 We have all heard the expression, "there is no such thing as an accident". It means that accidents don't happen without a cause. But if they never happened, there would be little need for all the safety training conducted by companies today. This training is not done without good reason. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 3 million non-fatal workplace accidents each year. This correlates to approximately 4.4 lost time accidents per million man hours worked, with a single accident sometimes resulting in millions of dollars in total costs.
Some of the areas affecting safety are traditionally not discussed at length in most paper mill safety training programs. These include behavioral safety, work attitude, and awareness.
This is not meant to downplay the importance of the detailed safety training programs used in many paper mills today. These programs are necessary and provide employees with important information related to their work safety. Another reason for these programs is that by law (OSHA), workers have a right to a safe workplace environment, and individuals cannot be retaliated against if they report unsafe concerns. But it can be argued that some OSHA task-oriented corrections may result in a work environment becoming even more unsafe! An example might be installing a guard that later collects excessive product buildup, tempting the worker to remove the residue without shutting down the equipment. At any rate, compliance with OSHA is not an optional consideration.
Safety is an extensive and complex matter. Measurements of safety level, evaluation of health issues, and regular meetings to review accident statistics/incidents are often done at the mill level. For example, it may be useful to know how your mill compares to the industry average in terms of number of injuries per 100 full time employees. And, the number of days away from work caused by accidents per 100 full time employees is certainly a major cost indicator. But this type of monitoring is after the fact, serving only to alert managers to the need for more accident investigations or follow-up training. It is difficult to understand how management could claim to value safety as highly as quality or productivity using only a retrospective viewpoint. Management must include risk identification and assessment, and fully commit to ensuring employee safety to the highest extent possible, using a proactive approach.
The safety training of employees should be conducted by people with significant expertise in a specific area. Some of these qualified people may be available within the mills, but they often come from suppliers, OEM's, or outside consultants. Let's examine why it is difficult to have a comprehensive safety program without outside assistance:
• Safety procedures are difficult to write and can be hard to explain clearly. These include both procedures related to continuous operation and those written in reaction to emergencies.
• Entirely different procedures are required for all the individual areas requiring safety attention. For example, procedures concerning the safe handling of chemicals differ from those involving electrical and mechanical interfacing.
• Special training is required to use safety equipment correctly, and this equipment must be kept up to date. Alarm systems are included in this category.
• Training is necessary in OSHA procedures and regulations, and these are very detailed.
• Safety training is required when new equipment is installed, and this usually can only be supplied initially from the OEM.
• The need for employee medical testing may exist, depending on the environmental circumstances in the workplace. This includes documentation of noise exposure effects.
In spite of the many excellent mill safety programs existing today, accidents still happen. Often, so much time is spent on complex safety matters that the more basic contributors are either completely ignored or fall through the cracks during training sessions. For example, some of the common workplace accidents resulting in employee injuries are:
• Slipping, tripping, or falling injuries. These can be minimized by concentrating on removal of workplace clutter, and training employees in the importance of keeping work areas clean.
• Lifting or push/pull related injuries. The correct way to lift or push/pull an object can be taught, and related employee activities can be monitored.
• Repetitive motion injuries. To reduce these, supervision should limit the time workers spend at repetitive motions by alternating workers in jobs of this nature.
There may also be a need for including a non-traditional approach into safety training. This is based on the premise that many accidents are caused by incorrect employee behavior, and are not related to a lack of traditional employee safety training.
Consider the following influences which often lead to accidents:
• Residual anger or frustration. If supervisors can recognize that these interfering factors exist, the source can often be eliminated, resulting in safer employee behavior.
• Insufficient detail orientation. Attention to details can be taught to a degree, and if successful, will result in fewer accidents.
• Surroundings awareness. Employees should be taught and cautioned not only to focus on their jobs but also to be aware of job surroundings in which unsafe conditions may exist.
• Perception awareness. Increasing perception is similar to using one's peripheral vision to keep an employee alert to dynamic changes at the work location.
• Intuition. Encourage employees to trust their intuition if something does not appear safe at the work site, and to bring these concerns to the attention of supervisors.
• Insufficient rest. Tired employees are more prone to have accidents. If an employee is obviously tired, either from long work hours or a health-related lack of full rest, supervision should consider removing the worker from tasks requiring a high degree of focused attention.
The non-traditional considerations cannot replace the need for the standard safety training methods. But recognizing their existence may assist in further improving the work environment, and result in an increased mill safety rating.
Robert Moore is a retired chemical engineer, and is an experienced technical and fictional writer. His past work experience spanned the chemical, paper and equipment manufacturing industries, including holding management positions at Voith Paper, Scapa plc, and The Mead Paper Corporation. He is also the author of humorous short stories about life in southwest Virginia, circa 1940-1960.
|
