Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

IC 9491 

Information Circular/2006 

Ergonomics and Mining: gonomics and Mining:

Charting a Path Charting a Path

to a Safer to a Safer Workplace orkplace
Information Circular 9491 

Ergonomics and Mining: Charting a Path to a Safer Workplace 

 

By Janet Torma-Krajewski, Lisa Steiner, Pauline Lewis, Paul Gust, and Kean Johnson 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

Pittsburgh, PA 

September 2006 
ORDERING INFORMATION 

Copies of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

documents and information 

about occupational safety and health are available from
 

NIOSH–Publications Dissemination 

4676 Columbia Parkway 

Cincinnati, OH 45226–1998 

FAX: 513–533–8573 

Telephone: 1–800–35–NIOSH 

(1–800–356–4674) 

 e-mail: pubstaft@cdc.gov 

 Web site: www.cdc.gov/niosh 

This document is in the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted. 

————————————————————— 

Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, citations to Web sites external 

to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs 

or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these Web sites. 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2006–141 
 

CONTENTS
 

Page 

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. 1 

Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 2 

Musculoskeletal disorders and mining.................................................................................................. 2 

Approaches to ergonomics processes ................................................................................................... 4 

Bridger Coal story................................................................................................................................. 7 

Background..................................................................................................................................... 7 

Getting buy-in from Bridger Coal management ............................................................................. 7 

Establishing the Ergonomics Committee........................................................................................ 8 

Establishing the process for addressing ergonomics concerns ....................................................... 11 

 Training employees......................................................................................................................... 13 

 Refresher training............................................................................................................................ 15 

Communications ............................................................................................................................. 15 

Recordkeeping ................................................................................................................................ 15 

 Process effectiveness ...................................................................................................................... 17 

 Lessons learned............................................................................................................................... 18 

 Summary......................................................................................................................................... 19 

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................. 22 

References............................................................................................................................................. 22 

Additional sources about ergonomics processes................................................................................... 24 

Suggested Web sites ............................................................................................................................. 25 

Appendix A.—Process implementation tools....................................................................................... 26 

Appendix B.—Examples of ergonomic interventions implemented by Ergonomics Committee........ 33 

Appendix C.—Posters........................................................................................................................... 35 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1. Instructing members of Ergonomics Committee ............................................................................ 9 

2. Employee ergonomic concern form and risk factor report card ..................................................... 12 

3. Ergonomic process flow diagram ................................................................................................... 13 

4. Targeting risk factors for proactive approach................................................................................. 13 

5. Instructing employees during one of 21 awareness training sessions............................................. 14 

6. Sticker designed to promote ergonomics process at Jim Bridger Mine.......................................... 15 

7. One of five posters created by NIOSH to promote ergonomics process at Jim Bridger Mine....... 16 

8. Mechanic using support to hold impact wrench when changing cutting edges on dozer blade ..... 20 

TABLES 

1. Advantages and disadvantages of five approaches to implementing an ergonomics process ....... 6 
ERGONOMICS AND MINING: CHARTING A PATH TO A SAFER WORKPLACE 

By Janet Torma-Krajewski,1

1

Senior service fellow.
 

 Lisa Steiner,2

2

Supervisory general engineer.
 

Pauline Lewis,3
 

3

Associate service fellow. 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Paul Gust,4

4

Safety manager.
 

and Kean Johnson5
 

5

Ergonomics coordinator and safety training coordinator.
 

Bridger Coal Company, Point of Rocks, WY. 

ABSTRACT 

Ergonomics processes described in the literature have been associated mostly with 

manufacturing, financial, electronics, and office settings where working conditions tend to be 

rather constant and repetitive. The information presented in this document demonstrates, 

however, that an ergonomics process can also be implemented in a setting such as mining where 

working conditions frequently change and workers are periodically exposed to extreme weather 

conditions. This document describes how Bridger Coal Company implemented an ergonomics 

process at its Jim Bridger Mine from 2001 through 2004. The process developed by the 

Ergonomics Committee, the promotion of the process to management and employees, and the 

impacts of the process on working conditions at the mine are reviewed. Barriers overcome and 

lessons learned are also described. Quotes from Bridger Coal Company employees are included 

in the document to add a personal perspective. Other industries with working conditions similar 

to mining, such as construction and agriculture, may find this information useful. 
 

INTRODUCTION 

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 the 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. 

Kean Johnson 

Ergonomics Coordinator 

Bridger Coal Company 

Mining is one of the most physically demanding occupations. As a result, musculoskeletal 

disorders (MSDs) have long been identified as a significant and costly problem for the mining 

industry. To address this problem, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH)1

1

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is a federal agency responsible for 

conducting research and making recommendations for the prevention of work-related injury and illness. NIOSH 

was established as a nonregulatory agency within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help assure safe 

and healthful working conditions by providing research, information, education, and training in the field of 

occupational safety and health. 

supports the application of ergonomics to make working conditions safer and healthier 

for employees. 

Numerous reports demonstrating the effectiveness of ergonomics processes in industrial 

settings have been published during the past 10 years; however, no examples of ergonomics 

processes in mining have been reported. The purposes of this Information Circular are, first, 

to provide specific information that should be considered when implementing an ergonomics 

process and, second, to describe in detail how one mining company integrated an ergonomics 

process with existing programs to improve working conditions for its employees. 

MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS AND MINING 

During the past 20 years, numerous analyses have shown that miners experience a high rate 

of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). These disorders affect one or more parts of the soft tissues 

(such as muscles, tendons, ligaments, and cartilage) and bones of the body [NIOSH 1997]. The 

nerves and blood vessels servicing the musculoskeletal system can also be affected. During the 

development of an MSD, a worker may experience a variety of signs and/or symptoms. Signs 

are objective findings that include decreased range of motion, decreased grip strength, and 

swelling or change in skin color when exposed to cold or vibration. Symptoms are more 

subjective in nature and include pain, fatigue, numbness, or tingling sensations. Failure to seek 

early treatment can result in chronic pain or permanent disability. 

2
 
The U.S. Department of Labor [1991] reported that mining is among the most hazardous 

occupations in terms of exposures to MSD risk factors. In 1986, Stobbe et al. reported that strain 

and sprain injuries in 1983 and 1984 accounted for 24.0% and 25.2%, respectively, of all 

reported injuries in underground coal mining, and 19.4% and 20.4%, respectively, of all injuries 

in underground metal/nonmetal mining. A review of lost-time injuries from 1998 through 2002 

[NIOSH 2005a] indicated that 33% (underground) and 36% (surface) resulted from handling 

materials, and 16% (underground) and 27% (surface) resulted from slips and falls. In addition, 

from 1988 through 1997, sprains to the back accounted for the highest number of lost work days 

[NIOSH 2002]. In 2003, the back continued to be the most frequently reported body part 

injured, accounting for 22.6% of all days lost (105,510). Forty-four percent of all illnesses were 

related to joint, tendon, or muscle inflammation [NIOSH 2005b,c]. 

In the late 1980’s, NIOSH conducted the National Occupational Health Survey of Mining 

(NOHSM) to characterize health-related agents found in U.S. mines [NIOSH 1996]. An 

important aspect of this survey was to identify potential exposures to musculoskeletal overload 

conditions. A total of 491 mines was surveyed—60 coal mines and 431 metal/nonmetal mines. 

The percentage of coal and metal/nonmetal miners potentially exposed to each of 12 musculoskeletal overload conditions defined in NOHSM was then calculated [Zhuang and Groce 1995]. 

Averaging the potential for exposure to all 12 conditions yielded figures of 26.2% and 17.2% 

among coal and metal/nonmetal workers, respectively. The three most common musculoskeletal 

overload conditions were (1) bending forward, bending to the side, hyper-extending, or twisting 

the neck or back; (2) unsupported abducted elbows, forearms resting on sharp edges, tossing 

motions at extreme ranges of motion, or working with hands above shoulders; and (3) lifting 

more than 50 pounds unaided. At least 35% of all mine workers were exposed to each of these 

three conditions at some time. 

Winn et al. [1996] also analyzed NOHSM ergonomic hazard data for 24 commodities 

associated with the metal/nonmetal mining industry. They determined that potential exposures 

to MSD risk factors were most likely for the following body parts: neck and/or back; forearms, 

arms, and shoulders; and fingers and hands. Overall, they stated that the potential exposure to 

MSD risk factors for metal/nonmetal miners was high compared to nonmining occupations. 

