Huntington Pilot Plant Site Profile Review - Findings Matrix (SCA-TR-SP2013-0043)

Working Draft 1 of 4 November 18, 2013

NOTICE: This November 18, 2013, version of the Findings Matrix has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and cleared for public release.

Future revisions to this document will be restricted until a Privacy Act review can be completed and comments appropriately addressed.

Finding 

Number Summary of Finding NIOSH Response

Category

SC&A 

Response

SC&A 

Suggested 

Action

NIOSH: Agree/ 

Disagree DRSC Action

Finding 1

Since the three diffusion plants (the 

source of the HPP nickel) had 

additional isotopes of concern, 

NIOSH should clearly provide the 

basis for only specifying Pu-239 

and Np-237 as isotopes of concern 

for recycled uranium.

As of November 14, 2013, 

none provided.

Finding 2

NIOSH should clearly state which 

uranium-specific activity was used 

in the analysis and ensure that it 

was used consistently throughout 

the analysis.

As of November 14, 2013, 

none provided.

Finding 3

There is a unit conversion error in 

going from Table A2 column 3 

(Photons per decay 238U) to column 

4 (Photons per second per Ci 

238[U]).

As of November 14, 2013, 

none provided.

Observation 1

The gamma energy spectrum used 

by NIOSH is not based on full 

equilibrium of U-238, U-235, and 

U-234 with their decay products; 

rather, it is consistent with a decay 

period where only short-lived 

progeny of U-238 and U-235 would 

have had an opportunity to grow in.

None required. No action 

required.

Observation 2

The beta energy spectrum used by 

NIOSH is not based on full 

equilibrium of U-238, U-235, and 

U-234 with their decay products; 

rather, it is consistent with a decay 

period where

only short-lived progeny of U-238 

and U-235 would have had an 

opportunity to grow in.

None required. No action 

required.
Huntington Pilot Plant Site Profile Review - Findings Matrix (SCA-TR-SP2013-0043)

Working Draft 2 of 4 November 18, 2013

NOTICE: This November 18, 2013, version of the Findings Matrix has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and cleared for public release.

Future revisions to this document will be restricted until a Privacy Act review can be completed and comments appropriately addressed.

Finding 

Number Summary of Finding NIOSH Response

Category

SC&A 

Response

SC&A 

Suggested 

Action

NIOSH: Agree/ 

Disagree DRSC Action

Observation 3

The penetrating dose rate calculated 

by NIOSH using MCNPX and 

modeling an array of drums is 

consistent with the dose rate 

calculated by SC&A using 

MicroShield and modeling a single 

drum. Furthermore, the 

MicroShield-calculated dose rate 

using the Table A2 gamma energy 

spectrum is consistent with the dose 

rate calculated using the gamma 

energy spectrum from the 

MicroShield radionuclide decay 

library.

None required. No action 

required.

Finding 4

The dose breakdown between 0–

250 keV and >250 keV varies from 

50/50 to about 70/30, depending on 

the gamma spectrum.

As of November 14, 2013, 

none provided.

Finding 5

Provide justification for including 

modern airborne nickel 

concentrations in the concentration 

distribution, when Enterline and 

Marsh 1982 indicate that the 

historical concentrations were (in 

most cases) of greater magnitude.

At the beginning of their report, 

Enterline and Marsh state that the 

concentration of airborne nickel 

was estimated to range from 20 to 

350 mg Ni/m3in areas where the 

matte was crushed, ground, and 

handled, and from 5 to 15 mg Ni/m3

around the calciners. These 

concentrations are significantly 

Presented during the 

August 7, 2013, SCDR 

meeting.

During the 

August 7, 

2013, SCDR 

meeting, 

agreed with 

the NIOSH 

response.

Close this issue, 

as per the 

discussion 

during the 

August 7, 2013, 

SCDR meeting, 

pp. 40 through

112.
Huntington Pilot Plant Site Profile Review - Findings Matrix (SCA-TR-SP2013-0043)

Working Draft 3 of 4 November 18, 2013

NOTICE: This November 18, 2013, version of the Findings Matrix has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and cleared for public release.

Future revisions to this document will be restricted until a Privacy Act review can be completed and comments appropriately addressed.

Finding 

Number Summary of Finding NIOSH Response

Category

SC&A 

Response

SC&A 

Suggested 

Action

NIOSH: Agree/ 

Disagree DRSC Action

larger than any of the values given 

in Enterline and Marsh 1982, Table 

8, and no explanation is provided as 

to why they have not been included.

Finding 6

Provide justification for excluding 

from the concentration distribution 

the airborne nickel concentration in 

the crushing, grinding, and 

handling areas and the area around 

the calciners reported by Enterline 

and Marsh (1982).

Presented during the 

August 7, 2013, SCDR 

meeting.

During the 

August 7, 

2013, SCDR 

meeting, 

agreed with 

the NIOSH 

response.

Close this issue, 

as per the 

discussion 

during the 

August 7, 2013, 

SCDR meeting, 

pp. 40 through 

112.

Observation 4

When appropriately used, a site 

airborne nickel concentration 

distribution can be used to make 

favorable exposure estimates when 

compared to the individual worker 

location-specific estimates made by 

Enterline and Marsh (1982, 

Table 4).

None required. No action 

required.
Huntington Pilot Plant Site Profile Review - Findings Matrix (SCA-TR-SP2013-0043)

Working Draft 4 of 4 November 18, 2013

NOTICE: This November 18, 2013, version of the Findings Matrix has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and cleared for public release.

Future revisions to this document will be restricted until a Privacy Act review can be completed and comments appropriately addressed.

Finding 

Number Summary of Finding NIOSH Response

Category

SC&A 

Response

SC&A 

Suggested 

Action

NIOSH: Agree/ 

Disagree DRSC Action

Finding 7

There are three typographical errors 

in the numerical values given in 

OCAS-TKBS-0004, Section 6.2. 

Despite the erroneous numerical 

values, the annual doses are 

reported correctly; thus SC&A has 

characterized them as 

“typographical,” rather than 

“numerical” errors. Nonetheless, 

because the erroneous numerical 

values make it difficult to 

understand how the annual doses 

were calculated, SC&A has 

identified these three typographical 

errors as a finding rather than an 

observation.

As of November 14, 2013, 

none provided.