Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model REV 02, ICN 00

ANL-MGR-MD-000007

September 10, 2004


1. PURPOSE 
This analysis report is one of the technical reports documenting the Environmental Radiation 
Model for Yucca Mountain, Nevada (ERMYN), a biosphere model supporting the total system 
performance assessment for the license application (TSPA-LA) for the geologic repository at 
Yucca Mountain. A graphical representation of the documentation hierarchy for the ERMYN is 
presented in Figure 1-1. This figure shows relationships among the reports developed for 
biosphere modeling and biosphere abstraction products for the TSPA-LA, as identified in the 
Technical Work Plan for Biosphere Modeling and Expert Support (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169573]) 
(TWP). This figure provides an understanding of how this report contributes to biosphere 
modeling in support of the license application (LA). This report is one of the five reports that 
develop input parameter values for the biosphere model. The Biosphere Model Report 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460]) describes the conceptual model and the mathematical model. The 
input parameter reports, shown to the right of the Biosphere Model Report in Figure 1-1, contain 
detailed description of the model input parameters. The output of this report is used as direct 
input in the Nominal Performance Biosphere Dose Conversion Factor Analysis and in the 
Disruptive Event Biosphere Dose Conversion Factor Analysis that calculate the values of 
biosphere dose conversion factors (BDCFs) for the groundwater and volcanic ash exposure 
scenarios, respectively. 
The purpose of this analysis was to develop biosphere model parameter values related to 
radionuclide transport and accumulation in the environment. These parameters support 
calculations of radionuclide concentrations in the environmental media (e.g., soil, crops, animal 
products, and air) resulting from a given radionuclide concentration at the source of 
contamination (i.e., either in groundwater or in volcanic ash). The analysis was performed in 
accordance with the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169573]). 
The biosphere model considers features, events, and processes (FEPs) applicable to the Yucca 
Mountain biosphere (DTN: MO0407SEPFEPLA.000 [DIRS 170760]). Consideration of the LA 
FEPs List (DTN: MO0407SEPFEPLA.000 [DIRS 170760]) constitutes a deviation from the 
TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169573]), which referred to an earlier revision of the FEPs list 
(DTN: MO0307SEPFEPS4.000 [DIRS 164527]). The treatment of these FEPs is described in 
Biosphere Model Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.2). Parameter values developed 
in this report, and their relationship to FEPs, are listed in Table 1-1. The relationship between 
the parameters and FEPs was based on a comparison of the parameter definition and the FEP 
descriptions as presented in Biosphere Model Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.2). 
The parameter values developed in this report support the biosphere model and are reflected in 
the TSPA-LA through the BDCFs. 
The biosphere model was constructed for radionuclides screened in for the TSPA-LA (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169460], Section 6.3.5). The same list of radionuclides is used in this analysis 
(Section 6.1.4). The analysis considers two human exposure scenarios (groundwater and 
volcanic ash) and climate change (Section 6.1.5). 
The environmental transport parameter values were developed specifically for use in the 
biosphere model and may not be appropriate for other applications. 

Figure 1-1. Overview of the Yucca Mountain Biosphere Model Documentation 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 1-2 September 2004 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 1-3 September 2004 
Table 1-1. Parameters and Related Features, Events, and Processes 
Parameter(s) FEPa 
YMP FEP 
Number 
Associated 
Submodel(s) 
Summary of 
Disposition b 
Ashfall 1.2.04.07.0A 
Plant Uptake Sections 6.2.1.2 to 
6.2.1.5Soil-to-plant transfer factor (TF) Radionuclide alteration during biosphere transport 2.3.13.02.0A 
Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A 
Soil and sediment transport in the biosphere 2.3.02.03.0A 
Plant Uptake Section 6.2.2.1 Dry deposition velocity Biosphere characteristics 2.3.13.01.0A 
Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A 
Translocation factor Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A Plant Uptake Section 6.2.2.2 
Weathering rate constant Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A Plant Uptake Section 6.2.2.3 
Animal consumption rate of feed 
Animal farms and fisheries 2.4.09.02.0A Animal Uptake, 
Carbon-14 Section 6.3.2 
Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A 
Agricultural land use and irrigation 2.4.09.01.0B 
Animal Uptake, 
Carbon-14 Section 6.3.2 Animal consumption rate of water Animal farms and fisheries 2.4.09.02.0A 
Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A 
Animal consumption rate of soil 
Animal farms and fisheries 2.4.09.02.0A Animal Uptake, 
Carbon-14 Section 6.3.2 
Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A 
Animal diet-to-animal product transfer 
coefficient (TC) 
Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A 
Animal Uptake Section 6.3.3 
Radionuclide alteration during biosphere transport 2.3.13.02.0A 
Bioaccumulation factor for aquatic food 
(by element and climate) 
Fish uptake 3.3.02.03.0A 
Fish Uptake Sections 6.4.3 and 
6.4.4Radionuclide alteration during biosphere transport 2.3.13.02.0A 
Agricultural land use and irrigation 2.4.09.01.0B 
Fish Uptake Sections 6.4.3 to 
6.4.5 
Climate change 1.3.01.00.0A 
Water concentration modifying factor 
for fishpond water 
Water management activities 1.4.07.01.0A 
Biosphere characteristics 2.3.13.01.0A 
Animal farms and fisheries 2.4.09.02.0A 
Fish uptake 3.3.02.03.0A 
Radionuclide alteration during biosphere transport 2.3.13.02.0A 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 1-4 September 2004 
Table 1-1. Parameters and Related Features, Events, and Processes (Continued) 
Parameter(s) Included FEPa 
YMP FEP 
Number 
Associated 
Submodel(s) 
Summary of 
Disposition b 
Fraction of radionuclides in 
Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
evaporative cooler water that is Radon and radon daughter exposure 3.3.08.00.0A Air Section 6.5.2 
transferred into the air 
Radionuclide alteration during biosphere transport 2.3.13.02.0A 
Dwellings 2.4.07.00.0A 
Air Section 6.5.2 Water evaporation rate for an 
evaporative cooler 
Biosphere characteristics 2.3.13.01.0A 
Urban and industrial land and water use 2.4.10.00.0A 
Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Air flow rate for an evaporative cooler 
Dwellings 2.4.07.00.0A 
Air Section 6.5.2 
Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Radon release factor (concentration 
ratio for 222Rn in air to 226Rn in soil) 
Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Air Section 6.6.1 
Radon and radon daughter exposure 3.3.08.00.0A 
Ratio (conversion factor) of 222Rn 
concentration in outdoor air to 222Rn 
flux density from soil 
Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Air Section 6.6.1 
Radon and radon daughter exposure 3.3.08.00.0A 
Fraction of 222Rn flux from soil entering 
the house 
Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Air Section 6.6.2 
Radon and radon daughter exposure 3.3.08.00.0A 
Dwellings 2.4.07.00.0A 
Interior wall height Radon and radon daughter exposure 3.3.08.00.0A Air Sections 6.5.2 and 
6.6.2 
Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Dwellings 2.4.07.00.0A 
Air Section 6.6.2 House ventilation rate Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Radon and radon daughter exposure 3.3.08.00.0A 
Equilibrium factor for radon decay 
products indoors 
Radon and radon daughter exposure 3.3.08.00.0A 
Inhalation Section 6.6.3 
Inhalation 3.3.04.02.0A 
Equilibrium factor for radon decay 
products outdoors 
Radon and radon daughter exposure 3.3.08.00.0A 
Inhalation Section 6.6.3 
Inhalation 3.3.04.02.0A 
Carbon emission rate constant for soil Soil type 2.3.02.01.0A Carbon-14 Section 6.7.1 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 1-5 September 2004 
Table 1-1. Parameters and Related Features, Events, and Processes (Continued) 
Parameter(s) Included FEPa 
YMP FEP 
Number 
Associated 
Submodel(s) 
Summary of 
Disposition b 
Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Radionuclide alteration during biosphere transport 2.3.13.02.0A 
Agricultural land use and irrigation 2.4.09.01.0B 
Carbon-14 Section 6.7.2 Surface area of irrigated land Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Climate change 1.3.01.00.0A 
Mixing height of gaseous 14C (CO2) Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A Carbon-14 Section 6.7.2 
Annual average wind speed 
Biosphere characteristics 2.3.13.01.0A 
Carbon-14 Section 6.7.2 
Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Fraction of stable carbon in crops Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A Carbon-14 Section 6.7.3 
Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A 
Carbon-14 Section 6.7.3 Fraction of air-derived carbon in plants Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A 
Radionuclide alteration during biosphere transport 2.3.13.02.0A 
Fraction of soil-derived carbon in 
plants 
Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A 
Carbon-14 Section 6.7.3 Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A 
Radionuclide alteration during biosphere transport 2.3.13.02.0A 
Fraction of stable carbon in soil Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A Carbon-14 Section 6.7.3 
Concentration of stable carbon in air 
Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Carbon-14 Section 6.7.3 
Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A 
Fraction of stable carbon in animal 
products Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A Carbon-14 Section 6.7.4 
Concentration of stable carbon in 
water Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A Carbon-14 Section 6.7.4 
Critical thickness of soil for 
resuspension 
Radionuclide accumulation in soils 2.3.02.02.0A 
Soil Section 6.8 Soil and sediment transport in the biosphere 2.3.02.03.0A 
Inhalation 3.3.04.02.0A 
Correlation coefficient for transfer Radionuclide alteration during biosphere transport 2.3.13.02.0A 
Plant Uptake Section 6.2.1.5 factors and partition coefficients Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A 
Correlation coefficient for airflow and Dwellings 2.4.07.00.0A Air Section 6.5.2 

Table 1-1. Parameters and Related Features, Events, and Processes (Continued) 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 1-6 September 2004 
Parameter(s) Included FEPa 
YMP FEP 
Number 
Associated 
Submodel(s) 
Summary of 
Disposition b 
water use in evaporative coolers Atmospheric transport of contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
a DTN: MO0407SEPFEPLA.000 [DIRS 170760] 
b This column gives the section number of this analysis where the treatment of this parameter is described. The effects of the FEPs are included in the 
TSPA-LA through the BDCFs. See Biosphere Model Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.2) for a complete description of the inclusion and treatment 
of FEPs in the biosphere model. 

2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
Development of this report involves analysis of data to support performance assessment, as 
identified in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169573]), and thus, it is a quality affecting activity in 
accordance with AP-2.27Q, Planning for Science Activities. Approved quality assurance 
procedures identified in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169573], Section 4) have been used to 
conduct and document the activities described in this report. Specifically, the procedure 
governing development of this document was AP-SIII.9Q, Scientific Analyses. Electronic data 
used in this analysis were controlled in accordance with the methods specified in the TWP 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169573], Section 8). 
The natural barriers and items identified in the Q-List (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361]) are not 
pertinent to this analysis, and a Safety Category per AP-2.22Q, Classification Analyses and 
Maintenance of the Q-List, is not applicable. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

3. USE OF SOFTWARE 
The only software used during this analysis was the commercial, off-the-shelf product 
Microsoft Excel 2000 (Version 9.0.3821 SR-1). Only standard functions were used to 
calculate values listed in tables throughout Section 6, as noted. The use of the standard functions 
(including formulas or algorithms, inputs, and outputs) is described in Appendix A. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

4. INPUTS 
4.1 DIRECT INPUTS 
The list of biosphere model parameters addressed in this analysis, and the sources of direct input 
used to develop the parameter values, are shown in Table 4-1. Descriptions of the direct input 
follow the same order in which the parameters appear in Table 4-1. 
Table 4-1. Biosphere Model Input Parameters and Sources of Data Used to Develop Their Values and 
Distributions 
Biosphere Model Input Parameter 
Sources of Direct Input Used to Develop 
Parameter Value/Distribution 
Description and 
Justification 
Soil-to-plant transfer factors, by crop 
type and element 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766] 
BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468] 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767] 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458] 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519] 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776] 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079] 
Lide and Frederikse 1997 [DIRS 103178] 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784] 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882] 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077] 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744] 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789] 
Sheppard and Evenden 1997 [DIRS 160641] 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839] 
Section 4.1.1 
Correlation coefficient for transfer 
factors and partition coefficients 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767] 
Karlsson et al. 2001 [DIRS 159470] 
Sheppard and Sheppard 1989 [DIRS 160644] 
Section 4.1.1 
Dry deposition velocity 
DTN: MO04019SUM9397.000 [DIRS 167054] 
Summary of 1993-1997 Site 9 Meteorological Data 
Dorrian 1997 [DIRS 159476] 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784] 
NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894] 
Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693] 
Schery 2001 [DIRS 159478] 
Section 4.1.2 
Annual average wind speed 
DTN: MO04019SUM9397.000 [DIRS 167054] 
Summary of 1993-1997 Site 9 Meteorological Data 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784] 
Randerson 1984 [DIRS 109153] 
Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693] 
Stull 2001 [DIRS 159533] 
Section 4.1.2 
Critical thickness of soil 
McCartin and Lee 2001 [DIRS 160672] 
Sehmel 1980 [DIRS 163178] 
Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693] 
Section 4.1.2 
Translocation factor, by crop type 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776] 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079] 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464] 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781] 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927] 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] 
Section 4.1.3 

Table 4-1. Biosphere Model Input Parameters and Sources of Data Used to Develop Their Values 
and Distributions (Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input Parameter 
Sources of Direct Input Used to Develop 
Parameter Value/Distribution 
Description and 
Justification 
Weathering half-life (weathering rate 
constant) 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766] 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519] 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079] 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464] 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781] 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784] 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077] 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067] 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] 
Section 4.1.4 
Animal consumption rates of water, 
feed, and soil, by animal type 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 450 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767] 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458] 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519] 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776] 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079] 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464] 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781] 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927] 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784] 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067] 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] 
Section 4.1.5 
Transfer coefficients by animal 
product and element 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766] 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767] 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458] 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519] 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776] 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079] 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781] 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784] 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882] 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322] 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077] 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744] 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067] 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085] 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] 
Section 4.1.6 
Bioaccumulation factors for 
freshwater fish, by element 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767] 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458] 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519] 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776] 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781] 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953] 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882] 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077] 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067] 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] 
Section 4.1.7 
Water concentration modifying factor 
for fishpond water, by element 
DTN: MO0211SPADIMEN.005 [DIRS 160653] 
Dimensions of Catfish Ponds in Amargosa Valley 
Farnsworth et al. 1982 [DIRS 160564] 
Mississippi State University Extension Service 2002 
[DIRS 159489] 
Section 4.1.8 

Table 4-1. Biosphere Model Input Parameters and Sources of Data Used to Develop Their Values 
and Distributions (Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input Parameter 
Sources of Direct Input Used to Develop 
Parameter Value/Distribution 
Description and 
Justification 
Water evaporation rate for 
evaporative cooler (water use rate) 
Karpiscak et al. 1998 [DIRS 160563] Section 4.1.9.1 
Airflow rate for evaporative cooler 
Karpiscak and Marion 1994 [DIRS 159501] 
NAHB Research Center 1998 [DIRS 160428] 
ToolBase Services 2002 [DIRS 159507] 
Watt and Brown 1997 [DIRS 159497] 
Section 4.1.9.2 
Correlation coefficient for airflow and 
water use in evaporative coolers 
Karpiscak and Marion 1994 [DIRS 159501] 
Watt and Brown 1997 [DIRS 159497] Section 4.1.9.2 
Interior wall height (ceiling height) 
24 CFR 3280 [DIRS160555] 
NAHB Research Center 1998 [DIRS 160428] Section 4.1.9.3 
House ventilation (air exchange) rate 
24 CFR 3280 [DIRS160555] 
HVI 2001 [DIRS 160557] 
Murray and Burmaster 1995 [DIRS 160554] 
Section 4.1.9.4 
Radon release factor (concentration 
ratio of 222Rn in air to 226Ra in surface 
soil) 
UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644] 
NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894] Section 4.1.10.1 
Ratio (conversion factor) of 222Rn 
concentration in outdoor air to 222Rn 
flux density from soil 
UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644] 
NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894] Section 4.1.10.1 
Fraction of 222Rn flux from soil 
entering the house 
United Nations 1988 [DIRS 159566] 
UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644] 
Landman 1982 [DIRS 160425] 
Section 4.1.10.2 
Equilibrium factor for 222Rn decay 
products in indoor air 
United Nations 1988 [DIRS 159566] 
UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644] Section 4.1.10.3 
Equilibrium factor for 222Rn decay 
products in outdoor air 
UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644] 
NCRP 1988 [DIRS 153691] 
Wasiolek and James 1998 [DIRS 163507] 
Section 4.1.10.3 
Carbon emission rate constant for soil 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767] 
Sheppard et al. 1991 [DIRS 159545] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] 
Section 4.1.11 
Mixing height of gaseous 14C (CO2) Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] Section 4.1.11 
Surface area of land irrigated with 
contaminated water 
10 CFR 63 [DIRS 156605] Section 4.1.11 
Fraction of stable carbon in soil 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] Section 4.1.11 
Concentration of stable carbon in air 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519] 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] 
Section 4.1.11 
Fraction of stable carbon in crops by 
crop type 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] Section 4.1.11 
Fraction of air-derived carbon in 
plants 
Sheppard et al. 1991 [DIRS 159545] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] Section 4.1.11 
Fraction of soil-derived carbon in 
plants 
Sheppard et al. 1991 [DIRS 159545] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] Section 4.1.11 
Fraction of stable carbon in animal 
products, by animal product 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] Section 4.1.11 
Concentration of stable carbon in 
water 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767] 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927] 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465] 
Section 4.1.11 

The following factors were considered in the following sections to evaluate the data regarding 
their suitability for intended use: 
 
Reliability of data source 
 
Qualification of personnel or organizations generating the data 
 
Extent to which the data demonstrate the properties of interest 
 
Prior uses of the data 
 
Availability of corroborating data. 
4.1.1 Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors 
This section describes the data used to develop the values for soil-to-plant transfer factors (TFs) 
and correlation coefficient for TFs and partition coefficients. Parameter values were developed 
based on the data from the references presented in Table 4-2. This table lists the parameters, 
identifies specific sources of data used to develop the parameter values, and provides the section 
within this report where the analysis is presented. The references listed in Table 4-2 and the data 
within were used to determine the range of possible values of the TFs. Additional information 
on the use of these data is provided in Sections 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2. 
Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 
Chlorine soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.25 to 6.27 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
2 
Selenium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
3 
Strontium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
4 
Technetium soil-to-plant 
transfer factor for leafy 
vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
5 
Tin soil-to-plant transfer factor 
for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 

Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
6 
Iodine soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
7 
Cesium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
8 
Lead soil-to-plant transfer factor 
for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
9 
Radium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
10 
Actinium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
11 
Thorium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
12 
Protactinium soil-to-plant 
transfer factor for leafy 
vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
13 
Uranium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 

Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
14 
Neptunium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
15 
Plutonium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
16 
Americium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for leafy vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
17 
Chlorine soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
18 
Selenium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
19 
Strontium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
20 
Technetium soil-to-plant 
transfer factor for other 
vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
21 
Tin soil-to-plant transfer factor 
for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 

Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
22 
Iodine soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
23 
Cesium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
24 
Lead soil-to-plant transfer factor 
for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
25 
Radium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
26 
Actinium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
27 
Thorium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
28 
Protactinium soil-to-plant 
transfer factor for other 
vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 

Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
29 
Uranium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
30 
Neptunium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
31 
Plutonium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
32 
Americium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for other vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
33 
Chlorine soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
34 
Selenium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
35 
Strontium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468]/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 

Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
36 
Technetium soil-to-plant 
transfer factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
37 
Tin soil-to-plant transfer factor 
for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
38 
Iodine soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468],/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
39 
Cesium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468]/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
40 
Lead soil-to-plant transfer factor 
for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
41 
Radium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
42 
Actinium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
43 
Thorium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
44 
Protactinium soil-to-plant 
transfer factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 

Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
45 
Uranium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468]/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
46 
Neptunium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
47 
Plutonium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468]/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
48 
Americium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for fruit 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468]/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
49 
Chlorine soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
50 
Selenium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
51 
Strontium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
52 
Technetium soil-to-plant 
transfer factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
53 
Tin soil-to-plant transfer factor 
for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 

Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
54 
Iodine soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
55 
Cesium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
56 
Lead soil-to-plant transfer factor 
for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
57 
Radium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
58 
Actinium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
59 
Thorium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
60 
Protactinium soil-to-plant 
transfer factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 

Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
61 
Uranium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
62 
Neptunium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
63 
Plutonium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
64 
Americium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for grain 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
65 
Chlorine soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
66 
Selenium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 

Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
67 
Strontium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 75 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
68 
Technetium soil-to-plant 
transfer factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
69 
Tin soil-to-plant transfer factor 
for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
70 
Iodine soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
71 
Cesium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 75 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 

Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
72 
Lead soil-to-plant transfer factor 
for forage plants, groundwater 
scenario, present day climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
73 
Radium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
74 
Actinium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
75 
Thorium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
76 
Protactinium soil-to-plant 
transfer factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
77 
Uranium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 

Table 4-2. Sources of Data for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer Factor Values 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
78 
Neptunium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
79 
Plutonium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 75 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
80 
Americium soil-to-plant transfer 
factor for forage plants 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
81 
Correlation coefficient for 
soil-to-plant transfer factors and 
partition coefficients (Kds) 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 234 
Karlsson et al. 2001 [DIRS 159470], p. 37 
Sheppard and Sheppard 1989 [DIRS 160644], p. 653 
6.2.1.5 
81 
Lower and upper limits for the 
GSD of the transfer factor 
distributions 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 232 
Sheppard and Evenden 1997 [DIRS 160641], Figures 2 & 3 6.2.1.1.5 
82 Statistics for lognormal 
distribution 
Lide and Frederikse 1997 [DIRS 103178], p. A-104 6.2.1.1.5 
4.1.1.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
The documents that were used as sources of data for development of the values of TFs are 
mainly review reports, compendia of biosphere parameter values, and comprehensive dose 
assessment reports that included the descriptions of biosphere models and the selection of model 
input parameter values. Descriptions of the reports that were the source of the direct input are 
presented below. References were published by professional organizations producing 
technically defensible products pertinent to this analysis as indicated in the following discussion. 
The data from these reports are considered appropriate for the intended use (i.e., to develop the 

value distributions of TFs for the biosphere model). Some of the references are considered 
sources of established fact data. 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766]A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport 
of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture describes an evaluation of 
parameters pertaining to radionuclide transport through agricultural systems. It also provides 
documentation on the development of default parameters incorporated into the radionuclide 
food-chain-transport assessment code TERRA (p. xvii). The report was prepared by the 
scientific staff of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and reviewed by several specialists in the 
field of environmental transport of radionuclides (p. xvii). The work was sponsored by the 
Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The documentation of 
default parameter values includes description of available literature references, as well as the 
protocols and assumptions used. The report also includes comparison of radionuclide 
concentrations in the environmental media, predicted using the model with experimentally 
measured concentrations. The parameters discussed in this report include element-specific 
transport parameters, such as soil-to-plant TFs, animal-feedtoanimal-product transfer 
coefficients (TCs), and other parameters. The effort reported in this review document was 
directed toward construction of a database of various parameters used in radiological 
assessments. For element-specific parameters, such as the soil-to-plant TFs and TCs for animal 
products, many references were reviewed. For elements for which few or no experimental data 
existed, systematic protocols were used to estimate parameter values (p. 1). The reported values 
of parameters reflect reasonable estimates based on unbiased approaches, parameter 
correlation, and theoretical models when available information was limited (p. 3). This 
methodology is consistent with the philosophy underlying the ERMYN biosphere model, which 
also uses the reasonable estimate approach to dose assessment. 
BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468]This reference contains a collection of the working documents 
entitled Biosphere Modelling and Assessment Methods generated by the BIOMASS Program. Of 
these documents, A Critical Review of Experimental, Field and Modelling Information on the 
Transfer of Radionuclides to Fruit provides the results of a comprehensive effort aimed at better 
understanding of the transfer of radionuclides to fruit. The effort was conducted within the 
framework of the BIOMASS program sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency 
(IAEA) and involved participation of specialists in the area of environmental transport of 
radionuclides and radioecology (p. vi). The goal of the BIOMASS Project was to provide 
methodology for development of dose assessment models for radioactive waste disposal 
facilities. The subject report contains a summary of one of the tasks that was set up within the 
Biosphere Processes theme. The report was produced following a series of international 
meetings and workshops attended by researchers (p. vi and Annex A), followed by technical peer 
reviews occurring in the late 1990s. The report provides a review of the transfer of radionuclides 
to fruit and behavior in fruit-bearing plants. The intent of this review was to improve capabilities 
for modeling of radionuclide transfer to fruit, which was determined to be important in the 
overall context of the BIOMASS initiative. The report includes the most up-to-date compilation 
of experimental and field data on TFs for fruit. 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767]The Disposal of Canadas Nuclear Fuel Waste: The 
Biosphere Model, BIOTRAC, for Postclosure Assessment describes the biosphere model used in 
the performance assessment for the disposal of Canadian nuclear fuel waste. BIOTRAC is a 

comprehensive model used to trace radionuclide movement from the geosphere to the biosphere, 
to calculate environmental radionuclide concentrations, and to calculate the resulting doses. In 
addition to presenting the model, the report describes how the model parameter values and 
distributions adopted for the specific submodels were derived from the available data. The 
report includes a discussion of the reliability of BIOTRAC in terms of experimental validation, 
model and data evaluation, peer review, model intercomparisons, conservative assumptions, 
quality assurance procedures, and natural analogs (Chapter 11 and references within). Values for 
the BIOTRAC model parameters were developed based on carefully screened information and 
were subject to peer review (p. 334) conducted by the publishing organization. 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458]IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 364, Handbook of Parameter 
Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Temperate Environments, is a reference for 
radionuclide transfer parameter values used in biosphere assessment models. The report is based 
on data collected for the most part through projects of the International Union of Radioecology 
(IUR) and the Commission of European Communities. The report was produced through a series 
of consultant meetings and technical peer reviews involving numerous researchers (pp. 73 to 74). 
The report contains reference values for the most commonly used transfer parameters in 
radiological assessment models (p. 1). The parameter values are usually given as expected 
values and observed ranges. The expected values are best estimates of parameter values and 
should not be confused with the default values recommended for the generic screening models 
for assessing the impact of radionuclide discharges to the environment, such as those found in 
the IAEA document described below (2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 1). 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519]IAEA Safety Reports Series No. 19, Generic Models for Use in 
Assessing the Impact of Discharges of Radioactive Substances to the Environment, is the product 
of international efforts on generic models and parameters for assessing the environmental 
transfer of radionuclides from routine releases. The report provides the international community 
with a procedure that could be used to predict the environmental impact of future actions and 
decisions involving radionuclide releases to the environment. The report was developed through 
a series of consultant and advisory group meetings, followed by extensive technical review of the 
contents. The objective of the report was to provide simplified but conservative dose assessment 
methods. The report provides an overview of these methods and the selection of generic 
parameters for assessing transfers between various model components. Because of the objective 
of the report, the parameter values are generally conservative and not likely to lead to 
underestimations of the doses. The primary source of the TF information presented in this report 
is the IUR database compiled in the 1980s and early 1990s. 
Karlsson et al. 2001 [DIRS 159470]Models for Dose Assessments, Models Adapted to the 
SFR-area, Sweden, described the biosphere model for prediction of doses from long-term 
radionuclide releases from the Swedish radioactive waste repository. The report was issued by 
Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., a company that is in charge of management 
and disposal of radioactive waste in Sweden. The model was developed for an existing facility 
for storage of low- and intermediate-level operational wastes from nuclear power plants in 
Sweden. Several ecosystems were modeled, including agricultural land, which is of interest for 
the Yucca Mountain analysis. The report includes values for model parameters. Model 
parameters are based on local conditions and available literature. 

Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776]Residual Radioactive Contamination from 
Decommissioning, Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Total 
Effective Dose Equivalent, is the first volume of a report that provides generic and site-specific 
estimates of radiation dose for exposures to residual radioactive contamination after the 
decommissioning of facilities licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The 
document includes the description of the scenarios, models, mathematical formulations, 
assumption, and justification of parameter selections. The generic modeling addresses residual 
radioactive contamination in soil and in buildings. The information included in the report is 
intended to serve as the technical basis for the derivation of screening values supporting the 
development of NRC guidance applied to residual radioactive contamination from 
decommissioning (p. iii). Because of their use in development of screening guidelines, the 
models and the associated parameters presented in this report are inherently conservative. The 
report was developed by researchers from Pacific Northwest Laboratory and was sponsored by 
the Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research of the NRC. 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079]Information and Analyses to Support Selection of 
Critical Groups and Reference Biospheres for Yucca Mountain Exposure Scenarios is a 
biosphere assessment for Yucca Mountain that uses GENII-S as a supporting computer code. 
This assessment was done by the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses for the Division 
of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards of the NRC. Because 
the biosphere model developed by the Yucca Mountain Repository Development Project is 
similar, this document provides useful insight into selection of input parameter values. 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784]Radiological Assessment: Predicting the Transport, 
Bioaccumulation, and Uptake by Man of Radionuclides Released to the Environment, produced 
by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), reviews the status 
of the application of radionuclide transport models from the point of discharge to the 
environment to the point of human intake. Models reviewed include those that describe 
bioaccumulation of radionuclides in food products. The report includes an in-depth analysis of 
the data accompanying the models in order to examine potential uncertainties inherent in the 
choice of model input parameters (p. iv). Where available, model validation experimental results 
are included. This NCRP report is written as a reference document. The NCRP reports can be 
considered sources of established fact data. 
The NCRP is a nongovernmental, not-for-profit, public service organization and has status as an 
educational and scientific body. The NCRP was chartered by the U.S. Congress to collect, 
analyze, develop and disseminate in the public interest information and recommendations about 
radiation protection and radiation measurements, quantities, and unitsparticularly those 
concerned with radiation protectionand to develop basic concepts about radiation quantities, 
units and measurements; about the application of these concepts; and about radiation protection. 
The recommendations promulgated by the Council provide the scientific basis for radiation 
protection efforts throughout the country. 
The Council publishes in the form of reports the consensus of scientific opinion on various 
measurement problems. The reports carry the full weight of the Council. They are reviewed by 
critical reviewers, usually four to eight Council members selected because of their expertise, and 
also by the full Council membership and collaborating organizations. 

NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882] and NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101883]These documents are volumes I 
and II of Screening Models for Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, Surface Water and 
Ground. The documents describe simple models that can be used for assessing doses from 
radionuclides released to the environment, and they include the recommended values of input 
parameters. Because the screening models are designed to be conservative (if compliance can be 
demonstrated using these models, it is generally understood that no further complex calculations 
are necessary), the selected input parameter values fall within the upper end of their respective 
ranges. The NCRP reports can be considered sources of established fact data. 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077]This reference is a chapter in Radiological Assessment, 
A Textbook on Environmental Dose Analysis, which is a comprehensive book describing the 
techniques, models, and data most commonly used in radiological assessment, specifically to 
simulate the movement and effects of radionuclides in the environment. The preparation of the 
report was sponsored by the NRC. Chapter 5 of the report includes numerous tabulations of data 
related to radionuclide transport through terrestrial and aquatic food chains, which is of interest 
to the Yucca Mountain analysis. The chapters were written by scientific and technical experts, 
and extensive feedback was provided by professionals regarding the report. 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744]This reference, Verification Tests for the July 1993 Revision to 
the GENII Radionuclide and Dose Increment Libraries, describes a revision to some of the input 
data files for GENII, The Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System, and the 
verification tests for the July 1993 revision to the GENII input data. It also presents the most 
current list of default parameters for the code. GENII is a code developed to analyze the effects 
of environmental contamination with radionuclides. GENII-S, the stochastic implementation of 
GENII, was used in the biosphere modeling in support of TSPA for the Yucca Mountain Site 
Recommendation. GENII-S was used in performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant (Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 1-1). 
Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789]Application of the International Union of Radioecologists 
Soil-to-Plant Database to Canadian Settings presents the systematic analysis of TFs 
(concentration ratios) from the IUR database and development of correction factors to facilitate 
interpolation of TF values for ranges of soil conditions, where possible. Values of TFs are 
averaged for a number of crop types and species. The report provides a useful compilation of TF 
values based on experimental results submitted by individual contributors to the IUR database, 
which is the largest compilation of data on environmental transport of radionuclides. The 
document was published as a technical report by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which is an 
engineering company that conducted feasibility evaluations and prepared an Environmental 
Impact Statement for the concept of Canadian nuclear fuel waste disposal. The author of the 
report is one of the authors of the BIOTRAC model (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767]) described 
previously. 
Sheppard and Evenden 1997 [DIRS 160641]Variation in Transfer Factors for Stochastic 
Models: Soil-to-Plant Transfer presents an analysis of the uncertainties in the values of TFs 
from the IUR database. The article appeared in Health Physics, a peer-reviewed technical 
journal, which is an official publication of the Health Physics Society. 

Sheppard and Sheppard 1989 [DIRS 160644]Impact of Correlations on Stochastic Estimates 
of Soil Contamination and Plant Uptake is a scientific journal article that also appeared in 
Health Physics. The article discusses the impact of correlations and specifically concentrates on 
the values of Kds and TFs (concentration ratios) of interest for this analysis. 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839]A Compilation of Radionuclide Transfer Factors for the 
Plant, Meat, Milk, and Aquatic Food Pathways and the Suggested Default Values for the 
RESRAD Code reviews TFs used in published radiological assessment reports and develops 
suggested default values for RESRAD, a code designed to calculate doses to human receptors 
from residual activity in the environment. The report contains a discussion of differences among 
the reported values used in different radiological assessment codes and reports. The values used 
in more recent reports, based on more recent experimental work, are given more weight in data 
comparisons for the purpose of developing default values for RESRAD. The report was 
produced by the research staff from Argonne National Laboratory under the sponsorship of the 
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 
4.1.1.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The data included in the reports described in Section 4.1.1.1 were used to define, for each plant 
type and element, the range and the distribution of possible values of TFs. The values given in 
these reports differ primarily in regard to whether the approach was inherently conservative, 
which is the case for the screening models, or reasonable, using best estimates of parameter 
values. In most cases, a reference contributed only a single point value per crop type and 
element, and it was all the data points collectively that served as a basis for the distribution of the 
TF values. In this sense, neither of the references was used as a sole source of the data for a 
given TF value. It is believed that the combined TF data presented in these reports form a solid 
foundation for developing the distributions of TF values for the ERMYN biosphere model. 
Additional discussion of the input data and their appropriateness to represent the TFs for the 
biosphere model is in Sections 6.2.1.1.4 and 6.2.1.1.5. 
4.1.1.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
Some of the data sources listed in Section 4.1.1.1 were used in other performance assessments or 
other radiological assessments. For example, GENII-S model, with its input parameters reported 
in Verification Tests for the July 1993 Revision to the GENII Radionuclide and Dose Increment 
Libraries (Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744]), was used in the performance assessment for the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The RESRAD model has been used widely by the DOE, DOE 
contractors, the NRC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, industrial firms, universities, foreign agencies, and foreign institutions (Yu et al. 2001 
[DIRS 159465], p. xi), including assessments to demonstrate compliance. The input data for the 
RESRAD model are reported in part in A Compilation of Radionuclide Transfer Factors for the 
Plant, Meat, Milk, and Aquatic Food Pathways and the Suggested Default Values for the 
RESRAD Code (Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839]). LaPlante and Poor (1997 [DIRS 101079]) 
describe the supporting biosphere analysis for the Yucca Mountain repository performance 
assessment conducted by the NRC staff. The NCRP is considered the established fact source, 
and the data within were undoubtedly used in some other radiological assessments. 

4.1.1.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The references used constitute a comprehensive set of reports describing the environmental 
transport of radionuclides. As noted in Section 4.1.1.2, neither of the references used to develop 
distributions of TF values was a sole source of input, but rather the distributions were developed 
based on all the applicable data from the references, as described in detail in Sections 6.2.1.1 
and 6.2.1.2. This method ensured that all relevant data were included or at least considered. 
Following the completion of the analysis described in Section 6 of this report, a new report was 
published that includes description of methods and parameter values of evaluation of 
radionuclide uptake by plants. This report, Literature Review and Assessment of Plant and 
Animal Transfer Factors Used in Performance Assessment Modeling (Robertson et al. 2003 
[DIRS 168264]), generally confirms the TF value ranges considered in this analysis. 
4.1.1.5 Additional Data Used in Development of Transfer Factors 
In addition, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (Lide and Frederikse 1997 
[DIRS 103178]) was used as a source of statistics for the lognormal distribution used in 
Section 6.2.1.1.5. This reference is a source of the established fact data. 
In summary, the selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing 
TF distributions for the ERMYN biosphere model. The combined data set can be considered 
qualified for intended use. 
4.1.2 Parameters Pertaining to the Behavior of Particulates and Gases in Near-Surface 
Atmospheric Boundary Layer 
The values of parameters pertaining to behavior of particulates and gases in the near-surface 
atmospheric boundary layer were developed based on the references listed in Table 4-3. The 
data from these references were used to develop the values of dry deposition velocity, annual 
average wind speed, and critical thickness of the surface soil layer available for resuspension 
(i.e., the thickness of soil, including ash or an ashsoil mixture, affected by the atmospheric 
processes). Table 4-3 lists the biosphere model input parameters, identifies specific sources of 
information used to develop the parameter values, and provides the sections within this report 
that contain the detailed analyses. 
Parameter values are developed based on reviews of the sources listed in Table 4-3. The data 
referenced in Table 4-3 are suitable for the intended use, i.e., to develop distributions of the 
near-surface atmospheric transport input parameter values for the biosphere model. The 
following sections describe factors that were considered to evaluate the data regarding their 
suitability for the intended use. 

Table 4-3. Sources of Data Used for Development of Near-Surface Atmospheric Transport Parameter 
Values 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
Dry deposition velocity DTN: MO04019SUM9397.000 [DIRS 167054] 
Summary of 1993-1997 Site 9 Meteorological Data 
Dorrian 1997 [DIRS 159476], pp. 117 and 129 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 48 
NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894], p. 67-68 
Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693], pp. 547 to 551, 553, 558 to 561 
Schery 2001 [DIRS 159478], p. 268 
6.2.2.1 
Annual average wind speed DTN: MO04019SUM9397.000 [DIRS 167054] 
Summary of 1993-1997 Site 9 Meteorological Data 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 48 
Randerson 1984 [DIRS 109153], p. 169 
Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693], p. 562 
Stull 2001 [DIRS 159533], pp. 377 and 380, Figure 9.6 
6.2.2.1 
6.7.2 
Critical thickness Sehmel 1980 [DIRS 163178], p. 110 
Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693], p. 574 
McCartin and Lee 2001 [DIRS 160672], p. 5-4 
6.8 
4.1.2.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
Descriptions of the reports that were the source of the direct input are presented below. The 
references used include site-specific meteorological data as well as the reports that describe basic 
principles of atmospheric transport in the near-surface environment. References were either 
published by professional organizations, producing technically defensible products pertinent to 
this analysis, or are textbook-type references, as indicated in the following discussion. Some of 
the references are considered sources of established fact data. 
The list provided below gives brief descriptions of the reports and other data that served as 
sources of information for the development of distributions for deposition velocity, wind speed, 
and critical thickness. 
DTN: MO04019SUM9397.000 [DIRS 167054]The data set Summary of 19931997 Site 9 
Meteorological Data contains the summary of meteorological data collected by the Yucca 
Mountain Project at Meteorological Monitoring Site 9. For the ERMYN biosphere model, the 
average wind speed was used to develop the value of dry deposition velocity (Section 6.2.2.1) 
and wind speeds close to the ground surface (Section 6.7.2). The data represent meteorological 
conditions in the Amargosa Valley and are appropriate for the intended use. 
Dorrian 1997 [DIRS 159476]Particle Size Distributions of Radioactive Aerosols in the 
Environment was published in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, which is a peer-reviewed 
journal on the subject of radiation protection and radiation dosimetry. The article contains a 
comprehensive review of published measurements of activity median aerodynamic diameters of 
environmental aerosols to determine realistic default values for estimating doses to members of 
the public. 

McCartin and Lee 2001 [DIRS 160672]Preliminary Performance-Based Analyses Relevant to 
Dose-Based Performance Measures for a Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, 
prepared by the NRC staff, was published in the NUREG series. The report describes an 
approach for implementing a dose calculation for a defined receptor for groundwater 
contamination and direct disruption of the repository from volcanic activity. Some elements of 
this approach, especially those concerning the resuspension of contaminated ash, are adopted in 
this analysis. 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784]See Section 4.1.1.1. 
NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894]NCRP Report No. 129, Recommended Screening Limits for 
Contaminated Surface Soil and Review of Factors Relevant to Site-Specific Studies, contains 
NCRP recommendations and provides screening limits that can be applied to sites where the 
surface soil is contaminated with radionuclides to assist with evaluating contamination levels and 
with making decisions regarding cleanup. The report includes a description of the methods that 
were used to arrive at the values of screening factors. These methods were chosen such that they 
are conservative under most conditions, which is consistent with a screening approach. The 
description of the methods and the pertinent parameters are useful for developing parameter 
values for the ERMYN biosphere model. The NCRP reports can be considered sources of 
established fact data. 
Randerson 1984 [DIRS 109153]; Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693]These two authors wrote 
chapters in the book Atmospheric Science and Power Production, which is a collection of review 
articles written by experts on many subjects related to atmospheric science. This publication was 
prepared for the DOE and provides fundamentals of atmospheric transport, dispersion, 
chemistry, and removal processes. The book is recommended as a textbook, a handbook, and a 
guide for university professors and students, as well as for professionals involved in disciplines 
related to power production and air-quality analysis. It can be considered a reference source. 
Information from this book used in this analysis report concerns the behavior of aerosols in the 
outdoor environment with emphasis on dry deposition of particulates. 
Schery 2001 [DIRS 159478]This textbook, Understanding Radioactive Aerosols and Their 
Measurement, deals with radioactivity and aerosols in indoor and outdoor atmospheres. 
Although primarily intended as a textbook for college students, it is also recommended for 
professionals who need information on radioactive aerosols. Information used in this analysis 
report concerns dry deposition of particulates and is fundamental (textbook quality) in nature. 
Sehmel 1980 [DIRS 163178]Particle Resuspension: A Review is a journal article that 
appeared in Environment International. Environment International is a peer-reviewed periodical 
that covers the broad field of environmental research that quantifies relationships between 
exposure to environmental contaminants and their relationship with environmental health. 
Sehmel in an authority on resuspension processes. 
Stull 2001 [DIRS 159533]An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology is a reference 
publication that describes the fundamentals of boundary layer meteorology. It contains a 
detailed treatment of the broad field of boundary layer meteorology. The book is suggested for 
graduate students of meteorology, as well as air chemists and aerosol physicists wanting to 

interpret their measured data in terms of boundary layer phenomena. It is also used as a text for 
many university courses in the field of atmospheric science. 
4.1.2.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The data included in the reports described in Section 4.1.2.1 were used to define the range and 
the distribution of values for the parameters describing the atmospheric transport in the 
near-surface environment. In most cases, several references were used to develop a distribution 
of the parameter values. These references included the sources of the site-specific data and the 
references describing the general properties of atmospheric transport in the near-surface 
environment. The data and methods presented in these reports are appropriate for developing the 
input parameter values for the ERMYN biosphere model. 
4.1.2.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
McCartin and Lee (2001 [DIRS 160672]) describe the preliminary performance-based analysis 
for the Yucca Mountain repository conducted by the NRC staff. Other, prior uses of the data are 
not known. However, the sources of input that were selected are in large part the general 
descriptions of methods and parameter values that characterize the atmospheric transport 
processes in the near-surface environment. Since they were developed by the organizations that 
are well established in this field, they were undoubtedly used in other radiological assessments. 
The site-specific meteorological data are appropriate for the intended use. 
4.1.2.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The references used constitute a broad set of reports describing the environmental transport of 
radionuclides. Neither of the references used to develop distributions of TF values was a sole 
source of input, but rather the distributions of parameter values were developed based on the 
description of the atmospheric properties, the methods, and the applicable data from all the 
references, as described in detail in Sections 6.2.2.1, 6.7.2 and 6.8. This method ensured that the 
relevant information was included or at least considered. Other references were not used. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the 
distributions for the biosphere model input parameters, and the data can be considered qualified 
for intended use. Additional discussion on the use of these data is provided in Sections 6.2.2.1, 
6.7.2, and 6.8. 
4.1.3 Translocation Factors 
The values of crop type-dependent translocation factors were developed based on data from the 
references listed in Table 4-4. Table 4-4 lists the parameters, identifies specific sources of 
information used to develop the parameter values, and provides the section within this report that 
contains the analysis. Additional discussion of the use of these data is provided in 
Section 6.2.2.2. 

Table 4-4. Sources of Data Used for Development of Translocation Factor Values 
Biosphere Model Input Parameter 
References Used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 
Translocation factor for leafy 
vegetables, other vegetables, fruit, 
and grain consumed by humans 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.41 
to 6.42 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], p. 135 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.67 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 70 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.2 
2 
Translocation factor for forage plants 
consumed by beef cattle and dairy 
cattle 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.41 
to 6.42 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], p. 135 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.67 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 70 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.2 
3 
Translocation factor for grain 
consumed by poultry and laying 
hens 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.41 
to 6.42 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], p. 135 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.67 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 70 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.2 
The data referenced in Table 4-4 are suitable for the intended use, i.e., to develop distributions of 
the translocation factor values for the biosphere model. The following sections describe factors 
that were considered to evaluate the data regarding their suitability for the intended use. 
4.1.3.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
The sources of data on translocation factors consist of reports containing recommendations 
regarding environmental transport models and their associated input parameters and 
comprehensive dose assessment reports that include selection of input parameter values. 
Parameter values for this analysis were developed based on reviews of these sources. References 
were published by professional organizations producing technically defensible products pertinent 
to this analysis as indicated in the following discussion. The data from these reports are 
considered appropriate for the intended use. Presented below are brief descriptions of the reports 
that were chosen as primary sources of information for the development of the translocation 
factors. Some of the references are considered sources of established fact data. 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776]See Section 4.1.1.1. 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079]See Section 4.1.1.1. 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464]This report, Users Guide for GENII-S: A Code for Statistical 
and Deterministic Simulations of Radiation Doses to Humans from Radionuclides in the 
Environment, is a user manual for the GENII-S computer program, which uses a comprehensive 
set of environmental pathway models used to calculate radionuclide transport in the environment 

and the resulting radiation doses to the human receptor. The manual includes a list of values 
recommended as defaults for the selected input parameters. The current biosphere model is, in 
part, based on GENII-S and its deterministic precursor, GENII. The default values of parameters 
used by GENII-S are the same as those originally developed for GENII (Napier et al. 1988 
[DIRS 100953], Volume 3, Section 5.2) and subsequently updated, as documented by Rittmann 
(1993 [DIRS 107744]). 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781]Parameters and Variables Appearing in Radiological 
Assessment Codes defines relevant parameters and presents typical values and ranges of values 
for each parameter. This report includes radionuclide source term calculations, doses to man, 
health effects, atmospheric transport, and environmental pathway and food chain transport 
parameters. The objective of the report was to compile parameters and parameter values for 
benchmarking and evaluating computer codes used for analyzing the performance of a high-level 
radioactive waste repository. Many parameters described in the report were based on PABLM, a 
computer code that was incorporated into GENII (Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], Volume 1, 
p. 1.2). 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953] and Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927]GENIIThe 
Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System is a three-volume report that gives 
a comprehensive description of the GENII model and software, including the conceptual basis, 
mathematical expressions, user manual, and the listing of default parameter values. GENII is an 
environmental pathway analysis model that was designed by the staff of Pacific Northwest 
Laboratory for calculating potential radiation doses resulting from routine Hanford emissions 
and dose calculation for purposes such as siting facilities, environmental impact statements, and 
safety analysis reports. The default parameter values for the code were selected based on review 
of the most recent pertinent information from the technical literature, with emphasis on 
Hanford-specific data. The GENII software package was developed in a framework for 
complying with the quality assurance program requirements for nuclear power plants, as 
described by Napier et al. (1988 [DIRS 100953], Volume 1, Section 1.2 and Volume 2, 
Section 5.0). 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784]See Section 4.1.1.1. 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465]Users Manual for RESRAD Version 6 is the manual for the 
RESRAD code, which is used to implement DOE residual radioactive material guidelines. The 
manual describes the models used to derive site-specific guidelines for allowable residual 
concentrations in soil. It also includes description of the design and use of RESRAD and the 
default parameter values. The document provides useful information on selecting values of 
parameters of interest for the ERMYN biosphere model. As part of the RESRAD quality 
assurance program, the code has undergone extensive technical review, benchmarking, 
verification, and validation. The input parameters incorporated into RESRAD were determined 
to be realistic but reasonably conservative (Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. 1-6). The 
methodology for collecting RESRAD input data and the typical values and ranges of input 
parameters are discussed in detail in the RESRAD Data Collection Handbook (Yu et al. 1993 
[DIRS 160561]) and in Yu et al. (2001 [DIRS 159465], pp. 1-6 to 1-7). 

4.1.3.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The data included in the reports described in Section 4.1.3.1 were used to define the values and 
distributions of the translocation factor for each crop type included in the biosphere model. In 
most cases, all the relevant data from the references were used as a basis for the values and 
distributions of the translocation factors. Such a method ensures that the property of interest is 
adequately represented. 
4.1.3.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
Some of the data sources listed in Section 4.1.3.1 were used in other performance assessments or 
other radiological assessments. For example, GENII-S model (Leigh et al. 1993 
[DIRS 100464]), which is based on the GENII model (Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953] and 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927]), was used in the performance assessment for the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant. The RESRAD model has been used widely by the DOE, DOE contractors, 
the NRC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
industrial firms, universities, foreign agencies, and foreign institutions (Yu et al. 2001 
[DIRS 159465], p. xi), including assessments to demonstrate compliance. LaPlante and Poor 
(1997 [DIRS 101079]) describe the supporting biosphere analysis for the Yucca Mountain 
repository performance assessment conducted by the NRC staff. The NCRP reports are 
considered the established fact sources, and the data within were undoubtedly used in other 
radiological assessments. 
4.1.3.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The references used constitute a comprehensive set of reports describing the environmental 
transport of radionuclides. Neither of the references used to develop distributions of 
translocation factor values was a sole source of input but rather the distributions were developed 
based on all the applicable data from the references, as described in detail in Section 6.2.2.2. 
This method ensured that all relevant data were included or at least considered. 
In summary, the selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing 
the values and distributions of the translocation factor for the biosphere model, and the combined 
data set can be considered qualified for intended use. 
4.1.4 Weathering Half-Life (Weathering Rate Constant) 
The values of the weathering half-life (weathering rate constant) were developed based on data 
from the references in Table 4-5. Table 4-5 identifies specific sources of data used to develop 
the parameter value and provides the sections within this report that contain the analyses. 
Additional information on the development of this parameter is presented in Section 6.2.2.3. 

Table 4-5. Sources of Data Used for Development of Weathering Half Life 
Biosphere Model Input Parameter 
Weathering half-life (weathering rate 
constant) 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Section 
Reach Conclusion No. 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 124 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 63 to 64 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-7 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], p. 137 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 70 
6.2.2.3 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-36 to 5-37 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-69 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-30 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-12 
The data referenced in Table 4-5 are suitable for the intended use, i.e., to develop distributions of 
the weathering half-life for the biosphere model. The following sections describe factors that 
were considered to evaluate the data regarding their suitability for the intended use. 
4.1.4.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
The sources of data related to weathering consist of reports providing summaries of 
measurements of weathering half-life (weathering rate constant), reports containing 
recommendations of the environmental transport models and their associated input parameters, 
and comprehensive dose assessment reports that include selection of input parameter values. In 
this analysis, parameter values are developed based on reviews of these sources. These 
references were published by professional organizations, producing technically defensible 
products pertinent to this analysis, as indicated in the following discussion. The information 
from these reports is appropriate for the intended use. Presented below are descriptions of 
reports that were chosen as primary sources of information for developing the distribution of the 
weathering half-life for the biosphere model. Some of the references are considered sources of 
established fact data. 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766]See Section 4.1.1.1 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519]See Section 4.1.1.1 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464]See Section 4.1.3.1 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781]See Section 4.1.3.1 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077]See Section 4.1.1.1 

Regulatory Guide 1.109 1977 [DIRS 100067]Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 
Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix I, an NRC Regulatory Guide, provides guidance regarding methods 
acceptable to the NRC for calculating radiation doses from nuclear power reactor effluent 
releases to the environment. The document specifies the methods for calculating annual external 
exposure, inhalation, and ingestion doses due to liquid, noble gas, and particulate matter releases. 
Numerical data supporting the equations presented in the publication are those routinely used by 
the NRC staff (Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 1.109-36). The data 
include environmental, human, dose factors, and other parameters. Of interest for the ERMYN 
biosphere analysis are the environmental data provided in Appendix E. The methods and 
parameters represent general approaches developed by the NRC staff for use in lieu of specific 
parameters for individual sites. 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085]Biosphere Modeling and Dose Assessment for Yucca 
Mountain was prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute. The report documents the 
development of a biosphere model for Yucca Mountain and includes an extensive review of 
biosphere model parameter values with emphasis on radionuclides identified as important in 
previous TSPA calculations. Best estimates and appropriate ranges are provided with a 
comparison of data values considered in the review (Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085]). This 
model constitutes an alternative approach to biosphere modeling that is based on the BIOMASS 
(2001 [DIRS 159468]) methodology. 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465]See Section 4.1.3.1 
4.1.4.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The data included in the reports described in Section 4.1.4.1 were used to define the distribution 
of the weathering half-life values for the biosphere model. All the relevant data from the 
references were used as a basis for the distribution of the weathering half-life. Such a method 
ensures that the property of interest is adequately represented. 
4.1.4.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
Some of the data sources listed in Section 4.1.4.1 were used in other performance assessments or 
other radiological assessments. For example, the GENII-S model (Leigh et al. 1993 
[DIRS 100464]) was used in the performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 
The RESRAD model has been used widely by the DOE, DOE contractors, the NRC, the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, industrial firms, 
universities, foreign agencies, and foreign institutions (Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. xi), 
including assessments to demonstrate compliance. LaPlante and Poor (1997 [DIRS 101079]) 
describe the supporting biosphere analysis for the Yucca Mountain repository performance 
assessment conducted by the NRC staff. Similarly, Smith et al. (1996 [DIRS 101085]) present 
the biosphere model, including its input parameters, for the repository at Yucca Mountain. 
NCRP reports are considered established fact sources, and the data within were undoubtedly 
used in other radiological assessments. 

