Document VGxLR3b3qzkVQp8xepmgjj4y4

A THE REFRACTORIES INSTITUTE Factory Operators Meeting PITTSBURGH, PA.. March 30 and 31, 1953 B A 0 0 0 0 51 1 7 EXPERIENCES WITH ALUMINUM BUST TREATMENTS--SILICA BRICE INDUSTRY By C. W. Bu&geb, > Industrial Editions Reprerontxtive, Harfaban-Walker Refractories Company, KttAurgh 22, Pa. This presentation is not aa endeavor on my part to prove something; it is merely a recital of experience and condumans that our Industrial Relations Department has come to, based on mterpretatiop of data collected since 1943. It is not presented as a scientific treatise to impress or die medical profenoo. As I see it, its value will be in what' ever benefit other industries, confronted with a siHca hazard, may glean from the pthat our Company has had with a nine years* trial of aluminum dust treatments. Incidentally, I believe ours was the first industrial installation in die United States. But in cpite of this, and at the risk of having it said "he doth protest too much," I repeat that this pxesen* tarioa is not an attempt to prove something. Our Company became sflacnas conscious in 1935 when five dvil suits for damages were filed against us. Only one case went to trial; thie other four were settled out of court The total cost of these five cases amounted to $30,000. At that time, silicosis did not come within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Laws of the states in which we operated. The potentialities of further dvil suits had suffideat to not only make us !> conscious, but impelled us to also take such poritive measures as were available to us at die time in the way of dust control. As a result of these five suns we made a determined effort to settle all suspected cases at all of our silica fire bride plants. Rather than settle on a bmp sum basis, we endeavored to provide weekly payments for the duration of the employee's Kfe, and if death occurred before die settlement was paid out, the weekly payments were continued to be paid to the widow. Up to January 1, 1938, at whidi time riHcoris in Pennsylvania and Indiana bwame compensable, we had settled thirty cases. Since that time we have prooessed 136 cases including some classified as total disability, some dawafird as partial disability and some who were unable to prove disability. The majority of these cases were naturally seeded during die first few years that wlinvag became compensable. In die past four years we have settled 21 silicosis cases having an aver' age exposure of 24 years. Retrogressing again for a moment, in 1937 we derided that the potential liability was great enough to take pre- cautionary measures to insure ourselves, insofar as pn*qh|, from inheriting already existing siHcotics. We frit that pre' employment chest X-rays was one method of doing this, so beginning in January 1937 we required that each new employee submit to and pass a chest X-ray examination (in to a np1** physical examination) as a condition of employ- meat. This immediately the possibility of hiring men who were tubercular or silicodes, as well as screening out any others whose chest X-ray and physical examination disclosed other undesirable pathology. The Workmen's Com pensation Laws in most states make die last employer having a silica hazard entirely liable for die silicotic (after he has been on the payroll for a very short period of time, which varies from state to state). Regardless of how much alicoas a person may have acquired in prior employment, we have inherited a problem if he is in our employ after a specific period of time. We have no quarrel with die moral, legal or social aspects involved in such cases. However, we fed that when we adopted a policy of pre-employment screening examinations in 1937, it was a very wise move. In 1943 we enlarged the scope of our X-ray program to cover all employees both new and old. Regular periodic chest surveys were made, aimed at drtecring not only new cases of both tuberculosis and silicosis but also to measure the progression or degree of worsening if any, in those employees who no longer had a normal healthy chest Also in 1943, under the guidance of Dr. J. W. G. Hannon, of Washington, Pa. (now Medical Director of the McIntyre Research Foundation) and Dr. Paul G. Bovard, consulting roentgenologist, of Tareatum, Pa., we installed the Aluminum Dust Treatment program. I would like to emphasize, at this point, that the Aluminum Treatment program was not inaugurated in our silica plants as a substitute for good industrial housekeeping, but to supplement it. It is point two in a two point program to combat die hazard. In fact, one of the requirements of the McIntyre Research Foundation is the installation and maintenance of ade quate dust control measures; a requirement that even its severest critics recognize as being a significant contribution to industrial hygiene. Dust counts were made (both by State Industrial Hygiene Inspectors and by our own personnel) of our silica works and a concentrated endeavor was made to ferret out all of the locations in each plant that fell below pre scribed standards. Dust control equipment and methods were introduced into our production processes with varying degrees of success. This cannot be a "one