Embed Size (px)
D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.
[ 1 ]
Participatory Ergonomics Case Study: Coal Handling Train Crew Operations Danellie Lynas and Robin Burgess-LimerickMinerals Industry Safety and Health Centre, The University of Queensland
AbstractBackground: Musculoskeletal disorders associated with manual tasks are a common cause of injury across a number of industries. Almost three-quarters of all serious workers’ compensation claims in 2010 -2011 across all Australian industries were the result of injury, with sprains and strains accounting for 42% of all serious claims. Mechanisms involving muscular stress while handling objects resulted in 32% of all serious injuries [1]. These injuries are often complex with multiple contributing factors including the environment, task characteristics, and individual factors influencing the mechanism of injury. While not all manual tasks are high risk, effective manual task risk management requires identification of hazardous tasks followed by assessment of the degree and source of risk associated with the task before effective controls can be implemented to either eliminate or reduce the risk. Aim: This paper describes a project undertaken at a rail coal handling facility. Method: A participatory ergonomics process was implemented to enable management to better understand the issues surrounding work methods and equipment used by work crews and how these events may be contributing to current and potential workplace injury risks. Conclusion: This paper describes the project and presents the risk assessments undertaken and potential control measures identified.
© Lynas: Licensee HFESA Inc.
BackgroundParticipatory approaches to ergonomics developed from Japan [2], Northern European [3] and North American [4] management practices. While variations in the model exist [5,6,7] the common aspect is the assumption that those performing the tasks have expert knowledge of their tasks, and consequently they should be active participants in the process of improving their workplace. Participatory ergonomics has been described as: “the involvement of people in planning and controlling a significant amount of their own work activities, with sufficient knowledge and power to influence both processes and outcomes in order to achieve desirable goals” [8].
There is no single “right way” to implement a participatory ergonomics program and one of the strengths of the approach is its adaptability to the context and needs of specific workplaces and workers [9]. Participatory ergonomics has been acknowledged as providing a number of benefits including higher productivity and improved worker well-being [10,11] reduced work-related musculoskeletal injury rate and consequence [12,13,14]; enhanced team communication and job control [15]; and more rapid technological and organisational change [16, 5]. Participatory ergonomics interventions have been trialled across a number of areas including car manufacturing [17], meat processing [18], print media [19], health care [20,21], construction [22], and mining [23].
Important components of a successful participatory ergonomics interventions include “buy-in” in the form of management commitment and provision of resources; an
understanding of both ergonomic concepts and techniques by both management and workers; and a process to develop, document and implement control measures [24, 23]. The role of the ergonomist is to initiate and guide the process by providing the necessary skills, tools and ergonomic expertise to allow risks to be accurately assessed, and to facilitate the development of potential control measure by participants.
Managing manual task risk is an iterative process and needs to be repeated following implementation of any control measures to assess whether the measures are working effectively, and whether any new risks have been introduced in the process. It requires keeping records of the hazardous tasks identifed, risk assessments, control measure suggestions and implementations, and reassessment to ensure effectiveness of implemented control measures. Ideally record keeping occurs in a format that can be easily shared across an organisation.
It is important to get the right mix of skills and experience to progress through the process and, ideally, this means involving workers, supervisors and specialists or advisors. Participatory ergonomics programs can be negatively impacted by lack of management support; lack of an “ergonomic champion” at the worksite; insufficient time and resources allocated to develop solutions; lack of ergonomic expertise at site; and organisational restructures and staff changes and turnover [25,26].
This paper describes the outcomes of a project undertaken at two rail coal handing sites. The aim of the project was to assess workplace injury risks and to identify potential control measures, where appropriate. The activities undertaken at the sites varied across train crew shifts however a number
Corresponding author: Danellie Lynas. Email – [email protected]
Case Study
D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.
[ 2 ]
of hazardous tasks were identified across sites by both management and crew as requiring intervention. In priority order of intervention following risk assessment these were:
• Handbrake application and release;
• Coupling and uncoupling of hoses whilst shunting;
• Lifting and carrying bags;
• Walking and working on and about the track - including ballast and access roads;
• Access and egress from the locomotive cab; and
• Locomotive provisioning.
Methods Injury statisticsInjury statistics were reviewed prior to the workshops to gain an overall understanding of the nature and mechanism of injury across both sites. The statistics reflect combined total injury across both sites.
Participatory ergonomics workshopsTwo participatory ergonomics workshops were conducted at each site. The initial workshop was attended by a cross section of experienced and novice crew (14 at one site, 8 at the other). The workshop provided attendees with information about the process to be followed, including:
• Designing an appropriate intervention to meet the needs of the organisation;
• Information on how to identify a hazardous manual task and the associated mechanism of injury;
• How to use a manual task risk assessment tool to assess the severity of identified workplace hazards, including direct risk factors (exertion, movement and repetition, body posture, exposure and vibration) and contributory risk factors; hazard identification; the use of and importance of adopting a hierarchy of control measures;
• The importance of a “champion” to drive the process forward; and
• General strategies to eliminate or control identified manual task injury risks.
Following the initial workshops, ergonomic task analysis was undertaken with the crews, and task risk assessment profiles were developed.
Follow up workshops were held at each site six weeks later, again during programmed “shut down” days. Initial attendance at scheduled workshops was lower than expected requiring additional workshops to be arranged, (in all 18 crew at one site and 20 at the other site attended). The workshops provided the forum for “brainstorming ” solutions with the advantage of involving both experienced and novice operators in the process. This information was refined to develop a structured management report outlining recommended control measures and possible implementation procedures.
Risk assessment Crew operations on two separate coal hauling lines were observed and analysis undertaken to assess current and potential workplace injury risks during the six tasks previously identified by both crew and management as potentially high risk. Informal employee interviews were conducted and still
D. LyErgon
Tabl
Resu
Injur
Com
occu
The
asse
occu
that
inco
asse
appl
to th
to th
nas et al. nomics Australia.
e 1: Risk ass
ults
ry statistics
mbined site st
urring injuries
statistics we
ssing this tas
urring mainte
not all terra
rporate som
ssing this tas
ication or lift
he shoulder/u
he head, back
2013. 10:1.
essment too
tatistics for th
s (40%) resul
re based on
sk alone was
enance activi
ins could be
e of the othe
sk very difficu
ting account
upper limb. T
k and torso, w
ol
he preceding
lted from slip
injury narrat
that working
ties that may
observed, an
er identified
ult. Injury st
ed for 20% o
Thirty percen
with 6% hav
g 12 months
ps/trips and f
tives, and it w
g trackside m
y not be capt
nd that the w
tasks requiri
atistics indic
of injuries, an
nt were local
ing no injury
(Table 2) ind
falls occurrin
was determin
may include a
tured in a ris
working track
ng assessme
cated strain f
nd 40% of rep
lised to the lo
y site recorde
dicated the m
ng “while wo
ned that the
a number of
sk assessmen
kside narrativ
ent. This mad
rom either h
ported injurie
ower limb an
ed.
most common
rking tracksi
difficulty in
irregularly
nt at a given t
ve may
de accurately
hand brake
es were loca
nd ankle, and
5
nly
de”.
time,
y
lized
d 24%
Table 1. Risk assessment tool
D. LyErgon
Tabl
Resu
Injur
Com
occu
The
asse
occu
that
inco
asse
appl
to th
to th
nas et al. nomics Australia.
e 1: Risk ass
ults
ry statistics
mbined site st
urring injuries
statistics we
ssing this tas
urring mainte
not all terra
rporate som
ssing this tas
ication or lift
he shoulder/u
he head, back
2013. 10:1.
essment too
tatistics for th
s (40%) resul
re based on
sk alone was
enance activi
ins could be
e of the othe
sk very difficu
ting account
upper limb. T
k and torso, w
ol
he preceding
lted from slip
injury narrat
that working
ties that may
observed, an
er identified
ult. Injury st
ed for 20% o
Thirty percen
with 6% hav
g 12 months
ps/trips and f
tives, and it w
g trackside m
y not be capt
nd that the w
tasks requiri
atistics indic
of injuries, an
nt were local
ing no injury
(Table 2) ind
falls occurrin
was determin
may include a
tured in a ris
working track
ng assessme
cated strain f
nd 40% of rep
lised to the lo
y site recorde
dicated the m
ng “while wo
ned that the
a number of
sk assessmen
kside narrativ
ent. This mad
rom either h
ported injurie
ower limb an
ed.
