NIOSH RESPONSE: KANSAS CITY PLANT SITE PROFILE ISSUES MATRIX 

Effective Date: 8/20/2015 Rev. 0 (Draft) Page 1 of 8 

This working document was prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, 

interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary positions taken on 

technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for 

distribution. 

Item No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response 

SEC2 Worker Location, Job Category, 

and Coworker Model – Because of 

the varied historic operations at the 

KCP, coupled with the lack of 

specific worker locations and job 

categories, the application of 

coworker or generalized technical 

basis document derived doses could 

result inincorrect dose assignments. 

This could involve a relatively large 

number of workers because in many 

cases thereis a lack of (or illegible) 

bioassay and/or external dose 

records. Therefore, the adequacy and 

completeness of theavailable data 

used for the coworker model needto

be addressed, along with their 

applicability todifferent categories of 

workers. 

Based on 5/5-8/14 KCP interviews, there were 

conflicting accounts of how freely workers “onthe 

plant floor” were able to move from one department 

to another. One interviewee recollected moving 

from job to job, while another disagreed, noting that 

the union restricted suchmovement. Based on past 

interviews, the organizational codesdid not 

necessarily match the assigned jobs, which could 

change over time;however, the distinction between 

operators, supervisors, and administrative staffwas 

seen as clear. There appears to be a clear 

delineation and access restriction afforded the 

operating area containing the natural and depleted 

uranium work (Depts. 20 and 26). While some 

scanned records on the SRDB are not legible, the 

original records are readable. Further review 

warranted toascertain whether worker location and 

job category are sufficiently distinguishable for 

coworker modelling. 

This is primarily a site profile issue and 

NIOSH is planning a revision to the 

site profile. The adequacy and 

completeness of the available data are 

being addressed in the Kansas City 

Plant Special Exposure Cohort (SEC 

210) Issues Matrix, item 1. 

Interviewees during the May 2014 visit 

indicated that historic radiological 

operations were not that varied (e.g., 

five separate operations), and that 

personnel movement throughout the 

radiological facility was limited. A 

better understanding of these classified 

operations is desirable; however, 

NIOSH has not received any new 

information that thus far appears to 

conflict with the bounding assumptions 

documented in the SEC00210 

Evaluation Report (ER). 

June 10, 2014 WG: Remaining issue revolves around application of coworker model to KCP worker categories. Additional 

bioassay records have been requested by NIOSH (as part of medical records) and a future site visit will be scheduled to obtain 

additional information regarding the adequacy and completeness of available data used for the coworker model, along with 

applicability to various job categories. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 8/20/2015 Rev. 0 (Draft) Page 1 of 8 

NIOSH RESPONSE: KANSAS CITY PLANT SITE PROFILE ISSUES MATRIX 

Item No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response 

NIOSH status for January 20, 2015 WG: After writing the ER, NIOSH became aware of additional bioassay monitoring that 

was performed by Los Alamos for KCP (128346). NIOSH worked with the KCP HP to locate any records of this previously 

unknown monitoring, and on May 15, 2014, the KCP HP uncovered one such record. Learning from this approach, NIOSH 

compiled a list of employee names from access lists for the Model Shop and Project Royal. That list of 550 names was submitted 

to KCP as part of the data request prior to the October 2014 site visit. As a result, additional bioassay records that were filed with 

medical records were retrieved by NIOSH, and 164 new medical examination and hospital card entries were made to the SRDB. 

These documents, along with additional information regarding the adequacy and completeness of data used for a coworker model 

and its applicability to various job categories, was also retrieved and will be incorporated in the next site profile revision. 

Site Profile Issue: The WG has combined SEC Issues Matrix items 2 and 3, and agrees that they can be considered site profile 

issues and moved to the site profile matrix for later review. 

May 28, 2015 Status: As stated above, NIOSH will incorporate the information obtained from the SEC Issues Matrix Item 1 

efforts. This information will be used to improve the internal dose coworker study and develop a method to apply the coworker 

doses to workers based on job categories as appropriate. 

NIOSH does not intend to expand the coworker study to cover the Project Royal period/work scope. NIOSH believes the bioassay 

data collected in the medical files from workers involved in Project Royal can be used to perform individual dose reconstructions 

for those workers. Site Profile sections affected: Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4. 

This working document was prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, 

interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary positions taken on 

technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for 

distribution. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 8/20/2015 Rev. 0 (Draft) Page 1 of 8 

NIOSH RESPONSE: KANSAS CITY PLANT SITE PROFILE ISSUES MATRIX 

Item No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response 

SEC3 Chronic vs. Acute – Default chronic 

pattern of intake used in the uranium 

coworker model, apparently being 

applied to most KCP workers may 

not be applicable to a large number 

of them. SC&A’s review of actual 

claims reveals that workers that have 

legible bioassay records show 

patterns of excretion rates that 

indicate that the coworker model may 

not be necessarily claimant favorable 

for all workers. 

The operational information obtained during the 

KCP visit indicates that there was the potential for 

acute intakes, i.e., not all operations were 

continuous steady-state production processes. 