4.1.4.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The references used constitute a comprehensive set of reports describing the environmental 
transport of radionuclides. Neither of the references used to develop the distribution of the 
weathering half life was a sole source of input, but rather the distribution was developed based 
on all the applicable data from the references, as described in detail in Sections 6.2.2.3. This 
method ensured that all relevant data were included or at least considered. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the 
distribution of the weathering half-life for the biosphere model, and the combined data set can be 
considered qualified for intended use. 
4.1.5 Animal Consumption Rates for Water, Feed, and Soil 
The values of animal consumption rates for water, feed, and soil were developed based on 
external-source information from the references listed in Table 4-6. Table 4-6 lists the 
parameters, identifies specific sources of information used to develop the parameter values, and 
provides the sections within this report that contain the analyses. Additional information on the 
development of these parameters can be found in Section 6.3.2. 
Table 4-6. Sources of Data Used for Development of Animal Consumption Rates 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 
Beef cattle consumption rate of 
feed 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 449 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 33 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 70 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], p. 143 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 70 to 71 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-38 
6.3.2 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-15 
2 
Beef cattle consumption rate of 
water 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 450 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 33 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 70 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], p. 143 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 70-71 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-38 
6.3.2 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-15 

Table 4-6. Sources of Data Used for Development of Animal Consumption Rates (Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
3 
Beef cattle consumption rate of 
soil 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 450 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-15 
6.3.2 
4 
Diary cow consumption rate of 
feed 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 449 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 15 and 33 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 70 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], p. 143 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 70-71 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-38 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-15 
6.3.2 
5 
Diary cow consumption rate of 
water 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 450 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 33 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 70 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], p. 143 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 70-71 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-38 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-15 
6.3.2 
6 
Diary cow consumption rate of soil 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 450 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-15 
6.3.2 
7 
Poultry consumption rate of feed 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 449 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], p. 143 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 70-71 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2 

Table 4-6. Sources of Data Used for Development of Animal Consumption Rates (Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
8 
Poultry consumption rate of water 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 450 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 70-71 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2 
9 
Poultry consumption rate of soil 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 450 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2 
10 
Laying hen consumption rate of 
feed 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 449 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 70-71 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2 
11 
Laying hen consumption rate of 
water 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 450 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 70-71 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2 
12 
Laying hen consumption rate of 
soil 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 450 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2 
The data referenced in Table 4-6 are suitable for the intended use, i.e., to develop distributions of 
the animal consumption rates for the biosphere model. The following sections describe factors 
that were considered to evaluate the data regarding their suitability for the intended use. 
4.1.5.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
The sources of data on animal consumption rates of water, feed, and soil consist of reports that 
provide the summary of the measurements of animal consumption rates, reports containing 
recommendations regarding environmental transport models and their associated input 
parameters, and the comprehensive dose assessment reports that include selection of input 
parameter values. In this analysis, the parameter values are developed based on review of these 
sources. References were published by professional organizations, producing technically 
defensible products pertinent to this analysis, as indicated in the following discussion. The data 
from these reports are appropriate for the intended use. The following reports were chosen as 

primary sources of data for the development of animal consumption rates of water, feed, and soil. 
These reports were described in the previous sections of this analysis, as indicated below. 
BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563]Reference Biospheres for Solid Radioactive Waste Disposal 
is the final report of the international program and is described in more detail in Section 4.1.1.1. 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767]See Section 4.1.1.1 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458]See Section 4.1.1.1 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776]See Section 4.1.1.1 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464]See Section 4.1.3.1 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781]See Section 4.1.3.1 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927]See Section 4.1.3.1 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067]See Section 4.1.4.1 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085]See Section 4.1.4.1 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465]See Section 4.1.3.1 
4.1.5.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The data included in the reports listed in Section 4.1.5.1 were used to define animal food, water, 
and soil consumption rates for each type of animal product included in the biosphere model. In 
most cases, all the relevant data from the references were used as a basis for the values and 
distributions of the animal consumption rates. Such a method ensures that the property of 
interest is adequately represented. 
4.1.5.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
Some of the data sources listed in Section 4.1.5.1 were used in other performance assessments or 
other radiological assessments. For example, the GENII-S model (Leigh et al. 1993 
[DIRS 100464]), which is based on the GENII model (Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953] and 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927]), was used in the performance assessment for the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant. The RESRAD model has been used widely by the DOE, DOE contractors, 
the NRC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
industrial firms, universities, foreign agencies, and foreign institutions (Yu et al. 2001 
[DIRS 159465], p. xi), including assessments to demonstrate compliance. The input data for the 
RESRAD model are reported in part in Wang et al. (1993 [DIRS 103839]). LaPlante and Poor 

(1997 [DIRS 101079]) describe the supporting biosphere analysis for the Yucca Mountain 
repository performance assessment conducted by the NRC staff. Similarly, Smith et al. (1996 
[DIRS 101085]) present the biosphere model, including its input parameters, for the repository at 
Yucca Mountain. The NCRP reports are considered the established fact source, and the data 
within were undoubtedly used in some other radiological assessments. 
4.1.5.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The references used constitute a comprehensive set of reports describing the environmental 
transport of radionuclides. Neither of the references used to develop the values and distributions 
of animal consumption rates was a sole source of input, but rather the distribution was developed 
based on all the applicable data from the references, as described in detail in Section 6.3.2. This 
method ensured that all relevant data were included or at least considered. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the values and 
distributions of the animal consumption rates of feed, water, and soil for the biosphere model, 
and the combined data set can be considered qualified for intended use. 
4.1.6 Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
Values of TCs for animal products were developed based of the data from references in 
Table 4-7, which lists the parameters, identifies specific sources of information used to develop 
the parameter values, and provides the sections within this report that contain the analyses. 
Additional information is presented in Section 6.3.3. 
Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 
Chlorine transfer coefficient for 
meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
2 
Selenium transfer coefficient 
for meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
3 
Strontium transfer coefficient 
for meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 85 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1997 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
4 
Technetium transfer coefficient 
for meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 85 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
5 
Tin transfer coefficient for meat Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
6 
Iodine transfer coefficient for 
meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 85 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
7 
Cesium transfer coefficient for 
meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 85 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
8 
Lead transfer coefficient for 
meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
9 
Radium transfer coefficient for 
meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 85 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
10 
Actinium transfer coefficient for 
meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
11 
Thorium transfer coefficient for 
meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
12 
Protactinium transfer 
coefficient for meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
13 
Uranium transfer coefficient for 
meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
14 
Neptunium transfer coefficient 
for meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
15 
Plutonium transfer coefficient 
for meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
16 
Americium transfer coefficient 
for meat 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
17 Chlorine transfer coefficient for 
poultry 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
6.3.3.2 
18 
Selenium transfer coefficient 
for poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
19 
Strontium transfer coefficient 
for poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
6.3.3.2 
20 
Technetium transfer coefficient 
for poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
21 
Tin transfer coefficient for 
poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
6.3.3.2 
22 
Iodine transfer coefficient for 
poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
23 
Cesium transfer coefficient for 
poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982, p. 63 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
24 
Lead transfer coefficient for 
poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
25 
Radium transfer coefficient for 
poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
26 
Actinium transfer coefficient for 
poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
27 
Thorium transfer coefficient for 
poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
28 
Protactinium transfer 
coefficient for poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
29 
Uranium transfer coefficient for 
poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
30 
Neptunium transfer coefficient 
for poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
31 
Plutonium transfer coefficient 
for poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
32 
Americium transfer coefficient 
for poultry 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
33 
Chlorine transfer coefficient for 
milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
34 
Selenium transfer coefficient 
for milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
35 
Strontium transfer coefficient 
for milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
36 
Technetium transfer coefficient 
for milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
37 
Tin transfer coefficient for milk Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
38 
Iodine transfer coefficient for 
milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
39 
Cesium transfer coefficient for 
milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
40 
Lead transfer coefficient for 
milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
41 
Radium transfer coefficient for 
milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
42 
Actinium transfer coefficient for 
milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
43 
Thorium transfer coefficient for 
milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
44 
Protactinium transfer 
coefficient for milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
45 
Uranium transfer coefficient for 
milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
46 
Neptunium transfer coefficient 
for milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
47 
Plutonium transfer coefficient 
for milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
48 
Americium transfer coefficient 
for milk 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982, p. 62 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
49 Chlorine transfer coefficient for 
eggs 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 6.3.3.4 
50 
Selenium transfer coefficient 
for eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.4 
51 
Strontium transfer coefficient 
for eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
6.3.3.4 
52 
Technetium transfer coefficient 
for eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.4 
53 
Tin transfer coefficient for eggs Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
6.3.3.4 
54 
Iodine transfer coefficient for 
eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.4 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
55 
Cesium transfer coefficient for 
eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-28 
6.3.3.4 
56 
Lead transfer coefficient for 
eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.4 
57 
Radium transfer coefficient for 
eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.4 
58 
Actinium transfer coefficient for 
eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.4 
59 
Thorium transfer coefficient for 
eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.4 
60 
Protactinium transfer 
coefficient for eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.4 
61 
Uranium transfer coefficient for 
eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.4 
62 
Neptunium transfer coefficient 
for eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.4 

Table 4-7. Sources of Data Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
Plutonium transfer coefficient 
for eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 
63 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
6.3.3.4 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
64 
Americium transfer coefficient 
for eggs 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.4 
The data referenced in Table 4-7 are suitable for the intended use, i.e., to develop distributions of 
TCs for the animal product types included in the biosphere model. The following sections 
describe factors that were considered to evaluate the data regarding their suitability for the 
intended use. 
4.1.6.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
The sources of data on TCs for animal products consist of reports that summarize measurements 
of TCs, reports containing recommendations on the environmental transport models and their 
associated input parameters, and comprehensive dose assessment reports that include selection of 
input parameter values. In this analysis, parameter values are developed based on a review of 
these sources. These references were published by professional organizations, producing 
technically defensible products pertinent to this analysis, as indicated in the following discussion. 
The following publications were used to develop the distributions of TCs for animal products. 
Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767]See Section 4.1.1.1 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458]See Section 4.1.1.1 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776]See Section 4.1.1.1 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781]See Section 4.1.3.1 

NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784]See Section 4.1.1.1 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322]A Review of Transfer Factors for Assessing the Dose from 
Radionuclides in Agricultural Products presents a summary of literature reviews and a derivation 
of updated TFs for the prediction of radionuclide concentration in terrestrial foods using 
equilibrium models. Dr. Ng was one of the leading experts in the area of environmental 
transport of radionuclides and the uptake of radionuclides by biota. 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067]See Section 4.1.4.1 
Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085]See Section 4.1.4.1 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839]See Section 4.1.1.1 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465]See Section 4.1.3.1 
Additional information is presented in Section 6.3.3. 
4.1.6.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The data included in the reports listed in Section 4.1.6.1 were used to define TCs for the animal 
products included in the biosphere model. In most cases, all the relevant data from the 
references were used as a basis for the distributions of the parameter values. Such a method 
ensures that the property of interest is adequately represented. 
4.1.6.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
Some of the data sources listed in Section 4.1.6.1 were used in other performance assessments or 
other radiological assessments. For example, the GENII-S model, including its input parameters 
(Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744]), was used in the performance assessment for the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant. The RESRAD model (Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839] and Yu et al. 2001 
[DIRS 159465]) has been used widely by the DOE, DOE contractors, the NRC, the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, industrial firms, 
universities, foreign agencies, and foreign institutions (Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. xi), 
including assessments to demonstrate compliance. LaPlante and Poor (1997 [DIRS 101079]) 
describe the supporting biosphere analysis for the Yucca Mountain repository performance 
assessment conducted by the NRC staff. Similarly, Smith et al. (1996 [DIRS 101085]) present 
the biosphere model, including its input parameters, for the repository at Yucca Mountain. The 
NCRP reports are considered established fact sources, and the data within were undoubtedly 
used in some other radiological assessments. 

4.1.6.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The references used constitute a comprehensive set of reports describing the environmental 
transport of radionuclides. Neither of the references used to develop the distributions of animal 
product TCs was a sole source of input, but rather the distribution was developed based on all the 
applicable data from the references, as described in detail in Section 6.3.3. This method ensured 
that all relevant data were included or at least considered. 
Following the completion of the analysis described in Section 6 of this report, a new report was 
published that includes description of methods and parameter values of evaluation of 
radionuclide uptake by animals. This report, Literature Review and Assessment of Plant and 
Animal Transfer Factors Used in Performance Assessment Modeling (Robertson et al. 2003 
[DIRS 168264]), generally confirms the TC value ranges considered in this analysis. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the 
distributions of the transfer coefficient for animal products for the biosphere model, and the 
combined data set can be considered qualified for intended use. 
4.1.7 Bioaccumulation Factors for Freshwater Fish 
The bioaccumulation factors for freshwater fish were developed based on external-source 
information from the references listed in Table 4-8, which lists the parameters, identifies specific 
sources of information used to develop the parameter values, and provides the sections within 
this report that contain the analyses. 
Table 4-8. Sources of Data Used for Development of Bioaccumulation Factors for Freshwater Fish 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 
Carbon bioaccumulation factor 
for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-13 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 and 
6.4.4 
2 
Chlorine bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
3 
Selenium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 

Table 4-8. Sources of Data Used for Development of Bioaccumulation Factors for Freshwater Fish 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
4 
Strontium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-98 to 5-103 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-13 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
5 
Technetium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-98 to 5-103 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-13 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
6 
Tin bioaccumulation factor for 
freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
7 
Iodine bioaccumulation factor 
for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-98 to 5-103 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-13 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
8 
Cesium bioaccumulation factor 
for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-98 to 5-103 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-13 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 

Table 4-8. Sources of Data Used for Development of Bioaccumulation Factors for Freshwater Fish 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
9 
Lead bioaccumulation factor for 
freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
10 
Radium bioaccumulation factor 
for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-98 to 5-103 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
11 
Actinium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
12 
Thorium bioaccumulation factor 
for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-98 to 5-103 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
13 
Protactinium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-98 to 5-103 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 

Table 4-8. Sources of Data Used for Development of Bioaccumulation Factors for Freshwater Fish 
(Continued) 
Biosphere Model Input 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
14 
Uranium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-98 to 5-103 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
15 
Neptunium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 
1.109-13 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
16 
Plutonium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-98 to 5-103 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
17 
Americium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
The data referenced in Table 4-8 are suitable for the intended use, that is, to develop distributions 
of bioaccumulation factors for the biosphere model. The following sections describe factors that 
were considered to evaluate the data regarding their suitability for the intended use. 
4.1.7.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
Sources of data on bioaccumulation factors for freshwater fish consist of reports that summarize 
measurements of bioaccumulation factors, reports containing recommendations of the 
environmental transport models and their associated input parameters, and comprehensive dose 

assessment reports that include selection of input parameter values. In this analysis, parameter 
values were based on a review of these sources. These references were published by 
professional organizations, producing technically defensible products pertinent to this analysis, 
as indicated in the following discussion. The following documents were used to develop 
distributions of bioaccumulation factor values for the freshwater fish. 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767]See Section 4.1.1.1. 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458]See Section 4.1.1.1. 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519]See Section 4.1.1.1. 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776]See Section 4.1.1.1. 
Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781]See Section 4.1.3.1. 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953]See Section 4.1.3.1. 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882]See Section 4.1.1.1. 
Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077]See Section 4.1.1.1. 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067]See Section 4.1.4.1.
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839]See Section 4.1.1.1. 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465]See Section 4.1.3.1.
Additional information regarding the reliability of the data sources can be found in Sections 6.4.3 
and 6.4.4. 
4.1.7.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The data included in the reports listed in Section 4.1.7.1 were used to define distributions of 
bioaccumulation factors for freshwater fish for the biosphere model. In most cases, all the 
relevant data from the references were used as a basis for the distributions of the parameter 
values. Such a method ensures that the property of interest is adequately represented. 
4.1.7.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
Some of the data sources listed in Section 4.1.7.1 were used in other performance assessments or 
other radiological assessments. For example, the GENII-S model (Leigh et al. 1993 
[DIRS 100464]), which is based on the GENII model (Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953] and 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927]), was used in the performance assessment for the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant. The RESRAD model (Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839] and Yu et al. 2001 
[DIRS 159465]) has been used widely by the DOE, DOE contractors, the NRC, the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, industrial firms, 
universities, foreign agencies, and foreign institutions (Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. xi), 
including assessments to demonstrate compliance. NCRP reports are considered established fact 

sources, and the data within the cited NCRP report were undoubtedly used in some other 
radiological assessments. 
4.1.7.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The references used constitute a comprehensive set of reports describing the environmental 
transport of radionuclides. Neither of the references used to develop the distributions of 
bioaccumulation factors for freshwater fish was a sole source of input, but rather the distribution 
was developed based on all the applicable data from the references, as described in detail in 
Sections 6.4.3 and 6.4.4. This method ensured that all relevant data were included or at least 
considered. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the 
distributions of the bioaccumulation factor for the biosphere model, and the combined data set 
can be considered qualified for intended use. 
4.1.8 Water Concentration Modifying Factor 
This section describes the parameters that were used to develop the distribution of the water 
concentration modifying factor values for the fishponds. The factors that were considered to 
evaluate the data regarding their suitability for the intended use are described below. 
4.1.8.1 Dimensions of Catfish Ponds in Amargosa Valley 
The data set Dimensions of Catfish Ponds in Amargosa Valley (DTN: MO0211SPADIMEN.005 
[DIRS 160653]) contains results from regional investigations of fish farming practices in 
Amargosa Valley concerning the dimensions of ponds used for catfish production. These data 
are used in Section 6.4.3 to support the development of the water concentration modifying factor 
for the fishpond water. Data on fish farming in Amargosa Valley are qualified, were collected to 
support this analysis, and are appropriate for the intended use. 
4.1.8.2 Annual Free Water Surface Evaporation 
Average annual free water surface evaporation was used to determine the water loss from catfish 
ponds due to evaporation. Isopleth maps of average annual free water surface evaporation 
(shallow lake) are shown in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical 
Report NWS 33, Evaporation Atlas for the Contiguous 48 United States (Farnsworth et al. 1982 
[DIRS 160564], Map 3). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is considered a 
source of established fact data. The annual average evaporation rate for a shallow lake is used in 
Sections 6.4.3 and 6.4.5 to develop values for the water concentration modifying factors for 
fishpond water for the present day and future climates. The data on shallow lake evaporation is 
an appropriate surrogate for estimating evaporation from fishponds and is appropriate for the 
intended use. 

4.1.8.3 Time Required to Raise Catfish 
4.1.8.3.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
The Mississippi State University Extension Service (2002 [DIRS 159489]) was the source of 
data on catfish farming and time required to raise a full-grown catfish. The Mississippi State 
University Extension Service provides research-based information, educational programs, and 
technology transfer. Agriculture and natural resources belong to the Extensions ongoing 
priorities. Mississippi State University is also the lead institution for the project, a part of the 
family of national cooperative projects supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. A national catfish information 
database will be developed through nationwide cooperation among the colleges and universities 
in the land grant system, and will direct the best expertise in the nation toward the knowledge, 
educational and decision-support needs of the farm-raised catfish industry. 
4.1.8.3.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The data on catfish farming obtained from the Mississippi State University Extension Service 
represent the state-of-the-art knowledge on catfish farming and are appropriate for the intended 
use. It is not expected that the time needed to raise catfish would differ for the area of interest 
from the data obtained from this source. 
4.1.8.3.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
There are no known prior uses of these data. 
4.1.8.3.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The information on catfish farming is consistent with the results of the investigation conducted at 
the Amargosa Valley fish farm (Roe 2002 [DIRS 160674]) and with the overall production 
profile at the time of the regional food consumption survey (DOE 1997 [DIRS 100332]). 
The data can be considered qualified for intended use. 
4.1.9 Characteristics of Homes and Indoor Air Exchange 
Parameter values pertaining to characteristics of residential homes and indoor air exchange were 
developed based on the references listed in Table 4-9, which presents the parameters and 
identifies specific sources of information used to develop the parameter values. The table also 
provides the sections within this report that contain the analyses and the sources of additional 
information on the parameter use in the analysis. 

Table 4-9. Sources of Data Used for Developing Characteristics of Homes and Indoor Air Exchange 
Biosphere Model Input Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 Water use rate for evaporative coolers Karpiscak et al. 1998 [DIRS 160563], pp. 122 to 130 6.5.2 
2 Airflow rate for evaporative coolers 
Karpiscak and Marion 1994 [DIRS 159501], p. 3 
NAHB Research Center 1998 [DIRS 160428], p. 35 
ToolBase Services 2002 [DIRS 159507] 
Watt and Brown 1997 [DIRS 159497], Chapters VII 
and VIII 
6.5.2 
5 Correlation between airflow and water 
use for evaporative coolers 
Karpiscak and Marion 1994 [DIRS 159501], p. 3-4 
Watt and Brown1997 [DIRS 159497], p. 103 6.5.2 
3 Ceiling height of a home 24 CFR 3280.104 [DIRS 160555] 
NAHB Research Center 1998 [DIRS 160428], p. 38 6.6.2 
4 Air exchange (ventilation) rate 
24 CFR 3280.103(b) [DIRS 160555] 
HVI 2001 [DIRS 160557], p. 24 
Murray and Burmaster 1995 [DIRS 160554], pp. 462 
to 464 
6.6.2 
Sources of data on the characteristics of residential homes and indoor air exchange consist of 
reports that summarize related measurements and building industry recommendations. In this 
analysis, the parameter values are based on reviews of these sources. Information in these 
reports is considered appropriate for the intended use. The following sections describe factors 
that were considered to evaluate the data regarding their suitability for the intended use. 
4.1.9.1 Water Use Rate for Evaporative Coolers 
4.1.9.1.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
Karpiscak and Marion 1994 [DIRS 159501] and Karpiscak et al. 1998 [DIRS 160563]These 
references present the results of a study conducted by the University of Arizona, College of 
Agriculture, on water use by evaporative coolers in the city of Phoenix. The results were 
published by the University of Arizona (Karpiscak and Marion 1994 [DIRS 159501]) in a 
publication entitled Evaporative Cooler Water Use and as an article (Karpiscak et al. 1998 
[DIRS 160563]) entitled Evaporative Cooler Water Use in Phoenix in the Journal of American 
Water Works Association. Founded in 1881, the American Water Works Association is an 
international nonprofit scientific and educational society dedicated to improving drinking water 
quality and supply, and it is the largest organization of water supply professionals in the world. 
This study is the only large-scale, long-term investigation of water use by residential evaporative 
coolers in the southwestern United States. The results of this study are considered applicable for 
developing parameters for the biosphere model. 
4.1.9.1.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The references used to develop the distribution for the evaporative cooler water use rate values 
for the biosphere model present the results of the actual large-scale study of the evaporative 
cooler performance in residential houses in the Southwest. These references provide a good 
representation of the range of parameter values for use in the biosphere model. 

4.1.9.1.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
There are no known prior uses of these data. 
4.1.9.1.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The references used provide an appropriate range of parameter values for developing the 
distribution of the water use rate for evaporative coolers. Neither of the references was a sole 
source of input, but rather the distribution was developed based on all the applicable data from 
the references, as described in detail in Sections 6.5.2. This method ensured that all relevant data 
were included or considered. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the 
distributions of the water use rate for evaporative coolers for the biosphere model, and the data 
can be considered qualified for intended use. 
4.1.9.2 Airflow Rate for Evaporative Coolers and Correlation between the Water Use 
Rate and Air Flow Rate 
4.1.9.2.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
Karpiscak and Marion 1994 [DIRS 159501]See Section 4.1.9.1.1. 
NAHB Research Center 1998 [DIRS 160428] and ToolBase Services 2002 
[DIRS 159507]-Factory and Site-Built Housing, a Comparison for the 21st Century, and 
Evaporative Coolers, respectively, were published by the National Association of Home 
Builders (NAHB), a trade association representing more than 205,000 residential home-building 
and remodeling industry members. The NAHB Research Center is the research and development 
leader in the home building industry. Government agencies, manufacturers, builders, and 
remodelers rely on the expertise and objectivity of the Research Center. The Research Center is 
dedicated to advancing housing technology and enhancing housing affordability. ToolBase 
(ToolBase 2002 [DIRS 159507]) is a resource for the home-building industry. It is a service of 
the NAHB Research Center, funded by private industry and the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development through the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing program. 
These articles are considered appropriate sources for information on buildings and building 
technologies. 
Watt and Brown 1997 [DIRS 159497]Evaporative Air Conditioning Handbook is a guide on 
energy-efficient evaporative air conditioning technologies and their application. This book 
addresses technical aspects of evaporative cooling and a broad range of specific commercial and 
industrial applications. Topics include cost analysis, technology and equipment options, 
application guidelines, and operational and performance characteristics. Data from this book are 
used to determine operational characteristics of evaporative coolers and are considered 
appropriate for the intended use. 

4.1.9.2.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The references used to develop the distribution of the evaporative cooler airflow rate values and 
correlation between the water use and airflow rates for the biosphere model represent approaches 
from the theoretical perspective (Watt and Brown 1997 [DIRS 159497]) and from the application 
perspective based on the actual large-scale study of the evaporative cooler performance in 
residential houses (Karpiscak and Marion 1994 [DIRS 159501]) and from the industry 
perspective (ToolBase Services 2002 [DIRS 159507]). These references provide a good 
representation of the range of parameter values for use in the biosphere model. 
4.1.9.2.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
There are no known prior uses of these data. 
4.1.9.2.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The references used provide an appropriate range of parameter values for developing the 
distribution of the evaporative cooler airflow rate for the biosphere model. Neither of the 
references was a sole source of input, but rather the distribution was developed based on all the 
applicable data from the references, as described in detail in Section 6.5.2. This method ensured 
that all relevant data were included or considered. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the parameters 
related to evaporative cooler operation for the biosphere model, and the data can be considered 
qualified for intended use. 
4.1.9.3 Ceiling Height 
The distribution of the ceiling height values for the biosphere model was developed from the 
data included in 24 CFR 3280 [DIRS 160555] and the industry data included in NAHB Research 
Center (1998 [DIRS 160428]). This input parameter is described in detail in Section 6.6.2. 
The factors that were considered to evaluate the data from NAHB Research Center (1998 
[DIRS 160428]) regarding their suitability for intended use are described below. 
4.1.9.3.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
24 CFR 3280.104 [DIRS 160555]Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Housing 
and Urban Development, contains rules promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. Code of Federal Regulations can be considered a source of established fact data. 
This reference was used to define the minimum ceiling height for the habitable part of a house. 
NAHB Research Center 1998 [DIRS 160428]See Section 4.1.9.2.1. 

4.1.9.3.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The data on the interior wall (ceiling) height obtained from NAHB Research Center (1998 
[DIRS 160428]) are for manufactured homes. Since over 90 percent of the Amargosa Valley 
population lives in manufactured homes (Bureau of the Census 2002 [DIRS 159728], 
Table H33), the data for such homes appropriately represent local conditions. 
4.1.9.3.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
There are no known prior uses of these data. 
4.1.9.3.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The data considered for the development of the distribution of the ceiling height values 
encompass the range of possible, reasonable values for manufactured homes. It is unlikely that 
additional information would significantly alter this range. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the 
distribution of the ceiling height for the biosphere model, and the data can be considered 
qualified for intended use. 
4.1.9.4 Ventilation Rate 
The distribution of the ventilation rate values was developed based on the data from 
24 CFR 3280 as well as the industry standards and the results of the large-scale survey of the 
residential air exchange rates. This input parameter is described in detail in Section 6.6.2. 
The factors considered in evaluation of suitability of the other data sources for intended use are 
described below. 
4.1.9.4.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
24 CFR 3280.104 [DIRS 160555]See Section 4.1.9.3.1. The minimum ventilation rate 
recommended for manufactured homes was taken from this source. 
HVI 2001 [DIRS 160557]Home Ventilation & Indoor Air Quality is a special supplement to 
Contracting Business Magazine, which is published by the Home Ventilating Institute, a trade 
organization representing manufacturers from the United States, Canada, Asia, and Europe who 
produce most of the residential ventilation products sold in North America. The Institute was 
established to serve consumers and members by advancing residential ventilation. The activities 
of the Institute include providing certification of product performance (accepted and recognized 
as the method of performance assurance by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development and the DOE) and providing consumer information. The publication used in this 
analysis provides consumers with recommendations regarding home ventilation, and therefore it 
is considered appropriate for use in this analysis. 
Murray and Burmaster 1995 [DIRS 160554]Residential Air Exchange Rates in the United 
States: Empirical and Estimated Parametric Distributions by Season and Climatic Region, 

published in the journal Risk Analysis, contains results of statistical analysis to specify empirical 
distributions of air exchange rates for residential structures in the United States. Experimental 
data for 2,844 households were compiled by the Brookhaven National Laboratory and are 
considered to be the best available. Risk Analysis is an international journal of the Society for 
Risk Analysis. All scientific articles in Risk Analysis are peer-reviewed. This source is 
considered appropriate for the intended use. 
4.1.9.4.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The references used to develop the distribution of the ventilation rate values for the biosphere 
model represent approaches from the regulators perspective (24 CFR 3280.103(b) 
[DIRS 160555]), from the functional perspective based on the actual large-scale study of the 
ventilation rates in residential houses (Murray and Burmaster 1995 [DIRS 160554]), and from 
the industry perspective (HVI 2001 [DIRS 160557]). These references provide a good 
representation of the range of parameter values for use in the biosphere model. 
4.1.9.4.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
There are no known prior uses of these data. 
4.1.9.4.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The data considered for the development of the distribution of the parameter values encompass 
the range of possible, reasonable values for residential homes. It is unlikely that additional 
information would significantly alter this range. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the 
distribution of the home ventilation rate for the biosphere model, and the data can be considered 
qualified for intended use. 
4.1.10 Parameters Related to Radon in Indoor and Outdoor Air 
Parameter values pertaining to radon in indoor and outdoor air were developed based on the 
references listed in Table 4-10, which presents the parameters and identifies specific sources of 
data used to develop the parameter values. The table also provides the sections within this report 
that contain the analyses and the sources of additional information on the parameter use in the 
analysis. More detailed description of the data sources used to develop values of parameters 
related to radon level in indoor and outdoor air is presented in the following sections. 

Table 4-10. Sources of Data Used for Developing Parameters Related to Radon in Indoor and Outdoor 
Air 
Biosphere Model Input Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter 
Value or Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 Radon release factor (concentration ratio of 
222Rn in air to 226Ra in surface soil) 
UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], pp. 103 
and 115 
NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894], pp. 87 to 88 
Section 
6.6.1 
2 Ratio (conversion factor) of 222Rn concentration 
in outdoor air to 222Rn flux density from soil 
UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], p. 99 
and 103 
NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894], pp. 87 to 88 
Section 
6.6.1 
3 Fraction of 222Rn flux from soil entering the 
house 
United Nations 1988 [DIRS 159566], pp. 63 
to 70 
UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], pp. 99 
to 102 
Landman 1982 [DIRS 160425], p. 71 
Section 
6.6.2 
4 Equilibrium factor for 222Rn decay products in 
indoor air 
United Nations 1988 [DIRS 159566], pp. 75 
and 105 
UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], p. 104 
Section 
6.6.3 
5 Equilibrium factor for 222Rn decay products in 
outdoor air 
UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], p. 103 
NCRP 1988 [DIRS 153691], p. 24 
Wasiolek and James 1998 [DIRS 163507], 
Table 2 
Section 
6.6.3 
4.1.10.1 Radon Release Factor and Ratio of Radon Flux from Soil to Radon 
Concentration in Air 
Conversion factors for radium concentration in the soil to radon concentration in the air, as well 
as radon flux density from the soil to radon concentration in the air, were based on data from 
reports published by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 
Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the NCRP. The data from the UNSCEAR and NCRP reports are 
technically defensible and can be considered established fact data. UNSCEAR was established 
by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1955. Its mandate in the United Nations 
system is to assess and report levels and effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. Governments 
and organizations throughout the world rely on the Committee's estimates as the scientific basis 
for evaluating radiation risk, establishing radiation protection and safety standards, and 
regulating radiation sources. The mission and the publications of the NCRP were described in 
Section 4.1.1.1. 
The conversion factors for radon were developed based on the data from the UNSCEAR report 
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of 
Atomic Radiation, UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes 
(UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644]) and the NCRP report Recommended Screening Limits for 
Contaminated Surface Soil and Review of Factors Relevant to Site-Specific Studies (NCRP 1999 
[DIRS 155894]). The data from UNSCEAR and NCRP are appropriate for the intended use and 
can be used to represent site-specific conditions. The reason is that conversion factors for radon 
can be developed because there is a strong correlation between radon flux from soil and radium 
concentration in the soil from which radon is released (Schery and Wasiolek 1998 

[DIRS 160686], p. 210). This fundamental dependence is valid regardless of the site-specific 
conditions. 
4.1.10.2 Fraction of Radon Flux from Soil Entering the House 
The distribution of the fraction of radon exhaled from the soil that enters the house was 
developed based on data from the UNSCEAR reports and a journal article. UNSCEAR reports 
are considered sources of established fact data, as discussed in Section 4.1.10.1. The data from 
UNSCEAR reports are appropriate for the intended use. The justification for the appropriateness 
of the data from the journal article for intended use is presented below. 
4.1.10.2.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
A journal article, Diffusion of Radon Through Cracks in a Concrete Slab (Landman 1982 
[DIRS 160425]), was used for developing the fraction of radon flux density from soil beneath the 
house entering the indoor space. This article appeared in Health Physics, a peer-reviewed 
technical journal, which is an official publication of the Health Physics Society. The journal 
adheres to high standards for published articles, which are subject to review by experts in the 
field. 
4.1.10.2.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The references used to develop a distribution of the fraction of radon flux entering the indoor 
space provide a reasonable range of parameter values. The source data include evaluation of 
experimental results by UNSCEAR and predictions of expected values of the parameter under 
different circumstances regarding the condition of the concrete slab under the house. The 
references provide a good representation of the range of parameter values for use in the 
biosphere model, although it may lead to some degree of conservatism in the assessment, as 
further explained in Section 6.6.2. 
4.1.10.2.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
There are no known prior uses of these data. 
4.1.10.2.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The data considered for the development of the distribution of the fraction of radon flux entering 
the indoor space encompass the range of possible, reasonable values for residential homes. 
Additional arguments are presented in Section 6.6.2, pointing to the fact that the parameter value 
distribution is unlikely to underestimate the radon inhalation exposure due to the types of 
prevalent residential housing in Amargosa Valley. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the value of 
fraction of radon flux from soil entering the house for the biosphere model, and the data can be 
considered qualified for intended use. 

4.1.10.3 Equilibrium Factors for Radon Decay Products in Outdoor and Indoor Air 
Distributions of equilibrium factor values for radon decay products in outdoor and indoor air 
were developed based on the data from the UNSCEAR and NCRP reports (UNSCEAR 2000 
[DIRS 158644]; United Nations 1988 [DIRS 159566]; NCRP 1988 [DIRS 153691]). 
UNSCEAR and NCRP are considered sources of established fact data. Data from these reports 
concern the basic properties of radon behavior in the environment and are appropriate for the 
intended use. 
In addition, a journal article, described below, was used in support of the outdoor equilibrium 
factor value. 
4.1.10.3.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
A journal article, Outdoor Radon Dose Conversion Coefficient in South-Western and 
South-Eastern United States (Wasiolek and James 1998 [DIRS 163507]), was used to develop 
the value of equilibrium factor for radon decay products outdoors. This journal article presents 
the results of outdoor radon measurements from the southwestern region of the United States. 
The article was published in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, which is a peer-reviewed 
professional journal covering all aspects of personal and environmental dosimetry and 
monitoring and maintaining high scientific and technical standards. 
4.1.10.3.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The data on the radon equilibrium factor outdoors presented in the article represents 
experimental results of the parameter measurements in the Southwest region of the United States. 
These locations could be considered an analogue to Amargosa Valley, considering the type of 
environment. These data complement more generic data reported in the UNSCEAR, and NCRP 
publications and were used to develop a distribution of the parameter values. 
4.1.10.3.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
There are no known prior uses of these data. 
4.1.10.3.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The data considered for the development of the indoor and outdoor equilibrium factors for the 
radon decay products encompass the range of typical values and are based on the results of many 
experimental measurements. It is unlikely that additional information would significantly alter 
this range. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the 
distributions of the radon equilibrium factor for the biosphere model, and the data can be 
considered qualified for intended use. 

4.1.11 Parameters Pertaining to Carbon-14 Transport in the Environment 
The data pertaining to 14C transport in the environment were obtained from the references listed 
in Table 4-11. The data were used in Sections 6.7.1 through 6.7.4 to develop values for the 
carbon emission rate constant for soil, mixing height of gaseous 14C, fraction of stable carbon in 
crops, fraction of stable carbon in animal products, fraction of stable carbon in soil, fraction of 
air-derived carbon in plants, fraction of soil-derived carbon in plants, concentration of stable 
carbon in air, concentration of stable carbon in water, and surface area of land irrigated with 
contaminated water. Table 4-11 lists the parameters, identifies specific sources of information 
used to develop the parameter values, and provides the sections within this report where the 
analyses are presented. 
Table 4-11. Sources of Data Used for Development of Parameters Pertaining to Carbon Transport in the 
Environment 
Biosphere Model Input Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter 
Value or Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 Carbon emission rate constant for soil 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 156 
Sheppard et al. 1991 [DIRS 159545], pp. 491 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-16 
6.7.1 
2 Mixing height of gaseous 14C Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-16 6.7.2 
3 Surface area of land irrigated with 
contaminated water 10 CFR 63.312(c) [DIRS 156605] 6.7.2 
4 Fraction of stable carbon in soil Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.88 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-17 
6.7.3 
5 Concentration of stable carbon in air 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 144 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.88 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-17 
6.7.3 
6 Fraction of stable carbon in crops Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.88 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-20 
6.7.3 
7 Fraction of air-derived carbon in plants 
Sheppard et al. 1991 [DIRS 159545], pp. 490 
to 491 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-20 
6.7.3 
8 Fraction of soil-derived carbon in plants 
Sheppard et al. 1991 [DIRS 159545], pp. 490 
to 491 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-20 
6.7.3 
9 Fraction of stable carbon in animal products Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.88 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-22 
6.7.4 
10 Concentration of stable carbon in water 
Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 262 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.88 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-21 
6.7.4 
The sources of data on transport of carbon in the environment consist of the journal article, the 
reports containing descriptions of the environmental transport models and their associated input 
parameters, and the comprehensive dose assessment reports that include selection of input 
parameter values. In this analysis, parameter values are based on reviews of these sources. 
These references were published by professional organizations, producing technically defensible 
products pertinent to this analysis, as indicated in the following discussion. The information 
from these reports is considered appropriate for the intended use. 

4.1.11.1 Reliability of Data Source and Qualification of the Data Originator 
Most of the data concerning the levels and fractions of stable carbon in the environmental media 
were taken from the same few reports (Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927]; Yu et al. 2001 
[DIRS 159465]; Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767]). All of these reports use special models for 
carbon transport in the environment, generally based on the ratios of 14C and stable carbon in 
environmental media, proportions of carbon uptake from these media by plants and animals, and 
carbon content of the media. A similar approach to 14C transport modeling is also used in the 
biosphere model, so the parameter values presented in the relevant references are appropriate. 
The description of these reports and the appropriateness of the data for the intended use was 
presented in Sections 4.1.1.1 for The Disposal of Canadas Nuclear Fuel Waste: The Biosphere 
Model, BIOTRAC, for Postclosure Assessment (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767]) and Generic 
Models for Use in Assessing the Impact of Discharges of Radioactive Substances to the 
Environment (IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519]) and in Section 4.1.3.1 for Conceptual Representation. 
Volume 1 of GENII -The Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System (Napier 
et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927]) and Users Manual for RESRAD Version 6 (Yu et al. 2001 
[DIRS 159465]).The additional data on carbon emission from soils and fraction of carbon in 
plant derived from air and soil were obtained from Sheppard et al. (1991 [DIRS 159545]). 
Sheppard et al. 1991 [DIRS 159545]Mobility and Plant Uptake of Inorganic 14C and 
14C-Labelled PCB in Soils of High and Low Retention is a journal article that appeared in 
Health Physics, a peer-reviewed periodical of the Health Physics Society. The article describes 
an experiment in which the plant uptake of carbon from soil was studied with different soils and 
different chemical forms of carbon. The methods are sufficiently described to determine the 
applicability of the measurements to biosphere modeling. The data from this article are 
considered appropriate for intended use. 
In addition, the rule in 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]), Energy: Disposal of High-Level 
Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was used to define the 
value of the annual water demand, which was used in Section 6.7.2 to develop the value of area 
of irrigated land for calculation of 14C concentration in the air. 
4.1.11.2 Extent to Which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of Interest 
The model of carbon transport in the environment used in the biosphere model is based on the 
basic principles regarding carbon concentration in the environmental media. Therefore, the data 
that were used in other models using a similar approach are appropriate for use in the biosphere 
model. 
4.1.11.3 Prior Uses of the Data 
The GENII-S model (Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464]), which is based on the GENII model 
(Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 100953]; Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927]), was used in the 
performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The RESRAD model (Wang 
et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839]; Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465]) has been used widely by the DOE, 
DOE contractors, the NRC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, industrial firms, universities, foreign agencies, and foreign institutions (Yu et al. 2001 
[DIRS 159465], p. xi), including assessments to demonstrate compliance. 
4.1.11.4 Availability of Corroborating Data 
The references used provide an appropriate technical basis for selection of parameter values 
related to 14C transport in the environment for the biosphere model. Generally, more than one 
reference was used to develop a parameter value. In many cases, a distribution was developed 
based on all the applicable data from the references, as described in detail in Sections 6.7.1 
to 6.7.4. This method ensured that all relevant data were included or considered. 
The selected sources of data provide an appropriate technical basis for developing the values of 
parameters describing carbon transport in the environment for the biosphere model, and the data 
can be considered qualified for intended use. 
4.2 CRITERIA 
Applicable requirements from the Project Requirements Document (Canori and Leitner 2003 
[DIRS 166275], Table 2-3) are presented in Table 4-12. These requirements are for compliance 
with applicable portions of 10 CFR Part 63. 
Table 4-12. Requirements Applicable to this Analysis 
Requirement 
Number Requirement Title 
Related 
Regulation 
PRD-002/T-015 Requirements for Performance Assessment 10 CFR 63.114 
PRD-002/T-026 Required Characteristics of the Reference Biosphere 10 CFR 63.305 
PRD-002/T-028 Required Characteristics of the Reasonably Maximally Exposed Individual 10 CFR 63.312 
Source: Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], Table 2-3. 
In addition to the requirements listed in Table 4-12, definition of terms in 10 CFR 63.2 and 
description of concepts in 10 CFR 63.102 [DIRS 156605] that are relevant to biosphere 
modeling are also applicable to this analysis. 
Listed below are the acceptance criteria from the Biosphere Characteristics section of the Yucca 
Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.14), based on 
meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 63.114, 10 CFR 63.305, and 10 CFR 63.312 
[DIRS 156605] that relate in whole or in part to this analysis. 
Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.14: Biosphere Characteristics 
Acceptance Criterion 1: System Description and Model Integration are Adequate 
(3) Assumptions are consistent between the biosphere characteristics modeling and other 
abstractions. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy should ensure that the modeling of 
features, events, and processes, such as climate change, soil types, sorption coefficients, volcanic 
ash properties, and the physical and chemical properties of radionuclides are consistent with 
assumption in other total system performance assessment abstractions. 

Acceptance Criterion 2: Data are Sufficient for Model Justification 
(1) 
The parameter values used in the license application are adequately justified (e.g., behaviors 
and characteristics of the residents of the Town of Amargosa Valley, Nevada, characteristics of 
the reference biosphere, etc.) and consistent with the definition of the reasonably maximally 
exposed individual in 10 CFR Part 63. Adequate descriptions of how the data were used, 
interpreted, and appropriately synthesized into the parameters are provided. 
(2) 
Data are sufficient to assess the degree to which features, events, and processes related to 
biosphere characteristics modeling have been characterized and incorporated in the abstraction. 
As specified in 10 CFR Part 63, the U.S. Department of Energy should demonstrate that features, 
events, and processes, which describe the biosphere, are consistent with present knowledge of 
conditions in the region, surrounding Yucca Mountain. As appropriate, the U.S. Department of 
Energy sensitivity and uncertainty analyses (including consideration of alternative conceptual 
models) are adequate for determining additional data needs, and evaluating whether additional 
data would provide new information that could invalidate prior modeling results and affect the 
sensitivity of the performance of the system to the parameter value or model. 
Acceptance Criterion 3: Data Uncertainty is Characterized and Propagated Through the 
Model Abstraction 
(1) 
Models use parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, and bounding 
assumptions that are technically defensible, reasonably account for uncertainties and 
variabilities, do not result in an under-representation of the risk estimate, and are consistent with 
the definition of the reasonably maximally exposed individual in 10 CFR Part 63. 
(2) 
The technical bases for the parameter values and ranges in the abstraction, such as 
consumption rates, plant and animal uptake factors, mass-loading factors, and biosphere dose 
conversion factors, are consistent with site characterization data, and are technically defensible. 
(4) 
Uncertainty is adequately represented in parameter development for conceptual models and 
process-level models considered in developing the biosphere characteristics modeling, either 
through sensitivity analyses, conservative limits, or bounding values supported by data, as 
necessary. Correlations between input values are appropriately established in the total system 
performance assessment, and the implementation of the abstraction does not inappropriately bias 
results to a significant degree. 
4.3 CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS 
No codes, standards, or regulations, other than those identified in the Project Requirements 
Document (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], Table 2-3) and determined to be applicable 
(Table 4-12), were used in this analysis. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

5. ASSUMPTIONS 
Four assumptions are used in the analysis. There are no upstream assumptions in the references 
cited in this section. 
5.1 DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSLOCATION FACTORS 
Assumption 1The translocation factor for other vegetables (see Section 6.2.1.1.2), fruit, grain, 
and stored feed for laying hens and other poultry is represented by a piece-wise linear cumulative 
probability distribution represented by the pairs (0.05, 0 percent), (0.1, 50 percent), and 
(0.3, 100 percent). 
RationaleThe translocation factor quantifies the fraction of contaminant that is translocated 
from the site of deposition to the edible part of a plant. The literature review indicated that the 
translocation factor for crops (other than leafy vegetables and fresh forage) is a parameter with 
the fixed value of 0.1 (Table 6-36). It was anticipated that this parameter might be important for 
the biosphere model because of the importance of foliar deposition of contaminants in arid 
environments. Therefore, it was prudent to develop the capability of testing the sensitivity of the 
model outcome to this parameter and to represent this parameter by the probability distribution 
function. Although the literature review did not provide an indication of the possible distribution 
function, a piece-wise linear cumulative probability distribution, represented by (0.05, 0 percent), 
(0.1, 50 percent), and (0.3, 100 percent), is reasonable, considering the value used in the 
reviewed reports (Table 6-36). 
Confirmation StatusThis assumption does not need further confirmation because it is based on 
the realistic representation of the process. 
Use in the AnalysisThis assumption is used in Section 6.2.2.2. 
5.2 REMOVAL OF RADIONUCLIDES FROM FISHPONDS 
Assumption 2The entire amount of radioactivity added to fishponds during a fish raising cycle 
remains within the system, but it is not transferred to the next fish raising cycle. 
RationaleLosses of activity during the fish-raising cycle could arise if water were lost from the 
system. Because of the history of fish farming in Amargosa Valley, radionuclide transfer to fish, 
and the resulting exposure pathway, are included in the biosphere model. An interview 
conducted at the fish farm revealed that there were no known mechanisms of water (and thus 
activity) loss from the fishponds other than evaporation (Roe 2002 [DIRS 160674]). Because 
activity could be transferred between the fish-raising cycles, potential activity gains could arise. 
Because the ponds are drained after harvest (Roe 2002 [DIRS 160674]), it is assumed that there 
is no activity transfer from the previous fish-raising cycle to the next. Activity losses from the 
system were not taken into account to maintain conservatism in the analysis. This assumption 
does not apply to the concentration of carbon in fishpond water, which is considered separately 
(Section 6.4.4). 

Confirmation StatusThis assumption does not require further confirmation because it is 
consistent with observed fish farming practices. 
Use in the AnalysisThis assumption is used in Section 6.4.3. 
5.3 DISTRIBUTION OF CARBON-14 BIOACCUMULATION FACTOR 
Assumption 3The uncertainty distribution for the bioaccumulation factor for carbon is 
lognormal with a confidence interval that spans one order of magnitude on each side of the mean 
at the 95-percent confidence level. 
RationaleFor the biosphere model, the mean value of the bioaccumulation factor for carbon is 
equal to the lowest value reported in the reviewed publications (Section 6.4.4), but an 
assumption is made that the uncertainty distribution is lognormal with a 95-percent confidence 
interval spanning one order of magnitude on each side of the mean. This assumed distribution is 
consistent with the range of uncertainty in reported values of the bioaccumulation factor for 
carbon (Table 6-64) and will cover the range of possible values when water is the only 
contaminated medium, without underestimating the concentration of 14C in fish, as discussed in 
Section 6.4.4. 
Confirmation StatusThis assumption does not require further confirmation because it is 
unlikely to underestimate 14C transfer to fish and because the approach is consistent with that 
used to develop bioaccumulation factor distributions for the other elements. 
Use in the AnalysisThis assumption is used in Section 6.4.4. 
5.4 EVAPORATIVE COOLER CONTAMINANT TRANSFER 
Assumption 4A fraction of the contaminants will be transferred from the evaporative cooler 
inlet water to the outlet air, and the probability distribution function for the fraction of 
contaminant carried-over is uniform, with a range of 0 to 1. 
RationaleFor evaporative coolers, the outlet air can become contaminated by water carry-over 
or by the air pulling small particles of previously deposited minerals off the pads. Although no 
information was found in the literature for this parameter, the fraction must range from 0 to 1. 
The dissolved solids brought into the evaporative cooler do not evaporate. Eventually, the water 
becomes saturated with minerals, and the minerals precipitate out (Otterbein 1996 
[DIRS 159495]). In an evaporative cooler that operates correctly, most of the minerals in the 
water do not contaminate the indoor air. However, there is a possibility of some contaminant 
carry-over, especially if the pads fail to function efficiently. The uniform distribution of the 
possible parameter values allows evaluation of the biosphere model sensitivity to this parameter 
to determine whether any additional work is warranted to develop a more realistic distribution of 
the parameter values. 
Confirmation StatusThis assumption does not require further confirmation because it is 
unlikely to result in underestimation of the receptors exposure. 
Use in the AnalysisThis assumption is used in Section 6.5.2. 

6. ANALYSIS 
The function of the ERMYN biosphere model that is relevant to this analysis is to represent, 
conceptually and mathematically, radionuclide transport and accumulation in the environment. 
The mathematical representation of environmental transport involves many parameters. The 
values for some of these parameters are developed in this analysis. After presenting general 
considerations applicable to parameter value selection for the biosphere model (Section 6.1), the 
subsequent sections address development of parameter values related to specific environmental 
transport pathways. Section 6.2 contains information on how parameters related to radionuclide 
transport to crops were developed. Section 6.3 is focused on parameters used in submodels of 
radionuclide transport to animal products. Parameters related to radionuclide transport to aquatic 
food, evaporative coolers, 222Rn, and 14C are addressed in Sections 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7, 
respectively. Equations representing the environmental transport processes were taken from the 
Biosphere Model Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460]). 
6.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 
This section presents a discussion of the methods used in parameter value development, sources 
of information, application of generic information to the site-specific conditions, and elements of 
interest for this analysis. 
Environmental transport parameters support mathematical representations of the environmental 
transport pathways that describe radionuclide migration from the source of contamination to the 
environmental media (e.g., crops for human and animal consumption, animal products, ambient 
air, and soil). Environmental transport pathways form the basis of the model representation of 
radionuclide transport through terrestrial and aquatic food chains, as well as radionuclide 
transport in the soil and atmosphere. 
Modeling the environmental transport of radionuclides results in estimates of radionuclide 
concentrations in environmental media. These media concentrations, when coupled with the 
attributes of human behavior, allow calculations of internal and external radiation exposure 
levels associated with individual human exposure pathways and the resulting doses. 
The mathematical treatment of radionuclide migration through the environment in the biosphere 
model is based on the rate of a process or on the equilibrium between participating 
environmental media, depending on the process. Because the biosphere model uses both of these 
approaches, some environmental transport parameters represent the rate of change in the amount 
of a radionuclide in a specific medium (e.g., weathering rate and emission rate constant) while 
others represent equilibrium concentration ratios of radionuclides in the environmental media 
(e.g., TFs and bioaccumulation factors). 
The following 13 environmental transport processes are included in the ERMYN biosphere 
model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.3): 
 
Radionuclide accumulation in soil as a result of contaminated ashfall or long-term 
irrigation with contaminated water 
 
Resuspension of contaminated soil 

 
Radionuclide deposition on crop surfaces by dry processes (resuspension of 
contaminated soil and subsequent adhesion of soil particles onto vegetation surfaces) 
 
Radionuclide deposition on crop surfaces by wet processes resulting from the use of 
contaminated irrigation water 
 
Initial interception and retention of deposited activity by vegetation surfaces 
 
Translocation of contaminants from the deposition site to the edible tissues of vegetation 
 
Postdeposition retention by vegetation (consideration of weathering processes) 
 
Root uptake of radionuclides by plants 
 
Release of gaseous radionuclides from the soil 
 
Absorption of 14CO2 by crops from the atmosphere 
 
Transfer of radionuclides from soil, vegetation, and water to the milk and meat of 
grazing animals 
 
Radionuclide transfer from water to air via evaporative coolers 
 
Radionuclide transfer from water to fish (aquatic food). 
6.1.1 Sources of Information 
Parameter values for the biosphere model primarily were developed through a literature review, 
but site-specific information was used when available. Literature reviews are commonly used in 
scientific investigations and technical analyses and are considered appropriate for the intended 
use. This analysis focused on review articles and comprehensive dose assessment reports that 
included selection of input parameter values rather than on publications reporting individual 
experimental results. Documents reporting specific experimental results were used if they 
provided additional information. 
These review articles and other publications evaluated and used a broad range of published 
information to provide recommendations on the parameter values. In many cases, authors of two 
or more reviews used the same or overlapping information sources to develop a representative 
value for a given parameter, but they obtained somewhat different results. This indicates that 
there is inherent uncertainty associated with the experimental data and their interpretation. In 
this analysis, the use of results from multiple reviews incorporated this uncertainty into the 
developed distributions. The uncertainty distributions of parameter values developed using data 
from outside the Yucca Mountain region represent the ranges of values expected to occur in the 
environment and thus encompass or bound the site-specific values. 

