Ergonomics in the arctic – a study and checklist for heavy machinery in open pit mining

1.1 Objectives

Very little research exists regarding how ergonomics and safety issues are taken into account in heavy mining equipment in arctic work environments. Thus, this study addresses this gap by exploring typical risks that occur in the work environments of mining vehicle operators and includes a participatory development process. A process in which different personnel groups in an arctic open pit mine participated in development sessions where a holistic checklist for operations with heavy mining equipment in arctic environments was created.

This process has been condensed into the following two research questions (RQ):

RQ1: What kinds of risk factors are related to operating heavy mining equipment at arctic work environments from an operator’s point of view?

2.1 Participatory ergonomics study process and material

The subject mine was an open-pit mine in Northern Finland in the community of Sodankylä employing around 350 mine workers in total. Production at the mine site started in 2012 after the 2010 construction and start-up phases. Thus, all employees had a maximum of three years of mining work experience at that particular mine. Nonetheless, employees might have had mining work experience from other arctic mines before that.

The study process involved six types of research activities (activity I-VI, Fig. 1). The process began with an informal discussion with a mine OHS manager (activity I) in order to define the needs and possible limitations to the PE process. The discussion was followed by a short literature and standard review (activity II) that aimed to define what types of checklists exist and what criteria they contain. After the literature review the researchers performed expert observations (activity III) in the mine.

The expert observations were performed during 10 winter work (January-March, 2013) shifts for all available heavy mining vehicle types in the subject mine. The vehicles included: two types of dumpers, two types of excavators, two types of loaders, one drilling machine, and one road grader; totaling eight different vehicles. The observed vehicles were typical mining vehicles that are sold globally.

In the observations, the researchers followed the operators during their normal work shift and concentrated on gathering information on different tasks the operators were performing, and identifying safety and ergonomics related problems in their work. In addition to direct observations at the site, researchers video filmed and photographed operators at their work to be reviewed later.

Expert observations were followed by PE sessions (activity IV). In total, three sessions were arranged (see Fig. 1 for participant details). The structure of the PE sessions was similar to focus group sessions [65], as they contained a semi-structured format and were given a purpose as to what should be solved in a particular session. The PE sessions were held in meeting rooms inside the mine area. In the PE sessions, researchers acted as discussion stimulators and secretaries.

The first PE session (participants: two researchers, three OHS specialists and two operators) aimed to provide a list of different risks associated to heavy mining vehicles and operators’ work. Previously recorded video and photo material from the operators’ work was used to stimulate discussion.

The list created in the first PE session was further processed by the researchers by dividing risk factors into three categories; (1) Working outside the cab, (2) Working inside the cab, and (3) operator specific work load. This categorization was applied from the definitions for accident premises by Drury et al. [1] and Brauer [29]. In the second PE session participants (two researchers, four OHS specialists and one operator) rated risk factors inside the categories by independently selecting three important risk factors from a list. After the first two PE sessions, the researchers formed a draft version of the checklist. The draft was discussed in the third PE session (participants: two researchers, one OHS specialist, two operators). The purpose of the third PE session was to check whether there were any errors or criteria that could be misunderstood and revised/corrected before on-site testing.

The draft version was tested in the mine in November 2014 for two heavy mining vehicles (activity V) by evaluators from different personnel groups (two researchers, two OHS specialists, four operators, one maintenance worker and one supervisor; mean age 37(±6.7) years; mean working experience at the mine 1.5 (±0.5) years).

Five of the evaluators (three operators, OHS specialist, supervisor; 2 women, 3 men) evaluated a dumper (year 2012 model) and three evaluators (operator, OHS specialist, maintenance supervisor; 1 woman, 2 men) evaluated a road grader (year 2012 model).

Before the testing phase researchers introduced the checklist in Finnish to the participants in a meeting room at the mine area. The evaluators were all familiar with the vehicle evaluated. The evaluations for these vehicles were conducted in the courtyard of the mining machine workshop during a break from the evaluators’ regular maintenance activities. Testing for section 1 was performed independently by each evaluator. In section 2 evaluators interviewed one selected operator for both vehicles.

During the evaluation, evaluators used an English version of the checklist to accommodate for future international use, but translated questions audibly to Finnish operators when appropriate. Evaluators were instructed to perform testing individually. Nonetheless some discussion was allowed to ease possible language problems and interpretation issues. Information from the completed checklists and the testing phase observations were used by the researchers to finalize the checklist (activity VI).

