Petrochem/Utilities Industry Trends

Understanding Ergonomics

Issue Table of Contents

The Importance of Workplace Safety Q&A with Mark Hansen Understanding Ergonomics

Ergonomics is not a new issue, but it is a controversial one. Many employers and employees recognize the value of eliminating the types of hazards that can lead to ergonomic injuries. But given the confusion surrounding the issue, attempts to regulate ergonomics in the workplace have met with little success.

To begin with, many are unsure what an ergonomic injury exactly is. The Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has tried to clear the confusion by defining ergonomic injuries as musculoskeletal disorders, also known as MSDs. So what are MSDs? According to OSHA, workplace MSDs are “physical work activities or work place conditions in the job that are reasonably likely to be causing or contributing to injuries and disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage and spinal disc; examples include carpal tunnel syndrome related to long term computer data entry, rotator cuff tendonitis from repeat overhead reaching, and tension neck syndrome associated with long term cervical spine flexion.” In other words, it is a broad and difficult-to-define condition.

Amidst this confusion, the road to establishing regulations has been equally complicated. The Clinton administration issued the final Ergonomics Program Rule on November 14, 2000, despite heavy criticism. Many of its critics felt that the rule, broad and sweeping in scope, was too expensive for businesses to implement. Only a few months later, the Bush administrative repealed it, and replaced it with a program of voluntary compliance.

Now OSHA is pursuing a new ergonomic strategy. It is promoting its four-pronged approach that includes creating industry- and task-specific guidelines; enforcing these guidelines through inspections for ergonomic hazards; conducting outreach and providing assistance to businesses, particularly small businesses; and operating a national advisory committee to identify gaps in research regarding the application of ergonomics in the workplace.

So where does that leave petrochemical companies? In some cases, it depends upon the state in which the company is operating. Two states — California and Washington — have adopted their own OSHA-approved ergonomic plans. Other states are free to develop their own plans, yet have not chosen to do so at this point.

While there are no specific federal OSHA guidelines for the petrochemical industry yet, petrochemical companies are still under scrutiny. According to the General Duty Clause in the Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1970, employers are required to keep their workplaces free of recognized serious hazards. As OSHA has pointed out, this can include ergonomic hazards. Under this clause, OSHA can issue a citation to an oil refinery or chemical company that has been proven to have ergonomic hazards, even though the company does not have any specific regulations or guidelines it must follow.

Meanwhile, petrochemical industry associations are asserting that they recognize the importance of reducing the risk of ergonomic injuries occurring. They typically prefer voluntary programs, and cite the difficulty of a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach to ergonomics issues as the basis for their reasoning. Many of the standards or recommended practices that these associations have developed may not specifically mention ergonomics, but they still are designed to improve the workplace environment for workers in order to eliminate the risk of injury.