shot" proposition, however. The program has to be a continuing one or the initial impetus becomes valueless. It can be readily appreciated that there is no easy solution to controlling die dust generated by grinding a raw material containing over 98% free silica to a mesh, in many instances, the fineness of flour. We are constantly endeavoring to keep on top of this problem by the use of new methods and new equipment. Dust consul is admittedly expensive, but so too, are silicosis claims Let me now talk about what has happened since the installation of the Aluminum Dust Treatment program. In die first place it should be made dear that our Company discounts to a very great extent die reports received in our dinics pertaining to improvements in subjeedve symptoms. We are more concerned with the prophyladc value of aluminum. That a TMn. after facing aluminum treatments feds better, sleeps better, eats better, suffers less from dypsaoea, or has gained weight are, it is true, criteria of the therapeutic value of the treatments; but, it is also true that the mind can sometimes be a great bealer. Again, however, we have no dispute with the advocates of this thesis, but prefer to endeavor to evaluate results by y*"* more concrete measurable means. I am told that there are at least two such yardsticks; X-rays and apparatus that measure the percentage of the lungs vital capacity. I must confess that I have had no experience with lung capacity apparatus, and know very little about it. Up to now at least, we have based our conclusions of the effec tiveness of aluminum dust treatments solely on annual survey X-rays. __ . r*. i-~ -- * iAOOOO^I18 registered Dunes, under tie supervision of the Company doctor; at the third plan* up until this year, the X-rays were made at a nearby hospital The pre-employment and annual survey films from the two plants that take tbdr own X-rays are sent to the same roentgenologist; the films for the third plant, taken at the ho^pitid are read by the hospitals roent genologist. The resultant Hawficarton nomenclature has made it difficult from a comparison standpoint. For tins reason we iflve recently purchased our own equipment at die third plant and wiS soon be able to process die films from this plant m an identical manner with die odaer two plants cor man wiQ, in the future, tn^prr* aU of our films, both preemployments and survey*. The data contained in die balance of this presentation was beginning is 1949 (sz years after the instal lation of the Aluminum Dust Treatment program). It k factual and as unbiased as we could possibly make it & covers as average of 1150 employees in three plants freon 1949-1951. The first Aar we made was the ratio of pro gressions at the three plants. RATIO OF EMPLOYEE PROGRESSIONS* * (Progression means advancing to a worse X-ray classification.) Plant A B C 1949 1 out of 35 1 ** " 28 1 "" 8 1950 1 out of 32 1 " ~ 25 1 - " 11 1951 1 out of 158 1 " ** 31 1 " " 16 These statistics spotlight a wide differential in results obtained fcom our two-point program of the sHcoes hazard. The question naturally arises, "Why should Plant C have from 2 to 10 tunes as many progressions year (an a comparable ratio basis, which discounts the difference in numbers of empkyees) as Plants A and B?" We - could rightly be questioned on a number of different criteria about Plant C: 1) Are dust conditions and industrial housekeeping worse at Plant C? 2) Does Plant C have more non-white employees who, as a racial group, are more susceptible to pulmonary dis eases, according to medical statistics? 3) Is Plant C in a more crowded and highly industrial area? 4) Is die raw material used at Plant C or the manufacturing process nrnne hazardous? Taking each question in turn we would have to answer to the best of our knowledge that: 1) We employ the same type of dust collecting equipment at cada plant and stress the pwfrvfc of dust con trol at each plant We reel that the local management at each plant is equally cognizant of die hazard and endeavors to meet the standards of good industrial housekeeping. We are aware, however, of the variables that are inherent to industry, particularly die human element. 2) The ratio of non-white employees to white is considerably lower at Plant C but is in conformity to die exist ing population ratio in the community. Plant A has approximately 75% non-white employees and Plant B has approrimately 53% non-white employees. 3) Plant C is in a rural community of less than 5,000 inhabitants with very few industries. Almost 50% of the employees live outride the borough limits in the farm areas. By way of contrast, Plants A and B are both located in large, highly industrialized areas. The employees are drawn, in most instances from concentrated population areas in metropolitan districts. 