Construction Equipment Guide
470 Maryland Drive
Fort Washington, PA 19034
800-523-2200
Wed January 31, 2001 - Northeast Edition
Injuries, especially low back strains, have long been a part of the construction industry. Some veterans might claim that’s just the way it is in the macho industry. But some are opting for change, including Bechtel Corp., one of the largest contractors in the United States.
“If you look at our company, prior to implementing an ergonomics or musculoskeletal disorder program, our loss costs were extremely high and our insurance premiums were high,” said Stuart Burkhammer, vice president and manager of corporate environmental, safety and health services for Bechtel.
According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) account for more than one-third of all occupational injuries and illnesses resulting in lost work days. Combined, these disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage and spinal discs cost U.S. businesses about $15 to $20 billion a year in workers’ compensation costs.
MSDs occur when the physical capacity of the worker and the physical requirements of the job do not match. OSHA said they are the most prevalent, most expensive, and most preventable workplace injuries in the country. So, why are these sprains and strains still responsible for about 37 percent of all lost workday injuries in the construction industry, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)?
Burkhammer said the nature of the construction industry makes it even harder to match the job to the worker. “Every day is different, and every day we have different hazards. We have different tasks. We have different things that we encounter, so it’s an ever-evolving environment,” he said.
OSHA has incorporated risk factors for MSDs into its proposed Ergonomics Program Standard. They include force, repetition, awkward postures, static postures, vibration, and cold temperatures. But the program does not cover the construction industry; it is geared toward the general office environment. Why would the standard leave out an industry that is plagued by ergonomic hazards? According to OSHA, it’s because the general industry is the most researched in this area, enough to provide substantial evidence — something that the construction industry lacks.
The Standard
That’s why Burkhammer currently sits on OSHA’s Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health which finished a draft construction ergonomic standard in September 1999. (The draft is available at www.osha-slc.gov/ doc/accsh/accshwkgrpdoc/preventingmusculoskeletal.html).
Those supporting the standard believe it would go a long way to reduce pain on the job site. Construction companies that already have an effective ergonomic plan in place would be able to adjust to the standard faster and with less expense than companies without an ergonomic plan.
Yet, the construction industry has no OSHA-proposed ergonomic standard. Bill Rhoten, an employee representative on the committee, said, “It’s a practical matter. It requires a lot of study because our industry is a lot different than the general industry and manufacturing. Our workers have suffered a lot. It’s a matter of developing a standard that will work and save grief.”
Ergonomic Economics
Bechtel jumped the gun and initiated its own ergonomic program in 1993. Beyond its humanitarian benefits, starting the program made financial sense for Bechtel. According to OSHA, these programs actually increase revenue for companies because they decrease MSDs and improve worker performance. OSHA estimates a standard would save the industry almost $9 billion a year. OSHA bases this estimate on the experience of employers with successful ergonomic programs — companies like Bechtel.
Ergonomic programs are not decreasing productivity rates, as many predicted they would. Instead, they are doing just the opposite: decreasing worker compensation costs, decreasing worker injuries, and increasing worker productivity.
A Plan of Action
Bechtel developed a four-part ergonomic program designed to prevent workers from getting hurt on the job site. The first part consists of training and orientation. Burkhammer said, “Every employee that comes on a Bechtel project goes through an extensive two- to five-hour orientation program, depending on what kind of project it is, whether it is a nuclear outage or demolition project.”
The second part focuses on lower-back injuries a prevalent problem in the industry. At Bechtel, back injuries constituted 67 percent of the total number of injuries and were responsible for about 47 percent of the company’s loss costs. “We had to do something about this,” Burkhammer said.
Controversial Back-Support Belts
And they did. The company uses back-support belts made by Ergodyne, whose Web site says the back supports are, “practical, effective supplements to any comprehensive back injury program; [they] provide essential lower back and abdominal support, and help remind wearers to lift properly.” Back belts are intended to reduce the forces on the spine, increase intra-abdominal pressure, stiffen the spine, and reduce loads during lifting.
