Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 1 of 36 

1

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

Technical Information Bulletin

Document Number: 

 DCAS-TIB-0010 

Effective Date: 06/18/2010

Revision No. 3

Best Estimate External Dose Reconstruction for Glovebox Workers Page 1 of 39

Approval: Signature on file Date: 06/18/2010____ J.W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Supersedes:

 Rev. 02 

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

EFFECTIVE

DATE

REV. NO.

DESCRIPTION

5/18/2005 5/18/2005 1 Updated document to provide methodology 

and guidance on applying correction factors 

to glovebox workers for over and under 

estimation of dose.

12/30/2005 12/30/2005 02 Modified to provide best estimate approach.

06/18/2010 6/18/2010 03 Revised to expand the purpose section; 

clarified the use of ATTILA for geometric 

analysis only; standardized tables and 

graphs; and discussed organs affected by 

the process. Document number changed to 

reflect official name change from OCAS to 

DCAS. Incorporated SC&A review 

comments.
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 2 of 36 

2

1.0 Purpose

The purpose of this technical information bulletin (TIB) is to provide guidance on dose 

reconstructions for glovebox workers. This TIB discusses the special exposure characteristics 

that may be encountered by energy employees who work with gloveboxes and provides special 

dose correction factors or modifiers that should be applied to affected energy employee’s dose. It 

should be noted that throughout this technical information bulletin, the term glovebox is used, 

however, in the early years of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) facilities; these types of 

units were commonly called dry boxes as their original intent was to isolate radioactive materials. 

Throughout this report these terms should be considered equivalent.

A general approach for computation of a torso correction factor will be considered for a single 

glovebox using a radiation transport modeling software called ATTILA. Geometry is the variable

of concern. 

2.0 Special Exposure Considerations 

Geometry deserves special consideration when conducting dose reconstructions for glovebox 

workers. Therefore the dose reconstructions affected by this TIB are those for cancers of the 

stomach, liver, bladder, prostate, ovaries, testes, genitalia, or other cancers that appear in the 

region of those organs. The degree of underestimation is dependent on the distance between the 

radiological source (exposure geometry), the materials used to construct the glovebox 

(attenuation or shielding), and the relative duration (time) that an energy employee conducted 

work in the glovebox. In general, very little is known about the duration of the exposure which is 

typically dependent upon the specific duties of the energy employee.

2.1 Exposure Geometry

Exposure geometry is a special consideration in dose reconstruction of energy employees who 

primarily worked in gloveboxes. An underestimation of the dose could occur if the energy 

employee wore his/her dosimeter on the lapel and not the center area of the chest or on the waist. 

This underestimation could result due to the difference in relative distance between the external 

radiation source, the organ of interest, and the dosimeter. Only organs in the lower torso are 

affected, since design of the glovebox places these organs closer to the radiological source than 

the dosimeter. The dose to lung is considered to have been reasonably approximated by the 

dosimeter at least to within the dosimeter uncertainty and the dose to the face and head would 

have been slightly lower than the dose measured by the dosimeter worn on the lapel. 

2.2 Glovebox design

Low energy photons have a relatively low penetrating power and are easily attenuated. As a 

result, the design of the glovebox is an important consideration in accurately estimating the low 

energy photon dose. A review of the literature indicates that the design of gloveboxes varied 

widely.

1, 2 In some instances almost fully metal gloveboxes were used with only a small area for 

viewing (Figure 1), other gloveboxes had relatively large viewing areas (Figure 2-4), and others 

had a combination of multiple viewing areas with, in some designs, an opening that coincides 

with the center of the lower torso (Figure 5). 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 3 of 36 

3

Figure 1 Plutonium gloveboxes at LANL (1)

Figure 2 Plutonium gloveboxes at Chalk River (1)
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 4 of 36 

4

 

Figure 3 Plutonium gloveboxes at Hanford (2)

Figure 4 Plutonium gloveboxes at LANL’s CMR facility (1)
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 5 of 36 

5

 

 

 

Figure 5 Other plutonium gloveboxes at Hanford. Note the viewing area in direct line with the 

lower torso in the center between the gloves.

 (2)

Since the actual glovebox design is not known for each dose reconstruction scenario, a claimant 

favorable approach is used by assuming the glovebox had a large viewing face and the worker’s 

lower torso was exposed more by elevation of the simulated worker as shown in the ATTILA 

figures. This is considered a reasonable but necessary claimant favorable assumption, since 

identifying the actual glovebox design at each facility (DOE site, building, room, etc.) would be 

time consuming. In addition, during the course of an energy employee’s employment, it is likely 

that they conducted work in many different types of gloveboxes, thus a time dependent work 

location correction factor for each glovebox design would be necessary to account for such 

differences. The effect of this assumption is to overestimate the dose to the lower organs rather 

than an underestimate. 

While the face (viewing area) of a glovebox was typically constructed using a clear polymer type 

material such as Lucite3

, the sides and bases of gloveboxes are almost always constructed of 

sturdy materials such as wood, aluminum, and most commonly steel. These materials generally 

shield an individual worker from side exposure to low energy photons. As a result the low energy 

photon dose is virtually 100% from the anterior- posterior exposure geometry due to the 

radiological materials in the specific glovebox where the energy employee conducted his/her 

work. On the other hand, the intermediate and high energy photon dose would be a combination 

of the direct work in the glovebox as well as surrounding gloveboxes and process lines. 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 6 of 36 

6

3.0 

 Figure 6 Diagram of Human Torso (4)

Methodology

In the scenario used to develop a correction factor the radiation source was assumed to be directly 

in line with the specific organ of interest in the lower portion of the torso. To accurately estimate 

the underestimate of dose, the actual height of the glovebox and location of the source in relation 

to the energy employee’s organ of interest and the distance to their lapel would be necessary

(Figure 6). This analysis Used 24 inches as a reasonable claimant favorable assumption to 

simplify the calculation. In general, the correction factors for smaller stature workers would be 

less than those indicated in this technical information bulletin as the 24 inches is based on a 

moderately tall worker. In some instances, especially in the case of small stature workers, some 

of the organs could be below the bottom of the glovebox, thus low energy photons are virtually 

completely shielded (attenuated) and intermediate energy photons more attenuated than those 

measured on the dosimeter (Note the relative difference in worker stature in Figure 3). 

As stated above, an average distance of 24 inches (61 cm) was assumed to be the distance 

between the lower torso and the lapel. The distance between the radiation source and the lower 

torso was assumed to vary from 6 inches to 18 inches. These distances were selected as the 

general range from which a worker could conduct most of their work in the glovebox. A source 

closer than 6 inches, while technically possible in some glovebox designs, is not very likely given 

the body location with respect to the glovebox. In some instances (Figure 2) a nearly straight 

down movement would be needed to position a source 6 inches from the lower torso. On the 

converse, 18 inches was selected as a reasonable upper distance. While some workers with 

longer arms might have been able to reach the back of the glovebox, a comfortable working 

distance for most workers would be between 10-14 inches between the source and the lower torso 

with a central tendency estimated at approximately 12 inches. This is used as the source distance.

At source distances greater than 48 inches, the relative difference between the dose to the lower 

torso and the lapel is less than 25% (factor 1.25) which is typically within the uncertainty of the 

• 24 inches (61 cm)

• 12 inches (30 cm)
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 7 of 36 

7

dosimeter measurement. Thus the intermediate and high energy photon dose to the lower torso is 

approximately equal to the dose measured by the dosimeter on the lapel. 

A model to determine the best-estimate correction factor for lower torso exposure to a glovebox 

worker was developed using modeling software called ATTILA. It is a multi-group deterministic 

radiation transport environment that can directly use Computer Aided Design (CAD) data and 

model complex geometry efficiently and accurately to solve large 3-D problems. Attila can solve 

neutron and photon transport equations and accounts for the same transport effects as Monte 

Carlo but is faster. Attila directly solves the differential form of the Boltzmann transport 

equation. A mesh is generated consisting of discrete points in space in the entire domain of the 

model. The transport equation is then solved for flux as a function of angle, energy and particle 

type, at every mesh point. Interpolation between mesh points is also performed. 

The Attilla model’s geometry and flux contours can be seen in Figure 7. The makeup of the 

glovebox is a stainless steel top, bottom and sides with a Lucite front face. This was deemed a 

more conservative, i.e. claimant favorable, design compared to boxes with partial stainless steel 

front faces. The human figure also provides for more of the lower torso to be exposed above the 

table top, again to be conservative. 

