| |
OSHA Standard 1910.900
Final Ergonomics Program Standard-Regulatory Text November 2000
Paragraph L of the standard:
What kinds of controls must I use to reduce MSD hazards?
(1) For each problem job, you must use feasible engineering,
work practice or administrative controls, or any combination
of them, to reduce MSD hazards in the job. Where feasible, engineering
controls are the preferred method of control.
(2) You may use personal protective equipment (PPE) to supplement
engineering, work practice or administrative controls, but you
may use PPE alone only where other controls are not feasible.
Where you use PPE, you must provide it at no cost to employees.
From the standard:
[[Page 68360]]
This paragraph of the standard is almost identical to the parallel
proposed provision, with one exception. A footnote to this paragraph
in
the proposal would have prohibited the use of back belts/braces
and
wrist braces/splints as PPE; this footnote has been deleted from
this
paragraph of the final rule. As explained below, OSHA believes
that
evidence in the record suggests that back belts, in some limited
applications, may help to reduce MSD hazards. However, back belts,
like
other PPE, may not be used alone if other controls are feasible.
Wrist
splints, wrist braces, and back braces, which are post-injury
devices
used to speed rehabilitation, are not considered PPE for the
purposes
of this standard.
Paragraph (l)(i)--Feasible Controls
Paragraph (l)(i) of the final standard mandates the use of
feasible
controls (engineering, work practice, and administrative controls)
or
any combination of them to control or reduce MSD hazards in problems
jobs. This paragraph also states that engineering controls, where
feasible, are the preferred method of control. This paragraph
of the
final rule is essentially unchanged from the proposal. OSHA is
allowing
employers this flexibility in the choice of controls because
the
Agency's experience and information in the rulemaking record
indicates
that these control approaches have been effective in contributing
to
reductions in the number and severity of workplace MSDs. In addition,
OSHA believes that the broad range of jobs to which the standard
will
apply, and the great variation in workplace conditions covered,
make
compliance flexibility essential.
The final standard defines engineering controls as controls
that
physically change the job in a way that controls or reduces MSD
hazards. Examples of engineering controls that are used to address
ergonomic hazards are workstation modifications, changes to the
tools
or equipment used to do the job, facility redesigns, altering
production processes, and/or changing or modifying the materials
used.
Engineering controls range from very simple to complex: from
putting
blocks under a desk to raise the work surface for a taller-than-average
worker to providing a lumbar support pillow or rolled-up towel
to a
video display unit (VDU) operator, to redesigning an entire facility
to
enhance productivity, reduce product defects, and reduce workplace
MSDs.
When choosing an engineering control to address a particular
ergonomic problem, employers often have many choices, depending
on how
much they wish to spend, how permanent a solution they seek,
how
extensive a production process change they need, and employee
acceptance and preference (see the discussion of control approaches
in
the summary and explanation for paragraph (m)). For example,
as MacLeod
(Ex. 26-1425) points out, an employer whose VDU operators are
experiencing neck and shoulder problems has many options available,
including the following:
Raising the height of the monitor by putting it on phone
books, building a monitor stand, buying an adjustable monitor
stand,
buying an adjustable wall-mounted monitor stand, or buying an
adjustable desk-mounted monitor stand;
Putting the desk on blocks; or
Providing an adjustable-height desk or workstation.
Work practice controls involve changes in the way an employee
does
the job. They are defined by the standard as changes in the way
an
employee performs the physical work activities of a job that
reduce
exposure to MSD hazards. Work practice controls involve procedures
and
methods for safe work. Examples of work practices that reduce
the
potential for exposure to ergonomic risk factors are the use
of neutral
positions or postures to perform tasks (keeping wrists straight,
lifting close to the body), use of two-person lifts when mechanical
lifts are not available, and the observance of micro-breaks as
necessary to minimize muscle fatigue. In the context of ergonomic
programs, work practice controls are essential, both because
they
reduce ergonomic stressors in their own right and because they
are
critical if engineering controls are to work effectively. For
example,
workers need to be trained to use a power grip rather than a
trigger
grip if a new tool is to be successful, and they need to know
how to
adjust an ergonomically designed chair properly if it is to
substantially reduce the risk of neck disorders, shoulder tendinitis,
or another type of MSD. Work practices, like learning to vary
job
activities during the day (e.g., moving from filing to sorting
mail to
using the computer and back again) can often reduce the magnitude
and
duration of exposure to the relevant risk factor sufficiently
to make
MSDs unlikely. To be effective, the culture at the workplace
and
supervisory support and reinforcement are necessary to ensure
that safe
work practices are routinely observed.
