ination issue for EPA libraries
and Xtate Solid Vaetc Management Agencies
INJURY REPORTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEM (IRIS) FIELD TEST
VOLUMES I and II
This final report (SW-110c,l}_ describee work performed
for the Federal solid waste management programs under contract No. 68-03-0231
and is reproduced as received from the contractor
Volume I describes a field test of an injury reporting and analysis system
for the solid waste management industry.
Volume II contains the tabulation of data.
Copies of both volumes will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1975
-------
This report as submitted by the grantee or contractor has not been
technically reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of EPA, nor does mention of commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-110c.l) 1n the solid waste
management series.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the considerable
help and encouragement provided during the entire course of
this study by EPA staff, particularly Mr. Robert Colonna,
Mr. Dan Greathouse and Ms. Cindy McLaren.
The authors would also like to thank the staff of the
solid waste agencies participating in the Field Test for
their patience, persistence and interest in our common goal
of reducing injuries to the workers in this vital industry.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ill
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 2
1.2 The Pilot Study 3
1.3 Objectives and Elements of Prospective
Study 11
1.4 Need for Field Test 14
II. PROCEDURES USED FOR FIELD TEST 15
2.1 Development of Preliminary Data Recording
Methods 15
2.2 Obtaining OMB Clearance 20
2.3 Selection of Participants 21
2.4 Visits to Participants and Start-Up of
Field Test 26
2.5 Procedures for Identifying and Handling
Problems and Needed Changes in Data
Collection Methods 28
2.6 Formulation of Requirements for Computer
Printouts 32
III. RESULTS OF FIELD TEST 35
3.1 Injury Data 37
3.1.1 Changes in Methodology 37
3.1.2 Changes in Format, Phraseology and
Items Included 50
3.1.3 Discussion 53
-------
Page
3.2 Time Lost and Cost Data 54
3.2.1 Methodology 54
3.2.2 Discussion 61
3.3 Employee Data 63
3.3.1 Methodological Changes 63
3.3.2 Items Added as Result of Field
Test 69
3.3.3 Items Omitted as a Result of Field
Test 70
3.3.4 Discussion 70
3.4 Non-Employee Basing Data 71
3.4.1 Equipment and Vehicle Basing Data . . 71
3.4.2 Protective Clothing Basing Data ... 75
3.4.3 Crew Type Basing Data 75
3.4.4 Accident Site Basing Data 77
3.4.5 Activity Basing Data 85
3.5 Updating 90
3.5.1 Employee Information Updating .... 90
3.5.2 Equipment/Vehicle Information
Updating 92
3.5.3 Time Lost and Direct Cost Status ... 92
3.5.4 Annual Updates 95
3.6 Information on Management Practices 95
3.7 Analysis and Reporting . . . . 106
3.8 Telephonic System 116
IV. CONCLUSIONS: FEASIBILITY OF INJURY INFORMATION
SYSTEM 119
BIBLIOGRAPHY 123
VI
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
Relationship Between Injury Risk and
Amount of Experience at Time of Injury
Operation Being Performed section of the
Injury Report Form - Rev. 4 - 4/73 . . ,
Details of Participants in Field Test .
Page
8
18
25
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4 Sample Injury Report Form - IRIS(IRF) -
Rev. 1 (5/75) 40
EXHIBIT 5 Time Lost and Direct Costs Data Form ... 55
EXHIBIT 6 Employee Information Form 65
EXHIBIT 7 Job Class Basing Data Form 66
EXHIBIT 8 Equipment/Vehicle Information Form .... 73
EXHIBIT 9 Protective Clothing Identification and
Basing Data Form 76
EXHIBIT 10 Crew Type Basing Data Form 78
EXHIBIT 11 Accident Site Basing Data by Crew Form . . 81
EXHIBIT 12 Daily Activity Basing Data Form
(Residential Refuse Collector
non-driver) 87
EXHIBIT 13 Sample Employee Data Update List 91
EXHIBIT 14 Sample Equipment/Vehicle Data Update
List 93
EXHIBIT 15 Sample Time Lost and Direct Costs
Status 94
EXHIBIT 16 Background Information Form 96
EXHIBIT 17 Example of Single-Factor Analysis:
Accidents by Location 107
EXHIBIT 18 Example of Profile Analysis: Four-Factor
Accident Profile 113
vii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Final Report on Contract 68-03-0231 describes a Field
Test of an injury reporting and analysis system .for the solid
waste management industry. The need for this system arises from
the extremely high injury rate in this industry (which, so far
as can be determined from present data, has the highest or nearly
the highest injury rate of any industry in the U.S.) and the
associated high costs and other problems. No data is at present
available which could be used to set priorities for injury
reduction programs or monitor their success. In recognition
of the need for such data, a Pilot Study was funded in 1970
under Contract CPE-70-114. This Pilot Study, conducted from
June 1970 to June 1972, investigated whether the existing records
held by solid waste agencies on injuries that had occurred in
recent years, and on personnel employed in those years, could
be used to.give useful data on injuries. Through examination
of approximately 3,500 injury records and 3,000 personnel files
in six cities across the U.S., it was determined that the existing
data could not be used to provide valid data on injuries, because
it was too fragmented and did not use common definitions. Data
from one solid waste agency could not be compared on any meaningful
basis with data from another agency. However, the Pilot Study did
identify a list of factors related to injuries that could be used
as the basis for an injury reporting and analysis system, and
showed that information on these factors was available if a means
could be developed for collecting it.
A concept was developed for a study in which data would be
collected on injuries as they happen and on employees during their
employment.
The Field Test described in this report had as its purpose
to further define this concept and to translate the concept into
a workable injury reporting and analysis system. The goals of
the system were defined as supplying data (a) to line managements
of solid waste agencies that would enable them to improve their
safety awareness by providing valid comparisons with the performance
of other agencies, and to identify, set priorities for, and evaluate
injury reduction programs; (b) to national groups responsible for
setting standards for equipment and work practices in the solid
waste management industry; and (c) to EPA, to enable the agency
to set priorities for and monitor programs, of injury control as
related to productivity and work practices. These goals require
the development of a system in which solid waste management agencies,
referred to as participants, feed information into a central office
which will analyze the information and send reports back to the
participants. The need for a common system, using a central office,
Vlll
-------
arises from the need to accumulate a sufficient volume of data
for statistically valid conclusions to be drawn, and from the
need to obtain data that is strictly comparable from one solid
waste agency to another, using consistent definitions and methods
The system developed has several novel features:
the injuries are analyzed in terms of factors
specifically applicable to the solid waste
management industry
the factors selected allow the identification of
the relative hazards of various aspects of the
work environment. For example, the concept of
activity was used. By activity is meant the
specific operation or task being performed by
the injured employee at the time he was injured.
By breaking up the work day into activities, the
injury rate can be compared for each activity,
so that the relative hazards of each activity
can be examined and priorities can be set for
countermeasures. In addition, by the breakdown
into activities it is possible to realistically
compare the injury experience of different
participants by comparing the injury rates
associated with performing exactly the same
task.
in order to compare various aspects of the work
environment, exposure data (also referred to as
basing data) are collected. These data include
the man-hours at risk for various activities.
For example, it is not enough to know what
fraction of injuries happen to workers while
carrying refuse containers. It is also necessary
to know how many man-hours are spent carrying
refuse containers. The injury risk (injury rate
per man-hour) can then be computed and used, for
example, to compare the injury experience of
different solid waste agencies for workers
performing this same task.
In order to collect this data, the system provides for
acquiring data in three time frames. The first is at the time
that a participant joins the system, when data is collected on
all existing employees, all equipment, and certain key work
practices (e.g., crew size, c.ollection methods). The second
is at a periodic updating of this data (monthly for employee
IX
-------
information). The third is on each injury, as it occurs. Only
the details of the injury need be collected, since data on the
injured employee's age, experience, job class, etc. is already
on file.
The Field Test of this system involved 15 participants.
Initially, much of the data needed for start-up was collected
through visits to participants by contractor staff. Visits
were also paid to train participant staff in methods required
for data collection and reporting. As the Field Test continued,
forms and procedures were developed by which participants could
collect start-up data without on-site visits by contractor
personnel, and could report data on injuries without on-site
training by contractor staff.
The forms and procedures developed in the Field Test were
designed to meet the requirements of an Injury Reporting and
Information System for Solid Waste Management (IRIS) and are
described in a companion volume to this Final Report, entitled
User's Manual.
Acceptance, by the 15 participants in the Field Test, of
forms and procedures similar to those in the User's Manual was
found to be excellent.
A variation in which injury information was telephoned
to the central office, rather than sent on an Injury Report
Form, was developed and tested with one participant. This
variation proved to be highly successful, and should be
seriously considered for use in IRIS.
During the Field Test it was found that there is ample
evidence of high demand for the type of information that
could be provided by IRIS, since many types of organizations
requested information from the contractor.
Successful operation of the system to provide analyzed
data was demonstrated. Because the Field Test was primarily
directed towards examining feasibility, it was not possible
to generate a large amount of analyzed data that is immediately
applicable. However, some significant findings were made and
are described and discussed in a companion volume to this Final
Report, entitled Tabulation of Data.
The conclusion reached as a result of the Field Test is
that an injury reporting and analysis system, of the type
described in a companion volume as an Injury Reporting and
Information System for Solid Waste Management, is feasible
and that there is a need for the information that would be
generated.
-------
I . INTRODUCTION
This is the Final Report on Contract 68-03-0231, "Field
Test of an Injury Reporting and Analysis System for the Solid
Waste Management Industry." Work on the contract started on
March 12, 1973 and was performed by ENVIRO-MED, Inc. In
mid-1974, ENVIRO-MED, Inc. ceased operations and the personnel
involved became associated with SAFETY SCIENCES Division of
WSA Inc. The contract was novated to SAFETY SCIENCES in late
1974. Project Officers for the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency were Mr. Dan Greathouse and Ms. Cindy McLaren.
This report includes, in Section I, a brief discussion
of previous work leading to the Field Test. Section II describes
the procedures used in the Field Test, and Section III describes
the results of the Field Test in terms of the problems encountered
and the modifications made in the injury analysis and reporting
system. Section IV reviews the results of the Field Test and
concludes that a larger scale Injury Reporting and Information
System for Solid Waste Management is^ feasible and that there is
a need for the data that would be generated.
Two other volumes accompany this Final Report. One, a
Tabulation of Data, presents and describes some of the data
on injury rates obtained as a by-product of the Field Test.
The other, a User's Manual for the Injury Reporting and
Information System for Solid Waste Management, outlines the
forms and procedures developed in the Field Test.
-------
1.1 Background
There is abundant evidence that both the frequency and
severity of injuries are very high in the solid waste management
industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes annual
tabulations of Injury Rates by Industry. For 1970, the last
year in which municipal workers were included in this tabulation,
the category "local government, refuse collection and disposal"
had a higher injury frequency rate than any other industry shown.
The most recent National Safety Council data, for 1973, show
municipal refuse collection workers to have an injury frequency
approximately ten times that of the national average for all
industry. The economic cost of injuries is also large, with
typical workmen's compensation insurance rates being 9-13% of
payroll for refuse collectors. In California, for example, the
premium rate is $10.28/$100.00 of wages for refuse collection
according to the Manual for Rules, Classification & Rates for
Workmen's Compensation Insurance. This places refuse collection
in the high-medium range of occupations. Roofing, for example,
has one of the highest rates at $16.80/$100.00, while office
workers have the lowest rate of $.21/$100.00.
A number of publications discuss various aspects of the
injury problem in this industry; a listing is given in the
Bibliography following Section IV of this report. However,
no statistical data is available that can be used as the basis
for a program to introduce and evaluate injury-reducing
countermeasures.
-------
1.2 The Pilot Study
Recognizing the need for information on the injury problem
that could be used as a basis for action, a contract (CPE-70-114)
was funded to perform "A Pilot Study in the Field of Occupational
Health in the Solid Waste Management Industry"(referred to
hereafter as the Pilot Study).
The Pilot Study was performed during the period June 1970
through June 1972. A final report* was submitted in 1973. The
objective of the Pilot Study was to examine the feasibility of two
approaches to an eventual larger scale study: (a) a retrospective
approach in which existing records held by solid waste agencies
on injuries that had occurred, and personnel that had been employed,
in previous years would be used to give useful data on injuries;
and (b) a pro sp_ective approach, in which a data collection system
would be devised, and information on injuries would be collected
as they happen and information on personnel would be collected
during their employment. In order to cover a range of agency
characteristics, the Pilot Study was conducted in six cities: two
with populations over 500,000; two with populations in the range
200,000 to 400,000; and two in the range 20,000 to 100,000. The
cities selected were Washington, B.C.; San Diego/ California;
Des Moines, Iowa; Birmingham, Alabama; Brookline, Massachusetts;
and Inglewood, California. In addition to the six main municipal
solid waste agencies studied, two private agencies were studied
in detail and six others in less detail.
*A Pilot Study in the Field of Occupational Health in the Solid Waste Management
Industry. Final Report on Contract CPE-70-114, ENVIRO-MED, Inc., now succeeded by
SAFETY SCIENCES Division of WSA Inc., San Diego, California.
-------
The first step of the Pilot Study was to determine what
factors are relevant to a study of the injuries occurrinc] to
solid waste workers, and to assemble these factors into a
framework that could interrelate them. This step was conducted
by examining data on all injuries that had occurred during a
four year period, in the years 1966-1970, to all sanitation
workers employed by the City of San Diego. A total of 750
injuries were reviewed that had occurred to a total of 650
individual employees. Records on all employees were studied,
whether or not they had been injured.
Possible factors for inclusion in an injury information
system were selected. The selection of factors was based upon
the extent to which collecting information about the factor was
expected to throw light on the causation of injury or on preventive
measures, the availability of data on that factor, and the precision
with which information on the factor could be recorded. After a
process of trial and error, approximately 50 factors concerning
each injury, and approximately 40 factors for each employee were
selected. Each factor, for example outdoor hazard, was divided
into a number of categories, e.g., slippery surface, uneven surface,
objects on ground, etc.
Several of the factors selected had not previously been used
in injury recording and analysis systems. One such factor is
operation (being performed by the injured employee at the time
of injury). This refers to the specific task that he was engaged
-------
on, for example, lifting container, dumping container, descending
from cab of truck, etc. Recording information on this factor
enables the evaluation of the risk of injury associated with each
of a series of specific tasks.
Having selected factors and the categories within each factor,
the records on injuries and employees were reviewed again and
information on each factor was coded for computer entry. Adjustments
were made to the categories, where necessary, to enable satisfactory
grouping and coding of the data. The data were then analyzed by
computer for each factor in turn. For example, the factor operation
was analyzed to give the number of injuries, number of days lost
and total cost associated with each task. This analysis proved
illuminating. For example, the operation dumping container (into
the hopper of a refuse truck) proved to be responsible for 24.6%
of the lost time days in San Diego, twice as much as lifting
containers. Carrying full containers only accounted for 0.5% of
the time lost. The four operations of mounting the step (the
small platform on the side or rear of the truck), dismounting
from step, traveling on step at curb speed, and traveling on step
at highway speed, accounted for 20% of the days lost. These all
indicate directions for injury reduction activities through a
careful examination of these operations. Similarly, guiding
maneuvering truck was responsible for 6% of the days lost,
suggesting more attention to this task.
-------
Another method of analysis that proved illuminating is to
relate injury rate to employee characteristics, using exposure
data. An example is given by the factor height. If only injury
records are analyzed, it is only possible to compute that, say,
half the injuries occurred to workers with height over 6 feet.
This finding is not useful in itself, since it is necessary to
know what fraction of the workers at risk are more than 6 feet
tall. The finding would not be surprising for a basketball team,
where most of the "employees at risk" are over 6 feet, but would
be very surprising for a group of jockeys.
A very interesting example was provided by the factor
experience. Analyzing only the injury records for San Diego
showed that 55% of the total days lost were associated with
employees with more than 2 years experience at the time of injury,
32% with employees with experience less than 6 months, and 13%
with employees with experience 6 months to 2 years at the time of
injury. In itself, this information is not useful, and it is
necessary to include data on employees, specifically the extent
to which employees are at risk in each of these experience groups.
In order to- calculate the "exposure" for each of these experience
groups, the data on each employee, whether injured or not, was
examined. The number of months that he had been in each experience
group during the four year study period was computed. For example,
if he had been hired at the start of the study period, his first
6 months would contribute 6 man months to the "less than 6 months"
-------
experience group, his next 18 months would contribute 18 man
months to the "6 month to 2 years" experience group, etc. When
the calculation was completed the results shown in EXHIBIT 1 were
computed. The group with under 6 months experience can be seen
to have an average number of injuries per man month and an
average number of days lost per man month that are three times
higher than the group with over 2 years experience. Results of
this type are useful, since they indicate upon which groups of
employees attention should be focused.
While the computer analysis was in progress, teams visited
the other five cities and reviewed in detail their injury and
personnel records for information on the same factors. The
objective was to find out whether this information was available,
how difficult it was to retrieve, and whether the information,
once retrieved, could be used to compare the injury experience
at one solid waste agency with that at another. In order to be
comparable, data must be recorded using a consistent set of
definitions, so that a particular item has the same meaning in
the records in each of the solid waste agencies.
The conclusions reached on the basis of this five city study
were that:
There is no standard injury recording format consistent
with the needs of accident prevention.
The rationale and design of the present injury reporting
system are aimed to meet legal and fiscal requirements,
especially those for the administration of Workmen's
Compensation benefits, rather than to elicit information
on the causes of injuries.
-------
00
Amount of Experience
at Time of Injury
Man-Months
at Risk
Average Number
of Injuries
per Man-Month
Average Days
Lost per
Man-Month
Average Direct
Cost per
Man-Month
LESS THAN SIX MONTHS
1634
.114
1.57
$39.40
SIX MONTHS TO TWO YEARS
MORE THAN TWO YEARS
1790
9788
.083
.035
,59
46
20.50
18.30
EXHIBIT 1
Relationship Between Injury Risk and Amount of
Experience at Time of Injury
-------
Little attention is given in these records to the
cause of the injury.- because "fault" is not an
issue in determining eligibility for Workmen's
Compensation. For similar reasons, there is no
incentive for monitoring the reliability of records
except to insure that the employee and the benefits
are properly identified.
Because the entire structure of the injury recording
system is designed for purposes inconsistent for use
in determining the causes of injuries, the current
records cannot be easily or reliably adapted for this
use.
Primary data on such essential injury factors as lost
time, injury costs, and the exact nature of the injury
are often never recorded or are recorded and stored in
a multitude of offices and in such a piece-meal fashion
as to make the data virtually unretrievable, even to
those immediately involved.
There is presently no way to compare the injury
experience from agency to agency. The wide variety
in what constitutes an injury, in the time loss allowed,
in the injury wage continuation policies, in the random
choices made of which injuries and what data to record,
and in other factors make comparisons of questionable
value.
The inadequate recording of injury data, the isolation
of management from the records that are available, the
lack of standardization required to make valid multi-city
comparisons, and the lack of analyses of available records
(especially those on cost data), has meant that all but a
few in solid waste management are unaware of the magnitude
of their injury problem. It is common for management to
hold the unsubstantiated view that their injury rate is
not high, is comparable with other cities, and is
essentially unavoidable."
It should be noted that these conclusions were reached in
1972 and based upon a review of records from 1971 and previous
years, at which time OSHA regulations on recording injuries were
not in effect. However, the conclusions are still, in general,
valid, because most establishments use a surrogate, a Workmen's
-------
Compensation form, in the place of the OSHA 101 (Supplementary
Record of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses), and the OSHA 101
itself is generally not completed in a way that can be compared
from one establishment to another. One very useful feature of
the OSHA regulations, however, is the OSHA 100 Log of Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses that does now provide a simple way of
determining the amount of time lost for each injury, for those
establishments that are subject to OSHA regulations.
The computer analyses of the San Diego data were completed,
and some factors were rejected as proving not to be related to
injury rate in any useful fashion, or having a relationship that
was not worth the associated difficulty in data collection. For
example, the personnel records in San Diego were carefully examined
for evidence of personal problems, such as drinking on the job, that
might be related to injury experience. It was found that employees
with reprimands in their personnel records for absenteeism or
tardiness, or with a history of wage garnishment, had a higher
injury rate than average, while employees with a recorded history
of drinking or drug problems had a lower than average injury rate.
However, the finding is not sufficiently useful in injury prevention
to justify the problems and difficulty associated with collecting
and recording this type of data.
As a final step in the Pilot Study, the results of the five
city evaluation of records were reviewed in the light of the
selection made of the factors that were likely to be useful. It
10
-------
was concluded that, while a retrospective study using existing
records would not be feasible, a prospective system, in which
solid waste agencies record and report data on injuries as they
happen, would be feasible.
1.3 Objectives and Elements of Prospective Study
The Pilot Study indicated that a prospective study of injuries
in the solid waste management industry would be feasible and could
be based upon the concepts, data collection forms and analysis
methods developed during the Pilot Study.
The objectives and criteria for the prospective study were
defined as follows:
(1) The injury reporting and analysis system would use
a new recording system to record injuries as they
occur. This system would be designed specifically
for the solid waste industry, and would be prevention
oriented. The recording system would be separate
from all compensation oriented records.
(2) The output of analyzed information from the system
would be designed to serve three main users:
(a) line management of solid waste agencies and
firms; (b) national groups concerned with the
development of safety and equipment standards for
the solid waste industry; and (c) the Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs, EPA.
(3) The data provided to line management of solid waste
agencies would: (a) enable them to improve their
safety awareness, by providing data on the dimensions
of their injury problem and on the costs associated
with their injuries, and by providing information that
can be used to compare their injury experience with
the injury experience of other agencies; (b) enable
them to select and set priorities for, implement, and
evaluate injury reduction programs. To do this, the
information must be highly specific and illuminate
particular items of equipment or particular work
practices. Examples of decisions that have been made
11
-------
as a result of injury data include changes in
container regulations, changes in work practice
involving maneuvering vehicles, rebuilding the
steps on trucks, etc; and (c) justify actions
to higher management. Many actions taken to
reduce injury rate involve additional costs to
the agency or changes in service to the
householder, and must be justified. Cost data
is an important means of justifying action,
for example if the cost of ankle injuries can
be compared to the cost of issuing safety boots.
(4) The data provided to national groups should be
statistically valid, and thus needs both the
collection of data on an adequate number of
injuries, and the collection of exposure data.
For example, the ANSI Z245 Committee on Safety
Standards for Refuse Collection and Disposal
Equipment has been considering the relationship
between sill height on packers and back injury
rate. An experimental examination of this
relationship will require not only the number
of injuries associated with equipment with
different sill heights, but also the number of
packers of each sill height that are in use,
and the number of workers dumping into each.
(5) The data provided to OSWMP would enable the office
to set priorities for action, to monitor and
evaluate progress in injury control, and to relate
recommendations on injury control to productivity
and work practices.
To meet these objectives, it is necessary to have a common
or nationwide system, in which solid waste management organizations,
referred to as participants, will feed information into a central
office which will analyze the information and send reports back to
the participants. The need for a common system, rather than a
system in which each participant is provided only with the tools
with which to record and analyze its own injury problem, arises
from: (a) the need to obtain a large volume of data from which
12
-------
statistically valid conclusions can be drawn, even for comparatively
rare events such as accidents involving the mechanisms of packer
trucks, or from handling plastic refuse bags. The analyzed data
can then be supplied to the industry at large so as to facilitate
the evaluation, by management, of the effects on injuries that
might be expected from various changes in equipment or practices,
e.g., the replacement of metal refuse containers by plastic bags;
and (b) the need to obtain data by which one participant can
compare its injury experience with others and with the average.
There appears to be a very large range of injury frequency and
severity in solid waste agencies performing roughly similar
functions, with the highest being as much as 4 times greater than
the lowest. This range immediately suggests that the solid waste
agencies with the worst injury records could improve their
performance, and that the overall performance of the industry as
a whole could be substantially improved. In order to compare
data, it is obviously necessary to use consistent definitions.
It is also necessary to be able to separate the effects of
different work practices and conditions, e.g., one-man operation
of collection vehicles, weather, plastic refuse bags, etc., when
in each participant these occur in different combinations.
The elements of the prospective system include data on
employees, data on injuries and data needed to compute exposure
(referred to as basing data because the word exposure is often
misunderstood). These can be collected from participants in
three time frames:
13
-------
(1) At the inception of the prospective study, when
basing data can be collected together with
information on the characteristics of the current
employees.
(2) On a routine monthly basis, when updated information
is supplied by the participants, e.g., on new hires.
(3) For each injury, as it occurs.
1.4 Need for Field Test
The Pilot Study concluded with a concept for a prospective
study, but without any testing of that concept. It was concluded
that a field test would be desirable before attempting to set up
a larger scale prospective study using an untested method. The
function of the field test is to develop the prospective study
from a concept to a working system, through developing the forms
and procedures required, testing their feasibility in actual field
use by participant organizations, and making modifications as
necessary. The need for a field test was recognized by OSWMP in
the award of a contract (68-03-0231) to perform the program
described in this report.
14
-------
II. PROCEDURES USED FOR FIELD TEST
This section of the report describes the procedures used
in the Field Test to translate the concepts developed in the
Pilot Study into a workable Injury Reporting and Information System,
through an iterative process which involved making continuous
modifications in the data collection and analysis methods on the
basis of experience gained in their use. The specific modifications
developed are discussed, for each type of data, in Section III.
The development of preliminary data recording methods is
discussed in Section 2.1, obtaining OMB clearance for the data
collection forms in Section 2.2, the selection of participants
(solid waste agencies) in Section 2.3, the visits made to
participants and the start-up of the Field Test in Section 2.4,
procedures for identifying and handling problems and making
needed changes in the data collection methods in Section 2.5,
and the formulation of requirements for computer printouts of
analyzed data in Section 2.6.
2.1 Development of Preliminary Data Recording Methods
As a first step in the Field Test, preliminary data collection
and recording methods were developed. These represented a "first
cut" at the methods needed for a prospective study, and it was
recognized that the purpose of the Field Test was specifically to
15
-------
alter these methods where required. The framework adopted for
the preliminary data collection methods was as follows:
(1) An employee data card (EDC) to collect information
on the following factors:
employee name
index (used to indicate which revision of the data
card was being used, so that the computer
program could use the appropriate codes,
etc.)
employer number
employee social security number
date card completed
sex of employee
race of employee (optional) white
black
Spanish surname
Indian
Oriental
other
height of employee
weight of employee
findings on medical exams (space for up to five
findings, with a year found and a code for
each finding, e.g., high blood pressure)
whether this employee had had his wages garnished
while in this employment
number of citations for safety violations received
number of other citations received
number of suspensions received
number of merit awards received
date hired
current job classification
date promoted to this job classification
whether employee had worked in refuse collection
industry prior to being hired by this employer
department
division
immediate supervisor
education (last year of school completed)
date of birth
whether this employee had attended a safety session
whether this employee had attended a training session
whether this employee belonged to a union
whether this employee had a second job
gross salary per day to nearest $
overtime rate (e.g., time and a half = 1.5)
16
-------
time period for regular shift
hours per week of regular overtime
whether this employee was working on a task system
whether this employee had worked driving a truck
prior to being hired
This employee data card was designed to allow
keypunching onto two 72 column cards.
(2) An injury report form (IRF). This provided for
the entry of:
injured employee's name
an injury number (used as a reference number)
index (as for employee data card)
employer number
employee social security number (used to match
injury to employee data)
date of injury
time of injury
day of week
hours on job that day prior to injury
site of accident (e.g., collection route, incinerator)
crew size at time of injury
whether the employee was working in his regular job
classification at time of injury
if not, what classification
answers to certain specific questions (e.g., was the
employee scavenging waste, under the influence
of alcohol or drugs, engaged in horseplay, etc.)
data on other persons injured in the same accident
(by entering injury numbers)
data on vehicles and equipment involved (by entering
equipment numbers)
data on operation being performed at time of injury
data on part of body injured
data on injury type (e.g., burn)
accident description (e.g., struck against)
motor vehicle accident information
data on protective clothing
data on outdoor hazards
data on hazardous characteristics of waste
Some of these factors required a simple numerical
answer, e.g., hours on job that day prior to injury.
Others had a number of categories and subcategories.
An example, for the factor operation being performed
at time of injury, is given in EXHIBIT 2. The IRF
provided for keypunching onto seven 72 column cards.
17
-------
OPERATION BEING PERFORMED AT TIME OF INJURY
Please mark an "X" in the appropriate boxes to describe the operation
being performed at the time of injury. Review all boxes carefully since
more than one may apply.
Handling Materials
CARRYING
-o ["""I DUMPING
£ |~1 THROWING
~' j~] CATCHING
£ ^ SHOVING/PUSHING
' ' LIFTING
ZP
Furniture, Appliances
Shrubbery
Bin ( gals)
Oil Drum
Plastic Bags
Other
(please list)
Containers
Standard Container(a) ( _
Nonstandard Container(s)
More Than One Container
Intermediate Container
Other _ '
t>>
u>
t»
to
(please list)
Was the Container?
full
empty
overweight (over _^_____ Ibs)
oversized (over gals)
slippery, wet
tightly packed
protruding waste
ragged edges
broken, missing handles
other
PUSHING WASTE INTO HOPPER BED
OPERATING MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT
Truck Packing Mechanism
Truck Tailgate
Crane
Hoist
Compactor
Vacuum Hose
Caterpillar
Forklift
Bulldozer
Street Sweeper
Scraper
Hand Tools
Other
Ye«
No
(please list)
I I Was the machinery or equipment
broken or malfunctioning?
D
DISMOUNTING
MOUNTING
Stationary Vehicle or Equipment
Moving Vehicle or Equipment
from running board
from step
from cab
from back of truck
other
(please list)
e* ui I I Was a co-worker helping
the injured employee at the
No
D
time of the injury?
