Infet~ Du Pont’s accident frequency rate has been reduced to one twenty-fifth of its accident rate 25 years ago
one company has a better record than any W other in its industry and maintains the lead year after year in spite of gradual improvement of the whole HEN
industry, then all concerned should want to know how the good work has been accomplished. This is the situation with regard to the Du Pont Company and its safety record. Because this month brings the retirement from active service of the man who has headed Du Pont’s safety work for almost a quarter of a century, it would seem to be an appropriate time to consider how his company has done such a remarkably good job. It is a remarkable job. The beginning of the organized safety movement in this country is often placed about the turn of the century and credited to the steel industry and to the railroads. It was with them that the slogan, “Safety First,” made its appearance. Long before this, however, the Du Pont Company, as a manufacturer of explosives, used safety in the design of its plants and in its operating methods. By the early 1920’s the need of an effective safety organization was recognized, and the first steps were taken to that end. At this time the average annual frequency rate for the 6-year period, 1920 to 1925 inclusive (disabling or lost time injuries per 1,OOO,OOO man-hours worked) was 12.57; the severity rate (time charged, “days’, per loo0 man-hours) was 4.37; and fatality rate (number of deaths per 1,000,000 man-hours worked) was 0.52. These figures were good a t the time, but if they had never been improved many Du Pont employees who have actually esoaped injury would have been injured, maimed, or killed. Extrapolating the figures’of the early twenties through the intervening years to the present, they look like this: Permanent Partial DiseGities Disabilities FataIities Tern rary
Injuries through last 24 years on basis of 1920-26 averap figures Aetual rnjuries 192649, inalusive
hoaped injury
34,000
6,WQ
3,700 30,900
1,700
269
3,300
1,489
1,708
To date this year Du Pont’s frequency rate is hovering close to 0.50. Just how near perfection this is may be seen in another way. Frequency rate mentioned above ie based on “American Standards Method of Compiling Industrial Injury Rates 216-1945,” which has been adopted by the National Safety Counoil. It iB the number of disabling injuries (lost time) per million manhours worked. A frequency rate of 0.50 means one disabling injury for every 2,000,000 man-hours worked. Assume that a man works 40 years of his life, 2000 hours
per year. This would amount to 80,000 man-hours per lifetime. To attain a frequency rate of 0.50 in any group of 25 workmen, 24 would have to work their full lifetimes without a disabling injury and the 25th man would be injured onlyonce. In the current (November 1950) issue of National Safety NEWS,the official publication of the NationaI Safety Council, Harold L. Miner, manager of the safety and fire protection division of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, has written an article on the history of the safety program of the Du Pont Company. Miner is retiring from active service this month and as he closes his desk those of us who will still be working for improved safety conditions in the chemical industry may well pause to say, “Yours has been a job well done.” He was a fire protection man first, coming to the Du Pont Company in 1915 after a decade of experience as clerk of the special hazards committee and assistant editor of the QwrterZy of the National Fire Protection Association and many years of insurance inspection, eagineering work, and safety and fire protection engineering consulting. His recommendations largely determined the type of fire protection of the plants making explosives during World War I. He has been on the board of directors of the National Fire Protection Association for more than 25 years, was president for 2 years, and in 1949 was elected an honorary life member. He is past vice president of the National Safety Council, past general chairman of the chemical section, and has served many years on the executive committee and board of directors of this organiza%ion. He is a member of the editorial board and a contributor to the CrosbyFiske-Forster “Handbook of Fire Protection,” published by the National Fire Protection Association and the senior coauthor of the chapter on Safety and Fire Protection in “Chemical Engineers’ Handbook” by John H. Perry. In the American Standards Association, Miner is chairman of the safety code correlating committee, of its executive committee, and a member of several of its sectional committees. He is a member of the American Society of Mechanic4 Engineers, American Society of Safety Engineers, Army Ordnance Association, and ten other federal, state, and trade organizationa related to safety, fire protection, and health. In Miner’s current article he gives specific examples of safety measures used in the early years of the powder plants and he tells enough of the views and actions of early Du Pont executives to show that top management of that company has (co7at?hUed Cm pagS im A )
119 A
Safety always considered the safety of their employees and their plants to be one of their chief responsibilities. Indeed this is the underlying theme of Miner’s article. He has said on other occasions that if the top executives of a business are determined to have safe plants, they will have safe plants. This may seem an oversimplification of the requirements, but as indicated in his article, top executives’ acceptance of responsibility for employee safety must include safety in the design and maintenance of plants, a knowledge of the hazards of the business, and operating methods that avoid the hazards. These requirements are basic; they take time, applied technical knowledge, and money and hence need executive approval and support. In addition to these basic requirements, if everyone in an organization is convinced that the boss wants him to work without getting hurt, there will be few injuries. There are surely top executives in other companies who are just as determined to eliminate injuries as the Du Pont men have been. However, it seems likely that the difference in results has been due to the fact that the Du Pont Company has been more effective in transmitting that executive determinat,ion down the line. For this efficiency and effectiveness much of the credit must be given to the man who has long been in charge of the safety and fire protection division of that company. Miner writes : To the extent each member of the plant staff is responsible for plant operations, to that same extent is he or she also responsible for the safety of such operations. The manager is responsible for the safety of all plant employees. When a department head is given a job, the safety of every employee goes with it. Each foreman or group leader is responsible for the employees he supervises. Even each individual workmatr has the responsibility of doing his job safely. Thus, the entire organization is welded into a safety conscious group. Du Pont’s position toward safety is given in four steps: 1. An acceptance of the fact that the prevention of personal injuries is good business from the standpoint of humanity, eEciency, and economy. 2, A firm belief that all personal injuries can be prevented and should be prevented. 3. A conviction that it is possible to safeguard all operating exposures which may result in occupational personal injuries. 4. An understanding by all employees that it, is to their own advantage, as well as the company’s, to work safely and that they are expected to cooperate to that end. Miner’s article gives more details concerning the Du Pont program, but more eloquent than the article is the safety record of the Du Pont Company, which in no small measure must be credited to Miner and must be a source of immense satisfaction to him as he lays aside his active responsibility. 120 A
