Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model Rev 01, ICN 00

ANL-MGR-MD-000007

June 2003

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 (TSPA) 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, as identified in the Technical Work Plan: for Biosphere 
Modeling and Expert Support (TWP) (BSC 2003 [163602]). Some documents in Figure 1-1 may 
be under development and not available when this report is issued. This figure provides an 
understanding of how this report contributes to biosphere modeling in support of the license 
application (LA), but access to the listed documents is not required to understand the contents of 
this report. This report is one of the reports that develops input parameter values for the 
biosphere model. The Biosphere Model Report (BSC 2003 [160699]) describes the conceptual 
model, the mathematical model, and the input parameters. 
The purpose of this analysis is 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 volcanic ash). The analysis was performed in 
accordance with the TWP (BSC 2003 [163602]). 
This analysis develops values of parameters associated with many features, events, and processes 
(FEPs) applicable to the reference biosphere (DTN: M00303SEPFEPS2.000 [162452]), which 
are addressed in the biosphere model (BSC 2003 [160699]). The treatment of these FEPs is 
described in BSC (2003 [160699], Section 6.2). Parameter values developed in this report, and 
the related 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 BSC 
(2003 [160699], Section 6.2). The parameter values developed in this report support the 
biosphere model and are reflected in the TSPA through the biosphere dose conversion factors 
(BDCFs). 
Biosphere modeling focuses on radionuclides screened for the TSPA-LA (BSC 2002 [160059]). 
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). 
This analysis combines and revises two previous reports, Transfer Coefficient Analysis 
(CRWMS M&O 2000 [152435]) and Environmental Transport Parameter Analysis (CRWMS 
M&O 2001 [152434]), because the new ERMYN biosphere model requires a redefined set of 
input parameters. The scope of this analysis includes providing a technical basis for the selection 
of radionuclide- and element-specific biosphere parameters (except for Kd) that are important for 
calculating BDCFs based on the available radionuclide inventory abstraction data. The 
environmental transport parameter values were developed specifically for use in the biosphere 
model and may not be appropriate for other applications.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 14 June 2003 
Figure 1-1. Overview of the Yucca Mountain Biosphere Model Documentation

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 15 June 2003 
Table 1-1. Parameters and Related Features, Events, and Processes 
Parameter(s) FEP a YMP FEP 
Number 
Associated 
Submodel(s) Reference b 
Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A 
Soil-to-plant transfer factor (TF) 
Ashfall 1.2.04.07.0A 
Plant Uptake The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.2.1.2 
Soil and sediment transport 2.3.02.03.0A 
Biosphere characteristics 2.3.13.01.0A Dry deposition velocity 
Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A 
Plant Uptake The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.2.2.1 
Translocation factor Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A Plant Uptake The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.2.2.2 
Weathering rate constant Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A Plant Uptake The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.2.2.3 
Animal diet-to-animal product transfer 
coefficient Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A Animal Uptake The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.3.3 
Animal farms and fisheries 2.4.09.02.0A 
Animal consumption rate of feed 
Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A 
Animal Uptake, 
Carbon-14 
The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.3.2 
Agricultural land use and irrigation 2.4.09.01.0B 
Animal farms and fisheries 2.4.09.02.0A Animal consumption rate of water 
Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A 
Animal Uptake, 
Carbon-14 
The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.3.2 
Animal farms and fisheries 2.4.09.02.0A 
Animal consumption rate of soil 
Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A 
Animal Uptake, 
Carbon-14 
The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.3.2 
Bioaccumulation factor for aquatic food 
(by element and climate) Bioaccumulation 3.3.02.03.0A Fish Uptake The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.4.3 and 6.4.4 
Agricultural land use and irrigation 2.4.09.01.0B 
Climate change, global 1.3.01.00.0A 
Water management activities 1.4.07.01.0A 
Biosphere characteristics 2.3.13.01.0A 
Animal farms and fisheries 2.4.09.02.0A 
Water concentration modifying factor 
for fishpond water 
Bioaccumulation 3.3.02.03.0A 
Fish Uptake The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.4.3 and 6.4.5

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 16 June 2003 
Table 1-1. Parameters and Related Features, Events, and Processes (Continued) 
Parameter(s) Included FEP a YMP FEP 
Number 
Associated 
Submodel(s) Summary of Disposition b 
Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A Fraction of radionuclides evaporative 
cooler water that is transferred into the 
air Radon and radon daughter 
exposure 3.3.08.00.0A 
Air The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.5.2 
Dwellings 2.4.07.00.0A 
Biosphere characteristics 2.3.13.01.0A 
Urban and Industrial Land and 
Water Use 2.4.10.00.0A 
Water evaporation rate for an 
evaporative cooler 
Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Air The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.5.2 
Dwellings 2.4.07.00.0A 
Air flow rate for an evaporative cooler Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Air The treatment of this parameter is 
described in 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 Radon and radon daughter 
exposures 3.3.08.00.0A 
Air The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.6.1 
Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A Ratio (conversion factor) of 222Rn 
concentration in outdoor air to 222Rn 
flux density from soil Radon and radon daughter 
exposures 3.3.08.00.0A 
Air The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.6.1 
Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Fraction of 222Rn flux from soil entering 
the house Radon and radon daughter 
exposures 3.3.08.00.0A 
Air The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.6.2 
Radon and radon daughter 
exposures 3.3.08.00.0A Equilibrium factor for radon decay 
products indoors 
Inhalation 3.3.04.02.0A 
Inhalation The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.6.3 
Radon and radon daughter 
exposures 3.3.08.00.0A Equilibrium factor for radon decay 
products in outdoor air 
Inhalation 3.3.04.02.0A 
Inhalation The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.6.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 17 June 2003 
Table 1-1. Parameters and Related Features, Events, and Processes (Continued) 
Parameter(s) Included FEP a YMP FEP 
Number 
Associated 
Submodel(s) Summary of Disposition b 
Dwellings 2.4.07.00.0A 
Radon and radon daughter 
exposures 3.3.08.00.0A Interior wall height 
Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Air The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.6.2 
Dwellings 2.4.07.00.0A 
Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A House ventilation rate 
Radon and radon daughter 
exposures 3.3.08.00.0A 
Air The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.6.2 
Agricultural land use and irrigation 2.4.09.01.0B 
Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A Surface area of Irrigated land 
Climate change, global 1.3.01.00.0A 
Carbon-14 The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.7.2 
Soil type 2.3.02.01.0A 
Carbon emission rate constant for soil Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Carbon-14 The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.7.1 
Mixing height of gaseous 14C (CO2) Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A Carbon-14 The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.7.2 
Biosphere characteristics 2.3.13.01.0A 
Annual average wind speed Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Carbon-14 The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.7.2 
Fraction of stable carbon in crops Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A Carbon-14 The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.7.3 
Fraction of stable carbon in animal 
product Animal uptake 3.3.02.02.0A Carbon-14 The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.7.4 
Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A 
Fraction of air-derived carbon in plants 
Animal Uptake 3.3.02.02.0A 
Carbon-14 The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.7.3 
Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A Fraction of soil-derived carbon in 
plants Animal Uptake 3.3.02.02.0A 
Carbon-14 The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.7.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 18 June 2003 
Table 1-1. Parameters and Related Features, Events, and Processes (Continued) 
Parameter(s) Included FEP a YMP FEP 
Number 
Associated 
Submodel(s) Summary of Disposition b 
Fraction of stable carbon in soil Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A Carbon-14 The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.7.3 
Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants 3.2.10.00.0A 
Concentration of stable carbon in air 
Plant uptake 3.3.02.01.0A 
Carbon-14 The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.7.3 
Concentration of stable carbon in 
water Animal Uptake 3.3.02.02.0A Carbon-14 The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.7.4 
Radionuclide accumulation in soils 2.3.02.02.0A 
Soil and sediment transport in the 
biosphere 
2.3.02.03.0A 
Critical thickness of soil for 
resuspension 
Inhalation 3.3.04.02.0A 
Soil The treatment of this parameter is 
described in Section 6.8 
NOTES: YMP = Yucca Mountain Project 
a FEPs are listed in DTN: MO0303SEPFEPS2.000 [162452]. 
b The effects of the related FEPs are included in the TSPA through the BDCFs. See BSC (2003 [160699], Section 6.2) for a complete description of 
the inclusion and treatment of FEPs in the biosphere model.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 19 June 2003 
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
Development of this report involves analysis of data to support performance assessment, as 
identified in the TWP (BSC 2003 [163602]), and thus, it is a quality affecting activity in 
accordance with AP-2.27Q, Planning for Science Activities [159604]. Approved quality 
assurance procedures identified in the TWP (BSC 2003 [163602], Section 4) have been used to 
conduct and document the activities described in this report. Electronic data used in this analysis 
were controlled in accordance with the methods specified in the TWP (BSC 2003 [163602], 
Section 8). 
The natural barriers and items identified in the Q-List (YMP 2001 [154817]) are not pertinent to 
this analysis.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 20 June 2003 
3. USE OF SOFTWARE 
The only software used during this analysis was the commercial, off-the-shelf product Microsoft 
EXCEL (Version 97 SR-2). 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 Attachments I and II.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 21 June 2003 
4. INPUTS 
4.1 DATA AND PARAMETERS 
The list of 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 
Parameter Sources of Direct Input 
Soil-to-plant TFs by crop type and element See Section 4.1.1 
See Section 4.1.2 
Dry deposition velocity DTN: MO9811DEDCRMCR.000 [148887] 
Data Reported in the Engineering Design Climatology and 
Regional Meteorology Conditions Report (see Section 
4.1.3) 
Translocation factor by crop type See Section 4.1.4 
Weathering half-time (weathering rate constant) See Section 4.1.5 
Animal consumption rates of water, feed, and soil by 
animal type See Section 4.1.6 
Transfer coefficients by animal product and element See Section 4.1.7 
Bioaccumulation factors for freshwater fish by 
element See Section 4.1.8 
DTN: MO0211SPADIMEN.005 [160653] 
Dimensions of Catfish Ponds in Amargosa Valley (see 
Section 4.1.9) Water concentration modifying factor for fishpond 
water by element 
See Section 4.1.10 
Water evaporation rate for evaporative cooler See Section 4.1.11 
Airflow rate for evaporative cooler See Section 4.1.11 
See Section 4.1.12 Radon release factor (concentration ratio of 222Rn in 
air to 226Ra in surface soil) See Section 4.1.12 
Ratio (conversion factor) of 222Rn concentration in 
outdoor air to 222Rn flux density from soil See Section 4.1.12 
Interior wall height See Section 4.1.11 
House ventilation rate See Section 4.1.11 
Fraction of 222Rn flux from soil entering the house See Section 4.1.12

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-1. Biosphere Model Input Parameters (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 22 June 2003 
Parameter Sources of Direct Input 
Equilibrium factor for 222Rn decay products in indoor 
air See Section 4.1.12 
Equilibrium factor for 222Rn decay products in 
outdoor air See Section 4.1.12 
14C emission rate constant for soil See Section 4.1.13 
Mixing height of gaseous 14C (CO2) See Section 4.1.13 
See Section 4.1.2 
Annual average wind speed DTN: MO9811DEDCRMCR.000 [148887] 
Data Reported in the Engineering Design Climatology and 
Regional Meteorology Conditions Report (see Section 
4.1.3) 
Fraction of stable carbon in crops by crop type See Section 4.1.13 
Fraction of air-derived carbon in plants See Section 4.1.13 
Concentration of stable carbon in air See Section 4.1.13 
Fraction of soil-derived carbon in plants See Section 4.1.13 
Fraction of stable carbon in soil See Section 4.1.13 
Concentration of stable carbon in water See Section 4.1.13 
Fraction of stable carbon in animal products by 
animal product See Section 4.1.13 
Critical thickness of soil See Section 4.1.2 
4.1.1 Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors 
Values for soil-to-plant transfer factors (TFs) were developed based on technical information 
from the references presented in Table 4-2. This table lists the parameters, identifies specific 
sources of information used to develop the parameter values, and provides the section within this 
report where the analysis is presented. Additional information on the use of this technical 
information is provided in Sections 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 23 June 2003 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 
Chlorine soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.25 to 6.27 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
2 
Selenium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
3 
Strontium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
4 
Technetium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
5 
Tin soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
6 
Iodine soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
7 
Cesium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
8 
Lead soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 24 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
9 
Radium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
10 
Actinium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
11 
Thorium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
12 
Protactinium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
13 
Uranium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
14 
Neptunium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
15 
Plutonium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1 
16 
Americium soil-to-plant TF for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.1

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 25 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
17 
Chlorine soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
18 
Selenium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
19 
Strontium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
20 
Technetium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
21 
Tin soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
22 
Iodine soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
23 
Cesium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
24 
Lead soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 26 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
25 
Radium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
26 
Actinium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
27 
Thorium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
28 
Protactinium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
29 
Uranium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
30 
Neptunium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
31 
Plutonium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 27 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
32 
Americium soil-to-plant TF for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.2 
33 
Chlorine soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
34 
Selenium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
35 
Strontium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
BIOMASS 2001 [159468]/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
36 
Technetium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
37 
Tin soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
38 
Iodine soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
BIOMASS 2001 [159468],/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
39 
Cesium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
BIOMASS 2001 [159468]/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 28 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
40 
Lead soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
41 
Radium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
42 
Actinium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
43 
Thorium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
44 
Protactinium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
45 
Uranium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
BIOMASS 2001 [159468]/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
46 
Neptunium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
47 
Plutonium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
BIOMASS 2001 [159468]/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3 
48 
Americium soil-to-plant TF for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
BIOMASS 2001 [159468]/T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 29 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
49 
Chlorine soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
50 
Selenium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
51 
Strontium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
52 
Technetium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
53 
Tin soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
54 
Iodine soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
55 
Cesium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
56 
Lead soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 30 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
57 
Radium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
58 
Actinium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
59 
Thorium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
60 
Protactinium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
61 
Uranium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
62 
Neptunium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
63 
Plutonium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 31 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
64 
Americium soil-to-plant TF for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.4 
65 
Chlorine soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
66 
Selenium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
67 
Strontium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 75 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
68 
Technetium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
69 
Tin soil-to-plant TF for forage plants, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 32 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
70 
Iodine soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
71 
Cesium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 75 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
72 
Lead soil-to-plant TF for forage plants, 
groundwater scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
72 
Radium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
74 
Actinium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 33 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
75 
Thorium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
76 
Protactinium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
77 
Uranium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
78 
Neptunium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
79 
Plutonium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 75 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-2. Sources of Technical Information for the Development of the Soil-to-plant Transfer 
Factor Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 34 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
80 
Americium soil-to-plant TF for forage 
plants, groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 
IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 to 6.27 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 
6.2.1.2.5 
81 
Correlation factor for soil-to-plant TF s 
and partition coefficients (Kds) 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 234 
Karlsson et al. 2001 [159470], p. 37 
Sheppard and Sheppard 1989 [160644], p. 653 
6.2.1.5 
The documents that were used as sources of information 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 these reports are presented below. References were 
published by professional organizations producing technically defensible products pertinent to 
this analysis as indicated in the following discussion. The technical information from these 
reports is considered appropriate for the intended use (i.e., to develop the values of TFs for the 
biosphere model). 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766]A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of 
Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture. This report 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 feed-to-animal product transfer 
coefficients (TCs), and other parameters. The effort reported in this review document was 
directed towards 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, and 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 35 June 2003 
BIOMASS 2001 [159468]This reference contains a collection of the working documents 
entitled Biosphere Modelling and Assessment 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 [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 inter-comparisons, 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 [100458]IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 364, Handbook of Parameter Values 
for 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, much of which was collected 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 IAEA (2001 [158519]) described below (p. 1). 
IAEA 2001 [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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 36 June 2003 
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 generally are conservative and not likely to lead to 
underestimates of the doses. The primary source of the TF information presented in this report is 
the International Union of Radioecologists database compiled in the 1980s and early 1990s. 
Karlsson et al. 2001 [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 [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 [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 [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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 37 June 2003 
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. 
NCRP 1996 [101882] and NCRP 1996 [101883]These documents are volumes I and II of 
Screening Models for Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, Surface Water and Ground, and 
describe simple models that can be used for assessing doses from radionuclides released to the 
environment, and includes 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. 
Rittmann 1993 [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 [100464], p. 1-1). 
Sheppard 1995 [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 [103767]) described previously. 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895]Radiological Assessment, A Textbook on Environmental Dose 
Analysis, 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 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 (p. xvi).

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 38 June 2003 
Wang et al. 1993 [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). 
This list of publications constitutes a comprehensive set of reports that include recommended 
parameter values for radiological assessments. These reports provide an appropriate technical 
basis for developing parameters for the ERMYN biosphere model. 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. 
However, it is believed that the combined technical information presented in these reports forms 
a solid foundation for developing input parameter values for the ERMYN biosphere model. 
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 near-surface 
atmospheric boundary layer were developed based on the references listed in Table 4-3. The 
technical information from these references is used to develop the values of dry deposition 
velocity, the annual average wind speed, and the critical thickness of the surface soil layer 
available for resuspension (i.e., the thickness of soil, including ash or an ash-soil mixture, 
affected by the atmospheric processes). Table 4-3 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 discussions on the use of this technical information is 
provided in Sections 6.2.2.1, 6.7.3, and 6.8. 
Table 4-3. Sources of Technical Information Used for Development of Near-surface Atmospheric 
Transport Parameter Values 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
Dry deposition velocity Dorrian 1997 [159476], pp. 117 and 129 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 48 
NCRP 1999 [155894], p. 68 
Sehmel 1984 [158693], pp. 547 to 551, 553, 558 to 561 
Schery 2001 [159478], p. 268 
6.2.2.1 
Annual average wind speed NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 48 
Randerson 1984 [109153], p. 169 
Sehmel 1984 [158693], p. 562 
Stull 2001 [159533], pp. 377 and 380 
6.7.3 
Critical thickness Sehmel 1984 [158693], p. 574 
McCartin and Lee [160672], p. 5-4 6.8

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 39 June 2003 
The sources of technical information on deposition velocity, wind speed, and the critical 
thickness consist of review articles, recommendations of the 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. 
References were published by professional organizations producing technically defensible 
products pertinent to this analysis as indicated in the following discussion. The technical 
information from these reports are considered appropriate for the intended use. The list provided 
below gives brief descriptions of the reports that served as sources of information for the 
development of deposition velocity and the wind speed. 
Dorrian 1997 [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 1997 [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 [103784]See Section 4.1.1 
NCRP 1999 [155894]This 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 screening. The description of the 
methods and the pertinent parameters are useful for developing parameter values for the 
ERMYN biosphere model. 
Randerson 1984 [109153]; Sehmel 1984 [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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 40 June 2003 
Schery 2001 [159478]This textbook, Understanding Radioactive Aerosols and Their 
Measurement, deals with radioactivity and aerosols in indoor and outdoor atmospheres, and 
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. 
Stull 2001 [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. 
4.1.3 Data Reported in the Engineering Design Climatology and Regional Meteorology 
Conditions Report 
The dataset, Data Reported in the Engineering Design Climatology and Regional Meteorology 
Conditions Report (DTN: MO9811DEDCRMCR.000 [148887]), consists of meteorological data 
collected by the Yucca Mountain Project. The data are reported in CRWMS M&O (1997 
[100117]). For the ERMYN biosphere model, the average wind speed at Meteorological 
Monitoring Site 9 was used to development the 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. 
4.1.4 Translocation Factors 
The values of crop type-dependent translocation factor were developed based on technical 
information 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 this technical 
information is provided is Section 6.2.2.2. 
Table 4-4. Sources of Technical Information Used for Development of Translocation Factor Values 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value of 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 
Translocation factor for leafy 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.41 to 6.42 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 135 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.67 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.2 
2 
Translocation factor for other 
vegetables, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.41 to 6.42 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 135 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.67 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.2

