Draft

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

SC&A’s Review of NIOSH SEC-00253 Petition Evaluation 

Report for the Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington, WV

Contract No. 75D30119C04183

Document No. SCA-TR-2021-SEC003, Revision 0

Prepared by

Ron Buchanan, PhD, CHP

Milton Gorden

SC&A, Inc.

2200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22201-3324

April 2, 2021

DISCLAIMER

This is a working document provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

technical support contractor, SC&A for use in discussions with the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health (ABRWH), including its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Documents produced by 

SC&A, such as memorandum, white paper, draft or working documents are not final NIOSH or 

ABRWH products or positions, unless specifically marked as such. This document prepared by 

SC&A represents its preliminary evaluation on technical issues.

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is 

protected by the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 2 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SC&A, Inc. technical support for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s 

review of NIOSH dose reconstruction program

Document title SC&A’s Review of NIOSH SEC-00253 Petition Evaluation Report for the

Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington, WV

Document number SCA-TR-2021-SEC003

Revision number 0 (Draft)

Supersedes NA

Effective date April 2, 2021

Task manager Robert Barton, III, CHP [signature on file]

Project manager Gregory P. Beronja, PE [signature on file]

Document reviewer(s) Robert Barton, III, CHP [signature on file]

Record of revisions

Revision number Effective date Description of revision

0 (Draft) 4/2/2021 Initial issue
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 3 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Table of Contents

List of Tables................................................................................................................... 4

List of Figures.................................................................................................................. 4

Abbreviations and Acronyms........................................................................................... 5

1 Introduction and Background.................................................................................... 7

2 SC&A’s Review of RPP Claimants in NOCTS.......................................................... 7

3 SC&A’s Review of RPP-Relevant Documents in the Site Research Database ........ 9

4 SC&A’s Evaluation of Program Evaluation Reports Relevant to the RPP SEC ER 10

4.1 OCAS-PER-025 ............................................................................................... 10

4.2 DCAS-PER-033 ............................................................................................... 10

4.3 DCAS-PER-066 ............................................................................................... 11

5 Summary of SC&A’s RPP TBD Review in the SEC-00253 Context ....................... 11

6 SC&A’s Evaluation of SEC ER Internal Intakes...................................................... 13

7 SC&A’s Evaluation of SEC ER External Doses ...................................................... 16

7.1 Photon dose..................................................................................................... 16

7.2 Beta dose......................................................................................................... 17

7.3 Neutron dose.................................................................................................... 18

7.4 Ambient dose ................................................................................................... 18

7.5 Occupational medical dose .............................................................................. 20

8 Summary and Conclusions..................................................................................... 20

9 References ............................................................................................................. 20

Attachment A: Analysis of NOCTS RPP Claimants....................................................... 23

Attachment B: Analysis of RPP Relevant SRDB Documents ........................................ 26

Attachment C: Table of Claim Numbers ........................................................................ 37

Attachment D: List of Five Potential Followups ............................................................. 38
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 4 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

List of Tables

Table 1. List of possible claimant interviewees ............................................................... 9

Table 2. SC&A RPP TBD matrix (as of November 14, 2013)........................................ 11

Table 3. Activity ratios for alpha-emitting contaminants from reprocessed fuel

(table 5-3 of ER)............................................................................................................ 14

Table 4. Annual inhalation rates of uranium and reprocessed fuel contaminants 

(table 7-1 of ER)............................................................................................................ 15

Table B1. SRDB documents containing information pertinent to the years 1976 through 

1978 .............................................................................................................................. 26

Table B2. 290 SRDB documents relevant to RPP ........................................................ 27

Table C1. [Redacted] .................................................................................................... 37

List of Figures

Figure 1. NIOSH-recommended uranium intake rates as a function of time ................. 15

Figure 2. NIOSH-recommended photon dose rate as a function of time period............ 16

Figure 3. NIOSH-recommended shallow dose rate as a function of time period........... 17

Figure 4. 1979 external dose survey of the RPP (DOE, 1979a, PDF p. 50).................. 19

Figure A1. Number of claimants by year ....................................................................... 23

Figure A2. Percentage of claimants working in SC&A-determined job categories at the 

RPP............................................................................................................................... 24

Figure A3. [Redacted] ................................................................................................... 24
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 5 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABRWH Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

admin administrative

Am americium

CATI computer-assisted telephone interview

Ci curie

cm centimeter

D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

DCAS Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

dpm disintegrations per minute 

DR dose reconstruction 

EE energy employee 

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

ER evaluation report 

HPP Huntington Pilot Plant

hr hour 

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

INCO International Nickel Company 

keV kiloelectron volt

m meter

m2 square meter

m3 cubic meter

mg milligram

μR microroentgen

mR milliroentgen

mrad millirad

mrem millirem

mrem/hr millirem per hour 

Ni nickel 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 6 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

NOCTS NIOSH DCAS Claims Tracking System

Np neptunium 

OCAS Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team

pCi/d picocurie per day 

pCi/yr picocurie per year 

PER program evaluation report

Pu plutonium 

RPP Reduction Pilot Plant 

SCDRR Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews

SEC Special Exposure Cohort 

SRDB Site Research Database

TBD technical basis document

Tc technetium 

Th thorium

U uranium 

yr year
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 7 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

1 Introduction and Background

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) issued the Special Exposure 

Cohort (SEC) petition evaluation report (ER) for petition SEC-00253 for the Reduction Pilot 

Plant (RPP), also referred to as the Huntington Pilot Plant (HPP), Huntington, WV, on April 24, 

2020 (NIOSH, 2020; hereafter referred to as the “SEC ER”). NIOSH evaluated the following 

class: “all INCO security personnel who worked at any location within the Reduction Pilot Plant 

during the period from June 7, 1976 through November 26, 1978” (NIOSH, 2020, p. 3). 

On September 2, 2020, SC&A was tasked with a review of NIOSH’s ER for SEC-00253 for this 

focused group of workers and time period. 

The following is a list of documents applicable to this review: 

• ORAUT-TKBS-0004, revision 00, October 31, 2003 (NIOSH, 2003) 

• ORAUT-TKBS-0004, revision 01, January 16, 2004 (NIOSH, 2004) 

• OCAS-PER-025, revision 0, September 28, 2007 (NIOSH, 2007) 

• OCAS-TKBS-0004, revision 00, August 13, 2008 (NIOSH, 2008) 

• DCAS-PER-033, revision 0, December 9, 2011 (NIOSH, 2011) 

• SCA-TR-SP2013-0043, June 4, 2013, review of the revised HPP site profile (SC&A, 

2013a) 

• DCAS-TKBS-0004, revision 01, December 12, 2013 (NIOSH, 2013) 

• OCAS-PER-066, revision 0, November 30, 2015 (NIOSH, 2015) 

• DCAS-TKBS-0004, revision 02, November 5, 2018 (NIOSH, 2018) 

• NIOSH ER for SEC-00253, revision 0, April 24, 2020 (NIOSH, 2020) 

The following sections of this report summarize SC&A’s review of NIOSH’s ER for SEC-00253 

and previous RPP-related documents used in the development and evaluation of the ER. 

Section 2 provides an overview of the claimant population for the RPP; additional details 

concerning claimants are found in attachment A. Similarly, section 3 provides an overview of the 

available captured documents related to the RPP, with additional details provided in attachment 

B. Sections 4 and 5 discuss the past relevant document reviews performed by SC&A related to 

the RPP including previous program evaluation reports (PERs) and the technical basis document 

(TBD). Sections 6 and 7 specifically discuss the SEC ER proposed methods for internal and 

external dose reconstruction (DR), respectively. Finally, section 8 provides SC&A’s conclusions 

regarding DR feasibility for the class evaluated in SEC-00253. 

2 SC&A’s Review of RPP Claimants in NOCTS

As a part of the review of NIOSH’s SEC ER for the RPP, SC&A reviewed the 77 claimant 

records contained in the NIOSH DCAS Claims Tracking System (NOCTS) files associated with 

the RPP to identify any information relevant to DR feasibility for security personnel during the 

period from June 7, 1976, to November 26, 1978. SC&A found that a total of 44 claimants 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 8 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

worked a portion or all of 1976 through 1978 at RPP, and that consisted of 

security guards. Notably, one security guard indicated they checked the building on all 7 floors 

to see if the building was secure and walked the perimeter of the fence around the RPP building 

(page 7 of the computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) for Claimant A1). However, that

security guard did not indicate an actual exposure time (refer to statements about Security 

Guard (Claimant A) in attachment A). For one of the other security guards, the CATI indicated 

that the patrol time took 30 minutes (refer to attachment A on Security Guard (Claimant H)).

1 To facilitate discussion of this report, SC&A has assigned all claimant numbers an arbitrary letter. Table C1 in 

attachment C provides a cross-reference for the arbitrary claimant label used in the text and the NOCTS claimant 

number. 

