NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 1 of 18 03/09/06 

Meeting Date: 

October 20, 2005, 10:00 a.m. 

Meeting with: 

Greater Kansas City Building and Construction Trades Council (KCBCTC), Independence, 

Missouri 

Name Organization 

Bill Rose Pipefitters Local 533 

Galen Beem Roofers Local 20 

Terry Akins IBEW Local 124 

David Coleman Ironworkers Local 10 

Scott Williams Insulators Local 27 

Steve Howerton Sheet Metal Workers Local 2 

Frank R. Jackson Plumbers Local 8 

Gerald J. Eagan Sprinkler Fitters Local 314 

Kevin Boydston Laborers 

Alice Martini KCBCTC 

Mike Charlton IUOE Local 101 

Garry Kemp KCBCTC 

Kevin Sexton OPCM Local 518 

Bill Tarpley Plumbers 

Chris Mayes District Council 3 

J.J. Jones BCTC Medical Surveillance Program 

Buck Cameron Center to Protect Workers Rights (CPWR) 

NIOSH and ORAU Team Representatives: 

Grady Calhoun – National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) 

Jack Fix – Dade Moeller & Associates, Site Profile Team Leader and Author 

Mark Lewis – Advanced Technologies and Laboratories International Inc. (ATL) 

Mary Elliott – ATL 

Proceedings 

The business manager of the Greater Kansas City Building and Trades Council opened the 

meeting at 10:00 a.m. He asked Buck Cameron of the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights 

(CPWR) to come forward to address the Council members. 

Mr. Cameron explained to the Council that the Worker Outreach Team was present to explain 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). He 

expressed his hope that none of the attendees would leave the meeting feeling like their questions 

remained unanswered. He introduced the members of the Worker Outreach Team and asked 

them to briefly describe their roles in the Program. He also asked the Council members to 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 2 of 18 03/09/06 

introduce themselves and give their affiliations. After the introductions, Mr. Calhoun, of the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support (OCAS), came forward to describe the radiation dose reconstruction 

process: 

• A claim is filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) by an employee or former 

employee of a Department of Energy (DOE) site or an Atomic Weapons Employer 

(AWE). If the employee is deceased, the claim may be filed by an eligible survivor. 

• DOL verifies that the employee worked at one of the covered facilities and that there is a 

compensable illness. If both criteria are met, the claim is then sent to the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for a radiation dose reconstruction. 

• NIOSH requests the employee’s records from the facility through the DOE (radiation 

dose records, medical records, incident reports, etc.) 

• All claimants on the case are interviewed by telephone for exposure history information 

on the employee. 

• Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) begins the dose reconstruction process using 

the site profile and other technical documents, as well as the personal information for the 

employee. A draft dose reconstruction report is written and forwarded to OCAS and to 

the claimants for review. 

• The claimants are contacted again to review the draft dose reconstruction report and to 

ascertain if all information has been included. If there is any additional information, the 

dose reconstruction is reworked. 

• After the claimants acknowledge that there is no additional information, they are asked to 

sign a form (OCAS-1). 

• The case is then forwarded to the DOL for a final decision on whether or not the claim 

will be awarded. 

• If the case is denied, DOL adjudicates the appeal. 

Question: 

Is there a list of covered facilities? Who does the claimant first contact? If there is no record of 

employment at the plant, what kind of union records or affidavits can be used to support their 

employment there? 

Grady Calhoun: 

The claimant should contact their regional DOL Resource Center. The Kansas City Plant is 

assigned to the Paducah office, and contact information is included in the presentation folders. 

The Resource Center can initiate the claims process while the person is on the phone. Forms can 

also be found online on the DOL website. In cases where the claimant’s employment cannot be 

confirmed by DOE records, union records and affidavits from co-workers often provide the 

information needed for employment verification. There is a list of covered facilities on the DOE 

Office of Worker Advocacy web site: http://www.eh.doe.gov/advocacy/faclist/findfacility.cfm. 

This site provides information on all DOE and Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) sites covered 

under EEOICPA. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 3 of 18 03/09/06 

Question: 

Do you have a list of all the contractors that have worked at the plant over the years? 

Grady Calhoun: 

NIOSH does not have that information since employment verification is DOL’s responsibility. 

Often the packets that NIOSH receives from DOL for a case contain union records, social 

security records, and even signed affidavits used to verify employment. 

Buck Cameron: 

Often the sites do not maintain records of subcontractors who have worked at these sites over the 

years. The Kansas City Plant may be different because the contractor has been the same 

throughout the period of operations. I do not know anything about their record retention policy, 

but if they don’t have them, CPWR has found those types of records by going to the National 

Archives and sorting through boxes of records. But it is DOL’s job and if there was an issue we 

would work through them to initiate a records search. 

Grady Calhoun: 

There are certainly long lists of subcontractors that have worked at these facilities, especially the 

big DOE facilities. 

Question: 

Can information be added after the OCAS-1 form has been signed? 

