Document VjYVbqj8N95R2EKRamJ9LR9jK

1966 National Safety Congress conditions. Too many times we find tlic respirator around tlic neck of (he worker, or hanging on a nail. Personal respiratory equipment should l>c considered a last resort or as standby protection, never as a substi tute for effective engineering control. With the increase in attention to commu nity air and water pollution, a thorough study should be made before any changes or alterations arc made to existing control methods or new equipment installed, to make sure that new factors of pollution arc not being introduced or old conditions pyra mided. An example might be carbon black dust. Exhausting to the outdoor causes un sightly air pollution. Use of water scrubbers to control air imllutiou may introduce a problem of water pollution. Today, this is going from the frying pan into the fire. Carefully consider such possibilities before instituting new control procedures. Many times, trouble can be avoided if control measures arc engineered in when initial plans for a new operation or altera tions of an existing operation arc developed. Adding control measures at a later date is generally more expensive than when they arc engineered in at the beginning, and may also not be as efficient. In summary, when we consider dust con trol measures, we should ask ourselves, "Is there a belter way to do it?" AN EXERCISE IN SAFETY MANAGEMENT TRAINING By G. W. NICKEL Manager of Safety, Armstrong Cork Co., Lancaster, Pa. Part I Several years prior to 1966, the Robinson Company's monthly safety reports had shown the Woodvillc Plant as having one of the poorest safety records among the company's nineteen plants. The Woodvillc Plant ranked at or near the bottom in fre quency of disabling injuries and duration of absence bccatisc of industrial accident. Workmen's compensation costs for Woodville for the two previous years exceeded costs and budget allocated to that plant by the central office. On July 3, 1966, as an effort to improve the plant's safety record, the production superintendent sent the following letter to all general foremen with instructions to discuss it with the shift foremen under their supervision: "During the past eight months much has been said and written about cost reduc tion. Each foreman should and must be an efficient manager, and his desire to re duce costs must embrace safety. We must eliminate waste, which includes the eli mination of accidents-- something we definitely have not accomplished. "We need a stern, mandatory program 22 to enforce safety rules -- we can't be wishy-washy about it. Therefore, each foreman should take the following ap proach : 1. Know your safely procedures and be able to spot bad practices. 2. Train new employees thoroughly. 3. Treat cases of safety-rules violations the same as if the employee was in subordinate or failed to follow work specifications. Use write-ups or, if serious enough, send the employee home. 4. Show your displeasure toward acci dents, as if the employee deliberately caused the accident--accidents arc a blot on your record as a foreman. 5. Don't let up--constantly talk safety to your employees. 6. Records of minor and major accidents should be compiled for each employee, with a review taking place periodical ly between employee and supervisor. Action must be taken with accidentprone employees.