Details of SC&A’s review of the RPP claimants is present in attachment A of this report. Based 

on this evaluation, SC&A did not identify any information that would impact the feasibility of 

DR during the SEC-00253 period for security guards. However, given that a key facet of the 

proposed DR process includes the exposure time (i.e., time spent inside the facility where 

residual contamination is present), it is important to assure that estimates of time spent during 

relevant activities are properly characterized and bounded. This type of information would likely 

only be obtained by documented interviews with former workers who performed such activities 

(i.e., the security guards), or who have indirect knowledge of these activities. Although outside 

the scope of the class evaluated under SEC-00253, examples of other types of workers who may 

have such indirect knowledge are indicated in a document titled: “Listing of Data on Plant and 

Equipment in Stand-By” (INCO, 1963). This document lists the equipment and status of the 

plant going into the shutdown projected for 1963. The document states: 

Following completion of the shutdown and placing of the plant in stand-by 

condition, fulltime guards will no longer be necessary at the plant, and thereafter 

daily checks will be made of the compressor room and process building by 

contractor’s guards.

Weekly checks will be made by a Maintenance Mechanic and Helper to see that 

the dry air system and the emergency inert system are functional. They will also 

check the heating system and air conditioning and for general outward condition 

of the equipment.

Monthly a Maintenance Mechanic and Helper, assisted by other craftsmen and 

under the supervision of a foreman, will perform the necessary maintenance 

duties from a checklist to be approved by the Commission to insure against 

omission of important steps. [INCO, 1963, PDF p. 4] 

Table 5-1 of the SEC ER reiterated the scheduled maintenance described above, along with other 

administrative categories. The SEC ER notes that maintenance activities described above were 

discontinued in 1975 and inspection activities only consisted of entry for non-security personnel 

no “more than two days per year” (NIOSH, 2020, p. 18). However, these maintenance crafts and 

inspection workers may still have knowledge of the typical security activities. Table 1 provides a 

list of potential interview candidates from the NOCTS population that NIOSH might consider 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 9 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

and includes the arbitrary claimant label, work period, and NOCTS-based job title.2 Table C1 in 

attachment C provides a cross-reference for the arbitrary claimant label used in table 1 and the 

NOCTS claimant number. Refer to section 6 for further discussion of the SEC ER development 

of the currently proposed exposure time. 

2 The SEC ER notes that NIOSH has attempted to contact former RPP employees and that only a single interview 

was possible at that time and was conducted with a non-security employee (NIOSH, 2020, PDF p. 12). This 

interview is discussed in attachment A.

Observation 1: Suggest further refinement of exposure time

A key facet of the proposed DR process includes estimates of the exposure time inside the RPP 

facilities during the SEC period. Therefore, it may be beneficial that NIOSH attempt to contact 

and interview security guards or other workers with specific knowledge of the surveillance 

activities to assure an accurate, or in the absence of specific information, a bounding estimate of 

the assigned dose. However, SC&A stresses that assumptions regarding exposure time should 

not preclude DR feasibility and can be considered site profile issues.

Table 1. List of possible claimant interviewees

Claimant label [Redacted] NOCTS occupation

A [redacted] Security Guard

B [redacted] Maintenance Checker

C [redacted] Maintenance

D [redacted] Electrician

E [redacted] Pipefitter, Welder

F [redacted] Millwright, Mechanic

3 SC&A’s Review of RPP-Relevant Documents in the Site Research 

Database

SC&A reviewed the Site Research Database (SRDB) to identify information about the facility 

and worker activities during the time period 1976 through 1978 that would impact DR feasibility 

or the proposed methodology in the SEC ER. The RPP site profile (NIOSH, 2018) summarizes 

the buildings used and operations that occurred during the production period. The site profile 

only briefly addresses post-production activities in section 7.0 of that report, as follows: 

The RPP ceased production in 1962 and was placed in a standby status in 1963. 

Procedures were developed in 1962 to remove material and chemicals, and to 

purge all systems and place the plant in an acceptable standby condition. The 

residue areas were also required to be completely cleaned. The plant was never 

restarted. It was demolished from 1978 through 1979. There are no available 

records of radiation monitoring during the demolition period. Survey results are 

available for the area after the plant was demolished. The only remaining 

structure was a Compressor Building that was located adjacent to the plant. 

[NIOSH, 2018, pp. 15–16] 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 10 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

In developing the proposed DR methods, NIOSH reviewed available documents to determine the 

underlying assumptions of the proposed DR methods. NIOSH’s DR approach is described in its 

response to SEC-00253 (NIOSH, 2020). SC&A’s SRDB document review sought to determine if 

any information was missed that would impact NIOSH’s underlying assumptions. Attachment B 

summarizes SC&A’s document search results and tabulates relevant documents. Based on this 

analysis, SC&A did not locate any information that would indicate a DR infeasibility nor impact 

NIOSH’s proposed DR methodology. 

4 SC&A’s Evaluation of Program Evaluation Reports Relevant to the 

RPP SEC ER

Three PERs were issued for the RPP (OCAS-PER-025, DCAS-PER-033, and DCASPER-066) and are described in the three subsections below. 

4.1 OCAS-PER-025

OCAS-PER-025, revision 0, was issued on September 28, 2007 (NIOSH, 2007). The purpose of 

the PER was as follows:

The revision to the Huntington Pilot Plant TBD provides an estimate of shallow 

dose (electron dose) that did not appear in the original version. This dose is used 

primarily for skin dose estimates but also for breast and testes. Claims in which 

the external target organ is skin, breast, or testes may be affected if they were 

completed prior to revision 1 of the TBD. [NIOSH, 2007, p. 1] 

Previously, SC&A reviewed OCAS-PER-025 and issued a report in September 2013 (SC&A, 

2013b). In its review, SC&A found that the method for assigning shallow dose recommended in 

OCAS-PER-025 was incorporated into the revised TBD in table 6 (NIOSH, 2018, p. 18). The 

results of this PER review do not impact the ability to reconstruct doses during the SEC-00253 

period of interest.

4.2 DCAS-PER-033

DCAS-PER-033, revision 0, was issued on December 9, 2011 (NIOSH, 2011). The purpose of 

the PER was as follows:

Several changes in the Dose Reconstruction methodology occurred in this 

revision to the TBD. Most changes reflect a decrease in the estimated dose. 

However, the estimate of internal dose increased from 1956 through 1963 and for 

1978 and 1979. The inhalation estimate for operators went from approximately 

3.83 pCi/day (1400 pCi/yr) to 44 pCi/day. The original intake was the geometric 

mean of a lognormal distribution with a geometric standard deviation of 4.3. The 

new estimate is a single bounding value. 

While the internal dose estimate increased, other exposure pathways decreased. 

Due to the nature of some of the changes, the magnitude of the effect on 

individual dose estimates will vary from claim to claim. [NIOSH, 2011, p. 1] 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 11 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Previously, SC&A reviewed DCAS-PER-033 and issued a report in January 2014 (SC&A, 

2014). SC&A’s review found that the revised method of assigning internal intakes recommended 

in DCAS-PER-033 was incorporated into the revised TBD in table 5 (NIOSH, 2018, p. 17). The 

results of this PER review do not impact the ability to reconstruct doses during the SEC-00253 

period of interest.

4.3 DCAS-PER-066

DCAS-PER-066, revision 0, was issued on November 30, 2015 (NIOSH, 2015). The purpose of 

the PER was as follows:

Revision 1 of DCAS-TKBS-0004 added intakes for Am-241, Th-230 and Tc-99. 

That results in an increased internal dose estimate for all claims that were 

completed using an earlier version. Therefore, it was not necessary to itemize any 

other increases in dose or further breakdown the time periods affected. [NIOSH, 

2015, p. 1] 

Previously, SC&A reviewed DCAS-PER-066 and issued a report in October 2016 (SC&A, 

2016). In its review, SC&A found that the method of assigning americium-241 (Am-241), 

thorium-230 (Th-230), and technetium-99 (Tc-99) intakes as recommended in DCAS-PER-066 

was incorporated into the revised TBD in table 5 (NIOSH, 2018, p. 17). The results of this PER 

review do not impact the ability to reconstruct doses during the SEC-00253 period of interest. 

5 Summary of SC&A’s RPP TBD Review in the SEC-00253 Context

SC&A reviewed the revised HPP site profile (NIOSH, 2008) and issued a report in June 2013 

(SC&A, 2013a). The six findings derived from that review, and their status as of November 14, 

2013 (SC&A, 2013c), are summarized in table 2. This information is provided for completeness, 

and as noted below, SC&A does not find that the open findings from the RPP TBD review 

impact the proposed DR methods during the SEC-00253 period of interest. 

Table 2. SC&A RPP TBD matrix (as of November 14, 2013)

Finding 

number 

Summary of finding NIOSH response SC&A response SC&A suggested 

action

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.

