Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

January 18, 2007 

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

Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, 

caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for 

factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the 

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

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

It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or 

copied to persons not authorized to receive such information and so named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), 

any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this document in error, 

please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

There have been questions regarding the implications of zero entries, and “no data available” 

entries in the actual dose records, as mentioned by multiple workers. Affidavits provided in 

support of the petition included discussions of situations where individuals received zero doses 

or “no data available” when the field and work circumstances would indicate that external 

exposure was expected. In addition, petitioners raised the issue of incomplete dose records for 

workers and had used the terms “falsified” dose entries and “manipulated dosimetry.” 

Throughout the SC&A review, these issues were brought up repeatedly petitioners and former 

workers. During interviews with petitioners and former workers, personnel indicated that field 

RadCon logbooks (e.g., contamination control logs, radiation protection technician (RPT) logs, 

decontamination logbooks, and foreman’s logbooks) might substantiate the claims made by 

workers. According to “field radiological control” (RadCon) personnel, logbooks were kept by 

radiation monitors and their supervisors to record daily events including unusual occurrences, 

contamination problems, special whole body dosimetry results, dose rates, and day-to-day 

activities. The logbooks contained some information related to individual dose. 

SC&A noted the lack of corroborating evidence to back up assertions made by both the 

petitioners and NIOSH’s site experts regarding the pervasiveness of dose record discrepancies 

and their historic origins. SC&A, under the broad guidance of the Board’s working group, 

decided to directly interview petitioners and other site experts on these issues, and to conduct 

record reviews for such evidence at the Legacy Management, Mountain View Facility. Onsite 

interviews with the petitioners for the purpose of clarification and ascertainment of supporting 

documents were conducted March 27-29, 2006. Records were requested by SC&A prior to the 

RFP visit, and were partially retrieved by DOE’s Legacy Management personnel from the 

Denver Federal Records Center. Those records made available during the onsite visit included 

Health Physics progress reports, limited dosimetry processing data, information on tritium, and 

technical reports. The records that were not available during the site visit included the field 

RadCon logbooks. These were not retrieved in time for the onsite visit; however, they were 

made available shortly following the visit. One of the outcomes of the site visit was the 

identification of documents that might be helpful in evaluating the data integrity issues raised in 

the petition. As a result, additional searches of the record databases were conducted while onsite 

and subsequent to the visit. The logbooks identified by SC&A and subsequently retrieved by 

Legacy Management for review included years ranging from 1957 – 1996. Both the uranium 

and plutonium areas were represented by the logbooks originally requested. Attachment 3 is a 

compilation of results potentially relevant to the data integrity from all record searches 

conducted to date. A request was made of Legacy Management that a copy of all records 

scanned for SC&A be also provided to NIOSH. 

At the April 12, 2006 working group meeting, SC&A provided a summary of the types of 

records reviewed during the visit to RFP. The review of field RadCon logbooks and dosimetry 

information, including those records retrieve originally for SC&As review, was turned over to 

NIOSH for completion (ABRWH 2006a). SC&A was asked to identify records that were not 

reviewed during the site visit and provide information on how these records can potentially 

answer data integrity issues. The Interim Evaluation of Data Reliability Issues: Needed 

Document Retrieval and Evaluation (SC&A 2006a), outlining specific data integrity issues, was 

provided to NIOSH and the working group on April 19, 2006. Within this report were 

recommendations for logbook and document reviews. The list included contamination control 

logbooks, foreman’s logs for the RadCon group, RCT logbooks, decontamination logbooks, 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 2 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

special TLD results, and dosimeter processing information. NIOSH was to review the original 

set of logbooks requested by SC&A during the site visit for information pertinent to the SEC 

petition. The logbooks containing pertinent information, particularly individual dose data, were 

to be scanned and made available to the working group. The original intention was to pull 

logbooks and dosimetry information corresponding to the work location and period of concern 

for workers providing affidavits or expressing similar comments during the petition interviews. 

The logbooks were to be reviewed for information on external exposures, overexposures, 

unusual exposure conditions, internal exposures, special dosimetry use, and involvement in 

incidents. NIOSH was also asked to retrieve urinalysis logbooks for comparison to the Health 

Physics Information System (HIS-20) database for the purposes of validating reliability of 

bioassay records. 

The original intention was to track information provided by those submitting affidavits and 

comments in the logbooks and dosimetry receipt and processing logs, to validate the issues 

raised in the affidavit or comment. The various sources of dosimetry information were to be 

utilized to ascertain whether the individuals identified as having concerns (primarily from the 

affidavits) were mentioned in the logbooks, and if there was any dose information that differed 

from the dose of record. The RFP Health Physics dose data files were to be reviewed for 

documentation related to the years in question including dosimetry investigations and reported 

dosimeter results. The dosimetry processing logbooks for the same time period were to be pulled 

to determine whether there was indication of dosimeter damage or that the dosimeter had not 

been returned for the period in question. The secondary dosimetry results (e.g., chirpers, pocket 

ionization chambers), which were maintained in the field radiological control records, were also 

requested to permit evaluation between primary and secondary dosimetry results. During many 

of the high exposure jobs, secondary dosimetry was used to track real-time dose. The ultimate 

goal was to compare historical information from a variety of available sources and to determine 

if there was, in fact, corroboration. The specific individuals providing affidavits or comments 

where not always found in the field RadCon logbooks; therefore, the focus of the review was 

changed to verification of data for those individuals with internal or external monitoring 

information identified in the field RadCon logbooks. 

