In the June issue of Transmission & Distribution World, you met the team of We Energies (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.) line mechanics who took on the company's responsibilities for ergonomics as it's applied to line mechanics (“Linemen Tackle Tool Troubles,” June 2003)

Today, the team of five — Tim Allen, Bob Koenecke, Dave Paro, Steve Rueter and Fred Wenzel — along with several new team members, continue to find new ways for We Energies' linemen to work more safely with fewer long-term disabilities. They also are willing to share their ideas with their counterparts at utilities around the country.

Although the work began with an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI; Palo Alto, California, U.S.)-funded study conducted by Dr. Richard Marklin of Marquette University (Milwaukee), it did not end with the publication of the EPRI ergonomics handbook. In fact, to the surprise of everyone on the ergonomics team, this was more than just another committee, it was a life-changing experience.

“Linemen Tackle Tool Troubles” set the scene for major hand-tool decisions by detailing the successes of the We Energies' ergonomics team and the cost savings it achieved.

Knowledge is Key

Early work at Marquette University provided We Energies with a better understanding of the causes of repetitive injuries. The company's linemen participated in a series of tests to determine the muscle force required to perform various functions. The results were crucial to the company's understanding of the physical stresses existing tools placed on its linemen. More importantly, the team used the data to present its story to management.

As We Energies learned, investing in ergonomics has some upfront costs, but saves money in the long run. More importantly, the investment will reduce the number and frequency of injuries for line mechanics.

We Energies has statistics to show the typical medical expenses for common workplace injuries. By reducing the force required to perform repetitive tasks, the company can protect the work force while significantly reducing medical and other expenses.

We Energies usually hires about 30 to 40 new apprentice line mechanics every year, and it takes about three years to progress from apprentice to line mechanic. Of the annual new hires, only 10% replace retirees; the other 90% move on to other positions, such as substation electrician, troubleshooter or supervision. One quarter of these replacements for 1999 to 2001 were contacted, and all admitted to major life-affecting injuries to the back or upper extremities from overhead line work. Every person contacted said a major reason for leaving that work was to reduce their occupational exposure because it was too difficult to continue in overhead work. These employees suffer repeated injuries that increase in severity with exposure and age.

We Energies reviewed medical and workers' compensation costs for 47 musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) injuries that resulted in lost work days or restricted duty days from January 1999 to July 2001. Documentation showed that replacement workers were required for 1144 days. Total medical costs, including indemnity, reimbursement for drugs, parking and transportation, totaled US$478,605. And that's just for reported injuries. About three-fourths of the most serious injuries that result in surgery or extended time off work were not previously reported to the company. Lineman either “toughed it out” or used sick days. The longer these go on, the worse they get.

By surveying its line workers, We Energies found that non-reporting of early injuries was costly to the individual and to the company. Too often events were not reported before they became severe, resulting in lost time incidents, surgery, and even long term disability.

Ergonomic Injuries Account For 46% of All Injuries

Most people report pain when it becomes chronic or when an injury requires medical care or even surgery. The sooner employees report their injuries, the sooner ergonomic and safety teams or even medical professionals can take corrective action. We discovered that non-acute, unreported events occurred prior to the reporting of 73% of these serious cases. In other words, a lot of workers either do not report or report too late to prevent serious injury.

A review of injuries by body part found that the highest number of incidents, 57 of 167 ergonomics injuries report to the population of 371 overhead line mechanics from 1999-2001 were back injuries identified by the occupational health nurses, with 25 of them requiring first aid or other medical treatment, 12 being OSHA recordable injuries, and 20 resulting in restricted duty, lost workdays or were relatively severe, such as those requiring surgery. The next highest number of injuries, 25, was to workers' knees, followed by 22 shoulder injuries and 13 elbow injuries. Surprisingly, only 25 of the 167 cases were to the same workers as repeated injuries. The expectation was to find a smaller pool of workers who accounted for multiple reports, rather than 142 injured workers.

In addition to the toll that poor (or a lack of) ergonomics efforts take on the company's work force, there are associated medical costs, and they add up.

