Since 1990 and the publication of the Ergonomics Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking Plants by the US Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, numerous reports of companies implementing ergonomics program have been published. However, 

despite these numerous reports, no examples of implementing an ergonomics program in the mining industry have been reported. In 

2000, NIOSH initiated a long-term project to demonstrate the implementation of an ergonomics process designed to identify and reduce 

exposures to ergonomic risk factors found in mining. The mine selected for this project was the Jim Bridger Mine, a surface coal mine 

located 35 miles northeast of Rock Springs, Sweetwater County, WY. This paper discusses how a large, surface coal mine implemented 

an ergonomics program and the lessons learned while doing so. 

Relevance to industry 

In 1998, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) submitted a formal request to NIOSH to investigate musculoskeletal. 

disorders (MSDs) in the mining industry. In response to MSHA's request, NIOSH initiated a project at the Jim Bridger Mine that 

involved the implementation of an ergonomics process. This manuscript provides examples of successful interventions as well as 

recommendations and lessons learned from the implementation of an ergonomics process that will be beneficial to those initiating similar 

efforts. 

0 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ergonomics program; Ergonomics process; Mining 

1. Introduction 

Prior to 1980, the industrial application of ergonomics in 

the United States largely focused on defining physical 

capabilities of workers and physiological responses to 

various working conditions. Companies supporting these 

early ergonomic efforts, mainly through applied industrial 

research activities, included E.I. duPont de Nemours & 

Company and. Eastman Kodak Company (Eastman 

Kodak Company, 1983). Early research efforts specific to 

the US mining industry were focused on describing 

physiological characteristics of miners (muscular strength 

and aerobic capacity), evaluating physiological responses 

when performing mining tasks, analyzing injury data and 

evaluating manual material handling tasks. Many of these 

. *Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 3034232069. 

E-mail address: jhtl@cdc.gov (J. Torma-Krajewski). 

studies were conducted for the Bureau of Mines, United 

States Department of the Interior (Bureau of Mines, 1981, 

1983, 1987). 

Not until the United States Department of Labor, 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

initiated enforcement actions directed at the meat packing 

industry in the 1980s, did companies located in the United 

States begin to consider the implementation of formal 

ergonomics programs' or processes as a means of proactively improving worker safety and health through the 

prevention of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). For the 

purposes of this paper, an ergonomics process is defined as 

a formal, systematic application of ergonomics principles 

integrated with management systems and imbedded in the 

organizational culture. Such a process would be comparable to an occupational safety and health program 

designed to address health and safety hazards through a 

systematic method of hazard recognition, identification, 
production position at this mine was dragline operator. 

This position involved exposure to repetitive motion while 

operating joysticks or foot pedals for 12hIday. Several 

studies have found age to be associated with a higher rate 

of MSDs' (Biering-Snrrensen, 1983; Riihimaki et al., 1989; 

Toomingas et al., 1991; Ohlsson et al., 1994; English et al., 

1995; Guo et al., 1995). Additionally, in one study, older 

workers with less work experience reported more symptoms than younger workers, while older workers with more 

work experience reported fewer symptoms than younger 

workers (Ohlsson et al., 1989). 

For five years prior to this project, the average incident 

rate for non-fatal days lost injuries at the Jim Bridger Mine 

was 1.32 injuries per 100 employees, as compared to the 

national average of 2.34 for all mines, and as compared to 

the average of 1.31 for all western US surface coal mines 

with more than 100 employees. Although, the Mine's 

average incident rate was well below the national average 

and injuries related to ergonomic risk factors did not 

appear to be a major issue, the Bridger Coal Company 

decided to implement an ergonomics process. This action 

was consistent with Mine Management's proactive approach to safety and health and its culture of seeking 

continuous improvement. Information on why the Bridger 

Coal Company decided to implement an ergonomics 

process can be found in Steiner et al. (2004). 