At the July 26, 2006 working group meeting, NIOSH provided a comparison of extracted 

exposure data from the Logbook 12-12-66 to 12-31-68 (Kittinger 1966) and the individual Health 

Physics dose data files. Information included dates of whole body counts, accidents/incidents, 

and exposures for a specified employee at a specified time. For each example, NIOSH checked 

the NIOSH-OCAS Computer Tracking System (NOCTS) for information matching the 

employees mentioned in the logbook. Only a portion of the individuals from logbook entries 

were claimants. For this population, NIOSH evaluated the logbook data against the available 

data in the Health Physics dose data file. Information in the logbook and Health Physics file 

were evaluated for exact matches where monitoring periods in both sources were identical and 

agreement where the logbook cycle covered only a portion of the cycle identified in the Health 

Physics file (e.g., The logbook information may cover one month while only a quarterly value is 

listed in the Health Physics file.) For the claimants identified with monitoring data in Logbook 

12-12-66 to 12-31-68 (Kittinger 1966), the data in the logbook was consistent with that in the 

Health Physics files. 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 3 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

There were an additional 36 individuals selected from Logbook 12-12-66 to 12-31-68 (Kittinger 

1966) who were not claimants. NIOSH requested the radiation files from DOE Legacy 

Management for employees matching the names cited in the logbook. For multiple hits (several 

radiation files of employees with the same last name), all possible matches were requested. The 

Health Physics files for the 36 individuals were received and are posted on the O-drive. 

Nineteen of the 36 non-claimant individuals named in NIOSH’s review of Logbook 12-12-66 to 

12-31-68 were evaluated as a part of the second logbook review. The remainder have not been 

evaluated by NIOSH since the receipt of the dosimetry records. 

A concern was raised by the working group that the evaluation of the Logbook 12-12-66 to 12-

31-68 only covered the years 1966-1968, and was for individuals assigned to the plutonium areas 

(Kittinger 1966). A commitment was made by NIOSH to sample logbooks (RadCon field and 

urinalysis) from 1969 through the 1990s (ABWRH 2006b, pp. 329-337). Randomized names 

with internal or external exposure information were to be selected from the logbooks for 

comparison to the Health Physics files and HIS-20. During the August 31, 2006 working group 

meeting, NIOSH acknowledged their matrix commitment for a sampling plan for the urinalysis 

and Field RadCon logbooks (ABWRH 2006c, pp. 202). Mark Griffon of the workgroup 

provided NIOSH /ORAU a preliminary comparison of logbook data which were thought to be 

beneficial in the comparison of logbook information with the database. One logbook ‘flagged’ 

by Mr. Griffon for NIOSH was Logbook 6-12-67 –12-29-68 which included data from 1957 thru 

1960 (Griffon 2006). The logbook contained uranium urinalysis data from the late 1950s. 

On October 27, 2006, however, NIOSH instead provided Logbook Review for Rocky Flats

(NIOSH 2006a), a review of Rocky Flats logbooks, for purposes of ascertaining data reliability 

and provides its results on the “O” Drive for working group review. This review pulled 

individual monitoring or incident information from 36 logbooks, of which 20 were urinalysis 

processing logs. The logbooks represented both plutonium and non-plutonium areas for the 

between 1957 through 1971, but 1972-1999 data were not represented in the review. 

SC&A conducted a review of the 59 logbooks and compiled logbook entries potentially relevant 

to the SEC petition as a part of the review of data integrity issues subsequent to the original 

records request. These requests concentrated on the 1969 Fire and specific supervisor logs. The 

logbooks entries of interest from these logbooks were extracted and are provided in three 

attachments. Attachment 1 contains logbook entries with individual specific internal or external 

monitoring, references to special badging, and referrals to medical or the in vivo counter. 

Attachment 2 represents logbook entries referencing radionuclides other and Pu-239, U-235, and 

U-238. Attachment 3 contains entries related to field measurements (e.g., surveys, air sampling, 

etc.), incidents, and destruction of badges. Entries were entered as they appeared in the logbook 

including retention of abbreviations and misspellings, unless otherwise indicated. Some logs 

were difficult to read due to the poor handwriting and image. The reference to logbook pages 

refers to the page designated in the logbook (not to be confused with the pdf pages in the scanned 

version of the logbook). Names of individuals have been removed from the entries to comply 

with the Privacy Act requirements. 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 4 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

1.1.1 Personnel Logbook Entries 

Entries linkable to particular individuals including references to internal or external monitoring, 

special badging, and referrals to medical or the in vivo counter were of particular interest. This 

information was compared with the data in the Health Physics file and the HIS-20 database as a 

means of determining consistency between field logbook information and dosimetry data. This 

was particularly pertinent to the questions raised in the petition regarding blanks, zeros, or “no 

data available” entries in dosimetry records. NIOSH stated in 21 March 2006 SC&A Comments 

and NIOSH Responses (NIOSH 2006b): 

Pre-1964: A blank indicates a period when the worker was not monitored. This situation 

will be dealt with by applying unmonitored dose using coworker data (for radiation 

workers), or by applying ambient environmental dose (non-radiation workers). A zero 

indicates a monitored period when there was no positive recorded dose. This situation 

will be dealt with by applying missed dose. 

