The SafetyPro Podcast
News • Business • Education
Hazardous or Toxic?
A lesson from the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment
post photo preview

On February 3rd, 2023, a train carrying hazardous materials derailed near East Palestine, Ohio. The train carried various chemicals, including vinyl chloride, ethylhexyl acrylate, and ethylene glycol monobutyl. The derailment resulted in a fire, and chemical release into the surrounding environment, leading to the evacuation of residents.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has launched an investigation into the incident to determine the cause and make recommendations to prevent similar accidents in the future.

One thing I noticed about the news coverage is the language; some call the chemicals hazardous, and some use the word toxic. So, which is it?

Were Hazardous Chemicals or Toxic Chemicals Involved? What's the Difference?

The U.S. government defines hazardous materials under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) and its corresponding regulations, which the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, oversees.

These regulations broadly define hazardous materials as any substances or materials that pose an unreasonable risk to health, safety, or property when transported in commerce, including toxic, flammable, corrosive, explosive, radioactive, or otherwise dangerous substances.

To be more specific, the regulations list specific classes of hazardous materials based on their physical and chemical properties and potential hazards. These classes include explosives, gases, flammable liquids and solids, oxidizing substances, toxic substances, radioactive materials, corrosive substances, and miscellaneous dangerous goods.

If a substance falls under one of these classifications, it is considered a hazardous material and is subject to strict regulations for safe transportation in commerce. These regulations cover the packaging, labeling, marking, and handling hazardous materials to ensure they are transported safely and without incident.

So what are toxic chemicals? A material is toxic if it is capable of causing harm to human health, such as illness or injury, through ingestion, inhalation, or skin contact. Toxicity can be acute or chronic, and the degree of harm can depend on several factors, including the material's concentration, the exposure length, and the susceptibility of the exposed individual.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also established a list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), including chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, or other serious health effects. HAPs are regulated under the Clean Air Act, and their emissions are subject to strict controls to protect human health and the environment.

As you can see, toxic is a category of hazardous materials. So, when you use the term "Hazardous Chemical," you may be referring to any of the categories listed under regulations, making it a generic label. But when you say "Toxic Chemicals," you refer to a specific hazardous chemical type.

All toxic chemicals are hazardous, but not all hazardous chemicals are toxic. You get the point - Blaine J. Hoffmann, MS OSHM

Chemicals Involved 

There were reportedly several chemicals of concern involved in the train derailment.

Vinyl chloride is a colorless gas that produces polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a widely used plastic material. It is also an intermediate in making other chemicals, such as chlorinated solvents and pharmaceuticals.

Exposure to vinyl chloride can harm human health, and it is considered a toxic and carcinogenic substance, meaning it can cause cancer. Inhalation of vinyl chloride can irritate the respiratory system and cause dizziness, headaches, and fatigue. Long-term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride has been linked to an increased risk of certain types of cancer, including liver cancer and angiosarcoma (rare cancer affecting the blood vessels).

Due to the health risks associated with vinyl chloride, it is strictly regulated by government agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies have established exposure limits and other requirements to protect workers and the public from the harmful effects of vinyl chloride.

Ethylhexyl acrylate is a chemical compound belonging to the acrylic esters group. It is a clear, colorless liquid with a slightly pungent odor. It is used as a monomer in producing various polymers, including acrylic and copolymers.

Ethylhexyl acrylate is primarily used as a building block in synthesizing polymer-based products, such as adhesives, coatings, and elastomers. It is also a surfactant and an intermediate in producing other chemicals.

Exposure to ethylhexyl acrylate can irritate the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract, causing headaches and dizziness. It may also cause allergic reactions in some individuals. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified ethylhexyl acrylate as a Group 2B carcinogen, which means it is possibly carcinogenic to humans based on animal studies. However, more research is needed to understand this substance's potential health effects fully.

 

Government agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regulate ethylhexyl acrylate to protect workers and the public from potential health risks. These agencies have established exposure limits and other requirements for safely handling and using this substance.

Ethylene glycol monobutyl, or 2-butoxyethanol, is a clear, colorless liquid with a mild, sweet odor. It is a glycol ether used primarily as a solvent in various industrial and commercial applications.

Ethylene glycol monobutyl is used as a solvent in producing resins, lacquers, and other coatings. It is also used as a cleaning agent and in making various types of chemicals, including plasticizers, textile dyes, and pharmaceuticals.

Exposure to ethylene glycol monobutyl can irritate the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract and cause headaches, nausea, and dizziness. Long-term exposure to high levels of this substance can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, and blood cells. In addition, ethylene glycol monobutyl has been associated with developmental and reproductive effects in laboratory animals.

Government agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regulate ethylene glycol monobutyl to protect workers and the public from potential health risks. These agencies have established exposure limits and other requirements for safely handling and using this substance.

Exposure limits to chemicals set by the government do not necessarily mean that there will be no harm, as the toxicity of chemicals can depend on various factors, including the level of exposure, the duration of exposure, and the individual's susceptibility to the effects of the chemical. These limits are designed to minimize the risk of adverse health effects to workers, consumers, and the general public - not eliminate the risks.

It is important to note that exposure to levels below the set limits may still cause adverse health effects, particularly for individuals more susceptible to the effects of the chemical, such as children, pregnant women, and people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Therefore, it is crucial to follow safety guidelines and precautions when working with or around hazardous chemicals, including using appropriate protective equipment, ensuring proper ventilation, and following safe handling and disposal procedures. It is also critical to seek medical attention if you observe any symptoms of exposure to chemicals.