6.1.2 Parameter Value Development Methods 
The values of parameters for the biosphere model were based on multiple sources of data, so it 
was important to apply a consistent method to develop parameter values. The arithmetic mean is 
justified if data come from a consistent set of observations. To estimate the expected value of a 
parameter, the geometric mean (GM) is recommended in the literature as a way to properly 
average data over space and time (BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468], T1/WD04, p. 12; 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 3). For this approach to be valid, the data sources should be 
qualitatively similar (e.g., a compilation of experimental data only or a set of values obtained 
from literature reviews). If this condition is not met (e.g., if data averages from one source were 
mixed with individual data points from another), the averaging would be difficult to control and 
justify. 
The GM is considered the best representation of parameters for which reported values span more 
than an order of magnitude. This was the case with the soil-to-plant TFs (Section 6.2.1.2) and 
animal intaketoanimal product TCs (Section 6.3.3), where the range of values often spanned 
several orders of magnitude (Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 7). 
Technical judgment was often necessary in cases where data were sparse or were obtained from 
experiments that were incompatible with the reference biosphere. When judgments were used to 
determine expected values, the minimum and maximum values were considered to establish a 
confidence interval representing uncertainty due to incomplete knowledge about the actual range 
of data (IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 3-4). Specific methods for developing parameter values 
are addressed in greater detail in the appropriate sections of this report. 
6.1.3 Site Specificity 
Environmental transport parameters used in the biosphere model may be influenced to some 
degree by local conditions such as the climate and soil types, and parameter values would ideally 
be obtained through site-specific studies. However, the values of many parameters would not 
expect to be unique for the Yucca Mountain region, but rather they are representative of a 
process or an event that is governed by the same environmental transport principles, regardless 
of the location. 
The development of parameter values for the biosphere model relied to a large degree on 
published information, especially when site-specific data were lacking. However, the 
distributions developed from these data are consistent with conditions in the Yucca Mountain 
region. This is because in many cases it was not expected that the parameter values would 
depend on a specific environment, and it was reasonable to assume that the literature values that 
are not necessarily site-specific would be appropriate for use in the biosphere model. It usually 
was possible to evaluate the basis for applying the literature-derived parameter value to 
Yucca Mountain conditions. Also, the FEPs describing the reference biosphere that are 
supported by parameters addressed in this analysis were consistent with present knowledge of 
the conditions in the region surrounding the Yucca Mountain site. 
The pathway analysis indicated that some environmental transport and receptor exposure 
pathways contribute a small percentage to the BDCFs (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169674], Tables 6.2-10 

and 6.2-11; BSC 2004 [DIRS 167287], Table 6.2-7). Parameters that support such pathways can 
be adequately represented by generic values, as long as it can be demonstrated that such values 
do not underestimate the risk to the receptor. 
6.1.4 Radionuclides and Elements Included in Analysis 
The following 28 radionuclides were included in the biosphere model: carbon-14 (14C), 
chlorine-36 (36Cl), selenium-79 (79Se), strontium-90 (90Sr), technetium-99 (99Tc), tin-126 (126Sn), 
iodine-129 (129I), cesium-135 (135Cs), cesium-137 (137Cs), lead-210 (210Pb), radium-226 (226Ra), 
actinium-227 (227Ac), thorium-229 (229Th), thorium-230 (230Th), thorium-232 (232Th), 
protactinium-231 (231Pa), uranium-232 (232U), uranium-233 (233U), uranium-234 (234U), 
uranium-236 (236U), uranium-238 (238U), neptunium-237 (237Np), plutonium-238 (238Pu), 
plutonium-239 (239Pu), plutonium-240 (240Pu), plutonium-242 (242Pu), americium-241 (241Am), 
and americium-243 (243Am) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.3.5). This list includes 
radionuclides that are of importance during the compliance period of 10,000 years 
(10 CFR 63.305(c) [DIRS 156605]) for the groundwater and volcanic ash release of 
radionuclides to the environment as well as those that should be considered for the period out to 
1,000,000 years (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.1.3). The TSPA-LA will be conducted 
for the postclosure period of 20,000 years (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], Section 1.3). Some of the 
radionuclides of interest for the TSPA-LA are accompanied by decay products, which are not 
individually tracked in the TSPA-LA model. Because the biosphere model must account for 
potential exposures to these radionuclides, decay products of radionuclides of interest to 
TSPA-LA were included in the biosphere model. Short-lived decay products (those with 
half-lives of less than 180 days) were assumed to be in secular equilibrium with the parent 
radionuclides, and the contribution of short-lived decay products to BDCFs was added to that of 
a parent radionuclide. Two decay product radionuclides, 228Ra and 228Th, have half-lives longer 
than 180 days and were considered separately in the biosphere model, at par with primary 
radionuclides, as explained in the Biosphere Model Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], 
Section 6.3.5). The resulting set of radionuclides considered in the biosphere model (Table 6-1) 
consists of the 30 primary radionuclides; also listed are the decay products of primary 
radionuclides with half-lives less than 180 days. (235U has been added to the table to complete 
the decay chain, although 235U is not considered a primary radionuclide.) The set of primary 
radionuclides includes 17 elements. Table 6-1 includes the half-lives of radionuclides under 
consideration. 
Table 6-1. Primary Radionuclides and Their Decay Products Included in the Biosphere Model 
Primary Radionuclide 
Short-lived Decay 
Product Branching Fraction, % a Half-life a 
Carbon-14 (14C) 100 5.730E+3 yr 
Chlorine-36 (36Cl) 100 3.01E+05 yr 
Selenium-79 (79Se) 100 6.50E+04 yr 
Strontium-90 (90Sr) 100 2.912E+01 yr 
Yttrium-90 (90Y) 100 6.40E+01 hr 
Technetium-99 (99Tc) 100 2.13E+05 yr 
Tin-126 (126Sn) 100 1.0E+05 yr 
Antimony-126m (126mSb) 100 1.90E+01 min 

Table 6-1. Primary Radionuclides and Their Decay Products Included in the Biosphere Model 
(Continued) 
Primary Radionuclide 
Short-lived Decay 
Product Branching Fraction, % a Half-life a 
Antimony-126 (126Sb) 14 1.24E+01 d 
Iodine-129 (129I) 100 1.57E+07 yr 
Cesium-135 (135Cs) 100 2.3E+06 yr 
Cesium-137 (137Cs) 100 3.00E+01 yr 
Barium-137m (137mBa) 94.60 2.552E+00 min 
T h o r i u m S e r i e s ( 4n ) 
Plutonium-240 (240Pu) 100 6.537E+03 yr 
Uranium-236 (236U) 100 2.3415E+07 yr 
Thorium-232 (232Th) 100 1.405E+10 yr 
Radium-228 (228Ra) 100 5.75E+00 yr 
Actinium-228 (228Ac) 100 6.13E+00 hr 
Uranium-232 (232U) 100 7.2E+00 yr 
Thorium-228 (228Th) 100 1.913E+001 yr 
Radium-224 (224Ra) 100 3.66E+00 d 
Radon-220 (220Rn) 100 5.56E+01 s 
Polonium-216 (216Po) 100 1.5 E-01 s 
Lead-212 (212Pb) 100 1.064E+01 hr 
Bismuth-212 (212Bi) 100 6.055 E+01 min 
Polonium-212 (212Po) 64.07 3.05 E-07 s 
Thallium-208 (208Tl) 35.93 3.07E+00 min 
N e p t u n i u m S e r i e s ( 4n + 1 ) 
Americium-241 (241Am) 100 4.322E+02 yr 
Neptunium-237 (237Np) 100 2.14E+06 yr 
Protactinium-233 (233Pa) 100 2.70 E+01 d 
Uranium-233 (233U) 100 1.585E+05 yr 
Thorium-229 (229Th) 100 7.340E+03 yr 
Radium-225 (225Ra) 100 1.48E+01 d 
Actinium-225 (225Ac) 100 1.00E+01 d 
Francium-221 (221Fr) 100 4.8E+00 min 
Astatine-217 (217At) 100 3.23E-02 s 
Bismuth-213 (213Bi) 100 4.565E+01 min 
Polonium-213 (213Po) 97.84 4.2E-06 s 
Thallium-209 (209Tl) 2.16 2.20 E+00 min 
Lead-209 (209Pb)  3.253E+00 hr 
U r a n i u m S e r i e s ( 4n + 2 ) 
Plutonium-242 (242Pu) 100 3.763E+05 yr 
Uranium-238 (238U) 100 4.468E+09 yr 
Thorium-234 (234Th) 100 2.410E+01 d 
Protactinium-234m 
(234mPa) 
99.80 1.17E+00 min 
Protactinium-234 (234Pa) 0.33 6.70E+00 hr 
Plutonium-238 (238Pu) 100 8.774E+01 yr 

Table 6-1. Primary Radionuclides and Their Decay Products Included in the Biosphere Model 
(Continued) 
Primary Radionuclide 
Short-lived Decay 
Product Branching Fraction, % a Half-life a 
Uranium-234 (234U) 100 2.445E+05 yr 
Thorium-230 (230Th) 100 7.7E+04 yr 
Radium-226 (226Ra) 100 1.600E+03 yr 
Radon-222 (222Rn) 100 3.8235E+00 d 
Polonium-218 (218Po) 100 3.05E+00 min 
Lead-214 (214Pb) 99.98 2.68 E+01 min 
Astatine-218 (218At) 0.02 2.E+00 s 
Bismuth-214 (214Bi) 100 1.99E+01 min 
Polonium-214 (214Po) 99.98 1.643E-04 s 
Thallium-210 (210Tl) 0.02 1.3E+00 min b 
Lead-210 (210Pb) 100 2.23 E+01 yr 
Bismuth-210 (210Bi) 100 5.012E+00 d 
Polonium-210 (210Po) 100 1.3838 E+02 d 
A c t i n i u m S e r i e s ( 4n + 3 ) 
Americium-243 (243Am) 100 7.380E+03 yr 
Neptunium-239 (239Np) 100 2.355E+00 d 
Plutonium-239 (239Pu) 100 2.4065E+04 yr 
Uranium-235 (235U) 100 7.038E+08 yr 
Thorium-231 (231Th) 100 2.552E+01 hr 
Protactinium-231 (231Pa) 100 3.276E+04 yr 
Actinium-227 (227Ac) 100 2.1773E+01 yr 
Thorium-227 (227Th) 98.62 1.8718E+01 d 
Francium-223 (223Fr) 1.38 2.18E+01 min 
Radium-223 (223Ra) 100 1.1434E+01 d 
Radon-219 (219Rn) 100 3.96 E+00 s 
Polonium-215 (215Po) 100 1.78 E-03 s 
Lead-211 (211Pb) 100 3.61 E+01 min 
Bismuth-211 (211Bi) 100 2.14 E+00 min 
Thallium-207 (207Tl) 99.72 4.77 E+00 min 
Polonium-211 (211Po) 0.28 5.16E-01 s 
a
bEckerman and Ryman (1993 [DIRS 107684], Table A.1). 
Lide and Frederikse (1997 [DIRS 103178], p. 11-125). 
NOTE: Short-lived decay products of primary radionuclides are assumed to be in secular equilibrium with the 
parent radionuclides. 
Environmental transport parameters can be element-specific, radionuclide-specific, or 
independent of the contaminant species. Examples of parameters that do not depend on chemical 
species include animal consumption rates of feed, water, and soil; dry deposition velocity; and 
parameters related to evaporative coolers. Element-specific parameters in this analysis are: 
 
Soil-to-plant TFs 
 
Animal intake-to-animal product TCs 
 
Bioaccumulation factors for aquatic food 

 
Modifying factors for radionuclide concentration in fishpond water 
 
Parameters related to radon transport in the environment 
 
Parameters related to carbon transport in the environment. 
The results of the TSPA for the Supplemental Science and Performance Analysis indicated that 
14C, 99Tc, 129I, and 237Np were the most important dose contributors for nominal performance 
(CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246], Figure 4.1-6), and that 241Am, 239Pu, and 240Pu were the 
most important dose contributors for the igneous disruption scenario (CRWMS M&O 2000 
[DIRS 153246], Figures 4.2-3 and 4.2-4). The 14C dose for the nominal performance scenario 
resulted primarily from the aquatic food pathway (BSC 2003 [DIRS 169674], Tables 6.2-10 
and 6.2-11). These radionuclides were the main concern for developing element-dependent 
parameters such as TFs and TCs. The analysis also included a more detailed treatment of carbon 
accumulation in aquatic food. 
6.1.5 Consideration of Exposure Scenarios and Climate Change 
Biosphere modeling is performed for the release of radionuclides to the biosphere under two 
exposure scenarios: groundwater and volcanic ash. For the groundwater exposure scenario, 
radionuclides enter the biosphere from a well that extracts contaminated groundwater from an 
aquifer. Human exposure arises from using the contaminated water for domestic and agricultural 
purposes. The groundwater scenario applies to the TSPA-LA modeling cases that consider 
groundwater release of radionuclides from the repository at Yucca Mountain. The nominal 
scenario class and some modeling cases from the disruptive scenario classes may result in the 
release of radionuclides to groundwater (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], pp. 51 to 52). 
For the volcanic ash scenario, the mode of radionuclide release into the biosphere is a volcanic 
eruption through the repository with the resulting entrainment of contaminated waste in the 
tephra and the subsequent atmospheric transport and dispersion of contaminated material in the 
biosphere. This scenario applies to the volcanic eruption modeling case of the igneous scenario 
class (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], pp. 51 to 52), which is one of the TSPA-LA disruptive 
scenario classes. 
The biosphere model for the volcanic ash release scenario is, in many aspects, similar to that for 
the groundwater scenario. Most exposure pathways are the same for both scenarios, except for 
the pathways, where water is the direct source of contamination. This analysis provides 
recommendations for environmental transport parameter values for the biosphere model, 
supporting both release scenarios. 
The model realizations for both scenarios, done using the GoldSim software program, involve 
consideration of climate change. In the TSPA-LA, the climate will be assumed to shift in a 
series of step changes between three climate states in the first 10,000 years: present day 
(present-day) interglacial climate, monsoon climate (with about twice the precipitation of the 
present-day climate), and glacial transition (intermediate glacial) climate (colder than monsoon 
but similar in amount of precipitation) (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], p. 79). Within the GoldSim 
program, these shifts require coordination among the coupled submodels because they must all 
simultaneously change to the appropriate climate state. The climates and their predicted 

occurrence at Yucca Mountain are described in the Future Climate Analysis (2004 
[DIRS 170002]). 
The values of some environmental transport parameters are different for the present-day and 
future climates. The present-day conditions, referred to as the present day climate, are 
characteristic of the interglacial climate (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170002], Section 6.2). The future 
climate states are represented in this analysis by the upper bound of the glacial transition climate. 
The glacial transition climate is predicted to persist for the majority of the 10,000-year 
compliance period (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170002], Table 6-1). The glacial transition climate, 
referred to as the future climate, is predicted to have cooler, wetter winters and to have 
warm-to-cool, dry summers relative to current conditions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170002], 
Section 6.6.2). Recommended analogue weather stations for the upper bound of this climate are 
Spokane, St. John, and Rosalia, Washington (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170002], Table 6-1). Data from 
these weather stations and agricultural practices in east central Washington were used in 
biosphere modeling to characterize conditions for the future climate. 
6.2 RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT TO CROPS 
Radionuclide uptake by crops can occur by several processes. The biosphere model considers 
directly deposited contamination intercepted by and retained on crops as well as contamination 
taken up by crops through the root system. Direct deposition results from irrigation with 
contaminated water and from deposition of resuspended contaminated soil or ash. The total 
activity concentration in the crops is the sum of the contributions from these processes 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Equation 6.4.3-1): 
Cp 
i, j =Cproot , i, j + Cpi water , , j (Eq. 6-1) 
, , j + Cpi dust 
where 
Cp i,j = activity concentration of radionuclide i in crop type j (Bq/kg wet) 
j = crop type index; j = 1 for leafy vegetables, 2 for other vegetables, 3 for fruit, 
4 for grain (used for humans and poultry), and 5 for fresh forage feed (used 
for beef cattle and dairy cows) 
Cproot, i, j = activity concentration of radionuclide i in crop type j contributed from plant 
root uptake (Bq/kg wet) 
Cpwater, i ,j = activity concentration of radionuclide i in crop type j contributed from direct 
deposition on crop leaves due to interception of contaminated irrigation 
water (Bq/kg wet) 
Cpdust, i, j = activity concentration of radionuclide i in crop type j contributed from direct 
deposition on crop leaves due to interception of resuspended particles from 
contaminated soil (Bq/kg wet). 
The fraction of activity concentration in a crop, attributable to any of these processes, is element- 
and plant-dependent. For soluble species, which remain relatively available in the soil solution, 
root absorption processes are usually more effective than foliar deposition processes (Cataldo 
and Vaughan 1976 [DIRS 160551], p. 341). In contrast, root uptake of actinides, such as 

plutonium and americium, tends to be less important than the contamination of external plant 
surfaces in terms of food chain transfers (Romney et al. 1977 [DIRS 160558], p. 54). The type 
of environment is also important. The results of studies at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) 
demonstrate that radionuclide contamination of vegetation in an arid and dusty environment 
occurs primarily by resuspension rather than by root uptake (Gilbert et al. 1988 [DIRS 160552], 
p. 876). 
The mobility, solubility, and accumulation of radionuclides in the environment are governed to a 
large degree by their chemical forms (BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468], T3FM/WD01, p. 30). 
Information on the chemical form of radionuclides in the biosphere resulting from repository 
releases is not available, and speciation considerations were not included in the parameter 
selection for the biosphere model. For parameters such as TFs and TCs, for which the value may 
depend on the chemical form of a radionuclide, the developed probability distribution functions 
account for the related uncertainty. 
This section describes the development of values for parameters involved in modeling 
radionuclide transport to crops for human and animal consumption. These parameters include 
element-specific and plant-typespecific soil-to-plant TFs (Section 6.2.1), deposition velocity 
(Section 6.2.2.1), translocation factor (Section 6.2.2.2), and weathering rate (Section 6.2.2.3). 
The effects of climate change and postvolcanic conditions on parameter values are also 
discussed. 
6.2.1 Radionuclide Transfer to Crops by Root Uptake 
One of the environmental transport processes leading to contamination of crops is radionuclide 
uptake through the roots. Only radionuclides dissolved in water can be transferred to crops via 
this pathway. This section discusses root uptake of contaminants and documents the 
development of soil-to-plant TFs. 
6.2.1.1 Background Information 
Background information on modeling radionuclide transfer to crops via roots is summarized 
below. 
6.2.1.1.1 Root Uptake Model and Related Parameters 
Activity concentration in crops resulting from radionuclide uptake through roots is estimated in 
the biosphere model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Equation 6.4.3-2) as 
i root 
Cp 
, , j = Csm, i Fs. i p , j DWj (Eq. 6-2) 
where 
Cproot, i, j = activity concentration of radionuclide i in crop type j contributed from root 
uptake (Bq/kg wet weight of edible portions of the plant) 
Csm, i = activity concentration of radionuclide i in surface soil (Bq/kg dry soil) 
Fs.p i, j = soil-to-plant TF for radionuclide i and crop type j (Bq/kg dry plant per 
Bq/kg dry soil) 

DWj = dry-to-wet weight ratio for edible part of crop type j (kg dry plant per kg wet plant). 
This analysis develops the values of radionuclide- and crop-typespecific soil-to-plant TFs used 
in Equation 6-2. The TFs, also called the concentration factors (ICRU 2001 [DIRS 160339], 
p. 13), relate the dry- or wet-weight activity concentration in the edible parts of plants (Bq/kg) to 
the dry-weight activity concentration in soil (Bq/kg), assuming equilibrium between the two 
media. In this analysis, TFs are based on a dry weight of the plant, following the format used in 
the biosphere model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.3.1). The conversion between the 
dry-weightbased and wet-weightbased TFs can be accomplished using dry-to-wet weight 
ratios. The dry-to-wet weight ratio values range from a few percent for fruit to over 90 percent 
for grain (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169673], Section 7). The TFs are dimensionless, crop-type and 
element-dependent parameters. Observed values of TFs differ mainly as a result of soil 
characteristics, vegetation types, and environmental conditions. Crop uptake through roots is 
also affected by soil management practices (e.g., plowing, fertilizing, and irrigation). There are 
also differences between the TFs for various parts of the plants, for example, the whole plant 
vs. the grain (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], p. 39). 
6.2.1.1.2 Crop Types Used in the Model 
Soil-to-plant TFs were developed for each crop type included in the biosphere model. Crop 
types are composed of crops with similar characteristics (e.g., crops of which the leafy parts 
consumed or crops of which the fruit is consumed). Combining crops into categories helps to 
model radionuclide transport with enough detail to capture differences in radionuclide 
accumulation by plants with different morphologies without being overly specific when 
specificity is not warranted by the precision of the models and the availability of supporting 
information. Although the TF values may differ among species within a crop type, the approach 
of combining and averaging TFs for a certain crop type is useful when few data are available for 
a given radionuclide or for a crop category. The ERMYN model uses four crop types for human 
consumption and one additional crop type for animal consumption: 
 
Leafy vegetables 
 
Other vegetables (including root vegetables and legumes) 
 
Fruit 
 
Grain for human consumption as well as for chicken and for laying hen feed 
 
Forage for beef cattle and diary cows. 
The leafy vegetable category includes crops like cabbage, lettuce, broccoli, and spinach. The 
other-vegetable category includes crops like beans, carrots, cucumbers, potatoes, and peppers. 
The fruit category is the most diversified and includes fruits of woody trees, (e.g., apples, 
apricots, and grapevines), shrubs (e.g., currants and gooseberries), and herbaceous plants 
(e.g., strawberries and watermelons). The grain category is composed of different types of 
cereals, such as barley, oats, wheat, and corn. Crops for animal consumption include fresh 
pasture (alfalfa and clover) for diary cows and beef cattle, and grain for chicken and laying hens. 
The crop types used in the biosphere model are consistent with the crop types grown in 
Amargosa Valley and identified in a food consumption survey (DOE 1997 [DIRS 100332]). 

6.2.1.1.3 Properties of Soils in Amargosa Valley 
The TF values partially depend on the characteristics of the soils from which they were derived. 
Soils in Amargosa Valley have one or more characteristics that make them unsuitable or 
potentially unsuitable for residential or sustainable farming (e.g., high pH, shallow bedrock, or 
high salt content). Nevertheless, people farm these soils, possibly using careful selection of 
crops and special management practices (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 107736], p. 7). 
Information on soils in the Amargosa Valley region is based on the analysis of soil samples 
collected in the region (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 107736], p. 4). Mean pH within the 
A-horizon of cultivated and uncultivated soil for the four soil mapping units sampled was within 
the range of pH = 7.8 to 8.4 (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 107736], p. 8), which represents 
highly alkaline soils. 
The analysis of soil texture indicated high sand content. The mean sand, silt, and clay contents 
were 82.5, 12.0, and 5.6 percent, respectively (these percentages apply to the soil portion of the 
samples, which was obtained by separating it by sieving out coarse fragments greater than 
2 mm). The organic matter content was low, and only 18 percent of the soil samples were more 
than 1 percent organic matter. The highest level of organic matter was 1.65 percent (CRWMS 
M&O 1999 [DIRS 107736], pp. D-4 to D-6). Therefore, the soils in Amargosa Valley can be 
classified as mineral soils (as opposed to organic soils), which may have implications regarding 
the potential accumulation of radionuclides in the surface soil. 
6.2.1.1.4 Sources of Information on Transfer Factors 
TFs were developed based on reports listed in Section 4.1.1. Other sources of information were 
used to further support or corroborate the selection of the parameter values, especially from the 
perspective of site-specificity. 
A potential source of information on TFs is the RADFLUX Database, which is sponsored by the 
IUR. The database (as of the writing of this report) has not yet been completed. The RADFLUX 
Database contains rates for various environmental transport processes and updated information 
on TFs, including the most recent experimental results. The TF part of the database includes the 
previous IUR TF database and information that became available in the 1990s (many 
publications used in this analysis were based on the older IUR database). This new database was 
not considered in this report for developing parameter values. 
6.2.1.1.5 Methods Used for Development of Transfer Factors for the Biosphere Model 
To develop values for TFs, many publications containing the reviews of the TFs or their 
applications in biosphere modeling for performance assessment have been evaluated. If a report 
provided a choice of values corresponding more closely to the environmental conditions of the 
Yucca Mountain region, such values were used. The process of selecting information is 
described below. In many cases, a relatively broad range of TF values was recommended for the 
biosphere model because of the inherent uncertainty associated with the future environmental 
conditions and the use of soil amendments, which may influence radionuclide uptake from soil 
by the crops. 

Selection of Literature DataTFs are typically given in units of Bq/kg dry-weight of plant per 
Bq/kg dry-weight of soil, but sometimes the TFs are reported on a wet-weight (fresh) basis. The 
biosphere model uses the dry-weight ratios for the TFs because such an approach minimizes 
differences in the parameter values due to environmental conditions or crop types. The 
conversion from the wet-weight to the dry weight can be done with the dry-to-wet weight ratio. 
This approach is not straightforward if the data do not refer to a single crop but rather to a crop 
type, such as the leafy vegetables. If a TF based on the wet weight for a single crop and the 
dry-to-wet weight ratio was known, the TF values were converted to dry-weight TFs, and the 
dry-weight TFs were used in the analysis. TFs based on wet weights were not used in the 
analysis. 
Most of the sources listed in Section 4.1.1 derive information on soil-to-plant TFs from 
experiments performed on soils typical of temperate climates, and the generic TF values 
(i.e., values that are recommended if site-specific data are lacking) reflect such conditions. The 
soils of Amargosa Valley region are characterized by a high pH, high mineral concentrations, 
and higher sand content (lower clay content) than typical soils (Section 6.2.1.1.3). Relying on 
generic TF information to develop the parameter values for soils in Amargosa Valley may 
introduce parametric uncertainty into the model. In all instances where there was detailed soil 
information, a value corresponding most closely to the properties of soils in Amargosa Valley 
was used. For example, if a distinction was made between soil types in a reference, values for 
sandy soils or lowclay content soils were used. Regarding soil pH, higher pH values result in 
decreased uptake of elements, while lower values produce increased uptakes (IAEA 1994 
[DIRS 100458], p. 16). Thus, if a TF value for higher pH soils was available, it was used in the 
analysis. TF selection also considered the mineral content of the soils (i.e., the concentration of 
specific minerals in different soils) and the organic matter content (i.e., mineral soils versus 
organic soils). The instances of using specific TF values are noted in the comment column of the 
TF tables that follow later in this section. In addition, TFs for plant species not known to be 
grown in Amargosa Valley were not used in the calculations. Specifically, the TFs for tropical 
plants were eliminated. 
Aggregation of Selected ValuesTF values, selected using the criteria above, were aggregated 
in the following manner. First, the GM was calculated using TF values from all relevant 
references. The GM is preferred over the arithmetic mean whenever large variability in the data 
is expected (Section 6.1.2), which is the case for the TFs (BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468], 
T1/WD04, p. 12). The GM is also a better statistic for TFs than the arithmetic mean because TFs 
for many elements are lognormally distributed (Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 7; Davis 
et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 232; Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], p. 2). 
Observed TF values differ, mainly as a result of different soils, vegetation types, and 
environmental conditions. However, even field-scale measurements are subject to variability. 
Measurements of soil partition coefficients (Kds) on a 100-m2by150-m2 study plot produced 
values differing by a factor of four for some radionuclides (BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468], 
T1/WD04, p. 9-11). Because Kds are inversely correlated with TFs (BIOMASS 2001 
[DIRS 159468], T1/WD04, pp. 27 to 31; Karlsson et al. 2001 [DIRS 159470], p. 37; Davis 
et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 234), the degree of variability in the TF values is expected to be at 
least on the same order. Differences among TF values reported in the literature reviews are 
usually even higher. Such differences mainly appear to be a function of the number of samples 

and the range of conditions under which the TFs were measured, rather than characteristics of the 
system studied (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 232). 
The TFs used in the biosphere model not only represent composite values for many crop species 
within a crop type but also capture potential temporal changes. Because temporal changes may 
cause a wider distribution of parameter values, the geometric standard deviation (GSD) of the 
values reported in the literature was used as a measure of uncertainty in the TF value for a given 
element and crop type. 
As noted previously, the sources of information on TFs were summary reviews and reports 
containing recommendations of generic TF values or reports describing biosphere models that 
include selections of input parameters. In either case, the values of TFs are the authors best 
estimates for a given radionuclide, pathway, and application. When the GM of such data is 
calculated, as is done in this analysis, the result represents the estimate of the parameter value 
based on the best estimates of other authors. The scatter of values, characterized by the GSD, 
indicates the level of agreement among the authors. Usually there is good agreement between 
the TF values from different reports, which, in most cases, differ by less than two orders of 
magnitude (Tables 6-2 to 6-31). In a few instances, TF values reported by different authors 
differed by several orders of magnitude. For such cases, the calculated GSD is large. 
To determine the realistic representation of the TF values, the upper and lower limits for the 
GSD were set. The limits were based on an analysis of the TFs from the IUR database by 
Sheppard and Evenden (1997 [DIRS 160641], p. 727). The analysis concerned the expected 
uncertainty in TF values for a range of possible conditions ranging from fully generic to 
site-specific situations. It was concluded that the most site-specific data (single-site, single-crop) 
have a GSD of about 1.5. When data are fully generic, the GSD is generally above 3, with a 
typical value of about 6. NCRP (1984 [DIRS 103784]) reported the GSD of 3.8 and 4.1 for 
strontium and cesium TFs for food crops, respectively. The corresponding values for the forage 
plants were 3.8 and 3.5. The GSD of 10 was chosen for all elements in support of biosphere 
modeling for the Canadian nuclear fuel waste assessment (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], 
p. 232). Compared to the IUR data (Sheppard and Evenden 1997 [DIRS 160641], p. 730), this 
value is an upper limit for GSD values. Because higher values of GSDs are not supported by the 
existing data (Sheppard and Evenden 1997 [DIRS 160641], Figures 2 and 3), the GSD of 10 was 
chosen as an upper limit for the TFs for the biosphere model. 
The TFs used in the biosphere model represent the composite mean values for the crop species 
within the crop type. Variability in the value of a composite parameter is expected to be lower 
than that among the TFs for individual crop species. The lower limit for the GSD was set at 2 
because the typical site- and crop-specific TF GSD was about 1.5 (Sheppard and Evenden 1997 
[DIRS 160641], Table 1). Because TFs in the biosphere model represent values for crop types, 
rather than individual crops, it is unlikely that the corresponding GSD would be lower than the 
site- and crop-specific value. The value of 1.5 was rounded up to the nearest integer (i.e., 2) and 
used as the lower limit of the GSD. In practice, when the GSD of the published values was less 
than 2, it was set at 2, and if it was greater than 10, it was set at 10. Such an approach is 
appropriate because the distributions of TF values do not represent variability in the expected 
values of the TFs for different individual crops but rather uncertainty in the generic value of the 
parameter. 

The biosphere model uses many parameters. This report develops the values for about 
200 parameters that will be sampled in the biosphere model for each radionuclide. To obtain 
statistically sound results, the number of biosphere model realizations may need to be large. In 
such a case, if the TFs are represented by unlimited probability distribution functions, the 
sampling will include the extremely low and extremely high values, which in some cases may be 
unrealistic. As noted, the TFs in the biosphere model are composite values for the number of 
crops within a crop type and are considered the best representation of the generic mean value of 
the parameter, with some consideration of the site-specific conditions. Therefore, truncation 
limits are specified for the biosphere model. The truncation limits are set such that the truncated 
distributions encompass 99 percent of the values of the unlimited distribution. For the lognormal 
distribution, the lower and upper bounds of the 99-percent confidence interval for the GM can be 
expressed, based on LaPlante and Poor ([DIRS 101079], p. 3-12), as the point where the number 
of standard deviations is 2.576 (Lide and Frederikse 1997 [DIRS 103178], p. A-104), such that 
the 99-percent confidence interval is 
GM 
576.2 GSD 
truncation lower = 
(Eq. 6-3) 
576.2 GSDGMtruncation upper = 
where 
GM = geometric mean 
GSD = geometric standard deviation. 
6.2.1.2 Transfer Factors for the Groundwater Exposure Scenario 
This section describes the development of TFs for the biosphere model for the groundwater 
exposure scenario and present day climate. Recommendations regarding TF values for the 
volcanic ash exposure scenario are given in Section 6.2.1.3, and those for the future climate 
groundwater exposure scenario in Section 6.2.1.4. The primary references used for information 
on TFs are listed in Section 4.1.1. 
6.2.1.2.1 Leafy Vegetables 
The soil-to-plant TFs for leafy vegetables, and the reports used to develop the values, are listed 
in Tables 6-2 through 6-7. Calculation of GMs, standard deviations, and truncation limits for the 
TFs were preformed using Microsoft Excel 2000, as described in Appendix A. Some TFs listed 
in the references were not included in the analysis if information on the soils and crops was 
detailed enough to determine that the environmental conditions under which they were collected 
were inappropriate for the Yucca Mountain area. Several references from the list (Section 4.1.1) 
used wet- weightbased (fresh) TFs and were not used. 
The values listed by the IAEA (1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25), based on IUR data, were 
combined using the GM of the values for selected crops (see Tables 6-2 to 6-7 for more detail). 
Other authors (Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], p. 6.27) used weighted GMs, with the 
weights being the number of observations for each data value. Such an approach biases the 

result toward plant species for which more data were collected, misrepresenting those most 
frequently grown or consumed. Unweighted means better represent the contribution of 
individual species into the TFs for leafy vegetables. 
The TFs for organic soils with low pH (peat) provided by Peterson (1983 [DIRS 167077], 
pp. 5-50 to 5-51) were not included in the calculation; TFs for soils with potassium content less 
than 80 mg/kg, as well as TFs for soils with low calcium and low pH values, were excluded. 
This was based on the laboratory analyses of the soil samples collected in Amargosa Valley, 
which indicated that Amargosa Valley soils have higher concentrations of these elements and 
higher pH values (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 107736], pp. D-4 to D-6). The aerial values of 
TFs (Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51), representing the gross plant-to-soil 
concentration ratio, including external contamination, were not used. External crop 
contamination is especially important for crops in which root uptake is low or in the case of 
radionuclides that are not easily taken up through the roots, such as the transuranics. The 
adhesion of soil particles can be important, as the amounts of radionuclides present in the 
adhering soil can exceed the amounts taken up via the roots (IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 27), 
and thus, even minute external activity can result in an elevated apparent TF. This effect is 
important for plant-element TF values of less than 0.1 (IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 27). 
However, it is usually noticeable only for the individual experimental results rather than for the 
averaged values, as is the case for the references used in this analysis. 

Table 6-2. Technetium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 9.5E+00 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 1.8E+02 b 1.0E+01  7.8E+03 (95-% confidence 
range) 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 4.4E+01  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 7.6E+01 c lognormal, GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E+01 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57   
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 
5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 4.0E+01 e  
9 This analysis - recommendation  
lognormal, GM = 4.6E+01f , GSD = 2.6 
truncation: low = 3.8E+00; high = 5.5E+02 
Technetium 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
1.0E+03 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value is not specific to leafy vegetables but rather it was developed for plant parts usually 
associated with vegetative functions (leaves, stems, straw)
b 
Best estimate is the GM of the values for cabbage, lettuce, and spinach. 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
RESRAD default value 
f 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 4.6E+01; GSD = 2.6 

Table 6-3. Iodine Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 1.5E-01 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 3.4E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 3.4E-03 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-01 c  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 3.2E-03 d  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 
5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.5E-01 e  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 2.6E-02 f; GSD = 9.9 
truncation: low = 7.2E-05; high = 9.7E+00 
Iodine 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value is not specific to leafy vegetables but rather it was developed for plant parts usually 
associated with vegetative functions (leaves, stems, straw)
b 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c 
GENII-S default 
d 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
e 
RESRAD default value 
f 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 2.6E-02; GSD = 9.9 

Table 6-4. Neptunium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 1.0E-01 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 4.6E-02 b 2.4E-02 to 1.1E-01(expected values) 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 1.3E-02  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 6.9E-02 c Lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E+00 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 4.6E-02 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 
5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.3E-02 f  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 5.9E-02 g; GSD = 4.4 
truncation: low = 1.3E-03; high = 2.6E+00 
Neptunium 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value is not specific to leafy vegetables but rather it was developed for plant parts usually 
associated with vegetative functions (leaves, stems, straw)
b 
Best estimate is the GM of the values for cabbage, leeks and mixed green vegetables 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
f 
RESRAD default value 
g 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 5.9E-02; GSD = 4.4 

Table 6-5. Plutonium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 4.5E-04 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 1.2E-4 b 4.1E-05 to 6.4E-04 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 3.9E-04  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 3.4E-4 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-04 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 2.6E-4 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 
5-50 to 5-51 1.75E-4  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 3.9E-04 f  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 2.9E-04 g; GSD = 2.0 
truncation: low = 4.9E-05; high = 1.7E-03 
Plutonium 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value is not specific to leafy vegetables but rather it was developed for plant parts usually 
associated with vegetative functions (leaves, stems, straw)
b 
Best estimate is the GM of the values for cabbage, leeks and mixed green vegetables 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
f 
RESRAD default value 
g 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 2.9E-04; GSD = 1.6. The GSD = 2 was used (see text for 
details). 

Table 6-6. Americium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference 
Comments 
Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 5.5E-03 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 3.6E-04 b 2.0E-04 to 6.6E-04 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 5.8E-04  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 1.2E-03 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-03 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 8.2E-04 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 
5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 2.0E-03 f  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 1.2E-03 g , GSD = 2.5 
truncation: low = 1.2E-04; high = 1.3E-02 
Americium 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value is not specific to leafy vegetables but rather it was developed for plant parts usually 
associated with vegetative functions (leaves, stems, straw)
b 
Best estimate is the GM of the values for cabbage and mixed green vegetables 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
f 
RESRAD default value 
g For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.2E-03; GSD = 2.5 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-7. Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables for Other Elements 
Reference 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless (Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil) 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Baes et al. 1984 
[DIRS 103766], p. 10 7.0E+01 2.5E-02 2.5E+00 3.0E-02 8.0E-02 4.5E-02 1.5E-02 3.5E-03 8.5E-04 2.5E-03 8.5E-03 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], 
pp. 17 to 25   1.3E+00  2.8E-01 1.0E-02 7.0E-02  1.8E-03  8.3E-03 
3 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 
7.0E+01 2.5E-02 1.6E+00 3.0E-02 1.3E-01 5.8E-03 7.5E-02 3.5E-03 6.6E-03 2.5E-03 1.7E-02 
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[DIRS 101079], p. 2-13  2.5E-02 1.1E+00 3.0E-02 1.1E-01 1.1E-03 8.0E-02 3.5E-03 1.1E-02 2.5E-03 2.3E-02 
5 Rittmann 1993 
[DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 5.0E+01 5.0E-01 2.0E+00 1.0E-01 2.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 4.0E-03 5.0E-02 4.0E-03 
6 Sheppard 1995 
[DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57   2.2E+00  1.5E-01 1.5E-02 2.3E-02  1.6E-02  2.1E-02 
Peterson 1983 
7 [DIRS 167077], pp. 
5-50 to 5-51 
  2.2E+00  2.2E-02  4.4E-01     
8 Wang et al. 1993 
[DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 7.0E+01 2.5E-02 1.6E+00 3.0E-02 1.3E-01 4.5E-02 7.5E-02 3.5E-03 4.0E-03 2.5E-03 8.5E-03 
GM 6.4E+01 4.6E-02 1.7E+00 3.8E-02 8.5E-02 1.5E-02 6.8E-02 4.3E-03 4.3E-03 4.6E-03 1.1E-02 
GSD 1.2 3.8 1.3 1.7 2.5 4.6 2.7 1.6 2.8 3.8 1.9 
Recommended GSD 2.0 a 3.8 2.0 a 2.0 a 2.5 4.6 2.7 2.0 a 2.8 3.8 2.0 a 
Truncation, lower limit 1.1E+01 1.4E-03 2.9E-01 6.4E-03 7.7E-03 3.0E-04 5.1E-03 7.2E-04 3.2E-04 1.4E-04 1.8E-03 
Truncation, upper limit 3.8E+02 1.4E+00 1.0E+01 2.3E-01 9.4E-01 7.7E-01 9.2E-01 2.6E-02 5.9E-02 1.4E-01 6.6E-02 
a The lower bound of the value of the GSD was used. 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-21 September 2004 

6.2.1.2.2 Other Vegetables 
To derive TFs for other vegetables, the same references and the same methods were used as 
those for leafy vegetables. TFs for other vegetables are listed in Tables 6-8 through 6-13. 
Calculation of GMs, standard deviations, and truncation limits for the TFs were preformed using 
Microsoft Excel 2000, as described in Appendix A. 
Table 6-8. Technetium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 1.5E+00 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 4.3E+00 b 2.4E-01 to 7.9E+01 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 
6.25 to 6.27 1.1E+00  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 1.1E+01 c lognormal, GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E+01 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 6.6E+00 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.5E+00 f  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 4.4E+00 g; GSD = 3.7 
truncation: low = 1.5E-01; high = 1.2E+02 
Technetium 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
1.0E+03 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value is not specific to other vegetables but rather it was developed for plant parts usually 
associated with reproductive or storage functions (fruits, seeds, tubers) 
b 
Best estimate is the GM of the values for individual crops (potato, pea, bean, and turnip) 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
f 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
g For the references listed in this table, GM = 4.4E+00; GSD = 3.7 

Table 6-9. Iodine Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 5.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 2.0E-02 b  
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 5.0E-02  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 2.0E-02 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-01 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 1.9E-03 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 
5-50 to 5-51 3.0E-02  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 5.0E-02 f  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 3.2E-02 g; GSD = 4.4 
truncation: low = 7.0E-04; high = 1.5E+00 
Iodine 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value is not specific to other vegetables but rather it was developed for plant parts usually 
associated with reproductive or storage functions (fruits, seeds, tubers) 
b 
Composite of unspecified crop types. 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
Value for root vegetables, 5 percent clay content in soil. 
f 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
g 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 3.2E-02; GSD = 4.4 

Table 6-10. Neptunium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 1.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 2.1E-02 b 6.7E-03 to 3.5E-02 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 9.4E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 2.7E-02 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E+00 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 2.8E-02 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 
5-50 to 5-51 4.0E-5 f  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.7E-02 g  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 3.1E-02 h; GSD = 4.9 
truncation: low = 5.0E-04; high = 1.9E+00 
Neptunium 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
Transfer factor` 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value is not specific to other vegetables but rather it was developed for plant parts usually 
associated with reproductive or storage functions (fruits, seeds, tubers) 
b 
Best estimate is the GM of the values for individual crops (potato, onion, radish, carrot, and bean) 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
Value for root vegetables, 5 percent clay content in soil. 
f 
Value for legumes for pH greater than 7not included in the calculations because it was over two 
orders of magnitude less than the remaining values. 
g 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
h 
For all references listed in this table, GM = 1.3E-02; GSD = 16.0. 

Table 6-11. Plutonium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 4.5E-05 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 3.7E-04 b 6.1E-05 to 4.4E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 2.0E-04  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
2.3E-04 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-04 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 1.6E-04 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
1.6E-04 f 8.1E-06 to 1.4E-03 
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.9E-04 g  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 1.9E-04 h; GSD = 2.0 
truncation: low = 3.3E-05; high = 1.1E-03 
Plutonium 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value is not specific to other vegetables but rather it was developed for plant parts usually 
associated with reproductive or storage functions (fruits, seeds, tubers) 
b 
Best estimate is the GM of the values for individual crops (bean, carrot, radish, onion, mixed root 
vegetables, and potato) 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
Value for root vegetables, 5 percent clay content in soil 
f 
Best estimate is the GM of the values for individual crops in this category reported in the reference. 
g 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
h 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.9E-04; GSD = 2.0 

Table 6-12. Americium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 2.5E-04 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 5.2E-04 b 1.6E-04 to 2.2E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 4.1E-04  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
4.7E-04 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-03 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 5.0E-04 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
6.4E-05 f  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 4.1E-04 g  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 4.0E-04 h; GSD = 2.6 
truncation: low = 3.5E-05; high = 4.6E-03 
Americium 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value is not specific to other vegetables but rather it was developed for plant parts usually 
associated with reproductive or storage functions (fruits, seeds, tubers) 
b 
Best estimate is the GM of the values for individual crops (potato, onion, radish, carrot, and bean) 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
Value for root vegetables, 5 percent clay content in soil 
f 
Value for legumes 
g 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
h 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 4.0E-04; GSD = 2.6 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-27 September 2004 
Table 6-13. Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables for Other Elements 
Reference 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless (Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil) 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Baes et al. 1984 
[DIRS 103766], p. 11 7.0E+01 2.5E-02 2.5E-01 6.0E-03 3.0E-02 9.0E-03 1.5E-03 3.5E-04 8.5E-05 2.5E-04 4.0E-03 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], 
pp. 17 to 25   7.5E-01  5.1E-02 5.1E-03 6.5E-03  2.3E-04  1.2E-02 
3 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 
6.27 
7.0E+01 2.5E-02 8.1E-01 6.0E-03 4.9E-02 3.2E-03 3.2E-03 3.5E-04 1.2E-04 2.5E-04 1.4E-02 
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[DIRS 101079], p. 2-13  2.5E-02 8.6E-01 3.0E-02 7.2E-02 6.4E-03 1.3E-02 3.5E-03 3.1E-04 2.5E-03 1.1E-02 
5 Rittmann 1993 
[DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 5.0E+01 5.0E-01 2.0E+00 1.0E-01 2.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 4.0E-03 5.0E-02 4.0E-03 
6 Sheppard 1995 
[DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57   1.3E+00  9.1E-02 9.2E-03 1.4E-02  1.0E-02  1.3E-02 
Peterson 1983 
7 [DIRS 167077], 
pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
  1.2E+00  4.2E-02  1.7E-01  2.2E-04  6.5E-04 
8 Wang et al. 1993 
[DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 7.0E+01 2.5E-02 3.7E-01 6.0E-03 9.8E-02 5.6E-03 3.5E-03 3.5E-04 2.1E-04 2.5E-04 6.4E-03 
GM 6.4E+01 4.6E-02 7.9E-01 1.5E-02 5.0E-02 9.0E-03 1.2E-02 1.1E-03 4.4E-04 1.1E-03 6.0E-03 
GSD 1.2 3.8 2.0 3.6 1.7 3.1 5.3 4.9 5.6 10.3 2.8 
Recommended GSD 2.0 a 3.8 2.0 3.6 2.0 a 3.1 5.3 4.9 5.6 10.0 b 2.8 
Truncation, lower limit 1.1E+01 1.4E-03 1.4E-01 5.3E-04 8.4E-03 5.0E-04 1.6E-04 1.8E-05 5.3E-06 3.0E-06 4.2E-04 
Truncation, upper limit 3.8E+02 1.4E+00 4.5E+00 4.0E-01 3.0E-01 1.6E-01 8.6E-01 6.6E-02 3.6E-02 4.3E-01 8.5E-02 
a The lower bound of the value of the GSD was used. 
b 
The upper bound of the value of the GSD was used. 

6.2.1.2.3 Fruit 
The TF data for fruit are scarce. To improve capabilities for modeling of radionuclides transfer 
to fruit, the BIOMASS Theme 3 Fruits Working Group reviewed the available experimental, 
field, and modeling information and then summarized the element-specific soil-to-fruit TFs for 
individual fruit species for many elements (BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468], T3FM/WD01). 
TFs were given based on the fresh weight of the fruit. However, a table with percent water 
content of individual fruit species was included in the publication making the conversion to 
dry-weight possible. The fresh weight values of TFs for individual fruits were converted to a 
dry-weight basis, and then a GM was calculated using TFs for fruits that are grown in Amargosa 
Valley. TFs for tropical fruits and TFs for organic soils (peat) were not included in the 
calculations. 
Most of the references used to derive TFs for vegetables, except Sheppards Application of the 
International Union of Radioecologists Soil-to-Plant Database to Canadian Settings (1995 
[DIRS 103789]), also contained some fruit-related TF data. TFs for fruit are summarized in 
Tables 6-14 through 6-19. Calculation of GMs, standard deviations, and truncation limits for the 
TFs were preformed using Microsoft Excel 2000, as described in Appendix A. 

Table 6-14. Technetium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 1.5E+00 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468], T3FM/WD01, 
pp. 82 to 92   
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 1.5E+00  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
1.1E+01 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E+01 c  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.5E+00 d  
9 This analysis - recommendation  
lognormal; GM = 4.3E+00 e; GSD = 4.6 
truncation: low = 8.7E-02; high = 2.1E+02 
Technetium 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
1.0E+03 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value was developed for plant parts usually associated with reproductive or storage functions 
(fruits, seeds, tubers)
b 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c 
GENII-S default 
d 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
e 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 4.3E+00; GSD = 4.6 

Table 6-15. Iodine Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 5.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 2.0E-02 b  
3 BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468], T3FM/WD01, 
pp. 82 to 92 9.3E-02 c GSD = 1.8 
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 5.0E-02  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
2.0E-02 d lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-01 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 5.0E-02 f  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 5.7E-02 g; GSD = 2.8 
truncation: low = 4.1E-03; high = 7.9E-01 
Iodine 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value was developed for plant parts usually associated with reproductive or storage functions 
(fruits, seeds, tubers)
b 
Composite of unspecified crop types 
c 
Best estimate is the GM of the TFs for individual crops (apple, apricot, and watermelon) that could be 
grown in Amargosa Valley. Subtropical fruits were not included; also, TFs for fruit grown in peat soil 
were not included because of incompatibility with Amargosa Valley soils. 
d 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
e 
GENII-S default 
f 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
g 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 5.7E-02; GSD = 2.8 

Table 6-16. Neptunium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 1.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468], T3FM/WD01, 
pp. 82 to 92   
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 1.0E-02  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
2.7E-02 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E+00 c  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.7E-02 d  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 3.4E-02 e; GSD = 6.9 
truncation: low = 2.3E-04; high = 5.0E+00 
Neptunium 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value was developed for plant parts usually associated with reproductive or storage functions 
(fruits, seeds, tubers)
b 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c 
GENII-S default 
d 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
e 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 3.4E-02; GSD = 6.9 

Table 6-17. Plutonium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 4.5E-05 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468], T3FM/WD01, 
pp. 82 to 92 1.0E-03 b GSD = 2.7 
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 4.5E-05  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
2.3E-04 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-04 d  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.9E-04 e  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 1.8E-04 f; GSD = 3.4 
truncation: low = 7.8E-06; high = 4.2E-03 
Plutonium 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value was developed for plant parts usually associated with reproductive or storage functions 
(fruits, seeds, tubers)
b 
Best estimate is the GM of the TFs for individual crops (apple, peach, gooseberry, blackcurrant, 
strawberry, melon, rhubarb) that could be grown in Amargosa Valley. Subtropical fruits were not 
included; also, TFs for fruit grown in peat soil were not included because of incompatibility with 
Amargosa Valley soils. 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit and 
grain. 
f 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.8E-04; GSD = 3.4 

Table 6-18. Americium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 2.5E-04 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468], T3FM/WD01, 
pp. 82 to 92 1.0E-03 b GSD = 3.4 
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 2.5E-04  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
4.7E-04 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-03 d  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 4.1E-04 e  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 5.4E-04 f; GSD = 2.3 
truncation: low = 6.5E-05; high = 4.5E-03 
Americium 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value was developed for plant parts usually associated with reproductive or storage functions 
(fruits, seeds, tubers)
b 
Best estimate is the GM of the TFs for individual crops (apple, peach, gooseberry, blackcurrant, 
strawberry, melon, rhubarb) that could be grown in Amargosa Valley. Subtropical fruits were not 
included; also, TFs for fruit grown in peat soil were not included because of incompatibility with 
Amargosa Valley soils. 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
f 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 5.4E-04; GSD = 2.3 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-34 September 2004 
Table 6-19. Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit for Other Elements 
Reference 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless (Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil) 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Baes et al. 1984 
[DIRS 103766], p. 11 7.0E+01 2.5E-02 2.5E-01 6.0E-03 3.0E-02 9.0E-03 1.5E-03 3.5E-04 8.5E-05 2.5E-04 4.0E-03 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], 
pp. 17 to 25   2.0E-01  2.2E-01       
BIOMASS 2001 
3 [DIRS 159468], 
T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
  1.8E-01  1.7E-02      5.0E-2 
4 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 
6.27 
7.0E+01 2.5E-02 1.7E-01 6.0E-03 2.2E-01 9.0E-03 6.1E-03 3.5E-04 8.5E-05 2.5E-04 4.0E-03 
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[DIRS 101079], p. 2-13  2.5E-02 2.0E-01 3.0E-02 7.2E-02 6.4E-03 1.3E-02 3.5E-03 3.1E-04 2.5E-03 1.1E-02 
6 Rittmann 1993 
[DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 5.0E+01 5.0E-01 2.0E+00 1.0E-01 2.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 3.0E-3 4.0E-03 5.0E-02 4.0E-03 
Peterson 1983 
7 [DIRS 167077], 
pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
  2.4E-01  2.6E-02  3.5E-03    1.7E-03 
8 Wang et al. 1993 
[DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 7.0E+01 2.5E-02 3.7E-01 6.0E-03 9.8E-02 5.6E-03 3.5E-03 3.5E-04 2.1E-04 2.5E-04 6.4E-03 
GM 6.4E+01 4.6E-02 2.9E-01 1.5E-02 5.6E-02 1.2E-02 7.3E-03 8.5E-04 2.9E-04 1.1E-03 6.3E-03 
GSD 1.2 3.8 2.3 3.6 2.8 3.3 4.3 3.4 4.9 10.3 2.9 
Recommended GSD 2.0 a 3.8 2.3 3.6 2.8 3.3 4.3 3.4 4.9 10.0 b 2.9 
Truncation, lower limit 1.1E+01 1.4E-03 3.6E-02 5.3E-04 3.8E-03 5.8E-04 1.6E-04 3.7E-05 4.8E-06 3.0E-06 3.9E-04 
Truncation, upper limit 3.8E+02 1.4E+00 2.4E+00 4.0E-01 8.1E-01 2.6E-01 3.2E-01 2.0E-02 1.7E-02 4.3E-01 1.0E-01 
a The lower bound of the value of the GSD was used. 
b 
The upper bound of the value of the GSD was used. 

6.2.1.2.4 Grain 
The TFs for grain are listed in Tables 6-20 through 6-25. The references used were the same as 
those used to develop TFs for vegetables. Calculation of GMs, standard deviations, and 
truncation limits for the TFs were preformed using Microsoft Excel 2000, as described in 
Appendix A. 
Table 6-20. Technetium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 1.5E+00 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 7.3E-01 7.3E-02 to 3.7E+00 b 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 7.3E-01  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
7.3E-01 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E+01 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 8.3E-01e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.5E+00 f  
9 This analysis - recommendation  
lognormal; GM = 1.6E+00 g; GSD = 4.3 
truncation: low = 3.8E-02; high = 6.8E+01 
Technetium 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value was developed for plant parts usually associated with reproductive or storage functions 
(fruits, seeds, tubers)
b 
Range given as 95-percent confidence range. 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
f 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
g 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.6E+00; GSD = 4.3 

Table 6-21. Iodine Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 5.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 5.0E-02  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
2.0E-02 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-01 c  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 2.4E-04 d  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 5.0E-02 e  
9 This analysis - recommendation  
lognormal; GM = 2.5E-02 f; GSD = 10.0 
truncation: low = 6.6E-05; high = 9.4E+00 
Iodine 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value was developed for plant parts usually associated with reproductive or storage functions 
(fruits, seeds, tubers)
b 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c 
GENII-S default 
d 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
e 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
f 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 2.5E-02; GSD = 11.9. The GSD = 10 was used (see text 
for details). 

