Again, my name is Joe Selan. I represent an ergonomics consulting firm in Dallas called Advanced Ergonomics, and we are an ergonomics firm that does work for a variety of industries, underground mining just being one of them. I have worked with the underground industry since about 1981 and have had a number of very positive experiences. What I would like to do is present two case studies here today. I selected case studies which I felt would be a little bit unique than what I anticipated our other gentlemen saying. I, fortunately, guessed correctly on this one.

The reason I wanted to show you something a little bit different than what I think is the standard ergonomic process is a philosophy on my part that one of the things that ergonomics needs to be if it is going to be successful is it needs to be flexible. So the variety of mines, the variety of different attitudes, the variety of different management styles and levels of management commitment that you are going to run across, all of these things are really going to determine and be big drivers in terms of what ultimately ends up being an appropriate ergonomics strategy that the company is willing to buy into.

So let me just go ahead and get started with the two case studies here. The first one that I want to talk about is something that I did mid to late 80's with Island Creek Coal. Then I am going to present to you some work that we are doing right now with Cypress Amax.

The Island Creek Coal project, was started in the mid-80's and I was associated with the implementation of this project for about two years. Basically, it consisted of three parts. The first part was to conduct ergonomic assessments at six mine locations, corresponding to six divisions with Island Creek Coal. On the basis of these ergonomic assessments that were conducted at the mine site, we developed a series of engineering and administrative controls. Then the final step was the development of an ergonomics training program for Island Creek Coal.

The reason that we selected this sequence of activities, the reason we did the engineering controls up front, prior to doing any training of supervisors and employees was we wanted to number one, establish a track record of success with ergonomics before we tried to train people in ergonomics. We wanted a part of the ergonomics training program to be the ability to present success stories within Island Creek.

The second reason for this sequence goes to an issue that Dan brought up. At these various Island Creek sites there was a degree of similarity as you went from one mine to another, and so there were common issues that lent themselves very well to a corporate level control strategy rather than having each mine try to invent the control strategy themselves. So on the basis of that, we developed the engineering controls and then subsequently developed the training program that we put forth with Island Creek.

I would like to go ahead and present a few of the engineering controls. They are very similar to some of the controls that we have already seen presented here. Hopefully, one of the things that we ought to be realizing at this point is that you see the three of us talking about these engineering solutions, and we are talking about similar types of solutions. If it is working for Island Creek Coal, if it is working for Consolidation Coal, if it is working for AEP, there is a strong suggestion that there must be other mines out there that these same controls can be working for.

One of the things that we had great success with was just the implementation of standard hoist mechanisms within the mine to assist with track, handling timber, et cetera, basically installing these at central destination points and delivery points which eliminated a significant amount of manual handling of some very, very heavy objects at Island Creek.

Another mechanical assist that we developed is this manually assisted jack to allow roof timbers to be lifted up using one individual rather than using two to three individuals as was presently the case. So manual handling was significantly reduced, but also manpower was significantly reduced as a function of the mechanical assist.

We had great success in just reducing object weights at Island Creek. This is, again, back in the mid-80's we are talking about here. One hundred pound bags were still very much the norm at Island Creek. We were able to get these bag weights down in the 50 to 60 pound range, much to the delight of many of the workers there. Some of the workers were quite upset about this because they preferred lifting a 100 pound bag rather than two 50 pound bags. This is where the training subsequently served to smooth over some of these complaints that we had with reducing the weight but increasing the frequency of handling.

One of the big problems with Island Creek, a common problem in the mining industry, is handling timber. Timber is stored outside or stored underground. Timber gets wet. Timber gets water logged. The weight of these timbers could increase on an order of 20 to 40 pounds as a function of these timbers getting wet, either being stored outside or being stored underground. What was the solution? Outside or inside the mine we elevated the timber. We were more stringent in the use of tarps, et cetera. Basically, we got rid of all that unnecessary weight that you saw with the timber.

Opening and closing pressurized doors, required forces which we measured in the area of 100 to 120 pounds. This was to open up a door. So one of the things that we systematically introduced were air access panels in order to release the vacuum and reduce the force requirements on these doors, that being the little yellow port immediately to the left-hand side of the door no this slide.

We were able to get rid of some manual handling operations entirely, working with suppliers. Many of the cables or wiring were being delivered on standard spools, and due to the seam heights the first thing when the spools got to Island Creek was it had to be respooled or reconfigured in this sort of a layout just for delivery due to the seam heights. So why not work with the manufacturers and have the manufacturers deliver the product in the configuration that the customer needs.

Belt shoveling, we were able to reduce belt shoveling significantly, simply through more systematic replacement and maintenance of scrapers on the belt. We also had great success with the aluminum shovels. We had horrible experiences with plastic shovels. Aluminum shoves seem to work great, but don't go that next step down, in terms of weight, and try the plastic shovels. It just did not hold up under the work condition.