4) The raw material at ah three plants contains over 98% free silica and die manufacturing processes are prac tically identical. If the above four points covering 1) standard dust control methods and practices, 2) types of employees, 3) loca tion of plants and -4) materials and processing were not responsible for the wide variation in numbers of X-ray progresdons, we knew that we would have to search further for an answer. We proceeded then to granin* the degree of par ticipation of each plant in the Aluminum Treatment program and the following facts came to light? Plant A B C Average Treatment Per Employee 1949 1950 1951 11 16 19 9 18 19 28 5 It is to be noted from the two preceding sets of statistics that in each instance the greater ratio of progression per employee took place at Plant C, where die least average number of treatments per employee were administered. Another interesting observation made from die data compiled over this period was the fact that 73% of the employees who progressed into a worse X-ray classification had faded to take treatments. In our endeavor to overcome die non-acceptance of the Aluminum Dust Treatment program at Plant C we were (and are) confronted with a difficult but interesting situation: We met with our local union officers and explained our' problem; solicited their support in gaining a greater acceptance of the program--this showed no appreciable result. Again, we met with our union officers and were invited to address die membership at a local union meeting. The invitation was accepted. Representatives of our Company along with our consulting roentgenologist talked to the membership, stressing the importance of greater acceptance of die program. For several months afterwards we con tinued to receive reports that the personal physicians of our employees were advising them not to submit to alum inum treatments. Whether true or not, over 50% of the employees who were merely apathetic to the program, now made outright refusals to participate. Our next move was to write a persona! letter to each member of the Countv Medical SneiVtv -------------- .............. iAOOQOsr. 9 but was aim a community problem. This resulted in an invitadon from the Medical Society to our Company representatives to address them at one of their regular monthly meetings. Needles to say, we^eagerly accepted. The of our taiv^ after fully ***--*<g die Aluminum Treatment program, was this--'"If you feel that you can recommend this treatment, will you cooperate with us in endeavoring to obtain better participation?" *Tf you feel that die program is of no benefit, will you refrain from 'knocking' it, in view of die recently published statement by the American Medical Asodadon that 'aluminum is not harmful to the nonnal and eiEcotic lung in amounts given for therapy and prophylaxis of stUcosU*.** We were well pleased with the courteous and interested reception that our presentation received and with the voluntary statements, an the part of several members of the Society, that we could expect their cooperation. Any results from this project will not be noticeable, however, : for sometime in die future. At about this same time our Company took the progressve step of publishing an eight-page booklet entitled "StH- costs--What It Is and How It Can Be Prevented." This booklet was issued to the employees of our three siEca ` works in an endeavor to overcome the awning apathy regarding gTienw* This booklet is also given to each new employee at the time of his induction, along with a short discussion on the advisability of paitiripatfng in die program. As yet, I am sorry to say, we have been unable to observe any increased participation at this works, other than a brief flurry for a few weeks. We certainly are not happy about die situation, but neither have we given up the idea of trying to break down the resistance that we have met with to date. Some of thoe promotional endeavors may bring results at a later date. In the meantime, we are interested in discovering some new approach that might prove effective. The following recapitulation of a typical anmial progression distribution that we made may be further indication of die lack of participation on die part of Plant C. The distributions are made in the following categories: A) By X*ray classification: Class 1-j--Avenge healthy chest Class 2 --minimal degree of nodular fibrosis Class 2-}--minimal degree of nodular fibrosis--progressive Pla 3 __primary Class 3-j--primary silicosis--progressive Class 4 --secondary silicosis B) By age groups C) By years of exposure PROGRESSION DISTRIBUTION FOR 1951 A) By X*ray Classification Plant A B C From 1+ to2 0 2 13 From 1+ to 3 0 0 0 From l-f- to 4 0 0 1 Total 0 2 14 Plant A B C Plant A B C 15 From 2to2+ 0 5 11 16 0 From 2 to 3 0 1 1 2 From 3 to3-f0 2 3 1 From 2 to 4 0 1 0 1 From 3 to 4 2 1 0 16 Total 0 7 . *2 ' 19 Total 2 3 3 B) By Age Groups Plant 26*30 A0 B1 C3 5 31*35 0 2 6 36*40 0 4 6 3 41+ 2 5 14 8 Total 2 12 29. 4 C) By Years of Exposure Plant 5*10 11*15 A0 0 B6 C 14 1 7 8 16*20 0 2 3 10 21*25 1 2 3 21 2541 1 2 43 Total 2 12 29 20 8 5 6 4 43 BA00005120 From these progression ifcarfoiriretf, we tee that Plant A had no one who was in Glass 1 or Class 2 progress beyond these rfacerfryfjnr^ It had 2 men in Class 3 progress to Class 4, both of them with more than twenty years of exposure. Plant B had 2 men progress beyond Class 1, 7 men progress beyond Class 2 and 3 men progress beyond Class 3. Six of these 9 men, hired during the war yearn when we were of necessity aceqitiog new employees who were already in Class 2, had less than 10 yearn of exposure. Plant C had 14 men progress beyond Class 1,12 men progress beyond Class 2 and 3 men progress beyond Class 3. Again, 14 of these men, hired during the period when it was necessary for us to relax our physical standards, had kss than 10 years of exposure. Summing up die progressions of men with less than 20 yearn of exposure; Plant A had none, Plant B had 9 and Plant C had 24. CONCLUSIONS 1) We firmly believe that Aluminum Dust Treatments have a real prophylactic value in industries* fight to com' bat the aficoris hazard. 