ORAU Team

Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH

Technical Basis Document for the Argonne National 

Laboratory - West – Occupational External Dosimetry

Document Number:

ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6

Effective Date: 09/30/2004

Revision No.: 00

Controlled Copy No.: ______

Page 1 of 45

Subject Expert: Norman D. Rohrig

Document Owner

Approval: Signature on File Date: 09/27/2004

Norman D. Rohrig, TBD Team Leader

Approval: Signature on File Date: 09/22/2004

Judson L. Kenoyer, Task 3 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Date: 09/22/2004

Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Date: 09/30/2004

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Supersedes:

None

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

Record of Issue/Revisions .....................................................................................................................4

Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................5

6.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................7

6.2 Basis of Comparison...................................................................................................................7

6.3 Dose Reconstruction Parameters .............................................................................................10

6.3.1 Site Administrative Practices ............................................................................................ 10

6.3.2 Personnel Monitoring Systems Used at INEEL/ANL-W .................................................... 15

6.3.2.1 Initial Film Badge ..................................................................................................... 15

6.3.2.2 Multiple-Filter NRTS Film Badge.............................................................................. 15

6.3.2.3 Original Lithium Fluoride Teflon TLD System........................................................... 17

6.3.2.4 INEEL ATLAS TLD System ..................................................................................... 17

6.3.2.5 Harshaw Two-Chip TLD System.............................................................................. 17

6.3.2.6 Panasonic Four-Chip System .................................................................................. 18

6.3.2.7 Nuclear Track Emulsion, Type A for Neutrons ......................................................... 18

6.3.2.8 Neutron Albedo Dosimetry....................................................................................... 19

6.3.3 Calibration........................................................................................................................19

6.3.3.1 Beta-Gamma Radiation ........................................................................................... 19

6.3.3.2 Neutron Calibration.................................................................................................. 20

6.3.3.3 Gamma Radiation.................................................................................................... 22

6.3.4 Workplace Radiation Fields.............................................................................................. 22

6.3.4.1 Beta Radiation......................................................................................................... 24

6.3.4.2 Neutron Radiation.................................................................................................... 25

6.3.4.2.1 MTR, ZPPR, and TREAT Neutron Radiation................................................... 27
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 2 of 45

6.3.4.2.2 Typical Workplace Neutron Dosimeter Hp(10) Performance ........................... 30

6.4 Adjustments to Recorded Dose.................................................................................................30

6.4.1 Neutron Weighting Factor................................................................................................. 30

6.5 Missed Dose .............................................................................................................................31

6.5.1 Photon Unmonitored and Missed Dose ............................................................................ 31

6.5.2 Neutron Unmonitored and Missed Dose........................................................................... 32

6.5.2.1 Before October 1976 ............................................................................................... 33

6.5.2.2 After October 1976 .................................................................................................. 33

6.6 Organ Dose ..............................................................................................................................34

6.7 Uncertainty................................................................................................................................34

References ........................................................................................................................................35

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................41

Attachment 6A Interpretation of INEEL Dosimetry Codes .................................................................. 43

Attachment 6B Occupational External Dose For Monitored Workers ................................................. 44

LIST OF TABLES

Table

6-1 Facility fence direct gamma values ........................................................................................

Page

10

6-2 INEEL Facility Neutron Correction Factors from 1981 ............................................................ 19

6-3 Laboratory sources of uncertainty for beta/photon dosimeter calibration parameters ............. 21

6-4 Common sources of laboratory bias in the calibration parameters for neutron dosimeters ..... 22

6-5 Selection of IREP beta and photon energies for ANL-W facilities........................................... 23

6-6 Beta dosimeter thicknesses and associated underreporting................................................... 25

6-7 Typical workplace neutron dosimeter Hp(10) performance..................................................... 30

6-8 Dose equivalent fractions and quality factor corrections, estimated and recommended ......... 32

6A-1 Area Codes............................................................................................................................43

6A-2 Reasons Codes .....................................................................................................................43

6A-3 Irregularity Codes...................................................................................................................43

6A-4 Column 20 Codes ..................................................................................................................43

6B-1 INEEL beta/photon dosimeter period of use, type, minimum reporting level, exchange 

frequency, and potential annual missed dose......................................................................... 44

6B-2 Neutron dosimeter type, period of use, exchange frequency, laboratory minimum 

detectable limit, and maximum annual missed dose............................................................... 44

6B-3 Spectrum Correction for Measured and Missed Neutron Dose............................................... 45

6B-4 Recommended IREP neutron energy fractions and correction factors for INEEL facilities...... 45
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 3 of 45

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

6-1 Individual dose reporting form in use until 1958 .....................................................................

Page

11

6-2 Film report form used in 1958 ................................................................................................ 12

6-3 Monthly badge reporting form from May 1959........................................................................ 12

6-4 Badge pull results from January 1961 for work in recovery from the SL-1 accident................ 13

6-5 Special badge report associated with a high beta reading listed in Figure 6-4........................ 13

6-6 Personnel exposure questionnaire partially completed for a hypothetical case ...................... 14

6-7 Response of DuPont 508 film with various filters to beta and photon irradiation..................... 16

6-8 Probability density of neutron spectrum from an 241AmBe (α,n) source .................................. 21

6-9 Gamma and beta radiation field characterization ................................................................... 23

6-10 Distribution of beta ranges ..................................................................................................... 24

6-11 Distribution of reportable neutron dose at the INEEL for the first 9 months of 1995................ 26

6-12 Neutron radiation field characterization .................................................................................. 26

6-13 Neutron spectra simulating INEEL facilities............................................................................ 27

6-14 Sample MTR Spectra from Hankins Bonner Measurements .................................................. 28

6-15 MTR neutron field components .............................................................................................. 28

6-16 Correlation of fast neutron dose equivalent to gamma dose at MTR ...................................... 29
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 4 of 45

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REV. 

NO. DESCRIPTION

Draft 06/30/2004 00-A New technical basis document for the Argonne 

National Laboratory - West - Occupational External 

Dosimetry. Initiated by Norman D. Rohrig.

Draft 08/23/2004 00-B Incorporates NIOSH and internal review comments. 

Initiated by Norman D. Rohrig.

09/30/2004 09/30/2004 00 First approved issue. Initiated by Norman D. Rohrig.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 5 of 45

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AP anterior–posterior

ATLAS Automatic Thermoluminescent Analyzer System

ANL Argonne National Laboratory

ANL-W Argonne National Laboratory - West

Ci curie

cm centimeter

CPP Chemical Processing Plant

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOELAP DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program

ERDA Energy Research and Development Administration

EBR Experimental Breeder Reactor

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility

FNCF Facility Neutron Correction Factor

g gram

hr hour

ICPP Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (formerly CPP and now INTEC)

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

ICRU International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements

ID, IDO Idaho Operations Office

in inch

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

INEL Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

INTEC Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (formerly ICPP and CPP)

IREP Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program 

kerma kinetic energy released to matter

keV kilovolt-electron, 1,000 electron volts

LET Linear Energy Transfer

MeV megavolt-electron, 1 million electron volts

mg milligram

mm millimeter

mR milliroentgen

mrad millirad

mrem millirem

MRL minimum reporting level

MTR Materials Test Reactor
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 6 of 45

NBS National Bureau of Standards

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NRTS National Reactor Testing Station

NTA nuclear track emulsion, type A

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

R roentgen

RBE relative biological effectiveness

rep roentgen-equivalent-physical

RESL Radiological and Environmental Services Laboratory

RWMC Radioactive Waste Management Complex

TAN Test Area North

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter

TRA Test Reactor Area

TREAT Transient Reactor Test

wk week

yr year

Z atomic number

ZPPR Zero Power Physics Reactor
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 7 of 45

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Technical Basis Documents and Site Profile Documents are general working documents that provide 

guidance concerning the preparation of dose reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. 

They will be revised in the event additional relevant information is obtained about the affected site(s). 

These documents may be used to assist the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH) in the completion of the individual work required for each dose reconstruction.

In this document the word “facility” is used as a general term for an area, building or group of buildings 

that served a specific purpose at a site. It does not necessarily mean an “atomic weapons employer 

facility” or a “Department of Energy facility” as defined in the Energy Employee Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. Sections 7384l(5) and (12)]. 

From the start of operations in 1951 until the present, Argonne National Laboratory – West (ANL-W) 

has been operated by the University of Chicago under supervision of the Chicago Operations Office of 

the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA), 

and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). A branch of the Idaho Operations Office (ID, previously 

IDO) provided external dosimetry resources and services at the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) including ANL-W from the start of operations in 1951 [when it was 

called the National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS)] until 1989, when DOE transferred that 

responsibility to the prime operating contractor. Despite the fact that INEEL had several contractors 

at a time and that contractors changed often, the external dosimetry process has remained under 

technical management of a single organization with responsibilities for dosimetry development, 

operational dosimetry, and radiological records, which has provided a stable external dosimetry 

system.

6.2 BASIS OF COMPARISON

The Interactive RadioEpidemiological Program (IREP) calculates the probability of cancer induction in 

an organ from the external equivalent dose and internal dose received by that organ. Appendix B of 

the External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guidelines (NIOSH 2002) provides conversions 

from four photon dose quantities [deep dose equivalent, Hp(10); ambient dose equivalent, H*

(10);

exposure, X; and air kerma, Ka] and three neutron quantities [fluence, φ; ambient dose equivalent, 

H*

(10); and deep dose equivalent, Hp,slab(10)] to the organ doses. Over the years, as the National 

Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP), and their predecessor organizations have developed the definitions of 

dosimetry parameters, dose parameters measured by the INEEL dosimetry system have received 

further definition. INEEL has reported doses as penetrating and nonpenetrating. The penetrating 

dose corresponds to the deep dose equivalent, and the nonpenetrating dose plus the penetrating 

dose corresponds to the shallow dose equivalent.

Horan and Braun (1993), Attix and Roesch (1968), and Meinhold (1975) discuss the history of 

radiation protection requirements from the 1930s. In 1949, the newly formed National Committee 

(now Council) on Radiation Protection (NCRP) issued NCRP Report 7 [as National Bureau of 

Standards (NBS 1949, p 6) Handbook 42], which recommended a permissible dose of 0.3 R wk-1 (15 

R yr-1

) for occupational workers. The term dose was undefined. A roentgen (R) was defined as the 

quantity or dose of X-rays such that the associated ionization per 0.001293 gram of air (1 cm3 at 

standard temperature and pressure) produces 1 electrostatic unit of charge of either sign. A site 

manual in April 1952 stated the limit as “0.3 rep wk-1 at an effective depth in soft tissue of 5 cm, 

assumed to be the depth of the blood forming organs” (ACC 1952, p. IV: 1-1). It does not mention a 

quarterly or an annual limit. The unit roentgen only applies to x-rays or gamma rays, whereas the 
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 8 of 45

roentgen equivalent physical (rep) was used for all ionizing radiation and is the energy absorbed by 

tissue from the radiation (93 ergs/gm, the same as for one roentgen of gamma radiation).

In 1953, the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU 1954) 

established a new unit, absorbed dose, which is the energy deposited in material per unit mass by 

radiation, using the rad (from radiation absorbed dose), a unit equal to 100 erg g-1

. ICRU specified 

the term exposure dose, later to become exposure, for the ionization capability in air for X- and 

gamma rays. In 1956, ICRU defined the term relative biological effectiveness (RBE) dose and the 

unit rem (from roentgen equivalent in man), and introduced the concept of adding all types of external 

doses together (ICRU 1956). 

In 1957, the NCRP introduced an age prorating formula for the Maximum Allowable Dose of 

5 rem × [age (yr) -18] (NBS 1958). This introduced 5 rem as an average annual dose, but 

deemphasized it as a limit. The AEC issued AEC Manual Chapter 0524 “Permissible Levels of 

Radiation Exposure” on January 9, 1958, which adopted the prorating formula. It retained 15 rem as 

the maximum annual dose and superseded the 13-wk whole-body limit of 3 rem with “the provision 

that not more than one-fourth of the 15 rem maximum permissible yearly dose shall be taken in 

one-fourth of a year” (AEC 1958). 

The quarterly limit of 3 rem or 12 rem yr-1 replaced the 15 R yr-1 associated with the weekly limit (NBS 

1958, p. 3, footnote 2). President Eisenhower approved these values in 1960 for Federal agencies. 

AEC Manual Chapter 0524 was reissued in 1963 and 1968 (AEC 1963, 1968) and later still as ERDA 

Manual Chapter 0524 (ERDA 1975, 1977), which provided requirements for radiation safety.

In 1957, NBS Handbook 63 (NBS 1957) specified a dependence of the RBE on the linear energy 

transfer (LET) of the charged particles that actually deliver the dose. NBS used this in the Snyder 

calculations of maximum permissible neutron flux (NBS 1961), and it is still used in the radiation 

control regulations for DOE.

