Smurfit-Stone and Willamette Industries are already experiencing benefits of ergonomic improvements that OSHA may soon require in the paper industry

OSHA Regulation Of Ergonomics Around The Corner For Pulp And Paper Facilities

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which keeps track of workplace injury and illness rates, reports that between 1985 and 1994 the cumulative trauma disorder (CTD) incidence rate per 10,000 full-time workers skyrocketed from 6.3 to 41.1. Since that time, however, rates have been steadily declining.

Despite these decreases, the Occupa-tional Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) is continuing to look seriously at the issue of ergonomics regulation. Ergonomics is an applied science concerned with the design and arrangement of tools and work spaces so that people may use and interact with them in the most safe and efficient manner. Many of the injuries occurring in the workplace, such as CTDs, repetitive motion injuries, repetitive stress injuries, and repetitive strain injuries, can be a result of poor ergonomic working conditions.

Over the last decade, OSHA has had trouble mounting a campaign to improve ergonomics for several reasons, including congressional opposition, employer and industry group concerns and opposition, and changes in OSHA leadership as well as OSHA’s “reinvention” throughout the 1990s.

In 1993, for example, OSHA created an ergonomics team, which offered an ergonomics standard draft proposal in 1995. This proposal met with howls of disapproval from Republicans in Congress and from business organizations, citing the standard as being much too rigid and prescriptive.

On more than one occasion during the 1990s, the Republican-controlled Congress specifically prevented OSHA from issuing an ergonomics standard by providing annual funding for the agency contingent on its not being used to promulgate an ergonomics standard.

Unable to introduce a standard, OSHA busied itself by pursuing ergonomics improvements under the OSHAct’s General Duty clause, which requires employers to provide safe work sites. During the 18 months beginning January 1997, OSHA opened 142 inspections involving ergonomics, a level reminiscent of its early 1990s activity.

A July 1997 NIOSH report fueled OSHA’s interest in ergonomics regulation even more. The study, which critics claimed was based only on existing studies and overlooked data that contradicted the general findings, suggested “strong evidence” of a link between work-related physical factors and repetitive stress injuries, but acknowledged that such injuries could be caused by non-work-related factors.

A report issued in October by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Research Council also found “substantial evidence” that greater exposure to biomechanical stresses on the job increases the likelihood that workers will be injured. Critics, such as the National Council on Ergonomics, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Federation of Indepen-dent Business, again suggested that the findings were based only on cursory and incomplete research and utilized “biased” sources.

That same month, as part of the omnibus budget bill, the House Appro-priations Committee provided OSHA funding without ergonomic regulation restrictions. The committee also provided $890,000 to the NAS for another more comprehensive study, but it did not require that OSHA wait for the results of this study (expected sometime in 2000) before issuing its ergonomics standard. Since that time, critics have encouraged OSHA to wait, but the agency has not.

In mid-February 1999, OSHA issued its draft ergonomics standard, which contains six elements: management commitment and employee participation, training, job hazard analysis, hazard prevention and control, medical management, and program evaluation. The standard is designed to cover virtually all work sites that involve manufacturing and/or manual handling, as well as any other work sites at which a work-related MSD is reported. Only three industries would be exempt from the standard: construction, agriculture, and maritime work sites. OSHA has targeted late 1999 for complete implementation of the standard.

Shortly after the draft standard was made public, however, U.S. Representa-tive Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) introduced legislation that, if passed, would require OSHA to wait for the NAS study to be completed before introducing its final ergonomics proposal. The ergonomics proposal has not yet passed, but interest is continuing to grow.

Despite the delays an ergonomics standard will be forthcoming from OSHA, and it will have major ramifications for the pulp and paper industry. The main concern in this industry, and in virtually every other industry, relates to the nature of the standard itself. While OSHA’s aborted 1995 ergonomics standard proposal was considered too rigid and prescriptive, critics of OSHA’s recent efforts have expressed concern that the new standard seems too broad and general, placing blanket requirements that might not be appropriate for each individual industry’s needs.

While you could sit around and wait for OSHA’s ergonomics standard to take effect, you can also take proactive steps to improve ergonomics in your workplace.

ERGONOMICS SUCCESS STORIES. Two facilities that have already achieved impressive results in this area are Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation’s Atlanta Folding Carton Plant in Stone Mountain, Ga., and Willamette Industries, Inc.’s Albany, Ore., facility.

“We noticed that some of our case packers were getting carpal tunnel syndrome, and we had some problems with lower back sprains and strains,” explains Bob Fischer, safety coordinator at the Atlanta Folding Carton Plant. Three years ago, the facility pulled together all of the elements of its informal ergonomics effort, added some new ones, and created a formal ergonomics program. “While we were aware of OSHA’s interest in introducing an ergonomics standard in the future, our primary reason for moving on ergonomics was to prevent injuries and illnesses to our people,” states Fischer. “We aren’t involved in safety initiatives simply as a way to comply with OSHA.” The facility is so committed to safety that it recently received coveted OSHA Voluntary Protection Program “Star” status.

While Atlanta’s ergonomics program has many elements, the driving philosophy behind it, as with all of the plant’s safety programs, is individual attention. “We address safety by focusing on individual employees and their specific problems and needs,” emphasizes Fischer.