most common
rking tracksi
difficulty in
irregularly
nt at a given t
ve may
de accurately
hand brake
es were loca
nd ankle, and
5
nly
de”.
time,
y
lized
d 24%
D. LyErgon
Tabl
Resu
Injur
Com
occu
The
asse
occu
that
inco
asse
appl
to th
to th
nas et al. nomics Australia.
e 1: Risk ass
ults
ry statistics
mbined site st
urring injuries
statistics we
ssing this tas
urring mainte
not all terra
rporate som
ssing this tas
ication or lift
he shoulder/u
he head, back
2013. 10:1.
essment too
tatistics for th
s (40%) resul
re based on
sk alone was
enance activi
ins could be
e of the othe
sk very difficu
ting account
upper limb. T
k and torso, w
ol
he preceding
lted from slip
injury narrat
that working
ties that may
observed, an
er identified
ult. Injury st
ed for 20% o
Thirty percen
with 6% hav
g 12 months
ps/trips and f
tives, and it w
g trackside m
y not be capt
nd that the w
tasks requiri
atistics indic
of injuries, an
nt were local
ing no injury
(Table 2) ind
falls occurrin
was determin
may include a
tured in a ris
working track
ng assessme
cated strain f
nd 40% of rep
lised to the lo
y site recorde
dicated the m
ng “while wo
ned that the
a number of
sk assessmen
kside narrativ
ent. This mad
rom either h
ported injurie
ower limb an
ed.
most common
rking tracksi
difficulty in
irregularly
nt at a given t
ve may
de accurately
hand brake
es were loca
nd ankle, and
5
nly
de”.
time,
y
lized
d 24%
D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.
[ 3 ]
and video footage of the tasks being undertaken was obtained. A risk analysis and evaluation was undertaken using the risk assessment tool (Table 1) provided by Burgess-Limerick [27]. ErgoAnalyst [28] software was used to document the analysis and evaluation.
The risk analysis process requires documentation of: (i) the task characteristics (exertion, exposure, posture and movement) for the back; arms; shoulders; and legs and (ii) environmental characteristics. Performing the task in excessive heat or cold; under stressful conditions, time pressure, and during periods of cognitive overload/underload, increase the baseline score, as does exposure to vibration. Each task is evaluated for both acute injury risk and cumulative injury risk.
Results Injury statisticsCombined site statistics for the preceding 12 months (Table 2) indicated the most commonly occurring injuries (40%) resulted from slips/trips and falls occurring “while working trackside”. The statistics were based on injury narratives, and it was determined that the difficulty in assessing this task alone was that working trackside may include a number of irregularly occurring maintenance activities that may not be captured in a risk assessment at a given time, that not all terrains could be observed, and that the working trackside narrative may incorporate some of the other identified tasks requiring assessment. This made accurately assessing this task very difficult. Injury statistics indicated strain from either hand brake application or lifting accounted for 20% of injuries, and 40% of reported injuries were localized to the shoulder/upper limb. Thirty percent were localised to the lower limb and ankle, and 24% to the head, back and torso, with 6% having no injury site recorded.
Table 2. Mechanism of Injury
Mechanism of Injury Percentage of Injury Total
Slips/trips/falls whilst walking trackside 40
Climbing 10
Strain – lifting 10
Car driving 10
Strain – handbrakes 10
Other (unrelated tasks/hit by object) 20
Slips, trips and falls were the highest reported mechanism of injury in the preceding 12 months. Following hazard identification across all tasks, the priority order of intervention was as follows:
• Task 1: Handbrake application and release;
• Task 2: Coupling and uncoupling of hoses whilst shunting;
• Task 3: Lifting and carrying bags;
• Task 4: Walking and working on and about the track - including ballast and access roads;
• Task 5: Access and egress from the locomotive cab; and
• Task 6: Locomotive provisioning.
Participatory ergonomics workshopsThe participatory workshops needed to be structured differently between sites. While needing to be scheduled for “shutdown” days to maximise crew attendance and minimise work disruption, and to ensure attendance at workshops captured both experienced and novice crew members, they also needed to be flexible to accommodate changes in work demands on the scheduled days, and to address work culture differences between sites. Preliminary discussions were held off-site to ascertain the level of available resources, the most suitable structure of the workshops, and most importantly to ensure site access to tasks identified as hazardous. Both sites had a core workforce of experienced crew – many having long term employment in the industry, however both sites had recently recruited a number of novice train crew from varying skill backgrounds.
Potential control measures were developed for each identified hazardous task at the second workshop at each site. While elimination is always the preferred control option, followed by engineering/design controls to remove or reduce the hazard, “administrative” controls were provided as short-term control options until elimination or design controls were agreed on and implemented. Work practices allowed the assessment of common themes across both sites (with the exception of locomotive provisioning), however it became apparent that quite different work cultures existed between the two sites visited. Where it was not possible to eliminate the task on currently used equipment, guidance was provided for management use in future procurement processes.
Risk Assessment Tasks are listed below in order of intervention priority following risk assessment.
Task 1: Handbrake application and release
Task Description
The task involves awkward postures and forceful muscular exertions. It is most often undertaken trackside where both ballast condition and weather conditions are largely unpredictable. The task occurs when a locomotive is either stowed or unstowed, when shunting, when a shutdown occurs, or at a breakdown. Handbrakes are applied to wagons at the beginning and end of the train, the number depending on company policy regarding application in a given situation (ie. gradient and location of track where shutdown/breakdown location). Typically the time taken for task completion is approximately 30-50 minutes, and may be performed in a breakdown situation by inexperienced crew/ at night.
Task Analysis
Winding the handbrake off requires the brake lever to be disengaged (a sharp thrusting movement of the wrist) which allows the brake wheel to be loosened using bilateral shoulder movement. The brake is then rolled on or off. The task is often performed above shoulder height depending on locomotive location and ballast condition. Frequently coal material lodges in the brake mechanism causing it to jam, requiring awkward postures of the neck, shoulders, upper limbs, and trunk while the lower body provides stability so
D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.
[ 4 ]
trapped material can be dislodged and the brake fully released. Wagons have bilateral brakes, requiring the opposing brake to be released/applied (Figure 1). The procedure is reversed for winding on the handbrakes, with additional force applied at the end of the procedure to ensure the brake is securely in
place. One crew member usually works from the front of the train and another from the rear of the locomotive.
Risk Assessment Scores
Risk assessment scores for this task are illustrated graphically in Figure 2.
Risk analysis indicates:
• High risk of acute injury to the shoulder and upper limb;
• Moderate risk of cumulative injury to shoulder and upper limb; and
• Moderate risk of both acute and cumulative injury to the back, and a low risk to the legs.
Possible Control Measures
An effective control measure implementation will likely require a combination of both short and medium term design or administrative controls to reduce crew exposure while task elimination options are investigated. Whilst not ideal, in reality short to medium term control measures may become longer term control measures depending on management financial commitment to eliminating crew exposure to injury risk. From the workshops the following control measures were developed:
Elimination:
• Spring loaded or pneumatic brakes on wagons.
Design/Engineering control options:
• Relocation of shaft to underside of deck of wagon.
• Reduce gearing to allow use of same amount of force throughout application.
• Use stainless steel chains (to prevent rusting).
• System to blow coal dust away (so dust does not “set like concrete” in the gear mechanism).
• A cover to reduce coal material jamming in the gear mechanism.