For the years 1964 and after, NIOSH states: 

1964 and after: A blank or zero could indicate a period when a badge wasn’t returned at 

the scheduled badge exchange, but was rather retained by the worker for an additional 

badge exchange cycle. In this situation, all dose recorded on the badge was recorded in 

one badge exchange cycle, and a blank appeared in the record for the other exchange 

cycle. A zero entry in the dosimetry records could also indicate that there was no 

positive dose recorded on the badge. In any case, whenever a blank or zero appears in 

the dosimetry record, missed dose is assigned. 

“No data available” entries indicate instances when either the badge was not turned in at the 

scheduled badge exchange, or the badge was turned in but there was a problem with the 

dosimetry badge. NIOSH proposes to use missed dose, coworker dose, or ambient 

environmental dose when a blank or a zero appeared in the dosimetry record. The comparison 

between the individual monitoring data in the field logbooks and the dosimetry files served as a 

method for validating whether blanks, zeros, and “no data available” were the result of 

explanations described above. 

The logbooks clearly reference wound counts, in vivo counts (in some cases with only dates), 

urinalysis results, and in a few cases secondary dosimetry results. Other individual specific data 

included personnel contamination levels, nasal smear results, and identification of those involved 

in incidents such as explosions, fires, and breaches of containment. NIOSH was to provide a 

sampling plan on how this data would be evaluated; however, to date this plan has not been 

forthcoming. A preliminary screening was conducted by SC&A to ascertain the usefulness of 

the logbook data in evaluating data completeness and accuracy. The goal was to identify 

individuals in the logbooks who also had both hard copy and electronic dosimetry results readily 

available for review. Approximately 70 claimants were mentioned in some capacity in the 

logbook. 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 5 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

“Special badging” is routinely referred to in the field logbooks. It is typically referenced in the 

context of special dosimetry studies or job-specific usage. Special badging usually occurred with 

high exposure potential jobs such as the ZPPR project, work on the americium line, and special 

projects. In some cases, it was reported that routine dosimeters were worn in conjunction with 

the special dosimeters, while in other cases the special dosimeters replaced the routine 

dosimeters. For example, an entry from Logbook 12/5/66-6/11/67 (RFP, 1966a, pg. 131) states 

“Special film badges are to be worn by people involved with the PuBe Project. Regular film 

badges are not to be worn.” The exchange of these badges was as frequent as daily (Refer to 

Site Expert Interview) and can be observed on the computer printouts in some claimant files. 

With a higher frequency of exchange, the badge results are more likely to be below the minimum 

detectable dose. It is also unclear how the special dosimeter results were reflected in the 

dosimetry record. 

Another general observation made were special bioassay samples were not collected in all cases 

immediately following an incident (especially minor incidents). Of the incidents reviewed, a 

majority of these were associated with wounds and skin contamination incidents. The medical 

record serves as an additional source of incident information that may or may not be reflected in 

the radiation exposure file. Although SC&A has identified individual’s dose data in a few of the 

logbooks reviewed, we have been unable to find information on the particular individuals chosen 

for follow-up. 

1.1.2 

1.1.3 

Other Radionuclides 

One concern arising during the review was exposure of personnel to radionuclides other than U235, U-238, and Pu-139. Thirteen of the 59 logbooks reviewed mention operations involving 

secondary radionuclides including U-233, U-237, Pu-236, Pu-238, Am-241, Am-243, Np-237, 

Co-60, Cf-252, Ir-192, curium, thorium, and tritium. The 1966-1969 Special Analysis Logbook

(RFP 1966b) contained individual specific bioassay data for 1/20/1966 thru 1/13/1969 for Sr-90, 

Po-210, Np-237, tritium, and thorium. Other radionuclides such as thorium, tritium, Po-210, Np237, and curium were encountered at RFP as a part of the weapons part handling and 

manufacturing. Other radionuclides such as Co-60, Cs-137, and Ir-192 were used for quality 

assurance testing. Some notable entries included a spill of neptunium and an inadvertent 

exposure to Co-60 contamination. Inadvertent releases of tritium occurred with a significant 

release in 1973 that resulted in a release to the environment as well as to the work place. 

Thorium was mentioned in the context of thorium strikes and as ingots in Building 883. Clearly 

the logbook entries indicate that numerous radionuclides were handled in some capacity at RFP. 

The entries also provide some information on dates these radionuclides were handled. The 

logbooks demonstrate there was a potential for both internal and external exposure from 

radionuclides other than plutonium and uranium. Exposure to other radionuclides is evaluated in 

more depth in Section 7.0 of this review. 

Field Logbooks, Incidents, and Badge Destruction 

Attachment 2 includes log entries related to incidents, field measurements, and badge destruction 

entries obtained from the 59 logbooks. This information was pertinent to concerns over 

processing of lost, stolen, or otherwise compromised dosimeters. The logbooks also contain 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 6 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

periodic radiation and contamination measurements for high dose rate projects. Field survey 

information is useful in evaluating why badges may not have reflected the field exposure 

conditions and/or potential reasons for discrepancies between dosimeters and field exposure 

conditions. 

