DRAFT 

PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE REVISED SITE PROFILE 

FOR THE HUNTINGTON PILOT PLANT 

Contract No. 200-2009-28555 

John Mauro 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, VA 22182

March 2013 

Disclaimer 

This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, 

the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is predecisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the 

requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may 

differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for 

information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted. 

 
Effective Date: 

March 21, 2013 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

Page No. 

2 of 12

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised 

Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

S. Cohen & Associates: 

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program 

Effective Date: 

Draft – March 21, 2013 

PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE 

REVISED SITE PROFILE FOR THE 

HUNTINGTON PILOT PLANT 

Page 2 of 12 

Task Manager: 

________________________ Date: ___________ 

Douglas Farver, CHP 

Supersedes: 

N/A 

Project Manager: 

________________________ Date: ___________ 

John Stiver, MS, CHP 

Reviewer: 

 Douglas Farver 

 John Stiver 

Record of Revisions 

Revision 

Number Effective Date Description of Revision 

0 (Draft) 03/21/2013 Initial issue. 
Effective Date: 

March 21, 2013 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

Page No. 

3 of 12

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Background and Introduction ..............................................................................................4 

2.0 Re-Assessment of Original 12 Findings..............................................................................5 

2.1 Finding 1 ..................................................................................................................5 

2.2 Finding 2 ..................................................................................................................5 

2.3 Finding 3 ..................................................................................................................6 

2.4 Finding 4 ..................................................................................................................6 

2.5 Finding 5 ..................................................................................................................7 

2.6 Finding 6 ..................................................................................................................7 

2.7 Finding 7 and Finding 8...........................................................................................7 

2.8 Finding 9 ..................................................................................................................9 

2.9 Finding 10 ................................................................................................................9 

2.10 Finding 11 and Finding 12.......................................................................................9 

3.0 Commentary on New Material...........................................................................................11 

References......................................................................................................................................11 
Effective Date: 

March 21, 2013 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

Page No. 

4 of 12

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE REVISED SITE PROFILE FOR THE 

HUNTINGTON PILOT PLANT

During the meeting of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee held on February 4, 2013, one of 

the topics discussed was SC&A’s focused review (SC&A 2008) of the Huntington Pilot Plant 

exposure matrix, as originally provided in ORAUT 2004. During that meeting, NIOSH indicated 

that the original SC&A findings are now addressed in a revised version of the exposure matrix; 

i.e., Technical Basis Document for the Huntington Pilot Plant, Huntington, West Virginia, 

OCAS-TKBS-0004 (OCAS 2008). SC&A was thereby directed by the DRSC to review the 

revised exposure matrix to evaluate the degree to which our original findings have been 

addressed. This report presents that evaluation. 

Following Section 1.0 “Background and Introduction” of this report, Section 2.0 presents a 

description of each of the 12 findings originally identified by SC&A, the degree to which each 

finding is addressed in the revised site profile, and SC&A’s recommendation regarding closing 

each finding. In addition, Section 3.0 of this report presents a review of the new information 

provided in the revised site profile. 

1.0 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

SC&A’s 2008 review of the Huntington Pilot Plant was initiated as a result of discussions held 

during the Advisory Board conference call on November 27, 2007. Those discussions explored 

alternative strategies for ensuring that site profiles [also referred to as Technical Basis 

Documents (TBDs) or exposure matrices] for Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) facilities 

receive adequate review. At that time, AWE exposure matrices were not reviewed as part of the 

site profile review process. The only reviews AWE exposure matrices received at that time 

occurred as part of the individual case dose reconstruction review process, if a case relied on a 

particular exposure matrix. These types of reviews were often partial reviews, as often occurs 

when a maximizing approach to a dose reconstruction is employed. In addition, the review of 

AWE site profiles is often only a partial review, because the review is limited to the extent 

needed to perform an adequate review of the dose reconstruction and in comparison to the 

comprehensive site profile reviews performed for Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. 

Hence, the DRSC determined that an expanded, stand-alone review of selected AWE exposure 

matrices was needed. 

