NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 1 of 14 03/02/06 

Meeting Date: 

October 19, 2005, 1:00 p.m. 

Meeting with: 

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 778, Kansas City, 

Missouri 

Name Organization 

Mike Roepke Business Representative, IAM Local 778 

J. J. Jones IAM Local 778, former local union president and retired 

worker, Kansas City Plant 

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 

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

Mary Elliott – ATL 

Proceedings 

Mr. Lewis began the meeting at 1:00 p.m. by thanking the union representatives for meeting with 

the Worker Outreach Team. Mr. Lewis is employed by ATL as the Senior Outreach Specialist on 

the team. His primary function is to bring the team together with local labor union 

representatives to get input for the Site Profiles. He is a member of the United Steelworkers of 

America and a 30-year employee at a DOE site in Ohio. His work with the former PACE 

International Union led to his involvement with that union’s push for the passage of the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA). 

Mr. Lewis stated that the Site Profile is a document used by health physicists to perform dose 

reconstructions for claims filed under Subtitle B of EEOICPA. The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), its 

support contractor on this project, are interested in getting information from workers that may 

not be included in the records of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors at the 

sites. 

Mr. Lewis introduced Grady Calhoun, from the NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support (OCAS). Mr. Calhoun stated that he is a health physicist on the Dose Reconstruction 

Team at NIOSH. He gave a summary of the claims 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. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 2 of 14 03/02/06 

• DOL verifies whether there is a compensable illness, and whether the employee worked 

at one of the covered facilities. If both criteria are met, the claim is then sent to NIOSH 

for a radiation dose reconstruction. 

• NIOSH requests the employee’s radiation dose records, medical records, incident reports, 

and other pertinent records from the facility through the DOE. 

• Claimants are interviewed by telephone to gather exposure history information on the 

employee. 

• 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 prepared and forwarded to OCAS and the claimant(s) for review. 

• The claimant is contacted again to review the draft dose reconstruction report and to 

make sure that all information has been included. If there is any additional information, 

the dose reconstruction is reworked. 

• After the claimant acknowledges that there is no additional information, they are asked to 

sign a form. 

• 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: 

It sounds like the cases are based on dose records from the plant. What if there are no records? 

Grady Calhoun: 

A claimant’s dosimetry records are a major part of the claims process. If a worker was not 

monitored or the records are missing, an estimated dose is applied based on co-worker data. If a 

worker’s records show “zero” readings, a “missed dose” is calculated and added to the dose 

reconstruction. 

Question: 

What if a worker was never issued a dosimeter? 

Grady Calhoun: 

We look at X-ray dose and ambient radiation levels – adjustments are made for these things – the 

dose for any claim will never be zero. 

Jack Fix: 

If a claimant was not monitored or there is no record, a claimant’s statements during the phone 

interview are taken into consideration. These will indicate whether there should have been a 

radiation dose. 

Mark Lewis: 

There are situations where the claimant is a survivor and does not know much about their 

deceased relative’s work history. In those cases, the dose reconstructors often rely on co-worker 

data or a co-worker’s affidavit to determine the deceased worker’s radiation dose. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 3 of 14 03/02/06 

Question: 

What is the criterion to be a survivor claimant? Does the child have to have been under 21 at the 

time of their relative’s death? 

Grady Calhoun: 

No, there are no age limitations in Subtitle B. 

Jack Fix: 

It is important to note here that the way the law is drafted, the claimant is always given the 

benefit of the doubt during the dose reconstruction. Any time there is missing data, a dose is 

applied in an effort for the process to remain claimant-favorable. The idea is that if there is a 

potential for an award, all measures are taken to assist in that effort. 

Mark Lewis: 

There is contact information in your packet for the regional Department of Labor Resource 

Center in Paducah, Kentucky. Anyone from the Kansas City Plant who needs to file a claim 

should contact them. 

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, as well as the web site address to view the information online. 

Mr. Fix explained that the purpose of the meeting is to present the Kansas City Site Profile. At 

the introductory meeting on September 15, 2004, union officials from the plant gave the 

Outreach Team information that was then included in the Site Profile. Since the site profile 

development is an evidentiary process, the information is researched and often incorporated into 

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

which means that the document can be modified when new information comes to light that 

proves relevant to dose reconstruction. 