— —
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 12 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Finding 

number 

Summary of finding NIOSH response SC&A response SC&A suggested 

action

2 NIOSH should clearly 

state which uraniumspecific activity was used 

in the analysis and ensure 

that it was used 

consistently throughout 

the analysis. 

As of November 14, 

2013, none provided. 

— —

3 There is a unit conversion 

error in going from 

table A2, column 3 

(Photons per decay 

U-238) to column 4 

(Photons per second per 

Ci U-238).

As of November 14, 

2013, none provided. 

— —

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.

— —

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/m3 in areas where the 

matte was crushed, 

ground, and handled, and 

from 5 to 15 mg Ni/m3

around the calciners. 

These concentrations are 

significantly 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.

Presented during the 

August 7, 2013, 

SCDRR meeting. 

During the 

August 7, 2013, 

SCDRR 

meeting, SC&A 

agreed with the 

NIOSH 

response. 

Close this issue, 

per the discussion 

during the August 

7, 2013, SCDRR 

meeting (ABRWH, 

2013, pp. 40–

112). 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 13 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Finding 

number 

Summary of finding NIOSH response SC&A response SC&A suggested 

action

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, 

SCDRR meeting. 

During the 

August 7, 2013, 

SCDRR 

meeting, SC&A 

agreed with the 

NIOSH 

response. 

Close this issue, 

per the discussion 

during the August 

7, 2013, SCDRR 

meeting (ABRWH, 

2013, pp. 40–

112). 

* It should be noted that additional recycled/reprocessed uranium components (Pu-239, Np-237, Am-241, Th-230, 

and Tc-99) have been added to the most recent RPP site profile (NIOSH, 2018) and are included in the estimation of 

internal dose in the SEC ER. These additional contaminants are discussed in section 6 of this report.

SC&A reviewed this list of findings to determine if the findings that could impact the RPP SEC 

had been resolved or addressed in the revised TBD (NIOSH, 2018). SC&A found that: 

• Finding 1 concerning additional radionuclide intakes was addressed by table 5 of the 

revised TBD and has been correctly incorporated into the SEC ER. 

• Finding 2 concerning uranium-specific activity was addressed on page 12 of the revised 

TBD.

• Finding 3 concerning unit conversion was not applicable to intake calculations. 

• Finding 4 concerning gamma-ray energy spectrum is not an SEC issue.

• Finding 5 concerning airborne nickel concentrations has been resolved and closed. 

• Finding 6 concerning certain nickel operations has been resolved and closed. 

6 SC&A’s Evaluation of SEC ER Internal Intakes

According to the ER, NIOSH derived bounding internal intakes using the result of an RPP 

radiological survey of January 15–16, 1975 (DOE, 1979a). In that survey, the highest removable 

alpha result, 19 disintegrations per minute per 100 centimeter squared (dpm/100 cm2), was 

assumed to be uranium and assumed to apply uniformly to the entire floor area walked by 

security guards. Air concentrations were estimated using a resuspension factor of 10-6 per meter 

(m-1), which is generally applied to “quiescent conditions” (NIOSH, 2012, p. 7), and a breathing 

rate of 1.2 m3 per hour, which corresponds to the reference breathing rate for a male performing 

light work (ICRP, 1994, PDF p. 34). 

In developing the exposure time, NIOSH assumed the following: 

Security guards performed a walk-through of the RPP Process Building once per 

shift. Using a typical walking speed of 3 miles per hour or 4.4 feet per second, a 

person could walk the length of the Process Building in about 34 seconds. 

Allowing for deviations and stops, NIOSH assumed that no single walk-through 

would take more than five minutes. For estimating the length of time at the RPP, a 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 14 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

factor of three is applied, giving fifteen minutes as the time that any security 

guard was in the RPP Process Building, the Compressor Building, and the 

grounds during their walk-through. [NIOSH, 2020, PDF p. 29] 

As stated in section 2, one CATI with a former security guard (refer to Security Guard in 

attachment A) indicated that a typical patrol involved checking all seven floors of the process 

building, as well as patrolling the perimeter areas. However, no exact patrol time was provided. 

In another CATI with a former security guard, the energy employee (EE) indicated that the 

regular patrol of the RPP took 30 minutes (refer to Security Guard in attachment A). SC&A 

finds that the assumption in the SEC ER that it takes 15 minutes to patrol the process areas on 

the main floor and immediate area appears to be a reasonable estimate considering that the 

security guards also patrolled the perimeter fence line (which would logically take a considerable 

amount of time associated with the 30-minute patrol time). However, if the security guards had 

to ascend to and inspect multiple floors, then the estimate of exposure time may underestimate 

the actual exposure conditions. This underscores the importance of establishing an accurate 

exposure time via interview (refer to observation 1) or assuring that assumed exposure times are 

truly bounded. SC&A reiterates that assumptions regarding exposure time do not preclude DR

feasibility and can be considered site profile issues.

As currently proposed, NIOSH has assumed that the time in the Process Building for any 

individual security guard was 0.25 hr/day (hours per day), or 91.3 hours per year. This provides 

an upper bound on the annual inhalation of total uranium as: 

19 dpm/100 cm2

 × 10,000 cm2/m2 × 10-6 m-1 × 1.2 m3/hr × 91.3 hr/yr = 0.208 dpm/yr 

The total uranium intake value of 0.208 dpm/yr was then multiplied by the activity ratios as 

summarized in table 5-3 of the ER (reproduced as table 3 in this report) for plutonium-239 

(Pu-239), Am-241, neptunium-237 (Np-237), Th-230, and Tc-99 to obtain the recommended 

annual bounding inhalation intakes (in units of dpm/year) as summarized in table 7-1 of the ER, 

and reproduced in this report as table 4. 

Table 3. Activity ratios for alpha-emitting contaminants from reprocessed fuel

(table 5-3 of ER) 

Radionuclide Activity relative to total 

enriched uranium activity 

Pu-239 0.0623 

Am-241 0.0623 

Np-237 0.00498 

Th-230 0.0174 

Tc-99 0.00011 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 15 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Table 4. Annual inhalation rates of uranium and reprocessed fuel contaminants 

(table 7-1 of ER) 

Radionuclide Annual inhalation 

(dpm/year)

Uranium 0.209*

Pu-239 0.0130

Am-241 0.0130

Np-237 0.00104

Th-230 0.00363

Tc-99 0.000023

*NIOSH rounded the previous derived value 

of 0.208 up to 0.209 dpm/year in this table.

Figure 1 provides a comparison of the recommended values for uranium intakes (in units of 

dpm/hour) as a function of time period and worker category.

Figure 1. NIOSH-recommended uranium intake rates as a function of time

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

Intake (dpm/hr)

Opers (1951 - 1963) SEC (1976 - 1978) D&D (1978 - 1979) 

Production Admin Security guards

NIOSH’s recommended intake rates during the operation and decontamination and 

decommissioning (D&D) periods are 17.8 dpm/hour for production workers, 1.89 dpm/hour for 

administrative personnel, and 2.28E-3 dpm/hour for the security guards during the SEC period. 

SC&A’s evaluation of the potential internal intakes of radioactive material indicated that the 

concentrations should be substantially greater during operations and D&D compared to the SEC 

period when no significant activity was being conducted. Hence, the recommended intake value 

for the operation and D&D periods (17.8 dpm/hr) should be much greater than for the SEC 

period (2.28E-3 dpm/hr). SC&A found the recommended intake rates to be reasonable and in 

line with prevailing conditions during the SEC period. However, SC&A does have one 

observation concerning documentation of internal dose methods presented in the SEC ER. 

Observation 2: Ingestion intake not addressed for SEC period
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 16 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Tables 3 and 4 of the revised TBD provide ingestion intake values for production workers and 

administrative personnel during the operation and D&D periods (NIOSH, 2018, pp. 13–14). 

However, the ER does not address potential ingestion intakes for the SEC period. The annual 

ingestion intake is a fraction of the annual inhalation intake, resulting, in this case, in a very 

small ingestion value of much less than one dpm per year. Though not a measurable dose 

contributor, the ER should have addressed this for completeness.

7 SC&A’s Evaluation of SEC ER External Doses

7.1 Photon dose

To derive the external photon dose during the SEC period, NIOSH assumed that the external 

photon exposure may be bound using the highest gamma results, 35 microroentgen (μR) per 

hour, from measurements made using a scintillation detector at 3 feet above the surface at the 

RPP. This was measured in the post-demolition survey of the Compressor Building by Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) (DOE, 1981), and although it included photons from 

natural radioactivity, the measurement encompasses all photon doses that may have come from 

the uranium and enriched fuel contaminants. The recommended annual external photon dose for 

the SEC period was derived as follows:

35 μR/hr × 0.001 mrem/μR × 91.3 hr/yr = 3.2 mrem/yr

Figure 2 provides a comparison of the recommended external photon dose rate as a function time 

period and worker category. 