The exposure matrix for the Huntington Pilot Plant was one of three exposure matrices selected 

by the DRSC for a special review. The other two are Bridgeport Brass and Harshaw Chemical 

Company. The exposure matrix for Huntington Pilot Plant that was in effect at the time, and 

which SC&A reviewed, was ORAUT-TKBS-0004, Technical Basis Document Basis for 

Development of an Exposure Matrix for Huntington Pilot Plant (ORAUT 2004). The results of 

SC&A’s review of that exposure matrix, which was published as Attachment 3 to Audit of the 

Eighth Set of 30 Dose Reconstruction Cases (SC&A 2008), contained 12 findings. This report 

presents a review of the revised exposure matrix to determine the degree to which each of the 

original 12 findings have been addressed and whether any new issues emerged from the revised 

review. 
Effective Date: 

March 21, 2013 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

Page No. 

5 of 12

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

2.0 RE-ASSESSMENT OF ORIGINAL 12 FINDINGS 

2.1 Finding 1 

Claims are made without adequate citation of sources. Confidence in the validity of the TBD 

data and assumptions would be improved with better documentation of data sources. 

This finding simply indicates that a number of statements are made in the original site profile 

without annotation. For example, “... most reports indicate that the maximum enrichment was 

~4%” (ORAUT 2004, p. 6), and, “Documents giving details of starting material shipped from 

ORGDP to INCO in 1950–1961 indicated that annually between 1,980,000 and 2,587,000 

pounds of contaminated nickel scrap could have been melted and used to produce nickel 

powder” (ORAUT 2004, p. 7). The revised site profile (OCAS-TKBS-0004) provides citations 

to these and other statements, citing several Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) documents. 

SC&A recommends closing this finding. 

2.2 Finding 2 

The TBD does not establish whether Huntington received contaminated nickel scrap from 

Paducah and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants in addition to the Oak Ridge Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant. Thus, it is not clear that the yearly amount of contaminated nickel scrap 

assumed in the TBD is an upper bound. 

It appears that the revised site profile remains silent regarding whether contaminated nickel scrap 

was sent to Huntington from Paducah and Portsmouth. However, in their February 2013 update 

to the Attachment 3 issues matrix, NIOSH indicated: 

Ref ID 18875 clearly indicates all three gaseous diffusion plants supplied scrap 

nickel to INCO. 

SC&A located Ref ID 18875, “Excerpts from OROO Accounting Manual (1958)” (OROO 

1952), which states: 

Under contract provisions with AEC, the International Nickel Company receives 

P-2 materials from the Union Carbide Nuclear Company, K-25, and Paducah 

plants, and the Goodyear Atomic Corporation at Portsmouth and converts the P-2 

materials into RM powder. 

Thus, it appears that Huntington did receive contaminated nickel scrap from Paducah and 

Portsmouth. However, this might not be an essential piece of information, because the key issue 

for dose reconstruction is the dust loading of nickel and the amount of uranium associated with 

the nickel. If there are adequate air sampling data, then throughput of nickel scrap is not an 

essential parameter to derive internal exposures. This issue is discussed below. 
Effective Date: 

March 21, 2013 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

Page No. 

6 of 12

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

2.3 Finding 3 

Averaging over historic data rather than contemporary or adjusted data in TBD Table 4 

increases the estimated median nickel dust loading from 0.05 mg/m3

 to 0.2 mg/m3, a factor of 4 

increase. 

This finding has to do with the fact that the original site profile estimated airborne dust loadings 

of nickel (expressed in terms of mg Ni/m3

) that included air sampling data collected at the time 

period of interest and data collected 20 years later. The SC&A concern was that the airborne 

uranium concentrations associated with the later years were substantially lower than the data 

collected at the time periods of interest, but were used to estimate the average concentration of 

airborne uranium dust at the time period of interest. As a result, we believe that the airborne dust 

loading of nickel for the time period of interest is underestimated by about a factor of 4. 

