ORAU Team

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project

Technical Information Bulletin for a Standard Complex-Wide 

Conversion/Correction Factor for Overestimating External Doses 

Measured with Thermoluminescent Dosimeter 

Document Number:

ORAUT-OTIB-0008

Effective Date:11/07/2003

Revision No.: 00

Controlled Copy No.: ________

Page 1 of 20

Subject Experts: Jack Fix, Don Stewart

Approval: Signature on File Date: 11/06/2003

Judson L. Kenoyer, Task 3 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Date: 11/06/2003

Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Date: 11/07/2003 James W. Neton, OCAS Health Science Administrator

Supersedes:

None

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REV. 

NO. DESCRIPTION

Draft 10/17/2003 00-A New document to establish Technical Information 

Bulletin for Overestimating External Doses Measured

with Thermoluminescent Dosimeter. Initiated by Jack 

Fix.

Draft 10/30/2003 00-B Draft revision to incorporate NIOSH and official internal 

review comments. Initiated by Jack Fix.

11/07/2003 11/07/2003 00 First approved issue. Initiated by Jack Fix.
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 2 of 20

A Standard Complex-Wide Conversion/Correction Factor for Overestimating External Doses 

Measured with Thermoluminescent Dosimeters 

Foreword

The Manhattan Engineering District, and, later, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) had early 

responsibility for processing nuclear weapons material. The AEC was superceded in this function 

(briefly) by the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA), then the Department of Energy 

(DOE). This document presents assumptions for the latter period, when the AEC and DOE were the 

responsible agencies. For the purposes of this document the term ‘DOE’ is used as a term of 

convenience to mean the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies.

Essentially all DOE sites followed a similar evolution in external dosimetry technology. Early twoelement film dosimeters, followed by multi-element film dosimeter designs, gave way in the 1970’s 

and 1980’s to the use of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) for personnel dose monitoring. 

Personnel dosimetry programs under the DOE have been accredited under the DOE Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (DOELAP) since the latter 1980s (DOE 1986). DOELAP-accredited dosimetry 

programs are considered accurate for purposes of dose reconstruction under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). 

The present document is intended to provide assumptions to apply to a limited set of cases for 

specific sites only during delimited periods of applicability. Specifically, this technical information 

bulletin (TIB) presents external radiation dose assumptions that may be applied to dose 

reconstructions involving cases for which dose estimates may be prepared based solely on recorded 

deep and/or shallow dose that incorporate dose monitoring information only from years when 

monitoring was performed with TLDs.

It is possible to formulate reasonable, overestimating complex-wide assumptions for interpreting 

recorded photon dose due to the high degree of standardization of the DOE’s TLD-based dosimetry 

programs; the methodology described below will generate a reasonable overestimate of external 

radiation dose for cases that are likely non-compensable. In accordance with the process efficiencies 

discussed in 42 CFR 82, use of an overestimated dose allows the expeditious processing of likely

non-compensable cases. 
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 3 of 20

1.0 Introduction

The objectives of this document are: 1) to discuss the degree of standardization of DOE 

thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) measurements and 2) to develop a standard correction 

factor that will overestimate dose. Information in this document examines the performance of 

TLD dosimeters, application of the standard correction factor to overestimate doses, and to 

address uncertainties from the following sources.

 Variation in workplace photon radiation fields

 Variation in exposure geometries

 Variation in organ of concern, and the range of values for organ dose conversion factors 

presented in the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) OCAS-IG001, ‘External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline’ (NIOSH 2002). 

While accounting for these uncertainties, the method proposed here will take into account 

similarities among sites complex wide in the following attributes.

 Similar dose response performance by photon energies among the TLDs used

 Similar minimum detection levels (MDL)

 A standard exchange frequency

A single conversion/correction factor that takes a large number of programs and features into 

account must admit a great deal of error into any estimate that it modifies. This error is 

permissible under this program, so long as the error is in the claimant’s favor. Specifically, any 

error must overestimate rather than reduce the claimant’s probability of causation. 

For this reason, the conversion/correction factor proposed here overestimates any given 

claimant’s dose. As the intent is to overestimate the dose to take advantage of an efficiency 

progress, this methodology proposed here is useful only for likely non-compensable claims. 

The assumptions here will be inappropriate for certain organs outside the considered range of 

organ dose conversion factors. For this reason cancers of skin and eye, and cases requiring 

dose reconstruction to the bone surface are not to be prepared using the claimant-favorable 

overestimates resulting from this document. These assumptions also exclude assignment of 

shallow doses, which precludes dose reconstruction for cancers to the skin, testes (unless used 

as a surrogate for another organ), or breast.