What about risks due to mixing or by-products?

These chemicals could form hazardous by-products if accidentally mixed, combined, or burned.

For example, mixing vinyl chloride with ethylhexyl acrylate could form a polymer, which can release toxic fumes and cause respiratory irritation. Mixing vinyl chloride with ethylene glycol monobutyl could lead to the formation of other harmful compounds, including aldehydes and ketones, which can irritate the eyes, nose, and throat, as well as cause headaches and dizziness.

The exact by-products of combining these chemicals would depend on the specific conditions of the reaction, such as the amount of each chemical present, the temperature, and the presence of other reactive compounds. Handling, separately handling, and transporting these chemicals is essential to avoid accidental mixing and potential harm to human health and the environment. For example, if transporting these chemicals on the same train, you would want other train cars with inert materials, or even empty ones if possible, separating them in the event of an accident, like a derailment.

In addition to Vinyl chloride, ethylhexyl acrylate, and ethylene glycol monobutyl being hazardous chemicals in and of themselves, burning them can produce a variety of potentially hazardous by-products, including:

  1. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide: These are typical by-products of the combustion of most hydrocarbons and can contribute to local air quality issues.
  2. Hydrogen chloride: This corrosive gas can cause respiratory and skin irritation and contribute to acid rain.
  3. Dioxins and furans are highly toxic compounds produced when organic matter, such as plastics, is burned. They can cause various health effects, including cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, and immune system damage.
  4. Acrolein is a highly reactive and irritating gas that can cause respiratory and eye irritation and contribute to air pollution.
  5. Soot and particulate matter: These tiny particles can be released during combustion and contribute to air pollution and respiratory problems.

It is important to note that the by-products of burning these chemicals can vary depending on various factors, such as the temperature and duration of the burn, the presence of other substances, and the conditions of the combustion process. Therefore, taking appropriate precautions when handling, transporting, and disposing of these chemicals is essential to minimize the risk of harm to human health and the environment.

What about the environmental impact? 

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency received results from their water sampling of the five wells that feed into East Palestine's municipal water system. The results show no detection of contaminants associated with the derailment. The Ohio EPA said they are confident that the municipal water is safe to drink and have said steel casing protects the wells from contamination.

The Ohio EPA also recommends that residents with private wells schedule an appointment for well water testing by an independent consultant. The Ohio Department of Health encourages those with private wells to use bottled water until their well water testing results come back.

What about the Ohio River impact? Tiffani Kavalec, chief of the Division of Surface Water at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, said the chemicals spilled into the Ohio River. Still, since it is such an enormous body of water, it can dilute the chemicals quickly.

However, during a press conference, Ohio Department of Natural Resources director Mary Mertz said four tributaries over a space of 7.5 miles along the Ohio River are contaminated. Still, officials are confident those waterways are contained and do not affect municipal water supplies. Nevertheless, the contaminated waterways have led to the deaths of some 3,500 fish. According to Mertz, none of the 12 species of dead fish are threatened or endangered, and there was no impact on nonaquatic life.

The 111 water samples collected from the day of the derailment through February 14th, 2023, were tested for butyl acrylate, vinyl chloride, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, and ethylhexyl acrylateno. The result showed no detectable levels of the chemicals.

The public perception of this being a more significant threat than authorities indicate stems from people seeing a plume or sheen on the water in the Ohio River. A visible plume on the water may indicate detectable levels of harmful chemicals, but it is not a reliable indicator.

Some chemicals can be harmful in small concentrations, while others may not pose a significant risk, even at high concentrations. The appearance of a plume can depend on various factors, such as the type of chemical, the quantity and duration of the release, and the characteristics of the water body.

To determine if there are detectable levels of harmful chemicals in the water, appropriate testing and analysis of water samples must occur, which can involve using specialized equipment to measure the concentration of specific chemicals or perform a broader screening of the water for a range of potential contaminants.

It is important to note that even if detectable levels of harmful chemicals are in the water, this does not necessarily mean that there is an immediate health risk. The risk to human health and the environment will depend on various factors, such as the toxicity and quantity of the chemical, the exposure pathway, and the population's sensitivity.

Conclusion

This article used a recent disaster to illustrate how the media, even as safety professionals, can create confusion and panic by using the wrong words to describe events and substances involved.

To be clear, this train derailment is a tragedy. Full stop. At the time of this publishing, the long-term impact of this tragedy is unclear. Regardless, the emotional impact is clear; residents have lost confidence in the local, state, and federal agencies and the rail carrier due to their response and various communications failures. What do you think? Be sure to leave your comments below.


Drew Hinton, Ph.D., CSP, CHMM, EMT
Drew Hinton, Ph.D., CSP, CHMM, EMT

Drew Hinton is President/CEO of Arrow Safety and has 10 years of experience as a career Firefighter/EMT/HazMat Officer in Louisville (KY) and 15 years as a safety professional.