Mr. Fix gave the attendees a list of items that were brought up at the September 15, 2004 

meeting that impacted the Site Profile (see Attachment A). The fourth item, regarding a 1989 

incident where guards were exposed to promethium-147, is a very good example of worker input 

to the site profile. This incident involved a response by multiple agencies including the Missouri 

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

City and Albuquerque. The incident was highly visible, and homes and cars were checked for 

radiation since some workers tracked contamination into their homes. The investigation resulted 

in a 385-page report that concluded that there was no positive intake – the radionuclide 

promethium-147 is a very low energy beta-emitting nuclide. The incident is noted in the site 

profile. 

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

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

claims, only the radiation claims involve NIOSH. The program involves interaction between 

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 Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 4 of 14 03/02/06 

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 Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

(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, 

10,421 dose reconstructions have been completed. The other cases are in various stages of the 

process – claimant interviews, gathering radiological records from DOE, etc. – and more than 

4,000 dose reconstructions are either in process or under review. 

The DOL has received 50,000 cases for compensation. Awards have been made to 10,872 

claimants, totaling an estimated $1.25 billion. 

Mr. Calhoun interjected that some claimants may be eligible to file EEOICPA claims under both 

Subtitles B and E. Claimants who are not compensable under Subtitle B may still be awarded a 

claim for Subtitle E (for illnesses related to toxic chemical exposure). Mr. Calhoun said he 

understands that there are many toxic chemicals in use at the site, and that, in all likelihood, more 

claims for Subtitle E will be filed by Kansas City Plant workers than for Subtitle B. Subtitle E 

compensates for diseases such as diabetes, asthma, skin conditions, and many other illnesses that 

may be caused by exposure to toxic chemicals. 

Comment: 

I have often wondered about this skin condition I have. I used trichloroethylene often in my 

work. That is something to think about. I have multiple illnesses that might be linked to 

chemicals that I may have been exposed to here at the plant. 

Grady Calhoun: 

It is important to file a claim if you have any of the covered illnesses. Medical expenses are paid 

from the date the claim is filed. If you know of anyone who may be eligible, encourage them to 

file at the DOL Resource Center. The contact information is in the presentation folder. 

The Kansas City Plant Site Profile is a collection of site-specific information that is used as 

guidance in claimants’ dose reconstructions. The document identifies the radioactive materials 

present at the site, as well as work practices, safety programs, dosimetry programs, workplace 

hazards, types of radiological instrumentation, and other statistical information that is necessary 

to make dose estimates for workers. The Site Profile Team was established in May 2004. The 

Site Profile has been approved and can be viewed on the OCAS web site: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocastbds.html#kcplant. It is a “living document” that can be 

revised as new information becomes available. 

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

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. This facility has been instrumental in the accurate design and fabrication of 

nuclear weapons in the United States. Its major role in the nuclear weapons program is the 

manufacturing of the non-nuclear components of the devices. Most of the radiation at the plant is 

from sealed radionuclide sources or radiation generating devices such as X-rays or neutron 

radiography that were used to examine the integrity of the components, so the radiation risk at 

KCP is relatively low. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 5 of 14 03/02/06 

Comment: 

I see the comment about depleted uranium in your presentation handout. We continued to use the 

lathes that were used to machine the depleted uranium long after 1971. They were supposed to 

have cleaned them, but they just washed the lathes with water. Some time later – I cannot recall 

exactly when, probably in the late 1970s or early 1980s – they put up curtains that went from 

floor to ceiling, sent in workers wearing fully encapsulated suits, and removed a section of the 

cement floor along with approximately 6 to 8 feet of soil under the floor and disposed of it all. 

There would still be some risk of exposure to anyone working in this area. 

Jack Fix: 

The assumptions in the Site Profile for exposure to the depleted uranium go beyond the period – 

there is certainly the possibility of some exposure. Workers in the area where the depleted 

uranium was processed were supposed to have urinalysis twice a year. 

Response: 

I worked in that area for about 20 years. We didn’t have any tests to check us for uranium 

exposure. 

Jack Fix: 

If you worked in those areas – this depends on what you put in a claim – even if you were never 

tested, you would be assigned an internal dose from depleted uranium based on where you 

worked. The dose is based on the data collected for monitored radiation workers from 1959 

through 1971. We develop statistical profiles based on the 95% confidence interval – the most 

likely ... If you are a non-monitored radiological worker with a potential for exposure we would 

give you that dose. 

