Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
April 13, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 4192 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF CHARLES N. JEFFRESS ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY AND HEALTH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BEFORE THE
HOUSE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY
REFORM AND PAPERWORK REDUCTION
BODY:
Madam
Chairperson, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify
about the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's proposed ergonomics
standard. I welcome this opportunity to discuss the severe problem of
work-related musculoskeletal disorders, also known as MSDs. OSHA has spent 10
years studying this issue, analyzing evidence, reviewing data, talking to
stakeholders, and discussing ideas and options. It is now time to act.
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are the most widespread
occupational health hazard facing our Nation today. Nearly two million workers
suffer work-related musculoskeletal disorders every year, and more than 600,000
lose time from work as a result. Although the median number of lost workdays
associated with these incidents is seven days, the most severe injuries can put
people out of work for months and even permanently impact their ability to
perform their job. In addition, $1 of every $3
spent on workers' compensation stems from insufficient ergonomic protection. The
direct costs attributable to MSDs are $15 to
$20 billion per year, with total annual costs reaching
$45 to $54 billion. Yet today, fewer than 30
percent of general industry employers have ergonomics programs. Real People
The human dimension of this problem is striking. This debate is about
real people confronting real risks to their livelihood, health and well-being.
Ursula Stafford is a 24-year-old paraprofessional for the New York City school
district. Ms. Stafford was assigned to assist a paralyzed student who used a
wheelchair. The student weighed 250 pounds and Ursula weighed 122. She received
no training on how to lift the student (which was required, for example, to help
the student go to the bathroom), nor did her employer provide any lifting
equipment. Ursula worked only two days before seriously injuring her back on the
third day. She had a herniated disc and spasms in her neck. Today she wears a
back brace, endures constant pain and has been told that she may never be able
to have children because her back may not be able to support the weight.
Compounding this tragedy is the fact that Ursula's predecessor was similarly
injured and became permanently disabled. Under the requirements of OSHA's
proposal, Ursula's employer would have been required to fix the job after the
first injury occurred. Ursula might never have been hurt.
Then there is
Walter Frazier, a 41-year-old poultry worker, who has undergone four surgeries
on his hands and wrists. For nearly nine years, Walter worked as a "live-hanger"
in a chicken processing plant. An admittedly nasty job, live-hanging is simple
in concept. Ten to twelve people stand beside a processing line, stretch over a
barrier bar designed to contain the often-flapping chickens, grab the chickens
by the legs, and then stretch upward while twisting to hang the chickens on
fast-moving overhead shackles. Walter repeated this process about once every
three seconds-that's about 10,000 times a day, 50,000 times a week, 2.5 million
times a year.
Walter felt the initial pains in his hands shortly after
beginning to work at the plant. Through the years his pain intensified while his
health has diminished. Finally, in 1998, barely able to lift 20 pounds and
unable to perform many daily household chores, he agreed with his doctor's
recommendations and had the first of four surgeries in an attempt to repair his
damaged hands. In addition to severe hand problems, Walter has lower back pain
and severe and chronic arthritis in his hands and shoulders. "My doctor told me
I can't do this job anymore. My body's overworked, and I can't do this any
further."
Many other workers have written us to express support for
ergonomics regulation. One put it like this: "I'm an
ultrasonographer who has recently been fired from my job because I had to be out
with MSD. I probably would have never had this problem if there were an
ergonomics standard present in my workplace."
Another worker who lost
her job was Mary, a nurse in Oregon, who sustained a back injury and had to work
on light duty for a year. Then her hospital told her to find another job because
they did not have anything for her to do. Today she works at different part-time
jobs in different locations and can no longer provide patient care. And there's
Debra Teske, a customer service representative, diagnosed with bilateral carpal
tunnel syndrome that required surgery on her right hand. Today, she has
difficulty cooking, cleaning and picking up small objects. She can no longer
kayak or bike, hobbies that she once enjoyed. And Carmen Willis, a nurse's aide,
is on disability and must use a speaker phone because she cannot hold the
telephone.