D. LyErgon
engi
prov
impl
(with
diffe
elim
futu
Risk
Task
Task
Task
most
large
shun
the b
appl
locat
be p
Figure
Task
thru
nas et al. nomics Australia.
neering/desi
vided as shor
emented. W
h the excepti
erent work cu
inate the tas
re procurem
Assessment
ks are listed b
k 1: Handbra
k Description
t often unde
ely unpredict
nting, when a
beginning an
ication in a g
tion). Typica
erformed in
e 1 A,B &C: Ha
k Analysis: W
sting movem
2013. 10:1.
ign controls t
rt-term contr
Work practice
ion of locom
ultures existe
sk on current
ent processe
t
below in orde
ake applicatio
: The task inv
ertaken track
table. The tas
a shutdown o
nd end of the
given situatio
ally the time
a breakdow
andbrake applic
Winding the ha
ment of the w
to remove o
rol options un
es allowed th
otive provisi
ed between t
tly used equi
es.
er of interven
on and relea
volves awkw
side where b
sk occurs wh
occurs, or at
e train, the nu
on (ie. gradie
taken for tas
n situation b
cation and relea
andbrake off
wrist) which a
r reduce the
ntil eliminati
he assessmen
oning), howe
the two sites
pment, guida
ntion priority
ase
ard postures
both ballast c
hen a locomo
a breakdown
umber depen
nt and locati
sk completio
by inexperien
ase
f requires the
allows the br
hazard, “adm
on or design
nt of commo
ever it becam
s visited. Wh
ance was pro
y following ri
s and forcefu
condition and
otive is either
n. Handbrak
nding on com
ion of track w
n is approxim
nced crew/ at
e brake lever
rake wheel to
ministrative”
n controls we
n themes ac
me apparent
here it was no
ovided for m
isk assessme
ul muscular e
d weather co
r stowed or u
kes are applie
mpany policy
where shutdo
mately 30-50
t night.
r to be diseng
o be loosene
” controls we
ere agreed on
ross both sit
that quite
ot possible to
anagement u
ent.
exertions. It i
onditions are
unstowed, w
ed to wagons
y regarding
own/breakdo
0 minutes, an
gaged (a sha
d using bilat
7
ere
n and
es
o
use in
is
e
when
s at
own
nd may
rp
eral
D. LyErgon
engi
prov
impl
(with
diffe
elim
futu
Risk
Task
Task
Task
most
large
shun
the b
appl
locat
be p
Figure
Task
thru
nas et al. nomics Australia.
neering/desi
vided as shor
emented. W
h the excepti
erent work cu
inate the tas
re procurem
Assessment
ks are listed b
k 1: Handbra
k Description
t often unde
ely unpredict
nting, when a
beginning an
ication in a g
tion). Typica
erformed in
e 1 A,B &C: Ha
k Analysis: W
sting movem
2013. 10:1.
ign controls t
rt-term contr
Work practice
ion of locom
ultures existe
sk on current
ent processe
t
below in orde
ake applicatio
: The task inv
ertaken track
table. The tas
a shutdown o
nd end of the
given situatio
ally the time
a breakdow
andbrake applic
Winding the ha
ment of the w
to remove o
rol options un
es allowed th
otive provisi
ed between t
tly used equi
es.
er of interven
on and relea
volves awkw
side where b
sk occurs wh
occurs, or at
e train, the nu
on (ie. gradie
taken for tas
n situation b
cation and relea
andbrake off
wrist) which a
r reduce the
ntil eliminati
he assessmen
oning), howe
the two sites
pment, guida
ntion priority
ase
ard postures
both ballast c
hen a locomo
a breakdown
umber depen
nt and locati
sk completio
by inexperien
ase
f requires the
allows the br
hazard, “adm
on or design
nt of commo
ever it becam
s visited. Wh
ance was pro
y following ri
s and forcefu
condition and
otive is either
n. Handbrak
nding on com
ion of track w
n is approxim
nced crew/ at
e brake lever
rake wheel to
ministrative”
n controls we
n themes ac
me apparent
here it was no
ovided for m
isk assessme
ul muscular e
d weather co
r stowed or u
kes are applie
mpany policy
where shutdo
mately 30-50
t night.
r to be diseng
o be loosene
” controls we
ere agreed on
ross both sit
that quite
ot possible to
anagement u
ent.
exertions. It i
onditions are
unstowed, w
ed to wagons
y regarding
own/breakdo
0 minutes, an
gaged (a sha
d using bilat
7
ere
n and
es
o
use in
is
e
when
s at
own
nd may
rp
eral
D. LyErgon
engi
prov
impl
(with
diffe
elim
futu
Risk
Task
Task
Task
most
large
shun
the b
appl
locat
be p
Figure
Task
thru
nas et al. nomics Australia.
neering/desi
vided as shor
emented. W
h the excepti
erent work cu
inate the tas
re procurem
Assessment
ks are listed b
k 1: Handbra
k Description
t often unde
ely unpredict
nting, when a
beginning an
ication in a g
tion). Typica
erformed in
e 1 A,B &C: Ha
k Analysis: W
sting movem
2013. 10:1.
ign controls t
rt-term contr
Work practice
ion of locom
ultures existe
sk on current
ent processe
t
below in orde
ake applicatio
: The task inv
ertaken track
table. The tas
a shutdown o
nd end of the
given situatio
ally the time
a breakdow
andbrake applic
Winding the ha
ment of the w
to remove o
rol options un
es allowed th
otive provisi
ed between t
tly used equi
es.
er of interven
on and relea
volves awkw
side where b
sk occurs wh
occurs, or at
e train, the nu
on (ie. gradie
taken for tas
n situation b
cation and relea
andbrake off
wrist) which a
r reduce the
ntil eliminati
he assessmen
oning), howe
the two sites
pment, guida
ntion priority
ase
ard postures
both ballast c
hen a locomo
a breakdown
umber depen
nt and locati
sk completio
by inexperien
ase
f requires the
allows the br
hazard, “adm
on or design
nt of commo
ever it becam
s visited. Wh
ance was pro
y following ri
s and forcefu
condition and
otive is either
n. Handbrak
nding on com
ion of track w
n is approxim
nced crew/ at
e brake lever
rake wheel to
ministrative”
n controls we
n themes ac
me apparent
here it was no
ovided for m
isk assessme
ul muscular e
d weather co
r stowed or u
kes are applie
mpany policy
where shutdo
mately 30-50
t night.
r to be diseng
o be loosene
” controls we
ere agreed on
ross both sit
that quite
ot possible to
anagement u
ent.
exertions. It i
onditions are
unstowed, w
ed to wagons
y regarding
own/breakdo
0 minutes, an
gaged (a sha
d using bilat
7
ere
n and
es
o
use in
is
e
when
s at
own
nd may
rp
eral
Figure 1 A, B & C: Handbrake application and release
D. LyErgon
Risk
•
•
•
Poss
com
expo
nas et al. nomics Australia.
Figure 2: H
analysis indi
• High risk
• Moderat
• Moderat
legs.
sible control m
bination of b
osure while t
2013. 10:1.
Handbrake a
cates
k of acute inju
te risk of cum
te risk of bot
measures: An
both short an
ask eliminati
pplication an
ury to the sh
mulative injur
h acute and
n effective co
nd medium t
ion options a
nd release ri
oulder and u
ry to shoulde
cumulative i
ontrol measu
erm design o
are investigat
isk analysis a
upper limb;
er and upper
njury to the
ure impleme
or administra
ted. Whilst n
and evaluatio
r limb; and
back, and a l
ntation will l
ative controls
not ideal, in r
on
low risk to th
ikely require
s to reduce c
reality short t
9
he
e a
crew
to
Figure 2: Handbrake application and release risk analysis and evaluation
D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.
[ 5 ]
Administrative control options:
• Stow trains at locations suitable, designated and well maintained to standard.
• Consistency in company policy between written policy and field requirements regarding number of brakes needing to be applied.
• Supply appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for task and climate - gloves, clothing and footwear.
Task 2: Coupling and Uncoupling brake hoses
Task Analysis
On observation, significant variation in technique existed between experienced operators and novice or trainee crew when performing this task. Inexperienced operators needed to apply greater force to uncouple and couple the connection, usually taking longer to complete the task leading to awkward body posture being adopted for longer than that of an experienced operator (time pressure was reported by all operators when required to undertake the task in a trackside breakdown situation).
Uncoupling the brake pipe hoses requires the operator to squat between the wagons to reach the coupled hoses (Figure 3A), and again observed techniques varied between experienced operators and novices. One technique observed involved grasping the left (L) hose with the (L) hand and grasping the right (R) hose with the (R) hand and rolling the forearm over and around the hose so that the (R) hose could be lifted up and around in a scissor like mechanism to unlock the coupling (Figure 3B). Significant awkward wrist and upper limb postures were seen in combination with
excessive force application. Operators reported the coupling end could swing out of their hand and injury their shin so usually they braced with their (R) leg to protect themselves against injury. In another technique observed the coupled joint was braced with hands at each end of the joint and both hoses levered upwards in a symmetrical movement to break the coupling join, again requiring awkward wrist and upper limb postures combined with application of excessive force.