 

Figure 7 ATTILA model geometry and flux contours. 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 8 of 36 

8

3.1 Data analysis

ATTILA calculates photon flux at all mesh points in the domain of the problem. In order to 

avoid selection bias from a single-point calculation, data was extracted at 30 points each in the 

regions A and B on a plane perpendicular to the x-axis corresponding to the surface of the body 

(Figure 8). Flux distributions for each region were then determined by CRYSTAL BALL 

software. The flux data from region A and B follow a lognormal distribution. The regions A 

and B correspond to upper torso and lower torso respectively. 

Figure 8 Data point selection regions. Various colors signify

relative magnitude of flux across a selected plane on the x-axis.

Ratios between flux distributions in regions B and A formed another set of data for analysis by 

CRYSTAL BALL software. 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 9 of 36

9

Figure 9 Distribution of lower torso to upper torso ratios

3.2 Results

An effort has been made to include the uncertainty of the dosimeter in the glovebox correction 

factor. There are two situations concerning such uncertainty, one where the combination of 

dosimeter reading and organ DCF is a constant and the other where that value is a normal 

distribution with+/-30% standard deviation.

3.2.1 Geometric mean and standard deviation when dosimeter uncertainty

constant

The resulting distribution of ratios from ATTILA was determined to be lognormal (Figure 9) with 

a geometric mean of 2.19 and a geometric standard deviation of 1.34. This mean and standard 

deviation will be applied to the dosimeter reading for deep dose when dosimeter correction factor

is considered constant, i.e. equal to 1.3.

3.2.2 Geometric Mean and standard deviation when dosimeter uncertainty is a

distribution

The resultant geometric mean and standard deviation for the distribution produced (Figure 10) by

CRYSTAL BALL when the lower-to-upper-torso distribution in Figure 9 is combined to a

truncated normal dosimeter uncertainty distribution (only positive values are considered) is 2.3

and 1.13 respectively. This produces a glovebox correction factor that includes a dosimeter 

distribution uncertainty and is used when the dosimeter uncertainty of +/-30% needs to be 

considered.
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 10 of 36 

10

Forecast: Corrected Dose

Lognormal Distribution 10,000 Trials

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0.04 1.58 3.12 4.66 6.20

Frequency

Figure 10 Combined distribution of lower-to-upper-torso ratio and dosimeter uncertainty

3.3 Reasonable Claimant Favorable Assumptions 

Listed below are several claimant favorable assumptions used in the development of this 

methodology that could result in an overestimate of the actual dose.

 

• Claimant favorable glovebox design

• Direct line of sight to lower torso with Lucite as shielding 

• Distance from lower torso to lapel based on tall workers

Obtaining data for precise evaluation of these parameters requires extensive time and research for 

each nuclear facility and in some instances the information cannot be obtained (e.g. facility has 

undergone D&D or other significant modification over time). 

4.0 Applicability to Neutron Doses

The high energy photon correction factors described above may also be appropriate to measured 

neutron dose and potentially to some applications using neutron to photon (n-p) ratios. An 

evaluation of the applicability to neutron dose requires a site specific evaluation. 

When a neutron to photon ratio method is used to estimate the neutron dose, it is important to 

know the general location of the photon and the neutron dosimeter. In the case of the Savannah 

River neutron to photon (n-p) ratios, the ratio was developed from joint measurement data of the 

TLD typically worn on the lapel and the neutron dosimeter (belly button dosimeter) worn around 

the waist. In this instance, the correction factor should not be applied since the measured neutron 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 11 of 36 

11

dose is a good representation of the dose to the lower torso. In later years, however, when the 

dosimeter combined photon and neutron TLD elements, a correction factor would need to be 

applied. 

However at other facilities, if the NTA film dosimeter was worn on the lapel and a ratio was 

determined based on a photon dosimeter also worn on the lapel, then the correction factor should 

be applied. The most efficient method for doing so would be to apply the correction factor to the 

photon dose before applying the neutron to photon ratio. 

5.0 Summary

This Technical Information Bulletin provides guidance for dose reconstruction to organs located 

in the lower torso. The correction factors for best-estimate of dose provided in Table 1 

respectively are for photons emanating from gloveboxes and measured using a dosimeter worn on 

the lapel. The factors should be applied for all photon energies and doses recorded either as the 

shielded element of the dosimeter or as the deep dose. The choice of factor will depend on 

whether the 30% dosimeter uncertainty is to be folded in or not.

Table 1: Lower torso best-estimate dose and/or exposure rate correction factors for glovebox 

work. 

Dosimeter Uncertainty 

Constant Distribution Geometric Mean Geometric Standard Deviation 

Yes Lognormal 2.19 1.34 

No Lognormal 2.3 1.13 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 12 of 36 

12

6.0 

 

References

1. A. S. Coffinberry and W. N. Miner, The Metal Plutonium, The University of Chicago Press, 

Chicago, Illinois, 1961. 

2. Office of Environmental Management, (1997) U.S. Department of Energy. Linking 

Legacies: Connecting the Cold War Nuclear Weapons Production Processes to Their 

Environmental Consequences, DOE/EM-0319, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington 

D.C.

3. Watson, E. C. (1959) A Film Technique for Measuring the Exposure Dose from 

Plutonium, Health Physics, Vol. 2 pp. 207. 

4. Merck (2004), The Merck Manual – Second Home edition, illustration obtained at the 

following website. http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual_home2/fg/fg001_1.jsp 

5 Grove Engineering (2002), Microshield Program version 5 User Manual, Rockville 

Maryland. 

6. Decisioneering Inc. (2000), Crystal Ball 2000 User Manual, Denver Colorado. 

7. 42 C.F.R pt 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employee 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal 

Register/Vol.67, No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002, p 22314. 

8. NIOSH, (2002) External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, Rev 1, OCASIG-001, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio.

9. McGhee and Wareing. (2004) AttilaTM Version 4: User's Manual, Radion Technologies 

Los Alamos, NM 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 13 of 36 

13

Appendix A 

Verification of ATTILA model using wrist and lapel monitoring data from the 

Rocky Flats Plant

Wrist and whole body exposure data from the Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) were collected and used as 

a means to validate the use of ATTILA in modeling flux distributions. The ratio of wrist to 

whole body exposure was determined and then compared to a calculated value based on 

modeling. Exposure data from approximately 960 claims submitted to the EEOICPA program 

were analyzed. The claims include glovebox and non glovebox workers. The data were 

separated into two distinct periods at RFP: 1953-1969 and 1977-2001. In order to calculate a 

ratio of wrist dose to whole-body gamma dose at RFP, the neutron dose component must be 

subtracted from the reported penetrating dose quantity. The ability to do this is dictated by the 

availability of independent neutron dose data. For the period 1953-1969 this data was available 

from the Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project (NDRP). The analysis of this period was restricted 

to employees who had their dose reconstructed under the NDRP study and who are also 

EEOICPA claimants. For the years 1977-2001, the neutron data is separately reported in the 

records provided by DOE. The analysis of this period was not limited to those employees who 

had their dose reconstructed under the NDRP study. Additional analysis assumptions are shown 

below: 

• Annual, quarter, and cycle data were compared – the maximum value was used

• Dose data from 1970 was excluded due to issues discussed in NDRP report 

• Analysis performed excluding deep dose < 30 mrem and then < 100 mrem to determine 

potential variability due to badge doses near LOD 

• Excluded extremity values <= 0

For completeness, an analysis was also done on the NDRP data for the years 1971-1997. 

In all cases, the resulting analysis of wrist to whole-body ratios fit lognormal distributions. The 

results are tabulated below in Table 2. For comparison, the NDRP protocol reported a wrist to 

whole-body ratio of 2.5 based on1957 data. 

Table A1 Wrist to badge ratio geometric means and standard deviations for Rocky Flats workers. 

 

Population GM GSD

NDRP (1953-1969) [Excluding < 30 mrem] 2.44 2.68 

NDRP (1953-1969) [Excluding < 100 mrem] 2.42 2.54 

All (1977 – 2001) [Excluding < 30 mrem] 2.72 2.18 

All (1977 – 2001) [Excluding <100 mrem] 3.08 2.14 

NDRP (1971-1997) [Excluding < 30 mrem] 2.24 2.28 

NDRP (1971-1997) [Excluding < 100 mrem] 2.37 2.77 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 14 of 36

14

From ATTILA, flux distributions in regions A and C were combined to form a ratio between 

wrist and upper torso (Figure A1). This formed the basis of a data set to be analyzed by 

CRYSTAL BALL software. The wrist-to-upper-torso ratio distribution was lognormal with 

geometric mean of 2.64 and a geometric standard deviation of 3.13. (FigureA2).

