTION OF
FALL. ON SAME LEVEL
INSTRUCTIONS: EXAMINE THIS DATA TO DETERMINE: THE CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION'S rrALL. ON SAME LEVLL.
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY, ACCIDENT TYPE, NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
I
vo
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING AND flE FELL ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST .
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING AND HE FELL ON ICY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK .
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON OBJ ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING AND HE FELL ON ICY GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ARM .
EMPLOYEE WAS PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE AND HE FELL ON WET PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE FELL ON DEPRESSION IN STEPPING DOWN RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING AND HE FELL ON OILY PAVEMENT RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
SHOULDER .
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING AND HE FELL ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO WRIST .
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING AND HE FELL ON WASTE ON GROUND RESULTING IN BRUISE TO ELBOW .
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING STD MTL CONT AND HE FELL ON WASTE ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO
ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS LIFTING B.UNDLED SHRUBBERY AND HE FELL ON WASTE ON GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO WRIST .
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING AND HE FELL ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE .
NO.
INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DAYS
15
28
7
9
0
41
0
10
2
0
5
1
1
4
COSTS
464
859
364
349
0
1393
0
626
125
0
165
49
49
156
TOTAL
14
123
4598
-------
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1777
FIGURE 1-3
USER NO. 170
DETAILED) DESCRIPTION OF
FALL TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
INSTRUCTIONS: EXAMINE THIS DATA TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION'S FALL TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL.
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY* ACCIDENT TYPE* NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
PACE
I
H
o
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS REFUELING VEH OR ROUTINE MAINT AND HE FELL FROM WET VEHICLE ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO NECK .
EMPLOYEE WAS STANDING OR WALKING AND HE FELL FROM ICY INCLINED GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO SHOULDER .
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING DOARD AND HE FELL FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO GROUND RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL FROM ICY INCLINED PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
BRUISE TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL FROM WET INCLINED GROUND RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING FURNITURE AND HE FELL FROM WET INCLINED GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN
TO LEG .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL FROM INCLINED GROUND RESULTING IN SPRAIN
OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE FELL FROM SLIPPERY RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT
RESULTING IN BRUISE TO KNEE .
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE FELL FROM SLIPPERY INCLINED GRASS RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS UNLOADING AND HE FELL FROM TAILGATE ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN BRUISE TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING AND HE FELL FROM CAB OF VEH ONTO FLOOR RESULTING IN CUT/PUNCTURE TO SHOULDER .
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF CAB OF VEH AND HE FELL FROM RUNNING BOARD ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO BACK .
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE FELL FROM STEP OF VEH ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
CUT/PUNCTURE TO BACK .
TOTAL
INJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
DAYS
0
11
0
5
3
21
4
0
9
0
19
0
7
79
COSTS
0
459
0
215
122
691
301
0
322
0
620
0
259
2989
-------
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - .MARCH 1977
FIGURE _L 4
USER NO. 170
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
SLIPPED ON SAME LEVEL
INSTRUCTIONS: EXAMINE THIS DATA TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION'S SLIPPED ON SAME LEVEL.
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY, ACCIDENT TYPE* NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS PUSHING OR PULLING WHEELED CART AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPRESSION RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF STEP OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON OBJ ON GROUND IN STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO KNEE .
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF RUNNING BOARD AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON PAVEMENT IN STEPPING DOWN
RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS CARRYING TOTE BARREL AND HE SLIPPED STEPPING ON DEPFi'ESSION RESULTING IN SPRAIN OR
STRAIN TO ANKLE ,
TOTAL
NO.
INJ
1
1
1
1
4
' DAYS
0
3
0
5
8
COSTS
0
178
0
178
356
-------
FIGURE 1-5
PAGE
USER NO. 170
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF
SLIPPED TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977
INSTRUCTIONS? EXAMINE THIS DATA TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION'S SLIPPED TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL.
THIS PROFILE IS A FORMATTED SENTENCE CONSISTING OF ACTIVITY* ACCIDENT TYPE? NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY.
PROFILE
EMPLOYEE WAS PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE AND HE SLIPPED FROM SLIPPERY CURB ONTO PAVEMENT RESULTING IN
SPRAIN OR STRAIN TO ANKLE .
EMPLOYEE WAS GETTING OFF CAB OF VEH AND HE SLIPPED FROM CAB OF VEH IN STEPPING DOWN RESULTING IN
FRACTURE TO FOOT .
TOTAL
NO. INJ DAYS COSTS
1 2 64
1 22 770
2 24 834
-------
SECTION II
IDENTIFICATION OF KEY INJURY PROBLEM AREAS
FIGURES 2-1A-
2-1C:
FIGURES 2-2A-
2-2C:
FIGURES 2-3A-
2-3C:
FIGURES 2-4A-
2-4C:
FIGURE 2-5:
Activities Ranked from Highest to Lowest Percent
of OSHA Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost and
Direct Costs
Accident Types Ranked from Highest to Lowest Per-
cent of OSHA Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost
and Direct Costs
Accident Sites Ranked from Highest to Lowest Per-
cent of OSHA Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost
and Direct Costs
Injury Types Ranked from Highest to Lowest Per-
cent of OSHA Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost
and Direct Costs
Parts of Body Ranked from Highest to Lowest Per-
cent of OSHA Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost
and Direct Costs
2-1
-------
FIGURE 2-1A
PARE
USER HO. 170
ACTIVITIES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
COMPARISON BY QUARTERS
to
I
to
OSHA RECORDABLE INJUf
IAPR-JUN '76
ACTIVITY
LIFTING CONTAINER
STANDING OR WALKING
DUMPING CONTAINER
CARRYING CONTAINER
PUSHING OR PULLING CONTAINER
LIFTING TO DUMP CONTAINER
LIFTING TO DUMP WASTE
GETTING OFF EQUIP
LIFTING WASTE
DRIVING EQUIP
PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE
RIDING ON EQUIP
CARRYING WASTE
PUSHING OR PULLING WASTE
LIFTING VEII PART
DUMPING WASTE
COMPACTING WASTE IN CONT
GETTING ON EQUIP
OPERATING CONTROLS
EMPTYING VEII
CLEARING WASTE W HANDTOOL
REPAIRING CONT W HANDTOOL
CHECKING EQUIP MALFNCTN
REFUELING VEII OR ROUTINE MAINT
DOING JANITORIAL WORK
DOING REPETITIOUS WORK
CLOSING EQUIP PT
REPAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL
COMPACTING WASTE IN VEII
RUNNING
TOTAL
NO . '/.
i!E3
JUL-SEP '76 IOCT-DEC
NO. 7. \ NO.
! 11
! 8
! 0
! 9
! 6
i 3
! 1
! 4
l 2
! 1
! 0
! 3
! 0
! 0
! 0
! 0
! 1
! 2
! 2
! 0
! ]
! 0
! 0
! 0
! 0
! 0
! 2
1 2
! .1
! 1
l
! <<.R
'76
7.
16.10
1 1 . 76
1 1 . 76
13.24
8.82
4.41
1.47
5.80
2.94
1.47
0.00
4.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
2.94
2.94
0.00
1.47
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0 . 00
2,94
2 , "?4
1 .47
1. ,47
I 00. 00
JAN-MAR
NO.
18
14
8
6
5
5
5
4
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
'77
%
20.00
15.56
8.89
6.67
5.56
5.56
5 . 56
4.44
3 . 33
3.33
3 . 33
2 . 22
1 . .1 1
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1 . 1 .1
.1.11
1 . 1. 1
1.11
1.11
l.ll
1.11
1.11
1 . .1 1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90 100.00
-------
IR-ATB
FIGURE 2-1B
USER NO. 170
ACTIVITIES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
COMPARISON BY QUARTERS
PAGE
ACTIVITY
DRIVING EQUIP
CLEARING WASTE W HANDTOOL
CARRYING WASTE
LIFTING TO DUMP CONTAINER
OPERATING CONTROLS
PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE
DUMPING WASTE
GETTING OFF EQUIP
LIFTING CONTAINER
STANDING OR WALKING
t-IFTING TO DUMP WASTE
CARRYING CONTAINER
PUSHING OR PULLING CONTAINER
LIFTING WASTE
GETTING ON EQUIP
DUMPING CONTAINER
REPAIRING CONT W HANDTOOL
COMPACTING WASTE IN CONT
REFUELING VEH OR ROUTINE MAINT
RIDING ON EQUIP
EMPTYING VEH
DOING JANITORIAL WORK
DOING REPETITIOUS WORK
RUNNING
REPAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL
COMPACTING WASTE IN VEH
TOTAL
OSHA DAYS LOST
APR-JUN '76
NO. X AVG DYS/
LOST DYS
CASE
JUL-SEP '76
NO. % AVG DYS/
LOST DYS
CASE
OCT-DEC '76
NO. % AVG DYS/
LOST DYS
CASE
1 0.20 1
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 0
25 4.92 8
18 3,54 9
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 0
22 4.33 11
59 11.61 6
39 7.68 5
0 0.00 0
92 18.11 10
37 7.28 9
0 0.00 0
9 1.77 4
117 23.03 23
0 0.00 0
3 0.59 3
0 0.00 0
44 8.66 22
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 0
16 3.15 16
20 3.94 10
6 1.18 6
SOB 100.00 10
JAN-MAR '77
NO. X AVG DYS/
LOST DYS
CASE
147 18.58 49
26 3.29 26
21 2.65 21
68 8.60 17
17 2.15 17
45 5.69 15
13 1.64 13
44 5.56 11
172 21.74 11
95 12.01 9
29 3.67 7
32 4.05 6
28 3.54 6
13 1.64 4
4 0.51 4
26 3.29 3
3 0.38 3
2 0.25 2
2 0.25 2
1 0.13 1
1 0.13 1
1 0.13 1
1 0.13 1
0 0.00 0
O 0.00 0
O 0.00 0
791 100.00 10
-------
FIGURE 21C
USER NO. 170
ACTIVITIES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
COMPARISON BY QUARTERS
PAGE
ACTIVITY
LIFTING CONTAINER
DRIVING EQUIP
STANDING OR WALKING
LIFTING TO DUMP CONTAINER
GETTING OFF EQUIP
PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE
DUMPING WASTE
PUSHING OR PULLING CONTAINER
CARRYING CONTAINER
DUMPING CONTAINER
LIFTING TO DUMP WASTE
CLEARING WASTE W HANDTOOL
CARRYING WASTE
OPERATING CONTROLS
LIFTING WASTE
GETTING ON EQUIP
REPAIRING CONT W HANDTOOL
REFUELING VEH OR ROUTINE MAINT
RIDING ON EQUIP
COMPACTING WASTE IN CONT
LIFTING VEH PART
DOING REPETITIOUS WORK
DOING JANITORIAL WORK
EMPTYING VEH
PUSHING OR PULLING WASTE
CHECKING EQUIP MALFNCTN
COMPACTING WASTE IN VEH
REPAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL
RUNNING
CLOSING EQUIP PT
TOTAL
APR-JUN '76
AMT. X AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC
INJ
1
DIRECT COSTS
JUL-SEP '76
AMT. X AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC
INJ
OCT-DEC '76
AMT. 7. AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC
INJ
2r371 11.04 216
54 0.25 54
2f096 9.76 262
852 3.97 284
IflOS 5.14 276
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 0
lrS68 7.30 261
3f047 14,18 339
5r076 23.63 635
20 0,09 20
20 0,09 20
0 0.00 0
732 3.41 366
58 0.27 29
472 2.20 236
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 0
Ir364 6,35 455
144 0.67 144
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 0
If 200 5.59 If 200
705 3.28 353
486 2.26 486
114 0.53 57
21f484 100.00 316
JAN-MAR '77 !
AMT, X AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC
INJ
6f601 21.67 367
5f211 17.11 If737
3f782 12.42 270
2f370 7.78 474
If 575 5.17 394
If569 5.15 523
If443 4.74 If443
If218 4.00 244
Ifl41 3.75 190
If074 3.53 134
945 3.10 189
893 2.93 893
691 2.27 691
632 2.07 632
465 1.53 155
174 0.57 174
122 0.40 122
122 0.40 122
94 0.31 47
71 0.23 71
64 0.21 64
51 0.17 51
47 0.15 47
44 0.14 44
37 0.12 37
24 O.08 24
0 0.00 0
0 0.00 O
0 0.00 0
0 O.OO O
30 f 460 100. OO 338 !
-------
IR-ACA
FIGURE 2-2A
USER NO. 170
ACCIDENT TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
COMPARISON BY QUARTERS
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
PAGE 1
N)
I
Ln
IAPR-JUN '76 IJUL-SEP '76 ! OCT-DEC
ACCIDENT TYPE
OVEREXERTION INVOLVING CONT
FALL ON SAME LEVEL
FALL TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
ANIMAL BITE
VEHICLE ACCIDENT
STRUCK BY WASTE
CAUGHT BETWEEN OBJECTS
VEH MOVEMENT INVOLVED ACCIDENT
OVEREXERTION INVOLVING WASTE
STEPPED ON SHARP WASTE
STRUCK SELF WITH CONT BEING HANDLED
WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE
SLIP TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
SLIP ON SAME LEVEL
OVEREXERTION INVOLVING OBJ
STRUCK BY CONTAINER
STRUCK SELF WITH OBJ BEING HANDLED
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT
STRUCK AGAINST WASTE
HURT BY HANDLING CONT
PARTICLES IN EYE
BODILY REACTION
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING OBJ
CONTACT WITH ALLERGENIC WASTE
STRUCK BY OBJ
INSECT BITE
STRUCK SELF WITH WASTE BEING HANDLED
NO. % ! NO. y. ! NO.
; t
j
!
;
j
!
j
!
!
;
j
j
!
!
j
!
I
!
j
j
j
!
i
!
!
I
1
1
SLIP AND STRUCK AGAINST VEH PART ! !
8
<4
8
4
1
4
3
4
0
0
2
0
1
4
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
5
3
2
2
'76 ! JAN-MAR
%
11.76
8.02
11.76
5.B8
1,47
5. BO
4.41
5.88
0.00
0.00
2.94
0.00
1.47
5.88
2.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
2,94
0.00
1.47
0.00
0.00
7.35
4.41
2.94
2.94
NO.
25
11
8
6
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
'77
%
27.78
12.22
8.89
6.67
4.44
4.44
4.44
3.33
3.33
3.33
2,22
2,22
2.22
2.22
2.22
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
PftGE
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
IAPR-JUN '76 IJUL-SEP
I I
ACCIDENT TYPE ! NO. X ! NO.
STRUCK BY VEH PART i i
STRUCK SELF WITH VEH PT BEING HANDLED ! !
HURT BY HANDLING WASTE ! !
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING OBJ ! !
STEPPED ON SHARP OBJ ! !
j !
TOTAL ! !
'76 mCT-DEC
X ! NO.
! 1
! 1
! 1
! 1
! 1
j
! 6a
'76
1.47
1.47
1,47
1.47
1.47
100.00
JAN-MAR
NO.
0
0
0
0
0
90
'77
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
I
CTi
-------
IR-ACB
FIGURE 2-2B
USER NO. 170
ACCIDENT IYPCS RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
COMPARISON BY OUARPERS
OSHA DAYS LOST
PAGE 1
! APR-JUN '76
ACCIDENT TYPE ! NO, % AVG DYS/
! LOST DYS
! CASE
VEH MOVEMENT INVOLVED ACCIDENT !
OVEREXERTION INVOLVING OBJ !
STRUCK BY CONTAINER !
SLIP TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL !
BODILY REACTION !
FALL ON SAME LEVEL !
OVEREXERTION INVOLVING CONT !
CAUGHT BETWEEN OBJECTS !
FALL TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL !
HURT BY HANDLING CONT !
STRUCK SELF WITH CONT BEING HANDLED !
VEHICLE ACCIDENT P
OVEREXERTION INVOLVING WASTE !
SLIP ON SAME LEVEL !
STRUCK SELF WITH OBJ BEING HANDLED !
STEPPED ON SHARP WASTE !
ANIMAL BITE !
STRUCK BY WASTE f
STRUCK AGAINST WASTE f
WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE !
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT !
CONTACT WITH ALLERGENIC WASTE !
SLIP AND STRUCK AGAINST VEH PART !
STRUCK BY VEH PART !
STRUCK SELF WITH WASTE BEING HANDLED !
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING OBJ !
STEPPED ON SHARP OBJ !
STRUCK BY OBJ !
INSECT BITE !
1
TOTAL !
JUL-SEP '76 ! OCT-
NIJ. % AVG DYS/! NO.
LOST DYS!
CASE !
! 41
! 3
! 0
! 16
! 26
! 74
! 32
\ 6
! 35
1 8
1 23
! 12
! 0
! 19
! 0
! 0
1 16
! 28
! 3
! 0
! 0
! 0
! 102
! 17
! 16
! 6
f 5
! 18
1 2
1 508
DEC ' 76
7. AVG
LOST
DYS/
DYS
CASE
8.07
0.59
0.00
3.15
5. 12
14.57
6.30
1.18
6.89
1.57
4.53
2.36
0.00
3.74
0.00
0.00
3. 15
5.51
0.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.08
3.35
3. 15
1.18
0.98
3.54
0.39
100.00
14
3
0
16
26
12
4
6
6
4
11
12
0
6
0'
0
5
9
3
0
0
0
51
17
16
6
5
4
JAN-MAR '77
NO.
7. AVG
LOST
1
DYS/
DYS
CASE
128
39
14
24
12
123
247
32
79
7
12
23
16
8
3
6
5
6
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 1 0
10 f 791
16.18
4.93
1.77
3.03
1.52
15.55
31.23
4.05
9.99
o.no
1.52
2.91
2.02
1 .01
0.30
0. 76
0.63
0. 76
0.25
0.3fl
0. 13
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
64
17
14
12
12
1 1
1 1
1 1
10
7
6
6
5
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
-------
USER NO. J7O
ACCIDENT TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
COMPARISON E
-------
FIGURE 2-3A
PAGE 1
USER NO* 170
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES
(I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS)r LOST WORKDAY* :!
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES* FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDE1
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING"
THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES*
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT SITE
NO*
ON COLLECTION ROUTE
IN CUSTOMER'S YD
IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK
IN ST AT CURB
IN MIDSTREET
IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
ON STEP OF VEH
ON RUNNING BOARD
IN MIDALLEY
SUBTOTAL
ENROUTE BETWEEN SITES
INSIDE CAB
SUBTOTAL
43
16
11
2
2
1
1
1
1
78
47*78
17*78
12*22
2.22
2. 22
1*11
1*11
1.11
1.11
86.67
2.22
2.22
AT LANDFILL
AT DUMP SITE
SUBTOTAL
1*11
AT TRANSFER STATION
NEXT TO VEHICLE
SUBTOTAL
AT HEADQUARTERS
IN SHOP/GARAGE
IN YARD PARKING LOT
ON VEHICLE
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
3
3
1
7
1.11
1,11
3.33
3*33
1.11
7*78
90 100,00
2-9
-------
FIGURE 2-3B
PAGE
USER NO* 170
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977
DEFINITIONS? A LOST DAYS CASE IS ONE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE INCURRED
yORKDAYS LOST AND/OR LIGHT DUTY DAYS DUE TO THE ACCIDENT*
INSTRUCTIONS* DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES*
OSHA DAYS LOST
ACCIDENT SITE
NO*
AVG DAYS LOST/
LOST DAYS CASE
ON COLLECTION ROUTE
IN CUSTOMER'S YD
IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK
IN ST AT CURB
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY
ON RUNNING BOARD
IN MIDSTREET
ON STEP OF VEH
IN MIDALLEY
SUBTOTAL
ENROUTE BETWEEN SITES
INSIDE CAB
SUBTOTAL
AT LANDFILL
AT DUMP SITE
SUBTOTAL
AT TRANSFER STATION
NEXT TO VEHICLE
SUBTOTAL
AT HEADQUARTERS
ON VEHICLE
IN YARD PARKING LOT
IN SHOP/GARAGE
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
316
119
111
29
28
12
11
7
2
635
100
100
1
o
/->/?
'>2
19
10
3
32
39.95
15*04
14*03
3*67
3*54
1*52
1*39
0*83
0*25
80*28
12*64
12*64
0*13
0*25
2*78
2*78
2.40
1*26
0*38
4*05
8*54
9.15
10*09
29*00
28*00
12*00
5*50
7.00
2.00
9.34
50,00
50*00
1*00
1.00
22*00
22,00
19*00
5*00
1*50
6*40
791 100*00
10*14
2-10
-------
FIGURE 2-3C
PAGE
USER NO. 170
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977 1977
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS>* AND LOST
WORKDAY* PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES.
FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES* WORKER'S COMPENSATION
BENEFITS AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G.* INJURY LEAVE)
ONLY. INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY
IDENTIFYING THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
DIRECT COSTS
DRIVEWAY
ACCIDENT SITE
ON COLLECTION ROUTE
IN CUSTOMER'S YD
IN ST AT BACK OF Tf
IN ST AT CURB
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
IN CUSTOMER'S
IN MIDSTREET
ON RUNNING BOARD
ON STEP OF VEH
IN MIDALLEY
SUBTOTAL
ENROUTE BETWEEN SITES
INSIDE CAB
SUBTOTAL
AT LANDFILL
AT DUMP SITE
SUBTOTAL
AT TRANSFER STATION
NEXT TO VEHICLE
SUBTOTAL
AT HEADQUARTERS
ON VEHICLE
IN YARD PARKING
IN SHOP/GARAGE
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
LOT
AMT
12*328
5*097
3*384
1*142
878
675
368
259
78
24*709
3*523
3*523
44
95
770
770
620
550
193
1*363
40,47
16.73
12,75
3,75
2,88
O OO
AV. * Ł.*!.
1.21
0,85
0,26
81,12
11.57
11,57
0.14
0.31
1.53
2.04
1.81
0.63
4,47
30*460 100.00
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
286
318
353
1*142
439
337
368
259
78
317
1*761
1*762
44
47
770
770
620
183
64
195
338
2-11
-------
FIGURE 2-4A
USER NO. 170
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES
(I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS) , LOST WORKDAY?
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
TYPE OF INJURY NO, %
SPRAIN OR STRAIN 51 56,67
CUT/PUNCTURE 20 22.22
BRUISE 13 14,44
EYE IRRITATION 3 3,33
CHEHICAL BURN 1 1*11
DERMATITIS 1 1*11
FRACTURE 1 1*11
TOTAL 90 100,00
2-12
-------
FIGURE 2-4B PAGE 1
USER NO, 170
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977
DEFINITIONS: A LOST DAYS CASE is ONE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE INCURRED
WORKDAYS LOST AND/OR LIGHT DUTY DAYS DUE TO THE ACCIDENT.
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY IDENTIFYING
THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES*
OSHA DAYS LOST
TYPE OF INJURY NO, "/. AVG DAYS LOST/
LOST DAYS CASE
SPRAIN OR STRAIN 516 65.23 10,75
BRUISE 164 20,73 14,91
CUT/PUNCTURE S3 10,49 5,93
FRACTURE 22 2,78 22,00
EYE IRRITATION 3 0,38 1,50
CHEMICAL BURN 2 0,25 2,00
DERMATITIS 1 0,13 1,00
TOTAL 791 100,00 10,14
2-13
-------
FIGURE 2-4C PAGE
USER NO* 170
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST
WORKDAYt PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES,
FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED*
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES* WORKER'S COMPENSATION
BENEFITS AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G.? INJURY LEAVE)
ONLY, INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY
IDENTIFYING THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES,
DIRECT COSTS
TYPE OF INJURY AMT* % AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
SPRAIN OR STRAIN 19*314 63,41 379
BRUISE 5*737 18.83 441
CUT/PUNCTURE 4,226 13,87 211
FRACTURE 770 2.53 770
CHEMICAL BURN 182 0,60 182
EYE IRRITATION ISO 0.59 60
DERMATITIS 51 0,17 51
TOTAL 30*460 100.00 338
2-14
-------
IR-12B
FIGURE 2-5
PAGE 1
USER NO. 170
PARTS OF BODY INJURED RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT OF
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES* WORKDAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT CASES
-------
SECTION III
OVERALL INJURY MEASURES
FIGURE 3-1
FIGURE 3-2
FIGURE 3-3
FIGURE 3-4
FIGURE 3-5
FIGURE 3-6A-
3-6B:
FIGURE 3-7A-
3-7B:
Number of Injuries Reported by Severity-
Comparison of "IRIS" Users
Average Injury Rates by "IRIS" Users Ranked
from Highest to Lowest
Average Workdays Lost per Lost Workday Case
by "IRIS" Users Ranked from Highest to
Lowest
Direct Costs by "IRIS" Users Ranked from
Highest to Lowest
Direct Costs for Lost Day Cases by
"IRIS" Users Ranked from Highest to
Lowest
Comparison of Injury Rates and OSHA Days
Lost for All Users (1976 & 1977)
Comparison of Direct Costs by Reporting
Period for All Users (1976 & 1977)
3-1
-------
FIGURE 3-1
PAGE
NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED BY TYPE OF SEVERITY
COMPARISON OF 'IRIS' USERS
IEPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977
INSTRUCTIONS: THE PERCENTAGES ARE A FRACTION OF THE TOTAL CASES
JEPORTED. THEY TOTAL TO APPROXIMATELY 100% IF READ HORIZONTALLY*
IOMPARE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PERCENTAGES WITH THE AVERAGE AND WITH
JTHER IRIS USERS* HIGHER THAN AVERAGE PERCENTAGES IN THE LOWER
SEVERITY GROUPSt I,E.ť TOWARD THE LEFT* ARE DESIREDr AS ARE LOWER
THAN AVERAGE PERCENTAGES TOWARD THE RIGHT,
IRIS
USER
NO.
AVG
101-
103
109
111
113
115
125
133
146
148
149
152
157
161
170
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197.
201
204
207
210
211
217
221
226
235
236
TOTAL
CASES
RPT ' D
If571
19
16
36
39
2
44
64
10
21
8
13
12
23
28
115
35
84
10
78
31
15
49
27
22
4
7
3
39
1
14
146
41
8
13
20
FIRST NON-FATAL LOST WKDY
AID W/0 LST WKDAY CASES
NO.
296
0
2
11
11
0
21
3
0
4
0
0
3
0
13
25
2
2
4
20
0
0
7
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
39
7
2
0
0
%
19
0
12
31
28
0
48
5
0
19
0
0
25
0
46
22
6
2
40
26
0
0
14
4
0
0
14
0
0
0
21
27
17
25
0
0
NO.
505
14
9
1
8
1
4
9
5
8
4
6
4
12
9
12
8
54
0
19
13
5
19
10
5
O
iA
3
22
0
5
87
0
3
2
9
*
32
74
56
3
21
50
9
14
50
38
50
46
33
52
32
10
23
64
0
24
42
33
39
37
23
0
57
100
56
0
36
60
0
37
15
45
NO.
767
5
5
24
20
1
19
52
5
9
4
7
5
11
6
78
25
28
6
39
18
10
22
16
17
4
2
0
17
1
6
20
34
3
11
11
*
49
26
31
67
51
50
43
81
50
43
50
54
42
48
21
68
71
33
60
50
58
67
45
59
77
100
29
0
44
100
43
14
83
37
85
55
PERM
DISAB
NO.
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FATALITY
NO.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.04
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3-2
-------
PAGE 2
IRIS
USER
NO*
237
24'-'
244
260
265
272
275
283
286
29'-'
296
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
329
330
331
333
336
337
338
339
340
341
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
353
354
355
358.
361
362"
363
TOTAL
CASES
RPT'D
17
1
4
27
39
4
9
8
2
22
3
26
88
9
9
1
12
3
1
3
2
3
2
11
9
15
45
15
3
6
6
16
6
6
8
11
1
1
4
2
2
1
5
6
FIRST
NON-FATAL
LOST
UKDY
AID W/0 LST UKDAY CASES
NO.
7
0
0
0
14
1
3
3
2
15
0
0
33
4
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
41
0
0
0
36
25
33
37
100
68
0
0
37
44
67
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
7
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
NO,
6
0
2
10
10
1
2
O
Ať
0
1
1
16
16
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
o
1
1
15
2
2
0
1
9
2
0
4
3
1
0
4
1
0
1
1
2
%
35
0
50
37
26
25
22
25
0
5
33
62
18
22
0
0
8
33
100
33
100
100
50
18
11
7
33
13
67
0
17
56
33
0
50
27
100
0
100
50
0
100
20
33
NO,
4
0
2
17
15
2
4
3
0
6
2
10
39
3
3
1
10
1
0
2
0
0
1
9
8
14
11
12
1
6
5
7
3
6
4
4
0
1
0
1
2
0
4
3
%
24
0
50
63
38
50
44
37
0
27
67
38
44
33
33
100
83
33
0
67
0
0
50
82
89
93
24
80
33
100
83
44
50
100
50
36
0
100
0
50
100
0
80
50
PERM
DISAB
NO,
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0,00
100.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
33,33
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FATALITY
NO.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
/.
o,o<
o.oc
0,0<
0,0<
0ť0(
0,0<
o.oc
O.OC
0,0<
0,0(
o.oc
0,0<
o.oc
o.oc
o.oc
o.oc
o.oc
o.oc
o.oc
o.oc
o.oc
o.oc
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0,00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
3-3
-------
FIGURE 3-2
PAGE 1
AVERAGE INJURY RATES BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977
DEFINITIONS: AVERAGE RATIO = RATE / AVERAGE FOR THE RATE*
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE = (NUMBER OF OSHA RECORDABLE CASES /
HAN-HOURS EXPOSURE ) X 200*000,
ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER OF CASES PER 100 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES
PER YEAR, DOES NOT INCLUDE FIRST AID INJURIES, DOES INCLUDEMEDICAL
TREATMENT* LOST TIME* PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES,
SEVERITY RATE = (NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST / MAN-HOURS EXPOSURE) X 200rOOO.
ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST PER 100 FULL TIME
EMPLOYEES PER YEAR.
INSTRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
HOW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS,
ft GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50,
A POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1,25,
IRIS
USER
NO,
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
MAN-HOURS NO, RATE AVG
EXPOSURE INJ RATIO
INCIDENCE RATE - LWC
IRIS NO. RATE AVG
USER INJ RATIO
NO,
149
346
341
349
221
103
211
207
354
260
350
299
325
343
326
344
191
183
348
275
236
345
161
358
152
244
265
20*885
27*179
27*798
16*539
73*706
31*394
25*038
92*287
9*649
67*802
18*286
70*424
30*052
8*295
8*467
17*395
67*732
130*755
19*233
19*302
65*025
20*294
51*590
6*892
31*079
14*697
95*564
13
16
14
8
34
14
11
39
4
27
7
26
11
3
3
6
22
42
6
6
20
6
15
2
9
4
25
124
118
101
97
92
89
88
85
83
80
77
74
73
72
71
69
65
64
62
62
62
59
58
58
58
54
52
3,55
3,35
2,87
2,76
2,63
2,54
2.50
2.41
2.36
2.27
2.18
2.10
2.09
2.06
2.02
1,97
1,85
1,83
1,78
1.77
1.75
1.68
1.66
1.65
1.65
1,55
1.49
221
341
344
149
325
348
358
346
191
260
345
349
211
326
350
339
275
235
207
183
236
316
152
171
103
265
338
34
12
6
7
10
6
2
7
17
17
5
4
6
2
4
14
4
11
17
23
11
39
5
25
5
15
8
92
86
69
67
67
62
58
52
50
50
49
48
48
47
44
43
41
39
37
35
34
33
32
32
32
31
29
4.35
4.07
3.25
3.16
3.14
2.94
2.74
2.43
2,37
2.37
2.33
2,28
2.26
2.23
2.06
2.01
1.96
1.86
1.74
1.66
1*60
1.55
1.52
1.51
1.50
1.48
1.37
326
349
149
221
244
341
316
260
348
324
133
325
275
344
350
115
235
237
207
179
191
211
111
113
339
330
265
3*732
1*209
1*197
1*117
1*006
892
759
714
707
680
664
612
591
552
547
512
509
487.
459
427
413
399
353
339
334
332
326
14.56
4.72
4.67
4.36
3.93
3,48
2.96
2.79
2.76
2.66
2.59
2.39
2.30
2.15
2.13
2.00
1.99
1.90
1.79
1,66
1,61
1,56
1,38
1,32
1 .30
1,30
1,27
3-4
-------
PAGE 2
IRIS
USER-
NO.
351
172
333
157
235
316
339
181
171
133
237
217
179
111
340
337
186
AVG
226
347
318
338
363
115
170
331
113
296
125
201
197
283
204
324
210
146
362
330
353
101
329
336
182
109
148
777
355
361
292
OSHA INCH
MAN-HOURS
EXPOSURE
3,879
319,029
12,301
95,167
55 , 802
237,874
65,865
142,118
156r054
47,607
48,509
527,934
317,357
154,737
145,691
61,981
147,863
7,266,342 1
34,641
29,246
30,169
55,090
30,608
142,601
577,586
13,120
14,168
22,147
476,381
47,534
31,916
41,499
25,414
8,525
9,041
154,394
46,746
28,321
10,994
216,605
11,666
25,594
205,656
356,954
119,105
53,416
36,046
18,254
159,418
IENCE RATE INCIDENCE RATE - LUC
NO,
INJ
1
82
3
23
13
55
15
31
33
10
10
107
58
28
26
11
26
275
6
5
5
9
5
23
90
2
2
3
61
6
4
5
3
1
1
17
5
3
1
19
1
2
15
25
8
3
2
1
7
RATE
52
51
49
48
47
46
46
44
42
42
41
41
37
36
36
35
35
35
35
34
33
33
33
32
31
30
28
27
26
25
25
24
24
23
22
22
21
21
18
18
17
16
15
14
13
11
11
11
9
AVG
RATIO
1.47
1.46
1.39
1.38
1.33
1.32
1.30
1.24
1.21
1.20
1.17
1.16
1.04
1.03
1.02
1.01
1.00
1.00
0.99
0,97
0.94
0.93
0.93
0.92
0.89
0,87
0.80
0.77
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.69
0,67
0,67
0.63
0.63
0.61
0.60
0.52
0,50
0.49
0,45
0,42
0,40
0.38
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.25
IRIS
USER
NO.
337
299
244
170
115
111
181
197
179
343
324
161
157
210
125
186
AVG
133
347
318
363
353
296
172
226
362
237
340
283
330
113
109
146
182
201
336
217
292
272
148
323
355
101
178
242
361
359
354
351
NO.
INJ
9
10
2
78
19
20
18
4
39
1
1
6
11
1
52
16
770
5
3
3
3
1
2
28
3
4
4
11
3
2
1
24
9
10
2
1
20
6
2
4
3
1
5
6
1
0
0
0
0
RATE
29
28
27
27
27
26
25
25
25
24
23
23
23
22
22
22
21
21
21
20
20
18
18
18
17
17
16
15
14
14
14
13
12
10
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
4
2
0
0
0
0
AVG
RATIO
1.37
1.34
1,28
1.27
1.26
1.22
1.20
1,18
1.16
1.14
1.11
1.10
1.09
1.04
1.03
1.02
1.00
0.99
0.97
0.94
0.92
0.86
0,85
0.83
0.82
0.81
0.78
0.71
0,68
0.67
0.67
0,63
0.55
0.46
0.40
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.32
0.30
0.26
0.22
0.20
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SEVERITY RAT
IRIS
USER
NO.
161
171
125
345
152
170
146
318
362
236
AVG
338
358
181
337
346
172
353
226
292
103
323
148
183
340
186
299
197
363
157
182
109
347
178
242
101
201
217
296
283
343
336
210
272
355
361
359
354
351
RATE
318
293
289
286
283
274
273
272
270
265
256
236
232
217
216
213
212
200
191
179
178
171
163
162
162
158
148
132
98
97
87
78
68
65
62
60
55
41
36
34
24
23
22
11
6
0
0
0
0
&
n
R
1
4
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o.
o.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
o.