2.2. Process eflectiveness 

To assess the effectiveness of the process, two approaches 

were followed. First, reports of employee discomfort were 

obtained using a discomfort survey adapted from the 

Standardized Nordic Questionnaire (Kurionka et al., 

1987). The survey was administered in 2001 by NIOSH 

researchers and again in 2004 by Bridger Coal Company 

management. Although 225 employees completed the survey 

in 2001 and 116 completed it in 2004, only 41 surveys could 

be matched for both years. The lower response rate in 2004 

was attributed to a significant change in personnel (both 

turnover and reassignments) when the mine began converting its operations from surface to underground. Because of 

the limited number of matched pairs, statistical analyses 

were not performed and only trends are reported. 

Secondly, employee reports of risk factor exposures and 

intervention efforts were documented and tracked by the 

Ergonomics Committee. The risk factor exposure data 

were obtained from employees who submitted concerns to 

the committee. 

2.3. Getting management buy-in 

It was essential to have the support of Bridger Coal's top 

management for the ergonomics process to be successful at 

this project to top management of the Bridger Coal 

Company and PacifiCorp and also to the Western Energy 

Workers Union, the union representing Bridger Coal 

Company employees. 

The initial meeting, attended by mine management and 

union officials, was held in Rock Springs, WY to discuss 

the objectives of the project and to define expectations and 

commitments. One expectation discussed was that the 

Bridger Coal Company needed to designate a "champion" 

for the project who would promote the implementation of 

the process and ensure that the process moved forward. 

Information on ergonomic principles, risk factors and 

approaches used by other companies in successfully 

addressing ergonomic risk factors was also provided. The 

second meeting, held in Salt Lake City, UT, was with 

senior safety administrators from within PacifiCorp's 

Generation Business Unit. NIOSH again presented approaches used by other companies and then defined the 

benefits of implementing an ergonomics process. Providing 

information on how ergonomics benefited these other 

companies was absolutely necessary to get complete buy-in 

and support from these senior management officials. These 

meetings resulted in corporate awareness of the ergonomics 

process to be implemented at the Jim Bridger Mine, and 

also additional champions for ergonomics. 

2.4. Ergonomics committee 

Bridger Coal's management decided that the best 

approach to implementing an ergonomics process was to 

establish an ergonomics committee within the Safety 

Department, but separate from the existing safety and 

health committee. This approach allowed Bridger to more 

easily commit resources specific to ergonomic interventions. The committee, chaired by an ergonomics coordinator who reported to the safety manager, included eleven 

representatives from labor and management. Specific 

departments represented were medical, engineeringlenvir- - 

onmental, safety, human resources, production and maintenance. Mine management was kept informed of 

committee activities and needs through the ergonomics 

coordinator and safety manager who reported to the mine 

manager. The union was kept abreast of committee actions 

by the union representatives appointed to the committee. 

One of the first actions taken to move the committee 

forward was to help the committee gain an understanding 

of ergonomics. The Committee received training at the 

mine on the principles of ergonomics, risk factor identification, job prioritization, intervention recommendations, and 

costlbenefit analysis. During follow-up training sessions, 

the Committee received instructions on using tools to 

document interventions, task analyses, and interviews; 

conducting interviews; videotaping/photographing tasks; 
py 

solved 

3. Committee member interview 

workers and collects data 

4. Committee discusses concem 

and course of action 

6. Subcommittee reports to the 

entire committee 

Z 

collects more 

information 

7. Committee begins to 

investigate possible interventions I 

possible? review 

8. Intervention introduced and 

its effectiveness monitored 

Fig. 2. Ergonomics process flow diagram. (Concerns considered not viable included ones that did not currently have a practical solution or the solution 

was beyond the scope of the committee.) 

stickers also provided a continuing reminder to employees 

about the importance of ergonomics. 

For the most part, the training was well received by the 

employees. Employees participated in the interactive 

exercises, and seemed quite knowledgeable regarding 

identifying risk factors at the conclusion of the training. 

