DOE/EM/NTP/HB-01



## A RESOURCE HANDBOOK

on

DOE TRANSPORTATION RISK ASSESSMENT

Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management National Transportation Program
July 2002A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page iiA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page iii 

# A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment

Prepared by: DOE Transportation Risk Assessment Working Group Technical Subcommittee Argonne National Laboratory: S.Y. Chen (chair), F. Monette, B.M. Biwer Bettis Atomic Power National Laboratory: C. Detrick, T. Dunn Oak Ridge National Laboratory: R. Pope 1 Sandia National Laboratories: R. Luna, R. Yoshimura, R. Weiner Science Applications International, Inc.: S. Maheras 2 DOE EH-32: S. Bhatnagar

Prepared for: National Transportation Program U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque Office Albuquerque, New Mexico

July 2002

1 Currently affiliated with the International Atomic Energy Agency. 2 Currently affiliated with Battelle Memorial Institute.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page iv 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page v 

# Contents

Figures vi Tables vi Foreword xi Acronyms xiii Acknowledgments xvii 1. Introduction 1 2. Review of Current DOE Transportati on Risk Assessments Requirements and Guidance 3 3. Historical Development of DO E Transportation Analyses 15 4. Transportation Methodology and Historical Review 23 5. Routing and Risk Assessment Models 45 6. Compilation of Assessment I nput Data and Parameters 63 7. References 135 8. Glossary 149 Appendix A: Discussion Papers on Em erging Transportation Risk Issues A-1 Appendix B: Correspondence and Docume ntation Relating to the Formation and Organization of the Transportati on Risk Assessment Working Group B-1 Appendix C: Isotopic Properties C-1 Appendix D: Radionuclide Food Transfer Factors D-1A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page vi 

# Figures

Figure 4.1. Technical Approach for Tran sportation Radiological Risk Assessments. 24 Figure 4.2. Incident-Free Cargo-Related Unit Risks for Members of the Public and Transportation Crews by Truck Transport 36 Figure 4.3. Distribution of the Total Incident-Free Do se to Members of the Public (persons at stops and off-link and on-link receptors) by Truck Transport 37 Figure 4.4. Incident-Free Cargo-Related Unit Risks for Members of the Public and Transportation Crews by Rail Transport 38 Figure 4.5. Distribution of the Total Incident-Free Do se to Members of the Public (persons at stops and off-link and on-link receptor s) by Rail Transport 39 Figure 4.6. Incident-Free Cargo-Related Unit Risks No rmalized by Dose Rate for Members of the Public 40 Figure 4.7. Incident-Free Cargo-Related Unit Risks for Different Cargo Types for Members of the Public, from the Waste Management Programmatic EIS 41 Figure 4.8. Normalized Incident-Free Cargo-Related Unit Risks for a Dose Rate of 1 mrem/h at 1 m for all Cargo Types Members of the Public, from the Waste Management Programmatic EIS 41 Figure 4.9. Distribution of the Total Incident-Free Do se to Members of the Pub lic, Persons at Stops, and Off-link and On-link Receptors for all Cargo Types, from the Waste Management Programmatic EIS, Truck Transport 42 Figure 4.10. Distribution of the Total Incident-Free Dose to Members of the Public, Persons at Stops, and Off-link and On-link Receptors for all Cargo Types, from the Waste Management Programmatic EIS, Rail Transport) 43 Figure 6.1. Population Densities for U.S. Cities with Populations over 100,000 73 Figure 6.2. Average Population Densities Determ ined for Truck Travel th rough Rural, Suburban, and Urban Zones 75 Figure 6.3. Average Population Densities Determ ined for Rail Travel through Rural, Suburban, and Urban Zones 76 Figure 6.4. Average Fraction of Truck Trav el through Rural, Suburban, and Urban Zones 77 Figure 6.5. Average Fraction of Rail Tra vel through Rural, Suburba n, and Urban Zones 78 Figure 6.6. Weekday Rural Highway Traffic, 1978-1995 83 Figure 6.7. Weekday Urban Highway Traffic, 1978-1995 84 Figure 6.8. Scheme for NUREG-0170 Classification by Accident Severi ty Category for Truck Accidents 99 Figure 6.9. Scheme for NUREG-0170 Classification by Accident Severi ty Category for Rail Accidents 100 Figure 6.10. NRC Modal Study SNF Cask Respon se Regions and Conditional Probabilities. 102 

# Tables

Table 4.1. Reviewed DOE NEPA Documents Containing Comprehensive Transportation Risk Assessments 32 Table 4.2. Effective Package Sizes and Dose Rates from the WM PEIS 40 Table 6.1. Dimensions and Characteristics of Common Radioactive Material Packagings 64 Table 6.2. Default External Dose Rates for Sh ipments of Different Radioactive Waste Types 66A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page vii 

### Table 6.3. Approximate Distances of Truck Crew to the Shipment Package 68 Table 6.4. Demographic Data for the United States 70 Table 6.5. U.S. Population Densit y Data from the 1990 Census 70 Table 6.6. U.S. Population Density by Size of Place 72 Table 6.7. U.S. Cities with over 1.5 Million Persons 73 Table 6.8. U.S. Cities with Population Densities Greater th an 5,000 Persons/km 2 

### 73 Table 6.9. Comparing Populat ion Density Data (persons/km 2 

### ) by Density Zone for the U.S. 74 Table 6.10. Comparing Fraction of Travel Data for the United States 74 Table 6.11. RADTRAN Suggested Vehicle Speeds 79 Table 6.12. Maximum Posted Speed Limits for Passenger Vehicles 80 Table 6.13. Maximum Train Operating Speeds on Different Classes of Track a 

### 81 Table 6.14. Average Traffic Volumes on the U.S. Interstate System 82 Table 6.15. One-Way Traffic Volumes for Truck Transport 84 Table 6.16. National Average Traffic Volumes on Class I Railroads a 

### 85 Table 6.17. Metropolitan Areas with Commuter Rail Systems 86 Table 6.18. Indoor/Outdoor Air Concentrat ion Ratios for Application as DRFs 88 Table 6.19. Truck Stop Parameters 90 Table 6.20. Combination Truck Accident Rates by State 92 Table 6.21. Rail Accident Rates by State 97 Table 6.22. Fractional O ccurrences for Accidents by Severity Category and P opulation Density Zone 101 Table 6.23. Estimated Severity Fractions (C onditional Probabilities) for SNF Shipments 103 Table 6.24. Package Release Fractions from NUREG-0170 105 Table 6.25. Aerosol and Respirable Fractions of Released Material 105 Table 6.26. Total Respirable Release Fractions for TRU Waste Type B Containers 106 Table 6.27. Release Fractions for Transportation Ac cidents by SNF Type for the NRC Modal Study Cask Response Regions 107 Table 6.28. Release Fractions for Transportation Ac cidents Involving Graphite SNF for the NRC Modal Study Cask Response Regions 108 Table 6.29. Accident Release Fracti ons for SNF Shipments by Truck 109 Table 6.30. Accident Release Fracti ons for SNF Shipments by Rail 110 Table 6.31. Representative DOE LLW Radionuc lide Composition by Percent Activity 111 Table 6.32. Radionuclide Inventories (Ci) of CH- TRU Waste Stored at DOE Sites in 1995 114 Table 6.33. Radionuclide Inventories (Ci) for RH- TRU Waste Stored at DO E Sites in 1995 115 Table 6.34. Estimated Radionuclid e Compositions (Ci/canister) fo r HLW Canisters at DOE Sites a 

### 117 Table 6.35. Radionuclide Inventories (C i) for Representative SNF Types a 

### 120 Table 6.36. Breathing Rates for Inhalation Exposures 125 Table 6.37. Percentage of Farmland by State in the Cont iguous United States a 

### 125 Table 6.38. Combination Truck Injury Rates by State 127 Table 6.39. Combination Truck Fatality Rates by State 129 Table 6.40. Rail Injury and Fatality Rates by State 132 Table 6.41. Estimated Vehicle Emissions (10 μ m) and Fatalities per Kilomete r for all Truck Classes and Rail 134A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page viiiA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page ix 

# A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk AssessmentA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page x 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page xi 

# Foreword

This resource handbook was compiled for the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Transportation Risk Assessment Working Group (TRAWG). The TRAWG, established under the auspices of DOE’s National Transportation Program, seeks to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of transportati on risk assessments conducted for DOE environmental impact statements and environmental assessments prep ared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The TRAWG is composed pr imarily of members of DOE program offices and draws heavily upon the technica l expertise, insights, and pr actical experience of program staff from across the DOE complex. The vision of the TRAWG includes reducing transportation risk assessment preparation time and cost, ensuring technical adequacy of such assessments, promoting consistency of transportation risk assessments among DOE programs, and expediting the assessment review and approval process. This document includes the first of a planned series of discussion papers on topical aspects of transportation risk pr oblems. These discussion papers are intended to provide practical advice to program managers a nd technical personnel responsible for preparing NE PA documents and other tran sportation risk assessments.

To enhance future versions of this ha ndbook, comments and suggestions regarding the usefulness of the material in the different se ctions and the discussion paper are encouraged. Contributions of additional, relevant information and ideas for new topics are also solicited. Please send any such correspondence to: National Transportation Program U.S. Department of Energy PO Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 Attn: Ashok Kapoor Phone: (505) 845-4574 Fax: (505) 845-5508 E-Mail: akapoor@doeal.govA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page xii 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page xiii 

# Acronyms

AADT annual average daily traffic AAR Association of American Railroads AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission ALARA as low as reasonably achievable APTA American Public Transit Association BWR boiling water reactor CEDE committed effective dose equivalent CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Re sponse, Compensation and Liability Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH-TRUW contact-handled transuranic waste DDWEF distance-dependent worker exposure factor DOC U.S. Department of Commerce DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DRF dose reduction factor EA environmental assessment EBR-II Experimental Breeder Reactor II EDE effective dose equivalent EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal High way Administration FONSI finding of no significant impact FRA Federal Railroad Administration FRERP Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement GIS geographic information system GPUC General Public Utilities Company HAZMAT hazardous materials HLW high-level (radioactive) waste HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System HWCQ highway route controlled quantity IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ICRP International Commissi on on Radiological Protection IDB integrated database (of DOE radioactive waste) IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety INEEL Idaho National Engineering and E nvironment Laboratory (formerly Idaho National Engineering Laboratory [INEL]) INEL Idaho National Engineering Laboratory LCF latent cancer fatalityA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page xiv 

### LLMW low-level mixed waste LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLW low-level waste LLWMP Low-Level Waste Management Program LSA low specific activity LWT light-weight truck MEI maximally exposed individual NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA National Highway and Tr affic Safety Administration NPTS National Personal Transportation Survey NRC U.S. Nuclear Re gulatory Commission NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NTP National Transportation Program (DOE) NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act OEM Office of Environmental Management OMC Office of Motor Carriers ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PAG protective action guide PNL Pacific Northwest Laboratory (now PNNL — Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PWR pressurized water reactor QA quality assurance RAMPOST Radioactive Mate rials Post-Notification rem roentgen equivalent man RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RH-TRUW remote-handled transuranic waste RMIR Radioactive Materi als Incident Reporting ROD Record of Decision SECOM Security Communications SMAC Shipment Mobility Accountability Collection SNF spent nuclear fuel SNL Sandia National Laboratories SRS Savannah River Site SWB standard waste box SWIMS Solid Waste Information Management System TEDE total effective dose equivalent TI transport index TIGER Topologically Integrated Geogra phic Encoding and Referencing System TMI Three Mile Island TRAGIS Transportation Routing Analys is Geographic Information System TRAWG Transportation Risk Assessment Working Group TRIGA training, researc h, and isotope reactor TRUW transuranic waste U.S. United States U.S.C. United States CodeA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page xv 

### WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant WVDP West Valley De monstration Project

UNITS OF MEASURE Ci curie(s) d day(s)

° F degree(s) Fahrenheit ft foot (feet) g gram(s) gal gallon(s) h hour(s) in. inch(es) kg kilogram(s) km kilometer(s) km 2 

### square kilometer(s) lb pound(s) m meter(s) mi mile(s) mi 2 

### square mile(s) mph mile(s) per hour nCi nanocurie(s) s second(s) yr year(s)A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page xvi 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page xvii 

# Acknowledgments

This project was conducted by the Technical Subcommittee of the Transportation Risk Assessment Working Group (TRAWG) in support of the mission of the National Transportation Program (NTP), DOE’s Office of Environmenta l Management (EM). Ashok Kapoor of the NTP, Albuquerque, NM has provide d leadership for this project. Appreciation is extended to Gary Lanthrum, Director of the program and Kent Hancock, Director of Office of Transportation (EM-24). We express our speci al thanks to Carol Borgstom , Director, Office of National Environmental Protection Policy Ac t and Assistance, Environment, Safety and Health (EM-42) and her staff and the staff of General Counsel ’s office of Environment and Nuclear Program (GC-50) for reviewing the document and offeri ng valued suggestions. Our many thanks are extended to Mr. Peter Siebach of DOE Chicago Operations Office for his support and insights. Our deep appreciation goes to TRAWG member s and their supporting technical staff, who represent various DOE headquarters organizations, field offices, and national laboratories, for supporting this project. Our special recognition is exte nded to Mr. John Amish and hi s editorial staff at Argonne National Laboratory and staff at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in providing valuable contributions. Finally, we also express our ap preciation to the secret arial staff of NTP for document production and distribution.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page xviii 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 1 