Grady Calhoun: 

Yes. That is a really important point. The dose reconstruction process is never “final.” There are 

many things that can cause a case to be reopened after the final decision has been rendered by 

DOL, including things like additional employment that was never verified because that could 

possibly increase a claimant’s radiation dose and make the probability of causation high enough 

for the claim to be awarded. 

Question: 

When the claimant signs the form, is that what gets the compensation going? 

Grady Calhoun: 

Compensation is not entirely dependent on the form. Although the form must be signed for the 

dose reconstruction to be considered complete, the form is only an acknowledgement that the 

claimant does not have any further information at that time. The claim is actually awarded based 

on the probability that the cancer was caused by the radiation dose received by the worker during 

the course of his or her employment. It is not uncommon for a case to be denied and then 

reopened if additional information becomes available. One example of this is when a claimant 

develops an additional cancer after the initial dose reconstruction. For example, if you file a case 

and have basal cell carcinoma, but the probability of causation is not high enough for the claim 

to be awarded, it may be reopened in the future if you develop another carcinoma. The dose 

reconstruction will be recalculated based on two cancers rather than one and the likelihood is 

always greater for multiple cancers. Another reason a case could be reopened would be if new 

records were found – such as dosimetry records – that had not been considered in the original 

dose reconstruction. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 4 of 18 03/09/06 

Question: 

This is my own circumstance: I have had cancer and I put in a claim for Agent Orange. The 

claim has been denied, but they keep telling me to reapply as they add new cancers to the list. I 

worked at the Bendix Plant (Kansas City Plant) quite a few times. If I file an EEOICPA claim, 

will that affect my claim for Agent Orange? 

Grady Calhoun: 

No, they are two completely different programs. The EEOICPA claim should not affect the other 

claim at all. For example, there are claimants who file EEOICPA claims that have already been 

awarded Workers’ Compensation benefits. It is a completely separate program. Subtitle B of 

EEOICPA does not require DOL to look at any other payments that have been made by any 

other program for offset of benefits. 

Response: 

Let’s say that I put in a claim for $50,000 with this program... 

Grady Calhoun: 

There is only one compensation amount under Subtitle B. It is $150,000 or nothing in this 

program. 

Question: 

Will they adjust my Agent Orange claim if my claim is awarded from this program? 

Grady Calhoun: 

I cannot speak for any other compensation program – I do not know their program, so I do not 

want to speculate. I can only speak for EEOICPA. Claimants are not asked for that information – 

it is not even taken into consideration. Once the claim gets to NIOSH, all we are concerned with 

is calculating the radiation dose to the organ affected by the cancer. If the probability of 

causation is high enough, compensation is $150,000 plus medical benefits for treatment of that 

cancer from the day the claim is filed. 

Question: 

What do you get out of the $150,000? 

Grady Calhoun: 

I do not get anything at all. I work for NIOSH. If you file a claim today for cancer that was 

diagnosed last week, if your dose reconstruction is not complete for some time, the medical 

expenses that you incur from the treatment of that cancer from the time you file will be covered 

if the finding is in your favor. 

Question: 

Is there a fund – such as the Taft-Hartley Health and Welfare Fund – that can claim part of your 

compensation if they have paid your out-of-pocket expenses during the time you are waiting to 

receive your award? 

Grady Calhoun: 

I would be hesitant to answer that question because I am not sure. If they actually could do that, 

it could only be for expenses that were incurred from the time the claim was filed. I am not 

positive. You would have to ask someone from the DOL. I am not sure how insurance companies 

would handle that either – I just cannot say. This is a question you should direct to DOL. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 5 of 18 03/09/06 

Question: 

If the claim is filed by the survivor of a former employee, can they file for medical expenses? 

Grady Calhoun: 

If the employee is deceased, no medical expenses are paid. If the finding is in the claimant’s 

favor, only the $150,000 is paid. 

Mr. Calhoun turned the meeting over to Jack Fix for the presentation of the Kansas City Plant 

Site Profile. 

Mr. Fix said that the information packet provided at the beginning of the meeting contains 

important information, including the Site Profile, the presentation, and information on the dose 

reconstruction process. The OCAS web site has a great deal of information on EEOICPA: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocaseeoi.html. 

Mr. Fix stated that the Site Profile is a collection of information about the Kansas City Plant that 

is used as guidance by the health physicists who perform radiation dose reconstructions for 

cancer claims filed under Subtitle B. Records from the DOE and its contractors provide much of 

the technical information that is used in the development of the document, but NIOSH and 

ORAU recognize that what the workers actually experience in their day-to-day work is not 

included in those records. Worker Outreach meetings serve as a mechanism to bring the labor 

perspective into the development process by giving workers the opportunity to share their 

experiences and concerns. 