0.
0,
0.
3-5
-------
PAGE 3
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE INCIDENCE RATE - LWC SEVERITY RATE
IRIS MAN-HOURS NO. RATE AVG IRIS NO* RATE AVG IRIS RATE AVG
USER EXPOSURE INJ RATIO USER INJ RATIO USER RATIO
NO. NO* NO*
323 94 f 851 3 6 0*18 333 0 0 0*00 333 0 0*00
178
242
295
359
215
286
328
261
287*339
81*254
84*566
38*724
25*299
5*465
4*744
4*101
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
331
329
328
295
286
261
215
204
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
331
329
328
295
286
261
215
204
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3-6
-------
R-4
FIGURE 3-3
PAGE 1
AVERAGE WORKDAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MAFCH 1977
INSTRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
HOW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS.
A GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN .50.
A POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1.25.
RANK
HIGHEST
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
IRIS
USER NO.
326
244
133
237
324
323
349
24'-'
148
113
292
330
146
316
115
149
179
362
178
275
260
318
161
111
125
101
235
350
207
221
AVG
172
348
353
226
340
265
NO. LOST
WKDY CASES
4
1
3
4
1
4
1
6
2
9
39
19
7
39
4
6
4
17
3
6
20
52
5
11
4
17
34
770
28
6
1
3
11
15
OSHA DAYS
LOST
158
74
158
118
29
81
100
25
97
24
143
47
211
903
365
125
677
63
93
57
242
41
82
273
688
65
142
50
212
412
9^310
338
68
11
33
118
156
AVG OSHA
DAYS LOST
52.67
37,00
31.60
29.50
29.00
27,00
25.00
25.00
24.25
24.00
23.83
23.50
23*44
23.15
19.21
17.86
17.36
15*75
15.50
14*25
14,24
13.67
13.67
13,65
13.23
13.00
12.91
12.50
12.47
12.12
12*09
12.07
11.33
11.00
11.00
10*73
10*40
AVG RATIO
(DAYS / AVG)
4,36
3.06
2.61
2.44
2.40
2.23
2.07
2.07
2.01
1,98
1.97
1.94
1.94
1.91
1.59
1.48
1,44
1.30
1.28
1.18
1.18
1,13
1.13
1.13
1.09
1,08
1.07
1,03
1,03
1,00
1,00
1,00
0,94
0,91
0,91
0.89
0,86
3-7
-------
PAGE 2
RANK
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
LOWEST
IRIS
USER NO,
341
170
325
171
182
152
181
211
191
338
344
339
236
337
186
201
109
345
103
217
197
299
363
183
157
346
358
347
336
283
296
272
355
343
210
352
NO. LOST
WKDY CASES
12
78
10
25
10
5
18
6
17
8
6
14
11
9
16
2
24
5
5
20
4
10
3
22
11
7
2
3
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
OSHA DAYS
LOST
124
791
92
229
89
44
154
50
140
65
48
110
86
67
117
13
140
29
28
108
21
52
15
106
46
29
8
10
3
7
4
3
1
1
1
0
AVG OSHA
DAYS LOST
10*33
10,14
9,20
9,16
8,90
8,80
8.56
8,33
8,24
8,12
8,00
7,86
7,82
7,44
7.31
6,50
5,83
5.80
5.60
5.40
5.25
5.20
5.00
4.82
4.18
4.14
4.00
3,33
3.00
2.33
2.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
AVG RATIO
(DAYS / AVG)
0.85
0.84
0,76
0.76
0.74
0,73
0,71
0,69
0.68
0,67
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.62
0,60
0,54
0,48
0,48
0,46
0,45
0,43
0.43
0.41
0.40
0.35
0.34
0.33
0.28
0.25
0.19
0.17
0.12
0,08
0,08
0,08
0,00
3-8
-------
IR--5
FIGURE 3-4 PAGE 1
DIRECT COSTS BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977
DEFINITIONS: DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES*
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITSr AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
(E.G. INJURY LEAVE) ONLY* INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED,
DIRECT COSTS PER MAN-YEAR IS THE COST PER FULL-TIME SANITATION
EMPLOYEE PER YEAR BASED ON 2*000 HOURS PER YEAR,
INSTRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
HOW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS,
A GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN ,50,
A POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1,25,
AVG
IRIS
USER
NO,
326
242
244
237
316
133
146
323
111
115
113
236
348
221
149
330
325
362
178
337
341
338
235
148
344
339
292
125
AVG
179
DIRECT COST/OSHA
NO. OSHA
RECORD
INJ
3 1
1
4
10
55
10
17
3
28
23
2
20
6
34
13
3
11
5
6
11
14
9
13
8
6
15
7
61
1*275
58
AVG
COST
1*249
6*877
1*260
974
907
902
891
860
702
680
643
602
598
596
584
583
578
577
538
521
513
468
466
458
447
433
414
401
394
385
RECORDABLE INJ
AVG RATIO
(AVG COST/AVG)
28,52
17,43
3,19
2,47
2.30
2.29
2,26
2.18
1,78
1,72
1.63
1.53
1.52
1.51
1.48
1,48
1,47
1.46
1,37
1.32
1.30
1,19
1.18
1.16
1.14
1.10
1.05
1.02
1.00
0,98
IRIS
USER
NO.
326
149
244
221
341
325
316
237
133
348
236
349
344
211
111
115
235
152
260
33.9
146
275
337
113
172
242
345
338
103
207
DIRECT COST
MAN-HRS
EXPOSURE
8*467
20*885
14*697
73*706
27*798
30*052
237*874
48*509
47*607
19*233
65*025
16*539
17*395
25*038
154*737
142*601
55*802
31*079
67*802
65*865
154*394
19*302
61*981
14*168
319*029
81*254
20*294
55*090
31*394
92*287
PER MAN
COSTS
PER M-Y
7*972
728
686
554
517
424
420
402
379
374
370
343
309
264
254
231
217
210
206
197
196
194
185
182
171
169
165
153
153
149
YEAR
AVG RATIO
(COSTS/AVG)
57.41
5.24
4,94
3.99
3,72
3,05
3.02
2.89
2.73
2,69
2.67
2.47
2,22
1.90
1.83
1.66
1,57
1,51
1,48
1.42
1.41
1,40
1.33
1,31
1,24
1,22
1,19
1,10
1.10
1.07
3-9
-------
PAGE 2
IG DIRECT COST/OSHA
IIS
!ER
10.
52
;49
09
70
72
18
24
75
71
11
81
45
60
65
53
61
97
58
82
17
26
91
50
07
86
03
83
40
01
96
163
147
,57
!0l
!04
!83
!99
uo
546
555
272
it*
354
* ťta
343
ť.,
329
T*ŤŤ.
333
j t .
361
**ť
351
NO. OSHA
RECORD
INJ
9
8
25
90
82
5
1
6
33
11
31
6
27
25
1
15
4
2
15
107
6
22
7
39
26
14
42
26
19
3
5
5
23
6
3
5
26
1
16
2
3
4
3
1
3
1
1
AVG
COST
359
354
339
338
333
313
312
312
311
300
287
278
258
258
252
251
251
247
222
222
212
190
183
175
168
167
156
153
147
146
143
132
130
123
116
94
87
80
68
54
53
51
51
40
26
20
20
RECORDABLE INJ
AVG RATIO
(AVG COST/AVG)
0*91
0.90
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.76
0.73
0.71
0.66
0.65
0.64
0.64
0.64
0*63
0*56
0.56
0,54
0*48
0*46
0*45
0*43
0*43
0*40
0*39
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.34
0.33
0.31
0*30
0*24
0*22
0,20
0.17
0.14
0.14
0,13
0,13
0,10
0,07
0,05
0.05
IRIS
USER
NO.
161
358
179
350
AVG
265
171
181
362
330
191
170
318
125
183
217
346
226
324
299
157
197
148
186
340
323
109
363
353
347
354
296
343
292
182
201
204
101
283
178
210
333
351
329
331
355
272
DIRECT COST
MAN-MRS
EXPOSURE
51,590
6,892
317,357
18,286
7,266,342
95,564
156,054
142,118
46,746
28,321
67,732
577,586
30,169
476,381
130,755
527,934
27,179
34,641
8,525
70,424
95,167
31,916
119,105
147,863
145,691
94,851
356,954
30,608
10,994
29,246
9,649
22,147
8,295
159,418
205,656
47,534
25,414
216,605
41,499
287,339
9,041
12,301
3,879
11,666
13,120
36,046
53,416
PER MAN
COSTS
PER M-Y
146
144
141
140
139
135
132
126
124
124
123
105
104
103
100
90
81
74
73
65
63
63
62
59
55
55
50
47
46
45
43
40
37
36
32
31
28
26
23
23
18
13
10
7
. 6
6
6
YEAR
AVG RATIO
(COSTS/AVG)
1.05
1.03
1.01
1.01
1.00
0.97
0,95
0,90
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.76
0.75
0.74
0.72
0.65
0.58
0.53
0.53
0,47
0.45
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.40
0.39
0.36
0,34
0.33
0.33
0.31
0,29
0,27
0.26
0.23
0.22
0.20
0.19
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.09
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
3-10
-------
PAGE 3
AVG
IRIS
USER
NO,
336
331
DIRECT COST/OSHA
NO, OSHA
RECORD
INJ
i
2
AVG
COST
20
20
RECORDABLE INJ
AVG
(AVG
RATIO
COST/AVG)
0,05
0,05
IRIS
USER
NO.
336
361
DIRECT COST
MAN-HRS
EXPOSURE
25^594
18^254
PER
MAN
COSTS
PER M-
Y
3
2
YEAR
AVG RATIO
(COSTS/AVG
0,02
0,02
3-11
-------
FIGURE 3-5
PAGE 1
DIRECT COSTS FOR LOST DAY CASES
BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
REPORTING PERIOD: JANUARY - MARCH 1977
DEFINITIONS: DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES,
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS, AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
-------
PAGE
IRIS USER
NO.
275
103
101
265
171
226r
260
170
207
217
109
345
340
182
324
350
183
186
353
197
358
191
201
157
296
363
347
299
346
283
210
343
272
355
336
364
NO* LOST DAY
CASES
4
5
5
15
25
3
17
78
17
20
24
5
11
10
1
4
22
16
1
4
2
17
2
11
2
3
3
10
7
3
1
1
2
1
1
0
TOTAL COST
If 779
2,099
2,040
6,081
10,000
1,188
6,617
30,128
6,293
7,326
8,457
If 650
3,576
3,237
312
1,144
5,650
4,087
252
1,005
495
4,114
463
2,443
436
646
592
1,625
850
323
80
72
140
50
20
0
AVG COST
LOST DAY Ci
445
420
408
405
400
396
389
386 ,
370
366
352
330
325
324
312
286
257
255
252
251
248
040
232
>?2'->
218
215
197
163
121
108
80
72
70
50
20
0
3-13
-------
STARTING I JANUARY,
FIGURE 3-6A
COMPARISON OF INJURY RATES AND OSHA DAYS LOST FOR ALL USERS
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
SEVERITY RATE
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
USER !
101
103
109
111
113
115
125
133
136
140
146
148
149
152
157
161
170
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
204
207
210
211
"-1 1 2
QTR 1
12
36
68
31
15
47
26
13
44
50
44
1 9
57
79
79
104
9
79
QTR 2
34
49
77
35
0
55
21
35
42
63
56
50
24
46
136
97
0
68
44
QTR 3
45
51
81
42
3
34
5
63
57
69
38
67
25
94
39
48
73
49
34
QTR 4 : QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
20 48 394 102 121 6.50 27.00 8.33 17.57
109 375 3.44
21 194 176 199 124 8.03 8.15 7,65 6,27
54 1112 1203 882 221 23.73 22.05 14.93 10.87
28 0 0.00
29 152 11.00
20 743 375 523 343 30.06 13.03 15.45 24,94
19 131 10.50
577 0 24 38.60 0.00 8.00
525 680 15.37 16.56
36 381 138 143 250 47.17 20,60 9.82 12.93
18 224 0 61 12.86 0.00 9.25
125 886 10.22
87 355 8.14
16 90 6.29
54 0 34 99 38 0.00 1.60 5.00 1.11
23 171 9,58
47 209 230 294 590 9,58 5.96 10.53 18,42
38 475 1087 444 362 14.56 26.81 11.23 20.85
18 106 11,07
30 429 314 22.60 17.55
51 369 148 264 427 11.48 4,26 6.89 13.04
12 22 4.60
38 161 6.31
23 105 279 102 108 12.25 22.00 8,22 7,36
47 188 150 232 505 4.00 5.11 4,62 15,73
32 ' 324 592 10.00 23,25
8 245 61.00
30 342 84 55 273 13.00 8,00 7,00 12,00
98 582 253 628 351 10,30 5,35 13.19 8.53
148 467 0 1347 3142 9,00 0.00 27.50 29.80
63 539 281 94 211 62.00 4.71 2.75 3,86
759 488 J 9.65 11.00
-------
OSIIA
USER ! QTR 1
215
217
221
226
235
236
237 .
242
244
260
261
265
272
275
283
285
286
000
* / Ťu
295
296
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
328
329
33O
331
333
336
0
66
89
45
4
135
68
48
34
17
34
20
0
9
26
56
INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 2
0
44
56
105
34
0
57
54
0
47
15
182
50
0
0
11
20
76
80
79
62
106
73
QTR 3
22
60
33
40
74
47
0
42
104
0
65
19
59
51
0
7
20
58
60
79
71
47
0
17
71
O
101
SEVERITY RATE AVERAGE OSIIA DAYS LOST
QTR 4 J QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 I QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
0 J 0 0 419 0 0.00 0.00 19,00 0.00
43 195 154 34 11.22 12,38 4.19
78 147 1022 4.50 13.07
18 0 0.00
36 330 0 0 51 6.00 0,00 0,00 2.80
57 1492 671 250 51 18,53 8.86 6.00 1,78
36 105 153 94 129 3,50 6.40 3.14 4.83
5 100 0 0 18 25.00 0.00 0,00 3.50
56 247 199 184 183 2.75 3,50 6.50 6.50
117 759 519 1190 1296 19.42 16,20 17,64 14.26
48 145 0 0 429 3,00 0,00 0.00 9.00
70 249 305 407 522 8.64 7.80 7.30 10.55
40 368 11 99 150 32,00 1,50 6.50 6.83
93 1944 79 384 10,67 2.67 9.25
19 0 134 118 10 0.00 8.00 3.50 2.00
39 0 2,00 0.00
39 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
5 814 20 15 7 86.00 4.33 2,75 3". 00
29 97 20 102 212 4,75 2,00 15,50 13,33
55 1398 2943 221 1765 25.00 51.50 5,75 32,17
45 158 28,00
29 907 426 300 17.05 12,82 16,32
46 2458 346 31.09 7.57
8 54 13.00
46 0 236 23 0.00 3.33 1.00
46 196 351 771 4.75 13.00 23,60
24 0 48 0.00 2.00
0 0 o.OO
50 106 102 17 2,00 6.00 1 . OO
44 245 79 850 5.0O 2.50 23. AO
0 00 0.00 0.00
99 5O 1219 2.OO 37. OO
23 62 2.67
-------
USER !
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 1 GTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
337
338
339
340
341
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
oj 350
^ 351
o> 353
354
355
358
359
361
362
363
AVG
f
67
48
36
117
76
40
46
50
38
25
36
29
58
75
11
10
29
20
34
50
42
51
35
129
33
88
57
23
4
10
33
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3
624
376
184
2073
151
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
463
404
315
QTR 4
262
191
202
296
737
50
80
627
95
20
192
125
96
101
122
388
16
4230
447
0
305
0
24'-'
QTR 1
QTR 3 QTR 4
9 . 29
7.78
5.12
19,50
2*00
6 ť 92
7.57
5,67
28.37
12,75
2.00
7,00
65 , 00
3.25
3,00
8.50
10,00
3,00
2,00
7.00
9.00
1,50
145.00
12,43
0 , 00
72 , 00
0.00
16,65 14.40
11.46
12.43
-------
USER
101
103
.1.09
111
113
1 1 5
.1.25
133
146
118
.1. 4 9
152
157
161
170
171
172
.1.78
u>
I 179
t^ 1 8 1
182
183
186
1 9 1
197
201
201
207
210
211
215
217
221
' QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
18
89
.1.4
36
28
32
26
42
''2
13
.1.24
58
48
58
31
42
51
4
37
44
15
64
35
65
2 5
25
24
85
22
88
0
41
92
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
60
178
78
353
339
512
289
664
273
163
1197
283
97
3 1 8
274
293
212
65
427
217
87
162
.1.58
4 1 3
132
55
0
459
22
399
0
41
1118
QTR 1
1 3 . 00
5.60
5.83
13.65
24.00
1 9 . 2 1
13.23
31.60
23.44
24.25
17.86
8.80
4.18
13.67
10.14
9 . 1 6
12.07
15.50
17.36
8 , 56
8 . 90
4,82
7.31
8,24
5 . 25
6.50
0.00
12.47
1 , 00
8.33
0.00
5,40
12.12
AVERAGE OSIIA DAYS
QTR 2 QTR
QTR
-------
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
USER ! OTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
226
235
236
237
242
244
260
261
265
272
275
203
286
2 9 2
295
296
299
316
3 .1 8
323
324
31' 5
31Y>
328
329
330
331
333
336
337
338
339
340
35
47
62
41
'>
Ať
54
80
0
52
11
62
24
0
9
0
27
74
46
33
6
23
73
71
0
17
21
30
49
16
35
33
46
36
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
191
50?
265
487
62
1007
714
0
326
11
591
34
0
179
0
36
148
759
272*
171
680
612
3732
0
0
332
0
0
23
216
236
334
162
AVERAGE OSHA DAYS LOST
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
11.00
12.91
7ť82
29.50
25.00
37.00
14.24
0.00
10.40
1.50
14.25
2.33
0.00
23.83
0.00
2.00
5.20
23.15
13.67
27.00
29.00
9.20
52.67
0.00
0.00
23.50
0.00
0.00
3.00
7.44
8.12
7.86
10,73
-------
USER !
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR
34.1
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
35.1.
353
354
355
350
359
^ 361
M 362
"° 363
AVG.
101
72
69
59
1 1 0
34
62
97
77
52
18
83
1 1
58
0
1.1
21
33
35
SEVERITY RATE
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3
092
24
552
286
2:1.3
68
707
1209
547
0
200
0
6
232
0
0
270
98
256
AVERAGE OSIIA DAYS LOST
QTR 4 QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR
10,33
1 ,00
0,00
5, 00
4.14
3,33
11,33
25.00
12.50
0,00
11,00
0,00
1,00
4.00
0.00
0,00
15,75
5,00
12.09
-------
FIGURE 3-7A
COMPARISON OF DIRECT COSTS BY REPORTING PERIOD FOR ALL USERS
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
USER ! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR
AVG, COST PER OSIIA REC. INJ.
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 G1TR 4
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 ' QTR
101
103
109
111
113
115
125
133
136
140
146
w 148
to 149
0 152
157
161
170
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
204
207
210
211
"* 1 2
4y210
13x513
53x238
48y010
1x970
39x842
12x010
135
3x582
26x708
HtSlO
1 x295
1x475
2x481
4 x 523
1x445
794
14x297
25x973
12 y 994
41 y 227
25 y 734
0
69x843
5x442
3x577
815
6x376
42x735
5x081
8x021
1 x 685
517
9x636
0
1x987
7x138
5x735
19x851
29x520
43x854
205
3 x 060
110
1 x 526
9x486
27x413
8x499
9x833
2x950
2x101
2y654
300
12x908
3x218
600
4x271
3x627
12x834
1 1 x 963
102
6x336
28x740
638
8x171
2x092
2x952
3x056
2x957
663
21x541
20x018
71x487
7y087
20 y 983
15 y 322
1x032
7x505
3x370
3x702
43x237
2x571
2x142
6x786
9x079
1x687
386
312
1x108
787
394
711
632
18
148
387
391
143
86
275
141
361
I 758
5 621
864
213
749
357
0
688
340
255
80
.1.63
547
153
471
120
39
235
0
248
549
130
275
467
461
205
117
36
93
243
274
424
209
163
70
442
50
403
1x609
145
213
203
351
278
51
301
598
2 1 2
291
190
227
218
369
47
315
571
Ir 211
262
437
425
82
312
198
231
8x647
1x285
535
150
1x297
195
<
51
112
755
247
58
331
161
5
65
193
176
27
49
217
1 1 1
374
68
488
291
104
576
125
0
382
72
89
34
102
304
76
113
54
54
228
0
168
243
58 41
24 /
139 7'/
378 151
14
87
195 119
39
6
40 105
1 34
284
190
60
60 25
72
139 267
190 459
48
161 129
139 218
9
119
40 45
65 108
172 2x750
103
23 162
292 147
788 1x914
51 131
-------
USER
215
2 1 7
221
226
235
236
237
242
2-14
260
261
265
l 272
N) O..7r;.
M 2 / ..,
283
285
op t
*- u l->
':> 9 '.'>
295
296
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
320
329
33O
331
333
3 3 A
I QTR 1
0
Irl05
12x768
604
6? 877
706
2 x 3 1 7
159
2x020
1x861
119
61
0
7 x 327
911
1 x982
*
TOTAL IN
OTR 2
0
86x968
725
9x550
1x813
0
904
5x620
0
8x216
109
1x437
1x346
0
0
894
578
16x786
35x939
92
2x159
153
1 xO53
JURY COST
QTR 3
4x846
29x978
1x045
240
8x223
1x583
0
748
8x797
0
14x019
1x224
272
1x890
0
483
1x172
1x256
24x016
14x061
491
4x736
0
378
48O
O
T* "~? "5
s
QTR 4 !
0
9x707
14x110
60
886
1x442
1x925
278
962
17x683
960
9x500
1x424
1x297
173
80
376
5x257
10x471
2x010
17x902
4x218
893
62
5x069
9:1
0
194
2ť822
O
2 , O44
AVG, COST
QTR 1 Q
0
197
608
201
6x877
1 1 7
110
159
214
620
59
61
0
3 v 6 6 3
177
991 2
PER 0311 A REC
FR 2 QTR 3
0 1x6 1 5
948 211
253
48 21
329 357
259 143
0 0
226 249
330 258
0 0
455 519
27 244
239 45
147 210
0
0 0
127 96
96 195
x098 209
598 338
1x278
30 163
359 676
0
66 338
3 tii 1 S3
O
5S
* INJ.
QTR 4
0
86
491
20
88
80
218
139
240
442
960
306
129
144
43
80
94
477
1x745
125
511
587
205
31
716
91
0
64
47O
O
34O !
AVERAGE
QTR 1
0
130
541
90
274
158
75
76
74
107
20
12
0
346
46
554
COST
QTR 2
0
418
26
344
86
0
128
180
0
213
4
436
75
0
0
13
19
1 x 598
478
24
222
81
257
PER MAN
QTR 3
356
128
85
8
263
67
0
105
269
0
339
46
26
106
0
6
38
120
204
1x010
115
319
0
&4
37
o
5c5
YEAR
QTR 4
0
37
393
3
31
45
85
7
135
518
457
213
52
131
i
2 I
I
13 ?
95 '
5 i
14 >
27 i
1 ;
1
33
2
<
3;
2O5
O
336
-------
USER ! QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 3 QTR A
QTR 2
AVG, COST PER OSIIA RECť INJ.
! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR
to
I
to
ro
337 i
338
339
340
341
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
353
354
355
358
359
361
362
363
AVG.
11*442 7x664
6*431 4*968
3x152 6x265
10x803
9x864 4ť644
341 453
318
1x670
619
331
1x172
729
393
64
238
1x193
165
3 x 953
2x061
40
1x934
31
280x735 443x123 335x214 487x615
509
481
817
714
394
896
170
313
638
709
522
491
572
151
318
1x670
154
110
390
182
98
64
1 1 9
198
27
1x317
187
20
1x934
31
405
549
345
141
1x048
128
204
223
15!
24
17
18,
14'
331
11;
3.;
132
91
41
32
41
256
9
1x153
105
4
81
135
-------
COMPARISON OF DIRECT COSTS DY REPORTING PERIOD POR ALL USERS
USER
.1 0 1
103
109
1 1 1
1 1 3
1 1 5
125
133
146
148
149
i !-;'>
.1. \J .V-
i 57
161
w 170
M 171
w 172
178
179
1 8 1
182
183
186
191
197
201
204
207
210
211
215
2 1 7
221
! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
2 , 808
2v399
8*936
19*674
1 ,286
16 ť 43 8
24 * 4 82
9 ť 022
15 y 160
3r669
7,598
3 r 265
3,006
3,770
30*460
10 y 280
27,355
3x233
22x334
8^922
3v337
6x558
4,308
4x182
1 y 005
741
350
6x857
80
3,306
0
23,767
20,431
QTR 1 QTR 2 C1TR 3 QTR 4
147
167
339
702
643
680
401
902
891
458
584
359
130
251
338
311
333
538
385
287
'> '> '>
*., A.. *..
156
168
190
251
123
1 1 6
175
80
300
0
':> T> r>
596
QTR 1
25
152
50
254
1 8 1
230
102
379
196
61
727
210
63
146
105
131
171
/-,,->
140
125
32
100
59
123
62
31
27
148
17
264
0
9O
554
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
-------
USER !
226
235
236
237
242
244
260
261
265
272
275
283
286
292
**ť 295
w 296
*" 299
316
318
323
324
325
326
328
329
330
331
333
336
337
338
339
340
QTR 1
1 x 276
6x068
12x041
9x743
6x877
5x040
6x984
0
6x452
160
1x872
473
0
2x903
0
440
2x275
49x919
1 x566
2x596
312
6x365
33x749
0
40
1x749
40
79
40
5x740
4x213
6x495
3x996
TOTAL INJURY
QTR 2 QTR
COSTS
3 QTR 4
AUG. COST PER OSHA REC. INJ,
! QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
466
602
974
6x877
1x260
258
0
258
53
3.1.2
94
0
414
0
146
87
907
313
860
312
578
11x249
0
40
583
20
26
20
521
468
433
153
AVERAGE COST PER MAN YEAR
QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR '
73
217
370
401
169
685
206
0
135
5
193
22
0
36
0
39
64
419
103
54
73
423
7x971
0
6
123
6
12
3
185
152
197
54
-------
USER
QTR 1
TOTAL INJURY COSTS
QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4
co
1
to
Ul
341
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
353
354
355
350
359
361
362
363
AUG.
7v 185
.1.54
2v687
1 ,672
lf 101
662
3ť592
2v033
1ť2B2
20
252
206
108
495
0
20
2ť888
715
504 1-474
AV(3. COST PER
! QTR 1 OTR 2
513
51
447
278
60
132
598
354
183
20
252
51
54
247
0
20
577
143
394
OSIIA REC, 1NJ. AVERAGE COST PER MAN
QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3
516
37
308
164
81
45
373
342
140
10
45
42
143
0
p
123
138
YEAR
QTR 4
-------
APPENDIX A
DETAILED DEFINITIONS
A-l
-------
Appendix A
DEFINITIONS
Average. In reviewing your FIGURES, the data for the
AVERAGE (shown as AVG on the FIGURES) summarizes the results
for all users. Your organization is compared with the
AVERAGE in the average ratio column. The average ratio
equals your organization's rate divided by the AVERAGE rate,
and can be used to determine whether your organization's
rates are "good" or "poor". An average ratio of 1.25 (25%
above the AVERAGE rate) is normally considered to be poor,
while an average ratio of below .50 is considered good.
Average ratios between .50 and 1.25 are considered average
for the solid waste management industry as shown by IRIS
data. However, it should be recognized that since the
injury rate for the solid waste management industry is
several times higher than other industries, a good or
average injury rate may still be a high rate.
Direct Costs. Direct costs are normally those for which
money was actually expended and include worker's compensation,
medical expenses, and wage continuation benefits (e.g.,
injury leave). There are many indirect costs such as down
time, replacement time, lost time by witnesses and supervisors,
etc., which are not included in these figures. Indirect
costs are estimated to be 5 times the direct costs
according to the National Safety Council.
Average Direct Costs per OSHA Recordable Injury. An
average direct cost per OSHA recordable injury of $500
means that on the average each OSHA recordable injury (i.e.,
a non-first-aid case) is costing the organization $500!
Direct Cost per Man-Year. It shows the cost per 2,000 hours
or the average cost per year per employee. A direct cost
per man-year of $200 would mean that on the average an
organization's injuries are costing $200 per employee per
year.
OSHA Recordable Injury. An injury that REQUIRED medical
treatment administered by a physician or by a registered
professional personnel under standing orders of a physician,
or one that resulted in light duty, lost workdays, permanent
disability or a fatality.
OSHA Incidence Rate. It is a measure of the frequency of
injuries. The OSHA incidence rate is the number of OSHA
recordable injuries per 200,000 hours of exposure. The base
figure of "200,000 hours" is the standard figure used in
OSHA statistics. It is roughly equivalent to 100 full-time
employees working a year or 100 man-years (i.e., 100
A-2
-------
employees working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year).
OSHA incidence rates can be thought of as being roughly
equivalent to the number of injuries that will occur to
100 employees during a year. Therefore, an OSHA incidence
rate of 37 means that the organization is having 37 injuries
per year for each 100 employees or that, on the average, 1
out of every 3 employees are being injured. The national
average OSHA incidence rate for all industries has been
around 10 for the last several years.
OSHA Incidence Rate for Lost Workday Cases. It is exactly
the same as that for all OSHA recordable injuries, except
that only lost time cases are counted. That is, it shows
the number of lost workday injuries per 100 man-years worked.
For organizations familiar with the ANSI (American National
Standards Institute) Z16.1 injury rates, they will find the
OSHA incidence rate for lost workday cases very nearly equal
to 1/5 the ANSI rate. Those organizations wishing to
compare OSHA and ANSI rates should multiply the OSHA rate
shown in column 2 of FIGURE 2-3 by five- (Note; this is
only an approximation of an ANSI rate.)
Severity Rate. The severity rate is similar to the OSHA
incidence rate, except that it reflects the number of
OSHA days lost (i.e., workdays lost and light duty days),
instead of the number of injuries, per 100 man-years worked.
For example, a severity rate of 500 would mean roughly that
an organization is losing 500 workdays for every 100
employees per year, or that on the average each employee
is losing 5 days a year for on-the-job injuries.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF ALL USERS
B-l
-------
DESCRIPTION OF USERS BY OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
User
Number
101
103
109
7 111
to
113
115
125
133
136
140
146
148
149
152
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
South
Midwest
Midwest
West
Midwest
South
South
Northwest
South
South
South
Northeast
Midwest
Midwest
No. of
Employees
325
80
500
280
33
300
650
86
140
844
295
267
65
63
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A
BY/CS/A
BY/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS/A/ BY
M/A
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
CS
Type
of
Shift
T/F
T
F
T
T
T/F
T
T
F
T
T
T
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
4
3
4,3
2
1,2
3
2
3,1
3
1,2,3
2
2
Comm.
4
1
1,2
1
1,2
1
1,2
2
Resid.
&
Comm.
2
3
4
Disposi
L=Landfill
I=Incinerc
T=Trans . !
L
L
L.I
L.I
L
L
L,T
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
157
161
170
W
1
w 171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
M Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
Midwest
South
Midwest
West
South
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
South.
South
West
N- ,-!,Ť,= -..
No. of
Employees
203
125
1481
370
700
629
532
278
470
308
297
177
86
,
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY-Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS/A
CS/BYC/A
A
M/CS/A
CS
CS
BY
CS
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
T
T/F
T/F
T
T
T
T
T
T
T/F
T
i
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
2
3,1
1,2,3,4
5
3
1,3,2
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
Coiran.
2
2,3,4,5
2
3
2
3
1
.2,1
Resid.
&
Comm.
2
2
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L.T
L
T
L
L.I
I.T
L
L
L
L
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
204
207
210
W
1 211
212
215
217
221
226
235
236
237
242
244
M Municipal
P^Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
West
West
West
West
South
South
West
South
South
South
Midwest
South
West
No. of
Employees
52
205
15
40
130
60
820
210
. 87
125
103
90
101
30
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/A/M
BYC
CS
CS/A
CS/A
CS/BY/BYT
CS/A/BY
CS
CS
BYT/A/CS
CS
A/ BYC
CS/BY/BYT/A
BYT/ BYC
Type
of
Shift
F
T
T
T
F
T/F
F
T
T
T
T/F
T/F
T/F
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
1,3
3
2
3
1,2,3
2
3
3
3
3
2
Conun.
1,3
2
2
1
1,3
3
1
3
1,2
Resid.
&
Comm.
1,2
2
3
Dispos.
L=Landfil
I=Inciner;
T=Trans . !
L
L
L.T
L
L
L,T
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
260
261
265
7 272
en
275
283
285
286
292
295
296
299
316
318
M Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
West
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Northwest
South
West
Northeast
Northeast
N"or tliwest
No. of
Employees
168
8
200
127
40
72
79
8
225
179
43
113
475
48
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS/BYT/A/M
CS/A
CS/BYT/BYC
CS
CS
CS/A
A/BYT/BYC
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/BY
CS/A/BY
CS
CS/A/BYT
A/CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
T
T
T
T/F
T
F
F
T
F
T
F
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
1,2
3
1,2
3
3
2
3
1,3
4
1
3
2,3
3
Comm.
2,3
2
3
3,1
2
2
2,1
3
2,3
3
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans, Stn.
L
L
L,T
L,I
L,T
L,T
L
L
L
L
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
323
324
325
tt)
Ťk 326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
335
336
337
M-Municipal
P=Private
M
P
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
P
P
M
Geograph.
Area
Northeast
Midwest
Northwest
South
South
Midwest
West
South
Midwest
West
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
No. of
Employees
171
17
45
23
140
33
20
60
35
14
43
24
51
405
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A= Alley
BY-Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT-Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS/A/BYT/BYC
CS/A
CS
CS
CS
CS
A/CS
CS/A
-
BY
CS
-
CS
Type
of
Shift
T
T
F
T
T
T/F
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
F
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Resid.
2,1
3
3
2,1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Comm.
1,2,3
3
2,3
2
2,1
3
2
1
2,1
Resid.
&
Comm.
3
1,2
3
Disposa
L=Landfill
I=Incinera
T=Trans . S
L
L
L
I,L
T
L
L
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
338
339
340
da
i 341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
35V
M-Municipal
P=Private
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
M
Geograph.
Area
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
West
Midwest
West
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Northeast
West
Midwest
West
West
No. of
Employees
405
405
318
35
25
17
40
38
70
60
35
40
57
vo
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyard-Cart
CS=Curbside
CS
CS
CS
CS/A
CS
CS
CS/A
-
A/CS
CS
CS/A
CS/BYT
CS
CS/A
Type
of
Shift
F
F
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
T
T
T
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
3
3
3
2
1
1
2,3
2
1,2,3
2
2
2 j
Conun.
2,1
2
1
1
2
I
Resid.
Comm.
2
4
2
3
Disposal
L=Landfill
I=Incinerator
T=Trans. Stn.
L
L.I.T
L
T
-------
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CONTINUED
User
Number
353
354
355
tfl _c ,
I 356
CO
358
359
360
361
362
363
M=Municipal
P=Private
M
M
P
P
M
P
P
M
M
M
Geograph.
Area
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
Northeast
South
Midwest
Northwest
West
Northeast
South
No. of
Employees
20
30
70
21
18
71
30
44
76
75
Point of Collection:
M=Mechanical
A=Alley
BY=Backyard w/o intermed. can
BYT=Backyard-Tub
BYC=Backyar d-Car t
CS=Curbside
CS
BYT
CS/BY
_
BYC/CS
CS
-
-
CS
CS/A/BY
Type
Of
Shift
F
T
T
F
T
T
F
T
T
Type of Service Provided
Coll. Crew Size(s)
Res id.
3
2
3
2
4,3
1,4
Conun.