Figure A1 Data point selection regions. Various colors signify

relative magnitude of flux across a selected plane on the x-axis.

Figure A2 Distribution of wrist to upper torso ratios
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 15 of 36 

15

This is in agreement with the RFP wrist-to-body-ratio geometric means and standard deviations 

in Table A1. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that the ATTILA software is capable of 

producing reasonable and realistic results.

Appendix B 

ATTILA Model Data

Figure B1 Dimensions (All lengths are in centimeters)

Figure B2 Dimensions (All lengths are in centimeters)

Pu point 

Source at 

coordinates 

(0,0,34 cm) 

Below center

Point in box
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 16 of 36 

16

Thirty flux points, at surface of body, randomly chosen from box A and B in Figure B3 below. 

Figure B3 Analysis Points

Table B1 Photon source 1g Pu and 1ppb 236Pu, decayed 

Group Upper Energy (MeV) No 236Pu (gamma/s) 234Pu (gamma/s) Total (gamma/s)

1 5.00E-03 1.76E+06 3.82E+01 1.762E+06

2 1.00E-02 2.77E+06 1.12E+02 2.770E+06

3 1.50E-02 2.40E+08 4.34E+02 2.396E+08

4 2.00E-02 9.26E+03 3.78E+01 9.301E+03

5 2.50E-02 5.49E+02 2.49E+01 5.742E+02

6 3.00E-02 5.94E+06 2.18E+01 5.943E+06

7 3.50E-02 3.63E+05 1.77E+01 3.625E+05

8 4.00E-02 1.30E+05 1.45E+01 1.299E+05

9 4.50E-02 3.10E+05 1.23E+01 3.098E+05

10 5.00E-02 2.27E+05 1.43E+01 2.272E+05

11 5.90E-02 5.00E+05 7.07E+00 5.003E+05

12 6.00E-02 9.28E+07 7.07E+00 9.282E+07

13 7.00E-02 5.48E+04 1.23E+01 5.477E+04

14 8.00E-02 4.34E+04 2.23E+02 4.361E+04

15 9.00E-02 4.62E+02 7.84E+01 5.404E+02

16 1.00E-01 1.25E+05 8.78E+00 1.254E+05
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 17 of 36 

17

Group Upper Energy (MeV) No 236Pu (gamma/s) 234Pu (gamma/s) Total (gamma/s)

17 1.25E-01 1.99E+05 1.81E+01 1.989E+05

18 1.50E-01 1.42E+05 8.36E+00 1.422E+05

19 1.75E-01 1.49E+04 5.89E+00 1.487E+04

20 2.00E-01 5.83E+03 8.10E+00 5.841E+03

21 2.50E-01 5.33E+04 3.57E+02 5.361E+04

22 3.00E-01 5.24E+03 4.06E+01 5.284E+03

23 3.50E-01 3.76E+04 1.60E+01 3.763E+04

24 4.00E-01 7.01E+04 2.87E+00 7.007E+04

25 4.50E-01 3.77E+04 2.24E+00 3.767E+04

26 5.00E-01 2.21E+03 3.69E+00 2.218E+03

27 6.00E-01 3.00E+02 2.74E+02 5.741E+02

28 7.00E-01 2.82E+03 1.26E+00 2.820E+03

29 8.00E-01 1.34E+03 9.77E+01 1.438E+03

30 9.00E-01 4.37E+01 3.50E+01 7.864E+01

31 1.00E+00 1.37E+01 3.18E+00 1.691E+01

32 1.25E+00 3.98E+01 7.71E+00 4.748E+01

33 1.50E+00 2.94E+01 2.15E-01 2.964E+01

34 1.75E+00 1.68E+01 2.32E+01 3.997E+01

35 2.00E+00 1.45E+01 1.39E+00 1.592E+01

36 2.60E+00 1.74E+01 2.25E-04 1.743E+01

37 2.70E+00 7.07E-07 2.41E+02 2.410E+01

38 3.00E+00 9.85E+00 1.23E-06 9.852E+00

39 3.50E+00 5.86E+00 6.52E-07 5.860E+00

40 4.00E+00 3.37E+00 3.34E-07 3.367E+00

41 5.00E+00 3.01E+00 2.55E-07 3.007E+00

42 6.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.80E-08 1.001E+00

43 8.00E+00 4.30E-01 2.25E-08 4.301E-01

44 1.10E+01 4.89E-02 1.76E-09 4.891E-02

Total 3.45E+08 2.21E+03 3.452E+08

Use total gammas per second column and the associated energies for 1 gram Pu metal.
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 18 of 36 

18

Glove box materials 

Figure B4 Glove box materials

Appendix C 

Verification by Monte Carlo Simulation of Glove Box0

Introduction 

In this evaluation, the dose rate from non-uniform exposure geometries has been evaluated. For 

this evaluation worker exposures scenarios involving two types of gloveboxes were modeled 

using MCNPX. The first scenario assumed a stainless steel glovebox 1⁄4 inch thick with a full 

Lucite front. In the second scenario, the lower portion of the glovebox front was assumed to be 

stainless steel. The results of this modeling indicate that the dose rate measured by a dosimeter 

worn on the lapel was found to underestimate the dose rate to the abdomen by approximately 

20% when the source was approximately 14 inches from the abdomen from the Lucite front 

glovebox. Conversely, when stainless steel comprised the lower portion of the glovebox, the dose 

rate measured at the lapel would overestimate the dose rate to the abdomen by about a factor of 8. 

These simple scenarios clearly indicate the importance of glovebox configuration. Based on these 

results, a simple correction for exposure geometry may not be sufficient to accurately measure the 

dose to the abdomen. The remainder of this report discusses the methodology and assumptions 

used to estimate the dose rate at the various anatomical locations. 

Steel – box 

sides, bottom 

and table 

Steel – 

box top 

Lexan –face 

plate and 

glove ring 

supports 

Man -

water

Air filled 

room 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 19 of 36 

19

Methodology 

In the evaluation MCNPX was used to model the photon transport from a source contained in a 

glovebox. This section is broken down by the major input components required by the MCNPX 

code, which are geometry, source and material information, and tally methodology. 

MCNPX Geometry and Materials 

There were four basic geometric objects (glovebox, worker, source, and the room) modeled in 

this evaluation. During this evaluation, several different glovebox designs used to handle 

plutonium were investigated. Although the designs varied significantly, the main difference 

appeared to be the material and shape comprising the front of the glove box. Some glove boxes 

have vertical fronts that were entirely transparent, others had a configuration in which half of the 

front was vertical and the top half was at an angle to allow easier viewing. The basic design of a 

slightly slanted glovebox face was chosen for this evaluation, however to account for the 

differences in exposure, the bottom half was modeled as both Lucite and stainless steel. 

A standard glovebox with dimension 48”x24”x30” was used. The top, bottom and sides of the 

glovebox were 1⁄4” thick stainless steel. The legs of the glovebox were assumed to be 1.5” square 

by 36” tall and were assumed to be solid stainless steel. As noted above, a slanted face glove box 

was the basic model for this evaluation (i.e. a worker standing in front of a glovebox with a slight 

angle for the face shield with his forearms in the glovebox. A cutaway section of the glovebox 

was modeled in MCNPX .

For the worker the basic dimensions of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) 

Bottle Manikin Absorption phantom

(2) 

were used. This phantom was slightly modified to account 

for some subtle differences in exposure geometry. The BOMAB phantom is a relatively short 

phantom in that the total height is only 5’6” tall. 