Medical, workers' compensation and disability costs averaged $74,000 for a single shoulder replacement, $24,000 for back surgery, $23,153 for knee surgery and $17,000 for rotator cuff surgery. The cost of providing skilled workers at $36 an hour to replace line mechanics for the 1174 working days of lost or restricted time totaled $308,160. Significantly lower costs, in the $2000 range, were totaled for injuries that were reported and treated at an earlier stage, such as for lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) or tendonitis. The goal is to get line workers to admit earlier that they are hurting and get them the right tools to prevent this progression.

For those companies who are resisting moving to power tools, here's a recommendation from We Energies: Consider the annualized costs of injuries to line workers.

By implementing the majority of the EPRI handbook ergonomic interventions, We Energies projects an annual savings greater than $922,300. Even that figure does not fully capture the potential cost reductions.

We Energies found that the biggest savings are in retaining the labor of skilled workers and providing them the tools to work more quickly with less effort. In today's labor market, companies need to do everything they can to improve working conditions in order to provide reliable customer service.

Table 1. Battery-Operated Press Benefits

Risk factor	Current practice risks	Improvement with new tool
Amount of handle force required to squeeze a compress connector 1/0-#2 wire pair is approximately 311 N (70lbf) at the outer die location	Only 1% capable of the general population have the peak force to make this connection	Nearly all workers capable
High shoulder force exertions working from a pole	EMG data: peak shoulder muscle force using the manual compression tool was over 50% MVC (maximal voluntary contraction)	Reduced from over 50% MVC to 30% MVC (a 40% reduction)
High shoulder force exertions working from a bucket	Peak force 45% MVC	Reduced to less than 10% MVC (more than 80% reduction)
Forearm muscle flexor peak forces working from pole	Peak force of 90% MVC	Peak decreased from 90% MVC to 60% MVC (a 33% reduction)
Forearm muscle flexor peak forces from bucket	Peak force of 100% MVC	From 100% MVC to 60% MVC (a 40% decrease)
Jarring action of manual compression tool	Not measured but substantial	Eliminated 100%; virtually all workers capable
Twisted and awkward trunk postures		Improved posture from the bucket

We Energies decided to make changes as it continued to see line workers experience repeated injuries that increased in severity with both exposure and age.

The EPRI-funded study surveyed symptoms of line workers from several EPRI utilities. The line workers wrote about what body parts hurt, and which tools and tasks hurt the most.

These surveys showed that the greatest occupational health costs were associated with the use of manual compression and cutting tools. The company looked at projected savings from replacing them with battery-operated cutters and presses, and found that using battery tools could conservatively reduce 50% of the 25 severe MSD cases dealing with the upper extremities and neck. Furthermore, the replacement would save $73,411 in medical and workers' compensation costs alone. Total cost savings were projected at $184,255 annually.

Table 2. Typical Medical Expenses for Line Worker Injuries

Rotator cuff (shoulder) surgery	$16,898.66
Shoulder replacement	70,821.69
Bilateral carpal tunnel surgery	10,851.49
Chronic epicondylitis	3183.36
Back injury	20,855.60
Back surgery	26,613.60
Shoulder tendinitis	4485.24

A part of presenting this information to upper management was having the executives take the tools in hand and attempt pressing and cutting tasks, which the study documented could be done by less than 1% of the population. This was a turning point for ergonomics in the company. The president and vice presidents struggled to make a single compression with the manual tool. They were amazed to discover firsthand just how hard the job is even under controlled conditions. Now the ergonomics team always shows up with the tools and puts them in the hands of the decision makers.

Presses and Cutters

We Energies reviewed the payback period for purchasing 100 sets of battery-operated presses and cutters, compared to the costs of making connections and cuts with manual tools. This is where dollar savings came to light. The estimated annual cost of purchasing 100 sets of battery tools was $60,000, while the cost savings of making the switch to battery tools was $142,000 in that same period. The company would recover the capitalized investment in the battery tools in just four months. For budget purposes, the estimated total annual cost of a battery press and cutter per line worker would be $498.

Finally, an implementation team found that the battery-operated presses and cutters could replace or supplement 19 different crimping and cutting tools. Repair and replacement costs for these existing tools totalled nearly $100,000 annually. By eliminating the majority of them, while retaining a few for storm repairs and backups, We Energies will save $70,000 per year for repair and replacement. This cost was used in the business case.

