CHEMICAL SAFETY A N EVALUATION “Safe9 is the primary purpose and most important product
of todays
scientist”
..... . J . F. Kennedy
On March 6, 7, and 8 the President’s Conference on Occupational Safety will be hcld in Washington, D . C. This is an important conference, designed to emphasiu the impact of scientjrc progress on the nation’s workers. Initial sessions will stress the emerging hazards of the space and nuclear age. Workshop topics will include research in safety. IeEC‘s editors thought this would be a particularb appropiate !ime to explore the general picture and philosoply of safety in the chemical indusily. W e have over a period of many years been at the forefront in publishing general and specjrc material on chcmical plan! safety. In times of severe budget examinations and drastic cuts, safety departments always seem to come under close scrutiny. How much do safety programs cost? How much is saved by them? Are thq m r ! h what they cost? T h e and other questions we posed to some of thc most prominent safety men in the CPI, members of the Safety and Fire Prevention Committee of the Manufacturing C h i s t ? Association. W e found ourselves almost immediately involved in a deeply controversial area. Where three safety men gather, there are likely to be at least four opinions on the methods of determining costs of safe4 management and the savings resulting therefrom. W e found that thcre are sharply divergent practices and philosophies, and that this is an area so loaded with intangibks as to somewhat defy measurcment. The quantitative approach described by Merck’s Safety Manager on page 46 i s in itself a subject of controversial discussion among other prominent safety men. But we found much on the contradictory surface to stimulate thinking, and a commongoal-no accidds, no injuries.
ago, D u Pont began to keep safety records Fftyon years a basis comparable to the methods now recommended by the American Standards Association. Fifty years ago the need for the National Safety Council was recognized, and an organizational meeting was held. I n 1912, the Du Pont accident rate was not at all bad for the industry-but it was a whopping 43 lost-time injuries per million man hours. I t took 15 years to bring it down to 10.3, still a fantastic figure. But by 1956 the rate was 0.43; last year it was 0.39. Whatever the accident rate is in the 50th year, it will be reached in the same way as this remarkable decrease was brought about -by striving for the goal ofno accidents at all. There is no question of the value to this company, or to any other chemical company, in improving over the performance of 50 years ago. It is the difference between beiig in business or not. Today, such a human cost would not be tolerated by any of us. Even now, the cost of injuries is far too large a figure in the operating budget of a chemical company. Reduction in accident rates have not taken place overnight. Progress has required painstaking research, careful and expensive plant design, and installation of safety features in both equipment and operating methods. Perhaps most time consuming of all is employee training and indoctrination. Plant experience has shown that vigilance can never be relaxed. A moment‘s inattention can erase the gains made over the years. In fact, shaving costs in plant-design now would leave us a legacy of doubtful installations, which might stymie our progress toward no-injury operation. Greatly to the credit of the chemical industry, only a fraction of the iujuria are due to emom or h u h in dangerous processes. Such chemically oriented accidents are frequently not just accidents, but potential disasters. The potential includes total loss of plant and neighborhood, and hundreds of lives. “Minor accidents” of this class could involve total loss of production. To confine these, many techniques that were once considered radical and expensive have now hewme wmmonplace. In this category might be included instrumentation, remote control operation, the fail-safe wnV O L 5 4 NO. 3 M A R C H 1 9 6 2
43
cept, and even computer control of dangerous processes. In addition, protecting against this type of occurrence usually requires extensive research to define the safe limits of any variables which can be imagined to produce an unsafe condition. One such accident sends the curve offscale and cancels all signals on comparisons. An executive who is secure in the knowledge that safety is under control in his shop will heave a sigh of gratitude. The reasons for the commendable showing of the chemical industry are not hard to find. We were told that the cost of safe operation is accepted as one of the costs of doing business. The avowed goal is to reach the no-injury mark. Many companies have no clear idea of the cost of the detailed