View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Frances P erk in s, Secretary
B U R E A U O F L A B O R S T A T IS T IC S
Isador L u b in , Commissioner (o n le a v e )
A . F. H in rich s, A cting Commissioner

Injuries and Accident Causes in the
Foundry Industry, 1942

B ulletin 7\£o. 805
[Reprinted from th e M on th ly Labor R ev iew , December 1944, w ith additional data!




Letter of Transmittal

U nited States D epartment of L abor,
B ureau of L abor Statistics,

Washington 25, D. C., December 11, 1944•
The Secretary of L abor :
I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on the occurrence and causes of
work injuries in the foundry industry during 1942. This report was prepared by
Frank S. McElroy and George R. McCormack in the Industrial Hazards Division,
under the direction of Max D. Kossoris, chief.
A. F. H inrichs, Acting Commissioner.
Hon. F rances P erkins ,
Secretary of Labor.




For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U. S. GovemmentPrinting Office
Washington 25, D. O.
Price 15 cents

(II)

Contents
Page

The industry record____________________________________________________
Departmental differences_______________________________________________
Pattern shops_____________________________________________________
Core rooms_______________________________________________________
Molding departments______________________________________________
Melting departments______________________________________________
Cleaning, chipping, and finishing___________________________________
Machine shops____________________________________________________
Maintenance______________________________________________________
Shipping, storage, and transportation______________________________
Regional and State differences__________
Gray-iron job foundries____________________________________________
Malleable-iron job foundries____________________
Steel job foundries_________________________________________________
Cast-iron pipe foundries___________________________________________
Nonferrous job foundries__________________________________________
Other than job foundries__________________________________________
Size of plant_________________________________
Safety programs and first-aid facilities__________________________________
Injuries and the age of workers_________________________________________
Kinds of injuries experienced:
The entire group__________________________________________________
Injuries in different types of foundries______________________________
Occupational experience:
Chainmen___________________________________
Chippers_____________________________________________________
Coremakers_______________________________________________
Grinders_____________________________________________________
Laborers and shake-out men___________________________________
Ladlemen or pourers__________________________________________
Machinists____________________________________________________
Molders and molder’s helpers__________________________________
Sandblasters__________________________________________________
Accident types and agencies involved:
The agencies______________________________________________________
Accident types:
“ Struck by” accidents____________________________________ 1—
Slips (not falls) and overexertion---------------------------------------------Caught in, on, or between objects_____________________________
Striking against_______________________________________________
Falls_________________________________________________________
Other types of accidents_______________________________________
Accident causes________________________________________________________
Unsafe working conditions_________________________________________
Hazardous arrangements or procedures_________________________
Lack of personal safety equipment_____________________________
Unsafe lifting conditions_______________________________________
Defective agencies____________________________________________
Unguarded agencies____________________________________ ..._____




(in)

1
6
7
8
9
11
14
16
16
16
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
24
28
29
30
32
33
34
34
34
35
36
36
36
37
40
41
42
42
42
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
48

IV

Accident causes— Continued.
Unsafe personal acts_______________________________________________
Use of unsafe equipment or unsafe use of equipment___________
Unsafe position or posture_____________________________________
Failure to wear safe attire or personal safety equipment________
Unsafe lifting_________________________________________________
Safety codes and safety services________________________________________
Private associations______________________
Governmental activities____________________________________________
Causes and prevention of typical foundry accidents_____________________
Description of accidents and suggested methods of prevention_______
Cleaning, chipping, and finishing accidents_____________________
Conveyor accidents____________________
Core-room accidents__________________________________________
Crane, elevator, and hoist accidents________
Furnace accidents__________________________________________ —
Pouring accidents________________
Sand-mixing accidents_________________________________________
Woodworking accidents______________
Maintenance accidents_______________
Miscellaneous accidents_____________




Page
.48
50
51
51
53
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
58
60
61
61
62
62
63

Bulletin 7s[o. 805 o f the
U nited States Bureau o f Labor Statistics
[Reprinted from the M onthly L abor R e v ie w , December 1944, with additional data]

Injuries and Accident Causes in the Foundry Industry
in 1942
The Industry Record
It has long been recognized that foundry work includes some of
the most hazardous operations found in any manufacturing activity.
Reflecting these occupational hazards, the frequency of disabling
industrial injuries in independent1 iron and steel foundries, for which
the Bureau of Labor Statistics regularly compiles accident statistics,
has consistently been more than double the national average for all
manufacturing. A comparison of the records for this group and for
all manufacturing, for the 5 years 1939 to 1943, follows:
Injury-frequency rates 1
Independent iron
All
and steel foundries
manufacturing

1939
_________________________________
1940 ______________________________________
1941
_________________________________
1942
_________________________________
1943
_________________________________

35.
36.
47.
49.
43.

9
1
0
7
4

14. 9
15. 3
18. 1
19. 9
20. 0

*Average number of disabling injuries per million man-hours worked.

In 1942, the year selected for detailed study, nearly 50 workers in
independent iron and steel foundries experienced disabling industrial
injuries in the course of every million employee-hours worked. This
rate, which represents about 1 disabling injury for every 9 full-year
employees, was exceeded in only 4 of the 109 other manufacturing
industries for which data were available.1
2
Coverage, in the present detailed study, was extended to include
not only the independent iron and steel foundries, but also foundries
using nonferrous metals and the foundry departments of establish­
ments which are normally considered part of other industry groups.
The participating foundries were classified into three major groups:
Ferrous job foundries, nonferrous job foundries, and other than job
(or non-job) foundries. For more specific comparisons the ferrous
job foundries were further divided into gray-iron foundries, malleableiron foundries, steel foundries, and cast-iron pipe foundries.
1 Independent in the sense that they are exclusively foundry establishments. Both job and production
foundries are included, but foundry departments which constitute a part of a larger manufacturing estab­
lishment are not included in this group.
2 Manufacturing industries with 1942 frequency rates higher than that of iron and steel foundries were
logging 89.6, sawmills 61.7, fiber boxes 66.3, and wooden containers 60.2. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bulletin No. 768: Industrial Injuries in the United States During 1942.)




(i)

2

The reporting units included 850 ferrous job foundries, 441 nonferrous job foundries, and 897 non-job foundries, most of which were
departments of larger manufacturing plants. In the aggregate these
2,188 foundries had nearly 246,000 employees who worked more than
553 million employee-hours in the course of the year. The total
volume of disabling injuries reported was 25,363, of which 92 resulted
in4death, 30 resulted in permanent total disabilities which will prevent
the injured persons from ever again engaging in any normal occupation,
680 caused permanent physical impairments, and 24,561 resulted in
temporary disabilities involving an average time loss of 15 days each.
In the ferrous job foundries, approximately 1 in every 8 employees
experienced a disabling injury during the year. In the nonferrous
job foundries and also in the non-job foundries the ratio was about
1 disabling injury for every 12 employees. (See table 1.)
Reflecting the inclusion of additional types of operations, the
average injury-frequency rate for the entire group of reporting found­
ries was 45.8, as compared with the previously mentioned frequency
rate of 49.7 for independent iron and steel foundries. For purposes of
analysis, however, the variations among the different types of foundry
operations are much more enlightening than the general averages.
The nonferrous job foundries, with an average of 35.3 disabling
injuries for each million employee-hours worked, had the best injury
record among the several groups. It should be noted, however, that
even though this was the lowest of the foundry averages it was still
75 percent higher than the average for all manufacturing.
The non-job foundries, consisting mostly of foundry departments
of plants primarily devoted to other activities, had the next highest
average frequency rate, 37.3. It was characteristic of the depart­
mental foundries that those which were attached to industries which
normally have low injury-frequency rates had better safety records
than similar foundry departments of the industries with higher rates.
As the operations performed were generally quite comparable, it
seems reasonable to infer that these differences were the result of
variations in the amount of attention devoted to safety rather than
differences in the prevailing hazards.
The entire group of ferrous job foundries included in this study
had an average frequency rate of 52.0. Within this group, however,
the gray-iron foundries had an average of 55.8 disabling injuries per
million employee-hours worked, the highest for any type of foundry
operations; the steel foundries had an average of 50.8, the malleableiron foundries 49.3, and the cast-iron pipe foundries 46.2.
In addition to reporting the lowest injury frequency, the nonferrous
job foundries also reported a much lower proportion of fatal cases than
either of the other foundry groups. In part, the lower frequency rate
as well as the lower proportion of serious injuries in the nonferrous
job foundries probably was due to the lighter type of work done
there. The highest proportion of serious injuries, both fatalities and
permanent impairments, occurred in the non-job foundries, but no
specific reason for this tendency was noted. As between the ferrous
job foundries and the non-job foundries, there was little difference in
frequency rates for serious injuries. The ferrous job foundries, on the
other hand, had a much higher frequency of temporary disabilities
than the non-job foundries.




3
A possible explanation of the difference in the frequency of injuries
causing temporary total disability is that many of the non-job
foundries were departments of larger plants which have medical units
that give treatment fon injuries on the premises and on company time.
In such plants many injured workers have their injuries treated and
return to work without chargeable absence from the plant. Such
injuries would not be reported as disabling under the standard
definition of a disabling injury, as they involve no lost time beyond the
day of injury. Among the ferrous job foundries, on the other hand,
many are of insufficient size to maintain a medical office, and treat­
ment for injuries must be obtained outside the plant. As a result, in
numerous cases injuries which merely need redressing or observation
on days following the day of injury may require the employee to
remain away from work in order to obtain treatment. Consequently,
certain injuries must be counted as disabling and therefore be included
in the frequency rates of some plants, whereas identical cases in other
plants are classed as nondisabling and are excluded from the frequency
rates, depending entirely upon the availability of medical attention
at the workplace. It is possible therefore that, as the frequency of
fatalities and permanent impairments (which is not affected by the
factor of lost time) was approximately the same for both the ferrous
job foundries and the non-job foundries, the considerable difference
in the frequencies of temporary total disabilities for the two groups
may have been due at least in part to differences in plant medical
facilities and not entirely to differences in the actual number of
injuries.
Basically, however, the difference between the frequency rates of
the ferrous job foundries and the non-job foundries lies in the fact
that most of the latter group are production foundries. Non-job
foundries usually produce hundreds of identical castings and are
organized and equipped for standardized mass production. The work
in these foundries is highly mechanized and each step is more easily
engineered for efficiency and safety than in the job foundries. The
procedures are subdivided and workers are trained in the performance
of standardized operations, which leads to a high degree of under­
standing at each stage in the process. This mechanization, engineer­
ing, and high degree of familiarity with the individual operations can
do much to overcome the inherent hazards of foundry work and is
largely the reason that non-job foundries have better safety records
than job foundries. In addition, the departmental foundry has the
advantage of sharing in the benefits of over-all plant medical and
safety programs, which are more difficult to maintain ip an independ­
ent and smaller establishment.
In job foundries, on the other hand, the items produced are con­
tinually changing. Frequently only one casting will be made in a
particular design. Standardization of the operations is, therefore,
impossible and the workers must be trained as craftsmen capable of
undertaking a wide variety of operations rather than as specialists.
The possibilities of mechanization are limited and a very large part
of the work must be performed manually by procedures worked out
on the spot as the occasion arises. This condition necessitates the
employment of skilled journeymen who have had training in all
branches of foundry work and are capable of handling each job through




4
every stage of production. In the smaller job foundries it is common
procedure for a single journeyman to perform or direct all operations
involved in making a particular casting or set of castings. In the
larger job foundries some degree of specialization is possible, however,
and the journeymen are assigned to particular phases of the work such
as patternmaking, coremaking, molding, or crane operating. Com­
petent journeymen generally have served a formal 4-year apprentice­
ship. Much of the work in job foundries, however, is performed by
laborers or helpers, who have been given little training and who work
under direct supervision of the journeymen.
T able 1.—Injury Rates and Extent of Disability, Classified by Kind of Foundry,

for 2,188 Foundries, 1942
Number of disabling
injuries

Kind of foundry1

Total.................. ..........
Ferrous job foundries. __
Gray-iron. ..............
Malleable-iron........
Steel..................... .
Cast-iron pipe.........
Nonferrous job found­
ries._______________
Other than job found­
ries..............................

Em­
Resulting in—
Num­ Num­ ployeeber of ber of hours
estab­ em­ worked
Death Per­ Tem­
lish­ ploy­
(in
and
ma­
ments ees
thou­ Total perma­ nent po­
sands)2
rary
par­ total
nent
total
tial disa­
disa­ disa­
bility 3 bility bility
2,188 245,786 553,175 25,363 (30) 122
850 143,875 325,692 16,948
652 52,830 119,705 6,675
53 20,672 44,233 2,180
105 57,660 132,707 6,744
37 12,482 28,533 1,319
441 14,052

(13) 70
(6)31
(2)5
(5)30
(1)4

Aver­
age
days
lost
per
tem­
po­
rary
Fre­ Se­ total
quen­ ver­ disa­
ity bility
cy
Injury
rates *

Total
time
lost
(days)

680 24,561 1,694,547

45.8

3.1

15

415 16,463 1,017,250
153 6,491 403,925
57 2,118 112, 596
157 6,557 390,781
45 1,270 107,302

52.0
55.8
49.3
50.8
46.2

3.1
3.4
2.5
2.9
3.8

15
14
16
15
16

32,147 1,134

1

31 1,102

52,084

35.3

1.6

15

897 87,859 195,336 7,281

(17) 51

234 6,996

625,213

37.3

3.2

15

1Totals include figures for items not shown separately because of insufficient data.
2Totals based on unrounded data.
3 Figures in parentheses indicate the number of permanent total disability cases included .
* The frequency rate is the average number of disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked.
The severity rate is the average number of days lost for each thousand employee-hours worked.

Although the group averages present a relatively unfavorable
picture of safety achievement in the foundry industry, the individual
plant records indicate that safety is not an impossible goal in any
foundry. Over 24 percent of the ferrous job foundries, 63 percent of
the nonferrous job foundries, and 29 percent of the non-job foundries
had no disabling injuries in 1942. It is true that most of the plants
which had zero frequency rates were small, but among them there
were a number of plants which regularly employed over 250 workers
each. An additional 10 percent of the ferrous job foundries, 6 percent
of the nonferrous job foundries, and 14 percent of the non-job foundries
had frequency rates which were lower than the 1942 national average
of 19.9 for all manufacturing.
In sharp contrast, a considerable number of plants in each of the
groups had frequency rates of over 100. Most of these plants were
also small, but there were some plants which employed over 500
workers in this extremely high rate group. Generally speaking,
however, the very small foundries with fewer than 24 employees and




5
large foundries employing 500 or more employees had the lowest
average frequency rates.
In all three classes of foundries the most hazardous departments
were shake-out, melting, and cleaning, chipping, and finishing. The
record of the molding departments was about average in each group.
Pattern shops and core rooms had the lowest injury-frequency rates
among the principal operating departments.
In addition to providing summary reports, which were included in
the general study of injury-frequency rates, 66 of the ferrous job
foundries also supplied details concerning each of their reported
accidents.3 The 4,600 cases reported were analyzed according to the
“ American Recommended Practice for Compiling Industrial Accident
Causes” as approved by the American Standards Association. Strictly
speaking, the conclusions drawn from this analysis apply only to
gray-iron, malleable-iron, and steel job foundries, as no other types
of foundries participated in this part of the study. In general,
however, it appears safe to say that the experience of these three
types of job foundries is fairly representative of all ferrous foundries
and, to a somewhat less extent, may be considered as similar to that of
the nonferrous foundries.
A Bureau agent visited each of these foundries, and, insofar as pos­
sible, transcribed from their records the following items regarding each
injury: Age, race, and experience of each person injured; place where
the accident occurred and time it occurred; nature and extent of the
resulting injury; type of accident; unsafe condition and unsafe act
which led to the accident; and the object or substance (agency) which
caused the injury. A brief record was also made of the safety activi­
ties of the different plants and of the first-aid or medical facilities pro­
vided on the premises. In some instances, however, all of the desired
details were not available. For this reason, the number of cases ana­
lyzed in respect to particular accident factors varies considerably.
All parts of the analysis, however, are based upon the records of at
least 58 foundries. Of the foundries visited, 31 were gray-iron or castiron pipe foundries; 24 were malleable-iron foundries; and 11 were
steel foundries. The entire group employed approximately 40,000
workers, and their records included the details relating to over 4,600
disabling injuries. The plants were located in 22 States, providing a
cross section representing all regions except the Mountain Region.
The detailed analysis indicated that 26 percent of the disabling
foundry injuries were foot and toe cases, 23 percent were hand and
finger injuries, 10 percent were eye injuries, 12 percent were back
injuries, and 10 percent were other trunk injuries. The greater part
of the injuries to toes, feet, hands, and fingers consisted of cuts,
sprains, bruises, or fractures resulting from mishandling of heavy
materials. Most of the eye injuries were cuts or lacerations inflicted
by flying particles, and nearly all of the back injuries were strains or
sprains resulting from lifting excessive weights or lifting improperly.
Burns, however, were quite numerous and affected all parts of the
body. Poor housekeeping and the lack of proper personal safety
3 Tables 1 to 4 of this report are based upon the general reports furnished by 2,188 establishments; tables 5
to 14 are based upon the detailed analysis of the records of the 66 foundries visited by the Bureau’s repiesentatives.

628923°—45--- 2




6
equipment for use in hazardous operations were the outstanding un­
safe working conditions which led to the injuries. On the personnel
side, the outstanding unsafe acts which contributed to the occurrence
of injuries were (1) using unsafe equipment or using equipment im­
properly, (2) assuming an unsafe position or posture, (3) failing to
wear safe clothing or provided safety equipment, and (4) unsafe
lifting.
Departmental Differences
Although most of the hazards encountered in foundry work are
directly connected with particular operations and, therefore, are of
primary concern to the workers engaged in those specific operations,
there are certain hazards which in some degree must be faced by all
foundry workers regardless of their assignments. Practically all
workers in foundries at times must move, or assist in moving, heavy
materials and thereby are exposed to the possibilities of sprains, or
crushed fingers or toes. Nearly all workers on the foundry floor at
times must work in proximity to pouring operations and are thus
exposed to injury from spilled or splashed molten metal. The move­
ment of heavy materials is frequently accomplished by means of over­
head cranes which may swing their loads over the heads of workers
who are unaware of the imminent possibility of materials falling upon
them. Improperly piled materials present dangers to any workers
who approach them. Many parts of foundries are always quite warm
while other sections may be cool or even cold, and these differences
in temperature present the possibility of chills to all workers who must
move around the plant. The hazard of contracting silicosis from the
silica dust dispersed in molding and cleaning operations may also
affect all workers on the foundry floor regardless of their occupations.
It should be noted, however, that relatively few cases of this indus­
trial disease were reported in the survey. As this low volume of
silicosis cases is contrary to the viewpoint frequently expressed by
commentators upon foundry hazards, particular care was taken to
insure that no cases on record in the plants visited were omitted. It
is possible, of course, that because of its gradual onset and the simi­
larity of its symptoms to those of other nonindustrial diseases some
cases of silicosis may go unrecognized. There vras, however, no ground
for doubting the completeness of the records of these cases, as silicosis
is usually a compensable disease; and all cases which had been so
diagnosed would of necessity be formally recorded and reported to the
State workmen’s compensation commissions.
Departmental organization in the foundries which participated in
the survey varied widely— from none at all in the small plants to as
many as 20 departments in the larger plants. For this reason there
were many differences in the number of units and in the operations
and occupations included in the various departmental groups. This
was particularly true in respect to the operations performed by un­
skilled and semiskilled workers. Generally speaking, however, foundry
operations naturally break down into five related but distinct proce­
dures which form the basis for the departmentalization usually found.
These most commonly reported departments were pattern shops; core
rooms; molding departments; melting departments; and cleaning,




7
chipping, and finishing departments. Other departments frequently
reported separately included maintenance departments, shipping de­
partments, storage departments, and shake-out departments.
In all three cljasses of foundries the most hazardous departments were
shake-out; melting; and cleaning, chipping, and finishing. The rec­
ord of the molding departments was about average in each group.
Pattern shops and core rooms had the lowest injury-frequency rates
among the principal operating departments.4
PATTERN SHOPS
*

The first step in making a casting is to prepare a full-scale model
or pattern of the desired casting. These patterns are usually made
from wood, although metal, plaster of paris, or rubber may be used in
some instances. Pattern shops, therefore, are generally woodworking
establishments.
Much of the work of making wood patterns requires very close
fitting and finishing in which hand tools, such as chisels, gauges,
knives, spokeshaves, saws, planes, drills, hammers, screw drivers, try
squares, and measuring devices, are used. Many of these tools have
sharp cutting edges and when mishandled can inflict severe wounds.
The most serious hazards are encountered, however, in the operation
of power-driven woodworking machines, such as saws, lathes, planers,
boring machines, jointers, and sanders. Generally speaking, the
greatest danger involved in the use of these machines is that the
operator may bring his hand into contact with the cutting parts as
he feeds the stock at the point of operation. There are, however,
various types of guards for these machines which make it nearly
impossible for such accidents to occur when guards are properly
applied and used.5
When patterns are to be used repeatedly, however, they are often
made from metal. Common practice in making metal patterns is to
construct a wooden pattern first and from this cast the metal pattern.
In many instances, however, the practice is to cut metal patterns
from solid metal blocks. When this procedure is followed the pattern
shop takes on all the characteristics of a machine shop, and most of
the work is performed upon metalworking machines such as milling
machines, shapers, planers, drill presses, engine lathes, grinders, and
power-driven hacksaws. Each of these machines presents some
“ point of operation” hazard to the fingers and hands ot the operators.
The heavier materials used in metal-pattern shops also present a
crushing hazard to fingers or toes, if they are mishandled or dropped.
In comparison with the experience of the other major operating
departments, the frequency rates of the pattern shops were relatively
low. In the ferrous job foundries the wood-pattern shops had an
average frequency rate of 21.2 disabling injuries per million employeehours worked, while the metal-pattern shops had an average rate of*
4 For a detailed description of foundry processes and procedures see Job Descriptions for Job Foundries,
prepared by the Job Analysis and Information Section, Division of Standards and Research, United States
Employment Service (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington), 1938; and The Making, Shaping,
and Treating of Steel, by J. M . Camp and C. B. Francis (Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh
Pa.), 1940.
* For a more detailed discussion of the hazards of woodworking see Causes and Prevention of Injuries in
the Manufacture of Lumber Products, 1941, in Monthly Labor Review, November 1942, p. 960 (or Bureau
of Labor Statistics pamphlet, Serial No. R. 1491).




8

29.8. In the non-job foundries the rates were lower, but the relation­
ship was reversed, the wood-pattern shop average being 15.0 compared
with an average of 7.4 in the metal-pattern shops. In the nonferrous
foundries the average frequency rate for all pattern shops was 20.9.
It is pertinent to note that 1 in every 9 of the injuries reported in
wood-pattern shops resulted in some form of permanent impairment.
(See table 2, p. 17.)
Finger injuries were more numerous in the pattern shops than were
injuries to any other part of the body, with foot and toe injuries
constituting the second most important group. The frequency of
finger injuries in these departments reflects the use of power tools,
particularly powered woodworking tools, and points to a need for
greater emphasis upon the proper guarding of such equipment. The
relatively high proportion of foot and toe injuries is somewhat sur­
prising, and indicates that the desirability of more general use of
safety shoes should not be overlooked in this department. (See
table 7, p. 31.)
CORE ROOMS

Cores are simply patterns which reproduce the openings or hollow
spaces that are desired in the finished casting. When a mold of the
solid pattern has been made the cores are fixed in place within the
opening and the molten metal is poured in around them. Cores
must possess three essential characteristics. They must be sufficiently
cohesive to retain their shapes while being placed and while the metal
is being poured; they must be highly refractory to stand up under the
intense heat of the molten metal; and they must be capable of being
easily broken up so that they can be removed from inside the finished
casting. Various materials are used in making cores, but the drysand core is the most common type. In general the process of core­
making consists of mixing sand with a binder material, such as flour,
powdered resin, linseed oil, or a mixture of molasses and water, and
of tamping this mixture into molds which give it the desired shape.
The molded cores are then baked or dried to make them hard. Cores
may be shaped by hand-ramming the sand into a core box; by the
use of a conveyor-screw core-making machine, which is similar in
appearance to a meat grinder and which is used to compact the sand
into bar-like cores of uniform cross section; or by the use of a core­
turnover-draw machine, which compacts the sand into the core
boxes by jarring and jolting.
A variety of hand tools, such as mallets, trowels, shovels, pliers,
core boxes, clamps, core plates, and compressed-air blowers for clean­
ing, are used in core rooms. Various machines, and other mechanical
equipment, such as sand-mixers, conveyors, wheelbarrows, baking
ovens, and molding machines, are also commonly used in this depart­
ment. The hand tools used are not particularly hazardous, but the
machines which may be used frequently present serious possibilities
of injury to hands and arms from contact with moving parts. Bums
from contact with hot ovens or oven trays are common.
Generally, core making is not considered very heavy work. The
metal core boxes and core plates, however, are sometimes fairly
heavy and present lifting hazards and the possibility of pinched or
crushed fingers or toes, if they are mishandled or dropped.




