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 Perkins, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Isador Lubin, Commissioner (on leave) A . F. Hinrichs, Acting Commissioner SHIPYARD INJURIES 1944 Bulletin 7v[o. 834 For sale by the Superintendent o f Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 5 cents Letter o f Transmittal U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r , B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s , Washington, D. C., May 25, 1945. The S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r : I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on shipyard injuries, 1944, prepared in the Bureau’s Industrial Hazards Division by Frank S. McElroy and George R. McCormack. All the information on which this study is based was furnished by the shipyards as a part of the joint program of safety and health for contract shipyards, sponsored by the United States Maritime Commission and the United States Navy Department. A. F . H i n r i c h s , Acting Commissioner, Hon. F r a n c e s P e r k in s , Secretary of Labor, Contents Page (H ) ^ CO 1 Cti C7* Effect of safety program on accident record-------------------------------------------Kinds of injuries experienced. Accident types--------------------Unsafe working conditions__ Unsafe acts-------------- ----------Detailed data_______________ Bulletin T'Jjo. 834 o f the U nited States Bureau o f Labor Statistics [Reprinted from the M onthly L abor R e v iew , M a y 1945, with additional data] Shipyard Injuries, 1944 E ffect o f Safety Program on Accident Record THE sustained safety program sponsored by the U. S. Maritime Commission and the U. S. Navy Department led to substantial reduc tions in the volume of work injuries in shipyards during 1944. In 1943 the entire group of private shipyards working under Federal contracts reported an average of 31.2 disabling injuries for each million employee-hours worked. Those which continued their operations into 1944 had an average injury rate of 30.2. In 1944 the average injuryfrequency rate for the reporting yards was down to 23.2— a decrease of 23 percent. It is impossible to compute the total value of this achievement, as many of the most important savings cannot be expressed in monetary terms. Some indication of the great contribution to the war, embodied in this accomplishment, is apparent, however, in the simple totals of the injuries which have been prevented. If the frequency of injuries had been the same in 1944 as it was in 1943, it is estimated that 90,500 shipyard workers would have experienced disabling injuries in 1944. The reports received, however, indicate that the 1944 injury total was about 71,500 injuries. This means that 19,000 disabling injuries were prevented during the year and that at least 380,000 man-days were saved to hasten the production of ships. In addition to this saving in disabling injuries, it is estimated that fully 550,000 nondisabling injuries were prevented. The importance of these minor injuries is frequently overlooked because they seldom involve more than simple first aid. A Bureau of Labor Statistics study has shown, however, that on the average each nondisabling injury results in the loss of 1.2 hours of working time. In the aggregate the elimination of 550,000 nondisabling injuries represents a saving of 660,000 hours or 82,500 man-days of 8 hours each. The total saving of productive time as a result of the better accident record during 1944, therefore, amounts to 462,500 man-days. A similar comparison with 1942, the year directly preceding the inauguration of the safety program, shows that the improved accident record during 1943 and 1944 resulted in a total saving of 611,000 man-days, which otherwise would have been lost because of disabling and minor injuries. The 1944 shipyard record becomes even more impressive when compared with the records of earlier years. Bureau of Labor Statis tics reports show that in 1939 the average injury-frequency rate for shipyards was 18.6. This was the last year of normal