UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

December 23, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Gregory Suber, Chief 

 Low Level Waste Branch 

 Division of Decommissioning, 

 Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs 

THRU: Christepher McKenney, Chief /RA/ 

 Performance Assessment Branch 

 Division of Decommissioning, 

 Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs 

FROM: Christopher Grossman, Project Manager 

 Materials Decommissioning Branch 

 Division of Decommissioning, 

 Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs 

SUBJECT: TECHNICAL REVIEW OF “DOSE CALCULATION 

METHODOLOGY FOR LIQUID WASTE PERFORMANCE 

ASSESSMENTS AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE”, 

SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, REV. 1, JULY 2014 

(DOCKET NO. PROJ0734) 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has performed a technical review of the 

subject document prepared by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) to support dose 

calculations for liquid waste performance assessments at the F- and H-Tank Farms (TFs) and 

Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS). This technical review 

report supports Monitoring Factors 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support”, as detailed in NRC 

staff’s plan for monitoring closure of the SRS TFs (Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15238B403). Additionally, this technical 

review report evaluates DOE’s effort to address technical issues identified in Monitoring Factors 

10.07, “Calculation of Build-Up in Biosphere Soil,” and 10.08, “Consumption Factors and 

Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors”, as detailed in the NRC staff’s plan for monitoring 

the SDF (ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076). Finally, issues regarding DOE’s selection of 

sorption coefficients are also relevant to DOE’s revised dose calculations. NRC has identified 

CONTACT: Christopher Grossman, NMSS/DUWP 

 (301) 415-0140 

 
that these issues will continue to be monitored under Monitoring Factor 4.1, “Natural Attenuation 

of Key Radionuclides,” listed in NRC staff’s SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML15238B403) and Monitoring Factors 7.01, “Certain Risk-Significant Kd Values in Site Sand 

and Clay;” and 10.09, “Kd Values for SRS Soil,” listed in NRC staff’s SDF Monitoring Plan 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076). 

The Revised Dose Methodology (SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1) generally provides a 

transparent and traceable documentation of the human receptor definitions, exposure pathways, 

dose calculations, and parameter values and distributions. Further, the methodology includes 

an all-pathways exposure scenario that is widely used in performance assessments and is wellsuited for the purpose. DOE’s calculations are well documented and appropriate for the 

purpose. However, the NRC staff has identified the need for follow-up actions with respect to 

DOE’s human receptor definition and its relevance for the recommendation of parameter values 

and distributions and the basis for the recommendation of several parameter values and 

distributions identified herein. To reach these conclusions, the NRC staff focused on a number 

of areas listed in the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403) related 

to Monitoring Factors 4.1, “Natural Attenuation of Key Radionuclides,” and 6.2, “Model and 

Parameter Support,” and in the SDF Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076) 

related to Monitoring Factors, 7.01, “Certain Risk-Significant Kd Values in Site Sand and Clay;” 

10.07, “Calculation of Build-Up in Biosphere Soil;” 10.08, “Consumption Factors and Uncertainty 

Distributions for Transfer Factors;” and 10.09, “Kd Values for SRS Soil”. 

With respect to DOE’s human receptor definition, NRC staff has concerns with DOE’s receptor, 

the reference person because it differs from the average member of the critical group concept. 

DOE typically relies upon characteristics derived from surveys of the U.S. population as a whole 

to define its receptor. The average member of the critical group entails an assessment of the 

more highly exposed individuals in the population, who may have different characteristics than 

the U.S. population as a whole. NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE’s human receptor 

definition under Monitoring Factor Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the 

SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403) and Monitoring Factor 10.08, 

“Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF Monitoring 

Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076). 

NRC staff’s concern with the human receptor definition also resulted in concerns with 

recommended values for several parameters that quantify the receptor’s behavior including 

consumption rates of water and certain foods, the breathing rate, the fractions of foods 

produced locally, certain exposure and inhalation parameters, and certain crop and gardening 

parameters. NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE’s behavioral parameters and their 

applicability to the average member of the critical group under Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model 

and Parameter Support,” in the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML15238B403) and Monitoring Factor 10.08, “Consumption Factors and Uncertainty 

Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13100A076). 

NRC staff also identified concerns with the transparency and traceability of parameter value 

recommendations other than those summarized above and their supporting basis. These 

parameters include certain animal uptake parameters, transfer coefficients, exposure and 

inhalation parameters, and drilling parameters that are identified in the enclosure. NRC staff will 

continue to monitor DOE’s recommended parameter values and their supporting basis for these 

identified parameters under Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the SRS 

TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403) and Monitoring Factor 10.08, 
“Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF Monitoring 

Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076). 

Some of the items identified in this review that are summarized above have not previously been 

documented by NRC under either Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the 

SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403) or Monitoring Factor 10.08, 

“Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF 

Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076). As a result of this review, NRC staff is 

expanding Monitoring Factor 6.2 for the SRS TFs and Monitoring Factor 10.08 for the SDF to 

include the items summarized above that were not previously documented. 

Enclosure: 

Technical Review of the Dose Calculation Methodology for Liquid Waste Performance 

Assessments at the Savannah River Site
-4- 

“Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF Monitoring 

Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076). 

Some of the items identified in this review that are summarized above have not previously been 

documented by NRC under either Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the 

SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403) or Monitoring Factor 10.08, 

“Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF 

Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076). As a result of this review, NRC staff is 

expanding Monitoring Factor 6.2 for the SRS TFs and Monitoring Factor 10.08 for the SDF to 

include the items summarized above that were not previously documented. 

Enclosure: 

Technical Review of the Dose Calculation Methodology for Liquid Waste Performance 

Assessments at the Savannah River Site 

DISTRIBUTION: CBarr CRidge KPinkston GAlexander LParks HArlt

 LGladney 

ML16277A060 

OFC DUWP:TR DUWP:LA DUWP:TR DUWP:PM DUWP:BC 

NAM

E 

CGrossman CHolston KPinkston HFelsher CMcKenney 

DAT

E 

10/04/2016 10/04/2016 10/12/2016 10/19/2016 12/23/2016 

OFC NMSS:TR 

NAM

E 

CGrossman 

DAT

E 

12/23/2016 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Technical Review of the Dose Calculation Methodology for Liquid Waste Performance 

Assessments at the Savannah River Site 

Date: December 23, 2016 

Reviewers 

Christopher Grossman, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Karen Pinkston, Risk Analyst, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Primary Document 

SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Revision 1, “Dose Calculation Methodology for Liquid Waste 

Performance Assessments at the Savannah River Site”, July 2014. 

Summary of Technical Report 

The revised dose calculation methodology for liquid waste performance assessments (PAs) at 

the Savannah River Site (SRS) builds upon dose calculations and methods for the F-Tank Farm 

(FTF)1, H-Tank Farm (HTF)2, and Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF)3 PAs and, rather than 

superseding biosphere modeling in previous PAs, provides recommendations for process 

improvements to future biosphere modeling based on more recent information. SRRCWDA_2013-00058, Rev. 1 provides a high-level definition of the human receptors, a 

description of the exposure scenarios assumed, an overview of the methodology including 

mathematical relationships to determine doses, a listing of recommended parameter values and 

distributions to use in future PAs, a description of the assumptions applied to ensure the 

methodology is internally consistent, and a comparison of dose results from previous dose 

methodologies to this revised approach. 

Human Receptor Definitions 

In Section 1 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1, DOE describes the human receptors 

considered by the revised dose calculation methodology. DOE evaluates two hypothetical 

human dose receptors, a member of the public (MOP) and the inadvertent human intruder (IHI), 

in the revised dose calculation methodology. DOE evaluates exposures that may result from 

either the use of water from a contaminated well located along a 100-meter boundary 

surrounding the source of contaminants (i.e., Tank Farms [TFs] or SDF) or from the nearest 

downgradient stream for the MOP and use of water from a contaminated well at the 1-m 

 

1 The FTF PA is documented in SRS-REG-2007-00002, Rev. 1. 

2 The HTF PA is documented in SRR-CWDA-2010-00128, Rev. 1. 

3 The SDF PA is documented in SRR-CWDA-2009-00017, Rev. 0. 
-2- 

boundary surrounding the source terms (i.e., TFs or SDF) or at a well 1-m from a tank or 

disposal structure for the IHI. 

For both the MOP and the IHI, DOE considers a hypothetical reference person in the revised 

dose calculation methodology, using age- and gender-dependent intake rates for ingestion of 

water and inhalation of air, rather than assuming adult-specific values. DOE assumes that the 

hypothetical reference person is typical of the entire population and is established at the median 

of the national data. Table 1 summarizes the definition of hypothetical human receptors. 

Table 1. Definition of Hypothetical Human Receptors 

Characteristic MOP IHI 

Demographic of 

Receptor Age- and Gender-Weighted Reference Person 

Location of 

Receptor 

At the 100-meter Boundary 

-ORAt the nearest downgradient stream Within the 100-meter Boundary 

Behaviors of the 

Receptor Median Living Habits 

Note: Adapted from Table 1.1-1 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

Exposure Scenarios and Pathways 

In Section 1 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1, DOE describes the exposure scenarios and 

pathways considered by the revised dose calculation methodology for each of the human 

receptors. DOE considers two different exposure scenarios for each of its hypothetical human 

receptors, resulting in a total of four exposure scenarios. DOE considers two scenarios for the 

MOP receptor: a scenario involving chronic exposures in which the MOP receptor uses water 

from a contaminated well located at the 100-m boundary from the TFs and the SDF, and a 

scenario involving chronic exposures in which the MOP receptor uses contaminated water from 

 
-3- 

a location at the nearest downgradient stream from the TFs and SDF4. DOE also considers two 

scenarios for an IHI receptor who drills a well within the 100-m boundary for use of 

contaminated water: a scenario involving acute exposures and a scenario involving 

chronic exposures. 

For the two scenarios involving the MOP receptor, DOE evaluates a variety of exposure 

pathways including external, ingestion, and inhalation. The pathways are summarized in 

Figure 1. DOE evaluates external exposures from contaminated irrigated soils and immersion 

in contaminated water while showering, swimming, and boating. DOE evaluates exposures 

resulting from ingestion of contaminated water, soil, and foods. DOE evaluates exposures from 

inhalation of contaminated irrigation water, dust from irrigated soil, humid air during showering, 

and saturated air during swimming. The primary difference between the exposure scenarios for 

the MOP receptor is the source of contaminated water used for drinking, irrigation, and 

showering. For the MOP at the 100-m boundary, the contaminated water used for drinking and 

irrigation originates from the well located at the 100-m boundary, while water for swimming, 

boating, and fish ingestion originate from the streamwater. For the MOP receptor exposure 

scenario at the nearest downgradient stream, the contaminated water for all pathways 

originates from water at the location of the nearest downgradient stream, as described earlier. 

For the IHI receptor, DOE evaluates scenarios involving both acute and chronic exposures. 

Figure 1 summarizes the pathways considered for the IHI receptor. For acute exposures, DOE 

evaluates external exposure to contaminated drill cuttings and exposures resulting from 

ingestion of soil and inhalation of dust from contaminated drill cuttings. For chronic exposures, 

DOE evaluates external, ingestion, and inhalation exposures using pathways that are similar to 

the pathways evaluated for the MOP receptor, which are summarized in the preceding 

paragraph, with the doses from contamination in well and stream waters supplemented by 

doses from contaminated drill cuttings that result from the hypothetical inadvertent intrusion. 

For example, DOE only considers direct exposure to soil contaminated with irrigation water for 

the MOP receptor; whereas, for the IHI receptor, DOE considers direct exposure to soil 

contaminated with both irrigation water and drill cuttings. 

Dose Calculations 

DOE describes in detail the mathematical equations used to represent the exposure pathways 

and calculate doses for the human receptor scenarios in Sections 3 through 6 of 

SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. Section 3 details equations for the MOP at the 100-m 

 

4 DOE applies a dilution factor for the groundwater from the 100-m boundary to the location at the nearest 

downgradient stream before the water discharges to the stream, but does not further dilute the 

contaminated groundwater in the stream. 
-4- 

Figure 1. Exposure Pathway Overview 

 
-5- 

boundary. Section 4 details equations for the MOP at the nearest downgradient stream. 

Section 5 details equations for IHI acute exposure scenario. Section 6 details equations for IHI 

chronic exposure scenario. 

Parameter Values and Distributions 

DOE describes the recommended parameter values and distributions in Section 7 of 

SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. DOE also describes how the recommended parameter 

values and distributions were developed. The following sections summarize how DOE 

developed the recommended parameter values and distributions for dose conversion factors, 

human and animal consumption rates, fractions of food for humans and animals from 

contaminated sources, biotic accumulation transfer coefficients, exposure and inhalation 

parameters, and physical parameters. 

Dose Conversion Factors 

Table 2 lists the dose coefficients recommended for use in FTF, HTF, and SDF PAs5. 

 

5 DOE’s list of recommended dose coefficients in SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1 provides an 

alternative coefficient for radionuclides where secular equilibrium may exist with selected shorter-lived 

progeny to simplify the modeling. To develop the alternative dose coefficient, which includes the impact 

of secular equilibrium with shorter-lived progeny, DOE assumed that the selected progeny are in secular 

equilibrium with the parent radionuclide. The parent radionuclides (and selected progeny assumed in 

equilibrium) for which DOE provides additional dose coefficients include: 

• Ac-227 (Th-227, Fr-223, Ra-223, Rn-219, Po-215, Pb-211, Bi-211, Tl-207, Po-211) 

• Am242m (Am-242, Np-238, Cm-242) 

• Am-243 (Np-239) 

• Bi-210m (Tl-206) 

• Cm-247 (Pu-243) 

• Cs-137 (Ba-137m) 

• Np-237 (Pa-233) 

• Pb-210 (Bi-210, Po-210) 

• Pu-244 (U-240, Np-240m) 

• Ra-226 (Rn-222, Po-218, Pb-214, At-218, Bi-214, Po-214) 

• Ra-228 (Ac-228, Th-228, Ra-224, Rn-220, Po-216, Pb-212, Bi-212, Tl-208) 

• Sn-126 (Sb-126m, Sb-126) 

• Sr-90 (Y-90) 

• Th-229 (Ra-225, Ac-225, Fr-221, At-217, Bi-213, Po-213, Tl-209, Pb-209) 

• U-232 (Th-228, Ra-224, Rn-220, Po-216, Pb-212, Bi-212, Po-212, Tl-208) 

• U-235 (Th-231) 
-6- 

Table 2. DOE Recommended Dose Coefficients

Nuclide 

Internal External 

Ingestion† Inhalation‡ Soil Exposure‡ Water 

Immersion‡

(mrem/pCi) (m3×mrem)/(pCi×yr) 

Ac-225 1.94×10-04 3.77×10-03 3.21×10-8 1.47×10-07

Ac-227* 2.31×10-03 6.00×10-01 1.21×10-6 4.85×10-06

Ac-228 1.90×10-06 5.03×10-05 2.72×10-6 1.01×10-05

Ag-108m 1.09×10-05 2.59×10-05 5.03×10-6 1.83×10-05

Al-26 1.70×10-05 4.85×10-05 8.58×10-6 3.25×10-05

Am-241 8.81×10-04 3.63×10-01 2.32×10-8 1.80×10-07

Am-242 1.56×10-06 4.96×10-05 2.80×10-8 1.48×10-07

Am-242m* 8.60×10-04 3.55×10-01 3.61×10-8 1.81×10-07

Am-243* 8.77×10-04 3.61×10-01 5.19×10-7 2.40×10-06

Ar-39 0 0 4.96×10-10 1.49×10-08

At-217 0 0 6.94×10-10 2.70×10-09

At-218 0 0 3.34×10-11 1.46×10-10

Ba-133 9.03×10-06 7.62×10-06 1.07×10-6 4.16×10-06

Ba-137m 0 0 1.88×10-6 6.81×10-06

Bi-210 6.66×10-06 4.77×10-06 3.35×10-9 3.48×10-08

Bi-210m* 7.44×10-05 2.01×10-04 7.70×10-7 2.96×10-06

Bi-211 0 0 1.40×10-7 5.27×10-07

Bi-212 1.30×10-06 3.81×10-05 3.37×10-7 1.26×10-06

Bi-213 9.92×10-07 4.44×10-05 3.93×10-7 1.47×10-06

Bi-214 5.51×10-07 3.05×10-05 4.76×10-6 1.80×10-05

Bk-249 4.63×10-06 1.63×10-03 3.85×10-12 6.33×10-11

C-14 2.34×10-06 8.07×10-07 6.91×10-12 3.37×10-10

Ca-41 1.10×10-06 8.47×10-07 0 0 

Cd-113m 9.51×10-05 4.33×10-04 5.46×10-10 1.24×10-08

Ce-144 2.68×10-05 1.81×10-04 3.91×10-8 1.88×10-07

Cf-249 1.65×10-03 6.59×10-01 9.80×10-7 3.63×10-06

Cf-250 8.21×10-04 3.04×10-01 3.14×10-8 1.21×10-07

Cf-251 1.68×10-03 6.70×10-01 2.83×10-7 1.25×10-06

Cf-252 5.59×10-04 1.64×10-01 1.46×10-6 5.62×10-06

Cl-36 4.59×10-06 1.52×10-06 1.46×10-9 2.27×10-08

Cm-242 7.10×10-05 1.46×10-02 7.93×10-11 1.06×10-09

Cm-243 6.66×10-04 2.65×10-01 3.25×10-7 1.37×10-06

Cm-244 5.59×10-04 2.81×10-01 1.13×10-10 1.08×10-09

Cm-245 8.95×10-04 3.70×10-01 2.18×10-7 1.04×10-06

Cm-246 8.92×10-04 3.70×10-01 1.16×10-8 4.52×10-08

Cm-247* 8.22×10-04 3.39×10-01 9.99×10-7 3.76×10-06

Cm-248 3.34×10-03 1.36×10+00 4.19×10-6 1.62×10-05

Co-60 2.03×10-05 2.23×10-05 8.07×10-6 3.01×10-05

Cs-134 6.92×10-05 2.43×10-05 4.92×10-6 1.79×10-05

 