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-4. Sources of Technical Information Used for Development of Translocation Factor Value 
(Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 41 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value of 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
3 
Translocation factor for fruit, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.41 to 6.42 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 135 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.67 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.2 
4 
Translocation factor for grain, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.41 to 6.42 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 135 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.67 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.2 
5 
Translocation factor for forage plants 
consumed by beef cattle, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.41 to 6.42 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 135 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.67 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.2 
6 
Translocation factor for grain 
consumed by poultry, groundwater 
scenario, modern climate 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.41 to 6.42 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 135 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.67 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.2 
7 
Translocation factor for forage plants 
consumed by diary cows, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.41 to 6.42 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 135 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.67 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.2 
8 
Translocation factor for grain 
consumed by laying hens, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.41 to 6.42 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 135 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.67 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.2 
The sources of technical information 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 technical 
information from these reports is 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 42 June 2003 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776]See Section 4.1.1. 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079]See Section 4.1.1. 
Leigh et al 1993 [100464]This report, User's 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 to calculate radionuclide transport in the environment and 
the resulting radiation doses to the human receptor. The manual includes a list of values, which 
are 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 [100953], Volume 3, Section 5.2) and subsequently updated, as documented in Rittmann 
(1993 [107744]). 
Mills et al. 1983 [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 parameters 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 [100953], p. 1.2). 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953] and Napier et al. 1988 [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 Hanfordspecific 
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 [100953], Volume 1, Section 1.2 and Volume 2, Section 5.0). 
NCRP 1984 [103784]See Section 4.1.1. 
Yu et al. 2001 [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 code 
has been used widely by the DOE, DOE contractors, NRC, EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 43 June 2003 
industrial firms, universities, foreign agencies, and foreign institutions (Yu et al. 2001 [159465], 
p. xi), including assessments to demonstrate compliance. The input parameters incorporated into 
RESRAD were chosen to be realistic but reasonably conservative (Yu et al. 2001 [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 [160561]) and in Yu et al. (2001 [159465], pp. 1-6 and 1-7). 
4.1.5 Weathering Half Life (Weathering Rate Constant) 
The values of the weathering half life (weathering rate constant) were developed based on 
technical information from the references in Table 4-5. Table 4-5 identifies specific sources of 
information used to develop the parameter value, and it provides the section within this report 
that contains the analysis. Additional information on the development of this parameter is 
presented in Section 6.2.2.3. 
Table 4-5. Sources of Technical Information Used for Development of Weathering Half Life 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
Weathering half time (weathering rate 
constant) 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 124 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 64 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-7 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 137 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-69 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-30 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-36 to 5-37 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-12 
6.2.2.3 
The sources of technical information related to weathering consist of reports providing 
summaries of measurements of weathering half time (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 parameters related to weathering. 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766]See Section 4.1.1 for the description of the publication. 
IAEA 2001 [158519]See Section 4.1.1 for the description of the publication. 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079]See Section 4.1.1 for the description of the publication. 
Leigh et al 1993 [100464]See Section 4.1.3 for the description of the publication. 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781]See Section 4.1.3 for the description of the publication.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 44 June 2003 
NCRP 1984 [103784]See Section 4.1.1 for the description of the publication. 
Regulatory Guide 1.109 1977 [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 [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 [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 [101085]). This model constitutes an 
alternative approach to biosphere modeling that is based on the BIOMASS (2001 [159468]) 
methodology. 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895]See Section 4.1.1 for the description of the publication. 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465]See Section 4.1.3 for the description of the publication. 
4.1.6 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 section within this report that contains the analysis. Additional information on the 
development of these parameters can be found in Section 6.3.2.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 45 June 2003 
Table 4-6. Sources of Technical Information Used for Development of Animal Consumption Rates 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 
Beef cattle consumption rate of 
feed, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 33 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 70 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 143 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 70 to 71 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-38 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-15 
6.3.2 
2 
Beef cattle consumption rate of 
water, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 33 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 70 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 143 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70-71 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-38 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-15 
6.3.2 
3 
Beef cattle consumption rate of 
soil, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-15 
6.3.2 
4 
Diary cow consumption rate of 
feed, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 33 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 70 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 143 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70-71 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-38 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-15 
6.3.2 
5 
Diary cow consumption rate of 
water, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 33 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 70 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 143 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70-71 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-38 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-15 
6.3.2

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-6. Sources of Technical Information Used for Development of Animal Consumption Rates 
(Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 46 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or Reach 
Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
6 
Diary cow consumption rate of 
soil, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-15 
6.3.2 
7 
Poultry consumption rate of feed, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 143 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70-71 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2 
8 
Poultry consumption rate of water, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70-71 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2 
9 
Poultry consumption rate of soil, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2 
10 
Laying hen consumption rate of 
feed, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70-71 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2 
11 
Laying hen consumption rate of 
water, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 33 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-8 
Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4-72 
NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70-71 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2 
12 
Laying hen consumption rate of 
soil, groundwater scenario, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 253 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.19 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-24 
6.3.2

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 47 June 2003 
The sources of technical information 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 
information from these reports are appropriate for the intended use. The reports that were chosen 
as primary sources of information for the development of animal consumption rates of water feed 
and soil are described in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.3, and 4.1.5. 
4.1.7 Transfer Coefficients for Animal Products 
Values of TCs for animal products were developed based of the technical information from 
references in Table 4-7, which 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 information is presented in Section 6.3.3. 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 
Chlorine TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
2 
Selenium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 48 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
3 
Strontium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 85 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1997 [100067], p. 1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
4 
Technetium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 85 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
5 
Tin TC for meat, groundwater 
scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
6 
Iodine TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 85 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 49 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
7 
Cesium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 85 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
8 
Lead TC for meat, groundwater 
scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
9 
Radium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 85 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
10 
Actinium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 50 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
11 
Thorium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
12 
Protactinium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
13 
Uranium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
14 
Neptunium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 51 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
15 
Plutonium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
16 
Americium TC for meat, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.1 
17 
Chlorine TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 6.3.3.2 
18 
Selenium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
19 
Strontium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
6.3.3.2 
20 
Technetium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
21 
Tin TC for poultry, groundwater 
scenario, modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
6.3.3.2

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 52 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
22 
Iodine TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
23 
Cesium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982, p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
6.3.3.2 
24 
Lead TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
25 
Radium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
26 
Actinium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
27 
Thorium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
28 
Protactinium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
29 
Uranium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
30 
Neptunium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 53 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
31 
Plutonium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
32 
Americium TC for poultry, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-29 
6.3.3.2 
33 
Chlorine TC for milk, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
34 
Selenium TC for milk, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
35 
Strontium TC for milk, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 54 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
36 
Technetium TC for milk, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
37 
Tin TC for milk, groundwater 
scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
38 
Iodine TC for milk, groundwater 
scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 55 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
39 
Cesium TC for milk, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
40 
Lead TC for milk, groundwater 
scenario, modern climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
41 
Radium TC for milk, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
42 
Actinium TC for milk, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 56 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
43 
Thorium TC for milk, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
44 
Protactinium TC for milk, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
45 
Uranium TC for milk, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
46 
Neptunium TC for milk, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-37 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 57 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
47 
Plutonium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 82 to 83 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
48 
Americium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 
IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 
Ng 1982, p. 62 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 
6.3.3.3 
49 
Chlorine TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 6.3.3.4 
50 
Selenium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4 
51 
Strontium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
6.3.3.4 
52 
Technetium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 58 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
53 
Tin TC for eggs, groundwater 
scenario, modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
6.3.3.4 
54 
Iodine TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4 
55 
Cesium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 
6.3.3.4 
56 
Lead TC for eggs, groundwater 
scenario, modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4 
57 
Radium animal diet-to-animal 
product TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4 
58 
Actinium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4 
59 
Thorium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4 
60 
Protactinium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-7. Sources of Technical Infromation Used for Development of Transfer Coefficients for Animal 
Products (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 59 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
61 
Uranium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4 
62 
Neptunium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4 
63 
Plutonium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4 
64 
Americium TC for eggs, 
groundwater scenario, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.29 to 6.30 
LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 
Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 
Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 
Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 
6.3.3.4 
The sources of technical information 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 information from these reports is considered appropriate for the 
intended use. Descriptions of these reports, except Ng (1982 [160322]), were given in 
Section 4.1.1, 4.1.3 and 4.1.5. Additional information is presented in Section 6.3.3. 
Ng 1982 [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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 60 June 2003 
4.1.8 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 section within this 
report that contains the analysis. 
Table 4-8. Technical Information Used for Development of Bioaccumulation Factors for 
Freshwater Fish 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 
Carbon bioaccumulation factor 
for freshwater fish, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-13 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], p. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 and 
6.4.4 
2 
Chlorine bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish, 
modern climate 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], p. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
3 
Selenium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], p. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
4 
Strontium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-13 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5.98 to 5.103 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
5 
Technetium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-13 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5.98 to 5.103 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-8. Technical Information Used for Development of Bioaccumulation Factors for Freshwater 
Fish (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 61 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
6 
Tin animal bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
7 
Iodine bioaccumulation factor 
for freshwater fish, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-13 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5.98 to 5.103 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
8 
Cesium bioaccumulation factor 
for freshwater fish, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-13 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5.98 to 5.103 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
9 
Lead bioaccumulation factor for 
freshwater fish, modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
10 
Radium bioaccumulation factor 
for freshwater fish, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5.98 to 5.103 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-8. Technical Information Used for Development of Bioaccumulation Factors for Freshwater 
Fish (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 62 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
11 
Actinium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
12 
Thorium bioaccumulation factor 
for freshwater fish, modern 
climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5.98 to 5.103 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
13 
Protactinium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5.98 to 5.103 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
14 
Uranium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5.98 to 5.103 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
15 
Neptunium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-13 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 4-8. Technical Information Used for Development of Bioaccumulation Factors for Freshwater 
Fish (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 63 June 2003 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
16 
Plutonium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5.98 to 5.103 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
17 
Americium bioaccumulation 
factor for freshwater fish, 
modern climate 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 
IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 45 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 73 
Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], p. 6.32 
Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 148 to 149 
Napier et al. 1988 [100953], pp. 5.769 to 5.770 
NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 58 to 60 
Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 33 to 35 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-19 
6.4.3 
Sources of technical information on transfer 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 information from these reports is 
appropriate for the intended use. The reports were described in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.3, and 4.1.5. 
Additional information can be found in Sections 6.4.3 and 6.4.4. 
4.1.9 Dimensions of Catfish Ponds in Amargosa Valley 
The dataset, Dimensions of Catfish Ponds in Amargosa Valley (DTN: MO0211SPADIMEN.005 
[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 were collected to support this analysis 
and are appropriate for the intended use.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 64 June 2003 
4.1.10 Average Annual Free Water Surface Evaporation (Shallow Lake) 
Isoplethes 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 [160564], Map 3). The annual 
average evaporation rate for a shallow lake is used in Section 6.4.3 and 6.4.5 to develop values 
for the water concentration modifying factors for fishpond water for the modern and future 
climates. The technical information on shallow lake evaporation is an appropriate surrogate for 
estimating evaporation from fishponds and is appropriate for the intended use. 
4.1.11 Characteristics of Homes and Indoor Air Exchange 
Parameter values pertaining to characteristics of residencial homes and indoor air exchange were 
developed based on the references listed in Table 4-9, which presents the parameters, identifies 
specific sources of information used to develop the parameter values, and provides the section 
within this report that contains the analysis and where the additional information on the 
parameter use in the analysis can be found. 
Table 4-9. Sources of Technical Information Used for Developing Characteristics of Homes and Indoor 
Air Exchnage 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter Value or 
Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 Water use rate for an evaporative 
cooler 
Karpiscak et al. 1998 [160563], pp. 122-130 
Watt and Brown [159497], p. 24 6.5.2 
2 
Airflow rate for an evaporative cooler Karpiscak and Marion 1994 [159501], p. 3 
NAHB Research Center 1998 [160428], p. 35 
ToolBase Services 2002 [159507] 
Watt and Brown [159497], Chapter VII and VIII 
6.5.2 
3 Ceiling height of a home NAHB Research Center 1998 [160428], p. 38 6.6.2 
4 Air exchange (ventilation) rate 
HVI 2001 [160557], p. 24 
Murray and Burmaster 1995 [160554], pp. 462 to 464 6.6.2 
Sources of technical information 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 list provided 
below gives descriptions of the reports that were chosen as primary sources of information for 
developing parameters related to characteristics of residential homes and indoor air exchange. 
HVI 2001 [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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 65 June 2003 
analysis provides consumers with recommendations regarding home ventilation, and therefore it 
is considered appropriate for use in this analysis. 
Karpiscak and Marion 1994 [159501] and Karpiscak et al. 1998 [160563]These authors 
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 [159501]) in a publication entitled 
Evaporative Cooler Water Use and as an article (Karpiscak et al. 1998 [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. To our knowledge, 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. 
Murray and Burmaster 1995 [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. 
NAHB Research Center 1998 [160428] and ToolBase Services 2002 [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 [159507]) is a 
technical information 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 [159497]Evaporative Air Conditioning Handbook is a guide on energyefficient 
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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 66 June 2003 
4.1.12 Parameters Related to Radon in Indoor and Outdoor Air 
Parameter values related to the behavior of radon in indoor and outdoor air were based on 
technical information from reports by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of 
Atomic Radiation and the NCRP. Four reports were used in this analysis: Sources, Effects and 
Risks of Ionizing Radiation, 1988 Report to the General Assembly, with Annexes (United Nations 
1988 [159566]), 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 [158644]), Recommended Screening Limits for 
Contaminated Surface Soil and Review of Factors Relevant to Site-Specific Studies (NCRP 1999 
[155894]), and Measurement of Radon and Radon Daughters in Air (NCRP 1988 [153691]). 
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation is comprised of 
scientists who report to the General Assembly of the United Nations on sources and effects of 
ionizing radiation, and their reports are regarded by the scientific community as authoritative and 
balanced. The NCRP was chartered by the U.S. Congress with a mission of formulating and 
widely disseminating information, guidance, and recommendations on radiation protection and 
measurements. The NCRP reports represent the consensus of leading scientists on the subject of 
protection against radiation and radiation measurements. 
Technical information from these four reports is used in Sections 6.6.1 through 6.6.3 to develop 
values for the radon release factor, the ratio (conversion factor) of 222Rn concentration in outdoor 
air to 222Rn flux density from soil, the fraction of 222Rn flux from soil entering the house, the 
equilibrium factor for 222Rn decay products in indoor air, and the equilibrium factor for 222Rn 
decay products in outdoor air. Information in these four reports concerns the basic properties of 
radon behavior in the environment and are appropriate for the intended use. In addition, Outdoor 
Radon Dose Conversion Coefficient in South-Western and South-Eastern United States 
(Wasiolek and James 1998 [160686]), was used to develop the value of equilibrium factor for 
radon decay products outdoor. This journal article presents the results of outdoor radon 
measurements from the southwest region of the United States. The article was published in 
Radiation Protection Dosimetry, which is a peer-reviewed journal covering all aspects of 
personal and environmental dosimetry and monitoring, and maintaining high scientific and 
technical standards. Another journal article, Diffusion of Radon Through Cracks in a Concrete 
Slab (Landman 1982 [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 peerreviewed 
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. 
4.1.13 Technical Information Pertaining to Carbon-14 Transport in the Environment 
The technical information pertaining to 14C transport in the environment was obtained from the 
references listed in Table 4-10. The information is 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 C-14, 
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, and concentration of stable carbon in water. Table 4-10

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 67 June 2003 
lists the parameters, identifies specific sources of information used to develop the parameter 
values, and provides the section within this report where the analysis is presented. 
Table 4-10. Technical Information Used for Development of Parameters Pertaining to Carbon 
Transport in the Environment 
Parameter 
References used to Develop Parameter 
Value or Reach Conclusion 
Section 
No. 
1 C-14 emission rate constant for soil 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 156 
Sheppard et al. 1991 [159545], pp. 491 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-16 
6.7.1 
2 Mixing height of gaseous C-14 Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-16 6.7.2 
3 Fraction of stable carbon in crops, Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.88 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-20 6.7.3 
4 Fraction of stable carbon in animal products 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.88 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-22 
Zach et al. 1996 [103831], p. 51 
6.7.4 
5 Fraction of air-derived carbon in plants Sheppard et al. 1991 [159545], pp. 490 to 491 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-20 6.7.3 
6 Fraction of soil-derived carbon in plants 
Sheppard et al. 1991 [159545], pp. 490 to 491 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-20 6.7.3 
7 Concentration of stable carbon in air 
IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 144 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.88 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-17 
6.7.3 
8 Concentration of stable carbon in water 
Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 262 
Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.88 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-21 
6.7.4 
9 Fraction of stable carbon in soil Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.88 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-17 6.7.3 
The sources of technical information on transport of carbon in the environment consist of the 
journal article, the reports containing recommendations 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. 
Descriptions of most of the reports used as primary sources of information for developing 
parameter values related to transport of carbon in the environment were given in Sections 4.1.1 
and 4.1.3. The additional reports are described below. 
Sheppard et al. 1991 [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 
Journal, 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 information from this article is 
considered appropriate for intended use.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 68 June 2003 
Zach et al. 1996 [103831]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, published by the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, describes the 
biosphere model for the study of postclosure safety of emplacement of used CANDU (i.e., 
Canadian deuterium uranium reactor) fuel in plutonic rock of the Canadian Shield. This 
biosphere model is based on BIOTRAC (Davis et al. 1993 [103767]) with some modifications 
and improvements. Model parameters described in this publication are considered appropriate 
for consideration in the development of parameters for the ERMYN biosphere model. 
4.1.14 Other Sources of Technical Information Used in this Analysis 
Other sources of technical information used in this analysis include the rules at 10 CFR Part 63 
([156605]), Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada (annual water demand used in Section 6.7.2 to develop the value of 
area of irrigated land), the rules at 24 CFR Part 3280 ([160555]), Housing and Urban 
Development: Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (ceiling height and house 
ventilation rate used in Section 6.6.2), and established facts (Lide and Frederikse 1997 
[103178]), CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (statistics for lognormal distribution used 
in Section 6.2.1.1.5 ). 
4.2 CRITERIA 
Applicable requirements from the Project Requirements Document (Canori and Leitner 2003 
[161770], Table 2-3) are presented in Table 4.2-1. These requirements are for compliance with 
applicable portions of 10 CFR Part 63. 
Table 4-11. 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 [161770], Table 2-3. 
Listed below are the acceptance criteria from the Biosphere Characteristics section of the Yucca 
Mountain Review Plan, Draft Final Report (NRC 2003 [162418], 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 [156605], that 
relate in whole or in part to this analysis. Similar acceptance criteria and descriptions from the 
Review Plan (NRC 2003 [162418], Sections 2.2.1.3.11; Airborne Transport of Radionuclides) 
also apply to portions of this analysis. 
Acceptance Criterion 1-System Description and Model Integration are Adequate. 
 The TSPA adequately incorporates important site features, physical phenomena, and 
couplings, and consistent and appropriate assumptions throughout the biosphere 
characteristics modeling abstraction process

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 69 June 2003 
 The TSPA model abstraction identifies and describes aspects of the biosphere 
characteristics modeling that are important to repository performance and includes the 
technical bases for these descriptions. For example, the reference biosphere should be 
consistent with the arid or semi-arid conditions in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain 
 Assumptions are consistent between the biosphere characteristics modeling and other 
abstractions. For example, the DOE should ensure that the modeling of FEPs such as 
climate change, soil types, sorption coefficients, volcanic ash properties, and the 
physical and chemical properties of radionuclides are consistent with assumptions in 
other TSPA abstractions 
Acceptance Criterion 2-Data are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
 The parameter values used in the safety case are adequately justified (e.g., behaviors and 
characteristics of the residents of the Town of Amargosa Valley, Nevada, and 
characteristics of the reference biosphere), 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 
 Data are sufficient to assess the degree to which FEPs related to biosphere 
characteristics modeling have been characterized and incorporated in the abstraction. As 
specified in 10 CFR Part 63, the DOE should demonstrate that FEPs describing the 
biosphere are consistent with present knowledge of conditions in the region surrounding 
Yucca Mountain. As appropriate, the DOE 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. 
 Models use parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, and bounding 
assumptions that are technically defensible and reasonably account for uncertainties and 
variabilities, and are consistent with the definition of the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual in 10 CFR Part 63 
 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 BDCFs, 
are consistent with site characterization data and are technically defensible 
 Process-level models used to determine parameter values for the biosphere 
characteristics modeling are consistent with site characterization data, laboratory 
experiments, field measurements, and natural analog research