9
The frequency of injuries reported for the core rooms was somewhat
greater than that for the pattern shops, but was less than that for any
of the other major departments. In the ferrous job foundries the
core rooms had an average of 30.9 disabling injuries for each million
employee-hours worked. In the nonferrous job foundries the average
frequency rate for core-room work was 12.7, and in the non-job
foundries it was 18.6. (See table 2, p. 17.)
Injuries to hands, fingers, feet, toes, and backs were outstanding
among the reported injuries to core-room workers. Injuries in these
categories are all closely related to the use of hazardous machines or
to the handling of heavy, bulky, or awkward materials, and indicate
a need for better machine guarding and for careful planning and
training of the workers in the operations they must perform. The
volume of foot and toe injuries also indicates that the use of safety
shoes or foot guards might well be emphasized in the core rooms.
(See table 7, p. 31.)
MOLDING DEPARTMENTS

Although permanent metal molds are sometimes used when many
identical castings are to be made, the common practice is to prepare
individual sand molds for each casting. Briefly, the process of mak­
ing a sand mold consists of compacting sand around' a pattern and
then withdrawing the pattern so as to leave an opening in the sand
which reproduces the outside contours of the pattern. Cores, which
are solid reproductions of the hollow spaces desired within the finished
casting, are then fixed in their proper places inside the opening in the
sand and sufficient molten metal to fill the opening is poured in and
allowed to harden.
The first step in making a mold is to prepare the sand by mixing it
with binder materials such as clay and water. This is frequently
done by hand-mixing with a shovel, but in the larger foundries sand­
mixing machines or mullers are commonly used. In either case the
work is comparatively heavy, because the sand usually must be moved
several times in the course of the operation.' Aside from the hazard
of overlifting, the chief danger in mixing the molding sand is that of
coming into contact with the moving parts of the mixing machines.
When the sand and binder have been mixed to the proper con­
sistency the pattern is placed inside a frame, called a flask, and the
sand is firmly rammed into place around the pattern. To facilitate the
subsequent withdrawal of the pattern, both the pattern and the flask
are generally divided into two sections. The bottom, or drag, section
of the flask is usually rammed first in an inverted position. Then the
drag is turned over and the upper, or cope, section placed on top and the
packing of the sand is completed. The cope section is then removed
from the drag, the pattern sections are withdrawn from the sand, and
any necessary cores are placed in position within the opening left by
the pattern. Then the cope is replaced upon the drag and the two
sections are firmly clamped together ready for the pouring of the
metal, which is introduced into the mold cavity through a channel or
gate cut through the sand. In job foundries these operations are
generally performed by hand. In production foundries, however,
machines are commonly used to compact the sand, withdraw the pat­
terns, and sometimes to turn over the flask sections. The principal




10
hazards connected with hand molding are those arising from lifting
and moving the flasks, which are frequently very heavy. The same
hazards prevail in machine molding, with the added danger of contact
with the moving parts of the machines.
When the mold has been completed and placed in position for pour­
ing, the molten metal is drawn from the furnace and transported to
the mold in a ladle. For small castings a ladle with a capacity of
about 80 pounds is used. These small ladles have a single long handle
and are carried by one man. For larger castings requiring up to 300
pounds of molten metal, bull ladles, which have double end shanks
so that they may be carried by two men, are used. Ladles of this
size are frequently supported by a hoist during pouring and are often
moved by means of a monorail crane or on a wheeled carriage. Either
of the latter methods relieved the workers of the necessity of lifting
and holding the heavy ladle, but it still must be pushed into position.
Large ladles, with a capacity up to about 50 tons, are transported by
overhead cranes, and a geared mechanism is used to tilt them for
pouring.
The greatest hazard connected with pouring operations is that of
severe burns from contact with the molten metal which may splash or
spill as it is being carried or poured, or may overflow if the mold is
poured too full, or may even break out of the mold if the mold is not
properly vented so as to permit the escape of gases formed by the
contact of the molten metal with the sand. It is recognized as essen­
tial, therefore, that workers engaged in pouring operations should
wear goggles and insulated clothing, particularly leggings, gloves, and
molder’s-type safety shoes, which can be pulled off instantly in case
molten metal should get inside them. It is also important to maintain
good housekeeping in the pouring area to avoid the possibility of
bumping the ladle against improperly placed materials and to elimi­
nate tripping hazards which might cause the ladle carriers to spill the
metal. Only workers who are participating in the pouring should be
permitted to be within the range of a possible spill, and all steps in the
pouring should be under close supervision.
The removal of the casting from the mold after the metal has solidi­
fied and cooled sufficiently to be handled, generally termed shake-out
work, is commonly a function of the molding department although it
is not unusual for this work to be assigned to a general-labor depart­
ment or even to be constituted as a separate department in large
foundries. This operation consists of opening the flask and removmg
the sand, pulling the casting from the sand, shaking off any adhering
sand, breaking out the cores, transporting the castings to the finish­
ing department, and returning the flasks and sand to stock. Jolting
machines are sometimes used to loosen the sand, but usually the only
equipment used consists of sledges, mallets, bars, shovels, wedges,
'wheelbarrows or hand trucks, and, when the castings are large, hoists
or cranes. The principal hazards are those involved in handling
heavy, rough, and sharp-edged materials. Safety shoes and gloves
are generally considered to be essential equipment in this operation.
In terms of total employment the molding departments constitute
the largest of the foundry operating sections. The experience of the
molding departments, therefore, has a great influence upon the over­
all average frequency rate for foundry operations. This is apparent




11

from, the fact that in all three of the foundry groups the average fre­
quency rates for the molding departments closely approximated the
average rates for all operations. Nevertheless, the average frequency
rates for the molding departments are considerably higher than the
averages prevailing in most other industries and approach the level
which is generally considered very high. In the ferrous job foundry
group the average for the molding departments was 59.7 disabling in­
juries per million employee-hours worked; in the nonferrous job
foundries the molding department average was 34.2; and in the non­
job group it was 43.0. In some of the ferrous job foundries and in
some non-job foundries it was possible to report shake-out work sep­
arately. The resulting frequency rates for this particular operation
strikingly emphasize its extreme hazards. In the ferrous job foundries
shake-out work had an average of 110.3 disabling injuries per million
employee-hours worked and in the non-job foundries it had a com­
parable average rate of 85.9. Each of these was the highest rate
recorded for any operation in its group. (See table 2, p. 17.)
The high proportion of injuries to the lower extremities reported for
the molding departments points to a need for greater emphasis upon
the use of footguards, safety shoes, and leggings. Similarly the large
volume of hand and finger injuries indicates need for more general
use of gloves and for better training in the safe procedures in handling
materials. Back injuries were very common in this department, a
situation which points to a need for more instruction in the proper
methods of lifting and closer supervision to see that the proper methods
are used. Eye injuries were also quite numerous, indicating that
more extensive use of goggles would be highly desirable. (See table
7, p. 31.)
MELTING DEPARTMENTS

Most common among the various types of melting furnaces used in
foundries are the cupola, the crucible, the reverberatory, the electric,
and the open-hearth furnaces. The cupola furnace is used exclusively
for melting iron and is commonly found in gray-iron foundries. Cru­
cible, reverberatory, and electric furnaces may be used in either ferrous
or nonferrous foundries; these three types of furnaces permit a greater
degree of control over the quality of the metal and are used in iron
foundries whenever particular characteristics are essential in the fin­
ished castings. Open-hearth furnaces are essentially steel-making fur­
naces rather than melting furnaces and are generally used only in
foundries connected with steel works or engaged in making very large
quantities of steel castings.
In design and operation a cupola furnace is somewhat like a blast
furnace. Essentially it is a steel cylinder lined with firebrick, open
at the top and closed at the bottom with dual doors. The entire
furnace is supported upon a framework, which leaves an open space
several feet high beneath the bottom doors. The top of the furnace
extends through the roof and may be as high as 40 feet. Alternate
layers of coke and pig iron are charged into a door from a charging
platform at a point near the middle of the shaft’s height. Near
the bottom of the furnace are blast openings (tuyeres) through which
air is blown to accelerate combustion. The central opening in the
bottom, or bedplate, of the furnace is closed by hinged cast-iron doors




12

which are dropped at the completion of the run to permit the uncon­
sumed fuel and the residue of iron in the cupola to fall out. Molten
iron is taken out through a taphole near the bottom, and slag is
removed through a hole in the opposite side at a slightly higher level.
The procedure of “ dropping bottom” to clear the furnace presents
the most spectacular hazard of cupola operations. Cupola workers,
however, are also exposed to a wide variety of other hazards, such as
burns from spattering metal while tapping or from slag thrown from
the slag hole; injury from falling objects, such as may occur when a
scrap-iron pile collapses or when workmen on the charging floor drop
tools or other objects into or outside the cupola; injury from explosion;
injury from falls while cleaning or repairing the cupola, or from falling
off the charging floor into the cupola or onto the ground; and eye
injuries from flying particles or radiations from the hot metal. Charg­
ing operations generally involve the use of an elevator; in some cases
they are otherwise mechanized. Considerable manual labor is in­
volved, however, even in the highly mechanized plants; and the
workers are constantly exposed to the hazards of crushed hands or
feet while moving heavy pieces of scrap or pig iron, and of cuts from
the sharp edges of scrap. The elevators are frequently hazardous,
and there is danger of burns from sparks thrown through the open
charging door. Insulated clothing, gloves, goggles, hard hats, and
safety shoes can help to reduce the possibilities of injury to cupola
workers. Good housekeeping practices around the furnace, particu­
larly on the charging floor, and the provision of safety devices, such
as shields for the slag hole and shields suspended over the workers
while they are cleaning or repairing the inside of the cupola, can also
do much to reduce the volume of accidents arising from cupola
operations.
Crucible furnaces are used primarily for melting relatively small
quantities of metal. This type of furnace consists of a cylindrical
metal shell lined on the bottom and sides with firebrick and is usually
placed in a pit so that the top is level with the floor. In some in­
stances coke is used as fuel, but generally the heat is provided by
burning oil or gas. Unlike the cupola process, the crucible method
does not permit the metal to come into direct contact with the flame.
The crucible, a cup-shaped container which holds the metal, is placed
in the furnace and the flames play around its outside surface. Cru­
cible-furnace operators do not have the great volume of heavy mate­
rials to handle that is common in cupola operations. They are, how­
ever, exposed to intense heat radiations when removing the crucible
or whenever the cover is off while the furnace is lighted, and they are
faced with the danger of burns from the molten metal and of eye
injuries from light radiations or from spattering metal. Heavy cloth­
ing and goggles are essential equipment.
The reverberatory furnace is a horizontal furnace in which metal is
melted in a basin (hearth) by heat from flames and from radiating
furnace walls. The furnace is constructed of firebrick supported on
a metal framework. Flames and hot gases from oil, gas, or coal fire
are generated in the firebox at one end of the furnace, conducted over
a firebrick wall (fire bridge), deflected down over the hearth chamber,
and conducted out through a stack at the other end. Their passage
heats the interior walls of the hearth chamber, and the heat radiated




13
and deflected (reverberated) from these walls and from the flames
melts the metal placed on the hearth. The molten metal collects in
the basin of the hearth and is drawn off through a taphole. The top
of the furnace is constructed in removable bungs which can be lifted
off to provide access for charging or repairing the furnace. The metal
to be charged may be placed upon the hearth manually, but is com­
monly handled mechanically, frequently in large charging buckets
handled by a crane. Slagging is performed by hand and involves
opening the slag door, stirring the molten metal with a puddling bar
to make the slag rise to the surface, and then skimming the slag from
the surface with a skimming bar. Samples of the molten metal for
test purposes are also taken from the furnace through the slag door
by means of a small hand ladle.
Reverberatory furnace workers are exposed to intense heat during
slagging, sampling, and tapping operations, and they frequently ex­
perience burns and eye injuries from spattering metal. They are also
exposed to all the hazards of crane operations while charging their
furnaces. Safety shoes, goggles, and heavy clothing are generally
considered essential for the protection of these workers.
The electric furnaces used in foundries may be either the electric
arc type or the induction type. In the arc-type furnace, heat is gen­
erated by intense arcs formed between electrodes so placed that the
arcs pass through the charge. In the induction furnace the heat is
generated by the resistance of the charge to electric currents induced
within its mass by passing heavy currents through a ring encircling
the furnace. The arc type is the more common.
Arc furnaces vary widely in design. One type consists of a bowl­
shaped metal shell lined with firebrick and fire sand, mounted on
trunnions, supported by a heavy frame, and provided with a cover or
roof. The arched roof is constructed of a refractory material and
contains openings through which three triangularly arranged elec­
trodes pass. These electrodes can be raised and lowered by small
electric motors so as to place them close to the surface of the charge
in order that the arcs will either lick the surface of the charge or pass
through it. The intensity and length of the arc is adjusted by manip­
ulating switches or turning wheels while observing meters in the arc
circuits. These are all conveniently grouped upon a control board.
In opposite sides of the furnace are two doors, one for charging and
pouring, the other for slagging. Spouts for conducting the molten
metal or slag from the furnace are attached to the respective door
frames. The doors, electrodes, electrode clamps, and roof openings
are water-jacketed and water-cooled. In some furnaces the roof is
arranged so that it may be swung aside to permit access to the interior
Generally these furnaces are charged by hand, and the molten metal
is removed by tilting the entire furnace upon its trunnions. Slagging
is done by hand with a skimming bar, and the charge frequently must
be rearranged during the melting process by pushing and poking
with a heavy metal bar. In many instances the charge is partially
melted in other furnaces before being introduced into the electric
furnace.
Electric-furnace operators are exposed to the hazards of handling
heavy, rough, and sharp materials in charging; are faced with intense
628923°—45----- 3




14
heat in slagging, rearranging or adding to the charge, and when taking
samples of the melt in hand ladles; and are subject to injuries and
burns from spilled or spattered metal in pouring. There is also some
danger of shock or burns from contact with electric circuits. Gloves,
goggles, safety shoes, and heavy clothing are essential equipment.
The injury-frequency rates for the melting departments were uni­
formly high, both actually and in comparison with the rates for other
foundry departments. In the ferrous-job-foundry group the melting
departments had an over-all average of 68 disabling injuries per million
employee-hours worked, which was exceeded only by the averages for
cleaning, chipping, and finishing; general labor; and shake-out work.
In the nonferrous-job-foundry group the melting department’s aver­
age frequency rate of 74.2 was the highest departmental rate recorded.
Similarly the average rate of 53.1 for the melting departments of the
non-job foundries was higher than that for any of the other depart­
ments except the shake-out departments. Among the melting depart­
ments of the ferrous job foundries, those which operated electric
furnaces had the highest average frequency rates (77.9) and those
which operated open-hearth furnaces had the lowest (51.8). Among
the melting departments of the non-job foundries, on the other hand,
those operating cupola furnaces had the highest average rate (61.7)
and those operating crucible furnaces had the lowest (34.4). (See
table 2, p. 17.)
Injuries to feet and toes, hands and fingers, eyes, and backs were
most common among the melting department injuries reported in the
survey. Protection from hot and heavy materials is recognized as
essential in this department, but the injury distribution indicates
that the proper protective equipment frequently is not used. It is
evident that greater attention should be given to the use of protective
equipment for the lower extremities, and that the use of gloves and
goggles should be stressed. (See table 7, p. 31.)
CLEANING, CHIPPING, AND FINISHING

When castings are first removed from the mold they are generally
somewhat rough and have arm-like spurs resulting from the molten
metal which fins the gates and risers. These superfluous projections
are removed with a sledge, a metal bandsaw, or a power-operated
shear. The castings are then either tumbled or sandblasted to smooth
the rough surfaces and to impart a dull finish to the metal. Tumbling
consists simply of placing a group of castings inside a steel drum and
allowing them to rub and bump together as the drum revolves. In
sandblasting, a blast of air and sand or metallic grit is directed against
the surface to be cleaned. Small castings may be sandblasted inside
a closed machine, but large castings must be cleaned in the open or in a
large enclosed blasting room. Great quantities of flying particles and
dust accompany all sandblasting and present serious hazards to all
workers in the vicinity unless proper precautions are taken. Gloves
and goggles are essential equipment for the operator of a blasting
machine, and blasting-room workers should wear fresh-air-supplied
airline helmets or masks, gloves, and heavy clothing. The blasting
room should have an efficient exhaust system discharging into a dust




15
arrester, in order to provide visibility and to prevent the dust from
escaping into the plant.
After the castings have been tumbled or sandblasted, any remaining
undesirable projections are removed either by chipping or4>y burning
with an oxyacetylene torch. Chipping is generally performed with a
pneumatic chisel, although a hand hammer and chisel are used at
times. The chisels shave oft small pieces of metal which frequently
fly considerable distances and strike with great force. Goggles, gloves,
and heavy garments are essential for the protection of the chippers
and for all others who come near the chippers.
In the burning process, the operator directs the flame from an oxy­
acetylene torch against a spot on the parting line and heats it to incan­
descence; then he releases a stream of oxygen against it by pressing a
valve on the torch and guides the torch across the projection as the
metal is burned and melted away. Filter-lens goggles must be worn
as protection against the glare of the torch flame and the molten
metal, while heavy gloves and heavy clothing are essential for protec­
tion against bums from the hot metal and sparks.
The final, or finishing, process in cleaning castings is to grind off
the remaining rough spots and chisel marks, left by the chipper, by
the use of an abrasive wheel. Abrasive wheels are also used to impart
a polish to the entire surface of some castings. Stationary grinding
wheels are used for small castings. These castings are hand-held on
waist-high rests and are pressed against the grinding wheels. Larger
castings are placed upon the floor, and grinding wheels, mounted on
counterbalanced, swivel-supported beams, are swung against them.
Portable grinders are used for grinding surfaces inaccessible to the
larger wheels. Grinding produces large quantities of flying emery and
metal particles, which constitute a very great eye hazard not only for
the operator but also for everyone else in the vicinity of the operation.
Goggles are essential equipment in this operation, even when there
is an exhaust attached to the grinding wheel. Grinding wheels also
present a number of other hazards. If they are improperly mounted,
operated at excessive speed, struck a sharp blow while in motion, or
used for a type of work other than that for which they were designed
they may shatter and the pieces may fly in any direction. It is not
unusual for workers to be killed when struck by parts of a broken
grinding wheel. It is important, therefore, that grinding wheels be
mounted properly and used only in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions, and that each wheel be covered with a guard which will
effectively check any flying pieces if the wheel should break. Grinders
are also exposed to the danger of severe cuts or abrasions if they come
into contact with the moving wheel.
In all cleaning, chipping, and finishing operations the workers are
constantly exposed to the possibility of injury arising from the neces­
sary handling of the castings. The castings, which are frequently
quite heavy, must be moved and turned so that all surfaces can be
reached. This presents great possibilities of strained backs, and of
bruised or mashed fingers and toes. Rough spots and sharp edges on
the castings also present the possibility of severe cuts and scratches
to the workers who handle them. The use of gloves and safety shoes
by all workers in this department is generally recognized as desirable.




16
In the ferrous-job-foundry group the cleaning, chipping, and finish­
ing departments had the highest average injury-frequency rate (73.1)
among the major operating departments. In the nonferrous-jolbfoundry g*oup and in the non-job foundries, however, the frequency
rates of the cleaning, chipping, and finishing departments were some­
what lower than the corresponding rates of the melting departments.
The cleaning, chipping, and finishing rates of 46.1 in the nonferrous
group and 50.2 in the non-job foundries were, nevertheless, quite
high. (See table 2, p. 17.)
Eye injuries were of outstanding importance in the cleaning, chip­
ping, and finishing departments and by their numbers indicate strongly
the great need for the universal use of goggles by workers in these
departments. The high proportions of finger, hand, foot, toe, and
back injuries, all of which are related to the handling of heavy, rough,
and awkward-shaped materials, call for greater attention to the
methods of handling such materials and call for the wider use of gloves,
foot guards, and safety shoes. (See table 7, p. 31.)
MACHINE SHOPS

In the machine shops also, the frequency of eye injuries indicates a
serious need for greater eye protection through the use of transparent
shields on the machines or the use of face shields or goggles by the
operators. The desirability of more widespread use of safety shoes
by machinists is indicated by the high proportion of foot and toe
injuries, and the need for better machine guards is stressed by the
considerable number of finger and hand injuries.
M AINTEN ANCE

By the very nature of their work, maintenance workers meet on
occasion every hazard faced by any foundry worker and in addition
must contend with many which are seldom present in normal oper­
ations. As a result maintenance workers sustain all types of injuries;
and the outstanding fact indicated by their experience is that these
workers need to be furnished with every type of safety equipment and
thoroughly trained to recognize and cope with every foundry hazard.
The record indicates that as a very minimum every maintenance
worker should have and use safety shoes, goggles, and gloves.
SHIPPING, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION

In these departments most of the injuries are experienced in lifting
or moving heavy objects. Foot, toe, hand, finger, back, and trunk
injuries predominate. Most important from the accident-prevention
standpoint would be greater attention to the training of employees
in safe-handling methods coupled with closer supervision to insure
that those methods are followed. The general use of safety shoes,
however, would reduce the volume of foot and to§ injuries and a
greater use of gloves would avoid many of the hand and finger
injuries.




17
T a ble 2.— In ju ry Rates and Extent o f D isability, Classified by K in d of0 Foundry and
Department, fo r 2,188 Foundries, 1942
Number of disabling in­
juries

Kind of foundry and
department

Injury
rates*

Resulting in—
Num­ Num- Em­
ber
Total
ber ployeeof
hours
Death Per­
number
of
units em­ worked
and ma­ Tem­ of days Fre­
re­
(in
Se­
po­
lost
quen­ ver­
port­ ploy­ thou­ Total per­ nent rary
ma­ par­
ees
ing
sands)
cy ity
nent tial total
total dis­ dis­
dis­
abil­
abil­ abil­ ity
ity
ity*

Av­
erage
days
lost
per
tem­
po­
rary
total
dis­
abil­
ity

Ferrous job foundries
Total......................................