STANDING OR WALKING. NOT CARRYING
£ r~j
PUSHING WASTE INTO CONTAINER
(please list)
Yes <£ I I Was the vehicle or
~' equipment broken or
No <£ f ] malfunctioning?
EXHIBIT 2
Operation Being Performed
Section of the Injury
Report Form Rev. 4-4/73
18
-------
OPERATION BEING PERFORMED AT TIME OF INJURY (con't)
DRIVING
| [ At Curb Speed
At Full Speed
I packer truck
pickup
automobile
three-wheeled vehicle
other
sD
(please list)
Ye* "* I I Was the vehicle broken
,_ f\ or malfunctioning?
SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
Chassis
Engine
Tire(s)
Packing Mechanism
Pulley Mechanism
Other
(please list)
CLEANING AND CLEARING
DISINFECTING
RIDING
d
At Curb Speed
At Full Speed
~~J on running board
on step
In cab
in hopper
in truck bed
other
Walkways
Driveways
Hopper Bed
Truck Bed
Incinerator Platform
Combustion Chamber
Other
(please list)
v,
No
CLIMBING
(please lilt)
Was this part of the
f~~l vehicle broken?
| _ |
D
MISCELLANEOUS INCINERATOR OPERATIONS
cl |_) Tree
w
N
Fence
Ladder
12 Other
Firing Furnace
Knocking Ashes
Stoking Furnace
Shoveling Ashes
Placing Grates in Furnace
Laying Bricks
Other
(please list)
(please list)
EMPTYING TRUCK
R
At Landfill
At Incinerator
At Transfer Station
Other
f (""I MISCELLANEOUS YARD WORK
£ [""I CLERICAL/OFFICE WORK
*D
OTHER
(please list)
(please list)
19
-------
(3) A weekly data sheet for cost and days lost data.
This provided for recording,on a weekly basis,
the following data on each injury:
medical expenses ($)
days lost without compensation
days lost charged to workmen's compensation
workmen's compensation payments
days lost charged to injury leave
payments charged to injury leave
number of days lost (due to injury) charged to
sick leave
payments charged to sick leave
number of days lost (due to injury) charged to
vacation leave
payments charged to vacation leave
number of days lost (due to injury) charged to
disability insurance
payments charged to disability insurance
whether this case was now closed
whether the injury, as of that date, was considered to be
first aid only
medical only
lost time, temporary disability
lost time, permanent disability
fatal
permanent disability benefit, if any
death benefit, if any
(4) Equipment identification basing data. Each piece
of equipment (e.g., packer truck) was assigned an
identifying number (usually the participant's vehicle
or equipment number), and the make, model, type, year,
date purchased, maintenance schedule was recorded.
Codes were used to identify equipment type.
(5) Weekly update sheet. This was used to report
terminations, new hires, changes of job classification
for employees, and changes in equipment being used.
2.2 Obtaining OMB Clearance
Under the Federal Reports Act, OMB clearance was required
for the forms used to collect data in this study. The extent of
cooperation with other agencies was documented through meetings
20
-------
with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Contacts were also made with the
National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the
Council for State Government, the Institute for Solid Waste
of the American Public Works Association, the National Solid
Waste Management Association, and the National Safety Council.
As a result of these meetings, a number of specific data items
were suggested for inclusion in the study together with some
changes in the data collection forms. The forms were modified
and submitted for OMB clearance together with a clearance request
and a supporting statement. Clearance was received with the
issue of OMB No. 158-S73007 (expiring 8/31/75).
2.3 Selection of Participants
The Field Test specifications called for test by 15
participants, located in a range of geographical areas of the
U.S., including both large and small organizations, and including
both private collectors and municipalities. Selection of potential
participants to contact was made with the advice and active
assistance of the OSWMP Project Officer.
An initial list of potential contacts was made up that
included the participants in the Pilot Study and certain large
solid waste agencies that were active in the OSWMP COLMIS
management information system. Information on the Field Test
21
-------
was sent to trade journals and for distribution at seminars on
safety conducted by the National Solid Waste Management Association
and by the American Public Works Association.
The effort to contact potential participants started at the
1973 International Refuse Equipment Show and Congress, held in
Miami Beach and attended by representatives of solid waste agencies
from all parts of the U.S. Initially, contacts were made with
substantially more than 15 potential participants, because it
was expected that only a small fraction of those approached
would be willing to participate in the Field Test. Appointments
were made with a first group of potential participants for
presentations, at which contractor and OSWMP staff could describe
the Field Test. It was found that all of the potential participants
contacted expressed a high degree of interest in participating in
the Field Test. Accordingly, the approach to making contact with
potential participants was changed, in that it was assumed that
each presentation made would have a high probability of yielding
a potential participant, so that few "extra" presentations were
made.
At the presentations, the objectives of the Field Test were
discussed and the data collection methods were reviewed in detail.
It was made clear that contractor personnel would take over the
considerable burden of collecting the initial data on current
employees and recording the basing data and that, to do this,
access to personnel files and some clerical support would be
22
-------
needed. The staff of the participant would be responsible for
completing the injury records and the updates on injury costs,
personnel changes and equipment changes.
In general, the participant staff members attending each
presentation were not able to give an immediate firm commitment
to participate on behalf of their organization. The decision
usually had to be formally cleared by higher management, e.g.,
the city attorney, the city council or the head office of a
group of private collectors. A formal written request to
participate, describing the study, was thus prepared and sent
to each participant where the presentation had resulted in an
expression of interest.
At many of the presentations, requests were made for
specific changes in the data collection forms and methods, to
meet local needs and interests. Some of these changes were
incorporated in the system as a whole, i.e., in the forms to
be used by all participants. Other changes were incorporated
only into the forms for that particular participant. These
participant-specific changes were of two types. One was the
omission of unnecessary items. For example, questions regarding
snow were removed from forms used by Southern California
participants, and questions regarding incinerators were removed
from the forms to be used by those agencies not operating
incinerators. The second was the use of local terms, such
as tub for intermediate container, and specific locations and
23
-------
route numbers, so that injuries could be analyzed by route.
This analysis by route is, of course, not of value to the system
as a whole but is of value to the participant and a decision was
thus made to include such participant-specific items in the data
collection methods.
As a result of the presentations, approximately 25 solid
waste agencies indicated interest. This was more than could be
accommodated within the scope of the Field Test. Some, in
regions of the country where there were an excess of potential
participants, were notified that they could not be accepted for
participation. Some dropped out because they were unable to
obtain clearance from the city or other authorities or because
this clearance was very long delayed (one large city finally
obtained clearance but too late to participate). Eighteen were
initially chosen for participation to ensure that there would
be at least the 15 required participants throughout the Field
Test. One of these 18 dropped out of the Field Test after
about 10 months because of a change in management. Because
of a lack of funds, the two remaining extra participants of
least value to the Field Test were cut at the time the contract
was novated. One of these two had failed to start completing
Injury Report Forms, although they still intended to. The
other had been delaying starting because of management problems
and staff shortages. Details on the final roster of 15
participants are given in EXHIBIT 3.
24
-------
to
in
Participant
Number
01
02
03
04
06
08
09
10
11
13
14
15
16
18
19
Munlcipal-M
Private-P
M
M
M
P
M
M
M
M
M
P
M
M
P
M
P
Geographical
Area of U.S.
South
Northeast
Midwest
West
South
North
North
Vest
Southwest
North
Northwest
South
South
Northeast
North
Approximate
Average No.
of Employees
700
150
150
250
500
100
600
100
300
50
100
400
100
50
50
BY-Backyard
CS=Curbside
CS
CS
BY
BY
CS
BY
CS/BY
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
Task/
8 hour
task
8 hour
task
task
task
task
8 hour
task
task
task
8 hour
task
8 hour
task
task
TYPE OF SERVICE PROVIDED
Collection
residential
residential
residential
residential/
commercial
residential/
commercial
residential
residential
residential
residential
residential/
commercial
residential/
commercial
commercial
residential
residential/
commercial
Disposal
landfill
incinerator/
landfill
landfill
transfer station
landfill/
incinerator/
transfer station
transfer station
transfer station
landfill
landfill
landfill
transfer station/
landfill
landfill/
incinerator
landfill
landfill
landfill
Aver.
Crew
Size
4 -man
3-man
3-man
3-man
3-man
3-man
3-man
3-man
3-man
2 -man
1-man
3-man
2 -man
3-man
2 -man
Date
of
Start-Up
10-73
08-73
08-73
01-74
10-73
09-73
08-73
09-73
09-73
01-74
07-73
10-73
09-73
09-73
01-74
EXHIBIT 3
Details of Participants in Field Test
-------
The acceptance of the Field Test among solid waste agencies
was higher than expected. Of 40 potential participants contacted,
all expressed interest. For the reasons given above, not all of
these were selected for a presentation. Of the 26 presentations
given, 25 resulted in an expression of further interest. From
these, 18 initial participants were chosen of which only one
did not follow through. The degree of acceptance of the Field
Test was thus surprisingly high.
2.4 Visits to Participants and Start-Up
of Field Test
A series of visits to each participant was made during the
initial phases of the Field Test. As discussed above, the first
visit was a presentation on the study, soliciting participation.
Later visits were made:
to make modifications in the data collection forms
and methods, where necessary
to collect basing data
to provide training to participant staff in the
completion of the injury report and other reporting
forms
to provide retraining, where necessary
to discuss the results shown on the computer
printouts
Two or more of these purposes were often combined into a single
visit, but in general either three to five visits were made to
each participant. This large number of visits arose in part
26
-------
because an interval was necessary between certain steps, e.g.,
after the presentation, to allow the solid waste agency sufficient
time to obtain management approvals for participation, and in part
because it was desired to study participant problems in depth.
To the greatest extent possible, the data reported was validated
by comparison, during visits, with other records held by the
participant, e.g., workmen's compensation reports and the OSHA
Log.
Specific problems encountered with the collection of basing
data and with training are discussed in Section III of this
report.
Each participant started sending in injury reports and
update sheets as soon as the collection of basing data and
training was complete. Participants did not all start at the
same time. This was because not all were contacted at the same
time, because some needed more training than others, and because
some had special, circumstances. For example, one participant
was in the middle of moving its offices across town and requested
a delay in the starting date. Because this was a private company
and of considerable interest to the study, it was felt that this
delay should be accommodated. The resulting starting dates are
given in EXHIBIT 3.
27
-------
2.5 Procedures for Identifying and Handling
Problems and Needed Changes in
Data Collection Methods
The heart of a Field Test of a data collection system is
a systematic method of detecting problems arising from user
errors and difficulties, and of identifying needs for changes,
such as the inclusion of additional or different factors on the
data collection forms. This section gives a brief description
of the methods used for this purpose. The specific problems
uncovered and changes made are described in Section III.
Problems with Injury Report Forms (IRF's) were detected and
evaluated using the following procedures:
(1) The IRF was provided with a space in which the
person completing the form was invited to describe
the accident in detail in his own words. This
provided a means of checking the multiple choice
answers for correct comprehension of the question,
completeness, etc. Space to answer the question
"was there anything about this injury which you
could not record on this form" was also provided.
(2) A log was maintained of the receipt of completed
IRF's. This log allowed the sequence of injury
numbers to be checked (to be sure that no IRF's
had been lost). The date that each IRF was received
was noted. An excessive interval during which no
IRF was received was checked by a phone call to the
participant and was often a sign of problems. The
log also allowed recording whether cost and lost
time data had been received on that injury, and
whether the cost and lost time data was closed
(complete) or still open.
(2) A check list for reviewing each completed IRF.
This included checks for:
Missing information (this was entered on a
list of missing data to be requested from
the participant).
28
-------
Questions for which the "other" box was checked.
Many questions have an "other" box, followed by
a line on which the participant can enter his
own descriptive word or phrase as a response to
the question. "Other" answers are examined to
see if the choice of "other" resulted from
misunderstanding the question. If so, the
nature of the misunderstanding was entered in
a problem log (described below) for that question.
If the "other" entry was a valid additional choice
to the list of possible answers provided for the
question, it was entered in the "Other" Evaluation
Form (described below).
Whether all numbers and answers were entered
correctly, e.g., number in the correct box,
leading zeros entered (09 for September rather
than 9) .
Whether answers were internally consistent, e.g.,
day of week between 1 and 7.
Whether the form provided sufficient space for
the answers given.
Whether question was understood, particularly
for terms such as interaction, overexertion,
dermatitis and for inappropriate use of "unknown."
This check was performed by comparing the multiple
choice answers given with the written description
of the accident also given by the participant.
Name and social security number matching a name
and social security number on an Employee Data
Card.
Equipment number matching a number on an Equipment
Data Card and that the accident was compatible
with this type of equipment.
Correct injury numbers where more than one person
was injured in one accident (through checking the
other IRF's to see if they are consistent).
Only one operation having been indicated, that
all subjects under each operation were answered,
and that the answers were consistent with the
written description.
29
-------
Traffic accident section having been completed
if necessary, with data consistent with written
description.
Material included in the written description of
the accident that could not be entered in an
appropriate place on the form. Any such material
was placed on the Problems Log or "Other"
Evaluation Form, together with any entry made
in response to the question "was there anything
about this injury that you could not record on
this form."
(3) A Problems Log, which was used to list the problems
encountered with each of the questions. Problems
which are common to all participants were entered
in one section of the Log, while problems unique to
each participant were entered in a separate Log. Each
problem was entered on the Log each time it occurred
on a completed IRF, even if the same problem had been
entered before. In this way, it was possible to
monitor the frequency of occurrence of each type
of problem with completing the IRF, and to devise
correction action through a change in the form or
through training of participant staff.
(4) An "Other" Evaluation Form. Many of the questions
on the IRF provide "Other (please list)" as a possible
choice for an answer. This is a necessary part of a
multiple choice reporting form because it makes it
possible to use a form which does not have all
conceivable answers listed as choices. For example,
only the commonly used pieces of equipment (or, if
it is known, the most hazardous pieces) need be listed.
If the injured employee were found at the time of the
injury to be operating a piece of equipment not listed
on the form, the person completing the form was
instructed to check the box next to "Other" from
among the list of pieces of equipment provided as
multiple choices, and to give the name of the unlisted
piece of equipment. It is necessary to monitor the
answers given when "Other" is chosen for an answer
because it is possible that certain choices, not
initially listed, might be involved in injuries so
frequently as to suggest that they should be separately
listed as one of the multiple choices on the form. The
"Other" Evaluation Form provided a means of recording
the number of times an item was given as an "Other"
30
-------
answer for a given question on a given form. Frequently
occurring items were included in revisions of the form.
(5) Computer editing of data entries. As the Field Test
progressed and problems encountered in the early stages
were resolved, it was found possible to reduce the
extent to which the IRF's were examined in detail by
contractor staff, and to rely to an increasing extent
on computer editing of data. Sets of new or change
data cards were examined using an edit program which
checks that all required data is present, that values
in data fields are within preset limits, that an
injury report has a corresponding social security
number on an employee data report, and similar items
that can be checked by a computer.
Cost andLost Time Data was checked to determine whether
cases marked closed were in fact closed, by looking for a date
of return to work. The days lost (calendar and work days) were
checked against a calendar and the known work schedule. The
medical expenses were examined to see if they were reasonable
for the type of injury, and injuries marked as first aid only
were reclassified if either medical costs or days lost were
indicated. The average payment for each day lost was computed
and checked for each payment type (workmen's compensation, injury
leave).
Time charges used under the ANSI standards for permanent
disability and death (e.g., 6,000 days for a death) were computed
where necessary by contractor staff and entered on sheets for
keypunching.
For cases recognized as "open" a new cost and lost time data
sheet was sent to the participant so as to provide for the next
update. Cases indicated as closed but with dubious features were
31
-------
checked by telephone. Identified problems were discussed with
each participant, either by telephone in the case of missing
data, or by a formal on-site retraining session that proved to
be the most effective method for two participants.
2.6 Formulation of Requirements for
Computer Printouts
The output of the Injury Reporting and Analysis System is
primarily in the form of computer printouts of analyzed data. An
initial selection of the methods of reporting injury rates to be
used was made on the basis of a review of other types of injury
statistics reporting, including those used by the National Safety
Council and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A fundamental
decision to include both ANSI (American National Standards
Institute Z16.1) and OSHA standards for computing and reporting
injury rates was made. This decision was consistent with a formal
recommendation made by the American Public Works Association that,
in the transition period between ANSI and OSHA recordkeeping
standards, both systems should be used, to enable comparisons to
be made with previous years in which only the ANSI standards were
used. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) used the ANSI standard
until 1971, and then changed to the OSHA standard. The National
Safety Council (NSC) has continued to use the ANSI standard. Since
the change to the OSHA standard, BLS has not reported on municipal
employees, because they are not covered by Federal OSHA regulations
32
-------
States are beginning to report on injuries to municipal employees
using OSHA standards, but at present the NSC publications provide
the only current data on municipal employees.
The printouts are to be used by line management of solid
waste agencies and by other groups as discussed in Section 1.3.
To ensure that the types of analyzed data included and the
forms to be used would be comprehended by and useful to each
of these types of users, the printouts were reviewed by each
participant, by staff of the Public Employee Section and Research
Section of the National Safety Council, and by selected
non-participants known to be interested in injury data in the
solid waste field. As a result of comments received, modifications
were made in the content and presentation of the printouts, as
discussed in Section 3.7.
It should be noted that no printouts were supplied to
participants until after approximately 9 months of data had been
collected. This ,was because the forms and data collection methods
were being continually revised in the first phases of the Field
Test and because an insufficient number of injuries were available
until that time. As soon as the data forms and methods used had
become relatively stable, the whole data base collected was
receded using the revised codes and methods, and printouts could
be prepared. A detailed manual on the interpretation of these
printouts was sent to each participant, and to staff of the
NSWMA and NSC. Comments made resulted in several alterations.
33
-------
Recent printouts sent to participants have been accompanied by
a detailed letter explaining what the results indicate and
comparing the injury experience of that participant with others
in the Field Test. For example/ one recent report to participants
was divided into sections:
Comparison of OSHA Incidence rates for total
recordable cases
Comparison of overall injury rates
Identification of the areas within that organization
which have the highest rates
Areas in which that organization is higher or lower
than average
Detailed evaluation for that organization of the
injury rate associated with each activity performed
by employees on the collection route
Detailed evaluation for that organization of the
location of the accident
Detailed evaluation for that organization of injuries
by age of the injured employee
Detailed evaluation for that organization by accident
type
Detailed evaluation for that organization by injury
description
Comparison between groups of participants by
operational differences
Each of these sections contained: 1) an explanatory cover sheet,
2) the participant's printouts, 3) tables comparing the participant
with other types of participants for various key types of rates,
4) graphs and histograms illustrating the comparisons.
34
-------
III. RESULTS OF FIELD TEST
This Section describes and discusses the results of the
Field Test, in terms of the problems encountered and the changes
made in the data collection and analysis methods in response to
these problems. Section IV of this report discusses the overall
findings of the Field Test in terms of the feasibility of a
national solid waste injury surveillance system. The problems
and responses are discussed for each element of injury information
and analysis in turn: injury data in Section 3.1, time lost and
cost data in Section 3.2, employee data in Section 3.3, non-employee
basing data in Section 3.4, information on management practices in
Section 3.5, updating methods in Section 3.6, and data analysis
and reporting (printouts) in Section 3.7. Section 3.8 describes
and discusses a novel approach taken to injury recording, a
telephone system replacing injury reporting forms.
The data collection methods used emphasized multiple choice
questions, since it had been found in the Pilot Study that open-
ended questions did not elicit information that was complete or
used common definitions. However, it was not desired to use a
data collection system in which only coded data would be reported
by the participant, i.e., the participant would be provided with
a code book and would enter a code for each factor related to an
injury. Completely self-coded data is impossible to check for
validity and has been found in other studies to be associated
35
-------
with a high error rate even when using skilled coders. Each
data collection form that was to be completed by participant
staff therefore was designed to include verbal descriptions of
each factor wil^i boxes to check for selection of multiple choices.
The question of how much the data collection instruments
should be "custom designed" for each participant ran through the
entire Field Test. The plan of the Field Test was to first work
with each participant to devise a data collection system suitable
for use by that participant and including the factors of importance
to that participant. By working with a range of participants, a
set of needs for data collection and analysis systems was developed.
The next step of the Field Test was to determine how and to what
extent this set of systems could be combined into one standard
system. The Field Test showed that one standard system could be
developed and used: in this system all the data collection forms
except the Injury Report Form are common to all participants. The
Injury Report Form has a standard format that allows for adaptation
to the needs of each participant without affecting the compatibility
of data collected from different participants. The entire system
is flexible and allows for future changes, e.g., the inclusion of
new factors.
Initially, much of the data needed for start-up was collected
through visits to participants by contractor staff. This permitted
an investigation to be made of what was feasible, and was a
necessary part of the Field Test. The Field Test was performed
36
-------
to determine feasible methods for use in a larger scale system,
and, for this system to be economical, it will be necessary for
participants to collect start-up data without major contractor
help. A set of forms was developed during the Field Test for
this purpose.
3.1 Injury Data
Injury data was collected on an Injury Report Form (IRF).
This form was completed for each injury by participant staff.
For smaller participants, one person was assigned this task.
For larger participants, a group of persons was assigned, e.g.,
each foreman completed the IRF's for injuries occurring to workers
that he supervised.
3.1.1 Changes in Methodology. The following changes were
made in the methods used:
(a) In the first stages of the Field Test, as each
participant was added,substantial modifications were
made to the IRF- These modifications reflected
experience gained with previous participants, a
desire to test a new idea, or items that the
participant staff felt were important for that
participant. The desire to use an IRF that includes
a large number of factors and multiple choices, and
hence can give very specific results, conflicts with
the desire to keep the IRF down to a manageable
length.
Preparing "custom designed" IRF's for each participant
helps resolve this conflict by enabling inapplicable
choices to be omitted. For example, questions regarding
incinerators need not be included on IRF's used by
participants that did not operate incinerators.
37
-------
Conversely, the areas that are of interest to the
participant can be covered in adequate detail.
Further, the specific terms used by each participant
can be used on the IRF used by that participant.
Some items of data are not of value to the system
as a whole but may be of value to an individual
participant, e.g., on which specific route an injury
occurred, so that the participant can compare the
injury experience on different routes. Finally,
having a custom designed IRF stimulated interest
in the Field Test.
It should be emphasized that great efforts were taken
to maintain comparability of the IRF's even though
they were "custom designed." For items, such as
factors related to incinerators, that were included
on some forms, it was intended that comparisons be
made only between the applicable participants. Where
one topic was treated in detail for some participants
and not others, careful attention was given to
selecting general categories which could be used
during comparisons among all participants. For
example, the categories 1-5 yd., 15-20 yd., and
35-40 yd. were used for bulk containers for those
part\cipants using bulk containers for most of their
operations, and where a breakdown into sizes appeared
to be useful. For participants using bulk containers
only infrequently, only bulk container (with no
breakdown) was included on the IRF. Comparisons could
thus be made within size classes for the first type
of participant, while permitting comparisons to be
made among all participants of injuries associated
with the use of bulk containers. In addition,
different terms having the same meaning could be
grouped under one name (i.e., computer code) and
comparisons could thereby be made, without interference
from differences in terminology.
The initial use of the custom designed IRF's caused
some difficulty in writing programs for computer
analysis, since the first step in analyzing the data
on an IRF had to be to translate, by computer, each
completed IRF into a standard format in which each
item was represented by a fixed card image, column
number, and code. Translation instructions had to
be developed for the IRF used by each participant.
After experience had been gained with the first 12
participants, it was found possible to develop a
master set of injury data requirements that could
38
-------
be used to generate a custom form for a new participant
by simply omitting the items not required. All of the
items in the master set had a specific identification
for use in computer analysis, so that no translation
was necessary. For example, the master set contains
a list of approximately 25 types of collection crews,
each with a standard code. The participant chooses
the crew types that are applicable to his organization,
and only these crew types are included, together with
their standard code numbers, on the IRF for that
participant. An example is shown in item 8 in the
general information section of a sample IRF shown as
EXHIBIT 4.TEcan be seen that only codes 11, 16,
17, and 51 are included. The sample IRF shown in
EXHIBIT 4 represents an IRF developed using the master
set concept and custom designed for a hypothetical small
or medium sized municipal solid waste agency engaged in
residential collection and landfill disposal, and is
included for illustrative purposes.
The feasibility of the master set concept was validated
by its use in developing custom designed IRF's for the
last two participants to join the Field Test. No
difficulty was encountered.
The later stages of the Field Test demonstrated that
it was unnecessary to retain the concept of having each
participant use the local terminology for each item.
During the revision of IRF's associated with the wide
adoption of the master set concept it was found that
participants had no difficulty with the use of standard
terms. For example, the term bulky item crew was
readily accepted by management and recognized by the
foreman completing the IRF's, even though the local
term was on-call crew, will-call crew, etc.
A modification was made in the method used to record
data on items that were only relevant to one participant,
e.g., a particular route or landfill. Initially, all
such items were listed by name on the form. As a result
of the Field Test, space was provided on the form for
the participant to enter a code that identifies the
particular route, etc. An example is given in item 7
of the general information section of EXHIBIT 4.
The status of the master set at the close of the Field
Test is believed to be such as to accommodate most
potential participants. It should be noted, however,
that the concept is flexible. If, for example, a new
39
-------
SANITATION DEPARTMENT
OF
YOUR CITY
INJURY REPORT FORM
FOR THE
INJURY REPORTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEM
Developed For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Name of Injured Employee Name of Person Completing This Form
Date of Injury Title
Date
Injured Employee's Immediate
Supervisor I I I I I I -1 I I I I I I
Injury Employer
Number Number
SS-IRIS(IRF)-Rev. I (5/75) EXHIBIT 4
40
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. This Injury Report'Form is designed to describe an injury by dividing the
description into parts. Each section covers a particular part of the in-
jury. When completing a section, only give information relevant to the
injury being covered in that section. There are ten sections to this In-
jury Report Form:
General Information
Accident Description (e.g., fall, insect bite, etc.)
Part of Body Injured
Injury Description (e.g., cut, fracture, etc.)
Protective Clothing Being Worn
Characteristics of the Waste (i.e., that's being handled)
Activity Description (i.e., what the injured employee was doing when he
was injured)
Outdoor Conditions (at the time of the injury)
Recommended Action
Written Description
2. Be as specific in your answers as possible.
3. Most questions refer only to the injured employee and only to the time at
which he was injured.
4. For all questions
EITHER: Circle the numbers next to the best provided answer.
OR: Give the numerical answer requested in the boxes provided.
OR: Check the best provided answer(s).
5. For the questions which ask for numerical answers, complete all boxes. If
there are more boxes than required for your answer, place zero(s) in front
of your answer.
Example: September = |0[9 |, not [ 9| |
6. Disregard the boxed lumbers at the top and bottom of the form and the
letter numbers to the right side of your answers (e.g., "cc 1-6"). These
numbers are used for processing only.
7. The directions to the individual questions or sections of the Injury
Report Form indicate whether one, or more than one, answer is permissible.
DO NOT check more than one box unless you are specifically instructed that
this is permissible.
8. Please read the directions on each page carefully.
41
-------
1 1
Iniurv No. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Data of Injury I I J M_ J t U
o. day yr.
2. Injured Employee's 1 1 1 IL-1--I
Social Security 1 1 1 1 1
Nuaber ' « ' ' LJ
3. Tl«* bf th* Injury (Jill 1
hr. *>in. 2 p.
4. Day of Weak (Sun. "1, 1_J
Moo. -2, etc.)
5. Nuaber of hour* on 1 [ LI 1 (list In «i
job prior to* the In- hour increments)
Jury (o» day °f
accident)
6. What district do** I I I (your no.)
th* Injured ploy**
work out of?
7. Type of accident Bit*: 1 To/Froa Roue*
(circl. on.) 2 Evidential
Rout* 1 1 1 1 1 No.
5 landfill
| | 1 f | No.
Oan*
7 Garage 1 | I 1 1 No.
naa*
8 Office &T«rd| | | | |So.
nan*
9 Other
(please Hat)
8. What crew was th* ea- H Rear-End Loader
ploy** working on? Kanual Collec-
(if applicable, circle tlon Cr*v
oa*> 16 Bruah Collection
Only Cr*w
17 Bulky It«« Craw
51 Stre*t Cleaning
Craw
9. Craw alze at tin* of | |
injury (If applicable)
10. Did the accident occur 1 an alley
ins (if applicable) ^ a dead end-alley
3 a dead-end atreec
4 a one-way street
9 Unknown/Not applicable
10. Type of collection J. Hou»e
alt. (if applicable): 2 Ap.rtiwnt.
H Public Institution*
$ Hoapltal/Doctor'a
Of flea
9 Other
(pleaae lilt)
11. Va* the Injured ea>- 1 Tea
ployae working at 0 «n
hie regular Job ne *
the time of the
injury?
If not. Elve tempo- 1(1111
rary Job title
*
(plaaaa list)
12. Ua* th* injured em- 1 Te*
ployee being trained n ,.
at the tin* of the L
injury? 3 Unknown/Not Applicable
13. Old the Injury involve \ Yea
the coeblaad actions of 7 No
ore than one worker?
1 (*.g.. two eaployees 3 Unknovn/Not Applicable
lifting a container to-
gether; a driver accel-
erate* aa helper tries
to aouat seep, etc,)
14. Has the packing nech- J. Tes
aolSB operating at the n ..
tlae of the injury? *
(if applicable) 3 Unkoowo/Not Applicable
IS. List Identification code* 1 I 1 1 J 1 1
for all equipt
vehicle* that
enployee or w
at the tin* o
16. Indicate if ai
were involved
any that appl'
cent and 1111111
ire in use
! the accident.
ly of these 1 I Horseplay
(Check ,j (ta-Mt hurry§
" speed
| | Alcohol, drug*
| | Scavenging in
waste
| | Reaction to
avoid sudden
.danger
|_J Fatigue
| | Distraction
1 1 1 1 IIIKI1I
42
-------
ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION;
Check In Column A the accident type corresponding to the
to the accident inflicting injury. For injuries involving
accident type in both Columns A and B.
