TN 295 
 
 No. 9139 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ i 1 1 
 I I 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■'-7 ■ 
 
 I 
 
 ■ 
 I 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 
• ** 
 
 k* 
 
 y » 0v ^ -•! 
 
 % ••"•• A o 
 
 
 3 vk 
 
 
 o 
 
 .ko W 1 .-iS&'v V,** ->»h ^ .*♦ /dfe*. ^ ^ .*fc 
 
 
 IT 
 
 
 
 
 .0 
 
 
 6 V ^ 
 
 o - 
 
 
 
 
 * aV *^ 
 
 
 » "*, V 
 
 /'. . . :s;--~ v /. ... x^ : > >U XW # 
 
 
 
 & Sa 
 
 
 1 •v°* > 
 
 
 
 
 •-% 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^ A^ * l * 
 
 p*/^i->o .^\-^:>^ ,o*.^..% 
 
 W : 
 
 
 <?> '•.»• .« 
 
 
 
 
 6.V * 
 
 • ^^ 
 
 
 A V> ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (Or O, », 
 
 
 <v -7", v i 
 
 • " ^ y v »'rff<f»isL*- "*«<> a.'- 1 »i*^* «* V 
 
 
 
 *. * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^°^ V 
 
 
 
 >* « 
 
 
 <r *\ 
 
 "ov* 
 
 
 f, >^-. °v^*/ v^v v^v \'W>y v^v * 
 
 ^/fc\ c^C^r>o >*.i«^-X /,C^^°o a^.-^:-^ c 
 
 
 :- -ov v • 
 
 J ^, 
 
 <^ ** 
 
 
 "3^ " 
 
 .a5°** 
 
 A^ •' 
 
 
 *° *° .... X *■" * A» s .. V* oT ° *° S •-"* ^ %"^'* aO' V ^^^ ^ -, 
 
 .^ .^vi- ^ ^ .*sfi£f. v a-^° /.;V^ **. .^ v ^^k-. ^ .a>° .:i>-:.. v .^ v .^& 
 
-\** r °v-^-V V*- T V <v^V v*-'V V^V * 
 
 
 
 
 
 0" ♦ 
 
 
 
 ."- -ov^ 
 
 
 .<* ■• 
 
 * %,~''T'* aP' 
 
 
 **0« 
 
 
 
 
 
 *^* v • 
 
 
 '••-*- £*£Hk°« /-^^\ <?.£Jfc°* <* y -^*+ /^^ 
 
 
 
 I*- "%^ 
 
 ^5°^ *.^^^» »p^ *.«?3&iy. # ^o 
 
 
 ^"^. 
 
 <^ • 
 
 
 
 
 V-- 
 
 
 
 
 *oV* 
 
 ^°^ 
 
 • \„./' :iMo V * ^ v /SfK-. ^ c^" »>V^/^. A *' * 
 
 o»o- .0 
 
 u ^ 
 
 v^ v 
 
 ^^' 
 
 \ •«»?• y\ \HK- /\ - ^5K-" *^ 
 ./ .*:^toi-. V<° :fce& %/ .*^hk ^ , 
 
 v* v 
 
 
 •oV' 
 
 " , ^° 
 
 
 ^0^ 
 
 i0 V> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :\/ 
 
 
 
 K> " <* ^ '•«•' aV ^ •- 1 *V 
 
 
 
 %^ v .ai 
 
 ^d* 
 
 " «♦' 
 
 L^ 
 
 
 
 4cu 
 
 
 <. *^r 
 
 
 v v ( .^^*, "^ aO^ t *y£*, *> 
 
 
 
 
 4 .l^^..', •*_ f, u »^,/k>^-. o .i4 
 
 
 
 
 V** ••« 
 
 O 4 
 
 O. * . » * .0 
 
 ° a*" 
 
 p^\ / *s^\ *tjg@&.\ ^s<mfc\ c sjm&S / '^l % \ s 
 
 s 
 
 
 & ^ 
 
 
 V. -^■■S'* .^^ 
 
 %*^ •«• V** • 
 
 * .A V "^. 
 
 t~ .n 
 
 ^/ 
 
 *te. a5< *Y5, , 
 
IC 9139 
 
 Bureau of Mines Information Circular/1987 
 
 An Analysis of Off-Highway Haulage Truck 
 Maintenance and Repair Accidents, 1978-84 
 
 By Dennis A. Long 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 
Information Circular 9139 
 
 An Analysis of Off-Highway Haulage Truck 
 Maintenance and Repair Accidents, 1978-84 
 
 By Dennis A. Long 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary 
 
 BUREAU OF MINES 
 Robert C. Horton, Director 
 

 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: 
 
 Long, Dennis A. 
 
 An analysis of off-highway haulage truck maintenance and 
 repair accidents, 1978-84. 
 
 (Information circular; 9139) 
 
 Bibliography: p. 14-15. 
 
 Supt. of Docs, no.: I 28.27: 9139. 
 
 1. All-terrain vehicles— Maintenance and repair— Safety measures. 2. Mine 
 haulage— Safety measures. I. Title. II. Series: Information circular (United States. 
 Bureau of Mines); 9139. 
 
 TN295.U4 [TL235.6] 622 s [363.1 '19622 '69] 86-600379 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Abstract 1 
 
 Introduction 2 
 
 Safety hazard assessment for off -highway haulage trucks 3 
 
 Serious accidents and fatalities 4 
 
 Truck maintenance personnel 5 
 
 Truck maintenance shops and areas 8 
 
 Truck design for serviceability 9 
 
 Truck maintenance j ob procedures 11 
 
 Summary and conclusions 13 
 
 References 14 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 1. Truck accidents in U.S. surface mines 3 
 
 Truck maintenance accidents by — 
 
 2. Age 5 
 
 3. Job experience 6 
 
 4. Job title 6 
 
 5. Body part injured 7 
 
 6. Commodity 9 
 
 TABLES 
 Truck maintenance accidents by — 
 
 1. Days away from work 7 
 
 2. System worked on 10 
 
 3. Capacity, compared with truck population 11 
 
 4. Activity of the injured 11 
 
 5. Source of injury 12 
 
 6. Tools and equipment 12 
 
 7. Unsafe conditions 13 
 
UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN 
 
 THIS REPORT 
 
 ft foot St 
 
 short ton 
 
 h hour yd 
 
 yard 
 
 pet percent yr 
 
 year 
 
AN ANALYSIS OF OFF-HIGHWAY HAULAGE TRUCK 
 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACCIDENTS, 1978-84 
 
 By Dennis A. Long 1 
 
 ABSTRACT 
 
 The size of off-highway trucks has increased substantially over the 
 last decade, bringing about a radical change in truck maintenance prac- 
 tices and procedures. As a result, surface mine maintenance mechanics 
 today are faced with the increased hazards of working with larger and 
 heavier tools and components and doing repairs at greater heights , 
 thereby exposing them to a high potential for serious injury or death. 
 Not surprisingly, the number of accidents involving truck maintenance 
 mechanics is significantly increasing. 
 
 The Bureau of Mines has assessed the haulage truck maintenance safety 
 problem, analyzing maintenance-accident data over the 7-yr period, 1978- 
 84, in terms of personnel, job activities, truck components and systems, 
 tools involved, and truck design. This assessment, based on the review 
 and interpretation of 1,225 haulage truck maintenance accident reports, 
 identified major factors contributing to these accidents. Overall, 
 young, inexperienced workers are involved in most accidents. A typical 
 maintenance accident involves a male mechanic under 33 yr old, with less 
 than 5 yr job experience. 
 