 

Blaine J. Hoffmann, MS OSHM
Blaine J. Hoffmann, MS OSHM

Blaine J. Hoffmann has been in the occupational safety & health industry for over 27 years. He is the producer and host of The SafetyPro Podcast and founded the SafetyPro Podcast Community Site.

community logo
Join the The SafetyPro Podcast Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
1
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Coffee Topic: Aerial Lift Safety w/Kyle

Happy Friday! @KyleDomin hopped on a call to talk about aerial lifts and fall protection, prevention...whatever. 😂 Check it out! 👇

00:32:16
Coffee Topic: Weekly Recap

Happy Friday! We are hitting the road. I hope to interact with the community while in the Smoky Mountains, but alas, cell signals are spotty there. Don't forget, if you got the Rethinking SAFETY Communications book, share a post on social media, drop a review on Amazon, and in the community site! Let me know what you think!

Rethinking SAFETY Communications 🔗 https://a.co/d/2vF3AZa

Be sure to share your weekend plans.👇

00:15:03
Coffee Topic: Is there a Glitch in Your [Comms] Matrix?

Happy Tuesday! Let's talk more about how we communicate safety inside our organizations. Let's focus on a communications matrix. 👇

Be sure to grab your copy of Rethinking SAFETY Communications here: https://a.co/d/i8PCAJw

00:14:52
California Outdoor Heat Illness Regulations: Key Measures for Summer Heat Inspections

This Ogletree Deakins podcast episode delves into the California outdoor heat illness standard, focusing on implementation and Cal/OSHA enforcement.

Kevin Bland and Karen Tynan discuss effective outdoor heat illness training practices for supervisors and employees, the benefits of onboarding training, and water and shade access requirements, and also offer best practices for employers implementing high-heat procedures.

California Outdoor Heat Illness Regulations: Key Measures for Summer Heat Inspections
Dirty Steel-Toe Boots, Episode 10: Corporate Counsel’s Role Managing OSHA Compliance

In this episode of Dirty Steel-Toe Boots, host Phillip B. Russell has an enlightening conversation with Lori Baggett, an in-house corporate counsel with responsibility for legal issues related to workplace safety and health and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Lori discusses how her experience as a former outside counsel helps her add value to her role as vice president and assistant general counsel. She offers practical tips for in-house counsels responsible for OSHA matters, including those with limited experience in this area.

Lori also shares some tips for in-house safety professionals on best working with their legal departments to improve safety and manage liability. Phillip and Lori have a candid and insightful discussion about diversity, equity, and inclusion in the legal profession.

Dirty Steel-Toe Boots, Episode 10: Corporate Counsel’s Role Managing OSHA Compliance
EP 116: Safety and the Younger Workforce

A comprehensive public health strategy is needed to protect younger workers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers say after their recent study showing that the rate of nonfatal on-the-job injuries among 15- to 24-year-olds is between 1.2 and 2.3 times higher than that of the 25-44 age group. Have a listen and join in on the conversation - what has been your experience working with younger workers and safety?👇

EP 116: Safety and the Younger Workforce
🚨 Attention Safety Pros: The Daily Journal is Available

⚠️ Warning! This journal is NOT for everyone. We developed this daily journal for those actively looking to track professional challenges and turn them into opportunities.

There is a daily log as well as a 2-page weekly recap. We added categories to track specific areas of being a safety pro. We will undoubtedly revise this as we gather feedback from users. But if you want to use a daily journal to improve in the safety management world, please check it out. Available in paperback or hardcover.👇

The SafetyPro Daily Journal https://a.co/d/5mmtp28

post photo preview
Upcoming solar eclipse

With the upcoming solar eclipse on April 8th, are you providing employees with the shaded solar glasses PPE they need to view safely? We bought enough for everybody and their families. Go beyond the workplace!

https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/future-eclipses/eclipse-2024/where-when/

Asbestos is FINALLY banned by the EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency bans asbestos, a deadly carcinogen still in use decades after a partial ban was enacted.

https://apnews.com/article/epa-asbestos-cancer-brakes-biden-72b0fa8b36adedaff6000034d35c2acd?fbclid=IwAR2bnFqwVbwcBXs9elKLOWUyEzRFKhT4oDSxbBfrAq3OwlfNYjrENilDaIM

post photo preview
Assessing and Updating Your Workplace Safety Program
Knowing when to take action

As you know, a safety program is a set of workplace policies, procedures, and practices based on specific work tasks, tools, materials, equipment, etc., to prevent/reduce the risk of injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Also, a safety program is not written in stone but is a dynamic and evolving process that requires regular review and improvement. In other words, it needs to be updated from time to time. So, how do you know when to review your safety program and update it?

Outside of the regulatory requirement to review your safety program (at least aspects of it) annually, many factors can indicate if your safety program needs to be updated, such as:

  • Changes in laws, regulations, standards, or industry best practices
  • Changes in the nature, scope, or scale of your work activities, processes, or equipment
  • Changes in the workforce, such as new hires, turnover, or training needs
  • Changes in the work environment, such as new hazards, risks, or exposures
  • Changes in the performance, outcomes, or feedback of your safety program, such as incident rates, audits, inspections, or surveys

To determine if your safety program needs to be updated, you should conduct a comprehensive and systematic assessment of your current safety program using various sources of data and information, such as:

  • Safety policies, procedures, and manuals
  • Safety training records and materials
  • Safety committee minutes and reports
  • Safety inspection and audit reports
  • Incident and accident reports and investigations
  • Workers' compensation claims and costs
  • Employee surveys and feedback
  • Benchmarking and comparison with similar organizations or industry averages

The assessment should cover all aspects of your safety program, such as:

  • Leadership and management commitment and support
  • Employee involvement and participation
  • Hazard identification and assessment
  • Hazard prevention and control
  • Emergency preparedness and response
  • Education and training
  • Communication and information
  • Evaluation and improvement

The assessment should identify the strengths and weaknesses of your safety program and the gaps and opportunities for improvement. Based on the assessment, prioritize the areas that need to be updated and develop an action plan to implement the necessary changes. The action plan should include:

  • Specific and measurable goals and objectives
  • Roles and responsibilities of the involved parties
  • Resources and budget required
  • Timeline and milestones
  • Methods and tools for monitoring and evaluation

Communicate the action plan, share it with all relevant stakeholders, and execute it promptly and effectively. The results and outcomes of the action plan should be measured and evaluated, and you should use the feedback and lessons learned to improve your safety program further.