The Kansas City Site Profile Team began developing the document in May 2004. During a 

meeting with the Worker Outreach Team on September 15, 2004, union officials from the plant 

brought forth seven concerns that were considered by the Site Profile Team as they worked on 

the document. Since the site profile development is an evidentiary process, this information was 

researched and some of points raised by the union officials were incorporated into the site 

profile. Although the Kansas City Site Profile is now complete, it is a “living document,” which 

means that it can be modified when new information comes to light that proves relevant to dose 

reconstruction. Mr. Fix circulated the list of points that had been contributed by union officials 

among the Council Members (see Attachment A). 

EEOICPA has guidelines for compensation under two Subtitles. Although Subtitle B of the Act 

provides for compensation for radiation-induced cancers, berylliosis and some silicosis claims, 

NIOSH receives only the radiation claims for dose reconstruction. The program involves three 

government agencies – the Department of Labor, the Department of Energy and NIOSH. A 

fourth agency, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), developed radiation risk models that are the 

central components of the computer program used by dose reconstructors to determine the 

likelihood that the claimant’s cancer is related to radiation. 

NIOSH created OCAS to provide oversight for the dose reconstruction process. Due to the large 

scope of the project, a team of contractors headed by ORAU was brought on board to assist with 

the dose reconstructions and other associated tasks. 

The DOL has forwarded 18,476 cases to OCAS for radiation dose reconstruction. Of those cases, 

OCAS’ recommendations for 10,421 cases have been returned to the DOL. At present, more than 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 6 of 18 03/09/06 

4,000 dose reconstructions are in process or under review, and the remaining cases are in the 

fact-finding stages – claimant interviews, gathering radiological records from DOE, etc. The 

DOL has received more than 50,000 cases for compensation. Awards have been made to nearly 

11,000 claimants, totaling an estimated $1.25 billion. 

Mr. Fix said that the purpose of the presentation is to discuss the Kansas City Plant Site Profile. 

The Site Profile was prepared because it is important for the scientists who calculate the dose 

reconstructions to have site-specific information about the Kansas City Plant – the radioactive 

materials present at the site, the workers’ job assignments, the dosimetry programs that were in 

place, the workplace hazards, the types of radiological instrumentation, as well as other statistical 

information that is necessary to make dose estimates for workers from the site. From this 

information, the dose reconstructors can determine the possibility of significant exposure based 

on the types and amounts of radioactive materials handled. The approved Site Profile is posted 

on the OCAS web site: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocastbds.html#kcplant. Although the Site 

Profile is complete, it is a “living document,” which means that it can be revised as new 

information becomes available that could positively impact dose reconstructions. 

The Site Description describes the facilities and processes at the Kansas City Plant (KCP) from 

the beginning of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations in 1949 through present day. 

Although it is not highly visible in the nuclear weapons complex, it is a world-class analytical 

laboratory facility, with the principal role of assuring that the non-nuclear components of the 

nuclear weapons were manufactured properly. Radiation risk at KCP is relatively low since the 

primary use of radiation at the plant is from sealed radionuclide sources in devices such as X-ray 

and neutron radiography equipment, and electron scanning microscopes that are used to examine 

the integrity of the components. 

The occupational medical dose is assigned to workers based on the history of the use of medical 

X-rays at the site. Although all the details about the X-ray equipment used at KCP are not 

available, handwritten records found on the exterior of personnel folders indicate the types of 

devices used. The DOE did not keep records on the medical X-ray programs, but NIOSH 

assumes one X-ray per year per worker until 1994 and one X-ray every five years thereafter. If 

records are not available for an employee, a default value for the medical dose is assumed in an 

effort to be favorable to the claimant. 

External radiation doses at KCP are very low, mostly from the diagnostic equipment used to 

examine the components. KCP provided the site profile team with a database of all of the 

dosimetry-measured exposures for every worker for every year of employment. The team 

analyzed that data and came up with statistical profiles for environmental external radiation 

exposure. 

The only significant intakes for environmental internal dose are during the period from 1959 to 

1971, when depleted uranium was handled at the plant. Workers received urinalysis every six 

months to monitor their intake. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 7 of 18 03/09/06 

QUESTION: 

Were the urinalyses that you mentioned ever given to construction workers – or any other 

workers – from subcontractors outside the plant, or were these mainly given to full-time 

employees from within the plant? 

Jack Fix: 

I assume that the data was from full-time employees from within the plant. This kind of 

information is usually gathered during the interview process. Getting this kind of information 

from subcontractors – if it is even available – can be a real challenge. NIOSH recognizes this. 

Distributions are developed from available data and a default value is calculated for unmonitored 

workers based on the 95% level and assigned just by virtue of their having worked at the plant. 