The most disconcerting dimension with this phantom was the excessively long neck of nearly 4 

inches. This dimension was reduced by a factor of two with the additional height being given to 

the workers chest, thus making the lapel farther from the abdomen. The only other modification 

was to the arms of the phantom. The straight cylindrical arms were split into the upper arms and 

the forearms such that they could be bent and placed into the glovebox. The basic dimensions for 

the BOMAB phantom used in this model are provided in Table C1. For simplicity, the phantom 

was assumed to consist of pure water. 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 20 of 36 

20

Table C1 Representative Dimensions of Modeled Reference Man BOMAB 

Container Quantity Cross section Shape Cross section Dimensions 

(cm) 

Height (cm)

1. Head 1 ellipsoid 19x14 20 

2. Neck 1 circular 13 dia 10 

3. Chest 1 ellipsoid 30x20 40 

4. Pelvis 1 ellipsoid 36x20 20 

5. Forearms 2 circular 9.7 dia 30 

6. Upper arms 2 circular 12.5 dia 30 

7. Thighs 2 circular 15 dia 40 

8. Calves 2 circular 12 dia 40 

Total 12 170

The source geometry was a right circular cylinder that was 2 inches in diameter and 1 centimeter 

in height. This configuration was chosen since it most closely approximated an actual plutonium 

button or puck used in gloveboxes throughout the Department of Energy (DOE) complex. 

The room was modeled as a 20’x10’x10’ room with the back of the glovebox positioned one foot 

from the back wall. The floor was modeled as 6” of ordinary concrete and the back wall as 4” of 

ordinary concrete. A cutaway view of the room along the yz axis is a 10’x10’ dimension. 

A total of 6 different materials were used in the evaluation. Table C2 provides the MCNPX 

ZAID, the relative weight fractions, density and references used for the various materials in this 

evaluation. 

Table C2 Material information used in the modeling 

Material 

Density 

(g/cm

3

) 

Element / 

Isotope 

MCNPX 

ID 

ZAID 

Weight 

Fraction 

Reference 

Air Dry 

1.205e-3 C 6000 0.000124 PNWD3544

(4)

N-14 7014 0.755267 

O-16 8016 0.231781 

Ar 18000 0.012827 

Plutonium (Weapons Grade) 

15.92 Pu-238 94238 0.000399 PNWD3544

(4)
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 21 of 36 

21

Material 

Density 

(g/cm

3

) 

Element / 

Isotope 

MCNPX 

ID 

ZAID 

Weight 

Fraction 

Reference 

Pu-239 94239 0.934952 

Pu-240 94240 0.059969 

Pu-241 94241 0.001896 

Pu-242 94242 0.000499 

Am-241 95241 0.001996 

Be-9 4009 0.000003 

B-10 5010 0.000010 

B-11 5011 0.000040 

C-13 6013 0.000002 

Mg 12000 0.000105 

Al-27 13027 0.000130 

Concrete, Ordinary, Type 4 

2.35 H 1001 0.005532 ANS/ANSI 

6.4-1997 

(5)

O-16 8016 0.498298 

Na-23 11023 0.017021 

Mg 12000 0.002553 

Al-27 13027 0.045532 

Si 14000 0.315748 

S-32 16032 0.001277 

K 19000 0.019149 

Ca 20000 0.082553 

Water 

1.0 H 1000 2

a

O 8000 1

a 

Lucite 

1.19 H 1001 0.0805 Radiological 

Health 

Handbook 

(6)

C 6000 0.5999 

O 8000 0.3196 

304 Stainless Steel 

8.0 Fe 26000 0.710 MCNP 5 

Class 

Handouts 

Cr 24000 0.180 

Ni 28000 0.080 

Mn 25000 0.020 

C 6000 0.008 

P 15000 0.001 

S 16000 0.001 a 

Atom Fraction
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 22 of 36 

22

MCNPX Source Term 

The photon source term for this evaluation was taken from Traub et al.,

(4) 

and assumes 15 year 

aged weapons grade plutonium. According to Traub et al,

(4) 

the actual yield of a 1 gram Pu 

sample is 3.452e8 photons/sec. For this evaluation a 400 gram plutonium sample was assumed, 

thus the total emission rate was 1.3824e11 photons/sec. The normalized photon spectra 

distribution is provided in Table C3. 

. 

Table C3 Normalized photon energy intervals

Photon Energy (MeV) Probability Photon Energy (MeV) Probability 

0.001 0 0.500 6.41E-06

0.005 5.09E-03 0.600 1.66E-06

0.010 8.02E-03 0.700 8.16E-06

0.015 6.94E-01 0.800 4.16E-06

0.020 2.69E-05 0.900 2.28E-07

0.025 1.66E-06 1.000 4.88E-08

0.030 1.72E-02 1.250 1.37E-07

0.035 1.05E-03 1.500 8.57E-08

0.040 3.76E-04 1.750 1.16E-07

0.045 8.97E-04 2.000 4.60E-08

0.050 6.57E-04 2.600 5.03E-08

0.059 1.45E-03 2.700 6.97E-07

0.060 2.69E-01 3.000 2.85E-08

0.070 1.59E-04 3.500 1.70E-08

0.080 1.26E-04 4.000 9.75E-09

0.090 1.56E-06 5.000 8.71E-09

0.100 3.62E-04 6.000 2.89E-09

0.125 5.76E-04 8.000 1.24E-09

0.150 4.11E-04 11.000 1.41E-10

0.175 4.31E-05

0.200 1.69E-05

0.250 1.55E-04

0.300 1.53E-05

0.350 1.09E-04

0.400 2.03E-04

0.450 1.09E-04

Results 

In this evaluation two glovebox scenarios were modeled and the dose rate calculated at three 

anatomical locations, the upper chest or lapel, the lower abdomen, and the wrist for each scenario. 

The upper chest or lapel was selected as this is the typical location a worker would wear a 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 23 of 36 

23

radiation dosimeter. At some facilities, workers also wore wrist dosimeters, thus the ratio between 

the lapel and the wrist was also of interest. The primary focus of this evaluation was to 

investigate the variation in dose to the lower abdomen for different glovebox configurations. By 

developing the ratio between the lapel and the abdomen, an estimate of the degree of 

overestimation and underestimation can be examined. For these results, the source was positioned 

in the center of the glovebox (12 inches from the edge) and approximately 14 inches from the 

lower abdomen. 

In this evaluation, two tally types were conducted. The first tally F4 simply examined the 

exposure rate at the three locations. The second method using a F5 point detector in conjunction 

with ICRP 74 dose conversion factors enabled an estimate of dose. 

In the first scenario, the entire front of the glovebox was modeled as Lucite. As observed in Table 

C4 the dose to the lower abdomen was greater than the dose measured at the lapel. 

Table C4 Tally results for the full Lucite glovebox 

Position

on

Body

F4 Cell Tally F5 Point Detector Tally Inverse Squares

(mR/hr)

Ratio

X : Lapel (mrad/hr)

Ratio

X : Lapel (mrad/hr)

Ratio

X : Lapel

Lapel 1.95 1:01 1.75 1:01 2.00a 1:01 

Abdomen 2.3 1.18 :1 1.98 1.13 :1 5.57 2.79 :1 

Wrist 15.9 8.15 :1 15.93 9.10 :1 26.78 13.39 :1 

a- assumed dose for ratio methodology 

Interestingly in this model, the abdomen dose while greater than the lapel was not as high as 

would be predicted from the simple inverse squares law. This indicates that attenuation plays a 

significant role. This is somewhat expected due to the low energy emission spectra from the 

plutonium source, but wasn’t expected to be as marked a difference. A mesh tally in which the 

photon fluence was accumulated in 1 cm x 1 cm cells across the centerline of the problem 

geometry makes it clear to see that the dose to organs in the lower abdomen would be 

underestimated if a worker solely worked with gloveboxes with full Lucite fronts and the 

dosimeter worn on the lapel were used to estimate the dose. 

In the second scenario, the lower front of the glovebox was modeled as stainless steel. It should 

be noted that although the lower vertical portion of the glovebox was modeled as stainless steel, 

the gloveports (entrance area) were not. The entrance area where a worker inserts his/her arms 

into the glovebox were simply modeled as the workers arms (water). As a result, there was still 

some scatter through the ports to the lower abdomen. In this scenario, the effect of shielding is 

clearly observed as the dose to the abdomen was only about 1/8 the dose to the lapel (Table C5). 

