The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Accidents in the Shipping Industry Reduced: by Careful Supervision has been material progress in D the past five years there accidents in the control of the marine industry; that is, if we can accept as an index the comparative annual accident’ ex- periences of the respective groups which have been’ reporting § dur- ing these five years to the National Safety council. A good many of the units in each of these five groups are identical; but not all of them. Fer the year 1932 there were accident reports from 56 different marine in- dustry units, with an average of 58,258 employes who worked a total of 106,379,000 man-hours. These units were in the following five groups: shipbuilding and repairs, 26 units; tankers, 15 units; harbor equipment, 9 units; stevedoring, 4 units; liners, 2 units. As compared with the group which reported in 1927. the 56 units re- porting in 1932 reduced the fre- quency of their disabling injuries by nearly two-thirds; and the severity of their disabling injuries by more than one-fourth. Also, the 1932 ac- cident experience of the marine in- dustry, as compared to 1931, was especially favorable—-with a drop of 31 per cent in accident frequency, and 25 per cent in accident severity. Considerable Improvement Possible This, of course, does not prove that the marine industry cannot make considerable more prozres in acci- dent control. Although the marine industry did decrease its accidents more than most industries ‘during 1932, it is still down to twenty-second place among the 31 industries whose 1932 accident experience was classi- fied by the National Safety council; and down to twenty-sixth place in the severity of its accidents. This entire group, representing 3937 industrial units, had an average accident fre- quency rate (number of disabling injuries per 1,000,000 man-hours of exposure) of 13.20; and an average accident severity rate (number of days lost from ‘disabling injuries per 1,000,000 man-hours of exposure) of 1.59. By comparison, the marine in- dustry had a frequency rate of 17.24; and a severity rate of 2.14. In con- trast, here are the accident frequency rates of some of the groups in in- dustries which are usually consid- ered quite hazardous: Cement 4.65; machinery 7.76; steel 10.19; railway ear and equipment 11.12; sheet metal By R. R. Howard 13.13; quarry 16.56, Also, all “of these industries, with the single ex- ception of quarry, had _ decidedly more favorable accident severity rates than the marine industry. The comparative accident rate for the five different groups of the marine industry is quite interesting. The harbor equipment zroup had an acci- dent frequency rate less than one- half the average for all the groups, though their severity rate was only a little less than average. The two groups, shipbuilding and repairs, and tankers, had about average accident frequency rates, though the severity rate of the tankers’ group was nearly twice the general average. The steve- doring group had nearly twice as many accidents as the average, and the liners group more than twice as many, though the severity rate of the stevedoring group was less than one- fourth of the average and the severity rate for liners was less than one half. More Accidents in Small Units It is also interesting to note that smal] units in all groups had more than twice as many accidents as the large units in all groups. The best proof of the possibilities of safety work in the marine industry is af- forded by an examination of the re- ports of units of approximately the same size in the same group. For example, the 1932 accident frequency rates among the thirteen large units classified under ‘‘shipbuilding and Tepaits’ vary irom 3.58 - for, the Alo alta ae Neon NATIONAL COUNCIL MARINE REVIEW—October, 1933 United States navy yard at Norfolk, Va., with the best accident frequency record, to 43.15 for the unit with the poorest record. Five different units in this group had 1932 accident fre- quency rates under 10; and three units in this group had accident fre- quency rates above 30. There is a like contrast between the records of different units in the “tankers” group, where the best 1932 accident frequency rate among large units was 7.41; and the poorest rec- ord, from a unit with about the same number of employes, was 48.25. It is unfortunate that the com- panies which reported to the Na- tional Safety council did not supply information on the causes of the ac- cidents which produced the injuries. As one detailed study in this field, the department of labor and industry of Pennsylvania has reported the fol- lowing tabulation covering compen- sated injuries in canal and naviga- tion companies in Pennsylvania for the year 1931. Listed in order of importance. the reported causes of injuries in 93 reported cases are as follows: handling objects 35; ve- hicles 15; falls of persons 12. falling objects 11; elevators, hoists and con- veyors 6; stepping upon or striking against objects 6; vsinz hand tools 3; miscellaneous 3; machinery, prime movers, etc. 2. Honor Roll for 1932 The National Safety council, in its 1932 report on ‘‘Accidental Injury Rates in the Marine Industry’ list on their ‘‘honor roll for 1932”: Atlantic Coast Line Railroad — which in its harbor equipment di- vision at Norfolk, Va., worked more hours without a disabling injury than any other unit with a perfect record in its group—a total of 45,000 hours. It also made the best 1932 record among stevedoring units, through its Norfolk, Va. organization. which worked 221,000 man-hours without a disabling injury. United States Navy—in which the Norfolk, Va. yard made the lowest 1932 frequency rate (3.58) among large shipbuiling and repair units. The Mare Island, Cal., yard made the lowest severity rate (.19) among large shipbuilding and repair units. The Boston Navy yard made the larg- est improvement in frequency since 1930 (a total of 78 per cent) among large shipbuilding and repair units; and also the greatest total reduction 15