IC 9509 

INFORMATION CIRCULAR/2009

Ergonomics Processes 

Implementation Guide and 

Tools for the Mining Industry 

Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
Information Circular 9509 

Ergonomics Processes: 

Implementation Guide and Tools for the Mining Industry
 

By Janet Torma-Krajewski, Ph.D., Lisa J. Steiner,

 and Robin Burgess-Limerick, Ph.D. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

Pittsburgh, PA 

February 2009 
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. All Web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the 

publication date. 

Ordering Information 

To receive documents or other information about occupational safety and health topics, 

contact NIOSH at 

Telephone: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636) 

TTY: 1–888–232–6348 

e-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov 

or visit the NIOSH Web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh. 

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to NIOSH eNews by visiting 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews. 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009–107 

February 2009 

SAFER • HEALTHIER • PEOPLETM 
Contents 

Acknowledgments 

Abstract 

I. Introduction: Ergonomics and Risk Management 

Basic Elements of Ergonomics Risk Management Processes 

Participatory Ergonomics 

Evolution of Risk Management Processes 

II. Ergonomics Processes: Case Studies 

Bridger Coal Co. 

Badger Mining Corp. 

Vulcan Materials Co. 

Lessons Learned 

Summary 

III. Process Effectiveness 

Bridger Coal Co. 

Badger Mining Corp. 

Vulcan Materials Co. 

IV. Implementation Tools 

Tool A: Risk Factor Report Card 

Tool B: Musculoskeletal Discomfort Form 

Tool C: General Risk Factor Exposure Checklist 

Tool D: Ergonomics Observations 

Tool E: Handtool Checklist 

Tool F: Manual Tasks Risk Assessment 

Tool G: Ergonomics Task Improvement Form 

Tool H: Risk Factor Cards 

Tool I: Ergonomics Sticker for Mining Industry 

V. Training 

Introduction 

Ergonomics and Mining: Ensuring a Safer Workplace – Training for 

Management 

Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training for Miners 

Ergonomics Observations: Training for Behavior-based Safety Observers 

References 

Appendix – Ergonomics Processes: Beyond Traditional Safety and Health Programs 
 

Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Report 

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists 

BBS behavior-based safety 

CARE Corrective Action Request for Evaluation 

GAO General Accounting Office 

MSD musculoskeletal disorder 

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration 

NDL no days lost 

NFDL nonfatal days lost 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PPE personal protective equipment 

S&H safety and health 

SHE safety, health, and environmental 
Acknowledgments 

The authors thank the many organizations who helped to demonstrate that 

ergonomics can be integrated with existing safety and health programs to improve 

working conditions for their employees. Specifically, we thank Paul Gust, Kean Johnson, 

and Pat James of Bridger Coal Co.; Marty Lehman, Mellisa Stafford, Linda Artz, and 

Don Seamon of Badger Mining Corp.; and Dick Seago, Mike Junkerman, Andy Perkins, 

Truman Chidsey, Chris Hipes, Bryan Moore, Jeff Black, Tim Watson, and Philip Phibbs 

of Vulcan Materials Co. 

The authors thank the many current and former researchers and technicians with 

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) who assisted with the 

implementation of the three ergonomics processes: Bridger Coal Co. Process - Kim C. 

Gavel, Launa Mallett, Fred Turin, Rich Unger, Charlie Vaught, and William Wiehagen; 

Badger Mining Corp. Process - Pauline Lewis and Sean Gallagher; and Vulcan Materials 

Co. Process - Kelly Baron and Susan Moore. 

Additionally, several NIOSH researchers participated in the development of the 

process implementation tools and training described in this document. We extend our 

appreciation to Jeff Welsh and Jonisha Pollard for assisting with the development of the 

Risk Factor Cards; Susan Moore for assisting with the development of the Hand Tool 

Checklist; Bill Porter for graphic modifications to the Risk Factor Checklist and 

Ergonomics Observations Form; E. William Rossi for graphic support in developing 

posters and stickers; and Al Cook, Tim Matty, and Mary Ellen Nelson for their assistance 

in the design, fabrication, and testing of interventions. 
 

 

ERGONOMICS PROCESSES: 

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE AND TOOLS 

FOR THE MINING INDUSTRY 

By Janet Torma-Krajewski, Ph.D.,1

 1Lead Research Scientist, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

 Lisa J. Steiner,2

2

Team Leader, Musculoskeletal Disorder Prevention Team, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, PA. 

and Robin Burgess-Limerick, Ph.D.3 

 3

Associate Professor in Occupational Biomechanics, School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

Abstract 

Research has shown that an ergonomics process that identifies risk factors, 

devises solutions to reduce musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), and evaluates the 

effectiveness of the solutions can lower worker exposure to risk factors and MSDs and 

improve productivity. A review of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 

injury/illness database indicated that 46% of illnesses in 2004 were associated with 

repetitive trauma and 35% of nonfatal lost days involved material handling during 2001– 

2004. Even though these statistics show that MSDs significantly contribute to 

occupational illnesses and injuries in the U.S. mining industry, few mining companies 

have implemented an ergonomics process. Despite the many unique challenges in the 

mining environment, three mining companies partnered with the MSD Prevention Team 

at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s Pittsburgh Research 

Laboratory to demonstrate that an ergonomics process could be systematically 

implemented and effectively integrated with existing safety and health programs. 

Because these three mining companies were very different in organization, culture, and 

size, the ergonomics processes had to be modified to meet the needs of each company. 

A description of how these three companies applied ergonomics and the tools and 

training used to implement their processes is given. Prior to discussing the case studies, 

general information on the elements of an ergonomics process is provided. 
YELLOW INSERT 

SHEET 
 

Section I 

Introduction: Ergonomics and Risk Management 

Ergonomics is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions 

among people and other elements of a system to optimize their well-being and overall system 

performance [IEA 2008]. This is generally accomplished by applying ergonomic principles to 

the design and evaluation of manual tasks,1

 1Manual tasks are tasks that involve lifting, pushing, pulling, carrying, moving, manipulating, holding, pounding, 

or restraining a person, animal, or item. 

 jobs, products, environments, and systems, ensuring 

that they meet the needs, capabilities, and limitations of people. When integrated with safety and 

health programs, ergonomics can be viewed as a third leg of a three-pronged risk management 

approach to reduce musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) rates. Safety focuses on hazards that may 

result in traumatic injuries, industrial hygiene concentrates on hazards that may cause 

occupational disease, and ergonomics addresses risk factors that may result in MSDs and other 

conditions, such as vibration-related illnesses. By applying ergonomic principles to the 

workplace with a systematic process, risk factor exposures are reduced or eliminated. Employees 

can then work within their abilities and are more efficient at performing and completing tasks. 

The benefits of applying ergonomic principles are not only reduced MSD rates, but also 

improved productivity and quality of life for workers. 

The purpose of this document is to provide information on implementing a successful 

ergonomics process that is part of the organizational culture. Section I describes the basic 

elements of the process and then discusses the importance of employee participation in the 

implementation of the process. Also included in this section is information on the evolution of 

risk management as it applies to an ergonomics process. A model developed for safety and health 

risk management defines five stages, ranging from a pathological stage to a generative stage— 

from a stage that attributes safety problems to employees to one that involves all employees in 

risk management at multiple levels with the goal of promoting the well-being of employees. 

Section II describes how three mining companies implemented ergonomics processes, including 

lessons learned. Interventions implemented by the mining companies are presented in Section III, 

along with information on changes to discomfort levels at one of the companies. Section IV 

describes various tools used when implementing the processes, while Section V focuses on 

1
 
training, including a presentation for management that promotes the value of ergonomics 

processes. The tools presented in Section IV and the management presentation contained in 

Section V are provided as electronic files on the CD included with this document. 

Basic Elements of Ergonomics Risk Management Processes 

Successful ergonomics risk management processes have several elements in common. 

The process starts with establishing an understanding of the task and interactions that occur 

between the worker and equipment, tools, work station used to complete the task, and work 

area/environment in which the task is conducted. Managing risks associated with manual tasks 

requires identifying risk factor exposures. If the exposures cannot be eliminated, the degree and 

source of risk requires assessment. Potential controls or interventions are then identified, 

evaluated, and implemented to reduce the risk as far as reasonably practical. 

The ultimate aim of an ergonomics risk management process is 

to ensure that all tasks performed in workplaces can be 

performed with dynamic and varied movements of all body 

regions with low to moderate levels of force, comfortable and 

varied postures, no exposure to whole-body or hand-arm 

vibration, and breaks taken at appropriate intervals to allow 

adequate recovery. 

Element 1: Identifying Risk Factor Exposures During Manual Tasks 

Identification of risk factor exposures should include consultation with employees, 

observation of manual tasks, and/or review of workplace records. Employees should be asked 

what they think is the most physical part of their job or what task is the hardest to do. Conditions 

that could potentially indicate risk factor exposures include the following: 

2
 
 

•	 An MSD was associated with performance of the task. 

•	 Any employee is physically incapable of performing the task. 

•	 The task can only be done for a short time before stopping. 

•	 The mass of any object being handled exceeds 35 pounds. 

•	 The postures adopted to perform the task involve substantial deviations from neutral, 

such as reaching above shoulders, to the side, or over barriers; stooping; kneeling; or 

looking over shoulder. 

•	 The task involves static postures held for longer than 30 seconds and is performed for 

more than 30 minutes without a break or for more than 2 hours per shift. 

•	 The task involves repetitive movements of any body part and is performed for more 

than 30 minutes without a break or for more than 2 hours per shift. 

•	 The task is performed for more than 60 minutes at a time without a break. 

•	 The task is performed for longer than 4 hours per shift. 

•	 Any employee reports discomfort associated with the manual task. 

•	 An employee is observed having difficulty performing the manual task. 

•	 Employees have improvised controls for the task (e.g., phone books for footstools, 

use of furniture other than that provided for the task). 

•	 The task has a high error rate. 

•	 Workers doing this task have a higher turnover, or rate of sick leave, than elsewhere 

in the organization. 

•	 Exposure to whole-body vibration (vehicles) or arm-hand vibration (power tools) 

exceeds 2 hours per shift. 

NOTE: The conditions listed above were compiled by the authors based on their professional 

knowledge and from various sources, such as the Washington State Hazard and Caution Zone 

Checklists [Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 2008a,b] and limits used for medical 

restrictions and other guidelines. These conditions alone do not necessarily indicate a risk factor 

exposure, nor do they indicate a boundary between safe and unsafe conditions. Rather, they must be 

evaluated in terms of the worker and all aspects of the task: methods or work practices, equipment, 

tools, work station, environment, duration, and frequency. 

3
 
If after adequate consultation, observation, and review of records, none of the above 

conditions is met for any manual tasks in a workplace, then it is reasonable to conclude that the 

manual tasks are likely to constitute a low MSD risk. For each manual task that has been 

identified as requiring assessment (one or more of the above conditions is identified), it is 

sensible to ask whether the task can be easily eliminated. If the manual task can be eliminated, 

and this is done, then there is no need for an analysis. Reassessment should be conducted 

whenever there is a change in equipment or work processes. Any new MSD or report of 

discomfort that is associated with any manual task should trigger either elimination of the task or 

a risk assessment. 

Element 2: Assessing MSD Risks for Manual Tasks 

If risk factor exposures exist that cannot be eliminated, the next step is to assess the risks. 

The aim of the risk assessment is to assist the risk control process by providing information 

about the root causes and severity of the risk. The assessment should be undertaken with the 

involvement of the workers who perform the tasks. The assessment of exposures is complicated 

by the number of exposures that contribute to determining the MSD risk and by the interactions 

among the different risk factors. The risk assessment process is also complicated by the number 

of body parts that can be affected and by the variety of possible ways in which an MSD may 

occur. MSDs occur when the forces on a body tissue (muscle, tendon, ligament, and bone) are 

greater than the tissue can withstand. MSDs do not occur suddenly as a consequence of a single 

exposure to a force. They arise gradually as a consequence of repeated or long-duration exposure 

to lower levels of force. Even low levels of force can cause small amounts of damage to body 

tissues. This damage is normally repaired before an MSD occurs. However, if the rate of damage 

is greater than the rate at which repair can occur, an MSD may result. MSDs may also result 

from a combination of these mechanisms, e.g., a tissue that has been weakened by cumulative 

damage may be vulnerable to sudden injury at lower forces. Also, if a tissue has suffered a 

sudden injury, it may be more prone to an MSD-type injury during its recovery process. Manual 

task risk assessment needs to consider these possible mechanisms. MSDs associated with manual 

tasks can occur to a range of different parts of the body, and the injury risks associated with a 

task will vary for different body regions. Consequently, the degree of exposure to different risk 

4
 
factors must be assessed independently for different body regions. In addition to the forces 

involved, the risk of an MSD to a body part depends on the movements and postures involved, 

the duration of the exposure, and whether there is exposure to vibration. The risk assessment 

must address each of these risk factors and the interactions between them. 

The first step in assessing the risk of an MSD associated with a particular manual task is 

to determine the body regions of interest. This may be self-evident if the task has already been 

identified as causing MSDs or discomfort to a particular body part or parts. Alternatively, the 

risk assessment should consider the risk of an MSD to each of the following regions 

independently: lower limbs, back, neck/shoulder, and elbow/wrist/hand. MSDs are most likely to 

occur when significant exposure to multiple risk factors occurs. Primary risk factors include 

forceful exertions, awkward postures, static posture, repetition, and vibration. Combining these 

risk factors greatly increases the risk for developing an MSD. Each of these risk factors is 

described briefly below. 

Forceful Exertions 

An important factor in determining the likelihood of 

an MSD to a specific body part is how much force is 

involved. Historically, the mass of objects being handled 

has been the focus. However, the risk associated with a task 

depends on a number of other factors as well. For example, 

in lifting and lowering tasks, the force required by the back 

muscles can depend on the distance of the load from the 

body as well as the mass of the load. Similarly, if the task 

involves pushing or pulling a load, the force involved will 

depend on the frictional properties of the load and the
 

surface, along with the mass of the load. 

Other manual tasks may not involve the 

manipulation of any load, but high forces can still be 

required. If the force exerted by a body part is close to its maximum, the worker is exposed to a 

high risk of a sudden MSD, and urgent action is indicated. Even if the forces involved are not 

close to maximum, the task may pose a high risk of an MSD if the body part is also exposed to 

other risk factors. 

5
 
 

High-speed movements (hammering or throwing) are an indication of elevated risk, 

mostly because high speed implies high acceleration, which in turn implies high force, especially 

if the speed is achieved or stopped in a short time. Such “jerky” movements are an indication of 

initial high exertion of the body parts involved. This also includes rapid changes in the direction 

of movement. Another high-force situation occurs when impact force is applied by the hand to 

strike an object or surface. In this case, there is a high force applied to the hand by the object or 

surface being struck. 

The magnitude of the force relative to the capabilities of the body part is what is 

important in assessing MSD risks. For example, the small muscles of the hand and forearm may 

be injured by relatively small forces, especially if the task is executed at extremes of the range of 

movement at a joint. This also implies that the capability of the individual performing the work 

must be taken into consideration when assessing the MSD risk. Overexertion depends on the 

magnitude of the force relative to the capabilities of the structures. 

Awkward Postures 

The body postures used during a task 

influence the likelihood of an MSD in a number of 

ways. If joints are exposed to postures that involve 

range of movement near the extreme positions, the 

tissues around the joint are stretched and the risk of 

an MSD is increased. Ligaments, in particular, are 

stretched in extreme postures. If the exposure to 

extreme postures is prolonged, the ligaments do not immediately return to their resting length 

afterwards. Tissue compression may also occur with extreme postures. For example, extreme 

postures of the wrist increases the pressure within the carpal tunnel, resulting in compression of 

the median nerve as it passes through the carpal tunnel. 

The following list provides examples of awkward postures that may involve range of 

movement near extreme positions [Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

2008a,b; OSHA 1995]: 

• Neck flexion (bending neck forward greater than 30°) 

• Raising the elbow above the shoulder 

• Wrist flexion greater than 30° 

• Back flexion greater than 45° 

• Squatting 

6
 
Other joint postures are known to be associated with increased risk of discomfort and 

MSDs. These include: 

• Trunk rotation (twisting) 

• Trunk lateral flexion (bending to either side) 

• Trunk extension (leaning backward) 

• Neck rotation (turning head to either side) 

• Neck lateral flexion (bending neck to either side) 

• Neck extension (bending neck backwards) 

• Wrist extension (with palm facing downward bending the wrist upward) 

• Wrist ulnar deviation (with palm facing downward bending the wrist outward) 

• Forearm rotation (rotating the forearm or resisting rotation from a tool) 

• Kneeling 

There are other awkward postures that 

increase the risk of an MSD because of the 

orientation of the body with respect to gravity 

and do not necessarily involve extreme ranges 

of movement. These postures usually require 

the worker to support the weight of a body part. 

An example would be lying under a vehicle to 

complete a repair. When assessing postures, it is 

important to note that workers of different sizes may adopt very different postures to perform the 

same task. 

7
 

The force exertion of muscles is also influenced by the posture of the joints over which 

they cross. Muscles are generally weaker when they are shortened or lengthened. This effect will 

be greatest when the joints approach the extremes of the range of movement. Consequently, the 

optimal design of work aims to provide tasks that can be performed while maintaining neutral 

postures. The following are descriptions of neutral postures for different body parts [OSHA 2008; 

Warren and Morse 2008]: 
Head and neck	 Level or bent slightly forward, forwardfacing, balanced and in line with torso 

Hands, wrists, and forearms	 All are straight and in line 

Elbows Close to the body and bent 90° to 120° 

Shoulders Relaxed and upper arms hang normally at 

the side of the body 

Thighs and hips	 Parallel to the floor when sitting; 

perpendicular to the floor when standing 

Knees Same height as the hips with feet slightly 

forward when sitting; aligned with hips 

and ankles when standing 

Back Vertical or leaning back slightly with 

lumbar support when sitting; vertical with 

an S-curve when standing 

 

Static Posture 

The optimal design of work results in tasks that 

involve slow to moderately paced movements and varied 

patterns of movement. Little or no movement at a body 

part elevates the risk of discomfort and MSDs because 

the flow of blood through muscles to provide energy and 

remove waste depends on movement. Tasks that involve 

static postures quickly lead to discomfort, especially if 

combined with exposure to other risk factors. 

8
 
 

Repetition 

If the task involves repetitively performing similar patterns of movement, and especially 

if the cycle time of the repeated movement is short, then 

the same tissues are being loaded in the same way with 

little opportunity for recovery. Such repetitive tasks are 

likely to pose a high risk of cumulative injury, especially 

if combined with moderate to high forces (or speeds), 

awkward postures, and/or long durations. 

Vibration 

Exposure to vibration in manual tasks 

comprises two distinct types: hand-arm vibration 

(typically associated with power tools) and 

whole-body vibration (typically associated 

with vehicles). In both cases, the vibration 

exposure impacts MSD risk both directly and 

indirectly. 

Exposure of the upper limbs, and particularly the hands, to high-frequency vibration 

associated with power tools is a direct cause of damage to nerves and blood vessels. Short-term 

effects are temporary loss of sensation and control, and blanching of the fingers (vibration 

white finger syndrome). These effects may become irreversible with long-term exposure and lead 

to gangrene and loss of the affected fingers [NIOSH 1989]. Use of vibrating power tools is also 

an indirect cause of MSD risk to the upper limbs because the vibration increases the force 

required by the upper limbs to perform the task. The degree of risk increases with higheramplitude vibration tools (hammer drills or jackhammers). 

Similarly, long-term exposure to whole-body vibration (typically from vehicles) is 

associated with back pain [Bovenzi and Hulshof 1999; Lings and Leboeuf-Yde 2000; ACGIH 

2007a]. As well as a direct effect on the back, exposure to whole-body vibration also has an 

indirect influence on MSD risk by causing fatigue of the back muscles. Again, the risk is greater 

when the amplitude of vibration is high (heavy vehicles and/or rough terrain). 

9
 
Another important consideration is the duration of the exposure. If a task is performed 

continuously, without a break and for a long time, the tissues involved do not have opportunity 

for recovery, and the risk for a cumulative injury increases. Performing several tasks during a 

shift can provide recovery if the tasks involve different body parts and movement patterns. 

In general, a root cause is defined as a source of a problem. In terms of MSD risk factor 

exposures, it is important to determine why the exposure is occurring or to identify the root cause 

of the exposure. Root causes modify the degree of risk in two ways. Some root causes are 

characteristics of the work that commonly lead to increased exposure to the risk factors discussed 

previously. Modification of these root causes will likely reduce the MSD risk. Other root causes 

have an indirect influence on manual task MSD risk. Understanding the root causes of risk factor 

exposures can help determine the most effective means for reducing or eliminating the 

exposures. Examples of root causes include the following: 

Workplace or Work Station Layout 

•	 Working in confined spaces is likely to result in the necessity to adopt awkward 

postures to perform tasks. 

•	 Work stations with restricted visibility typically result in awkward and static 

postures, especially of the neck. 

•	 Work stations with inappropriate location of visual displays (usually too high or 

located to one side) cause awkward postures, especially of the neck. 

•	 Standing work leads to fatigue if undertaken for long durations. 

•	 Kneeling work causes high force on the knees. 

•	 Working below the height of the feet inevitably leads to extreme trunk postures. 

•	 Working overhead requires awkward and static postures of the shoulders. 

•	 Work stations that require reaching to handle objects create awkward postures. 

•	 Work surfaces that are too high or too low lead to awkward postures. 

•	 Locating objects to be handled below knee height results in trunk flexion. 

•	 Locating objects to be handled above shoulder height leads to working with the 

elbows above the shoulders. 

•	 Carrying loads for long distances results in fatigue. 

10
 
Objects, Equipment, and Tools 

•	 Any unpredictability, such as handling an object with uneven or shifting 

distribution of its mass, may lead to overexertion of muscles. 

•	 Handling heavy loads, even if they are not lifted, may require high force because 

of the inertia of the load. 

•	 Handling large loads, even if they are not heavy, may require high forces because 

of the distance of the center of the load from the body. 

•	 Objects that are hot, cold, or otherwise noxious may lead to the load being held 

away from the body, which increases stress on the lower back and shoulders. 

•	 Objects with handles may result in contact stress or decreased control of the 

object. 

•	 Poorly maintained tools (i.e., dull bits or blades) may increase the force required. 

•	 Using tools not appropriate to the task (too powerful or not powerful enough, too 

heavy, incorrect handle orientation, etc.) may lead to awkward postures and 

forceful exertions. 

•	 Handling loads with one hand results in only one side of the body supporting the 

load, which could lead to overexertion. 

•	 Triggers that require sustained force or are operated with a single finger may lead 

to fatigue and overexertion. 

•	 Gloves generally increase the force requirements of a task. 

Environmental Conditions 

•	 Low lighting levels or glare may cause awkward postures or prolonged squinting 

of the eyes. 

•	 Exposure to hot environments increases fatigue, especially for heavy work. 

•	 Exposure to cold, in addition to other risk factors, is implicated in the 

development of vibration white finger syndrome or hand-arm vibration syndrome, 

and carpal tunnel syndrome from increased hand forces generated as a result of 

wearing gloves and cold hands. 

11
 
•	 Uneven or poorly maintained surfaces can increase forces required to push/pull 

carts, the amplitude of whole-body vibration, or the likelihood of slips and falls. 

Work Organization and Systems 

Certain factors of work organization and systems may lead to fatigue and 

overexertion of muscle groups. In some cases, recovery times do not permit the worker to 

return to baseline values prior to returning to work. Examples of such factors include: 

•	 High work rates 

•	 Lack of task variety 

•	 Uneven temporal distribution of work causing high peak loads 

•	 Understaffing 

•	 Irregular or long shifts 

•	 Pay schemes that encourage working faster or longer 

Studies have shown that even when controlling for higher workloads, elevated 

rates of discomfort and/or MSDs still occurred because of the presence of other work 

organization and system factors not typically associated with discomfort or MSDs 

[Bernard 1997]. The physiological mechanism for this effect is not well understood. 

Addressing these factors in addition to implementing controls that reduce risk from 

higher workloads may increase success at reducing rates of discomfort or MSDs. 

These factors may include: 

•	 Job dissatisfaction 

•	 Perception of intensified workload 

•	 Lack of job control 

•	 Uncertainty about job expectations 

•	 Lack of opportunity for communication and personal contact 

•	 Cognitive overload, monotonous work, frequent deadlines, interpersonal 

conflict 

12
 
Element 3: Controlling MSD Risks During Manual Tasks 

There are several ways to reduce MSD risks that occur during the performance of manual 

tasks. From an ergonomics perspective, the emphasis is first on eliminating or reducing risk 

through design controls; secondly on administrative controls, such as job rotation or 

enlargement; and then on personal protective equipment (PPE). When risks cannot be eliminated 

with design controls, administrative controls and PPE may also be required to manage the 

residual risks. Regardless of which controls are chosen, training is an important aspect of the 

implementation to ensure that workers are aware of the appropriate way of performing work and 

using equipment. 

