The maximum permissible radiation exposure established by the AEC for radiation workers is 3,000 mRem (3 Rem) per calendar quarter and lifetime exposure of 135,000 mRem (135 Rem) for a man [claimant’s] age. Any exposures to external radiation below these levels are considered safe. In addition, [claimant} had a whole body scan performed .... which was within normal limits thereby indicating that CASE NO. 37 Type ofInjury: Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia. BEC's Decision: Compensation Denied. Date of Decision: 1971. Claimant's Allegation: That disability resulted from exposure to radiation and solvents while at work. Facts: Claimant was employed as a pipe coverer and insulator for an agency of the federal government from July 2, 1955 until October 1957. He then worked for private industry in a similar position from November 1957 to March 1958 and again from August 1962 to October 1964, He returned to his position with the government agency from April 1966 until January 1970. In January 1970 at the age of 48, he becameill and was hospitalized by his personal physician. A diagnosis of chronic myelogenous leukemia was established. He filed his claim in January 1970 contending that his disability was related, among other things, to radiation. The claimant retired effective February 4, 1970. A review of the claimant’s work record showed that his job was non-nuclear in nature but that he could have had some exposure to ionizing radiation, to asbestos and to organic solvents, namely ‘“‘synal 250” and “‘studdard solvent”. He worked ona nuclear submarine on April 4, April 21, May 2 and May8, 1969 but his work was removed from the reactor compartment area. From he had at no time developed an internal contamination of radioactive material. es 2 @ Since the amount ofionizing radiation received by [claimant] was so small, the ventilation in his working environment was adequate, and the solvents he used are not known to produce blood dyscrasias, it is my opinion that the development of [claimant’s] chronic myelogenous leukemia was coincidental and notrelated to his occupation. The medical director of the Bureau agreed ‘‘completely” with the opinion of the radiation expert and stated that he could find “no relationship whatever” between the conditions of employment and the claimant’s disease. BEC’ Decision: In rejecting the claim for compensation for the reason that the disease causing disability was not caused by the factors of employment, the Bureau based its decision on the following pertinent findings of facts: 1. That the evidence showed claimant’s job was non-nuclear in nature; 2. That the only exposure to radiation was for a twenty-six hour period between August 22 to August 25, 1969; 3. That his film badge exposure was 20 millirem; and 4. That the solvents used are not known to produce blood dyscrasia. August 22 to 25, 1969, he did work in a radiation area and his film badge exposure was 20 millirem. Evidence indicated this was the only time the claimant worked in a known radiation area. On five occasions in 1969 he worked on nuclear submarines but he was not assigned to work in the nuclear reactor compartments or other radiation areas. His lifetime radiation exposure records indicated that the claimant had a total! lifetime dose of 20 mRem of ionizing radiation. His annual chest X-rays from 1966 through 1970 were interpreted as normal. A whole body scan performed June 11, 1970 was within normal limits. Medical Evidence: The claimant’s complete file with a record of his exposure was sent to a medical radiation expert for review. With respect to the claimant’s exposure to organic solvents, he pointed out that the lack of claimant’s pulmonary disease demonstrated that adequate ventilation was provided in his working environment. With respect to the claimant’s radiation exposure the radiation expert, in referring to the fact that claimant’s film badge and lifetime radiation exposure record indicated that the claimant received a total lifetime dose of 20 mRem stated: 118 119