# 1. Introduction

This resource handbook contains useful inform ation to streamline ra dioactive material transportation risk assessments for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents prepared for U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) programs. Streamlining refers to instituting steps that can increase the efficiency of future assessments, reduce costs, and promote increased quality and consistency across the DOE complex. This handbook takes advantage of the wealth of information developed through decades of DOE’s NEPA experience. It contains a review of historical assessments; a descri ption of comprehensive and gene rally acceptable transportation risk assessment methodology (i.e., models); and a compilation of supporting data, parameters, and generally accepted assumptions. This ha ndbook also includes a discussion paper that addresses cumulative impacts (A ppendix A). The discussion pape r illustrates the evolving and sometimes unresolved issues encoun tered in transportation risk a ssessment. Other topics, such as sabotage, environmental justic e, and human factors, may be a ddressed in the future. This resource document was developed as the fi rst primary reference book providing useful information for conducting transportation risk asse ssments for radioactive material in the NEPA context. Although this resource handbook is primarily inte nded for NEPA assessments, the information provided here can also be used for other purposes. For example, in addition to being included in NEPA documentation, transportation risk assess ments often provide the best information possible to support transportati on planning, operations, evaluati on, public information, program/ budget prioritization, and pe rformance measurement. The majority of information provided in this handbook is widely applicab le and not limited to NEPA app lications. Consequently, this handbook provides a useful resource for those co nducting transportation risk assessments in general. The motivation behind preparing this handbook is to document and disseminate lessons learned and information accumulated from over 20 years of experience by DOE and its contractors in preparing transportation risk assessments that a ddress the shipment of virtually all types of radioactive materials and wastes. This experi ence has provided considerable understanding of the risks posed by transportation and has led to a significant am ount of information concerning assessment methods, input parameters, and assumpti ons. This document presents the majority of this information in a single source for DOE, its contractors, or others interested in conducting transportation risk assessments. This handbook w ill be periodically updated to provide current information. This handbook was compiled and reviewed by the Technical Subcommittee of the DOE’s Transportation Risk Assessment Working Group (TRAWG). The TRAWG, established by the DOE’s National Transportation Program (NTP), seeks to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of transportati on risk assessments conducted for DOE environmental impact statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs). The TRAWG is composed primarily of members of DOE program offices and draws heav ily upon the technical expe rtise, insights, and practical experience of persons from across the DOE complex. The vision of the TRAWG includes reducing transportation risk assessment preparation time and co st, ensuring technical adequacy of such assessments, promoting cons istency among DOE programs, and expediting theA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 2 

### assessment review and approval process. Disc ussion papers produced by the TRAWG Technical Subcommittee, the first one pres ented in Appendix A, provide us eful insights into the underlying issues for both program managers and technical staff responsible for preparing NEPA documents or other transportation ri sk assessments. A record of the initial correspondence and the inaugural meeting of the TRAWG, includi ng a listing of members and a mission statement, is provided in Appendix B at the end of this handbook. At present, the scope of this handbook is limited to the assessment of radiological risks from shipping radioactive materials by truck and train. Chemical risks, the risks of transporting hazardous chemicals, are not addressed in this document. The vast majority of radioactive material and radioactive waste shipments in the United States (U.S.) are conducted by these modes. Although shipments of radioactive material by air and water are po ssible, these transport modes are generally considered secondary for waste shipments. It is anticipated that information concerning air and water shipment s will be included in future updates to this handbook. In addition, the handbook is limited to those risks incurre d during the actual sh ipment of radioactive materials; risks incurred during packaging and load ing or unloading of transport vehicles are not included because such activities are generally considered in facility assessments.

This handbook contains six main sections and three appendices to address all aspects of the transportation risk assessment process. Sec tion 2 summarizes existi ng guidance on preparing transportation risk assessments and pertinent federal regulatio ns governing the shipment of radioactive materials. A brief history of NEPA transportation risk assessments is given in Section 3. Section 4 summarizes results from previous assessments and provides the current methodology used in transportation risk analysis . A brief description of the major computer programs and models most commonly used is given in Section 5. Section 6 provides a compendium of data required for most assessm ents. Reference documents cited in the handbook are listed in Section 7. A glossary of trans portation assessment-related terms is provided in Section 8. Appendices C and D pr ovide more detailed data on ra dionuclide input parameters. Appendix A is the first in a coll ection of papers that discuss issues often encountered when conducting transportation risk assessments. These issues include environmental justice, sabotage, uncertainty of results, human factor s, hazardous chemicals, ecological impacts, and cumulative impacts. The first discussion paper summarizes previous NEPA experience and offers insight into the curren t state of knowledge and experien ce in addressing the issue of cumulative impact. It is anticipated that more of these discussion papers will be added, as appropriate, in future updates of the handbook.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 3 

# 2. Review of Current DOE Transportation Risk Assessments Requirements and Guidance

A brief summary of the risks posed by transporti ng radioactive materials is provided in Section 2.1, followed by a discussion of NEPA requirements in Section 2.2. Section 2.3 provides general guidance from DOE on the preparation of transpor tation risk assessments for inclusion in EAs and EISs. Although this section provides guidance, no new requirements are either suggested or imposed. Section 2.4 briefly summar izes regulations of other fede ral agencies pertaining to the shipment of radioactiv e materials that must be addresse d in these types of assessments.


## Q 2.1 Radioactive Material Transportation Risks
The transportation of radioactive materials involv es a risk both to crew members and members of the public. Part of this risk re sults from the nature of transpor tation itself, independent of the radioactive characteristics of the cargo. For instance, increased levels of pollution from vehicular emissions (e.g., fugitive dust and engine exhaust) may affect human health. Similarly, accidents during transportation may cause injuries and fatalities. These risks can be viewed as “vehicle-related” risks. On the other hand, the transportation of radioactive materials may pose an additional risk because of the characteristic s and potential hazards of the material being transported. These risks are cons idered “cargo-related” risks. For radioactive materials, the cargo-related imp acts of primary concern to human health during transportation may be caused by exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. Exposures to radiation occur both during routine (i.e., incident -free) transportation a nd during accidents. During routine operations, the external radiation fi eld of the cargo must be below limits specified in federal regulations. During transportation-related accident s, human exposures may occur following the release and dispersal of radioactiv e materials via multiple environmental pathways, such as exposure to contaminated ground, contamin ated air, or ingestion of contaminated food. The potential exposures to the general populati on from transporting radioactive materials, whether during routine operations or from postu lated accidents, usually result in such a small dose that the primary adverse health effect is the potential induction of latent cancers (i.e., cancers that occur after a latency period of seve ral years from the time of exposure). The correlation of radiation dose and human health e ffects for low doses has be en traditionally based on the “linear/no-threshold hypothesis,” which ha s been described by various international authorities on protection against radiation. This hypothesis implie s, in part, that even small doses of radiation cause some risk of induci ng cancer and that cancer induction is directly proportional to radiation dose, so doubling the radiation dose could double the expected numbers of cancers. The data on the hea lth risk from radiation have b een derived primarily from human epidemiological studies of past exposures, such as Japanese surv ivors of the atomic bomb in World War II and persons exposed during medical a pplications. The types of cancer induced byA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 4 

### radiation are typically not unique and are sim ilar to other cancers that commonly occur among the population. Radiation-induced cancers are generally expre ssed years after exposure.


## Q 2.2 The National Environmental Policy Act
One statutory basis under which federal agencies may need to undertake risk assessment in decision-making with regard to the transportati on of radioactive materials is found in NEPA, codified at 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §4321 et seq. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that, ...to the fullest extent possi ble, all agencies of the Federal Government must include in every recommendation or repor t on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecti ng the environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on (1) the en vironmental impact of the proposed action, (2) any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoide d should the proposal be implemented, (3) alternatives to the proposed action, (4) the relationship between the local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term produ ctivity, and (5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources t hat would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. An agency is required to prepare an EIS whenever a proposed action qualifies as a “major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human envir onment.” [“Major,” as used above in NEPA, reinforces but does not have a meaning independent of “significantly” (see 40 CFR §1508.18).]

NEPA also established the Council on Envir onmental Quality (CEQ), which promulgates regulations to promote compliance with NEPA ’s “action-enforcing” requirements. These regulations interpret the terms of NEPA and define the responsibili ties of federal agencies with respect thereto (40 Code of Federal Regulati ons (CFR) Parts 1500-1508). The regulations state that an agency proposing an act ion may prepare an EA if it ha s not determined under its NEPA regulations that the actio n is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an EIS. The purpose of an EA is to provide evidence and analys is for an agency determination of whether an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.9). If an agency dete rmines that an EIS is required, the EA would facilitate the preparation of the EIS. If an agency determines th at an EIS is not required, the agency issues a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) that explains how the agency reached its determination (40 CFR 1508.13). DOE’s NEPA re gulations, pursuant to instructions in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR Part 1507.3) , contain detailed lists, in Appendices A, B, C, and D of Subpart D in 10 CFR Part 1021, of specific actions that are categorical ex clusions (Appendices A and B), that “normally require EAs but not nece ssarily EISs” (Appendix C) , and that “normally require EISs” (Appendix D). Transportation can be a component in a number of actions under each of these three classifications. The CEQ regulations further require that in preparing an EIS, an agency consider three types of impacts on the environment: direct, indirect, and cumulative. Indirect impacts are defined as those “which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther remove d in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable” (40 CFR §1508.8). A cu mulative impact is defined as an “impact on the environment which results from the incremen tal impact of the action when added to otherA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 5 

### past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR §1508.7). Cumulative impacts can be a concern with regard to transporting spent nuclear fuel (SNF), transuranic waste (TRUW), or hi gh-level waste (HLW). Both the physical rail system and the U.S. Department of Transporta tion’s (DOT’s) highway routing regulations for transport of these types of wast e (discussed in Secti on 2.4.2) effectively rest rict the number of available transportation routes within a geographic area. Hence, successive shipments or campaigns of radioactive materials through the sa me geographic area may result in cumulative radiological risks. Both NEPA and the CEQ regulations require that agencies consider and evaluate appropriate alternatives to proposed actions that will impact the environmen t. Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA provides that all agencies of the Federal G overnment shall “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended cour ses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning al ternative uses of available re sources.” The CEQ regulations [40 CFR §1508.9(b)] require th at an EA “include brief discussions . . . of alternatives as required by §102(2)(E). . . .” These requirements have been construed to be independent of any determination regarding preparati on of an EIS and to be operative even if an agency makes a finding of no significant environmental impact (R iver Road Alliance, 1986). Moreover, DOE’s NEPA procedures for applying a categorical excl usion to a proposed action require that the action must pose no unresolved confli cts considering alternate uses of available resources within the meaning of Section 102(2)(E ) of NEPA [10 CFR 1021.410(b)(2)]. An agency is responsible for determining the appr opriate range of alterna tives to be considered through the “rule of re ason.” Under the rule of reason, an ag ency is not required to consider all possible alternatives for each as pect of a proposed action. Rath er, the agency need consider “only a reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives” (Natural Resources Defense Council [NRDC], 1972). The sa me language was also used in the qualifying remarks found in CEQ guidance (“40 Most Asked Questions,” 46 Federal Register (FR) 18026; March 23, 1981). What constitutes a reasonable range of alternativ es depends on the nature of the proposal and the circumstances of each case. In general, the sma ller the impact of the pr oposed action, the less extensive the search for altern atives an agency may be required to undertake. However, reviewing courts have generally insisted that an agency consid er such alternatives as may partially or completely meet the proposal’s goal. As a consequence, the scope of alternatives that must be considered by an agency is a function of how narrowly or broadly the objective of its proposed action is viewed (City of New York, 1984). For example, a major action involving transportation of SNF or HLW wa ste may require considering a fu ll spectrum of alternatives (i.e., transportation mode and route alternativ es) that would adequately protect the human environment. The “rule of reason” governs not only which altern atives the agency must consider, but also the extent to which it must discuss them (NRDC, 1988). An agency’s requisite consideration of alternatives must adequately articulate the reas ons for the agency’s choi ce and its rejection of available alternatives. While an agency is not re quired to select any partic ular alternative and theA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 6 

### examination of alternatives need not be exha ustive, it must “be sufficient to demonstrate reasoned decision making” (Fritiofson, 1985). Ther efore, an agency contemplating a major action including transportation of radioactive waste would generall y perform an appropriate risk assessment for each alternative (within the full spectrum of available and appropriate transportation mode alternatives) to deve lop a well-reasoned decision. However, DOE frequently has no choice regardi ng routes, and the risk from tr ansportation is usually small regardless of route. An agency may find that information needed for the evaluation of environmental impacts in an EIS cannot be obtained because th e overall costs of doing so are exorbitant or the means to obtain such information are not known. Th e CEQ regulations (40 CFR §1502.22) specify how an agency is to proceed in such circumstances. When an agency is evaluating “reasonably foreseeable” significant adverse effects on the hu man environment and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency must make clear that such information is lacking. If relevant incomplete information is essential to a reason ed choice between alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency is required to include the information in its analysis. If such information cannot be obtaine d because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known, the agency is required to include within its EIS: (1) a statement that such informatio n is incomplete or unavailable; (2) a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable si gnificant adverse impacts on the human environment; (3) a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable signific ant impacts on the human environment; and (4) the agency’s evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. For the purposes of 40 CFR §1502.22, the term “reas onably foreseeable” includes impacts that have catastrophic consequences, even if their prob ability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and is consistent with the rule of reason. As discussed below, these regulations can be particularly important in developing an analysis of accident-related risk s associated with the transportation of radioactive materials a nd consistent with NEPA requirements. An EIS or other environmental study previously pr epared by a federal agency may be used to assist in complying with the requirements of NEPA. In fact, NEPA regulations encourage the use of such reports [see 40 CFR §§1500.4(n) a nd 1506.4]. An agency does, however, have an obligation to independently evaluate any doc ument (including an EIS, EA, or other environmental report) prepared by others upon whic h the agency intends to rely in complying with NEPA (40 CFR §1507.2). If such analyses satisfy an agen cy’s obligation to study the potential effects of its own proposed action, th e agency has no obligatio n to prepare its own study. However, an agency may not substitute compliance with standards or regulations administered by another agency for required NE PA analysis (Calvert Cliff’s Coordination Committee, 1971). This issue is of partic ular significance in SNF, TRUW, and HLWA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 7 

### transportation, since the packaging and transportation of such mate rials is extensively regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi on (NRC) and the DOT (see Section 2.4).