1,2
1
2
1,2
1
Resid.
&
Comni.
3
Disposal
L= Landfill
I=Incinerat(
T=Trans . S tt
L,T
L,T
-------
IRIS NEWSFLASH
-------
EXHIBIT 11
VOL, 1
No, 1
JANUARY 1977
Two very serious accidents occurred recently which highlight two danger areas:
riding on the step while the truck is backing, and unlatching a compactor or
tailgate at the landfill. These accidents are described so that users are made aware
of how serious mistakes can be and to be on the lookout in preventing these accidents
at your organization.
1. RIDING STEP WHILE TRUCK IS BACKING
Several IRIS users have a safety rule prohibiting this and others have discussed
this. This accident occurred in a city which has this rule.
According to the accident report, the accident took place in a dead-end "T" street
in which the driver was backing up to collect. His two helpers were riding on the
rear step. One helper was standing on the right rear side step and the other was
standing next to him, holding onto the overhead hand rail. The helper on the
right decided to operate the packing mechanism to compact the Chirstmas tree that
was in the hopper. He warned his co-worker standing next to him that he was going to
complete the packing cycle but his co-worker had to move to avoid the hopper sill
which raised up nine inches when compacting and to avoid the branches swinging around.
The weather conditions were rain and cold, and his gloves were soaked. The employee
lost his hand grip and foothold and fell under the wheels of the backing vehicle.
The vehicle was full, weighing close to ten tons. The left rear wheel traveled
over his knee to his abdomen. The employee subsequently lost his leg. He came close
to losing his life, and the driver is still having problems adjusting to the shock
caused by the accident.
By observing the following safe work rules, this accident could have been prevented:
Do not ride on the back of the step while the vehicle is backing.
Both employees should be visible to the driver in his side mirrors at
all times to direct him as he backs.
Do not operate the packing mechanism while riding on the step.
^vision of WSA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 4 452-1010
-------
2. UNLATCHING A COMPACTOR OR TAILGATE
This was mentioned as a frequent accident type in the first issue of Accident
Trends. This injury occurred to a commercial collection worker and involved a
roll-off truck. According to the accident report, the employee apparently was at til
landfill opening up the rear door of the 32 cubic yard compactor bin. The door
was hinged on the right. The container was picked up from a department store that
tended to overfill the container. There were no witnesses, and the injured employee
was discovered near the truck. The compactor door was slightly ajar. According to
the investigation findings, it is believed that what happened is probably as follows:
He pushed up on the handle to release the rear door. The handle is located three
feet from the rear on the left side. Thinking that the door was opened, he went
to the rear, and the door "popped open". The investigators believe that the over-
filling of the container "hung up" the door momentarily. The employee was struck on
the chin by the door knob, knocking him down. He has lost the use of all his
limbs and requires a respirator. It is anticipated that his injury may cost up
to $250,000.
This injury could have been prevented by being aware of the dangers of being at
the back of the vehicle when emptying it:
Do not stand where you could possibly be hit by a vehicle part that is
likely to swing open under pressure. Stand to the side of it, away from
the direction of the swing.
If there is a way of releasing pressure from the compacted load, do so
prior to opening the rear door, and allow enough time for full release
of the pressure.
This injury might also have been prevented if more stringent container regulations
were enforced against the collection customers who overfill their containers.
28.411.012677
-------
EXHIBIT 12
VOL. 1
No, 2
MAY 1977
"PACKING ON THE RUN"
Two other riding on equipment accidents recently occurred which prompts IRIS to urge
you to examine this activity at your organization. These injuries have serious im-
plications that may indicate that "packing on the run" should be prohibited. Efficiency
may need to be weighed against safety.
1, FALLING FROM STEP INTO HOPPER
According to the injured employee, he was riding on the extended right rear step of
a rear-end loader. The vehicle was moving forward at approximately 15 mph. Instead
of maintaining a secure hold on the vertical grab handle provided, he was adjusting
his left glove. To do this, he had hooked his left elbow on the grab handle and was
using his right hand to pull his glove down tighter on his left hand.
As the driver moved the vehicle to the curb for a pickup, the shift in motion caused
the employee to pivot into the hopper. Fortunately, the hopper was not operating at
the time.
The employee sustained contusions to his foot, which struck the hopper lip as he fell
into the hopper, and contusions to his back. Finally, as the employee tried to get
out of the hopper, he strained his back. Noticing the disappearance of his coworker,
the driver left the cab and found him in the street in a great deal of pain.
By observing the following safe work rules, this accident might have been prevented.
The rider should:
Have both hands gripped on the available handholds.
Have both feet placed firmly on the step and slightly apart.
Keep close to the vehicle and be alert for hazards at all times.
Division of WSA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
The driver should:
Signal direction changes before he makes them.
Make sure the rider on the step is visible at all times.
2. FELL FROM STEP WHILE HOPPER WAS OPERATING
In this accident, the hopper was operating when both turnbuckles broke. The employee
riding on the rear step was raised ten feet into the air. He fell from the step
bruising his hips. What caused the turnbuckles to break is unknown. However, these
possible causes were suggested:
Malfunction of hydraulic bypass
Metal fatigue (aging of turnbuckles)
"Shock loading" (loosening the turnbuckles to put more in the packer?
overloading it pushes the tailgate out some)
While regular maintenance and proper use of equipment are both serious deterrents,
the operating hopper was the determining factor in this case. The employee in the
first accident is probably alive because the hopper was not operating. IRIS sug-
gests that if your organization allows "packing on the run," you should take a
second look at your policy. In addition, employees should be made well aware Of
the potential hazards of an operating hopper and the necessary caution it demands.
One user has told IRIS that they have their foremen read the injuries described in
"IRIS Newsflash" to their employees.
-------
EXHIBIT 13
VOL, 1
No, 3
JUNE 1977
The following is a description of a near fatal accident caused by one form of
ilangerdus waste. Could a similar accident occur in your region?
'IXPLODIN6 "BOMB"
an employee was loading trash in a residential district, he picked up something
'"which looked like a piece of pipe. Assuming it was of no value, he tossed it to
;B:the ground where it exploded. Both his legs were injured and subsequently had
% be amputated. Costs are estimated to be at a minimum of a quarter million
Hollars.
Ifter the bomb squad investigated, it was learned that the seemingly harmless
object was an anti-tank missile. Apparently it had been scavenged from a military
Installation as a souvenir, and then carelessly discarded. As a result of this
accident, a "clean up" campaign was held whereby people could turn in unauthorized
weapons and ammunition with no questions asked. The response was overwhelming,
perhaps in part due to the local publicity and the all too vivid example of how
dangerous these souvenirs can be.
The following steps could help prevent similar occurrences at other organizations:
Train the collectors to recognize potentially dangerous
waste, and include instructions for how to deal with it.
Many users instruct employees to call their supervisor if
they recognize a bomb or explosive, and then to wait at
the scene until a qualified person arrives to cope with
the problem.
Customers should be informed about the dangers of
throwing away explosives. A clean up campaign where
people can turn in unauthorized weapons and ammunition
with impunity is a good idea not only to eliminate
quantities of dangerous materials, but also to alert
people to their hazards.
IRIS - Injury'Reporting Information System
Division of WSA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-S359 & 452-1010
-------
EXHIBIT 14
VOL, 1
No, 4
SEPTEMBER 1977
CATCHING OBJECTS FALLING FROM
OPERATING PACKER
lain, IRIS must warn its users of the dangers of putting hands near an operating
(pper; another employee lost his finger this way. The employee was standing by
ie hopper as his coworker loaded a piece of wood. The wood began falling out as
iwas being packed. In order to avoid being hit by the wood, he tried to catch
*, However, the packer blade depressed the wood, catching his fingers between
je wood and the edge of the hopper.
[stressed repeatedly, employees should:
i
I 1. Stand clear of operating packer.
; 2. Do not attempt to catch falling waste.
3. Do not attempt to push back falling waste.
4. Lay boards crosswise in the hopper so they do not
stick out or swing about when compacted.
ACCIDENTALLY OPERATING PACKER. WRONG
ťemployees got their hands caught by the packer blade when they accidentally
grated the packing mechanism wrong. One employee was pulling on a plastic bag
Sat was stuck in the hopper with his left hand and accidentally pushed the wrong
pon with his right. The packer blade caught his left arm and hand, cutting and
Rising it. His injury resulted in 17 days lost.
* second case occurred in the truck parking lot. The employee was removing the
jta*s tubs from the hopper before leaving for the route. The packer blade was up
pr inches, and he was attempting to raise it further. However, he had his left
""a resting on the edge of the hopper as he turned the lever the wrong way. The
IRIS - Injury-Reporting Information System
Division of USA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
packer blade came down instead of up and amputated his first two fingers. He was
off for 33 days, and his injury has cost $2,200 so far in direct costs (e.g. medical
expenses, leave benefits).
In addition to retraining the employees on how to safely operate the packing mechanisms
(e.g. operate with the left hand), several equipment modifications are applicable:
1 Two-handed controls so employees will not have a free hand
to reach into hopper.
2 . Recessed start button where it cannot be accidentally pushed
(applicable to first accident).
HAZARDOUS WASTES
The following is an excerpt of a near-fatal accident printed in Solid Waste Notes,
(Volume 11, June 1977) by the Virginia State Department of Health, Bureau of Solid
Waste and Vector Control. Knowing users' interest in hazardous wastes, IRIS is
bringing it to your attention.
"Recently, a dump truck came into a Southside Virginia landfill
with two drums on board. The landfill operator got off his
bulldozer to tell the truck driver not to dump the load. He was
too late. As the drums slid down the truck bed, they exploded
and the operator was caught in the fireball. Other landfill
personnel, all of whom had been trained in first aid, took care
of the victim until the rescue squad came and took him to a local
hospital where he was found to have third-degree burns over ten
percent of his body.
The man is probably alive today because the landfill superintendent
insists that his people wear safety shoes, hard hats, a face mask,
and safety goggles. The mask and goggles no doubt prevented serious
face burns, but, most important, the dust respirator probably saved
the man's lungs.
The company delivering the waste (which was a mixture of highly
volatile solvents) had been told several years ago not to bring
the material to the landfill. The company had complied until
this load. Rumor has it that someone in the plant put the drums
on the wrong loading dock."
-------
\R\S NEWS
-------
EXHIBIT 15
VOL, I
No, 1
APRIL 1977
In response to the requests of many users, the first "IRIS News" will discuss
equipment modifications. More and more users are examining their equipment in
regard to employee safety and comfort. Equipment modification is one method
through which improvement in these areas may be accomplished. In this "IRIS
News" the advantages and disadvantages of selected modifications will be dis-
cussed. Upcoming "IRIS News" will deal with topics such as container regula-
tions and worker's compensation rules. If there are any particular topics you
would like to see addressed, please let IRIS know.
I. HEIL REAR-END LOADER
The following illustration shows two additions to the back of a Heil rear-end
loader to improve riding comfort. This user has added: (1) a horizontal grab
handle, and (2) a rear step that protrudes approximately 7 inches from the back
of the vehicle and extends the full width of the vehicle. Factors to consider
in implementing these modifications include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Slip resistance of step.
Slip resistance of grab handle.
Comfort of height of step. (ANSI-Z245.1 recommends 22 inches above the
road surface.)
Comfort of height of handle.
Strength of step. (ANSI-Z245.1 recommends that it can
ly distributed load of not less than 1,000 pounds. )
'carry a uniform-
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications is to disseminate new ideas and
alternative methods in the solid waste field. IRIS serves as a clearinghouse
in this regard, but does not promote or endorse any method or product. Imple-
mentation of "IRIS News" suggestions should be done only after careful evalua-
tion by each user and at each user's discretion.
Division of HSA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 I, 452-1010
-------
6. Strength of grab handle. (ANSI recommends that it be "capable of with-
standing a pull of 500 pounds." The user whose truck is pictured did re-
port problems with the horizontal handle bending outwards over time.)
\ -r / J * *"7.* " - ^St^bSfe
Grab Handle
Full Width 1" Step
II. MAXON SHU-PAK SIDE LOADER WITH A MACK CHASSIS
The following illustration points out several safety features that were added
by one user to a Maxon Shu-Pak side loader with a Mack chassis:
1. Cut-out on left cab door. The right-hand, rather than the left-hand,
drive is used on this one-man collection route while the employee col-
lects. Therefore, visibility was poor for the left side of the vehicle
prior to this modification, and an accident involving a pedestrian
occurred.
2. Fish-eye mirrors on both sides of the vehicle were added for increased
visibility.
-------
Support for climbing up to repair the auxiliary engine was necessary to
prevent slips and falls to the repairmen. A step was added on the wheel
fender as well as a ladder leading to the engine.
Slip resistant running boards. A diamond, open-mesh pattern was installed
to aid in safer getting in and out of the cab.
Open Mesh Step
-------
III. WHEEL BLOCKS
A number of injuries have occurred where the vehicle was parked on an incline
and rolled back, striking an employee. One IRIS user has implemented the addi-
tion of wheel blocks as part of the standard equipment on each collection ve-
hicle. They are secured over each rear wheel. Employees are trained to use
them any time the driver leaves the cab.
Wheel Block
Wheel
Block
Holder
Of course, any equipment modification should be accompanied with training the
the employees on its proper usage.
"IRIS News" plans to discuss additional equipment modifications in future
issues. Has your organization made any equipment modifications that you would
like to share with other users? Please let IRIS know. A description, pictures/
slides (so IRIS can have illustrations made), and makes and models of equipment
involved, are helpful pieces of information. Cities submitting ideas will be
acknowledged unless otherwise requested. ^ .
A calendar, including information on meetings and activities of interest to the
solid waste industry, will be a feature in upcoming issues. If there is any
event you'd like to inform other "IRIS News" readers of, please let us know a
month before it is scheduled to take place.
-------
EXHIBIT 16
VOL, I
No. 2
MAY 1977
Have you ever looked for information on safety in the solid waste industry? Nhat
do you think should go in a safety manual? Here is your opportunity to have your
say. SAFETY SCIENCES, as an output of the IRIS program and through a contract
with the National Science Foundation, is developing a safety manual for the solid
waste industry. We would like you to tell us what you think is needed. You are
also invited to share safety ideas or methods that you have found effective. The
completed manual will incorporate the knowledge of all IRIS users, and serve as
an encyclopedic reference on safety in solid waste collection.
Among the points that will be covered in the manual are hazards, work rules, con-
tainer regulations, collection systems, training programs, protective clothing
guidelines, equipment modifications and maintenance, recordkeeping ideas, and
counter-measures proven and unproven. The safety manual will include sections on:
hazards and the specific countermeasures (e.g., training, equipment modifica-
tions) needed to control the hazards, a management guide on safety, how to start
a safety program or improve on an existing system, and an injury cost accounting
guide. The following topics are ones on which we need more information, do you
have material on any of the subjects? If you do, please try and get it to us by
June 1, 1977.
Descriptions of effective safety programs or countermeasures you have im-
plemented.
Safety success stories - case histories.
Safety philosophy - an explanation of your safety program's purpose. Who's
involved and how your goals will be met.
Public awareness programs - how to encourage the public to cooperate with
containing waste safely.
Employee safety incentives and safety awareness programs.
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications is to disseminate new ideas and
alternative methods in the solid waste field. IRIS serves as a clearinghouse
in this regard, but does not promote or endorse any method or product. Imple-
mentation of "IRIS News" suggestions should be done only after careful evalua-
tion by each user and at each user's discretion.
Division of WSA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
Statistics on cost/benefit of safety programs.
Training programs.
Disciplinary procedures.
Injury investigation procedures - who do you interview - the employee,
supervisor, witnesses? Do you make outside visits? For which injuries are
investigations carried out?
New equipment - e.g., satellite vehicles, mechanized side loaders.
e Equipment bidding specifications.
Equipment inspection check forms.
Photographs - illustrating safety modifications to equipment.
Names of contributing cities may be cited in the text unless otherwise requested.
If you have any questions, call Catriona Tudor, Editor, (714) 755-9359.
A common complaint of wheeled cart users,
and a potential accident factor, is the
build up of dirt or ice on the wheels.
The accumulated material can act as a
brake and may make the cart both awkward
and difficult to handle. An employee
with User #109 has come up with a solu-
tion. He suggested that a metal piece
be attached to the cross support of the
cart frame; far enough to allow the wheel
to rotate, but close enough, about 1/2",
to scrape off the collected material ef-
fectively. This suggestion has been suc-
cessfully implemented by the department
which reported that it was a great help
during the winter months.
What employees' suggestions has your or-
ganization implemented? "IRIS News" would
like to hear about them.
-------
Brake failure is one of the most costly and common causes of traffic accidents.
To help prevent this, one IRIS user has developed a brake testing system that
allows them to identify potential problems before they become hazards.
To check the pull and skid directions of their vehicles' brakes, drivers period-
ically are required to go through the following test. A portable, remotely con-
trolled street light, that flashes red and green is set up in a test area. Driv-
ers approach at 25 mph and react to the signal, slamming on their brakes when the
signal turns red. Brakes and skid directions are checked. This technique could
be used to examine the reaction time of drivers. A routine check of all lights
on the vehicles is also performed at this time.
CALENDAR
May 1977
May 18,19,20 & 21 National Solid Waste Management Association's
International Haste Equipment & Technology Exposition
Safety Seminar being conducted on the 21st.
New Orleans, Louisiana.
May 18 Los Angeles Regional Forum on Solid Haste Management's 1977
Symposium^Long Beach, California.
May 18-20 National Safety Council Industrial Conference.
Chicago, Illinois (O'Hare Hilton).
May 25 Western Safety Congress in Anaheim, California GRCDA is
conducting a session for solid waste industry on 25th.
June 1977
June 2 & 3 University of Wisconsin Extension, Department of Engineer-
ing's "Safety in Solid Waste Collection."
June 13-16 Mid Year Meeting of Public Employee Section of National
Safety Council (includes refuse collection and disposal
committee meeting).
Comingupin June, IRIS with the Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal Asso-
ciation (GRCDA) and the National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA) will
be co-sponsoring seminars in the east and midwest on safety in the solid waste
Industry. Participants will also have an opportunity to evaluate the IRIS pro-
gram in terms of both their current and future needs. Additional information
will be coming to you through the mail.
-------
EXHIBIT 17
VOL, I
No, 3
JUNE 1977
What is the ANSI Z245.1 Standard? In the April issue of "IRIS News" equipment
modifications and their relationship to the ANSI Z245.1 were discussed. This
article gives background information on the standard.
The ANSI Z245.1 is a safety standard for refuse collection and compaction equip-
ment. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a private foundation,
working with safety experts, equipment manufacturers, solid waste collection
managers, insurers, and government officials finalized the standard in October
of 1975. The ANSI Z245.1 standard specifies safety requirements applicable to
mobile and stationary compaction equipment employed for solid waste collection.
Specific mobile equipment covered are rear loaders, side loaders, front loaders,
roll-off (tilt frame) hoist vehicles, hoist-type vehicles, special collection
compaction vehicles, and satellite vehicles. The standard applies to both Com-
mercial/Industrial and Apartment/Institutional type stationary compactors. Con-
tainers are not covered by the Z245.1 standard but are the subject of a related
standard, ANSI Z245.3 - 1977, Safety Requirement for the Stability of Refuse.
Mobile equipment manufactured before March 1978,and stationary compactors that
were manufactured before last March are not accountable to the standard.
The ANSI safety requirements apply to the operation as well as the design and
construction of collection and compaction equipment. For example, the employer
is charged with the responsibility for making regular inspection of equipment,
keeping records of inspections, and undertaking appropriate maintenance. Em-
ployees, for their part, must report any damage or malfunction of the equipment
as quickly as practicable.
Implementation of the ANSI Z245, like its development, is voluntary. However,
ANSI standards are national consensus standards which serve as the basis for
guidelines for government and industry. As national consensus standards they
reflect the "state-of-the-art" with respect to product design and use. They are
often cited in court cases. In addition, ANSI standards are frequently adopted
by federal, state and local units of government as mandatory standards. In the
case of this standard, the Waste Equipment Manufacturers' Institute (WEMI),
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications is to disseminate new ideas and
alternative methods in the solid waste field. IRIS serves as a clearinghouse
in this regard, but does not promote or endorse any method or product. Imple-
mentation of "IRIS News" suggestions should be done only after careful evalua-
tion by each user and at each user's discretion.
Division of HSA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 93121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
which represents more than 70 of the leading waste equipment manufacturers, has
agreed to sponsor a certification program for newly manufactured equipment that
meets the standard. Beginning in January, 1978, equipment models that have been
certified will bear a special WEMI seal. Manufacturers are not the only ones
implementing the standard. Purchasers of refuse collection and compaction equip-
ment are including sections of the standards in their bidding specifications.
Both efforts will lead to a new and better inventory of solid waste management
vehicles and equipment.
Hand in hand with the ANSI Z245.1 standard which deals with solid waste equip-
ment, is the ANSI Z245.3 standard for the stability of refuse bins. This stan-
dard, which was approved in December, 1976, directs itself primarily at bins de-
signed to be mechanically emptied into rear or side loading refuse collection
compaction vehicles. Typically, such bins are slope-sided to facilitate use with
the vehicle hopper configuration, and to empty the contents more efficiently.
The flawinthe design is that it is very easy for young chindren, who are play-
ing on the containers, to tip them over onto themselves. In fact, there have
been several deaths as a result of this accident.
The ANSI Z245.3 standard requires that the slope-sided bins do not tip when sub-
jected to a force of 70 pounds exerted horizontally and 191 pounds exerted ver-
tically from the leading edge of the bin. In each case, the test is to be done
with the bin empty and the wheels and covers in their most adverse position. The
standard also requires that appropriate safety markings be affixed to the con-
tainer.
Because of the seriousness of the hazard of these bins, the new ANSI require-
ments will apply not only to the manufacturer, but also to the owner, collector,
or customer who uses these containers. Existing bins must be brought within the
standard through a retrofit program, or they must be adequately protected from
unauthorized access and accidental tipping.
-------
The suggested deadline for this standard reflects
tions where children are most likely to congregate.
schedule contained in the standard is as follows:
Location
Schoolyards
Parks and Playgrounds
Apartment Developments
All Other Locations
priority given to bin loca-
The proposed implementation
Date
September, 1977
March, 1978
September, 1978
March, 1979
Since all slope-sided bins manufactured after this June must comply with the
standard, you should include the ANSI Requirements in your bidding specifica-
tions. Copies of both standards may be obtained by writing to:
American National Standards Institute, Inc.
Sales Department
1430 Broadway
New York, New York 10018
The cost for the
$4.00 a copy.
ANSI Z245.1 is $4.50 per copy, and the Z245.3 standard costs
One of the sections of the ANSI Z245.1 (7.1.3.3) calls for a "visual or audible
warning signal, or both shall be provided in the cab to indicate when any part
of the container lifting mechanism is elevated above the roof of the body when
the front loader is being driven." While this section of the Z245.1 standard
is scheduled to become effective in March 1978, recent accidents to IRIS users
illustrate the need for such signals.
In one accident involving a raised vehicle part, the packer was still up when
the truck was driven out of the incinerator area. It struck the overhead door.
The driver was thrown against the steering wheel and sustained bruises to his
chest. While damage to equipment was minimal in this case, in two other acci-
dents the opposite was true. Equipment damage costs were estimated at $763.00
for labor and materials when a driver enroute to the city yard failed to realize
that his top loader lid was raised. As he drove under a low overpass, the lid
struck against it. A passenger experienced whiplash which caused multiple body
strains. In a third and final example,a truck was totaled and equipment damages
estimated at $15,000.00. Once again an overpass was involved. The truck's tail-
gate had not been fastened down and the collision with the overpass caused the
truck to overturn. The driver suffered multiple body bruises.
"This material is reproduced with permission from American National Standard
(ANSI Z245.1-1975) copyright 1975 by the American National Standards Institute,
copies of which may be purchased from the American National Standards Institute
at 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018."
-------
Drivers of recessed bubble trucks are often unable to see the actual end of the
truck. When backing up they have to estimate how much room is left. A super-
intendent for IRIS user 296 solved this problem by attaching an armtothe re-
cessed tailgate. The arm extends beyond the sides of the truck and into the
driver's line of vision. Originally, the arm was made of metal. But because
of the chance of it hitting an object, or a worker striking it, hard rubber from
mud flaps is now used. For visibility, the extension is painted red.
June 1977
June 2 & 3
June 13-16
June 22
June 27
June 29
CALENDAR
University of Wisconsin Extension, Department of Engineering's
"Safety in Solid Waste Collection."
Mid Year Meeting of Public Section of National Safety Council
(includes refuse collection and disposal committee).
Des Moines Regional IRIS Solid Haste Accident Control Workshop,
Cosponsored by IRIS, Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal
Association (GRCDA), and the National Solid Waste Management
Association (NSWMA), Des Moines, Iowa.
Buffalo Regional IRIS Solid Waste Accident Control Workshop. Co-
sponsored by IRIS, GRCDA and NSWMA. Buffalo, New York.
St. Petersburg Regional IRIS Solid Waste Accident Control Vlork^
shop. Cosponsored by IRIS, GRCDA and NSWMA. St. Petersburg,
Florida.
-------
EXHIBIT 18
VOL. I
No, 4
JULY 1977
As you read in the last IRIS NEWS, three accident control workshops were conducted
in which two safety topics were discussed. For those of you who were unable to
attend the workshops, IRIS would like to share with you the handouts that were de-
veloped on the safety topics, equipment related and overexertion accidents.
In the two handouts, the percentages under the task column on the left represent
the percent of OSHA recordable injuries, days lost and direct costs for that group
of injuries. Therefore,10% of the total for "driving and riding in cab" means that
they are 10% of the 1,013 injuries for equipment related accidents, not all in-
juries that occurred in the 13 month period. The second set of percentages repre-
sent the percents for a particular task. Thus, 56% of the injuries for the hazard
of "vehicle struck by another vehicle" represents 56% out of 10% of the task cate-
gory, "driving and riding in cab." The percentages will not equal 100% due to the
fact that some injuries do not have a pattern and cannot be easily grouped. Injuries
that totaled less than 1% are not shown.
All columns to the right of the task column read across and are related to the spe-
cific hazards. The equipment related accidents handout does not address other pre-
ventative measures (eŤg-ť employee training, protective clothing, etc.) because of
time limitations in the workshops.
The ANSI Z245.1 Standard quoted was discussed in the last issue of IRIS NEWS.* The
Standard does not address the chassis, only the body of the vehicle. The equipment
modifications given are actual modifications in use at various agencies. "Concur"
in this column means that the ANSI Z245.1 Standard quoted was an equipment modifi-
cation that was agreed with but not repeated in this column. IRIS wishes to thank
all the users who sent information on their equipment modifications.
*This material was reproduced with permission from American National Standard,
"Safety Requirements for Refuse Collection and Compaction Equipment," ANSI Z245.1,
copyright 1975 by the American National Standards Institute, copies of which may
be purchased from the American National Standards Institute at 1430 Broadway, New
Jfork. New York 10018. __
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications is to disseminate new ideas and
alternative methods in the solid waste field. IRIS serves as a clearinghouse in
this regard, but does not promote or endorse any method or product. Implementation
of "IRIS NEWS" suggestions should be done only after careful evaluation by each
user and at each user's discretion.
IRIS - Injury Reporting and Information System
Division of WSA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 4 452-1010
-------
TASK
1. Driving & Riding
In 'Cab
Percent of Total
No. Injuries 10%
Days Lost 13%
Direct Costs 10%
2. Riding on Step
or Truck Bed
Percent of Total
No. Injuries 11%
Days Lost 16%
Direct Costs 13%
HAZARDS
EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
USING IRIS INJURY DATA*
ANSI Z245.1 STANDARDS
PERCENT OF TASK
a. Vehicle struck by another
vehicle
b. Vehicle collided with another
vehicle
c. Vehicle collided with object
(e.g., curb)
Caught between truck and
object as truck was backing
(riding on rear step)
b. Fell off step or struck against
truck when truck went over a
bump or depression
7.3.5. Lights. Turn signals
and brake lights shall be
placed sucli that they are visible
from behind the truck when
employees are standing on the
riding step.
7.3.7.4 Steps shall have a depth
of at least 8 inches and shall
provide a minimum of 220 square
inches of riding surface area.
7.3.7.5 Grab handles shall be
provided in conjunction with
riding steps and be located so
as to provide the employee with
a safe and comfortable riding
stance. Each grab handle shall
be capable of withstanding a
pull of at least 500 pounds.
EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
7. NO.
1NJ.
'/, DAYS
LOST
% DIRF.CT
COSTS
Concur
Additional mirrors, cut-out
windows
Back-safe. Additional
mirrors, cut-out windows
Concur
56%
72%
65%
11%
15%
6%
12%
13%
8%
5%
6%
10%
5%
MRIS Reporting period, December 1975 to December 1976, includes 3,774
OSHA recordable injuries, 1,013 of which were equipment related.
**Overlapping numbers
-------
EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
USING IRIS INJURY DATA*
TASK
2.
Riding
(contd.)
HAZARDS
Fell off step when truck turned
corner, made sudden stop, made
sudden start, or hit curb.
d.
Fell off wet/oily step or fell
due to wet handhold or
gloves.
PERCENT OF TASK
ANSI Z245.1 STANDARDS
7.3.7.4 Steps shall have a depth
of at least 8 inches and shall
provide a minimum of 220 square
inches of riding surface area.
7.3.7.5 Grab handles shall be
provided in conjunction with
riding steps and be located so as
to provide the employee with a
safe and comfortable riding stance
Each grab handle shall be capable
of withstanding a pull of at
least 500 pounds.
7.3.7.1 The surface and edges of
steps shall have a slip-resistant
surface. They shall be self-
cleaning or be protected against
the accumulation of mud, snow and
ice.
7.3.7.4 Steps shall have i depth
of at least 8 inches and shall
provide a minimum of 220 square
inches of riding surface area.
7.3.7.5 Grab handles shall be
provided in conjunction with
riding steps and be located so as
to provide the employee with a
safe and comfortable riding
stance. Each grab handle shall
be capable of withstanding a pull
of at least 500 pounds.
EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
Concur
Concur
Slip resistant grab handles
% NO.
INJ.
% DAYS
LOST
% DIRECT
COSTS
12%
6%
57,
67.
Reporting period, December 1975 to December 1976, Includes 3,77'i
OSIIA recordable injuries, 1,013 of which were equipment related.
** Overlapping numbers
-------
TASK
HAZARDS
EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
USING IRIS INJURY DATA*
ANSI Z245.1 STANDARDS
PERCENT OF TASK
EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
7. NO.
1NJ.
I DAYS
LOST
% DIRECT
COSTS
2. Rldtng
(contcl. )
Caught hand or foot in packing
mechanism
f. Vehicle struck by other vehicle
g. Vehicle collided with other
other vehicle
h. Vehicle collided with object
i. Slipped and struck against
vehicle part
j. Step collapsed
7.3.6 Point-of-Operation Protec-
tion. The employee shall be
protected from pinch points during
the packing cycle by one of the
following means:
(3) A movable guard that is
interlocked with the packing
cycle so that it is in place
before the packer panel is
within 6 inches of the pinch
point. The movable barrier
shall be designed so that it
shall not be hazardous in
itself.
7.3.5 Lights. Turn signals and
brake lights shall be placed such
that they are visible from behind
the truck when employees are
standing on the riding step.
7.3.7.1 The surface and edges of
steps shall have a slip-resistant
surface. They shall be self-
cleaning or be protected against
the accumulation of mud, snow and
ice.
7.3.7.2 Steps sha]1 be designed
to carry a uniformly distributed
load of not less than 1000 pounds,
MRIS Reporting period, December 1975 to December 1976, includes 3,774
OSMA recordable injuries, 1,013 of which were equipment related.
**Overlapping numbers .,
Two-handed packer controls.
Concur
Additional mirrors, cut-out
windows.
Concur
Concur
19%
22%
14%
11%
37.
3%
4%
2%
2%
5%
2%
1%
2%
2%
-------
TASK
HAZARDS
EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
USING IRIS INJURY DATA*
ANSI Z245.1 STANDARDS
EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
PERCENT OF TASK
% NO. 7. DAYS % DIRECT
1NJ. LOST COSTS
3. Mounting step
% of Total
No. Injuries 4%
Days Lost 5%
Direct Costs 3%
4. Dismounting
step
% of Total
No. Injuries 6%
Days Lost 5%
Direct Costs 4%
5. Mounting cab
a. Slipped or fell off step
b. Step was wet, icy or oily
c. Struck against truck when
mounting
d. Step collapsed
a. Slipped or fell from step
b. Step was wet, icy or oily
a. Struck by door
7.3.7.1 The surface and edges
of steps shall have a slip-
resistant surface. They shall be
self-cleaning or be protected
against the accumulation of mud,
snow, and ice.
7.3.7.2 Steps shall be designed
to carry a uniformly distributed
load of not less than 1000 pounds
7.3.7.1 The surface and edges
of steps shall have a slip-
resistant surface. They shall
be self-cleaning or be protected
against the accumulation of
mud, snow, and ice.
''IRIS Reporting period, December 1975 to December 1976, includes 3,774
OS11A recordable injuries, 1,013 of which were equipment related.
** Overlapping numbers
Long vertical grab handles
Concur
Long vertical grab handles
Long vertical grab handles
Concur
Long vertical grab handles
Concur
Long vertical grab handles
Door latch to hold door in
open position.
3%
26%
5%
78%
11%
51%
17%
53%
17%**
10%
17%
87%
16%
7%
17%
90%
20%**
2%
3%
-------
EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
USING IRIS INJURY DATA*
PERCENT OF TASK
TASK
5. Mounting cab
(contd. )
% of Total
No. Injuries 6%
Days Lost 5%
Direct Costs 3%
6. Dismounting cab
% of Total
No. Injuries 8%
Days Lost 8%
Direct Costs 6%
7 . Dumping
container
7, NO. % DAYS % DIRECT
HAZARDS ANSI Z245.1 STANDARDS EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS 1N.I . LOST COVrq
b. Struck against vehicle part
c. Slipped on running board, and
struck against truck, or fell
d. Running board was wet, icy,
or oily
a. Misstepped and fell
b. Slipped on or fell from
running board
c. Running board was wet, icy,
or oily
d. Struck against vehicle part
e. Caught in vehicle part (e.g.,
door, handle)
a. Struck by waste that fell out
of the hopper or container
Slip resistant running board.
Grab bandies. Slip resist-
ant wheel Fender. Chassis
specifications.
Grab handles. Chassis
specifications.
Slip resistant running
board. Grab handles. Slip
resistant wheel fender.
Chassis specifications.
Grab handles. Chassis
specifications .
Slip resistant running board.
Grab handles. Slip resist-
ant wheel fender. Chassis
specifications.
Grab handles. Door latch.
Grab handles. Door latch.
37% 24% 27%
48% 32% 33%
21% 10% 8%**
11% 16% 20%
57% 64% 59%
29% 21% 21%**
12% 3% 6%
11% 2% 3%
3% 3% '
-------
EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
USING IRIS INJURY DATA*
PERCENT OF TASK
% NO. % DAYS % DIRECT
TASK HAZARDS ANSI Z245.1 STANDARDS EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS INJ. LOST COSTS
7. Dumping
(contd.)
% of Total
No. Injuries 19%
Days Lost 14%
Direct Costs 9%
8. Dumping uncon-
tained waste
% of Total
No. Injuries 3%
Days Lost 1%
Direct Costs 1%
9. Operating packing
mechanism
b. Struck against truck when
turning to dump
c. Hand caught between container
and the edge of hopper
d. Struck by waste ejected by
the hopper
e. Fell against hopper due to wet,
icy or oily surfaces
f. Fell off step of side loader
g. Struck by tailgate popping
open
a. Struck by furniture, wood, or
unbundled shrubbery which fell
out of vehicle
a. Struck by waste ejected from
hopper
7.5.4.1 Steps shall have a slip-
resistant surface. They shall be
self-cleaning or be protected
against the accumulation of mud,
snow, and ice.