Response: 

The reason I say that... quite a few of the people that worked in that area have passed away. In 

the period between 1959 and 1971 when they were handling the depleted uranium, there were 

either 27 or 29 inspectors that inspected those parts. By the late 1980s, 23 of them had died. To 

the other attendee: There was one remaining inspector – I don’t know if you remember him – 

but they moved him from Department 20 Inspection to another area because his arms were “all 

ate up” (sic). If he is still living, he probably would be a great source of information. (Name 

withheld) was also another one that worked over there. 

Jack Fix: 

This might be a good topic to identify and send to NIOSH, which initiates an investigative 

process for the site profile team. The short answer, though, is that these workers will be assigned 

a dose if there is any reason to believe that they were exposed – all the way up to 1990 I think is 

when we stopped assigning dose because of the multi-agency review of the promethium-147 

incident. They examined many areas in the investigation of that incident. We have confidence 

that if there was depleted uranium around prior to that, it was not found after 1989 when the 

investigation took place. We have 3 classes to which we assign dose: monitored radiological 

workers, non-monitored radiological workers, and non-monitored non-radiological workers. We 

assign doses to each category even if it there may be no evidence that they received a dose. I am 

not certain why the depleted uranium was handled at KCP, but it was a very important activity. 

We have both urinalyses and laboratory air sampling results. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 6 of 14 03/02/06 

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

medical X-rays at the site. The DOE did not keep radiological records, but NIOSH assigns a dose 

for work related X-rays. All the details about the types of equipment are not available, but 

handwritten records have been found on the exterior of personnel medical folders indicating 

what types of devices were used. NIOSH assumes one X-ray per year per worker until 1994 and 

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. 

There is no evidence of any environmental radiological exposure at the Kansas City Plant in any 

historical record that the team has examined. This has caused some dilemma, because there is no 

data. The Missouri Department of Health has no data, and it does not appear that any other 

agency does. Major studies have been done, but none of them have identified any environmental 

radiological exposure. Notwithstanding, we have assumed a default ambient radiation dose for 

non-monitored, non-radiological workers who may have inadvertently received low-level 

exposures. For that reason, two changes to the Site Profile are under way: one for external 

radiation exposure and another for potential intakes of depleted uranium. These changes are 

related to the worker concern for the promethium-147 incident in 1989. Although no impact was 

identified, a dose has been assigned to ensure that the potential exposure is not underestimated. 

NIOSH assumes certain “buckets” of dose where there is no information in a worker’s records. 

Besides the medical and environmental doses, these “buckets” include calculated default values 

for internal dose and external dose based on information available for monitored radiation 

workers. There is a fifth “bucket” – referred to as “missed dose” – for incidents of “zero” 

readings in a monitored radiological worker’s dosimetry record. The NIOSH program is 

proactive in looking at these incidents of “missed dose.” The potential dose is calculated and 

added into the worker’s radiation dose. 

The only documented intakes for internal dose are from the depleted uranium that was the 

primary source of exposure from 1959 to 1971, and after 1997 when a new program was 

initiated. We have copies of the purchase orders for the depleted uranium. We have data from 

many thousands of urinalyses over the period of time. A detection level has been assumed since 

one has not been stated, so intakes are assigned based on three categories of workers: monitored 

radiological workers, non-monitored radiological workers, and non-monitored non-radiological 

workers. 

External radiation doses at KCP are very low-level exposures, mostly from the diagnostic 

equipment used to examine the components – the neutron radiographs... 

Comment: 

I totally disagree with that. Tons of chemicals have been dumped in the back lots and in the 

lagoons – dirt has been hauled off. It is not radiological, but... 

Question: 

Is NIOSH aware that many dump truck loads of dirt have been hauled off site to Alabama? 

Grady Calhoun: 

Did this result from chemical problems or radiological problems? 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 7 of 14 03/02/06 

Response: 

We are under the impression that it was chemically related. That is why I am surprised about the 

environmental impact. I know the groundwater has been affected. 

Grady Calhoun: 

The Site Profile does not deal with the chemical contamination. 

Jack Fix: 

I tried to stress the word “radiological.” There is a lot of chemical impact here and surveillance is 

being done routinely for chemical impact, but not for radiation. Several extensive reports have 

been written regarding this subject, but the surveillances do not include radiation. 

Question (to the other attendee): 

If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t there still some radiological material over in the building with the 

HiPr (High Power Laboratory)? What is the name of that building? The one with the 4-foot to 6-

foot thick walls? 

Response: 

The Test Cells? 

Response (first speaker): 

Yes, that is it. There is a big safe in there that was supposed to have some radiological material. 