At an April 1962 ICRU meeting, the use of the terms RBE and RBE dose in radiation protection was 

criticized, and the terms quality factor (QF, now Q) and dose equivalent (DE, now H) were introduced. 

The ICRU recommended the unit kerma (kinetic energy released in material) in 1962 (ICRU 1962).

In 1971, NCRP Report 39, Basic Radiation Protection Criteria (NCRP 1971a), recommended an 

annual dose limit of 5 rem, eliminating the quarterly limit. In April 1975, ERDA reissued Manual 

Chapter 0524 (ERDA 1975), which invoked the 5-rem annual dose limits in NCRP Report 39 and 

required adding internal and external dose equivalents if both are known. Monitoring was required 

“where the potential exists for the individual to receive a dose or dose commitment ... in excess of 

10% of the quarterly standard” of 3 rem. Personnel monitoring equipment for each individual was 

required for external radiation: “To achieve optimum accuracy, personnel dosimeters should comply 

with the performance parameters contained in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 

standards N13.5 (ANSI 1972), N13.7 (ANSI 1983a), and N13/42 WG1 Final draft 1974” (ERDA 1975, 

Appendix, p. 10). Quality factors from NCRP Report 38 are specified along with the neutron flux 

density for 100 mrem in 40 hr as a function of neutron energy (NCRP 1971b). The NCRP 38 

guidance for interpolating in energy cannot be accomplished with an instrument. The dose equivalent 

conversion factors and the associated interpolation with energy reported in ICRP Publication 21 

(ICRP 1973) do not present that problem.

In 1971, ICRU defined the quantity dose equivalent index, the maximum value in a 30-cm-diameter 

sphere, for describing ambient radiation fields for radiation protection purposes (ICRU 1971). ICRU 

extended this discussion in Conceptual Basis for the Determination of Dose Equivalent (ICRU 1976), 
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 9 of 45

which defined the concept of deep and shallow dose equivalent indexes as those inside a 1-cm depth 

in the sphere and at a depth between 0.07 mm and 10 mm, respectively. A remaining issue was that 

the quantity was measured near the surface of the sphere but applied to the center of the sphere, a 

distance of 14 or 15 cm. In 1980, ICRU identified the deep and shallow dose equivalent indexes as 

restricted indexes (ICRU 1980). In 1985, ICRU Report 39, Determination of Dose Equivalents 

Resulting from External Radiation Sources, introduced the concepts of aligned and expanded fields to 

eliminate issues of field direction and nonuniform fields; the document also introduced several dose 

equivalents: ambient dose equivalent, directional dose equivalent, individual dose equivalent 

penetrating, and individual dose equivalent superficial (ICRU 1985).

ICRP Publications 26 and 30 introduced new dose limits and the associated quantity effective dose 

equivalent as a weighted averaged over the radiation-sensitive organs of the body (ICRP 1977, 1979). 

In 1981, DOE Order 5480.1A, Chapter XI, “Requirements for Radiation Protection” (DOE 1981),

superseded ERDA Manual Chapter 0524 (ERDA 1977). In 1988, DOE Order 5480.11, “Radiation 

Protection for Occupational Workers” (DOE 1988) superseded DOE Order 5480.1A, Chapter XI. This 

order adopted much of the language of ICRP Publications 26 and 30 (1977, 1979), and the monitoring 

threshold became 100 mrem effective dose equivalent. The order imposed slight changes in quality 

factor value for neutrons in one table, but did not capture those changes in the table of permitted 

neutron flux density.

Because of questions of quality control for dosimetry, the Conference of Radiation Control Program 

Directors encouraged development of a dosimetry accreditation process, leading to the development 

of ANSI N13.11 (ANSI 1983b) and the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). 

DOE Guidelines for the Calibration of Personnel Dosimeters (Roberson and Holbrook 1984) revised 

the ANSI (1983b) NVLAP processes. Calibration was to the quantities shallow and deep dose 

equivalent (Hs and Hd) and shallow absorbed dose (Ds), which are similar to the individual dose 

equivalent superficial and individual dose equivalent penetrating dose defined in ICRU (1985). These 

quantities were renamed to the personal dose equivalent Hp(d) (ICRU 1993) where d is the depth in

millimeters (0.07 mm for surface and 10 mm for deep) from the surface for which the dose is 

measured. In 1987, DOE Order 5480.15, “Department of Energy Laboratory Accreditation Program 

for Personnel Dosimetry,” (DOE 1987) established the DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(DOELAP) system for dosimetry accreditation. Standard for the Performance Testing of Personnel 

Dosimetry Systems (DOE 1986a) specified the measurement of deep and shallow dose equivalents at 

depths of 10 mm and 0.07 mm, respectively.

In 1990, the ICRP redefined the concept of dose equivalent to equivalent dose, redefined quality 

factor to radiation weighting factor, and generated new factors (ICRP 1990). These factors, invoked 

in NIOSH (2002), depend on neutron energy at the entrance to the body rather than on secondary 

particle LET where the dose is received. Dose conversion factors for organs and for ambient dose 

equivalent and personal dose equivalent were generated in ICRP Publication 74 (ICRP 1996) and are 

referenced in the external dose implementation guide (NIOSH 2002).

Thus, the quantities to be measured and reported by the dosimetry systems have evolved over the 

last 50 years. Although the standards organizations were changing definitions, this had little impact 

on dosimetry measurements because, for gamma radiation, the numerical differences are small.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 10 of 45

6.3 DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PARAMETERS

6.3.1

It was ANL-W policy that personnel expected to receive any radiation dose or personnel whose work 

was centered at the site were assigned a radiation monitoring badge. These badges were usually 

stored at the respective operational area entrance security gates for ANL-W facilities. Control

badges, which are used to subtract background radiation, have also been and are currently located 

where the badges are stored. This practice may lead to subtracting environmental radiation from site 

activities, which would reduce the reported doses. Environmental radiation levels have been 

monitored for most of the life of the ANL-W, originally with film badges and later with TLDs. Table 6-1 

presents results of this monitoring at facility fence line locations near the security gates. A fraction 

(2000/8766) of these values can be added to an individual dose history or used for unmonitored

workers working at the site.

Site Administrative Practices

Table 6-1. Facility fence direct gamma values (TLD – Background) (mR).

Year

EBR-1 

RWMCa EBR-II TREAT Backgrnd

1952-72 32 36 18

1973 32 37 19 121

1974 370 35 17 123

1975 265 32 8 118

1976 155 56 50 113

1977 189 22 0 132

1978 106 56 2 129

1979 65 59 5 113

1980 57 51 12 119

1981 42 28 9 118

1982 42 20 12 117

1983 50 24 10 115

1984 48 31 13 124

1985 48 31 13 124

1986 48 31 13 124

1987 48 31 13 124

Year

EBR-1 

RWMCa EBR-II TREAT Backgrnd

1988 48 31 13 124

1989 48 31 13 124

1990 27 19 13 124

1991 27 19 13 124

1992 27 19 13 124

1993 24 28 16 111

1994 25 15 3 130

1995 42 17 7 116

1996 40 22 21 129

1997 17 16 16 128

1998 20 0 11 131

1999 22 13 13 122

2000 61 25 26 129

2001 25 0 3 140

2002 33 18 39 120

a. RWMC = Radioactive Waste Management Complex.

Some individuals who could occasionally have visited site facilities but did little work with radiation, 

had badges at several different facilities. It is not appropriate to base missed doses on the multiple 

badges issued. Early on, the badge change frequency was not the same for everyone. Workers with 

low probability of exposure were placed on a longer change cycle than those with more chance of 

exposure. Therefore, missed doses should be based on the actual change frequency for a person, 

and the frequency can be determined from the individual’s data package.

The INEEL dosimetry organization developed a set of basic administrative practices in 1951, which 

have changed somewhat as the technologies of ionizing radiation dosimetry and recordkeeping have 

changed. 

DOE provided dosimetry information for a former ANL-W worker will include copies of available 

dosimetry forms. These forms include a dose summary for each monitored employment period and a 

copy of each weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc., dosimeter result, which will also show the worker’s work 

location. The information can easily be several inches in thickness. Each sheet is redacted so only 

the person of interest’s name and applicable information are visible. This file provides the recorded

information as to the exchange period for the person for that period. Figures 6-1 through 6-5 show a

partial example set of redacted dose reporting forms.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 11 of 45

From 1951 to 1958, the INEEL dosimetry staff recorded each worker’s dose each day on a dose card 

(Figure 6-1), rezeroed pencil ionization chambers worn by workers, and entered the weekly badge

result on the same card. On this sample, on October 28, November 16, and December 9, 1954, the 

badges were pulled and read in response to high pencil chamber readings. The personnel monitoring 

badges have always been considered more reliable than pencil dosimeters; so after the film badge 

results became available, the daily pencil readings were no longer considered doses of record. 

However, these values can be recovered from the earliest forms for a worst-case estimate of dose. In 

Figure 6-1, the pencil readings totaled 820 mR and the badges reported 0 mR for 18 badges.

Figure 6-1. Individual dose reporting form in use until 1958.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 12 of 45

Figure 6-2 is a report from reading the films in the same period. On three of the five badges, the more 

sensitive open window result was zero, so the shielded film was not read. On the other two, the open 

window and shielded values were at the minimum recorded density of 0.02, which corresponded to a 

30 mR penetrating dose.

After the pencil ionization chambers were replaced with self-reading pencil dosimeters (also ionization 

chambers), the ANL-W operational health physics staff would rezero the dosimeters. The film reading 

was automated and results were stored in a computer. The form shown in Figure 6-3 reports badge

Figure 6-2. Film report form used in 1958.

Figure 6-3. Monthly badge reporting form from May 1959. 
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 13 of 45

readings for May 1959 when badges were exchanged every two weeks. The column under the P of 

Personnel is an area designator with the code listed under Location at the bottom of the page. The 

next column was unused and dropped somewhat later. The next column is a reason code. 

Attachment 6A lists the codes and their meanings. Figure 6-4 is a listing of some doses received 

during recovery from the SL-1 accident. Workers from several areas were pulled into the accident 

recovery process, and it is notable that one result exceeds the dose limits and that there are few 

zeros. Figure 6-5 is a follow-up badge report for one result on Figure 6-4.

Figure 6-4. Badge pull results from January 1961 for work in recovery from the SL-1 accident.

Figure 6-5. Special badge report associated with a high beta reading 

listed in Figure 6-4.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 14 of 45

When there has been a question about a dose value being assigned to an INEEL worker, a Personnel 

Exposure Questionnaire was normally initiated as shown in Figure 6-6 (shows a hypothetical case). 

Based on this form a beta dose of 500 and a gamma dose of 350 for a total dose of 850 mrem would 

override the pocket meter dose of 290 total.

Figure 6-6. Personnel exposure questionnaire partially completed for a hypothetical 

case. 
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 15 of 45

6.3.2

6.3.2.1 Initial Film Badge

Personnel Monitoring Systems Used at INEEL/ANL-W

The badging system in place when operations began at the NRTS was the Self-Service System 

(Cipperley 1958). This film system, in use from August 1951 to March 1958, used the Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory stainless-steel holder design, which was 1.875-in. long, 1.375-in. wide, and 

0.25-in. thick. Badges were processed weekly. The upper portion of the badge was shielded with 1 

mm of cadmium and the lower portion was an open window. Sensitive and insensitive DuPont type 

552 film was used for beta-gamma dosimetry for most locations; DuPont type 558 film (type 508 

sensitive and type 1290 insensitive) was used at two reactor areas. 

Gamma calibration was to a radium source, and beta calibration was to a metallic uranium plate. To 

determine doses, the film densities were read to ±0.02 density unit. A calibration curve was used to 

convert the cadmium-shielded portion to penetrating gamma exposure in roentgen. The open window 

density corresponding to the gamma exposure was subtracted from the measured open window 

density and the remainder was converted to beta dose in rep.

Type 552 and 508 films have Minimum Reporting Levels of approximately 30 and 10 mR, 

respectively, to radium gamma radiation. The open window responds to beta radiation as well as 

X-rays and low-energy gamma rays. Because of the high atomic number (Z) of film in relation to air or 

tissue, the open window overresponds per unit exposure to low-energy photon radiation, as shown in 

Figure 6-7, by about a factor of 30 at 40 keV. Using a cadmium filter with its high Z severely 

attenuates the photons that get to the film, so the overresponse is reduced to about a factor of 2 at 

125 keV and becomes less-than 1 at about 50 keV. The beta particle range is independent of Z; the 

range depends only on the density, so the 1-mm cadmium filter (~900 mg cm-2

) acts like a tissue 

depth of 9 mm for beta radiation.

Wrist badges used the same package attached to a wrist band. A finger ring used a small piece of 

film with a silver or cadmium filter. Pencil ionization chambers were used to monitor daily doses and 

control operational activities. The dosimetry group read and recorded these pencil readings on cards. 