Tlaps over rear hopper
(Garwood). Side flap on side
Loader.
Concur
Warning buzzer for anytime
tailgate is open.
Liftgate on open body truck
to be used in conjunction
with dolly.
Flaps over rear hopper
(Garwood) . Side flap on
side loader.
28% 20% 26%
26% 33% 26%
19% 5% 8%
4% 6% 2%
5% 11% 11%
3% 6% 4%
32% 49% 57%
56% 11% 24%
*IRIS Reporting period, December 1975 to December 1976, includes 3,774
OS1IA recordable injuries, 1,013 of which were equipment related.
**0verlapping numbers
-------
TASK
HAZARDS
EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
USING IRIS INJURY DATA*
ANSI Z245.1 STANDARDS
PERCENT OF TASK
EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
7. NO.
INJ.
X DAYS
LOST
7. DIRECT
COSTS
9. Operating packing
mechnn ism
(contd.)
% of Total
No. Injuries 4%
Days Lost 3%
Direct Costs 3%
b. Caught hand in packer
7.3.3.2 Controls (for example,
for operating the packer panel,
tailgate, point-of-operation
guards, ejector panel, container
hoists) shall be designed and
located to prevent unintentional
activation.
7.3.6 Point-of-Operatlon Protec-
tion. The employee shall be
protected from pinch points during
the packing cycle by one of the
following means:
(1) Deadman control from the
initiation of the packing cycle
until the packer panel clears the
loading sill.
(2) An elevating hopper that
raises any pinch point during the
packing cycle at least 5 feet
above the working surface.
(3) A movable guard that is
interlocked with the packing cycle
so that it is in place before the
packer panel is within 6 Inches of
the pinch point. The movable
barrier shall be designed so that
it shall not be hazardous in
itself.
(4) A control that provides an
interrupted cycle. Actuation of
the control shall cause the packer
panel to stop not less than 6
inches or more than 16 inches from
the pinch point created by the
*IR1S Reporting period, December 1975 to December 1976, Includes 3,774
OSIIA recordable Injuries, 1,013 ot which were equipment related.
**0verlapping numbers
Concur
Two-handed packer controls.
10%
727.
59%
-------
TASK
HAZARDS
EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
USING IRIS INJURY DATA*
ANSI Z245.1 STANDARDS
PERCENT OF TASK
EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
Z NO.
1NJ.
% DAYS
LOST
Z DIRECT
COSTS.
Operating
packing
mechanism
(contd.)
10. Opening or closing
equipment part
% of Total
No. Injuries
Days Lost
Direct Costs
11. Hooking or
'unhooking
equipment
7. of Total
5%
5%
10%
Struck by tailgate while
operating packing mechanism
a. Struck by tailgate
b. Caught fingers in tailgate
a. Overexertion when hooking or
unhooking trailer
packer panel as it moves past the
hopper loading sill. The control
shall require reactivation to
complete the packing cycle by a
subsequent motion by the operator.
(5) Other means, at least as
effective as those given in
7.3.6(1) through 7.3.6(4), that
will protect an employee from the
pinch point.
7.3.3.2 Controls (for example,
for operating the packer panel,
tailgate, point-of-operation
guards, ejector panel, container
hoists) shall be designed and
located to prevent unintentional
activation.
7.5.7.1 Tailgate Locking Devices.
When the tailgate is opened to
unload the compacted refuse, the
locking mechanism shall be design-
ed to prevent the sudden opening
of the tailgate.
Concur
Warning buzzer for anytime
tailgate is open.
Safety chain for side
swinging doors or side tail-
gate latch.
Chain to keep trailer tongue
in horizontal position.
5%
7%
6%
35%
29%
79%
18%
13%
34%
5%
23%
*IRIS Reporting period, December 1975 to December 1976, Includes 3,774
OSIIA recordable injuries, 1,013 of which were equipment related.
** Overlapping numbers
-------
EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
USING IRIS INJURY DATA*
PERCENT OF TASK
% NO. % DAYS % DIRECT
TASK HAZARDS ANSI Z245.1 STANDARDS EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS 1NJ . LOST COSTS
11. Hooking (contd.)
No. Injuries 1%
Days Lost < 1%
Direct Costs <1%
12. Standing or
walking behind
or next to vehicle
% of Total
No. Injuries 6%
Days Lost 7%
Direct Costs 5%
13. Carrying container
% of Total
No. Injuries 4%
Days Lost 4%
Direct Costs 3%
b. Struck by trailer tongue
a. Struck by object ejected by
the packing mechanism
b. Struck by private vehicle.
c. Struck by backing vehicle
d. Struck by vehicle driven by
coworker
a. Struck by vehicle
b. Slipped and struck against
vehicle
c. Struck against vehicle
-
Chain to keep trailer
tongue in horizontal
position.
Flaps for rear hopper
(Garwood). Side flap on
side loader.
Back-up alarms, back safe.
21% 16% 9%
38% 3% 13%
18% 48% 35%
4% 2% 3%
7% 18% 17%
25% 55% , 53%
25% 32% 36%
25% 4% 3%
*IR[S Reporting period, December 1975 to December 1976, Includes 3,774
OSIIA recordable Injuries, 1,013 of which were equipment related.
**0verlapping numbers
-------
TASK
HAZARDS
EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
USING IRIS INJURY DATA*
ANSI Z245.1 STANDARDS
PERCENT OF TASK
EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS
% NO.
INJ.
% DAYS
LOST
% DIRECT
COSTS
lit. Pushing or Pulling
Container
% of Total
No. Injuries 1%
Days Lost 2%
Direct Costs 1%
Caught body part between
bulk container and vehicle
58%
91%
91%
*IRtS Reporting period, December 1975 to December 1976, includes 3,774
OSHA recordable injuries, 1,013 of which were equipment related.
**0verlapping numbers
10
-------
OVEREXERTION ACCIDENTS*
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
1. Lifting Container
Percent of Total
No. Injuries 43%
Days Lost 35%
.Direct Cost 37%
2. Lifting to Dump Container
Percent of Total
No. Injuries 18%
Days Lost 17%
Direct Cost 13%
*IR1S reporting period:
Test can for weight before lifting. Get help for heavy containers; train
employees on team lifting. Modify or enforce container weight regulations,
Public education programs. Use proper lifting techniques. Avoid twisting
or turning while lifting, and do not jerk the container up.
Modify or enforce container size regulations.
Train employees on team lifting.
Get help with bulky containers
Change from backyard to curbside.
barrels and carts.
Discourage overfilling of tote
a. Heavy Container
Percent of Task
No. Inuries 72%
Days Lost 78%
Direct Cost 77%
b. Large Container
(1) Oil drum
Percent of Task
No. Injuries 2%
Days Lost 1%
Direct Cost 1%
(2) Tote barrel, wheeled cart
Percent of Task
No. Injuries 9%
Days Lost 8%
Direct Cost 6%
a. Heavy Container
Percent of Task
No. Injuries 57%
Days Lost 70%
Direct Cost 67%
b. Large Container
Percent of Task
No. Injuries 5%
Days Lost 2%
Direct Cost 3%
December 1975 to December 1976 indluded 3,774 OSHA recordable inuries, 839 of which were overexertion accidents.
Test can for weight before lifting. Get help for heavy containers; train
employees on team lifting. Modify or enforce container weight regulations.
Public education programs. Use proper lifting techniques. Avoid twisting
or turning while lifting, and do not jerk the container up.
Change from backyard to curbside.
barrels and carts.
Discourage overfilling of tote
-------
OVEREXERTION ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
3. Dumping Container
Percent of Total
No. Injuries 11%
Days Lost 16%
Direct Cost 15%
a. Heavy Container
Percent of Task
No. Inuries
Days Lost
Direct Cost
b. Large Container
4. Pushing/Pulling Container
Percent of Total
No. Injuries 6%
Days Lost 11%
Direct cost 11%
48%
42%
41%
(1) Oil drum
Percent of Task
No. Injuries 3%
Days Lost 1%
Direct Cost 2%
(2) Tote barrel, wheeled cart
Percent of Task
No. Injuries 7%
Days Lost 7%
Direct Cost 5%
Bulk Container
Percent of Task
No. Injuries 65%
Days Lost 87%
Direct Cost 88%
Maintain firm grip and stance; stand within easy dumping of hopper.
Get help for heavy containers; train employees on team lifting.
Avoid twisting actions.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Container placement regulations should require level surface. Train
employees on team handling of bulk container.
-------
OVEREXERT10N ACCIDENTS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
4. Pushincj/Pul 1 ing Container
continued
5. Carrying Container
Percent of Total
No. Injuries 3%
Days Lost 3%
Direct Cost 3%
b. Heavy Container
Percent of Task
No. Injuries
Days Lost
Direct Cost
c. Large Container
(1) Oil drum
Percent of Task
No. Injuries
Days Lost
Direct Cost
13%
5%
4%
6%
(2) Tote barrels, wheeled carts
Percent of Task
No. Injuries 4%
Days Lost 2%
Direct Cost <1%
a. Heavy Container
Percent of Task
No. Injuries 62%
Days Lost 47%
Direct Cost 40%
b. Tote Barrel, Wheeled Cart
Percent of Task
No. Injuries 37%
Days Lost 36%
Direct Cost 29%
Keep close to body; back straight.
Provide wheeled carts instead of tote barrels.
-------
Several questions arose during the discussions at the accident control workshops.
IRIS would appreciate hearing from users who were unable to attend on the follow-
ing topics:
1. Have you found a glove that is durable, can breathe (does not get too sweaty
from use) as well as provides a firm grip? Or do you utilize other methods
to resolve this problem (e.g., provide a leather as well as a rubber pair)?
2. Mhat are your experiences with various safety shoes? Have you found one that
is slip resistant and comfortable?
3. How do you dump a load when the ejector blade is not operating? One user has
to weld the tailgate open and manually remove the waste at the landfill. Has
your organization devised a better method?
When the answers to these questions are compiled, they will be shared with all users
through future issues of the IRIS NEWS. If you have a particular question which
you would like addressed to all users, please let IRIS know.
-------
EXHIBIT 19
VOL. I
No, 5
AUGUST 1977
Injury Rates for Task vs Hourly Collection
Task vs hourly shift continues to be a controversial issue in many sectors, es-
pecially in the solid waste management industry. On .a task collection system,
crews are allowed to leave work as soon as they finish their assigned "task." A
"task" can be a certain route, a set amount of tonnage, or some other definition
for completion of the task. An hourly system is one in which the employee must
remain on the job for a fixed number of hours (e.g., eight) regardless of when
they finish. Employees who are paid for an eight hour day, but who are not re-
quired to stay at work for the full eight hours, are not considered to be on an
hourly shift, but on a task system.
Opponents of the task system argue that task workers are likely to hurry to com-
plete their job in the shortest amount of time, increasing their risk of injury.
Supporters contend that a task worker concentrates more on his job, thus reducing
the risk of injury.
A reviewof IRIS data for fourth quarter 1976 shows that out of 83 users on-line,
45 have systems that are entirely task and 17 completely hourly. The remainder
use systems that contain elements of both. Injury rates compiled from single
system IRIS participants are given in Table A. Preliminary analysis indicates a
relatively small difference between the two systems. In terms of the OSHA inci-
dence rate (the number of 'OSHA recordable cases divided by man-hours of exposure,
multiplied by 200,000 hours), it was'37.70 (task) vs 31.26 (hourly). The OSHA
incidence rate for lost workday cases follows a similar pattern. However, there
is a marked difference in terms of the OSHA "severity" rate (the number of lost
workdays divided by man-hours of exposure, multiplied by 200,000). It is roughly
equivalent to the number of workdays lost per 100 full-time employees per year.
The 268.69 for task compared with the 151.88 for hourly indicates that although
the frequency of injuries for task and hourly systems are close, injuries to em-
ployees for IRIS users on the task system resulted in a greater number of lost
workdays.
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications is to disseminate new ideas and
alternative methods in the solid waste field. IRIS serves as a clearinghouse
in this regard, but does not promote or endorse any method or product. Imple-
mentation of "IRIS News" suggestions should be done only after careful evalua-
tion by each user and at each user's discretion.
IRIS - Injury Reporting and Information System
Division of WSA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
A brief check of the characteristics of the "task" system vs the "hourly" system
does not show any other obvious factor that could explain the difference. The
two types of systems do not appear to differ in characteristics such as residen-
tial vs commercial, curbside vs backyard or crew size.-However, we are following
up with a more detailed study.
TABLE A
Task
Hourly
Solid
Hours of
Exposure
2,753,442
1,900,066
Waste Safety Li
OSHA
Cases
519
297
brary.
Lost
Workday
Cases
282
156
The foil
Lost
Workdays
3,732
1,443
owing works
OSHA
Incidence
37.70
31.26
provide an
OSHA
Incidence
for Lost
Workday
Cases
20.48
16.42
excellent
OSHA
"Severity
268.69
151.88
foundation,
or make a good addition, to any collection of solid waste management material:
National Safety Council's Public Employee Safety Guide for Refuse Collec-
tion (1974) International Standard Book Number: 0-87912-112-2.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Operation Responsible: Safe Refuse
Collection (1972) Instructional manual with slides and training manual with
slides.
American National Standards Institute ANSI Z245.1-1975 "Safety Requirements
for Refuse Collection and Compaction Equipment" and ANSI Z245.3-1977, "Safe-
ty Requirement for the Stability of Refuse."
Additional material includes:
f Cimino, J. A. Health and safety in the solid waste management industry.
American Journal of Public Health, 65(1): 38-46, Jan. 1975.
Cimino, J.A. Health and safety in the solid waste industry. Proceedings;
New York Academy of Sciences Section of Environmental Sciences, May 1970.
t Costello,C. and R. Lascoe. Are your city employees safe on the job? Nation'j
Cities, 9(5): 16-17, May 1971.
Diamond, A. Worst risk firm sets insurance rates. Solid Waste Management^
Refuse Removal Journal, 11(5): 48-52, May 1968.
t Dunford, W. APWA Ontario Chapter accident survey. APWA Reporter, Feb.1973,
p. 16-17.
Dunford, W. Collection personnel have highest accident rate. Solid Waste.
Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 16(4): 14+, Apr. 1973.
-------
Kimura, M. (Fuji Heavy Industries Co.). Safety device for rear gate of
garbage truck. Japanese Patent 46-19, 522; filed Apr. 2, 1968; issued July 7,
I .7 / I
King, K. How to calculate injury rates. Waste Age, Mar. 1975.
t King, K. The use of accident statistics. National Safety Congress Trans-
actions. 8: 89-91, 1974. a
LeSage, F. Well designed vehicles need well trained crews. Sanitation In-
dustry Year Book: 40, 42, 44, 48, 1970.
MacKay, B.B., Jr. Training pays dividends in reduced injuries. Solid Waste
Management/Refuse Removal Journal. 16(2): 30, Feb. 1973.
O'Dette, R.G. Health hazards associated with solid waste management. Un-
published manuscript, Nov. 24, 1969. p. 24.
0 Sanders, T. Basic elements of a sound accident prevention program. Waste
Age, May/June 1973, p. 122+.
Star, S. Safety standards for sol id waste management. Public Works, 102(4):
97-98, Apr. 1971.
State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor
Statistics and Research. Disabling work injuries in refuse collection. In
Work Injuries in California, San Francisco, 1967, p. 3-6.
Van Beek, G. Personnel: accident prevention. National Safety News,99(4):
41+, Apr. 1969.
Van Beek, G. The Milwaukee story - one year later. Waste Age, July 1974.
Van Kleek, L.W. Safety practices at sanitary landfill. Public Works. 90(3):
113, Aug. 1969.
Wagner, L. E. Chemical wastes: stressing safety makes extensive recovery
viable. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 18(6): 12-13, 40,
June 1975.
Wener, S.D. IRIS - A new service. Nation's Cities, Sept. 1975.
A medical guide to driver selection. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal
Journal, 14(10): 52, 60, Oct. 1971.
Driver safety standards cut accident potential. Solid Waste Management/
Refuse Removal Journal, 17(12): 40-41, 71, Dec. 1974.
Driver testing: written and road examinations. Sanitation Industry Year-
book, 1975, p. 56, 76, 78, 80, 82.
-------
Equipment danger markings. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal
13(7): 6-7, July 1970. "'
Injury record tops all others in country. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Re-
moval Journal, 12(1): 10-11, 26, 32-34, 44, Jan.-Feb. 1969.
t In Michigan safety standards for packer units updated. Solid Waste Manaae-
ment/Refuse Removal Journal, 17(7): 52-53, 59, July 1974"! *~
Municipal accident prevention. The American City, 77: 106, Jan. 1962.
t Public employee safety guide for refuse collection. National Safety Coun-
cil, 1974.
Refuse collection in municipalities. Data sheet 618, Chicago, National Safe-
ty Council, 1969, p. 12.
Safety checklist: a handy guide for evaluating a solid waste contractor's
program for employee protection. Sanitation Industry Yearbook,1974, p. 10+.
Some vital safety rules. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal,
15(3): 74-75, Mar. 1972.
Quarterly Safety Management Reports (QSMRs)
IRIS would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to complete the evalua-
tion form included with their QSMR. We hope to hear from all establishments.
Comments to date have included:
"Although this is our first QSMR, it does seem accurate in the analysis of
our injury problems. In future reports an analysis of two man routes versus
three man routes would be useful."
"... I do agree with most of your evaluations and our employees are informed
ASAP after receipt of the analysis. More attention should be placed on gam-
bling or taking a chance to prevent the preventable injury. This should be
impressed upon the management also."
"I agree with operational costs, but the IRIS analysis doesn't address our
specific problem. For instance, our major injuries and frequency occurs in
brush collection which is a pulverizer machine and a truck. To resolve this
problem would require abandonment of our present system for a more costly
bulk hauling system. It isn't cost effective."
"Because of our serious injury/accident problems, your advice is often help-
ful. Unfortunately, however, we are unable to impress upon the working force
the need for better safety and care. The city is currently attempting to
abolish the oil drum containers; however, this effortisnot being supported
by the men because they feel it is an effort to reduce the number of persons
now on the refuse vehicle."
-------
"IRIS evaluation of our injury problem is very practical and could be appl
cable if the QSMR was received within three (3) months..."
A major goal of IRIS is to decrease the time between the end of the quarter a
the publishing of the QSMR. Part of the current problem lies in data collectio
While a great improvement has been made, there are still users who save up the
injuries, some call them in on a monthly basis, limiting the time available
obtain all necessary information.
First Quarter preprintouts - Having trouble deciphering the codes on the "Tii
Lost and Direct Costs Status" printouts? A key is included below.
Case Status
N - newly open, time lost and cost information has not been
received or entered.
0 - open
C - closed
DATE OF NAME
INJURY
/ CASE UKDY LGHT
0/C TYPE LOST DUTY
MED L/T DISAB
EXP COSTS BEN
03-01-77 C LWC 10 0 166 204
OVEREXERTED SELF UITH STD MTL CONT WHICH UAS'UNUSUALLY HEAVY WHILE LIFTING
STD MTL CONT INJURING BACK RESULTING IN Sfi^AIN OR STRAIN
LWC - lost workday case
FA - first aid
NFWLD - nonfatal without lost workdays
PPD - permanent partial disability
PTD - permanent total disability
F - fatality
September 1977
Sept. 10-15, 1977
October 1977
CALENDAR
International Public Works Congress and Equipment Show. AT
erican Public Works Association. Chicago, Illinois. SoV
Waste topics include: Omaha's New Solid Waste Baling & Ra~
Haul System, Collection from Multi-Family Dwellings, Impl<
mentation of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 197(
Changing Requirements of Solid Waste Management, Resoun
Recovery Projects (Status report), Making Watts from Waste
A Joint Venture, Switching to Semi-Mechanical Collection^
Reducing Accidents Cuts Collection Costs.
National Safety Congress and
Council. Chicago, Illinois.
Exposition. National Safei
-------
-------
EXHIBIT 20
VOL. 1
No, 6
SEPTEMBER 1977
Annual Injury Rates
IRIS has been in operation since December 1975, and the number of participants
has increased from 11 to 90. The following figures detail annual injury and fre-
quency rates for the 13 month period of December 1975 to December 1976. IRIS
users can compare their injury rate rankings with the averages for all users,
which are underlined in FIGURES 4 to 7.
The days lost and direct costs have been updated as of September 1st. However,
open cases are still being monitored for time lost and cost information, and these
figures may alter slightly in the future.
FIGURE 1 compares the IRIS user data with that of the Bureau of Labor Statistics*
for all private industries. As can be seen, the solid waste industry compares
poorly. The OSHA incidence rate for the solid waste industry at 41 was four times
higher,while the highest private industry rate was in anthracite mining (22.3).
This figure means that two out^of five employees of the IRIS participants last
year had sustained non-first aid injuries.
The lost workday cases rate of 24 was about seven times higher, and the private
industry with the highest severity rate was the lumber and wood products industry
at 9.0. This rate indicates that in 1976 one out of^every four employees sus-
tained a lost time injury, not just those who were injured.
The OSHA severity rate (lost workdays) of 327 was also much higher than that of
private industry (54.6) by six times. The water transportation industry had the
highest OSHA severity rate (266.9) for the private industry sector. The severity
rate of 327 indicates that for every sanitation employee on IRIS, 3.27 days were
lost due to on-the-job injuries.
*News, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDL-75-647
TTT718/75).
The purpose of this and other IRIS publications is to disseminate new ideas and
alternative methods in the solid waste field. IRIS serves as a clearinghouse in
this regard, but does not promote or endorse any method or product. Implementa-
tion of "IRIS News" suggestions should be done only after careful evaluation by
each user and at each user's discretion.
IRIS -- Injury Reporting and Information System
Division of WSA Inc.,11772 Sorrento Valley Road
San Diego, CA 92121 (714) 755-9359 & 452-1010
-------
The average workdays lost per lost workday case of 13.39 was the only rate lower
than that of private industry. However, this is not actually a positive trend
when considering that the solid waste industry has seven times more lost time
cases.
IRIS participant data reveals that the average direct costs per OSHA recordable
injury was $415,the average direct costs per lost workday case was $638 and the
average direct cost per man-year was $169.
List of Figures
FIGURE 1 Comparison of IRIS Participant Data with Bureau of Labor Statistics
Data
FIGURE 2 Summary of Accident Factors for Selected Accident Characteristics
with Highest Percent of OSHA Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost and
Direct Costs
FIGURE 3 Number of Injuries Reported by Type of Severity Comparison of IRIS
Users
FIGURE 4 Average Injury Rates by IRIS Users Ranked from Highest to Lowest
FIGURE 5 Average Workdays Lost per Lost Workday Case by IRIS Users Ranked
from Highest to Lowest
FIGURE 6 Direct Costs by IRIS Users Ranked from Highest to Lowest
FIGURE 7 Direct Costs for Lost Day Cases by IRIS Users Ranked from Highest
to Lowest
FIGURES 8- Activities Ranked from Highest to Lowest Percent of OSHA Recordable
10 Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct Costs
FIGURES 11- Accident Types Ranked from Highest to Lowest Percent of OSHA
13 Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct Costs
FIGURES 14- Accident Sites Ranked from Highest to Lowest Percent of OSHA
16 Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost and.Direct Costs
FIGURES 17- Injury Types Ranked from Highest to Lowest Percent of OSHA Record-
19 able Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct Costs
FIGURE 20 Parts of Body Injured Ranked from Highest to Lowest Percent of
OSHA Recordable Injuries, Workdays Lost and Direct Costs
-------
COMPARISON OF IRIS PARTICIPANT DATA WITH
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS DATA
IRIS PARTICICPANT BLS (1974) PRIVATE
DATA (12/75-12/76) INDUSTRY SECTOR
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE - 41 10.4
No. OSHA recordable injuries Y 9nn nnn
Total manhours * ^uu.uuu
LOST WORKDAY CASES RATE - 24 3.5
No. lost workday cases Y 9nn nnn
Total manhours x ^uu,uuu
OSHA LOST WORKDAYS RATE (SEVERITY) - 327 54.6
No. lost workdays Y 9nn nnn
Total manhours X ^uu'uuu
AVG. WORKDAYS LOST PER LOST 13.39 16
WORKDAY CASE
AVG. DIRECT COSTS PER OSHA $415
RECORDABLE INJURY
AVG. DIRECT COSTS PER LOST $638
WORKDAY CASE
AVG. DIRECT COSTS PER MAN $169
YEAR
-------
FIGURE 2
SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT FACTORS FOR SELECTED ACCIDENT
CHARACTERISTICS WITH HIGHEST PERCENT OF 05HA RECORDABLE INJURIES
OS1IA DAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
December 1975 To December 1976
Type of
Characteristic
Factors Kith The:
Highest % of OSHA
Recordable Injuries
Highest % of OSHA
Days Lost
Highest % of
Direct Costs
Activity
Accident Type
Accident Site
Nature of Injury
Part of Body
Lifting or dumping container - 37%
Getting off equipment - 8%
Standing or walking - 7%
Overexertion involving container - 18%
Slip on same level - 6%
Struck by waste - 6%
On collection route at back of truck - 35%
On collection route at curb - 17%
On collection route in customer's
yard - 10*
Sprain or strain - 41%
Bruise - 20%
Cut or puncture - 19%
Back - 19%
Eves - 9%
Leg - 8%
Lifting or dumping container - 34%
Riding on equipment - 10%
Getting off equipment - 9%
Overexertion involving container - 23%
Vehicle accident - 9%
Caught between objects - 7%
On collection route at back of truck - 25%
On collection route at curb - 22%
On collection route on step of
vehicle - 8%
Sprain or strain - 54%
Bruise - 12%
Fracture - 12%
Back - 34%
Leg - 1%
Ankle - 7%
Lifting or dumping container - 29%
Riding on equipment - 10%
Standing or walking - 7%
Overexertion involving container - 20%
Caught between objects - 11%
Vehicle accident - 11%
On collection route at back of truck - 29;
On collection route at curb - 14%
On collection route on step of
vehicle - 9%
Sprain or strain - 47%
Bruise - 13%
Fracture - 11%
Back - 29%
Multiple body parts - 12%
Leg - 8%
-------
FIGURE 3
PAGE 1
NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED BY T YPE OF SEVERITY
COMPARISON OF 'IRIS' USERS
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
INSTRUCTIONS: THE PERCENTAGES ARE A FRACTION OF THE TOTAL CASES
REPORTED. THEY TOTAL TO APPROXIMATELY 1002 IF READ HORIZONTALLY.
COMPARE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PERCENTAGES WITH THE AVERAGE AND WITH
OTHER IRIS USERS. HIGHER THAN AVERAGE PERCENTAGES IN THE LOWER
SEVERITY GROUPS, I.E., TOWARD THE LEFT, ARE DESIRED, AS ARE LOWER
THAN AVERAGE PERCENTAGES TOWARD THE RIGHT.
IRIS TOTAL
USER CASES
NO. RPT 'D
FIRST NON-FATAL LOST WKDY
AID W/0 LST WKDAY CASES
NO. % NO. % NO. %
PERM
DISAB
NO. %
FATALITY
AVG
101
103
109
111
113
115
125
133
13-6
140
146
148
149
152
157
161
170
171
172
178
179
181
182
183
186
191
197
201
204
207
210
211
212
215
217
4,793
126
31
240
232
2
28
290
3
7
175
111
29
14.
17
8
75
94
143
307
28
97
167
14
33
93
79
12
4
32
159
13
35
42
3
705
030
15
15
20
21
0
7
14
0
1
18
22
1
1
3
0
31
26
6
1
1
29
22
2
9
32
2
1
2
0
2
0
8
1
0
362
21
12
48
8
9
0
25
5
0
14
10
20
3
7
18
0
41
28
4
0
4
30
13
14
27
34
3
8
50
0
1
0
23
2
0
51
1,503
68
0
85
75
2
10
60
1
1
41
52
17
4
7
1
24
15
58
119
13
29
51
7
8
28
27
2
1
24
69
4
4
1
0
256
31
54
0
35
32
100
36
21
33
14
23
47
59
29
41
12
32
16
41
39
46
30
31
50
24
30
34
17
25
75
43
31
11
2
0
36
2,238
42
16
135
133
0
10
213
2
5
115
36
1 1
9
7
7
20
53
79
183
14
39
94
5
16
33
50
8
1
8
87
9
23
39
3
86
47
33
52
56
57
0
36
73
67
71
66
32
38
64
41
87
27
56
55
60
50
40
56
36
48
35
63
67
25
25
55
69
66
93
100
12
21
1
0
0
3
0
1
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0.44
0.79
0.00
0.00
1.29
0.00
3.57
1.03
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.33
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.00
0.00
2.38
0.00
0.00
NO.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 14
-------
IRIS
USER
NO.
221
226
235
236
237
242
244
260
261
265
272
275
283
285
286
292
295
296
299
316
318
323
324
325
326
329
330
333
336
337
338
339
340
341
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
353
354
355
358
359
361
362
363
TOTAL
CASES
RPT 'D
53
3
42
101
48
3
17
113
2
167
27
21
39
1
2
45
30
33
16
271
28
6
9
22
1
12
19
10
3
26
16
23
41
24
10
1
1
5
4
3
4
6
2
3
6
6
3
1 1
3
1
2
FIRST NON-FATAL LOST WKDY
AID W/0 LST WKDAY CASES
NO.
21
0
0
9
19
0
0
1
0
78
4
0
15
0
1
27
2
1 1
0
105
10
2
1
2
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
3
19
5
5
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
%
40
0
0
9
40
0
0
1
0
47
15
0
38
0
50
60
7
33
0
39
36
33
11
9
0
50
5
0
0
0
0
13
46
21
50
0
0
20
25
0
0
33
50
33
0
0
0
0
33
0
50
NO.
0
3
32
29
9
0
5
37
0
18
9
8
14
0
1
7
13
4
14
65
0
2
4
6
0
3
7
7
0
0
0
0
14
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
3
1
0
1
4
4
2
4
2
0
1
%
0
100
76
29
19
0
29
33
0
1 1
33
38
36
0
50
16
^3
12
87
24
0
33
44
27
0
25
37
70
0
0
0
0
34
4
20
0
0
0
50
33
75
17
0
33
67
67
67
36
67
0
50
NO.
32
0
10
63
20
2
12
75
2
71
14
13
10
1
0
1 1
15
17
2
101
18
2
4
14
1
3
1 1
3
3
26
16
20
8
18
3
1
1
4
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
0
7
0
0
0
%
60
0
24
62
42
67
71
66
100
^3
52
62
26
100
0
24
50
52
12
37
64
33
44
64
100
25
58
30
100
100
100
87
20
75
30
100
100
80
25
67
25
50
50
33
33
33
0
64
0
0
0
PERM
DISAB
NO.
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<).00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
C. 30
0, 00
32.33
c.oo
0.00
100.00
0.00
FATALITY
NO.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00'
o.oo:
O.OCi
O.OCi
o.oc
o.oc
0 . OW
0 . OW
0.0 ft
O.Oi
0.0'
0.0
0.0
0.0,
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
o.c
o.c
O.C:
o.c
o.c
0 . C,
o.c:
O.i::
0.';'
o. '
0. '
0. '
0.:
0.:
0.
0.
0.
o.:
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0
0
-------
FIGURE 4
PAGE 1
AVERAGE INJURY RATES BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
nFFlNITIONS: AVERAGE RATIO = RATE / AVERAGE FOR THE RATE.
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE = (NUMBER OF OSHA RECORDABLE CASES /
MUN-HOURS EXPOSURE ) X 200,000.
ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER OF CASES PER 100 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES
PER Y"AR. DOES NOT INCLUDE FIRST AID INJURIES. DOES INCLUDE MEDICAL
TREATMENT, LOST TIME, PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES.
SEVERITY RATE = (NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST / MAN-HOURS EXPOSURE) X 200,000.
ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE NUMBER OF WORKDAYS LOST PER 100 FULL TIME
EMPLOYEES PER YEAR.
INSTRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
MU IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS.
1GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN .50.
1 POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1.25.
OSHA INCIDENCE
IRIS
USER
NO.
351
J*
111Q
1"
103
IU J
333
j J j
27 5
c 1 j
V58
J^U
:152
260
^207
311
:313
;236
210
201
221
211
111
321
296
318
191
212
330
359
265
181
116
MAN-HOURS
EXPOSURE
9,289
20,764
29,334
20,060
46,066
6,855
32,097
j *~ j ^
257,252
373,895
46,504
13,269
244,627
35,672
j ^ y ** i Ť
93,573
96,201
51 ,261
* ' y ^ v
645,783
24,742
70,883
I ** J ** V J
58,498
253,024
136,830
61,166
38,923
324,487
544,1.98
624,522
NO.
INJ
6
13
16
10
21
3
14
112
T57
19
5
92
13
32
32
17
211
8
22
18
77
41
18
11
89
145
166
RATE
RATE
129
125
109
100
91
88
87
87
84
82
75
75
73
68
67
66
65
65
62
62
61
60
59
57
55
53
53
INCIDENCE
AVG
RATIO
3. 18
3.08
2.69
2.45
2.24
2.15
2.15
2. 14
2.07
2.01
1.86
1.85
1.79
1.68
1.64
1.63
1.61
1.59
1.53
1.51
1.50
1.48
1.45
1.39
1.35
1.31
1.31
IRIS
USER
NO.
103
149
341
221
318
212
260
275
236
296
351
210
337
207
244
343
211
265
152
354
111
191
140
359
330
339
325
NO.
INJ
16
9
18
32
18
40
75
13
63
18
1
9
26
88
12
3
23
71
7
2
136
50
116
7
11
20
14
RATE
RATE
109
87
77
67
62
58
58
56
52
51
51
50
50
47
47
45
45
44
44
43
42
40
38
36
36
36
35
- LWC
AVG
RATIO
4.47
3.55
3.17
2.73
2.52
2.40
2.39
2.31
2.11
2.08
2.07
2.07
2.03
1.93
1.92
1.85
1.83
1.79
1.79
1.76
1.73
1.62
1.57
1.47
1.47
1.46
1.44
SEVE
IRIS
USER
NO.
358 4
296 1
318 1
341- 1
210 1
260
149
221
111
333
345
140
212
172
325
236
316
125
207
275
197
330
359
337
354
265
103
RITY RATE
RATE
,230
,622
,350
,277
,244
952
886
798
778
758
627
619
593
587
583
524
493
487
478
473
459
448
447
406
388
377
375
AVG
RATIO
12.95
4.97
4.13
3.91
3.81
2.92
2.71
2.44
2.38
2.32
1.92
1.89
1 .82
1 .80
1.78
1.60
1.51
1.49
1.46
1 .45
1.41
1.37
1.37
1.24
1.19
1.15
1.15
-------
OSHA INCIDENCE
IRIS
USER
NO.
172
171
21 1
140
351
325
349
337
217
235
299
329
350
161
AVG 1
237
283
183
109
339
197
353
338
348
355
125
179
146
346
115
340
101
113
295
272
336
186
170
361
261
347
133
178
226
148
157
326
286
182
MAN-HOURS
EXPOSURE
1,156,079
520,193
103, 184
605,234
3,952
79,633
15,994
104, 994
1,398,396
182,933
70,796
27,602
18,835
212,353
8.525. 1 10
146,933
124, 183
125,830
1 , 187,955
111,971
62,279
11,453
92,894
17,735
36,440
1,728,240
429, 380
603,812
27,509
145,009
153,635
796,060
14,483
235,444
194,635
25,800
530,683
592,955
17,596
18,090
29,770
32,163
292,032
32,717
322,170
97,539
13,957
14,694
207,998
NO.