work that gocs with accident prevention. This ignorance is deliha-me plants do not even have, or want, an accounting charge number for safety as such. They feel that goggles and masks are as much a part of the tools of the operator as wrenches, and these are charged to the operation rather than to safety. S i , plant design for safe operation also brings about freedom from process interruption. I&EC has published several articles on plants where safety was a very important factor in plant design. I n February of 1959, Monsanto’s parathion plant at Anniston, Ala., was described, a plant designed on the basis of bitter experience to p-t explosion and to protect personnel from the hazardous materials. certainly the concrete cubicles and elaborate control interlocks cost a great deal of money. But their safety rewrd since the new plant went into operation shows the pay out. Again, in October of 1959 we described a very hazardous operation-Rohm & Haas Co.’s acrylates and methacrylates operation at Houston, Tex. Although hydrogen cyanide and nickel carbonyl are about BS toxic as any materials you will find, Rohm & Haas operated for 10 years with only seven lost-time injuries due to chemical e x p o s u e a n d none of them were disabling. Such a record does not come by chance, or cheaply. It cost the company 5400,OOO to find out how much damage nickel carbonyl does, and how to d m t it. Safe design of the nickel carbonyl installatiom added $2 million to the plant cost. Another reason for the continuing reduction of accident losses is that in the CPI, safety does begin at the top. Examples of management philosophy appear opposite. Although costs are not usually assigned, several wmpanies do keep track of their pmgress by placing a value on safety. For example, a company may wmpare with its own past experience, with other plants, or with the industry average. The workmen’s wmpensation experience factor, used to modify compensation rates paid by a company, is one of the more popular mcasurrs. One large chemical organization tells us that it received a 72y0 experience credit in 1961i.e., it paid only 28% of the normal rates. Another method is to compare a company’s insurance premium with the industry average or manual premium, as shown in the method on page 46. The same company could claim a ‘‘saving‘‘ of t1,400,000 by this method. U
INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Two areas remain in which significant contributions to the safety program will be made. The first is expanded research into the properties of materials and safe limits of processes. This is a never-ending task, as industry‘s operations continue to use higher and higher temperatures and pressures, and more reactive materials. The second is the area of psychology4eahg with people is probably the most expensive and time-consuming part of the safety program. However, the promotion of safety awareness is the only way that a safety man can get to one-large group of accidenethose that occur offthej ob. Injury rates off the job are still back in the Dark Ages of safety, as much as 10 times higher than industrial rates.
“A bad safety record creates a suspicion that wrong in the departmmt .”
0 t h
things are
Marlin G.Geker, Resident, Dauism Chemical Go. “The safety of people is such a personal and emotional thing onhesitates to weigh preue&on costs against the sauings of liue and injuries. So, at the plant lmel, I would prefer that c q thing practicable be dons to achieue safe operating conditions urithout e m p h on the dollar pr@r gained from cfech’ve accidentpmention.” G. L. Gorbell, Manogcr, Safety and Fire Rotection Monsanto Chemical Co. “While elimination of the ‘garden variety’ accident is a worth while goal,it would seem that the real payoff is the chemicall! orientrd disaster that never happens.” A. H. Christian, Corporate Safety Engineer American Viscose Gorp. “An mgineering job which does not include safety features is not aJini>hed job.” V . R. Croswell, I@EC Safety Column “ The engineer will haue due regard for the safe8 of lifc and hpalth of the public and employees who may be afected by the work for which he is responsible?’
From canons of ethics of Engineers Council on Professional Deuelopment “During the Jiue and one half year period that the Chattanooga Nylon Plan( operated without any disabling injuries, attaining the worl8s record (31,628,000injury-free hours), euny index which management uses to evaluate the perfmmance of the plant improved, i.e., the unit cost improved, production uolumc improued, quality improved, ctc. Results of this type demonstrate more effectiuely than any words that safety jut$ies itself from an economic point of uinu.” Andrew E. Buchanan, Gmeral Manager, Textile Fibers Dept. E. I. du Pont de N e m w s 6” Co., Inc.