peacetime 649516°—45 (1 ) 2 operations. Expansion, crowding, faster operations, and new types of construction developed rapidly and in 1940 the rate rose to 20.6. In 1941 the average rate was 26.4 and in 1942 it rose to 33.1. With the inauguration of the joint Maritime Commission-Navy Department Safety Program in 1943, this steady rise in the frequency rate for shipyards was checked and the rate for that year declined to 31.2. The substantial improvement shown in the average rate for 1944 (23.2) is ample evidence that the safety program has definitely achieved its first objective, which was to reverse the upward trend in work injuries which had been so apparent in the shipyard record for previous years. The 1944 record, however, shows both improvement and retro gression. In the shipyards engaged primarily in new construction the frequency rate shows a reduction from 30.2 disabling injuries per million employee-hours worked in 1943 to 22.7 injuries per million hours in 1944— a most creditable improvement of 24.9 percent. In the repair-yard group, on the other hand, the average frequency rate rose from 28.1 in 1943 to 31.1 in 1944. The need for intensified safety activities in the repair yards is apparent, and as yards currently en gaged in new construction are converted into repair yards that need will grow. Among the new construction yards, the group operating under contracts from the Maritime Commission reduced its average fre quency rate from 32.9 in 1943 to 23.4 in 1944, a decrease of 29 percent. Private construction yards operating under contracts from the Navy Department similarly reduced their average frequency rate from 26.3 in 1943 to 21.6 in 1944, while those operating under War Depart ment contracts achieved a reduction from 39.0 in 1943 to 27.6 in 1944. Among the construction yards holding Maritime Commission contracts, those situated in the Great Lakes region had the lowest average frequency rate in 1944— 13.1. The average for the Gulf region— 16.5—however, was only .slightly higher. The averages for the Atlantic and Pacific regions were practically identical— 26.3 and 26.4* respectively. Each of these averages represents a substantial improvement in comparison with the corresponding frequency rate for 1943, the 44-percent reduction achieved in the Gulf region being particularly noteworthy. Substantial frequency-rate reductions during 1944 were recorded for the yards operating under Navy Department contracts in each of the naval districts except the first, ninth, and thirteenth. In the last two naval districts the 1944 average rates were practically the same as the corresponding rates for 1943. In the first naval district the 1944 rate was nearly 28 percent higher than it had been in 1943. The most pronounced improvement was in the fourth naval district where the average frequency rate was reduced from 20.9 in 1943 to 9.1 in 1944. The following statement gives the industrial injuryfrequency rates for the years 1943 and 1944 for shipyards with United States Government contracts, by type of contract and by geographic region. Frequency rates 19U 19$ Primarily new construction________________ _____ ______ ______ United States Maritime Commission contracts____________ Atlantic region______________________________________ Gulf region_________________________________________ Pacific region________ _______________________________ Great Lakes region__________________________________ 22.7 23. 4 26. 3 16. 5 26.4 13. 1 30.2 32.9 33.0 29.6 35.0 21.1 3 Frequency rates Primarily new construction— Continued. United States Navy Departmentcontracts________________ Naval District 1____________________________________ ! Naval District 3____________________________________ Naval District 4____________________________________ Naval District 5____________________________________ Naval District 6____________________________________ Naval District 7____________________________________ Naval District 8__________ Naval District 9_____ Naval District 11___________________________________ Naval District 12___________________________________ Naval District 13________________ United States War Department contracts________________ Primarily repair work_________________________________________ Government-owned navy yards_______________________________ 19U 21. 