Film badge readings were written on the same cards to indicate the dose of record. In 1958, the 

Victoreen 352 pencil ionization chambers being read by the dosimetry group were replaced with 

self-reading dosimeters that were read and rezeroed by the field health physics technicians (AEC 

1959, p. 11). Film readings remained the dose of record.

6.3.2.2 Multiple-Filter NRTS Film Badge

In March 1958, the security badge and film badge were combined in a film badge containing filters of 

1 mm cadmium, 0.013 mm silver, and 0.5 mm aluminum with thicknesses of 950 mg cm-2

, 

203 mg cm-2

, and 175 mg cm-2, respectively, including the plastic in which they were mounted 

(Cipperley 1968). This NRTS badge was also a security badge, resulting in an absorber thickness of 

100 mg cm-2 in the open window, which filtered out beta radiation below 360 keV.

With the four absorbers, it was possible to separate beta radiation from low-energy photon radiation 

and to determine photon energy to a degree. Figure 6-7 shows photon energy dependence of the 

darkening behind the four filters for a combination of uranium beta and X-ray irradiation provided by 

NBS (Cipperley and Gammill 1959). With Dupont type 508 film, mixed exposures of radium gamma 

and uranium beta of 10, 20, and 30 mR or mrep were measurable within ±12 mR with 95% 

confidence. A minimum reporting level of 10 mrem was used for both beta and gamma radiation 

(AEC 1962).
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 16 of 45

Figure 6-7. Response of DuPont 508 film with various 

filters to 140 mrem uranium beta and 100 mR of different 

energy photon irradiation provided by NBS. The original 

badge used the open window and cadmium shielded 

films. The multiple filter badge used all three filters plus 

the open window (Cipperley and Gammill 1959).

The ID Instrument and Development Branch developed an automatic film reader and densitometer 

(Purcell and McGary 1963). An algorithm based on probit corrected densities was developed to 

determine the high-energy photon, beta, and low-energy photon contributions separately (Cipperley 

1968, p. 94). The cadmium filter provided the hard gamma component. The uranium beta responses 

under the open window, aluminum, and silver filters were 1, 0.2, and 0.1, respectively. By assuming a 

beta signal and subtracting it, the remaining signal could be attributed to low-energy photons and the 

energy could be estimated. For beta sources other than uranium, the analysis had greater 

uncertainty.

Because about 95% of the weekly badge films had doses less than 30 mrem, in 1958 the badging 

interval was increased to biweekly or monthly with the exception of the high-dose areas where the 

weekly schedule continued (AEC 1959). The introduction of punch cards increased the efficiency of 

report and record generation. A 12-point calibration curve was generated for radium and for 137Cs 

gamma and uranium beta. Calibration did not use a phantom.

Experience following the SL-1 accident showed a wide variation of beta-to-gamma ratios and 

necessitated controlling both radiations rather than just the gamma. A set of as many as 18 badges 

could and in many cases was fastened on a belt around the worker to determine a beta:gamma ratio 
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 17 of 45

for each particular entry for entries into SL-1 during recovery operations (Cipperley, Henry, and 

Cusimano 1965). 

6.3.2.3 Original Lithium Fluoride Teflon TLD System

Beginning in November and December 1966, individuals projected to receive doses of less than 

0.5 rem yr-1 were placed on a lithium fluoride (LiF) disk thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) badge, 

which was exchanged quarterly (Cusimano and Cipperley 1968). Two 13-mm-diameter Teflon disks, 

0.4 mm thick [100 mg (75 mg cm-2

) impregnated with 28 mg LiF], were mounted in a badge behind an 

open window and a 1-mm cadmium filter (Watkins, date unknown). The disks, manufactured by 

Teledyne Isotopes, were read with the Teledyne Model 7300 TLD reader. LiF was chosen because 

the average Z is close to that of air and tissue, resulting in little energy correction for beta or gamma 

radiation. The badge could read 30 mR on a quarterly basis, so more small doses were reported. 

The angular dependence of the gamma response (within 10% to 70o) is superior to film because the 

material acts like an ionization chamber. For normal monitoring, only the open window TLD was read 

and considered penetrating dose unless it read more than 125 mrem, in which case the shielded TLD 

was also read. 

The pilot tests were successful, and the LiF Teflon TLD system was phased into use in 1966, 

particularly for individuals who would receive low doses, with longer exchange cycles, typically 3 or 6 

months. In July 1968, the monitoring period was increased from 3 to 6 months (AEC 1969). In 

December 1972, annual processing was used for 1,190 low-dose individual TLDs and 960 were 

processed quarterly (Cusimano 1972). Employees on a monthly badge change were moved to this 

system as late as September 1973.

The system had an automatic badge calibrator that did not involve a phantom to provide backscatter 

(Cipperley 1966; AEC 1970, p. 8). A later discussion introduced the use of a 137Cs source, so these 

earlier calibrations probably used radium.

6.3.2.4 INEEL ATLAS TLD System

Development began in 1969 on a patented Automatic Thermoluminescent Analyzer System (ATLAS). 

It used LiF in a homogeneous mixture with Teflon and replaced the film in the multi-element badge 

using the same filters. ATLAS became operational for monthly badge changes in February 1974. In 

June 1974, questions about this system were formalized (Black 1974; Walker 1974) and the system 

was soon replaced. 

6.3.2.5 Harshaw Two-Chip TLD System

Several unstable characteristics with ATLAS led to rapid implementation of a two-chip TLD system in 

May 1975 for Argonne. This commercial Harshaw system used two LiF TLDs 240 mg cm-2 thick. In 

1976, holes were punched in the security badges to restore the open window. One chip was covered 

by 540 mg cm-2 of aluminum and the other was under 4 mg cm-2 of Mylar. The aluminum-covered 

chip provided penetrating dose at a nominal tissue depth of 1 cm. The beta dose was calculated from 

the difference between the two chips. Because of the thickness of the Mylar-covered chip, the beta 

dose was accurate only for the beta energy used in calibration. Field calibrations were used to reduce 

the problem with beta energy dependence. The thin aluminum filter (density thickness 350 mg cm-2

) 

allowed higher-energy beta radiation to expose the chip used for measuring the penetrating 

(1,000 mg cm-2

) dose. 
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 18 of 45

The practice was to read only the open window chip to determine if the nonpenetrating dose was 

above 15 mrem and thus reportable. If the threshold dose was exceeded, both chips were read and 

the penetrating and nonpenetrating doses were computed (Kalbeitzer 1983).

6.3.2.6 Panasonic Four-Chip System

In 1986, with the advent of DOELAP, INEEL went to a four-element system, the Panasonic 814 AS4 

(Gesell, Hall, and Andersen 1992; INEEL 2001). Lithium borate (Li2B4O7) TLD elements with plastic 

and aluminum filtration provide an improved measurement of deep dose equivalent and, with a thinner 

filter, an improved measurement of the shallow dose equivalent. A calcium sulfate (CaSO4) TLD 

provides a strong low-energy photon response. The elements are 15 mg cm-2 thick. Element one has 

filtration of 16 mg cm-2

, element two has filtration of 58 mg cm-2 plastic, and elements three (CaSO4) 

and four have filtration of 550 mg cm-2 of plastic and 50 mg cm-2 of aluminum. Although none of the 

elements are at a depth of 7 mg cm-2

, the specified depth for the shallow dose equivalent, an 

acceptable response can be obtained by using elements at 16 and 58 mg cm-2

. This system is 

qualified in DOELAP beta, photon, and mixture performance categories.

The minimum reporting level was 15 mrem beta and gamma from January to July 1986 (Gesell 1986), 

10 mrem gamma and 30 mrem beta from July 1986 to about September 1989, and 15 mrem for 

gamma and 30 mrem for beta until 1993 (Perry, Andersen, and Ruhter 1993), when it returned to 

10 mrem gamma.

6.3.2.7 Nuclear Track Emulsion, Type A for Neutrons

Kodak nuclear track emulsion, type A (NTA) was used for neutron monitoring when the field radiation 

protection staff requested it. NTA responds to neutrons with energies above 500 to 800 keV, for 

which the proton recoil tracks leave enough energy to expose at least three (four in some references) 

grains of emulsion.

Before 1958, if a proton recoil track was counted in 40 microscope fields, it was read twice more for a 

total of 120 fields (Cipperley 1958). The reported MRL was 14 mrem. This is confirmed based on 

inspection of a March 1958 processing data sheet for several workers with positive neutron doses of 

14, 14, 14, and 42 mrem, and also on examining doses for one worker during January through March 

1958 with positive recorded doses of 14, 28, 42 and 14 mrem. On the March data sheet, six people 

had 0 in the neutron column and 17 had blanks. The zeros had NTA with nothing observed and the 

blanks probably were not monitored for neutrons or the film was not read.

After 1959, if more than three proton recoil tracks were counted in 40 microscope fields, a different 

location on the film was counted by two other technicians, providing three independent results

(Cipperley 1968). Two tracks or fewer were attributed to background. This resulted in a somewhat 

higher MRL. In November 1959, a data sheet shows 10 and 20 mrem neutron dose equivalents. In 

January 1962 a data sheet shows a 20 mrem dose. A data sheet from April 1959 shows neutron 

dose equivalents of 20, 20, and 40 mrem. These values suggest an MRL of 20 mrem.

Calibration was with a polonium-beryllium (PoBe) source (approximately 30 Ci), resulting in 

5.87 × 10-4 tracks/neutron (Cusimano 1963). Uncertainties were assigned at the 90% confidence 

level. Cipperley (1968, pp. 102-115) discusses this process.

The field health physics staff was aware of the energy limitations of the NTA badge (Sommers 1967, 

1969) and compensated with neutron-detecting pencil dosimeters and field measurements. A request 

to read NTA film occurred if the hard spectra neutron exposure was likely to exceed 10 mrem. 
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 19 of 45

6.3.2.8 Neutron Albedo Dosimetry

Because of the missed dose from neutrons below the NTA energy threshold of 0.5 to 0.8 MeV, 

particularly at plutonium facilities, and because of the advent of TLD techniques, several development 

efforts in neutron dosimetry occurred in the early 1970s. The result was several designs using the 

albedo technique in which scattered neutrons from the wearer’s body were absorbed by 6

Li in a TLD. 

In the Hankins dosimeter used at the INEEL and ANL-W (Hankins 1973), TLDs (6

Li to capture thermal 

neutrons) are inside a polyethylene case (to lower the neutron energy) inside a cadmium shell (to 

eliminate thermal neutrons from outside). Lithium-7 TLDs are used to subtract the gamma dose. 

Because the 6

Li(n,α)3He reaction has a strong energy dependence, the response does not follow the 

flux-to-dose-equivalent conversion, so the neutron signal is divided by a facility neutron correction 

factor (FNCF). An FNCF that converts the TLD neutron response signal to neutron dose equivalent

can be generated from the ratio of the dose equivalent measured with a 9-in.-diameter Eberline 

PNR-4 and the corresponding signal (reads in mrem, but not dose equivalent) with the detector in the 

3-in.-diameter PNR-4 insert (Hankins 1976). The FNCF values shown in Table 6-2 (Cusimano 1981) 

were measured for different fields at INEEL, were tabulated for assigning the dose equivalent from the 

badge results, and were routinely updated.

Table 6-2. INEEL Facility Neutron Correction Factors from 1981.

Organization FNCF Organization FNCF

DOE-CFA 0.092 EG&G-TRA (Bare PuBe) 0.06

EG&G-CFA 0.092 EG&G-TRA (PuBe in poly) 0.23

ANL-TREAT 1.05 EG&G-LOFT 3.5

ANL-ZPPR 0.94 EG&G-ARA III 2.0

EG&G-TRA (L & S) 1.2 EG&G-RWMC 0.33

EG&G-TRA (SA) 2.7

The date of changeover from NTA to albedo neutron monitoring is somewhat in dispute. Typically, 

different organizations would transition to new monitoring systems at different times. The present 

record suggests it occurred near the end of 1974 or early 1975 (Ruhter and Perry 2002; Gesell et al.

1996), but an informal list of “Dosimetry Branch Changes” from 1978 (INEL c. 1978) states “initial 

testing of albedo neutron dosimeter and replacement of NTA neutron monitoring film with same” in 

October 1976. Aoki (1979) says the Albedo system replaced the NTA badge in 1977. Dose 

reconstructions should make the claimant-favorable assumption that this transition occurred in 

October 1976.

6.3.3

6.3.3.1 Beta-Gamma Radiation

Calibration

Gamma calibration initially used a radium source. Victoreen R meters standardized by NBS were 

used to measure radiation fields (AEC 1959, p. 132). Uranium metal bars 5 mm thick were used for 

beta calibrations. Cesium-137 was considered for a calibration source in 1959 (AEC 1960, p. 83) and 

was installed in the instrument calibration facility in 1961 (AEC 1962). An automatic badge irradiator 

developed in the 1960s (Cipperley 1966) did not use a phantom to provide backscatter.

