Ergonomics Interventions at Badger

Mining Corporation

Janet Torma-Krajewski 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Martin Lehman

Badger Mining Corporation, Berlin, WI, USA

In 2005, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and Badger Mining 

Corporation entered a partnership to implement ergonomics interventions, including a systematic process, 

to address exposure to risk factors that may result in musculoskeletal disorders or other types of injuries/

illnesses. As a result of this partnership, an ergonomics process was integrated with the existing safety and 

health programme to promote an on-going application of ergonomics principles, and over 40 task-specific 

interventions were implemented during the first year of the process. This paper presents details of the process 

integration, and several examples of task-specific interventions that reduced exposure to risk factors.

The authors wish to thank the following individuals for their assistance in supporting the Badger ergonomics initiative: Lisa Steiner 

and Sean Gallagher of NIOSH; Pauline Lewis formerly of NIOSH and now with Hartford Insurance; and Mellisa Stafford, Linda Artz 

and Don Seaman of Badger Mining Corporation.

The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Correspondence and requests for offprints should be sent to Janet Torma-Krajewski, Colorado School of Mines, 350 Indiana Street, 

Suite 610, Golden, CO 80401, USA. E-mail: <jtorma@mines.edu>.

1. INTRODUCTION

Badger Mining Corporation is a family-owned 

small business with its headquarters in Berlin, 

WI, USA. Badger operates two sandstone mines 

near Fairwater and Taylor, WI, USA, which 

produce ~1.82 billion tonnes of industrial silica 

sand annually. Badger also owns three subsidiary 

companies, one of which participated in the 

ergonomics process. This subsidiary (LogicHaul) 

is located at the Fairwater mine and is responsible 

for transportation and distribution of products 

utilizing trucks and rail cars. There are 180 

employees at the Resource Center (headquarters 

offices), Fairwater, Taylor and LogicHaul. 

From 2002 through 2004, the average nonfatal 

days lost (NFDL) injury incidence rate reported 

to the Mine Safety and Health Administration 

was 3.28 injuries per 100 employees for Taylor. 

Fairwater had no NFDL injuries during this period. 

The national average NFDL injury incidence rate 

for similar type mines (surface mines that mine the 

same type of commodity) was 2.15. A review of 

both NFDL and no days lost (NDL) or restricted 

work-day cases occurring during 2003 and 2004 

at both sites, indicated that 79% of the NFDL 

injuries (61 of 77) and 85% of the NDL injuries 

(92 of 108) were associated with musculoskeletal 

disorders (MSDs).
Organizationally, Badger used a team management structure consisting of work teams and 

cross-functional teams, who were responsible 

for setting the work schedule, changing work 

practises and providing feedback to the operations 

team. Members of work teams were cross-trained 

and could perform many disparate tasks. Work 

teams were self-directed and were responsible for 

the safety of their members. Badger associates 

completed CARE (Corrective Action Request 

for Evaluation) reports for all safety incidents 

including accidents, injuries, property damage, 

near misses and hazard exposure. Cross-functional teams addressed functions pertinent to 

many teams, such as safety and quality. Each site 

had a separate safety team, which processed the 

CARE reports and addressed safety-related issues 

that could not be resolved by the work teams. 

Because the mining processes and products were 

different at the two mines, the members of the 

two safety teams differed slightly. The Fairwater 

safety team included 25 members and represented 

16 work teams; the Taylor safety team included 

28 members and represented 15 work teams. 

The safety associate, a headquarters employee, 

also served as a member of the safety teams at 

both mines. The safety associate functioned as 

a consultant to the mines and provided training, 

offered motivational programmes, conducted investigations and implemented Badger’s behaviour-based safety (BBS) system, which was 

initiated in December 2002. BBS observers were 

trained to conduct random, periodic observations 

of employees to identify both safe and unsafe 

behaviours and to correct unsafe ones. Safety 

observations were documented using a Do It 

Safely form and were conducted at both mines 

and the Resource Center.