6 33. 9 20. 8 9. 1 45. 8 25. 6 28. 2 21. 2 19. 1 16. 1 16. 9 33. 7 27. 6 31. 1 12. 7 194* 26. 3 26. 5 22. 9 20. 9 62. 9 39. 1 36. 2 28. 2 19. 4 24. 9 31. 0 33. 2 39. 0 28. 1 15. 2 Comparisons based upon the type of construction performed indicate that the improvement achieved in the wood and concrete construction yards was considerably greater than in the yards which built steel vessels. In the yards which specialized in building concrete vessels the injury-frequency rate was reduced from 46.9 in 1943 to 27.1 in 1944 and in the yards constructing wooden vessels, from 45.8 in 1943 to 30.9 in 1944. For the larger group of yards which built steel vessels the reduction was from 29.5 in 1943 to 22.3 in 1944. Industrial injury-frequency rates for shipyards primarily engaged in new construction under United States Government contracts are given below by type of construction for 1943 and 1944. Frequency rates J9 U 194S Iron and steel construction__________________________________ 22. 3 150 feet and over— powered______________________________ 21. 9 26 feet and under 150 feet— powered_____________________ 33. 1 Non-powered— all lengths____________________________________ Wood construction___________________________________________ 150 feet and over— powered______________________________ 26 feet and under 150 feet— powered. ____________________ Non-powered— all lengths________________________________ Concrete construction_____________________________________ 29.5 29.0 46.1 25. 6 31.3 30. 25. 32. 47. 27. 45.8 48.1 44.1 80.3 46.9 9 2 8 3 1 K in ds o f Injuries Experienced Over a third of the 50,211 disabling shipyard injuries for which full details were reported in 1944, were injuries to the legs and feet. Injuries to the trunk constituted about one-fourth of the total; head injuries, including eye cases, constituted 22 percent of the total, and injuries to fingers, hands, wrists, and arms amounted to 18 percent. Two-thirds of the toe injuries and one-third of the foot injuries were fractures; most of the other foot and toe cases were cuts and bruises. Practically all of these cases, or fully 12 percent of all the disabling injuries reported, probably would have been avoided had the injured persons been wearing safety shoes. Nearly two-thirds of the 2,851 ankle injuries were sprains and about one-fourth were bruises or fractures. Injuries to the back were generally strains or bruises; the rib and shoulder injuries were largely bruises or fractures, while the abdominal injuries were primarily hernia cases. Seventy percent of the head injuries were eye cases, most of which resulted from foreign bodies entering the eye or from exposure to welding arcs. The geheral use 4 of safety goggles would probably have prevented most of these eye injuries and thereby would have reduced the shipyard injury-frequency rate by about 10 or 15 percent. The brain and skull injuries, which totaled about 5 percent of all cases reported, were largely the result of falls or of workers’ being struck by moving or falling objects. Nearly all of the latter group might have been avoided through the universal use of hard hats. About one in seven of the 3,783 injuries to fingers resulted in an amputation, and about one in three was a fracture. Most other finger injuries were cuts or bruises. Accident T ypes One-third of all reported disabling injuries resulted from the injured employee’s being struck by a moving or flying object. Injuries caused by foreign bodies striking the eyes were by far the most common; this one group alone accounted for about 10 percent of all reported injuries. Metal parts which fell from piles or from the hands of employees caused a considerable number of “ struck by” accidents. Cranes and vehicles also accounted for a large number of injuries in this group. Most of these occurred