2.0 Dosimetry Development and Basis of Comparison

2.1 Dosimetry Development

 

Radiation response characteristics of the dosimetry technology for respective DOE sites are 

highly similar. The majority of Manhattan Engineering District (MED) sites followed a similar 

evolution in dosimetry technology from the two-element film dosimeter design developed in 1944 

(Pardue et al), the use of multi-element film dosimeter designs and later, all sites implemented 

thermoluminescent dosimetry methods because of the ease of automation and nearly tissueequivalent radiation response to photon radiation. The judgment in this TIB is that equivalent 

thermoluminescent dosimetry technology was used for several of the DOE sites evaluated in this 

analysis as shown in Table 2-1.
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 4 of 20

Table 2-1. MED/AEC/DOE Sites with Equivalent 

Beta/Photon Dosimetry Capabilities

Site

Thermoluminescent Dosimeter

Year of First Use

Site-Specific Commercial

Fernald n.a. 1985

Hanford 1972 1995

Idaho National Environmental and 

Engineering Laboratory (INEEL)

1966 1986

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) 1978 1999

Mound n.a. 1978

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 1976 1988

Pantex 1973 1980

Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) 1969 1983

Savannah River Site (SRS) 1970 1982

Y-12 1980 1988

Classification of equivalency for other sites not listed in Table 2-1 was either not evaluated or 

could not be done without additional information regarding specific dosimeter design features, 

etc., as noted in Attachment A.

Later TLD technologies that comply with the DOELAP accreditation are considered to be

equivalent to Hp(10). Some doses under earlier TLD programs may require adjustments to 

ensure that dose is not underestimated. Any correction factor applied will need to be of 

sufficient magnitude to compensate for or overestimate the uncertainty contribution from the 

variation of site-specific administrative practices to assign and exchange dosimeters, conduct 

quality control, calculate and record dose for individual workers, etc., and to account for the 

variation of radiation fields from site to site.

A survey of dosimetry technology at selected DOE sites was done to evaluate the respective site 

dosimetry systems used historically to measure dose from beta and photon radiation. The 

results of this survey are presented in Attachment A. 

2.2 Basis of Comparison

Historically, since the initiation of the MED in the early 1940s, various radiation dose concepts 

and quantities have been used to measure and record occupational dose. A basis of 

comparison for reconstruction of dose is the Personal Dose Equivalent, Hp(d), where d identifies 

the depth (in mm) and represents 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). 

Both Hp(0.07) and Hp(10) are the radiation quantities recommended for use as the operational 

quantity to be recorded for radiological protection purposes by the International Commission on 

Radiological Units and Measurements (ICRU 1993). In addition, Hp(0.07) and Hp(10) are the 

radiation quantities used in the DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP) used to 

accredit DOE personnel dosimetry systems since the 1980s (DOE 1986). The International 

Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Three Country Combined Study (Fix et al 1997a) and 

IARC Collaborative Study (Thierry-Chef et al 2002) selected Hp(10) as the quantity to assess 
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 5 of 20

error in historical recorded “whole body” dose for workers in the IARC nuclear worker 

epidemiologic studies. 

3.0 Dose Reconstruction Parameters

Examinations of the beta and photon (x-ray, gamma ray) radiation type, energy and geometry of 

exposure in the workplace, and the characteristics of the respective dosimeter response, 

respectively, are relevant to the assessment of bias and uncertainty of the original recorded 

dose in relation to the radiation quantity Hp(10). The bias and uncertainty for the current DOE 

dosimetry systems is well documented for Hp(0.07) and Hp(10) under the DOELAP. The 

performance of current dosimeters can be compared with performance characteristics of 

historical dosimetry systems in the same, or highly similar, facilities or workplaces. 

Overall, accuracy and precision of the original recorded individual worker doses and their 

comparability to be considered in using NIOSH (2002) guidelines depend on (Fix et al 1997b):

• Dosimetry technology includes the physical capabilities of the dosimetry system, such as 

the response to different types and energies of radiation, in particular in mixed radiation 

fields.

• Calibration of the respective monitoring systems and similarity of the methods of 

calibration to sources of exposure in the workplace.

• Workplace radiation fields at each site/facility that may include mixed types of radiation, 

variations in exposure geometries, environmental conditions.

• Administrative practices adopted by each site to calculate and record personnel dose 

based on technical, administrative, and statutory compliance considerations.

Each of these dependent factors must be evaluated. For cases requiring a detailed dose 

estimate, these evaluations must be based upon an analysis of site-specific information which is 

then applied to formulate the best possible dose estimate. For likely non-compensable cases, 

when a less-detailed, overestimating dose estimate is appropriate, a correction factor that 

modifies recorded deep dose to incorporate variance across these attributes may be used. 

Such a generic, overestimating correction/conversion factor is the goal of the present document. 

3.1 Dosimetry Technology

The history of implementation of TLD-based external dosimetry programs is shown in Table 3-1 

for Hanford, INEEL, ORNL and SRS. 

The adequacy of the TLD dosimetry methods in the later days to accurately measure radiation 

dose is determined from response characteristics of the dosimetry technology according to the 

radiation type, energy, exposure geometry, etc., as described in later sections. The dosimeter 

exchange frequency at the respective sites was gradually lengthened, generally corresponding 

to the time period of the regulatory dose controls (GE 1954). 