When recoupling, the (R) hose was held at 90 degrees upward and the (L) hose held in the (L) hand and brought up to meet the (R) hose allowing it to roll into the lock position – again awkward postures in combination with force was involved in task completion. Operators reported coal dust often jammed the mechanism meaning additional force was required to uncouple the joint (Figure 3C). Additional considerations to this task were walking on uneven ballast with/without long vegetation present, and working at night. No exposure to vibration was involved performance of this task.
Risk Assessment
Risk analysis and evaluation (Figure 4) indicated:
• High risk of acute and cumulative injury to the upper limb.
• Moderate risk of acute and cumulative injury to all other areas of the body.
D. LyErgon
the c
com
out o
them
hand
brea
appl
F
mech
Whe
hand
awkw
repo
unco
balla
was
Risk
•
•
nas et al. nomics Australia.
coupling (Fig
bination with
of their hand
mselves again
ds at each en
ak the couplin
ication of ex
Figures 3A & B:
hanism
en recouplin
d and brough
ward posture
orted coal du
ouple the join
ast with/with
involved per
assessment:
• High risk
• Moderat
2013. 10:1.
ure 3B). Sign
h excessive f
d and injury t
nst injury. In
nd of the join
ng join, again
cessive force
Coupling and
g, the (R) ho
ht up to mee
es in combin
st often jam
nt (Figure 3C
hout long veg
rformance of
: Risk analysi
k of acute and
te risk of acu
nificant awkw
force applica
their shin so
n another tec
nt and both h
n requiring aw
e.
Uncoupling bra
se was held
t the (R) hos
ation with fo
med the mec
C). Additiona
getation pres
f this task.
s and evalua
d cumulative
te and cumu
ward wrist an
tion. Operat
usually they
chnique obse
hoses levered
wkward wris
ake hoses
at 90 degree
e allowing it
orce was invo
chanism mea
al considerati
sent, and wo
tion (Figure 4
e injury to the
ulative injury
nd upper lim
tors reported
braced with
erved the cou
d upwards in
st and upper
Figure 3C: Rem
es upward an
to roll into t
olved in task
aning additio
ions to this ta
rking at nigh
4) indicated:
e upper limb
to all other a
mb postures w
d the couplin
their (R) leg
upled joint w
a symmetric
limb posture
moving jammed
nd the (L) hos
the lock posit
completion.
onal force wa
ask were wa
ht. No expos
:
b.
areas of the
were seen in
ng end could
to protect
was braced w
cal movemen
es combined
d coal from the
se held in the
tion – again
. Operators
as required to
lking on une
ure to vibrat
body.
11
swing
ith
nt to
with
e brake
e (L)
o
ven
tion
D. LyErgon
the c
com
out o
them
hand
brea
appl
F
mech
Whe
hand
awkw
repo
unco
balla
was
Risk
•
•
nas et al. nomics Australia.
coupling (Fig
bination with
of their hand
mselves again
ds at each en
ak the couplin
ication of ex
Figures 3A & B:
hanism
en recouplin
d and brough
ward posture
orted coal du
ouple the join
ast with/with
involved per
assessment:
• High risk
• Moderat
2013. 10:1.
ure 3B). Sign
h excessive f
d and injury t
nst injury. In
nd of the join
ng join, again
cessive force
Coupling and
g, the (R) ho
ht up to mee
es in combin
st often jam
nt (Figure 3C
hout long veg
rformance of
: Risk analysi
k of acute and
te risk of acu
nificant awkw
force applica
their shin so
n another tec
nt and both h
n requiring aw
e.
Uncoupling bra
se was held
t the (R) hos
ation with fo
med the mec
C). Additiona
getation pres
f this task.
s and evalua
d cumulative
te and cumu
ward wrist an
tion. Operat
usually they
chnique obse
hoses levered
wkward wris
ake hoses
at 90 degree
e allowing it
orce was invo
chanism mea
al considerati
sent, and wo
tion (Figure 4
e injury to the
ulative injury
nd upper lim
tors reported
braced with
erved the cou
d upwards in
st and upper
Figure 3C: Rem
es upward an
to roll into t
olved in task
aning additio
ions to this ta
rking at nigh
4) indicated:
e upper limb
to all other a
mb postures w
d the couplin
their (R) leg
upled joint w
a symmetric
limb posture
moving jammed
nd the (L) hos
the lock posit
completion.
onal force wa
ask were wa
ht. No expos
:
b.
areas of the
were seen in
ng end could
to protect
was braced w
cal movemen
es combined
d coal from the
se held in the
tion – again
. Operators
as required to
lking on une
ure to vibrat
body.
11
swing
ith
nt to
with
e brake
e (L)
o
ven
tion
D. LyErgon
the c
com
out o
them
hand
brea
appl
F
mech
Whe
hand
awkw
repo
unco
balla
was
Risk
•
•
nas et al. nomics Australia.
coupling (Fig
bination with
of their hand
mselves again
ds at each en
ak the couplin
ication of ex
Figures 3A & B:
hanism
en recouplin
d and brough
ward posture
orted coal du
ouple the join
ast with/with
involved per
assessment:
• High risk
• Moderat
2013. 10:1.
ure 3B). Sign
h excessive f
d and injury t
nst injury. In
nd of the join
ng join, again
cessive force
Coupling and
g, the (R) ho
ht up to mee
es in combin
st often jam
nt (Figure 3C
hout long veg
rformance of
: Risk analysi
k of acute and
te risk of acu
nificant awkw
force applica
their shin so
n another tec
nt and both h
n requiring aw
e.
Uncoupling bra
se was held
t the (R) hos
ation with fo
med the mec
C). Additiona
getation pres
f this task.
s and evalua
d cumulative
te and cumu
ward wrist an
tion. Operat
usually they
chnique obse
hoses levered
wkward wris
ake hoses
at 90 degree
e allowing it
orce was invo
chanism mea
al considerati
sent, and wo
tion (Figure 4
e injury to the
ulative injury
nd upper lim
tors reported
braced with
erved the cou
d upwards in
st and upper
Figure 3C: Rem
es upward an
to roll into t
olved in task
aning additio
ions to this ta
rking at nigh
4) indicated:
e upper limb
to all other a
mb postures w
d the couplin
their (R) leg
upled joint w
a symmetric
limb posture
moving jammed
nd the (L) hos
the lock posit
completion.
onal force wa
ask were wa
ht. No expos
:
b.
areas of the
were seen in
ng end could
to protect
was braced w
cal movemen
es combined
d coal from the
se held in the
tion – again
. Operators
as required to
lking on une
ure to vibrat
body.
11
swing
ith
nt to
with
e brake
e (L)
o
ven
tion
Figure 3C: Removing jammed coal from the brake mechanism
Figures 3A & B: Coupling and Uncoupling brake hoses
Figures 4: Coupling and Uncoupling brake hoses risk analysis and evaluation
D. LyErgon
Poss
Elim
•
Desig
•
•
•
nas et al. nomics Australia.
Figure 4: C
sible control m
ination:
• Air cut o
gn/engineeri
• Change t
• Flexible h
joining/m
• Tool to h
applicati
2013. 10:1.
Coupling and
measures: Fr
ff - letting tra
ing controls:
the position
hoses (new h
moulded han
hold hosebag
on of excess
d Uncoupling
rom the work
ain moveme
of hoses so c
hoses are mo
nd grips/and/
gs in position
force/ use o
g brake hose
kshops the fo
nt separate c
coupling poin
ore rigid) - inc
/or a rubber
so they easi
of awkward p
s risk analys
ollowing con
cables.
nts are more
clusion of sn
cup for the j
ily drop dow
posture.
is and evalua
trol measure
accessible.
ap lock syste
oiner.
n and hook u
ation
es were deve
em of
up without
12
eloped:
D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.
[ 6 ]
Possible Control Measures
From the workshops the following control measures were developed:
Elimination:
• Air cut off - letting train movement separate cables.
Design/engineering controls:
• Change the position of hoses so coupling points are more accessible.
• Flexible hoses (new hoses are more rigid) - inclusion of snap lock system of joining/moulded hand grips/and/or a rubber cup for the joiner.
• Tool to hold hosebags in position so they easily drop down and hook up without application of excess force/ use of awkward posture.
• Design a seal for brake cable to keep coal dust off.
• Move the stopcock to side.
Administrative controls:
• Improved training - individual competency levels & particularly for new wagons coming in from China.
• Update maintenance strategies to minimise likelihood of needing to undertake the task trackside.