Examples from an Industrial and Construction Setting

To illustrate how to determine if your safety program needs to be updated, here are some examples from an industrial and construction setting:

  • An industrial plant producing chemicals has recently installed new equipment and processes that handle and store hazardous substances. The plant needs to update its safety program to comply with the new regulations and standards for hazardous materials and address the new risks and exposures for the workers and the environment. The plant should conduct a hazard analysis and risk assessment to update its policies and procedures regarding the safe handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. The plant should also provide adequate training and personal protective equipment for the workers and install appropriate engineering controls and emergency systems for the equipment and processes.
  • A construction company that builds residential and commercial buildings has experienced a high turnover of workers in the past year due to the competitive labor market and the seasonal nature of the work. The company needs to update its safety program to ensure that the new workers are properly oriented and trained on the safety rules and requirements and to maintain awareness among the existing workers. The company should conduct a training needs analysis and update its training program and materials to cover the essential topics and skills for the workers. The company might also implement a mentoring and coaching system where experienced workers can guide and support the new workers on the job.
  • A manufacturing facility that produces metal parts has received several complaints and suggestions from the employees regarding the safety conditions and practices in the workplace. The facility must update its safety program to improve employee engagement and satisfaction and prevent potential incidents and injuries. The facility should conduct an employee survey and feedback session and update its safety committee and communication system to involve and inform the employees on safety issues and initiatives. The facility should also implement a recognition and reward system where employees can be acknowledged and appreciated for their safety contributions and achievements.

A strong, up-to-date safety program is essential for employees' well-being and success. It is a regulatory requirement and a moral obligation to ensure workers return home safe and healthy. By regularly assessing and updating your safety program, you can adapt to changes, mitigate risks, and foster a culture of safety that values the health and safety of every individual.

As we have seen from the examples in industrial and construction settings, updating a safety program can significantly improve working conditions and employee morale. It is a continuous process that requires commitment, communication, and collaboration from all levels of the organization.

Don't wait for an incident to occur before you act. Proactively update your safety program and prioritize safety in your organization today. Your employees and their families will appreciate the effort.

Take action by reviewing your current safety program and identifying areas needing improvement. Engage with your employees, gather their feedback, and work together to create a safer workplace. Remember, safety is everyone's responsibility, and by working together, we can integrate safety into existing business processes for a more productive work environment.

What has been your experience with updating safety programs? Join the conversation at The SafetyPro Podcast community site today and share your tips!


Blaine J. Hoffmann, MS OSHM
Blaine J. Hoffmann, MS OSHM

Blaine J. Hoffmann has been in the occupational safety & health industry for over 28 years and is the author of "Rethinking SAFETY Culture," available now. Blaine is the producer and host of The SafetyPro Podcast and founded the SafetyPro Podcast community site.

Read full Article
post photo preview
The Impact of Job Rotation on Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSD) Injuries
What does the research tell us?

When it comes to most workplaces, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among workers present a significant challenge to occupational health as well as productivity. With manual handling tasks, repetitive motions, and prolonged standing inherent in most manual work, employers and safety professionals continuously seek practical interventions to mitigate these risks. Among the available approaches, job rotation stands out as a promising approach. This concept involves systematically moving employees through various tasks, seeking to reduce the monotony of work and the prolonged exposure to specific physical demands associated with MSDs.

However, the effectiveness of job rotation in reducing MSD injuries is more complex. As research goes deeper into this strategy, it reveals that the benefits of job rotation depend heavily on its implementation and the specific workplace context. Factors such as the composition of the job pool, the nature of tasks, and the ergonomic design of workstations play crucial roles in determining the success of job rotation programs.

Using recent studies, we will discuss the variable effectiveness of job rotation, the challenges in its implementation, and the considerations necessary for it to be a part of a comprehensive ergonomic strategy. We hope to provide insights and practical recommendations for managers and safety professionals as you continue to enhance worker health and safety.