The Site Profile Team has not found any historical data to support evidence of environmental 

radiation exposure at the Kansas City Plant. No major study by any agency has found any 

evidence of significant environmental radiological impact. Two changes to the current Site 

Profile are in the works: one for environmental external dose and another for environmental 

internal dose. These modifications consider that there may be some potential environmental 

exposure for non-monitored, non-radiological workers. Even though the evidence concludes that 

there is no environmental radiological impact from the Kansas City Plant, these workers – for 

example, an HVAC subcontractor working on a ventilation exhaust system – may have received 

some exposure. The changes will assign a dose to those workers for each year of employment to 

ensure that any potential exposure is not underestimated. The basis for these values is the data 

available for monitored radiological workers at the plant. The calculations used to determine 

radiation dose to the non-monitored, non-radiation worker are based on the expectation that these 

workers receive less exposure than the monitored radiation workers. KCP had procedures and 

practices in place to monitor the workers that they expected to be exposed. The data we have 

covers a broad spectrum of departments, occupations and years. It appears that KCP had a viable 

program to monitor the workers that were the most likely to be exposed. Historically, under AEC 

guidelines, only workers that had the potential to exceed ten percent (10%) of the annual dose 

guidelines had to be monitored. 

Buck Cameron, CPWR: 

Jack, is there anything known about the surface contamination from the depleted uranium? 

Jack Fix: 

We have air sampling data, but we have not seen contamination surveys. As we write the site 

profiles, one of the challenges we have is “How do you properly represent the radiation safety 

program?” We know that they go out with their instrumentation to do contamination surveys, 

workplace zone control, pre-work evaluations to decide what dosimeters and protective clothing 

a worker will use – but we have not been able to accurately capture that information in this 

document. This is actually in the claimants’ favor: because we do not have this information, we 

make default assumptions and assign higher doses than we would if the information was 

available. 

Buck Cameron: 

And that is to account for the guy who is pulling up flooring, working in the ventilation systems, 

or pulling cable. There are some assumptions that there would be environmental dose. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 8 of 18 03/09/06 

Jack Fix: 

I would assume that those people would be the same as non-monitored radiological workers. 

Those people would be assigned a higher dose -- not an environmental dose, but an actual 

workplace exposure based on the distribution of measured dose data for monitored workers. 

Buck Cameron: 

Then it is important for claimants to specify the type of work that they actually did there -- what 

building they worked in... 

Jack Fix: 

Yes. The more information they can provide – what they did, what activities they were involved 

in, what they anticipate their exposure may have been, or source of their exposure – the more 

accurate the assumptions we can make about their radiation dose. Hopefully these people have 

been monitored, because that is always an issue. 

Question: 

A lot of us worked for subcontractors at the plant during downtime – over the Christmas 

holidays, for example. I know we weren’t monitored. As a union, do we need to go back and 

look in our records for subcontractors? Do we need to start by contacting them, if they are even 

still in business? If you don’t have a database of all the subcontractors, then we are going to have 

to provide for it. There is a lot going on here... 

Jack Fix: 

Maybe we should go back and look at how the process works. The claimant has to provide the 

information about where they worked. Union records or co-worker affidavits are accepted as 

proof of employment, so the process actually starts with the claimant. 

Comment: 

But the reason we are here is that we feel that we are responsible for that claimant. They are 

members of our local organizations. I think part of the burden for us is to find contractors who 

worked at the plant and contact them to let them know about the program. Or should we go to 

our Health & Welfare guy and ask him who has cancer that might be eligible? 

Jack Fix: 

How your organizations decide to handle this is up to you. I am looking at the claim in terms of 

NIOSH’s responsibility in doing the dose reconstruction. In terms of a union’s role to decide 

how to get the word out to those who need to file a claim, I am not sure what would be the best 

way to communicate that. 

Mark Lewis: 

When I worked with the Medical Surveillance Program for my union, we contacted the DOL 

Resource Center. I would address this type of question to them. The DOL has the resources to 

verify a claimant’s employment history. 

J. J. Jones, Director, Medical Surveillance Program: 

When I was at the Hanford plant, being trained for my program, there was a database of 

subcontractors who had worked at the plant over the years. The program even showed where 

companies merged over the course of time. I will find out if the Kansas City Plant has a similar 

database. If they do, I will let you know about it. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 9 of 18 03/09/06 

Buck Cameron (to the Council Members): 

There may not be such a database for the Kansas City Plant, but as people come to you, you will 

build one. Over time, there will be a supporting document that will recall the subcontractors. 

Question: 

I think that we are going to contact our membership through a mailing – a questionnaire asking if 

they have ever worked at Bendix, Allied Signal, or Honeywell, with a return address for 

responses. I got the impression from our meeting yesterday afternoon (with CPWR and the 

Medical Surveillance Program) that these names would be turned over to someone else who 

would contact them regarding the program. Am I wrong? 

J. J. Jones: 

I would like to meet with your organizations and give you some flyers and postcards to send out 

to your members. The cards will come back to me, and I will work with the Seattle office (of the 

Medical Surveillance Program) to set up a date for screenings. 

Question: 

How can we reach survivors of deceased members? 

J. J. Jones: 

I am going to try to work through union retirees’ groups and pension funds to achieve this. 