As reported in 1981, an extrapolation chamber was built for the measurement of beta doses (Gupta 

1981). The chamber window was polycarbonate, the gas was air, and the thick collecting electrode 

was Shonka tissue-equivalent plastic. The chamber was used to calibrate a 2.5 Ci 90Sr/Y source to 

tissue rad. The source with area, 2.5 cm2

, was constructed by the Amersham Searle Corporation in 
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 20 of 45

February 1975. This source was used to measure beta correction factors for several instruments 

following the Three Mile Island TMI-2 reactor accident in 1978. TLD badges were calibrated to 500 

mrad tissue using a 1.78-cm-thick phantom 50 cm (300 rad hr-1

) from the source. 

In January 1983, the natural uranium slab again became the primary calibration source for 

nonpenetrating radiation to better approximate field beta spectra (Gesell 1982a).

Use of a phantom in calibration apparently started about 1981, with the NVLAP certification process 

developed for non-DOE dosimetry processors. About this time, calibration techniques developed in 

terms of absorbed dose to tissue rather than exposure. Beginning in January 1981, in response to a 

draft National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) standard, dosimeters for 

calibration were irradiated with 137Cs using a phantom backing. To convert from exposure in roentgen 

to dose equivalent index in rem, the Radiological and Environmental Services Laboratory (RESL) 

used a conversion factor (Cx) of 1.08 was used (RESL 1981). The current recommended Cx value of 

1.03 for 137Cs (DOE 1986b, Table 2) was used beginning in June 1981 (Gesell 1982b; Kalbeitzer 

1984).

In 1989, the INEEL dosimetry service transferred from RESL to EG&G, Inc., the prime contractor. 

Calibrations continued to use DOE RESL sources, and no changes were made to the dosimetry 

system. The 1991 Tiger Team Review of the INEEL site indicated that the joint use by the INEEL

contractor and the Idaho Operations Office of the same sources for calibration led to a conflict of 

interest or an advantage in DOELAP tests. As a result, EG&G purchased a Shepherd panoramic 

irradiator with a 137Cs source for badge irradiations. This irradiator does not use a phantom, but was 

cross-referenced using many TLD irradiations to the DOE source using a phantom (Andersen 1994). 

In addition, the contractor developed and characterized a uranium slab it owned for beta irradiations 

(Bean 1995).

Table 6-3 lists common sources of laboratory bias for personnel beta/photon dosimeter calibration 

based on comparison of the recorded dose with Hp(10).

6.3.3.2 Neutron Calibration

The initial NTA neutron badges were calibrated using a PoBe neutron source (30 Ci in 1958) (AEC 

1959). In 1982, an AmBe source was used (Cusimano 1982). Alpha particles from the americium or 

polonium interact in the 9

Be(α,n)12C reaction and generate a broad spectrum of neutrons up to about 

11 MeV (mean energy about 5 MeV) as shown in Figure 6-8 (Kluge and Weise 1982). The yield of 

the AmBe source should be only about 3% larger than that for the PoBe source (Anderson 1971). 

Kluge and Weise (1982) calculate conversion factors of 3.51 to 3.76 × 10-8 rem cm2 n-1 depending on 

the particular measure of dose equivalent chosen. IAEA (1988) provides a dose conversion factor for 

AmBe of 3.8 × 10-8 rem cm2 n-1 for the maximum average dose equivalent. A dose equivalent of 

1.5 rem required 3.6 × 107 n cm-2 (Cusimano 1963), corresponding to a dose conversion factor of 

4.17 × 10-8 rem cm2 n-1

, so the recorded dose will be about 11% high. Monte Carlo calculations for 

5-MeV neutrons show a dose equivalent of about 4.2 × 10-8 rem cm2 n-1 averaged over the 0- to 2-cm 

shell on a 30-cm-diameter cylindrical phantom (NCRP 1971b). Use of the 50-Ci AmBe source 

continued until 1993.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 21 of 45

Table 6-3. Laboratory sources of uncertainty for beta/photon dosimeter calibration parameters.

Parameter Historical description Uncertaintya Comment

In-air 

calibration

In 1981, INEEL began exposing 

calibration dosimeters on 

phantoms (used to simulate 

worker body). Previous 

calibrations do not include 

response from radiation 

backscatter response.

+10% Recorded dose of record too high. 

Backscatter radiation from worker body 

is highly dependent on dosimeter 

design. 

Radiation 

quantity

Before 1981, INEEL dosimeter 

systems were typically calibrated 

to a photon beam measured as 

exposure.

-5% For higher energy 226Ra and 137Cs 

gamma radiation used to calibrate 

dosimeters, this caused a slight (about 

3%) underresponse in recorded dose. 

Tissue depth 

of dose

Historically, INEEL used an 

unspecified depth to estimate the 

deep dose.

±5% The numerical effect of this for photon 

radiation is comparatively low. INEEL 

dosimeter designs had filtration density 

thickness of about 1,000 mg cm-2 that 

would relate closely to the 1-cm depth in 

tissue.

Angular 

response

INEEL dosimeter system is 

calibrated using 

anterior-posterior (AP) laboratory 

irradiations.

>300 keV, 

~20%

Recorded dose of record likely too low 

because the dosimeter response is 

usually lower at non-AP angles. Effect 

is highly dependent on dosimeter type, 

radiation type, energy, and angle. 

Environmental 

stability

INEEL film dosimeter and TLD 

systems are subject to signal 

fade with time, heat, humidity, 

light, etc.

±10% Recorded dose of record depends 

strongly on dosimetry parameters such 

as when calibration dosimeters were 

irradiated and processed. Mid-cycle 

calibration minimizes effects. 

a. Uncertainty estimate in recorded dose compared to Hp(10) based on judgment.

Figure 6-8. Probability density of neutron spectrum from a

241AmBe (α,n) source (Kluge and Weise 1982).
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 22 of 45

In 1993, a 40- by 40- by 15-cm polymethyl methacrolate phantom was placed near the unmoderated 

252Cf source used for instrument calibration, and the system was characterized for TLD calibration 

(Gesell et al. 1996, Appendix A). This system has since been used for neutron dosimeter quality 

assurance measurements. Calibration factors from the DOELAP manual are used (DOE 1986b).

Table 6-4 outlines several common sources of expected laboratory bias for personnel neutron 

dosimeters based on comparison of the recorded dose with Hp(10).

Table 6-4. Common sources of laboratory bias in the calibration parameters for neutron dosimeters.

a

Parameter Historical description Anticipated laboratory biasb

Source energy 

spectrum

In 1976, INEEL began using dosimeters calibrated 

on a phantom to simulate a worker’s body. The 

previous calibrations did not include response 

from backscattered radiation. 

NTA film tends to be insensitive to albedo 

neutrons, so probably had minimal effect.

Radiation quantity Neutron dose quantities used to calibrate INEEL 

neutron dosimeters have varied historically. The 

first collision dose for fast neutrons and a quality 

factor of 10 were used for many years. 

As noted above, NTA calibration would result

in the reported dose being about 11% high. 

The effects of the respective neutron dose 

quantities used to calibrate INEEL dosimeters 

is uncertain and could be evaluated in 

comparison to the Hp(10) dose used in 

DOELAP performance testing. 

Angular response INEEL dosimeters calibrated using AP laboratory 

irradiation.

Recorded dose of record is likely too low 

because the dosimeter response is lower at 

non-AP angles. The effect is highly dependent 

on neutron energy.

Environmental 

stability

INEEL NTA film and TLD dosimeters are subject 

to signal fade with time, heat, humidity, light, etc.

Recorded dose of record is likely too low; 

however, this depends strongly upon when the 

calibration dosimeters were irradiated during 

the dosimeter exchange cycle. Mid-cycle 

calibration minimizes the effects. 

a. Judgment based on INEEL dosimeter response characteristics.

b. Recorded dose compared to Hp(10).

6.3.3.3 Gamma Radiation

In response to a Tiger Team finding, radiation fields at INEEL have been characterized by making 

field measurements with a NaI(Tl) gamma spectrometer and TLDs mounted on a phantom, then 

comparing the results (Reilly 1998). Figure 6-9 shows the percentage bias for the beta and gamma 

measurements. Most results lie between +27% to -43 %. 

The high gamma bias results were for locations at the Radioactive Waste Management Center 

(RWMC) looking at skyshine (back scattered and thus low-energy photons) from low-level waste in 

the Subsurface Disposal Area. The doses measured with NaI(Tl) were low (6 and 11 mrem) and the 

threshold energy on the NaI(Tl) detector was about 100 keV, so some low energy photons are likely to

have been missed. 

6.3.4

The radiation fields at ANL-W, with a few exceptions, have been generated primarily by mixed fission 

and activation products. Therefore, most of the photon doses have come from photons with energy 

greater than 250 keV. The INEEL dosimeters are judged to measure these fields well. 

Workplace Radiation Fields
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 23 of 45

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-85 to -75%-75 to -65%-65 to -55%-55 to -45%

-45 to-35%

-35 to -25%-25 to -15%

-15 to -5%

-5 to 5%

5 to 15%

1'5 to 25%

25 to 35%35 to 45%45 to 55%55 to 65%65 to 75%75 to 85%85 to 95%

95% to 105%

105% to 115%115% to 125%125% to 135%

Relative Bias [(Dosimeter-Spectrometer)/Spectrometer]

Number

Gamma

Beta

Figure 6-9. Gamma and beta radiation field characterization.

The few exceptions have usually been characterized by low dose rates. Analytical X-ray generators 

operating below 100 keV have been used in several laboratories. These are easily shielded so the 

fields have usually been low.

There have been a few 250-keV X-ray generators used for radiography or radiography development 

studies. Wall shielding has generally been adequate and any transmitted photons would have had 

energy near the operating voltage because of the hardening caused by the shielding. 

Essentially all ANL-W radiological work areas involved beta/photon radiation covering a wide range of 

energies. These fields can be generally classified according to the IREP codes in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5. Selection of IREP beta and photon energies for ANL-W facilities.

Process/

buildings Description

Operations Radiation 

type

Energy 

Begin End group (keV) Percentage

Reactors Highly dispersed fields of higher energy photon radiation fields 

from fission process, activation and fission product nuclides. 

Potential for significant airborne nuclides, and there could be 

significant higher energy beta radiation

Beta >15 100

Photon 30–250 25

>250 75

EBR, ANL

1952 2003

Processing 

plants 

Highly dispersed fields of higher energy photon radiation fields 

from activation and fission product nuclides dominant to most 

exposure profiles. Potential for higher-energy beta radiation 

during sampling and maintenance work resulting from fission 

products. 

Beta >15 100

Photon 30–250 25

>250 75

ICPP, ANL 1952 2003

Calibrations Calibration of instruments and dosimeters Beta >15 100

1952 2003 Photon 30 – 250 25

>250 75
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 24 of 45

6.3.4.1 Beta Radiation

Beta radiation fields are usually associated with activation or fission product radioactivity that is lightly 

shielded, handled by workers such as in hot cells, or outside of a container such as a spill. The high 

bias results in Figure 6-9 from comparison of TLD to a phoswich beta spectrometer are for beta 

sources at contact or at 1 cm, which results in a geometry that is difficult to reproduce. The low-bias 

results are for large area beta sources for which even the spectrometry results have large variations. 

The beta occupational radiation fields in Figure 6-9 (only 3) have a bias less than 15%.

Beta field dosimetry became fairly accurate with the definition of DOELAP requirements in the early 

1980s. Before then, beta monitoring systems had various flaws, primarily in a detector too thick to 

give a good surface result or one that was covered with extra material. Calibration was to high-energy 

betas from either uranium or strontium. The dose from low-energy betas can be missed altogether if 

the beta energy is not sufficient to penetrate the detector cover, and the dose can be underreported if 

the beta energy is not sufficient to penetrate the entire detector. The mean beta energy for the 

spectrum from a particular nuclide is about one-third of the maximum beta energy for that nuclide. 

Based on the range energy curve for beta particles and the beta energy distribution of beta emitters 

(HEW 1970, pp. 90, 91, and 123), the fraction of beta radionuclides with ranges greater than the 

abscissa is plotted on the ordinate in Figure 6-10. The beta nuclides varied by location and time so a 

correction factor common for all facilities was estimated. This analysis used the entire mixture of 

radionuclides to avoid questions of whether the choice is correct and to reflect the wide variety of 

radionuclides used. To reflect that the beta spectrum is not monoenergetic because of the energy 

carried off by the neutrino, a curve is presented for the mean energy (one-third of the maximum 

energy). To reflect that some beta particles enter the detector at an angle, a curve is provided for 

45o incidence at the maximum energy and the mean energy. These curves of the fraction of nuclides 

 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Range (mg/cm^2)

Fraction of Nuclides

Max energy

Max 45 Incid

Mean Energy

Mean 45 Incid

Figure 6-10. Distribution of beta ranges.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 25 of 45

with a larger range essentially show the depth dependence of beta dose because the energy loss of 

electrons does not have much energy dependence. These curves also demonstrate why early 

dosimeters with thick, sensitive elements failed to correctly report the beta dose at a depth of 

7 mg cm-2

, which was chosen in the early 1980s. In addition, these curves demonstrate why the beta 

dose assigned for skin is inappropriate to use for the breast and testes in which much of the organ is 

at a depth greater than 1 mm or 100 mg cm-2

, and for most of persons at depths greater than 1 cm.