2. ERGONOMICS PROCESS 

INTERVENTION

When integrated with safety and health 

programmes, ergonomics can be viewed as an 

approach to improve injury and illness rates and 

the overall working conditions for employees by 

addressing risk factor exposure that may occur 

during manual tasks1

. 

1 Manual tasks include any activity requiring the worker to grasp, manipulate, strike, throw, carry, move, hold or restrain an object, 

load or body part.

This exposure is most often 

associated with MSDs, but may also result in 

other disorders and illnesses, such as heat stress 

disorders or vibration-related illnesses. Because 

Badger decided to integrate fully the application 

of ergonomics principles with its existing 

safety programme, ergonomics concerns were 

addressed using the same process as any other 

safety and health concern (Figure 1). Actions to 

address these concerns were initiated by either a 

CARE report or a BBS ergonomics observation, 

which were reviewed by the safety team. If the 

risk factor exposure(s) could be addressed by this 

team then no further action was needed. However, 

if the cost of the corrective action exceeded the 

limits set for the safety team, then the concern 

was transferred to the operations team. Since the 

safety team included members of the operations 

team, this transfer was seamless. The champion 

for the Badger ergonomics process was the safety 

associate.

With a decentralized safety and health process, Badger initiated its ergonomics process by 

training all employees in February 2005. The 

training, which was 2.5 hrs, was given by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) and emphasized identifying risk 

factor exposure and then reporting that exposure 

using a CARE report so corrective actions 

could be instituted to resolve the exposure. This 

training also included a brief introduction to 

ergonomics and MSDs, with specific information 

on back injuries and how the risk of injury could 

change based on methods used to perform lifting 

tasks. Examples of risk factor exposures were 

illustrated with short videos of tasks performed at 

either Badger mine. Training techniques included 

interactive exercises and demonstrations. To 

ensure the participation of new associates in the 

ergonomics process, Badger provided ergonomics 

and risk factor awareness training during new 

associate orientation; and to keep associates 
involved in the ergonomics process, interactive 

exercises demonstrating ergonomics principles 

were included in annual refresher training.

Figure 1. Badger ergonomics process diagram. Notes. CARE—Corrective Action Request for Evaluation.

Because Badger utilized a behaviour-based 

safety system as part of its overall safety and 

health programme, it was decided to also 

incorporate ergonomics observations into 

this system for the purpose of identifying and 

eliminating exposure to risk factors. The primary 

focus of a BBS system was to decrease injury 

rates by preventing unsafe behaviours, which 

was accomplished by implementing a systematic 

process of data collection, often achieved 

with observations and correction of unsafe 

behaviours [1]. Sulzer-Azaroff and Austin [2], 

who reviewed articles describing the results of 

implementing BBS systems, reported that 32 of 

33 BBS systems reviewed resulted in reductions 

in injuries. However, none of these systems 

reported results specific to MSDs. Although the 

top three U.S. automakers do not integrate their 

ergonomics processes with their BBS systems, 

other automotive companies, Toyota and 

Tenneco Automotive, have done so. In these two 

companies, BBS systems were used to identify 

musculoskeletal problems and direct potential 

solutions [3].
Although ergonomics was initially included 

in the Badger BBS system, it only identified 

ergonomics issues as hazards that were present 

during the observations. Specific risk factor 

exposures were not identified, and exposures that 

were not related to unsafe behaviours could not 

be corrected. For example, a person could use 

an awkward posture to do a task not because of 

an unsafe behaviour but because the layout of 

the workstation resulted in the worker using an 

awkward posture. Typically, the observation of 

this unsafe behaviour would result in training 

the worker not to use an awkward posture; 

however, because the awkward posture was a 

result of the workstation layout and not a choice 

of method/behaviour, further efforts were needed 

to resolve exposure to the risk factor. In other 

words, observers required information on how 

to modify tasks, equipment, tools, workstations, 

environments and methods using a hierarchal 

approach to controlling exposure (engineering 

controls, administrative controls and personal 

protective equipment), with engineering 

controls being the preferred control measure [4]. 