Table 3-1. Chronology of DOE Site Implementation of TLD-Based Personnel Dosimetry 

Systems
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 6 of 20

Facility

Period

Type

DOELAP 

Accredited

1

start end

Fernald 85 92 Commercial Panasonic TLD System 1990

Hanford 72 94 Hanford TLD System 1988

95 - Commercial Harshaw TLD System

Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (LANL)

78 98 LANL TLD System 1987

99 Commercial Harshaw TLD System

Mound 78- Commercial Harshaw TLD System

Nevada Test Site (NTS) 79 86 NTS TLD System

87 - Commercial Panasonic TLD System

Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory (ORNL)

75 80 ORNL TLD System 1989

81 88 UCCND TLD System

89 - Commercial Harshaw TLD System

Pantex Commercial Panasonic TLD System

Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) 69 82 RFP TLD System 1991

83 Commercial Panasonic TLD System

Savannah River Site 

(SRS)

70 81 SRS TLD System 1987

81 - Commercial Panasonic TLD System

Y-12 80 88 UCCND TLD System 1989

89 Commercial Harshaw TLD System

3.1.1 Potential Missed Dose. A consideration in the analysis of this TIB concerns the 

estimation of missed dose based on OCAS-IG-001 guidance (NIOSH 2002). Table 3-2 

summarizes information concerning the estimated maximum potential missed dose for 

the respective personnel beta/photon dosimeter type, exchange frequency and Minimum 

Detection Level (MDL) based on selected information from Attachment A. The 

respective MDLs for current TLD systems are identified in the respective site external 

dosimetry documentation using the DOELAP laboratory testing protocol (DOE 1986). 

 

1 Year of first successful DOELAP performance testing listed.
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 7 of 20

Table 3-2. Maximum Annual Potential Missed Dose.

Dosimeter Type Exchange 

Frequency

Laboratory 

MDL (rem)

2

Max. Annual 

Missed Dose

(rem)

3

Site-specific TLDs Monthly (n=12) 0.02 0.24

Quarterly (n=4) 0.02 0.08

Commercial TLDs Monthly (n=12) 0.01 0.12

Quarterly (n=4) 0.01 0.04

3.1.2. Site Specific Thermoluminescent Dosimeter. The respective DOE sites proceeded to 

implement thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) capabilities. TLD systems replaced the 

multi-element film dosimeters at essentially all of the respective sites as noted in 

Attachment A. The TLD systems used at DOE sites had nearly tissue-equivalent 

response characteristics. This is particularly evident in comparison with earlier film 

dosimeter response characteristics. Figure 3-1 illustrates the energy dependence of the 

lithium fluoride (i.e., Harshaw) and lithium borate (i.e., Panasonic) based 

thermoluminescent dosimeters in comparison with Hp(10). This is representative of the 

response characteristics for the TLD systems presented in Attachment A.

3.1.3 Commercial TLD. As noted in Attachment A, the respective DOE sites proceeded to 

implement commercial dosimetry systems that were generally highly comparable in 

performance with the site-specific TLD systems and with each other. The respective 

DOE site-specific and commercial TLD systems became accredited under DOELAP 

beginning in the latter 1980s. These systems have been routinely reaccredited during 

subsequent, typically two-year, accreditation cycles. 

0.1

1

10

10 100 1000

Photon Energy, keV

Relative Response

lithium fluoride

lithim borate

Hp(10)

Figure 3-1. Photon Energy Dependence in comparison with Hp(10) (adopted from 

Becker 1973).

 

2 Estimated MDLs based on site practice. Dose values are often recorded at levels less-than the MDL.

3 Maximum annual missed dose (OCAS-IG-001)
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 8 of 20

3.2 Calibration

The international adoption of the Roentgen as a measure of the radiation quantity Exposure in 

1928 provided a means to compare national standards laboratory capabilities to measure 

Exposure from photon radiation and a means to standardize a dosimeter response to beta 

radiation (i.e., in reference to the response from radium or x-rays). Agreement between the 

standard chambers of several national laboratories to selected photon beams within ±1% was 

established in 1931 (Hine and Brownell 1956). MED site calibration capabilities were based on 

the national standards laboratories and these site capabilities were used to calibrate dosimetry 

systems, in the beginning, with 226Ra gamma radiation. As such, the basic calibration of the 

respective DOE dosimetry systems to the higher energy photons represented by 226Ra is likely 

quite good. Parker (1945) demonstrated the basic capability for the Metallurgical Laboratory, 

ORNL and Hanford sites to calibrate their dosimetry systems to 226Ra and this is indicative of the 

basic capability for sites to calibrate their dosimetry systems to higher energy photon radiation. 

The potential error in recorded dose is dependent not only on the higher energy photon 

response of the dosimetry technology but also on response characteristics to each radiation 

type, energy, and geometry that is represented in the workplace. The similarity between the 

radiation fields used for calibration and that present in the workplace is a significant issue. The 

potential error is much greater for dosimeters with significant variations in response such as for 

the film dosimeter response to low energy photon radiation. DOE sites required significant effort 

to assure adequate capabilities. An example of a calibration protocol is presented for Hanford 

as follows:

Hanford dosimeters were originally calibrated using 226Ra gamma, Uranium beta, and 80 

keV x-rays (HEW 1946). The uranium calibration data was used to routinely evaluate the 

nonpenetrating dose from the open window response of Hanford dosimeters beginning in 

1950 (Wilson 1987). Routine irradiation in-air (i.e., no phantom) of calibration film was done 

for each batch of film. This included ten exposure levels from 100 to 30,000 mR to 226Ra 

gamma radiation, seven exposure levels from 100 to 5,000 mrads to Uranium beta radiation 

and 100 to 1,000 mR from 80 keV x-ray radiation (HEW 1946). Calibration films were 

processed with all personnel dosimeters. In the early 1950s, Hanford k-fluorescent x-ray 

capabilities were used to develop dosimeter response characteristics for the lower energy

photon fields in plutonium facilities (Wilson 1987; Fix et al 1994, 1982, 1981; Wilson et al 

1990) describe technical characteristics of Hanford recorded dose to the Hp(10) dose based 

on studies made for Hanford’s participate in the DOELAP performance testing formally 

required in the latter 1980s (DOE 1986). Fix et al (1982) concluded that a ten percent 

decrease would result in routine Hanford dose results with the on-phantom calibrations for 

137Cs photon radiation. This effect is partially compensated by the 3% increase in the 

calculated dose resulting from use of the 137Cs dose to exposure conversion factor (Fix et al 

1982: Study 2). 