To calculate the fraction of dose missed by a dosimeter, the dosimeter should average the 

appropriate curve of this nature over the depth of the active detector and compare it to the value at a 

depth of 7 mg cm-2

. The appropriate curve should be the curve of the mean range for the beta 

spectrum and the angular distribution of the radiation exposure. To estimate this value, this analysis 

added the mean energy curve for perpendicular incidence and 1.4 (relative path length) times that for 

45o incidence for the mean energy and added one-half that value for 45o incidence for the maximum 

energy. The curves are the result of a polynomial trend line to the data, so averaging the fraction of 

radionuclides is relatively easy.

Table 6-6 provides the cover and detector thicknesses for the INEEL beta badges. The fraction of 

measured beta dose shown in Table 6-6 is the average as described above. To determine the 

corrected beta dose, the reconstructor should divide the nonpenetrating result from the dosimetry 

system by the values in the last column of Table 6-6. The reported dose will likely be somewhat 

higher than this because the calibration probably did not consider such a correction and reported the 

dose for the calibration exposure.

Table 6-6. Beta dosimeter thicknesses and associated underreporting.

Dosimeter 

system Period

Covers

(mg cm-2)

Detector thickness

(mg cm-2)

Estimated

dose recorded

Two filter film 1951–1958 50a 50a 0.49

Multi-filter film 1958–1974 100 20a 0.35

Low dose TLD 1969–1974 100 75 0.33

ATLAS 1974–1975 100 100a 0.30

Harshaw TLD 1975–1976 104 344 0.21

Harshaw TLD 1976–1985 4 240 0.41

Panasonic TLD 1986–present 16 15 0.86

a. Estimated.

6.3.4.2 Neutron Radiation

Most ANL-W workers have not been exposed to neutrons and so have not been badged to measure 

neutrons. Neutron fields are specific to a few facilities. 

In 1969, 150 out of 2,900 film-badged and more than 3,000 TLD-badged employees at the INEEL,

including ANL-W, were involved in radiation work that required their NTA neutron dosimeters to be 

evaluated (AEC 1969).

For calendar year 1979, 5 people received neutron doses between 0.5 and 1 rem, and 79 received 

measurable neutron doses below 0.5 rem (Jones 1980). 

Individuals who have the potential to receive neutron dose currently wear albedo badges, and 

experience has shown that most do not receive significant doses. In the first 9 months of 1995 for 

INEEL, only 1,461 neutron dosimeters were issued (both monthly and quarterly badges) compared to 

about 50,000 beta/gamma badges. Only 54 badges had reportable doses (≥15 mrem) as shown in 

Figure 6-11 (Gesell et al. 1996). Only six were above 35 mrem. The Hankins albedo dosimeter 
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 26 of 45

badges in use since 1975 see all neutron fields. An FNCF determined from the 9- to 3-in. ratio in the 

worker location is used to adjust the measurement result to dose equivalent.

Figure 6-11. Distribution of reportable neutron dose at 

INEEL for the first 9 months of 1995. 

In 1997, several workplace neutron fields were measured with TLDs mounted on a phantom and at 

nearly the same time a ROSPEC neutron spectrometer (Reilly 1998). Figure 6-12 shows the relative 

biases [(Dosimeter-Spectrometer)/Spectrometer] for the neutron fields. These results show a greater 

dispersion than the gamma results.

 

0

1

2

3

4

-55 to -45%

-45 to-35%

-35 to -25%-25 to -15%

-15 to -5%

-5 to 5%

5 to 15%

15 to 25%25 to 35%35 to 45%45 to 55%55 to 65%65 to 75%75 to 85%85 to 95%

Relative Bias [(Dosimeter-Spectrometer)/Spectrometer]

Number

Neutron

Figure 6-12. Neutron radiation field characterization.

The two lowest values (-0.52 and -0.51) are for TLD measurements on opposite sides of a phantom 

where the field is from 252Cf on an overhead filter bank. The phantom attenuates the radiation from 

Total number of dosimeters with reportable dose = 54 Total number of dosimeters with reportable dose = 54
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 27 of 45

each side so the TLDs see only half the radiation field. The next lowest value (-0.38) is for the 252Cf 

instrument calibration source at a distance of 3.5 m where the operator stands. The two highest 

values (0.94 and 0.71) are for a waste drum that was reanalyzed and a new 9-in. to 3-in. ratio 

determined because of the unsatisfactory initial result. Reilly (1998) suggests that other waste barrels 

may have had neutron sources causing interference. The remaining bias values lie between -0.16 

and 0.44.

Sources of neutron exposure include neutron sources at the instrument calibration laboratories. For 

the spectra from these sources, the NTA works reasonably well. Use of small 252Cf sources for 

research began after use of albedo badges. Figure 6-13 provides spectra for the AmBe (Kluge and 

Weise 1982) and 252Cf (fission) neutron sources and the 14-MeV neutron generator as seen through 

10 cm of polyethylene shielding (Ing and Makra 1978), which is typical of the INEEL/ANL-W facilities. 

Most of the reactors at the INEEL/ANL-W have not had beam ports, and the neutrons have therefore 

been generally well contained away from the workplace. A reactor core environment is characterized 

not only by high neutron levels, but also by very high gamma levels. The gamma shielding is often 

water and concrete, which are also very good neutron shields. The neutron fields in the energy 

spectrum for reactors and lower are attenuated much more quickly in concrete or water than are 

gamma fields. This is not true for lead or iron, but these have not usually been used as gamma 

shields where neutrons exist. Therefore, neutron fields are generally not a large concern at an 

enclosed reactor.

 

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Neutron Energy (MeV)

Number neutrons

Fission

14 MeV

AmBe

Figure 6-13. Neutron spectra simulating INEEL facilities.

6.3.4.2.1 MTR, ZPPR, and TREAT Neutron Radiation

The exceptions to the above discussion are:

• The Materials Test Reactor (MTR) at NRTS/INEL, which operated from 1952 to 1970 and had 

beam ports and neutron beams extending onto a research floor

• The Zero Power Physics Reactor (ZPPR) at ANL-W

• The Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) at ANL-W
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 28 of 45

Some neutron surveys of the MTR experimental floor have been recovered (Sommers 1959, 1962; 

Hankins 1961), but these individually do not provide all components of the radiation field. Hankins 

(1961) used 2-, 3-, and 8-in. polyethylene Bonner balls in a cadmium shield to characterize the 

intermediate and fast neutrons at 21 locations around the MTR floor. He made these measurements 

and also measured the thermal neutron component at six other locations. The Hankins data have 

been reanalyzed (Rohrig 2004) using more recent Bonner response curves (Hertel and Davidson 

1985). Figure 6-14 shows the resultant neutron spectra for locations 3 and 23, which had higher 

doses and nearly the maximum low-energy intermediate and fission components, respectively. 

Figure 6-15 shows the correlations of the thermal and intermediate neutron dose equivalents to the 

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07

Energy (eV)

Number Neutrons

Position 23

Position 3

Figure 6-14. Sample MTR Spectra from 

Hankins Bonner Measurements.

 

y = 4.633x

R2

 = 0.501

y = 0.148x

R2

 = 0.914

y = 0.049x

R2

 = 0.701

y = 0.115x

R2

 = 0.852

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

0.01 0.1 1 10

Fast Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate (mrem/hr)

Dose Equivalent Rate (mrem/hr)

InterHankins

Inter .5 eV-10 keV

Inter 10-200 keV

ThermalNeut

Figure 6-15. MTR neutron field components.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 29 of 45

fast neutron dose equivalent for the Rohrig reanalysis of the Hankins data. The trend line for the 

reanalyzed intermediate energy neutron dose equivalent has a R2 value of 0.85 and 0.91 as 

compared to a R2 value of 0.50 for the original analysis, which fits the data better. The average ratio 

of thermal to fast neutron is 0.071 ±0.025, for the low-energy intermediate to the fast the ratio is 0.177

±0.057, and for the higher energy intermediate to the fast the ratio is 0.149 ±0.046, where fast 

neutrons are taken as those above 0.2 MeV.

The MTR personnel likely to receive neutron dose were assigned NTA film in their dosimetry packets, 

but the packets would have missed doses below 0.5 to 0.8 MeV. For the MTR spectra, the fraction of 

neutron dose equivalent above 0.8 MeV has an average value of 0.52 ±0.08 and varies from 35% to 

66% depending on the location. The dosimetry record location code for the Test Reactor Area (TRA)

was 4 (later 40 to 45). To correct for missed dose on the MTR experiment floor, the NTA results from

MTR should be multiplied by 2 ±0.2 (1/0.52, 0.08/0.52) for a Monte Carlo dose reconstruction or by 3 

(1/0.35) for the less accurate worst-case reconstruction.

Sommers (1962) reported thermal and fast neutron dose equivalent rates and gamma dose rates 

around the MTR beam lines. The thermal measurements near beams are believed to not be 

representative of the general workplace. Figure 6-16 shows the correlation of fast neutron dose 

equivalent to the gamma dose for these measurements. The fast neutron component was less-than 

the measurement capability of 1 mrem/hr for several measurements. These values are shown with 

the triangles at one-half of the smallest measured value. Using the Shapiro-Wilks Normality Test 

(Gilbert 1987) and including the insignificant fast neutron values at one-half of the minimum reported 

value suggests that the normal distribution is a slightly better description of the data than a log-normal 

distribution. The fast neutron dose equivalent is 0.42 ±0.35 of the gamma dose rate for this data set. 

Combining these results, the total neutron dose equivalent is 0.58 ±0.48 of the gamma dose 

equivalent on the MTR Experimental Floor. Equation 6-1 elaborates this calculation. The variation in 

the different components of neutron dose rate are so much smaller than the variation between the fast 

neutron and gamma dose equivalent rate as to be unimportant. 

 

 

0.1

1

10

100

0.1 1 10 100 1000

Gamma DE Rate(mrem/hr)

Fast Neutron DE Rate (mrem/hr)

Fast Neutron

Fast Insig

Fit 0.419 *Gamma

Figure 6-16. Correlation of fast neutron dose 

equivalent to gamma dose at MTR.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 30 of 45

(0.42 0.35)(1 0.071 0.177 0.149) 0.58 0.48

(1 )

= ± + + + = ±

= + + +

Fast

HiInter

Fast

LoInter

Fast

Thermal

Gamma

FastN

GammaDose

TotalNeutronDose

(Eq. 6-1)

Although this limited data for a small portion of the INEEL with weak correlation might suggest

multiplying the gamma dose by 1.6 (i.e. 1+0.58) or 2.1 (i.e. 1+1.06), doing so is probably inappropriate 

because many of the people wearing NTA film would receive gamma dose at locations other than on 

the MTR experimental floor while the reactor was operating. For example, health physics technicians 

would often be covering jobs with only beta–gamma fields. A craftsperson could service pumps 

carrying radioactive water and not receive any neutron dose. Further extrapolating experience at the 

MTR at TRA to TREAT or ZPPR at ANL-W is a stretch. While similarities of the neutron spectra and 

associated corrections are likely valid, the relative amount of gamma and neutron radiation may not 

be. Also, dosimetry data sheets demonstrate that small neutron doses were as likely or more likely to 

be determined as small photon doses so this sort of correction is not necessary.

6.3.4.2.2 Typical Workplace Neutron Dosimeter Hp(10) Performance

Table 6-7 summarizes typical neutron personnel dosimeter parameters important to Hp(10) 

performance in the workplace. The most important parameter related to Hp(10) performance of the 

neutron dosimeters is the difference between calibration and workplace neutron energy spectra. 

Table 6B-2 in Attachment 6B summarizes the locations at ANL-W where neutron dose is credible.

Table 6-7. Typical workplace neutron dosimeter Hp(10) performance.a

Parameter Description Potential workplace biasb

Workplace neutron 

energy spectra

NTA dosimeter response decreases and TLD 

response increases with decreasing neutron 

energy 

Depends on workplace neutron spectra. NTA 

recorded dose of record likely too low 

because of high 500-keV threshold for 

detection of neutrons. 

Exposure geometry NTA dosimeter response increases with 

increasing exposure angle and TLD response 

decreases with increasing exposure angle.