In fact, 27 employees submitted report cards to the 

Ergonomic Committee immediately following the training. 

The effectiveness of the training was further demonstrated 

with the implementation of an intervention in a surface 

drill. According to the documentation for this intervention, 

the drill operator had tried several times to have a foot 

pedal moved to a more comfortable position but was not 

successful. However, the general knowledge gained from 

the training by both employees and management allowed 

them to understand how the problem with the foot pedal 

could be resolved, which was then corrected by the 

Maintenance Department. 

2.7. Communications and recognition 

The Ergonomics Committee established a bulletin board 

in the ready room, an area that all employees passed 

through when reporting to work. The bulletin board 

included information about the committee, instructions 

for reporting a concern, and a status report of concerns 

submitted by employees. Posters were periodically displayed on this bulletin board and at other meeting areas at 

the mine. The posters focused on introducing the 

ergonomics committee to the employees, reporting risk 

factor exposures, promoting ergonomic interventions . completed by the committee, and identifying risk factors 

for specific tasks. 

PacifiCorp's quarterly safety newsletter, Safety Times, 

twice featured the success of Bridger Coal's ergonomics 

process. This newsletter was made available to all Bridger 

Coal employees, and served as recognition to not only the 

committee members for their efforts, but also to the 

employees submitting concerns for actively participating in 

the process. 

2.8. Medical management 

The Bridger Coal Company maintained a medical clinic 

at the Jim Bridger Mine that was staffed by a full-time 

physician assistant (who was also a physical therapist) and 
Poor Forceful Gripping Repetition Heavy Lifting Vibration- Bouncing1 

Posture Tools Jarring 

Risk Factors 

= 12 e 

E Body Part Discomfort Reports 

Neck Shoulders Upper Elbows Lower Wrists1 Hips1 Knees Ankles 

Back Back Hands Thighs /Feet 

Body Parts 

Concerns Reported by Position 

P, 12 

Mechanics Heavy Dragline Drill-Blast Conveyor Trade 

Equipment Crew Crew Crew 

Operator 

Office 

Positions 

Fig. 3. Information submitted by employees using the Risk Factor Report Card (A-risk factor exposure reports, B-body part discomfort reports, and 

C+oncerns reported by position). 
Existing equipment modified 4 

Workstation rearranged 

New workstations purchased 

New equipment purchased 

New seats purchased 

Availability of PPE improved 

Handle added to chocks (19)" 

Loader foot pedal angle modified (5) 

Drill pedal moved to a more accessible location (1 1) 

Drill truck ladder handrail modified (1 1) 

Pump switch location changed (27) 

Loader seat aligned with controls (5) 

Adjustable office workstations purchased (2) 

Light weight welding helmets replaced heavier helmets (14) 

Wooden hammer handle with rubber guard replaced fiberglass handles (14) 

Nylon tie-down straps replaced heavier chains (9) 

Small table placed outside tool room for holding tools when entering access code (29) 

Floor mats installed in warehouse (2) 

J-hook bar obtained to pull dragline cable (16) 

Tractor purchased to move trailing dragline cable (16) 

Dragline workstation improved with larger. more adjustable armrests and a footrest (1 5) 

Seats changed in draglines, loaders and blades (47) 

Additional knee pads stocked in warehouse (45) 

'Estimated number of employees affected by intervention. 

0 

Neck Shoulders Elbows Wrists1 Upper Lower Hipsl Knees Ankles1 

Hands Back Back Thighs Feet 

Body Parts 

Fig. 4. Number of body part discomfort reports during the past 12 months for 2001 and 2004. 

