Document JJ8qpwBjnn2n03V7DrEjnOE1B

FILE NAME: National Safety Council (NSC) DATE: 1960 DOC#: NSC084 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: NSC - National Safety Congress Transactions Vol. 20 Public Utilities Industry mt MTIOML TRiMCTIOSiS VOL. 20 PUBLIC UTILITIES INDUSTRY NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 42 5 NO. MICHIGAN AVENUE CHICAGO 11, ILLINOIS \ i I I PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT FREQUENCY - ZERO By S. M. SH A R P Vice President, Engineering-Operations, Southwestern Electric Power Company Shreveport, La. This is not my first Congress--I've seen quite a few -- so with all the trials of such a huge affair, confusion is not one of my troubles. There was a time when Con gress did confuse me. When I saw the ap peals of my first Congress in evidence every where, frankly I wondered. There were slogans, "Reduce accidents," "Cut down the number of deaths," "Let's save lives,''etc. This sounded good, but when thought was applied to some of these phrases, questions arose in my mind, "How do you attempt just a reduction?" "Which type of accident should we attack?" "W hat tj'pes are less harmful and therefore do not warrant our major concern?" As an operating man I did not feel that I could select or permit a state of confusion in one area in order to combat it in another. It was then that it became clear that the safety problem is not to be settled piece meal. Rather it is a philosophy that should begin with the original plans of a job and continue so long as operation is maintained. The goal must be accident elimination, not just reduction. Frequency-zero, not just im provement. Also it was a sobering thought to realize that, with my engineering responsibilities, the groundwork for safety was being done under my supervision with the very planning of the work. Through the years it has been my belief, therefore, that a primary phase of this sometimes nebulous subject of safety can be resolved and reduced to reality. It is a hard-headed proposition of engineering and planning accidents out of our picture by good planning and engineering standards. With these facts in mind, I would like to share with you a few thoughts that make sense to us at Southwestern Electric Power Company. Our main objective is to build an electric system that will result in giving dependable service at the lowest possible cost and yet provide the safety features required to pro tect the employees of the company and the general public. To properly carry out the ob 4 jectives of Southwestern Electric Power Company, which are more or less common to all electric utility companies, we have and must use three important standards to guide us. 1. The National Electrical Safety Code 2. The Bureau of Safety Rule Handbook 3. Engineering and Construction Standards The National Electrical Safety Code was prepared by the National Bureau of Stand ards, Department of Commerce, in coopera tion with the electric companies, the tele phone and telegraph companies, the railroad companies, the labor unions concerned, the technical societies concerned, governmental bodies concerned and safety organizations. It has been approved by the American Stand ards Association as an American Standard. This code is kept up to date and revisions issued from time to time. Revision is a slow process because so many people and associa tions are involved. The present Standards Handbook Code H 43 is applicable for the installation and maintenance of electric supply and commu nication lines by electric utilities. (In the State of Texas, Handbook Code H 30 ap plies according to law; however, the rules applicable to the installation and mainte nance of electric supply and communication lines are the same as in Handbook H 43.) It also covers the safety rules and discusses the code requirements. This code specifies protective grounding rules, clearances, work ing room, safety factors and many other de sign factors pertaining to the grade and type of construction required. Keep in mind that all of the requirements of this code are the minimum requirements. The Safety Rule Book is published by the Bureau of Safety and the scope of the rules cover: Part I General Rules for all Employees Part II Electrical Departments Part III Generating Stations Part IV Electrical Transmission and Dis tribution Public.