## Q 2.3 DOE Guidance
The procedures that DOE shall use to comply with Section 102(2) of NEPA and the CEQ regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500- 1508) are provided in DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). Those procedures are intended to supplement and to be used in conjunction with the CEQ regulations. DOE internal requi rements and responsibilities for implementing NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and the DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures are established in DOE Order 451.1B. However, no specific federal requirements for condu cting transportation risk assessments exist. Guidance concerning the preparation of risk asse ssments for DOE NEPA ac tivities is contained in Recommendations for the Preparation of Envi ronmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements , commonly called the “Green Book.” In addition to revisiting many of the CEQ regulations, the Green Book emphasizes that environmental impacts should be evaluated using a sliding scale approach. As di scussed in the Green Book (DOE, 1993): The term “scale” refers to the spectrum of significance of en vironmental impact. Generally, those proposals with greater pot ential for significant environmental impact require more analysis than those pr oposals with very small environmental impacts. ... In other words, in using the slid ing scale approach to NEPA analysis, the preparer should analyze issues and impacts with the amount of detail that is commensurate with their importance. Therefore, the extent of a transportation risk assessment in a document such as an EA or EIS should depend on the significance of the transportati on. With respect to tr ansportation impacts, the Green Book provides the following guidance (DOE, 1993): Transportation Impacts When transport of waste or materials of a hazardous or radioactive nature is a necessary part of a proposed action or anal yzed alternative, or, more generally, when transport is in any respect a major factor (e.g., transportation of construction materials for a proposed majo r dam), the environmental impacts of such transport should be analyzed, even when DOE is not responsible for the transportation. Transportation impacts include those fr om transport to a site, on-site, and from a site, when such activ ities are reasonably construed as part of the proposed action or analyzed alternati ve. If not otherwis e analyzed, include any necessary loading or unloading activ ities in the trans portation impact analysis. As with the choice of alternatives, apply a sliding scale approach to the transportation analysis. The nature of the proposed action and analyzedA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 8 

### alternatives determines whether to describe the transportation impacts qualitatively or to analyze them quantitatively, and what types of potential transportation accidents to c onsider (see subsection 6.4).

Recommendations

• Analyze all transportation links that ar e reasonably foreseeable parts of the proposed action or analyzed alternati ve, such as overland transport, port transfer, and marine transport. If the action contains links that traverse the global commons (e.g., the oceans or outer space), then impacts from such transport should be included in the NEPA analysis; state that the global commons analysis is provided pursuant to Executive Order 12114.

• Do not rely exclusively on statements t hat transportation would be conducted in accordance with all applicable regulations or requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commissi on, or State authorities.

• Evaluate both routine (i.e., incident-f ree) transport and accidents. (Accidents are discussed in subsection 6.4.) Give sp ecial emphasis to public or worker health impacts from exposure to chemicals or radiation.

• Be sure to use defensible estimation methods for assessing the radiological impacts of transportation (such as th e most current version of RADTRAN).

• Estimate the annual and total impact of all DOE and non-DOE transportation associated with the use of specific routes (if known) over the term of the proposed action or analyzed alterna tive, including, for chemical and radiological exposure, the impact on a maximally exposed individual. The impacts of the proposed action related to transportation must be totaled over the duration of the project (e.g., 48 trips per year for 5 years). (Note: This total is not the cumulative impact of tr ansportation impacts from the proposed action and other transportation activities over the same time period in the same area.)

• In determining the cumulative impac t from transportati on activities, use available data to estimate, for example , the number of radioactive materials packages that were shipped over a given transportation system over a given period of time. The primary end points for most DOE transporta tion risk assessments are the potential human health effects from exposure to low doses of radi ation or exposure to chemicals. The principal human health effect from radi ation exposure is cancer, and the principal health effect from chemical exposure may be both toxic effects and cancer. As discussed in the Green Book, “Exposure and dose are neither health effects nor e nvironmental impacts.” The difficulty lies in quantifying the potentially signifi cant health effects (e.g., number of deaths) on the basis ofA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 9 

### potential exposure. The Green Book provi des the following guida nce when evaluating carcinogenic effects from ra diation exposure (DOE, 1993): When providing quantitative estimates of carcinogenic effe cts of radiation exposure, express population (or collective) effects as an estimated number of fatal cancers, and express maximum indivi dual effects as the estimated maximum probability of the death of an individual. Evaluate effect s for involved workers, noninvolved workers, and the general public under both routine operations and accident scenarios. Although the Green Book provides a general overv iew of what a DOE NEPA transportation assessment should include, recommendations ar e not provided regardi ng specific end points, scenarios, methodologies, or input parameters. More detailed information is provided in the Framework for Assessing the Effects of Radioactive Materials Transportation in Department of Energy Documents (DOE, 1995a), subsequently referred to as the “Framework.” The Framewor k discusses inclusion of packing and loading/ unloading activities if the primar y activity addressed by the EA or EIS is transportation. Such activities must be includ ed if they are part of the proposed action. The analysis should consider the number of workers involved, protective equipmen t used, and the sequence of events followed during packing or loading/unloa ding (i.e., time-motion studies) , including movement of the material within the facility. As recommended in the Framework, analysis of transportation activ ities should cover the shipment mode (e.g., truck or rail), the number of shipments, the number of crew members per shipment, origin and destination sites (route defi nition), stops required al ong the route, and any necessary intermodal transfers. Incident-free transportation imp acts to consider include the radiological dose and resultant heal th effects to the general public and workers (crew and others at stops). Members of the public to consider include persons al ongside the route (p edestrians or persons living or working on the sides of the rout e), sharing the route (persons traveling on the same route), and at stops (e.g., pers ons at rest areas or refueling areas). In addition, impacts to a maximally exposed individual (MEI) along the rout e (e.g., a person living ne xt to the transport route) should be determined. The Framework suggests that the focus of the an alysis for radiological effects from accident conditions should be the largest reasonably fores eeable release of radioactive material (the bounding case). Such a release could result from a traffic accident or acts of terrorism or sabotage. Results should be presented for th e collectively exposed popul ation and the MEI. Nonradiological effects, such as health eff ects resulting from vehicle emissions (e.g., fugitive dust and engine emissions) and hazards from ve hicle accidents (e.g., fata lities) should also be addressed. A draft guidance document, the EM NEPA Technical Guidance Handbook (DOE, 1997a), was written to help streamline the DOE NEPA process and has been made available for comment. In the section on transportation assessment, the Fram ework is referenced and provides the basis for the transportation analysis. For impact a ssessment, the computer codes HIGHWAY (Johnson et al., 1993a) and INTERLINE (Johnson et al., 1993b) are the recommen ded routing models.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 10 

### TRAGIS (Johnson and Michelhaugh, 2000) has replaced HIGHWAY and INTERLINE, and incorporates a geographic information system (GIS). RADTRAN (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 1992; Neuhauser and Kanipe, 2000; Neuhauser et al., 2000) and RISKIND (Yuan et al., 1995) are the recommended radiological models. The implementation of these models in a comprehensive risk assessment methodology is discussed in Section 4.1, and the models themselves are described in Section 5. Emphasis is also placed on analyzi ng the effects on traffic and roads (e.g., increased noise, traffic volume) in the immediate vicinity of the origin and destination sites. These latter effects need only be assessed if significant change s in traffic or traffic patterns result from the proposed action, and to the degree that they impact the environment. The DOE adopted a series of risk assessment prin ciples that help define how risk assessments should or can be used within the DOE (DOE, 19 99a). These principles were based on others developed by an interagency committee led by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The principles were designed as a first cut at defining risk analysis, its purposes, and the principles to follow if it is to be done well and credibl y. Included are general principles; principles for risk assessment, ma nagement, and communicati on; and principles for priority setting using risk analysis. The pr inciples of risk assessment adopted by the DOE include the following (DOE, 1999a):

• Departmental programs should employ the best r easonable, obtainable information from the natural, physical, and so cial sciences to assess risks to he alth, safety, and the environment.

• Characterizations of risks and of changes in th e nature or magnitude of risks should be both qualitative and quantitative

 that is, both descriptive and mathematical

 consistent with available data. The characterizations shoul d be broad enough to inform the range of activities to reduce risks.

• Judgments used to develop a risk assessment, such as assumptions, defaults, and uncertainties, should be stated explicitly. The rationale for these judgments and their influence on the risk assessments should be articulated.

• Risk assessments should encompass all appr opriate hazards to human health and the environment (such as acute and chronic risk s, including cancer and non-cancer risks). In addition to considering the full population at risk, attention should be directed to subpopulations (including future ge nerations) that may be partic ularly susceptible to such risks and/or may be more highly exposed.

• Peer review of risk assessments can ensure that the highest professional standards are maintained. Therefore, programs should de velop procedures to maximize its use.

• Departmental programs should stri ve to adopt consistent appro aches to evaluating the risks posed by hazardous agents or events.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 11 

## Q 2.4 Other Federal Regulations

Q Q 2.4.1 Packaging Regulations that govern the transportation of ra dioactive materials are designed to protect the public from the potential loss or disp ersal of these materials. The regulations also protect against routine doses of radiation during transit. The pr imary regulatory approach for ensuring safety is specifying performance standards for th e proper packaging of materials. The DOT and the NRC are the primary federal agen cies responsible for regulating the transport of radioactive materials. Table 2.1 lists the mo st relevant DOT and N RC regulations. The DOE has signed a separate memorandum of understanding with both agencies to abide by these regulations. Implementation of these agreements by DOE is established in DOE Orders 460.1A Table 2.1. DOT and NRC Regulations Releva nt to Transportation Risk Analysis

Regulation Topic NRC 10 CFR 71 Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material DOT 49 CFR 171 General Information, Regulations, and Definitions 49 CFR 172 Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) Tables Special Provisions, HAZMAT Communications Regulations, Emergency Response Information and Training Requirements 49 CFR 173 Shippers – General Requirements for Shipments and Packaging 49 CFR 174 Carriage by Rail 49 CFR 175 Carriage by Aircraft 49 CFR 176 Carriage by Vessel 49 CFR 177 Carriage by Public Highway 49 CFR 178 Packaging Specifications 49 CFR 397 Transportation of HAZMAT; Driving and Parking Rules (Subpart D – Routing of Class 7 [Radioactive] Materials)



### (“Packaging and Transportation Safety”) and 46 0.2 (“Departmental Materials Transportation and Packaging Management”) and their respectiv e guides (DOE G 460.1-1 and DOE G 460.2-1). The DOT is responsible for regul ating transportation of all HAZM AT; its regulations apply to shippers and carriers. The regulations most pert inent to radioactive materials are given in 49 CFR 173 (“Shippers – General Requirements for Shipments and Packaging”), Subpart I (“Radioactive Materials”). U nder these regulations, DOT is specifically responsible for the design and performance specifications of pack ages that will carry smaller quantities of radioactive materials not exceeding Type A quantities, which are defined in 49 CFR 173.431 (“Activity Limits for Type A and Type B Packages”). The NRC regulations, in 10 CFR 71 (“Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material”), focu s on the design and performance criteria of Type B packages (e.g., SNF casks). More detailed information on Type A and B packages relative to transportation risk assessment is provided in Section 6.1.1.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 12 

### Q Q 2.4.2 Routing The radioactive materials highway routing regula tions of the DOT are prescribed in 49 CFR 397 Subpart D (“Routing of Class 7 [R adioactive] Materials”). The obj ectives of the regulations are to reduce the impacts of transpor ting radioactive materi als, to establish co nsistent and uniform requirements for route selection, and to identify the role of state and local governments in the routing of radioactive materials. The regulations attempt to reduce poten tial hazards by avoiding populous areas and minimizing travel times. Furtherm ore, the regulations require that the carrier of radioactive materials ensure that the vehicl e is operated on routes th at minimize radiological risks and that accident rates, transit times, population density a nd activity, time of day, and day of week are considered in determining risk. The regulations require that a shipment of a “h ighway route controlled quantity (HRCQ)” (10 CFR Part 71) of radioactive materials be made over the interstate highway system except when moving from origin to interstate or from inters tate to destination, when making necessary repair or rest stops, or when emergency conditions ma ke continued use of th e interstate unsafe or impossible. Carriers are required to use interstate circumferential or bypass routes, if available, to avoid populous areas. Other “preferred highways” may be designated by any state or Native American tribe to replace or supplement the inters tate system. Under its authority to regulate the safety of interstate transporta tion, the DOT can prohibit state and local bans and restrictions as “undue restraint of interstate commerce.” Stat e or local bans can also be preempted if inconsistent with the regula tions. The DOT has published Guidelines for Selecting Preferred Highway Routes for Highway Route Controlled Quantity Shipments of Radioactive Materials (DOT, 1992) to aid in impleme nting 49 CFR 397 Subpart D. Currently, DOT has no railroad routing regulations specific to the transp ortation of radioactive materials. Railroad companies in the United St ates are private companies that either own the right-of-way upon which they operate or have trackage rights to operate on another company’s line. Only a limited number of rail lines are owned by public agencies, and those are located primarily in large urban areas with passenger operations. Routes are generally fixed by the location of rail lines and urban areas cannot be readily bypassed.