2) Aluminum Dust Treatments have to be supplemented by constant, positive attention to modem dust control . equipment and practices. 3) A ftrnfa'nmng program of education reaches from top management to the ermwwi !Wf fat t he main' mined if any preventative program is to be successful . Questions and Answers Q. Must you have as much as 98% free silica to have a cHooss hazard? A. It depends upon whether you are talking legally or medically. I don't feel qualified to speak from a sand' point. I think, from a legal standpoint, any time you have any free silica in die air at all, you can be of hiving the hazard, whether your employees contract cticnris or sot You are open to liability as long as they can prove there is at least a hazard. Any time you have any free silica at all, whether it is forty or fifty per e*at or less you have a legal hazard. Q. Does it have to be free silica to constitute a hazard? A. Yes. Q. Do chest X-rays always show the presence of silicosis if it is there? A. Every case of silicosis that we have had where a man has been awarded compensation, the X-ray has shown it. Q. Could a man have alienists and it not show up on as X-ray? A. In every case where a man has received a silicosis award, it has shown up on the X-ray. I think that is one of the reasons they are now talking about Vital Capacity apparatus. It is thought that it might give us more of a due, more than just an X-ray. Q. I understand you give these treatments to your employees whether they show any signs of g1i*as or not, is that ___ right? A. Yes, we use it as a preventative. We have a new plant in operation, less than, a year, where we ployees on the treatments immediately. three em Q. Do you extend that to your non-silica plants? a- No- Q. Can you comment on that subject as to day plants? BA00005121 A I believe there have been claims, and one or two awards, where a person working in a day plant on various opera tions that make use of silica sand was able to say, "There is a hazard there." Q. What thought has been, given to making treatments and X-rays a condition of employment? A In die 1950 report one of my recommendations was that we endeavor to with die uning the necessity of making aluminum treatments and survey X-rays a condition of employment. We have in Plant C the difficulty of getting people to come in for their survey X-ray. In 1951, as an example, only one-third of die people at this plant came in for their annual X-ray so we could determine whether they progressed or not. Q. Are there any statistics that show in which part of the plant there is the most hazard for oHcoris? A Yes. We find we have two main spots, our grinding and our burned bride. Strangely enough, in tome places the burned bride is more hazardous. The reason is in the burning process silica becomes cristohalite. We find in burned brick departments, and particularly in periodic kilns, these particles under five microns in become suspended in air and are more readily inhaled. Q. Is that actually a mechanical condition or a physical condition? A It isn't mechanical at all. What happens is that particles of silica get into the lungs and go into solution of slide add. Of course aluminum has an opposite electrical charge to silica. They ate attracted to each other and die alum inum particles completely coat the particles of silica and prevent the silica frm* *-- -n.*-:. ..*- - tf\ (TOttwn --* -- ' '* t i i \ t i m ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND CONTROL By Lee B. Hawthorns; Jcl, Safety Supervisor, A P. Green Kre Bride Co, Mrsim, Mo. About a month ago the A. P. Green Company received an "Award of Honor** from the National Safety Coca* dl'in rroognftkin of thdr 1952 accident ctprrirnnr. Aa this award the highest granted by the National Safety Cocncfl we were more than a fade amazed for hat year we bad 14 disabling, or feet time, injcttiea--an improvement over previous years hot hardly an oattUoi&ng record. A fade reading of the Safety Council award plan soon revealed why we had received die "*egratiTM The honor award goes to any company with a record of 3,000,000 or more man' hours worked without a lost time injury, or to one who shows a vastly improved record both over its own previous years capcrieoce and in entnparison with the industry's average accident rate. We fell in die latter category, receiving die award partly because of our own improved accident rates, but mainly because the average rates for the entire brick and tile industry were so poor. As a result our frequency rate was 78% and our severity rate 41% better than the industry par computed by the National Safety Council I bring tip this award-business, not so much because we are proud of it (of course we are!