Scope: transfer operations, not manually moving the product
Transferring product through a pipe does not eliminate physical workload. Preparing hoses, supporting couplings, operating valves and stowing accessories can require force, reaching and sustained postures. Assessment should identify who performs each stage and how the work varies between vehicles and installations. It is not equivalent to unloading a tipper truck or moving palletised freight.
This article focuses on external operations. It does not authorise tanker entry, internal cleaning or specialist maintenance. Product, pressure, temperature and atmospheric hazards need their own assessments. EIGA Doc 248/24 provides ergonomic references for liquid-gas distribution; its scope does not allow every recommendation to be transferred automatically to fuels, food or chemicals. The general proposal is to examine each actual combination of vehicle, equipment and delivery point. The result should describe working conditions without turning sector guidance into universal operating authorisation.
Break down the complete operation
A proposed observation separates arrival, parking, preparation, connection, monitoring, disconnection and stowing. Waiting can alternate with brief, intense efforts; averaging the entire visit may hide them. Record routes, heights, space, frequency, duration and perceived effort alongside documented equipment characteristics. Hose mass alone does not explain resistance when moving it.
Include routine deliveries and foreseeable variations such as rain, reduced lighting, different vehicles and obstructed sites. Examine these without recreating hazardous conditions merely to measure them. Consulting drivers and receiving personnel helps identify differences between written procedures and actual work. Competent personnel select the assessment method according to whether lifting, pushing, pulling, turning or posture predominates. Retaining dates and configurations avoids treating an old assessment as representative of equipment or a destination that has changed. Records should explain the task sufficiently for another assessor to understand exactly which conditions were examined.
Designing the loading or unloading point
Vehicle position determines hose routes, accessibility and working space. HSE identifies traffic arrangements and immobilisation as safety elements in these operations; ergonomic improvements must preserve them. Bringing a vehicle closer to a connection is unacceptable if it intrudes into pedestrian routes or compromises area controls.
A proposed design review examines the dimensions of vehicles actually attending, connection locations, cabinet doors and space for aids. Check whether the route changes when other vehicles or concurrent tasks are present. The installation should allow preparation and removal of equipment without unnecessary carrying or obstruction of emergency routes. Universal gradients or distances are not prescribed: these depend on the site and technical assessment. Advance information to the carrier should describe relevant limitations, avoiding a first compatibility check only after the vehicle has been positioned and completion pressure has developed. Layout improvements require agreement with the site’s operational responsibilities.
Hoses and supporting equipment
Hose movement combines flexibility, length, friction and route geometry. Handling demands may change between removal from storage, extension, connection and retrieval. The Energy Institute’s public summary includes gripping, carrying, connecting and storing hoses among its ergonomic topics; that reference comes from offshore energy rather than a general rule for every tanker.
As an improvement proposal, investigate reels, supports and aids compatible with the equipment and product. EIGA discusses supports to reduce handling effort in liquid-gas distribution installations. The solution requires checks of access, movement range and maintenance, without makeshift accessory modifications. An aid supporting part of a hose may still leave significant effort at the coupling. Subsequent assessment should include that point and final retrieval. Changes to material, length or configuration also require review of transfer-process safety. Reducing manual demand is only one of the compatibility conditions that a revised arrangement must satisfy.
Couplings, valves and tools
A poorly positioned connection may require weight to be supported while turning or adjusting it. Record hand positions, height, visibility and whether designed equipment can provide support. Required force must not be interpreted as permission to use extensions, impacts or improvised tools. Abnormal resistance calls for the technical procedure to be followed and the problem reported.
As a redesign consideration, check whether access avoids excessive reaching and whether controls can be understood and used with the intended protection. Glove, handle and tool compatibility should be reviewed without exposing workers to hazardous substances during an ergonomic trial. Valve operation, isolation, depressurisation and disconnection belong to the system-specific procedure. This article prescribes neither sequences nor tightening torques. A favourable ergonomic finding never replaces checks of the product, equipment or conditions required before opening a line. Technical safety remains a prerequisite for any observation or trial.
Access and work at height
Access can create physical effort and fall hazards simultaneously. HSE recommends considering controls and checks at ground level where these avoid climbing onto vehicles. Within its scope, Spain’s Royal Decree 1215/1997 requires safety and acceptable ergonomic conditions to be considered when selecting equipment for temporary work at height, prioritising collective over individual protection.