Q Q 2.4.3 Emergency Response Potential radiation exposure of individuals under accident conditions at any point along a transport route can occur through many exposure path ways if an accident leads to a release of radioactive material to the environment. Th e Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP) (Federal Emergency Management Agen cy [FEMA], 1998) estab lishes a coordinated response by federal agencies when requested by stat e, tribal, or local gove rnment officials during a peacetime radiological emergency. The DOE has primary responsibility for providing assistance unless the radioactive source is unknow n, unidentified, or from a foreign country, in which case the U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency (EPA) becomes the primary coordinating federal agency. The EPA has issued a set of pr otective action guides (PAGs) (E PA, 1992) to aid public officials when responding to an accident involving radi oactive materials. Under emergency conditions, maximum individual dose limits for both first responders and member s of the public areA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 13 

### suggested when practicable, and are implemented by evacuation and/or interdiction. Limits are set for the early phase of an accident, lasting up to four days from the tim e of the initial release and for the intermediate phase of an accident, take n up to one year after the accident for purposes of dose projection. In most cases, doses to individuals located downw ind during the early phas e of the accident are primarily from inhalation of the contaminated air borne plume. In the event of a transportation accident, protective actions. To mitigate dose, such as sheltering or evacuation, may not be feasible because exposure occurs in only a matter of minutes or seconds. If projected doses are expected to be near the protective action guide (PAG) values, protective actions to mitigate dose should be taken, providing the risk involved in the protective acti ons are not comparable to or greater than the risk posed by the accidental re lease itself. Protective actions include such measures as sheltering and evacuation in the early phase following an accide nt if the individual dose is expected to exceed 1 rem. If the rel ease occurs over a short time (seconds), there may not be time to implement protective actions. Howe ver, if the release occurs over a longer period (minutes or hours), such as in a transportation accident involving a fire, there might be time to initiate sheltering or evacuation. It is not prudent for a risk assessment to assume effective mitigation during the early phase of an accident because exposure can occur before protective actions can be initiated and becau se an accident can occur along a ny point of a shipment route, meaning that emergency response personnel could take several minutes or longer to respond to an accident. Intermediate-phase exposures occur through i nhalation of resuspended contamination and external exposure to contaminated surfaces (groundshine) and radiation from airborne contamination (cloudshine). The PAGs suggest interdiction, evacuati on, and relocation as a protective action if the first-year dose to a singl e individual is expected to exceed 2 rem. For doses less than 2 rem, the PAGs suggest that su rface contamination be reduced to levels as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and recomme nd that initial efforts concentrate on areas where the projected doses are expected to exceed 0.5 roentgen equivalent man (rem) in the first year. Additional PAGs apply to the ingestion of contaminated foodstuffs. In commenting on draft EAs, local stakeholders have indicated that they wish to see the maximum potential consequences or risks included in the assessmen t. Therefore, although interdiction, evacuation, and cleanup can be introduced into the risk asse ssment, many of the more recent major EISs do not take credit for such actions that would reduce exposure (e.g., DOE, 1995b, 1996a, 1997b, 2002).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 14 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 15 

# 3. Historical Development of DOE Transportation Analyses

During the 1970s and into the 1980s, the transporta tion of radioactive materials was not a major issue with the public, due in part to the excellent safety record of such transportation. Section 3.1 discusses the early development of transportation risk assessments in this time period following the passage of NEPA. Heightened public awaren ess after the reactor acc ident at Three Mile Island (TMI) in 1979 resulted in in creased scrutiny and criticism of DOE’s actions in complying with NEPA (Bentz et al., 1997), despite the maintenance of an excellent transportation safety record. Section 3.2 covers development of transpor tation risk assessments up to the present time following the repercussions from TMI. Ch anges brought about by public concerns and involvement in the NEPA process are discusse d in Section 3.3. Sec tion 3.4 discusses the implications of recent high-profile DOE EISs.


## Q 3.1 Early Developments
The environmental impacts of transporting SNF in Type B casks by truck and rail were first analyzed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Comm ission (AEC) in a generic study entitled Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioa ctive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants (WASH-1238 [AEC, 1972]). A subsequent AEC report, Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (AEC, 1974), specifically applie d the WASH-1238 transportation environmental impacts data to the shipment of other high-level nuclear wa stes. Public hearings were held on both of these documents. As a resu lt of these hearings, the AEC’s approach to the evaluation of the accident risks associated with the transportation of radioactive waste (i.e., multiplication of the consequences of potential accidents by the probability of their occurrence), and AEC’s conclusion that such risks were ex tremely low and well within acceptable limits, were approved by the hearing board. In 1977, the NRC, a successor agency to the AEC, prepared its own EIS regarding the environmental impacts of the transporta tion of radioactive materials. The Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of Radi oactive Material by Air and Other Modes (NUREG-0170 [NRC, 1977a]) was a generic st udy performed primarily with conservative engineering assumptions and national average data . The study extensively examined the potential environmental impacts of shipping radioactive ma terials by various modes of transportation. It has served as a benchmark EIS upon which mo st subsequent EAs a nd EISs relating to radioactive waste transp ortation have relied for methodology, data, and/or analysis. NUREG0170 assessed both the incident-fr ee radiological consequences of such transportation and the likelihood and magnitude of radiolog ical consequences associated w ith potential accidents. The assessment concluded that the over all radiological risk involved in all shipments of radioactive materials was small. Soon after publication of NUREG-0170, DOE prepar ed programmatic EISs for the management and storage of spent reactor fuel, other HLW, and TRUW (e.g., Final EIS on U.S. Spent Fuel Policy [DOE, 1980a], Final EIS for Management of Commerc ially Generated Radioactive WasteA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 16 

### [DOE, 1980b], Final EIS for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [DOE, 1980c]), rely ing substantially on NUREG-0170 for generic data and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with transportation. Subsequent DOE review of speci fic proposed shipments of forei gn and domestic SNF invariably concluded that the environmental effects of th e shipment and management of SNF had been adequately addressed in previous NEPA documents (e.g., NUREG-0170 and DOE, 1980a) and that the impacts of the proposed shipments woul d be insignificant in comparison with impacts previously identified and evaluated in the earlier EISs. After seve ral such reviews, in or about 1981, DOE ceased documenting reviews for similar SNF movements, on the basis of the following categorical exclusion contained in DOE’s guidelines for implementing compliance with NEPA. (An EA is not requir ed for actions that an agency determines are categorically excluded under its NEPA compliance procedures.): Actions that are “substantially the sa me as other actions for which the environmental effects have already b een assessed in a NEPA document and determined by DOE to be clearly insi gnificant and where such assessment is currently valid” (45 FR 20695, March 28, 1980). During the early and mid-1980s, DOE made severa l shipments of SNF from both foreign and domestic origins to DOE’s Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 3 

### (INEL) in Idaho Falls, Idaho, and to DOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS ) in Aiken, South Carolina. DOE prepared no campaign-specific EAs or EISs for any of these ship ments. Instead, the agen cy continued to rely upon NUREG-0170, certain other environmental an alyses giving generic consideration to transportation environmental impacts, and the abov e-referenced categorical exclusion established by its NEPA compliance guidelines. During 1982, for example, about 300 nuclear fuel cycle shipments were made without incident, and with no EIS or EA (Weiner et al., 1991).


## Q 3.2 Public Concerns
The March 29, 1979, accident at General Public Utilities Company’s (GPUC’s) Unit 2 nuclear power plant at TMI, Pennsylvania, proved to be a watershed event with regard to public and official scrutiny of the risks associated with nuclear power. Transportation of radioactive materials were scrutinized more closely because of this heightened concern (see, for example, Resnikoff, 1983). In the aftermath of th e accident, the NRC prepared and published the Final Programmatic Environmental Statement Rela ted to Decontamination and Disposal of Radioactive Waste Resulting from March 29, 1979, Accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NRC, 1981). The EIS concluded that TMI was not suitable for the long-term storage and disposal of the nucle ar wastes and that TMI wastes not acceptable for storage at a commercial facility should be sent to a federa l installation for storage and research until they could be repackaged in a waste form acceptable for a commercial or federal disposal facility. A four-party coordination agreemen t was negotiated between GPUC, DOE, NRC, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) under which DOE agreed to accept the core debris and transport it to INEL for research and storage until it could be placed in a permanent repository.

3 Now called the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 17 

### The TMI EIS (NRC, 1981) also evaluated th e environmental impact s of the cleanup and generally addressed the risks i nvolved in transporting the core debris. Relying primarily on NUREG-0170 and NRC (1981), DOE concluded that th e transportation of the core debris from TMI to INEL fell within its NEPA complian ce guidelines’ categori cal exclusion. (DOE requested transportation consultants at Oa k Ridge National Laborat ory (ORNL) and ALK Associates, Inc., evaluate potential rail routing alternatives as identified by rail carriers). No serious challenge to DOE’s decision not to pr epare a transportation EA or EIS was initiated, although interested parties expres sed concern over the absence of a campaign-specific EIS and questioned the applicability of NUREG-0170 to the TMI shipments. NEPA requires assessing environmental impact a nd consideration of alternatives to a proposed action but does not mandate any particular agen cy decision or outcome. Therefore, judicial decisions reviewing agency compliance ensure th at the agency has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its proposed actions, and that the ag ency’s decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or an a buse of discretion. Under this standard, a court may determine whether the agency has consider ed all the relevant factors and has articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made (Baltimore Gas & Electric, 1983). A case with important repercussions on federal agency compliance with the requirements of NEPA in the transportation of radioactive mate rials is City of New York v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 715 F.2d 732 (2nd Cir. 1983), cert. deni ed 465 U.S. 1055 (1984) (City of New York, 1984). This case concerned the validity of the DOT’s the re gulations governing the highway routing of highway-route-controlled -quantity shipments of radioact ive materials. The City of New York challenged the regulations on severa l grounds, including the following: (1) the EA prepared by DOT did not comply with the requir ements of NEPA, and (2) DOT’s determination that the adoption of the regulati ons would not significantly affect the environment was arbitrary and capricious. The U.S. District Court for th e Southern District of New York found DOT’s EA to be deficient on several grounds and invalidated th e regulations in part. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the decision of the district court and remanded the case to the district court for entry of an order upholdi ng the regulations. The written opinions of the Federa l District Court and the Second Ci rcuit in City of New York v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation are valuable for the depth of their exam ination of both risk assessment methodology and scientific and technical issues relating to compliance with NEPA in SNF and HLW transportation. The most important challenges to DOE’s policie s regarding NEPA comp liance in transporting radioactive waste arose fr om a series of lawsuits involving DOE proposals to ship research SNF from Taiwan to the United States pursuant to nonproliferation policies. The initial case (Northwest Inland Waters Coalition v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, et al. [NIWC, 1986]) involved a DOE proposal to ship 474 uranium SNF rods to a west coast port, unload the SNF rods, and transport them overland by truck to DOE’s reproce ssing facility at the SRS in South Carolina. Before the shipments began, the Northwest Inla nd Waters Coalition (the “Coalition”), an environmental organization, filed suit in Federal District Court in the State of Washington to enjoin the shipments on the ground that DOE had failed to prepare an EIS for the proposed action.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 18 

### DOE contended that the shipments were categor ically excluded from NEPA’s environmental analysis requirements under the agency’s NEPA compliance guidelines. The Coalition argued that the studies relied upon we re outdated, generic, or progra mmatic EISs that did not fully analyze all of the risks posed by the proposed ship ments. The Coalition specifically noted that the studies contained no analysis of ocean transpor t risks of radioactive materials and, as generic studies, did not include any route-specific information or route-selection analysis.