One particular concern raised in eleven different entries was the destruction of contaminated 

badges. In Kittinger’s Personal Logbook 10/1/57 - 8/26/60 (Kittinger, 1957) and RFP Logbook 

5/10/66-12/3/66 (RFP 1966c) there were eleven references to the destruction of badges. Some of 

these were associated with specific individuals while others were more general comments. One 

example is provided on pg. 13), 

Destroyed both exchange and permanent badges of [Name] [Badge Number], notified 

[Name] of security of intent. He asked for no formal notification of destroyer. I asked 

guard [Name] to witness, which he did at 9:10 a.m. Badges were cut into small pieces 

and placed in the hot waste can. (Kittinger 1957, pg. 13)

There was some concern over the problem with contaminated badges as indicated in Kittinger’s 

Personal Logbook 10/1/57 - 8/26/60 (Kittinger, 1957). 

[Name] informed of the large number of badges that were found contam. He agreed to 

try to work toward a different badging system that would not require personnel to wear 

them in the area. He asked that [Name] be notified and his assistance enlisted to get 

Security to adopt a new system. I contacted [Name] with [Name] approval. [Name] is 

somewhat interested in the possibility of a film badge type substitution. (pg. 104)

Petitioners and former Rocky Flats workers have repeatedly mentioned in interviews that badges 

were disposed of. The entries in the logbook validate that this was the case, at least in earlier 

periods, when badges were contaminated. The frequency of badge destruction is unknown, yet 

contaminated badges appeared to be a significant enough problem that alternate badging systems 

were under consideration. The policy of destroying contaminated badges was confirmed by 

three RCTs interviewed by SC&A. The dosimetry staff may or may not have been cognizant of 

the destruction of badges since this occurred in the field. The purpose for not sending 

contaminated badges to the processing laboratory was to prevent the lab and its instruments from 

getting contaminated. SC&A found that further investigation into this practice is warranted, 

especially in the uranium areas where there was less containment of radioactive material. 

There are also statements regarding gamma alarm evaluations. One particular entry of interest 

was included in the Logbook W.D. Kittinger/R.M. Vogel 6-20-63 thru 10-27-67(Kittinger and 

Vogel, 1963), which stated:

Gamma alarm evac. At 2:00 PM. Good test. 72 people w/o film badges. (pg. 96). 

Were these individuals supposed to be wearing film badges? The exact meaning of this entry is 

unknown; however, this raises questions regarding the implementation of dosimetry 

requirements in the field. 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 7 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

SC&A, in its sampling of 59 logbooks found individual specific monitoring information which 

could be compared to Health Physics files and the HIS-20 database for validation of dosimeter 

results. The logbooks appear to indicate that special bioassay sampling did not always follow 

involvement in incidents. While reviewing the logbooks, SC&A noted mention of special 

projects involving secondary radionuclides. There were several entries related to destruction of 

badges, which provide additional examples of situations where external exposure investigations 

should have been conducted. The logbook entries also validated petition statements related to 

frequent fires and incidents, and existence of high radiation areas. 

1.1.4 Field and Urinalysis Logbook Data Comparison 

To investigate the alleged lack of corroboration between dosimetry records and individual doses 

reported in the field logbooks, SC&A requested dosimetry processing logbooks/logsheets, 

individual dosimetry files, secondary dosimetry results, and field logbooks corresponding to the 

work location and time of workers expressing concerns. Information from these logbooks was to 

be used to ascertain issues documented in the petition relating to dosimetry adequacy and 

occurrence of incidents. 

Historical data, archived by the Federal Records Center (FRC) for the Rocky Flats 

Environmental Technology Site (RFETS), were reviewed by NIOSH and compared to 

radiological files and claimant files to determine the level of agreement between these data 

sources. The logbooks reviewed by NIOSH included: 

• Urinalysis/bioassay logbooks: containing primarily or exclusively urinalysis or bioassay 

data. 

• Health Physics logbooks: Radiation Monitor, Contamination Control, and Health Physics 

staff logbooks containing some notes regarding bioassay data, wound counting, in vivo

counting, and external dosimetry data. Also contains field radiological control 

conditions. 

 

• Foreman logs: containing foreman’s notes for the day, shift notes, meeting notes, and 

occasionally individual specific information such as a reassignment of duty, follow-up 

monitoring, or clearance for work. These logbooks are less helpful since they contained 

minimal individual data. 

 

• Building logbooks: containing sampling results of floors, walls, equipment, and other 

surfaces or documenting radiological clean-up of the same. 

NIOSH was responsible for providing a sampling plan on which logbooks would be reviewed 

and how the data would be evaluated. They were also responsible for identifying and retrieving 

urinalysis/bioassay logbooks that included results from plutonium, americium, gross alpha, and 

uranium results. It was the working group’s intention that SC&A turn the logbook review over 

to NIOSH and provide a list of outstanding records requested from RFP that could be used for 

comparison. The original logbook request included years ranging from 1957 – 1996, and 

encompassed both the uranium and plutonium areas. NIOSH was to retrieve and review the 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 8 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

logbooks on this list for information pertinent to the SEC petition. The logbooks were to be 

scanned and made available to the working group. NIOSH states in their logbook evaluation 

report (NIOSH 2006a): 

Logbooks were requested from Mt. View RFETS Records staff starting in February 2006. 

Requests were made to Mt. View by the ORAU Team, and included search terms such as: 

urinalysis, bioassay, internal dosimetry, external dosimetry, and logbook. Occasionally, 

specific accession numbers of boxes containing logbook collections were identified and 

submitted to Mt. View. Dates were not necessarily specified at the start, to keep the 

search as broad as possible. Since April, Mt. View estimated that over 450 boxes were 

pulled from the FRC and that NIOSH and ORAU had reviewed over 1,000 documents. 