In this scenario, using the dose measured on the lapel would significantly overestimate the dose to 

the lower abdomen. 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 24 of 36 

24

Table C5 Tally results for the half stainless steel and half Lucite glovebox 

Position

On

Body

F4 Cell Tally F5 Point Detector Tally Inverse Squares

(mR/hr)

Ratio

X : Lapel (mrad/hr)

Ratio

X : Lapel (mrad/hr)

Ratio

X : 

Lapel

Lapel 1.73 1:01 1.89 1:01 2.00a 1:01 

Abdomen 0.24 0.14 : 1 0.22 0.12 : 1 5.57 2.79 : 1 

Wrist 16.84 9.73 : 1 20.4 10.79 : 1 26.78 13.39 : 1 

a 

assumed dose for ratio methodology 

It should be noted that the F4 Cell Tally uncertainty in this model was nearly double that of the 

Lucite model as transporting photons through the stainless steel diminished the number of 

interactions in the tally cell significantly. Figure C1 below depicts the photon fluence mesh tally 

for the half stainless steel and half Lucite front of the glovebox. Note the sharp coloration 

difference at the Lucite stainless steel interface clearly demonstrating the streaming effect. The 

dark green to cyan coloration at the lower abdomen clearly indicates the reduced photon fluence 

and the effect of shielding. In addition, the blending of colors around the body in the figure are 

more pronounced thus better illustrating the scatter through the body. 

Figure C1 Photon fluence from a half stainless steel and half Lucite front glovebox. 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 25 of 36 

25

When moving the source and varying the glovebox thickness, it is important to consider the rather 

lengthy computer runtimes that are required. Although in this problem photons near the tally area 

were given a higher importance, the runtime to develop the figure took approximately 150 hours 

(6 days) of continuous computer time on a 3.0 GHz hyper-threaded Pentium 4. This is why 

ATTILA is more time-efficient.

Summary 

In this evaluation the dose rate from non-uniform exposure geometries was evaluated. This 

evaluation clearly demonstrates the importance of glovebox materials on the dose rate. In the case 

of a full Lucite front, the dose measured at the lapel by a dosimeter would underestimate the dose 

to the lower abdomen. However, when the lower portion of the glovebox was replaced with 

stainless steel, the dose was approximately 1/8 the dose that would be measured at the lapel. Both 

of these results indicate that the inverse squares law greatly overestimates the actual dose to 

plutonium glovebox workers. In the case of the stainless steel lower front... attenuation trumps 

distance. 

Notes to Appendix C: 

0. Taulbee, T. Part of course assignment in Monte Carlo simulation at the University of Cincinnati 

1. Coffinberry, A. S. and Miner W. N. The Metal Plutonium. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago 

Press; 1961; ISBN: 61-17072. 

2. Hickman, David. The LLNL Seamless BOMAB [Web Page]. Accessed 2005 Nov. 

3. Office of Environmental Management (U.S. Department of Energy). Closing the Circle on the Splitting 

of the Atom. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy; 1996 Jan; DOE/EM-0266. 

4. Traub, Richard J.; Scherpelz, Robert I., and Taulbee, Timothy D. Personal Dose Equivalent Rates from 

Three Plutonium Objects. Pacifc Northwest Division: Battelle; 2005 Mar; PNWD-3544. 

5. ANSI/ANS-6.4-1997. Nuclear Analysis and Design of Concrete Radiation Shielding for Nuclear Power 

Plants. La Grange Park, Il 60525: American Nuclear Society; 1997. 

6. Shleien, Bernard; Slabeck, Lester A., and Birky, Brian Kent. Handbook of Health Physics and 

Radiological Health 3rd Edition. Baltimore, Maryland: Williams & Wilkins; 1998; ISBN: 0-

683-18334-6. 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 26 of 36 

26

MCNPX Input Decks 

Input Deck 1 - Full Lucite front to the glove box 

Glovebox Simulation - Monte Carlo Final Project 

C 34567891123456789212345678931234567894123456789512345678961234567897 

C This MCNP simulation calulates the dose rate 

C difference between the wrist, lapel, and abdomen 

C for a typical glovebox worker. The glovebox used 

C in this simulation is a standard stainless steel 

C glovebox with a lucite face. The front plate containing 

C the glove entrances is Lucite. The standard man 

C is the Bottle Man Phantom (BOMAB), with minor modifications. 

C 

C Created by Tim Taulbee 

C 

C ***************** Cell Cards ********************** 

C 

C ** Glovebox Cells 

C 

1 2 -8.0 -1 imp:p=1 $ Bottom Plate 

2 2 -8.0 -2 imp:p=1 $ Back Plate 

3 2 -8.0 -3 imp:p=1 $ Top Plate 

4 6 -1.19 -4 30 31 imp:p=10 $ Front Plate 

5 2 -8.0 -5 imp:p=1 $ Lower L Side 

6 2 -8.0 -6 imp:p=1 $ Lower R Side 

7 2 -8.0 -7 imp:p=1 $ Upper L Side 

8 2 -8.0 -8 imp:p=1 $ Upper R Side 

9 2 -8.0 -9 imp:p=1 $ L Triangular Piece 

10 2 -8.0 -10 imp:p=1 $ R Triangular Piece 

11 6 -1.19 -11 3 4 imp:p=10 $ Face plate 

12 2 -8.0 -12 imp:p=1 $ Back Left Leg 

13 2 -8.0 -13 imp:p=1 $ Back Right Leg 

14 2 -8.0 -14 imp:p=1 $ Front Left Leg 

15 2 -8.0 -15 imp:p=1 $ Front Right Leg 

16 2 -8.0 -16 imp:p=1 $ Back Middle Leg 

17 2 -8.0 -17 imp:p=1 $ Front Middle Leg 

C 

c 

C ** BOMAB Phantom Cells 

C 

20 3 -1.0 -20 imp:p=1 $ Right Calf 

21 3 -1.0 -21 imp:p=1 $ Left Claf 

22 3 -1.0 -22 imp:p=1 $ Right Thigh 

23 3 -1.0 -23 imp:p=1 $ Left Thigh 

24 3 -1.0 -24 imp:p=1 $ Pelvis 

25 3 -1.0 -25 imp:p=1 $ Chest 

26 3 -1.0 -26 imp:p=1 $ Neck 

27 3 -1.0 -27 imp:p=1 $ Head 

28 3 -1.0 -28 30 imp:p=1 $ Upper Right Arm 

29 3 -1.0 -29 31 imp:p=1 $ Upper Left Arm 

30 3 -1.0 -30 imp:p=1 $ Lower Right Arm 

31 3 -1.0 -31 imp:p=1 $ Lower Left Arm 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 27 of 36 

27

C 

C 

C ** Source Cell 

35 4 -15.92 -35 imp:p=1 $ Source Cell 

C 

C 

C ** Dosimeters 

40 3 -1.0 -40 imp:p=10 $ Lapel Dosimeter 

41 3 -1.0 -41 imp:p=10 $ Abdomen Dosimeter 

42 3 -1.0 -42 imp:p=10 $ Wrist Dosimeter 

C 

C ** Room and Air Cells 

C 

50 1 -1.205e-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 35 40 41 42 53 -50 imp:p=1 $Room Air 

51 5 -2.35 -51 imp:p=1 $ Concrete Floor 

52 5 -2.35 -52 imp:p=1 $ Back Concrete Wall 

53 1 -1.205e-3 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 17 

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 35 40 41 42 -53 imp:p=10 

60 0 50 51 52 imp:p=0 $ Outside Universe 

C **************** Surface Cards ******************** 

C 

C ** Glovebox Surfaces 

C 

1 rpp -60.96 60.96 -30.48 30.48 -0.3175 0.3175 $ Bottom Plate -4'x 2' 

2 rpp -60.96 60.96 -30.48 -29.845 0.3175 75.8825 $ Back Plate 

3 rpp -60.96 60.96 -30.48 0.34 75.8825 76.5175 $ Top Plate 

4 rpp -60.96 60.96 29.845 30.48 0.3175 31.15 $ Front Plate 

5 rpp -60.96 -60.325 -29.845 29.845 0.3175 30.7975 $ Lower L Side 

6 rpp 60.325 60.96 -29.845 29.845 0.3175 30.7975 $ Lower R Side 

7 rpp -60.96 -60.325 -29.845 0 30.7975 75.8825 $ Upper L Side 

8 rpp 60.325 60.96 -29.845 0 30.7975 75.8825 $ Upper R Side 

9 wed -60.96 0 30.7975 0 29.845 0 0 0 45.085 0.635 0 0 $ L Triangluar 

10 wed 60.96 0 30.7975 0 29.845 0 0 0 45.085 -0.635 0 0 $ R Triangluar 

11 1 rpp 0 121.92 0 0.635 0 54.4 $ Face Plate 

12 rpp -60.96 -57.15 -30.48 -26.67 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Back Left Leg 

13 rpp 57.15 60.96 -30.48 -26.67 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Back Right Leg 