• U-238 (Th-234, Pa-234m, Pa-234) 

The values reported for these radionuclides in Table 2 are the alternative values that include the impact of 

secular equilibrium with shorter-lived progeny. 
-7- 

Table 2. DOE Recommended Dose Coefficients (Continued)

Nuclide 

Internal External 

Ingestion† Inhalation† Soil Exposure‡ Water 

Immersion‡

(mrem/pCi) (m3×mrem)/(pCi×yr) 

Cs-135 9.77×10-6 3.38×10-06 4.88×10-11 2.77×10-09

Cs-137* 4.92×10-05 1.70×10-05 1.78×10-6 6.44×10-06

Eu-152 6.44×10-06 3.67×10-04 3.63×10-6 1.37×10-05

Eu-154 9.66×10-06 4.26×10-04 3.92×10-6 1.46×10-05

Eu-155 1.67×10-06 5.11×10-05 1.02×10-7 5.69×10-07

Fr-221 0 0 8.01×10-8 3.21×10-07

Fr-223 1.20×10-05 4.18×10-06 1.04×10-7 5.31×10-7

Gd-152 1.97×10-04 7.44×10-02 0 0 

H-3 7.77×10-08 2.47×10-08 0 0 

I-129 4.48×10-04 1.50×10-04 6.06×10-09 7.80×10-08

K-40 3.04×10-05 9.55×10-06 5.14×10-07 1.96×10-06

Kr-85 0 0 7.79×10-09 4.38×10-08

Lu-174 1.42×10-06 3.00×10-05 2.55×10-07 1.15×10-06

Mo-93 1.15×10-05 3.65×10-06 2.56×10-10 4.66×10-09

Mo-93m 5.44×10-07 4.63×10-07 7.39×10-06 2.76×10-05

Na-22 1.44×10-05 5.59×10-06 6.97×10-06 2.57×10-05

Nb-93m 6.59×10-07 1.03×10-06 4.57×10-11 8.33×10-10

Nb-94 8.25×10-06 2.46×10-05 4.95×10-06 1.81×10-05

Ni-59 2.95×10-07 7.47×10-07 4.83×10-11 1.75×10-10

Ni-63 7.33×10-07 1.84×10-06 0 0 

Np-237* 4.67×10-04 1.87×10-01 6.44×10-07 2.60×10-06

Np-238 4.44×10-06 1.32×10-05 1.86×10-06 6.87×10-06

Np-239 4.11×10-06 8.33×10-07 4.39×10-07 1.89×10-06

Np-240 3.55×10-07 1.46×10-07 3.22×10-06 1.20×10-05

Np-240m 0 0 1.01×10-06 3.74×10-06

Pa-231 2.07×10-03 8.77×10-01 9.49×10-08 3.71×10-07

Pa-233 4.88×10-06 5.29×10-06 6.02×10-07 2.37×10-06

Pa-234 2.06×10-06 6.03×10-07 4.53×10-06 1.69×10-05

Pa-234m 0 0 6.96×10-08 2.86×10-07

Pb-209 2.76×10-07 7.73×10-08 4.64×10-10 1.31×10-08

Pb-210* 1.03×10-02 6.57×10-03 4.69×10-09 4.76×10-08

Pb-211 9.69×10-07 1.62×10-05 2.06×10-07 7.80×10-07

Pb-212 3.81×10-05 8.07×10-05 3.78×10-07 1.56×10-06

Pb-214 7.36×10-07 1.24×10-05 7.34×10-07 2.81×10-06

Pd-107 1.96×10-07 1.19×10-07 0 0 

Pm-147 1.34×10-06 2.95×10-05 2.69×10-11 1.13×10-09

Po-210 6.48×10-03 2.83×10-03 3.08×10-11 1.13×10-10

Po-211 0 0 2.58×10-08 9.43×10-08

Po-212 0 0 0 0 

Po-213 0 0 1.19×10-10 4.33×10-10

Po-214 0 0 7.34×10-07 9.61×10-10

Po-215 0 0 5.42×10-10 1.98×10-09

Po-216 0 0 4.86×10-11 1.77×10-10

Po-218 0 0 5.77×10-15 3.34×10-13

Pr-144 2.52×10-07 4.70×10-08 1.32×10-07 5.20×10-07

Pt-193 1.82×10-07 1.06×10-07 2.73×10-12 7.67×10-11

 
-8- 

Table 2. DOE Recommended Dose Coefficients (Continued)

Nuclide 

Internal External 

Ingestion† Inhalation† Soil Exposure‡ Water 

Immersion‡

(mrem/pCi) (m3×mrem)/(pCi×yr) 

Pu-238 9.73×10-04 4.07×10-01 6.94×10-11 9.12×10-10

Pu-239 1.07×10-03 4.48×10-01 1.67×10-10 9.94×10-10

Pu-240 1.07×10-03 4.48×10-01 7.01×10-11 8.94×10-10

Pu-241 1.93×10-05 8.51×10-03 3.26×10-12 1.60×10-11

Pu-242 1.01×10-03 4.26×10-01 2.99×10-10 1.67×10-09

Pu-243 4.33×10-07 1.39×10-07 4.40×10-08 2.43×10-07

Pu-244* 1.02×10-03 4.18×10-01 1.08×10-06 4.03×10-06

Ra-223 8.03×10-04 6.77×10-04 3.47×10-07 1.48×10-06

Ra-224 4.66×10-04 3.96×10-04 2.97×10-08 1.15×10-07

Ra-225 8.81×10-04 7.40×10-04 5.57×10-09 6.34×10-08

Ra-226* 1.68×10-03 1.77×10-03 5.52×10-06 2.09×10-05

Ra-228* 6.86×10-03 1.33×10-01 7.34×10-06 2.84×10-05

Rb-87 7.59×10-06 2.39×10-06 8.41×10-11 4.55×10-09

Re-188 7.10×10-06 2.22×10-06 1.89×10-07 7.71×10-07

Rh-106 0 0 7.01×10-07 2.57×10-06

Rn-219 0 0 1.74×10-07 6.54×10-07

Rn-220 0 0 1.96×10-09 7.12×10-09

Ru-106 3.55×10-05 3.58×10-05 0 0 

S-35 6.44×10-07 2.35×10-07 7.62×10-12 3.97×10-10

Sb-125 5.44×10-06 6.03×10-06 1.31×10-06 4.81×10-06

Sb-126 1.29×10-05 4.81×10-06 8.69×10-06 3.16×10-05

Sb-126m 1.85×10-07 5.59×10-08 4.87×10-06 1.77×10-05

Sc-46 6.96×10-06 2.81×10-05 6.42×10-06 2.37×10-05

Se-79 1.73×10-05 6.22×10-06 7.97×10-12 3.95×10-10

Sm-147 2.37×10-04 9.03×10-02 0 0 

Sm-151 5.00×10-07 3.64×10-05 4.53×10-13 7.24×10-12

Sn-121 1.17×10-06 2.83×10-07 1.10×10-10 5.09×10-09

Sn-121m 1.96×10-06 3.62×10-06 9.04×10-10 1.31×10-08

Sn-126* 2.56×10-05 4.99×10-05 6.17×10-06 2.27×10-05

Sr-90* 1.47×10-04 1.05×10-04 2.46×10-08 1.28×10-07

Tc-99 3.33×10-06 1.34×10-06 6.88×10-11 3.67×10-09

Te-125m 4.51×10-06 2.38×10-06 6.95×10-09 9.08×10-08

Th-227 5.44×10-05 3.20×10-03 3.36×10-07 1.34×10-06

Th-228 4.29×10-04 1.27×10-01 4.45×10-09 2.15×10-08

Th-229* 3.33×10-03 9.26×10-01 8.31×10-07 3.42×10-06

Th-230 9.36×10-04 3.85×10-01 6.82×10-10 3.99×10-09

Th-231 1.71×10-06 3.64×10-07 2.03×10-08 1.19×10-07

Th-232 1.03×10-03 4.26×10-01 2.98×10-10 2.10×10-09

Th-234 1.73×10-05 1.23×10-05 1.45×10-08 8.43×10-08

Tl-207 0 0 1.37×10-08 7.59×10-08

Tl-208 0 0 1.08×10-05 4.25×10-05

Tl-209 0 0 6.76×10-06 2.57×10-5

U-232* 2.43×10-03 1.44×10-01 4.62×10-06 1.82×10-05

U-233 2.23×10-04 2.36×10-03 5.56×10-10 2.74×10-09

U-234 2.15×10-04 2.28×10-03 2.15×10-10 1.63×10-09

U-235* 2.05×10-04 2.12×10-03 4.47×10-07 1.88×10-06

 
-9- 

Table 2. DOE Recommended Dose Coefficients (Continued)

Nuclide 

Internal External 

Ingestion† Inhalation† Soil Exposure‡ Water 

Immersion‡

(mrem/pCi) (m3×mrem)/(pCi×yr) 

U-236 2.02×10-04 2.14×10-03 1.10×10-10 1.01×10-09

U-238* 2.13×10-04 2.06×10-03 4.61×10-06 1.73×10-05

U-240 5.55×10-06 9.25×10-07 9.25×10-09 5.02×10-08

W-181 4.18×10-07 1.35×10-07 4.00×10-08 3.07×10-07

W-185 2.24×10-06 5.48×10-07 2.29×10-10 6.62×10-09

W-188 1.05×10-05 2.68×10-06 5.29×10-09 2.43×10-08

Y-90 1.37×10-05 2.59×10-06 2.42×10-08 1.15×10-07

Zr-93 3.70×10-06 8.14×10-05 0 7.88×10-14

Note: Adapted from Table 7.1-1 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

*

 Value shows the sum of a parent radionuclide plus daughter products assumed to be at secular 

equilibrium. 

† Values for ingestion and inhalation dose coefficients for Reference Person fromTables A-1and A-2, 

respectively, of DOE-STD-1196-2011. The values reported in this table are converted from units of Sv/Bq, 

as reported in DOE-STD-1196-2011 to mrem/pCi. 

‡ Values for soil exposure, assuming 0.15-m depth, and water immersion dose coefficients calculated with 

software associated with the U.S. EPA’s FGRs 12 and 13 (EPA-402-R-93-081; EPA-402-R-99-001) and a 

revised input data set. 

The recommended dose coefficients for the ingestion and inhalation exposure pathways come 

from Tables A-1 and A-2 of DOE-STD-1196-2011, respectively. In DOE-STD-1196-2011, DOE 

establishes Derived Concentration Standards (DCS), which are quantities that represent the 

concentration of a given radionuclide in either water or air that results in a MOP receiving 1 

millisievert (mSv) [100 millirem (mrem)] effective dose following continuous exposure for one 

year for ingestion of water and inhalation. DOE computes the DCS values using effective dose 

coefficients for reference age groups that were calculated in a manner similar to ICRP 

Publication 72 (ICRP, 1995) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) 

Federal Guidance Report (FGR) 13 (EPA, 1999). However, DOE, uses more recent age- and 

gender-specific physiological parameters for members of the public that are set forth in ICRP 

Publication 89 (ICRP, 2002) and nuclear decay data of ICRP Publication 107 (ICRP, 2008). 

The DOE derives the DCS by weighting the effective dose coefficients calculated for a reference 

person6 of each reference age group of the public by age- and gender- dependent intake rates 

for ingestion of water and inhalation of air. The reference age groups of the public are 

represented by six age groups (Newborn, 1-year, 5-year, 10-year, 15-year, and Adult). 

 

6

 The reference person gender-averages tissue weighting factors. 
-10- 

Specifically, DOE weights the effective dose coefficients for each age group by the sum of the 

fractional representation of each gender in the U.S. population and their intake of the 

radionuclide through inhalation of air and ingestion of water. Table 3 lists the population 

fractions and daily intakes of water and air used to weight the age-specific effective 

dose coefficients. 

The recommended dose coefficients for soil and water external exposure pathways come from 

calculations involving software associated with the U.S. EPA’s FGRs 12 and 13 

(EPA-402-R-93-081; EPA-402-R-99-001) and a revised input data set 7. 

Table 3. DOE Population and Usage Data for Derived Concentration Standards

Reference Age 

Group Age, x Population Fraction* 

Daily Intake 

Air†

(m3) 

Water‡

(L) 

yr Male Female Male Female Male Female

Newborn 0 ≤ x < 1 0.00693 0.00660 4.15 4.15 1.07 1.07 

1-yr 1 ≤ x < 3 0.01383 0.01321 5.89 5.89 1.12 1.12 

5-yr 3 ≤ x < 7 0.02864 0.02731 9.00 9.08 1.27 1.27 

10-yr 7 ≤ x < 12 0.03814 0.03632 15.2 15.0 1.50 1.50 

15-yr 12 ≤ x < 17 0.03672 0.03482 20.0 15.8§ 2.02 1.52§

Adult x ≥ 17 0.36630 0.39118 22.2 17.7§ 2.29 1.71§

Note: Adapted from Table 3 of DOE-STD-1196-2011. 

*

 Population fraction based on U.S. Census for the year 2000. 

† Daily air intake based on ICRP Publication 89 (ICRP, 2002). 

‡ Daily water intake based on Roseberry and Burnmaster (1992). 

§ DOE assumes that female daily intake for x ≥ 12 yr is 75-percent of male daily intake 

 

7

 Computations were performed using the DCFPAK Version 3.02 software (Dose Coefficient File and Package, which 

is available from the U.S. EPA (https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tools-calculating-radiation-dose-and-risk#tab-3) and 

allows electronic access to nuclear decay data and dose and risk coefficients for exposure to radionuclides. The 

input data set used to determine external dose coefficients for SRS includes data files titled FGR12III2.DAT and 

FGR12III6.DAT, which contain external dose rate coefficients based on the nuclear decay data of ICRP 

Publication 107 (ICRP, 2008) for each of 1,252 radionuclides for the water submersion and standing on soil 

contaminated to 15 cm, respectively. The external dose coefficients are based on the models described in FGR 12. 
-11- 

Human Uptake Parameters 

Table 4 summarizes the values and distributions that DOE recommends for human 

consumption parameters in SRS PAs8. DOE develops the values for human consumption from 

parameters from the 2011 U.S. EPA Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA/600/R-09/052F). 

Generally, DOE recommends values for the deterministic modeling that corresponded to values 

the “All Ages” or “All Individuals” groups from data presented in EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE 

considers all the data presented in EPA/600/R-09/052F for these categories for each of the 

consumption parameters and generally recommends the largest mean or median value 

presented for the deterministic modeling. DOE’s recommended consumption parameter values 

for the deterministic modeling are discussed for each uptake parameter below. 

To develop the probabilistic distributions, DOE recommends parameter values for multiplier 

distributions that are fit to the percentile data presented in EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE 

normalizes the percentiles from the survey data to the mean or median of the survey data and, 

using trial and error, fits a distribution to the normalized percentiles as described for each 

parameter below. DOE then truncates each distribution at the 10th and 90th percentiles of the 

respective distribution to limit the sampled values to those DOE considers are representative of 

typical and reasonable human behavior. 