Requests were submitted through October, in attempts to find logbooks from all possible 

years. Logbooks of various types from 1957 through the mid-80s were located, including 

internal dosimetry logbooks from 1960 through 1971. 

There are 59 logbooks available on the O-drive which comprised primarily logbooks requested 

by SC&A in later records requests. This compilation of logbooks was not intended to be 

representative of all areas and time periods, but was specifically chosen to obtain information on 

particular events such as the 1969 fire. NIOSH was responsible for providing a broader review 

per the recommendations of the Board’s working group. Based on the statements above from the 

logbook evaluation report NIOSH reviewed 450 boxes of records including logbooks extending 

into the mid-1980s. No information was provided on the specific contents of the 450 boxes; 

however, minutes from the May 30, 2006 working group meeting indicated there were 22 boxes 

of logbooks (ABRWH 2006d). NIOSH did not provide information on how the logbooks in 

these 450 boxes were evaluated; nor did they provide scanned copies of relevant logbooks or to 

the working group and SC&A other than the 59 logbooks on the O-drive. The original list of 

logbooks requested by SC&A represented a wide range of years and areas. As such, the logbook 

review conducted by NIOSH should have covered a wider range of years and areas. SC&A’s 

evaluation was limited to the 59 logbooks on the O-drive since these were the only logbooks 

made available. 

Two discrete comparisons were conducted by NIOSH. The first comparison involved only the 

Logbook 12-12-66 to 12-31-68 (NIOSH 2006e). The Logbook 12-12-66 to 12-31-68 (Kittinger 

1966) was maintained by a supervisor in charge of field radiological control activities and was 

particularly useful in identifying individual exposures or monitoring within field logbooks. 

Information included dates of whole body counts, accidents/incidents, exposures for a specified 

employee at a specified time, etc. NIOSH extracted items of interest in the Logbook 12-12-66 to 

12-31-68 defined as any entry in the logbook that gave information of a specific nature that could 

be compared to information in an employee’s radiation file. For example, entries included dates 

of whole body counts, accidents/incidents, and exposures for a specified employee at a specified 

time. For several entries, the information identifying the employee was incomplete (e.g., only 

last name was given, some of which are very common). 

For each example, NIOSH checked the NOCTS database for information matching the 

employees mentioned in the logbook. If the employee was not a claimant, the radiation files for 

employees matching the names mentioned in the logbook were requested from DOE. For 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 9 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

multiple hits (several radiation files of employees with the same last name), all possible matches 

were requested. NIOSH then evaluated the logbook data against the data in the Health Physics 

file, where available. Information in the logbook and Health Physics file were evaluated for 

exact matches where monitoring periods in both sources were identical and agreement existed 

where the logbook cycle covered only a portion of the period identified in the Health Physics file 

(e.g., Logbook information may cover one month while only a quarterly value is listed in the 

Health Physics file.) Individual results evaluated (not inclusive of the 36 non-claimants) were 

found by NIOSH to be consistent between the logbook and the Health Physics files for those 

individuals reviewed (NIOSH 2006c). 

A concern raised in the working group was that this comparison covered only the years 1966-

1968, and individuals assigned to the plutonium areas. An expanded evaluation of logbooks for 

additional areas and years was requested. The expanded logbook review examined a total of 65 

logbooks with 43 containing individual data adequate enough to attempt a comparison. Names 

were pulled from 36 logbooks. 

In their analysis, values in Health Physics files were determined to either have exact matches (in 

agreement), to be consistent with logbook entries (either the dose record or logbook entry were 

not specific enough to determine exact match), or to be inconsistent. The NIOSH evaluation 

reported (NIOSH 2006m): 

This evaluation found a 96% rate of agreement between data found in various logbooks, 

and the data found in the worker’s radiation files. We found no evidence of a systematic 

lack of corroboration between logbooks and the individual worker radiation files which 

would cast doubt on the integrity of Rocky Flats dosimetry data, nor was there any 

evidence of inappropriate manipulation of workers’ dosimetry results. 

They indicated the small numbers of confirmed mismatches were consistent with the types of 

clerical errors expected in a data set composed of hundreds of thousands of dosimetry results. 

SC&A was asked to perform a validation and analysis of the logbook comparisons conducted by 

NIOSH. All the individuals (claimant and non-claimant) identified and evaluated by NIOSH in 

both the Logbook 12-12-66 to 12-31-68 comparison and the expanded logbook comparison were 

reviewed, except those for which a Health Physics file was not available. Logbook entries 

relating to smaller incidents, personnel contamination, and exposure to other radionuclides were 

added to the SC&A evaluation since they were not well represented in the logbook entries 

selected by NIOSH. Entries from a total of 36 logbooks were reviewed for consistency with 

Health Physics files and HIS-20, where data was available. The logbook entries were divided 

into those related to external exposures and those related to internal exposure. Quantitative 

external dosimetry data was first compared to information in the Health Physics files. The 

smallest increment of time covering the period in question (e.g., quarterly, cycle) was used for 

comparison. Eleven of the thirty-one person-entries were compared to data from the hard copy 

NDRP data printouts in the Health Physics file. 