Bechtel uses these supports in conjunction with training on how to lift properly, how to use the belts properly, and how to pick out the correct belt. As a part of the company’s contract with Ergodyne, an ergonomic counselor from Ergodyne is on site to provide additional training and educational support. In addition, Bechtel provides other ergonomic equipment for its workers, including anti-vibration gloves.
The back belts highlight a fundamental truth about ergonomic safety — equipment alone isn’t enough; workers must be trained to use the equipment properly to get the maximum ergonomic benefit. In fact, back belts used improperly can actually harm a worker. NIOSH issued a statement in March 1999 on the use of back belts as personal protective equipment. The review stated, “the results cannot be used to either support or refute the effectiveness of back belts in injury reduction.” Since back belts are marketed as tools to reduce back injuries, the institute said it could not prove that this promise was, in fact, being delivered. NIOSH concluded, “The Institute, therefore, does not recommend the use of back belts to prevent injuries among workers who have never been injured.”
Al Weaver, a safety consultant and ergonomic lecturer at North Carolina State University, does not believe back belts are “personal protective equipment” — a term used by safety experts to refer to wearable equipment that provides a barrier between the worker and the hazard source. Weaver said, “There are scientifically documented risks associated with the misuse of back belts; however, there also appears to be at least anecdotal evidence supporting the use of back belts. The employers electing to provide or allowing back belts to be used in the workplace should ensure that employees are trained in their correct use, should monitor that they are used correctly, and should have in place a long-term program to mitigate lifting risks.”
Although the company supports their use. Bechtel does recognize that back supports alone are not an ergonomic program. Burkhammer said, “Giving somebody a back support singularly is not a back- injury prevention program. You have to have training. There are different parts that make up the system, and if you don’t have all the parts, you don’t have the system, and if you don’t have the system, you are going to hurt people. So, it is a whole thing put together.” Across work types, Bechtel tries to remain innovative by providing new technologies and inventions — things that will make work easier, safer, and more comfortable for the worker.
For the third part of the program, Bechtel employees stretch and perform six to seven exercises for five minutes before they begin their day. This stretching and exercising loosens up the employees’ muscles and makes them more fit — both of which make them less likely to suffer MSDs. This time also is used to make important safety announcements, which are tailored to specific hazards for the day and job. The program was so popular that employees decided to give up five minutes of their lunch break to complete a set of afternoon stretches and exercises. “I was very skeptical at the beginning of it,” said Bechtel Area Manager Jeff Shoop. “Now, if we didn’t do the exercises, the workers would ask to do them. We don’t have to ask them to do these stretches. They do them on their own. The love it.”
Bechtel uses retraining and follow-up, the fourth part of the program, to answer questions, check safety, and offer recognition and praise.
A Success Story
“Since we put our back-injury prevention program into effect, the number of back injuries has dropped significantly. And the cost of each back injury has dropped tenfold,” Shoop said.
The numbers support Shoop. Back injuries have been reduced by 50 percent and lost-time costs have been reduced by 47 percent, totaling more than $10 million in savings for Bechtel.
For more information, call 800/877-1364.
Common Ergonomic Problems on the Job Site
Ergonomic problems on the job site led to the development of musculoskeletal disorders, usually affecting the hand, wrist, shoulders, neck, upper and lower back, hips and knees. Although different MSDs are specific to different types of work — a carpet layer has different problems than a drywall installer, for example — here are some ergonomic hazards that affect most construction job sites.
• Lifting objects that are too heavy
• Repeated lifting or twisting and turning while lifting
• Lifting objects without using proper lifting techniques
• Working with arms raised
• Doing repetitive work
• Using vibrating tools
• Using tools that are too large or too small for the hand or
using tools with a slippery handle
• Working in cold temperatures
• Working in one position for an extended period of time
• Whole body vibration.
(Source: 1999 Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health Draft)
(This story is reprinted with permission from the September/October 2000 edition of Job Site Supervisor, published by FMI Corporation.)