 

 

8

 Note that the consumption data reported in Table 3, which was used to develop DCS, is distinct from the 

consumption data developed for use directly in the SRS PAs, which is reported in Table 4. The DCS developed from 

the consumption data reported in Table 3 are used as dose coefficients in the dose methodology for SRS PAs, but 

the consumption data is not used directly in SRS PAs. Rather the consumption data reported in Table 4 is used 

directly in SRS PAs. 
-12- 

Table 4. DOE Recommended Human Uptake Parameter Values 

Parameter Unit Deterministic 

Value 

Probabilistic Multiplier 

Distribution Mean/ 

Mode SD Min. Max. 

Rate of Contaminated 

Water Consumption L/yr 340‡ Gamma 1.2 0.8 0.26 2.3 

Rate of Soil and Dust 

Consumption kg/yr 3.65×10-2 Triangular 1.0 N/A 0.5 2.0 

Rate of Produce 

Consumption kg/yr 132 Log-Normal 0.9† 2.6† 0.2 3.07 

Rate of Meat 

Consumption kg/yr 61.4 Gamma 1.0 0.69 0.29 1.88 

Rate of Milk 

Consumption kg/yr* 86 Gamma 1.0 0.94 0.16 2.16 

Rate of Poultry 

Consumption kg/yr 10.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Rate of Egg 

Consumption kg/yr 7.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Rate of Fish 

Consumption kg/yr 5.6 Log-Normal 1.0† 2.3† 0.33 2.93 

Human Breathing Rate m3/yr 5,844 Gamma 1.0 0.23 0.77 1.27 

Note: Adapted from Table 7.2-1 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

* For use in dose calculations, rate of milk consumption values must be converted to L/yr by dividing by density of 

the milk, which is assumed to be 1.03 L/kg. 

† Use geometric mean and geometric standard deviation for these parameter values. 

‡ Rate of contaminated water consumption accounts for total water consumption and the fraction of total water 

consumed from a contaminated source. 

SD: Standard Deviation 

Min.: Minimum Value 

Max.: Maximum Value 

 
-13- 

Water Consumption 

Unlike other recommended deterministic values for human consumption parameters, DOE’s 

recommended deterministic value for rate of water consumption directly accounts for the 

fraction of water consumed that is contaminated. To develop a recommended value for the rate 

of water consumption that is contaminated, DOE assumes that all water ingested will be 

contaminated except for the fraction of water consumed from bottled sources. Equation 1 

summarizes DOE’s estimation of the recommended value for the rate of water consumption. 

(1 ) ~

,

,

,

2

2

2 2

H O A

H O B

H O H O A u

u

U = u × − Eqn. 1

H O A u , 2

~ ≡ Median per capita estimate for “All Ages” of combined direct 

and indirect water ingestion from all sources; Table 3-26 of 

EPA/600/R-09/052F. 

H O A u , 2

≡ Mean per capita estimate for “All Ages” of combined direct and 

indirect water ingestion from all sources; Table 3-26 of 

EPA/600/R-09/052F. 

H O B u , 2

≡ Mean per capita estimate for “All Ages” of combined direct 

water ingestion from bottled water; Table 3-24 of 

EPA/600/R-09/052F. 

EPA/600/R-09/052F defines direct water as water ingested daily as beverage, and indirect 

water as water added in the preparation of food or beverages. DOE used the ratio of mean, 

rather than median, per capita bottle-to-all sources consumption because less than 50-percent 

of those surveyed reported drinking bottled water for the survey. 

DOE developed the probabilistic distribution for the contaminated water consumption rate 

multiplier by scaling each water intake percentile value from Table 3-26 of EPA/600/R-09/052F 

for the “All Adults” group to the ratio of bottled water to all-sources water (e.g., approximately 

0.774), which is calculated in Equation 1 above. The scaled percentiles were then normalized 

to the scaled median value for the “All Adults” group from Table 3-26 of EPA/600/R-09/052F. 

Through trial and error, DOE found a gamma distribution with the recommended distribution 

statistic values that provided a close match to the scaled and normalized EPA percentile values, 

limited to percentiles from the 10th-percentile to the 90th-percentile from Table 3-26. 
-14- 

Soil and Dust Consumption 

DOE annualized the general population central tendency daily soil and dust ingestion rate for a 

child from Table 5-1 of EPA/600/R-09/052F to develop the recommended value for deterministic 

modeling. DOE selected the ingestion rate for a child because it was larger than the adult 

ingestion rate. To develop the recommended values for the probabilistic distribution, DOE 

assumed a triangular distribution with the minimum set at one-half and the maximum value set 

at twice the recommended deterministic rate. 

Produce Consumption 

DOE’s recommended deterministic value for rate of produce consumption accounts for both 

fruits and vegetables. To develop the recommended value, DOE annualized the sum of the 

mean daily total fruit and vegetable intakes for “All Ages” from Table 9-8 of EPA/600/R-09/052F 

for 1995, which were the largest values reported for “All Ages”. 

DOE developed the recommended probabilistic distribution parameter values for the produce 

consumption rate based on consumers of fruits and vegetables rather than the entire population 

(i.e., both consumers and non-consumers) using survey statistics from Table 9-15 of 

EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE normalized the sum of each percentile for the “Whole Population” 

group of consumers by the sum of the medians for both “Fruits” and “Vegetables” from Table 9-

15. Through trial and error, DOE found a log-normal distribution with the recommended 

distribution statistic values that provided a close match to the normalized EPA percentile values 

and truncated the distribution at the 10th and 90th percentiles. 

Meat and Milk Consumption 

To develop the recommended deterministic value for the rate of meat consumption, DOE 

annualizes the mean per capita daily meat intake for “All Ages” from Table 11-7 of 

EPA/600/R-09/052F for 1977-1978. DOE includes consumption of beef, pork, lamb, veal, 

game, frankfurters, sausages, luncheon meats, spreads, and meat mixtures, which include 

mixtures containing meat, poultry, or fish as a main ingredient. The data presented for 1977-

1978 results in a greater intake of meat than data presented from later surveys. 

To develop the recommended deterministic value for the rate of milk consumption, DOE 

annualizes the mean per capita total fluid milk daily intake for “All Individuals” from Table 11-12 

of EPA/600/R-09/052F for 1995, which is the largest value reported for “All Individuals”. DOE 

converts the total fluid milk daily intake to volumetric intake based on an assumed milk density 

of 1.03 kg/L3. 

DOE developed the recommended probabilistic distribution values for meat and milk 

consumption rates based on consumers of meat and milk rather than the entire population using 

survey statistics from Table 11-4 of EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE reportedly normalized each 
-15- 

percentile for the “Whole Population” group by the respective mean for both “Total Meat” and 

“Total Dairy Products” from Table 11-4. Through trial and error, DOE found a gamma 

distribution with the recommended distribution statistic values that provided a close match to the 

normalized EPA percentile values and truncated the distribution at the 10th and 90th percentiles. 

Poultry and Egg Consumption 

To develop the recommended deterministic value for the rate of poultry consumption, DOE 

annualizes the mean per capita daily total poultry intake for “All Individuals” from Table 11-9 of 

EPA/600/R-09/052F for 1994, which is the largest value reported for “All Individuals”. To 

develop the recommended deterministic value for the rate of egg consumption, DOE annualizes 

the mean per capita daily egg intake for “All Individuals” from Table 11-11 of EPA/600/R09/052F for 1987-1988, which is the largest value reported for “All Individuals”. 

DOE does not recommend probabilistic distribution values for poultry and egg consumption 

rates because DOE considers the dose contribution from poultry and egg consumption is 

considered small relative to the other ingestion pathways. 

Fish Consumption 

To develop the recommended deterministic value for the rate of fish consumption, DOE 

averages the mean per capita intake of finfish for adults 20 to 49 years of age and 50 years or 

more that are reported in Table 10-7 of EPA/600/R-09/052F and normalizes by the mean adult 

body mass, assuming 80 kg from Table 8-1 of EPA/600/R-09/052F. Because Table 10-13 of 

EPA/600/R-09/052F reports that residents of the South Atlantic region of the U.S. have a higher 

per capita consumption rate compared to all fish consumers, DOE increases the averaged 

mean per capita intake of finfish by 10-percent to account for the regional variability and 

recommend value for the fish consumption rate. 

DOE developed the recommended probabilistic distribution values for the fish consumption rate 

based on consumers of fish rather than the entire population using survey statistics from on 

Table 10-23 of EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE reportedly normalized the percentiles for “All Adult 

Fish Consumers” by the geometric mean. Through trial and error, DOE found a log-normal 

distribution with the recommended distribution statistic values that provided a close match to the 

normalized EPA percentile values and truncated the distribution at the 10th and 90th percentiles. 

Breathing Rate 

To develop the recommended deterministic value for the human breathing rate, DOE 

annualized the mean daily inhalation rate for males and females combined from Table 6-1 of 

EPA/600/R-09/052F for age group 31 to < 41, which has the highest reported rate for adults. 

DOE developed the recommended probabilistic distribution values for the breathing rate based 

on the distributions presented in Tables 6-14 (for males) and 6-15 (for females) of 
-16- 

EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE averaged all the age groups and assumed a population distribution 

of 48% male and 52% female to develop an age- and gender-weighted cumulative probability 

distribution. Through trial and error, DOE found a gamma distribution with the recommended 

distribution statistic values that provided a close match to the weighted EPA percentile values 

and truncated the distribution at the 10th and 90th percentiles. 

Animal and Livestock Uptake Parameters 

Table 5 summarizes values and distributions that DOE recommends for livestock consumption 

of water and fodder. DOE develops the recommended deterministic values for beef and milk 

cow consumption of fodder and water by annualizing the consumption rates from 

WSRC-RP-91-17 and Hamby (1992) and the probabilistic values by annualizing the minimum 

and maximum consumption rates from Table 4-1 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4. DOE 

develops the recommended deterministic values for poultry and egg consumption of water, 

fodder, and soil by annualizing the consumption rates from Table A-1 of Simpkins, et al. (2008; 

ML083190829). DOE does not develop probabilistic distributions for poultry and egg 

consumption of water, fodder, or soil because DOE assumes ingestion of poultry and eggs will 

have a minor impact on dose, relative to meat and milk ingestion pathways. 

 
-17- 

Table 5. DOE Recommended Animal and Livestock Uptake Parameter Values 

Parameter Unit Deterministic 

Value 

Probabilistic Multiplier 

Distribution Mode Min. Max. 

Consumption of Water by 

Terrestrial Livestock L/yr 10,200 Triangular 1.0 1.0 1.8 

Consumption of Fodder by 

Terrestrial Livestock kg/yr 13,100 Triangular 1.0 0.75 1.4 

Consumption of Water by Milk 

Cows L/yr 18,300 Triangular 1.0 1.0 1.2 

Consumption of Fodder by Milk 

Cows kg/yr 19,000 Triangular 1.0 0.69 1.1 

Consumption of Water by 

Poultry L/yr* 110 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Consumption of Fodder by 

Poultry kg/yr 36.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Consumption of Soil by Poultry kg/yr 3.65 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Consumption of Water by EggProducers L/yr 110 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Consumption of Fodder by 

Egg-Producers kg/yr 36.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Consumption of Soil by EggProducers kg/yr 3.65 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Note: Adapted from Table 7.2-2 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

Min.: Minimum Value 

Max.: Maximum Value 

N/A: Not Applicable 

Fractions of Food from Contaminated Sources 

Table 6 summarizes the values and distributions that DOE recommends for the fraction of food 

and drink consumption that is home-produced. DOE developed these values from Table 13-68 

of EPA/600/R-09/052F using the total population group, except for the fraction of consumed 

water from a contaminated source, which is included in the consumption rate of water. To 

develop a probabilistic distribution, DOE assumed that the maximum of the distribution is double 

the recommended value and the minimum is half the recommended value. 
-18- 

Table 6. DOE Recommended Fractions of Food Produced Locally 

Parameter Distribution Mode* Min. Max. 

Fraction of Consumed Water from Contaminated 

Source† Triangular N/A N/A N/A 

Fraction of Total Produce Grown at Home Triangular 0.068 0.034 0.136 

Fraction of Total Terrestrial Livestock Produced at 

Home Triangular 0.024 0.012 0.048 

Fraction of Total Milk Produced at Home Triangular 0.012 0.006 0.024 

Fraction of Total Poultry Produced at Home Triangular 0.011 0.0055 0.022 

Fraction of Total Eggs Produced at Home Triangular 0.014 0.007 0.028 

Fraction of Households that Fish Triangular 0.094 0.047 0.188 

Note: Adapted from Table 7.6-1 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

* Recommended value for deterministic modeling 

† Local fraction for water consumption has already been incorporated into water consumption parameter shown in 

Table 2 

Min.: Minimum 

Max.: Maximum 

N/A: Not Applicable 

Table 7 summarizes the values and distributions that DOE recommends for the fractions of 

fodder and soil that livestock consume that is contaminated. DOE developed the deterministic 

beef and milk cow fractions from Hamby (1992), and the probabilistic distribution parameters 

from Table 4-1 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4, but the basis for the values in 

WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4 is unclear. DOE does not recommend values for the fraction of 

water consumed by livestock and animals that is contaminated because the methodology 

assumes that all water consumed by animals and livestock is contaminated. Similarly, DOE 

assumes that all fodder and soil consumed by poultry and egg is contaminated, and 

recommends that the deterministic value be set to unity to reflect this assumption. 

 
-19- 

Table 7. DOE Recommended Animal and Livestock Uptake Fractions 

Parameter Deterministic 

Value 

Probabilistic Multiplier 

Distribution Mode Min. Max. 

Fraction of Fodder (Consumed by 

Terrestrial Livestock) that is 

Contaminated 

0.75 Triangular 1.0 0.67 1.33 

Fraction of Fodder (Consumed by 

Milk-Producing Livestock) that is 

Contaminated 

0.56 Triangular 1.0 0.89 1.8 

Fraction of Fodder (Consumed by 

Poultry) that is Contaminated 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Fraction of Soil (Consumed by 

Poultry) that is Contaminated 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Fraction of Fodder (Consumed by 

Egg-Producers) that is 

Contaminated 

1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Fraction of Soil (Consumed by EggProducers) that is Contaminated 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Note: Adapted from Table 7.2-3 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

Min.: Minimum Value 

Max.: Maximum Value 

N/A: Not Applicable 

Transfer Coefficients for Biotic Accumulation 

Table 8 summarizes the values recommended by DOE for transfer coefficients for soil-to-plant, 

fodder-to-meat, fodder-to-milk, fodder-to-poultry, fodder-to-egg, and water-to-fish for the 

deterministic modeling and the recommended distribution values for a multiplier for the 

probabilistic modeling. DOE develops the recommended values for deterministic modeling by 

selecting transfer coefficient values from a hierarchy of references: (1st) International Atomic 

Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Technical Report Series No. 472 (IAEA-TRS-472), (2nd) Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory’s Compendium of Transfer Factors (PNNL-13421), (3rd) an Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory Compendium of Parameters for Transport through Agriculture 

(ORNL-5786), (4th) an NRC Parameter Analysis for Translating Residual Radioactivity to Dose 

(NUREG/CR--5512, Vol. 3), (5th) an SRS Human Health Parameter Update for PAs 

(WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev, 4), and (6th) the HTF PA, Rev. 1 (SRR-CWDA-2010-00128, 
-20- 

Table 8. DOE Recommended Biotic Accumulation Transfer Coefficients 

Element Soil-to- Fodder-to- Water-toPlant Meat Milk Poultry Egg Fish 

Ac 6.00×10-05 1.10×10-06 5.48×10-08 1.64×10-05 1.10×10-05 2.50×10+01

Ag 1.25×10-04 8.21×10-06 4.33×10-06 5.48×10-03 1.37×10-03 1.10×10+02

Al 2.90×10-04 4.11×10-06 5.64×10-07 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 5.10×10+01

Am 7.74×10-05 1.37×10-06 1.15×10-09 1.64×10-05 8.21×10-06 2.40×10+02

Ar 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

As 2.52×10-03 5.48×10-06 1.64×10-07 2.27×10-03 7.12×10-04 3.30×10+02

At 7.00×10-02 2.74×10-05 2.82×10-05 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.50×10+01

Au 2.66×10-03 1.37×10-05 1.51×10-08 2.74×10-03 1.37×10-03 2.40×10+02

B 5.60×10-01 2.19×10-06 4.23×10-06 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

