Titanium Alloys Manufacturi

Special Exposure Cohort

Petition Evaluation Report

James W. Neton, PhD, CHP

Associate Director for Science

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

June 2012

Santa Fe, NM
Petition Overview

 July 28, 2011: NIOSH received an 83.

petition for period of 1950 through 1

 November 17, 2011: Petition qualifie

evaluation

 February 14, 2012: Evaluation Report

approved

 SEC class recommended: None
Background

 Titanium Alloys Manufacturing (TAM)

• Located in Niagara Falls, New York

 TAM produced zirconium tetrachloride for 

AEC from 1950 through 1956

• The process did not involve radioactive materi

 TAM melted 70 pounds of contaminated sc

metal for an AEC experiment in 1955

 TAM also reduced uranium in samples in Ju

1956
Background—cont.

 Covered period for TAM as an AWE was

previously listed as 1950 through 1956 (sa

the SEC petition)

 NIOSH requested DOL review the basis for 

covered period

 The covered period as an AWE was change

1955 through 1956
Proposed and Evaluated SEC C

 Petitioner‐Proposed class:

All employees performing their duties who wor

Titanium Alloys Manufacturing Company in Niag

Falls, NY from 1950 to 1956

 Class Evaluated by NIOSH:

All employees who worked in any area or buildi

Titanium Alloys Manufacturing from January 1, 

through December 31, 1956
Petition Basis and Concerns

 Unmonitored workers

• Petitioner presented an affidavit indicating a 

monitoring for radiation exposures

• NIOSH had a limited amount of records availa

airborne radioactivity and surface contaminat

during uranium reduction in 1956
Sources of Available Informati

 Battelle‐TBD‐6000, Site Profiles for AWEs t

Worked Uranium Metals

 NIOSH Site Research Database documents

 DCAS and ORAUT technical bulletins Case files in NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking S
Additional Information Obtain

During SEC Petition Evaluatio

 Published reference on the AEC scrap m

melting operation in 1955

• Quantity of material• Airborne radioactivity and contamination measu

 AEC Source Material License issued in 1956 f

possession and processing of 100 pounds of

uranium contained in ore concentrates
Previous Dose Reconstructio

NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System

Information available as of January, 2012

 TAM claims submitted to NIOSH 14

 Claims in the evaluated class 12 Dose reconstructions completed for energy 12

employees in the evaluated class

 Claims containing internal dosimetry 0

 Claims containing external dosimetry 0
Potential Radiation Exposure

During the Contract Period

 Exposure to uranium from melting contam

stainless steel and aluminum in 1955 and f

reduction of uranium samples in 1956

• Both were experimental operations with limite

quantities of material

• External dose from exposure to photon and be

radiation

• Internal dose from airborne radioactivity and s

contamination
Source Term for Exposure

 Contaminated scrap stainless steel and

aluminum (1955)

• 40 pounds of stainless steel 1/4 inch thick

• 30 pounds of aluminum 1/16 to 1/4 inch thick

• Total mass of uranium estimated to be 90 gram

based on analytical data

• Maximum surface contamination (total alpha) 

26,800 dpm/100 cm2
Source Term for Exposure—co

 Reduction of uranium in samples (1956)

• Uranium compounds including UF4, UO2, and U• Occurred over a two‐day period

• An AEC license issued in 1956 authorized TAM 

possess up to 100 pounds of uranium containe

concentrates for experimental work related to 

production of uranium fluorides

• Reports indicate bench‐scale type operations

involving gram quantities of material
Approach to Dose Reconstruct

 Air sampling and surface contamination da

from the operations can be used to estima

bounding intakes of uranium

 TBD 6000 can be used to estimate externa

from uranium
Pedigree of 1955 Air Sample D

 Air samples taken by the AEC’s Health and Saf

Laboratory (HASL) using their standard metho

 Work requested by HASL for the purpose of

gathering air data for reclaiming contaminatemetal

 Experiment described and air sample results

summarized in an article written by two HASL

employees and published in Nucleonics

 HASL known to employ valid measurement

techniques using standard methods and proce
Intakes of Uranium from Scrap M

 Each type of scrap metal melted in a separ

crucible

 Work area had only natural ventilation

 Process air samples had a maximum air

concentration (alpha) of 80 dpm/m3

• All others less than 10 dpm/m3 based on air

concentration for the three days in 1955
Intakes of Uranium from Scra

Melting—cont.

 Workers presumed to be exposed to the

maximum concentration for two days of m

• One day of decontamination is presumed to ha

occurred at a concentration of 27 dpm/m3

 Annual inhalation and ingestion intakes de

based on air concentration for the three da

1955
Pedigree of 1956 Monitoring D

 NIOSH has copies of the original air monito

and surface contamination data sheets

 Recorded on standard forms used by Natio

Lead of Ohio (NLO)

 Forms are the same as those used by HASL

 Data sheets include information on sample

location, type, background count‐rate, det

efficiency, volume, and filter efficiency

 Alpha measurements made using a scintill

counter
Intakes from Uranium Reduct

Activities (1956)

 Air sample and contamination data are ava

for July 10‐11, 1956, during laboratory and

furnace work

 The highest reported air concentration (alp

was 6 dpm/m3

 Intakes are based on the minimum detecta

activity of the air samples, 15 dpm/m3

 Annual inhalation and ingestion intakes we

derived based on air concentration for the 

days of work
Potential External Exposure

 Exposure to photons

 Exposure to beta radiation

 Dose from required medical X‐rays
Potential External Exposure—

 Photon dose rates estimated from TBD 600

Table 6.1 values for a uranium slug

• Continuous exposure at one foot distance for a

of uranium work (<3 mrem total exposure)

• Shallow dose from beta particles presumed to 

factor of 10 times higher than the photon dose

 Annual medical X‐rays presumed to be req

during the AWE period and doses assigned TIB 6
Evaluation Process

 Two‐prong test established by EEOICPA an

incorporated into 42 C.F.R. § 83.13 (c)(1) a

C.F.R. § 83.13 (c)(3):

1. Is it feasible to estimate the level of radiation 

of individual members of the class with sufficiaccuracy?

2. Is there a reasonable likelihood that such radi

dose may have endangered the health of mem

the class?
Feasibility of Dose Reconstruct

The process and source term information prsufficient information to estimate doses

associated with uranium work at Titanium AManufacturing
Summary

Feasibility Findings for Titanium Alloys Manufacturing Pet

January 1955 – December 1956

Source of Exposure Reconstruction

Feasible

Reconstru

NOT Fea

Internal

‐ Uranium X

External

‐ Uranium beta‐gamma X

‐ Neutron N/A‐ Occupational

Medical X‐ray

X