14 rpp -60.96 -57.15 26.67 30.48 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Front Left Leg 

15 rpp 57.15 60.96 26.67 30.48 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Front Right Leg 

16 rpp -1.905 1.905 -30.48 -26.67 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Back Middle Leg 

17 rpp -1.905 1.905 26.67 30.48 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Front Middle Leg 

C 

C 

C   BOMAB Phantom 

C 

C Note the Surfaces are defined from the bottom up 

20 rcc -7.5 45.56 -91.7575 0 0 40 6 $ Right Calf 

21 rcc 7.5 45.56 -91.7575 0 0 40 6 $ Left Calf 

22 rcc -7.5 45.56 -51.7575 0 0 40 7.5 $ Right Thigh 

23 rcc 7.5 45.56 -51.7575 0 0 40 7.5 $ Left Thigh 

24 rec 0 45.56 -11.7575 0 0 20 18 0 0 0 10 0 $ Pelvis 

25 rec 0 45.56 8.2425 0 0 45 15 0 0 0 10 0 $ Chest 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 28 of 36 

28

26 rcc 0 45.56 53.2425 0 0 5 6.5 $ Neck 

27 rec 0 45.56 58.2425 0 0 20 7 0 0 0 9.5 0 $ Head 

28 2 rcc 0 0 0 0 0 -35 6.25 $ Upper Right Arm 

29 3 rcc 0 0 0 0 0 -35 6.25 $ Upper Left Arm 

30 4 rcc 0 0 0 0 0 -35 4.85 $ Lower Right Arm 

31 5 rcc 0 0 0 0 0 -35 4.85 $ Lower Right Arm 

C 

C **  Cylindrical Source 

35 rcc 0 0 0.3175 0 0 1 2.83 $ Source 

C 

C 

C ** Dosimeter Surfaces - Tally Cell Surfaces 

40 rpp -2.54 2.54 35.30 35.50 48.1625 53.2425 $ Lapel Dosimeter 

41 rpp -2.54 2.54 35.30 35.50 1.0 6.08 $ Abdomen Dosimeter 

42 rpp 16.1 16.3 10.0 15.08 7.46 12.54 $ Wrist Dosimeter 

C 

C 

C ** Room and Concrete Slab 

C 

50 rpp -304.8 304.8 -60.96 304.8 -91.7575 213.0425 $ Room Air 

51 rpp -304.8 304.8 -68.58 304.8 -106.9975 -91.7575 $ Concrete Floor 

52 rpp -304.8 304.8 -68.58 -60.96 -91.7575 213.0425 $ Concrete Back Wall 

53 rpp -61 61 -3 45 -12 80 $ Important Air Volume 

C 

C ****************** Data Cards ******************** 

mode p 

C 

C **** Translocation Cards 

C 

c X Y Z B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 

*tr1 -60.96 29.845 30.7975 0 90 90 90 33.5 56.5 90 123.5 33.5 $ Face Plate 

*tr2 -21.25 45.56 53.2425 0 90 90 90 10 100 90 80 10 $ Upper Right Arm 

*tr3 21.25 45.56 53.2425 0 90 90 90 10 100 90 80 10 $ Upper Left Arm 

*tr4 -21.25 42.75 20 0 90 90 90 70 160 90 20 70 $ Lower Right Arm

*tr5 21.25 42.75 20 0 90 90 90 70 160 90 20 70 $ Lower Left Arm 

C 

C 

C **** Material Cards 

C 

C Dry Air: Density = 1.205e-3 g/cc (ICRU 37, 1984) 

m1 6000 -0.000124 7014 -0.755267 8016 -0.231781 18000 -0.012827 

C 

C 304 Stainless Steel: Density = 8.0 g/cc 

m2 26000 -0.710 24000 -0.18 28000 -0.08 25000 -0.02 

6000 -0.008 15000 -0.001 16000 -0.001 

C 

C Water: Density = 1.0 g/cc 

m3 1000 0.66667 8000 0.33333 

C 

C Plutonium: Density = 15.92 g/cc (DOE-STD-3013-2000) 

m4 94238 -0.000399 94239 -0.934952 94240 -0.059969 94241 -0.001896 

94242 -0.000499 95241 -0.001996 4009 -0.000003 5010 -0.000010 

5011 -0.000040 6013 -0.000002 12000 -0.000105 13027 -0.000130 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 29 of 36 

29

C 

C Ordinary Concrete: Density = 2.35 g/cc (ANSI/ANS-6.4-1997) 

m5 1001 -0.005532 8016 -0.498298 11023 -0.017021 12000 -0.002553 

13027 -0.045532 14000 -0.315748 16032 -0.001277 19000 -0.019149 

20000 -0.082553 

C 

C Lucite: Density = 1.19 g/cc (Radiological Health Handbook, 1998) 

m6 1001 -0.0805 6000 -0.5999 8000 -0.3196 

c 

C 

C   Source Definition Card 

C 

C 15 year aged Pu-239 

C 

SDEF par=2 pos=0 0 0.3175 axs 0 0 1 rad=d1 ext=d2 erg=d3 

C 

C Cylindrical Distribution approximately 2 inch diameter 1 cm height 

si1 0 2.83 

sp1 -21 1 

si2 0 1 

sp2 -21 0 

C Energy Distribution from PNWD-3544 (March 2005) 

si3 h 0.001 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 

0.040 0.045 0.050 0.059 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.090 

0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 

0.400 0.450 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 

1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.600 2.700 3.000 3.500 

4.000 5.000 6.000 8.000 11.000 

sp3 d 0 5.09E-03 8.02E-03 6.94E-01 2.69E-05 1.66E-06 1.72E-02 1.05E-03 

3.76E-04 8.97E-04 6.57E-04 1.45E-03 2.69E-01 1.59E-04 1.26E-04 1.56E-06 

3.62E-04 5.76E-04 4.11E-04 4.31E-05 1.69E-05 1.55E-04 1.53E-05 1.09E-04 

2.03E-04 1.09E-04 6.41E-06 1.66E-06 8.16E-06 4.16E-06 2.28E-07 4.88E-08 

1.37E-07 8.57E-08 1.16E-07 4.60E-08 5.03E-08 6.97E-07 2.85E-08 1.70E-08 

9.75E-09 8.71E-09 2.89E-09 1.24E-09 1.41E-10 

C 

C 

C ** ** Tally Cells 

C 

C F4 Tallys 

C 

fc4 Exposure Rate at Lapel 

f4:p 40 $ Tally on Cell 40 

fm4 3.75778e5 1 -5 -6 

C F4 Tally Multiplier 

C 1.3808e11 photons/sec * 3600 sec/hr * 

C 6.6222e-10 (rads/photon) / 0.876 (rads/Roentgen) = 3.75778 e5 R/hr 

C 

fc14 Exposure Rate at Abdomen 

f14:p 41 $ Tally on Cell 41 

fm14 3.75778e5 1 -5 -6 

C 

C 

fc24 Exposure Rate at Wrist 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 30 of 36 

30

f24:p 42 $ Tally on Cell 42 

fm24 3.75778e5 1 -5 -6 

C 

C 

C F5 Tallys using ICRP 74 Dose Conversion Factors 

C 

fc5 Exposure Rate at Lapel 

f5:p 0 35.36 50.725 0 

fm5 49708.8 

C Tally Multiplier 

C fm15=(1.3808e11 photons/sec)*(3600 sec/hr)*(1e-10 rad/pGy)= 49708.8 rad/hr 

C 

C Photon fluence to dose conversion factors obtained from ICRP 74 

C Table A.1 pg 159. Ka/Phi (Units: pGy cm^2) 

C 

de5 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.300 

0.400 0.500 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.500 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 8.000 

df5 7.430 3.120 1.680 0.721 0.429 0.323 0.289 0.307 0.371 0.599 0.856 1.380 

1.890 2.380 2.840 3.690 4.470 6.140 7.550 9.960 12.10 14.10 16.10 20.10 

C 

fc15 Exposure Rate at Abdomen 

f15:p 0 35.36 3.54 0 

fm15 49708.8 

C Tally Multiplier 

C fm15=(1.3808e11 photons/sec)*(3600 sec/hr)*(1e-10 rad/pGy)= 49708.8 rad/hr 

C 

C Photon fluence to dose conversion factors obtained from ICRP 74 

C Table A.1 pg 159. Ka/Phi (Units: pGy cm^2) 