3 850 143,875 325,692 16,948 (13)7

Pattern shops........................
413 2,673
W ood............................. .
309 1,621
507
Metal..............................
86
545
Not specified...................
18
Core room............... ............ .
645 13,601
Molding, including shake762 41,548
out.......................................
556
Shake-out only................
43
Melting..................................
796 6,105
Cupola....... ....................
544 2,829
Electric furnace..............
70 1,099
Open-hearth furnace.......
27
763
Other...............................
155 1,414
Cleaning, chipping, and fin­
ishing..................................
639 27,540
146 1,610
Heat treating........................
Service and maintenance___ 2,738 28,468
Administration...............
458 2,860
Clerical............................
540 5,473
General labor..................
81 1,985
Machine shop.................
81 3,706
432 7,586
Maintenance...................
Metallurgical laboratory.
119
560
Pattem storage...............
466
196
104
429
Power or heating plant..
442 2,408
Shipping.........................
Storage yard........ „.........
200 2,185
Yard transportation___
85
810
Miscellaneous.......................
343 22,330

125
80
34
11
954

0
0
0
0
(1)2

93,177 5,565
124
1,125
958
14,090
449
6,435
197
2,527
1,948
101
211
3,180

(4)23
0
(1)3
0
(1)1
1
1

62,337 4,557 (6)17
173
1
3,620
12
64,913 2,019
25
6,631
0
41
12,056
0
2
4,375
400
214
8,485
0
713
7
17,777
11
1,329
0
16
1,101
0
984
10
0
5,424
200
0
4,972
296
2
93
1,779
1
50,478 2,597 (1) 12

6,180
3,772
1,141
1,267
30,897

415 16,463 1,017,250

52.0

3.1

15

20.2
21.2
29.8
8.7
30.9

1.2
1.5
1.4
.3
1.0

14
11
21
10
13

131 5,411
122
2
22
933
439
10
194
2
95
5
5
205

349,013 59.7
2,455 110.3
49,831 68.0
13,270 69.8
8,783 77.9
12,616 51.8
15,162 66.4

3.7
2.2
3.5
2.1
3.5
6.5
4.8

16
15
15
15
11
22
16

100 4,440
172
0
72 1,935
24
1
41
0
386
12
205
9
678
28
10
1
16
0
10
0
188
12
286
8
91
1
57 2,528

254,397
8,553
167,299
679
427
27,385
14,042
80,610
485
251
134
6,383
29,290
7,613
150,217

73.1 4.1
47.8 2.4
31.1 2.6
3.8
.1
3.4 (4
)
91.4 6.3
25.2 1.7
40.1 4.5
8.3
.4
.2
14.5
10.2
.1
36.9 1.2
59.5 5.9
52.3 4.3
51.4 3.0

13
15
15
16
10
12
20
16
19
16
13
11
17
14
14

31 1,102

15
11
3
1
18

110
69
31
10
934

7,537
5,582
1,554
401
30,403

Nonferrous job foundries
Total......................................
Pattern shops........................
Core room..............................
Molding, including shake­
out......................................
M eltin g............. .................
Crucible..........................
Other...............................
Cleaning, chipping, and fin­
ishing..................................
Administration......................
Clerical..................................
Miscellaneous........................

3441 14,042

52,084

35.3

1.6

15

78
296

212
1,608

477
3,711

10
47

0
0

0
2

10
45

64
1,808

20.9
12.7

.1
.5

6
10

370
316
202
114

4,092
935
551
384

9,490
2,237
1,307
930

325
166
75
91

0
0
0
0

9
3
1
2

316
163
74
89

19,469
4,945
1,781
3,164

34.2
74.2
57.4
97.8

2.1
2.2
1.4
3.4

18
14
16
12

263
193
221
455

2,443
519
603
3,630

5,677
1,206
1,319
8,030

262
7
3
314

0
0
0
1

8
1
0
8

254
6
3
305

9,222
370
90
16,116

46.1
5.8
2.3
39.1

1.6
.3
.1
2.0

14
11
30
15

234 6,996

625,213

37.3

3.2

15

99
83
13
3
473

20,918
7,726
12,560
632
28,130

12.2
15.0
7.4
5.2
18.6

2.3
1.3
5.8
.7
1.1

18
18
20
11
14

67 2,558
2
86

191,407
2,011

43.0
85.9

3.1
2.0

16
13

32,147 1,134

1

Other than job foundries
Total......................................
Pattern shops........................
Wood...............................
Metal..............................
Not specified...................
Core room............... ..............
Molding, including shake­
out......................................
Shake-out only...............

3 896 87,859 195,336 7,281 (17) 51
605 4,124
410 2,631
168 1,061
432
27
668 12,161

9,266
6,120
2,176
970
26,202

815 27,424
43
428

61,352 2,640 (7) 15
1,024
88
0

See footnotes at end of table.




113
92
16
5
488

(1)2
0
(1)2
0
(1)1

12
9
1
2
14

18
T ab le 2.— In ju ry Rates and Extent o f D isability, Classified by K in d o f Foundry and
Department, fo r 2 ,1 8 8 Foundries, 1942— Continued
Injury
rates1

Number of disabling in­
juries

Av­
er­
age
days
Num­ Num- Em­
ber
lost
Total
ber ployeeper
of
hours
number
Death Per­
of
units em­ worked
and ma­ Tem­ of days Fre­ Se­ tem­
re­ ploy­
(in
po­
po­
lost
quen­ ver­ rary
thou­ Total per­ nent rary
port­ ees
ma­ par­
ing
sands)
ity total
cy
nent tial total
dis­
total dis­ dis­
abil­
dis­ abil­ abil­
ity
abil­
ity
ity 8 ity
Resulting in—

Kind of foundry and
department

Other thanjob foundries—Con.
Melting..................................
Crucible...........................
Cupola.............................
Electric furnace..............
Other and not specified..
Cleaning, chipping, and fin­
ishing..................................
Heat treating.........................
General labor.........................
Miscellaneous........................

891
168
508
68
147

5,131
714
2,590
650
1,177

614 16,302
579
87
84 2,653
433 19,485

611
51
352
80
128

3
1
2
0
0

36,222 1,818
1,180
36
251
5,403
44,201 1,324

(1) 11
0
1
(7) 18

11,510
1,481
5,707
1,733
2,589

19
0
10
3
6

589
50
340
77
122

55,003
6,667
34,237
3,649
10,450

53.1
34.4
61.7
46.2
49.4

4.8
4.5
6.0
2.1
4.0

14
13
15
12
14

54 1,753
2
34
242
8
58 1,248

137,327
1,181
17,357
173,890

50.2
30.5
46.5
30.0

3.8
1.0
3.2
3.9

13
17
12
19

i The frequency rate is the average number of disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked.
The severity rate is the average number of days lost for each thousand employee-hours worked.
8 Figures m parentheses show the number of permanent total disabilities included.
8 Number of foundries reporting.
* Less than 0.05.

Regional and State Differences
Basically, the wide variations in average injury-frequency rates for
similar foundry operations in different areas reflect variations in
safety activities rather than differences in actual hazards. Many
factors contribute to these differences, and in particular instances it
may be very difficult to specify which is the controlling factor. Dif­
ferences in State safety requirements and in the degree to which the
requirements are enforced have a very direct influence upon the
frequency-rate levels in different States. Similarly, safety activities,
or the lack of such activities, on the part of trade associations or other
organizations can have considerable effect upon the general accident
record of an area. The average size of the plants in different areas,
and the availability or the lack of experienced foundry personnel, are
also factors which may influence the injury-frequency rate levels.
The 2,188 foundries included in the survey were located in 46 States.
However, the number of States from winch the coverage was sufficient
to permit computation of averages for the different types of foundry
operations varied widely. For general comparison purposes the
reports were combined into regional groups corresponding to the nine
regions used in the tabulations of the United States Bureau of the
Census.** (See table 3.)
6
5
4
*
6 The regional groupings and the States included in each region are (1) New England—Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; (2) Middle Atlantic—New Jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania; (3) East North Central—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin;
(4) West North Central—Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota;
(5) South Atlantic—Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and
West Virginia; (6) East South Central—Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee; (7) West South
Central—Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas; (8) Mountain—Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; (9) Pacific—California, Oregon, and Washington.




19
GRAY-IRON JOB FOUNDRIES

The reporting gray-iron job foundries were highly concentrated in
the Middle Atlantic and East North Central regions. Sufficient
reports were received, however, to provide representative average
frequency rates for each of the other areas except the West South
Central and Mountain regions.
The regional average frequency rates for gray-iron job foundries all
fell within a comparatively narrow range. The lowest was 52.1 for
plants in the East North Central region and the highest was 68.4
for those in the Pacific region. (See table 3.) The reports included
in the Pacific region’s average were nearly all from plants in Cali­
fornia. The regional average for the Pacific States, therefore, corre­
sponds closely with the average rate of 67.3 for gray-iron job foundries
in California.
The plants included in the average for the East North Central
region, on the other hand, were well distributed among all of the
States in that region. Individual State averages within the region
ranged from 37.7 injuries per million employee-hours worked in Ohio,
which was the lowest average for any State, to 91.1 in Wisconsin,
which in turn was the highest average recorded for any State. Illinois
and Michigan each had average frequency rates in the high 40’s,
somewhat below the national average of 55.8. Indiana’s average
rate (64.9), however, was higher than the national average.
MALLEABLE-IRON JOB FOUNDRIES

Malleable-iron job foundry reports were received in sufficient
volume to permit the computation of representative State averages
only from the five East North Central States, and from two of the
Middle Atlantic States. It was possible, however, to compute a
regional average for the New England area. The three regional
average frequency rates for malleable-iron job foundries were 46.8
for the East North Central region, 49.2 for the Middle Atlantic
region, and 69.3 for the New England region. The New England
average, however, was based upon the experience of only four foundries
located in four different States and may not be representative of any
particular conditions.
Michigan had the lowest State average frequency rate for malleableiron job foundry operations (30.7), and Indiana had the highest (89.5).
The Ohio average (41.5) was comparatively low. All of the other
State averages were grouped closely around the national average of
49.3.
STEEL JOB FOUNDRIES

Average injury frequency rates were computed for steel job foundries
in 5 of the 9 geographic regions and for 11 individual States. The
lowest regional average was 41.8 for the Middle Atlantic region.
The highest was 63.8 for the West North Central region. The other
regional averages were 52.6 for the East North Central region, 55.1
for the Pacific region, and 57.4 for the New England region.
The lowest State average frequency rate for steel job foundries was
39.9 in Indiana. The average rates for New York (41.1) and Pennsyl­
vania (42.3) were also comparatively low in respect to the national




20

average (50.8). The highest State average was 104.2 for Oregon;
Connecticut (91.8) and Michigan (90.4), however, also had very high
average rates.
CAST-IRON PIPE FOUNDRIES

Cast-iron pipe operations were reported in relatively few States.
Only five had sufficient coverage to permit the computation of State
averages. These averages showed extremely wide variations, ranging
from an average of 28.7 disabling injuries for every million employeehours worked in Alabama to 119.0 in Pennsylvania. The New Jersey
average frequency rate was 34.0, Virginia’s was 55.4, and California’s
was 90.6.
NONFERROUS JOB FOUNDRIES

More than 60 percent of the plants and about two-thirds of the
nonferrous job foundry employment included in the survey was
reported from the States comprising the Middle Atlantic and East
North Central regions. However, regional average frequency rates
were computed for three additional regions. The lowest regional
average was 26.2 for the West North Central region. The highest
was 41.3 for the adjacent East North Central region. The Pacific
region had an average of 27.5, largely based upon the experience of
plants in California. Better-than-average records in Pennsylvania
and New Jersey over-balanced the above-average injury experience
of the New York plants and held the Middle Atlantic region’s average
(32.2) slightly below the average for the country as a whole. The
New England average of 33.7 represented primarily a combination
of low-rate plants in Connecticut and fairly high-rate plants in
Massachusetts.
Among the individual States the most favorable injury frequency
rates for nonferrous job foundry operations were Connecticut, 19.3;
California, 20.5; Missouri, 22.8; Pennsylvania, 25.6; and Illinois, 28.3.
The least favorable State averages were: Michigan, 81.2; Massachu­
setts, 43.5; and New York, 41.5.
OTHER THAN JOB FOUNDRIES

The non-job foundries included in the survey were widely distributed
and it was possible to compute average frequency rates for these
operations for each of the nine regions and for 23 individual States.
The lowest regional frequency rate was 15.6 for the Mountain
region. The highest was 51.0 for the West North Central region.
The averages for the East South Central region (28.2), the East
North Central region (34.0), and the Pacific region (36.2) were
below the national average (37.3). The Middle Atlantic region’s
average (37.5) was very close to the national level; while those of the
West South Central region (43.4), the New England region (46.8),
and the South Atlantic region (47.7) were considerably higher than
the national average.
Kentucky had the lowest State average frequency rate for non-job
foundry operations (13.9). Other States with comparatively low
averages were Virginia, 20.0; Indiana, 24.9; Ohio, 27.9; and Pennsyl­
vania, 29.9. The highest State average was 87.0 for Rhode Island.
Georgia (72.8) and Missouri (71.0), however, had rates of over 70, and
Minnesota (62.6) and Wisconsin (60.6) had rates of over 60.




21
T able 3.— In ju ry Rates, by State and K in d o f Foundry,1fo r 2,188 Foundries, 1942
Disabling
injuries

Geographic area, State, and kind of
foundry

Em­
Num­
Num­ ployeeber
hours
of es- ber of worked
em­
tab(in
lish- ployees thou­ Num­
ments
sands)2 ber

Days
lost *

Injury
rates *

Aver­
age
days
lost
per
tem­
Fre­ Sever­ po­
rary
quen­
ity total
cy
disa­
bility

United States: Total------ ------------------------ 2,188 245,786 553,175 25,363 1,694,547
850 143,875 325,692 16,948 1,017,250
Ferrous job foundries........ ..................
403,925
652 52,830 119,705 6,675
Gray-iron______________________
112,596
53 20,672 44,233 2,180
M alleable-iron___________ ____ —
390,781
105 57,660 132,707 6,744
Steel
.........................................
107,302
12,482 28,533 1,319
37
Cast-iron pipe..... ............ —...........
52,0S4
441 14; 052 32,147 1,134
Nonferrous job foundries------------------625,213
897 87,859 195,336 7,281
Other than job foundries............... ......

45,8
52.0
55.8
49.3
50.8
46.2
35.3
37.3

3.1
3.1
3.4
25
*
2.9
3.8
1.6
3.2

15
15
14
16
15
16
15
15

New England: Total....................................
Ferrous job foundries.....................—
Gray-iron______________________
Malleable-iron..... ...........................
Steel _________________ ________
Nonferrous job foundries.------ ---------Other than job foundries......................

202
73
62
4
5
54
75

15,0777,170
4,321
1,030
1,763
1,334
6, 573

37,220
17,487
10,630
2,480
4,235
3,178
16,555

1,996
1,114
696
172
243
107
775

81,608
33,953
21,894
6,903
2,756
3,232
44,421

53.6
63.7
65.5
69.3
57. 4
33.7
46.8

2.2
1.9
2.1
2.8
.7
1.0
2. 7

17
14
15
18
10
18
20

Connecticut: Total------- ---------- ------------Ferrous job foundries............................
Gray-iron ____________________
Nonferrous job foundries......................
Other than job foundries......................

57
12
8
3
18
27

5,541
2,471
798
1,063
534
2,536

13,465
5.852
1.853
2,517
1,293
6,320

630
386
126
231
25
219

29,223
9,106
2,363
2,333
576
19,541

46.8
66.0
68.0
91.8
19.3
34.7

2.2
1.6
1.3
.9
.4
3.1

15
14
19
10
12
16

Maine: Total__________________________
Other than job foundries....... ..........

12
6

561
454

1,236
1,012

54
48

1.131
1,003

43.7
47.4

.9
1.0

21
21

Massachusetts: Total___________ _____
Ferrous job foundries............................
Grav-iron______________________
Nonferrous job foundries------- ---------Other than job foundries......................

89
39
35
24
26

5,624
3,012
2,197
716
1,896

13,632
7,184
5,213
1,701
4,746

517
274
251
74
169

25,411
18,416
15,404
2,597
4,398

37.9
38.1
48.1
43.5
35.6

1.9
2.6
3.0
1.5
.9

18
16
16
21
21

New Hampshire: T otal5............................

19

708

1,710

118

1, C95

69.0

1.0

14

Rhode Island: Total. . . ------------------------Ferrous job foundries----------------------Other than job foundries......................

18
7
3

1,618
478
1,093

4,469
1,249
3,103

440
162
270

13,556 98.5
2,994 129.8
10,503 87.0

3.0
2.4
3.4

20
17
22

1,025

Vermont: Total8.........................................

7

Middle Atlantic: Total__________________
Ferrous job foundries............................
Gray-iron______________________
Malleable-iron_________________
Steel
____________________
Cast-iron pipe__________________
Nonferrous job foundries......................
Other than job foundries..................... .

558
192
137
11
31
13
122
244
94
36
28
6
31
27
142
47
37
3
6
35
60
322
109
72
8

New Jersey: Total------ ---------------- --------Ferrous job foundries.................. .........
Gray-iron...................... ...... .........
Cast-iron pipe......... .......................Nonferrous job foundries.......................
Other than job foundries.----------------New York: Total______________________
Ferrous job foundries............................
Gray-iron____ __________________
Malleable-iron________ ________—
Steel__ ________________________
Nonferrous job foundries......................
Other than job foundries......................
Pennsylvania: Total...................................
Ferrous job foundries............... .............
Gray-iron____ __________________
Malleable-iron................................
See footnotes at end of table.
628923°—45---- 4




2,709

237

10,590

87.5

3.9

12

68,229 155,942
34,188 78,396
9,418 21,515
4,949 10,964
16,486 38,526
7,392
3,335
8,675
3,760
30,281 68,871
10,953 25,478
5,539 12,993
5,653
2,370
2,267
5,318
1,256
545
4,869 11,229

6,682
3,818
1,247
539
1,611
421
279
2,585
1,273
587
330
181
38
648

583,277
310,633
103,010
32,113
141,770
33,740
14,349
208,295
127,942
84,187
43,342
26,783
1,427
42,328

42.8
48.7
58.0
49.2
41.8
57.0
32.2
37.5
50.0
45.2
58. 4
34.0
30.3
57.7

8.4
4.0
4.8
2.9
3.7
4.6
1.7
3.0
5.0
6. 5 •
7.7
5.0
1.1
3.8

16
17
17
17
16
14
15
16
16
18
19
17
18
14

31,540
14,949
6,210
2,313
6,352
3,202
13,390
98,924
50,454
9,651
8,651

1,446
698
318
117
261
133
615

150,074
88,413
12,522
12,325
59,562
6,159
55,502

45.8
46.7
51.2
50.6
41.1
41.5
45.9

4.8
5.9
2.0
5.3
9.4
1.9
4.1

16
15
15
13
16
14
17

3,963
2,533
599
422

255,261 40.1
138,033 50.2
47,146 62.1
19,788 1 48.8

2.6
2.7
4.9
2.3

16
17
18
10

13,427
6,456
2,650
1,055
2,720
1,349
5,622
43,849
22,193
4,398
3,894

22

T a ble 3.— In ju ry Rates, by State and K in d o f Foundry,1 fo r 2 ,1 88 Foundries, 1942—
Continued
Disabling
injuries

Geographic area, State, and kind of
foundry

Em­
Num­
Num­ ployeeber
hours
of es- ber of worked
em- .
tab(in
lish- ployees thou­ Num­
ments
sands)2 ber

Pennsylvania—Continued.
Ferrous job foundries—Continued.
Steel_______________________ ___
Cast-iron pipe................................
Nonferrous job foundries.............. ........
Other than job foundries......................

23
6
56
157

East Worth Central: Total............................
Ferrous job foundries....... .................
Gray-iron_____ _________________
Malleable-iron................ ...............
Steel__________ ______ ____ _____
Nonferrous job foundries____ ________
Other than job foundries._____ ______

779 111, 482 248, 823 11,322
303 69, 589 158,879 8,168
223 28,230 64,261 3,346
33 13,377 28,099 1,315
44 27,613 65,649 3,453
521
154
5,591 12,605
322 36,302 77,339 2,633

Illinois: Total------ . . ------------------ ---------Ferrous job foundries_______________
Gray-iron______________________
Malleable-iron__________________
Steel______ ____ ________________
Nonferrous job foundries......................
Other than job foundries....................

181
64
46
8
10
38
79

29,104
17,237
4,447
2, 683
10,107
1,470
10,397

64,304
39,689
10,010
5,569
24,110
2,965
21,650

Indiana: Total.................. .........................
Ferrous job foundries_________________
Gray-iron _______ _____ _______
Malleable-iron__________________
Steel ------------------------------------Other than job foundries__ __________

96
40
33
3
4
43

14,914
9,836
3,790
1,272
4,774
4,750

Michigan: Total---------------------- ------- ----Ferrous job foundries...........................
Gray-iron. _________ _______ ___
Malleable-iron________ _________ _
Steel. ----------------------------------------Nonferrous job foundries____________
Other thap job foundries......................

151
64
49
4
11
27
60

Ohio: Total....................... .........................
Ferrous job foundries...........................
Gf ay-iron .......... ..........................
M alleable-iron................ ................
Steel ______________ _______ ____
Nonferrous job foundries ___________
Other than job foundries................. .

1,274
238
108
1,322

2.3
1.5
1.6
2.5

16
12
15
16

785,680
451,258
204,484
71,458
174,526
16,572
267,850

45.5
51.4
52.1
46.8
52.6
41.3
34.0

8.0
2.8
3.2
2.5
2.7
1.3
3.5

14
14
13
15
15
14
14

2,621
1,841
486
287
1,068
84
696

152,258
74,192
19,315
5,522
49,355
1,290
76,776

40.8
46.4
48.6
5i. 5
44.3
28.3
32.1

2.4
1.9
1.9
1.0
2.0
.4
3.5

12
12
11
9
14
12
13

33,752
22, 298
8,244
2,693
11,361
10,739

1,523
1,229
535
241
453
267

88,592
60,262
28, 712
11,170
20,380
27,457

45.1
55.1
64.9
89.5
39.9
24.9

2.6
2.7
3.5
4.1
1.8
2.6

16
15
13
13
18
20

26,100
17,492
10,392
3,425
3,675
894
7,714

54,753
38,893
23, 224
7,398
8,270
2,032
13,827

2,729
2,116
1,141
227
748
165
448

127,369
108,315
73,408
14,932
19,975
2,611
16,443

49.8
54.4
49.1
30.7
90.4
81.2
32.4

2.3
2.8
3.2
2.0
2.4
1.3
1.2

13
13
14
17
12
9
13

245
96
68
10
15
54
95

28,456
18,148
7,078
3,541
7,160
1,524
8,784

65,475
41,653
16,691
7,230
16,862
3,485
20,337

2,541
1,854
629
300
871
119
568

243,787
134,178
47,011
22,825
63,552
4,409
105,200

38.8
44.5
37.7
41.5
51.7
34.1
27.9

3.7
3.2
2.8
3.2
3.8
1.3
5.2

18
18
15
23
19
25
16

Wisconsin: Total..______ _______ _______
Ferrous job foundries.......................... .
Gray-iron............... ..................... ...
Malleable-iron...... ....... ...................
Steel ......... .......... ..........................
Nonferrous job foundries.....................
Other than job foundries _ ..................

106
39
27
8
4
22
45

12,908
6,876
2,523
2,456
1,897
1,375
4,657

30,539
16,345
6,091
5,209
5,046
3,408
10,785

1,908
1,128
555
260
313
126
654

123,674
74,311
36,038
17,009
21,264
7,389
41,974

62.5
69.0
91.1
49.9
62.0
37.0
60.6

4.0
4.5
5.9
3.3
4.2
2.2
3.9

11
12
11
13
12
15
10

West North Central: Total............................
Ferrous job foundries...............................
Gray-iron........................................
Steel. ___________ ___________ _
Nonferrous job foundries........................
Other than job foundries........................

156
74
63
6
22
60

13,209
8,662
3,743
4,384
976
3,571

28,063
17,671
8,327
8,448
2,174
8,222

1,597
1,121
514
539
57
419

82,256
46,244
11,030
34,217
6,105
29,907

56.9
63.4
61.7
63.8
26.2
51.0

2.9
2.6
1.3
4.1
2.8
3.6

13
13
14
12
16
12

Iowa: Total .................... ...............................
Ferrous job foundries........................... .
Gray-iron............ .............................
Other than job foundries. ....................

35
15
12
17

3,334
1,608
645
1,668

6,553
2,818
1,398
3,602

397
242
95
155

14,304
3,045
1,194
11,259

60.6
85.9
67.9
43.0

2.2
3.1

11
11
10
11

Kansas: Total_____________ _____________
Other than job foundries. ......................

20
9

1,031
530

2,536
1,448

99
54

6,798
6,201

39.0
37.3

2.7
4.3

15
17




30,152
2,000
4,217
44,252

Aver­
age
days
lost
per
tem­
Fre­ Sever­ po­
quen­
rary
ity total
cy
disa­
bility

68,146 42.3
2,953 119.0
6,763 25.6
110,465 29.9

See footnotes at end of table.

12,864
1,037
1,866
19,790

Days
lost8

Injury
rates *

1.1

.9

23
T a b l e 3.— In ju ry Rates, by State and K in d o f Foundry,1 fo r 2,188 Foundries, 1942—
Continued

Geographic area, State, and kind of
foundry

Disabling
injuries
Em­
Num­
Num- ployeeber
hours
of es- . her of worked
tabem­
(in
lish- ployees thou­ Num­
Days
ments
lost3
sands)2 ber

Injury
rates *

Aver­
age
days
lost
per
tem­
Fre­ Sever­ po­
quen­
rary
ity total
cy
disa­
bility

Minnesota: Total........................................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Gray-iron......... ......... .....................
Other than job foundries.......................