Comprehensive mine worker injury and illness data are compiled by the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (MSHA); however, MSHA does not have an MSD classification in its 

database. As part of a NIOSH-funded research project, Battelle Centers for Public Health 

Research and Evaluation Laboratory [1999] developed selection criteria to identify MSD 

incidents based on a study of stratified samples of 1997 and 1998 MSHA incident data. Using 

these criteria, almost one-third of all incidents from 1996 to 2000 could be classified as MSDs, 

and of these, handling materials and slips and falls accounted for almost 70%. 

Mining workplaces are by nature in a constant state of change and as such can be classified 

as very dynamic work environments [Steiner et al. 1999; Scharf et al. 2001]. This dynamic 

nature demands that workers be able to adapt to changes in their work environments. Examples 

of physical demands and environmental stressors are restricted spaces; hot and/or cold 

environments with muddy, wet, or icy floor and ground conditions; exposures to high levels of 

whole-body and segmental vibration; and significant amounts of repetitive and manual work. 

In evaluating the need for ergonomics processes, one cannot ignore the unique and 

sometimes severe environmental conditions under which miners are required to work. It can be 

argued that these environmental conditions, especially the restricted vertical workspaces in many 

underground coal mines, makes mining one of the most difficult environments in which to effect 

3
 
ergonomic change. For example, space restrictions limit opportunities to ease worker’s postural 

demands. In fact, restricted spaces in many underground mines practically compel workers to 

adopt awkward postures that ergonomists strive to avoid. Thus, traditional techniques for 

reducing musculoskeletal disorder risk may not be feasible. Restricted space also greatly limits 

the number and type of mechanical devices (cranes, hoists, or forklifts) that can be used to 

reduce physical workload. Environmental conditions, compounded by the use of very large 

equipment and new, perhaps unfamiliar, technology, result in dynamic work environments 

riddled with specialized ergonomic challenges. 

APPROACHES TO ERGONOMICS PROCESSES 

No regulations define the specific requirements of an ergonomics process. Instead, 

guidelines describe basic elements that should be part of every ergonomics process. An example 

of a guideline is the NIOSH document, Elements of Ergonomics Programs: A Primer Based on 

Workplace Evaluations of Musculoskeletal Disorders [Cohen et al. 1997]. Because this and 

other guidelines are general in nature and are designed to be applicable in many different 

industries, they may not address specific needs of the mining industry on how to actually 

implement a program. 

A review of existing processes conducted by the authors found that, in a variety of industries, 

no single “right” way exists for implementing an ergonomics process. Each company needs to 

determine the most effective way to integrate the process successfully by considering its 

organizational and cultural characteristics. Nonetheless, although companies with current 

ergonomics processes are very different in many aspects, five basic implementation approaches 

have been used [Cohen et al. 1997; Hägg 2003]. These approaches are categorized by the 

driving force spearheading the implementation as management/employee, consultant/expert, 

management, corporate, or employee. 

The most popular of the approaches to implementing an ergonomics process is the 

management/employee approach, that is, both management and employees actively participate in 

the process [Ridyard and Hathaway 2000; Zalk 2001; Hägg 2003]. A committee or team of 6 to 

15 people is designated specifically to address ergonomic issues retroactively and sometimes 

even proactively [Cohen et al. 1997; Alexander and Orr 1999]. In the majority of the case 

studies where a management/employee work group approach was used, the team received 

training to build teamwork skills and learn more about ergonomics so they could identify and 

solve problems more effectively [Cohen et al. 1997; Alexander and Orr 1999; Robinson 2002; 

Smyth 2003; Butler 2003]. These teamwork skills included how to communicate properly in a 

team environment, brainstorm, and build confidence within the team. The means used to 

identify, evaluate, and control exposures to risk factors associated with MSDs differ from 

industry to industry and even within a single facility, depending on resources and the nature of 

the tasks being performed. 

The consultant/expert implementation approach is a variation of the management/employee 

approach. With this method, an ergonomics consultant or expert identifies the risk factor 

exposures within the facility. Once the exposures are identified by the expert, an internal 

ergonomics team develops solutions [Cohen et al. 1997]. 

4
 
Both management and corporate approaches are closely related in that employees are not 

actively involved in the ergonomics process until solutions are implemented. On the other hand, 

these two approaches have a major distinction. With the management approach, management at 

the site or business unit spearheads the ergonomics process within the organization, whereas in 

the corporate approach, the ergonomics process begins at the corporate level and ergonomics 

concerns are brought to the attention of corporate ergonomics staff by management at specific 

locations. In addition to investigating concerns from the site locations or business units, these 

corporate groups or individuals also organize training sessions and develop ergonomics-related 

communication materials. The corporate approach is more of a general program, sharing 

information with employees about overall good work practices applicable to all workers 

[GAO 1997; Moore and Garg 1998; Hignett 2001; Joseph 2003]. 

An employee method is one in which employees are the ergonomics advocates in the facility. 

The employees who make up an ergonomics group are usually selected because of their 

expressed interest in ergonomics and their willingness to dedicate time and effort to the process. 

This approach can be effective if the involved employees have the appropriate training to 

identify and control MSD risk factors properly and are provided the required resources to 

implement solutions [GAO 1997; Moore and Garg 1998; Hignett 2001; Joseph 2003; Moreau 

2003; Hägg 2003]. 

The approach selected for implementing an ergonomics process will depend on the 

organizational climate within the company. While one approach may be effective at one 

company, it may be ineffective at another. For example, approaches involving a committee may 

work best in organizations that have union representation and a history of using committees to 

implement processes, and where employees are routinely encouraged to participate on 

committees. In contrast, organizations that view committees as bothersome and time consuming 

may not want to follow an approach that relies on the formation of a committee. Instead, this 

type of organization may want to consider a management or corporate approach. Table 1 

outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and may help in making a decision 

on how to implement an ergonomics process. 

When initiating an ergonomics program, some companies have chosen to integrate the 

process into established departments [GAO 1997]. Departments frequently selected are 

industrial engineering, safety, human resources, and medical management. Other companies 

may choose to implement an ergonomics process by creating a stand-alone group independent of 

established departments [Joseph 2003]. The ergonomics group may share staff with other 

relevant departments because of the multidisciplinary nature of ergonomics, but the group does 

not appear to fall within the responsibility of an existing department. Since a successful 

ergonomics process demands the involvement of employees and staff from many different 

departments, the development of an ergonomics group, whether it is a stand-alone group or part 

of an existing organization, should be created in such a manner that all members believe they 

have ownership. 

Examples of how five companies implemented their ergonomics processes can be found in 

the report entitled, “Worker Protection: Private Sector Ergonomics Programs Yield Positive 

Results” [GAO 1997]. One company featured in this report created an independent ergonomics 

group led by an industrial engineer. Although this group was not part of an existing 

organization, it received support from the Global Safety Department (corporate-level 

department) and the site’s environmental safety and health coordinators. Another company also 

chose to create a new group, but it was deeply rooted in existing departments. The ergonomics 

5
 
 

team consisted of an ergonomist (co-leader), United Auto Workers representative (co-leader), 

worker compensation representative, medical department staff, and in-house engineering staff. 

This team was rooted in the Safety Department with support from other groups that had a shared 

interest in the development and implementation of a successful ergonomics process. 

Table 1.—Advantages and disadvantages of five approaches to implementing an ergonomics process. 

Approach Advantages Disadvantages 

Management/ ● Encourages participation by ● Committees often require more time to 

Employee employees 

● Program implementation 

incorporates management 

● Expertise from many 

organizations and technical areas 

are included in the decision 

process 

resolve issues than individuals 

● Too many members on the committee 

can be a barrier to solving issues 

• Several different underlying agendas 

present 

• Training may be targeted at only a 

segment of the group 

Consultant/ Expert ● Technical expertise is available to 

the committee 

● Encourages participation by 

employees 

• Introduces a neutral party to the 

ergonomics process 

• More accuracy in identifying highrisk jobs 

● Hiring outside consultant can add to the 

cost of the program 

● Employees may not have the skills to 

implement recommendations from 

consultant 

• Hinders the process continuity for the 

future and proactive attitudes and 

behaviors 

Management ● Program implementation is 

supported by management 

● Ergonomics programs may lack the 

support and interest of the workers 

involved 

• Problem jobs may be overlooked without 

the active participation of the employees 

Corporate ● Technical expertise is provided to 

the facilities 

• Greater resources available for 

training and interventions 

● Corporate staff may not be familiar with 

ergonomic issues at specific sites 

● Ergonomics program may not be 

supported by site management and 

employees 

• Ergonomics program may be too general 

and may not address the real risks 

Employee ● Encourages participation by 

employees 

● May be difficult to implement 

interventions unless resources have been 

dedicated to the program 

• High-risk jobs may not be properly 

identified and/or investigated 

6
 

The experience of Bridger Coal Company in implementing an ergonomics process is 

addressed in detail in the following sections of this document. Initially, both management and 

employees were selected to form an Ergonomics Committee; however, as personnel changed, the 

committee became an employee-driven group with management serving in advisory and 

oversight roles. Throughout the implementation process, the Ergonomics Committee had 

technical support from an outside group of experts. Although the committee is organizationally 

part of the Safety Department, it is functionally separate from the safety and health program. 