Example: Employee fell from step and hit
head on pavement. Check "Fall to a Dif-
ferent Level" in Column A and "Struck
Against Object" in Column B.
Fine Intiutloa
'clc"eat Inju
Traffic Accldeat
Struck 87 VtMcle or Vehicle
fart
Struck Afaloit Vehicle,
Foreign Object la Eye
arc by Objecte being lUadltd
Struck by Object (Except VthleU)
trvck Azaialt Object (bnept
Vehicle)
Fail to the s*a* level
StuciMe, Trip. Slip, lost ot
»>la»e (t.«., Without Falllai)
r«l. to a Different Uwl
Caught ID Sooethtag
CaugTtt R»tv*«n T-f& Object*
Explotlon or fir*
Ov«r**Brtion (*( Accident
Occurred Kill* Lift lag)
kedtly Kotloa (e.».. Jerking
Aw*y)
Oerctctila <«*-. Skin R»ih)
lEMct (Ice. Scto|
Anlnal tite. Scratch (Dos.
Cat. etc.)
Rodent Bice. Scratch
Stepped en Shjrp Object
(Sail*, etc.)
InKile, Suallov or Co-» IB
Contact with Toxic Subitince
(Please Hit (u^itance It kaoun)
§urn froa ChtolcaX
(rira>« Hit cholcal if known)
urn o-. Scald Troa Ceat
Ke«t-lt of *j;re»«lve Act (e.e... h»ln«
-------
WHAT TYPE OF ACCIDENT OCCURRED?
first event, and In Column B that accident type corresponding
only one accident type (e.g., insect bite) check the same
FOREIGN OBJECT IN EYE
HURT BY OBJECTS BEING HANDLED
STRUCK BY OBJECT (Except
Vehicle)
STRUCK AGAINST OBJECT (Except
Vehicle)
What was the object? (Check one)
Container
Dust, .ashes
Fellow worker (unintentionally)
Garage door
Fences, gates, etc.
Walls, beans, etc.
Log, lumber, etc.
Shrubbery
Glass
Hypodermic needles
Fluorescent bulbs
Other sharp object
Furniture, appliances
Hand tools
Noxious liquids
Pavement, ground
Other
(please list)
Was the object ejected from the
hopper? (if applicable)
Yes
No
FALL TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL
Was the fall: (Check all that apply)
On a slippery surface
On an uneven surface (e.g., hole in ground)
Over objects on ground
Over objects protruding from ground
Icy surface
Other
(please list)
Location of Fall
From
To
FALL ON THE SAME LEVEL
STUMBLE, TRIP, SLIP, LOSS OF
BALANCE (without falling)
Was the fall: (Check all that apply)
On a slippery surface
On an uneven surface (e.g., hole
in ground)
Over objects on ground
Over objects protruding from grouni
Icy surface
Other __^
(please list)
Location of fall (Check one)
Landfill
Street/alley
Residential yard/driveway
Employer's office, yard, garage
Other
(please list)
Cab
Step (of vehicle)
Ladder
Curb '
Stairs
Dock
Other
Ground
Floor
Down embankment
Onto overturned
container
Other
(please list)
(please list)
If the fall was from a vehicle, was the
vehicle;(Check one)
Moving forward at curb speed
Moving forward at regular speed
Moving forward at highway speed
Backing
Not moving
[~]
CAUGHT IN
CAUGHT BETWEEN
Packing .mechanism
Edge of hopper and container
Two containers
Tt'uck door
Wall or fence & vehicle
Other _
(please list)
7 Q EXPLOSION OR FIRE
Where vas the fire? (Check one)
In container
In packer truck
At landfill
Other
(please list)
-------
[.Mill
Injury No.
PART OF BODY INJURED
Circle one and only one number
which best describes the part
of the body injured. Circle
the part mast seriously in-
jured. Use "Multiple Parts"
only if several parts are
Injured about equally.
}Q HEAD
11 *«i-
12 Skull
13 »ral«
20 »«
21 J«
22 ««>«
23 MUCh. lip, teeth
24 Coraht.d
25 «...
26 "
27 «y«
(pl.*.« 11. C)
40 UPPER EXTREMITIES
41 Should.r
42 * (upper/lower)
43 "bow
44 Url.t
45 Band
46 ring.
47 thumb
48 Oth.r
(plea*, ll.t/
50 TKUHK
51 »«k
52 Ab*».n
53 Ch.tt (Rib.)
54 Hip.
55 Buttocks
56 Cenltaita. Groin
5? Other
(pleas* ll.t)
60 tout* EXtRPUTl ES
61 !»« (ypper/low.r)
62 *»
63 Ankl*
64 'ooe
65 to*.
66 Oth.r
(pi.... li.c)
70 INTERNAL duns., stomach. «cc.)
80 MULTIPLE PARTS IIJURED
INJURY DESCRIPTION
Circle one and only one
number which best de-
scribes the injury sus-
tained. Circle the most
serious injury sustained.
Use "Multiple Types" only
if several injuries are
equally severe.
01 Aspucatioa
Fro.tblt*. Oth.r Low
^U T.«p.ntura EfC.cu
21 luring Iop
-------
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
What was the injured employee doing at the time he was injured?
TM* ») U tfloUwi Int* 13 clloa*. t»tk cllra h*i *n» or m*r. cUvlll.a vMch »r» IUU4 In r>d. Mod cllm»
K»v* utMtUon* *>KUI> »pp'r «"«|T I* IS* «clt»liU» In lh« cllo*. r«ll*« lh*>* *ttp> to compttl* Ihli p*e*i
I. Check ONE AND ONLY ONE r.d-l.ll.rwJ tctlviry. »Mch REST 'crIWt «h*l ih. Injured *mplor.* ~.. 4alny.
2. Aiuwtr tit «( Ih* qiuill*** ! Ih* cU«* «Mck co*UU* Ik* tctlotly y*« «ka«* l» >t»p on«.
1. DO NOT ch*c».fmr*U>*nM»*«Uvtir. DO NOT v*r^u*«lla** |<< *Hh« .(lint l*y** vm» "C»rrylB*." !» cerr.tl ncllvlty vauU b* "Cmrrrlaj," B*I
umxc
y>-j.'r~!Vi "Sil-tt
. *«
»«» ««. M!i
i«i-
_ n»nc ut(.>
_ Vltallc «*
_ r.ti .t v.,.i
] nix »«.> toots
[3 MITIIC
H otuiiv:
(»!«* I1«r)
r.. ... ,.tc .» t>. ..V
h»jl»»< t|a»lj«a?
«M
Q cuwnc >» CUA>U«
(MMMTllll
c?cwro« evict or *oucu
KAlXTCCAXCI *^0 ttfAIK
motrcuo Mmcuxct *.vo UFAU
("1
(I.*..
n 99 est srtciric «ctr>irf CA« K iu
«1 Ui 1UUK Kl 1M l«A-« (>.(.,
Q *"« ,
11*1)
-------
CM 1 1 1
Injury No. OUTDOOR
CONDITIONS
Check as many as necessary to describe the
outdoor conditions at
*
Hoe Weather
Cold Weather
Rain
Snow
Preexlng Rain
High Winds
___ Darkness
± Uneven Surfaces/
Hole in Ground
__ Loose Gravel,
Slag, etc. on
Surface
Wet Grass
Mud
___ Icy Surfaces
Slippery Surfaces-
Other
the time of the injury.
loose Objects
on Ground
Objects Protruding
f roa Ground
Anlcals (Dogs,
Cats)
~
._ Rodents
Clare
Excessive Noise
Weeds/Shrubbery/
Tree Ltnbs
Potkon Ivy/Poison
Oak
Dust, Ashes in Air
Exhaust Fu=es,
Vapors
___ Posts, Fences,
Walls. Gates
Wires. Cables.
Washlines
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Check the action(s) which
, in your opinion, would
help avoid this accident in the future. Circle as
many as apply.
Hark equipment with
operating Instructions
__ Changs work methods
or procedures
___ Improve method for
reporting unsafe
situations
__ Improve housekeeping
Enforcing use of per-
sonal protective
clothing or equipment
Is problem
Enforcing use of me-
chanical guards and
safety devices is a
problem
Individual pcrfonaed
task without approval
of supervisor
___ Individual performe-t
task unrelated to po-
sition qualifications
Provide warning device
(mechanical, sound or
lighted)
Provide protective
clothing or equipment
Display warning decalt
sign or poster
Provide roadway warning
or protective device (s)
Improve vehicle
maintenance
___ Improve equipment
maintenance
___ Replace equipment
that Is Inadequate
for job
__ Repair or replace
defective equipment
Add safety feature
or device to equipment
Repair employer's
walking surface
Hire additional
employees
Improve employee
selection process
___ Take disciplinary
action against
individual
Reassign employee to
another job
Employee should be
counseled
___ Recommend Individual
receive additional
job-related training
i Improve training pro-
gram (or ncu employees
___ Recocsnend individual
attend driver training
course
IN YOUR OWN WORDS. DESCRIBE THE ACCIDENT IN DETAIL.. KE SURE TO INCLUDE:
(1) Any information about the accident which you could not include elsewhere in this form;
(2) The events immediately preceding the injury and those following;
(3) How the accident occurred and what injuries were sustained;
(4) What the injured employee was doing at the time he was injured; and,
(5) Any special factors which you think contributed to the injury.
47
u_i i i i i inn
-------
piece of equipment comes on the market, the piece
of equipment can be easily included in the system
by simply assigning it a code and including the
piece of equipment on the forms of those participants
buying the new pieces of equipment.
(b) The order of the sections of the IRF was changed.
Initially, the sections considered most important to
the study (e.g., Operation being Performed), were
placed first in the form. However, it was found that
the participants apparently had different ideas of
what was most important and, not looking ahead in
the form, would place answers to later questions in
earlier sections of the form. For example, when
asked what the employee was doing at the time of
the injury, respondents would occasionally check
"other" and write in "broke ankle." The explanation
for this response is that the respondent apparently
felt that this was the key relevant piece of
information. By placing the questions the respondent
believes to be most important first on the form, it
is felt that this tendency to place answers to other
sections' questions will be reduced (i.e., the
respondent will have already stated that a broken
ankle was involved by the time he reaches the
Operations Being Performed section). Accordingly,
the order of the form now generally asks the simplest
and most obviously relevant questions first, i.e.,
part of body, injury description, etc.
(c) Many sections of the IRF had category/subcategory
relationships. One of the most frequent errors
found on examining completed IRF's, and that had to
be corrected by contractor staff before keypunching,
was a failure to recognize these relationships, even
though the categories were capitalized and each set
of the subcategories was indented. The simplest of
these category/subcategory relationships is included
in the Part of Body section (head is a category;
scalp, skull, brain and face are subcategories; jaw,
cheek, eyes, etc. are subcategories of face; etc.).
The category/subcategory relationship was usually
recognized in this section, but in the more complex
sections namely, Operation Being Performed and
Accident Description this relationship was very
frequently not recognized. Although several faults
in the form were identified as partial explanations,
it was not easily apparent why this lack of recognition
occurred, as the subcategories were obviously, it
48
-------
appeared, merely questions requiring more detail about
a category. Nevertheless, many times a respondent would
check a category and leave the subcategories unchecked,
or would check subcategories under categories which did
not apply. This type of problem with correctly completing
the form had become the most frequent and most severe
problem encountered in the Field Test. For this reason
many changes were made in the form to improve the
respondent's recognition of a category/subcategory
relationship, including:
improved, much more detailed, and more step-by-
step instructions. The previously used instructions
for the Accident Description and Operation Being
Performed sections were modified to state that
only one category is to be checked, that all
subcategory questions under the chosen category,
but only this category, are to be answered.
the use of red letters to identify categories
and separate them from the subcategories;
drawing boxes around each category/subcategory
set to make clearer which subcategories referred
to which categories;
putting a question before each subcategory set,
where possible, which related the subcategories
to one, and only one, set of categories. For
example, instead of merely indenting "packer
truck" under "driving, riding, mounting, or
dismounting" to show that "packer truck" was
to be checked only if it was being driven,
ridden, mounted, or dismounted, and in no
other case, the revised IRF placed "packer
truck" under a question which specified the
subcategories1 relationship to a category,
namely "What was being driven, ridden, etc.?"
These changes very greatly reduced the errors of this
kind made in the sections of the form involving category/
subcategory relationships, and because this type of error
was by far the most frequent/ the changes have greatly
reduced the overall error rate. In most cases, the
revised IRF's were returned with no apparent errors.
49
-------
(d) In the initial stages of the Field Test, some IRF's
were returned with two answers, rather than one answer,
checked in the accident description section of the
form. Evaluation of these forms showed that they
represented a problem long faced by safety statisticians,
namely, how to record an injury of the type in which
a man, say, falls from a truck and strikes his head
on the pavement. Is this a "fall to a different level"
or "struck against" type of accident? From the standpoint
of injury analysis, it is not important what happened to
the employee after he fell, because what, in most cases,
needs to be identified is what can be prevented, i.e.,
the hazard, not the outcome. For this reason, "fall"
is a more relevant description of the example given
than "struck against." However, it is unreasonable
to expect the participant to determine which is the
most important description, r
This problem was resolved by introducing a place to
enter details of the "first accident" and of the
"accident inflicting injury."
(e) Initially, the set of instructions provided with the
IRF was kept short. It was .found during the Field
Test that, in order to avoid errors, much more detailed
and specific instructions were needed. A page of
general instructions was provided, together with
step-by-step instructions for each section of the
form. Surprisingly enough, it was found that these
longer instructions were more carefully read than
the shorter instructions. A special instruction
booklet was developed for training.
3.1.2 Changes in Format, Phraseology and Items Included.
Production format was found to be of considerable importance in
obtaining error-free use of the IRF. The IRF was made to appear
smaller, while retaining most of the content of previous versions,
in order to reduce the deterring effect of excessive size. The
IRF was shortened by putting it into a booklet format, which used
the front and back of each page and by using a smaller type face.
50
-------
The use of a smaller type face made, it possible to place each
section of the form on one page or less. This is particularly
important for the Accident Description and Activity Description
sections. Previously these were on two or three pages each,
and many respondents had either skipped the second and third
pages or had considered them as new sections. The booklet
had the name of the participant printed on the cover, which
helped maintain a feeling of identification. The color of paper
was changed to a pastel from white, since it had been found in
discussions with the Statistics Section, National Safety Council,
that the response rate for a form printed on light pastel colors
was considerably greater than that for the same form in white or
bright colors.
The cover of the booklet version of the IRF provides space
for all the essential information needed to identify the injury,
including:
The name of the injured employee;
The date of the injury; and
The injury Number and Employer Number.
The first page of the new form was devoted to instructions.
The first instruction emphasizes that the Form is designed to
describe an injury by dividing the description into parts and
that the respondent should only provide information relevant
to the aspect of the injury being covered in a particular
section. The sections of the form are then listed. This
51
-------
instruction was included to help decrease the tendency to provide
the entire description of the injury in the first section of the
form.
The following changes were made in the General Information
section of the IRF:
The question concerning "interaction" was changed
from "Did the injury involve interaction between
the injured employee and a co-worker?," to "Did
the injury involve the combined actions of more
than one worker? (e.g., two employees lifting a
container together; a driver accelerates as
helper tries to mount step, etc.)." This change
was made because few respondents have understood
the meaning of "interaction."
The question "Was the packing mechanism operating
at the time of the injury?" was added. This was
done in order to lessen the need to provide for
two answers in the Activity .Description section.
Operating the packer is one of the few significant
activities which is frequently going on while some
other activity is being performed.
A number of "opinion" questions such as "was the injured
employee involved in horseplay at the time of the injury" were
merged into one question that did not tend to emphasize whether
the injured employee was at fault.
The Accident Description section was altered to include
traffic accidents (which had been placed in a separate section
of the IRF but were found to be a rather infrequent cause of
employee injuries).
The Part of Body Injured section was modified so that only
one part of body (that most seriously injured) is selected. The
52
-------
choice Multiple Parts is to be selected only when several parts
were injured to about the same extent. Previously, an amputated
leg combined w:th-a cut finger was often marked as multiple parts.
A similar change was made in Injury Description.
The Characteristics of Waste section was modified extensively
during the Field Test by including items frequently given as
"other" and by dropping items infrequently checked. The previous
title Hazards of Waste was changed because the term hazard might
appear to imply that management was not controlling recognized
hazards. A similar change was made from Outdoor Hazards to
Outdoor Conditions.
The previous section title Operation Being Performed was
changed to Activity Description, because it was frequently
misunderstood.
A new section, Recommended Action, was added, providing a
selection of comments on possible corrective measures.
3.1.3 Discussion. Initially, most IRF's that were completed
and returned by participants contained at least one error and
frequent omissions or misunderstandings of complete sections. As
the Field Test progressed, the error rate fell, partly through
increased experience and training of the participant staff
completing the IRF's. In most cases, however, the error rate
fell dramatically only after major changes made in the format
of the IRF. After the production of the IRF in its booklet form,
53
-------
it was found that the last two participants to be added to the
Field Test were able to use their IRF's without a training visit,
using only the IRF's and written instructions. The error rate
for these two participants was very low throughout the remainder
of the Field Test.
3.2 Time Lost and Cost Data
Time lost data is essential as a measure of injury severity
and cost data is of great importance in motivating and setting
priorities for countermeasures. This data must be collected for
each injury rather than for all injuries taken together in order
to be able to compare the effects of different factors related
to injuries.
3.2.1 Me thodology. The following changes were made in the
overall method:
(a) Initially the time lost and cost data form was
individually tailored to each establishment.
During the Field Test it was determined that this
was not necessary. The same categories could be
used by each participant with the addition of one
"other benefits" category to allow for certain
permanent disability benefits specific to individual
participants. The final version of the Time Lost
and Direct Costs form is shown in EXHIBIT 5.
(b) The Time Lost and Cost Data form was initially
attached to the Injury Report Form. However,
this was found to result in significant delays
in returning the Injury Report Forms as cost and
lost time data is seldom immediately available.
The risk of losing injury data or of greatly
reducing its accuracy proved to be considerably
54
-------
INJURY REPORT FORM
TIME LOST AND DIRECT COSTS DATA
FOR THE
INJURY REPORTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEM
Developed For
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Name of Establishment or City
Name of Injured Employee
Date of Injury
F X H T R T T1
SS-IRIS(TLC)-Rev. 1 (5/75)
55
-------
1. INJURY NUMBER
2. DATE OF INJURY
3, AT THIS TIME, DO YOU KNOW ALL OF THE TIME LOST
AND /ILL THE DIRECT COSTS THAT WILL BE ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS INJURY.
6,
I I I I I I I
mo. day yr.
1 YES
2 NO
3 UNKNOWN
FROM WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS INJURY AT THIS TIME, (clrcle one only)
IS IT A
FIRST AID INJURY - an injury requiring no medical treatment
or only one-time treatment and subsequent observation of J.
minor scratches, cuts, burns, splinters, and so forth, which
do not ordinarily require redical care even though provided
by a physician or registered professional personnel.
NON'FATAL CASE WITHOUT LOST WORKDAYS - an injury that REQUIRED
medical treatment administered by a physician or by a rcgis- 2
tered professional personnel under standing orders of a phy-
sician, but did not result in lost workdays, permanent dis-
ability or a fatality.
LOST WORKDAYS CASE - an injury that results in one or more
workdays lost not including the day of the Injury or day of 3
return, but did not result in a permanent disability or a
fatality.
PERMANENT PARTIALDISABILITY - an injury or combination of
injuries, sustained in one accident, which results in one f}
or more of the following: (1) Amputation of all or part of:
a finger, thumb, hand, toe, foot, ankle, arm, or leg; (2) Per-
manent impairment of function resulting in loss of sight in
one or both eyes, loss of hearing in one or both ears, or an
unrepaired hernia.
PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY - an injury or combination of in-
juries, sustained in one accident, which results in one or 5
more of the following: (1) permanently and totally incapaci-
tating the injured employee from following any gainful occu-
pation; or (2) the loss of or loss of use of, both hancs,
both arms, both legs, both feet, both eyes, or the loss of
any two of these (e.g., an eye and a foot).
FATALITY - an occupational injury or combination of injuries,
sustained in one accident, resulting in death regardless of 6
the length of time between the injury and the death.
5, DID THIS INJURY, AT ANY TIME DURING THE
MPLOYEE S RECOVERY, RESULT IN A
OR THE EMPLOYEE S RE
CONSCIOUSNESS? (EVEN
ACCIDENT
LOSS OF
7,
IF THE LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS
WAS TEMPORARY AND DID NOT RESULT IN LOST WORKDAYS)
DID THIS INJURY, AT ANY TIME DURING THE ACCIDENT
OB THEEMPLOYEE'S RECOVERY, RESULT IN RESTRICTION
OF IJORK OR ROT 1 OH? (EVEN IF THE RESTRICTION OF
WORK OR MOTION WAS TEMPORARY AND DID NOT RESULT
IN LOST WORKDAYS)
LIST ALL ASSOCIATED MEDICAL EXPENSES FOR THIS IN-
JURY WHICH ARE KNOWN AS OF THE DATE THIS FORM IS
COMPLETED, (ROUND TO THE NEAREST WHOLE DOLLAR.)
56
1 YES
2 NO
3 UNKNOWN
1 YES
2 NO
3 UNKNOWN
I I I I I I I
-------
LOST TIME INJURIES
8, DATE OF RETURN TO WORK (ENTER DATE OF I I I I I I I I I
INJURY IF NO LOST TIME; LEAVE BLANK NO. day yr.
IF NOT YET RETURNED),
IF THE INJURY DID ND_J_ RESULT IN ANY LOST TIME, SKIP TO NEXT PAGE,
Enter all of the lost tine and direct costs associated with this injury that are
known as of the date this form is completed.
Round days to the nearest whole day, and dollars to the nearest whole dollar.
Days may be entered twice (e.g., a day may be charged to both Workmen's Compensation
and Injury Leave) but DO NOT DUPLICATE COSTS (e.g., if Workmen's Compensation costs
are deducted from Injury Leave payments, enter either the total cost or each portion
separately).
9, TOTAL NUMBER OF WORK DAYS LOST (NOT , III!
CALENDAR DAYS LOST) *
10, NUMBER OF DAYS LOST WITHOUT COMPENSA- I I I I
TION
11. NUMBER OF DAYS LOST COVERED BY WORK- I I I I
MEN S COMPENSATION
12. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COSTS (TEMPO- I I I I I I
RARY DISABILITY ONLY)
13. NUMBER OF DAYS LOST CHARGED TO INJURY I I I I
LEAVE
14. COSTS CHARGED TO INJURY LEAVE (EXCLUDE I I I I I I
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COSTS)
15. NUMBER OF DAYS LOST CHARGED TO SlCK I I I I
LEAVE.
16, COSTS CHARGED TO SlCK LEAVE (EXCLUDE 1 I I 1 I I
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COSTS)
17. NUMBER OF DAYS LOST CHARGED TO VACA-
TION LEAVE
18. COSTS CHARGED TO VACATION LEAVE (EX-
CLUDE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COSTS)
19, TOTAL COSTS FOR LOST TIME (TOTAL OF
QUESTION NUMBERS 12, 14, 16,
I 1 I I I I I IMRIHI
57
-------
INJURY NUMBER
20,
21.
LIGHT DUTY
DID THE INJURED EMPLOYEE HAVE LIGHT DUTY
EMPLOYMENT AFTER HIS INJURY? (ANSWER YES
IF: (1) HE DID NOT HAVE ANY LOST TIME BUT
HAD TO WORK AT AN EASIER JOB FOR A WHILE
DUE TO THE INJURYj OR (2)
HE
TIME AND
TO THE INJURY; OR
/ORK A
RESUMING HIS REGULAR JOB CLASSIFICATION,)
_ LOST
RETURNED TO WORK AT AN "EASIER" JOB BEFORE
FOR HOW MANY WORK DAYS DID THE EMPLOYEE WORK
OUTSIDE HIS REGULAR JOB?
PERMANENT JOB CHANGE
DID THE INJURY REQUIRE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF
JOB CLASSIFICATION OR PERMANENT TERMINATION?
PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS
1 YES
2 NO
3 UNKNOWN
1 YES
2 NO
3 UNKNOWN
(Give lump sums or the maximum allowable permanent disability payment)
22, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PERMANENT DISABILITY
BENEFIT
23, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFIT
24, OTHER ADDITIONAL BENEFITS
25. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS COSTS PAID TO INJURED
EMPLOYEE
L_L
II
II
n i i I i ' iiiRi/i
58
-------
greater when data return was delayed. Accordingly,
Injury Report Forms without Cost and Lost Time
sections were sent to participants. They were
asked to complete the Injury Report Forms as soon
as possible after the injury, and to mail completed
forms in batches, at least twice per month. A
separate Costs and Lost Time form containing the
employee's name, Social Security number, date of
injury and Injury Number was then sent to the
person responsible for the Costs and Lost Time
data for the participants (often different from
the person completing the other sections of the
Injury Report Form). This separate form is sent
at least a month after the injury occurred, and
the participant is expected to complete the form
at this time and indicate whether the case is still
open. If it is, another Time Lost and Cost form is
sent 2 months later (3 months after the injury). At
this time the participant enters the cumulative time
lost and costs for the injury (incremental costs were
originally asked for but this proved too cumbersome) .
This process is repeated every 2 months until the
participant indicates that the case is closed. A
monthly Time Lost and Direct Costs Status update
report informs the participant which cases are still
open.
A method in which the Time Lost and Cost Data form
was held by the participant until the case was closed
and final costs could be recorded was tried during
the Field Test but it was found in many cases that
time lost data becomes "lost" or difficult to retrieve
before cost data are complete. A typical situation is
that of a municipality, which does not keep an OSHA
Log of lost time, and therefore does not isolate lost
time due to injuries. Attempting to retrieve this
data after some months requires a review of many
records (at one participant, 14 different files in
five locations) to attempt to untangle time lost due
to injury from days not worked for other reasons, e.g.,
vacation.
(c) It was found that, for several of the participants,
especially private companies, direct expenses related
to injuries are handled entirely by their workmen's
compensation insurance carriers. Data on costs were
provided to the participants at variable and sometimes
long intervals, e.g., every six months. In order to
obtain provisional figures for inclusion in printouts,
59
-------
a system was set up which provided an estimate of
the wage continuation rates per day for each job
classification. These rates were then used to
translate days lost into direct costs, using the
participants' policies for sick leave and injury
leave. Note, however, that medical costs and
permanent disability costs cannot be estimated
in this way. These provisional costs are replaced
by the final costs when the participant receives
data from the insurance carriers and is able to
provide a "closed" Time Lost and Cost Data form
for the injury.
(d) The direct costs recorded for each injury do not
include any cost of administration (whether by the
participant or by the insurance carrier). For a
participant covered by a workmen's compensation
insurance carrier (rather than self-insured) the
difference between the premiums paid in any period
and the payments made by the insurance company in
the same period can be very large. This difference
arises in part from administration costs and other
charges by the insurance company, and in part from
the need to retain a portion-of the premiums for
the occasional very severe accident. Data was
collected on the premium costs so that a running
comparison could be made between premiums charged
to different participants, and so that an estimate
of the total burden on the industry could be made.
(e) Initially, some participants had difficulty in using
the Time Lost and Cost Data form because the questions
were not well grouped. A regrouping of questions and
rearrangement on the page resulted in a reduction in
the number of errors made, e.g., duplicate entries of
costs.
(f) Two sets of standards, OSHA and ANSI, are currently
used to define and record time lost. These two sets
are incompatible, and, as pointed out in Section 2.6,
it was initially decided to use both. Since the
definitions used are complex and since the information
required to classify an injury is often not known at
the time the Injury Report Form is completed, questions
necessary to reach decisions using OSHA and ANSI
standards were included in the Time Lost and Cost Data
form. For OSHA standards, questions included whether
the injury resulted in loss of consciousness, restriction
of motion, or temporary or permanent transfer to another
60
-------
job (e.g., light duty), as well as a complex set of
definitions necessary to distinguish between different
levels of severity, particularly between first aid
cases and non-fatal cases without lost work days. For
OSHA, the number of work days lost is recorded.
For the ANSI standard, calendar days lost are recorded.
ANSI also uses a complex system of "time charges" for
certain kinds of injuries. For example, the loss of
a distal phalange of the little finger is charged as
50 calendar days lost, while the loss of the little
finger up to the middle phalange is charged at 100
days lost. The first phalange of the ring finger is
charged as 60 days lost, of the middle finger 75 days,
and that of the index finger 100 days. These charges
are used in place of the actual days lost in computing
severity. It was thus necessary to provide for recording
the exact details of time-charged injuries.
In the initial stages of the Field Test a simplified
system of reporting and analyzing injuries was used.
However, this was abandoned after discussions with
the data users because the results were not compatible
with either OSHA or ANSI standards. During the bulk
of the Field Test, both OSHA and ANSI analyses were
performed. However, the resulting complexity of data
collection, processing, and especially presentation
in printouts, led to the conclusion that only one
system should be used. Since the OSHA system will
be used in the future, the ANSI system is the one
that should be dropped.
3.2.2 Discussion. The most serious problem with the collection
and analysis of cost data is the "open case." The most serious
injuries, with the highest cost per injury, take longest to close,
i.e., to know what the final cost will be. An injury involving
permanent disability may well not be closed for several years. In
a prospective study, in which only the injuries occurring during
the study period are included in cost data, the most serious
injuries occurring in the first year of the study will not be
61
-------
closed until the second, third or even later years. A short term
prospective study can thus give distorted results for costs unless
some corrective measures are taken. The distortion of cost can be
quite large. A review of approximately 10,000 workmen's compensation
insurance records for public employees in the States of Oregon and
California in the years 1973 and 1974 showed that a small fraction
(2%) of cases not closed within one year of injury eventually
contributed about 20% of the total costs. After several years of
operation this problem would obviously take care of itself. In the
short term, simply omitting the cost of open cases should be avoided.