Table 6-22. Neptunium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 1.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 2.7E-03 2.3E-05  8.3E-02 b 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 2.7E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
2.7E-03 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E-01 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 3.5E-03 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
1.2E-04 f  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.7E-02 g  
9 This analysis - recommendation  
lognormal; GM = 4.4E-03 h; GSD = 6.9 
truncation: low = 3.1E-05; high = 6.3E-01 
Neptunium 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value was developed for plant parts usually associated with reproductive or storage functions 
(fruits, seeds, tubers)
b 
Range given as 95-percent confidence range 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
f 
Value for soils with pH greater than 7 
g 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
h 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 4.4E-03; GSD = 6.9 

Table 6-23. Plutonium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 4.5E-05 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 8.6E-06 3.5E-07  4.2E-01 b 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 2.6E-05  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
8.6E-06 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-05 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 2.0E-05 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
1.5E-06 f  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.9E-04 g  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 1.9E-05 h; GSD = 4.2 
truncation: low = 4.8E-07; high = 7.8E-04 
Plutonium 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value was developed for plant parts usually associated with reproductive or storage functions 
(fruits, seeds, tubers)
b 
Range given as 95-percent confidence range 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENII-S default 
e 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
f 
Value for wheat, oat, and barley 
g 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
h 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.9E-05; GSD = 4.2 

Table 6-24. Americium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 11 2.5E-04 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 2.2E-05 1.5E-07 to 7.7E-01 b 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.25 to 6.27 5.9E-05  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 213 
2.2E-05 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-04 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 6.0E-05 e  
7 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 551 
2.8E-05 f  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 4.1E-04 g  
9 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 7.5E-05 h; GSD = 3.2 
truncation: low = 3.8E-06; high = 1.5E-03 
Americium 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value was developed for plant parts usually associated with reproductive or storage functions 
(fruits, seeds, tubers)
b 
Range given as 95-percent confidence range 
c 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
GENIIS default 
e 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
f 
Value for wheat, oat, and barley 
g 
RESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
h 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 7.5E-05; GSD = 3.2 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-25. Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain for Other Elements 
Reference 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless (Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil) 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 
Baes et al. 1984 
[DIRS 103766], p. 11 7.0E+01 2.5E-02 2.5E-01 6.0E-03 3.0E-02 9.0E-03 1.5E-03 3.5E-04 8.5E-05 2.5E-04 4.0E-03 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], 
2 pp. 17 to 25   1.7E-01  2.8E-02 4.7E-03 1.2E-03  3.4E-05  1.3E-03 
3 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 
6.27 7.0E+01 2.5E-02 1.3E-01 6.0E-03 2.6E-02 4.7E-03 1.2E-03 3.5E-04 3.4E-05 2.5E-04 1.3E-03 
4 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[DIRS 101079], p. 2-13  2.5E-02 1.2E-01 3.0E-02 1.0E-02 4.7E-03 1.2E-03 3.5E-03 3.4E-05 2.5E-03 1.3E-03 
Rittmann 1993 
5 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E+00 5.0E-02 2.0E-01 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 3.0E-04 4.0E-04 2.0E-02 2.0E-04 
Sheppard 1995 
6 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57   1.7E-01  1.2E-02 1.2E-03 1.8E-03  1.3E-03  1.6E-03 
Peterson 1983 
7 
[DIRS 167077], 
pp. 5-50 to 5-51   7.7E-02  1.2E-02 1.4E-02 5.8E-02  2.0E-03  1.6E-04 
Wang et al. 1993 
8 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 7.0E+01 2.5E-02 3.7E-01 6.0E-03 9.8E-02 5.6E-03 3.5E-03 3.5E-04 2.1E-04 2.5E-04 6.4E-03 
9 GM 2.4E+01 2.9E-02 1.7E-01 9.2E-03 2.0E-02 5.5E-03 3.1E-03 5.4E-04 1.7E-04 9.5E-04 1.1E-03 
GSD 8.4 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.2 2.1 4.0 2.9 5.2 7.2 3.6 
Recommended GSD 8.4 2.0 a 2.0 a 2.0 2.2 2.1 4.0 2.9 5.2 7.2 3.6 
Truncation, lower limit 1.0E-01 4.8E-03 2.8E-02 1.5E-03 2.7E-03 8.2E-04 8.8E-05 3.6E-05 2.4E-06 5.9E-06 4.1E-05 
Truncation, upper limit 5.8E+03 1.7E-01 1.0E+00 5.5E-02 1.6E-01 3.8E-02 1.1E-01 8.0E-03 1.2E-02 1.5E-01 3.1E-02 
a The lower bound of the value of the GSD was used. 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-40 September 2004 

6.2.1.2.5 Forage Plants 
The TFs for forage plants were based on TF values from the references listed in Tables 6-26 
to 6-31. If there was a choice of TFs for a specific plant species used as forage, the TFs for 
leguminous plants were selected. Leguminous plants (e.g., peas, soybeans, snap beans, alfalfa, 
and clover) have a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen-fixing bacteria in their roots and often 
exhibit higher radionuclide uptake than non-legumes (Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-52). 
The TFs for actinide uptake by plants sometimes are an order of magnitude higher for legumes 
and for other species, such as grasses (Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-52). Alfalfa, a 
leguminous plant, is the major crop grown in the Amargosa Valley (CRWMS M&O 1997 
[DIRS 101090], pp. 3-18 to 3-19; YMP 1999 [DIRS 158212], pp. 17 to 18). Therefore, a 
preference was given to TFs for leguminous plants in developing TF values for pasture crops 
(e.g., alfalfa and clover). TFs for other forage crops (e.g., grasses) were only used if TFs for 
leguminous plants were not available or if the reference did not specify the plant species. The 
TFs for forage plants are listed in Tables 6-26 to 6-31. Calculation of GMs, standard deviations, 
and truncation limits for the TFs were preformed using Microsoft Excel 2000, as described in 
Appendix A. 
6.2.1.2.6 Site-specific Studies 
This section compares selected TF values developed for the biosphere model with the results of 
site-specific measurements involving plutonium and americium uptake by plants. These 
measurement have been conducted on the NTS and also under greenhouse conditions using soil 
collected from aged fallout areas on the NTS (Romney and Wallace 1976 [DIRS 160549], 
pp. 287 to 302; Romney et al. 1977 [DIRS 160558], pp. 53 to 64). For plants grown under field 
conditions, the majority of the contamination was from resuspended material deposited on the 
plant surfaces. Root uptake of plutonium was a minor contributor to the overall activity 
concentration in the plants (Romney and Wallace 1976 [DIRS 160549], p. 295). The greenhouse 
experiments involved several species of plants grown in pots. For these experiments, TFs were 
in the range of 10-6 to 10-3, while the TFs calculated for plutonium in the field, where the 
majority of contamination was external, ranged from 10-3 to 100 (Romney and Wallace 1976 
[DIRS 160549], p. 295). The experiments also indicated that the uptake of americium from soils 
is greater than the uptake of plutonium. Americium uptake by plants is also influenced by soil 
pH (Au et al. 1977 [DIRS 160560], p. 4). A summary of the results of these experiments is 
shown in Tables 6-32 and 6-33 for plutonium and americium, respectively. 
The experiments involving NTS soils were also designed to test the influence of soil 
amendments on plant uptake of plutonium and americium through the root system. The results 
showed that addition of nitrogen fertilizer and organic matter amendments did not alter the 
uptake of plutonium and americium through roots of barley and alfalfa plants. However, 
acidulation of soils considerably increased root uptake, especially when applied with a chelating 
agent. 

Table 6-26. Technetium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Plants 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 9.5E+00 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 8.1E+00 b 8.1E-01 to 8.1E+01 b 
3 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 8.0E+01 c  
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 
6.25 to 6.27 4.4E+01 d  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 7.6E+01 e lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 75   
7 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 4.0E+01 f  
8 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E+01 g  
9 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 5.6E+00 h  
10 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
11 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 4.0E+01 i  
lognormal; GM = 2.7E+01 j; GSD = 2.7 
12 This analysis - recommendation  truncation: low = 2.1E+00; 
high = 3.5E+02 
Technetium 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
1.0E+03 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
The value is not specific to forage plants but rather it was developed for vegetative portions of crops 
(leaves and stems) 
b 
Value for fodder. Range given as 95-percent confidence range. 
c 
Value recommended for screening models 
d 
Value for leafy vegetables (human crop types and animal crop types were combined) 
e 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. Same value as 
that for leafy vegetables (GENII-S does not distinguish between TFs for the leafy vegetables and 
forage plants). 
f 
Value recommended for screening models. 
g 
GENII-S default 
h 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
i 
RESRAD default value. 
j For the references listed in this table, GM = 2.7E+01; GSD = 2.7 

Table 6-27. Iodine Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Plants 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 1.5E-01 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 3.4E-03 b 3.4E-04 to 3.4E-02 b 
3 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-01 c  
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 
6.25 to 6.27 3.4E-03 d  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 3.4E-03 e lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 75  1.5E-02 to 3.3E+00 
7 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-01 f  
8 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-01 g  
9 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 1.6E-03 h  
10 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 1.84E+00 i  
11 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.7E-01 j  
12 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 4.0E-02 k; GSD = 10.0 
truncation: low = 1.1E-04; high = 1.5E+01 
Iodine 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a The value is not specific to forage plants but rather it was developed for vegetative portions of crops (leaves 
b 
c 
d 
e 
and stems) 
Value for grass. Range given as 95-percent confidence range. 
Value recommended for screening models 
Value for leafy vegetables (human crop types and animal crop types were combined) 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. Same value as that for 
f 
gleafy vegetables (GENII-S does not distinguish between TFs for the leafy vegetables and forage plants). 
Value recommended for screening models. 
GENII-S default 
h 
i 
j 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
Value for alfalfa, clover, and sorghum 
RESRAD default value. 
k For the references listed in this table, GM = 4.0E-02; GSD = 11.6. The upper bound for the GSD value was 
used. 

NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Table 6-28. Neptunium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Plants 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 1.0E-01 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 8.1E-03 b 2.0E-03 to 1.2E-01 b 
3 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 5.0E-01 c  
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 
6.25 to 6.27 1.3E-02 d  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 6.9E-02 e lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 75   
7 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-01 f  
8 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E+00 g  
9 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 2.4E-02 h  
10 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 4.8E-03 i  
11 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.0E-01 j  
12 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 5.8E-02 k; GSD = 5.6 
truncation: low = 6.8E-04; high = 4.9E+00 
Neptunium 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
Reference No. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a The value is not specific to forage plants but rather it was developed for vegetative portions of crops (leaves 
b 
c 
d 
e 
and stems) 
Value for clover. Range given as 95-percent confidence range. 
Value recommended for screening models 
Value for leafy vegetables (human crop types and animal crop types were combined) 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. Same value as that for 
f 
g 
leafy vegetables (GENII-S does not distinguish between TFs for the leafy vegetables and forage plants). 
Value recommended for screening models. 
GENII-S default 
h 
i 
j 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
Value for grasses, pH greater than 7 
RESRAD default value. 
k For the references listed in this table, GM = 5.8E-02; GSD = 5.6. 

NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Table 6-29. Plutonium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Plants 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 4.5E-04 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 8.0E-04 b 1.1E-04 to 5.1E-02 b 
3 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-01 c  
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 
6.25 to 6.27 3.9E-04 d  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 3.4E-04 e lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 75 8.5E-04 f 9.2E-06  8.5E-04 
7 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-01 g  
8 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-04 h  
9 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 1.3E-04 i  
10 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 2.3E-04 j  
11 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 2.7E-04 k  
12 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 1.0E-03 l; GSD = 10.0 
truncation: low = 2.7E-06; high = 3.9E-01 
Plutonium 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
Reference No. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a The value is not specific to forage plants but rather it was developed for vegetative portions of crops (leaves 
b 
c 
d 
e 
and stems) 
Value for clover and alfalfa. Range given as 95-percent confidence range. 
Value recommended for screening models 
Value for leafy vegetables (human crop types and animal crop types were combined) 
Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. Same value as that for 
f 
g 
hleafy vegetables (GENII-S does not distinguish between TFs for the leafy vegetables and forage plants). 
Upper value for the range was used 
Vale recommended for screening models. 
GENII-S default 
i 
j 
k 
Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
Value for alfalfa, clover, and sorghum 
RESRAD default value. 
l For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.0E-03, GSD = 10.2. The upper bound for the GSD value was 
used. 

Table 6-30. Americium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Plants 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Best 
No. Reference Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 10 5.5E-05 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 17 to 25 7.1E-04 b 1.8E-04 to 3.1E-03 b 
3 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-01 c  
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 
6.25 to 6.27 5.8E-04 d  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-13 1.2E-03 e lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 75   
7 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-01 f  
8 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-03 g  
9 Sheppard 1995 [DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57 4.2E-04 h  
10 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 1.7E-03 i  
11 Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 4.0E-03 j  
lognormal; GM = 2.1E-03 k; GSD = 10.0 
12 This analysis - recommendation  truncation: low = 5.5E-06; high = 7.9E-
01 
Americium 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a The value is not specific to forage plants but rather it was developed for vegetative portions of crops (leaves and 
stems)
b Value for clover. Range given as 95-percent confidence range. 
c
d 
Value recommended for screening models 
Value for leafy vegetables (human crop types and animal crop types were combined) 
e Input values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. Same value as that for leafy 
vegetables (GENII-S does not distinguish between TFs for the leafy vegetables and forage plants). 
f 
Value recommended for screening models. 
g GENII-S default 
h Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
i 
Value for alfalfa, clover, and sorghum 
j 
RESRAD default value. 
k For the references listed in this table, GM = 2.1E-03, GSD = 10.4. The upper bound for the GSD value was used. 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-31. Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Plants for Other Elements 
Reference 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless (Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil) 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Baes et al. 1984 
[DIRS 103766], p. 10 7.0E+01 2.5E-02 2.5E+00 3.0E-02 8.0E-02 4.5E-02 1.5E-02 3.5E-03 8.5E-04 2.5E-03 8.5E-03 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], 
pp. 17 to 25   6.6E-01  1.7E-01 1.1E-03 8.0E-02  1.1E-02  2.3E-02 
3 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], 
pp. 67 to 68  1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E-01 4.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 2.0E-01 
4 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.25 to 
6.27 
7.0E+01 2.5E-02 1.6E+00 3.0E-02 1.3E-01 5.8E-03 7.5E-02 3.5E-03 6.6E-03 2.5E-03 1.7E-02 
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[DIRS 101079], p. 2-13  2.5E-02 1.1E+00 3.0E-02 1.1E-01 1.1E-03 8.0E-02 3.5E-03 1.1E-02 2.5E-03 2.3E-02 
6 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], 
p. 75   1.8E+00  4.1E-02       
7 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], 
pp. 52 to 54 1.0E+02 5.0E-01 4.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E-01 2.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 
8 Rittmann 1993 
[DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 5.0E+01 5.0E-01 2.0E+00 1.0E-01 2.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 4.0E-03 5.0E-02 4.0E-03 
9 Sheppard 1995 
[DIRS 103789], pp. 55 to 57   1.1E+00  7.7E-02 7.8E-03 1.2E-02  8.5E-03  1.1E-02 
Peterson 1983 
10 [DIRS 167077], pp. 
5-50 to 5-51 
  3.1E+00  9.3E-02  1.0E-01  4.6E-03  3.9E-04 
11 Wang et al. 1993 
[DIRS 103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.0E+02 5.0E-01 2.0E+00 1.0E+00 2.0E-01 1.0E-01 2.0E-01 1.0E-01 9.0E-03 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 
GM 7.5E+01 1.5E-01 2.1E+00 1.6E-01 1.3E-01 1.8E-02 8.2E-02 1.7E-02 1.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.7E-02 
GSD 1.3 5.5 2.1 5.8 3.3 7.0 3.0 5.4 4.2 6.7 6.1 
Recommended GSD 2.0 a 5.5 2.1 5.8 3.3 7.0 3.0 5.4 4.2 6.7 6.1 
Truncation, lower limit 1.3E+01 1.9E-03 3.2E-01 1.7E-03 6.3E-03 1.2E-04 4.9E-03 2.2E-04 2.5E-04 1.4E-04 1.6E-04 
Truncation, upper limit 4.5E+02 1.3E+01 1.3E+01 1.5E+01 2.8E+00 2.8E+00 1.4E+00 1.3E+00 3.9E-01 2.5E+00 1.9E+00 
a The lower bound of the value of the GSD was used. 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-47 September 2004 

Table 6-32. Plutonium Transfer Factors for Plants Grown in Pot Cultures Using Nevada Test Site Soil 
Plant Range of Transfer Factors Comments 
Ladino clover 10-5 to 10-4 TFs increased by a factor of 7 in 5 years 
Alfalfa 10-5 to 10-4 Highest TFs involve chelate treatment 
Barley, fruit heads 10-6 to 10-3 
Soybean, forage 10-4 to 10-3 Highest TFs involve chelate treatment 
Soybean, bean 10-6 to 10-4 Highest TFs involve chelate treatment 
Barley, grain 10-7 High-fired Pu oxide 
Source: Schulz (1977 [DIRS 160550], p. 323); Romney et al. (1977 [DIRS 160558], p. 53). 
Table 6-33. Americium Transfer Factors for Plants Grown in Pot Cultures Using Nevada Test Site Soil 
Plant Range of Transfer Factors Comments 
Barley, grain 10-5 to 10-3 Highest TFs involve chelate treatment 
Wheat, grain 10-7 to 10-5 
Alfalfa 10-4 to 10-2 Highest TFs involve treatment with soil 
amendments 
Soybean, bean 10-4 to 10-2 Highest TFs involve chelate treatment 
Soybean, leaves and stems 10-3 to 10-1 
Source: Schulz (1977 [DIRS 160550], p. 324); Romney et al. (1977 [DIRS 160558], p. 53). 
In another study (Au et al. 1977 [DIRS 160560], pp. 1 to 14), radishes, lettuce, barley, and alfalfa 
were grown from seeds in undisturbed soil on the NTS to determine the uptake of transuranics 
under field conditions. The plants were grown in small greenhouses to prevent external 
deposition of radionuclides. The crops were irrigated with water containing a chelating agent, 
fertilizer, or both. The soil pH was affected by the irrigation water with additives. The 
plutonium and americium ratios were higher than most previously reported in the literature 
(Au et al. 1977 [DIRS 160560], p. 1). The experimental results concerning the TFs for 
plutonium and americium are shown in Table 6-34. 
The TFs for crops used in the experiment do not seem to be greatly affected by the water 
additives. Other authors who studied the effect of chelating agents on plant uptake of 
transuranics found that plutonium and americium uptake from soil increased when chelating 
agents were added. One study found that chelates increased the uptake of plutonium from sand 
cultures on the order of 1  103 (Schulz 1977 [DIRS 160550], p. 326). These findings are not 
supported by the results presented in Table 6-34, where in most cases chelates decreased root 
uptake of plutonium and americium. Another inconsistency is the similar uptake of plutonium 
and americium from soils. The other experiments (Romney et al. 1977 [DIRS 160558], p. 62), 
as well as the TFs summarized in Tables 6-5 and 6-6, 6-11 and 6-12, 6-17 and 6-18, 6-23 and 
6-24, as well as 6-29 and 6-30, also indicate that the uptake of americium from soils is greater 
than the uptake of plutonium for all types of crops considered in the biosphere model. 

Table 6-34. Transfer Factors for Plutonium and Americium to Edible Parts of Crops Grown in 
Contaminated Soil at Nevada Test Site 
Plant Treatment Plutonium(239-240Pu) Americium (241Am) 
Radish, root Water 1.7  10-2 2.4  10-2 
Chelate 1.0  10-2 1.1  10-2 
Fertilizer 1.6  10-2 9.4  10-3 
Fertilizer/Chelate 6.3  10-3 7.2  10-3 
Lettuce, leaf Water 7.2  10-2 5.0  10-2 
Chelate 2.1  10-2 4.1  10-2 
Fertilizer 2.1  10-2 4.1  10-2 
Fertilizer/Chelate 3.4  10-2 1.3  10-2 
Barley, head Water 1.4  10-2 7.4  10-3 
Chelate 1.1  10-2 9.2  10-3 
Fertilizer 1.1  10-2 6.8  10-3 
Fertilizer/Chelate 1.2  10-2 7.6  10-3 
Alfalfa, stem and leaf Water 6.0  10-2 1.8  10-2 
Chelate 7.4  10-2 1.5  10-2 
Fertilizer 2.7  10-2 1.0  10-2 
Fertilizer/Chelate 7.6  10-2 2.9  10-2 
Source: Au et al. (1977 [DIRS 160560], pp. 8 to 11). 
Measurements of transuranic uptake by plants were reviewed by Schulz (1977 [DIRS 160550], 
pp. 321 to 330), who concluded that the most striking feature of plutonium and americium root 
uptake was the enormous range of individual TFs, which was 5 orders of magnitude for 
plutonium uptake (1  10-8 to 1  10-3) and 8 orders of magnitude for americium uptake 
(1  10-7 to 1  10+1) (Schultz 1977 [DIRS 160550], p. 322). Schultz (1977 [DIRS 160550]) 
also criticized other reviews that suggested plant TFs for plutonium were in the order of 1  10-4. 
When one reviews the generic values for plutonium uptake by various types of crops contained 
in Tables 6-5, 6-11, 6-17, 6-23, and 6-29, the TF for plutonium indeed appears to be on the order 
of 1  10-4. These results are consistent with the ranges of experimental values presented in 
Table 6-32, which are the averages of several samples. This indicates that TFs developed for 
plutonium (Tables 6-5, 6-11, 6-17, 6-23, and 6-29), which are on the order of 1  10-4, are 
appropriate for use in the biosphere model. The TFs for americium calculated in experiments 
involving soil collected on the NTS are also in reasonable agreement with values developed for 
the biosphere model (Tables 6-6, 6-12, 6-18, 6-24, and 6-30). 
The experiments that resulted in much higher TF values (Table 6-34) were not used in this 
analysis due to the inconsistencies indicated previously. There is a high level of uncertainty in 
the TF values, which may be attributable to experimental conditions and the accuracy of the 
analytical methods used to measure the low levels of plutonium and americium in the vegetation 
samples. 

6.2.1.3 Transfer Factors for the Volcanic Ash Exposure Scenario 
The magnitude of the effect of volcanic ash on TFs would depend on the amount of ash 
deposited by a volcanic eruption. Several processes that may affect radionuclide uptake by 
plants through their root systems need to be considered in the context of volcanic ash deposits. 
Because volcanic ash soils usually are strongly acidic (Fosberg et al. 1979 [DIRS 159471], 
p. 541), the potential future ash fall may result in an overall increase of soil acidity, with a 
corresponding decrease in pH. The pH of typical soils in Amargosa Valley currently exceeds 
8.0, which represents highly alkaline soils. As noted previously, higher than neutral pH values 
decrease uptake, while lower values increase intake (IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 16). 
Therefore, the overall decrease in pH may result in higher rates of plant uptake from soils. 
Amargosa Valley soils, because of the low clay content and low organic matter content 
(Section 6.2.1.1.3), have relatively low cation exchange capacity. The cation exchange capacity 
serves as a reservoir for plant-available nutrients. Clay soils and soils rich in organic matter have 
a larger cation exchange capacity than sandy soils because clay and organic matter hold cations. 
Volcanic soils are more fertile because such soils have higher cation exchange capacity, which 
provides plants with larger amounts of nutrients, especially the metallic cations, if present in the 
soil. This phenomenon was demonstrated in a series of experiments on the production of 
selected crops, in which the effects of mixing large amounts of ash into the soil were 
investigated. Mount St. Helens ash was mixed in different proportions into a soil (Mahler and 
Fosberg 1983 [DIRS 159472], p. 198). In general, volcanic ash was found to considerably 
influence the growth and yield of wheat, peas, and alfalfa, although growth of all crops was 
depressed under 100 percent ash treatments. 
The other objective of the Mahler and Fosberg (1983 [DIRS 159472]) study was to determine the 
effect of volcanic ash on the nutrient uptake and concentration in wheat. It was found that the 
plant uptake of some nutrients was positively influenced by the addition of ash, while the uptake 
of others was influenced negatively (Mahler and Fosberg 1983 [DIRS 159472], p. 197). This 
was observed for macronutrients and micronutrients. This observation may be attributed to the 
preferential bonding of one cation over another by exchange sites in the soil. This happens when 
a relatively high proportion of the one cation (macronutrient) inhibits adsorption of another 
cation. For example, there may be a preferential bonding of Ca over Sr, depending on the 
specific soil conditions. This effect may also be important for the uptake of specific elements by 
crops from volcanic soils. In conclusion, there is evidence that decreased pH may result in 
increased TFs. However, the increased macronutrient supply may inhibit crop uptake of the 
minerals present in small concentrations. 
To evaluate the potential impact of volcanic ash on the environment, the amount of tephra 
expected to be deposited as the result of a volcanic event must be determined. Ash depths 18 km 
downwind from Yucca Mountain were predicted to range from 0.07 to 55 cm (based on 
100 realizations of the ASHPLUME model). About 35 percent of predicted depths were less 
than 1 cm, 75 percent were less than 5 cm, and 90 percent were less than 15 cm (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170026], Table 6-4). Ash depths at the location of the RMEI (18 km south of Yucca 
Mountain) would be about 2 orders of magnitude or more lower under normal, variable wind 
conditions (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246], Section 3.10.5.1 and Figure 3.10-14) because 

the wind at Yucca Mountain blows to the south infrequently (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170026], 
Figure 8-1). If this were the case, the agricultural soils would contain only a small fraction of 
ash. 
The overall effect of volcanic ash on the values of specific TFs is expected to be insignificant. 
Because the uncertainty ranges for the TFs developed in the previous section are representative 
of the generic values, they are believed to include the values that might be associated with 
volcanic soils. Therefore, the TFs developed for soils that are not mixed with volcanic ash are 
recommended for use in the volcanic ash scenario. 
6.2.1.4 Effect of Climate Change on Transfer Factors 
The future climate, represented by the upper bound of the glacial-transition climate, is predicted 
to be wetter and cooler than the present day climate, but not substantially different from the 
present day climate, and the human exposure pathways are expected to be the same for both 
climate states. Consequently, the biosphere conceptual model is the same for both climates. 
Differences in BDCF values for the two climates arise from different values of climate-
dependent model input parameters. The future climate is wetter but not substantially wetter than 
the present day climate (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170002], Section 7.1). However, the glacial-transition 
climate is cooler than the present day climate (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170002], Section 7.1], so 
evaporation is lower than during present day times. Consequently, the water content of the soil 
can be higher. The TFs developed for the biosphere model are primarily based on generic values 
for these parameters. In addition, the majority of the information on TFs was based on 
experiments carried out in temperate climates. Therefore, the TFs for the present day climate are 
appropriate for use in the biosphere modeling for the cooler and wetter future climate. 
6.2.1.5 Correlation of Transfer Factors with Partition Coefficients 
Many authors indicate the negative correlation of TFs with partition coefficients (Kds). 
A negative correlation between these two parameters exists because a strong Kd limits the 
mobility of an element (the element will be tightly bound to solids) and the availability for root 
uptake. This is because the element will not be present in appreciable amounts in the aqueous 
phase (BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468], T1/WD04, pp. 27 to 31). This limited mobility and 
bioavailability results in a low TF for elements with high Kds. Correlation coefficients ranging 
from -0.47 to -0.88 have been reported in the literature (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 234; 
Karlsson et al. 2001 [DIRS 159470], p. 37; Sheppard and Sheppard 1989 [DIRS 160644], 
p. 
653). Because the available information on correlation between the Kds and TFs is insufficient 
to develop element-specific correlations, a single value of -0.8 was used for all elements and all 
crop types. A single value for the correlation coefficient was also used for the agricultural land 
model by Karlsson et al. (2001 [DIRS 159470], p. 37). The correlation coefficient should be 
between log-transformed values of TFs and Kds (Sheppard and Sheppard 1989 [DIRS 160644], 
p. 
653). 
If TFs are correlated with partition coefficients, such an approach induces correlations between 
TFs for individual crop types for a given element. However, there is evidence of positive 
correlation between the root uptake of a given element by different crops (Karlsson et al. 2001 
[DIRS 159470], p. 37). This results from the general availability of an element for root uptake. 

For example, if an element is preferentially present in an aqueous phase, as opposed to being 
adsorbed onto the soil, the availability of that element for uptake by any crop type is greater than 
that of an element that is highly sorbed onto the soil. 
6.2.2 Radionuclide Transfer to Crops by External Surface Contamination 
In addition to the root uptake, radionuclides can also be transferred to crops by external surface 
contamination resulting from deposition of contaminants. Deposition of contaminants on plant 
surfaces may be due to irrigation with contaminated water or resuspension of contaminated soil. 
The contributions of these two processes to the activity concentrations in crops are described in 
the biosphere model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Sections 6.4.3.2 and 6.4.3.3) as 
Cp 
= j 
water , i, j 
Dwi, j fo, j T Rw j (1 - e -.w tg , j ).w Yj 
(Eqs. 6-4 and 6-5) 
Cp 
= 
dust , i, j 
T Ra Da j (1 - e -.w tg , j )ij 
. Yj
w 
where 
Cpwater, i,j = activity concentration of radionuclide i in crop type j contributed from plant 
leaf uptake due to interception of contaminated irrigation water 
(Bq/kg wet weight) 
Cpdust, i,j = activity concentration of radionuclide i in crop type j contributed from plant 
leaf uptake due to deposition of resuspended particulates on crop surfaces 
(Bq/kg wet weight) 
Dw i,j = deposition rate of radionuclide i due to application of irrigation water on 
crop type j (Bq/(m2 d)) 
fo,j = fraction of irrigation applied using overhead methods for plant type j
(dimensionless) 
Rwj = interception fraction of irrigation water for crop type j (dimensionless) 
Tj = translocation factor for crop type j (dimensionless) 
.w = weathering constant (per d), which can be calculated from weathering 
half-life (Tw in units of day) by .w = ln(2) / Tw 
tg, j = crop growing time for crop type j (d) 
Yj = crop yield or wet biomass for crop type j (kg wet weight/m2). 
Da i = deposition rate of radionuclide i with resuspended particulates (Bq/(m2 d)) 
Raj = interception fraction for airborne particulates for crop type j 
(dimensionless). 

The deposition rate of radionuclide i with contaminated particulates, Dai, quantifies the 
combined effect of contaminant removal from the atmosphere by several processes, such as 
gravitational settling, diffusion, and turbulent transport. The deposition rate, which can be 
derived by letting a uniform volumetric activity fall with an average velocity representative of 
the assembly of particulates for a defined period of time, is mathematically represented 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.3.3) as 
Dai =64.8 104 Cai pVd (Eq. 6-6) 
, 
where 
Cap, i = activity concentration of radionuclide i in the air used for evaluation of 
activity deposition on crops (Bq/m3) 
Vd = dry deposition velocity for airborne particulates (m/s) 
8.64  104 = unit conversion factor (s/d). 
This analysis develops values for the deposition velocity, Vd; translocation factor, Tj; and 
weathering constant, .w, used in Equations 6-4 and 6-5. 
6.2.2.1 Dry Deposition Velocity 
Deposition is an atmospheric removal process involving the transport of matter from the 
atmosphere to environmental surfaces. Resuspension is the process by which material deposited 
from the atmosphere is subsequently reentrained and resuspended into the atmosphere. 
Suspension describes the subsequent insertion of particles that were originally deposited on a 
surface by some nonatmospheric process, such as irrigation with contaminated water, into the 
atmosphere (Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693], p. 533). For the groundwater exposure scenario, the 
term suspension would seem to be more appropriate. However, in the literature, the combined 
processes are usually collectively referred to as resuspension because the subsequent behavior of 
particles is essentially identical regardless of their origin. 
Deposition is caused by gravitational settling as well as by diffusion and turbulent transport. 
Although the detailed mechanisms of deposition are complicated, it is possible to characterize 
them by a single parameter, called the deposition velocity, which quantifies the atmospheresoil 
surface exchange of particulates and gases. The deposition velocity is usually defined as the 
ratio of the deposition flux divided by the airborne particle concentration per unit volume, at 
some height above the surface. It has dimensions of distance per unit time, and its value may 
vary with environmental conditions, such as the presence of the turbulence and eddies in the 
near-surface atmospheric layer. The deposition velocities for particles depend on particle size 
and density and also on other variables such as wind speed and surface roughness (ICRU 2001 
[DIRS 160339], pp. 13 to 14). In the biosphere model, deposition velocity is used to estimate 
deposition rate of suspended particulates on crop surfaces. Table 6-35 summarizes the values of 
deposition velocity reported in the literature. 

Table 6-35. Dry Deposition Velocities Used in Biosphere Modeling 
No. Reference Values (m/s) Comments 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 198 lognormal distribution 
GM = 0.006 m/s, GSD = 2 
Values used for the BIOTRAC 
model 
2 IAEA 1982 [DIRS 103768], p. 17 0.002 Particulates <4 m deposited 
on vegetation 
3 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], 
p. B-2 
0.001 Value used in dose assessment 
for Yucca Mountain 
4 Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 0.001 GENII-S default value 
6 Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-12 Gaseous elements = 0 
Halogens = 0.01 
Other elements = 0.001 
RESRAD default values 
The values shown in Table 6-35 do not include uncertainty, and most of them are not 
particle-sizespecific. Therefore, they were not used in the biosphere model. Instead, a 
distribution of deposition velocities was developed based in part on the site-specific wind and 
surface roughness information. 
Deposition processes and associated parameters were the subject of a comprehensive review by 
G.A. 
Sehmel (1984 [DIRS 158693]). Dry deposition velocities for many materials and various 
deposition surfaces were summarized (Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693], pp. 547 to 551), and they 
were found to range over 5 orders of magnitude, from 1  10-5 m/s to 1.8 m/s. Another review 
(Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-19) found deposition velocities to range from 1  10-5 m/s 
to 1  10-1 m/s. Sehmel and Hodgson (1978 [DIRS 158587]) developed a generalized technique 
for estimating deposition velocities of particles in which deposition velocity depends on particle 
properties (e.g., size and density) and environmental properties (e.g., friction velocity, 
aerodynamic roughness height, and atmospheric stability). Graphical representations of 
predicted deposition velocities (Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693], pp. 553 and 558 to 561) were used 
to develop the distribution function of deposition velocity for the biosphere model. These graphs 
represent deposition velocity as a function of particle diameter for different values of friction 
velocity, terrain roughness, and particle density. Roughness height depends on the type of 
surface. Because the deposition velocity is used in the biosphere model to calculate contaminant 
deposition on crop surfaces, the values of surface roughness representative of the fully grown 
crops, equal to 9 cm to 14 cm (long grass, fully grown crops) (NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], 
p. 
48) is adequate for the intended purpose. The friction velocity depends on the surface cover 
and the wind speed. 
The annual average wind speed measured at the Meteorological Monitoring Site 9, the site 
closest to Amargosa Valley, was 4.4 m/s, measured at 10 m above the ground surface 
(DTN: MO04019SUM9397.000 [DIRS 167054]) (see CRWMS M&O 1997 [DIRS 100117], 
Section 2.1 for description of meteorological monitoring stations and their locations). The 
average wind speed was hand-calculated by taking an average of the monthly average wind 
speeds, weighted by the number of days in a month. The wind speed in the surface boundary 
layer decreases toward the ground surface (Section 6.7.2). For such surface and wind speed 
conditions, the friction velocity can be estimated to be approximately 0.3 m/s (see Table 6-71 
and the accompanying text, NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 48 where the range of friction 

velocity is given, and Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693], p. 562). The particle density of resuspended 
particulates is estimated at about 2.5 g/cm3, based on the typical soil bulk density of 1.5 g/cm3 
and porosity in the range of 0.3 to 0.4. 
The particle size distribution for suspended particulates in the Amargosa Valley region is not 
known. However, since the processes of particulate resuspension and deposition are governed 
by the general laws of physics, it is possible to predict (and also confirm the predictions by 
conducting measurements) the ranges of sizes for the particles that were resuspended due to wind 
or mechanical stresses. It is recommended that for undisturbed soils, suspended soil particles 
have one mode of particle size, a median diameter in the range of 2 to 6 m, and a lognormal 
distribution with a GSD of about 5 (NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894], p. 68). In a review 
(Dorrian 1997 [DIRS 159476]) of particle size distributions of radioactive aerosols in the 
environment, it was found that the distributions of measured activity median aerodynamic 
diameters were well fitted by single lognormal function with a median value of 6 m. It was 
also determined that the measured activity median aerodynamic diameters ranged from 
0.3 to 18 m (Dorrian 1997 [DIRS 159476], pp. 117 and 129). Under disturbed soil conditions 
or when strong winds are present, a coarse component can be found in the distribution of 
resuspended particle sizes. The evaluation of the available information on airborne particulates 
concluded that the coarse mode could be reasonably well described by a lognormal distribution 
with mass median aerodynamic diameter of 15 to 25 m and a GSD of approximately 2 
(EPA 1996 [DIRS 160121], pp. 3-156 to 3-192). This coarse component should be considered 
transient because of the short residence times in the atmosphere due to gravitational settling 
(NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894], p. 67). Based on the reviewed literature (EPA 1996 
[DIRS 160121], Sections 3.7.5 to 3.8; Nieuwenhuijsen et al. 1998 [DIRS 150855]; Pinnick 
et al. 1993 [DIRS 160312]; Dorrian 1997 [DIRS 159476]), airborne particles originating from 
local soils, under disturbed and undisturbed conditions, range in size from about 0.1 m to about 
100 m. 
Predicted deposition velocities for the surface roughness, friction velocity, particle density, and 
particle size distribution representative of Amargosa Valley conditions range from about 
5  10-4 m/s to about 3  10-2 m/s (Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693], p. 559), although Schery (2001 
[DIRS 159478], p. 268) shows that deposition velocity values range from about 1  10-4 m/s to 
about 1  10-1 m/s. As noted before, the expected sizes for suspended particulates can be 
approximated by a lognormal distribution with the median diameter in the range of 2 to 6 m and 
a GSD of about five (NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894], p. 68). If the median diameter is 4 m, 
68 percent of particles would fall within the range of 0.8 to 20 m (4 m/5 to 4 m  5), and 
99 percent of particles would be in the range of 0.06 to 250 m (4 m/52.58 to 4 m  52.58). 
Deposition velocities corresponding to these particle sizes range from 1  10-3 to 3  10-2 m/s 
for the most likely sizes of resuspended particles and from 3  10-4 and 3  10-1 m/s for 
99 percent of particles. These values were obtained from the graphs given in the literature 
(Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693], p. 559; Schery 2001 [DIRS 159478], p. 268). The deposition 
velocity for 4 m particles can be estimated at around 8  10-3 m/s (Sehmel 1984 
[DIRS 158693], p. 559). Because deposition velocity as a function particle size changes rapidly 
in the range of the most probable particle sizes and varies by over two orders of magnitude, the 
ranges are approximate. 

It is recommended that the deposition velocity for the biosphere model be represented by the 
piece-wise linear cumulative distribution, represented here by the following pairs of the 
parameter value and cumulative probability: (3  10-4 m/s, 0 percent), (1  10-3 m/s, 
16 percent), (8  10-3 m/s, 50 percent), (3  10-2 m/s, 84 percent), (3  10-1 m/s, 100 percent). 
These data pairs correspond to particle diameters of 0.06, 0.8, 4, 20 and 250 m, respectively. 
Similar values were used for the BIOTRAC model, where deposition velocity was estimated to 
be 6  10-3 m/s with a GSD of 2.0 (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 198). The dry 
deposition velocity values developed for the Yucca Mountain biosphere are higher than most of 
the values used in, or recommended for, other biosphere modeling applications (Table 6-35). 
However, these values better represent site-specific conditions. 
The values of dry deposition velocity were developed for the typical sizes of environmental 
particulate matter originating from the soil and for site-specific ground cover and atmospheric 
conditions. The reference biosphere is not expected to change greatly over the timeframe of 
biosphere modeling (Section 6.1.5). Also, based on the values of parameters used in modeling 
volcanic events (DTN: LA0407DK831811.001 [DIRS 170768]), the sizes of airborne particles 
for the postvolcanic biosphere are expected to be within the range considered for the 
groundwater exposure scenario and the present day climate. It is therefore recommended that the 
same dry deposition velocity be used for the volcanic ash exposure scenario and for the future 
climate. 
6.2.2.2 Translocation Factor 
Translocation is the process by which a chemical element, initially deposited on the leaf surface 
of a plant, moves from the site of deposition to other (edible) parts of the plant, even to those 
which are not directly affected by the deposition process (e.g., roots). The degree of 
translocation depends on, among other things, the plant species, chemical and physical form of 
an element, stage of plant development, and weathering conditions. The translocation factor is 
defined as the mass activity concentration (Bq/kg) in one tissue, typically an edible tissue, 
divided by the mass activity concentration (Bq/kg) in another tissue of the same crop or plant 
(ICRU 2001 [DIRS 160339], p. 18). Alternatively, it can be defined as the ratio of activity on 
1 m2 of edible plant parts at harvest (Bq/m2) to the activity retained on 1 m2 of foliage at the time 
of deposition (Bq/m2) (IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 12). The translocation factor is equal to 
the fraction of a chemical element initially deposited on the leaf surface that is retained and 
translocated to the edible plant parts. According to this definition, translocation affects 
externally deposited contamination that becomes incorporated into the edible portions of the 
plant tissue as well as the external part of the contamination retained on edible portions of the 
plant. 
In the biosphere model, translocation refers to that portion of activity initially deposited on plant 
surfaces that contributes to activity in the edible parts of the plant, regardless of whether the 
contamination in the edible parts of the plant is external or internal. This approach was used in 
the GENII model (Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927]). The ERMYN model allows for a fraction 
of this activity to be removed by weathering, therefore implicitly placing activity on the exterior 
of the plant. Conceptually, the translocation factor apportions externally deposited activity into 
the fraction that is retained in the edible parts and the fraction that is not. Modeling internal 

plant contamination is done using soil-to-plant TFs (Section 6.2.1.2), and the TF values are based 
on experimental measurements. In principle, a portion of radionuclide concentration measured 
in a plant to determine the TF could have been incorporated by absorption of activity deposited 
on plant surfaces and thus could have been accounted for in the TF value. 
Some conservative models, which are used for screening purposes (IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519]; 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1, 1977 [DIRS 100067]), do not use translocation factors at all. In 
these models, the translocation factor is implicitly equal to unity, thereby implying that all 
externally deposited activity is transported to the edible parts of the crop. 
The values of translocation factors used in the different models that include foliar deposition of 
radionuclides as one of the environmental transport pathways are consistent. These models do 
not distinguish between the external versus the internal fraction of deposited activity. The 
summary of the translocation factor values and their sources is presented in Table 6-36. 
Translocation factors for the biosphere model make up a set of five values for the individual crop 
types considered for human and animal consumption. Some references give values of 
translocation factor for the absorbed fraction of activity deposited on crops (Peterson 1983 
[DIRS 167077], p. 5-53, Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-31). 
Table 6-36. Translocation Factors from Various Sources and the Selected Values 
No. Reference Crop type 
Translocation 
Factor 
(Expected Value) Comments 
1 Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 
100464], p. 5-63 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 
157927], p. 4.67 
Leafy vegetables 
Root vegetables 
Fruit 
Grain 
Fresh forage for beef cattle 
Fresh forage for diary cows 
Stored feed for beef cattle 
Stored feed for diary cows 
Stored feed for poultry 
Stored feed for laying hens 
1.0 
0.1 
0.1 
0.1 
1.0 
1.0 
0.1 
0.1 
0.1 
0.1 
GENII and GENII-S 
default values. 
Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 
157927] uses other 
vegetables category, 
whereas Leigh et al. 
1993 [DIRS 100464] 
uses root vegetables 
category for nonleafy 
vegetables. 
2 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 
103781], p. 135 
Leafy vegetables 
Other produce 
Fresh forage 
1.0 
0.1 
1.0 
For all nonleafy 
vegetables 
3 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 
103784], p. 70 
Leafy vegetables 
Other produce 
Fresh forage 
1.0 
0.1 
1.0 
For all nonleafy 
vegetables 
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.41 to 6.42 
Leafy vegetables 
Other vegetables 
Fruit 
Grain 
Forage for beef cattle 
Forage for diary cows 
Stored grain for poultry 
Stored grain for laying hens 
1.0 
0.1 
0.1 
0.1 
1.0 
1.0 
0.1 
0.1 
5 Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 
159465], p. D-12 
Leafy vegetables 
Root vegetables, Fruit, and 
Grain 
Fresh forage 
1.0 
0.1 
1.0 
Parameter named in the 
reference the foliage-to-
food radionuclide transfer 
coefficient. 

Table 6-36. Translocation Factors from Various Sources and the Selected Values (Continued) 
No. Reference Crop type 
Translocation 
Factor 
(Expected Value) Comments 
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Leafy vegetables 
Root vegetables 
Fruit 
Grain 
Fresh forage for beef cattle 
Fresh forage for diary cows 
Stored feed for poultry 
Stored feed for laying hens 
1.0 
0.1 
0.1 
0.1 
1.0 
1.0 
0.1 
0.1 
GENII-S default values 
7 Values selected for the 
biosphere model 
Leafy vegetables 
Root vegetables 
Fruit 
Grain 
Fresh forage for beef cattle 
and diary cows 
1.0 
See comments 
See comments 
See comments 
1.0 
For crop types other than 
leafy vegetables and 
fresh forage a piece-wise 
cumulative distribution 
with the minimum value 
of 0.05, 50% value of 
0.1, and the maximum 
value of 0.3 is 
recommended. 
Internal and external activity in edible parts of crops can be removed during food processing, 
such as washing and cooking. The biosphere model does not consider further removal of the 
contaminant following its translocation. 
Translocation factor is a very important parameter in the biosphere model because the activity 
concentration in plants from external deposition is directly proportional to this parameter. The 
references used to develop the values of individual translocation factors for the biosphere model 
indicate that fixed values for this parameter are appropriate. The value of 1 for leafy vegetables 
and forage plants is appropriate because the site of contaminant deposition (leaves) is also the 
edible part of the plant. However, a fixed value for the other crops may not be an appropriate 
site-specific choice. Most of the models and their associated input parameters shown in 
Table 6-36 were developed for temperate climates where the direct deposition pathway is 
generally less important than root uptake. In the arid and semi-arid climate of the Yucca 
Mountain region, direct deposition is usually a significant environmental transport pathway for 
most radionuclides of interest. In the case of highly sorbing elements, such as plutonium, it is 
more important than the root uptake (Romney and Wallace 1977 [DIRS 160549], p. 295). 
There is an uncertainty associated with the fraction of contaminant that is translocated from the 
site of its deposition to the edible parts of a plant. Considering the importance of this parameter 
within the biosphere model, representing translocation factors for crops other than leafy 
vegetables and forage plants by fixed values does not account for the uncertainty in those 
parameters. No information was found on which an uncertainty distribution for the translocation 
factors could be based. Therefore, the assumption was made (Assumption 1) that the 
translocation factor for root (other) vegetables, fruit, grain, and stored feed for laying hens and 
other poultry be represented by a piece-wise linear cumulative distribution represented by the 
following pairs (0.05, 0 percent), (0.1, 50 percent), and (0.3, 100 percent). It is also 
recommended that the same values of translocation factor as those developed for the 

groundwater exposure scenario and the present day climate be used for the volcanic ash exposure 
scenario and for the future climate. This is because the translocation factors were developed 
based on generic values that are also applicable to the future climate. 
6.2.2.3 Weathering Rate Constant 
Radionuclide concentrations on vegetation may be reduced by a variety of processes, such as the 
action of the wind, washout, surface abrasion, volatilization, and addition of new tissue. The 
combined effect of radionuclide removal from vegetation, by processes other than radioactive 
decay, can be described by a first-order removal model. The model uses an aggregated 
parameter called the weathering rate constant, or the weathering rate (IAEA 2001 
[DIRS 158519], Section 5.1.1.2; also ICRU 2001 [DIRS 160339], p. 16 for the generic definition 
of the rate constant). There is evidence that the weathering rate constant may depend on the 
plant type and the radionuclide (Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-30); however, this 
dependence is usually not included in the biosphere models. In the biosphere model for Yucca 
Mountain, the dependence of weathering rate on the plant type and radionuclide is included in 
the uncertainty range associated with the parameter value. A typically used value of the 
weathering rate constant is based on the half-life of the crop surfacedeposited contamination of 
14 days. The relationship (ICRU 2001 [DIRS 160339], p. 15) between any process half-life and 
the process rate constant is expressed as 
2 ln 
T= (Eq. 6-7) 
. 
where 
T = process half-life, days 
process rate constant, days-1.
. = 
The value of 14 days for the weathering half-life (or 0.05 d-1 for the weathering rate constant) is 
used in many documents, including the recent recommendations from the IAEA (2001 
[DIRS 158519], p. 63-64). The summary of the weathering half-lives used in several 
radiological assessments is given in Table 6-37. 
Table 6-37. Values of Weathering Half-Life from Various Sources 
No. Reference Weathering half-life, days Comments 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 
103766], p. 124 
14 
8 (iodine) 
Cited from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, 
Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067] and other 
references 
2 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 
63 14 (all plant surfaces) Values given as removal constants, 
converted using Eq. 6-7 
3 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 
101079], p. B-7 14 GENII-S default value 
4 Leigh et al. 1993 [DIRS 
100464], p.5-63 14 GENII-S default 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], 
p. 137 14 Cited from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, 
Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067] 

Table 6-37. Values of Weathering Half-Life from Various Sources (Continued) 
No. Reference Weathering half-life, days Comments 
6 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 
70 14 Cited from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, 
Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067] 
7 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 
1977 [DIRS 100067], p. 1.109-
69 
14 
Based on NRC staffs judgments, as 
stated in the notes. 
8 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 
101085], p. 5-30 
5 (Np, Pu, and Am on grain 
and leafy vegetables) 
14 (pasture, root vegetables, 
fruit, and leafy vegetables, 
except for Np, Pu, and Am) 
30 (grain except for Np, Pu, 
and Am) 
Element and crop dependent values; halftimes 
were calculated using Equation 6-7 
from the weathering rates given in the 
reference. 
9 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], 
pp. 5-36 to 5-37 3.7-14 
Range of the results of the long-term 
retention studies, short-term (weathering) 
component of the retention function 
10 Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], 
p. D-12 
12.7 
(13 days) 
Calculated from weathering removal 
constant of 20 yr-1 using Equation 6-7 and 
unit conversion. 
11 Value selected for the 
biosphere model 
Piece-wise cumulative 
distribution: 
5 days, 0% 
14 days, 50% 
30 days, 100% 
The weathering half-life supports modeling of direct activity deposition on plant surfaces. As 
described in the previous section, for most radionuclides deposition of activity on plant surfaces 
is a more important environmental transport pathway than the root uptake. The weathering 
half-life is a parameter that quantifies the amount of contaminant remaining on the crops 
following external deposition. As explained in Section 6.2.2.2, it is important to correctly 
represent the uncertainty in the value of parameters supporting the direct deposition 
environmental transport pathway. The values of the weathering half-life, given in Table 6-37, 
range from 5 days to 30 days, with a mode of 14 days. Considering this information, it is 
recommended that the weathering half-life be represented by the following piece-wise 
cumulative distribution: (5 days, 0 percent), (14 days, 50 percent), and (30 days, 100 percent). 
The short weathering half-life corresponds to the crops irrigated using an overhead sprinkler 
system. The longer weathering half-life is appropriate for contaminant removal from crops 
irrigated using flood, ditch, drip, or other types of irrigation that do not involve the overhead 
method and thus are not accompanied by the rapid removal of contaminants from the crop 
surfaces. 
It is also recommended that the distribution developed for the groundwater exposure scenario 
and the present day climate should be used for the volcanic ash exposure scenario and for the 
future climate. This is because the distribution of the weathering half-life is based on a wide 
range of values that also apply for the future climate. 

6.3 RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT TO ANIMAL PRODUCTS 
Another set of environmental transport pathways considered in the biosphere model is concerned 
with the processes leading to contamination of animal products meant for human consumption. 
The values of environmental transport parameters for the animal product submodel of the 
biosphere model are developed in this section. A brief description of the animal product 
submodel is presented in Section 6.3.1. Section 6.3.2 documents the development of parameter 
values for animal feed, water, and soil consumption rates. The development of animal 
intake-to-animal product TCs is described in Section 6.3.3. 
The biosphere model includes four types of animal products: beef, poultry, milk, and eggs. 
Therefore, the parameters employed in the submodels of radionuclide transport to animal 
products correspond to these four animal products. 
6.3.1 Description of the Animal Product Submodel 
Calculation of radionuclide concentration in animal products, such as meat, milk, and eggs, is 
based in the biosphere model on the media equilibrium model, which relates radionuclide 
concentration in animal products to an animals daily radionuclide intake through the use of the 
TCs. The TCs represent the fraction of the animals daily intake of a radionuclide that appears in 
each unit of mass or volume of the product. The daily radionuclide intake is comprised of 
contributions from the animals feed, water, and direct ingestion of surface soil. 
The concentration of a radionuclide in specific animal product (Cdi,k) (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.4) can be estimated as 
Cd
k i =Cd feed , k i + Cdwater , k i + Cdsoil , k i (Eq. 6-8) 
,, ,, 
where 
Cdi,k = activity concentration of radionuclide i in animal product k (Bq/kg fresh weight 
or Bq/L for milk) 
k = animal product index; k = 1 for beef, 2 for milk, 3 for poultry, 4 for eggs 
Cd feed, i,k = activity concentration of radionuclide i in animal product k due to ingestion 
of contaminated animal feed (Bq/kg or Bq/L for milk) 
Cd water, i,k = activity concentration of radionuclide i in animal product k due to ingestion 
of contaminated water (Bq/kg or Bq/L for milk) 
Cd soil, i,k = activity concentration of radionuclide i in animal product k due to ingestion 
of contaminated soil (Bq/kg or Bq/L for milk). 