The story of Bridger Coal Company demonstrates that ergonomics processes can be successfully 

implemented within the dynamic environments found in the mining industry. 
THE BRIDGER COAL STORY 

By partnering with NIOSH in 

this ergonomic process, 

Bridger Coal was provided an 

opportunity to effectively 

address health-related issues 

as a component of its overall 

health and safety program. 

The involvement of employee 

resource teams was critical in 

the success of this valuable 

process. 

Patrick James 

Human Resource Consultant 

Power Generation 

Background 

In 2000, NIOSH initiated a long-term project at Bridger Coal Company’s Jim Bridger Mine 

to demonstrate the effectiveness of implementing an ergonomics process designed to identify and 

reduce exposures to the work-related MSD risk factors found in mining. The main benefit of 

participation in this project for the company was that a strong on-going ergonomics process 

would be developed that ultimately would improve overall working conditions for employees. 

The Jim Bridger Mine is a surface coal mine located 35 miles northeast of Rock Springs, 

WY, and has one active pit approximately 20 miles long. In 2001, the mine operated with two 

12-hour shifts, 7 days a week, and employed a work force of 360 employees: 150 in coal 

production, 150 in maintenance, and another 60 in administrative and support functions. 

Nonproduction staff worked either 10-hour shifts, 4 days a week; or 8-hour shifts, 5 days a week. 

Employees are represented by the Western Energy Workers Union. 

For 5 years prior to this project, the average injury incident rate 

for nonfatal injuries resulting in lost work days at the mine was 1.32 

injuries per 100 full-time employees, as compared to the national 

average of 2.34 per 100 workers for all mines and 1.31 per 100 

workers for all Western surface coal mines with more than 100 

employees. A detailed review of FY1999 Bridger Coal Company 

injury data indicated that about 22% of all injuries were sprains or 

strains. However, only one of the 27 injuries was identified as being 

caused by overexertion. Although the mine’s average incidence rate 

was well below the national average, and injuries related to MSD 

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. 

As a certified mine safety professional, the safety manager was very knowledgeable about 

the problems associated with cumulative trauma and musculoskeletal disorders and believed that 

an ergonomics process was an essential element of the overall safety and health program. He 

supported a process facilitated by employee participation because he believed this type of 

process would have a better chance of reducing injuries associated with MSDs. The safety 

manager thought implementing an ergonomics process would lead to overall improvements in 

the mine’s safety culture for both employees and the mine. 

Getting Buy-in From Bridger Coal Management 

Although the safety manager was very interested in working with NIOSH on this project, he 

knew that for the process to be successful, it was essential to have the support of Bridger Coal’s 

top management. He saw that the key to successful implementation would be senior 

management personnel who had a strong understanding of the programmatic concepts and 

elements. Consequently, the safety manager arranged two meetings to give NIOSH an 

7
 
opportunity to introduce this project to top management of Bridger Coal and PacifiCorp, and also 

to officers of the Western Energy Workers Union. 

The initial meeting was held in Rock Springs, WY, on January 9, 2001, with Jim Bridger 

Mine management and the executive board of the union. This meeting was held to discuss the 

objectives of the project and to define expectations and commitments for both NIOSH and 

Bridger Coal. Although the process had no set methodology that had to be followed, the process 

selected by Bridger had to be compatible with project goals and objectives. 

During the meeting, information on ergonomics principles, risk factors, and approaches used 

by other companies in addressing MSD risk factors was presented. The safety manager 

discussed the benefits of Bridger Coal participating in this project, and a representative from 

MSHA’s Directorate of Technical Support explained that MSHA supported the process and its 

role would primarily be observational, not regulatory. 

NIOSH also explained that Bridger Coal needed to assign a “champion” to the process. This 

champion would follow the implementation of the process and ensure the process moved 

forward. The safety manager was named champion for Bridger Coal. 

The second meeting, held in Salt Lake City, UT, on March 6, 2001, was attended by over 

30 senior safety administrators from many organizations within PacifiCorp’s Generation 

Business Unit around the world. NIOSH again gave a presentation that addressed a range of 

ergonomics approaches implemented successfully by other companies, methods used to identify 

risk factors, some results of previous risk factor studies, and the expected benefits for Bridger 

Coal. Providing information on how ergonomics benefited these other companies was absolutely 

necessary to get complete buy-in and support from these senior management officials. The result 

of the meeting was not only corporate awareness of the ergonomics process being implemented 

at the Jim Bridger Mine, but also the creation of additional champions for ergonomics. 

Shortly after this process was initiated at Bridger Coal, the safety manager transferred to a 

corporate position. Although he continued to be a champion for this process at the corporate 

level, it was necessary for Bridger Coal to appoint another champion at the local level. The next 

safety manager for Bridger Coal became the new champion. 

A CHAMPION FOR ERGONOMICS 

 The role of a champion is not only to be a leader for the process, but to promote and serve as 

an advocate for the process. New processes always have their critics, and the champion has to be 

prepared to demonstrate the value of the ergonomics process to the organization. Being a 

champion can involve a great deal of time, particularly at the beginning of the implementation 

process. The organization must be willing to give the champion and others assigned to this effort 

sufficient time to ensure a successful implementation. Being a champion should also be included 

in his or her performance plan or requirements so that the efforts of the champion can be 

recognized and rewarded. 

Establishing the Ergonomics Committee 

Bridger Coal’s management decided that the best approach to implementing an ergonomics 

process would be to establish an Ergonomics Committee separate from the company’s existing 

8
 
Safety and Health Committee. This approach would allow Bridger Coal to more easily commit 

resources specifically to ergonomic interventions. The committee included 11 representatives 

from labor and management, who were selected by the union and mine management. Specific 

departments represented were medical, engineering/environmental, safety, human resources, 

production, and maintenance. The employee’s union was also represented on the committee. 

A member of the Safety Department was assigned as the ergonomics coordinator. This 

individual took the lead in getting the committee to move forward. 

Initially, many committee members felt frustrated at being asked to implement an 

ergonomics process when they possessed little or no knowledge of ergonomics. This frustration 

was easily tackled by NIOSH (Figure 1) by providing training on the principles of ergonomics, 

risk factor identification, job prioritization, developing intervention recommendations, and 

principles of a cost/benefit analysis. This training eased concerns of some committee members, 

but the committee was still hesitant about having the responsibility for implementing the process. 

A brainstorming session was held to address how to develop a plan for implementation. At this 

meeting, committee members were asked to provide their input on the following four questions: 

• What should be done by the committee? • How should it be done? 

• When should it be done? • Who should do it? 

9
 

Figure 1.—Instructing members of Ergonomics Committee. 

PLANNING AHEAD 

When initiating an ergonomics program, it is important to plan the essential components: 

who, what, when, where, and how. According to Chaffin et al. [1999], “as a rough rule of thumb, 

one hour of planning will save forty hours of unproductive and ineffective work.” A clear plan 

can make the difference between the successful introduction and execution of an ergonomics 

process and a chaotic, ineffective implementation. 
 

 

 

A plan was developed on how the committee would proceed and addressed responsibilities, 

meeting format, communications, reporting format, and meeting times. The committee also 

agreed to meet monthly, or more frequently if necessary, during regular working hours. This 

turned out to be a challenge since the members worked several different shifts. However, 

communication among the members and the leadership of the ergonomics coordinator kept 

members who missed meetings informed of committee obligations. 

One of the first tasks tackled by the committee was to define a mission statement. The 

members agreed on the following mission statement and goal: 

Mission Statement:	 Identify, evaluate, and correct working conditions that need 

ergonomic improvement. 