Ba 9.63×10-02 3.83×10-07 4.38×10-07 5.20×10-05 2.38×10-03 1.20×10+00

Be 6.29×10-04 2.74×10-06 2.27×10-09 1.10×10-03 5.48×10-05 1.00×10+02

Bi 9.63×10-02 1.10×10-06 1.37×10-06 2.68×10-04 7.12×10-04 1.50×10+01

Bk 2.40×10-04 6.84×10-08 5.48×10-09 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 2.50×10+01

Br 2.89×10-01 6.84×10-05 5.48×10-05 1.10×10-05 4.38×10-3 9.10×10+01

C 1.35×10-01 8.49×10-05 3.29×10-05 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 3.00×10+00

Ca 4.14×10+00 3.56×10-05 2.74×10-05 1.20×10-04 1.20×10-03 1.20×10+01

Cd 1.74×10-01 1.59×10-05 5.20×10-07 4.65×10-03 2.74×10-04 2.00×10+02

Ce 2.28×10-03 5.48×10-08 5.48×10-08 5.48×10-06 8.49×10-06 2.50×10+01

Cf 6.00×10-05 1.10×10-07 4.11×10-09 1.64×10-05 1.10×10-05 2.50×10+01

Cl 3.32×10+00 4.65×10-05 4.65×10-05 8.21×10-05 7.39×10-03 4.70×10+01

Cm 1.37×10-04 1.10×10-07 5.48×10-08 1.64×10-05 1.10×10-05 3.00×10+01

Co 2.48×10-02 1.18×10-06 3.01×10-07 2.66×10-03 9.03×10-05 7.60×10+01

Cr 1.93×10-04 2.46×10-05 1.18×10-06 5.48×10-04 2.46×10-03 4.00×10+01

Cs 7.03×10-03 6.02×10-05 1.26×10-05 7.39×10-03 1.10×10-03 2.50×10+03

Cu 5.42×10-02 2.46×10-05 5.48×10-06 1.37×10-03 1.37×10-03 2.30×10+02

Dy 3.85×10-03 5.48×10-08 8.21×10-08 5.48×10-06 1.10×10-07 6.50×10+02

Er 3.85×10-03 5.48×10-08 8.21×10-08 5.48×10-06 1.10×10-07 3.00×10+01

Es 2.40×10-04 6.84×10-08 5.48×10-09 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 2.50×10+01

Eu 3.85×10-03 5.48×10-08 8.21×10-08 5.48×10-06 1.10×10-07 1.30×10+02

F 3.85×10-03 4.11×10-04 2.74×10-06 3.83×10-05 7.39×10-03 1.00×10+01

Fm 4.80×10-04 5.48×10-07 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

Fr 6.12×10-02 6.84×10-06 5.64×10-05 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 3.00×10+01

Ga 2.21×10-04 1.37×10-06 1.37×10-07 2.19×10-03 2.74×10-03 4.00×10+02

Gd 3.85×10-03 5.48×10-08 8.21×10-08 5.48×10-06 1.10×10-07 3.00×10+01

Ge 3.20×10-02 1.9210-03 1.97×10-04 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 4.00×10+03

H 1.15×10+00 1.00×10-20 4.11×10-05 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10+00

Ha 4.80×10-04 1.37×10-08 1.37×10-08 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

He 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10+00
-21- 

Table 8. DOE Recommended Biotic Accumulation Transfer Coefficients (Continued)

Element Soil-to- Fodder-to- Water-toPlant Meat Milk Poultry Egg Fish 

Hf 1.93×10-04 2.74×10-06 1.51×10-09 1.64×10-07 5.48×10-07 1.10×10+03

Hg 8.52×10-02 6.84×10-04 1.29×10-06 8.21×10-05 1.37×10-03 6.10×10+03

Ho 3.85×10-03 8.21×10-07 8.21×10-08 5.48×10-06 1.10×10-07 3.00×10+01

I 1.07×10-02 1.83×10-05 1.48×10-05 2.38×10-05 6.57×10-03 3.00×10+01

In 2.21×10-04 2.19×10-05 5.48×10-07 2.19×10-03 2.74×10-03 1.00×10+04

Ir 4.49×10-03 4.11×10-06 5.48×10-09 5.48×10-03 2.74×10-04 1.00×10+01

K 1.36×10-01 5.48×10-05 1.97×10-05 1.10×10-03 2.74×10-03 3.20×10+03

Kr 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

La 8.78×10-04 3.56×10-07 5.48×10-08 2.74×10-04 2.46×10-5 3.70×10+01

Li 1.80×10-03 2.74×10-05 5.64×10-05 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

Lr 4.80×10-04 5.48×10-07 1.37×10-08 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

Lu 1.20×10-03 1.23×10-05 5.64×10-08 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 2.50×10+01

Md 4.80×10-04 1.00×10-20 1.37×10-08 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

Mg 1.24×10-01 5.48×10-05 1.07×10-05 8.21×10-05 5.48×10-03 3.70×10+01

Mn 6.58×10-02 1.64×10-06 1.12×10-07 5.20×10-06 1.15×10-04 2.40×10+02

Mo 8.44×10-02 2.74×10-06 3.01×10-06 4.93×10-04 1.75×10-03 1.90×10+00

N 7.36×10-03 2.05×10-04 6.84×10-05 2.68×10-04 7.12×10-04 2.00×10+05

Na 5.78×10-03 4.11×10-05 3.56×10-05 1.92×10-02 1.10×10-02 7.60×10+01

Nb 2.18×10-03 7.12×10-10 1.12×10-09 8.21×10-07 2.74×10-06 3.00×10+02

Nd 3.85×10-03 5.48×10-08 8.21×10-08 5.48×10-06 1.10×10-07 3.00×10+01

Ne 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

Ni 2.04×10-02 1.37×10-05 2.60×10-06 2.74×10-06 2.74×10-04 2.10×10+01

No 4.80×10-04 5.48×10-07 1.37×10-08 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

Np 4.05×10-03 2.74×10-06 1.37×10-08 1.64×10-05 1.10×10-05 2.10×10+01

O 1.44×10-01 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10+00

Os 6.19×10-03 1.10×10-03 1.37×10-05 2.30×10-04 1.94×10-04 1.00×10+03

P 1.93×10-01 1.51×10-04 5.48×10-05 5.20×10-04 1.75×10-03 1.40×10+05

Pa 6.00×10-05 1.22×10-06 1.37×10-08 1.64×10-05 1.10×10-05 1.00×10+01

Pb 5.26×10-03 1.92×10-06 5.20×10-07 2.19×10-03 2.74×10-03 2.50×10+01

Pd 1.21×10-02 1.10×10-05 2.74×10-05 8.21×10-07 1.10×10-05 1.00×10+01

Pm 2.46×10-02 5.48×10-08 8.21×10-08 5.48×10-06 1.10×10-07 3.00×10+01

Po 7.92×10-04 1.37×10-05 5.75×10-07 6.57×10-03 8.49×10-03 3.60×10+01

Pr 4.80×10-03 5.48×10-08 8.21×10-08 5.48×10-06 1.10×10-07 3.00×10+01

Pt 8.80×10-03 1.10×10-05 1.41×10-05 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 3.50×10+01

Pu 2.19×10-05 3.01×10-09 2.74×10-08 8.21×10-06 3.29×10-06 3.00×10+01

Ra 7.60×10-03 4.65×10-06 1.04×10-06 8.21×10-05 8.49×10-04 4.00×10+00

Rb 2.05×10-01 2.74×10-05 3.29×10-05 5.48×10-03 8..21×10-03 4.90×10+03

Re 1.13×10-01 2.19×10-05 4.11×10-06 1.10×10-04 1.15×10-03 1.20×10+02
-22- 

Table 8. DOE Recommended Biotic Accumulation Transfer Coefficient (Continued)

Element Soil-to- Fodder-to- Water-toPlant Meat Milk Poultry Egg Fish 

Rf 7.20×10-04 1.00×10-20 5.48×10-08 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

Rh 1.86×10-01 5.48×10-06 2.74×10-05 5.48×10-03 2.74×10-04 1.00×10+01

Rn 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 7.55×10-10

Ru 6.39×10-03 9.03×10-06 2.57×10-08 1.92×10-05 1.10×10-05 5.50×10+01

S 2.89×10-01 5.48×10-04 2.16×10-05 6.30×10-03 1.92×10-02 8.00×10+02

Sb 2.95×10-04 3.29×10-06 1.04×10-07 1.64×10-05 1.92×10-04 3.70×10+01

Sc 3.93×10-04 4.11×10-05 1.37×10-08 1.10×10-05 1.15×10-05 1.90×10+02

Se 1.76×10-02 4.11×10-05 1.10×10-05 2.66×10-02 4.38×10-02 6.00×10+03

Si 2.47×10-02 1.10×10-07 5.48×10-08 2.19×10-03 2.74×10-03 2.00×10+01

Sm 3.85×10-03 8.65×10-07 8.21×10-08 5.48×10-06 1.10×10-07 3.00×10+01

Sn 2.12×10-03 2.19×10-04 2.74×10-06 2.19×10-03 2.74×10-03 3.00×10+03

Sr 1.37×10-01 3.56×10-06 3.56×10-06 5.48×10-05 9.58×10-04 2.90×10+00

Ta 4.82×10-03 3.67×10-08 1.12×10-09 8.21×10-07 2.74×10-06 3.00×10+02

Tb 3.85×10-03 5.48×10-08 8.21×10-08 5.48×10-06 1.10×10-07 4.10×10+02

Tc 1.14×10+01 1.73×10-05 5.12×10-06 8.21×10-05 8.21×10-03 2.00×10+01

Te 5.78×10-02 1.92×10-05 9.31×10-07 1.64×10-03 1.40×10-02 1.50×10+02

Th 1.65×10-04 6.30×10-07 1.37×10-08 1.64×10-05 1.10×10-05 6.00×10+00

Ti 8.20×10-04 8.21×10-05 2.82×10-05 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.90×10+02

Tl 2.21×10-04 1.10×10-04 5.48×10-06 2.19×10-03 2.74×10-03 9.00×10+02

Tm 1.20×10-03 1.23×10-05 5.64×10-08 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

U 2.58×10-03 1.07×10-06 4.93×10-06 2.05×10-03 3.01×10-03 9.60×10-01

V 8.20×10-04 6.84×10-06 5.64×10-08 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 9.70×10+01

W 5.78×10-01 1.10×10-04 5.20×10-07 5.48×10-04 2.46×10-03 1.00×10+01

Xe 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

Y 3.85×10-04 2.74×10-06 5.48×10-08 2.74×10-05 5.48×10-06 4.00×10+01

Yb 1.20×10-03 1.10×10-05 5.64×10-08 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20 1.00×10-20

Zn 1.79×10-01 4.38×10-04 7.39×10-06 1.29×10-03 3.83×10-03 3.40×10+03

Zr 7.70×10-04 3.29×10-09 9.86×10-09 1.64×10-07 5.48×10-07 2.20×10+01

Probabilistic Multiplier 

Distribution Log-Normal Log-Normal Log-Normal N/A N/A Log-Normal 

GM 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A 1.0 

GSD 3.7 5.8 3.0 N/A N/A 2.7 

Min. 0.073 0.15 0.3 N/A N/A 0.29 

Max. 51.4 46 12 N/A N/A 25 

Note: Adapted from Tables 7.3-1 through 7.3-6 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

GM: Geometric Mean; GSD: Geometric Standard Deviation 

Min.: Minimum; Max.: Maximum 

N/A: Not Applicable 

 
-23- 

Rev. 1). If the sources of transfer coefficients in the hierarchy all lack a value, DOE uses a 

value of 1.00×10-20 because DOE expects it to have a negligible effect on the doses, but needs 

to use a non-zero value to avoid numerical errors in the dose calculations. Once a transfer 

coefficient value is selected from the top-most source in the hierarchy, DOE compares the value 

to the transfer coefficient used for the HTF PA, Rev. 1 (SRR-CWDA-2010-00128, Rev. 1) and 

recommends either the selected value from the hierarchy of sources if the HTF PA, Rev. 1 

transfer coefficient is not a geometric mean of transfer factors from multiple sources or the 

higher of the two values when the HTF PA, Rev. 1 transfer coefficient is a geometric mean. For 

soil-to-plant transfer factors, when wet-weight values are provided by the hierarchy of sources, 

DOE applies a dry-to-wet ratio of 0.195 so that all transfer coefficients have consistent units. 

To develop probabilistic distributions for multipliers, DOE selects values that are consistent with 

those developed for DOE’s Yucca Mountain Project for fodder-to-meat and fodder-to-milk 

transfer coefficients (MDL-MGR-MD-000001, Rev. 2). DOE does not recommend a probabilistic 

distribution for a multiplier for any of the poultry or egg pathways because DOE does not expect 

them to be a significant contributor to dose relative to other ingestion pathways. 

Exposure and Inhalation Parameters 

Table 9 summarizes the values recommended by DOE for exposure and inhalation parameters 

for the deterministic modeling and the recommended distribution values for multipliers for the 

probabilistic modeling for selected parameters. DOE determines the recommended values for 

exposure and inhalation parameters from various sources as described in the following 

paragraphs. DOE does not provide recommended values for probabilistic multipliers for 

parameters (e.g., time spent boating) that DOE does not expect to be significant contributors to 

dose relative to other exposure pathways. 

Time Spent Gardening 

DOE determines the recommended time spent gardening in a year for the deterministic 

modeling by converting to a fractional value the average total daily time spent by U.S. civilian 

population ages 15 years and older performing lawn and garden care from Table 16-100 of 

EPA/600/R-09/052F and normalizing (i.e., dividing) by the fraction of total households that have 

gardens from Table 13-71 of EPA/600/R-09/052F. To determine the recommended values for 

the multiplier distribution for the probabilistic modeling, DOE assumes the minimum is one-half 

and the maximum is double the recommended deterministic value. 

Time Spent Showering/Bathing 

DOE determines the recommended time spent showering/bathing in a year for deterministic 

modeling by converting to a fractional value the EPA’s recommended mean value for time spent 

in the bathing/showering activity pattern per day for the 18 to <65 years age group from Table 

16-1 of EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE developed the recommended probabilistic distribution values 
-24- 

Table 9. DOE Recommended Exposure and Inhalation Parameter Values 

Parameter Unit 

Deterministic

Value 

Probabilistic Multiplier 

Distribution Mean/ 

Mode SD Min. Max.

Fraction of Time Spent in 

a Contaminated Garden* - 2.7×10-2 Triangular 1.0 N/A 0.5 2.0 

Fraction of Time Spent 

Showering or Bathing* - 1.2×10-2 Log-Normal 0.85 0.65 0.25 1.52 

Geometry Factor for 

Showering or Bathing† - 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Fraction of Time Spent 

Swimming* - 1.7×10-3 Triangular 1.0 N/A 0 3.3 

Geometry Factor for 

Swimming† - 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Fraction of Time Spent 

Boating* - 2.5×10-3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Geometry Factor for 

Boating† - 0.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Fraction of Time Spent 

Drilling into Contaminated 

Source* 

- 2.3×10-3 Triangular 1.0 N/A 0.1 2.0 

Airborne Release Fraction - 1.0×10-4 Uniform N/A N/A 0.04 2.0 

Moisture Content of 

Ambient Air kg/m3 0.01‡ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Moisture Content of 

Shower Air kg/m3 0.041§ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Mass Loading of Soil in 

the Air kg/m3 1.0×10-7 Triangular 1.0 N/A 0.1 3.0 

Note: Adapted from Table 7.4-1 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

* The fraction of time spent performing the activity is on an annual basis 

†The geometry factor is the fraction of the human body that DOE assumes to be exposed to contaminants during a 

specific activity. 

‡ From DOE-HDBK-3010-94, Vol. I, Table 3-6 

§ From HNF-SD-WM-TI-707, Rev. 3, Table A12 

SD: Standard Deviation 

Min.: Minimum; Max.: Maximum 

N/A: Not Applicable 
-25- 

for the time spent showering/bathing in a year based on the duration of shower from on 

Table 16-32 of EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE normalized the percentiles for all population groups 

by the mean value for time spent in the bathing/showering activity pattern per day for the 18 

to <65 years age group from Table 16-1. Through trial and error, DOE found a log-normal 

distribution with the recommended distribution statistic values that provided a close match to the 

normalized EPA percentile values and truncated the distribution at the 10th and 90th percentiles. 