 1 Mining engineer, Twin Cities Research Center, Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, MN, 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Over the past decade, surface mine 
 maintenance and repair operations have 
 changed radically. The number of mainte- 
 nance personnel has grown along with the 
 hazards of working with larger and heavi- 
 er components at greater heights and with 
 larger and heavier tools. Furthermore, 
 transfer of skills from over-the-road 
 vehicle mechanics is not as feasible as 
 it once was, because of the ever- 
 increasing size of mining equipment and 
 the complexity of its design. In short, 
 surface mine equipment maintenance and 
 repair has become increasingly sophisti- 
 cated as well as labor intensive, neces- 
 sitating further research and evaluation 
 in terms of both safety and efficiency 
 
 a, i-8). 2 
 
 Maintenance and repair operations in 
 U.S. surface mines, during the 1978-84 
 period, accounted for 34. 1 pet of all 
 surface mining lost-time accidents and 
 16.5 pet of all fatalities (_li>. A study 
 in 1974 analyzed maintenance accidents in 
 metal-nonmetal mines, showing that 22.7 
 pet of the surface mining accidents were 
 charged to maintenance (13). Thus, de- 
 spite the differences in population be- 
 tween the two studies, there is evidence 
 toward a rising trend in the proportion 
 of maintenance accidents to all surface 
 mine accidents. 
 
 During the 1978-84 period, surface min- 
 ing accounted for about one-third of all 
 mining accidents and one-third of all 
 mining fatalities. In U.S. surface mines 
 during the 7-yr period, there were 18,331 
 maintenance-related injuries and 67 fa- 
 talities. This resulted in 243,827 lost 
 days and 15,414 restricted days (12). 
 
 Despite the increasing safety hazard 
 and the significant potential for im- 
 provements in efficiency and produc- 
 tivity, little effort has been made to 
 evaluate maintenance safety or to initi- 
 ate improvements (8, J^). This is due, 
 in part, to the fact that mine manage- 
 ment traditionally concentrates first 
 on production-related problems over 
 
 ■^Underlined numbers in parentheses re- 
 fer to items in the list of references at 
 the end of this report. 
 
 maintenance, but also because of the 
 overall difficulty in managing the wide 
 spectrum of maintenance activities and 
 concerns (6_). Thus, lacking the means to 
 assess current performance and accurately 
 identify improvements, mines and plants 
 unknowingly have missed the potential for 
 improving performance, safety, produc- 
 tivity, and subsequently, profitability 
 through better maintenance of equipment 
 (4, 6, JL4). 
 
 From the analysis of Mine Safety and 
 Health Administration (MSHA) computer 
 listings of all U.S. surface mines (12) 
 during the 1978-84 period, and the find- 
 ings of previous research (1_, 3), surface 
 mine maintenance and repair operations 
 are expected to continue to change dras- 
 tically through the year 2000, because 
 of the — 
 
 Increasing mechanization of individual 
 mining operations and off -road equipment; 
 
 Increasing size and complexity of 
 equipment design as well as shop ancil- 
 lary equipment; and 
 
 Changes in the demographics of the sur- 
 face mining industry. Because of to the 
 extensive layoffs of younger employees 
 during the recent mining recession, there 
 will likely be a future shortage of ex- 
 perienced mechanics as the more experi- 
 enced, older mechanics retire. 
 
 Maintenance and repair is a key area on 
 which to focus attention in order to re- 
 duce injuries in U.S. surface mines. 
 There is a lack of information on main- 
 tenance safety, and this area may well be 
 a new frontier for safety professionals. 
 Past industrial hazards work has focused 
 attention mainly on such areas as slips 
 and falls of persons or on vehicle col- 
 lisions. However, there is relatively 
 little information on specific mine main- 
 tenance hazards. This may be due to the 
 fact that it is a difficult area to as- 
 sess because of the great variety of job 
 procedures, tools, equipment, and shop 
 conditions. 
 
During the past 10 to 15 yr, the Bureau 
 has been responsible for many technologi- 
 cal advances that have provided increased 
 safety for mining operations, but addi- 
 tional areas of research have been iden- 
 tified. Interest in mine worker safety 
 has prompted the Bureau to investi- 
 gate surface mine maintenance safety (j^, 
 10-11). Because of its essential role 
 in surface mining operations, as well as 
 initial research that indicated a declin- 
 ing safety record, haulage truck mainte- 
 nance and repair activities were targeted 
 for initial investigation. This report 
 summarizes the data collected, providing 
 
 baseline information on the industrial 
 hazards associated with haulage truck 
 maintenance and repair activities in U.S. 
 surface mines. Additional maintenance 
 and repair information has been obtained 
 from two Bureau research studies (J_, 3) , 
 which included a broad-based survey of 
 mine practices across the United States. 
 A review of the data suggests that there 
 are both human factors and ergonomic and 
 engineering design problems in the truck 
 maintenance operations. The evidence 
 also shows that these problems contribute 
 to accidents, injuries, and fatalities. 
 
 SAFETY HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR OFF-HIGHWAY HAULAGE TRUCKS 
 
 This report summarizes information 
 taken from Mine Safety and Health Admini- 
 stration (MSHA) accident records to fur- 
 ther delineate the growing maintenance 
 safety problem (12). Recommendations are 
 based on information taken directly from 
 the accident reports, combined with dis- 
 cussions with industry contacts. Surface 
 mine haulage trucks were selected for 
 this study since they are the predominant 
 vehicle in surface mine equipment fleets, 
 and it was anticipated that haulage truck 
 accident trends would closely parallel 
 other surface equipment. 
 
 In U.S. surface mines, over the 1978-84 
 7-yr period, there were 7,160 truck- 
 related accidents, such as slips and 
 falls, collisions, maintenance, and other 
 accidents. This accident category in- 
 cludes all trucks, including off -highway 
 and on-highway haulage vehicles, as well 
 as service trucks and other nonhaulage 
 vehicles that are also used as a part of 
 the maintenance function. 
 
 All of the 7,160 surface mine truck ac- 
 cident reports ( 12 ) were inspected, and 
 the 1,225 off -highway haulage truck 
 maintenance accidents during the 7-yr 
 period were reviewed and coded, using ac- 
 cident factors pertinent to maintenance. 
 The study included accidents involving 
 all personnel, regardless of job title, 
 performing maintenance and repair on off- 
 highway haulage trucks of 50-st or 
 greater capacity. This includes service 
 vehicles utilized in the maintenance of 
 these vehicles and ancillary maintenance 
 
 activities that are directly related to 
 haulage truck maintenance , such as re- 
 build shops or parts warehouses. The 
 activities include all preventive main- 
 tenance, inspections, repairs, lubrica- 
 tion, cleaning, towing, and maintenance 
 supervision. 
 
 As an overview of the 7,160 surface 
 mine truck accidents (fig. 1) that were 
 reviewed, 31.9 pet (2,284) were at- 
 tributed to maintenance and repair 
 activities. The maintenance and repair 
 of the larger, 50-st or greater capacity 
 haulage vehicles accounted for 17.1 pet 
 
 (7,160 total surface mine truck accidents) 
 FIGURE 1.— Truck accidents In U.S. surface mines. 
 
(1,225) of the total mine truck acci- 
 dents. Maintenance and repair of trucks 
 less than 50-st capacity accounted for 
 14.8 pet (1,059). Single truck accidents 
 or collisions contributed 21.2 pet of all 
 accidents (12). Of the remaining 46.9 
 
 pet of the truck accidents, other Bureau 
 research has confirmed that roughly 35 
 pet are due to slips and falls ( _9) . 
 Thus, the remaining estimated 12 pet of 
 the accidents would include all other 
 categories (12). 
 