This data was not available for twenty individuals so information from the RFP Coworker Stats 

(NDRP Included, HIS_20) file was used for comparison. In many cases this was not helpful 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 10 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

since the file contained primarily annual doses. Bioassay data from the urinalysis logbooks was 

compared to the results from the individual bioassay cards, the Health Sciences Data System 

(HSDS) printout, and the HIS_20 urinalysis logbook where available. The Health Physics files 

were reviewed to determine if reports and/or monitoring data were available for in vivo counts, 

wound counts, incidents, skin contaminations, dosimeter issues, and qualitative information. A 

summary of these data validations are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Individual entry comparisons 

are provided in Attachment 5. 

The individuals selected by NIOSH for comparison were primarily from the 20 urinalysis 

logbooks and included approximately 65% of the sample set. The urinalysis logbooks covered 

January 1, 1960 through May 11, 1971, and included gross alpha, electroplating, plutonium, and 

americium results. The field logbooks covered June 4, 1957 through August 24, 1971. Nineteen 

of the individuals from the Logbook 12-12-66 to 12-31-68 evaluation were also evaluated in the 

expanded logbook review. 

There were thirty-one entries with qualitative and quantitative external dosimetry results. All but 

one entry was consistent with the value in the Health Physics file. Consistency was defined as an 

exact match or a logbook result that was less than the quarterly dose for the quarter 

encompassing the badge cycle. In some cases only the annual dose was available. Where 

possible, the cycle data was used for comparison. Three instances of overexposed, contaminated 

or destroyed dosimeters were identified. There was no indication of a dosimetry investigation in 

all three. Three instances of dose adjustments were noted in the field logbooks; however, no 

documentation regarding these particular adjustments was located in the Health Physics file. 

Eleven of the thirty-one individuals had hard copy NDRP data. The original gamma and 

neutron doses were compared to the logbook values. Only one instance of the eleven was found 

to be inconsistent. For the remaining twenty person-doses, the logbook was compared to the 

data in the RFP Coworker Stats (NDRP Included, HIS_20) file. There was a single instance 

where the dose values were inconsistent. Thirty percent of the individuals were not in the 

coworker dose file and therefore were considered inconclusive. 

Overall, the comparison of urinalysis data between logbooks (field and urinalysis) and the Health 

Physics file was good. Approximately 94% of the results agreed. In eight cases, Health Physics 

files were not available. There were four individuals with numerical differences between the 

logbook and the Health Physics file. Bioassay results were also compared to the values in the 

HIS-20 database. 58% of the bioassay results from the urinalysis and field logbooks agreed 

with data in the HIS-20 database. The remaining 42% were absent from the HIS-20 database. 

These include both plutonium and uranium results, with some representing what SC&A believes 

are significant bioassay results. This further raises concerns regarding the appropriateness of 

using the electronic database urinalysis data for internal coworker dose determination. 

The analysis for in vivo results was qualitative as specific results were generally not listed in the 

logbook. If there was an in vivo count documented within one week of the date mentioned in the 

logbook, the two sources were considered consistent. 86% of the logbook entries were 

consistent with the information found in Health Physics files. One individual did not have an in 

vivo count in his Health Physics files even though he was referred for an in vivo count. In four 

instances the Health Physics file was unavailable. Six out of six individuals had wound count 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 11 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

information in the Health Physics files. Seven out of seven individual had skin contamination 

reports in the Health Physics file for the dates mentioned in the field logbooks. In the case of 

incidents, those chosen by NIOSH all had incident reports in their Health Physics files. Only one 

of the four additional individuals selected by SC&A had a report related to the incident in their 

Health Physics file. Incidents such as spills and fires appear to be poorly documented in the 

Health Physics files. In the three cases were an incident report was not available, bioassay 

immediately following the event was also not available. 

The 1966-1969 Special Analysis Logbook (RFP 1966b), included bioassay results for Sr-90, Po210, Np-237, tritium, and thorium. The NIOSH review indicated (NIOSH 2006a): 

Eight cases from the 1966-1969 Special Analysis Logbook did not have matching 

information in the radiological files. Six of the eight had results of zero for the analyte of 

interest. 

The names corresponding to those evaluated from the 1966-1969 Special Analysis Logbooks 

(RFP 1966b) were not provided to the working group or SC&A for review. The specific names 

of individuals used for comparison have been requested and will be integrated if time permits. 

NIOSH indicated in their analysis that only 16 out of 24 individuals had bioassay data for 

tritium, polonium, strontium, neptunium, and thorium. The agreement of only 67% of dosimetry 

data with urinalysis data in the 1966-1969 Special Analysis Logbooks indicates a significant gap 

exists in the Health Physics files concerning monitoring other radionuclides (e.g., thorium, 

tritium, curium, and neptunium). 

Data from the field logbooks referencing individuals working with or around radionuclides other 

than plutonium, americium, and uranium were identified; however, only two individuals had 

Health Physics files available. Both individuals were potentially exposed to thorium in 1960. 

No thorium or gross alpha bioassay data were available; however, electroplating data was 

available one week after the date of reference in the logbook. This method was primary used to 

determine enriched uranium in urine. Falk (2004) indicated in the internal TBD that site 

information about possible interferences with this method is not available. The absence of gross 

alpha and radionuclide specific data to determine internal exposure from thorium, polonium, 

neptunium, and other transuranics may prevent assessment of internal dose for these 

radionuclides. An alternative method would be to assume the bioassay value was equivalent to 

the plutonium values. The Technical Basis for Rocky Flats Plant – Occupational Internal Dose

(Falk 2004) stated: 

Interferences were likely in the period 1952 through 1962 because of a lack of specificity 

of the chemical procedure to isolate only the plutonium in the extract. Plutonium results 

would include some americium and thorium activity. 