C 

de15 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.300 

0.400 0.500 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.500 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 8.000 

df15 7.430 3.120 1.680 0.721 0.429 0.323 0.289 0.307 0.371 0.599 0.856 1.380 

1.890 2.380 2.840 3.690 4.470 6.140 7.550 9.960 12.10 14.10 16.10 20.10 

C 

C 

fc25 Exposure Rate at Wrist 

f25:p 16.1 12.54 10 0 

fm25 49708.8 

C Tally Multiplier 

C fm15=(1.3808e11 photons/sec)*(3600 sec/hr)*(1e-10 rad/pGy)= 49708.8 rad/hr 

C 

C Photon fluence to dose conversion factors obtained from ICRP 74 

C Table A.1 pg 159. Ka/Phi (Units: pGy cm^2) 

C 

de25 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.300 

0.400 0.500 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.500 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 8.000 

df25 7.430 3.120 1.680 0.721 0.429 0.323 0.289 0.307 0.371 0.599 0.856 1.380 

1.890 2.380 2.840 3.690 4.470 6.140 7.550 9.960 12.10 14.10 16.10 20.10 

C 

C 

C **** Mesh Tally 

tmesh 

rmesh1:p flux 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 31 of 36 

31

cora1 -2.54 2.54 

corb1 -63.0 199i 137 

corc1 -92 199i 108 

endmd 

C 

C nps 2000000 $ Number of Particles 

ctme 540 $ Runtime 

Input Deck -2 Half Stainless Steel Front Input Deck 

Glovebox Simulation - Monte Carlo Final Project 

C 34567891123456789212345678931234567894123456789512345678961234567897 

C This MCNP simulation calulates the dose rate 

C difference between the wrist, lapel, and abdomen 

C for a typical glovebox worker. The glovebox used 

C in this simulation is a standard stainless steel 

C glovebox with a steel face. The front plate containing 

C the glove entrances is Lucite. The standard man 

C is the Bottle Man Phantom (BOMAB), with minor modifications. 

C 

C Created by Tim Taulbee 

C 

C ***************** Cell Cards ********************** 

C 

C ** Glovebox Cells 

C 

1 2 -8.0 -1 imp:p=1 $ Bottom Plate 

2 2 -8.0 -2 imp:p=1 $ Back Plate 

3 2 -8.0 -3 imp:p=1 $ Top Plate 

4 2 -8.0 -4 30 31 imp:p=10 $ Front Plate 

5 2 -8.0 -5 imp:p=1 $ Lower L Side 

6 2 -8.0 -6 imp:p=1 $ Lower R Side 

7 2 -8.0 -7 imp:p=1 $ Upper L Side 

8 2 -8.0 -8 imp:p=1 $ Upper R Side 

9 2 -8.0 -9 imp:p=1 $ L Triangular Piece 

10 2 -8.0 -10 imp:p=1 $ R Triangular Piece 

11 6 -1.19 -11 3 4 imp:p=10 $ Face plate 

12 2 -8.0 -12 imp:p=1 $ Back Left Leg 

13 2 -8.0 -13 imp:p=1 $ Back Right Leg 

14 2 -8.0 -14 imp:p=1 $ Front Left Leg 

15 2 -8.0 -15 imp:p=1 $ Front Right Leg 

16 2 -8.0 -16 imp:p=1 $ Back Middle Leg 

17 2 -8.0 -17 imp:p=1 $ Front Middle Leg 

C 

c 

C ** BOMAB Phantom Cells 

C 

20 3 -1.0 -20 imp:p=1 $ Right Calf 

21 3 -1.0 -21 imp:p=1 $ Left Claf 

22 3 -1.0 -22 imp:p=1 $ Right Thigh 

23 3 -1.0 -23 imp:p=1 $ Left Thigh 

24 3 -1.0 -24 imp:p=1 $ Pelvis 

25 3 -1.0 -25 imp:p=1 $ Chest 

26 3 -1.0 -26 imp:p=1 $ Neck 

27 3 -1.0 -27 imp:p=1 $ Head 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 32 of 36 

32

28 3 -1.0 -28 30 imp:p=1 $ Upper Right Arm 

29 3 -1.0 -29 31 imp:p=1 $ Upper Left Arm 

30 3 -1.0 -30 imp:p=1 $ Lower Right Arm 

31 3 -1.0 -31 imp:p=1 $ Lower Left Arm 

C 

C 

C ** Source Cell 

35 4 -15.92 -35 imp:p=1 $ Source Cell 

C 

C 

C ** Dosimeters 

40 3 -1.0 -40 imp:p=10 $ Lapel Dosimeter 

41 3 -1.0 -41 imp:p=10 $ Abdomen Dosimeter 

42 3 -1.0 -42 imp:p=10 $ Wrist Dosimeter 

C 

C ** Room and Air Cells 

C 

50 1 -1.205e-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 35 40 41 42 53 -50 imp:p=1 $Room Air 

51 5 -2.35 -51 imp:p=1 $ Concrete Floor 

52 5 -2.35 -52 imp:p=1 $ Back Concrete Wall 

53 1 -1.205e-3 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 17 

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 35 40 41 42 -53 imp:p=10 

60 0 50 51 52 imp:p=0 $ Outside Universe 

C **************** Surface Cards ******************** 

C 

C ** Glovebox Surfaces 

C 

1 rpp -60.96 60.96 -30.48 30.48 -0.3175 0.3175 $ Bottom Plate -4'x 2' 

2 rpp -60.96 60.96 -30.48 -29.845 0.3175 75.8825 $ Back Plate 

3 rpp -60.96 60.96 -30.48 0.34 75.8825 76.5175 $ Top Plate 

4 rpp -60.96 60.96 29.845 30.48 0.3175 31.15 $ Front Plate 

5 rpp -60.96 -60.325 -29.845 29.845 0.3175 30.7975 $ Lower L Side 

6 rpp 60.325 60.96 -29.845 29.845 0.3175 30.7975 $ Lower R Side 

7 rpp -60.96 -60.325 -29.845 0 30.7975 75.8825 $ Upper L Side 

8 rpp 60.325 60.96 -29.845 0 30.7975 75.8825 $ Upper R Side 

9 wed -60.96 0 30.7975 0 29.845 0 0 0 45.085 0.635 0 0 $ L Triangluar 

10 wed 60.96 0 30.7975 0 29.845 0 0 0 45.085 -0.635 0 0 $ R Triangluar 

11 1 rpp 0 121.92 0 0.635 0 54.4 $ Face Plate 

12 rpp -60.96 -57.15 -30.48 -26.67 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Back Left Leg 

13 rpp 57.15 60.96 -30.48 -26.67 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Back Right Leg 

14 rpp -60.96 -57.15 26.67 30.48 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Front Left Leg 

15 rpp 57.15 60.96 26.67 30.48 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Front Right Leg 

16 rpp -1.905 1.905 -30.48 -26.67 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Back Middle Leg 

17 rpp -1.905 1.905 26.67 30.48 -91.7575 -0.3175 $ Front Middle Leg 

C 

C 

C   BOMAB Phantom 

C 

C Note the Surfaces are defined from the bottom up 

20 rcc -7.5 45.56 -91.7575 0 0 40 6 $ Right Calf 

21 rcc 7.5 45.56 -91.7575 0 0 40 6 $ Left Calf 

22 rcc -7.5 45.56 -51.7575 0 0 40 7.5 $ Right Thigh 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 33 of 36 