3.4. Lessons learned committee members occurred. The designated "champion" moved to a corporate position and a new 

When implementing new processes, there are always "champion" had to be selected, and some committee 

lessons to be learned. Lessons identified by NIOSH and the members chosen to represent their departments either 

Bridger Coal Company with implementing the ergonomics did not have the time or were not interested in being on 

process at the Jim Bridger Mine included: the committee. Although some participant changes are 

inevitable, it is important to select participants who 

Committee participanfs: Early on in the implementation want to be a part of the process, and to allocate 

phase, a number of replacements in the leadership and sufficient time for participants to perform their duties. 
Table 3 

Percentage of employees reporting discomfort by age 

All body parts Back 

Age (years) Age (years) 

31-40 41-50 >50 31-40 41-50 >50 

This later item was addressed by Bridger Coal Company 

by including ergonomics committee participation in the 

performance plans for salaried personnel, and by 

altering employee schedules to permit sufficient time 

for committee activities. Additionally, committee members supported each other by helping with tasks when 

other members did not have time to complete their 

assignments. While other companies have assigned a 

full-time coordinator to implement an ergonomics 

process, this was not considered necessary at the Jim 

Bridger Mine. Management at the Jim Bridger Mine was 

willing to put ergonomics ahead of other required 

duties. 

Process development: There is no single method when 

developing a process that will work for all companies. 

Although the Ergonomics Committee was given a lot of 

information and ideas on how to proceed with the 

process, it was necessary for the committee members to 

determine what would work best to meet their needs. 

Because the Committee had the responsibility for 

selecting the path it would take in implementing the 

process and then for ensuring its success, it was critical 

to have employees on the Committee who were 

dedicated to a successful process. 

Process implementation: Although the employees received training after the Ergonomics Committee developed a procedure for submitting concerns, sufficient 

time was not allowed for the members to become 

thoroughly familiar with this procedure. Because the 

employee training resulted in the submittal of numerous 

employee concerns, the members were overwhelmed 

with addressing these concerns while they were still 

getting comfortable with their procedure. Committee 

giving employee training and requesting that employees 

submit concerns. 

Supervisory training: The awareness training provided 

was primarily focused on employees, and did not 

address specific responsibilities of supervisors. Supervisors should receive additional training that specifically 

addresses their role in the ergonomics process. This 

training should demonstrate management's support for 

the process and be done prior to the employee training 

so the supervisor can support implementation of the 

process. Supervisory training is particularly critical for 

supervisors who may have employees who are reluctant 

to participate in the process. The concerns of these 

employees may never be addressed unless their supervisor initiates a report to the ergonomics committee. 

Additionally, it is imperative that supervisors be fully 

aware of the way the company plans to conduct business 

related to ergonomic concerns. 

4. Conclusions 

The ergonomics process implemented at the Jim Bridger 

Mine produced an active ergonomics committee backed by 

strong participation. The training received by management, 

committee members and employees led to improved 

interactions between employees and management regarding their thoughts on injury prevention. Employees used 

their knowledge of risk factors to report concerns about 

their jobs and their peer's jobs. 

In addition to responding to employee reports of risk 

factors, the committee also applied its ergonomic knowledge and awareness to other processes, such as purchasing 

equipment, implementing new procedures, and developing 

new training. Committee members also reviewed reported 

injuries and illnesses to determine if ergonomic risk factors 

were associated with the injury or illness. 

Employees also took the initiative to improve their jobs 

and reduce exposure to risk factors. For example, 

mechanics took action by constructing a counter balance 

for a 25-pound, lginch impact wrench used to change out 

the cutting edges on a bulldozer blade. Rather than holding 

the impact wrench, which resulted in sore hands, arms and 

shoulders, the impact wrench was suspended from a crane. 

In addition, mechanics applied their ergonomic knowledge 

when evaluating new equipment. When a new lubrication 

truck arrived at the mine, the truck was inspected to ensure 

it met specifications, including ergonomic design features. 

Several items were identified on the truck as needing 

improvement, many of which were ergonomic in nature. 