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 70 June 2003 
 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 TSPA, and the implementation of the abstraction does not 
inappropriately bias results to a significant degree. 
4.3 CODES AND STANDARDS 
No codes and standards, other than those identified the Project Requirements Document (Canori 
and Leitner 2003 [161770], Table 2-3) and determined to be applicable (Table 4.2-1), were used 
in this analysis.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 71 June 2003 
5. ASSUMPTIONS 
Four assumptions are used in the analysis. 
Assumption 1The translocation factor for other vegetables (see Section 6.2.1.1.2), fruit, grain, 
and stored feed for laying hens is represented by a piece-wise linear cumulative probability 
distribution represented by the following 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, used in Section 6.2.2.2. 
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 [160674]). Because activity 
could be transferred from the water or fish to other media such as the sediments, potential 
activity gains could arise if the ponds were not cleaned between the fish raising cycles. Because 
the ponds are drained after harvest (Roe 2002 [160674]), it is assumed that they are cleaned and 
that the sediments removed. 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 72 June 2003 
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. This assumed distribution is consistent with 
the range of uncertainty in reported values of the bioaccumulation factor for carbon (Table 6-65) 
and will cover the range of possible values when water is the only contaminated medium. 
Confirmation StatusThis assumption does not require further confirmation because it is 
unlikely to underestimate 14C transfer to fish and, therefore, is considered bounding. 
Use in the AnalysisThis assumption is used in Section 6.4.4. 
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 [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. 
Confirmation StatusThis assumption does not require further confirmation because it is a 
bounding assumption. 
Use in the AnalysisThis assumption is used in Section 6.5.2. 
There are no upstream assumptions in the references cited in this section.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 73 June 2003 
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 2003 [160699]). 
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 2003 [160699], Section 6.3): 
 Radionuclide accumulation in soil as a result of long-term irrigation with contaminated 
water 
 Resuspension of contaminated soil

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 74 June 2003 
 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 
 Post-deposition 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 commonly are 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. 
6.1.2 Parameter Value Development Methods 
The values of parameters for the biosphere model were based on multiple sources of technical 
information and 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 75 June 2003 
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 [159468], 
T1/WD04, p. 12; IAEA 1994 [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 intake-to-animal product TCs (Section 6.3.3), where the range of values often spanned 
several orders of magnitude (Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 7). 
Technical judgment often was 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 [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 
Most of the environmental transport parameters used in the biosphere model are influenced, to 
some degree, by local conditions such as the climate and soil types. Ideally, parameters would 
be obtained through site-specific studies. In most instances, data were not collected in the region 
surrounding Yucca Mountain. Many parameters, especially those for pathways that contribute a 
small percentage to the BDCFs (CRWMS M&O 2001 [152539], p. 78; CRWMS M&O 2001 
[152536], pp. 73 to 77), can be adequately represented by generic values. The pathway analysis 
for the new biosphere model has not yet been conducted. The new biosphere model (BSC 2003 
[160699]) uses mathematical representations that are similar to those used by the previous 
model, and the results of the pathway analysis for the previous biosphere model (CRWMS M&O 
2001 [152539], p. 78; CRWMS M&O 2001 [152536], pp. 73 to 77) can be used to anticipate the 
relative importance of pathways. 
The selection of parameter values for the ERMYN biosphere model relied heavily on published 
information. In cases where site-specific data were lacking, it usually was possible to evaluate 
the basis for applying the literature-derived parameter value to Yucca Mountain conditions.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 76 June 2003 
6.1.4 Radionuclides and Elements Included in Analysis 
The following 28 radionuclides were recommended for use in the TSPA-LA 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 2002 [160059], p. 39). This list includes radionuclides that 
are of importance during the compliance period of 10,000 years (10 CFR 63.305(c) [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 2002 [160059], p. 39). The 
TSPA-LA will be conducted for the postclosure period of 20,000 years (BSC 2002 [160146], 
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 (half-life 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 2003 [160699], Section 6.3.5). 
The resulting set of radionuclides considered in the biosphere model (Table 6-1) consists of the 
30 primary radionuclides and decay products with half-lives less than 180 days. The set includes 
17 elements. Table 6-1 includes the half-lives of radionuclides under consideration. 
Table 6-1. Primary Radionuclides and Decay Products Included in the Biosphere Model 
Primary Radionuclide Short-lived Decay Product Half-life a 
Carbon-14 (14C) 5730 yr 
Chlorine-36 (36Cl) 3.01E+05 yr 
Selenium-79 (79Se) 6.50E+04 yr 
Strontium-90 (90Sr) 29.12 yr 
Yttrium-90 (90Y) 64.0 h 
Technetium-99 (99Tc) 2.13E+05 yr 
Tin-126 (126Sn) 1.0E+05 yr 
Antimony-126 m (126mSb) 19.0 min 
Antimony-126 (126Sb) 12.4 d 
Iodine-129 (129I) 1.57E+07 yr 
Cesium-135 (135Cs) 2.3E+06 yr 
Cesium-137 (137Cs) 30.0 yr 
Barium-137m (137mBa) 2.552 min 
T h o r i u m S e r i e s (4n) 
Plutonium-240 (240Pu) 6.537E+03 yr 
Uranium-236 (236U) 2.3415E+07 yr

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-1. Primary Radionuclides and Decay Products Included in the Biosphere Mode (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 77 June 2003 
Primary Radionuclide Short-lived Decay Product Half-life a 
Thorium-232 (232Th) 1.405E+10 yr 
Radium-228 (228Ra) 5.75E+00 yr 
Actinium-228 (228Ac) 6.13 hr 
Uranium-232 (232U) 72 yr 
Thorium-228 (228Th) 1.9131 yr 
Radium-224 (224Ra) 3.66 d 
Radon-220 (220Rn) 55.6 s 
Polonium-216 (216Po) 0.15 s 
Lead-212 (212Pb) 10.64 h 
Bismuth-212 (212Bi) 60.55 min 
Polonium-212 (212Po) 0.305 s 
Thallium-208 (208Tl) 3.07 min 
N e p t u n i u m S e r i e s (4n + 1) 
Americium-241 (241Am) 432.2 yr 
Neptunium-237 (237Np) 2.14E+06 yr 
Protactinium-233 (233Pa) 27.0 d 
Uranium-233 (233U) 1.585E+05 yr 
Thorium-229 (229Th) 7340 yr 
Radium-225 (225Ra) 14.8 d 
Actinium-225 (225Ac) 10.0 d 
Francium-221 (221Fr) 4.8 min 
Astatine-223 (223At) 32.3 ms 
Bismuth-213 (213Bi) 45.65 min 
Polonium-213 (213Po) 4.2 s 
Thallium-209 (209Tl) 2.20 min 
Lead-209 (209Pb) 3.253 h 
U r a n i u m S e r i e s (4n + 2) 
Plutonium-242 (242Pu) 3.763E+05 yr 
Uranium-238 (238U) 4.468E+09 yr 
Thorium-234 (234Th) 24.10 d 
Protactinium-234m (234mPa) 1.17 min 
Protactinium-234 (234Pa) 6.70 h 
Plutonium-238 (238Pu) 87.74E+01 yr 
Uranium-234 (234U) 2.445E+05 yr 
Thorium-230 (230Th) 7.7E+04 yr 
Radium-226 (226Ra) 1600 yr 
Radon-222 (222Rn) 3.8235 d 
Polonium-218 (218Po) 3.05 min 
Lead-214 (214Pb) 26.8 min 
Astatine-218 (218At) 2 s 
Bismuth-214 (214Bi) 19.9 min

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-1. Primary Radionuclides and Decay Products Included in the Biosphere Mode (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 78 June 2003 
Primary Radionuclide Short-lived Decay Product Half-life a 
Polonium-214 (214Po) 164.3 s 
Thallium-210 (210Tl) 1.3 min b 
Lead-210 (210Pb) 22.3 yr 
Bismuth-210 (210Bi) 5.012 d 
Polonium-210 (210Po) 138.38 d 
A c t i n i u m S e r i e s (4n + 3) 
Americium-243 (243Am) 7380 yr 
Neptunium-239 (239Np) 2.355 d 
Plutonium-239 (239Pu) 2.4065E+04 yr 
Uranium-235 (235U) 100 703.8E6 yr 
100 25.52 hr 
Protactinium-231 (231Pa) 3.276E+04 yr 
Actinium-227 (227Ac) 21.773 yr 
Thorium-227 (227Th) 18.718 d 
Francium-223 (223Fr) 21.8 min 
Radium-223 (223Ra) 11.434 d 
Radon-219 (219Rn) 3.96 s 
Polonium-215 (215Po) 1.78 ms 
Lead-211 (211Pb) 36.1 min 
Bismuth-211 (211Bi) 2.14 min 
Thallium-207 (207Tl) 4.77 min 
Polonium-211 (211Po) 0.516 s 
Source: 
a Eckerman and Ryman (1993 [107684], Table A.1). 
b Lide and Frederikse (1997 [243741], 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 79 June 2003 
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 
(BSC 2000 [153246], Figure 4.1-6), and that 241Am, 239Pu, and 240Pu were the most important 
dose contributors for the igneous disruption scenario (BSC 2000 [153246], Figures 4.2-3 and 
4.2-4). The 14C dose for the nominal performance resulted primarily from the aquatic food 
pathway (CRWMS M&O 2001 [152539], p. 78). 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 radionuclide 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 (i.e., igneous 
intrusion or human intrusion) may result in the release of radionuclides to groundwater. 
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 2002 [160146], pp. 47 to 48), 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, done using the GoldSim software program, for both scenarios 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: modern (presentday) 
interglacial climate, monsoon climate (about twice the precipitation of the present day 
climate), and glacial transition (intermediate glacial) climate (colder than monsoon but similar 
precipitation) (BSC 2002 [160146], p. 75). 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 by Sharpe (2002 [159127]) and USGS (2001 [158378]). 
The values of some environmental transport parameters are different for the present day and 
future climates. The present-day conditions, referred to as the modern climate, are characteristic 
of the interglacial climate and have hot, dry summers and warm winters with lower annual 
precipitation and higher annual temperatures than the predicted future climates (Sharpe 2002

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 80 June 2003 
[159127], p. 26). The future climate states are represented in this analysis by the upper bound of 
the glacial transition climate, which is predicted to persist for the majority of the 10,000-yr 
compliance period (USGS 2001 [158378], p. 66). 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 (Sharpe 2002 [159127], p. 26). Recommended analog 
weather stations for the upper bound of this climate are Spokane, St. John, and Rosalia, 
Washington (Sharpe 2002 [159127], Table 6-3). 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 2003 [160699], Section 6.4.3): 
j i dust j i water j i root j i Cp Cp Cp Cp , , , , , , , + + = (Eq. 6-1) 
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 human 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 elementand 
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 [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 [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 [160552], p. 876).

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 81 June 2003 
The mobility, solubility, and accumulation of radionuclides in the environment are governed to a 
large degree by their chemical forms (BIOMASS 2001 [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 the 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-type specific 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 post-volcanic 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 2003 [160699], Section 6.4.3.1) as 
j j i p s m, i j i root DW F Cs Cp , , , . = (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 plant (kg dry plant per kg 
wet plant). 
This analysis develops the values of radionuclide and crop-type specific soil-to-plant TFs used in 
Equation 6-2. The TFs, also called the concentration factors (ICRU 2001 [160339], p. 13), relate 
the dry- or wet-weight activity concentration in the edible parts of plants (Bq/kg) to the dryweight 
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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 82 June 2003 
biosphere model (BSC 2003 [160699], Section 6.4.3.1). The conversion between the dryweight-
based and wet-weight-based 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 
(CRWMS M&O 2001 [152434], pp. 38 to 39). 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 plant, for example the whole plant and 
the grain (UNSCEAR 2000 [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 where the leafy parts or the 
fruits are 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 TFs 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 crop type for animal 
consumption: 
 Leafy vegetables 
 Other vegetables (including root vegetables and legumes) 
 Fruit 
 Grain for human consumption as well as chicken and 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 maize. 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 identified in a food consumption survey (DOE 1997 [100332]). 
6.2.1.1.3 Properties of Soils in Amargosa Valley 
The TF values partially depend on the characteristics of the soils for 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, and 
high salt content). Nevertheless, people farm these soils, possibly using careful selection of 
crops and special management practices (CRWMS M&O 1999 [107736], p. 7).

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 83 June 2003 
Information on soils in the Amargosa Valley region is based on the analysis of soil samples 
collected in the region (CRWMS M&O 1999 [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 [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 [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 officially released and made 
available to the members of the IUR. 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 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 wet

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 84 June 2003 
to-dry-weight ratio were known, the TF values were converted to dry-weight TFs, and the dryweight 
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 (low 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 
low clay content soils were used. Regarding soil pH, higher pH values result in decreased uptake 
of elements, while lower values produce increased uptakes (IAEA 1994 [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 (e.g., the concentration of a specific mineral) and the 
organic matter content (e.g., 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 [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 [103766], p. 7; Davis et al. 1993 
[103767], p. 232; Sheppard 1995 [103789], p. 2). 
Observed TFs values differ, mainly as a result of different soils, vegetation types, and 
environmental conditions. However, even field-scale measurements are subject to a variability. 
Measurements of soil partition coefficients (Kds) on a 100 m2 by 150 m2 study plot produced 
values differing by a factor of four for some radionuclides (BIOMASS 2001 [159468], 
T1/WD04, p. 9-11). Because Kds are inversely correlated with TFs (BIOMASS 2001 [159468], 
T1/WD04, p. 27-31; Karlsson et al. 2001 [159470], p. 37; Davis et al. 1993 [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 [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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 85 June 2003 
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, and 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 (1996 [160641], p. 727). The analysis concerned the expected 
uncertainty in TF values for a range of possible conditions ranging from fully generic to sitespecific 
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 generally is above 3, with a 
typical value of about 6. 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 [103767], p. 232). 
Compared to the IUR data (Sheppard and Evenden 1996 [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 1996 [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 1996 
[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 to be 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 86 June 2003 
GM can be expressed, based on LaPlante and Poor ([101079], p. 3-12), as the point where the 
number of standard deviations is 2.576 (Lide and Frederikse 1997 [103178], p. A-104.), such 
that the 99 percent confidence interval is 
576 . 2 
576 . 2 
GSD GM truncation upper 
GSD 
GM truncation lower 
 =
= 
(Eq. 6-3) 
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 modern 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 6.1.1. 
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. The GM and standard deviation calculations were conducted using 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2; the spreadsheets and a description of the method are included in 
Attachment I. 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 6.1.1), used wet (fresh) weight-based TFs and were not used. 
The values listed by the IAEA (IAEA 1994 [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 [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 towards plant species for which more data were collected, not 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) from Till and Meyer (1983 [101895], 
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 [107736], pp. D-4 to D-6). The aerial values of TFs 
(1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51), representing the gross plant-to-soil concentration ratio,

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 87 June 2003 
including external contamination, were not used. External crop contamination is especially 
important for crops where 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 [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 [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 
TF, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 9.5E+00 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 1.8E+02 b 1.0E+01  7.8E+03 (95% confidence range) 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 4.4E+01  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 7.6E+01 c lognormal, GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E+01 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57   
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 88 June 2003 
Table 6-3. Iodine Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 1.5E-01 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 3.4E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 3.4E-03 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-01 c  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 3.2E-03 d  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 89 June 2003 
Table 6-4. Neptunium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 1.0E-01 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 4.6E-02 b 2.4E-02  1.1E-01(expected values) 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 1.3E-02  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 6.9E-02 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E+00 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 4.6E-02 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 90 June 2003 
Table 6-5. Plutonium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 4.5E-04 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 1.2E-4 b 4.1E-05  6.4E-04 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 3.9E-04  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 3.4E-4 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-04 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 2.6E-4 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 1.75E-4  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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).

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 91 June 2003 
Table 6-6. Americium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
Comments No. Reference 
Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 5.5E-03 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 3.6E-04 b 2.0E-04  6.6E-04 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 5.8E-04  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 1.2E-03 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-03 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 8.2E-04 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 92 June 2003 
Table 6-7. Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables for Other Elements 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless (Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil) 
No. Reference 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [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 [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 
[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 
[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 [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 [103789], 
pp. 55 to 57   2.2E+00  1.5E-01 1.5E-02 2.3E-02  1.6E-02  2.1E-02 
7 Till and Meyer 1983 
[101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   2.2E+00  2.2E-02  4.4E-01     
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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 1.2E-01 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 1.2E-02 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 1.2E+00 7.7E-01 9.2E-01 2.6E-02 5.9E-02 1.4E-01 6.6E-02 
NOTES: a The lower bound of the value of GSD was used.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 93 June 2003 
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. 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 was used to calculate GMs and standard deviations for TFs for other 
vegetables, as shown in Attachment I. 
Table 6-8. Technetium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 1.5E+00 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 4.3E+00 b 2.4E-01  7.9E+01 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 1.1E+00  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 1.1E+01 c lognormal, GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E+01 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 6.6E+00 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.5E+00  
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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 94 June 2003 
Table 6-9. Iodine Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference 
Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 5.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 2.0E-02 b  
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 5.0E-02  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 2.0E-02 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-01 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 1.9E-03 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 3.0E-02  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 5.0E-02f  
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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 95 June 2003 
Table 6-10. Neptunium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 1.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 2.1E-02 b 6.7E-03  3.5E-02 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 9.4E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 2.7E-02 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E+00 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 2.8E-02 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 4.0E-5 f  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor
` 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines 
aThe 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 > 7  not 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 96 June 2003 
Table 6-11. Plutonium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 4.5E-05 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 3.7E-04 b 6.1E-05  4.4E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 2.0E-04  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 2.3E-04 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-04 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 1.6E-04 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 1.6E-04 f 8.1E-06  1.4E-03 
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 97 June 2003 
Table 6-12. Americium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 2.5E-04 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 5.2E-04 b 1.6E-04  2.2E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 4.1E-04  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 4.7E-04 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-03 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 5.0E-04 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 6.4E-05 f  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines 
aThe 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) 
bBest estimate is the GM of the values for individual crops (potato, onion, radish, carrot, and bean) 
cInput values for the GENII-S code used in biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
dGENII-S default 
eValue for root vegetables, 5 percent clay content in soil 
f Value for legumes 
gRESRAD default value. The TF is a composite of values recommended for root vegetables, fruit, and 
grain. 
hFor the references listed in this table, GM = 4.0E-04; GSD = 2.6

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 98 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-13. Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables for Other Elements 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless (Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil) 
No. Reference 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [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 [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 
[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 
[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 [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 [103789], 
pp. 55 to 57   1.3E+00  9.1E-02 9.2E-03 1.4E-02  1.0E-02  1.3E-02 
7 Till and Meyer 1983 
[101895], 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 [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 
NOTES: a The lower bound of the value of GSD was used. 
bThe upper bound of the value of GSD was used 
.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 99 June 2003 
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 [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. 
Calculation of GMs for the soil-to-fruit TFs for the BIOMASS data is shown in Attachment I. 
Most of the references used to derive TFs for vegetables, except Sheppard (1995 [103789]), also 
contained some fruit-related TF data. TFs for fruit are summarized in Tables 6-14 through 6-19. 
Calculations of GM and standard deviations were preformed using Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 and 
are shown in Attachment I.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 100 June 2003 
Table 6-14. Technetium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 1.5E+00 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 BIOMASS 2001 [159468], T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 
to 92   
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 1.5E+00  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 1.1E+01 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E+01 c  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 101 June 2003 
Table 6-15. Iodine Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 5.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 2.0E-02 b  
3 BIOMASS 2001 [159468], T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 
to 92 9.3E-02 c GSD = 1.8 
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 5.0E-02  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 2.0E-02 d lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-01 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 Best estimate is the GM of the TFs for individual crops (apple, apricot, and watermelon) that could be 
grown in AV. Subtropical fruits were not included; also TFs for fruit grown in peat soil were not included 
because of incompatibility with AV 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 102 June 2003 
Table 6-16. Neptunium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 1.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 BIOMASS 2001 [159468], T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 
to 92   
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 1.0E-02  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 2.7E-02 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E+00 c  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 103 June 2003 
Table 6-17. Plutonium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 4.5E-05 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 BIOMASS 2001 [159468], T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 
to 92 1.0E-03 b GSD = 2.7 
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 4.5E-05  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 2.3E-04 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-04 d  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 TFs for individual crops (apple, peach, gooseberry, blackcurrant, 
strawberry, melon, rhubarb) that could be grown in AV. Subtropical fruits were not included; also TFs for 
fruit grown in peat soil were not included because of incompatibility with AV 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 104 June 2003 
Table 6-18. Americium Soil-to-Crop Transfer Factors for Fruit 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 2.5E-04 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 BIOMASS 2001 [159468], T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 
to 92 1.0E-03 b GSD = 3.4 
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 2.5E-04  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 4.7E-04 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-03 d  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 TFs for individual crops (apple, peach, gooseberry, blackcurrant, 
strawberry, melon, rhubarb) that could be grown in AV. Subtropical fruits were not included; also TFs for 
fruit grown in peat soil were not included because of incompatibility with AV 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 01 105 June 2003 
Table 6-19. Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Fruit for Other Elements 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless (Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil) 
No. Reference 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [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 [100458], pp. 17 
to 25   2.0E-01  2.2E-01       
3 BIOMASS 2001 [159468], 
T3FM/WD01, pp. 82 to 92   1.8E-01  1.7E-02      5.0E-2 
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[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 
[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 [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 
7 Till and Meyer 1983 
[101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   2.4E-01  2.6E-02  3.5E-03    1.7E-03 
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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 
NOTES: a The lower bound of the value of GSD was used. 
bThe upper bound of the value of GSD was used.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 106 June 2003 
6.2.1.2.4 Grain 
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. GMs and standard deviations were calculated using 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 and are included in Attachment I. 
Table 6-20. Technetium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 1.5E+00 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 7.3E-01 7.3E-02  3.7E+00 b 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 7.3E-01  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 7.3E-01 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E+01 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 8.3E-01e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 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. 
f For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.6E+00; GSD = 4.3

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 107 June 2003 
Table 6-21. Iodine Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 5.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25   
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 5.0E-02  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 2.0E-02 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-01 c  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 2.4E-04 d  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 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).