when employees were struck by the moving sling load or by objects dropped from the load. Falls accounted for approximately one-fourth of the reported injuries, with falls from one level to another slightly exceeding those on the same level. Of the first group, falls from stagings were the most common. In the latter group, falls on decks or floors were most frequent. Poor housekeeping contributed to many injuries in this group. Falls caused by cables or other feed lines on working surfaces were numerous. Slips on working surfaces and over exertion caused by lifting was the third most common accident type; approximately one-fifth of the reported disabling injuries fell into this group. Accidents in which the injured employee struck against tools or other objects accounted for 11 percent of the disabling injuries. Contact with temperature extremes, mostly hot metal, slag, or rivets, or contact with welding radiations was responsible for 7 percent of all disabling injuries. Employees who were caught in cranes, vehicles, or machines sustained the largest number of injuries in the “ caught in, on, or between” group which accounted for 6 percent of the reported injuries. Unsafe W orking Conditions Poor housekeeping caused more accidents than any other unsafe working condition. Of the 20,496 disabling injuries for which an un safe working condition was known to exist, approximately 7,500, or 37 percent, were due to poor housekeeping. Failure to keep working sur faces or walkways clear of equipment or materials was responsible for a majority of these injuries. Welding cables, lumber, and structural parts lying on such surfaces were the most common source of these accidents. A large number of accidents were caused by failure to keep working surfaces free from snow, ice, water, or grease. Poor piling of materials was another frequent source of injury. 5 Failure to provide personal safety equipment, or providing defective safety equipment, accounted for 5,473 disabling injuries, or 27 percent of those for which an unsafe working condition existed. Over half of these injuries could have been prevented by the use of proper goggles. Approximately 2,750 injuries were caused by foreign bodies originating at the point of operation of a grinder, chipping hammer, or similar machine or tool; another 700 injuries were due to welding radiations. Lack of personal safety equipment to guard against burns from hot metal or slag caused nearly 1,100 disabling injuries. Defective agencies contributed to 18 percent of the disabling in juries which were associated with unsafe working conditions; Approxi mately one-third of these accidents involved defective staging or scaffolds. Hand tools, fatigued or worn from excessive use, were a common source of injuries in this group. Insecurely bolted or welded metal parts and defective cranes also caused a considerable number of injuries. Unguarded working surfaces, machines, and other equipment caused approximately 9 percent of the injuries which resulted from an unsafe working condition. Unsafe A cts Two types of unsafe acts were associated wTith over two-thirds of the disabling injuries in wThich an unsafe act was known to exist. Incorrect lifting vras somewhat the more common of these, although taking an unsafe position or posture caused nearly as many injuries. Of the group of injuries classified as incorrect lifting, 24 percent were due to lifting or carrying excessive weights, generally structural parts, lumber, and pipe, raking an insecure hold, or the wrong hold, on hand tools was responsible lor almost as many disabling injuries. Poor handling of metal parts, such as brackets, plates, and bars, caused 11 percent of the injuries in this group. Inattention to footing was the most common specific fault in the group of unsafe acts classified as unsafe position or posture. Most of these accidents w^ere falls, stumbles, or slips on the part of the injured employee. Lifting objects from an awkward position or with a bent back produced many back strains. Working too near objects or