Elimination 

Having determined that manual tasks with risk factor exposures are performed in 

a workplace, the next step is to determine whether any or all of the manual tasks can be 

eliminated. If this is possible, it is the most effective way of reducing MSDs. Some 

manual tasks can be eliminated by examining the flow of materials and reducing double 

handling. Others may be eliminated by changing to bulk-handling systems. Outsourcing 

manual tasks may also be considered as a way of eliminating exposures to your workers 

if the organization undertaking the task has specialized equipment that reduces the risk 

for its workers to acceptable levels. It would not be appropriate to outsource manual tasks 

if the risk was not reduced. Some tasks, such as cleaning up waste, are nonproductive and 

may be eliminated or reduced by examining the source of the waste. 

Design Controls 

If, after the possibilities have been examined, it is determined that some 

hazardous manual tasks cannot practicably be eliminated, and the risks associated with 

these tasks have been assessed, the next step is to devise design controls that will reduce 

the MSD risks. This step is most effectively undertaken in consultation with all workers 

who will be affected by the change, including maintenance as well as operational staff. 

Apart from the fact that workers are the ones who know most about the tasks, the 

probability of success of the design changes is enhanced if the workers concerned have a 

13
 
sense of ownership of the changes. Before implementing the design controls, it is also 

important to consider whether new hazards will be introduced as a consequence of the 

control. 

Considering the following aspects of the work area and task is a useful way of 

thinking about possible design controls: 

Work Areas: Work Height, Space, Reach Distances, Work Flow, 

Adjustability 

The design of work areas has a large impact on MSD risks. For example, 

limited space, limited clearances, and restricted access to work are common 

causes of awkward postures. Work should be located at an appropriate height and 

close to the body. Providing adjustability of work stations may be an option to 

accommodate workers of different sizes. Workplaces should be designed to 

increase postural variability during work. 

Loads: Size, Shape, Weight, Stability, Location, Height 

The nature of loads that are delivered to a workplace, handled within a 

workplace, or produced by a workplace are a common source of risk factor 

exposures when performing manual tasks. Increasing the size and mass of loads 

and implementing mechanized bulk-handling systems are effective design 

controls. Reducing the size and weight of loads is another option, but may require 

training and ongoing supervision to ensure that multiple loads are not handled 

simultaneously to increase speed. Ensuring loads are easily gripped by providing 

or incorporating handles is important. Hot or cold loads should be insulated, or 

proper protective clothing should be provided to allow the loads to be comfortably 

held close to the body. Where loads are manually handled, they should be stored 

at waist height rather than on the floor or above shoulder height. 

Tools: Size, Weight, Handles, Grips, Trigger, Vibration 

Poorly designed handtools are a common source of awkward postures, 

high exertion (particularly of the small muscles of the hand and arm), and hand14
 
arm vibration. Handtools should be designed such that joint postures remain close 

to neutral during use and should be as light as possible. Heavy tools may be 

supported by a counterbalance to reduce exertion. While power tools reduce 

exertion, the vibration associated with power tools introduces a new risk, and 

tools and consumables should be chosen to minimize the amplitude of the 

vibration as far as possible. Tools also need to be maintained (e.g., keep blades 

and bits sharp) to minimize vibration levels. 

Mechanical Aids: Hoists, Overhead Cranes, Vacuum Lifters, Trolleys, 

Conveyers, Turntables, Monorails, Adjustable Height Pallets, Forklifts, 

Pallet Movers 

A large number of different mechanical aids are available to reduce risk 

factor exposures, and these can be effective controls. However, care is required to 

ensure that the use of the aid does not significantly increase work performance 

time. If it does, the likelihood that the control will be effective is reduced because 

administrative controls and ongoing supervision will be required to ensure use. 

Introducing mechanical equipment, such as forklifts, also introduces new risks 

that require control. For example, using forklifts requires that traffic patterns be 

established and visual obstructions be eliminated. 

The design of mechanical aids requires careful consideration. For 

example, cart wheels should be as large as possible to reduce resistance (getting 

stuck in cracks), and vertical handles should be provided that allow the cart to be 

gripped at different heights by different sized workers. Where mechanical aids are 

introduced to control manual tasks risks, it is important to ensure that they are 

maintained in working order and are available when and where required. 

Further information on mechanical aids can be found in Ergonomic 

Guidelines for Manual Material Handling [NIOSH et al. 2007]. 

15
 
 Administrative Controls 

For situations where there are no effective design controls or the design controls 

that are implemented do not fully address the exposures, it may also be necessary to 

consider additional administrative controls. Administrative controls rely on human 

behavior and supervision and, on their own, are not an effective way of controlling 

manual task MSD risk. Administrative controls include the following: 

Maintenance 

Maintenance of tools, equipment, and mechanical aids is crucial, but 

requires a schedule to be developed and supervision to ensure that it occurs. 

Following a regular schedule of preventive maintenance not only impacts 

productivity, but can also reduce exposures to risk factors. For example, 

preventive maintenance for mobile equipment can avoid major repair tasks that 

usually involve exposures to several risk factors, such as excessive force, 

awkward postures, and vibration. Another aspect of maintenance is good 

housekeeping. 

Workload 

MSD risk associated with manual tasks may be reduced by reducing shift 

duration or the pace of work. It may be possible to change the distribution of work 

across the workday or week to avoid high peak workloads. Ensuring that 

appropriate staffing levels are maintained is important. Provision of adequate rest 

breaks can reduce MSD risks. 

Job Rotation and Task Variety 

It may be possible to reduce MSD risks by rotating staff between different 

tasks to increase task variety. This requires that the tasks are sufficiently different 

to ensure that different body parts are loaded in different ways. Alternatively, 

multiple tasks might be combined to increase task variety. 

16
 Team Lifting 

Team lifting may be effective in reducing injury risk where the load is 

bulky, but relatively light. However, if the load is not “heavy enough,” an 

employee may try to handle the load individually, especially if there are not many 

other employees in the area. If team lifting is used as a control, training and 

supervision are required to ensure that the task is only done when appropriate 

staff are available to perform the task. 

Personal Protective Equipment 

Some forms of PPE may be effective in reducing risk factor exposures. However, 

PPE only serves as a barrier, and the protection provided depends on the effectiveness of 

the barrier. Consequently, PPE should only be used when risk factor exposures cannot be 

eliminated or effectively reduced with design controls, or design controls are not 

economically feasible. PPE may also be considered as an interim control when design 

controls cannot be implemented in a timely manner. Kneepads, protective aprons, cooling 

garments, and antivibration gloves are examples of PPE. 

Element 4: Monitor and Review 

Managing manual task risk is an iterative “continuous improvement” process. Following 

implementation of any control measure, it is important to check that the controls are working as 

anticipated and that new risks have not been introduced. It is important to evaluate the effects on 

not just the workers directly involved with the change, but also other workers and processes that 

may be affected. Although this element is critical to successful processes, it is sometimes ignored 

or forgotten as the next issue or problem that arises usually needs the same resources to resolve. 

Element 5: Record-Keeping 

Keeping records of the steps taken in the risk management process is important for 

several reasons. It will ensure that an effective risk management process is in place by 

documenting the changes in risk factor exposures and MSD incident/severity rates. It provides a 

way of tracking the improvements made, maintaining the corporate memory of the reasons that 

changes were made, and allows for justification of future changes. Documenting controls or task 

17
improvements also allows this information to be shared so that similar tasks at other sites may 

also be improved using the same or similar controls. 

Participatory Ergonomics 

 “Participative ergonomics” is based on an underlying assumption that the workers 

involved are the “experts” and must be involved at each stage of the risk management process if 

it is to be successful. In an MSD management context, employees and management participate 

jointly in hazard identification, risk assessment, risk control, and evaluation of the risk 

management process. 

Many variations in the models and techniques used in participative ergonomics have been 

developed [Haines and Wilson 1998; Haims and Carayon 1998; Laing et al., 2005; BurgessLimerick et al. 2007]. However, a common element is to ensure the use of expert knowledge that 

workers have of their own tasks by involving the workers in improving their workplaces. 

Management commitment and provision of resources including a champion to promote the 

process, workers’ and management understanding of relevant ergonomics concepts and 

techniques, and a process to efficiently develop and implement suggested controls are also 

important components of successful participative ergonomics interventions. 

Using participative ergonomics to address MSDs associated with manual tasks usually 

entails an ergonomics team, which includes workers as team members. This team must be 

knowledgeable about the risk management process, have the skills and tools required to assess 

manual task risks, understand the risk control hierarchy, and have knowledge of general 

principles of control strategies for eliminating and controlling manual task risks. Implementing 

an effective ergonomics risk management process also requires that all employees be able to 

identify risk factor exposures associated with manual tasks and be aware of the aspects of 

manual tasks that increase MSD risks. Having this awareness allows employees to consider ways 

to improve their jobs and ultimately reduce risk factor exposures. Training in risk assessment and 

control strategies ensures successful participation of workers in an ergonomics risk management 

process. Training team members to acquire these skills and work within a risk management 

process is a key concern. Team members identify risk factor exposures associated with their 

work and follow a risk assessment process that develops control suggestions. The team members 

18
 
plan the implementation of key controls and are subsequently shown how to evaluate those 

controls. Management commitment and effective risk management systems are required in order 

for the approach to be effective. Access to external ergonomics expert assistance may be 

necessary for particularly difficult or complex problems. It is also important to note that 

ergonomics is equally concerned with improving productivity and reducing waste, as well as 

reducing injury risks [Dul 2003]. This is crucial because any work modification that is 

implemented to reduce MSD risk should be easier, quicker, or more efficient than the previous 

methods of work. If not, the chance of acceptance and adherence to the new methods is markedly 

reduced, and ongoing supervision will be required to ensure compliance. 

Evolution of Risk Management Processes 

A risk management model, originally developed by Westrum [1991] and Westrum and 

Adamski [1999] and later broadened by Hudson [2003], describes the evolution of risk 

management strategies and the progression as a company moves from a pathological to a 

generative stage with regard to how risk is managed (Figure 1). At one end of the spectrum, the 

pathological stage can be thought of as the stage in which safety problems are attributable to the 

workers. The main driving force is the business and not getting caught by regulators. The 

reactive stage is the point where companies consider safety seriously, but only intervene 

following the occurrence of accidents. At the calculative stage, safety is driven by management 

systems; it is still imposed by management and not sought by the workforce. In the proactive 

stage, the workforce is becoming increasingly active in risk management. Finally, in a generative 

stage, everyone is involved in risk management and tries to maintain the well-being of 

themselves as well as their coworkers. 

19
 
 Figure 1.—Evolution of health, safety, and environment risk management process 

[Hudson 2003]. 

 

This risk management hierarchy may be applied to an ergonomics risk management 

process where the company and the workforce integrate ergonomics principles into their risk 

management process. In this case, the approach follows the same path but with a focus on 

eliminating MSDs. 

Pathological Stage: Workers and companies are unaware of how MSDs occur and let 

workers look out for themselves. Employees may have the signs and symptoms of an 

impending MSD, but no changes are made to the workplace. No formal job safety 

analysis techniques are used, and productivity is the primary focus. 

Reactive Stage: Analysis of the incident is after the report of an MSD or several MSDs, 

and the solution or correction is often individualistic. Others doing similar jobs may or 

may not be considered as it is thought to be one particular employee’s problem. For 

MSD-related issues, often the workers believe that aches and pains are just part of their 

jobs or the aging process. They do not know that these recurring aches and pains are 

precursors to cumulative injuries and that these injuries can be prevented through 

planning of jobs, work environment, and equipment purchasing. 

20
 
Calculative Stage: At this stage, companies may accuse workers of being “hurt at home” 

or by “their hobbies” rather than by their work environment or by poor work task design 

or planning. Some management may use some outside training for proper lifting 

techniques or purchase “ergonomically designed” PPE or equipment to resolve issues. In 

some cases, the company may fix very specific problems successfully through training 

and procedural approaches. These interventions have a positive impact on the situation, 

but the more global philosophy of prevention is not adopted. In addition, there is no 

formal followup to see if the problem was resolved or if any other problems have 

resulted. In this stage, management may be aware of the cumulative injury process, but 

employees are not. Safety is still in the hands of management and not pushed down to the 

employee level. Management believes that the system in place works well to address 

issues brought to their attention. 

Proactive Stage: Employees are educated about ergonomics principles, cumulative 

injury progression, and techniques to identify and reduce risk factors associated with 

MSDs. Management relies on employees to bring issues to them and to resolve them 

together. Management may also seek to provide periodic observations of all tasks or 

establish a wellness or fit-for-duty program. Ergonomic principles are used when 

evaluating and redesigning jobs. Management and workers are not waiting for MSDs to 

occur, but rather are looking for exposures to indicators (risk factors) that point to a 

potential MSD and then reduce or eliminate that exposure. In some cases, a consultant in 

ergonomics may be hired or an ergonomics committee formed. Focusing on risk factor 

exposures and reports of MSDs investigates why (root causes) such situations are 

occurring instead of what or when. The company takes responsibility for employees’ 

health during and outside of work and places less blame on the employee. Job safety 

analysis techniques include the evaluation of risk factors at each step in the standard 

operating procedures to ensure that they are considered. Finally, a procedure is put in 

place to conduct followup that ensures the solutions worked and to investigate other 

emerging issues. Anecdotally, workers appreciate these analyses and believe it is in their 

own interest and not just the company’s interest. Most solutions are off-the-shelf, and 

lessons learned are communicated throughout the mine and even company-wide. Still, the 

21
 
value (cost/benefit) of these interventions may not be fully understood and consequently 

may be underreported. 

Generative Stage: There is anticipation of issues with regard to old and new processes 

and equipment. The ergonomic principles are integrated into the designing and planning 

processes. This integration occurs in the beginning and is understood to be as important 

as other engineering and purchasing decisions. Employees are trusted to make decisions 

about their jobs and recognize situations where changes need to be made. At this point, 

the employees are empowered with resources to make changes and inform management 

of needs. Investigation of risk factors, signs, and symptoms of MSDs is driven by an 

understanding of their root causes. The solutions are cost-effective and creative, and 

followups are done automatically. A database of all reported issues and changes to the 

workplace and equipment is available to the entire company and serves as an 

informational base from which to make the best purchasing and planning decisions. 

Safety is in the hands of educated employees. The cost of MSDs or cumulative injuries is 

reduced and profits are increased, the workforce returns home healthy, operating 

procedures include ergonomic principles, better habits are passed on to new recruits, and 

management and employees together see the overall interaction of systems and people. 

Less time is spent on addressing health and safety issues because they are under control 

and are the responsibility of all parties. 

There are many characteristics of these stages not addressed here. However, the above is 

a summary of what a company might expect as it moves toward a more generative risk 

management approach. A company can use these descriptions to measure where they are and 

how to get to where they want to be [Shell International 2003]. The first step to achieving 

generative status is to understand what information is needed and how to educate employees to 

help themselves and their coworkers. 

22
 
YELLOW INSERT 

SHEET 
Section II 

Ergonomics Processes: Case Studies 

Mining is often characterized by physically demanding tasks performed under dynamic 

conditions, which creates greater challenges for applying ergonomic principles [Steiner et al. 

1999; Scharf et al. 2001]. To demonstrate the efficacy of applying ergonomic principles in 

mining environments, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

partnered during 2000–2007 with three mining companies, different in size, organizational 

structure, and culture. Descriptive information about each company is provided in Table 1. 

Table 1.—Demographic information for the three mining companies that partnered 

with NIOSH to implement ergonomics processes at their mines 

Mining company 

Bridger Badger Vulcan 

Company size 1 mine 2 mines 372 facilities (175 mines) 

Location Wyoming Wisconsin 21 states 

Type of mine Surface Surface Surface 

Commodity Coal Sandstone Gravel 

Mining process Drill-blast-dragline/dozer- Drill-blast-load-haul and Drill-blast-load-haul 

drill-blast-load-haul sand-water slurry pumped 

to processing plant 

No. of employees 350 180 8,000 plus – usually fewer 

than 50 employees at each 

pilot site 

Unionized Western Energy Workers No No 

workforce? Union 

Safety program Safety Department and Safety Team Safety, Health, and 

Safety Committee Environmental (SHE) Team 

and division- and 

corporate-level support 

Behavior-based No Yes No 

Safety System 

All three companies embraced the process elements described in Section I and identified 

by Cohen et al. [1997], but how these elements were addressed varied. This section illustrates 

how the three mining companies applied ergonomic principles and adapted the implementation 

1 
process to meet their organizational and cultural needs. Tools and training used during the 

implementation of these processes are described in later sections. 

Bridger Coal Co. 

The first mine that NIOSH worked with was the Jim Bridger Mine, a surface coal mine 

located 35 miles northeast of Rock Springs, Sweetwater County, WY. This mine had one active 

pit approximately 20 miles long and an average production rate of 6.4 million tons of coal per 

year during 1995–2000. The workforce comprised 350 employees. The mine was operated by the 

Bridger Coal Co., a PacifiCorp company and subsidiary of Scottish Power. 

For 5 years prior to this project, the average incidence rate for nonfatal days lost (NFDL) 

injuries at the Jim Bridger Mine was 1.32 injuries per 100 employees, compared to the national 

average of 2.34 for all mines and 1.31 for all western U.S. surface coal mines with more than 100 

employees. Although the mine’s average incidence rate was well below the national average and 

injuries related to MSD risk factors did not seem to be a major issue, Bridger Coal Co. 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. 

The Jim Bridger Mine has a very traditional approach to safety and health. This program 

is managed by a Safety Department and supported by a Safety Committee, with members from 

several other departments, such as production, maintenance, medical and engineering. 

Employees were empowered to identify hazards and to request corrective action through their 

supervisors and/or the Safety Department. 

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 Committee. This approach allowed Bridger to commit 

resources specific to ergonomic interventions. The committee, chaired by an Ergonomics 

Coordinator who reported to the Safety Manager, included 11 representatives from labor and 

management. Specific departments represented were medical, engineering/environmental, safety, 

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

committee activities and resource needs through the Ergonomics Coordinator and Safety 

2
 
Manager, who reported to the Mine Manager. The union was kept abreast of committee actions 

by union representatives appointed to the committee. The Ergonomics Coordinator and Safety 

Manager served as champions for the process and ensured that the process moved forward. 

Since the Bridger Coal Co. decided to implement its ergonomics process separate but 

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

procedure for processing concerns. The committee designed two forms for employees to 

complete to present concerns for followup: an “Employee Ergonomic Concern” form and a 

“Risk Factor Report Card.” The Employee Ergonomic Concern form requested specific 

information about equipment and work area, the nature of the concern, and whether the concern 

was acute or cumulative in nature. The Report Card was a 4- by 6-inch card that gave employees 

a mechanism to also identify potential risk factors and affected body parts, and note any 

comments and/or suggestions. Employees could complete either form, or both. The committee 

encouraged completing both forms since different information was collected by each form. 

The steps followed by the Ergonomics Committee for processing a concern are shown in 

Figure 2. The concern is screened by the committee chairperson to determine if the problem 

involves exposure to MSD risk factors and if the exposure could be easily controlled without 

involvement of the committee. If the exposure cannot be resolved immediately, the concern is 

discussed at the next meeting and then assigned to a committee member for further review, 

which includes discussions with the employee submitting the concern. Subcommittees 

investigating concerns usually involve employees directly affected by the concern. When a 

concern is not considered viable or an intervention is not possible, the concern is reviewed again 

later as additional information or options, such as new technology, become available to resolve 

the concern. Concerns and the status of the concerns are maintained in an electronic spreadsheet. 

One of the first actions taken to move the ergonomics process forward was to help the 

committee gain an understanding of ergonomics. The committee received training on the 

principles of ergonomics, risk factor identification, job prioritization, intervention 

recommendations, and cost/benefit analysis. During followup training sessions, the committee 

received instructions on using tools to document interventions, task analyses, and interviews; 

conducting interviews; videotaping/photographing tasks; and prioritizing interventions. This 

training, which was conducted by NIOSH personnel, was a combination of classroom instruction 

3
 
and field exercises so members could gain experience in conducting task analyses and 

identifying risk factors. 

Figure 2.—Flow diagram of Bridger Coal’s ergonomics process. 

Once the Ergonomics Committee was trained and had developed the procedure for 

processing concerns, employees were given training that focused on recognizing ergonomic risk 

factors and taking action by reporting risk factors to the Ergonomics Committee. Employees 

were told to be proactive and to target risk factors and not wait until an injury occurred. The 

employees were given information on how a cumulative trauma disorder may develop and how it 

4
 
is better to take action by eliminating risk factors before a disorder occurs. 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. A second version of the training 

focused on office ergonomics and was given to administrative support employees. This 90-

minute training was presented by NIOSH personnel and committee members, who introduced 

the training and then ended the training by encouraging employees to get involved in the process. 

Approximately 280 employees were trained during 21 sessions. For the most part, the training 

was well received by the employees. They participated in the interactive exercises and seemed 

quite knowledgeable about identifying risk factors at the conclusion of the training. In fact, 27 

employees submitted Risk Factor Report Cards to the Ergonomics Committee immediately 

following the training. 

A simple record-keeping system was used for the ergonomics process. A listing of 

concerns was maintained in an electronic spreadsheet that included all the information provided 

on the Risk Factor Report Card. Additionally, each concern was color coded to document the 

status of the concern. Concerns were labeled as either completed, in progress, items referred 

elsewhere or dismissed, or items on hold. The committee also maintained a status/update 

document that allowed employees to monitor the status of their concerns. This document, posted 

on the ergonomics bulletin board, provided a short description of the concern and the current 

status of the intervention. If a concern was referred elsewhere or dismissed, the basis for this 

decision was provided. 

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

the committee. NIOSH periodically provided posters to display on the 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 posters encouraged participation in the 

process and promoted interventions. 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 served as recognition 

5
 
not only to committee members, but also to those employees submitting concerns for actively 

participating in the process. 

The training provided to the committee members and the employees permitted Bridger 

Coal initially to have a proactive approach to resolving risk factor exposures before an injury or 

illness occurred. Additionally, employees actively participated in improving their own job tasks. 

As the process matured, ergonomic principles were applied to other processes, such as 

equipment purchasing decisions, which moved the ergonomics process to an even higher level of 

risk management. Because purchase specifications ensured that ergonomic principles were 

addressed during the construction of the equipment, the equipment arrived at the mine without 

issues related to risk factor exposures. In just 3 years, the Bridger Coal Co. implemented an 

effective, proactive process to reduce exposure to MSD risk factors. Instead of waiting for an 

injury to occur, Bridger Coal relies on an employee-based participative process to implement job 

improvements that promote the well-being and comfort of its employees and to incorporate 

ergonomics into many other processes affecting employee safety and health. 

“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 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 Process Coordinator 

Bridger Coal Co. 

6
 
Badger Mining Corp. 

Badger Mining Corp. is a family-owned small business with headquarters in Berlin, WI. 

Badger operates two sandstone mines near Fairwater and Taylor, WI, which produce 

approximately 2 million tons of industrial silica sand annually. Badger also owns three 

subsidiary companies, one of which participated in the ergonomics process. This subsidiary 

(LogicHaul) is located at the Fairwater Mine and is responsible for transportation and 

distribution of products via trucks and railcars. There are 180 employees at the Resource Center 

(headquarters offices), Fairwater, Taylor, and LogicHaul. 

During 2002–2004, the average NFDL injury incidence rate reported to the Mine Safety 

and Health Administration was 3.28 injuries per 100 employees for the Taylor Mine. The 

Fairwater Mine had no NFDL injuries during this period. The national average NFDL injury 

incidence rate for similar type mines (surface mines that mine the same type of commodity) was 

2.15. A review of both NFDL and no days lost (NDL) or restricted workday cases occurring 

during 2003–2004 at both sites indicated that 79% of the NFDL injuries (61 of 77) and 85% of 

the NDL injuries (92 of 108) were associated with MSDs. 

Organizationally, Badger uses a team management structure consisting of work teams 

and cross-functional teams that are responsible for setting the work schedule, changing work 

practices, and providing feedback to the Operations Team. Members of work teams are crosstrained and may perform many disparate tasks. Work teams are self-directed and are responsible 

for the safety of their members. Badger associates complete CARE (Corrective Action Request 

for Evaluation) reports for all safety incidents, including accidents, injuries, property damage, 

near-misses, and hazard exposures. Cross-functional teams address functions pertinent to many 

teams, such as safety and quality. Each site has a separate Safety Team, which processes the 

CARE reports and addresses safety-related issues that cannot be resolved by the work teams. 

Because the mining processes and products are different at the two mines, the members of the 

two Safety Teams differ slightly. The Fairwater Safety Team includes 25 members and 

represents 16 work teams; the Taylor Safety Team includes 28 members and represents 15 work 

teams. The Safety Associate, a headquarters employee, also serves as a member of the Safety 

Teams at both mines. The Safety Associate functions as a consultant to the mines and provides 

training, offers motivational programs, conducts investigations, and implements Badger’s 

7
 
behavior-based safety (BBS) system, which was initiated in December 2002. BBS observers 

have been trained to conduct random, periodic observations of employees to identify both safe 

and unsafe behaviors and to correct unsafe behaviors. Safety observations are documented using 

a “Do It Safely” form and are conducted at both mines and the Resource Center. 