- Utilities Industry With the help of the people in companies associated with the Bureau of Safety, the Safety Rules are revised periodically to keep abreast of the changing conditions and im provements in equipment and procedures. The Safety Rules provide proven rules, that when followed will result in carrying out the earnest desire of each company to con duct its operations with the utmost regard for the safety of its employees, its customers and die public. In the foreword of our Engineering and Construction Standard Book, we list what we believe to be the principal reasons for these standards. The first two reasons in this list are: (1) Safety to the workmen (2) Safety to the general public You will not be surprised to recall prac tically the same wording in the first sen tence of the foreword of our Safety Rule Book. When we examine the aims of rules, whether they be specifically labeled safety rules or construction or engineering rules, we again see a natural parallel. They all call for conformity with a basic overall plan or design that grows out of past experience as well as technical theory. In other words, they call for doing things the "best way" from a broad viewpoint, and the "best way" has no leeway in it for accidents. Furthermore, we find we can achieve the best results in compliance with rules and standards when the employees involved are informed as to why they have been placed in effect. When it is learned that there is sound basis for these restrictions, it is very likely that' good acceptance will follow. As we approach the subject, we must also recognize another very basic factor. That is the desire on the part of individuals to do things in their own way. They look upon such rules and standards, as we are now dis cussing, as infringements on their own per sonal liberty and, therefore, something they should naturally oppose. This is all the more reason for the close cooperation between engineering,, construction and safety to ob tain the soundest possible plan from every viewpoint. In this brief discussion I would like to explain to you, who represent the safety people of your various companies, the aims and viewpoints of the engineering functions so that you may more successfully join with the engineers of your companies to provide safer designs and working: pro-: cedures for your personnel and your con struction. Frequency-zero means no , acci dents, and no accidents means no mistakes in planning, construction, nor operation. It' all starts in the planning stage with a standards program. Now, the general con ception of a standards program is that it is a means to provide economy or save money. But, if we can provide a means to preserve life and at the same time effect economies, we have achieved a double victory. All of our engineering and construction standards are designed in accordance with the rules as outlined by the National Elec trical Safety Code, keeping in mind that these rules are minimum requirements. As you remember, I previously listed those agencies and organizations who prepared this code. Thus it may be readily seen that all interests were being protected. This code provides such clearances, structure and Con ductor strength to protect the general public. It provides safe, adequate and climbing working space for the workmen, not only for those of the electric utility companies but also the workmen of foreign systems whose facilities are often joint with the electric utility system. It specifies materials to be of such strength and with such ade quate safety factors as to provide safety to all concerned. It also specifies safe working and operating procedures. All designs of construction must be such that they are workable in accordance with another important standard, the Safety Rule Book. The structure of facility must be so designed to protect adequate and safe instal lation of safety devices that are specified by the rule book for use while performing the specified work. Certainly all items of material used for any project must be in stalled so as to be functional, but they must also be so located and with such clearances that would make replacement in the future possible in a safe and satisfactory manner. In other words, the design as shown in a standard should be such that the project or job can be installed safely and in the future be operated and maintained in a safe manner. While an engineering and construction standard must provide these basic safety re quirements, it must also provide the econ 5 I960 National Safety Congress omy that results from use of standard ma terials, standardized assemblies and stand ardized work methods and procedures. It must also be designed to provide the mini mum in future required maintenance and to continually provide improved service to our customers. Now, it would be simple to pro vide a design that would only meet the two first named safety requirements -- that is, Safety To Our Employees and Safety To The Public. By taking into account these two requirements and ignoring the other reasons, it would not be hard to see how the costs could increase to the point where you could "safety design" yourself out of business. This does