 SERIOUS ACCIDENTS AND FATALITIES 
 
 A review of the accident data base and 
 MSHA Fatalgrams revealed that eight re- 
 ported fatalities involving 50-st or 
 greater capacity off-highway haulage 
 truck maintenance and repair were re- 
 corded during the 7-yr period 1978-84 
 (12). A brief analysis of each fatality 
 is presented to give a perspective of the 
 wide spectrum of conditions that can be 
 present where people are killed: 
 
 1. A tire vendor in Indiana was un- 
 loading large truck tires at the mine 
 shop using hooking chains on a hydraulic 
 hoist. The chain slipped, causing the 
 tire to fall 6 ft onto the man, crushing 
 him. The vendor was 55 yr old and had 
 2 yr of job experience and 30 yr of total 
 mining experience. This fatality shows 
 the need to monitor outside contractors 
 who work on the mine property. 
 
 2. A mine laborer in Arizona, who was 
 operating the maintenance service truck, 
 was sent to the machine shop to pick up a 
 truck part. A boom truck backed over him 
 as he faced the back of his service 
 truck. The laborer was 40, with 14 yr of 
 job experience and 19 yr mining experi- 
 ence. This fatality shows the wide spec- 
 trum of activities that encompass main- 
 tenance and repair. 
 
 3. A truck driver in Texas was servic- 
 ing a haulage truck in the field when an 
 unattended, empty haulage truck rolled 
 100 yd downgrade, struck the truck being 
 serviced and drove the left drive tire 
 over him. The truck driver was 19, with 
 no experience. This fatality shows one 
 of the inherent dangers involved with 
 conducting field maintenance, rather than 
 towing the disabled vehicle to the shop. 
 
 4. A mechanic in Nebraska was working 
 under a raised and blocked truck bed. 
 After 3 h of stability the blocks kicked 
 out, crushing the employee. The mechanic 
 
 was 28, with 2 yr of both job and mine 
 experience. 
 
 5. A truck driver in Tennessee was 
 servicing a truck hoist mechanism when 
 the truck bed fell, pinning his head and 
 neck between the bed and the frame. The 
 truck driver was 56, with 7 yr of both 
 job and mine experience. 
 
 6. A mechanic in Kentucky was charging 
 an air tank. During the procedure the 
 truck operator was told by a third em- 
 ployee to move the truck, and he thus ran 
 over the mechanic. The mechanic was 59, 
 with 13 yr of job experience and 30 yr of 
 mining experience. This fatality shows 
 the dangers associated with working 
 around large equipment and the need for 
 good communication. 
 
 7. A mine laborer in West Virginia was 
 assisting on a maintenance task that in- 
 volved a winch line. When the winch 
 stand broke, the cable hit the mine 
 laborer, propelling him into a brick 
 wall. The laborer was 28, with 2 yr of 
 both job and mine experience. 
 
 8. A mechanic in Nebraska was working 
 under a partially raised truck bed which 
 was blocked up by shop stands. The 
 stands kicked out crushing the employee. 
 The mechanic was 59, with 13 yr of job 
 experience and 30 yr of mine experience. 
 
 Over the same 7-yr period, there were 
 19 serious accidents reported, each re- 
 sulting in disabling injuries (12). The 
 average disability resulted in 29.2 lost 
 days. The most frequent type of serious 
 accident was amputation of body parts, 
 most often fingers or hands; these ac- 
 cidents were usually caused by close 
 quarters or confined access points. 
 There were nine such disabling injuries 
 reported. Ruptures due to overexertion 
 accounted for six accidents. One Injury 
 involved a man getting pinned between a 
 
haulage truck and a service truck. 
 Another injury involved a serious fall 
 from a truck frame while steamcleaning. 
 
 TRUCK MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL 
 
 Finally, there were two disabling in- 
 juries involving a fall of a truck box. 
 
 Young, inexperienced workers are in- 
 volved in the majority of haulage truck 
 maintenance accidents. Workers under 25 
 yr old were involved in 19.6 pet of all 
 accidents, while those under 35 yr were 
 involved in 55.8 pet of all accidents. 
 Figure 2 summarizes truck maintenance ac- 
 cidents by age of the injured employee. 
 Figure 3 summarizes truck maintenance ac- 
 cidents by job experience. Workers with 
 less than 1 yr experience in the particu- 
 lar job held at the time of the accident 
 accounted for 19.9 pet of all accidents; 
 68.1 pet had less than 5 yr of job ex- 
 perience. Men are involved in 98.4 pet 
 of all accidents, while women 1.6 pet. 
 It should be noted that surface mine 
 maintenance workcrews usually have a 
 greater share of older, more experienced 
 
 employees than other work crews. Since 
 young, inexperienced personnel comprise a 
 very small percentage of the maintenance 
 personnel, the data would suggest an even 
 higher incident rate for these employees 
 (12). 
 
 Job titles of mining personnel involved 
 in truck maintenance accidents are pre- 
 sented in figure 4. Maintenance person- 
 nel, including mechanics, helpers, and 
 trainees, accounted for 67.8 pet of the 
 accidents, while mine equipment operators 
 and laborers accounted for almost a 
 quarter of them (12). 
 
 To examine the nature of the injuries, 
 table 1 presents haulage truck mainte- 
 nnce accidents by days away from work 
 (12). Of the maintenance accidents 
 examined, 36.3 pet involved no lost time 
 
 10 
 h- 
 Z 
 LU 
 D 
 i— t 
 
 (J 
 (J 
 < 
 
 Ll 
 D 
 
 tz 
 
 LU 
 CD 
 
 2S0 
 
 235 - 
 
 200 - 
 
 175 - 
 
 125 - 
 
 100 
 
 18-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 38-40 41-45 45-50 51-55 
 
 AGE OF VICTIM, yr 
 FIGURE 2.— Truck maintenance accidents, by age. 
 
 >B1 
 
(/) 
 
 h- 
 z 
 
 UJ 
 D 
 i— i 
 
 U 
 
 u 
 < 
 
 Ll 
 O 
 
 q: 
 u 
 
 z 
 
 Z) 
 
 z 
 
 550- 
 
 2i4 
 
 CI, 224 total occldante whore Job oxparlonca wc 
 opacl fled) 
 
 ® 
 
 j^a. 
 
 14 
 
 1-5 B-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 
 
 JOB EXPERIENCE, yr 
 
 FIGURE 3.— Truck maintenance accidents, by job experience. 
 
 and 39.0 pet involved between 1 and 15 
 lost days. For comparison purposes, 39.3 
 pet of all U.S. surface mining accidents 
 have no lost time. Of the accidents with 
 lost time, there was an average of 24.0 
 lost days and 1.5 restricted days. In 
 1977 each maintenance accident involved 
 an average of 22.0 lost days, increasing 
 incrementally each year through 1984; in 
 1984 each accident involved an average of 
 28.5 lost days, indicating an increasing 
 trend toward more lost days per accident. 
 This rising trend seems to be true in all 
 segments of the mining industry. Field- 
 gathered information from the mining in- 
 dustry indicates that maintenance also 
 accounts for a high percentage of the 
 nonreportable type accidents. These less 
 severe, "knuckle busting" accidents are 
 more common in maintenance, and they in- 
 crease costs and decrease productivity, 
 but often do not show up directly in the 
 reported accident statistics (1). 
 
 Mechanic's helpers 
 or trainees 2.9 pet 
 
 Electricians 2.4 pet 
 Supervision 2.2 pet 
 
 -Welders 4.5 pet 
 
 FIGURE 4.— Truck maintenance accidents, by Job title. 
 