Overall Goal:	 To improve the fit between the workers and the workplace so that 

employees have a better quality of life both on and off the job. 

During additional meetings with the committee, NIOSH 

provided instructions on tools that could be used to document 

interventions and how to conduct a task analysis. Two tools 

presented to the members were a discomfort survey [Kuorinka 

et al. 1987] and a general risk factor checklist [Washington State

Department of Labor 2001] (Appendix A). In addition to 

discussing how to use these tools, members were encouraged to 

evaluate them and recommend modifications to enhance their 

usefulness. Changes were suggested to improve the section 

requesting demographic information. Another suggested change

was to modify the general risk factor checklist by replacing 

existing task graphics with ones that depicted tasks more 

common to mining and more familiar to employees. 

Members were also instructed about interviewing 

techniques, documenting interviews with standardized forms, 

and videotaping and photographing. Prioritization methods for 

determining which interventions should be implemented first 

were also discussed. (See Appendix A for a sample 

prioritization method presented to the committee.) In this 

method, incident data, results of discomfort surveys, and information from supervisors and 

management are scored, and then an overall rank is determined that can be used to establish 

priorities for implementing interventions. Training was provided as a combination of classroom 

instruction and field exercises so members could gain experience at conducting task analyses and 

identifying risk factors. 

Other issues raised regarding committee participation were related to the amount of 

perceived effort and time commitment needed. Many committee members felt frustrated at 

being asked to implement an ergonomics process in addition to performing their normal duties. 

That is, many felt they were already committed 100% to their existing task assignments and did 

not believe they had time to devote to the process. They also were concerned about prioritization 

of their work tasks, particularly when their performance plans did not include any tasks directly 

related to ergonomics. Although they wanted to do an effective job with the committee, tasks 

that supported members’ performance plans had first priority. 

The training provided by NIOSH 

gave the Ergonomics Committee 

background information necessary 

to take a proactive approach in 

establishing a program that would 

meet the needs of Bridger Coal 

Company. The training allowed us 

to fulfill our mission by tracking a 

concern from when it was received 

by the Committee to completion of 

the project, including meetings with 

employees to insure the solution 

met their expectations. I gained a

great deal of knowledge from my 

participation on the Ergonomics 

Committee. 

Jesse R. Abney 

Electrician/Mechanic 

Former Ergonomics Committee

Member 

10
 
The above issues had to be addressed by management. In some cases, performance plans 

were revised to include committee responsibilities and duties. In other cases, issues were not 

resolved, and members asked to be replaced by employees who had more interest in Ergonomics 

Committee work. This last action resulted in a significant turnover of membership during the 

first few months. At first, the turnover was viewed as a setback to establishing the committee, 

particularly in terms of training. Training took much longer than expected because the initial 

training had to be repeated as members were replaced. However, in the long run, this turnover 

probably resulted in committee members who not only had more time for performing committee 

duties, but also had more interest in building a successful process. 

Establishing the Process for Addressing Ergonomics Concerns 

When the committee 

receives a concern 

that is easy to 

correct, we make 

the change as 

quickly as possible 

so employees see 

results and are more 

likely to think 

positive about the 

process. 

Ruth Bess 

Mining Engineer 

Ergonomics 

Because Bridger Coal decided to implement its ergonomics program separately from its 

safety and health program, it was necessary for the Ergonomics Committee to define a procedure 

for processing ergonomic concerns. The existing procedure followed for safety and health 

concerns involved an informal approach to resolving concerns that could be immediately dealt 

with, and only those concerns that could not be immediately settled were entered into a formal 

process. This same operational practice was applied to addressing 

ergonomic risk factors. 

Two documents were available to allow employees to present concerns 

to the committee for followup—an employee ergonomic concern form and 

a risk factor report card (Figure 2). The employee ergonomic concern 

form requests specific information about equipment and work area, the 

nature of the concern, and whether the concern was acute or cumulative in 

nature. The risk factor report card is a 4- by 6-inch card on which an 

employee identifies potential risk factors and notes any comments and/or 

recommendations. Employees can complete either document or both, 

which is encouraged by the committee. 

The steps followed by the Ergonomics Committee for processing an 

ergonomics concern are shown in Figure 3. First, the concern is screened 

by the committee chair to determine if the problem involves exposure to 

cumulative trauma or work-related MSD risk factors or should instead be addressed as a 

traditional safety and health hazard. For example, high noise levels during air arcing in the 

maintenance shop were considered a safety and health issue and not an ergonomics concern 

because it did not involve an MSD risk factor. Therefore the problem was addressed using the 

process established for safety and health issues and was not forwarded to the Ergonomics 

Committee. 

When addressing risk factors documented by the above process, if the chair believes the 

problem does involve exposure to MSD risk factors and can be resolved immediately, corrective 

action is completed. If the problem cannot be resolved immediately, it is assigned to a 

committee member, who interviews workers and obtains additional data about the problem. The 

committee member then reports the data to the entire committee, who determines if the concern 

is a viable one. If the concern is considered not viable, it is tabled for later review. Such 

problems include those that do not currently have a practical solution, do not involve apparent 

exposures to risk factors, and/or those that require a solution beyond the scope of the committee. 

An example of such a concern involved unlocking the parking brake on a new blade. As 

designed by the manufacturer, this operation required employees to sometimes use two hands to 

11
 
unlock the brake. The Ergonomics Committee determined that any change to this operation was 

beyond its scope, but it notified the manufacturer of this concern. As a result of this contact and 

complaints from other owners of this particular model of blade, the manufacturer redesigned the 

parking brake. Another example of a nonviable ergonomics concern was the position of the hoist 

lever in one of the scrapers. The lever had been moved when a new control box was installed, 

and the operators believed the hoist lever was too low. An evaluation of the controls indicated 

that the location of the hoist lever was appropriate and that the operators just needed more time 

to adjust to the change in location. The committee decided to take no immediate action, but 

instead to revisit the problem in a few months after the operators had time to use the new setup. 

Figure 2.—Employee ergonomic concern form and risk factor report card. 

If the concern is considered viable, a subcommittee is formed with committee members and 

employees to investigate further. Information obtained is reported to the full committee, who 

then decides if there is sufficient information to study possible interventions. If more 

information is needed, then the subcommittee gathers the requested data and reports back to the 

full committee. If an intervention is not considered possible, the concern 

is tabled for later review or while further information is obtained from 

NIOSH or a consultant. If interventions are considered possible, potential 

actions are prioritized and the most applicable one is introduced. The 

intervention is selected on the basis of expected reduction in risk factor 

exposure and/or injuries, ease of implementation, cost, and potential 

productivity improvements. Its effectiveness is then monitored by 

interviewing affected workers. If the intervention is considered effective, 

the concern is resolved. If other similar situations exist, then the 

intervention is applied to these situations also. If, on the other hand, the 

initial intervention is not effective or has created additional problems, the 

committee restarts the process by again talking to the workers to obtain 

more data. 

12
 

The success of a 

company’s ergonomics process 

is through its

employee’s efforts 

and teamwork in 

defining and solving 

ergonomic issues. 

Valerie Fieseler 

Senior HR 

Administrator 

Ergonomics Committee 

Member
1. Risk Factor Report Cards 

turned in 

2. The problem is screened by 

the committee chairperson 

4. Committee discusses concern 

and course of action 

5. Investigative subcommittee 

looks into the concern. 

6. Subcommittee reports to the 

entire committee 

7. Committee begins to 

investigate possible interventions 

8. Intervention introduced and 

its effectiveness monitored 

Need more 

information 

Effective? 

Problem 

solved 

Yes 

No 

No 

Immediate Yes 

solution? 

Problem 

solved 

3. Committee member interviews 

workers and collects data 

No 

Yes 

Concern 

Viable? 

Later 

review 

No 

Yes 

Intervention 

possible? 

Later 

review 

Yes 

No 

Subcommittee 

collects more 

information 

Figure 3.—Ergonomics process flow diagram. 

 Training Employees 

Once the Ergonomics Committee was trained and 

became comfortable with its role in implementing the 

process, it was time to train all Bridger Coal employees. 

NIOSH developed a 1-hour awareness training program that 

focused on recognizing MSD risk factors and taking action 

by reporting risk factors to the Ergonomics Committee. 

Employees were told to be proactive and to target risk 

factors before an injury occurred (Figure 4). They were 

given information on how an MSD may develop and how it 

is better to take action by eliminating risk factors. 