}, but to diow bow low the industry rates in accident prevention. The latest National Safety Council figures available are for die year 1951. In that year, of about 41 industry dasafications fated, only two had higher frequency sates than die Bock fi? Tile Indus' try. The lumber and coal industries were the two with higher frequency records. Nor is this poor industry show' sng <""***l to National Safety Council records. The Boreas of Labor Statistics how the 1952 frequency rate fbr the structural day produces industry to be 34 disabling injuries per million manhours worked, while die sill industry average, was 14. Actually, then, we fall in an indussr classification that has more' than twice as many disabling injuries as the average company in die United States. Should we be concerned, and, if we are, can we do something about it? I think the answer is "Yes" to both questions. To check these off in reverse order; it is possible to reduce die number of accidents. No doubt, most of you are aware that analysis of accident causes has dwwn that 2% of accidents are due to vagaries of nature, such as wind or lightning; 13% are due to mechanical failures; and 85% due to human failures. Most accidents, then, can be prevented. They can be controlled. Other industries have set a good example and many companies in our own industry have estab- good safety records through formal programs. No doubt some of you are responsible for good records in your particular plants. Gladding, McBean & Com' pany, for example, has had some gccUent records in the past, and Haifcason-Walker can pamt with pride to the results of their accident prevention work. Others of you undoubtedly fit in the same category, but thefact remains that the brick and tile industry as a whole is sot safety conscious. We know from our own experience that a ddinite program reduces accidents. In 1930 we actually had an accident frequency rate of 103. One year later, after an accident prevent don program had been set up, our frequency dropped to 22--a 79% decrease in one year. There is no question but that we can control acridenta. As Co whether or not we should show concern about our poor record, again, I think the answer is obvious. Actu' ally, industry is becoming more safety conscious year by year. There are three main reasons for this, I think, which I would like to cover briefly: (1) costs, (2) increasing awareness of responsibility for the workers' welfare, and (3) human relations benefits. There isn't much need to elaborate on this first point. We all realize the tremendous cost in lost time, medical expenses, overhead insurance, production delays, damaged equipment and materials, etc. The National Safety Council a cost of 840 per worker to industry. For example, if a company employs 500 workers, disabling injuries would cost that company 820,000 a year, if it woe an average company. As our industry has a frequency rate twice that of the average for ail industry, then, the cost of accidents to our fellow members, whcce frequency rates are highest, must be terrific. The second reason, which is Bnmng ever-increasing importance, is reflected in Justice Brandeis often quoted words, "All business now operates in the public interest." G. A Price, Preadent of Westinghouse Electric, wrote in Advanced Management, "To survive corporations must carry in ever-increaang amounts what economists call the 'social of non-economic enterprises'." Henry Ford II recognized this trend in 1946 when he said, "We have not yet solved tire problems of mass production, far our failure in human engineering is creating waste and inefficiency which handicap the very purpose of production." Recognition of the human factor, human engineering, human mainte- mnw, then, has become vital to industry. Awareness of responsibility for employees' welfare is becoming more wide' spread every day. One of die duPont Companies in West Virginia, I am told, tells new employees that working safely comes ahead of production, costs, or anything rise. Add an aggressive safety program to this policy and you realize why they have completed 8VS years without a single disabling injury and there are approximately 1200 employees in that plant. That company really believes in their responsibility for employee welfare. This concern for employee welfare runs us right into the third reason for accident prevention emphasis. Com' panics with good safety records know that the success of their programs is due primarily to the good relations between their supervisors and workmen. Sincere interest in an employee's welfare develops this relationship. As a result die com* munication line so necessary for the successful operation of all phases of business is opened up. A recent article in the Cement 6? Quarry newsletter developed the theme that a new supervisor, well versed in the administration of a good safety program, will gain the respect and confidence of his employees more quickly than the supervisor who is not so mnr/med. 1A0G005122 (3) (4) /vmparinnal Ant**** control and (5) fire prevention and control. Of the first is probably most important. Our experience dwws that 80% of our accidents, as we classify Wt fy-nr as a result of die injured employee's carriegaea. The remainder result from the