Figure 2. NIOSH-recommended photon dose rate as a function of time period

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

Photon dose (mrem/hr)

Opers (1951 - 1963) SEC (1976 - 1978) D&D (1978 - 1979) 

Production Admin Security guards

As shown in figure 2, the recommended photon dose rate (0.035 millirem per hour (mrem/hr)) 

for security guards during the SEC period is approximately the same as that for the production 

workers (0.032 mrem/hr) during the operation period and also for the workers during the D&D 

period, and approximately twice that recommended for admin (administrative) workers 

(0.017 mrem/hr). The recommended photon dose rates for the operation and D&D periods 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 17 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

compared to the SEC period were derived using different methods but resulted in approximately 

the same dose rates. 

SC&A found the recommended photon exposure rate for the SEC period to be reasonable (and 

likely bounding) as well as in line with the derived external dose rate for other periods as 

recommended by NIOSH for the RPP (NIOSH, 2018). 

7.2 Beta dose

To derive the external beta dose rate during the SEC period, NIOSH assumed that the external 

beta exposure may be bound using the highest beta-gamma result from the January 15–16, 1975, 

survey during the standby period, 0.25 milliroentgen (mR) per hour (DOE, 1979a, PDF p. 16). 

Because the measurement includes exposure from both low-energy gamma and beta, it is 

bounding for beta exposure. 

The recommended annual external beta dose for the SEC period was derived as follows: 

0.25 mR/hr × 1 mrad/mR × 91.3 hr/yr =23 mrad/yr 

Figure 3 shows NIOSH’s recommended annual external shallow dose rate (as >15 kiloelectron 

volt (keV) electrons) as a function of time period and worker category.

Figure 3. NIOSH-recommended shallow dose rate as a function of time period

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

Shallow dose (mrad/hr)

Opers (1951 - 1963) SEC (1976 - 1978) D&D (1978 - 1979) 

Production Security guards

As shown in figure 3, the recommended shallow dose rate (0.25 mrad/hr) for the security guards 

during the SEC period is approximately the same as that for the production workers during the 

operation period and workers during the D&D period (0.27 mrad/hr). The RPP TBD 

recommended that no shallow dose be assigned to administrative workers. The shallow dose 

rates recommended for the operation and D&D periods compared to the SEC period were 

derived using different methods but resulted in approximately the same dose rates. SC&A did 

note that the January 15 and 16, 1975, survey lists “Thayac Beta-Gamma mr/hr” results of three 

reading of residue material as 0.25 mr/hr and a “CO filter” from reactor housing of 0.5 mr/hr
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 18 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

(DOE, 1979a, PDF p. 16). SC&A assumes that NIOSH did not consider the 0.5 mr/hr reading as 

the highest reading because it was not likely a plausible exposure potential for security guards 

and therefore not included. 

SC&A found the NIOSH-recommended shallow dose rate for the SEC period to be reasonable

(and likely bounding) as well as in line with the derived shallow dose rate for other periods at the 

RPP (NIOSH, 2018). 

7.3 Neutron dose

Most of the material of radiological concern at the RPP originated at the K-25 site and was lowenriched uranium. It was described as “minute quantities of [reprocessed contaminants 

including] Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-241, U-236, Th-232, Np-237, and U-237” (NIOSH, 2020, 

PDF p. 21). 

Therefore, there would not likely have been a significant potential for neutron exposure. SC&A 

concurs with the ER that the neutron exposure potential for the security guards for the SEC 

period would not present a significant dose as outlined in section 5.2.2.3, page 22, of the SEC 

ER. 

It is worth noting that neutron dose was also evaluated for the K-25 site in which the source 

material originated. The TBD for K-25 determined: 

While neutrons occur in some areas at K-25, the measured levels are low. Several 

studies have evaluated neutron fields at gaseous diffusion plants . . .; these studies 

have shown neutron dose to be minimal in all areas. . . . These studies identified 

the storage cylinders, which contained either depleted UF6 (tails) or enriched UF6

(product), as areas where neutron fields might represent an exposure hazard. 

[NIOSH, 2006, p.14] 

Such an exposure scenario would not likely be relatable to residual contamination exposures 

during standby mode at the RPP. Furthermore, the K-25 evaluation of neutron exposure potential 

identified an approximate 20% neutron-to-photon dose equivalent ratio. Even a photon dose of 

3.2 mrem/yr at the RPP, an extremely conservative (and generally unrealistic) ratio for the RPP, 

would result in an annual neutron dose of less than 1 mrem/yr. 

7.4 Ambient dose

While time spent along the perimeter of the buildings and along the fence line could be 

considered a logical ambient dose exposure scenario, a 1979 survey of the property postdemolition showed no elevated radiation levels above background (approximately 7 to13 μR/hr) 

at the outside areas of the plant footprint, as shown in figure 4, below (DOE, 1979a, PDF p. 50). 

Unfortunately, no surveys of the outside areas of the RPP were available for the January 1975 

survey (just prior to the SEC ER period) due to the existence of snow on the ground (DOE, 

1979a, PDF p. 5). SC&A concurs with the SEC ER that ambient external dose would likely be 

accounted for in the bounding external dose assignments based on the interior measurements 

recommended in the ER, assuming the appropriate exposure time is confirmed or appropriately 

modified. 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 19 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

A later survey performed in 1981 stated the following concerning outdoor gamma surveys: 

Systemic measurements of exposure rates at 1 meter above the surface were not 

performed, since a previous survey had shown these levels to range between 6 and 

11 μR/hr – not significantly different from the normally expected background 

levels. Several random measurements confirmed these previous findings. [DOE, 

1981, PDF p. 10] 

Figure 4. 1979 external dose survey of the RPP (DOE, 1979a, PDF p. 50)

In addition, during the 1979 survey, a composite sample of soil was taken from four locations 

where contaminated material and equipment had been stored during demolition, revealing no 

levels significantly different than background. At that time, the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) determined that the entire site could be released for unrestricted use. 

A subsequent survey in 1981 (DOE, 1981) found that, while the uranium levels of most onsite 

soil samples were comparable to those found in offsite locations, a few elevated soil samples 

were obtained near a concrete pad. However, the 1981 survey concluded that these elevated 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 20 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

samples likely resulted from contaminated equipment stored on the pad during the demolition 

activities. Therefore, SC&A believes any potential for ambient internal dose would be negligible.

7.5 Occupational medical dose

SC&A concurs with the SEC ER that the assignment of dose from occupational medical x-ray 

examinations as recommended in the RPP TBD, section 9, would apply for the SEC period and 

can be reconstructed with significant accuracy. 

8 Summary and Conclusions

SC&A reviewed the NIOSH RPP SEC ER, taking into consideration previous PERs, TBD, and 

related captured documents for the RPP, and found the following concerning DR feasibility:

• Interviews – SC&A did not identify information that would preclude DR in the available 

claimant records and interview files. SC&A did note that there are potential interview 

candidates that may provide information for the SEC period, in particular an experiencedbased exposure time to be used in DR. However, assumptions regarding exposure time 

would not affect DR feasibility and can be considered a site profile issue.

• Internal intakes – The ER method for assigning internal intakes is reasonable, however 

further discussion of the exposure time appears warranted. The concentration of 

radioactive material in the air should be substantially less during the SEC period (2.28E-3 

dpm/hr) when no significant activity was being conducted, as compared to the operation 

and D&D periods (17.8 dpm/hr). However, SC&A did have an observation concerning 

ignored potential ingestion intakes (although very small) during the SEC period in the 

ER. This observation is relevant to the completeness of the SEC ER and does not affect 

DR feasibility.

• External doses – The recommended SEC period photon dose rate (0.035 mrem/hr) and 

the shallow dose rate (0.25 mrad/hr) are reasonable and in line with the derived external 

dose rate for other periods as recommended by NIOSH for the RPP in which operations 

or D&D activities occurred (NIOSH, 2018). Similar to the assignment of internal dose, 

assignment of external dose depends on the assumed exposure time and warrants further 

discussion. 

In summary, SC&A finds that DR for security workers evaluated under SEC-00253 for the 

period from June 7, 1976, through November 26, 1978, is feasible.

9 References

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 

Reviews. (2013). Wednesday, August 7, 2013 [Transcript of teleconference meeting]. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/2013/sctr080713.pdf 

Enterline, P. E., & Marsh, G. M. (1982). Mortality among workers in a nickel refinery and alloy 

manufacturing plant in West Virginia, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 68(6), 925–933. 

SRDB Ref. ID 126870 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 21 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Huntington Alloys. (1978a). RPP demolition staffing. SRDB Ref. ID 179771, PDF p. 2. 

Huntington Alloys. (1978b). RPP demolition staffing. SRDB Ref. ID 179786, PDF p. 8. 

International Commission on Radiological Protection. (1994). Human respiratory tract model for 

radiological protection (Publication 66). Ann. ICRP, 24(1–3). SRDB Ref. ID 22732

International Nickel Company. (1963). Listing of data on plant and equipment in stand-by. 