INJ
306
137
27
157
1
20
4
26
343
42
16
6
4
44
3763
29
24
24
220
20
1 1
2
16
3
6
276
68
89
4
21
22
111
2
28
23
3
61
68
2
2
3
3
27
3
28
8
1
1
12
RATE
RATE
53
53
52
52
51
50
50
50
49
46
45
43
42
41
41
39
39
38
37
36
35
35
34
34
33
32
32
29
29
29
29
28
28
24
24
23
23
23
23
22
20
19
18
18
17
16
14
14
12
INCIDENCE
AVG
RATIO
1.30
1 .30
1.29
1.28
1.25
1.24
1.23
1.22
1 .21
1.13
1.11
1 .07
1.05
1 .02
1 . 00
0.97
0.95
0.94
0.91
0.88
0.87
0.86
0.85
0.83
0.81
0.79
0.78
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.70
0.69
0.68
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.54
0.50
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.43
0.40
0.35
0.34
0.28
IRIS
USER
NO.
181
338
172
316
324
350
171
333
358
346
197
237
183
125
AVG 2.
336
109
348
261
329
161
179
170
353
204
283
115
272
157
326
295
349
217
186
133
146
344
355
235
101
340
345
178
148
347
299
215
285
182
NO.
INJ
94
16
187
101
4
3
79
3
1
4
9
20
16
216
260
3
135
2
2
3
20
39
53
1
8
10
1 1
14
7
1
15
1
87
33
2
37
1
2
10
43
8
1
14
1 1
1
2
3
1
5
RATE - LWC
RATE
35
34
32
32
32
32
30
30
29
29
29
27
25
25
24
23
23
23
22
22
19
18
18
17
17
16
15
14
14
14
13
13
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
7
7
6
6
5
5
AVG
RATIO
1.42
1.41
1.33
1.33
1.33
U31
1.24
1.23
1 .20
1.19
1. 18
1. 12
1 .04
1 .02
1 .00
0.95
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.89
0.77
0.74
0.73
0.72
0.70
0.66
0.62
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.52
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.47
0.45
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.40
0.39
0.28
0.28
0.23
0.23
0.20
0.20
SEVERITY RATE
IRIS
USER
NO.
152
171
179
AVG
362
181
340
211
191
338
146
201
244
339
204
348
170
161
109
183
115
101
299
186
272
261
133
349
237
353
217
295
215
178
351
350
136
346
343
157
324
292
344
148
283
329
336
323
235
RATE
355
346
342
327
305
303
296
283
276
265
248
245
199
195
192
192
171
170
170
161
160
158
158
152
138
133
131
125
123
122
122
116
107
106
101
96
95
95
90
90
89
83
80
79
76
65
62
54
48
A\
R;
i.
1.
i.
1
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-------
PAGE 3
IRIS
USER
NO.
344
345
363
w *
323
201
292
215
136
285
362
242
331
328
OSHA INCIDENCE
MAN-HOURS NO.
EXPOSURE INJ
17,415
20,745
20,911
96,442
49,828
485,076
106,872
222,554
39,991
47,261
252,099
27,266
4,547
1
1
1
4
2
18
3
6
1
1
3
0
0
RATE
RATE
11
10
10
8
8
7
6
5
5
4
2
0
0
AVG
RATIO
0.28
0.24
0.24
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.14
0. 13
0.12
0. 10
0.06
0.00
0.00
INI
IR
US!
NO
292
136
362
323
201
242
363
361
331
328
286
226
113
IRIS NO.
USER INJ
11
5
1
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
TE
5
4
4
4
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- LWC
AVG
RATIO
0. 19
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
0. 10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SEVERITY RATE
IRIS
USER
NO.
326
242
182
347
355
285
363
361
331
328
286
226
113
RATE
29
25
22
20
16
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVG
RATIO
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
FIGURE 5
PAGE 1
AVERAGE WORKDAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
BY 'IRIS' USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
INSTRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
HOW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS.
A GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN .50.
A POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1.25.
RANK
HIGHEST
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
IRIS
USER NO.
358
362
345
201
296
340
299
333
210
318
136
146
125
215
179
1 1 1
292
172
325
341
260
197
316
101
AVG
323
330
359
186
221
140
148
171
204
178
242
115
NO. LOST
WKDY CASES
1
1
1
1
18
8
2
3
9
18
5
37
216
3
39
136
11
187
14
18
75
9
101
43
2.25Q
2
11
7
33
32
157
1 1
79
8
14
3
1 1
OSHA DAYS
LOST
145
72
65
61
575
227
56
76
222
395
106
748
4,209
57
735
2,511
202
3,393
232
297
1 ,225
143
1,541
630
?0,258
26
137
87
402
384
1 ,872
127
900
90
155
32
116
AVG OSHA
DAYS LOST
145.00
72.00
65.00
61 .00
31.94
28.37
28.00
25.33
24.67
21.94
21 .20
20.22
19.49
19.00
18.85
18.46
18.36
18.14
16.57
16.50
16.33
15.89
15.26
14.65
13. ?Q
13.00
12.45
12.43
12. 18
12.00
11.92
11.55
1 1.39
11.25
11,07
10.67
10.55
AVG RAT
(DAYS / A
10.83
5.38
4.85
4.55
2.38
2. 12
2.09
1.89
1.84
1.64
1.58
1.51
1.45
1.42
1.41
1.38
1.37
1.35
1.24
1.23
1.22
1.19
1.14
1.09
1.00
0.97
0.93
0.93
0.91
0.90
0.89
0.86
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.80
0.79
-------
PAGE 2
RANK IRIS NO. LOST OSHA DAYS AVG OSHA AVG RATIO
USER NO. WKDY CASES LOST DAYS LOST (DAYS / AVG)
37 133 2 21 10.50 0.78
38 149 9 92 10.22 0.76
39 236 63 641 10.17 0.76
40 212 MO 406 10.15 0.76
41 207 88 893 10.15 0.76
42 349 1 10 10.00 0.75
43 217 86 851 9.90 0.74
44 170 53 508 9.58 0.72
45 272 14 134 9.57 0.71
46 295 15 136 9.07 0.68
47 161 20 181 9.05 0.68
48 354 2 18 9.00 0.67
49 181 94 825 8.78 0.66
50 265 71 612 8.62 0.64
51 348 2 17 8.50 0.63
52 275 13 109 8.38 0.63
53 337 26 213 8.19 0.61
54 152 7 57 8.14 0.61
55 338 16 123 7.69 0.57
56 109 135 1,007 7-46 0.56
57 353 1 7 7.00 0.52
58 344 1 7 7.00 0.52
59 191 50 349 6.98 0.52
60 211 23 146 6.35 0.47
61 183 16 101 6.31 0.47
62 157 7 44 6.29 0.47
63 261 2 12 6.00 0.45
64 339 20 109 5.45 0.41
65 283 10 47 4.70 0.35
66 182 5 23 4.60 0.34
67 237 20 90 4.50 0.34
68 235 10 44 4.40 0.33
69 244 12 51 4.25 0.32
70 103 16 55 3.44 0.26
71 346 4 13 3.25 0.24
72 350 3 9 3.00 0.22
73 347 1 3 3.00 0.22
74 329 3 9 3.00 0.22
75 324 4 11 2.75 0.21
76 336 3 8 2.67 0.20
77 351 1 2 2.00 0.15
78 343 3 6 2.00 0.15
79 326 1 2 2.00 0.15
80 285 1 2 2.00 0.15
LOWEST 355 2 3 1.50 0.11
-------
FIGURE 6 PAGE 1
DIRECT COSTS BY 'IRIS1 USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES,
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS, AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
(E.G. INJURY LEAVE) ONLY. INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS PER MAN-YEAR IS THE COST PER FULL-TIME SANITATION
EMPLOYEE PER YEAR BASED ON 2,000 HOURS PER YEAR.
INSTRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
HOW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS.
A GOOD STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF LESS THAN .50.
A POOR STANDING IS AN AVERAGE RATIO OF GREATER THAN 1.25.
AVG
IRIS
USER
NO.
197
242
362
3^5
215
296
358
201
210
318
341
337
212
338
140
136
1 1 1
325
261
172
125
292
340
339
316
221
179
AVG
348
2f
65
DIRECT COST
NO. OSHA
RECORD
INJ
1 1
3
1
1
3
22
3
2
13
18
19
26
41
16
157
6
211
20
2
306
276
18
22
20
166
32
68
3.763
3
89
/OSHA
AVG
COST
4,171
2,385
1,934
1,670
1,615
1,386
1,317
1,285
1,057
1 ,011
770
734
727
712
696
680
646
621
559
550
530
504
491
470
469
461
433
1415
390
387
RECORDABLE INJ
.
AVG RATIO
(AVG COST /AVG)
10.04
5.74
4.65
4.02
3.89
3.34
3. 17
3.09
2.54
2.43
1.85
1.77
1.75
1.71
1.68
1.64
1.56
1 .49
1.35
1.32
1.28
1.21
1. 18
1.13
1.13
1.11
1.04
1 . 00
0.94
0.93
IRIS
USER
NO.
197
358
296
210
341
318
212
1 11
337
140
221
325
172
149
260
236
354
316
103
338
333
265
152
207
217
AVG
125
339
_J _*> */
3^5
181
DIRECT COST
MAN-HRS
EXPOSURE
62,279
6,855
70,883
35,672
46,504
58,498
136,830
645,783
104,994
605,234
96,201
79,633
1,156,079
20,764
257,252
244,627
9,289
624,522
29,334
92,894
20,060
324,487
32,097
373,895
1,398,396
18.525. 110
1,728,240
1 1 1 971
1 ' j s I '
20,745
544,198
PER MAN
COSTS
PER M-Y
1,474
1,153
860
770
633
626
436
423
364
362
315
313
291
286
268
264
257
249
247
245
226
213
210
200
181
169
169
168
161
153
YEAR
AVG RATIO
(COSTS/ AVG)
8.70
6.81
5.08
4.55
3.74
3.70
2.57
2.50
2.15
2.14
1.86
1.85
1.72
1.69
1.58
1.56
1.52
1.47
1.46
1.45
1.33
1.26
1.24
1.18
1.07
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.95
0.91
-------
PAGE
VG DIRECT COST/OSHA RECORDABLE INJ
DIRECT COST PER MAN YEAR
BIS
SER
HO.
157
217
101
236
344
170
183
260
115
171
181
109
295
146
178
186
330
'152
:207
149
333
133
211
148
'323
103
272
354
237
244
359
319
204
161
313
346
283
275
299
353
191
329
317
350
326
182
324
NO. OSHA
RECORD
INJ
8
343
111
92
1
68
24
112
21
137
115
220
28
89
27
61
18
14
157
13
10
3
27
28
4
16
23
6
29
17
11
4
32
44
5
4
24
21
16
2
77
6
3
4
1
12
8
AVG
COST
372
366
365
350
318
316
312
307
301
287
286
284
282
273
263
259
241
240
237
228
226
212
209
206
205
203
201
198
198
195
187
182
170
168
158
154
146
143
125
119
116
110
110
98
91
82
80
AVG RATIO
(AVG COST /AVG)
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.84
0.77
0.76
0.75
0.74
0.73
0.69
0.69
0.68
0.68
0. 66
0.63
0.62
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.55
0.55
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.48
0.48
0.47
0.45
0.44
0.41
0.40
0.38
0.37
0.35
0.34
0.30
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.24
0.22
0.20
0. 19
IRIS
USER
NO.
171
330
340
179
348
275
244
261
343
183
204
211
109
359
201
101
349
215
115
362
146
237
170
191
161
295
157
186
283
299
242
329
324
178
272
346
350
353
133
292
136
344
148
235
351
3^7
323
MAN-MRS
EXPOSURE
520,193
61,166
153,635
429,380
17,735
46,066
51,261
18,090
13,269
125,830
93,573
103,184
1,187,955
38,923
49,828
796,060
15,994
106,872
145,009
47,261
603,812
146,933
592,955
253,024
212,353
235,444
97,539
530,683
124, 183
70,796
252,099
27,602
24,742
292,032
194,635
27,509
18,835
11,453
32,163
485,076
222,554
17,415
322,170
182,933
3,952
29,770
96,442
COSTS
PER M-Y
152
142
141
137
132
131
130
124
120
119
116
113
107
106
103
103
91
91
87
82
81
81
73
71
71
67
61
60
57
57
57
53
52
49
48
45
42
42
40
37
37
37
36
33
32
22
19
AVG RATIO
(COSTS/AVG)
0.90
0.84
0.83
0.81
0.78
0.77
0.76
0.73
0.71
0.70
0.69
0.67
0.63
0.63
0.61
0.61
0.54
0.54
0.52
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.43
0.42
0.42
0.40
0.36
0.35
0.31*
0.3^
0.34
0.31
0.31
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.25
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.19
0. 13
0. 11
-------
PAGE 3
AVG DI
IRIS
USER
NO.
286
235
351
285
113
363
355
361
336
226
RECT COST
NO. OSHA
RECORD
INJ
1
42
1
1
2
1
6
2
3
3
/OSHA
AVG
COST
80
72
64
61
51
31
27
20
20
20
RECORDABLE INJ
AVG RATIO
(AVG COST /AVG)
0. 19
0. 17
0. 15
0. 15
0. 12
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
IRIS
USER
NO.
113
326
286
182
355
336
361
226
285
363
DIRECT COST
MAN-HRS
EXPOSURE
14,483
13,957
14,694
207,998
36,440
25,800
17,596
32,717
39,991
20,91 1
PER MAN
COSTS
PER M-Y
14
13
11
10
9
5
5
4
3
3
YEAR
AVG RATIO
(COSTS/ AVG
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
-------
FIGURE 7 PAGE 1
DIRECT COSTS FOR LOST DAY CASES
BY 'IRIS1 USERS
RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES,
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS, AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
(E.G. INJURY LEAVE) ONLY. INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
INSTRUCTIONS: FIND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S USER NUMBER AND COMPARE
HOW IT RANKS WITH THE AVERAGE AND OTHER IRIS USERS.
IRIS USER NO. LOST DAY TOTAL COST AVG COST/
NO. CASES LOST DAY CASE
197
358
201
242
362
296
345
215
210
340
318
111
140
101
325
172
341
292
136
299
316
212
337
338
179
333
125
AVG
217
146
261
204
348
349
115
354
236
9
1
1
3
1
18
1
3
9
8
18
136
116
43
14
187
18
11
5
2
101
40
26
16
39
3
216
2,259
86
37
2
8
2
1
1 1
2
63
45,829
3,603
2,514
7,155
1,934
30,345
1,670
4,846
13,615
10,343
18,214
131,959
107,012
38,236
12,187
161,286
14,609
8,919
4,052
1,591
76,396
29,792
19, 106
11,399
27,667
2,025
142,931
1 .438.324
53,947
21,723
1, 119
4,441
1,102
519
5,566
985
31,027
5,092
3,603
2,514
2,385
1,934
1 ,686
1,670
1,615
1,513
1,293
1,012
970
923
889
871
862
812
811
810
796
756
745
735
712
709
675
662
637
627
587
560
555
551
519
506
493
492
-------
IRIS USER NO. LOST DAY TOTAL COST AVG COST/
NO. CASES LOST DAY CASE
295 15 7,233 482
178 14 6,697 478
265 71 33,883 477
171 79 37,555 475
339 20 9,417 471
221 32 14,765 461
186 33 15,021 455
148 11 4,873 443
183 16 7,068 442
260 75 32,828 438
109 135 58,679 435
181 94 40,094 427
152 7 2,972 425
157 7 2,941 420
170 53 20,845 393
207 88 34,366 391
330 11 4,195 381
323 2 754 377
161 20 6,705 335
1^9 9 2,892 321
344 1 318 318
272 14 4,451 318
133 2 618 309
283 10 2,889 289
359 7 1,918 274
237 20 5,370 269
2^ 12 3,164 264
347 1 252 252
343 3 732 244
211 23 5,405 235
353 1 224 224
275 13 2,759 212
103 16 3,252 203
?35 10 1,833 183
182 5 852 170
HI 50 8,435 169
329 3 499 166
346 4 619 155
324 4 540 135
35° 3 366 122
326 1 91 91
351 ! 64 64
III 1 61 61
III 2 105 53
336 3 60 20
-------
FIGURE 8 PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACTIVITIES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL T REATMENT CASES
(I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), LOST WORKDAY,
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACTIVITY NO. %
LIFTING CONTAINER 563 14.96
DUMPING CONTAINER 455 12.09
LIFTING TO DUMP CONTAINER 386 10.26
GETTING OFF EQUIP 299 7.95
STANDING OR WALKING 269 7.15
CARRYING CONTAINER 266 7.07
RIDING ON EQUIP 235 6.25
PUSHING OR PULLING CONTAINER 152 4.04
LIFTING TO DUMP WASTE 146 3.88
DRIVING EQUIP 120 3.19
GETTING ON EQUIP 111 2.95
DOING REPETITIOUS WORK 61 1.62
LIFTING WASTE 55 1.46
OPERATING CONTROLS 55 1.46
DOING OTHER TYPE OF ACTIVITY 50 1.33
REPAIRING EQUIP WHANDTOOL 41 1.09
CLEARING WASTE W HANDTOOL 38 1.01
OPENING EQUIP PT 36 0.96
DOING NO ONE ACTIVITY 33 0.88
REFUELING VEH OR ROUTINE MAINT 32 0.85
DUMPING WASTE 25 0.66
PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE 25 0.66
EMPTYING VEH 24 0.64
DOING UNK ACTIVITY 22 0.58
CLOSING EQUIP PT 19 0.50
CHECKING EQUIP MALFNCTN 19 0.50
DIRECTING VEH 16 0.43
PUSHING OR PULLING WASTE 15 0.40
TRIMMING SHRUBBERY 15 0.40
CARRYING WASTE 13 0.35
DISLODGING WASTE FROM VEH 13 0.35
LIFTING OBJECT 11 °-29
HOOKING OR UNHOOKING EQUIP - 11 0.29
DISLODGING WASTE FROM CONT 10 0.27
COMPACTING WASTE IN CONT 10 0.27
MASHING EQUIP 10 °-27
RUNNING 1° °-27
DRYING OBJECT 8 0.21
-------
PAGE 2
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACTIVITY NO. %
CATCHING CONT 8 0 21
DOING JANITORIAL WORK 8 0 21
PUSHING OR PULLING VEH PT 7 o.*19
PUSHING OR PULLING OBJECT 7 o*1Q
COMPACTING WASTE IN VEH 7 9*19
REPAIRING CONT W HANDTOOL 7 o*19
UNLOADING WASTE 7 Q* 19
LIFTING VEH PART 5 Q" 13
CATCHING WASTE 5 Q." 13
ARRANGING LOAD 5 Q' 13
SHAKING TO DUMP CONT 4 o'll
HOOKING OR UNHOOKING CONT u o!l1
MOWING 4 O'l1
WASHING CONT 2 0*05
DOING HORSEPLAY 2 0*05
RIDING ON CONT <\ n'o3
FIGHTING ! 0;o^
TOTAL 3,763 100.00
-------
FIGURE 9
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACTIVITIES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: A LOST DAYS CASE IS ONE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE INCURRED
WORKDAYS LOST AND/OR LIGHT DUTY DAYS DUE TO THE ACCIDENT.
ACTIVITY
OSHA DAYS LOST
NO.
AVG DAYS LOST/
LOST DAYS CASE
LIFTING CONTAINER
LIFTING TO DUMP CONTAINER
RIDING ON EQUIP
GETTING OFF EQUIP
DUMPING CONTAINER
CARRYING CONTAINER
STANDING OR WALKING
PUSHING OR PULLING CONTAINER
DRIVING EQUIP
GETTING ON EQUIP
DOING REPETITIOUS WORK
LIFTING TO DUMP WASTE
DOING OTHER TYPE OF ACTIVITY
OPENING EQUIP PT
PUSHING OR PULLING WASTE
TRIMMING SHRUBBERY
OPERATING CONTROLS
EMPTYING VEH
CLEARING WASTE W HANDTOOL
DIRECTING VEH
ARRANGING LOAD
LIFTING OBJECT
LIFTING WASTE
REPAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL
PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE
COMPACTING WASTE IN VEH
DUMPING WASTE
CLOSING EQUIP PT
CARRYING OBJECT
CARRYING WASTE
REFUELING VEH OR ROUTINE MAINT
CATCHING WASTE
HOOKING OR UNHOOKING EQUIP
ASHING OR PULLING OBJECT
DOING UNK ACTIVITY
HOWING
DOING NO ONE ACTIVITY
WASHING EQUIP
4,185
3,009
2,758
2,701
2,667
2,271
2,065
1,891
1,097
935
845
751
492
382
365
348
341
325
284
194
175
167
163
151
141
122
120
107
100
100
99
98
90
87
87
75
63
51
13.83
9-94
9-11
8.93
8.81
7.51
6.82
6.25
3.63
3.09
2.79
2.48
1.63
1 .26
1.21
1.15
1.13
1.07
0.94
0.64
0.58
0.55
0.54
0.50
0.47
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.25
0.21
0. 17
10.59
13.37
18.76
13.31
11.11
12.69
12.91
17.51
13.89
12.81
17.60
13.91
20.50
20. 11
40.56
34.80
11.37
29.55
14.95
19.40
43.75
33.40
8.58
8.39
10.85
20.33
10.91
13.37
20.00
14.29
6.19
24.50
18.00
17.40
9-67
18.75
4.20
8.50
-------
PAGE 2
OSHA DAYS LOST
ACTIVITY
PUSHING OR PULLING VEH PT
CHECKING EQUIP MALFNCTN
RUNNING
LIFTING VEH PART
CATCHING CONT
DOING JANITORIAL WORK
DISLODGING WASTE FROM VEH
DOING HORSEPLAY
SHAKING TO DUMP CONT
DISLODGING WASTE FROM CONT
COMPACTING WASTE IN CONT
HOOKING OR UNHOOKING CONT
REPAIRING CONT W HANDTOOL
FIGHTING
UNLOADING WASTE
RIDING ON CONT
WASHING CONT
NO.
AVG DAYS LOST/
LOST DAYS CASE
50
50
35
33
33
33
31
29
18
12
11
7
5
4
3
1
1
0. 17
0. 17
0. 12
0. 11
0. 11
0. 11
0. 10
0. 10
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
12.50
5.56
7.00
6.60
6.60
16.50
5.17
14.50
6.00
6.00
2.20
3.50
2.50
4.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
TOTAL
30,258 100.00
13.39
-------
FIGURE 10
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACTIVITIES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST
WORKDAY, PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES.
FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES, WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS
AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G., INJURY LEAVE) ONLY. INDIRECT
COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS
ACTIVITY
AMT.
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
LIFTING CONTAINER
RIDING ON EQUIP
LIFTING TO DUMP CONTAINER
DUMPING CONTAINER
STANDING OR WALKING
GETTING OFF EQUIP
CARRYING CONTAINER
PUSHING OR PULLING CONTAINER
DRIVING EQUIP
DISLODGING WASTE FROM VEH
OPENING EQUIP PT
DOING REPETITIOUS WORK
GETTING ON EQUIP
LIFTING TO DUMP WASTE
DOING OTHER TYPE OF ACTIVITY
OPERATING CONTROLS
PUSHING OR PULLING WASTE
EMPTYING VEH
ARRANGING LOAD
LIFTING WASTE
CLEARING WASTE W HANDTOOL
LIFTING OBJECT
DUMPING WASTE
PICKING UP LOOSE WASTE
REPAIRING EQUIP W HANDTOOL
COMPACTING WASTE IN VEH
REFUELING VEH OR ROUTINE MAINT
DIRECTING VEH
CARRYING OBJECT
HOOKING OR UNHOOKING EQUIP
CLOSING EQUIP PT
DIMMING SHRUBBERY
CARRYING WASTE
WING NO ONE ACTIVITY
ASHING OR PULLING OBJECT
D°IHG UNK ACTIVITY
205,193
161 ,281
121 ,961
118,870
114,373
114, 160
102,056
84,331
59,890
59,441
57,137
45,231
41 ,017
37,775
33,619
25,099
18,964
16,828
11,358
9,935
9,73^
8,448
8,213
7,845
7,531
7,517
6,471
6,227
5,965
5,250
5,215
4,891
4,745
3,852
3,798
3,773
13. 12
10.31
7.80
7.60
7.31
7.30
6.53
5.39
3.83
3.80
3.65
2.89
2.62
2.42
2.15
1.60
1.21
1.08
0.73
0.64
0.62
0.54
0.53
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.41
0.40
0.38
0.34
0.33
0.31
0.30
0.25
0.24
0.24
4
1
1
2
1
364
686
316
261
425
382
384
555
499
,572
,587
741
370
259
672
456
,264
701
,272
181
256
768
329
314
184
,074
202
389
"46
477
274
326
365
117
543
172
-------
PAGE
DIRECT COSTS
ACTIVITY
PUSHING OR PULLING VEH PT
CATCHING WASTE
CHECKING EQUIP MALFNCTN
WASHING EQUIP
MOWING
LIFTING VEH PART
DOING JANITORIAL WORK
SHAKING TO DUMP CONT
RUNNING
CATCHING CONT
DOING HORSEPLAY
DISLODGING WASTE FROM CONT
COMPACTING WASTE IN CONT
HOOKING OR UNHOOKING CONT
UNLOADING WASTE
REPAIRING CONT W HANDTOOL
FIGHTING
RIDING ON CONT
WASHING CONT
AMT.
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
3,345
3,042
3,026
2,184
1,748
1,653
1,620
1,612
1,445
1,405
1,054
1,009
782
576
524
459
184
144
83
0.21
0. 19
0. 19
0. 14
0. 1 1
0. 11
0. 10
0. 10
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
478
608
159
218
437
331
203
403
145
176
527
101
78
144
75
66
184
144
42
OTAL
1,563,888 100.00
416
-------
FIGURE 11 PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
j DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL T REATMENT CASES
i(I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), LOST WORKDAY,
i PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
- ACCIDENT TYPE NO. %
I OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING CONT 671 17.83
;SLIP ON SAME LEVEL 221 5.87
.STRUCK BY WASTE 213 5.66
!VEHICLE ACCIDENT 172 4.57
tFALL ON SAME LEVEL 171 4.54
'STRUCK SELF WITH CONT BEING HANDLED 161 4.28
FALL TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL 155 4.12
''STRUCK AGAINST VEH PART 149 3.96
'CAUGHT BETWEEN OBJECTS 149 3.96
.WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE 111 2.95
4 VEH MOVEMENT INVOLVED ACCIDENT 109 2.90
HURT BY HANDLING CONT 99 2.63
BODILY REACTION 95 2.52
ANIMAL BITE 83 2.21
SLIP AND STRUCK AGAINST VEH PART 82 2.18
INSECT BITE 77 2.05
PARTICLES IN EYE 70 1 .86
STEPPED ON SHARP WASTE 69 1.83
STRUCK BY VEH PART 52 1.38
HURT BY HANDLING WASTE 52 1.38
OVEREXERT ION 51 1.36
STRUCK BY OBJ 50 1.33
SLIPTOA DIFFERENT LEVEL 48 1.28
STRUCK BY CONTAINER 47 1.25
OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING WASTE 44 1.17
STRUCK SELF WITH WASTE BEING HANDLED 43 1.14
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING CONT 40 1.06
STEPPED ON SHARP OBJ 40 1.06
FALL AGAINST VEH PART 35 0.93
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT 33 0.88
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC SUBSTANCE 33 0.88
CONTACT WITH ALLERGENIC WASTE 31 0.82
OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING OBJ ' 29 0.77
OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING VEH PART 27 0.72
STRUCK SELF WITH OBJ BEING HANDLED 24 0.64
STRUCK AGAINST WASTE 20 0.53
STRUCK AGAINST CONTAINER 19 0.50
DEVELOPED INJURY OVER TIME 18 0.48
UNKNOWN ACCIDENT TYPE 18 0.43
°THER ACCIDENT TYPE 14 0.37
-------
PAGE 2
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT TYPE NO. %
STRUCK SELF WITH VEH PT BEING HANDLED 13 0.35
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC WASTE 11 0.29
EXPOSURE TO WEATHER EXTREMES 11 0.29
FALL AGAINST CONT 10 0.27
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING OBJ 10 0.27
HURT BY HANDLING VEH PART 9 0.24
SLIP AND STRUCK AGAINST CONT 9 0.24
RESULT OF AGGRESSIVE ACT 9 0.24
CONTACT WITH HOT SUBSTANCE 8 0.21
HURT BY HANDLING OBJ 6 0.16
FALL AGAINST OBJ 5 o 13
SLIP AND STRUCK AGAINST OBJ 5 o!l3
CONTACT WITH ALLERGENIC SUBSTANCE 5 O.'l3
CONTACT WITH HOT VEH PART 5 o 13
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING VEH i| o!l1
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING OBJ 4 0*11
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING WASTE 4 011
CONTACT WITH HOT OBJ 4 0.11
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING VEH 3 0*08
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING CONT 1 0*03
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING WASTE 1 o.*03
FLASHBURN ! 0]o3
TOTAL 3,763 100.00
-------
FIGURE 12
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
BEPORTION PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: A LOST DAYS CASE IS ONE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE INCURRED
WORKDAYS LOST AND/OR LIGHT DUTY DAYS DUE TO THE ACCIDENT.
OSHA DAYS LOST
ACCIDENT TYPE
NO.
AVG DAYS LOST/
LOST DAYS CASE
OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING CONT
VEHICLE ACCIDENT
CAUGHT BETWEEN OBJECTS
FALL TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
SLIP ON SAME LEVEL
FALL ON SAME LEVEL
VEH MOVEMENT INVOLVED ACCIDENT
BODILY REACTION
STRUCK SELF WITH CONT BEING HANDLED
SLIP TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
HURT BY HANDLING COOT
OVEREXERT ION
OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING WASTE
STRUCK BY WASTE
STRUCK AGAINST VEH PART
STRUCK BY VEH PART
SLIP AND STRUCK AGAINST VEH PART
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING CONT
OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING OBJ
OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING VEH PART
FALL AGAINST VEH PART
STRUCK BY CONTAINER
FALL AGAINST CONT
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING OBJ
STEPPED ON SHARP WASTE
DEVELOPED INJURY OVER TIME
SLIP AND STRUCK AGAINST CONT
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING WASTE
STRUCK SELF WITH WASTE BEING HANDLED
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT
OTHER ACCIDENT TYPE
PARTICLES IN EYE
UNKNOWN ACCIDENT TYPE
STRUCK BY OBJ
CONTACT WITH ALLERGENIC WASTE
HURT BY HANDLING WASTE
JASTE PARTICLES IN EYE
EXPOSURE TO WEATHER EXTREMES
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC SUBSTANCE
CONTACT WITH HOT OBJ
ANIMAL BITE
RESULT OF AGGRESSIVE ACT
6,821
2,839
2,215
2,21 1
2, 127
1,437
1,232
823
786
754
735
705
701
670
605
585
567
437
434
378
356
237
214
189
188
158
129
125
119
106
106
97
88
85
84
81
79
74
64
63
63
61
22.54
9.38
7.32
7.31
7-03
4.75
4.07
2.72
2.60
2.49
2.43
2.33
2.32
2.21
2.00
1.93
1.87
1.44
1.43
1.25
1 . 18
0.78
0.71
0.62
0.62
0.52
0.43
0.41
0.39
0.35
0.35
0.32
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
12.97
22.01
23.56
19.39
13.21
11.98
16.65
12.66
8.93
19.33
17.09
17.20
22.61
7.28
8.07
18.87
10.90
13.24
25.53
18.90
13.19
7.41
35.67
23.62
6.71
12.15
18.43
41.67
7.44
6.62
17.67
3.46
14.67
3.54
6.00
8.10
2.55
10.57
3.56
21.00
3.32
10.17
-------
PAGE
ACCIDENT TYPE
OSHA DAYS LOST
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING OBJ
STEPPED ON SHARP OBJ
INSECT BITE
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC WASTE
STRUCK AGAINST WASTE
HURT BY HANDLING OBJ
STRUCK AGAINST CONTAINER
CONTACT WITH HOT SUBSTANCE
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING VEH
HURT BY HANDLING VEH PART
STRUCK SELF WITH OBJ BEING HANDLED
FALL AGAINST OBJ
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING VEH
SLIP AND STRUCK AGAINST OBJ
CONTACT WITH HOT VEH PART
CONTACT WITH ALLERGENIC SUBSTANCE
NO.