When integrated with safety and health programs, ergonomics can be viewed as an 

approach to improve injury and illness rates and the overall working conditions for employees by 

addressing risk factor exposures that may occur during manual tasks. These exposures are most 

often associated with MSDs, but may also result in other disorders and illnesses, such as heat 

stress disorders or vibration-related illnesses. Because Badger decided to fully integrate the 

application of ergonomic principles with its existing safety program, ergonomic concerns are 

addressed using the same process as any other safety and health concern (see Figure 3). Actions 

to address these concerns are initiated by either a CARE report or a BBS ergonomic observation, 

which are reviewed by the Safety Team. If the risk factor exposure(s) can be addressed by this 

team, then no further action is needed. However, if the cost of the corrective action exceeds the 

limits set for the Safety Team, then the concern is transferred to the Operations Team. Since the 

Safety Team includes members of the Operations Team, this transfer is seamless. The champion 

for the Badger ergonomics process is the Safety Associate. 

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

by training all employees in February 2005. The training, which lasted 2.5 hours, was given by 

NIOSH. It emphasized identifying risk factor exposures and then reporting those exposures using 

a CARE report so that corrective actions could be instituted to resolve the exposures. This 

training also included a brief introduction to ergonomics and MSDs, with specific information on 

back injuries and how the risk of injury could change based on methods used to perform lifting 

tasks. Examples of risk factor exposures were illustrated with short videos of tasks performed at 

either Badger mine. Training techniques included interactive exercises and demonstrations. To 

ensure the participation of new associates in the ergonomics process, Badger provides 

ergonomics and risk factor awareness training during new associate orientation, and to keep 

associates involved in the ergonomics process, interactive exercises demonstrating ergonomics 

principles are included in annual refresher training. 

8
 
Figure 3.—Flow diagram of Badger company task improvement process. 

Because Badger uses a BBS system as part of its overall safety and health program, it 

was decided to also incorporate ergonomic observations into this system for the purpose of 

identifying and eliminating exposures to risk factors. The primary focus of a BBS system is to 

decrease injury rates by preventing unsafe behaviors, which is accomplished by implementing a 

systematic process of data collection and correction of unsafe behaviors [Krause 2002]. SulzerAzaroff and Austin [2000], who examined articles describing the results of implementing BBS 

systems, reported that 32 of 33 BBS systems reviewed resulted in injury reductions. However, 

9
 
none of these systems reported results specific to MSDs. Although the top three U.S. automakers 

do not integrate their ergonomics processes with their BBS systems, other automotive 

companies—Toyota and Tenneco Automotive—have done so. In these two companies, BBS 

systems were used to identify musculoskeletal problems and direct potential solutions, similar to 

the Badger approach [Knapschaefer 1999]. 

Although ergonomics was initially included in the Badger BBS system to determine 

whether a hazard was present or not, the information gathered during observations was not 

sufficient to either identify specific risk factor exposures or control exposures not related to 

unsafe behaviors. For example, a person may use an awkward posture to do a task not because of 

an unsafe behavior but because the layout of the work station forces the worker to use an 

awkward posture. Typically, the observation of an unsafe behavior would result in training the 

worker not to use an awkward posture. However, because the awkward posture is a result of the 

work station layout and not a choice of method/behavior, further efforts are needed to resolve the 

risk factor exposures. In other words, observers require information for modifying tasks, 

equipment, tools, work stations, environments, and methods to eliminate exposures or use a 

hierarchical approach to control exposures (engineering controls, administrative controls, and 

PPE), with engineering controls being the preferred control measure [Chengalur et al. 2004]. 

Consequently, it was necessary to provide BBS observers with training not only in identifying 

specific risk factor exposures, but also in how to eliminate or control these exposures. 

Training was provided to the BBS observers at both the Fairwater and Taylor Mines in 

July 2005 that focused on identifying risk factor exposures and presented simple ways to reduce 

or eliminate exposures associated with manual material handling. The training followed the 

observation process used by the observers to conduct safety observations and included roleplaying exercises to allow the observers to be comfortable when doing ergonomic observations. 

To document risk factor exposures, an Ergonomic Observation Form was developed that also 

included simple ways to improve tasks. Information collected with this form includes risk factor 

exposures, body discomfort, root causes of the exposures, and corrective actions taken at the 

time of the observation. Practice completing the Ergonomic Observation Form was provided 

during the role-playing exercises. 

10
 
In June 2006, additional training was provided to the BBS observers. This training 

consisted of a review of risk factors followed by additional practice at identifying risk factor 

exposures by viewing short videos and observing work tasks during field exercises. Methods to 

improve jobs were also discussed. Members of the Safety Teams also attended this training since 

these teams resolve observations not immediately addressed by the observers and CARE reports. 

From August 2005 to May 2006, the BBS observers at both the Fairwater and Taylor 

Mines completed approximately 30 ergonomic observations. During 10 of the observations, the 

risk factor exposures were either resolved or job improvements were identified. The job 

improvements included PPE (antivibration gloves) and training on how to do a particular task 

without exposures to awkward postures, and engineering controls. Two examples of engineering 

controls included raising the work surface with saw horses, which allowed the use of neutral 

postures, and constructing a handtool to open covers on railcars, which eliminated bending the 

trunk and reduced the forceful exertion needed to release the latch. 

Ergonomic observations are maintained in an electronic spreadsheet, which includes all 

of the fields on the observation forms and the status regarding action, if any, being taken to 

address the risk factor exposures. Additionally, interventions are being documented using a 

format to show how the task was done both before and after the intervention was implemented. 

Information on the intervention, such as cost and source (manufacturer), risk factor exposures, 

and body part affected are included in this document. The intervention forms are distributed to 

associates via hard copy and Intranet to encourage improvements in other jobs and to share 

information among Badger facilities. Posters highlighting interventions are also used to 

encourage associates to participate in the ergonomics process. 

The process being implemented at Badger is proactive as it addresses exposures to risk 

factors and not just injuries. During the first year of this process, the emphasis has been on 

addressing CARE reports and BBS ergonomic observations. However, information learned by 

the associates during the Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training was also applied to 

the design of new work areas and facilities. Badger’s process is participatory and as it matures 

will move to a more comprehensive process with the incorporation of ergonomic principles into 

more processes that affect employee safety and health. 

11
 
“Our ergonomics process has become a critical component of our 

overall safety program. Historically, ergonomic issues were the No. 1 

cause of associate injury. Through this process, we are now able to 

proactively address ergonomic risk factors, resulting in a healthier, 

happier, more productive workforce. The process has also resulted in a 

significant reduction in lost time and reportable accidents.” 

—Marty Lehman, Safety Associate 

Badger Mining Corp. 

Vulcan Materials Co. 

Vulcan Materials Co. is the largest U.S. producer of construction aggregates (crushed 

stone, sand and gravel). At yearend 2006, Vulcan had 372 facilities located in 21 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Mexico employing approximately 8,000 employees. The facilities are 

diverse in function, including stone quarries, sand and gravel plants, sales yards, asphalt plants, 

and ready-mix concrete plants. In 2006, Vulcan shipped 255.4 million tons of aggregates. 

As a company, the basic organizations within Vulcan are seven autonomous divisions. 

The safety program is multilevel with Safety, Health and Environmental (SHE) Teams at the 

plant level, a Safety and Health Department at the division level (Safety Manager and Safety and 

Health (S&H) Representatives), and a Safety and Health Department at the corporate level 

(Safety Director and two safety professionals). Members of the plant SHE Teams include two to 

four hourly employees who volunteer for this assignment. The main functions of the SHE Teams 

are to conduct periodic inspections of the site and then report the findings to the Plant Manager. 

The division safety staff provide technical support to the plant management and SHE Teams, 

while the corporate safety staff provide technical support to the Division Safety Department. 

In 2002, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association established a goal for its 

members to reduce their overall injury rate by 50% with 5 years. Vulcan committed to meeting 

this goal and immediately took steps to address safety and health hazards, which resulted in 

significant reductions in its injury rate. However, the injury rate was still above its goal because 

many of the injuries that were still occurring were a result of exposures to MSD risk factors. 

Vulcan decided it needed to take another approach. In August 2005, NIOSH researchers and 

Vulcan safety personnel (corporate- and division-level safety professionals) met to discuss how 

12
 
ergonomic principles could be applied within Vulcan Materials Co. to prevent MSDs. Because 

Vulcan has many facilities with fewer than 50 employees and limited on-site safety and health 

expertise, it was necessary to develop a plan to address both of these issues and also to address 

the overall size of the company. The plan that was developed took a two-phase approach. The 

first phase demonstrates how ergonomics can be applied at the Vulcan sites; the second phase 

lays the foundation for implementing a process throughout the company. To date, the first phase 

involved implementing ergonomics processes at two pilot sites within the Mideast Division. The 

second phase began with introducing ergonomic concepts and Vulcan’s ergonomics initiative to 

other Vulcan sites. 

At the pilot sites (North and Royal Stone Quarries), ergonomics was integrated with the 

existing safety and health programs, primarily with the company’s “Taking Work out of Work” 

injury reduction initiative. Employees are encouraged to report risk factor exposures, using a risk 

factor report card, to the Ergonomics Review Team, whose members include the Plant Manager, 

the pit and plant supervisors, and the SHE Team leader. The Ergonomics Review Team, along 

with input from the S&H Representative, addresses the concerns using the process shown in 

Figure 4. When the concerns are investigated, a Manual Task Risk Assessment Form is used to 

evaluate risk factors, determine which risk factors should be controlled, and establish a 

prioritization score for determining which exposures should be addressed first. 

The Vulcan process includes documenting the concern and the action taken to address the 

concern in a pilot database. As Vulcan expands its application of ergonomics throughout the 

Mideast Division and the other six divisions, information from the submitted cards and controls 

implemented will be captured in a division- or corporate-wide database and will be used as a 

resource for finding solutions to specific exposures, as well as to identify trends. 

13
 
Figure 4.—Flow diagram of Vulcan Materials Co. task improvement process. 

In April 2006, Vulcan employees at the two pilot sites received ergonomics and risk 

factor awareness training. The objectives of the employee training were twofold: to provide 

employees with skills for identifying risk factors in their work areas similar to their skills for 

identifying safety or health hazards, and to encourage employee participation in the ergonomics 

process. Prior studies have shown that an important element of successful ergonomics processes 

is employee involvement [Cohen et. al. 1997]. The employee training was given in two 90-

minute sessions, 1 week apart, and was modified to include a homework assignment that 

encouraged employees to complete report cards identifying risk factor exposures for two tasks 

14
 
they do as part of their jobs. The first session of this training was given by the Division Safety 

Manager; the second session was given by the S&H Representatives assigned to the pilot sites. 

To become familiar with the training, these instructors attended a train-the-trainer session offered 

by NIOSH in February 2006. 

The S&H Representatives assigned to the pilot sites and the Ergonomics Review Teams 

at both pilot sites were given additional training on implementing the ergonomics process, 

primarily how to process report cards, evaluate risk factor exposures, and determine appropriate 

controls. This training, given in April 2006, was a combination of classroom training and a field 

exercise. In the classroom, participants discussed how to implement the process, evaluate various 

implementation tools, and viewed several short videos to gain practice at identifying risk factor 

exposures. The field exercise provided practice with observing actual tasks being performed by 

employees and completing the Manual Task Risk Assessment Form. The field exercise was 

followed by a brainstorming session to determine solutions for the observed risk factor 

exposures. 

In July 2006, the S&H Representatives and Ergonomics Review Team members were 

offered another training session focusing on job improvements, primarily selecting handtools and 

modifying manual tasks. Additional information was provided on the stress experienced by the 

back muscles and spinal discs during various lifting tasks. Participants were given practice at 

determining options for reducing exposures to risk factors by analyzing several tasks performed 

at their sites and then brainstorming job improvements. 

Vulcan initiated the second phase of its application of ergonomic principles in November 

2005 by offering all division S&H Representatives training that helped them to identify risk 

factor exposures and determine simple task improvements for reducing or eliminating risk factor 

exposures. During this training, the representatives were asked to submit examples of job 

improvements implemented at sites within their divisions. Approximately 10 improvements were 

submitted and posted on the Vulcan Intranet. In February 2006, NIOSH introduced ergonomic 

concepts to the Mideast Division Plant Managers. This presentation focused on Vulcan injury 

statistics with risk factor exposures and how ergonomics helped other companies to reduce their 

injury rates. The Mideast Division Engineering Department also received training from NIOSH 

in July 2006. This training emphasized the need to apply ergonomic principles during the 

15
 
planning and design stages to prevent exposures to risk factors. Specific components of this 

training included anthropometry and work station and conveyor design principles. For a 

homework assignment, participants were asked to design a sales yard clerk work station that 

could be used as a prototype for other Vulcan sites. The training/presentation offered during this 

phase was conducted primarily by NIOSH researchers, with support from Vulcan safety and 

health staff who provided information specific to Vulcan injury rates. 

Because Vulcan is applying ergonomic principles at several levels within its company, 

there are several champions. At the pilot sites, the Plant Manager and the S&H Representatives 

are the champions. At the division level, the division Safety Manager is the champion. At the 

corporate level, the champion is the corporate Safety Manager. 

“At first, I had some concerns about the ergonomics process creating 

problems and I was resistant to the idea of implementing a process, 

even though our employees have been encouraged to improve their 

jobs with our ‘Taking Work out of Work’ Initiative. However, the 

ergonomics process has incorporated this initiative into a formal 

process and given our employees a green light to think out of the box 

to make their jobs easier.” 

—Bryan Moore, Mideast Division Safety and Health Representative 

Vulcan Materials Co. 

Lessons Learned 

When implementing new processes, there are always lessons to be learned. Some of the 

lessons learned by the three companies in the above case studies included the following: 

Bridger Coal Co. 

Committee Participants: Early 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 

16
 
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 to them sufficient 

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

was addressed by Bridger Coal Co. by including Ergonomics Committee participation in 

the job performance evaluations 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. 

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 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, 

i.e., people who were interested in ergonomics, understood its value to the employees and 

to the company, and understood how to integrate it with other processes. 

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 of 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. 

17
 
Employee Training: When developing the employee training, several video clips were 

selected to demonstrate examples of risk factors. Approximately half of these video clips 

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

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

from other operations were used. Some employees were critical that all of 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 focused mainly 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 that the supervisor can express support for implementing 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. 

Badger Mining Corp. 

Associate Training: Following the training given to associates, it seemed that some 

associates still had a difficult time understanding the benefits of ergonomics and grasping 

the concept of how ergonomics can be used to make their jobs easier. To address this 

issue, a practical exercise was developed for the upcoming refresher training. The 

exercise requested that the attendees perform a simple task that had a risk factor 

exposure. Then, with the materials at hand, they had to find a way to modify the task that 

reduces the risk factor exposure and also results in an increase in productivity. This 

hands-on exercise provided these associates with an improved understanding of how to 

18
 
apply ergonomics. This same exercise continues to be used as an introduction to 

ergonomics whenever new employee training is given. 

Ergonomics Observation Form: Because a BBS system was part of the safety and 

health program implemented at both Badger mines, it was decided to expand the scope of 

observations that identified ergonomics as an issue. (On the BBS Observation Form, an 

ergonomics issue was identified with a single checkmark next to the word “ergonomics”. 

No other information was required; however, in some cases, the observers would include 

a brief description of the issue in the “comment” section of the form.) This expansion 

consisted of completing a one-page Ergonomics Observation Form that included 

additional information, such as risk factors, root causes, body parts with discomfort, and 

potential solutions to the exposures. All observers were given two training sessions, 

approximately 1 year apart, that focused on identifying risk factor exposures and then 

determining solutions for reducing the exposures. Simple job improvements were 

primarily for manual material-handling tasks. Practice with completing the Ergonomics 

Observation Form was also part of the training. Following both training sessions, the 

Ergonomics Observation Form was not widely used by the observers even though 

ergonomics issues were marked on the BBS Observation Form. The failure to use the 

Ergonomics Observation Form was related to a lack of time. Observers stated they did 

not even have sufficient time to meet their established goals for just the number of 

observations, without completing the Ergonomics Observation Form. The total number of 

observations completed for 2006 was about 50% of the stated goal. During this time 

period, both mines had record production levels without an increase in associates, putting 

further demands on available resources for implementation of the BBS program. 

Consequently, followup for ergonomics observations was generally completed by just a 

handful of observers. It is believed that just a few of the observers should have been 

selected to focus on ergonomic risk factor exposures and to follow up on observations 

identifying ergonomics issues. These observers could have received more in-depth 

training on identifying exposures, as well as methods to reduce or eliminate the exposures. Additionally, they could have served as a knowledgeable resource at each mine. 

19
 
Process Champion: Because of the decentralized team structure at the mine sites, the 

progress made when implementing the ergonomics process was not always known or 

documented. Many of the interventions implemented were independent efforts of the 

individual teams and were not tracked by the ergonomics process defined in Figure 3. 

Consequently, information about these interventions had to be obtained in other ways. 

Additionally, because the champion assigned to the ergonomics process was physically 

located at the Resource Center and not at either of the mine sites, he was not always kept 

apprised of the efforts to implement various interventions. Even though the champion 

spent much of his time at both mine sites, it may have been helpful to assign an associate 

at each mine site to serve as a resource for the implementation process and to facilitate 

communication between the champion and the site teams, particularly for documentation 

purposes. 

Vulcan Materials Co. 

Documentation: It has been more difficult than expected to document the progress made 

at the pilot sites. Talking to the workers at the sites clearly revealed they have continued 

to apply ergonomics principles to their jobs and made them easier, but this information 

was not formally being captured. While documenting the interventions is not necessary 

for the process to be successful, a method for routinely documenting interventions would 

be useful so they can be shared with other sites. Possible solutions include: assigning this 

responsibility to a division-level S&H Representative, who would document interventions during periodic visits to the sites; or capturing this information during monthly 

safety meetings. 

Recognition: To encourage the implementation of interventions, it is necessary to 

acknowledge workers who improved their jobs and to promote the value of such 

intervention efforts. This is now being done with a periodic one-page newsletter that 

highlights several implemented interventions that may be of interest to other sites. 

20
 
Maintaining Interest: After risk factor exposures that were easy to fix were addressed, 

intervention efforts were directed to solutions that take longer to implement because of 

higher costs and more complex approval processes. Consequently, workers were not 

seeing anything being accomplished, and interest in the ergonomics process seemed to 

wane. Although ergonomics was still part of the culture, it was not being actively applied. 

To maintain interest, it is necessary to continue to promote an ergonomics process, 

similar to other safety and health programs. 

Summary 

Applying ergonomic principles within the mining industry has been shown to be a viable 

approach for addressing exposures to risk factors by implementing task improvements. All three 

companies who partnered with NIOSH to implement an ergonomics process were able to 

integrate ergonomics within their existing safety and health programs and to establish a 

systematic process to resolve ergonomic issues and implement task improvements. As it matures, 

the implementation process will move from addressing risk factor exposures and MSDs to 

incorporating ergonomic principles in the design of future work stations/equipment/tools and 

equipment specifications. Risk factor exposures will be proactively addressed in the design and 

planning stages, and ergonomics will automatically be an accepted way of doing business within 

the organization. 

From the case studies presented, it is apparent that the ergonomics processes were 

successful because each implementation plan was modified to meet specific needs and address 

differences within each company, such as the demographic differences listed in Table 1 and 

cultural and organizational differences (how employee participation is encouraged and 

implemented, organizational structure, communication channels, etc.). Table 2 compares the 

three case studies with regard to how the implementation approach was modified. However, all 

three mining companies followed a basic framework or model that included the following critical 

elements: 

21
 
•	 Assign a champion to promote and serve as an advocate and leader in applying 

ergonomic principles. 

•	 Provide training to employees and organizational entities responsible for 

implementing the ergonomics process. The training should be customized to meet the 

roles played by each group in the implementation process. 

•	 Develop a systematic process to identify and control risk factors associated with 

methods, tools, equipment, work stations, and environment. An example of a generic 

process for improving tasks is shown in Figure 5. If an exposure cannot be resolved, 

then it should be reviewed later as additional information or options become 

available. 

•	 Track and document progress to demonstrate the benefits of the process, share 

interventions, and communicate lessons learned. 

•	 Integrate ergonomics with other processes that affect worker safety and health, such 

as purchasing decisions, work schedules, modifications to existing 

facilities/equipment, and procedures. By doing this, costly reengineering efforts to 

correct problems with risk factor exposures can be avoided. 

22
 

Table 2.—Comparison of the three case studies with regard to demographics, 

organizations, and implementation approaches 

Factor Company 

Bridger Badger Vulcan 

Implementation 

responsibility 

Ergonomics Committee Safety Team SHE Team and division- and corporate-

 level support 

Champion(s) Safety Manager 

Ergonomics Coordinator 

Safety Associate Manager, Safety Services (corporate 

level) 

Manager, Safety & Health (Mideast 

Division) 

Plant Managers 

Groups 

receiving 

training 

Employees 

Ergonomics Committee 

Employees 

BBS observers 

Safety Team 

Pilot employees 

Pilot SHE Team 

S&H Representatives 

Mideast Division Plant Managers 

Mideast Division Safety Manager 

Mideast Division Engineering 

 Department 

Record-keeping Spreadsheet for employee 

concerns 

Spreadsheet for 

 observations 

Database for employee concerns and 

interventions 

Communication Posters and newsletter 

articles 

Posters and flyers Newsletter and Intranet 
Figure 5.—Generic process for improving tasks. 

The above framework is further described in a stand-alone two-page document in the 

Appendix. This document can be used to inform management as to what would be needed to 

implement an ergonomics process. 

23
 
YELLOW INSERT 

SHEET 
Section III 

Process Effectiveness 

Quantifying the effectiveness of ergonomics processes depends strongly on the 

organization and the original goal of the ergonomics process. It is common to see effectiveness 

measured in the number or incidence rate of workdays lost, number or incidence rates of 

injuries/illnesses, number of near-misses, or workers’ compensation costs. Examples of how 

these measures have been used were reported by GAO [1997]. 

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 a 

Musculoskeletal Discomfort Survey form, may be more useful. Another constructive approach 

may be to quantify exposure levels to risk factors before and after implementing an intervention. 

For a lifting task, for example, the amount of weight lifted during a work shift may be measured 

before and after an intervention has been applied. Other examples include posture improvements, 

reducing the distance objects are carried, and reducing the number of repetitions performed. 

Other more technical tools that could be used to show reduced exposures include Rapid Upper 

Limb Assessment [McAtamney and Corlett 1993], Rapid Entire Body Assessment [Hignett and 

McAtamney 2000], the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation [Waters et al. 1994], Hand Activity 

Level [ACGIH 2007b], and the Strain Index [Moore and Garg 1995]. Additional technical tools 

are available from Thomas E. Bernard, Ph.D., University of South Florida [Bernard 2007]. 

Since the three companies that partnered with NIOSH to implement ergonomics 

processes had very low injury incidence rates and few documented MSDs, it was not possible to 

use many of the above measures to demonstrate effectiveness. The companies were most 

interested in changing the way they looked at these types of injuries and tracking interventions, 

particularly when there were opportunities to share job improvements with other sites within the 

company. To assess process effectiveness for the three case studies, NIOSH used both 

discomfort data and/or interventions (job improvements) implemented. Discomfort data are 

presented for Bridger Coal Co., and summary information on interventions are presented for all 

three companies. 

1 
Bridger Coal Co. 

Discomfort Survey 

Reports of employee discomfort were obtained using a Musculoskeletal Discomfort 

Survey form adapted from the Standardized Nordic Questionnaire [Kuorinka et al. 1987]. The 

survey was administered in 2001 by NIOSH researchers and again in 2004 by Bridger Coal 

management. Although the survey was completed by 225 employees in 2001 and 116 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. 

An analysis of the 41 matched survey reports did not indicate statistical differences in the 

rate of discomfort reported before and after the ergonomics process was implemented. However, 

the overall trend observed indicated a 17% decrease in discomfort reports following 

implementation of the ergonomics process. Fewer employees reported discomfort for the head, 

elbows, wrists/hands, upper back, and lower back (Figure 6). The most frequently reported body 

part with discomfort was the lower back both before and after the process implementation. Also, 

before the process was implemented more employees tended to experience discomfort in 

multiple body parts. For example, before the process was implemented 24% of the employees 

reported discomfort in three different body parts, while after the process was implemented only 

17% reported such discomfort (Table 3). 

2 
 

30 

Pre (2001) 

Post (2004) 

Number of Respondents Reporting Discomfort25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Neck Shoulders Elbows Wrists/Hands Upper Back Lower Back Hips/Thighs Knees Ankles/Feet 

Body Parts 

Figure 6.—Number of body part discomfort reports during the past 12 months 

for 2001 and 2004 (n = 41). 

Table 3.—Number of Bridger employees reporting discomfort 

in one to four different body parts (n = 41) 

No. of employees No. of body parts with discomfort reporting any discomfort 

Year 1 2 3 4 

2001 7 5 10 8 37 

2004 6 5 7 5 31 

With regard to age, the percentage of employees reporting discomfort prior to the process 

was greater for three age groups (31–40, 41–50, and over 50) compared to the percentages for 

the same age groups after implementing the process. A slightly downward trend in reporting 

discomfort (83% to 72%) with increasing age (31–40 years old to over 50 years old) was 

observed after the process was implemented. A decrease in discomfort with increasing age was 

not observed before the process was implemented. The same results were observed when 

considering discomfort reports for the lower back (see Table 4). 

