Document 3evmV4ma6xZbEj9JmNN6n8oz6

FILE NAME: National Safety Council (NSC) DATE: 1966 DOC#: NSC093 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: NSC - National Safety Congress Transactions Vol. 3 / JLUME 3 1 w * * 6- ^ r Wp* fJ f' l i Ml I isiil -'.'.!:;J:llte- MACHINE SHOP; Pres POWER PRESS and FORGING Ac jfc Exhibj^ NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 425 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE Index CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611 I Other Vi % PLEAXIHNITBIIFTFS 3 *m < s z \ National Safety Council OFFICERS-- 1966-67 N Chairman, Board of Directors--Brooks M cCormick, Executive Vice President, International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois President--H oward P yle, President, National Safety Council, Chi cago, Illinois Vice President for Farms--N orman C. M indrum, Director, Na tional 4-H Service Committee, Inc., Chicago, Illinois I Vice President for Finance--J. H. S chwarten, Executive Vice Pres ident, City Products Corporation, Chicago, Illinois = Vice President for Homes--J. H . T yler M cConnell, President, Delaware Trust Company, Wilmington, Delaware Vice President for Industry--H. S. M cF arland, Director of Per sonnel Services, General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan Vice President for Labor--H unter P. W harton, General President, International Union of Operating Engineers, Washington, D. C. Vice President for Membership--H erman J. S poerer, Canfield, Ohio Vice President for Motor Transportation--H arry E. Foulkrod, Sen ior Executive Vice President, Fruehauf Corporation, Detroit, Michigan Vice President for Production--H ugh Curtis, Dean, School of Journalism, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa Vice President for Public Information--John J. K arol, Vice Presi dent, Director of Special Projects, CBS Television Network, New York, New York Vice President for Public Safety--R obert A. Olen, Vice President, Gar Wood Industries, Inc., Wayne, Michigan S Notional 4 Safety Council (Officers, continued) Vice President for Religious Leaders--E rwin D. Canh am , Editor in Chief, The Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Massachusetts Vice President for Research--N orvin C. K iefer, M.D., Chief Medi cal Director, The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, New York, New York Vice President fo r Schools and Colleges--D r. D ewey F. B arich, President, Detroit Institute of Technology, Detroit, Michigan Vice President for State and Local Safety Organizations--C. H unter Green, Vice President, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Louisville, Kentucky Vice President for Traffic--B en W est, Attorney, Nashville, Tennes see Vice President for Women--M rs. H orace D awson, Illinois State Legislator, Evanston, Illinois Vice President fo r Youth Activities--A lex A. M aleski, Program Service, Associate Director, Boys' Clubs of America, New York, New York Executive Vice President--John D. L awlor, Executive Vice Presi dent, National Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois Secretary and Treasurer--R. L. Forney, Secretary and Treasurer, National Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois Assistant Treasurer--J. D. F ulford, Director, Treasury Division, National 'Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois 6 iiitiiu im iiifttiitiiiiiiitiiiiiiim M iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiim tim iiiia iiiiiiiiiiM m iiim iiM ififiiiM ii fiiiiiim m tittn iiiiitiiiiiiiitiiiiiiti m i m tiiim iitt m u iH iim iititm tifiH iitsiiim iiiiiiiiititiitim iiftiiiim riiim iiiiiii National Safety Council TRUSTEES-- 1966-67 Chairman of the Trustees--H oward P yle, President, National Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois Vice Chairman of the Trustees--A. E. P erlman, President, New York Central System, New York, New York Members E. H. Bailey, President, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Omaha, Nebraska M elvin H. B aker, Honorary Chairman, National Gypsum Company, Buffalo, New York M rs. Olive A. B eech, President, Beech Aircraft Corp. Wichita, Kansas Charles D ana B ennett, Washington, D. C. H arold B lanche, Chairman, Celanese Corporation of America, New York, New York D. W. Brosnan, President, Southern Railway System, Washington, D. C. W alter F. Carey, President, Automoile Carriers Inc., Flint, Michi gan Joseph F. Cullm an, 3rd, Chairman, Philip Morris, Incorporated, New York, New York J. D oyle D eW itt, Chairman, The Travelers, Hartford, Connecticut Russell D eY oung, Chairman, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio Kempton D u n n , Chairman of the Board, ABEX Corporation, New York, New York E mile F. du P ont, Director, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware T. M. E vans, Chairman, Crane Co., New York, New York E. Roland H arriman, Brown Brothers Harriman and Company, New York, New York 7 National Safety Council (Trustees, continued) n t i n u m i t ii i t i i n i i i i i i i t i i it iiiitiit u n i t i l l i n i u m u n t i n n m i i n i m i u i i i i t t i i i i i i i i i t i n n i i ti Imi h i Iu n i t t i n n i i t u t m u J. V. H eed, Chairman of the Boards, The Continental Insurance Companies, New York, New York W illiam A. H ewitt, Chairman, Deere & Company, Moline, Illinois F rederick R. K appel, Chairman, Executive Committee, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, New York, New York James R. K err, President, Avco Corporation, New York, New York John R. K imberly, President, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Neenah, Wisconsin Joseph L. L anier, Chairman, West Point-Pepperell, Inc., West Point, Georgia Stanley Learned, President, Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartles ville, Oklahoma George E. L eighty, President, Transportation-Communication Em ployees Union, St. Louis, Missouri E dmund F. M artin, Chairman, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Bethle hem, Pennsylvania J. A. M artino, Chairman, National Lead Company, New York, New York B irny M ason, Jr., Chairman, Union Carbide Corporation, New York, New York B rooks M cCormick, Executive Vice President, International Harves ter Company, Chicago, Illinois (Ex-Officio) N eil M cE lroy, Chairman, The Procter & Gamble Company, Cin cinnati, Ohio Robert S. Oelman, Chairman, The National Cash Register Company, Dayton, Ohio A. E. P erlman, President, New York Central System, New York, New York G. L. P hillippe, Chairman o f the Board, General Electric Company, New York, New York S herburne P rescott, Belle Haven, Greenwich, Connecticut in u n i tm in si tiitiiiiim iiiiiiuim m m iuiM iiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaiim iiitiiii National Safety Council (Trustees, continued) ItllllllltlllllllllllllltllllllllfItllltllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllUllillillllllllMHIIIIIIIIIIIIllllMlllillinilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllMlltllltlllllllli H oward P yle, President, National Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois (Ex-Officio) W alter P. Reuthek, Vice President, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Detroit, Michigan J. M. Roche, President, General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michi gan Francis C. Rooney, Jr., President, Melville Shoe Corporation, New York, New York R. S. Stevenson, Chairman, Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin D r. John F. T hompson, Honorary Chairman, The International Nickel Company, Inc., New York, New York L y n n A. T ownsend, Chairman of the Board, Chrysler Corporation, Detroit, Michigan M. J. W arnock, President, Armstrong Cork Company, Lancaster, Pennsylvania John L. W einberg, Partner, Goldman, Sachs & Company, Kew York, New York W m. W hite, Chairman, The Delaware & Hudson Railroad Corpora tion, New York, New York R obert W. W oodruff, Chairman, Finance Committee, The Coca-Cola Company, Atlanta, Georgia Leslie B. W orthington, President, United States Steel Corporation, New York, New York M. A. W right, Chairman of the Board, Humble Oil & Refining Company, Houston, Texas National Safety Council BOARD OF DIRECTORS-- 1966-67 Chairman of the Board of Directors--B rooks M cCormick, Executive Vice President, International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois Vice Chairman of the Board o f Directors--D r. D ewey F. B arich, President, Detroit Institute of Technology, Detroit, Michigan Members sii ; vi ! I ii E dward S. A dams, Director of Safety, Iowa Farm Bureau, Des Moines, Iowa Robert H. Albisser, Safety Coordinator, Corporate Personnel Re lations, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey Cole A. A llen, Vice President--Engineering, American Mutual Li ability Insurance Company, Wakefield, Massachusetts A. S. A lston, Executive Vice President, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, New York, New York S idney A lterman, President, Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., Miami, Florida D udley A ndry, Manager, Metropolitan New Orleans Safety Council, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana D r. D ewey F. B arich, President, Detroit Institute of Technology, Detroit, Michigan F. R. B arnako, Manager of Compensation and Safety, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania &fi. George S. B einetti, President, Rochester Telephone Corporation, Rochester, New York M. F. B iancardi, Manager, Safety & Workmen's Compensation Services, Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Dr. R ichard B ishop, Associate Professor, Physical Education De partment, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida E dward J. B ock, Vice President, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri N elson M. Bortz, Director, Bureau of Labor Standards, U. S. De partment of Labor, Washington, D. C. 10 National Safety Council (Board of Directors, continued) Charles H. Bowman, Professor of Law, College of Law, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois Caesar Branchini, Manager of Technical Services, The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, New York, New York Clark D. Bridges, Managing Director, Industrial Medical Associa tion, Chicago, Illinois Russell I. Brown, President, Insurance Institute for Highway Safe ty, Washington, D. C. James O. Burpo, President, James Burpo Insurance, Inc., Sacra mento, California H arold Burson, President, Burson-Marsteller Associates, New York, New York Robert R. B urton, Executive Vice President, Campbell-Mithun, Inc., Chicago, Illinois D ouglas Caddy, Program Executive, Employee Health & Safety Committee, National Association of Manufacturers, New York, New York B. J. Campbell, P h .D., Director of Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina E arl F. Campbell, Santa Clara, California E rwin D. Ca n h a m , Editor in Chief, The Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Massachusetts J. W illis Cantey, President, Citizens & Southern National Bank of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina W alter F. Carey, President, Automobile Carriers Inc., Flint, Michi gan. A llen L. Cobb, Director of Industrial Safety, Kodak Park Works, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York D r. Seymour J. Cohen, The Anshe Emet Synagogue, Chicago, Illi nois P aul H. Connelley, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Washington, D. C. D r. John D . Connors, Executive Secretary, Committee on Safety and Occupational Health, American Federation of Labor and Con gress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, D. C. National Safety Council (Board of Directors, continued) John M. Couric, Vice President for Public Relations, National Asso ciation of Broadcasters, Washington, D. C. Ernest G. Cox, Chief, Section of Motor Carrier Safety, Bureau of Operations and Compliance, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C. Stanley W. Cox, Vice President, St. Joseph Light & Power Co., St. Joseph, Missouri H. E. Crawford, Vice President, General Motors Corporation, De troit, Michigan H ugh Curtis, Dean, School of Journalism, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa M. R. D arlington, Jr., Managing Director, Auto Industries Highway Safety Committee, Inc., Washington, D. C. H. C. D aulton, Director of Safety, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., Louisville, Kentucky L. B. D avis, Vice President and General Manager, Defense Programs Division, General Electric Company, Washington, D. C. H on. Mattie B elle D avis, Judge, Metropolitan Court of Dade Coun ty, Miami, Florida Mrs. H orace D awson, Illinois State Legislator, Evanston, Illinois A nthony D e Lorenzo, Vice President, General Motors Corporation, ; Detroit, Michigan Claude de S t. P aer, Program Assistant, American Farm Bureau Federation, Chicago, Illinois Frank D ickey, Vice President, Industrial Relations and Personnel Division, Deere & Company, Moline, Illinois F rederick J. D odson, Assistant Vice President, Liberty Mutual In surance Company, Boston, Massachusetts J. D ewey D orsett, President, American Insurance Association, New York, New York D onald A. D ukelow, M.D., Assistant Director, Department of Com munity Health and Health Education, American Medical Associa tion, Chicago, Illinois E mile F. du P ont, Director, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware 12 National Safety Council (Board of Directors, continued) R everend W arren R. E binger, Minister, First Evangelical United Brethren Church, Naperville, Illinois James P. E conomos, Director, Traffic Court Program, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois J. George Eichhorn, Grand Lodge Representative, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Daytona Beach, Florida Charles W. F erguson, Senior Editor, The Reader's Digest, Pleasantville. New York A lvin M. F erst, Jr., Vice President, Rich's, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. A. C. Field, Jr., Manager, Public Affairs, WGN Inc., Chicago, Illinois D r. Lowell B. F isher, Coordinator of School University Relations, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois D r. A. E. Florio, Professor of Safety Education, Department of Health and Safety Education, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois P arker C. F olse, Safety Advisor, Mobil Oil Corporation, New York, New York B enson F ord, Vice President, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michi gan E dgar J. F orio, The Coca Cola Company, Atlanta, Georgia H arry E. F oulkrod, Senior Executive Vice President, Fruehauf Cor poration, Detroit, Michigan Mrs. John G. F owler, National Vice Chairman of Volunteers, The American National Red Cross, Washington, D. C. E dward G. Fox, President, Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, Washington, D. C. W elby M. Frantz, President, Eastern Express, Inc., Terre Haute, Indiana Miss E leanor F reeman, Evanston, Illinois John W. Gibbons, Director of Public Relations, Automotive Safety Foundation, Washington, D. C. D r. L onnie Gii.i.tland. Director of Safety Education, Oklahoma City Public Schools, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 13 National Safety Council (Board of Directors, continued) s Robert E. Gocke, Vice President, Safety & Regulatory Relations, : Greyhound Lines, Inc., Chicago, Illinois George L. Gorbell, Manager, Personnel Safety, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri D an D. Gowings, Assistant Professor, School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana W m . P aul Gray, National Executive Secretary, Future Farmers of America, Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D. C. I C. H unter Green, Vice President, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Louisville, Kentucky ! Gerard 0 . Griffin, Manager, Hazard Control, Dravo Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Rev. R obert A. Grunow, Director of Seminary Relations, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri Samuel R. Guard, Manager, Marketing Research, Chicago SunTimes and Chicago Daily News, Chicago, Illinois Roy H aeusler, Automotive Safety Engineer, Chrysler Corporation, Detroit, Michigan E dward B. H aggerty, International Safety Representative, Interna tional Association of Fire Fighters, Cincinnati, Ohio H oward E. H allas, Vice President--Public Relations, American Mo tors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan A rthur A. H a n sen , Secretary, The Hartford Insurance Group, Hartford, Connecticut : H erbert E. H arper, President, Public Service Coordinated Trans : : port, Maplewood, New Jersey = R. M. H artman, Assistant Manager of Compensation and Safety, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania A lbert L. H auck, Director, Safety and Public Relations, Transpor tation Underwriters, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana D aniel F. H ayes, Chief, Industrial Safety & Fire Protection Branch, United States Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D. C. I Robert C. H endon, Vice President, Industry Affairs, REA Express, New York, New York 14 National Safety Council (Board of Directors, continued) it if iit iiiiH iif n iiiit iiiit it t iif it f t t M iiiiiin iu iiiiiiit iM iiiiiM M t it t iiiH iM it iH ifiiM it t ft it M iiiiiM m iiiifiiiin t iiiit iiiiit iiiin iin M iM iiiiiM H iit iu t iiiiiiiiM im iin iiin fiit ifiiit iit t iiiM n it iM it m m in in M iiiiM t t it M it n it t t i R ussell E. H eston, Director of Engineering, Grinneli Mutual Rein surance Company, Grinneli, Iowa W. C. H ewitt, Senior Vice President, Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartlesville, Oklahoma D onald M. H iggins, Director, Health and Safety Service, National Council, Boy Scouts of America, New Brunswick, New Jersey R t. R ev. M scr. George G. H iggins, Director, Department of Social Action, National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, D. C. Ch a s. R. H olloway, Jr., Vice President, Northwest Natural Gas Company, Portland, Oregon D r. Garold D. H olstine, National Director, Red Cross Youth, The American National Red Cross, Washington, D. C. P aul J. H oover, Vice President, The H alle Bros. Co., Cleveland, Ohio W. G. H orton, President, Bus Horton Inc., Oklahoma City, Okla homa H arold R. H osea, Safety Information Branch, Office of Highway Safety, U. S. Bureau of Public Roads, Washington, D. C. W. G. H otchkiss, Manager -- Personnel Services, Chrysler Cor poration, Detroit, Michigan W. L. H uffm an, Vice President and General Manager, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota F red H uleen, Corporation Director of Personnel, The Boeing Com pany, Seattle, Washington H. M. H untington, General Supervisor, Safety, International H ar vester Company, Chicago, Illinois Claude A. Jessup, President, Virginia Trailways, Charlottesville, Virginia Miss Ruth Jewell, State Music Consultant, State Department of Public Instruction, Raleigh, North Carolina P aul H. J ohansen, President, Central Motor Lines, Charlotte, North Carolina F red F. Johnson, Consultant, Gulf States Utilities, Lake Charles, Louisiana 15 National Safety Council (Board of Directors, continued) P aul V. Joliet, M. D. Special Assistant to the Chief, Bureau of Dis ease Prevention and Environmental Control, U. S. Public Health Service, Washington, D. C. John J. Karol, Vice President, Director of Special Projects, CBS Television Network, New York, New York \ A lbert B. Kelley, Transportation and Communication Manager, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington, D. C. N orvin C. K iefer, M.D., Chief Medical Director, The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, New York, New York K eith K irkpatrick, Associate Farm Director, WHO Broadcasting Company, Des Moines, Iowa L. W. K napp, Jr., Chief, Accident Prevention Section, Institute of Agricultural Medicine, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa W erner C. K noop, President, The Baldwin Company, Little Rock, Arkansas Mrs. H ideo Kodani, Pacific Palisades, California Mrs. John E. K rueger, Milwaukee, Wisconsin : F rank E. L aderer, Director of Safety, Nationwide Insurance Com pany, Columbus, Ohio F. S. L ake, Director of Safety, Interstate System, Grand Rapids, Michigan Jack L a Monte, Executive Vice President, Mistletoe Express Service, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma E dward B. Landry, Bethesda, Maryland John D. Lawlor, Executive Vice President, National Safety Coun cil, Chicago, Illinois Ivan F. L eGore, Safety Director, Portland Cement Association, Chicago, Illinois G. M. Leilich, Vice President -- Operations, Western Maryland i Railway Company, Baltimore, Maryland I C. B. Lemon, Director of School Transportation, New Mexico State EE Department of Education, Santa Fe, New Mexico Rev. H arry M. Lodge, Superintendent, Illinois Conference of SeventhDay Adventists, Brookfield, Illinois James D. L ogsdon, Superintendent, Thornton Township High Schools and Junior College, Harvey, Illinois 16 National Safety Council (Board of Directors, continued) B ruce L ourie, East Moline, Illinois W illiam H. Lowe, Vice President and Treasurer, Inland Steel Company, Chicago, Illinois Louis F. L ucas, Executive Director, National Rifle Association of America, Washington, D. C. H on. Geraldine M acelwane, Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Lucas County, Toledo, Ohio W. G. M acintosh, Manager, Engineering Department, The H art ford Insurance Group, New York, New York A lex A, Maleski, Program Service, Associate Director, Boys' Clubs of America, New York, New York M iss Marion E. M artin, Commissioner of Labor and Industry, State of Maine, Augusta, Maine S tanley A. M ate, Director, Training Activities, National Rifle As sociation of America, Washington, D. C. M rs. M arjorie B. M ay, Director, Education and Home Division, Greater New York Safety Council, Inc., New York, New York J. H. T yler M cConnell, President, Delaware Trust Co., Wilmington, Delaware Brooks M cCormick, Executive Vice President, International H ar vester Company, Chicago, Illinois E. C. McF adden, Dallas, Texas H. S. McF arland, Director of Personnel Services, General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan D r. Ross A. M cF arland, Guggenheim Professor of Aerospace Health and Safety, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts T homas G. M cGuire, President, Industrial Indemnity Company, San Francisco, California D r. H arold M endelsohn, Professor and Director of Research, School of Communication Arts, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado Guy B. Mercer, Arthur Meyerhoff Associates, Inc., Chicago, Illinois V irgil J. M eyers, Company Safety Director, Western Electric Com pany, New York, New York I. W. Millard, Industrial Gloves Company, Danville, Illinois National Safety Council (Board of Directoi's, continued) N orman C. M indrum, Director, National 4-H Service Committee, Inc., Chicago, Illinois Mrs. Charlotte M ontgomery, Contributing Editor, Good Housekeep ing Magazine, Westfield, New Jersey T homas C. M orrill, Vice President, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Bloomington, Illinois A. B. M urphy, National Director Safety Services, The American National Red Cross, Washington, D. C. E dward C. M yers, Vice President and Assistant to President, United States Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania A mos E. N eyhart, State College, Pennsylvania Robert A. Olen, Vice President, Gar Wood Industries, Iric., Wayne, Michigan A rthur G. P etry, Communications Coordinator, The National So ciety For Crippled Children and Adults, Chicago, Illinois F letcher N. P latt, Manager, Traffic Safety and Highway Improve ment Department, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan Lorne F. P urves, Superintendent, Transportation and Safety, Toronto Star, Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada H oward P yle, President, National Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois J. S. Queener, Manager, Safety and Fire Protection Division, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware J. C. R adcliffe, Supervisor, Industrial Safety Section, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan Mrs. Jean W ade R indlaub, West Englewood, New Jersey M ark R obeson, Vice President, Yellow Transit Freight Lines, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri F rank H. R ogers, Division Vice President, Central Telephone Com pany, Las Vegas, Nevada H. I. R omnes, Chairman, American Telephone and Telegraph Com pany, New York, New York J ack J. Rosebrough, Executive Vice President, United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Indianapolis, Indiana Robert T. Ross, Manager, Employe Programs Department, Ford Mo tor Company, Dearborn, Michigan 18 National Safety Council (Board of Directors, continued) Clyde C. R uddick, Bethel Park, Pennsylvania E noch R. R ust, International Vice President, United Glass and Ceramic Workers, Columbus, Ohio E. H. R ydholm, Vice President and Director Civic Affairs, Chrysler Corporation, Detroit, Michigan C. F. S chlueter, Senior Vice President, Employers Insurance of Wausau, Wausau, Wisconsin K arl S chulze, Supervising Safety Engineer, Standard Oil Company of California, Western Operations, Inc., San Francisco, California J. H. S chwarten, Executive Vice President, City Products Corpora tion, Chicago, Illinois Gordon H. S heehe, Director, Highway Traffic Safety Center, Michi gan State University, East Lansing, Michigan D onald J. S herbondy, Vice President, Industrial Relations, Pitts burgh Plate Glass Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania P ercy H. S h ue, Assistant Secretary, Program Development, Kiwanis International, Chicago, Illinois Matthew C. S ielski, Director, Traffic Engineering & Safety Depart ment, American Automobile Association, Washington, D. C. P. L. Siemiller, President, International Association of Machinists, Washington, D. C. H. S. Simpson, Manager of Safety, Caterpillar Tractor Company, Peoria, Illinois V. J. S kutt, Chairman of the Boards, Mutual of Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska J ames M. S lavin, Director, Traffic Institute, Northwestern Univer sity, Evanston, Illinois E arl W. S mith, Managing Director, Baltimore Safety Council, Balti more, Maryland S. F. Spence, Director, Safety and Loss-Prevention, American Cyanamid Company, Wayne, New Jersey H erman J. S poerer, Canfield, Ohio W inslow A. Stahle, Resident Manager, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Springfield, Massachusetts 19 National Safety Council George H. Steel, Safety Director, Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Missouri W. E. Stuffing, Director of Safety, Carrier Corporation, Syracuse, New York E dward W. T anquary, Staff Engineer, Farm Equipment Research and Engineering Center, International Harvester Company, Hins dale, Illinois J. V a n N amee, Administrator Accident Prevention, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Miss Carol V an S ickle, Public Relations Department, The Conti nental Insurance Companies, New York, New York D r. P reston A. W ade, Professor of Clinical Surgery, Cornell Uni versity Medical School, New York, New York J. P. W arner, Vice President and General Manager, Manufacturing Division, Humble Oil & Refining Company, Houston, Texas Miss M ary M. W eeks, Program Specialist, Health and Safety Edu cation, Girl Scouts of the United States of America, New York, New York H oward M. W eiss, Vice President, Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corporation, Flushing, New York B en W est, Attorney, Nashville, Tennessee Miss Janice R. W estaby, M.P.H., Assistant Professor, School of Public Health, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina H unter P. W harton, General President, International Union of Operating Engineers, Washington, D. C. George M. W heatley, M.D. Senior Medical Director, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, New York, New York V ictor E. W hitehouse, Director of Safety, International Brother hood of Electrical Workers, Washington, D. C. Rex M. W hitton, Howard Needles, Tamnien & Bergendoff, Kansas City, Missouri T. H. W ilkenson, Director of Safety, Department of the Anny, Washington, D. C. D orwin L. W illiamson, Superintendent, Training and Safety, Cleve land Transit System, Cleveland, Ohio F. R. W illsey, Extension Safety Specialist, Department of Agri cultural Engineering, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana. P aul W indsor, Secretary, Bureau of Safety, Chicago, Illinois P aul S. W ise, General Manager, American Mutual Insurance Alli ance, Chicago, Illinois 20 V O L U M E 13 COPY FLEX COPY LIBRARY NATIONAL SAFETY CONGRESS LABOR SAFETY NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 425 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611 54th NATIONAL SAFETY CONGRESS Papers Delivered in the LABOR SAFETY SESSIONS CONTENTS Consolidated Report of Labor Conference.............................. J. George Eichhorn 3 Winners of 1965 Labor Conference Safety Awards.................................................. 5 A Model Labor-Management Medical Program......................J. B. Logue, M.D. 9 Hazardous Conditions and Precautionary Measures When Working with Epoxy Resins and Solvents............................................Charles W. Wyman 12 The Medical Department's Responsibilities in Treating Injuries or Diseases Caused by Epoxy Resins and Solvents............... M. B. Vyhnak, M.D. 19 JOINT SESSION W ITH CIVIC LEADERSHIP, FARM, HOME, RELIGIOUS, WOMEN'S AND YOUTH CONFERENCES The Hazards of Glass: A Demonstration....................................... M. N. Zeolla 23 Glass Injury Control....................................................................William V, White 25 A Shocking Expose..................................... ..........................Richard E. Gallagher 28 U.S. Department of Labor's Safety Program............ ......... John F. Henning 30 The State's Role in Safety................................................................. John Cullerton 32 How Our Neighbor Looks at Government Responsibility for Safety........................................................... .. H. Y. Yoneyama 35 Discussion Period-- What's Bugging Y o u ?...................................................... ........... 38 ADMINISTRATION O F INDUSTRIAL SAFETY LAW S What W e Do Now for Industrial Safety Safety and Related Associations.........................................W. G. Johnson 46 Federal Perspective and Policy ......................................... Robert D. Gidel 48 State Perspective and Policy.................................................. Ernest B. W ebb 50 The Employer................................... ............... ............................M. F. Biancardi 51 The Worker.............................................................................J. George Eichhorn 51 The Insurer ................................................................................. .Cole A . Allen 52 What Should Be Done?................. ................................................ Howard Pyle 55 What More Can W e Do About It? Federal Government..................................................................Nelson M. Bortz 56 State Government.......................................................................... Carl J. M attei 57 The Employer........................................................................ Walter F. Patenge 58 The Devil's Advocate....................................................................Dr. Carl Cabe 60 Discussion.................................................................................................................. 60 Summary..................................................................................... Harry N. Rosenfield 63 Officers of the Labor Conference 1966-67.................................................................. 66 Other Volumes in 1966 National Safety Congress Transactions............... Back Cover 2 CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF LABOR CONFERENCE By J. GEORGE EICHHORN Outgoing Chairman of National Safety Council Labor Conference; Grand Lodge Representative, International Assn, of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Daytona Beach, Fla. This consolidated report is brief; how ever, there has been mailed to all union organizations holding National Safety Coun cil membership a copy of the printed annual report covering labor activities for the year. That printed report, together with these re marks, will give you an overall picture of the operations and program carried on in behalf of union organizations working in the safety movement. Our Spring meeting was held last May in San Francisco; our fall meeting was held October 21 and 22, just prior to the opening of the National Safety Congress. The Labor Conference is authorized by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Na tional Safety Council. Its purpose is to pre vent accidents to labor union members, their families, friends, and neighbors. The Labor Conference develops the pro grams, activities, accident prevention proce dures, and other projects for union organi zations affiliated with the National Safety Council. The programs of the Labor Con ference are carried out by the staff of the National Safety Council's Labor Department. The Labor Conference is divided into vari ous committees charged with specific respon sibilities. It is the work of these committees which is summarized here. // Awards Committee The Awards Committee met four times this year. In August they held their annual judging of entries submitted for labor safety awards and granted IS awards to unions and individuals for outstanding safety accom plishments during 1965. The committee is currently engaged in revising the rules gov erning the granting of awards to individuals. This change will take effect in the coming year. Congress Program Committee This committee has the tremendous re sponsibility of setting up four days of labor sessions for the 1966 Safety Congress. They met three times this year and, as your printed program will attest, they have se cured outstanding speakers and introduced some innovations. Special promotion of the Congress pro gram has been conducted throughout this year, including articles in the Labor Safety Newsletter. An official "Meeting Call" issued by the Vice President for Labor was mailed this summer to all labor organizations hold ing National Safety Council membership. It was also sent to the labor press with the request that they give extensive publicity to our labor sessions. Executive Committee This committee has acted for the con ference between regular meetings of the conference. All actions- of the committee are subject to aproval, ratification, and confir mation by the conference. The committee has the power to create standing and special committees, schedule meetings of the con ference, and act on committee reports and other matters within the framework of National Safety Council policy. Activities of the committee during the year included: establishment of a Public Rela tions Committee; assigning additional re sponsibilities to the Off-the-Job and Driver Improvement Committee; reviewing pro gram goals for the Labor Department for the next three years; clarifying the scope of activities for the Fire Protection and Public Safety committee; establishing a re quirement that if any conference member does not attend three consecutive meetings, he is to be automatically dropped and will not be reappointed for the following year, unless otherwise excused; and approving cer tain changes in the official award rules and application form for the labor safety awards program. Throughout the year the committee has been operating on a streamlined schedule set up so as to accelerate and better implement its work. . 