Table 3. Replacement Worker Costs Incurred for 39 MSD Injuries

	RD	RD	LWD	LWD	Totals RD/LWD	Replacement worker costs totals (skilled worker @$36/hr)	Annualized per worker
Body part/injury	Number of cases	Days missed	Number of cases	Days missed	Days missed
Shoulder	7	185	1	11	196	$56,448	$61
Back	15	407	3	90	497	$143,136	$155
Knee	3	136	1	43	179	$51,552	$56
Elbow	1	2			2	$576	$1
Inflammation	1	60			60	$17,280	$19
Carpal tunnel syndrome	1	14	1	41	55	$15,840	$17
Occupational illness	1	56			56	$16,128	$17
Multiple body parts	1	20			20	$5,760	$6
Wrist	1	3			3	$864	$1
Upper arm	1	2			2	$576	$1
Forearm	0	0			0	$0	$0
Leg	0	0			0	$0	$0
Totals	32	885	6	185	1070	$308,160	334
Note: Restricted duty (RD) days and lost work days (LWD) of MSDs requiring full-time replacement workers (January 1999 to July 2001).

We Energies decided to expand the affected population to include troubleshooters and to purchase a considerably more expensive cutter, which could also cut aluminum conductor steel reinforced (ACSR). In the end, the company capitalized $900,000 for the battery-operated presses and cutters, with a capitalized payback period of six months.

Table 4. Medical Costs for Nine MSD Cases

Employee letter code	Still on job?	Diagnosis	Indemnity	Medical costs	Additional miscellaneous costs (parking, transportation)	Totals
A	No	Shoulder replacement surgery	$50,548	$19,218	$1,055	$70,821
B	Yes	bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome surgery (wrists)	$4,393	$6,457		$10,851
C	Yes	Rotator cuff (shoulder) surgery	$4990	$11,908		$16,898
D	Yes	Carpal tunnel surgery	$2122	$2565	$800	$5487
E	Yes	Chronic epicondylitis (elbow)		$3183		$3183
F	Yes	Epicondylitis (elbow)		$1716	$1307	$3024
G	Yes	Back injury	$8827	$11,485	$542	$20,855
H	Yes	Back surgery	$3407	$22,844	$361	$26,613
J	Yes	Shoulder tendonitis		$4485		$4485
Totals			$74,289	$83,864	$4067	$162,221
Note: Medical and workers' compensation costs for nine MSD injuries at the utility where all medical and workers' compensation costs could be tracked (January 1999 through July 2001).

We Energies did not evaluate productivity data for these tools because time is not a major short-term savings. It has been the team's experience that eventually, with familiarity, they will see an impact on productivity.

The ergonomics team does time calculations for all interventions, and these are often a major consideration. Since the tools have not yet been in use for six months, followup data on reduced injuries is not yet available. There will be some immediate reduction, but the significant reductions are expected with additional years as young workers do not develop the lifelong, debilitating injuries older workers currently experience. However, there will be some backlog of latent injury because of accumulated exposure.

Battery-Operated Impact Wrench

Again, the physical and monetary costs prompted We Energies to take a serious look at how ergonomics could benefit employees and the company. Because employees expressed safety concerns (heavy weight, hard starting and leaking gasoline), We Energies Senior Vice President Charlie Cole and Health & Safety Team Leader Larry Rolfson asked the company's overhead line workers ergonomics team to investigate a safer, more ergonomic solution.

The team investigated drills from five different manufacturers. Weights of the drills ranged from 6.2 to 10.4 lbs (2.8 to 4.7 kgs), while the drills themselves each had 12-V chargers and either were half-impact or half-hammer drills. Drill times per hole ranged from 14 seconds to 46 seconds.

The team tested all the drills in a cedar pole with a pole diameter of 8.5 inches (22 cm) using a new 13/16-carbide drill bit. One test was halted after 12 holes because the tool began smoking. One cord-connected drill also was tested. It weighed 6.09 lbs (2.76 kgs) and had 100- to 300-ft/lb torque, the same gears, chuck and handle as the cordless models that were tested. The cord-connected model would be a good choice for crews with access to a small, portable generator. However, if a number of charged batteries were available, that would be superior to using a generator, especially on private property and would eliminate the risk of taking the cord into the primary zone.