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 108 June 2003 
Table 6-22. Neptunium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 1.0E-02 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 2.7E-03 2.3E-05  8.3E-02 b 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 2.7E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 2.7E-03 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E-01 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 3.5E-03 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 1.2E-04 f  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 1.7E-2 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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 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>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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 109 June 2003 
Table 6-23. Plutonium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 4.5E-05 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 8.6E-06 3.5E-07  4.2E-01 b 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 2.6E-05  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 8.6E-06 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-05 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 2.0E-05 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 1.5E-06 f  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 110 June 2003 
Table 6-24. Americium Soil-to-Crop Transfer Factors for Grain 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 11 2.5E-04 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 2.2E-05 1.5E-07  7.7E-01 b 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 5.9E-05  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 2.2E-05 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-04 d  
6 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 6.0E-05 e  
7 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 2.8E-05 f  
8 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 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 = 7.5E-05; GSD = 3.2

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 111 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-25. Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Grain for Other Elements 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless (Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil) 
No. Reference 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 
Baes et al. 1984 [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 [100458], 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 
[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 
[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 
5 
Rittmann 1993 [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 
6 
Sheppard 1995 [103789], 
pp. 55 to 57   1.7E-01  1.2E-02 1.2E-03 1.8E-03  1.3E-03  1.6E-03 
7 
Till and Meyer 1983 
[101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   7.7E-02  1.2E-02 1.4E-02 5.8E-02  2.0E-03  1.6E-04 
8 
Wang et al. 1993 [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 
NOTES: a The lower bound of the value of GSD was used.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 112 June 2003 
6.2.1.2.5 Forage Plants 
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 (Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-52). TFs for actinide 
uptake by plants sometimes are an order of magnitude higher for legumes and for other species, 
such as grasses (Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-52). Alfalfa, a leguminous plant, is the 
major crop grown in the Amargosa Valley (CRWMS M&O 1997 [101090], pp. 3-18 to 3-19; 
YMP 1999 [158212], pp. 17 to 18). Therefore, a preference was given to TFs for leguminous 
plants in developing TFs 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. TFs for forage plants are listed in Tables 6-26 
to 6-31; calculations of GMs and standard deviations are included in Attachment I. 
6.2.1.2.6 Site-specific Studies 
Site-specific measurements involving plutonium and americium uptake by plants 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 [160549], pp. 287 to 302; Romney et al. 
1977 [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 [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 [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 [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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 113 June 2003 
Table 6-26. Technetium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Plants 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 9.5E+00 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 8.1E+00 b 8.1E-01  8.1E+01 b 
3 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 8.0E+01 c  
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 4.4E+01 d 
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 7.6E+01 e lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 75   
7 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 4.0E+01 f  
8 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E+01 g  
9 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 5.6E+00 h  
10 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51   
11 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 4.0E+01 i  
12 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 2.7E+01 j; GSD = 2.7 
truncation: low = 2.1E+00; high = 3.5E+02 
Technetium 
1.0E+00 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
1.0E+03 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 (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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 114 June 2003 
Table 6-27. Iodine Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Plants 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 1.5E-01 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 3.4E-03 b 3.4E-04  3.4E-02 b 
3 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-01 c  
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 3.4E-03 d 
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 3.4E-03 e lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 75  1.5E-02  3.3E+00 
7 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-01 f  
8 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-01 g  
9 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 1.6E-03 h  
10 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 1.84E+00 i  
11 Wang et al. 1993 [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 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 grass. Range given as 95 percent confidence range. 
c Value recommended for screening models 
d Value for leafy vegetables (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 
i 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 115 June 2003 
Table 6-28. Neptunium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Plants 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 1.0E-01 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 8.1E-03 b 2.0E-03  1.2E-01 b 
3 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 5.0E-01 c  
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 1.3E-02 d  
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 6.9E-02 e lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 75   
7 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-01 f  
8 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E+00 g  
9 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 2.4E-02 h  
10 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 4.8E-03 i  
11 Wang et al. 1993 [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 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 Value recommended for screening models 
d Value for leafy vegetables (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 grasses, pH>7 
i RESRAD default value. 
k For the references listed in this table, GM = 5.8E-02; GSD = 5.6.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 116 June 2003 
Table 6-29. Plutonium Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Plants 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 4.5E-04 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 8.0E-04 b 1.1E-04  5.1E-02 b 
3 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-01 c  
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 3.9E-04 d 
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 3.4E-04 e lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 75 8.5E-04 f 9.2E-06  8.5E-04 
7 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-01 g  
8 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-04 h  
9 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 1.3E-04 i  
10 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 2.3E-04 j  
11 Wang et al. 1993 [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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 and alfalfa. Range given as 95 percent confidence range. 
c Value recommended for screening models 
d Value for leafy vegetables (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 Upper value for the range was used 
g Value recommended for screening models. 
h GENII-S default 
i Value for 5 percent clay content in soil 
i Value for alfalfa, clover, and sorghum 
k 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 117 June 2003 
Table 6-30. Americium Soil-to-Crop Transfer Factors for Forage Plants 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless 
No. Reference Best 
Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 10 5.5E-05 a  
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], pp. 17 to 25 7.1E-04 b 1.8E-04  3.1E-03 b 
3 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-01 c  
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 6.25 
to 6.27 5.8E-04 d 
5 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 1.2E-03 e lognormal; GSD = 2 
6 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 75   
7 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-01 f  
8 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-03 g  
9 Sheppard 1995 [103789], pp. 55 to 57 4.2E-04 h  
10 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], pp. 5-50 to 5-51 1.7E-03 i  
11 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 25 to 26 4.0E-03 j  
12 This analysis - recommendation  lognormal; GM = 2.1E-03 k; GSD = 10.0 
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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TFs are in units of Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil. 
Truncation limits shown 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 Value recommended for screening models 
d Value for leafy vegetables (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 = 12.1E-03, GSD = 10.4. The upper bound for the GSD value 
was used.

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 118 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-31. Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors for Forage Plants for Other Elements 
Transfer Factor, dimensionless (Bq/kg dry-weight crop per Bq/kg dry-weight soil) 
No. Reference 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [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 [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 [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 
[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 
[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 [103784], p. 75   1.8E+00  4.1E-02       
7 NCRP 1996 [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 [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 [103789], 
pp. 55 to 57   1.1E+00  7.7E-02 7.8E-03 1.2E-02  8.5E-03  1.1E-02 
10 Till and Meyer 1983 
[101895], 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 [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 
NOTES: a The lower bound of the value of GSD was used.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 119 June 2003 
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 (1976 [160550], p. 323); Romney et al. (1977 [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 (1976 [160550], p. 324); Romney et al. (1977 [160558], p. 53). 
In another study (Au et al. 1977 [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 
[160560], p. 1). The experimental results concerning the TFs for plutonium and americium are 
shown in Table 6-34. 
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) 
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 
Radish, root 
Fertilizer/Chelate 6.3  10-3 7.2  10-3 
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 
Lettuce, leaf 
Fertilizer/Chelate 3.4  10-2 1.3  10-2

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for 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 (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 120 June 2003 
Plant Treatment Plutonium(239-240Pu) Americium (241Am) 
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 
Barley, head 
Fertilizer/Chelate 1.2  10-2 7.6  10-3 
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 
Alfalfa, stem and leaf 
Fertilizer/Chelate 7.6  10-2 2.9  10-2 
Source: Au et al. (1977 [160560], pp. 8 to 11). 
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 1976 [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 [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. 
Measurements of transuranic uptake by plants were reviewed by Schulz (1976 [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 
(1  10-8 to 1  10-3) and 8 orders of magnitude for americium uptake (1  10-7 to 1  10+1) 
(Schultz 1976 [160550], p. 322). Schultz (1976 [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 for plutonium (on the order of 1  10-4) are 
appropriate for use in the biosphere model. TFs for americium calculated in experiments 
involving soil collected on the NTS also are 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 121 June 2003 
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 [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 Amargosa Valley soils 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 [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 [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 [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 [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. The ash thickness 
at the receptor location predicted in the previous TSPA was less than 1 cm in 95 percent of the 
model realizations and less than 1 mm in 80 percent of realizations (Section 6.8). 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 122 June 2003 
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 modern climate, but not substantially different from the modern 
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 modern climate 
(USGS 2001 [158378], p. 76). However, the glacial-transition climate is cooler than the modern 
climate, so evaporation is lower than during modern times and, consequently, the water content 
of the soil can be higher (USGS 2001 [158378], p. 77]. 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 modern 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 (Kd). 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 [159468] 2001, 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 [103767], p. 234; 
Karlsson et al. 2001 [159470], p. 37; Sheppard and Sheppard 1989 [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 also is used for the agricultural land model in 
Karlsson et al. (2001 [159470], p. 37). The correlation coefficient should be between logtransformed 
values of TFs and Kds (Sheppard and Sheppard 1989 [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 
[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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 123 June 2003 
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 2003 [160699], Sections 6.4.3.2 and 6.4.3.3) as 
( ) 
( ) j g w 
j g w 
t 
j w 
j j i 
j i dust 
t 
j w 
j j j o j i 
j i water 
e 
Y 
T Ra Da 
Cp 
e 
Y 
T Rw f Dw 
Cp 
, 
, 
, , 
, , 
, , 
1 
1 
. 
. 
. 
. 
- 
- 
- = 
- = 
(Eqs. 6-4 and 6-5) 
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 weigh) 
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 weigh) 
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 halflife 
(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 2003 [160699], Section 6.4.3.3) as 
d i p i V Ca Da 10 64 . 8 , 
4  = (Eq. 6-6)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 124 June 2003 
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/sec) 
8.64104 = unit conversion factor (sec/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 re-entrained and resuspended into the atmosphere. 
Suspension describes the subsequent insertion of particles, which were originally deposited on a 
surface by some non-atmospheric process, such as irrigation with contaminated water, into the 
atmosphere (Sehmel 1984 [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 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, that quantifies the atmosphere-soil 
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 
[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 [103767], p. 198 lognormal distribution 
GM = 0.006 m/s, GSD = 2 
Values used for the BIOTRAC 
model 
2 IAEA 1982 [103768] , p. 17 0.002 Particulates <4 m deposited 
on vegetation 
3 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. B-2 0.001 Value used in dose assessment 
for Yucca Mountain 
4 Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p. 5-63 0.001 GENII-S default value 
6 Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-12 Gaseous elements = 0 
Halogens = 0.01 
Other elements = 0.001 
RESRAD default values

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 125 June 2003 
Deposition processes and associated parameters were the subject of a comprehensive review by 
G.A. Sehmel. Dry deposition velocities for many materials and various deposition surfaces were 
summarized (Sehmel 1984 [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 (Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], 
p. 5.19) found deposition velocities to range from 1  10-5 to 1  10-1 m/s. Sehmel and Hodgson 
(1978 [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 [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 [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: MO9811DEDCRMCR.000 [148887]; CRWMS M&O 1997 [100117], p. A-11). 
However, the wind speed in the surface boundary layer decreases towards 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 
[103784], p. 48 where the range of friction velocity is given, and Sehmel 1984 [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. 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 five (NCRP 1999 [155894], p. 68). In a review (Dorrian 1997 [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 [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 two (EPA 1996 [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 [155894], p. 67). Based on the reviewed literature 
(EPA 1996 [160121], Section 3.7.5 to 3.8; Nieuwenhuijsen et al. 1998 [150855]; Pinnick et al. 
1993 [160312]; Dorrian 1997 [159476]), airborne particles originating from local soils, under 
disturbed and undisturbed conditions, range in size from about 0.1 m to about 100 m.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 126 June 2003 
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 
to about 3  10-2 m/s (Sehmel 1984 [158693], p. 559), although Schery (2001 [159478], p. 268) 
shows that deposition velocity values range from about 1  10-4 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 from 2 to 6 m and a GSD of about five 
(NCRP 1999 [155894], p. 68). If the median diameter is 4 m, 68 percent of particles would fall 
within the range from 0.8 to 20 m (4 m/5 to 4 m  5), and 99 percent of particles would be in 
the range from 0.06 to 250 m (4 m/52.58 to 4 m  52.58). Deposition velocities corresponding 
to these particle size ranges are from 1  10-3 to 3  10-2 m/s for the most likely sizes of 
resuspended particles, and between 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 [158693], p. 559; 
Schery 2001 [159478], p. 268). The deposition velocity for 4 m particles can be estimated at 
around 8  10-3 m/s (Sehmel 1984 [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 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 [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 6-31). 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: SN0006T0502900.002 [150856], data No. 22 and 24), the sizes of 
airborne particles for the post-volcanic biosphere are expected to be within the range considered 
for the groundwater exposure scenario and the modern 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, among other things, on the plant species, chemical and physical form of 
an element, stage of plant development, and weathering conditions. The translocation factor is

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 127 June 2003 
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 [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 [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 and 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 [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). Depending on the radionuclide 
deposition process, some soil-to-plant TFs are based on concentrations in the edible parts of 
specific food crops and associated radionuclide concentrations in soil, account for radionuclide 
translocation within the crop. 
Some conservative models, which are used for screening purposes (IAEA 2001 [158519]; 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1, 1977 [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 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 (Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-53, Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-31). 
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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 128 June 2003 
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 [100464], 
p. 5-63 
Napier et al. 1988 [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 
[157927] uses other 
vegetables category, 
whereas Leigh et al. 
1993 [100464] uses root 
vegetables category for 
non-leafy vegetables. 
2 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], 
p. 135 
Leafy vegetables 
Other produce 
Fresh forage 
1.0 
0.1 
1.0 
For all non-leafy 
vegetables 
3 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70 Leafy vegetables 
Other produce 
Fresh forage 
1.0 
0.1 
1.0 
For all non-leafy 
vegetables 
4 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[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 [159465], 
p. D-12 
Leafy vegetables 
Root vegetables, Fruit, and 
Grain 
Fresh forage 
1.0 
0.1 
1.0 
Foliage-to-food 
radionuclide TCs 
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[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 
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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 129 June 2003 
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 1976 [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, an assumption was made (Assumption 1) that the 
translocation factor for root (other) vegetables, fruit, grain, and stored feed for laying hens 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 
modern climate are 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 [158519], 
Section 5.1.1.2; also ICRU 2001 [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 [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-time (half-life) of the crop surface-deposited contamination of 14 days. The 
relationship (ICRU 2001 [160339], p. 15) between any process half-time and the process rate 
constant is expressed as 
.
2 ln = T (Eq. 6-7) 
where
T = process half-time, d 
. = process rate constant, d-1.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 130 June 2003 
The value of 14 days for the weathering half-time (or 0.05 d-1 for the weathering rate constant) is 
used in many documents, including the recent recommendations from the IAEA (2001 [158519], 
p. 63). The summary of the weathering half-times used in several radiological assessments is 
given in Table 6-37. 
Table 6-37. Values of Weathering Half-Time from Various Sources 
No Reference Weathering half-time, days Comments 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 
124 
14 
8 (iodine) 
Cited from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, 
Rev. 1 1977 [100067] and other 
references 
2 IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 63 14 (all plant surfaces) Values given as removal constants, 
converted using Eq. 3 
3 LaPlante and Poor 1997 
[101079], p. B-7 14 GENII-S default value 
4 Leigh et al. 1993 [100464], p.5- 
63 14 GENII-S default 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 
137 14 Cited from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, 
Rev. 1 1977 [100067] 
6 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 70 14 Cited from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, 
Rev. 1 1977 [100067] 
7 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 
1977 [100067], p. 1.109-69 14 Based on NRC staffs judgments as stated 
in the notes 
8 Smith et al. 1996 [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 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], 
p. 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 [159465], p. D-12 12.7 
(13 days) 
Calculated from weathering removal 
constant of 20 yr-1 using Equation 6-6 and 
units conversion 
11 Value selected for the 
biosphere model 
Piece-wise cumulative 
distribution: 
5 days, 0 percent 
14 days, 50 percent 
30 days, 100 percent 
The weathering half-time 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 halftime 
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-time given in Table 6-37, range from 5 to 30 days 
with 14 days being the mode. Considering this information, it is recommended that the

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 131 June 2003 
weathering half-time 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 halftime 
corresponds to the crops irrigated using an overhead sprinkler system. The longer 
weathering half-time is appropriate for contaminant removal from crops irrigated using flood, 
ditch, drip or other types of irrigation not involving the overhead method and thus not 
accompanied by the rapid removal of contaminant from the crop surfaces. 
It is also recommended that the distribution developed for the groundwater exposure scenario 
and the modern climate should be used for the volcanic ash exposure scenario and for the future 
climate. This is because the distribution of the weathering half-time is based on the 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. The 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-toanimal 
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 2003 [160699], 
Section 6.4.4) can be estimated as 
k i soil k i water k i feed k i Cd Cd Cd Cd , , , , , , , + + = (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)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 132 June 2003 
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 2003 
[160699], Sections 6.4.4.1 through 6.4.4.3) as 
k i m k i k i soil 
k i k i k i water 
k j i k i k i feed 
Qs Cs Fm Cd 
Qw Cw Fm Cd 
Qf Cp Fm Cd 
, , , , 
, , , 
, , , , 
=
=
= 
(Eqs. 6-9 to 6-11) 
where
Fm i,k = animal intake-to-animal 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-toanimal 
product TCs, and the animal consumption rates for the animal feed, water, and soil. 
Another term used in radioecology for the animal intake-to-animal product TC is the feed TC 
(ICRU 2001 [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 feed but also to the water and 
soil ingestion. 
The intake of food and water by animals depends on animal species, mass, age, growth rate of 
the animal, the digestibility of feed, and, in the case of lactating animals, the milk yield 
(IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 69). The type of feed depends on the animal species. Typical feed for 
the dairy cows includes grass products, maize, clover, alfalfa, and sugar beets, whereas beef 
cattle are fed a diet of grass products and maize (IAEA 1994 [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. Laying hens and 
poultry, on the other hand, are 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 133 June 2003 
Table 6-38. The biosphere model uses animal feed consumption rates expressed in units of wetweight. 
In many instances, as indicated in the table, the feed intakes of domestic animals were 
given on the 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 ratios (IAEA 1982 [103768], NCRP 1984 [103784], and IAEA 1994 [100458]) or 
the fractions of different types of animal feed in an animal diet (Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[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 (CRWMS 
M&O 2001 [152539], p. 78; CRWMS M&O 2001 [152536], pp. 73 to 77). 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 to 68 kg/d for beef cattle, 50 to 73 kg/d 
for diary cows and from 0.11 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 to 60 L/d for beef cattle, 
from 50 to 100 L/d for diary cows, and from 0.1 to 0.3 L/d for chickens (IAEA 1994 [100458], 
p. 33). Most of the values listed in other documents (see Table 6-38) fall within these ranges. 
The diary cow water consumption rate in Yu et al. (2001 [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 and 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 [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, Qw,3, in L/d (Mason 2003 [160415]) can be 
approximated as 
AT NI MY DM Qw 2 . 1 05 . 0 9 . 0 58 . 1 99 . 15 3 , + + + + = (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).