‘
SAFETY BEGINS AT THE TOP American Cyanamid says:
“It is the policy of the company to conduct its operations in such a way to as avoid injury to personnel. This policy must be implemented by proper planning, training, supervision, and control of physical hazards. The safety of Cyanamid personnel comes before all the demands of production. It is each manager’s responsibility to see that this policy is carried out in the areas of his jurisdiction.” K . H. Klipstein President
Du Pont says :
i
“The safety of the employees of the company has always been a matter of the greatest concern to management. For 154 years the company has been carrying out a continuous safe0 drive based on the conviction that no consideration, however major, can be permitted to outweigh personal injuries, however minor. . . . . . The feeling for safety must permeate the organization from top to bottom, for no one man, no one group, however dedicated, can assure a good over-all performance.” Crawford H. Greenewalt (1956) President
Eastman Kodak says:
“The company’s policy is to do all that is practicable to prevent injury to persons and damage to property, and to protect the interest of its people, the company, the customer, and the public from the results of accidents and j r e . In interpreting this policy the company goes to great lengths to provide adequate safeguards against fire and accident hazards with proper equipment, materials, methods, and trained and instructed men and women.” Comfiany Safety Policy Kodak Park Works Safety management must translate statements of company policy into action and results. A. L. Cobb, Director of the Industrial Safety Department of Eastman Kodak’s Kodak Park Works, has given I&EC this careful interpretation of his company’s policy: Our statement is short and simple. I t has been carefully developed over a period of years to express a great deal in the fewest possible words. We never discuss the first sentence of our safety policy statement without including and discussing the second. This second sentence, indicating that we will go to great lengths is a very positive statement. Note the word practicable in the first line. This word may be variously interpreted; however, no other word seems to express satisfactorily the idea that the company intends to use all means which can be put into practice to reduce or eliminate hazards. Note also that our safety policy concerns itself with our customers and the public at large. We have a contin-
uing concern in the safety of our chemical and mechanical products, our shipping containers, any release of smoke or fumes, in fact, anything that affects the general public. Clarence Wynd, General Manager of Kodak Park and a company vice president, has often stated, “We believe in safety in depth.” If one safeguard fails, there must be another to back it up. Usually this is interpreted to mean three lines of defense, but in many cases there are more than three lines. As a practical minimum in a chemical or physical-chemical process, the three lines may consist of two different sets of instrumentation and control and one of supervision by men. I n addition, of course, preventive maintenance is a necessary back-up. We believe that virtually all operations can be safely performed; but it is also true that if we find a method or process which cannot be made safe by any practical means, then we will develop alternative methods, or even abandon the process altogether. While we understand the tendency of many safety people to emphasize education rather than engineering, we have a positive conviction that a thorough engineering approach is necessary before we can reasonably ask our people to do their share. We have, for example, possibly the most extensive use of mechanical safeguards that can be found in industry. We sincerely believe that any accident that results from failure to provide proper safeguarding is a very big black mark on a company safety record. One of my own expressions, “We are ready to reach deep into the left hip pocket before we ask our people to help through following standard safe practices and through a developed safety awareness,” pretty much outlines the philosophy of the Industrial Safety Department. When it comes to the matter of costs, we enter an area where it is extremely difficult to evaluate the program in any exact terms. We are self-insured and have accurate information in regard to medical and compensation costs. We know, broadly, that the safety program has reduced accidents and therefore has saved money. It is, however, impossible to estimate what our costs would have been without a good program. The costs of a safety program are also difficult to analyze. We do, of course, know the Safety Department budget, but we are unable to measure the cost of safety items in plants, since the safety features are an integral part of the design or process. Safety instrumentation, for example, is also a part of regular control instrumentation. The cost of the instrumentation that can be charged to safety can be extricated only with difficulty. It boils down to the fact that any attempt to determine these costs with any degree of accuracy would in itself be extremely expensive, and when we got through the cost information wouldn’t change the program. Regardless of the cost aspect, we just don’t want to see our people hurt. VOL. 5 4
NO. 3 M A R C H 1 9 6 2
45
MEASURING SAFETY PERFORMANCE R. H. Albisser
Safety Manager, Chemical Diu., Merck and Co., Inc. An industrial establishment's safety performance can b e measured b y several criteria. For example, the injury rates for a plant or company can b e compared with the industry's average rates, as published by trade associations, N a t i o n a l Safety Council, and U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. A more exacting method of evaluating the effectiveness of an accident prevention program is t o use all readily measurable costs of injuries, fire, and explosions, and compare these with the average losses for the industry. These costs will not include all o f the losses due t o accidents nor all of the charges that can b e attributed t o accident and fire prevention. The comparison, however, will afford a reasonable accounting o f accident costs and justification for safety programs. The following shows the measurable direct costs associated with accidents, and what these costs would be if the industrial unit's experience were a t the average for its industry.