Time Spent Swimming 

DOE determines the recommended fraction of time spent swimming in a year for the 

deterministic modeling by converting to a fractional value the calculated mean of 10,000 

samples of a discrete distribution populated by the percentiles reported in Table 16-42 of 

EPA/600/R-09/052F for minutes swimming per month for the 18 to 64 years population group. 

To determine the recommended values for the multiplier distribution for the probabilistic 

modeling, DOE assumes the minimum is zero and sets the maximum multiplier so that the 

scaled time spent swimming is equivalent to a maximum of 181 minutes per month9. 

Time Spent Boating 

DOE determines the recommended fraction of time spent boating for the deterministic modeling 

by converting to a fractional value the time per year spent boating from Table 10 of 

SRNL-STI-2010-00447, Rev. 0, which is based on 2005 data from the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources and the South Carolina Department of Parks and Recreation and on the 

estimated hours per occasion from WSRC-RP-91-17. 

Time Spent Drilling 

DOE assumes that the IHI requires 20 hours to install a well. DOE converts this to an annual 

fractional value for the recommended value for deterministic modeling. 

Airborne Release Fraction 

DOE recommends an airborne release faction value for contaminants released to the air during 

irrigation, showering/bathing, and swimming for the deterministic modeling that is half the 

bounding value and two and a half times greater than the median value of airborne release 

fractions determined for aqueous solutions subjected to free-fall spills reported in Section 

3.2.3.1 of DOE-HDBK-3010-94, Vol. I. 

 

9

 Table EPA/600/R-09/052F reports 181 minutes for all survey responses that exceeded 180 minutes per month. 
-26- 

Mass Loading of Soil in the Air 

DOE recommends a value for the deterministic modeling that is selected from 

WSRC-RP-94-218. In WSRC-RP-94-218, DOE assumes an atmospheric mass loading of 

contaminated soil while working in the vegetable garden and justifies the assumption by 

identifying the assumed value (i) as a somewhat conservative approximation of the average 

background dust loading for nonurban locations in the U.S. according to Anspaugh et al. (1975) 

and (ii) is in good agreement with an average dust loading measured above two agricultural 

fields at SRS (Shinn et al., 1982). 

Soil Parameters 

Table 10 summarizes the values recommended by DOE for soil parameters for the deterministic 

modeling and the recommended distribution values for multipliers for the probabilistic modeling 

for selected parameters. The notes to Table 10 summarize DOE’s justification for each value. 

Crop and Gardening Parameters 

Table 11 summarizes the values recommended by DOE for crop and gardening parameters for 

the deterministic modeling and the recommended distribution values for multipliers for the 

probabilistic modeling for selected parameters. 

 
-27- 

Table 10. DOE Recommended Soil Parameter Values

Parameter Unit 

Deterministic 

Value 

Probabilistic Multiplier 

Distributio

n 

Mean/ 

Mode SD Min. Max. 

Buildup Time of 

Radionuclides in Soil* yr 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Surface (or Areal) 

Density of Soil† kg/m2 240 

Normal‡ 1.0 0.07 0.83 1.15 

Dry Bulk Density of Soil§ kg/m3 1650 

Precipitation Rate§§ m/yr 1.25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Evapotranspiration 

Rate# m/yr 0.79 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Irrigation Rate## m/yr 1.32 Triangular 1.0 N/A 0.5 1.5 

Weathering Decay 

Constant& 1/yr 18.1 Triangular 1.0 N/A 0.6 1.0 

Soil Moisture Content&& - 0.2086 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Note: Adapted from Table 7.5-1 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

* DOE selects the largest buildup time for deterministic modeling of those presented in SRNL-STI-2010-00447, 

Rev 0, Table 1 

† DOE estimated the recommended surface density of soil value for deterministic modeling by multiplying the 

assumed garden depth (i.e., 0.15 m) and the dry bulk density value reported in WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4 (i.e., 

1600 kg/m3). See Section 3.6 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4. 

‡ DOE selects the normal distribution for probabilistic modeling based on Simpkins and Hamby (1993). DOE 

recommends surface soil density and dry bulk density of soil be modeled with a perfect (i.e., unity) correlation. 

§ DOE assumes an Upper Vadose Zone soil and selects values for deterministic and probabilistic modeling to be 

consistent with average, minimum, and maximum reported in WSRC-STI-2006-00198, Rev. 0, Table 5-9 

§§ DOE selects the average annual precipitation rate from Table 14 of WSRC-STI-2007-00184, Rev. 2, which 

contains precipitation data from 1961-2006 that was recorded at the 200-F weather station, for the recommended 

value for deterministic modeling. 

# DOE recommends the median annual evapotranspiration rate determined from nominal rates estimated by eight 

studies, which are summarized in Table 9 of WSRC-STI-2007-00184, Rev. 2, for deterministic modeling. 

## DOE assumes an irrigation rate of 1 in. (0.254 cm) per week for the recommended value for deterministic 

modeling. DOE assumes an irrigation rate of 0.5 cm per day for the recommended maximum value for probabilistic 

modeling. See Table 3-2 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4. 

& DOE bases recommended value for deterministic modeling on 14-day half-life for removal of activity from plants. 

See Table 3-2 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4. 

&& DOE references SRR-CWDA-2010-00128, Rev. 1, Table 4.6-8, which references WSRC-STI-2007-00184, 

Rev. 2. 

SD: Standard Deviation 

Min.: Minimum 

Max.: Maximum 

N/A: Not Applicable 

 
-28- 

Table 11. DOE Recommended Crop and Gardening Parameter Values 

Parameter Unit 

Deterministic 

Value 

Probabilistic Multiplier 

Distribution Mean/ 

Mode SD Min. Max. 

Fraction Of Material 

Deposited On Leaves 

That Is Retained*

- 0.25 Triangular 1.0 N/A 0.8 1.0 

Fraction Of Material 

Remaining On Leaves 

After Washing†

- 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Time In Which Crops 

and Gardens Are 

Irrigated‡

yr 1.92×10-1 Normal 1.0 0.1 0.85 1.28 

Crop And Garden Yield§ kg/m2 2.2 Log-Normal 1.0 0.23 0.1 1.8 

Depth Of Crop Garden 

Tilling§§ m 0.15 Triangular 1.0 N/A 1.0 4.1 

Fraction Of Produce 

That Is Leafy# - 0.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Area of Garden## m2 100 Triangular 1.0 N/A 1.0 10.0 

Note: Adapted from Table 7.5-2 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

* DOE selects the fraction of material retained value from RG 1.109, Rev. 1 (ML003740384), for deterministic 

modeling. See Table 3-2 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4. DOE also recommends, consistent with the footnote 

to Table 3-2, which references RG 1.109, Rev. 1 (ML003740384), that the fraction of material retained be 1 (i.e., 

0.25 × 4) for iodine. DOE selects the recommended values of the probabilistic distribution based on values from 

Table 3-2. A footnote to the maximum value in Table 3-2 recommends setting this value to ensure a fraction of 

material retained equal to one (i.e., a maximum multiplier of 4) for iodine, or for all if the model is not able to handle 

iodine separately. 

† DOE assumes all the material will remain on the leaves after washing. 

‡ DOE assumes in Table 3-2 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4 that the fraction of time the garden will be irrigated 

will be 70 days per year for the deterministic modeling. In Table 3-2, DOE also recommended a minimum of 70 

days and a maximum of 90 days. 

§ DOE recommends the crop yield for deterministic modeling based on a weighted average vegetable productivity 

for South Carolina and Georgia (USDA, 2009) as discussed in Section 3.1.1.1 of SRNL-STI-2010-00447, Rev. 0. 

DOE does not identify the basis for recommended values for the probabilistic modeling, but they appear to be 

consistent with values reported in Table 3-1 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4, which were based on 

WSRC-RP-91-17. 

§§ DOE recommends the garden depth values based on the value reported in Table 3-2 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, 

Rev. 4, which references WSRC-RP-93- 1174. 

# DOE recommends the leafy fraction of produce based on USDA (2009) data for the SRS region. See 

Section 3.1.2 of SRNL-STI-2010-00447, Rev. 0. 

## DOE estimates the recommended area of the garden by considering a family of four, vegetable consumption 

rates, the fraction of food produced locally, and crop yields as reported in Section 3.4 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, 

Rev. 4. However, using the deterministic values of the produce consumption rate, the fraction of food produced 

locally, and crop yield reported in SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1, the area of the garden would be approximately 

equal to 16 m2 for a family of four. 

SD: Standard Deviation 

Min.: Minimum, Max.: Maximum, N/A: Not Applicable 
-29- 

IHI Drilling Parameters 

Table 12 summarizes the values recommended by DOE for drilling parameters for the IHI 

deterministic modeling and the recommended distribution values for multipliers for the 

probabilistic modeling for selected parameters. 

Table 12. DOE Recommended IHI Drilling Parameter Values 

Parameter Unit 

Deterministic 

Value 

Probabilistic Multiplier 

Distribution Mean/ 

Mode SD Min. Max. 

Well Diameter* m 0.203 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Transfer Line Area Per 

Length† m2/m 0.245 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Water Density‡ kg/L 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Well Depth§ m 30.5 Log-Normal 1.85 0.75 0.3 9.9 

Note: Adapted from Table 7.5-3 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

* DOE recommends a well diameter for deterministic modeling based on SRR-CWDA-2010-00054, Rev. 0, which 

surveyed SRS-area well installations. The results of the survey indicated a 4-in (10-cm) diameter casing was the 

predominate installation. DOE assumes that the wellbore is at least 3 in (8 cm) larger due to South Carolina 

annular space requirements. 

† From SRR-CWDA-2010-00128, Rev. 1, Table 4.6-8. Applicable to TFs. 

‡ Assumed value. 

§ For deterministic modeling, DOE recommends a shallow value compared to well completion depth data in the 

vicinity of SRS (see SRR-CWDA-2010-00054, Rev. 0) to minimize dilution with drill cuttings for the IHI scenario. 

For the probabilistic modeling, DOE fit a log-normal distribution to well completion depth data, discussed in 

SRR-CWDA-2010-00054, Rev. 0, to determine the multiplier distribution parameters. The log-normal distribution 

reflects DOE’s expected aquifer distributions of 13%, 44% and 43% for the Upper Three Runs Aquifer, Lower Three 

Runs Aquifer, and the Gordon Aquifer, respectively. 

SD: Standard Deviation 

Min.: Minimum 

Max.: Maximum 

N/A: Not Applicable 

Distribution Coefficients (Kds) 

Table 13 summarizes the values recommended by DOE for soil buildup model Kds for the 

deterministic modeling and the recommended distribution values for the probabilistic modeling. 

DOE selects sandy soil Kds for the recommended values. 

 
-30- 

Table 13. DOE Recommended Soil Buildup Model Kds

Deterministic Modeling 

Element 

Kd

(L/kg) 

Element 

Kd

(L/kg) 

Element 

Kd

(L/kg) 

Ac* 1,100 Cu* 50 Pt* 7 

Ag† 10 Eu* 1,100 Pu§§ 650 

Al* 1,300 Fe* 200 Ra‡ 25 

Am* 1,100 Fr* 10 Rb* 10 

As* 100 Gd* 1,100 Re* 0.6 

At* 0.3 Hg* 800 Sb* 2,500 

Ba‡ 15 I

## 1 Se* 1,000 

Bi* 1,100 K* 5 Sm* 1,100 

Bk* 1,100 Lu* 1,100 Sn* 2,000 

C* 10 Mn* 15 Sr‡ 5 

Ca* 5 Mo* 1,000 Tc* 0.6 

Cd* 15 Na* 5 Te* 1,000 

Ce* 1,100 Nb§ 160 Th* 900 

Cf* 1,100 Ni* 7 Tl# 25 

Cl† 1 Np* 3 U# 300 

Cm* 1,100 Pa* 3 Y* 1,100 

Co* 40 Pb* 2,000 Zn* 15 

Cr† 1,000 Pd* 7 Zr* 900 

Cs* 10 Po* 2,000 

Probabilistic Modeling 

IF Condition Log-Normal Distribution 

GM GSD Min. Max. 

Kd < 2.7 L/kg Kd 1.001 Kd × 0.25 Kd × 1.75 

Kd ≥ 2.7 L/kg Kd Kd × 0.375 Kd × 0.25 Kd × 1.75 

Note: Adapted from Table 7.7-1 of SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. 

DOE assumes that any elements not listed in this table will have a minimal impact on soil 

buildup calculation with respect to dose and may be assigned a value of 1.0×10-20 L/kg. 

* From SRNL-STI-2009-00473, Table 16 

† From SRNL-STI-2010-00493, Rev. 0, Table 9 

‡ From SRNL-STI-2011-00011, Rev. 0, Table 2-2 

§ From Prikryl and Pickett, 2007 (ML073510127), Section 2.4.5 

§§ From SRNL-STI-2011-00672, Section 5 

# From SRNL-STI-2010-00493, Rev. 0, Table 8 

## From SRNL-STI-2012-00518, Rev. 0, Table 9 

GM: Geometric Mean 

GSD: Geometric Standard Deviation 

Min.: Minimum 

Max.: Maximum 
-31- 

NRC Staff Evaluation 

Human Receptor Definitions, Exposure Pathways, and Dose Calculations 

Demonstration that the 10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives are met is typically made 

through an evaluation exposure pathways for a receptor who represents an average member of 

the critical group10. DOE considers an all-pathways exposure scenario that is widely used in 

PAs and is well-suited for the purpose. DOE’s calculations are well documented and 

appropriate for the purpose. DOE’s receptor, the reference person, which is age- and genderweighted, differs from both the average member of the critical group and the more recent 

representative person11 concepts. Both the average member of the critical group and 

representative person concepts entail an assessment of the more highly exposed individuals in 

the population, who may have different characteristics than the population as a whole. For 

these reasons, and as discussed further in subsequent paragraphs, DOE should provide 

additional justification that the reference person is equivalent to the average member of the 

critical group used to demonstrate that the 10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives are met. 

For prospective assessments of the disposal of long-lived radionuclides, ICRP has stated it is 

reasonable to calculate the annual dose averaged over the lifetime of the individuals, which 

means that it is not necessary to calculate doses to different age groups; this average can be 

adequately represented by the annual dose to an adult (ICRP, 1998). Similarly, NRC 

recommends that the average member of the critical group for demonstration of compliance with 

10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives typically can be assessed for an adult since they are 

generally exposed to greater number of pathways. 

While NRC guidance continues to recommend a single adult dose conversion factor (rather than 

age- and gender-weighting) for the average member of the critical group, ICRP’s 

recommendations in Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007) support gender-weighting. ICRP in its 

recommendations equally weights the genders. DOE has elected to weight genders based on 

their proportion in the U.S. population. DOE has not provided a basis for the applicability of 

U.S. population data to the average member of the critical group for SRS. However, NRC staff 

does not expect that any regional variation in gender would be significantly different. 

 

10 The critical group is the group of individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to 

radioactivity for any applicable set of circumstances. 

11 ICRP defines the representative person, a hypothetical construct used to determine compliance with 

the dose constraint, in Publication 101 (ICRP, 2006). ICRP Publication 101 indicates that the 

representative person receives a dose that is representative of the more highly exposed individuals in the 

population and is equivalent to, and replaces, the average member of the critical group recommended 

previously by the ICRP. 
-32- 

Lastly, DOE’s use of median habits of the entire U.S. population for the habits of its reference 

person in the SRS PAs is inconsistent with the average member of the critical group concept 

typically used to demonstrate compliance with the 10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives 

because the habits of the critical group for SRS PAs may be different than those of the entire 

U.S. population. DOE has not provided a basis to support the use of U.S. population survey 

data in lieu of characteristics of the more highly exposed individuals in the population. Further, 

DOE has not provided a justification for use of median habits of the U.S. population. ICRP in its 

recommendations in Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007) indicates that if data on the representative 

person is not available, national population data can be relied upon, but identifies the use of the 

95th percentile of the survey data as a cautious approach. DOE should provide a basis to 

support the use of median U.S. population survey data in lieu of characteristics of the average 

member of the critical group or rely on characteristics associated with the 95th percentile of 

survey distributions to ensure a cautious approach. Additional discussion of the selection of 

receptor habits and characteristics is provided in the following sections regarding parameter 

values and distributions. 

Parameter Values and Distributions 

In general, DOE provides a transparent and traceable basis for recommended parameter 

classes including dose conversion factors, human and animal consumption rates, locallyproduced foods, transfer coefficients, exposure and inhalation parameters, soil parameters, crop 

and gardening parameters, IHI drilling parameters, and sorption coefficients used in 

SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. NRC staff’s review of individual parameters within each 

parameter class are provided below. 