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 134 June 2003 
Table 6-38. Animal Feed and 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 [100464], 
p. 5-63 
Napier et al. 1988 [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 [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. 
2 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 
1 1977 [100067], p. 1.109-38 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
50 
50 
50 
60 
Not included 
3 IAEA 2001 [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 [100458], p. 15) 
4 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], p. 
143 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
Poultry 
68 
55 
0.12 
50 
60 
- 
Not included 
5 NCRP 1984 [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 [100458], p. 15) 
6 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[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  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 dryweight 
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. 
7 Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D- 
15 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
68 
55 
50 
160 
0.5 
0.5 
RESRAD default values

Table 6-38. Animal Feed and Water and Soil Consumption Rates from Various Sources and the Selected Values (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 135 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
No Reference Animal 
Type 
Feed 
(kg wet/d) 
Water 
(L/d) 
Soil 
(kg/d) 
Comment 
8 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 
253 
Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
Poultry 
Laying 
hens 
50 
60 
0.4 
0.4 
40 
60 
0.4 
0.4 
1.0 
0.8 
0.006 
0.006 
based on 6-7% of 
dry-weight feed or 
forage ingestion 
Ingestion rates are assumed to be normally 
distributed, GSDs are given. 
9 IAEA 1994 [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) 
20-60 
50-100 
0.1-0.3 
0.1-0.3 
6% of feed for 
grazing cattle; 
corresponds to 
0.4  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 [100458], p. 15). 
Mean fraction of soil intake expressed as fraction of 
feed intake 
10 Smith et al. 1996 [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 
[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 IAEA (1994) with updated dry-to-wet ratio 
conversion. 
12 Recommended values Beef cattle 
Diary cows 
Poultry 
Laying hen 
29  68 (fresh) 
50  73 (fresh) 
0.12  0.4 
0.12  0.4 
60 
60-100 
0.5 
0.5 
0.4  1.0 
0.8  1.1 
0.01  0.03 
0.01  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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 136 June 2003 
Dry mass of feed intake can be taken from Table 6-38. Several references listed in that 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 
[160413]). In this dairy, in March 1999, 4,503,280 pounds of milk were produced by the 
average number of lactating cows per day of 2,612. The average daily milk yield per cow is thus 
25.3 kg/d. This value may be considered as 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 in Mason (2003 [160415]). The average minimum 
temperature can be obtained from the data for Meteorological Monitoring Site 9 (Gate 510) 
(DTN: MO9811DEDCRMCR.000 [148887]; CRWMS M&O 1997 [100117], p. A-11), which is 
the southern most Yucca Mountain Site station in the direction of Amargosa Valley (CRWMS 
M&O 1999 [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 10.0C. Using these values, the estimated daily water intake by diary 
cows is about 80 L/d, which is a half of the value in Yu et al. (2001 [159465], p. D-15). This 
value may also be corroborated by the data from Bernard and Montgomery (2002 [160609], p. 5) 
presenting the results of the study that evaluated the water intake of diary cows at a range of 
temperatures from 68 to 104F. The corresponding daily water intake (not to be mistaken with 
the annual average water daily intake) was in the range from 18 gal/d (68 L/d) to 31.7 gal/d 
(120.0 L/d). The milk yield was 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, is appears that the diary cow consumption rate of water of 160 L/d used in Yu 
et al. (2001 [159465]) is unsubstantiated. The range of values in IAEA (1994 [100458]) of 50 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 higher than typical temperatures, 
the expected value of 80 L/d and the uncertainty represented by the uniform distribution in the 
range from 60 to 100 L/d is considered appropriate for diary cow consumption for the biosphere 
model. 
The water consumption rates for chickens in Davis et al. (1993 [103767], p. 253) and Smith 
(1996, p. 5-24) are greater than the values reported in IAEA (1994 [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 IAEA (1994 [100458], p. 33), Kennedy and Strenge (1992 [103776], p. 6.19), and 
Davis et al. (1993[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 0.71 for grain, based on the mid-range values given in IAEA (1994 [100458], p. 15). It is

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 137 June 2003 
recommended that the soil consumption rates be represented by uniform distributions based on 
the calculated ranges. 
The ingestion of soil was measured in an experiment conducted at the NTS (Gilbert et al. 1988 
[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 rumens of two steers after 24 hour 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 [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 [160559], p. 147). Gilbert et al. (1988 [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 
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 [160339], p. 14). TC is the fraction of the animals daily intake 
of a radionuclide that is transferred to one 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 
[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 [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 be representative of all meat, and cow milk to 
represent all kinds of milk. For example, IAEA (2001 [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 [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). 
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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 138 June 2003 
the TC values from relevant references are considered best representations of the parameter 
values (BIOMASS 2001 [159468] 2001, T1/WD04, p. 12). The distributions for TCs are 
considered to be lognormal (LaPlante et al. 1997, p. 2-14; Davis et al. 1993 [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 6-62). There are a variety of reasons for such spread of 
values. If the TC values are similar from report to report, this means that either 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), for the cases of large data spread (GSD>10) it is recommended 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 modern 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 
the 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. GMs and GSDs for TCs for meat were calculated using Microsoft 
Excel 97 SR-2 (see Attachment I) Also, see the discussion on the technetium TC values for milk, 
which is also applicable to the transfer of this element to meat.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 139 June 2003 
Table 6-39. Technetium Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 8.5E-03 a  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 8.5E-03 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 1.0E-04 b 1.0E-06  1.0E-04 
4 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-03 c  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 8.5E-03 a  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 1.0E-04 d lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 9.9E-04 a  
8 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 85   
9 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-04 e  
10 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63   
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[100067], p. 1.109-37 4.0E-01 f  
12 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 9.9E-04 g  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 6.0E-03 h  
14 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 8.7E-03 a  
15 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29; 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 1.0E-04 i  
16 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 1.1E-03 j; 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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown 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 Value for beef 
h Value for beef; value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
i RESRAD default value; suggested value from Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29. 
j 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 140 June 2003 
Table 6-40. Iodine Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 7.0E-03 a  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 7.0E-03 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 4.0E-02 a 7.0E-03  5.0E-2 
4 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 5.0E-02 b  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 7.0E-03 a  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 4.0E-02 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 2.0E-02 a  
8 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 85 7.0E-03 a  
9 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 4.0E-02 d  
10 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 7.2E-03 a 7.2E-03  2.0E-02 
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[100067], p. 1.109-37 2.9E-03  
12 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-03 a  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 3.0E-03 c  
14 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 7.2E-03 a  
15 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 7.0E-03 e  
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 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines. 
a Value for beef 
b Value recommended for screening models; based on values for dairy and beef cattle. 
c 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 [103839], pp. 27 to 29. 
f For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.0E-02; GSD = 2.8

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 141 June 2003 
Table 6-41. Neptunium Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 5.5E-05 a  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 5.5E-05 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 1.0E-03 a  
4 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-02 b  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 5.5E-05 a  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 1.0E-03 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 5.0E-03 a  
8 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 85   
9 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-03 d  
10 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63   
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[100067], p. 1.109-37 2.0E-04  
12 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E-03 a  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 1.2E-04 c  
14 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 3.6E-06 e  
15 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 1.0E-03 f  
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 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines. 
a Value for beef 
b Value recommended for screening models; based on values for dairy and beef cattle. 
c 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 [103839], pp. 27 to 29. 
g For the references listed in this table, GM = 3.4E-04; GSD = 8.8

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 142 June 2003 
Table 6-42. Plutonium Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 5.0E-07 a  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 2.0E-06 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 1.0E-05 a 2.0E-07  2.0E-04 
4 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 2.0E-04 b  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 5.0E-07 a  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 1.0E-05 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 5.0E-03 a  
8 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 85  5.0E-09  2.0E-05 a 
9 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-04 d  
10 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 1.0E-06 a 1.3E-07  5.8E-06 
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[100067], p. 1.109-37   
12 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-06 a  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 2.0E-04 c  
14 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 1.0E-06 a  
15 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 1.0E-04 e  
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 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines. 
a Value for beef 
b Value recommended for screening models; based on values for dairy and beef cattle. 
c 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 [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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 143 June 2003 
Table 6-43. Americium Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 51 3.5E-06 a  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 3.5E-06 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 37 4.0E-05 a 4.0E-06  1.0E-04 
4 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-04 b  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 3.5E-06 a  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 4.0E-05 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 5.0E-03 a  
8 NCRP 1984 [103784], p. 85   
9 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 5.0E-05 d  
10 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63   
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[100067], p. 1.109-37   
12 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-05 a  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 4.0E-04 c  
14 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-87 3.6E-06 a  
15 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 27 to 29; 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 5.0E-05 e  
16 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 3.4E-05 f; GSD = 9.0 
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 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines. 
a Value for beef 
b Value recommended for screening models; based on values for dairy and beef cattle. 
c 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 [103839], pp. 27 to 29. 
f For the references listed in this table, GM = 13.4E-05; GSD = 9.0

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 144 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-44. Transfer Coefficients for Meat for Other Elements 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg (Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake) 
No. Reference 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 
Baes et al. 1984 [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 
2 
Davis et al. 1993 [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 [100458], p. 37 2.0E-02  8.0E-03  5E-02 4.0E-04 9.0E-04    3.0E-04 
4 
IAEA 2001 [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 
[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 
[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 
7 
Mills et al. 1983 [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 [103784], p. 85   8.0E-04  3.0E-02  5.0E-04     
9 
NCRP 1996 [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 [160322], p. 63   3.0E-04  2.0E-02       
11 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, 
Rev. 1 1977 [100067], p. 
1.109-37 
  6.0E-04  4.0E-03       
12 
Rittmann 1993 [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 [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 
Till and Meyer 1983 
[101895], 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 [103839], 
pp. 27 to 29 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. 
D-16 
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 
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 
GSD 1.8 5.8 4.4 4.6 2.6 2.6 2.1 8.2 15.1 21.2 3.0

Table 6-44. Transfer Coefficients for Meat for Other Elements (Continued) 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 145 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg (Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake) 
No. Reference 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
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 
NOTES: a The lower bound of the value of GSD was used. 
b The upper bound of the GSD was used.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 146 June 2003 
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 [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 [160553], p. 328) is calculated as 
s v sv I C I f C r + = (Eq. 6-13) 
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 [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 [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 [160553], p. 329). 
The results of the calculation indicate that the TCs for plutonium for meat are in the range from 
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 blood (Eckerman 
et al. 1988 [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 (see Table 6-42) is considered 
appropriate for the intended use.

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 147 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
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 
Vegetationto-
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, [160553], pp. 327 to 329 
NOTES: a I = inner enclosure; O = outer enclosure 
b Calculated as the ratio of Pu concentration in muscle to Pu ingestion rate.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 148 June 2003 
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. Calculations of GMs and GSDs for TCs for poultry were done using 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet and are shown in Attachment I. 
Table 6-46. Technetium Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 1.9E+00 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 3.0E-02 3.0E-02  2.0E-01 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 3.0E-02  
4 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 9.9E-04  
5 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63   
6 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 3.0E-02 b  
7 Smith et al. 1996 [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: Cs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines. 
a Same 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 
c Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d For the references listed in this table, GM = 6.3E-02, GSD = 16.4. The upper bound for the value of GSD 
was used.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 149 June 2003 
Table 6-47. Iodine Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 2.8E+00 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 1.0E-02  
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 1.8E-02  
4 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 4.0E-03  
5 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 2.0E-01 8.0E-03  2.0E-01 
6 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.8E-02 b  
7 Smith et al. 1996 [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
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 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 
c Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d For the references listed in this table, GM = 5.5E-02; GSD = 9.7

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 150 June 2003 
Table 6-48. Neptunium Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 5.5E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40   
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 4.0E-03  
4 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 4.0E-03  
5 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63   
6 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 4.0E-03 b  
7 Smith et al. 1996 [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
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 as dashed lines. 
a Same value was used for poultry and eggs. 
b GENII default 
c Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d For the references listed in this table, GM = 3.6E-03; GSD = 1.6. The lower bound for the value of GSD 
was used.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 151 June 2003 
Table 6-49. Plutonium Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 7.6E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 3.0E-03 2.0E-05  3.0E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 1.5E-04  
4 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 4.0E-03  
5 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 2.0E-05 b  
6 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.5E-04 c  
7 Smith et al. 1996 [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
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 as dashed lines. 
a Same value was used for poultry and eggs. 
b 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 152 June 2003 
Table 6-50. Americium Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 8.5E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 40 6.0E-03 2.0E-05  6.0E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 2.0E-04  
4 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 4.0E-03  
5 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 7.2E-05  
6 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-04 b  
7 Smith et al. 1996 [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
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 as dashed lines. 
a Same value was used for poultry and eggs. 
b GENII default 
c Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
d For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.8E-03, GSD = 13.5. The upper bound on the value of GSD 
was recommended.

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 153 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-51. Transfer Coefficients for Poultry for Other Elements 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg (Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake) 
No. Reference 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [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 [100458], p. 40  9.0E+00 8.0E-02  1.0E+01      1.0E+00 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[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 [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 [160322], p. 63   3.2E-02  4.4E+00       
6 Rittmann 1993 [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 [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 Till and Meyer 1983 
[101895], 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 
NOTES: a The lower bound of the value of GSD was used. 
b The upper bound of the value of GSD was used.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 154 June 2003 
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 [100458], IAEA 2001 [155188]) indicate that technetium 
transfer from animal diet to milk tends to be lower than was previously considered (Davis et al. 
1993 [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 [103766]), Mills et al. (1983 [103781]), Till and Meyer (1983 [101895]), and Regulatory 
Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 (1997 [100067]) and compare with data from IAEA (2001 [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 [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 [155188], p. 43). Based on the Eh-pH diagram for 
technetium, the stability region for TcO2 is very limited (Brookins 1988 [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 as 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 [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 high corn silage diet, 
which decreases rumen pH compared with a high alfalfa diet (Ruppert et al. 1996 [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 [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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 155 June 2003 
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 (1977 [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 through 6-57 while the calculations of GM and 
standard deviation are included in the Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet shown in 
Attachment I. 
Table 6-52. Technetium Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg No. Reference Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 1.0E-02  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 9.9E-04 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 1.4E-04 a 2.3E-05  1.1E-03 
4 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-03 b  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 1.0E-02  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 1.4E-04 c lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 1.2E-02  
8 NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 82 to 83   
9 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-03 b  
10 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62   
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[100067], p. 1.109-37 2.5E-02  
12 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 3.0E-04 c  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 7.5E-03 d  
14 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 9.9E-03  
15 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 1.0E-03 e  
16 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 2.1E-03 f; GSD = 6.0 
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 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
Tr 
an 
sf 
er 
fa 
ct 
or 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines. 
a Used the more conservative value of those given. 
b 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 156 June 2003 
Table 6-53. Iodine Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 1.0E-02  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 9.9E-03 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 1.0E-02 1.0E-03  3.5E-02 
4 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 1.0E-02 a  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 1.0E-02  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 1.0E-02 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 1.0E-02  
8 NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 82 to 83 1.2E-02 c 2.7E-03  3.5E-02 
9 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-02 a  
10 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 9.9E-03  
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[100067], p. 1.109-37 6.0E-03  
12 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.2E-02 d  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 3.0E-03 b  
14 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 9.9E-03  
15 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 1.0E-02 e  
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 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines. 
a Value recommended for screening models 
b Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 157 June 2003 
Table 6-54. Neptunium Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 5.0E-06  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 5.0E-06 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 5.0E-06  
4 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 5.0E-05 a  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 5.0E-06  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 5.0E-06 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 2.5E-06  
8 NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 82 to 83   
9 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-05 a  
10 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62   
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[100067], p. 1.109-37 5.0E-06  
12 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E-05 c  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 5.0E-06 b  
14 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 5.0E-06  
15 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 5.0E-06 d  
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 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines. 
a Value recommended for screening models 
b Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c GENII default 
d RESRAD default value 
e For the references listed in this table, GM = 6.3E-06; GSD = 2.0

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 158 June 2003 
Table 6-55. Plutonium Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 1.0E-07  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 1.0E-07 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 1.1E-06 3.0E-09  3.0E-06 
4 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 3.0E-06 a  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 1.0E-07  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 1.1E-06 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 2.5E-08  
8 NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 82 to 83 1.0E-07 c  
9 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 1.0E-06 a  
10 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 1.0E-07  
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[100067], p. 1.109-37   
12 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 1.0E-07 d  
13 Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 5.0E-06 b  
14 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 2.7E-09 e  
15 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 1.0E-06 f  
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 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines. 
a Value recommended for screening models 
b Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 159 June 2003 
Table 6-56. Americium Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [103766], p. 50 4.0E-07  
2 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], pp. 233 to 234 4.1E-07 lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
3 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 35 1.5E-06 4.0E-07  2.0E-05 
4 IAEA 2001 [158519], pp. 67 to 68 2.0E-05 a  
5 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 4.0E-07  
6 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 1.5E-06 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
7 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 2.5E-06  
8 NCRP 1984 [103784], pp. 82 to 83   
9 NCRP 1996 [101882], pp. 52 to 54 2.0E-06 a  
10 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 62 4.1E-07  
11 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1 1977 
[100067], p. 1.109-37   
12 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 3.0E-07 d GENII-S default 
13 Smith et al. 1996 [101085], p. 5-27 5.0E-06 b  
14 Till and Meyer 1983 [101895], p. 5-86 2.0E-05 c  
15 Wang et al. 1993 [103839], pp. 30 to 32 
Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. D-16 2.0E-06 e  
16 This analysis  lognormal; GM = 1.6E-06 f; GSD = 4.2 
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 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
Reference No. 
Transfer factor 
NOTES: TCs are in units of Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake. 
Truncation limits shown as dashed lines. 
a Value recommended for screening models 
b Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c 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 01 160 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-57. Transfer Coefficients for Milk for Other Elements 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg (Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake) No
. Reference 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Baes et al. 1984 [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 [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 [100458], p. 35 1.7E-02  2.8E-03  7.9E-03  1.3E-03    4.0E-04 
4 IAEA 2001 [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 
[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 
[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 [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 [103784], p. 83   1.4E-03  7.1E-03  4.0E-04    4.0E-04 
9 NCRP 1996 [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 [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 [100067], p. 
1.109-37 
  8.0E-04  1.2E-02       
12 Rittmann 1993 [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 [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 Till and Meyer 1983 
[101895], 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 [103839], 
pp. 30 to 32; Yu et al. 2001 
[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 
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 
NOTES: 
a The lower bound of the value of GSD was used.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 161 June 2003 
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 through 6-63. Calculations of GMs and GSDs for TCs for eggs were done using 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet and are shown in Attachment I. 
Table 6-58. Technetium Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 1.9E+00 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 3.0E+00  
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 3.0E+00  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 3.0E+00 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 9.9E-04 c  
6 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63   
7 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 3.0E+00 GENII-S default 
8 Smith et al. 1996 [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
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 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 162 June 2003 
Table 6-59. Iodine Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 2.8E+00 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 3.0E+00 2  4 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 2.8E+00  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 3.0E+00 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 1.6E+00  
6 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 4.4E+00 3.7E+00  5.2E+00 
7 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.8E+00 c  
8 Smith et al. 1996 [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
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 as dashed lines. 
a Same value used for poultry and eggs (Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 238) 
b Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c GENII default 
d For the references listed in this table, GM = 2.6E+00; GSD = 1.4. Lower bound of GSD was 
recommended.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 163 June 2003 
Table 6-60. Neptunium Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 5.5E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41   
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 2.0E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 2.0E-03 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 2.0E-03  
6 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63  
7 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 2.0E-03 c  
8 Smith et al. 1996 [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
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 as dashed lines. 
a Same value used for poultry and eggs 
b Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c GENII default 
d For the references listed in this table, GM = 3.4E-03; GSD = 2.4.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 164 June 2003 
Table 6-61. Plutonium Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 7.6E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 5.0E-04 3.0E-05  8.0E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 8.0E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 5.0E-04 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 2.0E-03  
6 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 3.3E-05  
7 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 8.0E-03 c  
8 Smith et al. 1996 [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
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 as dashed lines. 
a Same value used for poultry and eggs 
b Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c GENII default 
d For the references listed in this table, GM = 1.7E-03; GSD = 7.4.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 165 June 2003 
Table 6-62. Americium Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg 
No. Reference 
Best Estimate Range and Distribution 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 233 to 234 8.5E-03 a lognormal; GSD = 3.2 
2 IAEA 1994 [100458], p. 41 4.0E-03 1.0E-03  9.0E-03 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 [103776], pp. 
6.29 to 6.30 9.0E-03  
4 LaPlante and Poor 1997 [101079], p. 2-13 4.0E-03 b lognormal; GSD = 2 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [103781], pp. 145 to 146 2.0E-03  
6 Ng 1982 [160322], p. 63 3.9E-03  
7 Rittmann 1993 [107744], pp. 35 to 36 9.0E-03 c  
8 Smith et al. 1996 [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
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 as dashed lines. 
a Same value used for poultry and eggs 
b Value used in the biosphere modeling for Yucca Mountain. 
c GENII default 
d For the references listed in this table, GM = 4.9E-03; GSD = 1.7. Lower bound of GSD was 
recommended.