One solution is to use actual costs for cases up to some time limit,
say one year, and, for the small number of cases still open at the
end of one year, to use an estimate of the final cost. This can
be obtained from the "reserve" amount assigned to each open claim
by the insurance carrier. However, the reserve amount is often an
overestimate and generally needs to be reduced by a factor, depending
on the insurance company.
It should be noted, however, that any distortion of costs
occurs only for the more serious injuries. The less serious, and
more frequent, injuries are closed earlier. It is for these less
serious injuries that cost data is most needed, because of the lack
of appreciation by management that these injuries have high costs,
e.g., that injuries associated with mounting and dismounting have
an average cost of approximately $400 each. This type of cost
data is accumulated rapidly in a prospective study.
62
-------
3.3 Employee Data
As pointed out in Section 1.2, it is necessary to collect
data on all employees to be covered by the injury information
system, and not only on those injured. This employee data is
collected in two time frames. One set of data is collected on
those employees who are employed at the start-up date. Another
set of data is collected periodically on new hires, terminations
and changes in job class. These updating methods are discussed
in Section 3.6.
The Field Test resulted in a number of changes to the methods
and forms used to collect start-up employee data.
3.3.1 Methodologica1 Changes. The following changes were
made in the overall methodology:
(a) At the start of the Field Test it was not clear to
what extent it would be feasible for participants
to collect and report the data necessary for start-
up. In order to investigate this feasibility, the
collection of start-up employee was organized, and
in most cases performed, by contractor personnel.
Initially, this was performed by a review of the
participants' records by contractor personnel
assisted by participant staff. This process proved
to be very time consuming and difficult, because
the records were incomplete, misfiled and lacking
information that was supposed to be there. Other
problems arose because information initially sought
for the Field Test was not recorded by many
participants. Some participants maintained virtually
no personnel records. To collect start-up employee
data from participants with minimal personnel records,
a form was devised that could be circulated to each
current employee, to be completed by the employee
himself (with help from a foreman if necessary).
Some participants were enthusiastic about the use
63
-------
of this type of form because it gave them, for the
first time, a base of data on their employees. The
collection of start-up employee data through the
use of a form completed by each employee proved to
be very successful where used, and it was concluded
that this is the preferred method to be used in the
future. A similar form is completed by new hires as
a part of the updating methods, and has proved
successful. The most recent revision of the Employee
Information Form (formerly known as the Employee Data
Card) is shown in EXHIBIT 6. This form is designed
so that it could be completed by each employee, with
minimum help from a foreman, and with no requirement
for an accompanying instruction sheet. Further, the
form is suitable for all participants and does not
need to be custom designed.
(b) Initially the hours of exposure were collected on an
individual employee basis by requesting, for each
employee, data on the shift worked (assigned hours
or task hours), the days of week worked, and average
overtime per week. This method proved to be cumbersome
because it was necessary to make frequent updating
reports due to change of shift or days of week worked.
A number of alternative methods were explored. One
involved collection of data on the initial set of
employees, and using this data to project all the
hours of exposure information required. This method
suffered from the weakness that it is not possible to
allow for changes in employment level or the distribution
of employee characteristics, e.g., hiring a substantial
number of summer employees who are younger than average.
Another weakness is that, since no data would be available
on individual employees who were not among the initial
set, it would be necessary to request all the standard
set of data items on employee characteristics each time
an employee was injured. This would greatly increase
the complexity of injury reporting, and one of the prime
objectives of the overall system is to avoid having to
supply information on the employee each time he was
injured.
A second method was therefore examined and adopted. In
this method, data on hours of exposure are collected on
a job classification basis, while information on the
characteristics of each employee, including job
classification, is collected on an individual basis.
Data on hours of exposure are collected on a Job Class
Basing Data form, shown in EXHIBIT 7, that is used to
64
-------
EMPLOYEE INFORMATION FORM
1, EMPLOYEE NAME (Last name,
first and middle initials)
2. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
3, SEX (Please circle one)
/I, DATE OF BIRTH
(Example: Sept. 1931
5. RACE (Circle one)
6,
7,
8,
HEIGHT/WEIGHT
(Example: 5 02
097)
LAST YEAR OF SCHOOL COM-
Pl FTFH (e-S" 9th Brade = 09»
rLCICU 2 yrs. college = 14)
HAVE YOU EVER WORKED IN
REFUSE COLLECTION OR DIS-
POSAL BEFORE COMING TO
WORK FOR YOUR CURRENT
EMPLOYER? (Circle one)
11
Last Name
I, U. U.
Initials
09 31) mo.
1 MALE
2 FEMALE
LLJ
yr.
1 WHITE
2 BLACK
3 SPANISH
4 INDIAN
5 ORIENTAL
6 CHOOSE NOT TO ANSWER
7 OTHER
U
ft.
inches
I I II
pounds
9, DATE HIRED BY CURRENT
EMPLOYER (Example: 09 01 72)
10, DEPARTMENT/DIVISION/SECTION
11, CURRENT JOB TITLE
1 YES
2 NO
LLJ
mo.
day
yr.
To be completed by
employer
Standard job class code
SS-IRlS(EM)-Rev. 1-5/75
I I I I I I I IEIMI
EXHIBIT 6
65
-------
JOB CLASS BASING DATA
YOUR ORGANIZATION S JOB CLASS TITLE AND
ITS STANDARD JOB CLASS CODE
I I I I I I
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR
AN AVERAGE EMPLOYEE IN THIS JOB CLASS.
1,
2,
3,
ARE THE EMPLOYEES IN THIS JOB CLASS
ON A TASK SYSTEM?
(circle one)
1 YES
2 NO
NUMBER OF WORKDAYS OF VACATION ALLOWED
PER YEAR (Example: 2 weeks = 10 workdays)
NUMBER OF HOLIDAYS PER YEAR WHICH ARE
NOT MADE UP BY WORKING AN EXTRA DAY
(example: 9 days = 09)
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ACTUAL LEAVE DAYS
TAKEN PER YEAR TO THE NEAREST DAY
(E.G., SICK LEAVE, PERSONAL LEAVE,
ETC,)
REPEAT STANDARD JOB CLASS CODE
5. SHIFT SCHEDULE (Complete a., b., and c.
for each of the shifts in this job class)
SHIFT 1
B
ACTUAL SHIFT FOR EACH DAY
OF THE WEEK, Task system em-
ployees' actual shifts will
probably be less than their
assigned shifts. Use 24-hour
clock (e.g., 1 p.m. = 1300)
APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF
HOURS OF OVERTIME PER
WEEK PER EMPLOYEE, (In
addition to the actual
shift.given above.)
APPROXIMATE PERCENT OF
EMPLOYEES IN THIS JOB
CLASS WHO WORK ON THIS
SHIFT (to fche nearest
whole percent)
Sun.
Mon .
Tues.
Wed.
Thur,
Fri.
Sat.
from
LLJ
to
II
II
If the employees in this job class work more than
one shift go on to the next page.
EXHIBIT 7
66
-------
JDBCLASS BASING DATA (CONTINUED)
RE£EAI STANDARD JOB CLASS CODE
SHIFT 2
A, ACTUAL SHIFT
Sun. L
Mon. |__
Tues. |
Wed. |__
Thurs . |
Fri. [_
Sat. |_
fr
om
|
|
I
1
|
|
|
|
t
o
_
i
B, OVERTIME PER WEEK
C. PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES
J 5
REPEAT STANDARD JOB CLASS CODE.
SHIFT 3
A, ACTUAL SHIFT
Sun.
Mon.
Tues.
Wed.
Thurs
Fri.
Sat.
from
I I I
to
B, OVERTIME PER WEEK
C, PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES
LLJ
Mil %
SS-IRlSlJC)-Rev. 1 (5/75)
67
-------
record for an average employee in each job class, how
many days are worked per month, what percentage of
employees work on each shift, and what hours per day
and what overtime hours are worked on each shift.
To compute an injury rate associated with an employee
characteristic, the computer is programmed to perform
a three step process. For example, if it is desired
to compute an injury rate for all employees over 6 feet
tall during a specified 6 month reporting period, the
computer first examines all Injury Report Forms for
injuries that occurred in this reporting period. Each
such injury report is linked to an Employee Information
Form, using a Social Security or other identifying
number. The Employee Information Forms are then examined
to determine which employees are over 6 feet tall. The
number of injuries occurring to the reporting period
linked to these employees then represents the number of
injuries required to compute the desired rate. To compute
the hours of exposure, all Employee Information Forms
are examined, and each employee over 6 feet tall is
identified. For each such employee, the number of
months during the reporting period spent in each job
class is determined. The number of man-months at risk
in each job class for employees over 6 feet tall during
the reporting period is then totalled. The number of
hours of exposure per months for each job class is then
obtained from the appropriate Job Class Basing Data
form, and the total number of hours of exposure for all
job classes for employees over 6 feet tall is computed.
The rate is then computed as the ratio of the number of
injuries per 200,000 hours of exposure, or by using
some other standard method.
The advantage of this method is that only one item of
employee information needs to be updated, the job class.
Allowance is automatically made for seasonal employees
and other variations in the work force, and only one
piece of identifying data on the employee is required
on the Injury Report Form. The same system yields
hours of exposure data required for all other purposes,
including relating injury rate to crew type and
protective clothing.
(c) Initially, the job class of an employee of a participant
was recorded using the title used by that participant.
This procedure was found to have several disadvantages,
and one of the goals adopted for the Field Test was to
develop a set of standardized job classes. The
68
-------
disadvantages of a non-standard usage are that different
participants use different job class titles for the same
functions,- participants use the same job class title for
different functions within the organization, e.g., the
title laborer is used both for an incinerator operator
and for a collection worker; and, for most participants,
job titles are used to distinguish different levels of
pay rather than different levels of risk. To the extent
possible, the job titles used by participants during the
Field Test were translated by contractor personnel into
standard classes. After some experimentation, a standard
set of job classes was developed that can be presented to
participants, so that participants can identify a standard
job class that corresponds to each of their job functions.
These standard job classes are based upon the Dictionary
of Occupational Titles (DOT), but DOT titles in themselves
were not specific enough to make distinctions appropriate
for separating risk groups in the solid waste management
industry. A five-digit code is used. The first two digits
identify a division and section, e.g., Disposal-Landfill.
The third and fourth digits identify a job type, e.g.,
heavy equipment operator. The fifth digit is used to
distinguish between different titles used by an individual
participant for the same standard (4 digit) job class
code, e.g.. Sanitation Crewman I and Sanitation Crewman II,
two titles differing in pay but not in job function, both
being residential refuse collectors (non-driver). These
codes enable analysis to be made by division, section,
job type (e.g., all heavy equipment operators, regardless
of section), or by individual participants' job class title.
3.3.2 Items Added as Result of Field Test. The following
items were added:
(a) Each employee name is entered into the computer. Initially
the name was only used by contractor personnel if a
mismatch was found on Social Security number. During the
Field Test it became apparent that the name was needed on
the computer-generated Employee Data Update List, supplied
monthly to each participant, because participant staff
found it too time consuming to check for possible updates
when using a list which included only Social Security
number.
(b) The exact date of hire, job class change, etc. Initially
only the month was recorded but this caused problems with
computer processing.
69
-------
3.3.3- Items Omitted as a Result of Field Test. One of the
major findings of the Field Test was that only a small fraction
of the factors concerning employees that were included in the
initial list could feasibly be included in an injury information
system. Some factors were not available from many of the participants,
e.g., data on findings of medical examinations. Some factors were
too difficult to keep updated, e.g., sick leave usage for purposes
other than injuries. Collection of data for some factors was
transferred from the Employee Information Form for an individual
employee, to Job Class Basing Data, e.g., shift. For other factors,
most participants did not keep records for individual employees,
e.g., on whether safety and training courses had been taken; whole
job classes were stated to have been, or not to have been, trained
and it is thus of no value to attempt to compare the accident
experience of individuals with and without training. Some factors
were dropped because it was not possible to obtain consistently
accurate data, e.g., whether the employee held a second job. Some
were dropped because they did not appear to be useful in the
analysis of injury data, e.g., whether the employee belonged to
a union, and the name of the employee's supervisor.
3.3.4 Discussion. Employee data was the most sensitive
class of information collected in the Field Test. Union and
other worker representatives expressed, in several cases, some
uneasiness about the collection of data on employee age, education
70
-------
and race. One concern was that results showing differences in
injury rates between groups of employees differing in age, race
or education might be used to the detriment of one group or another.
However, after some discussion it was generally agreed that data
was needed and could be of value to all parties. For example, if
the injury rate were found to increase rapidly with age (the opposite
actually appears to be the case) this could be used as the basis for
negotiating for an early retirement plan. The inclusion of race
as a factor was optional, and two participants did not use it.
3.4 Non-Employee Basing Data
Basing data is collected on equipment and vehicles; protective
clothing; crew type; accident site; and activity.
3-4.1 Equipment and Vehicle Basing Data. Information on the
equipment in use is required in the study of injuries in order to
relate injury rates to the usage of specific types of equipment
and vehicles. In the Field Test each item of equipment was
characterized by type, make, model, year, capacity, location of
use, and maintenance schedule. Information was also collected on
the average number of hours in use, the average number of tons
handled, and the average number of miles driven per day. This
information was collected in two time frames, at the start-up
of the system by a participant, and periodically thereafter, as
part of the updating methods described in Section 3.6.
71
-------
In the earlier portions of the Field Test, this data was
collected during a visit by contractor staff. In order to make
it possible for participant staff to report this data, a standard
form was developed, shown in EXHIBIT 8. Most participants have
an equipment list that contains most of the data requested in
this standard form, and it was found perfectly satisfactory to
use the same form for all participants, with standardized codes
for all items included as a list on the back of 'the form. The
list of items of equipment included on the standard form was
derived from combining the equipment lists of all participants.
During the Field Test, it was found advisable to add the
following items to those originally collected: separate spaces
for listing data on both chassis and packer (if only one space
is allowed, data on the chassis is often entered even though
data on the packer is requested and is of most interest); data
on capacity; and data on sill height (this is of considerable
interest because of its relationship to dumping injuries. However,
the sill height of a packer depends on the type of tire used, and
must be estimated individually for each packer. Make and model
are not sufficient.). The following items were deleted: special
characteristics (did not produce any information that could be
useful); and cleaning schedule. Information on special characteristics
of equipment that are related to safety (e.g., modifications to
packers) are now requested as part of the Background Information
referred to in Section 3.5.
72
-------
EQUIPMENT/VEHICLE INFORMATION FORM
READ EACH QUESTION CAREFULLY, THE BACK OF THIS FORM LISTS ALL
THE CODE NUMBERS,
1. TODAY'S DATE I I 1 I I I I I I
2, EQUIPMENT NUMBER I I I I I I I
Use your organization's code number.
Distinguish letters and numbers
carefully. Letter 0 = Zero =O
S = $ 5 =5"
Z = H 2 =&.
EQUIPMENT OR VEHICLE TYPE(e.g.,
rear-end loader, pickup, etc. See codes
on back)
CHASSIS DESCRIPTION
MAKE (see codes on back) L_J I
»«/M-*r-t (use actual equipment only, i i i
MODEL not vehiclesT " \ I I
YEAR
5, PACKER DESCRIPTION
MAKE (see codes on back)
MODEL (e.g., 00002R)
YEAR
CAPACITY (cubic yards) I I I
SILL HEIGHT OF HOPPER (approx. inches) | | |
6, DATE OF PURCHASE
(Month & Year, example 09-65) ( ( | | [ [
7, TYPE OF USE I I 1
(see codes on back)
8, MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE U
(see codes on back)
9, AVERAGE NO, OF HOURS IN USE PER DAY I I I
10, AVERAGE NO, OF DAYS IN USE PER WEEK U
11, AVERAGE TONS PER DAY I I I
12, AVERAGE NO, OF MILES DRIVEN PER DAY I I I I
SS-IRIS(EQ)-Rev. 1 (5/75) | [ j
EXHIBIT 8
73
-------
TYI'K OF EQUIPMENT CODES
EQUIPMENT MAKE CODES
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
99
Rear-end loader
Front-ond loader
Side loader
Load lugger
Roll-off
Container Delivery Truck
Trailer (transfer truck)
Cushman scooter
Overhead crane (incinerator)
Equipment service truck
Street sweeper
Tow truck
Snow plow
Crew truck
Open body dump truck
Open bed truck
Pickup truck
Automobile
Tractor
Bulldozer
Earthmover
Scraper/grader
Forklift
Dragline
Disker
Tilt frame
Highlift
Crane
Compactor
Landfill spray truck
Water pump truck
Bob cat
Other
(please list)
MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE CODES
01 Once a day
02 Once a week
03 Twice a week
99 Other
01 Chevrolet
02 Ford
03 Dodge
04 CMC
05 International Harvester
06 Mack
07 Allis-Chalmers
08 Leach
09 Heil
10 Easy-Pac
11 Cushman
12 Garwood
13 White
04 Master
15 Wisconsin
16 De tz
17 Mobil
18 Wayne
19 Pelican
20 Elgin
21 Hyster
22 Diamond Reo
99 Other
(please list)
TYPES OF USE CODES
11 Residential Collection
12 Commercial Collection
31 Street Cleaning
21 Landfill Operations
22 Incinerator Operations
23 Transfer Station Operations
24 Recycling Operations
41 Office & Yard Use
51 Garage Use
(please list)
74
-------
3.4.2 Protective Clothing Basing Data. In order to
objectively relate injury rate to the use of protective clothing,
data on the use of this clothing and other protective devices is
required. The ultimate objective is to discover if workers in a
particular job class suffer a greater or lower injury rate when
certain protective items are used. For example, goggles may
decrease the frequency of minor eye accidents but, if they interfere
with peripheral vision, increase the frequency of other, more
severe, accidents.
The data is collected, using a form shown in EXHIBIT 9, on
a job class basis. The number of employees, and the resulting
hours of exposure, in that job class are determined as described
in Section 3.3.
3.4.3 Crew Type Basing Data. A useful way of comparing
injury rates between participants is to relate injury rate to
collection crew type. Most injuries occur on collection routes
but not all types of collection are comparable. By breaking down
the collection process into different crew types, e.g., front-end
loader bulk container crew, realistic comparisons can be made
even between participants whose overall collection operations
are not directly comparable, e.g., private vs municipal collectors.
Initially* each participant used the local name for each
crew type. By reviewing all crews at all participants it was
possible, during the Field Test, to prepare a list of standard
75
-------
PROTFCTIVE CLOTHING
AND BASING DATA
STANDARD JOB CLASS TITLE & CODE
YOUR ORGANIZATION'S CORRESPONDING
JOB CLASS TITLE(S),
II I I I I
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
FOR THIS JOB CLASS ONLY.
Type of
Protective
Clothing
Is use of it
Mandatory
/ = Yes
Is it Supplied
by Employer
/ = Yes
Approximate %
of this Job Class
Who Normally Use It
EXAMPLE: 50% = 050
1, HARD HAT
2, BUMP CAP
3, SAFETY GLASSES
4, GOGGLES
5, EAR PLUGS
6. EAR MUFFS
7, FACE SHIELD
8, RESPIRATOR
9, UNIFORM
10, FIRE-PROOF CLOTHING
11. TRAFFIC VEST
12, GLOVES
13, SAFETY SHOES
14, RUBBER BOOTS
SS-IRIS(PC)-Rev. 1 (57/5)
EXHIBIT 9
76
-------
crew types and accompanying definitions which all participants
could readily recognize. In order to collect data on hours of
exposure in each crew type, the participant staff determine what
standard crew type names (and codes) correspond to their crew
types. For each of these crew types, they provide data on the
number of crews, the job classes which make up a crew,- and the
number of men on each crew in each job class. This data can then
be used to compute hours of exposure, since hours of exposure by
job class are already available. The form developed during the
Field Test for providing this data is shown in EXHIBIT 10.
3.4.4 Accident Site Basing Data. Another useful way of
comparing injury data, and one very frequently requested by the
management of solid waste agencies, is the use of accident site,
e.g., landfill, collection route, incinerator, etc. It should
be noted that there is a difference between accidents occurring
to employees of the landfill division, and accidents occurring
at the landfill, because many of the latter accidents will occur
to employees of other divisions during their temporary presence
at the landfill. In order to make these comparisons, it is
necessary to compute hours of exposure at each site. During
the Field Test, hours of exposure were initially computed by
contractor personnel from data supplied through interviews with
participant staff, and a form was later developed for use directly
by participant staff. This form, shown in EXHIBIT 11, collects
77
-------
CREW TYPE BASING DATA
Use your Crew Code Assignment Sheet & Job Clasa Code Assignment Sheet to complete
the following items.
EXAMPLE: An organization has 30 Rear-End Loader Manual Collection Crews, each
made up of a 3-man crew: 1 Res. Packer Truck Driver (non-collector), and 2 Res.
Refuse Collectors (non-drivers). The columns should be completed as follows:
Rear-End Loader
Manual Collection Crew
LUU I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
U
U
U
Standard
Crew
Type
Std.
Crew
Code
No.
of
Crews
JOB CLASS(ES) IN CREW
Std. Job
Class Code
No. on the Crew
In this Job Class
Rear-End Loader
Manual Collection Crew
Rear-End Loader
Bulk Container
Front-End Loader
Manual Container Crew
mil
11121
[111]
Front-End Loader
Bulk Container Crew
Side-Loader Crew
Brush Collection .Only
Crew
11161 I I 1 I
|
i
1
|
J U
J U
J U
U U
_J U
U U
LJ U
_l U
U U
i i i irn
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
LJ U
LJ U
LJ L
i i i i rri ir.m
SS-IRIS(CT)-Rev. 1 (5/75)
EXHIBIT 10
78
-------
Standard Std. No.
Crew Crew of
Type Code Crews
JOB CLASS (PS) IN CREW
Std. Job
Class Code
Bulky Item | H 7| | | | |
Crew
Dead Animal Crew | H g| | | | |
Roll-Off Crew |2H| MM
Load-Lugger | 21 21 MM
Crew
Container Delivery 121 31 MM
Crew
Transfer Station 1 31 11 MM
Crew
Litter & Weed I 41 11 MM
Control Crew
St. Cleaning I 51 ll MM
Crc;/
i
i
1
'
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
No. on the Crew
In this Job Class
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
i i r.r-51
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
i i in/H
U
U
U
U
U
'U
U
U
U
i i i i r.isi
79
-------
Standard
Crew
Type
Std.
Crew
Code
No.
of
Crews
JOB CLASS(ES) IN CREW
Std. Job
Class Code
No. on the Crew
In this Job Class
Other Type
Crew
mil!
Other Type
Crew
19121
Other Type
Crew
19131
Other Type
Crew
19141
Other Type
Crew
19151
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
! 1 ILIbl
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
1 1 ILI/I
u
u
u
u
i i i i i i r
80
-------
ACCIDENT SITE BASING DATA BY_CREH
Refer to your Crew Cod* Assignment Sheet for the crew types at your organisation which correspond to the Standard Crew Types, WTCT AU. TIME III
HI-fiTTES. If the tines or nusbcr of trips vary greatly on different days of the week, estimate a DAILY average. For the nuaber of trip*, estlnat*
to^the nearest 10th of a trip. Sow orRailx.itton* have collection rrevi on which the collectors ronviln on the collection route while the driver
ta«s the pac*cr. to the disposal site. This is the reason tor dlvldl:i(: each type by "crewmen Rolnp. to,disposal," and "crewncn not going to disposal."
PtyyiE-8 A rear-end loader nanual collection crew is on a task system and works an sversr.e of 6.J hours a day, for a * day week. It sukes an averse*
of 6 trips prr week to the incinerator and 4 trips per week to the lanCflll. Only the driver on this 3-sun crew goes to the disposal sites, th* col-
Id be filled out a* follows (notice that the
R-E LOAD. MANUAL COLL.
Crewoen going to dlcp. U LJU UJ LJJ U.U LLJ LJ.U 1 1 1 LJ.LJ LLJ 1 1 II Mill
Crewnen NOT going to disB.(_j I I I I I I I I I I Mill
Standard
Crcv
Type
Number
of
Crewmen
Time at
Office
(Horn.iCve.)
Time Co t
from Office
& Route
(per round)
trip)
Tins to &
fron Route
& Disposal
(per round)
trip)
LANCF1LL
Aver.
Ho. Trips
(per day)
Tine ot
Landfill
(per trip)
INCINERATOR
Aver.
No. Trips
(per day)
Tine at
Incln.
(per trip)
TRANSFER STATION
Aver.
No. Trips
(per day)
Time at
Tron.Stn.
(per trip)
TIME
OX
ROUTE
(Aver.
per dsv)
scd.
Crew
Code
R-E LOAD. MANUAL COLL.
Crewmen going to dicp.
J5cr*v=cnNOT jolng to disp.
U
U
LJU U.U UJ U.U LU U.U LU MM
ULU
-LUU
R-E LOAD. BULK CONTAINER
Crewnen going to disp. I 1
CrewaenNOT going to disp. 1 I
T-l LOAD. MANUAL COLL.
Crewmen going to disp, 1 I
CrewsenNOT going to disp, 1 j
UJ UJ U.U UJ U.U UJ U.U LU MM U1ZJ
I.1I2J
rrr r i i i ism
UJ LU UJ U.U UJ U.U LJU U.U UJ MM ULlil
I I I I I I Mil LUU
F-E tOAD. DLTK CONTAINER
CrewB-.cn going to disp, I I
Crcwacn NOT going to disp. | I
SS-IRIS(AS).-Rev. 1 (5/75)
LU
LU
LU
LLJ U.U UJ U.U LU U.U UJ MM
UL1D
UHll
EXHIBIT 11
-------
Standard
Crev
Type
Number
of
Crcvaen
Tine at
Office
(Morn.iEve.)
Tine co &
from Office
I Route
(per round)
trip)
Tina to &
from Route
& Dlspoial
(per round)
trip)
LAN UX ILL
Aver.
Ko. Trips
(per day)
Tine at
Landfill
(per trip)
INCINERATOR
Aver.
Ko. Trips
(per day)
Time at
Incln.
(per trip)
TKANSKKK STATION
Aver.
Ko. Trips
(per day)
Tire at
Tran.Stn.
(per trip)
TIME
ON
BOUTt
(Aver.
per davj
sta.
Crev
Code
SIDE-LOADER
Creween going to disp.
Crevscn NOT going to disp.
BRUSH COLLECTION
Crewmen going to disp.
Crevnen NOT going to disp.
BULKY ITEM
wCrewmen going to disp.
10Crewmen SOT going to disp.
DEAD ANIMAL
Crewrsen going to disp.
Creween NOT going to disp.
ROLL-OFF
Crevsen going to disp.
Creween NOT going to disp.
LOAD-LUCCER
Crcwaen going to disp.
Crevaen NOT going Co disp.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
LU
LLJ
LLJ
'LJJ
LLJ
LJJ
LJJ
LJJ
LU
LJJ
LJJ
LJJ
LJJ
LJJ
LJJ
LU
UJ
LU
LU
LJJ
UJ
LU
LU
UJ
LJJ U.U
LJJ U.U
LJJ U.U
LJJ U.U
LJJ U.U
LJJ U.U
LJJ
LJJ
LJJ
LJJ
LJJ
LJJ
LllSJ
LU5J
U.U LJJ I I I I ULU&J
UI&J
U.U LJJ U.U LJJ MM
U.U LJJ
U.U LJJ
U.U LJJ
U.U LJJ
' i i ' ' ' i »sm
U.U LJJ 1 I U UiZJ
11.17.1
U.U LJJ I i l i LllSJ
LUSJ
U.U LJJ UN LZilJ
12111
U.U LJJ U.U LJJ Mil 12J2J
12121
-------
Standard
Crew
Type
Nunbcr
of
Crewmen
Tine at
Office
(Morn.&Eve.)
Tine to &
from Office
& Route
(per round)
trip)
Time Co &
from RouCe
& Dliposal
(per round)
trip)
LANDFILL
Aver.
No. Trips
(per day)
Time at
Landfill
(per trip)
1NCINF.HATOR
Aver.
No. Trips
(per doy)
Tine at
Incln.
(per trip)
TRANSFER STATION
Aver.
No. Trips
(per doy)
Tine at
Tran.Stn.
(per trip)
TIME
ON
ROUTE
(Aver.
per dny)
Std.
Crew
Code
CONTAINER DELIVERY
Crcwir.cn going to dlsp. | |
CrewaenXOT going to dl«p. | )
TRANSFER STATION
Crevncn going to dlsp. | |
Crewaen MOT going to dlsp. I I
LITTER & WEED CONTROL
Crewmen going to ditp. I I
CD Crewnen SOT going to diip. I I
U)
STREET CLEANING
Crevsen going to disp. I 1
Crevncn NOT going to dlsp. I ' I
OTHER TYPE CREW
Crevnen going Co dlsp. I I
Crevraen SOT going to disp. | |
OTHER TYPE CREW
Crewsen going to disp. | |
Crevcicn NOT going to dlsp. ( j
LU LU
U.U LLJ U.U LJJ U.U LU I I I I
LLJ U.U LLJ U.U LU U.U LU MM
12111
1213J
IHU
L2JXI
i i i
LU U.U LJJ U.U LJJ U.U LJJ Mil HQJ
UJ U.U LU U.U LJJ U.U LU I I I I 15111
ISUU
III I I I I IST71
LU U.U LU U.U LU U.U LJJ MM LSIU
1911 I
LU U.U LU U.U LU U.U LU Mil taflj
MM 19121
-------
Standard
Crew
Type
Nunber
of
Crcvaen
Tire oc
Office
(Horn.&Eve.)
Time to &
from Office
& Route
(per round)
trip)
Time to &
from Route
6 Disposal
(per round)
trip)
LANDFILL
Aver.
No. Tripo
(per day)
Tlr.e at
Landfill
(per trip)
INCINERATOR
Aver.