Although trends in discomfort seemed to indicate that fewer employees were 

experiencing discomfort after the process was implemented, it is not possible to attribute the 

3 
decline in discomfort directly to the ergonomics process. Many changes were occurring at the 

Jim Bridger Mine, such as job reassignments, that may have also impacted discomfort levels. 

Table 4.—Percentage of Bridger employees reporting discomfort by age 

All body parts Back 

Year Age (years) Age (years)

31–40 41–50 >50 31–40 41–50 >50 

2001 100 89 100 86 65 100 

2004 83 73 72 83 53 56 

Interventions or Job Improvements 

Employee reports of risk factor exposures and intervention efforts were documented and 

tracked by the Ergonomics Committee. Risk factor exposure data were obtained from employees 

who submitted concerns to the committee. Three years into the process the Ergonomics 

Committee received 55 concerns and successfully completed improvements for 22 concerns. 

Five more concerns were actively being addressed, and nine other concerns were on hold 

pending receipt of additional information. The remaining 19 concerns were either addressed as 

safety and health concerns or were not considered valid. 

Table 5 provides information on interventions implemented by the Bridger Coal Co., 

including those initiated by the Ergonomics Committee. The average number of employees 

affected by an intervention was 16.8. Over half of the interventions involved the purchase of new 

equipment or seats. All of the purchases except one cost less than $3,000. Some modifications 

were completed by the equipment maintenance staff and did not result in significant expenditures 

of funds or time. The easiest type of concerns addressed by the committee involved rearranging 

equipment or work stations. Although many of the interventions seemed to be rather simple 

solutions, determining appropriate interventions usually involved detailed investigations and 

analyses to ensure employee acceptability and reduction in risk factor exposures. Activities 

performed when identifying and assessing potential interventions often included employee 

interviews, risk factor determinations, product identification and evaluation, and review of 

manufacturer approvals. Only one complaint could not be addressed by the committee because 

the intervention was considered cost-prohibitive. 

4 
Table 5.—Description and types of interventions completed by Bridger Coal Co. 

No. of Type of employees Brief description of intervention intervention affected 

Existing equipment 19 • Handle added to chocks to reduce back flexion 

modified 5 • Loader foot pedal angle decreased to allow a 

relaxed foot position 

11 • Drill pedal moved to a more accessible location 

11 • Prill truck ladder handrail moved closer to the 

ladder to allow use with proper body positions 

Work station 27 • Pump switch location changed to eliminate 

rearranged excessive reaching 

5 • Loader seat aligned with controls to eliminate 

twisting 

New work stations 2 • Adjustable office work stations purchased to allow 

purchased proper body postures 

New equipment 14 • Lightweight welding helmets replaced heavier 

purchased helmets to reduce the load supported by the neck 

and upper back 

14 • Wooden hammer handle with rubber guard 

replaced fiberglass handles to reduce hand 

vibrations 

9 • Nylon tie-down straps replaced heavier chains to 

reduce the load when handling the chains 

29 • Small table placed outside tool room so tools being 

returned could be placed on the table rather than on 

the floor. (Mechanics need to remove their safety 

glasses to use an eye scanner so they can gain 

access to the tool room. Holding tools hindered 

them from removing their safety glasses.) 

• Floor mats installed in warehouse to reduce 

2 discomfort from walking on concrete floors. 

• J-hook bar obtained to pull dragline cable rather 

16 than lifting the cable 

• Tractor purchased to move trailing dragline cable 

16 rather than moving the cable manually 

• Dragline work station improved with larger, more 

15 adjustable armrests and a footrest to reduce 

exposures to awkward postures 

New seats 47 • Seats changed in draglines, loaders, and blades to 

purchased improve comfort 

Availability of PPE 45 • Additional kneepads stocked in warehouse to 

improved reduce contact with hard surfaces 

5 
Badger Mining Corp. 

Within 1 year of implementing its ergonomics process, Badger initiated more than 

40 interventions, which are described in Tables 6 (Fairwater Mine) and 7 (Taylor Mine). Some 

of these interventions were planned prior to initiating the ergonomics process; however, 

information gained from the training led to improvements from the original design. All but a few 

of the improvements were engineering controls, and many of them involved obtaining new 

equipment or work stations. Some of the modifications to work stations or equipment were 

completed by the equipment maintenance staff and did not result in significant expenditures of 

funds or time. 

6 
Table 6.—Description and types of interventions completed by Badger Mining Corp.: 

Fairwater Mine 

No. of Type of associates Brief description of intervention intervention affected 

Existing equipment 3 • Mirrors installed on mobile equipment to eliminate 

or work station twisting when looking to the side and rear of the 

modified vehicle 

3 • Asphalt applied to unpaved roads to reduce wholebody vibration 

6 • Powered loading dock ramp replaced manual 

placement of dock ramp, eliminating forceful 

exertions 

6 • Automatic actuators installed in screen house 

replaced the requirement to manually reset 

actuators, which involved excessive reaching and 

back flexion 

New work stations 3 • Truck scale with washout system replaced manual 

purchased or cleanout while standing in a pit 

constructed 3 • Rail load-out canopy eliminated stooping under 

low-hanging equipment and improved protection 

from falls 

New equipment 3 • Brake stick used for railcars instead of climbing on 

purchased or railcar and manually setting brake, which involved 

constructed forceful exertions 

3 • Floor mats purchased for dry plant to improve 

walking surfaces 

4 • Automatic greaser installed on vehicles replaced 

manual grease guns, eliminating awkward postures 

• Automatic grease gun replaced manual grease gun, 

4 which eliminated repetitive motions 

• Electric tarps replaced manual tarps on dump 

5 trucks, eliminating exposure to repetitive motions 

• Man lift replaced climbing ladders 

4 • Automatic dust collection screw replaced manually 

5 pounding on the hoppers 

• Tool to unlatch rail covers replaced manually 

3 unlatching the covers with a hand and foot, thereby 

avoiding excessive back flexion 

New seats 1 • New office chairs replaced existing chairs to 

purchased promote improved postures 

2 • Air-ride seat installed in haul truck to improve 

postures and reduce whole-body vibration 

7 
Table 7.—Description and types of interventions completed by Badger Mining Corp.: 

Taylor Mine
 

No. of Type of associates Brief description of intervention intervention affected 

Existing equipment 6 • Rail cleanout facility modified to allow a standing 

or work station posture rather than a stooped/squatting posture 

modified 16 • Dozer operator compartment modified with an 

improved seat 

16 • Smaller 3.0-gallon buckets for preserving drilling 

samples replaced 5.0-gallon buckets, which reduced 

forceful exertions when removing buckets from 

holes 

16 • Ramp leading into pit widened 

16 • Haul roads straightened 

16 • Ride control installed on new loaders to reduce 

whole-body vibration 

7 • Airflow in dryer pipe revamped 

Work station 5 • Tools placed in tool buckets so weight is evenly 

rearranged distributed and avoids leaning to one side 

New work stations 5 • Raised (waist-high) work station built for 

purchased or constructing bucket elevators to avoid working on 

constructed floor and awkward postures 

New equipment 6 • Hy-vac truck purchased for rail cleanout replaced 

purchased manual shoveling 

6 • 2-inch hose on Hy-vac replaced heavy 4-inch hose 

6 • Brake stick used for railcars instead of climbing on 

railcar and setting brake manually, which involved 

forceful exertions 

6 • Railcars with lightweight hatches replaced railcars 

with heavy metal covers, which reduced forceful 

exertions when lifting the covers 

7 • Autosamplers installed in dry house replaced 

manual collection of samples 

2 • Telephone headset purchased for receptionist to 

eliminate supporting the phone with the shoulders 

5 • Drills purchased for bucket elevator construction 

5 • Shock-absorbing hammers replaced regular 

hammers 

5 • Antifatigue mats placed in heavy traffic areas of the 

shop to reduce discomfort from walking on 

concrete floors 

1 • Wagons built to transport tools instead of carrying 

 tools 

7 • Cable cutter attachment for drill replaced manual 

cutter, eliminating exposures to forceful exertions 

and repetitive motions 

8 
Table 7.—Description and types of interventions completed by Badger Mining Corp.: 

Taylor Mine—Continued 

No. of Type of associates Brief description of intervention intervention affected 

New equipment 5 • New pickup trucks replaced Army surplus vehicles, 

purchased— which reduced whole-body vibration levels 

 Continued 6 • Electric grease guns replaced manually operated 

grease guns, eliminating repetitive motions 

7 • Elevator installed in new dry plant, which replaced 

the need to climb stairs while carrying tools 

5 • Automatic parts washer replaced manual washing 

of parts, eliminating exposures to forceful 

exertions, repetitive motions, and stooped postures 

6 • Hinged screen covers replaced covers that had to be 

manually lifted off the screen housing, reducing 

forceful exertions 

New seats 16 • Replaced seat in drill to improve postures and 

purchased reduce whole-body vibration levels 

Elimination of 6 • Railcars with trough hatches removed from service 

equipment 

Work practice 1 • Modified method to open bulk bags to eliminate 

modified stooping and leaning into bag 

PPE 5 • Antivibration gloves purchased for constructing 

bucket elevators 

5 • Welding helmets with autodarkening lens replaced 

helmets with regular dark lens 

5 • Shoe insoles provided to maintenance workers to 

reduce discomfort when standing/walking on 

concrete floors 

Vulcan Materials Co. 

Immediately following the employee training, both Vulcan pilot sites implemented job 

improvements in response to the Risk Factor Report Cards submitted by the employees. Within 

12 months, several interventions were completed at both pilot sites, as well as at Central 

Services, which received the Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training as Vulcan 

expanded the process within the Mideast Division. Although many of the interventions involved 

the purchase or construction of new equipment, few expenditures exceeded $5,000. In many 

cases, the labor was done internally and the costs of the interventions were insignificant. 

9 
Table 8.—Description and types of interventions completed by Vulcan Materials Co. 

No. of 

Type of intervention employees Brief description of intervention 

affected 

Existing equipment or 1 • Standing work station was converted to a sitwork station modified stand work station for the crusher operator 

4 • Screen storage racks were reoriented from 

vertical to horizontal storage so the screens 

could be placed on the rack with a forklift 

1 • Removable stairway added to drill to improve 

egress/ingress 

2 • Water slide added to conveyor that collects and 

removes spillage from floor of tower, which 

eliminated manually hosing area to remove 

spillage 

1 • Side-view mirrors placed on scraper to 

eliminate looking over the shoulder 

2 • Mirrors installed at supply bins to view back of 

trucks as the bins are filling, eliminating 

twisting the head and neck 

Work stations 1 • Counters used to track number of loads dumped 

rearranged at the crusher were moved to eliminate 

excessive reaching 

New work stations 4 • Constructed ramps to replace manual jacking of 

purchased or vehicles when changing oil 

constructed 4 • Moved storage location for vehicle filters from 

second floor accessed via a stairway to a shed 

adjacent to the work area – eliminated climbing 

stairs and unsafe practice of holding bulky 

boxes when descending stairs 

New equipment 3 • Tool boxes placed on each level of the screen 

purchased or tower to eliminate carrying tools to different 

constructed levels when repairs are needed 

3 • Water valves and hoses installed on all levels 

of screen towers to eliminate pulling the hoses 

to different levels of the towers 

3 • Crane installed to lift screens to the multiple 

levels of the screen towers rather than carrying 

the screens up several levels of stairs 

5 • Slide sledge was obtained to replace some uses 

of sledgehammers 

1 • Manual lifting and carrying of waste buckets 

were replaced with a waste bin modified so it 

could be moved with a forklift 

2 • Remote control to release materials from 

storage bins replaced manually pulling on cord 

10
 
Table 8.—Description and types of interventions completed by Vulcan Materials Co. 

—Continued 

No. of 

Type of intervention employees Brief description of intervention 

affected 

New equipment 3 • Antifatigue mats purchased for crusher operator 

purchased or work station and workshops 

constructed— • Replaced manual torque wrenches with 

Continued hydraulic torque wrenches 

4 • Obtained battery-operated screwdriver to 

replace manual screwdrivers 

4 • Obtained 1⁄4-inch air wrench to replace manual 

screwdriver 

4 • Hilman rollers used to move differentials under 

loaders 

• Automatic washer replaced manual cleaning of 

parts 

• Constructed wheeled table with an elevated 

working surface to move parts to the automatic 

washer, which eliminated back flexion when 

picking up parts 

1 • Installed automatic belt sampler to collect stone 

samples, which eliminated manually carrying 

5-gallon bucket from conveyor to pickup track 

1 • Installed blind-spot camera in the stockpile 

area, which eliminated twisting head and neck 

to view traffic 

4 • Obtained wagon to transport vehicle filters 

instead of carrying them 

• Obtained circular wheeled cart for moving 

 55-gallon drums 

• Obtained rotating engine stand to position parts 

being repaired 

1 • Purchased new rock breaker with improved 

ingress/egress and control options/locations 

New seats purchased 1 • New seat purchased for the drill now that 

allows operator to place feet on the floor 

5 • New seats purchased for Komatsu haul trucks 

Job enlargement 2 • Mechanic’s job duties expanded to include 

operating vehicles (dozer, loader, and haul 

trucks) 

PPE 2 • Shoe orthotics provided to mechanics to reduce 

discomfort from standing/walking on hard 

surfaces 

• Mechanics gloves provided for handling 

objects with sharp edges 

11
 
YELLOW INSERT 

SHEET 
Section IV 

Implementation Tools 

This section includes tools that were used by Bridger Coal, Badger Mining, and Vulcan 

Materials to implement their ergonomics processes. When applicable, information is also 

provided to describe the purpose of the tool, when to use the tool, and how to complete the tool. 

Because tools were modified throughout the course of implementing the three processes, only the 

latest version of the tool is provided. Electronic files for the tools are provided on the enclosed 

CD and can be modified for personal use as desired. Table 9 provides summary information 

about each tool, including how to administer the tool and the time required. Table 10 provides 

information on when to use the tools included in this section. 

1
 
Table 9.—Summary information about each tool included in this section 

Tool How to administer Time 

required Notes/Comments 

A Risk Factor 

Report Card 

Self-administered by 

employees 

5 minutes This card is a very simple way for employees to 

report concerns they have about their jobs. 

Information from the card can be entered into a 

spreadsheet and tracked. 

B Musculoskeletal 

Discomfort 

Form 

Self-administered 

questionnaire for 

employees; 

One-on-one interview; 

Group setting 

5–10 minutes The survey should be administered periodically 

to assess changes. For determining the 

effectiveness of a process, discomfort levels 

should be tracked yearly for at least 3–4 years. 

For specific task interventions, discomfort levels 

could be tracked sooner, perhaps at 6-month 

intervals. 

C General Risk Self-administered 15–20 minutes Can be used to obtain information from several 

Factor Exposure 

Checklist 

questionnaire for 

employees after 

instructions are read to 

the employees either 

individually or in a 

group 

employees about the same job or position. As 

part of reading the instructions, complete the 

first and second exposures listed as examples of 

how the checklist should be completed. 

The information collected can be used to 

prioritize jobs for improvements. 

D Ergonomics 

Observations 

Form 

Completed by observer 

during observation/ 

interview of worker 

being observed 

10–20 minutes 

(depends on 

length of 

interview) 

Can be used during observations conducted for a 

BBS process to collect additional information 

needed to determine appropriate job 

improvements. 

Can be used to track number of exposures 

observed and to prioritize task interventions. 

E Hand Tool 

Checklist 

Completed by safety 

and health personnel 

5–10 minutes Compares handtools so each can be evaluated in 

terms of the ergonomic design features. All of 

the features are weighted equally. 

F Manual Task 

Risk 

Assessment 

Form 

Completed by safety 

and health personnel 

when evaluating tasks 

10–20 minutes Provides a very basic risk assessment and 

ranking system for comparing risk before and 

after an intervention is implemented and for 

prioritizing interventions by body part affected. 

G Ergonomic Task Completed by safety 

and health personnel or 

supervisor 

10–20 minutes When possible, include photographs of 

intervention or how the task was done both 

before and after the intervention. 

H Risk Factor 

Cards 

— — Can be used as a handout during training to 

reinforce concepts taught during training or as a 

quick reference by safety and health personnel. 

I Sticker — — Can be given to employees attending 

ergonomics training or used as an incentive to 

report exposures. 

2
 
Table 10.—Brief description of when to use the tools included in this section 

If you want to... Tools 

Obtain information about risk factor exposures A Risk Factor Report Card 

from employees 

Prepare a baseline prior to implementing an B Musculoskeletal Discomfort Form 

intervention, including an ergonomics process for C General Risk Factor Exposure Checklist 

reducing MSD risk 

Evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention B Musculoskeletal Discomfort Form 

C General Risk Factor Exposure Checklist 

Obtain detailed information about risk factor D Ergonomics Observations Form 

exposures for a BBS process 

Evaluate ergonomic features of handtools, E Hand Tool Checklist 

powered and nonpowered 

Identify and assess risk factor exposures F Manual Task Risk Assessment Form 

Assign risk level to risk factor exposures or job F Manual Task Risk Assessment Form 

tasks 

Publicize the effectiveness of an intervention G Ergonomic Task Improvement Form

Promote application of material learned in training H Risk Factor Cards 

about risk factor exposures I Sticker 

3
 
TOOL A 

 Risk Factor Report Card 

Purpose 

To encourage employee participation in the ergonomics process by providing a reporting 

mechanism for potential risk factor exposures and any body discomfort that may be related to the 

exposure. 

When to Use It 

The Risk Factor Report Card can be introduced to employees as a homework assignment 

during training. After training, employees can then use this tool to report their exposures and any 

body discomfort associated with risk factor exposures. The employees can also use it to provide 

input on how to change the task to reduce or eliminate the exposures. To promote reporting, the 

cards should be placed in areas where they are readily accessible to employees, such as 

lunch/break rooms, locker rooms, or posted on safety and health bulletin boards. 

How to Use It 

The information obtained from the Risk Factor Report Card can be used to target an 

intervention for the specific task identified on the card or to target interventions based on trends 

from information obtained from multiple cards. Examples of how information from multiple 

cards can be analyzed to target interventions are presented below for Risk Factor Report Cards 

submitted by Bridger Coal and Vulcan employees. To conduct these types of analyses, it would 

be useful to maintain the information obtained from the cards in a spreadsheet or database. 

Bridger Coal Co. 

The results of an analysis of concerns are shown in Figure 7. Of the 36 concerns 

processed by the Ergonomics Committee, one-third of the concerns were submitted by 

mechanics and another third by heavy equipment operators. The most frequently reported 

risk factor exposure was repetition, followed by heavy lifting and forceful gripping. The 

least reported exposure was vibration from using handtools. Discomfort was most 

frequently reported in the lower back and wrists/hands. These results indicate that 

4 
interventions should be targeted for tasks done by mechanics that may require lifting or 

gripping tools or by heavy equipment operators who operate controls and sit for 

prolonged periods. 

5 

A. Risk Factor Exposure Reports 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

Number of Exposures Reported 

Poor Posture Forceful Gripping Repetition Heavy Lifting Vibration - Tools Bouncing/Jarring 

Risk Factors 

12 

Number of Concerns Reporting Discomfort 10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

B. Body Part Discomfort Reports 

Neck Shoulders Upper Back Elbows Lower Back Wrists/Hands Hips/Thighs Knees Ankles/Feet 

Body Parts 

C. Concerns Reported by Position 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

Number of Concerns Reported 

Mechanics Heavy Equipment Dragline Crew Drill-Blast Crew Conveyor Crew Trade Office 

Operator 

Positions 

Figure 7.—Analysis of Bridger employee responses from submitted Risk Factor Report Cards. 
Vulcan Materials Co. 

As a homework assignment given during employee training, Vulcan employees 

submitted 42 report cards, 14 from the North Quarry and 28 from the Royal Stone 

Quarry. From the initial submittal of cards, risk factors and body discomfort were 

evaluated (Figures 8 and 9, respectively). At the North Quarry, poor postures, repetitive 

motions, and bouncing/jarring were the most frequently reported risk factors, while knees 

were the most frequently reported body part experiencing discomfort. By contrast, at 

Royal Stone, repetitive work and bouncing/jarring were the most frequently reported risk 

factors, while the lower back was the most frequently reported body part experiencing 

discomfort. Many of the reported exposures were associated with seating issues in heavy 

equipment. This information was used to initiate a study of whole-body vibration 

exposures from operating heavy equipment, primarily haul trucks and front-end loaders. 

6 

 

P oor Posture 

Repetitive Work 

Vibrating T ools 

Static Position 

Forceful Grip 

Heavy Lift/Ca rry 

Bouncing/Ja rring 

Heavy Shoveling 

Other 

60 

Royal Stone 

North Quarry 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Percent 

Risk Factors 

Figure 8.—Percentage of Risk Factor Report Cards identifying exposures to specific 

risk factors (more than one response permitted.) 
 

 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

Percent 

Royal Stone 

North Quarry 

Neck Shoulders U Back Elbows L Back Wrist/Hands Hips/Thighs Knees Ankles/Feet 

Affected Body Part 

Figure 9.—Percentage of Risk Factor Report Cards identifying specific 

body parts with discomfort (more than one response permitted.) 

How to Complete the Tool 

1.	 Identify work area and/or job title. 

2.	 Briefly describe the task. Provide enough information so that another person can understand 

the nature of the task. 

3.	 Mark the risk factor exposures associated with the task. If the risk factor is not listed, identify 

or describe it on the “Other risk factors” line. (NOTE: The risk factors listed on the card are 

those common to mining tasks. The list can be modified if other risk factors are present.) 

4.	 If discomfort is occurring, place an “X” on the body part in the diagram that is experiencing 

discomfort associated with the task. 

5.	 In the “Comments/Suggestions” area, provide information that will be useful in evaluating 

the risk factor exposure. Examples may include: ways to improve the task, date when the 

discomfort started, and how is this task done differently than other similar tasks. 

6.	 Indicate the name of the plant or mine. This line can be omitted if the ergonomics process 

involves only one site or mine. 

7 
RISK FACTOR REPORT CARD Name: _________________________ 

1. Work area: _____________________________________________________ 

2. Describe task: _________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

3. Check all risk factors that apply: 4. Place X on affected areas. 

 □ Poor Posture □ Forceful Gripping 

 □ Repetitive Work □ Heavy Lifting/Carrying 

 □ Vibrating Tools □ Bouncing/Jarring 

 □ Static Position □ Heavy Shoveling 

 Other risk factors: _____________________ 

5. Comments/suggestions: ______________ 

____________________________________ 

____________________________________ 

____________________________________ 

6. Plant/Mine Name: _____________________ 

NOTE: The Risk Factor Report Card can be printed on 3 × 5 or 4 × 6 index cards. 

8 
TOOL B 

Musculoskeletal Discomfort Form 

Purpose 

To identify the presence of discomfort by body part experienced by workers. 

When to Use It 

Use the Musculoskeletal Discomfort Form before and after implementing a process or a 

task specific intervention. 

How to Use It 

The Musculoskeletal Discomfort Form can be used to determine the effectiveness of an 

ergonomics process or a task specific intervention. The form is administered to employees to 

obtain a baseline prior to implementing a process or a task specific intervention, and then 

periodically after the process or task specific intervention has been implemented. The discomfort 

information can also be used to target interventions. For example, if several employees indicated 

they experienced shoulder pain, one could identify tasks that involve risk factor exposures for the 

shoulder, such as awkward postures or excessive force exertions, and then target those exposures 

for an intervention. 

How to Complete the Tool 

Employee ID: Indicate name or employee number. 

Job/Position: Indicate job title or position. 

How long have you been doing this job: Indicate number of years and months that you 

have worked in the job or position described above. 

How many hours do you work each week: Indicate on average the number of hours 

worked per week. 

Gender: Circle “M” for male, “F” for female. 

Height: Indicate height in feet and inches. 

Weight: Indicate weight in pounds. 

To be answered by everyone (left column of table): For each body part listed, mark 

“No” if you have no discomfort or “Yes” if you have discomfort. 

9 
To be answered by those who have had trouble (discomfort) (middle and right 

columns of table): 

Have you at any time during the last 12 months been prevented from doing 

your normal work because of the trouble? If you had discomfort any time 

during the past 12 months that prevented you from doing your normal work, mark 

“Yes” for that body part. If the discomfort did not prevent you from doing your 

normal work, mark “No.” 

Have you had trouble at any time during the last 7 days? If you had 

discomfort any time during the past 7 days, mark “Yes” for that body part. If the 

discomfort did not occur during the past 7 days, mark “No.” 

10 
11 

_____ 

o you work each 

 be ya

questionnaire is 

s 2 and 3 a

a

ur bod

How m

ate box - one “X” for each question. You m

e to be r

___________

 1 of the 

ny hours d

nm

 that column

y; colu

ee ID: 

ight: _____________ 

. Note

yo

Employ

yawy

 part of 

___ months 

y

opri

an

n a

 ___years 

e

this job?

 putting an “X” in the appr

your best 

ble in

mn 1.