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 166 June 20032 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-63. Transfer Coefficients for Eggs for Other Elements 
Transfer Coefficient, d/kg (Bq/kg of animal product per Bq/d of radionuclide intake) 
No. Reference 
Cl Se Sr Sn Cs Pb Ra Ac Th Pa U 
1 Davis et al. 1993 [103767], 
p. 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 [100458], p. 41  9.0E+00 2.0E-01  4.0E-01      1.0E+00 
3 Kennedy and Strenge 1992 
[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 
[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 
5 Mills et al. 1983 [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 [160322], p. 63   2.2E-01  4.3E-01       
7 Rittmann 1993 [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 [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 Till and Meyer 1983 
[101895], p. 5-87   3.0E-01  5.0E-03       
GM 4.4E-02 7.3E+00 2.7E-01 8.7E-02 5.9E-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 2.3 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 2.3 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 7.2E-02 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 4.8E+00 2.1E+01 1.5E-01 2.5E-02 5.9E-01 1.2E-02 6.7E+00 
NOTES: a The lower bound of the value of GSD equal to 2.0 was used. 
b The upper bound of the value of GSD equal to 10.0 was used.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 167 June 2003 
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 [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 2003 [160699], Section 6.4.5) as 
BF MF Cw BF Cw Cf i i i i f i = = , (Eq. 6-14) 
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 speciesdependent, 
but for a given element and organism, the bioaccumulation factor value can range 
over several orders of magnitude (IAEA 2001 [158519], p. 72). The most important parameter 
governing the value of a bioaccumulation factor is the trophic level of the organism (IAEA 2001 
[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. However, bottom-feeding fish have higher 
bioaccumulation factors (take up more radioactivity) than the piscivorous (fish eating) fish 
(IAEA 1994 [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 [101090], pp. 3 to 17, YMP 1999 [158212], pp. 15 to 16). During 
the period from 1988 to 1998, which included the time of the food consumption survey (DOE

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 168 June 2003 
1997 [100332]), the farm was fully operational. The production has since declined, but the farm 
still remains in operation (Roe 2002 [160674]). The farm consisted of five ponds, two breeding 
ponds, and three grow-out ponds. According to reports summizing the socioeconomic data 
(CRWMS M&O 1997 [101090], pp. 3 to 17, YMP 1999 [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 inches (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 [160674]). 
The following information about catfish farming, relevant to the biosphere modeling, was 
obtained from the Mississippi State University Extension Service (2002 [159489]). (Mississippi 
is the major catfish producer accounting for about  of the U.S. catfish production.) It takes 
about 2 years to grow a catfish and a full-grown fish weighs one to two pounds. The amount of 
food that is needed to grow the fish is two pounds of feed per one 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 fullgrown 
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 [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 one 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 [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, as well as 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 changes with 
time because throughout a year, fresh water must be added to the ponds on a continuous 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 169 June 2003 
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 estimation 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 [100458], p. 46-47), 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 shown in Attachment I. Additional information on the ranges of 
bioaccumulation factors can be found in IAEA (1994 [100458], p. 45). The distribution of 
bioaccumulation factors represents the uncertainty in the upper bound of the parameter value, 
rather than the uncertainty in the parameter itself. There is an 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).

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 170 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-64. Bioaccumulation Factors for Fresh Water Fish from Various Sources (L/kg) 
Element 
Davis et 
al. 1993 
[103767], 
pp. 233- 
234 
IAEA 
1994 
[100458], 
p. 45 
IAEA 
2001 
[158519], 
p. 73 
Kennedy 
and 
Strenge 
1992 
[103776 
], p. 
6.32 
Mills et al. 
1983 
[103781], 
pp. 148- 
149 
Napier et 
al. 1988 
[100953], 
pp. 
5.769- 
5.770 
NCRP 
1996 
[101882], 
pp. 58-60 
Reg. 
Guide 
1.109 
[100067, 
p. 1.109- 
13 
Till and 
Meyer 
1983 
[101895, 
p. 5-98- 
5.103 
Wang et al. 
1993 
[103839], p. 
33-35; Yu et 
al. 2001 
[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+03 3E+01 3.0E+01 2.5E+02 1.0E+01 2.5E+03 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 
NOTES: 
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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 171 June 2003 
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 1.2E+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 
NOTES: 
a Calculated using values shown in Table 6-64, see Attachment I 
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 [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 [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, and that the activity accumulates in the ponds for up to 2 years 
(Assumption 2). After all fish have been harvested, the ponds are drained and cleaned, and the 
water is completely replaced. 
The water concentration modifying factor can thus be calculated by taking 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 172 June 2003 
PD 
RC AE PD MFi 
 + 
= (Eq. 6-15) 
where
PD = pond depth, m 
AE = annual evaporation rate, m/yr 
RC = duration of fish raising cycle, yr. 
The fishpond depth, PD, can be determined from the results of the Regional Data Analysis 
Investigation (Roe 2002 [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 from 0.8 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 [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 [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 inches (for the map isopleths closest to the Amargosa Valley). 
Based on this information, the value of 80 inches (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 [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 inches. In the Mojave Desert at Silver 
Lake, California (Blaney 1957 [159504], p. 212), where climate is similar to that in the 
Amargosa Valley, annual evaporation is about 80 inches (79.46 inches; 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 one and two 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 from 2.2 for the pond depth of 1.7 m and oneyear 
evaporation to 6.1 for the pond depth of 0.8 m and 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 173 June 2003 
the biosphere model for the modern 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 [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 [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 [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 [103767]. p. 104). Therefore, taking into account 
the geometry of the fishponds, depths of which 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 one 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 of 14C 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. The catfish at the Deer 
Catfish Farm are raised using commercial feed, which is not contaminated (Roe 2002 [160674]). 
Because of this, 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 (Table 6-65; 
i.e., 4.6  103) be used for the biosphere model. 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 174 June 2003 
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 
2 . 3 10
10 
96 . 1 
1 
96 . 1 
= = 
= 
GSD 
GSD 
The upper and lower truncation limits for this distribution, for the 99 percent confidence interval, 
are calculated as for other elements (Attachment I) and are shown in Table 6-65. 
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 inches 
(0.76 to 0.89 m) (Farnsworth et al. 1982 [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 needs to be added to the ponds to compensate for the evaporation losses, is 
between 0.9 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 from 1.5 for the pond 
depth of 1.7 m and one-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 
modern 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 modifying factor for the 
modern 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 [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 airmoving 
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 [159493]).

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 175 June 2003 
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 [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 
[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 2002 [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: 
 Under-powered, inexpensive aluminum-wound fan motors rather than more energyefficient, 
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 2002 [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 inches 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 [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 air flow can also pull small particles of previously deposited 
minerals off the pads and thus add contamination to the air stream.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 176 June 2003 
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 re-circulates 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 2003 [160699], Section 6.4.2.2) are calculated as 
i 
air 
water 
evap i e Cw 
F 
M f Ca = , (Eq. 6-16) 
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 = air flow 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. 
The majority of the homes in Amargosa Valley are manufactured homes, accounting for nearly 
90 percent of homes. Bureau of the Census (2002 [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 [159728], Table H31) 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 consists of single 
family houses. The 2000 Census data indicated that 91.3 percent of the total Amargosa Valley 
population (1043 of 1142 people) lived in manufactured homes (Bureau of the Census 2002

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 177 June 2003 
[159728], Table H33). Therefore manufactured homes can be used to represent a typical 
residential structure in Amargosa Valley. 
Most manufactured homes are single- or doublewide. 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 [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 [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 [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 
7-1/2 feet 37.4 
8 feet 5.1 
8-1/2 feet 1.5 
9 feet 7.7 
Source: NAHB Research Center 1998 [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 [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 [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 of a few hundred CFM up to about 2,000 CFM (Watt and Brown 1997 [159497], 
pp. 131, 132, and 135). Window-mounted evaporative coolers may provide the airflow rate 
between about 1,000 and 2,000 CFM (Watt and Brown 1997 [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 to over 6,000 CFM (Watt and Brown 1997 [159497],

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 178 June 2003 
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 [160563] ) household water use was tracked for 
houses equiped 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 whether it 
evaporated 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 (based on data from Karpiscak et al. 1998 [160563]). Households 
were selected for the study on the basis of home size and cooler size (4,500 to 6,500 CFM). The 
airflow rates for the coolers used in the study are 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. 
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 bleedoff 
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 bleedoff systems, the amount of bleedoff water needs to be subtracted from the water used, 
and then the product divided by the number of operating hours. 
0
2
4
6
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 More 
Water Evaporation Rate, L/hr 
Number of Coolers 
Figure 6-1. Distribution of Measured Water Evaporation Rate for Evaporative Coolers

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 179 June 2003 
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 
[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 [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 the 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 air-water contact time and localized drying of 
the evaporative cooler pads (Watt and Brown 1997 [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 6-16. 
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 a 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). 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.

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 180 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Table 6-68. Evaporative Cooler Water Use 
System Configuration a Water Use Bleedoff 
House No. BS NBS AC NAC gallons liters gallons liters 
Operating 
Hours 
Water Use 
Rate, L/hr b 
Water 
Evaporation 
Rate, L/hr c 
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

Table 6-68. Evaporative Cooler Water Use (Continued) 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 181 June 2003 
System Configuration a Water Use Bleedoff 
House No. BS NBS AC NAC gallons liters gallons liters 
Operating 
Hours 
Water Use 
Rate, L/hr b 
Water 
Evaporation 
Rate, L/hr c 
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 
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

Table 6-68. Evaporative Cooler Water Use (Continued) 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 182 June 2003 
System Configuration a Water Use Bleedoff 
House No. BS NBS AC NAC gallons liters gallons liters 
Operating 
Hours 
Water Use 
Rate, L/hr b 
Water 
Evaporation 
Rate, L/hr c 
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 
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 [160563], p. 122 
NOTES: The table includes measurements from 1993 and 1994. 
a NBS = no bleedoff system 
BS = bleedoff system 
AC = air conditioner 
NAC = no air conditioner 
b Total water use rate for evaporative coolers equipped with bleedoff system calculated as a ratio of the cooler water use to number of operating hours. 
c Water evaporation rate calculated for the units with and without bleedoff system. For coolers without bleedoff system it is a ratio of cooler water use 
to number of operating hours; for coolers with bleedoff system it is equal to cooler water use minus bleedoff divided by operating hours. For coolers 
without bleedoff, water use rate is the same as water evaporation rate.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 183 June 2003 
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 non-radioactive 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 [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 [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 2003 
[160699], Section 6.4.2.3) to estimate the concentration of radon in outdoor air is 
226 , 222 , 2 & 1 , 222 , - - = - = Ra m Rn m n Rn g Cs f Ca (Eq. 6-19) 
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 [155894], p. 87 to 88). Such relationships were developed

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 184 June 2003 
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 [158644], 
p. 115; NCRP 1999 [155894], pp. 87 to 88) and the average global activity concentration of 
222Rn in the air is 10 Bq/m3 (UNSCEAR 2000 [158644], p. 103; NCRP 1999 [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. Similar approach, using a fixed value is also recommended for the screening dose 
calculations (NCRP 1999 [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 modern 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. Generally, the radon emanation factor is inversely 
proportional to grain size because of radionuclide sorption or co-precipitation with metal oxides 
or organic compounds on particle surfaces (UNSCEAR 2000 [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 6-19 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 
outdoor Rn Rn g J CF Ca 222 222 , - - = (Eq. 6-20) 
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 
[158644], p. 99). For dry soil, calculations of radon flux density produce a higher value of 
33 mBq/m2/s (UNSCEAR 2000 [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 [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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 185 June 2003 
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 [159465], 
p. C-9), where 500 s/m is given as the upper limit for the 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 
modern 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 fraction, 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 fraction varies from 0.05 to 0.7 for rocks and soils (UNSCEAR 2000 [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 fraction 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 towards its foundations 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, if present. There is evidence that 
a large part of indoor radon comes from the soil below and around buildings (Wilkening 1985 
[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 [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 no direct contact of the 
building with the soil.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 186 June 2003 
The indoor radon concentration is represented in the biosphere model (BSC 2003 [160699], 
Section 6.4.2.3) as the sum of the indoor and outdoor components, such that 
2 & 1 , 222 , 4 & 3 , 222 , = - = - + = n Rn g 
indoor 
n Rn g Ca 
H v 
J 
Ca (Eq. 6-21) 
where
Cag,Rn-222,n=3&4 = activity concentration of 222Rn in indoor air (n = 3 and 4 for active 
indoor and asleep indoor; defined in Equation 6.4.2-2) (Bq/m3) 
Jindoor = radon flux density from the house floor (Bq/(m2 sec)) 
H = interior wall height of the house (m) 
v = house ventilation rate, or air exchange rate (/sec). 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 valus 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 2003 [160699], Section 6.4.2.3), as 
outdoor house indoor J f J  = (Eq. 6-22) 
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 2003 [160699], 
Section 6.4.2.3) as 
. .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
+ = 
. .
.
. 
. .
.
. 
+ = 
- 
= - 
= - 
= - = - 
1 
1 
222 
2 & 1 , 222 , 
2 & 1 , 222 , 
2 & 1 , 222 , 4 & 3 , 222 , 
H v CF 
f 
Ca 
Ca 
J 
H v
f 
Ca Ca 
Rn 
house 
n Rn g 
n Rn g 
outdoor house 
n Rn g n Rn g 
(Eq. 6-23) 
where
CFRn-222 = ratio of radon concentration in outdoor air to radon flux density from soil 
(s/m).

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 187 June 2003 
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 6.6.1 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 [160555]). As the maximum height according to the NAHB data (NAHB 
Research Center 1998 [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 
[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) [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 [160557], p. 24). The nationwide survey 
of 3,000 households for air exchange rates provided the best available experimental data for 
residential structures in the United States (Murray and Burmaster 1995 [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 
Air Exchange Rate, 1/h 
Season Sample size 
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 [160554], pp. 459 and 462 to 463 
The experimental data on air exchange rates are fitted best with lognormal distributions (Murray 
and Burmaster 1995 [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 truncation values (e.g., the upper 
truncation is 9 . 2 ) 35 . 0 ln( ) 1 ln( ) ln( ) ln( = = - - e e LT AM , where AM is the arithmetic mean and LT is the

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 188 June 2003 
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 [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 in Amargosa Valley. It is therefore 
recommended that the annual average ventilation rate for the fraction of a year when 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 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 [158644], pp. 99 to 102; United Nations 1988 [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 [159566], p. 65) and the radon flux density from uncovered soil of 1.7  10-2 Bq/m2/s 
(United Nations 1988 [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 [159566], p. 65; Landman 1982 [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 [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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 189 June 2003 
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, FRn-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 [158644], p. 103). 
The EEC can be calculated as 
222 , 222 222 , - - - = Rn g Rn Rn eq Ca F Ca (Eq. 6-24) 
where
Caeq,Rn-222 = EEC for 222Rn in air (Bq/m3) 
FRn-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 [158644], 
p. 103) using 
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 [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 [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 [153691], p. 24). More recent measurements indicate that a value of 0.6 might 
be more appropriate for outdoor environments (UNSCEAR 2000 [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 
[163507], Table 2), which is within the range of typical values from UNSCEAR (2000, 
[158644]). Table 6-70 shows values for the equilibrium factor from six rural sites in New 
Mexico (Wasiolek and James 1995 [163507]). The average of these six equilibrium factors is 
0.61, which agrees well with the values summarized by UNSCEAR (2000 [158644], p. 103).

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 190 June 2003 
Table 6-70. Average Values of Equilibrium Factor from Measurements at Rural Southwestern Sites 
Site 
Equilibrium Factor 
(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 [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 insolation 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 [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 [158644], p. 104; United Nations 1988 [159566], p. 75). 
Indoor measurements range from 0.1 to 0.9, but most are within 30 percent of 0.4 (UNSCEAR 
2000 [158644], p. 104), that is, in the range of about 0.3 to 0.5. The 1998 report (United Nations 
1988 [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 [159566], p. 105), which agrees with the UNSCEAR (2000 [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 modern and the future climate and for 
both exposure scenarios.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 191 June 2003 
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. 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 [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 2003 [160699], Section 6.4.6.1): 
14 , 14 , 14 , 
14 
, 14 
- - - 
- 
- + + + 
= 
C a e C l C d 
j C 
j C 
IR Cw 
Cs 
. . . . 
(Eq. 6-25) 
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 yr) 
.l,C-14 = leaching removal constant for 14C (per yr) 
.e 
= the surface soil erosion removal constant (per yr) 
.a,C-14 = emission rate constant of 14C from the soil to the air (per yr). 
The only parameter supporting Equation 6-25 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 [159545], 
p. 491). The emission rate of carbon from soil does not depend very strongly on soil type (Davis 
et al. 1993 [103767], p. 156). Information on emission rates of carbon that is not of organic

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 192 June 2003 
origin is very limited (Davis et al. 1993 [103767], p. 156). The average value for sandy soils 
obtained from lysimeter experiments on Canadian soils was 21 to 22 y-1 (Davis et al. 1993 
[103767], p. 156; Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-16). The values for other soils were lower by 
about a factor of 2. The default value of the emission rate constant adopted for the RESRAD 
model was 22 y-1 (Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-16). For the BIOTRAC model, a lognormal 
distribution of emission rate constant for carbon with the GM of 8.8 y-1 and a GSD of 10 was 
chosen (Davis et al. 1993 [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 [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 [159465], p. L-16). Therefore, it is believed that the 
experimental data are insufficient to develop a distribution and the fixed value of 22 y-1 
measured for sandy soil is appropriate for use in the biosphere model. 
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 [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 2003 [160699], 
Section 6.4.6.2) as 
14 , , 14 - - = C a j C j Cs EVSN . (Eq. 6-26) 
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. 6-26 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 2003 [160699], Section 6.4.6.2) as 
10 16 3 
A 
7 , 14 , U H . 
EVSN 
Ca 
mix 
j 
j C g  
 
= - (Eq. 6-27) 
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), m 
U = annual average wind speed, m/s 
3.16107 = unit conversion factor based on 1 yr = 365.25 d (sec/yr) 
This analysis develops the values of A, Hmix, and U used in Equation 6-27.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 193 June 2003 
The surface area of land irrigated with contaminated water, A, can be estimated using the volume 
of contaminated water based on an annual water demand of 3,000 acre-feet (about 
3,714,450,000 L = 3,714,450 m3), as defined by the NRC rule (10 CFR 63.312(c) [156605]), and 
the average irrigation rate for agricultural land developed for the biosphere model (BSC 2003 
[160976]). The average annual irrigation rate for the modern climate is 1.06 m/yr, with a 
standard error of 0.09 m/yr, a minimum of 0.83 m/yr, and a maximum of 1.29 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 2003 [160976], 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 modern 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 [101090], pp. 3-18 to 3-19; YMP 1999 
[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 [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: 
MO9811DEDCRMCR.000 [148887]; CRWMS M&O 1997 [100117], p. A-11). 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 [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 6-27 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 [103784], p. 48) or higher (Stull 2001 [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 
[159533], p. 377; Randerson 1984 [109153], p. 169) as

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 194 June 2003 
. .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
= 
0 
* 
ln 
z
z 
k 
u U (Eq. 6-28) 
where
U = average wind speed at height z (m/s) 
u* = friction velocity (m/s) 
k = von Karman constant (dimensionless) 
z = height above ground (m) 
z0 = aerodynamic surface length (m) (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 6-28 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 [159533], Figure 9.6, p.380; Sehmel 1984 
[158693], p. 562). The value of k is in the range of 0.35 to 0.4 (Stull 2001 [159533], p. 377). 
The wind profiles for various values of z0, u* (calculated for a given z0 using Equation 6-28) and 
k are shown in Table 6-71. Varying k does not change wind profiles, because u* also changes by 
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 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 ln * 
ln * 
0 
z H 
z 
z 
H H 
k 
u 
z H 
dz 
z
z 
k 
u 
U 
mix 
mix 
mix 
mix 
H 
z 
mix 
- 
.. 
. 
.. 
. 
+ . .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
- 
= 
- 
= 
. 
(Eq. 6-29) 
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 6-29 are also listed in Table 6-71. The values shown in 
Table 6-71 were calculated using Excel spreadsheet, as explained in Attachment II.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 195 June 2003 
Table 6-71. Wind Profile in the Surface Boundary Layer 
Parameter values for Equation 6-28 
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 
NOTES: Calculated in Excel spreadsheet using Equations 6-28 and 6-29, as explained in Attachment II. 
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 
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 from 1.5 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 [157927], p. 4.86). The activity concentration of 14C in 
crops resulting from root and leaf uptake is calculated in the biosphere model (BSC 2003 
[160699], Section 6.4.6.3) as