Dose Conversion Factors 

Section 4.6.1.3 of NUREG-1854 recommends that DOE use dosimetry consistent with 10 CFR 

Part 20 to ensure consistency between the various 10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives, but 

recognizes that DOE can use more recent dose coefficients, provided the dosimetry is used 

consistently for all parts of the analysis, to the extent practicable. Rather than relying on dose 

coefficients recommended in FGRs 11 and 12 (EPA-520/1-88-020; EPA-402-R-93-081) or ICRP 

Publication 72 (ICRP, 1995), DOE elected to develop dose coefficients. The primary difference 

between DOE’s developed dose coefficients and those published in FGRs 11 and 12 (EPA520/1-88-020; EPA-402-R-93-081) or ICRP Publication 72 (ICRP, 1995) is that DOE age- and 

gender-weights the dose coefficients to develop general population dose coefficients, whereas, 

the dose coefficients in the FGRs 11 and 12 published only adult dose coefficients and 

considered them protective of the general population, while ICRP Publication 72 (ICRP, 1995) 

and FGR 13 (EPA-402-R-99-001) developed dose and risk coefficients, respectively, for various 

distinct age groups. Further, DOE uses revised gender-specific physiological parameters from 

ICRP Publication 89 (ICRP, 2002) and more recent information on energies and intensities of 
-33- 

radiations emitted by radionuclides from ICRP Publication 107 (ICRP, 2008) to develop dose 

coefficients for use in DOE PAs. 

DOE’s approach for determining dose coefficients for an age- and gender-weighted reference 

person is generally acceptable for demonstrating that the 10 CFR Part 61 performance 

objectives will be met except where noted because the coefficients are developed in a manner 

that is generally consistent with the development of coefficients reported in FGRs12 on radiation 

protection for internal and external exposures, provided that DOE’s reference person 

characteristics are consistent with the average member of the critical group concept (and more 

recent, though similar, representative person concept discussed in ICRP Publication 103 [ICRP, 

2007]. However, NRC staff notes that DOE has recommended values for inhalation dose 

coefficients associated with lung absorption type F for all radionuclides but has not justified in 

SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1 the use of inhalation dose coefficients associated with this 

lung absorption type. DOE should provide a technical basis for the use of inhalation dose 

coefficients associated with an appropriate lung absorption type or, in the absence of a technical 

basis, should recommend the dose coefficients associated with a lung absorption type that are 

most conservative.13 

NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE’s dose conversion factors under Monitoring Factor 6.2, 

“Model and Parameter Support,” in the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ML15238B403). NRC staff is 

also expanding Monitoring Factor 10.08, “Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for 

Transfer Factors,” in the SDF Monitoring Plan (ML13100A076) to include the dose conversion 

factors and will also monitor the dose conversion factors under this Monitoring Factor. 

Human Uptake Parameters 

Human uptake parameters identified in Tables 4 and 6 are either behavioral (e.g., consumption 

rates) or metabolic (e.g., breathing rate). As discussed in NUREG-1854 and NUREG-1573, 

behavioral and metabolic parameters should be representative of the average member of the 

critical group in the modeled exposure scenario and should be based upon regional or local 

habits and characteristics if these data are available. Generic parameter values found in the 

literature should be documented as to their applicability to the expected site conditions and an 

attempt to represent a best estimate of the actual values at the site. A minimum number of 

sources of generic data should be used to maintain internal consistency. 

NRC staff has identified issues with consumption rates under Monitoring Factors 6.2, “Model 

and Parameter Support,” and 10.08, “Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for 

 

12 Federal Guidance Reports 11 (EPA-520/1-88-020), 12 (EPA-402-R-93-081), 

and 13 (EPA-402-R-99-001). 

13 DOE-STD-1196-2011 also recommends that if specific information on the chemical form is lacking to 

identify a lung adsorption class, the most restrictive dose coefficient should be assumed. 
-34- 

Transfer Factors,” in the respective SRS TFs (ML15238B403) and SDF (ML13100A076) 

Monitoring Plans. In SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1, DOE has not provided a justification for 

the applicability of U.S. population survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F to the average 

member of the critical group for SRS PAs. Further, in recommending human uptake values, 

DOE frequently departs from its reference person definition by relying upon mean rather than 

median values. In some cases, even though DOE may not have adequately justified the use of 

national survey data in lieu of regional or local data or may have departed from its own definition 

of reference person median characteristics and habits, the parameter values may still be 

acceptable for use in SRS PAs. 

In addition, DOE’s development of probabilistic distribution parameter values based on U.S. 

population survey data are generally subject to the same concerns raised about the application 

of U.S. population behaviors to the average member of the critical group and are not discussed 

further for each parameter below. Also, if DOE were to justify the appropriateness of U.S. 

population survey data to the average member of the critical group for SRS PAs, DOE should 

provide a basis for the selection of parameter distributions and goodness-of-fit statistics for 

selected probabilistic distributions that were developed through trial and error fits to U.S. 

population survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE should also improve the clarity of how 

the distributions are developed. NRC staff were not able to independently confirm the 

development of probabilistic distributions from DOE’s descriptions. 

Discussion of NRC staff’s review of individual parameters and their supporting 

justifications follows: 

• Contaminated Water Consumption – DOE’s recommended contaminated water 

consumption rate is smaller than the default water consumption rate for the DandD code 

listed in Table 6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. Further, DOE has not provided 

justification for the applicability of either bottled water consumption as a surrogate for 

non-contaminated water consumption at SRS or the use of median values from U.S. 

population survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F for total water consumed by the “All 

Ages” group to the average member of the critical group at SRS. DOE should justify a 

contaminated water consumption rate based on regional or local characteristics and 

habits that would be expected to be consistent with the average member of the critical 

group for SRS PAs. 

• Soil and Dust Consumption – Although DOE has not provided justification for the 

applicability of U.S. population survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F for total soil and 

dust consumed to the average member of the critical group at SRS, NRC staff finds 

DOE’s recommended soil and dust consumption rate acceptable for use in the 

deterministic modeling for SRS PAs. The recommended rate is derived from the central 

tendency for children from Table 5-1 of EPA/600/R-09/052F and is twice the default 
-35- 

value for the residential scenario for the DandD code14 from Table 6.87 of 

NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. For the probabilistic modeling, DOE set the multiplier so that 

the distribution would range from half to twice the recommended value. The upper end 

of this range is consistent with the general population upper percentile reported in 

Table 5-1 of EPA/600/R-09/052F and is more than twice the maximum value for default 

sampling statistics listed in Table 6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3 and adequate for use 

in the SRS PAs. 

• Produce Consumption – Although DOE has not provided justification for the applicability 

of U.S. population survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F for total produce consumed by 

the “All Ages” group to the average member of the critical group at SRS, NRC staff finds 

that DOE’s recommended produce consumption rate acceptable for use in the 

deterministic modeling for SRS PAs. The recommended rate is derived from the mean 

for the “All Ages” group from Table 9-8 of EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE’s recommended 

rate is larger than the largest per capita rate for the adult age groups identified in Table 

9-1 of EPA/600/R-09/052F (assuming 80 kg mass for an adult) and consistent with the 

combined consumption rates for leafy and other vegetables, fruits, and grain listed in 

Table 6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. 

• Meat Consumption – Although DOE has not provided justification for the applicability of 

U.S. population survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F for total meat consumed by the 

“All Ages” group to the average member of the critical group at SRS, NRC staff finds that 

DOE’s recommended meat consumption rate value acceptable for use in the 

deterministic modeling for SRS PAs. The recommended value is the mean for the “All 

Ages” group from Table 11-7 of EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE’s recommended value is 

larger than the largest per capita rate for the adult age groups identified in Table 11-1 of 

EPA/600/R-09/052F (assuming 80 kg mass for an adult) and larger than the default beef 

consumption rate for the DandD code listed in Table 6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. 

• Milk Consumption – DOE’s recommended milk consumption rate is smaller than the 

default milk consumption rate for the DandD code listed in Table 6.87 of 

NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. Further, DOE has not provided justification for the applicability 

of U.S. population survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F for total fluid milk consumed by 

the average member of the critical group at SRS. DOE should justify a milk 

consumption rate based on regional or local characteristics and habits that would be 

expected to be consistent with the average member of the critical group for SRS PAs. 

 

14 NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3 provides an approved set of default parameter values and distributions for the 

DandD code, which NRC has endorsed for conservative screening analyses involving residual 

radioactivity in the biosphere. 
-36- 

• Poultry and Egg Consumption – DOE’s recommended poultry and egg consumption 

rates are smaller than the respective default poultry and egg consumption rates for the 

DandD code listed in Table 6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. Further, DOE has not 

provided justification for the applicability of U.S. population survey data from 

EPA/600/R-09/052F for poultry and egg consumed to the average member of the critical 

group at SRS. DOE should justify poultry and egg consumption rates based on regional 

or local characteristics and habits that would be expected to be consistent with the 

average member of the critical group for SRS PAs. 

• Fish Consumption – DOE’s recommended fish consumption rate is smaller than the 

default fish consumption rate for the DandD code listed in Table 6.87 of 

NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. Further, DOE has not provided justification for the applicability 

of U.S. population survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F for fish consumed to the 

average member of the critical group at SRS. DOE should justify the fish consumption 

rate based on regional or local characteristics and habits that would be expected to be 

consistent with the average member of the critical group for SRS PAs. 

• Breathing Rate – DOE’s recommended breathing rates are smaller than the activity 

weighted default breathing rate for the DandD code listed in Table 6.87 of 

NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. Further, DOE has not provided justification for the applicability 

of U.S. population survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F for breathing rate to the 

average member of the critical group at SRS. DOE should justify a breathing rate based 

on regional or local characteristics and habits that would be expected to be consistent 

with the average member of the critical group for SRS PAs. 

• Contaminated Food Fractions – DOE’s recommended fractions of contaminated foods 

are smaller than the default fractions of contaminated foods for the DandD code listed in 

Table 6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3, which conservatively assumes all foods are 

contaminated. DOE has not provided justification for the applicability of U.S. population 

survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F, Table 13-68, for home-produced foods to the 

average member of the critical group at SRS. For instance, DOE has not provided a 

justification for selecting total fractions rather than fractions for those who farm, for 

example, since this value would be more consistent with the exposure pathways 

evaluated by DOE in the dose methodology. DOE should justify contaminated food 

fractions for both deterministic and probabilistic modeling based on regional or local 

characteristics and habits that would be expected to be consistent with the average 

member of the critical group for SRS PAs. 

NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE’s human uptake parameters under Monitoring 

Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ML15238B403) 
-37- 

and Monitoring Factor 10.08, “Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer 

Factors,” in the SDF Monitoring Plan (ML13100A076). 

 
-38- 

Animal and Livestock Uptake Parameters 

Animal uptake parameters identified in Tables 5 and 7 are behavioral. As discussed in NUREG1854 and NUREG-1573, behavioral parameters should be representative of the average 

member of the critical group in the modeled exposure scenario and should be based upon 

regional or local habits and characteristics if these data are available. Generic parameter 

values found in the literature should be documented as to their applicability to the expected site 

conditions and an attempt to represent a best estimate of the actual values at the site. A 

minimum number of sources of generic data should be used to maintain internal consistency. 

Discussion of NRC staff’ review of animal uptake parameters and their supporting 

justifications follows: 

• Water Consumption by Animals – While DOE’s recommended meat and milk livestock 

water consumption rates for deterministic modeling are smaller than the rates from 

RG 1.109, Rev. 1 (ML003740384), Table E-3, and for the DandD code listed in 

Table 6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3, DOE has provided justification for the rates 

based on surveyed agricultural extension agents in the SRS region. DOE’s 

recommended poultry and egg-producing animal water consumption rates for 

deterministic modeling are consistent with the default rates from Table 6.87 of 

NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. NRC staff finds that DOE’s recommended water consumption 

rates are acceptable for use in the deterministic modeling for SRS PAs. For probabilistic 

modeling, DOE recommends ranges that span from the recommended deterministic rate 

to rates that are consistent with the default rates listed in Table 6.87 of 

NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3, and are consistent with the maximum range recommended for 

probabilistic modeling in NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. NRC staff finds that DOE’s 

recommended water consumption rates for meat- and milk-producing livestock 

acceptable for use in the probabilistic modeling for SRS PAs. 

• Fodder Consumption by Animals – DOE’s recommended fodder consumption rates for 

deterministic modeling are consistent with default values for the DandD code from Table 

6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3 and RG 1.109, Rev. 1 (ML003740384), Table E-3, for 

milk-producing livestock, poultry, and egg-producing animals15. Although, DOE’s 

recommended fodder consumption rate for deterministic modeling is less than the rates 

recommended in RG 1.109, Rev. 1 (ML003740384), and Table 6.87 of 

NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3, DOE has provided justification for the rate based on surveyed 

 

15 Although the fodder consumption rates for poultry and egg-producing animals are somewhat lower than 

the default values reported in Table 6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3 (e.g., DOE recommends 0.1 kg/d 

while Table 6.87 recommends 0.1192 and 0.1385 kg/d for poultry and egg-producers respectively), the 

difference is not expected to significantly alter the impact of this pathway to overall results of the PAs. 
-39- 

agricultural extension agents in the SRS regions16. Therefore, NRC staff finds the 

fodder consumption rates acceptable for use in the deterministic modeling for SRS PAs. 

For probabilistic modeling, DOE recommends ranges for fodder consumption by meatand milk-producing livestock from Table 4-1 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4 and are 

reportedly based on standard deviations of 8 kg/d and 11 kg/d for the fodder beef and 

milk cow consumption rates, respectively. However, it is not clear to NRC staff how the 

recommended ranges are consistent with the reported standard deviations and from 

where the reported standard deviations are derived. DOE should clarify its basis for the 

recommended probabilistic parameter ranges for fodder consumption for meat- and milkproducing livestock for SRS PAs.

• Soil Consumption by Animals – DOE’s recommended soil consumption rates for 

deterministic modeling are consistent with default values for the DandD code from 

Table 6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3 for poultry and egg-producing animals. 

Therefore, NRC staff finds the soil consumption rates for poultry and egg-producing 

animals acceptable for use in the deterministic modeling for SRS PAs.

• Contaminated Fodder and Soil Fractions – DOE’s recommended contaminated fodder 

consumption fractions for beef and milk-producing livestock for the deterministic 

modeling are smaller than the default fractions for the DandD code listed in Table 6.87 of 

NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3, which conservatively assumes all fodder is contaminated. 

Whereas, for poultry and egg-producing animals, DOE recommends a contaminated 

fraction for fodder and soil consistent with Table 6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. DOE 

has provided justification for the beef- and milk-producing contaminated fodder fraction 

for the deterministic modeling based on surveyed agricultural extension agents in the 

SRS regions which reports that the fractions are consistent with the proportion of fodder 

derived from pasture grasses as opposed to commercial grain or silage 

(WSRC-RP-91-17). However, DOE should provide a basis for assuming that the fraction 

of pasture grass is appropriate for estimating the fraction of livestock fodder 

contaminated based on regional practices. DOE should also provide a basis for the 

range of contaminated fractions recommended for the probabilistic modeling for livestock 

fodder. NRC staff finds the contaminated fractions for poultry and egg-producing animal 

fodder and soil acceptable for use in the deterministic modeling for SRS PAs. 

 

 

16 DOE also justified the fodder consumption rate for milk-producing livestock based on surveyed county 

extension agents for the SRS region. 
-40- 

NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE’s animal and livestock uptake parameters under 

Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403). NRC staff is also expanding Monitoring Factor 10.08, 

“Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF 

Monitoring Plan (ML13100A076) to include the animal and livestock uptake parameters and will 

also monitor the animal and livestock uptake parameters under this Monitoring Factor. 

Transfer Coefficients for Biotic Accumulation 

Transfer coefficients are metabolic parameters. As discussed in NUREG-1854 and 

NUREG-1573, metabolic parameters should be representative of the average member of the 

critical group in the modeled exposure scenario and should be based upon regional or local 

habits and characteristics if these data are available. Generic parameter values found in the 

literature should be documented as to their applicability to the expected site conditions and an 

attempt to represent a best estimate of the actual values at the site. In general, a minimum 

number of sources of generic data should be used to maintain internal consistency, however, for 

transfer coefficients, there are several compendia of values and associated uncertainty for the 

transfer of radionuclides through food products. These compendia often represent the only 

information available to develop transfer coefficients short of site-specific studies. 