So. Trlpo
(per day)
Time at
Xneln.
(per trip)
TRANSFER STATION
Aver.
No. Trips
(per day)
Time at
Tran.Stn.
(per trip)
TIME
OX
ROUTE
(Aver.
per d.iy)
Std.
Crev
Code
OTHER TYTE CREV
Crcwnen going to ditp. I I
CrevncnSOT going to dlsp. I I
OTHER TYPE CREW
Crevaen going to dlsp. I I
Crewmen NOT going to dlsp. ! I
09
OTHER TYPE CREW
CrevMB going to ditp. I I
Crevmeo NOT going to dlsp. | |
LJJ LU
LLJ LJJ
I''
19131
U.U LLJ U.U LJJ U.U
U.U LJJ U.U LJJ U.U LU I l I I -L2HJ
19141
UU LJJ UU LJU UU
19151
19151
I I I I i I TSTTTI
-------
hours of exposure data at each site for each collection crew type.
These hours are added to the hours of exposure for job classes
based at each site, e.g., landfill heavy equipment operators, to
give the total hours of exposure at the site.
3.4.5 Activity Basing Data. One of the most powerful ways
of breaking down the work environment so that the injury experience
can be compared for different aspects is the use of activity. By
activity is meant the specific operation or task being performed
by the injured employee at the time he was injured. By breaking
up the work day into activities, the injury rate can be compared
for each activity, so that the relative hazards of each activity
can be examined and priorities can be set for countermeasures. In
addition, by the breakdown into activities it is possible to
realistically compare the injury experience of different participants
by comparing the injury rates associated with performing exactly the
same task. Using the concept of activity requires data on the
exposure of employees to each activity. For example, refuse
collectors on commercial routes do not perform as much lifting
as those on residential routes. Some measure of how many lifts
are performed or how many hours per day are spent in lifting is
needed to compare the injury experience, associated with lifting,
of these two groups.
There are two ways of assessing exposure to activities. One
is on an event basis, i.e., the number of lifts or the number of
85
-------
times that an employee dismounts from the step of a truck. The
number of such events can then be used to compute an'injury rate
in terms of number of lifting injuries per lift, etc. The second
way is to use hours of exposure as a measure. This is most
suitable for activities for which the risk of injury may be
assumed to be a function of duration of exposure, i.e., carrying,
riding on the step of a truck, etc.
During the Field Test, exposure to all activities was
calculated on a time basis rather than on an event basis, e.g.,
mounting and dismounting the truck were assigned a certain time
per mount and dismount, and the estimated total number of mounts
and dismounts per day was used to compute the total time per day
spent in dismounting and mounting activities. This choice of a
time rather than an event basis was made in order to provide a
consistent format for printouts. It should be noted, however,
that the time assigned to an "event" activity, such as dismounting,
is arbitrary and is the same for all participants. Comparisons
may thus be made as if the computations were on an event basis.
Initially all activity basing data, i.e., the hours of
exposure to each activity, was collected by contractor personnel
through interviews with participant staff. Activity data was only
collected and computed for collection crewmen. These represent
the vast majority of the injuries. The methods were formalized
and resulted in a basing data sheet that could be used by
participants. EXHIBIT 12 shows the Daily Activity Basing Data
86
-------
DAILY ACTIVITY BASING DATA
STANDARD JOB CLASS: RESIDENTIAL REFUSE COLLECTOR (non-driver)
STANDARD JOB CLASS CODE I2I1IOI5IOI
YOUR ORGANIZATION'S CORRESPONDING JOB
CLASS TITLES
1. Number of days per week employees in this
job class work (use decimals if they work
part of a day, e.g., 4*5 days = 4.5).
2. Total ACTUAL time working per day IN
MINUTES (EXCLUDE lunch, breaks, and over-
time. Task system employees' ACTUAL time
will be less than their assigned shift.)
BEFORE AND AFTER ROUTE
Time spent per day at the office and yard in
the following activities:
VEHICLE CHECK
VEHICLE CLEANING
OTHER PREPARATION & FINISHING-UP TIME
RIDING IN VEHICLE (from office to route
and route to office)
Total time BEFORE & AFTER ROUTE (add
a. + b. + c. + d.)
Does this total seem correct to you?
(If not, redo the times.)
LJ.U davs
(in minutes)
A.I I I I
(in minutes)
a- I I I
c.
E.LLJ
SS-IRIS(ACT)-Rev. 1 (5/75)
EXHIBIT 12
87
-------
DISPOSAL TIME
Average time spent for ONE ROUND trip to
disposal site.
RIDING IN VEHICLE (to disposal site from
route and to route from disposal site)
RIDING IN VEHICLE (at disposal site, in-
eluding time waiting in vehicle)
DIRECTING AND GUIDING VEHICLE
EMPTYING PACKER
CLEANING OUT PACKER
Disposal time per trip (add
a. + b. + c. + d. + e.)
No. of trips to disposal site
(average per day)
Total DISPOSAL TIME (multiply
f- x g.)
Does this total seem correct to
you? (If not, redo the times)
COLLECTING TIME
Compute the COLLECTING TIME A - (B + C)
Does this COLLECTING TIME seem correct to
you? (If not, recheck your figures)
Average Number of Stops per route.
Average Number of Minutes per Stop (D E)
Round to the nearest whole minute.
Divide up the Average Number of Minutes per
Stop(p) into the following activities:
WALKING (to and from containers)
LIFTING (containers, bags, shrubbery, etc.)
CARRYING
DUMPING (into hopper)
WALKINGorRlDING ON STEP (to next stop)
(in minutes)
a.
. I I I
e.
* U.U
C. I I I I
n,
Jmin.
. I I I I Istops
, |_Jniin.
(in SECONDS)
I I I I
LU
-------
How often do you RJ[)f QN STEP to About 1 out of every | | | stops
the next step? (e.g., about 1 out of every 05 stops)
How often do you OPERATE the About 1 out of every II I stops
PACKING MECHANISM?
Average number of containers picked | | |
up per stop.
Aiuir
89
-------
form for one job class: residential refuse collector, non-driver.
It is necessary to use a generally similar sheet for each job
class, that includes the specific activities performed by that
job class.
3.5 Updating
It is necessary to keep the various types of basing data
updated and to keep track of "open" cases where costs and lost
time are not. finally known. Four sets of items are involved:
3.5.1 Employee Information Updating. During the Field Test,
updating of employee data was initially performed by contractor
staff through telephone calls, letters and similar unstructured
means. A system was developed in which a computer printout is
sent to each participant, listing each employee name, Social
Security number (or other identifying number), date of hire,
date of birth, job class, and date promoted into that job class.
An example is shown in EXHIBIT 13. The primary use of this
printout is for the participant to enter terminations and job
class changes as they occur. A printout is sent to each participant
once per month and he returns the previous printout, amended to
show changes and terminations, at that time. The printout is also
useful to management in that it provides a convenient listing of
current employees. Many solid waste agencies do not have such a
listing. The listing is also used by the participant when he
90
-------
INJURY REPORTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEM -AGE 1
DATE - MARCH 1975
PARTICIPANT - 1000001
.TYPE OF PRINTOUT - EMPLOYEE DATA '
NAME SOC SEC HIRE BIRTH OOo LATC STATUS CHANGE OR TERMINATION'
LAST FI KI NUMBER DATE DATE CLASS PROK WRITE JOB CLASS & CODE TERMINATION DATE
JOHNSON B M 002-36-5931 10-12-59 07-32 41312 10-12-72
EXHIBIT 13
Sample Employes Data Update List
-------
completes Injury Report Forms, to provide the Social Security
number (or other identifying number), and to ensure that the
injured employee is on the list.
For new hires, the same Employee Information Form is
completed that is used at the start-up of the study (see
Section 3.3) .
3.5.2 Equipment/Vehicle Information Updating. During
the Field Test, a system was developed for updating information
on equipment and vehicles, that is similar to that developed for
employee information. EXHIBIT 14 shows an example of an equipment/
vehicle update form. This is sent quarterly to all participants,
and is amended to indicate any equipment that has been withdrawn
from use and returned in a similar manner to the employee printout.
For each item of new equipment added, an Equipment/Vehicle Information
form is completed, as described in Section 3.4.1.
3.5.3 Time Lost and Direct Cost Status. EXHIBIT 15 shows
an example of a listing sent to each participant on a monthly basis
in order to give the status (open or closed) of injuries, together
with the cost and time lost to date, and other identifying information.
The listing includes all open cases, and all cases closed within the
last month. The participant's staff member responsible for keeping
track of injury costs and lost time uses this listing as a means
of reviewing newly closed cases to ensure that the costs and time
92
-------
INJURY REPORTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEM PAGE 1
PARTICIPANT - 1000001
DATE - FIRST QUARTER 1975
TYPE OF PRINTOUT - EQUIPMENT/VEHICLE DATA UPDATE LIST
EQUIPMENT NO. MAKE MODEL TYPE CAPACITY YEAR DATE PURCHASED OLT OF USE DATE
000001 LEACH 2-R REAR-END LOADER 25Y 69 10-70
OJ
EXHIBIT 14
Sample Equipment/Vehicle Data Update List
-------
INJURY REPORTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEM PAGE 1
PARTICIPANT - 1000001
DATE - MARCH 1975
TYPE OF PRINTOUT - TIME LOST AND DIRECT COSTS STATUS
r
OPEN/ INOJRY DAY OF NAME SOC SEC TYPE WKDY MEDICAL LOST TIME P D/DEATH
CLOSE NUKSER INJURY LAST FI MI NUMBER CASE LOST EXPENSE COSTS BENEFITS
C OOG01 6-18-75 JOHNSON B M 002-36-5931 LT 150 200 3,600 14,000
FALL TO DIFF LEVEL WHILE DISMOUNTING INJURING BACK RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
0 00032 1-21-75 STEWART J C 065-14-3601 NWLW 105
STRUCK BY OBJECT WHILE LIFTING INJURING LEG RESULTING IN CUT/LACER/PUNCTURE
EXHIBIT 15
Sample Time Lost and Direct Costs Status
-------
lost figures listed are final, and to identify open cases so that
they can be followed up. The listing also acts as an injury log,
so that injuries can readily be reviewed.
3.5.4 Annual Updates. During the Field Test, it was found
that changes in management practices, crew size, equipment
utilization and similar factors do not change rapidly in the
typical solid waste agency, so that an update of these items
needs to be made only annually, or at a time of some major change.
3.6 Information on Management Practices
The practices used by management in hiring, training, safety
programs, and in requirements related to safety, e.g., container
regulations and equipment specifications, are factors that might
be expected to be significantly related to injury rate. While it
is not possible to perform intercomparisons between participants
on the basis, of these factors in a Field Test involving only 15
participants, it appeared desirable to formulate a set of questions
bearing on these points that could be used in a larger scale system.
During the Field Test several sets of questions on management
practices were asked during visits, and a set that appeared to be
feasible for gathering information through a questionnaire rather
than a visit was selected. This set is included in EXHIBIT 16,
the Background Information form. This form serves to identify
persons to contact, gives the types of services to be included
95
-------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
IDENTIFICATION
1. Name of organization
Address: Room No.
Street
City, State, ZIP
Phone Number (include Area
Code)
2. Persons for Contact:
NSWISS Coordinator
Name
Title
Address: Room No.
Street
City, State, ZIP
Phone Number
Person to contact for
Time Lost & Cost Data
Name
Title
Address: Room No.
Street
City, State, ZIP
Phone Number
Person to contact for
Employee Information
Name
Title
Address: Room No.
Street
City, State, ZIP
Phone Number
SS-IRIS(BIl)-Rev. 1 (5/75)
i i i i i i n
EXHIBIT 16
96
-------
SECTIONS CCP
IRIS
Indicate which sections of your organization you plan to include in IRIS and
the number of employees in these sections.
(Circle APProximat:e
one) N°' °f
Employees
Residential Collection Yes
Your Organization Name for this (indicate whether No
it is a department, division, section, unit, etc.)
Commercial Collection
Name
Dead Animal Collection
Name
Disposal
Name
Indicate the number of disposal operations your
organization is including in IRIS.
No. of:
Landfill(s)
Incinerator(s)
Transfer Station(s)
Recycling Operation(s)
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Street Cleaning
Name
Weed & Litter Control
Name
Equipment Maintenance
Name
Administration (including clerical personnel)
Name ^___
Other
Name(s)
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES INCLUDED IN IRIS
Are ALL employees of your organization going to be in-
cluded in IRIS.
SS-IRIS(BI2)-Rev. 1 (5/75)
97
Yes
No
-------
OPERATIONS INFORMATION
1. Is your organization a
2. Does your organization have
3. Do your organization's collection crews
work on a
How does your task system work (e.g.,
when route is finished, when all em-
ployees finish, certain tonnage, etc.)
(Check those that apply)
private solid waste company
municip. solid waste
back-yard collection only
curb-side collection only
both back-yard & curb-side
task system basis only
8-hour basis only
some task and some 8-hour
4.
5.
6.
Check the collection crew size(s) at your
organization
Check the types of collection equipment
used at your organization
List other types of equipment, if used
Indicate frequency of residential
collection
1-man crew
2-man crew
3-man crew
4-man crew
5-man crew
Front-end Loader(s)
Raar-end Loader(s)
Side Loader(s)
Roll-Off(s)
Load-Lugger(s)
Container Delivery Truck(s)
Trailers
once-a-week
twice-a-week
SS-IRIS(BI3)-Rev. 1 (5/75)
98
-------
CURRENT INJURY REPORTING SYSTEM
Describe briefly what happens when an injury occurs:
1. How does an injured employee on a route notify the office
of the accident?
2. Are all injured employees required to visit a doctor or _ Yes
medical facility? No
3. Does your organization have a set of doctors that the _ Yes
injured employee must use? jj
4. Do you have a first aid station? _
_ No
5. Who (what position(s)) now completes the injury reports
at your organization?
6. How strong is the effort to have all injuries reported?
Are injury reports normally completed on first-aid only Yes
injuries? No
7. What investigations are made of injuries? By whom? For
what types of injuries?
SS-IRIS(BI4)-Rev. 1 (5/75)
I I I I I I PI
99
-------
8. Who (what position(s)) REGULARLY reviews completed
injury reports?
9. What types of injury statistics are currently being
compiled by your organization? By whom? Who reviews
them?
SAFETY PROGRAM
1. How many personnel does your organization have assigned
to solid waste safety?
full-time as a part of their job
no. no.
2. a. Do you have a safety committee? Yes
No
b. At what level is it organized? (e.g., departmental,
by district, etc.)
c. Who are its members? How are they chosen? Is it
mandatory to attend?
d. Now often does the committee meet?
e. What is the committee's purpose and activities?
f. Does the committee have punitive power? (e.g.,
can it recommend suspension of employees?)
100
-------
3. a. Who is in charge of your safety program?
b. What does it include?
c. Does your safety program include movies
pamphlets
posters
demonstrations
tail gate
meetings
4. Estimate how much money per year your organization
spends on safety programs. (NOT including the cost
of injuries.)
5. a. Do you have any complaints about your collection Yes
equipment from the standpoint of safety? What
are they?
b. Do you have difficulties getting the safety specifi- Yes
cations you want included in your equipment bids?
What procedure do you follow to get a safety speci-
fication added?
101
-------
c. What kinds of safety devices do you currently
have on your packer trucks?
6. Do your employees belong to a union? What role does Yes
the union play in safety?
7. a. What types of container rules does your organiza-
tion come under?
For Container type? (e.g., no oil drums)
For Container size?
For Container weight?
For Container condition?
For Container location?
b. If you are a private firm, are these municipal
regulations or simply rules which your organi-
zation uses?
c. How well are these rules enforced?
8. What are the injury rates at your organization? (if
you know them)
OSHA Incidence Rate
ANSI Frequency Rate
ANSI Severity Rate
9. Do you think the number of injuries at your organi- greater
zation is greater than or less than the number of
injuries at other organizations in the solid waste ss
management industry?
Why?
102
-------
10. What do you think night be the major causes of injuries
at vour organization?
11. Do you think that with sufficient time and money, any- Yes
thing co.uld be done to reduce accidents at your organi- N
zation?
What could be done?
12. Do you have any plans for improving safety at your or- Yes
ganization in the near future? Please describe.
No
HIRING & TRAINING
1. a. Do you have any hiring qualifications that are Yes
related to safety?
No
What are these?
b. Do you try to hire only experienced personnel? Yes
No
103
-------
c. Do you give pre-employment physicals before Yes
hiring? No
What do they include?
2. a. What type of training do you provide a new-hire?
Does it include more than teaching him the routes? Yes
No
b. What aspects of safety are included in the training?
c. Are there any instructions on how to lift? Yes
No
How is this instruction given?
d. How much time is spent on training a new employee?
e. Is there any follow-up training for experienced Yes
employees?
No
What type of training? For how long?
3. Estimate how many dollars per year your organization
spends on training.
104
-------
MATERIALS TO ATTACH
If you have any of the following materials readily available to attach to
this form, it would greatly improve IRIS1 understanding of your organization.
1. A copy of the Injury Report Form which your organization uses.
2. An organization chart showing the employees to be included in IRIS.
3. A job class list, with accompanying job descriptions (if you have them).
showing job classes to be included in IRIS.
A. A copy of any recent injury statistics you have compiled.
5. Any materials on your safety or training programs.
6. City container regulations.
105
-------
in the system, provides data on operating methods, and describes
the current injury reporting and investigation system.
Other management practices covered include safety programs,
safety-related equipment specifications, container regulations,
and hiring and training. Dollar expenditures on safety and
training activities are requested. Management's opinion on the
relative seriousness and the causes of injuries at that organization
is requested.
This information can also be used to suggest how the output
of analyzed data can best be used by a participant.
3.7 Analysis and Reporting
Data reported by participants during the Field Test was
reviewed by contractor personnel; coded using standard codes,
where necessary; keypunched onto cards, read onto tape, and
edited by an editing program.
Analyses were performed using programs written in ANS-COBOL.
Printouts were in one of two general formats, a single factor
analysis and a "profile." Tables and histograms presenting
selected data are included and discussed in the Tabulation of
Data volume submitted with this Final Report.
An example of the format for a single factor report, as
developed and used in the Field Test is shown in EXHIBIT 17.
Here the factor being analyzed is location, with categories
collection route, incinerator, etc. For each category, the
following 40 values were computed and printed:
106
-------
... INJURY RETORTING AMD ANALYSIS SYSTEM «
SOLID RASTZ. MANAGEMENT
PARTICIPANT - ALL
. . . RC'OflT|Nt PCRlOO - li-|»7» THRU U7-IV71
COST AND LOST OATS C01PUTCO FRQH DATA AVAILABLE AS OF
TYPE OF ANALYSIS - INJURY RATES FOR
OS-OI-7S
LOCATION
FACTOR IClNfi
ANALYitO
III
_.COLLECTI-ON ROUTE
HA'N HOURS u s H A INCIDENCE KATES
OF TOTAL - LOST NONFATAL »/0 DEATHS
CMOSU1C MCCO'UAALC WORKDAY LOST OOIIKDAVS
*»«* .. «- » *
121 131 dl (S>
SEVERITY RATE ANSI ANSI
cflHPUTto usfNS -FBCO.UEIJCT SEVERITY
OSHA DEfiNiTNS MATE MATE
OJRCCT cos
..TRANSFER STATION
OffJCC f TAHO
'. LAhOflLt
OTHER
VNKNOIN.
TOTAL
.2.S22.2Q4
»,7J7
»2,/97 --
,SS<2*..
17.81
la.77 -
10.SI
.38.77.
0.91
1.31-
i.SJ
2i.47
A.I*
*,Q1
IJ.01
»*#*#»
<*)
,6*
********
3 1 Jl 0
?2>20
- ** -
...... 1 tl. f\7 , , 4
2|i&S
32.57
>!» - -
If) (101
tB?S .jj . .,,.,. J1.S3
2it,74 I.JO
S«l,»| i.24
&10(IS 2|»*
*
J2.S4
.01
2»S.76
13307 i|3SO««1
1*»03
EXHIBIT 17
Example .of Single-Factor Analysis; Accidents..by
-------
INJURY REPORT I N »«« ,....
NONFATAL CASES
FIRST WITHOUT LOST
AID WORKDAYS
NO. t NO. - I
«..* ».». ......
..(»» .
Mil
1 111
M«»
-ii 6) mi d7> iio>
1201
LOST PERMANENT
TIME DISABILITY
C*SES CASES
._. t NO. t
'«« » »(««*
|l (22) <21)
DEATHS
-- NO. - »
»
(2*»
o
00
COLLECTION ROUTE
.INCINERATOR
TRANSFER STATION
OFFICE.4 YARD .-
LANDFILL t DUMP
_OTHER
UNKNO*N
971 72.IS
il . .HI
4 .1$
- 40-- 1.1» ,
90 4.7Q
* ..TOTAL
497 72.14
. » ,ai-
S .52
_ J« 1.0S-
2
-21-
13
71.77
111
-1.47-
4.S7
274 26.37
3 27.27 -
I 14.47
2I 3S.OO
2S 27.70
203 IS.12
IM IS. IB
100.00
942 100.00
92 |1.07
451 100.00
SS 27.09
2C> 21.38
-- 1- 14.14-
3 SO.00
-IS -2S.OO-
22 21.11
S4 27.S9
l«t 2«,37 10B 22.91
170 18.30
1-34.34
2 33.33
21 10.00-
10 11.11
19 |.9S
90 11O1
2 2.22
2 .99
410 14.71.
21
1 I.I!
0?
-------
INJURY REPORTING AND ANALYSIS T.YSTCH «
OATC 05»oi»7» . ----- »A«C i-
.. IN3USTMV - SOLID «ASTE
PARTICIPANT . ALL
MEPORT|N6 PERIOD I0-i»73 THRU 07-»«75
COST AND LOST OATS COMPUTED FRO" DATA AVAILABLE AS OF 05-01-75
TYPE Of ANALYSIS » TIM£ LOST AiiO DIRECT COSTS FOR LOCATION
FACTOR »EIN6
ANALYZED
U»
COLLECTIO
.TRANSFER
OFFICE *
.LANDFILL.
OTHER
N ROUTE..
OR
STATION .
YARD
t.OUKP _
ORKOATS
LOST
NO. I
I27|
_-I.HS
M
- 38
266
*Sl
I.fl21
WORKDAYS AT
ANOTHER JOB
NO. I
(28) (2t> (301
_7.S
3
. . 6
H
rJ4 , 1* 100*00
.19
5J _ .. ._* . .
.66
i 71
CALENDAR
OATS LOST
NO. S
C3II *C32>*
»,15» .
26
S«t ...
398
. . 73*
l.fcff
71.36
.21
.. . .M9 .
3.63
A. 71
11.57
TI.IE
CHARGES
NO. 1
(33) (31|
10iQ83 62 Ol
6.000 37.Q8-
(1
- 391
3,
13,
DIR
C
S
S)
Ana -
9A4
090
775
793-
ECT
OJT
S
(J
16
2
1 6
1 I
s . ..,,_,,.._ , . .,
4^f 1 ...._.. ... ...1 I l_ !. . I . .« < 1
6)
16
.33
,9j
TOTAL 7,2JS 100.09
16 100.00
IO|V7I
o
VO
-------
... 1«JU*T «CPO«TtNS AN3
PARTICIPANT - ALL
«£PORTIN6 PERIOD 10-1*71 THRU 07-1971
COST AND LOST OATS CONFUTED rROH DATA AVAILABLE
FACTO* BEING NO. Of AVERAGE MO, Or
- - -ANA.LTZIO' ftORKQAVS UOST- f ER- HORiCDATS -AT
LO$T ftORKOAT CASE ANOTHER JOB
HI 1)7) !}>
__. CoiLEC.T(ON RouTp 11.11 »,na
INCINERATOR j. so
TR*h$fCR STATION IfiOO
Off ICE 1, TAMO (1. 08
LANfiflLL ^ pUlff 10i7)
OTHER
UNKNOaN i I . «
* TOTAL *»* li<0? *«00
M
o
ANALYSIS SfSTEH OATC 05-OI-7J _ PA6C - -<
AS Or 05-OI-7J
ANSI AVERAGE DIRECT
- - AVE" AGf ' " ' COST] PER
SEVERITY RATE INJURY
(39) (SOI
35 16 ' H02 17
6. SO 67.6J
?7«00 Elf 00
16.S8 229.50
1 5 4 , t g _ ,_ 121211 - ~
Igjjj 111 tt
10*11 1J9.76
-------
man-hours of exposure (computed as described in
Section 3.3)
OSHA incidence rates (total recordable, lost
workday, non-fatal without lost workdays, and
death)
a severity rate computed using OSHA definitions.
This is not an OSHA standard value, but proved to
be useful to those using the data. It is computed
as the number of workdays lost per 200,000 man-hours.
an ANSI frequency rate
an ANSI severity rate
direct costs per man-month. This is used for
comparison purposes and represents the total
direct costs associated with that class of injury
per average man-month at risk.
the number of injuries, broken down in two
ways. The first breakdown is by total, OSHA
recordable and ANSI disabling. The percentage
that each represents of the total for all
categories, i.e., all locations in this case,
is also given. For example, OSHA recordable
injuries on the collection route represented
72.45% of all OSHA recordable injuries at all
locations. The second breakdown is by first aid,
non-fatal cases without lost workdays, lost time
cases, permanent disability cases, and deaths.
The percentage given here is for one category.
For example, 48.30% of the injuries on the
collection route were lost time cases.
the number of workdays lost and percentage of the
total workdays lost for all categories
the number of workdays at another job (an OSHA
standard, e.g., light duty) and the corresponding
percentage
the number of calendar days lost, and the corresponding
percentage
time charges, as used in the ANSI system, e.g., 6,000
days for a death, and the corresponding percentage
111
-------
direct costs and the corresponding percentage
the average number of workdays lost per lost
workday case
the average number of workdays at another job
the ANSI Average Severity Rate
the average direct costs per injury
During the Field Test, printouts of this type were sent to
participants and comments were requested. The most frequent
comment was that there was too much information on each category,
arising from the use of both ANSI and OSHA standards. Accordingly,
the results of the Field Test suggest that only one standard should
be used, as discussed in Section 3.2.1.
The format for a profile report is shown in EXHIBIT 18. The
concept of a profile report is still in a developmental stage, and
its objective is to identify those combinations of factors that
are responsible for repeated injuries and to present the information
in a readily comprehended form that shows the relationship of the
factors. Using a single factor presentation is not as directly
useful in many cases. For example, knowing the injury rate for
back strains does not give information on how they happen.
In the profile, the various factors are strung together by
the computer into an english sentence. The number of injuries,
workdays lost, and cost data associated with that profile are also
listed. During the Field Test, the profile printouts used the
same headings as the single-factor printouts, with the exception
112
-------
** INJURY REPORTING AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM
OATc OS-01-75
PAGE
.' INDUSTRY - SOLID BASTE «ANAGEN£NT
PARTICIPANT ALL - ...
REPORTING PERIOD - 07*1*73 THRU o»-i»7i
COST AN0 LOST DAYS COMMUTED F«0* OATA AVAILABLE AS OF OS-OI-7S , . .
TYPE OF ANALYSIS . SUHNARV OF HO. OF INJURIES FOR ACCIDENT PROFILE
-JTROMLC..
..NUMBER-OF INJURIES
0 S M A
RECORDABLE
NO. S
Ill
ANSI . FIRST
. TOTAL- - -RECORDABLE -- DISABLING AID
NO, S NO. S NO. S NO. S
_»t»t t. *»» *».-«*«_« -«-«*« -»!
(Ill (121 (III (HI (IS) (141 (J7) (in
ITHOUT LOST
NO, S NO.
(If) (201 {211
i n^Y
TIKE
CASES
I
DISABILITY
CASES
NO, S
(23} (2*1
DEATHS
NO. f
I2H (241
OVCRCXERTION »M|LC LIFTING iNJyRlNC ARM RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
--- .. . fr --- ,J0 -- J ---- ,J4 --- . -- 2 ---- ,17 --- z~ ICiOO
iZO.-OCT
(-INJURING*R 1ST. RESULTING-INSPRAIN/STRAIN
S ,3o i ,24 2 .17 2 10.00 I 20,00
OVEREXERT i*aV"f N|LCLIFTING INJURING BACK RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
-- ..-S.3J 73 --4,22 40 S.I2- -- IS 17.05 1»
2 10,00
OyCMCXCliTlON *N|LC- LIFTIN6 .INJu«IN6 ABOOHEN RESULTING IN SPRAiN/STRA;N ------------
.18 7 .40 S .43 1 12. SO 2 2&.00
42.50
P OVCMEXEMTION IN|L( LIFTIN6 INJUK|NC 6EHITALIA,G«0|N RESULTING SPRAIN/STRAIN
UJ ... ,1| 7 .40- * .,3* -- I 12.SQ 3
?_*E«C*£«T10N.«NILt_.tirJlN6.IN Ju(llNG..-HULTJPLE_PARTS-RESULTIN6_JN._SPRA IN/STRAIN
i .JO J .24 ) .24 2 10.00
OVCREXERTION «HILC' USING HAND TOoL"iNjuRiNc BACK RESULTING IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
__ 1 ,Jg. J ,24 J .24 2- -MO.00
-16Q.OO
40(00
-40.00-
__L«KCI.iJ.Tt/SIJHG.>HILt._.STANOlNS/l»ALKIUS_IHJURlNS.--ARM RESULTING IN .._JNSECT_B.IJE/STING_
* >>4 J >24 I .0* 3 SO.00 2 33,33
ANIHAL BlTC/SCRATcH WHILE CARRYING INJURING LEG RESULTING IN ANIMAL BITE
-- S ,3o 2 ,17 3 40.00 2--«0»00"
ANIflAL-BlTE/SCRATcH RHILE _STAN01NG/iALK1NC INJURING - LEG-RESULTING |N ANlHAL-BlTE
4 .34 4 100.00
STEPPED ON SHARP OBJ RHILE CARRYING INJURING FOOT RESULTING IN CUT/LACER/PUNCTURE
? .1| -6 ,13 I ,0» 2- 2B.57 1 -S7,M-
STCfPCO.ON..SHARP.OBJ HUEUlFTlNG-INJURING FOOT RESULTING JH -CUT/LACER/PUNCTURE
* ,34 1 .31 2 .17 2 33.33 2 33,33
I 14,47
-I11.2»-
2 33.33
STEPPEB ON SHARP OBJ HHILE STANDING/BALKING INJURING fOOT RESULTING IN CUT/LAC£R/PUNcTU8£
.- . . ., .,...» ,S<, S .13 3 .24 H HH,<(H 2- -22,22
-333t33
EXHI.BIT.JL.8._..