Administrative controls are work practices and policies implemented
by the employer that are designed to reduce the magnitude, duration,
and/or frequency of employee exposure to risk factors by changing
the
way work is assigned or scheduled. Examples of administrative
controls
that are used in the ergonomics context are employee rotation,
job
enlargement, and employer-initiated changes in the pace of work.
Administrative controls have been effective in addressing
MSD
hazards in a number of cases. For example, one case study cited
in the
Benefits chapter (Chapter IV of the Final Economic Analysis)
describes
a lift team approach that has been effective in reducing work-related
back injuries among nursing personnel in a long-term care facility
for
the elderly (Ex. 26-1091). The table of ergonomic program and
intervention case studies in Section VI shows dozens of examples
of the
successful use of administrative controls, either alone or in
combination with other controls.
However, administrative controls must be used carefully if
they are
to provide effective protection to employees. A well-known ergonomics
book, MacLeod's ``The Ergonomic Edge,'' cautions:
* * * job rotation is only beneficial if the tasks involve
different muscle-tendon groups or if the workers are rotated
to a
rest cycle * * *. Furthermore, job rotation alone does not change
the risk factors present in a facility. Although job rotation
may
have beneficial effects, engineering changes should remain the
goal
of the ergonomics program (Ex. 26-1425).
OSHA agrees, and paragraph (l)(1) notes, that engineering
controls
are the preferred method of controlling MSD hazards in cases
where
these controls are feasible. In contrast to administrative and
work
practice controls or personal protective equipment (PPE), which
traditionally have occupied lower tiers of the hierarchy, engineering
controls fix the problem once and for all.
Many commenters agreed that engineering controls are generally
superior to other controls, i.e., administrative controls, work
practices, or personal protective equipment (see, e.g., Exs.
26-1487,
26-1428, 26-1424, 26-2; 26-1426, 26-1425, 26-1408; and 26-3).
For
example, a recent ergonomics text states:
Ergonomic hazards can be effectively eliminated by introducing
engineering
[[Page 68361]]
controls and applying ergonomic principles when developing
workstations, tools, or jobs * * * only engineering controls
eliminate the workplace hazards. Other strategies [work practices,
administrative controls] only minimize the risk of injury (Ex.
26-
1408).
However, a number of commenters mistakenly understood OSHA's
statement in the proposal about the preferred status of engineering
controls. These commenters understood this statement to mean
that
administrative or work practice controls could not be used in
lieu of
engineering controls. This was not OSHA's intent, nor is the
inclusion
of this statement in the final rule to be interpreted that way.
In the
final rule, as in the proposal, OSHA is permitting any combination
of
controls (except PPE) to be used to control MSDs, either alone
or in
combination. OSHA agrees, as these parties (see, e.g., Exs. 30-3344,
30-4628) argued, that in many cases, the use of administrative
or work
practice controls alone may eliminate the hazard and thus obviate
the
need for more expensive engineering controls. For example, the
Milliken
Company stated:
The authorization in [proposed] section 1910.920(a) for
employers to use any combination of engineering, administrative,
and
work practice controls is effectively rendered meaningless with
the
statement that follows, which specifies that engineering controls
are the preferred method for eliminating or materially reducing
MSD
hazards. This provides too much latitude for OSHA area directors
to
issue citations when an employer has used administrative and
work
practice controls rather than engineering controls (Ex. 30-3344).
Other commenters who misinterpreted the proposed statement
about the
preference for engineering controls were concerned that this
preference
could greatly increase the costs of compliance if OSHA enforced
this
provision. For example, the Rubber Manufacturers Association
emphasized
that `` * * * the hierarchy placing engineering controls over
other
alternatives * * * restricts employers' discretion to choose
less
expensive, non-engineered alternatives'' (Ex. 500-95). Other
groups,
such as Pharmteck (Ex. 30-4122) and Southern States Cooperative
Inc.
(Ex. 30-394), argued that `` * * * a vast percentage of workplace
injuries result not from exposure that might be limited through
engineering solutions, but from problematic employee behavior
and
safety related decisions.'' Issues of feasibility were pointed
to by
several commenters (see, e.g., Exs. 30-3368, 30-4264) such as
the
National Soft Drink Association, which stated:
Although the employer is allowed to use any combination of
controls, OSHA makes clear that engineering controls are preferred,
where feasible. Lacking any definition or guidance of the term
``feasible'' complicates understanding or complying with OSHA's
intent in this regard. Such ambiguity will undoubtedly lead to
disagreements between employers and OSHA compliance personnel
(Ex.
30-3368).
In response, OSHA notes that the hierarchy of controls has
been an
established industrial hygiene practice since the 1950s and has
been a
longstanding OSHA policy, as evidenced by many of the Agency's
standards (e.g., asbestos, Sec. 1910.1001; benzene, Sec. 1910.1047;
cadmium, Sec. 1910.1027; and methylene chloride, Sec. 1910.1052).
