Elizabeth Bassey-Duke (M.Sc. Human Kinetics & Ergonomics) Certified Ergonomics Associate Passion Honour Want to teach clearly so all know. STRESS EXAMPLE This presentation is the intellectual property of Ergomax Holdings Pty (Ltd.) ©

RISK QUANTIFICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MANUAL MATERIALS HANDLING TASKS PERFORMED ON A SOUTH AFRICAN MINE.

AIM/OBJECTIVES Perform an ergonomics risk assessment on MMH tasks performed on a SA mine. Distribute all tasks into 3 categories: Lifting tasks: tasks that affect lowerback (stooping) WRULD Tasks: Upper limbs affected & Push/pull Tasks Quantify the risks (Low/moderate/high) for all tasks using the Ergomax Ergo-kinetics Proprietary Software Due to our confidentiality clause , I will not be giving out certain information. My objective is to show how we were able to distribute tasks and quantified the associated ergonomics risks.

CONTEXT MMH tasks are inevitable in the mining industry. There is a wide range of MMH tasks that are performed on a mine. Ergonomics is not completely new in the mining industry: Mine Health and Safety Act (Act 29 of 1996) references ergonomics. Where possible, each task has been categorized as per “Table 1: Categorization and minimum standards for Strenuous work, as per Guidelines for a mandatory code of practice on the minimum standards of fitness to perform work on a mine.” Mine Health and Safety Act, 1996 (Act no 29 of 1996). However, the occurrence of MSDs in the mining industry remains high. To curb the rate of MSDs understand and quantify ergonomics risks associated with the MMH tasks. As much as we would like to mechanise MMH tasks completely, we caonnot- not only because we are a third worl labour force but also because some takas simply require human input.

CONTEXT Work was performed on a South African Mine. 220 manual tasks performed across all 74 sections of the mine, were assessed. Mine workers on shift during the time of the assessment were sampled. Quantification Using the Ergo-kinetic software each task was quantified to be Low/moderate/high Distribution Lifting task, WRULDs tasks or push/pull task (different calculators for each type of task).

Risk Distribution Per Category – LIFTING TASKS Of 140 instances where the lower back was assessed, 64% high risk 35% moderate risk Only 1% low risk High risk % due to : Weights of load being lifted Frequency of lifts Duration of lifts Poor lifting techniques

Examples of Lifting Tasks Lifting Tasks –Focus on the lowerback i.e. tasks that involve heavy lifting, stooping etc. such as shovelling, lifting from, storing chain blocks etc. Problems: Poor lifting techniques Lifting of heavy loads Continuous lifts/long durations Recommended Solutions: Lifting training Mechanization of lifts Buddy-buddy system Administrative measures

Risk Distribution Per Category – WRULD’s For 222 instances, different upper limbs were assessed. 95% high risk 5% moderate risk 0% low risk Risk is attributed to : Extreme awkward postures of the upper limbs, Weights lifted Frequencies Repetition Exposure to vibrations etc.

Examples of WRULD’s Tasks WRUDL’s (Work-related upper limbs)- Focus on upper limbs (shoulders, wrists, elbow, fingers, etc). Recommendations Job rotation Work heights Hip-shoulder height Problems Awkward extreme posture Static hold Long durations

Risk Distribution Per Category – PUSH/PULL Of 12 instances where a push/pull task was assessed, 17%  high risk 58% moderate risk 25% low risk The high risk can be controlled by: Mechanizing push/pull aids where possible Replacing small wheels with large ones. Evening out uneven floors.

Examples of Push/Pull Tasks Push/Pull- Focus on all push/ pull tasks with or without trolleys. Problems: Small wheeled trolley Long durations Heavy loads Uneven floors Recommendations: Mechanize Larger wheels Job rotation

Consolidated Risk Distribution In combining all categories: 81% of all tasks  high risk 18%  moderate Only 1% low risk

Categorisation & Minimum Standards for Strenuous Work (Mine Health & Safety Act) Although there has been a 15% decrease in injury rates across the mining sector from 2015 -2016, the number of injuries as a result of MMH tasks still remain high (mine health & safety statistics 2016). Work can be classified as: Very heavy, Heavy, Moderate, Light, Sedentary, Roaming. On using this table to classify the MMH tasks assessed, we found that only about 20% of tasks could be classified as very heavy/heavy. Some tasks where there was a clear ergonomics risk (such as lifting loads over 25kgs, static hold, extreme awkward postures etc.) according to the table, would fall under moderate-light category’s. This poses the question of if this categorisation table is a reliable measure and truly indicative of strenuous work. Perhaps, the categorisation of tasks according to the ACT should be revisited and taking a lot more into consideration.

Conclusion The ergo-kinetics software reflects a high risk for about 81% of all MMH Tasks performed at the mine. While according to the categorisation table, only 20% of MMH tasks assessed can be classified as very heavy/heavy Recommendations to lower these risks per tasks were presented to the clients. If interventions are implemented, it is expected that the risk categories will reduce. The categorisation table should be revisited and more ergonomics risk factors should be taken into consideration.

Questions & Comments THANK YOU