Height: ____ ft.____ in. 

es in colu

W

in doubt as to how to answer, but please do 

u have never had trou

naire) Question

 Please answer by

o

Table:to be answered even if y

on the Nordic Based 

How long have you been doing 

answered if you answered y

_______ 

e. 

ap. 

e

(

te a

 hav

Musculoskeletal Discomfort Form

___________________________ 

e tabl

Age: 

u

h

F M 

nnaire:

y referred to in t

oy

Gender: 

o

rself in which part 

ou can see the approxim

e parts of the bod

 In this picture y

 defined, and certain parts overl t sharply

 _____ 

of th

Job/Position: 

its are no

d decide for you

week?How to answer the questiPicture:position LimYou shoulor have had your trouble (if any). 

11
 

[Kuorinka et al. 1987] 

To be answered by everyone To be answered by those who have had trouble Have you at any time during the last 12 months Have you at any time during the Have you had trouble at any 

had trouble (ache, pain, discomfort, numbness) last 12 months been prevented time during the last 7 days? in: from doing your normal work

(at home or away from home) because of the trouble? 

Neck No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes Shoulders No  Yes, right shoulder

 Yes, left shoulder  No  Yes  No  Yes 

 Yes, both shoulders 

Elbows No  Yes, right elbow 

 Yes, left elbow  No  Yes  No  Yes 

 Yes, both elbows 

Wrists/Hands No  Yes, right wrist/hand

 Yes, left wrist/hand  No  Yes  No  Yes 

 Yes, both wrists/hands 

Upper Back No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes 

Lower Back (small of back) No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes 

One or Both Hips/Thighs No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes 

One or Both Knees No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes 

One or Both Ankles/Feet No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes 
TOOL C 

General Risk Factor Exposure Checklist 

12 

Purpose 

To obtain risk factor exposure profiles for specific jobs. 

When to Use It 

This tool is used prior to implementing a process or task-specific intervention to obtain a 

baseline for exposures. The checklist can then be administered periodically to determine if the 

exposures have been reduced or eliminated after the intervention has been implemented to 

determine the effectiveness of the process or intervention. 

How to Use It 

The information obtained will yield a listing of exposures associated with a job. This can 

be used to rank jobs based on exposures, providing a basis for prioritizing interventions. The 

checklist can also be used to categorize risk factor exposures by jobs, departments or teams, 

sites, or body part affected. This tool was designed to be completed by employees after receiving 

instructions from an administrator, such as a safety director. Once the exposures are known, then 

followup with employees is needed to determine the specific tasks associated with the risk factor 

exposures. The information obtained from the checklist can be used during brainstorming 

sessions with employees to facilitate discussion and focus the direction of the discussion. 

An example of how this checklist was used at the Badger mines is shown in Tables 11 

and 12. The percentage and number of employees reporting specific exposures were determined 

in order to identify the most frequently experienced risk factor exposures at each location 

(Table 11). The shaded cells indicate risk factor exposures that were reported by at least 60% of 

the employees at that site. This information could be used to determine which risk factors needed 

to be targeted at each site and which site had the greatest number of exposures affecting the 

greatest number of workers. For example, the information in Table 11 indicates that 

interventions may be needed to address the intensive keying and static postures for the Support 

employees and whole-body vibration exposures at Taylor, Fairwater, and Trucking. Risk factor 
exposures reported by employees on each work team at the two mines were also determined. The 

results for the Taylor Mine are shown in Table 12. These results identified the Mine Team as 

having the greatest number of employees with reported exposures (shoveling, whole-body 

vibration, and static postures). The Wash, Rail, and Maintenance Teams also had some risk 

factor exposures that were reported by 90% of the team members. This information allows one to 

target the intervention efforts to have the greatest impact on employee health after reducing or 

eliminating exposures. 

A system was developed to obtain a single risk factor exposure score for each employee. 

The score is based on the number of exposures and severity of each exposure, according to 

duration of exposure, repetition of exposure, or weight lifted. All risk factors are scored equally, 

i.e., no risk factor is considered more important or weighted more than another risk factor. 

Potential Issues With Checklist 

Because of the large number of risk factors included in the checklist, the analysis can 

become daunting, particularly if a large number of checklists are completed. To simplify the 

analysis, it may be helpful to limit the risk factors to those affecting body parts of interest. For 

example, if back injuries are a problem, then only include the risk factors affecting the back. 

Using a software program (e.g., Microsoft Excel) to analyze the responses may also be helpful. 

For the Badger analysis, some of the risk factors were combined to simplify the analysis. In this 

case, the lifting risk factors were combined, as well as pushing and pulling risk factors. 

13 
Table 11.—Number and percentage of employees reporting risk factor exposures 

(Shaded areas indicate risk factor exposures reported by at least 60% of employees at each location. 

N = total number of employees at each location; n = number of employees reporting exposure.) 

Badger location 

Taylor Fairwater Risk 

Description Mine Mine factor (N=50) (N=25) 

n % n 

Forceful Lifting 31 62 14 

exertion Shoveling 37 74 15 

Pinch grip 29 58 18 

Grasping 32 64 18 

Carrying 19 38 10 

Pushing 16 32 10 

Pulling 11 22 7 

Awkward Hands 23 46 13 

Trucking Support 

(N=15) (N=44) 

% n % n % 

56 7 47 9 20 

60 2 13 5 11 

72 6 40 7 16 

72 8 53 5 11 

40 3 20 9 20 

40 5 33 4 9 

28 4 27 4 9 

52 5 33 4 9 

posture above head 

Neck bent 33 66 18 

Wrist bent 24 48 21 

Back bent 30 60 17 

72 6 40 27 61 

84 10 67 24 55 

68 11 73 4 9 

(stooping) 

Squatting 22 44 13 

Kneeling 22 44 13 

Static 26 52 16 

52 7 47 4 9 

52 10 67 3 7 

64 11 73 40 91 

position 

Vibration Moderate 15 30 11 44 5 33 2 5 

hand-arm 

High hand- 16 32 9 36 4 27 1 2 

arm 

Whole body 42 84 18 

Contact stress 20 40 8 

Intensive keying 18 36 11 

Repetition 20 40 14 

72 10 67 3 7 

32 5 33 3 7 

44 2 13 40 91 

56 2 13 9 20 

14 
Table 12.—Number of employees reporting risk factor exposures by teams at the Taylor Mine

(Shaded areas indicate risk factor exposures reported by most employees for specific teams when the number of team members exceeds 1. 

(N = total number of employees on team; n = number of associates reporting risk factor exposure) 

Taylor Teams

Risk factor Specific Dry Electrical Maintenance QTAT Rail Wash Mine Transload Operations

category risk factor N=7 N=1 N=5 N=1 N=6 N=11 N=16 N=1 N=2 

n n n n n n n n n 

Forceful Lifting 2 1 5 0 6 8 7 1 1 exertion Shoveling 3 0 3 1 5 8 15 1 1 

Pinch grip 3 1 3 1 4 9 8 0 0 

Grasping 2 1 3 0 6 9 9 1 1 Carrying 0 1 4 1 0 7 4 1 1 Pushing 1 1 2 1 1 6 3 1 0 

Pulling 0 1 1 0 1 5 2 1 0 

Awkward Hands 0 1 3 0 3 8 6 1 1 posture above head 

Neck bent 0 1 4 1 6 10 8 1 1 

Wrist bent 1 1 1 0 3 7 9 1 0 

Back bent 0 1 4 1 6 10 7 1 0 

(stooping) 

Squatting 0 1 2 0 6 7 6 0 0 

Kneeling 1 1 4 0 6 6 4 0 0 Static 1 1 1 1 0 6 13 1 2 position 

Vibration Moderate 0 1 3 0 0 8 3 0 0 

hand-arm High hand- 0 1 3 0 0 8 4 0 0 arm Whole body 3 1 4 0 4 11 16 1 1 

Contact stress 0 1 3 1 1 7 5 1 1 Intensive keying 2 1 0 0 2 8 2 1 2 Repetition 2 1 3 1 1 5 7 0 0 

15 

15
 
 

 

 

How to Complete the Tool 

Because this tool is intended to be administered to employees, written instructions, shown below, have 

been prepared and are included with the tool. 

Instructions 

The purpose of completing this form is to identify exposures to MSD risk factors that occur when doing tasks required by 

your job. Your answers will be used to track the effectiveness of applying ergonomics at your mine. 

1.	 ID: Name or employee number of employee completing checklist. (It is important to enter your name on the 

checklist so your checklist can be matched to future checklists.) 

2.	 Job/Position: Provide the name of your job. Please be as specific as possible (mechanic, dozer operator, crusher 

operator, etc.). 

3.	 Team/Department: Indicate the name of your organization. 

4.	 Date: Date checklist is completed. 

5.	 Mine/Plant: Name of your mine or plant. 

6.	 Shift: Check the length of your typical shift. 

7.	 Brief Description of Your Job: Provide a list of the main tasks you do for your job. Also list the number of 

hours/shift you spend doing each task and any equipment or tools you use. For example: 

Main Tasks Number of Hours Tools/Equipment Used 

Operate dozer 4 hours CAT D10 

Repair truck brakes 3 hours pneumatic wrench 

Risk Factors: Read each description of the risk factors while thinking about all the tasks you do that are a part of your 

job. Mark the choice that best applies to your job with a 9 or X. If you do not perform the risk factor described, mark 

“Never.” If you do the risk factor described periodically (once/week or once/month), then mark “Occasionally.” 

Some risk factors ask for additional information. Please write your response in the space provided. 

On the last page of the checklist, list two tasks that you do for your job that you believe are the most physically 

demanding. Physically demanding means a lot of effort is required to do the task, or it involves one or more of the risk 

factors listed in this checklist. 

16 
General Risk Factor Exposure Checklist ID _____________________ 

Job / Position ___________________________________ Date _____________________________ 

Team / Department _______________________________ Mine/Plant ________________________ 

Shift ______8 hrs ______10 hrs ______12 hrs _____Other (describe) ______________________ 

Brief Description of Your Job 

Main Tasks Number of Hours Tools/Equipment Used 

 

Heavy or Frequent Lifting / Lowering / Shoveling 

Lifting or lowering object weighing more than 75 pounds: Back / Shoulders 

___ Never ___Occasionally 

___ less than one time per day 

___ one or more times per day 

Lifting or lowering object weighing 55 to 75 pounds: 

___ Never ___Occasionally 

 ___ less than 10 times per day 

___ more than 10 times per day 

Lifting or lowering object weighing more than 25 pounds: Back / Shoulders 

___ Never ___Occasionally 

___ less than 25 times per day 

___ more than 25 times per day 

 

Lifting or lowering object weighing more than 10 pounds: Back / Shoulders 

___ Never ___Occasionally 

____less than 2 hours total per day 

____more than 2 hours total per day 

 Shoveling: Back / Shoulders / 

Arms ___ Never ___Occasionally 

____less than 1 hour total per day 

____from 1 to 2 hours total per day 

____more than 2 hours total per day 

 What material do you shovel?_____________ 

17 
Awkward Postures 

Working with the hand(s) above the head or the elbow(s) 

above the shoulders: 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally

 ____ for less than 2 hours per day

 ____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day

 ____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Shoulders 

Working with the neck bent more than 30 degrees (without 

30o support): 

____ Never ___Occasionally

 ____ for less than 2 hours per day

 ____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day

 ____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Neck 

45o 

30o 

Deviation Working with a bent wrist(s) – flexion, extension or 

deviation: Indicate Posture

 ____ Never ___Occasionally ___________ 

 ____ for less than 2 hours per day ___________ 

 ____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day ___________ 

 ____ more than 4 hours total per day ___________ 

Wrists / Arms 

30o 

Working with the back bent more than 30 degrees (without 

support): 

Back 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally

 ____ for less than 2 hours per day

 ____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day

 ____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Squatting: 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 2 hours per day 

____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day 

____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Kneeling: 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 2 hours per day 

____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day 

____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Knees 

18 
High Hand Force - Pinch Grip 

Pinching an unsupported object: 

 

____ Never ___Occasionally

 ____ for less than 2 hours per day

 ____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day

Elbows / 

 Wrists / Hands 

 ____ more than 4 hours total per day 

What object do you pick up with a pinch grip? 

____________________________________ 

Flexion 

30o 

45o 

Pinch grip + wrists bent (flexion, extension, or in 

deviation): 

Elbows / 

Wrists / Hands 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally

Extension 

 

 ____ for less than 2 hours per day

 ____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day

 ____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Deviation 

High Hand Force - Grasp or Power Grip 

Grasping an unsupported object(s) weighing 10 or more 

pounds per hand, or grasping with a forceful grip: 

Elbows / 

Wrists / Hands 

____ Never ___Occasionally

 ____ for less than 2 hours per day ____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day

 ____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Flexion 

 

Grasping plus wrists bent (flexion, extension, or in 

deviation): 

 

Elbows / 

Wrists / Hands 

 

30o 45o ____ Never ___Occasionally

 ____ for less than 2 hours per day

 ____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day

 ____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Extension 

Deviation 

19 
Highly Repetitive Work 

Repeating the same motion (excluding keying activities) with little or 

no variation every few seconds: 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 2 hours per day 

____ from 2 to 6 hours total per day 

____ more than 6 hours total per day 

Repeating the same motion (excluding keying activities) with little or 

no variation every few seconds plus wrists bent (flexion, extension, or 

in deviation) plus high, forceful exertions with the hands: 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 2 hours per day 

____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day 

____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Shoulders / Wrists / 

Arms 

Performing intensive keying (perform only keying with few or no 

breaks): 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 4 hours per day 

____ from 4 to 7 hours total per day 

____ more than 7 hours total per day 

Performing intensive keying plus wrists bent (flexion, extension, or in 

deviation): 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 2 hours per day 

____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day 

____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Arms / Wrists / 

Shoulders / Neck 

Vibrating Tools (Hand-Arm Vibration) 

Using grinders, sanders, jigsaws, or other handtools that typically have 

moderate vibration levels: 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 2 hours per day 

____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day 

____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Arms / Wrists / 

Shoulders 

Using impact wrenches, chain saws, percussive tools (jackhammers, 

scalers, chipping hammers), or other tools that typically have high 

vibration levels: 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 30 minutes total per day 

____ for more than 30 minutes total per day 

Arms / Wrists / 

Shoulders / Back 

20 
Bouncing or Jarring (Whole-Body Vibration) 

Operating mobile equipment: 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 2 hours per day 

____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day 

____ more than 4 hours total per day 

I travel over rough roads (circle one): 

 Never Sometimes Most of the time 

 List equipment: 

_______________ 

 _______________ 

 _______________ 

All of the time 

Back / Hips / Legs 

Contact or Impact Stress 

Contacting hard or sharp objects like work surface edges or narrow tool 

handles, or striking an object with a hammer: 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 2 hours per day 

____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day 

____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Describe sharp object / hammer ________________________________ 

Shoulders / Elbows / 

Wrists / Arms 

Static Postures 

Standing without changing posture: 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 2 hours per day 

____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day 

____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Sitting without changing posture: 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ for less than 2 hours per day 

____ from 2 to 4 hours total per day 

____ more than 4 hours total per day 

Back/ Hips / Legs 

Carrying 

Carrying objects more than 7 feet - check weight and frequency for most 

difficult carry (check “Never” if you do not carry objects): 

 OBJECT WEIGHT FREQUENCY 

___Less than 20 pounds ___Occasionally ___ Never 

___21 to 35 pounds ___Less than 1 carry/minute 

___36 to 50 pounds ___1–2 carries/minute 

___More than 50 pounds ___3–6 carries/minute 

 ___More than 6 carries/minute 

Back / Shoulders / 

Elbows / 

Legs 

21 
Pushing and Pulling 

Pushing against an object, such as a cart or handle, with a maximum 

effort (body leaning with bent legs into the push): 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ less than 8 times per day 

____ from 8 to 30 times per day 

____ more than 30 times per day 

Pushing against an object, such as a cart or handle, with a moderate effort 

(body slightly leaning with straight legs into the push, similar to pushing 

a full grocery cart): 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ less than 16 times per day 

____ from 16 to 50 times per day 

____ more than 50 times per day 

Back / Shoulders / 

Elbows / 

Legs 

Pulling against an object, such as an electrical cable, fuel hose, cart, or 

handle, with a maximum effort (body leaning with bent legs into the pull): 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ less than 8 times per day 

____ from 8 to 30 times per day 

____ more than 30 times per day 

Pulling against an object, such as an electrical cable, fuel hose, cart, or 

handle, with a moderate effort (body slightly leaning with straight legs 

into the pull, similar to pulling a full grocery cart): 

 ____ Never ___Occasionally 

____ less than 16 times per day 

____ from 16 to 50 times per day 

____ more than 50 times per day 

Back / Shoulders / 

Elbows / 

Legs 

Most Difficult or Physically Demanding Tasks 

(Please provide a brief description of each task) 

Why is this 

task difficult? 

1. 

2. 

22 
How to Score the Risk Factor Exposures 

RISK FACTORS SCORE 

o Lifting or lowering object weighing more than 75 pounds 0 never 

o Lifting or lowering object weighing more than 55 pounds 1 occasionally 

o Lifting or lowering object weighing more than 25 pounds 2 

3 

 less than 1 time per day 

 more than 1 time per day 

o Lifting or lowering object weighing more than 10 pounds 0 

1 

2 

3 

 never 

occasionally 

 less than 2 hours total per day 

 more than 2 hours total per day 

o Shoveling more than 5 pounds if done more than 3 times per minute 0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

 never 

occasionally 

 less than 1 hour total per day 

from 1 to 2 hours total per day 

 more than 2 hours total per day 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Working with the hand(s) above the head or the elbow(s) above the 

shoulders 

Working with the neck bent more than 30 degrees 

Working with bent wrist(s) 

Working with the back bent 

Squatting 

Kneeling 

Pinching an unsupported object 

Pinch grip + wrists bent (flexion, extension, or deviation) 

Grasping unsupported object(s) weighing 10 or more pounds per 

hand or grasping with a forceful grip 

Grasping plus wrists bent (flexion, extension, or deviation) 

Repeating the same motion (excluding keying activities) with little 

or no variation every few seconds plus wrists bent (flexion, 

extension, or deviation) plus high, forceful exertions with the hands 

Performing intensive keying plus wrists bent (flexion, extension, or 

deviation) 

Using grinders, sanders, jigsaws, or other handtools that typically 

have moderate vibration levels 

Operating mobile equipment 

Contacting hard or sharp objects like work surface edges or narrow 

tool handles 

Sitting without changing posture 

Standing without changing posture 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

 never 

 occasionally 

 for less than 2 hours per day 

 from 2 to 4 hours total per day 

 more than 4 hours total per day 

o Repeating the same motion (excluding keying activities) with little 

or no variation every few seconds 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

never 

occasionally 

 for less than 2 hours per day 

from 2 to 6 hours total per day 

 More than 6 hours total per day 

o Perform intensive keying 0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

 never 

occasionally 

 for less than 4 hours per day 

from 4 to 7 hours total per day 

 more than 7 hours total per day 

o Using impact wrenches, chain saws, percussive tools (jackhammers, 0 never 

scalers, chipping hammers), or other tools that typically have high 1 occasionally 

vibration levels 2 

3 

 for less than 30 minutes total per day 

 for more than 30 minutes total per day 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o Pushing against an object, such as a cart or handle, with a maximum 

effort (body leaning with bent legs into the push) 

o Pulling against an object, such as a cart or handle, with a maximum 

effort (body leaning with bent legs into the pull) 

0 

1 

2 

3 

 if not checked 

 less than 8 times per day 

from 8 to 30 times per day 

 more than 30 times per day 

o Pushing against an object, such as a cart or handle, with a moderate 

effort (body slightly leaning with straight legs into the push, similar 

to pushing a full grocery cart) 

o Pulling against an object, such as a cart or handle, with a moderate 

effort (body slightly leaning with straight legs into the pull, similar 

to pulling a full grocery cart) 

0 

1 

2

3 

4 

never 

occasionally 

 less than 16 times per day 

from 16 to 50 times per day 

 more than 50 times per day 

o Carrying objects more than 7 feet 0 

1 

2 

3 

4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

never 

 less than 35 pounds 

 21 to 35 pounds 

 36 to 50 pounds 

 more than 50 pounds 

occasionally 

 less than 1 carry/minute 

1–2 carries/minute 

3–6 carries/minute 

 more than 6 carries/minute 

Total score for each employee = Sum of scores for each risk factor 

NOTE: This checklist was based on the Washington State Caution and Hazard Zone Checklists 

and the Followup Physical Risk Factor Checklist, but modified to be more applicable to mining 

and to be completed by employees. This checklist has not been statistically validated and should 

only be used as a guide. 

24 
TOOL D 

Ergonomics Observations 

Purpose 

To identify risk factor exposures and subsequent actions to reduce or eliminate 

exposures. 

When to Use It 

This tool can be used to collect exposure information when observing work tasks as part 

of a risk assessment. It can also be used when observing tasks as part of a BBS process. Because 

many risk factor exposures result from inadequately designed equipment, tools, and work 

stations and not from an unsafe behavior, it is important to capture information that will allow 

action to be taken to correct the root cause of the exposure. 

How to Use It 

This form can be used to track information about risk factor exposures. It can be used 

specifically to track the type of risk factor exposures, the occurrence of body discomfort, and the 

root cause of the exposure. This form can also be used to document simple improvements taken 

to reduce or eliminate the exposures. Because the form also asks the observer to rate the level of 

risk he or she believes is associated with the risk factor exposure, it can be used as a very basic 

prioritization method. For example, exposures rated with “very high risk” would have a higher 

priority for an intervention than those rated with “low risk.” 

How to Complete the Tool 

Mine: List name of mine. 

Location: List geographic location of mine (name of nearest town/city). 

Team/Department: List name of team or department that is the subject of the observation. 

Task: Briefly describe the task being observed. 

Time: Indicate the time of the observation. 

Date: Indicate the date of the observation. 

# Observed: Indicate the number of employees being observed. 

25 
Observer: Indicate the name of the person doing the observation. 

1.	 Indicate the risk factor exposure(s) observed by marking the box next to the risk factor. 

If the risk factor is not listed, check the “Other” box and briefly describe the risk factor 

exposure. 

2.	 Indicate how often the task is performed to determine the frequency of the exposure. 

Determine if the task is done on a regular basis or seasonally. For tasks that are done on a 

regular basis: 

o	 Indicate the number of times a task is done per shift. For example, if the task is 

done six times during a shift, complete this question as “6 times/shift.” 

o	 Indicate how many shifts this task is performed per week, month, or year. 

•	 If the task is done every week, indicate the number of shifts the task is 

performed per week. 

•	 If the task is not done every week, but is done every month, then 

indicate the number of shifts per month the task is performed. For 

example, if the task is done seven shifts per month, then complete this 

question as “7 shifts/month.” 

•	 If the task is not done every month, then indicate the number of shifts 

per year the task is performed. For example, if the task is done 15 shifts 

per year, then complete this question as “15 shifts/year.” 

For tasks that are performed on a seasonal basis: 

o	 Check the box to indicate that the task is seasonal, and then record the number of 

weeks per year the task is performed. 

o	 Indicate the number of times a task is done per shift. For example, if the task is 

done 12 times during a shift, complete this question as “12 times/shift.” 

o	 Indicate the number of shifts the task is performed per week. For example, if the 

task is done three shifts during a week, complete this question as “3 shifts/week.” 

3.	 Indicate if the employee being observed is experiencing any discomfort, and then mark 

the body part with discomfort by placing an “X” on the body part in the diagram. This 

information will not only identify the development of potential MSDs, but can help focus 

job improvements. 

26 
4.	 Check the root cause of the risk factor (why the risk factor is occurring), and give a brief 

description of the root cause. Identifying the root cause can provide direction on how to 

change the task to reduce the risk factor exposures. For example: 

o	 If the employee is required to lift an object weighing 90 pounds, then check 

“effort or strength required” as the root cause, and then briefly describe it – “lifted 

object weighs 90 pounds.” 

o	 If the task is repeated throughout the shift, such as operating a loader, then check 

“cycle time” as the root cause, and then describe it – “time to fill and dump one 

bucket is 20 seconds”; and also check “duration of task” as another root cause, 

and then describe it – “loader is operated for 7 hours per shift.” 

5.	 Rate the degree of risk of the exposure as either “none,” “low,” “medium,” “high,” or 

“very high.” This rating is based on understanding the level of exposure, how often the 

exposure occurs, and the duration of the exposure. For example, if the exposure is from 

lifting an object weighing 30 pounds once a week, then the risk would be rated as “low.” 

If the exposure is from lifting an object weighing 100 pounds once a week, then the risk 

would be rated as “high.” The conditions provided in Section I under “Basic Elements of 

Ergonomics Risk Management Processes” can be used as a guide for ranking the task. If 

any of the conditions are present, the task would be rated as either “medium,” “high,” or 

“very high” risk. (This risk ranking is only meant as a very crude attempt to set a 

prioritization when several exposures may need to be addressed and limited resources are 

available to address the exposures.) 

6.	 Indicate if there is another way to do the task that would reduce or eliminate the exposure 

and describe how the task can be changed. This question provides the observer with an 

opportunity to obtain ideas from the worker about ways to change the task. 

7.	 Indicate if the exposure was reduced or eliminated at the time of the observation. 

8.	 Provide any pertinent comments related to the exposure, discomfort, or ways to control 

the exposure. 

9.	 Indicate any of the suggested job improvements that were discussed or tried at the time of 

the observation. This information will be useful for determining appropriate followup to 

resolve the exposure. 