45
23
19
14

2,014
1,353
743
497

4,539
2,871
1,707
1,309

272
176
108
82

12,376
2,645
2,171
8,860

59.9
61.3
63.3
62.6

2.7
.9
1.3
6.8

11
12
15
11

Missouri: Total...........................................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Gray-iron........................................
Steel...............................................
Nonferrous job foundries.......................
Other than job foundries......................

46
23
19
3
8
15

6,560
5,288
1,942
3,329
616
656

13,880
11,081
4,320
6,719
1,405
1,395

800
669
277
388
32
99

46,565
40,098
7,209
32,769
5,093
1,374

57.6
60.4
64.1
57.7
22.8
71.0

3.4
3.6
1.7
4.9
3.6
1.0

14
14
15
14
20
14

South Atlantic: Total...................................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Gray-iron........................................
Cast-iron p ip e ...............................
Other than job foundries.......................

130
60
51
5
60

7,734
5,143
1,888
2,208
2,346

17,698
11,815
4,349
5,066
5,241

908
640
255
275
250

69,790
57,649
34,834
21,366
10,693

51.3
54.2
58.6
54.3
47.7

3.9
4.9
8.0
4.2
2.0

13
13
10
17
13

Delaware: T otal7........................................

6

744

1,771

61

1,068

34.4

.6

18

Georgia: Total................. ...........................
Other than job foundries......................

21
12

897
718

2,087
1,677

150
122

4,344
4,093

71.9
72.8

2.1
2.4

13
14

Maryland: Total®.......................................

18

846

1,767

60

7,146

34.0

4.0

9

North Carolina: Total................................
Ferrous job foundries............................

24
11

838
633

1,908
1,469

134
90

4,391
1,963

70.2
61.3

2.3
1.3

1
1
12

Virginia: Total.. „ ......................................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Cast-iron pipe................................
Other than job foundries.......................

28
17
4
10

2,523
1,947
1,775
505

5,819
4,367
4,008
1,251

260
233
222
25

23,658
20,665
20,473
2,373

44.7
53.4
55.4
20.0

4.1
4.7
5.1
1.9

16
17
17
12

West Virginia: Total..................................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Gray-iron........................................

18
6
4

1,620
1,305
898

3,758
3,063
2,200

203
190
133

28,578
27,556
27,041

54.0
62.0
60.4

7.6
9.0
12.3

13
11
12

East South Central: Total........... - ................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Gray-iron........................................
Cast-iron pipe.................................
Other than job foundries.......................

77
32
24
7
39

11,911
8,222
2,364
5,693
3,565

25,903
18,398
4,828
13,231
7,225

903
683
262
395
204

84,865
60,379
15,594
40,999
24,406

34.9
37.1
54.3
29.9
28.2

8.3
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.4

19
19
17
21
19

Alabama: Total...........................................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Gray-iron. ......................................
Cast-iron pipe.................................
Other than job foundries.......................

32
19
13
5
11

7,812
6,653
1,810
4,678
1,063

17,'558
14,991
3,638
11,014
2,344

584
489
147
316
80

47,869
44,305
7,790
32,729
3,514

33.3
32.6
40.4
28.7
34.1

2.7
3.0
2.1
3.0
1.5

19
20
19
20
18

Kentucky: Total.........................................
Other than job foundries. ....................

17
9

1,157
949

2,233
1,803

98
25

26,201
19,014

43.9
13.9

11.7
10.5

18
24

Tennessee: Total.........................................
Ferrous job foundries 9 .......................
„
Other than job foundries......................

23
7
15

2,864
1,342
1,510

5,938
2,922
2.992

221
122
99

10,795
8,917
1,878

37.2
41.7
33.1

1.8
3.1
.6

19
19
19

West South Central: Total............................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Other than job foundries......................

62
23
25

1,972
688
1,124

4,606
1,653
2,625

279
155
114

19,375
12,139
7,125

60.6
93.8
43.4

4.2
7.3
2.7

20
15
29

Texas: Total............ ...................................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Other than job foundries......................

39
14
15

1,532
616
814

3,700
1,517
1,981

248
149
90

17,619
12,105
•5,407

67.0
98.2
45.4

4.8
8.0
2.7

16
15
17

Mountain: Total...........................................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Other than job foundries......................

42
22
14

1,943
1,120
657

4,593
2,591
1,662

158
114
26

2,699
1,937
682

34.4
44.0
15.6

.6

.4

15
14
24

See footnote at end of table.




.7

24
T able 3.— In ju ry Rates, b y State and K in d o f F o u n d r y fo r 2 ,188 Foundries, 2942—
Continued
Disabling
injuries
EmNum­
ployeeber
Num­ hours
of es- ber of worked
em­
tab(in
lish- ployees thou­ Num­
Days
ments
lost8
sands)2 ber

Geographic area, State, and kind of
foundry

Injury
rates *

' Aver­
age
days
lost
per
tem­
Fre­ Sever­ po­
quen­
rary
ity total
cy
disa­
bility

Colorado: Total...........................................
Ferrous job foundries............................

21
11

863
489

1,890
1,117

74
45

1,129
874

39.1
40.3

.6
.8

11
13

Utah: Total.................................................
Ferrous job foundries...........................

7
6

581
564

1,362
1,329

69
68

1,081
1,039

50.7
51.2

.8
.8

16
15

Pacific: Total------- ---------- --------------------Ferrous job foundries............................
Gray-iron .............................. .........
Steel................................................
Cast-iron pipe....................... .........
Nonferrous job foundries......................
Other than job foundries. ....................

182
71
55
11
3
53
58

14, m
9,093
2,230
6,196
513
1,696
3,440

80,823
18,801
4,398
13,067
1,049
3,926
7,596

1,518
1,135
301
720
95
108
275

84,999
43,058
12,151
29,592
1,002
10,057
31,884

50.1
60.4
68.4
55.1
90.6
27.5
36.2

2.8
2.3
2.8
2.3
1.0
2.6
4.2

12
11
9
12
11
19
15

California: Total.........................................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Gray-iron........................................
Steel................................... .............
Cast-iron pipe------------ --------------Nonferrous job foundries ....................
Other than job foundries ..................

137
52
41
6
3
44
41

12,551
8,218
2,036
5,515
513
1,341
2,992

26,431
16,722
3,937
11,449
1,049
3,080
6,629

1,237
936
265
557
95
63
238

75,317
39,125
9,873
27,937
1,002
7,176
29,016

46.8
56.0
67.3
48.6
90.6
20.5
35.9

2.8
2.3
2.5
2.4
1.0
2.3
4.4

12
11
8
12
11
14
13

Oregon: Total......................... .....................
Ferrous job foundries............................
Steel................................................

18
9
3

866
623
578

2,057
1,503
1,410

169
154
147

1,908 82.2
1,612 102.4
1,390 104.2

.9
1.1
1.0

11
10
9

Washington: T otal1 .................. ...............
0

27

812

1,835

112

7,774

4.2

19

61.0

1Totals include figures for items not shown separately because of insufficient data.
2Totals based on unrounded data.
3Includes standard time charges for permanent impairments and fatalities, as provided in the American
Standard Method of Computing Industrial Injury Rates.
<The frequency rate is the average number of disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked.
The severity rate is the average number of days lost for each thousand employee-hours worked.
« Ratio of employment coverage included is ferrous job foundries, 22; nonferrous job foundries, 1; other than
job foundries, 19. Ratio of employment included in the United States coverage is ferrous job foundries,
10; nonferrous job foundries, 1; other than job foundrys 6.
« Ratio of employment coverage included is ferrous job foundries, 4; other than job foundries, 1; no nonfer­
rous job foundries were covered. Ratio of employment included in the United States coverage is ferrous
job foundries, 10; nonferrous job foundries, 1; other than job foundries, 6.
7 Ratio of employment coverage included is ferrous job foundries, 30; nonferrous job foundries, 1; other than
job foundries, 5. Ratio of employment included in the United States coverage is ferrous job foundries, 10;
nonferrous job foundries, 1; other than job foundries, 6.
8 Ratio of employment coverage included is ferrous job foundries, 4; nonferrous job foundries, 1; other than
job foundries, 4. Ratio of employment included in the United States coverage is ferrous job foundries, 10;
nonferrous job foundries, 1; other than job foundries, 6.
•Predominantly cast-iron pipe foundries.
1 Ratio of employment coverage included is ferrous job foundries, 1; nonferrous job foundries, 2; other than
0
job foundries, 1. Ratio of employment included in the United States coverage is ferrous job foundries 10;
nonferrous job foundries, 1; other than job foundries, 6.

Size of Plant
Generally speaking, very small foundries (with less than 24 em­
ployees) and large foundries (with over 500 employees) had the lowest
average injury-frequency rates. The distribution of frequency rates
within the various size groups, however, conclusively indicated that
size of plant need not be a controlling factor in safety. (See table 4.)
In all size groups there were plants which reported excellent safety
records, and in most size groups there were a few with exceptionally
poor records. Plant size, in one way or another, may either facilitate
or impede the functioning of a safety program, but it seems evident




25
that regardless of size, those plants which take a genuine interest in
safety do have lower injury-frequency rates than those which make
only perfunctory efforts toward safety.
Plant size becomes a factor in the advancement of safety in many
ways. In small shops the supervisor, who is frequently the owner with
a personal financial interest in keeping the accident volume at a mini­
mum, is generally able to keep all operations under observation. He
can, therefore, see unsafe conditions and practices as they develop and
can take immediate precautions to eliminate incipient hazards.
In very large shops the volume of production generally makes it
possible to give special attention to safety. Plants with 500 or more
employees can usually afford to employ a safety engineer to carry on
a scientific accident-prevention program, and can generally afford to
provide all guards and safety equipment known to be available.
Large plants also can generally maintain some form of medical or
trained first-aid service upon the premises. They also have the
advantage of professionally engineered plant lay-out and work proc­
esses, and are generally in a position to utilize mechanical equipment
more extensively than are the smaller plants. This is of particular
importance in connection with material-handling operations, in which
the provision of mechanical conveyors, hoists, cranes, and power
trucks can do much to avoid many of the injuries associated with the
manual performance of such operations.
In medium-size foundries the problem of safety is complicated by
the fact that the responsible head of the plant seldom can devote
much of his time to observing shop operations and, therefore, must
delegate much of the responsibility for safety to others. Unfortu­
nately, few such plants can afford to employ a safety specialist and
as a result the responsibility for safety must be vested entirely in
foremen or supervisors, who seldom have had safety training and who
frequently feel that their production responsibilities are of much
greater importance than attention to safety.
Because of the varying numbers of plants reporting in the different
foundry categories, it was impossible to establish a uniform size
break-down for each of the groups. It is interesting to note, however,
that among the gray-iron, malleable-iron, and steel job foundries the
highest average frequency rates were those of the plants which had
between 150 and 249 employees. In the gray-iron foundry group
the lowest average was that of the very small plants, which employed
less than 10 workers. In the malleable-iron and steel job foundry
groups, however, the lowest average frequency rates were those of
che larger plants— the malleable-iron plants with over 500 employees
and the steel foundries with over 1,000 employees.
In the nonferrous foundry group the plants with 75 to 99 employees
had the highest average frequency rate, while those with 10 to 24
employees had the lowest average. Among the other than job found­
ries, the lowest average was that of the plants with 500 to 999 em­
ployees and the highest was that of the plants with 50 to 74 employees.
In most industries it is not at all unusual for individual plants to
complete 1,000,000 or more employee-hours of operation without a
single disabling injury, which is approximately equivalent to a year’s
operations in a plant having 500 full-time employees. It is pertinent
to note, however, that not one of the 114 foundries which reported 500




26

RANGE OF INJURY FREQUENCY RATES
IN JOB FOUNDRIES
range of

BY SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENT, 1942

FREQUENCY RATES

range of

FREQUENCY RATES

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

RANGE OF
FREQUENCY RATES




SIZE O F FOUNDRY (NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES)

SIZ E OF FOUNDRY (NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES)

RANGE OF
FREQUENCY RATES

27
or more employees had an accident-free record in 1942. There was,
however, one cast-iron pipe foundry which reported only one injury
in 1,917,552 employee-hours worked, which gave it a frequency rate
of 0.5 for the year, the lowest rate achieved by any of the plants with
500 or more employees. In direct contrast, one of the malleable-iron
job foundries with 591 employees and 1,376,216 employee-hours
worked during the year, reported 198 injuries, which gave it a fre­
quency rate of 143.9.
T able 4.—Distribution of Injury Rates in 2,182 Foundries, by Kind of Foundry and

Size of Establishment, 1942

Kind of foundry and number of
foundry employees

Ferrous job foundries:
Gray-iron found ries_____ ____
1 to 9 employees................
10 to 24 employees............
26 to 49 employees............
60 to 74 employees............
75 to 99 employees............
100 to 149 employees.........
150 to 249 employees.........
250 to 499 employees.........
500 to 999 employees.........
1,000 employees and over..
Malleable-iron foundries.........
1 to 149 employees.............
150 to 249 employees.........
250 to 499 employees........
500 employees and over.
Steel foundries.........................
1 to 99 employees..............
100 to 149 employees.........
150 to 249 employees_____
250 to 499 employees.........
500 to 999 employees_____
1,000 employees and over..
Cast-iron-pipe foundries_____
1 to 149 employees............
150 to 249 employees.........
250 to 499 employees.........
500 employees and over...
Nonferrous job foundries________
1 to 9 employees.....................
10 to 24 employees...................
25 to 49 employees...................
50 to 74 employees................. .
75 to 99 employees...................
100 to 149 employees................
150 to 249 employees.............. .
250 to 499 employees...............
500 to 999 employees...............
Other than job foundries..............
1 to 9 employees......................
10 to 24 employees................. .
25 to 49 employees...................
50 to 74 employees...................
75 to 99 employees...................
100 to 149 employees................
150 to 249 employees................
250 to 499 employees................
500 to 999 employees................
1,000 employees and over........

Em­
Total
num- Num- ployeehours
ber of ber of
estab­ em­ worked
(in
lish­ ployees thou­
ments
sands)

652 52,830 119,705
1,344
116
676
2,291
4,806
135
123
4,573 10,074
4,858 10,845
81
58
4,914 11,235
6,844 15,466
57
44
8,225 19,392
9,644 20,786
27
5,293 13,130
8
3
5,512 12,627
53 20,672 44,233
3,281
13
1, 537
9
4,250
1,920
14 •4, 597 9,586
17 12,618 27,116
105 57,660 132,707
1,604
19
697
7
2,069
880
21
4,397 10,076
20
7,146 17,542
25 16,381 37,989
13 28,159 63,427
37 12,482 28,533
14
913
2,010
2,034
5
1,035
10
3,518
7,821
8
7,016 16,668
441 14,052 32,147
179
831
1,665
124
1,934
4,208
68
5,061
2,255
33
2,016
4,658
12
1,035
2,167
11
1,311
2,837
5
2,323
930
4,899
6
1,959
3
1,781
4,329
894 87,859 195,336
185
917
1,875
196
3,141
6.799
151
5,282 11,731
91
5,667 12,492
58
4,982 11,697
75
9,218 21,108
56 10,583 24,330
45 15,150 35,734
27 17,967 40,421
10 14,952 29,149

Number of
plants with
Injury rates1 Aver­ low frequency
age
rates
Total
days
number
lost per
of dis­
tem­
abling
porary Num­ Num­
ber
injuries Fre­
total
ber
Se­
with
quen­ verity dis­
with rates of
cy
ability rate of 10 or
0
less

6,675
27
224
581
667
607
957
1,216
1,192
633
571
2,180
245
346
461
1,128
6,744
116
152
931
1,050
2,340
2,155
1,319
202
188
497
432
1,134
40
79
140
152
147
95
95
273
113
7,281
73
285
643
696
609
937
882
1,154
1,096
906

55.8
20.1
46.6
57.7
61.5
54.0
61.9
62.7
57.3
48.2
45.2
49.3
74.7
81.4
48.1
41.6
50.8
72.3
73.5
92.4
59.9
61.6
34.0
46.2
100.5
92.4
63.5
25.9
35.3
24.0
18.8
27.7
32.6
67.8
33.5
40.9
55.7
26.1
37.3
38.9
41.9
54.8
55.7
52.1
44.4
36.3
32.3
27.1
31.1

3.4
9.3
3.8
2.7
3.2
3.1
2.4
3.8
3.5
4.0
3.2
2.5
1.7
4.2
1.9
2.6
2.9
.8
1.3
5.5
3.1
3.2
2.5
3.8
7.8
4.1
1.6
4.3
1.6
.3
1.4
.6
2.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
3.3
1.9
3.2
4.9
3.2
3.6
2.8
2.8
4.1
3.2
3.1
3.9
1.7

14
18
15
13
15
15
12
13
16
12
14
16
16
13
15
17
15
11
14
12
12
13
18
16
16
16
12
22
15
13
14
12
16
18
13
15
14
23
15
16
16
14
14
15
15
15
17
20
12

197
97
65
23
5
3
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
281
154
85
25
10
2
3
1
1
0
259
143
74
26
2
2
10
1
1
0
0

22
0
0
7
4
3
3
2
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
1
6
0
0
3
2
C
0
1
0
0
53
0
0
3
8
2
6
17
6
7
4

1The frequency rate is the average number of disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked.
The severity rate is the average number of days lost for each thousand employee-hours worked.




28
Safety Programs and First-Aid Facilities
Details relating to the safety programs and first-aid facilities main­
tained upon the premises were obtained from 58 of the foundries
visited in the course of the survey. The variations from plant to
plant were ^too numerous to permit detailed comparisons, but a few
significant general comparisons were possible.
Three of the 58 plants had fewer than 100 employees each, 29 had
from 100 to 500 employees, 18 had from 500 to 1,000 employees, 5 had
from 1,000 to 2,000 employees, and 3 plants employed over 2,000
workers. The smallest plant had 55 employees and the largest had
3,900. The sample therefore omitted all very small plants, which
generally rely upon first-aid kits for injury treatments and rarely
employ safety engineers.
No plant with less than 250 employees reported the employment of a
full-time safety engineer. However, among the foundries with 250 to
500 employees each there were 4 which had safety engineers on their
pay rolls. In the range of 500 to 1,000 employees, 6 out of 18 found­
ries had safety engineers, as did 3 out of 5 having 1,000 to 2,000
employees, and the 3 plants having more than 2,000 employees.
Each of the 8 plants having 1,000 or more employees maintained
first-aid rooms on the premises, and all but one of these had either a
doctor or a trained nurse on full-time duty. In the 500-to-l,000employee range, 16 out of 18 plants had specially equipped first-aid
rooms. Ten of these were attended by full-time doctors or trained
nurses, 3 were attended by workers who had received Red Cross
training in first aid, and 3 were under the supervision of workers who
had had no formal training in first aid.
Three of the 32 plants reporting less than 500 employees had
first-aid rooms with full-time registered nurses in attendance; 8 had
first-aid rooms with Red Cross trained attendants; and 12 had firstaid rooms with untrained attendants.
The striking differences in the injury-frequency rates of these
plants, as shown in table 5, graphically portray the variations in the
emphasis upon safety indicated by the type of safety leadership and
first-aid facilities provided. The 16 foundries which employed full­
time safety engineers had an average of 41.3 disabling injuries for
every million employee-hours worked, compared with an average of
63.8 for the 42 plants which did not have full-time safety engineers.
Inasmuch as nearly all of the plants which employed a full-time
safety engineer also employed a doctor or registered nurse to administer
first aid, the variations in first-aid facilities in this group involve too
few establishments to permit valid comparison on that basis. Among
the 42 foundries which did not employ safety engineers, however, the
31 which had first-aid rooms had an average frequency rate of 60.5
compared with an average of 78.8 for the 11 without first-aid rooms.
Similarly, within the group of plants with first-aid rooms the average
frequency rates varied directly with the quality of the supervision
provided for the first-aid rooms. The best average rate (45.3) was
for the six plants which had doctors or trained nurses in attendance.
The 10 foundries which had first-aid attendants who had been given
Red Cross training had an average rate of 65.4, while the 15 plants




29
which had untrained attendants in their first-aid rooms had a rate of
71.3.
The individual plant frequency rates varied widely from their
group averages, and there was considerable overlapping between the
groups. Each of the groups included at least one plant which had a
rate higher than the highest group average, and nearly all of the
groups included one or more plants with rates which were lower than
the lowest group average. It is interesting, however, to note that
the lowest individual plant rates in the different groups held the same
relationship to each other as that existing among the group averages.
The inference to be drawn from these individual plant variations is
that many factors other than the employment of a safety engineer or
the maintenance of first-aid facilities.enter into the safety record of
individual plants. The direct correlation between the employment of
a safety engineer or the maintenance of first-aid facilities and the
group averages, however, does show that these factors generally do
indicate the level of safety existing in particular plants.
T able 5.— Variations in Injury •Frequency Rates Compared With Differences in Plant

Safety Programs ana First-Aid Facilities, for 58 Foundries, 1942
Number Number
of estab­
of em­
lish­
ployees
ments

Item

Average
number
of em­
ployees

Lowest Highest
individ­
Frequen­ ual plant individ­
ual plant
cy rate1 frequency frequency
rate1 1 rate1

Total............................................................

68

36,461

629

52.0

9.9 1

148.1

Foundries with full-time safety engineers.
With first-aid rooms.......... ...... ...........
With doctor or trained nurse.......
With attendant trained in firstaid...... .........................................

16
16
14

19,010
19,010
18,456

1,188
1,188
1,318

41.3
41.3
40.0

9.9
9.9
9.9

103.2
103.2
103.2

2

555

278

85.7

84.3

87.0

Foundries without safety engineers...........
With first-aid rooms___________ ____
With doctor or trained nurse........
With attendant trained in firstaid_________________ _________
With untrained attendant............
Without first-aid rooms.......................

42
31
6

17,451
14,392
4,789

416
464
798

63.8
60.5
45.3

25.7
25.7
25.7

199.9
199.9
108.4

10
16
11

4,901
4,702
3,059

490
313
278

65.4
71.3
78.8

31.3
34.2
40.5

148.1
199.9
144.0

1 The frequency rate is the average number of disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked.

Injuries and the Age of Workers
None of the foundries visited were able to supply an age distribu­
tion covering all employees. No conclusion can be drawn, therefore,
as to whether or not there was any relationship between the age of
workers and the frequency of injuries. Sixty of the plants, however,
were able to supply details regarding both the age and the disability
experienced by those of their employees who were injured. The
volume of fatal and permanent impairment cases was insufficient for
an extended break-down, but from the data relating to temporary
total disabilities it was possible to establish relationships between the
age of the injured persons and the average time lost because of their
injuries. (See table 6.) These data corroborate the findings of
previous studies in other industries, that injuries to older persons are
likely to result in more serious disabilities than those experienced by
628923°—46----- 5




30
younger persons, the differences primarily being due to the greater
recuperative ability of the younger persons.7
In all three types of job foundries the average time lost by workers
who were less than 18 years old at the time of injury was quite low.
To some extent this is undoubtedly due to efforts on the part of the
foundries to keep young persons away from more dangerous opera­
tions, which present greater possibilities of severe injury. If this
age group is excluded as being affected by particular circumstances,
the most pronounced differences in recuperative ability appear to
develop at about the age of 30, with a gradual increase in the required
recovery time for each higher age group.
T a b l e 6.—

Average Days Lost per Temporary Total Disability, by Kind of Foundry and
Age of Injured, for 60 Foundries, 1942
Average days lost per
temporary total dis­
ability In—

Age

A1 A gA S
1

Gray- Malle­
ableiron
iron
found­ found­
ries
ries

Age
Steel
found­
ries

______

16

14

17

Under 1R years _
1R-20 years ____ _ . .
21-25 years_____________
26-30 years.......................