Beth Piknick is a registered nurse and also knows firsthand
the importance of OSHA's proposed ergonomics program standard. While working as
an ICU nurse, she suffered a career-ending back injury that was devastating,
both personally and professionally. Throughout her career, Ms. Piknick helped
patients move from their beds to chairs and back. Twisting, bending, pulling and
pushing were all part of the job. She never had any back problems. But on
February 17, 1992, while helping move a patient, Beth severely injured her back.
Physicians, surgeons, and physical therapists were not able to relieve the
constant pain. Finally, two years after the injury Beth had spinal fusion
surgery coupled with a major rehabilitation program. She was willing to endure
whatever pain it took to return to the job she loved. Despite the surgery and
the physical therapy, however, she cannot return to her job. Before her injury,
Ms. Piknick was an active person who enjoyed bicycling, racquetball, waterskiing
and yearly white water rafting trips with her family. Now, she cannot
participate in any of those activities.
Women disproportionately suffer
some of the most debilitating types of MSDs, such as carpal tunnel syndrome.
This is not because women are more vulnerable to MSDs-but because a large number
of women work in jobs associated with heavy lifting, awkward postures or
repetitive motions. They hold a disproportionate number of jobs as nurses,
cashiers, packagers, maids and house staff, assemblers and office workers.
Consequently, women suffer 70 percent of the carpal tunnel syndrome cases and 62
percent of the tendinitis cases that are serious enough to warrant time off
work.
Workers should not have to suffer like this. Often solutions to
mismatches between workers and their tasks are right at hand-simple, easy and
inexpensive. But too many employers have yet to realize the benefits of
ergonomics and put protective programs in place. Fewer than 30 percent of
employers with 20 or fewer employees have addressed ergonomics although more
than 325,000 musculoskeletal disorders occur each year in smaller workplaces. In
contrast, more than three-quarters of the companies with 250 or more employees
have analyzed hazards and installed some engineering controls to decrease the
risk of musculoskeletal disorders.
Real Solutions
Ergonomics has
an impact beyond workers. This discipline has its roots in improving efficiency
and productivity. For years, many employers have known that good ergonomics is
often good economics. And those employers have not only saved their workers from
injury and potential misery, but they have saved millions of dollars in the
process. The proposed rule draws on the experience of companies that have
implemented successful programs.
Many businesses-both large and
small-have already demonstrated the value of ergonomics programs.
Enid
Memorial Hospital, a small nursing care facility in Oklahoma, instituted an
ergonomics program focused on back-injury prevention. Enid Memorial presented
its program to staff through lectures, videos, handouts and demonstrations. The
facility purchased mechanical lifts and made them available throughout the
establishment. In 1997 and 1998, this practical ergonomics program cut the rate
of work-related injuries by almost 75% from their 1996 level, and reduced the
number of associated lost workdays by over 85 percent.
A 25-person Ohio
lumberyard, the Weyerhaeuser Customer Service Center, invited an ergonomist from
the State of Ohio's Workers' Compensation program to survey their site. Based on
the recommendations they received, the lumberyard developed checklists for use
by each of their employees in evaluating the ergonomic appropriateness of the
facility's personal protective equipment, mechanical equipment and overall
workplace. The lumberyard completely redesigned their office workstations in
1994. As of July of last year, they had not had any lost time injuries since
strengthening their program.
Two Maine New Balance shoe manufacturing
facilities cut their workers' compensation costs from $1.2
million to $89,000 per year and reduced their lost and
restricted workdays from 11,000 to 549 during a three- year period. New Balance
achieved this by adding engineering controls, eliminating piecework, forming
manufacturing teams, and rotating work activities.
Ultra Tool and
Plastics, a small New York plastics products manufacturer, implemented an
ergonomics program that cut back injuries by 70 percent and reduced associated
lost workdays by 80 percent. Some solutions included: purchasing ergonomic
chairs for production employees; providing back safety training; installing
robot presses to eliminate the need for production employees to reach for parts;
and making pallet jacks available for metal bins to allow height adjustments.