27 
ERGONOMICS OBSERVATIONS 

Mine:_____________ Location:________ Team:________________ Task:________________________ 

Time:____________ Date:___________ # Observed:_________ Observer:________________________ 

1. Check all the risk factors that you observe. 

□ forceful exertion □ repetition □ static posture □ awkward postures □ contact stress 

□ pressure points □ vibration □ other__________________________

2. How often is this task performed? ________times/shift ________shifts/week 

 □ Seasonal ___weeks/year ________shifts/month ________shifts/year 

3. Does employee experience any discomfort when doing this task? Yes No 

 If yes, what body parts have discomfort? (Place X on body part) 

4. What is causing the risk factors? Check (√) root cause (s) and give brief description. 

CHECK ROOT CAUSE BRIEF DESCRIPTION 

Effort or strength required 

Location of parts, equipment or tools 

Position of parts, equipment or tools (How the part 

is positioned in reference to the worker) 

Design of parts, equipment or tools 

Frequency of task (how often is task done) 

Duration of task (how long it takes to do task) 

Productivity levels 

Method used / required to do the task 

Training not adequate / need training 

PPE not available / wrong PPE used 

Environment – heat, cold, restricted space, etc. 

Other 

5. Rate the degree of risk factor exposures for the observed task: None Low Medium High Very High 

COMPLETE ONLY IF EXPOSURES ARE RATED MEDIUM, HIGH or VERY HIGH 

6. Is there another way to do this task that eliminates/reduces the risk factor(s)? Yes No 

 If yes, describe how the task can be changed: __________________________________________________ 

7. Was the risk factor exposure resolved at the time of the observation? Yes No 

8. Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

9. Indicate options discussed by checking the box next to the solutions shown below and on back side of page. 

Personal Protective Equipment Administrative Controls 

□ Anti-vibration gloves – reduce vibration transmission □ Job enlargement 

□ Knee pads – reduce pressure points □ Job rotation 

□ Shoe inserts – reduce foot discomfort and fatigue □ Work pace and duration 

□ Cooling devices – reduce body temperature increases □ Work-rest cycles 

□ Cold weather clothing □ Training 

□ Shift schedule / overtime 

□ Exercise / stretches 
MMH (Lifting) – Think Smart MMH (Push/Pull) – Think MMH Design Strategies 

Smart 

□ Plan activity □ Avoid manual handling 

□ Keep loads clos □ Use push instead of pull □ Use mechanical aids (hand trucks/carts) 

body □ Keep elbows near 90o □ Use carts with large casters 

□ Use lifting as □ Provide clear path □ Modify workplace 

□ Ask for assista □ Avoid slopes Store heavy items between knees & 

Balance load/Stronger person on □ Avoid uneven floors shoulders –Avoid placing on floor 

bottom/Talk Store light items on top shelf 

□ One-handed lift / carry □ Decrease object/container size 

Avoid/Use other hand as □ Decrease object/container 

counterbalance/Alternate Hands weight 

□ Avoid bending at the waist to lift □ Change container shape 

objects □ Add handles 

□ Avoid twisting – take a step and turn 

Reducing Forceful Exertions Reducing Excessive Motions Reducing Fatigue 

Use □ Use power tools □ Use arm rests and other types of supports 

□ Power tools □ Eliminate double handling □ Use fixtures 

□ Fixtures □ Use efficient motions □ Add straps, handles, handholds 

□ Slides & rollers □ Use power tools (light-weight) 

□ Mechanical aids 

□ Gravity to move 

materials 

□ Reduce carry distances 

□ Reduce pushes / pulls 

□ Use floor mats

□ Leverage 

□ Power grip – not pinch grip 

Reducing Awkward Postures Good Standing Posture Good Sitting Posture 

□ Adjust □ Neck straight □ Operate controls without 

workstation □ Shoulders relaxed reaching, bending, or 

and chairs □ Elbows at side twisting your wrists or 

□ Keep items □ Keep wrists in body 

within easy same plane as □ Seat back - 90° to 125° 

reach 

□ Remove barriers 

□ Work at elbow height 

□ Use bent handle tools 

forearm 

□ Keep elbows 

below the 

shoulders

□ Maintain the S-curve of the back

□ 2” clearance between 

knees and front of seat 

cushion 

□ Seat height 2 inches below knees when 

standing 

□ Relax shoulders and upper arms - position 

perpendicular to floor 

□ Keep arms and elbows close to body 

□ Position thighs parallel to the floor 

□ Position lower legs perpendicular to floor 

□ Rest feet firmly on floor or use footrest

Minimize Pressure Points/Contact 

Sress 

□ Use tools with curved handles that 

follow contour of hand 

□ Use tools with rounded handles – no 

finger grooves 

□ Add 

padding to 

sharp 

edges 

Improving Work Environment 

□ Provide good, adjustable lighting 

□ Provide task lighting 

□ Place workstations perpendicular to windows 

□ Provide temperature controls 

□ Provide air conditioned break areas 

□ Provide humidity controls
TOOL E 

Hand Tool Checklist 

Purpose 

To evaluate and compare design features of hand tools. 

When to Use It 

The Hand Tool Checklist can be used prior to purchasing new hand tools or when 

evaluating hand tools for risk factor exposures. 

How to Use It 

The Hand Tool Checklist consists of a list of design criteria that are based on ergonomic 

principles. The checklist can be used when selecting new hand tools to ensure that they meet 

these design criteria and they do not result in risk factor exposures, such as pressure points, 

awkward postures, or excessive vibration. Comparisons can be made among new tools to assist 

in deciding which tool to purchase. The checklist can also be used to compare a new tool with an 

old tool to ensure that the new tool meets specific design features important to the task for which 

the tool was selected. 

How to Complete the Tool 

Evaluation Completed By: Add name of person completing the evaluation. 

Date: Date evaluation conducted. 

Task: Describe task that will be completed with tool being evaluated. 

Tool 1 (Describe): Provide name of tool being evaluated. 

Manufacturer: Indicate the manufacturer of the tool. 

Model: Indicate the model number/name of tool. 

Tool 2 (Describe): If more than one tool is being evaluated, provide name of second 

tool. 

30 
Manufacturer: Indicate the manufacturer of the second tool being evaluated. 

Model: Indicate the model number/name of second tool being evaluated. 

Questions: For each tool being evaluated, check “Yes” if the tool has or meets the 

design criteria described, check “No” if the tool does not have or meet the design criteria 

described, or check “NA” if the design criteria does not apply to the tool being evaluated. 

Totals: Indicate the number of “Yes,” “No,” and “NA” responses for each tool. These 

numbers provide a quick look at how many design criteria are met by each tool. 

Other Features: Indicate any other positive feature of the tool that was not included in 

the questions. 

NOTE: The Hand Tool Checklist is based on a checklist published in the OSHA Draft Proposed 

Ergonomic Protection Standard, Addendum B-1, Assessment of and Solutions to Worksite Risk 

Factors, March 20, 1995. The checklist has been formatted to allow for a comparison among 

tools. The checklist is not meant to be inclusive of all design features, but to highlight major 

design features. While a “Yes” answer indicates a more ergonomic design, you will have to 

consider the function of the tool and the task it is being used to complete to determine if one of 

these features is more or less important. 

An additional resource is Easy Ergonomics: A Guide to Selecting Non-Powered Hand Tools 

[NIOSH and Cal/OSHA 2004]. 

31 
 

Hand Tool Checklist 

Evaluation Completed By ____________________________________ Date ________________________ 

Task _____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tool 1 (Describe) ____________________________ Manufacturer________________ Model___________ 

Tool 2 (Describe) ____________________________ Manufacturer________________ Model___________ 

32 

Questions Tool 1 Tool 2 

Does the tool: 

 Reduce exposure to localized vibration? 

Reduce hand forces?

 Reduce/eliminate bending or awkward postures of the wrist? 

 Avoid pinch grips? 

Is tool evenly balanced? 

Does tool grip/handle prevent slipping during use? 

Is tool equipped with handle that: 

 Does not end in palm? 

 Is made of textured, nonconductive material? 

 Has a grip diameter suitable for most workers (or are different 

 sized handles available)?

 Is made of padded or semipliable material? 

Is free of ridges, flutes, or sharp edges? 

Can tool be used safely with gloves? 

Can tool be used by either hand? 

Can trigger be operated by more than one finger to avoid fatigue? 

Does tool minimize twist or shock to hand? 

(In particular, observe reaction of power tools due to torque.) 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

 Yes  No  NA 

Total the number of Yes, No, and NA responses __Yes __ No __ NA __ Yes __ No __ NA 

Are there any other positive features for each tool not listed above? 

Tool 1 Tool 2 

 
TOOL F 

Manual Task Risk Assessment 

Purpose 

To conduct a risk assessment of risk factor exposures associated with manual tasks. 

When to Use It 

Use the Manual Task Risk Assessment Form when you are evaluating risk factor 

exposures and would like to have a risk ranking that can be used to prioritize interventions, 

demonstrating reduction in exposures, or to focus on body parts most affected by the exposures. 

How to Use It 

This form can be used to evaluate risk factor exposures associated with manual tasks to 

rank the risk factor exposures and determine affected body parts. This information can then be 

used to target specific interventions and to prioritize tasks for interventions. The information can 

also be used to promote the success of interventions (see the Ergonomic Task Improvement Form). 

How to Complete the Tool 

Task: Describe the manual task being evaluated. 

Date: Date evaluation is being conducted. 

Assessed by: Name of person conducting the evaluation. 

In consultation with: Name of person assisting with the evaluation. 

Comments: Describe the task in detail, including: 

•	 Why the task is being assessed, such as to investigate an injury report or discomfort 

report, evaluate productivity issues, conduct baseline assessment, etc. 

•	 Tools – powered or nonpowered tools (include manufacturer, model, size, etc.) 

•	 Equipment – mining equipment, lifting assist devices, transportation equipment, etc. 

•	 Materials – any materials needed to complete the task such as equipment parts, 

building materials, supplies, etc. 

•	 Overall process that includes the task being assessed. 

33 
 

Exposure Risk Assessment: 

•	 Identify all primary risk factor exposures, and circle the descriptions that are most 

applicable. 

•	 Circle the duration description that is most applicable to the task. 

•	 Circle the repetition description that is most applicable to the task. 

•	 Check any other secondary risk factors present that are listed in the box on the right 

side of the page. 

•	 Determine the risk assessment score by adding the numbers listed above the circled 

boxes. If additional risk factors are present, add a plus sign (+) to the score for each 

secondary risk factor exposure. 

Example: 

A miner drives a haul truck for a 10-hour shift. The road is rough, and the miner 

experiences periodic jolting and jarring. The miner has a 30-minute lunch and two 

15-minute breaks. Because of productivity requirements, the miner has 10 minutes to 

load, haul, and dump the product and then return for another load. 

1. The risk factor exposure is whole-body vibration. Because jolting and jarring 

occurs, circle the box “high amplitude whole-body vibration” (score = 4). 

2. Because the exposure occurs throughout the shift, circle “performed continuously 

for majority of shift” (score = 8). 

3. Because of time pressure from productivity requirements, check “High time 

pressure.” Also check “Lack of opportunities for social interaction,” because the 

miner is isolated in the haul truck for most of the shift (score = ++). 

4. Total score = 12++ 

Body Part Injury Risk: Using the risk assessment conducted in the previous section of 

the form, transfer the scores to the body regions affected by the risk factor exposures. 

Once the scores have been transferred, add up the individual scores to obtain the total 

score for each body region. If you have scores for more than one body region, then the 

body region with the highest total score would be the focus of the intervention. 

34 
 

Controls: This section of the form can be used to document controls that may be 

implemented to reduce or eliminate the risk factor exposures. Potential interventions can 

be identified during discussions or brainstorming sessions with miners, engineers, 

supervisors, etc. 

NOTE: The Manual Task Risk Assessment tool was developed by Robin BurgessLimerick, Ph.D., CPE (University of Queensland, Australia). A software version is 

available by contacting him at: robin@burgess-limerick.com 

35 
36 

Assess the degree of exposure to each primary risk factor for each body region using the table. Determine whether 

36
 

Manual Task Risk Assessment

TASK: LOCATION: DATE:ASSESSED BY:IN CONSULTATION WITH:COMMENTS(Reason Assessed; Tools, Equipment, Materials, Processes involved, etc.) 

Manual task: Any activity requiring the worker to grasp, manipulate, strike, throw, carry, move, hold, or restrain an object, load, or body part. 
37 

37
 

Assess the degree of exposure to each primary risk factor for each body region using the table below. Determine whether any of the additional risk factors listed are present. For purposes of priority setting, a risk ranking may be determined using the numeric ratings in the table. 

Green Yellow Orange Red

Rating: 1 Rating: 2 Rating: 4 Rating: 8 

Low force and speed Moderate forces or speed, but High force or speed, but Forces or speeds close to Exertion well within capability not close to maximal the person’s maximum Performed infrequently Performed regularly, but with Performed frequently, Performed continuously for Duration for short periods many breaks or changes of task without many breaks or most of shift 

changes of task 

Dynamic and varied Little or no movement, or Repeated identical Repetition patterns of movement repeated similar movements movements □ Hot or cold environment

Comfortable postures, Uncomfortable postures, but not Postures at the extreme of □ High stress environment Posture within a normal range involving postures at the extreme the range of motion □ High time pressure about neutral of the range of motion □ Lack of control over work No hand-arm or whole- Moderate-amplitude hand-arm High-amplitude hand-arm □ Cognitive over/under load Vibration body vibration vibration or whole-body vibration vibration or whole-body □ Lack of opportunities for social interaction vibration

Determine the body region(s) that may be at risk of injury. (Alternatively, assess the task for each of the following regions: lower limbs; lower back; neck/shoulders and upper back; elbows, wrists, and hands.) 

Body Region Exertion Duration Repetition Posture Vibration Total Risk Score

Neck, Shoulders, and Upper Back

Elbow , s Wrist , s and Hands

Lower Back

Legs, Knees, and Feet

Engineering Controls Administrative Controls Personal Protective Equipment 
TOOL G 

 Ergonomic Task Improvement Form 

Purpose 

To provide an effective method to highlight interventions implemented to reduce or 

eliminate risk factor exposures. 

When to Use It 

Use the Ergonomic Task Improvement Form after an intervention has been implemented. 

How to Use It 

This form can be use to compare how a task was done before and after an intervention 

was implemented to demonstrate the reduction of the risk factor exposures. Forms can be posted 

on bulletin boards or the company Intranet. If similar operations are conducted at multiple sites, 

the form can be used to provide ideas for interventions at other sites. An example of a completed 

form is shown below. 

How to Complete the Tool 

Name of Manual Task: Add name of task in the title (in the example below, “Moving 

Electromagnetic”). 

Division: Add name of division. 

Mine: Add name of mine. 

Department: Add name of department. 

Task Description: Briefly describe the task, including information pertinent to the risk 

factor exposures. 

Equipment/Tools Used in Task: List the specific equipment and tools involved. 

Frequency of Task: Indicate how many times the task is done. 

38 
 

Number of Workers Affected: Indicate the number of workers who perform this task. 

Employee Concerns: Describe the number and type of injuries, or the presence of body 

discomfort reported by employees associated with doing this task. 

Risk Assessment: Complete the table based on risk assessment results. 

Objective of Control Measure: Indicate how the risk factor exposures will be reduced 

or eliminated. 

Description of Control: Briefly describe the controls used to reduce or eliminate the 

risk factor exposures. Include model number if applicable. 

Manufacturer/Contact Information: Provide the source of the control measure, 

including contact information (phone and/or e-mail address). 

Cost: Provide cost information for the control. If the control was constructed in-house, 

provide an estimate of materials and labor costs. 

Effect of Control on Productivity: Indicate if the control resulted in either an increase 

or decrease in productivity. 

Effect of Control on Injury Risk: Indicate if the control is expected to impact injury
 

risk. 

Risk Assessment: Repeat the risk assessment after the implementation of the control.
 

Further Actions / Administrative Controls Required: Include information on actions 

that will be needed as a result of implementing the control, such as maintenance, 

inspections, reports, schedule changes, etc. 

NOTE: If possible, include photographs to show how the task was done before and after 

implementing the control, and include the worker in the photographs. Follow the same
 

color scheme in the risk assessment tables that was defined in the Manual Task Risk 

Assessment. 

39 
 

 

 

 

Ergonomic Task Improvement 

Task: Moving Electromagnet 

DIVISION_____________________ MINE_______________DEPARTMENT____________________ 

TASK DESCRIPTION: The electromagnet is manually pulled to the scrap bin by pulling down on 

a chain over a pulley. The magnet is heavy, and maximum effort is required. The worker reaches 

to his maximum height to grasp the chain and pull down using his entire body weight. 

EQUIPMENT/TOOLS USED IN TASK: Electromagnet 

FREQUENCY OF TASK: Daily NUMBER OF WORKERS AFFECTED: 5 

ROOT CAUSES OF RISK FACTORS: The mass of the magnet requires very high force to move. 

EMPLOYEE CONCERNS: An acute shoulder injury was reported and resulted in a lost-time 

injury. 

B 

E 

F 

O 

R 

E 

5-10 = Low Risk 11-15 = Medium Risk 16-24 = High Risk 

OBJECTIVE OF CONTROL MEASURE: Substitute the manual effort with a winch that pulls the magnet 

into place above the scrap bin. 

2 1 1 1 1 6

Lower Limb: 

Leg, Knee, and Foot 

Lower Back 2 1 2 1 1 7

8 1 4 1 1 15

Upper Limb: 

Elbow, Wrist, Arm, and Hand 

8 1 4 4 1 18

Upper Body: 

Neck, Shoulders, & Upper Back 

Body Region Exertion Duration Repetition Posture Vibration RISK RANK 

1 1 2 1 1 6

Lower Limb: 

Leg, Knee, and Foot 

Lower Back 1 1 1 1 1 5

1 1 1 1 1 5

Upper Limb: 

Elbow, Wrist, Arm, and Hand 

1 1 4 4 1 6

Upper Body: 

Neck, Shoulders, & Upper Back 

Body Region Exertion Duration Repetition Posture Vibration RISK RANK 

A 

F 

T 

E 

R 

DESCRIPTION OF CONTROL (tool, equipment, or work station changes/purchases): 

Electric winch purchased and installed by contractor. 

MANUFACTURER/CONTACT INFO: Acme winches 

COST: $5,000 

EFFECT OF CONTROL ON PRODUCTIVITY: Winch is considerably faster. 

EFFECT OF CONTROL ON INJURY RISKS: Risk of injury eliminated. 

FURTHER ACTIONS/ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS REQUIRED: Winch maintenance needs to 

be added to maintenance schedule and inspected. 

40 
 

TOOL H 

Risk Factor Cards 

Purpose 

The risk factor cards were designed for use as a guide to identify risk factor exposures 

and to suggest some simple job improvements. 

When to Use It 

Examples of the cards are shown in Figure 10. The primary use of the cards is as a 

handout following training on risk factor exposures. The cards serve as a reminder to employees 

to identify and report risk factor exposures associated with their jobs. The cards are slightly 

larger than a credit card, and can be easily carried in the pocket. Information is printed on both 

sides of the cards. For cards highlighting risk factors, examples of risk factor exposures are 

provided on the front of the card, with potential solutions to the risk factors provided on the 

reverse. 

Because electronic versions of the cards are provided, poster-sized versions can be made 

and placed at locations where employees would have an opportunity to view them, such as a 

break room or locker room. Posters can be displayed in conjunction with toolbox or refresher 

training addressing risk factor exposures. The cards can also be used by trainers as a handout 

during training sessions to reinforce information presented during the training. The cards can be 

either laminated or printed on plastic sheets to improve durability. 

41 
Enhancing Safety 

Through Ergonomics

Awkward Posture 

Shoulder 

Extreme reaching increases the stress acting 

on muscles and tendons possibly leading to 

inflammation. Inflammation can increase the 

pressure on nerves and blood vessels 

causing pain and reducing blood flow to 

muscles. 

Reaching overhead 

compresses the nerves 

and reduces strength 

Reaching forward 

reduces the strength of 

the shoulder and may 

result in back flexion 

Reaching backward 

causes hyperextension of 

the shoulder 

Awkward shoulder postures often are 

accompanied by awkward back and 

neck postures! 

Neutral Posture 

Hand/ Wrist, Neck, Shoulders, Back 

Muscles are capable of producing maximum 

force at neutral posture. As posture deviates 

from neutral, strength decreases.

Hands, wrists and forearms 

are straight, in-line and parallel 

to the floor 

Head is level or bent slightly 

forward, facing forward, and 

balanced in line with torso 

Shoulders are held back 

slightly and relaxed with the 

upper arms hanging at the 

side of the body 

When standing, back has a 

small hollow in the lower back, 

breastbone is lifted and 

buttocks are slightly tucked in 

When sitting, back is fully 

supported and breastbone is 

lifted 

Good posture comes with practice. 

Examine your posture often and 

correct it when necessary! 

Targeting Risk Factors 

Definition of Risk Factors: Actions or conditions 

found to contribute to worker discomfort or 

development of Musculoskeletal Disorders 

MAIN RISK FACTORS 

• Awkward Posture 

• Forceful Exertion 

•	 Repetitive Motion 

•	 Vibration

Watch Out for Risk Factors! 

Risk for injury increases when 

multiple risk factors are present. 

Solutions 

 Place worker on platform, in a trough or 

sunken floor so working targets are near 

elbow height 

 Provide variable height workstations to 

accommodate workers of different stature 

 Place extra step on bottom of access 

ladders to minimize shoulder reaching 

when getting on equipment 

 Eliminate barriers that prevent getting close 

to target, i.e. make cutout in workstation 

 Avoid storing materials above shoulder 

height to reduce overhead reaching 

 Use a tool to retrieve hard to reach items 

 Minimize reaching, staying within the 

normal reach envelope (gray region) 

Adjust work areas horizontally and 

vertically!

Seating 

Proper seating is vital to maintaining neutral 

sitting posture. It is necessary to adjust the 

seat to properly fit your body.

Adjustments should be made so: 

 The seat pan height is at knee level when 

standing 

 There is a 2-3 finger-width gap between the 

seat pan and the back of the leg 

 The backrest creates a 90°-105° angle with 

the seat pan 

Adjustability is key to improving 

comfort and permitting neutral 

posture! 

 Figure 10.—Examples of risk factor cards. (The front of each card is shown 

on the left, the reverse on the right.) 

42 
 

TOOL I 

Ergonomics Sticker 

Purpose 

The stickers are meant to reinforce the application of ergonomics to improve mining jobs. 

When to Use It 

The sticker, shown in Figure 11, is primarily intended as a handout following training on 

risk factor exposures. It serves as a reminder to participate in the ergonomics process by 

identifying and reporting risk factor exposures associated with jobs. The sticker can be placed on 

hardhats, lunch boxes, locker doors, etc. It can also be used as an incentive to encourage 

employees to report risk factor exposures. Employees would receive a sticker after reporting a 

potential exposure. 

The sticker can be modified to make it specific to a particular company. Figure 12 shows 

the sticker as modified by Bridger Coal Co. (name of company added to sticker) and Vulcan 

Materials Co. (colors changed to company colors). 

43 

Figure 11.—Surface mining sticker promoting ergonomics. 
Figure 12.—Stickers modified by Bridger Coal Co. (left) and Vulcan Materials Co. (right). 

44
 
YELLOW INSERT 

SHEET 
Section V 

Training 

Introduction 

According to Cohen et al. [1997], training is one of seven critical elements of the 

pathway to controlling MSDs. Training is important because it ensures a basic level of 

knowledge necessary for individuals to effectively fulfill their role as participants in an 

ergonomics process. As with any safety and health training, it is important to address 

training needs at multiple levels and functions, as shown in Table 13. This table includes 

suggested training topics specific to the different groups typically involved with 

implementing an ergonomics process. 

Although basic ergonomics training is commercially available, it may not 

necessarily address tasks specific to mining or consider some of the challenges in 

controlling risk factor exposures, such as the dynamic nature of mining tasks, harsh 

environmental conditions, and restricted work spaces. To assist mining companies with 

providing training to employees, NIOSH developed a train-the-trainer package. 

A description of this training (Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training for 

Miners) is included in this section and is available as a separate NIOSH publication 

(DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2008–111, Information Circular (IC) 9497). Training 

to inform management about the benefits of an ergonomics process was also developed 

by NIOSH. A description of this training and the actual presentation are included in this 

section. Training for BBS observers is discussed in this section as well. The content for 

this training should be specific to the mine site, so only an outline and method of 

conducting this training are provided. The employee training package and the 

management training are available on the NIOSH Mining Web site 

(www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining). 