• Timetabling - so task not completed on night shift/difficult environments i.e. undertaken at areas of level ballast. The task was noted to be easier if two operators were rostered so could work from either side of the train.
• Negotiate with track owner for improved track maintenance.
• “Oncall” crew list to assist when required.
• PPE - when working at night - provision of head lamps and appropriate gloves (quality and purpose).
Task 3: Lifting and carrying bags
Task Description
Train crew carry bags containing their personal items with them onto and off of each shift involving awkward postures of the trunk and lower body while lifting above shoulder, and instability of the lower body. Bags vary in dimension and weight, and content is discretionary between individual crew members. Additionally, crew carry meal and water requirements for the duration of their shift, and procedure manuals/reference items required during the shift. The company has supplied a standard (high visibility) backpack but crew are not required to use this pack, nor are they restricted to one carry on bag. Locomotive access involves walking along track ballast (of varying heights and quality). Crew often stand on uneven surfaces while passing bags overhead to a crew member standing on the locomotive platform above (Figure 5). The ankle is particularly vulnerable to injury due to instability of the ballast surface. The task is undertaken infrequently, usually at start and completion of shift.
Risk Assessment
Risk analysis (Figure 6) indicates:
• High risk of acute injury to the shoulder and upper limb with this task.
• Moderate risk of cumulative injury for this area.
Figure 5 A&B: Lifting bags onto locomotive at start of shift
D. LyErgon
Figure
Risk
•
•
nas et al. nomics Australia.
e 5 A&B: Liftin
assessment:
• High risk
• Moderat
2013. 10:1.
g bags onto loc
: Risk analysi
k of acute inju
te risk of cum
comotive at sta
s (Figure 6) i
ury to the sh
mulative injur
art of shift
ndicates:
oulder and u
ry for this are
upper limb w
ea.
with this task..
14
D. LyErgon
Figure
Risk
•
•
nas et al. nomics Australia.
e 5 A&B: Liftin
assessment:
• High risk
• Moderat
2013. 10:1.
g bags onto loc
: Risk analysi
k of acute inju
te risk of cum
comotive at sta
s (Figure 6) i
ury to the sh
mulative injur
art of shift
ndicates:
oulder and u
ry for this are
upper limb w
ea.
with this task..
14
Figure 6: Lifting and carrying bags risk analysis and evaluation
Possible Control Measures
Design/engineering control options:
• Motorised pulley/boat cable winch system (hooked over handrail and bags winched up onto the locomotive).
• Hydraulic platform lift (similar to disabled taxis) accessed from the rear of the locomotive.
• Fold down pneumatic stairs.
• Luggage rack located on outside of locomotive.
D. LyErgon
Figu
Poss
Desig
•
•
•
nas et al. nomics Australia.
re 6: Lifting a
sible control
gn/engineeri
• Motorise
onto the
• Hydrauli
locomoti
• Fold dow
2013. 10:1.
and carrying
measures
ing control o
ed pulley/bo
e locomotive)
c platform lif
ive.
wn pneumati
g bags risk an
options:
at cable winc
).
ft (similar to
c stairs.
nalysis and e
ch system (h
disabled tax
valuation
ooked over h
xis) accessed
handrail and
from the rea
bags winche
ar of the
15
ed up
D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.
[ 7 ]
Administrative controls:
• Consider placing manuals/Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS)/route manuals on ipad /tablet to reduce bag.
• Consider placing essential manual information in hard copy on locomotives.
• Track maintenance - designated change points on network/improved track access.
Task 4: Walking and working on and about the track - including ballast and access roads
Task Description
The task is undertaken frequently by all crew and performed in a variety of environmental conditions (heat, wet weather, night) and locations. The difficulty in assessing this task is that it often involves specific maintenance tasks which need to be assessed individually to understand how targeted design/engineering controls can best be implemented. Crew drive by 4WD, often on unsealed access roads/tracks/ballast (of varying dimensions and quality) to access the locomotive, and undertake a number of observational/maintenance tasks including walking the length of the train to observe any faults or maintenance issues; carrying out maintenance work and routine procedures, such as handbrake application and release; and provisioning prior to commencement of shift. Stressful conditions may arise when fault detection and repairs are required either at initial inspection or following a breakdown during a shift. Awkward postures of the trunk and lower body are often adopted in order to provide trunk and lower stability while standing on an uneven surface and undertaking a specific task (Figure 7). The ankle is particularly vulnerable to injury due to reduced stability when standing on ballast. A moderate level of exertion may be required, if crew need to carry maintenance /replacement equipment and undertake maintenance tasks.
Figure 7 A, B & C: Examples of walking and working trackside
Risk Assessment
Risk analysis (Figure 8) indicates:
• Moderate risk of acute injury to the shoulder, upper limbs and back.
• Low risk of injury to the lower body.
The assessment tool does not give consideration to the terrain in which the task is performed – the uneven and shifting nature of the ballast surface underfoot indicates ankle injury may occur with this task.
Figure 8: Walking and working on and about track risk analysis and evaluation
Possible Control Measures
Design/engineering control options:
• Individual maintenance tasks need to be assessed to understand if targeted design/engineering controls can be implemented.
• Designated maintenance/change out platforms.
• Design tools that are light weight and appropriate for the task.
Administrative controls:
• Maintenance of track and walkways to acceptable standard/Improved vehicle access/4WD training.
• Provision of tool belt - to carry water bottle, tools etc.
• Provision of appropriate footwear.
• Provision of appropriate clothing for environment.
D. LyErgon
•
Adm
•
•
•
Task
Task
envi
this t
indiv
Crew
qual
inclu
out m
prov
dete
shift
trun
(Figu
on b
/rep
Figure
Risk
nas et al. nomics Australia.
• Luggage
ministrative co
• Consider
/tablet to
• Consider
• Track ma
k 4: Walking
k Description
ronmental co
task is that it
vidually to un
w drive by 4W
ity) to access
uding walking
maintenance
visioning prio
ection and re
t. Awkward p
k and lower
ure 7). The an
ballast. A mo
lacement eq
e 7 A, B & C: Ex
assessment:
2013. 10:1.
rack located
ontrols:
r placing man
o reduce bag
r placing esse
aintenance -
and working
: The task is
onditions (he
t often involv
nderstand ho
WD, often on
s the locomo
g the length
e work and ro
or to commen
pairs are req
postures of t
stability whi
nkle is partic
oderate level
quipment and
xamples of wal
: Risk analysi
d on outside o
nuals/Standa
g.
ential manua
designated c
g on and abo
undertaken f
eat, wet wea
ves specific m
ow targeted d
n unsealed ac
otive, and un
of the train t
outine proce
ncement of s
quired either
he trunk and
le standing o
ularly vulner
l of exertion
d undertake
lking and worki
s (Figure 8) i
of locomotiv
ard Operating
al informatio
change point
out the track
frequently by
ather, night) a
maintenance
design/engin
ccess roads/t
dertake a nu
to observe an
edures, such
shift. Stressf
at initial ins
d lower body
on an uneven
rable to injur
may be requ
maintenance
ing trackside
ndicates:
ve.
g Procedures
n in hard cop
ts on networ
- including b
y all crew an
and location
tasks which
neering contr
tracks/ballast
umber of obs
ny faults or m
as handbrak
ful conditions
pection or fo
y are often ad
n surface and
ry due to red
uired, if crew
e tasks.
s (SOPS)/rou
py on locomo
rk/improved
ballast and a
d performed
s. The difficu
need to be a
rols can best
t (of varying
servational/m
maintenance
e application
s may arise w
ollowing a br
dopted in ord
d undertaking
uced stabilit
w need to car
te manuals o
otives.
track access
access roads
d in a variety
ulty in assess
assessed
t be impleme
dimensions
maintenance
issues; carry
n and release
when fault
eakdown du
der to provid
g a specific ta
y when stand
ry maintenan
16
on ipad
.
of
sing
ented.
and
tasks
ying
e; and
ring a
de
ask
ding
nce
D. LyErgon
•
Adm
•
•
•
Task
Task
envi
this t
indiv
Crew
qual
inclu
out m
prov
dete
shift
trun
(Figu
on b
/rep
Figure
Risk
nas et al. nomics Australia.