Page 11 of the revised site profile corrected this problem by building a cumulative distribution of 

the air sampling data and adopting a geometric mean of 0.046 mg Ni/m3

, with an upper 95th

percentile concentration of 0.44 mg Ni/m3

 as the default airborne nickel concentration. It is our 

understanding that NIOSH plans to use the upper 95th percentile concentration as a bounding 

value. However, it is not clear that this value will be used for all workers or those believed to 

have had the potential for elevated exposures. In addition, we believe that this approach 

continues to suffer from the same concerns that were originally raised by SC&A and the issue 

remains unresolved. We suggest that NIOSH use the data representing the time period of interest 

and adopt the upper 95th percentile concentration for all workers, especially if it is not possible to 

assign workers to specific locations. In theory, the approach adopted by NIOSH in its revised 

site profile is not necessarily claimant favorable, because it would seem to be more appropriate 

to use the old dataset (the values designated as “c” in Table 2 of the revised site profile), because 

those data better represent the time period of interest. In addition, the upper 95th percentile value 

from that dataset should be used, especially if a claimant’s job category is uncertain. For 

example, the 10 values in Table 2 of the site profile designated with a “c” are the dust loadings 

that were collected during the time period of interest. If NIOSH were to use only the 10 

historical exposure values, the 95th percentile concentration would be significantly higher; i.e., 

3.088 mg Ni/m3

 vs. 0.44 mg Ni/m3. However, SC&A understands that the high 95th percentile 

number derived for the historical data appears to be biased high by a single outlier of 5 mg Ni/m3

for the “Refinery” department. Nevertheless, we believe that this issue needs to be discussed 

further. 

SC&A recommends that this finding remain open until this issue is adequately addressed. 

2.4 Finding 4 

A concern with the TBD methodology is that dust loading in the breathing zone of a worker is 

often higher than the dust loading determined using general air samplers. A discussion of this 

appears in ICRP Publications 35 and 75. 

Page 11 of the revised site profile states that, “These exposure estimates, made by INCO for each 

of the various departments, were intended to represent average airborne concentrations of nickel 

in all forms over an 8-hour period.” Hence, we concur that the reported airborne concentrations 
Effective Date: 

March 21, 2013 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

Page No. 

7 of 12

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

of nickel dust represent a best attempt at characterizing the breathing zone airborne nickel 

concentration. SC&A recommends that this finding be closed. 

2.5 Finding 5 

The TBD assumes that the median dust loading provided is universally applicable. However, a 

more claimant-favorable approach in the absence of specific worker data would be to assume 

that the worker was a member of the critical population groups at the plant, where the assumed 

median exposures were at the high end of the distribution, perhaps 90th or 95th percentile values. 

At the former, the dust loading is estimated to be 5.57 mg/m3, and at the latter 7.15 mg/m3, based 

on TBD Table 4 data (SC&A 2005, SC&A 2006). 

This finding is virtually identical to Finding 3 and can be withdrawn. 

2.6 Finding 6 

The TBD does not mention possible exposures through ingestion pathways nor justify why they 

may not be significant compared to the inhalation pathway. 

Page 13 of the revised site profile explicitly addresses ingestion using the rule of thumb of 0.2 

times the airborne concentration of uranium equals the daily ingestion rate of uranium. On this 

basis, SC&A recommends that this issue be closed. 

2.7 Finding 7 and Finding 8 

These two findings are combined for convenience. 

Finding 7

The TBD uses 1980 post-decontamination radiation survey data (Berger 1981) to estimate 

exposures from surface contamination during the plant operations period (Table 6). However, 

since the survey took place 18 years after the end of the operations period and after 

decontamination activities, when only the compressor building remained standing, it does not 

seem representative of the contamination levels that were present during the operations period 

and afterward, before decontamination occurred in late-1978 to mid-1979. Perhaps, in the 

absence of more applicable survey data, NIOSH could obtain and use data on the surface 

contamination of nickel dust at other nickel-melting operations. 

Finding 8

Using MicroShield, SC&A estimated the air exposure rate 1 meter and 1 foot from a 5-by-5 

double array to be 0.91 R/y and 2.38 R/y, respectively. These air exposure rates correspond to a 

bladder dose of 0.97 rem/y at 1 meter and 2.53 rem/y at 1 foot, respectively. The dose to the 

bladder (at 1 meter away) reported in the TBD is 0.138 rem/y. The difference between our 

derived bladder doses and those reported in the TBD are large enough to raise some questions 

regarding the accuracy of the values in the TBD (SC&A 2006, p. 11). 
Effective Date: 

March 21, 2013 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

Page No. 

8 of 12

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

bution. 