Now, let's look at several studies focused on the effectiveness of job rotation and outline their findings:

1: Variable Effectiveness of Job Rotation Based on Job Pool Composition

The study conducted by Mehdizadeh et al. (2020) provides a nuanced understanding of how the composition of the job pool influences the effectiveness of job rotation strategies in mitigating musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) risks. Key points from this study are as follows:

  • Effectiveness Reliant on Job Risk Levels: The impact of job rotation on reducing MSD risk hinges significantly on the risk levels of the jobs included in the rotation pool. Including high-risk jobs in the rotation schedule can markedly diminish the overall effectiveness of the job rotation program in reducing worker risk.
  • Fatigue-Failure Model Analysis: The researchers utilized a novel optimization framework that incorporated the fatigue failure model of MSD development. This approach involved numerical simulation of job rotation strategies, examining how different job combinations within a rotation schedule can influence MSD risk.
  • Case Study with Real Injury Data: The study's findings are grounded in a practical context, including a case study that integrates actual injury data. This aspect adds authenticity and applicability to the conclusions drawn, making them more relevant for real-world industrial settings.
  • High-Risk Jobs Diminish Rotation Benefits: A crucial observation was that when the job pool contains tasks with significantly higher physical risk factors, the rotation's effectiveness in lowering overall worker MSD risk is substantially reduced, which suggests that other intervention strategies might be more effective in such scenarios.
  • Primary Focus on Job Redesign: The study emphasizes that when high-risk jobs are present in the job pool, the primary focus should shift towards redesigning these high-risk tasks. This approach can be more effective than relying solely on job rotation to mitigate MSD risks.
  • Consideration for Ergonomic Intervention: This insight underlines the importance of a comprehensive ergonomic intervention strategy, where job rotation is just one component. Employers and safety professionals should critically assess the risk levels of individual jobs and consider job redesign or other ergonomic interventions in conjunction with job rotation.

This study illustrates that the success of job rotation in reducing MSD risks is not universal and is largely contingent upon the specific mix of tasks within the rotation. High-risk jobs can notably undermine the effectiveness of rotation schemes, suggesting a need for a more holistic approach to workplace ergonomics and safety planning.

2: Limited Impact of Job Rotation on Work-Related MSDs

The 2017 study by Comper et al. provides critical insights into the limitations of job rotation as a means to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Key aspects of this study include:

  • Context of the Study: Conducted in the textile industry, this research was set in a real-world manufacturing environment. The study was designed as a 1-year cluster randomized controlled trial, providing a robust methodological approach to evaluating the effectiveness of job rotation.
  • Comparative Analysis with Control Group: Both the intervention group (which performed job rotation) and the control group received ergonomic training, allowing for a direct comparison of the added value of job rotation over standard ergonomic practices.
  • Primary Outcome - Sick Leave Due to MSDs: The primary measure of the study's effectiveness was the number of working hours lost due to sick leave resulting from musculoskeletal diseases. This outcome directly indicates the physical impact of job rotation on worker health.
  • Secondary Outcomes - Various Work-Related Factors: The study also examined several secondary outcomes, including musculoskeletal symptoms, risk factors for musculoskeletal diseases, psychosocial factors, fatigue, general health, and productivity. These factors offer a comprehensive view of the potential benefits of job rotation.
  • Lack of Significant Difference in Primary Outcome: The key finding was no significant difference in the number of working hours lost due to MSD-related sick leave between the job rotation group and the control group at the 12-month follow-up, which suggests that job rotation, in this context, did not effectively reduce the incidence of musculoskeletal diseases.
  • No Significant Impact on Secondary Outcomes: The study found no significant differences between the job rotation and control groups regarding the secondary outcomes, including the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms and perceptions of musculoskeletal pain and workplace risk factors.
  • Implications for Job Rotation Effectiveness: These findings challenge the notion that job rotation is an effective standalone method for reducing the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms or improving worker perceptions of musculoskeletal pain and workplace risk factors.
  • Recommendation for Future Research: The study's results underscore the need for further research to explore the conditions under which job rotation might be more effective and whether different designs of job rotation programs could yield better outcomes in preventing work-related MSDs.

Comper et al.'s (2017) study provides convincing evidence that, in the context of the textile industry, job rotation did not significantly reduce the incidence of musculoskeletal diseases or improve related health perceptions and workplace factors, thus questioning its efficacy as a sole intervention for preventing work-related MSDs.

3: Effect of Job Rotation on Muscular Activity Variability

The Rodriguez & Barrero, 2017 study explains the relationship between job rotation strategies and muscular activity variability (MAV), hypothesized to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Key points from their research are:

  • Focus on Muscular Activity Variability: The study investigates how job rotation strategies influence MAV, an important ergonomic factor, as increased variability in muscular activity is believed to reduce the risk of MSDs.
  • Analysis of Various Job Rotation Strategies: The research encompassed various job rotation strategies, including task alternation and pace changes, to determine their impact on MAV. This comprehensive approach offers insights into the effectiveness of different rotation types.
  • Increased MAV with Certain Strategies: Several studies in the review supported the notion that job rotation can increase MAV. This finding is crucial as it suggests that job rotation can positively influence muscular activity patterns when designed appropriately.
  • Uncertainty in Direct Benefits for Workers: Despite the increase in MAV, the study found limited evidence that these changes in variability immediately translate into tangible benefits for the worker, which raises questions about the direct correlation between increased MAV and reduced MSD risk.
  • Variability Achieved at the Expense of Average Activity: The study noted that in some cases, increased variability was achieved at the cost of increased average activity in the assessed muscles, which could negate the benefits of increased variability, indicating a need for careful design of job rotation schedules.
  • Lack of Simultaneous Changes in Different Muscle Groups: There was little evidence that increased MAV due to job rotation led to simultaneous changes across different muscular groups. This lack of uniformity in the benefits of job rotation across various muscle groups is significant for assessing its effectiveness in reducing MSD risks.
  • Implications for Job Rotation Design: The study's findings suggest that while job rotation can potentially increase MAV, you must carefully consider the implementation to ensure that it does not inadvertently increase the risk of MSDs. The design of rotation schedules should view the balance between increasing variability and avoiding excessive strain on any particular muscle group.