10
12
15
14

6
11
10
10

9
15
14
13

_

Average days lost per
temporary total dis­
ability in—

31-35 years _
3fi— yU
40 cu
ou w vears
41-45 years
46-50 years_____________
51 vears and over. _____

Gray- Malle­ Steel
ableiron
iron
found­ found-. found­
ries
ries
ries
17
19
19
18
20

14
13
15
17
19

17
1A
lO
19
22
24

Kinds of Injuries Experienced
THE ENTIRE GROUP

The use of personal protective equipment as a rule does not prevent
accidents. It seems apparent, however, from the character of the
injuries experienced by foundry workers that more extensive use of
protective equipment could do much to prevent or minimize a great
many foundry injuries. Conservatively, it is estimated that 40 per­
cent of all foundry injuries could be avoided through the general use
of proper goggles, gloves, leggings, spats, and safety shoes by workers
engaged in operations which present eye, hand, foot, and leg hazards.
More than 26 percent of all the disabling injuries analyzed were
foot and toe cases. Over nine-tenths of the toe injuries and more
than three-fifths of the foot injuries were cuts, bruises, or fractures
resulting primarily from dropping heavy objects or setting them
down improperly. Most of these injuries probably would have been
avoided if the workers had been wearing safety shoes or metal foot
guards. Burns, primarily caused by hot metal spilled in pouring,
were the source of about a third of the foot injuries. Most of these
injuries might well have been prevented through the general use of
proper spats and molder’s-type shoes.
t See Relation of Age to Industrial Injuries, in Monthly Labor Review, October 1940 (p. 789).




31
T able 7.—Disabling Injuries, Classified by Department and Location of Injury, for
64 Foundries, 1942
Total
num­
ber of
dis­
abling Eye(s)
injuries

Department

Location of injury
Head,
other
than
eye(s)

Chest

Back

Abdo­
men

Other
trunk
inju­
ries

All departments................................................

4,646

490

199

545

117

127

213

Pattern shop............... .......... .................... .
Core room.........................................................
Molding, including shake-out.........................
Shake-out only....................... ...................
Melting............................. ..............................
Cleaning, chipping, and finishing....................
Machine shop...................................................
Annealing........................................................
General labor....................................................
Maintenance.....................................................
Shipping...........................................................
Storage yard.....................................................
Yard transportation.........................................
Not elsewhere classified...................................
Unknown..........................................................

44
336
1,723
75
239
1,383
150
83
94
221
65
158
17
35
98

3
14
99
7
24
272
34
1
3
26
3
6
0
4
1

1
13
52
2
8
78
1
2
6
14
3

3
60
259
16
23
103
8
9
14
13
9
17
2
3
22

0
8
47
0
6
31
2
2
0
5
4
6
1
2
3

1
5
53
1

93

14

1
4
2

1
14

4

4

20
39
8
5

1

4
10

42
3
3
7
0
4
0
2
2

4
10
3
0
2

Location of injury—Continued
Department
Arm(s) Hand(s)

Fihger(s)
Foot
or
Leg(s)
or
thumb (s)
feet

Mul­
tiple Un­
Toe(s) inju­ known
ries

All departments........................................

175

318

737

397

835

394

76

23

Pattern shop.............................................
Core room ..... ..........................................
Molding, including shake-out____ *........
Shake-out only...................................
Melting__________
___ ___________
Cleaning, chipping, and finishing............
Machine shop...........................................
Annealing............... .................................
General labor ________________________
Maintenance.............................................
Shipping....................................................
Storage yard.............................................
Yard transportation.................................
Not elsewhere classified_______________
Unknown..................................................

1
6
67
2
11
44
11
2
4
10
1
8
2
3
5

3
30
115
8
7
82
10
5

15
62
247
7
36
241
31
14
11
37
10
19
1
2
11

4
29
147
4
19
126
8
' 9
8
18
4
14
2
3
6

7
53
400
18
43
189
15
15
21
34
10
27
3
5
13

5
34
111
5
26
123
16
16
12
21
9
16
0
1
4

0
8
31
1
10
10
1
0
0
4
5
2
1
1
3

0
0
2
0
2
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
13

9

22
3
15
1
5
11

Hand and finger injuries accounted for 23 percent of the entire
volume of disabilities. The majority of these were cuts, sprains, and
bruises, although one out of every five hand injuries was a bum, and
a similar proportion of the finger injuries were fractures. Protective
equipment which will prevent crushing injuries to hands and fingers
is generally considered impracticable. Nevertheless, merely the
provision of gloves, and their use when handling hot, rough, or
sharp-edged materials, vrould probably have prevented most of the
hand and finger bums and a large proportion of the cuts and lacera­
tions.
Eye injuries totaled about 10 percent of all the disabilities. The
majority of these were cuts or lacerations caused by flying particles,
although one in every six was a bum. The use of safety goggles by




32
all workers exposed to flying particles undoubtedly would hare
prevented practically all of the eye injuries.
Back injuries accounted for nearly 12 percent of the disabilities.
Practically all of these were strains or sprains resulting from lifting
excessive weights or lifting improperly. It should be noted, however,
that in a number of instances back disabilities, which became evident
when the workers attempted to lift materials, might have resulted
from sudden chilling after exposure to great heat rather than from
lifting.
Injuries to other parts of the trunk constituted about 10 percent of
the total number of disabilities. A large proportion of these were
strains and sprains arising from lifting or overexertion. One in every
eight1 the injuries in this group was a hernia case.
of
Injuries to the head (other than eye cases) and injuries to arms
were relatively infrequent. Leg injuries, however, totaled nearly
9 percent of all the cases analyzed. Three-fourths of the leg injuries
were cuts, sprains, and bruises arising primarily from forcible contact
with mishandled materials. (See table 7.8)
INJURIES IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF FOUNDRIES

In general the injuries in each of the three types of foundries visited
were of much the same pattern. There were, however, a few signifi­
cant differences among the three groups.
Foot injuries were of outstanding importance in all three groups;
relatively, however, they were considerably more important in the
gray-iron plants than in either the malleable-iron or steel foundries.
On the other hand, back and trunk injuries were of greater importance
and eye injuries were of much less importance in the malleable-iron
foundries than in either of the other groups. In the steel foundry
T able 8.—Disabling Injuries, Classified by Kind of Foundry and Nature of Injury, for

65 Foundries, 1942
Gray-iron foundries

Nature of injury

Steel foundries

Number of
disabling
injuries

Num­
ber

Aver­ Number of Aver­ Number of Aver­
age
disabling
age
disabling
age
days
injuries
days
injuries
days
lost per
lost per
lost per
tem­
tem­
tem­
porary
porary
porary
Per­ total Num­ Per­ total Num­ Per­ total
dis­
ber
dis­
ber
cent
cent
dis­
cent
ability
ability
ability

All injuries.......................................... 1,500

100.0

35
231
441
393
48
590
174
16
8
5

2.3
15.4
29.4
26.2
3.2
39.4
11.6
1.1
.5
.3

Amputations and enucleations..........
Burns and scalds................................
Cuts and lacerations...........................
Without infection............... !___
With infection.............................
Strains, sprains, and bruises..............
Fractures............................................
Hernia.................................................
Industrial disease...............................
Not elsewhere classified......................

Malleable-iron
foundries

16

1,059

100.0

22
10
10
11
13
36
40
10
9

17
192
281
240
41
440
94
23
7
5

1.6
18.1
26.5
22.6
3.9
41.5
8.9
2.2
.7
.5

14

2,075

100.0

16

17
10
9
12
11
25
44
9
6

45
212
682
611
71
753
344
20
11
8

2.2
10.2
32.9
29.5
3.4
36.2
16.6
1.0
.5
.4

15
12
12
15
12
34
46
16
8

8Nature and location of injuries for 3 types of foundries are shown in tables 8 and 9, and for certain occu­
pations, in table 10.




33
group, toe, leg, hand, finger, and head injuries were proportionately
more important and back and trunk injuries proportionately less
important than in either the gray-iron or malleable-iron foundries.
In all three types of foundries the most important injury categories
were strains, sprains, or bruises, and cuts or lacerations. Burns were
third among the injury categories, followed by fractures in the grayiron and malleable-iron foundries. In the steel foundries, however,
there were more fractures than burns. (See tables 8 and 9.)
T able 9.—Disabling Injuries, Classified by Kind of Foundry and Location of Injury,

for 65 Foundries, 1942
Gray-iron foundries

Location of injury

Malleable-iron foundries

Steel foundries

Number of
Aver­
Aver­
Number of
Aver­
disabling
age
age
disabling
age
days
injuries
days
injuries
days
lost per
lost per
lost per
tem­
tem­
tem­
porary
porary
porary
Num­ Percent total
Num­ Percent total
Num­
total
Percent dis­
ber
dis­
ber
dis­
ber
ability
ability
ability
Number of
disabling
injuries

Total.....................................

1,518

100.0

16

1,059

100.0

14

2,082

100.0

16

Eye(s)...................................
Head, other than eye(s)___
B ack....................................
Chest....................................
Abdomen.......... ...................
Other trunk injuries............
Arm(s)..................................
Hand(s)....... .................... .
Finger(s) or thumb(s)_____
Leg(s)...................................
Foot or feet...........................
Toe(s)...................................
Multiple injuries..................

172
53
187
37
37
77
58
103
231
116
310
107
30

11.3
3.5
12.3
2.4
2.4
5.1
3.8
6.8
15.2
7.6
20.6
7.0
2.0

6
15
14
20
30
16
14
14
14
21
21
19
22

79
42
159
35
45
57
38
68
168
84
197
75
12

7.5
4.0
15.0
3.3
4.2
5.4
3.6
6.4
15.9
7.9
18.6
7.1
1.1

5
7
10
15
27
15
15
15
12
18
17
13
18

239
104
209
46
46
84
79
148
343
199
336
215
34

11.5
5.0
10.0
2.2
2.2
4.0
3.8
7.1
16.6
9.6
16.1
10.3
1.6

6
13
14
21
22
15
17
13
17
22
21
19
13

OCCUPATIONAL EXPERIENCE

Chainmen

Chainmen, sometimes called hookmen or riggers, work on the
foundry floor as assistants to the crane operators. Their duties are
to prepare heavy materials to be lifted by the cranes by placing, or
rigging, heavy chains around them and to attach the crane hook to the
load. When the load has been moved into position they release the
crane hook and remove the chains. Frequently they are also required
to direct the movements of the cranes by means of hand signals, to
guide or push the suspended loads into position, and to warn other
workers on the floor of the approach of the suspended load.
Material falling from crane loads, and loads lowered upon the
workers were the primary sources of injuries to chainmen. There
were, however, numerous cases of crushed fingers resulting from the
failure of chainmen to keep their hands off suspended loads and away
from chains which were being placed un der tension. The predom­
inant types of injuries in this occupation were cuts, bruises, and frac­
tures to the hands, fingers, feet, and toes.
Greater use of safety shoes by chainmen undoubtedly would have
prevented many of the foot and toe injuries. The most essential




34
measures for the prevention of injuries to these workers, however, are
(1) better training in the proper rigging of crane loads, (2) arrange­
ments for better teamwork between the chainmen and the crane
operators, and (3) strict supervision to see that safe procedures are
followed.
Chippers

Chippers cut undesirable projections from metal castings and smooth
and shape the surface of the castings with air chipping hammers or
with hand hammers and chisels. Flying chips caused more injuries
to workers in this occupation than any other single agency. There
were, however, a considerable number of chippers who experienced
hand, foot, and trunk injuries in the course of lifting or moving the
castings on which they were working.
Practically all of the injuries caused by flying chips were eye injuries
which would not have resulted if the workers had been wearing proper
impact goggles at the time of the accident. The absolute necessity
for the use of goggles in all chipping operations is generally recognized.
Nevertheless there were some injuries reported which resulted directly
from performance of chipping operations without the use of goggles.
It is important to note, however, that many chippers experienced eye
injuries which were caused by chips coming from fellow-workers’ ham­
mers rather than from their own. Most of these cases occurred when
the injured worker had stopped chipping and had removed his goggles.
On the basis of the record, the most effective accident-prevention
measures in this occupation would be (1) to make it a hard and fast
rule that all chippers must wear proper impact goggles not only while
performing chipping operations themselves, but also whenever others
are chipping in the same room, (2) to provide and use screens or booths
to segregate individual chipping operations so as to prevent chips from
striking other workers, and (3) to train chippers in the proper methods
of lifting or moving heavy castings, and see that proper lifting equip­
ment or sufficient help is available when weights which are too heavy
for one man must be moved.
Coremakers

The coremaker compacts a cohesive mixture of sand and binder,
either by hand or machine, into hollow forms or core boxes and care­
fully removes the forms so as to leave the cores intact and undamaged.
After being baked, the cores are used in molds for hollow castings to
prevent molten metal from completely filling the mold cavity, thus
forming a hole or hollow of the desired shape in the casting.
Although coremaking is comparatively light work, back strains were
reported in this occupation more frequently than any other type of
injury. There were, also, a considerable number of coremakers who
were disabled by cut or bruised hands and feet. Adequate instruction
in proper lifting methods and an increased use of safety shoes undoubt­
edly would substantially reduce the number of injuries to coremakers.
Grinders

A grinder removes undesirable projections or surface imperfections
on castings, using a power-driven grinding wheel. Stationary grinders
are used for small castings and large swing or balanced grinders are




35
used for heavy castings. Portable or hand-held grinders are used for
interior surfaces and corners which cannot be reached on the stationary
or swing grinders.
Eye injuries produced by foreign particles were more common than
any other type of injury in this occupation. Working without goggles
was usually the cause of these accidents. There were, however, a
number of reports of eye injuries which stated that the workers had
been wearing goggles and that the goggles were properly fitted and
equipped with cups or side shields. As a possible explanation of this
seemingly impossible occurrence, one safety engineer suggested that,
in the course of grinding, many metal particles may adhere to the
worker’s forehead or eyebrow. When he removes his goggles and
wipes his face, some of these particles may be brushed into his eye.
The entrance of these particles into the eye could easily go unnoticed
at the time, and later develop a noticeable irritation. This irritation
might become apparent during later grinding operations when goggles
are being worn and the case would be reported as a foreign particle
entering the eye despite the use of proper goggles.
The reason generally given for the failure of grinders to wear goggles
was that they are uncomfortable. The importance of arranging to
have all goggles properly fitted to the individual wearers, therefore,
cannot be overemphasized. In this connection it is pertinent to note
that in several of the foundries visited the Bureau representative was
told that in normal times those plants had imposed penalties for failure
to wear goggles when doing grinding. At the time of the survey,
however, most of these penalty rules were being ignored because of the
fear that enforcement would result in the resignation of much-needed
workers.
Finger and foot injuries were also comparatively common among the
grinders. Finger injuries frequently occurred because of lack of proper
care in holding eastings against the grinding wheel, causing the casting
to “ catch” on the wheel and to pull the operator’s hands against the
wheel. Dropped castings produced most of the foot and toe injuries.
Laborers and Shake-out Men

In many foundries shake-out men were classed as laborers and were
so reported. For this reason the injuries reported under both these
occupational designations were considered together.
Foundry laborers perform many unskilled tasks, such as the moving
of materials and the cleaning of workplaces, to facilitate the work of
more skilled workers. They generally work under the supervision of
a gang foreman or under the direct supervision of any skilled worker
to whom they may be assigned as helpers. Shake-out work, which is
only one of the many tasks which may be given to a laborer, consists
of removing castings from the mold in which they were cast, shaking
the adhering sand from the castings, and either stacking or transport­
ing the castings to the appropriate department for further processing.
Nearly a third of the injuries in these occupations were foot and toe
cases, 23 percent were injuries to the back or other parts of the trunk,
and 21 percent were hand and finger injuries. A fairly high propor­
tion of the injuries, particularly among those affecting arms, hands,
and feet, were burns. The majority, however, were cuts, sprains,




33
bruises, and fractures. Most of these injuries resulted directly from
improper methods of handling, lifting, or moving heavy materials.
In view of the very large volume of foot and toe injuries, there can
be little doubt that more general use of safety shoes and foot guards
by laborers and shake-out men would do much to reduce the number
of disabling injuries in these occupations. Better training in the safe
ways of lifting and moving heavy materials, the provision of more
mechanical equipment for the handling of heavy objects, and close
supervision to insure that safe procedures are followed would probably
eliminate most of the back and trunk injuries and also many of the
hand and finger injuries.
Ladlemen or Pourers

Ladlemen transport molten metal from the melting furnace to the
molds in a ladle and pour the molten metal into the molds. The
ladles used may be carried by hand, by either one or two men; they
may be mounted on wheels; they may be swung from the hoist of a
monorail crane; or they may be supported and carried by an overhead
crane.
Burns predominated among the injuries experienced by ladlemen.
In most cases the burns resulted from the splashing or spilling of molten
metal from the ladles, and generally the burns were on the legs and
feet. Moisture in the ladles and lack of proper care in taking the hot
metal from the furnaces were frequently given as the causes of these
accidents. Careful training, strict supervision, and the use of proper
protective clothing probably would have avoided many of the injuries
experienced by ladlemen.
M achinists

Many castings require considerable processing beyond the cleaning
and rough-finishing stage to fit them for their ultimate use, particularly
to insure a close fit when they are to be fitted into an assembly. Some
foundries perform this additional function and for this purpose main­
tain a machine shop in which all types of metalworking machine tools
may be employed.
Hand and finger injuries, eye injuries, and foot and toe injuries were
most common in this occupational classification. The eye injuries
resulted primarily from chips or metal particles thrown off by ma­
chines. The finger injuries were generally the result of contact with
moving parts at the point of operation, while the foot and toe injuries
generally were caused by dropped materials. Greater attention to
machine guarding, the use of impact goggles when using machines
which may throw out chips or particles, and the use of safety shoes
would have prevented a large proportion of the injuries experienced
by machinists.
Molders and Molder’s Helpers

Molders produce sand molds by ramming and compacting molding
sand around a pattern and withdrawing the pattern so as to leave an
impression or mold of the pattern into which molten metal is poured
to make the casting. The work may be performed entirely by hand




37
or may be performed in part with the assistance of various types of
molding machines.
Because of the heavy work in these occupations, back strains and
injuries to other parts of the trunk were particularly prominent among
the injuries experienced by molders and their helpers. In proportion
to the total number of injuries the number of hernias reported for
molders was double that of any other occupation.
Foot injuries and hand or finger injuries were also quite numerous.
Many molders and their helpers are required to pour their own molten
metal, and as a result a high percentage of the foot injuries were bums.
Slips in placing the cope upon the drag produced many of the finger
injuries.
Molders generally have served long apprenticeships so that the ex­
cuse of inexperience and unfamiliarity with the hazards of the work
cannot explain the failure to follow safe procedures or to use proper
safety equipment, which was apparent in the descriptions of many of
the molders’ accidents. General safety instruction to stimulate inter­
est in safe methods and strict supervision to stop slipshod procedures
appear to be needed to reduce the accident record of this occupation.
Sandblasters

Sandblasters clean castings by means of a blast of abrasive-laden
compressed air which removes adhering scale and imparts an even
finish to the casting surfaces. Small castings are sandblasted in en­
closed machines, but large castings must be cleaned by directing the
blast against the surface by means of a hand-held nozzle. Finger
injuries predominated in this occupation. Most of these occurred
when the workers got their fingers caught in the sandblasting equip­
ment.
T able 10.—Disabling Injuries, Classified by Occupation and by Location and Nature of
In ju ry , fo r 65 Foundries, 1942

Nature of injury

Occupation and location of
injury

All occupations___________
Eye(s)----------------------Head, other than eye(s).
Back_________________
Chest________________
Abdomen____________
Other trunk injuries___
Arm(s)_______________
Hand(s)...... ...... ........... .
Finger(s) or thumb(s)__.
Leg(s)--------- -------------Foot or feet....... ...........
Toe(s)_________ ______
Multiple injuries...........
Unknown____________




Total
num­
ber of
dis­
abling
in­
juries

4,682
490
199
655
118
128
218
175
319
742
399
843
397
76
23

Am­
puta­
In­ Not
tions Burns Cuts Strains, Frac­
dus­ else­ Un­
and
and
and lacera­ sprains, tures Hernia trial where known
and
enu­ scalds tions bruises
dis­ clas­
clea­
ease sified
tions
97
2

87
1
7

635
79
17
12
3
4
5
54
68
23
60
273
9
27
1

1,404
396
115
2
2
4
6
46
130
385
134
116
61
7

1,783
9
52
531
70
61
201
54
90
94
170
329
112
10

612
11
7
36
4
18
28
149
31
120
207
1

59

59

26
2
3

18
1

6
1
1
2
2
3

1

6

16

48
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
2
1
9
22

38
T able 10.- —
Disabling Injuries, Classified by Occupation and by Location and Nature of

Injury, for 65 Foundries, 1942—Continued
Nature of injury

Occupation and location of
injury

Total
num­
ber of
dis­
abling
in­
juries

Am­
In­ Not
puta­
tions Burns Cuts Strains, Frac­
dus­ else­ Un­
and
and lacera­ sprains, tures Hernia trial where known
and
and
enu­ scalds tions bruises
dis­ clas­
clea­
ease sified
tions

Chainm en________i __________
Eye(s) _________________
Head, nfli«r t-han Gye(s)
Trunk
. . _____I ...1 ____
Arm or hand ____. _______
FingGr(s) nr thumb(s)
Leg(s)
_______________
Foot or feet _____________
Toe(s)
______________
Multiple injuries__________

221
10
16
19
13
67
26
49
29
2

Chippers____________________
*Eye(s) __________________
Head, other than eye(s).......
T r u n k ................. I_._l........
A rm (s)__________________
Hand(s)
______________
FingGr(s) nrthmnh(s)
Leg(s)
________________
Foot or feet_______________
Toe(s)
________________
Multiple injuries__________

310
73
30
46
13
27
43

Coremakers__________________
Eye(s) ______ _____ _____
Back ___________________
Trunk, other than back.......
Hand(s) _______________
Finger (s) or thumb ( s ) _____
Leg(s)
_______ ______
Foot or feet
____________
Toe(s) __________________
Other____________________

145
8
33
11
17
28
9
19
11
9

3

Grinders
Eye(s)............................ ......
Trunk
________________
Arm or hand ____________
FingGr(s) nr thnm hl's)
. _
_______________
Leg (s)
Foot or feet_______________
Toe(s) _________________
O ther___________________

296
111
38
11
61
17
25
21
12

3

Laborers...................................... 1,333
Eye(s) _________________
80
182
Back
_________________
Trunk, other than back.......
131
Arm(s)
__ ______ _______
58
Hand(s)
__ _____ ______
94
Finger(s) nr th ijm h (s)
188
Leg(s)
_______________
115
284
Foot or feet ______________
Toe(s)
________________
129
72
Other _________________
Ladlemen or pourers__________
Eye(s)
....... .................
Back
__ _ _______
Finger(s) or thumb(s)____
Leg(s)
______________
Fnnt nr fAG
t
Other....................................