Buck Cameron: 

Keep in mind that there are two programs here: the Medical Surveillance Program and 

EEOICPA. The most important thing to remember is that if someone has cancer or another 

illness, the first thing they should do is file the claim. As Grady said earlier, the medical benefits 

start the day the claim is filed. 

Mark Lewis: 

When our Medical Surveillance Program started, we asked for a flyer on the program to be 

distributed with the pension checks. We also put ads in the local newspapers and asked local 

radio stations play public service announcements. 

Buck Cameron: 

Your packet has contact information for the DOL Resource Center in Paducah. They can take a 

claim over the phone, so you need to encourage anyone who contacts your locals to make that 

phone call – get the claim filed immediately. 

Question: 

Is there a list of the toxic chemicals under Subtitle E? 

Jack Fix: 

Subtitle E is administered by the DOL. The Resource Center can give you any information you 

need on Subtitle E. You can use the same telephone number. If you have any doubt, you should 

go ahead and make the claim. Make the process start working for you... 

Response: 

Even if I haven’t been diagnosed yet, but suspect exposure? 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 10 of 18 03/09/06 

Grady Calhoun: 

Initially, the claim may be denied. I usually address this after the presentation is done, but I will 

go ahead. NIOSH does not handle any part of Subtitle E claims, but I can give you some general 

information. Subtitle E covers cancer and other illnesses that may be caused by chemical 

exposure or agents other than radiation. If you file a Subtitle B claim for cancer, you should go 

ahead and file a claim for Subtitle E. If you have something other than cancer, let the DOL 

determine your eligibility. There were a lot of toxic chemicals at the Kansas City Plant. 

Question: 

I am involved with both the Insulators and the Laborers groups. We have people working in the 

DOE beryllium program charged with the clean-up of areas to be released to someone else. 

Would they fall under Subtitle E or another program? 

Grady Calhoun: 

Beryllium exposure is under Subtitle B, under the same part of the program as the cancer, but 

you can still file a Subtitle E claim. Always file under both Subtitles if you have any doubt. 

Buck Cameron: 

Any claim that is filed can be either accepted or rejected. But if you don’t file a claim, it cannot 

be considered at all. When in doubt, fill it out. 

Jack Fix: 

NIOSH only does radiation dose reconstructions on Subtitle B cancer claims. My part of the 

presentation today is regarding these claims. Not all claimants who file will receive an award, 

but it is very important to understand the steps in the process. The Worker Outreach Team is here 

today to give you the opportunity not only to learn about the steps in the process, but to give us 

your input, too. Certainly, the subcontractor issue is a very important one, and we would hope 

that the Kansas City Plant has the appropriate records for anyone who would enter their facility 

to work. If they don’t, the issue must be addressed. The claimant interview process is important 

because this provides the claimants with the opportunity to say why they think that the exposure 

they received contributed in some way to their cancers. The claims process is structured so that a 

dose estimate can be made that will not underestimate the actual exposure. The Site Profile is 

developed by looking at the monitoring records that are available for the site and calculating a 

dose for the workers who were not monitored. 

The primary source of internal radiation exposure at the Kansas City Plant is from the depleted 

uranium used at the site from 1959 to 1971, and in a separate program after 1997. Intake is 

assigned based on three categories of workers: monitored radiological workers, non-monitored 

radiological workers, and non-monitored non-radiological workers. Radiation intakes for the 

latter two categories are calculated from distributions based on data from thousands of urinalyses 

for the monitored workers in a regular bioassay program. 

The primary sources of external radiation exposure are the sealed sources in the diagnostic 

equipment used to check integrity of the non-nuclear components. The dosimetry used at KCP 

was state-of-the-art, comparable to any other system. Dosimetry records are available for the 

monitored workers, and doses for non-monitored radiological workers and non-monitored nonradiological workers are assigned based on distributions of the measured dose. We looked at the 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 11 of 18 03/09/06 

exchange frequency of the dosimeters and estimated a “missed” dose for monitored workers 

where “zero” dose was recorded, or where the dose fell below minimum detectable levels. It is 

not apparent if subcontractors were included in the dosimetry programs, but NIOSH makes 

assumptions to include a radiation dose where there are no records available in an effort to keep 

the dose reconstruction process “claimant favorable.” 

Mr. Fix concluded that the Site Profile Team used all records that were available to them to write 

the document and attempted to make it comprehensive to the best of their abilities. The workers 

at the plant have valuable knowledge that may not have been included in the Site Profile, and 

NIOSH and ORAU want the workers from the site to come forward with any information that 

they think could be helpful. Information and suggestions for revisions to the document can be 

sent directly to NIOSH using the contact information included in the presentation. Other 

information on the EEOICPA program can be found on the NIOSH web site at this address: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

Question: 

We have done a lot of underground work at the site. As I recall, there were citations by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the groundwater and the Little Blue River. Is 

that included in the Site Profile? 

Jack Fix: 

No, the evidence is that those citations were all non-radiological issues. There has been a lot of 

environmental surveillance for chemicals at the plant – the State of Missouri conducts a yearly 

surveillance. 