Example of Profile Analysis; Four-Factor Accident Profile
-------
INJURy REPORTING AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM OATc OS«OI-7f PACE
INDUSTRY . SOLIP BASTE
REPORTING PERIOD 07-J»7J THRU 0**IV7<
. COST AND LOST OATS COMPUTED FROM DATA AVAILABLE AS OF OS-OI-7S
TYPC Of ANALYSIS T|M£ LOST AND DIRECT COSTS FOR ACCIDENT PROFILE
P«OfUC .BOR,ICOAYS WORKDAYS AT-- CALENDAR ... .TINE DIRECT
LOST ANOTHER JOB DAYS LOST CHA«6£S COSTS
«0. S -NO. I ._. NO. I NO. « ( -_-i
* «., ««» » ....« .».« »««.. »»
HI 1211 1211 .... <2ti (jo>._. (ju (32) |33»- (3i)
_9XtAEXCftTiaN.IH|LC-.LIFTING. INJURINGARM..RESULTING- IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
H .14 |V .15 ,43
OVEREXEftTlON *H|Lt LIFTIN6 INJURING »«IST RESULTIN6 IN SPRAIN/STRAIN
-6^-.04 » .07
_ovciicxcjiUON-»HiLcLIFTING-INJURINGBACK.RESULTIMC-IN... SPRAIN/STRAIN.
!» »«** 1,252 »«5B 61,112 4.SS
bvEREXERTION fMi'Lt UTTING INJURING ABDOMEN RESULTING IN SPRAlh/STRA ]N
,S0 41 .17
_ P.YE8tXERllOH..IHIH.LIFT I Nt-lKJuRtNG-~ CfNJ TALI A, CRO|N-RESULT INS -SPRAIN/STRAIN
II >U 23 .16 lto?3 .M
OVEREIEMTION iM|Lc LIFTINC INJURING MULTIPLE PARTS RESULTING |N SPRAIN/STRAIN
»* .»! .... . 21 .14 -.- -471 .09
....PVCREURT ION. KHUC... USING HAND TOOL -INJURING.. BACK-RESULT I KG. I«... SPRAIN/STRAIN
I* '! 2f t22 477 .Of
INSECT BITE/STING «HILE STANDING/«ALKIIIG INJURING ARM RESULTING IN INSECT BITE/STING
1 .0| 1 .01 J-71 .02-
AJllHAL.BlJE/SC«ATcH JH»LE._CARRrlNG- |NJURING._LEG.J«ESULT1NG IN.. ANIMAL 8ITE-
79 .01
ANIMAL BlTE/SCRATcH MILE STAN0 INC/WALK ING INJURING LEG RESULTING IN ANIMAL BlTE
STEf PEO .OH $MA»f.OBJ >MlLE..CAKRtlNG.lNjUKIKG _ TOOT.. RESULTING IN CUT/LACER/P.UWcTuRC
> >0*| I .01 2l2 .03
STEPPED ON JHA*P OBJ «HJLE LIFTING INJURING FOOT RESULTING IN CUT/LACER/PUNCTURE
, .... ... 4 ,os : B .04 246 .03
..STCPPEO'ON SHARP OBJ .WHILE ...STANOING/»ALKING. INJURING . FOOT. RESULTING..JN «UT/L»CER/PUNCTURE
* .07 7 .OS 102 -.OS
-------
of the rates, which cannot be computed for profiles because no
exposure data is available. EXHIBIT 18 shows a four factor profile,
for the factors accident type (e.q., overexertion), activity (e.g.,
lifting), part of body (e.g., shoulder), and injury description
(e.g., strain/sprain).
With further development, any combination of factors can be
printed out as a profile, so that injuries associated with particular
kinds of container, e.g., plastic bags, type of waste, etc., can be
examined.
It is recommended that fewer headings be used, namely the
number and percent of total for OSHA recordable injuries, and
the number, percent of total, and average for both workdays lost
and direct costs. This will simplify the examination of the
printouts.
The following printouts were prepared during the Field Test
in order to test feasibility, in single factor format unless
otherwise indicated:
Part of Body
Nature of Injury
Activity (single factor and profile)
Accident Type (single factor and profile)
Characteristics of Waste (profile)
Equipment Type
Day of Week
115
-------
Hour of Day
Accident Site
Crew Size
Number of Hours on Job Prior to Injury
Job Classification
Division
Race
Age
Height
Weight
Education
Type of Employment (e.g., temporary)
3 . 8 Telephonic^ System
One major departure from the remainder of the Field Test
involved the development and testing of a telephonic injury
information system. In this system, data on injuries is telephoned
by the participant (the reporter) to a central office where trained
coding staff (coders) enter data into the computer. Data on
employees and other basing data is, for the most part, collected
on forms by mail.
Collection of injury information from the participants over
the telephone by a trained central office coder offers the following
specific potential advantages compared to the use of an Injury
Report Form:
116
-------
(1) While the IRF must include all possible alternatives
and thus be rather cumbersome, the telephone conversation
need only proceed along those lines applicable to the
specific accident. For example, if the accident did
not involve a fall, none of the questions regarding the
location of the fall need be asked on the telephone,
while they must be included in an IRF. The reporter
need not be provided with a list of all the multiple
choices available as a response to a given question.
The reporter can be allowed to state his choice in
his own language, and the recording person can then
focus in on the appropriate multiple choice selection,
by asking supplementary questions if necessary.
(2) The coder can interpret the response of the reporter
to a specific question, and ensure that the question
was understood.
A substantial amount of training is required to prevent
inappropriate answers on an IRF, such as the response
"he hurt his leg" to the question "what was the employee
doing at the time he was injured." On the telephone,
the question can be repeated and rephrased to ensure
that the answer is responsive. This avoids the need
for careful and longwinded phrasing of questions on
the IRF, arising from the desire to be unambiguous.
The telephonic system also cuts down on the amount of
training that it is necessary to provide for participant
staff responsible for reporting injuries.
(e) The coder can input the data directly to a time-sharing
computer, via a CRT terminal, while the reporter is on
the line. This allows the CRT screen to be used to
list questions and multiple choice selections for use
by the coder. Data can be edited as entered and
.inconsistencies can be displayed, e.g., the name and
Social Security number given for an injured employee
can be checked against an employee file. The computer
can then display on the CRT a summary of the injury
data for review by the coder, and can generate a hard
copy of the injury summary that can be mailed to the
participant.
A small scale trial of the telephonic method was made using
participant 11. A toll-free telephone number was made available,
and the modifications were explained, at a special training
117
-------
session, to the participant staff responsible for reporting
injuries. These reporters were furnished with copies of the IRF
to use as reminders of what questions would be asked, and the
coder took down the data on an IRF since the computer program
for on-line data entry had not yet been developed. No difficulty
was experienced in taking down data during the three months that
the system operated. Each telephone call lasted 2-3 minutes.
Periodic reports were made to a supervisor at the participant,
who checked tha.t no injuries went unreported. Upon receipt of
telephone notification of an injury, a Time Lost and Cost Data
form was made up containing a brief identification of the injury
(employee's name, Social Security number, date of injury, etc.).
This sheet was mailed to the participant to collect time lost and
cost data.
This system was very well accepted by this participant. Each
of the reporters (the foremen) expressed the view that telephone
reporting was simpler, faster, and more fun. It is therefore
highly recommended that the telephonic method be considered for
a future larger scale study.
118
-------
IV. CONCLUSIONS: FEASIBILITY OF
INJURY INFORMATION SYSTEM
The conclusion reached as a result of the Field Test
is that an injury reporting and analysis system for
the solid waste management industry is feasible.
During the Field Test, each element of an injury information
and analysis system was formulated, tested, and revised where
necessary (often many times) until a workable method was developed,
These elements provided for the definition and collection of data
on injuries, employee characteristics, work practices, equipment,
and other factors relevant to injury rate. The elements were
assembled into a working system that was tested and found capable
of yielding analyzed data. Specifically, using 15 participating
solid waste agencies of widely different characteristics and
geographical locations, it was found that:
the Injury Report Form developed (which is partially
custom designed for each individual participant) can
be completed on time and accurately by participant
staff at the foreman or clerk level, without on-site
training by contractor personnel.
the system for collecting time lost and direct cost
data, which involves interaction between a central
office (during the Field Test, the contractor) and
each participant, worked well even though some
injuries continue to accumulate costs for many
months.
participants were able to provide the required data
on employees and equipment. A form by which start-
up data on employees can be collected proved workable
and can be completed by each employee working for a
participant which does not maintain detailed and
easily accessible personnel records.
119
-------
participants will provide update data on employees
and equipment in a timely and comprehensive manner.
participants are able to comprehend and use the
printouts of analyzed data.
The operation of the system to provide analyzed data was
primarily directed towards establishing feasibility. Because of
the scale of the Field Test, it was not possible to generate a
large amount of analyzed data that is immediately applicable.
However, some significant findings were made and are described
and discussed in a companion volume to this Final Report, entitled
Tabulation of Data. Sufficient analyzed data was produced to
demonstrate that the system will provide information that can:
(a) motivate management to take action on safety, by
enabling realistic comparisons to be made between
different participants. Each participant can
compare injury rates, for specific aspects of his
operations, with other participants. Since the
"best" participants have an injury rate (for
certain areas) that can be five or more times
lower than the "worst," the attitude that injuries
are inherent to this industry becomes difficult
for management to maintain.
(b) point out areas that need priority action, and
justify, on a cost basis, the implementation of
accident reduction measures.
(c) give information necessary to select from the safety
viewpoint collection methods and other work practices,
e.g., the use of intermediate containers.
(d) be used to evaluate the effectiveness of accident
countermeasures.
In the initial stages of the Field Test, the system relied
heavily upon contractor staff to collect data from participants. In
accordance with the goal to develop a system in which participants
would feed information into a central office, as discussed in
120
-------
Section 1.3, the later stages of the Field Test were directed
towards the development of the required forms and procedures.
The forms and procedures for an Injury Reporting and Information
«
System for Solid Waste Management (IRIS) are described in a
companion volume to this Final Report, entitled User's Manual.
Acceptance by the 15 participants in the Field Test of forms
and procedures similar to those in the User's Manual has been
excellent. The participants have remained in the Field Test
through a very trying period in which continuous changes were
being made in the forms and procedures, and in which there was
a large delay before it was possible to return analyzed data to
the participants.
A variation in which injury information was telephoned to
the central office, rather than sent on an Injury Report Form,
was developed and tested with one participant. This variation
proved to be highly successful and of benefit both to the
participant and the central office staff. This variation should
be followed up if possible and seriously considered for use in
IRIS
During the Field Test it was found that there is ample
evidence of high demand for the type of information that could
be provided by IRIS. The following types of organizations
requested information from the contractor:
the participating solid waste agencies (requested
specific analyses and also general information to
be provided to higher management).
121
-------
other non-participating solid waste agencies (requested
information on a large variety of topics, including
crew size, task system, backyard vs curbside collection,
use of plastic bags, etc.).
a regional state-sponsored solid waste management agency
(requested consultation on how to organize a regional
solid waste injury information system in their area).
a User Requirements Committee set up under a National
Science Foundation contract directed towards the
development of equipment standards for refuse collection.
the ANSI Z245 Committee, working on safety standards
for refuse collection.
a National Safety Council group working on safety manuals
related to work practices in the solid waste management
industry -
workmen's compensation insurance companies interested in
methods of analyzing and presenting data in a form that
would help their clients control injuries.
a manufacturer developing new equipment.
many individuals and groups concerned with safety in
general.
The conclusion reached as a result of the Field Test is that
an injury reporting and analysis system, of the type described in
a companion volume as an Injury Reporting and Information System
for Solid Waste Management, is feasible and that there is a need
for the information that would be generated.
122
-------
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following is a selected list of references reviewed
during this study- The list is not meant to be comprehensive,
but it may well be a start towards a comprehensive bibliography
of occupational health and safety in the solid waste management
industry which at present does not exist.
The references here cover only occupational safety and health
in the solid waste management industry, and related topics such as
training. In particular, articles on public health and safety
(e.g., vector control) and on hazardous waste are not included
unless they include material on occupational safety or safe
working procedures.
The references are divided into two sets: 1) those with known
authors which are listed alphabetically by author; and 2) those
whose authors are anonymous, which are listed alphabetically by
title.
KNOWN AUTHORS
1. Anderson, J.P. Occupational injury of sanitation employees
in municipalities of varying size. Unpublished thesis,
1973. 26 p.
2. Boggus, R.F. Operation responsible (implementation schedule).
Harbridge House, Inc. Los Angeles, 1971.
3. Boggus, R.F. Operation responsible/safe refuse collection.
Public Works, July 1972, p. 51.
4. Cimino, J.A. Health and safety in the solid waste industry.
Proceedings; New York Academy of Sciences Section of
Environmental Sciences, May 1970.
5. Cimino, J.A. Health and safety in the solid waste management
industry. American Journal of Public Health, 65(1): 38-46,
Jan. 1975.
6. Compton, D.M.J., R.J. Hasterlik and K. King. A pilot study
in the field of occupational health in the solid waste
management industry- Sponsored by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
under Contract No. CPE-70-114. June 1972.
7. Costello, C. and R. Lascoe. Are your city employees safe on
the job? Nation's Cities, 9(5): 16-17, May 1971.
123
-------
8. Diamond, A. Worst risk firm sets insurance rates. Solid
Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 11(5): 48-52,
May 1968.
9. Dunford, W. APWA Ontario Chapter accident survey. APWA
Reporter, Feb. 1973, p. 16-17.
10. Dunford, W. Collection personnel have highest accident rate,
Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 16(4): 14+,
Apr. 1973.
11. Gellin, G.A. and M.R. Zavon. Occupational dermatoses of
solid waste workers. Archives of Environmental Health,
20: 510-515, Apr. 1970.
12. Gershowitz, H. New safety legislation provides uniform
warnings for equipment. Solid Waste Management/Refuse
Removal Journal, 14(7): 28, 66, 68, July 1971.
13. Greco, J.R. Proposed safety standards for rear-loading
collection vehicles. Solid Waste Management/Refuse
Removal Journal, 16(9): 8+, Sept. 1973.
14. Greco, J.R. Proposed safety standards for side-loading
packer vehicles. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal
Journal, 16(10): 23+, Oct. 1973.
15. Greco, J.R. Proposed safety standards for stationary
compaction equipment. Solid Waste Management/Refuse
Removal Journal, 16(11): 18, 67-69, Nov. 1973.
16. Hammer, D.I., J.F. Finklea, L.E. Priester, J.E, Keil, S.H.
Sandifer and K. Bridbord. Polychlorinated biphenyl
residues in the plasma and hair of refuse workers.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 1(1): 83, Apr. 1972.
17. 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, 1971.
18. King, K. How to calculate injury rates. Waste Age, Mar.
1975.
19. King, K. The use of accident statistics. National Safety
Congress Transactions, 8: 89-91, 1974.
20. Kuhn, A.J. and R. Lascoe. Cities and safety. National
Safety News, 97(11): 32, Nov. 1967.
124
-------
21. LeSage, F. Well designed vehicles need well trained crews.
Sanitation Industry Year Book; 40, 42, 44, 48, 1970.
22. Lofton, S. Garbage job has hazards. Herald, Feb. 21, 1969,
Augusta, Ga.
23. Lovested, G.E. Training materials for crane operators.
National Safety News, 105(4): 59, Apr. 1972.
24. MacKay, B.B., Jr. Santa Glaus may be denied used of air
space this Christmas. Solid Waste Management/Refuse
Removal Journal, 15(12): 8, Dec. 1972.
25. MacKay, B.B., Jr. Training pays dividends in reduced
injuries. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal,
16(2) : 30, Feb. 1973.
26. Marceleno, T. Building safety into refuse collection.
APWA Reporter, Feb. 1973, p. 18.
27. Marceleno, T. Industry joins with government on safety
program. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal,
14(12): 34, Dec. 1971.
28. Markam, J.W. An occupational health service in a transport
and cleansing department. Presented at the 69th Annual
Meeting, Institute of Public Cleansing, Blackpool, England,
June 6-9, 1967. 15 p.
29. O'Dette, R.G. Health hazards associated with solid waste
management. Unpublished manuscript, Nov. 24, 1969- 24 p.
30. Ohanesian, J. Accident prevention. Solid Waste Management/
Refuse Removal Journal, 12(7): 60, July 1969.
31. Sanders, T. What's all this noise about noise. Waste Age,
1974.
32. Sanders, T. Basic elements of a sound accident prevention
program. Waste Age, May/June 1973, p. 122+-
33. Sliepcevich, E.M. Effect of work conditions upon the health
of the uniformed sanitationmen of New York City. Springfield
College, Springfield, Mass., June 1955
34. Star, S. Safety for refuse collection systems. Proceedings;
5tn Annual Seminar & Equipment Show, San Francisco, Nov.
1967, p. 33-41.
125
-------
35. Star, S. Safety standards for solid waste management.
Public Works, 102(4): 97-98, Apr. 1971.
36. State of California, Department of Industrial Relations,
Bureau of Labor Statistics and Research. Disabling work
injuries in refuse collection. Iri Work Injuries in
California, San Francisco, 1967, p. 3-6.
37- Stone, L.C. (of USPHS; Communication to Mr. John Wheeler,
Solid Waste Programs). Case histories of death associated
with solid wastes disposal. Sept. 7, 1967.
38. Stone, R. One-fourth of employee's injuries due to back
sprains. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal,
15(7): 30, 56, July 1972.
39. U.S. Public Health Service, Solid Waste Management Office,
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Solid waste
handling - health and safety. Cincinnati, 1968.
40. Van Beek, G. Apathy? Neglect? Poor Management? Waste Age,
1973.
41. Van Beek, G. A really big show!I Waste Age, Aug. 1974.
42. Van Beek, G. Basic elements of safety organization. Waste
Age, 2(5); 26-38, 41, Sept./Oct. 1974.
43. Van Beek, G. Employee safety in the solid wastes industry.
Public Works, 99(12): 74, Dec. 1968.
44. Van Beek, G. Personnel: accident prevention. National
Safety News, 99(4): 41+, Apr. 1969.
45. Van Beek, G. Poor OSHA!! Waste Age, May 1975.
46. Van Beek, G. Public Lav,- 91-596. Waste Age, Oct. 1974.
47. Van Beek, G. Safety meetings - what do I talk about?
Waste Age, Apr. 1975.
48. Van Beek, G. Stationary compactors. Waste Age, Dec. 1974.
49. Van Beek, G. Storage and handling of hazardous wastes.
Waste Age, Nov. 1974.
50. Van Beek, G. The Milwaukee story - one year later. Waste
Age, July 1974.
126
-------
51. Van Beek, G. The world's greatest safety show. Waste Age,
Sept. 1974.
52. Vanderweld, J. Slipshod operations have no future in this
industry. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal,
12(9): 8, 86, 89, 93, 100, Sept. 1969.
53. Van Kleek, L.W. Safety practices at sanitary landfills.
Public Works, 90(3): 113, Aug. 1969.
54. Wagner, L.E. Chemical wastes: stressing safety makes
extensive recovery viable. Solid Waste Management/Refuse
Removal Journal, 18(6): 12-13, 40, June 1975.
55. Wener, S.D. IRIS - A new service. Nation's Cities, Sept.
1975.
56. Wingerter, E.J. Coordinating productivity, conservation,
and safety- Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal,
17(18): 38, 48, Aug. 1974.
57. Wingerter, E.J. NSWMA group to stress equipment safety.
Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 15(2):
34, 72, Dec. 1972.
58. Zasso, B. Employee accidents drain economic, human resources
Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 16(2) : 32,
70, Feb. 1973.
59. Advice on fighting dump fire hard to find. Public Works,
101(3): 91-92, Mar. 1970.
60. A medical guide to driver selection. Solid Waste Management/
Refuse Removal Journal, 14(10): 52, 60, Oct. 1971.
61. Construction industry and public employee. National Safety
Congress Transactions, V. 8, Chicago, National Safety
Council, 1969.142 p.
62. Driver safety standards cut accident potential. Solid Waste
Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 17(12): 40-41, 71,
Dec. 1974.
63. Driver testing: written and road examinations. Sanitation
Industry Yearbook, 1975, p. 56, 76, 78, 80, 82.
64. Early compliance urged on EPA noise standard. Solid Waste
Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 18(8): 70, Aug. 1975.
127
-------
65. Equipment danger markings. Solid Waste Management/Refuse
Removal Journal, 13(7): 6-7, July 1970.
66. Industry safety. National Safety Congress Transactions,
V. 12, Chicago, National Safety Council, 1969.128 p.
67. Injury record tops all others in country. Solid Waste
Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 12(1): 10-11, 26,
32-34, 44, Jan.-Feb. 1969,
68. In Michigan safety standards for packer units updated.
Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 17(7) :
52-53, 59, July 1974.
69. Mission responsible. National Safety News, 105(4): 49-51,
Apr. 1972.
70. More thoughts on safety in the industry - tools, fires,
putrescibles, trucks, clothing and psychology. Solid
Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 15(8): 44,
66-67, Aug. 1972.
71. Municipal accident prevention. The American City, 77:
106, Jan. 1962.
72. National association sponsors regional safety seminars.
Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 16(1) :
98, Jan. 1973.
73. New EPA program. Refuse Report, (International City
Management Association) 1(3), May/June 1975.
74. New safety decals for disposal equipment. Solid Waste
Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 14(11): 66, Nov. 1971,
75. NSWMA to inaugurate safety group program. Solid Waste
Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 15(5): 44, 160,
May 1972.
76. Protective clothing. Institute for Public Cleansing,
Blackpool, England, 1965. 6 p.
77. Public employee safety guide for refuse collection.
National Safety Council, 1974.
78. Recommended lamp and reflector locations. Solid Waste
Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 14(6): 42, June 1971.
79. Refuse collection in municipalities. Data sheet 618,
Chicago, National Safety Council, 1969. 12 p.
128
-------
80. Refuse pickup personnel injuries are nine times national
industrial average. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal
Journal, 18(1) : 10-18, 48, Jan. 1975.
81. Regional seminars take up occupational safety rules. Solid
Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 16(2): 40, Feb.
1973.
82. Safety checklist: a handy guide for evaluating a solid waste
contractor's program for employee protection. Sanitation
Industry Yearbook^ 1974, p. 10+.
83. Safety seminar scheduled for Boston in March. Solid Waste
Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 16(3): 80, Mar. 1973.
84. Safety standards for solid waste management. Governmental
Refuse Collection & Disposal Association, Committee of
Safety Standards, California, 1969.
85. San Francisco Bay Area adopts guide for handling medical
refuse. Solid Waste Management/Refuse Removal Journal,
17(12): 18-19, 56, Dec. 1974.
86. Solid waste industry begins long trek down.... National
Safety News, Jan. 1975, p. 86.
87. Some vital safety rules. Solid Waste Management/Refuse
Removal Journal, 15(3): 74-75, Mar. 1972.
88. The human factor from the worker's angle. Solid Waste
Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 13(12): 14, 32, Dec.
1970.
89. Training makes a difference/sanitary landfill operations.
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
90. Training seminar will study noise control. Solid Waste
Management/Refuse Removal Journal, 17(12): 47, Dec. 1974.
91. Why make a tough job tougher? News Review, Nov. 20, 1973,
Roseburg, Oregon.
129
-------
INJURY REPORTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEM (IRIS) FIELD TEST
VOLUME II: TABULATION OF DATA
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. OVERALL DIMENSIONS OF THE INJURY PROBLEM 6
III. DEPENDENCE OF INJURY RATE ON SELECTED FACTORS . . 8
3.1 General Description of Injury 9
3.2 Factors Associated with Time, Day and
Season 11
3.3 Employee Characteristics 12
3.4 Factors Related to the Work Environment ... 13
IV. COMPARISONS BETWEEN INJURY EXPERIENCE OF
DIFFERENT PARTICIPANTS 17
V. DISCUSSION 21
ill
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Details of Participants in Field Test .
Page
23
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2 Analysis of Injuries by Accident Type
(First Accident) 24
EXHIBIT 3 Analysis of Injuries by Injury
Description 25
EXHIBIT 4 Analysis of Injuries by Part of Body .... 26
EXHIBIT 5 Analysis of Injuries by Day of Week 27
EXHIBIT 6 Rates- for OSHA Recordable Injuries and
Workdays Lost as a Function of Day of
the Week 28
EXHIBIT 7 Rates for OSHA Recordable Injuries and
Workdays Lost as a Function of Hours on
Job Prior to Injury 28
EXHIBIT 8 Analysis of Injuries by Hours on Job Prior
to Injury 29
EXHIBIT 9 Analysis of Injuries by Employee Age at
Time of Injury 30
EXHIBIT 10 Rates for OSHA Recordable Injuries and
Workdays Lost as a Function of Age 31
EXHIBIT 11 Rates for OSHA Recordable Injuries and
Workdays Lost as a Function of Education
(Grade) 31
EXHIBIT 12 Analysis of Injuries by Employee Educational
Level (Last Grade Completed) 32
EXHIBIT 13 Analysis of Injuries by Employee Height ... 33
EXHIBIT 14 Rates for OSHA Recordable Injuries and
Workdays Lost as a Function of Height .... 34
EXHIBIT 15 Rates for OSHA Recordable Injuries and
Workdays Lost as a Function of Weight .... 34
IV
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)
Analysis of Injuries by Employee Weight
Page
35
EXHIBIT 16
EXHIBIT 17 Analysis of Injuries by Basis of
Employment 36
EXHIBIT 18 Analysis of Injuries by Occupational
Group 37
EXHIBIT 19 Analysis of Injuries by Division of
Employment 38
EXHIBIT 20 Analysis of Injuries by Location of
Injury 39
EXHIBIT 21 Analysis of Injuries by Crew Size 40
EXHIBIT 22 Analysis of Injuries by Activity Being
Performed at Time of Injury (With
Percentages) 41
EXHIBIT 23 Analysis of Injuries by Activity Being
Performed at Time of Injury (With Rates) . . 42
*»
EXHIBIT 24 Analysis of Injuries by Type of
Equipment 43
EXHIBIT 25 OSHA Incidence Rates for Total Recordable
Cases 44
EXHIBIT 26 Comparison of ANSI Frequency Rates by
Participant 45
EXHIBIT 27 Comparison of ANSI Severity Rates by
Participant 46
EXHIBIT 28 Comparison Between Each of 5 Major
Participants and Average of all
Participants for all Injuries 47
EXHIBIT 29 Comparison Between Each of 5 Major
Participants (01, 03, 06, 09, 11) and
Average (AV) of all Participants for
Location - Collection Route 48
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)
EXHIBIT 30
EXHIBIT 31
EXHIBIT 32
EXHIBIT 33
EXHIBIT 34
EXHIBIT 35
EXHIBIT 36
EXHIBIT 37
EXHIBIT 38
Comparison Between Each of 5 Major
Participants (01, 03, 06, 09, 11) and
Average (AV) of all Participants for
Accident Type - Fall to Same Level
Comparison Between Each of 5 Major
Participants (01, 03, 06, 09, 11) and
Average (AV) of all Participants for
Accident Type - Overexertion ....
. . 49
Comparison Between Each of 5 Major
Participants (01, 03, 06, 09, 11) and
Average (AV) of all Participants for
Accident Type - Step on Sharp Object
Comparison Between Each of 5 Major
Participants (01, 03, 06, 09, 11) and
Average (AV) of all Participants for
Injury Type - Foreign Object in Eye .
Comparison Between Each of 5 Major
Participants (01, 03, 06, 09, 11) and
Average (AV) of all Participants for
Activity - Carrying
Comparison Between Each of 5 Major
Participants (01, 03, 06, 09, 11) and
Average (AV) of all Participants for
Activity - Standing/Walking
Comparison Between Each of 5 Major
Participants (01, 03, 06, 09, 11) and
Average (AV) of all Participants for
Activity - Lifting
Comparison Between Each of 5 Major
Participants (01, 03, 06, 09, 11) and
Average (AV) of all Participants for
Activity - Mounting/Dismounting . . .
50
. . 51
. . 52
53
54
55
56
Comparison Between Each of 5 Major
Participants (01, 03, 06, 09, 11) and
Average (AV) of all Participants for
Activity - Riding
57
VI
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This Tabulation of Data is submitted in conjunction with
the Final Report on Contract 68-03-0231, "Field Test of an
Injury Reporting and Analysis System for the Solid Waste
Management Industry," and contains information relating to
injury rates in this industry. This information was produced
as a by-product of the Field Test as described in the Final
Report. The primary objective of the Field Test was to develop
and test the elements of a system which would yield analyzed
data that could be used:
(a) by line management of solid waste agencies, to
identify, set priorities for, and evaluate injury
reduction programs;
(b) to motivate line management of solid waste agencies
to assign a high priority to injury reduction
programs in general;
(c) by national groups responsible for setting standards
for equipment and work practices in the solid waste
management industry; and
(d) by the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to set
priorities for and monitor programs of injury
control as related to productivity and work
practices.
The analysis of data performed during the Field Test was
primarily directed towards testing whether data could be collected
and analyzed to give information of the types desired, and towards
developing the methods and procedures that could be used in a
later larger scale prospective study of injuries in this industry.