The body part injured in truck main- 
 tenance accidents is presented in figure 
 5, with the data grouped into major cat- 
 egories (_1_2). Head and neck injuries ac- 
 count for 14.3 pet of the injuries. 
 Major body injuries, involving the chest, 
 back, hip, or trunk, totaled 18.0 pet. 
 Back injuries from manual exertion in- 
 volved 9.6 pet of the injuries. Multiple 
 injuries totalled 9.9 pet; these in- 
 juries are not recorded in the specific 
 body part categories. It appears that 
 
 TABLE 1. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
 by days away from work 1 
 
 
 Lost 
 
 days 
 
 Number 
 
 pet 
 
 o 
 
 437 
 303 
 166 
 121 
 107 
 69 
 
 36.3 
 
 1 to 6 
 
 6 to 16 
 
 16 to 31 
 
 25.2 
 13.8 
 10.0 
 
 31 to 61 
 
 9.0 
 
 5.7 
 
 Total 
 
 speed 
 .fied. 
 accic 
 
 fied 
 
 1,203 
 22 
 
 100.0 
 
 Not speci 
 
 
 NAp 
 
 Total 
 
 
 1,225 
 
 NAp 
 
 NAp Not applicable. 
 Not counting restricted days where the 
 employee is away from the normal job 
 task. 
 
 Back 9.6 pet 
 
 Upper extremities 
 28.4 pet 
 
 Lower extremities 
 19.8 pet 
 
 Head and neck 14.3 pet 
 
 Major body and 
 trunk 18.0 pet 
 
 Multiple injuries 
 9.9 pet 
 
 FIGURE 5.— Truck maintenance accidents, by body part in- 
 jured. 
 
 truck maintenance injuries most commonly 
 involve the upper and lower extremities, 
 accounting for 48.2 pet of all accidents. 
 
 Injuries were most often due either to 
 the employee's lack of training for the 
 particular job at the time of the ac- 
 cident or to the employee's conducting 
 the job in a nonrecommended manner. When 
 looking for the primary cause of the 
 maintenance accidents, unsafe actions ac- 
 count for 63.6 pet of all accidents; this 
 category would include taking an unsafe 
 position, using equipment unsafely, nul- 
 lifying safety devices, and failing to 
 use a platform or personal protection 
 (12). The primary cause of about one- 
 fourth of all accidents were due to the 
 worker's taking an unsafe position; for 
 example, reaching beyond one's lifting 
 radius or attempting to climb a ladder 
 with a heavy part in hand. 
 
 While unsafe actions or human errors 
 account for the majority of all truck 
 maintenance accidents, equipment design 
 deficiencies caused 28.0 pet of the ac- 
 cidents (12). This category includes ac- 
 cidents that clearly involved the design 
 of the vehicle; for example, where the 
 only way to remove a truck part is to 
 manually lift through a confined opening. 
 It seems likely that a portion of the ac- 
 cidents due to unsafe actions may well 
 have been mitigated through equipment re- 
 design for serviceability. Thus, al- 
 though the primary cause of the main- 
 tenance accident is unsafe actions on the 
 part of the employee,, there may be ways 
 to prevent such human error accidents 
 through equipment redesign. 
 
 Another primary cause of accidents is 
 the failure to secure, resulting in 6.9 
 pet of the accidents, including improper 
 support of heavy parts and components or 
 an unexpected release of energy. Finally 
 failure to warn or signal caused 1.5 pet 
 of the accidents (12). 
 
 Because of the significant number of 
 accidents due to unsafe actions taken by 
 mine personnel working on truck mainte- 
 nance, it appears that improved skills 
 training would be an effective way to 
 reduce accidents. Further examination of 
 the accident reports reveals that the 
 people assigned to maintenance were — 
 
L a Performing tasks for which they 
 were not formally or adequately trained. 
 This includes both equipment operators 
 doing maintenance-type work and mainten- 
 ance mechanics moving a piece of equip- 
 ment to and from the shop. Again, almost 
 one-fourth of all haulage truck mainten- 
 ance accidents involved mine equipment 
 operators or laborers. 
 
 2. Not following prescribed proce- 
 dures or safety precautions. This might 
 include disregarding lockout procedures, 
 nullifying a safety device, or just not 
 doing the job as instructed. 
 
 3. Working with inadequate or impro- 
 vised tools and equipment. Without the 
 proper tools, it may be very difficult 
 to complete a job without taking an 
 unsafe action. 
 
 Despite the importance of mechanic 
 training, training alone will not allevi- 
 ate the hazards to the maintenance em- 
 ployee. Because of the great variety of 
 makes and models of haulage trucks in any 
 individual mine fleet, the maintenance 
 and repair department must service a 
 broad range of mechanical and electrical 
 equipment, covering a vast number of 
 tasks and procedures involving different 
 tools, equipment, and mechanic expertise. 
 This is further complicated by the vari- 
 ety of mining equipment services, job 
 procedures, tools, equipment, and shop 
 conditions, and the many equipment modi- 
 fications found at each mining operation 
 
 a, 3). 
 
 Increased training would help alleviate 
 the safety hazard inherent in the job. 
 Most maintenance training in the mines 
 consists of safe work briefings followed 
 by on-the-job experience under either a 
 lead mechanic or a more senior employee. 
 Instruction varies depending upon the 
 teaching skills and job experience of 
 the supervisor. Emphasis should be on 
 
 recognizing specific hazards, knowing 
 proper job procedures for the various 
 truck models and systems, and correct use 
 of tools and equipment (3_). 
 
 The training materials most needed by 
 mines are effective, easy-to-use trouble- 
 shooting guides. Fewer than half of the 
 equipment manufacturers provide such 
 guides for their products (3_). Most 
 of the available guides need to be im- 
 proved substantially in terras of both 
 readability and ease of use. Also needed 
 are well-designed guidebooks for specific 
 maintenance tasks , such as a manual on 
 the haulage truck electrical system, 
 cooling system, hydraulics, electronic 
 components, etc. (3). Several manufac- 
 turers have materials that can be pur- 
 chased, but they cover only a limited 
 number of maintenance tasks on a specific 
 truck system. Future research is needed 
 to characterize design guidelines for 
 maintenance service manuals (3_). 
 
 It is also important to correctly as- 
 sign only qualified maintenance personnel 
 to specific maintenance tasks. For ex- 
 ample, over one-fourth of the truck main- 
 tenance accidents involved mine equipment 
 operators, who were, for the most part, 
 untrained in maintenance-type work. 
 Also, the more skilled mechanics are 
 often assigned to routine tasks, such as 
 transporting equipment to the shop, that 
 could be handled by less experienced 
 mechanics (.!)• 
 
 Mechanics should also be trained and 
 qualified to operate the equipment they 
 maintain. Although their job involves 
 moving equipment around the shop area, 
 mechanics are often not adequately 
 trained to operate the vehicles they ser- 
 vice. Mechanics should be familiar with 
 the control functions of the vehicles 
 they repair in order to minimize the 
 safety hazard (1_, 3_). 
 
 TRUCK MAINTENANCE SHOPS AND AREAS 
 
 The majority of accidents occur in the 
 shop facility where the maintenance and 
 repair activities usually take place. 
 Specifically, 67.3 pet of all haulage 
 truck maintenance accidents, for the 
 years 1978-84, occurred in the shop, 
 
 while the remainder (32.7 pet) occurred 
 in the field (12). 
 
 The importance of accident location in- 
 creases when it is considered that most 
 maintenance activities do take place 
 within the shop facilities. The mining 
 
companies surveyed reported that approxi- 
 mately 85 to 90 pet of the truck main- 
 tenance and repair worktime is completed 
 in the shop O^). If the accident distri- 
 bution was normal one would expect a 
 similar proportion of the accidents (85 
 to 90 pet) to occur within the shop fa- 
 cility. Although 32.7 pet of the ac- 
 cidents in this study occurred in the 
 field, only about 10 to 15 pet of the 
 maintenance worktime involves field main- 
 tenance. Accordingly, field maintenance 
 work is two to three times as hazardous 
 as work completed within or around the 
 shop facility. 
 