Also we had great success identifying poor seats, either torn up or bad vibration transmission characteristics, and replacing those systematically at the different vehicles. So a wide variety of different ergonomic controls were implemented. These are very, very simple controls to implement, many of them being no cost controls.

As I mentioned, the second aspect of the Island Creek Coal program was the development of the ergonomics training program. The program was specifically delivered to the supervisor with three primary objectives: ability to identify ergonomic issues, communicate ergonomics to the miners and then develop ergonomic controls. Once the supervisors were trained, it then became the responsibility of the supervisors to do this training with their miners. So these were the ergonomic teams that we were creating at Island Creek. We were basically creating ergonomic teams composed of the supervisors and the workers under the supervisors, which would basically guide everybody in Island Creek as part of the after ergonomics process.

What we saw coming out of Island Creek was about a 13 to 15 percent injury reduction at the end of this two year process. Not as great as what we would have liked to see, but Island Creek was going through, frankly, some very turbulent times as this ergonomics program was being implemented. The turbulence there at Island Creek, I think, without the type of ergonomic program that we had in place, we would have probably have seen vast increases in terms of the reported injuries at Island Creek rather than what we ended up seeing, that being the reduction in injuries at Island Creek. So that is the first of the programs that I wanted to mention, in terms of the case study.

The second case study, Cypress Amax, is a little bit unique from anything that we have talked about up to this point in time. Cypress Amax contracted me to develop for them a physical ability test battery. Basically, what Cypress Amax wanted, in terms of an ergonomic control, was the following: Listen, there is no way short term that we are going to eliminate all of the stressful, physical demands associated with underground mining. Can you help us in identifying individuals who have the physical capability to perform the jobs given the fact that there are high physical demands.

The answer is yes, you can do that. You can do it from a technical perspective. You can do it from a legal perspective. A lot of people tend to cringe and shiver when you start hearing about employee screening, but employee screening, if it is done according to the letter of the law, and the law clearly lays out the guidelines and the requirements, it is an extremely effective mechanism to reduce injuries in the workplace.

Now, how do you go about developing a physical abilities test battery? Well, the first thing you need to do, similar to any sort of ergonomic assessment, is to go out and quantify the physical demands associated with the job classifications. What are the strength requirements of a roof bolter? What are the endurance requirements associated with a belt man? You have to document these physical requirements because this documentation of the physical requirement then forms the criteria for the physical ability test that you are going to develop for the client.

What we found at Cypress Amax, and this, I think, is going to be pretty typical of the mining industry, was significant strength requirements across the board. Endurance requirements were not excessive, in terms of aerobic capacity requirements across an eight hour work shift. So what we ended up using was a strength test battery consisting of simulations of actual lifting tasks being performed in the Cypress Amax environment. I don't want to go into any of the details associated with the nuts and bolts of the test battery itself, but suffice to say, in terms of the legal aspect associated with this, the test battery has to be a good accurate simulation of what these miners are actually being exposed to in the underground work environment.

Basically, what you are doing when an individual comes to Cypress Amax and applies for a job, these strength tests are then administered to this job applicant, and that job applicant has to demonstrate that he or she has the ability to perform the job and then the job will be given to them. So a conditional job offer is extended to the prospective employee. The tests are administered, and contingent on passing the test, the individual is then going to become a member of the Cypress Amax work force.

Now the testing has only started in mid-1996. We only have about 50 people tested up to this point in time. So it is far too early to be making any sort of injury studies as to what sort of injury reductions can be anticipated. Similar physical ability test batteries that we put together for other industries, we have seen on the magnitude of 30 to 60 percent reduction in injuries. We have seen on the magnitude of 10 to 15 percent increases on worker productivity, simply as a function of selecting people who have physical capacities that are commensurate with the physical requirements of the job. I don't want to editorialize too much on this, in terms of the pros and cons associated with physical ability capacity. I know it is a sensitive subject, and it certainly isn't something that I would encourage people to just leap right into, in terms of here is the solution or here is the panacea for ergonomic issues that are out there.

But, if you stop and think about it, there is a reason I am not playing quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys. I don't have the physical capabilities associated with the performance of that job, and it should not really be terribly surprising to us that there are a lot of people who probably should not be in the underground mining environment for exactly that same reason. I don't think we are doing anybody a disservice by saying that here are the physical requirements of the job, and you have to demonstrate that you can meet those physical requirements before we allow you to enter our work force. Cypress Amax is doing themselves a favor. They are doing a favor to those workers whose injuries are going to be avoided down stream.

So these are the two case studies that I wanted to present to you, and, again, my major reason for selecting these two particular cases is that they are slightly varied, in terms of the standard ergonomics protocol that I think we see expressed time and again. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the standard ergonomics program protocol, but I think for ergonomics to be successful in the mining industry or any industry, we do have to keep flexibility as one of the watch words that we use. Ergonomics is largely job analysis. The job tells us what is the appropriate control strategy.

THIS PAGE WAS LAST UPDATED ON July 21, 1997