Willamette also found that it had some ergonomic related cases that needed to be addressed. “The most common were lower back strains and sprains,” reports Mitch Hopping, Regional Safety Manager. “Second most common were injuries to the arms—shoulders, forearms and wrists.”

Hopping, who has responsibility for safety at 40 different Willamette facilities, did not attempt to create a universal ergonomics program for all of the facilities. “We identify specific problems at each facility and address them on a facility-by-facility basis,” he explains.

While both organizations utilize some-what different strategies to address ergo-nomics, there are six key elements that seem to be the most effective.

NEW EMPLOYEE WORK HARDENING. The first step in the Atlanta plant’s program is a new employee work hardening program. “In looking at ergonomics problems, we found that the majority of them occurred with new employees,” explains Fischer. Now, after new employees receive training, they spend at least two weeks rotating jobs. This not only helps them learn about the different jobs, but helps them physically prepare for the requirements of each job. “As they perform each job, they build the physical strength necessary to perform the job,” he continues.

EARLY IDENTIFICATION. One strategy that both operations emphasize is early identification of discomfort or injury that might be caused by ergonomically poor working conditions. “Whenever possible, we try to identify problems before they become serious,” states Willamette’s Hopping. “Supervisors, employees and safety committee members constantly emphasize this. They also learn to recognize situations that can lead to injuries.”

“I spend time walking around talking to employees and asking them if they are experiencing any discomfort,” adds Smurfit-Stone’s Fischer. “If an employee reports some minor wrist discomfort, for example, we will begin to investigate the problem and identify a solution to prevent further problems.” In most cases, the first step is to find a way to rest the muscle or muscles involved. This usually involves job rotation. While the employee is resting the sore muscles by working in another position, Fischer and others find ways to modify his or her original job.

Figure 1: Correct body mechanics techniques, such as how to properly lift, carry, push and pull, are illustrated.

TRAINING. Educating employees in ergonomically ideal work techniques has also proved an effective way to lower injury rates. “We provide a lot of training to employees on how to prevent ergonomic injuries,” states Willamette’s Hopping. “Much of it is specific body mechanics training, such as how to lift, carry, push, and pull properly.” Hopping, who is constantly on the lookout for employees performing jobs incorrectly, then provides the appropriate training. “It can even be as simple as correcting the way someone pushes a broom,” he notes. Hopping conducts some of the training himself, while other training is handled by outside experts.

JOB ROTATION. This is one of the most effective strategies in reducing the fre-quency and severity of ergonomics-related injuries, and both facilities utilize it.

Along with its rotation plan for new employees, the Atlanta plant also offers a permanent job rotation program for veteran employees who are beginning to experience discomfort. In most cases, job rotation takes place every two hours, but on occasion employees may rotate jobs every hour. For example, in the finishing department, three employees might rotate through the positions of take-off from the left, take-off from the right, and feeder operations. “These three jobs provide quite a bit of variance for muscle movement,” explains Fischer.

Willamette also utilizes a job rotation program. “By having employees operate different machinery, they can utilize different muscles,” explains Hopping.

ENGINEERING. This is another effective strategy, which is especially useful if training is not solving the problem and/or if job rotation is not appropriate. The Atlanta plant uses workstation modification, tool development, and adjust-able fixtures to follow ergonomic principles that work to alleviate stress and strain. “We also look closely at the equipment to make sure it is operating properly,” adds Fischer.

Recently, employees noted that one of the cutters was not functioning properly, leaving employees to make pre-breaks. “All of this required a lot of wrist action,” he explains. Engineering redesigned the equipment so the cartons were breaking clean on the cutter, eliminating the need for employees to do any more pre-breaks.

Willamette also relies heavily on engineering in a number of different ways. “Our engineering department modifies equipment to better fit the people,” states Hopping. “This reduces stress and strain.” In an older facility, which was experiencing a larger than normal number of ergonomically related problems, engineers retrofitted the old equipment that was forcing employees to do heavy manual work. “The retrofits eliminated a lot of this manual work, and our ergonomic injuries decreased substantially,” states Hopping.

Similarly, an investigation at Willamette regarding one employee’s sore hand and wrist found that awkwardly placed equipment controls were causing a problem. “We hired an outside engineering firm to redesign the controls into the arm of the employee’s chair, and this eliminated the problem,” adds Hopping.

IDEA SHARING. Once Willamette identifies a problem and solution, initiatives are launched to make sure the improvements are introduced into other related areas, even if problems have not yet occurred. This is an effective preventative measure.

When Willamette arranged for the engineering firm to design ergonomically friendly controls into the arm of an employee’s chair, it also arranged for controls on similar equipment to be redesigned in other employee work stations. “Other employees hadn’t com-plained about discomfort yet, but we wanted to prevent any such problems,” explains Hopping.

RESULTS AND BENEFITS Willamette’s Hopping reports that the frequency of ergonomic-related injuries has been declining steadily throughout the com-pany. Just as importantly, the severity of such injuries has been decreasing. “In every facility where we attacked ergonomic problems, we have seen dramatic decreases,” he concludes.

Smurfit-Stone’s Fischer has seen similar benefits. “We have very few ergonomic problems anymore,” he reports. “I’d estimate that, in the last two years, we have also seen a 50% drop in even mild ergonomic-related complaints. I can’t recall even one serious ergonomic case, one that had to be treated with an operation, in the last two years.”

William Atkinson is a freelance writer based in Carterville, IL