 One way to counter the hazards of field 
 maintenance work is to develop and use 
 towing vehicles capable of moving dis- 
 abled haulage trucks back to the shop. 
 Usually, towing a large haulage truck is 
 very difficult, involving two or more 
 support vehicles and additional person- 
 nel. And because of the cost, it is not 
 common in the United States to have 
 specialized towing vehicles. Another 
 solution might be to retrofit the truck 
 so that it can be towed more easily (_1.)» 
 
 Improved physical design of maintenance 
 shops and equipment bays could help re- 
 duce accidents. Important factors are 
 shop organization, housekeeping, illumi- 
 nation, and transporting of parts. Poor 
 condition of tools and equipment contri- 
 butes to a significant portion of the ac- 
 cidents studied. An effectively designed 
 workspace could enhance productivity, 
 allow more efficient use of tools, and 
 improve safety. At least 3 pet of the 
 accidents involved poor housekeeping 
 practices in some way (12). 
 
 From the analysis of the maintenance 
 accidents, combined with mine visits, it 
 is apparent that poor workspace organiza- 
 tion is common in many surface mining 
 shop facilities; it is manifested as 
 follows: 
 
 Handtools and small power tools strewn 
 about or stored wherever space permitted, 
 forcing people to climb over or reach 
 around them. 
 
 Tools or parts not conveniently lo- 
 cated, forcing people to look for them or 
 do without. 
 
 Shop floors covered with cables and 
 hoses, presenting tripping hazards. 
 
 Work performed on oil or grease splat- 
 tered floors or on unimproved rocky 
 ground in the field. 
 
 In addition, because most haulage truck 
 shops service larger trucks than they 
 were originally designed for, workspace 
 is at a premium. Quite commonly there is 
 insufficient space between truck bays to 
 use tire grabbers or forklifts to handle 
 heavy parts. Further research is needed 
 to analyze and improve the total mainte- 
 nance system as it functions within the 
 shop facility (1). 
 
 Some environmental hazards are present 
 in shop facilities (1_, 3). For example, 
 it is common for welding to be done in- 
 side the shop buildings, and shop exhaust 
 systems are often ineffective in evacuat- 
 ing the fumes. Another problem of much 
 concern is with lighting; in most mine 
 shops illumination levels are generally 
 below accepted industry standards. Noise 
 levels are often very high in shops, par- 
 ticularly where electric arc welding is 
 performed. 
 
 Another important truck-shop problem is 
 communication. As previously mentioned, 
 the failure to warn or signal was the 
 primary cause of 1.5 pet of the accidents 
 and at least one fatility. Frequently, 
 there are two or more people working on 
 or around large mining equipment at any 
 time. It is important that these people 
 can communicate their intentions and 
 actions to each other. Simple solutions 
 could include lockout equipment or proper 
 tagging of which truck is being repaired 
 U). 
 
 Figure 6 illustrates the breakdown of 
 truck maintenance accidents by commodity. 
 Surface coal mining accounts for 51.3 pet 
 of all accidents, with surface metal min- 
 ing second at 26.7 pet. 
 
 TRUCK DESIGN FOR SERVICEABILITY 
 
 Some maintenance problems are associ- 
 ated with the poor design of the truck 
 
 for routine or major maintenance. Im- 
 provements in design would substantially 
 
10 
 
 TABLE 2. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
 by system worked on 
 
 FIGURE 6.— Truck maintenance accidents, by commodity. 
 
 reduce maintenance time and maintenance- 
 related injuries (1_, 3). Table 2 pre- 
 sents accident frequency data for various 
 systems of off-highway haulage trucks 
 (12). 
 
 The accident data indicate that the 
 most accidents occur while working on the 
 engine, truck body, drive train, or tires 
 and wheels, while the lowest number of 
 accidents occur with the exhaust and 
 wheel motors. Overall, the body, tires 
 and wheels, engine, and drive-train ac- 
 count for 63.8 pet of the accidents where 
 a system was specified, indicating a pos- 
 sible correlation between number of 
 accidents and the size and scale of the 
 component or part to be worked on (12). 
 Further research is needed to correlate 
 truck system worktime to the accident 
 rates, giving hazard exposure rates. 
 
 Recommendations for improved truck de- 
 sign should be matched with redesign of 
 components, procedures, tools, and man- 
 uals. Based on the accident data (12), 
 previous research (1_, 3), and industry 
 contacts, the main design problems 
 include — 
 
 Poor access to vehicle parts or areas 
 of the unit such that routine maintenance 
 tasks are overly complex; 
 
 Number 
 
 173 
 
 21.3 
 
 153 
 
 18.8 
 
 100 
 
 12.3 
 
 93 
 
 11.4 
 
 67 
 
 8.3 
 
 51 
 
 6.3 
 
 47 
 
 5.8 
 
 40 
 
 4.9 
 
 35 
 
 4.3 
 
 20 
 
 2.5 
 
 12 
 
 1.5 
 
 9 
 
 1.1 
 
 12 
 
 1.5 
 
 812 
 
 100.0 
 
 413 
 
 NAp 
 
 1,225 
 
 pet 
 
 NAp 
 
 System 
 
 Engine 
 
 Truck body 
 
 Drive train 
 
 Tires and wheels 
 
 Cooling 
 
 Brakes 
 
 Electrical 
 
 Hydraulic 
 
 Suspension 
 
 Steering 
 
 Wheel motors 
 
 Exhaus t 
 
 Towing vehicle to shop... 
 
 Total specified 
 
 Not specified 
 
 Total accidents 
 
 NAp Not applicable. 
 
 Inadequate access openings, clearances, 
 and visibility to permit a person to 
 reach in or climb in for tasks to be 
 performed; 
 
 The need to remove or dismantle ancil- 
 lary components in order to gain access 
 to the failed unit; 
 
 Designing truck parts that require 
 relatively unskilled mechanics to perform 
 complex sequence of tasks in order to 
 repair equipment; and 
 
 Requiring mechanics to manipulate over- 
 sized, heavy vehicle components in tight 
 spaces with inadequate clearances, sup- 
 ports, or tools. 
 
 Because of the size and complexity of 
 many haulage trucks, these design pro- 
 blems can interact to make maintenance 
 and repair more difficult, and often more 
 hazardous. This can be further compli- 
 cated by the lack of adequate tools 
 available to correctly perform the re- 
 quired maintenance task or the need to 
 perform certain repairs in the field 
 without the resources typically available 
 in the shop area. 
 
 One of the most hazardous maintenance 
 tasks is the removal, repair, and re- 
 placement of oversize truck tires (3). 
 In reviewing accident reports, it became 
 obvious that procedures for de-airing, 
 airing, removing, and replacing tires are 
 
11 
 
 inadequate. One out of five of all tire 
 and rim accidents involved a tire ex- 
 plosion, usually causing serious injury 
 or death to mechanics in the vicinity of 
 the explosion (12). 
 
 In some cases, specific equipment modi- 
 fications, both at the factory and at the 
 mine, would help alleviate above-normal 
 hazards. In most cases, the changes 
 would involve original equipment options 
 to be offered by the truck manufacturers. 
 However, options that would enhance 
 maintenance safety are often ignored, 
 since the mine's safety department rarely 
 can affect truck purchasing decisions 
 (1). 
 
 Table 3 lists truck maintenance ac- 
 cidents by truck capacity (payload) , com- 
 pared with estimated truck populations 
 (12). From these data it is apparent 
 that the 50- to 85-st-capacity trucks 
 have twice the maintenance safety hazards 
 than the 150-st-capacity trucks. This 
 seems to correlate with the data that 
 show access to be a major factor in 
 truck maintenance safety, as the larger 
 capacity trucks have greater space be- 
 tween truck components. 
 