Therefore, this issue remains open as an internal 

dose reconstruction issue that NIOSH should 

address. Additionally, the cause of the generally 

higher bioassay reading for 1960–1961 warrants 

further investigation. 

This is primarily a site profile issue and 

NIOSH is planning a revision to the 

site profile. The ER does not make use 

of the site profile’s coworker model. 

The TBD 6000 Working Group has 

also generically addressed these 

chronic vs. acute coworker model 

issues. 

June 10, 2014 WG: Work group agreed that question regarding chronic versus acute intake patterns does not represent an SEC 

issue and can be accommodated by the TBD 6000 model. The issue of unexplained higher bioassay readings in 1960–1961 will 

be addressed under SEC Issues Matrix item 18, as part of review of KCP incidents. The work group decided to hold SEC Issues 

Matrix item 3 in abeyance pending further discussion of an internal coworker model for KCP (NIOSH indicates above that it does 

not make use of site profile’s coworker model in the ER) and whether scope of worker category coverage is adequate. 

Site Profile Issue: The WG has combined SEC Issues Matrix items 2 and 3, and agrees that they can be considered site profile 

issues and moved to the site profile matrix for later review. 

May 28, 2015 Status: This issue will be considered when the internal dose coworker study is updated, as noted in item SEC2 

above. Site profile sections affected: Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4. 

This working document was prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, 

interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary positions taken on 

technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for 

distribution. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 8/20/2015 Rev. 0 (Draft) Page 1 of 8 

NIOSH RESPONSE: KANSAS CITY PLANT SITE PROFILE ISSUES MATRIX 

Item No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response 

SEC10 Non-penetrating Dose – It appears 

that there are periods (especially 

1950–1963) where the details of nonpenetrating exposure, dose, and 

records are lacking, making it 

difficult to evaluate non-penetrating 

doses to workers and for developing 

a coworker model. 

SC&A’s research of KCP claims files indicates that 

before 1964, there was a column labeled “RADS” 

that may have been used for recording of the beta 

dose. However, this has not been addressed in the 

ER or site profile documents. The relationship 

between recorded RADS, ROENTGENS, REM, and 

BETA RAD, as recorded at the KCP, needs to be 

defined, and how these quantities will be applied 

during DR (i.e., how will the non-penetrating dose 

be calculated from the recorded data) to determine if 

appropriate data were recorded for DR purposes. 

The ER provides a method to place an 

upper bound on non-penetrating doses 

with sufficient accuracy. NIOSH is 

aware of the dosimetry used from 1950 

to 1963, and that KCP records show 

5,000 entries for non-penetrating doses 

during this time. NIOSH is satisfied 

that the maximally exposed work group 

and work scenario are represented with 

the available data, and can bound doses 

to others in the evaluated class with 

their data. 

June 10, 2014 WG: NIOSH to arrange technical call between Matt Smith, ORAUT, and Ron Buchanan, SC&A, regarding the 

following specific, outstanding questions, prior to 1964: [Notes from call and subsequent written statement of issue disposition 

from NIOSH will be needed for work group review]. 

Is the “Shallow” dose (such as listed in Column F of the SRDB Ref ID#14707) being derived from the values in the “RADS” 

column of the original data cards? 

Which column in the original data cards is the ‘Deep” dose (such as listed in Column D of the SRDB Ref ID#14707) being derived 

from; the “ROENTGENS” or from the “REM” column of the original data cards? 

For DR purposes, is the non-penetrating dose being determined by NP = (RAD-Deep) dose? 

This clarification is needed because the details of non-penetrating dose assignments are not covered in the Site Profile or ER. 

This working document was prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, 

interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary positions taken on 

technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for 

distribution. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 8/20/2015 Rev. 0 (Draft) Page 1 of 8 

NIOSH RESPONSE: KANSAS CITY PLANT SITE PROFILE ISSUES MATRIX 

Item No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response 

NIOSH status for January 20, 2015 WG: The technical call between Matt Smith, ORAUT, and Ron Buchanan, SC&A, was 

conducted on 7/22/14. The notes from that call were sent to the Work Group by Pete Darnell on 7/31/14. 

The following Action Item was created during the technical call on 7/22/14: 

NIOSH will provide a summary of their analysis of external dose record terms and what data values are used for DR purposes. 

The hand-entered film-badge dosimetry data (typically seen prior to 1965) had several columns labeled “RADS,” “ROENT.” and 

“REM.” After reviewing the derivation of these values and information provided by site personnel, it is determined that the 

columns can be defined and are used by the Dose Reconstructors as follows: 

RADS = Open Window (gamma/x-ray + beta). ROENT. = Shielded (gamma/x-ray). 

REM = RADS + ROENT. 

NOTE: The REM value is a total of the RADS and ROENT. values and is not used by the dose reconstructor. Historically, dose 

reconstructors have been assigning the RAD value for non-penetrating dose. This is a claimant-favorable approach. 

NIOSH will also add this analysis of the pre-1965 data to the next revision of the site profile. 

Site Profile Issue: The WG agreed that the external dose record terms in question can be clarified and included in an update of the 

site profile. Accordingly, this SEC issue is moved to the site profile issues matrix. 