3.3 Dosimeter Performance Studies

Historically, intercomparison studies of dosimeter capabilities using laboratory and workplace 

irradiations were often done. Several of the earlier intercomparison studies involving the 

Hanford dosimeters in laboratory and workplace exposures are summarized in Wilson et al 

(1990, Table 3-4 summarizes the results for Hanford TLDs). In addition, many sites use 

extensive internal control (i.e., blank or background and irradiated), calibration and audit 
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 9 of 20

dosimeters that were processed with the personnel dosimeters. The results of these dosimeters 

were routinely used to assess the acceptability of overall performance. In addition, several sites 

routinely evaluated PIC and dosimeter estimated dose, and where there were inconsistencies to 

conduct a written evaluation. 

In recent years, further studies of early dosimeter performance compared to Hp(10) have been 

made because of its use in worker health effect studies. The International Agency for Research 

on Cancer (IARC) conducted a dosimeter intercomparison study to higher-energy (i.e., >100 

keV) photons of ten commonly used historical dosimetry systems used throughout the world 

(Thierry-chef et al 2002). The IARC Study considered that exposure to dosimeters worn by 

workers could be characterized as anterior-posterior, rotational and isotropic irradiation 

geometries, or as a combination thereof. Dosimeter response to selected photon energies was 

measured using two phantoms. These phantoms were used to simulate the effect of the 

worker’s body on the measured dosimeter response. The first phantom was the ISO 

(International Standards Organization) water-filled slab phantom, which is used for dosimeter 

calibration and performance testing. The second phantom was an anthropomorphic Alderson 

Rando Phantom. This phantom is constructed from a natural human skeleton cast inside 

material that has a tissue equivalent response. Table 3-3 shows results for the DOE Savannah 

River Site (SRS) commercial thermoluminescent dosimeter and this is expected to be 

representative of other DOE TLD systems. Table 3-4 summarizes results for the Hanford TLD 

system during 1972-83 and 1984-1994 based on information in Fix et al (1994). 

Table 3-3. IARC Testing Results for US beta/photon Dosimeters.4

Geometry Phantom

118 keV 208 keV 662 keV

Mean SD/ 

Mean

Mean SD/ 

Mean

Mean SD/ 

Mean

US-22 (SRS Multi-Element Thermoluminescent Dosimeter)

A-P ) Slab 0.9 4.4 0.9 3.9 0.9 3.5

A-P ) Anthropomorphic 0.8 3.1 0.9 2.1 0.9 3.9

Rotational Anthropomorphic 1.1 3.1 1.2 1.5 1.0 4.1

Isotropic ) Anthropomorphic 0.9 0.3 1.0 2.5 0.9 1.6

 

Table 3-4. Testing Results for TLD Dosimeters for Energy and Angular Response.

 4,5

 

Beam Energy 

(keV)

1972-83 1984-94

AP Rotational AP Rotational

70 (M150 X-ray) 1.05 (1.3) 1.17 (1.5) 0.95 (1.3) 1.06 (1.5)

120 (H150 X-ray) 0.96 (1.2) 1.14 (1.3) 0.87 (1.2) 1.03 (1.3)

662 (137Cs) 1.1 (1.2) 1.22 (1.3) 1.0 (1.2) 1.11 (1.3)

4.0 Site-Specific Information

Site-specific information is necessary to develop detailed dose estimates. This is done to

evaluate the performance of the dosimetry technology in the actual workplace radiation fields 

and the site-specific administrative practices regarding use of the dosimeters and practices. 

 

4 Ratio of recorded dose to Hp(10) 5 Fix et al, 1994, TLD data only presented. Bias factor shown with estimated 95% uncertainty factor in 

parenthesis. Summary data for M150 calculated in the same manner as presented in Fix et al for H150 and 

137Cs with an increased 95% uncertainty factor as shown in the Table..
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 10 of 20

This establishes a basis to calculate and record occupational dose for individual workers. For 

likely non-compensable cases, however, a standard correction factor may be applied that 

overestimates dose to account for site-specific variations. Such a complex-wide correction 

factor is developed in section 5.0, below. 

4.1 Workplace Radiation Fields

Common beta/photon personnel dosimeter parameters important to Hp(10) performance in the 

workplace are summarized in Table 4-1. Based on the energy response characteristics, DOE 

thermoluminescent dosimeters are expected to reasonably measure the Hp(10) dose under 

workplace radiation fields for long-term workers with many dosimeter results since this tends to 

average the dosimeter response for extremes in workplace exposure geometries and radiation 

fields. Adjustments to dose measured by TLDs is not recommended with the exception that the 

biases presented in Table 4-1 are of sufficient concern to utilize a standard 

correction/conversion factor, for claimant favorable dose assignment, discussed in Section 5. 
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 11 of 20

Table 4-1.