Figure 4.—Targeting risk factors 

for a proactive approach. 

Employees were taught how to report a concern using the 

risk factor report card. The primary training module was 

geared to employees in production and maintenance and 

13
 
included interactive exercises that gave participants practice with identifying risk factors and root 

causes and suggesting improvements. A second version of the training that focused on office 

ergonomics was developed and given to administrative support employees. 

This training was presented by NIOSH personnel and members of the Ergonomics Committee (Figure 5). Employees were encouraged to be involved in the process. Approximately 

280 employees were trained during 21 sessions. Because of the different shifts worked by 

employees, the sessions were held over a 7-day period and were generally scheduled either at the 

end or beginning of a shift. NIOSH designed a sticker, shown in Figure 6, to give to workers 

attending the training. Because the miners then placed the stickers on their hard hats and lunch 

containers, the stickers also provided a continuing reminder to employees about the importance 

of ergonomics. 

Figure 5.—Training employees during one of 21 awareness 

training sessions. 

During the employee training, the committee wanted to assure employees that any concerns 

reported would not be placed in employee files and would not be reported to MSHA. In 

addition, the committee wanted employees to understand that it could not address all concerns 

immediately and concerns would be prioritized and addressed accordingly. In each case, 

however, the committee responded to each concern submitted. 

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

Employees participated in the interactive exercises and seemed quite 

knowledgeable regarding identification of risk factors at the 

conclusion. In fact, 27 employees submitted report cards to the 

Ergonomics Committee immediately following the training. 

A few criticisms expressed during the training involved opinions 

that management would be reluctant to spend funds on improvements and that employees submitting report cards would be considered “complainers.” The committee members present at these 

sessions were able to address both of these issues satisfactorily. 

The training made employees more aware of 

problems and how 

ergonomics applied to 

their job. 

Mike Audevart 

Welder 

14
 
 

Figure 6.—Sticker designed 

to promote ergonomics process 

at Jim Bridger Mine. 

Refresher Training 

Two years after employees first received awareness training, Bridger Coal provided a short 

refresher briefing as part of its quarterly safety meeting. The briefing again focused on 

identifying risk factors and encouraged employees to report them to the Ergonomics Committee. 

Since the number of new concerns reported to the committee had declined during 2003, the 

refresher training was an important reminder to employees to continue to be proactive and report 

risk factors. 

Communications 

Like every successful 

program, it takes a lot of 

communication so 

employees feel they are 

part of the process. 

Ruth Bess 

Mining Engineer 

Ergonomics Committee 

Member 

The Ergonomics Committee established a bulletin board in the ready room, an area that all 

employees pass through when reporting to work. The bulletin board includes information about 

the committee, how to report a concern, and a status report of interventions completed by the 

committee. NIOSH periodically provided posters to display on this bulletin board and at other 

meeting areas at the mine. The posters focused on introducing the ergonomics committee to the 

employees, identifying and reporting risk factors, ergonomic interventions completed by the 

committee, and risk profiles for specific tasks. The first poster 

(Figure 7) set the stage for implementing the ergonomics process at 

the Jim Bridger Mine. The other posters are shown in Appendix C. 

PacifiCorp’s quarterly safety newsletter, Safety Times, twice 

featured the success of Bridger Coal’s ergonomics process. This 

newsletter is distributed to all employees of PacifiCorp, including 

Bridger Coal employees. These articles have served as recognition 

not only to committee members, but also to those employees 

submitting concerns for actively participating in the process. 

Recordkeeping 

A simple recordkeeping system has been used for the 

ergonomics process. A listing of concerns is maintained as a 

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that includes all the information 

provided on the risk factor report card. In addition, each concern 

is color-coded to document the status of the concern. Concerns 

are labeled as either “completed projects,” “projects in 

progress,” “items referred elsewhere or dismissed,” or “items on 

hold.” The committee also maintains a status/update document 

posted on the ergonomics bulletin board that provides a short 

description of the concern and the current status. This document 

allows employees to monitor the status of their concerns. If a 

concern is referred elsewhere or dismissed, the basis for this 

decision is provided. 

15
 
Bridger Coal Ergonomics Committee 

Team Members 

Jesse Abney, Dan Allen, Ruth Bess, Val Fieseler, Paul Gust, Mike Hesse,
 

Jerry Lamberth, Kerry McKenzie, Ricky Olson, Carl Persinger 

Ergonomics Coordinator: Kean Johnson 

Our mission is to identify, evaluate, and correct 

working conditions which need 

ergonomic improvement. 

Our goal is to create a healthier workplace 

through employee involvement. 

Find out more at your 


July Safety Meeting 


Figure 7.—One of five posters created by NIOSH to promote ergonomics process at Jim Bridger Mine. 

16 
Process Effectiveness 

Before the change to the 

water pump switch, my 

arm would get tired from 

reaching for the switch and 

then rotating my arm to 

turn on the switch. Now,

the switch is easier to 

operate. It is a 100% 

improvement. The 

Ergonomics Committee 

was very responsive in 

correcting this problem. 

Keith Coble 

Water Truck Driver 

Three years into the process, the Ergonomics Committee 

received a total of 55 concerns and successfully completed 

improvements for 22 concerns. A few examples of the 

modifications are shown in Appendix B. Some of the modifications 

were completed by equipment maintenance staff and did not result in 

significant expenditures of funds. Other modifications involved 

purchasing new equipment, such as lighter-weight welding helmets 

and floor mats. The easiest type of concerns addressed by the 

committee involved rearranging equipment or work areas. At the 

current time, another five concerns are in the process of being 

evaluated for potential interventions. Nineteen concerns submitted 

to the committee, however, were not considered viable concerns and 

were either forwarded to a more appropriate committee or were 

dismissed. 

In March 2004, several members of the Ergonomics Committee were interviewed by NIOSH 

as to whether they thought the ergonomics process was effective. Overall, the members strongly 

believed the process was effective and did not believe any changes were needed. When 

problems with resolving concerns were encountered, the problems were generally related to 

external factors not associated with the process. For example, employees sometimes failed to 

follow up with the committee member evaluating the concern, equipment manufacturers could 

not develop a retrofit, or the suggested modifications voided the equipment warranty. Another 

issue the committee encountered was that interventions were not necessarily accepted by all 

employees affected by the intervention. For example, after changing an operator seat with an 

improved model, one employee continued to prefer the old seat. The committee had to accept 

that not all of the employees will be satisfied with the interventions even though the 

interventions lead to improvements. Because of individual differences, particularly with seating 

issues, this situation will likely occur again as interventions are implemented. As one measure of 

effectiveness, the physician assistant and manager of the on-site health clinic stated that since the 

ergonomics process was implemented, he has seen fewer employees reporting to the medical 

clinic with health complaints possibly related to MSDs. 

On several occasions, NIOSH has encouraged the committee to expand its documentation 

efforts and collect additional information that could be used to garner additional management 

support. However, the committee has been reluctant to commit to further documentation and has 

taken the position that such additional documentation is not necessary for a successful process. 

Even though the Ergonomics Committee has not needed additional documentation to date to 

implement its interventions, such documentation may be needed as the process grows and more 

costly interventions are considered. Demonstrating quality cost-benefit data for initial 

interventions may help sell implementation of future, more costly interventions. 

17
 
DEMONSTRATING EFFECTIVENESS FOR ERGONOMICS PROCESSES 

Quantifying the effectiveness of ergonomics processes depends strongly on the organization 

and the original goal of the ergonomics process. It is common to see benefits measured in the 

number of work days lost, number of injuries/illnesses, number of near misses, or changes in 

workers compensation costs. But for some organizations, particularly small companies with 

limited injuries and illnesses, these measures may not be suitable. In these cases, use of survey 

tools, such as the Nordic Discomfort Survey, may be more useful. Another constructive 

approach may be to quantify exposure levels to risk factors before and after the implementation 

of an intervention. For example, for a lifting task the amount of weight lifted during a work shift 

may be measured before and then again after an intervention has been applied. Other examples 

include posture improvements, reducing the distance objects are carried, and reducing the 

number of repetitions performed. Some tools that may be used to show reduced exposures 

include Rapid Upper Limb Assessment or RULA [McAtamney and Corlett 1993], Rapid Entire 

Body Assessment or REBA [Hignett and McAtamney 2000], NIOSH Lifting Equation [Waters 

et al. 1994], Hand Activity Level or HAL [ACGIH 2005] and the Strain Index [Moore and Garg 

1995]. Additional tools can be found at: http://www.hsc.usf.edu/~tbernard. 