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 196 June 2003 
, 14 , 14 , 
, , 14 . .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
+ . .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
= - - 
- 
soil s 
j C 
air 
j C g 
j plant j C fc 
Cs 
Fs 
fc 
Ca 
Fa fc Cp 
. 
(Eq. 6-29) 
where
CpC-14, j = activity concentration of 14C in edible parts of crop type j (Bq/kg wet weight) 
fcplant, j = fraction of stable carbon in crop type j (dimensionless, based on kg carbon 
/kg wet crop) 
Fa = fraction of air-derived carbon in plants, dimensionless 
Cag, C-14, j = activity concentration of 14C in the air for the crop type or exposure 
pathway j (Bq/m3) 
fcair = concentration of stable carbon in air, kg/m3 
Fs = fraction of soil-derived carbon in plants, dimensionless 
CsC-14, j = activity concentration of 14C in surface soil for the crop type or exposure 
pathway j (Bq/m2) 
fcsoil = fraction of stable carbon in soil, dimensionless 
.s 
= surface soil density, kg/m2. 
This analysis develops the values of fcplant,j, Fa, fcair, Fs, and fcsoil for use in Eq. 6-29. 
The fraction of stable carbon in plants, fcplant, j, is a plant-specific parameter. It describes the 
mass fraction of carbon in the wet (fresh) weight 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 [157927], p. 4.88). The same 
values were adopted for the RESRAD model (Yu et al. 2001 [159465], p. L-20). It is 
recommended that the biosphere model also use these values. 
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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 197 June 2003 
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 
[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 [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 
[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 [159465], p. L-17) as well as the GENII and GENII-S models (Napier et al. 1988 
[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 2003 [160699], Section 6.4.6.4): 
k anim 
k soil k water k j plant 
k C k C k j C 
k C fc 
Qs fc Qw fc Qf fc 
Qs Cs Qw Cw Qf Cp 
Cd , 
, 
14 14 , 14 
, 14 ) ( ) ( ) ( 
) ( ) ( ) ( 
 
 +  +  
 +  +  
= - - - 
- (Eq. 6-30) 
where
CdC-14,k = activity concentration of 14C in animal product k (Bq/kg) 
CwC-14 = 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) 
and the other parameters are defined in Equations 6.4.4-1 to 6.4.4-4, 6.4.6-1, and 6.4.6-6. 
The other parameters were defined in Equations 6-9 to 6-11. 
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 [157927], p. 4.88; Yu et al. 
2001 [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 [103767], 
p. 262). Because this parameter appears in the denominator of Equation 6.32, the greater values 
are less conservative. Therefore, 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 product-dependent. The 
GENII and GENII-S models use the following values: 0.24 for beef, 0.2 for poultry, 0.07 for

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 198 June 2003 
milk, and 0.15 for eggs (Napier et al. 1988 [157927], p. 4.88). The RESRAD model uses the 
same values as the GENII model (Yu et al. 2001 [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 1.2  10-1 to 2.5  10-1 (Zach et al. 1996 [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 TSPA-LA. 
6.8 CRITICAL THICKNESS 
The critical thickness is the parameter that is used only for the volcanic ash exposure scenario for 
predictions of 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 non-cultivated land is calculated as (BSC 2003 [160699], 
Section 6.5.1.2) 
. .. 
. .. 
. 
= = 
 
= 
 
< = 
 = 
when 
when 
) ( 
, 
, 
, 
c a 
a
c 
i mc 
a
c 
c a 
i 
a a 
i 
c a i mc 
c a 
i 
a i mc 
d d 
d
d Cs 
d
d 
d 
Cs 
d 
Cs 
d d Cs 
d 
Cs 
d Cs 
. .
. (Eq. 6-31) 
where
Csmc,i(da) = activity concentration of radionuclide i in volcanic ash or in the mix of ash 
and dust of non-cultivated land (Bq/kg) 
Csi = activity concentration of radionuclide i in ash deposited on the ground 
surface (Bq/m2) 
.a 
= bulk density of volcanic ash (kg/m3) 
dc = critical thickness for resuspension on non-cultivated lands (m) 
da = thickness of ash deposited on the ground (m) 
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 2003 [161239]). 
Equation 6-31 was rewritten as 
) ( ) ( , , a i mc a i mc d f Cs d Cs  = (Eq. 6-32)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 199 June 2003 
where f(da), a function of volcanic ash thickness (dimensionless), can be expressed as 
.. 
.. 
. 
=
< 
= when 
when 1 
) ( 
c a 
a
c 
c a 
a d d 
d
d 
d d 
d f (Eq. 6-33) 
where other parameters were defined in Equation 6-31. 
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 (f(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 
the total activity deposited per unit area that is available for resuspension ( 
a
c 
a d
d 
d f = ) ( ). When 
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 [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 [160672]). 
The value of the resuspendable layer thickness was 0.3 cm (3 mm) (McCartin and Lee 2001 
[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. Under 
normal, variable wind conditions, the initial, predicted thickness of tephra deposit 20 km south of 
Yucca Mountain, calculated for the Total System Performance Assessment for the Site 
Recommendation (CRWMS M&O 2000 [153246], Section 3.10.5.1), ranged from less than 1  
10-8 cm to about 10 cm. About 66 percent of predicted depths were less than 0.1 mm, about 80 
percent were less than 1 mm, and about 95 percent were less than 1 cm. The location of the

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 200 June 2003 
receptor considered for the TSPA analysis in support of an LA may differ from that used for the 
site recommendation (based on requirements in 10 CFR 63.302). Thus, ash thickness at the 
receptor location may be slightly different than that reported in the Total System Performance 
Assessment for the Site Recommendation (CRMWS M&O 2000 [153246], Section 3.10.5.1). 
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 [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 [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 depth of more than 1 cm within a few months (Anspaugh et al. 1975 
[151548], pp. 577 and 579). This process will produce further dilution of activity concentration 
in the resuspendable layer of ash-soil mixture.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 201 June 2003 
7. CONCLUSIONS 
This section contains the summary of recommendations concerning environmental transport 
input parameters for the biosphere model. The recommendations are included in the data set 
titled Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model, 
DTN: MO0306SPAETPBM.001. 
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 RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT TO CROPS 
7.1.1 Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables 
The soil-to-plant TFs for leafy vegetables in the modern climate, groundwater exposure scenario 
are listed in Table 7-1. 
Table 7-1. Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables, Modern 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 1.2E-01 2.5 1.2E-02 1.2E+00 
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. 
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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 202 June 2003 
7.1.2 Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables 
The soil-to-plant TFs for other vegetables in the modern climate, groundwater exposure scenario 
are listed in Table 7-2. 
Table 7-2. Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables, Modern 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 203 June 2003 
7.1.3 Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Fruit 
The soil-to-plant TFs for fruit in the modern climate, groundwater exposure scenario are listed in 
Table 7-3. 
Table 7-3. Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Fruit, Modern 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 204 June 2003 
7.1.4 Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Grain (Chicken Feed) 
The soil-to-plant TFs for grain in the modern climate, groundwater exposure scenario are listed 
in Table 7-4. 
Table 7-4. Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Grain (Chicken Feed), Modern 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 205 June 2003 
7.1.5 Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Forage Crops 
The soil-to-plant TFs for forage crops in the modern climate, groundwater exposure scenario are 
listed in Table 7-5. 
Table 7-5. Soil-to-plant Transfer Factors for Forage Crops, Modern 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 206 June 2003 
7.1.6 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 logtransformed 
values of TFs and the corresponding partition coefficients. The same value of the 
correlation coefficient should be used for the modern climate and future climate under the 
groundwater exposure scenario, and for the volcanic ash exposure scenario. 
7.1.7 Dry Deposition Velocity 
Deposition velocity for the modern 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. 
7.1.8 Translocation Factor 
It is recommended that the translocation factor for the modern 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 
Root 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 
7.1.9 Weathering Half-Time 
The weathering half-time (called the weathering half-life in the biosphere model) for modern 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%), (14 days; 50%), (30 days; 100%). 
7.2 RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT TO ANIMAL PRODUCTS 
7.2.1 Animal Consumption Rates of Water, Feed, and Soil 
The animal consumption rates of water, feed, and soil for the modern climate, groundwater 
exposure scenario 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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 207 June 2003 
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 
Consumption rate 
Animal Type Feed (kg wet/d) Water (L/d) Soil (kg/d) 
Minimum 29 (fresh) 0.4 
Beef cattle 
Maximum 68 (fresh) 
60 
1.0 
Minimum 50 (fresh) 60 0.8 
Diary cow 
Maximum 73 (fresh) 100 1.1 
Minimum 0.12 0.01 
Poultry 
Maximum 0.4 
0.5 
0.03 
Minimum 0.12 0.01 
Laying hen 
Maximum 0.4 
0.5 
0.03 
7.2.2 Transfer Coefficients for Meat 
The animal intake-to-animal product TCs for meat in the modern climate, groundwater exposure 
scenario are listed in Table 7-8. 
Table 7-8. Transfer Coefficients for Meat, Modern 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 208 June 2003 
It is recommended that the same set of TCs for meat be used for the future climate and for the 
volcanic ash exposure scenario. 
7.2.3 Transfer Coefficients for Poultry 
The animal intake-to-animal products TCs for poultry in the modern climate, groundwater 
exposure scenario are listed in Table 7-9. 
Table 7-9. Transfer Coefficients for Poultry, Modern 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 209 June 2003 
7.2.4 Transfer Coefficients for Milk 
The animal intake-to-animal products TCs for milk in the modern climate, groundwater exposure 
scenario are listed in Table 7-10. 
Table 7-10. Transfer Coefficients for Milk, Modern 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/kg. 
It is recommended that the same set of animal intake-to-animal product TCs for milk be used for 
the future climate and for the volcanic ash exposure scenario.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 210 June 2003 
7.2.5 Transfer Coefficients for Eggs 
The animal intake-to-animal product TCs for eggs in the modern climate, groundwater exposure 
scenario are listed in Table 7-11. 
Table 7-11. Transfer Coefficients for Eggs, Modern 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 5.9E-01 2.3 7.2E-02 4.8E+00 
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 intake-to-animal product TCs for eggs be used for 
the future climate and for the volcanic ash exposure scenario. 
7.3 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 modern and future climates are summarized in 
Table 7-12. These 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 211 June 2003 
Table 7-12. The Values of Bioaccumulation Factor and the Modifying Factor for Element 
Concentration in Fishpond Water 
Bioaccumulation Factor Modifying Factor 
Element 
Geometric 
Mean L/kg 
Geometric 
Standard 
Deviation 
Lower 
Truncation 
Limit L/kg 
Upper 
Truncation 
Limit L/kg 
Modern 
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 
Selenium 2.3E+02 2.0 3.9E+01 1.2E+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 
Uniform 
distribution 
min = 2.2 
max = 6.1 
Uniform 
distribution 
min = 1.5 
max = 3.3 
7.4 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 modern 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. 
7.4.1 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%), (8,300 m3/h; 50%), (10,200 m3/h; 100%) 
7.4.2 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 212 June 2003 
Correlation coefficient between the water evaporation rate and airflow rate for evaporative 
coolers is equal to 0.8. 
7.4.3 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. 
7.5 EXHALATION OF RADON FROM SOIL 
7.5.1 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 modern and future climates. 
7.5.2 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 modern and future climates. 
7.5.3 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 modern 
and future climates and for the groundwater and volcanic ash exposure scenarios. 
7.5.4 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 log-normal 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 modern and future climates and for the groundwater and 
volcanic ash exposure scenarios.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 213 June 2003 
7.5.5 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%), (2.3 m; 50%), (2.7 m; 100%). 
This distribution is appropriate for the modern and future climates and for the groundwater and 
volcanic ash exposure scenarios. 
7.5.6 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 modern and future climates and for the groundwater 
and volcanic ash exposure scenarios. 
7.6 CARBON-14 TRANSPORT IN THE ENVIRONMENT 
Parameter values for the 14C submodel developed in this analysis apply to the groundwater 
exposure scenario. 
7.6.1 Carbon Emission Rate from Soil 
A fixed value of 22 y-1 is recommended for the emission rate of carbon from soil for the modern 
and future climates. 
7.6.2 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 modern and future climates. 
7.6.3 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. 
7.6.4 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 from 1.5 to 2.3 m/s.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 214 June 2003 
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. 
7.6.5 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 modern and future climates. 
7.7 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). 
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 stable carbon in chicken feed 0.40 
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

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 215 June 2003 
8. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 
8.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
159493 AdobeAir. 2002. What is Evaporative Cooling? Coolers. [Phoenix, Arizona]: 
AdobeAir. Accessed August 20, 2002. TIC: 253052. 
http://www.adobeair.com/coolers/evap_cooling.htm 
151548 Anspaugh, L.R.; Shinn, J.H.; Phelps, P.L.; and Kennedy, N.C. 1975. Resuspension 
and Redistribution of Plutonium in Soils. Health Physics, 29, (4), 571-582. New 
York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 248619. 
160560 Au, F.H.F.; Leavitt, V.D.; Beckert, W.F.; and McFarlane, J.C. 1977. Incorporation 
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. 
103766 Baes, C.F., III; Sharp, R.D.; Sjoreen, A.L.; and Shor, R.W. 1984. A Review and 
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. 
160609 Bernard, J.K. and Montgomery, M.J. 2002. Managing Intake of Lactating Dairy 
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 
159468 BIOMASS (The IAEA Programme on Biosphere Modelling and Assessment 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 {beta}2. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency. TIC: 
252966. 
159491 Bird, G.A. and Ewing, L.L. 1996. Surface Water Model Simulations of the Fate of 
{superscript 14}C Added to Lake 226, Experimental Lakes Area. Technical Record 
TR-729. Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Whiteshell 
Laboratories. TIC: 223925. 
159504 Blaney, H.F. 1957. Evaporation Study at Silver Lake in the Mojave Desert, 
California. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 38, (2), 209-215. 
[Washington, D.C.]: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 225578.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 216 June 2003 
105092 Brookins, D.G. 1988. Eh-pH Diagrams for Geochemistry. New York, New York: 
Springer-Verlag. TIC: 237943. 
160059 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Radionuclide Screening. ANL-WIS-MD- 
000006 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
MOL.20020923.0177. 
160146 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Total System Performance Assessment-License 
Application Methods and Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 REV 00. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020923.0175. 
160976 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Agricultural and Environmental Parameters for 
the Biosphere Model. ANL-MGR-MD-000006 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. 
160699 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Biosphere Model Report. MDL-MGR-MD- 
000001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
MOL.20030124.0246. TBV-5081 
163602 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Technical Work Plan for: Biosphere Modeling 
and Expert Support. TWP-NBS-MD-000004 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030604.0001. 
159728 Bureau of the Census. 2002. 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data, Amargosa 
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 
161770 Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. Project Requirements Document. TER-MGRMD-
000001 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
DOC.20030404.0003. 
160551 Cataldo, D.A. and Vaughan, B.E. 1977. Retention, Absorption, and Translocation 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. 
159496 City of Phoenix. 2003. Evaporative Cooler. Phoenix, Arizona: City of Phoenix. 
Accessed April 23, 2003. TIC: 254103. http://phoenix.gov/WATER/evapcool.html 
160429 Cool Edge. 2002. Evaporative Cooling Pads. Porterville, California: Cool Edge. 
Accessed October 22, 2002. TIC: 253441. http://www.cooledgeprecoolers.
com/evap.htm 
100117 CRWMS M&O 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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 217 June 2003 
101090 CRWMS M&O 1997. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Summary of 
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. 
102877 CRWMS M&O 1999. Environmental Baseline File for Meteorology and Air Quality. 
B00000000-01717-5705-00126 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19990302.0186. 
107736 CRWMS M&O 1999. Evaluation of Soils in the Northern Amargosa Valley. 
B00000000-01717-5705-00084 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19990224.0268. 
153246 CRWMS M&O 2000. Total System Performance Assessment for the Site 
Recommendation. TDR-WIS-PA-000001 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001220.0045. 
152435 CRWMS M&O 2000. Transfer Coefficient Analysis. ANL-MGR-MD-000008 REV 
00 ICN 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001016.0005. 
152536 CRWMS M&O 2001. Disruptive Event Biosphere Dose Conversion Factor Analysis. 
ANL-MGR-MD-000003 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.20010125.0233. 
152434 CRWMS M&O 2001. Environmental Transport Parameter Analysis. ANL-MGRMD-
000007 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.20010208.0001. 
152539 CRWMS M&O 2001. Nominal Performance Biosphere Dose Conversion Factor 
Analysis. ANL-MGR-MD-000009 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.20010123.0123. 
103767 Davis, P.A; Zach, R.; Stephens, M.E.; Amiro, B.D.; Bird, G.A.; Reid, J.A.K.; 
Sheppard, M.I.; Sheppard, S.C.; and Stephenson, M. 1993. The Disposal of Canada's 
Nuclear Fuel Waste: The Biosphere Model, BIOTRAC, for Postclosure Assessment. 
AECL-10720. Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. TIC: 
244741. 
100332 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1997. The 1997 Biosphere Food Consumption 
Survey Summary Findings and Technical Documentation. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: 
MOL.19981021.0301. 
159476 Dorrian, M.-D. 1997. Particle Size Distributions of Radioactive Aerosols in the 
Environment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 69, (2), 117-132. Ashford, Kent, 
England: Nuclear Technology Publishing. TIC: 252686.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 218 June 2003 
107684 Eckerman, K.F. and Ryman, J.C. 1993. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, 
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. 
101069 Eckerman, K.F.; Wolbarst, A.B.; and Richardson, A.C.B. 1988. Limiting Values of 
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. 
160121 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1996. Air Quality Criteria for 
Particulate Matter. EPA/600/P-95/001. Three volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. TIC: 250648. 
160564 Farnsworth, R. K.; Thompson, E.S.; and Peck, E.L. 1982. Evaporation Atlas for the 
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. 
159471 Fosberg, M.A.; Falen, A.L.; Jones, J.P.; and Singh, B.B. 1979. Physical, Chemical, 
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. 
160553 Gilbert, R.O.; Engel, D.W.; Smith, D.D.; Shinn, J.H.; Anspaugh, L.R.; and Eisele, 
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. 
160552 Gilbert, R.O.; Shinn, J.H.; Essington, E.H.; Tamura, T.; Romney, E.M.; Moor, K.S.; 
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. 
106182 Houghton, J.G.; Sakamoto, C.M.; and Gifford, R.O. 1975. Nevada's Weather and 
Climate. Special Publication 2. Reno, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and 
Geology. TIC: 225666. 
160557 HVI (Home Ventilating Institute). 2001. Home Ventilation & Indoor Air Quality. 
Cleveland, Ohio: Penton. TIC: 253424. 
103768 IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) 1982. Generic Models and Parameters 
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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 219 June 2003 
100458 IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) 1994. Handbook of Parameter Values 
for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Temperate Environments. Technical 
Reports Series No. 364. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency. TIC: 
232035. 
155188 IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) 2001. An International Peer Review of 
the Biosphere Modelling Programme of 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. 
158519 IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) 2001. Generic Models for Use in 
Assessing the Impact of Discharges of Radioactive Substances to the Environment. 
Safety Reports Series No. 19. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency. 
TIC: 251295. 
160339 ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements) 2001. 
Quantities, Units and Terms in Radioecology. Journal of the ICRU, 1, (2), ICRU 
Report No 65. Ashford, Kent, England: Nuclear Technology Publishing. TIC: 
253018. 
159470 Karlsson, S.; Bergstrm, U.; and Meili, M. 2001. Models for Dose Assessments, 
Models Adapted to the SFR-Area, Sweden. SKB TR-01-04. Stockholm, Sweden: 
Svensk Krnbrnslefrsrjning A.B. TIC: 252806. 
159501 Karpiscak, M. and Marion, M.H. 1994. Evaporative Cooler Water Use. Tucson, 
Arizona: University of Arizona, College of Agriculture. TIC: 253054. 
160563 Karpiscak, M.M.; Babcock, T.M.; France, G.W.; Zauderer, J.; Hopf, S.B.; and Foster, 
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. 
103776 Kennedy, W.E., Jr. and Strenge, D.L. 1992. Technical Basis for Translating 
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. 
160425 Landman, K.A. 1982. Diffusion of Radon Through Cracks in a Concrete Slab. 
Health Physics, 43, (1), 65-71. [New York, New York]: Pergamon Press. TIC: 
253432. 
101079 LaPlante, P.A. and Poor, K. 1997. Information and Analyses to Support Selection of 
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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 220 June 2003 
100464 Leigh, C.D.; Thompson, B.M.; Campbell, J.E.; Longsine, D.E.; Kennedy, R.A.; and 
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. 
103178 Lide, D.R. and Frederikse, H.P.R., eds. 1997. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and 
Physics. 78th Edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. TIC: 243741. 
159472 Mahler, R.L. and Fosberg, M.A. 1983. The Influence of Mount St. Helens Volcanic 
Ash on Plant Growth and Nutrient Uptake. Soil Science, 135, (3), 197-201. 
Baltimore, Maryland: Williams & Wilkins. TIC: 252221. 
160415 Mason, S. 2003. Water Requirements of Lactating Cows. Alberta Dairy 
Management. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Western Dairy Science. Accessed April 18, 
2003. TIC: 253443. 
http://www.westerndairyscience.com/html/ADM%20articles/html/Water.html 
160672 McCartin, T.J. and Lee, M.P., eds. 2001. Preliminary Performance-Based Analyses 
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. 
103781 Mills, M.; Vogt, D.; and Mann, B. 1983. Parameters and Variables Appearing in 
Radiological Assessment Codes. NUREG/CR-3160. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. TIC: 206047. 
159489 Mississippi State University Extension Service. 2002. Frequently Asked Questions. 
Aquaculture: Catfish. [Starkville, Mississippi]: Mississippi State University. 
Accessed August 20, 2002. TIC: 253049. 
http://msucares.com/aquaculture/catfish/index.html 
160554 Murray, D.M. and Burmaster, D.E. 1995. Residential Air Exchange Rates in the 
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. 
160428 NAHB Research Center. 1998. Factory and Site-Built Housing, a Comparison for the 
21st Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. TIC: 253431. 
157927 Napier, B.A.; Peloquin, R.A.; Strenge, D.L.; and Ramsdell, J.V. 1988. Conceptual 
Representation. Volume 1 of GENII - The Hanford Environmental Radiation 
Dosimetry Software System. PNL-6584. Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest 
Laboratory. TIC: 252237.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 221 June 2003 
100953 Napier, B.A.; Peloquin, R.A.; Strenge, D.L.; and Ramsdell, J.V. 1988. GENII - The 
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. 
103784 NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) 1984. 
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. 
153691 NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) 1988. 
Measurement of Radon and Radon Daughters in Air. NCRP Report No. 97. Besthesda, 
Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. TIC: 233708. 
101883 NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) 1996. 
Screening Models for Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, Surface Water, and 
Ground - Work Sheets. NCRP Report No. 123 II. Bethesda, Maryland: National 
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. TIC: 234986. 
101882 NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) 1996. 
Screening Models for Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, Surface Water, and 
Ground. NCRP Report No. 123 I. Bethesda, Maryland: National Council on 
Radiation Protection and Measurements. TIC: 225158. 
155894 NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) 1999. 
Recommended Screening Limits for Contaminated Surface Soil and Review of Factors 
Relevant to Site-Specific Studies. NCRP Report No. 129. Bethesda, Maryland: 
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. TIC: 250396. 
160322 Ng, Y.C. 1982. A Review of Transfer Factors for Assessing the Dose from 
Radionuclides in Agricultural Products. Nuclear Safety, 23, (1), 57-71. Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 253091. 
150855 Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Kruize, H.; and Schenker, M.B. 1998. Exposure to Dust and 
Its Particle Size Distribution in California Agriculture. American Industrial Hygiene 
Association Journal, 59, 34-38. [Fairfax, Virginia]: American Industrial Hygiene 
Association. TIC: 248134. 
162418 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, 
Information Only. NUREG-1804, Draft Final Revision 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 
TIC: 254002. 
159495 Otterbein, R. 1996. Installing and Maintaining Evaporative Coolers. Berkeley, 
California: Home Energy Magazine. Accessed August 20, 2002. TIC: 253055. 
http://homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/96/960511.html