AVG DAYS LOST
LOST DAYS CAS
59
48
44
42
35
31
30
29
21
18
17
16
15
12
10
3
0. 19
0. 16
0. 15
0. 14
0. 12
0. 10
0. 10
0. 10
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.01
14.75
3.20
2.93
8.40
4.37
10.33
3.75
4.83
7.00
6.00
2.43
5.33
7.50
6.00
10.00
3.00
TOTAL
30,258 100.00
13.39
-------
FIGURE 13
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL TREATMENT
CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST WORKDAY,
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES, WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND
WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G., INJURY LEAVE) ONLY. INDIRECT COSTS
ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT
ACCIDENT TYPE
COSTS
AMOUNT
OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING CONT
CAUGHT BETWEEN OBJECTS
VEHICLE ACCIDENT
FALL TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
SLIP ON SAME LEVEL
FALL ON SAME LEVEL
STRUCK BY VEH PART
VEH MOVEMENT INVOLVED ACCIDENT
STRUCK SELF WITH CONT BEING HANDLED
STRUCK BY WASTE
OVEREXERT ION
SLIP TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
BODILY REACTION
STRUCK AGAINST VEH PART
HURT BY HANDLING CONT
OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING WASTE
SLIP AND STRUCK AGAINST VEH PART
OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING VEH PART
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING CONT
FALL AGAINST CONT
FALL AGAINST VEH PART
STEPPED ON SHARP WASTE
OVEREXERT ION INVOLVING OBJ
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT
WASTE PARTICLES IN EYE
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING OBJ
DEVELOPED INJURY OVER TIME
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING WASTE
STRUCK BY CONTAINER
STRUCK BY OBJ
ANIMAL BITE
MRT BY HANDLING WASTE
JJHER ACCIDENT TYPE
^IP AND STRUCK AGAINST CONT
PARTICLES IN EYE
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC SUBSTANCE
307,748
171 ,474
166,210
102,685
90,239
72,282
62,952
55,300
45,318
43, 180
38,406
32,725
32, 108
31,138
24,447
22,922
22,801
20,335
19,675
16,350
14,625
14,296
14,180
11,897
8,845
8,785
8,024
7,411
7,325
6,624
6,433
6,278
6,265
6,139
5,214
4,699
19.68
10.96
10.63
6.57
5.77
4.62
4.03
3.54
2.90
2.76
2.46
2.09
2.05
1.99
1 .56
1.47
1.46
1.30
1.26
1.05
0.94
0.91
0.91
0.76
0.57
0.56
0.51
0.47
0.47
0.42
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.33
0.30
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
459
1,151
966
662
408
423
1 ,211
507
281
203
753
682
338
209
247
521
278
753
492
1,635
418
207
489
361
80
879
446
1,853
156
132
78
121
448
682
74
142
-------
PAGE 2
DIRECT COSTS
ACCIDENT TYPE AMOUNT % AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
INSECT BITE 4,415 0.28 57
UNKNOWN ACCIDENT TYPE 4,394 0.28 244
STRUCK SELF WITH WASTE BEING HANDLED 4,380 0.28 102
EXPOSURE TO WEATHER EXTREMES 3,977 0.25 362
CONTACT WITH ALLERGENIC WASTE 3,483 0.22 112
STEPPED ON SHARP OBJ 3,086 0.20 77
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING OBJ 2,848 0.18 712
CONTACT WITH HOT OBJ 2,790 0.18 698
RESULT OF AGGRESSIVE ACT 2,511 0.16 279
STRUCK AGAINST WASTE 2,242 0.14 112
STRUCK AGAINST CONTAINER 1,980 0.13 104
STRUCK SELF WITH OBJ BEING HANDLED 1,858 0.12 77
CONTACT WITH CAUSTIC OR TOXIC WASTE 1,810 0.12 165
HURT BY HANDLING VEH PART 1,617 0.10 180
HURT BY HANDLING OBJ 1,466 0.09 244
BODILY REACTION IN CATCHING VEH 1,135 0.07 284
FALL AGAINST OBJ 1,092 0.07 218
CONTACT WITH HOT SUBSTANCE 879 0.06 110
STRUCK SELF WITH VEH FT BEING HANDLED 654 0.04 50
SLIP AND STRUCK AGAINST OBJ 556 0.04 111
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING VEH 532 0.03 177
CONTACT WITH HOT VEH PART 331 0.02 66
CONTACT WITH ALLERGENIC SUBSTANCE 310 0.02 62
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING CONT 176 0.01 176
FLASHBURN 25 0.00 25
BODILY REACTION IN AVOIDING WASTE 8 0.00 8
TOTAL 1,563,888 100.00 416
-------
FIGURE 14
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL T REATMENT CASES
(I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), LOST WORKDAY,
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT SITE NO. %
ON COLLECTION ROUTE
IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK 946 25.14
IN ST AT CURB 1*65 12.36
IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK 368 9.78
IN CUSTOMER'S YD 361 9.59
ON STEP OF VEH 224 5.95
IN ALLEY AT CURB 173 4.60
INSIDE CAB OF VEH 151 4.01
IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY 109 2.90
ON VEHICLE 86 2.29
ON RUNNING BOARD 67 1.78
IN MIDALLEY 54 1 .44
IN MIDST REET 50 1 .33
ON TRUCK BED 11 0.29
ON SIDEWALK 11 0.29
IN ST AT FRONT OF TRUCK 5 0.13
IN ALLEY AT FRONT OF TRUCK 2 0.05
IN CUSTOMER'S RESIDENCE 1 0.03
SUBTOTAL 3,200 85.04
ENROUTE BETWEEN SITES
INSIDE CAB 33 0.88
ON STEP OF VEH 40.11
ON TRUCK BED 2 0.05
ON RUNNING BOARD 1 °-°3
SUBTOTAL 41 1-°9
AT LANDFILL
NEXT TO VEH AT DUMP SITE 56 1.49
AT DUMP SITE 32 0.85
ON VEHICLE 27 0.72
IN YARD 25 0.66
NEXT TO VEH 20 °-53
INSIDE CAB OF VEH ' ^ °-37
IN SHOP/GARAGE § 0.21
ON STEP OF VEH 6 0.16
IN OFFICE/GATEHOUSE 6 0.16
ON STEP AT DUMP SITE 5 0.13
INSIDE CAB ENROUTE TO DUMP SITE 5 0.13
-------
PAGE 2
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT SITE NO. %
INSIDE CAB AT DUMP SITE 4 0.11
ON RUNNING BOARD 3 0.08
ON TRUCK BED AT DUMP SITE 2 0.05
ENROUTE TO DUMP SITE 2 0.05
ON RUNNING BOARD AT DUMP SITE 1 0.03
SUBTOTAL 226 6.01
AT INCINERATOR
IN PLANT 12 0.32
AT DUMPING FLOOR 11 0.29
IN SHOP/GARAGE 9 0.24
IN YARD 5 0.13
ON VEHICLE 3 0.08
IN OFFICE/GATEHOUSE 3 0.08
INSIDE CAB OF VEH 2 0.05
NEXT TO VEH 2 0.05
ON VEHICLE AT DUMPING FLOOR 2 0.05
ON STEP OF VEH 1 0.03
ON RUNNING BOARD AT DUMPING FLOOR 1 0.03
SUBTOTAL 53 1.41
AT TRANSFER STATION
NEXT TO VEHICLE 5 0. 13
IN YARD 3 0.08
INSIDE CAB OF VEH 2 0.05
ON VEHICLE 1 0.03
SUBTOTAL 12 0.32
AT RECYCLING STATION
IN PLANT 2 0.05
NEXT TO VEH 1 0.03
ON RUNNING BOARD 1 0.03
IN YARD 1 0.03
SUBTOTAL 5 0.13
AT HEADQUARTERS
IN SHOP/GARAGE 73 1.94
IN YARD PARKING LOT 52 1.38
ON VEHICLE 10 0.27
NEXT TO VEH 10 0.27
IN OFFICE 10 0.27
AT REFUELING STATION 6 0.16
INSIDE CAB OF VEH - 40.11
AT WASHRACK 3 0.08
ON STEP OF VEH 2 0.05
ON RUNNING BOARD 1 0.03
SUBTOTAL 175 4.65
IN ROADWAY/FIELD
SUBTOTAL 18 0.48
-------
PAGE
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT SITE NO.
AT OTHER SITE
AT UNKNOWN SITE 25 0.66
SUBTOTAL 33 0.88
TOTAL 3,763 100.00
-------
FIGURE 15
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: A LOST DAYS CASE IS ONE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE INCURRED
WORKDAYS LOST AND/OR LIGHT DUTY DAYS DUE TO THE ACCIDENT.
OSHA DAYS LOST
ACCIDENT SITE
ON COLLECTION ROUTE
IN ST AT BACK OF TRUCK
IN ST AT CURB
ON STEP OF VEH
IN CUSTOMER 'S YD
IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK
IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
IN ALLEY AT CURB
IN MIDST REET
ON VEHICLE
ON RUNNING BOARD
IN MIDALLEY
ON SIDEWALK
ON TRUCK BED
NO.
IN ST AT FRONT OF
IN ALLEY AT FRONT
SUBTOTAL
TRUCK
OF TRUCK
7,764
3,599
2,407
2,290
2,028
1,383
1 , 126
814
802
529
433
427
76
26
11
2
4,965
25.66
11.89
7.95
7.57
6.70
4.57
3.72
2.69
2.65
1.75
1.43
1.41
0.25
0.09
0.04
0.01
82.51
ENROUTE BETWEEN SITES
INSIDE CAB
ON STEP OF VEH
ON RUNNING BOARD
SUBTOTAL
AT LANDFILL
NEXT TO VEH AT DUMP SITE
INSIDE CAB ENROUTE TO DUMP SITE
ON VEHICLE
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
AT DUMP SITE
IN OFFICE/GATEHOUSE
IN YARD
IN SHOP/GARAGE
NEXT TO VEH
ENROUTE TO DUMP SITE
ON STEP OF VEH
ON STEP AT DUMP SITE
INSIDE CAB AT DUMP SITE
ON TRUCK BED AT DUMP SITE
624
287
196
195
163
147
135
71
61
52
45
23
21
17
2.06
0.95
0.65
0.64
0.54
0.49
0.45
0.23
0.20
0. 17
0. 15
0.08
0.07
0.06
AVG DAYS LOST
LOST DAYS CAS
13
11
16
10
12
18
11
1 1
25
10
11
13
10
5
5
2
16
43
05
36
22
69
04
00
,87
17
,39
34
86
20
,50
00
12.92
596
106
13
740
1.97
0.35
0.04
2.45
22.92
35.33
13.00
23.87
26.00
71.75
11.53
27.86
10.87
36.75
12.27
23.67
5.08
26.00
9.00
7.67
7.00
8.50
-------
PAGE 2
OSHA DAYS LOST
ACCIDENT SITE
ON RUNNING BOARD
ON RUNNING BOARD
SUBTOTAL
AT DUMP SITE
AT INCINERATOR
IN PLANT
AT DUMPING FLOOR
IN SHOP/GARAGE
IN OFFICE/GATEHOUSE
ON VEHICLE
IN YARD
ON STEP OF VEH
NEXT TO VEH
ON RUNNING BOARD AT
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
SUBTOTAL
AT TRANSFER STATION
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
NEXT TO VEHICLE
IN YARD
SUBTOTAL
AT RECYCLING STATION
IN PLANT
ON RUNNING BOARD
SUBTOTAL
AT HEADQUARTERS
IN YARD PARKING LOT
IN SHOP/GARAGE
NEXT TO VEH
ON VEHICLE
IN OFFICE
ON RUNNING BOARD
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
AT REFUELING STATION
ON STEP OF VEH
AT WASHRACK
SUBTOTAL
IN ROADWAY/FIELD
SUBTOTAL
AT OTHER SITE
AT UNKNOWN SITE
SUBTOTAL
DUMPING FLOOR
NO. % AVG DAYS LOST/
LOST DAYS CASE
12 0.04 12.00
1 0.00 1.00
2,086 6.89 17.38
262 0.87 26.20
207 0.68 25.87
57 0.19 11.40
29 0.10 29.00
25 0.08 8.33
15 0.05 5.00
10 0.03 10.00
10 0.03 5.00
8 0.03 8.00
3 0.01 3.00
643 2.13 17.86
54
8
3
65
0. 18
0.03
0.01
0.21
27.00
2.67
3.00
10.83
44
15
59
165
147
273
0. 15
0.05
0. 19
0.55
0.49
0.90
22.00
15.00
19.67
555
406
115
66
40
25
23
15
6
1
1,262
1.83
1.34
0.38
0.22
0. 13
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.02
0.00
4. 17
17.90
10.41
19.17
9.43
8.00
25.00
7.67
15.00
3.00
1.00
12.75
13.75
9.80
14.37
TOTAL
30,258 100.00
13.39
-------
FIGURE 16
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
ACCIDENT SITES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF DIRECT COSTS
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL T REATMENT
CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST
WORKDAY, PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES.
FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES, WORKER'S COMPENSATION
BENEFITS AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G., INJURY LEAVE)
ONLY. INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
INSTRUCTIONS: DETERMINE YOUR ORGANIZATION'S PROBLEM AREAS BY
IDENTIFYING THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES.
DIRECT COSTS
ON
IN
IN
ACCIDENT SITE
COLLECTION ROUTE
ST AT BACK OF TRUCK
ST AT CURB
AMOUNT
ON STEP OF VEH
IN CUSTOMER'S YD
IN ALLEY AT BACK OF TRUCK
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
IN CUSTOMER'S DRIVEWAY
IN ALLEY AT CURB
IN MIDSTREET
ON VEHICLE
IN MIDALLEY
ON RUNNING BOARD
ON SIDEWALK
ON TRUCK BED
IN ST AT FRONT OF TRUCK
IN ALLEY AT FRONT OF TRUCK
IN
CUSTOMER'S
SUBTOTAL
RESIDENCE
ENROUTE BETWEEN SITES
INSIDE CAB
ON STEP OF VEH
ON RUNNING BOARD
ON TRUCK BED
SUBTOTAL
AT LANDFILL
NEXT TO VEH
ON VEHICLE
INSIDE CAB ENROUTE TO
AT DUMP SITE
IN OFFICE/GATEHOUSE
AT DUMP SITE
DUMP SITE
30,027
2,899
298
89
34,522
69,133
66,328
11,096
8,875
7,812
AVG COSTS
OSHA REC IN
343,757
165,763
143,423
111 , 100
106,602
61,359
50,493
45,595
37,84*1
34,201
27,725
23,604
4,235
1,579
406
155
40
1,213,351
21.98
10.60
9.17
7. 10
6.82
3.92
3.23
2.92
2.42
2. 19
1.77
1.51
0.27
0, 10
0.03
0.01
0.00
77.59
363
356
640
307
289
406
463
263
756
397
513
352
385
143
81
77
40
379
1.92
0. 19
0.02
0.01
2.21
4.42
4.24
0.71
0.57
0.50
909
724
298
44
842
1,234
2,456
2,219
277
1,302
-------
PAGE 2
ACCIDENT SITE
DIRECT COSTS
IN YARD
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
NEXT TO VEH
ON STEP OF VEH
ENROUTE TO DUMP SITE
IN SHOP/GARAGE
ON STEP AT DUMP SITE
ON TRUCK BED AT DUMP SITE
INSIDE CAB AT DUMP SITE
ON RUNNING BOARD
ON RUNNING BOARD AT DUMP SITE
SUBTOTAL
AT INCINERATOR
IN PLANT
AT DUMPING FLOOR
IN OFFICE/GATEHOUSE
IN SHOP/GARAGE
NEXT TO VEH
IN YARD
ON VEHICLE
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
ON STEP OF VEH
ON RUNNING BOARD AT DUMPING FLOOR
ON VEHICLE AT DUMPING FLOOR
SUBTOTAL
AT TRANSFER STATION
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
NEXT TO VEHICLE
IN YARD
ON VEHICLE
SUBTOTAL
AT RECYCLING STATION
IN PLANT
ON RUNNING BOARD
NEXT TO VEH
IN YARD
SUBTOTAL
AT HEADQUARTERS
IN YARD PARKING LOT
IN SHOP/GARAGE
NEXT TO VEH
IN OFFICE
ON VEHICLE
INSIDE CAB OF VEH
AT REFUELING STATION
ON RUNNING BOARD
ON STEP OF VEH
AMOUNT % AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
7,787 0.50 311
7,116 0.46 508
4,730 0.30 236
3,638 0.23 606
3,462 0.22 1,731
2,429 0.16 303
1,949 0.12 389
1,524 0.10 762
1,161 0.07 290
515 0.03 171
236 0.02 236
199,043 12.73 881
947
460
037
258
292
114
169
245
453
350
47
475
1,986 0.13 993
484 0.03 96
253 0.02 84
46 0.00 46
2,789 0.18 232
2,466 0.16 1,233
473 0.03 473
75 0.00 75
20 0.00 20
3,034 0.19 607
29,809 1.91 573
22,154 1.42 303
6,421 0.41 642
2,653 0.17 265
2,361 0.15 236
841 0.05 210
747 0.05 124
645 0.04 645
602 0.04 301
11,364
5,065
3,111
2,323
584
573
508
490
453
350
95
25, 178
0.73
0.32
0.20
0. 15
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
1 .61
-------
PAGE 3
DIRECT COSTS
ACCIDENT SITE AMOUNT % AVG COSTS
OSHA REC D
AT WASHRACK 185 0.01 61
SUBTOTAL 66,967 4.28 383
IN ROADWAY/FIELD
SUBTOTAL 5,406 0.35 300
AT OTHER SITE
AT UNKNOWN SITE 7,308 0.47 292
SUBTOTAL 13,598 0.87 412
TOTAL 1,563,888 100.00 416
-------
FIGURE 17 PAGE 1
ALL USERS
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL T REATMENT CASES
(I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), LOST WORKDAY,
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATAL CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED,
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
TYPE OF INJURY NO. %
SPRAIN OR STRAIN 1,525 40.53
BRUISE 763 20.28
CUT/PUNCTURE 707 18.79
IRRITATION 220 5.85
FRACTURE 111 2.95
STING 71 1.89
ABRASIONS 67 1.78
DERMATITIS 44 1.17
UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY 38 1.01
CHEMICAL BURN 27 0.72
OTHER TYPE OF INJURY 27 0.72
BURN FROM HEAT 26 0.69
MULTIPLE INJURIES 18 0.48
DISLOCATION 17 0.45
INFECTION 17 0.45
ASPHYXIATION OR DROWNING 16 0.43
POISONING OR ALLERGIC REACTION 14 0.37
INFLAMMATION OF THE JOINTS 10 0.27
CONCUSSION 9 0.24
HEAT STROKE, EXHAUST ION OR CRAMPS 8 0.21
AMPUTATION 7 0.19
HERNIA 6 0.16
FROSTBITE OR OTHER LOW TEMP EFFECT 3 0.08
NOSEBLEED 3 0.08
TORN CARTILAGE 3 0.08
DENTAL INJURY 2 ° °5
AVULSION 1 °-°3
ELECTRIC SHOCK 1 °-°3
PARALYSIS 1 °-°3
HEART ATTACK 1 °-°3
TOTAL 3,763 100.00
-------
FIGURE 18
PAGE 1
ALL USERS
INJURY TYPES RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST
PERCENT OF OSHA DAYS LOST
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: A LOST DAYS CASE IS ONE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE INCURRED
WORKDAYS LOST AND/OR LIGHT DUTY DAYS DUE TO THE ACCIDENT.
OSHA DAYS LOST
TYPE OF INJURY
NO.
SPRAIN OR STRAIN
BRUISE
FRACTURE
CUT/PUNCTURE
DISLOCATION
AMPUTATION
MULTIPLE INJURIES
CONCUSSION
CHEMICAL BURN
OTHER TYPE OF INJURY
IRRITATION
UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY
ABRASIONS
BURN FROM HEAT
INFLAMMATION OF THE JOINTS
HERNIA
PARALYSIS
TORN CARTILAGE
INFECTION
POISONING OR ALLERGIC REACTION
DERMATITIS
FROSTBITE OR OTHER LOW TEMP EFFECT
STING
ASPHYXIATION OR DROWNING
AVULSION
HEAT STROKE, EXHAUST ION OR CRAMPS
NOSEBLEED
DENTAL INJURY
AVG DAYS LOST
LOST DAYS CAS
16,400
3,797
3,568
2,516
756
609
526
279
219
181
175
163
154
131
130
110
86
83
74
71
66
53
32
26
25
21
6
1
54.20
12.55
11.79
8.32
2.50
2.01
1.74
0.92
0.72
0.60
0.58
0.54
0.51
0.43
0.43
0. 36
0.28
0.27
0.24
0.23
0.22
0. 18
0. 11
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.02
0.00
14.20
8.57
37.17
9.15
47.25
87.00
37.57
34.87
19.91
12.07
2.50
6.52
5.70
8.19
14.44
27.50
86.00
27.67
10.57
6.45
3.88
26.50
3.20
3.25
25.00
4.20
3.00
1.00
OTAL
30,258 100.00
13-39
-------
FIGURE 19
PAGE 1
ALL
INJURY TYPES RANKED
PERCENT OF
USERS
FROM HIGHEST
DIRECT COSTS
TO LOWEST
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDICAL T REATMENT
CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), AND LOST
WORKDAY, PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES.
FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES, WORKER'S COMPENSATION
BENEFITS AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G., INJURY LEAVE)
ONLY. INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS
TYPE OF INJURY
AMT .
SPRAIN OR STRAIN
BRUISE
FRACTURE
CUT/PUNCTURE
MULTIPLE INJURIES
AMPUTATION
PARALYSIS
DISLOCATION
IRRITATION
OTHER TYPE OF INJURY
CONCUSSION
ABRASIONS
CHEMICAL BURN
UNKNOWN TYPE OF INJURY
HERNIA
BURN FROM HEAT
INFLAMMATION OF THE JOINTS
TORN CARTILAGE
STING
DERMATITIS
INFECTION
POISONING OR ALLERGIC REACTION
FROSTBITE OR OTHER LOW TEMP EFFECT
ASPHYXIATION OR DROWNING
HEAT STROKE .EXHAUST ION OR CRAMPS
AVULSION
NOSEBLEED
DENTAL INJURY
HEART ATTACK
ELECTRIC SHOCK
729,061
197,353
168,568
135, 147
87,757
62, 165
42,737
25,202
17, 16
13,555
13,272
11,786
10,179
7,664
5,896
5,484
5,255
4,354
3,760
3,725
3,578
2,808
2,716
1,846
1,261
917
390
135
125
24
46.62
12.62
10.78
8.64
5.61
3.98
2.73
1 .61
1.10
0.87
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.49
0.38
0.35
0.34
0.28
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.18
0. 17
0. 12
0.08
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
AVG COSTS/
OSHA REC INJ
478
259
1,519
191
4,875
8,881
42,737
1
1
482
78
502
475
176
377
202
983
211
525
1,451
53
85
210
201
905
115
158
917
130
67
125
24
TOTAL
1563,888 100.00
416
-------
1 II-
FIGURE 20
ALL USERS
PARTS OF BODY INJURED RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PERCENT
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES, WORKDAYS LOST AND DIRECT COSTS
PAGE 1
OF
REPORTING PERIOD: DECEMBER 1975 - DECEMBER 1976
DEFINITIONS: OSHA RECORDABLE CASES INCLUDE MEDIC AL T REATMENT CASES (I.E. NON-FATAL CASES WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS), LOST WORKDAY,
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND FATALITY CASES. FIRST AID INJURIES ARE NOT INCLUDED.
DIRECT COSTS INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES, WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND WAGE COUTINUATION BENEFITS (E.G., INJURY LEAVE) ONLY,
INDIRECT COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
OSHA DAYS LOST
PART OF BODY
BACK
EYES
LEG
ANKLE
FINGERS
KNEE
FOOT
ARM
SHOULDER
HAND
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS
CHEST
WRIST
ELBOW
NECK
GROIN
HIPS
THUMB
TOES
ABDOMEN
SCALP
INTERNAL ORGANS
FACE
FOREHEAD
SKULL
TRUNK
EARS
MOUTH
NOSE
CHEEK
UNK BODY PART
BUTTOCKS
JAW
OTHER BODY PART
TOTAL
OSHA REC INJ
NO.
733
322
289
255
223
217
211
201
201
181
111
94
93
81
67
63
51
50
48
39
34
32
26
25
23
20
16
12
12
8
6
5
1
1
3,763
%
19.48
8.56
7.68
6.78
5.93
5.77
5.61
5.42
5.34
4.89
2.95
2.50
2.47
2.15
1.78
1.67
1.36
1.33
1.28
1 .04
0.90
0.85
0.69
0.66
0.61
0.53
0.13
0.32
0.32
0.21
0. 16
0. 13
0. 11
0.11
100.00
PART OF BODY
BACK
LEG
ANKLE
KNEE
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS
SHOULDER
FOOT
HAND
FINGERS
ARM
CHEST
WRIST
TOES
NECK
ELBOW
HIPS
GROIN
ABDOMEN
SKULL
EYES
THUMB
SCALP
INTERNAL ORGANS
T RUNK
FACE
FOREHEAD
NOSE
UNK BODY PART
OTHER BODY PART
EARS
JAW
CHEEK
MOUTH
BUTTOCKS
TOTAL
DAYS
NO.
10, 175
2, 110
2, 123
1,912
1,784
1,478
1,448
1,349
1,222
946
793
678
549
475
117
113
398
384
320
294
261
205
127
83
81
53
34
28
18
1 1
10
8
7
1
30,258
LOST
AVG/LOST
PART OF BODY
% DAYS CASE
33.
7.
7.
6.
5.
1 .
1 .
1.
1.
3.
2.
2.
1 .
1 .
1 .
1.
1 .
1.
1 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1 00.
63
07
02
32
90
88
79
16
04
13
62
24
81
57
48
36
32
27
06
97
86
68
42
27
27
18
1 1
09
06
01
03
03
02
01
00
17.22
13.51
11.29
13.28
21.11
1 1.28
1 1.68
16.06
12.86
11.97
13.00
12.33
16.64
11.31
9.51
11.47
8.47
16.00
26.67
2.72
10.87
12. 06
7.06
5.53
5.79
1 . 12
1.86
5.60
6. 00
3.67
5. 00
8.00
1.75
2. 00
13.39
BACK
MULTIPLE BODY PARTS
LEG
KNEE
ANKLE
FOOT
SHOULDER
HAND
ARM
FINGERS
CHEST
WRIST
EYES
TOES
NECK
GROIN
ABDOMEN
HIPS
ELBOW
SKULL
THUMB
SCALP
INTERNAL ORGANS
FOREHEAD
T RUNK
FACE
NOSE
UNK BODY PART
EARS
MOUTH
JAW
BUTTOCKS
OTHER BODY PART
CHEEK
TOTAL
DIRECT
AMT.
160,297
181 ,811
126,581
91,226
90,510
78,969
67,635
67,014
56,716
49,031
38,871
32,243
29,278
26, 194
20,943
19,912
19,372
18,995
17,453
16,879
13,376
11,750
7, 188
5,026
3,466
3,411
2,000
1,390
865
779
579
157
380
229
1563, 888
COSTS AVG COSTS/
% OSHA REC INJ
29.43
11.63
8.09
6.03
5.79
5.05
4.32
4.29
3.63
3.14
2.49
2.06
1.87
1.67
.34
.27
.24
.21
. 12
.08
0.86
0.75
0.46
0.32
0.22
0.22
0. 13
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.01
0. 03
0. 02
0.01
1 00. OO
628
1,638
438
131
355
374
336
364
278
220
114
347
91
546
313
316
497
372
215
734
268
346
225
201
173
132
167
232
54
65
145
91
95
29
116
-------
Special Reports
A series of special reports on solid waste accidents will be developed by the
end of this year utilizing IRIS user data (over 5,000 injuries). The topics ad-
dress industry safety problems for which IRIS has seen a need but was not able
to cover in other reports (e.g., Quarterly Safety Management Report, Accident
Trends). The reports will either be introduced in an edition of the IRIS News
or as a separate handout. Possible topics so far are:
1. Overexertions vs age and experience
2. Experience vs accidents
3. Protective clothing
4. Seasonal accident variations
5. Crew type comparisons
a. size
b. task vs fixed
c. backyard vs curbside
6. Injury rates by division (e.g., residential collection, commercial
collection, landfill, street cleaning, etc.)
7. Worker's compensation policies vs injury rates
8. Incentive programs - types and effectiveness
9. Caught in packer accidents
10. Injury rates by equipment type
Users are encouraged to make further suggestions.
National Safety Council
What is the National Safety Council? It is a non-profit, non-governmental pub-
lic service organization. It was formed in 1913 and federally chartered in 1953
by the U.S. Congress to arouse and maintain interest in accident prevention and
to encourage adoption and implementation of safety methods by all types of or-
ganizations and individuals.
The Public Employee Section was organized in 1947 as a component of the Indus-
trial Department of the National Safety Council, or 34 years after the Council
was formed. Within this section is the Refuse Collection Division consisting of
safety professionals within solid waste industries throughout the United States.
-------
Benefits from NSC Affiliation
1. A centralized, uniformly applied recordkeeping system, complying with OSHA
requirements.
2. A central source of safety knowledge, resources, which provides for lateral
exchange of information.
3. Assistance in standards development utilizing the expertise available with-
in the industry.
4. An award system for accident reduction.
5. Safety Training Institute is available.
6. Literature, such as guides, posters, slide shows, films, specially adapted
for the industry.
7. Through the Section Administrator, unlimited "consultation" is available.
8. Newsletters and manuals provide the rapid interchange of data.
How Does Membership Work
Annual dues are based on the number of full-time employees (including office,
professional, and drivers). Twenty-five percent (25%) of the dues are returned
to the member in the form of accident prevention materials.
For additional information on the materials available or the cost of membership,
the address is:
National Safety Council
444 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611
(312) 527-4800
The Staff Representative for the Public Employees Section is Carl ton Piepho.
CALENDAR
October 1977
October 17-20 National Safety Congress and Exposition. The National Safety
Council will beholding the 65th National Safety Congress and Ex-
position in Chicago, All sessions are open to visitors. The re-
fuse collection and disposal division of the Public Employee Sec-
tion meets Tuesday afternoon. Ms. Kelly King and Ms. Barbara Reiley
will be giving speeches on IRIS and the safety manual.
-------
SPECIAL REPORTS
-------
EXHIBIT 21
THE USE OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
AND ITS EFFECT ON ACCIDENT REDUCTION
Personal protective equipment is generally recog-
nized as one form of accident reduction measure in any indus-
try, along with equipment design modification, employee
training, job redesign, operational change, etc. In fact,
the importance of personal protective equipment is amply
illustrated in this industry of constant material handling
by the insistance of most solid waste agencies that their
employees wear gloves.
The use of personal protective equipment will result
in less injuries or less severe injuries but will not eliminate
injuries. However, the reduction of any injury will affect the
organization directly in terms of reducing the direct costs of
accidents (e.g., medical bills, wage continuation payments,
court settlements) and the indirect costs (e.g., time spent
by supervisor taking employee to doctor and filling out injury
forms, time spent by employee going to doctor, time spent by
coworkers aiding injured employee, replacement time of sub-
stitute, etc.), which can be up to four times the direct costs.
To justify the expense of the personal protective
equipment, its cost must be weighed against its accident re-
duction potential at each solid waste organization. Other
factors that affect the decision are increased employee morale
and the fact that it will reduce human suffering. With these
in mind, IRIS analyzed four types of personal protective equip-
ment, gloves, safety shoes, safety glasses and goggles, and
head protection, to determine how much protection they provided
and what the accident reduction potential of each was.
GLOVES
Because the solid waste industry is very much of a
materials handling industry of a large number of customers,
the hazardous waste and containers being handled are harder
to control than if the employee was in a material handling job
such as an assembly line worker whose products being handled
are more uniform. Therefore, personal protective equipment
for the hands is the next viable, but not the most effective,
means of controlling injuries to the hands and wrists.
Gloves can protect the wearer from receiving minor
cuts abrasions, contact dermatitis, frostbite, insect bites,
and burns from heat or caustic chemicals to the hands and wrists
1-1
-------
Gloves may also reduce the seriousness of cuts, punctures, and
bruises but are useless as -protection against more serious
types of injury such as fractures and amputations. Infections
that developed from cuts and sprains were also eliminated as
being nonpreventable.
Examining the first group of injuries to the hands
and wrists for the period of 1/76 through 6/77 (6,275 OSHA
recordable injuries, 49,226 days lost, $2,602,203 direct
costs, and 32,409,674 total man-hours of exposure), the IRIS
data indicates that employees who were not wearing gloves
received twice as many injuries. A table of the rates and
.numbers for the two groups of employees is given below:
No. OSHA Recordable Inj .
OSHA Days Lost
Direct Costs
Man-Hours of Exposure
OSHA Incidence Rate*
OSHA Severity Rate
Direct Costs Per Man-Year
Wearing Not Wearing
Gloves Gloves
275
693
$37,422
25,562,319
2.15
5.4
$2.90
141
284
$16,501
6,847,355
4.10
8.3
$4.80
The injuries to the hands and wrists which are affected by the
wearing of gloves were 48% less for non-first aid cases, 35%
less in days lost and 40% less in direct costs.
As the man-hours of exposure indicate, four-fifths of
the IRIS employees were wearing gloves provided by the users
on the job. Injury rates must be used to compare accident re-
duction since they reflect how many total employees were wearing
or not wearing gloves on the route, not just how many injured
employees were wearing or not wearing gloves.
As for how a solid waste organization can use these
rates to expostulate actual injury cost savings vs. cost of
providing gloves, comparative ratios can be established.
1. Using the OSHA incidence rates above,
which are the number of OSHA recordable
injuries per 100 employees per year, a
solid waste organization with 200 em-
ployees who are provided with gloves
can expect to have on the average 4.3
injuries to the hands and wrists that
could be affected by the use of the
*An explanation of the injury rates is given in Appendix A.
1-2
-------
gloves. On the other hand, a solid
waste organization with 200 employees
that are not provided with gloves can
expect to have on the average 8.2 non-
first aid injuries to the hands and
wrists that might have been prevented
or reduced in severity with the use of
gloves. It should be noted also that
gloves should be able to protect the
wearer from most first aid injuries,
which might later become OSHA record-
able.
2. Using the OSHA severity rates above,
they represent the number of days lost
per 100 employees per year. Therefore,
a solid waste organization with 200
employees that are provided with gloves
can expect on the average to lose 10.8
days due to hand and wrist injuries
that are affected by the use of gloves
while an organization that does not
provide gloves can expect to lose 16.6
days. The days lost, of course, does
not include the time spent on the day
of the injury-
3. Using the direct costs per man-year
above, they provide a good measure of
cost effectiveness since they are the
actual costs spent per employee on the
payroll for preventable injuries to the
hands and wrists. The difference be-
tween the two costs is $1.90, or an
organization planning on providing
gloves to their employees can expect
to save $1.90 per man per year on direct
injury costs. But again, the savings
on indirect costs to an organization
can be up to four times the direct costs,
and therefore, the maximum savings per
employee per year provided with gloves
would be $9.50 (5 times $1.90). Taking
the computations one step further, an
organization of 200 employees can expect
to save $380 in direct costs and $1,900
counting indirect costs. Note that the
quality of the gloves provided by the
IRIS users in the data analyzed was not
accounted for. Presumably, had the
1-3
-------
users all provided high quality
gloves to their employees, less
injuries would have occurred and
therefore more cost savings could
have been demonstrated.
Once the need and cost effectiveness of providing
gloves at an organization is established, the question arises
as to what is available and what should be considered in
purchasing the right type of gloves. In addition, a wide
range of prices are available depending on the quality of
the product and the manufacturer so it would be wise to do
comparative price shopping before making a final purchase.
(Gloves in use at IRIS users range in price from $.79-$5.50
a pair.) The following discussion covers some factors to
consider when choosing the right pair of gloves, but it is
not meant to make specific recommendations since each organ-
ization will have different needs that will affect their
choice.
Factors to consider when purchasing work gloves:
1. Material: The material(s) used in the
construction of the glove is important
for abrasion resistance (or rate of
wear), protection against cuts and
punctures, and grip provided. Abrasion
resistance is better provided by leather
or suede gloves, but canvas gloves with
suede palms, knuckles, and fingertips
are more widely used because they are less
expensive than the leather and yet provide
better grip and last longer than the cloth
gloves. For handling containers during
wet weather, some employers also provide
a second pair of rubber or vinyl coated
gloves. In addition, rubber gloves with
rough material on the palms and fingers
are available. However, all rubber and
leather gloves have a problem of causing
excessive sweating since they allow less
air circulation than ones that have cloth.
This may make them less acceptable to
collectors who are constantly using their
hands. Gloves that have wire mesh afford
the most protection from sharp objects,
but these heavier, more expensive gloves
can impair the employee's sense of touch
and manual dexterity.
2. Length: The gauntlet length is partially
a factor of protection, and partially
1-4
-------
determined by climate. During colder
weather, a 3" gauntlet provides both
added protection to wrists from cuts
and added warmth. However, it is
unreasonable to expect the men to
wear long gauntlets during hot weather.
Most organizations then switch to a
IV length.
3. Insulation: Leather mittens with ther-
mal cloth inserts combine excellent
protection with warmth for cold cli-
mates. In extremely cold temperatures,
mittens are recommended rather than
gloves because they keep the fingers
warmer.
4. Replacement: The frequency with which
the gloves need to be replaced varies
with the quality of the glove and the
fit. On the average they are replaced
once a month, although they can wear
out as frequently as once a week, or
last as long as three months. It is
important to replace gloves as soon as
they become worn because a tattered glove
affords less protection and creates haz-
ards .
SAFETY SHOES
In the solid waste industry, the collectors are ex-
posed to a number of hazardous surface conditions that are
virtually uncontrollable, since it is an outdoors occupation
that not only includes a great deal of walking but also getting
on and off collection equipment. Typical surface related acci-
dents include slips and falls on wet, oily, icy surfaces and
objects on the ground, stepping on sharp objects (e.g., nails,
glass), and dropping containers on the feet. These accidents
result in sprains, fractures, punctures, and bruises to the
ankle, foot and toes. Unlike the protection afforded by gloves,
safety shoes can provide nearly total protection against these
injuries, except for ankle sprains. Therefore, safety shoes
can greatly reduce the frequency of the injuries to these body
parts which amounted to 13.08% of the OSHA recordable injuries
for this time period (6.45% of which were to the ankles, 5.56%
to the foot and 1.07% to the toes, totaling to 821 injuries).
In fact, ankle injuries resulted in the fourth highest percent-
age of injuries to a body part, below back, eyes and leg injuries,
1-5
-------
The following discussion of safety shoes will be
organized by the degree of. protection, including a discus-
sion of the IRIS data.
1. Safety shoes with ankle support. A
high ankled boot can support the ankle,
thus reducing ankle sprains, as well
as protect the ankle from sharp objects.
Different heights of ankle support, 6"
and 8", are provided by safety shoe
manufacturers.. Slightly more than half
of the employees on IRIS are required
to wear safety shoes on the route, and
a large majority of these had to wear
high ankled safety shoes. For organi-
zations that did not require their
employees to wear safety shoes, their
man-hours of exposure was placed in
the "not wearing safety shoes" column.
The IRIS injury descriptions obtained
did not request whether the injured
employee was wearing safety shoes with
ankle support or not. Therefore, the
analyses of the ankle sprains below is
only for whether the employees were
wearing safety shoes or not, not whether
they were wearing high ankled safety
shoes or not. However, over half the
users require their employees to wear
high ankled safety shoes, and therefore,
the injury rate differences presumably
are not as large as can be expected.