13

14
3

70
5
9

2
8

8
26
8
7
6
1

11
2

1
21
3
2
4
6

29

34
14
1

76
12
5
10
9

28
12

6

11
1

65
2
6
16
2
1
11
22
5

57

137
67
16
1
2
11
24
14
1
1

117
3
7
41
5
8
11
14
20
8

30

42
7

70
31
10
6
3
3
12
4
1

1

15
1
1
1
6
1
1
4

1
2
3
19
4
12
16

3
2
2
2
8
1
7
5

1

1
1

2
2

2

1

2

1
2

2
1

2
3
1
2
1
1

8
13
3
4
2
5

10
2

67

28

1

33
3
4
9
11

3

1

11

1

183
109
1
7
42
5
7
4
8

19

177
11

351
67

165

18

2
21
21
11
14
84
1

583
1
175
102
13
25
32
56
122
42
15
16

6

1

1

5
3
2
3
3

2
1
2
1

1

1

3

1
3
3
3

6

6

1
2

3
18
37
92
37
41
22
34

39
8

11
4

5
21
5

3
1
2
1

2

7

1
1

2

1

4
10

1
9
4
10
33
8
35
62
3

1
2

2
12

5

12

1

5

16
1

2

1
2
1
2

2
1

5

1
8

39
T able 10.—Disabling Injuries, Classified by Occupation and by Location and Nature of

Injury, for 65 Foundries, 1942—Continued
Nature of injury

Occupation and lbcation of
injury

Total
num­
ber of
dis­
abling
in­
juries

Am­
puta­
In­ Not
Strains,
tions Burns Cuts sprains,
dus­ else­
and
and
and lacera­ and Frac­ Hernia trial where Un­
tures
enu­ scalds tions bruises
dis­ clas­ known
clea­
ease sified
tions
23

1

2
2

1

1

Machinists (machine operators).
Eye(s)...................................
B a ck ................................ .
Trunk, other than hack
Arm(s)_______ _____ ______
Hand(s)................................
Finger(s) or thumb(s)
Leg7s)..l_________ ________
Foot or feet
__ _. _.
Toe(s)
_
Other

132
27
7
11
9
13
32
7
11 *
13
2

10
2

Molders___ _
Eye(s)
Back........... ..........................
Trunk, other than bade____
Arm or hand______________
Finger(s) or thumb(s)_____
Leg(s)__..................________
Foot or feet_______________
Toe(s)........................ ..........
Other _ ___ _

508
24
112
84
49
65
29
103
23
19

6

Molder’s helpers
... .
Eye(s)....... ...........................
Head, other than eye(s)____
Back.................. .......... ........
Trunk, other than back-___
Arm or hand
___
*Finger(s) or thnrnb(s)
Leg(s)
Foot or feet
__________
Toe(s)
. . . _______ _
Multiple injuries

158
8
7
12
18
17
28
15
33
16
4

Sa^d blasters
THyp(s)
Back..................... ...............
Fir»ger(s) nr thnmh(s'l
Leg(s)___________________
Foot or feet
Toe(s) ________________
Other____________________

61
7
5
18
6
6
7
12

Shakeout men.
_ _
Eyefs). ________________
Back_____________________
Trunk, other than back
Hand(s)................................
Fingerf's'i or thumb(s)
Foot or feet_______________
Toe(s)___________________
Other___________ ____ ____

80
7
14
6
9
9
21
6
8

1

2
3
4
1
2

Occupation unknown_________

391

10

50

85

154

62

8

Other...........................................
Eye(s).................... ..............
Head, other than eye (s)___
Back________ ____ ________
Trunk, other than back
Arm(s)___________________
Hand(s)........ .............. .........
Finger(s) or thnmh(s)
TiP.g(s)
Foot or feet
Toe(s)____ ___ ____ _______
Other.....................................

971
97
55
80
99
42
76
152
98
162
85
25

28

127
32
8

298
64
31
1
5
9
30
77
40
30
10
1

333

144

19

9
1

13
75
62
12
17
18
37
74
22
3

3
3
9
4
8
27
9
29
51
1

19

1
1
2




6
4

2
8

5
1

142
11
4
5
13
2
14
80
5
8
19
1
1
1
1
2
11
2

1
1

3
1

2
2

1
1

27
1

16

3
12

2
16
19
3
11
27
1
8

57
21
1
3
7
16
4
2
2
1

34
7
7
4
4
1
2
6
3

7
1
3
8

1
14

1

14

1

27

1

1

3
11
13
5
4
5
12
5
1

2
2
8
2
6
7

1

1

19

13

11
3
1
1
1

4
1
2
4
1
7

5
1
1
5
1

19
7

32

9

77
12
1
11
41
1
4
4
3
50
8
3
9
16
6
4
4
24
7

234
1
106
60
22
7
12
14
6
6

33

59

14
5
4
2
3
4

1
4
3
10
1
5
8
1

1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1

1
1

2
2
4
1

18

1
3

6
1

1
4

7

1

1
5

40
Accident Types and Agencies Involved
THE AGENCIES

In the gray-iron foundries visited during the survey, the outstanding
injury-producing agencies,9 and the proportion of the total volume of
injuries in which each was involved, were castings, 10.3 percent;
molds, 9.4 percent; flasks, core plates, etc., 7.4 percent; hand ladles,
7.3 percent; and vehicles, 7.2 percent. (See table 11.)
In the malleable-iron foundries, considerably more injuries were as­
sociated with machines and proportionately fewer with flasks and core
plates than in the gray-iron plants. Otherwise the agencies presenting
the most common hazards were much the same in the two groups.
For the malleable-iron group the outstanding injury-producing
agencies and the proportion of all injuries in which each was involved
were molds, 11.4 percent; castings, 9.0 percent; hand ladles, 8.7
percent; machines (other than grinders), 7.2 percent; and vehicles,
6.9 percent.
T able

11.—Disabling Injuries, Classified by Kind of Foundry and Agency, for 65
Foundries, 1942
Gray-iron foundries

Agency

Malleable-iron
foundries

Number of
disabling
' injuries

Aver­ Number of
disabling
age
days
injuries
lost
per
tem­
Num­ Per­ porary Num­ Per­
total
ber
cent 1 dis­
ber
cent 1
ability

Steel foundries

Aver­ Number of
disabling
age
injuries
days
lost
per
tem­
porary Num­ Per­
total
ber
cent 1
dis­
ability

Aver­
age.
days
lost
per
tem­
porary
total
disbility

All agencies-------- ------ ------------------- 1,523

100.0

16

1,062

100.0

14

2,097

100.0

16

Castings------------------ -------------------Chipping hammer________________
Dust particles--------- -------- ---------- - Electrical apparatus. _.................. .
Flasks, core plates, etc_____ ____ --Furnaces_________________________
Grinders_______ ____________ ____ _

149
11
39
6
108
28
82

10.3
.8
2.7
.4
7.4
1.9
5.7

17
5
4
22
16
13
5

91
20
16
5
41
21
68

9.0
2.0
1.6
.5
4.0
2.1
6.7

12
4
5
11
12
14
8

308
59
' 33
11
87
5
84

16.0
3.1
1.7
.6
4.5
.3
4.4

17
11
5
25
17
24
11

Hammer or sledge*. - ._................ ........
Hoisting apparatus. ......... .................
Ladle—hand..____ _______________
Machinery—other than grinders____
Metal stock_______________________
Molds________________ ___________
Nails, spikes, etc.................................

34
99
106
77
25
136
12

2.3
6.8
7.3
5.3
1.7
9.4
.8

12
20
22
13
20
17
8

17
41
88
73
21
116
8

1.7
4.0
8.7
7.2
2.1
11.4
.8

17
15
16
14
11
14
4

47
229
33
112
74
91
12

2.4
11.9
1.7
5.8
3.8
4.7
.6

16
24
14
18
21
14
11

Patterns....... ................................ —
Piles of materials............ ............... .
Radiations or radiating substances.-.
Shovel______ ______ ______________
Vehicles_____________ ____________
Working surfaces.............. ..................
Not elsewhere classified-....................
Unknown__________ _____ _________

9
26
3
16
105
76
304
72

.6
1.8
.2
1.1
7.2
5.2
21.1

34
20
5
20
22
15
16
16

2
12
3
21
70
62
218
48

.2
1.2
.3
2.1
6.9
6.1
21.4

30
9
8
15
20
17
15
11

15
15
41
14
104
127
425
171

.8
.8
2.1
.7
5.4
6.6
22.1

11
25
7
18
18
17
15
13

1 Percent of known cases.
* The agency is the object, substance, or exposure which is most closely associated with the injury and
which could have been properly guarded or corrected.




41
In the steel foundries, however, the five most prominent injuryproducing agencies formed a group very different from those of the
gray-iron and malleable-iron plants. In the steel foundries, castings
were involved in 16 percent of all the disabling injuries, a much higher
proportion than in either of the other types of plants. Hoisting
apparatus had a rather low percentage of the injuries in gray-iron and
malleable-iron foundries, but in the steel foundries this equipment was
involved in 11.9 percent of all the injuries. Defective working sur­
faces, accounting for 6.6 percent of the injuries, was the third most
important injury-producing agency in the steel foundries, followed
by machines (5.8 percent) and vehicles (5.4 percent).
Accident Types
* Struck by” Accidents
*

Nearly half of all the disabling injuries in the malleable-iron foun­
dries and over half of the disabilities in gray-iron and steel foundries
resulted from accidents in which workers were struck by moving, fall­
ing, or flying objects. (See table 12.)
Much of the work in foundries involves the handling of heavy
materials. The castings, flasks, core plates, molds, and metal stock
must frequently be shifted in the course of the work. They must be
moved from one point of operations to another, and they must fre­
quently be placed in piles or removed from piles. Hand trucks, power
trucks, hoists, cranes, and conveyers are used for much of this work,
but a great deal of the material moving must be done by hand. In
many plants, space is at a premium and much of the moving of mate­
rials must be accomplished under the severe handicap of crowded
work spaces. It is often necessary for the cranes to carry material
over the heads of workmen and to set them down in spaces where
there is little room for workers to stand clear. As a result of these
circumstances many foundrymen are injured by being struck by ma­
terials and equipment.
Somewhat different from the ordinary danger of being struck by
moving materials is the hazard of being struck by molten metal, which
may splash or spill from the ladles or molds. The injuries resulting
from contact with this material are generally very severe burns, rather
than cuts, bruises, or crushing injuries such as result from being struck
by other objects. All foundrymen who take molten metal from the
furnaces, transport it to the molds, or pour it into the molds, and all
others who work in the vicinity of such operations, face this hazard.
A failure properly to control the flow of the metal either in filling the
ladle or in pouring from the ladle may cause an overflow. Moisture
in the ladle or in the mold, or pent-up gases in the mold, may cause
the molten metal to spatter and fly about. Unsteady handling of the
ladle may cause some of the molten metal to splash or spill. Uneven
floors and material or equipment left in aisles or work spaces often
present tripping and bumping hazards which can easily result in spill­
ing the contents of the ladle. Over 6 percent of all the injuries in the
gray-iron and malleable-iron foundries resulted from workers’ being
struck by molten metal. It is pertinent to note, however, that acci­
dents of this type were much less common in the steel foundries, where
hand ladles are not widely used.




42
In grinding castings, great quantities of metal particles from the
material being ground and emery or carborundum particles from the
grinding wheel are thrown off from the point of operation. The high
speed of the wheel imparts a terrific velocity to these particles, and
they frequently fly considerable distances from the point of operation
endangering every one in the vicinity. Stationary grinders can gen­
erally be guarded by transparent shields and exhaust devices which
intercept most of the particles before they travel far. Only compara­
tively small castings, however, can be ground on such equipment.
For work on large castings, it is generally necessary to use portable
or swinging grinders, which are much more difficult to guard. The
chief danger from these particles is that they may strike and imbed
themselves in the eyes of the operator or nearby workers. About 4
percent of all the foundry accidents were of this type.
Chipping operations similarly throw off bits of metal which consti­
tute a very serious eye hazard. However, because the chips thrown
off are larger and the resulting injuries are generally more severe, there
is a tendency to be more careful in the use of goggles around chipping
operations than in grinding. In the gray-iron foundries “ struck by”
accidents arising from chipping operations were few—less than 1 per­
cent of the total volume of injuries. In the malleable-iron foundries,
however, the proportion amounted to 1.9 percent, and in steel foundries
it was 2.5 percent.
Slips (Not Falls) and Overexertion

Loose sand on working surfaces caused a majority of the reported
slipping accidents. Many of these cases occurred when the workers
were carrying materials or were attempting to push or pull heavy
objects into position. The number of slips which resulted in disabili­
ties was relatively small, however, in comparison with the number of
injuries arising from overexertion in lifting or moving materials or in
using tools and equipment. Overexertion was responsible for 18 per­
cent of the disabilities in gray-iron foundries, nearly 25 percent of the
disabilities in malleable-iron foundries, and about 13 percent of those
which occurred in steel foundries. Generally, these injuries resulted
from lifting excessive weights, lifting with the back instead of the legs,
lifting in cramped or awkward positions, or failure of lifting teams to
act in unison.
Caught In, On, or Between Objects

Accidents of the caught in, on, or between type accounted for about
7 percent of the disabling injuries in malleable-iron foundries, nearly
10 percent of the injuries in gray-iron foundries, and about 12 percent
of those in steel foimdries. The majority of these were crushing in­
juries— such as fingers and hands pinched between materials or caught
in the chains used in rigging crane loads; persons crushed between
crane loads and stationary objects or between vehicles and stationary
objects; and hands and fingers caught in unguarded gears, pulleys, or
other parts of moving machinery.
Striking Against

Accidents in which the injured person bumped into some stationary
object— such as machines, castings, molds, etc.— accounted for nearly




43
10 percent of the disabilities in each of the three types of foundries.
In many cases these accidents were the direct result of poor house­
keeping, which in turn could be traced to a lack of sufficient space for
the proper storage and placement of materials and equipment.
Falls

About 5 percent of all the disabilities were the results of falls. In
the gray-iron and malleable-iron foundries the great majority of these
cases were tripping accidents in which the injured person fell only to
the surface on which he was working. In the steel foundries, however,
falls from one elevation to another were nearly as numerous as falls
on the same level.
T able

12.— Disabling Injuries, Classified by Kind of Foundry and Accident Type, for
65 Foundries, 1942
Gray-iron foundries

Accident type

Malleable-iron
foundries

Number of
disabling
injuries

Aver­ Number of
age
disabling
days
injuries
lost
per
tempo­
rary
Num­ Per­ total Num­ Per­
ber cent 1 dis­
ber cent 1
ability

Steel foundries

Aver­ Number of
disabling
age
days
injuries
lost
per
tempo­
rary
Per­
total Num­ cent 1
ber
dis­
ability

Aver­
age
days
lost
per
tempo­
rary
total
dis­
ability

All types.............................................

1,523

100.0

16

1,062

100.0

14

2,097

100.0

16

Striking against....................... ..........
Grinders-.................................
Machinery, other than grinders.
Other objects...............................
Unknown objects........................

132
14
20
97
1

9.0
1.0
1.4
6.6

12
13
13
12
5

100
23
14
63
0

9.7
2.2
1.4
6.1

11
11
13
10
0

186
21
24
139
2

9.5
1.1
1.2
7.2

15
17
13
15
9

Struck b y ...........................................
Grinders— ...................................
Particles from point of oper­
ation...................................
Other parts......_....................
Hoisting apparatus......................
Hooks or slings......................
Other parts............................
Vehicles........................................
Hand tools— ..............................
Chipping hammer.................
Hammer or sledge......... .......
Ladle (including splashing
particles).............................
Other......................................
Flasks, core plates, etc................
Castings........................................
Dust particles.............................
Metal stock....................... ..........
Molds...........................................
Other objects..............................
Unknown objects.........................

770
68

52.5
4.6

16
3

481
39

46.7
3.8

14
7

991
62

50.9
3.2

17
9

67
1
59
43
16
49
177
9
32

4.5
.1
4.0
2.9
1.1
3.3
12.1
.6
2.2

3
8
23
26
16
24
19
5
13

34
5
24
17
7
35
128
20
10

3.3
.5
2.3
1.6
.7
3.4
12.4
1.9
1.0

7
6
13
13
15
25
14
4
15

59
3
140
115
25
53
210
49
45

3.0
.2
7.2
5.9
1.3
2.7
10.9
2.5
2.3

9
10
25
25
23
20
12
11
16

96
40
46
100
39
14
37
180
1

6.6
2.7
3.1
6.8
2.7
1.0
2.5
12.4

23
19
20
20
4
19
17
13
0

70
28
16
54
16
16
29
122
2

6.8
2.7
1.6
5.3
1.6
1.6
2.8
11.9

18
13
12
13
5
10
15
16
34

28
88
41
172
33
47
32
195
6

1.4
4.7
2.1
8.9
1.7
2.4
1.7
10.1

14
11
16
20
5
23
17
15
33

Caught in, on, or between.................
Machinery....................................
Hoisting apparatus......................
Hooks or slings......................
Other parts....... ....................
Vehicles........................................
Flasks, core plates, etc................
Castings........................................
Other objects................................

142
27
32
20
12
18
18
15
32

9.7
1.8
2.2
1.4
.8
1.2
1.2
1.0
2.3

17
19
14
15
12
25
16
12
14

75
30
15
9
6
6
5
3
16

7.3
2.8
1.5
.9
.6
.6
.5
.3
1.6

13
14
15
21
2
18
10
16
10

240
22
76
46
30
21
23
45
53

12.3
1.1
3.9
2.4
1.5
1.1
1.2
2.3
2.7

19
21
26
21
33
18
18
14
17

1Percent of known cases.




44
T able 12.—Disabling Injuries, Classified by Kind of Foundry and Accident Type, for

65 Foundries, 1942—Continued
Gray-iron foundries

Malleable-iron
foundries

Aver­ Number of
age
disabling
days
injuries
lost
per
tempo­
rary
Num­ Per­ total Num­ Per­
ber cent 1 dis­
ber cent 1
ability
Number of
disabling
injuries

Accident type

Steel foundries

Aver­ Number of
disabling
age
days
injuries
lost
per
tempo­
rary
Per­
total Num­ cent 1
ber
dis­
ability

Aver­
age
days
lost
per
tempo­
rary
total
dis­
ability

Falls— ...................... ............ ............
On same level— ..........................
From different level.....................

83
60
23

5.7
4.1
1.6

22
18
34

49
36
13

4.8
3.5
1.3

26
23
36

124
69
55

6.4
3.6
2.8

20
14
29

Slips (not falls) and overexertion.......
Lifting....................... ......... .........
Vehicles__________ ______ —
Flasks, core plates, etc ____
Castings____________ ____ —
Molds....... .............................
Using hand tools..........................
Slips on working surfaces...........
Other............................ ................
Circumstances u n k n o w n . ___

281
143
24
26
22
71
29
16
77
16

19.2
10.3
1.7
1.9
1.6
5.1
2.1
1.2
5.6

15
14
14
13
8
16
13
8
19
12

274
129
20
15
22
72
50
21
68
6

26.7
12.8
2.0
1.5
2.2
7.1
5.0
2.1
6.8

13
13
13
9
16
12
14
9
13
5

291
119
17
11
47
44
37
37
86
12

14.9
6.3
.9
.6
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.0
4.6

14
13
14
21
15
8
16
19
14
9

Contact with temperature extremes..
Inhalation, absorption, ingestion.......
Contact with electric current.............
Explosions— ....................................
Other...................................................

22
11
4
18
2
58

1.5
.8
.3
1.2
.1

21
6
27
28
31
18

14
17
2
14
1
35

1.4
1.7
.2
1.4
.1

10
8
15
14
27
11

25
53
9
20
9
149

1.3
2.7
.5
1.0
.5

16
7
27
19
11
12

TTnlrnnwn

_
_

_

_

1 Percent of known cases.

Other Types of Accidents

Two types of contact with temperature extremes— consisting pri­
marily of touching hot castings, and explosions in molds and pits when
water and molten metal came into contact— each produced slightly
over 1 percent of the reported injuries. Injuries resulting from the
inhalation, absorption, or ingestion of dusts (including silica), gases,
chemicals, and harmful light rays were very few in the gray-iron
foundries. In the malleable-iron foundries, however, they consti­
tuted 1.7 percent of all the reported disabilities; and in the steel found­
ries, 2.7 percent.
Accident Causes
It is generally recognized that every accident may be traced to the
existence of an unsafe working condition, to the commission of an
unsafe act by some individual, or to a combination of these accidentproducing factors. The correction of unsafe working conditions
generally is entirely within the powers of management. The avoid­
ance of unsafe acts, on the other hand, requires cooperation and under­
standing by both management and workers. Management must
take the lead, however, by providing safety-minded supervision and
by making sure that all workers are acquainted with the hazards of
their operations and are familiar with the means of overcoming those
hazards.




45
Over 90 percent of the foundry accidents which were analyzed in
this study were found to involve both an unsafe working condition
and an unsafe personal act. It is apparent, therefore, that any
successful foundry safety program must include measures designed
to eliminate both of these accident-producing factors.
UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS

Foundry operations undoubtedly present a wide variety of inherent
hazards, and the problem of achieving safe working conditions in
foundries may seem more difficult than in most other industries.
There are, however, obvious and well-known methods of overcoming
practically all foundry hazards, and the existence of unsafe working
conditions generally may be taken as an indication of slack super­
vision.
The great majority of the unsafe conditions revealed by the accident
analysis fell into five general categories. (See table 13.) Within
individual plants the relative importance of these categories of unsafe
conditions varied widely. It is apparent, however, that foundriej
generally should-^(1) Improve housekeeping conditions in and around all work­
places;
(2) Provide and require the use of adequate personal safety equip­
ment in all operations presenting hazards which such equipment can
overcome;
(3) Provide mechanical equipment or sufficient assistance when
heavy or bulky materials are to be lifted or moved;
(4) Regularly inspect all tools, material, and equipment for defects,
and immediately repair or replace all defective items; and
(5) Provide and require the use of proper guards for machinery
and equipment.
Hazardous Arrangements or Procedures

The importance of good housekeeping and of the closely allied
condition of safe plant lay-out as a means of avoiding accidents cannot
be overemphasized in any foundry safety program. Thirty percent
of all the foundry accidents for which full details were available were
directly related to poor housekeeping conditions or unsafe work lay­
out. In the gray-iron and steel foundries this group of unsafe condi­
tions outranked all others, and in the malleable-iron foundries it was
the third most important category of unsafe conditions.
Materials and equipment placed in irregular and unstable piles,
stored materials which encroached upon aisles and workplaces, loose
materials and equipment left in aisles and workplaces, and congestion
of materials in small spaces were outstanding among the poor house­
keeping conditions which led to accidents. Many workers were
struck by materials which fell from improperly built piles; others
bumped into the projecting comers of uneven or improperly placed
piles of materials; and still others slipped on loose sand on the floor or
tripped over tools, materials, vehicles, and debris lying in walkways
or workplaces. A not unusual example of the accidents included in
this group was described in a report covering an injury experienced
by a worker in the course of taking a coreplate from a pile. The




46
pile, which extended above his head, was composed of various sizes of
plates and at the time of the accident a small plate was on top. This
small plate, however, was pushed back and was not visible to him.
As the worker pulled off what he thought was the top plate, the small
plate slid from the pile and struck his head. In another instance
three flasks, weighing approximately 10 tons, had been piled on rails,
which were resting upon a large casting, bearing upon the cement
core of the casting which had not been removed. Vibrations from
an air drill caused the cement core to crumble and the flasks toppled
on the worker who was using the drill.
Lack of adequate plant space, arising from expanded wartime activi­
ties, was the source of many of the poor housekeeping conditions.
Similarly, lack of space was the underlying reason for many of the
unsafe conditions which were classified as hazardous procedures or
poor plant lay-out. The latter group primarily included such unsafe
conditions as the placement of workers in close proximity to one
another so that they interfered with each other’s movements, or to
the placement of operations so that the workers were exposed to the
danger of being struck by cranes, crane loads, or passing vehicles.
Lack of Personal Safety Equipment

Many foundry operations involve inherent hazards which cannot
be successfully eliminated or guarded at the point of operation, but
which can be overcome through the use of proper personal safety
equipment. In these circumstances the use of such equipment is
recognized as an essential condition for the safe performance of the
work, and its absence constitutes an unsafe working condition.
About 1 in every 4 of the disabling injuries in the gray-iron and mal­
leable-iron foundries, and 1 in every 6 in the steel foundries, resulted
from unsafe working conditions of this type.
The most common unsafe condition in this group was the lack of
goggles in the performance of work which presented obvious eye
hazards, such as grinding, chipping, or handling molten metal. There
were, however, many instances of unsafe conditions which involved a
lack of other types of safety equipment, such as handling hot materials
without gloves, handling molten metal without leggings or molder’s
shoes, handling acid or alkaline chemicals without gloves or other
protective clothing, and other operations performed without specifi­
cally prescribed safety equipment.
Unsafe Lifting Conditions

In this category of unsafe working conditions are included accidents
resulting from manual lifting of objects which should have been lifted
mechanically, from individuals lifting objects which should have been
lifted by a team, and from the lifting of objects in cramped or crowded
uarters which should have been cleared before the operation started,
n a few instances there was some question whether the injury might
not have occurred because of (a) improper lifting procedure rather than
because of (b) lifting excessive weight. When this question could not be
specifically answered, the case was included as an unsafe lifting
condition (b).