A task review identifies why access is required, how frequently it occurs and which materials must be moved. Examine technically feasible alternatives before accepting repeated climbing as routine. Where access remains necessary, the planned system must appropriately support movement, work and emergency response. Improvised platforms are inappropriate, and an apparently comfortable posture cannot justify an unprotected position. Joint assessment should check tanker and loading-bay compatibility because access provided on the vehicle may be obstructed by the installation. Ergonomic review complements, rather than replaces, the dedicated arrangements preventing falls.
Coordination between carrier and installation
The task takes place at the interface between two organisations. The carrier knows its vehicle, while the installation operator knows the site’s connections, access and restrictions. Spain’s Royal Decree 171/2004 governs coordination where business activities coincide in applicable circumstances. Exchanging documents does not independently resolve a physical incompatibility observed at the delivery point.
A proposed arrangement defines who provides each aid, who checks its condition and how limitations are communicated before work starts. The procedure should address vehicle changes, unfamiliar drivers and unavailable equipment. If the planned aid is missing, the task should not automatically become additional manual handling. Scheduling matters: long waits followed by pressure to hurry can alter execution. A reporting channel for access or effort problems supports installation improvements and avoids each driver inventing a different solution. Feedback should lead to a documented response, rather than disappear after a successful delivery.
Evaluate improvements while retaining other controls
A lighter hose, support or relocated connection can change both effort and process safety. The proposed evaluation checks technical compatibility before a trial and reviews the complete operation afterwards. Lower weight does not automatically mean lower overall risk.
Record extension and retrieval effort, reaches, accessibility and observed problems under comparable conditions. Check whether protective equipment affects grip or visibility, and whether the aid introduces maintenance or cleaning difficulties. Trials should not release substances or defeat protection simply to make measurement easier. Where sensors are used, their results require interpretation informed by the task and measurement limitations. Posture data do not measure internal pressure, chemical compatibility or medical fitness. The final decision integrates the different assessments and records which conditions remain necessary for using the solution. It should also specify who will respond if the equipment later becomes unavailable or the delivery configuration changes.
Applied example: the connection is too far away
Hypothetical example: an installation accepts a different tanker model while retaining the usual parking position. The coupling is further from the delivery point, and the driver must support an additional hose section during preparation. Access documentation is complete, but the ergonomic condition has changed.
The proposed response is a joint review of configuration, compatible equipment and site restrictions before continuing with an improvised solution. Compare alternatives that preserve traffic arrangements, immobilisation and transfer safety. After modification, check retrieval, storage and control access too. The conclusion should remain linked to the vehicles and conditions assessed. This example does not describe a real incident or demonstrate a quantified reduction in injuries. It illustrates that prevention coordination requires physical compatibility checks as well as documents, and that an apparently minor change can transfer effort to a particular stage of the operation. Repeated deliveries do not themselves prove that the new arrangement is acceptable.
Follow-up and links to related topics
Proposed improvement indicators concern verifiable facts: delivery points assessed using representative vehicles, operational aids, incompatibility incidents and checked corrections. Comparisons between periods should record the number and type of operations. Fewer reports of effort, without checking how tasks are performed, do not establish elimination of risk.
Related articles on physical workload, assessment methods, manual handling, awkward postures and mechanical aids develop the ergonomic analysis. Business coordination, work at height and line opening address complementary controls. Digital information can organise observations and responsibilities, but it does not replace technical assessment of the system. Personal health data should remain within appropriate healthcare channels. Reviewing the assessment when vehicles, hoses, connections or installations change preserves its usefulness. Improvement is checked in actual work, involving the people performing and receiving the operation and recording any remaining limitations. Availability, correct use and verified performance are separate conditions, all of which deserve attention.
Frequently asked questions
Is this the same as unloading a tipper truck?
No. Tankers use transfer systems with hoses, couplings and valves, creating different demands.
Does the assessment include entering the tanker?
No. Entry and internal cleaning require specific assessments and procedures.
Does a hose support remove every physical demand?
Not necessarily. Connections, guiding, retrieval and vehicle-site compatibility still need checking.
Can gas-industry guidance be applied to every product?
Not automatically. Ergonomic principles must be adapted to the equipment, product, operation and applicable rules.