Lessons Learned 

When implementing new processes, there are always lessons to be learned. At the Jim 

Bridger Mine, such lessons included— 

•	 Committee Participants: Early on in the implementation phase, a number of leadership and 

committee members were replaced. The designated champion moved to a corporate position, 

and a new champion had to be selected, and some committee members chosen to represent 

their departments either did not have the time or were not interested in being on the 

committee. Although some changes in membership are inevitable, it is important to select 

participants who want to be a part of the process and to allocate sufficient time for 

participants to perform their work duties as well as committee responsibilities. This latter 

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. In addition, 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 mine was willing to put ergonomics ahead of other required 

duties. 

•	 Process Development: There is no single “right” method that will work for all companies 

when developing a process. Although the Ergonomics Committee was given a lot of 

information and a number of ideas on how to proceed, it was necessary for committee 

members to determine what would work best to meet their needs. Because the committee 

18
 
had the responsibility for selecting the path it would take in implementing the process and 

ensuring its success, it was critical to have the right people on the committee. 

•	 Process Implementation: Although employees received training after the Ergonomics 

Committee developed a procedure for submitting concerns, sufficient time was not allowed 

for the committee to become thoroughly familiar with the procedure. Then, because 

employee training resulted in the submission of numerous employee concerns, the committee 

was initially overwhelmed at the same time it was learning the procedure to address these 

concerns. Committee members were apprehensive about the amount of time needed to 

address all the concerns and how the delay in responding would affect support for the 

process. Sufficient time should be given for a committee to become thoroughly familiar with 

its procedures prior to giving employee training and requesting that employees submit 

concerns. 

•	 Employee Training: When developing the employee training, several video clips were 

selected to demonstrate examples of risk factors; approximately half of these video clips 

were of Bridger Coal employees doing specific mining tasks. Unfortunately, other video 

clips taken at the Jim Bridger Mine did not necessarily demonstrate multiple risk factors, and 

because of time limitations, the number of clips shown had to be minimized while 

maximizing the lesson learned from each clip. Some employees were critical that all the 

video clips were not specific to work done at the Jim Bridger Mine. For future training, more 

video clips from the mine where employees are working, or from very similar mines, should 

be used. 

•	 Supervisory Training: Awareness training was primarily focused on employees and did not 

address the 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 should be done prior to the employee 

training so the supervisor can express support for implementation of the process. 

Supervisory training is particularly critical for supervisors who may have employees who are 

reluctant to participate. The concerns of these employees may never be addressed unless 

their supervisor initiates an action with the Ergonomics Committee. In addition, it is 

imperative that supervisors be fully aware of the way the company plans to conduct business 

related to ergonomic concerns. 

Summary 

The ergonomics process implemented at the Jim Bridger Mine has produced an active 

Ergonomics Committee backed by strong employee participation. The training received by both 

the committee members and employees has led to improved interactions among employees and 

management regarding their thoughts on injury prevention. Employees are using their 

knowledge of risk factors to report concerns about their jobs and the jobs of their peers. The 

committee has made an effort to respond to each employee within a reasonable time frame. 

During the first 3 years of using this process, the committee has implemented over 20 job 

improvements. 

19
 
In addition to responding to employee reports of risk factors, the committee is also applying 

its ergonomic knowledge and awareness to other processes, such as purchasing equipment, 

implementing new procedures, and developing new training. For example, when Bridger Coal 

decided to purchase a new drill, committee members were asked to evaluate the new drill prior to 

purchase to ensure operators would not be exposed to MSD risk factors. Committee members 

also review reported injuries and illnesses to determine if an ergonomic risk factor was 

associated with the injury or illness. 

Employees are initiating actions to improve their jobs and reduce 

exposure to risk factors. In one instance, mechanics took action by 

constructing a counterbalance for a 25-pound, 1-1⁄2-inch impact wrench 

used to change-out the cutting edges on a dozer blade. Instead of the 

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

shoulders, the impact wrench was suspended from a crane. Figure 8 

illustrates how the mechanics reduced their exposure to risk factors. 

 

Strap suspending 

support from 

overhead crane 

Figure 8.—Mechanic using a support to hold an impact wrench when changing the
 

cutting edges on a dozer blade. The support is attached with a strap to an overhead
 

crane.
 

It is a better way to hold 

the impact wrench. You 

only have to guide the 

wrench, and there is less 

stress on your 

shoulders. Before this

intervention, you had to 

be built like a bull to use 

the impact wrench. 

Stan Masters

Shop Mechanic 

Mechanics also apply their knowledge of ergonomics when evaluating 

new equipment. For example, when a new lube truck arrived at the mine, 

the truck was inspected to ensure that it met specifications. 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. 

As part of a corporate-wide initiative, Bridger Coal Company was tasked with completing a 

health risk assessment designed to identify health hazards for each job classification at the mine. 

The health hazards initially included in the assessment were chemical and biological hazards; 

however, with the ergonomics knowledge gained during the past few years at the Jim Bridger 

Mine, the ergonomics coordinator added risk factors associated with MSDs. Consequently, the 

risk assessment tool was modified at the corporate level to include these risk factors. This risk 

20
 
assessment provided an upper-level analysis defining the scope of exposures for risk factors 

associated with MSDs for all mining tasks performed at the mine. 

In just 3 years, Bridger Coal Company has implemented an effective, proactive process to 

reduce exposure to MSD risk factors. As conditions change at the Jim Bridger Mine, the process 

is being modified to ensure continuing improvement and effectiveness. Instead of waiting for an 

injury or illness to occur prior to making changes, Bridger Coal is relying on 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. 

INTEGRATING ERGONOMICS 

To maximize the effectiveness of the ergonomics process, it should be fully integrated into 

other processes that affect workers and their workplaces. In addition to being integrated with 

safety and health programs, examples of other processes that could benefit from ergonomic input 

include— 

o Purchasing new equipment and tools for mining and maintenance activities 

 Surface: Drills, prill trucks, loaders, haul trucks 

 Underground: Rock drills, dump trucks, continuous mining machines, scoops, 

longwalls, scaling machines, scaling bars, roof bolting machines 

 Maintenance: Pneumatic tools, hand tools, maintenance shop setup 

o Purchasing personal protective equipment 

 Respirators, welding hoods, gloves, and kneepads 

o Modifying facilities, production lines, or workstations 

 Dragline workstations 

 Equipment seats 

 Equipment controls 

o Determining work shifts and schedules 

 4/12, 4/10, and 5/8 

 Frequency and duration of breaks 

o Modifying work practices or procedures 

 Using joystick controls and remote controls 

 Loading blast holes 

 Moving cable 

 Moving supplies 

 Building stoppings 

Applying ergonomics to these processes at the planning stage will not only prevent the 

introduction of risk factors into the workplace that could result in MSDs, but it will avoid costly 

reengineering efforts to correct situations. Incorporating ergonomics into planning moves an 

ergonomics process from a reactive to a truly proactive mode. 

21
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors would like to thank the Bridger Coal Company and its management, in 

particular, Pat Akers and Pat James, for being leaders in the mining industry when addressing the 

ergonomic concerns of its employees. Their actions demonstrate a proactive culture that places 

the well-being of its employees as its first priority. We would also like to thank the members of 

the Jim Bridger Mine Ergonomics Committee, the many mine employees who offered their time 

and effort to ensure the success of this endeavor, and the following current and former NIOSH 

employees whose efforts also contributed to the success of the Bridger ergonomics process: 

Albert Cook, Kim Gavel, Timothy Matty, Mary Ellen Nelson, E. William Rossi, Fred Turin, 

Richard Unger, Charles Vaught, and William Wiehagen. 

REFERENCES 

Alexander D, Orr G [1999]. Development of ergonomics programs. Karwowski W, 

Marras WS, eds. The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook. CRC Press, pp. 79–94. 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) [2005]. Threshold 

Limit Values and Biological Exposures Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation. [1999]. Analysis of the Mine 

Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) accident/injury database, phase II report. NIOSH 

Contract Number 200–94–2837. 

Butler M [2003]. Corporate ergonomics programme at Scottish & Newcastle. Applied 

Ergonomics 34:35–38. 

Chaffin DB, Andersson GBJ, Martin B [1999]. Occupational Biomechanics, 3rd ed. 

