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 po ments ees thou Total perma nent rary sands)2 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 ployeeTotal ber of hours Death Per number of units em worked Tem and of days Fre Se ma po re (in lost quen ver thou Total per nent rary port ploy ma ees ing sands) cy ity nent par tial total dis total 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 worked units em and ma Tem of days Fre Se tem re ploy (in po po lost quen ver rary thou Total per port ees ma nent rary par total ing sands) ity 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.**4 6* (See table 3.) 5 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 Num lish- ployees thou 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 1,319 28,533 12,482 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 2* 5 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 Num lish- ployees thou 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 Num lish- ployees thou 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 11 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 Num lish- ployees thou 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 otal10.................. ............... 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. 10 Ratio of employment coverage included is ferrous job foundries, 1; nonferrous job foundries, 2; other than 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 cy ability rate of 10 orof 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 individ Frequen ual plant 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 A11 A gA S 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— 40 vears ou w yUcu 41-45 years 46-50 years_____________ 51 vears and over. _____ Gray- Malle ableSteel iron 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) Back Chest 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 eight1of the injuries in this group was a hernia case. 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 Strains, tions Burns Cuts else and sprains, Frac Hernia dus and and lacera trial where Un and tures enu scalds tions bruises dis clas known 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 Strains, tions Burns Cuts dus else Un and sprains, Frac Hernia trial and lacera and where and tures enu scalds tions bruises dis clas known 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 fAGt 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 15 31 10 6 3 3 12 4 1 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 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 1 2 6 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 12 5 12 2 2 1 5 16 1 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 dus else Un and sprains, Frac Hernia trial and and lacera where and 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 Num Per total ber cent 1 dis ber cent 1 ability Steel foundries Aver Number of disabling age days injuries lost per tempo rary Per total Num ber cent 1 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 Num Per total 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 ber cent 1 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.” 10 Literally, this 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 Num Per total cent 1 dis ber ber cent 1 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 18 811 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.11 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 11 A more detailed account of the safety activities of the Department of Labor will be given in Industrial 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 12 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 wrheel 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. 12In the analysis of these accidents, selected as typical of those reported, the authors had the assistance of 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 wras crushed between the crane cable and the sheave wheel. Lost one finger. (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.
@FedFRASER