The study by Rodriguez and Barrero (2017) highlights the complex relationship between job rotation and muscular activity variability. While job rotation can increase MAV, which is theoretically beneficial in reducing MSD risk, the actual benefits for workers regarding reduced MSD prevalence are not definitively established. These findings underscore the need for a nuanced approach to implementing job rotation strategies, considering both the potential benefits and the challenges in achieving effective MSD risk reduction.

4: Inconsistent Evidence on Job Rotation Effects

The 2015 systematic review by Priscilla C. Leider et al. critically evaluates the effects of job rotation on musculoskeletal complaints, related work exposures, and sustainable working life parameters. This review provides an insightful perspective on the current state of evidence regarding job rotation:

  • Systematic Review Approach: The study systematically collated and analyzed existing research, providing a comprehensive overview of the evidence on job rotation's impact on musculoskeletal complaints and related exposures.
  • Mixed Results in Reducing Musculoskeletal Complaints: The review found mixed outcomes regarding the effectiveness of job rotation in reducing musculoskeletal complaints. Some field studies reported positive results, while others showed negative or inconsistent results, highlighting the need for a clear consensus in the research community.
  • Varied Effects on Work Exposures: Similar variability was observed in the effects of job rotation on exposures related to musculoskeletal complaints. While some studies reported positive changes, others showed inconsistent outcomes, underlining the complexity of the relationship between job rotation and work exposures.
  • Inconsistent Evidence across Studies: The review underscored that the evidence for positive or negative effects of job rotation is inconsistent. This inconsistency is attributed to the diversity in study designs, work environments, and the specific implementation of job rotation programs.
  • No Studies on Sustainable Working Life Parameters: The review found no studies focusing on sustainable working life parameters. This gap indicates an area for future research to explore the long-term impacts of job rotation on workforce sustainability.
  • Lack of High-Quality, Longitudinal Studies: The review points out the need for more high-quality, longitudinal studies to better understand job rotation's long-term effects and address existing research's limitations, which often rely on cross-sectional designs.
  • Need for Comprehensive Assessment: The findings suggest that employers and practitioners undertake a comprehensive assessment of job rotation's potential benefits and drawbacks, including considering the specific nature of work activities, the physical demands involved, and the individual characteristics of workers.
  • Recommendations for Future Research: The review emphasizes the need for future research to adopt more rigorous methodologies, consider a broader range of outcomes, and explore the conditions under which job rotation might be most effective.

Leider et al.'s (2015) systematic review reveals inconsistent evidence regarding the efficacy of job rotation in mitigating musculoskeletal complaints and exposures. This inconsistency highlights the need for a cautious and tailored approach when considering job rotation as an occupational health and safety strategy. It also highlights the importance of further research to clarify its role and effectiveness.

5: Job Rotation Design Considerations

The 2020 study by J. Diego-Mas offers valuable insights into designing effective job rotation schedules to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) while considering ergonomic risk factors. The study's key aspects include:

  • Complexity in Developing Rotation Schedules: Job rotation is a widely accepted administrative solution to prevent MSDs. However, designing effective rotation schedules is complex due to the multifactorial nature of musculoskeletal disorders and the constraints of working environments.
  • Evolutionary Algorithm for Rotation Schedules: The study introduces an evolutionary algorithm to generate rotation schedules. This algorithm aims to optimize multiple ergonomics criteria by clustering tasks into rotation groups, selecting appropriate workers for each group, and determining the rotation sequence to minimize fatigue effects.
  • Reducing Prolonged Risk Exposure: A significant goal of the algorithm is to minimize prolonged exposure to ergonomic risk factors related to musculoskeletal injuries, which is achieved by rotating workers through various tasks, varying their exposure to risk factors.
  • Simplifying Task Assignment and Monitoring: The approach simplifies the assignment of workers to different tasks during each rotation, which not only aids in reducing the potential for injury but also facilitates the monitoring and managing of job assignments.
  • Consideration of Fatigue in Rotation Design: The algorithm incorporates considerations of worker fatigue, an important factor in developing MSDs. By optimizing the sequence of rotations, the algorithm aims to minimize the cumulative effects of fatigue over the workday.
  • Balancing Ergonomics and Productivity: The study recognizes the need to balance ergonomic safety with productivity requirements. The proposed procedure addresses this by ensuring that rotation schedules are not only ergonomically sound but also feasible within the operational constraints of a workplace.
  • Adaptability to Various Work Environments: The procedure presented in the study can be adapted to different work environments, making it a versatile tool for designing job rotation schedules in various industrial contexts.
  • Implications for Ergonomic Intervention Strategy: The findings from this study imply that an effective job rotation strategy should be part of a broader ergonomic intervention. This strategy should consider not just the physical rotation of tasks but also the ergonomic design of each task to ensure that rotation does not simply shift risks from one group of workers to another.

The study by Diego-Mas (2020) underscores the importance of carefully designing job rotation schedules to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders effectively. Using advanced algorithms to consider multiple ergonomic factors offers a more systematic and effective way of implementing job rotation in various industrial settings.