SRDB Ref. ID 19654

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2003). Technical basis document: Basis 

for development of an exposure matrix for Huntington Pilot Plant (ORAUT-TKBS-0004, 

rev. 00). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/huntpp.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2004). Technical basis document: Basis 

for development of an exposure matrix for Huntington Pilot Plant (ORAUT-TKBS-0004, 

rev. 01). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/huntpp2.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2006). Technical basis document for the 

K-25 Site – Occupational external dose (ORAUT-TKBS-0009-6, rev. 00 PC-1). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/k25-6pc1.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2007). Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

revision (OCAS-PER-025, rev. 0). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/pers/oc-per25-r0.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2008). Technical basis document for the 

Huntington Pilot Plant, Huntington, West Virginia (OCAS-TKBS-0004, rev. 00). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/oc-huntpp-r0.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2011). Reduction Pilot Plant TBD 

revision (DCAS-PER-033, rev. 0). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/pers/dc-per-33-r0.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2012). Dose reconstruction during 

residual radioactivity periods at Atomic Weapons Employer facilities (ORAUT-OTIB-0070, 

rev. 01). SRDB Ref. ID 108851

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2013). Technical basis document for the 

Huntington Pilot Plant, Huntington, West Virginia (DCAS-TKBS-0004, rev. 01). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/huntpp-r1.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2015). Hunting Pilot Plant (DCAS-PER066, rev. 0). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/pers/dc-per66-r0.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2018). Technical basis document for the 

Huntington Pilot Plant, Huntington, West Virginia (DCAS-TKBS-0004, rev. 02). SRDB Ref. 

ID 175109 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 22 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2020). SEC petition evaluation 

report for petition SEC-00253, Reduction Pilot Plant (SEC-00253, rev. 0). SRDB Ref. ID 

180654 

SC&A, Inc. (2013a). Review of the revised Huntington Pilot Plant site profile (SCA-TRSP2013-0043). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-huntppsp-r0b.pdf

SC&A, Inc. (2013b). OCAS-PER-025, Subtask 4, Review of one impacted case reworked for the 

evaluation of shallow dose from the Huntington Pilot Plant. (OCAS-PER-025, Subtask 4 

Review). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-per25-r0.pdf

SC&A, Inc. (2013c). Huntington Pilot Plant site profile review – Findings matrix (SCA-TRSP2013-0043). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-hppsp-111813.pdf

SC&A, Inc. (2014). DCAS-PER-033, Subtask 4, Review of impacted cases reworked for the 

evaluation of internal intakes and shallow dose from the Huntington Pilot Plant. (DCAS-PER033, Subtask 4 Review). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-per33-r0.pdf

SC&A, Inc. (2016). DCAS-PER-066, Subtask 4, Review of impacted cases reworked for the 

evaluation of internal intakes from the Huntington Pilot Plant. (SCA-TR-2016-PER066-ST4).

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-per66-r0.pdf

U.S. Department of Energy. (1973, October 5). Decontamination and decommissioning of 

facilities [Memorandum]. SRDB Ref. ID 14801, PDF pp. 2–19. 

U.S. Department of Energy. (1979a). Reduction Pilot Plant (RPP) contamination clearance 

report. SRDB Ref. ID 179732 

U.S. Department of Energy. (1979b, November 14). Reduction Pilot Plant (RPP) contamination 

clearance report. [Memorandum]. SRDB Ref. ID 85877 

U.S. Department of Energy. (1979c, December 3). Inquiry about health of [Internal 

memorandum]. SRDB Ref. ID 179792 

U.S. Department of Energy. (1981). Radiological assessment of the former Reduction Pilot 

Plant, Huntington, West Virginia. SRDB Ref. ID 179725 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 23 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Attachment A: Analysis of NOCTS RPP Claimants

As a part of the review of NIOSH’s ER for the RPP SEC, SC&A reviewed the 77 claimant files 

in NOCTS associated with the RPP to determine if additional relevant information regarding the 

SEC period of June 7, 1976, to November 26, 1978, was available. During this period, the RPP 

was being maintained in a cold standby mode and regularly patrolled by security guards. 

Demolition of the RPP began on November 29, 1978, and ended on May 18, 1979. 

SC&A examined the work periods of the claimants. The smallest number of claimants who

worked in a given year was 31 claimants in 1951. The largest number of claimants who worked 

in a given year was 54 claimants in 1961. Thirty-eight claimants worked in 1976; 36 worked in 

1977, and 37 worked in 1978. Figure A1 shows the number of claimants employed for each year 

from 1951 through 1979. Despite RPP operations ending in 1963, there is not a significant 

dropoff in the number of claimants in subsequent years. Note that it is probable that during 

1976–1978, the claimants present during this period may not have necessarily entered the RPP, 

only that they were employed by International Nickel Company (INCO), which has a facility 

adjacent to the RPP and whose employees (namely security personnel) supported activities at the 

RPP as assigned.

Figure A1. Number of claimants by year

SC&A assigned a job category title for each of the claimants based on information in the CATIs, 

taking into account the job categories identified by the claimants and when the claimants worked 

in each of these categories,

3

 if known. Figure A2 shows the percentage of claimants in the 

following job categories: crane operator/machinist, laborer, other, pipefitter, administrative, 

electrician, operator, security guard, and engineer/technician. The major job categories for the 77 

claimants are operator (25 percent), electrician (17 percent), and pipefitter (15 percent). Five of 

the claimants (6 percent) are categorized as security guards.

3 Some claimants worked in multiple job categories during their employment.
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 24 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Figure A2. Percentage of claimants working in SC&A-determined job categories at the 

RPP

Operator, 25%

Electrician, 17%

Pipefitter, 15%

Laborer, 12%

Crane Operator/ Machinist, 10%

Administrative, 8%

Security Guard, 6%

Other, 4%

Engineer/Technician, 3%

A total of 44 claimants worked a portion or all of 1976 through 1978. Figure A3 shows the 

percentage of claimants who worked in each job category. Pipefitters (23 percent) and 

electricians (23 percent) comprised the largest labor categories during this time period. 

Figure A3. [Redacted]

[Figure A3 is withheld in its entirety to prevent disclosure of Privacy Act-protected information.] 

A job title of security guard was assigned to that spanned a portion or all of 

1976 through 1978. Information from the CATIs for security guards is as follows:

1.
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 25 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

 “checked IDs and admitted people into the plant, patrolled the RPP 

on foot inside and outside, and inspected vehicles for theft and/or contamination.” No 

other pertinent information related to activities being conducted at the RPP during 1976 

through 1978 was provided. 

2.

description of duties was given as “plant protection services, checking & monitoring, 

inspecting and control of personnel movements. Classes in Emergency Medical Tech. In 

many areas to make sure things were locked up.” 

 “it took 1/2 hour to inspect the pilot plant every day.”

3.

 “checked the building on all 7 floors to 

see if building was secure. Walked the perimeter of the fence around the RPP building.” 

 “The RPP building was shut down at the time [name redacted] was 

patrolling the building. [The EE] says it was supposed to be cleaned up, but the building 

still had all pipes and fixtures that were there when the building was in operation. [The 

EE] does not know what materials [the EE] may have been exposed to.” 

In addition to reviewing the claimant records, SC&A also reviewed the only interview on record 

with an RPP employee that was not part of the CATI process. However, the single interview 

(conducted on March 20, 2020) did not provide any additional relevant information specific to 

the activities conducted in 1976 to 1978 or SEC-00253 generally. 

Taking all of the above security guard activities into account, SC&A finds that the assumption in 

the SEC ER that it takes 15 minutes to patrol the process areas on the main floor and immediate 

area appears to be a reasonable estimate considering that the security guards also patrolled the 

perimeter fence line (which would logically take a considerable amount of time associated with 

the 30-minute patrol time). However, if the security guards had to ascend to and inspect multiple 

floors, then the estimate of exposure time may underestimate the actual exposure conditions.
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 26 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Attachment B: Analysis of RPP Relevant SRDB Documents

The SRDB contains 290 documents relevant to the RPP (listed in table B2). These documents 

range from memorandums, reports, employee interviews, and NIOSH documentation related to 

DR development or work group activities. SC&A focused on reviewing documents with no 

preparation year identified that could potentially provide information concerning RPP operations 

for the 1970s or later and were not related to NIOSH DR development or the work group 

activities. Table B1 presents several documents that SC&A reviewed that had information that 

describes activities or events that would be associated with the period 1976 through 1978 and 

that may be pertinent to security guard activities. In the last column of the table, SC&A 

evaluated the information in each document in relation to the ER for SEC-00253 (NIOSH, 2020). 

Based on the information in table B1, SC&A did not find any new information that would 

preclude DR feasibility.

Table B1. SRDB documents containing information pertinent to the years 1976 through 

1978

SRDB Ref. 

ID

Title SC&A notes Relationship to SEC-00253 ER

14801 

(DOE, 

1973)

Decontamination 

and 

Decommissioning 

of Facilities

Document from 1973 that 

indicates that “at most” 

10 percent of the areas at the 

RPP were contaminated. 