John Wiley & Sons, pp. 279–349. 

Cohen A, Gjessing C, Fine L, Bernard B, McGlothlin J [1997]. Elements of ergonomics 

programs: a primer based on workplace evaluations of musculoskeletal disorders. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 97–117. 

GAO [1997]. Worker protection: private sector ergonomics programs yield positive results. 

Report GAO/HEHS–97–163. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. 

Hägg G [2003]. Corporate initiatives in ergonomics: an introduction. Applied Ergonomics 

34:3–15. 

Hignett S [2001]. Embedding ergonomics in hospital culture top-down and bottom-up 

strategies. Applied Ergonomics 32:61–69. 

Hignett S, McAtamney L [2000]. Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Applied 

Ergonomics 31:201–205. 

Joseph B [2003]. Corporate ergonomics programme at Ford Motor Company. Applied 

Ergonomics 34:23–28. 

Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg H, Biering-Sørensen F, Anderson G, et al. 

[1987]. Standardized Nordic Questionnaire for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. 

Applied Ergonomics 18:233–237. 

McAtamney L, Corlett EN [1993]. RULA: A survey method for the investigation of workrelated upper limb disorders. Applied Ergonomics 24(2):91–99. 

22
 
 

Moore J, Garg A [1995]. The strain index: a proposed method to analyze jobs for risk of 

distal upper extremity disorders. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 56(5):443– 

458. 

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. 

NIOSH [1996]. Results from the National Occupational Survey of Mining (NOHSM). 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 96–136. 

NIOSH [1997]. Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors: A critical review of 

epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, 

and low back. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 97– 

141. 

NIOSH [2002]. Worker health chartbook, 2000: focus on mining. U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 2002–121. 

NIOSH [2005a]. Mining facts, 2003. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 2005–113. 

NIOSH [2005b]. Distribution of lost-time injuries by accident class, underground mining, 

1998–2002 and distribution of lost-time injuries by accident class, surface locations, 1998–2002. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/topics/data/injuries.html. 

NIOSH [2005c]. Distribution of illnesses and diseases reported to MSHA in 2003. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/topics/data/illness.html. 

Ridyard D, Hathaway J [2000]. The three dimensions of an ergonomics program. 

Occupational Hazards, February, pp. 41–44. 

Robinson D [2002]. Corporate ergonomist, Gold Kist, Inc. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ 

ergonomics/goldkist.html. 

Scharf T, Vaught C, Kidd P, Steiner L, Kowalski K, Wiehagen W, et al. [2001]. Toward a 

typology of dynamic and hazardous work environments. Human and Ecological Risk 

Assessment 7(7):1827–1841. 

Smyth J [2003]. Corporate ergonomics programme at BCM Airdrie. Applied Ergonomics 

34:39–43. 

Steiner LJ, Cornelius KM, Turin FC [1999]. Predicting system interactions in the design 

process. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 36:58–60. 

Stobbe TJ, Bobick TG, Plummer RW [1986]. Musculoskeletal injuries in underground 

mining. Annals of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 14:71–76. 

U.S. Department of Labor [1991]. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States by 

industry, 1989. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin 2379, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC. 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/ 

Topics/Ergonomics/ServicesResources/Tools/default.asp 

23
 
Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A [1994]. Applications manual for the revised NIOSH 

lifting equation. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 

94–110. 

Winn F, Biersner R, Morrissey S [1996]. Exposure probabilities to ergonomic hazards 

among miners. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 18:417–422. 

Zalk D [2001]. Grassroots ergonomics: Initiating an ergonomics program utilizing 

participatory techniques. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 45(4):283–289. 

Zhuang Z, Groce D [1995]. The national occupational health survey of mining: Magnitude 

of potential exposures to musculoskeletal overload conditions. Advances in Industrial 

Ergonomics and Safety VII. Taylor and Francis, pp. 273–280. 

ADDITIONAL SOURCES ABOUT ERGONOMICS PROCESSES 

de Jong AM, Vink P [2002]. Participatory ergonomics applied in installation work. Applied 

Ergonomics 33:439–448. 

Gauf M [1995]. Ergonomics that work. CTD News. 

Gjessing C, Schoenborn T, Cohen A [1994]. Participatory ergonomic interventions in 

meatpacking plants. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS(NIOSH) 

Pub. No. 94–124. 

McGlothlin W, Kaudewitz H, Wilmoth S [1999]. Implementation strategies for a corporate 

ergonomics directive: The Eastman Chemical Company story. Applied Ergonomics Case 

Studies, Volume 1. D. Alexander (ed.). Norcross, GA: Engineering and Management Press, 

pp. 15–80. 

Munck-Ulfsfält U, Falck A, Forsberg A, Dahlin C, Eriksson A [2003]. Corporate 

ergonomics programme at Volvo Car Corporation. Applied Ergonomics 34:17–22. 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) [1990]. Ergonomics program 

management guidelines for meatpacking plants. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration, OSHA Report 3123. 

Perry L [1997]. Implementing company-wide ergonomics. Workplace Ergonomics 

May/June:18–21. 

Steiner LJ, James P, Turin FC [2004]. Partnering for successful ergonomics: A study of 

musculoskeletal disorders in mining. Mining Engineering 56(11):39–44. 

Unger RL, Turin FC, Wiehagen WJ, Steiner LJ, Cornelius KM, Torma-Krajewski J [2002]. 

Initiating an ergonomics process at a surface coal mine. Proceedings: Thirty-Third Annual 

Institute on Mining Health, Safety and Research, pp. 39–47. 

24
 
SUGGESTED WEB SITES 

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ergonomics/index.html
 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ergonomics/ 

http://www.ergoweb.com/resources/ 

http://hfes.org/ (Human Factors and Ergonomics Society) 

http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/ergopgm/ (U.S. Army ergonomics program)
 

http://www.office-ergo.com (ergonomics information) 

http://ergonomics.ucla.edu/ (University of California – Los Angeles) 

http://www.hsc.usf.edu/~tbernard (Tom Bernard, University of South Florida) 

25
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A.—PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS 

General Risk Factor Checklist 

Movements, postures, or conditions that are a 

regular and expected part of the job, occurring 

more than one day per week, and more frequently 

than one week per year. 

If done in 

this job 

Tthe box

 Job evaluated: 

 Date: 

Number of 

workers who 

do this job? 

Poor Posture Measures/Comments 

1. Working with the hand(s) 

 above the head, or the elbow(s) 

 above the shoulders more than

 2 hours total per day. 

Up to how many hours per day: _____ 

Up to how many days per week: _____ 

2. Working with the neck bent

 more than 30 degrees (without 

 support) more than 2 hours total 

 per day. 

Up to how many hours per day: _____ 

Up to how many days per week: _____ 

3. Working with the back bent

 more than 30 degrees (without 

 support) more than 2 hours total 

 per day. 

Up to how many hours per day: _____ 

Up to how many days per week: _____ 

4. Kneeling or squatting more 

 than 2 hours total per day. Up to how many hours per day: _____ 

Up to how many days per week: _____ 

Forceful Gripping Measures/Comments 

5. Pinching an unsupported object 

 weighing 2 or more pounds, or

 pinching with a force of 4 or more 

 pounds per hand, more than 2 

 hours per day (comparable to

 pinching half a ream of paper). 

Typical weight or force used: _____ 

Up to how many hours per day: _____ 

6. Gripping an unsupported 

object(s) weighing 10 or more

 pounds per hand, or gripping 

 with a force of 10 or more

 pounds per hand, more than 2 

 hours per day. 

Typical weight or force used: _____ 

Up to how many hours per day: _____ 

26
 
Highly Repetitive Work Measures/Comments 

7. Repeating the same motion 

 with the neck, shoulders, elbows, Up to how many hours per day: _____ wrists or hands (excluding 

 keying activities) with little or no Up to how many days per week: _____ variation every few seconds, more 

 than 2 hours total per day. 

8. Performing intensive keying

 more than 4 hours total per day. Up to how many hours per day: _____ 

Up to how many days per week: _____ 

Heavy or Frequent Lifting Measures/Comments 

9. Lifting object weighing more 

 than75 pounds once per day or Typical weight handled: ______ 

 more than 55 pounds more than 

 10 times per day. Up to how many times per day: _____ 

10. Lifting object weighing

 more than 25 pounds above the Typical weight handled: ______ 

 shoulders, below the knees or at 

Up to how many times per day: _____ arms length more than 25 times 

 per day. 