As
was stated in the proposal, ergonomists endorse the hierarchy
of
controls because they believe that control technologies should
be
selected based on their reliability and efficacy in controlling
or
reducing the workplace hazard (exposure to risk factors) giving
rise to
the MSD. OSHA does not agree that ``problematic employee behavior''
is
the cause of occupational injuries and illnesses, nor that feasibility
will be a concern with this standard, in large part because the
standard allows such flexibility in control approach and requires
only
that employers implement feasible controls.
Many groups (see, e.g., Exs. 32-21-1-2-19, 20-69, 20-22, 30-4538,
30-3683) commenting on the proposal strongly supported the hierarchy
of
controls. For example, the American Association of Safety Engineers
stated:
We agree that engineering controls should be the first option
in
alleviating WMSDs. While this type of approach could be the most
expensive from the short-term perspective, our experience is
that
engineering controls are the most efficient/effective approach
in
the long-term (Ex. 32-21-1-2-19).
OSHA agrees that the use of engineering controls is the most
effective
way of controlling the MSD hazards. However, as discussed above,
this
standard permits employers to use any combination of controls,
except
PPE alone, to address MSD hazards in their workplace.
Paragraph (l)(2)--Personal Protective Equipment
Paragraph (l)(2) of the final standard permits employers to
use
personal protective equipment (PPE) to supplement engineering,
work
practice, and administrative controls. However, personal protective
equipment may not be used alone, i.e., as the sole means of employee
protection, unless no other controls are feasible. In addition,
any PPE
that is provided must be made available to employees at no cost.
PPE is equipment that is worn by the employee and reduces exposure
to risk factors and MSD hazards in the job. Examples are palm
pads and
knee pads to reduce contact stress, vibration-attenuation gloves,
and
gloves worn to protect against cold temperatures.
The hierarchy of controls, which, as discussed above, is widely
endorsed by ergonomists, occupational safety and health specialists,
and health care professionals, accords last place to PPE because:
Its efficacy in practice depends on human behavior (the
manager's, supervisor's and worker's),
Studies have shown that the effectiveness of PPE is highly variable
and inconsistent from one worker to the next,
The protection provided cannot be measured reliably,
PPE must be maintained and replaced frequently to maintain its
effectiveness,
It is burdensome for employees to wear, because it decreases
mobility and is often uncomfortable,
It may pose hazards of its own (e.g., the use of
vibration-reduction gloves may also force workers to increase
their
grip strength).
One author (Ex. 26-1408) notes that: `` * * * in most cases,
the
use of PPE focuses attention upon worker responses and not the
causes
of ergonomic hazards.* * * PPE does not eliminate ergonomic hazards
* *
* [and] must be considered as the last line of defense against
ergonomic hazard exposure.'' Thus, although the final standard
permits
PPE to be used as a supplemental control, it cannot be relied
on as a
permanent solution to MSD hazards unless other feasible controls
are
unavailable.
In the proposal, OSHA included a note to the proposed section
on
the hierarchy of controls that stated that back belts/braces
and wrist
braces/splints were not to be considered PPE for purposes of
the
standard. This note was added to alert employers to the fact
that back
belts and wrist braces, which are widely used in U.S. workplaces,
were
not to be considered a control to reduce ergonomic hazards under
the
proposed standard. OSHA pointed out that these devices were being
marketed as equipment that could prevent MSDs, although the evidence
to
support these claims was inconclusive.
A number of commenters and studies
in the record (see, e.g., 32-30-
1-15, 32-30-1-6, 32-30-1-7, 32-30-1-29, 32-30-1-14) suggest that
OSHA
should allow the use of back belts as PPE on the grounds that
these
devices have been shown to reduce workplace injuries. For
[[Page 68362]]
example, Mr. Jeffrey Whitaker commented that:
As safety professionals we realize that back supports alone
are
not a solution and we apply the hierarchy of controls in our
work
with our customers on a daily basis. We recommend engineering
and
work practice controls be used whenever possible but we all know
of
hundreds of workers' whose jobs will never or cannot be changed.
These workers need at least a modicum of support when doing their
jobs. Back supports are used in these situations to provide a
basic
line of defense for vulnerable workers (Ex. 30-2724).
Commenters from Chase Ergonomics were
of the same opinion:
Back supports should be recognized as an acceptable component
of
an overall back safety program under the hierarchy of controls.
As
with any PPE, back supports are not the first intervention option.
In many jobs, however, neither engineering controls nor work
practice or administrative controls are feasible or practicable.