Indicates no survey data to 

date.

Section 5.2.1 of the ER addresses 

internal radiological exposure 

sources, while section 5.2.2 

addresses external radiological 

exposure sources. NIOSH used a 

radiological survey conducted in 

1975 to address exposures 

related to residual contamination

during the relevant standby period 

(NIOSH, 2020, PDF p. 20).

19654 

(INCO, 

1963) 

Listing of Data on 

Plant and 

Equipment in 

Stand-By

Lists data and equipment in the 

RPP. States that full-time 

guards will no longer be 

necessary, and that daily 

checks will be made of the 

compressor room and process 

building by contractor’s guards. 

Weekly checks will be made by 

a maintenance mechanic and 

helper to see that the dry air 

system and emergency inert 

system are functional and 

check the heating system and 

air conditioning and general 

outward condition of the plant. 

Monthly a mechanic and helper 

will perform maintenance 

duties. Twice per year an 

inspection will be made of 

painting. Yearly an inspection 

will be made by a supervisor to 

assess deterioration.

In table 5-1 of the PER, security 

guards were assumed to conduct 

security inspections once per shift, 

which exceeds the daily frequency 

given in this reference. However, 

it is unlikely that EEs would have 

worked multiple shifts per day 

(and hence entered the RPP for 

multiple patrols per day). 
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 27 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SRDB Ref. 

ID

Title SC&A notes Relationship to SEC-00253 ER

85877 

(DOE, 

1979b, 

PDF p. 2) 

Reduction Pilot 

Plant (RPP) 

Contamination 

Clearance Report

“In addition to the process 

equipment, the residue 

unloading system and the 

building walls, floors and 

structural members 

surrounding it were slightly 

contaminated and contained 

classified material; also, the 

CO holding tanks were slightly 

contaminated and were all 

scheduled for burial at 

Portsmouth.”

Section 5.2.1 of the SEC ER 

addresses internal radiological 

exposure sources, while section 

5.2.2 addresses external 

radiological exposure sources. 

NIOSH used a radiological survey 

conducted in 1975 to address 

exposures related to 

contamination (page 19 of the 

SEC ER).

179771 

(Huntington 

Alloys, 

1978a, 

PDF p. 2)

RPP Demolition 

Staffing

Identifies five individuals as 

possible security guards during 

facility demolition. The five 

individuals are listed in 

attachment D of this report.

No direct relationship to the SEC

ER, but these are potential 

interviews for followup.

179786 

(Huntington 

Alloys, 

1978b, 

PDF p. 8) 

Cleveland 

Wrecking 

Company Bid 

Proposal and 

Personnel 

Clearances

Contains names of current and 

retired security guards as part 

of a security clearance request. 

See previous row above.

No direct relationship to the SEC

ER, but these are potential 

interviews for followup.

179792 

(DOE, 

1979c) 

Inquiry About 

Health of 

Involves information about 

D&D activities. Of note is that 

ORNL oversite indicates D&D 

workers (Cleveland Wrecking 

Company) received pre- and 

post-uranium urinalysis 

sampling.

NIOSH has not been able to 

recover any exposure records; 

however, D&D activities are 

outside the current scope of this 

SEC evaluation.

Table B2. 290 SRDB documents relevant to RPP

SRDB 

Ref. ID Title

9018 Radiological Assessments of the Former Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington Alloys, Inc., 

Huntington, West Virginia and Biological Effects of Nickel Contamination

9033 Huntington Pilot Plant.xls Spreadsheets

14801 Decontamination and Decommissioning of Facilities

18809 General Layout Map of Huntington Pilot Plant

18810 Radioactive Contamination Limits

18811 Uranium Urinalysis for Huntington Plant, International Nickel Company

18812 Final Report of Annual Fire Survey of Reduction Pilot Plant Huntington, West Virginia,

July 2–3, 1957

18862 Radiation Hazard Possibilities at the Reduction Pilot Plant

18863 Study of INCO Radiation Problem

18864 Comments on INCO Radiation Problem

18865 Shipment of Special Samples
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 28 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SRDB 

Ref. ID Title

18866 Visit to International Nickel Company, Huntington, West Virginia

18867 Xenon Type Gamma Probes INCO Order 13042

18868 Health and Safety Requirements Associated with Uranium Content of the Starting Material

18869 Appendix “C”, Contract AT(40-1)-1092 February 1958

18870 Visit to International Nickel Company, Huntington, West Virginia on February 26, 1958

18871 Report of Annual Fire Protection Survey of Reduction Pilot Plant Huntington, West Virginia

18872 Meeting with INCO Personnel at Huntington, West Virginia

18873 International Nickel Company’s Response to the Annual Fire Survey of the Reduction Pilot 

Plant

18874 Appendix “C”, Contract AT(40-1)-1092 May 1958

18875 Excerpts from OROO Accounting Manual

18876 Request for Nickel Carbonyl Detection Equipment

18877 Authorized Request to Purchase Nickel Carbonyl Detection Equipment

19510 Basis for Development of an Exposure Matrix for Huntington Pilot Plant

19511 Technical Basis Document: Basis for Development of an Exposure Matrix for Huntington 

Pilot Plant SUPERSEDED

19654 Listing of Data on Plant and Equipment in Stand-By

19655 Nickel Powder

19656 Disposition of Massive Nickel

19657 Licensing Requirements with Regard to Property which May Be Slightly Contaminated with 

Special Nuclear Material

19658 Determination of Nickel in Urine

19659 Directive for Modifications to Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington, West Virginia-Subproject 

224-57n-INC2

19708 Fabrication of Xenon Probes

19709 Xenon Probe Procurement

19710 INCO Reduction Pilot Plant Modifications

19711 Authorization to Purchase and Install Voltage Stabilization Transformers in Certain Motor 

Control Circuits of the Reduction Pilot Plant

19712 Photographs Showing Construction Progress of the Reduction Pilot Plant at Huntington, 

West Virginia Since January 1953

19713 Report of Conference with International Nickel Company Relative to the Huntington, W. Va.

Project

19714 Available Ambulance and Maximum Allowable Concentration of Nickel Carbonyl

19715 USAEC Oak Ridge Directing Statement for Release to the Press Announcing the Completion 

of Construction in the Project at Huntington, West Virginia

19716 Report on Delay in Start of Operation on Reduction Pilot Plant

19717 Temporary Duty for Huntington Project Employees

19718 Modifications of the North Charmo Furnace

19719 Proposed Expansion of International Nickel Company Facilities at Huntington, West Virginia

19720 Approval for Modifications to the South Charmo Furnace

19721 Request for Formal Approval for the Procurement of a CO Converter for the Chemico Gas 

Reforming Portion of the Gas Plant

19722 Request for Formal Approval for Modifications of the Inert Gas Purge System for Containers
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 29 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SRDB 

Ref. ID Title

19723 Security Safeguards Necessary in Connection with the Proposed Expansion of the Reduction 

Pilot Plant

19724 Increased Number of Operating Personnel Due to the Current Expansion of the Reduction 

Pilot Plant

19725 Conversion of the Huntington Plant for Processing of Scrap Barrier

19726 Processing of Scrap Barrier Material at the INCO Plant, Huntington, West Virginia

19727 Request for Approval of Gasholder Membrane Replacement

19728 Gasholder Membrane Replacement Costs

21998 International Nickel Company’s 1956 Agreement to Process Government-Owned Nickel 

Scrap

21999 Various Letters Describing Materials and Processes 1956, 1960 and 1962

22000 Directive for Modifications to Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington, West Virginia Subproject 

224-57n-INC2 February 1957

22104 Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant Detail of Nickel Ingot Transactions Supplemental 

Information Requested for FY1959–FY1961 Budget

22105 Specifications for Starting Material

22106 U.S. AEC to International Nickel Company Confirming Understanding of Metallic Nickel 

Specifications June 13, 1957

22125 Security of Nickel Powder Shipments to K-25 Plant

22126 Facility Data Report Changing Classification of Material from Secret to Unclassified

22128 Physical and Security Review of International Nickel Company Facility

23562 Cooling Water System - Reduction Pilot Plant

23563 Installation of Additional Fire Hydrant

23564 Residue from Starting Material

23565 Estimates for Gamma Alarm System to Make Huntington Plant Compliant with Amendment 

to 10CFR70 in the Federal Register

23566 Replacement of Stripper Condenser

23567 Replacement of Reconcentrator

27489 Logbook 73 Health Physics and Hygiene Inspection Reports July 1959 - January 1961

28116 Personal Communication Between and 

28117 E-mail Between and 

31605 Audit of Case from the Huntington Pilot Plant

33489 Companies and Research Sites Where Radioactive and Toxic Material Might Have Been 

Processed Secretly

42321 Companies and Research Sites Where Radioactive and Toxic Materials Might Have Been 

Processed Secretly

43959 Status of Actions FUSRAP Site List

44825 The Traveler's Guide to Nuclear Weapons a Journey Through America's Cold War 

Battlefields

47431 Technical Basis Document for the Huntington Pilot Plant, Huntington, West Virginia, rev. 00

63426 List of Manhattan Engineering District Facilities (Around the Country) with Reference to Their 

Contracts

79849 Data Collection, Processing, Validation, and Verification
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 30 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SRDB 