Common Workplace Photon Dosimeter Hp(10) Performance6

Parameter Description Workplace Bias7

Exposure 

Geometry

Dosimeter systems 

commonly calibrated 

using anteriorposterior (A-P) 

laboratory irradiations.

Recorded dose of record likely too low since 

dosimeter response is often lower at angles 

other than A-P in comparison with Hp(10) for

an A-P exposure geometry for the common 

practice to use A-P dosimeter calibrations. 

Effect is highly dependent upon radiation type 

and energy. 

Missed Dose

Doses less than 

Minimum Detection 

Level recorded as 

zero dose.

Recorded dose of record likely too low.

Environmental 

Effects Workplace heat, 

humidity, etc., fades 

dosimeter signal.

Recorded dose of record likely too low.

5.0 Complex-Wide Standard Overestimating Correction/Conversion Factor

5.1 Correction/Conversion Factor

A standard conversion factor is promulgated here that, with a single value, increases the 

assigned dose to claimants with the objective to over-estimate the actual Hp(10) dose. The use 

of this factor is intended to assure claimant favorable assigned dose for potential site-specific 

exposure conditions and calibration practices that, without correction, may have resulted in an 

underestimated dose. A uniform procedure for applying missed dose is proposed that is realistic 

and efficient for examining pertinent claims. 

Site-specific attributes correction factor: The simplest possible way to approach these cases 

involves a single standard correction/conversion factor that overestimates the variance among 

sites to provide a for doses measured with TLDs. This factor will take into account, and 

overestimate, corrections that may be required to convert the dose as measured from site to site 

to a standard value of Hp(10). Some values of factors that would correct for variations in 

calibration and site-specific workplace conditions are listed in the table below, developed from 

the foregoing. 

 

6 Judgment based on common dosimeter response characteristics and workplace radiation fields. 7 Recorded dose compared to Hp(10).
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 12 of 20

Table 5-1. Consolidated Results for Geometry and Calibration Method

(from Tables 3-3 and 3-4)

Irradiation Geometry/Phantom

Ratio of Reported Dose to Given 

Hp(10) by Photon Energy in keV8

70 118,9

12010

208 662

A-P Slab 1.1 1.1 1.1

A-P, 72-83 Anthropomorphic 1.05 0.96 1.1

A-P, 84-94 Anthropomorphic 0.95 0.87 1.0

Rotational Anthropomorphic 1.1 1.2 1.0

Rot, 72-83 Anthropomorphic 1.17 1.14 1.22

Rot, 84-94 Anthropomorphic 1.06 1.03 1.11

Isotropic Anthropomorphic 0.9 1.0 0.9

Average 1.06 1.01 1.1 1.06

As can be seen, correction of each of these values would require application of factors with a 

value over the range of 0.87 to 1.22. The highest 95% uncertainty factors presented in Fix et al 

(1994) were 1.3, or for the range in reported dose for the beams greater than 100 keV examined 

compared to Hp(10) of 0.7 (0.87/1.3) to 1.6 (1.22 * 1.3). There is interest in lower photon 

energies and Fix et al show measurements for a 70 keV filtered x-ray beam. This information 

was used with an increased 95% uncertainty factor of 1.5 as shown in Table 3-1. This increases 

the range, in comparison to Hp(10) from 0.58 (0.87/1.5) to 1.83 (1.22 * 1.5). 

Standard overestimating organ dose conversion factor: The second source of variation in the 

organ dose assigned based on the recorded deep dose value for TLDs is the individual organ 

dose conversion factor. The values of the maximum photon Hp(10)-to-organ dose conversion 

factor (DCFmax), listed in the External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guide (NIOSH 

2002)), were evaluated across the three energy ranges for all organs excluding the eye, skin, 

testes, breast, and bone surface. The value of the maximum DCF varies from a low of 0.154 to 

a maximum of 1.066 (for photons of energies > 250 keV to the thyroid). A value of 1.100, 

rounded for simplicity, captures the few values greater than unity while overestimating the organ 

dose relative to the majority of the listed DCFs. 

Standard Overestimating Correction/Conversion Factor: multiplying the two proposed factors 

above results in a standard combined correction and conversion factor of 2.01 for the 95% 

uncertainty, or to account for greater than 95% uncertainty and simplicity, a factor of 2.00. This 

single value can be applied to all deep doses reported by DOE sites to arrive at a claimantfavorable estimate of the dose to any organ excluding the eye, skin and bone surface. 

Additional doses from reported shallow dose would need to be evaluated separately, as 

applicable, depending on the organ of interest. 

