MSDs are the top cause of injuries among warehousing and transportation workers: GAO

Washington — Musculoskeletal disorders are overwhelmingly the No. 1 cause of injuries among warehousing and “last-mile delivery” workers, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Oct. 8.

The report also notes that, in 2022, the transportation and warehousing industry had the highest serious injury and illness rate (3.8 cases per 100 workers) among the 19 sectors analyzed.

By far, the top cause of ailments among workers in the industry was “overexertion and bodily reaction,” which can lead to issues such as back pain. Contact with objects or equipment and slips, trips and falls were the other two major causes of injuries.

GAO notes that OSHA doesn’t have a standard on ergonomics and uses its General Duty Clause when issuing citations, which requires a higher bar to cross. A Congressional Review Act resolution repealed the agency’s ergonomics standard in 2001, and the act doesn’t allow for a regulation that’s “substantially the same” unless Congress passes a law.

According to the report, OSHA staffers described other challenges compliance officers face when trying to identify, assess and address ergonomic hazards:

• Difficulty determining if ergonomic hazards caused injuries reported on forms
• Little training on ergonomic hazards
• Unclear ergonomic guidance

“By addressing these issues, OSHA may be better able to identify and address ergonomic hazards and more fully protect workers from harm,” GAO says.

Last year, OSHA launched a National Emphasis Program for warehousing and distribution centers, aimed at addressing ergonomics hazards, among other safety risks.

The report makes five recommendations to OSHA:

1. During inspections, ensure compliance officers can “easily obtain” data on when MSDs occurred.
2. Increase training for identifying and assessing ergonomic hazards.
3. Make “needed changes” to guidance on identifying, assessing and addressing ergonomic hazards.
4. Conduct “timely follow-up” with any establishments that were given ergonomic hazard alert letters, to determine if corrective actions were made.
5. Evaluate the NEP to determine if it helps inspectors identify, assess and address ergonomic hazards. Also, correct any “deficiencies” in the NEP.

Although OSHA agreed with some of the recommendations, Deputy Assistant Secretary James Frederick notes in a response to the report that, for the first one, the agency would need to change its recordkeeping regulations through notice-and-comment procedures. An agency regulation making that change is currently listed under “long-term actions” in the latest regulatory agenda.

Regarding recommendation No. 3, Fredrick writes that OSHA disagrees on the need for industry-specific guidance for warehousing and delivery drivers. “OSHA believes that its more general existing ergonomic guidance adequately addresses ergonomic hazards encountered by employees in warehousing and delivery services. OSHA also objects to GAO’s characterization of OSHA’s existing ergonomics inspection guidance as unclear.”

The National Safety Council offers resources for addressing MSDs through its MSD Solutions Lab.