3 1966 National Safety Congress Fire Protection and Public Safety Committee labor unions on a worldwide basis. This During 1965-66 this committee turned out leaflet is now ready. a steady stream of feature articles for the Labor Safety Newsletter. They have sched uled articles through the May-June, 1967 is sue, and are laying plans for the balance of next year. Currently, there are unions in W est Ger many, Switzerland, Israel, and Trinidad, British West Indies holding National Safety Council membership. At the international convention of the Fire Labor Day Safety Campaign Fighters Union this fall, a series of reso lutions on safety were passed. One of them deals with building up membership in the National Safety Council from among their locals; another deals with a uniform system of identification of hazardous materials. The scope of this committee was enlarged this year. Previously it was called the Fire Safety Committee, but it was changed to be come the Fire Protection and Public Safety Committee. Their work will now include ac cident prevention problems relative to the This ad hoc committee under chairman Bob Farrell was responsible for conducting the 1966 campaign. They met in Washington last January to map out the campaign. They changed the format and planned the ma terials primarily for editors of labor publi cations. Over 3,000 campaign booklets were sent to all international unions, state and local central bodies, building trades councils and other labor bodies this year. safety of the general public assembled in schools, office buildings, auditoriums, hos pitals, restaurants, department stores, and similar places. Membership Committee This committee reports an increase of 63 new members. Drives among the Machinists, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, the Government and Labor Agencies Committee Operating Engineers, and IB EW have Last October, this committee requested the helped boost the membership. Special efforts National Safety Council's Board of Direc have been made to build membership tors to arrange for a Safety Congress pro throughout Canada. Various members of the gram for administrators of state industrial committee have pledged themselves to make safety laws for the purpose of education special contacts in their areas to gain new ri and exchange of ideas. members through a personal approach. During the year the committee requested Just recently, the International Fire Fight and got National Safety Council board ac ers and International Brotherhood of Elec tion on a number of matters, including a trical Workers passed resolutions at their request to the U. S. Department of Labor respective conventions, urging their locals to that it continue its survey of existing safety affiliate with the National Safety Council. standards, staffing, functions, and perform ance of state labor departments. Occupational Health and Research >' Committee t International Labour Safety Committee This committee is currently working to ? This committee was established in April, get surveys made on heat, dust, and noise 1965, at the spring meeting of the Labor in all industries by the U. S. Department of Conference in Puerto Rico. One of the first Health, Education, and Welfare. activities of the new committee was to in form all major international labor organiza tions throughout the world of its existence and responsibilities, and inviting them to join the National Safety Council. Plans were drawn to give the committee more publicity and establish programs for the future. At their spring meeting they received authori zation to print a special leaflet describing the committee, to give impetus to its work They have been studying the results of a radiant heat survey requested by the United Auto Workers which was made in a large foundry in Kentucky by the Kentucky De partment of Occupational Health. The union employees gave 100 per cent cooperation in this study. Another current project of this committee is securing the proper labeling of all haz in promoting safety and giving assistance to ardous materials used in industry. 4 Labor Sessions Off-the-Job Driver Improvement Committee An off-the-job safety column has been appearing regularly in the Labor Safety Newsletter. The committee arranged for a special chart on "State Priority Traffic Needs" to be printed so that all labor delegates at tending this Safety Congress can obtain a set in condensed form and take the informa tion home with them and start working on promoting their own state's needs. The committee is continuing their empha sis on five points of traffic safety, started a year ago, and have taken on additional assignments, including: promoting and sup porting the Uniform Traffic Safety Code, the use of a flasher above school signs on streets and highways when the regulation is in effect, and safety emphasis on the use of motorcycles. Publications and Newsletter The committee arranged to have a special publicity form printed for labor delegates to mail to their hometown newspapers, report ing on their attendance at this year's Safety Congress. The Labor Safety Newsletter appeared on schedule throughout the year and contained many feature articles written by Labor Con ference members. The Fire Safety Commit tee faithfully supplied a series of articles and these have appeared on schedule. The off-the-job safety column is now a wellestablished regular feature of the newsletter. The committee has now started its task of reviewing the Safety Guide For Unions manual, preparatory to revising it before the next reprinting. This job will be completed during 1967. Public Relations Committee The committee was set up during our May conference meeting and is responsible for the union safety booth at the Safety Con gress. Radiation Safety Committee The committee is working on a booklet covering regulations, hazards, and safe work ing methods in the radiation industry. Tar get is February, 1967, for prepared material for assigned chapters so the committee will be able to review them at their spring meeting. The committee is studying the proposed federal grants-in-aid to states which comply with Atomic Energy Commission criteria on recording radiation exposure. The committee has been getting regular reports on the Canadian Labour Congress committee which is promoting radiation safety regulations in Canada. Safety Training Committee This committee is currently engaged in expanding their promotion of the home study course for union members. Promo tion has already been conducted on the Naational Safety Council Safety Training In stitute. The Federal Committee on Apprenticeship now includes safety in its recommended ap prenticeship standards. This was initiated by the Safety Training Committee. Plans are under way to develop a cam paign based on "Where's Charley;"' and a flyer will be developed to accompany each sticker so that drivers know the background of the idea. The committee received Labor Conference approval to promote a pledge entided "We Believe" to be used in union publications and on bulletin boards. WINNERS OF 1965 LABOR CONFERENCE SAFETY AWARDS Presented at labor session of 54th annual National Safety Congress and Exposition, October 24, 1966, by J. George Eichhorn, Outgoing Chairman of N SC Labor Conference; Grand Lodge Repr., International Assn, of Machinists, Daytona Beach, Fla. In 1960 the Labor Conference of the National Safety Council approved an award plan designed to give tangible recognition for outstanding safety efforts by union organization and individual members of the labor movement. 5 1966 National Safety Congress The first such awards were presented at the 1961 National Safety Congress, honoring union organizations and individuals for out standing efforts during 1960. The award for organizations has been designated the "Harry Read Memorial Award for Labor Organizations." This award was named in honor of the late assistant to the secretary-treasurer of AFLCIO for his dedicated work in promoting labor participation in organized safety, for his service on the National Safety Council's board of directors, and for his efforts as one of the founders of the Labor Conference. There are three categories for the "`Harry Read Memorial Award." These are : a) Award of Honor b) Award of Merit c ) :Award of Commendation Awards to individuals in the labor move ment are called "Citations" and are three in number: a) Citation for Distinguished Service to Safety b) Citation for Outstanding Service to Safety c) Citation for Meritorious Service to Safety This year we are pleased to announce that 15 of these coveted awards have been granted to nine union organizations and six individuals. Limited time prohibits my enu merating all the reasons why the awards were granted and I can only tell you about a few of the highlights for each organiza tion and person being honored. Undoubtedly some delegates represent local or international unions which are conducting an outstanding safety program and should have applied for an award, but did not. I want to urge you to be sure and send in your application in ample time to meet next year's deadline and receive an award for which you may be qualified. The award application and entry forms are automatically mailed to all labor organ ization members of the National Safety Council in January or February every year, and the deadline for submitting entries is July first of every year. Keep this in mind 6 and make it a point to submit your entry before July 1, 1967. One thing should be emphasized about every winner. They filled in the application and entry forms correctly, they answered all questions in detail, and they furnished ample supporting documentary evidence so the judges would have something tangible on which to base their decision. Award of Commendation to UNITED STEELWORKERS LOCAL NO. 2659 Southgate, Mich. The excellent accident prevention work of this local was clearly shown in the documen tary materials sent to the Awards Committee. They have an active joint labor-management safety committee, they investigate accidents, keep accident records, regularly inspect the plant premises, and are providing safety training for their members. The first student ever to graduate from the National Safety Council's home study course for unions is a member of this local. The Awards Committee warmly commends them for their efforts and particularly notes they have established a good foundation for a well-rounded safety program. Their con tracted company is McLouth Steel Corp. Award of Commendation to INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 1245 Oakland, Calif. This local keeps a continual safety sur veillance at union headquarters by evaluating accident reports, potential hazards reports, and accident investigation reports on a daily basis, and following up on problems as they arise. Help is requested from the appropriate governmental or other agency to see what regulations or standards are applicable. The local union staff is active in various localities in the promotion of community safety. One example has been their efforts in assisting in the establishing of criteria for ambulance service and recreational safety. Members also actively serve on state committees con cerned with safety rules and standards. Their members work in different utilities and power companies, different transit authorities, irri Labor Sessions gation districts and municipalities on the Pacific coast. Award of Commendation to INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AIR CAPITOL LODGE 1650 Riverside, Mo. This local is carrying on a strong program in safety education for its members, three of whom are currently taking the National Safety Council's home study training course for unions. Their joint labor-management safety committee functions most effectively, with agendas, minutes, and good follow-up. This local gives extensive publicity to safety. They are also active in community safety projects involving the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and the Red Cross. Their company is TWA Overhaul Base. Award of Commendation to UNITED STEELWORKERS LOCAL NO. 4108 Aurora, Minn. The Awards Committee noted the ex tremely well-rounded accident prevention pro gram for its members that is conducted by this local. Their meeting minutes, agendas, accident investigation reports, and accident records, as well as their regular safety in spection reports, reveal continuity and fol low-up on hazardous situations and unsafe practices. Extensive publicity is given to their safety program. Their contracted com pany is the Erie Mining Company of Pickands Mather Company. Citation for Meritorious Service to Safety to DUANE PLAGEMANN, General Safety Chairman, United Steelworkers Local No. 4108 of Aurora, Minn. Brother Plagemann has earned special rec ognition for individual efforts in his local union. The depth to which he goes into the problems and in organizing and coordinating the safety activities of the local are far be yond his required duties. He has set up a safety library in the union hall, and it is constantly growing. He develops outstanding reports covering specific details. He extended substantial efforts to have labor officials, safety people, and union members take part in safety award presentations. He has vol untarily taken safety training courses and distinguished himself in his studies and grades and, most importantly, has applied this knowledge to benefit and greatly assist, the safety program of his local union. Award of Merit to OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS LOCAL 4-447 Destrehan, La. This makes the second consecutive year that this local has earned an award, and it is gratifying to see that they have again qualified for recognition. They received an Award of Merit in 1964, and their efforts since then have assured the continuity that is so important in keeping a good safety program "going and growing." They gave 100 per cent support to the National Drivers Test this year. They earned an award from the city of New Orleans for promoting traffic safety. They arrange outstanding safety presentations during monthly meet ings in the union hall, show a variety of safety films, and constantly promote safety education through various effective mediums in their area. Award of Merit to UNITED STEELWORKERS LOCAL 6500 Sudbury, Ont., Canada In addition to an active general safety and health committee, this local has com mittees in each plant. They conduct schools and seminars at the local level, bringing in safety organization people, government of ficials, and other qualified instructors. They also send delegates to safety seminars, schools, and courses not only in their own province, but all across Canada. They regard safety training as a vital key in their over all program. They publicize safety through local television, plant bulletins, and their own paper. Members are also active in off-thejob and community safety projects. Award of Merit to BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS LOCAL NO. 3 Long Island City Our Awards Committee is granting recog nition to this local for the third consecutive year. 7 1966 National Safety Congress "Continuity" is the key word describing the activities of this local. They continue to build on their excellent safety program and these efforts'show constant improvement in achieving safety and health for their mem bers. They have excellent joint labor-man agement safety committees in the plants and bakeries in their area. They continue to give extensive publicity to safety, and have stepped up intensive safety training courses for their members. Citation for Distinguished Service to Safety to MURRAY MILLER, Coordinator, Safety Committee, Bakery and Confectionery Workers Local No. 3, Long Island City Brother Miller's individual efforts have been outstanding. He puts in 40 hours a week as a baker in the shop and is not an officer of the union. He coordinates four jo in t labor-management-government-plant safety committees on his own time and ex pense. He works with and is developing the Ladies Auxiliary Home Safety committee. He initiated an apprenticeship and training program to train 75 youths and has been elected to administer this project. He ini tiated and succeeded brilliantly in putting on a lung-test project as a joint effort between the New York State Department of Labor and his local union. The chests and respira tory systems of 728 bakery workers were checked -- the first such survey since 1911. Brother Miller has received for two con secutive years a "Citation for Outstanding Service to Safetj'." This year the Awards Committee is conferring upon him a "Cita tion for Distinguished Service to Safety." Citation for Outstanding Service to Safety to JO SEPH LEONARD, Safety Director, International Longshoremen's Assn., New York City For nine years Joe Leonard has not only performed admirably all the duties of his office, but has spent countless extra hours on special research, photographing violations, giving speeches before interested groups outside his union, writing magazine articles, newspaper interviews and features on safety. He has strongly promoted off-the-job safety, has arranged for safety training for all New York ILA stewards, documented and pre 8 sented testimony before Congressional hear ings relative to improving legislation perti nent to longshoremen's safety, and actively participates in various safety programs of the city's fire department and state and fed eral agencies. Citation for Outstanding Service to Safety to THEODORE MRUK, Textile Workers Union Local 190, Chicago Nick P. Kotos, who is past president of Textile Workers Union Local 190, is here to accept a citation on behalf of Brother Theodore Mruk, who died very recently. Brother Mruk's activities in safety have encompassed not only the company which employed him, and in his own local union as safety chairman, but also volunteer work with the Chicago Police Department's Safety Division; and the Heart of Chicago Com munity Council, where he served as safety director. Over the years he had been instru mental in establishing guide lines and pro cedures (as his local's safety representative) jointly with the management of Western Felt Works, with the result that safety prac tices and methods have greatly improved. He was one of the founders of the joint labor-management safety committee in the company, and made many contributions in the establishment of safety rules, as well as education of plant workers. His off-thejob safety activities have been notable in the organizations mentioned earlier. Award of Merit to UNITED STEELWORKERS LOCAL 4413 Magna, Utah This local has an active joint labor-man agement safety committee which meets twice a month; more often when necessary. They investigate accidents, keep accident records, and inspect work premises. Safety training is considered a vital part of this local's safety program, and members have attended different courses. For example, six members attended the 18-hour class on safety at the University of Utah. Off-the-job safety comes in for attention too. Members are active in Boy Scout safety programs, and participate in local community safety projects. Their contracted company is the Kennecott Copper Corp. Labor Sessions Citation for Outstanding Service to Safety to EUGENE L. WILLIAMS, Safety Chairman, United Steelworkers Local 4413, Magna, Utah In addition to his plant and union safety activities, Brother Williams is safety chair man for the local Lions club, the district Lions, and the Utah state Lions. He is safety chairman for the PTA of the com munity high school, he heads safety activi ties for the district area of Boy Scouts, and also for the state board of the Society for the Prevention of Blindness. He is serving in the House of Representatives for the state of Utah, on the Public Safety Committee. These are not just "positions" he holds. In each of these organizations he plans, pro motes, and conducts health and safety activi ties, and helps train leaders. He has com pleted many hours of safety training courses, which he has voluntarily taken, and puts this knowledge to work in the many areas where he serves. Award of Merit to SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA Brooklyn, New York The Seafarers International Union, both independently and in cooperation with oper ators of SIU-contracted vessels, conducts a number of inter-related and supplementary safety activities. Their members are re peatedly trained and retrained in safe work ing practices and emergency procedures. The Seafarers Union, besides carrying on edu cational and informational efforts aimed directly at its members, works with manage ment towards safety objectives and is a cen tral clearing house for the distribution of safety materials and information to be used by management. Citation fo r Outstanding Service to Safety to JOE ALGINA, International Safety Director, Seafarers International Union Despite the heavy work load of his regular duties as SIU safety director, and the wide spread geographical areas which he must cover, Joe Algina has found the time to prepare speeches and articles on safety, par ticipate in many safety conferences, conduct safety training, and handle off-the-job safety projects. One of them is handling safety activities for the local Boy Scouts in his community. A MODEL LABOR-MANAGEMENT MEDICAL PROGRAM By J. B. LOGUE, M.D. Medical Director, Welfare Plan, Seafarers' International Union, Brooklyn, New York Today I am here to speak to you about the physical examination program for sea men which is carried on by the Seafarers' International Union and its contracted ship ping companies. To' begin with, I might point out that the health of seamen has long been a matter of prime concern to the Seafarers' International Union, since union officials have known for many years that a healthy seaman is not only a safer seaman but a more efficient seaman and a better business risk, both from the standpoint of the company which employs him and from the standpoint of the union, which is under a contractual obliga tion to provide able and ready seamen to its companies and to see to it that the ships of these companies are properly manned and experience no sailing delays. . Because of this concern for its members' health, and because it was felt by both union and shipping company officials that the physical examinations then being given to seamen were inadequate, President Paul Hall of the SIU, some years ago, began to champion the idea of having diagnostic clin 9 1966 National Safety Congress ics established in the vicinity of each union hall where seamen could obtain complete and comprehensive examinations. Eventually, an agreement- was negotiated between the union and its contracted ship ping companies to establish such clinics through the Seafarers' Welfare Plan, and in April of 1957 the first of these clinics was opened in Brooklyn, adjacent to SIU headquarters. Since that time, clinics have been estab lished in every SIU shipping port on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, while on the west coast our affiliated union has established clinics in four ports where they examine our seamen while we, through a reciprocal arrangement, examine theirs. We also have two clinics in Puerto Rico, as well as clinics in all shipping ports on the Great Lakes--the newest of these being in Chicago at 1301 South Michigan Avenue. In toto, we now have 23 clinics in opera tion and we have also, since the first clinic was opened, expanded the scope of our services so that we now provide diagnostic examinations for the dependents of sea farers, as well as seafarers themselves, and also have a blood bank which makes blood available for members or their dependents in any hospital in the United States or Puerto Rico. The examinations at these clinics include a complete history, laboratory examination (urinalysis, hemoglobin, routine serology and other blood work as required) : chest X-ray, electrocardiograph, and a complete physical by a competent doctor. The findings are summarized, and a card given the seaman noting when he was examined and when he is to return. This card must be valid before a man can register for shipping. If treatment is necessary, the seaman is referred to the Public Health Service, and must procure a fit-for-duty letter before he can ship. For the dependents and others, we have a comprehensive insurance plan (medical & surgical benefit) under which they may be treated at any hospital facility of their choice. Since the opening of our first clinic in April, 1957 to April, 1966, we have ex amined the following number of personnel. 1. Seamen--80,676 10 2. U.I.W. and other affiliates--2,516 3. Dependents: Women--8,200 Children--6,544 What are the advantages of these clinics? It is generally accepted that an annual physical examination, thoroughly done, is one of the most important steps in preven tive medicine and safety for the person's health and welfare. The armed forces have had this type of examination for the past 40 years. Most big organizations provide their per sonnel with these facilities and, more and more, everyone has become aware of the necessity for such examinations. This' is necessary if disease conditions are to be discovered in their incipiency, when proper treatment or correction can be done before the disease has progressed beyond the aid of modern medicine and surgery. What diseases or conditions are found on these examinations? We have found practically all the con ditions and diseases one is subject to. However, there are great areas that are especially.important from the standpoint of regular periodic examinations. Early detection of cancer, wherever it might be. Drs. Fred C. Collier and Edmund A. Dowling in the study of breast cancer, state that early detection is certainly the most important factor in the prognosis. This is true of any cancer. In this regard, we plan to add mammo graphy ( a new method of X- ray study of the breast for cancer) to our armament arium in detecting breast cancer. We rou tinely use Pap smears in the early detection of uterine cancer. The alarming increase in cancer of lungs makes it inherent for every one to have a chest X-ray at least once a year. We are continually finding early cases of lung cancer by periodic chest X-ray, where it would be impossible to discover by any other method. After, symptoms develop in most cases of cancer, it is usually too late for life saving treatment. Tuberculosis is another area where early diagnosis not only saves the patient from prolonged treatment, if not, loss of life it self. Early detection also serves to prevent Labor Sessions him from spreading the disease to his family, shipmates and others. It is also essential that these cases be followed for indefinite periods to guard against a relapse or reccurrence. All luetics are continually given follow-up observation and/or treatment, until such time that there is no question as to their adequate care. The most prevalent conditions in which we are able to accomplish preventive and pallative medicine are in those cases of over weight, hypertension, and diabetic cases, all of which are frequently associated. These cases are advised as to regime to follow, and if medical treatment is required, they are referred to the Public Health Service hospital or, in the case of dependents, they are referred to their local doctor. Some of the individual cases might be of interest to you. One of our early cases was a young man who on routine examination by the doctor was found to have a small pea size area on his right testicle. He was advised to go to the Public Health Service for study. He showed umbrage that anything could be wrong with a young, virile man such as he. We however, insisted on a biopsy. The tumor was found to be malig nant, and an extensive operation was per formed. The Public Health Service hospital told him that he was very fortunate to have such a thorough physical examination. He is now, 6 years later, well and one of our best boosters. We have had many cases of cancer of the prostate discovered due to our routine ex amination, and conscientious insistance that any abnormal variation be thoroughly in vestigated. We recently examined a middle-aged man for shipping whose examination revealed a large, walnut size type of tumor in his upper lungs. He was referred to a good chest surgeon at Memorial hospital, who concurred with us that it was probably cancer, and required immediate surgery. After the opera tion, the surgeon called me and said that the pathological report showed cryptococ cosis. I told him that I was not familiar with this condition. He stated that he was not either, but he checked the literature, and there had only been a few cases re ported, and that the prognosis was grave. However, they had a new drug that they would try, but it was extremely toxic. The man is living after 2 years. Cryptoccus is a fungus type infection that is contacted through pigeon droppings. For children examinations, we have pedia tric specialists. We find, other than routine cases, various types of congenital deformi ties which, under proper care are correctible, such as club feet, eye muscle imbalance (cross eyes) and others. We had one boy who complained of pain in his hip. Upon examination, we discovered he had a hip condition known as LeggCalve-Perthes disease, which without proper care leads to severe deformity, if not an ankylosed hip. The boy today is a 6-foot young man with no discernible limp and no pain. Included in these examinations, we see that the children receive proper inoc ulations such as diphtheria, polio, tetanus, etc. We have Gynecologists to examine the women dependents, and screen each espe cially for cervical cancer with Pap smears, as well as other routine tests. We are constantly finding pathology of one type or another. Just a few weeks ago, we had a woman dependent who had an inflammatory lesion of the outer breast which proved to be tubercular. Just one of the unusual cases. In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that a "well man is a safe man," well, not only physically, but free from worry about his family left behind. A person who is sick, or in poor health is well known to be accident prone. This is due to lack of physical vigor, or agility to cope with ordinary emergencies that a well man would readily react to safety as he is more prone to be thinking about his own condition to give his full attention to the job he is endeavoring to accomplish, in other words, his work. We also feel very strongly in regard to the dependents' health program. With this program, a man can go to sea without worry with a feeling of well being that while he is away, his family is adequately cared for in case of illness and, thus, he is a better and safer seaman. 11 1966 National Safety Congress HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES WHEN WORKING WITH EPOXY RESINS AND SOLVENTS By CHARLES W. WYMAN Senior Staff Engineer, Industrial Hygiene and Safety Engineering, Western Electric Co., Inc., Hawthorne Works, Chicago Epoxy resin systems are composed of two or more reactive components: uncured resin, and a curing agent generally referred to as the "hardener." Uncured liquid resins have a consistency of heavy syrup and in this form have limited use; however, when mixed with a hard ener, a chemical reaction takes place which converts it to a hard, mechanically strong material with excellent adhesion, cohesion, chemical, and electrical resistance properties. Other additives to the mix may include liquids or solids to produce desired physical properties. Epoxy resin applications include potting of electrical components, re-inforced plastic and metal laminates, foundry patterns, form ing tools and dies, adhesives for metal and plastic bonding, appliance finishes, floor and surface coatings. Let us look at the hazards problems. In the December, 1959, issue of the Amer ican Medical Association's Archives of In dustrial Health, the following statement was made: "Epoxy resins are causing more oc cupational dermatitis than any other new chemical material within the past 10 years" ! The first users of epoxy resins did not appreciate the delayed irritating effect resins and hardeners could have on the skin. Work ers got the material on their hands and arms during mixing, pouring, and spreading operations. Since the irritant has a delayed rather than an immediate effect on most people, a few days to several weeks elapsed before severe cases of skin irritation de veloped. Recent developments of new hardening agents of low toxicity and minimum irritant potential have somewhat reduced the der matitis hazard. However, the use of these new hardeners does not eliminate the need for following prescribed precautions to avoid contact with the material. Good housekeep 12 ing, personal cleanliness, and ventilation are still essential. Basic resins, reactive curing agents, reac tive diluents, and modifiers are mild to strong primary skin irritants, and some have sensitizing properties. The volatile materials given off during compounding, handling, and curing opera tions can cause irritation of the eyes, upper respiratory tract, and lungs if the concen tration of the vapors is excessive. No sys temic intoxication of any significance has been associated with exposure to epoxy resins. Contact dermatitis is the common type of skin irritation produced by epoxy resins. The irritation appears at the point of contact and may vary from slight reddening with mild itching to a rash or small eruptions with intense itching. In severe cases there may be open or weeping sores with or with out swelling. If an emploj'ee contracting a mild case of contact dermatitis is removed from the ex posure and receives the necessary medical care, the irritation will usually clear up in a few days and the employee may return to the job without ill effects; that is, if he is careful to avoid further contact with the irritant. In severe cases the employee may become temporarily disabled and may or may not be returned to the job. Sensitization dermatitis is the less common type of dermatitis. The term is used to describe an allergic type of reaction from a sensitizing agent. The sensitizing agent may not affect the individual on first contact, but after continued exposure for an extended period a dermatitis suddenly develops. After sensitization occurs, the slightest exposure to the sensitizing agent may precipitate a severe reaction. Irritation may spread from the point of contact to other parts of the body and be accompanied by swelling and other systemic reactions. Labor Sessions Once sensitized, the skin tolerance is so reduced that the individual develops derma titis from much lower concentrations than would have affected him before sensitization. Sensitization dermatitis is generally con sidered to be the most serious of the two types. Sensitized individuals can seldom re turn to work with the sensitizing agent, and may be more susceptible to other irritants. Exposure Causing Dermatitis. The most severe exposure comes from direct contact with the hardener and with the uncured resin-hardener mix. Exposure can result from contact with the volatile materials which are given off during the compounding, handling, and curing of these resins. The volatile materials given off dur ing oven curing can be very irritating. Cured resins are not always inert. If an excess of hardener is used or if the curing action is incomplete, there may be appre ciable unreacted hardener left in the finished part. Dust from finishing operations such as grinding, filing, sanding, etc. on such parts may contain sufficient uncombined hardener to irritate the skin of some individuals. It is obvious that the best way to control epoxy dermatitis is to prevent skin contact with the hardener and uncured resins. No contact -- no dermatitis! Fillers. Fillers used in epoxy mixes can also pre sent problems. Asbestos, mica, silica, flour, and fiber glass, if inhaled, can cause irrita tion of the respiratory passages. Silica and asbestos are recognized toxic dusts having harmful effects on lung tissues. Local exhaust ventilation may be necessary if op erations require extended exposure. For ex posures of short duration a dust type respi rator will provide the needed protection. Fiber glass tends to fragment into small spicules; these may be caught in the ridges and folds of the skin. If they work their way into the skin they produce severe itch ing and sometimes foreign body reactions. Secondary infections may result from rub bing or scratching the affected area. Grinding, filing, sanding, drilling, and sim ilar operations on resins using these fillers can also produce dusts that can cause me chanical skin irritation. Washing the hands and arms frequently with "scrubber" type granular soap to remove these particles be fore they work their way into the skin has been found to be a good protective measure. Experience has shown that the incidence of dermatitis from epoxy resins can be sat isfactorily controlled by: 1. Good engineering 2. Education of supervisor and worker 