CR/PL Limited Partnership, a small Texas ceramic fixture manufacturer,
had a fairly high incidence of lost workday injuries occurring in this facility
due to moving products ranging from 25 to 52 pounds. The firm added
mechanical-lift assists and changed the heights of some work stations to reduce
lost workdays associated with MSDs by 60 percent in 2 years.
In 1996,
Sysco Food Services of Houston, a food service distributor, had 201 injuries
with 3,638 lost workdays. Sysco's back injuries accounted for almost 40 percent
of the injuries and more than half the company's total workers' compensation
costs. Most of the back injuries occurred in the warehouse and on delivery
routes. Sysco formalized its ergonomics program under the leadership of its
occupational health nurse. They instituted an early return to work policy.
Workers were encouraged to report any symptoms. The company re-racked its
warehouse and put brakes on the hand tracks. Sysco assessed its customers'
locations for hazards during delivery and worked with its customers on
improvements. Sysco also worked with its suppliers to get smaller bags, handles
on packages, sturdier cardboard and lighter boxes. One year after implementing
an ergonomics program, injuries dropped 25 percent, and the cost of workers'
compensation cases was down by more than 45 percent.
Many solutions to
ergonomic problems are common sense and inexpensive. OSHA has identified many
solutions that cost less than $100. For example, workers at a
packaging plant complained of leg and back fatigue. Their management installed
footrests for standing posture workstations at a cost of $50
each. At a manual assembly plant, a worker's job involved installing a small
part with needle-nosed pliers that put stress on the wrist. The supervisor
suggested another tool- available in the tool crib-that would make the task
easier and safer without costing an extra dime. Another company recognized the
need to make changes to their packaging line workstations because workers
developed musculoskeletal disorders. They simply added a belt conveyor to move
packaged boxes away from the workstation-at a cost of $90.50
per worker. Employees in a poultry processing plant complained that ill-fitting
protective gloves did not provide adequate protection. The company bought
protective gloves from several manufacturers to provide a wide range of sizes
for better fit. The cost was negligible. In many mechanical assembly companies,
the use of hand tools injures small parts of workers' hands. Some companies have
used padded tools with inexpensive materials to reduce injury, at minimal cost.
These are only a few examples among many.
Public Process
On
November 23, 1999, OSHA published its 11-page proposed ergonomics standard in
the Federal Register. As explained in the lengthy Preamble, the proposal was
based on sound scientific evidence-- including findings by the National Academy
of Sciences-that strongly supports two basic conclusions: (1) there is a
positive relationship between work-related musculoskeletal disorders and the
workplace; and (2) ergonomics programs and specific ergonomic interventions can
reduce these injuries.
OSHA is providing ample opportunity for the
public to provide input on its ergonomics proposal. We have already heard from
more than 7,000 stakeholders during the 100-day prehearing comment period, and
we are now in the midst of 9 weeks of public hearing on the proposal. During the
hearings, we expect to hear from more than a thousand witnesses, including
representatives of large and small businesses, small business owners, employee
representatives and individual workers, as well as physicians, ergonomists,
occupational health nurses, and others.
OSHA rulemaking hearings are
legislative-type proceedings in which parties with information and views
relevant to the proposed standard may provide testimony and be questioned by the
agency. Our hearings go even farther, as OSHA also allows participants to
question each other. OSHA believes it has provided sufficient time for this
questioning, not all of which has been used. For example, after a National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) panel testified about the
scientific evidence on the causes and management of MSDs, participants did not
even use all of the three hours that had been reserved for questioning the
panel.
Participants who have filed a notice of intent to appear will
also have an additional 90 days after the close of the hearing to submit further
comments, including comments on the hearing testimony and other evidence already
in the record. In total, the combined period including the pre-hearing comment
period, the public hearing, and the post-hearing comment period -which
interested members of the public will have to comment on OSHA's proposal exceeds
eight months. This period is in addition to the small business review panel
process e- conducted under SBREFA, the opportunity for comment after that
process concluded, and the eight years of dialogue that have occurred since OSHA
issued its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 1992. Throughout this
process, we have continually increased our understanding of the concerns of
workers and businesses, and have considered carefully all of the views we have
heard on how best to provide protection.