Consequently, it was necessary to provide BBS 

observers with training on not only identifying a 

specific risk factor exposure, but also on how to 

control that exposure. 

Training was provided to the BBS observers 

at both the Fairwater and Taylor mines in 

July 2005; it focused on identifying risk factor 

exposures and also provided them with simple 

ways to reduce or eliminate exposure associated 

with manual material handling. The training 

followed the observation process the observers 

used to conduct safety observations and included 

role-playing exercises to allow the observers 

to be comfortable when doing ergonomics 

observations. To document risk factor exposures 

an ergonomics observation form was developed; 

it also included simple ways to improve tasks. 

Information collected with this form included risk 

factor exposures, body discomfort, root causes of 

the exposures and corrective actions taken at the 

time of the observation. Practise completing the 

form was provided during role-playing exercises. 

In June 2006, additional training was provided 

to the BBS observers. This training consisted of a 

review of risk factors and then additional practise 

at identifying risk factor exposures by viewing 

short videos and observing work tasks during 

field exercises. Methods to improve jobs were 

also discussed. Members of the safety teams also 

attended this training since these teams resolve 

observations not immediately addressed by the 

observers and CARE reports.

From August 2005 through May 2006, the BBS 

observers at both the Fairwater and Taylor mines 

completed ~30 ergonomics observations. During 

10 of them, the risk factor exposure was either 

resolved or job improvements were identified. 

The job improvements included personal 

protective equipment (antivibration gloves), 

training on how to do a particular task without 

exposure to awkward postures and engineering 

controls. Two examples of engineering controls 

included raising the work surface with saw 

horses, which made neutral postures possible, and 

constructing a hand tool to open covers on rail 

cars, which eliminated flexion of the trunk and 

reduced the forceful exertion needed to release 

the latch.

3. TASK-SPECIFIC INTERVENTIONS

Within one year of implementing its ergonomics 

process, Badger implemented over 40 interventions (Tables 1–2). Some of them were 

planned prior to initiating the ergonomics 

process; however, information gained from the 

training led to improvements in the original 

design. All but a few of the improvements were 

engineering controls, and many of them involved 

obtaining new equipment or workstations. Some 

of the modifications to workstations or equipment 

were completed by the equipment maintenance 

staff, and did not result in significant expenditure 

of funds or time. Examples of the interventions 

are discussed in sections 3.1.–3.6. 
TABLE 1. Description and Type of Interventions Completed by Badger Mining Corporation, Fairwater, 

WI, USA

No. of Associates 

Type of Intervention Affected Brief Description of Intervention

Existing equipment 

or workstation 

modified

New workstations 

purchased or 

constructed

New equipment 

purchased or 

constructed

New seats purchased

3

—

6

—

3

3

3

4

—

4

—

3

1

2

Mirrors on track mobiles

Asphalt on unpaved roads

Powered in lieu of manual loading dock ramp

Automatic in lieu of manual actuators in screen house

Truck scale with washout system in lieu of manual clean-out in a pit

Rail load-out canopy to eliminate stooping under low hanging 

equipment and to improve protection against falls 

Brake stick for rail cars in lieu of the need to climb on rail car and 

manually set brake

Floor mats for dry plant

Automatic in lieu of manual grease guns

Electric in lieu of manual tarps on dump trucks

Elevator in lieu of ladders

Automatic dust collection screw in lieu of manual pounding on the 

hoppers

Tool to unlatch rail covers in lieu of manual unlatching 

New office chairs 

Air-ride seat in haul truck

TABLE 2. Description and Type of Interventions Completed by Badger Mining Corporation, Taylor, 