In
these circumstances, OSHA's PPE standard allows employers to
provide
workers with protective equipment that is appropriate for the
hazards present * * * OSHA should clarify that employers may
use
back supports as a supplement to their overall back injury
prevention program (Ex. 30-3857).
However, other organizations and commenters cautioned against
the use
of back belts as PPE. For example, in a 1994 report reviewing
the
available scientific literature on the use of back belts, NIOSH
expressed concern that wearing a belt may alter workers' perceptions
of
their capacity to lift heavy workloads (i.e., belt wearing may
foster
an increased sense of security, which may not be warranted or
substantiated) (Ex. 15-16). NIOSH does not recommend the use
of back
belts as PPE, and neither do a number of professional societies
(Exs.
15-15, 15-17, 15-33, and 500-41-99).
However, in response to comments submitted to the record regarding
back belts, OSHA has reviewed the available scientific literature
addressing the efficacy of back belts in reducing MSDs. OSHA
has
conducted an extensive review of the evidence in the record on
the
effectiveness of back belts in industrial use. The evidence is
mixed.
Several studies (see, e.g., Exs. 32-30-1-21, 32-30-1-22, 32-30-1-2,
32-
30-1-8, 33-30-1-16, 32-31-1-23) of back belt use showed negative
results. For example, a 1996 study by Rafacz and McGill (Ex.
32-30-1-
21) that investigated the effectiveness of back belts in 20 healthy
male subjects found that belt wearing increased diastolic blood
pressure during every task performed by the study subjects. The
authors
concluded that ``wearing an abdominal belt may put undue strain
on the
cardiovascular system and * * * that screening for cardiovascular
compromise should be conducted before occupational belt-wearing.''
Another study (Alexander et al. 1995) that evaluated belt use
in
nursing, dietary, and environmental services workers found no
significant differences in the number of self-reported back injuries.
The authors concluded that ``This finding supports research [showing]
that universal prescription of back belts did not decrease the
number
of back injuries and that there [is] no support for uninjured
workers
wearing back belts to reduce risk of injury.'' (Ex. 32-30-1-2).
A number of back belt studies in the literature report inconclusive
results (see, e.g., Exs. 32-30-1-22, 32-30-1-8, 32-30-1-24, 32-30-1-
12). For example, a study by Kraus et al.1996 (Ex. 32-30-1-12)
reported
a lower acute back injury rate among belt users than non-users,
but
cautioned that a number of confounders, such as the inability
to
evaluate injury status, job lifting intensity, or length of employment
``may be important confounders or effect modifiers that delimit
the
potential effect of back supports.''
However,
a number of recent studies (see, e.g., Exs. 32-30-1-25,
32-30-1-6, 32-30-1-7, 32-30-1-14, 32-30-1-19) contain limited
evidence
that back belt use can, in certain circumstances, provide some
protection to workers. For example, a 1998 study evaluated
trunk
stiffening during flexion and lateral bending and concluded that
``increased spine stability may provide greater protection against
injury following unexpected or sudden loading'' (Ex. 32-30-1-6).
A 1995
review of the literature on back belt effectiveness (Ex. 32-30-1-7)
concluded: ``Based on our assessment of the * * * studies reviewed
in
this paper, a major finding is that back supports designed solely
for
specific purposes could be biomechanically, physiologically,
and
psychophysically effective in relieving the loads on the lumbar
spine
for employees engaged in many industrial operations.'' A study
by one
of OSHA's expert witnesses, Dr. Stephen Lavender (Ex. 32-30-1-14)
that
evaluated the effect of lifting belts, foot movement, and lift
asymmetry on trunk motions, concluded that the lateral bending
and
twisting motions of the torso are controlled with belt use.
OSHA's review of the voluminous record
on the back belt issue shows
that back belts may have protective effects in certain industrial
settings, such as sudden unexpected loading of the spine
(Ex. 32-30-1-
14). OSHA is aware that several of these studies had small sample
sizes
(e.g., 10 subjects) (Ex. 32-30-1-6), lacked control groups, and
were of
short duration. Nevertheless, the Agency
is persuaded that the evidence
for the effectiveness of back belts, although limited, exceeds
that
available for other types of equipment that workers wear that
is
classified as PPE (e.g., palms pads, knee pads). OSHA has therefore
decided not to prohibit the classification of back belts as PPE
for the
purposes of this standard. Accordingly, the note to
that effect
contained in the proposal does not appear in the final rule.
Permitting
back belts to be used as PPE means that employers will be required
to
provide them to their workers, if they choose to do so, at no
cost to
employees. Further, as with any PPE, back belts used in this
manner are
subject to OSHA's standard for PPE (29 CFR 1910.132).
Click here to return to Chase home
page.
|
