View original document

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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Frances 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_______________________________

1
9U
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 with over two-thirds of the
T
disabling injuries in which an unsafe act was known to exist. Incorrect
T
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

Contu­
sions, Strains,
bruises, hernia,
hema­ sprains
toma

Part of body injured
Num­
ber
Total disabling injuries:

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
5
1
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

Indus­
trial
Ampu­
Flash
disease
tations
Con­
AU
bums
and
or enu­ cussion
from
chemical other
welding cleations
poison­
radia­
ing
tions

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

1,340
3

658
1

506

Unclas­
sified,
insuffi­
cient
data

57
4
7
46

459
1

352
1

2,169

6

l

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

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 chem­ Other fied,
Other tural Tools b riles vehicles feed
insuf­
bsr Pipe slag, radia­ chines icals,
Decks, Scaf­ Steps, work­ parts
n. o. c.
lines
rivets tions
ficient
Num­ Per­
fold, lad­
fumes
ing
Total floors, stag­
data
ber cent 1
hatches ing ders sur­
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

18
83

8
10

2
29

1
16

7
28

2

'

12
280

2
39

2
42
39

3

206

427

46

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

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

778

81
1

15

15

103

14
12

13

7

639

1

68
38

2
2

26

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,
classi­
al,
Struc­
sons,
eign
other Lum­ Pipe slag,
ing
Ma­ chem­ Other fied,
tural
agen­
Other parts Tools bodies vehi­
ber
feed­
Decks, Scaf­
cles
riv­ radia­ chines icals, cies insuf­
n.e.c.
lines
ficient
Num­ Per­ Total floors, folds, Steps, work­
ets, tions
fumes
ing
data
hatch­ stag­ lad­ sur­
ber cent 1
etc.
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

6,403 5,701
13
12
1,495

85
224

1

4

2

532

56

148

427

134

23

17
8

64

517
19

16

30

44

121

T33
12

16
72
31 1,075

30
135

44
293

121
334

121
693

12

463

2

88

2

4

67

15

2

820

9

647

32

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

607
1

6,946
14

1,154

1,436

845

513

1(T 1 7 m ~

15

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

127

3

1
23
7
23
2, 735
1,634
1,069
32

1
3

2

10

243
58

5

20
2

98
15

310
21

14
3

1
82

3
286
489

xx
4

162

2

18
122

132

1
3
4
1
1
2
56

1,374 1,187
3
2
=====
7
10

197

33
17

72

2,537 2,258 1,787 1,503
5
4
5
3

987

14

595

3,586
7
54

364

413

493

1

4,697
10

13

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
11
5
5
18
4

3,337
1,781

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

24
14

8,480
2,018

2,537 2,258 1,787 1,503
5
4
5
3

3,154
7

14

2,404
2,546

Scaf­
fold,
stag­
ing

Un­
For­
Hot
Poi­
classi­
eign Cranes, Cables, Lum­
met­ Weld­
Struc­
sons,
other
ing
Ma- chem­ Other fied,
vehi­
Tools bod­
ber Pipe al, radia­ ihines
feed
Other tural
insuf­
ies
cles
slag,
icals,
lines
Steps, work­ parts
ficient
rivets tions
n.e.c.
fumes
ing
lad­
data
ders sur­
faces

3,079 2,202 2,036
6
4
4

52

5,041

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

3

14
2
1
1,042
619

22
11

2

520
171

137
82

1,638
909

902
736

4,697
10

3,586
7

1,374
3

607
1

6,946
14

1,154

159

46

1,187
2

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

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, Lum­
Struc­
me­
other
ing
Ma­ sons,
vehi­
tural Tools bod­
Pipe tal, radia­ chines chem­ Other fied,
Other
feed
ber
insuf­
ies
cles
slag,
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

6

18

65

129

339

37
23
658
44

36
1,005
135

30
93
735
129

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

5

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