3. Good housekeeping 4. Protective clothing 5. Job placement and medical service Good Engineering. Select hardeners, modifiers, and fillers hav ing the least irritating and toxic effect. Arrange epoxy operations to minimize traffic through the work area. Provide adequate exhaust hoods fo r com pounding, mixing, dipping, laminating, cur ing, etc., where large quantities or continuous operations are involved. Provide properly ventilated ovens ex hausted outside the building when curing is done at elevated temperatures. Provide well ventilated areas for curing at room temperature. Provide hand washing facilities in close proximity to work area. Employee Education. The irritating and toxic effects of the resin and hardener should be explained to the employee. The necessity of keeping the hardener and uncured resin from the skin must be stressed. Handling procedures should be established and demonstrated showing how direct con tact can be avoided. Employees should be cautioned to avoid careless handling that will result in the con tamination of tools, fixtures, equipment, and work surfaces by hardeners or uncured resins. Personal protective equipment such as pro tective creams, rubber finger cots, rubber or cloth gloves, sleeves, aprons, face shields, safety glasses, etc., must be worn and kept in good condition. Good personal cleanliness is the best pre ventative measure for eliminating skin irri tation. The hands should be washed with mild soap before and after work and before 13 1966 National Safety Congress going to the toilet. If hardening or liquid resin should contact the skin it should be wiped off and the affected area washed with soap and water immediately. The use of solvents should be reduced to the absolute minimum. Suitable rubber gloves should be worn for all cleaning work in which solvents are used. The wearing of rubber gloves does not obviate the need for absolute cleanliness. Contaminated solvent should be disposed of at once in a suitable safety container. Contaminated solvent must not be used to clean tools or equipment. Employees should be warned against touch ing their face or other skin areas with hands or gloves which may be contaminated. Smoking or eating on the job should not be permitted, to eliminate the possibility of contaminating the face and lips with irri tants. Housekeeping. Meticulous housekeeping standards should be established and enforced. Bench tops, work surfaces and, in some instances, certain floor areas should be cov ered with disposable paper, changed at least each shift of operation. An adequate supply of paper towels should be available so that small splashes or drips of hardener or uncured resin can be wiped up immediately. These should be disposed of in a special closed container specifically provided for this purpose. Similarly, paper cups used for mixing or holding resin should be disposed of as soon as empty to prevent contamination of the work area. Protective Equipment and Clothing. Personal protective equipment items and clothing must never be considered an ade quate substitute for good engineering, good housekeeping, and a careful, informed work er. However, if used intelligently and main tained in good condition, personal protective equipment can be very effective in minimiz ing exposure to irritants and toxic vapors. The personal protective equipment needed for safe operation will vary widely depend ing on the process and exposure. The need for such equipment should be determined by a careful study of the operation as well as a review of injury experience data. Lanolin and silicon base protective creams applied to the hands and arms before start .14 ing work provide some degree of protection against skin irritation. They leave an oily surface to which the resin will not firmly adhere and facilitate removal when washing with soap and water. Plastic coated fabric and disposable paper sleeves have been found to give good arm protection against minor splashes and spills. For light exposures such as potting or cementing of small electrical components where finger dexterity is essential, rubber finger cots or tight fitting fabric gloves may be adequate if reasonable skill and care is used. Fabric gloves should be removed and discarded just as soon as there is visual con tamination of their outer surface. A fter re moving the gloves, the employee should wash his hands and arms, re-apply protective cream, and put on new gloves before re suming work. Hand mixing and dispensing of resins usually require the wearing of rubber gloves. Particular care must be taken in putting on and taking off gloves and sleeves to assure the irritant material is not transferred to their inner surface where it will be in direct contact with the skin. Coated fabric or disposable paper aprons are generally provided, not only for body protection against occasional minor splashes or spills but also to prevent permanent dam age to the employee's personal work clothing. For operations such as laminating, casting, and surface coating where the nature of the work is such that an employee cannot avoid body contact with the uncured resin, suit able outer work garments are generally pro vided and maintained by the employer. When a large volume of epoxy must be handled in poorly ventilated or confined areas, a chemical type respirator or air supplied breathing apparatus may be required to pro tect the worker from the inhalation of hazardous vapors. Face and eye protection in the form of face shields or safety glasses may be re quired for compounding, mixing, and dis pensing operations where pressure systems are used or where there is a splashing haz ard. Hardeners and uncured resins are ex tremely damaging to the eye. If the eye is affected, it should be flushed promptly with plenty of water for at least IS minutes and medical attention obtained for it at once. Labor Sessions Job Placement and Medical Service. Employees should be screened before they are placed on epoxy resin work to exclude those who are known to have sensitivity or allergy to irritants as well as those who are prone to acne or eczema. Whenever dermatitis develops due to epoxy resin exposure, the employee should be sent immediately to the nurse or plant physician with a note to indicate there has been ex posure to epoxy resin. The decision regard ing whether the employee should be placed on temporary or permanent restriction away from epoxy should be left to the physician. To summarize, basic resins, reactive cur ing agents, diluents, and modifiers are mild to strong summary skin irritants. Some have sensitizing properties. Volatile materials given off during com pounding, handling, and curing operations ir ritate the eyes, nasal passage and lungs, if excessive. Certain fillers used in epoxy mixers are skin irritants and may have harmful effects on the lungs if the exposure is excessive. Experience has shown that the incidence of dermatitis and systematic injury can be satisfactorily controlled through (1) good engineering, (2) education of the supervisor and worker, (3) good housekeeping, (4) protective equipment and clothing, and (S) job placement and medical service. Hazards Associated With the Use of Organic Solvents. Twenty-five years ago there were only a few dozen organic solvents commonly used in industry. Today, hundreds of different solvents and solvent blends are in use not only in indus trial plants but in commercial establishments, laboratories, offices, and the home. Typical applications include degreasing metal parts ; extraction of fats, oils, and waxes ; dry cleaning; formulation of paints, varnishes, and lacquers ; paint removers ; adhesives, and manufacture of synthetic fabrics, insecti cides and cosmetics. The use of organic solvents presents three potential hazards : 1) Health 2) Skin Irritation (Dermatitis) 3) Fire and Explosion Health Hazards. The extent of the health hazard depends on several factors: relative toxicity of the material, how it is to be used, how the worker is exposed and vapor concentration. Toxicity refers to the harmful systemic ef fects resulting from the inhalation of vapors or from absorption through the skin. These include effects on the upper respiratory pas sages, lungs, and the nervous and digestive systems. All organic solvents are potentially in jurious to the health of workers unless used with proper and adequate controls. "Threshhold limit values" recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists are the generally ac cepted guide to toxicity. The threshhold limit value for a particular solvent indicates the maximum vapor in air concentration to which most workers can be repeatedly ex posed day after day without ill effects. Following are threshhold limits for some commonly used solvents: Solvent Parts Per Million Acetone-Ethyl alcohol 1000 Petroleum naphtha-Stoddard Solvent 500 Methyl chloroform 350 Coal tar naphtha-Methyl alcohol-Toluene 200 Trichlorethylene-Perchlorethyl- ene-Turpentine 100 Carbon disulfide 20 Carbon tetrachloride 10 Since threshhold limit values may be based on various effects including discom fort, respiratory irritation, narcosis, as well as acute poisoning, they should not be used for a direct comparison of toxicity. Short exposure to some solvent vapors can produce eye and respiratory irritation, drow siness, dizziness, nausea, headache, and lack of muscular coordination, but cause no last ing and harmful systemic effects. Others, such as carbon tetrachloride and benzol, may seriously affect or damage the blood, lungs, liver, kidneys, and gastro-intes tinal tract and may cause permanent damage. Acute solvent poisoning results from breathing high concentrations of solvent va pors for a short period of time. Such exposures may result from accidental spil- JS 1966 National Safety Congress lage, overflow of tanks, or cleaning opera tions in confined, poorly ventilated areas of tanks. Chronic poisoning results from repeated daily exposure over an extended period. To evaluate the health hazard from solvent exposure one must know: composition and toxicity of the solvent, vapor concentration in the work area, and duration of employee exposure. Instruments and analytical methods are available for sampling the air and determin ing the vapor concentration. Such determina tions can best be made by an industrial hygienist or a qualified chemist. The results of such determinations can be compared with the recommended threshhold limit values for the solvent in question. If the vapor concentration in the work area exceeds the recommended value corrective action is indicated. Corrective action necessary to assure safe operation might include: a change to a sol vent of lower toxicity, a suitable enclosure and local exhaust, better general room venti lation, or providing employee with approved respirator or air-supplied mask. The chlorinated solvents -- methyl chloro form, trichlorethylene, perchlorethylene and carbon tetrachloride--because of their non flammable and high solvent properties, have been used for some time in industry. It is obvious that carbon tetrachloride, be cause of its very low (10 parts per million) threshhold limit value and accumulative harmful effects on the body, should only be used with adequate exhaust ventilation and carefully controlled handling procedures. Trichlorethylene, with a threshhold limit of 100 parts per million, is being used ex tensively in vapor degreasers for cleaning metal parts. These machines, if properly designed, operated, and maintained, do an excellent job with little solvent vapor hazard. However, if improperly operated and main tained they can quickly release large amounts of trichlorethylene vapors in the work area and present a serious health hazard. The vapors have a narcotic effect similar to chloroform and in high concentrations can cause serious injury and death. Leaking pumps or valves, failure of the water supply to the cooling coils, overload ing, or too fast a cleaning cycle, cleaning 16 cup shaped parts or parts with blind holes, tightly packed parts which prevent good drainage are a few of the conditions which can liberate harmful solvent vapor concen trations in the work area. It is essential that the parts be dry when they come out of the degreasers. Trichlorethylene vapors in the presence of an open flame break down into very toxic vapors. Welding and similar torch opera tions should not be performed in close prox imity to vapor degreasers. Under no circumstances should an em ployee be allowed to enter a degreaser that has not been drained, cooled, sludge removed, and then aerated. An employee working in side such a degreaser should always be under constant observation by another person on the outside. The use of trichlorethylene for removing oils or waxes from floors, benches, etc., should not be condoned. Methyl chloroform, with a threshhold limit of 300 parts per million, can generally be used safely for occasional and intermittent small cleaning operations provided the work is done in well ventilated areas. Repeated or prolonged exposure may re sult in mild irritation from its defatting action on the skin. Solvent resistant gloves should be provided. Dermatitis. Solvents cause contact dermatitis because they dissolve and remove the natural oils and fat needed to keep the outer layer of skin soft, flexible, and healthy. With continued exposure to fat solvents, the skin becomes dry and scaly. Cracks and fissures develop which allow the solvent to penetrate and irritate the sensitive underlying tissue. Fire and Explosion Hazards. Many solvents present a fire and explosion hazard. In dealing with this hazard one must keep in mind that it is the solvent vapor-air mixture that burns, not the liquid solvent! Flash Point, The relative fire hazard rating of a solvent is based on the solvent's flash point. The flash point is the lowest temperature at which vapor is given off in sufficient quan tities to mix with air and catch fire from a Labor Sessions source of ignition. The lower the flash point, the greater the fire hazard. We are concerned particularly with the hazards of solvents having flash points under 140F. Those with flash points at or below 100F are rated extremely flammable be cause flammable vapor-air mixtures can be present at most room temperatures. Typical are acetone, alcohol, petroleum naphtha, and turpentine. Solvents with flash points above 100F but below 140F carry a flammable rating but do not form flammable vapor-air mix tures at ordinary room temperatures. They do form flammable vapor-air mixtures when heated to over 100F. Kerosene, petroleum spirits, and Stoddard solvent fall in this group. Explosive Limits. When combustible vapor is mixed with air in proper proportions, ignition will cause an explosion. For each flammable liquid there is both a minimum and maximum vapor in air con centration which propagate a flame and cause an explosion on contact with a source of ignition. The minimum concentration is known as the lower flammable or explosive limit and the maximum, the upper explosive limit. The upper and lower explosive limits for most solvents and solvent mixtures can be obtained from the supplier or insurance underwriters. Test instruments known as "flammable vapor indicators" or explosimeters are avail able for checking vapor-air concentrations at the work place. These instruments are direct reading and the values contained are expressed as a percentage of the lower or upper flammable or explosive limit. Toxicity Control Measures. Education is one of the most important aspects of solvent exposure control. Su pervisors must know the composition of the solvent, its toxicity, and precautions which must be taken to use it safely; this informa tion must be passed on to the worker. Toxicity data can be obtained from sup pliers as well as from data sheets issued by the National Safety Council. Proper labeling of all containers to meet Federal, state, and local requirements is es sential. The label should include not only the chemical or trade name of the solvent but also the nature of the health hazard, precautions to be observed, and, in the case of highly poisonous or toxic materials, first aid and emergency treatment. Substitution of solvents with lower toxicity for a more hazardous one is always a possi bility7. Enclosure of the process or equipment is one of the most effective means of minimiz ing the escape of solvent vapors into the workroom. When highly flammable or toxic solvents are involved, local exhaust ventila tion may be required. Local exhaust ventilation designed to re move solvent vapors at their source can be used to advantage for many operations as less exhaust capacity is required and result in low air handling and heating costs. General room ventilation may be sufficient when comparatively small amounts of the less toxic solvents are vaporized. In general, ventilation sufficient to keep the vapor con centrations below the hazardous health level will automatically7assure that the vapor con centration will be below the flammable or explosive limit. Dermatitis Control Measures. Personal protective equipment should be provided wherever it is impracticable to control exposure by other means. Goggles, face shields, respirators, solvent resistant gloves, sleeves, aprons, special shoes or cloth ing may provide the needed protection de pending upon the exposure. Set up operations involving solvents so as to minimize employee contact with liquid solvent and vapors. Protective creams are of value in pre venting solvents from removing natural oils of the skin. The protective cream selected should be resistant to the soh7ent being used. Employees should be cautioned against washing their hands and arms in solvents. Waterless hand cleaners are generally quite effective in removing materials on which soap and water is ineffective. Fire and Explosion Control Measures. All solvent containers should be labeled to show contents, hazards, and precautions to be observed. Federal, state, and local label ing laws should be observed. 17 1966 National Safety Congress Highly flammable solvents should be trans ported and used in approved safety contain ers equipped with flash-back arrestors. Dip and wash tanks should be equipped with fire screens or fusible link covers. Supply tanks and portable containers should be electrically connected and effectively grounded during filling operations. Use pumping systems rather than gravity flow for transferring solvents. Arrange for safe and approved disposal of waste solvent. Solvents must not be dumped in to sewer or drainage systems; never in scrap or rubbish containers. All sources of ignition should be elimi nated from areas where fiammables are stored or used. This should include open flames, static electricity, excessive heat, and sparks from electrical devices. Good housekeeping is essential where sol vents are stored, handled, and used. Spills should be cleaned up promptly by workers wearing necessary personal protective equip ment. Solvent soaked rags or absorbent should be placed in closed metal containers and removed daily from the plant. To summarize, the use of organic solvents present three potential hazards : health, skin irritation (dermatitis), and fire and ex plosion. Acute or chronic systemic poisoning may result from breathing excessive vapors or from absorption through the skin. Solvents cause contact dermatitis because they remove the natural oils from the skin and cause chemical irritation of the sensitive underlying tissues. Flammable solvents present a potential fire and explosion hazard when used in close proximity to sources of ignition. Potential health, dermatitis, and fire and explosion hazards can be controlled through : 1. Educating supervisors and workers so that they know the hazards associated with the handling and use of solvents, and the importance of following safe use procedures. 2. Providing safe equipment and processes with necessary enclosures and exhaust ventilation to assure safe operation. 3. Supplying the worker with any needed personal protective equipment or cloth ing to protect him from exposure to toxic vapors and minimize contact with the liquid solutions. REFERENCES For further information of the properties of solvents, health and fire hazards, evalua tion and control of exposures : Handbook of Organic Industrial Solvents, Technical Guide No. 6, National Association of Mutual Casualty Companies, 20 N. Wacker Drive, Chicago, 111. Hazardous Chemicals Data NFPA No. 49M, National Fire Protection Association, 6 Batterymarch, Boston, Mass. Threshold Limit Values for 1966, Ameri can Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1014 Broadway, Cincinnati, 0. National Safety Council Data Sheets, Na tional Safety Council, 425 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, 111. Flammable Liquid Trade Name Index, N FP A 325A, National Fire Protection As sociation, 60 Batterymarch Street, Boston, Mass. 18 Labor Sessions THE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN TREATING INJURIES OR DISEASES CAUSED BY EPOXY RESINS AND SOLVENTS By M. B. VYHNAK, M.D. Chief of Emergency Department, Western Electric Company, Inc., Hawthorne Works, Chicago, Illinois In treating injuries or diseases caused by epoxy resins and solvents, our approach is not to treat them but to prevent them as much as possible. Charles Wyman outlined for you the dangers and the hazards involved in deal ing with these offenders, and offenders they are. For this reason, it is very important to have the full cooperation of all those who have anything to do with these jobs. It must be a team effort. The team includes: set-up engineer, prod uct engineer, safety coordinator, industrial hygienist, and a well informed and cautious employee and line supervisor who does not tolerate any laxity or any short cuts, even when the production needs are pressing. I have not yet mentioned a medical man; he is also important because he knows the human machine and its limitations in both good and ill health. The medical department's responsibility in prevention is to hire or to place on these jobs the right individual, after other members of the team have identi fied and brought under control the involved risks. As both the epoxy resins and the solvents are known to be trouble makers for the worker's skin, it is logical not to have on these jobs anyone whose skin disease or condition might be adversely affected by them. Certain solvents are systemic poisons and might be rapidly fatal even to a healthy in dividual if massively absorbed. These same solvents might cause a slower but very serious damage to the liver and the kidney. For this reason, it is important not to con sider for such job assignment anyone whose general resistance is lowered by a debilitating disease or whose liver or kidney functions are impaired. It is not enough to establish fitness to work with solvents and not reevaluate it on a regular basis. We screen these employees every three months by updating their medical history, by inquiring about their tolerance of the job, by taking their vital signs, by test ing their urine for excretion of the metab olites of certain solvents, and by giving them a full evaluation if any abnormality is noted. We also give them a full evaluation routinely, once a year, even if the screening is normal. This evaluation includes a com plete physical examination and laboratory tests directed to the early discovery of im pairment of the liver and the kidney func tions. The epoxy resins do not require a close medical supervision after establishing the initial fitness. The employee himself and his supervisor detect easily the signs and symptoms of irritation and thus the need for medical evaluation and eventual treat ment. The irritation might involve the skin, the eyes, or the upper respiratory passages depending on the state of these resins (solid, liquid, pulverized, or vaporized). In case these resins are mixed or diluted with harm ful solvents, the same periodic evaluation is indicated as with the solvents. This, I would say, is the most important part of our job and our medical organiza tion's contribution to a concerted team effort as required in these conditions. With this team effort, the necessity for treatment was reduced very markedly. I would say it represents a strict minimum. For this reason, when we discussed the title of this paper, I suggested we consider the skin reactions only. However, the subject is presented in a wider scope and so I will review all necessary measures. The injury sustained by the worker can be 1) poisoning, and 2) inflammation of the skin and mucosa. Poisoning cannot be caused under indus trial conditions by epoxy resins unless they are mixed or diluted in solvents. The sol 19 1966 National Safety Congress vents are the only offenders. The most dan gerous are trichlorethylenes and carbon tetrachlorides. Poisoning occurs through in gestion or absorption. Absorption in most cases is due to the inhalation of vapors or fumes and very seldom is it due to penetra tion through the skin. Poisoning can be acute, through a single overwhelming exposure, or chronic through a sustained and, by the body, uncompensated exposure over a longer period of time. Acute poisoning has to be suspected any time a significant exposure is reported and in the presence of the signs and symptoms of a serious irritation of the central nervous system: drowsiness, dizziness, tremors, nerv ousness, paresthesias, delirium, or loss of consciousness. The very serious signs need not develop immediately; they might appear even 24 hours after the exposure. As acute poisoning might be rapidly fatal through a circulatory or respiratory failure, hemorrhagic pulmo nary edema, or shock and later through dam age to the liver and kidney, it is urgent to act fast. First aid should include removal of the victim from the contaminated area, rem o v al of co n ta m in a te d clothing, and cleansing of the skin while artificial respira tion and/or oxygen is administered, if neces sary. If the solvent was ingested, vomiting should be provoked if the patient is con scious. This should be followed by gastric lavage. Intravenous fluids should be started if available and the patient taken to the hospital for further treatment. Chronic or milder cases of poisoning are usually characterized by a combination of central nervous system and digestive irrita tion : headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps or colic, diarrhea with or without blood. Such a condition might be properly eval uated in a well equipped medical depart ment and the patient does not necessarily need to be hospitalized. He should be re moved temporarily from his job, given symp tomatic treatment, and followed closely until his condition returns to normal, including the laboratory tests. We require that the tests be absolutely norma] for at least two con secutive weeks before the patient is dis charged from observation. Injuries to the skin are frequently seen 20 with both the solvents and the epoxy resins. Although the treatment might be similar, there are, however, some differences deserv ing our consideration. The worker reporting a dermatitis caused by solvents comes, usually, with very ad vanced lesions (completely dried out skin with scaling, fissures, infection) while the epoxy victim reports very early with com plaint of itching, very often without any noticeable skin rash. The solvents, despite their sensitizing potential, are, most of the time, irritants only. The employee, for this reason, is practically always able to return to his job as soon as his condition is brought under the control. The epoxy resins are both irritants and sensitizers to the skin, and this almost equally. The sensitized skin will react violently even to a minimal exposure. Such an employee faces the loss of his jo b ; his employer, a trained worker. Dermatitis due to solvents is caused most of the time by unacceptable practices, and for this reason represents a serious break down in the operation for which both the employee and the employer are responsible. Some epoxy skin reactions can be explained by such a break down. But the serious, truly allergic cases are due to simple incompati bility between the product and its handler. Incompatibility might arise shortly after placement but might also develop after many years on such a job. This incompatibility is much more frequent with epoxy resins than with the solvents. There is absolutely no reason to justify the direct contact of the skin with the sol vents. Such contact can always be avoided, this cannot always be done with epoxy resins. Protective equipment can take care of most of the contact but not all of it. Western Electric Company is a very pro gressive employer as far as safety and hj'giene at work are concerned. We are, however, far from being perfect. The other day, despite all rules to avoid the direct contact of the skin with the solvents, we found, in a very prominent place in the shop, a large, bright red metallic container with a health-conscious label: "For Hands Only." It contained naphtha. I just wonder why the label did not include: "Do not con taminate with parts and tools." Let us examine what the solvents and the epoxy resins can do to the skin. The Labor Sessions different kinds of damage will require a corresponding medical treatment. Both can cause a contact dermatitis (which is a localized inflammation appearing on the areas which were directly in contact with the agent called irritant). Both can cause a truly allergic dermatitis based on sensitiza tion and resulting in complete incompatibility between the host and the causative agent. Such dermatitis might cover the individual with hives all over the body, even though exposure was infinitesimal. Much more seri ous manifestations might arise, such as suf focation due to laryngeal edema or anaphy lactic shock, a frequent cause of sudden death, While the contact dermatitis might be clinically very advanced and require aggres sive treatment, the worker usually can re turn to his normal job when recovered or as soon as his dermatitis is brought under control. Very often, the new employees on these jobs are permanently removed from these assignments. This is not necessary; it is, in fact, wrong. In their cases, the contact der matitis is usually the result of two factors; improper handling, and insufficient adaption of the skin to the product. Both will im prove if given the chance. There are few people whose skin will not adversely react to the incompletely cured epoxy resins if sufficiently exposed. The new employees have to be temporarily restricted if Contact der matitis is serious, and permanently restricted if their skin becomes sensitized by the resins. In fact, mild contact dermatitis "hard ens" the skin and will make it more re sistant in the future. If I had to describe the lesions of early epoxy contact dermatitis, I would say they resemble superficial burns in their redness but give an itching instead of a burning sen sation. The more advanced stages give the appearance of a typical eczema, weeping or dry, acute or chronic. It is a different story with contact der matitis caused by the solvents: 1. They dissolve the keratin layer of the skin and attack the prickle cells, causing redness and blister formation. 2. They remove sebaceous and fat content of deeper layers as well as the outside lubri cation of the skin called acid mantle. With this, the skin becomes dry and scaling, loses its pliability, and finally cracks up forming more or less deep fissures. 3. Such dry skin with fissures gets very easily infected because the skin is always exposed to germs which cannot do their job as long as the skin remains intact. Before thinking about therapy, we should think how to make it unnecessary. Cleanli ness and good maintenance care of the skin and especially of the exposed areas (hands and forearms) is the first step. By main tenance care is meant the replacement of natural oils of the skin removed by drying agents be it extrinsic (water, soap, deter gents, other chemicals) or intrinsic (age, disease). With age, the skin changes. This ageing of the skin is speeded up if the skin is allowed to dry out through external fac tors. For this reason, we should all give some attention to our hands before bed time in addition to water and soap ; hand cream applied at this time will not be washed off during our sleeping hours and will sufficiently penetrate and recondition the skin for the next day. The treatment of contact dermatitis is essentially the same in principle, regardless of the causing agent, and is chosen according to the stage of dermatitis. A mild case of contact dermatitis caused by solvents and characterized by simple dry ness with superficial scaling needs simple precautionary measures, as outlined by In dustrial Hygienist, and more frequent use of heavier hand creams. A mild case of epoxy dermatitis with erythema and/or itching does not need necessarily any treatment; just competent follow up observation to prevent it from progressing into a more advanced form. We mentioned sooner the "hardening" or adapta tion period of the skin of the new employees on the job. By not treating them, we might help this individual in the future because he might not respond by the same reaction to similar stress. The acutely inflamed skin with weeping eczema and blister formation needs first a soothing effect of cold, wet compresses prepared in a solution 1 :100 of aluminum acetate or boric acid or 1 :4000 of potassium permanganate, especially if infection is pres 21 1966 National Safety Congress ent. Wet compresses should not be applied for a long duration as they can cause macera tion of the skin (15-30 minutes, four times a day, is usually sufficient). Large vesicles containing fluid should be opened and drained but not removed as their wall serves as an excellent natural dressing for the underlying skin layers. In between the application of these wet compresses corticosteroid lotions should be applied. Lotions mix with secretions, and for this reason reach the injured skin. (Oint ments, with their fatty base, remain separated from the skin by the interposition of these secretions). Dry lesions respond relatively well to ointments containing boric acid, zinc oxide, or calamine. They usually respond much better to the cortisone ointments. The dry ness of these lesions is at the same time better treated by the fatty base of ointments. Most cases of contact dermatitis do not need to be treated internally; local treat ment is usually sufficient. The itching might be very bothersome for some people. Antihistaminics by mouth seem to give good relief to these patients, and very often accelerate recovery. For this reason, they might be indicated in the early phase. With this treatment contact dermatitis improves rather rapidly, provided the cause of irritation was removed. For this reason, it is very important, in any more serious case of contact dermatitis, to remove the employee from any environment where he could be exposed to the irritating agent. The frankly serious cases should not be allowed to work at all, and cautioned to stay away from any possible irritation to the skin. This includes the use of soaps, detergents, etc., at home. It is rare that under such management, contact dermatitis would not clear promptly. Should this happen, a search for a not com pletely eliminated contact with irritating agent or agents should be considered. Should improvement be slow, corticosteroids given by mouth might be of great help. In case of superimposed infection, anti biotics by mouth or injection should be given. The choice of antibiotic should be made by identification of the germs and their sensi tivities to the drug. The final chapter of dermatitis caused by solvents and epoxy resins is the truly allergic type with generalized, systemic re action as the most serious form of injury. The treatment is : 1. Absolute removal of the patient from the causing agent and its environment. 2. Medication by mouth as outlined for contact dermatitis; however, the antihistaminics should be at least given if corti costeroids are not urgent. 3. Local treatment might or, more often might not, be needed. 4. Such an employee should not in the future be exposed to the causing agent un less the desensitization was successfully com pleted. As the desensitization is always very difficult to carry out and relatively seldom is successful (specialists in allergy might not agree with me), I prefer to place a permanent restriction on such an employee and have him transferred to another job. I would be for the desensitization attempt if the well being of the employee and/or his family were in jeopardy. 22 Labor Sessions JOINT SESSION WITH CIVIC LEADERSHIP, FARM, HOME, RELIGIOUS, WOMEN'S AND YOUTH CONFERENCES THE HAZARDS OF GLASS: A DEMONSTRATION By M. N. ZEOLLA Residential Marketing Dept., Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. I want to comment briefly on the title given to my presentation, "The Hazards of Glass." This title must create in your minds a frightful picture of glass. If this is so, then I want to add a few lines to that picture, some color, and some curves, so that it now takes on a new look and presents glass in a truer perspective. The problems we sometimes encounter with glass (as with many other useful products) are the results of either improper selection, application, or treatment. Glass must be classed as one of the most important of building materials developed by man, if for no other reason than it satisfies one of man's most important needs, that of communicating with the outdoors. The development of glass made it practical for man to move out of the caves and, with continuing developments, it now permits us to live and work in the modern shelters of wood, masonry, and metal providing the pro tected communication with the outdoors that is essential to our physical and mental well-, being. The flat glass industry has been constantly at work with developing new glass products to satisfy the ever-increasing needs which make living in our own homes safer, more pleasant, and comfortable. A myriad of glasses and glass products are available today to provide the needed benefits. For example, a variety of tinted glasses to provide a wide range of glarefree vision through sunlit windows; insulated glass to help keep our homes cooler in summer and warmer in winter; reflective glass to reduce passage of unwanted solar radiation through our windows; stronger and safer glass. Because of our interest today in safety with glass in our homes, let's concern our selves with the glass that is used in todays' homes; specifically, that in sliding patio- doors, storm doors, tub enclosures, and shower doors. This demonstration will show the various types of glasses available for use in resi dential construction, what happens when they are subjected to impact (especially impact from humans), and then permit you, through a better understanding of the properties and behaviour of these glasses, to better select and demand the glass or glass products best suited for the use. . Glasses available today possess visual char acteristics so good that the glass, for all practical purposes, is invisible. However, be cause of the apparent invisibility of the glass in sliding doors, storm doors, and other types of glass doors, people (especially children) in moments of preoccupation, not seeing the glass, are likely to run into it. (Throws dummy into glass door for demon stration.) This is the problem we were confronted with. I say were because the glass industry accepted this as a challenge and an oppor tunity to develop the solution. A solution has been developed. After hearing and seeing what we present today, you will be of the same opinion. Having the solution to the problem is only part of the total answer, however. Unless you demand that the solution be used, the problem will continue to remain unsolved. The most common glasses with which we are familiar are plate glass and sheet glass. The latter is quite often called window glass or crystal. Both plate glass and sheet glass are forms of what we in the glass industry refer to as annealed glass. The term "an nealed glass" indicates that the glass, during manufacture, has been given a stress-reliev ing treatment. This is a slow-cooling process that anneals the glass, removes the residual stresses, so that we can cut it, grind it, seam it, and fabricate it. Annealed glass is also available in wire 23 196&National Safety Congress glass form or as laminated glass. Wire glass is annealed glass made with a wire screen imbedded within the body of the glass. This glass is developed primarily for use as vision panels in firedoors, so that, if the glass were to break in the fire, the glass fragments would be retained by the wire screen and prevent the spread of the fire. In laminated form, the annealed glass is a sandwich of two pieces of either plate glass or window glass, bonded to each other by a resilient inner layer. A sheet of resilient plastic is sandwiched between two lengths of glass. Under heat and pressure the plastic flows, adheres itself to the glass surfaces, and gives us the form of annealed glass called ``laminated glass. When the glass is broken this resilient inner layer, because of adhesion to the glass surfaces, retains the broken fragments and prevents the frag ments from being scattered. If we take regular annealed glass -- win dow glass, plate glass, or any of the other glasses -- and subject them to a special heat treatment which heats the glass to the softening point, then quickly chills it, we end up with a glass called "tempered" glass. This strengthening is accomplished, as I said, by reheating and rapidly cooling the glass. The heating and cooling are controlled so that we develop into the glass controlled compression stresses -- compression forces -- which make the glass strong. This is ordinary annealed glass. (Demon strates). When we bend this annealed glass right here -- we end up with that red sec tion up there indicating tension stress. When we reach a certain stress on that surface, the glass breaks. It never breaks on the bottom surface because it is in compression. Glass never breaks in compression. Tempered glass, on the other hand, because of the heating and rapid cooling, puts com pression forces on the surface so that the entire surface of the glass is encapsulated in compression forces which resist breakage. So, when we bend this piece of glass, we must first overcome this compression. When we bend it to same amount that we bend ordinary glass, we have no stress; it's "zero stress." We have to go beyond that to break it. The glasses we have just described -- wire glass, laminated glass, and tempered 24 glass -- have been classified as "safety" glasses. Because of our concern with glass as re lated to safety in the home, we are a t the moment interested in glass strength as related principally to impact. What can be done to obtain greater impact resistance with glass? If increased resistance to impact is de sired, strictly from a glass standpoint, we can do two things. We can use thicker or smaller lengths of glass and, as we get thicker or smaller, we get stronger. If we don't want to do that we have another choice: to use basically stronger tempered glass. If minimizing personal injury is the pri mary objective, the choice must be one of the three types of safety glass: wire glass, laminated glass, or tempered glass. (He demonstrated by comparing the impact re sistance and the break patterns of the various glasses he had described above, beginning with A inch annealed sheet glass.) We refer to the type of break pattern exhibited by tempered glass as a "breaksafe" pattern. A test developed at Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to evaluate the impact-resistance of glass used in buildings, both residential and commercial, involves impacting glass with 25 pound dummy, 5 inches in diameter and 25 inches long. (Demonstrates.) Dropping that 25-lb. weight from a height of 14 feet is equivalent to a man impacting that glass at a speed of 20% miles per hour. This is the speed a man must run to make the 100-yard dash in 10 seconds. If a young boy of 100 pounds were to travel at five miles an hour (which is not running very fast), it would be equivalent to dropping that weight from a height of three- and onehalf feet, which is a half-foot more than the average required to break ordinary inch thick annealed glass. Glass commonly used in storm doors is of the annealed type, about ^-inch in thickness. In most cases, glass is used much thinner than Y%-inch. In this application, such glass thicknesses are used in the interest of both weight and cost. The impact resistance of this glass is relatively low. (Puts a piece of of hij-inch annealed glass in the demon strator to show the relatively low impact resistance of Jfj-inch annealed glass). The next test involves impacting tempered Labor Sessions glass with a 100-lb. weight in the shape of a punching bag. (Demonstrates.) With the greatly increased strength and the "breaksafe" pattern of tempered glass, the safety needed is available at a reasonable and practical cost. The slight additional cost to have this glass instead of regular annealed glass is extremely low, and it is extremely low insurance for the safety it provides us and our families. Just recently, the Architectural Aluminum Manufacturers Association took action to re quire safety glass in all its sliding doors. Storm door manufacturers are beginning to use tempered glass in some of their doors. However, success in these actions cannot be accomplished by the manufacturers alone. You, the consumer, are a most important factor. The glass industry has provided a practical solution to the problem. The door manufacturers want to make use of the solution. For these efforts in the interest of your safety to be effective, you must par ticipate and demand the use of safety glass in all doors. Ask for it, and then enjoy the best prod ucts for modern living in safety. GLASS INJURY CONTROL By WILLIAM V. W HITE Chief, Liaison Services, Div. of Accident Prevention, Public Health Service, Dept, of Health, Education and Welfare Glass doors and panels have helped to bring the new pattern of outdoor-indoor liv ing to the millions of people living in rural, urban, and suburban homes built since World War II. For the last three years, thousands of man-hours have been consumed in the interest of protecting the consumer from disability or death as he, with increasing frequency, demanded the new architectural designs and materials that opened the walls of his home to the beauties of panoramic living. We believe in this extensive use of patio doors, tub enclosures, storm doors, and glass panels. We believe, just as strongly, that these doors and panels can be better and safer, and that the consumer can be informed as to their proper use. The Division of Accident Prevention of the Public Health Service, the National Safety Council, and allied groups are justly concerned with the increasing frequency of disabling accidental injuries and deaths caused by persons walking through large glass doors or fixed glass panels. Falls through these large glass areas result primarily in serious and sometimes fatal cutting and piercing injuries. Severe lacerations of the elbow, arm, wrist, and hand are most com mon. Disfiguring cuts are not unusual. Re ports from some surgeons indicate that when the victim is moving rapidly at the time of impact with ordinary glass, the patient is more likely to be impaled under the arms or in the groin. In a few cases this has resulted in severing the brachial or femoral arteries, thus causing severe and almost un controllable hemorrhage. Time between the initial cut and death was less than 22 minutes in several cases recently reported. One of these cases, recently, involved a 27-year-old mother of two small children who bled to death after she tripped and fell through glass in a door at a restaurant in a small southern town. The accident oc curred at approximately 1 :20 p.m. and she was pronounced dead at the county hospital at 1 :40 p.m. According to the coroner's report, "the cause of death was hemorrhage due to lacerations of the right arm and a severed brachial artery." We receive more reports of non-fatal ac cidental injuries than we do of fatal cases. Perhaps the one receiving widespread pub licity involving singer Kate Smith is a good example. In this case, Miss Smith slipped in the bathroom and fell into the glass tub enclosure while visiting in a private home. Her elbow struck the annealed glass, caus ing it to break. Severe lacerations requiring more than three hours of surgery and six months of rehabilitation were sustained in this accident. Ironically, all glass patio-doors in this house had tempered safety glass in them. The owner had forgotten to replace 25 1966 National Safety Congress the dangerous glass with the swan design around the tub. Since non-fatal accidental injuries are not routinely reported to health departments or any other agency, we do not know the full extent of the problem. In 1960, however, a west coast medical journal reported 40,000 insurance claims per year by victims of glass door injuries. This figure was never substantiated. It soon became apparent, how ever, that a serious new injury problem has been identified. When a new or obscure disease is identi fied in the community as a cause of severe disability or death the health resources of the nation are mobilized to protect the American public. Sometimes overlooked is the fact that a patient disabled by an acci dental injury is just as sick as the patient disabled by disease. He occupies a hospital bed, requires skilled medical and nursing care, laboratory and X-ray service. He is frequently referred to the rehabilitation cen ter for lengthy periods of therapy designed to restore him to health and enabling him to resume his role as a contributing member of our society. Sometimes a specific disease receives the spotlight for a dramatic "program for pre vention.'' For example, consider the recent polio immunization programs -- successful community efforts to reduce the incidence of the disease. Although only 20 deaths were reported from polio in 1965, the concerned application of our total health resources on one disease was justified because polio is preventable. Disabling, cutting, and piercing injuries from glass doors are equally preventable. It is almost ironic to observe that there were more deaths from glass injuries last year than there were from poliomyelitis. We have no vaccine to drop on a cube of sugar. We do have a modification of the environment which will substitute safer glass for injury-producing glass in critical locations, and an information program for the consumer and distributor. The success of our vaccine may never be recorded in public health history, but it will be recorded in the living image of potential victims who were saved from disability by the efforts of a concerned group of ethical manufacturers, safety council representatives, and public health workers. A national study group on glass injuries, composed of representatives from the Pub lic Health Service, Division of Accident Prevention, the National Safety Council, door manufacturers and glass manufacturers, code officials and other concerned groups has nearly completed the Herculean task of defining the problem and finding a solution. A pilot survey conducted by the Dade County, Florida, Health Department gave us leads to identify the independent variables associated with glass door injuries. In this pilot survey, glass dealers reported orders they received for replacing glass panels of the size normally used in sliding glass patio doors. The name and address of the person ordering the replacement were sent to the Dade County Health Department. Health workers recently had been trained to investi gate each case and see if human injury was involved. When human injury resulted, vital information was obtained regarding the ac tion of the individual at the time of the injury, the type of door and glass involved, the physical condition of the patient at the time the injury was received, and other pertinent facts. This technique was refined during the pilot survey. A special questionnaire was completed and a more representative sam pling procedure was applied to 16 commu nities where shoe leather epidemiology was initiated by more than 400 local health de partment workers. The expanded survey involved a detailed recording of the circumstances surrounding 110 glass door injuries from 725 follow-up investigations. Major points learned from the survey included : Health departments in 16 cities conducted surveys--H artford; Peoria; Wichita; Tuc son; San Jose; Contra Costa; Orange Coun ty, California; Memphis; Portland ; Little Rock; St. Louis; Prince Georges; Balti more; Washington, D.C.; and Orange and Dade Counties in Florida. Eighty per cent of all the injuries oc curred to persons between ages five to 44 years, with age groups five to 14 accounting for one-third of all injuries. Sixty-eight per cent of accidental injuries occurred to males. One out of seven accidental injuries re quired hospitalization. Going from inside to outside of building 26 Labor Sessions accounts for over 74 per cent of accidental injuries. Over 74 per cent of injuries reported oc curred in the home. Single pane glass of A, A , and 4 inch thickness were involved in 90 per cent of the injury cases. Hurrying was reported as a factor in the accidental injury more often than slipping, crowding, or horseplay combined. A typical case involved a mother running through the patio door to rescue her child from the pool. Reflection, glare, or dazzle did not appear to contribute to difficulty in detecting pres ence of the glass door. Twelve per cent of the injuries were recorded where there were designs or decals on the glass. Seven per cent of the injuries were re corded where there were muntins or separa tion bars. Had safety glass--laminated, wired, or tempered--been used, all of the 110 injuries recorded could have been prevented or lim ited. Since these surveys were completed, we have continued to receive numerous re ports of accidental injuries associated with glass doors and panels. For instance, from only one hospital, in Memphis, Tennessee, we received reports on 54 cases admitted to the emergency room in the twelve month period ending March 31, 1966. From one county in Florida 120 injury reports were documented in the past year/ From one Northern city more than 20 disabling injuries reported were from im pact with the glass in storm doors in a three-month period. We will continue to see widespread pub licity on these cases since there are millions of homes equipped with unsafe glass doors. This is one facet of the problem. The other is related to new installations. With industry and builders' cooperation, no cutting and piercing injury should be re ported from new installations if safety glass is used. What is the mood in Washington right now ? First of all, it is very heavily weighted toward consumer protection. The President said last year, "What is new is the concern for the total interest of the consumer, the recognition of certain basic consumer rights." He listed: (1) the right to safety; (2) the right to be informed; (3) the right to choose; and (4) the right to be heard. The first is certainly aimed at reducing the number of injuries from the use of con sumer products. And you know what is happening. You know of the report to the Surgeon General on cigarette smoking and its link to cancer and heart disease. You know of the Ribicoff hearings, the Com merce Committee hearings on automobiles, and Ralph Nader's book entitled "Unsafe at Any Speed" and subsequent action by the Congress. On October 3 of this year the Child Pro tection Act was passed by both houses of the Congress. This is an amendment to the Hazardous Substances Labeling Act, and bans hazardous toys and other articles in tended for household use. In the supporting statement by Senator Magnuson at the time the bill was introduced in the Senate there was a specific reference to injuries caused by "shattering glass doors." In the House of Representatives we now have a permanent Subcommittee on Con sumer Protection. This committee will in vestigate the role of industry in providing a reasonable degree of product protection. A similar committee is. operating in the Senate. A recent issue of Business Week stated, "Newer, tighter federal controls face tire makers, packagers, food processors, drugs, cosmetics, chemical manufacturers, advertis ing industries, and every manufacturer whose plant is a source of air or water pollution." What they didn't add is implied in their next article . . . "every manufacturer whose product is involved in an accidental injury to the consumer." This is the eventual end to this trend. Where do we stand now? There's been a lot of water over the dam since 1962. We've plowed through the multitude of evasions, excuses, delays, proposals, and other tactics that I label "How not to co operate with government." In spite of all these evasive tactics, we have many metropolitan areas and building code amendments and one state that re quires safety glass in all doors and panels where injury may be expected if the normal course of human behavior prevails. Cali fornia, Oregon, and Pennsylvania have bills 27 1966 National Safety Congress under consideration. In addition, we have more than 156 local building codes in eleven Western states where some form of protec tion is afforded by amendments to their building codes or by new legislation designed to protect the consumer. In Florida we have the South Florida Building Code, which has been modified several times, and may even tually provide a modicum of protection for the folks that are concerned with practical protection for their families. After a series of negotiations, the Glass Door Safety Committee of the Architectural Aluminum Manufacturers Association is as sembling a package that can be promoted to the national code organizations, to the build ing and loan associations, and to state gov ernments. Where metropolitan governments are involved, they will receive the same in formation. Here is the proposed package: 1. A guide for a model building code or legislative amendment that specifies safety glass in all doors, fixed adjacent panels, shower and tub enclosures, and in all storm doors. These are the areas of high risk and should not be ignored. 2. The Z97.1 specifications of the Ameri can Standards Association. This specification spells out the tests required to identify safety glazing, specifically tempered and laminated glass and plastic products. We anticipate a separate set of specifications to cover wire glass. Participating committee members have voted to endorse the tests and requirements for safety glass. It has now been submitted to the Safety Standards Board for approval. 3. A major revision of the FHA Mini mum Property Standard, to be effective Jan uary 1, 1967. This MPS will insure that all doors and adjacent fixed panels be of safety glass. The previous safety standard re quired safety glass, except in those instal lations where a muntin or divider bar was installed over annealed glass. The revised MPS will eliminate the muntin or divider bar as an escape clause. 4. Action by the Board of Directors of the AAMA to insure that safety glazing is required in all glass doors bearing the QC label. This is a major, voluntary step by the industry; it may well protect them from re strictive legislation. What can you do when you take stock of the actions necessary to implement pro grams ? 1. Find out what your building code in your city and state says about safety glazing. 2. Alert your mayor, health officer, and building code officials to the problem and some of the suggested remedies. 3. Be ready to program the "Package" when it becomes available in early 1967. 4. Use program aids. The following pro gram aids are available from the Regional Offices of the Division of Accident Preven tion : Film--"A Glass Door Lesson for Charlie." This includes a demonstration of the breaking patterns of glass, similar to the one you saw presented by Mr. Zeolla this morning. Brochures from the Architectural Alumi num Manufacturers Association entitled "how to live with and enjoy glass doors." Small demonstration kit to show the breaking patterns of glass, which includes a script. We know that you have safety problems of greater magnitude than glass door in juries. We also know that priorities in pro gram planning may delay action. But if you want to tackle a relatively new and preventable problem, I suggest you include this information in your program package for 1967. A SHOCKING EXPOSE By RICHARD E. GALLAGHER Health Education Consultant, Community Services Branch, Division of Accident Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health Education, and Welfare As you probably know, there are about 1,000 deaths each year from electrical cur rent. About 300 of these are in the home and the other 700 are related to people who work In the electrical industry; linemen, union workers, electrical workers. Which leaves us a little suspicious that all we really see is the tip of the iceberg--this 28 Labor Sessions may seem like a small number of fatalities, yet to those 1,000 families who lost a loved one, it's a very real problem. From surveys that have been conducted, it is quite apparent that the public knows little about the nature of electrical current and its injurious effect upon the body, even in very small quantities. Too often we hear of the minor electrical contact producing the proverbial "ouch!" reaction. Little con sideration is given to electrical injuries caus ing burns, paralysis, heart fibrillation, and other injuries indirectly related to electrical contact. This nonchalant attitude about the hazards of electricity was brought to our attention in a recent survey in Norman, Okla. In this survey, three per cent of the homes in Norman were sampled to deter mine : 1. How often people experience electrical shock. 2. How many homes have grounded elec trical outlets, and if the occupants are aware of it. 3. The meaning of the Underwriters Lab oratory label to purchasers of electrical items. 4. What is done with the third prong on appliance cords if it cannot be used. 5. How many persons know how to apply artificial resuscitation following electrical shock. The findings showed that husbands seemed hardly more knowledgeable than wives on most questions about grounding, the signi ficance of the Underwriters label, or rescue and emergency tr e a tm e n t fo r e le c tric shock : 1. A total of 849 persons lived in the 277 households sampled. Although 48 persons had experienced some degree of electric shock, little concern was expressed because there were no fatalities. 2. About 50 per cent did not know wheth er their electrical outlets were grounded or not. 3. About eight out of 10 respondents do not look for the U.L. label when selecting appliances, nor do they know the meaning of the U. L. label. To many, the U. L. label stood for Union Label. 4. Nearly eight out of 10 persons do not use properly or understand the purpose of the third prong on plugs to appliance cords. 5. About one-half of those interviewed had no knowledge of any type of artificial resuscitation. It is apparent from these findings that much remains to be done if injuries from electricity are to be reduced. Fortunately, many health departments and other organizations have shown more than a casual interest in the prevention of in juries from electrical current. For example, prior to conducting the Norman, OWp. sur vey, staff members of the Division of Acci dent Prevention assisted another health de partment in Oklahoma to develop a very simple demonstration kit designed to inform persons about the cause and prevention of electrical injuries. The demonstration pro gram was well received, but its use was limited to small groups of 25 persons or less. Encouraged by the success of the small demonstration kit, we developed a larger, more complex unit. After the larger kit had been used several times, we knew that its size and complexity made it impracticable for use by health personnel or others in community injury control programs. The best features of the small and large kits were combined to form the "medium" size unit you see here. For those of you who have an interest in presentbg a similar demonstration, we are preparing a publication entitled "Electrical Injury Prevention Demonstration Guide." The guide will contain helpful suggestions for use of the kit, a suggested script, plans for building the kit, and the source of com mercially prepared kits, if you prefer to purchase one. A listing of program aids, materials, and other helpful information will be included. If you want to receive a copy of the guide when it becomes available, or get assistance in developing off-the-job community injury control programs, contact the Accident Pre vention Program of your state health de partment or the U. S. Public Health Serv ice's regional accident prevention consultant in your area. 29 J 1966 National Safety Congress U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S SAFETY PROGRAM By JOHN F. HENNING Under-Secretary of Labor In order to appreciate the present dimen sions of the industrial safety problem, it might be well to review the beginnings of our industrial society. Worker safety became a critical issue with the coming of the factory system. The In dustrial Revolution, which began in the last quarter of the 18th century, was to change forever the relationship between the worker and the employer. In a more profound sense, it was to change the relationship between man and the state. Worker safety was hardly a major issue in the handicraft system which prevailed in Europe and along the Atlantic Seaboard in this country prior to the invention of the steam engine by James Watt. Industrial accidents were among the more demoralizing abuses of the early factory system. It has been said that during the 19th century inani mate elements entered the factory and came out refined, polished, and attractive. Human beings entered the factory and came out de graded. One of the dehumanizing features of the early factory system was that the safety of the worker was ignored. The abuses of the industrial order of the 19th century were visited not only upon men but upon the women and children who worked in the mines and mills of our industrial system. Stories of the scalping of women working in the textile industry are common in the history of New England factory life. Now out of the exploitation of men, women, and children there came certain re actions. One of the reactions to industrial abuse was Marxism. If you would doubt this, you need only recall that communism would have been a political impossibility before the coming of the Industrial Revolu tion. Unionism was another reaction, or re sponse, to the new industrial order. Modern unionism dates not from the crafts and guilds of the Middle Ages, nor from the crafts and guilds of ancient Greece and 30 Rome. Modern unionism traces from the factory system. Our oldest international unions date back to approximately the middle of the 19th century. The union ex istence we knew before then in America was fragile and usually did not survive. There was a third response to the new industrial order--social legislation. The first safety laws protecting workers were initi ated in the Germany of Bismarck. There were totalitarian aspects to Bismarck's Ger many, but out of his regime came the first workmen's compensation laws and the first industrial safety laws. Industrial safety laws came later to Brit ain, but, surprisingly, not until the turn of the century. It is perhaps more than co incident that factory laws came to Britain at the time of the formation of the British Labor Party. Safety laws came much later to the United States. We were among the last of the industrial nations to think of protecting the worker. Actually, the United States was 60 years behind Germany's social safety legislation. If we look at our past, we will find that most of our safety legisla tion was developed during the progressive years of American political history -- the years which reached from the turn of the century until our entry into the first World War. It was during this era that various states acknowledged the humanity of the worker. You must remember that it was the states that led the way, not the Federal govern ment. At the state level it was the time of the LaFollettes in Wisconsin, Hiram John son in California, A1 Smith and Madame Perkins in New York. Yes, it was the day of state industrial reform. In that period which reached from the turn of the century until our entry into the First World War, 32 states adopted in dustrial safety laws of one dimension or another. It was in 1914 that we adopted our first workmen's compensation law in Wisconsin. Labor Sessions The U.S. Department of Labor was not founded until 1913. It was the product of the progressive thought of the era but in its original form it was not much concerned with industrial safety. According to the organic law that brought the Department into being, it was formed to promote and advance the welfare of the workers of the nation, to improve their working conditions, and to increase their opportunity for profit able employment. In 1914 the Bureau of Labor Statistics was founded to accumulate and report sta tistics of labor. I hope I am not talking treason, but I like to think that our Department of Labor juris diction in the theater of industrial safety is essentially one for morality and education. Our mandatory jurisdictions are meager. We have the Longshoremen's and Harbor Work ers Act. We have the Walsh-Healey juris diction. But safety laws essentially rest with the state, and I want to believe that the states will provide leadership in assuring industrial safety for the workers of this country. With respect to labor-management history in Europe, the industrial revolution not only resulted in Marxism and unionism, but it also separated the worker from the employer in enduring fashion. Fortunately for us, the social democracy of the frontier and the liberal legacies of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin and the founders of the Republic spared us the agonies of class distinction. There never was in this nation a sense of social and economic confinement such as we still find on the continent of Europe. The workers of America have always con sidered themselves equal to the employers, both politically and socially, and they did their best to achieve equality in the world of economics. For this we should be grate ful because we have been spared the prob lems which have destroyed the harmony of European history. In the sphere of industrial safety we have the opportunity of combining the values of the working people, the employers, and gov ernment. The role of the federal govern ment should here be one of advice and con sultation. We have the opportunity in industrial safety, as we have had historically in the apprenticeship system, of bringing labor and management together at times when they do not have conflict under way over the wages and hours that may be specified in a worker-management contract. And so, just as in the apprenticeship programs which bring labor and management together month after month to discuss subjects outside the areas of collective bargaining, we have the opportunity here of strengthening the rela tionships between labor and management through the development of occupational ac cident prevention programs. On another front, I think it is essential for unions in the future to provide through their collective bargaining contracts for the existence of labor-management safety com mittees. I do not know of any inventory or catalogue that now lists the quality and quantity of these types of labor-manage ment committees but I sincerely trust that they will flourish in the future. Returning to what the proper role of government might be in industrial accident prevention, I submit that it should dispose of the residue of those problems which can not be resolved by the various states. This is not to ignore our statutory obligations un der the Longshoremen's and Harbor Work ers Act or the Walsh-Healey Act, however. In past years, this had been the traditional position of the Department of Labor. Re cently, we established an advisory committee of safety specialists from various segments of our society for the purpose of guiding our Department in the matter of our WalshHealey jurisdiction. We have made it clear that we will insist upon state compliance with minimum safety standards in the WalshHealey area, but we have no grasping bu reaucratic ambition to do the work of states where they have the will and the capacity. The Secretary of Labor has declared that as long as state-established safety standards meet federal minimum requirements under Walsh-Healey, and as long as such states have the capacity to enforce these standards, the Department would not interfere. Cer tainly, this makes sense. Of course, this would not allow states which have only two or three factory inspectors to assert a fed eral jurisdiction. John Cullerton indicated that he would like to see a state governor's safety confer ence held in Illinois. I would like to men tion that various other states, including Cali- 31 ; ii. f:!, ' G !j. 1966 National Safety Congress fornia and Ohio, have been conducting such in terms of enlightened safety practices. I conferences for quite sometime. I would California sent three of its industrial safety also like to add that it is possible to have inspectors to Eastern universities in 1958 a conference of this type sponsored without for radiation safety studies. This allowed public funds. I know of states that have them to later direct the radiation accident been fortunate enough to have labor unions prevention activities in California. and business companies underwrite the costs In terms of fortifying state standards, I of such conferences. In the area of appren would suggest that this organization, to ticeship, we found in California that labor gether with labor, management, and the U.S. I and management will eagerly sponsor state Department of Labor, call a national safety wide conferences for the common industrial conference to consider minimum standards good. I believe that this approach to state that would assist or apply to the several safety conferences might be well followed. states. It is ridiculous to talk of a national With regard to the place of the states position on safety if we have a wide differ in industrial safety, I can't help but remem ence in standards throughout the various Ml-; ber that when I was in California that state states. I became the first to establish specific safety We need, then, a meeting of minds of the orders for the farm workers. All other various state safety authorities and labor- states covered farm labor safety practices management safety authorities with the role through general industrial safety orders. We of guidance provided by federal government, not only regulated the employment conditions to establish minimum safety standards for of the farm worker but we also established all of the states. conditions for the transportation of farm We might liken this history to that found workers, covering transportation on public in th story of minimum wage legislation. highways through amendments to the vehicle The first laws were enacted at the state code, and on the farmer's property through level more than 50 years ago, and it was the enactment of safety orders. ` not until the 1930's that we came to national California became the first state to promul concepts in the area. gate specific safety orders in regard to the Some 14,000 industrial workers die every control of noise and its impact upon the year on the job, and more than two million worker. We did this despite the cries that lost time accidents are suffered each year this would make loss of hearing a compen through industrial accidents. I say that we sable injury, as indeed it must be. have left forever that era when industrial There is so much that can be achieved injuries were held to be the inevitable com through the initiative of state government panion of industrial progress. 11 i ^ T H E STATE'S ROLE IN SAFETY By JOHN CULLERTON Dir., Illinois Dept, of Labor, Chicago, Illinois Governor Eerner has asked me to express upon a continuing drive to improve its safety his sincere best wishes to the members of programs. this convention; to say that he appreciates We have vigorously carried out his di the very great services performed by the rective, working in cooperation with the III lij National Safety Council in the interest of U. S. Department of Labor. Ours is an on health and safety ; and to assure you that, going program which might be described as l.-iU as Governor of Illinois, he will continue his having two major purposes. :f efforts to make Illinois one of the safest 1. We have accelerated in every possible places to live and work, of all states in the manner, and with every resource at our Union. Five years ago, the Governor di command, the safety education programs. We rected the Department of Labor to embark have had the u tm o st of cooperation and H: 32 !&! Labor Sessions support from the U. S. Department of Labor a steady gain in our inspection programs. in conducting scores of safety sem in ars In 1965 fiscal year, there were 22,656 regular throughout the State. We have conducted inspections, an increase of 12 per cent in some 60 such seminars in industrial centers inspections, and 10 per cent in the number during the last four years, and at this very of workers serviced. The 22,942 re-inspec moment we have a safety caravan on the tions made in 1965 fiscal represented an in road holding such meetings under the direc crease of 13 per cent in the rechecking tion of Edmund Kornowicz, our Superin activities. I might say also that it was found tendent of Safety Education and Inspection, that in 1965 the reinspection compliance was and experts of the U. S. Department of four times better than in 1961. Labor. I should like to point out two very These seminars, providing for 30 hours of critical deficiencies in our safety programs. classroom instruction in safety procedures First, we have only 56 inspectors in the are given without cost to the participants. Industrial Safety Unit, to check on literally All materials are furnished free of charge. thousands of small and large industrial units. And the courses are open to safety repre We have only 11 inspectors in the Construc sentatives of private in d u stry , municipal tion Unit to check on one of the biggest agencies, plant foremen, union supervisory statewide construction programs in the Na personnel and members. Personnel respon tion. Our Industrial Hygiene Unit is in dire sible for the safety of over 2 million em need of additional, competent personnel. ployees have benefited from these classes. I am not going to enumerate all the kinds of instruction provided, but I want to em phasize that safety procedures for industries, construction projects, chemical plants, and a wide range of other types of work are included. ' Second, it has long been a matter of considerable concern that we have been unable to attract highly qualified i>ersonnel, because the starting salaries are low. We need a generous upgrading of salaries so that we can attract graduate safety engineers to our staff. Presently, we must employ less We have stretched our financial resources qualified personnel, and then seek to provide to the limit to put these safety caravans on-the-job training to raise the qualifications on the read, to pay the usual expenses for of the staff. This is an unwise, unsound travel and instruction materials, and to and uneconomic process. generate interest in the seminars. Summarizing, it can be said that our They have been so outstanding in results safety program is understaffed and under that Illinois is now credited with having financed, that the program as it is now one of the best safety education programs conducted (and we are doing the best we in the country. can with what we have) does not meet Finally, in regard to education, all of the today's needs. department supervisory and inspection per Nearly two years ago, at Governor Ker- sonnel is required to take the courses, and ner's request, a Commission on Government to attend "refresher" classes at regular was established to survey and recommend intervals. restructuring of governmental programs and 2. The second major purpose of our pro processes. This commission will report next gram involves a step-up of our on-site inspections. Safety rules and regulations under the Illinois Health and Safety Act are promulgated by the Illinois Industrial Commission, not by our department. We year. It is a group of highly-qualified ex perts, and it is expected to submit many recommendations for a drastic overhaul of functions. Some of its recommendations will concern the Department of Labor, and when also enforce the Structural Work Law, the the commission's report is made, I urge Work Under Compressed Air Act, the law that the National Safety Council give its concerning Washrooms in Certain Employ full support for all suggestions for improv ments, Sanitary Standards for Butterine and ing our safety programs. Ice Cream Factories, and the Safety In I should also say, at this point, that the spections and Education in Industrial and Safety Advisory Board appointed by Gov Commercial Establishments Act. ernor Kerner, including expert representa There has been and will continue to be tives from business, industry and labor, has 33 1966 National Safety Congress been an active, hard-working group which has given invaluable assistance to our pro grams. The board meets on the average of six times or more per year, and takes an active part in fo rm u la tin g our safety procedures. Great as has been the participation of business, industry and labor in our safety seminars, it does seem to me that much more participation is desirable. I ask the help of the National Safety Council in convincing such groups that it is only good business to conduct safety education drives, safety cleanups and constant safety super vision. Accidents have been costing Illinois busi ness and industry some $342 million per year. This figure includes medical expenses, compensation in d em n ity , and other costs, including lost product. Now $342 million is a terrific annual loss that could, without great incidental costs, be shaved considerably. I would urge that every business and industry in Illinois employing more than 10 persons go back over the past five years to average out its annual loss from injurieson-the-job; that when this figure is ascer tained, each company budget for the next five years for safety training at least onehalf the cost of injuries to that company over the past five years. In other words, that it spend on safety for the next five years just one-half of what it lost on injuries in the past five years. I think it would pay some of the best dividends ever earned by such concerns. Since working men and women also sus tain losses in about an equal amount-- about $345 million--due to lost time, lost wages, hospital and doctor bills, I should think that unions could well adopt a similar procedure of investment for safety education. In my opinion, it is- better to invest in safety education than to put money in hospital and doctor bills, or payment for permanent injuries. In the last session of our legislature an appropriation of $5,000 was sought to hold a statewide safety education c o n fe re n c e , bringing in experts from various fields to instruct representatives of Illinois business, industry and labor in the latest techniques of preserving life and limb. Unfortunately, these funds were not available. If this request is renewed next year-- and I believe it will be--I urge the National Safety Council to throw the full weight of its very considerable influence behind this information and educational project. I think we ought to have an annual Illinois Safety Conference, and I think that $5,000 is a pretty modest sum to invest in the health and safety of over 4,000,000 non-agricultural workers in the state. I think that if such conference were held just once, and the results assessed during the ensuing year, Illinois businessmen, labor leaders and in dustrialists would insist that the results had justified holding an annual conference. I believe such a conference would lead eventually to better analyses of the causes of accidents, better use of the existing safety staffs without overburdening them with the actual policing jobs which they should not perform, better in-plant and on-the-job train ing and distribution of safety literature, adoption of periodic and unannounced inplant inspections, and a better upgrading of safety processes to keep step with chang ing technology. Such a conference would also immediately produce a better intra industry exchange of safety information. I place these suggestions before you, be cause I believe that the National Safety Council, as the agency pre-eminent in this field, can do much, much more to assist in our safety education programs. We need your help. We need your support. And we need your guidance and advice. 34 Labor Sessions HOW OUR NEIGHBOR LOOKS AT GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAFETY By H. Y. YONEYAMA Director and Chief Inspector, Industrial Safety Branch, Ontario Department of Labour, Toronto, Ontario The prevention of industrial accidents is one of the major concerns, if not in fact the major concern, of the Ontario Depart ment of Labour. We have carried forward a comprehensive program of attack on in dustrial accidents, utilizing not only the in spection and regulation weapon, but research, education, and labour-management co-opera tion as well. Since 1963, all of the safety legislation of the Department has been reviewed and modernized. The enforcement capability of all the safety branches has been expanded and improved, several times over. Here, briefly, is the structure of the Department's safety branches and capabilities. The Safety and Technical Services Di vision conducts four main types of activ ities in the development and administration of safety legislation : the study of hazards and their control ; approval of designs ; li censing of installations, i.e., boilers and ele vators ; and the field enforcement of statutes and regulations. The division, in essence, acts as a co-ordinating head for the activities of all the following branches. All five branches are responsible to the Office of the Director of Safety and Technical Services who directs, supervises, and- co-ordinates their activities. The director also furnishes liaison with the Labour Safety Council of Ontario and other government departments, commissions, and boards. The Industrial Safety Branch is composed of two sections, the Safety Section, which makes inspections of industrial and com mercial establishments, and the Engineering Section, which examines and approves draw ings of buildings and equipment to ensure that they will be safe for occupancy by employees and the general public. The branch has 88 engineers and inspectors who made a total of 59,688 inspections, issued 53,632 directives on the guarding of machinery, ventilation, sanitation, welfare, exits, per sonnel protective devices, and safety or health hazards. The branch staff also ap proved the construction of 3,546 buildings or other projects with an estimated value of $364,096,900. Branch inspectors are finding it necessary to "tag out" from use increasing numbers of machines for which guards are either not provided or were provided and then removed. The number of such stopwork orders doubled from the fiscal year 1962-63 to 112 in the year 1963-64, increased another 150 per cent to 283 in 1964-65, and an ad ditional-10 per cent to 310 in 1965-66. The new Industrial Safety Act became law in 1964-65. During the past year, the Industrial Safety Branch has set records in all its sections. The number of inspections carried out was significantly larger than in an}' previous year, as was the volume of plans for com mercial and industrial structures, equipment, and processes examined by the Engineering Section. Last fall, the new regulations gov erning safety in connection with grain ele vators went into effect. This year, detailed requirements for punch presses are being developed. The Construction Safety Branch provides for the safety of workmen: (A) During the construction, alteration, repair, demolition or removal of buildings or other structures, and of streets and high ways. (B) Engaged in the excavation of trenches. (C) Engaged in underground work in shafts, tunnels, caissons, cofferdams, and under compressed air, when used. The Branch's inspectional staff consists of 16 inspectors who work with the 246 municipally appointed inspectors enforcing the Construction Safety Act and more than 1,000 enforcing the Trench Excavators Pro tection Act. In the last year, there were 133,232 inspections of construction sites which resulted in 153 charges and 61 con- 35 1966 National Safety Congress viciions. Stop-work orders were issued in 1,800 cases where dangerous working con ditions existed, and orders to correct unsafe conditions numbered 10,334. The branch officers instruct, advise and assist the municipally appointed inspectors, make regular visits to each municipality to carry out joint inspections, and discuss inter pretation and policy matters with local authorities. Caisson inspectors made 2,832 inspections on 362 projects involving 177,580 linear feet (33.6 miles) of tunneling. With 246 construction safety inspectors covering the construction field across On tario as against virtually none only four years ago, there was in 1965, for the first time in many years, a marked decline in the industry's accident frequency. However, in spite of the fact that the number of con struction safety inspections carried out an nually has jumped from a handful in 1961 to more than 140,000 in 1965, the toll of accidents and fatalities remains far too high to allow anyone to be complacent. The Elevator Inspection Branch enforces legislation respecting the safety of persons using elevators, escalators, dumbwaiters, ski tows, lifts, and construction hoists. It is also responsible for the examination and approval of drawings and specifications for proposed new or altered installations. The Branch's 22 inspectors operate in 24 Pro vincial Districts, and last year made a total of 7,989 inspections, issued 16,837 directions for improvements or licensing, and shut down 349 unsafe installations, of which 110 were closed permanently. One thousand five hundred sixty-six construction hoists were examined and 2,732 directions were given for improvement or licensing. The Board of Examiners of Operating Engineers ensures competent personnel for the safe operation of boilers and power plant equipment. The Board is composed of four holders of Certificates of Qualification as first class stationary engineers with not less than 15 years of operating experience. In the last year, the Board issued 644 (new), 4,378 (total), registration certificates to plant owners, 2,555 (new) and 29,256 (total) Certificates of Qualification to operating engineers. The Board has currently updated the Basic Power Plant Engineering Text book and re-published the Operating En gineers' Handbook, which is widely distrib 36 uted throughout the world to other govern ments and safety organizations. Of the 417 violations of the Operating Engineers Act and regulations, the major ity of violators were co-operative in execut ing the necessary changes, and 384 of these violations were corrected during the current fiscal year. The new Operating Engineers Act pro vided for the appointment of a Board of Review, consisting of three representatives of operating engineers and an impartial chairman to advise in connection with the safe operation of power plants and the training and qualification of operating en gineers. The board is grappling with the complex problems of developing appropriate detailed regulations under the new act. When its work has been completed, the Act will be brought into force. At the same time, the board is studying more effective means of training operating engineers. The Boiler Inspection Branch inspects boilers, pressure vessels, and plants, examines their drawings, inspects welding, and per forms other related duties. Forty-eight in spectors last year inspected 53,928 boilers, pressure vessels, and plants, and 3,021 new designs were approved. Inspectors investi gated 23 accidents and explosions, made suitable directions to prevent similar fail ures, and condemned 35 pressure vessels and 32 boilers. The Branch issued 248 certificates of competency to boiler inspec tors of boiler insurance companies and tested the competency of 8,633 welders. In all, 21 boiler inspection districts have been estab lished to efficiently serve industry in all parts of Ontario. Labour Safety Council To co-ordinate programs at the policy level and advise on all matters pertaining to safety education, enforcement, and acci dent prevention, the Labour Safety Council has been reconstituted with management and labour representation from the principal segments of industry across Ontario. At the Council's request, and in order to assist it in studying all phases of accident pre vention, arrangements have been made for the Industrial Engineering Department of the University of Toronto to conduct a full-scale study into the underlying causes of accidents. This was the Labour Safety Labor Sessions Council's first major recommendation, The Council believes that this study will provide basic information upon which the most ef fective approaches to the complex matter of accident prevention can be determined. We have also enabled the Workmen's Compensation Board to impose penalty as sessments on firms displaying poor safety records. Assessments are, in some cases, being doubled at the cost of thousands of dollars to firms that have neglected safety precautions. To date, for example, a total of 1,728 firms in Ontario have received penalty' assessments costing them more than $4,400,000. Supporting this structure are seven associ ations who represent the various segments of our industrial complex. They report through the Safety Education Department of our Workmen's Compensation Board and play an increasingly important role in the dissemination of information relative to safety education and accident prevention. It is apparent that the safety of workers is a problem that must deal with two main issues--morality and economics. From the standpoint of morality, the worker's con tribution to society leads him to expect some measure for protection from that society. The economic aspects are even more ap parent. Lost man days in Ontario alone had, by the end of 1965, climbed to 2,600,000 for a total loss of $31,600,000. How does our neighbour look at govern ment responsibility for safety? I think our attitude could best be described by the phrase, "with grave suspicion". Our attitude has, in the past, to a large extent been colored by many forays with management, with labour, and with public media who traditionally cry that government is cloaked with responsibility for the public safety. That is only partially true. While we accept this mantle gingerly it is apparent, after many skirmishes, that we really should be cast in the role of only one of the participants who provides legis lative protection and provides, in concert with management, unions, and other respon sible groups, a safe atmosphere for our industrial society. The word "suspicion" is an apt one, since we are beginning to suspect that the tried and true methods that have grown like Topsy over the last fifty years are, in many cases, incapable of dealing with our acceler ating industrial society. As an example, our own industrial re volution occurred at about the same time as yours, and in its early stages the wheels of our industry were lubricated as - was yours, not only with sweat, but with a modicum of blood. In an effort to protect the public and the industrial worker, we as every government does, forwarded protec tive legislation that was designed to meet the conditions of the particular time. What has happened since then is the gradual ad dition of laws and regulations, like so many building blocks to form a protective wall around industry. From time to time, we have removed bricks that no longer fit, re paired crumbling mortar, and like the little Dutch boy, attempted to stem the tide of; accident increase with our fingers when cracks developed. Canadian legislation is perhaps among the most advanced safety legislation of our time. I think you will condone this immodesty since I hasten to qualify that our legislation deals with less industry and fewer workers than our neighbours. While Ontario, for example, has a total population of six and a half million, there is a working population of two and a half million. Most safety legislation is aimed at em ployers, and this may well be the origin of the term "safety is management's responsi bility". While management has a major re sponsibility for safety and must provide leadership, I have noted a marked tendency to use the word, "responsibility" interchange ably with "legal responsibility". There is a great difference in these terms, and used improperly they seem to suggest that safety is management's responsibility. This is pat ently untrue, for we all know what would happen to the employee who relied solely on management protection or who refused to obey common sense safety rules. Which leads us to the last member of the safety trio. Any safety program will be ineffective without the full support of the employees concerned. Truisms, while usually trite, have the saving grace of always being true. Man agement can only achieve some measure of industrial safety through the individual suc cess of each employee who avoids injury through application of responsibility for him 37 1966 National Safety Congress self and his fellows, who uses his his knowl edge, tools, and safety equipment to the best of his ability. It may be however, that we are attacking symptoms rather than causes. We have, as I have said, begun to explore the nature and true cause of industrial accidents since it is apparent that legislation, regulations, and good intentions do not in themselves solve the dilemma of rising accidents. They do, however, provide us with a legal, and we hope precise, framework to operate within. With our study, we hope not only to define the industrial accident and the role of the chief participants, but to be able in some measure to anticipate the future and legislate, not only for this period, but in anticipation of the developments of the new industrial climate. I might say that we, as every prevention body is, are working to wards the day when we can no longer be employed. We are assured by many economic planners that the advent of sophisticated technology (automation, if you will), will relegate the industrial workers to pushing buttons and performing monitoring func tions for three hours a day. Our chief aim at the moment is to keep workers alive and kicking until that day arrives. However, I might note that since less than two per cent of our industry is fully automated, I feel no immediate need for a job re-training course. Our department has continual exchanges of ideas, statistics and operation descrip tions with our other provinces and other countries. We have just recently completed the first of two ministers' safety conferences where representatives of trade unions man agement, and government have come to gether to re-examine ideas generated by in dividual research. We have, as well, been host and key participant at the recent Inter national Labour Organization Manpower Conference, which discussed in some detail the international aspects of safety education and preventive techniques. All of us then--government, management, and employees--share the responsibility for industrial safety. As government becomes more adept at defining it legislatively and management more adept in recognizing it as a method of enhancing the balance sheet and employees learn to use the safety me chanisms provided for their own protection, we may yet find formulas that work better than our current situation-by-situation ap proach. Frankly, I cannot give you omni scient answers, but I know that if we, to gether, carefully select our questions and behave honestly and with proper concern in the area of our responsibilities, we will arrive at solutions that lessen and may eventually stop industrial accident and death. DISCUSSION PERIOD-- WHAT'S BUGGING YOU? Delegates who attended the labor sessions were asked to submit written questions con cerning safety problems within their areas of operation, or questions that were gen erated by the safety sessions that they at tended during the Congress week. These written questions were reviewed and an swered by a panel of safety experts. Presiding Officer: John R. Kumpel, Safety and Compensation Representative, United Rubber Workers, Akron, Ohio. Moderator: Jacob Gold, Safety Engineer, Bureau of Labor Standards, U.S. Depart ment of Labor, Washington, D. C. 18 Panel Members: Alan F. Burch, Director of Safety, International Union of Operating Engineers, Washington, D. C.; John L. Dowling, Director, Safety and Health Divi sion, United Steel Workers of America (Canada), Toronto, Canada; Charles T. Greene, Director, Industrial Safety, District of Columbia Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, Washington, D. C.; Floyd Van Atta, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Office of Occupational Safety, Bureau of Labor Stand ards, U.S. Department of Labor, Washing ton, D. C .; Victor E. Whitehouse, Safety Director, International Brotherhood of Elec trical Workers, Washington, D. C. Labor Sessions Moderator: Are penalties provided for places and assigned to other challenging violation of safety codes in the various juris work. dictions actually sufficient to act as a deter Mr. Whitehouse: A man 60 years old is rent to the violation of codes ? not really the criterion. We in the Inter Mr. Greene: I would say no; they are national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers not sufficient. The amount a company has have many examples of men 25 to 30 years to pay for a safety code violation is not of age who have a heart condition, are enough to act as a deterrent. However, epileptic, or suffer some other problem. It publicity is more of a deterrent than any is true that some of the IBEW locals have fine that could be imposed. Of course, the agreements with the contracted company only way to have adequate publicity is to which require a man of 50 and over who impose a fine that is out of the ordinary. shows evidence of gaining weight or suf We had a contractor that was fined $300 ffeerrirnegd ftrooma sloemsse hheaazlatrhdopursobljeomb. beOntranthse ffionre tahavtiocloautilodn,bewihmicphosewda. s Ltahteer,mtahxeimcuonm- , matter of physical examinations, the men tractor indicated that the fine was nothing wcailthienxatmheinaloticoanl sunwioitnh cathneisrchoedwunle ppeerrsioondail nceowmsppaarpeedrst,o atnhde tahdavterhsee pwuobulilcdityhafvreommuthche physicians. rather paid a $3,000 fine than experience Mr. Burch: I am opposed to pre-employ the publicity. ment physical examinations as a condition of employment, but I am not against physical Moderator: In the province of Ontario, examinations. I think the point in this where the circumstances constitute an of question is an important one and that is fense against the Industrial Safety Act and that we must be our brother's keeper. Most this offense occurs consistently, every per unions have negotiated health and welfare son or employer who fails to comply with plans, and these should include at least an the provisions of the regulation, or the di nual physical examinations. Of course, there rections of an inspector, or the conditions is nothing stopping an individual from seek of an approval permit is subject to a fine ing his own personal doctor periodically; in of not more than $1,000 for each day of fact he will probably discuss his job more the violation or to imprisonment for not freely and the type of work that he per more than 12 months for each day of in forms with his doctor. After the personal fraction. doctor advises the individual about his physi Dr. Van Atta: In school I was taught cal ability in relation to performing his job, that it is not the nature of the penalty but it is up to the worker to decide whether he the certainty that the penalty will be im will continue or not. In other words, we posed that encourages compliance. Our main should inform ourselves about our own physi problem in this country is not the penalty cal condition and how it applies to our job. but the fact that most of the people who Mr. Greene: In this case, there is a ques are violating regulations will not be penal tion of one person being a hazard to other ized regardless of what the law says. This is probably because we do not have enough inspectors to cover the areas. persons on the job. I know of two or three instances where physical condition of a worker caused injuries to others. In another Moderator: There are far too many acci dents involving high voltages which cause burns, electrocutions, and falls from high places. These accidents occur to electricians, linemen, and other craftsmen above the age of 60 who do hazardous work. Few of these old timers will admit the weakening of their grip, failing eyesight, weak heart conditions, or a tendency to experience dizziness. I don't believe that a compulsory medical ex instance, a chronic drunk was directly re sponsible for the severe injury of three other persons. Both management and labor knew of this man's illness, but neither related it to his responsible job. I am in agreement that compulsory examinations are not the answer, but there is a joint labor-manage ment responsibility to get together and decide when a person may be a hazard to other workers because of his health. amination is the answer, but there must be Moderator: Do you think that unions and some solution. Perhaps workers over 60 management should work together in writing should be prohibited from working in high or changing a safety rule book? 39 1966 National Safety Congress Mr. Whitehouse: For years I have been preaching for joint labor-management safety committees to do this very thing. They should sit down and work out the procedures that are to be followed so that it becomes the responsibility of both labor and man agement to see that they are enforced. In the past two years the IBEW and various managements have established over 800 joint labor-management safety commit tees. I am very strongly in favor of these committees establishing ground rules. This is a definite advantage for management. We have had cases in some of our locals where the union member was brought before the executive board and informed that the union agreed to these rules and regulations and he, as a member of the union, must comply. Mr. Doivling: We deal with the Ontario Federation of Labor and favor its support of joint labor-management methods of rule and regulation writing, but I would like to add that once these rules and regulations are adopted they should be put into the working man's language. They should be de veloped in such a way that the working man knows what they are and he under stands them clearly. In Canada, we print these rules and regulations in French for our French workers. The union also has an obligation to see that these rules are ex plained. Moderator: A number of years ago Re public Steel Corporation wanted to commu nicate to all of its employees a better un derstanding of the economic problems of the company and how they affect the work ers. They went to Brookings Institute for advice, then developed a play with 13 char acters such as a farmer, business man, stock holder, manager, etc. The employees were assigned various parts and participated in the play at various locations all over the country. The principle idea was that par ticipation would improve understanding and respect. The company paid thousands of dollars for that idea, and it is believed that the same results can be obtained if the union is allowed to participate in developing safety rules. An example of such cooperation is the Carborundum Company's joint safety work with the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union. This relationship is work -10 ing extremely well and practically every one that I know of has worked very successfully. Moderator: Do you think safety programs should be in the labor contract? Dr. Van A t ta: Certainly! A contract has to do with conditions of employment, and one of the major conditions of employment is your continued life. It seems to me that labor groups, in general, have been most remiss in that conditions of employment have not been included under safety. How ever, this is certainly no excuse for this to continue. Mr. Greene: The contractors in the Dis trict of Columbia must comply with the regulations of our department. One of the problems with safety by reference is that most of the workers, and some of the man agement, do not have any idea of what these regulations are. They don't understand them. If safety is in the contract, the work ers ought to have enough information so that they can know whether the regulations are being complied with or not. If they are not, the workers can act accordingly. If their wages under the contract were not being paid, they would do something about it immediately. I believe that a union should act immediately if there is a hazard ous situation that needs correcting in accord ance with accepted codes and regulations. However, if people do not understand the regulations they do not know when the regulations are violated. The answer, of course, is training. Without training, the regulations will be unimplemented. Dr. Van Atta: I have read a significant amount of contracts which were signed by people who thought they had negotiated safety into the contract. The standard phrase is "the company will continue to provide safe and healthful places in which to work." This is really just saying that the company will continue its existing bad practices. That is not negotiating safety. It is as worthless as a contract that says the company will con tinue to pay wages. There is meaningful language which can be negotiated into union contracts and nearly all of the international unions can provide this type of language. Mr. Burch: If the union has already sat down with management and worked out acceptable safety rules, the contract can con tain meaningful language that is also simple. Labor Sessions For example, "both sides agree to adhere, at all times, to the safety rules agreed upon jointly." This keeps unnecessary words out of the contract and has the advantage that everybody knows what is being referred to. It also skirts the situation where the con tract is filled with language aimed at every body's particular grievance. The important thing is to get together and work out the rules and regulations by which you are going to live and then firm them up in a binding agreement so that everybody knows where they stand. Actually the original question -- should safety be negotiated into a union contract? -- has been answered by the National Labor Relations Board. Not too long ago, there was a decision which was upheld after it was appealed, and it will probably be a landmark case in labor relations. The final ruling was that safety was a mandatory subject of col lective bargaining. Moderator: To what extent is voltage over 5,000 volts being worked on out of aerial baskets or insulated platforms with rubber gloves and sleeves? Mr. Whitehouse: I would like to highlight two things. One, safety standards for the electrical industry recommend that any volt age over 5,000 be either de-energized, or grounded, or worked by hot stick. Two, aerial baskets are fundamentally a good tool because they place a man in a good position. However, these baskets should not be con sidered as an insulating or isolating device. The same rules apply when working voltages from a basket as when working from a pole. There has been a concerted effort on the part of management of many utility com panies to go to 13,200 volts (and one wants to go up to 15,000 volts as a limit. A man can use rubber insulation for up to 20,000 volts; however, if his nose is still exposed, that is where he will make contact. Edison Electric Institute made an analysis of accidents over the years and practically all of the contacts over 5,000 volts are not hand contacts. So, the rubber gloves are not enough, and it's not reasonable to expect a man to work completely enclosed in rubber. In the opinion of our organization, 5,000 volts is the limit for -working energized lines except via hot stick. Moderator: A major Chicago cab com pany has vehicles which haye the fresh air intake so placed that the exhaust fumes of the car immediately ahead are taken into the passenger compartment of the cab; This could constitute a serious health hazard and we. are wondering what the National Safety Council can do about this situation. Dr. Van Atta: Actually the Council can not do anything about this sort of condition except publicize the hazard. It surprised me when I found that this cab company is still taking their fresh air into the passenger compartment through ducts that are located down low in back of the rediator. This is especially surprising when you realize that all other automobile manufacturers stopped this practice 6 or 7 years ago because of the number of deaths from carbon monoxide. I can't think of any conceivable excuse for this type of neglect in design which can cause serious injury. I would think that unfavor able publicity and perhaps one or two dam age suits against the company for negligent design might have a most salubrious effect. These steps can be taken by the union and should be. (Comment from the floor, by Joseph L. Algina, Safety Director, Seafarers Inter national Union)--The local union that is involved with this cab company is meeting tonight and I will be present. I will recom mend that this union take direct action to see that the condition is eliminated. Moderator: H ow -are safety and health problems handled under Canadian laws ? Mr. Dowling: We have an arrangement with the Director and Chief Inspector, In dustrial Safety Branch, Ontario Department of Labour, Toronto, whereby I meet in his office to discuss any problem that involves steel workers. If there is a violation of the Industrial Safety Act, the initial step rests with the official of the local union involved. The local should extend every effort to get the violation corrected. However, if no cor rective measures are taken the report is sent to my office. I forward it to the In dustrial Safety Branch and an inspector is sent to the plant to check into the condition. Subsequently, we get a report from the Di rector of the Industrial Safety Branch indi cating whether the complaint was upheld or rej ected. The foundry section of our union has a somewhat more refined method of liaison. The government .inspector for foundries 41 1966 National Safety Congress must contact the local union officials before he visits a plant and must take the local's appointed representative with him during his tour of the plant. In addition, the factory inspectors in the Province of Ontario carry a warrant with them and, if they are opposed by the em ployer, the inspector uses the telephone to call the local magistrate. A policeman is dispatched to the-plant to serve the warrant on the person obstructing the inspection and has the person removed from the premises until the inspection is completed. Moderator: Is there a standard clearing house that records a complete list of radia tion exposures to workers handling radio active materials? Dr. Van Atta: Not in the United States, unfortunately. There was a bill introduced in the last Congress, but Congress did not act on it. We have high hopes that it will be handled during the next Congress, al though we understand that there is consid erable opposition to this bill from manage ment sources. Moderator: How can we get management to correct unsafe conditions promptly? Mr. Dowling: I can only give you an il lustration of what happened in the city of Hamilton, Ontario. I was conducting semi nars in Hamilton when one of the crane operators in the plant called me at my home. He informed me that the wheels on the crane had become so worn that the electric shoes that pick up the electricity had dropped to where they were striking stud bolts, caus ing them to fall to the floor below. I called the shop foreman and he admitted that the condition was unsafe. I then phoned the Director of the Ontario Industrial Safety Branch and he sent an inspector within 35 minutes. The inspector was in the plant for 10 minutes. He shut down the entire plant. Management was then obligated to bring in a contractor to replace the crane wheels. The plant was shut down for two shifts. Mr. Greene: We have a way of getting things done also; however, it is sometimes rather late. When we receive a complaint we send an inspector to the location. Usually tire condition existed for some time before we receive the complaint. It has bothered the worker, and he has probably complained to various people but he doesn't contact us until the condition gets serious. Mr. Gold: I think it must be apparent that the answer to this question depends in a large measure on the geographic area in which the plant is located. Some states have fine laws which will take care of these things if you push them. However, other states are quite lax and backward. Mr. Kumpel: If you believe you are work ing in a hazardous situation and feel morally certain that you are right in your belief, then you should refuse to work on such operations until they can be examined by proper and qualified authorities to determine if the conditions need correcting. Mr. Burch: I endorse what John says, but I would like to add that union strength varies geographically. A lot will depend upon the knowledge and guts of the local business agents. Moderator: What are the effects of as bestos dust? iS Dr. Van Atta: B re a th in g ex cessiv e amounts of asbestos dust over a period of 25 to 35 years, depending upon the amount and the person, will result in shortness of breath, circulatory and heart problems, and the person will probably die of heart failure. In addition, you will probably get no as sistance from workmen's compensation, if you are under most jurisdictions. That is the classical picture of asbestosis. But, in the last few years, we are discovering that asbestos is a rather prolific producer of a variety of cancers of the lung and sur rounding tissues. Asbestos is a skinny little crystal, like a needle, and it works into the tissues and promotes cancers. One variety is appearing in rather sub stantial numbers among asbestos workers-- it has always been there, but now it is be ginning to be diagnosed. This is a subject about which we don't know nearly as much as we thought we did 20 years ago. I might say that excessive amounts of asbestos dust is only enough to constitute a slight haze in the air. The situations in which asbestos is used are highly deserving of competent professional assessment. M o d e r a to r : H ow can unions get such professional assessment in cases where they feel the plant hygienist or medical per sonnel are not competent? -12 Labor Sessions Dr. Van Atta: There are several highly qualified physicians in the country who will act as consultants. Also, some state labor departments have personnel who can moni tor asbestos operations and render opinions. (Comment from the floor)--Dr. Van Atta, you mentioned you can't get compensation for asbestos disabilities in most jurisdictions. The law has changed in most jurisdic tions in the country during the last few years so that you may be able to sue the construction company, the architects, and en gineers who built the plant without proper ventilation. This can be considered for full recovery for the wrongful death of a work er or for injuries. This is a very important new area of protection for workers, not only to get damages where there has been disability but to prevent the continuation of the condition in the future. Moderator: What services or aid should be given or offered to local unions from the safety staff of an international union? Mr. Burch: The safety director should develop training programs, or at least out lines, for use by local union safety personnel. He should supply materials (posters, decals, technical data, etc.) and act as a research consultant in safety and health matters. He should answer questions received via letter or telephone. He should gather statistics, which requires the cooperation of local unions. The international union safety director should represent his union members and the trade union movement as a whole, on the various committees that write standards and codes which will effect the work of the union's members. The United States of America Standards Institute, the Society of Automotive Engineers, and the Society of Mechanical Engineers are examples of or ganizations that have these types of com mittees. Previously, participation by union rep resentatives has been minimal and we are doing our best to change this situation. This is one of the most important activities that safety personnel of international labor or ganizations can undertake. There are plenty of openings but labor hasn't sought rep resentation. When labor does become a part of these committees, it has been my ex perience that labor representatives are wel come and offer valuable contributions. Now we come to the really important role of the international union safety depart ment and that is top management support. This is very important; however, it is also essential that the man on the job support the safety activities. Too many local unions still offer only lip service to accident pre vention. Until local union leadership pushes accident prevention, the man on the job will continue to be unconcerned. Mr. Whitehouse: Let us not overlook the fact that many international labor organiza tions do not have a safety director or safety department. For them, the first thing they can do is establish such a department and staff. (Comment from the floor, by Joseph Leo nard)--The Longshoremen's union installed accident prevention activities in the Interna tional Union office and made it mandatory that each local should have a safety pro gram. That was four years ago. To this day, I have to carry a bat when I visit the various locals in order to get these fellows moving. I do not believe that the International Union office can do much until the local unions are willing to accept it and support it. In addition, the rank and file members must provide support to their local union officers. Mr. Kumpel: Our International Union has conducted many safety and compensation clinics throughout the United States and Canada over the past 23 years. We have fairly good success in attracting local union people to attend these clinics for three or four days at a time. Moderator: Does the District of Columbia have the right to make it's own safety codes through it's appointed commissioners, or are the safety rules of the District enacted by the Congress of the United States? Mr. Greene: The District, through it's Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, has the right to make safety codes. They handle all of the investigations and conduct the hearings necessary to develop these codes. This privilege comes from Con gressional legislation. Moderator: How do we sell safety to our union members? Mr. Gold: I believe that you must estab lish, within your members, a desire. You have to give them a chance to participate in the problems. Let them assist with first aid training and community action. The 43 1966 National Safety Congress worker must understand how accident pre vention will benefit him, personally. You cannot sell just once in a while. Ads for new automobiles do not occur once in a while. They are published continuously. The same continuing sales pitch is necessary to keep a union safety program rolling. You have to work at it. (Comment from Bob Wilkins)--I feel certain that the only way accident prevention can be effectively sold to union members and their families is through effective de monstrations. Demonstrative presentations stick in a persons mind much longer and are more effective in changing habits and atti tudes. Films are one method of demonstrat ing what can be done to avoid accidents or reduce hazards. Of course, this requires more time in preparing safety presentations and oftentimes costs money. I am sure that all of you will agree that Jake Gold does an outstanding job of teach ing accident prevention to people from all walks of life and you will notice that he uses demonstrations wherever possible. With reference to the continuing complaint that management cannot get the cooperation of the union or the men when they wish to initiate a certain type of accident pre vention program, the primary reason for this difficulty is the fact that management feels that the safety program is not only their responsibility, but that it is their privilege to develop and enforce it as they see fit. These types of procedures often run into difficulty because most people resist some thing that is forced upon them. However, most people are willing to cooperate with practically any project or program if they have some voice in the manner in which the project or program is developed. As an example, if management wants to initiate a safety-spectacle program, it is extremely helpful if they will ask the union to appoint two or three representatives to sit with management and develop the pro gram which will later become mandatory. When this cooperation is enjoyed from be ginning to end, the program will always be a success because both parties feel that the program was developed properly, and both parties will cooperatively assist in see ing to it that the program is put into effect. Regarding the question of what labor can 44 do about industrial hygiene problems, I be lieve that if the state labor department or other concerned organizations cannot provide industrial hygiene personnel to study situa tions believed to be hazardous by the union, then the union should have the opportunity to hire it's own consulting industrial hygien ist to study the situation and give an un biased report. This should satisfy the de sires of the union membership and should assist in avoiding hazardous situations which may be overlooked by management. (Comment from the floor by Mr. Philo) --If you don't mind, I would like to say something in general about a problem we, as lawyers, have in representing injured people. I have been interested in one very important area of safety and I refer to suits against manufacturers of machinery or safety equipment that result in an injury to a worker. Our position is not aided by the existence of weak standards and weak positions by local and international unions. In particular, I have during the past year presented cases of 37 workers who have lost hands in power presses. I have just spent some time in the Power Press and Forging Section sessions, listening to speak ers on points of operation guarding. It is my opinion that about 50,000 presses in the United States are guarded by a trap instead of a safety device. These are the pull-back guards. I think it is predictable that a work er who operates a press equipped with these pull-back devices for 30 years is bound to lose a hand. I represent some clients who have lost both hands. I don't believe that the National Safety Council is ever going to suggest that the pull-back devices are unsafe. This is prob ably because the Power Press and Forgings Section basically represents industry and management. However, the unions can and should do something about this situation. They ought to get these devices banned in every state in the country. The pull-back devices violate the two principles of power press safety. First, every device or guard must have a fail safe mechanism; second, the worker's hands should never be placed between the dies when the machine is run ning. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler will not use these pull-back devices on any of their thousands of presses. They recognize Labor Sessions they are a trap. It is the smaller shops which do not have effective accident preven tion engineering in the plant, where these devices exist. I recently talked to a corporate safety director who I thought, should know better. However, his company is being advertised as having pull-back type guards on power presses in several of its plants. The cor porate safety director admitted this was true. He went on to say that this type of device was used in some plants because the local union insisted on the pull-back devices. I believe that the local union safety per sonnel were undoubtedly good, conscientious safety people but were not safety sophisti cated. This point of operation guarding is a complex problem. Dr. Van Atta: What Mr. Philo says is perfectly true. Fail safe design is partic ularly important when you're talking about power presses. It is true that there is no failure of a pull-back device which is a safe failure. Every conceiveable failure is a hazardous failure. (Comment from the floor)--I disagree with tire idea of including Industrial hygiene services in a union contract. I am with the State Labor Department of Iowa and am director of the industrial inspectors. We have one of the finest industrial hygiene laboratories in the United States. W hat we really need is support from the unions at the state level when it comes to budget time. The State Bureau of Labor doesn't reecive the support from the unions when it comes time for requesting monies to provide ade quate factory inspection and industrial hy giene survey work. The Manufacturers As sociation are there and they lobby against our budget continuously. Our Safety Com mission is currently operating on a budget of $16,000. We asked for $39,000. The point is that the state has the facilities in adequate equipment and laboratories. But we need more support from labor. Mi 45 1966 National Safety Congress Administration of Industrial Safety Laws WHAT WE NOW DO FOR INDUSTRIAL SAFETY SAFETY AND RELATED ASSOCIATIONS By W. G. JOHNSON General Manager, National Safety Council The American Society of Safety En gineers,* with its 7,700 members and 84 chapters, provides a strong resource for ad ministrators of industrial safety laws. The members of ASSE are available for service on advisory committees and code drafting committees. The Journal of the ASSE is a valuable technical resource for the staffs of state labor departments. The U.S.A. Standards Institute* (for merly the American Standards Association) provides many safety standards which can serve as models for drafting state codes. The Industrial Hygiene Association* pro vides a wealth of technical information, as well as standards. The same is true of the National Fire Protection Association.* The standards and system of approvals of certain kinds of equipment by Under writers Laboratories* is also helpful in the administration of industrial safety laws. Many trade associations provide technical recommendations for the handling of their products. Examples would be the American Petroleum Institute* and the Manufacturing Chemists Association.* It is very difficult in this space to list all such resources. If you encounter a problem in the handling of a American Society of Safety Engineers 5 North Wabash Chicago, Illinois 60602 U.S.A. Standards Institute 10 East 40th Street New York, New York 10016 American Industrial Hygiene Association 14125 Prevost Detroit, Michigan 48227 National Fire Protection Association 60 Batterymarch Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Underwriters Laboratories 207 East Ohio Chicago, Illinois 60611 American Petroleum Institute 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Manufacturing Chemists Association 1825 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D. C. 20009 46 particular product or material, write to the National Safety Council and our staff will direct you to useful material. The National Safety Council's services to occupational safety can be categoried as follows : 1. Research and Fact-Finding; 2. E x change of Information; 3. Standards and Recommendations; 4. Training; 5. Technical Assistance; 6. Program Aids; 7. Measure ment of Performance; 8. Recognition. The Industrial Conference includes the following sections: Aerospace, Air Trans port, Automotive and Machine Shop, Cement, Quarry and Mineral Aggregates, Chemical, Coal Mining, Construction, Electrical equip ment, Fertilizer, Food and Beverage, Glass and Ceramics, Hospital Safety Service, Ma rine, Meat Packing, Tanning and Leather Products, Metals, Mining, Petroleum, Power Press and Forging, Printing and Publishing, Public Employee, Public Utilities, Pulp and Paper, Railroad, Rubber and Plastics, Tex tile, Trades and Services, and Wood Prod ucts. The Motor Transportation Conference in cludes the Commercial Vehicle, School Transportation, and Transit Sections. The school and college conference includes the Safety Education Supervisors, Driver Edu cation, Elementary School, and Higher Edu cation sections. Other conferences in the National Safety Council structure are the Labor Conference, Farm Conference, Women's Conference, Re ligious Leaders Conference, Traffic Confer ence, Public Conference, Youth Conference, Public Information Conference, and Chapter Conference. RESEARCH AND FACT-FINDING Research Services include Research Cor relation, Research Critique, Research Meth odology, and Research Retrieval. Labor Sessions Exploratory Grants have been assigned for Relationship of Fleet Safety Programs to Accident Frequency Rates, Variables Cov ering Safety Poster Effectiveness, Analysis of Expert Opinions Regarding Industrial Safety Programs, Evaluation of Defensive Driving Course, and Prediction of Indivi dual Accident Liability with an Inventory Measuring Risk Taking Tendency. Also the Research Department is working on High Threat Safety Posters in Industry, and Slow Moving Farm Vehicle Emblem. Statistical Services provide Accident Facts, Industry Injury Rates, Motor Transporta tion Accident Rates, and Special Studies. Sectional Surveys include in Pulp and Paper--Most Prevalent Physical Hazards in the Paper Industry, and Training; in Wood Products--Protective Equipment for Chain Saws; in Public Utilities -- Aerial Basket Accident Surveys, and Helicopters; and in Mining--Training Materials. Library Services. The National Safety Council maintains the world's largest safety library, which is preparing for mechanized information retrieval. EXCHANGE OF INFO RM ATIO N National Safety News--circulation, 39,800 Traffic Safety Magazine -- circulation, 17,700 Farm Safety Review--circulation, 17,500 Newsletters 30 Industrial Sections--circulations from 750 to 4,600 Motor Transportation--circulation, 9,000 Labor--circulation, 2,000 College and University--circulation, 2,550 Trade Associations--circulation, 750 The National Safety Congress attracts 13,000 delegates to more than 250 sessions and meetings--more than 150 of which are devoted to industrial and motor transporta tion subjects. Transactions of the National Safety Con gress are published in 28 volumes. Symposium -- Measurement of Industrial Safety Performance Conference and Section Meetings Participation in State and Local Confer ences National Directory of Safety Films STANDARDS AND RE C O M M E N D A TIO N S Accident Prevention Manual fo r Indus trial Operations Handbook of Accident Prevention for Business and Industry Safety Guide for Unions Motor Fleet Safety Manual Supervisors Safety Manual Data Sheets (more than 350-- covering everything from abrasives to zirconium) Special Industry Manuals cover Power Press, Forging, Quarry Operations, Graphic Arts Industry, Office Safety, Hospital Safe ty, Operating Ambulance Fleets, Guards Il lustrated, and Safety Devices for Metal working Industry. The National Safety Council cooperates with U.S.A. Standards Institute as sponsors or co-sponsors of 24 safety standards, and participates in development of 66 other safe ty standards; cooperates with National Fire Protection Association; cooperates with American Society for Testing Materials; cooperates with Underwriters Laboratories. TRAINING Fundamentals of Industrial Safety is of fered in six courses per year--with over 5,000 graduates to date. Advanced Safety Management is offered in four courses per year; and Hygiene in two courses per year. Home Study Courses are offered for: Total to Date Current Industrial Supervisors 6,322 1,186 active Labor Leaders (new) 75 75 Motor Fleet Supervisors (on the drawing boards) Special Industries Courses include Fertil izer and Public Utilities. Consultation and participation in state and local courses is provided. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE C onsuliahon: 15,000 correspondence inquiries per year Quickie experience checks on special prob lems in special industries 47 1966 National Safety Congress Missionary work with trade associations to reach small business; Surveys, Commit tees, Programs. PROGRAM AIDS Supervisor Training includes Industrial Supervisor magazine with a circulation of 206,000; films, talks, pamphlets, data sheets, STEP program, and accident case studies. Records forms. Vocational school checklists. Employee Training material includes Safe Worker magazine--circulation, 446,000 ; Safe Driver magazine--circulation, 609,000; pos ters, booklets, banners, incentives, films, and slides. Farm Guides and the S M V Emblem pro motion are continuing activities. RECOGNITION OF PERFORMANCE Industrial (1965)--462 Awards of Honor; 1,081 Awards of Merit; 1,187 Certificates of Commendation; 928 President's Letters, 1,000 Section Contest Winners and 5 Distinguished Service to Safety Award Winners. Labor presents 15 awards, College and University 7 awards, and Farm Safety 19 awards. Motor Fleet re c o g n itio n in c lu d es 411 awards to fleets, and 211,000 awards to drivers. v FEDERAL PERSPECTIVE AND POLICY By ROBERT D. GIDEL Dir. Office of Occupational Safety, Bureau of Labor Standards, U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C. The Bureau of Labor Standards has 26 field offices, seven regions and 200-plus staff personnel. We have seven operating programs based on legal authority plus research and develop ment, publications development, training and promotional programs. We have three major areas of respon sibility: regulatory functions, safety services and consultation and research and develop ment. We provide safety program consultation, safety training, inspections and investiga tions, technical assistance, clearinghouse of information, codes, laws, etc., special indus try surveys, legislative assistance and com munications aids. We provide services for state labor agen cies, unions, federal agencies, industry we regulate, educational institutions, municipali ties, students, individuals and international groups. We have seven operating programs ad ministering safety provisions of the 1-- Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act 2-- Public Contracts Act 3-- Federal Employees' Compensation Act 4-- Fair Labor Standards Act 5-- Service Contracts Act 6-- Arts and Humanities Act 7-- Vocational Rehabilitation Act 8-- Presidential Executive Order 10990. Here we separate theory from practice-- it is estimated that 30 to 35 million workers could be reached by these laws. As an example of the success in applying the theories we urge labor and management to follow, in 1960 the longshore injury frequency rate (IFR ) was 131.8. In 1965 it was 86.9, a reduction of 34 per cent. In 1960 the shipyard rate (IFR ) was 39.3. In 1965 it was 25.9, another 30 per cent plus improvement. We don't claim credit for this. It was accomplished by a lot of hard work, dedi cation and cooperation by labor and man agement. To help accomplish this improvement, we, in 1965, inspected 23,300 ships, trained 20,400 workers, and consulted with management on programs 10,300 times -- among other things. We also have these other programs. In federal safety we made 237 consultative surveys, trained 3445 workers, helped 79 field councils with programs, provided sec retariat for 100 field councils, and partici pated in 175 meetings and 11 conferences, to help provide safety for federal employees. 48 Labor Sessions A major safety program in the federal government now is Mission Safety 70. This was initiated two years ago by the President. The goal is to reduce the incidence of in juries and their costs 30 per cent by 1970. The base year 1963 IFR was 7.9. Last year it was reduced to 7.3. We are shooting for 5.6 in 1970. Another operating program is with state safety organizations. Last year we conducted 18 state safety inspector courses, conducted 15 construction industry cooperative courses, conducted five state employee safety pro grams, made 170 consultative and promo tional contacts with states, and helped de velop three special industry programs. Another key program is with unions. We work with every level of organized labor in safety promotion and education--from the AFL-CIO headquarters to the local bodies. We trained 1341 through formal courses, and reached 6875 through presentations in union halls and at meetings. We made 562 promotional contacts with labor officials to stimulate safety activities. The Secretary of Labor recently consoli dated all safety authorities of the U. S. Department of Labor in the Bureau of Labor Standards. We are now studying how best to ad minister the s a fe ty requirements of the Public Contracts Act, S e rv ic e Contracts Act, Arts and Humanities Act and Voca tional Rehabilitation Act. We will have to wait till next year to report on our results and actions concerning them, as we have on the other programs. To back up our operating, training and promotional programs we also have a re search and development arm. This involves individual program materials development, plus work with USA Standards Institute, NFPA, Federal Radiation Council, and many others. A special project is our code comparison studies. We compare safety provisions in state safety laws with the American Safety Standard on the subject. To date, we have made 20 such studies and the comparison documents are available to all interested parties. Many people and organizations contact us for help on technical safety problems as well as safety programming. To handle these requests we have a clear inghouse service. We have a complete state safety law library. We develop abstracts on key standards, laws and regulations. We have a comprehensive technical library, and we maintain constant liaison with various experts and groups who might help come up with the right an sw ers to difficult problems. We have a whole series of tr a in in g courses, sessions and institutes we provide for states, labor and industry subject to our regulatory authority. Major courses cover safety organization and administration, mechanical and physical hazards, chemical and environmental haz ards, low voltage electricity, construction safety, radiation and industrial hygiene, and Safety Trainers Institute. To back up our training, educational and promotional activities, we develop and use slide sets, movies, exhibits, demonstrations, technical bulletins, instructor outline texts and others. Most of our key publications and other aids can be purchased through the Government Printing Office and other sources. On the national developmental and pro motional scene: 1-- We serve on 52 committees of U.S.A. Standards Institute 2-- On the nuclear construction and safety standards boards 3-- Several NSC sections and conferences 4-- Federal interagency committees on fire, motor vehicle, atomic energy, highway, occupational and ofi'-the-job sa fe ty standards 5-- We provide secretariat and technical backup for the President's Conference on Occupational Safety'. On the international scene, w e: 1-- Prepare U.S. government position pa pers r e g u la r ly on ILO conference subjects 2-- Have participated on committees in Geneva and other foreign places on such subjects as manual weight lifting standards, industrial hygiene in indus try, chemicals, machine guarding, ship building, and others. 3-- Provide staff and backup for certain international trade fairs -- Poland, Czechoslovakia and elsewhere. 49 1966 National Safety Congress l / STATE PERSPECTIVE AND POLICY By ERNEST B. WEBB Director, Department of Industrial Relations, State of California (Delivered by George Sherman) For any state to achieve significant prog ress in reducing the toll of industrial injury and death, the perspective and policy of that state must, in my opinion, include three fundamentals. 1. The enactment of enabling legislation that permits the state agency having juris diction over industrial safety to prepare safety regulations without delay, once it believes there is a need for them. 2. The compilation, tabulation, and anal ysis of all disabling work injuries in that state. 3. Clear and unmistakable evidence that the governor and legislature of the state are firmly and fully committed to the policy of securing safety in places of employment. California has long recognized the impor tance of these three fundamentals and, what is more important, has observed them. That recognition and observance have largely con tributed to the decline in California's work injury rate last year to its lowest, level in history. (31.3 injuries per 1,000 workers.) Technological advances today are at an increasingly rapid and dizzy pace, far great er than was imagined even as little as thirty years ago. For this reason, it would be quite impossible for any legislature itself, in ad dition to its many other duties, to cope im mediately with new hazards presented by new machines, new processes, and, occasion ally, even new industries as they are intro duced. The solution is enabling legislation that leaves control of such hazards to an effec tive state agency having competent, welltrained safety engineering personnel--men with not only a sound background in their field but whose full-time job is industrial safety. Enabling legislation should be general in scope, and not confined to specific hazards or specific measures. It should give full au thority to the safety agency concerned to prepare safety regulations as and when it deems them necessary. Those regulations should have the force and effect of law. 50 Of course, safety regulations should be prepared under thoroughly democratic pro cedures (as is the case in California) and not by mere fiat, if they are to receive the support of both management and labor. End less safety disputes between these two great segments of industry will be avoided if both groups feel that the standards created pro vide necessary and reasonable safety. I say "reasonable," because we know that absolute safety does not exist and that progress of any nature is usually attended by some risk. I need hardly add that a state safety agency of continuing competency is possible only under an adequate civil service system, with safety engineering personnel appointed from eligible lists established after open competitive examinations. The second fundamental--the compilation, tabulation, and analysis of all disabling work injuries--is necessary to pinpoint precisely where major injury prevention efforts might well be directed. The analysis might disclose that a specific industry, or an area within that industry, needs greater attention. Or, it might show that specific accident types are the villain. In California, for instance, statistics re veal an illuminating and unchanging pattern during the last twenty or more years that we have been able to prepare comprehensive work injury statistics. Three out of every four work injuries are caused by three ac cident types: falls and slips; strain or over exertion ; and striking against obj ects or being struck by them. As for the third fundamental, it is a truism that safety must have actual top level sponsorship if it is to enlist the respect and support of all other levels, including the rank and file. Nothing is more valuable than consistent action by a state's governor and legislature proving their profound concern for on-thejob safety. That concern provides an indus trial safety climate that will affect every aspect of our society for the better. Labor Sessions THE EMPLOYER By M. F. BIANCARDI Manager, Safety and Workmen's Compensation^ Services, Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, Wis. What is industry doing about the adminis tration of safety laws ? First and foremost, industry complies with these laws and regulations. I 'm sure every one has heard the statistics from various states that say only one, two, or three per cent of the compensable injuries involve violations of regulations. Second, industry is assisting in bringing about overall compliance with the laws--by organized self-education and inspection and exchange of information conducted through local and state safety councils, business as sociations, etc. Most of these efforts involve participation by government officials who, in these situations, act as consultants and ad visors rather than enforcers. Third, fortunately, in our democratic sys tem, industry has the opportunity to help develop the rules by which it is going to operate. Thus, it participates in advisory committees, on technical boards, and in pub lic hearings, taking either a leadership or assistance role in the development of safety regulations. Fourth, industry provides manpower, mon ey, and technical knowledge to voluntarily develop recommended standards of safety through various organizations -- NFPA, ASA, API, MCA, NSC, etc. These volun tary standards are the "sky hook" on which government regulations often "hang their hats." I 'm not looking for bouquets for industry. What industry is doing is no more than it should be doing in our kind of society. But I think that sometimes we take these activ ities for granted, or even demand them; industry not only has a responsibility in this area, but is meeting it, too. But, are we doing enough? The pat an swer is "no"--just as I think it is for every group represented here. The minute any one of us says, "yes" progress will be hampered. I suggest that we not only continue to im prove the regulations we have but also look for new ways to do this job. In this respect, I recommend that we give serious thought to the use of overall safety performance measures and performance type rules. THE WORKER By J. GEORGE EICHHORN Grand Lodge Representative, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers What We Now Do For Industrial Safety. What the organized union worker is doing for the furtherance of industrial safety is primarily what he has always done, but big ger and better in the past eleven years; namely, we are the devil's advocate and as such we are constantly negotiating and work ing for better safety and health legislation. With the merging of the A.F. of L. and C.I.O. eleven years ago, we came out with a very strong policy on these matters, and we have a proven record of achievement to show for it. Almost simultaneously, labor got its own Conference in the National Safety Council, and we have steadily grown from a zero membership to almost 600 in number. The worker, through his union, lias spent many hours in various legislative halls seek ing constant improvement--getting enabling acts and pushing for the necessary money to improve safety departments and factory inspectors at all levels of government. The worker is pushing his parent unions for strong constitutional language on safety, health, and workmen's compensation. He is pushing his parent unions for fully staffed safety and health departments at staff level 51 1966 National Safety Congress to handle only these problems. He more and more is pushing- his representative negotia tors for better contract clauses and better equipped in-plant safety representatives. He seeks time for discussion of safety and safety education at union meetings and union sponsored leadership schools. He in sists on his city and state central bodies committing themselves to safety programs. He runs for public offices on school boards and park boards where he can influence the safety programs of the schools, playgrounds, parks, beaches, etc. He recognizes that every time a non-mechanical accident occurs, a human failure has occurred and that human failure was, in large part, shaped by the attitude of the worker. Last, but not least, he is learning to be the backbone for strict and fair enforcement of laws that enhance good safety. What More Can We Do About It? Nobody goes to work in the morning ex pecting or waiting to be injured during the day. I doubt if any of the almost 700 per sons killed in the recent Labor Day slaughter left their homes expecting to die. Our ex perience indicates that the major problem in safety is heeding accident prevention ad vice. "It can't happen to me". While most of the time we get away with feeling that "It can't happen to me", the statistics grimly point out that we can't afford the luxury of such an attitude. Labor is going to have to do even more to make every worker under stand "It can happen to me". We must build attitudes in our places of work to consciously avoid accidents. First, by making the worker a part of every ac cident prevention program and, second, by doing away with the one-way system where the employer unilaterally makes the rules and operates the entire safety program. The only success we have known is with two-way program. We can work harder. We must bringmore people into the main stream of the needs outlined in my earlier remarks. We must work for realism in safety -- not flowery speeches. We must work constantly to have an understanding by the worker of just what it means for him to work and live safely. We must desist from using post ers, slogans, gimmicks, and contests for getting good and lasting results from safety programs. We must work hard to keep our employers from giving us contests, posters, slogans and gimmicks in lieu of sound in dustrial safety programs. We must enter into all safety programs with the basic knowledge that if the safety program is to succeed, it is a never ending job. Finally, we must continue to push to get money from government, spent on industrial safety in amounts equal to, not less than, the gov ernment's programs for conservation de partments, agricultural departments, and ani mal husbandry. THE INSURER By COLE A. ALLEN Vice President, Engineering, American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., Wakefield. Mass. The insurance industry, particularly the casualty and property underwriters, has al ways been in the vanguard of industrial safety. The industry has built an incentive to good safety performance into the workmen's compensation pricing structure by means of experience rating and retrospective rating plans. These are sort of double edge swords that cut both ways. On the one hand, they enable a policyholder to achieve worthwhile 52 reductions in insurance costs to the extent that he is able to control his accident expe rience. On the other hand, they penalize him pricewise if he does not. What the in s u r e r does for industrial safety falls into three broad groupings : 1. Direct help to individual policyholders in the technical and administrative features of industrial accident control. 2. Research on industrial health and safetyproblems. Labor Sessions 3. Promotion of industrial safety as broad national movement. We should be mindful that this help is directed not solely to the workmen's com pensation interests of the insurer. Much of the safety work that is performed by insur ers of property and general liability such as fire exposures, pressure vessels, and ele vators, is an important contribution to indus trial safety. The attainment of any effective level of safety performance requires considerably more than the existence of industrial safety laws, irrespective of how well they are en forced and implemented. Similar to nation ally accepted voluntary safety standards and fire codes, industrial safety laws (to the degree that they are complete) provide a credible index to the conditions that should prevail if a good standard of physical and mechanical safeguarding is to be attained. This is supremely important, because a physically safe and healthy work environ ment is an essential element of any effective industrial safety effort. However, the in surer is ordinarily disposed to treat the total problem, and deviations from safety codes, rules, regulations, etc., are invariably symptoms of the real problem rather than the problem itself. It is this factor that accounts for the wide range of activity of insurers in helping their policyholders reach increasingly higher standards of performance in industrial safety. Let us examine the first category: "Di rect help to the individual policyholders for both occupational injury and health impair ments." This is where the bulk of the effec tive help is given. Most of the insurers make available a safety advisory service to their policyholders. Ordinarily, this pro vides for personal visits to policyholder sites by trained safety technicians. These people evaluate equipment, process, material, and production methods with respect to inherent hazards and their controls and con sult with management on th e ir findings. Competent knowledge of applicable safety codes and standards is indisposable. Such work is often backed up by testing and analytical laboratories which permit more exacting studies of complex problems, es pecially those where chemical or mechanical exploration is warranted. An important sup plement to this personalized service is the a voluminous array of safety educational and motivational material that is available to the industry for use by management, supervi sors, and the rank and file workers. The scope of the services varies among insurers. Some are safety inspector oriented ; others take on a broader role and are man agement consultant oriented. There is a trend toward the latter role. The range of activities can be described as follows: 1. Advice to industrial management in developing and p ro m u lg a tin g the safety policy and program best suited to the needs of the establishment. 2. Advice to management in planning, or ganizing, and controlling the accident pre vention function so that it is built into the system that management normally uses to discharge its operating responsibilities. 3. Help to management in establishing and maintaining a physically and mechani cally safe and healthy work environment by surveying premises, equipment, process material, and production processes, advising management on important deviations from accepted safety codes and standards and the most effective corrective measures to be taken. 4. Help to management in establishing and maintaining safe work methods by ob serving worker practice, advising manage ment on d e v ia tio n s from safe behavior patterns and methods for effecting improve ment. 5. Advise management on the s a fe ty codes and standards that apply to the opera tions, assist them to procure the material and to use it as the basis of establishing a safe working environment. 6. Help management incorporate scheduled safety inspections as routine operating func tion, and assist in the training of qualified safety inspectors. 7. Help management develop a strong supervisory safety function by advising them on the appropriate assignment of safety responsibilities to supervisors and assisting management, through supervisory training programs, to develop the skills of supervisors in carrying out their safety assignments. 8. Help management in job safety analysis techniques to be used as a basis for hazard identification and control, and the job train ing of workers. S3 1966 National Safety Congress 9. Help management organize the plant maintenance function so that it may bring maximum value to the accident prevention program. 10. Help management organize its pro cedures for the selection, placement, and job training of workers so that a physically limited or untrained worker is not placed on a job that is dangerous to himself or his associates. 11. Help management train and motivate tire work force in accident prevention by providing safety educational and motiva tional literature, pamphlets, posters, films, and other visual aids. 12. Help management institute an effective accident investigation system and assist in in training supervisory people in the tech niques of investigating accidents and cor recting causes. 13. Help management establish and utilize a system of accident record compilation as a basis for measuring performance and planning programs. 14. Help management establish and main tain effective first aid and medical facilities. 15. Conduct a system of scheduled audits of the several elements of the policyholders safety program so that management may be furnished with expert advice on program status and effectiveness. 16. Serve as speakers, lecturers, instruc tors, at policyholder safety rallies, training courses, and safety meetings. 17. Furnish statistical compilations from the insurer's records that will aid the policy holder in evaluating his own program and in planning program activities. 18. Undertake research on specific safety problems of policyholders that do not lend themselves to solution by existing knowledge. Behind all this effort with the individual policyholder is the simple philosophy that efficient management prevents accidents. It is logical that an important role of the in surer is to promote managerial effectiveness. The major thrust at the outset is to get management to accept the fact that acci dents don't have to happen. Once that is accomplished, the insurer tells management how to prevent them and then convinces him to do something about them. The second category of help to industrial safety is "Research on industrial health and safety problems." Some of this is conducted in research laboratories operated by a num ber of insurers, and some is sponsored re search that is contracted to outside research facilities. While much of this laboratory work is re la te d to specific policyholder service work and is intended to pinpoint hazards that cannot otherwise be determined accurately, a substantial portion is pure re search on broad safety problems that effect industry. Much of this is in the explosion, fire, and occupational health fields. In gen eral, the activity involves: 1. Explosibility determinations of dusts and vapors. 2. Flash point determinations. 3. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of suspected atmospheric contaminants, dusts, vapors, fumes, and mists. 4. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of suspected toxic chemicals and compounds. 5. Machine studies to design improved safeguards. The third category refers to the activities of the insurer in "The promotion of indus trial safety on a broad national front." This describes the extensive participation of the insurers both in the financial support of, and the assignment of personnel to, national and local safety council activities, employers and trade associations, standards develop ment bodies, professional societies, and other groups which have an interest in, and a contribution to make to, industrial safety. Insurance people can be found taking active roles in the promotion of the objectives of those various organizations. What the insurer is doing for industrial safety lends itself to pretty large dimen sions. It is probably a major factor in the progress that industrial safety has made and is continuing to make. 54 Labor Sessions WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? By HOWARD PYLE President, National Safety Council This subject has a very familiar ring to me. At another stage in my life, the answer to what should be done was almost invari ably--there ought to be a law. No matter what the problem was, the popular notion was that the enactment of a law would fix it. The longer 1 worked and lived with this concept, the more I learned how often it was that laws, or enabling, already in place, had either been punched so full of holes, or had been so sorely neg lected, that they weren't very effective any more. So, when a new law was passed to do something that needed to be done, it was very often a case of patching, or plugging, a law that wasn't doing what it should have been doing. The moral of this piece of business is not to suggest that we need more law or regulation, but to raise the question--"What should be done that could be done if we were only doing what we should be doing?" You are familiar with the areas of in fluence and responsibility of those who are participating in this presentation. What an avalanche of action could be turned on if every source of strength identi fied here this afternoon were turned on. I'm not thinking about the new things we might all tackle, but just the things we are al ready enabled and qualified to do. When Green Bay Packer Jim Taylor turns in his best performance, it's called a second, third and fourth effort at doing what should be done. It's what he is paid to do and the fact that he does it and does it so consistently and so well makes him a star and the Packers one of the winningest teams in the history of football. Speaking for the National Safety Council, we are probably reaching 20 million workers --half of them very well--the other half not as well as we could and should. In the process, we point with pride to the fact that among our members, accident-frequency rates are 73 per cent better than for non members. Still, the facts show that more than 60 per cent of the industries rated have worse records than they had ten years ago. In contrast, the gas utilities industry with a frequency rate of more than 22 some 20 years ago--and 8.6 ten years ago--had a 5.7 in 1965. There are others who are also turning in Jim Taylor type performances, but not enough of them, or the Vice Presi dent of our Industrial Conference, H. S. McFarland, would have had no cause to say in the Conference Report for 1966, "In the last ten years both frequency and severity rates have remained almost constant." As a matter of record, the all-industry rate has actually crept up a little in the last three years. I know the general subject of this after noon's session is "Administration of Indus trial Safety Laws" and that my time is meant to deal with what should be done? In approaching it as I have, my intention has been to emphasize for all of us the nature of the gap between what we now do for industrial safety and what more can we do about it? My contention is that this gap is full of opportunity for our own organization and the many multipliers with which we work. For government at all levels along with the employer, the worker and the insurer--the potential is tremendous. I would be the last to say there are no differences among us as to how maximum safety for the worker should be accomp lished. As debaters, we might never agree altogether. No matter, there has to be enough honest good will among us and a sufficient mutual concern for the safety of the worker, that we can cooperate fully in the adminis tration of industrial safety laws, while we do our utmost to avoid the necessity for more and more of the idea that there ought to be a law. High voluntary performance standards for the protection of the worker wherever he is employed is a big assignment, but in its achievement more could be done for indus 55 1966 National Safety Congress trial safety than by any other means. To make it possible, all of us must make it easier and easier and more and more de sirable for employers everywhere to set up sound safety programs and thus learn how to make it pay important dividends. I respectfully submit these observations as my answer to the question, "What should be done" to better serve the Administration of Industrial Safety Laws. WHAT MORE CAN WE DO ABOUT IT? FEDERAL GOVERNMENT By NELSON M. BORTZ Director, Bureau of Labor Standards, U.S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C. The swift pace of technology; the spate of new and exotic chemicals and materials; the steady spread of industry from highly industrialized areas to the countryside; the tendency for large and merging corporations to operate geographically dispersed plants; the speed of our transportation and com munication systems and the pervasiveness of expanding environmental hazards, of air and water pollution--these are only some of the aspects of living, working, and administering programs in te n d e d to protect the lives and livelihood of today's and tomorrow's Americans. The mastery of these changes and chal lenges commands our attention. It calls for a reassessment and reappraisal of the ability of our conventional, institutional forces-- whether industry, labor, state or Federal government--to deal quickly, sensibly, and consistently with safety and health problems. The present w id esp read concern over safety matters calls for a far greater degree of adaptability, response, and readiness than in pre-World War II days or, indeed, in the decade following the war when the wartime technological breakthroughs had not yet been fully assimilated by our indus trial economy. Meanwhile, the second and third generations of technological change, in successively s h o rte r gestation periods, have spawned ever more prolific and amaz ing offspring from the marriage of science to industry. The central question now before us as administrators is whether, within our in dustrial and political framework and our sometimes exaggerated emphasis upon pre 56 rogatives and "rights," we can marshal our collective resources and responsibilities not only to catch up but also keep pace with the accelerating tempo of material change in what is sometimes called the "hard" sciences. If we are to achieve even moderate suc cess, we must move forthrightly and faster along the four avenues of comprehension, cooperation, coordination, and compliance. We must comprehend the thrust of tech nological change and the accompanying need for social adjustment more rapidly than in the past. Whether it is the toxicity of a new chemical, the pace of automated proc esses, or the industrial use of nuclear energy we cannot await the casual course of em pirical cause and effect to see whether it is safe or not. More research, before and not after the accident, is required. This means we must cooperate not only to identify threats to the health and safety of workers but also to take joint measures to provide suitable protective arrangements and standards. It means specifically (a) the development of safety standards covering new hazards and processes promptly, thor oughly, without reservation and with broad ly-based participation, and (b) the timely revision of many so-called national standards whose age unmasks their obsolesence. Next, there must be realistic, active coor dination of our separate but mutual interests. This involves the willingness and ability of industry, labor, and safety-oriented groups to work together and to work with govern ment agencies, state and Federal. By the same token, government authorities must >t: Labor Sessions not only work with those in the private We must comprehend change and by re sector but also among themselves at the search and study a n tic ip a te its safety local, state or Federal level. In some rational implications. and viable manner the respective roles, re We must cooperate wholeheartedly in the sponsibilities, and resources of Federal and development of ad eq u a te, modem safety t state safety ag en cies must mesh more codes. f smoothly in the accident prevention area. We must coordinate our efforts and juris Finally, whether the standards and safe dictions to maximize our work and influence. guards are those specified by private ar We must seek the spirit and substance rangements, such as industry codes or col of compliance not in a narrow, selfish or lective bargaining c o n tra c ts , or by legal technical sense but in terms of expanding instruments, compliance becomes the essence national safety needs and services. of safety. As a nation, we are a unique admixture of private and public government. The most successful and effective observance of the rules of the game is based upon participation, understanding, and acceptance by the parties involved. This has been amply demonstrated, both positively and negatively in our safety efforts whether in the plant, the state or nationally. The task ahead is to seek that degree of compliance which serves neither narrow nor selfish employer, union, or government predilections but rather the public good, broadly conceived. These are administrative problems. They involve bringing people, points of view, and proposals together for action. They call for leadership. In all likelihood, they call for g r e a te r governmental involvement at both the state and national level. They call for exploration of the most effective "mix" of Federal and state capacities. They also call for the constructive support by the private safety community in terms of pro gressive legislation, adequate budgets, and competency of staff free from a political spoils systems and unfair pressures in their Thus, the future course is clear: enforcement activities. V STATE GOVERNMENT By CARL J. MATTEI Director, Division of Industrial Safety Services, State of New York Most states which have safety divisions are legislatively charged with the responsi bility of making inspections and enforcing safety standards for the purpose of accident prevention. In this area of responsibility they do a most effective job. In addition to acci dent prevention programs conducted by the states, there are usually programs conducted within the state by many private organiza tions which are also engaged in accident prevention. These private organizations in clude, but are not necessarily limited to, local chapters of the National Safety Coun cil, the American Society of Safety Engi neers, organized labor, trade groups and insurance companies. All of these non governmental organizations operate more or less independently of one another. I am of the opinion that states should take the initiative and attempt to weld all of the efforts of these various groups into one strong force. I feel that cooperation between the state and these various groups, all of which have a common concern in occupational safety, would lead to a more impressive record in accident frequency re duction. In order to achieve this need for a joint effort, I suggest as a first step the forming of a committee comprised of mem bers of these groups. This committee would distribute information on safe working con ditions and practices, exchange information on causes and circumstances of accidents, and plan statewide safety seminars. I have only mentioned a few of the many possible functions of this standing committee. I am sure, however, that as time progressed more and more gain to the state could be expected from such a committee. The area of education for accident pre- 57 1966 National Safety Congress vention, although usually part of the acci dent prevention program in many states, has not received sufficient attention in spite of the fact that all safety experts agree that education is the most effective means of achieving success in accident p re v e n tio n . Most states attempt to combine educational programs with their enforcement programs. I believe that this method is ineffective for the reason that a safety representative who enters an establishment for the prime pur pose of enforcement cannot hope to secure management cooperation, which is one of the essential factors in any educational pro gram. I, therefore, recommend that state government provide a separate and distinct organization of highly skilled and competent personnel whose responsibilities would be strictly lim ite d to developing educational programs. These programs could be either on an industry or on an individual establish ment basis. Labor and management group participation should be solicited in such a program. Good safety statistics are most necessary in order to properly administer a state safety program. In spite of this, the statistics avail able to the administrator of a state safety program are usually limited. Because of limitations of funds, state safety divisions, as a general rule, must practice selectivity in their inspection procedures in order to utilize their staff inspectors in a most effi cient manner. In order to assign staff in a selective inspection it becomes necessary, therefore, that information be made avail able to the administrator, concerning all establishments and industries which have above national or s ta te average accident frequency rates. The administrator of a state safety pro gram should also have available to him information relating to accident causes for planning purposes, I propose, therefore, that state safety divisions review the available statistical information and expand the service where it is found lacking. Although many research p r o je c ts have been undertaken in connection with traffic and automobile safety, to the best of my knowledge no such research projects have been undertaken by states in the area of industrial safety. In this connection I pro pose that state government should either conduct their own research programs and studies or make available to research or ganizations, or to universities, funds for the purpose of conducting such research. In recent years, a great deal of emphasis has been placed upon vocational training, for the reason that manpower shortages exist in the skilled trades. Vocational train ing schools and apprentice training programs have been utilized as part of the program for providing these skills. The curriculum used in training individuals in these pro grams contain little or no material on safety. This matter should be of great concern to state government and should be reviewed. THE EMPLOYER By WALTER F. PATENGE President, Wohlert Corporation, Lansing, Mich. Industrial health and safety is undergoing a revolution. It is to the best interest of the employer, be he a business man, shop keeper, or an industrialist, to be ever watchful for safety in all of its ramifications. The safety program has been a long up hill battle and has progressed because of the National Safety Council and the local safety councils which have been fostered by busi ness. This, thru the co-operation of law enforcement officials, has been most effective. It is a known fact that large corporations 58 maintain special departments for safety; this has been mostly along the line of physical problems. Many small companies have serv ices from outside, thru insurance companies and private companies. Yet none of these are effective if management does not put pressure to bear on solving the problems. Committees of supervisors or workmen is not always the answer. The money in the budget for proper policing is most necessary. For years, we have stressed the physical aptitude in all of our discussions but not Labor Sessions some of the other facets which bear on the reasons for accidents. Many large companies now engage specialists such as medical di rectors, industrial health e n g in e e rs , and psychologists for the purpose of making the conditions in the factory as well as the man power conducive for h e a lth y and safe operations. The mental a ttitu d e of an employee, whether in the office or factory, often times contribute to accidents which can be pre vented. Any one of us has experienced this with himself. These can be prevented by the proper handling of people. The human behavior of the employee and the employer are studies which are attract ing the attention of safety specialists. Note, I said "both the employer and employee." The following is an excerpt from a letter received from a noted psychiatrist at Wayne State U n iv e rs ity in Detroit, Michigan; "Thru out history man has seemed to be able to learn to manage physical phenomena, devising new machines and gadgets far more effectively than he has been able to manage himself, his emotions, his social, and his occupational relationships. Yet, emotional and social disturbances of employees are costing industry billions of dollars annually in absenteeism, low productivity, accidents, and other forms of work disruption. Now, after years of inactivity, many business and industrial leaders have begun to take action to assist the workman because, thru re habilitation, many a man can be a good productive employee and a good family man." Another phase that tends to develop acci dents or impair safety in the plant is health environment. This is having more concen trated study and is being corrected. Sound environmental health engineering principles, thru research and development, have provided health engineers with adequate know how to design and provide control for all types of industrial activities or operations which pro duce and/or liberate dusts, mist, fumes, gases, and vapors to the air in places of employment. This is a savings, not a cost, even tho the benefits derived are intangible in nature. The employer loses as well as the em ployee. A pamphlet produced by the Amer ican Mutual Insurance Alliance shows that to offset with profits a $100 accident loss, business must perform these sizable tasks 1. Detroit must construct two-thirds of a popular low priced sedan. 2. A communications equipment plant must build 15 televisions. 3. A supermarket must ring up 359 twenty dollar sales. 4. A restaurant must serve 1,563 $2 blue plates. 5. An office supply r e ta ile r must sell 4,750,000 paper clips. According to government statistics a few years back, there are 350,000 small com panies who, because of size or capital, cannot initiate co m p arab le programs in health and safety as large companies main tain. However, they are, in the main, insure'd, and thru the proper direction by the in surance companies many health and safety principles can be maintained in some measure. A greater portion of the small business and industry belongs to one or more asso ciations. A recent survey showed that few of these organizations, if any, were making health and safety a part of their business. This is one activity, with little cost, in which the association can be helpful in just point ing out to members that it is a savings, not a cost, to prevent accidents and assist in maintaining the health of the employee. The National Association of Manufactur ers has for years had a health and safety committee, and the most active members have been the large companies whose sole purpose is to help the smaller. Its sub-com mittees are: 1. Mental health. 2. Occupational medicine. 3. Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology. 4. Occupational safety. 5. Non-Occupational health & safety. 6. Rehabilitation. It is hoped that, by example, other asso ciations will develop along similar lines in the welfare of both employer and employee. It is not new for business and industry to initiate, because it is a fact that a very high percentage of A.S.A. standards were developed from associations' voluntary codes. This alone is evidence that the associations can do the job that is required. 59 1966 National Safety Congress THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE By DR. CARL CABE Commissioner, Department of Industrial Relations, Frankfort, Ky. Nelson Bortz spoke of the coordination of the mutual interest of the groups, and Mr. Mattei discussed committees of various groups within the state and organizations. Mr. Bortz also mentioned the need for ef fective compliance. These are some things that I think should be explored during our discussion period. How do you cooperate? How do you bring together mutual interests? What is effective compliance ? In developing the standards that we have written in Kentucky, we have used as our source a large number of existing codes, including those of the United States of America Standards Institute and the several states. After the first draft o f, each stand ard was compiled, various groups were in vited to comment on the standards that we have written. Hundreds of individuals have offered com ments. Hundreds have received copies of the first drafts, and many have attended a number of meetings to discuss the second, third, and, in many cases, the fourth drafts. Only then do we have public hearings on these codes. This has worked for better compliance and better knowledge of the new standards. This technique has improved the clarity of our codes. Without question, we have developed more effective and work able standards. I would like to have some questions and comments from those of you in the audience who have participated on similar types of committees or advisory groups during the development of occupational codes in your state. I feel sure that you are not going to let Mr. Mattei leave without questioning his statements relative to the fact that we should have committees in the various states. A great deal was said about education and this sounds good. But I am concerned as to the kind of an educational program that we are talking about. I think it sounds fine that you say an educational staff should be separated from the investigational staff. Frankly, I think this should be questioned. Many safety people say investigations and safety education should be separated, but I think that this should be torn apart a little bit. I would be the last person in the world to say teaching doesn't involve special tech niques. But, with new machinery, chemicals, and processes continually being installed in various industries, I do not know how a person can properly educate if they do not get into the plants from time to time to become aware of these problems. I don't buy the fact that you are going to make everybody mad because a state organization goes into a plant and says that you have to do it this way. It is true that you do make some people angry, but they do not stay mad, and sometimes the ones that get the maddest turn out to be your best helpers in the future. DISCUSSION Chairman: Dr. Carl Cabe, Commissioner, Dept, of Industrial Relations, Frankfort, Ky. Iowa Factory Inspector: In Iowa, we have trouble making our inspections stick. We can go into a plant and tag out a machine as being unsafe; in a matter of two hours, the company will have an injunction from a court necessitating the removal of the tag and allowing the machine to immediately go back into operation. Mattei: The factory inspection laws in the State of New York are apparently different, because the company cannot obtain an in junction to remove a tag, and we have had some cases where we, the Factory Inspection Department, obtained an injunction prohibit ing operation of the equipment. Safety Engineer, Phillips 66: Aren't we talking about a very small minority of com panies that would need safety laws in order 60 Labor Sessions for them to be convinced that their plant should be safe? Our company has established a very good safety program without being forced into it by state laws. Utah Factory Inspector: Our department has never experienced any difficulty in having equipment tagged as unsafe. Whenever we have tagged equipment, the company always has the equipment fixed, and no problems are encountered. Representative from India: What is the Federal government in this country doing to try to get uniform safety laws in effect throughout all 50 states ? Boris: Because of the U. S. Constitution and the generally accepted Federal-State re lationship procedures, the Federal govern ment has accident prevention controls over only certain industries such as railroads, mo tor trucks, mining, and some companies that manufacture goods for the Federal govern ment. Therefore, the primary responsibility for accident prevention laws covering most industrial workers is in the hands of the 50 states. Representative from the Florida IndustrialCommission: Mr. Eichhorn mentioned safety training in apprenticeship courses. I am wondering if he has any specific cases that he can elaborate on ? Eichhorn: One example is the tool and die lodge of the machinists union here in Chicago. They have made accident preven tion training an actual part of the apprentice ship course. Many of the international un ions are now urging their locals to insist on mandatory safety training in apprenticeship courses when they negotiate these types of contracts. In addition, the labor movement has urged all of its members that may be on school boards or in other influential posi tions to insist on safety training in school shops and laboratories. We also strongly urge safety training in all walks of life in the schools, not only in shop classes. Boris: I would like to add that the U. S. Department of Labor is presently making some significant improvements in insuring that safety training is incorporated in all of the occupational apprenticeship courses that are being initiated under its auspices and, especially, under the manpower redevelop ment procedures. Unknown: How would Mr. Eichhorn de scribe a complete and effective safety pro gram? He indicated that the placing of safety posters on bulletin boards and safety articles in various publications are not really effective safety programs. Eichhorn: One of the primary requisites of a good s a f e ty p ro g ra m is a joint labor-management program. Across the entire country, the most successful accident pre vention programs are those of this type. This cannot be a one-way street. If labor is brought into the initiation or development of a safety program from the beginning, both sides better understand each other and are more willing to cooperate with each other in order to obtain the common goal of no accidents. When a company insists that everybody must do this or that as of a certain date, there is normal resistance because practically nobody likes to be told that they must do something, especially if they have no voice in what is to be done. One day or one week campaigns or special drives are not at all effective in actually reducing accidents. They may gain publicity and notoriety for a few people; however, they very seldom really change attitudes or actions which are the primary things that reduce accidents. Rinefort, Illinois Factory Inspection Bu reau: Several of the papers presented indi cated the outstanding accident prevention success we have had over the past years with the voluntary method of providing accident prevention for workers. I would like to know from Mr. Bortz or Mr. Mattei just what parts, if any, should the Federal gov ernment and the various states play in future industrial accident prevention work? Bortz: One strong step forward would be the modernizing and up-dating of present safety codes and regulations by the states and, to a lesser degree, by the Federal gov ernment where they have jurisdiction. There are a number of states which do not have the basic authorizing and enabling legisla tion necessary to do a good job. There are a number of states which do not have sound safety codes. Fortunately, we heard from two states today that have relatively effective and sound safety codes. There is one thing that states and the Federal government suffer from--the lack of resources to do a good job. The factory inspectors and their super vision of all states should have permanent 61 1966 National Safety Congress secure positions and not be subject to change whenever, there is an election. It is impos sible to hire and hold qualified people if this is the case. Cooper, Reynolds Mining Corp.: Since ap proximately half of the accidents that occur involve an unsafe act, I would suggest that any future consideration toward state safety regulations be directed toward these types of violations, at least the portion that can be so directed. I would like to ask Mr, Eichhorn what he thinks about this ? Eichhorn: There is no doubt about the fact that unsafe acts cause a significant per centage of the accidents. Most unsafe acts are usually caused by an apathetic or ir responsible attitude. I feel certain that the more we go into automation, the more apathetic attitudes are apt to develop. I believe that one of the problems we are facing today in accident prevention is the fact that all men that are in the military service are taught to believe that they will not be shot or injured if they perform to the best of their ability. This is one of the reasons that the military services can get a man to go over the top and become an at tacker. When he does this, he must believe that he will not be hurt, or else it will be very difficult to get him to attack. Conversely, these military men return home and must be taught to think differently. They must have an attitude that the accident can happen to them and that they can be hurt. I believe that this type of confusion is very difficult to counter; this is probably one of our biggest obstacles in trying to train the industrial worker. Accidents can happen to him regardless of whether they are on the job or off the job. Therefore, he must act carefully and in accordance with sound accident prevention procedures. We are not denying that the unsafe act is a tremendous cause of accidents but we do feel strongly that the attitudes can be molded in such a way as to reduce unsafe acts. Unknown: Are there any Federal grants to states for improving industrial accident prevention programs? Boris: There are no Federal outright fi nancial grants available to the states for this purpose, at this time. Of course, there are Federal grants for occupational health studies from the Public Health Service of HEW. 62 Labor Sessions ^ SUMMARY By HARRY N. ROSENFIELD General Counsel, National Safety Council, Washington, D. C. We have heard a wealth of material with top-level pressure was needed, more indus f six different magnificently expressed points tries financing their own program, industry i of view. I shall not summarize what your has to establish a healthier environment for panelists said; rather, I shall try to reach safety. Stanley Learned commented on the some of the common threads that appeared value of industry's turning to insurance to fx through all of these various comments. find out more how industry could do a better First, there seemed to be two overall job. themes. In the beginning, your chairman Nelson Bortz saw the need for greater indicated that this was "a coordinated dis involvement of State and national govern cussion on how to advance the safety of ments in accident prevention. Our friend workers on the job." Midway through the from the Chicago Factory Inspection Bureau session, Howard Pyle challenged us by ask indicated a greater need for updating state ing "if we are only doing what we should legislation, as well as updating staff and be doing?" In particular, he pointed to the career service. Mr. Mattei wanted some new fact that the high voluntary performance approaches and requested that state efforts standards for the protection of the worker not be directed only toward enforcement. are the big assignments, the achievement of which would do more for industrial safe ty than by any other means. There was the challenge that both themes put to us. Mr. Eichhorn called on labor for stronger contract negotiations to obtain safety, and for an increase in its own internal union safety activities, both at a staff and grass There were nine common themes expressed roots level. He also saw the need fo r coping by the speakers: with the employees' own bad safety attitudes, 1. A sense of urgency, indicating that we have to move faster on a broader basis, in a point of view with which Mr. Cooper of Arkansas agrees. order to keep up with the pace of technology. Howard Pyle said that while the efforts Mr. Patenge started his remarks with this al of the National Safety Council were reach most frightening sentence, "Industrial health ing 20 million workers, for half of this and safety is undergoing a revolution." Nel number it is "not as well as we could or son Bortz said, "We can't wait." Mr. Sher should." Mr. Pyle also said that none of man said, "Technical advance today is in us have "turned on" every source of our creasing at a rapid and dizzy pace." Howard own respective strengths. Pyle pointed out the practical significance of this dizzy or revolutionary pace. He said that 60 per cent of the industries rated in a survey had worse records than they showed 10 years ago, and that the all industry rate has been creeping up during the past three years. 3. Cooperation by all segments. Industry, labor, government, safety groups, insurance, universities, and researchers must cooperate for-and-in all aspects of accident prevention. For Nelson Bortz, the "central question" was whether we could marshal our collective resources and responsibilities. He called for 2. The consistent and universal tone of "realistic and active coordination b our self-criticism on the part of everyone that separate but mutual interests." He high spoke. Each segment of the safety com lighted the need for cooperation between our munity saw the need for improvement and Federal and state efforts. Mr. Mattei ad expansion of its own activities. It felt that vocated the use of advisory committees to it was not doing a good enough job. Mike the state labor departments. (Dr. Cabe was Biancardi put this in the most precise way, disappointed that there was not more ques "Are we doing enough ?" He replied, "The tioning about this particular point.) pat answer, is, `No'." He had three pro Mr. Patenge saw the need for the co posals for industry. operation of the insurance and trade asso For industry, Mr. Patenge said that more ciation groups to cope with the problems 63 1966 National Safety Congress of small business. Bill Johnson pointed to the need for adequate financing. There was the trade associations as an important aid substantial unanimity that good safety pro in that particular area. grams cost money, and that the money has Mr. Biancardi stressed the importance of industry's cooperation with government and within itself in the development of both voluntary and regulatory standards and in their enforcement. Mr. Eichhorn saw the to be found. The interesting thing about this point is that everybody says it--not merely the government, not merely labor, but in dustry, itself, also says that its own pro grams must be better financed. need for labor to cooperate with local public Mr. Bortz, for the Federal government groups to get safety on a broader level. program, called for the "constructive sup He also talked of the need for industry to port by the private safety community in cooperate with labor and develop a two-way terms of . . . adequate budget." Mr. Eich street in the industrial safety programs, a horn said that one of the jobs of labor was point of view which found ready sympathy to "continue to push to get money from from Stanley Learned. government spent on industrial safety in 4. The consensus that the support and the amounts equal to (conservation grants active participation of top leadership in all and agricultural and animal husbandry segments was necessary if the safety move grants)." He also stated that labor was go ment wasn't to flounder. Mr. Patenge, speak ing to push for improved state departments ing on behalf of the NAM, said that none and improved factory inspection. Mr. Pat of the known techniques "are effective if enge said that, so far as industry was con management does not put pressure to bear cerned, "committees of supervisors and work on solving the problem." Mr. Sherman, who men are not always the answer. The money delivered Mr. Webb's paper, said that one in the budget for proper policing is most of the fundamentals for a successful state necessary." As far as safety councils were program was active, vigorous and known concerned, Mr. Patenge, Mr. Biancardi, and support from the governor and the legis Mr. Allen all showed their support for ade lature. quate financing to meet the full responsi bilities of national and local safety councils. 5. The virtual unanimity that the volun Mr. Allen made a very interesting point; a tary safety movement is a "must," if we sort of a reverse financial incentive to in are to improve our industrial safety records. dustry by experience rating indicating that For industry, Mr. Patenge said "the safety the better you do, the less you have to pay program" has progressed because of the and the less money you need. National and local safety councils. Mr. Bian cardi pointed out that voluntary safety move 7. While the role and nature of govern mental and non-governmental standards were ments, including the National Safety Council, a matter of general preoccupation, there are necessary for the development of volun wasn't always agreement as to what they tary standards for industry. Mr. Allen, for should be or how they should be obtained. the insurance industry, pointed out the in dispensability of the National and local safe In general, Bill Johnson outlined the ty councils, among other voluntary organiza sources to which you can turn for voluntary tions, in the promotion of industrial safety industry safety standards, both inside and & oMnr.aGbidroela,dfoarcrtohses-tFheed-beroaalrdgonvaetrinomnaelntb, ahsiasd. oBuotrstizdesatihde thNatatinoonaml atStearfewtyheCreoutnhceil.staMndr. a slide which presented the role of the ards came from, "compliance became the National Safety Council, in particular the essence of safety." He called for the aban industrial and labor conferences, in coordi donment of selfish employers, union or gov nating and convening functions. A similar ernment predilections--instead, he looked for objective was stressed by Mr. Mattei in state "good, broadly conceived public criteria." programs, with respect to some of the Mr. Sherman- pointed to the essential of voluntary agencies. Mr. Eichhorn referred enabling legislation on a state level which to the role of the National Safety Council permitted regulations without delay. in labor's effort to build a strong and grow Our friend from India raised the question ing union safety program. why the Federal government didn't do more. 6. The perennial problem of money and It is sometimes hard for our friends from 64 Labor Sessions overseas, to realize that we have 52 govern ments in our nation--the states and the District of Columbia, as well as the Federal government. Mr. Biancardi stated that industry is not only complying with standards but is, also, gong out of its way to assist itself and its colleagues toward compliance, by self-in spection, self-education, exchange of infor mation, etc. Mr. Patenge stressed the im portance of voluntary standards on industry's initiative. Mr. Allen said that no matter how good the standards were nor how good the enforcement, more than those were necessary. Mr. Eichhorn noted that labor would insist on strict and fair enforcement of whatever safety laws we have. Howard Pyle stated that we must "co operate fully with the administration of in dustrial safety laws, while we do our ut most to avoid the necessity for more and more of the idea that there ought to be a law." He said that we can avoid this concept by strong compliance with high performance of voluntary standards. 8. The importance of education and train ing. There was a general consensus as to the indispensability (if not generally the effectiveness) of the educational process in achieving significant accident prevention re sults. Mr. Gidel and Bill Johnson described, respectively the U. S. Department of Labor's and the National S a fe ty Council's wide variety of training programs. Mr. Mattei pointed out, interestingly enough, that while we talk about it, not enough attention has been paid to education for accident prevention. He proposed the sep aration of education and enforcement func tions in order to obtain management co operation. I am not sure that I saw all of the implications of this proposal ; there was both disagreement and agreement here on the parts of representatives of California, Utah, and Iowa, relative to their experience on "tagging" and on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of education apart from en forcement. Dr. Cabe has some very strong views on the subject, as well. Mr. Mattei also called for the incorpora tion of safety into the curriculum of voca tional training programs. Mr. Downing, with the quick assent of Mr. Bortz and Mr. Eichhorn, agreed that safety ought to be incorporated in apprenticeship training pro grams. I have already referred to Mr, Eichhorn's insistence that unions, themselves, conduct educational programs to a greater extent than they have. Mr. Allen gave a very interesting discussion of the insurance industry's direct help through educational and consulting programs with management with which the chairman, Mr. Learned, agreed from his own experience. Mr. Pat enge indicated a heavy emphasis on the need for dealing with employees' mental attitude in reducing accidents. 9. Research. Everybody agreed on re search and development as an essential in gredient in the safety program. Mr. Bortz listed this as the verj' first of his four program essentials, putting it in the terms of comprehending the problem. He called for "more research before, not after, the accident", so that we could anticipate the safety implications. Mr. Allen and Mr. Mattei stated that more industrial research was necessary and, interestingly enough, both of them called for more pure research, as well as applied research. Dr. Cabe de plored the lack of momentum for industrial research and queried just how much use is made of the research already done. Here then, are the nine common threads which I perceived in the session discussions : 1. A sense of urgency. 2. A self-critical spirit. 3. The necessity of cooperation. 4. The essentiality of top leadership sup port. 5. The indispensability of strong safety councils. 6. The need for adequate financing. 7. The role and nature of regulations and standards. 8. The importance of education and train ing. 9. The vitality of research and develop ment. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, may I give a summary of a summary, a subjective re action to what I got out of it all ? 1. Time's afleeting. 2. There is more than enough for every one to do. 3. This isn't a penny-ante game. 65 OFFICERS OF T H E LABOR CONFERENCE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 1966-67 Vice President for Labor--H unter P. W harton, General President, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, 1125 17th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Chairman--John R. K umpel, Special Representative, Safety & Compensation, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 87 S. High St., Akron, Ohio 44308 Vice Chairman-- P aul H. Connelley, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, 101 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20001 Secretary--Robert M. W ilk ins, Manager, Labor Department, National Safety Council, 425 North Michigan Ave., Chicago, 111. 60611 Representing Labor Conference on N SC Board of Directors--P aul H. Connelley (see Vice Chairman above) ; Dr. John D. Connors, Executive Secretary, Committee on Safety and Occupational Health, American Federation of Labor and Congress of In dustrial Organizations, 815 16th St., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006; J. George E ichhorn, Grand Lodge Representative, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 1919 N. Oleander Ave., Daytona Beach, Fla. 32018; E dward B. H aggerty, International Safety Representative, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, 2482 Montana Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45211; E noch R. Rust, International Vice President, United Glass and Ceramic Workers, AFL-CIO, 556 East Town St., Columbus, Ohio 4315; V ictor E. W hitehouse, Safety Director, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 1200 15th S t, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006 Representing State Labor Departments-- Bill Laney, Commissioner, Arkansas Depart ment of Labor, 624 West 7th St., Little Rock, Ark. 72201 Committee Chairmen: Awards-- T homas A. D illon, Business Repr., District 55, Inter national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 553 Collins St., Joliet, 111. 60432; Congress Program--Jacob Gold, Safety Engineer, Bureau of Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, 400 First St., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20210; Executive--John R. K umpel (see Labor Conference Chairman above) ; Fire Safety-- E dward B. H aggerty (see Board of Directors above) ; Government and Labor Agencies -- Bill Laney (see State Labor Departments above); International Labor Safety-- To be appointed; Labor Day Safety Campaign (ad hoc)--Robert M. Farrell, Safety Dir., International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local 150, 5540 S. Cicero Ave., Chicago, 111. 60638; Membership, Co-Chairmen--John L. D owling, Director (Canada), Safety and Health Div., United Steelworkers of America, 1901 Y onge St., Toronto 7, Ont., Canada; A rthur P. Gildea, Secretary-Treasurer, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 2347 Vine St., Cincinnati, Ohio 45219; Nominating--H unter P. W harton (see Vice President for Labor above) ; Occupational Health and Research--D avid A. P adden, Industrial Hygienist, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im plement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 8000 E. Jefferson Ave., Detroit, Mich. 48214; 66 Off-the-Job Safety and, Driver Improvement, Co-Chairmen--Jack W. Moye, Special Representative, SUB Office, United Rubber Workers, 87 South High St., Akron, Ohio 44308; Larry S heffe, International Repr., Canadian Region, United Auto Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, 261 Cooper St., Ottawa 4, Ont., Canada; Planning--J ohn R. R umpel (see Labor Conference Chairman) ; Publications & Newsletter--Rex Lauck, Asst. Editor, "UNITED M INE WORKERS JOURNAL," 1437 K St., N.W., Wash ington, D. C. 20005; Radiatum Safety, Co-Chairmen-- A lan F. B urch, Safety Dir., International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, 1125 17th St., N.W., Wash ington, D. C. 20036; E dward J. Lecan, International Repr., International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CiO, 1200 15th St., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20005 ; Safety Training--M elvin P. M itchell, Executive Board, International Brotherhood of Electri cal Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 17, 19355 Fry Road, Northviile, Mich. 48167 Past Vice Presidents for Labor--*H arry Read, Assistant to Secretary-Treasurer, AFL- r CIO, Washington, D. C. (Oct. 1955-Oct. 1956) ; P. L. Siemiller, General President, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 1300 Con necticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20036 (Oct. 1956-Oct. 1960) ; Lloyd D . U tter, Safety Director, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 8000 E. Jefferson Ave., Detroit, Mich. 48214 (Oct. 1960-Oct. 1963) *Deceased n f ^ W S S S S i 24 9 COPY library NATIONAL SAFETY CONGRESS TRANSACTIONS PUBLIC UTILITIES t NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 425 N. MICHIGAN AVENUE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611 O FFICERS O F THE PUBLIC UTILITIES SECTION NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 1966-67 General Chairman-- Charles S chweickart, Executive Vice President, Hoosier Engineering Co., Columbus, Ohio First Vice-Chairman--K enneth G. Cregar, System Safety Director, Metropolitan Edison Co., Reading, Pa. Second Vice-Chairman--B. J. Lorenz, Manager of Safety, Northern Indiana Public Service Co., Hammond, Ind. Secretary-- Bob Cooper, Asst. Manager of Safety, Texas Power & Light Co., Dallas, Tex. Program Committee--H erman C. P otthast (Chairman), Safety Officer, U. S. Dept, of Agriculture, Rural Electrification Adm., Washington, D. C .; Robert H. W ard (Vice Chairman--Electric), Safety Director, Omaha Public Power District, Omaha, Nebr.; D onald E. R yan (Vice Chairman--Gas), Safety Engineer, Washington Gas Light Co., Washington, D. C .; T homas H. E dwards (Vice Chairman--Communications), Safety Practices Supervisor, Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., Atlanta, Ga.; J o h n T. Cappio (Vice Chairman--W ater), Safety Officer, City of Philadelphia Water Dept., Philadelphia, Pa. Technical Publications Committee--Marvin B. Travis (Chairman), Corporate Safety Di rector, Northern Natural Gas Co., Omaha, N ebr.; J. E. A ppel (Vice Chairman--Elec tric), Safety Engineer, Commonwealth Edison Co., Chicago, 111.; W illiam J. B ryan (Vice Chairman--Gas), Safety Engineer, Michigan-Wisconsin Pipeline Co., Detroit, Mich.; M aynard H. P ettit (Vice Chairman--Communications), General Plant Training Supervisor, Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., St. Louis, Mo.; Frank M cGillen (Vice Chairman--W ater), Safety Director, Dept, of Water & Sewers, City of Chicago, Chi cago, 111.; M alcolm H. I ngraham, Director of Safety, Central Maine Power Co., Augusta, Maine Training Committee--Ernest W; T raut (Vice Chairman), Safety Director, General Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, Erie, Pa.; R ichard V. Molen (Vice Chairman), Safety Training Instructor, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., New York, N. Y .; R. P aul B olerjack, Safety Director, Illinois Power Co., Decatui-, 111.; K. C. Goodwin, General Safety Advisor, Consumers Power Co., Jackson, Mich.; B ruce G. Gallagher, Accident Prevention Coordinator, Hydro-Electric Power Com mission of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; H arold R. Lew is, Safety Program Supervisor, The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., San Francisco, Calif.; A shby B. Randolph, Manager of Safety, Consolidated Gas Supply Corp., Clarksburg, W. V a.; H erbert H. S m ith, Employee Relations, Safety & Claims Superintendent, Lehigh Valley Gas Div., United Gas Improvement Co., Bethlehem, Pa. Audio-Visual Aids Committee-- Colon F. Stanley (Chairman), Safety Manager, General Telephone Co. of Florida, Tampa, Fla.; V ern A. S ielert (Vice Chairman), Safety 43 Administrator, General Telephone Co. of California, Santa Monica, Calif.; H arry W. B ecker, Safety Manager, American Gas Association, New York, N. Y .; T homas V. Keane, Safety Representative, Philadelphia Electric Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; John Rithmiller, Staff Safety Engineer, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., Chicago, 111.; Ernest G. S hearer, Director, Job Training & Safety Department, Indiana Statewide Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., Indianapolis, Ind. Membership Committee--M. H. Maxwell (Chairman), Safety Supervisor, The L. E. Myers Co., Villa Park, 111.; T. L. P owers (Vice Chairman), Safety Engineer, GaS Department, Public Service Electric & Gas Co., Newark, N. J . ; P aul W indsor, Secretary, Bureau of Safety, Chicago, 111. Newsletter Committee-- Robert F. M ills (Chairman), General Safety Supvr., Mountain States Telephone Co., Denver, Colo.; T homas C. McKelly (Vice Chairman), Dir. of Training & Safety', Laclede Gas Co., St. Louis, Mo.; John R. Y eam an, J r., Safety Engineer, Virginia Electric & Power Co., Alexandria, Va. Off-the-Job Safety Committee--John E. F randsen (Chairman), General Plant Super visor-Personnel, Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., Omaha, Nebr.; R. V. H averfield, Systems Safety Director, Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., Fort Wayne, Ind.; H azen S paulding, Safety Director, Central Vermont Public Sendee Corp., Rutland, Vt. Publicity Committee-- A lex P ierson (Chairman), Safety Engineer, Philadelphia Gas Works Div., Philadelphia, Pa.; James D. H oag (Vice Chairman), Manager, Safety Division, Union Electric Co., St. Louis, Mo.; C. R. Ch a pin , Accident Prevention Administrator, Long Island Lighting Co., Hicksville, N. Y. Research Committee--H arry D. H arman (Chairman), Vice President & Assistant Gen eral Manager, Gary-Hobart Water Corp., Gary, Ind.; O. Ray B owers (Vice Chair man), Safety Engineer, Central Illinois Light Co., Peoria, 111.; F rancis E. P ayne, Safety Manager, Northeast Utilities Service Co., Hartford, Conn.; T heodore F. W ickord, Safety Supervisor, Commonwealth Edison Co., Maywood, 111, Traffic Safety Committee--W illiam W. W illiford (Chairman), Plant Supervisor-Safety, Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., Washington, D. C .; Eugene H. W essells, Jr. (Vice Chairman), Safety Supervisor, Western Massachusetts Electric Co., West Springfield, Mass.; Robert N. H urt, Director, Training, Employment & Safety, Ameri can Electric Power Service Corp., New York, N. Y .; D. M. M oore, Safety Engineer Assistant, Los Angeles Dept, of Water & Power, Los Angeles, Calif. Nominating Committee--W arren L. Clifton (Chairman), T heodore F. W ickord, P aul W indsor Cameron Award Coordinator--B. J. L orenz Staff Representative-- Ralph M. Coe, National Safety Council, 425 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, 111. 60611 Special Representatives--American Gas Association-- Joseph G. L ambert, Director of Safety, Northern Illinois Gas Co., Aurora, 111.; American Public Power Assn.-- H iram T ripp, Safety Director, Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Chattanooga, Tenn.; American Water Works Association--John T. Cappio, Safety Officer, City 44 o f Philadelphia W a ter Dept., Philadelphia, P a .; Canadian Electrical Association-- W a r r e n L. C l if t o n , D irector o f A ccident Prevention, Ontario H ydro-Electric P ow er Commission, Toronto, O n t, Canada Active Past General Chairmen--1957-58, J. E. A ppel; 1958-59, E. M. Ch a se ; 1959-60, R. S. L owe; 1960-61, R. E. M cE ldowney, Jr.; 1961-62, V. L. W omeldorff; 1962-63, E rrol D u n ba r ; 1963-64, P aul W indsor; 1964-65, T. F. W ickord; 1965-66, W. L. Clifton 45