 

8 Values have been modified from response ratios (in parentheses) to multiplicative correction factors. 

9 IARC, (Thierry-Chef, 2002) 10 Wilson, et al., 1990
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 13 of 20

Standard value for missed dose: The consistency of inter-site comparison of levels of detection 

suggests a standard value for missed dose of 0.020 rem per dosimeter reading (see Section 

3.1.1) It should be noted that this factor is based on laboratory testing, and it is not known how 

this may be reflected in MDLs for dosimeters in use in the field. To ensure a claimant-favorable 

approach, the assumed value for missed dose is increased to 0.030 rem in the absence of sitespecific information. This value is twice the value for missed dose for the site-specific TLDs in 

use at the Savannah River Site, and six times the missed dose for the DOELAP-approved TLDs; 

the value is 50% greater than the missed dose for Hanford site-specific TLDs, and three times 

the value for missed dose with Hanford DOELAP-approved TLDs. The claimant-favorability in 

this overestimate is intended to offset the uncertainty in missed dose for early TLDs, as 

discussed in section 3.1.1, above, when the DOELAP testing protocol was not in place. It 

should be noted that personnel dosimeter performance testing was conducted for many years 

prior to DOELAP (Roberson et al 1983, Unruh et al 1967 and Gorson et al 1965) and was the 

subject of an AEC notice in 1963 (AEC 1963). Additional claimant-favorability may be applied at 

the discretion of the dose reconstructor by: 1) applying the missed dose to all badge cycles in 

addition to the recorded value, and 2) not applying the ‘LOD/2’ approach to missed dose 

described in the OCAS-IG-001 (NIOSH 2002).

Standard assumption for dosimeter exchange frequency: The transition of the badge exchange 

frequency to a monthly exchange frequency of most sites is known (see Attachment A). As can 

be seen, most sites transitioned to a standard monthly exchange frequency during the period of 

using TLDs. Thus, for the period of applicability of the assumptions in this TIB, badge exchange 

frequencies are assumed to be monthly although the actual exchange period should be 

considered in Attachment A, the site profile or the site-specific Technical Basis Document. For 

dose estimates prepared using these assumptions, claimant-favorability is gained by neglecting 

quarterly exchange frequencies. 

5.2 Application of the Standard Assumptions proposed in the TIB. 

Standard values for the correction factors proposed above are summarized in table 5-2 below. 

These values are applied based upon the period of applicability for the site in question from the 

date of first use of TLDs through the DOELAP-accredited periods, when Hp(10) equivalency is 

expected. The dates reproduced in Table 5-3 reflect the dates after which the assumptions in 

this TIB may be applied. The entries for INEEL and Rocky Flats are post the date of TLD first 

use. This is due to the potential unreliability of correction factors prior to 1970. As indicated in 

Attachment A, most sites implemented TLD in the 1970s. The response characteristics of early 

TLDs (prior to 1970) requires further evaluation and is therefore excluded.

Table 5-2. Standard Overestimating Correction/Conversion (C/C) Factor

And Standard Missed Dose for TLDs.

Period of 

Applicability

(by site)

Missed 

Dose Per 

Cycle (rem) 

Assumed 

Exchange 

Frequency

Standard 

Overestimating 

C/C Factor

From Table 5-3 0.03 Monthly 2

Table 5-3. Periods of Applicability for These Assumptions, by Site
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 14 of 20

Site

Apply Assumptions From 

Listed Year

(Year of First Use of TLDs)

Fernald 1985

Hanford 1972

INEEL 1970

LANL 1978

Mound 1978

Nevada Test Site 1979

ORNL 1975

Pantex 1973

RFP 1971

SRS 1970

Y-12 1980
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 15 of 20

6.0 References

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1963. Notice Regarding Need for Establishment of Film 

Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory. Federal Register 63, page 9411, September 1963.

Becker, Klaus, 1973. Solid State Dosimetry. CRC Press, Cleveland OH.

Department of Energy (DOE). 1986. Department of Energy Standard for the Performance 

Testing of Personnel Dosimetry Systems. DOE/EH-0027. US Department of Energy, 

Washington, D.C.

Fix, JJ, L. Salmon, G. Cowper and E. Cardis. 1997a. A Retrospective Evaluation of the 

Dosimetry Employed in an International Combined Epidemiologic Study. Radia. Prot. 

Dosi. 74, 39-53.

Fix, J.J., R.H. Wilson and W.V. Baumgartner. 1997b. Retrospective Assessment of 

Personnel Neutron Dosimetry for Workers at the Hanford Site. PNNL-11196, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.

Fix, J. J, E. S. Gilbert and W. V. Baumgartner. 1994. An Assessment of Bias and Uncertainty 

in Recorded Dose from External Sources of Radiation for Workers at the Hanford Site. 

PNL-10066, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.

Fix, J. J., J. M. Hobbs, P. L. Roberson, D. C. Haggard, K. L. Holbrook, M. R. Thorson, F. M. 

Cummings. 1982. Hanford Personnel Dosimeter Supporting Studies FY-1981. PNL3736. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Fix, J. J., G. W. R. Endres, F. M. Cummings, J. M. Aldrich, M. R. Thorson, R. L. Kathren. 

1981. Hanford Personnel Dosimeter Supporting Studies FY-1980. PNL-3536, Pacific 

Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

General Electric (GE). 1954. Radiation Protection Standards. Dated 12/15/54. HW-25457. 

General Electric, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA.

Gorson, R.O., N. Suntharalingam, and J.W. Thomas. 1965. Results of a Film-Badge 

Reliability Study. Radiology, Vol 84. pp 333-346, February 1965.

Hanford Engineering Works (HEW). Manual of Standard Procedures: Personnel Meters, Part 

16. Film Calibration and Batch Assignments. May 1, 1946. Medical Department, 

Health Instrument Section.