The district court ruled th at DOE had unreasonably relied upon NUREG-0170 and the early DOE studies without conducting an analysis to determine whether the conditions under which the shipments would be implemented were account ed for and, further, ruled that the proposed shipments were a major federal action that coul d significantly affect th e human environment, requiring preparation of an EIS. On appeal, DOE abandoned its reliance on th e categorical exclusion and generic and programmatic studies, arguing only that it should be permitted to prepare an EA to determine if an EIS was required, rather than being required to prepare an EIS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, revers ing the district court in part. However, the court specifically concurred with the district court’s finding that DOE’s failure to prepare an EA or EIS was unreasonable, noting that DOE had failed to conduc t its own analysis specific to the conditions under which the shipments would be implemented (NIWC, 1988). On December 11, 1986, while the app eal in the Northwest Inland Wate rs Coalition case was still pending, DOE published an EA (DOE, 1986) and a finding of no significant environmental impact from shipping the 474 SNF rods from Ta iwan by sea to Portsmouth, Virginia, and then overland by truck to the SRS. These shipment s were completed without legal challenge on July 6, 1988. During the final stages of shipping the 474 SNF rods, DOE negotiated an agreement to accept an additional 1,100 SNF rods from Taiwan. Subse quently, DOE prepared and published a new EA (DOE, 1988c) analyzing the environmental impact s of transporting these additional SNF rods by the same route (the Phase II EA). This Phase II EA considered a no-action alternative and the alternative use of a generic west coast or gulf coast port. However, the Phase II EA did not consider the use of any other east coast ports as alternatives to Hampton Roads. DOE prepared risk assessment calculations for the Phase II EA with the RADTRAN III computer code, using conservative estimates to account for population dens ities and using very li ttle site and/or routespecific information or criteria. On December 12, 1988, the Sierra Cl ub filed suit (Sierra Club, 1991) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the shipments until DOE complied with the requirements of NEPA. The Sierra Club claimed that NEPA re quired DOE to prepare an EIS, rather than an EA, for the proposed Phase II shipme nts or, in the alternative, th at the Phase II EA prepared by DOE was legally insufficient. The court declined to issue a preliminary injunction to halt the Phase II shipments, and transpor tation and delivery of the Phase II SNF rods were subsequently completed without incident. On June 19, 1991, with litigation pending on the Ph ase II shipments, DOE filed a new EA (DOE, 1991) with the district court covering shipment of an additional 118 spent fuel rods from TaiwanA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 19 

### to the SRS (the Phase III EA). The Phase III EA responded to some of the inadequacies alleged by the Sierra Club with regard to the Phase II EA. Specificall y, two east coast ports, Charleston, South Carolina, and Wilmington, North Carolina, we re considered as east coast alternatives to the use of the port at Hampton Roads, and the Ph ase III risk calculation program (RADTRAN 4) used actual population densities instead of conser vative estimates for a ll areas located along the overland routes.

The RADTRAN 4 accident-risk calculations cons idered a broad range of possible accidents involving different types and degr ees of stress that could be placed on a shipping cask and the consequences such accidents would have on the in tegrity of the cask and the amount of radiation released. However, the RADTRAN 4 accident-risk calculations did not include accidents that would generate sufficient force to create more than a one-inch-diameter breach in a cask. The Phase III EA deemed a larger breach “not credib le,” effectively assuming that such an accident could not occur.

The Phase III EA mooted the Si erra Club’s claims against the Phase II EA, and the Sierra Club amended its complaint to reflect its belief th at DOE had still failed to comply with the requirements of NEPA, despite the improvements made in the Phase III EA. The Sierra Club challenged the legal sufficiency of the Phas e III EA on several grounds. Principally, it contended that DOE should have co nsidered the alternative use of several additional east coast military and civilian ports with lower population densities and/or closer to the SRS; and that DOE had skewed the results of its RADTRAN 4 ri sk calculations by failing to include all low probability/high consequence accidents in the ov erall risk calculations. On December 9, 1991, the district court ruled that the Phase III EA was legally insufficient for these reasons.

The court found that DOE’s consideration of Char leston and Wilmington as alternative east coast ports to Hampton Roads did not cover the full sp ectrum of possible routing alternatives, and that the agency’s action was, therefore, not reasonable and constituted an abus e of discretion. The court noted that of the 11 east coast ports identified by the Sier ra Club for possible routing of shipments, the EA analyzed only the second, th ird, and fourth most densely populated ports (selecting the port with the highest risk factor of the three), and that th e EA did not consider other commercial ports with lower population de nsities or military ports in rural areas. Furthermore, the court observed that DOE neve r explained why such alternative ports were inappropriate for consideration. The court also noted that the EA provided no explanation of why the shipments would be routed through Hampton Roads.


## Q 3.3 Lessons Learned
The decisions in both the Sierra Club and City of New York cases involv ed extensive judicial examination and discussion of several scientific , technical, and risk assessment methodology issues raised by plaintiffs rega rding agency compliance with NEPA in the transportation of SNF and HLW. Some of the key ru lings or pronouncements from thes e cases are summarized below. Judicial Review of Scie ntific/Technical Issues: A reviewing court must generally defer to the expertise of an agency when assessing difficult issu es of scientific and/or technical dispute, so long as the agency’s determination does not a ppear to be arbitrary and capricious (issues considered in the cases included transportati on cask properties/reliability, dose conversionA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 20 

### factors, and both incident-free a nd accident-related radi ation exposure factors) . When specialists express conflicting views, an agency has the disc retion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts, even if a court might find contrary views more persuasive. Under this standard, an agency determination is merely require d to have a rational basis (i.e., to be within a range of opinion generally accepted by the scientific community, or ju stifiable in light of current scientific thought). Risk Assessment Methodology: The use of an overall (probabilistic) risk assessment methodology, in particular the RADTRAN 4 model a nd code, to calculate the risks associated with the transportation of ra dioactive waste, complies with the requirements of NEPA.

Cumulative Risk: While the incident-free dose from SNF or HLW transportation is usually unmeasurably small, when people along a transpor tation route have been exposed to this minimal dose of additional radiation repeatedly (from hist oric shipping campaigns), the cumulative dose must be included in risk calculations, with an explanation regarding the amount of the radiation, the number of people it might involve, and th e potential health effects and risks. Use of Bounding Values: The use of conservative estimates, or “bounding values,” for certain variables in risk assessment calculations (e.g., weather condi tions, topography, and emergency response times) is generally acceptable for NEPA compliance. However, using bounding values tends to lessen or eliminate differences among alternatives, making the comparisons required by NEPA more difficult. Hence, their use should be limited to cases for which more accurate and detailed assessment is not practicable. Low Probability/High Consequence Accidents: The potential effects of low-probability accidents with high and beyond-design-basis conseque nces must be considered. Accidents with a probability of occurrence of 10 − 7 

### (one in ten million) or more per year are considered “maximum reasonably foreseeable accidents” and accidents having a smaller probability of occurrence rarely need to be considered ( DOE, 1999c). The use of the accident module in RADTRAN for the risk analysis ensures that all accidents that might occur will be considered. The RADTRAN accident severity category scheme includes the full range of mechanical and heat impact that might be involved in a transp ort accident, including those with probabilities less than 10 − 7



### . Human Error: Although human error in vehicle operation is included in historic accident rates, these rates do not account for some human errors th at may have an effect specific to the shipping of radioactive materials (e.g., an error in sealing the casks afte r SNF rods have been loaded inside, or human error in the design or manufacture of the casks). To the ex tent that such factors can be identified, a probability of occurrence can be supported by past events, and an accidental release of radionuclides could resu lt, these factors should be consid ered in a transportation risk assessment to the extent practicable. Sabotage: To the extent that sabotage could create fo rces that caused a rel ease of radionuclides, it should be considered in a tran sportation consequence assessment.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 21 

## Q 3.4 Current Considerations and Future Outlook
Under DOE’s Record of Decision (ROD) for the conduct of its Spent Fuel Management Program through the year 2035 (May 30, 1995), approximately 575 shipments of naval SNF will be made by rail to INEEL from six sites (Kesselring, No rfolk, Newport News, Pearl Harbor, Portsmouth, and Puget Sound). While insufficient data are availa ble regarding specific transport variables to accurately assess the total number and modal mix of other DOE shipments necessary for implementation, the ROD estimates that there will be a maximum of 3,655 shipments (to INEEL and SRS combined), assuming that all shipments ar e by truck, with the exception of Naval SNF. In addition to the naval SNF, th ese projected shipments include about 546 shipments of specialcase commercial SNF from 11 non-DOE origins; 1,008 shipments of forei gn research reactor SNF through eight potential ports of entry; 519 ship ments of domestic univer sity research reactor SNF from 35 university reacto rs; and 1,007 intrafacili ty shipments of DO E-owned SNF from eight DOE weapons complex facilities (DOE, 1995b). Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) as amended, it is anticipated that SNF assemblies will eventually be transported from 72 comme rcial sites and five DOE sites throughout the United States to a geologic repos itory. If most SNF and HLW can be transported by rail, about 9,600 rail shipments and 1,080 truck shipments would be needed over a 24-year period. If legalweight truck transportation mu st be used, about 53,000 truck sh ipments and 300 rail shipments (of naval SNF) would be needed (DOE 2002, Ap pendix J,). An additional 10,000 rail shipments or 40,000 legal-weight truck shipments of SNF and 1,500 rail shipments or 6,700 truck shipments of HLW may also be required. Other shipments of DOE radioactiv e waste are also expected to in crease over the next several years. Approximately 38,000 truck shipments to the WIPP of TRUW are anticipated from about 22 sites over the next 35 years (DOE, 1997d). An ticipated treatment and disposal of DOE lowlevel waste (LLW) could result in another 25,000 to 95,000 truck shipments over approximately 20 years, depending on the final regiona lization strategy chosen (DOE, 1997b). The volume and national scope of these anticipate d shipments present some unique issues that must be addressed in light of legal cha llenges. DOE has already introduced a more comprehensive approach in its recent EISs (DOE, 1995b; 1996a; 1997b; 1999c), including (1) the introduction of specific, state-level rou ting and accident parameters; (2) the incorporation of consequence analysis using the RISKIND mode l and code, which is also used to analyze health effects to the MEI (RADTRAN continues to analyze risks to populations along routes and at stops 4 

### ); and (3) the maintenance of consistency (including major assumptions and parameters) among its EISs. The same approach has been adopted by the Department of the Navy in its recent EIS on the container system for the mana gement of naval SNF (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1996). This approach has enabled DOE to a ddress concerns raised by stakeholders with regard to its previous NEPA assessments.

4 Either RADTRAN or RISKIND can be used for all of thes e analyses. However, populat ion and route analysis can be done more efficiently with RADTRAN, while consequen ce and MEI analysis can be d one more efficiently with RISKIND.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 22 

### Because a number of anticipated shipments will be made by different programs from several sites and will traverse the c ountry, in some cases using the same transportation corridors, transportation analysis shoul d examine the cumulative radi ological exposure risks to transportation crews, cask handl ers, and persons residing alon g the transportation routes, particularly those in the vicinity of shipping and receiving facilities. The distances traveled through multiple states by many of these shipments has expanded the transportation alternatives considered to incl ude different modes, intermodal transfer, and alternative routes. The spectrum of transportation alternatives considered in a NEPA analysis was increased in the Yucca Mountain EIS (DOE , 2002) to include barg e transportation and intermodal transfers, as well as alternative routes. This EIS also presents alternative routes and modes, rather than choosing a particul ar route or transportation mode.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 23 

# 4. Transportation Methodology and Historical Review

Historical DOE NEPA transportation assessments were reviewed as part of this effort to streamline the process of conducting such assessments. This review documented the types of analyses and methods that have been used and accepted in th e past, identified any apparent trends, and evaluated the assessment results to id entify ways in which future assessments can be streamlined. This section provide s a historical overview, as well as a description of an assessment approach that has been used successfully in the past and is considered welldeveloped and comprehensive. In addition, previ ous assessment results ar e briefly evaluated and presented to provide some perspec tive on expected assessment results. Section 4.1 presents a discussion of a standard ized transportation risk assessment approach identified after review of a large number of recen t NEPA documents. This approach was used to support the DOE Waste Management Programmatic EIS (DOE, 1997b) and several subsequent EISs. The approach was a culmination of disc ussions and reviews among several organizations, including DOE offices, the Naval Reactors Program , and contractors, and was itself based on a long history of previous assessments. This assessment approach, summarized in Figure 4.1, combined the use of routing programs (HIG HWAY [Johnson et al., 1993a] and INTERLINE [Johnson et al., 1993b]) with the transportation risk assessmen t codes RADTRAN (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 1993; Neuhauser et al., 2000) and RISKIND (Yuan et al., 1995). (A discussion of the assessment models is provided in Section 5.) The two complementary risk assessment programs are used to satisfy the requirements and considerations of NEPA, which include not only the need to estimate impacts of alternatives, but also the need to resp ond to specific areas of public concern. This approach provides a uniform and comprehensive methodology for performing transportation impact assessments.

