Health Hazard Evaluation
Essay Preview: Health Hazard Evaluation
Report this essay
Health Hazard Evaluation Report, HETA 2007Wesley D. HerronColumbia Southern UniversityIntroductionThe paper seeks to provide a comprehensive review of the Health Evaluation published in 2007. The HHE report was conducted in 2007 to evaluate the potential ergonomic hazards among frank hangers at the Foster Farms deli plant in Livingston California. The report summarized the roles of the employees who were not able to conduct frank handing a specific task on the production line. The NIOSH investigators went to the deli plant in Livingston, California to observe frank hanging tasks in both the raw and cooked production areas as well as holding voluntary medical interviews with the workers. The NIOSH investigators performed a closing conference and provided preliminary recommendations to the union officials and company representatives. MethodsThe ergonomic evaluation criteria are indicated in terms of MSD referring to conditions, which involve the nerves, tendons, and muscles, and supporting structures of the body. WMSDs are a main element of the cost of work related illness in the United States. A huge amount of data exist in providing strong evidence of an association between MSDs and certain work related factors including physical, work organizational, individual, psychosocial and sociocultural. The multifactorial nature of MSDs requires a discussion of individual factors and how they are related with WMSDs. There is a major evidence that working groups with high levels of static contraction, static loads or extreme working postures relating to the neck/shoulder muscles are at increased risk for neck/shoulder MSDs. There is strong evidence that job tasks that requires a combination of risk factors increase risk for wrist tendonitis. Finally, therefore, is a strong data and information that low back disorders related with work related lifting and forceful movements. A number of factors can also influence the response to risk factors for MSDs such as age, gender, smoking and strength. Even though personal factors could affect an individual susceptibility to overexertion disorders, studies performed in high risk industries identifies that the risks related with personal factors is small related to the associated with occupational exposures.
ResultsNIOSH investigators used the RNLE to evaluate the frank loading job in the raw production area because it involved significant repetitive lifting. It is also records the assumptions that were made in calculating the LIs for this job. RWL and LI results for compact and non-compact frank loading when no platform is used and when a 9″ platform is used. These parameters were thought to represent the best and worst case scenarios. However, the upper limit for vertical lifts height (as defined by the RNLE) of 70″ was used in place of the actual highest destination vertical lift height measured at the work site, 81″. Non-compact lifts had LIs almost twice those of compact lifts and heavier lifts had LIs almost twice those of lighter loads. Using the 9″ platform slightly improved the lifting hazard. A majority (83%) of the lifts calculated had LIs greater than 1.0, which places an increasing number of workers at risk for low back injuries. Four of the lifts calculated had LIs greater than 3.0, which pose a risk of back injuries for most workers.DiscussionNIOSH investigators used the RNLE to evaluate the unloading job in the cooked production area because it also involved significant repetitive lifting. It also records the assumptions that were made in calculating the lifting indices for this job. The platform provided in the cooked area was smaller than the one demonstrated in the raw production area; this allowed the workers to stand in various positions around the platform, rather than using it for every lift. During our observation, workers straddled the platform, placed one foot on the platform, placed both feet on the platform, or stood behind the platform to perform lifts. The summary results for compact and non-compact frank unloading when no platform is used, when a 6″ platform is used, and when lifts are performed standing behind the platform. These are considered best and worst case scenarios. Due to the numerous permutations, not all were calculated. The upper limit for vertical lift height (as defined by the RNLE) of 70″ was used in place of the actual highest destination vertical lift height measured at the work site, 81″. The upper limit for horizontal distance of the load from the body (as defined by the RNLE) of 25″ was used for the calculations when workers were standing behind the platform and reaching. This is less than the actual distance of the load from the body at the origin of these particular lifts.