other persons caused numerous injuries. Unsafe operation of, or unnecessary exposure to, cranes, vehicles, or machinery; failure to use provided personal safety equipment; and unsafe use of, or failure to use, scaffolds or ladders, each were involved in approximately 8 percent of the injuries caused by an unsafe act. Detailed Data Detailed statistics on disabling shipyards injuries, January-December 1944, are given by part of body injured and nature of injury in table 1, by accident type and agency in table 2 , by unsafe working condition and agency in table 3, and by unsafe act and agency in table 4. T a ble 1.— Distribution o f Disabling Shipyard In ju ries , Classified by Part of B od y In ju red and by Nature of In ju ry, January-D ecem ber 1944 Burns Total disabling injuries Part of body injured Num ber Total disabling injuries: Contu sions, Strains, bruises, hernia, hema sprains toma Frac tures Foreign bodies in eyes Cuts, abra sions, lacera tions 5,086 11 4,955 10 3,711 8 2,371 5 Total Per cent 1 Bums and scalds 100 12,532 26 10,635 22 9,148 19 17.109 4, 353 3,834 3,065 3,066 2,851 34 8 8 6 6 6 5,841 1, 524 1,662 831 1,431 393 3,381 328 238 12 971 1,832 4.862 1,495 730 2,055 213 369 1,603 435 778 67 250 73 845 380 276 7 51 131 845 389 276 7 51 131 12,434 6, 524 __ _ 3,316 Abdominal region or internal organs . 1,847 747 TTips o r p e lv is 25 13 7 4 1 3, 341 1,319 1, 272 368 382 6,489 4, 356 734 1,242 157 1,467 327 1,015 163 54 38 53 18 112 31 51 25 5 112 31 51 25 10,745 7,022 2,485 1,238 22 15 1,271 165 851 255 103 467 ..... 253 102 214 1,132 231 625 276 1, 684 1,434 16 234 344 94 16 234 8,841 3,783 1,893 1, 520 901 744 18 8 4 3 2 1 1,929 747 391 275 102 414 642 99 63 130 293 57 2. 343 1,049 332 660 303 99 2,040 1,103 623 177 94 43 969 156 362 277 81 93 969 156 362 277 81 93 1 129 2 1 95 17 1 1 7 8 21 9 6 50,211 Percent1............................................. L nw p.r e x t r e m it ie s F p pt TiPp-s T ops TCtipps A n k lp s ____ _ ___ _ ____ ___ _ ____ T ru n k __ ■Reek n r b a n k v e r t e b r a e . "R ibs o r s h o u ld e r s . _ _____ Head................................. ........................ E yes _ __________________________ Brain or s k u ll TTead n e e TTpper e x t r e m it ie s F in g e r s H ands A rm s "W rists E lb o w s _ B o d y general Multiple body pa^ts TTnclassified in s u ffie ie n t _ _ ______ ___________ ___________ - ____ 5 2 727 6 d a ta 1 Percent of known cases. 2Less than one-half of 1 percent. 289 (2) 125 1 5.0S6 5,080 Indus trial Ampu Flash disease tations Con AU bums and or enu cussion from chemical other welding cleations poison radia ing tions 1,340 3 658 1 506 l 57 4 7 46 459 1 352 1 2,169 6 18 3 9 556 184 132 47 142 51 2 3 1 5 19 1 15 27 2 5 18 46 89 350 9 20 67 225 58 22 6 208 3 *5 1 2 1,340 J, 310 11 9 506 506 1 2 36 590 574 5 98 11 Unclas sified, insuffi cient data 5 57 35 g 61 4 1 7 2 3 95 279 188 6 H 3 5 816 434 198 126 58 44 56 48 25 35 25 1 213 T a b le 2.— Distribution o f Disabling Shipyard Injuries, Classified by A ccid en t ,T yp e and by A gency , January-D ecem ber 1944 Total disabling injuries Accident type Working surfaces Un Poi For Hot Weld Cables, classi Struc sons, eign Cranes, other Lummetal ing Ma fied, Other insuf Other tural Tools b riles vehicles feed bsr Pipe slag, radia chines chem icals, Decks, Scaf Steps, work parts n. o. c. lines rivets tions ficient Num Per fold, fumes ing floors, stag lad data ber cent 1 Total hatches ders sur ing faces Total disabling injuries: Number__________________ 60,211 Percent1................................ Struck by____________________ 16,663 Foreign bodies in eyes 2____ 4.921 Material falling from above _ 1,180 All other____ _____ _______ 10, 562 Falls.— .........- .......................... 11.160 To lower level____________ 6,460 On same le v e l____________ 4, 700 Slips (not falls) and overexertion. 9,066 Striking against............... ........... 5,417 Own tools while in use_____ 1, ,308 All other objects__________ 4,109 Burns____ ___________________ 3,369 Contact with temperature extremes________________ 1,979 Contact with welding radiations..