3.1 Safety and ergonomics risk factors on heavy mining vehicles at arctic work environments

Different risk factors were gathered through literature review, expert observations, and PE session 1. An overview of the risk factors is listed in Table 1. The risk factors in Table 1 are presented in the order of most to least important as ranked by the participants in PE session 2.

3.2 Safety and ergonomics checklist

After the first two PE sessions, researchers structured a first version of the checklist. The checklist consisted of sections (1 and 2) and their subsections, and detailed criteria; (1) vehicle specific ergonomics and safety requirements in technological point of view and (2) ergonomics and safety issues from an operator’s point of view (Fig. 2).

Section 1 is divided into two subsections; 1.1 Work outside the cab and 1.2 Work inside the cab. Work outside the cab includes detailed vehicle specific criteria for the tasks operators are performing outside the cab (i.e. daily routine checks before operations, refueling the vehicle and access to the cab). Work inside the cab consists of criteria on the size and design of the cab and physical work environmental factors that are prevailing in the cab. The criteria that are evaluated are presented at Table 2. In addition to the criteria I) model and mine specific ID number, II) short description of work, III) descriptions of accidents at work or vehicle collisions related to this vehicle model at the mine and IV) descriptions of improvements made after the possible accidents at work or vehicle collisions are completed in the checklist. Section 2 is based on different work load factors; physical, psychosocial and social that the operators face during their work (Table 2). In addition to these questions, the following are also completed: I) name and occupation, II) size (height and weight), III) age and experience and IV) main tasks of the operator observed and interviewed.

Completion of the checklist is performed by OHS personnel together with a foreman and an operator. Sections 1 and 2 can be completed separately. Both sections require assessment of whether a checklist item is “in order” or “not in order.” In case of “not in order”, specific notes and improvement proposals are completed separately.

3.3 Testing the checklist

Eight evaluators tested the checklist at mining environment. The evaluation findings concerning development needs for two types of vehicles are presented in Table 3.

4.1 Reliability and validity issues

The results of the study have been in the critical hands of the substance experts in the mine in every PE session round. As an indication of content comprehensiveness, only a few minor suggestions to improve the checklist were gained in the third and thus last PE session. This ongoing process has provided a quality control for the study. Hevner et al. [73] have emphasized that the subject of the design science process is ready when it answers the demands that are givento it.

The results of this study can be discussed under the theme of validation as some low-level comparison can be made from the Activity V testing phase results. As Sinclair [35] emphasized that when high correlations between observers exist, it indicates that some degree of validity exists. The testing situation included some restraints that should be taken into account when discussing validity issues. Mainly these faults derive from the setting of the testing situation where English version was tested. An English version was used since the mine is owned by a multinational organization and the mine representatives wanted the checklist to be available across sites. The checklist was later translated into Finnish and provided to the mine as a draft version. Since evaluators were not native English speaking people, some common discussion was allowed for interpretation purposes. It is possible that this had some effect on the results. However the researchers were present throughout the testing and discussion phases and could act as translators in response to misunderstanding. Additionally, no significant notes were made by the researchers as to possible biases or misinterpretation.

The data obtained from this study are limited, consisting of personnel from a single Finnish mine. Furthermore the mine is young and at the beginning of its life cycle, thus the employees’ working at that particular mine have relatively little experience. Nonetheless several employees have worked at other mines in northern Finland before joining the company.

Because of rather limited data, this study can be considered as a case study. From the point of view of an epidemiological study the material is inadequate for generalizing conclusions. Nonetheless, the criteria in the checklist are rather general in nature. Thus it is likely to be suitable for evaluating heavy vehicles operating in arctic work environments at other mine sites. From the point of view of the checklist reliability it is essential to note that the checklist development process included various steps where different personnel groups participated and provided knowledge from different points of view. That minimizes the possibility for possible biases in the checklist. It should be noted that the material of this study does not provide an opportunity for estimating the effects of the utilization of the checklist. This study only provides brief feedback about the findings that the evaluators made on the subject vehicles. The list was delivered to OHS management of the mine for furtheractions.

As pointed out by Manuele [36] the quality of different checklists depends on the experience of those who have develop them. Furthermore, Albin [74] reminds us that much of the reliability of the results gained through checklists relied on the observer’s competency and performance at the time evaluation was made. As the checklist gives only a picture of the current situation, complemented with accident and collision data for selected vehicles, additional measures are needed. Such measures might include direct measurements of physical environment factors such as noise, vibration, temperature, as well as design and accessibility issues. In general, questions in section 1 are rather objective in nature, although they might need some clarification with regards to different safety and ergonomics standards. Thus references to standards are given within the checklist. Work load factors are based on operator interviews and are thus more subjective, and require some interpretation and verbal clarification.