The truck was returned to the manufacturer for modification before it was accepted by the mine. 
y p

hazards; with the erg0n0mic gained the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

during the past few years at the Jim Bridger Mine, the and Ergonomics Coordinator added risk factors associated 

with MSDs. Consequently, the risk assessment tool was 

modified at the corporate level to include these risk factors, 

and served as a baseline for identifying tasks with 

exposures to ergonomic risk factors. 

In just three years, the Bridger Coal Company implemented an effective, proactive process to reduce exposure 

to ergonomic risk factors. As conditions change at the Jim 

Bridger Mine, the process is also being modified to ensure 

continuing improvement and effectiveness. Instead of 

waiting for an injury or illness to occur prior to making 

changes, the Bridger Coal Company is relying upon an 

employee-based participative process to implement interventions that promote the well-being and comfort of its 

employees, and to incorporate ergonomics into many other 

processes affecting employee safety and health. Kean 

Johnson, Coordinator for the ergonomics process at 

Bridger Coal, stated: 

Ergonomics has played an important role in helping 

Bridger Coal reach our goal of providing the safest and 

healthiest working environment possible for our employees. Our Management and hourly employees alike 

understand the value of what has been developed. In the 

beginning, when the idea of establishing such a program 

surfaced, we were all skeptical of just how things would 

work. However, thanks to the combined efforts of 

NIOSH, PacifiCorp, and those employees at Bridger 

Coal Company involved in the creation process, we 

found that an ergonomics program could not only be 

efficiently developed, but that it could be highly effective 

as well. The Ergonomics Program is currently an 

integral part of our company and we are confident that 

it will continue to improve and enhance the safe working 

experience at our mine. 

Acknowledgments 

NIOSH would like to thank the Bridger Coal Company 

and its Management for being leaders in the mining 

industry when addressing the ergonomic concerns of its 

employees. Their actions demonstrated a proactive culture 

that places the well-being of its employees as its first 

priority. NIOSH would also like to thank the members of 

the Ergonomics Committee and the many Bridger Coal 

Company employees who offered their time and effort to 

ensure the success of this process. 

The authors also wish to thank several current and 

former employees of the NIOSH Pittsburgh Research 

Laboratory who supported this project in many different 

References 

Biering-Ssrensen, F., 1983. A prospective study of low-back pain in a 

general population. I. Occurrence, recurrence, and aetilogy. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 15, 81-88. 

Bureau of Mines. 1981. Ergonomics-human factors in mining. Proceedings: Bureau of Mines Technology Transfer Seminars, Pittsburgh, PA, 

December 3. 1981; St. Louis, MO, December 10, 1981; and Denver, 

CO. December 15, 1981. Information Circular 8866. 

Bureau of Mines, 1983. Back injuries. Proceedings: Bureau of Mines 

Technology Transfer Symposia, Pittsburgh. PA, August 9, 1983 and 

Reno, NV, August 15, 1983. Information Circular 8948. 

Bureau of Mines, 1987. Human engineering and human resources 

management in mining. Proceedings: Bureau of Mines Technology 

Transfer Seminar, Pittsburgh, PA, July 7-8. 1987; St. Louis, MO, July 

15-16, 1987; and San Francisco, CA, July 21-22. Information Circular 

9145. 

Butler, M., 2003. Corporate ergonomics programme at Scottish & 

Newcastle. Applied Ergonomics 34, 35-38. 

Cohen, A.. Gjessing, G., Fine, L., Bernard, B., McGlothlin, J., 1997. 

Elements of ergonomics programs: a primer based on workplace 

evaluations of musculoskeletal disorders. US Department of Health 

and Human Services, CDC, NIOSH. Publication No. 97-1 17. 

Eastman Kodak Company, 1983. Ergonomic Design for People at Work, 

vol. I. Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, CA. 