____ _____________ 1,390 Caught in, on, or between_____ 2,864 Inhalation, absorption, inges tion________________________ 475 O ther..,...................................... 394 Unclassified, insufficient data,.. 803 100 10,471 21 3,079 2,202 2,036 4 4 6 192 67 1 3 2 67 40 124 65 2,032 1,498 1,201 1,204 1,347- 1,137 828 64 149 272 715 588 251 190 141 371 1 77 293 6, 564 4,620 1,944 2,436 838 838 6 251 3 190 1 4 6 3 1 3 6 1 1 141 4 697 10 3 586 7 2, 537 2 253 1,787 1, 503 3 5 5 4 3,214 2, 008 1 31 286 5 334 64 2, 927 1, 641 530 1, 835 488 134 932 224 264 903 396 911 1,427 900 762 1, 726 256 1,308 762 258 418 2 2 218 4,632 4,679 1,857 23 1,834 453 364 94 232 148 351 43 26 282 1,106 229 877 832 130 876 1 165 710 311 104 207 509 377 736 2 62 672 271 49 222 490 168 148 7 130 77 377 7 77 69 2 105 17 20 22 46 18 83 8 10 2 29 1 16 7 28 1 Percent based on known cases. 2Includes only cases of the foreign body lodging in eye. 43 33 10 2 21 23 13 10 18 11 3 8 7 3,154 6,403 5 701 13 12 7 ' 2 206 427 12 280 2 39 2 42 39 3 1,374 3 1,187 2 607 1 6,946 14 1,154 71 12 10 49 7 3 4 5 78 297 9 3 285 34 8 26 96 79 59 33 6 2,026 102 177 1,747 1,238 652 576 1,755 1,055 117 7 17 93 153 63 90 244 50 163 78 11 1,338 79 13 6 80 1,055 201 50 42 13 80 201 38 406 4 30 50 143 72 29 22 467 1,374 11 1,338 1,374 15 778 15 81 103 1 1 68 38 14 12 13 7 2 2 26 639 15 14 392 68 2 T a b l e 3.— Distribution o f Disabling Shipyard Injuries, Classified by Unsafe W orking Condition and by A gency , January-D ecem ber 1944 Total Disabling injuries Unsafe working condition Hot Un met Weld Poi For Cranes, Cable, al, Struc sons, Other classi eign Lum other ing Ma tural Tools bodies vehi agen fied, Other parts ber Pipe slag, feed chines chem Decks, Scaf Steps, work cles riv radia icals, cies insuf n.e.c. lines tions ficient Num Per Total floors, folds, lad ets, fumes ing data hatch stag ber cent 1 etc. sur ders ing es faces Total disabling injuries: Number_______ ___________ 50,211 Percent1................................. Poor housekeeping_____________ 7,467 Failure to keep deck or floor cleared_________________ 2,407 Failure to keep other work surfaces cleared_______ _ . 2,035 Slippery, due to water, grease, ice, snow........................___ 1,285 Unsafely piled or stored ma terial or equipment_______ 1,156 584 Other poor housekeeping...... Lack of, or defective, safety equipment__________________ 5,473 No goggles_______ ____ ____ 2,293 Goggles defective or unsuit able 1,150 Other____ ______________ 2,030 Defects of agencies_____________ 3,703 Fatigued, decayed, worn, frayed _ _________________ 1.137 Unsafe construction or erec tion__ __ ______________ 824 Insecurely bolted, braced, 624 welded, ftte Other____ _______ _________ 1,178 XTnguarded pgeneies 1,940 340 Unsafe processes ___________ U nsafe rigging ___________ 501 Other unsafe working conditions. 1,012 No unsafe working condition...... 26,297 3,418 Unclassified, insufficient data— 1 Percent of known cases. Working surfaces 100 10,471 21 16 1,480 6 1 4 7 3 1,226 2 1 17 229 12 6 162 2 4 8 162 1,534 3,079 2,202 2,036 4 6 4 729 80 178 3,154 7 493 1 6,403 5,701 13 12 1,495 364 413 85 224 1 4 2 532 56 148 427 14 134 23 17 8 64 517 19 33 17 72 16 30 44 121 T33 12 16 72 31 1,075 30 135 44 293 121 334 121 693 12 463 595 2 88 2 4 67 15 2 820 9 647 32 132 1 3 4 1 1 2 56 49 577 1, 542 30 8 12 1,081 2 9 415 64 9 3 33 356 13 29 117 41 6 473 4,898 352 99 967 98 69 36 799 1,253 90 35 269 1,879 129 4,697 10 3,586 7 54 2,537 2,258 1,787 1,503 5 4 5 3 607 1 6,946 14 1,154 1,436 845 513 1(T 1 7 m ~ 15 987 169 239 4 1 502 6 427 291 124 4 1 422 2 2 4 1 13 2 20 2 152 231 144 2 23 27 22 1.096 17 712 5S9 253 23 257 27 17 6 22 1,073 60 71 52 197 127 3 1 23 7 23 2, 735 1,634 1,069 32 1,374 1,187 3 2 ===== 7 10 2 13 1 3 10 243 58 5 20 2 98 15 310 21 14 3 1 82 3 286 489 xx 4 162 2 18 122 70 4 295 27 29 3 53 177 53 16 29 21 19 4,004 4,309 401 136 130 14 15 32 8 26 4 30 1 52 109 8 18 46 11 9 6 780 1,215 1,086 23 140 87 6 273 88 523 108 17 787 117 209 153 73 88 1,579 383 112 493 100 2,355 131 9 8 83 240 109 56 8 136 4,217 383 2 2 5 118 996 T a b l e 4. — Distribution o f Disabling Shipyard Injuries , Classified b y Unsafe A c t and b y A gen cy , January-D ecem ber 1944 Total Disabling injuries Unsafe act Decks Num Per Total floors, hatch ber cent1 es Total disabling injuries: Number.................................. 