WI, USA

No. of Associates 

Type of Intervention Affected Brief Description of Intervention

Existing equipment 

or workstation 

modified

Workstation 

rearranged 

New workstations 

purchased or 

constructed

New equipment 

purchased

6

16

16

16

16

16

—

5

5

6

6

6

6

7

2

5

5

5

5

1

—

Rail clean out facility modified to allow a standing posture rather than a 

stooped/squatting posture

Modified dozer operator compartment

9.5- in lieu of 19-l pails for drilling samples 

Wider ramp leading into pit 

Straighter haul roads 

Ride control on new loaders

Revamped air flow in dryer pipe 

Tools in tool buckets so weight is evenly distributed

Raised (waist-height) workstation for constructing bucket elevators

Hy-vac truck for rail clean-out in lieu of manual shoveling

5- in lieu of 10-cm hose on Hy-vac 

Brake stick for rail cars in lieu of manually-operated brake

Rail cars with light-weight in lieu of heavy metal hatches

Auto samplers in dry house in lieu of manual collection of samples

Telephone head-set for receptionist

Drills for bucket elevator construction

Shock-absorbing hammers in lieu of regular ones

Antifatigue mats in heavy traffic areas of the shop

Wagons for transporting tools 

Cable cutter attachment for drill in lieu of a manual one

New pick-up trucks in lieu of Army surplus vehicles
TABLE 2. (continued)

Type of Intervention

No. of Associates 

Affected Brief Description of Intervention

New equipment 

purchased

5 Automatic in lieu of manual grease guns

7 Elevator in new dry plant in lieu of stairs 

5 Parts washer in lieu of manual washing 

6 Hinged screen covers in lieu of manual ones

New seats 

purchased

16 New seat in drill

Elimination of 

equipment

6 Rail cars with trough hatches removed from service

Work practise 

modified

Modified method of opening bulk bags to eliminate stooping and 

leaning 

Personal protective 

equipment

5 Antivibration gloves for constructing bucket elevators

5 Welding helmets with auto-darkening in lieu of regular dark lens

5 Shoe in-soles for maintenance workers

3.1. Cable Cutter

3.1.1. Problem

Electricians identified cutting copper wire (multistrand, 600 V, with an outer diameter of 2.2 cm) 

with a manual wire cutter (Figure 2a) as a highly 

repetitive task combined with forceful exertions. 

Figure 2. (a) Manual and (b) power cable 

cutters.

(a)

(b)

3.1.2. Solution

Since the task could not be eliminated, it was 

important to find a reasonable intervention that 

would reduce the risk factor exposures. The 

intervention chosen was a cable cutter, which 

attaches to any power drill (Figure 2b). Minimal 

force is exerted to operate the drill and the wire is 

cut in seconds. The cost of the cable/wire cutter 

attachment was 500 USD.

3.2. Parts Washer

3.2.1. Problem

Mechanics routinely cleaned equipment parts, 

tools and chains that were greasy, oily and dirty 

by using chemical solvents to break down the 

grease and oil before manually scrubbing the part. 

This task involved exposure to forceful exertions, 

repetition and awkward postures. The time 

required to clean parts significantly increased the 

risk associated with exposure to these risk factors. 

For example, manual cleaning parts for a loader 

undergoing winter repairs took ~40 hrs. 

3.2.2. Solution

To address this exposure, an automatic parts 

washer was purchased for ~6000 USD. Not only 

did the automatic parts washer effectively reduce 

exposure to this risk factor, but productivity of 

the equipment maintenance team increased since 

the mechanics were able to complete repair work 

as the parts were cleaned by the washer.
3.3. Scale

3.3.1. Problem

To verify accurate filling of 45.5-kg bags, a 

sampling of bags was lifted from the conveyor 

and weighed on a scale located on the floor near 

the conveyor (Figure 3a). This task resulted in 

exposure to forceful exertions and awkward 

postures. 

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Scale to weigh bags raised (a) from the floor (b) to a cart.

3.3.2. Solution

To reduce exposure to these risk factors, the scale 

was placed on an elevated cart so it could be 

moved closer to the conveyor and the lift could 

be performed between knee and shoulder height 

(Figure 3b). The cart was less than 100 USD.