Response: 

A lot of times, they would bring units in from the field and we used Geiger counters for 

telemetry. 

Response (first speaker): 

I thought there were some “balls” over there... 

Mark Lewis: 

Sources? 

Response (first speaker): 

I am not sure what they were. They were in this safe – I could go in the safe for specific purposes 

– things were on a “need to know” basis. But other folks talked about things... If you listen to 

some of the old-timers, they have stories about things being buried around here – still buried 

around here. 

Jack Fix: 

As I mentioned before, if you have any specific topic that you think we should look into, we can 

check it out. 

Response (first speaker): 

Many of these old-timers have passed on; some of them started working in the early 1950s. 

I remember what these people said – some of the places they talked about – but most of what I 

could tell you is only hearsay. I have nothing to substantiate what I am saying, except that I 

heard it from somebody else. These are not small things... 

Jack Fix: 

This is an evidentiary process, really the only process that is available to us. We tried to examine 

every record we could get our hands on. If there are specific topics – specific circumstances or 

incidents – we would certainly treat every one of those very seriously and see what we could find 

about them. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 8 of 14 03/02/06 

Response (first speaker): 

I suggest that you talk to (name withheld) if he is still alive. 

Response (second speaker): 

We will send him your way. 

Question: 

If a worker has a negative result from their Beryllium test, and they have cancer what do they do 

next? The beryllium process is very frustrating. It is a farce. 

Response (from the other attendee): 

Yes, it is frustrating. I am waiting for the results of my second beryllium test and I haven’t been 

thinking about some of these other illnesses you were talking about – diabetes, asthma, skin 

conditions – and I am sitting here thinking “Hey, I have all those.” Years ago, when 

trichloroethylene was widely used as a cleaner for lots of things. . . 

Response (first speaker): 

When I first started working here, one of my first assignments was wiping down all the stainless 

steel in my workstation with trichloroethylene and then throwing the rag away. And I had to do 

the same thing every evening when I was done with my shift. Six years later, it was considered 

too “bad” to use. 

Response (second speaker): 

If you got that stuff on your hands, it would turn them white. Now they act like they never heard 

of it. Tri what? 

Jack Fix: 

If you look at the list of potential carcinogens, and you go back and compare the chemicals you 

used as a young worker, there are so many things that make you wonder how you could still be 

alive. 

Mark Lewis: 

Do you have a retiree group here that meets regularly? 

Response: 

Yes. 

Mark Lewis: 

Talking with them could yield a lot of potentially useful information – one memory could trigger 

another. 

Response: 

All that will do is stir up a lot of things that you cannot document, and then we will have the 

same issues as we do with the beryllium testing process. When beryllium came to town, 

everybody was going to jump right on it. We have 18 cases confirmed and nobody has been 

compensated yet. It is like “I’ve heard this for the last 30 years when I worked at the bottom of 

the hill.” There is a real credibility issue with all of this. 

Mark Lewis: 

Beryllium compensation is made under Subtitle B, but not in our work scope. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 9 of 14 03/02/06 

Response: 

Two women from our union drove to Denver with their documentation to try to get their cases 

expedited. They came back with nothing. 

Mark Lewis: 

The LPTs (lymphocyte proliferation tests) are coming back positive and there have been no 

payments. Is that correct? 

Response: 

It is a long, drawn out process. It is kind of like Social Security – it’s there, but try to get it. 

Jack Fix: 

As Grady said earlier, we are talking about radiation. 

Response: 

As your research shows, we have very little documentation of high radiation exposure here. I 

haven’t seen four dosimeters in the whole plant my entire career. If you are not recording it, it is 

not there. “Prove it.” 

Response: 

The lathes I talked about earlier have been sold, but we used them for years. They removed that 

floor and took it out of here – that is a fact. 

Jack Fix: 

We look at distributions. We prepared distributions for all years for which depleted uranium 

urinalysis monitoring was done here at KCP. We assume that the non-monitored workers with a 

potential for exposure received the same dose as those who were monitored. We assign a dose to 

the non-monitored worker with a potential for exposure based on the 95 percent level. This 

process should provide a realistic claimant favorable estimate of the potential intake to these 

workers. That is one reason we prepare site profiles – to document who was monitored and who 

probably should have been. Monitoring here was spread throughout many different occupational 

classes and done in various laboratories. There appears to have been a very comprehensive 

program. We recognize that for many years, it was not considered necessary to monitor workers 

who received less than ten percent of the annual dose levels, so only workers who exceeded that 

were monitored. 