1
 
Table 13.—Suggested training topics for groups involved with implementing an ergonomics process 

Groups 

Training topics 

Value of

Ergonomics 

Process 

Resources

Needed 

Examples 

of

Successful

Processes 

Basic

Ergonomics 

Awareness 

MSD Risk

Factor

Identification 

MSD Risk

Factor

Evaluation 

MSD Risk

Factor

Controls -

Basic 

MSD Risk

Factor

Controls -

Advanced 

Problemsolving

and Team

Dynamics 

Management X X X 

Supervisors X X X X X X 

Employees X X X 

Ergonomics Team / Committee 

X X X X X X X X 

Engineering X X X Purchasing X X X 

Medical X X X Safety andHealth X X X X X X X 

BBSobservers X X X 

2

2 
Ergonomics and Mining: Ensuring a Safer Workplace – 

Training for Management 

When implementing an ergonomics process, several basic elements have been 

identified in order for the process to be successful. One of these elements is management 

support. This support determines the goals, resource levels, communication levels, and 

process evaluations for continuous improvement. When management support is 

observable, it denotes the importance of the process to the organization and its 

employees. Because management may not know how ergonomics can be applied within 

the organization and how it can be beneficial, it is often necessary to provide this 

information to obtain their buy-in for the ergonomics process. 

Objectives 

The objectives are to provide management with an understanding of how 

ergonomics processes can add value to the organization (primarily by reducing MSDs) 

and to obtain their support for implementing a process. 

Content/Topics 

This training is designed as an initial step to obtain management support for 

implementing an ergonomics process. The training should be given by safety and health 

managers or other personnel responsible for ergonomics. The training is a Microsoft 

Powerpoint file and can be modified to include information specific to your company. 

This file does not include any background or slide design formatting, so it can be 

modified easily to suit your particular needs. It takes approximately 90 minutes to 

present; however, the training can be shortened. Four examples of successful programs 

are included in the training; one or two of these examples could be omitted if the 

presentation time needs to be reduced. Notes are also provided to assist in presenting 

each slide. 

3 
The training addresses the following topics: 

•	 What is Ergonomics? 

•	 Costs of MSD Injuries 

•	 Ergonomics as a Solution 

•	 Successful Programs at Other Companies 

•	 Goals and Next Steps – This topic can be used to explain the short- and long-term 

goals, what is needed to implement the ergonomics process, and how the 

implementation will be accomplished. 

This training is on the CD included with this document and is also downloadable 

from the NIOSH Mining Web site (www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining). 

4 
(Provide an explanation of why this presentation is 

being given to your management. Additional slides Ergonomics and Mining: highlighting specific problems associated with 

exposures to MSD risk factors within your Ensuring a Safer Workplace organization can be added to this presentation.) 

Management Training 

Presentation Outline 

• What is Ergonomics? 

• Costs of MSD Injuries 

• Ergonomics as a Solution 

• Successful Programs at Other Companies 

• Next steps – Where we are headed 

You can see here that the way equipment is 

designed does not always consider the worker Ergonomics - What is it? using it. Workers are often put in situations where 

their tools and equipment are designed so that they 

must get into awkward positions (reaching and Most people look like this... stooping) in order to operate the equipment. 

Some designers must

think people look like 

this... 

5 
Ergonomics is... 

• Scientific study of human work. 

• Considers physical and mental 

capabilities of workers as they interact 

with tools, equipment, work methods, 

tasks, and working environment. 

• Goal – to reduce work-related injuries by 

adapting work to fit people instead of 

forcing people to adapt to work. 

The idea behind ergonomics is to adapt the 

workplace to fit the workers. To do this, we need to 

use what we know about the limitations and 

capabilities of people. Then we need to make sure 

the work does not require people to work outside of 

these capabilities or stretch them beyond their limits. 

When the work is too much, we need to change the 

work station, the tools and equipment people use, or 

the way that people do their jobs. 

Costs of Musculoskeletal Disorders 

National Academy of Sciences Study 

• 1 million workers miss time from job each 

year 

–Upper-extremity and low back disorders 

• $50 billion in direct costs 

• $1 trillion if you include indirect costs 

– 10% U.S. Gross Domestic Product 

– Reduced productivity, loss of customers due to errors

made by replacement workers, and regulatory

compliance 

When work requirements exceed the limitations and 

capabilities of workers, injuries occur. For instance, 

each year 1 million workers miss time from their 

jobs because of MSDs. This costs over $1 trillion 

when both direct and indirect costs are considered. 

(Source: National Research Council [1999]) 

Costs of Musculoskeletal Disorders 

• Median number of lost 

work days 

– 5 days for all workers 

– 25 days for workers

with MSDs 

• Average cost per injury (UE) 

– $824 for all other cases 

– $8,070 for an MSD 

• MSDs tend to have 

– Longer durations 

– Longer treatment time 

– Greater work disability 

These statistics give you an idea of the breakdown of 

MSD costs during the 1990s. In general, MSDs 

result in more lost days and cost 10 times more than 

other types of injuries. MSDs result in longer 

duration, longer treatment times, and greater 

disability. Because of the aging workforce, these 

costs are expected to get worse. 

Sources: 

Days lost data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 [1998]. 

Cost data: Webster and Snook [1994]. 

MSD info (1993–1994): Feuerstein et al. [1998]. 

6 
MSDs in Mining 

• Illnesses reported to • Non-fatal lost-time 

MSHA: injuries 

– 33% handling materials 

Other – 16% slip/fall 

15% – 16% fall of ground Rep. 

Lung Trauma – 12% powered haulage 

Disease 42% – 10% machinery 18% 

Hearing 

Loss 

25% 

While MSDs have been a problem in mining for a 

long time, they have not been at the forefront, 

partially because they are not regulated. Unlike dust, 

noise, and diesel issues, MSDs are not regulated by 

standards. Consequently, they are not the first priority 

at most mines. 

However, MSDs account for over 40% of injuries and 

illnesses, significantly affecting the bottom line of 

companies either directly or indirectly. For that 

reason, it has been possible to gain buy-in from some 

mines to reduce MSDs. More and more mine 

companies realize that this is an issue that is no longer 

optional if they want to significantly reduce their 

injury rates. With the rising costs of health care and 

the difficulty in getting and keeping quality mine 

workers, they want to make changes to the work 

environment to reduce MSDs. 

Median Days Lost 

Age and MSDs 

• Median Age for miner is 42.2 years 

• 40% of all injuries are MSDs for miners age 35-55 

• Older workers incur approximately 3 times as 

many days lost than younger workers 

Median Days Lost for Injuries, 1992-2002 

10 

8 

6 

All Injuries 

4 MSIs 

2 

0 

16-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ yrs 

yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs 

Age Categories 

Age is associated with higher rates of MSDs 

Compounding the problem of MSDs is the issue of 

the aging workforce and the effect of MSDs on this 

workforce. The median age for miners is 42.2 years. 

For miners between 35 and 55 years old, 40% of all 

injuries are MSDs. In addition, older workers incur 

three times the number of days lost compared to 

younger workers. 

PREVENTION: to invest, or NOT to invest. . . 

40 Lost Workday Mishaps in 1993 

LOST WORKDAY PREVENTION $ INVESTED INJURIES 

Safety Glasses $ 70,000 3 F/O Eye 

Safety Shoes $120,000 2 Foot 

Respirators 1 Chemical $124,000 (Med/Trn/Matls) Exposure 

Ergonomics $0 34 Strains 

Why don’t we budget to “prevent” the #1 injury category? 

7 

This is an example from a Florida Navy facility. Of 

40 lost workday mishaps in 1993, there were 3 eye 

injuries from foreign objects and irritation, 2 foot 

injuries (stepping on a nail and being struck by a 

sledgehammer on the metatarsal), and 1 chemical 

allergy. The facility had invested $314,000 in three 

prevention programs (safety glasses, safety shoes, and 

respirators) to help prevent these types of injuries, 

and they still had six injuries. However, they also 

experienced 34 strains that year and had not invested 

1 cent in ergonomics at that point. The question that 

needs to be answered is: Why did they not budget to 

prevent their No. 1 injury? (Discuss if this same 

situation applies to your organization.) 

(Source: Wright B [2002]) 
Case Study – Back Injuries can Be Serious 

• Supervisor suffered back injury helping 

worker move sheet metal in Jan ’78 

– $1000 medical costs and no lost time 

– Recurrence in ’92 cost $18,000 

– Surgery/comp in ’93 cost $81,000 and resulted in 

permanent partial disability vs. retirement 

– Indirect/Chargeback costs $55,000 in ’01 

This one 1978 back injury has cost over $517,000 so far! 

Prognosis: not positive! 

Original injury cost does not appear to warrant 

investment . . . until you consider future costs. 

This is another example from a Navy facility. 

A supervisor suffered a back injury in 1978. At that 

time, the costs were only $1,000 and there was no 

lost time. However, a recurrence in 1992 cost 

$18,000. In 1993, another $81,000 was spent on 

surgery and compensation. By 2004, the costs 

associated with that initial injury had risen to over 

$500,000. If that initial injury had been prevented, 

the cost savings would have been significant to the 

organization. 

Costs are real (extended) FECA WMSD costs. 

(Source: Wright B [2002]) 

Prevention PROACTIVE Early Intervention 

• Complex Problem 

– Do not know a lot about MSDs and how they occur 

– Do not know why some individuals are more

susceptible than others 

– Do not know what are safe levels of exposure 

– Do know risk factors associated with MSDs 

• Well-designed workplace interventions 

prevent MSDs and early medical care 

reduces severity. 

THE EARLIER ACTION IS TAKEN, 

THE GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS! 

A “one size fits all mentality” does not apply to 

ergonomics. There is a lot we do not know about 

MSDs, such as: 

• How they occur 

• Why some people are more likely to get an 

MSD compared to others 

• What are safe levels of exposures to risk 

factors associated with MSDs 

However, we do know the risk factors that result in 

MSDs, and we know that well-designed work tasks 

and interventions prevent MSDs. 

If an MSD does occur, we also know that early 

medical care reduces the severity of the MSD. 

Targeting Risk Factors 

Reactive Injury 

ive ct a ro P

Risk 

Factors

We want to change our way of thinking about 

injuries. We want to stop being reactive and start 

being proactive. To do this, we must understand 

injuries, the signals that tell us when one might 

occur, and how to prevent them from happening. 

We want to avoid waiting for injuries to occur before 

we take action. 

We want to be able to identify the risk factors for job 

tasks and equipment used and then take correction 

action before an MSD or even discomfort occurs. 

8 
Risk Factor Examples 

Examples of Poor Posture Examples of Forceful Work 

• Elbows above shoulders 

• Heavy lifting • Extended forward reaches 

• Carrying heavy objects • Trunk bent over more 

than 20 degrees • Forceful pushing or 

pulling • Twisting the trunk 

• Extreme wrist • Forceful gripping bending 

• Shoveling damp or • Pinch grips 

heavy materials • Kneeling or 

squatting 

These are examples of common risk factors and some 

tasks during which the risk factor exposures occur. 

The four main risk factors are: forceful work, poor 

posture, repetitive work, and vibration. 

Examples of Repetitive Work Examples of Vibration Exposure 

• Using equipment 

controls 

• Machine paced • Hand-Arm: 

assembly tasks Using vibrating tools. 

• Packing or unpacking • Whole Body: items Sitting or standing on 

• Computer vibrating surfaces. 

keyboarding (Includes jolting & 

jarring) • Manning a store 

checkout line 

MSD 

Why Target Risk Factors? 

The cumulative nature of musculoskeletal disorders: 

...an exponential relationship. 

The relationship between risk factor exposure and the 

resulting MSD is exponential. The risk factor 

exposure usually occurs over a long period of time 

before an MSD occurs. When the MSD occurs, we 

often discover the worker had been doing a task that 

he or she had done many times before without getting 

injured. It is perplexing as to why the MSD 

happened. However, because the effect on the worker 

is gradual, he or she may not recognize that a 

problem is occurring. When the MSD does occur, it 

only takes a minimum increase in exposure to result 

in a MSD, often with lost time resulting. 

Risk Factors 

An Ergonomics Process . . . 

• A systematic method to What is it? improve the fit between the 

worker and the workplace to 

improve safety, productivity 

and workforce satisfaction. 

• Can be a stand alone process 

or it can be integrated with 

existing safety and health 

programs Drill Operator 

• Works best as a participatory 

process – management and 

employees 

An ergonomics process is a systematic method to 

improve the fit between workers and their workplace 

(including work stations, equipment, tools, and 

environment) to improve safety, productivity, and 

workplace satisfaction. An ergonomics process can 

be a stand-alone process or it can be integrated with 

existing programs, such as safety and health. It can 

be viewed as a third prong of a comprehensive safety 

and health program: safety, industrial hygiene, and 

ergonomics. Ergonomics processes usually work best 

when employees participate fully and when there is a 

champion to keep the process moving forward. 

A champion is usually needed until the process 

becomes embedded in the organization and culture. 

PROACTIVE APPROACH TO PREVENTION 

9 
Injury/Illness Prevention Process This is an example of a simple process. Form a 

team, train the team members, conduct a worksite 

analysis to identify risk factor exposures, implement Safety Ergonomics Industrial Hygiene 

controls to reduce or eliminate exposures, provide 

medical management for workers with injuries, and Ergonomics Team 

Management & Employees finally, review or conduct a self-assessment of the 

process and provide retraining if needed. 

Training 

Worksite Analysis 

Risk Factors Identified 

Injury Prevention 

and Control 

Medical Injury Prevention 

Management and Management 

Retraining/Review 

Successful Program Examples We have good reason to suggest the application of 

ergonomic principles as a viable solution to MSDs. 

• GAO Report – Ergonomics programs: The effectiveness of ergonomics can be found in a 

– Reduced compensation costs 35%–91% in five GAO report published in 1997, along with some 

diverse companies examples from mining companies. 

– Increased safety and health 

– Increased efficiency of operations 

– Increased profitability 

– Increased quality of life 

• American Electric Power (AEP) 

• CONSOL 

• Jim Bridger Mine, Bridger Coal Co. 

The first examples of successful processes were 

Government Accounting Office published by the GAO in 1997. They reported on 

ergonomics processes implemented in five different (GAO) companies, varying in size (from 300 to 5,300 

employees) and industry. 

American Express (5,300) 

AMP, Incorporated (300) 

Navistar International Transportation 

Corp. (4,000) 

Sisters of Charity Health System (780) 

Texas Instruments (2,800) 

10 
This bar graph shows the percentage reduction in 

workers’ compensation costs for MSDs at each of 

the five companies included in the GAO report. The 

range was a 36–91% reduction in compensation 

costs over a 2 to 5-year time period. 

GAO Results 

Percentage Reduction in Workers' Compensation Costs 

for MSDs 

100 

91 

90 

80 

80 

70 62 61 

60 

50 

40 

30 

35 

20 

10 

0 

American Express AMP (1993/96) Navistar (1993/96) Sisters of Charity Texas Instruments 

Financial Advisors Health System (1991/96) 

(1992/96) (1994/96) 

Each company, except one, experienced a decline in 

the average dollar cost per MSD. The one company 

that did not show a decline also had the youngest 

process (only 2 years). It is likely this would change 

as its process became more mature. 

GAO Results 

Average Dollar Cost per MSD Workers' Compenstion 

Claims 

25000 

21946 

20000 

15000 

10000 9123 

6601 

9518 

4860 5322 

5000 2512 3014 2469 1685 

0 

American AMP (1993/96) Navistar (1993/96) Sisters of Charity Texas 

Express Financial Health System Instruments 

Advisors (1994/96) (1991/96) 

(1992/96) Facility 

GAO Summary 

• 36% to 91% reduction in worker’s comp 

costs, overall reduction in lost workdays 

• Core elements: management commitment,

employee participation, ID of problem jobs,

analysis and improvements, training and 

education, and medical management. 

• Inexpensive, “low tech” improvements are 

effective 

• Incident-based vs. risk factor-based 

In summary, the companies included in the GAO 

report: 

• Experienced a 36–91% decrease in 

workers’ compensation costs 

• Followed the core elements mentioned 

earlier 

• Showed that inexpensive improvements 

were effective in reducing exposures 

However, all of the processes were incident-based 

(reactive) rather than risk factor-based (proactive). 

(Source: GAO [1997]) 

11 
The second example of an ergonomics process is 

from American Electric Power. This is a mining 

example. 

American Electric Power 

• 

• 

AEP's Approach 

Goal: 

To reduce MSD problems at coal mining operations with 

initial emphasis on back injuries 

1989 - set standards and objectives to establish 

ergonomic committees at its six mining operations 

The initial goal of AEP’s process was to reduce 

MSDs of the back. To accomplish this goal, AEP 

established Ergonomics Committees, supported by 

defined structure, specific functions, an effective 

communication process, and adequate training and 

resources. 

a 

• Provided charter for structure and function of committees 

• Established method for followup of committee activities, 

ensuring a proper communication feedback loop 

• Provided corporate support for all technical and financial 

needs and tr aining for committee members 

AEP Ergonomics 

Committee 

Participants Activities 

Ergonomics Subcommittee 

Activities 

12 
AEP - Committee Members 

• Management 

– Mine superintendent/Chairman 

– General mine supervisor 

– Maintenance supervisor 

– Production supervisors 

– Shift supervisors 

– Safety manager 

• Technical 

– Belt coordinators 

– Supply coordinators 

• Labor 

– UMWA safety committee chairman 

– Two hourly employees (rotating) 

The membership of the Ergonomics Committee 

included management, labor, and technical 

positions. 

AEP - Committee Activities 

• Do front-end needs analyses 

• Develop problem statement & solutions 

• Develop plans, standards, & proposals 

• Monitor implementation 

• Provide counsel & feedback 

• Provide regular reports to corporate 

management 

This is the process used by AEP’s Ergonomics 

Committees. They studied the issue, developed and 

implemented solutions, monitored effectiveness, 

and then provided feedback. The committees also 

reported regularly to corporate management. 

AEP Subcommittee Activities 

• Conduct worker surveys 

• Audit work activities 

• Conduct observations of work activities 

• Develop improvement projects 

• Submit improvement projects to senior 

committee for approval 

Subcommittees were formed to focus on a target 

work area. The subcommittees were chaired by the 

department head and consisted of a number of 

workers from the target area. They met at least once 

a month and worked with their Ergonomics 

Committee to set goals and objectives. 

13 
Program Assessment (1991) 

• Most members were satisfied with 

involvement on committees, although some 

believed they should be devoting more time. 

• Most members thought it improved their 

ability to do their jobs. 

• Many were dissatisfied with the amount of 

time it took for suggestions to get 

implemented. 

An assessment of the process in 1991 indicated that 

most members were satisfied with being involved 

with the process and thought it improved their 

ability to do their jobs. Many of the members 

thought it took too long to implement changes. 

AEP Successes - Ergonomic Applications 

• Implementation of standard hoist 

mechanisms eliminated handling of heavy 

materials 

• Reducing object weights (either bagged or 

stopping materials) reduced back strain 

injuries – work with suppliers 

• Proper storage of wood products (reducing 

exposure to water) prevented additional 

weight to be handled 

Some of the job improvements implemented 

included: 

• Using standard hoist mechanisms to lift 

heavy materials 

• Reducing weight of supplies (bagged or 

stopping materials) 

• Properly storing wood products to eliminate 

exposure to water, which increased the 

weight of the wood 

AEP Successes - Specialized Mining 

Equipment 

• In-house tools designed for specific mining

applications, such as a tool used to remove or 

install conveyor belt rollers 

• Zipmobile – a materials-handling cart that moves 

supplies along the longwall face 

• Belt car allows miners to splice 500 feet of belt 

without manual handling 

• Shuttle cars have air-ride suspension to reduce 

whole-body vibration 

• Ergobus moves tools and equipment for 

maintenance and outby tasks 

Other interventions implemented by AEP included 

various specialized mining equipment, such as: 

• Tool to remove or install conveyor belt 

rollers 

• Zipmobile to move supplies along the 

longwall face 

• Belt car that eliminated manual handling 

• Shuttle cars with air-ride suspension to 

reduce whole-body vibration 

• Ergobus to transport maintenance tools and 

equipment 

14 
 

 

AEP Successes - Back Injuries As a result of its efforts, AEP saw a significant 

reduction in lost-time back injuries. In 1988, the 

number of back injuries was 78. By 1996, the 

number of back injuries had dropped to 8 (a 90% 

decrease). 

• Diverse committee members (no more than 12) 

• Team players 

• Select committed, open-minded leader with skills 

to run effective meetings 

• Training on group problem-solving 

• Organize campaign to describe purpose of team 

• Committee must be backed by entire organization 

AEP Recommendations From their experience, AEP made these 

recommendations regarding implementation of an 

ergonomics process. They emphasize the need to 

select the right individuals for the committee, to 

train the committee members, and then to ensure 

support from the entire organization. 

Comment from AEP 

Tim Martin, Safety and Health Manager 

1997 Ergonomics Conference, Chicago, IL 

“What exactly have we accomplished with

our ergonomics programs? 

We definitely have reduced our accidents,

reduced our compensation costs drastically, 

increased productivity, reduced down time, 

increased a lot of employee involvement, and

our relations with our employees have really

grown quite drastically...We feel that without 

ergonomics programs, we couldn’t have

accomplished this.” 

Tim Martin, the safety and health manager for AEP, 

had this to say about their ergonomics program: 

“What exactly have we accomplished with our 

ergonomics programs? We definitely have reduced 

our accidents, reduced our compensation costs 

drastically, increased productivity, reduced down 

time, increased a lot of employee involvement, and 

our relations with our employees have really grown 

quite drastically...We feel that without ergonomics 

programs, we couldn’t have accomplished this.” 

(Source: NIOSH [1997a].) 

15 
The last example of implementing an ergonomics 

process is about the Bridger Coal Company. Bridger 

operates the Jim Bridger Mine, a surface coal mine 

in southwestern Wyoming. Bridger wanted to 

improve its safety and health program by integrating 

an ergonomics process with its existing safety and 

health program. Bridger attributed improvements in 

its health and safety culture to the ergonomics 

process. Although Bridger was skeptical in the 

beginning, the company thought proactively and 

wanted a more formal program. 

The Bridger Coal Story... 

•	 Western surface mine 

•	 Skeptical but proactive 

•	 Safest and 

healthiest workforce 

•	 Efficiently developed 

•	 Highly effective 

•	 Integrated into 

H&S program

Kean Johnson, Ergonomics Process Coordinator, 

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 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.” 

(For more information about the ergonomics process 

implemented by the Bridger Coal Co., see: TormaKrajewski et al. [2006].) 

16 
Medical Production 

Safety 

Human Resources Engineering/Environmental Maintenance 

Ergonomics Committee 

Management and Employees 

Bridger established a multidisciplinary team to 

ensure they addressed all aspects of the company. 

They realized that each department would be 

affected by this endeavor. 

Ergonomics Awareness Training

Ergonomics - What is it? 

Most people look like this... 

Some designers think 

people look like this... 

Take Action!

As soon as you are aware of risk factors: 

Report any concerns to your 

Ergonomics Committee 

Early action may prevent 

loss of function and serious 

injury! 

Cumulative Injury Progression 

Loss of 

Function 

Continuous Pain 

Pain Comes and Goes 

Fatigue/ Stiffness 

Cumulative Injury Risk Factors 

Four Main Risk Factors 

1. Forceful Work: A lot of physical effort 

2. Poor Posture: Poor positioning of the body 

3. Repetitive Work: Doing the same movements 

many times 

4. Vibration Exposure: Two types – hand-arm & 

whole body 

All employees received ergonomics and risk factor 

awareness training. Examples of risk factor 

exposures specific to their mine were used so that 

employees would not only relate to the examples, 

but would begin the solution process. This training 

focused on: 

• Defining ergonomics and its benefits for 

employees 

• Describing how MSDs develop 

• Identifying risk factor exposures

• Reporting exposures 

Reporting Concerns Employees learned about a simple way to record 

their concerns. They practiced during the training 

and then filled out Risk Factor Report Cards about 

their exposures when they went back to their jobs. 

17 
Communications & Recognition 

• Bulletin board 

• Posters 

• Stickers 

• Safety 

newsletter 

• Audit results 

Interventions 

• 55 concerns reported 

– 22 completed interventions 

– 5 being addressed 

– 9 on hold pending receipt of additional info 

– 19 addressed as S&H concerns 

• Types of interventions 

– New equipment 

– Workstations rearranged or adjusted 

– Retrofits 

One of the most important aspects of the process was 

communications and recognition. As employees 

turned in Risk Factor Report Cards and the concerns 

were prioritized by the Ergonomics Committee, 

Bridger posted information telling employees the 

status of their concerns. The stickers and posters 

reminded them of what they had learned and that the 

program was not a fly-by-night effort. Bridger’s 

efforts were acknowledged in newsletters that were 

published and distributed throughout the company. 

Within just over a year, 55 concern cards were 

submitted. A few of them were collaborative efforts 

between the Ergonomics and Safety Committees. 

More than 22 successful (accepted and used) 

interventions were implemented. 

The interventions were mostly engineering controls, 

and many included the purchase of new equipment. 

The equipment was purchased with improved knowledge of ergonomic principles, resulting in specifications that better met the needs of the end users. 

Bridger also redesigned or reorganized work stations, 

and they retrofitted specific controls for existing 

equipment. Very few of the interventions exceeded 

$1,000. 

Bridger Intervention Successes Here are a few of their inexpensive changes: 

Chocks Welding Helmets Chock blocks: Handle added that eliminated 

bending the back when placing or removing the 

chocks. 

Welding helmets: Lighter-weight welding helmet 

eliminated neck discomfort. 

Loader pedal: Angle of pedal was reduced, which 

eliminated foot and leg discomfort. 

Loader Pedal Water Pump Switch Water pump switch location: Switch was brought 

closer to the operator, which reduced the reach and 

shoulder discomfort. 