 TABLE 3. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
 by capacity, compared with truck 
 population 
 
 Capacity, st 
 
 Accidents 
 
 Popula- 
 
 
 Number 
 
 pet 
 
 tion, pet 
 
 50 to 85 
 
 257 
 92 
 50 
 
 64.4 
 23.1 
 12.5 
 
 31.6 
 
 90 to 145 
 
 42.5 
 
 
 25.9 
 
 Total specified 
 
 399 
 
 826 
 
 100.0 
 NAp 
 
 100.0 
 NAp 
 
 Total accidents 
 
 1,225 
 
 NAp 
 
 NAp 
 
 NAp Not applicable. 
 Estimated based on truck manufacturer 
 information, conversations with industry 
 consultants, and surveys conducted by 
 Engineering and Mining Journal (_5_) and 
 Coal Age (2). 
 
 A comparison of older haulage trucks 
 with newer models indicates that progress 
 has been made with regard to their human 
 factors and ergonomic design, but most of 
 the changes have related either to the 
 equipment operator's safety and comfort 
 or to the production aspects of the truck 
 (1). 
 
 TRUCK MAINTENANCE JOB PROCEDURES 
 
 Further analysis of the data determined 
 the cause of the maintenance accidents. 
 Table 4 lists accidents by activity of 
 the injured (12). These generic activity 
 descriptions were created to simplify the 
 data analysis. Movement around the shop 
 area, and up and down the mobile equip- 
 ment, accounted for over one-third of the 
 injuries studied. This number reflects 
 the need for adequate work platforms, ac- 
 cess steps and ladders, and good house- 
 keeping. Mechanic training should in- 
 clude the broad range of activities that 
 are included in the maintenance task, 
 such as knowledge of the location and 
 ease of access to the parts in the shop. 
 
 Removing and replacing parts during 
 maintenance activities accounted for 26.5 
 pet of the accidents where the mainte- 
 nance activity could be determined. Fre- 
 quently, a truck part was either too 
 heavy or out of reach, resulting in 
 strains, sprains, or crushed or lacerated 
 fingers when the part was accidentally 
 
 dropped. Maintenance personnel should 
 make better use of lifting equipment, or 
 use additional people for handling such 
 heavy parts and components as drive 
 trains, tires and wheels, or suspensions. 
 Job training to improve employee aware- 
 ness of equipment size and the correct 
 tools for handling various components are 
 needed (1_, _3> 11)' 
 
 TABLE 4. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
 by activity of the injured 
 
 Activity 
 
 Removing-replacing parts.... 
 
 Servicing equipment 
 
 Getting on and off equipment 
 
 Shop area activity 
 
 Inspection 
 
 Cleaning 
 
 Total specified 
 
 Not specified 
 
 Total accidents 
 
 Number 
 
 310 
 296 
 245 
 175 
 107 
 39 
 
 1,172 
 53 
 
 1,225 
 
 pet 
 
 26.5 
 25.3 
 20.9 
 14.9 
 9.1 
 3.3 
 
 100.0 
 NAp 
 
 NAp 
 
 NAp Not applicable. 
 
12 
 
 The job activities that contribute most 
 to injuries include (_3) — 
 
 Limited aids for material handling 
 (e.g., lifting devices, jacks, hoists); 
 
 Lack of effective training programs and 
 work procedures for manual material han- 
 dling, typified by the prevailing atti- 
 tude that back injuries due to lifting 
 "will not happen to me"; 
 
 Inadequate workstands or platforms for 
 support during tasks requiring reaching 
 or lifting; 
 
 Inadequate use of personal protection 
 equipment such as gloves, lifelines, or 
 hearing protection; and 
 
 Lack of supervision. 
 
 Table 5 summarizes haulage truck main- 
 tenance accidents by source injury. This 
 information reveals that the work station 
 was the most prevalent source, accounting 
 for 35.5 pet of the accidents: this 
 would be the area adjacent to and around 
 the equipment being serviced, including 
 makeshift supports, ladders, workstands, 
 shop equipment, or the shop floor. 
 
 TABLE 5. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
 by source of injury 
 
 Source of injury 
 
 Number 
 
 pet 
 
 
 431 
 
 246 
 
 230 
 
 114 
 
 90 
 
 80 
 
 23 
 
 35.5 
 
 Truck body and/or large 
 
 9 
 
 20.3 
 
 Truck parts or components 3 .. 
 
 19.0 
 9.4 
 
 
 7.4 
 
 Tires, wheels, hubs, or rims 
 
 6.6 
 1.8 
 
 
 1,214 
 11 
 
 100.0 
 
 
 NAp 
 
 
 1,225 
 
 NAp 
 
 NAp Not applicable. 
 
 Area immediately around vehicle being 
 repaired. 
 
 Components requiring mechanical hand- 
 ling with cranes or special equipment. 
 
 Includes most components that can be 
 reasonably handled by 1 person. 
 
 The truck body or large components ac- 
 counted for about one-fifth of all acci- 
 dents, by source of injury (12). Two 
 fatalities occurred in 1980 as a result 
 of failure to secure the truck box during 
 maintenance, and numerous injuries and 
 near misses have occurred. There should 
 be a definite means of securing truck 
 boxes using locking pins or other such 
 devices, as well as training to ensure 
 mechanics use these devices correctly. 
 
 Over the 7-yr period, tools and equip- 
 ment were Involved in about 10 pet of all 
 accidents, and they were a contributing 
 factor in the majority of accidents (12). 
 Table 6 lists accidents by tools and 
 equipment. Shop equipment was Involved 
 in 48.2 pet of the truck maintenance ac- 
 cidents where the tools and equipment in- 
 volved in the accident were specified. 
 Shop equipment includes the great variety 
 of job aids that are used within the shop 
 area, such as cranes, air compressors, 
 hydraulic jacks, hoses, or tire changers. 
 Some of the most hazardous types of shop 
 equipment are hoisting apparatus, in- 
 volved in 10.3 pet of all accidents, wa- 
 ter hoses in 6.3 pet, steam cleaners in 
 4.0 pet, and hydraulic jacks in 3.7 pet 
 (12). 
 
 Nonpowered handtools accounted for over 
 one-third of all injuries. The accident 
 data indicate that mechanics are eight 
 times more likely to be injured using 
 handtools than power tools, clearly show- 
 ing the advantage of reducing manual ex- 
 ertion. The design of handtools could be 
 substantially improved. Maintenance of 
 the mine off-highway trucks is complex 
 and specialized, and usually must be ac- 
 complished without conventional handtools 
 
 TABLE 6. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
 by tools and equipment 
 
 Tools and equipment 
 
 Shop equipment 
 
 Nonpowered handtools 
 
 Welding, cutting equipment 
 
 Power handtools 
 
 Total specified 
 
 Not specified 
 
 Total accidents 
 
 NAp Not applicable. 
 
 Number 
 
 131 
 
 101 
 
 28 
 
 12 
 
 272 
 953 
 
 1,225 
 
 pet 
 
 48.2 
 
 37.1 
 
 10.3 
 
 4.4 
 
 100.0 
 NAp 
 
 NAp 
 
13 
 
 and small power tools. Without knowledge 
 about or availability of specially de- 
 signed tools, shop personnel often resort 
 to U, 3) — 
 
 Unsafe practices and procedures; 
 
 Locally designed and/or fabricated 
 tools; and 
 
 Misuse of available tools. 
 
 Mechanics should be trained to use the 
 right tool for the task, and supervisors 
 should take more responsibility in insur- 
 ing that the right tools are used. Also, 
 the importance of tool maintenance and 
 proper storage is again emphasized. 
 