In the Monitoring Plans for SRS TFs (see Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter 

Support”; ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403) and the SDF (see Monitoring Factor 10.08, 

“Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors”; ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13100A076), NRC staff identifies issues with DOE’s transfer coefficients regarding 

DOE’s treatment of uncertainty. In general, NRC staff finds the transfer coefficients 

recommended in SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1, which are derived from the hierarchy of 

reference documents, acceptable for use in the deterministic modeling for SRS PAs, except for 

the factors noted below. Further, DOE’s use of logarithmically-distributed multipliers for the 

probabilistic modeling is adequate for representing uncertainty in the transfer coefficients for the 

SRS PAs. However, DOE should improve the clarity of how the distributions were developed 

and their adequacy for capturing the relevant uncertainty in the supporting references for 

significant isotopes. NRC staff was not able to independently confirm the development of 

probabilistic distributions from DOE’s descriptions. 

• Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors – DOE has developed soil-to-plant transfer factors by 

weighting transfer factors from IAEA-TRS-472 by estimated percentages of 

commercially produced plant groups within 50 miles [80 kilometers] of SRS area based 

on the 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics 

(USDA, 2009). The weighting factors used by DOE were 55-percent non-leafy 

vegetables, 20-percent leafy vegetables, 15-percent legumes, and 10-percent tubers 

and roots. DOE has not provided a basis that the commercially-produced weightings 
-41- 

used to estimate the soil-to-plant transfer coefficients are appropriate for the average 

member of the critical group. 

• Fodder-to-Milk Transfer Factors – DOE recommends a value for the deterministic 

modeling for Tc from the HTF PA, Rev. 1 (SRR-CWDA-2010-00128, Rev. 1). The 

recommended value is from the HTF PA, Rev. 1 (SRR-CWDA-2010-00128, Rev. 1) 

because the highest document in the DOE’s hierarchy, PNNL-13421, reported a value 

that is lower than the value used in the HTF PA. While documents in DOE’s hierarchy 

that are lower than PNNL-13421 (i.e., NUREG/CR-5512 and ORNL-5786) report higher 

values than PNNL-13421, the higher values are not based on actual Tc data. Rather, 

the values reported in NUREG/CR-5512 and ORNL-5786 are derived from UCRL51939, which reports a lack of Tc data for milk in animals and bases the Tc value on I 

because of expected similarities between the chemical properties and behavior of 

pertechnetate and iodide anions in the body. The value reported in PNNL-13421 is 

derived from Tc-99m data that is presented in Johnson et al. (1988). The most recent 

IAEA compendium, IAEA-TRS-472, declined to recommend a value for Tc because of 

potential variation between Tc-99 and the short-lived gamma-emitting Tc isotopes (e.g., 

Tc99m) that were used in the studies available in the literature, including Johnson et al. 

(1988) [see IAEA-TECDOC-1616]. Therefore, DOE should document a justification that 

the recommended value for deterministic modeling is appropriate or rely upon more 

conservative values from other references in the hierarchy of documents. 

• Fodder-to-Beef Transfer Factors – DOE appears to recommend a value for deterministic 

modeling for Tc from WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4 even though sources higher in the 

hierarchy provide values for Tc that are somewhat larger (up to approximately 1.35 times 

larger) than the recommended value. The recommended value is from the HTF PA, 

Rev. 1 (SRR-CWDA-2010-00128, Rev. 1), because the highest document in the DOE’s 

hierarchy that reports a value, PNNL-13421, reported a value that is lower than the value 

used in the HTF PA, Rev. 1. Other documents lower in the DOE’s hierarchy (e.g., 

ORNL-5786) report larger Tc transfer coefficients than PNNL-13421. The value reported 

in PNNL-13421 is derived from Bishop et al. (1989), which is a compendium of literature 

values. However, the most recent IAEA compendium, IAEA-TRS-472, declined to 

recommend a value for Tc because of potential variation between Tc-99 and the shortlived gamma-emitting Tc isotopes that were used in the available studies, which include 

Johnson et al. (1988) [see IAEA-TECDOC-1616]. DOE should document a justification 

that the recommended value for deterministic modeling is appropriate or rely upon more 

conservative values from other references in the hierarchy of documents. 

• Water-to-Fish Transfer Factors – For Cm and Np, DOE recommended a fish 

bioaccumulation value from PNNL-13421 because IAEA-TRS-472 did not recommend a 

value. However, NUREG/CR-5512, although lower in the hierarchy, was more 
-42- 

conservative than PNNL-13421. However, the basis for NUREG/CR-5512 uses Pu as a 

surrogate because of a lack of Np- and Cm-specific data. Therefore, DOE’s use of the 

value from PNNL-13421 is reasonable. Also, for C and Pu, DOE uses smaller 

bioaccumulation values than recommended by IAEA-TRS-472. For C, DOE adequately 

justifies the selected value in Section 3.1.5 of SRNL-STI-2010-00447, Rev. 0 based on 

an SRS study (Hinton, et al., 2009) of carbon intake in SRS streams. For Pu, DOE 

argues that the value reported in IAEA-TRS-472, which is several orders of magnitude 

larger than the DOE-selected value, seems unreasonable based on professional 

judgment. DOE should use the IAEA-TRS-472 value according to its hierarchy or 

provide adequate support for the professional judgement that the IAEA-TRS-472 value is 

too large. 

NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE’s transfer coefficients under Monitoring Factor 6.2, 

“Model and Parameter Support,” in the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML15238B403) and Monitoring Factor 10.08, “Consumption Factors and Uncertainty 

Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13100A076). 

Exposure and Inhalation Parameters 

Exposure and Inhalation parameters identified in Table 9 are either behavioral (e.g., times spent 

performing activities) or physical (e.g., mass loading of soil in air). As discussed in NUREG1854 and NUREG-1573, behavioral parameters should be representative of the average 

member of the critical group in the modeled exposure scenario and should be based upon 

regional or local habits and characteristics if these data are available. Generic parameter 

values found in the literature should be documented as to their applicability to the expected site 

conditions and an attempt to represent a best estimate of the actual values at the site. A 

minimum number of sources of generic data should be used to maintain internal consistency. 

DOE has not provided a justification in SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1, for the applicability of 

U.S. population survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F to the average member of the critical 

group for time spent performing activities such as gardening, showering/bathing, and swimming 

for SRS PAs. For example, DOE limits many exposures to the time spent gardening. However, 

DOE has not provided a rationale for why the time spent gardening is appropriate considering 

that some exposure pathways may be viable for other outdoor activities. In this case, Table 

6.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3 recommends a higher outdoor time than DOE assumes for 

gardening. DOE should justify that the time spent gardening is appropriate for representing 

many of the outdoor exposure pathways for the average member of the critical group. Further, 

in recommending values for time spent gardening, bathing, swimming, and boating, DOE 

frequently departs from its reference person definition whose habits and characteristics are 

based on median habits of the U.S. population and relies upon mean values. 
-43- 

Nonetheless, for many of the other behavioral exposure and inhalation parameters the NRC 

staff finds the parameter values acceptable for use for the reference person in SRS PAs 

because the values are more conservative than values derived from regional surveys (e.g., 

compare DOE’s value for time spent swimming to the values reported in WSRC-RP- 91-17 for 

time spent swimming by a child or adult), or reasonable variations in the values for an average 

member of the critical group are not expected to significantly impact the results of DOE’s PAs 

(i.e., time spent bathing/showering and the difference between DOE’s value for time spent 

swimming and time spent swimming by a teen from WSRC-RP-91-17). NRC staff also finds 

both DOE’s justification for time spent boating adequate and DOE’s assumption of 20 hours for 

an inadvertent intruder to install a well acceptable for use in SRS PAs. 

DOE should provide a basis for the development of probabilistic distribution parameter values 

for the behavioral exposure and inhalation parameters (i.e., time spent gardening, drilling) to 

support the adequacy of assumed ranges. For behavioral exposure and inhalation parameter 

distributions that are based on U.S. population survey data (i.e., time spent bathing/showering, 

swimming), DOE’s development of probabilistic parameters is generally subject to the same 

concerns raised about the application of U.S. population behaviors to the average member of 

the critical group. Also, if DOE were to justify the appropriateness of using U.S. population 

survey data to represent the average member of the critical group for SRS PAs, DOE should 

provide a basis for the selection of parameter distributions. For example, the basis for the 

selection of probabilistic distributions developed through trial and error fits to U.S. population 

survey data from EPA/600/R-09/052F should include goodness-of-fit statistics to U.S. 

population survey data. DOE should also improve the clarity of how the fit distributions are 

developed (e.g., what survey values are used to normalize data). 

For the physical parameters, DOE relies upon studies of airborne release from free-fall spills of 

aqueous solutions; values from a Hanford analysis for moisture contents of ambient air and 

shower air; and mass loading of soil in air while gardening based on literature and an SRS 

study. While some of DOE’s justifications may not be as applicable to these activities17 at SRS, 

NRC staff finds the justification adequate for airborne release and moisture content of air while 

showering, swimming, and boating because any reasonable variation18 would not be expected 

to have a significant impact on PA results. Although the mass loading of soil in air while 

gardening is lower than the default values from Table 3.87 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3, the 

 

17 The velocity of water from a pressurized showerhead is larger than free-fall liquid assessed in DOEHDBK-3010-94, Vol. I, for example. Also, volatile radionuclides, such as Tc and I, during hot showers 

would partition to the gaseous phase increasing concentrations in the shower above water particulate 

concentrations. 

18 For example, multiplying the airborne release fraction and the moisture content from Table 9 suggests 

that the airborne concentration of water particles would be approximately 4 mg/m3 during showering. This 

concentration is comparable to data presented by Zhou et al. (2007) that indicates respirable water 

particle concentrations ranging from 0.02-0.1 mg/m3 for cold showers and 5-14 mg/m3 for hot showers. 
-44- 

values are consistent with an average dust loading measured above two agricultural fields 

at SRS (Shinn et al., 1982). 

NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE’s exposure and inhalation parameters under Monitoring 

Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15238B403). NRC staff is also expanding Monitoring Factor 10.08, 

“Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF 

Monitoring Plan (ML13100A076) to include the exposure and inhalation parameters and will 

also monitor the exposure and inhalation parameters under this Monitoring Factor. 

Soil Parameters 

Soil parameters identified in Table 10 are physical parameters. NRC staff finds that DOE 

provides site-specific justifications for the recommended values for these physical parameters or 

makes reasonable assumptions; therefore, the recommended values are adequate for modeling 

in SRS PAs given the significance of these parameters. 

Crop and Gardening Parameters 

Crop and gardening parameters identified in Table 11 are physical and behavioral parameters. 

In general, DOE provides site-specific justifications for the recommended values for the physical 

parameters or makes reasonable assumptions; therefore, the recommended values are 

adequate for modeling in SRS PAs given the significance of these parameters, except the crop 

and garden yield. DOE selected a value of 100 m2 for the area of the garden. However, as 

noted in Table 11 of this document, using the method described in the basis for the area of the 

garden (Section 3.4 of WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4) and substituting the deterministic 

parameter values for the produce consumption rate, crop yield, and locally produced fraction 

from SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1 results in an area of 16 m2 for the garden. While this 

smaller garden area would result in larger intruder exposures (because the area of the garden is 

in the denominator when determining concentrations in the soil from cuttings), NRC staff find the 

use of 100 m2 reasonable given that it is a behavioral parameter and consistent with the default 

value recommended in NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. However, DOE does not clearly identify the 

basis for the recommended values for the crop yield parameter for the probabilistic modeling. 

DOE should document the basis for the recommended values for the probabilistic modeling and 

demonstrate it is consistent with the range of areas expected based upon the rationale used to 

support the area of the garden. 

As discussed in NUREG-1854 and NUREG-1573, behavioral parameters should be 

representative of the average member of the critical group in the modeled exposure scenario 

and should be based upon regional or local habits and characteristics if these data are 

available. In general, DOE provides site-specific justifications for the recommended values for 

the physical parameters or makes reasonable assumptions; therefore, the recommended values 
-45- 

are adequate for modeling in SRS PAs given the significance of these parameters, except for 

the leafy fraction parameter. DOE justifies the recommended value for the leafy fraction for the 

deterministic modeling based upon commercially-produced vegetables grown in the SRS 

region. However, DOE has not justified the representativeness of commercially-produced 

vegetables for the average member of the critical group. DOE should provide a basis for using 

the fraction of commercially-produced vegetables for the average member of the critical group. 

NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE’s crop and gardening parameters under Monitoring 

Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15238B403). The NRC staff is also expanding Monitoring Factor 10.08, 

“Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF 

Monitoring Plan (ML13100A076) to include the crop and gardening parameters and will also 

monitor the crop and gardening parameters under this Monitoring Factor. 

Drilling Parameters 

In general, the drilling parameters are adequate for use in SRS PAs. However, with respect to 

the probabilistic distribution for the well depth, as previously noted in the SRS TFs Monitoring 

Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403) for Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter 

Support,” NRC staff indicated that Gordon Aquifer concentrations should not be used to 

demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives if higher concentrations are observed 

in another aquifer that can support groundwater-dependent pathways. NRC staff will continue 

to monitor DOE’s drilling parameters used in the SRS PAs in accordance with the 

Monitoring Plans. 

Sorption Coefficients 

DOE has not provided a basis for use of sandy soil sorption coefficients in the biosphere soil 

buildup model. Further, the NRC staff, in the Monitoring Plans for the SRS TFs (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15238B403) and SDF (ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076), identifies 

several issues with DOE’s justification for Kd values used for modeling transport in the 

subsurface and the biosphere. See Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in 

the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan and Monitoring Factors 7.01, “Certain Risk-Significant Kd Values 

in Site Sand and Clay;” 10.07, “Calculation of Build-Up in Biosphere Soil;” and 10.09, “Kd Values 

for SRS Soil,” in the SDF Monitoring Plan. DOE has not addressed the issues presented in the 

Monitoring Factors in the revised dose methodology. NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE’s 

justification for Kd values used in the SRS PAs in accordance with the Monitoring Plans. 

Follow-up Actions 

There are no Follow-up Actions related to the DOE biosphere dose methodology for the FTF, 

HTF, and SDF at SRS. 
-46- 

Open Issues 

There are no Open Issues related to the DOE biosphere dose methodology for the FTF, HTF, 

and SDF at SRS. 

Conclusions 

As a result of the review of several DOE documents that support the Revised Dose 

Methodology (SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1), the NRC staff concludes that the Revised 

Dose Methodology generally provides a transparent and traceable documentation of the human 

receptor definitions, exposure pathways, dose calculations, and parameter values and 

distributions. Further the methodology includes an all-pathways exposure scenario that is 

widely used in PAs and is well-suited for the purpose. DOE’s calculations are well documented 

and appropriate for the purpose. However, the NRC staff has identified the need for additional 

justification with respect to DOE’s human receptor definition and its relevance for the 

recommendation of parameter values and distributions and the basis for the recommendation of 

several parameter values and distributions identified herein. To reach these conclusions, the 

NRC staff focused on a number of areas listed in the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15238B403) related to Monitoring Factors 4.1, “Natural Attenuation of Key 

Radionuclides,” and 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” and in the SDF Monitoring Plan 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076) related to Monitoring Factors, 7.01, “Certain RiskSignificant Kd Values in Site Sand and Clay;”” 10.07, “Calculation of Build-Up in Biosphere Soil;” 

10.08, “Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors;” and 10.09, “Kd

Values for SRS Soil”. 

With respect to DOE’s human receptor definition, NRC staff has concerns with DOE’s receptor, 

the reference person, because it differs from the average member of the critical group concept. 

The average member of the critical group concept entails an assessment of the more highly 

exposed individuals in the population, who may have different characteristics than the U.S. 

population as a whole, whose characteristics DOE has tended to rely upon to define its 

receptor. NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE’s human receptor definition under Monitoring 

Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15238B403) and Monitoring Factor 10.08, “Consumption Factors and 

Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13100A076). 

NRC staff’s concern with the human receptor definition also resulted in concerns with 

recommended values for several parameters that quantify the receptor’s behavior including 

certain consumption rates, the breathing rate, the fractions of foods produced locally, certain 

exposure and inhalation parameters, and certain crop and gardening parameters. NRC staff will 
-47- 

continue to monitor DOE’s behavioral parameters and their applicability to the average member 

of the critical group under Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the SRS 

TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403) and Monitoring Factor 10.08, 

“Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF Monitoring 

Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076). 