KCP provided us with a database of all of the recorded doses for air monitoring for all years of 

operation. We analyzed that data and came up with statistical profiles for external radiation 

exposure. The dosimetry used at KCP was state-of-the-art, comparable to any other system. We 

looked at the exchange frequency and estimated a “missed” dose. 

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. He 

acknowledged that the workers at the plant had valuable knowledge that may not have been 

included in the Site Profile. NIOSH and ORAU encourage input from the workers at the site to 

achieve this end. 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. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 10 of 14 03/02/06 

Question: 

Is all the Site Profile information on the compact disc you provided? 

Jack Fix: 

The disc contains the current Site Profile. It is also on the OCAS web site we talked about 

earlier. 

Response: 

Thank you. I would like to review the process. If a worker comes to me and tells me she has 

cancer – not beryllium disease – what is the next step? 

Grady Calhoun: 

She should file a claim for Subtitle B for cancer through the DOL Resource Center, and they will 

initiate the process I described earlier in the presentation. The worker only has to show proof of 

the medical diagnosis. DOL will verify employment. Then the case is forwarded to NIOSH for 

the dose reconstruction. 

Response: 

She should use the Paducah number to contact them. Is that correct? 

Mark Lewis: 

Yes, she can use the toll-free number on the sheet we provided to you. She can file during the 

call. 

Response: 

What if she thinks her cancer was caused by chemicals? 

Grady Calhoun: 

She should tell them that she wants to file under both Subtitles B and E. 

Response: 

And Subtitle E is the one for chemical exposure. Correct? 

Grady Calhoun: 

Yes. 

Mark Lewis: 

Since you have a retirees’ group, do you think it would be possible to get them together for a 

risk-mapping session? 

Response: 

Since additional information could benefit the Site Profile, if you are willing to take their input 

we would be more than willing to contact the President of our retirees’ group to put the word out. 

They are from the cold war days and may be reluctant to talk. 

Mark Lewis: 

That is why I am here as a labor liaison. 

Response: 

There are so many who are gone now that could have provided a wealth of information. You 

would be amenable to come into a retirees’ meeting? 

Mark Lewis: 

If it would help the Site Profile and we had an invitation to the meeting, we could do it – with 

approval from the Worker Outreach Team Leader and NIOSH. They have not said “No” yet. 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 11 of 14 03/02/06 

Jack Fix: 

The challenge we face is trying to find out if there are circumstances where there is a situation 

and an outcome. It has been very hard to come up with “smoking gun” documentation. If you 

take a group of workers and say, “What is the likelihood that someone in a group of people has 

been harmed?” what will be your outcome? A risk study in Lyons, France analyzed 600,000 

workers from fifteen countries. They did not come up with any higher risk estimates that those 

used for current radiation protection standards. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the 

Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) classifies ionizing radiation as a weak carcinogen, and 

the scientific evidence is that radiation is still a weak carcinogen. Some people, under some 

circumstances, are more susceptible to it than others. If there is a possible doubt for a person, 

then we want to give them as much dose as possible. 

Comment: 

For a science that is not exact, we have good soldiers. They said for years “You can’t talk about 

what you do,” and people around here thought we made washing machines. You have good 

soldiers who don’t talk about it. Who is to say that these illnesses did not come from working 

here? Think about all the military personnel that were there when the government did the first 

nuclear tests. They were told that there was no harm. By the time that the government finally 

admitted that there were hazards, most of them were dead. The same thing happened here. 

Jack Fix: 

That is really who these studies are looking at – the older people because the studies are based on 

the mortality rates. The idea in this program is that every amount of radiation is hazardous. 

Response: 

I just wish that some of these guys were still around to tell their stories. 

Mr. Lewis thanked the union representatives for meeting with the team. The meeting concluded 

at 2:15 p.m. 

Attachments:

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

 September 15, 2004 Kansas City Plant Site Profile Meeting 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 12 of 14 03/02/06 

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 

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 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 13 of 14 03/02/06 

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 

exposed to. 

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 

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.

No 

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 

Based on the presence of AEC 

technical inspectors for this 

incident, and the apparent 

No 
NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project 

Rollout Meeting for the 

Kansas City Plant Site Profile 

Final Minutes 14 of 14 03/02/06 

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 

the decision was made to 

bring the cars in and have 

the guards search the cars.

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 

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