The activity concentration of a radionuclide in animal products contributed from ingesting 
contaminated animal feed, water, and soil is described in the biosphere model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169460], Sections 6.4.4.1 through 6.4.4.3) as 
,, 
Cd 
feed , k i = Fmk i Cpi, j Qfk 
Cd 
k i water = Fmk i Qw Cw k (Eqs. 6-9 to 6-11)
, , , i 
Cd 
k i soil = Fmk i Csi mQsk
, , ,, 
where 
Fm i,k = animal intaketoanimal product TC for radionuclide i and animal product 
k (d/kg fresh weight or d/L for milk) 
Cpi,j = activity concentration of radionuclide i in animal feed j (Bq/kg fresh weight) 
Qfk = animal consumption rate of feed (kg/d) 
Cwi = activity concentration of radionuclide i groundwater (Bq/L) 
Qwk = animal consumption rate of drinking water (L/d) 
Cs m,i = saturation activity concentration of radionuclide i in the surface soil per 
unit mass (Bq/kg) 
Qsk = animal consumption rate of soil (kg/d). 
Of the parameters in Equations 6-8 to 6-11, this analysis develops the values of animal 
intake-to -animal product TCs and the animal consumption rates for the animal feed, water, and 
soil. Another term used in radioecology for the animal intaketoanimal product TC is the feed 
TC (ICRU 2001 [DIRS 160339], p. 14). However, this term is not precise in the context of the 
ERMYN model because the animal radionuclide intake is not only due to the ingestion of feed 
but also to the ingestion of water and soil. 
The intake of food, water, and soil by animals depends on species, mass, age, growth rate, 
digestibility of feed, and, in the case of lactating animals, milk yield (IAEA 2001 
[DIRS 158519], p. 69). The type of feed depends on the animal species. Typical feed for the 
dairy cows includes grass products, corn, clover, alfalfa, and sugar beets, whereas beef cattle are 
fed a diet of grass products and corn (IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 32). Laying hens and 
chickens are fed cereals and protein feed. For the biosphere model calculations, grazing animals 
(beef cattle and diary cows), are assumed to be on a diet of fresh pasture only, and laying hens 
and poultry are assumed to be fed grain. 
6.3.2 Animal Consumption Rates for Water, Feed, and Soil 
To develop the animal water, feed, and soil consumption rates appropriate for the biosphere 
model, eleven documents were reviewed. The relevant parameter values are shown in 
Table 6-38. The biosphere model uses animal feed consumption rates expressed in units of 
wet-weight. In many instances, as indicated in the table, the feed intakes of domestic animals 
were given on a dry-weight basis in the references. In theory, the conversion from one set of 
values to the other can be accomplished through the use of the dry-to-wet weight ratios. In many 
cases, the dry-to-wet weight ratios (IAEA 1982 [DIRS 103768]; NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784]; 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458]) or the fractions of different types of animal feed in an animal diet 

(Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776]) were not given, and the wet-weight-based 
consumption rates could not be calculated. 
The exposure pathways involving animal product consumption have not been of significance for 
most radionuclides in the previous iterations of biosphere modeling supporting TSPA (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 169674], Tables 6.2-10 and 6.2-11; BSC 2003 [DIRS 167287], Table 6.2-7). Because the 
significance of these pathways has not been evaluated for the current biosphere model, it is 
recommended that the animal consumption rates include the consideration of uncertainty and be 
represented by probability distribution functions. 
The values of the feed consumption rates range from 29 kg/d to 68 kg/d for beef cattle, 50 kg/d 
to 73 kg/d for diary cows, and 0.11 kg/d to 0.4 kg/d for chickens. It is recommended that the 
uniform distributions based on the minimum and maximum values for given ranges be used in 
the biosphere model. 
The animal water consumption rates are reported to range from 20 L/d to 60 L/d for beef cattle, 
from 50 L/d to 100 L/d for diary cows, and 0.1 L/d to 0.3 L/d for chickens (IAEA 1994 
[DIRS 100458], p. 33). Most of the values listed in other documents (Table 6-38) fall within 
these ranges. The diary cow water consumption rate estimated by Yu et al. (2001 
[DIRS 159465], p. D-15) is vastly inconsistent with the remaining values. This value was 
calculated as the sum of the water ingestion rate for beef cattle plus an additional 1 gallon for 
every 3 pounds of milk produced. If a production rate of 10 gal/d of milk is assumed, then the 
water ingestion rate for diary cows would be about 160 L/d (Yu et al. 1993 [DIRS 160561], 
p. 132). This high value was compared with the estimated water requirements for diary cows, 
considering the site-specific conditions, as described below. 
The daily consumption of water for diary cows (Mason 2003 [DIRS 160415]), Qw,3, in L/d, can 
be approximated as 
Q
w3 , =99.15 + 58.1 DM + 9.0 MY + 05.0 NI + 2.1 AT (Eq. 6-12) 
where 
DM = dry mass of feed intake (kg/d) 
MY = milk yield (kg/d) 
NI = sodium (Na) intake (g/d) 
AT = weekly average minimum temperature (C). 
Dry mass of feed intake can be taken from Table 6-38. Several references listed in the table give 
the feed consumption rate in terms of dry mass as 16 kg/d. The milk yield per diary cow can be 
calculated based on the information from the Amargosa Dairy (Sepulveda 1999 [DIRS 160413]). 
In this dairy, in March 1999, there were on average 2,612 lactating cows that produced 
4,503,280 pounds (2.04  106 kg) of milk. The average daily milk yield per cow is thus 
25.3 kg/d. This value may be considered representative of the annual average daily yield. The 
sodium intake was conservatively taken at 100 g/d, which is the highest value, rounded-up to one 
significant digit, given in the examples provided by Mason (2003 [DIRS 160415]). The average 
minimum temperature can be obtained from the data for Meteorological Monitoring Site 9 

(Gate 510) (DTN: MO04019SUM9397.000 [DIRS 167054]), which is the southernmost Yucca 
Mountain Site station in the direction of Amargosa Valley (CRWMS M&O 1999 
[DIRS 102877], p. 5). The annual average minimum temperature was used, instead of the 
weekly average minimum temperature, because the value of water intake by diary cows in the 
biosphere model applies to the annual average conditions. The annual average minimum 
temperature for Site 9 is 10.1C. This value was hand-calculated from data in 
DTN: MO04019SUM9397.000 [DIRS 167054] by taking an average of the monthly average 
minimum temperatures weighted by the number of days in a month. Using these values, the 
estimated daily water intake by diary cows is about 80 L/d, which is a half of the value 
calculated by Yu et al. (2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-15). This value may also be corroborated by 
the data from Bernard and Montgomery (2002 [DIRS 160609], p. 5) that presented the results of 
the study that evaluated the water intake of diary cows at a range of temperatures from 68F 
to 104F. The corresponding daily water intake (not to be mistaken for the annual average water 
daily intake) was in the range of 18 gal/d (68 L/d) to 31.7 gal/d (120.0 L/d). The milk yield 
ranged from 59.5 lbs/d (27.0 kg/d) for the lowest temperature to 26.5 lbs/d (12.0 kg/d) for the 
highest temperature. 
From these data, it appears that the diary cow consumption rate of water of 160 L/d used by Yu 
et al. (2001 [DIRS 159465]) is unsubstantiated. The range of values provided by the IAEA 
(1994 [DIRS 100458]), of 50 L/d to 100 L/d, with most of the remaining references listed in 
Table 6-38 using 60 L/d, is representative of the average water consumption by diary cows. 
Considering the site-specific conditions, especially with regard to the actual milk yield and the 
higher-than-typical temperatures, the expected value of 80 L/d and the uncertainty represented 
by the uniform distribution in the range of 60 L/d to 100 L/d are considered appropriate for diary 
cow consumption for the biosphere model. 
The water consumption rates for chickens provided by Davis et al. (1993 [DIRS 103767], 
p. 253); Smith et al. (1996, p. 5-24) are greater than the values reported by the IAEA (1994 
[DIRS 100458], p. 33), but they may be appropriate for the hot, dry climate of the Yucca 
Mountain region. In this climate, the animal water consumption needs may be higher than for 
the animals raised in the temperate climate. Therefore, the upper values of the data reported in 
the literature were recommended for the biosphere model. The recommended values are shown 
in Table 6-38. 
The soil consumption rates were calculated based on the feed consumption rates using the 
approach from the IAEA (1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 33); Kennedy and Strenge (1992 
[DIRS 103776], p. 6.19); Davis et al. (1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 253). The soil consumption rate 
for grazing animals is calculated as a fraction of the feed consumption rate: 6 percent for beef 
cattle and diary cows and 10 percent for chickens. The values of feed consumption rate were 
converted to dry weight (the formula applies to the dry-weight of the feed) using the dry-to-wet 
ratio of 0.25 for fresh forage and 0.91 for grain, based on the mid-range values given by the 
IAEA (1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 15). It is recommended that the soil consumption rates be 
represented by uniform distributions based on the calculated ranges. 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-65 September 2004 
Table 6-38. Animal Feed, Water, and Soil Consumption Rates from Various Sources, and the Selected Values 
No. Reference 
Animal 
Type 
Feed 
(kg wet/d) 
Water 
(L/d) 
Soil 
(kg/d) Comment 
1 Leigh et al. 1993 
[DIRS 100464], p. 5-63 
Napier et al. 1988 
[DIRS 157927], p. 4.72 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
Poultry 
Laying hen 
68 (fresh/stored) 
55 (fresh/stored) 
0.12 (dry-weight) 
0.13 (wet-weight) 
0.12 (dry-weight) 
0.13 (wet-weight) 
50 
60 
0.3 
0.3 
Not included GENII-S and GENII default values. 
Napier et al. (1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.72) does not 
include the value for laying hens. 
The dry-to-wet ratio of 0.91 was used to convert the 
values for chicken feed (Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], p. 6.28). 
2 Regulatory Guide 1.109, 
Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 
100067], p. 1.109-38 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
50 
50 
50 
60 
Not included  
3 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], 
p. 70 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
12 (dry-weight) 
48 (wet-weight) 
16 (dry-weight) 
64 (wet-weight) 
40 
60 
Not included The feed consumption rates based on dry-weight 
were converted to wet-weight using a mid-point 
(0.25) of the dry-to-wet ratio range of 0.19 to 0.31 
(IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 15). 
4 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 
103781], p. 143 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
Poultry 
68 
55 
0.12 
50 
60 
 
Not included  
5 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 
103784], pp. 70 to 71 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
12 (dry-weight) 
48 (wet-weight) 
16 (dry-weight) 
64 (wet-weight) 
50 
60 
Not included The feed consumption rates based on dry-weight 
were converted to wet-weight using a mid-point 
(0.25) of the dry-to-wet ratio range of 0.19 to 0.31 
(IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 15). 
6 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], p. 6.19 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
Poultry 
Laying hen 
12 (dry-weight) 
16 (dry-weight) 
0.11 (dry-weight) 
0.12 (wet-weight) 
0.11 (dry-weight) 
0.12 (wet-weight) 
50 
60 
0.3 
0.3 
5% of dry matter 
intake 
0.6 to 0.8 kg/d 
10% of dry matter 
intake 
0.01 kg/d 
Total intakes for beef cattle and diary cows is a 
combination of fresh forage, stored hay, and grain 
intake rates. For poultry and laying hens, it consists 
of fresh forage and grain intakes. The cattle and 
milk cow feed consumption rates based on dry-
weight were not converted to wet-weight because of 
the unknown fraction of forage or hay and grain. 
The dry-to-wet ratio of 0.91 was used to convert the 
values for chicken feed (Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], p. 6.28). 
7 Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 
159465], p. D-15 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
68 
55 
50 
160 
0.5 
0.5 
RESRAD default values 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-66 September 2004 
Table 6-38. Animal Feed, Water, and Soil Consumption Rates from Various Sources, and the Selected Values (Continued) 
No. Reference 
Animal 
Type 
Feed 
(kg wet/d) 
Water 
(L/d) 
Soil 
(kg/d) Comment 
8 Davis et al. 1993 
[DIRS 103767], p. 253 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
Poultry 
Laying hen 
50 
60 
0.4 
0.4 
40 
60 
0.4 
0.4 
1.0 
0.8 
0.006 
0.006 
based on 6 to 7% 
of dry-weight feed 
or forage ingestion 
Ingestion rates are assumed to be normally 
distributed, GSDs are given. 
9 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], 
p. 33 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
Poultry 
Laying hen 
7.2 (dry-weight) 
29 (wet-weight) 
16.1 (dry-weight) 
64 (wet-weight) 
0.07 (dry-weight) 
0.1 (dry-weight) 
20 to 60 
50 to100 
0.1 to 0.3 
0.1 to 0.3 
6% of feed for 
grazing cattle; 
corresponds to 0.4 
to 1.0 kg/d 
The feed consumption rates, based on dry-weight, 
were converted to wet-weight using a midpoint 
(0.25) of the dry-to-wet ratio range of 0.19 to 0.31 
(IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 15). 
Mean fraction of soil intake expressed as fraction of 
feed intake 
10 Smith et al. 1996 
[DIRS 101085], p. 5-24 
Dairy cows 
and beef 
cattle 
Chicken 
60 
0.3 
60 
0.5 
0.6 
0.02 
Beef cattle and diary cows are not distinguished; 
neither are laying hens and poultry. 
11 LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[DIRS 101079], p. B-8 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
Poultry 
Laying hen 
33 (fresh/stored) 
73 (fresh/stored) 
0.08 
0.11 
60 
100 
0.3 
0.3 
Not included Cited from the IAEA (1994) with updated dry-to-wet 
ratio conversion. 
12 BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 
168563], pp. 449 to 450 
Cattle 
Birds 
70 
0.3 
70 
0.1 
0.6 
0.03 
No distinction between beef cattle and dairy cows 
Values for birds based on hens and chickens 
Recommended values Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
Poultry 
Laying hen 
29 to 68 (fresh) 
50 to 73 (fresh) 
0.12 to 0.4 
0.12 to 0.4 
60 
60 to100 
0.5 
0.5 
0.4 to 1.0 
0.8 to 1.1 
0.01 to 0.03 
0.01 to 0.03 
It is recommended that the animal consumption 
rates be represented by the uniform distributions 
with the minimum and maximum corresponding to 
the lower and upper limits of the range of values. 
The water consumption rates for beef cattle, poultry, 
and laying hens are represented by fixed values. 

The ingestion of soil was measured in an experiment conducted at the NTS (Gilbert et al. 1988 
[DIRS 160553], p. 324). The ingestion rate was determined by measuring the weight of soil in 
the reticulum and rumen of two rumen-fistulated steers and a cow that grazed at the site. The 
approximate weight of soil in the rumens of the two steers after 24 hours of grazing was 0.057 kg 
and 0.278 kg, while the weight of soil in the cows rumen on the day of sacrifice was 0.0085 kg 
(Gilbert et al. 1988 [DIRS 160553], p. 329). The results of these experiments indicated that the 
total amount of soil ingested by animals is much less than 2 kg/d and that a reasonable estimate 
would be between 0.25 to 0.5 kg (Smith 1977 [DIRS 160559], p. 147). Gilbert et al. (1988 
[DIRS 160553], p. 329) also reports the results of another study carried out in a similar arid 
environment in Idaho where the amount of soil ingested by cattle ranged from 0.1 to 1.5 kg/d 
with a median of 0.5 kg/d. Based on these values, the soil ingestion rates for beef cattle and for 
diary cows recommended for the biosphere model are not likely to underestimate the amount of 
soil ingested by these animals. It is recommended that the same values be used for the volcanic 
ash exposure scenario and for the future climate. 
6.3.3 Transfer Coefficients 
The TCs are defined as the mass or volume activity concentration in the tissue or product of an 
animal (Bq/kg wet mass or Bq/L) divided by the transfer rate (Bq/d) of the radionuclide to the 
animal by ingestion (ICRU 2001 [DIRS 160339], p. 14). The TC is the fraction of the animals 
daily intake of a radionuclide that is transferred to 1 kilogram of animal product at equilibrium or 
at the time of slaughter. The availability for gut uptake of radionuclides differs markedly, 
depending on the chemical and physical form of the radionuclide and constituents of the diet 
(IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 34). To incorporate the uncertainty associated with the process 
of activity transfer from animal food to animal products, the values of the TCs for the biosphere 
model were developed as probability distribution functions, as described in this section. 
Data from direct measurements of TCs are scarce (IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 38). Many of 
the published values were derived from sources other than explicit experimental data, such as 
stable element concentrations in feed and animal tissues, extrapolation from single dose tracer 
experiments, and the assumption of analogous behavior of elements that are chemically similar. 
Many documents use the value for beef to represent all meat and cow milk to represent all kinds 
of milk. For example, IAEA (2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 69) TCs for meat and milk are based on 
values for beef and dairy cattle. However, the values are stated to be conservative, and they are 
not expected to substantially underestimate concentration of radionuclides in meat or milk of 
other animals (IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 69). The same approach was followed in this 
analysis (i.e., beef was used to represent meat, and cow milk was used to represent milk). 
The TCs for the biosphere model were developed using a method similar to that used for the 
development of TFs for radionuclide transfer to plants (Section 6.2.1). The method was based on 
review of the pertinent published compendia of generic values or reports containing the 
recommendations or applications of TC values in other biosphere models. Such an approach is 
appropriate for development of TC values for the biosphere model. Because of the diversity of 
the sources of information and the wide range of the published TC values, GMs calculated using 
the TC values from relevant references are considered the best representations of the parameter 
values (BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468] 2001, T1/WD04, p. 12). The distributions for TCs are 

considered lognormal (LaPlante et al. 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 2-14; Davis et al. 1993 
[DIRS 103767], pp. 236 to 238). 
Just as in the case of TFs, the uncertainty in TC values was represented by the element-specific 
GSDs for the data points, which were used as estimates of the GSDs of the associated lognormal 
distributions. In a few instances, the TCs reported in the literature span several orders of 
magnitude (see Tables 6-39 through 6-63). There are a variety of reasons for such a spread of 
values. If the TC values are similar from report to report, this means either that the values are 
well studied and known or that few studies are available and the values cited in reports are based 
on the same limited pool of research data. In the case of elements for which TCs were not 
obtained through experiments but rather evaluated based on the chemical similarities with the 
elements for which TCs were measured, the scatter may be significant, owing to the nature of the 
evaluation process. Similar to the recommendations developed for the TFs (see discussion in 
Section 6.2.1.1.5), it is recommended for the cases of large data spread (GSD greater than 10) 
that the GSD for the TC distributions be capped at 10. If the calculated GSD is less than 2, it is 
recommended that a GSD equal to 2 be used. Considering the large number of biosphere model 
realizations (the biosphere model uses a large number of uncertain parameters, and consequently, 
the number of model realizations has to be sufficient to obtain stable results), it is recommended 
that the truncated distributions of the TCs be used to avoid sampling of unrealistic values (see 
Section 6.2.1.1.5 for additional discussion). The upper and the lower truncation limits were 
calculated using Equation 6-3 for the 99-percent confidence interval for the mean. 
As explained in Section 6.1.4, a more detailed treatment was given to radionuclides (elements) 
that were shown in the previous performance assessments to be important dose contributors. 
Additional comments for those radionuclides are included in the corresponding tables. 
For all animal products, it is recommended that the values of TC developed for the groundwater 
exposure scenario and the present day climate be used for the volcanic ash release scenario and 
the future climate. This is because the TC values developed in this analysis are primarily based 
on generic information and are not specific to the climate or the mode of contamination release. 
6.3.3.1 Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
The values of TCs for meat and references that were used to develop them are listed in 
Tables 6-39 through 6-44. Calculation of GMs, standard deviations, and truncation limits for the 
TCs were preformed using Microsoft Excel 2000, as described in Appendix A. Also, see the 
discussion on the technetium TC values for milk, which is also applicable to the transfer of this 
element to meat. 

Table 6-39. Technetium Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 8.5E-03 a  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 8.5E-03 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 1.0E-04 b 1.0E-06 to 1.0E-04 
4 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-03 c  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.29 to 6.30 8.5E-03 a  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 1.0E-04 d lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 
to 146 9.9E-04 a  
8 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 85   
9 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-04 e  
10 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63   
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 
100067], p. 1.109-37 4.0E-01 f  
12 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 9.9E-04 a  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 6.0E-03 d  
14 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 8.7E-03 a  
15 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 
to 29; 1.0E-04 g  
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
16 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 1.1E-03 h; GSD = 7.2 
truncation: low = 6.9E-06; high = 1.8E-01 
Technetium 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Refere nce No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Value for beef 
b 
Value for beef; used the more conservative value of those given. 
c 
Value recommended for screening models; based on values for dairy and beef cattle. 
d 
Value for beef; value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
e 
Value recommended for screening models; based on TC for beef. 
f 
This value was not included in the calculation of GM and GSD because it was inconsistent with the remaining 
values (almost 2 orders of magnitude greater)see text for discussion. 
g 
RESRAD default value; suggested value from Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29. 
h 
For the references listed in this table, GM with ref. # 11 = 1.7E-03; without 1.1E-03; with ref. #11 GSD = 12.1; 
without #11, GSD = 7.2. 

Table 6-40. Iodine Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 7.0E-03 a  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 7.0E-03 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 4.0E-02 a 7.0E-03 to 5.0E-2 
4 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 5.0E-02 b  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 7.0E-03 a  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], 
p. 2-13 4.0E-02 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 2.0E-02 a  
8 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 85 7.0E-03 a  
9 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 4.0E-02 d  
10 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 7.2E-03 a 7.2E-03 to 2.0E-02 
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[DIRS 100067], p. 1.109-37 2.9E-03  
12 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 2.0E-03 a  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 3.0E-03 c  
14 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 7.2E-03 a  
15 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 
to 29 7.0E-03 e  
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
16 This analysis  
lognormal; GM = 1.0E-02 f; GSD = 2.8 
truncation: low = 6.8E-04; high = 1.5E-01 
Iodine 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Value for beef. 
b 
Value recommended for screening models; based on values for dairy and beef cattle. 
Value for beef; value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
Value recommended for screening models; based on TC for beef. 
e 
RESRAD default value; suggested value from Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29. 
f 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.0E-02; GSD = 2.8. 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-70 September 2004 

Table 6-41. Neptunium Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 5.5E-05 a  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 5.5E-05 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 1.0E-03 a  
4 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-02 b  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 5.5E-05 a  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], 
p. 2-13 1.0E-03 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 5.0E-03 a  
8 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 85   
9 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-03 d  
10 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63   
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[DIRS 100067], p. 1.109-37 2.0E-04  
12 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 1.0E-03 a  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 1.2E-04 c  
14 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 3.6E-06 e  
15 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 
to 29 1.0E-03 f  
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
16 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 3.4E-04 g; GSD = 8.8 
truncation: low = 1.3E-06; high = 9.0E-02 
Neptunium 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Value for beef 
b 
Value recommended for screening models; based on values for dairy and beef cattle. 
Value for beef; value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
Value recommended for screening models; based on TC for beef. 
e 
Value for beef for transuranics 
f 
RESRAD default value; suggested value from Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29. 
g 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 3.4E-04; GSD = 8.8. 

Table 6-42. Plutonium Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 5.0E-07 a  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 2.0E-06 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 1.0E-05 a 2.0E-07 to 2.0E-04 
4 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 2.0E-04 b  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 5.0E-07 a  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], 
p. 2-13 1.0E-05 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 5.0E-03 a  
8 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 85  5.0E-09 to 2.0E-05 a 
9 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-04 d  
10 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 1.0E-06 a 1.3E-07 to 5.8E-06 
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[DIRS 100067], p. 1.109-37   
12 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 2.0E-06 a  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 2.0E-04 c  
14 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 1.0E-06 a  
15 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 
to 29 1.0E-04 e  
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
16 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 1.3E-05 f; GSD = 10.0 
truncation: low = 3.3E-08; high = 4.7E-03 
Plutonium 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Value for beef. 
b 
Value recommended for screening models; based on values for dairy and beef cattle. 
Value for beef; value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
Value recommended for screening models; based on TC for beef. 
e 
RESRAD default value; suggested value from Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29. 
f 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.3E-05, GSD = 18.0. The upper bound for the GSD value was used. 

Table 6-43. Americium Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 51 3.5E-06 a  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 
234 3.5E-06 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 37 4.0E-05 a 4.0E-06 to 1.0E-04 
4 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-04 b  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.29 to 6.30 3.5E-06 a  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 4.0E-05 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 5.0E-03 a  
8 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], p. 85   
9 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 5.0E-05 d  
10 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63   
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 
100067], p. 1.109-37   
12 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-05 a  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 4.0E-04 c  
14 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-87 3.6E-06 a  
15 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 
29; 5.0E-05 e  
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
lognormal; GM = 3.4E-05 f; GSD = 9.0 
16 This analysis  truncation: low = 1.2E-07; high = 9.9E-
03 
Americium 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Value for beef 
b 
Value recommended for screening models; based on values for dairy and beef cattle. 
Value for beef; value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
Value recommended for screening models; based on TC for beef. 
e 
RESRAD default value; suggested value from Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29. 
f 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 3.4E-05; GSD = 9.0. 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-74 September 2004 
Table 6-44. Transfer Coefficients for Meat for Other Elements 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg (Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake) 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 
Baes et al. 1984 
[DIRS 103766], p. 51 8.0E-02 1.5E-02 3.0E-04 8.0E-02 2.0E-02 3.0E-04 2.5E-04 2.5E-05 6.0E-06 1.0E-05 2.0E-04 
Davis et al. 1993 
2 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 
234 
 1.5E-02 8.1E-04 8.0E-02 2.6E-02 4.0E-04 9.0E-04 2.5E-05 6.0E-06 1.0E-05 2.0E-04 
3 
IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], 
p. 37 2.0E-02  8.0E-03  5.0E-02 4.0E-04 9.0E-04    3.0E-04 
4 
IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], 
pp. 67 to 68  1.0E-01 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 5.0E-02 7.0E-04 5.0E-03 2.0E-05 1.0E-04 5.0E-06 3.0E-03 
5 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 
6.30 
8.0E-02 1.5E-02 3.0E-04 8.0E-02 2.0E-02 3.0E-04 2.5E-04 2.5E-05 6.0E-06 1.0E-05 2.0E-04 
6 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[DIRS 101079], p. 2-13  1.5E-02 8.0E-03 8.0E-02 5.0E-02 4.0E-04 9.0E-04 2.5E-05 6.0E-06 1.0E-05 3.0E-04 
Mills et al. 1983 
7 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 
 1.0E+00 3.0E-04 9.9E-04 3.0E-02 9.9E-04 9.9E-04 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 
8 
NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], 
p. 85   8.0E-04  3.0E-02  5.0E-04     
9 
NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], 
pp. 52 to 54 4.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 5.0E-02 8.0E-04 1.0E-03 2.0E-05 1.0E-04 5.0E-06 8.0E-04 
10 
Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 
63   3.0E-04  2.0E-02       
Regulatory Guide 1.109, 
11 Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 100067],   6.0E-04  4.0E-03       
p. 1.109-37 
12 
Rittmann 1993 
[DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 3.0E-02 1.0E+00 8.0E-04 1.0E-02 3.0E-02 4.0E-04 9.0E-04 4.0E-04 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 2.0E-04 
13 
Smith et al. 1996 
[DIRS 101085], p. 5-27  5.4E-01   5.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.3E-03 1.6E-03 2.7E-03 5.0E-05 6.9E-04 
14 
Peterson 1983 
[DIRS 167077], p. 5-87   8.1E-04  2.0E-03 4.0E-04 5.1E-04  2.0E-04  3.4E-04 
15 
Wang et al. 1993 
[DIRS 103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 6.0E-02 1.0E-01 8.0E-03 1.0E-02 3.0E-02 8.0E-04 1.0E-03 2.0E-05 1.0E-04 5.0E-03 3.4E-04 
[DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
GM 4.6E-02 8.8E-02 1.4E-03 1.9E-02 2.4E-02 6.3E-04 8.1E-04 7.9E-05 1.1E-04 6.6E-05 4.8E-04 

Table 6-44. Transfer Coefficients for Meat for Other Elements (Continued) 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg (Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake) 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
GSD 1.8 5.8 4.4 4.6 2.6 2.6 2.1 8.2 15.1 21.2 3.0 
Recommended GSD 2.0 a 5.8 4.4 4.6 2.6 2.6 2.1 8.2 10.0 b 10.0 b 3.0 
Truncation, lower limit 7.7E-03 9.6E-04 3.1E-05 3.8E-04 2.1E-03 5.4E-05 1.1E-04 3.5E-07 2.8E-07 1.8E-07 2.9E-05 
Truncation, upper limit 2.7E-01 8.0E+00 6.2E-02 9.9E-01 2.7E-01 7.5E-03 5.7E-03 1.8E-02 4.0E-02 2.5E-02 7.8E-03 
a 
The lower bound of the GSD value was used. 
b The upper bound of the GSD value was used. 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-75 September 2004 

The transfer of aged plutonium from soil and native vegetation to the blood and tissues of beef 
cattle grazing within fenced enclosures at a plutonium-contaminated site was studied at the 
Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range in Nevada (Gilbert et al. 1988 [DIRS 160553], p. 324). The 
grazing area was divided into two enclosures: a less contaminated outer enclosure and a more 
contaminated inner enclosure. The data from that experiment allow calculation of the TCs for 
meat (beef) for individual animals. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 6-45. 
To calculate TCs the measured activity concentration in the muscle tissue of the animals was 
divided by the estimated daily activity intake from vegetation and soil. The plutonium ingestion 
rate, r, (Gilbert et al. 1988 [DIRS 160553], p. 328) is calculated as 
r =f C I + I C (Eq. 6-13) 
svv s 
where C is the mean plutonium concentration in surface soil, fsv is the concentration ratio of the 
activity of plutonium in native vegetation and in nearby surface soil, and Iv and Is are ingestion 
rates of vegetation and soil, respectively. It was estimated that the arithmetic mean concentration 
of plutonium in surface soil was 22.5  5 and 1.88  0.24 kBq/kg dry-weight for the inner and 
outer enclosures, respectively. The vegetation-to-soil activity concentration ratio was estimated 
to be 0.1 for the inner enclosure and 0.17 for the outer enclosure (Gilbert et al. 1988 
[DIRS 160553], pp. 328 to 329). The ingestion rate of vegetation Iv was modeled as 
0.101 W0.73 kg/d, where W is the wet-weight (kg) of the cow at time of sacrifice (Gilbert 1988 
[DIRS 160553], p. 329). The ingestion rate of soil, Is, was assumed to be 0.25 kg/d, based on the 
measurements of soil weight in the reticulum and rumen of rumen-fistulated steers and a cow 
that grazed at the study site (Gilbert et al. 1988 [DIRS 160553], p. 329). 
The results of the calculation indicate that the TCs for plutonium for meat are in the range of 
2.9  10-7 to 1.9  10-5 d/kg with the average value of 6.2  10-6 d/kg. The GM calculated for 
the references listed in Table 6-42 and recommended for the biosphere model is 1.3  10-5 d/kg, 
which is in the upper part of the range of the experimental values. However, plutonium at the 
site of the experiment was in the form of aged plutonium oxides, which are relatively insoluble 
and generally characterized by low uptake from the gastrointestinal system to the blood 
(Eckerman et al. 1988 [DIRS 101069], p. 188). If the chemical species of plutonium in the 
biosphere are more soluble, their bioavailability and their uptake by animals are greater. 
Therefore, the value of the plutonium TC for meat recommended for the biosphere model 
(Table 6-42) is considered appropriate for the intended use. 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-77 September 2004 
Table 6-45. Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Cattle Grazing on Contaminated Land in Nevada 
Animal 
number Enclosure a 
Weight at 
sacrifice 
kg 
Duration in 
enclosure 
d 
Pu concentr. 
in soil 
Bq/kg 
Vegetation-
to-soil 
activity 
concentr. 
ratio 
Ingestion 
rate of 
vegetation 
kg/d 
Ingestion 
rate of soil 
kg/d 
Pu ingestion 
rate 
Bq/d 
Pu concentr. 
in muscle 
Bq/kg 
Transfer 
coefficient b 
d/kg 
2 I 409 176 22500 0.1 8.14 0.25 23951 0.007 2.9E-07 
10 I 285 1001 22500 0.1 6.26 0.25 19703 0.059 3.0E-06 
11 I 32 5 22500 0.1 1.27 0.25 8478 error 
18 I 184 262 22500 0.1 4.55 0.25 15854 0.18 1.1E-05 
1 O 252 431 1880 0.17 5.72 0.25 2298 0.0018 7.8E-07 
3 O 432 176 1880 0.17 8.48 0.25 3179 0.0015 4.7E-07 
4 O 300 431 1880 0.17 6.50 0.25 2546 0.0074 2.9E-06 
5 O 298 636 1880 0.17 6.46 0.25 2536 0.0059 2.3E-06 
6 O 325 431 1880 0.17 6.89 0.25 2671 lost 
8 O 328 176 1880 0.17 6.93 0.25 2686 0.013 4.8E-06 
9 O 382 1064 1880 0.17 7.75 0.25 2946 0.03 1.0E-05 
13 O 250 544 1880 0.17 5.69 0.25 2287 0.0081 3.5E-06 
14 O 405 843 1880 0.17 8.09 0.25 3054 0.059 1.9E-05 
15 O 311 576 1880 0.17 6.67 0.25 2601 0.047 1.8E-05 
16 O 409 948 1880 0.17 8.14 0.25 3073 0.021 6.8E-06 
19 O 173 226 1880 0.17 4.35 0.25 1859 0.012 6.5E-06 
20 O 302 871 1880 0.17 6.53 0.25 2556 0.0059 2.3E-06 
Source: Gilbert et al. 1988, [DIRS 160553], pp. 327 to 329. 
a I = inner enclosure; O = outer enclosure. 
b Calculated as the ratio of Pu concentration in muscle to Pu ingestion rate.

6.3.3.2 Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
The values of TCs for poultry and references that were used to develop them are listed in 
Tables 6-46 to 6-51. Calculation of GMs, standard deviations, and truncation limits for the TCs 
were preformed using Microsoft Excel 2000, as described in Appendix A. 
Table 6-46. Technetium Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 1.9E+00 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 3.0E-02 3.0E-02 to 2.0E-01 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 3.0E-02  
4 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 9.9E-04  
5 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63   
6 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 3.0E-02 b  
7 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 1.2E+00 c  
8 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 6.3E-02 d; GSD = 10.0 
truncation: low = 1.7E-04; high = 2.4E+01 
Technetium 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
aSame value was used for poultry and eggs. The value selected for technetium seems to reflect the TCs for eggs, 
which are higher than the values for poultry. 
b GENII default 
dc 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 6.3E-02, GSD = 16.4. 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
The upper bound for the value of GSD was used. 

Table 6-47. Iodine Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 2.8E+00 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 1.0E-02  
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 1.8E-02  
4 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 4.0E-03  
5 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 2.0E-01 8.0E-03 to 2.0E-01 
6 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 1.8E-02 b  
7 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 2.0E-01 c  
8 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 5.5E-02 d; GSD = 9.7 
truncation: low = 1.6E-04; high = 1.9E+01 
Iodine 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Same value was used for poultry and eggs. The value selected for iodine seems to reflect the TCs for eggs, which 
are higher than the values for poultry. 
b 
GENII default 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 5.5E-02; GSD = 9.7. 

Table 6-48. Neptunium Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 5.5E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40   
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 4.0E-03  
4 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 4.0E-03  
5 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63   
6 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 4.0E-03 b  
7 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 1.7E-03 c  
8 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 3.6E-03 d; GSD = 2.0 
truncation: low = 6.0E-04; high = 2.1E-02 
Neptunium 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Same value was used for poultry and eggs. 
b 
GENII default 
d 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 3.6E-03; GSD = 1.6. The lower bound for the value of GSD was used. 

Table 6-49. Plutonium Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 7.6E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 3.0E-03 2.0E-05 to 3.0E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 1.5E-04  
4 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 4.0E-03  
5 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 2.0E-05 b  
6 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 1.5E-04 c  
7 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 1.0E-01 d  
8 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 1.2E-03 e; GSD = 10.0 
truncation: low = 3.2E-06; high = 4.6E-01 
Plutonium 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
ab 
Same value was used for poultry and eggs. 
Value for PuO2 
c GENII default 
d 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
e 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.2E-03, GSD = 18.3. The upper bound on the value of GSD was 
recommended. 

Table 6-50. Americium Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 8.5E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 40 6.0E-03 2.0E-05 to 6.0E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 2.0E-04  
4 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 4.0E-03  
5 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 7.2E-05  
6 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 2.0E-04 b  
7 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 1.0E-01 c  
8 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 1.8E-03 d; GSD = 10.0 
truncation: low = 4.8E-06; high = 6.7E-01 
Americium 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
b 
Same value was used for poultry and eggs. 
GENII default 
cd 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.8E-03, GSD = 13.5. The upper bound on the value of GSD was 
recommended. 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-83 September 2004 
Table 6-51. Transfer Coefficients for Poultry for Other Elements 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg (Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake) 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 
103767], pp. 233 to 234  9.3E+00 3.0E-01 8.0E+00 4.4E+00 4.0E-02 9.0E-02 2.5E-03 6.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.2E+00 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], 
p. 40  9.0E+00 8.0E-02  1.0E+01      1.0E+00 
3 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 
6.30 
3.0E-02 8.5E+00 3.5E-02 2.0E-01 4.4E+00 2.0E-01 3.0E-02 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 1.2E+00 
4 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 
103781], pp. 145 to 146  3.7E-01 9.0E-04 9.9E-04 4.5E+00 9.9E-04 9.9E-04 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 1.2E-03 
5 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 
63   3.2E-02  4.4E+00       
6 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 
107744], pp. 35 to 36 3.0E-02 8.5E+00 3.5E-02 9.9E-04 4.4E+00 9.9E-04 9.9E-04 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 4.0E-03 1.2E+00 
7 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 
101085], p. 5-29  8.3E+00   1.2E+01 1.2E+00 4.8E-01 6.6E-03 1.8E-01 4.1E-03 1.0E-01 
8 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 
167077], p. 5-87   3.5E-02  1.0E-02       
GM 3.0E-02 5.1E+00 3.1E-02 3.5E-02 2.6E+00 2.5E-02 1.7E-02 4.0E-03 5.9E-03 3.0E-03 2.4E-01 
GSD 1.0 3.6 5.8 81.1 9.8 24.0 15.8 1.4 8.0 1.9 16.1 
Recommended GSD 2.0 a 3.6 5.8 10.0 b 9.8 10.0 b 10.0 b 2.0 a 8.0 2.0 a 10.0 b 
Truncation, lower limit 5.0E-03 1.9E-01 3.4E-04 9.4E-05 7.2E-03 6.6E-05 4.4E-05 6.7E-04 2.7E-05 5.1E-04 6.5E-04 
Truncation, upper limit 1.8E-01 1.4E+02 2.9E+00 1.3E+01 9.3E+02 9.3E+00 6.3E+00 2.4E-02 1.3E+00 1.8E-02 9.2E+01 
a 
The lower bound of the value of the GSD was used. 
b 
The upper bound of the value of the GSD was used. 

6.3.3.3 Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
To derive TCs for milk, the same references were used as those for meat. TCs for milk reported 
in the recent literature (IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458]; IAEA 2001 [DIRS 155188]) indicate that 
technetium transfer from animal diet to milk tends to be lower than was previously considered 
(Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 236). In the older literature, the value appears to be 2 to 
3 orders of magnitude higher, on the order of 1  10-2 d/L, when compared with the newly 
developed expected value, which is on the order of 1  10-5 d/L. For example, see the values in 
Table 6-52 from Baes et al. (1984 [DIRS 103766]), Mills et al. (1983 [DIRS 103781]), Peterson 
(1983 [DIRS 167077]), and Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 (1997 [DIRS 100067]), and 
compare with data from the IAEA (2001 [DIRS 155188]). The earlier values were developed 
based on the assumption that the metabolism of technetium in the animal system is the same as 
that of iodine, which was studied much more extensively. The most recent studies indicate that 
technetium transfer to milk is much lower than initially assumed and that the experimentally 
determined values are two to three orders of magnitude less than those reported for iodine (Davis 
et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767]). A reason for the lower technetium TC values is believed to be 
reduction of TcO4 (pertechnetate) in the cows rumen to TcO2, for which absorption is quite low 
(IAEA 2001 [DIRS 155188], p. 43). Based on the Eh-pH diagram for technetium, the stability 
region for TcO2 is very limited (Brookins 1988 [DIRS 105092], p. 98), so it is likely that 
pertechnetate (TcO4 
-) would be reduced in the rumen to compounds other than TcO2, which may 
also be poorly absorbed from the rumen. To calculate the technetium TC for cows milk, the 
highest values, greater than or equal to those for iodine, were excluded from calculations, based 
on the previous understanding of the metabolic behavior of technetium in the bovine system. 
The resulting GM is only one order of magnitude lower than that of iodine, not two to three as 
indicated in the literature. The reason for this discrepancy might be that many compendia of 
generic TC values continue to recommend more conservative values than would be indicated by 
the recent measurements. Such an approach may, however, be appropriate for the biosphere 
model as explained below. 
Technetium is a redox-sensitive element with a substantial conversion between oxidized and 
reduced species occurring over the range of redox potentials (Brookins 1988 [DIRS 105092], 
p. 98). The environmental conditions will determine which species are present. The formation 
of other species, such as TcO2, in the rumen is influenced by the rumens acidity. Ideally, the pH 
of the rumen should be close to neutral. If the cows are fed a diet consisting of grasses, alfalfa, 
or clover, the pH of their rumen remains neutral because of the physiology of the cows digestive 
system. To increase the production of meat and milk, the cows are fed a highcorn silage diet, 
which decreases rumen pH, compared with a high-alfalfa diet (Ruppert et al. 1996 
[DIRS 159487]). The biosphere model assumes that the dairy cows and beef cattle are primarily 
fed alfalfa, not a corn-rich diet. The pH of such cows rumen should remain closer to neutral, 
and, according to the Eh-pH diagram (Brookins 1988 [DIRS 105092], p. 98), TcO2 would not be 
a likely species to form, although it is possible that other insoluble species of technetium may be 
produced. Considering the information presented above, the TC for technetium that is only one 
order of magnitude less than that for iodine is appropriate for the biosphere model. 
A similar effect may also be of significance for technetium transfer to meat. Reduction of 
technetium to insoluble species in the cattles rumen may limit the transfer of this element to 
meat. Although the cautious approach was exercised regarding the TC for milk, the value from 

Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 (1977 [DIRS 100067] p. 1.109-37), which is about two orders of 
magnitude higher than any of the remaining values, was not used in this analysis. 
The TCs for milk are listed in Tables 6-52 to 6-57. Calculation of GMs, standard deviations, and 
truncation limits for the TCs were preformed using Microsoft Excel 2000, as described in 
Appendix A. 
While TCs for other animal products are given in d/kg, the TCs for milk are given in units of 
d/L, which is how they are presented by the majority of the data sources used to derive these 
values. Milk density ranges from 1.028 g/cm3 to 1.035 g/cm3 (Weast 1977 [DIRS 106266], 
p. F-3). Therefore, reporting the TCs for milk in d/kg without correcting for milk density 
introduces a very small error (about 3 percent). This error is insignificant, relative to the large 
uncertainty range in the TC values themselves, and can be neglected. 

Table 6-52. Technetium Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/L 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 1.0E-02  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 
234 9.9E-04 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 1.4E-04 a 2.3E-05 to 1.1E-03 
4 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-03 b  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.29 to 6.30 1.0E-02  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 1.4E-04 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 1.2E-02  
8 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 82 to 83   
9 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-03 b  
10 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62   
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[DIRS 100067], p. 1.109-37 2.5E-02  
12 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 3.0E-04 c  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 7.5E-03 d  
14 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 9.9E-03  
15 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 
32 1.0E-03 e  
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
lognormal; GM = 2.1E-03 f; GSD = 6.0 
16 This analysis  truncation: low = 2.0E-05; high = 2.1E-
01 
Technetium 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/L of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a
b 
Used the more conservative value of those given. 
Value recommended for screening models 
c GENII default 
d Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
e RESRAD default value 
f For the references listed in this table, GM = 2.1E-03; GSD = 6.0. 

Table 6-53. Iodine Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/L 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 1.0E-02  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 9.9E-03 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 to 3.5E-02 
4 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-02 a  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 1.0E-02  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], 
p. 2-13 1.0E-02 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 1.0E-02  
8 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 82 to 83 1.2E-02 c 2.7E-03 to 3.5E-02 
9 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-02 a  
10 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 9.9E-03  
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[DIRS 100067], p. 1.109-37 6.0E-03  
12 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 1.2E-02 d  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 3.0E-03 b  
14 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 9.9E-03  
15 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 
to 32 1.0E-02 e  
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
16 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 9.1E-03 f; GSD = 2.0 
truncation: low = 1.5E-03; high = 5.4E-02 
Iodine 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/L of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines. 
a
b 
Value recommended for screening models 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain 
GSD = 1.7; 99th percentile = 3.6E-02 
d 
GENII default 
e 
RESRAD default value 
f 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 9.1E-03; GSD = 1.4. The lower bound of the value of GSD of 2.0 was 
used. 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-87 September 2004 

Table 6-54. Neptunium Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/L 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 5.0E-06  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 5.0E-06 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 5.0E-06  
4 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 5.0E-05 a  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 5.0E-06  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], 
p. 2-13 5.0E-06 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 2.5E-06  
8 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 82 to 83   
9 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-05 a  
10 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62   
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[DIRS 100067], p. 1.109-37 5.0E-06  
12 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 1.0E-05 c  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 5.0E-06 b  
14 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 5.0E-06  
15 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 
to 32 5.0E-06 d  
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
16 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 6.3E-06 e; GSD = 2.0 
truncation: low = 1.0E-06; high = 3.9E-05 
Neptunium 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/L of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Value recommended for screening models 
b 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain 
GENII default 
d 
RESRAD default value 
e 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 6.3E-06; GSD = 2.0. 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-88 September 2004 

Table 6-55. Plutonium Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/L 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 1.0E-07  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 1.0E-07 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 1.1E-06 3.0E-09 to 3.0E-06 
4 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 3.0E-06 a  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 
103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 1.0E-07  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], 
p. 2-13 1.1E-06 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 2.5E-08  
8 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 82 to 83 1.0E-07 c  
9 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-06 a  
10 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 1.0E-07  
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[DIRS 100067], p. 1.109-37   
12 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 1.0E-07 d  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 5.0E-06 b  
14 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 2.7E-09 e  
15 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 
to 32 1.0E-06 f  
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
16 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 2.3E-07 g; GSD = 7.7 
truncation: low = 1.2E-09; high = 4.4E-05 
Plutonium 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/L of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Value recommended for screening models 
b 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain 
Value for plutonium citrate 
d 
GENII default 
e 
Value for PuO2 
f 
RESRAD default value 
g For the references listed in this table, GM = 2.3E-07; GSD = 7.7. 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-89 September 2004 

Table 6-56. Americium Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/L 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 103766], p. 50 4.0E-07  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 
234 4.1E-07 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 35 1.5E-06 4.0E-07 to 2.0E-05 
4 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], pp. 67 to 68 2.0E-05 a  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.29 to 6.30 4.0E-07  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 1.5E-06 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 2.5E-06  
8 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 103784], pp. 82 to 83   
9 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 101882], pp. 52 to 54 2.0E-06 a  
10 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 62 4.1E-07  
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 
100067], p. 1.109-37   
12 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 3.0E-07 d GENII-S default 
13 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-27 5.0E-06 b  
14 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 167077], p. 5-86 2.0E-05 c  
15 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 103839], pp. 30 to 
32 2.0E-06 e  
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. D-16 
lognormal; GM = 1.6E-06 f; GSD = 4.2 
16 This analysis  truncation: low = 3.9E-08; high = 6.3E-
05 
Americium 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/L of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Value recommended for screening models 
b 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain 
Value for transuranics 
d 
GENII default 
e 
RESRAD default value 
f 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.6E-06; GSD = 4.2. 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-90 September 2004 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-91 September 2004 
Table 6-57. Transfer Coefficients for Milk for Other Elements 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/L (Bq/L of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake) 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [DIRS 
103766], p. 50 1.5E-02 4.0E-03 1.5E-03 1.0E-03 7.0E-03 2.5E-04 4.5E-04 2.0E-05 5.0E-06 5.0E-06 6.0E-04 
2 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 
103767], pp. 233 to 234  4.0E-03 1.4E-03 1.2E-03 7.1E-03 2.6E-04 4.0E-04 2.0E-05 5.0E-06 5.0E-06 3.7E-04 
3 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 
100458], p. 35 1.7E-02  2.8E-03  7.9E-03  1.3E-03    4.0E-04 
4 IAEA 2001 [DIRS 
158519], pp. 67 to 68  1.0E-03 3.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 3.0E-04 1.0E-03 2.0E-06 5.0E-06 5.0E-06 6.0E-04 
5 
Kennedy and Strenge 
1992 [DIRS 103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 
1.5E-02 4.0E-03 1.5E-03 1.0E-03 7.0E-03 2.5E-04 4.5E-04 2.0E-05 5.0E-06 5.0E-06 6.0E-04 
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[DIRS 101079], p. 2-13  4.0E-03 3.0E-03 1.0E-03 7.9E-03 2.5E-04 1.3E-03 2.0E-05 5.0E-06 5.0E-06 4.0E-04 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 
103781], pp. 145 to 146  2.3E-02 1.5E-03 1.3E-03 5.0E-03 1.0E-05 2.0E-04 2.5E-06 2.5E-06 2.5E-06 6.0E-04 
8 NCRP 1984 [DIRS 
103784], p. 83   1.4E-03  7.1E-03  4.0E-04    4.0E-04 
9 NCRP 1996 [DIRS 
101882], pp. 52 to 54 2.0E-02 1.0E-02 2.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 3.0E-04 1.0E-03 2.0E-06 5.0E-06 5.0E-06 4.0E-04 
10 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], 
p. 62 1.7E-02 4.0E-03 1.4E-03 1.2E-03 7.1E-03 2.6E-04 4.0E-04    3.7E-04 
11 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, 
Rev. 1 1977 [DIRS 
100067], p. 1.109-37 
  8.0E-04  1.2E-02       
12 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 
107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-02 2.3E-02 1.3E-03 1.0E-03 7.0E-03 3.0E-05 2.0E-04 2.0E-05 2.5E-06 2.5E-06 6.0E-04 
13 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 
101085], p. 5-27  4.0E-03   8.0E-03 3.0E-04 1.3E-03 4.0E-07 5.0E-06 5.0E-06 4.0E-04 
14 Peterson 1983 [DIRS 
167077], p. 5-86   1.4E-03  7.1E-03 2.6E-04 4.5E-04 2.0E-05 5.0E-06 5.0E-06 6.1E-04 
15 
Wang et al. 1993 [DIRS 
103839], pp. 30 to 32; Yu 
et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], 
p. D-16 
2.0E-02 1.0E-02 2.0E-03 1.0E-03 8.0E-03 3.0E-04 1.0E-03 2.0E-05 5.0E-06 5.0E-06 6.0E-04 
GM 1.8E-02 5.7E-03 1.7E-03 1.1E-03 7.7E-03 1.7E-04 5.8E-04 7.6E-06 4.4E-06 4.4E-06 4.9E-04 
GSD 1.1 2.5 1.4 1.1 1.2 3.0 2.0 4.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 

Table 6-57. Transfer Coefficients for Milk for Other Elements (Continued) 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/L (Bq/L of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake) 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
Recommended GSD 2.0 a 2.5 2.0 a 2.0 a 2.0 a 3.0 2.0 4.1 2.0 a 2.0 a 2.0 a 
Truncation, lower limit 2.9E-03 5.5E-04 2.8E-04 1.8E-04 1.3E-03 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 2.0E-07 7.4E-07 7.4E-07 8.1E-05 
Truncation, upper limit 1.0E-01 6.0E-02 1.0E-02 6.3E-03 4.6E-02 2.9E-03 3.4E-03 2.9E-04 2.6E-05 2.6E-05 2.9E-03 
a 
The lower bound of the value of the GSD was used. 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-92 September 2004 

6.3.3.4 Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
The values of TCs for eggs and references that were used to develop them are listed in 
Tables 6-58 to 6-63. Calculation of GMs, standard deviations, and truncation limits for the TCs 
were preformed using Microsoft Excel 2000, as described in Appendix A. 
Table 6-58. Technetium Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 1.9E+00 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 3.0E+00  
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 
103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 3.0E+00  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], 
p. 2-13 3.0E+00 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 9.9E-04 c  
6 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63   
7 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 3.0E+00 GENII-S default 
8 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 1.2E+00 b  
9 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 2.4E+00 e; GSD = 2.0 
truncation: low = 4.0E-01; high = 1.4E+01 
Technetium 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Same value used for poultry and eggs 
b 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c 
This value is three orders of magnitude lower than the remaining ones and was therefore not included in calculation 
of GM and GSD. 
d 
GENII default 
e 
For the references listed in this table, excluding reference #5, GM = 2.4E+00; GSD = 1.5. Lower bound of GSD of 
2.0 was recommended. 

Table 6-59. Iodine Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 2.8E+00 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 3.0E+00 2 to 4 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 2.8E+00  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], 
p. 2-13 3.0E+00 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 1.6E+00  
6 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 4.4E+00 3.7E+00 to 5.2E+00 
7 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 2.8E+00 c  
8 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 1.6E+00 b  
9 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 2.6E+00 d; GSD = 2.0 
truncation: low = 4.4E-01; high = 1.6E+01 
Iodine 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Same value used for poultry and eggs (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 238) 
b 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain 
GENII default 
d 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 2.6E+00; GSD = 1.4. Lower bound of GSD was recommended. 

Table 6-60. Neptunium Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 5.5E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41   
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 
103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 2.0E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], 
p. 2-13 2.0E-03 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 2.0E-03  
6 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63   
7 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 2.0E-03 c  
8 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 1.7E-02 b  
9 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 3.4E-03 d; GSD = 2.4 
truncation: low = 3.4E-04; high = 3.3E-02 
Neptunium 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Same value used for poultry and eggs 
b 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain 
GENII default 
d 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 3.4E-03; GSD = 2.4. 

Table 6-61. Plutonium Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 
to 234 7.6E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 5.0E-04 3.0E-05 to 8.0E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 
103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 8.0E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], 
p. 2-13 5.0E-04 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 2.0E-03  
6 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 3.3E-05  
7 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 
36 8.0E-03 c  
8 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 8.0E-03 b  
9 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 1.7E-03 d; GSD = 7.4 
truncation: low = 9.7E-06; high = 2.9E-01 
Plutonium 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
1.0E+00 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Same value used for poultry and eggs 
b 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain 
GENII default 
d 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.7E-03; GSD = 7.4. 

Table 6-62. Americium Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
No. Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to 
234 8.5E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 41 4.0E-03 1.0E-03 to 9.0E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [DIRS 103776], 
pp. 6.29 to 6.30 9.0E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [DIRS 101079], p. 
2-13 4.0E-03 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 2.0E-03  
6 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 63 3.9E-03  
7 Rittmann 1993 [DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 9.0E-03 c  
8 Smith et al. 1996 [DIRS 101085], p. 5-29 3.9E-03 b  
9 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 4.9E-03 d; GSD = 2.0 
truncation: low = 8.2E-04; high = 2.9E-02 
Americium 
1.0E-04 
1.0E-03 
1.0E-02 
1.0E-01 
Transfer factor 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown in graph as dashed lines. 
a 
Same value used for poultry and eggs 
b 
Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain 
GENII default 
d 
For the references listed in this table, GM = 4.9E-03; GSD = 1.7. Lower bound of GSD was recommended. 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-98 September 2004 
Table 6-63. Transfer Coefficients for Eggs for Other Elements 
Reference 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg (Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake)
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
Davis et al. 1993 
1 [DIRS 103767], pp. 233 to  9.3E+00 3.0E-01 8.0E+00 4.4E+00 4.0E-02 9.0E-02 2.5E-03 6.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.2E+00 
234 
2 IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], 
p. 41  9.0E+00 2.0E-01  4.0E-01      1.0E+00 
3 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[DIRS 103776], pp. 6.29 to 
6.30 
2.0E+00 9.3E+00 3.0E-01 8.0E-01 4.9E-01 8.0E-01 2.0E-05 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 9.9E-01 
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[DIRS 101079], p. 2-13  9.0E+00 2.0E-01 8.0E-01 4.0E-01 8.0E-01 2.0E-05 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 1.0E+00 
Mills et al. 1983 
5 [DIRS 103781], pp. 145 to 
146 
 2.1E+00 4.0E-01 9.9E-04 5.0E-01 9.9E-04 2.0E-05 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 3.4E-01 
6 Ng 1982 [DIRS 160322], p. 
63   2.2E-01  4.3E-01       
7 Rittmann 1993 
[DIRS 107744], pp. 35 to 36 9.9E-04 9.3E+00 3.0E-01 9.9E-04 4.9E-01 9.9E-04 2.0E-05 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 9.9E-01 
8 Smith et al. 1996 
[DIRS 101085], p. 5-29  8.3E+00   4.0E-01 1.2E+00 2.5E-01 1.6E-02 1.8E-01 4.1E-03 1.0E-01 
9 Peterson 1983 
[DIRS 167077], p. 5-87   3.0E-01  5.0E-03       
GM 4.4E-02 7.3E+00 2.7E-01 8.7E-02 3.5E-01 5.6E-02 3.9E-04 2.9E-03 3.5E-03 2.0E-03 6.3E-01 
GSD 217.4 1.7 1.3 66.3 5.8 28.6 101.4 2.3 7.3 1.6 2.5 
Recommended GSD 10.0 b 2.0 a 2.0 a 10.0 b 5.8 10.0 b 10.0 b 2.3 7.3 2.0 a 2.5 
Truncation, lower limit 1.2E-04 1.2E+00 4.5E-02 2.3E-04 3.7E-03 1.5E-04 1.0E-06 3.4E-04 2.0E-05 3.4E-04 6.0E-02 
Truncation, upper limit 1.7E+01 4.4E+01 1.6E+00 3.3E+01 3.3E+01 2.1E+01 1.5E-01 2.5E-02 5.9E-01 1.2E-02 6.7E+00 
a 
b 
The lower bound of the value of the GSD equal to 2.0 was used. 
The upper bound of the value of the GSD equal to 10.0 was used. 

