ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE
human body is approximately 37 °C. As pre- viously noted, multiple equations, notably that use radiant energy in some units, might necessitate interchangeability of the outdoor equations for this scenario.
FIGURE 1
Estimated Costs of One Injury/Illness (Acute, Subchronic, or Chronic) per Year Versus Company Profitability
Manual Handling and Ergonomic Hazards
5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
4 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0
Lifting and handling of heavy objects by cranes and other heavy machinery is com- mon in heavy industries such as metal and metallurgical facilities. For example, the hot and cold rolling processes and operations can involve heavy lifting by cranes and trucks that load heavy objects for furnace rollers (Ministry of Steel, n.d.). These tasks might cause more than 33% of all work injuries, including musculoskeletal disorders, some of which are designated as a potentially serious injury requiring days away from work—and other injuries can be fatal (Ning et al., 2015). In 2021, 2.6 million nonfatal workplace inju- ries were reported by the private sector in the U.S., with an incident rate of 2.7 cases per 100 full-time equivalent employees per year (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022).
4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
3 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0
3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
2 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0
2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0
1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
5 0 0 , 0 0 0
0
Burn Asb estosis Dust
C arpal T unnel Synd rom e
H earing L oss
L acerations Syncope ( H eat Stress)
Direct C osts
I nd irect C osts
T otal C osts ( Direct + I nd irect)
Prioritizing Multiple Workplace Hazards and Risks
Sal es to C ov er I nd irect C osts Sal es to C ov er T otal C osts
The number of workers who potentially are exposed to hazards can vary daily in the met- allurgical industry, which is atypical for a workplace. A better way to optimize the use of resources is to rely on similar exposure groups—workers who are tasked to do the same job in the same unit, operation, or pro- cess (Mulhausen & Damiano, 2015). Adding a layer of complexity, customers and contractors are also in the workplace as regular visitors. Following this categorization, the likeli- hood, chance, and probability (including the frequency of occurrence and severity) can be used for a successful risk characteriza- tion scheme. The tabulation of the factors to categorize and score the hazard can be con- verted to letter codes (Table 4), where high- risk and low-risk scores could necessitate immediate action and training, in that order. Most importantly, the responsibility must be assigned to individuals with the authority to implement corrective actions in response to the hazards by workers. In most successful risk prioritization sys- tems, the responsibility for actions must be delegated; follow-up should be documented
and communicated within the management hierarchy. Risks that have been identified and evaluated can be correlated with the exposure control banding or categorization when lim- ited exposure data are available. Injury and Cost Data to Prioritize Multiple Hazards Data on human health for acute and chronic illnesses can guide the evaluation and extent of various hazards. The database is more di- cult for chronic illness than for the “unseen” acute hazards or for hazards without PELs. Data from OSHA for a single injury or dis- ease in a hypothetical facility have provided a good basis to establish a comprehensive exposure assessment strategy and risk char- acterization of hazards that can cause acute, subchronic, and chronic illnesses. Data can be presented to include injuries to contrac- tors and the costs can be apportioned propor- tionately (Figures 1 and 2). Some metal and metallurgical facilities are continuously improving risk assessment pro-
cesses for health, safety, and environmental considerations. The primary consideration is for the health and safety of the workers, which includes understanding the number of employ- ees exposed and the health e¡ects, including fatal and nonfatal injuries and illness. Hazard severity and impact could cost the company time and workers days out from work, along with reassignment of worker tasks. Studies have considered these factors in risk characterization, which can improve pro- fessional exposure judgments (Stickle, 2012). Severity rates, if found to be as low as reason- ably practicable on the basis of other factors, might characterize the risks as acceptable in the workplace or in the community (Lyon & Hollcroft, 2016). Conclusion and Recommendations The main goal of this review was to demon- strate how to prioritize multiple occupational hazards in the workplace, with metal and met- allurgical facilities being used for illustrative purposes. The various methods reviewed here
14
Volume 86 • Number 5
Powered by FlippingBook