NRC staff also identified concerns with the transparency and traceability of parameter value 

recommendations other than those summarized above and their supporting basis. These 

parameters include certain animal uptake parameters, transfer coefficients, exposure and 

inhalation parameters, and drilling parameters that are identified herein. NRC staff will continue 

to monitor DOE’s recommended parameter values and their supporting basis for these identified 

parameters under Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the SRS TFs 

Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403) and Monitoring Factor 10.08, 

“Consumption Factors and Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF Monitoring 

Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076). 

Finally, NRC staff also noted that issues regarding DOE’s selection of sorption coefficients are 

also relevant to the Revised Dose Methodology. NRC has identified that these issues will 

continue to be monitored under Monitoring Factor 4.1, “Natural Attenuation of Key 

Radionuclides,” listed in NRC staff’s SRS TFs Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML15238B403) and Monitoring Factors 7.01, “Certain Risk-Significant Kd Values in Site Sand 

and Clay;” 10.07, “Calculation of Build-Up in Biosphere Soil;” and 10.09, “Kd Values for SRS 

Soil,” listed in NRC staff’s SDF Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML13100A076). 

As a result of its review of DOE’s Revised Dose Methodology (SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, 

Rev. 1), NRC staff has identified the following items that should be addressed in future SRS 

PA revisions: 

• DOE should provide additional justification that the reference person is equivalent to the 

average member of the critical group used to demonstrate that the 10 CFR Part 61 

performance objectives are met. 

• DOE should provide a basis to support the use of median U.S. population survey data in 

lieu of characteristics of the average member of the critical group or rely on 

characteristics associated with the 95th percentile of survey distributions to ensure a 

cautious approach. 

• DOE should provide a technical basis for the use of inhalation dose coefficients 

associated with an appropriate lung absorption type or, in the absence of a technical 

basis, should recommend the dose coefficients associated with a lung absorption type 

that are most conservative. 
-48- 

• DOE should provide a justification for the applicability of U.S. population survey data 

from EPA/600/R-09/052F to the average member of the critical group for human 

consumption parameters in SRS PAs. Specifically, DOE should justify: 

o Contaminated water consumption rate based on regional or local characteristics 

and habits that would be expected to be consistent with the average member of 

the critical group for SRS PAs; 

o Milk consumption rate based on regional or local characteristics and habits that 

would be expected to be consistent with the average member of the critical group 

for SRS PAs; 

o Poultry and egg consumption rates based on regional or local characteristics and 

habits that would be expected to be consistent with the average member of the 

critical group for SRS PAs; 

o Fish consumption rate based on regional or local characteristics and habits that 

would be expected to be consistent with the average member of the critical group 

for SRS PAs; 

o Breathing rate based on regional or local characteristics and habits that would be 

expected to be consistent with the average member of the critical group for SRS 

PAs; and 

o Contaminated food fractions for both deterministic and probabilistic modeling 

based on regional or local characteristics and habits that would be expected to 

be consistent with the average member of the critical group for SRS PAs. 

• DOE should provide a basis for the selection of parameter distributions and goodnessof-fit statistics for selected probabilistic distributions for human consumption parameters 

that were developed through trial and error fits to U.S. population survey data from 

EPA/600/R-09/052F. DOE should also improve the clarity of how the distributions 

are developed. 

• DOE should provide a basis for assuming that the fraction of pasture grass is 

appropriate for estimating the fraction of livestock fodder contaminated based on 

regional practices. DOE should also provide a basis for the range of contaminated 

fractions recommended for the probabilistic modeling for livestock fodder. 

• DOE should clarify its basis for the recommended probabilistic parameter ranges for 

fodder consumption for meat- and milk-producing livestock for SRS PAs. 
-49- 

• DOE should improve the clarity of how the transfer factor probabilistic distributions were 

developed and their adequacy for capturing the relevant uncertainty in the supporting 

references for significant isotopes. 

• DOE has not provided a basis that the commercially-produced weightings used to 

estimate the soil-to-plant transfer coefficients are appropriate for the average member of 

the critical group. 

• DOE should document justifications that the recommended values for both fodder-tomilk and -beef transfer factors used in the deterministic modeling are appropriate or rely 

upon more conservative values from other references in the hierarchy of documents. 

• DOE should use the IAEA-TRS-472 value for the water-to-fish transfer factor according 

to its hierarchy or provide adequate support for the professional judgement that the 

IAEA-TRS-472 value is too large. 

• DOE should justify that the time spent gardening is appropriate for representing many of 

the outdoor exposure pathways for the average member of the critical group. 

• DOE should document the basis for the recommended values for crop yield used in the 

probabilistic modeling and demonstrate they are consistent with the range of areas 

expected based upon the rationale used to support the area of the garden. 

• DOE should provide a basis for using the fraction of commercially-produced vegetables 

for the average member of the critical group. 

Some of the items identified above have previously been documented by NRC under either 

Monitoring Factor 6.2, “Model and Parameter Support,” in the SRS TFs Monitoring Plan 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403) or Monitoring Factor 10.08, “Consumption Factors and 

Uncertainty Distributions for Transfer Factors,” in the SDF Monitoring Plan (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13100A076). As a result of this review, the NRC staff is expanding Monitoring Factor 6.2 

for the SRS TFs and Monitoring Factor 10.08 for the SDF to include the items identified above 

that were not previously documented. 

 
-50- 

References 

Anspaugh, L.R., Shinn, J.H., Phelps, P.L. and Kennedy, N.C. “Resuspension and 

Redistribution of Plutonium in Soils.” Health Physics. 29:571. 1975. 

Bishop, G.P., Beetham, C.J., and Cuff, Y.S. Review of Literature for Chlorine, Technetium, 

Iodine and Neptunium. NIREX Radioactive Waste Disposal Safety Studies. NSS/R193. 

Harwell, England: UK NIREX Limited. 1989. 

DOE-HDBK-3010-94, Vol. I. “Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for 

Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities: Volume I – Analysis of Experimental Data.” DOE Handbook. 

DOE-HDBK-3010-94, Volume I. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. December 

1993. Reaffirmed 2013. 

DOE-STD-1196-2011. “DOE Standard Derived Concentration Technical Standard.” DOE-STD1196-2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. April 2011. 

EPA-402-R-93-081. “External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil.” Federal 

Guidance Report No. 12. EPA-402-R-93-081. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. September 1993. 

EPA-402-R-99-001. “Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides.” 

Federal Guidance Report No. 13. EPA-402-R-99-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. September 1999. 

EPA-520/1-88-020. “Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentration and Dose 

Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion.” Federal Guidance Report No. 

11. EPA-520/1-88-020. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 

1988. 

EPA/600/R-09/052F. “Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).” EPA/600/R-09/052F. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. 

Hamby D.M. “Site-Specific Parameter Values for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Food 

Pathway Dose Model.” Health Physics. 62:136. 1992. 

HNF-SD-WM-TI-707, Rev. 3. “Exposure Scenarios and Unit Dose Factors for Hanford Tank 

Waste Performance Assessments.” HNF-SD-WM-TI-707, Revision 3. Richland, WA: Fluor 

Federal Services. July 2003. 

IAEA-TECDOC-1616. “Quantification of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater 

Environments for Radiological Assessments.” IAEA-TECDOC-1616. Vienna, Austria: 

International Atomic Energy Agency. 2009. 
-51- 

IAEA-TRS-472. “Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in 

Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments.” Technical Report Series No. 472. Vienna, Austria: 

International Atomic Energy Agency. 2010. 

ICRP. “Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides - Part 5 

Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation Coefficients.” International Commission on Radiological 

Protection Publication 72. Ann. ICRP. 26(1). 1995. 

ICRP. “Radiation Protection Recommendations as Applied to the Disposal of Long-lived Solid 

Radioactive Waste.” International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 81. Ann. 

ICRP. 28(4). 1998. 

ICRP. “Basic Anatomical and Physiological Data for Use in Radiological Protection Reference 

Values.” International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 89. Ann. ICRP. 

32(3-4). 2002. 

ICRP. “Assessing Dose of the Representative Person for the Purpose of the Radiation 

Protection of the Public.” International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 101. 

Ann. ICRP. 36(3). 2006. 

ICRP. “The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological 

Protection.” International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103. Ann. ICRP. 

37(2-4). 2007. 

ICRP. “Nuclear Decay Data for Dosimetric Calculations.” International Commission on 

Radiological Protection Publication 107. Ann. ICRP. 38(3). 2008. 

Johnson, J.E., Ward, G.M., Ennis, M.E., Jr., and Boamah, K.N. “Transfer coefficients of 

selected radionuclides to animal products. 1. Comparison of milk and meat from dairy cows and 

goats.” Health Physics. 54:161-166. 1988. 

MDL-MGR-MD-000001, Rev. 2. “Biosphere Model Report.” MDL-MGR-MD-000001, Revision 

2. Las Vegas, NV: Sandia National Laboratories. August 2007. 

ML13100A076. “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plan for Monitoring Disposal Actions 

Taken by the U.S. Department of Energy at the Savannah River Site Saltstone Disposal Facility 

in Accordance With the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.” ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13100A076. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

September 2013. 

 
-52- 

ML15238B403. “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plan for Monitoring Disposal Actions 

Taken by the U.S. Department of Energy at the Savannah River Site F-Area and H-Area Tank 

Farm Facilities in Accordance With the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005.” ADAMS Accession No. ML15238B403. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. October 2015. 

NUREG-1573. “A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Disposal Facilities – Recommendations of NRC’s Performance Assessment Working Group.” 

NUREG-1573. ADAMS Accession No. ML053250352. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. October 2000. 

NUREG-1854. “NRC Staff Guidance for Activities Related to U.S. Department of Energy Waste 

Determinations – Draft Report for Interim Use”. NUREG-1854. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML072360184. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. August 2007. 

NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3. “Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning: 

Parameter Analysis – Draft Report for Comment.” NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 3. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML082460902. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

October 1999. 

ORNL-5786. “A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of 

Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture.” ORNL-5786. Oak Ridge, TN: 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. September 1984. 

PNNL-13421. “A Compendium of Transfer Factors for Agricultural and Animal Products.” 

PNNL-13421. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. June 2003. 

Prikryl, J.D. and Pickett, D.A. “Recommended Site-Specific Soprtion Coefficients for Reviewing 

Non-High-Level Waste Determinations at the Savannah River Site and Idaho National 

Laboratory.” ADAMS Accession No. ML073510127. San Antonio, TX: Center for Nuclear 

Waste Regulatory Analyses. October 2007. 

RG 1.109, Rev. 1. “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.” 

Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1. ADAMS Accession No. ML003740384. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. October 1977. 

Roseberry, A.M. and Burnmaster, D.E. “Lognormal Distributions for Water Intake by Children 

and Adults.” Risk Analysis. 12(1):99-104. 1992. 

Shinn, J.H., Homan, D.N., and Gay, D.D. “Plutonium Aerosol Fluxes and Pulmonary Exposure 

Rates During Resuspension from Bare Soils Near a Chemical Separation Facility.” In 
-53- 

Precipitation Scavenging, Dry Deposition, and Resuspension. Volume 2. Edited by H.R. 

Pruppacher, R.G. Semonin, and W.G.N. Slinn. New York, N.Y.: Elsevier Science Publishing 

Co. 1982. 

Simpkins, A.A. and Hamby, D.M. “Uncertainty in Transport Factors Used to Calculate Historical 

Dose from 131I Releases at the Savannah River Site.” Health Physics. 85(2). August 2003. 

SRNL-STI-2009-00473. “Geochemical Data Package for Performance Assessment 

Calculations Related to the Savannah River Site.” SRNL-STI-2009-00473. Aiken, SC: 

Savannah River National Laboratory. March 2010. 

SRNL-STI-2010-00447, Rev. 0. “Land and Water Use Characteristics and Human Health Input 

Parameters for Use in Environmental Dosimetry and Risk Assessments at the Savannah River 

Site.” SRNL-STI-2010-00447, Revision 0. Aiken, SC: Savannah River National Laboratory. 

August 2006. 

SRNL-STI-2010-00493, Rev. 0. “Chloride, Chromate, Silver, Thallium, and Uranium Sorption to 

SRS Soils, Sediments, and Cementitious Materials.” SRNL-STI-2010-00493, Revision 0. 

Aiken, SC: Savannah River National Laboratory. September 2010. 

SRNL-STI-2011-00011, Rev. 0. “Estimated Neptunium Sediment Sorption Values as a Function 

of pH and Measured Barium and Radium Kd Values.” SRNL-STI-2011-00011, Revision 0. 

Aiken, SC: Savannah River National Laboratory. January 2011. 

SRNL-STI-2011-00672. “Variability of Kd Values in Cementitious Materials and Sediments.” 

SRNL-STI-2011-00672. Aiken, SC: Savannah River National Laboratory. January 2012. 

SRNL-STI-2012-00518, Rev. 0. “Radioiodine Geochemistry in the SRS Subsurface 

Environment.” SRNL-STI-2012-00518, Revision 0. Aiken, SC: Savannah River National 

Laboratory. May 2013. 

SRR-CWDA-2009-00017, Rev. 0. “Performance Assessment for the Saltstone Disposal Facility 

at the Savannah River Site.” SRR-CWDA-2009-00017, Revision 0. Aiken, SC: Savannah 

River Remediation LLC, Closure and Waste Disposal Authority. October 2009. 

SRR-CWDA-2010-00054, Rev. 0. “Evaluation of Well Drilling Records in the Vicinity of SRS 

from CY2005 Through CY2009.” SRNL-STI-2010-00054, Revision 0. Aiken, SC: Savannah 

River Remediation LLC, Closure and Waste Disposal Authority. July 2010. 

SRR-CWDA-2010-00128, Rev. 1. “Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the 

Savannah River Site.” SRR-CWDA-2010-00128, Revision 1. Aiken, SC: Savannah River 

Remediation LLC, Closure and Waste Disposal Authority. November 2012. 
-54- 

SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Rev. 1. “Dose Calculation Methodology for Liquid Waste 

Performance Assessments at the Savannah River Site.” SRR-CWDA-2013-00058, Revision 1. 

Aiken, SC: Savannah River Remediation LLC, Closure and Waste Disposal Authority. July 

2014. 

SRS-REG-2007-00002, Rev. 1. “Performance Assessment for the F-Tank Farm at the 

Savannah River Site.” SRS-REG-2007-00002, Revision 1. Aiken, SC: Savannah River 

Remediation LLC, Closure and Waste Disposal Authority. March 2010. 

WSRC-RP-91-17. “Land and Water Use Characteristics in the Vicinity of the Savannah River 

Site.” WSRC-RP- 91-17. Aiken, SC: Westinghouse Savannah River Company. March 1991. 

WSRC-RP-93-1174. “Westinghouse Soil Concentration Guidelines for the Savannah River Site 

Using the DOE/RESRAD Methodology.” WSRC-TR-93-304. Aiken, SC: Westinghouse 

Savannah River Company. June 1993. 

WSRC-RP-94-218. “Radiological Performance Assessment for the E-Area Vaults Disposal 

Facility.” WSRC-RP-94-218. Aiken, SC: Westinghouse Savannah River Company. April 1994. 

WSRC-STI-2006-00198, Rev. 0. “Hydraulic Property Data Package for the E-Area and Z-Area 

Soils, Cementitious Materials, and Waste Zones.” WSRC-STI-2006-00198, Revision 0. Aiken, 

SC: Washington Savannah River Company. September 2006. 

WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Rev. 4. “Baseline Parameter Update for Human Health Input and 

Transfer Factors for Radiological Performance Assessments at the Savannah River Site.” 

WSRC-STI-2007-00004, Revision 4. Aiken, SC: Savannah River National Laboratory. June 

2008. 

WSRC-STI-2007-00184, Rev. 2. “FTF Closure Cap Concept and Infiltration Estimates.” 

WSRC-STI-2007-00184, Revision 2. Aiken, SC: Savannah River National Laboratory. October 

2007. 

UCRL-51939. “Transfer Coefficients for the Prediction of the Dose to Man Via the Forage-CowMilk Pathway from Radionuclides Released to the Biosphere.” UCRL-51939. Livermore, CA: 

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. July, 1977. 

USDA. “2007 Census of Agriculture, U.S. Summary and State Data.” National Agricultural 

Statistics Service Report AC-07-A-51. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

2009. 

Zhou Y., Benson, J.M., Irvin, C., Irshad, H., and Cheng, Y-S. “Particle Size Distribution and 

Inhalation Dose of Shower Water Under Selected Operating Conditions.” Inhal. Toxicol. 19(4): 

333-342. 2007.