Section 4.2 summarizes the NEPA assessments reviewed to determine the assessment methodology described in Section 4.1, including a tabular summary of the methods and models used. Section 4.3 presents a brief statistical analysis of the resu lts of previous assessments, and is intended to highlight the magnitude of expected assessment results.


## Q 4.1 Transportation Risk Assessment Methodology
A commonly used approach for transportation riskassessment identified in this review is summarized in Figure 4.1 and discussed in detail in th is section. For each analysis, risks are assessed for routine transportation and accidents. For the routine operations assessment, risks are calculated for the collective populations of potentially exposed in dividuals, as well as for the MEIs. The accident assessment consists of two componen ts: (1) an accident risk assessment where risks are calculated for the collectiv e population living and working along the transportation route that considers the probabilities and consequences of a range of po ssible transportation-related accidents, including low-probability accidents that have high cons equences, and high-probability accidents that have low consequences; and (2) an accident consequence assessment that considersPage 24 A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk AssessmentRouting Models(HIGHWAY /INTERLINE)WorkersPublicTotal Shipping Distance• Accident Fatality RateTotal Shipment DistanceAccident Fatality RateEmission Rate••Material Characteristics• Physical• Radiological• PackagingAccidentAssessmentPopulationDoseMaximally ExposedIndividual DoseAccident Parameters• Accident Rates• Severity Spectrum• MeteorologyAccident Risk(Probability xConsequence)AccidentConsequenceNumber ofShipmentsEmission-InducedFatalityPhysical TraumaFatalityVehicle-Related RisksCargo-Related RisksRADTRANLEGENDModelDatabaseOutputCase Definition• Site InventoriesRISKINDPublicCollectiveAccident RiskRADTRANRISKINDWorkersCollectiveRoutine RiskPublicRoutineAssessmentCollectivePopulationsIndividualsMaximally ExposedIndividual Risk• Origin/Destinations• TRAGISFigure 4.1. Technical Approach for Transportation Radiological Risk AssessmentsA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 25 

### only the radiological consequen ces to a population gr oup and MEIs from severe transportationrelated accidents postulated to result in the largest releases of radioactive material. All radiological impacts are calc ulated in terms of dose and asso ciated health effects in the exposed populations. The radiation dose calculated is the total eff ective dose equivalent (TEDE), as specified in 10 CFR Part 20 (“Standards for Pr otection against Radiation”), which is the sum of the effective dose equivalent (EDE) from e xposure to external radiation and the 50-year committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) (International Commission on Radiological Protection [ICRP], 1977) from expos ure to internal radiation. Do ses of radiation are typically calculated in units of rem (roentgen-equivalent man) or millirem (mrem, 1 rem = 1,000 mrem) for individuals and in units of person-rem for collective popula tions. In most cases, federal regulations require that indi vidual members of the public no t be exposed to more than 100 mrem/yr from licensed operations (10 CFR 20.1201). Transportation workers involved in the shipment of radioactive materials, as well as other individuals, such as state shipment inspectors, would be monitored by a dosimetry progr am if it were expected that they would be exposed to radiation in excess of 100 mrem/yr. In such cases, doses would be maintained ALARA at a level well below the 5 rem annua l limit for radiation workers (10 CFR 20.1201). Generally, assessment models prov ide estimates of the radiation dose to workers and members of the public, which are then converted to estimates of health effects for each alternative. The health effect end point typically used is radiation-induced late nt cancer fatalities (LCFs), which are estimated by multiplying the dose (person-rem) by health risk conversion factors. These factors relate the radiation dose to the pot ential number of expected LCFs based on comprehensive studies of people historically expo sed to large doses of radiation, such as the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. The factors most commonly used in recent assessments are 0.0004 LCF/person-rem of exposure for worker s and 0.0005 LCF/person-rem of exposure for members of the general public (ICRP, 1991). The latt er factor is slightly higher because some individuals in the public, such as infants, are more sensitive to radiation than the average worker. These factors imply that if a population of workers receives a total dose of 2,500 person-rem, on average, one additional LCF will occur among the workers. Similarly, if the general public receives a total dose of 2,000 person-rem, on average, one additional LCF will occur. The RADTRAN computer code (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 1992; 2000; Neuhauser et al., 2000) is used for routine and accident risk assessments to estimate the radiological impacts to collective populations. The code calculates population ri sks associated with tr ansporting radioactive materials by various modes, including truck, rail, air, ship, and barge. The RADTRAN calculations of population risk take into account the consequences and probabilities of potential exposures. RADTRAN was originally deve loped by Sandia National Laborat ories (SNL) as a tool to prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes (NRC, 1977a). The code has been continually updated and expanded since its inception. The latest vers ion, RADTRAN 5 (Neuhaus er et al., 2000), was released in mid-2000, but this handbook review s assessment experience with the RADTRAN 4 code (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 1992; 1993). Unle ss explicitly stated, the RADTRAN models discussed in this handbook are common to both vers ions. RADTRAN is discussed in more detail in Section 5.3.1.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 26 

### As a complement to the RADT RAN calculations, the RISKIND co mputer code (Yuan et al., 1995) estimates scenario-specific doses to ME Is for routine operations and accidents and estimates population impacts for the accident co nsequence assessment. The RISKIND computer code was originally developed by Argonne Natio nal Laboratory for the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management specifically to an alyze radiological conse quences to individuals and population subgroups associated with transporti ng SNF. The most recent version of the code accommodates all types of radioactive waste shipments. The RISKIND calculations supplement the resu lts for collective risk calculated with RADTRAN. Whereas the results for collective ri sk provide a measure of the overall risks of each case, the RISKIND calculations are meant to address areas of specific concern to individuals and subgroups of the population. Essentially, th e RISKIND analyses address hypothetical questions, such as, “What if I live ne xt to a site access road?” or “What if an accident happens near my town?” RISKIND is described in Section 5.3.3.

Q Q 4.1.1 Routine (Incident-Free) Risk Assessment Method

Q Q Q 4.1.1.1 Collective Population Risk 

### The radiological risk associated with routine transportation results from the potential exposure of people to low-level external radi ation from loaded shipments. For routine transportation, the RADTRAN computer code considers all major groups of potentially exposed persons. The RADTRAN calculations of risk for routine highway and rail tr ansportation include exposures of the following population groups:

• Persons Along the Route (Off-Link Population). Collective doses are calculated for all persons living or working on each side of a tran sportation route. The total number of persons within the corridor may be calculated separately for each route considered in the assessment.

• Persons Sharing the Route (On-Link Population). Collective doses ar e calculated for all persons in vehicles sharing the transportation ro ute. This group includes persons traveling in the same or the opposite direction as the shipment , as well as persons in vehicles passing the shipment.

• Persons at Stops. Collective doses are calculated fo r people who may be exposed while a shipment is stopped en route. For truck transportation, these stops include those for refueling, food, and rest. For rail transportati on, stops are assumed to occur for purposes of classification.

• Crew Members. Collective doses are calculated for truck transportation crew members and railyard workers. The doses calculated for the first three population groups are added to yield the collective dose to the public; the dose calculated for the fourth group represents th e collective dose to workers.

The RADTRAN calculations for routine dose are based on generically e xpressing the dose rate as a function of distance from a point source (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 1995; Neuhauser et al., 2000). The calculation of routine doses fo r each exposed population group depends onA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 27 

### parameters such as the radiation field strengt h, source-receptor distance, duration of exposure, vehicular speed, stopping time, traffic density; and route characteristic s, such as population density. The RADTRAN manual cont ains derivations of the equatio ns and descriptions of these parameters (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 1995; Neuhaus er et al., 2000). The values for many of the most important parameters are presented in Section 6. The collective routine risks are calculated for each specific alternative as follows. Each alternative is first defined as a set of origin-and-destina tion pairs. TRAGIS (Johnson and Michelhaugh, 2000) determines representative highw ay or rail routes for each unique pair. HIGHWAY (Johnson et al., 1993a) a nd INTERLINE (Johnson et al., 1993b) were the routing codes used previously for truck and rail routes, respectively. However, they were superseded by TRAGIS. The number of shipments transported acro ss each route segment is then calculated for truck and rail modes by using estimated site-s pecific radioactive mate rial inventories and information on shipment capacity. For shipment s between each origin-and-destination pair, RADTRAN calculates collective risks to workers and the public based on representative radiological and physical properties of the radioactive material be ing transported. The collective risks are then summed over the set of origin-destination pairs to estimate the collective routine risks associated with that alternative.

Q Q Q 4.1.1.2 Maximally Exposed Individual Risk 

### The RISKIND model estimates risk to MEIs fo r a number of hypothetical exposure scenarios. The receptors include transportation crew member s, departure inspectors, and members of the public exposed during traffic dela ys, while working at a service station, or while living near a DOE site.

The dose to each MEI considered is calculated with RISKIND for an exposure scenario defined by a given distance, duration, and frequency of expos ure specific to that receptor. The distances and durations of exposure for the scenarios listed here are similar to those given in previous transportation risk assessment s (DOE, 1987; 1990; 1995b; 1996a; 1997b):

• Crew Members . Truck and rail crew members are assumed to be occupational radiation workers and would be monitored by a dosim etry program. Therefore, the maximum allowable dose would be 5 rem/yr. As an admi nistrative procedure, the DOE limits doses to DOE workers to 2 rem/yr (DOE, 1994a).

• Inspectors (Truck and Rail) . Inspectors are assumed to be either federal or state vehicle inspectors. Inspectors are not monitored by a dosimetry program. An average exposure distance of 3 m (10 ft) and an exposur e duration of 30 minutes are assumed.

• Rail-Yard Crew Member . A rail-yard crew member is not monitored by a dosimetry program. An average exposure distance of 10 m (33 ft) and an exposure duration of 2 hours are assumed.

• Resident (Truck and Rail). A resident is assumed to live 30 m (98 ft) from a site entrance route (truck or rail). Ship ments pass at an average speed of 24 km/h (15 mph), and the unshielded resident is exposed. Cumulative doses are assessed for each site based on theA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 28 

### number of shipments entering or exiting the si te, assuming that the MEI resident is present for 100% of the shipments.

• Person in Traffic Obstruction (Truck and Rail). A person is assumed to be stopped next to a radioactive material shipment (e.g., because of traffic slowdown). The unshielded person is assumed to be exposed at a distance of 1 m (3.3 ft) for a duration of 30 minutes.

• Person at Truck Service Station. A person is assumed to be exposed at an average distance of 20 m (66 ft) for a duration of 2 hours. This receptor could be a worker at a truck stop.

• Resident near a Rail Stop. A resident is assumed to live n ear a rail classification yard. The unshielded resident is assumed to be exposed at a distance of 200 m (656 ft) for a duration of 20 hours.

The scenarios are not intended to be exhaustive , but to provide a range of potential exposure situations.

The RISKIND external dose model considers di rect external exposure and exposure from radiation scattered from the soil and air. Th e RISKIND model calculates dose (rem per hour) as a function of distance for stati onary exposure and rem per event for moving shipments from a radioactive material shipment based on the ship ment dimensions. The code approximates the shipment as a cylindrical volume source, and th e calculated dose include s secondary radiationscattering contributions from buildup (scattering by waste conten ts), cloudshine (scattering by air), and groundshine (scatteri ng by ground). The dose rates calculated with RISKIND have been comparable with output from existing ra diation transport codes, such as MCNP and Microshield (Biwer et al., 1997) . The RISKIND model produces realistic, yet conservative, results.

Q Q Q 4.1.1.3 Vehicle-Related (Nonradiological) Routine Risk 

### Vehicle-related health risks resulting from routine transportation may be associated with transporting vehicles that generate air pollutant s during shipment, independent of the nature of the shipment. The health end point assessed un der routine transport conditions is the excess (additional) latent mortality caused by inhalation of vehicular emissi ons. A risk factor for latent mortality from pollutant inhalation, generated by Rao et al. (1982), is 1 × 10 − 7 

### /km (1.6 × 10 − 7 

### /mi) of truck travel in an urban area (1.3 × 10 − 7 

### /railcar-km for rail). This risk factor is based on regression analyses of the effect of f ugitive dust and sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions from diesel exhaust on mortality. Excess latent mortality is assumed to be equivalent to latent fatalities. Vehicle-related risks from routine transportation are calculated for each alternative by multiplying the total distance traveled in urban areas by the appropriate risk factor. Similar risk factors are not availa ble for rural and suburban areas.

Risks are summed over the entire route and over a ll shipments for each alternative. This method was used in several reports to calculate risks fr om routine transport of radioactive wastes (DOE, 1987; 1990; 1995b; 1996a; 1997b). Lack of informati on for rural and suburban areas is an obvious gap in the data, although the risk factor would be lower because the number of affected persons would be lower in rural and suburban ar eas. As discussed in Section 6.2.2, revised andA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 29 

### updated risk factors based on the work of Ra o et al. (1982; Biwer and Butler, 1999) were recently developed to include all truck types and population zones.