May 28, 2015 Status: This item has been fully developed, and the definitions and dose reconstruction instructions above will be 

incorporated in the next revision to the site profile. Site profile sections affected: Section 6.4. 

This working document was prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, 

interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary positions taken on 

technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for 

distribution. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 8/20/2015 Rev. 0 (Draft) Page 1 of 8 

NIOSH RESPONSE: KANSAS CITY PLANT SITE PROFILE ISSUES MATRIX 

Item No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response 

SP1 AMAD – The TBD (p. 18) 

recommends using a default AMAD 

of 5 μm. However, SC&A evaluated 

internal doses associated with 

inhaling uranium and determined that, 

since the Atomic Weapons Employer 

(AWE) activities at KCP involved 

handling substantial quantities of 

UO2 powder, it does not appear to be 

appropriate to use the default option 

of 5-μm AMAD. Without specific 

information regarding the chemical 

form and particle size distribution 

experienced by a worker, dose 

reconstructors should use 

combinations of 1- and 5-μm AMAD 

and Types M and S uranium, and use 

those assumptions that result in the 

highest dose to the organ of concern. 

May 28, 2015 Status: In ICRP 

modeling, with no site-specific data on 

particle size distribution, the default 

value for AMAD is 5 um. The site 

profile currently has a detailed 

specification for the uranium oxide 

used in the 1959 - 1971 DU campaign 

(Specification Control No. 4542260-00 

SRDB 14693). The specifications from 

this document will be used (AMAD, 

density, solubility type, etc.) for this 

period for uranium work. All bioassay 

is affected, so dose reconstruction 

methodology and the coworker study 

will be reassessed. For other time 

periods and radionuclides, the default 

AMAD of 5um will be used. Site 

profile sections affected: Sections 5.1.3 

and 5.1.4. 

This working document was prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, 

interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary positions taken on 

technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for 

distribution. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 8/20/2015 Rev. 0 (Draft) Page 1 of 8 

NIOSH RESPONSE: KANSAS CITY PLANT SITE PROFILE ISSUES MATRIX 

Item No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response 

SP3 Bioassay Data – The bioassay data 

summarized in Table 12 of the site 

profile appear to be incomplete, 

which raises concerns regarding their 

use in developing a coworker model. 

This should be addressed by item SEC2. May 28, 2015 Status:This item will be 

corrected with the revised internal dose 

coworker study mentioned in several 

items above. SEC Issues Matrix Item 1 

will verify the completeness of the 

available bioassay data, and the new 

coworker study will include all 

available information. Site Profile 

sections affected: Sections 5.1.3 and 

5.1.4. 

SP5 Admin Codes – The system used to 

categorize workers by administrative 

code for the purpose of implementing 

the coworker model might result in 

misassignments that result in 

underestimates of reconstructed 

doses. 

This should be addressed by item SEC2. May 28, 2015 Status:The revision to 

the site profile will include instructions 

for dose reconstructors to assign 

intakes from the revised internal dose 

coworker study. The intakes will be 

assigned based on potential for 

exposure. The potential for exposure is 

dependent on job title, work location, 

duties, etc, not the administrative codes 

for workers. Site profile sections 

affected: Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4. 

This working document was prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, 

interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary positions taken on 

technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for 

distribution. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective Date: 8/20/2015 Rev. 0 (Draft) Page 1 of 8 

NIOSH RESPONSE: KANSAS CITY PLANT SITE PROFILE ISSUES MATRIX 

Item No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response 

SP20 Photon Calib. – A correction factor 

for exposures to photon radiation 

might be needed, due to the 

differences between the actual photon 

energy distributions created largely 

by x-ray machines, and the relatively 

high-energy photons associated with 

Co-60, which were used for 

calibration of dosimeters. This issue 

is especially of concern regarding 

exposures to skin and shallow 

organs. 

May 28, 2015 Status: The method for 

calibration of film badges may result in 

an under-response to low energy 

photons created by the radiation 

generating devices in use at KCP. To 

account for under response of film 

dosimetry to low energy photons, the 

result in the open window will be 

assigned as <30 keV photons in 

addition to the assigned deep dose. For 

shallow organs, the shallow dose will 

be assigned in this method, in lieu of 

electrons. While there is available 

information on the departments of 

monitored workers, there is no 

assurance that a monitored individual 

worker was exclusively exposed to 

sources of radiation from RGDs or the 

uranium work. Therefore, this method 

will apply to all monitored workers in 

the film badge era (through 1972). The 

external coworker study will be revised 

to incorporate this methodology 

(shallow dose is currently not included 

at all in the coworker study). Site 

profile sections affected: Sections 6.2, 

6.3, and 6.4. 

This working document was prepared by NIOSH’s Division of Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS) or its contractor for use in discussions with the ABRWH or its Working Groups or Subcommittees. Draft, preliminary, 

interim, and White Paper documents are not final NIOSH or ABRWH (or their technical support and review contractors) positions unless specifically marked as such. This document represents preliminary positions taken on 

technical issues prepared by NIOSH or its contractor. NOTICE: This report has been reviewed to identify and redact any information that is protected by the Privacy Act 5 USC §552a and has been cleared for 

distribution.