English, C.J.. Maclaren, W.M., Court-Brown. C., Hughes, S.P.F., Porter, 

R.W., Wallace, W.A., 1995. Relations between upper limb soft tissue 

disorders and repetitive movements at work. American Journal of 

Industrial Medicine 27 (I), 75-90. 

Gauf, M., 1995. Ergonomics That Work: Case Studies of Companies 

Cutting Costs through Ergonomics. CTD News, Haverford. PA. 

Gjessing, C., Schoenborn, T., Cohen, A., 1994. Participatory ergonomic 

interventions in meatpacking plants. US Department of Health and 

Human Services. CDC, NIOSH, Publication No. 94-124. 

Guo, H.R., Tanaka, S., Cameron, L.L., Seligman, P.J., Behrens, V.J., Ger, 

J., et al., 1995. Back pain among workers in the United States: national 

estimates and workers at high risk. American Journal of Industrial 

Medicine 28 (5). 591-602. 

Hagg, G., 2003. Corporate initiatives in ergonomics-an introduction. 

Applied Ergonomics 34, 3-1 5. 

Hignett, S., 2001. Embedding ergonomics in h~s~ital'culture: top-down 

and bottom-up strategies. Applied Ergonomics 32, 61-69. 

Joseph, B., 2003. Corporate ergonomics programme at Ford Motor 

Company. Applied Ergonomics 34. 23-28. 

Kurionka, I., Jonsson, B., Kilbom, A., Vinterberg, H.. Biering-Sorensen, 

F., Andersson, G., et al., 1987. Standardized nordic questionnaire for 

the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Applied Ergonomics 18, 

233-237. 

Moore, J., Garg, A.. 1998. The effectiveness of participatory ergonomics 

in the red meat packing industry: evaluation of a corporation. 

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 21. 47-58. 

Moreau. M.. 2003. Corporate ergonomics programme at automobiles 

Peugeot-Sochaux. Applied Ergonomics 34-29-34, 

Munck-UlfsWIt, U., Falck, A.. Forsberg, A.. Dahlin. C., Eriksson, A., 

2003. Corporate ergonomics programme at Volvo Car corporation. 

Applied Ergonomics 34, 17-22. 
Nordander. C., et al., 1994. Disorders of the neck and upper limbs in 

women in the fish processing industry. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 5 1, 826832. 

Perry. L., 1997. Implementing company-wide ergonomics. Workplace 

Ergonomics MayIJune, 18-2 1. 

Riiimaki, H., Tola, S., Videman. T., Hanninen, K., 1989. Low-back pain and 

occupation: a cross-sectional questionnaire study of men in machine 

operating, dynamic physical work, and sedentary work. Spine 14,204-209. 

Scharf, T., Vaught, C., Kidd, P., Steiner, L., Kowalski, K., Wiehagen, B., et 

al., 2001. Toward a typology of dynamic and hazardous work 

environments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 7 (7). 1827-1841. 

Schutte, P.C., 2005. Ergonomics in the South African mining industry. 

The Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 

I05 (6). 369-372. 

ergonomics: a study of musculoskeletal disorders in mining. Mining 

Engineering 56 (1 I), 39-44. 

Straker. LM., 1990. Work-associated back problems: collaborative 

solutions. Journal of the Society of Occupational Medicine 40, 75-79. 

Straker, L., Burgess-Limerick, R., Pollock, C., Egeskov, R., 2004. A 

randomized and controlled trial of a participative ergonomics 

intervention to reduce injuries associated with manual tasks: physical 

risk and legislative compliance. Ergonomics 47 (2), 166188. 

Toomingas, A.. Hagberg, M., Jorulf, L., Nilsson, T., Burnstrom, L.. 

Kihlberg, S.. 1991. Outcome of the abduction external rotation test 

among manual and office workers. American Journal of Industrial 

Medicine 19 (2). 215-227. 

US Government Accounting Office, 1997. Worker protection: private sector 

ergonomics programs yield positive results. GAOIHEHS-97-163.