Q Q 4.1.2 Accident Assessment Method

Q Q Q 4.1.2.1 Radiological Accident Risk Assessment 

### The risk analysis for potential accidents differs f undamentally from the risk analysis for routine transportation because accident occurrences are st ochastic events. The accident risk assessment is treated probabilistically in RADTRAN. The dose risk from a specific accident is defined as the product of the accident conse quence (dose) and the probabili ty of the accident occurring. The accident dose risk from a given shipment is the sum of dose risk over the range of accidents. In this respect, the RADTRAN code estimates the collective accident risk to populations by considering a spectrum of transpor tation-related accidents. That spectrum encompasses a range of possible accidents, including low-probability accidents with high consequences and highprobability accidents with low consequences (“ fender benders”). The RADTRAN calculation of collective accident risk employs models that quantify the range of potential accident severities and the responses of transported packages to accidents. The sp ectrum of accident severity is divided into a number of categories. Each category of severity re presents a conditional probability of occurrence — that is, the probability th at an accident, if one occurs, will be of a particular severity. Release fract ions, defined as the fraction of the material in a package that could be released in an accident, are assigned to each accident severity category on the basis of the physical and chemical form of the waste ma terial. The models take into account the transportation mode and the packaging type. The accident rates, the definition of accident severity categories, and the releas e fractions for such an analysis are discussed further in Section 6. For accidents involving the release of radioac tive material, RADTRAN assumes that airborne material is dispersed into the environment accord ing to standard Gaussian dispersion models. For the risk assessment, RADTRAN assumes an instantaneous ground-level release and a source cloud with an initially small diameter (Neuhauser et al., 2000). The calculation of the collective population dose after the release and dispersal of radioactive material includes the following exposure pathways:

• External exposure to th e passing radioactive cloud,

• External exposure to contaminated soil,

• Internal exposure from inhali ng airborne contaminants, and

• Internal exposure from ingesting contaminated food. For the ingestion pathway, state-specific food tran sfer factors were calculated that relate the amount of radioactive material ingested to the amount deposited on the ground (see Section 6.1.11.2 and Appendix D) in accordance with the methods described by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC, 1977b). These factors may be used with ground deposition calculated by RADTRAN to estimate ingestion dose. Radiation doses from inge sting or inhaling radionuclides are calculated with standard dose conversion factors (see Appendix C).

The collective accident risk for each alternative is determined in a manner similar to that described for routine collective risks. Accident risks are first calculated for each unique origin-A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 30 

### and-destination pair and then are summed over all pairs to estimate the total risk for the alternative.

Q Q Q 4.1.2.2 Radiological Accident Consequence Assessment 

### The RISKIND code provides a scenario-specific assessment of radiological consequences of severe transportation-related accidents for each waste type. The R ADTRAN accident risk assessment considers the entire range of accident severities and their related probabilities. On the other hand, the RISKIND accident consequence as sessment analyzes the potential impacts of a given accident by focusing on accidents that woul d result in the largest releases of radioactive material to the environment. This enables estimates of accident consequences for maximum, reasonably-foreseeable accident scenarios. Ma ximum, reasonably-forese eable accidents have very low probabilities of occurrence, but ar e not “worst case” accidents. DOE analyzes maximum, reasonably-foreseeable accidents and pr esents their consequences separately from their probabilities in NEPA documents.

The severe accidents considered in the conse quence assessment are characterized by extreme mechanical and thermal forces. In all cases, th ese accidents result in a release of radioactive material to the environment. The accidents correspond to those within the highest accident severity category that may reasonably be expected to occur, as described previously. These accidents represent low-probability, high-conseque nce events. Therefore, accidents of this severity are expected to be extremely rare. However, the overall probability that such an accident could occur depends on the potential acci dent rates for this severity category and the shipping distance for each alternative.

The RISKIND model is used to assess accident c onsequences for two reasons. First, it can model the complex atmospheric (or site-specific) dispersion resul ting from severe accidents. The atmospheric dispersion is modeled as an in stantaneous release by us ing standard Gaussian puff methods. In addition, because severe acci dents typically involve fires, modeling the potential radiological consequen ces takes into account physical phenomena resulting from the fire, such as buoyant plume rise. Second, RISKI ND can estimate the dose to MEIs near an accident. RISKIND determines the MEI’s locati on on the basis of the atmospheric conditions assumed at the time of the accident and th e thermal characteristics of the release. The accident consequences are calculated for local populations and for MEIs. The population dose includes the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the accident site. The exposure pathways considered are similar to those discussed previo usly for the accident ri sk assessment. Although remedial activities (e.g., evacuation or ground cleanup) after the accide nt would reduce the consequences, these activities are often not cons idered in the consequence assessment because emergency responses would not be unif orm along a given transport route. Because predicting the exact location of a severe transportation-related a ccident is impossible, separate consequences are calculated for accidents occurring in rural, suburban, and urban zones of population density. Moreover, to address the effects of the atmo spheric conditions at the time of an accident, two different atmo spheric conditions are often consid ered. The first case assumes neutral atmospheric conditions (Pasquill stability class D, 4 m/s wind speed), and the second assumes stable conditions (Pasquill st ability class F, 1 m/s wind speed).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 31 Q Q Q 4.1.2.3 Vehicle-Related (Nonradiological) Accident Risk Assessment 

### Vehicle-related acciden t risk refers to transportation accidents that result in fatalities unrelated to the shipment’s cargo. This risk represents fata lities from mechanical causes. State-specific transportation fatality rates are discussed in Section 6.2.1. Vehicle-related accident risks are calculated by multiplying the total distance traveled in each state by the appropriate state rate for transportation-related fatalities. The vehicle- related accident risks are typically calculated by using distances for round-trip shipment that include the return trip to the origin site without the radioactive cargo.


## Q 4.2 Summary of Recent NEPA Transportation Risk Assessments
Approximately 100 DOE NEPA documents were revi ewed to identify the transportation risk assessment methodologies used and compare the resu lts. An initial scr eening investigation was conducted to limit the number of NEPA documen ts examined in detail to those containing comprehensive radiological intersite transportation risk assessment sections. In general, the methodology review and comparison of results were conducted for the more recent NEPA documents that discussed the risk assessmen t methodologies and deta iled results of the transportation impact assessments. Typically, brief descriptions of the risk asse ssment methodology and results of the transportation impact assessments were presented in the ma in NEPA documents, with a more detailed description of these methodologies in separate transportation appendices and technical reports. The reviewed NEPA documents primarily involved the transportation of radioactive waste, such as LLW, TRU, SNF, and HLW. In addition, most of the reviewed assessments estimated impacts from either truck or rail modes of transport.

The NEPA documents reviewed in detail are li sted in Table 4.1. The table also shows the predominant radioactive cargo be ing transported, the transporta tion modes considered, and the assessment computer codes and models. The documents listed are th e only ones among the nearly 100 screened that cont ained significant transportati on risk assessment sections. As previously mentioned, a gene rally standardized assessment a pproach, detailed in Section 4.1, has emerged in recent years. This approach, which addresses risks to collective populations, MEIs, and the consequences of maximum severity accidents, was applie d and accepted in a number of high-profile NEPA asse ssments. The approach combines four primary computer codes: RADTRAN and RISKIND for risk and conseque nce assessment, and HIGHWAY and INTERLINE for routing analysis. Note, however, that HIGHWAY and INTERLINE were superseded by TRAGIS.A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment

Page 32Table 4.1. Reviewed DOE NEPA Documents Containing Comprehensive Transportation Risk AssessmentsDocumentNumberNEPA Document Predominant CargoTransportationModeRoutingModelsCollective RiskModelsIncident-FreeMEIModelAccidentConsequenceModelsDOE/EIS-0113Draft EIS Disposal of Hanford DefenseHLW, TRUW, and Tank WastesHLW, TRUW Truck, rail Not provided RADTRAN II Not evaluated Not evaluatedDOE/EIS-0200-FWaste Management Programmatic EISfor Managing Treatment, Storage, andDisposal of Radioactive and HazardousWasteLLW, low-level mixedwaste (LLMW), HLW,TRUWTruck, rail HIGHWAY,INTERLINERADTRAN 4 RISKIND RISKINDDOE/EIS-0203-FDOE Programmatic SNF Managementand INEL ER and Waste ManagementFinal EISSNF Truck, rail HIGHWAY,INTERLINERADTRAN 4 RISKIND RISKINDDOE/EIS-0218FProposed Nuclear WeaponsNonproliferation Policy ConcerningForeign Research Reactor SNFSNF Truck, rail HIGHWAY,INTERLINERADTRAN 4 RISKIND RISKINDDOE/EIS-0226-DDraft EIS for Completion of the WestValley Demonstration Project (WVDP)and Closure or Long-Term Managementof Facilities at the Western New YorkNuclear Service CenterLLW, TRUW,contaminated soils,low specific activity(LSA) materialsTruck, rail HIGHWAY,INTERLINERADTRAN 4 RISKIND RISKINDDOE/EIS-0240Disposition of Surplus Highly EnrichedUranium Final (EIS)Uranium compounds Truck INTERSTAT RADTRAN 4 Not evaluated Not evaluatedDOE/EIS-0245FFinal EIS for Management of SNF fromK Basins at the Hanford Site, Richland,WashingtonSNF, HLW Truck, rail HIGHWAY,INTERLINERADTRAN 4 RISKIND(worker only)GENIIDOE/EIS-0249Medical Isotopes Production Project:Molybdenum-99 and Related IsotopesEISMedical isotopes Air, truck HIGHWAY RADTRAN 4 Not Provided(aircraftpassenger only)GENIIDOE/EIS-0250DDraft EIS for a Geologic Repository forthe Disposal of SNF and High-LevelRadioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,Nye County, NevadaSNF Truck, rail HIGHWAY,INTERLINERADTRAN 4 RISKIND RISKINDA Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessmen t

Page 33Table 4.1. Reviewed DOE NEPA Documents Containing Comprehensive Transportation Risk Assessments (Continued)DocumentNumberNEPA Document Predominant CargoTransportationModeRoutingModelsCollective RiskModelsIncident-FreeMEIModelAccidentConsequenceModelsDOE/EIS-0251Department of the Navy Final EIS for aContainer System for the Management ofNaval SNFSNF Rail INTERLINE RADTRAN 4 MathematicalFormulasRISKINDDOE/EIS-0269Programmatic EIS for AlternativeStrategies for the Long-Term Managementand Use of Depleted UraniumHexafluorideUranium compounds Truck, rail HIGHWAY,INTERLINERADTRAN 4 RISKIND RISKINDDOE/EIS-0275Final EIS S1C Prototype Reactor PlantDisposalReactor components Truck, rail HIGHWAY,INTERLINERADTRAN 4 MathematicalFormulasRISKINDDOE/EIS-0283Surplus Plutonium DispositionFinal EISPlutonium and uraniumcompoundsTruck HIGHWAY RADTRAN 4 RISKIND RISKINDDOE/EIS-0026-S-2Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal PhaseDraft Supplemental EISTRUW Truck, rail HIGHWAY RADTRAN 4 Not identified RISKINDDOE/EA-0441EA of Transportation, Receipt, andStorage of Fort St. Spent Fuel at theIrradiated Fuel Storage Facility at theIdaho Chemical Processing PlantSNF Truck Not provided RADTRAN 4 Not evaluated Not evaluatedDOE/EA-0912EA of Urgent Relief Acceptance ofForeign Research Reactor SNFSNF Truck, rail HIGHWAY RADTRAN 4 Not identified Not identifiedDOE/RW-0073EA, Yucca MountainSite, NevadaResearch and Development Area, NevadaSNF Truck, rail HIGHWAY,INTERLINERADTRAN II Cited references(Sandquist et al.,1985)Cited references(Sandquist et al.,1985)A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 34 

### Q Q 4.2.1 Collective Population Risk The DOE NEPA documents reviewed generally used similar methodologies to conduct the transportation risk assessments. In all cases, the cargo-related collective population risks were estimated with the RADTRAN 4 computer code c oupled with the route characteristics obtained from HIGHWAY and INTERLINE. The collective population risks were estimated on the basis of “per-kilometer” unit risks, “per-shipment” unit risks, or direct output from the RADTRAN computer code. Input data for RADTRAN were obtained eith er from the RADTRAN user’s manual or from information collected during past shipping practices. Results from RADTRAN 5 analyses were published too recently to be included in this summary. The RADTRAN computer code was used to esti mate the “cargo-related” collective population risk for every EIS and EA reviewed. The RADTRAN computer program was originally developed by SNL to prepare the Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes (NRC, 1977a). RADTRAN II (Madsen et al., 1983) and RADTRAN III (Madsen et al., 1986) were revised versions of the original code. The RADTRAN code has been conti nually updated and expanded since its inception and estimates the radiological risks to colle ctive populations associated wi th transportation operations under both routine and accident conditions. The most current version of RADTRAN is RADTRAN 5 (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 2000). For routine cargo-related risks, RADTRAN estimates a collective radiation dos e for persons living along the tran sportation route, sharing the transportation route, and at rest stops along the transportation r oute. RADTRAN also calculates the collective population dose to cr ew members and other workers. The potential radiation dose estimated using RADTRAN strongl y depends on the external dose rate and the cargo size. RADTRAN estimates the “cargo-related” collectiv e population risks associated with potential transportation accidents by consider ing both the consequences of each type of accident and the probability of an accident occurring. The expos ure pathways consider inhalation, groundshine, cloudshine, and ingestion. For each NEPA docum ent researched, the “cargo-related” risk associated with transportation accidents wa s a small percentage of the total risk.