Wearing
Safety Shoes
Not Wearing
Safety Shoes
No. OSHA Recordable In j .
OSHA Days Lost
Direct Costs
Man-Hours of Exposure
OSHA Incidence Rate
OSHA Severity Rate
Direct Costs Per Man-Year
117
1,184
$47,771
16,431,485
1.42
14.2
$5.81
234
1,271
$56,212
15,978,189
2.93
15.9
$7.03
Ankle sprains were 52% less in incidence
of non-first aid injuries, 10% less in
OSHA severity, and 17% less in direct
costs per man-year for employees required
to wear safety shoes. Keeping this in
mind, the following figures can be derived:
1-6
-------
a. A solid waste organization of 200
employees provided with safety shoes
that have high ankle support can
expect to have less than 2.8 sprained
ankle injuries a year while an organ-
ization that does not provide safety
shoes with high ankle support will
have 5.9 sprained ankle injuries.
b. The OSHA severity rates for the two
columns were very similar, indicating
that although the employees who were
wearing safety shoes had less sprain-
ed ankle injuries, they resulted in
higher days lost. The OSHA severity
rates show that an organization of
200 employees who are provided with
high ankled safety shoes can expect
to lose less than 28.8 days lost due
to ankle sprains, while ones that do
not provide high ankled safety shoes
can expect 31.8 days to be lost.
c. As for cost savings, again the direct
costs per man-year figures were very
similar, reflecting the close severity
rates. They show that an organization
of 200 employees planning on providing
their employees with high ankled safety
shoes can expect to save in direct
injury costs at least $1.22 per employee
per year, or $244 per 200 employees per
year. Adding the maximum cost savings
from indirect costs, they could save
$6.10 per employee or $1,220 per 200
employees per year. The savings of at
least $6.10 per employee per year ac-
counts only for sprained ankle injuries,
which is only one type of injury affect-
ed by safety shoes. One accident type
that is difficult to measure, and which
was not attempted for this report, are
other injuries that occur from slips
and falls, since they are affected by
the slip resistance of the shoes. Other
injury types, besides sprained ankles,
that can occur from slips and falls are
back strains, fractures, and cuts and
bruises associated with falling against
objects. Even assuming that only 10%
1-7
-------
of these injuries are affected by
whether the .employee was wearing
safety shoes or not, the accident
savings would probably double,
especially since back strains are
three times more frequent than ankle
sprains and result in seven times
higher direct costs. In addition,
the savings from the reduction of
other types of injury to the foot
(e.g., puncture wounds, fractures,
bruises) that are preventable through
additional protection on the safety
shoes (e.g., metatarsol guards, steel
toes, steel insoles) will be discussed
in the following sections. Then the
total savings from each foot protec-
tive equipment will be summarized
to justify providing employees with
safety shoes.
Safety shoes with ankle support cost
under $30 on the average, and users
find that their employees whose jobs
require extensive walking wear out
approximately two pairs of shoes a
year. To allay the cost of providing
safety shoes, many of the IRIS users
provide discounts on the safety shoes
or allot so much dollars per employee
per year for safety shoes instead of
providing the full cost. Of course,
these users insist that their employees
wear them on the job.
2. Safety shoes with steel toes*. The
added protection of steel toes on
safety shoes will prevent such toe
injuries as bruises and fractures
but will not totally prevent ampu-
tations (although the amputation
might result in lesser injury, e.g.,
a fracture or severe cut). Typical
accidents that result in toe injuries
*For tests methods for-steel toe impact resistance, refer to
"American National Standard for Men's Safety-Toe Footwear",
(ANSI Z41.1-1967, reaffirmed 1972).
-------
include dropping containers or
bulky wastes being handled, pulling
bulk containers over foot, and
vehicle running over foot.
Only a quarter of the IRIS user
employees were required to wear
safety shoes with steel toes, and
the injuries to the toes that are
preventable accounted for 0.7j9 % of
the total OSHA recordable injuries,
0.93% of the days lost, and 0.75%
of the direct costs for the report-
ing period. Analyzing the toe inj-
uries (excluding the two toe ampu-
tations) for the employees not wear-
ing steel toed safety shoes:
Wearing Steel Not Wearing Steel
Toed Safety Shoes Toed Safety Shoes
No. OSHA Recordable Inj.
OSHA Days Lost
Direct Costs
Man-Hours of Exposure
8,353,195
50
462
$19,643
24,056,479
OSHA Incidence Rate
OSHA Severity Rate
Direct Costs Per Man-Year!
.42
3.84
51.63
Of the total percentage of the foot,
toe and ankle injuries, preventable
injuries to the toes would eliminate
6% of the OSHA recordable injuries,
7.4% of the days lost, and 6.9% of
the direct costs.
The accident reduction potential and
cost effectiveness of requiring steel
toes on the safety shoes would be:
a. A reduction of .84 OSHA record-
able injuries per 200 employees
per year.
b. A reduction of 7.48 days lost
per 200 employees per year.
c. A reduction of $1.63 in direct
costs per employee per year or
a reduction of $326 per 200
employees per year. This injury
1-9
-------
cost saving well justifies the
added protection, since the steel
toes do not alter the price of
the safety shoes much.
3. Safety shoes with steel insoles or in-
serts. These additions to the safety
shoe will protect the employee against
puncture wounds to the foot from sharp
objects on the ground (e.g., glass,
nails, boards with nails). Little more
than 1% of the employees on line in
IRIS wear safety shoes with puncture
protection, even though these accidents
were the next most frequent of the
injuries preventable by the proper
footwear.
No. OSHA Recordable Inj.
OSHA Days Lost
Direct Costs
Man-Hours of Exposure
Wearing Safety Shoes Not Wearing Safety
With Steel Insoles Shoes With Steel
or Inserts Insoles or Inserts
382,265
172
338
$23,415
32,027,409
OSHA Incidence Rate
OSHA Severity Rate
Direct Costs Per Man-Year
1.07
2.11
$1.46
The accident reduction potential and
cost effectiveness of requiring steel
insoles or inserts in the safety shoes
would be:
a. A reduction of 2.14 non-first aid
injuries per 200 employees per
year.
b. A reduction of 4.22 days lost per
200 employees per year.
c. A reduction of $1.46 in direct
costs per employee per year or
$292 per 200 employees per year.
Steel toe inserts vary in price
range from $3-$4 but may not be
as comfortable as the steel in-
soles .
1-10
-------
4. Safety shoes with metatarsal pro-
tection. No present IRIS user
require their employees to wear
metatarsal protection on their
safety shoes. However, an examin-
ation of the foot injuries, exclud-
ing toe injuries, that can be pre-
vented by metatarsal protection
(e.g., bruises, fractures) shows
ample need for the solid waste
employees. The bruised and frac-
tured feet accounted for 94 OSHA
recordable injuries, 1,335 days
lost and $66,151 in direct costs
(1.5%, 2.7% and 2.5% respectively
of the totals for the reporting
period).
Using the total man-hours of expo-
sure for the period of 32,409,674,
the following rates can be derived:
a. An OSHA incidence rate of .58.
Therefore, a reduction of 1.16
non-first aid injuries per 200
employees per year can be ex-
pected if metatarsal protection
is required.
b. An OSHA severity rate of 8.24.
Therefore, a reduction of 16.48
days lost per 200 employees per
year can be expected if metatar-
sal protection is provided.
c. A direct cost per man-year rate
of $4.08, or a direct cost saving
of $4.08 per employee per year.
The addition of metatarsal pro-
tection to a pair of safety shoes
can raise its price from $4-$5.
The disadvantage of metatarsal protection on safety
shoes is the added weight. Since solid waste collectors are
in constant motion throughout the day, the added weight on
their feet may result in increased fatigue, and therefore,
increased injury.
1-11
-------
The following table summarizes the injury cost sav-
ings, both direct and indirect, to the employer if different
types of safety shoes are being considered as a requirement
for the job. Various combinations of cost savings of the
types of protection afforded are given. Although provision
of the full cost of the safety shoes with added protective
devices are not fully cost justified, they are enough to
provide strong argument for providing discounts to the em-
ployees to obtain safer footwear.
COST EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVIDING FOOTWEAR
(SAFETY SHOES)
Type
With high ankle support
With steel toe
With steel insole or insert
With metatarsal protection
With high ankle support and
steel toe
With high ankle support and
steel insole or insert
With high ankle support,
steel toe, and steel
insole or insert
With high ankle support, steel
toe, and metatarsal pro-
tection
With steel toe and metatarsal
protection
With steel toe and steel insole
or insert
With high ankle support, steel
toe, steel insole or insert,
and metatarsal protection
Direct Cost
Savings Per
Employee
$1.22
$1.63
$1.46
$4.08
$2.85
$2.68
$4.31
$6.93
$5.71
$3.09
$8.39
Direct and
Indirect Cost
Savings Per
Employee
$ 6.10
$ 8.15
$ 7.30
$20.40
$14.25
$13.40
$21.55
$34.65
$28.55
$15.45
$41.95
Other factors that bear consideration when deciding on the right
type of safety shoes are:
1. Slip Resistance. Crepe, gum rubber, neo-
prene, and even rubber tires are examples
of materials employed to make shoe soles
more slip resistant, although both crepe
and gum rubber wear out in a matter of
weeks where the employees are walking a
lot. In addition, the pattern of grooves,
1-12
-------
notches, and spikes in the sole in-
creases traction for a shoe. Strap
on cleats have also been tried by
some organizations to provide more
traction on slippery ground. On
routes where there is a lot of
walking, particularly in backyards,
they can be helpful in preventing
falls. However, there is a problem
of cleats causing falls on routes
where the men are getting on and off
the riding step frequently as the
cleats tend to get caught in the mesh
step. When determining the degree of
slip resistance required in a safety
shoe, the anticipated amount of snow,
ice, and rain in any given area must
be considered. Many organizations
provide more than one kind of safety
shoe to allow for prolonged inclement
weather, issuing shoes with higher
slip resistance for the winter months.
During dry weather, it is better if
the shoe has less traction or the em-
ployee's feet are likely to "stick"
to the pavement, thus increasing the
incidence of knee and ankle problems.
2. Durability. "A Preliminary Investiga-
tion of the Performance of Men's Safety-
Toe Footwear" conducted by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) in 1975 found that shoe
soles made of composition material,
neoprene crepe, and neoprene had the
highest resistance to impact tests
while the nylon, gum and leather soles
withstood the compression tests best.
However, the conclusion of the study
was that further testing and research
was needed to arrive at any definitive
data. An organization may want to test
different types of safety shoes on the
routes to ascertain which is best for
their local needs.
3. Climatic Protection. The sorrel boot is
heavily insulated and affords excellent
protection during cold weather. Some
organizations also provide rubber boots
or overshoes for wet days.
1-13
-------
Comfort. It is important that safety
shoes provided to collectors be com-
fortable because of the extensive
walking required. Crepe, rubber or
neoprene last longer and provide
better footing. A compromise must
be reached between safety, weara-
bility, and comfort.
Style. A great variety of styles for
safety shoes is available. Many
organizations restrict their employees'
choice to those shoes having a work
shoe appearance. While some agencies
allow oxfords, many managers believe
that the boot style provides more
ankle support. At any rate, the boot
style appears to be most popular to
the employees where a choice is avail-
able.
EYE PROTECTION
Eye injuries, surprisingly, are the second most
common injuries in the solid waste industry, and they can
be virtually eliminated with the wearing of safety glasses
or goggles. Most of the eye injuries occur in front of the
hopper. When employees are dumping containers that have
particulate contents (e.g., ashes, sand, dust, dirt), they
receive objects in their eyes that cause irritation. In
addition, since it is an outdoors occupation, on a windy
day, particularly on unpaved roads, at disposal sites, and
in front of the hopper, solid waste employees are exposed
to wind-blown particles. Lastly, the most serious exposure
to eye injuries is from being near an operating packer panel,
where objects are propelled when plastic bags burst, when
aerosol cans are crushed, when plastic containers of caustic
chemicals burst (e.g., bleach, detergent, cleaners, solvents,
etc.), and when glass containers shatter.
Although the potential for a serious eye injury is
very real (e.g., blindness) since employees are being struck
by sharp objects from the hopper constantly (particularly
glass), it has not occurred to an IRIS user. Eye injuries
account for 8.38% of the OSHA recordable injuries, but only
.95% of the days lost and 1.69% of the direct costs for this
reporting period. In addition, the average days lost per
lost day case was 2.80.
1-14
-------
About a third of the IRIS employees are required
to wear safety glasses or goggles, which dramatically reduced
their eye injuries (e.g., irritation, abrasion, cut, bruise,
chemical burn, heat burn). However, whether the employees
were wearing safety glasses as opposed to goggles was not
accounted for:
Wearing
Safety Glasses/
Goggles
Not Wearing
Safety Glasses/
Goggles
No. OSHA Recordable Inj .
OSHA Days Lost
Direct Costs
Man-Hours of Exposure
OSHA Incidence Rate
OSHA Severity Rate
Direct Costs Per Man-Year
46
25
$2,973
12,009,333
.77
.42
$ .50
483
451
$40,776
20,400,340
4.74
4.42
$4.00
The accident reduction potential and cost effective-
ness of requiring employees to wear safety glasses (different
types provide more protection) or goggles would be:
1. A reduction of 7.94 non-first aid injuries
per 200 employees per year.
2. A reduction of 8 days lost per 200
employees per year.
3. A reduction of $3.50 per employee per
year in direct costs or a maximum re-
duction of $17.50 (estimating in indir-
ect cost reductions) per employee per
year. The average non-prescription
safety glasses or goggles range in price
from $3.50 to $8.00 a pair. Since these
tend to last much longer than either
gloves or safety shoes which undergo
more friction, their cost effectiveness
is well justified.
A major problem with requiring that employees wear
safety glasses or goggles is employee acceptance. Complaints
of discomfort include bad fit to where it is either chafing
at points or falling off constantly, or they are too heavy,
or they do not "breathe" so mist over from sweat on hot days,
or that dust tend to collect on them. Therefore, when con-
sidering the type of safety glasses or goggles, not only
their safety features (e.g., whether they have full or half
1-15
-------
side shields and the diameters of the holes or fineness of
the mesh) but also whether the employees will be comfortable
wearing them requires careful consideration.*
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) performed tests on 22 brands of piano safety
glasses to determine which met the ANSI requirements. The
results were published in February, 1977 in a technical
pamphlet entitled "Tests of Glass Piano Safety Spectacles".
1. Lense and frame impact: With one
exception, all of the 22 models
tested by NIOSH passed the lense
and frame impact tests.
2. Design features: All models with
full sideshields met the eye ex-
posure requirement. However, it was
found that those spectacles without
full sideshields provided limited
protection to the eye from projec-
tiles approaching from the side.
When choosing a spectacle design,
careful thought should be given to
the issue of sideshields. While
full sideshields provide better
protection than the styles with no
sideshield, their appearance and
restriction of peripheral vision
may make them less readily accepted
by workers. A possible alternative
not considered in the ANSI standard
is the "flatfold" design. This de-
sign reduces the restriction of
peripheral vision and has a more
acceptable appearance than spectacles
with full sideshields. Unfortunately,
despite the advertisements' claims,
they do not provide the equivalent
protection of the full sideshields.
3. Refractive power: The NIOSH study
also found that all models had lenses
*The "U.S.A. Standard Practice for Occupational and Educa-
tional Eye and Face Protection" (ANSI Z87.1-1968, revised
1977) standard should be referred to for tests on the lense_
and frame impact resistance and the design features that elim-
inate eye exposure. The refractive power, or general optical
qualities of the lenses is also important for wearing comfort.
1-16
-------
of high optical quality. This feature
is especially important for people who
are not used to wearing glasses, since
any imperfection in refraction can cause
discomfort.
One portion of the refraction test series
is the prismatic power test, which measures
the extent to which an object being viewed
is displaced by the lense. The NIOSH
researchers found that it was necessary
to perform this test on pairs of lenses
since it is possible to have two properly
manufactured lenses of different design,
thus causing a prismatic imbalance. If
the imbalance is significant enough, the
wearer's eyes are forced to look in
slightly different directions to focus
on one object. For this reason, it is
important to always purchase replacement
lenses in pairs.
4. Glare protection; The ANSI standard does
not address protection from glare. How-
ever, for a small additional cost, photo
sensitive lenses that darken in bright
light and then become clear in dim light
can be purchased. These lenses protect
from potential accidents resulting from
an employee being temporarily blinded
by the sun's glare and from eye fatigue.
HEAD PROTECTION
Head injuries can be extremely costly, and therefore,
a third of the IRIS employees are required to wear head pro-
tection. Various head protection in use by solid waste employees
include hardhats, bump caps, and leather skull guards. Head
injuries they can protect against are concussions, fractures,
cuts and bruises, which can occur from falls against objects,
raising up from under objects, objects falling from above
(e.g., branches off truck beds, bulk containers off lifters),
being struck by a fellow employee's container that was thrown
or was being dumped at the same time, or striking against the
vehicle during a collision.
An examination of each individual head injury as to
the accident circumstances was necessary in order to eliminate
head injuries that could not have been aided by the wearing of
1-17
-------
head protection (e.g., falling from a great height, struck
by a vehicle). The injury rates for wearing or not wearing
head protection showed a large difference:
Wearing
Head Protection
Not Wearing
Head Protection
No. OSHA Recordable In j .
OSHA Days Lost
Direct Costs
Man-Hours of Exposure
OSHA Incidence Rate
OSHA Severity Rate
Direct Costs Per Man-Year
12
46
$2,598
12,264,928
.2
.8
$.42
70
606
$34,932
20,144,746
.7
6.0
$3.47
Therefore, the accident reduction potential and cost
effectiveness of requiring employees to wear head protection
(different types provide more protection) would be:
1. A reduction of 1 non-first aid head
injury per 200 employees per year.
2. A reduction of 10.4 days lost per
200 employees per year.
3. A reduction of $3.05 per employee per
year in direct costs, or a maximum
estimated reduction of $15.25 per
employee per year (counting indirect
costs).
Most solid waste organizations do not require hard
hats for residential collection employees. They require in-
stead the plastic bump cap which are lighter and more comfort-
able to wear, and of a high visibility color. However, jobs
where employees are more exposed to overhead hazards (e.g.,
at disposal sites, on commercial collection) may require a
hardhat.*
Other considerations in the wearing of head protec-
tion is that liners can be issued during colder months for
added insulation, and the suspension distance between the head
and hardhat has to be adjusted correctly in order to disperse
the impact optimally.
*The ANSI Z89.1-1969 standard entitled, "Safety Requirements
for Industrial Head Protection," should be referred to for
minimum safety requirements.
1-18
-------
OTHER PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT TO CONSIDER
The solid waste employee has available to him sev-
eral more types of personal protective equipment, but the
actual protection they afford cannot be easily measured,
either because it is not available through the IRIS data or
because the protection it affords is so generalized. However,
all the personal protective equipment available should be
discussed for advantages and disadvantages.
1. Leg protection. Two types of leg
protection are available to protect
against cuts to the upper leg, or
thigh. One type is the leather
apron and the other is chaps, which
can be sewn into the pants and is
mainly used in the logging industry
to protect against saw cuts. Both,
however, are bulky and can cause dis-
comfort due to decreased air circu-
lation. The chaps can be just sewn
into the right side of the upper leg
of the right pantleg for a right
handed person, particularly to pro-
tect against glass protruding from
plastic bags as they brush against
the leg. The leather aprons are
normally worn over the employees'
uniforms. The IRIS data shows that
injuries to the leg that are prevent-
able by the use of leg protection
(e.g., cuts/punctures, abrasions,
infections) accounted for 4.3% of the
OSHA recordable injuries, 1.8% of the
days lost, and 1.5% of the direct costs.
The personal protective equipment only
protect the thighs while the IRIS data
does not separate out to which part of
the leg the injury occurred. However,
even presuming that providing leg pro-
tection will only eliminate half the
injuries, the injury, severity and
direct costs reductions would be:
a. A reduction of 1.7 OSHA recordable
injuries per 200 solid waste em-
ployees wearing the leg protection
per year.
b. A reduction of 5.4 days lost per
200 employees per year.
1-19
-------
c. A direct cost savings of $1.22 per
employee per year, or an estimated
savings of $6.10 (includes indirect
costs) per employee per year.
2. Forearm protection. One means of providing
forearm protection is the longer lengthed
gauntlet gloves. It can protect against
cuts/punctures, abrasions and infections,
which occur most commonly from handling
brush or handling plastic bags that have
glass in them. The disadvantages of the
long gauntlet glove is the bulkiness and
increased sweating.
The preventable forearm protection injuries
resulted in 3.1% of the OSHA recordable
injuries, .8% of the days lost, and 1.1%
of the direct costs. Again, the IRIS data
does not distinguish between the forearm
and the upper arm. However, the injury
rates for half of the injuries, days lost
and direct costs above would mean reduc-
tions of :
a. 1.2 OSHA recordable injuries per 200
solid waste employees provided with
forearm protection per year.
b. 2.54 days lost per 200 employees per
year.
c. $.92 per employee per year in direct
costs. Adding in indirect cost sav-
ings, it would be $4.60.
3. High visibility clothing. Providing high
visibility clothing does not necessarily
mean providing extra personal protective
equipment. For instance, an organization
that is already planning on providing its
employees with uniforms or bump caps can
order bright colored ones. Other high
visibility clothing items in use are traf-
fic vests, bright colored belts, and arm-
bands sewn into the sleeves of their uni-
forms. High visibility clothing is meant
to prevent accidents rather than injuries,
since they are good protection against
traffic accidents, particularly on low vis-
ibility days or during dawn and dusk.
1-20
-------
4. Hearing protection. Exposure to high
decibel noise levels occur more fre-
quently at landfills where heavy equip-
ment is used. Therefore, many solid
waste organizations provide their
landfill employees with ear plugs or
ear muffs. There is a wide selection
of types and brands to choose from,
but generally it is found that a well-
designed muff gives better noise
attenuation than an insert protector.
The shapeable ear plugs do provide
good protection, but they present a
hygienic problem when the wearer forms
and inserts the plugs with dirty hands.
Also, although the initial cost is
lower than other kinds of plugs, the
need for daily replacement will ulti-
mately make them less economical than
other types.
5. Respiratory protection. Two types of
respiratory protection, the dust mask
and the respirator, serve different
safety functions and are not popular
with the employees because of the dis-
comfort they cause. Therefore, the
dust masks should be made available
and recommended to employees exposed
to dusty situations (e.g., employees
working in unpaved alleys, at the
landfill) but not necessarily made
mandatory. It should be noted that
they do not provide protection against
toxic substances.
Respirators, on the other hand, should
be used with caution as they are in-
effective if not used and maintained
properly. They may be appropriate at
the landfill or incinerator stations
where the employees are exposed to
toxic fumes, vapors, or smoke. However,
authorities recommended that they be
used for back up or emergency protection
only. In addition, they are very uncom-
fortable to wear and employee acceptance
of them is very low.
6. Support belts. They are wide canvas
belts which provide lumbosacral support.
1-21
-------
They are available with steel braces
or metal stays, but these are 'bulky
and tend to restrict motion. The
kinds made without the stays are more
comfortable but also provide less
support. Both styles can be very
hot to wear during warm weather.
Once a person has experienced a
back injury, he is more susceptible
to recurring injury because his
spinal structure has been weakened.
Therefore, it is a good idea for
workers who have experienced previous
lower back injuries to consider wear-
ing the belts, at least when they feel
more fatigued than usual.
7. Uniforms, general clothing. Solid
waste safety professionals consider
the uniform as one of the "musts'1 in
personal protective equipment for a
solid waste employee. Long pants are
a must, regardless of the climate, to
protect the employees' legs from inj-
uries such as cuts, scratches, acid
burns, sunburn, and the ever-present
possibility of infectious disease.
Long-sleeved shirts are desirable
for the same reasons, but most organ-
izations permit short sleeves during
warm weather. Sleeveless shirts, such
as tank tops, should never be accept-
able. Coveralls or jumpsuits are also
in use but can be too warm during the
summer since they afford less air
circulation. While clothing should be
comfortable and not too tight, it should
not be so loose fitting that it catches
on activated equipment.
8. Raingear. The choosing of raingear
appropriate for the climatic conditions
at a solid waste organization includes
choosing the type of material (e.g.,
rubber, vinyl) and the style (e.g.,
windbreaker, hooded jacket and pants,
long coat) for whether warmth or
aeration is desired. The fit of the
raingear should be loose and comfortable
over the uniform, including jackets worn
1-22
-------
during winter. Since rainy weather
is low in visibility, the raingear
should be of a high-visibility color
such as yellow. If the rubber boots
provided are overboots, they should
be loose enough to fit over the safety
shoes. Raingear is considered stand-
ard personal protective equipment
at most organizations. They also
increase employee morale by providing
warmth and dryness on rainy days and
are well accepted.
9. Shoulder and hip pads. They provide
chafing protection to the shoulders
and hips of collectors that carry
intermediate containers from the
backyard that can be up to 60 gallons
large. They are not necessary for
organizations that provide wheeled
carts for the intermediate containers.
10. Sweat bands. They provide added com-
fort on warm days, as they keep sweat
from dripping down into the employees'
eyes and safety glasses. They are
generally well accepted by the employees
even though they are not required to
wear them.
1-23
-------
EXHIBIT 22
THE OCCURRENCE OF BACK STRAINS (OVEREXERTIONS*)
IN RELATION TO-THE AGE AND EXPERIENCE
OF THE EMPLOYEE
Back strains that develop as a result of overexer-
tions, although the most common injury to solid waste collec-
tors**, is the least understood. To obtain an overview of
the problem, a task/hazards analysis of the back strains was
performed (FIGURE 1 ). It relates specific injury reduction
measures that affect the employees' working conditions (e.g.,
employee training, container regulations and operational
changes) to hazards that the solid waste collector encounters
in his job. The high risk task was "lifting container", and
the high risk factor was "heavy container".
However, other factors can contribute to back strains
from overexertion. In particular, the employee characteristics
of age and experience have long been suspect as contributing
factors. To examine these two factors, IRIS developed special
computer printouts to analyze the injury rates for the various
age and experience groupings for the back strains from overex-
ertion.
FIGURE 1 shows the injury rates for the back strains
from overexertion by the age of the employee. The man-hours
of exposure used was only for the collection division, and
the averages for the back strains from overexertion is also
shown.
*The ANSI Z16.2-1972 (R1969) standard entitled, "Method of
Recording Basic Facts Relating to the Nature and Occurence
of Work Injuries", defines the accident type of overexertion
as "nonimpact cases in which the injury resulted from ex-
cessive physical effort, as in lifting, pulling, pushing,
wielding, or throwing the source of injury".
**During the IRIS reporting period of December 1975 through
June 1977, overexertion accidents that resulted in back
strains accounted for 12% of the total OSHA recordable
injuries, 18% of the days lost, and 16% of the direct costs.
These comprised a large part of the total back strains (64%,
56%, and 53% respectively) which also included back strains
that resulted from slips and falls, sudden body reactions
(e g , catching a falling container), and repeated trauma
(e.g., developed at the end of the day rather than from a
specific incident).
2-1
-------
FIGURE 1
OVEREXERTIONS RESULTING IN PACK STRAINS*
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Percent of Total
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
Percent of Task
% No.
Inj.
% Days
Lost
% Direct
Costs
% No.
% Days
Lost
% Direct
Costs
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
1. LIFTING CONTAINER
15% 15% 14%
% of Back Strains
49% 45% 50%
a. Heavy container
68% 66% 67%
b. Large container (tote
barrel, oil drum, cart,
etc.)
13%
10%
9%
K)
I
to
c. Handled with coworker
2% 2% 3%
Test weight. Tag and
leave heavy containers
or ask aid of coworker.
Train on proper lifting
techniques and team lift-
ing coordination.
Do not overfill inter-
mediate container. Test
weight. If heavy, ob-
tain aid or tag and
leave.
Train on proper lifting
techniques and team
lifting coordination.
Team lifting coordina-
tion.
Reduce and/or enforce con-
tainer weight limits.
Public acceptance program.
Enforce container size
limits.
Change to mechanical or
semi-mechanical collec-
tion. Back X-ray.
Change from backyard to
curbside or to mechanical
or semi-mechanical col-
lection. Provide wheel-
ed carts for intermedi-
ate containers.
Change to mechanical or
semi-mechanical collec-
tion.
*IRIS reoortinq period was December 1975 to June 1977. It includes 6,321 OSHA recordable injuries, 49,732 days lost and $2,629,070 in direct
costs. Of these figures, 761 OSHA recordable injuries (12%), 5,030 days lost (18%) and $411,060 in direct costs (16%) were incurred from
back strains that occurred as employees were handling container or waste.
-------
OVEREXERTION5 RESULTING IN BACK STRAINS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Percent of Total
HAZARDS
Percent of Task
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
% No.
Inj.
% Days
Lost
% Direct
Costs
% No.
Inj.
% Days
Lost
% Direct
Costs
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
N)
I
2. LIFTING TO DUMP
CONTAINER
11% 10% 9%
% of Back Strains
26% 22% 20%
a. Heavy container
56% 65% 59%
b. Large container
14% 14% 12%
c. Twisting/turn ing
23% 25% 26%
d. Throwing plastic bags
4% 2% 2%
Test weight prior to
lifting. Tag and leave
heavy containers.
Train on proper lifting
techniques.
Obtain aid of coworker
if heavy or awkward.
Do not overfill inter-
mediate container. Test
weight, and if heavy,
obtain aid or tag and
leave.
Train on proper lifting
techniques and team
lifting. Do not throw.
Proper lifting techni-
ques.
Not allow.
Reduce and/or enforce con-
tainer weight limits.
Public acceptance campaign.
Enforce container size
limits.
Change to mechanical or
semi-mechanical collec-
tion. Back X-ray.
Change from backyard to
curbside or to mechanica
or semi-mechanical col-
lection.
Change to mechanical or
semi-mechanical collec-
tion. Back X-ray.
Same as above.
-------
OVEREXERTIONS RESULTING IN BACK STRAINS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Percent of Total
HAZARDS
Percent of Task
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
% No.
Inj.
I Days
Lost
% Direct
Costs
% No.
Inj.
I Days
Lost
I Direct
Costs
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
3. DUMPING CONTAINER
ii% 8% . 7%
% of Back Strains
10% in 9%
4. PUSHING OR PULLING
BULK CONTAINER
4% 6% 6%
I of Back Strains
5% in 10%
5. LUTING TO DUMP
UASTE
4% 2% 2%
% of Back Strains
4% 4% 4%
a. Heavy container
44% 47% 32%
b. Large container
13% 16% 21%
c. Handled with coworker
4% 3% 3%
a. Handled with coworker
16% 8% 10%
a. Furniture, appliances
24% 35% 56%
b. Handled with coworker
14% 12% 15%
Do not twist or turn,
especially do not throw.
Do not overfill inter-
mediate containers.
Team coordination train-
ing.
Team pushing/pulling
training. Push rather
than pull.
Team coordination train-
ing.
Team coordination train-
ing.
Reduce and/or enforce con-
tainer weight 1imits.
Enforce container size
limits.
Require level surface for
container access.
Require bulky items to be
picked up by separate col-
lection.
Change to mechanical or
semi-mechanical collec-
tion. Back X-ray.
Change from backyard to
curbside or to mechanica
or semi-mechanical col-
lection.
Same as above.
Provide dolly and hy-
draulic 1ift gate on
truck or change to mech-
anical collection. Re-
quire two man operation.
-------
OVEREXERTIQM5 RESULTING IN BACK STRAINS
PRELIMINARY TASK/HAZARD ANALYSIS
TASK
Percent of Total
HAZARDS
POSSIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
to
I
% No.
InJ.
I Days
Lost
Percent of Task
% Direct
Costs
% No.
I Days
Lost
% Direct
Costs
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
6. CARRYING CONTAINER
n 8% 7%
% of Back Strains
2% 2% 2%
7. LIFTING WASTE
2% }% 1%
% of Back Strains
2% 1% 2%
a. Heavy container
37% 30% 28%
b. Tote barrels
26% 27% 30%
a. Furniture, appliances
29% 76% 72%
b. Handled with coworker
18% 14% 10%
lag and leave heavy con-
tainers. Train on pro-
per carrying techniques.
Do not overfill inter-
mediate containers.
Do not overfill inter-
mediate containers.
Team coordination train-
ing.
Team coordination train-
ing.
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
Reduce and/or enforce con-
tainer weight limits. Pub-
lic acceptance campaign.
Require bulky items to be
picked up by separate col-
lection.
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
Provide wheeled carts
for intermediate con-
tainers.
Provide wheeled carts
for Intermediate con-
tainers. Change from
backyard to curbside or
to mechanical or senri-
mechanical collection.
Provide dolly and hy-
draulic lift gate on
truck or change to mech-
anical collection. Re-
quire two man operation.
-------
FIGURE 2
COLLECTION DIVISION OVEREXERTIONS
(BACK STRAINS) INVOLVING CONTAINER
OR WASTE BY THE AGE OF THE
INJURED EMPLOYEE
0>
U
C
QJ
d
H
U
^1
rd
T3
y
<_l
O
s
0)
-P -P
en re
O PH
^
IQ
j
Q)
CO
o
ffi
CO
O
-P 1
en T3
O M
U O
O
-P 0)
U Pi
0)
M cu
H
0)
S-l
QS
co
n
3
O
K
i
Ł
rd
cdO
-P -H
O-P
BO
0)
O
o\°u
<20
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
>64
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
OLD
OLD
OLD
OLD
OLD
OLD
OLD
OLD
OLD
OLD
OLD
7.12
8.81
9.07
6.33
5.14
4.05
4.40
2.42
1.96
1.74
0
4.75
6. 86
7.25
5.16
4.33
3.41
3.81
2.18
1.59
1.74
0
52
79
90
60
84
83
72
33
16
14
0
$282
424
455
420
745
902
759
770
436
400
0
$20
37
42
27
38
37
33
19
9
7
0
2.7%
14.4
15.9
12.5
11.9
11.3
11.0
10.0
6.6
2.8
.6
OVERALL RATES
5.70
4.63
67
$543 $31
First, the overall injury rates (bottom line) show
that the back strains from overexertion :
occurred to an average of six out of
100 collectors a year.
resulted in lost time 81% of the time.
resulted in an average of 67 days lost
per 100 collectors a year, or .67 days
lost per collector per year.
cost an average of $543 each in direct
cost (e.g., medical costs, wage contin-
uation benefits, disability payments).
2-6
-------
cost $31 per collector per year
on the payroll.
resulted in an average of 14.5 days
lost per lost workday case.
The injury rates for the age groupings indicate
that the incidence of back strains from overexertion was much
higher for younger collectors, peaking in the age group of
"25-29 years old"; then it decreased steadily for the older
age groupings. However, examining the severity rates, the
peak still occurred at the "25-29 years old" group but showed
the second peak at a slightly older age group, "35-39 years
old". This pattern was again repeated for the direct costs
per man-year rates.
One explanation for why the older collectors appear
to have a lower incidence of back strains is that, with senior-
ity, the older employees have less exposure to handling con-
tainers, as they are likely to be the drivers in the two and
three man crews and infrequently leave the cab.
FIGURE 3 gives the average injury rates for back
strains that resulted from overexertion by the experience of
the injured employee. Experience, however, refers only to the
length of time the employee was employed by the collection
division, and does not include what experience the employee
might have had previous to joining the collection division
(e.g., transferred to parks department then back, worked pre-
viously with collection division and quit, etc.). Even so, the
FIGURE indicates that the newly hired employee (less than one
month's experience) sustained a 50% higher incidence of back
strains when handling containers or waste. In fact, the rates
remained high up through five years of experience.
