Effective Date: 2/02/2015 Draft Page 1 of 6

KANSAS CITY PLANT: TBD ISSUES MATRIX 

Site

No.

SEC

No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH 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 February 2, 2015, 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. Future versions of this report will require review before being made publicly available.

2

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 in incorrect 

dose assignments. This could involve 

a relatively large number of workers 

because in many cases there is a lack 

of (or illegible) bioassay and/or 

external dose records. Therefore, the 

adequacy and completeness of the 

available data used for the coworker 

model need to be addressed, along 

with their applicability to different 

categories of workers.

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

conflicting accounts of how freely workers “on 

the 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 such 

movement. Based on past interviews, the 

organizational codes did not necessarily match 

the assigned jobs, which could change over time; 

however, the distinction between operators, 

supervisors, and administrative staff was 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 to ascertain whether worker location 

and job category are sufficiently distinguishable 

for coworker modelling. 

This is primarily a TBD issue and NIOSH is planning a 

revision to the TBD. The adequacy and completeness of the 

available data are being addressed in issue 1 above. 

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.

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 TBD revision.
Effective Date: 2/02/2015 Draft Page 2 of 6

KANSAS CITY PLANT: TBD ISSUES MATRIX 

Site

No.

SEC

No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH 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 February 2, 2015, 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. Future versions of this report will require review before being made publicly available.

TBD ISSUE: The WG has combined SEC matrix issues #2 and #3, and agrees that they can be considered TBD issues and moved to the site 

profile matrix for later review.

3

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 TBD issue and NIOSH is planning a 

revision to the TBD. The ER does not make use of the 

TBD’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 matrix issue #18, as part 

of review of KCP incidents. The work group decided to hold matrix issue #3 in abeyance pending further discussion of an internal coworker model for 

KCP (NIOSH indicates above that it does not make use of TBD’s coworker model in the ER) and whether scope of worker category coverage is adequate.

TBD ISSUE: The WG has combined SEC matrix issues #2 and #3, and agrees that they can be considered TBD issues and moved to the site 

profile matrix for later review. 
Effective Date: 2/02/2015 Draft Page 3 of 6

KANSAS CITY PLANT: TBD ISSUES MATRIX 

Site

No.

SEC

No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH 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 February 2, 2015, 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. Future versions of this report will require review before being made publicly available.

10

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].

 

1) 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? 

2) 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? 

3) 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 TBD or ER. 
Effective Date: 2/02/2015 Draft Page 4 of 6

KANSAS CITY PLANT: TBD ISSUES MATRIX 

Site

No.

SEC

No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH 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 February 2, 2015, 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. Future versions of this report will require review before being made publicly available.

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 TBD.

TBD ISSUE: The WG agreed that the external dose record terms in question can be clarified and included in an update of the TBD. Accordingly, 

this SEC issue is moved to the site profile issues matrix.
Effective Date: 2/02/2015 Draft Page 5 of 6

KANSAS CITY PLANT: TBD ISSUES MATRIX 

Site

No.

SEC

No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH 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 February 2, 2015, 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. Future versions of this report will require review before being made publicly available.

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 UO

2 

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.

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 SEC Issue #2
Effective Date: 2/02/2015 Draft Page 6 of 6

KANSAS CITY PLANT: TBD ISSUES MATRIX 

Site

No.

SEC

No. Issue Post-data capture NIOSH response

This is a working document prepared by NIOSH 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 February 2, 2015, 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. Future versions of this report will require review before being made publicly available.

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 SEC Issue #2.

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.