6.4 RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT TO AQUATIC FOOD 
Groundwater, in addition to the application for crop irrigation and animal watering, can also be 
used for fish farming. The incorporation of radionuclides into aquatic food may contribute to 
human exposure. Because there is a history of catfish farming in Amargosa Valley, the fish 
consumption pathway was included in the biosphere model. 
6.4.1 Basic Model for Aquatic Food Chain Transport 
The model usually used for assessing the transport of radionuclides in aquatic systems assumes 
that the assimilation of radionuclides by aquatic organisms is proportional to the level of 
radionuclide concentration in the water (IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 72). This model applies 
to aquatic systems that are in equilibrium. For such systems, radionuclide accumulation in 
aquatic fauna is usually quantified in terms of equilibrium concentration ratios, also called the 
bioaccumulation factors. The bioaccumulation factor is defined as the ratio of the activity 
concentration in edible portions of animal tissue to that in the water (Bq/kg wet or dry-weight per 
Bq/L). 
The application of the bioaccumulation factor to the calculation of activity concentration in fish 
is expressed in the biosphere model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.5) as 
Cfi = Cw i f BFi = Cwi BF MF (Eq. 6-14) 
,i 
where 
Cfi = activity concentration of radionuclide i in fish (Bq/kg wet)
Cwf,i = activity concentration of radionuclide i in fishpond water at the time of 
harvest (Bq/L) 
BFi = bioaccumulation factor for radionuclide i in freshwater fish (L/kg) 
Cwi = activity concentration of radionuclide i in groundwater (Bq/L) 
MFi = water concentration modifying factor for radionuclide i (dimensionless). 
This analysis develops the values of the bioaccumulation factors, BFi, and the water 
concentration modifying factors, MFi. The bioaccumulation factors are element- and 
species-dependent, but for a given element and organism, the bioaccumulation factor value can 
range over several orders of magnitude (IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 72). The most important 
parameter governing the value of a bioaccumulation factor is the trophic level of the organism 
(IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 72). The trophic level is the term used to denote a level of 
consumption, or a position of the organism, in a food chain. Generally, bioaccumulation tends to 
be proportional to trophic level. However, bottom-feeding fish have higher bioaccumulation 
factors (take up more radioactivity) than the piscivorous (fish eating) fish (IAEA 1994 
[DIRS 100458], p. 46-47). 
6.4.2 Fish Farming in Amargosa Valley 
Livestock production activities in Amargosa Valley include catfish farming at the Deer Catfish 
Farm (CRWMS M&O 1997 [DIRS 101090], pp. 3 to 17; YMP 1999 [DIRS 158212], pp. 15 

to 16). During the period from 1988 to 1998, which included the time of the food consumption 
survey (DOE 1997 [DIRS 100332]), the farm was fully operational. The production has since 
declined, but the farm still remains in operation (Roe 2002 [DIRS 160674]). The farm consisted 
of five ponds: two breeding ponds, and three grow-out ponds. According to reports 
summarizing the socioeconomic data (CRWMS M&O 1997 [DIRS 101090], pp. 3 to 17; 
YMP 1999 [DIRS 158212], pp. 15 to 16), the number of catfish (channel catfish, Ictalurus 
punctatus) at the farm in 1997 through 1999 was around 15,000. The main customer for the 
catfish produced in Amargosa Valley was Nevada Department of Wildlife. The fish were used 
for stocking various ponds and lakes in Southern Nevada. Their average size was 13 to 14 in. 
(0.33 to 0.36 m), and the average weight per fish was 0.58 to 0.76 lbs (0.26 to 0.35 kg). The 
farm owner also allowed individuals, including residents of Amargosa Valley, to fish the ponds, 
although the number and the average size of fish harvested from the ponds is unknown 
(Roe 2002 [DIRS 160674]). 
The following information about catfish farming, relevant to the biosphere modeling, was 
obtained from the Mississippi State University Extension Service (2002 [DIRS 159489]). 
(Mississippi is the major catfish producer in the U.S., accounting for about  of U.S. catfish 
production.) It takes about 2 years to grow a catfish, and a full-grown fish weighs 1 to 2 pounds. 
The amount of food that is needed to grow the fish is 2 pounds of feed per 1 pound of fish. 
Catfish are fed a high-protein feed for which the main ingredient is soybean meal with some corn 
and rice ingredients. In the second year of growth, 5,000 to 8,000 catfish can be stocked per 
acre, and the average production is 5,000 pounds per acre. 
The majority of the fish raised at the Deer Catfish Farm were harvested before they were 
full-grown because they were used for stocking other ponds and lakes where they would grow 
further. The investigation conducted at the Deer Catfish Farm indicated that the fish lived in 
grow-out ponds for at least a year (Roe 2002 [DIRS 160674]). This value provides a lower 
bound on the duration of the fish raising cycle. The fish used for stocking recreational ponds 
were relatively small, so it is possible that the fish sold directly to individuals in Amargosa 
Valley were larger and thus were kept in the ponds longer than 1 year. There is no information 
available regarding the size of fish that were harvested for local consumption or how long it took 
to raise them. Catfish reach full-grown size in about two years (Mississippi State University 
Extension Service 2002 [DIRS 159489]), and this value was used as an upper bound on the 
duration of the fish raising cycle. 
6.4.3 Application of the Model Based on Concentration Ratios to the Amargosa Valley 
Context 
The most frequently used model of radionuclide accumulation in fish is based on equilibrium 
among all components of the aquatic system, including the water, sediments, and aquatic fauna 
and flora. Such models apply best to bodies of water with individual components of the system 
(water, aquatic organisms, plants, and sediments) in equilibrium and not subject to rapid 
condition changes. In the case of the catfish farm in Amargosa Valley, the components of the 
system are not in equilibrium because the fish are raised using uncontaminated commercial food. 
In addition, activity concentration in the fishpond water is not constant, but rather it changes with 
time because throughout each year, fresh water must be added to the ponds on a continual basis 
to replace the water lost by evaporation. This change is represented in the model by the water 

concentration modifying factor. The modifying factor is a multiplier that, when combined with 
the radionuclide concentration in the water at the well, gives the actual radionuclide 
concentration in the fishpond water. This time-dependent addition to the system causes 
deviation from the equilibrium conditions called for by the simple concentration ratio-based 
model. 
The small volume of the ponds also limits the amount of activity available for uptake by the fish. 
Although the effect of radionuclide depletion in water due to uptake is relatively small for most 
elements, it can be significant for a few elements for which uptake by aquatic organisms is high. 
In the biosphere model, the decrease of radionuclide concentration in water due to uptake by the 
fish is not considered. 
Despite the lack of equilibrium between the system components, a simple model based on 
concentration ratios (bioaccumulation factors) can still provide an adequate estimate of the 
radionuclide uptake by aquatic organisms. Bioaccumulation factors include contributions from 
radionuclide intake by fish from water and through food. As noted before, fish food is not 
contaminated. Use of bioaccumulation factors will thus overestimate the concentration of 
radionuclides in the fish. The degree of overestimation is unknown because information is not 
available regarding radionuclide bioaccumulation in fish raised using uncontaminated feed. 
Bioaccumulation factors for freshwater fish, BFi, were developed based on a literature review. 
Comparison of the bioaccumulation factor values from the reviewed documents is presented in 
Table 6-64, together with GMs and GSDs for the reported values. The range of values is wide 
because it includes planktivorous, piscivorous, and bottom-feeding fish. The bottom-feeding fish 
take up more radioactivity than the piscivorous fish (IAEA 1994 [DIRS 100458], pp. 46 to 47), 
and the piscivorous fish, which occupy higher trophic level, take up more radioactivity than the 
planktivorous fish. Channel catfish are bottom-feeders, and thus should be associated with 
higher values of bioaccumulation factors. In natural aquatic systems, for which the 
bioaccumulation factors were developed, fish receive radionuclides directly from the water and 
the food. However, this is not the case for the fish farm, where the fish are fed commercial, 
uncontaminated feed. Therefore, bioaccumulation factors provide an upper bound of the 
estimated uptake, and their mean values should not underestimate the transfer of radionuclides 
from water to aquatic food. It is recommended that the bioaccumulation factors be represented 
by a lognormal distribution with the GM and GSD calculated based on the values in the selected 
references. Analogous to the calculations of the soil-to-plant TFs (Section 6.2.1.1) and the TCs 
for the animal products (Section 6.3.3), truncated distributions are recommended for the 
bioaccumulation factor, and the GSD was rounded up to 2.0 for values less than 2.0. The upper 
and lower truncation limits for the 99-percent confidence interval are shown in Table 6-65. 
Calculations are described in Appendix A. Additional information on the ranges of 
bioaccumulation factors have been provided by the IAEA (1994 [DIRS 100458], p. 45). The 
distribution of bioaccumulation factors represents the uncertainty in the upper bound of the 
parameter value rather than in the uncertainty in the parameter itself. There is additional 
uncertainty due to the unknown percentage of the uptake of an element that is derived from the 
water (contaminated) as opposed to that derived from the feed (uncontaminated). 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-102 September 2004 
Table 6-64. Bioaccumulation Factors for Fresh Water Fish from Various Sources (L/kg) 
Element 
Davis et 
al. 1993 
[DIRS 
103767], 
pp. 233- 
234 
IAEA 
1994 
[DIRS 
100458], 
p. 45 
IAEA 
2001 
[DIRS 
158519], 
p. 73 
Kennedy 
and 
Strenge 
1992 
[DIRS 
103776], 
p. 6.32 
Mills et 
al. 1983 
[DIRS 
103781], 
pp. 148149 
Napier et 
al. 1988 
[DIRS 
100953], 
pp. 5.769-
5.770 
NCRP 
1996 
[DIRS 
101882], 
pp. 58-60 
Reg. 
Guide 
1.109 
[DIRS 
100067, 
p. 1.109-
13 
Peterson 
1983 
[DIRS 
167077, p. 
5-98 to 5103 
Wang et al. 
1993 [DIRS 
103839], p. 
33-35; Yu 
et al. 2001 
[DIRS 
159465], p. 
D-19 
Geometric 
Mean and 
Standard 
Deviation 
C 5.0E+04 5E+04  4.6E+03 4.6E+03 9.0E+03 5.0E+04 4.6E+03  5.0E+04 1.6E+04 3.3 
Cl    5.0E+01  5.0E+01 1.0E+03   1.0E+03 2.2E+02 5.6 
Se 1.7E+02  2.0E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.0E+03 2.0E+02   2.0E+02 2.3E+02 1.9 
Sr 1.0E+02 6E+01 3.4E+01 a 5.0E+01 3.0E+01 5.0E+01 6.0E+01 3.0E+01 2.8E+01 6.0E+01 4.6E+01 1.5 
Tc 1.5E+01 2E+01 2.0E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 2.0E+01 1.5E+01 7.8E+01 2.0E+01 2.0E+01 1.7 
Sn 3.0E+03 3E+03  3.0E+03  1.0E+03 3.0E+03   3.0E+03 2.5E+03 1.6 
I 5.0E+01 4E+01 4.0E+01 5.0E+02 1.5E+01 5.0E+01 4.0E+01 1.5E+01 4.4E+01 4.0E+01 4.5E+01 2.6 
Cs 1.0E+04 2E+03 4.5E+03 b 2.0E+03 2.0E+03 1.5E+04 2.0E+03 2.0E+03 5.6E+03 2.0E+03 3.5E+03 2.2 
Pb 3.0E+02 3E+02 3.0E+02 1.0E+02 1.0E+02 2.0E+03 3.0E+02   3.0E+02 2.9E+02 2.5 
Ra 5.0E+01 5E+01 5.0E+01 7.0E+01 5.0E+01 5.0E+01 5.0E+01  5.2E+02 5.0E+01 6.7E+01 2.2 
Ac 2.5E+01  1.5E+01 2.5E+01 2.5E+01 3.3E+02 1.5E+01   1.5E+01 2.9E+01 3.0 
Th 1.0E+03 1E+02 1.0E+02 1.0E+02 3.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+02  8.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.1E+02 2.5 
Pa 1.1E+01 1E+01 1.0E+01 1.1E+01 1.1E+01 3.0E+01 1.0E+01   1.0E+01 1.2E+01 1.5 
U 5.0E+01 1E+01 1.0E+01 5.0E+01 2.0E+00 5.0E+01 1.0E+01  7.5E+00 1.0E+01 1.4E+01 3.0 
Np 2.5E+03c 3E+01 3.0E+01 2.5E+02 1.0E+01 2.5E+03c 3.0E+01 1.0E+01  3.0E+01 3.0E+01 2.9 
Pu 2.5E+02 3E+01 3.0E+01 2.5E+02 3.5E+00 2.5E+02 3.0E+01  8.0E+00 3.0E+01 4.1E+01 4.7 
Am 1.0E+02 3E+01 3.0E+01 2.5E+02 2.5E+01 1.0E+02 3.0E+01   3.0E+01 5.2E+01 2.3 
a 
Calculated as the GM of the lower and upper bounds of the reported range of values: 1.5E+00 to 7.5E+01 
b 
Calculated as the GM of the lower and upper bounds of the reported range of values: 2.0E+03 to 1.0E+04 
Values not used to calculate the GM and GSD. These values are inconsistent with the remaining values. The value recommended in the more recent 
references is two orders of magnitude lower. An additional recent reference not used in Table 6-64 recommends the value of bioaccumulation factor =10 L/kg 
for neptunium (BIOMASS 2003 [DIRS 168563], p. 459). 

Table 6-65. Bioaccumulation Factors and Truncation Limits for Element Concentrations in Fishpond 
Water 
Element 
Geometric Mean 
L/kg 
Geometric Standard 
Deviation 
Truncation Lower 
Limit a 
L/kg 
Truncation Upper 
Limit a 
L/kg 
Carbon 4.6E+03 3.2 2.3E+02 9.2E+04 
Chlorine 2.2E+02 5.6 2.6E+00 1.9E+04 
Selenium 2.3E+02 2.0 3.9E+01 1.4E+03 
Strontium 4.6E+01 2.0 7.8E+00 2.8E+02 
Technetium 2.0E+01 2.0 3.3E+00 1.2E+02 
Tin 2.5E+03 2.0 4.2E+02 1.5E+04 
Iodine 4.5E+01 2.6 3.8E+00 5.3E+02 
Cesium 3.5E+03 2.2 4.7E+02 2.5E+04 
Lead 2.9E+02 2.5 2.7E+01 3.1E+03 
Radium 6.7E+01 2.2 9.2E+00 5.0E+02 
Actinium 2.9E+01 3.0 1.7E+00 5.0E+02 
Thorium 1.1E+02 2.5 1.0E+01 1.2E+03 
Protactinium 1.2E+01 2.0 2.0E+00 7.1E+01 
Uranium 1.4E+01 3.0 8.4E-01 2.3E+02 
Neptunium 3.0E+01 2.9 1.9E+00 4.7E+02 
Plutonium 4.1E+01 4.7 7.9E-01 2.2E+03 
Americium 5.2E+01 2.3 5.8E+00 4.6E+02 
a 
Calculated using values shown in Table 6-64 (except for carbon, per Assumption 3), see Appendix A. When GSD 
was less than 2, a GSD of 2 was used to calculate truncation limits. 
The biosphere model considers that the initial activity concentration in the pond water increases 
due to the replacement of water lost by evaporation. This effect is quantified through a water 
concentration modifying factor. 
The biosphere model considers fish that are raised in ponds filled with contaminated 
groundwater. The source of water for fish farming is a private well (Roe 2002 [DIRS 160674], 
p. 2). Because of evaporation, the pond water needs to be replenished. According to the 
Regional Data Analysis Investigation, there is no detectable seepage of water from the ponds, so 
evaporation is the only water loss mechanism (Roe 2002 [DIRS 160674]). It is assumed that 
during the fish-growing cycle, which lasts 1 to 2 years, there is no loss of radionuclides from the 
system, except for 14C, which is discussed later. It is also assumed that the activity accumulates 
in the ponds for up to 2 years (Assumption 2). After all the fish have been harvested, the ponds 
are drained, and the water is completely replaced. 

The water concentration modifying factor can thus be calculated using the ratio of the volume of 
water used throughout the fish raising cycle to the volume of the water in the ponds. The volume 
of water used throughout the fish raising cycle is the sum of the volume of the water that the 
ponds can hold and the volume of water added to make up for the evaporated water. Because the 
pond surface area cancels out, this ratio is simply equal to the ratio of the sum of pond depth and 
the total depth of evaporated water over the fish raising cycle to the pond depth, as expressed by 
Equation 6-15. 
PD + AE  RC
MFi =
PD 
(Eq. 6-15) 
where 
PD = pond depth (meters) 
AE = annual evaporation rate (m/yr) 
RC = duration of fish raising cycle (year). 
The fishpond depth, PD, can be determined from the results of the Regional Data Analysis 
Investigation (Roe 2002 [DIRS 160674], p. 2). Grow-out pond dimensions, surface area, and 
volume are given in Table 6-66. The depth of the ponds is in the range of 0.8 m to 1.7 m. 
Table 6-66. Dimensions of the Grow-out Ponds 
Pond 
No. Length Width Depth Surface Area Volume 
1 192 ft 
(59.2 m) 
70 ft 
(21.6 m) 
2.5 ft 
(0.8 m) 
13,440 ft2 
(1,278 m2) 
33,600 ft3 
(986 m3 = 9.86  105 L) 
2 200 ft 
(61.7 m) 
82 ft 
(25.3 m) 
5.5 ft 
(1.7 m) 
16,400 ft2 
(1,560 m2) 
90,200 ft3 
(2,646 m3 = 2.65  106 L) 
3 182 ft 
(56.1 m) 
82 ft 
(25.3 m) 
5.5 ft 
(1.7 m) 
14,924 ft2 
(1,419 m2) 
82,082 ft3 
(2,408 m3 = 2.41  106 L) 
Total 44,764 ft2 
(4,258 m2) 
205,882 ft3 
(6,039 m3 = 6.04  106 L) 
Source: DTN: MO0211SPADIMEN.005 [DIRS 160653]. 
The volume of water added to compensate for evaporation losses, Vevap, can be estimated based 
on the local free water surface evaporation. The Evaporation Atlas for the Contiguous 48 United 
States (Farnsworth et al. 1982 [DIRS 160564], Map 3) includes the average annual free water 
(shallow lake) surface evaporation for the United States. The annual evaporation rate for the 
Amargosa Valley area is between 75 and 80 in. (for the map isopleths closest to the Amargosa 
Valley). Based on this information, the value of 80 in. (2.03 m) was selected as an annual rate of 
water evaporation from the fishponds. 
Some other references confirm the level of water evaporation in the region. Houghton et al. 
(1975 [DIRS 106182], p. 62) include a map of annual evaporation from lakes in Nevada. The 
value for the map isopleths closest to the Amargosa Valley is 72 in. In the Mojave Desert, at 
Silver Lake, California (Blaney 1957 [DIRS 159504], p. 212), where climate is similar to that in 
the Amargosa Valley, annual evaporation is about 80 in. (79.46 in. [2.03 m]). 

Considering the annual evaporation rate of 2.03 m/yr, the depth of water that evaporates from the 
ponds and needs to be replaced during a fish raising cycle lasting between 1 and 2 years is 
between 2.0 and 4.1 m (rounded off to two significant digits). Thus, the water concentration 
modifying factor is (Equation 6-15) in the range of 2.2, for the pond depth of 1.7 m and a 1-year 
evaporation, to 6.1, for the pond depth of 0.8 m and a two-year evaporation. It is recommended 
that a uniform distribution with a minimum value of 2.2 and a maximum value of 6.1 be used for 
the water concentration modifying factor. This distribution is recommended for the biosphere 
model for the present day climate for all elements except carbon. For carbon, it is recommended 
that the modifying factor is equal to 1. The technical bases for this recommendation are 
explained in the following section. 
6.4.4 Carbon Transfer through Aquatic Food Chain 
In aquatic food chains, 14C transport involves an additional loss mechanism not included in the 
model for the other radionuclides: 14C can be lost from the water column via emission of 
gaseous species to the atmosphere. Consideration of the modifying factor for the 14C 
concentration in water should thus include 14C loss by emission of gaseous species. The flux of 
CO2 from the water depends on the dissolved inorganic carbon inventory, molecular diffusion 
coefficient of CO2 in water, the depth of the water column, and other parameters (Davis et al. 
1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 102). The emission rate constant of 14C for three Canadian lakes was 
found to be about 0.9 yr-1 (Bird and Ewing 1996 [DIRS 159491], p. 5). However, the lakes were 
deeper than the fishponds, with a mean depth of 5.7 to 11.6 m (Bird and Ewing 1996 
[DIRS 159491], p. 5). Shallow lakes are predicted to have large gaseous 14C emission rates, 
whereas deep lakes are predicted to have lower emission rates (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767]. 
p. 104). Therefore, taking into account the geometry of the fishponds with depths that do not 
exceed 1.7 m, the gaseous emission rate should be greater than that predicted for the Canadian 
lakes. In addition, the water aeration system used in the fishponds would promote more rapid 
gas exchange between the water and the air, and thus greater carbon loss from the water. The 
rate of water (and activity) addition to offset evaporation losses is equal to 1.4 yr-1. This value 
can be calculated based on the volume of the ponds (6,039 m3) and the volume of water that 
evaporates from the ponds in 1 year (2.03 m/yr  4,258 m2 = 8,644 m3/yr). The annual rate of 
water (and activity) addition to the ponds is equal to 8,644 m3/yr divided by 6,039 m3 (i.e., on 
average, about 1.4 yr-1). This value is comparable with the emission rate constant for CO2 in 
water, as explained in the previous section. Therefore, the activity gain due to the addition of 
water would be compensated by the loss due to emission of gaseous species of carbon, and the 
14C concentration in the water would not increase. It could be argued that the concentration of14C in the fishpond water could be much less than that in groundwater because of loss caused by 
the water aeration system and rapid turnover of carbon in solution. In addition, the 14C uptake by 
the fish could further decrease the activity concentration of this radionuclide in water. However, 
the calculation does not account for the activity that may become fixed in the sediments at the 
bottom of the ponds and subsequently taken up by the bottom-feeding catfish. To compensate 
for this possible effect, no credit is taken for the reduction of 14C concentration in the pond water 
below that of the groundwater. Considering the above, it is recommended that the water 
concentration modifying factor of 1 be used for evaluation of 14C concentration in the fishpond 
water. 

Carbon uptake by fish occurs by two basic mechanisms: the transfer of carbon from food and 
the respiration of carbon during water circulation through the gills. Because the catfish at the 
Deer Catfish Farm are raised using commercial feed, which is not contaminated (Roe 2002 
[DIRS 160674]), calculating 14C uptake using the bioaccumulation factor overestimates the 
concentration of this radionuclide in fish. It is therefore recommended that the lowest value of 
the bioaccumulation factor from the range of values reported in the literature (4.6  103 [see 
Table 6-65]) be used for the biosphere model to represent the GM. This value is recommended 
by three of the seven pertinent references that give the bioaccumulation factor for carbon. The 
uncertainty distribution is assumed to be lognormal with the GSD equal to 3.2, to include the 
values of bioaccumulation factor from the remaining references (Assumption 3). For such a 
distribution, the confidence interval spans one order of magnitude (a factor of 10) on either side 
of the mean at the 95-percent confidence level (Equation 6-3), that is, 
96.1 
GSD = 10 
1 
GSD = 1096.1 = 2.3 
The upper and lower truncation limits for this distribution, for the 99-percent confidence interval, 
are calculated as for other elements and are shown in Table 6-65. 
Even if the lowest value from the references is selected for the GM of the carbon 
bioaccumulation factor distribution, it can be shown that such an approach will not underestimate 
the risk to the receptor even if carbon in fish were in equilibrium with carbon in the water. 
Therefore, no credit is taken for the dilution of radioactive carbon intake with stable carbon in 
fish food. 
Concentration of carbon in the Nye County well water has been measured 
(DTN: GS030908312322.002 [DIRS 170051]). The concentrations of inorganic carbon are 
listed in terms of HCO3, and the average value is 284 mg/L (DTN: GS030908312322.002 
[DIRS 170051]). The carbon fraction of HCO3 is 0.2, so the average concentration of inorganic 
carbon in well water can be calculated as 56 mg/L. 
According to Cember (1983 [DIRS 108074], p. 77), specific activity of 14C (T1/2 = 5730 yr) 
(Eckerman and Ryman 1993 [DIRS 107684], Table A.1) can be calculated as 
atoms
022.6 1023 
mole  2 ln( )Bq
= 65.1 1011 
g
14 g 5730 yr  25.365 d  24 h  3600 s 
mole yrd h (Eq. 6-16) 

If the activity concentration of 14C in the water is 1 Bq/L, and the specific activity of 14C is 
1.65  1011 Bq/g, the mass concentration of 14C in the water is 6.06  10-12 g/L. The ratio of 14C 
to carbon in water is thus 
06.6 10-12 g 
14 
C
L = 08.1 10-10 g 
56 mg g
C
 001.0 g 
L mg (Eq. 6-17) 
Assuming that the carbon content of fish is the same as that of poultry (i.e., 0.2 [Section 6.7.4]), 
and that the ratio of 14C to carbon in fish is the same as that in the water, the activity 
concentration of 14C in fish can be calculated as 
g 14 C
2.0 
gC 08.1 10-10 65.1 1011 Bq 1000 g = 6 . 3 103 Bq 
g 14
fish gC gC kg kg (Eq. 6-18) 
This value is numerically equal to the bioaccumulation factor for carbon because it was derived 
for the unit activity concentration (1 Bq/L) of 14C in the water. The corresponding 
bioaccumulation factor value would be 3.6  103 L/kg. 
If the carbon content of fish were 0.25 (same as for meat), then the value of bioaccumulation 
factor would be 4.5  103 L/kg. If the concentration of carbon in the water were 20 mg/L (the 
value assumed for the biosphere model, as described in Section 6.7.4), the bioaccumulation 
factor would be 1.0  104 L/kg. If both the carbon content of fish were higher and carbon 
concentration in water were lower, the bioaccumulation factor would be 1.25  104 L/kg. These 
values are well within the range recommended for the biosphere model. 
6.4.5 Consideration of Climate Change 
The only parameter of the submodel for accumulation of radionuclides in fish that may be 
affected by the climate change is the rate of water evaporation from the fishponds. For the 
cooler and wetter climate, the evaporation will be reduced. The annual average free water 
evaporation for the analogue site, Spokane, Washington, is between 30 and 35 in. (0.76 m 
to 0.89 m) (Farnsworth et al. 1982 [DIRS 160564], Map 3). Considering the annual evaporation 
rate of 0.89 m/yr, the depth of water that would evaporate from the ponds during a 1- to 2-year 
fish raising cycle and would need to be added to the ponds to compensate for the evaporation 
losses, is between 0.9 m and 1.8 m (rounded off to two significant digits). The water 
concentration modifying factor can be calculated, using Equation 6-15, to be in the range of 1.5, 
for the pond depth of 1.7 m and 1-year evaporation, to 3.3, for the pond depth of 0.8 m and 
2-year evaporation. The increase of activity concentration in the pond water is thus less than that 
for the present day climate. It is recommended that the uniform distribution with a minimum 
value of 1.5 and a maximum value of 3.3 be used for the water concentration modifying factor. 
Applying the same approach as that used to develop the values of the modifying factor for the 
present day climate, it is recommended that the modifying factor be equal to 1 for carbon. 

6.5 RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT VIA EVAPORATIVE COOLERS 
According to a survey (DOE 1997 [DIRS 100332], p. 20), 73 percent of the Amargosa Valley 
residents lived in homes that had evaporative coolers. Therefore, inhalation of radionuclides 
introduced into the indoor air by the operation of evaporative coolers was included as one of the 
environmental transport and exposure pathways. 
6.5.1 Evaporative Cooler Operation 
Evaporative coolers produce effective cooling by combining water evaporation with an 
air-moving system. Outside air is pulled through a saturated evaporative media (a water-wetted 
pad), cooled by evaporation, and circulated by a blower. Because the resulting air is more humid 
than the outside air, evaporative air cooling is primarily used in areas with low humidity. In dry 
climates, evaporative air cooling can provide essentially equivalent comfort conditions in 
residential buildings to refrigerated air cooling, but at about one-third the energy consumption of 
mechanical air conditioning or heat pumps (AdobeAir 2002 [DIRS 159493]). 
As the water in an evaporative cooler evaporates, fresh water (makeup water) is brought into the 
cooler. However, the minerals brought into the cooler with the makeup water do not evaporate, 
and the concentration of minerals in circulating water continually increases. Eventually, the 
water becomes saturated and the minerals precipitate out. During operation, most of the water 
evaporation occurs at the air inlet side, leaving scale on that surface. The life of the pads can be 
extended by rotating them so that the previously downstream face becomes the upstream face. 
To prevent the water from becoming saturated with minerals, some units include a bleed-off 
system or a sump dump system. In the bleed-off system, a small amount of water is diverted 
from the sump to a drain or to the ground. The sump dump system evacuates the water from the 
sump every six hours or so while the cooler is operating. However, even with these systems, it is 
rare for the water in a cooler not to become saturated with minerals in most desert environments 
(Otterbein 1996 [DIRS 159495]). 
When an evaporative cooling system is operating, windows or ceiling vents need to be open. 
The evaporative cooling causes a very rapid indoor air exchange. As shown in the next section 
the exchange rate may be as high as 20 to 30 h-1. 
The natural tendency is for the air to pull the water off the pad. The maximum air velocity 
without water carryover is approximately 700 FPM. Most engineers design systems for an 
average velocity of 550 FPM or less to allow for variance in air distribution (Cool Edge 2002 
[DIRS 160429]). However, there is general agreement, even among domestic manufacturers, 
that U.S.-made evaporative coolers are not as energy- or water-efficient as they could be (City of 
Phoenix 2003 [DIRS 159496]). These products are targeted heavily to middle-, lower-middle-, 
and low-income households, and appear to be designed against a one- to two-year capital 
payback, rather than optimum operational efficiency. Inefficiencies in less expensive units 
include: 
 
Underpowered, inexpensive aluminum-wound fan motors rather than more 
energy-efficient, larger copper-wound motors; 

 
Recirculating pumps that run faster and hotter than necessary to compensate for a lack of 
volume capacity; 
 
Fans that run up to 20 percent over design capacity to move larger volumes of air at 
increased velocity to make up in wind movement what is lost in evaporative efficiency 
(City of Phoenix 2003 [DIRS 159496]). 
The water carry-over can also be caused by damaged, used, or poor quality pads. The most 
common pads are made of shredded aspen wood fibers packed in a plastic net; they are 1 to 2 in. 
thick; the least expensive pads are usually the thinnest. Fiber pads must operate at low air 
velocities to prevent water from being pulled off the pad by the air stream. Therefore, they 
should be used on coolers that have air inlets on many sides (Otterbein 1996 [DIRS 159495]). 
As the water causes the fibers to shrink into the center of the pad leaving gaps or thin spots at the 
corners, extra air then rushes to the thin spots causing a loss of performance and, in extreme 
cases, water carryover. The airflow can also pull small particles of previously deposited 
minerals off the pads and thus add contamination to the air stream. 
6.5.2 Evaluation of Exposure from Evaporative Cooler Operation 
Although evaporated water is unlikely to carry waterborne radionuclides, water droplets with 
their radionuclide content intact or even enhanced can play a role in contributing to human 
exposure. Most minerals dissolved in water used in an evaporative cooler precipitate out on the 
pads or in the sump. However, a fraction of the dissolved minerals, including potential 
contaminants, may be transferred into the air stream as aerosols and carried into the house. 
Water droplets suspended in the air stream will not have the same activity concentration of 
radionuclides as the water that is used to operate the evaporative cooler. The reason is that the 
water carried into the house will come in contact with the scale on the pads and may become 
saturated with minerals. Therefore, although the fraction of water carryover may be small, it is 
possible that the concentration of contaminants in the water may be considerable. 
In an evaporative cooler without the bleed-off system, the unit recirculates the water used for 
wetting the pads. In such a unit, the concentration of dissolved minerals reaches saturation. 
Ideally, all dissolved minerals should remain on the pads and in the sump. However, it is 
possible that water and contaminant carryover occurs. 
Radionuclide concentrations in the air, resulting from evaporative cooler operation, are estimated 
in the biosphere model based on the operating characteristics of an average evaporative cooler. 
Radionuclide concentrations in air (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.2.2) are calculated as 
Ca
i e = fevap 
M water Cwi (Eq. 6-19) 
,
F
air 
where 
Cae,i = activity concentration of radionuclide i in the air resulting from operating 
evaporative coolers (Bq/m3) 
fevap = fraction of radionuclides in water transferred to indoor air (dimensionless) 
Mwater = water evaporation rate (water use) for evaporative coolers (m3/hr) 

Fair = airflow rate for evaporative coolers (m3/hr) 
Cwi = activity concentration of radionuclide i in the groundwater (Bq/m3). 
In this analysis, the values of the fevap, Mwater, and Fair are developed. All of these parameters 
(e.g., fraction of contamination transferred to the air, evaporation rate, and airflow rate) depend 
on the operating specifications of evaporative air conditioning units. 
Accounting for nearly 90 percent of all homes in the Amargosa Valley, the majority are 
manufactured homes. The Bureau of the Census (2002 [DIRS 159728], Table H30) identified 
total Amargosa Valley housing by structure type. Total housing is 536, of which 456 
(85 percent) are manufactured homes. The Bureau of the Census (2002 [DIRS 159728], 
Table H31) also provides information on vacant housing by structure. Vacant housing is equal 
to 114, of which 81 are manufactured homes. Based on this information, there are 422 occupied 
homes in Amargosa Valley, of which 375 (88.9 percent) are manufactured homes. The 
remainder are single-family houses. The 2000 Census data indicates that 91.3 percent of the 
total Amargosa Valley population (1043 of 1142 people) lived in manufactured homes (Bureau 
of the Census 2002 [DIRS 159728], Table H33). Therefore, manufactured homes can be used to 
represent a typical residential structure in Amargosa Valley. 
Most manufactured homes are single- or double-wide. Single-wide homes are 12 to 18 feet wide 
and 30 to 80 feet long; double-wide houses are 24 to 28 feet wide and 40 to 80 feet long. 
According to the report prepared by the NAHB Research Center for the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, the average square footage is 1,056 ft2 for the single-wide 
(single-section) homes and 1,629 ft2 for double-wide (double-section) homes and 1,955 ft2 for 
multi-section homes (NAHB Research Center 1998 [DIRS 160428], p. 35). The single-wide 
houses constitute 46.2 percent and the double-wide home 51.2 percent of the manufactured 
homes, with the remainder (2.6 percent) being multi-section structures. Considering the size of 
homes and the corresponding share of the total housing pool, the average size of the 
manufactured home is 1,327 ft2. The average size of a conventional single-family home is 
2,048 ft2 (NAHB Research Center 1998 [DIRS 160428], p. 35). 
The interior wall height (ceiling height) of the manufactured homes can be calculated from the 
data obtained from the NAHB report (NAHB Research Center 1998 [DIRS 160428], p. 38), 
which are summarized in Table 6-67. 
Table 6-67. Wall Height in Manufactured Homes 
Wall Height Percent of Total 
7 feet or less (assume 7 feet)48.2 
7 feet 37.4 
8 feet 5.1 
8 feet 1.5 
9 feet 7.7 
Source: NAHB Research Center 1998 [DIRS 160428], p. 38. 

Using the data in Table 6-67, the average wall height for the manufactured homes can be 
calculated as 7.4 feet. The volume of the average manufactured home is then about 9,800 ft3. 
The sizing of an evaporative cooler for such house can be based on the required airflow, which is 
typically 3 to 4 cubic feet per minute (CFM) per ft2 in hot desert climates (ToolBase 
Services 2002 [DIRS 159507]). Using the numbers rounded off to two significant digits, a 3,900 
to 5,200 CFM evaporative cooler should be adequate for a 1,300-ft2 home. Another method of 
determining the size of an evaporative cooler is based on the cubic footage of the homes. The 
cubic footage is divided by two and the cooler with an airflow rate value in CFM closest to the 
result should be adequate (Karpiscak and Marion 1994 [DIRS 159501], p. 3). In this case, the 
airflow adequate for a 9,800-ft3 home is 4,900 CFM. The airflow depends on the individual 
model of the evaporative cooler. Sizes vary with fan power and can range from a few hundred to 
several thousand CFM for the residential units. The smallest units may be portables, which are 
operated indoors with outputs ranging from a few hundred CFM up to about 2,000 CFM (Watt 
and Brown 1997 [DIRS 159497], pp. 131, 132, and 135). Window-mounted evaporative coolers 
may provide an airflow rate of between about 1,000 and 2,000 CFM (Watt and Brown 1997 
[DIRS 159497], p. 121). The bigger units are mounted outdoors, either on the roof or at ground 
level. The output of such units for the residential houses ranges from about 1,000 CFM to over 
6,000 CFM (Watt and Brown 1997 [DIRS 159497], Chapters VII and VIII), depending on the 
model and fan speed. The industry standard rating, in terms of CFM for inlet airflow rate, does 
not give the actual airflow rate because the actual airflow rate depends on the static pressure 
(duct pressure loss). 
It is recommended that the evaporative cooler flow rate, Fair, for the biosphere model be 
represented by a piece-wise linear distribution with a 0-percent value of 1,000 CFM 
(1,700 m3/h), a 50-percent value of 4,900 CFM (8,300 m3/h), and a 100-percent value of 
6,000 CFM (10,200 m3/h). The airflow rate may decrease with time because of the increased 
resistance as more scale builds up on the pads. No correction for this effect is made in the 
biosphere model. 
The water use of an evaporative cooler, Mwater, depends on the airflow rate and the air humidity. 
In the study performed by Karpiscak et al. (1998 [DIRS 160563]) household water use was 
tracked for houses equipped with evaporative coolers. The data obtained in the study are 
presented and summarized in Table 6-68. The average daily water use by evaporative coolers for 
the two summers of the study, 1993 and 1994, was about 27 L/hr run time. This value varied 
considerably, depending on whether the cooler was equipped to bleed-off water or evaporate all 
the water that came into the pan. Coolers without a bleed-off system used an average of about 
15.5 L/hr of run time, while coolers with bleed-off systems used an average of over 34.3 L/hr of 
run time (Karpiscak et al. 1998 [DIRS 160563]). Households were selected for the study on the 
basis of home size and cooler size (4,500 CFM to 6,500 CFM). The airflow rates for the coolers 
that were used in Karpiscaks study were somewhat higher than the range of the airflow rates 
recommended for the biosphere model. However, it is believed that the results of this study are 
appropriate for development of the airflow rate values for the biosphere model. 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-112 September 2004 
Table 6-68. Evaporative Cooler Water Use 
House No. 
System Configuration a Water Use Bleed-off 
Operating 
Hours 
Water Use 
Rate, L/hr b 
Water 
Evaporation 
Rate, L/hr cBS NBS AC NAC gallons liters gallons liters 
46 x x 4483 16970 no data no data 1661.8 10.21 
42 x x 15325 58011 no data no data 2070 28.02 
43 x x 16471 62349 no data no data 1922.4 32.43 
46 x x 2645 10012 no data no data 532.8 18.79 
38 x x 9730 36832 no data no data 1160.3 31.74 
42 x x 12806 48476 no data no data 984.5 49.24 
31 x x 6429 24336 1715 6492 1045.5 23.28 17.07 
22 x x 7103 26888 1755 6643 1605.5 16.75 12.61 
34 x x 9313 35253 3068 11614 1201.8 29.33 19.67 
47 x x 10309 39024 2471 9354 1222.4 31.92 24.27 
9 x x 11636 44047 6931 26237 1815.8 24.26 9.81 
15 x x 11817 44732 4880 18473 3310.8 13.51 7.93 
25 x x 11834 44796 3256 12325 2364.4 18.95 13.73 
18 x x 13658 51701 4155 15728 1898.6 27.23 18.95 
21 x x 14192 53722 5854 22160 1414.5 37.98 22.31 
16 x x 15290 57879 4279 16198 1370 42.25 30.42 
32 x x 16105 60964 10375 39274 1141.6 53.40 19.00 
17 x x 21463 81246 6005 22731 1467.8 55.35 39.87 
25 x x 7675 29053 2475 9369 1088.3 26.70 18.09 
16 x x 8652 32751 1864 7056 895.6 36.57 28.69 
18 x x 8774 33213 2739 10368 1181.5 28.11 19.34 
32 x x 11823 44755 7356 27845 1081.4 41.39 15.64 
24 x x 11801 44672 4182 15831 1439.6 31.03 20.03 
2 x x 12890 48794 1291 4887 1932.8 25.25 22.72 
8 x x 18734 70916 5337 20203 2649.2 26.77 19.14 
3 x x 23141 87598 7687 29098 3211 27.28 18.22 
6 x x 24588 93075 7749 29333 3493.5 26.64 18.25 
19 x x 30960 117196 21812 82567 1746.5 67.10 19.83 
30 x x 36188 136986 7773 29424 3478.8 39.38 30.92 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-113 September 2004 
Table 6-68. Evaporative Cooler Water Use (Continued) 
House No. 
System Configuration a Water Use Bleed-off 
Operating 
Hours 
Water Use 
Rate, L/hr b 
Water 
Evaporation 
Rate, L/hr cBS NBS AC NAC gallons liters gallons liters 
35 x x 37782 143020 20979 79414 2825.5 50.62 22.51 
28 x x 46346 175438 21336 80765 2431.5 72.15 38.94 
24 x x 11753 44490 1782 6746 1720.5 25.86 21.94 
19 x x 16245 61494 3587 13578 2115.3 29.07 22.65 
8 x x 19575 74099 7434 28141 3804 19.48 12.08 
37 x x 25472 96422 14687 55596 3418.2 28.21 11.94 
28 x x 42184 159683 20528 77707 1838.3 86.86 44.59 
14 x x 2032 7692   701 10.97 10.97 
41 x x 4061 15373   991.2 15.51 15.51 
29 x x 4593 17386   2040 8.52 8.52 
39 x x 5529 20929   1001.6 20.90 20.90 
33 x x 6056 22924   1716.8 13.35 13.35 
44 x x 6386 24174   658.4 36.72 36.72 
40 x x 6739 25510   1891.6 13.49 13.49 
26 x x 7174 27156   2657.3 10.22 10.22 
1 x x 7334 27762   1066.9 26.02 26.02 
23 x x 7502 28398   1871.2 15.18 15.18 
36 x x 7758 29367   2314.6 12.69 12.69 
11 x x 7843 29689   1492.1 19.90 19.90 
13 x x 9909 37510   1700.4 22.06 22.06 
27 x x 10098 38225   4580.6 8.34 8.34 
38 x x 11616 43971   1780.2 24.70 24.70 
29 x x 1798 6806   1877.9 3.62 3.62 
11 x x 5029 19037   1031.3 18.46 18.46 
26 x x 5730 21690   3477.1 6.24 6.24 
33 x x 8807 33338   2081.7 16.01 16.01 
27 x x 11771 44558   3567.9 12.49 12.49 
13 x x 19365 73304   3437 21.33 21.33 
37 x x 4336 16413   3912.8 4.19 4.19 
4 x x 15110 57197   3778.4 15.14 15.14 
5 x x 18684 70726   3952.6 17.89 17.89 

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-114 September 2004 
Table 6-68. Evaporative Cooler Water Use (Continued) 
House No. 
System Configuration a Water Use Bleed-off 
Operating 
Hours 
Water Use 
Rate, L/hr b 
Water 
Evaporation 
Rate, L/hr cBS NBS AC NAC gallons liters gallons liters 
4 x x 17243 65272   4560.4 14.31 14.31 
Average water use rate, all systems 26.6 
Average water use rate, BS 34.3 
Average water evaporation rate, BS 21.4 
Average water evaporation rate, NBS 15.5 
Average water evaporation rate, all systems (BS + NBS) 18.7 
Source: Karpiscak et al. 1998 [DIRS 160563], p. 122. 
NOTES: The table includes measurements from 1993 and 1994. 
a 
NBS = no bleed-off system 
BS = bleed-off system 
AC = air conditioner 
NAC = no air conditioner 
b 
Total water use rate for evaporative coolers equipped with bleed-off system calculated as a ratio of the cooler water use to number of operating hours. 
Water evaporation rate calculated for the units with and without bleed-off system. For coolers without bleed-off system it is a ratio of cooler water use to number 
of operating hours; for coolers with bleed-off system it is equal to cooler water use minus bleed-off divided by operating hours. For coolers without bleed-off, 
water use rate is the same as water evaporation rate. 

Figure 6-1 shows a histogram of the water evaporation rate for all coolers for which sufficient 
data were collected. Water evaporation rate per hour of run time for coolers without bleed-off 
systems is equal to the water use divided by the number of operating hours. This is because in 
such units, practically all in-flow water evaporates. To calculate water evaporation rates for 
units with bleed-off systems, the amount of bleed-off water needs to be subtracted from the water 
used, and then the product divided by the number of operating hours. 
Number of Coolers 
20
18
16
14
12
10
8 
6
4
2
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40More 
Water Evaporation Rate, L/hr 
Figure 6-1. Distribution of Measured Water Evaporation Rate for Evaporative Coolers 
The distribution of the water evaporation rate for the coolers is approximately lognormal. The 
GM for the data shown in Table 6-68 is 16.8 L/hr and the GSD is 1.7. Using the values rounded 
off to two significant digits, it is recommended that the evaporation rate for the evaporative 
coolers be represented by a lognormal distribution with a GM of 17 L/hr and a GSD of 1.7. 
There is a positive correlation between the airflow rate and the water use rate because increased 
airflow causes increased evaporation and thus increases water use (Karpiscak and Marion 1994 
[DIRS 159501], p. 4). All things being equal, a cooler with a lower airflow rate will use less 
water than a cooler with a higher airflow rate. Research has shown that some units evaporate 
water more efficiently, and thus produce more cooling per unit of water use (Karpiscak and 
Marion 1994 [DIRS 159501], p. 3). The correlation coefficient for the airflow rate and the water 
use rate is less than unity because of the cooler geometry, air humidity, and cooler operating 
parameters. Sometimes coolers work under less-than-optimum performance. If air velocity is 
too low, damp air films may isolate the dry air from the wet surfaces, reducing evaporation. If 
the velocity is too high, there may be insufficient airwater contact time and localized drying of 
the evaporative cooler pads (Watt and Brown 1997 [DIRS 159497], p. 103). 
Introducing a positive correlation between the airflow rate and the water use rate will influence 
the variance in the value of radionuclide concentration in air calculated using Equation 6-19. 
Because the radionuclide concentration in air is calculated using the ratio of the water 
evaporation rate and the airflow rate, the variance is at its maximum when the correlation is zero 
and falls as the correlation increases to unity. This can be seen intuitively, as in the case of fully 
correlated variables. When the large value of one variable is selected, a large value of the other 
variable is also selected; and when the low value of one variable is selected, a low value of the 
other variable is also selected; so the ratio is not subject to large variations. When there is no 

correlation, all variables are sampled at random, thereby increasing the variance. The data on the 
value of correlation coefficient are lacking, but it can be reasonably estimated, based on the 
available information and the understanding of the processes involved, that the value of the 
correlation coefficient between the airflow rate and the water use rate is about 0.8. This value is 
recommended for the biosphere model. 
The evaporative cooler water transfer fraction, the fraction of radionuclide concentration in water 
that is transferred into the air, is the most uncertain parameter of the evaporative cooler 
submodel. This parameter can range between 0 and 1. No equivalent model was found in the 
literature. Although considerable scaling (accumulation of solids) occurs during operation of an 
evaporative cooler, the degree of radionuclide transfer into the air is unknown. Considering the 
lack of information on this parameter, it was assumed that the probability distribution function 
for the fraction of contaminant carried over to the outlet air is uniform, ranging from 0 to 1 
(Assumption 4). (The uniform distribution of all possible parameter values allows evaluation of 
the biosphere model sensitivity to this parameter to determine whether any additional work is 
warranted to develop a more realistic distribution of the parameter values.) This distribution 
should be used for dissolved solids; it is recommended that for gases, the transferred fraction be 
equal to 1. The same value is recommended for the future climate. 
6.6 EXHALATION OF RADON FROM SOIL 
Radon is a radioactive gas formed by decay of radium. When radium isotopes decay in the soil, 
a fraction of the radon produced is able to escape from soil to the atmosphere. Once radon is 
released from the soil, it decays through a series of short-lived decay products that interact with 
atmospheric gases and aerosols to form radioactive aerosol particles. Although radon isotopes 
are gases, their decay products are metals and commonly exist either as small molecular clusters 
containing the oxidized metal atom or as larger aerosol particles formed by decay products 
attaching to initially nonradioactive aerosol particles. 
Inhalation of radon decay products is, in many cases, the dominant internal dose contributor 
when radium isotopes are present in the soil (Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. C-15). The most 
common radon isotope, and usually the most important dose contributor, is 222Rn. It is produced 
by decay of 226Ra. 
6.6.1 Radon Concentration in Outdoor Air 
Concentration of radon in the outdoor air depends on the radon fluxes from soil and on the 
processes that disperse radon in the atmosphere. Radon exhalation from soil depends in turn on 
radon emanation from the mineral grains and subsequent transport through pore spaces. Radon 
generation and transport in soil is a complex process involving solid, liquid, and gas phases in 
the processes of emanation (release from the solid matrix), diffusion, advection, absorption in the 
liquid phase, and adsorption in the solid phase (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], p. 97). 222Rn 
exhalation from soil, represented usually by radon flux density, is proportional to the activity 
concentration of 226Ra in soil. However, the activity concentration of 222Rn in outdoor air 
depends not only on the magnitude of exhalation but also on atmospheric mixing processes. 

The relationship between 222Rn in air and 226Ra used in the biosphere model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.2.3) to estimate the concentration of radon in outdoor air is 
, ,, 
Ca
Rn g -, 222 n=2 &1 = fRn m -222 CsRa m -226 (Eq. 6-20) 
where 
Cag,Rn-222,n=1&2 = activity concentration of 222Rn in outdoor air (Bq/m3) 
n = index of the environments (see below) 
fm, Rn-222 = concentration ratio of 222Rn activity in the air to 226Ra activity in soil 
(radon release factor) (kg/m3) 
Csm,Ra-226 = activity concentration of 226Ra in surface soil (Bq/kg). 
Five environments associated with different human activities are considered in the ERMYN 
model, four in the contaminated area: active outdoors (n = 1), inactive outdoors (n = 2), active 
indoors (n = 3), asleep indoors (n = 4), and one outside of the contaminated area (n = 5). 
This formula uses a simple relationship between the activity concentration of 226Ra in soil and 
the 222Rn activity concentration in air in the breathing zone of a person, and it is recommended 
for the screening models (NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894], pp. 87 to 88). Such relationships were 
developed based on the average global levels of 222Rn in the environment. The average activity 
concentration of 226Ra in soil in the United States is 40 Bq/kg (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], 
p. 115; NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894], pp. 87 to 88) and the average global activity concentration 
of 222Rn in the air is 10 Bq/m3 (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], p. 103; NCRP 1999 
[DIRS 155894], pp. 87 to 88). Based on these values, the conversion factor is equal to 
0.25 (Bq/m3)/(Bq/kg). The information in the reviewed literature is insufficient to determine the 
uncertainty distribution for this value. A similar approach using a fixed value is also 
recommended for the screening dose calculations (NCRP 1999 [DIRS 155894], pp. 87 to 88), 
which are, by design, conservative. Therefore, it is recommended that the fixed value of the 
radon release factor be used. It is also recommended that the same value of the radon release 
factor be used for the groundwater exposure scenario for the present day and the future climate. 
The conversion factor for radon is based on the global values for 226Ra in soil and 222Rn in air 
concentrations. Therefore, the applicability of such values to the specific conditions of 
Amargosa Valley needs to be discussed. Grain size and shape are two important factors that 
control the emanation of radon from soil into pore space. Generally, the radon emanation factor 
is inversely proportional to grain size because of radionuclide sorption or coprecipitation with 
metal oxides or organic compounds on particle surfaces (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], 
p. 97). Radon emanation factor is defined as the fraction of radon atoms released into rock or 
soil pore space from radium-bearing grain (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], p. 97). 
Considering the texture of the Amargosa Valley soils, which contain a very high fraction of sand, 
the emanation fraction of naturally occurring radon should be less than average. However, in the 
case of irrigation with contaminated groundwater, radium will become adsorbed onto the 
surfaces of the grains. The presence of radium in increased concentration in surface coatings of 
the grains increases the emanation fraction (fraction of radon that escapes from the solid matrix) 
relative to that in which radium is uniformly distributed throughout the grain. However, even for 

naturally occurring radionuclides in soils, there is evidence of activity concentration being 
preferentially distributed on smaller grains. This could be evidence of increased activity 
concentration of natural radionuclides in surface coatings relative to their average concentration 
in the soil. 
If the 222Rn flux density is known, rather than the activity concentration in soil, a relationship 
analogous to that represented by Equation 6-20 can be developed based on the ratio of the 222Rn 
concentration in air and the average global levels of 222Rn flux density from soil, CFRn-222 as 
Ca
g , Rn-222 =CFRn-222 Joutdoor (Eq. 6-21) 
where 
Cag,Rn-222 = 222Rn activity concentration in the air (Bq/m3) 
CFRn-222 = ratio of 222Rn concentration in outdoor air to 222Rn flux density from soil 
(s/m) 
Joutdoor = radon flux density from contaminated soil [Bq/(m2 s)]. 
The global average flux density is estimated to be about 16 mBq/m2/s (UNSCEAR 2000 
[DIRS 158644], p. 99). For dry soil, calculations of radon flux density produce a higher value of 
33 mBq/m2/s (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], p. 99), which also agrees with measured values. 
Modeling of global radon fluxes also yields the higher value of 34  9 mBq/m2/s (Schery and 
Wasiolek 1998 [DIRS 160686], p. 207). Because the average activity concentration of 226Ra in 
air is 10 Bq/m3 (as noted in the previous paragraph) the value of CFRn-222 can be calculated to be 
about 300 s/m for the flux density equal to 33 to 34 mBq/m2/s. Accordingly, the best estimate of 
the ratio of 222Rn concentration in outdoor air to 222Rn flux density from soil is 300 s/m. This 
value agrees with the approach presented in the RESRAD code manual (Yu et al. 2001 
[DIRS 159465], p. C-9), where 500 s/m is given as the upper limit for very large areas of 
contamination. The value used in RESRAD model is also based on radon levels in the natural 
environment, but it is likely that it was developed using the lower (older) levels of radon flux 
density from soil. Because the information in the reviewed literature is insufficient to determine 
the uncertainty distribution for the value of this conversion factor, it is recommended that the 
fixed value of 300 s/m be used. This value should also be used for the groundwater exposure 
scenario for the present day and future climates. 
As noted before, radon exhalation from soil depends on the radon release from the mineral 
grains, which is quantified by the emanation factor, and the subsequent transport through the 
pore spaces. For the volcanic ash exposure scenario, the 222Rn flux density for a surface source 
of unit surface activity concentration (1 Bq/m2) can be estimated by assuming that only the 
emanation process limits radon release from soil. Because of the source geometry (thin layer), it 
is assumed that there are no losses due to radon transport through the pore spaces. The value of 
the emanation factor varies from 0.05 to 0.7 for rocks and soils (UNSCEAR 2000 
[DIRS 158644], p. 97). The contaminated tephra released from a volcano is highly porous and 
may have microscopic fractures and fissures because of the high temperature at which it was 
formed and released. Such fractures may significantly enhance emanation of radon from the 
grains, especially if the tephra is dry. Because it is not possible to evaluate the magnitude of this 
effect, it is recommended that the emanation factor for the volcanic scenario be equal to 1. 