-------
However, it did prove possible to produce a limited amount of
analyzed data that is of some interest, and is thus presented
in this volume. The data is limited both in scale (approximately
1,500 injuries in all, occurring to approximately 3,000 employees
of 15 solid waste management agencies) and in the range of
analyses presented. A large number of factors were recorded
concerning each employee, each injury, and various equipment
characteristics and work practices. It was not possible to
produce analyses of the relationship of each factor to injury
rate, still less each combination of factors. Rather, a selection
was made of which analyses to perform. The choice of type of
analysis is an important part of the use of this type of data,
and the study of which analyses are most useful is still proceeding.
An important objective of the injury reporting and analysis
system is to be able to make valid comparisons and thus to be
able to observe differences in injury experience. These differences
are of great importance. If one solid waste agency has an injury
rate that is much lower than another, in a specific area where
valid comparisons can be made, then it is immediately apparent
that progress is possible. In order to observe these differences,
the injury reporting and analysis system developed in the Field
Test has several novel features. Two of the most important are
that the work environment is broken down into various aspects
applicable to this specific industry, and that the exposure of
employees to these aspects is quantitatively estimated.
-------
Breaking down the work environment into aspects overcomes
some of the serious limitations of the conventional method of
collecting and analyzing injury statistics. In the conventional
method, injury data is usually collected for an entire establishment
(work place) and covers some large and loosely defined group of
employees. The overall injury rate for this group is then
calculated, in terms of injuries per 200,000 man-hours or some
other standard, and a limited number of breakdowns of the injury
experience are given, usually in terms of factors applicable to all
industries, e.g., accident typefall to same level or fall to
different level. This type of data collection and presentation
has two weaknesses. One is that it is difficult to compare the
injury experience of different solid waste agencies, since the
type of work performed and the nature of the work force differ
from one agency to another. This leads to the very serious
consequence that the power of injury statistics to motivate action
to reduce injuries is greatly reduced. It was found in a Pilot
Study, performed before the Field Test and referred to in the
Final Report, that most managements of solid waste agencies with
injury rates far higher than average believed that their injury
experience was normal for the industry, or, when pressed, stated
that the high injury rate was due to the special nature of their
work, climate, employees or other circumstances. The second
weakness of the conventional method of data collection and
presentation is that it does not break down the work environment
-------
and the injury experience in a way that can be used to identify
areas that need attention or to document the likely benefits of
injury reduction programs. A suitable choice of the aspects into
which the work environment is broken down can help remedy both
weaknesses. For example, one aspect used is the concept of
activity. By activity is meant the specific operation or task
being performed by the injured employee at the time he was injured.
By breaking down the workday into activities, the injury rate can
be compared for each activity, so that the relative hazards of
each activity can be examined and priorities can be set for injury
reduction programs. In addition, by the breakdown into activities
it is possible to realistically compare the injury experience of
different participants by comparing the injury rates associated
with performing exactly the same task.
Exposure data is required in order to realistically compare
the various aspects of the work environment. Exposure data, also
referred to in the Final Report as basing data, means the man-hours
or equipment-hours at risk for various activities. For example,
it is not enough to know what fraction of injuries happen to
workers while carrying refuse containers. It is also necessary
to know how many man-hours are spent carrying refuse containers.
The injury risk (injury rate per man-hour) can then be computed
and used, for example, to compare the injury experience of different
solid waste agencies for workers performing this same task.
In order to collect exposure data it is necessary to collect
data on all employees, whether injured or not.
-------
The methods developed for collecting both injury and exposure
data are discussed in detail in the Final Report. An example of
the procedure used to compute the injury risk associated with an
employee characteristic, height over 6 feet, is given on page 68
of the Final Report.
Cost data was also collected and included in the analysis,
since knowledge of the cost associated with injuries is required
to motivate management and to justify injury reduction programs
such as modifications to equipment, work practices or protective
clothing.
The 15 participants in the Field Test were selected, using
the procedures described in the Final Report, to cover a range
of geographical locations, number of employees, ownership,
collection methods, services provided, etc., shown in EXHIBIT 1.
Analyses were performed using programs written in ANSI-COBOL.
Printouts of analyzed data were in one of two general formats,
a single factor analysis and a "profile," as discussed in the
Final Report.
-------
II. OVERALL DIMENSIONS OF THE INJURY PROBLEM
By pooling the injury experience of the participants in
the Field Test it is possible to see some of the dimensions of
the injury problem in the solid waste management industry, at
least for the limited sample (approximately 3,000 employees)
covered by the Field Test.
The OSHA injury incidence rate was 39. This means
that about 4 out of 10 employees are being injured
per year (not including first aid injuries). It
is interesting to compare this rate with the OSHA
incidence rates reported in the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) 1972 Survey of Occupational
Illnesses and Injuries. In the BLS report, the
average for all industry is 10.9, and the two
highest rates for industries are for malleable
iron foundries (42.1) and logging camps and
logging contractors (32.5). For the participants
in the Field Test, at least, it appears that the
solid waste management industry is maintaining
its position as one of the industries with the
highest injury rates. The BLS survey did not
cover the solid waste management industry, so
that no direct comparisons between Field Test
data and BLS data for this industry were possible.
The incidence of lost workday cases was 26.7.
This means that nearly 3 out of 10 employees
will each year suffer an injury involving lost
workdays. The highest such figure listed in
the 1972 BLS report referred to above is 16.2,
for logging camps and logging contractors.
11.1 workdays were lost, on the average, for
each lost workday case.
The average employee lost three days from work
per year due to injury.
66% of the OSHA recordable injuries resulted in
lost workdays. This proportion is about twice
that for the average manufacturing industry (i.e..
-------
proportionately more of the injuries in solid waste
management involve lost workdays, and proportionately
fewer involve only medical treatment).
Of the 962 OSHA recordable injuries reported during
the Field Test, 23 resulted in permanent disability,
and one in death. If this proportion of permanently
disabling injuries is typical of the industry as a
whole, the average employee, during a working life
assumed to be 25 years, would have a 23% chance of
being permanently disabled to some degree (taking
OSHA incidence rate =0.39 per year x (fraction of
OSHA injuries that are disabling = 0.024) x 25 years).
A similar computation using the data from EXHIBIT 3
shows that the average employee of the Field Test
participants has a 9% chance of suffering an amputation
during a 25 year work life.
The 1,342 total injuries (of which 962 were OSHA
recordable and 380 first aid) had a reported direct
cost (including only wage continuation, medical
payments, death and disability benefits, etc. and
no indirect costs) of $590,600, for an average
direct cost per injury (including first aid injuries)
of $440.
The average direct cost of injuries was $240 per
year for each person on the payroll (i.e., all
employees, whether injured or not).
The ANSI frequency rate was 133.5. This may be
compared with National Safety Council (NSC) data,
which uses the ANSI system. The frequency rates
for 1973 (taken from NSC's publication "Work Injury
Rates 1974") were 104 for refuse collection and 72
for refuse disposal. The reported injury frequency
experience of the Field Test sample is thus somewhat
worse than for the NSC sample (which covers only a
self-selected fraction of the industry).
The ANSI severity rate was 5,375. This may be
compared with the NSC data for 1973: 2,529 for
refuse collection and 8,072 for refuse disposal.
ANSI severity rates are greatly influenced by
events such as deaths for which time charges
are made.
-------
III. DEPENDENCE OF INJURY RATE ON SELECTED FACTORS
A number of simplified tables have been prepared from the
printouts obtained during the Field Test. These tables show the
dependence of injury rate, severity and cost on various factors,
selected from the range of factors studied during the Field Test.
For each such factor, the table lists the categories within
that factor, e.g., the category head within the factor part of
body. For each category, the following items are listed:
(a) The number of OSHA recordable injuries for that category,
and either
(i) the percentage of the total number of injuries for
all categories, or
(ii) the injury rate, expressed as number of OSHA
recordable injuries per 200,000 man-hours at
risk.
For factors in which all categories are exposed to
the same risk, the percentage (i) is shown in the
table. This is the case for factors such as part
of body because each employee is at risk to injure
any part of his body. For other factors, the. rate
(ii) is shown in the table. For these factors,
the number of man-hours at risk is not the same
for each category and it is necessary to use rates
to make valid comparisons. For example, the
different categories of the factor employee age
have different man-hours at risk because there
are more workers in the age group 26-35 than
there are in the age group 55-65. To compare
the number of injuries in the two groups it is
necessary to allow for the difference in the
number of workers at risk: this is done by using
the rates.
The categories are listed in order of percentage
or rate, and indicate the frequency of injuries
in each category.
-------
(b) The number of workdays lost for that category; the
percentage or rate (number of workdays lost per
200,000 man-hours at risk) as for (a); and the
average number of lost workdays lost per lost
workday case.
The categories are listed in order of percentage
or rate, and the three values give a measure of
the severity of injuries in each category.
(c) The total direct costs for injuries in that
category; a percentage or rate as in (a) (here
the rate is the average direct cost per man-year
at risk); and the average direct cost per injury.
The direct costs include only wage continuation
payments to the employee (by insurance carrier
or employer), medical payments, and death and
disability benefits. No indirect costs or
insurance premiums are included.
The categories are listed in order of percentage
or rate. The direct costs give a measure of the
importance, on a cost basis, of injuries in each
category.
The tables generally represent data from all 15 participants
for a 12 month period from September 1973 to August 1974. Some
tables are for fewer participants or a shorter period, e.g.,
omitting one participant that did not provide complete cost data,
or using a 10 month period in which 13 participants were contributing
data simultaneously- The total number of injuries is thus not
always the same for each table. In addition, some tables only
include a fraction of the work force, e.g., the table for collection
crew size only includes employees engaged in refuse collection.
3.1 General Description of Injury
EXHIBIT 2 shows the breakdown of injuries by accident type,
This is for the, type of first accident, if there is a two stage
-------
accident, such as a fall followed by the employee striking his
head on the ground (which would be classified as a fall rather
than a struck against).
Overexertion accidents contributed about 20% of the number
of injuries, days lost and direct costs. Some accident types,
such as struck by vehicle were uncommon (approximately 3% of
injuries) but contributed 6% of the days lost and 14% of the
direct costs. Others, such as struck against vehicle and foreign
object in eye were more frequent but contributed less importantly
to days lost and direct cost. It is apparent that all three
measures of importance (frequency, days lost, and direct cost)
are necessary to evaluate the overall significance of any one
category of injuries, since there are significant differences
in the order in which the categories appear in each part of the
table.
Many of these categories, e.g., fall to same level or step
on sharp object become of greatest importance only when comparisons
are made between different participants, as discussed in Section IV,
EXHIBIT 3 shows a breakdown by injury description.
Amputations and fractures were relatively rare (1% and 2% of
injuries respectively) but contributed 11 and 12% of the days lost
and 10 and 11% of the total direct costs. The frequency of
amputations found in the Field Test (9 out of 953 OSHA recordable
injuries) would, if applicable to the industry as a whole, lead
to the conclusion that the average solid waste worker has a 9%
chance of suffering an amputation over a 25 year working span.
10
-------
EXHIBIT 4 shows a breakdown by part of body. It is interesting
to note that toe injuries were relatively rare (1%) but contributed
13% of the days lost and 15% of the total direct cost. Special
attention to toe injuries would appear to be justified. Back
injuries contributed about 20% of the days lost and costs.
3.2 Factors Associated with Time, Day and Season
EXHIBIT 5 shows a breakdown by day of week. The rates for
OSHA recordable injuries and workdays lost are also shown in
graphical form in EXHIBIT 6. The number of injuries per man-hour
worked was highest on Monday, fell in mid week and then rose again
on Friday and Saturday, The rate for lost workdays shows a
similar pattern, with the number of workdays lost being lower
on Monday, and higher on Friday and Saturday than might be
expected simply from the number of injuries on those days.
A breakdown by the number of hours worked that day prior
to injury is shown in graphical form in EXHIBIT 7 and, as a
table, in EXHIBIT 8. "One hour" means up to one hour from the
starting time, "two hours" up to two hours, and so on. The
injury rate was roughly constant up to 5 hours. The later fall
and subsequent rise is probably associated with different groups
of employees remaining at risk, with the first hours including
"task" employees (who generally work 5-6 hours per day and have
a high injury rate) and the later hours including fewer of these
employees. The graph for the workdays lost rate shows that both
11
-------
the first hour and the sixth hour experienced a number of workdays
lost that was substantially higher than would be expected simply
from the number of injuries during these hours.
The injury data were also analyzed by hour of day of
occurrence, but did not show clear trends owing to a mixture
of different groups of employees with different working hours.
3.3 Employee Characteristics
EXHIBIT 9 shows a breakdown by employee age at time of injury -
The rates for OSHA recordable injuries and workdays lost are also
shown in graph form in EXHIBIT 10. The rate for number of injuries
fell, but the rate for workdays lost remained approximately steady
with increasing age, owing largely to an increase in the average
number of workdays lost per lost workday case as employee age
increased.
EXHIBIT 11 shows a graph of the rates for OSHA recordable
injuries as a function of education of the employee, with
corresponding information in tabular form in EXHIBIT 12. The
injury rate did not show a systematic variation with years of
education.
EXHIBIT 13 shows a breakdown by employee height, with a
corresponding graph in EXHIBIT 14. There was an apparent increase
in injury rate with height but the rate for workdays lost showed
no systematic variation with height for those categories where
there were enough injuries to smooth out statistical fluctuations.
12
-------
EXHIBIT 15 shows a graph of the rates for OSHA recordable
injuries as a function of employee weight, with corresponding
information in tabular form in EXHIBIT 16. The variation of
injury rate with employee weight found in the Field Test does
not at present justify imposing weight restrictions at the time
of hire, based purely upon expected injury rates.
EXHIBIT 17 gives a breakdown by basis of employment. Temporary
workers appeared to have a significantly higher rate for number of
OSHA recordable injuries than regular workers, but a lower rate
for workdays lost, possibly representing the effect of improved
injury leave benefits for regular workers.
3.4 Factors Related tothe Work Environment
EXHIBIT 18 gives a breakdown by occupational group. These
represent the grouping together of occupational categories which,
separately, did not have enough injuries to be significant. EXHIBIT
19 gives a breakdown by division of employment (Collection division,
streets division, etc.). EXHIBIT 20 gives a breakdown by location
of injury (e.g., whether the injury occurred at the landfill, on
the collection route, etc.).
These three exhibits represent different ways of breaking
down the injury experience of a solid waste agency so as to make
injury rates more comparable between agencies. The use of
occupational group (e.g., collection crews) enables comparisons
to be made between agencies with a different mix of employees
13
-------
and also enables the risk to different occupational groups to
be compared. Collection crews had, as expected, the highest
risk of injury. In the more detailed breakdown by occupation,
from which these occupational groups were assembled, a comparison
was made between employees who drive and collect refuse, and
those who only collect refuse. The former had a lower injury
rate (48 vs 53), and a lower rate for lost workdays (390 vs 376).
The breakdown by division shows that employees of landfill
divisions had lower rates for OSHA recordable injuries and days
lost than employees of collection divisions. The results for
location in EXHIBIT 20 show, however, that working at the
landfill carries a high risk. This data in this exhibit were
compiled from injuries occurring at the landfill (to employees
of any division, including collection) and from hours of exposure
calculated from hours spent at the landfill by all employees
(e.g., collection crews emptying packers).
EXHIBIT 21 gives a breakdown by crew size. In this table,
the crew size includes the driver, and the rates, as in the
other tables, refer to 200,000 man-hours of exposure, i.e.,
the OSHA recordable injury rate for a 2-man crew is 68 injuries
per 200,000 man-hours (approximately 10 man-years) of work on
a 2-man crew. Each man on a 2-man crew thus had a 68% chance
of being injured per year. The rates for 3-man crew similarly
apply to each man. The much higher rates found in the Field
Test for 2-man as compared to 3-man crews are surprising,
14
-------
particularly since the 2-man crews in the Field Test tended
to be engaged in private rather than municipal, commercial
rather than residential, and curbside rather than backyard
collection. The difference may arise because of the particular
choice of participants in the Field Test, but is certainly a
high priority area for future work.
EXHIBITS 22 and 23 show a breakdown by activity. This
refers to the activity being performed by employees on the
collection route at the time they were injured. The daily
work is broken down into a number of such activities, and
detailed estimates were made for each participant in the
Field Test of how many man-hours were spent in each activity.
For some activities, such as lifting, the number of times
the activity was performed (e.g., number of containers lifted)
was estimated, and an arbitrary time allocation, constant for
all participants, was used to turn the number of lifts into
"man-hours" of lifting. EXHIBIT 22 gives percentages, and
enables comparisons to be made between the different activities.
Lifting, carrying and dumping in hopper are together responsible
for over half the OSHA recordable injuries and days lost.
Mounting and dismounting (the truck) are responsible for a
surprising 8% of injuries and days lost. Pushing waste in
hopper is associated with less than 1% of the injuries, but
with 5% of the days lost and 7% of the cost, suggesting that
special attention be paid to this activity. EXHIBIT 23 gives
15
-------
rates for the same activities. These rates are useful chiefly
for comparing one solid waste agency with another, as discussed
in Section IV.
EXHIBIT 24 gives a breakdown by type of equipment. The
rates given are for 200,000 hours of use of the equipment. The
average rear end loader is associated with about 150 OSHA
recordable injuries per 200,000 hours of equipment use. If the
average crew size was three, this would correspond to a rate
of about 50 injuries per 200,000 man-hours of work with a rear
end loader. An average of about $1,080 in direct injury costs
per year was associated with the use of each rear end loader
in the Field Test. No comparative data for side loaders is
available because none of the participants in the Field Test
used side loaders.
16
-------
IV. COMPARISONS BETWEEN INJURY EXPERIENCE
OF DIFFERENT PARTICIPANTS
The most striking and significant finding of the Field Test
was that there were large differences between participants in
the rates for OSHA recordable injuries, for workdays lost and
for costs, both overall and for specific aspects of the work
environment.
EXHIBIT 25 shows a comparison of OSHA incidence rate (number
of OSHA recordable injuries per 200,000 man-hours worked for all
employees) for 14 participants during a 12 month period (the 15th
participant was a small organization that had no injuries).
EXHIBITS 26 and 27 show similar comparisons for ANSI frequency
and severity rates. The participant numbers shown are those
used in EXHIBIT 1, and the height of each block represents the
rate, which is given in numerical form above each block.
The variations from participant to participant can be seen
to be very large. Part of this variation can be accounted for
by statistical fluctuations expected for participants with only
a small number of employees and only a few injuries. The number
of OSHA recordable injuries for each participant during a 12
month period was:
No. of OSHA
Participant # Recordable Injuries
01 182
02 32
03 161
17
-------
No. of OSHA
Participant # Recordable Injuries
04 66
06 254
08 19
09 164
10 30
11 198
13 15
14 1
15 63
16 25
18 5
In the discussion below, only the five largest participants
(01, 03, 06, 09, 11) will be compared. These each had more than
150 OSHA recordable injuries and together accounted for approximately
80% of all the OSHA recordable injuries in the Field Test. EXHIBIT
25 shows that, among these five participants, the highest OSHA
incidence rate was four times higher than the lowest.
EXHIBIT 28 shows the variation in average direct cost per
injury, average direct cost of injuries per employee-year worked,
and average number of lost workdays per lost workday case.
Participant 11 incurred more than seven times the direct cost
per employee-year incurred by Participant 09. This wide range
in injury experience suggests that the injury problem has been
brought under control to a greater or lesser extent by each
participant, and that attempts at increased control by those
participants with high injury rates are likely to prove fruitful.
In the following series of comparisons, four parameters
are compared for each of the five largest participants and for
the average of all participants. The parameters are:
18
-------
OSHA recordable injuries per 200,000 man-hours
of exposure
Average number of workdays lost per lost workday
case
Average direct cost per 200,000 man-hours of
exposure
Average direct cost per injury
Because of the effect of a few high-cost injuries, statistical
fluctuations produce more variations in the cost parameters than
in the number of injuries and total days lost.
EXHIBIT 29 shows the comparison for injuries occurring to
workers on the collection route. If the work practices and
attention to safety were the same for all participants, the
injury rates would also be expected to be the same for all
participants. However, the rates for Participants 03 and 11
were much higher than for the rest.
Comparisons may next be made by accident type. EXHIBIT 30
shows a comparison for fall to the same level. In this comparison,
Participant 03 is much worse than average, while Participant 11 is
about average. For overexertion, EXHIBIT 31, Participant 11 is
much worse than average while 03 is average. These comparisons
suggest specific areas that should be examined further to explain
the overall high collection route injury experience of Participants
03 and 11. Areas for consideration by other participants are shown
in EXHIBIT 32, where most of the step on sharp object injuries are
experienced by Participants 01 and 06; and by EXHIBIT 33, where
19
-------
foreign object in eye injuries are much worse than average for
Participants 06 and 11.
A different set of comparisons may be made by activity (as
discussed in Section 3.4). EXHIBITS 34 and 35 show a comparison
for the activities carrying and standing/walking. The much
worse than average injury experience for these activities of
Participant 03, coupled with the experience for falls to the
same level discussed for EXHIBIT 30, suggest that this participant,
which performs backyard collection with a non-wheeled intermediate
container, should consider a wheeled intermediate container as is
used by Participant 09. EXHIBIT 36 shows a comparision for the
activity lifting. In this case, Participant 11 is much worse
than average, and this, in agreement with the much worse than
average rate for overexertion accidents discussed for EXHIBIT 31,
suggests that Participant 11 should focus injury reduction efforts
in this area.
Some very interesting results of an injury reduction program
are shown in EXHIBITS 37 and 38. Participant 09, aware of the
significance of injuries occurring while mounting and dismounting
from or riding on the "step" on refuse trucks, instituted a program
of modifying the steps to provide improved handholds and footing,
and of training employees in their use. The result was to reduce
the rate for OSHA recordable injuries to far below that of the
other major participants.
20
-------
V. DISCUSSION
Although the Field Test was not directed primarily towards
data collection, the results presented in Sections II, III and
IV have shown some significant findings related to occupational
injuries in the solid waste management industry. The most
significant finding is that it is possible, by calculating
injury rates associated with various aspects of the work
environment, to demonstrate large variations in injury rate
and severity between different solid waste management agencies.
These differences point out areas in which each solid waste
management agency should consider either changes in work
practices or increased attention to safety (equipment modifications,
employee training, etc.). Measurement of rates also makes it
possible for an agency to evaluate the success of safety programs,
for example the "step" modifications introduced by Participant 09,
and provides a "target" for management to aim at. Each of the
participants in the Field Test, even the ones with lowest overall
rates, had one or more factors in which their injury rate was
higher than some other participant. Even for the participants
with low injury rates, there is potential for further reduction.
The limitations of the data should be recognized: only a
relatively small number of participants and injuries were included
in the Field Test. It is hoped that future data collection, and
21
-------
improved methods of analysis and presentation, will produce data
of increasing value to the solid waste management industry in
controlling its serious injury problems.
22
-------
to
OJ
Participant
Number
01
02
03
'04
06
08
09
10
11
13
14
15
16
18
19
Municlpal-M
Private-P
M
K
M
P
M
M
M
M
M
P
, M
M
P
M
P
Geographical
Area of U.S.
South
Northeast
Midwest
West
South
North
North
West
Southwest
North
Northwest
South
South
Northeast
North
Approximate
Average No.
of Employees
700
150
150
250
500
100
600
100
300
50
100
400
100
50
50
BY-Backyard
CS-CUrbside
CS
CS
BY
BY
CS
BY
CS/BY
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
Task/
8 hour
task
8 hour
task
task
task
task
8 hour
task
task
task
8 hour
task
8 hour
task
task
TYPE OF SERVICE PROVIDED
Collection
residential
residential
residential
residential/
commercial
residential/
commercial
residential
residential
residential
residential
residential/
commercial
residential/
commercial
commercial
residential
residential/
commercial
Disposal
landfill
incinerator/
landfill
landfill
transfer station
landfill/
incinerator/
transfer station
transfer station
transfer station
landfill
landfill
landfill
transfer station/
landfill
landfill/
incinerator
landfill
landfill
landfill
Aver.
Crew
Size
4-man
3-man
3-man
3-man
3-man
3-man
3-man
3-man
3-man
2 -man
1-man
3-man
2-man
3-man
2-man
Date
of
Start-Up
10-73
08-73
08-73
01-74
10-73
09-73
' 08-73
09-73
09-73
01-74
07-73
10-73
09-73
09-73
01-74
EXHIBIT 1
Details ef Participants in Field Teat
-------
EXHIBIT 2
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY ACCIDENT TYPE (FIRST ACCIDENT)
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACCIDENT TYPE
Overexerclon
Struck by object
Fall to same level
Fall co different level
Hurt by object handled
Struck against vehicle
Foreign object In «ye
Struck against object
Stucble
Caught between
Step on sharp object
Struck by vehicle
Anioal bit*
Iniect bite/sting
Caught in .
Danatlr.lt
TOTAL
NO.
186
133
10}
86
86
60
55
39
37
30
23
27
16
14
10
6
918
I
20
14
11
9
9
7
6
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
<1
100
WORKDAYS LOST
ACCIDENT TYPE
Overexert Ion
F.-.ll Co sane level
Struck by objcc:
fall to different level
Caught between
C.iuulic In
Scruck against vehicle
Struck by vehicle
Scumble
Hurt by object handled
Struck against object
Foreign object in eye
Insect bite/sting
Step on sharp object
Aiiiaal bit*
Dermatitis
TOTAL
NO.
1.493
l.CDO
942
797
550
420
367
377
302
181
13-i
59
21
18
14
9
6,704
%
22
15
14
12
3
6
6
6
5
3
2
<1
<1
<1
-------
EXHIBIT 3
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY INJURY DESCRIPTION
OSIIA RECORDABLE INJURIES
INJURY DESCRIPTION
Sprain/* train
Cut/lacerat ion/puncture
Bruise/contusion/crushing
Foreign object In eye
Fracture
Scratches
An leal bite
Insect bite/sting
Amputation
Dersatttit
Inflaaaatlon
Burn f roa chemical
TOTAL
KO.
350
181
169
69
21
18
17
1A
9
9
8
7
865
1
40
21
20
8
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
i
100
WORKDAYS 10ST
INJURY DESCRXPTIOX
Sprain/strain
Bruise/contusion/crushing
Fracture
Amputation
Cuc/laccratlon/puncture
Fore 1 en object in eye
Inflammation
Scratches
Insect bite/sting
Horn fro chemical
DC rca tic Is/rash
Aninal bite
TOTAL
NO.
3.268
802
706
541
420
116
40
29
21
19
15
14
6,091
t
54
13
12
11
7
2
^
*
-------
EXHIBIT 4
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY PART OF BODY
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
PART OP BODY
Sack
Eye*
Knee
Lot
Foot
Hand
Flncer*
Ar»
Ankle
Urist
Chest
Shoulder
Abdomen
Elbow
Scalp
Toe*
Heck
CenltalU
Thumb
SVull
Jaw
Mouth, Up. teeth
Forehead
Fingernail*
Hips
Buttocks
Brain
Cheek
Koi*
Cars
Toeoall*
TOTAL
NO.
56
43
32
26
26
25
25
16
IS
13
10
7
7
6
5
&
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
330
%
17
13
10
8
8
6
8
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
<1
'X
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
0
0
0
0
0
100
WORKDAYS LOST
PART OP BODY
Back
Finger*
Toes
Knee
Hand
Myes
Leg
Ankle
Wrist
Foot
Am
Crnltnlto
Shoulder
Thumb
Elbow
Chest
Abdoaen
Keck
Scalp
Jau
Skull
Brain
Cheek
.Mouth, lip, teeth
Forehead
Nose
Ears
Fingernail*
Hips
Buttocks
Toe nail*
TOTAL
NO.
334
211
203
158
134
79
78
76
73
Gl
47
32
29
28
24
20
19
6
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.620
\
21
13
13
10
8
5
5
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
<1
<1
<1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
AV.WDL/LWDC
7.26
14.07
104.00
8.78
13.40
3.76
4.59
5.43
9.13
3.81
3.92
10.67
4.U
28.00
4.00
2.86
3.17
2. CO
l.CO
1.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.5?
DIRECT COSTS
PART OP BODY
Back
Toes
Finger*
Hand
Knee
Am
Eye*
Wrist
Foot
Ankle
Leg
r.lliow
Chest
Thumb
Genital!*
Shoulder
Abdonen
Keek
Scalp
Skull
Jaw
Buttock*
Hip*
Forehead
Fingernail*
Mouth, lip, teeth
Brain
Cheek
Kose
Ear*
Toenail*
TOTAL
NO.
IS. 490
13.85
9.40
8,50
7,970
.163
,598
,475
,411
.373
3.093
1.353
1,257
1,248
1,203
1,163
722
474
375
49
45
45
36
35
33
5
0
0
0
0
0
1.373
t
20
15
10
9
9
6
5
5
5
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
AYftjQRfT
260
2.308
277
213
249
258
88
298
229
153
81
150
126
624
241
106
103
119
62
16
45
23
36
33
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
154
-------
EXHIBIT 5
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY DAY OF WEEK
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
DAY OF WEEK
Konday
Saturday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Friday
Thursday
Sunday
Unknown
TOTAL
MO.
236
28
202
158
178
148
6
6
962
RATE
48
42
41
33
37
31
19
*"
39
WORKDAYS LOST
DAY OF WEEK
Saturday
Tuesday
Monday
Friday
Wednesday
Thursday
Sunday
Unknown
TOTAL
NO.
344
1,739
1,701
1,513
1.058
827
14
39
7,235
HATE IAV.WDL/LWDC
516
356
3'-6
318
253
174
45
"*
296
20. :3
. 12.33
10.37
14,27
9.53
7.31
7.00
7.80
11.07
DIRECT COSTS
DAY OF WEEK
Saturday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Sunday
Unknown
TOTAL
NO.