Hine, Gerald J. and Gordon L. Brownell. 1956. Radiation Dosimetry. Academic Press, New 

York, NY (p 506).

International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). 1993. Quantities 

and Units in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, ICRU Report No. 51. ICRU. Bethesda, 

Maryland

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2002. External Dose 

Reconstruction Implementation Guidelines Rev 1, OCAS-IG-001, National Institute of 
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 16 of 20

Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, 

Cincinnati, OH

Pardue, L. A., N. Goldstein and E. O. Wollan. 1944. Photographic Film As a Pocket Radiation 

Dosimeter. CH-1553-A-2223, Metallurgical Laboratory, Chicago, IL. 

Parker, H. M. 1945. Comparison of Badge Film Readings at the Metallurgical Laboratories, 

Clinton Laboratories and the Hanford Engineering Works. 7-3090, Hanford Atomic 

Products Operation, Richland, WA.

Roberson, P.L., K.L. Holbrook, R.C. Yoder, R.A. Fox, R. T. Hadley, b.T. Hogan and C.D. 

Hooker. 1983. Performance Comparisons of Selected Personnel Dosimetry Systems 

in Use at Department of Energy Facilities. PNL-3983. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 

Richland, WA.

Taulbee, T.D., Electronic communication, ‘RE: TIB on TLDs’, October 29, 2003. 

Taylor, G. A., Crase, K. W., LaBone Thomas R. and Wilkie, W. H., (1995) A History of 

Personnel Radiation Dosimetry at the Savannah River Site, WSRC-RP-95-234, 

Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina.

Thierry-Chef, I., F. Pernicka, M. Marshall, E. Cardis and P. Andreo. 2002. Study of a 

Selection of 10 Historical Types of Dosemeter: Variation of the Response to Hp(10) 

with Photon Energy and Geometry of Exposure. Radiat Prot Dos, 102(2): 101-113.

Unruh, C. M., H.V. Larson, T.M. Beetle and A.R. Keene. 1967. The Establishment and 

Utilization of Film Dosimeter Performance Criteria. BNWL-542. Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory, Richland, WA.

Wilson, R.H. 1987. Historical Review of Personnel Dosimetry Development and its Use in 

Radiation Protection Programs at Hanford: 1944 Through 1989. PNL-6125, Pacific 

Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. 

Wilson, R.H., J.J. Fix, W. V. Baumgartner, and L. L. Nichols. 1990. Description and 

Evaluation of the Hanford Personnel Dosimeter Program From 1944 Through 1989. 

PNL-7447. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 17 of 20

Attachment A

MED/AEC/DOE Site Beta/Photon Dosimeter Characteristics

Years Dosimeter Filters

MDL

(mSv)

Routine

Exchange

Fernald

52- Two-Element Film Dosimeter OW,

Ag 1mm

0.4 Weekly

Late 53 or 

early 54

ORNL Two Element Film 

Dosimeter

Biweekly

59-85 Monthly

85 - 92 Commercial Panasonic TLD Monthly

Quarterly

Hanford

44 Pocket ionization chamber 0.05 Daily

44 - 54 Two Element Film Badge OW,Ag 1mm 0.4 Weekly

55 - 56 Two-Element Film Badge " 0.4 Biweekly

57 - 62 Multi-Film Badge OW,Al, Ag 0.4 Biweekly

62 - 63 Multi-Element Film Badge OW,Fe, Ta 0.4 Monthly

63 - 72 Multi-Element Film Badge " 0.2 Monthly

72 - 77 Hanford 5-chip TLD Al. Cd, Sn, plastic 0.2 Monthly

78 - 83 Hanford 4-chip TLD Al. Cd, Sn, plastic 0.2 Monthly

84 - 94 Hanford 5-chip TLD

(1989 - DOELAP Accredited)

Al. Cd, Sn, plastic 0.2 Monthly

95 - ongoing Commercial Harshaw TLD Teflon Hemispherical 

Button, Cu, Plastic, OW

0.1 Quarterly

Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory (INEEL)

51 - 58 Film Badge OW,Cd 1 mm 0.5

59 - 68 Film Badge OW,multiple filters 0.3

69 - INEEL TLD Multiple filters 0.15

66-85 Two Chips OW,Al (203 mg/cm2),

Cd (950 mg/cm2) 

86 Panasonic 814/808 Al/plastic 

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)

43 - 44 Pocket ionization chambers Daily

44 - 48 Brass film Badge No windows or filters Monthly

49 - 50 Brass “clip” Badge Only partial shielding of 

film

Monthly

50 - 51 Multiple Element film badge Brass and lead filters, 

open

Monthly

51 - 62 Multiple Element film badge Brass and Cd filters, 

open

(unfiltered acetate for a 

period)

Monthly

62 - 78 “Cycolac” plastic film badge Multi-element filtered Monthly

78 - 98 LANL TLD badge

(1987 DOELAP Accredited) 

Two versions, with and 

without Cd filters

0.1 Monthly
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 18 of 20

Years Dosimeter Filters

MDL

(mSv)