Section 6 of the site profile presents an entirely revised strategy for deriving the external 

penetrating and non-penetrating doses to workers during operations. Section 6.1 explains that 

the limiting penetrating dose to workers is from nickel scrap residue that was placed and stored 

in 20-gallon drums before being shipped back to the AEC. Within the context of the Huntington 

site profile, the term “residue” refers to the step in the processing of the contaminated scrap 

nickel barriers containing the highest concentration of uranium (i.e., 1% by weight). External 

exposures to penetrating radiation from the stored nickel residue were derived using MCNP to 

estimate the dose rates at 30 cm and 100 cm from the stored material. The deep dose exposure 

rates were estimated by NIOSH to be 3.2E-5 rad/hr at 30 cm and 1.7E-5 rad/hr at 100 cm. As 

explained in the revised site profile:

The maximally exposed worker dose was estimated by assuming that the worker 

was located 30 centimeters from the center of a row of drums for 2000 hours per 

year. This results in an annual exposure of 0.065 rad per year. This value 

applies to those Production personnel who may have been continually working 

with the drums of material, such as operators, laborers, supervisors and clerks. 

Other workers at the RPP are assumed to have been exposed at one half the value 

of the maximally exposed worker, or 0.033 rad per year. This value applies to 

Administrative personnel such as managers, secretaries, and other office workers. 

The annual whole body doses are to be converted to organ doses by multiplying 

the estimated air kerma doses discussed above by the “Kerma (Ka) to Organ 

Dose (HT)” photon dose conversion factors found in Appendix B of the NIOSH 

External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline ([OCAS 2007]). The 

exposure geometry was assumed to be anterior-posterior (AP) and the whole 

body dose rate is to be divided equally between photons with E=30-250 keV and

photons with E>250 keV and applied as a constant distri

Section 6.2 of the revised site profile also presents a completely revised strategy for estimating 

external beta exposure to residue. The revised site profile explains that workers could have been 

exposed to uncontained residue and estimated an upper bound beta exposure of 0.024 mrep/hr at 

contact based on UCNC 1958c and an exposure duration of 50 hours per year, resulting in a 

shallow dose to hands and forearms of 1.2 rem/yr for selected categories of workers. Section 6.2 

of the revised site profile further explains that shallow doses to other tissues should be estimated 

by deriving the shallow dose rate 30 cm from the surface of the nickel residue. At this distance, 

NIOSH estimated that the shallow dose rate is a factor of 75 lower than the contact dose rate, or 

0.00027 mrem/hr. The basis of this value is cited as NRC 2002. The assumed exposure 

durations range from 2,000 hr/yr for operators (i.e., 0.54 rem/yr), to 1,000 hr/yr (0.27 rem/yr) for 

production workers other than operators, including laborers and supervisors, to no shallow 

exposures for administrative personnel. 

Because this approach to estimating penetrating and shallow dose from residue during operation 

is new, SC&A is currently performing an independent evaluation of these approaches. 
Effective Date: 

March 21, 2013 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

Page No. 

9 of 12

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

2.8 Finding 9 

As found in the SC&A dose reconstruction audits for Case #000205 (SC&A 2006, p. 12) and 

Case #005166 (SC&A 2005, p. 15), the medical exposures derived in the Huntington TBD using 

Scalsky 2003 is about three times greater than the corresponding exposures derived in ORAUTOTIB-0006 (Scalsky 2005), which has been taken as the standard NIOSH methodology to 

determine occupational medical exposures. 

Section 9 of the site profile presents the approach for reconstructing occupational medical 

exposures by adopting ORAUT-OTIB-0006. SC&A concurs with this approach and 

recommends that this finding be closed. 

2.9 Finding 10 

Lacking evidence to the contrary, it would be appropriate to assume that some of the 

occupational medical examinations had included photofluorography [PFG], since such 

examinations were common prior to about 1960. 