33

23 rcc 7.5 45.56 -51.7575 0 0 40 7.5 $ Left Thigh 

24 rec 0 45.56 -11.7575 0 0 20 18 0 0 0 10 0 $ Pelvis 

25 rec 0 45.56 8.2425 0 0 45 15 0 0 0 10 0 $ Chest 

26 rcc 0 45.56 53.2425 0 0 5 6.5 $ Neck 

27 rec 0 45.56 58.2425 0 0 20 7 0 0 0 9.5 0 $ Head 

28 2 rcc 0 0 0 0 0 -35 6.25 $ Upper Right Arm 

29 3 rcc 0 0 0 0 0 -35 6.25 $ Upper Left Arm 

30 4 rcc 0 0 0 0 0 -35 4.85 $ Lower Right Arm 

31 5 rcc 0 0 0 0 0 -35 4.85 $ Lower Right Arm 

C 

C **  Cylindrical Source 

35 rcc 0 0 0.3175 0 0 1 2.83 $ Source 

C 

C 

C ** Dosimeter Surfaces - Tally Cell Surfaces 

40 rpp -2.54 2.54 35.30 35.50 48.1625 53.2425 $ Lapel Dosimeter 

41 rpp -2.54 2.54 35.30 35.50 1.0 6.08 $ Abdomen Dosimeter 

42 rpp 16.1 16.3 10.0 15.08 7.46 12.54 $ Wrist Dosimeter 

C 

C 

C ** Room and Concrete Slab 

C 

50 rpp -304.8 304.8 -60.96 304.8 -91.7575 213.0425 $ Room Air 

51 rpp -304.8 304.8 -68.58 304.8 -106.9975 -91.7575 $ Concrete Floor 

52 rpp -304.8 304.8 -68.58 -60.96 -91.7575 213.0425 $ Concrete Back Wall 

53 rpp -61 61 -3 45 -12 80 $ Important Air Volume 

C 

C ****************** Data Cards ******************** 

mode p 

C 

C **** Translocation Cards 

C 

c X Y Z B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 

*tr1 -60.96 29.845 30.7975 0 90 90 90 33.5 56.5 90 123.5 33.5 $ Face Plate 

*tr2 -21.25 45.56 53.2425 0 90 90 90 10 100 90 80 10 $ Upper Right Arm 

*tr3 21.25 45.56 53.2425 0 90 90 90 10 100 90 80 10 $ Upper Left Arm 

*tr4 -21.25 42.75 20 0 90 90 90 70 160 90 20 70 $ Lower Right Arm 

*tr5 21.25 42.75 20 0 90 90 90 70 160 90 20 70 $ Lower Left Arm 

C 

C 

C **** Material Cards 

C 

C Dry Air: Density = 1.205e-3 g/cc (ICRU 37, 1984) 

m1 6000 -0.000124 7014 -0.755267 8016 -0.231781 18000 -0.012827 

C 

C 304 Stainless Steel: Density = 8.0 g/cc 

m2 26000 -0.710 24000 -0.18 28000 -0.08 25000 -0.02 

6000 -0.008 15000 -0.001 16000 -0.001 

C 

C Water: Density = 1.0 g/cc 

m3 1000 0.66667 8000 0.33333 

C 

C Plutonium: Density = 15.92 g/cc (DOE-STD-3013-2000) 
Effective Date:

06/18/2010 Revision No. 3 

Procedure No.

DCAS-TIB-0010 Page 34 of 36 

34

m4 94238 -0.000399 94239 -0.934952 94240 -0.059969 94241 -0.001896 

94242 -0.000499 95241 -0.001996 4009 -0.000003 5010 -0.000010 

5011 -0.000040 6013 -0.000002 12000 -0.000105 13027 -0.000130 

C 

C Ordinary Concrete: Density = 2.35 g/cc (ANSI/ANS-6.4-1997) 

m5 1001 -0.005532 8016 -0.498298 11023 -0.017021 12000 -0.002553 

13027 -0.045532 14000 -0.315748 16032 -0.001277 19000 -0.019149 

20000 -0.082553 

C 

C Lucite: Density = 1.19 g/cc (Radiological Health Handbook, 1998) 

m6 1001 -0.0805 6000 -0.5999 8000 -0.3196 

c 

C 

C   Source Definition Card 

C 

C 15 year aged Pu-239 

C 

SDEF par=2 pos=0 0 0.3175 axs 0 0 1 rad=d1 ext=d2 erg=d3 

C 

C Cylindrical Distribution approximately 2 inch diameter 1 cm height 

si1 0 2.83 

sp1 -21 1 

si2 0 1 

sp2 -21 0 

C Energy Distribution from PNWD-3544 (March 2005) 

si3 h 0.001 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 

0.040 0.045 0.050 0.059 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.090 

0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 

0.400 0.450 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 

1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.600 2.700 3.000 3.500 

4.000 5.000 6.000 8.000 11.000 

sp3 d 0 5.09E-03 8.02E-03 6.94E-01 2.69E-05 1.66E-06 1.72E-02 1.05E-03 

3.76E-04 8.97E-04 6.57E-04 1.45E-03 2.69E-01 1.59E-04 1.26E-04 1.56E-06 

3.62E-04 5.76E-04 4.11E-04 4.31E-05 1.69E-05 1.55E-04 1.53E-05 1.09E-04 

2.03E-04 1.09E-04 6.41E-06 1.66E-06 8.16E-06 4.16E-06 2.28E-07 4.88E-08 

1.37E-07 8.57E-08 1.16E-07 4.60E-08 5.03E-08 6.97E-07 2.85E-08 1.70E-08 

9.75E-09 8.71E-09 2.89E-09 1.24E-09 1.41E-10 

C 

C 

C ** ** Tally Cells 

C 

C F4 Tallys 

C 

fc4 Exposure Rate at Lapel 

f4:p 40 $ Tally on Cell 40 

fm4 3.75778e5 1 -5 -6 

C F4 Tally Multiplier 

C 1.3808e11 photons/sec * 3600 sec/hr * 

C 6.6222e-10 (rads/photon) / 0.876 (rads/Roentgen) = 3.75778 e5 R/hr 

C 

fc14 Exposure Rate at Abdomen 

f14:p 41 $ Tally on Cell 41 

fm14 3.75778e5 1 -5 -6 
Effective Date:

 05/11/2004

Revision No. 

 1

Procedure No.

 OCAS-TIB-0010

Page 35 of 

36

C 

C 

fc24 Exposure Rate at Wrist 

f24:p 42 $ Tally on Cell 42 

fm24 3.75778e5 1 -5 -6 

C 

C 

C F5 Tallys using ICRP 74 Dose Conversion Factors 

C 

fc5 Exposure Rate at Lapel 

f5:p 0 35.36 50.725 0 

fm5 49708.8 

C Tally Multiplier 

C fm15=(1.3808e11 photons/sec)*(3600 sec/hr)*(1e-10 rad/pGy)= 49708.8 rad/hr 

C 

C Photon fluence to dose conversion factors obtained from ICRP 74 

C Table A.1 pg 159. Ka/Phi (Units: pGy cm^2) 

C 

de5 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.300 

0.400 0.500 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.500 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 8.000 

df5 7.430 3.120 1.680 0.721 0.429 0.323 0.289 0.307 0.371 0.599 0.856 1.380 

1.890 2.380 2.840 3.690 4.470 6.140 7.550 9.960 12.10 14.10 16.10 20.10 

C 

fc15 Exposure Rate at Abdomen 

f15:p 0 35.36 3.54 0 

fm15 49708.8 

C Tally Multiplier 

C fm15=(1.3808e11 photons/sec)*(3600 sec/hr)*(1e-10 rad/pGy)= 49708.8 rad/hr 

C 

C Photon fluence to dose conversion factors obtained from ICRP 74 

C Table A.1 pg 159. Ka/Phi (Units: pGy cm^2) 

C 

de15 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.300 

0.400 0.500 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.500 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 8.000 

df15 7.430 3.120 1.680 0.721 0.429 0.323 0.289 0.307 0.371 0.599 0.856 1.380 

1.890 2.380 2.840 3.690 4.470 6.140 7.550 9.960 12.10 14.10 16.10 20.10 

C 

C 

fc25 Exposure Rate at Wrist 

f25:p 16.1 12.54 10 0 

fm25 49708.8 

C Tally Multiplier 

C fm15=(1.3808e11 photons/sec)*(3600 sec/hr)*(1e-10 rad/pGy)= 49708.8 rad/hr 

C 

C Photon fluence to dose conversion factors obtained from ICRP 74 

C Table A.1 pg 159. Ka/Phi (Units: pGy cm^2) 

C 

de25 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.300 

0.400 0.500 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.500 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 8.000 

df25 7.430 3.120 1.680 0.721 0.429 0.323 0.289 0.307 0.371 0.599 0.856 1.380 
Effective Date:

 05/11/2004

Revision No. 

 1

Procedure No.

 OCAS-TIB-0010

Page 36 of 

36

1.890 2.380 2.840 3.690 4.470 6.140 7.550 9.960 12.10 14.10 16.10 20.10 

C 

C 

C **** Mesh Tally 

tmesh 

rmesh1:p flux 

cora1 -2.54 2.54 

corb1 -63.0 199i 137 

corc1 -92 199i 108 

endmd 

C 

C nps 2000000 $ Number of Particles 

ctme 2040 $ Runtime