22620
128252
142514
134914
106452
51139
2376
2320
S9059S
RATE
322
290
274
269
205
102
73
0
Z28
AV. COST
IN'-JRY
339
595
522
SS6
521
224
394
387
440
N>
-J
-------
0)
*J
rfl
o;
60 y
50 -
40 -
30 .-
20 -
10 --
Mon.
Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri.
Sat.
-r 600
500
- 400
300
.- 200
- 100
RATES FOR OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES AND
WORKDAYS LOST AS A FUNCTION OF DAY OF THE WEEK
EXHIBIT 6
= OSHA Recordable
+ = Workdays Lost
0)
4J
m
a;
RATES FOR OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES AND
WORKDAYS LOST AS A FUNCTION OF
HOURS ON JOB PRIOR TO INJURY
EXHIBIT 7
28
10
= OSHA Recordable
+= Workdays Lost
-------
EXHIBIT 8
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY HOURS ON JOB PRIOR TO INJURY
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
HOURS OS JOB PRIOR TO INJURY
Other
9 hour*
10 hour*
3 houri
4 hour*
J hour*
1 hour
2 hour*
6 hour*
7 hour*
5 hour*
UnVuiovn
TOTAL
NO.
29
14
4
160
147
68
153
140
93
72
26
35
961
RATE
369
69
52
15
44
43
43
40
26
25
14
0
39
WORKDAYS LOST
ilO'jnS ON JOO PRIOR TO INJUi^
Otlicr
0 hours
10 hour*
I hour
4 hour*
2 hour*
3 hour*
6 hours
5 hours
7 hours
3 hours
'Jnknovn
TOTAL
NO.
no
123
35
1.501
961
I.C18
1,011
935
507
466
274
251
7.223
RATE
1111
693
458
422
2")2
293
233
262
249
165
149
0
295
AV.KDL/LWDC
7.55
12.30
8.75
13.28
9.70
10.14
8.94
10-38
14.38
10.73
13.70
13.21
11.07
DIRECT COSTS
HOURS OS JOO PRIOR TO INJURV
Other
9 hour*
1 hour
? ho-jr*
4 hours
6 hours
10 hour*
5 hours
3 hour*
7 hour*
8 hour*
UnXnavn
TOTAL
NO.
7778
7100
U1V72
97783
85143
85319
1653
42465
62427
44695
22641
19542
588538
RATE
6222
331
297
264
243
227
207
198
166
150
117
0
228
A^jbSfr
194
374
541
504
460
632
276
360
275
382
492
434
440
-------
EXHIBIT 9
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY EMPLOYEE AGE AT TIME OF INJURY
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
AGE
Under 18 years
26-35
18-25
36-45
46-55
56-65
Over 65
TOTAL
SO.
8
287
153
213
177
89
9
936
RATE
75
48
47
39
30
27
16
38
WORXDAVS LOST
ACE
l/'ntier 18 year*
36-45
56-65
46-55
26-35
18-25
Over 65
TOTAL
KO.
64
1.715
1.023
1.652
1.609
82S
65
6.954
RATE
601
317
315
279
271
255
115
285
AV.WDL/LWDC
10.66
- 12.16
17.33
12.90
7.69
9.06
13.20
10.88
DIRECT COSTS
AGE
36-45
26-35
18-25
Under 18 year*
46-55
56-65
Over 65
TOTAL
NO.
140056
150107
77230
2295
103929
38662
5137
517424
RATE
245
240
224
205
166
113
85
200
A₯*.7SSfT
465
404
' 371
230
398
284
' 51*
399
Ul
o
-------
70 --
60
50
3 40
30
20
10
60 -r
50
40
30
20
10 --
-- 700
-- 600
-- 500
-- 400
-- 300
-- 200
-- 100
18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65
RATES FOR OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES AND
WORKDAYS LOST AS A FUNCTION OF AGE
EXHIBIT 10
65
- OSHA Recordable
+ = Workdays Lost
600
500
400
-- 300
-- 200
-- 100
8
10
11
12
13
14
RATES FOR OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES AND
WORKDAYS LOST AS A FUNCTION OF EDUCATION (GRADE)
EXHIBIT 11
= OSHA Recordable
+ = Workdays Lost
31
-------
EXHIBIT 12
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY EMPLOYEE EDUCATIONAL LEVEL (LAST GRADE COMPLETED)
OSH» WSOABLE INJURIES
E->Vl--.VS
Second year »«3!
Fourth gr:-c
Second grc:
Third iTi.-.
U> Fourth year **!»
M Tenth grj-:
First t*--
Eleventh fr
Twelfth c»-:
Ninth grt;i
Sixth £r: -
No answer
First year tejl
Eighth graie
Seventh fr;
Fifth year c'11
Fifth gre.t
Third year *cjl
Sixth year t«-;i
Seventh yt«r t'l*
Eighth y«ar «rU
TOTAL
NO.
19
8
4
8
5
101
2
91
230
60
13
313
12
48
11
1
7
2
0
0
0
936
RATE
57
52
51
SO
50
47
47
I.I,
44
43
41
33
32
31
28
23
22
21
0
0
0
38
WORKDAYS X.OST
EDUCATION
Second year college
Eighth grade
Eleventh grade
First year college
Third grade
Fourth grade
Ntntli grade
Iwi-irtli r.rndo
N'o answer
Tenth grade
Sixth grade
Fifth grade
Second grade
Third year college
Seventh grade
First grade
Fourth year college
Fifth year college
Sixth year college
Seventh year college
Eighth year college
TOTAL
NO.
191
693
816
147
58
53
448
1,426
2,456
512
64
38
8
8.
30
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.«56
RATE |AV.WDt/tWDC
574
442
392
335
366
346
322
271
258
239
231
120
102
82
76
23
0
0.
0
0
0
258
15
20
12
18
12
13
11
9
12
8
6
5
3
4
\ 4
1
0
0
0
0
0
12
DIRECT COSTS
ECVCATION
First year college
Eleventh grade
Second year college
Twelfth grade
eighth grade
Tenth grade
Fourth grade
Ntntii r.rniic
Third grade
No nnswcr
Fifth grade
Sixth grade
Second grade
Seventh grade
Third year college
First grade
Fifth year eollega
Fourth year college
Sixth year college
Seventh year college
Eighth yc*r college
TOTAL
NO.
28926
82801
12564
140811
34705
45087
3168
2812'.
2559
129048
3842
2469
524
1556
369
146
7
146
0
0
0
517424
RATE
720
373
361
253
208
199
196
195
153
128
115
73
64
38
36
32
17
14
0
0
0
200
AY<.jggfT
1.315
679
452
474
529
368
352
305
320
263
427
176
105
111
74
71
77
21
0
0
0
399
-------
EXH'BIT 13
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY EMPLOYEE HEIGHT
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
HEIGHT
6ft. 9 In. - 6 fc. 11 In.
7 ft and over
« ft. 3 In. - 6 ft. 5 In.
6 ft. - 6 ft. 2 In.
3 ft. 9 in. - 3 ft. 11 in.
5 fc. 6 In. - 5 ft. 8 In.
So «n«w«r
5 ft. - 5 ft. 2 in.
5 ft. 3 in. - 5 ft. 5 In.
6 ft. 6 in. - 6 ft. 8 In.
4 ft. 9 in. - 4 ft. 11 in.
4 ft. 6 la. - 4 ft. 8 in.
4 ft. 3 in. - 4 ft. 5 in.
4 ft. - 4 ft. 2 in.
Under 4 ft. '
TOTAL
NO.
2
2
30
187
304
202
154
9
45
1
0
0
0
0
0
936
RATE
155
55
44
43
33
37
37
32
30
26
0
0
0
0
0
38
WORKDAYS LOST
HEIGHT
7 ft. and over
6 ft. 3 in. - 6 ft. 5 In.
6 fc. 6 In. - 6 ft. 8 in.
5 ft. 9 in. - 5 ft. 11 in.
5 ft. - 5 ft. 2 In.
No answer
4 ft. - 6 ft. 2 in.
5 ft. 3 In. - 5 ft. 5 in.
5 fc. 6 In. - 5 ft. 8 in.
6 ft. 9 In. - 6 ft. 11 in.
4 fc. 9 In. - 4 fc. 11 in.
4 fc. 6 in. - 4 fc. 8 in.
4 fc. 3 In. - 4 ft. 5 in.
4 fc. - 4 ft. 2 in.
Under 4 ft.
TOTAL
NO.
30
461
20
2380
82
K23
1222
371
1164
1
0
0
0
0
0
6954
HATE lAV.WDL/LWDC
1.
820
673
520
302
293
T92
286
244
212
78
0
0
0
0
0
285
15
19
20
11
21
12
10
12
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
DIRECT COSTS
HEIGHT
6 ft. 3 in. - 6 ft. 5 in.
5 ft. - 5 ft. 2 in.
6. ft. 9 in. - 6 ft. 11 in.
5 ft. 9 In. - 5 ft. 11 in.
6 ft. - 6 ft. 2 In.
6 fc. 6 lr.. - 6 ft. 8 in.
5 ft. 6 in. - 5 ft. 8 In.
No answer
5 ft. 3 in. - 5 ft. 3 in.
7 ft. and over
5 ft. 9 in. - 4 ft. 11 In.
4 fc. 6 in. - 4 ft. 8 in.
4 fc. 3 in. - 4 ft. 5 in.
4 fc. - 4 ft. 2 in.
Under 4 ft.
TOTAL
NO.
37254
9991
420
195382
86930
78i
88145
58111
18112
298
0
0
0
0
0
517424
RATE
792
339
315
234
195
195
152
131
113
60
0
0
0
0
0
200
AYNjgRfT
1.507
999
210
471
333
390
321
269
255
149
0
0
0
0
0
399
u>
-------
0)
50 --
40 --
30 --
20 --
10 --
5'3"
5'6'
5«9«
6'0" 6'3"
RATES FOR OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES AND
WORKDAYS LOST AS A FUNCTION OF HEIGHT
EXHIBIT 14
-- 1000
-- 800
-- 600
-- 400
-- 200
= OSHA Recordable
+ = Workdays Lost
50 --
-- 500
130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 Ibs.
RATES FOR OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES AND = OSHA Recordable
WORKDAYS LOST AS A FUNCTION OF WEIGHT += Workdays Lost
EXHIBIT 15
34
-------
EXHIBIT 16
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY EMPLOYEE WEIGHT
OS1IA RECORDABLE INJURIES
WORKDAYS LOST
DIRECT COSTS
WEIGHT
280-289 lb*.
300 and over
170-179
200-209
260-260
160-169
140-149
150-159
19-0-199
180-189
No answer
220-229
210-219
130-139
240-249
230-239
250-259
120-129
110-119
100-109
270-279
290-299
TOTAL
NO.
«
2
141
55
3
126
79
104
68
98
159
19
25
29
6
10
3
4
1
0
0
0
936
RATE} WEIGHT
74
63
48
46
42
41
39
38
37
37
37
35
32
29
20
26
25
11
8
0
0
0
38
260-269 Ibs.
150-159
180-189
190-199
700 and over
170-179
No answer
200-209
160-169
210-219
220-229
250-259
280-289
130-139
230-239
140-145
240-24?
120-12?
100-109
110-119
270-279
290-299
TOTAL
NO.
34
1,063
982
632
11
967
L.257
311
778
181
123
14
10
181
69
200
25
7
0
0
0
0
1.95M
RATE
479
392
378
348
347
329
290
261
254
230
230
197
185
180
177
is:
107
19
0
0
0
0
T!85
AV.WDt/LWDC ll WEIGHT
11
15
13
13
11
9
12
9
9
15
8
8
3
9'
14
6
6
0
0
0
0
11
230-239 lb«.
150-159
170-179
200-209
180-189
190-199
260-269
160-169
250-259
'to answer
300 and over
210-219
220-229
140-149
130-139
:8C-269
240-249
120-129
110-119
100-109
270-279
290-299
TOTAL
NO.
15924
104026
85357
33572
60C.B:
38914
1498
61307
2331
60076
437
10199
6011
19536
8110
423
466
473
32
0
0
0
517*24
RATE
387
364
275
267
248
203
202
190
186
132
131
12)
106
91
76
75
19
12
3
0
0
0
200
AV% COiT
1,225
765
423
473
.516
414
499
348
595
271
219
291
194
183
169
71
58
95
32
0
0
0
399
-------
EXHIBIT 17
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY BASIS OF EMPLOYMENT
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES j WORKDAYS LOST
BASIS OF EMPLOYMENT
Student
Temporary
Unknown
Seasonal
Regular
"Pep"
TOTAL
NO.
4
44
21
5
862
0
936
RATE
153
63
52
41
37
0
38
OASIS OF EMPLOYMENT
Regular
Unknown
Tenporary
Sp.inon.il
Student
"Pep"
TOTAL
NO.
6,715
85
119
35
0
C
6.954
RATE IAV.WDL/LWSC
290
212
183
286
0
0
285
11
11
4
9
0
°
DIRECT COSTS
BASIS OF EMPLOYMENT
Regular
Unknown
Teaporary
Seasonal
Student
,ep"
11 | TOTAL
NO.
501087
5694
8881
1563
186
13
S17424
RATE
205
135
130
122
68
2
200
A?ftjS8§T
418
196
164
156
47
13
399
-------
EXHIBIT 18
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
Collection Crcwt
Miscellaneous
Laboren/utllltynen
Forenan/aupervisors
Equipment calncenance
Heavy cqulpacnt opera tori
Ancillary
AdnlnisttaClve
Office
SalesVservlce/cuat.
Unknown
TOTAL
NO.
694
1
144
45
9
34
5
1
2
1
0
936
RATE
50
42
27
24
23
20
12
7
5
5
0
38
WORKDAYS LOST
OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
Collection crews
Administrative
l.ihorers/uttlitymen
Heavy cqulpaenc operators
Forc-ian/supcrviaors
Equipment naintenance
Miscellaneous
Ancillary
Office
Sales/aerviee/cust .
Unknown
TOTAL
NO.
J.339
33
1.060
250
219
35
A
16
0
0
0
6,954
RATE
381
229
201
148
115
91
84
40
0
0
0
284
AV-WDt/LWDC
11
33
14
12
7
6
2
5
0
0
0
11
DIRECT COSTS
OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
Administrative
Collection crews
Lnliorcra/utilitymen
Heavy equipment operator*
Forcrun/cupervisora
Equipment maintenance
Miscellaneous
Ancillary
Salea/servlee/cuac.
Office
Unknown
TOTAL
NO.
4769
106725
72556
14724
15503
1989
70
991
87
0
0
(17424
RATE
314
275
130
83
77
49
28
23
*
0
0
200
^KjSSF
4.769
407
465
327
250
124
70
110
29
0
0
399
-------
EXHIBIT 19
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
DIVISION
Collection
Utility i ancillary
Multlple/other/unknown
Construction
Maintenance ihop
Landfill
Incinerator
Street!
Office & administration
TOTAL
NO.
71S
32
159
4
11
;
i
4
3
936
^RATE
47
29
25
24
23
15
15
14
5
38
WORKDAYS LOST
DIVISION
Collection
Multtplo/other/unXnovn
Utility & ancillary
Maintenance ahop
Office & administration
Construction
Streets
Landfill
Incinerator
TOTAL
NO.
5,420
1,276
158
37
33
7
9
14
0
6,954
wrE IAV.HDI./LWDC
358
2C6
142
78
58
42
32
31
0
284
11
15
6
5
33
2
3
7
0
11
DIRECT COSTS
DIVISION
Collection
Mulclple/ochor/unlinovn
Utility & ancillary
Office & adalnlitration
Maintenance (hop
Landfill
Construction
Streets
Incinerator
TOTAL
NO.
113211
8^584
10688
4769
2109
1369
337
291
66
517424
RATE
259
129
91
80
42
28
19
10
9
200
AfcuSS$T
400
483
267
795
100
152
84
36
66
39*
Ul
00
-------
EXHIBIT 20
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY LOCATION OF INJURY
OSKA RECORDABLE INJURIES
LOCATION
Collection route
Landfill I duop
Incinerator
Transfer station
Office t yard
Unknown
TOTAL '
NO.
697
63
8
5
39
US
962
RATE
55
39
13
11
11
0
39
WORKDAYS LOST
. LOCATION
Collection route
Landfill & dump
Transfer station
Office t hard
Incinerator
Unknown
TOTAL
NO.
5.445
451
38
266
14
1,021
7.235
RATE
533
267
82
72
31
0
296
AV.WDL/LWDC
11
11
19
11
4
11
11
DIRECT COSTS
LOCATION
Landfill I dun?
Collection rout*
Transfer station
Office & yard
Incinerator
Unknown
TOTAL
NO.
111793
391608
3090
13775
964
69365
(90595
RATE
628
294
63
35
20
0
228
AV. COST
IKJ'.'RY
1.242
402
615
230
88
142
440
Ul
10
-------
EXHIBIT 21
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY CREW SIZE
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES \ WORKDAYS LOS?
COLLECTIOM CREW SIZE
2 Ban crew
3 man crew
5 aan crew
4 can crew
1 man crew
6 nan crew
7 aan crew
8 can crew
Other ilie crew
Unknown
TOTAL
NO.
179
364
8
47
7
0
0
0
0
92
697
HATE
68
36
21
20
6
0
0
0
0
0
42
COLLCCTION CREW SIZE
2 nan crew
3 tun crew
4 aan crew
5 run crew
1 ijn crcv
6 run crew
7 run crew
3 cum crew
Other aize crew
Unknown
TOTAL
NO.
1,590
2.962
535
39
7
0
0
0
0
488
3,445
RATE
612
295
151
102
0
0
0
0
0
0
328
AV.WDL/LKDC
12
12
11
8
2
0
0
0
0
8
11
DIRECT COSTS
COLLECTION CREW SIZE
2 nan crew
3 ran crew
4 cun crew
5 nan crev
1 can crew
6 nan crew
7 nan crew
8 aan crew
Other (izc crew
Unknown
TOTAL
NO.
97107
!09292
31992
2469
458
0
0
0
0
S0290
191608
RATE
351
198
127
61
5
0
0
0
0
0
223
Afej58f T
*08
412
592
190
38
0
0
0
0
342
402
-------
EXHIBIT 22
ANALYSIS OF liNJURIES BY ACTIVITY BEING PERFORMED
AT TIME OF INJURY (WITH PERCENTAGES)
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES !
ACTIVITY
Lifting
Urrylng
hieplng In hopper
Standing/walking
lounting/dlsaounting
Pushing/pulling
Riding
Ouoplng in other
rh rowing/catching
Iperatlng oachlne/equipaeat
Irlvlng
>uih vaite la container
Push waste In hopper
it Caching/detaching
luldlng/dlreccing
.'sing hand tool*
Globing
:ican/wash/clearlng
TOTAL
NO.
164
117
106
60
53
43
42
26
18
18
8
6
5
4
t,
I
I
i
678
\
24
17
16
9
8
6
6
4
3
3
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
-------
EXHIBIT 23
AfJALYSIS OF INJURIES BY ACTIVITY BEING PERFORMED
AT TIME OF iriJCP.V (WITH PJVTES)
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
ACTIVITV
Lifting
Throwing/catching
Dumping in hopper
Kountlng/d Isnount Ing
Suitplng In other
Pushing/ pulling
Clean/ wash/clearing
Carrying
Push waste in hopper
Guiding/directing
Operating nachlnc/equlpoenc
Attaching/detaching
Using hand tools
Riding
Standing/walking
Push waste In container
Climbing
Driving
TOTAL
NO.
164
18
106
53
26
43
1
117
5
IB
A
2
42
60
5
1
8
678
KATIi
Z43
220
203
195
142
87
70
67
66
65
55
31
26
21
20
19
7
4
55
WORKDAYS LOST
ACTIVITY
Push i-aste In hopper
Lifting
Mount inj/dlsnoun ting
Diraping In lioppcr
Operating r.achlnc /equipment
Thrculng/catching
Pushing/pulling
Guiding/directing
Carrying
Dumping in other
Clcan/wash/clearing
Riding
Standing/walking
Push waste in container
Driving
Using hand tools
Attaching/detaching
Clicking
TOTAL
NO.
253
i.ISS
404
6?9
315
39
265
32
742
75
5
405
4?C
33
152
4
4
3
5.115
KATli
3,483
1,735
1.48?
1,33'.
SS7
553
537
520
427
409
348
207
103
104
68
S3
31
22
417
AV.WOL/LWDC
87.66
10.67
3.39
10.75
21. CO
4.33
9.13
10.66
8.41
4.16
5.00
11.91
11.13
16.50
25.33
2.00
l.CO
3.00
11.05
DIRECT COSTS
ACTIVITY
Push waste in hopper
Xount ins/disiounc ing
D'jr-.plij in hopper
Lifting
Throwing/catching
Pushing/pulling
Outrping in other
Operating nachine/equlpacat
Guiding/directing
Carrying
Riding
Clean/ wash/clearing
Driving
Standing/walking
Push waste In container
Using hand tools
Attaching/detaching
Climbing
TOTAL
NO.
26531
28115
53655
66436
5895
21640
3744
13026
1839
42841
40189
251
15645
35382
2028
326
199
127
378270
RATE
3.351
984
975
955
687
415
378
376
287
232
195
167
153
113
60
41
15
9
292
"faaSSS*
4,422
396
359
299
236
313
121
521
307
280
758
251
2.560
372
203
82
SO
127
399
-------
EXHIBIT 24
ANALYSIS OF INJURIES BY TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES
WORKDAYS LC3T
DIRECT COS7S
TYPE OF EQL'IPKEXT
Rear end loader
Open body dun?
Other
Load lugger
St. const, equip.
Landfill equlpaent
Pickup
Front end loader
Roii-off
St. clean equip.
AutOBoblle
TOTAL
NO.
512
126
26
2
23
16
13
12
1
1
0
730
RATE j TYEE OF EQUIPMENT 1 NO.
150
84
S3
62
54
31
28
23
13
2
0
93
Hear end loader
St. const, equip.
Open body duep
Other
:ioll-off
I'lckup
Load lugger
Front end loader
Landfill equlpeent
St. clean equip.
/Vutoaobllc
TOTAL
'..3SO
126
eoo
139
14
64
3
43
33
0
0
5.712
RATE Uv.WSL/LXDcIl TYPE CF EOUIPy-N7
1233
828
533
4i4
185
140
93
31
75
0
0
731
11.55 |, Rear end loader
14.13
11.59
7.72
14.00
10.67
1.50
«.78
6.60
0
0
11.29
Open body du.*ap
St. const, equip.
Other
Landfill equipment
Pickup
Roll-off
Front end loader
Load lugger
St. clean equip.
Autoaoblle
TOTAL
NO.
190078
55735
8439
9423
3825
3702
579
2237
93
64
0
174260
1
RATE
1050
356
293
285
83
73
73
40
27
1
0
57J
AV. COST
1NVJKY
534
334
1 325
277
201
183
193
132
47
64
0
464
-------
125
119
w
I
w
u
2
W
Q
H
U
2
S3
CO
o
100
75
50
25
78
62
29
28
56
43
43
39
29
24
17
16
14
"01 02 01 03Ob 08 09 TO II T3 14 Tb
PARTICIPANTS
OSHA INCIDENCE RATES FOR TOTAL RECORDABLE CASES
EXHIBIT 25
IB AV
-------
Ul
400
w
E"
30°
u
z
I 200
81'
CO
100
74
115
448
302
214
108
122
103
79
29
56
11
81
72
01 02 03 04 06 08 09 10 11 13 14 15 16 18
PARTICIPANTS
COMPARISON OF ANSI FREQUENCY RATES BY PARTICIPANT
EXHIBIT 26
134
AV
-------
10,000
w
EH
8,000
6,000
w
M
CO
2
4,000
2,000
3,478
01
1 535
02
5,718
03
5,19C
04
10,87*
06
816
08
1,654
09
760
10
4,657
11
1
L,677
13
14
288
15
1,084
16
401
18
5,357
/ /
'//
v.
I
//,
//
VV
/ / >
' //
AV
PARTICIPANTS
COMPARISON OF ANSI SEVERITY RATES BY PARTICIPANT
EXHIBIT 27
-------
858
624
486
457
440
198
01 03 06 09 11
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER INJURY
AV
762
650
138
397
103
229
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST OF INJURIES PER EMPLOYEE-YEAR WORKED
1 1.7B
9.74
8.95
10.51
10.47
11.07
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE NO. OF LOST WORKDAYS PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
COMPARISON BETWEEN EACH OF s MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
AND AVERAGE OF ALT. PARTICIPANTS
FOR ALL INJURIES
47
-------
206
143
78.2
55.3
489
32.8
01 03 06 09 11 AV
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
4
9Q
. y
7.6
10.8 10.6
11.13
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
26,220
60,048^
11,736
29,436
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
540'
465
693
200
738
402
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER INJURY
EXHIBIT 29
COMPARISON BETWEEN EACH OF 5 MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
(01, 03, 06, 09. 11) AND AVERAGE (AV) OF ALL PARTICIPANTS
FOR LOCATION - COLLECTION ROUTE
48
-------
20.7
6.7
3.3
4.7
4.2
1.7
01 03 06 09 11 AV
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
5.7
13
13.3
16.7
8.2
12.2
01
03
06
09
11
AV
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
19.620
276
4'404
2.652
2,
2,208
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
174
848
749
405
633
397
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER INJURY
* * EXHIBIT 30 ^
COMPARISON BETWEEN EACH OF 5 MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
(01, 03, 06, 09, 11) AND AVERAGE (AV) OF ALL PARTICIPANTS
FOR ACCIDENT TYPE - FALL TO SAME LEVEL
49
-------
14.6
7.9
8.8
7.6
6.2
2.0
01 03 06 09 11 AV
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES PER 200,000 WAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
14.9
11.3
12
9.9
8.5
4.5
01
03
06
09
11
AV
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
19.656
12,444
2.928
660
2,436
5.124
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
1.295
573
300
1.
286
568
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER INJURY
EXHIBIT 31
COMPARISON BETWEEN EACH OF r> MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
(01, 03, 06, 09, 11) AND AVERAGE (AV) OF ALT, PARTICIPANTS
FOR ACCIDENT TYPE - OVEREXERTION
50
-------
2.8
1.8
1.14
0.8
0.17
13 6 9 11 AV
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES PER 200,000 .MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
3.0
1.5
1.0
3.0
2.0
13 6 9 11 AV
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
ian
84
96
60
13 8 9 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
135
64
48
24
42
1 3 6 9 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER INJURY
EXHIBIT 32
COMPARISON BETWEEN EACH OF 5 MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
(01, 03, 06, 09, 11) AND AVERAGE (AV) OF ALL PARTICIPANTS
FOR ACCIDENT TYPE - STEP ON SHARP OBJECT
51
-------
2.2
7.5
1.4
8.3
2.8
01 03 06 09 11 AV
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
4.6
2.1
1.0
1.8
3.05
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
1.140
156
564
84
300
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
66
fifi
70
22
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER INJURY
EXHIBIT 33
COMPARISON BETWEEN EACH OF 5 MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
(01, 03, 06, 09, 11) AND AVERAGE (AV) OF ALL PARTICIPANTS
FOR INJURY TYPE - FOREIGN OBJECT IN EYE
52
-------
297
143
62.1
54
66.8
35
01 03 06 09 11 AV
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
15
9.1
3.6
3.8
9.6
8.4
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
6.132
223.068
53,112
in QQfi 23,196
11.220 j 10f**D |
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
634
104
332
177
314
280
01 03 06 09 11
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER INJURY
AV
EXHIBIT 34
COMPARISON BETWEEN EACH OF r> MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
(01, 03, 06, 09, 11) AND AVERAGE (AV) OF ALL PARTICIPANTS
FOR ACTIVITY - CARRYING
53
-------
176
40.4
35.3
20.2
01
03
06
09
11
AV
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
15
12
3.3
11.8
11.1
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
173,256
4,584
2,964,6,720
24,948
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
111
613
57
326
670
372
01 03 06 09 11
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER INJURY
AV
EXHIBIT 35
COMPARISON BETWEEN EACH OF 5 MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
(01, 03, 06, 09, 11) AND AVERAGE (AV) OF 'ALL PARTICIPANTS
FOR ACTIVITY - STANDING/WALKING
54
-------
365
257
202
250
140
248
01 03 06 09 11 AV
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
5
11.8
8.9
9.2
4.8
10.67
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
625.200
22,068
> <
95.544
44, 520
82,608
95,472
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
441
86
348
195
210
299
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER INJURY
EXHIBIT 36
COMPARISON BETWEEN EACH OF 5.MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
(01, 03, 06, 09, 11) AND AVERAGE (AV) OF ALL PARTICIPANTS
FOR ACTIVITY - LIFTING
55
-------
194
450
A TO
43.7
460
195
01 03 06 09 11 AV
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
16.5
9.8
6.2
3.6
8.6
5.1
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
361,368
39.768
, 376
28,500
131,664
98,364
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
217
1 c -7
J. o /
804
229
707
396
01 03 06 09 11
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER INJURY
AV
EXHIBIT 37
COMPARISON BETWEEN EACH OF 5 MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
(01, 03, 06, 09, 11) AND AVERAGE (AV) OF ALL PARTICIPANTS
FOR ACTIVITY - MOUNTING/DISMOUNTING
56
-------
31.9
56
45.2
1.71
57
21.5
01 03 06 09 11 AV
OSHA RECORDABLE INJURIES PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
18.6
15.6
7.9
11.9
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS LOST PER LOST WORKDAY CASE
105.360
74.340
21.052
11,268
19.476
01 03 06 09 11 AV
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS OF EXPOSURE
960
211.6
1.551
1,602
758
01 03 06 09 11
AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER INJURY
AV
EXHIBIT 38
COMPARISON BETWEEN EACH OF 5 MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
(01, 03, 06, 09, 11) AND AVERAGE (AV) OF-ALL PARTICIPANTS
FOR ACTIVITY - RIDING
U01276
57
------- |