3.4. Screen Covers

3.4.1. Problem

To maintain the screens in the screen house, the 

covers, which weigh 14–18 kg, were removed 

by lifting and then placing them to the side of the 

screen housing, resulting in exposure to forceful 

exertions and awkward postures (Figure 4a). 

Figure 4. (a) Old screen cover removed from housing, (b) new screen cover retrofitted with gas struts.

(a) (b)
3.4.2. Solution

New covers were fitted with gas struts, so they 

could now be easily opened with one hand 

(Figure 4b). Exposure to both risk factors was 

eliminated. The average cost associated with this 

intervention included 800–1 000 USD for parts 

(hinges, clamps and gas cylinders) per cover, and 

1 000 USD for the engineering design per cover 

design. The maintenance department installed the 

new covers.

3.5. Automatic Actuators

3.5.1. Problem

To maintain the actuator, internal orifice plates 

needed to be removed and replaced when they 

became clogged with wet sand (Figure 5a). 

Completing this task once a shift resulted in 

exposure to awkward postures (excessive 

reaching and leaning forward) and climbing four 

flights of stairs. 

3.5.2. Solution

Installing an automatic actuator eliminated the 

need to manually maintain it, the awkward 

postures as well as climbing the stairs (Figure 5b). 

The automatic actuator was 500 USD plus labor.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. (a) Manually reset actuator, (b) automatic actuator.

3.6. Rail Car Cover Latch Tool

3.6.1. Problem

To open the rail car cover, the associate used 

his foot to release the latch while bending over 

to open the cover (Figure 6a). 

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Rail cover latch released (a) manually and (b) with a hand tool.

This task was 
done every day, 8 times per shift. Associates 

experienced hip and back discomfort. 

3.6.2. Solution

Two hand tools were constructed by the 

maintenance team to unlatch different types of 

covers. The associate kneeled on one knee as he 

placed the tool on the latch and then pushed down 

on the tool with his arm to release the latch. Once 

the latch was released, the cover was opened 

(Figure 6b). Although the associate was still 

exposed to an awkward posture, briefly kneeling 

on one knee probably resulted in less risk than 

the trunk flexion when the hand tool was not 

used. The material used to fabricate the two tools 

was available scrap material so the only cost 

associated with this intervention was for labor.

The interventions completed by Badger were 

identified and implemented by Badger’s selfdirected work teams. Associates applied 

knowledge they gained during the ergonomics 

and risk factor awareness training to the tasks 

their teams performed. Although this approach 

was very effective in achieving results within 

each team, it is not clear if the tasks with the 

greatest risk factor exposure were addressed. 

To address risk factor exposure based on risk, 

a prioritization scheme was developed which 

categorized exposure as low-, medium- or highrisk. The prioritization scheme was applied by 

the safety teams and indicated which tasks should 

receive priority in terms of investigations and 

interventions.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The process implemented at Badger was 

proactive as it addressed exposure to risk factors 

and not just injuries. During the first year of this 

process, the emphasis was on addressing CARE 

reports and BBS ergonomics observations. 

However, information learned by the associates 

during the ergonomics and risk factor awareness 

training was also applied to the design of new 

work areas and facilities. Badger’s process was 

participatory and as it matured would move 

to a more comprehensive process with the 

incorporation of ergonomics principles into more 

processes that affect employee safety and health.

REFERENCES

1. Krause T. Myths, misconceptions, and 

wrongheaded ideas about behavior-based 

safety: why conventional wisdom is usually 

wrong. Ojai, CA, USA: Behavioral Science 

Technology, Inc.; 2002. 

2. Sulzer-Azaroff B, Austin, J. Does BBS 

work? Behavior-based safety and injury 

reduction: a survey of the evidence. 

Professional Safety. 2000;45(7):19–24.

3. Knapschaefer J. Ergonomics and behaviorbased safety: how some automotive 

companies are making it work. Safety and 

Health. 1999;160(4): p. 58+.

4. Chengalur S, Rodgers S, Bernard T. Kodak’s ergonomic design for people at work. 

2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley; 2004.