 Maintenance accidents are usually 
 multifaceted in nature; although the 
 primary cause of the accident could be 
 human error, there could still be contri- 
 buting factors, such as truck design pro- 
 blems, tool equipment considerations, and 
 other unsafe conditions. Table 7 lists 
 accidents by unsafe conditions (12). The 
 unsafe conditions present at the time of 
 the accident are those factors that con- 
 tributed to the probability or severity 
 of an accident. By understanding the un- 
 safe conditions present within the acci- 
 dent scenario, the accident could pos- 
 sibly be prevented or the degree of 
 injury minimized. 
 
 In roughly one-fourth of all accidents, 
 inadequate truck design was the apparent 
 unsafe condition. Poor access (partially 
 a truck design problem) and poor work 
 platforms together comprise 21.4 pet of 
 all accidents, illustrating again the 
 need for adequate access for maintenance. 
 In 26.5 pet of all accidents analyzed 
 there was no apparent unsafe condition. 
 
 TABLE 7. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
 by unsafe condition 
 
 Number 
 
 300 
 132 
 131 
 127 
 
 106 
 96 
 
 321 
 
 1,213 
 12 
 
 1,225 
 
 pet 
 
 24.7 
 10.9 
 10.8 
 10.5 
 
 8.7 
 7.9 
 
 26.5 
 
 100.0 
 
 NAp 
 
 NAp 
 
 Unsafe condition 
 
 Truck design deficiencies 
 
 Poor access 
 
 Wrong tools or equipment. 
 
 Poor work platform 
 
 Inadequate employee 
 
 training 
 
 Shop hazards 
 
 No identifiable unsafe 
 
 condition 
 
 Total specified 
 
 Not specified 
 
 Total accidents 
 
 NAp Not applicable. 
 
 These accidents are due to either human 
 error, such as misjudgment on the part of 
 the employee, or due to chance error, 
 where the mechanic is performing a main- 
 tenance task with proper tools in the 
 recommended way, and an accident occurs 
 because of the tool breaking. On the 
 other hand, inadequate employee training 
 (8.7 pet) involves human error accidents 
 where training may have in some way miti- 
 gated or prevented the Injury. 
 
 In the discussion of the primary cause 
 of truck maintenance accidents, 63.6 pet 
 of all accidents were attributed to un- 
 safe actions, or human error, on the part 
 of the employee. Combining this informa- 
 tion with that of table 7, where 26.5 pet 
 of all accidents had no unsafe condition 
 evident, it can be concluded that a sign- 
 ificant proportion of human-error acci- 
 dents could possibly be prevented or mit- 
 igated through equipment redesign for 
 serviceability, training, or other main- 
 tenance improvements (12). 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
 
 Overall, young, inexperienced workers 
 are involved in most haulage truck 
 maintenance accidents. A typical mainte- 
 nance accident involves a male mechanic 
 under 33 yr old, with under 5 yr job 
 experience. Based on the review and 
 interpretation of 1,225 haulage truck 
 
 maintenance accident reports, the major 
 factors in haulage truck maintenance ac- 
 cidents appear to be — 
 
 Lack of safety awareness or inability 
 to measure and judge the job requirement 
 by either the employee or the supervisor; 
 
14 
 
 Poor access to working spaces on equip- 
 ment, which forces the employee to take 
 an unsafe position; 
 
 Lack of craft training for specialized 
 maintenance tasks; 
 
 Poor tools and equipment with regard to 
 condition or design; 
 
 Choice of the wrong tool or ancillary 
 equipment for the job; 
 
 Increased hazards of doing repair work 
 in the field; 
 
 Insufficient methods of handling large, 
 heavy truck parts and components; 
 
 Poor design or housekeeping of the shop 
 work station or platform; 
 
 Inadequate service manuals and diagnos- 
 tic aids that could help the mechanic 
 start the task properly; and 
 
 Use of untrained mine equipment opera- 
 tors and laborers to perform the mainte- 
 nance and repair tasks. 
 
 It Is the purpose of this report to 
 characterize haulage truck maintenance 
 and repair hazards in U.S. surface mines. 
 
 The data presented should help the mining 
 industry, equipment manufacturers, MSHA, 
 and the Bureau to further pinpoint spe- 
 cific recommendations to combat the in- 
 creasing hazards surrounding haulage 
 truck maintenance. The approach has been 
 to determine where and how maintenance 
 personnel have been injured. Future re- 
 search will address methods to alleviate 
 specific hazardous situations, and pro- 
 vide further recommendations. 
 
 To reduce injuries in U.S. surface 
 mines, maintenance and repair is a key 
 area on which to focus attention, and 
 this area may well be a new frontier for 
 safety professionals. Because of the 
 difficulty in analyzing maintenance ac- 
 tivities and the great variety of job 
 procedures, tools, equipment, and shop 
 conditions, a lack of safety awareness as 
 to the hazards involved with mine haulage 
 truck maintenance seems to be present. 
 Not surprising, the maintenance and re- 
 pair function is a difficult area to 
 supervise. This difficulty contributes 
 to the growing safety hazard as well 
 as to the high cost of the overall 
 operation. 
 
 REFERENCES 
 
 1. Allen Corp. Improved Equipment De- 
 sign To Reduce Haulage Truck Maintenance 
 Injuries (contract J0215007). Aug. 1982, 
 96 pp.; for info., contact D. A. Long, 
 BuMines, Minneapolis, MN. 
 
 2. Coal Age. Off-Highway Truck Study. 
 Market Research Report, 1977, 26 pp. 
 
 3. Conway, E. J. , and M. Sanders. 
 Recommendations for Human Factors Re- 
 search and Development Projects in Sur- 
 face Mining (contract J0395080, Canyon 
 Research Group, Inc.). BuMines OFR 211- 
 83, 1982, 86 pp.; NTIS PB 84-143650. 
 
 4. Downs, G. W. ' Relationship of 
 Maintenance to Productivity. Plant 
 Eng. , v. 30, No. 19, Sept. 16, 1976, 
 pp. 191-196. 
 
 5. Engineering and Mining Journal. 
 Survey of Off-Highway Trucks in Metal and 
 Nonmetal Mining. Market Research Report, 
 1975, 38 pp. 
 
 6. Hanna, G. T. Reducing the Costs of 
 Maintenance. Plant Eng. , v. 30, No. 19, 
 Sept. 16, 1976, pp. 159-161. 
 
 7. Long, D. A. Off -Highway Haulage 
 Truck Maintenance Safety. Paper in Safe- 
 ty in The Use and Maintenance of Large 
 Mobile Surface Mining Equipment. Pro- 
 ceedings: BuMines, Technology Transfer 
 Seminars, Tucson, AZ, August 16, 1983; 
 Denver, CO, August 18, 1983; and St. 
 Louis, MO, August 23, 1983, comp. by 
 Staff, BuMines. BuMines IC 8947, 1983, 
 pp. 55-62. 
 
 8. . Bureau of Mines Study 
 
 Reveals Increasing Hazards Surround Truck 
 Maintenance. Pit and Quarry, Oct. 1983, 
 pp. 56-60. 
 
 9. . Improved Personnel Access 
 
 for Surface Mining Equipment. BuMines 
 IC 8983, 1984, 20 pp. 
 
 10. . Off-Highway Haulage Truck 
 
 Maintenance Safety. Paper in The Chal- 
 lenge to Creativity, ed. by P. J. Sanders 
 and L. Johnson (Proc. 55th Annu. Meeting 
 MN Sec. AIME and 43d Annu. Min. Symp., 
 Duluth, MN, Jan. 1982). Univ. MN, 1982, 
 pp. 20-1—20-24. 
 
15 
 
 11. Long, D. A. Off-Highway Haulage Repair in Metal and Nonmetal Mines. MESA 
 Truck Maintenance Safety. Prof. Saf . , v. IR 1058, 1977, 34 pp.; available upon re- 
 29, No. 7, July 1984, pp. 28-32. quest from MSHA, Arlington, VA. 
 