• Luggage
ministrative co
• Consider
/tablet to
• Consider
• Track ma
k 4: Walking
k Description
ronmental co
task is that it
vidually to un
w drive by 4W
ity) to access
uding walking
maintenance
visioning prio
ection and re
t. Awkward p
k and lower
ure 7). The an
ballast. A mo
lacement eq
e 7 A, B & C: Ex
assessment:
2013. 10:1.
rack located
ontrols:
r placing man
o reduce bag
r placing esse
aintenance -
and working
: The task is
onditions (he
t often involv
nderstand ho
WD, often on
s the locomo
g the length
e work and ro
or to commen
pairs are req
postures of t
stability whi
nkle is partic
oderate level
quipment and
xamples of wal
: Risk analysi
d on outside o
nuals/Standa
g.
ential manua
designated c
g on and abo
undertaken f
eat, wet wea
ves specific m
ow targeted d
n unsealed ac
otive, and un
of the train t
outine proce
ncement of s
quired either
he trunk and
le standing o
ularly vulner
l of exertion
d undertake
lking and worki
s (Figure 8) i
of locomotiv
ard Operating
al informatio
change point
out the track
frequently by
ather, night) a
maintenance
design/engin
ccess roads/t
dertake a nu
to observe an
edures, such
shift. Stressf
at initial ins
d lower body
on an uneven
rable to injur
may be requ
maintenance
ing trackside
ndicates:
ve.
g Procedures
n in hard cop
ts on networ
- including b
y all crew an
and location
tasks which
neering contr
tracks/ballast
umber of obs
ny faults or m
as handbrak
ful conditions
pection or fo
y are often ad
n surface and
ry due to red
uired, if crew
e tasks.
s (SOPS)/rou
py on locomo
rk/improved
ballast and a
d performed
s. The difficu
need to be a
rols can best
t (of varying
servational/m
maintenance
e application
s may arise w
ollowing a br
dopted in ord
d undertaking
uced stabilit
w need to car
te manuals o
otives.
track access
access roads
d in a variety
ulty in assess
assessed
t be impleme
dimensions
maintenance
issues; carry
n and release
when fault
eakdown du
der to provid
g a specific ta
y when stand
ry maintenan
16
on ipad
.
of
sing
ented.
and
tasks
ying
e; and
ring a
de
ask
ding
nce
D. LyErgon
•
Adm
•
•
•
Task
Task
envi
this t
indiv
Crew
qual
inclu
out m
prov
dete
shift
trun
(Figu
on b
/rep
Figure
Risk
nas et al. nomics Australia.
• Luggage
ministrative co
• Consider
/tablet to
• Consider
• Track ma
k 4: Walking
k Description
ronmental co
task is that it
vidually to un
w drive by 4W
ity) to access
uding walking
maintenance
visioning prio
ection and re
t. Awkward p
k and lower
ure 7). The an
ballast. A mo
lacement eq
e 7 A, B & C: Ex
assessment:
2013. 10:1.
rack located
ontrols:
r placing man
o reduce bag
r placing esse
aintenance -
and working
: The task is
onditions (he
t often involv
nderstand ho
WD, often on
s the locomo
g the length
e work and ro
or to commen
pairs are req
postures of t
stability whi
nkle is partic
oderate level
quipment and
xamples of wal
: Risk analysi
d on outside o
nuals/Standa
g.
ential manua
designated c
g on and abo
undertaken f
eat, wet wea
ves specific m
ow targeted d
n unsealed ac
otive, and un
of the train t
outine proce
ncement of s
quired either
he trunk and
le standing o
ularly vulner
l of exertion
d undertake
lking and worki
s (Figure 8) i
of locomotiv
ard Operating
al informatio
change point
out the track
frequently by
ather, night) a
maintenance
design/engin
ccess roads/t
dertake a nu
to observe an
edures, such
shift. Stressf
at initial ins
d lower body
on an uneven
rable to injur
may be requ
maintenance
ing trackside
ndicates:
ve.
g Procedures
n in hard cop
ts on networ
- including b
y all crew an
and location
tasks which
neering contr
tracks/ballast
umber of obs
ny faults or m
as handbrak
ful conditions
pection or fo
y are often ad
n surface and
ry due to red
uired, if crew
e tasks.
s (SOPS)/rou
py on locomo
rk/improved
ballast and a
d performed
s. The difficu
need to be a
rols can best
t (of varying
servational/m
maintenance
e application
s may arise w
ollowing a br
dopted in ord
d undertaking
uced stabilit
w need to car
te manuals o
otives.
track access
access roads
d in a variety
ulty in assess
assessed
t be impleme
dimensions
maintenance
issues; carry
n and release
when fault
eakdown du
der to provid
g a specific ta
y when stand
ry maintenan
16
on ipad
.
of
sing
ented.
and
tasks
ying
e; and
ring a
de
ask
ding
nce
D. LyErgon
•
•
The
the u
with
Poss
nas et al. nomics Australia.
• Moderat
• Low risk
assessment t
uneven and s
this task.
Figure 8: W
sible control m
2013. 10:1.
te risk of acu
of injury to t
tool does no
shifting natu
Walking and
measures:
te injury to t
the lower bo
ot give consid
re of the bal
working on
the shoulder,
ody.
deration to th
last surface u
and about tr
, upper limbs
he terrain in
underfoot in
rack risk ana
s and back.
which the ta
dicates ankle
alysis and eva
ask is perform
e injury may
aluation
17
med –
occur
D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.
[ 8 ]
Task 5: Access and egress from the locomotive cab
Task Description
Access and egress is typically performed once per shift unless unforeseen maintenance issues arise. Locomotive access and egress is via a vertical ladder situated toward the rear of the locomotive, leading onto an external platform (within the profile of the train) to the cab of the locomotive (Figure 9A). The platform is narrow requiring crew to walk side-step along it to the cab (approximately 10 metres) and is accessed via an outward opening door. To egress, crew pivot on the platform so as to exit facing backwards and retaining three points of contact (Figure 9B). The final step down to ballast/ground may be up to half a metre and onto uneven and moving surface/with or without long grass surrounding it. Depending on change of shift location crew may be required to undertake this task in the dark, and/or on unfamiliar sections of the track.
Figures 9A & B: Access and egress from locomotive cab
Risk Assessment
Risk analysis (Figure 10) indicates:
• Moderate risk of acute injury to the shoulder and upper limb.
• Low risk of injury to the lower body (consideration needs to be given to the state of the ballast surrounding the ladder as this may influence the potential for ankle injury).
• Moderate risk of cumulative injury to back.
Possible Control Measures
The workshops provided the following information regarding control measures for reducing the likelihood of injury from this task. Effective control measure implementation may involve a combination of both design controls and some administrative controls, if elimination of the task is not possible.
Figure 10: Access and egress from locomotive risk analysis and evaluation
Design/engineering control options:
• Redesign the locomotive ladder - consider retracting stairs/extension ladder with spring adjustment release.
• Install LED lighting on bottom rung of ladder.
• Install handrails on bottom of locomotive footplate - provide support when walking on uneven ballast.
• Longer handle on door locking mechanism of cab door.
Administrative controls:
• Increase number of change platforms on line.
• Maintenance of ballast.
Task 6: Locomotive provisioning Task Description
This task is performed infrequently, and varies between the two lines. One line (A) has contractor assistance with provisioning. The other line (B) does not - meaning all provisioning undertaken by one person usually taking around two hours to complete. Currently, the task is performed outside and in all weather conditions. Forceful manual effort and awkward body postures are required while connecting the fuel hoses, during the refueling process itself, and while starting the compressors to power the sand pods (Figures 11 A & B). Line (A) has a vehicle fitted with a motor operated platform providing operator access to refueling points without the
D. LyErgon
Desig
•
•
•
Adm
•
•
•
•
Task
Task
main
the r
the c
alon
egre
cont
unev
shift
secti
Figure
nas et al. nomics Australia.
gn/engineeri
• Individua
design/e
• Designat
• Design to
ministrative co
• Mainten
access/4
• Provision
• Provision
• Provision
k 5: Access a
k Description:
ntenance issu
rear of the lo
cab of the loc
g it to the ca
ess, crew pivo
tact (Figure 9
ven and mov
t location cre
ions of the tr
es 9A & B: Acc
2013. 10:1.
ing control o
al maintenan
engineering c
ted maintena
ools that are
ontrols:
ance of track
4WD training
n of tool belt
n of appropri
n of appropri
and egress fro
: Access and
ues arise. Loc
ocomotive, le
comotive (Fig
ab (approxim
ot on the pla
9B). The final
ving surface/w
ew may be re
rack.