6: Lack of Significant Risk Reduction in High-Risk Jobs

The study by Gallagher et al. (2018) provides a critical evaluation of the effectiveness of job rotation in reducing the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), particularly in high-risk jobs. Here are the key elements of this study:

  • Job Rotation as a Common Industrial Strategy: The study addresses the widespread use of job rotation in industries to mitigate the risk of MSDs. However, it questions the efficacy of this technique in reducing risk.
  • Use of the Lifting Fatigue Failure Tool (LiFFT): The researchers employed the LiFFT, a tool developed for assessing cumulative loading and MSD risk, to evaluate the impact of different job rotation strategies, which allowed for a more objective and quantitative analysis of the risks associated with various job rotation schemes.
  • Analysis of Simulated Job Rotation Scheme: The study involved a simulated job rotation scheme that included high, medium, and low-risk lifting jobs. This simulation provided insights into how different combinations of job risks in a rotation schedule might affect overall MSD risk.
  • Finding: Increased Risk in All Jobs: Contrary to the expectation that job rotation would distribute risk and reduce the likelihood of MSDs, the study found that the rotation strategy ended up creating three jobs that were all high risk, suggesting that rotation may not effectively mitigate risk, especially in scenarios involving high-risk tasks.
  • Implication: Redesign High-Risk Jobs First: The study highlights the importance of addressing high-risk jobs directly through job redesign rather than relying solely on job rotation as a risk mitigation strategy. Redesigning high-risk tasks is a more effective approach to reducing overall MSD risk.
  • Consideration of Risk Equity: The study's findings imply that while job rotation might somewhat reduce the risk for the most hazardous job, it could simultaneously increase the risk for other workers in the rotation pool, raising concerns about risk equity.
  • Recommendation for Comprehensive Risk Management: The results advocate for a more comprehensive risk management strategy beyond job rotation. It suggests integrating job rotation with other ergonomic interventions, such as task redesign and administrative controls, to effectively manage MSD risks.
  • Need for Customized Approaches: The study underscores that a one-size-fits-all approach to job rotation may not be effective, especially in environments with varied risk levels across tasks. Customized rotation schedules that consider the specific risk profile of each job are crucial.

Gallagher et al.'s (2018) study provides valuable insights into the limitations of job rotation in reducing MSD risks, particularly in environments with high-risk jobs. It emphasizes the need for a more holistic approach to ergonomic risk management that includes, but is not limited to, job rotation.

The collective research on job rotation to mitigate musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) injuries presents a complex and multifaceted picture. Several key factors influence the effectiveness of job rotation, and its impact varies depending on the specific context and implementation.

Let's summarize the significant findings from these various studies and provide specific recommendations for practitioners in the field.

  1. Variable Effectiveness Based on Job Pool Composition: Mehdizadeh et al. (2020) highlight that the effectiveness of job rotation in reducing MSD risks is highly contingent on the composition of the job pool. Including high-risk jobs in the rotation significantly diminishes its effectiveness. In environments where high-risk jobs are unavoidable, the focus should shift towards redesigning these high-risk tasks rather than relying solely on job rotation.
  2. Limited Impact on Work-Related MSDs: Comper et al. (2017) found that job rotation did not significantly reduce work-related musculoskeletal diseases, suggesting that job rotation alone may not be a sufficient intervention. Practitioners should consider integrating job rotation with comprehensive ergonomic training and other preventive measures.
  3. Effect on Muscular Activity Variability: Rodriguez and Barrero (2017) demonstrate that while job rotation can increase muscular activity variability, this does not necessarily translate into a reduced risk of MSDs. Employers should design rotation schedules that increase variability and ensure that it does not lead to increased average activity in the muscles, which could be counterproductive.
  4. Inconsistent Evidence on Job Rotation Effects: Leider et al. (2015) point out the inconsistent evidence regarding the impact of job rotation on musculoskeletal complaints and exposures, which suggests the need for a tailored approach to job rotation, considering specific workplace conditions and individual worker characteristics.
  5. Job Rotation Design Considerations: Diego-Mas (2020) emphasizes the importance of using advanced algorithms and ergonomic criteria in designing job rotation schedules. An effective rotation schedule should consider various ergonomic factors, reduce prolonged exposure to specific risks, and balance the needs of productivity and worker safety.
  6. Lack of Significant Risk Reduction in High-Risk Jobs: Gallagher et al. (2018) indicate that job rotation, especially in high-risk jobs, may not effectively mitigate risk and could inadvertently create high-risk scenarios for all workers involved. This finding underscores the importance of assessing each job's risk profile before implementing a rotation schedule.

Specific Recommendations and Examples:

  • Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Conduct a thorough risk assessment of all tasks before implementing job rotation. For example, identify tasks with high repetitive strain or heavy lifting and consider these in designing the rotation schedule.
  • Customized Rotation Schedules: Develop customized rotation schedules that consider the specific risks and demands of different tasks - for instance, alternate between tasks requiring other muscle groups or varying levels of physical exertion.
  • Integrate with Ergonomic Training: Combine job rotation with ergonomic training. Employers must train workers in performing different tasks, safe work practices, and ergonomic principles.
  • Task Redesign and Automation: Explore opportunities for task redesign or automation in high-risk tasks. For example, if lifting heavy objects is high-risk, consider using mechanical aids or redesigning the workflow to minimize manual handling.
  • Monitor and Evaluate: Continuously monitor the effectiveness of job rotation programs and be prepared to make adjustments. Gather feedback from workers and use injury and illness data to assess the impact of the rotation schedule.
  • Holistic Ergonomic Approach: View job rotation as part of a broader ergonomic and workplace safety strategy. Incorporate other elements such as workstation design, administrative controls, and worker wellness programs.