Ref. ID Title

80278 Minutes of DOL Site Exposure Matrices Roundtable Meetings Huntington Pilot Plant

80285 Nickel Plant at Huntington

80286 Huntington Process Data (Redacted)

80287 Preparation (Redacted)

80288 Cupping Test as an Indication of Ductility

80289 Sheet (Redacted)

80290 Meeting at Huntington with INCO April 19, 1956 (Redacted)

80291 Additional Nickel Powder Capacity (Redacted)

80292 Expansion of Reduction Pilot Plant (Redacted)

80293 Notes on Meeting with INCO in New York City (Redacted)

80294 Notes on Meeting with INCO at Oak Ridge (Redacted)

80295 Guard Force at Huntington Facility

80296 Security Visit, Huntington Plant, International Nickel Company, Huntington, West Virginia 

(Redacted)

80297 Security Interest of RPP (Redacted)

80299 Meeting in Huntington on September 9 on Over-All Question of Huntington Plant Disposal 

(Redacted)

80301 Nickel Powder Plant at Huntington (Redacted), June 15, 1951

80302 Nickel Powder Plant at Huntington (Redacted), June 1, 1951

80303 Nickel Powder Plant at Huntington (Redacted) May 9, 1951

80304 Estimate of Maximum Damage Arising Out of RPP Activities at Huntington, West Virginia 

(Redacted)

85875 Elimination of Reduction Pilot Plant (Huntington Pilot Plant) From FUSRAP

85876 Site Description and Plot of Plant

85877 Reduction Pilot Plant (RPP) Contamination Clearance Report

85880 Radiation Contamination Clearance Report - Former Reduction Pilot Plant (RPP), 

Huntington, West Virginia March 6, 1980

85882 Comments on the Reduction Pilot Plant Radiation Survey and Contamination Clearance 

Report

85883 Radiation Contamination Clearance Report - Former Reduction Pilot Plant (RPP), 

Huntington, West Virginia April 4, 1980

85886 Comments on Site Radiation Contamination Clearance Report

85888 Preliminary Radiological Survey of the Former Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington, West 

Virginia

85894 Comments on the Report Entitled "Radiological Assessment of the Former Reduction Pilot 

Plant, Huntington Alloys, Inc., Huntington, West Virginia" April 7, 1981

85896 RASCA - Results of Nickel Analysis on Soil Samples from the Former RPP Site, Huntington, 

West Virginia

85898 Meeting Minutes Huntington Alloys Nickel Contamination

89425 Federal Register Volume 74 No. 119 June 23, 2009 Notice of Revision of Listing of Covered 

Department of Energy Facilities

90130 Worker Outreach Meeting January 5, 2006 1:00 PM Meeting Confirmation Letter
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 31 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SRDB 

Ref. ID Title

90131 Worker Outreach Meeting January 5, 2006 Presentation Development of the Huntington Pilot 

Plant Site Profile

90136 Worker Outreach Meeting January 5, 2006 1:00 PM - Final Meeting Minutes Rollout Meeting 

for the Huntington Pilot Plant Site Profile

90137 Worker Outreach Meeting January 5, 2006 1:00 PM Sign-In Sheet for Huntington Pilot Plant, 

USW Local 40

90138 Worker Outreach Meeting January 5, 2006 Draft Meeting Minutes Transmittal Letter to 

United Steelworkers of America Local 40

90979 Worker Outreach Meeting March 23, 2010 11:00 AM

92102 Worker Outreach Meeting March 23, 2010 11:00 AM Sign-In Sheet

93386 Search Procedures for Records Request to Records Holding Area 1916T-2 Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee

99920 Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant Quarterly Report Second Quarter FY1960, October 1, 

1959 Through December 31, 1959

101547 NucNews September 21, 2000

101815 Petitioners’ Motion to Transfer Proceedings to District Court, Rulemaking Proceeding

105655 Reduction Pilot Plant TBD Revision

113045 Former Worker Medical Screening Program 2010 Annual Report

118511 Documented Communication Worker Outreach Meeting for Huntington Pilot Plant March 23, 

2010 11:00 AM Redacted Draft Minutes

118531 SEC Training Class Sites and Name and Contact Information April 29–30, 2008

118535 NIOSH Dose Reconstruction and SEC Workshop Contact Information April 2–21, 2010

120457 DOE Former Worker/Energy Compensation CAIRS Central Worker Data Tracking

120461 Radiation Bulletin RADBULL January 12, 2001

124195 EEOICPA Bulletin 08-24 Chapman Valve, ANL-West, General Steel Industries and the 

Huntington Pilot Plant Program Evaluation Reports

126870 Mortality Among Workers in a Nickel Refinery and Alloy Manufacturing Plant in West Virginia

129282 Department of Energy Facilities Covered Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000, as Amended

130785 Technical Basis Document for the Huntington Pilot Plant, Huntington, West Virginia

135747 Federal Register Volume 77 No. 44 March 6, 2012 DOE Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

135767 Annual Report to Congress of the Atomic Energy Commission for 1970

135769 Annual Report to Congress of the Atomic Energy Commission for 1971

137320 Nuclear Weapons Production in the U.S. 1941–2011

143446 Meeting Between Representatives of NIOSH and SCA January 12–13, 2005

143939 EEOICPA Updated Listing for Huntington Pilot Plant

146254 Federal Register Volume 80 No. 12 January 20, 2015 Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as Amended

146512 Work Sites That Are/Were DOE Facilities Exclusively and Also Another Type of EEOICPA 

Covered Facility

149064 Site Profile for Atomic Weapons Employers That Worked Uranium Metals Appendix BL -

Jessop Steel Company
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 32 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SRDB 

Ref. ID Title

149234 Huntington Pilot Plant

166967 Guidance on Assigning Occupational X-Ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-Rays Administered 

Off Site

167816

NRC’s Final Response to a Freedom of Information Act Request on Spencer Chemical 

Company's Jayhawk Works Plant Allegation RIV-2000-A-0161 FOIA/PA-2016-0067-Resp 1-

Final, Part 1 of 8

175109 Technical Basis Document for the Huntington Pilot Plant, Huntington, West Virginia

177572 Preliminary Review of the Revised Site Profile for the Huntington Pilot Plant - Draft

177576 Review of the Revised Huntington Pilot Plant Site Profile - Draft

177579 The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Documents Exposé 

178463 Radiation Bulletin (RadBull) Vol. 9.107

178464 Report of the International Committee on Nickel Carcinogenesis in Man - Excerpted Pages

178471 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control National 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Reviews Wednesday August 7, 2013

178472

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control Advisory Board 

on Radiation and Worker Health Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Reviews Monday, 

November 8, 2010

178473 Specifications for Demolition for the Removal of the Reduction Pilot Plant

178474 Site Exposure Matrix Review A Comparison Between Site Processes and Labor Categories

178475 Denial of DOE Request for Exemption to Permit Salvaging Contaminated Smelt Alloys

178480 Huntington News: Over Five Million Dollars Paid to Former Huntington Pilot Plant Workers

178482 Huntington News: After Demolition of Huntington Pilot Plant

178484 NAAV Newsletter October 2013

178500 Report to the Advisory Board Audit of Case #PIID* from the Huntington Pilot Plant Contract 

200-2004-03805 Task Order 4

178501 A Review of NIOSH's Program Evaluation Reports OCAS-PER-025 and OCAS-PER-033, 

“Huntington Pilot Plant TBD Revision” - Draft

178504 Review of Impacted Cases Reworked for the Evaluation of Internal Intakes from the 

Huntington Pilot Plant DCAS-PER 066, Subtask 4 - Draft

178505 Status of Actions - FUSRAP Site List

178675 Vale Limited

178676 INCO Limited History

178866 Petitions for Special Redress

178878 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 130th Meeting Wednesday August 21, 2019

179278 Huntington or Reduction Pilot Plant Nickel Powder - Extracted from ORGDP Report K-1907

179327 Change in Classification Level of RPP Shipments to K-25

179328 Directive for Expansion of Reduction Pilot Plant - Huntington Project E-2-24X-3080

179329 Security Measures Involved in the Construction of the Huntington Plant

179410 Nickel Powder

179411 Uranium Contained in Nickel Scrap Transferred to INCO at Huntington, West Virginia

179605 Analysis of Sample HP-6 Collected at the INCO Plant, Huntington, West Virginia
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 33 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SRDB 