ess and egress
options:
nce tasks nee
controls can b
ance/change
light weight
k and walkwa
.
t - to carry wa
iate footwea
iate clothing
om the locom
egress is typ
comotive acc
eading onto a
gure 9A). Th
mately 10 met
tform so as t
step down t
with or witho
equired to un
from locomotiv
ed to be asse
be implemen
e out platform
t and approp
ays to accept
ater bottle, t
ar.
for environm
motive cab
pically perfor
cess and egre
an external p
he platform is
tres) and is a
to exit facing
to ballast/gro
out long gras
ndertake this
ve cab
essed to unde
nted.
ms.
riate for the
table standa
tools etc.
ment.
rmed once pe
ess is via a ve
platform (wit
s narrow req
accessed via a
g backwards a
ound may be
ss surroundin
s task in the d
erstand if tar
task.
rd/Improved
er shift unles
ertical ladder
thin the profi
quiring crew t
an outward o
and retaining
e up to half a
ng it. Depend
dark, and/or
rgeted
d vehicle
ss unforeseen
r situated tow
ile of the trai
to walk side-
opening doo
g three point
metre and o
ding on chan
on unfamilia
18
n
ward
in) to
-step
r. To
ts of
onto
ge of
ar
D. LyErgon
Desig
•
•
•
Adm
•
•
•
•
Task
Task
main
the r
the c
alon
egre
cont
unev
shift
secti
Figure
nas et al. nomics Australia.
gn/engineeri
• Individua
design/e
• Designat
• Design to
ministrative co
• Mainten
access/4
• Provision
• Provision
• Provision
k 5: Access a
k Description:
ntenance issu
rear of the lo
cab of the loc
g it to the ca
ess, crew pivo
tact (Figure 9
ven and mov
t location cre
ions of the tr
es 9A & B: Acc
2013. 10:1.
ing control o
al maintenan
engineering c
ted maintena
ools that are
ontrols:
ance of track
4WD training
n of tool belt
n of appropri
n of appropri
and egress fro
: Access and
ues arise. Loc
ocomotive, le
comotive (Fig
ab (approxim
ot on the pla
9B). The final
ving surface/w
ew may be re
rack.
ess and egress
options:
nce tasks nee
controls can b
ance/change
light weight
k and walkwa
.
t - to carry wa
iate footwea
iate clothing
om the locom
egress is typ
comotive acc
eading onto a
gure 9A). Th
mately 10 met
tform so as t
step down t
with or witho
equired to un
from locomotiv
ed to be asse
be implemen
e out platform
t and approp
ays to accept
ater bottle, t
ar.
for environm
motive cab
pically perfor
cess and egre
an external p
he platform is
tres) and is a
to exit facing
to ballast/gro
out long gras
ndertake this
ve cab
essed to unde
nted.
ms.
riate for the
table standa
tools etc.
ment.
rmed once pe
ess is via a ve
platform (wit
s narrow req
accessed via a
g backwards a
ound may be
ss surroundin
s task in the d
erstand if tar
task.
rd/Improved
er shift unles
ertical ladder
thin the profi
quiring crew t
an outward o
and retaining
e up to half a
ng it. Depend
dark, and/or
rgeted
d vehicle
ss unforeseen
r situated tow
ile of the trai
to walk side-
opening doo
g three point
metre and o
ding on chan
on unfamilia
18
n
ward
in) to
-step
r. To
ts of
onto
ge of
ar
D. LyErgon
Risk
•
•
•
nas et al. nomics Australia.
assessment:
• Moderat
• Low risk
ballast su
• Moderat
Figure 10:
2013. 10:1.
: Risk analysi
te risk of acu
of injury to t
urrounding t
te risk of cum
Access and
s (Figure 10)
te injury to t
the lower bo
he ladder as
mulative injur
egress from
indicates:
the shoulder
ody (consider
this may inf
ry to back.
locomotive
and upper li
ration needs
luence the p
risk analysis
imb.
to be given t
otential for a
s and evaluat
to the state o
ankle injury)
tion
19
of the
.
D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.
[ 9 ]
need for excessive manual effort or awkward postures (Figure 11 C). Postural demands were far greater on Line B with the procedures having less variation in movement patterns and being largely repetitive in nature, while Line A procedures had more dynamic and varied movement patterns. The task is performed infrequently but may take up to two hours to complete (short periods of varied tasks) on Line B.
Figures 11 A & B: Provisioning of Locomotive (Line B) Figure 11 C: Provisioning (Line A)
Risk Assessment
Risk analysis (Figure 12) indicates:
• High risk of acute injury to the back and moderate risk to the shoulder, arms and legs.
• Moderate risk of cumulative injury for all areas.
Noise levels while provisioning was identified by crew as a problem, and a recommendation was made to also engage an occupational hygienist to review air particle contaminants associated with the provisioning process.
Possible control measures
The workshops provided the following information regarding control measures for reducing the likelihood of injury from this task. Hazardous procedures were identified when undertaking various components of the task - these included fuelling, sanding/sand pod use, lifting of oil drums and subsequent oil leaks.
Elimination:
• Construct purpose built facility or hire the existing facility from track owner.
Design/engineering control measures:
Fuelling:
• Consider a lighter fuel hose.
Sanding:
• Gas struts/lighter material for lid - existing heavy to remove.
• Sand hose nozzle heavy - replace with aluminum/lighter weight material.
• Portable sanding delivery system.
• Extend current gravity feed hose (apparently 60cm too short).
• Fit a “T piece” to the sand hose.
• Provide additional pods - reduce need to move equipment during task.
Oiling:
• Purpose built platform for oiling requirements.
• Air pressure drum (with hose reel) to dispense oil.
• Oil drum on stand/reservoir moved to increase accessibility.
• Oil in smaller container (5 litre) rather than lifting 20 litre drum (only small quantities are required to complete task).
• Redesign access point for oil delivered to compressors for easier access.
• Work from the head end for provisioning/fault finding - eliminates need to walk back to the remotes.
• Dipsticks re-positioned either side for checking engine oil.
• Provide degreaser to counter oil spillages.
Administrative control measures:
• Provide additional staff/third driver (night fuelling of remote locomotives).
D. LyErgon
Figur
Risk
•
•
Nois
mad
with
nas et al. nomics Australia.
res 11 A & B
assessment:
• High risk
• Moderat
se levels whil
e to also eng
the provisio
2013. 10:1.
Provisioning o
: Risk analysi
k of acute inju
te risk of cum
e provisionin
gage an occu
oning process
of Locomotive
s (Figure 12)
ury to the ba
mulative injur
ng was ident
upational hyg
s.
e (Line B) Figu
indicates:
ack and mode
ry for all area
ified by crew
gienist to rev
ure 11 C: Pro
erate risk to
as.
w as a problem
iew air partic
visioning (Line
the shoulder
m, and a reco
cle contamin
e A)
r, arms and l
ommendatio
nants associa
21
egs.
on was
ted
D. LyErgon
Figur
Risk
•
•
Nois
mad
with
nas et al. nomics Australia.
res 11 A & B
assessment:
• High risk
• Moderat
se levels whil
e to also eng
the provisio
2013. 10:1.
Provisioning o
: Risk analysi
k of acute inju
te risk of cum
e provisionin
gage an occu
oning process
of Locomotive
s (Figure 12)
ury to the ba
mulative injur
ng was ident
upational hyg
s.
e (Line B) Figu
indicates:
ack and mode
ry for all area
ified by crew
gienist to rev
ure 11 C: Pro
erate risk to
as.
w as a problem
iew air partic
visioning (Line
the shoulder
m, and a reco
cle contamin
e A)
r, arms and l
ommendatio
nants associa
21
egs.
on was
ted
D. LyErgon
Figur
Risk
•
•
Nois
mad
with
nas et al. nomics Australia.
res 11 A & B
assessment:
• High risk
• Moderat
se levels whil
e to also eng
the provisio
2013. 10:1.
Provisioning o
: Risk analysi
k of acute inju
te risk of cum
e provisionin
gage an occu
oning process
of Locomotive
s (Figure 12)
ury to the ba
mulative injur
ng was ident
upational hyg
s.
e (Line B) Figu
indicates:
ack and mode
ry for all area
ified by crew
gienist to rev
ure 11 C: Pro
erate risk to
as.
w as a problem
iew air partic
visioning (Line
the shoulder
m, and a reco
cle contamin
e A)
r, arms and l
ommendatio
nants associa
21
egs.
on was
ted
Figure 12: Train provisioning (B line) analysis and evaluation
D. LyErgon
Poss
mea
iden
sand
Elim
•
Desig
nas et al. nomics Australia.