 12. Mine Safety and Health Administra- 14. Tomlingson, P. D. Maintenance 
 tion. Narrative Computer Listings of Performance Evaluation: A New Look at a 
 Equipment Accidents Abstracted, 1978-84, Necessity (Internal Paper). Paul D. Tom- 
 Health and Safety Analysis Center (HSAC), lingson Associates, Inc., Denver, CO, 
 Denver Research Center, Denver, CO. 1985, 27 pp.; available upon request from 
 
 13. Tierney, M. P. Analysis of Injur- P. D. Tomlingson. 
 ies Associated With Maintenance and 
 
 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1987-605-017/60053 INT.-BU.OF Ml NES,PGH. ,PA. 28503 
 
W109 
 
U.S. Department of the Interior 
 Bureau of Mlnee— Prod, and Diatr. 
 Cochrans Mill Road 
 P.O. Box 18070 
 Pittsburgh. Pa. 15236 
 
 OFFICIAL BUSINESS 
 PtNALTY FOft PmVATJ USt S300 
 
 ] Do not wish to receive this 
 material, please remove 
 from your mailing list, 
 
 ^ Address change. Please 
 correct as indicated. 
 
 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 
 

 • A V *x 
 
 
 vv 
 
 * A V ^ 
 * aV *>v . 
 
 ^ '••»* A <> ^JvT' a<> ^>„ '••.* A <, *<7YT i ,G* "o -..»• A -i\ * 
 
 
 
 
 
 t-o» V^-V %^v V^V ^*^V V^-> ' 
 
 ws / 
 
 ■-« 
 
 » ^ V 
 
 
 *~ V 
 
 ^ •" 
 
 v 'IV* /•» <z 
 
 ' a5°^> 
 
 <;•,' /^ + 
 
 
 
 ^3, '••T« A 
 
 
 
 * V 6 »"», ^* 
 
 * ♦J' ^ o vj(8.\y * a.v *5v 
 
 *" . 
 
 
 ^ « 
 
 
 r^^ . i • . 
 
 
 0^ t .'JJ. ^C 
 
 4 G*" ^ '° • » " A <► *'T 
 
 4-°^ 
 
 'o 
 
 *b^ 
 
 
 <> *'7V> 
 
 
 
 
 •*6* 
 
 O^ * g „ ' 
 
 
 .•& K-. **..** .-^fe'-. \/ .-kKfe %/ .«'•. \/ ..^^-. %s 
 
 * *♦ -^ .®^ % . ^ ^ -W^* A.* ^ . 
 
 a5°^ 
 
 6 ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 >_ c°\C^!' '°o ^.••^••-'*- 
 
 o.v O, * 
 
 
 <> *'7CT 4 _,6 
 
 O^ 'o . 
 
 
 ,° J. U ^K V 
 
 ) * A V "^ : 
 
 * 
 
 ^ < 
 ^•0* 
 
 G u SmtUto^- ° ,<T . 
 
 ** 
 
 
 ^ e » " • . <«> 
 
 <. */r.T*'' .g^ 
 
 
 
 d*" • 
 
 
 
 
 O^ -o . 
 
 l>* 
 
 
 V** •«': %/ .'^figi': %,** .')8K: # ^/ 
 
 \ ••fw.'\^\ ".||K.- /\. -.!^K.- /% --SgR.- /-\ ••»#• ** v \ -IB 
 
 •• _»p^ -.^ 
 
 
 
 ° J 9 • 
 
 c.*' * 
 
 1 ' I, *^- ^ v . »i^L'* cv a0^ . ' • •- O V^ • L 'AS* <^ & » ' * 
 
 .\^»2> /..•«. ^. a sj$$®£~ *ts a* ».e,^.« a «. v *jttifa}£' **. a* »v. 
 
 .4° 
 
 •o 
 
 
 
 <. */y. <• ,G^ ^o, '?.T* A ^> ♦T^T* .G* ^>. ♦?.»* A 
 
 
 
 
 ^ . v . . •*! 
 
 <* *'T7i* ,G^ ^>. 
 
 
 a- 'of 
 
 * ** 
 
 
 
 V .' l /A* o. a* 
 
 » 5 • • » ^-\ 
 
 
 O JT 
 
 °o. **.. 
 
 V .♦'■J,!' o, 
 
 V« c "-«K-.^rf 
 
 
 : ^-0* 
 
 "6 1-" 
 4.°"^ 
 
 ** :& 
 
 V 
 
 £> -o . . * A 
 
 
 
 <V *• 
 
 
 ♦ A^ **U •' 
 
 
 ^ A*' 
 
 >> . » • , 
 
 • A V ^ * 
 * A* "^ • 
 
 <J. V . o « • , ^ 
 
 
 A v ^5, "o • » « A 
 
 ■>t 
 
 -of 
 
 4°% 
 
 G° v ^ V .'^> V V r.°*^^»*° 
 
 r . 
 
 
 
 
 
 o, 'o . . « a 
 
 °-. 4* 
 
 <^ *-TVi 
 
 '♦•To* aO' ^ 
 
 V « 
 
 ,* % 
 
 A * 
 
 
 \<f 
 
 
 
■ ^VKfl -AlwCr . \. A. *<ssi v><4 _ i* . rv 7 ///EL *X YvvV \. i. " JO?^^~^>!y * «. * TS/nk ' 'IA woo "* • 
 
 V . < • 
 
 > ^ ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A°* \ 
 
 
 
 *0« 
 
 
 
 g&* 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ASfer. v j> .: 
 
 1 »!••* > 
 
 
 L^ 
 
 % '-W /\ : -W'y% '-J5K-- /\ "-W?* /% \^K- /\ 
 
 
 
 °* i'^% °0 
 
 
 o V 
 
 ,4 0. 
 
 
 P\C^% °o 
 
 V 
 
 
 67 "A 
 
 
 
 •^•0* -*4f^'- *ot 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 •by* 
 
 I^» .o 
 
 
 ^ V 
 
 J^ v 
 
 c o\.v^. o 
 
 "^ *^T> ^ 
 
 
 
 & * 
 
 
 cC 1 - 
 
 
 
 67^ ^ 
 
 '•' ^^ '. 
 
 
 iff! 
 
 .?v^>^;v-^v v^-y v-*v ^'-^v y wf$ 
 
 Py 5 W/ '° "\;^y °* <w> '° %'W ; y °v : 
 
 o,. ».. 
 
 
 
 ^n/ 
 
 ••• *o 
 
 
 A.i^-,% ^\^%% c */^i^ o o ^ 
 
 t* 4? ^ oi 
 
 
 
 O -o. 
 
 
 -\ 
 
 ^■^ \^^v v^%o° \-^v v^*/ \/^-y 
 
 
 C.vT 
 
 
 
 <, *'7Vr» ,G^ ^ *o.T* ^ 
 
 ^ -^i-\ c°--^&-> y.-afe-% /^^o 
 
 
 *bV" 
 
 ^o« 
 
 &y, ..%*&•*> x^\/.. -oj%&--/ \-W-/ v? 
 .^vjsis-.v ^.^&^ ^.-isai-.v A-xfk.^ Ss&i\ 
 
 3,0 r 
 
 a* 
 
 <* ^ "^ • 
 
 * ,'"', *<s> 
 
 <> *'7VV' ,G 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 <* ^ % 
 
 ^ / 
 
 
 . 4?^ V 
 
 
 
 v .: 
 
 ^0* 
 
 . 4> t » » • , "V 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ;■ R.V .^ v /^^'.%. A * 9 .v4> - ;-.V .^/^Sfe-.^ ^ :•;&':•.%. .^ v .v 
 
 

 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 I || II III llllll I IMIH I i 
 
 002 951 003 9 
 
 Ml