We very much appreciate efforts
of everyone who has filed written comments and those who are participating in
the public hearing process. As with all OSHA rules, we will base our final
standard on the complete rulemaking record, including pre- and post-hearing
comments, as well as the hearing testimony.
OSHA's Proposal
OSHA's proposed ergonomics program standard relies on a practical,
flexible approach that reflects industry best practices and focuses on jobs
where work-related MSDs occur, problems are severe, and solutions are generally
understood. It would require general industry employers to address
ergonomics-the fit between the worker and work-for manual handling and
manufacturing production jobs, where we know the problems are most severe. And
it requires other general industry employers to act when their employees
experience work-related musculoskeletal disorders.
Under the proposal,
about 1.6 million employers-those with manufacturing and manual handling
jobs-would initially need to implement a basic ergonomics program. This means
assigning someone to be responsible for ergonomics; providing information to
employees on the risk of injuries, signs and symptoms to watch for, and the
importance of reporting problems early; and setting up a way for employees to
report signs and symptoms. Full programs for these and other general industry
employers would be required only if one or more work-related MSDs actually
occurred. But even if a worker is hurt, the employer need not implement a full
program if a "Quick Fix" can take care of the problem. If the employer corrects
a hazard within 90 days, verifies that the fix has eliminated the hazard, and
has no additional MSDs in that job, no further action is necessary. In addition,
a "grandfather" clause gives credit to firms that already have implemented
ergonomics programs that satisfy the core elements of the standard.
Under OSHA's proposal, only 25 percent of general industry companies
with fewer than 20 workers will be required to adopt basic ergonomics programs
for one or more of their jobs involving manual handling or manufacturing
production work. Over a 1 O-year period, about 900 thousand small employers will
need full programs because one or more of their workers will have experienced an
MSD.
The OSHA proposal identifies six elements for a full ergonomics
program: management leadership and employee participation; hazard information
and reporting; job hazard analysis and control; training; MSD management; and
program evaluation. OSHA intends that ergonomics programs be job-based, covering
only the job where the risk of developing an MSD exists and any other jobs in
the workplace that have the same work activities and conditions. Ergonomics
programs need not cover all the jobs at the workplace. Nor are all MSDs covered.
Rather, only MSDs caused by a work activity that is a core element of an
employee's job or a significant part of her work day will trigger coverage.
The proposal would require that workers who experience covered MSDs
receive a prompt response from their employer, including an evaluation of their
injury and access to follow-up by a health care professional, if necessary. It
also provides work restriction protection for workers when a health care
professional has determined restricted work is indicated due to a work-related
MSD. Because the proposed standard is only triggered when an MSD is reported,
its protectiveness depends heavily on workers' willingness to raise problems
when they occur. Evidence shows that employees are reluctant to report symptoms
if doing so might cause them to miss work and lose pay. Therefore, OSHA has
proposed that workers whose injuries prevent them from working would receive 90
percent of their after-tax pay and 100 percent of benefits to limit economic
loss as a result of their injuries. Workers capable of performing only light
duty receive full after-tax pay and benefits. This is roughly equivalent to the
2/3 of pre-tax pay that workers already receive under most State workers'
compensation programs. But this provision is not about worker pay, it's about
injury prevention. It is designed to encourage early reporting and intervention,
which is to the worker's benefit and the employer's benefit. OSHA has included
similar provisions in several other standards, including those on asbestos,
cotton dust, formaldehyde, lead, methylene chloride, benzene and cadmium.