J




47
MAJOR TYPES OF UNSAFE WORKING
CONDITIONS IN FOUNDRIES
1942
PERCENT OF ALL DISABLING INJURIES
10
20
30

---------,---------------r—

DEFECTIVE
AGENCIES

' //////////A

UNSAFE
LIFTING

LACK OF
SAFETY
EQUIPMENT

HAZARDOUS
ARRANGEMENT
OR PROCEDURE
I GRAY-IRON
I FOUNDRIES

MALLEABLE-IRON
FOUNDRIES

1222

STEEL FOUNDRIES

UNITED S TATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR S TA TIS TIC S

Unsafe lifting conditions constituted a much more prominent source
of accidents in the malleable-iron foundries than in either the grayiron or steel foundry groups. Comparatively, these unsafe conditions
were involved in 1 out of every 3 of the malleable-iron foundry injuries
for which details were available, slightly less than 1 in every 4 of the
gray-iron foundry injuries, and 1 in every 8 of the steel foundry injuries.
Unsafe conditions of this type are due primarily to inadequate
supervision. In all work that involves lifting, the immediate super­
visor can be required to see that proper space is provided for the
operation and that adequate teams or proper mechanical lifting
equipment are available.
Defective Agencies

The general need for more adequate inspection and immediate
repair or replacement of imperfect equipment, tools, and materials was
strongly indicated by the fact that over 10 percent of the analyzed




48
accidents in each of the three foundry groups involved defective
material or equipment.
Defective hand tools, such as shovels with loose or split handles,
hammers with loose heads, and chipping hammers with loose chisels
were particularly common sources of injury which could have been
eliminated very readily through regular tool inspection and repair.
Uneven or broken flooring resulted in many slips and falls and caused
many wheelbarrows and hand trucks to tilt and spill their contents.
These conditions are particularly dangerous in foundries, since the
workers frequently carry heavy materials or molten metal which can
inflict severe injuries if they are dropped or spilled as a result of a slip
or fall. Such hazards generally are quite obvious and are seldom
difficult to repair. Their continued existence is very definitely an
indication of slack supervision.
Other defective agencies, which caused fewer but nevertheless
substantial numbers of accidents, included defective molds which
broke in pouring, defective chains, cables, and sheaves which caused
crane loads to spill on workers, defective ladders and scaffolds which
caused serious falls, and defective electrical equipment and wiring
which caused electric shocks and bums. Nearly afl of these unsafe
conditions were such that they should have been noticed in the course
of a normal inspection. The fact that they were permitted to exist
until they caused accidents indicates that adequate inspections were
not made.
Unguarded Agencies

About 7 percent of the injuries in the gray-iron and malleable-iron
foundries and over 8 percent of those in the steel foundries were di­
rectly related to the absence of needed guards. Considerable numbers
of these were due to the lack of guardrails around openings or at the
edge of elevated walkways or working surfaces. The majority,
however, were cases of unguarded machines or mechanical equipment.
Stationary grinders, power saws, jointers, punch presses, drill
presses, and sanders were frequently listed as causing injuries because
there were no guards at the point of operation. Open gears, open
belts, and unfenced conveyers also were responsible for a number of
injuries. Inadequate guards, which by their presence instilled a false
sense of security, contributed to the occurrence of many injuries.
In this connection it should be emphasized that machine guards are
sometimes designed merely to meet minimum State requirements or
for appearance to promote the sale of the machines, without regard
for the extra protection which could be incorporated into the design
at slight additional cost.
UNSAFE PERSONAL ACTS

For the purpose of accident analysis an unsafe act is defined as “ a
violation of a commonly accepted safe procedure.” 1 Literally, this
0
definition means that no personal action shall be designated as unsafe
unless there was a reasonable and less-hazardous alternative method of
procedure. There is, however, no implication that the alternative
safe procedure must have been known to the person who acted in an
American Recommended Practice for Compiling Industrial Accident Causes, approved by the American
Standards Association, August l t 1941.




49
T able 13.—Disabling Injuries, Classified by Kind of Foundry and Unsafe Working

Condition, for 59 Foundries, 1942
Gray-iron foundries

Malleable-iron
foundries

Aver­ Number of
disabling in­
age
days
juries
lost
per
tem­
po­
rary
Num­ Per­
Per­
total Num­ cent 1
cent 1 dis­
ber
ber
abil­
ity
Number of
disabling in­
juries

Unsafe working condition

Steel foundries

Aver­ Number of
age
disabling in­
days
juries
lost
per
tem­
po­
rary
total Num­ Per­
ber cent 1
dis­
abil­
ity

Aver­
age
days
lost
per
tem­
po­
rary
total
dis­
abil­
ity

Total...................................................

1,474

100.0

16

955

100.0

14

1,694

100.0

16

Improperly guarded...........................
Grinders..------ ------------- ---------Machinery, other than grinders..
Other.............................................

62
13
26
23

7.4
1.5
3.2
2.7

21
13
23
24

43
11
25
7

7.2
1.8
4.2
1.2

15
11
18
13

84
12
32
40

8.5
1.2
3.2
4.1

18
19
14
21

Defective....... .....................................
Hand tools........... .............. .........
Molds_____ — ....... - .............. Working surfaces......... ................
Other----------- -----------------------—

85
16
11
12
46

10.1
1.9
1.3
1.4
5.5

18
20
27
10
17

68
17
10
8
33

11.4
2.8
1.7
1.3
5.6

12
10
19
12
11

136
17
7
18
94

13.7
1.7
.7
1.8
9.5

20
18
25
27
19

Hazardous arrangement or procedure.
Unsafely stored or piled...........
Castings..... ............ .............Flasks, core plates, etc...........
Hand tools..................... ........
Loose materials (sand, etc.)-Vehicles..................................
Other________ ______ ______
Congestion of working surfaces...
Exposure to hoisting apparatus..
Exposure to vehicles..................
Other............................ - .............-

234
101
15
12
13
12
9
40
15
39
16
63

27.7
12.0
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.1
4.8
1.8
4.6
1.9
7.4

23
20
20
13
27
23
25
18
23
23
53
22

130
76
11
6
2
8
7
42
10
16
4
24 '

21.7
12.6
1.8
1.0
.3
1.3
1.2
7.0
1.7
2.7
.7
4.0

17
17
7
20
8
10
37
18
9
19
18
19

389
188
53
15
4
6
13
97
15
82
22
82

39.0
18.9
5.3
1.5
.4
.6
1.3
9.8
1.5
8.2
2.2
8.2

19
16
17
20
6
40
12
14
28
25
22
18

215
66
64

25.5
7.8
7.6

13
3
3

148
33
21

24.7
5.5
3.5

12
3
4

163
49
35

16.4
4.9
3.5

80
4
4

2

.2

2

12

2.0

3

14

1.4

3

73

8.7

23

53

8.8

17

16

1.6

14

13
5
58

1.5
.6
6.9

15
3
11

16
5
41

2.7
.8
6.9

16
12
11

5
2
91

.5
.2
9.2

10
4
9

Unsafe lifting.....................................
Castings................. ......................
Flasks, core plates, etc.................
Molds...........................................
Vehicles........................................
Other.............................................

192
17
22
59
16
78

22.8
2.0
2.6
7.0
1.9
9.3

15
9
10
15
11
19

193
18
14
65
16
80

32.3
3.0
2.3
10.9
2.7
13.4

12
18
8
11
11
12

124
32
8
22
4
58

12.5
3.2
.8
2.2
.4
5.9

14
12
10
11
35
15

Other................. ................................
No unsafe condition...........................
Unknown............................................

7
48
631

.8
5.7

7
19
15

1
15
357

.2
2.5

8
10
15

9
89
700

.9
9.0

8
17
15

Lack of proper personal safety equip­
ment................................................
Lack of goggles------ ----------------While using grinding wheels.
While using chipping ham­
mer------- -----------------------Lack of proper personal safety
equipment while pouring or
carrying hot metal....................
Lack of proper personal safety
equipment while working on
mold to prevent—
Burns....................................
Other injuries........................
Other.......................................... .

1 Percent of known cases.

unsafe manner, nor that his unsafe act was the result of a considered
choice between the two possible procedures. In many instances,
such as that of the grinder who elects to do a small grinding job without
his goggles rather than take the time to go get them from his locker,




50
it is apparent that the worker knew the safe procedure but consciously
decided not to follow it. In a great many other instances, however,
it is apparent from the circumstances that the person who acted un­
safely did so not a£ a matter of choice, but simply because he did not
know an alternative safe method. Strict safety-minded supervision
is essential to eliminate this type of unsafe act. Thorough safety
training for both workers and supei visors can do much to abolish
unsafe acts which are committed unknowingly.
The great majority of the accidents analyzed in each of the three
types of foundries involved one of four general groups of unsafe acts:
(1) Using unsafe equipment or using equipment unsafely; (2) taking
an unsafe position or posture; (3) failure to use safe attire or personal
safety equipment; and (4) unsafe lifting. Together these four groups
of unsafe acts contributed to 93 percent of the accidents for which
details were available in the malleable-iron foundries, 87 percent of the
gray-iron foundry accidents, and 83 percent of the steel foundry
accidents. The fundamental approach to the elimination of unsafe
personal acts in foundries, therefore, must stress measures to—
(1) Provide training in the safe methods of handling and using tools,
materials, and equipment, and enforce the use of those methods
through close supervision;
(2) Train both workers and supervisors to recognize and to avoid
unsafe positions:
(3) Make sure that both workers and supervisors understand and can
recognize the circumstances in which different kinds of safety equip­
ment are necessary, and that the supervisors require the use of such
equipment in those circumstances; and
(4) Provide thorough instruction in the proper methods of lifting
heavy objects, particularly in the proper method of lifting with the
legs instead of the back, and have the supervisors continue to empha­
size such instructions during actual operations
Use of Unsafe Equipment or Unsafe Use of Equipment

The unsafe acts of this general group were factors in the occurrence of
over 28 percent of the steel foundry injuries and of about 23 percent of
the gray-iron and malleable-iron foundry accidents. The outstanding
type of unsafe act in this group was the simple one of taking an incor­
rect hold or not maintaining a good grip upon objects being handled.
Specifically, these included many cases in which materials or tools
slipped from the workers hands because there was oil or grease on the
material or on his hands; or because the worker grasped the material
at a sharp or rough spot which caused him to release his grip; or simply
because the material or tool was not held firmly enough to control its
movements. Particularly dangerous was the practice of using hands
or feet to guide suspended crane loads into position or to adjust the
chains holding the loads instead of using taglines or poles. Pinched
and crushed fingers or feet vrere the most common injuries resulting
from these practices.
Lack of skill and the lack of a full realization of the hazards involved
in handling heavy materials undoubtedly had much to do with the
occurrence of these accidents. Wider use of safety shoes would greatly




51
reduce the resulting volume of foot and toe injuries. The elimination
of the unsafe acts and the prevention of the actual accidents, however,
can be achieved only by thorough training in safe procedures and close
supervision of individual operations by safety-conscious supervisors.
Unsafe Position or Posture

In 23 percent of the steel foundry accidents, 13 percent of the grayiron foundry accidents, and 10 percent of the malleable-iron foundry
accidents, it was found that the injured person had unnecessarily
placed himself in an unsafe position or posture. (See table 14.)
Most prominent of the specific unsafe acts in this general group
was that of unnecessarily working or standing under or in the path of
cranes, hoists, and suspended loads.
Other unsafe acts in this group
included working, standing, or walking in front of moving vehicles;
unnecessarily working or walking too close to other workers who were
performing hazardous operations such as carrying or pouring molten
metal; walking, standing, or working on beams, girders, piled mate­
rials, or makeshift scaffolds, instead of using proper ladders or scaf­
folds; taking shortcuts instead of using the provided walkways;
and working in cramped positions. Most of these practices can be
overcome through intensified safety instruction and better supervision.
Failure to Wear Safe Attire or Personal Safety Equipment

About 30 percent of the gray-iron foundry accidents, 28 percent of
the malleable-iron foundry accidents, and 20 percent of the steel
foundry accidents were directly associated with the failure to wear
safe clothing or proper personal safety equipment.
The cases involving failure to wear safe clothing included workers
who wore loose clothing which caught on projections or was caught in
machines or in sling chains; workers who wore cuffed or frayed trousers,
which tripped them; and workers who wore shoes with worn soles
which permitted puncture wounds and burned feet. In the aggre­
gate, however, the failure to wear safe clothing was of much less impor­
tance than was the failure to use proper personal safety equipment.
Primarily, the cases of failure to wear proper personal safety equip­
ment consisted of the failure to use goggles while grinding, chipping,
sandblasting, or handling chemicals or molten metal; to wear gloves,
leggings, and molder's shoes while pouring molten metal; and to wear
gloves while handling hot molds or castings. In all of the analyzed
cases included in this category the necessary safety equipment was
available on the premises, but for one reason or another was not being
used.
It is obvious from these data that the plant which simply provides
the various necessary items of personal safety equipment and invites
the employees to use them has only partially solved the problem of
overcoming the hazards which this equipment can guard against,
nor does the issuance of shop rules requiring its use accomplish the
purpose unless those rules are strictly enforced. The two most
common excuses for not using the provided safety equipment were
that it was uncomfortable and that it hampered the user's activities.




52
MAJOR TYPES OF UNSAFE ACTS
IN FOUNDRIES
1942
40

USING UNSAFE
EQUIPMENT OR
EQUIPMENT
UNSAFELY

FAILURE TO USE
SAFE ATTIRE OR
PERSONAL SAFETY
DEVICES
I GRAY-IRON
I FOUNDRIES

MALLEABLE-IRON
FOUNDRIES

EZ3 STEEL FOUNDRIES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP LABOR
BUREAU OP LABOR S TA TIS TIC S

Particularly in respect to the use of goggles considerable objection was
raised because of the tendency of goggles to “ fog” when the wearers
were working with hot metal. This condition, however, can generally
be overcome easily through the application of “ anti-fog” chemicals
to the goggles. These chemicals are available commercially in a
variety of forms. In other cases, the excuse was that the safety equip­
ment was not conveniently at hand and the workers felt that it was not
worth the time and effort to go get it. In still other instances it was
apparent that the employee did not realize his need for the equipment.
A common example of the latter group of cases was that of the laborers
who move material into and out of grinding rooms or sandblast rooms
without wearing goggles. Many of these workers failed to appreciate
the fact that every one who approaches such operations is exposed to
flying particles just as are the actual operators.
When both supervisors and workmen have been fully instructed in
the need for safety equipment, and the equipment is available, there




53
can be no question as to their joint responsibility for any injuries
which occur because the equipment was not used. Management,
however, can establish and maintain a definite program concerning
the use of safety equipment. Such a program should include, as a
minimum, the following measures:
(1) Maintenance at convenient locations of an adequate supply of
safety equipment which has been selected with due consideration not
only for its effectiveness but also for the ease and comfort of the
worker who must wear it;
(2) Maintenance of every piece of safety equipment in good con­
dition and making sure that it is properly fitted to the wearer;
(3) Making sure that all supervisors and workmen are fully ac­
quainted with the hazards which require the use of safety equipment
and that they are familiar with the type of equipment needed in
each instance; and
(4) Establishment of rules requiring the use of safety equipment
where it is necessary and requiring supervisors to prohibit the per­
formance of hazardous operations unless the proper safety equipment
is used.
Unsafe Lifting

Injuries resulting from manual lifting of heavy objects present a
serious problem in foundries. In essence, every accident of this type
is a case of lifting excessive weight—that is, excessive under the
existing circumstances for the individual involved. Variations in the
strength and skill of different individuals, however, make the determi­
nation of what is a safe maximum weight to be lifted by one person
very difficult if not impossible. There can be no question, however,
that a knowledge of and the strict application of proper lifting pro­
cedure— e. g., lifting with the legs instead of with the back—will
render safe the handling of much greater weights than can be safely
lifted by the hit-or-miss method of grabbing and jerking. In classi­
fying the lifting accidents, an effort was made to exclude from this
unsafe-act classification those cases in which individuals attempted
to lift weights which obviously should have been handled mechanically
or by a team. As far as possible, the cases included represent injuries
which resulted from lifting weights generally handled by individual
foundrymen and normally considered to be within the lifting ability
of most workers. These cases represented 31 percent of the accidents
analyzed in the malleable-iron foundries, 20 percent of those in the
gray-iron foundries, and 11 percent of the steel-foundry accidents.
It is frequently impossible to specify exactly what was done incor­
rectly in certain lifting accidents. In most cases the injured person
can report only that he was lifting and suddenly felt pain, and only
rarely is there a witness who was observing the operation with suffi­
cient care to identify accurately the specific faulty procedure. It is
well known, however, that strains, sprains, and hernias frequently
result from lifting with the back muscles instead of the leg muscles,
from lifting in cramped or awkward positions, or from lifting while
standing on irregular or insecure^ surfaces. Most of the accidents in
this group undoubtedly resulted from one or the other of these unsafe
procedures.




54
T able 14.—Disabling Injuries, Classified by Kind of Foundry and Unsafe Act, for

59 Foundries, 1942
Gray-iron foundries

Unsafe act

Number of
disabling
injuries

Aver­ Number of
disabling
age
days
injuries
lost
per
tem­
Num­ Per­ porary Num­ Per­
total
ber cent 1 disa­
ber
cent 1
bility

i Percent of known cases.




Steel foundries

Aver­ Number of
disabling
age
days
injuries
lost
per
tem­
porary Num­ Per­
total
ber cent 1
disa­
bility

Aver­
age
days
lost
per
tem­
porary
total
disa­
bility

100.0

16

955

100.0

14

1,694

100.0

16

14
11

1.5
1.2

40
9

1
5

.2
.8

18
6

24
27

2.2
2.5

25
21

217
10
12
13

22.9
1.1
1.3
1.4

15
8
13
21

148
5
5
1

23.4
.8
.8
.2

16
10
20
2

307
7
5
11

28.4
.6
.5
1.0

16
13
18
17

172
51
18
27

18.0
5.2
1.9
2.9

15
19
18
16

133
23
14
28

21.0
3.6
2.2
4.4

16
11
13
13

268
66
26
58

24.8
6.1
2.4
5.4

16
19
12
14

6
10
10
50
10
29
10
19
129
46
36
10
10
73

.6
1.1
1.1
5.2
1.1
3.1
1.1
2.0
13.6
4.9
3.8
1.1
1.1
7.6

3
8
8
12
17
23
21
24
27
27
30
17
66
21

9
5
3
51
4
20
6
14
68
22
17
5
2
44

1.4
.8
.5
8.1
.6
3.2
.9
2.3
10.8
3.5
2.7
.8
.3
7.0

16
23
18
19
24
20
21
20
19
11
12
8
36
23

31
13
5
69
16
73
32
41
248
109
94
15
21
118

2.9
1.2
.5
6.3
1.5
6.8
3.0
3.8
23.0
10.1
8.7
1.4
1.9
11.0

16
19
22
14
15
19
19
18
22
22
22
19
24
22

Total.................................................... 1,474
Operating without authority; failure
to secure or warn-----------------------Running, jumping, or throwing------Using unsafe equipment or equipment unsafely---------------------------Using defective equipment..........
Unsafe use of equipment_______
Using hands instead of hand tools.
Gripping objects insecurely or
taking wrong hold of objects...
Castings____________ ______
Flasks, core plates, etc..........
Hand tools________________
Hoisting apparatus (includ­
ing slings)...........................
Molds.....................................
.Vehicles..................................
Other......................................
Other...........................................
Unsafe loading or placing...................
Castings.................... ...................
Other.......... .......... ......... .............
Taking unsafe position or posture___
Exposure to hoisting apparatus..
Sling or hook______________
Other parts....... ........... .........
Exposure to vehicles....................
Other.......................... ..................
Working on moving or dangerous
equipment______________________
Failure to use safe attire or personal
safety devices........ ..........................
Failure to use goggles...................
While grinding......................
While chipping____________
Failure to use safe attire or per­
sonal safety devices while
carrying or pouring molten
metal.......... .............................
Failure to use safe attire or per­
sonal safety devices while
handling molds to prevent—
Bums.....................................
Other injuries.........................
Other.............................................
Lifting.................................................
Castings.....................................
Flasks, core plates, etc.................
Hand tools...................................
M olds......................................... .
Vehicles........................................
Other..... .......................................
No unsafe a c t....................................
Not elsewhere classified......................
Unknown.______ _________________

Malleable-iron
foundries

11

1.2

32

2

.3

20

14

1.3

18

285
68
65
3

30.1
7.2
6.9
.3

16
29
29
3

177
33
21
12

28.0
5.2
3.3
1.9

12
3
4
3

224
49
35
14

20.7
4.5
3.2
1.3

10
4
4
3

83

8.8

24

57

9.0

16

19

1.8

15

21
6
107
197
17
22
17
61
17
63
31
22
528

2.2
.6
11.3
20.8
1.8
2.3
1.8
6.4
1.8
6.7
3.3
2.3

20
11
17
16
9
10
15
16
15
21
17
19
14

25
5
57
199
18
14
31
65
16
55
8
4
323

4.0
.8
9.0
31.4
2.8
2.2
4.9
10.3
2.5
8.7
1.3
.6

16
12
11
12
18
8
13
11
11
12
4
15
14

13
3
140
126
31
8
13
23
5
46
29
8
614

1.2
.3
12.9
11.7
2.9
.7
1.2
2.1
.5
4.3
2.7
.7

22
4
10
14
11
10
22
11
29
13
12
23
15

55
The complete elimination of manual lifting, which would avoid all
accidents of this type, is an impossible goal. Many foundries, how­
ever, could do much to reduce the volume of lifting accidents by
extending the use of mechanical handling .equipment and by giving
all employees thorough training in the safe methods of manual lifting.
Safety Codes and Safety Services
Foundry managements which desire to inaugurate safety activities
or to improve those existing within their plants will find that there is
available for this industry a very considerable volume of accident
data and safety information. This helpful information is available
from both private and governmental agencies.
PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS

At least 10 trade associations and 1 professional association are
active in the foundry industry, representing a combined membership
of about 1,100 companies in the trade associations and about 3,500
individuals in the professional association. The trade associations
from time to time distribute safety information to their members, but
as a rule are not engaged in any continuing safety programs. The
professional association, the American Foundrymen’s Association, on
the other hand has a permanent committee to consider safety and
hygiene problems and has developed a comprehensive safety code for
foundry operations entitled “ Recommended Good Safety Practices
for the Protection of Workers in Foundries.” Other related publica­
tions of this association include the following: Code of Recommended
Good Practices for Testing and Measuring Air Flow in Exhaust
Systems; Code and Handbook on the Fundamentals of Design,
Construction, Operations, and Maintenance of Exhaust Systems;
Code of Recommended Practices for Grinding, Polishing, and Buffing
Equipment Sanitation; and Code of Recommended Good Practices
for Metal Cleaning Sanitation.
In the National Safety Council the study and dissemination of
information concerning safety in foundries constitutes an important
part of the work of the metals section. Many foundry safety problems
and their solutions are covered in the publications of the council,
particularly in its “ Safe Practices” pamphlets.
Several safety codes which apply directly to foundry operations
have been developed under the auspices of the American Standards
Association and have been issued with the approval of the Association
as “ American Standards.” The most pertinent of these codes is the
Safety Code for Industrial Workers in Foundries, approved by the
association in 1932. Some of the other codes approved by the associa­
tion which are applicable to particular phases of foundry operations
are Safety Code for Floor and Wall Openings, Railings, and Toe
Boards; Safety Code for Elevators, Dumb-waiters, and Escalators;
Safety Code for the Use, Care, and Protection of Abrasive Wheels;
National Electrical Safety Code; Safety Code for Woodworking
Plants; and Protection of Heads, Eyes, and Respiratory Organs.