While job rotation can be valuable in reducing MSD injuries, its effectiveness is only sometimes universal. It depends on careful planning and integration with other ergonomic and safety strategies. A holistic approach that includes job rotation, task redesign, ergonomic training, and continuous evaluation is essential for effectively mitigating MSD risks in the workplace.

What has been your experience with job rotation as a solution for MSD injuries? Join in on the conversation over at The SafetyPro Podcast community site today!


Blaine J. Hoffmann, MS OSHM

Blaine J. Hoffmann has been in the occupational safety & health industry for over 28 years and is the author of "Rethinking SAFETY Culture," available now. Blaine is the producer and host of The SafetyPro Podcast and founded the SafetyPro Podcast community site.

Read full Article
post photo preview
A Challenge to OSHA’s Interpretive Authority?
What recent court cases may mean to agency interpretations

As we know, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) creates standards that ensure safe and healthful working conditions across the United States. As we also know, not every workplace situation can also have an accompanying standard. Therefore, OSHA must rely on interpreting the intent of various standards. But where does OSHA derive its interpretive authority to enforce the myriad regulations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHAct)? This article will discuss this interpretive authority and the ongoing debates surrounding its scope and limits, including the impact of the Chevron Doctrine and its potential challenges.

Where Does OSHA's Interpretive Authority Come From

Understanding the sources of OSHA's interpretive power is crucial for employers and policymakers as they attempt to navigate the complex web of workplace safety regulations. The Chevron doctrine, stemming from the Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., is a fundamental principle of administrative law that instructs courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of a statute it administers, provided the statute is ambiguous, and the agency's interpretation is reasonable.

The Chevron doctrine is applied through a two-step process:

  1. Step One: The court must first ascertain whether Congress has directly addressed the issue's precise question. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter.
  2. Step Two: If the statute is silent or ambiguous, the court must determine whether the agency's interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

OSHA may invoke the Chevron doctrine when interpreting provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHAct) that are vague or silent on specific issues. As the agency administering the OSHAct, OSHA has the expertise and authority to develop standards and regulations to ensure safe and healthful working conditions.

For example, OSHA might use the Chevron doctrine to determine the scope of its regulatory authority in areas where the OSHAct does not explicitly grant or limit power. This could include interpreting what constitutes a "serious" hazard or defining the extent of employers' duties under the General Duty Clause.

Implications for Workplace Safety and Health

Applying the Chevron doctrine means that the courts give OSHA reasonable interpretations of the OSHAct weight and deference. This deference allows OSHA to adapt its regulations to evolving workplace safety and health challenges without needing explicit instructions from Congress for every specific scenario.

One example of OSHA using the Chevron Doctrine is the case over the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employers. OSHA's interpretation was that Congress gave the agency the power to oversee such public health issues in the workplace. Ultimately, the Supreme Court majority said Congress only intended to provide OSHA with the power to address hazards that are confined to the workplace setting.

The Supreme Court's decision highlighted the tension between the nondelegation doctrine, which limits Congress's ability to delegate legislative power to bureaucratic agencies, and the Chevron doctrine, which allows those agencies some interpretive authority. Ultimately, the court found that OSHA's mandate failed to meet the major questions doctrine, which requires clear textual authority from Congress for nationally impactful decisions.

This case illustrates how the Chevron doctrine can be pivotal in determining the extent of OSHA's regulatory authority and how courts may review and potentially limit that authority based on statutory interpretation principles.

Challenges to the Chevron Doctrine

Some recent cases have the potential to challenge the Chevron Doctrine. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases involve the National Marine Fisheries Service and its rule requiring the herring industry to bear the costs of observers on fishing boats.

The arguments presented in these cases question the Chevron Doctrine's validity, with some suggesting it undermines the courts' duty to interpret the law and violates the federal law governing administrative agencies. The Supreme Court's decision on these cases could lead to a significant shift in administrative law, potentially discarding or limiting the Chevron Doctrine.

If the Chevron Doctrine were overturned, it would have significant implications for federal agencies like OSHA. Here's what could happen:

  1. Increased Judicial Scrutiny: Federal agencies' interpretations of statutes would likely face stricter scrutiny from the courts. Without the Chevron deference, courts would not be bound to accept an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law.

  2. Shift in Power: The balance of power would shift from the executive branch to the judiciary. Courts would have more authority to interpret laws, which is what the courts are there to do, one could argue.

  3. Legislative Precision: Congress might need to draft more detailed legislation to ensure its intentions are unambiguous. This could result in fewer general violations and force agencies to draft more precise rules.

  4. Potential for Increased Litigation: With less deference to agency expertise, litigation could increase as parties frequently challenge agency rules and interpretations.

Overall, overturning the Chevron Doctrine would likely lead to a more focused regulatory environment, with federal agencies having less flexibility to interpret and enforce laws as they see fit. What do you think? Share your thoughts by joining the conversation at The SafetyPro Podcast community site today!

This article is intended for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

In writing this article, the AI app CONCENSUS was used to research various court cases and articles related to the topic.


Blaine J. Hoffmann, MS OSHM
Blaine J. Hoffmann, MS OSHM

Blaine J. Hoffmann has been in the occupational safety & health industry for over 28 years and is the author of "Rethinking SAFETY Culture," available now. Blaine is the producer and host of The SafetyPro Podcast and founded the SafetyPro Podcast community site.

 
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals