Chemical industry voices concerns with ergonomics proposal

From Chemical Process Safety Report, © Thompson Publishing Group

In written comments on the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) proposed ergonomics standard (64 FR 65767, Nov. 23, 1999), the chemical industry continues to raise concerns about the broad reach of the standard and whether existing ergonomics programs at facilities will meet the requirements outlined in OSHA's proposal.

A chief criticism of the proposed standard is that it's not flexible enough to accept as compliant approaches that are working in existing ergonomics programs established within many companies specifically approaches that do reduce the risks of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). "OSHA should focus on reduction of risk, not the methodology one uses to reduce the risk" said a spokesperson from Dow Chemical Co., who emphasized that although their ergonomics program has been very successful, it does not "satisfy each program element" outlined in the proposed OSHA standard.

According to OSHA, it is willing to accept existing ergonomics programs under the proposal's "grandfather" clause, provided they include all elements of a complete ergonomics plan, as outlined in the proposal. In order to be considered compliant OSHA's proposal requires existing programs to have the following elements: Management Leadership and Employee Participation; Hazard Information and Reporting; Job Hazard Analysis and Control; Training; MSD Management; and Program Evaluation.

Some companies already have implemented in-house ergonomics programs and are concerned they will not be compliant because existing programs do not follow what they consider to be very stringent requirements in the proposal. "To start with a new, cookie-cutter approach will not advance worker safety and health," said a spokesperson for ExxonMobil Corp., one of the companies that has already committed time and resources to its own ergonomics program.

Voicing similar concerns, Dow Chemical Co. believes OSHA should consider "appropriately equivalent" programs rather than only those that comply with what is stated in the grandfather clause of the proposed standard. Dow has approached its ergonomics program differently from what OSHA has proposed, allowing individual employees to assume a proactive role in determining how the program applies to them so they may minimize risks of MSDs in their own work areas. Dow's program emphasizes teaching employees how to manage risks associated with their jobs so they may assess their tasks using specific guidelines, and take action to alleviate potential MSD risk factors before they need medical treatment.

Chemical industry comments also addressed the proposal's requirement that at least one person must be responsible for receiving and responding to employee reports, as well as taking necessary action. Dow Chemical disagrees with this approach, stating that it would be very difficult for an "ergonomics expert" to evaluate and develop solutions for the many diverse tasks that are a part of a large company, especially when its current ergonomics program encourages employees to take responsibility for assessing their own jobs without relying on others to do so. Under the current proposed standard, the company worries that it would have to justify its own program each time an OSHA compliance officer visits company facilities.

Another major concern expressed by industry relates to how OSHA's proposal addresses the link between a reported MSD and a workplace cause. According to ExxonMobil, the language used in the proposal's MSD screening criteria is too vague, using terms like "reasonably likely" and "contribute or aggravate."

Some industry commenters argue that the proposal's language does not set out criteria for determining the cause of an MSD, which may result in an abuse of the system. They believe it should be clearly noted in the standard that only when there is adequate scientific evidence to support a direct link between an MSD and the physical activities on the job should the employee's injurty be considered a covered MSD.

In support of OSHA's proposed standard, The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) objects to relaxing grandfathering requirements for existing programs, stating that OSHA's core requirements are not excessive, but instead are "widely recognized as the basic elements of an effective ergonomics program."

AFL-CIO realizes that the basic elements of an ergonomics program will be addressed differently by each company, depending on a number of factors. The union believes that the job-based proposed standard is adaptableand there is no need to sacrifice the fundamental components that make up the standard. Furthermore, exceptions should be made only in cases of isolated incidents in which "quick fix" solutions could be implemented.

Indeed, the proposed standard would allow employees to implement a quick fix solution to eliminate an MSD hazard in place of implementing a full ergonomics program. The employer would have 90 days to generate the quick fix, which would be re-evaluated after 30 days to ensure that the MSD hazard has been eliminated. "While a quick fix may be appropriate in certain circumstances, the standard should better differentiate between workplaces where there are isolated problems where a quick fix may be appropriate, and high risk workplaces where a full ergonomics program should be required," AFL-CIO states in its comments.

Although OSHA has plans to complete the ergonomics rulemaking process this year, recent actions in Congress may delay the agency's progress. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed appropriations bills in June (H.R. 4577) that contain an amendment to prohibit, for a period of one year, OSHA from spending funds to implement, administer or enforce an ergonomics standard. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., sponsored the amendment in the Senate. "OSHA's proposed rule does not advance worker safety and health," Enzi states in a news release. Rather, it focuses agency and employer attention and resources on complying with highly confusing and intricate requirements, rather than preventing workplace injury and illness."

A conference committee currently is hammering out differences in the two versions of the appropriations bill, and President Clinton has said he would veto any measure containing an amendment to limit work on an ergonomics standard.

OSHA estimates that its proposed ergonomics standard would cost industry $4.7 billion to implement, but industry believes OSHA is drastically underestimating these costs. OSHA also anticipates that a standard will increase productivity in the workplace and save $9 billion in medical incurred from work-related MSDs.

The proposed ergonomics standard can be viewed on OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov.

Thompson Publishing Group monitors and interprets of complex laws and regulations. Its environmental publications provide news and regulatory information about topics including EPA and OSHA compliance, right-to-know, emergency planning, packaging, oil spills, clean air, hazardous wastes, and more.

For more information: Thompson Publishing Group, 1725 K. Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20006. Phone: 202-872-4000. Fax: 202-296-1091.