Total direct costs = compensation and medical fire losses off-the-job injury costs costs
+
+
Total cost = safety administration eost direct costs
+ total
These costs can be estimated for both the company itself and for the total industry:
Compensation and Medical Cost is the actual amount paid by the insurance carrier for compensable lost time, medical and related expenses, plus a 662/3% loading for insurance company administrative costs. The figures are available from loss reports issued b y the insurance carrier o r if the company is self-insured, from totaling the claims paid. Compensation and medical expenses f o r the industry are the premiums the insurance company would charge a t manual o r average rates. The figure i s arrived a t by taking the various premium rates and adjusting the premium according t o the debits o r credits received. Another method i s t o use the interstate rates f o r establishing an average premium on a larger sampling.
Fire losses are the actual losses sustained as a result o f fire and explosions plus 662/3% loading f o r fire insurance administrative expenses. Use and occupancy o r w o r k interruption losses a r e n o t included. The fire and explosion direct damages can b e computed from claims paid by the fire insurance carrier. Fire losses f o r the industry can b e based on burning rates which a r e compiled b y trade associations o r available from fire insurance carriers. The Manufacturing Chemists Association compiles such data for the chemical industry. The insurable value of the company times the burning rate plus 662/,'7, fire insurance loading gives an average loss for the industry.
Off-the-Job Injury Costs a r e computed on the basis of number of days lost by the employees f o r which they w e r e paid the average daily rate o f the produc46
IN D U S T R I A L A N D ENGINEERING C H E M I S T R Y
tion workers. This may vary, depending ability benefits paid to employees.
on dis-
Off-the-job injuries f o r the industry can be based on the average days lost per 1000 workers reported b y the trade associations o r the National Safety Council, multiplied b y the daily w a g e rate. This provides a figure for comparison.
Total Direct Costs o f accidents can be obtained b y summing the costs o f injuries, fire losses, and off-thejob lost time. Summing these Figures for the industry, on the other hand, will give a figure representing losses which could b e expected if the companies experience had been average.
Safety Administration i s the total budget f o r the safety department of the company o r plant in question.
A comparable figure for the industry can b e approximated b y taking the number o f people engaged in safety work in relation t o number of employees, and comparing with other companies in a similar line o f work. It i s difficult t o obtain accurate cost for safety administration. The scope o f activities and responsibilities for safety administration often differ, as d o accounting methods. It is relatively easy, however, t o send a simple questionnaire t o about 10 companies in a similar line o f business requesting information on the number o f people engaged in safety w o r k and their total employment. Compare as a percentage their average ratio o f safety personnel t o total employment with the ratio o f the unit being measured. Apply this percentage t o the known safety administration costs of the unit being measured, t o determine the industry's cost. Salaries and related expenses can be assumed to be comparable. Therefore, i f the industry's average ratio of safety personnel is but 75% of the measured unit, the average costs o f safety administration for the industry should b e a b o u t 75%.
Direct savings or losses of the safety and fire prevention function are indicated by the difference between the total costs for the company and the industry as a whole. Indirect expenses such as w a g e payments over the legal compensation rate, lost time in treating minor injuries, equipment and material losses, have n o t been included because o f difficulties in assembling such data. It can b e reasonably assumed that the indirect costs are a t least twice as great as the direct compensation and medical costs. Therefore, the difference is appreciably greater than indicated.
A n example, calculated by the above method, shows the relative sizes o f the various factors. Obviously, a higher-than-average safety administration cost has actually reduced the total outlay.
(Thousands of dollars) Company
Industry Au.
Compensation and medical costs Fire losses Off-the-job injury costs Total direct costs Safety administration costs
88
252
97 27 212 200
91 38 381 150
Total cost
412
531
- - -