OSHA estimates the proposed standard would prevent about 3 million
work-related MSDs over the next 10 years and save an estimated
$9.1 billion annually in lost production, administrative, and
other direct costs alone. The total benefit far outweighs the estimated
$4.2 billion annual cost of the proposal to employers. Although
some private organizations have published estimates that differ from OSHA's,
many of these estimates contain either fundamental misunderstanding of OSHA's
economic analysis, or of how OSHA's proposed rule would be applied. For example,
some of these estimates compare their estimates of initial costs to OSHA's
estimates of annualized costs (American Meat Institute and the Center for Office
Technology). Other estimates compare the costs for a 150-person plant to an OSHA
estimate provided for a 17-person plant (American Meat Institute). Some
estimates assume that firms would have to make vastly greater efforts than
anything required by OSHA's proposed standard, actually used by existing
programs, or adopted as part of OSHA's corporate settlement agreements. For
example, one appraisal estimated that complying with part of OSHA's employee
participation requirement would require 10 employees in a 150-employee facility
to meet 2 days a week every week for 6 months. Nothing in OSHA's standard
requires such an effort. This same study assumed that the only way to control
problem jobs would be to decrease productivity by 25 percent. Evidence we have
received to date indicates that ergonomics programs often lead to productivity
increases. Other studies use data based on speculative projections rather than
real-world examples. Despite such flaws, where cost estimates submitted for the
record demonstrate any mistake or lack of clarity in OSHA's economic analysis,
we will revise the analysis accordingly.
Small Business Assistance
OSHA has paid close attention to the unique needs of small businesses as
we have developed the proposal. We drafted the 11-page proposal in a
question-and-answer format that is written in plain language. The proposal
exempts businesses with 10 or fewer employees from recordkeeping requirements.
It extends the phase-in requirements for job hazard analysis for two years and
the phase-in for implementing permanent controls for three years.
In
accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA),
OSHA, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Small Business Administration
convened a Panel to review and comment on a working draft of the ergonomics
program. The Panel sought advice and recommendations from potentially affected
small business representatives. Twenty-one small business representatives from a
variety of industries participated in the effort. The Panel raised a number of
questions and suggested several potential improvements to OSHA's draft, many of
which were addressed in the proposal we published in November.
OSHA made
changes to both the economic analysis and its proposed standard after the SBREFA
Panel's review. Those changes included: refining the work restriction protection
provision; increasing the original cost estimates to $4.2
billion; clarifying that repeat training is not necessary if employees have
already received ergonomics training; and providing examples of covered
manufacturing and manual handling jobs. Another significant addition based on
the SBREFA process was the "Quick Fix" option. The draft we provided the SBREFA
Panel required employers to implement full ergonomics programs in the event an
employee contracted an MSD. Small entity representatives asked why a full
program was necessary if a condition could be easily remedied and workers
protected. Those comments led to the "Quick Fix."
In addition to
drafting a standard that places a minimal burden on small businesses, OSHA plans
to provide extensive assistance to small businesses to assist with
compliance-through publications, checklists, training grants, information sheets
that help employers provide required information to their workers,
Internet-based materials, outreach sessions and its free consultation program.
Every small employer that needs help will be able to contact one of OSHA's state
consultation programs for free assistance in deciding what they need to do or
whether they need a program at all.
We are also undertaking extensive
efforts to train OSHA's own compliance staff. The OSHA Training Institute
already trains the agency's compliance officers about ergonomics. Consistent
with our standard practice whenever OSHA promulgates new standards, we will
revise those courses based on the final role and ensure that all compliance
officers who will perform ergonomics inspections receive updated training. In
addition, we will continue to send compliance officers to conferences and
programs on applied ergonomics, where best practices are discussed, in order to
hone their skills even further.
Conclusion
MSDs have a very
measurable impact on the lives and careers of American workers. Companies that
have worked to prevent these injuries with sound ergonomics programs have often
improved productivity, drastically reduced workers' compensation costs, and
improved job satisfaction. OSHA believes that the same opportunity for a safer
workplace must be extended to other workers whose livelihoods and careers remain
at risk. Preventable hazards too often mean the difference between a happy,
healthy productive worker and one whose life and career may be forever changed
by the misery of chronic pain from a senseless injury.
Thank you for the
opportunity to testify about this very important issue. I will be pleased to
answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.
END
LOAD-DATE: April 15, 2000 