NTA recorded dose likely too high because

dosimeter response is higher at angles other 

than AP. TLD recorded dose is lower at 

angles other than AP. Effect is highly 

dependent on neutron energy. 

Missed dose Doses less than MRL recorded as zero. Recorded dose of record is likely too low. 

The impact of missed dose is greatest in early

years because of the higher MRLs and 

shorter exchange cycles of the neutron 

dosimeters. 

Environmental effects Workplace environment (heat, humidity, etc.) 

fades the dosimeter signal.

Recorded dose of record is likely too low.

a. Judgment based on INEEL dosimeter response characteristics.

b. Recorded dose compared to Hp(10).

6.4 ADJUSTMENTS TO RECORDED DOSE

6.4.1

All dose equivalents measured at ANL-W and reported in this document used the quality factors 

based on the LET of the ionizing secondary particles established in the 1950s and used since by U.S. 

regulatory agencies. In 1990 the ICRP developed new dose concepts that have been used by 

NIOSH. The quality factor, Q, as a function of LET was replaced with a radiation weighting factor, wR,

which is a function of the neutron energy (ICRP 1990, Table 1).

Neutron Weighting Factor
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 31 of 45

A correction needs to be made to the ANL-W reported data to change from dose equivalent under 

NCRP 38 (NCRP 1971b) to a newer dose quantity (NIOSH 2002). ICRP Publication 74 (ICRP 1996) 

tabulates the ambient dose equivalent (dose equivalent at 10 mm depth in a 30 cm diameter sphere) 

for neutrons. NIOSH (2002) tabulates the ratios of organ dose equivalents to ambient dose 

equivalent, so this quantity is to be used for the conversion. Ambient dose equivalent is an ICRU 

quantity so it uses a revised Q(L) rather than a wR, so the correction factors are not as large as in 

other technical basis documents. The dose equivalent for a spectrum of particle energies is the result 

of an integral of the fluence spectrum, Φ(E), times a dose equivalent conversion factor, DECF(E), 

which also depends on energy over the range of energies considered:

H DECF E E dE

E

E

∫ =

2

1

( ) φ( ) (Eq. 6-2)

These factors are incorporated into statements of dose equivalent values and calibrations following 

generally accepted principles. The conventional dose conversion factors are most clearly and 

correctly stated in ICRP Publication 21 (ICRP 1973). NCRP Report 38 tabulates a neutron flux 

density associated with the annual dose limit that is proportional to the reciprocal of the dose 

conversion factor (NCRP 1971b). Conventionally, the primary geometry considered is from one 

direction with the maximum dose in the body tabulated. More recent references (ICRU 1985; ICRP 

1987, 1996) consider the dose to individual organs for different irradiation geometries, so the more 

recent tabulations give results lower by factors up to about 10 from attenuation in the human body. 

Dosimeters are designed to respond to radiation entering the body on the side where they are located 

and work best for an anterior-posterior (AP) irradiation geometry with the dosimeter on the front of the 

body.

Equation 6-2 also applies to ambient dose equivalent, except that a tabulation of the ambient dose 

equivalent dose conversion factor is used (ICRP 1996). The correction factor for an energy interval is 

then the ratio of the two integrals. Because IREP uses different radiation effectiveness factors for 

different radiation types and energies, it is appropriate to use the IREP energy intervals for calculating

the correction factors. 

Table 6-8 lists the calculated fractions of dose equivalent in the IREP energy groups and the 

conversion factors from dose equivalent to equivalent dose for ANL-W spectra. The ratios of average

radiation weighting factor to average quality factor for the IREP energy groups have some variation, 

particularly for the 10- to 100-keV group where the energy dependence of the fluence is radically 

different for the fission and 14-MeV source than for the reactor spectrum. The lower part of the table 

lists the recommended default values for the dose equivalent fractions and quality factor corrections. 

These values are combined in Table 6B-4. This correction should be applied after the measured, the 

missed, and the unmonitored neutron doses are added together.

6.5 MISSED DOSE

6.5.1

Unmonitored photon dose for ANL- W workers would occur where there is no recorded dose because 

workers were not monitored or the dose is otherwise unavailable. It was ANL-W policy to monitor 

everyone working at the site so unmonitored work is unlikely.

Photon Unmonitored and Missed Dose
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 32 of 45

Table 6-8. Dose equivalent fractions and quality factor corrections, estimated and recommended.

IREP energy interval <10 keV 10-100 keV 100 keV-2 MeV 2-20 MeV

Spectrum calculated values

Dose equivalent fractions

Bare fission 4.4E-05 0.20 0.80

AmBe 0.15 0.85

14 MeV 10 cm poly 2.4E-08 3.1E-06 1.5E-03 1.00

MTR exp floor ave 0.18 0.06 0.49 0.28

MTR exp floor max 0.24 0.08 0.52 0.35

MTR exp floor min 0.13 0.03 0.46 0.19

ICRP 74 H*10 /NCRP 38 H 

Bare fission 1.46 1.32 1.09

AmBe 1.41 1.05

14 MeV 10 cm poly 0.69 1.47 1.36 0.93

MTR exp floor ave 0.86 1.08 1.33 1.12

MTR exp floor max 0.80 1.08 1.37 1.12

MTR exp floor min 0.92 1.08 1.30 1.12

Recommended defaults

Dose equivalent fractions

14 MeV 10 cm poly 0.05 0.95

Source calibrations 0.20 0.80

MTR exp floor 0.2 0.05 0.50 0.25

H*(10)/H 1 1.1 1.4 1.1

Missed photon dose for ANL-W workers would occur where a zero dose is recorded for the dosimeter 

systems for any response less than the site MRL. The missed dose for dosimeter results less than 

the MRL is particularly important for earlier years when dosimeter exchange was more frequent and

MRLs were somewhat higher. One option to calculate the missed dose described in NIOSH (2002) is 

to estimate a claimant-favorable potential missed dose where MRL/2 is multiplied by the number of 

zero dose results. Table 6B-1 in Attachment 6B lists the potential missed photon dose according to 

year, dosimeter type, and exchange frequency. The MRLs shown are based on Cipperley (1958, 

1968) and Cusimano (1963) for film; Kalbeitzer (1983), Gesell (1986), Gesell et al. (1992), and Perry 

et al. (1993) for TLDs; and Ruhter and Perry (2002) for film and TLD. The dose reconstructor should 

determine the exchange frequency from the dose submittal package for each individual and year 

because it was shorter for highly exposed individuals and longer for those with lower doses.

6.5.2

Neutron radiation was present only at the ANL-W reactors, and for calibration of criticality alarms, etc. 

Most ANL-W workers were not exposed to neutrons and were not monitored for them. For other

locations, unmonitored neutron dose is very unlikely because of the very low potential for neutron 

exposure. The badge of a worker normally monitored for neutron dose may not have been read out 

and thus the dose would be unmonitored. This would be indicated by a blank under neutrons on the 

badge report at a time when other workers have zeros. A reasonable dose to assign for such a 

situation is the average dose for that worker for nearby monitoring periods.

Neutron Unmonitored and Missed Dose

To calculate the missed dose, the reconstructor must first determine if the person worked near 

neutrons and which category of neutrons. This is best accomplished by review of the work location(s)

and whether a worker or others in the badge reporting group were assigned any neutron dose 

equivalent. For many years, individuals who were assigned NTA film which was read with minimal 

dose have zeros in the record. A blank means that that individual didn’t have NTA film or it was not 

read because neutron exposure was believed to be unlikely. We are not certain that this practice was 

followed for all time. The work location code for TREAT is 20, but ZPPR did not have a unique code. 
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 33 of 45

If no neutron dose was assigned to the individual in question or to coworkers for several months, the 

dose reconstructor should assume that the worker was not exposed to neutrons. Therefore, there 

would not be any unmonitored neutron dose. 

If a worker was likely to have been exposed to neutrons, the reconstructor should assign missed 

neutron dose equivalent using Table 6B-2 in Attachment 6B for the times when workers did not have 

reported neutron dose. For the period when NTA film was used, the recorded neutron dose should be 

multiplied by 1.25 for all facilities except the TREAT or ZPPR and by 2 for the TREAT or ZPPR when 

they were operating. Then the dose equivalent is apportioned into the IREP groups using Table 6B-4. 

For example, if in 1970 a person was an experimenter at the ZPPR, and 7 of the weekly badges 

recorded a total of 300 mrem neutron dose equivalent and the other sheets all showed zeros, the 

missed dose would be 450 mrem [(52-7)×20÷2] so the total dose by the badges would be 750 mrem. 

Note that if some reports had blanks rather than zeroes (and zeroes were entered for other 

individuals) this would be an unmonitored dose which must be estimated by the first paragraph of this 

section. Although both ZPPR and TREAT did not operate on full time schedules so neutrons would 

only exist occasionally, it is claimant friendly to assume that they did. Because the badge only 

responds to about one-half the ZPPR or TREAT neutron dose equivalent (from Section 6.3.4.2.1 and 

Table 6B-3), the total dose equivalent is 1.5 rem (this multiplication should also be done for the 

unmonitored dose). To convert the 1.5 rem received from neutrons at the ZPPR to equivalent dose, 

multiply the total dose equivalent by the last column of Table 6B-4 to get 300 mrem to the <10-keV 

group, 90 mrem to the 10- to 100-keV group, 1050 mrem to the 0.1- to 2-MeV group, and 420 mrem 

to the above-2-MeV group, for a total equivalent dose of 1.86 rem.

The neutron missed dose is divided into two historical periods in the following discussion. The first is 

before 1976 when only NTA film dosimeters were used with supplemental recording of thermal 

neutron doses from B-10 pencil dosimeters. The second period is after 1976 when only Hankins 

albedo dosimeters were used. The estimated MRLs for these neutron dosimeters are summarized in 

Table 6B-2 in Attachment 6B. It is possible to estimate the missed neutron dose using the MRLs 

because the neutron dosimeters were calibrated with neutron sources that had energies similar to 

those encountered in the workplace and because most of the neutrons to which workers were 

normally exposed had energies greater than the 500- to 800-keV threshold of the NTA dosimeters. 

There was, of course, no threshold energy for the measurements using neutron albedo TLD badges.

6.5.2.1 Before October 1976

The use of NTA films for neutron dosimetry before 1976 is documented in various INEEL reports 

(Cusimano 1963; Cipperley 1958, 1968). As noted above, it is possible to estimate the missed dose 

using the MRLs. There are many recorded zeros in the neutron dose data for INEEL workers 

because an NTA film indicated a neutron dose equivalent that was less than the 14-mrem MRL. 

When the MRL for NTA film is used in estimating the missed neutron dose, it should be multiplied by 

1.25 for most workers and by 2 for workers on the TREAT or ZPPR Experimental Floor. 

6.5.2.2 After October 1976

Since October 1976, the neutron dose has been measured using the Hankins albedo-type TLD. The 

characteristics of this dosimeter are well documented (Gesell et al. 1996), and the MRL to be used in 

estimating missed dose is 15 mrem. A location-specific FNCF has been applied to convert the 

reading to dose equivalent. The adjustment to equivalent dose provided in Table 6B-4 must then be 

made.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 34 of 45

6.6 ORGAN DOSE

The dose values should be used to calculate organ doses of interest using NIOSH (2002). It is 

recommended that the AP (front to back) geometry should be assumed for the irradiation geometry 

and for conversion to organ dose. The calculated neutron doses in each energy group should be 

multiplied by the conversion factors from ambient dose equivalent to organ dose for AP irradiation 

from Appendix B of NIOSH (2002). For photons before 1981 the conversion factor from exposure to 

organ dose should be used. For 1981 and after, the conversion factor from deep dose equivalent to 

organ dose should be used.

6.7 UNCERTAINTY

Measurement uncertainties arise from many sources. For gamma rays the standards for exposure 

have existed with only minor changes since the 1930s as required for medical uses of radiation. The 

INEEL used ionization chambers standardized by NBS (now the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology) for their calibrations. Use of a phantom for dosimeter irradiation began in the early 

1980s, but backscatter only causes a minor change for high-energy photon dosimetry. The 

overresponse of the multi-element film badge to deep dose in tissue arises from their calibration to 

exposure, which is somewhat more at low energies than the deep dose. The INEEL environment did 

not have a significant low-energy photon field like a plutonium finishing plant, so the nonpenetrating 

component was attributed to beta radiation. A realistic estimate of total uncertainty for photon 

dosimetry is about 35% at 1 sigma. This is roughly consistent with the results in Figure 6-9. For 

those measurements, the standardization instrument contributed some significant uncertainty.