not mean you should compromise safety but it is necessary to in corporate all of these reasons into each de sign to have both an economical and safe structure on all viewpoints. With this ap proach you can keep the engineers with you and not resentful of inroads into their field. We can have the economies of efficient construction and still have our "frequencyzero." While we can't remove every possi bility of an injury, we can make our de vices standard so as to permit the workmen to develop the good habits and safeguards to complete and round out the task of a successful job. The same type construction used through out a company not only provides economical benefits available from larger quantity pur chases, etc., but also provides a very valuable safety feature. When it is necessary to bring crews from other divisions to emer gency areas, they are familiar with the type construction and know the best work meth ods to apply. This certainly can be demon strated during any severe wind or ice storm. This uniformity really pays off in reduced labor costs. W e have previously mentioned how work procedures and methods are designed into standards. Now you know it would be im possible to find an engineer who is excellent in structural and electrical design and at the same time had all the "answers" on the best methods of installation. A standard cannot just be made on a drawing board; it must be developed. We attempt to give everyone in our com pany who uses a standard a part of its de velopment. The need and idea for a new standard might well be brought up by a 6 line crew foreman or a member of his crew, by a serviceman, by a meterman, or by an engineer or a supervisor of construction. A fter the inital design is made by the engi neering department, a mock "set up" is often made and this is analyzed from both installation procedure and future operating requirements. From this analysis, such changes as necessary are made and the pro posed standard is then circulated to each division engineering and operating depart ment and the general safety department. The opinions of all concerned with its use are thereby obtained. The drawing and specifica tions with suggested changes are then re turned to the general engineering department for incorporation of the new ideas and necessary changes. This now revised pro posed standard is then returned to the di visions to be used in making actual instal lations. These installations are then field checked by the safety department engineers, the di visions engineers, design engineers, and the division operating and construction super visors. After this field trial and check pe riod, any necessary changes are then in corporated into the final approved standard. All through this development, the safety department has been providing assistance; in the original comments, in the observance of work methods on the "mock up," and in the final stages of approval. An approved standard in our company also includes the approval of our safety director or his rep resentative. The safety man must gain and hold his place at the planning table by trying to see the engineer's problem and selling a good solution--not by just bucking in a negative manner. Provisions must be made in a standards program for revisions or changes as the various conditions of safety and economy demand. It is essential that they be reviewed to make use of new materials or changes in methods. In our company we encourage everyone connected with the use of stand ards to submit ideas and suggestions on im provements of them. If a revision "setup" was not included in such a program,' the advantages of a standards program would soon be lost. If it is so determined that any new ma terial or process merits our consideration for use, then it is tested, both electrically Public Utilities Industry and mechanically, to determine if it will satisfy all our requirements, of course, in cluding safety. One or more divisions will then be selected to try this idea in its proper application to actually determine if it is a worthwhile improvement. From this infor mation gained, the decision can then be made to either approve or reject the item. The benefits of a standards program can not be realized unless it is accepted by all and is followed as closely as possible. It is the responsibility of the supervisor concerned with construction to see that standards books are kept up to date and to see that the phases of construction under his supervision adhere to the approved standards. In our company we obtain very good adherence to the standards and I believe this may be attributed largely to the fact that the peo ple who use them assist in their initial de velopment. They also know that any sug gestions they make for revision are going