18 
Bridger Intervention Successes Another intervention involved moving handrails. 

The handrails were located too far from the ladder, 

Before and workers did not use them. If the workers 

Prill Truck Ladder attempted to use the handrails, their body would 

lean backward and they would have to forcefully 

After hold onto the handrails to prevent from falling. After 

the handrails were moved closer to the ladder, the 

workers could easily and safely use the handrails. 

Hand rails not properly located 

Hand rails moved closer to ladder 

Bridger Intervention Successes Moving dragline cable was one of the most 

physically demanding jobs performed. A J-hook bar 

is now used to drag the cable along the ground near 

the dragline. This eliminated the need to manually 

lift the cable. Away from the dragline, no physical 

effort is needed as the job now uses a cable-handling 

device attached to a front-end loader. 

Moving Dragline Cable 

Bridger Intervention Successes Dragline operators were complaining of upperextremity discomfort and pain. It was determined 

that the support and function of the manufacturerinstalled armrests were inadequate and Dragline Armrests nonadjustable. The new armrests were adjustable 

and provided larger nonfrictional support. 

After 

Before 

19 
On their own.... Bridger employees are doing it on their own. They 

developed a new way to support the 11⁄2-inch 

Before pneumatic wrench without any forceful exertions. 

Forceful exertions while 

controlling load, high 

vibration, static work posture 

After 

Reduced load, control, and 

vibration exposure, 

dynamic work postures 

Integrating Ergonomics To be proactive means integrating and applying 

ergonomic principles with many other processes to 

prevent exposures to risk factors. A better-educated 

• Safety & health employee makes better purchases. 

• Corporate-wide 

risk assessment 

• Injury investigations 

• Design 

specifications 

• Purchasing 

decisions 

Lessons Learned Lessons learned from the Bridger process included: 

• Committee participants need to be interested 

and committed to the process, and they must 

be given resources. 

• Each organization must decide the best way • Committee Participants to implement its process. The “one size fits 

• Process Development all” approach does not work in this case. 

• Supervisors need to receive training • Process Implementation regarding their role in the process. 

• Supervisory Training 

20 
Characteristics for Success 

• Commitment - Strong in-house direction & support 

• Training - Staff expertise in team building & 

ergonomics 

• Team Composition - Diverse but manageable size 

• Input – Employee input to help define team 

objectives 

• Communication - Everyone kept informed of 

objectives, progress, & accomplishments 

Simply put, successful ergonomic processes have 

several common characteristics: strong 

commitment, training, diverse team members, 

employee input, and communication. 

What Successful Programs 

Can Provide 

• Avoidance of illness and injury risks 

• Lower worker compensation costs 

• Higher productivity 

• Increased workforce job satisfaction 

• More employee involvement in lowerlevel decision-making 

As demonstrated by the examples discussed during 

this presentation, several benefits shown here can be 

derived from an ergonomics process. 

Final Comments – 

Ergonomics Processes 

“Saturate the organizations with 

knowledge...Give the process 

time to work...Keep in mind that 

it’s a cultural change, a change in 

the way you think and not just 

another program.” (Tom Albin, Ergonomist, 3M) 

Tom Albin of 3M made this comment about 

implementing an ergonomics process: 

“Saturate the organizations with knowledge...Give 

the process time to work...Keep in mind that it’s a 

cultural change, a change in the way you think and 

not just another program.” 

(Source: NIOSH [1997b].) 

21 
Short- and Long-term Goals 

OUR SHORT-TERM GOAL 

(Add your short-term goal.) 

OUR LONG-TERM GOAL 

(Add your long-term goal.) 

(Add your short- and long-term goals on this slide.) 

(Examples:) 

Form an ergonomics team and provide team 

members with adequate training and resources. 

Lower risk factor exposures associated with: 

(add specific job task). 

Next Steps... (Add your own next steps according to your plan.) 

22 
Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training for Miners 

Research has shown that ergonomics is most successful when it is approached as 

a participatory process—management and employees working together to modify job 

tasks, including equipment, tools, environment, and methods. The first step toward 

achieving a participatory process is to give employees knowledge of ergonomics and how 

it can be used to align their jobs to their abilities. 

The Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training is designed to encourage 

employees to report risk factor exposures and body discomfort. It also encourages 

employees, when possible, to make changes to their jobs to reduce their exposures to risk 

factors. 

Objectives 

The overall objective of Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training is to 

help reduce injuries and illnesses resulting from exposures to risk factors. Specifically, 

this training will increase awareness of risk factors and encourage miners to take action to 

report and reduce their exposures to risk factors. 

Content 

This training is designed specifically for the mining industry. Because mining is a 

diversified industry, examples representing both surface and underground mining 

processes for several different commodities and support services are incorporated into the 

training. This training package includes two components: 

•	 Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training for Instructors – Designed 

to give instructors sufficient information about ergonomics and risk factors to 

adequately present similar training to employees. It includes information that 

should allow the instructor to respond to questions regarding material included in 

training given to other employees. Anyone who has not had any training in 

ergonomics should take this training. It would also be helpful for individuals who 

23 
have had training, but their training either did not apply specifically to mining or 

did not emphasize the reporting of risk factor exposures. 

•	 Guide to Conducting Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training – 

This guide will assist the instructor in conducting the Ergonomics and Risk Factor 

Awareness Training. It includes slides, along with discussion notes, descriptions 

of demonstrations, equipment needed for demonstrations, and suggested 

references. Handout materials and training evaluation forms are also included in 

this guide. 

Training Topics 

Four modules covering topics relevant to gaining a basic understanding of 

ergonomics, as well as how it applies to mining jobs, are included in this training. A fifth 

module consists of interactive exercises that require trainees to apply what they learned in 

the previous modules. 

•	 Introduction to Ergonomics – Defines ergonomics and provides two examples 

of using ergonomics to solve a problem. There is also a discussion on the benefits 

of using ergonomics to improve jobs. 

•	 Musculoskeletal Disorders – Defines cumulative trauma disorders or workrelated MSDs and describes how a worker may progress from experiencing 

discomfort to developing a permanent, debilitating injury. The discussion includes 

three examples of this type of disorder. 

•	 Risk Factors and Root Causes – Presents descriptions and examples of 

ergonomic risk factors and their root causes. The four main risk factors receive 

special emphasis: forceful exertions, awkward postures, repetition, and vibration. 

•	 Prevention – Includes information about ways to control risk factors using 

engineering controls, administrative controls, work practices, and PPE. 

24 
•	 Exercises – Give trainees an opportunity to apply the knowledge gained in the 

previous sections. The participants review a video and then identify risk factors, 

potential body parts affected, root causes, and potential methods for controlling 

the risk factors. 

File Formats 

This training is offered in two formats: electronic files and printed copies. The 

electronic files include: 

•	 Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training for Instructors (Web and Adobe 

PDF formats) 

•	 Materials needed for conducting Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training 

o	 Slide presentations (Microsoft PowerPoint and Adobe PDF formats) 

o	 Documents that may need to be copied such as handouts and evaluation 

forms (Microsoft Word, RTF, and Adobe PDF formats) 

o	 Discussion notes (Microsoft Word, RTF, and Adobe PDF formats) 

The Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training for Miners (DHHS (NIOSH) 

Publication No. 2008–111, Information Circular (IC) 9497) may be ordered by contacting 

NIOSH at: 

Telephone: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636) 

TTY: 1–888–232–6348 

e-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov 

or by downloading it from the NIOSH Mining Web site (www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining). 

25 
Ergonomics Observations: 

Training for Behavior-based Safety Observers 

When a behavior-based safety (BBS) system is part of an overall safety and health 

program, it may be helpful to also use this system to implement certain aspects of an 

ergonomics process, such as identifying and controlling some exposures to risk factors 

(those requiring simple changes, such as rearranging a work station or using a powered 

versus nonpowered handtool). If BBS observers are part of the ergonomics process, it 

will be necessary to define their role and to provide training appropriate for their role. For 

ergonomics observations, the observers will require training on identifying risk factor 

exposures. If the observers are expected to resolve some of the risk factor exposures, then 

they would require information on how to modify tasks, equipment, tools, work stations, 

environments, and methods using a hierarchical approach to controlling exposures 

(engineering controls, administrative controls, and PPE), with engineering controls being 

the preferred control measure [Chengalur et al. 2004]. The skill of resolving exposures 

may be assigned to just a few observers or other personnel responsible for implementing 

the ergonomics process. In this situation, resolving exposures may be done as a followup 

to an observation. 

Objectives 

The objective of ergonomics training for BBS observers is to improve their skills 

at identifying risk factor exposures, and then to give them sufficient information to 

resolve exposures if they are responsible for this as well. Because exposures are most 

often a result of poor design rather than methods or work practices (unsafe behaviors), 

the observers must be given basic knowledge on the design of tools, equipment, and 

work stations. 

Content 

The content of this training will depend on the role of the observers in the 

ergonomics process and on their role in the overall safety and health program as well. 

It should follow the observation process used by the observers to conduct safety 

observations. Because this training needs to be specific to the mine implementing the 

26 
ergonomics process, the content should be based on tasks performed at this mine that 

would normally be observed by the BBS observers and should depict exposures as either 

individual or multiple risk factor exposures. A suggested outline for this training would 

include: 

•	 Ergonomics and Risk Factor Awareness Training for Miners 

•	 Review of risk factor exposures common to your site – In most cases, 

emphasis would be on forceful exertions, awkward postures, repetition, and 

vibration. 

•	 Identification of risk factor exposures – This content should include several 

examples of workers performing a variety of tasks commonly occurring at 

your site. Include enough examples so the observers are comfortable with 

identifying exposures. 

•	 Documentation of risk factor exposures – Observers should be given practice 

at documenting the exposures. If your site does not use a form that includes 

detailed information about the risk factors, then you may want to consider the 

Ergonomics Observations Form described in Section IV. 

If the observers are also responsible for correcting the risk factor exposures, then 

the content should include basic design principles. Suggested training topics could 

include: 

•	 Anthropometry 

•	 Work station design 

•	 Manual materials handling 

•	 Ergonomics and seating 

•	 Handtools 

27 
Format 

This training needs to be interactive and simulate the actual observation process. 

If this training is done in a classroom, short videos of tasks can be used to practice 

identifying risk factor exposures. Role-playing exercises can also be conducted, with one 

trainee assuming the role of the employee shown in the video while other trainees serve 

as observers. If field exercises are possible, then trainees can conduct and document 

observations while employees actually perform tasks. Both the role playing and field 

exercises should use the actual observation process and documentation method followed 

when completing BBS observations. 

28 
YELLOW INSERT 

SHEET 
References 

ACGIH [2007a]. Threshold limit values and biological exposures indices. Cincinnati, 

OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 

ACGIH [2007b]. Whole-body vibration. Documentation of the TLVs and BEIs with 

other worldwide occupational exposure values: 2007. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 

Bernard BP, ed. [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. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

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

Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 97–141. 

Bernard TE [2007]. Analysis tools for ergonomists. [http://personal.health.usf.edu/ 

tbernard/ergotools/index.html]. Date accessed: June 2008. 

Bovenzi M, Hulshof CT [1999]. An updated review of epidemiologic studies on the 

relationship between exposure to whole-body vibration and low back pain (1986–1997). Int Arch 

Occup Environ Health 72(6):351–365. 

Burgess-Limerick R, Straker L, Pollock C, Dennis G, Leveritt S, Johnson S [2007]. 

Implementation of the Participative Ergonomics for Manual tasks (PErforM) programme at four 

Australian underground coal mines. Int J Ind Ergon 37(2):145–155. 

Chengalur S, Rodgers S, Bernard T [2004]. Kodak’s ergonomic design for people at 

work. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., pp. 490–491. 

Cohen AL, Gjessing CC, Fine LJ, Bernard BP, McGlothlin JD [1997]. Elements of 

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

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 

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

Publication No. 97–117. 

Dul J [2003]. The strategic value of ergonomics for companies. Rotterdam, Netherlands: 

Erasmus University, Department of Management of Technology and Innovation. 

[http://ssrn.com/abstract=633883]. Date accessed: June 2008. 

Feuerstein M, Miller VL, Burrell LM, Berger R [1998]. Occupational upper extremity 

disorders in the federal work force: prevalence, health care expenditures, and patterns of work 

disability. J Occup Environ Med 40(6):546–555. 

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

results. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, report GAO/HEHS-97-163. 

Haims MC, Carayon P [1998]. Theory and practice for the implementation of ‘in-house’, 

continuous improvement participatory ergonomic programs. Appl Ergon 29(6):461–472. 

Haines HM, Wilson JR [1998]. Development of a framework for participatory 

ergonomics. Norwich, U.K.: Health and Safety Executive. 

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

31:201–205. 

Hudson P [2003]. Applying the lessons of high risk industries to health care. Qual Saf 

Health Care 12(Suppl 1):i7–i12. 

IEA (International Ergonomics Association) [2008]. What is ergonomics. 

[http://www.iea.cc/browse.php?contID=what_is_ergonomics]. Date accessed: June 2008. 
Knapschaefer J [1999]. Ergonomics and behavior-based safety: how some automotive 

companies are making it work. Safety + Health Mag (National Safety Council) 160(4):58. 

Krause TR [2002]. Myths, misconceptions, and wrong-headed ideas about behaviorbased safety: why conventional wisdom is usually wrong. Ojai, CA: Behavioral Science 

Technology, Inc. 

Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg H, Biering-Sørensen F, Andersson G, 

Jørgensen K [1987]. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal 

symptoms. Appl Ergon 18(3):233–237. 

Laing A, Frazer M, Cole D, Kerr M, Wells R, Norman R [2005]. Study of the 

effectiveness of a participatory ergonomics intervention in reducing worker pain severity through 

physical exposure pathways. Ergonomics 48:150–170. 

Lings S, Leboeuf-Yde C [2000]. Whole-body vibration and low back pain: a systematic, 

critical review of the epidemiological literature 1992–1999. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 

73(5):290–297. 

McAtamney L, Corlett EN [1993]. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of 

work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon 24(2):91–99. 

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

distal upper extremity disorders. AIHA J 56(5):443–458. 

National Research Council [1999]. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: report, 

workshop summary, and workshop papers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

NIOSH [1989]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to hand-arm 

vibration. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Standards 

Development and Technology Transfer, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 89–106. 

NIOSH [1997a]. Mining. Presentation by Tim Martin, Southern Ohio Coal Company, at 

NIOSH-sponsored Ergonomics Conference, Chicago, IL, January 8–9, 1997. [http://www.cdc.gov/ 

niosh/topics/ergonomics/ewconf97/ec4marti.html]. Date accessed: June 2008. 

NIOSH [1997b]. Plenary session I. Presentation by Thomas Albin of 3M at NIOSHsponsored Ergonomics Conference, Chicago, IL, January 8–9, 1997. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ 

topics/ergonomics/EWconf97/ec4albin.html]. Date accessed: June 2008. 

 NIOSH, Cal/OSHA [2004]. Easy ergonomics: a guide to selecting non-powered hand 

tools. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

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

Publication No. 2004–164. 

NIOSH, Cal/OSHA, CNA Insurance Companies, and Material Handling Industry of 

America [2007]. Ergonomic guidelines for manual material handling. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

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

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2007– 

131. 

OSHA [1995]. OSHA draft proposed ergonomic protection standard. Appendix A: 

Getting started. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration. 

OSHA [2008]. Computer workstations: good working positions. [http://www.osha.gov/ 

SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/positions.html]. Date accessed: June 2008. 

Scharf T, Vaught C, Kidd P, Steiner LJ, Kowalski KM, Wiehagen WJ, Rethi LL, Cole HP 

[2001]. Toward a typology of dynamic and hazardous work environments. Hum Ecol Risk 

Assess 7(7):1827–1841. 

2
 
Shell International [2003]. Winning hearts and minds: the road map. Rijswijk, 

Netherlands: Shell International Exploration and Production B.V. [http://www.energyinst.org.uk/ 

heartsandminds/docs/roadmap.pdf ]. Date accessed: June 2008. 

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

process. Am J Ind Med Sep(Suppl 1):58–60. 

Sulzer-Azaroff B, Austin J [2000]. Does BBS work? Behavior-based safety and injury 

reduction: a survey of the evidence. Prof Saf 45(7):19–24. 

Torma-Krajewski J, Steiner LJ, Lewis P, Gust P, Johnson K [2006]. Ergonomics and 

mining: charting a path to a safer workplace. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and 

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

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2006–141, IC 9491. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [1998]. BLS issues: 1996 lost-work time injuries and 

illnesses survey. Am Coll Occup Environ Med Rep 98:6–7. 

Warren N, Morse TF [2008]. Neutral posture. Farmington, CT: University of Connecticut 

Health Center, ErgoCenter. [http://www.oehc.uchc.edu/ergo_neutralposture.asp]. Date accessed: 

June 2008. 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries [2008a]. Caution zone checklist. 

[http://www.lni.wa.gov/wisha/ergo/evaltools/CautionZones2.pdf]. Date accessed: June 2008. 

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries [2008b]. Hazard zone jobs 

checklist. [http://www.lni.wa.gov/wisha/ergo/evaltools/HazardZoneChecklist.PDF]. Date 

accessed: June 2008. 

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

NIOSH lifting equation. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

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

Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94–110. 

Webster BS, Snook SH [1994]. The cost of compensable upper extremity cumulative 

trauma disorders. J Occup Med 36(7):713–717. 

Westrum R [1991]. Cultures with requisite imagination. In: Wise J, Stager P, Hopkin J, 

eds. Verification and validation in complex man-machine systems. New York: Springer. 

Westrum R, Adamski A [1999]. Organizational factors associated with safety and 

mission success in aviation environments. In: Garland D, Wise J, Hopkin V, eds. Handbook of 

aviation human factors. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Wright B [2002]. Dealing for dollars: convincing managers that good ergonomics is good 

economics. Presented at the Second Annual Department of Defense Ergonomics Conference 

(Chantilly, VA, April 29–30, 2002). 

Additional Sources About Ergonomics Processes 

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

Marras W, eds. The occupational ergonomics handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC, 

pp. 79–94. 

Butler MP [2003]. Corporate ergonomics programme at Scottish & Newcastle. Appl Ergon 

34(1):35–38. 

3
 
de Jong AM, Vink P [2002]. Participatory ergonomics applied in installation work. Appl 

Ergon 33(5):439–448. 

Gjessing CC, Schoenborn TF, Cohen A, eds. [1994]. Participatory ergonomic 

interventions in meatpacking plants. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

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

and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94–124. 

Hägg GM [2003]. Corporate initiatives in ergonomics: an introduction. Appl Ergon 

34(1):3–15. 

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

strategies. Appl Ergon 32(1):61–69. 

Joseph BS [2003]. Corporate ergonomics programme at Ford Motor Company. Appl Ergon 

34(1):23–28. 

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

corporate ergonomics directive: the Eastman Chemical Company story. In: Alexander D, ed. 

Applied ergonomics case studies 1. Norcross, GA: Engineering and Management Press, pp. 15–80. 

Moore JS, Garg A [1998]. The effectiveness of participatory ergonomics in the red meat 

packing industry: evaluation of a corporation. Int J Ind Ergon 21(1):47–58. 

Moreau M [2003]. Corporate ergonomics programme at automobiles Peugeot-Sochaux. 

Appl Ergon 34(1):29–34. 

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

ergonomics programme at Volvo Car Corporation. Appl Ergon 34(1):17–22. 

OSHA [1990]. Ergonomics program management guidelines for meatpacking plants. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 

OSHA report No. 3123. 

Perry L [1997]. Implementing company-wide ergonomics. Workplace Ergon May/Jun: 

18–21. 

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

Hazards 62(2):41–44. 

Robinson D [2006]. Success with ergonomics: Gold Kist, Inc., Atlanta, GA. 

[http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/success_stories/ergonomics/goldkist.html]. Date accessed: June 

2008. 

Smyth J [2003]. Corporate ergonomics programme at BCM Airdrie. Appl Ergon 34(1): 

39–43. 

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

musculoskeletal disorders in mining. Min Eng 56(11):39–43. 

Torma-Krajewski J, Steiner LJ, Lewis P, Gust P, Johnson K [2007]. Implementation of 

an ergonomics process at a U.S. surface coal mine. Int J Ind Ergon 37(2):157–167. 

Unger RL, Turin FC, Wiehagen WJ, Steiner LJ, Cornelius KM, Torma-Krajewski J 

[2002]. Initiating an ergonomics process at a surface coal mine. In: Bockosh GR, Kohler JL, 

Langton JF, Novak T, McCarter MK, Biviano A, eds. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Institute 

on Mining Health, Safety and Research. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University, Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering, pp. 39–47. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [1991]. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United 

States by industry, 1989. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2379. 

Zalk DM [2001]. Grassroots ergonomics: initiating an ergonomics program utilizing 

participatory techniques. Ann Occup Hyg 45(4):283–289. 

4
 
YELLOW INSERT 

SHEET 
APPENDIX
 
 

ERGONOMICS PROCESSES 

Beyond traditional safety and health programs... 

Ergonomics is a science serving to bridge production and safety. Its focus is straightforward—designing for a better fit between workers and the methods, tools, equipment, 

and work stations used by workers. A better fit results in safer and healthier jobs. If you 

are ready to move ahead and address ergonomic issues at your mine, it is important to first 

consider how you will do this to have an effective process. Some critical elements necessary 

for successful implementation and integration are provided here as a guide for getting 

started. Remember, it is important to plan for success. 

A CHAMPION FOR ERGONOMICS 

The role of a “champion” is to promote and serve as an advocate and leader in applying ergonomic principles for process improvement. Implementing a new process requires leadership. 

A champion serves in that capacity and works to demonstrate the value of process improvement. 

It involves a great deal of time, particularly at the beginning during periods of planning and 

implementation. The organization should support the champion by investing time to this effort. 

It will significantly increase the odds of successful implementation. 

TRAINING 

Training is an essential element of an ergonomics process as it results in risk factor identification 

and problem-solving skills. Management’s active support and involvement in the training 

demonstrates their commitment and support for the process. Management training should show 

how ergonomics can be applied to reduce musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) risks while fostering 

a safer and healthier workplace. It also serves to demonstrate the value of the ergonomics process 

from a financial perspective. Successful examples from other companies can be used to demonstrate this point. 

Just as with other types of safety hazards, employees should 

be skilled in recognizing significant risk factors and then be 

encouraged to report them. A simple card, as shown to the left, 

can be used by employees to identify and report exposures to 

MSD risk factors. Existing reporting forms can also be modified to include risk factors. Employees should be taught steps 

they can take individually to reduce their exposures, such as 

adjusting their work station to eliminate awkward postures. 

Training employees to report risk factor exposures is just the 

beginning. 

IDENTIFYING / EVALUATING / CONTROLLING RISK FACTORS 

To reduce exposures to risk factors, a procedure should be developed that ensures: 

• Identification of risk factors 

• Evaluation of risk factors in terms of root cause and level of exposure 

• Development of solutions that reduce or eliminate risk factors 
 

Once a risk factor exposure is identified, an ergonomics coordinator or team should then evaluate 

the risk factor exposure and determine the appropriate action for addressing the exposure. 

Remember, there can be many reasons for the exposure; consider the method, tools, equipment, 

work station, and environment. A procedure, as shown below, should be followed to ensure 

adequate evaluation and to determine an effective solution. Involving employees in the development of a solution will usually enhance the acceptance of 

the solution by the employees. 

TRACKING PROGRESS 

Quantifying the effectiveness of your ergonomics process 

depends strongly on the organization and the 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 such instances, use 

of survey tools, such as the Musculoskeletal Discomfort 

Survey form, may be more useful. Another constructive 

approach may be to quantify exposure levels of risk factors 

before and after implementing an intervention. For example, the distance an item is carried during a work shift may 

be measured before and after an intervention has been 

applied. Other examples include posture improvements, 

reducing the number of lifts completed, and reducing the 

number of repetitions performed. If you follow a behaviorbased safety model, then risk factor exposures may be 

tracked with this system. As interventions are implemented, fewer exposures to risk factors should be seen. 

INTEGRATING ERGONOMICS 

An ergonomics process can be implemented as a stand-alone activity or as an add-on to an existing process, such as a company’s safety and health program. Regardless of the approach, it is 

important to fully maximize the effectiveness of the ergonomics process by integrating it with 

other processes that affect worker safety and health and the workplace. Examples of processes 

that could benefit from ergonomic input include: 

• Purchasing new equipment and tools 

• Purchasing personal protective equipment 

• Designing new or modifying existing facilities, production lines, or work stations 

• Determining work shifts and schedules 

• Modifying work practices or procedures 

Applying ergonomics to these processes at the planning stage will not only prevent the introduction of risk factors into the workplace, it will avoid costly reengineering efforts to correct 

situations. Incorporating ergonomics into the planning stage moves an ergonomics process from 

a reactive to a truly proactive mode. 
Delivering on the Nation’s promise: 

safety and health at work for all people 

through research and prevention 

To receive NIOSH documents or more information about 

occupational safety and health topics, contact NIOSH at 

1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636) 

TTY: 1–888–232–6348 

e-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov 

or visit the NIOSH Web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh.

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to 

NIOSH eNews by visiting www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews.

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009–107 

SAFER • HEALTHIER • PEOPLETM