Ref. ID Title

179606 Analysis of Samples Collected at the INCO Plant, Huntington, West Virginia

179607 Disposal of Personal Property at RPP

179608 Disposal of the Reduction Pilot Plant - Huntington, West Virginia

179609 Supplemental Agreement 23 to Contract AT-(40-1)-1092 - Draft

179610 Preliminary Proposal for Disposal of Huntington Facility

179611 Discussion of Removal Problems and Poor Condition of Property

179612 RPP Disposal Planning Outline - Draft

179690 Cleveland Wrecking Company Contract EY-76-C-05-1092 September 26, 1977

179691 Status of RPP Demolition June 30, 1979

179692 Status of RPP Demolition May 31, 1979

179693 Status of RPP Demolition July 31, 1979

179694 Status of RPP Demolition February 28, 1979

179695 Status of RPP Demolition January 31, 1979

179696 Appraisal of Portion Atomic Energy Commission Property Huntington, Cabel County, West 

Virginia

179697 Supplemental Agreement 23 to Contract AT-(40-1)-1092 With ERDA and Huntington Alloys

179698 Supply Division's Need for Understanding Type and Condition of Personal and Real Property

179699 Photographs Taken at RPP Powder Plant at INCO

179700 Disposal of Huntington Facility Closing Statement Cost

179701 Contamination (Uranium and Carbonyl) Problems Incident to Disposal of INCO Plant

179702 Plans for Disposal of INCO Plant, Huntington, West Virginia

179703 Comments of Proposed Disposal of Reduction Pilot Plant - Draft

179704 Dismantling RPP - Estimate

179705 Description of Shutdown and Placement in Stand-By of Reduction Pilot Plant

179706 Economic Evaluation of Disposal of Plant and Equipment

179707 General Provisions for Fixed Price Dismantlement Contract

179708 Transfer of Former Reduction Pilot Plant Site to Huntington Alloys, Inc.

179709 Guidelines for Dismantling RPP

179710 Nickel Contamination at the Former Reduction Pilot Plant in Huntington, West Virginia - Draft

179711 Final Report Radiological Assessment of the Former Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington, West 

Virginia

179712 Transfer of RPP Site to Huntington Alloys, Inc.

179713 Nickel Concentrations in Soils from the Former Reduction Pilot Plant Huntington, West 

Virginia

179714 Transfer of the Former Reduction Pilot Plant Site to Huntington Alloys, Inc.

179715 Skeletal Plan for Disposal of RPP

179716 Former Reduction Pilot Plant Huntington, West Virginia, Soil Samples

179717 Disposal of Contaminated Equipment

179718 Limiting Conditions and Assumptions
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 34 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SRDB 

Ref. ID Title

179719 Planned Excess Disposal of Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington, West Virginia

179720 Plan for Decontamination and Disposal of Nickel Powder Plant

179721 Disposal of the RPP Facility

179722 Transfer of the Former Reduction Pilot Plant Site, Huntington, West Virginia

179723 Preliminary Proposal for Disposal of Huntington Facility

179724 Disposal of the Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington, West Virginia

179725 Radiological Assessment of the Former Reduction Pilot Plant

179726 Disposal of Huntington Facility

179727 Inventory of the Personal Property Located at the RPP

179728 Dismantling of the Reduction Pilot Plant and Cleanup of the Site

179729 RPP Disposal Meeting July 13, 1977

179730 Disposal of Reduction Pilot Plant

179731 RPP Processing Component Sketches

179732 Reduction Pilot Plant (RPP) Contamination Clearance Report

179733 Status of RPP Demolition August 31, 1979

179734 Closeout of the Cleveland Wrecking Contract

179735 Status of RPP Demolition April 30, 1979

179736 Status of RPP Demolition March 31, 1979

179740 Further Utilization Screening Unwarranted Due to Age and Condition of RPP Property and 

Security and Safety Considerations

179741 Answers to Questions and Comments on Health Safety and Security

179742 Comments on Draft Specifications for Demolition RPP

179743 Health Protection Requirements for the RPP Dismantling

179744 Answers to Questions Raised by INCO

179745 Proposed Corrections to Invitation to Bid for Disposal of the RPP

179746 Demolition of the RPP

179747 Cumulative Costs for Demolition of the RPP Through December 31, 1978

179748 RPP Release Letter for Documents Captured February 20, 2020

179749 Radiological Assessment of the Former Reduction Pilot Plant

179750 Draft Specifications for Demolition RPP - Draft 7

179751 Shipments of Rubble from RPP to GAT

179752 Invitation to Bid for Dismantling and Removal of RPP

179753 Fixed Price Dismantlement Contract for RPP

179754 Cleveland Wrecking Declines to Provide Cost and Pricing Data

179755 Midyear Budget Review Assumptions FY1955

179756 ORNL Flash Estimates FY1950 and FY1951

179757 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Schedules

179758 Disposal Scheme for the Reduction Pilot Plant
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 35 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SRDB 

Ref. ID Title

179759 Request to Perform Sample Analysis

179760 Commitment of Funds - INCO

179761 Disposition of Land and Easements - Draft

179762 Developing a Disposal Plan for Government Owned Reduction Pilot Plant

179763 Appraisal of Certain Lands Located at Cole Street and Altizer Avenue, Huntington, West 

Virginia (RPP)

179764 Approval to Proceed with Fair Market Value Appraisal of Cole Street and Altizer Avenue

179765 Langley Diary GSA Contemplated Making a Survey of the Property and Disposal of RPP 

Plans

179766 Disposal Plan - Reduction Pilot Plant

179767 Demolition of a Five-Story Steel Reduction Pilot Plant Located at INCO Company Plant -

Huntington, West Virginia

179768 Proposal to Demolish and Remove Process Building and Shed and Remove Equipment from 

Compressor Building

179769 Wrecking Corporation of America Submits Firm Proposal

179770 Langley Diary INCO Representatives in Oak Ridge to Discuss Disposal of the Huntington 

Plant

179771 RPP Demolition Staffing

179772 Notification of Demolition Activities Involving Asbestos

179773 Langley Diary Injury and Status of Demolition Contract

179774 Allowable Overhead for RPP Demolition

179775 RPP Demolition Cost Estimate and Planned Outline of Cost Control

179776 Radiological Contamination Conditions

179777 Notification of Demolition Activities Involving Asbestos

179778 Revised Language for the RPP Dismantling Contract and Draft Specifications for Demolition 

- Drafts 6 & 7

179779 Reimbursement for Costs and Expenses Incurred November - December 1980

179780 Progress Report Burial Scrap, Portsmouth Site, from Demolation (Demolition) of INCO Nickel 

Powder Plant

179781 Requirements for The RPP Dismantling and Disposal

179782 Transfer and Disposal of RPP Site

179783 Radiological Surveys and Radioactive Contamination Clearance Reports

179784 Draft Deed for RPP Property

179785 Radiological Contamination Clearance and Post Demolition of RPP

179786 Cleveland Wrecking Company Bid Proposal and Personnel Clearances

179787 Final Report Radiological Assessments of the Former Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington 

Alloys Inc., Huntington, West Virginia

179788 Dismantling Plan and Appraisal of RPP

179789 Lease Renewal, Appraisal and Dismantling of RPP

179790 Cost Directive for Disposal of the Huntington Facility
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 36 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

SRDB 

Ref. ID Title

179791 Radiological Assessments of the Former Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington Alloys Inc., 

Huntington, West Virginia

179792 Inquiry About Health of 

179799 Shutdown, Standby Maintenance and Startup of Reduction Pilot Plant Recommendations

179905 Documented Communication SEC-00253 With Victor Dailey on RPP February 18, 2020

179907 Special Exposure Cohort Petition-Form B for SEC-00253 Reduction Pilot Plant

179908 RPP Maintenance

180218 Specifications for Demolition

180250 UCNI - Gaseous Diffusion Plant Upgrade Specifications

180375 DOL Modification of Covered Dates for RPP Site

180654 Special Exposure Cohort Petition Evaluation Report Petition SEC-00253 Reduction Pilot 

Plant April 24, 2020

181387 RPP AWE Environmental Dose Workbook Version 1.0

181591 Development of the Huntington Pilot Plant Site Profile

182915 NIOSH/DCAS: SEC-00253 – Reduction Pilot Plant
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 37 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Attachment C: Table of Claim Numbers

Table C1 provides a cross-reference for the arbitrary claimant label used in the main text of this 

report and the NOCTS claimant number.

Table C1. [Redacted]

[Table C1 is redacted in its entirety to prevent disclosure of Privacy Act-protected information.]
Effective date: 4/2/2021 Revision No. 0 (Draft) Document No.: SCA-TR-2021-SEC003 Page 38 of 38

NOTICE: This document has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the 

Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a and has been cleared for distribution. 

Attachment D: List of Five Potential Followups

The following is a list of the five individuals who may have been security guards during the RPP 

facility demolition. They have no direct relationship to the SEC ER, but they are potential 

interviewees for followup.

• [List of names is redacted in its entirety to prevent disclosure of Privacy Act-protected 

information.]