 11. Lifting object weighing more 

 than 10 pounds if done more Typical weight handled: ______ 

 than twice per minute, more than 

 2 hours total per day. Up to how many hours per day: _____ 

Vibrating Tools (Hand-Arm Vibration) Measures/Comments 

12. Using grinders, sanders, jigsaws 

 orother hand tools that typically Up to how many hours per day: _____ 

 have moderate vibration levels 

 more than 2 hours total per day. Up to how many days per week: _____ 

13. Using impact wrenches, 

 carpet strippers, chain saws, Up to how many hours per day: _____ percussive tools (jack hammers, 

 scalers, chipping hammers) or Up to how many days per week: _____ other tools that typically have 

 highvibration levels, more than 

 30 minutes total per day. 

27
 
Bouncing or Jarring Measures/Comments 

14. Traveling in mobile Up to how many hours per day: _____ equipment over rough ground 

 or flooring, more than Up to how many days per week: _____ 

 2 hours total per day. 

 

Contact or Impact Stress Measures/Comments 

Up to how many hours per day: _____ 15. Contacting hard or sharp 

objects like work surface Up to how many days per week: _____
 

 edges or narrow tool handles, 

 more than 2 hours total per day. 

16. Using the hand (heel/base of Up to how many hours per day: _____ palm) or knee as a hammer more

 than 10 times per hour, more Up to how many days per week: _____
 

than 2 hours total per day. 

Other Risk Factors Measures/Comments

(Please provide a brief description of each risk factor) (Please record relevant measures) 

Derived from Caution Zone Checklist (WAC 296-62-05105) 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (2001)
 

28 
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

What are the physically demanding duties of this job? 

What are the reasons for risk factors identified? 

What improvements would you like to see for this job? 

Interview Notes: 

29
 
30 

tive 

ey 

OSH Ergonomics Initia

l Discoleta mfort Surv

Bridger-NI

Musculoske

The purpose of the survey:You have been selected to participate in a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study of m

mining industry. We wish to determine the musculoskeletal risk factors that exist at this mine and across the mining 

the type and location of the discomfort symptoms you may be experiencing. This survey should take no more than 5 

you for your cooperation.

How to answer the discomfort questionnaire:Picture: In this picture you can see the approximate position of the parts of the body referred to in the questionnaire. 

and certain parts overlap. You should decide for yourself in which part you have or have had your trouble (if any). 

Table: Please answer by putting an “X” in the appropriate box - one “X” for each question. You may be in doubt as your best anyway. Note that column 1 of the questionnaire is to be answered even if you have never had trouble in a

and 3 are to be answered if you answered yes in column 1. 

Demographics: Initial of first name: __ Initial of last name: __ Last 4 digits of Social Security number: __ __ __ __ 

 Immediate Supervisor: __________________________ Date:____/____/____ Department:______________

Job Title: Please check one of the following: 

Administration & Clerical Technical Services Dept Medical Services Safe

Production Foreman/Super. Drag Line Operator Dragline Oiler Gro

Hauler Operator Heavy Equip. Operator Mine Services Operator

Driller/Shooter Powder Person Field Helper 

General Maint. Foreman/Super. (shop, field, conveyor) Shop or Field Planner (coordinatoShop Journeyman Mechanic Machinist Shop Helper Sho

Equipment Oiler Field Journeyman Mechanic Elect. Journeyman 

WField elder Crane Operator Conveyor Person Ligh

HVAC Mechanic Utility Person Janitor 

(Based on Nordic Discomfort Survey, Kuorinka et al., 1987) 
To be answered by everyone To be answered by t

Have you at any time during the last 12 months had trouble (ache, pain, discomfort,numbness) in: 

Have you at any time durlast 12 months been prefrom doing your norma(at home or away from hobecause of the trouble? 

Neck

ο No ο Yes ο No ο Yes 

Shoulders

ο No ο Yes, right shoulder 

ο Yes, left shoulder ο No ο Yes 

ο Yes, both shoulders 

Elbows

ο No ο Yes, right elbow 

ο Yes, left elbow ο No ο Yes 

ο Yes, both elbows 

Wrists/Hands

ο No ο Yes, right wrist/hand

ο Yes, left wrist/hand ο No ο Yes 

ο Yes, both wrists/hands 

Upper Backο No ο Yes ο No ο Yes 

Lower Back (small of back)

ο No ο Yes ο No ο Yes 

One or Both Hips/Thighsο No ο Yes ο No ο Yes 

One or Both Kneesο No ο Yes ο No ο Yes 

One or Both Ankles/Feetο No ο Yes ο No ο Yes 

Gender: M F Age: _______ Height: ____ ft.____ in. Weight: _______ 

How long have you been doing this job? _____ years _____ months On average, how many hours do you work each week? _____ 

31 
 

 

Sample Decision Matrix 

Work Group 

Supervisors 

# of 

Employees 

3 

Incident 

 Data 

Low 

Nordic 

Survey 

High

Supervisor 

Interviews 

 Low 

Mgmt. 

Concern 

Final 

Score* 

5 

Haul Truck Ops 15 Med Med Low 5 

Driller Ops 5 Med Low Low 4 

Blasting Crew 4 High Med High x 9 

High Lift/Loader Ops 4 Med Med Med 6 

Mechanics 4 High High High 9 

Scaling Machine Ops 3 Med High Med x 8 

Water Truck Op 1 Low High Low 5 

Laborers 4 Low High High x 8 

Welders 3 Low Med Med 4 

*

For scoring purposes, a rating of High = 3 points, Medium = 2 points, and Low = 1 point. 

One additional point was awarded if management expressed concern regarding a work area. 

32
 
APPENDIX B.—EXAMPLES OF ERGONOMIC INTERVENTIONS 

IMPLEMENTED BY THE ERGONOMICS COMMITTEE 

33
 

CONCERN 

Welders had experienced 

several back and neck 

injuries. Risk factor 

evaluations and interviews of 

welders indicated that the 

weight of the welding helmet, 

combined with awkward 

postures required when 

performing certain jobs 

contributed to the problems. 

To operate the water truck 

pump switch, employees 

were required to reach 

forward while rotating their 

arms (top photo). This action 

was sometimes performed 

every few seconds when spot 

watering some sections of the 

haul roads. 

SOLUTION 

Light-weight helmets (on 

the right) were purchased 

to replace the existing, 

heavier helmets (on the 

left). 

The switch was moved to 

the shift pedestal (bottom 

photo). This location now 

allows the employee to 

rest his arm on the 

pedestal while operating 

the switch. 

Employees working in the 

warehouse complained of leg 

and foot pain from walking 

on concrete floors. 

A rubber mat was placed 

on the floor in the high 

traffic areas. 
CONCERN SOLUTION 

Placing and removing chock A handle made from 

blocks tied together with a conduit was attached to the 

rope (top photo) resulted in chock blocks (bottom 

excessive stooping and photo). This modification 

bending. This created a allowed employees to place 

problem for employees who the chock blocks in front 

had to chock their vehicles and behind the tire, and to 

several times a day. There remove the chock blocks 

were also other issues that with little or no stooping. 

occurred during muddy and This handle also helped 

wet conditions. alleviate the issues during 

extreme weather 

conditions. 

The throttle pedal on a loader After obtaining approval 

was in an upright position. from the manufacturer, the 

To release the pedal, the pedal was set at a lower 

operator had to lift his foot angle. This position 

completely off the pedal and allowed the operator to rest 

then place his foot on the his foot on the pedal when 

floor adjacent to the pedal. the pedal was not engaged. 

Because this movement was 

done repeatedly throughout 

the shift, operators 

experienced ankle and leg 

pain. 

To enter the tool room, A small table was placed 

employees were required to next to the eye scan so 

remove their safety glasses employees could place 

for an eye scan. If employees their tools on it. This 

were returning tools, they had eliminated any stooping. 

to place the tools on the floor 

in order to remove their 

glasses. This often resulted 

in excessive stooping. 

34
 
APPENDIX C.—POSTERS 

35
 
36
 
37
 
38
 
Delivering on the Nation’s Promise: 

Safety and health at work for all people 

through research and prevention 

For information about occupational safety and health topics contact NIOSH at:

1–800–35–N IOSH (1–800–356–4674)

Fax: 513–533–8573

E-mail: pubstaft@ cdc.gov

www.cdc.gov/niosh

PEOPLET M S AFE R • H E ALT H IE R •

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2006 –141