Subsequent to the issuance of SC&A’s original review of the Huntington site profile, NIOSH 

clarified its guidance regarding the assignment of PFG exposures. Unlike DOE facilities, where 

it is appropriate to assume that PFG exposures were a matter of routine practice before a 

specified date, it is not appropriate to make such an assumption for AWE facilities unless there is 

affirmative evidence that such examinations were, in fact, performed and that they were 

performed on site. The reason for this clarification is that AWE facilities were under contract to 

the AEC, and unless such examinations were explicitly included in the AWE contract, it is 

inappropriate to assume that such examinations were performed. In addition, it is now NIOSH 

policy that, even if there is evidence that such examinations were in fact performed, a medical 

dose would only be assigned if the examinations were performed onsite. In light of these 

clarifications, SC&A recommends closing (or withdrawing) this finding. 

2.10 Finding 11 and Finding 12 

Findings 11 and 12 are combined for convenience. 

Finding 11

 

The TBD estimates residual surface contamination exposures in the standby period (postoperations and pre-decontamination) using 1980, post-decontamination measurement data 

(Table 9). This approach appears quite arbitrary, as there is no reason given to believe that the 

exposure rate prior to decontamination has any relation to the highest air exposure rate 

measured post-decontamination. 
Effective Date: 

March 21, 2013 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

Page No. 

10 of 12

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Finding 12

 

The TBD uses the 1980, post-decontamination radiological survey (Berger 1981) to estimate 

external exposures from surfaces during the plant operations period (Table 6), the standby 

period (Table 9), and the post-decontamination period (Table 10). Findings #7 and #11 

comment on the unsubstantiated assumption that the post-decontamination radiation levels in the 

compressor building due to surface contamination are in any way related to the operations and 

standby period radiation levels in all of the buildings, especially in the main process building, 

where the nickel refining process and enriched uranium residue separation took place. 

Moreover, comparing Tables 6, 9, and 10, which give annual organ doses from surfaces during 

the operations, standby, and post-decontamination periods, respectively, reveals an apparent 

inconsistency; the organ doses for the operations and post-decontamination periods are 

identical (they resulted from the same methodology and assumptions), while the doses for the 

standby period are substantially greater. Why should the doses have increased after the plant 

was shut down, and why should the doses during the operations period be the same as those 

during the post-decontamination period? 

Section 7.0 of the revised site profile provides guidance regarding the reconstruction of doses 

during the remediation period, which occurred during 1978 and 1979. It is noteworthy that the 

operations period ceased in 1962, and that the facility was in standby mode from 1963 up until 

the remediation period that began in 1978. It is also noteworthy that the revised site profile 

provides no guidance for reconstructing exposures during the standby period, presumably 

because it is assumed that there was little or no potential for exposures during this time period. 

The approach recommended in the revised site profile to reconstruct doses during the 

remediation period is markedly different than that described in the original site profile. 

Specifically, the revised site profile recommends that doses for the remediation period be 

reconstructed in the same manner as during the operations period, as described in Sections 5 and 

6 of the revised site profile. 

This approach is somewhat unusual, because one would expect the exposure scenarios to be 

quite different. From an external exposure perspective, one would expect this strategy to be 

bounding, since it can be assumed that no residue was in storage on site and the only external 

exposures would be from residual contamination. This is also likely the case for internal 

exposures because, intuitively, there would have been very limited amounts of valuable nickel 

residue being handled during remediation, as was the case during operations. Hence, in 

principal, the strategy adopted by NIOSH for reconstructing doses during remediation is likely to 

be limiting. However, one could argue that there is no reason to believe that there is any 

relationship between operation and remediation, and the strategy adopted by NIOSH seems quite 

arbitrary. 

We conclude that, though the new approach adopted by NIOSH is likely bounding and an 

improvement over the original strategy, there remains a need to discuss whether such a strategy 

is consistent with the provisions of the statute and its implementing regulations. SC&A 

recommends leaving this finding open until the DRSC has an opportunity to discuss this unusual 

strategy. 
Effective Date: 

March 21, 2013 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

Page No. 

11 of 12

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

3.0 COMMENTARY ON NEW MATERIAL 

This section is in preparation and will address the major new strategies and data sources NIOSH 

is now using to perform internal and external dose reconstructions. For example, in the earlier 

version of the site profile, NIOSH assumed that the level of enrichment was 36%, because this 

was the contractual limit on the level of enriched uranium that was permitted at Huntington. 