carelessness of fellow workmen aad unsafe conditions. This, then, is the toughest nut to crack. Naturally, our entire program is *--"** to create individual safetymindedness or, to put it another way, develop a subconscious safety attitude. We have heard a lot about the diets Russian propaganda bias on the peoples of that country. Through reiteration, for they actually believe that all Americans are monsters. Over there a He repeated often enough *<** m peoples fuboocsciousoeti It becomes a fad. and Influences their every radian. We shoot for the same in our program only we are with true facta and not propaganda. Fee taflr about, demonstrate, show pictures, etc, of the proper way to lift heavy objects often enough for it to soak into thdr subconscious mind and eventually it will become bant to Hrt correctly whether at wxk or at home Work' ing on this theory, then, we try to develop safe attitudes through an educational program which covers: (1) monthly on company time led by die unit supervisor, (2) bulletin board poster and publicity, (3) icrideat investigation followed by publication of facts, (4) orientation of new employees, (5) suggestion, plan and slogan contest, (6) safety parties for units completing a safe year. The portion'of our program tills under the general beading of working conditions. 1*11 include under this category (l) guards, (2) preventive maintenance program, (3) good housekeeping. "(4) protective clothing and *gpTjpTT^t--prTfa-nprirtn goggles, sfety shod, respirators, asbestos suits coated with ahfininum fad, etc. Our nvdic^ service is the third and one of the most ,important parts of our .program; (1) all supervisors are of a Red Gross first aid course, all other employees axtenpouxaged to.attend these dasses (we feel that every participant in a.,first aid course maze.safety conscious), (2) a dispensary with nurse and doctor available, (3) first aid cabinets in .each department far minor injuries, (4) emergency first aid stations for major injuries. Under occupational disease control, dust of course, our chief problem. Our program includes (1) dust coPec* tiffn and ^imtnarinw, (2) dust counts, (3) aluminum therapy, (4) pcnodic X'tays of exposed personnel. Then into our safety program, but actually separate, is fire prevention and control. This program covers (1) maintenance, of fire fighting equipment, (2) fire stations with hose reds in startegic locations, (3) supervisors and trained in the use of fire fighting equipment, (4) each employee taught the location and use of the fire tn kite wirlnng antt, (S) periodic impwaiftnE. This program as outlined would become static without die continued interest of all levels of management or with' out & change of pace or variety in the handling of the program to keep it interesting. We are constantly seeking ways to improve it so as to keep acadent prevention and control a fresh and rewarding part of our operations. If we can gain the cooperation and confidence of our employees, discharge our responsibilities to the community by providing a safe place to work, and reduce the costs arising from accidents, we feel amply repaid. The success of this program depends to a great deal on the initiative and cooperation of the operative supervisors. All employees, however, can enjoy a w. of pride and accomplishment when the company enjoys a safe year. t THE IMPORTANCE OF MATERIAL HANDLING IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY By A. T. Gaudreau, Management Consultant, Gaudreau, Rimbach & Associates, Pittsburgh, Pa. 1. THE SCOPE OF MATERIAL HANDLING IN INDUSTRY Material handling in manufacturing industry covers all movement and storage of material from the time it enters the plant until it leaves as a finished product. It does not usually embrace the handling of materials in mining, con' structiqivar transportation by public carriers such as railroads, highway trucks, cargo vessels, or cargo planes. Material handling within the plant may be defined as the transportation and movement of material, whether raw, worked, or finish**^ on die plant premises. Each time the material is lifted or laid down, piled or unpiled, loaded or unloaded, transported vertically or hori' zontally from one position or location to another, fed into or removed from a machine, placed into or removed from storage, or moved in any way whatever, it undergoes a handling. The line of flgw of material in processing a product, when all movements have been measured, runs into several mil** m many plants. It is not uncommon to shorten this line of flow by 50 per cent or 75 per cent through better layout. The balance of die not liWna*d by better layout can then be studied for possibilities of economical median' azarian. The number of times a material unit is handled during the course of a manufacturing cycle varies with each type of unit and with each system of material handling. As many as 150 handlings are given relatively simple units in some plants. In a representative flow, die material may be handled as follows: 1. Unloaded from a freight car or motor truck. 2. Placed on dads. 3. Moved by fork truck to an inspection point. 4. Unloaded for inspection. 5. Reloaded onto the skid. 6.- Lifted bv fork truck. IA00005123