50,211 Percent1................................. 100 10,471 21 9,991 21 52 5,041 11 14 2,404 2,546 5 5 24 14 8,480 2,018 18 4 3,337 1,781 Gripping insecurely or overliftGripping insecurely or tak ing wrong hold.................... Lifting or carrying too heavy load__................................. Other unsafe handling........... Taking unsafe position or pos ture............................................ Inattention to footing............ Lifting with bent back or overreaching.......... ........... Working too near objects or other persons..... ................ Other unsafe position or pos ture...................................... Working without proper (or per sonal) safety equipment............ Failing to wear....................... Wearing improper or defec tive equipment................. Removing safety equipment. Unsafe operation of, or exposure to, cranes, vehicles and ma chines......................................... Unnecessary exposure to crane or crane load.............. Other unsafe driving, operat ing or exposure................. . Working surfaces Scaf fold, stag ing Un For Hot Poi classi eign Cranes, Cables, met Weld Struc sons, other Lum ing Mafied, vehi Tools bod ber Pipe al, radia ihines chem Other insuf feed Other tural ies cles slag, icals, lines Steps, work parts ficient rivets tions n.e.c. fumes ing lad data ders sur faces 3,154 7 6,403 5,701 13 12 47 2 2,691 2,955 40 599 849 760 1,053 2,211 14 505 385 305 14 79 665 7 19 56 38 269 195 236 219 46 43 102 1,218 1,049 29 201 50 201 310 12 291 15 130 1 4 86 4 32 3 259 6 43 10 831 g 3 14 1,042 619 2 1 22 11 2 520 171 137 82 1,638 909 902 736 4,697 10 3,586 7 1,374 3 46 1,187 2 607 1 6,946 14 1,154 159 87 1,710 43 537 3 87 752 421 3 4 13 1,606 128 34 2 388 18 1,151 2 39 15 13 11 357 79 6 30 130 93 1,028 2 54 40 2 12 340 136 14 3 39 61 77 4,283 10 1,463 423 294 40 706 492 834 131 168 129 122 52 2,096 1,759 4 4 18 6 4 2 3 1 6 5 2 10 5 20 13 1,378 1,229 6 5 1 1 1 64 18 521 441 7 27 21 40 19 3 2 13 2 2 6 3 4 1 4 3 8 141 1 38 8 7 73 7 4 2 17 4 1 104 233 (2) (2) 2,398 5 1,933 1,145 2 1,145 1,253 1Percent based on known cases. 2Less than one-half of 1 percent. 3 788 2,537 2,258 1,787 1,503 5 4 5 3 3,079 2,202 2,036 6 4 4 1 11 423 42 423 42 T a b l e 4.— Distribution o f Disabling Shipyard Injuries, Classified by Unsafe A ct and by A gen cy, January-D ecem ber 1944 — Continued Total disabling injuries Unsafe act Decks, Num Per Total floors, hatch ber cent1 es Unsafe use of, or failure to use, 2,117 scaffold or ladder Ascending and descending rapidly or not gripping 1,185 firmly . _ _ , Other unsafe use of, or failure 932 to use, ladder or staging___ Using without authority, or fail ing to block, secure, signal or ___ warn 936 Unsafe use of equipment, or making safety devices inopera 353 tive _______ Other_________________________ 1,142 19,148 No unsafe act __ ____________ Unclassified, insufficient data----- 3,550 1Percent based on known cases. Working surfaces 32 Scaf fold, stag ing Un For Hot Weld Poi classi eign Cranes, Cables, Struc sons, other Lum Pipe me ing Ma chem fied, vehi Tools tural bod tal, Other insuf Other feed ber ies cles slag, radia chines icals, Steps, work parts lines ficient n. e. c. rivets tions fumes ing lad data ders sur faces 184 1,078 13 10 187 13 10 9 6 18 65 129 339 37 23 658 44 36 1,005 135 30 93 735 129 5 1,609 3 1,082 9 62 883 2 527 23 122 195 2 115 7 84 1 2 42 53 176 4,736 375 9 7 91 26 1,859 1,214 102 94 315 17 1 9 17 1 23 25 11 50 7 64 3 21 1,655 29 7 36 875 146 3 7 23 38 589 1,086 85 88 1 1 732 108 72 42 229 97 9 86 128 362 2 26 1 337 1 14 93 1 16 66 317 67 90 347 2,232 424 1 4 46 1,020 8 77 2 68 191 89 1,895 1,102 177 420 15 2,919 385 8