56
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES

A number of the industrial States have established safety codes for
foundries and have provided for plant inspections for the enforcement
of the code requirements*. The majority of these are special codes
prepared by the individual States, so that there is considerable ‘varia­
tion among them. Other States which do not have specific foundry
codes frequently have incorporated references to foundries into their
laws or regulations relating to industrial sanitation or to the employ­
ment of women and children. Because the State safety requirements
are regulatory provisions, they should generally be considered as
absolute minima rather than as constituting the basis of a fully
satisfactory safety program. In most instances, however, the State
inspection services are in a position to provide safety advice and
assistance beyond the scope of the legal requirements.
In the Federal Government, statistical data concerning the occur­
rence of disabling injuries are regularly compiled and published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. These data furnish a basis with which
individual foundries may compare their own records to determine
whether their accident rates are better or worse than the average for
all foundries.
Also in the United States Department of Labor, the Division of
Labor Standards cooperates with the States and with private associa­
tions in the development of new safety standards, and through the
Committee for the Conservation of Manpower in War Industries offers
free consultative service on safety matters to any plant which requests
such service. Both the Division of Labor Standards and the Bureau
of Labor Statistics regularly participate in the safety-code activities
of the American Standards Association.1
1
In the United States Department of Commerce, the National
Bureau of Standards conducts extensive research in the field of safety,
and has played a leading part in the development of a number of
recommended codes of safe practice which are directly applicable to
foundry operations. Valuable information may also be secured from
the United States Public Health Service, which conducts many studies
in the field of industrial hygiene, particularly in respect to the methods
of overcoming unsafe operating conditions that may produce derma­
titis or other types of industrial disease.
Causes and Prevention of Typical Foundry Accidents
To illustrate the general types of accidents experienced in foundry
work, brief accounts of a number of typical cases were secured and
were given individual consideration. The descriptions of these
1 A more detailed account of the safety activities of the Department of Labor will be given in Industrial
1
Safety Services of the U. S. Department of Labor, a forthcoming bulletin of the U. S. Department of
Labor.




57
accidents, accompanied by suggestions as to the preventative measures
which might have avoided these accidents, are given below.
DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENTS AND SUGGESTED METHODS OF PREVENTION

1
2

Cleaning, Chipping, and Finishing Accidents
1. Worker was greasing the tumbling mill but had not shut off the machinery.
His jumper caught on the jackshaft coupling, pulling him between the revolving
jackshaft and the tumbling mill. Fatal.
(a) A ll shafting and couplings within 7 feet of the floor should be enclosed.
(b) Tumbling mills should be fenced with gates so interlocked with the controls
that access can be had only when power is off.
(c) Greasing should not be permitted while the machine is in operation

.

2. Laborer was moving castings away from a sprue-cutting machine. He
stepped on a piece of sprue, turning his ankle, and dropped a heavy casting on his
foot. Fractured three toes.
(a) Good housekeeping around machines is essential to safety. Scrap should
not be allowed to be on the floor.
(b) A ll workers who handle heavy materials should wear safety shoes.

3. A chipper was working without goggles.
of eye.

A chip struck his eye.

Lost sight

All chippers should be provided with and required to use proper impact
goggles.

4. As a chipper turned a casting it struck a chisel, which whirled up and smashed
his safety goggles, destroying his eye.
This accident almost certainly would have resulted in a fatality i f the chipper
had not been wearing goggles. Good tool housekeeping would have prevented
the accident.

5. A new emery wheel (20 by 3 inches) fragmented, shearing five half-inch
bolts which held the guard, and caused the guard to swing back and strike the
operator's head. Fatal.
This appears to have been a case o f inadequate flanges and too much space
between the wheel and guard. Overspeed may have been a factor.

6. Operator was grinding a piece of gray iron, cylindrical in shape, 6 inches in
diameter, and 14 inches long. He forced the piece into the 3-inch face of the
emery w
rheel and jammed the wdieel, which broke and kicked the piece back into
his abdomen. Guards prevented broken pieces of the wheel from flying around.
Fatal.
A properly mounted wheel of this type with a properly designed and correctly
placed work rest will not break except from a blow nor will it kick back.

,

7. Worker was grinding a casting when the emery wheel broke.
for the break is knowrn. Fatal.

No reason

Wheel breakages can be almost wholly eliminated by careful selection of
wheels correct mounting, and correct use. Safety flanges and provision of the
proper type o f hoods will greatly reduce the chance of injury should the wheel
break. See the American Standard Safety Code for the Use Care and Protec
tion o f Abrasive Wheels.

,

,

,

-

8. Operator of cutter was removing shavings from rear of cutter when his glove
was caught by one of the blades and his finger was pulled between the blade and
bearing. Thumb amputated.
(a) Gloves should not be worn when there is any chance of getting them caught
in moving machinery.
(b) The cutter should have been guarded.
1 In the analysis of these accidents, selected as typical of those reported, the authors had the assistance of
2
R. P. Blake, senior safety engineer of the Division of Labor Standards, U. S. Department of Labor.




58
Conveyor Accidents
9. Employee was handling baked aviation cylinder head cores on a gravity
conveyor. One fell off onto, his foot. Broken toe; lost 29 days.
(a) Safety shoes should he worn by all workers who handle heavy materials.
(b) In most cases the chance of articles falling from such conveyors can he

,

,

lessened hy the use of guard or guide rails aprons or harriers.

10. A finisher was caught between squeeze head and flask on the flask-return
conveyor. Fatal.
Safe clearance should he maintained between all moving parts o f conveyors or
conveyor loads and fixed objects. Where this is impractical harriers should he
provided to prevent entrance into the danger zone.

,

11. Worker was removing sand from conveyor belt at the pulley while it was
in motion. His arm was caught between the belt and the pulley. Lost 2 weeks.
Belt-conveyor pulleys should he guarded to slightly more than arm’s length
from the nip point.

12. Employee climbed on guard rail to release material caught in belt con­
veyor. He overreached, lost his balance, and thrust his arm between the moving
conveyor and the housing. Torn muscles resulted in the loss of use of his hand.
The rule that no adjustments or repairs to powered equipment shall he made
without first cutting off the power should he universally understood and enforced.

Core-Room Accidents
13. A core maker stepped upon a core wire which punctured his shoe and
entered his foot. Lost 3 days.
(a) All foundrymen should wear substantial shoes and should he sure that the
soles are in good condition.
(b) Loose materials and scrap should not he permitted to lie about the work­
place.

14. Core laborer was lighting core oven with kerosene.
causing burns. Fatal.

Fumes exploded,

A safe procedure for lighting should be worked out for each oven and followed
without variation.

15. Employee was lighting gas core oven. Evidently the oven was filled with
gas and exploded when he weift to light it. Fatal.
All gas ovens should he thoroughly purged before being lighted. Small ovens
not equipped for mechanical purging should he designed so that the doors must
he open before the burners can be lighted. The doors should he open at least 5
minutes before the burners are lighted.

Crane, Elevator, and Hoist Accidents
16. Repairman working on crane rail repair was crushed against building col­
umn when crane was moved. Repairman depended on men stationed on floor
to signal crane operator instead of using rail stops. Crane operator obeyed signal
from an unauthorized man on floor. Fatal.
(a) When runways are being repaired rail stops and warning signs should he

,

placed on both sides of the section being worked on.
(b) The operator should recognize signals only from the person who is super­
vising the lift or an authorized signalman.
A n accident of this nature is indicative o f poor training or poor supervision or
a combination of these faults.

,

,

17. While repairing a crane, a maintenance man caught his hand between
trolley wheel and bumper. Middle finger amputated.
(a) When repairs are being made to rail or bumper raily stops and warning
signs should be used to prevent the trolley from reaching the area of the work.
(b) When work is being done on the trolley the controllers should be in the
“ off” position and the main and emergency switches should be opened. One of
these should be locked open. Signs warning of men working should be placed
on these switches and removed only by the man placing them.
Repair and maintenance work on this type of equipment is highly hazardous.
Accidents can be prevented only by carefully planning and organizing the work




,

,

59
and by providing all practicable physical safeguards. Thorough training and
close supervision of the workmen involved'are essential for safety.

18. Maintenance man was standing on a beam which supports the elevator
track, while oiling a sheave bearing on a skip hoist. Another employee started
the elevator and the maintenance man's hand was caught between the pulley
and cable. The result was permanent impairment of all fingers on his left hand.
Elevator controls should have been locked or in charge of another person spe­
cifically assigned to protect the maintenance man and subject to no one else’s
order for the duration of the job.

19. Craneman was oiling the trolley.
Fatal.

He slipped and fell 20 feet to the floor.

,

,

Every crane should be equipped with railed runways platforms handholds
etc., to give safe access to all parts requiring oiling or other frequent attention.

,

20. A molder's finger was crushed between the ladle and rack when the crane­
man misunderstood the molder's signal and set the ladle down on his hand. Lost
half of middle finger.

,

Standard signals should be used and only those persons who have been thor­
oughly trained in giving signals should be permitted to direct the crane operation.

21. A workman was standing on a grab bucket holding the cable with his left
hand while he placed the crane hook in the lifting hook of the bucket. The
craneman lifted on a signal from another employee and the first worker's finger
was crushed between the crane cable and the sheave wheel. Lost one finger.
r
(a) A craneman should recognize signals only from the person who is super­
vising the lift or an authorized signalman.
(b) The signalman should see that everyone is in the clear before ordering any
movement of the crane. Thorough training of the personnel involved is essential.

22. Laborer was electrocuted when he attempted to replace a blown fuse on
an overhead crane.
(a) Electrical repair work should be done only by competent electricians.
(b) Only the safety type of switch should be used on cranes. This type of

,

switch must be opened to give access to the fu se thus killing that portion of the
circuit.

23. Chain on crane broke and dropped heavy mold on right hand.
amputated.

Right hand

,

Chain breakage is almost wholly preventable by systematic inspection careful
maintenance and effective supervision as to the proper use of chains.

,

24. Injured was turning a magnet holding seven scrap freight-car wheels.
Two wheels dropped, one striking his foot. Entire loss of great toe.
Since lifting by magnet always involves a considerable hazard of dropping
part (or all) of the load magnet-held loads should always be guided or turned by
guide poles or lines never by hand.

,

,

25. While a molder was bending and working over his mold, another mold was
being raised by the crane. His fellow-workers called to him not to raise his head.
Not understanding them, he raised his head, bumping it on the flask which was
being carried by the crane. Died of blood clot under the skull.
Making lifts in such close quarters is highly hazardous. The crane operator
should not have made the lift until everyone was in the clear. Safe procedures
should be worked out fully understood by all concerned and strictly enforced.

,

<*

,

26. Crane operator blocked main hoist, breaking cable and dropping casting
tray which struck employee. Fatal.
Crane should have been equipped with an overhoist limit stop maintained in
effective operating condition.

27. Man was attempting to pick up a casting. He used an “ S" hook incor­
rectly, and this made it necessary for him to hold the hook as the crane block was
raised. When the weight of the casting was put on the hook, it was pulled against
the casting and caught man's finger, smashing it badly. Traumatic amputation
of right little finger.

,

,

Under no condition should any person have his hand on load hook or block on
a “ lift”
Cranemen should never make a lift in violation of this principle.




60
28. Molder had hooked onto a mold which was to be moved across the floor for
inspection. As he was underneath, one of the four hooks came loose and the flask
fell over. One leg badly crushed and later amputated.
Good safety practice includes a hard and fast rule prohibiting any person from
working or being under a suspended load unless the load is securely blocked up.

29. Yardman had one foot on clamshell and the other on the ground when boom
of rubber-tired crane touched high-tension wires. Fatal.

,

This type of accident is rather common and is usually fatal. Whenever a
crane must operate near a power line the responsible supervisor should survey the
area with the crane crew and decide upon the proper precautions. Sometimes
ground barriers can be provided to keep the crane away from the power line. In
other cases the boom length can be limited or the power line rerun. These acci­
dents are so expensive that great care and substantial expenditures are justified to
eliminate or reduce the hazard.

30. A molder, who was using an electric hoist to lift a ladle, pulled the wrong
control. The ladle tilted and spilled molten metal on a nearby worker. Fatal.
(a) Each hoist-control grip should be distinctive to lessen the chance of mis­

,

taken selection.
(b) Only well-trained and highly dependable persons should be allowed to per­
form such operations.
(c) All persons should be in the clear when such lifts are made.

31. Cupola man was attempting to replace the control cable of the charging
elevator on the lower pulley. In doing so he pulled the cable into the down posi­
tion and was crushed when the elevator descended upon him. Fatal.
The power should have been cut off and the controls locked.

32. Cupola man was taking iron up to charge into cupola when the elevator
cable broke and the elevator fell. Fractured hip, lost 6 months.
(a) Systematic inspection should have resulted in discovery of the defect in the
cable before it developed sufficiently to break.
(b) A ll nonhydraulic elevators should be equipped with safety stops operated
by speed-governor control that will hold the elevator in case of cable failure.

33. Cupola charger was hauling pig iron up to charging deck. Drum on the
elevator broke causing the elevator to fall. Fractured foot; lost 8 weeks.
(a) The drum was either too light for the loads handled or was defective. In
either case systematic inspection should have revealed the condition before the
accident.
(b) A ll nonhydraulic elevators should be equipped with safety stops operated
by speed-governor control that will hold the elevator in case of cable or sheave
failure.

34. Worker was removing core from a large casting which was suspended by a
chain hooked around a riser. The riser broke off, dropping the casting, and the
w ork ed finger was crushed between the casting and the cleaning bar. Lost 3 days.
(a) The strength of risers should never be depended upon.
(b) No work should be permitted on any suspended load unless the load is
securely blocked up.

35. A heavy plate was being carried by a crane over the head of a core maker.
One of the chains broke and let the plate swung down to strike the core maker.
Permanent partial loss of use of one leg.
(a) Crane loads should not be carried over workmen.
(b) Proper chain inspection should have caught the defect and caused the chain
to be removed from use before it broke.

36. Employee lifted the safety gate of the elevator shaft at the first floor. The
elevator at the time was at the second floor. He stepped into the open shaft
and fell about 8 feet. Lacerations, fractured ribs, and fractured wrist; lost
6 weeks.
This is a continually recurring accident. All elevator gates should be so
arranged that only the gate at the floor where the cage is can be opened from the
outside without a key.




61
Furnace Accidents
37. A cupola liner was working from a scaffold. The scaffold collapsed,
throwing him to the floor. Broken shoulder; lost 6 weeks.
Scaffolding for use in lining cupolas should be carefully designed for the purpose and substantially erected
The material used should be of first quality.

.

38. Cupola worker was caught in flames when the cupola bottom was dropped.
Fatal.
Dropping bottom is one of the most hazardous of operations and can be con­
ducted safely only when the procedure has been carefully planned, with suit­
able barriers provided and all persons assigned to safe positions.

39. Worker was cleaning out furnace pit when burning slag from the furnace
broke out. Fatal.
No person should be allowed to enter a furnace pit while there is any prac­
tical possibility of a breakout from the furnace.

40. Worker was preparing a charge for the cupola when he dropped a piece of
pig iron onto his foot. Fractured toe; lost 2 weeks.
Workers who handle heavy materials should wear safety shoes.

41.
The operator of a furnace-car turntable attempted to put a dog in place
while the turntable was in motion. Amputated finger.
No one should be permitted to adjust machinery while the equipment is in
motion.

Pouring Accidents
42. A pourer, who was using a hand ladle, struck another worker, who was
shifting molds, with the shank of the ladle. Molten iron splashed from the ladle
and fell into the pourer’s shoe. Lost 20 days.
(a) A ll workers connected with pouring should wear foot and leg protection
especially designed to protect against spilled or splashed molten metal.
(b) Supervisors should see that workers are placed so as not to interfere with
each other’ s movements and that the pouring area is cleared of all persons who
are not participating in the operation.

43. Ladle broke in pouring and spilled molten metal on the molder’s feet and
legs. The molder was not wearing leggings or molder’s shoes, despite a shop rule
requiring their use in all pouring operations. Severe burns caused the loss of
45 days.
(a) This occurrence should be used as an object lesson to secure better obser­

,

vance of the rule. However i f the rule cannot be enforced, it should be made
advisory instead o f mandatory.
(b) Apparently this ladle was defective, a fact which if proper equipment
inspections had been made, should have been discovered before the accident.

,

44. A helper was pouring aluminum from a pot into a mold. The mold over­
flowed and the molten metal ran down onto the worker’s foot. Lost 2 weeks.
M any persons do not consider foot and leg protection necessary in pouring
aluminum. However, the record indicates otherwise. Foot and leg burns do
occur frequently enough to ju stify the requirement that leggings and shoes which
will turn molten metal, be worn when pouring aluminum.

45. A molder was standing beside a flask skimming the iron when an explosion
in the mold caused molten iron to spurt out of the joint of the flask. The iron fell
on the molder’s foot and ran inside his shoe, which had no tongue and was unlaced.
Lost 28 days.
(a) Careful training and close supervision is necessary to avoid such accidents.
(b) The molder should have been wearing proper foot and leg protection.
Sand-Mixing Accidents
46.
Two workers were cleaning a sandmill. One placed his hand upon the
gears just as the other started the mill to turn over the rollers. Right index
finger amputated by gears.
(a) All gears should be completely enclosed.
(b) When cleaning, repairing, or adjusting machines the controls should be
locked to prevent unexpected operation.
(c) M en who are working together should be trained to warn each other before
starting their machine




.

62
47. An overload had stalled the sand mixer. The operator shoveled some
sand from the machine and then pushed the starter button. In starting this
machine under full load, however, there is a delay of about 8 seconds after power
is turned on because of the action of the relays. Apparently the delay caused
the operator to think that the machine was still stalled and that the automatic
cut-off had again operated. He jumped inside the machine with his shovel,
evidently to remove more sand, just as it started. The mixer was examined
immediately after the accident and was found to be mechanically and electrically
perfect. Fatal.
Machines o f this type should he protected hy a harrier interlocked with the
controls to prevent entrance unless the power is off.

48. Operator of sand mixer reached up to turn on the power and absent-mind­
edly placed his other hand on the edge of the mixer drum. The revolving blade
amputated his index finger.
The design of machines of this type should include a covering for the blades to
prevent unintentional contact with them.

49. The operator, who was cleaning the sand-mixing machine, put his finger
into a small hole in the guard of the machine. Lost first phalange of index finger.
(a) Openings in machine guards within finger length of moving parts should
he too small to admit fingers.
(b) Machines should he shut down for cleaning or repairs.

50. Worker was shoveling sand from under muller, which was operating. His
glove caught in the gears and he lost 3 fingers.
(a) All gears should he completely enclosed.
(b) Safe procedures should he worked out for such operations, and the em­
ployees concerned should he systematically trained to follow them.

51. Core maker reached into the back of the sand-mixing machine while it
was operating, to feel the texture of the mix. A blade caught and amputated
his finger.
Sand-mixing-machine blades should he protected hy screen harriers interlocked
with the controls, and safe means of sampling should he provided.

Woodworking Accidents
52. A patternmaker was operating a jointer when the wood kicked back and
his hand slipped into the blade. Ends of 3 fingers amputated.
Jointers should he protected hy guards which ride over the stock in surfacing
and thus keep the operator's hand away from the knife. Pieces shorter than
about 14 to 16 inches should not he run unless a push stick or jig is used.

53. Worker was cutting a board on a miter saw.
hand went into the saw. Lost parts of 4 fingers.

The board kicked and his

Kick-hacks on miter saws usually occur because the piece being cut is turned
so that it pinches the saw or because the saw is in had condition. A hood guard,
self-adjusting to the position of the saw, with antikick devices, should have been
provided.

,

54. Workman was sawing %-inch-square wooden flask bars, pushing the mate­
rial across the table. One piece jammed, throwing his hand against the saw.
Lost 3 fingers.
The saw should have been guarded.

Guides should he used on this type of work.

55. Worker cleared off the table of a band-saw trimming machine with his
gloved hand. The saw caught the glove and sawed off a finger.
Gloves should not he worn hy band-saw operators. A brush should he used
for cleaning. So far as possible, cleaning should he done when the saw is not
in motion.

Maintenance Accidents
56. Maintenance man caught his finger in fan blade while working on hot-air
blower. Permanent loss of use of one finger.
No repairs or adjustments should he made while machinery is in motion.

57. An oiler and maintenance man was attempting to tighten a bearing on the
drive shaft of a bucket elevator. His sleeve caught in the gears and his right
arm was crushed between the gear and pinion. Arm amputated.
(a) All gears should he fully enclosed regardless of their position.
(b) No repairs or adjustments should he permitted while machinery is in motion.




63
58. An electrician who was installing a new electric line fell over a hot bus.
Electrocuted.
I f it was necessary to do this work without killing the bus (or any other exposed
conductors) hob-line protective equipment should have been used.

59. An extra employee, hired to clean up the shop in preparation for painting,
disregarded warning signs and crawled into a restricted area underneath some
transformer housings. He raised up and contacted an 11,500 volt wire. Elec­
trocuted.
Warning signs are not sufficient guards for such conditions. The trans­
former area should have been fenced and locked. I f it was necessary to clean
under the transformers, the work should have been done by or under the direct
supervision of an electrician.

60. A maintenance man who was filling a storage tank with fuel oil was burned
when the oil overflowed and caught fire from an adjacent ladle. Fatal.
Oil storage tanks should be effectively isolated from all sources of heat, and
safe drainage should be provided for any spillage. Refilling should be done on
u down time” i f at all possible.

61. (a) Maintenance man neglected to turn off the air while he was repairing
an oil torch. Burned to death.
(b) Maintenance man was about to repair the motor of a dryer. He pulled
the switch, climbed up onto the dryer, and before the motor stopped turning put
his hand on the belt which pulled his hand into the motor. Lost little finger.
Both of these cases illustrate one primary safety rule— all maintenance men
must be carefully trained to think and act safely and must be closely supervised
to see that they follow safe procedure. Job safety analysis should be applied to
all maintenance ufork.

62. Worker put gasoline into a blower to clean the fan chamber and started
the motor. Sparks from the motor ignited the fumes and the fan blew out a
torch-like flame against his arm. Lost 18 days.
Only noncombustible cleaning agents should be used.
Miscellaneous Accidents

63. Worker was drilling a pig for sampling. He attempted to brush off dirt
and rust with one hand while holding the running drill with the other. His
glove caught in the drill, and his left first finger was so torn that it had to be
amputated.
Gloves should not be worn on work o f this nature. Palm protection in the
form of hand leathers which will pull off readily i f caught or smooth closefitting finger cots may be used.

64. Laborer was moving castings on a small truck. The side of the truck broke
and spilled the castings out onto his foot. Three toes broken; lost 8 weeks.
(a) Safety shoes should be worn by all workmen who handle castings.
(b) It is not clear whether or not this truck was designed for handling castings,
i f not, the supervisor should have prohibited its use for that purpose.
(c) I f it was a proper type of truck, an adequate system of inspection should
have revealed its defect and prevented the accident.

65. An overhead exhaust pipe fell, striking a chipper.

Fatal.

A n adequate plant-inspection system would have included inspection of all
exhaust lines and should have revealed the insecure suspension of this line.

66. Worker was heating a hollow brass casting in a forge preparatory to remelting. Moisture in the interior of the casting caused it to explode, throwing
fragments all about. Fatal.
Explosions from this cause are not rare. All scrap metal should be care­
fully examined, and any which might have concealed spaces should be broken
up or drilled with half-inch drill before remelting.

67. Worker slipped while taking a shower and caught his hand on a projecting
nail on the shower platform. Lost 2 days.
Poor housekeeping.




All projecting nails should be eliminated.

Recent Bureau o f Labor Statistics Reports*
Bulletin No. 772. Price 10 cents.
This manual contains an outline of simple and useful methods of accident
recording and of the use of such data for accident prevention; also explains how
to compute and use injury-frequency and severity rates and how to determine
the important causes of accidents.
Injuries and accident causes in the longshore industry 1942. Bulletin No. 764.
Price 10 cents.
Gives a detailed description of the hazards involved in loading and unloading
ships.
Work injuries in the United States during 1948. Bulletin No. 802. Price 10 cents*
This bulletin summarizes the data collected in the Bureau's industrial injury
survey for 1943. It presents average injury-frequency and severity rates com­
puted on a national basis for each industry covered in the survey. Also shown
are estimates of the total number of disabling injuries and of the total time lost
in industry because of those injuries. The injury rates shown in this bulletin
are used in evaluating the injury records of plants which are candidates for the
Army-Navy “ E” Award.
Accident-record manual for industrial plants.

,

Effects o f long working hours , P a rt / .

Bulletin No. 791. Price 10 cents.
Contains a summary of six case studies designed to measure the effect of changes
in working schedules (e. g., changes from 8 to 10 hours per day or from 40 to 48,
50, 54, or 60 hours per week) upon efficiency of production, accidents, and
absenteeism.
Effect of long working hours Part I I . Bulletin No. 791-A. Price 10 cents.
This is a continuation of Bulletin No. 791, and contains summaries of six
additional case studies.

,

*For sale by Superintendent of Documents at prices indicated. How to order publications: Address your
order to the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C., with remit­
tance in check or money order. Currency is sent at sender’s risk. Postage stamps not acceptable.





Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102