To determine beta radiations in relation to skin cancer, the reconstructor should divide the reported 

nonpenetrating dose by the fraction of dose measured; Table 6-5 lists the measured doses. The 

uncertainty for beta radiation is somewhat larger than that for gamma rays at an estimated 50% at 

1 sigma. This large uncertainty is driven by the uncertainties in field geometry and because beta 

radiation is often stopped by thin materials such as clothing and air. Algorithms are used to estimate 

the dose at a depth of 7 mg cm-2 from dosimeters at depths of 15 to 250 mg cm-2

, and such depth 

differences can change the signal significantly. The difference between a point source irradiation and 

a planar source can confuse an algorithm. Earlier techniques did not provide a thin detector with 

minimal covering, which is important for simulating the skin for beta dosimetry.

The determination of uncertainty for neutron radiations is more complex. The NTA films used before 

1975 did not see low-energy neutrons below 0.5 to 0.8 MeV. Corrections are described in Section 

6.5.2 for handling this issue. The TLD albedo system provides a very indirect way of measuring dose 

equivalent to a person. Dose to people is primarily due to hydrogen recoils rather than 6

Li(n,α) 

reactions. The response of the 9-in. PNR-4 detector used to standardize the TLD measurements 

arises from a different process than dose deposition in the human body. The total uncertainty for 

neutrons is probably larger than that for beta radiation at about 60% at 1 sigma. The cause of the 

greatest uncertainty for neutrons is the variation of dose caused by the position of the organ within the 

body. For 1-MeV neutrons, the dose facing the source is about 1,000 higher than the dose on the 

back side of a 30-cm-diameter sphere of tissue-like material. In a work environment the direction of 

the neutrons may be unknown, but it is often from many directions, which reduces the impact of this 

uncertainty driver. For simplicity and because it often is true, this analysis assumed that the geometry 

of exposure is AP (from the front). The apparent discrepancy in Figure 6-11, in which the dosimeters 

showed about one-half of the spectrometer readings, occurred because the spectrometer does not 

simulate the attenuation of the body, so the reading was high by a factor of two.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 35 of 45

REFERENCES

ACC (American Cyanamid Company), 1952, CPP Health Physics Manual, IDO-14055, Idaho 

Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1958, Permissible Levels of Radiation Exposure, AEC 

Manual, Chapter 0524, Washington D.C.

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1959, Annual Report 1958 Health and Safety Division, 

IDO-12012, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1960, Annual Report of Health and Safety Division 1959, 

IDO-12014, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1962, 1961 Health and Safety Division Annual Report, 

IDO-12021, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1963, Standards for Radiation Protection, AEC Manual, 

Chapter 0524, Washington D.C. August 12.

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1968, Standards for Radiation Protection, AEC Manual, 

Chapter 0524, Appendix 0524, Washington D.C.

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1969, 1968 Annual Report of the Health Services Laboratory, 

George L. Voelz, IDO-12071, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1969, AEC Workshop on Personnel Neutron Dosimetry, 

September 23-24, 1969, BNWL-1340, UC-48, Battelle Northwest, Richland, Washington.

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1970, 1969 Annual Report of the Health Services Laboratory, 

George L. Voelz, IDO-12073, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Andersen, B. L. 1994, Panoramic Irradiator to Acquire NIST Equivalent Irradiations for the INEL 

Dosimetry Programs, EDF ODU-94-5.0.

Anderson, M. E., 1971, “Thick Target Yield for the 9

Be(α,n) Reaction”, Nucl. Sci. Engr., volume 44, 

pp. 437-439.

ANSI (American National Standards Institute), 1972, Performance Specifications for Direct Reading 

and Indirect Reading Pocket Dosimeters for X- and Gamma radiation, Standard No. ANSI 

N13.5, New York, New York.

ANSI (American National Standards Institute), 1983a (Reference was to previous version), 

Photographic Film Dosimeters - Criteria for Performance, Standard No. ANSI N13.7, New 

York, New York.

ANSI (American National Standards Institute), 1983b, Criteria for Testing Personnel Dosimetry 

Performance, Standard No. ANSI N13.11, New York, New York.

Aoki, I., 1979, “General Information for Evaluating Penetrating Exposure Summary at INEL for Years 

1950 through 1979”, memorandum to file, May 31, Dosimetry Branch, Idaho Operations Office, 

Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 36 of 45

Attix, F. H., and W. C. Roesch, 1968, Radiation Dosimetry, Second Edition, Academic Press.

Bean, L. C., 1995, Establishing a Beta Source for QA/QC Irradiations, Engineering Design File RDRU 

95-1.0.

Black, D. E., 1974, letter to D. I. Walker (Director, Health Services Laboratory, Idaho Operations 

Office, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), June 21, Allied Chemical, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Cipperley, F. V. 1966, A General Summary of Personnel Monitoring Systems Utilized at the National 

Reactor Testing Station, IDO-12056, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Cipperley, F. V., 1958, Personnel Metering Operating Techniques – Self-Service System – Effective 

August 20, 1951 through March 29, 1958, IDO-12007, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, 

Idaho.

Cipperley, F. V., 1968, Personnel Dosimetry Standard Operating Procedure Effective March 30, 1958, 

IDO-12070, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Cipperley, F. V., and W. P. Gammill, 1959, “Improvements in Personnel Metering Procedures at 

NRTS,” meeting of the Health Physics Society, June 19, 1959.

Cipperley, F. V., R. W. Henry, and J. P. Cusimano, 1965, “Personnel Monitoring Practices at the 

National Reactor Testing Station,” Symposium on Personnel Dosimetry for Accidental 

High-Level Exposure to External and Internal Radiation, International Atomic Energy Agency, 

March 8-12, 1965, Vienna, Austria.

Cusimano J. P., and F. V. Cipperley, 1968, “Personnel Dosimetry Using Thermoluminescent Lithium 

Fluoride-Teflon Dosimeters,” Health Physics, volume 14, pp. 339-344.

Cusimano, J. P., 1963, Latent Image Fading in Personal Neutron Monitoring Film at the NRTS, 

IDO-12031, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Cusimano, J. P., 1972, Suggestions and/or Alternatives concerning the ATLAS Dosimetry System, 

Letter to F. V. Cipperley, Dosimetry Branch, Health Services Laboratory, Idaho Operations 

Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Cusimano, J. P., 1981, Update of Facility Neutron Correction Factor (FNCF), Idaho Operations Office,

Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Cusimano, J. P., 1982, “Changeout and Storage of Hurst NADs until Disposition,” memorandum to 

Bob Burkhart, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1981, Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection 

Program for DOE Operations, Order 5480.1, Requirements for Radiation Protection, Chapter 

XI, Washington, D.C. 4/29/81 as revised 8/13/81.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1986a, Handbook for the Department of Energy Laboratory 

Accreditation Program for Personnel Dosimetry Systems, DOE/EH-0026, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1986b, Standard for the Performance Testing of Personnel 

Dosimetry Systems, DOE/EH-0027, Washington, D.C.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 37 of 45

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1987, Department of Energy Laboratory Accreditation Program for 

Personnel Dosimetry, Order 5480.15, Washington, D.C. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1988, Radiation Protection for Occupational Workers, Order 

5480.11, Washington, D.C.

ERDA (Energy Research and Development Administration), 1975, Chapter 0524, Standards for 

Radiation Protection, April 8, Washington, D.C.

ERDA (Energy Research and Development Administration), 1977, Chapter 0524, Standards for 

Radiation Protection, March 30, Washington, D.C.

Gesell, T. F, 1986, “Minimum Reporting Levels for the Panasonic Dosimetry Systems,” letter to 

Dosimetry Customers, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory, May 15, 

Dosimetry Branch, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory.

Gesell, T. F., 1982a, “Calibration of the INEL personnel dosimeter for non-penetrating radiation,” letter 

to S. Marchetti (West Valley Nuclear Services), October 26, Dosimetry Branch, Radiological 

and Environmental Sciences Laboratory.

Gesell, T. F., 1982b, “Estimation of External Dose Equivalents from TL Dosimeters,” memorandum to 

Dosimetry File, February 3, Dosimetry Branch, Radiological and Environmental Sciences 

Laboratory.

Gesell, T. F., M. A. Hall, and B. L. Andersen, 1992, Technical Basis of the INEL Personal Photon-Beta 

Dosimeter, Idaho State University, Department of Physics, Health Physics Program, Idaho 

Falls, Idaho. 

Gesell, T. F., R. Boston, B. L. Andersen, and R. Perry, 1996, Technical Basis of the INEL Personal 

Neutron Dosimeter, Idaho State University Report 960112, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Gupta, V. P., 1981, Standardization and use of 2.5 Ci 90Sr/90Y Source for Calibration of Personnel 

Dosimeters and Portable Instruments, IDO-12093, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho 

Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Hankins, D. E. 1961, A Method of Determining the Intermediate Energy Neutron Dose, IDO-16655, 

Phillips Petroleum Company, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Hankins, D. E., 1973, A small, inexpensive albedo-neutron dosimeter, LA-5261, Los Alamos Scientific 

Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

Hankins, D. E., 1976, “The effect of energy dependence on the evaluation of albedo neutron 

dosimeters,” Proceedings of the Ninth Midyear Topical Symposium of the Health Physics 

Society, pp. 861–868, Operational Health Physics Society, Denver, Colorado. 

Hertel, N. E., and J. W. Davidson, 1985, “The Response of Bonner Spheres to Neutrons from Thermal 

Energies to 17.3 MeV,” Nucl. Instr. Meth., A238, pp. 509–516.

HEW (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare), 1970, Radiological Health Handbook, 

Bureau of Radiological Health, Rockville, MD, January.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 38 of 45

Horan, J. R., and J. B. Braun, 1993, Occupational Radiation Exposure History of Idaho Field Office 

Operations at the INEL, EGG-CS-11143, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 1988, Guidelines on Calibration of Neutron Measuring 

Devices, Technical Reports Series No. 285, Vienna, Austria.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1973, Data for Protection against 

Ionizing Radiation from External Sources: Supplement to ICRP Publication 15, Publication 21, 

Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1977, Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 26, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1979, Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides 

by Workers, Publication 30, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1987, Data for Use in Protection Against 

External Radiation, ICRP Publication 51, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1990, 1990 Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 60, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1996, Conversion Coefficients for Use in 

Radiological Protection Against External Radiation, Publication 74, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

England.

ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units), 1954, Recommendation of the International 

Commission on Radiation Units (ICRU), 7th International Congress of Radiology, Radiology 

62, p. 106.

ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements), 1956, RBE Dose, Report of 

the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, NBS Handbook 62, p. 7.

ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements), 1962, Radiation Quantities 

and Units, Report 10a. NBS Handbook 84, Washington, D. C.

ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements), 1971, Radiation Quantities 

and Units, Report 19, Washington, D.C.

ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements), 1976, Conceptual Basis for 

the Determination of Dose Equivalent, Report 25, Washington, D.C. 

ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements), 1980, Radiation Quantities 

and Units, Report 33, Washington, D.C.

ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements), 1985, Determination of 

Dose Equivalents Resulting from External Sources, Report 39, Bethesda, Maryland.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 39 of 45

ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements), 1993, Quantities and Units 

in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Report 51, Bethesda, Maryland.

INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory), 2001, Technical Basis of the 

INEEL Personal Photon-Beta Dosimeter, INEEL/EXT/01-00636, Idaho Falls, Idaho

INEL (Idaho National Engineering Laboratory), c. 1978, “Dosimetry Branch Changes from March 

1978,” memorandum to file, Dosimetry Branch, Health Service Laboratory, Idaho Operations 

Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

Ing, H., and S. Makra, 1978, Compendium of Neutron Spectra in Criticality Accident Dosimetry, 

Technical Report Series No. 180, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.

Jones, D., 1980, “DOE Headquarters Request for Comments on Proposed Changes to Neutron 

Quality Factor,” letter to J. Barry (Operational Safety Director, Idaho Operations Office), May 

22, Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Kalbeitzer, F. L., 1983, “Reportable Threshold Reading from the Unshielded Dosimeter of the 

Personnel Badge,” letter to Dosimetry Branch, RSL/ID, March 25, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Kalbeitzer, F. L., 1984, “Computerized Determination of Penetrating/Non-Penetrating Calibration 

Factors,” memorandum to Dosimetry Branch Staff, September 17, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Kluge, H., and K. Weise, 1982, “The Neutron Energy Spectrum of a 241Am-Be(α,n) Source and 

Resulting Mean Fluence to Dose Equivalent Conversion Factors,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 

volume 2, pp. 85–93.

Meinhold, C. B., 1975, “The Unchanging Aspects of Radiation Protection Limits,” Population Dose 

Evaluation and Standards for Man and his Environment, IAEA-SM-184/19, International 

Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.

NBS (National Bureau of Standards), 1949, Safe Handling of Radioactive Isotopes, Handbook 42, 

NCRP Report No. 7, Washington, D.C.

NBS (National Bureau of Standards), 1957, Protection Against Neutron Radiation up to 30 Million 

Electron Volts, Handbook 63, Washington, D.C., Nov 22.