Furthermore, 

From 1963 to 1977, the ion exchange method significantly reduced interferences from 

americium, uranium, and thorium. As the PHA system was phased in starting in 1973, 

the possibility of interferences was further reduced. After 1977, these interferences were 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 12 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

not a significant issue for plutonium urine results because all samples were counted on 

the PHA system. 

The radiochemistry for plutonium allowed only some of the thorium and americium to come 

through, and was limited primarily to the pre-1963 time period. If thorium was the predominate 

radionuclide of concern, as was the case with the U-233 processing, use of plutonium bioassay 

results may underestimate thorium uptakes. Information on interferences by polonium, 

neptunium, and other transuranics were not specifically addressed. Any of the techniques used 

for determining internal exposure to alpha emitters would not be useful in determining uptakes of 

Sr-90. The absence of gross beta or radionuclide specific data creates a bioassay gap for those 

exposed to Sr-90. In general, tritium bioassay data is well documented on bioassay cards in 

Health Physics files starting in the early 1970s. Prior to this the tritium bioassay data is sparse. 

Although the bioassay cards in the late 1960s had thorium as an analysis type, no thorium 

bioassay results were observed in the approximately 150 individual files examined. 

In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn from the comparison of logbook 

information with Health Physics file data and HIS-20 data. 

1) NIOSH has indicated they reviewed 450 boxes of documents including some with 

logbooks; however, no input was provided by NIOSH to the working group on the 

outcome of this initial broader review. Scanned copies of pertinent logbooks 

identified in this broader review were not scanned and made available to the working 

group and SC&A. 

2) The review was limited to the 59 logbooks available on the O-drive that consisted 

primarily of logbooks requested by SC&A for review of specific areas and time 

periods. 

3) A logbook sampling plan was not submitted to the working group for review, as 

requested. As a result, the selection of logbook entries did not provide a 

representative sampling. The recommended coverage for the logbook review, 

discussed at the July 26, 2006 working group meeting (ABWRH 2006b), included 

both plutonium and non-plutonium areas. The period of interest was from 1969-

1999. NIOSH covered non-plutonium areas for 1957-1960 and 1968, plutonium 

areas from 1964-1971, and urinalysis data from 1960, 1962, and 1964-1971. 

4) Logbook entries relating to smaller incidents, badge contamination and/or 

destruction, and exposure to other radionuclides were not well represented in the 

NIOSH sampling. In many cases, gaps in the Health Physics file were noted for this 

group. 

5) 96% of the external dosimetry data from thirty-one individuals had consistent data 

between the field logbooks and the corresponding Health Physics file. 30% of thirtyone individuals were not found in the HIS-20 database, and therefore were considered 

inconclusive. 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 13 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

6) 94% of the bioassay results from the urinalysis and field logbooks agreed with the 

individual bioassay cards in dosimetry records. Eight were considered inconclusive 

because the Health Physics file was not available for comparison. 

7) 58% of the bioassay results from the urinalysis and field logbooks agreed with data in 

the HIS-20 database. The remaining 42% were absent from the HIS-20 database. 

These include both plutonium and uranium results, with some representing what 

SC&A believes are significant bioassay results. 

8) 86% of the entries indicating in vivo counts in the field logbooks had corresponding 

in vivo counts in the individual Health Physics files. The Health Physics file was 

unavailable for four individuals. 

9) The agreement of only 67% of dosimetry data with urinalysis data in the 1966-1969 

Special Analysis Logbooks determined by NIOSH indicates a significant gap exists in 

the Health Physics files concerning monitoring other radionuclides (e.g., thorium, 

tritium, curium, and neptunium). The names corresponding to those evaluated from 

this logbook were not provided to SC&A or the working group for validation. 

10) Entries from logbooks validate the destruction of contaminated badges for at least 

some cases in the 1950s and 1960s. There was a limited sampling because the Health 

Physics file for most of those noted in the logbooks was not available. There were no 

records of a dosimetry investigation in the two examples where badges were 

destroyed. One individual had no dose while the other had a positive dose. Further 

investigation into destruction of badges and subsequent dose assignment is needed. 

11) The medical record serves as an additional source of incident information that may or 

may not be reflected in the radiation exposure file. 

There was no indication of systemic discrepancies between logbook entries and internal and 

external data within the Health Physics records where DOE records were available for 

comparison. However, as previously noted, the logbooks selected by NIOSH for evaluation 

were not necessarily representative of RFP operational time periods or facility-specific 

production activities. Significant gaps were identified in HIS-20 external dosimetry and 

urinalysis data, including positive results. The evaluation also found that the Health Physics files 

are incomplete as they relate to dosimetry investigations, bioassay for other radionuclides, and 

incident reports. The logbook review yielded minimal information pertaining to discrepancies 

between field exposure conditions and dosimetry readings raised in the petition. 

References 

ABRWH 2006a, Transcripts from Working Group Meeting, Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health, Rocky Flats, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, April 12, 2006.

RFETS SEC Petition Review 14 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

ABRWH 2006b, Transcripts from Working Group Meeting, Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health, Rocky Flats, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hebron, 

Kentucky, July 26, 2006. 

ABRWH 2006c, Transcripts from Working Group Meeting, Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health, Rocky Flats Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hebron, 

Kentucky, May 30, 2006. 