SC&A concurred with NIOSH at the time that this was a very conservative assumption, because 

the actual data showed that the level of enrichment in the actual uranium processed at the facility 

was only a few percent. Because of this extremely conservative assumption, NIOSH concluded 

that it was not necessary to explicitly account for the internal exposures that were associated with 

recycled uranium (RU), which was handled at the plant. SC&A agreed with this simplifying 

assumption. In the revised site profile, NIOSH no longer assumes 36% enrichment, but instead 

uses the more realistic enrichment of 2%, and now the site profile explicitly addresses RU by 

employing the RU composition used in the K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant TBD (ORAUT 2006). 

As part of this review, we did not review the models and assumptions employed in the K-25 

TBD, but leave that to the Gaseous Diffusion Plant Work group. 

Other aspects of the revised site profile are currently undergoing review. 

REFERENCES 

Berger 1981. Berger, J.D., C.W. Kuechle, C.F. Riemke, and C.F. Weaver, 1981. “Radiological 

Assessment of the Former Reduction Pilot Plant, Huntington Alloys, Inc., Huntington, West 

Virginia.” Prepared by Oak Ridge Associated Universities for Office of Operational Safety, U.S. 

Department of Energy, July 2, 1981. 

ICRP 1982. “General Principles of Monitoring for Radiation Protection of Workers,” ICRP 

Publication 35, International Commission on Radiological Protection. 

ICRP 1997. “General Principles for the Radiation Protection of Workers,” ICRP Publication 75, 

International Commission on Radiological Protection. 

 

NRC 2002. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 8.30, Health Physics 

Surveys in Uranium Recovery Facilities, Rev. 1, Figure 2, Beta Dose Rate from Yellowcake 

Separated from Ore for More Than 100 Days, May 2002. 

OCAS 2007. “External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline,” OCAS-IG-001, 

Rev. 3. Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH), Cincinnati, Ohio. November 21, 2007. 

OCAS 2008. Technical Basis Document for the Huntington Pilot Plant, Huntington, West 

Virginia, OCAS-TKBS-0004, Rev. 00. Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 13, 2008. 

ORAUT 2004. Technical Basis Document: Basis for Development of an Exposure Matrix for 

Huntington Pilot Plant, Rev. 01, ORAUT-TKBS-0004. January 16, 2004. 
Effective Date: 

March 21, 2013 

Revision No. 

0 (Draft) 

Document No. 

Preliminary Review of Revised Huntington Pilot Plant TBD 

Page No. 

12 of 12

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ORAUT 2006. K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant - Occupational Internal Dose, ORAUT-TKBS0009-5, Rev. 01 PC-1. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. October 4, 

2006. 

ORAUT 2011. Dose Reconstruction from Occupational Medical X-Ray Procedures, ORAUTOTIB-0006, Rev. 4. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 20, 2011. 

OROO 1958. Ref ID 18875, “Excerpts from OROO Accounting Manual (1958),” Oak Ridge 

Operations Office. SRDB Ref ID: 18875. 

SC&A 2005. “Audit of Case #005166 from the Huntington Pilot Plant, SCA-TR-TASK4-

CN005166,” Rev. 1, S. Cohen & Associates, McLean, Virginia. February 4, 2005. 

 

SC&A 2006. “Audit of Case #000205 from the Huntington Pilot Plant, SCA-TR-TASK4-

CN000205,” Draft, S. Cohen & Associates, Vienna, Virginia. November 30, 2006. 

SC&A 2008. “Report to the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, National Institute 

of Occupational Safety and health, Audit of the Eighth Set of 30 Dose Reconstruction Cases,” 

Contract No. 200-2004-03805, Task Order No. 4. Prepared by S. Cohen & Associates, Vienna, 

Virginia. May 2008. 

Scalsky 2003. Scalsky, E.D., “Technical Basis Document for the Savannah River Site to be 

Used for EEOICPA Dose Reconstructions,” ORAUT-TKBS-0003, Rev. 1, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 21, 2003. 

Scalsky 2005. Scalsky, E.D., “Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from 

Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedure,” ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Rev. 3, Oak Ridge 

Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 2, 2005. 

UCNC 1958c, H. F. Henry, to E. C. Bollinger, Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Study of 

INCO Radiation Problem, January 22, SRDB Ref ID 18863.