Question: 

Would the EPA issues fall under Subtitle E? 

Jack Fix: 

Any chemical surveillance findings could possibly affect a Subtitle E claim. 

Question: 

There have been instances where PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) were found. Would that 

come under Subtitle E? 

Jack Fix: 

Yes. 

Response: 

They were not found exactly where we were working, but downstream from there. This was 

documented in the Kansas City Star. 

Grady Calhoun: 

DOL would take that into consideration for a Subtitle E claim. Since that is not a radiological 

issue, it does not come under consideration in Subtitle B. 

Mark Lewis: 

There will eventually be Site Profiles for Subtitle E. They have not been developed yet, but the 

legislation has provided for that to happen. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 12 of 18 03/09/06 

Buck Cameron: 

Jack, I have a couple more questions regarding depleted uranium. It was used onsite from 1959 

to 1971, and there is environmental exposure, so I assume that since it was in a dust form that it 

has spread in the environment. I don’t see anything indicating that it was removed from the 

environment, but bioassay stopped in 1971. Is there an assumption of exposure from 1972 to the 

present? 

Jack Fix: 

Yes. Even though they completed the urinalysis program, we assumed that the uranium was 

present in the environment until 1989. We chose 1989 because there was a major incident that 

year involving promethium-147. The incident received a lot of press coverage, and a lot of 

visibility. The investigation involved responses by multiple agencies – the Missouri Department 

of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the DOE offices in Kansas City and 

Albuquerque – that conducted a very thorough investigation which included analyses from 

extensive environmental sampling. These agencies wrote a 385-page report that found that there 

was no significant environmental exposure. Based on that report, the site profile team concluded 

with relative certainty that as of 1989 there was no longer a potential for exposure to depleted 

uranium. 

Buck Cameron: 

Yesterday someone asked whether it was possible to measure at the very low levels that were 

reported in the urinalyses results from the plant. I assume that it was, but I noted in your profile 

that you questioned the detection limit that was used at this site. 

Jack Fix: 

Yes, we did question it. We used a minimum detectable level of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L), 

which we thought was a more realistic limit. 

Buck Cameron: 

Then you actually used a limit that was ten times higher than the limit the plant used? 

Jack Fix: 

I would have to look to see the specifics, but we assumed a level that we felt confident would be 

realistic. The reason those minimum detectable levels (MDLs) are important is that we use those 

to assign dose to workers. 

Buck Cameron: 

Thank you. 

Jack Fix: 

One goal of this legislation is to give the claimant as much radiation dose as is scientifically 

possible so the potential dose to the worker is not underestimated. Under the leadership of 

NIOSH, the Site Profiles are developed with this in mind. Many people are involved in the Site 

Profile development and review processes to ensure that the finished product will best serve the 

claimant. Representatives from the Kansas City Plant have been very cordial in this process and 

seem to have taken the process very seriously. Their comments have been incorporated into the 

document. NIOSH and ORAU want the workers to have the opportunity to voice their comments 

as well. Our goal is to work with workers from the plant to make sure the Site Profile is an 

accurate representation of what should be considered in the dose reconstruction process. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 13 of 18 03/09/06 

Buck Cameron (to the Council Members): 

This is not your last chance to comment on the Site Profile. Today’s meeting is to familiarize you 

with the document. It is a very complex document, so as you go through it, as questions come up, 

or if you want to provide input, there will be a route for that. Jack, what route can they follow to 

make comments? 

Jack Fix: 

My job is to make sure that technical details are included in the Site Profile. I’m going to turn 

this over to Grady. 

Grady Calhoun: 

If you look on the last page of the presentation, you can see the mailing and e-mail addresses that 

you can use to send your comments or questions to NIOSH. 

Buck Cameron (to the Council Members): 

Probably the most effective way to channel your information is through the Business Manager of 

the KCBCTC. If there is something in the Profile that you don’t understand, let him know and 

we will get you connected with someone who can answer your questions. 

Question: 

The only thing I can think of in my twenty-five years of dealing with the plant is that I cannot 

recall one instance of an outside contractor having to submit to a urinalysis. Does anyone else 

remember any? 

Jack Fix: 

That could very well be. From what we could see, the urinalysis program at the plant stopped in 

1971 (after they stopped handling depleted uranium). There may have been some urinalysis 

during the promethium-147 incident, but no routine program. 

Question: 

Are they not doing them now? 

Jack Fix: 

They may be doing them now because this plant has recently assumed some new functions from 

at least three other DOE sites. I can’t say that with any certainty, though. 

Comment: 

One of the reasons why it is so hard to know what is going on in this plant is that its main 

function is research and development (R & D). There is a minimal amount of production. Once 

you put the R & D stamp on something, it becomes hush-hush. Often times, the workers don’t 

even know. 

Question (to Commenter): 

Has that always been the case? 

Response from Commenter: 

They have always done research and development in the plant, and the manufacturing is part of 

that. There used to be seven major plants involved in the manufacturing. Each one did a certain 

part of the weapon for security reasons. As the Cold War thawed and the Defense budget was 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 14 of 18 03/09/06 

cut, operations were condensed and KCP took on work from other plants. But the major part of 

the funding for KCP is still for the R & D function here. 

Jack Fix: 

The operations at the plant are highly secretive – for example, why was there depleted uranium 

at the plant? To the best of my knowledge, that information is classified. 

Mark Lewis: 

As you go through this document, don’t be intimidated by it. It is a very technical document that 

is written for health physicists to use in reconstructing claimants’ radiation doses. There is a lot 

of information in it that we don’t need to understand, but there is information in the Site 

Description section that we can understand – historical events like incidents and accidents. This 

is what we are asking you to think about – is there anything that could be included there that is 

not? 

Comment: 

On Page 20, are the occupational descriptions in Table 13 for the in-plant employees? 

Jack Fix: 

Yes, I believe you are right. 

Comment: 

I just have one point of clarification. Under the pipefitter classification, there are three crafts here 

from the United Association – the pipe fitters, the sprinkler fitters, and the plumbers. We all 

three have members out there under this pipe fitters classification. We have members working 

out there as full-time employees, too. 

Jack Fix: 

I understand that it gets very complicated when you have subcontractors. 

Comment: 

We have members who are in-plant workers, too. 

Jack Fix: 

You have both? I understand, and the evidence that we have is that the Kansas City Plant Health 

and Safety people were responsible for securing the facility for whoever was working there, 

whether they were a permanently assigned employee or a subcontractor. That is what the claims 

process is intended to evaluate. 

Question: 

What is the average time it takes to go through the claims process – five, six, seven years? They 

might be dead by the time they get the money. Is there an average time? 

Jack Fix: 

That is a good question, and, unfortunately, that is always a possibility. 

Grady Calhoun: 

I can field this one if you like. The basic answer is that I wish it was going faster. NIOSH began 

getting claims before there was actually even a process in place. We were thousands of claims 

behind before we were even okay to go. In the beginning, our goal was just to get the claims 

moving, and the meant doing the easiest ones first. Some of the more difficult claims have taken 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 15 of 18 03/09/06 

four years, and some of the easy ones can move through the process in as little as two weeks. At 

this point, we are trying to complete the earlier cases first. Some of the later cases that we have 

are now in the 20,000 range, and we have completed more than half of those. I can’t see the 

process taking as long for any of the new claims coming in, but the required time to complete a 

dose reconstruction is very case specific. Having complete Site Profiles in place expedites 

claims, too. We didn’t have the Site Profile documents ready for the early claims. I would not be 

comfortable even trying to give you an “average” time for a claim. 

Buck Cameron: 

A building trades worker’s claim will probably take longer than that of an on-site worker, say a 

machinist, because your work and exposures would be less defined. I would imagine it would 

take longer. 

Response (laughing): 

My union business manager assigned this to me, and I plan to retire in three years, so I hope the 

issues will be resolved by then. 

Buck Cameron (laughing): 

You’ll still be working on it. Make sure you train someone to take over for you. I was at 

Savannah River when a group met with the Building Trades there, and the delays had been so 

long that it very nearly came to blows. People were upset. That message has gotten back, and 

there has been a lot of pressure – especially from Congress – to get this process moving. I don’t 

think it is going to be as bad as it has been, but it is a very complicated process. People should 

not expect that they will file their claim on Tuesday and get a check on Friday. 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:45 a.m. 

Attachments:

Attachment A: Worker Outreach/TopHat Concern-Response Review for the Kansas City Plant 

 September 15, 2004 Kansas City Plant Site Profile Meeting 

Attachment A: Worker Outreach/TopHat Concern-Response Review for the Kansas City Plant 

 September 15, 2004 Kansas City Plant Site Profile Meeting 

Concern 

No. 

Concern Response Resolution Result in 

Change to 

Site Profile? 

Reference to Site 

Profile Change 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 16 of 18 03/09/06 

1. The medical department at 

the Kansas City Plant 

changed over the years. At 

one time, chest x rays 

were standard procedure 

at the plant, but later the 

medical department at the 

Kansas City Plant 

suggested that workers get 

x rays from their own 

personal doctors. 

The KCP Site Profile assumes that 

the precise history of chest x-rays 

to KCP workers is not known. It is 

understood from KCP medical 

staff that KCP has never asked 

workers to obtain occupational xrays from their personal physician. 

Workers were however referred to 

an offsite imaging clinic for workrelated x-rays beginning in the fall 

of 1997. However, in the Site 

Profile in section 3.1, “Dose 

Reconstruction,” it is 

recommended that “If there is no 

reasonable information in the 

claim documentation, dose 

reconstructors should assume an 

annual posterior-anterior (PA) 

radiographic chest X-ray for each 

claimant’s employment period 

from 1949 to 1990.” Further, it is 

recommended that the estimated 

dose from medical X-rays before 

1964 use higher dose default 

values as stated “dose 

reconstructors should use the 

default values in Tables 3.3-1 and 

4.0-1 of ORAU (2003b) for chest 

X-rays.” The approach to assume 

that chest x-rays were taken each 

year, if there is no information to 

the contrary, and to assign a 

conservative estimate of the dose 

per examination will result in an 

over-estimate of the actual worker 

medical x-ray dose. 

Yes, Based 

on a July 2, 

1993 audit 

finding, the 

change 

from annual 

x-rays was 

made 

during midyear 1993. 

Propose changing 

section 3.1 “Dose 

Reconstruction” 

recommendations as 

follows: 

1) item c, change 

wording from “to 

1990” to “through 

June 1993” 

2) add new item d 

stating that chest xrays, unless there is 

other information, 

assume that x-rays 

were received for 

each 5-year period 

beginning July 1993. 

2. X rays for beryllium 

monitoring were performed 

outside of the Kansas City 

Plant facility. 

Please see the response for item 

#1. KCP practices to examine 

workers potentially exposed to 

beryllium are not considered in the 

KCP Site Profile with the exception 

that it is intended to include the 

dose received from KCP 

occupational health organization 

directed chest x-rays, as well as 

any other occupational related 

chest-x-rays since 1990 in addition 

to the recommendations to 

estimate occupational dose from 

x-rays from 1949 to 1990. 

Yes See item #1 

3. Guards employed at the 

Kansas City Plant went 

everywhere at the site but 

were not told the amount of 

danger involved in their 

work or what types of 

chemical and radiation 

sources they could be 

For radiation exposures addressed 

in the KCP Site Profile, it is 

understood that KCP has followed 

policies to monitor all workers with 

a potential for significant radiation 

exposure relative to established 

radiation protection guidelines. 

For the early years, Atomic Energy 

No 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 17 of 18 03/09/06 

exposed to. Commission guidelines were to 

monitor workers who could exceed 

10% of the respective skin, organ 

and whole body dose guidelines. 

Similar policies have apparently 

been followed in later years.

4. After an incident at the 

Kansas City Plant when 

promethium was released 

and maintenance workers 

tracked the promethium 

home, the plant wanted the 

exposed workers to bring 

their cars inside of the 

plant so that they could be 

checked for radiation. For 

security reasons, the 

guards had to search the 

cars that were brought in. 

The guards were never 

told about the possibility of 

radiation being inside the 

cars. 

A relatively large report (384 

pages) of an extensive 

investigation of the Pm-147 

contamination on February 10, 

1989 was prepared and published 

September 1989. According to 

this report, the Department of 

Energy, Environmental Protection 

Agency and the Missouri 

Department of Health, 

Radiological Health Division were 

notified of this incident, and the 

efforts to assess the extent of 

exposure and contamination of 

facilities and personnel. A DOE 

team of investigators arrived at 

KCP on February 14 to assume 

technical management of the 

situation. Based on what 

eventually were determined to be 

false-positive bioassay results, the 

homes of 4 KCP workers were 

inspected and some contamination 

was found. There were 

undoubtedly many activities to 

identify the cause and extent of 

this contamination. Pm-147 is a 

relatively low-energy 100% beta 

emitting nuclide (e.g., maximum 

energy of 224.7 keV, average 

energy of 62 keV) with a half-life of 

2.6 years. The primary concern 

with this type of nuclide would be 

direct skin contamination and 

intake. The report addresses the 

chronology of steps, and the 

results, to examine potential 

exposure and contamination. 

No 

5. Kansas City Plant guards 

were not a part of the 

monitoring program.

Please see response to item #3. No 

6. The few workers that were 

aware that the cars that 

were possibly 

contaminated with 

promethium argued with 

management at the 

Kansas City Plant 

regarding the decision of 

having guards search the 

cars and possibly being 

exposed themselves. But 

Based on the presence of AEC 

technical inspectors for this 

incident, and the apparent 

involvement of Missouri 

radiological health professionals, it 

is assumed that all significant 

potential worker exposure was 

considered. Considering the 

number of persons involved in the 

investigation and the diverse 

employment of these persons, it is 

No 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 18 of 18 03/09/06 

the decision was made to 

bring the cars in and have 

the guards search the cars.

difficult to imagine that a 

significant exposure potential was 

over-looked. 

7. Kansas City Plant workers 

need to know about the 

sources of exposure that 

were at the Kansas City 

Plant. 

This is indeed important. 

Preparation of the KCP Site Profile 

focused on an examination of the 

types of radiation that could result 

in KCP worker exposures. The 

TBD includes a summary of 

inventories of radiation sources 

and potential environmental 

releases. It was concluded that 

the primary sources of potential 

exposures involved the numerous 

industrial radiation generating 

devices used for examination and 

process control, and the work with 

depleted uranium. 

No