NBS (National Bureau of Standards), 1958, Maximum Permissible Radiation Exposures to Man, 

Addendum to National Bureau of Standards Handbook 59, Permissible Dose from External 

Sources of Ionizing Radiations, Washington, D.C. [in NBS Handbook 48, Control and Removal 

of Radioactive Contamination in Laboratories NCRP Report No. 8, Feb 15, 1951(subsequent 

printing)].

NBS (National Bureau of Standards), 1961, Measurement of Absorbed Dose of Neutrons, and of 

Mixtures of Neutrons and Gamma Rays, Recommendations of the National Council on 

Radiation Protection and Measurements, Handbook 75, NCRP Report No. 25, Washington, 

D.C.

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1971a, Basic Radiation 

Protection Criteria, Report 39, Bethesda, Maryland.
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 40 of 45

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1971b, Protection against 

Neutron Radiation, Report 38, Bethesda, Maryland.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2002, External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guidelines, OCAS-IG-001, Revision 1, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Perry, O. R., B. L. Andersen, and P. E. Ruhter, 1993, Minimum Reporting Level for the Idaho National 

Engineering Laboratory (INEL) Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (TLD) Systems, 

EGG-ESQ-10917, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Purcell, R. B., and H. McGary, 1963, Automatic Film Density Reading System, IDO-12029, Idaho 

Falls, Idaho.

Reilly, P. S., 1998, Characterization of Radiation Fields at the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory, EDF Report RDR-98005.

RESL (Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory) 1981, Personnel Dosimetry 

Performance, Dosimetry Branch, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Roberson, P. L. and K. L. Holbrook, 1984, Guidelines for the Calibration of Personnel Dosimeters, 

PNL-4515, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Rohrig, N. D., 2004, Reanalysis of Hankins MTR Bonner Ball Surveys, ORAUT-OTIB-0009, Rev. 0, 

February, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Ruhter, P. E., and O. R. Perry, 2002, INEEL Dosimetry Systems History and Minimum Dose 

Reporting Level (MRL) Information (External Dose Summary Profile – 1951 to March 2002).

Sommers, J. F., 1959, “Neutron Activity Levels at the MTR due to ANP-1,” letter to R. L. Doan (site 

manager), August 27.

Sommers, J. F., 1962, “Thermal Column Measurements,” letter to W. H. Burgus (engineer), 

December 18. 

Sommers, J. F., 1967, “Change in TRA Neutron Monitoring Methods,” memorandum to Personnel, 

SOM-59-67, TRA Health Physics and the Nuclear Technology Branch.

Sommers, J. F., 1969, “Neutron Dosimetry,” interoffice correspondence to reactor HPs TRA, (Health 

Physicists at Test Reactor Area) SOM-30-69.

Walker, D. I., 1974, letter to D. E. Black (Allied Chemical, ICPP), July 23, Idaho Operations Office, 

Health Services Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Watkins, V., date unknown, NRTS Routine Thermoluminescent Dosimetry System, [likely from 

between 1966 and 1975].
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 41 of 45

GLOSSARY

1/E spectrum

For neutrons, the number of neutrons in an energy interval scales as the width of the energy 

interval divided by the energy of the neutrons in that interval.

beta particle

An electron or positron emitted spontaneously at high velocity from the nuclei of certain 

radioactive elements. Most of the direct fission products are (negative) beta emitters. 

dose equivalent (H)

The product of the absorbed dose (D), the quality factor (Q), and any other modifying factors. 

The special unit is the rem, the International System (SI) unit is the sievert 

(1 sievert = 100 rem).

dose equivalent index

Maximum dose equivalent within the ICRU sphere centered at the point in space to which the 

quantity is assigned, HI. The outer 0.07-mm-thick shell is ignored. It is also called the 

unrestricted dose equivalent index.

deep dose equivalent index

Maximum dose equivalent in the ICRU sphere within a core radius of 14 cm. The sphere is 

centered at the point in space to which the quantity is assigned. This quantity is one of the two 

restricted dose equivalent indices.

DOELAP

The DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP) accredits DOE site dosimetry 

programs based on performance testing and onsite reviews performed on a two-year cycle.

dosimeter

A device used to measure the quantity of radiation received. A holder with radiation-absorbing 

elements (filters) and an insert with radiation-sensitive elements packaged to provide a record 

of absorbed dose or dose equivalent received by an individual.

effective dose equivalent, HE

The weighted average of the dose equivalents in certain organs or tissues of the body, HT, 

each weighted by an organ weighting factor, WT. The organ weighting factors were chosen by 

the ICRP to reflect the relative risk of death from cancer or occurrence of severe hereditary 

effects in the first generations after uniform whole body exposure.

exposure

In the technical sense, the ionization produced by gamma or X-rays in air (roentgen); in the 

generic sense, ionizing radiation applied to matter. 

exposure-to-dose-equivalent conversion factor for photons (Cx)

The ratio of exposure in air to the dose equivalent at a specified depth in a material of 

specified geometry and composition. The Cx factors are a function of photon energy, material 

geometry (e.g., sphere, slab, or torso), and material composition (e.g., tissue-equivalent 

plastic, soft tissue ignoring trace elements, or soft tissue including trace elements).
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 42 of 45

linear energy transfer (LET)

The lineal rate of local energy deposition by a charged particle.

minimum reporting level (MRL)

Based on a policy decision, the minimum dose level that is routinely recorded.

nonpenetrating dose

Dose from beta and lower energy photon radiation. Determined from the open window minus 

the shielded.

pencil dosimeters

A type of ionization chamber used by personnel to measure radiation dose. Also pencil, 

pocket dosimeter, pocket pencil, and pocket ionization chamber.

penetrating dose equivalent

Photon dose measured by shielded INEEL film or elements plus neutron dose equivalent. 

Essentially, personal dose equivalent HP (10).

personal dose equivalent, Hp(d)

Radiation quantity recommended for use as the operational quantity to be recorded for 

radiological protection purposes (ICRU 1993). The Personal Dose Equivalent is represented 

by Hp(d), where d identifies the depth (in mm) from the point of reference for dose in tissue. 

For weakly penetrating radiation of significance to skin dose, d = 0.07 mm and is noted as 

Hp(0.07). For penetrating radiation of significance to “whole-body” dose, d = 10 mm and is 

noted as Hp(10). 

polymethyl methacrolate

Scientific name for plastic commonly known as Lucite or Plexiglas.

redacted

To select item(s) to be visible for viewing or for publication by obscuring others.

shallow absorbed dose (Ds)

The absorbed dose at a depth of 0.07 mm in a material of specified geometry and 

composition.

shallow dose equivalent (Hs)

Dose equivalent at a depth of 0.07 mm in tissue (sum of penetrating and non-penetrating dose 

equivalent).

tissue rad

Absorbed dose in tissue. 
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 43 of 45

ATTACHMENT 6A

INTERPRETATION OF INEEL DOSIMETRY CODES

Table 6A-1. Area Codes.

02 EBR #1/Argonne 26 EBR II

12 EX (EBR Construction) 263 EBR II (Monthly)

265 EBRII (Quarterly)

Table 6A-2. Reasons Codes (Column 68-69).

Old Later Years Old Later Years

01 Regular Pull 11 Lost Pencil (or damaged) Visitor HP Request

02 H.P. Request Misc. Pull 12 H.P. Check

03 High Dosimeter 

Reading

Withdrawn 13 Late Pull

04 Recover Lost Badge Termination 14 Withdrawn Badge

05 Ring Reading 15 Termination

06 Wrist Badge Reading H.P. Request 16 Correction

07 Recovered Lost 

Badge & Withdrawn

17 Records Withdrawn

08 Late Pull for Not 

Available

18 Lost Film Reading

09 Miscellaneous Pull 19 X-Ray Exposure

10 Temporary Film Late Pull 

resolved by PEQ

20 Experiment Exposure

Table 6A-3: Irregularity Codes (Columns 70-71) .

01 Defective Film 12 Dropped in Canal or Reactor

02 Impossible to Read 13

03 Light Leak 14 Not in Areaa

04 Water Soaked 15

05 16

06 O.W. Shot with X-Ray 17 Old Lot Film

07 Lost in Processing 18 Stuck Film

08 Heat Exposure 19 Not Available

09 Recovered Lost Badge 20 Lost Badge

10 Contaminated Badge 21 No Film

11 Wore Two Badges at one Time

a) Individual did not wear the badge in the area during the badge-pull period, that he 

did not enter the area during that period.

Table 6A-4. Column 20 Codes.

“X” Master Card 6 Fast Neutron

1 Summary Card 7 Urinalysis

3 Sens. Beta-Gamma 8 Summary Card

4 Insen. Gamma 9 Summary Card

5 Slow Neutron 0 Total Body Results Card
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 44 of 45

ATTACHMENT 6B

OCCUPATIONAL EXTERNAL DOSE FOR MONITORED WORKERS

Table 6B-1. INEEL beta/photon dosimeter period of use, type, minimum reporting level, exchange 

frequency, and potential annual missed dose 

Period of usea Dosimeter

MRLb

(mrem)

Exchange 

frequency

Potential annual 

missed dose 

(mrem)c

August 1951–March 

1958

INEEL Initial Film 552 Dupont Film 30 Weekly (n=52) 780

Monthly (n=12) 180

Reactor Areas INEEL 558 Dupont Film 10 Weekly (n=52) 260

March 1958–

December 1966

INEEL Multi-Element Dupont 508 Film 10 Weekly (n=52) 260

Biweekly (n=26) 130

Monthly (n=12) 60

December 1966–

February 1974

INEEL Multi-Element Dupont 508 Film 10 Weekly (n=52) 260

Biweekly (n=26) 130

Monthly (n=12) 60

INEEL LiF TLD 15 Quarterly (n=4) 30

Semi-ann (n=2) 15

Annual (n=1) 7.5

February 1974–May 

1975d INEEL Atlas TLD LiF in Teflon 30 Monthly (n=12) 180

Quarterly (n=4) 60

Semi-ann(n=2) 30

Annual (n=1) 15

December 1974–

December 1985d INEEL Harshaw Two-chip TLD 15 Monthly (n=12) 90

Quarterly (n=4) 30

Annual (n=1) 7.5

January 1986–present INEEL Panasonic Four-chip TLD 15e Monthly (n=12) 90

Quarterly (n=4) 30

10e Monthly (n=12) 60

Quarterly (n=4) 20

a. For many years, INEEL workers had a dosimeter assigned to each operating area where they worked, or were issued 

visitor dosimetry. All Area dosimetry was issued beginning in January 2000.

b. Minimum reporting levels (MRL) are based on Cipperley (1958), Cipperley (1968), Cusimano (1963), Kalbeitzer (1983), 

Gesell (1986), Gesell (1992), Perry et al. (1993), and Ruhter (2002).

c. Maximum annual missed dose calculated using N × MRL/2 from NIOSH (2002).

d. Argonne began using the Harshaw in May 1975.

e. The MRL was 15 mrem from January 1, 1986, to July 7 1986, 10 mrem from July 7, 1986 to about September 1989, and 

15 mrem until 1993 when it returned to 10 mrem.

Table 6B-2. Neutron dosimeter type, period of use, exchange frequency, laboratory 

minimum detectable limit, and potential annual missed dose.

Dosimeter Period

Exchange 

frequency

Laboratory 

MRL (mrem)

Potential annual 

missed dose (mrem)

NTA film 1951-1958 Weekly 14 364

NTA film 1959–

September 1976

Weekly 20 520

Biweekly 20 260

Monthly 20 120

TLD October 1976–

present

Biweekly 15 195

Monthly 15 90

Quarterly 15 30
Effective Date: 09/30/2004 Revision No.: 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-TKBS-0026-6 Page 45 of 45

Table 6B-3. Spectrum Correction for Measured and Missed Neutron Dose.

Period Dosimeter Work Location Correction

1951-Sept 1976 NTA TREAT or ZPPR 2

All other 1.25

October 1976-present Albedo TLD All 1

Table 6B-4. Recommended IREP neutron energy fractions and correction factors for INEEL facilities.

Process Description Operations

Neutron 

energy

Default 

dose 

(%)

Ambient 

dose equiv/

dose equiv

Net 

correction 

factor

Instrument 

calibration

Alpha Be source 

calibrations

1951 1993 0.1-2 MeV 20% 1.4 0.28

Cf-252 source calibrations 1993 2003 2-20 MeV 80% 1.1 0.88

Neutron source 

based research

2003 0.1-2 MeV 20% 1.4 0.28

2-20 MeV 80% 1.1 0.88

MTR, ZPPR, and 

TREAT reactors

Experiment floor and 

adjacent rooms during 

operation

1953 1970 < 10 keV 20% 1 0.20

10 -100 keV 5% 1.1 0.06

0.1-2 MeV 50% 1.4 0.7

2-20 MeV 25% 1.1 0.28