neutron measurement probes. He reported that neutron exposure outside the
box was negligible and that this operation lasted less than a month. This report
indicated she also assisted on a few occasions as a radiation monitor, using a
survey meter to monitor personnel leaving a radiation area to assure that they
werefree of radioactive contamination and using a survey meter to measure the
radiation intensity of radiation areas.
A report from. the head of the chemical laboratory stated that the employee
CASE NO. 44
Type of Injury: Bilateral Subca psular Cataracts.
BEC'’s Decision: Claim Approved. No lost time from work due to condition
.
No Compensation.
Claimant's Allegation: That her cataracts were due to handling radioactiv
e
materials over a period of time involving various assignments as a
chemist.
Facts: Claimant was employed as a physical science technician
at at shipyard in
1957. She worked with radioisotopes in the radiochemical section
of the
chemical laboratory. Her job was to assist a radiochemist
by performing
numerous chemical tests and other work in connection
with research and
development projects and particularly in evaluating radiation
samples taken
from reactor plants of nuclear powered ships. Most samples
were of reactor
plant water containing a mixture of radioisotopes that
must be separated
before final analysis. She used electronic counting equipme
nt such as
multi-channel gamma_ spectrometers designed for use in radioche
mical
laboratories.
The two most important functions of her position were: 1) the use
of
prescribed radiochemical techniques and methods for the purpose ofisolat
ing
radionuclides
shielding of radioactive materials in work process was used or considered
necessary; that activity levels were generally such that Atomic Energy
Commission regulations did not require “Radiation Area” posting; and that
Date of Decison: 1970.
specific
spent 50% of her time in a “tow-activity-level” area; that external exposure was
negligible; that the major hazard was from ingestion or inhalation of unsealed
radioisotopes; that no specific incidents or violations are known; that no
on
a
quantitative basis; and
2) the concomitant
application of techniques and methods of gamma fay spectrom
etry and beta
ray counting techniques for the purpose of evaluating the amount of a specific
radionuclide on an absolute basis.
Her resposibility was to maintain “good housekeeping”in the laborato
ry by
performing scheduled monitoring for radiation contamination, taking
“‘wipes”
and other samples and evaluating them, recording results and observin
g
meticulous care against contamination. Accordingly, her work required -
continual surveillance to minimize contamination of working areas,
apparatus
utensils and personnel inasmuch as contamination posed both a health hazard
and might ruin an analysis.
A report from the radiological health officer where she was employe
d
indicated that claimant occasionally assisted with the calibrati
on of film
badges. The calibration apparatus consisted of a 10 curie cobalt-60 source in
a
collimated projector. The operators were protected by shielding
and by a
barrier between them and the radiation beam. On one occasion she
assisted in
the calibration of a thermal neutron generator. The generator consist°1
. of a
shielded box containing a 10 curie neutron source. Access to the interior of
the
box was through holes, one or two inches in diameter, large enough to admit
138
stored radioactive materials consisting of a total of less than 10 millicuries were
shielded by two inchesoflead.
Records further indicated that claimant had been in the film badge program
continuously from 1957.
In January 1965 claimant received a routine eye examination as part of a
radiological safety check. At the time for the examination she had no specific
complaints. At that time film badge records showed her total cummulative
exposure was | .690 rem.
Medical Evidence: The eye examination showed claimant's vision was 20/25
right eye and 20/20 left eye best corrected. Slit lamp examination showed
posterior subcapsular cataracts in each eye. The examining physician
recommended that claimant undergo regular eye examinations at six-month
intervals for at least a year and continue her regular duties and if no
progression of the lesions became apparent in the next year the patient be
examined annually for several additional years.
The eye specialist further said:
If there is still no apparent progression after this time, it would be
very doubtful if her work was related to the occurrence of her lens
opacities. A congenital basis or early pre-senile change would then be the
most likely etiology, and no treatment would be indicated and the visual
impairment is so slight that there would not be a notable disability.
In June 1965 she was seen by another eye specialist who reported as
follows:
4
The findings are in the right eye. There is a thin fluffy beaten gold
vacuolized posterior subcapsular opacification in the visual axis which
obviously does not interfere with vision since there is 20/20 visual
acuity. In the left eye the changes are identical but not as marked, There
is no fetal embryonal or nuclear change and no persistent or primary
hyperplasia of the fetal vascular systems remnants are evident. The
lesions are discrete and there is no branching or opacification towards
the equatorial region which, of course, is obscured by theiris. The only
139