ABRWH 2006d, Transcripts from Working Group Meeting, Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health, Rocky Flats Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Hebron, 

Kentucky, August 31, 2006. 

Falk, R., 2004, Technical Basis for Rocky Flats Plant – Occupational Internal Dose, ORAUTTKBS-0011-5, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, TN, January 12, 2004. 

Kittinger, W.D., 1957, Kittinger’s Personal Logbook 10/1/57 - 8/26/60, Dow Chemical 

Company, Golden, Colorado. 

Kittinger, W.D., 1966, Logbook 12-12-66 to 12-31-68, Dow Chemical Company, Golden, 

Colorado.

Kittinger, W.D. and Vogel R.M., 1963, Logbook W.D. Kittinger/R.M. Vogel 6-20-63 thru 10-27-

67, Dow Chemical Company, Golden, Colorado.

NIOSH 2006a, Logbook Review for Rocky Flats, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, Office of Compensation and Analysis, October 27, 2006. 

NIOSH 2006b, 21 March 2006 SC&A Comments and NIOSH Responses, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation and Analysis, March 21, 2006. 

NIOSH 2006c, NIOSH Review of Kittinger Logbook Covering 12-12-66 to 12-31-68, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation and Analysis. 

RFP (Rocky Flats Plant)1966a, Logbook 12/5/66-6/11/67, Dow Chemical Company, Golden, 

Colorado. 

RFP (Rocky Flats Plant)1966b, 1966-1969 Special Analysis Logbooks, Dow Chemical 

Company, Golden, Colorado. 

RFP (Rocky Flats Plant)1966c, RFP Logbook 5/10/66-12/3/66, Dow Chemical Company, 

Golden, Colorado. 

SC&A, 2006a, Interim Evaluation of Data Reliability Issues: Needed Document Retrieval and 

Evaluation, S. Cohen and Associates, Inc., April 19, 2006.

RFETS SEC Petition Review 15 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 16 Working Draft – February 15, 2007 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

Table 1: Summary Results for External Exposure Logbook Analysis. 

Number 

Description of Entry Number in 

Category 

Comment Consistent or 

Exact 

Inconclusive 

Overexposure Notation 5 Exposures for the monitoring period were in 

excess of DOE exposure limits. 

5 0 

Overexposed or Contaminated Film 

3 There was no indication of investigations 

regarding how dose was eventually assigned. 

0 3 

Dose Adjustments 3 There was no indication of dose adjustments in 

the Health Physics file. 

0 3 

Exposure Values Recorded in Logbook vs. NDRP 

11 Original neutron and/or gamma data was 

compared to the dose values reported in the logbook. Where available, the specific period of time referenced in the logbook was used. 

10 0 

Exposure Values Recorded in Logbook vs. Coworker Stats 

20 Six individuals were not listed in the coworker 

stats file. 

13 6 

Exposure Values Recorded in Logbook vs. Health Physics File 

31 There were six situations where exact matches 

were found. This corresponded to situations were the logbook provided either an annual or quarter dose. In the situation were the dose did not match, there may have been an issue with inadvertent exposure of the badge to neutrons. No investigations were identified in the individuals Health Physics file to confirm this. 

30 0 

Extremity Dose 1 Annual dose was greater than the dose through 

the date of logbook entry. 

1 0 

1 There were two individuals without hard copy Health Physics records available. 2 The same individual may fall into more than one category. RFETS SEC Petition Review 17 Working 
Logbook Analysis (DRAFT) 

Table 2: Summary Results for Internal Monitoring/Exposure Logbook Analysis. 

Number 

Description of Entry No. in 

Category 

Comment Consistent 

or Exact 

Inconclusive 

In Vivo Results Recorded in the Logbook vs. the Health Physics Record 

37 The inconclusive entries were due to the unavailability 

of the Health Physics file with one exception. The incident file for one individual indicated that he was recommended for an in vivo count; however, there was no evidence that this occurred. 

32 4 

Wound Contamination/ Monitoring 

6 All Health Physics Files evaluated had documentation 

on a wound count for the data in question. 

6 0 

Incident Involvement 12 Three additional incidents were selected beyond those 

selected by NIOSH. These incidents involved a fire and a spill. No follow-up bioassay was completed following these incidents. 

9 0 

Skin Contamination Events 

7 All Health Physics Files evaluated had documentation 

on a skin contamination event. 

7 0 

Bioassay Results Recorded in the Logbook vs. the Health Physics Record 

233 There were no Health Physics files available for eight 

person-entries; therefore, these were considered inconclusive. The four individuals with inconsistent results had numerical differences between what was listed in the logbook and the Health Physics file. 

220 8 

Bioassay Results Recorded in the Logbook vs. HIS_20 Results 

233 The inconclusive entries were primarily the result of 

absence of data in the HIS_20 Urinalysis file. The two individuals with inconsistent results had numerical differences between what was listed in the logbook and HIS_20 Urinalysis results. 

133 98 

Other Radionuclide Monitoring 

2 According to logbook entries, the two individuals were 

involved in operations where potential there was a potential for thorium exposure. Health Physics records were evaluated for availability of gross alpha and/or thorium analysis. There was an electroplating result one week after the logbook entry. 

0 2 

Urinalysis Requested 2 Where the field logbook indicated a urine sample was 

requested, a urine result was found in the general time period. 

2 0 

RFETS SEC Petition Review 18 Working