Test results showed that using the gas-powered drill had some disadvantages, including: breathing of smoke (exhaust) from one of the drills; a risk of burns from the muffler or spilling gas; risk of loss of chuck key; less versatility (only drills holes); being poorly balanced and heavy (10.5 lb); needing hearing protection; and being difficult to start in winter.

Table 5. Upper Extremity and Back Injuries Add Up

Body part	Restricted duty days	Lost work days	Costs US$	US$ per worker
Upper extremity	416	52	$134,784	$146
Back	407	90	$143,136	$155
colspan="5">Note: Expenses are for period from January 1999 through July 2001.

Table 6. Projected Savings by Instituting EPRI Interventions

Cost category	Category total	% of total
Medical/WC costs	$192,500	20%
Replacement workers	$109,800	16%
Apprentice training	$90,000	10%
Unreported injuries	$160,000	17%
Productivity	$370,000	37%
Total	$922,300	100%
Note: Annualized potential savings with 32 EPRI interventions on line worker costs evaluated for 47 severe cases. “A Case Study of Utility Ergonomics,” a presentation at National Safety Congress Utilities Division by Patricia Seeley, January 2003.

The ideal solution was to remove safety concerns of gas spillage; remove ergonomics concerns of upper extremity injury risk by repeated pull-start attempts in cold weather; improve body posture, reduce strain to upper extremities, neck and back; lighter weight to reduce stress to upper extremities; selection of a more versatile, but still robust tool that would be readily accepted in the field; one-handed instead of two-handed operation; and reduction in wrist deviation with hammer tools and gas drills.

We Energies found that using a cordless drill to tighten and loosen bolts would reduce or eliminate shoulder abduction, wrist deviation; pap block connection (the inability to get into a good position), and excessive twisting of the body and neck. A house knob installation also would eliminate repeated wrist actions that would be required when using a manual screwdriver, and installing or removing lags on 2- to 3-inch (5- to 8-cm) duct for risers would eliminate repeated wrist action when removing bolts.

From these reviews and recommendations, the ergonomics team found that each tool has its own merits for torque, safety, ergonomics, cost and speed. It then recommended replacement gas-powered drills with cordless drills — actually robust battery operated impact wrenches — for all crews (except for those that would use the cord-connected tool with a generator, though the cordless tool with multiple batteries is a safer choice). Service centers are keeping a few gas drills for backup as well.

The selected tool adds ergonomic value and multi-task performance, and it significantly reduces the concerns of use of the gas-powered drills. The company eventually worked with the manufacturer to acquire a drill with a 3.6-V battery that improves the tool's balance. The manufacturer also recommended a different bit that adds an extra foot of cutting power. At the team's request, the manufacturer added a quick connect and a ring to hang it from the bucket. Furthermore, the repair and replacement costs of the gas-powered drill far exceed the cost for a new impact wrench, which is a safer, more ergonomic and extremely versatile tool.

The We Energies ergonomics initiative is making a difference. The investment the company has made in tools can be directly related to savings in medical expenses, as well as reduced lost-workday case. But more importantly, We Energies field workers have the tools they need to do the job, while significantly reducing the likelihood of suffering injury from repetitive motion activities.

The We Energies team is expanding its efforts to investigate work procedures, line hardware and accessories, and will report more on these findings as it quantifies results.

Patricia Seeley is the principal consultant for ergonomics at We Energies. She champions the ergonomics process in all business units of the company and works with the EPRI-funded ergonomics teams. Prior to 2001, she was the plant ergonomist at the General Motors Truck Assembly plant at Janesville, Wisconsin, from 1997 to 2001, and a public school teacher for 27 years. She is a certified professional ergonomist and holds master's degrees in both industrial engineering and education.
patricia.seeley@we-energies.com

Editors Note: The data presented in this article has been abstracted from EPRI's Ergonomics Handbook for the Electric Power Industry: Overhead Distribution Line Workers Interventions.