146 at a safety orientation discussion. This was supplemented by rules and regulations published in the form of procedures and bulletins. Safety and accident prevention education was further promoted through monthly meetings of Safety Engineers with supervisory personnel, by utilization of signs, posters and the daily newspaper, by the use of safety score boards at each camp, and through personal contact by the Safety Engineers with men in thefield. At each campsite a 4’ x 8safety sign, fitted with removable numbers which could be changed daily, was used to indicate the number of days that had elapsed since the last industrial disabling injury; a “target” indicated the best previous record. Site Fred attained the best record with a total of 506 days without an industrial disabling injury; site Ursula had the second best record with 367 days. (The period for Ursula encompassed the entire time from activation of the camp to evacuation androllup.) Unsafe practices or conditions found on field inspections by Safety Engineers were generally corrected after discussions with supervisory personnel. Many sound suggestions relative to all phases of accident prevention were received from personnel of all levels and there was an increasing number of requests from the field for assistance in safety matters. Because of these field contacts, changes in control of hazardous solvents were effected. Different types of solvents were tested with the result that one of a high toxic effect was replaced to a large extent with one of a low toxic effect. Also through field inspections, general housekeeping at work sites was improved and unsafe conditions and practices were eliminated. Experience has indicated that tests of fired and unfired pressure vessels must be accomplished during interim periods between operations These tests require that the equipment be taken out of service for as long as two days and, in certain cases, longer. A total of 80 such units were examined; two were found to be in such condition that they were condemned and several required overhaul of gage and safety valves. All disabling injury cases were reviewed, and investigations were made to determine the cause factors and the steps necessary to minimize the possibility of recurrence. Studies were also madeof all non-disabling injuries reported to the Medical Department in order to keep in touch with injury cause trends. Through these studies, information was developed that led to changes in types of personnel protective equipment and in work procedures. _ . The AEC Manual required that industrial injury experience be based on the latest edition of the American Standards Association publi- CHAPTER Ill, SECTION 5 cation ASA - Z16.1, “American Standard Method of Recording and Measuring Work Injury Experience.” The latest revision of this code was effected on 1 January 1955. The experience figures for industrial injury shown below are based on this code, while figures for motor vehicle, property damage, and fire experiences were based on criteria contained in the AEC Manual. INDUSTRIAL DISABLING (LOST TIME) INJURY STATISTICS Average number of employees 1,268 Total man-hours worked 7,553,195 Numberof industrial disabling injuries 51 Frequency rate 6.75 Total days charged 8,141 Severity rate 1.078* MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT STATISTICS Average number of passenger and cargo vehicles 277 Number of accidents 26 Miles traveled (est.) 1,236,500 Frequency (accidents per 100,000 miles) 2.10 Total direct cost of accidents $2,563 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENT STATISTICS Numberof accidents Total direct cost FIRE STATISTICS Numberof fires reported Total direct cost 25 $85,743. 69 $469.00 * This rate is computed on the new formula, which was effective 1 January 1955. the old formula, the rate would be 1.08. Using Of the 51 industrial disabling injuries reported, two were primarily responsible for the high severity rate. The first of these was a fatality that occurred in April 1955 when an employee was struck on the head by a pipe which was accidently dropped from the water tower at site Nan. A charge of 6,000 days lost time was required for all fatal cases. The second case occurred in April 1956 when an employee sustained 100 per cent loss of vision of the left eye as a result of being struck by a set screw from a V-belt pulley of a gasoline enginedriven concrete vibrator. A charge of 1,800 days lost time was incurred. In the other documented incidents there were no cases of permanent, partial, or total disability. Thirteen cases involved only one day lost time each. A comparison with other ALOO contractors’ injury experience is shown in Table 3-3. The high property damage loss was largely due to major damage to man-madeisland and causeway construction because of severe wave Page 3-21