6.6.2 Radon Concentration in Indoor Air 
Radon produced in soil can enter the indoor air through the air exchange with the outside air, and 
also through cracks in floors and walls, construction joints, gaps in suspended floors, gaps 
around service pipes, cavities inside walls, and through the domestic water supply. Where a 
house is present, soil air containing radon often flows toward its foundation because of 
differences in air pressure between the soil and the house, the presence of openings in the house 
foundations, and increased permeability around the basement. There is evidence that a large part 
of indoor radon comes from the soil below and around buildings (Wilkening 1985 
[DIRS 160427], p. 219). The mechanisms of radon entry directly from the soil include diffusion 
and advection. The diffusion is driven by the concentration gradient of radon in soil gas and in 
indoor air. The advection is caused by the pressure differential between the building shell and 
the ground around the foundation (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], pp. 99 and 102). For a 
reference masonry house, diffusive and advective radon entry each contribute about 40 percent, 
and the outdoor air contributes about 20 percent of indoor radon, however, the actual 
contributions vary depending on the house. For example, considering the high percentage of 
manufactured homes in Amargosa Valley, one may expect that, on average, the contribution 
from the advective flow of radon into the building will be less than for a typical house because of 
the lack of direct contact between the building and the soil. 
The indoor radon concentration is represented in the biosphere model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.2.3) as the sum of the indoor and outdoor components, such that 
J 
indoor
= 
, 
Ca
g , Rn-, 222 n=4 &3 H v 
+ CaRn g -, 222 n=2 &1 (Eq. 6-22) 
where 
Cag,Rn-222,n=3&4 = activity concentration of 222Rn in indoor air (n = 3 and 4 for active 
indoor and asleep indoor (Bq/m3) 
Jindoor = radon flux density from the house floor (Bq/(m2 s)) 
H = interior wall height of the house (meters) 
v = house ventilation rate, or air exchange rate (/s). This parameter has two 
values, a normal rate (vn) and a higher rate used when evaporative 
coolers are in operation (ve) 
Cag Rn-222,n=1&2 = 222Rn activity concentration in outdoor air (n = 1 and 2) (Bq/m3). 
The house ventilation rate, v, has two values: a normal rate, vn, and a higher rate used when 
evaporative coolers are in operation, ve. These two values are developed further in this section. 
The radon flux density from the floor of the house can be expressed as a proportion of the total 
radon flux density from contaminated outdoor soil, when soil beneath the house is also 
considered contaminated (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.2.3), as 
J
indoor =fhouse  J outdoor (Eq. 6-23) 

where 
Joutdoor = radon flux density from outdoor contaminated soil (Bq/(m2 s)) 
fhouse = fraction of radon released into a house from soil beneath the house 
(dimensionless). 
Indoor radon concentration is calculated in the biosphere model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], 
Section 6.4.2.3) as 
2 &1 
...
= 
...
1
f 
house J outdoor
Ca 
Ca
+
= 
g
, 
Rn
-
, 222 
n
=
4 &3 
Rn 
, 222 
n
-
g 
H v Ca
, 
.
.
,
Rn g 
, 222 
= 
...
. 
2 &1 
1 
-
n 
(Eq. 6-24) 
...
f 
house
Ca
+
= 
Rn 
, 222 2 &1 
=
-
g n 
CFRn
-
222 
H v 
,
.
where 
CFRn-222 = ratio of radon concentration in outdoor air to radon flux density from soil 
(s/m). 
This analysis develops the values of the fraction of radon that is exhaled from the bare soil that 
enters into the building, fhouse, the house ventilation rate, . , and the interior wall height of the 
house, H. CFRn-222 was developed in Section 6.6.1. 
The average interior wall height was developed in Section 6.5.2 and its value is 7.4 feet (2.3 m). 
The minimum ceiling height for the habitable rooms and bathrooms is taken at 7 feet (2.1 m). 
This value represents the minimum ceiling height for a minimum of 50 percent of the rooms 
floor area with the remaining area having a ceiling with a minimum height of 5 feet 
(24 CFR 3280.104 [DIRS 160555]). As the maximum height according to the NAHB data 
(NAHB Research Center 1998 [DIRS 160428], p. 38) did not exceed 9 feet (2.7 m), it is 
recommended that the ceiling height be represented by the piece wise cumulative distribution 
with the following properties: (2.1 m, 0 percent), (2.3 m, 50 percent), (2.7 m, 100 percent). 
According to the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (24 CFR 3280 
[DIRS 160555]), the whole house ventilation rate for the manufactured homes should be at 
minimum 0.35 air exchanges per hour (24 CFR 3280.103(b) [DIRS 160555]). However, the 
Home Ventilating Institute recommends that standard room ventilation rate is 6 exchanges per 
hour and ventilation rate for kitchens is 15 exchanges per hour (HVI 2001 [DIRS 160557], 
p. 24). The nationwide survey of approximately 3,000 households for air exchange rates 
provided the best available experimental data for residential structures in the United States 
(Murray and Burmaster 1995 [DIRS 160554], p. 459). The data were grouped into four 
geographic regions based on heating degree-day isopleths and four seasons. The data for the 
region encompassing Arizona, Southern California, Texas, and Florida are shown in Table 6-69. 

Table 6-69. Empirical Distributions for Air Exchange Rate in U.S. Residences in the Warm Region 
Season Sample size 
Air Exchange Rate, 1/h 
Mean Standard deviation Maximum 
Winter 454 0.63 0.52 4.76 
Spring 589 0.77 0.62 6.57 
Summer 488 1.57 1.56 11.77 
Fall 18 0.72 1.43 6.42 
All 1549 0.98 1.09 11.77 
Source: Murray and Burmaster 1995 [DIRS 160554], pp. 459 and 462 to 463. 
The experimental data on air exchange rates are fitted best with lognormal distributions (Murray 
and Burmaster 1995 [DIRS 160554], pp. 463 to 464). It is recommended that the same 
distribution be used for the biosphere model. This distribution is characteristic of the annual 
average conditions. The arithmetic mean is equal to 1.0 air exchanges per hour, and the 
arithmetic standard deviation is 1.1 air exchanges per hour. The distribution should be truncated 
at 0.35 air exchanges per hour, which represents the minimum ventilation rate for manufactured 
homes. To preserve the arithmetic mean, the upper truncation value should be set at 2.9 air 
exchanges per hour. This value was calculated using the log-transformed values of the 
arithmetic mean and the lower truncation value. The mean should be equidistant from both 
ln( AM )-ln( LT ) 
1ln( )-35.0 ln( )
truncation values (e.g., the upper truncation is e 
= e 
= 9.2 , where AM is the 
arithmetic mean and LT is the lower truncation value). This ventilation rate represents the 
average conditions and applies to the fraction of time when evaporative coolers are not used. 
For houses with evaporative coolers, the ventilation rate of 1.0/hr significantly underestimates 
the actual air exchange rates. Assuming the average volume of the house of 9800 ft3 and the 
average flow rate for an evaporative cooler of 4,900 CFM (Section 6.5.2), the ventilation rate 
while the unit is in operation is about 30 air exchanges per hour. The average air exchange rate 
is lower because it includes the time the unit is off. The regional survey data collected in 
Amargosa Valley (DOE 1997 [DIRS 100332]) include the information on the number of months 
the respondents used evaporative coolers. As there is no specific information available on the 
duty cycle (time on divided by time on plus time off) of the evaporative coolers used in 
Amargosa Valley. It is therefore recommended that the annual average ventilation rate for the 
fraction of a year in which the evaporative coolers are used be represented by the uniform 
distribution, with a minimum value of 1 air exchange per hour (this corresponds to the mean 
value of the exchange rate developed in the preceding paragraph) and a maximum value of 30 air 
exchanges per hour. 
The fraction of radon released into the house from soil, fhouse, can be evaluated based on the 
predictions of the radon diffusion into a house through cracks in the concrete slab 
(UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], pp. 99 to 102; United Nations 1988 [DIRS 159566], 
pp. 64 to 70). For typical conditions, the fraction of radon exhaled from soil that diffuses 
through an uncracked slab of concrete of 0.2-m thickness into the house, is less than 10 percent. 
This value was calculated based on the radon flux density from the concrete slab of 
1.2  10-3 Bq/m2/s (United Nations 1988 [DIRS 159566], p. 65) and the radon flux density from 
uncovered soil of 1.7  10-2 Bq/m2/s (United Nations 1988 [DIRS 159566], p. 63). The presence 

of cracks in the slab may considerably increase the transmission of the diffusive flux from the 
soil. The predicted fraction of diffusive flux from soil that transports through a slab, if a gap of 
1 cm existed for every meter of slab, is about 25 percent (United Nations 1988 [DIRS 159566], 
p. 65; Landman 1982 [DIRS 160425], p. 71). This quantity may increase if there is a pressure 
difference across the concrete slab, which causes the advective flow of radon into the house. 
Most of the dwellings in Amargosa Valley are of the manufactured house type (nearly 90 percent 
[see Section 6.5.2]) and have a gap between the house and the ground. The gap decreases the 
direct entry of radon into the house by reducing the radon concentration gradient between the 
outdoor and indoor air. It is unlikely, therefore, that the fraction of radon diffusing into such a 
house is greater than 0.25. Predicated upon this information, it is believed that the fraction of the 
outdoor radon flux density from soil entering the house be represented by a uniform distribution 
with a minimum of 0.1 and the maximum of 0.25. This adequately represents the infiltration of 
radon into these houses in Amargosa Valley. 
Also of importance is that 73 percent of the houses in Amargosa Valley use evaporative cooling 
as the means of air conditioning (DOE 1997 [DIRS 100332], p. 22). When the evaporative 
cooling unit is in operation, the air is blown into the house at a rate of about 30 air exchanges per 
hour. The increased indoor air pressure will further reduce the seepage of the soil gas into the 
house and one could assume that virtually all radon entering the home originates from the 
outdoor air rather than from the soil gas. 
6.6.3 Equilibrium Factors 
To calculate the dose from short-lived decay products of radon, the degree of equilibrium 
between the parent radionuclide and its short-lived decay products must be considered. The 
equilibrium factor, EFRn-222, is a quantity that permits exposure to be estimated in terms of the 
potential alpha energy concentration (PAEC) or the equilibrium equivalent radon concentration 
(EEC), Caeq,Rn-222, from the measurements of radon gas concentration. The equilibrium factor is 
defined as the ratio of the actual PAEC in air to the PAEC that would prevail if all decay 
products in the series were in equilibrium with the parent radon. The alternative definition is the 
ratio of the EEC to the actual radon concentration in air (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], 
p. 103). The EEC can be calculated as 
,, 
Ca
Rn eq -222 = EFRn-222 Ca Rn g -222 (Eq. 6-25) 
where 
Caeq,Rn-222 = EEC for 222Rn in air (Bq/m3) 
EFRn-222 = equilibrium factor (dimensionless) 
Cag,Rn-222 = 222Rn activity concentration in air (Bq/m3). 
EEC can then be converted to PAEC in working levels (WL) (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], 
p. 103) using the following conversion: 
1 Bq/m3 of EEC of 222Rn is equivalent to 0.27 mWL of PAEC. 

Extensive measurements of the equilibrium factor indicate that typical outdoor 222Rn equilibrium 
factors are between 0.5 and 0.7 (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], p. 103). The values of the 
equilibrium factors for outdoor radon obtained in individual measurements range from 0.2 to 1.0, 
which indicates a relatively high degree of uncertainty in the application of a typical value of the 
equilibrium factor to derive PAEC from the measurement of radon gas concentration. 
A summary of the measurements of the outdoor equilibrium factor outdoors in the United States 
and abroad was given in NCRP Report No. 97 (NCRP 1988 [DIRS 153691], p. 24). The 
measured values were in the range of 0.43 to 0.87, and the NCRP recommended using the 
average value of 0.7 (NCRP 1988 [DIRS 153691], p. 24). More recent measurements indicate 
that a value of 0.6 might be more appropriate for outdoor environments (UNSCEAR 2000 
[DIRS 158644], p. 103). Measurements of radon and PAEC at many sites in the southwestern 
and southeastern United States yielded an average value of equilibrium factor of 0.63 (Wasiolek 
and James 1995 [DIRS 163507], Table 2), which is within the range of typical values from 
UNSCEAR (2000 [DIRS 158644]). Table 6-70 shows values for the equilibrium factor from six 
rural sites in New Mexico (Wasiolek and James 1995 [DIRS 163507]). The average of these six 
equilibrium factors is 0.61, which agrees well with the values summarized by UNSCEAR (2000 
[DIRS 158644], p. 103). 
Table 6-70. Average Values of Equilibrium Factor from Measurements at Rural Southwestern Sites 
Equilibrium Factor 
Site (dimensionless) 
Socorro, NM 0.66 
Bernardo, NM 0.66 
Estancia, NM 0.74 
Water Canyon, NM 0.38 
White Sands, NM 0.72 
Logan, NM 0.51 
Average 0.61 
Source: Wasiolek and James 1995 [DIRS 163507], Table 2. 
For the Yucca Mountain region, the average outdoor equilibrium factor may be even lower than 
the average obtained at other southwestern sites because of the high insulation and relatively 
high winds that cause increased deposition (removal) of radon decay products to the earth 
surface by the process of turbulent diffusion (Schery 2001 [DIRS 159478], p. 267). However, 
the range of average equilibrium factor values from 0.5 to 0.7 is appropriate for the biosphere 
model. It is recommended that the average outdoor equilibrium factor be represented by a 
uniform distribution with a minimum of 0.5 and a maximum of 0.7. 
For indoor conditions, recent determinations of the equilibrium factor indoors generally confirm 
a typical value of 0.4 (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], p. 104; United Nations 1988 
[DIRS 159566], p. 75). Indoor measurements range from 0.1 to 0.9, but most are within 
30 percent of 0.4 (UNSCEAR 2000 [DIRS 158644], p. 104), that is, in the range of about 
0.3 
to 0.5. The 1998 report (United Nations 1988 [DIRS 159566], p. 105) includes a summary of 
the equilibrium factor measurements from thousands of dwellings in North America and Europe. 
The average equilibrium factor ranged from 0.3 to 0.8, with the range for individual 
measurements of 0.1 to 0.82. Almost 80 percent of the average values were in the range of 0.3 to 

0.5 
(when rounded to one significant digit) (United Nations 1988 [DIRS 159566], p. 105), which 
agrees with the UNSCEAR (2000 [DIRS 158644]) conclusions. The same range of indoor 
equilibrium factor values is recommended for the biosphere model. It is also recommended that 
a uniform distribution be used for this parameter. Higher average values for the Yucca Mountain 
region are unlikely because of the warm climate, construction of the typical houses in the region 
(manufactured homes), and the use of evaporative coolers in the summer, all of which result in 
higher home ventilation rates. When evaporative coolers are used, most of the radon decay 
products attached to the outdoor aerosols will be removed by deposition on the evaporative 
cooler pads. The high air exchange rate will then effectively prevent buildup of the decay 
products in the indoor air. 
Equilibrium factor values described above apply for the present day and the future climate and 
for both exposure scenarios. 
6.7 CARBON-14 TRANSPORT IN THE ENVIRONMENT 
Carbon is highly mobile and readily disperses throughout the environment; therefore, the 
modeling of its environmental transport and subsequent doses requires a special model. The 
biosphere model includes such a submodel for the treatment of the 14C introduced into the 
biosphere. 14C is initially introduced into the soil through the use of contaminated irrigation 
water. (14C has not been identified as a radionuclide of interest for the extrusive igneous release 
of radionuclides, consequences of which in the biosphere are modeled using the volcanic ash 
exposure scenario.) Subsequently, a fraction of 14C is released to the atmosphere by the process 
of emission of gaseous carbon compounds. Once released into the atmosphere, 14CO2 is 
incorporated into crops via photosynthesis, leading to enhanced levels of 14C in crops. The 
predominant transport pathway is foliar uptake into the leaf via stomata (pores in the leaf 
surface). 14C uptake may also occur via the root system, however, root uptake plays a smaller 
role than foliar uptake (BIOMASS 2001 [DIRS 159468] 2001, T3FM/WD01, p. 48). CO2, and 
thus 14CO2, may be lost from plants due to respiration. The development of the parameter values 
supporting the 14C model is described in this section. 
6.7.1 Carbon-14 in Soil 
Calculation of 14C concentration in soil is based on the assumption of equilibrium conditions 
between the 14C gains and losses in the topsoil. Mathematically, the concentration of 14C in 
surface soil can be expressed as (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.6.1): 
Cs
C -, 14 j = 
CwC -14 IRj (Eq. 6-26) 
,, , 
.
C d -14 +.C l -14 +.e +.C a -14 
where 
CsC-14,,j = activity concentration of 14C in surface soil for the crop type or exposure 
pathway j (Bq/m2) 
j = crop-type or pathway index; j = 1 for leafy vegetables, 2 for other 
vegetables, 3 for fruit, 4 for grain, and 5 for fresh forage; j = 0 for the 
pathways including inhalation, soil ingestion, and external exposure 

CwC-14 = activity concentration of 14C in irrigation water (Bq/m3) 
IR,j = crop irrigation rate; j = 1 to 5 for individual crop types (IRDj) and j = 0 for 
the average annual irrigation rate (m/yr) 
.d,C-14 = radioactive decay constant for 14C (per year) 
.l,C-14 = leaching removal constant for 14C (per year) 
.e = the surface soil erosion removal constant (per year)
.a,C-14 = emission rate constant of 14C from the soil to the air (per year). 
The only parameter supporting Equation 6-26 that is developed in this analysis is the 14C 
emission rate constant, .a,C-14. The emission rate constant is the fraction of a gaseous 
radionuclide inventory in the upper (root zone) portion of the soil that is lost to the atmosphere 
per unit time (usually in one year). The emission rate constant depends to a large extent on the 
chemical form of carbon, that is, whether it is present as bicarbonates, trapped in organic matter, 
or in the form of carbonate species dissolved in soil pore water (Sheppard et al. 1991 
[DIRS 159545], p. 491). The emission rate of carbon from soil does not depend very strongly on 
soil type (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 156). Information on emission rates of carbon 
that is not of organic origin is very limited (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 156). The 
average value for sandy soils obtained from lysimeter experiments on Canadian soils was 
21/yr to 22/yr (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], p. 156; Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-16). 
The values for other soils were lower by a factor of about 2. The default value of the emission 
rate constant adopted for the RESRAD model was 22/yr (Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], 
p. 
L-16). For the BIOTRAC model, a lognormal distribution of emission rate constant for 
carbon with the GM of 8.8/yr and a GSD of 10 was chosen (Davis et al. 1993 [DIRS 103767], 
p. 
156). However, this distribution was assumed, rather than derived from the available data, 
because the only experimental data set used by Davis et al. (1993 [DIRS 103767]), p. 156) to 
support the value of the emission rate constant is the same as the data that were used by Yu et al. 
(2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-16). Therefore, it is believed that the experimental data are 
insufficient to develop a distribution, and the fixed value of 22/yr measured for sandy soil is 
appropriate for use in the biosphere model. This value does not result in underestimation of risk 
to the receptor because the higher carbon emission rate constants from soil lead to higher 
concentrations of 14C in air where this radionuclide is available for uptake by plants via 
photosynthesis (see additional discussion of carbon uptake by crops in Section 6.7.3). 
6.7.2 Carbon-14 in Air 
Inorganic and organic reactions convert most forms of soil carbon to carbon dioxide, CO2 
(Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-15). Due to the volatility of CO2, carbon is lost from the 
soil to the air. The flux density for gaseous 14C release from soil to air can be estimated 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.6.2) as 
EVSN j = CsC -, 14 j .C a -14 (Eq. 6-27) 
, 

where 
EVSNj = average flux density of gaseous 14C from contaminated soil for the crop 
exposure pathway j (Bq/(m2 yr)) 
CsC-14, j = 14C activity concentration in surface soil for crop or exposure pathway j 
(Bq/m2). 
The 14C flux density calculated using Eq. 6-24 applies to irrigated land only. Once released into 
the air, 14C will be diluted by mixing with uncontaminated air. The 14C activity concentration in 
air can be estimated (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.6.2) as 
= 
EVSN j  A 
(Eq. 6-28) 
, 
Ca
C g -, 14 j 16 3 107 H mix U
. 
where 
Cag,C-14,j = activity concentration of 14C in the air for the crop type or exposure 
pathway j (Bq/m3) 
A = surface area of land irrigated with contaminated water (m2) 
Hmix = mixing height of gaseous 14C (CO2) (meters) 
U = annual average wind speed (m/s) 
3.16  107 = unit conversion factor based on 1 year = 365.25 d (s/yr). 
This analysis develops the values of A, Hmix, and U used in Equation 6-28. 
To determine the surface area of land irrigated with contaminated water, A, it is necessary to 
determine the average irrigation rate and to make an assumption about the amount of 
contaminated water that is available for irrigation. This is the amount of water that a community 
represented by the reasonably maximally exposed individual (RMEI) would use. It was 
estimated that the annual water demand for such a farming community could range from a few 
thousand to as much as ten thousand acre-feet (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55754) and that 
the water demand of 3,000 acre-feet is a conservative choice of value. In this analysis the 
volume of water of 3,000 acre-feet (about 3,714,450,000 L = 3,714,450 m3), reflective of a 
farming community (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55754) is used (10 CFR 63.312(c) 
[DIRS 156605]). 
The average irrigation rate for agricultural land is a parameter that is developed elsewhere for the 
biosphere model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169673]). The average annual irrigation rate for the present 
day climate is 0.95 m/yr, with a standard error of 0.08 m/yr, a minimum of 0.73 m/yr, and a 
maximum of 1.15 m/yr. For the future climate the average annual irrigation rate is 0.50 m/yr, 
standard error is 0.04 m/yr, a minimum is 0.40 m/yr, and a maximum is 0.60 m/yr (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169673], Section 7). Both distributions are normal. The resulting surface area of land 
irrigated with contaminated water is then equal to about 3.5  106 m2 for the present day climate 
and about 7.4  106 m2 for the future climate. The actual surface area of the land that is currently 
irrigated in Amargosa Valley is around 2,100 acres (8.5  106 m2) (CRWMS M&O 1997 
[DIRS 101090], pp. 3-18 to 3-19; YMP 1999 [DIRS 158212], pp. 17 to 18). 

For the biosphere model, it is recommended that the surface area of irrigated land for a given 
climate be calculated as the ratio of the representative volume of 3,000 acre-feet to the average 
annual irrigation rate. 
The height to which the gaseous 14C (CO2) is uniformly mixed, Hmix, depends on the specific 
application of the parameter. The default values recommended for use in the computer code 
RESRAD are 2 m for the human inhalation pathway and 1 m for the carbon uptake by crops for 
human and animal consumption (Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-16). The same values of 
Hmix are considered appropriate for application in the biosphere model. The values of A and Hmix 
are arbitrary for the stylized exposure scenario adopted for calculation of concentration of 14C in 
the air. 
The annual average wind speed for the area of interest, based on the meteorological data 
collected by the Yucca Mountain Project in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, exceeds 4 m/s. The 
annual average wind speed for the Meteorological Monitoring Site 9 (Gate 510) is 4.4 m/s 
(DTN: MO04019SUM9397.000 [DIRS 167054]). Site 9 is the southern most station within the 
network of meteorological stations operated by the Yucca Mountain Project in the direction of 
Amargosa Valley (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 102877], p. 5). The wind at Site 9 is measured 
at a height of 10 m. However, the annual average wind speed, U, in Equation 6-28 is used to 
calculate the mixing and dilution of 14C activity released from the farmland covered with crops. 
For the fully-grown crops, the aerodynamic surface length is around 14 cm (NCRP 1984 
[DIRS 103784], p. 48) or higher (Stull 2001 [DIRS 159533], p. 380). (The aerodynamic surface 
length is defined as the height where the wind speed becomes zero.) The vertical wind profile 
above the ground is a function of the friction velocity and the aerodynamic surface length. The 
function is approximately logarithmic, and can be expressed (Stull 2001 [DIRS 159533], p. 377; 
Randerson 1984 [DIRS 109153], p. 169) as 
*
...
...
u 
z
U
=
ln 
(Eq. 6-29) 
k
.
z0
.
where 
U 
u * 
= 
= 
average wind speed at height z (m/s) 
friction velocity (m/s) 
k = von Karman constant (dimensionless) 
z = height above ground (meters) 
z0 = aerodynamic surface length (meters) (height at which U = 0). 
This equation applies to the surface boundary layer for neutral atmospheric conditions, and is 
appropriate for representing long-term behavior of the system. Neutral atmospheric stability 
class (class D in the Pasquill-Gifford classification) represents conditions of moderate 
turbulence. Neutral conditions are associated with relatively strong wind speeds and moderate 
solar radiation. 
Equation 6-29 can be used to obtain the surface-layer wind profile from the observed wind speed 
and the aerodynamic surface roughness characteristic of the area of interest. As noted before, the 
average wind speed at 10 m at the Meteorological Monitoring Site 9 is 4.4 m/s. The 

aerodynamic surface length for the vegetated terrain varies from about 1 cm for short grass to 
about 10 cm for long grass and crops (Stull 2001 [DIRS 159533], Figure 9.6, p.380; 
Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693], p. 562). The value of k is in the range of 0.35 to 0.4 (Stull 2001 
[DIRS 159533], p. 377). The wind profiles for various values of z0, u* (calculated for a given z0 
using Equation 6-29) and k are shown in Table 6-71. Varying k does not change wind profiles, 
because u* also changes by the same factor. 
The average wind speed, U , in the atmospheric layer limited from the bottom by the surface 
roughness length, z0, and from the top by the height of the mixing cell, Hmix, can be calculated as 
. ..
Hmix
.z0 
uk 
*ln z dz 
uk 
* 
..
. 
H mix .. ln 
H mix - 1.. + z0 . 
U = z0 =. z0 .. 
H 
mix - z0 H mix - z0 (Eq. 6-30) 
The average values of wind speed in the mixing cells for two mixing heights of gaseous 14CO2, 
1 m and 2 m, calculated using Equation 6-30 are also listed in Table 6-71. The values shown in 
Table 6-71 were calculated using Excel spreadsheet, as explained in Appendix A. 
Table 6-71. Wind Profile in the Surface Boundary Layer 
Parameter values for Equation 6-29 
k = 0.35 k = 0.35 k = 0.35 
u* = 0.223 u* = 0.248 u* = 0.334 
zo = 0.01 zo = 0.02 zo = 0.1 
Wind profiles 
z (m) U (m/s) z (m) U (m/s) z (m) U (m/s) 
0.05 1.03 0.05 0.65 less than z0 
0.2 1.91 0.2 1.63 0.2 0.66 
0.5 2.49 0.5 2.28 0.5 1.54 
1 2.93 1 2.77 1 2.20 
1.5 3.19 1.5 3.06 1.5 2.59 
2 3.37 2 3.26 2 2.86 
3 3.63 3 3.55 3 3.25 
5 3.96 5 3.91 5 3.74 
9 4.33 9 4.33 9 4.30 
10 4.40 10 4.40 10 4.40 
Average from 
z = zo to z = 1 m 2.33 Average from 
z = zo to z = 1 m 2.12 Average from 
z = zo to z = 1 m 1.49 
Average from 
z = zo to z = 2 m 2.75 Average from 
z = zo to z = 2 m 2.59 
Average from 
z = zo to z = 2 m 
2.06 
NOTE: Calculated in Excel spreadsheet using Equations 6-29 and 6-30 (Appendix A). 
As can be seen from Table 6-71, the wind velocity changes with height above the ground surface 
and the wind speed close to the ground is less than the value measured at 10 m. The average 
wind speed within the mixing cell depends on the aerodynamic surface length and varies 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 6-128 September 2004 

between about 1.5 and 2.3 m/s for the mixing height Hmix = 1 m and between 2.1 and 2.8 m/s for 
the mixing height Hmix = 2 m. 
Based on the vertical wind profile and the average wind speed within the mixing cell, it is 
recommended that for calculation of 14C uptake by crops (Hmix = 1 m), the wind velocity be 
represented by a uniform distribution over the range of 1.5 m/s to 2.3 m/s. For the human 
inhalation pathway (Hmix = 2 m), it is recommended that the wind speed velocity be represented 
by the uniform distribution from 2.1 to 2.8 m/s. 
6.7.3 Carbon-14 in Crops 
The 14C transport in the environment follows that of stable carbon. Two separate transport 
pathways are considered for 14C uptake by plants: direct root uptake and leaf uptake of CO2 
released from soil to the atmosphere by emission of gaseous compounds of carbon. The latter 
pathway is dominant because vegetation incorporates most of its carbon from the atmosphere 
during photosynthesis (Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.86). The activity concentration of 
14C in crops resulting from root and leaf uptake is calculated in the biosphere model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.6.3) as 
.
Ca 
Cs
.
...
...
...
...
,
C g 
-
, 14 
air 
j
- 
.
, 14 
fc
s 
C 
j
Cp 
, 14 
- 
=
fc 
Fa 
Fs 
(Eq. 6-31) 
+
..
. 
..
. 
C 
j 
plant j 
fc
,
.
.
.
.
soil 
where 
CpC-14, j 
fcplant, j 
Fa 
Cag, C-14, j 
fcair 
Fs 
CsC-14, j 
fcsoil 
= activity concentration of 14C in edible parts of crop type j (Bq/kg wet weight) 
= fraction of stable carbon in crop type j (dimensionless, based on kg carbon 
/kg wet crop) 
= fraction of air-derived carbon in plants, dimensionless 
= activity concentration of 14C in the air for the crop type or exposure 
pathway j (Bq/m3) 
= concentration of stable carbon in air, kg/m3 
= fraction of soil-derived carbon in plants, dimensionless 
= activity concentration of 14C in surface soil for the crop type or exposure 
pathway j (Bq/m2) 
= fraction of stable carbon in soil, dimensionless 
= surface soil density, kg/m2.
.
s 
This analysis develops the values of fcplant,j, Fa, fcair, Fs, and fcsoil for use in Eq. 6-31. 
The fraction of stable carbon in plants, fcplant, j, is a plant-specific parameter. It describes the 
mass fraction of carbon in the wet-weight (fresh) of a plant. The default values used for the 
GENII and the GENII-S code were 0.09 for fresh fruits, vegetables, and fresh animal feed; 
and 0.40 for grain and stored animal feed (Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.88). The same 
values were adopted for the RESRAD model (Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-20). It is 
recommended that the biosphere model also use these values. Using fixed values for carbon 
content of crop types used in the biosphere model is appropriate because it is unlikely that this 
parameter would significantly vary within a given crop type and also considering other sources 

of uncertainty in the modeling of 14C transport in the environment. The biosphere models that 
were a source of data for fraction of carbon in plants also used fixed values for these parameters. 
The fraction of carbon in plants that is derived from carbon in air, Fa, represents that portion of 
total carbon in a plant that was transferred to a plant via the atmosphere. This fraction is 
dependent on soil organic matter and moisture content, soil pH and microbial characteristics 
(Sheppard et al. 1991 [DIRS 159545], p. 482). The experimental evidence indicates that much 
of the transfer of carbon from soil to plants is by way of the atmosphere rather than directly 
through the roots (Sheppard et al. 1991 [DIRS 159545], p. 491). The researchers estimated that 
almost 2 percent of the plant carbon originated in the soil, which was in agreement with some 
earlier estimates (Sheppard et al. 1991 [DIRS 159545], pp. 490 to 491). It is recommended that 
the fraction of carbon derived from soil, Fs, be set at 0.02 for the biosphere model, which implies 
that the fraction of carbon derived from air, Fa, is equal to 0.98. The same values are used as 
defaults for the RESRAD model (Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-20). 
An additional finding from the experiment referred to in the previous paragraph was that the soil 
retained about 2 percent of the inorganic carbon as the result of trapping carbon by natural 
carbonates present in the soil and organic matter (Sheppard et al. 1991 [DIRS 159545], p. 491). 
Because the carbonate content of Amargosa Valley soils and their organic matter content are 
lower than those for the soils used in the experiment, the fraction of carbon retained in the soil 
may be even lower than 2 percent. This would reduce potential for long-term accumulation of 
14C in soil. 
The concentration of stable carbon in air, fcair, should be set to 1.8  10-4 kg/m3 for the biosphere 
model. This value is recommended as a default value for the RESRAD model (Yu et al. 2001 
[DIRS 159465], p. L-17). It is also used in the recently published methods for assessing the 
impact of radionuclides released to the environment (IAEA 2001 [DIRS 158519], p. 144), and it 
agrees well with the default value of 1.6  10-4 kg/m3 used in the GENII and GENII-S models 
(Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.88). 
It is recommended that the value of 0.03 be used for the fraction of stable carbon in soil, fcsoil, in 
the biosphere model. The same value was selected as a default for the RESRAD model (Yu 
et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-17) as well as the for the GENII and GENII-S models (Napier 
et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.88). 
6.7.4 Carbon-14 in Animal Products 
The transfer of 14C from the animal diet to the animal product follows the same route as that of 
stable carbon. The 14C activity concentration in an animal product is calculated in the biosphere 
model using the following formula (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], Section 6.4.6.4): 
Cd
C -, 14 k 
(CpC -, 14 j  Qf ) + (Cw  Qw ) + (Cs  Qs ) 
 fck anim (Eq. 6-32) 
kC -14 kC -14 k
= 
,
fc( 
plant , j  Qf ) + ( fc  Qw ) + ( fc  Qs )
k water k soil k 

where 
CdC-14,k 
CwC-14 
= 
= 
activity concentration of 14C in animal product k (Bq/kg) 
activity concentration of 14C in groundwater (Bq/L) 
fcwater = concentration of stable carbon in farm animal water, kg/L 
fcanim, k = fraction of stable carbon in animal product k (dimensionless, based on 
kg carbon/kg animal product). 
The other parameters were defined in Equations 6-9 to 6-11 and 6-31. 
In this analysis, the values of the concentration of carbon in water, fcwater, and the fraction of 
stable carbon in animal products, fcanim, k, are developed. 
The GENII, GENII-S, and the RESRAD models use the value of 2.0  10-5 kg/L for the 
concentration of stable carbon in livestock water (Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.88; 
Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-21). The BIOTRAC model uses a triangular distribution 
ranging from 2.0  10-5 kg/L to 6.8  10-5 kg/L, with a peak at 4.0  10-5 kg/L (Davis et al. 1993 
[DIRS 103767], p. 262). The average concentration of carbon in the Nye County well water was 
measured at 56 mg/L (5.6  10-5 kg/L) (Section 6.4.4) with the minimum of six samples of 
4.4  10-5 kg/L and the maximum of 6.5  10-5 kg/L (DTN: GS030908312322.002 
[DIRS 170051]). Because this parameter appears in the denominator of Equation 6-32, the 
greater values are less conservative. Since the values from the local wells are based on low 
number of samples, the value used by the GENII and RESRAD models, which also constitutes 
the lower bound of the distribution used in the BIOTRAC model, is recommended for use in the 
biosphere model. 
The fraction of stable carbon in animal products, fcanim, k, is animal productdependent. The 
GENII and GENII-S models use the following values: 0.24 for beef, 0.2 for poultry, 0.07 for 
milk, and 0.15 for eggs (Napier et al. 1988 [DIRS 157927], p. 4.88). The RESRAD model uses 
the same values as the GENII model (Yu et al. 2001 [DIRS 159465], p. L-22). For the biosphere 
model used in the performance assessment for the Canadian waste disposal program, the carbon 
content of animal tissues (mammals, birds, fish) was represented by a uniform probability 
distribution function ranging from 0.12 to 0.25 (Zach et al. 1996 [DIRS 103831], p. 51). It is 
recommended that the values that are used in the GENII and RESRAD models be used in the 
biosphere modeling for the TSPA-LA. Using fixed values for carbon content of animal products 
used in the biosphere model is appropriate because it is unlikely that this parameter would 
significantly vary within a given animal product. The biosphere models that were a source of 
data for fraction of carbon in plants also used fixed values for these parameters. 
6.8 CRITICAL THICKNESS 
The critical thickness is the parameter that is used only for the volcanic ash exposure scenario to 
predict contaminant concentration in the air for the inhalation pathway. The function of this 
parameter is to allow for mixing of the contaminant deposited on the ground surface with the 
surface soil for thin sources, and to allow for partial resuspension of deposited activity for thick 
sources. 

In the biosphere model, radionuclide concentrations in the resuspended material (i.e., in the mass 
of mixed ash and soil or the undiluted original ash) would depend on the ash thickness, da, and 
the critical thickness, dc. Ash thickness will be calculated in the TSPA-LA model. The mass 
activity concentration for uncultivated land is calculated as (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169460], 
Section 6.5.1.2) 
Csi
= 
.
Cs d 
d
when 
,
imc
<
a 
c 
a 
CsCsd d 
.
d
.
.

Cs d 
(Eq. 6-33)
( 
a 
)
=
c 
,
imc 
a
. 
..
. 
i 
i 
Cs 
d 
d
when
=
c 
c
=
=
,
imc 
d 
a 
c
dd
a
.
d


a 
c 
a 
a 
where 
Csmc,i(da) = activity concentration of radionuclide i in volcanic ash or in the mix of ash 
and dust of uncultivated land (Bq/kg) 
Csi = activity concentration of radionuclide i in ash deposited on the ground 
surface (Bq/m2) 
= bulk density of volcanic ash (kg/m3).a 
dc = critical thickness for resuspension on uncultivated lands (meters) 
da = thickness of ash deposited on the ground (meters) 
Csmc, i = activity concentration of radionuclide i in the mass of resuspendable ash or 
in the mix of ash and dust (Bq/kg). 
The bulk density of volcanic ash, .a, is lower than the soil bulk density (BSC 2004 [169459], 
Section 7.1). 
Equation 6-33 was rewritten as 
Cs d 
a 
)
=
Cs 
,
imc

(
dg 
a 
) (Eq. 6-34)
(
,
imc 
where g(da), a function of volcanic ash thickness (dimensionless), can be expressed as 
d 
d
1 when
...
<
a 
c 
d
(
dg
a 
)
=
(Eq. 6-35)
d 
d
c 
when
=
.. 
a 
c
d
a 
where other parameters were defined in Equation 6-33. 
If the thickness of the material deposited on the ground surface is less than the critical thickness, 
the entire amount of deposited activity would be resuspended (g(da) = 1) and the resuspended 
particulates could include a fraction of uncontaminated material. If the deposit of ash were equal 
to or greater than the critical thickness, all resuspended particles would be ash because the clean 
soil would be covered by too much ash to be resuspended, and only a portion of all ash would be 
available for resuspension. For thin ash deposits, the more conservative results (the radionuclide 

concentrations in the material available for resuspension) are obtained for the lower values of the 
critical thickness. 
For the relatively thick ash deposits, the parameter of critical thickness controls the fraction of 
d
the total activity deposited per unit area that is available for resuspension ( d g ) = ). When 
( 
a 
d 
a 
the ash thickness is greater than the critical thickness, the volume of resuspended ash will not 
contain all of the activity that is initially deposited because the entire volume of ash (and all of 
the activity) will not be available for resuspension. The greater values of the critical thickness 
will result in the greater fraction of activity deposited per unit area that is available for 
resuspension and thus higher activity concentration in the resuspended material. 
Resuspension can be caused by wind or by mechanical disturbance of the soil, such as that 
induced by farm equipment, vehicles, or pedestrians. Resuspension caused by the wind relates 
only to the material the wind stress can act upon, which might be within the top millimeter or so 
of a soil surface (Sehmel 1980 [163178], p. 110). Mechanical disturbance can affect greater soil 
thickness. In general, the range of surface soil thickness that may be used for characterizing the 
resuspension source strength is from about 1 mm to 1 cm (Sehmel 1984 [DIRS 158693], p. 574). 
The concept of the thickness of the resuspendable layer was used in the Preliminary 
Performance-Based Analyses Relevant to Dose-Based Performance Measures for a Proposed 
Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain (NUREG-1538) (McCartin and Lee 2001 
[DIRS 160672]). The value of the resuspendable layer thickness was 0.3 cm (3 mm) (McCartin 
and Lee 2001 [DIRS 160672], p. 5-4). 
The value of the critical thickness selected for the biosphere model has to be evaluated in the 
context of the expected thickness of volcanic ash deposited at the receptor location. As noted in 
Section 6.2.1.3, ash depths 18 km downwind from Yucca Mountain were predicted to range from 
0.07 to 55 cm (based on 100 realizations of the ASHPLUME model). About 35 percent of 
predicted depths were less than 1 cm, 75 percent were less than 5 cm, and 90 percent were less 
than 15 cm (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170026], Table 6-4). Ash depths at the location of the RMEI 
(18 km south of Yucca Mountain) would be about 2 orders of magnitude or more lower under 
normal, variable wind conditions (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246], Section 3.10.5.1 and 
Figure 3.10-14) because the wind at Yucca Mountain blows to the south infrequently (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170026], Figure 8-1). 
Because of the relatively thin tephra deposit expected at the receptor location, the values of the 
critical thickness in the lower region of the range reported in the literature (on the order of 1 mm) 
will lead to more conservative results. At the same time one needs to take into consideration the 
contribution of resuspension caused by mechanical disturbance, which is more readily produced 
than the wind-caused resuspension (Sehmel 1980 [163178], p. 114). In such a case the depth of 
the layer of soil from which resuspension occurs is greater than that for the wind resuspension. 
However, for the expected tephra thickness, the dilution with the clean soil would also be 
greater. 

To account for these processes, it is recommended that the critical thickness for the biosphere 
model be represented by a uniform distribution with a minimum of 1 mm and a maximum of 
3 mm. 
It has been observed that a decrease of resuspension of a contaminant occurs with time 
(Anspaugh et al. 1975 [DIRS 151548], p. 571). This decrease is due to processes, which alter the 
physical and chemical state of contaminant, attachment to host soil particles, downward 
migration through the soil profile and mixing with the host soil particles, as well as loss from the 
site (Anspaugh et al. 1975 [DIRS 151548], pp. 571 and 576). Data indicate that the downward 
migration of radionuclides deposited on the soil surface occurs relatively quickly and that 
contaminants penetrate to a depth of more than 1 cm within a few months (Anspaugh et al. 1975 
[DIRS 151548], pp. 577 and 579). This process will produce further dilution of activity 
concentration in the resuspendable layer of ashsoil mixture. 

7. CONCLUSIONS 
This section contains the summary of recommendations concerning environmental transport 
input parameters for the biosphere model (Section 7.1) and the description of how the applicable 
Yucca Mountain Review Plan Acceptance Criteria listed in Section 4.2 were satisfied 
(Section 7.2). The recommendations for the parameter values are included in the data set titled 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model, 
DTN: MO0406SPAETPBM.002. 
The values of environmental transport parameters were developed specifically for use in the 
biosphere model and may not be appropriate for other applications. Uncertainties in the 
parameter values are addressed in the appropriate subsections of Section 6. 
7.1 RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORT PARAMETER VALUES 
7.1.1 Radionuclide Transport to Crops 
7.1.1.1 Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables 
The soil-to-plant TFs for leafy vegetables in the present day climate, groundwater exposure 
scenario are listed in Table 7-1. 
Table 7-1. Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables, Present Day Climate, Groundwater 
Exposure Scenario 
Element GM GSD 
Lower Truncation 
Limit 
Upper Truncation 
Limit 
Chlorine 6.4E+01 2.0 1.1E+01 3.8E+02 
Selenium 4.6E-02 3.8 1.4E-03 1.4E+00 
Strontium 1.7E+00 2.0 2.9E-01 1.0E+01 
Technetium 4.6E+01 2.6 3.8E+00 5.5E+02 
Tin 3.8E-02 2.0 6.4E-03 2.3E-01 
Iodine 2.6E-02 9.9 7.2E-05 9.7E+00 
Cesium 8.5E-02 2.5 7.7E-03 9.4E-01 
Lead 1.5E-02 4.6 3.0E-04 7.7E-01 
Radium 6.8E-02 2.7 5.1E-03 9.2E-01 
Actinium 4.3E-03 2.0 7.2E-04 2.6E-02 
Thorium 4.3E-03 2.8 3.2E-04 5.9E-02 
Protactinium 4.6E-03 3.8 1.4E-04 1.4E-01 
Uranium 1.1E-02 2.0 1.8E-03 6.6E-02 
Neptunium 5.9E-02 4.4 1.3E-03 2.6E+00 
Plutonium 2.9E-04 2.0 4.9E-05 1.7E-03 
Americium 1.2E-03 2.5 1.2E-04 1.3E-02 
NOTE: Uncertainty distribution of TF is lognormal. The values of TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per 
Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 02 7-1 September 2004 

It is recommended that the same set of soil-to-plant TFs for leafy vegetables be used for the 
future climate and for the volcanic ash exposure scenario. 
7.1.1.2 Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
The soil-to-plant TFs for other vegetables in the present day climate, groundwater exposure 
scenario are listed in Table 7-2. 
Table 7-2. Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables, Present Day Climate, Groundwater 
Exposure Scenario 
Element GM GSD 
Lower Truncation 
Limit 
Upper Truncation 
Limit 
Chlorine 6.4E+01 2.0 1.1E+01 3.8E+02 
Selenium 4.6E-02 3.8 1.4E-03 1.4E+00 
Strontium 7.9E-01 2.0 1.4E-01 4.5E+00 
Technetium 4.4E+00 3.7 1.5E-01 1.2E+02 
Tin 1.5E-02 3.6 5.3E-04 4.0E-01 
Iodine 3.2E-02 4.4 7.0E-04 1.5E+00 
Cesium 5.0E-02 2.0 8.4E-03 3.0E-01 
Lead 9.0E-03 3.1 5.0E-04 1.6E-01 
Radium 1.2E-02 5.3 1.6E-04 8.6E-01 
Actinium 1.1E-03 4.9 1.8E-05 6.6E-02 
Thorium 4.4E-04 5.6 5.3E-06 3.6E-02 
Protactinium 1.1E-03 10.0 3.0E-06 4.3E-01 
Uranium 6.0E-03 2.8 4.2E-04 8.5E-02 
Neptunium 3.1E-02 4.9 5.0E-04 1.9E+00 
Plutonium 1.9E-04 2.0 3.3E-05 1.1E-03 
Americium 4.0E-04 2.6 3.5E-05 4.6E-03 
NOTE: Uncertainty distribution of TF is lognormal. The values of TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per 
Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
It is recommended that the same set of soil-to-plant TFs for other vegetables be used for the 
future climate and for the volcanic ash exposure scenario. 

7.1.1.3 Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit 
The soil-to-plant TFs for fruit in the present day climate, groundwater exposure scenario are 
listed in Table 7-3. 
Table 7-3. Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Fruit, Present Day Climate, Groundwater Exposure 
Scenario 
Element GM GSD 
Lower Truncation 
Limit 
Upper Truncation 
Limit 
Chlorine 6.4E+01 2.0 1.1E+01 3.8E+02 
Selenium 4.6E-02 3.8 1.4E-03 1.4E+00 
Strontium 2.9E-01 2.3 3.6E-02 2.4E+00 
Technetium 4.3E+00 4.6 8.7E-02 2.1E+02 
Tin 1.5E-02 3.6 5.3E-04 4.0E-01 
Iodine 5.7E-02 2.8 4.1E-03 7.9E-01 
Cesium 5.6E-02 2.8 3.8E-03 8.1E-01 
Lead 1.2E-02 3.3 5.8E-04 2.6E-01 
Radium 7.3E-03 4.3 1.6E-04 3.2E-01 
Actinium 8.5E-04 3.4 3.7E-05 2.0E-02 
Thorium 2.9E-04 4.9 4.8E-06 1.7E-02 
Protactinium 1.1E-03 10.0 3.0E-06 4.3E-01 
Uranium 6.3E-03 2.9 3.9E-04 1.0E-01 
Neptunium 3.4E-02 6.9 2.3E-04 5.0E+00 
Plutonium 1.8E-04 3.4 7.8E-06 4.2E-03 
Americium 5.4E-04 2.3 6.5E-05 4.5E-03 
NOTE: Uncertainty distribution of TF is lognormal. The values of TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per 
Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
It is recommended that the same set of soil-to-plant TFs for fruit be used for the future climate 
and for the volcanic ash exposure scenario. 

7.1.1.4 Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain 
The soil-to-plant TFs for grain in the present day climate, groundwater exposure scenario are 
listed in Table 7-4. 
Table 7-4. Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Grain, Present Day Climate, Groundwater Exposure 
Scenario 
Element GM GSD 
Lower Truncation 
Limit 
Upper Truncation 
Limit 
Chlorine 2.4E+01 8.4 1.0E-01 5.8E+03 
Selenium 2.9E-02 2.0 4.8E-03 1.7E-01 
Strontium 1.7E-01 2.0 2.8E-02 1.0E+00 
Technetium 1.6E+00 4.3 3.8E-02 6.8E+01 
Tin 9.2E-03 2.0 1.5E-03 5.5E-02 
Iodine 2.5E-02 10.0 6.6E-05 9.4E+00 
Cesium 2.0E-02 2.2 2.7E-03 1.6E-01 
Lead 5.5E-03 2.1 8.2E-04 3.8E-02 
Radium 3.1E-03 4.0 8.8E-05 1.1E-01 
Actinium 5.4E-04 2.9 3.6E-05 8.0E-03 
Thorium 1.7E-04 5.2 2.4E-06 1.2E-02 
Protactinium 9.5E-04 7.2 5.9E-06 1.5E-01 
Uranium 1.1E-03 3.6 4.1E-05 3.1E-02 
Neptunium 4.4E-03 6.9 3.1E-05 6.3E-01 
Plutonium 1.9E-05 4.2 4.8E-07 7.8E-04 
Americium 7.5E-05 3.2 3.8E-06 1.5E-03 
NOTE: Uncertainty distribution of TF is lognormal. The values of TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per 
Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
It is recommended that the same set of soil-to-plant TFs for grain be used for the future climate 
and for the volcanic ash exposure scenario. 

7.1.1.5 Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Crops 
The soil-to-plant TFs for forage crops in the present day climate, groundwater exposure scenario 
are listed in Table 7-5. 
Table 7-5. Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Forage Crops, Present Day Climate, Groundwater 
Exposure Scenario
Element GM GSD 
Lower Truncation 
Limit 
Upper Truncation 
Limit 
Chlorine 7.5E+01 2.0 1.3E+01 4.5E+02 
Selenium 1.5E-01 5.5 1.9E-03 1.3E+01 
Strontium 2.1E+00 2.1 3.2E-01 1.3E+01 
Technetium 2.7E+01 2.7 2.1E+00 3.5E+02 
Tin 1.6E-01 5.8 1.7E-03 1.5E+01 
Iodine 4.0E-02 10.0 1.1E-04 1.5E+01 
Cesium 1.3E-01 3.3 6.3E-03 2.8E+00 
Lead 1.8E-02 7.0 1.2E-04 2.8E+00 
Radium 8.2E-02 3.0 4.9E-03 1.4E+00 
Actinium 1.7E-02 5.4 2.2E-04 1.3E+00 
Thorium 1.0E-02 4.2 2.5E-04 3.9E-01 
Protactinium 1.9E-02 6.7 1.4E-04 2.5E+00 
Uranium 1.7E-02 6.1 1.6E-04 1.9E+00 
Neptunium 5.8E-02 5.6 6.8E-04 4.9E+00 
Plutonium 1.0E-03 10.0 2.7E-06 3.9E-01 
Americium 2.1E-03 10.0 5.5E-06 7.9E-01 
NOTE: Uncertainty distribution of TF is lognormal. The values of TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per 
Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
It is recommended that the same set of soil-to-plant TFs for forage crops be used for the future 
climate and for the volcanic ash exposure scenario. 

7.1.1.6 Correlation of Transfer Factors with Partition Coefficients 
It is recommended that the TFs be correlated with the corresponding partition coefficients using 
the value of correlation coefficient of -0.8. The correlation coefficient should be between 
log-transformed values of TFs and the corresponding partition coefficients. The same value of 
the correlation coefficient should be used for the present day climate and future climate under the 
groundwater exposure scenario, and for the volcanic ash exposure scenario. 
7.1.1.7 Dry Deposition Velocity 
Deposition velocity for the present day and future climates, under the groundwater and the 
volcanic ash exposure scenarios, is represented by the piece-wise linear distribution with the 
following values and their cumulative probabilities: (3  10-4 m/s, 0 percent), (1  10-3 m/s, 
16 percent), (8  10-3 m/s, 50 percent), (3  10-2 m/s, 84 percent), (3  10-1 m/s, 100 percent). 
These data pairs correspond to particle diameters of 0.06, 0.8, 4, 20, and 250 m respectively. 
7.1.1.8 Translocation Factor 
It is recommended that the translocation factor for the present day and future climates under the 
groundwater and the volcanic ash exposure scenarios be represented by the distributions shown 
in Table 7-6. 
Table 7-6. Values of Translocation Factor for the Biosphere Model 
Crop type Translocation factor (value/distribution) 
Leafy vegetables 1.0 
Other vegetables Piece-wise linear: (0.05, 0%), (0.1, 50%), (0.3, 100%) 
Fruit Piece-wise linear: (0.05, 0%), (0.1, 50%), (0.3, 100%) 
Grain Piece-wise linear: (0.05, 0%), (0.1, 50%), (0.3, 100%) 
Fresh forage for beef cattle and diary cows 1.0 
7.1.1.9 Weathering Half-Time 
The weathering half-time (called the weathering half-life in the biosphere model) for present day 
and future climates under the groundwater exposure scenario and for the volcanic ash exposure 
scenario, is represented by a piece-wise linear distribution with the following values: 
(5 days; 0 percent), (14 days; 50 percent), (30 days; 100 percent). 