One out of seven of the newly hired employees can
expect to receive a back strain within the first month on the
job. Because back strains are the most common type of injury
in this industry, along with being relatively costly, the safety
program in use at a solid waste organization should address this
problem. Target injury reduction measures should include:
employee training on container handling
techniques
container regulations (e.g., container
weight limits)
pre-employment physicals
2-7
-------
operational changes to reduce the
amount of lifting required.
FIGURE 3
COLLECTION DIVISION OVEREXERTIONS
(BACK STRAINS) INVOLVING CONTAINER
OR WASTE BY THE EXPERIENCE OF THE
INJURED EMPLOYEE
C 0)
O M
H 3
-P W
>i , 00
rti S-t !H 0) a
T3 (1) (D a) H X
0) X di-H & H H
U S-l QJ X3 O
C O -p -P rC -P (J m
0) 3 n3 en ^3 to 0
T3 OJ PH O S-i O H
H -P -P UO U rCW
U (fl (ti >i U M-PM
C O PH -P QJ Q) QJ 03 O 3
H t-3 -H tr> P^ >i cn Q) BHO
W SH n3 S-i n3 >H ffi
QJ K -r-i Q) fl Qfl
Wd3 COoJ QJ >WC > nJ rtj
O & OO CO 10 YEARS 2.78 2.36 50 899 25 33.0
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
The injury rates illustrate the need for effective
employee training in the proper lifting and dumping techniques
for the inexperienced employees and periodic retraining for the
experienced employees. As the chart on the back strains indi-
cate, the two major tasks the employees were performing at the
time of their injury were "lifting container" (49%) and "dump-
ing container" (26%). In at least 50% of the cases, the con-
tainer was heavy. Testing the container prior to lifting and
dumping it is essential in eliminating the element of surprise
from this operation. By knowing ahead of time that the container
is heavy, the employee can exercise more caution in lifting and
2-8
-------
dumping. Simply looking at the waste in the container is not
a good measure of its weight, since the container could have
rocks, newspapers, water, etc. on the bottom.
The three areas of employee training that should be
emphasized are: testing the container, lifting the container,
and dumping the container. The following are training guide-
lines developed for the safety manual on solid waste collec-
tion, which SAFETY SCIENCES is performing for the National
Science Foundation, on the three training areas.
The training should be performed in the office rather
than on the route, or on the job. It can be supplemented with
the use of slides and charts on the proper techniques, hazards
to watch out for, and a discussion of the spine and the nature
of back strains. In addition, actual demonstrations of the
correct procedures should be presented with the use of con-
tainers. Containers with varying weights could be made avail-
able for the employees to "feel" the difference in weights,
and the instructor should have the employees perform the three
tasks until they can do it correctly unconsciously.
As discussed previously, training is not only import-
ant for the inexperienced employees, but also for the experi-
enced employees (retraining) who may have fallen into bad habits.
The experienced employees should be retrained at least once a
year, but preferably semi-annually. Additionally, another group
of target employees are the ones who sustained a back injury
while performing these tasks. They should also be retrained
before they return to the job, especially since once a person
has sustained a back injury, he may be more susceptible to
recurrence of the injury because of a weakened musculoskeletal
system.
Another key component to an effective training program
is supervision to ensure that the correct techniques are actu-
al ly^eTng~~use"d on the job. The supervisor should be responsi-
ble for the safe performance of his employees. He should point
out incorrect or unsafe practices and show the employees the
correct methods immediately upon observing unsafe acts. An-
other effective means of pointing out unsafe practices (which
can be used in retraining) is to take candid photographs or
videotapes of the employees performing unsafe acts. The em-
ployees can also be asked to evaluate themselves, in this manner,
making it an interactive training program. With an effective
safety training program, employee morale rises, thus injuries
are reduced and productivity increases.
2-9
-------
FIGURE 4
TESTING AND LIFTING CONTAINERS
TESTING
1. Never use the hand or feet to push protruding waste back
into the container. Use the container lid.
2. Tip the container away from you with your gloved hand
to judge the container's weight. The hand is more sen-
sitive to judging weight than the knee. The weight of
cardboard boxes and plastic bags should also be tested
before lifting.
3. Keep hands out of the container while testing (to avoid
cuts or contact with infectious material).
4. If the container is too heavy, lighten the load or get
help.
5. If the container exceeds your organization's container
weight limit, tag and leave the container.
NOTE: There is little doubt that lifting moderate to heavy
loads does create excessive mechanical stresses on
various components of the musculoskeletal system.
However, a report published in 1962 by the Interna-
tional Labor Office (ILO) states that proper lifting
techniques can reduce the risks of back injury due to
lifting.
LIFTING
1. Be alert to help a fellow employee with a load that is
too heavy for one man to lift.
2. Do not throw or swing containers or bags.
3. Keep feet about shoulder width apart, or have one foot
in front of the other for balance, and face the direc-
tion of travel.
4. Keep knees bent and back as straight as possible without
being uncomfortable.
2-10
-------
TESTING AND LIFTING CONTAINERS (Continued)
5. Tilt container and firmly grasp the bottom edge. Use
both hands to lift and carry the container.
6. Draw the container close to the body and lift with a
steady, continuous motion. Be especially cautious if
the waste is loosely packed because the weight may
shift.
7. Never twist when lifting. To avoid twisting, point for-
ward foot in the direction to be traveled. The body
will follow without twisting.
8. Do not try to catch a falling container, and keep hands
and feet clear of the container if it starts to fall.
9. Do not carry more than one container at a time.
10. Do not lift containers while standing on the riding or
hopper step.
11. If waste starts to fall, do not try to catch it. Fallen
waste should be picked up with a dustpan and broom.
12. Be alert to faulty bottoms on cardboard boxes.
13. If a container is heavier than the required weight limit,
in damaged condition, or in any way in violation of the
container regulations, tag it, and do not collect.
14. Tag and leave bulky waste, if there is a separate bulky
waste collection.
2-11
-------
FIGURE 5
TEAM LIFTING AND DUMPING
(bulky waste or heavy container)
NOTE: Encourage the employees to ask a co-worker to help
handle a particularly heavy or bulky container. There
are problems associated with coordination between co-
workers in a mutual effort. Therefore, specific train-
ing in team lifting and dumping is needed. Team coor-
dination training is particularly important for fre-
quent two-man operations such as in handling bulky
items and commercial bins.
1. Choose a team leader who will give the signal to lift
in unison.
2. Lift with an even, steady motion, without twisting.
2-12
-------
FIGURE 6
DUMPING INTO HOPPER
1. Avoid twisting the body. Keep arms as close to the body
as possible. Keep feet firmly planted on the ground,
parted for balance, and have a firm grip on the container.
2. Do not throw or swing containers or bags.
3. Plastic bags should not be held close to the body.
4. Hold the container low, even resting it on the hopper sill
Besides causing strains, holding the container high to
dump also increases the risk of waste bouncing out of the
container or the hopper.
5. Roll the container on the hopper sill, rather than shake
it, to loosen the waste. Be careful of hand position to
prevent pinching the hand between the container and the
sill.
6. Do not overload the hopper.
7. Extreme caution is needed when handling such easily
shattered items as television tubes and fluoresent
light bulbs.
8. Do not dump while the packer panel is operating. Stand
clear of the back of the truck during the packing cycle.
9. Any spillage that occurs while dumping waste into the
hopper should be picked up immediately with a broom and
dustpan.
10. Watch out for other crewmen. Coordinate movements.
11. IF A CONTAINER OR OBJECT IS TOO HEAVY, LIGHTEN THE LOAD
OR GET HELP.
12. Make a conscious effort not to rest hands on hopper sill.
It is easy to do this unconsciously, thus risking getting
caught by the packer panel.
13. Let falling containers go. Do not try to catch them.
2-13
-------
DUMPING INTO HOPPER (Continued)
14. Lumber, Christmas trees, pipes or other long waste should
be placed in a position parallel to the packer panel.
They can swing around when packing if placed improperly.
15. Do not dump the container by dropping it into the hopper
and then lifting it out.
2-14
-------
CONTAINER REGULATIONS
Another means of reducing back strains is to regu-
late the objects that the employees are handling (e.g., con-
tainers ^ and waste). A solid waste organization's container
regulations should include specific limits for the size and
weight of the containers as well as acceptable and unaccept-
able containers and waste.
Specific container conditions that can contribute
to overexertions include the container's:
Weight. IRIS recommends a container
weight limit (container and contents)
of 60 pounds.
Size. Too large of a container is
awkward to handle, increasing the
risk of back strains. 30-32 gallons
is recommended for the container size,
and cardboard boxes should be no larger
than 2'x3'x3'.
Type. The top of the container should
have a larger diameter than the bottom
so that the contents pour out easier.
Therefore, oil drums are not recom-
mended as acceptable containers. The
empty oil drum's weight is far heavier
than a plastic or metal container, and
a 55 gallon oil drum is very awkward
to handle.
However, container regulations are useless unless
they are enforced. The employees should be able to tag and
leave an overly heavy or large container. Repeated violators
should be given citations and fined.
In conjunction with an active enforcement program,
the container regulations should be made clear to the custo-
mers. New customers can be informed by several means. The
solid waste organization should have a flyer, or brochure,
describing the container regulations for the supervisors to
leave with the new customers, or the flyer could be mailed to
the new customers upon them calling to start up service. Some
organizations also send notices describing happenings in the
solid waste department (e.g., changes in policy) in the muni-
cipality's water bills. Any major changes in an organization's
container regulations, such as not allowing cardboard boxes,
should be accompanied by extensive advertising through the
mail, in local newspapers and on the radio and television.
2-15
-------
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
Another variable that is a contributing factor to
back strains is the employee's physical condition. Collecting
10-12 tons of waste a day requires the collector to be in very
good physical condition. The solid waste organization can
screen the applicants for certain qualifications prior to
hiring an employee. Key tests to perform in a pre-employment
physical include:
Back x-rays. Although these are often
inconclusive in determining previous
back injury, they can spot the small
percentage of congenital back defects
that may result in high severity and
costs.
Ability to do sit-ups. Because the
abdominal muscles are used to perform
lifts, they should be in good condi-
tion.
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
Operational changes refer to overall work pattern
changes rather than specific job task changes. Operational
changes that lead to the reduction of overexertion back strains
while collecting waste require reducing the amount of lifting
required by the employee. Therefore, introducing mechanical
means to lift and dump the containers is the best method.
There are several types of equipment available with
varying degrees of automation:
Lift mechanism that attaches to the
back of rear-end loaders used in
conjunction with providing customers
with wheeled containers. The collec-
tion is curbside, and the collector
wheels the container to the rear of
the truck, attaches it to the lift
mechanism and operates the controls
for lifting and dumping it. Some
systems in use go under the names of
Poly-Kart and Mobile Toter.
Lift mechanism attached to a side
loader (e.g., Rapid Rail). Again,
the containers are provided by the
2-16
-------
solid waste organization, 80 gallons
for single dwelling housing and 300
gallons for four family alley collec-
tion (container not wheeled). The
collector has to maneuver the con-
tainer once in a while if it is turned
the wrong way or if the container
falls into the hopper.
Articulating arm attached to a front
end or side loader that picks up 80
and 300 gallon containers (e.g.,
Godzilla).
2-17
-------
EXHIBIT 23
CREW TYPE VARIATIONS IN SIZE,
TYPE OF SHIFT, AND POINT OF'
COLLECTION AND THEIR EFFECTS
ON INJURY RATES
Two unresolved safety questions plaguing solid waste
managers who are weighing alternative collection methods in an
effort to reduce their high injury rates are, "Which system is
safer and by how much?"
In answering these questions, the three main crew
type factors of size, type of shift and point of collection
were examined. Since just examining each factor individually
was not very meaningful, two factor and three factor analyses
were performed.
For the two factor analyses, the IRIS data from
October 1976 through June 1977* was used to determine injury
rates for the various collection systems. The two factor com-
binations are listed below along with their percentage of the
total collection man-hours of exposure of 13,134,081:
one man task collection crews (4%)
two man task collection crews (16%)
three man task collection crews (39%)
one man hourly collection crews (6%)
two man hourly collection crews (4%)
three man hourly collection crews (15%)
one man commercial collection crews (2%)
two man commercial collection crews (5%)
one man curbside/alley collection crews (2%)
two man curbside/alley collection crews (9%)
three man curbside/alley collection crews (33%)
three man backyard collection crews (1%)
*Although IRIS collected crew type information as part of the
injury data since December 1975, the man-hours of exposure was
not obtained until October 1976.
3-1
-------
commercial task collection crews (5%)
curbside/alley task collection crews (43%)
backyard task collection crews (12%)
commercial hourly collection crews (3%)
curbside/alley hourly collection crews (14%)
The injury rates tables are given at the back of
this section. However, the tables below summarize the lost
workday cases rates for the two factor analyses:
Type of
Shift
Task
Hourly
Point of
Collection
Commercial
Curbside/Alley
Backyard
Point of
Collection
Commercial
Curbside/Alley
Backyard
Crew Size
One Two
29 45
11 35
Crew Size
One Two
14 19
51 61
Three
28
29
Three
30
51
Type of Shift
Task Hourly
19
31
42
10
32
These rates indicated that 1) smaller crew sizes result in higher
lost workday cases, 2) hourly collectors had lower or nearly
equal incidence rates, and 3) backyard collection had a much
higher rate than curbside or alley collection.
However, when the injury rates analyses was taken one
step further to compare three factor cross tabulations, the fol-
lowing ranking of the residential collection systems was derived
for the highest to lowest in OSHA incidence rates:
3-2
-------
FIGURE 7
AVERAGE INJURY RATES FOR
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS
0)
-p
nJ
Ť
CD
u
fl
Q)
T3
H
U
G
H
<
K
CO
O
>i
m
T3
*:
s-i
o
is
0)
-p -p
en re!
O PH
J
en
i
4-)
H
S-l
CU
>
0)
CO
<
w
CO
O
S-l
0) -r-i
ft fi
H
-P
en d)
O H
U X!
ctf
-P n3
U s-i
OJ o
s-i U
H QJ
Q ctj
CO
< 0
I
fCj
5)
S-l
cu
ft
-p
en
O
U
-P
u
0) ^1
M n3
-H 0)
Q X
*
(D
S-l
3
en
0
a
X
w
^
o
0)
tn en
(U S-l
-P d
C 0
QJ K
U 1
S-l C
Q) (C
ft S
1. Two man, hourly, curbside 305 72 510 $133 $404 2%
2. Three man, task, backyard 92 50 329 188 174 1%
3. Two man, task, curbside 88 56 696 437 396 8%
4. One man, task, curbside 74 41 725 473 349 2%
5. Three man, hourly, curbside 44 30 330 479 211 9%
6. Three man, task, curbside 41 25 351 403 165 30%
7. One man, hourly, curbside 25 16 217 507 128 2%
*Does not total 100% because commercial collection is not
represented nor other collection systems that mixed backyard
and curbside or alley.
The two man collection systems were both much worse
in rates than the three man collection systems, but the hourly
collectors were no longer lower in rates from the task or in-
centive collectors (except for the one man collection). Back-
yard for the three man collection was still much worse than
curbside, but the reduction in crew size from three to two for
curbside collection still appears to raise the injury rates.
The fact that two man hourly collection was much higher in this
table than the previous table is because the commercial collec-
tion injuries and man-hours of exposure were included in the
previous table's rates, thus lowering the rates because commer-
cial collection had lower injury rates.
In using this table to estimate the injury and cost
reductions of changing from one system to another, understand-
ing the injury rates is necessary.
3-3
-------
1. OSHA incidence rate is roughly
equivalent to the number of nOn-
first aid injuries expected per
100 full time employees on the pay-
roll a year.
2, The OSHA lost workday cases rate is
roughly equivalent to the number of
lost workday cases expected per 100
full time employees on the payroll
a year.
3. The OSHA severity rate is roughly
equivalent to the number of lost
workdays expected per 100 full time
employees on the payroll a year.
4. The direct cost per man-year rate is
roughly equivalent to what it is cost-
ing an organization per residential
collector per year in direct costs
(e.g., medical, wage continuation,
court settlements, disability benefits)
for injuries.
Therefore, if a solid waste organization that had
three man task backyard collection wanted to know how their
injury rates would be affected when they change to one man
task curbside collection, the table indicates that the ex-
pected reductions are:
18 non-first aid injuries per 100
employees per year
9 lost workday injuries per 100
employees per year
but an increase is expected for the severity and direct costs1
of 396 days lost per 100 employees
per year
of $175 per employee per year in
direct costs.
*Several serious accidents occurred in this collection system
that greatly affected their injury severity and direct cost
rates.
3-4
-------
FIGURE 8
AVERAGE INJURY RATES
FOR ONE MAN CREWS
BY TYPE OF SHIFT
1. OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
2. OSHA LOST WORKDAY CASES RATE
3. OSHA SEVERITY RATE
4. AVERAGE COST PER OSHA
RECORDABLE INJURY
5. DIRECT COST PER MAN-YEAR
TASK
58
29
729
$1,103
$637
HOURLY
17
11
145
$535
$91
FIGURE 9
AVERAGE INJURY RATES
FOR TWO MAN CREWS
BY TYPE OF SHIFT
TASK
HOURLY
1. OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
2. OSHA LOST WORKDAY CASES RATE
3. OSHA SEVERITY RATE
4. AVERAGE COST PER OSHA
RECORDABLE INJURY
5. DIRECT COST PER MAN-YEAR
72
45
568
$425
$308
140
35
272
$151
$212
3-5
-------
FIGURE 10
AVERAGE INJURY RATES
FOR THREE MAN CREWS
BY TYPE OF SHIFT
TASK
HOURLY
1. OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
2. OSHA LOST WORKDAY CASES RATE
3. OSHA SEVERITY RATE
4. AVERAGE COST PER OSHA
RECORDABLE INJURY
5. DIRECT COST PER MAN-YEAR
49
28
367
$338
$166
42
29
408
$561
$238
FIGURE 11
AVERAGE INJURY RATES
FOR ONE MAN CREWS BY
TYPE OF COLLECTION
1. OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
2. OSHA LOST WORKDAY CASES RATE
3. OSHA SEVERITY RATE
4. AVERAGE COST PER OSHA
RECORDABLE INJURY
5. DIRECT COST PER MAN-YEAR
COMMERCIAL
25
14
653
$4,109
$1,036
CURBSIDE/
ALLEY
89
51
844
$482
$428
3-6
-------
FIGURE 12
AVERAGE INJURY RATES
FOR TWO MAN CREWS BY
TYPE OF COLLECTION
1. OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
2. OSHA LOST WORKDAY CASES RATE
3. OSHA SEVERITY RATE
4. AVERAGE COST PER OSHA
RECORDABLE INJURY
5. DIRECT COST PER MAN-YEAR
COMMERCIAL
30
19
311
$563
$171
CURBSIDE/
ALLEY
132
61
681
$305
$404
FIGURE 13
AVERAGE INJURY RATES
FOR THREE MAN CREWS BY
TYPE OF COLLECTION
1. OSHA INCIDENCE RATE
2. OSHA LOST WORKDAY CASES RATE
3. OSHA SEVERITY RATE
4. AVERAGE COST PER OSHA
RECORDABLE INJURY
5. DIRECT COST PER MAN-YEAR
CURBSIDE/
ALLEY
50
30
377
$373
$179
BACKYARD
94
51
335
$188
$177
3-7
-------
FIGURE 14
AVERAGE INJURY RATES FOR
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
TASK (INCENTIVE) SHIFT BY
TYPE OF COLLECTION
CURBS IDE/
COMMERCIAL ALLEY
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE 31 50
OSHA LOST WORKDAY
CASES RATE 19 31
OSHA SEVERITY RATE 461 415
AVERAGE COST PER OSHA
RECORDABLE INJURY $1,467 $412
DIRECT COST PER MAN-
YEAR " $448 $206
FIGURE 15
AVERAGE INJURY RATES
FOR HOURLY SHIFT BY
TYPE OF COLLECTION
BACKYARD
57
42
365
$356
$203
CURBS IDE/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
COMMERCIAL
OSHA INCIDENCE RATE 15
OSHA LOST WORKDAY CASES RATE 10
OSHA SEVERITY RATE 151
AVERAGE COST PER OSHA
RECORDABLE INJURY $774
DIRECT COST PER MAN-YEAR $119
ALLEY
77
32
321
$276
$213
3-8
-------
EXHIBIT 24
HOW DIFFERENCES IN WORKER'S COMPENSATION
POLICIES AND WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
AFFECT THE INCIDENCE OF LOST TIME INJURIES
With the increasing emphasis towards providing 100%
wage continuation benefits (through the use of worker's com-
pensation, injury leave, sick leave, vacation leave, and per-
manent disability settlements) for the disabled worker, solid
waste managers, as indeed all managers, are concerned that it
may have an adverse effect. They suspect that providing in-
creased benefits will encourage more employees to incur lost
time injuries as well as increase how long employees are off
work for on-the-job injuries. For instance, some people think
there is "cheating" occurring, since the employees_have less
incentive to return on the third day of being off if their
organization's wage continuation benefits do not reimburse
them for the first three days of the accident until after the
third work day (i.e., a retroactive period of 3 days).
There is some evidence to support this claim. Recent
lost workday cases incidence rate increases for Federal em-
ployees may be attributed to a legislative easing of eligibility
requirements for Federal worker's compensation which occurred
in 1974. The lost workday cases incidence rates nearly doubled
for calendar year 1975 from 1974 (2.3 vs. 1.3). This is in
variance with the general industry trends of a constant lost
workday cases incidence rate for the same time period.
Therefore, if "cheating" is occurring, what one would
expect to see in the data is that IRIS users with the most
generous wage continuation benefits have more lost workday
cases than IRIS users with less generous wage continuation
benefits.
To examine this phenomenon, the lost time injuries of
the IRIS users were compared, based on their differences in wage
continuation benefits. Only the figures for 1976 were used, to
allow time for the cases to close. The factors under consider-
ation were:
1. Percentage of lost time injuries vs. days lost.
2. Lost workday cases rates vs. days lost.
On the whole, there does not appear to be much difference in
injury rates between the IRIS users that provided full benefits
versus those that provided partial wage continuation benefits.
4-1
-------
Wage continuation benefits for on-the-job injuries
can be derived from several general sources, depending on the
organization's wage continuation policy, to provide partial
or full compensation for lost wages due to injury. Wage con-
tinuation policies differ from organization to organization
because of state Worker's Compensation policies concerning
waiting periods, retroactive periods, maximum percentage of
compensated wages, etc. as well as whether the organization
provides industrial or injury leave benefits. Brief descrip-
tions of the most to the least generous of the wage continua-
tion benefits provided by the 84 IRIS users follows:
Full benefits
250 days of injury leave for each accident with no wait-
ing period. (16% of the IRIS users.)
Can use injury leave for the waiting period before Worker's
Compensation coverage and can use injury leave to add to
Worker's Compensation payment to make up to 100% of the
employee's regular wages. (14% of the IRIS users.)
Partial benefits
o Can use accrued sick leave for the waiting period before
Worker's Compensation coverage and can use sick leave to
add to Worker's Compensation payment to make up to 100%
of the employee's regular wages. No injury leave provided.
(17% of the IRIS users.)
Can only use accrued sick leave for the waiting period
before Worker's Compensation coverage. No injury leave
provided. (12% of the IRIS users.)
Can use injury leave for the waiting period before Worker's
Compensation coverage but cannot use it to supplement the
Worker's Compensation payments. (17% of the IRIS users.)
e Can only use accrued vacation leave for the waiting period
before Worker's Compensation coverage. No injury leave
provided. (5% of the IRIS users.)
Cannot use sick leave or vacation leave for the waiting
period prior to Worker's Compensation coverage and the
Worker's Compensation usually only compensates for two-
thirds of the regular wages. (7% of the IRIS users.)
There can be wide variations in the Worker's Compensa-
tion policies, also:
4-2
-------
Three to eight days waiting period (i.e., be-
fore an injury can be covered by Worker's Com-
pensation) .
Retroactive period can begin the end of the
waiting period to 82 days after the waiting
period. The average time between the waiting
period and the retroactive period was less than
20 days (69%) . The retroactive period is the
minimum time off due to an on-the-job injury
before the employee can be compensated for the
waiting period.
Compensates for 50% to 90% of the injured em-
ployee's regular wages.
In the three following FIGURES, the IRIS users' wage
continuation policies were divided into five different categor-
ies. The days lost shown were only compuated up to 21 work
days lost, but injuries did result in more than 21 days lost.
However, most of the IRIS users had a retroactive period for
Worker's Compensation of 14 or 21 calendar days, and it was
therefore felt that to include 21 workdays would encompass
any observable trends for the 21 days retroactive period.
The five wage continuation categories and their rep-
resentative man-hours of exposure were:
1. 100% benefits (has injury leave and supplement).
The expected trend is that this category would
have more incentive to have lost workday cases
since the injured employees would not incur
any loss of wages no matter how long they are
off work due to on-the-job injuries. (3,005,400
man-hours of exposure.)
2. Has injury leave but no supplement after 7 days.
In other words, the injured employee receives
100% of his wages for the work days after his
injury until 7 calendar days after when Worker's
Compensation takes over, then he only receives
about two-thirds of his regular wages. There-
fore, the expected trends would be to see a
sharp reduction in lost workday cases after
four or five work days lost (7 calendar days).
(4,638,246 man-hours of exposure.)
3. Has injury leave but no supplement after 3 days.
Same as above but receives an average of two
thirds of his wages after 3 calendar days.
4-3
-------
Therefore, the expected trends would be a
sharp reduction in lost workday cases after
one to three days (depending on what day of
week the injury occurred the three calendar
days for the waiting period can include one
to three work days). (2,398,488 man-hours
of exposure.)
4. No injury leave the first 3 days. However,
for many of these users, the employees can
use their accrued sick leave to pay for their
waiting period work days not covered by Work-
er's Compensation. In addition, they may or
may not be allowed to use sick leave to add
to their Worker's Compensation payment to
provide 100% wage benefits. Therefore, the
lost workday cases trends expected would be
that they would be reluctant to use their sick
leave and would try to return to work as soon
as possible, and the number of injuries that
incurred more than three days lost would be
expected to be lower. (686,788 man-hours of
exposure.)
5. No injury leave, 7 days waiting period for
Worker's Compensation. This category is basi-
cally the same as for the above category, ex-
cept that since Worker's Compensation is not
applicable until 4 days later than the above
category, there should be a noticeable differ-
ence between the two curves in days three
through five since the employees would be re-
luctant to use too many sick days. (4,773,308
man-hours of exposure.)
The following three FIGURES will be examined for the
expected injury trends discussed above for the five categories,
FIGURE 1
This FIGURE shows close correlation for all five
categories with minor differences. The general shape of the
curves, with a high percentage of the lost workday cases re-
sulting in fewer days lost and the shape of the curves level-
ing off for high days lost, follows expectations. Variations
in the curves can more easily be seen in the first five days
lost.
4-4
-------
Examining this first part of the curve, several
explanations may account for the variations:
Curves #4 and #5 are steeper than the other
three, particularly for one day lost cases.
Since_these injured employees would have to
use sick leave, if provided, presumably
these one day lost cases are the employees
who had to take time off but came back to
work as soon as possible. In addition,
their curves for the higher days lost are
lower than the other three categories.
The slightly higher percentage of lost work-
day cases in the first 3 days lost for curve
#3 versus curve #1 may be explained by the
fact that the injured employees in curve #3
get less than 100% of their wages after being
off for 3 calendar days. Therefore, there
are more injuries with less workdays than
curve #1 which provides full benefits, since
curve #l's employees have less "incentive"
to return to work as soon as possible. An-
other difference expected is that there would
also be less incentive for curve #3's employees
as opposed to #l's to incur high days lost.
This can be observed for the higher days lost.
FIGURE 2
This FIGURE compares the cummulative percentage of
lost workday cases for the best (#1) and the worst (#5) of
the wage continuation benefit categories. By examining the
gaps between the two curves at 3 days lost versus more than
13 days lost, it can be shown that for the worst benefits,
there were more than 10% difference at 3 days and less than
5% after 13 days lost. This can mean that the worst benefits
encourages less lost workdays than the full benefits.
FIGURE 3
The observable trends in this FIGURE are harder to
explain. For instance, the lost workday cases rates for curve
#1 would be expected to be the highest overall because they
receive the best benefits. This did not hold true; curves #3
and #4 had higher lost workday cases rates, particularly up
through 6 days lost. Some explanations for the observed differ-
ences may be:
4-5
-------
The steepness of the curves for the IRIS
users that have the same number of days for
their waiting period (e.g., curves #3 and
#4 and curves #2 and #5) were very similar,
although the explanations for it vary.
The IRIS users with 3 days for waiting per-
iods both do not provide their injured em-
ployees with 100% benefits after 3 calendar
days, and therefore, there is quite a decrease
in lost workday cases rates for the first few
days lost. The employees are returning to
work as soon as possible. However, differ-
ent reasonings account for the high rates.
Curve #4 has a higher rate for the first
day perhaps because their employees are re-
ceiving no benefits prior to 3 calendar days
(unless they can use sick leave) and would
return to work after a shorter period than
curve #2's employees who receive full bene-
fits for the first 3 calendar days.
The same general explanations can be applied
to the differences observed between curves
#2 and #5. The higher lost workday cases
rates for curve #5 for the first 3 days lost
may be a reflection of the employees who
take less time off because they receive no
benefits. Curve t2's employees have less
incentive to return as soon as possible so
show lower rates for the same time period.
However, a dip in rates occurs from six to
nine days lost for curve #2 possibly because
the employees are no longer receiving full
benefits once 7 calendars have passed.
4-6
-------
FIGURE 1
COMPARISON OF WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
FOR PERCENTAGE OF LOST WORKDAY CASES~
BY NUMBER OF DAYS LOST
26 -
% Lost Workday Cases
100% Benefits (Has Injury Leave
and Supplement)
Has Injury Leave but No Supple-
ment After 7 Days
Has Injury Leave but No Supple-
ment After 3 Days
No Injury Leave the First 3 Days
No Injury Leave, 7 Days Waiting
Period for Worker's Compensation
Days Lost
4-7
-------
FIGURE 2
COMPARISON OF WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
FOR CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF LOST WORKDAY
CASES BY NUMBER OF DAYS LOST
100
90 ~
80 -
70 -
60
50
40 -|
30
20
10 H
Cumulative
% of Lost Workday
Cases
100% Benefits (Has Injury Leave
and Supplement)
No Injury Leave, 7 Days Waiting
Period for Worker's Compensation
10
Days Lost
15
20
4-8
-------
7 -,
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
FIGURE 3
COMPARISON OF WAGE CONTINUATION BENEFITS
FOR LOST WORKDAY CASES RATE BY
NUMBER OF DAYS LOST
Lost Workday
Cases Rate
100% Benefits (Has Injury Leave
and Supplement)
Has Injury Leave but No Supple-
ment After 7 Days
Has Injury Leave but No Supple-
ment After 3 Days
No Injury Leave the First 3 Days
No Injury Leave, 7 Days Waiting
Period for Worker's Compensation
12 14 16 18 20 22
Days Lost
4-9
-------
EXHIBIT 25
THE RELATIONSHIP OF INJURY RATES
FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION TO THE
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT IN USE
IRIS analyzed the injury rates for solid waste
collectors by the type of equipment they were working on
at the^time of the injury to determine if one type of equip-
ment might be worse than another. The exposure hours used
was by piece of equipment rather than by number of employees,
and the four types of collection equipment analyzed were:
rear-end loaders
side loaders
front-end loaders
mechanical side loaders
Other collection equipment in use included open body trucks,
container delivery trucks, trash cranes, etc., but they did
not account for more than 5% of the equipment in use at IRIS
users and are not analyzed.
REAR-END LOADERS
This type of equipment was used five times more fre-
quently by IRIS users than the next highest exposure hours
equipment, side loaders. Rear-end loaders had crew sizes of
two to five men, counting the driver. They had also the worst
injury record overall of the four types:
There was an average of 1.7 OSHA
recordable injuries per packer.
Of these, 64% resulted in lost time,
The average rear-end loader crew
was losing 12 days per truck per
year.
The average workdays lost per lost
workday case was 11.
The average direct cost per OSHA
recordable injury was $349.
The direct cost per truck per year
for on-the-job injuries was $592.
5-1
-------
SIDE LOADERS
These pieces of collection equipment incurred the
second worst injury record. Typical crew sizes were one or
two men.
Although their OSHA incidence rate
was worse than that for rear-end
loaders (183 vs. 170), the OSHA
lost workday cases rate was much
lower (74 vs. 108). The OSHA incid-
ence rate of 183 means that the side
loader crews were experiencing 1.83
OSHA recordable injuries per vehicle.
Considering that the crew size is
generally smaller than for rear-end
loaders (average of 1.8 injuries per
two men vs. 1.7 injuries per three
men), the injuries per employee is
higher.
Of these injuries, 40% resulted in
lost time, or an average of seven
lost time injuries were occurring per
ten side loaders.
The average side loader crew was
losing nearly ten days per truck
per year.
The average workdays lost per lost
workday case was thirteen.
The average direct cost per OSHA
recordable injury was $254.
The direct cost per truck per year
for injuries was $465.
FRONT-END LOADERS
These were almost used exclusively in commercial
collection and had crew sizes of one and two men.
There was an average of one injury
per two trucks, and 58% of these
resulted in lost time.
5-2
-------
The average front-end loader crew
was losing nearly four days per
truck per year.
The average workdays lost per lost
workday case was 12.
The average direct cost per OSHA
recordable injury was $550, the
second highest of the four types
of equipment.
The direct cost per truck per
year for injuries was $293.
MECHANICAL SIDE LOADERS
The only mechanical side loader in use by the IRIS
users was the Rapid Rail system, which only required one man
to operate the lift arms.
There was an average of nearly one
OSHA recordable injuries per ten
trucks, and 33% of these resulted
in lost time.
The average mechanical side loader
crew was losing nearly two days per
crew, or per man, per year. This
was the lowest severity rate of the
four types of equipment.
' The average workdays lost per lost
workday case was 20, the highest of
the four types of equipment. This
signifies that although the lost
workday cases in this type of crew
was infrequent, they nevertheless
were severe.
The average direct cost per OSHA
recordable injury was $480.
The direct cost per truck, or employee,
per year for on-the-job injuries was
$44.
5-3
-------
AVERAGE INJURY RATES
en
i
OSHA Incidence Rate
OSHA Lost Workday Cases
Rate
Severity Rate
Average Workdays Lost
Per Lost Workday
Case
Average Cost Per OSHA
Recordable Injury
Average Direct Cost Per
Equipment-Year
Equipment-Hours of
Exposure
BY TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
1976 to September 1977
en en
0) H 0) Ł
n3 'd td 'd o
'd id d o rd -H d
Ł en o wen -HO -MO
W M i-3 I M c h3 U-H
i o> -Pel) td a) en
M'd d) Cl'd 4^(U rH-rH
tdfd T3 'Ofd U'd >HJ>
(DO -H MO 0) -H O -H
Pn>-3 e/3 PMi-3 3 e/3 UP
170
108
1,168
10.81
$349
$592
4,060,425
183
74
967
13.11
$254
$465
753,798
53
31
368
11.82
$550
$293
359,954
9
3
181
19.67
$480
$44
130,582
84
50
563
11.24
$368
$310
10,637,419
(man-hours)
-------
The number of injuries, days lost, and direct cost
used in calculating the injury rates were for all injuries,
and therefore, the injury rates may be misleading. For in-
stance, injuries such as dog bites are not related to the
type of equipment but more so to whether the point of collec-
tion was curbside or backyard. Additional IRIS analyses of
the type of equipment is required using only the equipment
related injuries (e.g., occurred while getting on and off the
vehicle) to not only calculate injury rates but also to iso-
late specific accident patterns that are associated with a
particular type of equipment (e.g., higher incidence of over-
exertions while dumping into the hopper with side loaders).
In addition, another detailed injury rates analyses of the
type of equipment injuries might separate out the different
crew sizes and equipment types (e.g., two man rear-loader
crews vs. two man side loader crews).
5-5
------- |