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 222 June 2003 
160312 Pinnick, R.G.; Fernandez, G.; Martinez-Andazola, E.; Hinds, B.D.; Hansen, A.D.A.; 
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. 
109153 Randerson, D. 1984. Atmospheric Science and Power Production. DOE/TIC-27601. 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Information Center. 
TIC: 223438. 
100067 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1. 1977. 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. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. ACC: NNA.19870806.0032. 
107744 Rittmann, P.D. 1993. Verification Tests for the July 1993 Revision to the GENII 
Radionuclide and Dose Increment Libraries. WHC-SD-WM-TI-596. Richland, 
Washington: Westinghouse Hanford Company. TIC: 233965. 
160674 Roe, L.K. 2002. Summary of RDA Investigation ID: 4/10/02 Fish Farming in 
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. 
160549 Romney, E.M. and Wallace, A. 1977. Plutonium Contamination of Vegetation in 
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. 
160558 Romney, E.M.; Wallace, A.; Wieland, P.A.T.; and Kinnear, J.E. 1977. Plant Uptake 
of {superscript 239,240}Pu and {superscript 241}Am 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. 
159487 Ruppert, L.D.; Drackley, J.K.; and Clark, J.H. 1996. Effects of Tallow in Diets 
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 
159478 Schery, S.D. 2001. Understanding Radioactive Aerosols and Their Measurement. 
Environmental Science and Technology Library. Volume 19. Boston, Massachusetts: 
Kluwer Academic Publishers. TIC: 252689.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 223 June 2003 
160686 Schery, S.D. and Wasiolek, M.A. 1998. Modeling Radon Flux from the Earth's 
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. 
160550 Schulz, R.K. 1977. Root Uptake of Transuranic Elements. Transuranics in 
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. 
158693 Sehmel, G.A. 1984. Deposition and Resuspension. Chapter 12 of Atmospheric 
Science and Power Production. Randerson, D., ed. DOE/TIC-27601. Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee: U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Information Center. TIC: 223438. 
163178 Sehmel, G.A. 1980. Particle Resuspension: A Review. Environment International, 
4, 107-127. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: TBD. 
158587 Sehmel, G.A. and Hodgson, W.H. 1978. A Model for Predicting Dry Deposition of 
Particles and Gases to Environmental Surfaces. PNL-SA-6721. Richland, 
Washington: Pacific Northwest Laboratory. TIC: 252150. 
160413 Sepulveda, C. 1999. Average Number of Lactating Cows Per Day for March 1999. 
Fax from C. Sepulveda (Security Milk Producers Association) to T. Cauliflower 
(CRWMS M&O), August 16, 1999. ACC: MOL.19990915.0158. 
159127 Sharpe, S. 2002. Future Climate Analysis10,000 Years to 1,000,000 Years After 
Present. MOD-01-001 REV 00. [Reno, Nevada]: Desert Research Institute. ACC: 
MOL.20020422.0011. 
159545 Sheppard, M.I.; Sheppard, S.C.; and Amiro, B.D. 1991. Mobility and Plant Uptake 
of Inorganic {superscript 14}C and {superscript 14}C-Labelled PCB in Soils of High 
and Low Retention. Health Physics, 61, (4), 481-492. New York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. TIC: 252687. 
103789 Sheppard, S.C. 1995. Application of the International Union of Radioecologists Soilto-
Plant Database to Canada Settings. AECL-11474. Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada: 
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. TIC: 244744. 
160641 Sheppard, S.C. and Evenden, W.G. 1997. Variation in Transfer Factors for 
Stochastic Models: Soil-to-Plant Transfer. Health Physics, 72, (5), 727-733. [New 
York, New York: Pergamon Press]. TIC: 253546. 
160644 Sheppard, S.C. and Sheppard, M.I. 1989. Impact of Correlations on Stochastic 
Estimates of Soil Contamination and Plant Uptake. Health Physics, 57, (4), 653-657. 
[New York, New York]: Pergamon Press. TIC: 253545.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 224 June 2003 
160559 Smith, D.D. 1977. Grazing Studies on a Contaminated Range of the Nevada Test 
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. 
101085 Smith, G.M.; Watkins, B.M.; Little, R.H.; Jones, H.M.; and Mortimer, A.M. 1996. 
Biosphere Modeling and Dose Assessment for Yucca Mountain. EPRI TR-107190. 
Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute. TIC: 231592. 
159533 Stull, R.B. 2001. An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. Atmospheric 
Sciences Library. Boston, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers. TIC: 
252690. 
101895 Till, J.E. and Meyer, H.R. 1983. Radiological Assessment, A Textbook on 
Environmental Dose Analysis. NUREG/CR-3332. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. TIC: 223809. 
159507 ToolBase Services. 2002. Evaporative Coolers. Upper Marlboro, Maryland: 
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&Document 
ID=2095 
159566 United Nations. 1988. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, 1988 Report 
to the General Assembly, with Annexes. New York, New York: United Nations. TIC: 
209701. 
158644 UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 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. 
158378 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 2001. Future Climate Analysis. ANL-NBS-GS- 
000008 REV 00 ICN 01. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: 
MOL.20011107.0004. 
103839 Wang, Y-Y.; Biwer, B.M.; and Yu, C. 1993. A Compilation of Radionuclide Transfer 
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. 
163507 Wasiolek, P.T. and James, A.D. 1995. Outdoor Radon Dose Conversion Coefficient 
in South-Western and South-Eastern United States. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 
59, (4), 269-278. [Ashford, Kent, England]: Nuclear Technology Publishing. TIC: 
254339.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 225 June 2003 
159497 Watt, J.R. and Brown, W.K. 1997. Evaporative Air Conditioning Handbook. 3rd 
Edition. Lilburn, Georgia: Fairmont Press. TIC: 252688. 
160427 Wilkening, M. 1985. Radon Transport in Soil and Its Relation to Indoor 
Radioactivity. The Science of the Total Environment, 45, 219-226. Amsterdam, The 
Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 253433. 
158212 YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1999. Yucca Mountain Site 
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. 
160561 Yu, C.; Loureiro, C.; Cheng, J.-J.; Jones, L.G.; Wang, Y.Y.; Chia, Y.P.; and Faillace, 
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. 
159465 Yu, C.; Zielen, A.J.; Cheng, J.-J.; LePoire, D.J.; Gnanapragasam, E.; Kamboj, S.; 
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. 
103831 Zach, R.; Amiro, B.D.; Bird, G.A.; Macdonald, C.R.; Sheppard, M.I.; Sheppard, S.C.; 
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 DATA TRACKING NUMBERS CITED 
160653 MO0211SPADIMEN.005. Dimensions of Catfish Ponds in Amargosa Valley. 
Submittal date: 11/05/2002. 
162452 MO0303SEPFEPS2.000. LA FEP List. Submittal date: 03/26/2003. 
148887 MO9811DEDCRMCR.000. Data Reported in the Engineering Design Climatology 
and Regional Meteorology Conditions Report. Submittal date: 11/12/98. 
150856 SN0006T0502900.002. Updated Igneous Consequence Data for Total System 
Performance Assessment-Site Recommendation (TSPA-SR). Submittal date: 
06/15/2000. 
8.3 CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS 
156605 10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 226 June 2003 
160555 24 CFR 3280. Housing and Urban Development: Manufactured Home Construction 
and Safety Standards. Readily available. 
8.4 CITED PROCEDURES 
159604 AP-2.27Q, Rev. 0, ICN 0. Planning for Science Activities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: 
MOL.20020701.0184. 
8.5 ANALYSIS OUTPUT 
MO0306SPAETPBM.001. Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the 
Biosphere Model. Submittal date: 06/11/2003

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-1 June 2003 
ATTACHMENT I 
CALCULATION OF SOIL-TO-PLANT TRANSFER FACTORS, ANIMAL INTAKE-TOANIMAL 
PRODUCT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS, AND BIOACCUMULATION 
FACTORS FOR AQUATIC FOOD

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-2 June 2003 
CALCULATION OF TRANSFER FACTORS, TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS AND 
BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS 
File name: Calculation of TFs TCs and BFs.xls 
and Calculation of TFs TCs and BFs Formulas.xls 
Hardware used to Conduct CalculationsDell Precision Workstation 530, Microsoft Windows 
2000, CPU# 151554. 
Description of the FileThe Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 workbook Calculation of TFs TCs and 
BFs.xls consists of 10 worksheets, containing information presented in Table I-1. 
Table I-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 through 6-7 
Other Vegetables Ditto for other vegetables 6-8 through 6-13 
Fruit Ditto for fruit 6-14 through 6-19 
Grain Ditto for grain 6-20 through 6-25 
Pasture Ditto for forage plants 6-26 through 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 through 6-44 
Poultry Ditto for poultry 6-46 through 6-51 
Milk Ditto for milk 6-52 through 6-57 
Eggs Ditto for eggs 6-58 through 6-63 
Fish Calculation of GM and GSD for bioaccumulation factors for 
freshwater fish based on values from references. 
6-64 and 6-65 
The companion workbook Calculation of TFs TCs and BFs Formulas.xls contains the formula 
view of the workbook Calculation of TFs TCs and BFs.xls. 
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.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-3 June 2003 
 GSD of a set of values x1, x2, , xn, GSD, was calculated in the Excel spreadsheet using the 
following formula: 
( ) ) ( ),..., ( ), ( 2 1 n x LN x LN x LN STDEV e GSD = (Eq. I-1) 
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: 
576 . 2 
576 . 2 
GSD GM truncation upper 
GSD 
GM truncation lower 
 =
= 
(Eq. I-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. 
Figure I-1a contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Leafy Vegetables showing the 
calculation of the TFs for leafy vegetables for the biosphere model. 
Figures I-1b and I-1c contain the images of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Leafy Vegetables 
showing the formulas used to calculate the TFs for leafy vegetables for the biosphere model. 
Figure I-2a contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Other Vegetables showing the 
calculation of the TFs for other vegetables for the biosphere model. 
Figures I-2b and I-2c contain the images of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Other Vegetables 
showing the formulas used to calculate the TFs for other vegetables for the biosphere model. 
Figure I-3a contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Fruit showing the calculation of 
the TFs for fruits from the BIOMASS data. 
Figure I-3b contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Fruit showing the formulas 
used to calculate of the TFs for fruits from the BIOMASS data. 
Figure I-3c contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Fruit showing the calculation of 
the TFs for fruit for the biosphere model.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-4 June 2003 
Figures I-3d and I-3e contain the images of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Fruit showing the 
formulas used to calculate the TFs for fruit for the biosphere model. 
Figure I-4a contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Grain showing the calculation 
of the TFs for grain for the biosphere model. 
Figures I-4b and I-4c contain the images of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Grain showing the 
formulas used to calculate the TFs for grain for the biosphere model. 
Figure I-5a contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Forage showing the calculation 
of the TFs for forage crops for the biosphere model. 
Figures I-5b and I-5c contain the images of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Forage showing the 
formulas used to calculate the TFs for forage crops for the biosphere model. 
Figure I-6a contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Meat showing the calculation of 
the TCs for meat for the biosphere model. 
Figures I-6b and I-6c contain the images of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Meat showing the 
formulas used to calculate the TCs for meat for the biosphere model. 
Figure I-7a contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Poultry showing the calculation 
of the TCs for poultry for the biosphere model. 
Figures I-7b and I-7c contain the images of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Poultry showing the 
formulas used to calculate the TCs for poultry for the biosphere model. 
Figure I-8a contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Milk showing the calculation of 
the TCs for milk for the biosphere model. 
Figures I-8b and I-8c contain the images of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Milk showing the 
formulas used to calculate the TCs for milk for the biosphere model. 
Figure I-9a contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Eggs showing the calculation of 
the TCs for eggs for the biosphere model. 
Figures I-9b and I-9c contain the images of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Eggs showing the 
formulas used to calculate the TCs for eggs for the biosphere model. 
Figures I-10a and I-10b contain the images of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Fish showing the 
calculation of the bioaccumulation factors for fish for the biosphere model. 
Figures I-10c and I-10d contain the images of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet Fish showing the 
formulas used to calculate the bioaccumulation factors for fish for the biosphere model. 
The calculations can be reproduced by a qualified individual without recourse to the originator.

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-5 June 2003 
Figure I-1a. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-6 June 2003 
Figure I-1b. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables (Part 1)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-7 June 2003 
Figure I-1c. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Factors for Leafy Vegetables (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-8 June 2003 
Figure I-2a. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-9 June 2003 
Figure I-2b. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables (Part 1)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-10 June 2003 
Figure I-2c. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Factors for Other Vegetables (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-11 June 2003 
Figure I-3a. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Transfer Factors for Fruit for the BIOMASS Data

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-12 June 2003 
Figure I-3b. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Factors for Fruit for the BIOMASS Data

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-13 June 2003 
Figure I-3c. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Transfer Factors for Fruit

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-14 June 2003 
Figure I-3d. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Factors for Fruit (Part 1)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-15 June 2003 
Figure I-3e. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Factors for Fruit (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-16 June 2003 
Figure I-4a. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Transfer Factors for Grain

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-17 June 2003 
Figure I-4b. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Factors for Grain (Part 1)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-18 June 2003 
Figure I-4c. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Factors for Grain (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-19 June 2003 
Figure I-5a. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Transfer Factors for Forage Crops

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-20 June 2003 
Figure I-5b. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Factors for Forage Crops (Part 1)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-21 June 2003 
Figure I-5c. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Factors for Forage Crops (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-22 June 2003 
Figure I-6a. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Meat

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-23 June 2003 
Figure I-6b. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Meat (Part 1)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-24 June 2003 
Figure I-6c. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Meat (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-25 June 2003 
Figure I-7a. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Poultry

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-26 June 2003 
Figure I-7b. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Poultry (Part 1)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-27 June 2003 
Figure I-7c. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Poultry (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-28 June 2003 
Figure I-8a. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Milk

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-29 June 2003 
Figure I-8b. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Milk (Part 1)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-30 June 2003 
Figure I-8c. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Milk (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-31 June 2003 
Figure I-9a. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Eggs

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-32 June 2003 
Figure I-9b. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Eggs (Part 1)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-33 June 2003 
Figure I-9c. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Transfer Coefficients for Eggs (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-34 June 2003 
Figure I-10a. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Bioaccumulation Factor for Fish (Part 1)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-35 June 2003 
Figure I-10b. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of Bioaccumulation Factor for Fish (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-36 June 2003 
Figure I-10c. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Bioaccumulation Factor for Fish (Part 1)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-37 June 2003 
Figure I-10d. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Calculation of Bioaccumulation Factor for Fish (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 I-38 June 2003 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 II-1 June 2003 
ATTACHMENT II 
CALCULATION OF THE VERTICAL WIND PROFILE

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 II-2 June 2003 
CALCULATION OF THE VERTICAL WIND PROFILE 
File name: Vertical wind profile.xls 
Hardware used to conduct calculations: Dell Precision Workstation 530, Microsoft Windows 
2000, CPU# 151554 
Description of the file: The Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 workbook Vertical wind profile.xls consists 
of 2 worksheets, 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 6-70. 
Figure III-1a contains the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet showing the calculation of the 
vertical wind profile. 
Figures II-1b and II-1b contain the image of the Excel 97 SR-2 spreadsheet showing the 
formulas used in calculation of the vertical wind profile. 
The calculations were based on Equation 6-28 described in Section 6.7.2.

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 II-3 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Figure II-1a. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing Calculation of the Vertical Wind Profile

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 II-4 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Figure II-1b. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing the Formulas Used to Calculate of the Vertical Wind Profile (Part 1)

ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 II-5 June 2003 
Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
Figure II-1c. Image of the Excel Spreadsheet Showing the Formulas Used to Calculate of the Vertical Wind Profile (Part 2)

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 II-6 June 2003 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 III-1 June 2003 
ATTACHMENT III 
LIST OF FILES AND CD-ROM

Environmental Transport Input Parameters for the Biosphere Model 
ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01 III-2 June 2003 
Figure III-1. List of Files Included on the CD-ROM Accompanying Attachment III.