to receive due consideration whether or not they are actually put into effect. In addition to gaining uniformity in con struction practices and aiding in safety pro grams, engineering standards are of great value in giving instructions to contractors who do work for the companies. This is just as important as a training aid used as an instrument of safety. Before the days of our present standards program, the appear ance of a new contractor's crew on our property touched off a long period of con stant engineering supervision in order to maintain any semblance of conformity with ordinary construction or safety practices by the contractor's crew. A standards book placed in the hands of a contractor gives him every opportunity to comply with our construction standards. Certainly, safe methods cannot be de termined and applied unless the job being constructed is fully understood. Only after the end result we want to achieve is de termined, can the best procedures be laid out. If we can get the idea across that engi neering and safety are not in conflict with each other, but are both means to the same goal--namely, production in a safe and re quired manner, we will take a great step in improving the overall performance within our companies and toward "frequency-zero." Therefore, a good and acceptable design for any project or facility must meet four basic requirements: (1) It must be able to be originally con structed in a safe and satisfactory manner. (2) It must provide features that will al low it to be easily and safely maintained in the future. (3) It must result in a completed project that renders dependable safe service with outages reduced to a minimum, and (4) Giving full consideration to the first three requirements, it must be of the most economical design. Also, safe working procedures must be worked out to be applied during the original construction and for future maintenance of the job. These factors lead to a well-planned job that has no place in it for injuries be cause injuries are the results of mistakes and mistakes are the result of poor planning. And let us not forget that accidents con sume time regardless of whether or not they injure people or property. The goal for our company and fo r any company to have good, practical and readily understood engineering an d construction standards is the responsibility of the engi neering and operating departments. How ever, this must be accomplished by the co operation and teamwork of the engineering, operating, and safety departments of the company. The result will provide plans and procedures for doing a job in a satisfactory and safe manner. This should also result in motivating, building up and keeping alive a good safety attitude in our employees. Let us think and shudder for a minute about a company's safety program if there was not an adequate standards program to work in conjunction with it. W hat would be our assurance that all new materials available for use were adequately tested for required strength and safety facilities ? Would all our crews be following safe, tested and proven installation procedures? Would our service people always know and follow the best operating procedures? Could we always be sure that adequate clearances were being obtained for protec tion of public property and life? Would we know that our services and maintenance people had adequate and re quired working room to perform their tasks ? In answering these questions, we quickly ascertain the fact that if you have an ade 7 1960 National Safety Congress quate engineering and construction standards program, as we have, you have a valuable and necessary essential part of your safety program, and be well on your way to "ZeroFrequency." By following such a program , as I have outlined to you, we can satisfactorily fulfil! our part of the obligations due to our cus tomers, stockholders, employees and the public. A SAFETY PROGRAM FOR ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATION UTILITIES By H. H. MARSH, JR. General Superintendent, Substations and Shops Dept., Duquesne L ig h t Co. Pittsburgh, Pa. It is not unusual practice in court to establish the qualifications of witnesses to testify and I feel that this is certainly in order here today. I have asked myself, "Who am I to be talking on the subject of `A Safety Program for Electric and Com munication Utilities'?" My name and my company are not of particular consequence. The only significant item is that I've had over 38 years of association with an operat ing department of a large public utility and during that time, I have had experiences that have convinced me that everyone should be enthusiastic in accident prevention work. I have grown up with our safety programs and over the years have learned that the end result sought in avoiding accidents is in the conditioning of each individual to a safety consciousness. Accomplishing this however, is not easy. It is a slow process and it is never com pleted. I feel that it can be done however, by honest effort and by continuous applica tion of small doses, just as dripping water can produce amazing results. I 'm convinced of this because of my own conversion to safety consciousness and the correction of faulty attitudes I once had. Much like many young people today, I was once egotistical and felt that safety rules were "for the birds," not meant for me -- I wasn't so awkward or dumb as to be hurt under circumstances covered by a lot of foolish rules. I used to feel that there al ways would be accidents if the stage was set up right--they were really acts of Provi dence and who was I to interfere. Then 8 there was that law of averages that I be lieved held, like actuarial statistics -- it never entered my mind that those averages could be influenced and changed. I felt that I was able to look out for myself but that if I did have an accident it was someone or something else that was to blame. I wanted to be left alone to make a name for myself in establishing records of per formance that weren't hampered by rules. Short cuts and chance taking and calculated risks were the order of the day -- in ac cordance with the old saying, "nothing ven tured, nothing gained." I felt that the com pany had hired people to look after safety and that if I "rendered unto Caesar things that are Caesar's," they should respect my field and leave electrical station maintenance to me. Why am I different now? I 've learned the hard way. I've had the harrowing experience of informing a young expectant mother that she was a widow; I 've accompanied fellow workmen to the mortuary to discover data for fatal accident reports. I've seen the frightful results of major electrical burns and the gory results of cutting injuries and I've honestly felt the pain experienced by others as a result of fractures. My con science has bothered me at times in asking me what part did I have in perhaps being a factor in leading to any of these accidents (either by an act of omission or commis sion) . I 've never quite satisfactorily answered my conscience on this question as to past accidents, but the fact that I've tried to cor-  OFFICERS OF THE ts PUBLIC UTILITIES SECTION ie re NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 1960-61 s. General Chairman-- R. E. Me Eldowney, Jr., Safety Director, United Fuel Gas Co., Charleston, W. Va. Vice Chairman--V. L, W omeldorff, Safety Director, Illinois Power Co., Decatur, 111. Second Vice Chairman-- Erroll D unbar, Safety Engineer, Potomac Electric Power Co., Washington, D. C. Secretary-- H erbert H olmes, Safety Director, Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co., Detroit, Mich. Program Committee--C. H. Gum (Chairman), Safety Supervisor, Department of Elec tric & W ater Utilities, City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, F la .; R. F. M ills (Vice Chairman-Communications), General Plant Safety Supervisor, Mountain States Tele phone & Telegraph Co., Denver, Colo.; T. F. W ickord (Vice Chairman-Electric), Safety Supervisor, Commonwealth Edison Co., Maywood, 111.; E. C. Ba u m a n n (Vice Chairman-Gas), Safety Engineer, Gas Dept., Public Service Electric & Gas Co., Newark, N. J.; W. R, La, D ue (Vice Chairman-W ater), Supt. & Chief Engineer, Bureau of W ater Supply, City of Akron, Akron, Ohio. Engineering Committee-- R. Beith (Chairman), Manager and Secretary-Treasurer, Elec trical Utilities Safety Association of Ontario, Toronto, Canada; S. T. Robeson (Vice Chairman-Communications), Safety Supervisor, Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Co., Tarboro, N. C .; H , W ade Butler, Safety Engineer, American Telephone & Telegraph Co., New York, N. Y .; J. W. Gronbeck (V ice,Chairman-Electric), Safety Manager, New England Electric System, Boston, Mass.; K. G. Cregar, Safety Director, Metro politan Edison Co., Reading, Pa.; R. R. P hillipe, Safety Engineer, Duquesne'Light Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.; R. G. Claar (Vice Chairman-Gas), Safety Director, The Ohio Fuel Gas. Co., Columbus, Ohio; J. G. Lambert, Safety Supervisor, Northern Illinois Gas Co., Aurora, III.; R. W. T omlinson, Safety Dir., Philadelphia Gas Works Co., Phila delphia, Pa.; V. A. A ppleyard (Vice Chairman-W ater), Chief of Water Operations, W ater Dept., City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, P a .; O. W. B rockway, Safety Direc to r Board of W ater Commissioners, Denver, Colo.; Charles S chweickart (Vice Chairman-Special Projects), Safety' Director, Hoosier Engineering Co.; Columbus, Ohio; H . C. Me Chesney, Senior Safety Representative, The Detroit Edison Co., Detroit, Mich. Education and Training Committee--H. C. P otthast (Chairman), Supervisor, Wisconsin Rural Electric Job Training & Safety, Menominee, W is.; N. W. Temple (Vice Chair man-Posters), Plant Safety Supervisor, The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., Seattle, W ash.; R. V. H averfield, Safety Director, Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., Fort Wayne, In d .; D. E. B uckley (Vice Chairman-Visual Aids), Safety Director, East Ohio Gas Co., Cleveland, Ohio; W illiam F. Bachm an, Personnel Director, Omaha Public Power District, Omaha, N ebr.; R. N. P apich, Safety Manager, Ameri can Gas Association, New York, N. Y .; James Sealy, Safety Consultant, Ebasco Serv ices Inc., New York, N. Y .; W. L. Clifton (Vice Chairman-Training Plans), Safety and Fire Engineer-Accident Prevention Div., The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Toronto, Canada; M. B. T ravis, Director of Safety, Northern Natural Gas Co., Omaha, Nebr.; E. B. H urst, Safety Director, Virginia Electric and Power Co., Rich mond, V a.; M. H. I ngraham, Safety Dir., Central Maine Power Co., Augusta, Maine. 33 Publicity Committee--F. P. Mueller, Director of Safety, The Peoples Gas, Light & Coke Co., Chicago, 111. ; C. A. F ischeack, Safety Supervisor, Safety & Job Instruction Div,, Southern California Edison Co., Los Angeles, Calif.; H. W. Masters (Vice ChairmanNewsletter), Safety Director, Asplundh Tree Expert Co., Jenkintown, P a .; L. C. Meyer, Electric System Specialist, Employers Mutuals of Wausau, Wausau, Wis. Statistics and Contests Committee--Carl J. Lohman, Safety Dir., General Telephone and Electronics Service Corp., New York, N. Y. ; W. D. Collins, Safety Director, Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., Boston, Mass. ; E. B. Bell, Assistant Safety Director, Ohio Power Co., Canton, Ohio ; B. J. Lorenz, Manager of Safety, Northern Indiana Public Service Co., Hammond, Ind.; J. W esley Sam m is, Safety Representative, Philadelphia, Electric Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Membership Committee-- P aul W indsor (Chairman), Safety Director, Bureau of Safety, Chicago, 111.; M. M. Mehring, Safety Supervisor, Consumers Public Power District, Columbus, Nebr. ; A. B. S hehee, Safety Engineer, R.E.A., Electric Engineering Div., U. S Department of Agriculture, Washington, D C . ; C. E. H ammon, Safety Director, Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric Co., Columbus, Ohio; M. H . Maxwell, Safety Supervisor, The L. E. Myers Co., Clawson, Mich. ; R. M. Clark, Safety Director, Atlantic City Electric Co., Atlantic City', N. J. Off-the-Job Safety Committee--S amuel Me Kay, J r. (Chairman), Supvr. of Safety, The Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; John B ird, Administrative Supervisor, The Western Union Telegraph Co., New York, N. Y. ; W. J. Easton, Di rector of Accident Prevention, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., Cincinnati, Ohio ; F. W. W atson, Director of Safety, General Telephone Co. of Florida, Tampa, Florida. Project Committee--E. M. Chase (Chairman), Safety Director, Central Vermont Public Service Corp., Rutland, Vt. ; E. S. H annaford, Safety Engineer, Long Lines Dept., American Telephone & Telegraph Co., New York, N. Y. ; J. E. A ppel, Safety Engineer, Commonwealth Edison Co., Chicago, 111.; R. S. Lowe, Plant Training and Safety Super visor, Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., Omaha, Nebr. Special Representatives--B. J. L orenz ( Chairman-Accident Prevention Comm.-A.G.A.), Manager of Safety, Northern Indiana Public Service Co., Hammond, Ind.; S. H. Y oung, Supervisor of Safety, (Vice-Chairman--E.E.I. Accident Prev. Comm.), H art ford, Conn.; R. J. F aust, Secretary', American W ater Works Association, New York, N. Y. Counselors (Past General Chairmen)--1916-17, J. B. D ouglas; *1919-20, W ills Mac L achlan ; 1925-26, B. B. Me Culloch ; 1926-27, George Opp ; 1927-28 C. J. R utland ; 1928-29, H. F. W ebb; *1930-31, E. S. Beaum ont; 1931-32, G. A. D oeller; 1932-33, C. B. Boulet ; 1934-35, E. J. K reh ; 1935-36, R. M. Godwin ; 1936-37, J. J. B arada ; 1937-38, W. P. E l st u n ; 1938-39, R. S. Metzger; *1939-40, H. A. P tolemy; 1940-41, Charles S. B owden; *1941-42, P. L. G. H asskarl; 1942-43, D. C. D u n c a n ; 1943-44, E. S. Miner; *1944-46, J. T. O'Br ie n ; 1946-47, J. 0 . Leslie; 1947-48, J. B. P orcher; 1948-49, E. L. F itzgerald; 1949-50, John M acLellan; 1950-51, E. S. H annaford; 1951-52, W. H. A d a m s; 1952-53, W. T. Rogers; 1953-54, P. M. Gentzel; 1954-55, W. S. K itchen; 1955-56, H. T. Ja y n e ; 1956-57, F. C. H arrim an; 1957-58, J. E. A ppel; 1958-59, E. M. Ch a s e ; 1959-60, R. S. L owe. *Deceased 34