Routine

Exchange

99-ongoing Commercial Harshaw TLD Teflon Hemispherical 

Button, Cu, Plastic, OW

Mound

47-? Two Element Film Badge OW,1 mm metalic filter 0.5

?-80 Multiple Element Film Badge multiple filters 0.3

1978- Harshaw 8810 TLD multiple filters 0.1

Nevada Test Site (NTS)

51-3/57 Varied film 

4/57 Current film 0.3 Monthly

61 - 66 DuPont 301-4 28 mil Pb

66 - 71 DuPont 556 film

NTA for neutrons

3/71 Kodak Type III for gamma

79 - 86 TLD Albedo

1/87-ongoing Commercial Panasonic TLD

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)

43-44 Pocket ionization chamber 0.02 Daily

7/44 - 1/51 Two Element Film Badge OW, 1 mm Cd 0.3 Weekly

1/51 - 1/53 weekly if >10% 

of RPG; all 

others annual

1/53 - 56 Multi-Element Film Cu, Cd, Pl, OW weekly if >10% 

of RPG; all 

others annual

1/56-1/61 quarterly if 

>10% of RPG; 

all others 

annually

1/61-1/75 0.2

1/75-1/80 ORNL 2 Chip TLD Al, Pl,OW, Cd 0.1

1/81-1/88 UCCND 2 chip TLD

1/89 - ongoing Commercial Harshaw TLD Teflon Hemispherical 

Button, Cu, Plastic, OW

Pantex

1/52-10/63 Tracerlab film badges 

11/63-2/76 Landauer film badges

1973 Pantex TLD

1980 Commercial Panasonic TLD

Rocky Flats Plant (RFP)

51 - 62 Stainless Steel OR design Film OW, Cd (~0, 1 mm), 

brass (10 mills) 

40 mR Weekly, 

semimonthly, 

monthly

63 - 68 Multielement Film OW, Cd (~0, 1 mm, Cu) 40 mR Semimonthly, 

monthly, 

quarterly

69 - 70 TLD 700 OW, brass (~0, 10 mills) 20 mR Semimonthly, 

monthly, 

quarterly

71 - 82 TLD 700 OW, brass(~0, 10 mills) 20 mR Semimonthly, 
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 19 of 20

Years Dosimeter Filters

MDL

(mSv)

Routine

Exchange

monthly, 

quarterly

83 - 90 Panasonic 802 OW, (36 mg/cm2), 

plastic (390-490 

mg/cm2), Pb (1160 

mg/cm2)

20 mrem Semimonthly, 

monthly, 

quarterly

91 - ongoing Panasonic 802 10 mrem Semimonthly, 

monthly, 

quarterly

Savannah River Site (SRS)

51 - ORNL Two Element Film Badge OW,Cd 1mm 0.4

- 59 SRS Two Element Film Badge OW,Cd 1mm 0.4

59 - 70 Multiple Element Film Badge OW,Al, Ag 0.3

70 - 81 SRS TLD multiple filters 0.05

81 - ongoing Commercial Panasonic TLD

Y-12

48 - 49 PIC ~0.05 Weekly

48 - 57 ORNL Stainless Steel Two –

Element Film Badge

OW, 1 mm Cd 0.3-0.5 Weekly

57 - 61 Monthly

61 - 80 UCC-ND Four Element Film 

Dosimeter

Cd, Al, Plastic, OW Quarterly

80 - 88 UCC-ND Two-Chip TLD Al, OW 0.1 Quarterly, 

annual

88 - ongoing Commercial Harshaw Four -Chip 

TLD

Teflon hemispherical 

button, Cu, plastic, OW

0.1 Quarterly, 

annual
Effective Date: 11/07/2003 Revision No. 00 Procedure No. ORAUT-OTIB-0008 Page 20 of 20

Attachment B.,

Summary of Overestimation Implicit in the Standard Overestimating Assumptions

Site-specific correction factor: The discussion above demonstrates the near tissue-equivalency of 

TLD dosimeters. For most workplace conditions, a value of a modification factor at or near unity 

would be appropriate. By correcting to the most limiting case (a ROT geometry at a low energy of 70 

keV), Hp(10) is overestimated by as much as approximately 80%. 

Standard organ dose conversion factor: For the organs considered under this set of assumptions, 

dose conversion factors from the IG are somewhat less than one, with two exceptions, the testes and 

the thyroid. Using the assumed organ dose conversion factor of 1.100 overestimates dose received 

by the organ by a very small amount for these two organs, but by a larger factor for most organs. 

Standard level of Missed Dose: For all cases processed in accordance with this TIB, the value for 

missed dose is assumed to be 0.030 rem. This value is high for all DOELAP-accredited dosimetry 

programs. The level of detection value for ORNL, for instance is 0.010 rem, for years 1981 to the 

present. Application of the standard value here results in overprediction of 200%, or an annual value 

of 0.360 rem in a year when no dose is recorded for ORNL cases. 

Standard Badge exchange frequency. As early as the late 1950’s, DOE sites began using less 

frequent dosimeter exchanges, lowering missed doses. Personnel who typically received little dose 

would normally be assigned quarterly or annual TLD exchange frequencies. Applying a monthly cycle 

overpredicts missed dose for these individuals by giving them, in the example for ORNL above, 360

mrem in missed dose, when a more accurate missed dose value based upon actual exchange 

frequencies is 120 or 30 mrem, respectively, for the assumed MDL.