Figure 12:
sible control m
sures for red
tified when u
ding/sand po
ination:
• Construct
gn/engineeri
2013. 10:1.
Train provis
measures: Th
ducing the lik
undertaking
d use, lifting
purpose buil
ing control m
sioning (B lin
he workshop
kelihood of in
various com
g of oil drums
lt facility or h
measures:
ne) analysis a
ps provided th
njury from th
ponents of t
s and subseq
hire the exist
and evaluatio
he following
his task. Haza
he task - the
uent oil leak
ting facility fr
on
information
ardous proce
ese included f
ks.
rom track ow
regarding co
edures were
fuelling,
wner.
22
ontrol
D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.
[ 10 ]
Discussion and conclusionThis research has focused on the tasks over which the organisation has the greatest opportunity to implement effective injury reduction control measures. Part of the overall value of the participatory ergonomics process is the demonstration of “ownership” of the task by crew and their willingness to share information within a group where their expert knowledge is recognised and utilised. Crew also need the confidence that management supports moving forward and is willing to demonstrate commitment to the reduction of manual task injury within their workforce. The workshops provided crew with the tools and knowledge needed to accurately identify risk, assess tasks within their work environment, interpret the results of their assessment and translate the findings into effective control measure options. Additionally, they provided a forum for discussion, and an extensive list of control measures were developed during the workshops. The participatory ergonomics approach has both successes and setbacks which were demonstrated within this study. While the workshops generated practical solutions across all levels of the hierarchy of controls, no “site champion” emerged from crew level across either site - this lead to management delegating the role of champion to “mid-level” management personnel at each site. A weakness, or threat to the opportunity of success of a project like the one identified in this case study is turnover of key staff within the organisation, resulting in failure to ensure sufficient numbers of staff remain engaged in the project with adequate influence within the organisation to drive initiatives forward.
There was difficulty within the workshops gaining consensus of control measure options across both sites, and within sites across different shift working crews. Different workplace cultures appeared to exist between sites - this was most noticeable in crew comments regarding perceived management commitment to the process. A weakness that may significantly impact upon the success of this project is the speed of implementation of agreed control measures, and the subsequent message this sends to workers about management support for the success of the project. A more significant setback to the program may be that suggested interventions are not implemented at all by management, or not implemented in the form envisaged by those providing the expert knowledge input to the workshops. This project operated across two sites, different geographical locations with no interaction between crew from each site, but under the same management administration. This highlights the need for effective and open communication between all parties involved and strengthens the need for facilitation of this process, whether by the designated “site champion” or the facilitator engaged for the participatory ergonomics process.
Implementation of a participative ergonomics program is an effective evidence based method of reducing injury risks associated with manual tasks [29, 15]. Involving workers can produce effective control measure options. Translation of this knowledge into effective implementation strategies requires genuine management “buy in” and willingness to take the appropriate actions to demonstrate commitment to reducing injury risk in their workforce.
References1. Safe Work Australia, 2012. Compendium of workers’
compensation statistics, Australia 2010-11. Canberra: Safe Work Australia.
2. Nagamachi M. Requisites and practices of participatory ergonomics, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1995; 15: 371-377.
3. Elden M. Sociotechnical systems ideas as public policy in Norway. Empowering participation through worker-managed change. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. 1986; 22: 239-255.
4. Liker JK, Nagamaci M and Lifshitz YR. A comparative analysis of participatory ergonomics programs in US and Japan manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1995; 3: 185-199.
5. Haims M and Carayon P. Theory and practice for the implementation of “in-house” continuous improvement participatory ergonomics programs. Applied Ergonomics. 1998; 29: 461-472.
6. Haines H, Wilson JR and Koningsveld E. Validating a framework for Participatory ergonomics (the PEF). Ergonomics. 2002; 45, 309-327.
7. Haslam RA. Targeting ergonomics interventions – learning from health promotion. Applied Ergonomics. 2002; 33 (3), 241-149.
8. Wilson JR and and Haims HM. Participatory ergonomics in: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, G. Salvendy ed., 2nd Edn, Wiley, New York 1997; 490 -513.
9. van Eerd D, Cole E, Irvin Q, Mahood, K, Keown, N, Therberge, J, St Vincent M and Cullen K. Report on process and implementation of participatory ergonomic interventions: stakeholder engagement, Institute for Work and Health, Toronto 2008.
10. Hendrick H. Good Ergonomics Good Economics. HFES press, Santa Monica 2001.
11. Vink P, Koningsveld EAP and Molenbroed, JF. Positive outcomes of participatory ergonomics in terms of higher comfort and productivity. Ergonomics. 2006; 37; 537-546.
12. DeJong AM and Vink P. Participatory ergonomics applied in installation work. Applied Ergonomics. 2002; 33 (5), 439-448.
13. Straker L, Burgess-Limerick R, Pollock C, and Egeskov R. A randomised and controlled trial of a participative ergonomics intervention to reduce injuries associated with manual tasks: physical risk and legislative compliance. Ergonomics. 2004; 47: 166-188.
14. Carrivick PWJ, Lee AH, Yau KKW and Stevenson MR. Evaluating the effectiveness of a participatory ergonomics approach in reducing the risk and severity of injuries from manual handling. Ergonomics. 2005; 48;8, 907-914.
15. Rivilis I, Cole D, Fraser M, Mardon B, Kerr M, Wells R and Ibrahim, S. Valuation of a participatory ergonomic intervention aimed at improving musculoskeletal health. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2006; 49 (10), 801-810.
16. Marciel R. Participatory ergonomics and organisational change. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1998;
D. Lynas et al. Ergonomics Australia, 2013. 10:1.
[ 11 ]
22;319-325.
17. Halpern C and Dawson K. Design and implementation of a participatory ergonomics program for machine sewing tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1997; 20: 429-440.
18. Moore J and Garg A. Participatory ergonomics in a red meat packing plant, Part 1: evidence of long term effectiveness. American Industrial Hygiene Association. 1997; 58: 127-131.
19. Rosecrance J and Cook T. The use of participatory action research and ergonomics in the prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the newspaper industry. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2000; 15: 255-262.
20. Evanoff BA, Bohr PC and Wolf LD. Effects of a participatory ergonomics team among hospital orderlies. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 1999; 41: 293-297.
21. Straker LM. Work – associated back problems: collaborative solutions. Journal of the Society of Occupational Medicine. 1990; 40: 75-79.
22. de Jong A and Vink P. THE adoption of technological innovations for glaziers: evaluation of a participatory ergonomics approach. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2000; 26: 39-46.
23. Burgess-Limerick R, Straker L, Pollock C, Dennis G, Leveritt S, and Johnson S. Implementation of the
Participative Ergonomics for Manual tasks (PErforM) programme at four Australian underground coal mines. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2007; 37: 145-155.
24. Laing A, Fraser M, Cole D, Kerr M, Wells R and Norman R. Study of the effectiveness of a participatory ergonomics intervention in reducing worker pain severity through physical exposure pathways. Ergonomics. 2005; 48: 150-170.
25. Hignett S, Wilson JR and Morris W. Finding ergonomic solutions – participatory approaches. Occupational Medicine. 2005; 55: 3, 200 – 207.
26. Perhkonen I, Nykyri E, Riihmaki H,Takala E, Ketola R, Viikari Jutera et al. Evaluation of a participatory ergonomic intervention process in kitchen work. Applied Ergonomics. 2009; 40: 115-123.
27. Burgess-Limerick R. Procedure for Managing Injury Risks Associated with Manual Tasks. 2008.
h t t p : / / b u r g e s s - l i m e r i c k . c o m / d o w n l o a d /manualtaskprocedure.pdf
28. Ergoanalyst, www.ergoenterprises.com.au
29. Cole D, Theberg N, Dixon S, Rivilis W and Wells R. Reflecting on a program of participatory ergonomics interventions: A multiple case study. Work. 2009; 34: 161-178.
Cite this article as: Lynas and Burgess-Limerick. Participatory Ergonomics Case Study: Coal Handling Train Crew Operations. Ergonomics Australia. 2013, 10:1.