7.1.2 Radionuclide Transport to Animal Products 
7.1.2.1 Animal Consumption Rates of Water, Feed, and Soil 
The animal consumption rates of water, feed, and soil for the present day climate, groundwater 
exposure scenarios are shown in Table 7-7. It is recommended that the probability distribution 
functions for the feed and soil consumption rates be uniform and that the consumption rate of 
water be represented by a fixed value, except for water consumption by diary cows, which 
should be represented by a uniform distribution. The same values also apply for the future 
climate and the volcanic ash exposure scenario. 
Table 7-7. Animal Consumption Rates for Water, Feed, and Soil 
Animal Type 
Consumption rate 
Feed (kg wet/d) Water (L/d) Soil (kg/d) 
Beef cattle 
Minimum 29 (fresh) 
60 
0.4 
Maximum 68 (fresh) 1.0 
Diary cow 
Minimum 50 (fresh) 60 0.8 
Maximum 73 (fresh) 100 1.1 
Poultry 
Minimum 0.12 
0.5 
0.01 
Maximum 0.4 0.03 
Laying hen 
Minimum 0.12 
0.5 
0.01 
Maximum 0.4 0.03 

7.1.2.2 Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
The animal intaketoanimal product TCs for meat in the present day climate, groundwater 
exposure scenario are listed in Table 7-8. 
Table 7-8. Transfer Coefficients for Meat, Present Day Climate, Groundwater Exposure Scenario 
Element GM GSD 
Lower Truncation 
Limit 
Upper Truncation 
Limit 
Chlorine 4.6E-02 2.0 7.7E-03 2.7E-01 
Selenium 8.8E-02 5.8 9.6E-04 8.0E+00 
Strontium 1.4E-03 4.4 3.1E-05 6.2E-02 
Technetium 1.1E-03 7.2 6.9E-06 1.8E-01 
Tin 1.9E-02 4.6 3.8E-04 9.9E-01 
Iodine 1.0E-02 2.8 6.8E-04 1.5E-01 
Cesium 2.4E-02 2.6 2.1E-03 2.7E-01 
Lead 6.3E-04 2.6 5.4E-05 7.5E-03 
Radium 8.1E-04 2.1 1.1E-04 5.7E-03 
Actinium 7.9E-05 8.2 3.5E-07 1.8E-02 
Thorium 1.1E-04 10.0 2.8E-07 4.0E-02 
Protactinium 6.6E-05 10.0 1.8E-07 2.5E-02 
Uranium 4.8E-04 3.0 2.9E-05 7.8E-03 
Neptunium 3.4E-04 8.8 1.3E-06 9.0E-02 
Plutonium 1.3E-05 10.0 3.3E-08 4.7E-03 
Americium 3.4E-05 9.0 1.2E-07 9.9E-03 
NOTE: Uncertainty distribution of TC is lognormal. The values of TCs are in units of d/kg. 
It is recommended that the same set of TCs for meat be used for the future climate and for the 
volcanic ash exposure scenario. 

7.1.2.3 Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
The animal intaketoanimal products TCs for poultry in the present day climate, groundwater 
exposure scenario are listed in Table 7-9. 
Table 7-9. Transfer Coefficients for Poultry, Present Day Climate, Groundwater Exposure Scenario 
Element GM GSD 
Lower Truncation 
Limit 
Upper Truncation 
Limit 
Chlorine 3.0E-02 2.0 5.0E-03 1.8E-01 
Selenium 5.1E+00 3.6 1.9E-01 1.4E+02 
Strontium 3.1E-02 5.8 3.4E-04 2.9E+00 
Technetium 6.3E-02 10.0 1.7E-04 2.4E+01 
Tin 3.5E-02 10.0 9.4E-05 1.3E+01 
Iodine 5.5E-02 9.7 1.6E-04 1.9E+01 
Cesium 2.6E+00 9.8 7.2E-03 9.3E+02 
Lead 2.5E-02 10.0 6.6E-05 9.3E+00 
Radium 1.7E-02 10.0 4.4E-05 6.3E+00 
Actinium 4.0E-03 2.0 6.7E-04 2.4E-02 
Thorium 5.9E-03 8.0 2.7E-05 1.3E+00 
Protactinium 3.0E-03 2.0 5.1E-04 1.8E-02 
Uranium 2.4E-01 10.0 6.5E-04 9.2E+01 
Neptunium 3.6E-03 2.0 6.0E-04 2.1E-02 
Plutonium 1.2E-03 10.0 3.2E-06 4.6E-01 
Americium 1.8E-03 10.0 4.8E-06 6.7E-01 
NOTE: Uncertainty distribution of TC is lognormal. The values of TCs are in units of d/kg. 
It is recommended that the same set of TCs for poultry be used for the future climate and for the 
volcanic ash exposure scenario. 

7.1.2.4 Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
The animal intaketoanimal products TCs for milk in the present day climate, groundwater 
exposure scenario are listed in Table 7-10. 
Table 7-10. Transfer Coefficients for Milk, Present Day Climate, Groundwater Exposure Scenario 
Element GM GSD 
Lower Truncation 
Limit 
Upper Truncation 
Limit 
Chlorine 1.8E-02 2.0 2.9E-03 1.0E-01 
Selenium 5.7E-03 2.5 5.5E-04 6.0E-02 
Strontium 1.7E-03 2.0 2.8E-04 1.0E-02 
Technetium 2.1E-03 6.0 2.0E-05 2.1E-01 
Tin 1.1E-03 2.0 1.8E-04 6.3E-03 
Iodine 9.1E-03 2.0 1.5E-03 5.4E-02 
Cesium 7.7E-03 2.0 1.3E-03 4.6E-02 
Lead 1.7E-04 3.0 1.0E-05 2.9E-03 
Radium 5.8E-04 2.0 1.0E-04 3.4E-03 
Actinium 7.6E-06 4.1 2.0E-07 2.9E-04 
Thorium 4.4E-06 2.0 7.4E-07 2.6E-05 
Protactinium 4.4E-06 2.0 7.4E-07 2.6E-05 
Uranium 4.9E-04 2.0 8.1E-05 2.9E-03 
Neptunium 6.3E-06 2.0 1.0E-06 3.9E-05 
Plutonium 2.3E-07 7.7 1.2E-09 4.4E-05 
Americium 1.6E-06 4.2 3.9E-08 6.3E-05 
NOTE: Uncertainty distribution of TC is lognormal. The values of TCs are in units of d/L or in d/kg. 
It is recommended that the same set of animal intaketoanimal product TCs for milk be used for 
the future climate and for the volcanic ash exposure scenario. 

7.1.2.5 Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
The animal intaketoanimal product TCs for eggs in the present day climate, groundwater 
exposure scenario are listed in Table 7-11. 
Table 7-11. Transfer Coefficients for Eggs, Present Day Climate, Groundwater Exposure Scenario 
Element GM GSD 
Lower Truncation 
Limit 
Upper Truncation 
Limit 
Chlorine 4.4E-02 10.0 1.2E-04 1.7E+01 
Selenium 7.3E+00 2.0 1.2E+00 4.4E+01 
Strontium 2.7E-01 2.0 4.5E-02 1.6E+00 
Technetium 2.4E+00 2.0 4.0E-01 1.4E+01 
Tin 8.7E-02 10.0 2.3E-04 3.3E+01 
Iodine 2.6E+00 2.0 4.4E-01 1.6E+01 
Cesium 3.5E-01 5.8 3.7E-03 3.3E+01 
Lead 5.6E-02 10.0 1.5E-04 2.1E+01 
Radium 3.9E-04 10.0 1.0E-06 1.5E-01 
Actinium 2.9E-03 2.3 3.4E-04 2.5E-02 
Thorium 3.5E-03 7.3 2.0E-05 5.9E-01 
Protactinium 2.0E-03 2.0 3.4E-04 1.2E-02 
Uranium 6.3E-01 2.5 6.0E-02 6.7E+00 
Neptunium 3.4E-03 2.4 3.4E-04 3.3E-02 
Plutonium 1.7E-03 7.4 9.7E-06 2.9E-01 
Americium 4.9E-03 2.0 8.2E-04 2.9E-02 
NOTE: Uncertainty distribution of TC is lognormal. The values of TCs are in units of d/kg. 
It is recommended that the same set of animal intaketoanimal product TCs for eggs be used for 
the future climate and for the volcanic ash exposure scenario. 

7.1.3 Radionuclide Transport to Aquatic Food 
The bioaccumulation factors for freshwater fish, as well as the modifying factors for radionuclide 
concentration in fishpond water for the present day and future climates, are summarized in 
Table 7-12. The bioaccumulation factors are represented by lognormal distributions. The values 
apply to the groundwater exposure scenario; the freshwater fish ingestion pathway is not 
included in the volcanic ash exposure scenario because under that scenario there is no 
groundwater release of radionuclides. 
Table 7-12. Bioaccumulation Factor and Modifying Factor for Element Concentration in Fishpond Water 
Element 
Bioaccumulation Factor Modifying Factor 
Geometric 
Mean L/kg 
Geometric 
Standard 
Deviation 
Lower 
Truncation 
Limit L/kg 
Upper 
Truncation 
Limit L/kg 
Present Day 
Climate 
Future 
Climate 
Carbon 4.6E+03 3.2 2.3E+02 9.2E+04 1 1 
Chlorine 2.2E+02 5.6 2.6E+00 1.9E+04 
Uniform 
distribution 
min = 2.2 
max = 6.1 
Uniform 
distribution 
min = 1.5 
max = 3.3 
Selenium 2.3E+02 2.0 3.9E+01 1.4E+03 
Strontium 4.6E+01 2.0 7.8E+00 2.8E+02 
Technetium 2.0E+01 2.0 3.3E+00 1.2E+02 
Tin 2.5E+03 2.0 4.2E+02 1.5E+04 
Iodine 4.5E+01 2.6 3.8E+00 5.3E+02 
Cesium 3.5E+03 2.2 4.7E+02 2.5E+04 
Lead 2.9E+02 2.5 2.7E+01 3.1E+03 
Radium 6.7E+01 2.2 9.2E+00 5.0E+02 
Actinium 2.9E+01 3.0 1.7E+00 5.0E+02 
Thorium 1.1E+02 2.5 1.0E+01 1.2E+03 
Protactinium 1.2E+01 2.0 2.0E+00 7.1E+01 
Uranium 1.4E+01 3.0 8.4E-01 2.3E+02 
Neptunium 3.0E+01 2.9 1.9E+00 4.7E+02 
Plutonium 4.1E+01 4.7 7.9E-01 2.2E+03 
Americium 5.2E+01 2.3 5.8E+00 4.6E+02 

7.1.4 Radionuclide Transport via Evaporative Coolers 
The following parameter values were developed to support modeling of radionuclide transport 
via evaporative coolers. These parameter values should be used for present day and future 
climates in the groundwater exposure scenario. For the volcanic ash exposure scenario, the 
inhalation exposure pathway associated with evaporative coolers is not included because under 
that scenario there is no groundwater release of radionuclides (i.e., the water is not 
contaminated). The following parameter values are recommended. 
7.1.4.1 Airflow Rate 
Airflow rate for evaporative coolers is represented by a piece-wise linear cumulative distribution 
represented by the following points: 
(1,700 m3/h; 0 percent), (8,300 m3/h; 50 percent), (10,200 m3/h; 100 percent). 
7.1.4.2 Evaporative Cooler Water Use Rate 
Evaporative cooler water evaporation rate is represented by a lognormal distribution with a GM 
of 17 L/hr and a GSD of 1.7. 
The correlation coefficient between the water evaporation rate and the airflow rate for 
evaporative coolers is equal to 0.8. 
7.1.4.3 Evaporative Cooler Water Transfer Fraction 
The fraction of radionuclides present in the water in the form of dissolved solids that can be 
transferred into the air stream as a result of the evaporative cooling (evaporative cooler water 
transfer fraction) is represented by a uniform distribution ranging from 0 to 1. For contaminants 
present in the water as gaseous species, this fraction is equal to 1. 
7.1.5 Exhalation of Radon from Soil 
7.1.5.1 Radon-222 Release Factor 
The recommended value of the radon release factor (activity concentration ratio of 222Rn air to 
226Ra in surface soil) for the groundwater exposure scenario is 
0.25 (Bq/m3)/(Bq/kg) = 0.25 kg/m3. This value is appropriate for the groundwater exposure 
scenario for the present day and future climates. This parameter is not used for the volcanic ash 
exposure scenario. 
7.1.5.2 Ratio of Radon-222 Concentration in Air to Flux Density from Soil 
The recommended value of the ratio of 222Rn concentration in outdoor air to 222Rn flux density 
from soil is 300 (Bq/m3)/(Bq/(m2 s) = 300 s/m. This value is appropriate for the volcanic ash 
exposure scenario for the present day and future climates. This parameter is not used for the 
groundwater exposure scenario. 

7.1.5.3 Fraction of Radon-222 from Soil Entering the House 
The fraction of radon released into the house from soil is represented by a uniform distribution 
with a minimum of 0.1 and a maximum of 0.25. This distribution is appropriate for the present 
day and future climates and for the groundwater and volcanic ash exposure scenarios. 
7.1.5.4 House Ventilation Rate 
The ventilation rate for houses that do not use evaporative coolers, and for the fraction of a year 
when evaporative coolers are not used, is represented by a truncated lognormal distribution with 
arithmetic mean of 1.0 air exchanges per hour (hr-1) and arithmetic standard deviation of 1.1 air 
exchanges per hour. The lower truncation limit is 0.35 air exchanges per hour and the upper 
truncation limit is 2.9 air exchanges per hour. For houses using evaporative coolers, when an 
evaporative cooler is in operation, the ventilation rate is represented by a uniform distribution 
with a minimum of 1 air exchange per hour and a maximum of 30 air exchanges per hour. These 
distributions are appropriate for the present day and future climates and for the groundwater and 
volcanic ash exposure scenarios. 
7.1.5.5 Interior Wall Height 
It is recommended that the interior wall (or ceiling) height be represented by a piece-wise linear 
distribution with the following properties: 
(2.1 m; 0 percent), (2.3 m; 50 percent), (2.7 m; 100 percent). 
This distribution is appropriate for the present day and future climates and for the groundwater 
and volcanic ash exposure scenarios. 
7.1.5.6 Equilibrium Factor for Radon-222 Decay Products 
The outdoor equilibrium factor for radon decay products is represented by a uniform distribution 
with a minimum of 0.5 and a maximum of 0.7. 
The distribution of the indoor equilibrium factor for radon decay products is uniform with a 
minimum of 0.3 and a maximum of 0.5. 
These distributions are appropriate for the present day and future climates and for the 
groundwater and volcanic ash exposure scenarios. 
7.1.6 Carbon-14 Transport in the Environment 
Parameter values for the 14C submodel developed in this analysis apply only to the groundwater 
exposure scenario because 14C has not been identified as a radionuclide of interest for the 
extrusive igneous release. 
7.1.6.1 
Carbon Emission Rate from Soil 
A fixed value of 22/yr is recommended for the emission rate of carbon from soil for the present 
day and future climates. 

7.1.6.2 
Surface Area of Irrigated Land 
It is recommended that the surface area of irrigated land for a given climate be calculated as the 
ratio of the representative volume of 3,000 acre-feet (3,714,450 m3) to the average annual 
irrigation rate for the present day and future climates. 
7.1.6.3 Carbon Mixing Height 
The carbon mixing height for the human inhalation pathway is equal to 2 m, and the mixing 
height for the carbon uptake by crops for human and animal consumption is equal to 1 m. 
7.1.6.4 Annual Average Wind Speed 
It is recommended that the wind speed in the 1-m layer above the surface, corresponding to the 
mixing height for the carbon uptake by crops, be represented by a uniform distribution over the 
range of 1.5 m/s to 2.3 m/s. 
For the calculation of human inhalation dose (mixing height of 2 m), it is recommended that the 
wind speed velocity be represented by the uniform distribution from 2.1 to 2.8 m/s. 
7.1.6.5 
Parameters Related to Stable Carbon Concentration in Environmental Media 
The values of parameters related to stable carbon concentration in environmental media are 
given in Table 7-13. The values apply to the present day and future climates. 
Table 7-13. Parameters Related to Stable Carbon Concentration in Various Environmental Media 
Parameter Value and Unit 
Fraction of stable carbon in leafy vegetables 0.09 
Fraction of stable carbon in other vegetables 0.09 
Fraction of stable carbon in fruit 0.09 
Fraction of stable carbon in grain 0.40 
Fraction of stable carbon in forage plants 0.09 
Fraction of air-derived carbon in plants 0.98 
Fraction of soil-derived carbon in plants 0.02 
Concentration of stable carbon in air 1.8E-04 kg/m3 
Fraction of stable carbon in soil 0.03 
Concentration of stable carbon in water 2.0E-5 kg/L 
Fraction of stable carbon in beef 0.24 
Fraction of stable carbon in poultry 0.2 
Fraction of stable carbon in milk 0.07 
Fraction of stable carbon in eggs 0.15 

7.1.7 
Critical Thickness 
Critical thickness for the resuspension of particulate matter is represented by a uniform 
distribution with a minimum of 1 mm and a maximum of 3 mm (0.001 to 0.003 m). 
7.2 HOW ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA WERE ADDRESSED 
The following information (Table 7-14) describes how this analysis addresses the acceptance 
criteria in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.14, 
Biosphere Characteristics). Only those acceptance criteria that are applicable to this report (see 
Section 4.2) are discussed. 
This analysis report is one of ten reports (Figure 1-1) that support biosphere modeling and 
describe how the acceptance criteria have been addressed by the biosphere model. A 
consideration of all ten reports is required in order to understand how all applicable acceptance 
criteria are satisfied by the biosphere model. 
Table 7-14. Satisfaction of Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.14.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review 
Plan 
Acceptance Criterion 
How Acceptance Criterion was Addressed in the 
Analysis 
Acceptance Criterion 14. 1  System Description and Model Integration are Adequate. 
14.1(3) Assumptions are consistent between the 
biosphere characteristics modeling and other 
abstractions. For example, the U.S. Department of 
Energy should ensure that the modeling of features, 
events, and processes, such as climate change, soil 
types, sorption coefficients, volcanic ash properties, and 
the physical and chemical properties of radionuclides are 
consistent with assumption in other total system 
performance assessment abstractions. 
This analysis considers information and assumptions 
about FEPs shared by other TSPA abstractions. These 
FEPs are treated in a manner that is consistent with that 
used in the other abstractions. Most environmental 
transport parameter values developed in this analysis are 
unaffected by climate change. For the parameters that 
are, the treatment of climate change is consistent with 
the other TSPA modeling abstractions. Section 6.4.3 
includes development of the climate-dependent 
biosphere model parameter that is within a scope of this 
analysis. Properties of volcanic ash and their effect on 
selected model input parameters are discussed in 
Section 6.2.1.3. Soil types are considered primarily for 
the development of transfer factors in Section 6.2.1 and 
the subsections. 
Acceptance Criterion 14.2  Data are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
14.2(1) The parameter values used in the license 
application are adequately justified (e.g., behaviors and 
characteristics of the residents of the Town of Amargosa 
Valley, Nevada, characteristics of the reference 
biosphere, etc.) and consistent with the definition of the 
reasonably maximally exposed individual in 10 CFR Part 
63. Adequate descriptions of how the data were used, 
interpreted, and appropriately synthesized into the 
parameters are provided. 
The justification for the parameter distributions 
developed in this report, and the consistency of those 
distributions with the conditions in the Yucca Mountain 
region, are described in Section 6 and summarized in 
Section 7.1. The data identified in Section 4.1 were 
used, interpreted, and appropriately synthesized into the 
parameter distributions as described in Section 6. 
Justification is provided for those parameter values that 
are developed based on the generic data, rather than the 
site-specific data. 

Table 7-14. Satisfaction of Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.14.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review 
Plan (Continued) 
Acceptance Criterion 
How Acceptance Criterion was Addressed in the 
Analysis 
Acceptance Criterion 14.2  Data are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
14.2(2) Data are sufficient to assess the degree to which 
features, events, and processes related to biosphere 
characteristics modeling have been characterized and 
incorporated in the abstraction. As specified in 10 CFR 
Part 63, the U.S. Department of Energy should 
demonstrate that features, events, and processes, which 
describe the biosphere, are consistent with present 
knowledge of conditions in the region, surrounding Yucca 
Mountain. As appropriate, the U.S. Department of 
Energy sensitivity and uncertainty analyses (including 
consideration of alternative conceptual models) are 
adequate for determining additional data needs, and 
evaluating whether additional data would provide new 
information that could invalidate prior modeling results 
and affect the sensitivity of the performance of the 
system to the parameter value or model. 
The sufficiency of data used to develop parameter 
distributions used in the modeling of features, events, 
and processes related to biosphere characteristics 
modeling is described in Sections 4.1 and 6. 
Demonstration that the parameter distributions are 
consistent with present knowledge of the conditions in 
the Yucca Mountain region is in Section 6. Sensitivity 
and uncertainty analyses are addressed in other 
biosphere modeling reports listed in Figure 1-1. 
Acceptance Criterion 14.3  Data Uncertainty is Characterized and Propagated through the Model 
Abstraction 
14.3(1) Models use parameter values, assumed ranges, 
probability distributions, and bounding assumptions that 
are technically defensible, reasonably account for 
uncertainties and variabilities, do not result in an under-
representation of the risk estimate, and are consistent 
with the definition of the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual in 10 CFR Part 63. 
The technical justification for bounding assumptions used 
in this analysis is included in Section 5. The technical 
defensibility of the probability distribution developed for 
each parameter is demonstrated in Section 6. The 
identification of uncertainties and variabilities, and how 
those uncertainties and variabilities were accounted for 
in the development of parameter ranges that do not 
under-represent risk, is also described in Section 6. 
Although this analysis concerns primarily the 
characteristics of the environment, it also uses some 
characteristics of the receptor to develop parameter 
values for the model. For example, the parameters 
related to ventilation and air conditioning are based on 
the living styles of the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual. 
14.3(2) The technical bases for the parameter values 
and ranges in the abstraction, such as consumption 
rates, plant and animal uptake factors, mass-loading 
factors, and biosphere dose conversion factors, are 
consistent with site characterization data, and are 
technically defensible. 
The technical defensibility of the technical bases for the 
parameter distributions for plant and animal uptake 
factors is described in Section 6. The consistency of the 
data and the distributions of parameters related to 
environmental transport of radionuclides with site 
characterization data is described in Sections 4.1 and 6. 
14.3(4) Uncertainty is adequately represented in 
parameter development for conceptual models and 
process-level models considered in developing the 
biosphere characteristics modeling, either through 
sensitivity analyses, conservative limits, or bounding 
values supported by data, as necessary. Correlations 
between input values are appropriately established in the 
total system performance assessment, and the 
implementation of the abstraction does not 
inappropriately bias results to a significant degree. 
The bounding values of the parameter distributions 
developed in this analysis were selected to adequately 
represent uncertainty, as described in Sections 5 and 6. 
Correlations among biosphere model input parameters 
are identified in Section 6. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

8. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 
8.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
AdobeAir. 2002. What is Evaporative Cooling? Coolers. Phoenix, Arizona: 159493
AdobeAir. Accessed August 20, 2002. TIC: 253052. 
http://www.adobeair.com/coolers/evap_cooling.htm
Anspaugh, L.R.; Shinn, J.H.; Phelps, P.L.; and Kennedy, N.C. 1975. Resuspension 151548
and Redistribution of Plutonium in Soils. Health Physics, 29, (4), 571-582. 
New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 248619. 
Au, F.H.F.; Leavitt, V.D.; Beckert, W.F.; and McFarlane, J.C. 1977. Incorporation 160560
of Transuranics into Vegetable and Field Crops Grown at the Nevada Test Site.
Transuranics in Desert Ecosystems. White, M.G.; Dunaway, P.B.; and Wireman, 
D.L., eds. NVO-181. Pages 1-15. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Energy Research & 
Development Administration. TIC: 201875. 
Baes, C.F., III; Sharp, R.D.; Sjoreen, A.L.; and Shor, R.W. 1984. A Review and 103766
Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released 
Radionuclides Through Agriculture. ORNL-5786. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ACC: NNA.19870731.0041. 
Bernard, J.K. and Montgomery, M.J. 2002. Managing Intake of Lactating Dairy 160609
Cows. PB 1598. Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee, Agriculture 
Extension Service. Accessed April 21, 2003. TIC: 253440. 
http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/animals/default.asp 
BIOMASS (The IAEA Programme on Biosphere Modelling and Assessment 159468
Methods) 2001. Themes for a New Co-ordinated Research Programme on 
Environmental Model Testing and Improvement: Theme 1: Radioactive Waste 
Disposal, Theme 2: Environmental Releases, Theme 3: Biospheric Processes. 
Working Material, Limited Distribution, Biosphere Modelling and Assessment, 
Biomass Programme. Version 2. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy 
Agency. TIC: 252966. 
BIOMASS (Biosphere Modelling and Assessment) 2003. Reference Biospheres 168563 
for Solid Radioactive Waste Disposal, Report of BIOMASS Theme 1 of the BIOsphere 
Modelling and ASSessment (BIOMASS) Programme, Part of the IAEA Co-ordinated 
Research Project on Bioshere Modelling and Assessment (BIOMASS). IAEA-
BIOMASS-6. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, Waste Safety 
Section. TIC: 255411. 
Bird, G.A. and Ewing, L.L. 1996. Surface Water Model Simulations of the Fate of 159491 
14C Added to Lake 226, Experimental Lakes Area. Technical Record TR-729. 
Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Whiteshell 
Laboratories. TIC: 223925. 

Blaney, H.F. 1957. Evaporation Study at Silver Lake in the Mojave Desert, 159504
California. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 38, (2), 209-215. 
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 225578. 
Brookins, D.G. 1988. Eh-pH Diagrams for Geochemistry. New York, New York: 105092
Springer-Verlag. TIC: 237943. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Total System Performance Assessment-License 166296
Application Methods and Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 REV 00 ICN 01. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031215.0001. 
BSC 2004. Agricultural and Environmental Input Parameters for the Biosphere 169673 
Model. ANL-MGR-MD-000006 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. 
BSC 2004. Atmospheric Dispersal and Deposition of Tephra from a Potential 170026 
Volcanic Eruption at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. MDL-MGR-GS-000002 REV 01. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
BSC 2004. Biosphere Model Report. MDL-MGR-MD-000001 REV 01. Las Vegas, 169460 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
BSC 2004. Disruptive Event Biosphere Dose Conversion Factor Analysis. ANL-167287 
MGR-MD-000003 REV 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
BSC 2004. Future Climate Analysis. ANL-NBS-GS-000008, Rev. 01. Las Vegas, 170002 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company 
BSC 2004. Nominal Performance Biosphere Dose Conversion Factor Analysis. ANL-169674 
MGR-MD-000009 REV 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
BSC 2004. Q-List. 000-30R-MGR0-00500-000-000 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 168361 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040721.0007. 
BSC 2004. Soil-Related Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model. ANL-NBS-MD-169459 
000009 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for Biosphere Modeling and Expert Support. 169573
TWP-NBS-MD-000004 REV 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040527.0004. 
Bureau of the Census. 2002. 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data, Amargosa 159728
Valley CCD, Nye County, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Accessed August 28, 2002. TIC: 253098. 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_ts=48597952130 

Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. Project Requirements Document. TER-166275
MGR-MD-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031222.0006. 
Cataldo, D.A. and Vaughan, B.E. 1977. Retention, Absorption, and Translocation 160551
of Foliar Contaminants. Transuranics in Natural Environments. White, M.G. and 
Dunaway, P.B., eds. NVO-178. Pages 331-349. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Energy 
Research & Development Administration. TIC: 202606. 
Cember, H. 1983. Introduction to Health Physics. 2nd Edition. New York, 108074
New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 204863. 
City of Phoenix. 2003. Evaporative Cooler. Phoenix, Arizona: City of Phoenix. 159496
Accessed April 23, 2003. TIC: 254103. http://phoenix.gov/WATER/evapcool.html 
Cool Edge. 2002. Evaporative Cooling Pads. Porterville, California: Cool Edge. 160429
Accessed October 22, 2002. TIC: 253441. http://www.cooledge-
precoolers.com/evap.htm 
CRWMS (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System) M&O (Management and 100117
Operating Contractor) 1997. Engineering Design Climatology and Regional 
Meteorological Conditions Report. B00000000-01717-5707-00066 REV 00. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980304.0028. 
CRWMS M&O 1997. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Summary of 101090 
Socioeconomic Data Analyses Conducted in Support of the Radiological Monitoring 
Program First Quarter 1996 to First Quarter 1997. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS 
M&O. ACC: MOL.19971117.0460. 
CRWMS M&O 1999. Environmental Baseline File for Meteorology and Air 102877
Quality. B00000000-01717-5705-00126 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS 
M&O. ACC: MOL.19990302.0186. 
CRWMS M&O 1999. Evaluation of Soils in the Northern Amargosa Valley. 107736
B00000000-01717-5705-00084 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19990224.0268. 
CRWMS M&O 2000. Total System Performance Assessment for the Site 153246
Recommendation. TDR-WIS-PA-000001 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001220.0045. 
Davis, P.A; Zach, R.; Stephens, M.E.; Amiro, B.D.; Bird, G.A.; Reid, J.A.K.; 103767
Sheppard, M.I.; Sheppard, S.C.; and Stephenson, M. 1993. The Disposal of Canadas 
Nuclear Fuel Waste: The Biosphere Model, BIOTRAC, for Postclosure Assessment.
AECL-10720. Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. 
TIC: 244741. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1997. The 1997 Biosphere Food Consumption 100332
Survey Summary Findings and Technical Documentation. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: MOL.19981021.0301. 
Dorrian, M.-D. 1997. Particle Size Distributions of Radioactive Aerosols in the 159476
Environment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 69, (2), 117-132. Ashford, Kent, 
England: Nuclear Technology Publishing. TIC: 252686. 
Eckerman, K.F. and Ryman, J.C. 1993. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, 107684
Water, and Soil, Exposure-to-Dose Coefficients for General Application, Based on the 
1987 Federal Radiation Protection Guidance. EPA 402-R-93-081. Federal Guidance 
Report No. 12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Radiation and Indoor Air. TIC: 225472. 
Eckerman, K.F.; Wolbarst, A.B.; and Richardson, A.C.B. 1988. Limiting Values of 101069
Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for 
Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion. EPA 520/1-88-020. Federal Guidance Report 
No. 11. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
ACC: MOL.20010726.0072. 
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1996. Air Quality Criteria for 160121
Particulate Matter. EPA/600/P-95/001. Three volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. TIC: 250648. 
Farnsworth, R. K.; Thompson, E.S.; and Peck, E.L. 1982. Evaporation Atlas for the 160564
Contiguous 48 United States. NOAA Technical Report NWS 33. Washington, D.C.: 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ACC: MOL.19950105.0024 
through MOL.19950104.0028. 
Fosberg, M.A.; Falen, A.L.; Jones, J.P.; and Singh, B.B. 1979. Physical, Chemical, 159471
and Mineralogical Characteristics of Soils from Volcanic Ash in Northern Idaho: I. 
Morphology and Genesis. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 43, (3), 
541-547. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America. TIC: 252218. 
Gilbert, R.O.; Engel, D.W.; Smith, D.D.; Shinn, J.H.; Anspaugh, L.R.; and Eisele, 160553
G.R. 1988. Transfer of Aged Pu to Cattle Grazing on a Contaminated 
Environment. Health Physics, 54, (3), 323-335. New York, New York: Pergamon 
Press. TIC: 253422. 
Gilbert, R.O.; Shinn, J.H.; Essington, E.H.; Tamura, T.; Romney, E.M.; Moor, K.S.; 160552 
and O'Farrell, T.P. 1988. Radionuclide Transport from Soil to Air, Native 
Vegetation, Kangaroo Rats and Grazing Cattle on the Nevada Test Site. Health 
Physics, 55, (6), 869-887. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 253511. 

Houghton, J.G.; Sakamoto, C.M.; and Gifford, R.O. 1975. Nevadas Weather and 106182 
Climate. Special Publication 2. Reno, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and 
Geology. TIC: 225666. 
HVI (Home Ventilating Institute). 2001. Home Ventilation & Indoor Air Quality. 160557 
Cleveland, Ohio: Penton. TIC: 253424. 
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) 1982. Generic Models and Parameters 103768 
for Assessing the Environmental Transfer of Radionuclides from Routine Releases 
Exposures of Critical Group. IAEA SS-57. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic 
Energy Agency. TIC: 232649. 
IAEA 1994. Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide 100458
Transfer in Temperate Environments. Technical Reports Series No. 364. Vienna, 
Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency. TIC: 232035. 
IAEA 2001. An International Peer Review of the Biosphere Modelling Programme of 155188 
the US Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project, Report 
of the IAEA International Review Team. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic 
Energy Agency. TIC: 250092. 
IAEA 2001. Generic Models for Use in Assessing the Impact of Discharges of 158519
Radioactive Substances to the Environment. Safety Reports Series No. 19. Vienna, 
Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency. TIC: 251295. 
ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements) 2001. 160339
Quantities, Units and Terms in Radioecology. Journal of the ICRU, 1, (2), ICRU 
Report No 65. Ashford, Kent, England: Nuclear Technology Publishing. 
TIC: 253018. 
Karlsson, S.; Bergstrm, U.; and Meili, M. 2001. Models for Dose Assessments, 159470
Models Adapted to the SFR-Area, Sweden. SKB TR-01-04. Stockholm, Sweden: 
Svensk Krnbrnslefrsrjning A.B. TIC: 252806. 
Karpiscak, M. and Marion, M.H. 1994. Evaporative Cooler Water Use. Tucson, 159501
Arizona: University of Arizona, College of Agriculture. TIC: 253054. 
Karpiscak, M.M.; Babcock, T.M.; France, G.W.; Zauderer, J.; Hopf, S.B.; and Foster, 160563
K.E. 1998. Evaporative Cooler Water Use in Phoenix. Journal, American Water 
Works Association, 90, (4), 121-130. New York, New York: American Water 
Works Association. TIC: 253423. 
Kennedy, W.E., Jr. and Strenge, D.L. 1992. Technical Basis for Translating 103776
Contamination Levels to Annual Total Effective Dose Equivalent. Volume 1 of 
Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning. NUREG/CR-5512. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
ACC: MOL.20010721.0030. 

Landman, K.A. 1982. Diffusion of Radon Through Cracks in a Concrete Slab. 160425
Health Physics, 43, (1), 65-71. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. 
TIC: 253432. 
LaPlante, P.A. and Poor, K. 1997. Information and Analyses to Support Selection of 101079 
Critical Groups and Reference Biospheres for Yucca Mountain Exposure Scenarios. 
CNWRA 97-009. San Antonio, Texas: Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory 
Analyses. ACC: MOL.20010721.0035. 
Leigh, C.D.; Thompson, B.M.; Campbell, J.E.; Longsine, D.E.; Kennedy, R.A.; and 100464
Napier, B.A. 1993. User's Guide for GENII-S: A Code for Statistical and
Deterministic Simulations of Radiation Doses to Humans from Radionuclides in the 
Environment. SAND91-0561. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. ACC: MOL.20010721.0031. 
Lide, D.R. and Frederikse, H.P.R., eds. 1997. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and 103178
Physics. 78th Edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. TIC: 243741. 
Mahler, R.L. and Fosberg, M.A. 1983. The Influence of Mount St. Helens Volcanic 159472
Ash on Plant Growth and Nutrient Uptake. Soil Science, 135, (3), 197-201. 
Baltimore, Maryland: Williams & Wilkins. TIC: 252221. 
Mason, S. 2003. Water Requirements of Lactating Cows. Alberta Dairy 160415
Management. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Western Dairy Science. Accessed April 18, 
2003. TIC: 253443. 
http://www.westerndairyscience.com/html/ADM%20articles/html/Water.html 
McCartin, T.J. and Lee, M.P., eds. 2001. Preliminary Performance-Based Analyses 160672 
Relevant to Dose-Based Performance Measures for a Proposed Geologic Repository 
at Yucca Mountain. NUREG-1538. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. TIC: 253556. 
Mills, M.; Vogt, D.; and Mann, B. 1983. Parameters and Variables Appearing in 103781
Radiological Assessment Codes. NUREG/CR-3160. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TIC: 206047. 
Mississippi State University Extension Service. 2002. Frequently Asked 159489
Questions. Aquaculture: Catfish. Starkville, Mississippi: Mississippi State 
University. Accessed August 20, 2002. TIC: 253049. 
http://msucares.com/aquaculture/catfish/index.html
Murray, D.M. and Burmaster, D.E. 1995. Residential Air Exchange Rates in the 160554
United States: Empirical and Estimated Parametric Distributions by Season and 
Climatic Region. Risk Analysis, 15, (4), 459-465. New York, New York: Plenum
Publishing. TIC: 250590. 

NAHB Research Center. 1998. Factory and Site-Built Housing, a Comparison for 160428
the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. TIC: 253431. 
Napier, B.A.; Peloquin, R.A.; Strenge, D.L.; and Ramsdell, J.V. 1988. Conceptual 157927
Representation. Volume 1 of GENII - The Hanford Environmental Radiation 
Dosimetry Software System. PNL-6584. Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest 
Laboratory. TIC: 252237. 
Napier, B.A.; Peloquin, R.A.; Strenge, D.L.; and Ramsdell, J.V. 1988. GENII - The 100953
Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System. Three volumes. 
PNL-6584. Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest Laboratory. 
ACC: NNA.19920626.0034; NNA.19920626.0036; NNA.19920626.0041. 
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) 1984. 103784
Radiological Assessment: Predicting the Transport, Bioaccumulation, and Uptake by 
Man of Radionuclides Released to the Environment. Report No. 76. Bethesda, 
Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. 
TIC: 223622. 
NCRP 1988. Measurement of Radon and Radon Daughters in Air. NCRP Report 153691
No. 97. Besthesda, Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and 
Measurements. TIC: 233708. 
NCRP 1996. Screening Models for Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, Surface 101883
Water, and GroundWork Sheets. NCRP Report No. 123 II. Bethesda, Maryland: 
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. TIC: 234986. 
NCRP 1996. Screening Models for Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, Surface 101882
Water, and Ground. NCRP Report No. 123 I. Bethesda, Maryland: National 
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. TIC: 225158. 
NCRP 1999. Recommended Screening Limits for Contaminated Surface Soil and 155894
Review of Factors Relevant to Site-Specific Studies. NCRP Report No. 129. 
Bethesda, Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 
TIC: 250396. 
Ng, Y.C. 1982. A Review of Transfer Factors for Assessing the Dose from 160322
Radionuclides in Agricultural Products. Nuclear Safety, 23, (1), 57-71. Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 253091. 
Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Kruize, H.; and Schenker, M.B. 1998. Exposure to Dust and 150855
Its Particle Size Distribution in California Agriculture. American Industrial Hygiene 
Association Journal, 59, 34-38. Fairfax, Virginia: American Industrial Hygiene 
Association. TIC: 248134. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, 163274 
Final Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 
Otterbein, R. 1996. Installing and Maintaining Evaporative Coolers. Berkeley, 159495 
California: Home Energy Magazine. Accessed August 20, 2002. TIC: 253055. 
http://homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/96/960511.html 
Peterson, H.J., Jr. 1983. Terrestrial and Aquatic Food Chain Pathways. 167077 
Radiological Assessment, A Textbook on Environmental Dose Analysis. Till, J.E. and 
Meyer, H.R., eds. NUREG/CR-3332. Pages 5-1 through 5-151. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACC: NNA.19900212.0010; 
NNA.19900212.0015. 
Pinnick, R.G.; Fernandez, G.; Martinez-Andazola, E.; Hinds, B.D.; Hansen, A.D.A.; 160312 
and Fuller, K. 1993. Aerosol in the Arid Southwestern United States: 
Measurements of Mass Loading, Volatility, Size Distribution, Absorption 
Characteristics, Black Carbon Content, and Vertical Structure to 7 km Above Sea 
Level. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98, (D2), 2651-2666. Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical Union. TIC: 252365. 
Randerson, D. 1984. Atmospheric Science and Power Production. DOE/TIC-109153 
27601. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Information 
Center. TIC: 223438. 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1. 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 100067 
Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. ACC: NNA.19870806.0032. 
Rittmann, P.D. 1993. Verification Tests for the July 1993 Revision to the GENII 107744
Radionuclide and Dose Increment Libraries. WHC-SD-WM-TI-596. Richland, 
Washington: Westinghouse Hanford Company. TIC: 233965. 
Robertson, D.E.; Cataldo, D.A.; Napier, B.A.; Krupka, K.M.; and Sasser, L.B. 2003. 168264
Literature Review and Assessment of Plant and Animal Transfer Factors Used in 
Performance Assessment Modeling. NUREG/CR-6825. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. 
ACC: MOL.20040316.0116. 
Roe, L.K. 2002. Summary of RDA Investigation ID: 4/10/02 Fish Farming in 160674
Amargosa Valley. Interoffice memorandum from L.K. Roe (BSC) to File, 
November 5, 2002, 1105024986, with an attachment. ACC: MOL.20021107.0091; 
MOL.20020821.0002. 

Romney, E.M. and Wallace, A. 1977. Plutonium Contamination of Vegetation in 160549
Dusty Field Environments. Transuranics in Natural Environments. White, M.G. 
and Dunaway, P.B., eds. NVO-178. Pages 287-302. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. 
Energy Research & Development Administration. TIC: 202606. 
of 
Romney, E.M.; Wallace, A.; Wieland, P.A.T.; and Kinnear, J.E. 1977. Plant Uptake 160558
239,240Pu and 241Am Through Roots from Soils Containing Aged Fallout 
Materials. Environmental Plutonium on the Nevada Test Site and Environs. White, 
M.G.; Dunaway, P.B.; and Howard, W.A.; eds. NVO-171. Pages 53-64. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: U.S. Energy Research & Development Administration. TIC: 201474. 
Ruppert, L.D.; Drackley, J.K.; and Clark, J.H. 1996. Effects of Tallow in Diets 159487
Based on Corn Silage or Alfalfa Haylage for Lactating Dairy Cows. 1996 Illinois 
Dairy Report. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, Department of Animal 
Sciences. Accessed August 20, 2002. TIC: 253050. 
http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~ansystem/dairyrep96/Ruppert2.html
Schery, S.D. 2001. Understanding Radioactive Aerosols and Their Measurement. 159478
Environmental Science and Technology Library. Volume 19. Boston, 
Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers. TIC: 252689. 
Schery, S.D. and Wasiolek, M.A. 1998. Modeling Radon Flux from the Earth's 160686 
Surface. Radon and Thoron in the Human Environment, Proceedings of the 7th 
Tohwa University International Symposium, Fukuoka, Japan, 23-25 October 1997. 
Katase, A. and Shimo, M., eds. 207-217. River Edge, New Jersey: World Scientific 
Publishing. TIC: 253565. 
Schulz, R.K. 1977. Root Uptake of Transuranic Elements. Transuranics in 160550
Natural Environments. White, M.G. and Dunaway, P.B., eds. NVO-178. Pages 
321-330. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Energy Research & Development 
Administration. TIC: 202606. 
Sehmel, G.A. 1980. Particle Resuspension: A Review. Environment 163178
International, 4, (2), 107-127. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. 
TIC: 254282. 
Sehmel, G.A. 1984. Deposition and Resuspension. Chapter 12 of Atmospheric 158693
Science and Power Production. Randerson, D., ed. DOE/TIC-27601. Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee: U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Information Center. 
TIC: 223438. 
Sehmel, G.A. and Hodgson, W.H. 1978. A Model for Predicting Dry Deposition of 158587
Particles and Gases to Environmental Surfaces. PNL-SA-6721. Richland, 
Washington: Pacific Northwest Laboratory. TIC: 252150. 

Sepulveda, C. 1999. Average Number of Lactating Cows Per Day for March 1999. 160413
Fax from C. Sepulveda (Security Milk Producers Association) to T. Cauliflower 
(CRWMS M&O), August 16, 1999. ACC: MOL.19990915.0158. 
Sheppard, M.I.; Sheppard, S.C.; and Amiro, B.D. 1991. Mobility and Plant Uptake 159545
of Inorganic 14C and 14C-Labelled PCB in Soils of High and Low Retention. Health
Physics, 61, (4), 481-492. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 252687. 
Sheppard, S.C. 1995. Application of the International Union of Radioecologists Soil-103789
to-Plant Database to Canada Settings. AECL-11474. Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada: 
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. TIC: 244744. 
Sheppard, S.C. and Evenden, W.G. 1997. Variation in Transfer Factors for 160641
Stochastic Models: Soil-to-Plant Transfer. Health Physics, 72, (5), 727-733. 
New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 253546. 
Sheppard, S.C. and Sheppard, M.I. 1989. Impact of Correlations on Stochastic 160644
Estimates of Soil Contamination and Plant Uptake. Health Physics, 57, (4), 
653-657. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 253545. 
Smith, D.D. 1977. Grazing Studies on a Contaminated Range of the Nevada Test 160559
Site. Environmental Plutonium on the Nevada Test Site and Environs. White, M.G.; 
Dunaway, P.B.; and Howard, W.A.; eds. NVO-171. Pages 139-149. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: U.S. Energy Research & Development Administration. TIC: 201474. 
Smith, G.M.; Watkins, B.M.; Little, R.H.; Jones, H.M.; and Mortimer, A.M. 1996. 101085
Biosphere Modeling and Dose Assessment for Yucca Mountain. EPRI TR-107190. 
Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute. TIC: 231592. 
Stull, R.B. 2001. An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. Atmospheric 159533
Sciences Library. Boston, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 
TIC: 252690. 
ToolBase Services. 2002. Evaporative Coolers. Upper Marlboro, Maryland: 159507 
National Association of Home Builders Research Center, ToolBase Services. 
Accessed August 21, 2002. TIC: 253057. 
http://www.toolbase.org/tertiary_printT.asp?TrackID=&CategoryID=1307& 
DocumentID=2095 
United Nations. 1988. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, 1988 Report 159566
to the General Assembly, with Annexes. New York, New York: United Nations. 
TIC: 209701. 

UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 158644 
Radiation) 2000. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, United Nations 
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, UNSCEAR 2000 Report to 
the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Two volumes. New York, 
New York: United Nations. TIC: 249863. 
Wang, Y-Y.; Biwer, B.M.; and Yu, C. 1993. A Compilation of Radionuclide Transfer 103839 
Factors for the Plant, Meat, Milk, and Aquatic Food Pathways and the Suggested 
Default Values for the RESRAD Code. ANL/EAIS/TM-103. Argonne, Illinois: 
Argonne National Laboratory. TIC: 232998. 
Wasiolek, P.T. and James, A.C. 1995. Outdoor Radon Dose Conversion Coefficient 163507
in South-Western and South-Eastern United States. Radiation Protection Dosimetry,
59, (4), 269-278. Ashford, Kent, England: Nuclear Technology Publishing. 
TIC: 254339. 
Watt, J.R. and Brown, W.K. 1997. Evaporative Air Conditioning Handbook. 3rd 159497
Edition. Lilburn, Georgia: Fairmont Press. TIC: 252688. 
Weast, R.C., ed. 1977. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 58th Edition. 106266 
Cleveland, Ohio: CRC Press. TIC: 242376. 
Wilkening, M. 1985. Radon Transport in Soil and Its Relation to Indoor 160427
Radioactivity. The Science of the Total Environment, 45, 219-226. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 253433. 
YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1999. Yucca Mountain Site 158212 
Characterization Project: Summary of Socioeconomic Data Analyses Conducted in 
Support of the Radiological Monitoring Program, April 1998 to April 1999. 
North Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. 
ACC: MOL.19991021.0188. 
Yu, C.; Loureiro, C.; Cheng, J.-J.; Jones, L.G.; Wang, Y.Y.; Chia, Y.P.; and Faillace, 160561 
E. 1993. Data Collection Handbook to Support Modeling the Impacts of Radioactive 
Material in Soil. ANL/EAIS-8. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory. 
TIC: 253438. 
Yu, C.; Zielen, A.J.; Cheng, J.-J.; LePoire, D.J.; Gnanapragasam, E.; Kamboj, S.; 159465 
Arnish, J.; Wallo, A., III.; Williams, W.A.; and Peterson, H. 2001. User's Manual for 
RESRAD Version 6. ANL/EAD-4. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory. 
TIC: 252702. 
Zach, R.; Amiro, B.D.; Bird, G.A.; Macdonald, C.R.; Sheppard, M.I.; Sheppard, S.C.; 103831 
and Szekely, J.G. 1996. Biosphere Model. Volume 4 of The Disposal of Canada's 
Nuclear Fuel Waste: A Study of Postclosure Safety of In-Room Emplacement of Used 
CANDU Fuel in Copper Containers in Permeable Plutonic Rock. AECL-11494-4. 
Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. TIC: 226735. 

8.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 156605 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
24 CFR 3280. Housing and Urban Development: Manufactured Home Construction 160555 
and Safety Standards. Readily available. 
66 FR 55732. Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic 156671 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, Final Rule. 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 
51, 60, 61, 63, 70, 72, 73, and 75. Readily available. 
AP-2.22Q, Rev. 1, ICN 1. Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. 
AP-2.27Q, Rev. 1, ICN 4. Planning for Science Activities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
AP-SIII.9Q, Rev.1, ICN 6. Scientific Analyses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
8.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
GS030908312322.002. Field and Chemical Data for Spring and Well Samples 170051 
Collected between 2/26/03 and 5/22/03 in the Yucca Mountain Area. Submittal date: 
10/15/2003. 
LA0407DK831811.001. Physical Parameters of Basaltic Magma and Eruption 170768 
Phenomena. Submittal date: 07/15/2004 
MO0211SPADIMEN.005. Dimensions of Catfish Ponds in Amargosa Valley. 160653 
Submittal date: 11/05/2002. 
MO0307SEPFEPS4.000. LA FEP List. Submittal date: 07/31/2003. 164527 
MO04019SUM9397.000. Summary of 1993-1997 Site 9 Meteorological Data. 167054 
Submittal date: 01/20/2004. 
MO0407SEPFEPLA.000. LA FEP List. Submittal date: 07/20/2004. 170760 
8.4 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
MO0406SPAETPBM.002. Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model. 
Submittal date: 06/24/2004. 

APPENDIX A 
DESCRIPTION OF FILES ACCOMPANYING THIS ANALYSIS 


A1. CALCULATION OF TRANSFER FACTORS, TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS, 
AND BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS 
File Name: Calculation of TFs TCs and BFs.xls 
Hardware Used to Conduct CalculationsDell Precision Workstation 530, Microsoft Windows 
2000, CPU# 151554. 
Description of the FileThe Microsoft Excel 2000 workbook Calculation of TFs TCs and 
BFs.xls consists of 10 worksheets, containing information presented in Table A-1. 
Table A-1. Description of the Calculation of TFs TCs and BFs.xls Workbook 
Worksheet Name Contents Associated Tables 
Leafy Vegetables Calculation of GMs and GSDs for TFs for leafy vegetables for 
elements of interest, based on values from references; 
Generation of plots of TFs based on the data from the references 
as well as developed data for technetium, iodine, neptunium, 
plutonium, and americium. 
6-2 to 6-7 
Other Vegetables Calculation of GMs and GSDs for TFs for other vegetables for 
elements of interest, based on values from references; 
Generation of plots of TFs based on the data from the references 
as well as developed data for technetium, iodine, neptunium, 
plutonium, and americium. 
6-8 to 6-13 
Fruit Calculation of GMs and GSDs for TFs for fruit for elements of 
interest, based on values from references; 
Generation of plots of TFs based on the data from the references 
as well as developed data for technetium, iodine, neptunium, 
plutonium, and americium. 
6-14 to 6-19 
Grain Calculation of GMs and GSDs for TFs for grain for elements of 
interest, based on values from references; 
Generation of plots of TFs based on the data from the references 
as well as developed data for technetium, iodine, neptunium, 
plutonium, and americium. 
6-20 to 6-25 
Pasture Calculation of GMs and GSDs for TFs for forage plants for 
elements of interest, based on values from references; 
Generation of plots of TFs based on the data from the references 
as well as developed data for technetium, iodine, neptunium, 
plutonium, and americium. 
6-26 to 6-31 
Meat Calculation of GM and GSD for TCs for meat for elements of 
interest, based on values from references; 
Generation of plots of TCs based on the data from the references 
as well as the developed data for technetium, iodine, neptunium, 
plutonium, and americium. 
6-39 to 6-44 
Poultry Calculation of GM and GSD for TCs for poultry for elements of 
interest, based on values from references; 
Generation of plots of TCs based on the data from the references 
as well as the developed data for technetium, iodine, neptunium, 
plutonium, and americium. 
6-46 to 6-51 

Table A-1. Description of the Calculation of TFs TCs and BFs.xls Workbook (Continued) 
Worksheet Name Contents Associated Tables 
Milk Calculation of GM and GSD for TCs for milk for elements of 
interest, based on values from references; 
Generation of plots of TCs based on the data from the references 
as well as the developed data for technetium, iodine, neptunium, 
plutonium, and americium. 
6-52 to 6-57 
Eggs Calculation of GM and GSD for TCs for eggs for elements of 
interest, based on values from references; 
Generation of plots of TCs based on the data from the references 
as well as the developed data for technetium, iodine, neptunium, 
plutonium, and americium. 
6-58 to 6-63 
Fish Calculation of GM and GSD for bioaccumulation factors for 
freshwater fish based on values from references. 
6-64 to 6-65 
Description of the CalculationsIn each worksheet, calculations of the GM and GSD of the 
reference data were performed as: 
 
GM of a set of values x1, x2, , xn was calculated by using the built-in Excel function 
GEOMEAN for the specified range of values. 
 
GSD of a set of values x1, x2, , xn, GSD, was calculated in the Excel spreadsheet using the 
following formula: 
(
eGSD =
LN STDEV ( x1), LN ( x2 ),..., LN ( x ) ) (Eq. A-1) 
n 
where 
STDEV = Excel function which calculates standard deviation for a specified range of 
values 
LN(xi) = Excel function that calculates natural logarithm of a specified value xi. 
The upper and lower truncation limits are calculated using: 
GM
truncation lower =
GSD 
576.2 
(Eq. A-2) 
truncation upper = GM  GSD 576.2 
where 
GM = geometric mean 
GSD = geometric standard deviation. 
As explained in Section 6.2.1.1.5, when the GSD of the published values was less than 2, it was 
assumed to be 2, and if it was greater than 10, it was assumed to be 10. 

A2. CALCULATION OF THE VERTICAL WIND PROFILE 
File Name: Vertical wind profile.xls 
Hardware Used to Conduct CalculationsDell Precision Workstation 530, Microsoft Windows 
2000, CPU# 151554 
Description of the FileThe Microsoft Excel 2000 workbook Vertical wind profile.xls consists 
of a worksheet, containing the calculations of the vertical wind profile in the boundary layer, 
described in Section 6.7.2. The results of these calculations are summarized in Table 6-71. 
Description of the CalculationsThe calculations were based on Equations 6-29 and 6-30 
described in Section 6.7.2. 
A.3 LIST OF FILES INCLUDED ON CD-ROM 
List of files generated in this analysis, including files names, sizes, and dates, is shown in Figure 
A-1. 
Figure A-1. Excel Files Generated in Analysis 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK