ORAU TEAM

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

Oak Ridge Associated Universities I Dade Moeller & Associates I MJW Corporation

Page 1 of 19

Document Title:

A Standard Complex-Wide Methodology 

for Overestimating External Doses 

Measured with Film Badge Dosimeters 

Document Number: ORAUT-OTIB-0010

Revision: 01

Effective Date: 06/05/2006

Type of Document: OTIB

Supersedes: Revision 00

Subject Experts: Donald N. Stewart and Jack J. Fix

Document Owner

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 05/17/2006

James P. Griffin, Deputy Project Director

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 05/22/2006

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 06/05/2006

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

 New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change

FOR DOCUMENTS MARKED AS A TOTAL REWRITE, REVISION, OR PAGE CHANGE, REPLACE THE PRIOR 

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 2 of 19

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

01/12/2004 00 New Technical Information Bulletin for a Standard Complex-Wide 

Correction Factor for Overestimating External Doses Measured with 

Film Badge Dosimeters. First approved issue. Initiated by Donald N. 

Stewart.

06/05/2006 01 Constitutes rewrite of document as a result of biennial review. 

Incorporates resolution of S. Cohen & Associates final draft 

comments contained in “The Review of NIOSH/ORAUT Procedures 

and Methods used for Dose Reconstruction” (ref: letter from John 

Mauro to David Staudt, dated January 17, 2005). Approved issue of 

Revision 01. This revision results in no change to the assigned dose 

and no PER is required. Training required: As determined by the 

Task Manager. Initiated by Jack J. Fix and Donald N. Stewart.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 3 of 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 

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

PAGE

5

1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................6

 1.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................7

2.0 Complex-Wide Standard Overestimating Methodology ............................................................ 8

 2.1 Overestimating Applied to Recorded Dose.......................................................................8

 2.2 Overestimating Applied to Organ Dose Conversion Factor...............................................8

 2.3 Overestimating Applied to Missed Dose...........................................................................8

 2.4 Application of Standard Overestimating Assumptions ......................................................9

3.0 Workplace Characteristics That Preclude Unsupported Application of the

 Overestimating Assumptions in This Document....................................................................... 9

4.0 Evaluation of Shallow Doses Measured with Film Badges ....................................................... 9

References ........................................................................................................................................10

ATTACHMENT A, TECHNICAL BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 12

A.1 Dosimetry Development and Basis of Comparison................................................................. 12

 A.1.1 Dosimetry Development.............................................................................................. 12

 A.1.2 Basis of Comparison................................................................................................... 14

A.2 Dose Reconstruction Parameters........................................................................................... 14

 A.2.1 Dosimetry Technology ................................................................................................ 15

 A.2.1.1 Two-Element Film Dosimeters...................................................................... 15

 A.2.1.2 Multielement Film Dosimeters ...................................................................... 16

 A.2.2 Dosimeter Performance Studies ................................................................................. 17

 A.2.2.1 Film Badge Response in Comparison with Hp(10)........................................ 18

 A.2.2.2 Interpretation of DOE Film Badge Records .................................................. 18

 A.2.3 Site-Specific Information ............................................................................................. 19

 A.2.3.1 Workplace Radiation Fields.......................................................................... 19
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 4 of 19

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE

2-1 Standard overestimating approach...........................................................................................

PAGE

9

A-1 Evolution in DOE site photon dosimetry capabilities............................................................... 12

A-2 Chronology of DOE site improvements to personnel dosimetry systems................................ 13

A-3 Common workplace photon dosimeter Hp(10) performance ................................................... 19

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE

A-1 Measured two-element dosimeter photon response for AP exposure 

geometry................................................................................................................................

PAGE

16

A-2 Measured deep dose response for Hanford two-element film, multielement 

film and thermoluminescent dosimeter compared to Hp(10) ................................................... 17
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 5 of 19

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AP anterior-posterior

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cm centimeter

DCF Dose Conversion Factor

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOELAP DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program

INEEL Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory

Hp(d) Personal Dose Equivalent

keV kilovolt-electron

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

MDL minimum detection level

MED Manhattan Engineer District

MeV megavolt-electron

mg milligram

mm millimeter

mR milliroentgen

NTS Nevada Test Site

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team

OW open window

PIC Pocket Ionization Chamber

RFP Rocky Flats Plant

SRS Savannah River Site

TIB technical information bulletin

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter

U.S.C. United States Code
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 6 of 19

1.0

Technical information bulletins (TIBs) are not official determinations made by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but are rather general working documents that provide 

historic background information and guidance to assist in the preparation of dose reconstructions at 

particular sites or categories of sites. They will be revised in the event additional relevant information 

is obtained. TIBs may be used to assist the NIOSH staff in the completion of individual dose 

reconstructions.

INTRODUCTION

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 connote an “atomic weapons 

employer facility” or a “Department of Energy [DOE] facility” as defined in the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act [EEOICPA; 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(5) and (12)]. 

EEOICPA defines a DOE facility as “any building, structure, or premise, including the grounds upon 

which such building, structure, or premise is located ... in which operations are, or have been, 

conducted by, or on behalf of, the Department of Energy (except for buildings, structures, premises, 

grounds, or operations ... pertaining to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program)” [42 U.S.C. § 

7384l(12)]. Accordingly, except for the exclusion for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program noted 

above, any facility that performs or performed DOE operations of any nature whatsoever is a DOE 

facility encompassed by EEOICPA.

For employees of DOE or its contractors with cancer, the DOE facility definition only determines 

eligibility for a dose reconstruction, which is a prerequisite to a compensation decision (except for 

members of the Special Exposure Cohort). The compensation decision for cancer claimants is based 

on a section of the statute entitled “Exposure in the Performance of Duty.” That provision [42 U.S.C. § 

7384n(b)] says that an individual with cancer “shall be determined to have sustained that cancer in the 

performance of duty for purposes of the compensation program if, and only if, the cancer ... was at 

least as likely as not related to employment at the facility [where the employee worked], as 

determined in accordance with the POC [probability of causation1

As noted above, the statute includes a definition of a DOE facility that excludes “buildings, structures, 

premises, grounds, or operations covered by Executive Order No. 12344, dated February 1, 1982 (42 

U.S.C. 7158 note), pertaining to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program” [42 U.S.C. § 7384l(12)]. 

While this definition contains an exclusion with respect to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, the 

section of EEOICPA that deals with the compensation decision for covered employees with cancer 

[i.e., 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b), entitled “Exposure in the Performance of Duty”] does not contain such an 

exclusion. Therefore, the statute requires NIOSH to include all occupationally derived radiation 

exposures at covered facilities in its dose reconstructions for employees at DOE facilities, including 

radiation exposures related to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. As a result, all internal and 

external dosimetry monitoring results are considered valid for use in dose reconstruction. No efforts 

are made to determine the eligibility of any fraction of total measured exposure for inclusion in dose 

reconstruction. NIOSH, however, does not consider the following exposures to be occupationally 

derived:

] guidelines established under 

subsection (c) ...” [42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b)]. Neither the statute nor the probability of causation 

guidelines (nor the dose reconstruction regulation) define “performance of duty” for DOE employees 

with a covered cancer or restrict the “duty” to nuclear weapons work.

• Radiation from naturally occurring radon present in conventional structures

• Radiation from diagnostic X-rays received in the treatment of work-related injuries

 1 The U.S. Department of Labor is ultimately responsible under the EEOICPA for determining the POC.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 7 of 19

The Manhattan Engineer District (MED) and later the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) had 

early responsibility for processing nuclear weapons material. The AEC was superseded in this 

function briefly by the Energy Research and Development Agency, and then DOE. In this document,

“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 dosimeter designs were followed by multielement film dosimeter designs;

thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) replaced film dosimeters from the late 1960s through the early 

1980s. Information in this Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT) TIB supports radiation 

dose estimates for complex-wide cases over the period of photographic film dosimetry beginning in 

1950. Uncertainties inherent in applying simplifying overestimating assumptions for film dosimeters 

are greater than during the later period of TLD use. The use of film dosimetry systems in DOE 

facilities continued generally through about 1980. Film systems are typically significantly more 

variable in response to photon radiation. For this reason, dose reconstructors must exercise care in 

the selection of cases that are processed under the assumptions in this TIB. Case selection will be 

based on the likelihood that the assumptions applied here provide a claimant-favorable overestimate 

of dose once site- and case-specific exposure conditions are taken into account. Do not use this TIB 

for sites at which significant personnel doses could result from the presence of elevated airborne 

levels of environmental radioactivity.

This TIB is based on the feasibility to formulate reasonable, overestimating, complex-wide 

assumptions for interpreting recorded photon dose for monitored employees with likely-noncompensable claims. This is due to the high degree of standardization of DOE film-based dosimeter 

programs. In accordance with the process efficiencies discussed in 42 CFR pt 82, the TIB analysis 

selected a reasonable overestimate of external radiation dose for cases that are judged likelynoncompensable. This overestimate of the actual dose enables the expeditious processing of likelynoncompensable cases. Accordingly, this TIB should only be used for monitored employees with 

likely non-compensable claims

1.1 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this document are to (1) evaluate the degree of standardization of typical DOE film 

dosimeters and (2) develop a standard methodology for use by the dose reconstructor to assign a 

dose, based on the recorded dose, that will result in a reasonable overestimate of the organ dose. 

Information in this document examines the response of film to radiation, the performance of film 

dosimeters compared to TLDs, and the application of a standard methodology to overestimate doses

and to address uncertainties from the following sources:

• Variation in workplace photon radiation fields

• Variation in workplace exposure geometries

• Variation in worker orientation in the workplace, the organ of concern, and the range of values 

for organ dose conversion factors presented in External Dose Reconstruction Implementation 

Guidelines (NIOSH 2002)

While accounting for these uncertainties, the methodology proposed here takes into account 

similarities among sites across the DOE complex in the following attributes:

• Similar dose response performance by photon energies among the dosimeters used

• Similar minimum detection levels (MDLs)

• A standard exchange frequency
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 8 of 19

The proposed methodology considers variability associated with a large number of program features. 

The methodology must admit a greater degree of error into any estimate it modifies. The error is

permissible as long as it is in the claimant’s favor. Specifically, any error must tend to assuredly 

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

Because the intent is to overestimate the dose for a quick evaluation of the potential for 

compensability, the proposed methodology is useful only for claims that are judged to be likelynoncompensable. The latest revision of ORAUT-OTIB-0017 (ORAUT 2005) should be used for 

assignment of shallow doses. 

2.0

The following sections describe three components of the standard methodology to overestimate the 

organ dose assigned to a claimant for a likely-noncompensable claim:

COMPLEX-WIDE STANDARD OVERESTIMATING METHODOLOGY

• Recorded dose

• Dose Conversion Factor

• Missed dose

Recommendations are provided in the following with supporting information presented in Appendix A. 

2.1 OVERESTIMATING APPLIED TO RECORDED DOSE

This TIB recommends a standard overestimating approach that, with a single modifying value applied 

to the recorded dose, increases the assigned deep dose to claimants to overestimate the actual organ 

dose. Based on performance testing results described in Appendix A, dose reconstructors should use 

a modifying factor of 2. The purpose of this factor is to ensure claimant-favorable assigned deep dose 

by compensating for uncertainty from potential variance in site-specific exposure conditions and 

calibration practices that, without correction, could have resulted in an underestimated dose.

2.2 OVERESTIMATING APPLIED TO ORGAN DOSE CONVERSION FACTOR 

This TIB recommends a standard overestimating approach to select the organ DCF. Use the 

exposure (R)-to-organ (HT) DCF value for the AP geometry for photons of energies between 30 and 

250 keV from Appendix B of NIOSH (2002) unless that value is less than 1.0, in which case the DCF

will be 1. 

2.3 OVERESTIMATING APPLIED TO MISSED DOSE 

This TIB recommends a standard overestimating approach to determine the missed dose in 

accordance with NIOSH (2002) guidance by inputting into IREP, for a lognormal distribution, a 

parameter #1 value of 0.24 R based on a default limit of detection (LOD) of 0.04 R and a monthly 

exchange [i.e., 12 * 0.04)/2]. This recommendation is based on consideration that the sensitivity of the 

film determines the lowest level of dose that can be detected. A typical value of film sensitivity is 0.5

net optical density units per 400-mR exposure (NRC 1989). This translates to a LOD of between 10 

and 20 mR for films with this sensitivity for photons above a few hundred keV (NRC 1989). A review 

of doses reported by individual site dosimetry programs was done and film badge readings recorded 

as “< 10 mrem” were noted. However, dose reconstructors should ignore these low values. This

review of site dosimetry programs also showed that 1960 is significantly predated by the first year of 

monthly dosimeter exchange for most sites, and thus the selection of 1960 as the year of first 

applicability of these recommendations and a default of 12 dosimeter exchanges per year. However, 

if the dosimetry record indicates the number of “zero“ results is greater than 12 exchanges in a year,

(i.e., such as every 4 weeks = 13 or biweekly = 26, etc.) use the larger number of exchanges in the 

missed dose calculation.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 9 of 19

2.4 APPLICATION OF STANDARD OVERESTIMATING ASSUMPTIONS

Table 2-1 lists standard values recommended in Sections 2.1 through 2.3. These values can be 

applied to recorded doses from film dosimeter data. The assumptions in Table 2-1 support complexwide dose overestimates from 1960 and later for workplaces without significant low-energy photon 

contributions. Section 3.0 contains examples of such workplaces.

Application of the values in Table 2-1 is based on the period of applicability for the site in question 

from 1960 until the date of first use of TLDs, as noted in Appendix A, Table A-1. For TLDs, use the 

guidance in the latest revision of ORAUT (2006a). This guidance should not be applied prior to 1960 

without justification because of the potential unreliability of the respective correction factors 

particularly the site dosimeter exchange frequency, which might have been as often as weekly or 

even daily in the late 1940s to early 1950s. The response characteristics of film dosimeter systems 

prior to 1960 are probably similar to the information in this TIB but require further evaluation.

Table 2-1. Standard overestimating approach.

Parameter Analysis Standard overestimating approach

Recorded dose Film typically over-responds in workplaces other 

than noted in Section 6.0.

Multiply recorded dose by factor of 2, 

incorporate DCF as described below, 

and enter as constant value in IREP

DCF AP geometry, 100% 30-250 keV photon 

radiation (exposure)

DCF = ≥ 1a (constant)

Missed dose Zero recorded dose. Lognormal distribution, 

IREP parameter #1 = 0.24b 

IREP parameter #2 = 1.52

a. From Appendix B of NIOSH (2002): a value of 1.0 or the table value (typically assume 100% AP geometry), whichever is 

greater.

b. Use TBD identified value, if available. Otherwise use this value based on (n * 0.04)/2,, where n = 12. 

3.0

Workers in the DOE complex who had significant exposure to low-energy photons might have 

recorded doses that do not reliably represent actual photon doses in the film badge era. Application 

of the assumptions presented here is not appropriate unless individual dose reconstruction reports 

specifically support justification. Examples of workplaces that would typically have spectra with 

significant low-energy photons include:

WORKPLACE CHARACTERISTICS THAT PRECLUDE UNSUPPORTED APPLICATION 

OF THE OVERESTIMATING ASSUMPTIONS IN THIS DOCUMENT

• Weapons assembly and disassembly areas

• Plutonium machining areas

• Plutonium processing facilities in areas where the primary hazard is from the product

• Laboratories performing work with plutonium or americium

In addition, dose reconstructors might encounter specific situations where workplace characterization 

suggests exposure to photons in the lowest energy range (less than 30 keV) or to lower energy 

photons in the intermediate range, up to 100 keV, which comprise a significant proportion of the dose.

4.0

Dose reconstructors should not use this TIB for evaluation of shallow doses. (NOTE: For breast and 

testicular cancer cases, use this TIB only for calculating the deep dose component.) ORAUT-OTIB0017, Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for Assignment of Shallow Dose (ORAUT 2005) and ORAUTPROC-0006, External Dose Reconstruction (ORAUT 2006b), provides guidance for estimating 

shallow doses.

EVALUATION OF SHALLOW DOSES MEASURED WITH FILM BADGES
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 10 of 19

REFERENCES

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), 1955, “Intercomparison of Film Badge Interpretations,” 

Isotopics, volume 2, number 5, pp. 8–23.

Barber, D. E., 1967, Standards of Performance for Film Badge Services, Public Health Service 

Publication No. 999-RH-20, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Brodsky, A., and R. L. Kathren, 1963, “Accuracy and Sensitivity of Film Measurements of Gamma 

Radiation - Part 1,” Health Physics, volume 9, pp. 453–461.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1986, Handbook for the Department of Energy Laboratory 

Accreditation Program for Personnel Dosimetry Systems, DOE/EH-0026, Assistant Secretary 

for Environment, Safety, and Health, Washington, D.C., December.

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

Neutron Dosimetry for Workers at the Hanford Site, PNNL-11196, Battelle Memorial Institute, 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, February.

GE (General Electric), 1954, Radiation Protection Standards, HW-25457, Hanford Atomic Products 

Operation, Richland, Washington, December 15.

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

in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Report 51, Bethesda, Maryland.

Larson, H. V., and W. C. Roesch, 1954, Gamma Dose Measurement with Hanford Film Badges, HW32516, General Electric, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, Washington, July 21.

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

Implementation Guideline, OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 1, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, August.

NRC (National Research Council), 1989, Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests, 

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2003, Technical Information Bulletin for a 

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

Measured with Thermoluminescent Dosimeter, ORAUT-OTIB-0008, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, January 7.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005, Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for 

Assignment of Shallow Dose, ORAUT-OTIB-0017, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, January 

11.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2006a, Technical Information Bulletin for a 

Standard Methodology for Overestimating External Doses Measured with Thermoluminescent 

Dosimeter, ORAUT-OTIB-0008, Rev. 01-B, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2006b, External Dose Reconstruction, ORAUTPROC-0006, Rev. 01-B, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

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

Dosimeter, CH-1553-A-2223, University of Chicago, Metallurgical Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois, 

April.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 11 of 19

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

Laboratories and the Hanford Engineer Works, HW-7-3090, Hanford Atomic Products 

Operation, Richland, Washington, December 7.

Taylor, G. A., K. W. Crase, T. R. La Bone, and W. H. Wilkie, 1995, A History of Personnel Radiation 

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

Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, May.

Thierry-Chef, I., F. Pernicka, M. Marshall, E. Cardis, and P. Andreo, 2002, "Study of a Selection of 10 

Historical Types of Dosimeter: Variation of the Response to Hp(10) with Photon Energy and 

Geometry of Exposure," Radiation Protection Dosimetry, volume 102, number 2, pp. 101–113.

Thornton, W. T., D. M. Davis, and E. D. Gupton, 1961, The ORNL Badge Dosimeter and Its Personnel 

Monitoring Applications, ORNL-3126, Union Carbide Corporation, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Torres, B. A., 2005, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program: Ionizing Radiation 

Dosimetry, Handbook 150-4, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards & 

Technology, Washington, D.C.

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, Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific 

Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Wilson, R. H., 1957, Reproducibility of Personnel Monitoring Film Densities, HW-51934, General 

Electric, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, Washington.

Wilson, R. H., 1960, Detection Level of the Film Badge System, HW-67697, General Electric, Hanford 

Atomic Products Operation, Richland, Washington, November 28.

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, Battelle Memorial 

Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, September.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 12 of 19

A.1 DOSIMETRY DEVELOPMENT AND BASIS OF COMPARISON

A.1.1

DOE sites followed a similar evolution in photon film dosimetry technology to measure photon dose to 

workers. Two-element film dosimeters were commonly used in the 1940s and were replaced by 

multielement film dosimeters. Film dosimeters were gradually replaced by thermoluminescent 

dosimeters (TLDs) in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Pocket Ionization Chambers (PICs) have 

typically been used in addition to personnel dosimeters throughout the years of DOE operations and 

results from PICs compared with those from TLDs. Table A-1 lists this pattern for DOE sites. These 

sites, and probably others, basically have equivalent dosimetry technology capabilities for photon 

radiation. The adequacy of the respective photon dosimetry methods to measure radiation photon 

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

the radiation type, energy, exposure geometry, etc., as described in this section.

Dosimetry Development

Table A-1. Evolution in DOE site photon dosimetry capabilities.

Site Site profile reference

Year of first use

Photographic film dosimeter TLD

Two-element Multielement Site-specific Commercial

Fernald ORAUT-TKBS-0017-6 1952 1954 N.A.

a 1985

Hanford ORAUT-TKBS-0006-6 1944 1957 1972 1995

INEEL ORAUT-TKBS-0007-6 1951 1957 1966 1986

K-25 ORAUT-TKBS-0009-6 1944 1953 1980 1988

LLNL ORAUT-TKBS-0035-6 1952b N.A. 1969 1985

LANL ORAUT-TKBS-0010-6 (c) 1950 1978 1999

Mound ORAUT-TKBS-0016-6 1943d N.A. N.A. 1977

NTS ORAUT-TKBS-0008-6 1951e 1966 1970 1987

ORNL ORAUT-TKBS-0012-6 1944 1953 1974 1988

Pantex ORAUT-TKBS-0013-6 1951f (c) 1973 1980

Portsmouth ORAUT-TKBS-0015-6 1954 N.A. 1981 1999

RFP ORAUT-TKBS-0011-6 1951g 1954 1969 1983

SRS ORAUT-TKBS-0003 1951h 1959 1970 1982

Y-12 ORAUT-TKBS-0014-6 1948 1961 1980 1988

a. N.A. – not applicable

b. LLNL used dosimeter capabilities from Lawrence Berkley Laboratory during 1952–1955 prior to implementing its sitespecific system.

c. LANL used other dosimeter designs prior to 1950.

d. Mound used dental film initially and then began using the ORNL dosimeter design in February 1949.

e. LANL was responsible for external dosimetry at NTS in the beginning (1951). Reynolds Electrical & Engineering 

Company assumed responsibility in 1955.

f. Pantex used a commercial film service that probably used a multielement film dosimeter after the initial two-element 

dosimeter; the precise date of change has not been determined.

g. RFP used dosimeter capabilities from LANL until it implemented a site-specific system.

h. SRS used dosimeter capabilities from ORNL until it implemented a site-specific system.

Table A-2 lists a more detailed example of the evolution in dosimetry technology for Hanford, INEEL, 

ORNL, and SRS. This level of detail in the dosimetry design is an important consideration in 

evaluating the adequacy of the dosimetry technology. Dosimetry technology capabilities that can be 

inferred from this information include the following:

ATTACHMENT A

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 1 of 8
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 13 of 19

Table A-2. Chronology of DOE site improvements to personnel dosimetry systems.

Facility

Period Dosimeter 

material Type Filters

Density(a)

(mg/cm2)

Thickness 

Start End (mm)

Hanford 1944 1944 PIC

1944 1952 Film DuPont 552 OW, Ag ~0, Ag = 1,050 0, Ag = 1

1953 1956 Film DuPont 552 OW, Ag ~0, Ag = 1,050 0, Ag = 1

1957 1962 Film DuPont 552 OW, Al, Ag#1, 

Ag#2

~0; Al = 132; Ag#1 =

137; Ag#2 = 1,050

0

1963 1971 Film DuPont 558 OW, Fe, Ta ~0; Fe = 20; Ta = 843 0, 0.025, 0.5

1972 1995 TLD Five/four chips OW, Al, Cd, Sn, 

Sn

~0;379; 912; 980; 912 0.05

1995 - TLD Harshaw 8825 OW, pl, Sn, Cu ~0; 1,000, 0.64

INEEL 1951 1956 Film DuPont 552 OW, Cd ~0; ~1,000 0; 1

1957 1965 Film DuPont 552 OW, Al, Ag, Cd ~0; 175, 203, 950

1966 1985 TLD Two chips OW, Al (Cd) ~0; 203 (0; 950)

1986 - TLD Panasonic 814/

808

Al/plastic (4) ~16; 58; 600; 600

ORNL 1943 1944 PICs

1944 1952 Film DuPont 552 OW, Cd ~0; ~1,000 0; 1

1953 1957 Film DuPont 552 OW, Pb, Cd, Cu, 

plastic

~0; varies, ~1,000

1958 1979 Film DuPont 552 OW, Al, Cd, 

plastic

~0; varies, ~1,000

1980 1988 TLD Two chips OW (plastic) , Al ~0; 430

1989 - TLD Harshaw 8805 OW, plastic, Cu, 

Teflon 

~0; 300; 242; ~1,000

SRS 1951 1958 Film DuPont 552 OW, Cd ~0; ~1,000 Cd =1

1958 1970 Film DuPont 555 OW, Al, Ag ~0; 540; 1,050 Al = 2; Ag = 1

1970 1982 TLD Two chips OW, Al ~0; 540 Al = 2

1982 - TLD Panasonic, UD802Mylar, plastic+

mylar, plastic+

mylar, Pb 

~0; 300; 300; ~1,000 Pb = 0.7

a. Density thickness of filtration in holder only. Total density thickness would also include filtration in the dosimeter card 

and responsive elements.

• Capabilities existed to measure the nonpenetrating or shallow [Hp(0.07)] and penetrating or 

deep [Hp(10)] dose with these dosimeter designs.

• The dosimeter designs ensured minimal effect on the penetrating dose component of typical 

beta radiation nuclides in the workplace because of the 1,000-mg/cm2 density thickness of the 

metal filter. This thickness approximates the 1-cm depth in tissue [i.e., Hp(10)] such that any 

beta contribution to the dosimeter-calculated deep dose could be considered a true 

penetrating dose.

The most serious limitation of the two-element film dosimeter designs listed in Table A-2 concern 

mixed beta/photon radiation fields in which the shallow dose might be significantly in error (typically 

interpreted dose is too high for the usual uranium calibration and dosimeter over-response to lower 

energy photons) because of an inability to distinguish between beta and low-energy photon radiation. 

ATTACHMENT A

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 2 of 8
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 14 of 19

Section A.2.1 describes this limitation, which was the motivating reason for the development of 

multielement film dosimeters.

A.1.2

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 millimeters) 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 “wholebody” dose, d = 10 mm and is noted as Hp(10). Both Hp(0.07) and Hp(10) are the radiation quantities 

recommended for use by the International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements as 

the operational quantities to be recorded for radiological protection purposes (ICRU 1993). In 

addition, Hp(0.07) and Hp(10) are the radiation quantities used in DOE Laboratory Accreditation 

Program (DOELAP) and National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) dosimeter 

performance testing (DOE 1986; Torres 2005).

Basis of Comparison

A.2 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 are relevant 

to the assessment of bias and uncertainty, respectively, of the original recorded dose in relation to the 

radiation quantity Hp(10). The bias and uncertainty for current DOE dosimetry systems is well 

documented for Hp(0.07) and Hp(10) under 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, the accuracy and precision of original recorded individual worker doses and their 

comparability that dose reconstructors should consider in using NIOSH (2002) guidelines depend on 

the following (Fix, Wilson, and Baumgartner 1997):

• Dosimetry technology, which 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, which can include mixed types of radiation, 

variations in exposure geometries, and 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, 

the evaluations must be based on an analysis of site-specific information, which is applied to 

formulate a realistic best dose estimate. For cases that are probably noncompensable, 

ATTACHMENT A

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 3 of 8
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 15 of 19

overestimating dose is appropriate, so dose reconstructors can use a modifying factor that increases 

the recorded deep dose to account sufficiently for variance in site practices. Identifying an 

appropriate value for this modifying factor is the goal of this document.

A.2.1

Personnel film dosimeters used to measure doses to workers from photon radiation were essentially 

identical at the MED Metallurgical, Clinton, and Hanford laboratories in the early to mid-1940s. Parker 

(1945) described results of an intercomparison study of dosimeter processing and exposure 

calculations between these laboratories prior to declaring the Hanford system capable of routine 

dosimeter processing. Ongoing comparisons of dose interpretation among these MED/AEC sites and 

other sites occurred through the years (Wilson et al. 1990). The dosimeter exchange frequency 

gradually lengthened, generally corresponding to the period of regulatory dose controls (GE 1954).

Dosimetry Technology

A.2.1.1 Two-Element Film Dosimeters

The two-element dosimeter was based on laboratory studies that identified the preferred element and 

thickness for a metallic filter to flatten the dosimeter photon energy response at lower energies 

(Pardue, Goldstein, and Wollan 1944). Pardue, Goldstein, and Wollan recommended selection of a 

filter of cadmium (Z = 47) about 1 mm thick to minimize the film energy response and still enable

measurement of lower energy photons. The DOE sites used cadmium and other elements such as 

silver (Z = 48) or tin (Z = 50) in their designs with essentially the same photon response. The twoelement dosimeter was first used at the University of Chicago (Thornton, Davis, and Gupton 1961). 

This dosimeter design was adopted for use at ORNL and referred to as the “tin” badge (Thornton, 

Davis, and Gupton 1961). There appear to have been some refinements in this basic design at ORNL 

where five design changes occurred (Thornton, Davis, and Gupton 1961) and at LANL by adding 

filters of lead (Z = 82) and brass (Cu = 29, Zn = 30) to obtain improved capabilities in beta/photon 

fields and in photon energy resolution. These refined dosimeter designs, using two or three metallic 

filters, provided improved capabilities for distinguishing between beta and photon radiation (primarily) 

and, with knowledge of the workplace radiation field, between beta and lower and higher energy 

photon radiation.

An important feature of the DOE site photon dosimeters was the selection of the type of film to be 

used. The available film had similar radiation energy response characteristics but its sensitivity to 

radiation varied (Thornton, Davis, and Gupton 1961). Many sites used film, such as the DuPont 502

type, with a sensitive (lower radiation dose response) and an insensitive (typically accident-level dose 

response) side to each film packet. In normal practice, only the sensitive side of the film was 

processed for personnel dose assessment. However, for higher doses and to confirm higher 

suspicious readings, the insensitive film response could be measured.

The two-element dosimeter design had an open window (OW) to measure nonpenetrating radiation in 

addition to the filter region with 1 mm of silver, cadmium, or tin. Each metallic filter had a density 

thickness of approximately 1,000 mg/cm2

. This selection minimizes the potential for beta radiation to 

contribute to the interpreted penetrating dose. Only beta radiation with energy greater than about 

3 MeV can penetrate the filter and contribute to the interpreted penetrating dose.

ATTACHMENT A

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 4 of 8
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 16 of 19

Studies of film dosimeter performance, stability of latent image, etc., were performed during the 1950s 

(Wilson 1957, 1960). Numerous intercomparison and performance studies were done at the DOE 

laboratories (AEC 1955; Brodsky and Kathren 1963; Barber 1967; Wilson et al 1990). Figure A-1 

shows the laboratory measured anterior-posterior (AP) photon energy response of the two-element 

dosimeter system in comparison with Hp(10). As indicated in the figure, the film dosimeter OW 

response shows a significant over-response to lower energy photon radiation. The over-response 

was so significant operationally that some option was necessary to interpret the dosimeter response 

based on the anticipated radiation fields in the work environment. The ratio of the OW to the filtered 

film response was routinely used in dose evaluation (Larson and Roesch 1954); there is reference to 

using a fraction (e.g., 20%) of the OW response to add to the penetrating dose in facilities with lowenergy photons and no beta radiation (i.e., plutonium facilities) (Fix, Wilson, and Baumgartner 1997;

Taylor et al. 1995).

0.1

1

10

100

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Relative Respons

Photon Energy, MeV

Hp(10)

Two-Element Film 

Dosimeter OW

Two-Element Film 

Dosimeter Shield

Figure A-1. Measured two-element dosimeter photon response for AP exposure 

geometry (Pardue, Goldstein, and Wollan 1944; Wilson et al. 1990).

A.2.1.2 Multielement Film Dosimeters

Multielement film dosimeters were developed to provide improved capabilities to measure beta and 

lower and higher energy photon radiation dose components, particularly in mixed beta and photon 

radiation fields. Most DOE sites used several site-specific designs. The basic design of the twoelement dosimeter (i.e., open window and 1-mm silver, cadmium, or tin shield) was often incorporated 

by the sites in the design of the multielement dosimeters. Multielement beta/photon film dosimeters 

generally consisted of three or four shielded areas and provided substantially improved capabilities for

measuring deep dose by flattening the overall response, as shown in Figure A-2. Processing results 

(i.e., optical density) were recorded for the film response behind each of these filters and an algorithm 

was used to calculate the dose components.

ATTACHMENT A

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 5 of 8
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 17 of 19

A.2.2

Performance testing of personnel dosimetry systems is typically an ongoing activity by the dosimetry 

service provider and a routine component of dosimeter processing quality control. Well-documented 

independent performance studies of personnel film dosimeters have been conducted by the AEC 

(1955), Brodsky and Kathren (1963), Unruh et al. (1967), the U.S. Public Health Service (Barber 

1967), the NVLAP, and Thierry-Chef et al. (2002). The combination of these studies involved many 

laboratories and dosimetry systems. For example, the Public Health Service study involved 

approximately 2,000 film badges from 25 organizations (Barber 1967). The NVLAP dosimeter 

performance testing program initiated in the mid-1980s involves essentially all commercial dosimeter 

service organizations in the United States. Performance testing is typically repeated every 2 years to 

maintain DOELAP or NVLAP accreditation.

Dosimeter Performance Studies

0

1

2

3

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Photon Energy, MeV

Relative Respons

Hp(10)

Two-Element Film

Dosimeter Shield

Multi-Element Film

Dosimeter

TLD

Figure A-2. Measured deep dose response for Hanford two-element film, 

multielement film, and thermoluminescent dosimeter compared to Hp(10) (Wilson et 

al. 1990).

A simple representation of the measured performance in these studies of dosimeter systems, in the 

categories of testing, is probably not possible. In addition, it is not possible to represent generally the 

improved performance associated with the ongoing evolution in dosimetry technology. National 

Sanitation Foundation Standard No. 16 (Barber 1967) presented upper and lower error factor limits 

that ranged from about 30% low to about 100% high (i.e., an asymmetric interval that is biased high) 

for beta and photon (X-ray and gamma) fields, and mixtures of beta and photon radiation. NVLAP 

and DOELAP testing protocols have varied somewhat, but fundamentally contain a tolerance criterion 

of bias plus one standard deviation between 0.3 and 0.5 (relative error) in routine beta, photon, and 

mixed beta/photon test and accident categories determined for 15 test dosimeters submitted in 

monthly exchanges of five dosimeters per test category for a 3-month period.

ATTACHMENT A

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 6 of 8
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 18 of 19

A.2.2.1 Film Badge Response in Comparison with Hp(10)

As can be seen in Figures A-1 and A-2, the comparison of typical film badge deep dose performance 

to Hp(10) dose demonstrates that the deep dose (1) generally under-responds to photons of energies 

less than about 60 keV, (2) generally over-responds to photons of higher energies to about 250 keV,

and (3) compares well for energies greater than about 250 keV. Figure A-1 shows that for the shallow 

dose, the OW portion of the two-element film badges over-responds substantially at even very low 

energies in relation to energies greater than about 250 keV. This over-response is corrected with the 

compensating design of the multielement film badge as shown in Figure A-2, although somewhat 

overcompensated in that the deep dose is slightly under-responded to photons between about 100 

and about 250 keV. The typical workplace radiation field will contain many different photon energies.

A.2.2.2 Interpretation of DOE Film Badge Records

The predominant concern with regard to interpreting film badge results is the potential deep dose 

under-response to photons of energies less than about 60 keV. For this reason, dose reconstructors 

should not apply the dose parameters in this TIB to workplaces with extensive exposure to low-energy 

photons. Workplace radiation fields that included photons in the less-than-30-keV energy range are 

probably underestimated by the two-element film badge dosimeter in particular; for this reason, the 

dose reconstruction report or an appropriate supporting document should discuss assumptions 

dealing with this dose component, such as with workers who worked directly with plutonium. An early 

practice was to assign a fraction (20%) of the nonpenetrating dose to the penetrating dose to 

compensate for the under-response. The dose reconstructor must be aware of site-specific protocols 

for adjusting OW dose when applying the provisions of this TIB to workplaces with the potential for

low-energy photon exposure.

Another concern related to interpreting film badge results is the potential shallow dose over-response 

in the OW reading to photons of energies typically less than about 250 keV. This is not necessarily of 

concern for dose reconstruction. The error in this case occurs on the side of the claimant because the 

film badge result overestimates the shallow dose the energy employee might have received. Dose 

reconstructors can make adjustments to this overestimated dose component as necessary on a caseby-case basis. An example of a common adjustment, in accordance with ORAUT (2005) is to multiply 

the OW photon dose response of the two-element dosimeter shown in Figures A-1 and A-2 by 0.6.

The strategy for interpretation of documented film badge results from DOE records can be 

summarized by the following:

• Shallow or deep dose from photons in the standard energy range of greater than 250 keV can

be interpreted as exposure without modification.

• Deep doses for multielement film dosimeter doses can be slightly underpredicted between 

about 100 keV and about 250 keV.

• Deep dose from photons is not reliably estimated in the lowest energy range, less than 

30 keV, and performance around 60 keV is questionable. Workplaces with photons from 

plutonium are not adequately characterized by the assumptions in this document; therefore,

ATTACHMENT A

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 7 of 8
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 06/05/2006 Page 19 of 19

deep dose reconstructions that involve exposure to plutonium and those that utilize dose from 

the lowest photon energy range must document assumptions on a case-by-case basis.

• Shallow dose from photon radiation for energies less than 250 keV can be substantially 

overestimated unless special precautions were taken. This can be a significant issue for 

mixed beta/photon radiation fields.

The pattern in recorded shallow and deep doses and general knowledge of workplace radiation fields 

allow judgment of the reasonableness of the recorded doses.

A.2.3

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 sitespecific administrative practices regarding use of the dosimeters and practices. This establishes a 

basis to calculate and record occupational dose for individual workers. For cases that are probably 

noncompensable, however, dose reconstructors can apply a standard overestimating methodology 

that overestimates dose to account for site-specific variations as described in Section 2.0.

Site-Specific Information

A.2.3.1 Workplace Radiation Fields

Table A-3 summarizes common beta/photon personnel dosimeter parameters important to Hp(10)

performance in the workplace. Based on energy response characteristics, DOE film dosimeters are 

expected to reasonably measure the Hp(10) dose in many workplace photon radiation fields, subject 

to limitations noted in OTIB Sections 3 and 4. This is particularly true for long-term workers with many 

dosimeter results, which tends to improve the accuracy of dose estimation because potential effects 

from extremes in workplace exposure geometries and radiation fields are minimized. Adjustments to 

dose measured by film dosimeters is not recommended. However, the biases listed in Table A-3 are 

of sufficient magnitude that the respective default factors in Section 2.0 of this OTIB must be 

sufficiently high to ensure claimant-favorable dose assignment

Table A-3. Common workplace photon dosimeter Hp(10) performance.

a

Parameter Description Workplace biasb

Exposure 

geometry

Dosimeter systems commonly 

calibrated using AP laboratory 

irradiations

Recorded dose of record probably too low because

dosimeter response is often lower at angles other than AP.

This assessment assumes calibration of the dosimetry 

system to Hp(10) in an AP exposure geometry, which is 

the common practice.” Effect is highly dependent upon 

radiation type and energy. 

Missed dose Doses less than MDL recorded 

as zero dose

Recorded dose of record probably too low.

Environmental 

effects

Workplace heat, humidity, etc., 

fade dosimeter signal.

Recorded dose of record probably too low.

a. Judgment based on common dosimeter response characteristics and workplace radiation fields.

b. Recorded dose compared to Hp(10).

ATTACHMENT A

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 8 of 8