Q Q 4.2.2 Consequence Assessment To supplement the collective risk estimates, most of the recent NEPA transportation risk assessments have included dose and the associat ed LCF estimates to MEIs under routine and accident transportation conditions. The radiological impacts to th ese individuals were estimated with such computer models as RISKIND and GE NII, as well as mathematical formulas. Many of the most recent documents used the RISKI ND code for both accident consequence and MEI assessments (see Table 4.1). To address both NEPA requirements and public c oncerns related to tran sportation operations, site-specific “cargo-related” impacts are es timated for MEIs under routine and accident conditions. The RISKIND comput er code (Yuan et al., 1995) was originally developed by Argonne National Laboratory in response to publ ic comments about the need for a more complete and consistent methodology to address radiological consequence issues. Before the development of RISKIND, a variety of models es timated site-specific “cargo-related” impacts to MEIs. RISKIND was designed to address the local, scenario-specific (i.e., “what if”) concerns frequently expressed by the members of public during the NEPA scoping process. The modeledA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 35 

### pathways incorporated into RISKIND include exte rnal radiation (routine, accident), inhalation (accident), groundshine (accident), cloudshine (accident), and inge stion (accident). Since the development of the RISKIND computer code, ma ny of the more recent NEPA documents (see Table 4.1) have incorporated th is computer tool into their assessment methodology to estimate “cargo-related” consequences to MEIs under both routine and accident conditions.

Q Q 4.2.3 Nonradiological Risk Assessment In addition to assessing the “cargo-related” ra diological risk posed by transportation-related activities, the NEPA transporta tion assessments also addressed vehicle-related nonradiological risks. These risks are independent of the radio active nature of the cargo and would be incurred for similar shipments of any commodity. Vehi cle-related risks during routine transportation operations would be associated with potential exposure to increased vehicular emissions, primarily in urban environments. Most of the tr ansportation risk assessmen ts reviewed utilized the “per-kilometer” unit risk factors developed by Rao et al. (1982) to es timate vehicle-related impacts from routine transportation operations. Under accident conditions, vehicle-related risks refer to the potential for transportation accidents to result in death from physical trauma during the accident. Vehicle-related transportation ri sks were estimated in each NEPA document using “per-kilometer” unit risk factor s from several sources, including Saricks and Kvitek (1994) and Rao et al. (1982).


## Q 4.3 Comparison of Results from Recent NEPA Transportation Impact Assessments
The NEPA risk assessment comparison identifies common trends among the transportation risk assessments and provides the analyst a baseline for comparison with future work. Because the assessments reviewed involved va rying numbers of shipments over different routes of varying distances and population densitie s, the transportation assessme nts are compared based on the average impacts estimated for each kilometer trav eled (“per-kilometer” unit risks). These unit risks are intended for comparison purposes only and simply provide analysts with benchmarks against which to compare future assessment resu lts. The unit risks in the comparisons were either obtained directly from the NEPA documents or derived from the data presented in each of the reports. The derived unit ri sks were calculated by dividing the total collective dose (personrem) by the total distance traveled. For assessments of multiple cargo types, the obtained or derived unit risks for the different cargo types were aggregated into an average unit risk for this comparison. Comparisons are first presented ac ross assessments and then across waste types.

Q Q 4.3.1 Comparison Across Assessments The cargo-related incident-free transportation impacts from the NEPA documents summarized above are compared in Figures 4.2 through 4.6. The comparison of NEPA transportation impact results are only for those documents that ei ther included unit risks or provided sufficient information that appropriate un it risks could be derived from the published results. Cargorelated accident risks were not considered in the comparison because the accident risks are a small fraction of the total transportation risks.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 36 0.0E+00 2.0E-05 4.0E-05 6.0E-05 8.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.2E-04 1.4E-04 1.6E-04 1.8E-04

Yucca Mountain

EA FRR EIS INEL SNF EIS WVDP DEIS WIPP SEIS Fort St Vrain EA HEU EIS SNF KBasin EIS WM PEIS SC1 Prototype

EIS FRR Urgent Relief EA Depleted UF6 DPEIS Hanford Tank EIS

NEPA DocumentCollective Dose (person-rem/km) Public Crew



### Figure 4.2. Incident-Free Cargo-Related Unit Risks for Members of the Public and Transportation Crews by Truck Transport

As shown in Figure 4.2, cargo-related unit risks for transportation workers from DOE truck shipments of radioactive material ranged from 8.5 × 10 − 7 

### to 5.8 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km, with an average unit risk of 2.5 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km and a median value of 5.7 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km. For members of the public, Figure 4.2 i ndicates that the ri sks ranged from 3.4 × 10 − 6 

### to 1.7 × 10 − 4 

### person-rem/km, with an average of 7.3 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km and a median value of 5.7 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km for all cargo types, ranging from depleted uranium to SNF. The majority of the public dose is accrued during st ops for rest and fuel; Figure 4.3 indicates that approximately 90% of the dose to the public from truck shipments of radio active material occurs during these routine stops. Those persons resi ding or working along tr ansport routes (off-link population) receive less than 10% of the public dose during in cident-free transport by truck. The unit risks for DOE rail shipments are similar to those for truck shipments. Cargo-related unit risks for transportation crew members range from 7.1 × 10 − 7 

### to 1.8 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km, with an average of 1.2 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km and a median value of 1.5 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km for all cargo types (Figure 4.4). Likewise, the un it risks to members of the general public from DOE rail transport of radioactive material range from 1.4 × 10 − 6 

### to 2.3 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km, averaging 1.2 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km and a median value of 1.3 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km (Figure 4.4). About half of the public dos e from rail shipments is accumul ated during the stops, withA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 37 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

HEU EIS Hanford Tank EIS FRR EIS WIPP SEIS WVDP DEIS Depleted UF6 DPEIS WM PEIS Off-Link On-Link Stops



### Figure 4.3. Distribution of the Total Incident-F ree Dose to Members of the Public (persons at stops and off-link and on-lin k receptors) by Truck Transport

most of the remaining dose being delivered to pe rsons living along the rail corridor, as shown in Figure 4.5. The NEPA transportation documents reviewed co nsidered a wide range of cargo types, from depleted uranium to SNF. A key parameter used in estimating routine “cargo-related” transportation impacts is the external dose rate. Several different methodologies were used to estimate the external dose rate for the NE PA documents. These methodologies included obtaining field measurements from identical or similar shipments of the same commodity, estimating an average dose rate based on multiple shipments of a similar material, and setting the external dose rate to the regul atory maximum based on the size of the package and the shipment type. When correcting for the dose rate from th e various cargo types (normalized to a dose rate of 1 mrem/h at 1 m), the routine cargo-relate d risks for truck transp ort ranged from 3.4 × 10 − 6 

### to 5 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km, as shown in Figure 4.6, averaging 1.3 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km with a median value of 1.0 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem for DOE shipments of radioactive material. Similarly, the unit risks for DOE rail shipments ranged from 6.5 × 10 − 7 

### to 8.0 × 10 − 6 

### person-rem/km, averaging 2.8 × 10 − 6 

### person-rem/km and a median value of 1.7 × 10 − 6 

### person-rem/km. When accounting for the external dose rate , the “per-kilometer” unit risks are within a factor of 15 for truck shipments and less than a factor of 10 for rail shipme nts of radioactive material.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 38 0.0E+00 5.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.5E-05 2.0E-05 2.5E-05

INEL SNF EIS WVDP DEIS FRR EIS WM PEIS Yucca Moutain

EA SNF KBasin EIS Hanford Tank EIS Depleted UF6 DPEIS SC1 Prototype

EIS NEPA DocumentCollective Dose (person-rem/km) Public Crew



### Figure 4.4. Incident-Free Cargo-Related Unit Risks for Members of the Public and Transportation Crews by Rail Transport

Q Q 4.3.2 Dose Rate, Package Size, and Transport Route Effects A number of different waste type trans portation analyses were conducted for the Waste Management Programmatic EIS for Managing Treatm ent, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (DOE, 1997b). Potential shipments of these wastes involve a variety of effective package sizes and extern al shipment dose rates for risk assessment. As shown in Table 4.1, the types of waste considered include HLW, TRUW, LLW, and LLMW. TRUW with a surface external dose rate of le ss than 200 mrem/h is defined as contact-handled (CH) TRUW (CH-TRUW). TRUW packages having an exte rnal dose-rate greater than 200 mrem/h are defined as remote-handled (RH) TRUW (RH-TRUW ). More details on the different waste types are given in Sections 6.1.1.2 and 6.1.11.1. External shipment dose rates applied in the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS) were calculated by several methodologies. Table 4.2 lists the dose rates used. For shipments of LLW and LLMW, th e dose rate was set to 1 mrem/h based on an average of about 2,500 reported exte rnal dose rates from historic al shipments of LLW. For HLW shipments, the transportation index was estimated based on the external dose-rate set at the regulatory limit of 10 mrem/h at 2 m. The regulatory limit was assumed because extensiveA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 39 

### historical data for HLW shipments do not exist. For TRUW shipments, th e external package dose rates were based on information provided in th e Supplemental Final EIS for the WIPP (DOE, 1990). Figure 4.7 displays the average in cident-free per kilometer unit ri sk to members of the public during truck or rail transport of different waste types considered in the WM PEIS. The unit risks range from approximately 1 × 10 − 5 

### to 7 × 10 − 5 

### person-rem/km. When these unit risks are normalized by the dose rate to give the risk per kilometer per mrem /h, the effect of package size on the risks can be seen in Figure 4.8. The norma lized risk decreases from LLW (16 m effective package size for truck) to HLW (3 m eff ective package size for truck) shipments. The differences in shipment routes are reflected in the average distributio n of the incident-free dose to off-link and on-link receptors and to recept ors at stops, as shown in Figure 4.9 for truck shipments and in Figure 4.10 for rail shipments. About 50% or 80% of the incident-free population dose is incurred at stops during rail or truck transport, respecti vely. More than 10% of the exposure is received by the on-link population and the remainder by the off-link population during truck transport. For rail transp ort, most of the remaining dose, close to 50% on average, is received by the off-link populat ion, with the on-link population receiving only about 1% of the incident-free dose.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hanford Tank EIS Depleted UF6 DPEIS WM PEIS FRR EIS WVDP DEIS Off-Link On-Link Stops



### Figure 4.5. Distribution of the Total Incident-F ree Dose to Members of the Public (persons at stops and off-link and on-lin k receptors) by Rail TransportA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 40 0.0E+00 2.0E-06 4.0E-06 6.0E-06 8.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.2E-05 1.4E-05 1.6E-05

WVDP DEIS WM PEIS Fort St Vrain EA Yucca Mountain

EA Depleted UF6 DPEIS FRR EIS WIPP SEIS INEL SNF EIS SNF KBasin EIS FRR Urgent Relief EA HEU EIS SC1 Prototype

EIS NEPA DocumentCollective Dose (person-rem/km/(mrem/h)) Truck Rail



### Figure 4.6. Incident-Free Cargo-Related Unit Risks Normalized by Dose Rate for Members of the Public

Table 4.2. Effective Package Sizes and Dose Rates from the WM PEIS

Effective Package Size (m) Effective Dose Rate at 1 m (mrem/h) Waste Type Truck Rail Truck Rail LLW 12.0 16.0 1.0 1.0 LLMW 12.0 16.0 1.0 1.0 CH-TRUW 7.32 14.6 5.7 7.2 RH-TRUW 3.61 7.22 7.1 14 HLW 3.0 3.0 14 14



### The differences observed in Figures 4.9 and 4.10 am ong all shipment types are primarily due to variations in distances traveled in different population zone s (rural, suburban, and urban). The HLW, CH-TRUW, RH-TRUW, and LLW shipment information was based on data from many shipments over many different routes, giving sim ilar average values. Activated metals was a subcategory of LLW (using the same package size and dose rate) considered in the WM PEIS. The activated metals information in Figures 4.9 an d 4.10 was from a single WM PEIS alternative consisting of only five shipment routes, with some shipments traveling more than 50% in suburban and urban zones using rail transport, in contrast to the average of approximately 23% travelA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 41 

### 0.0E+00 1.0E-05 2.0E-05 3.0E-05 4.0E-05 5.0E-05 6.0E-05 7.0E-05 8.0E-05

LLW CH-TRUW RH-TRUW HLWUnit Risk (person-rem/km) 

### Truck Rail



### Figure 4.7. Incident-Free Cargo-Related Un it Risks for Different Cargo Types for Members of the Public, from the Waste Management Programmatic EIS (DOE, 1997b)

0.0E+00 5.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.5E-05 2.0E-05 2.5E-05

LLW CH-TRUW RH-TRUW HLWNormalized Unit Risk (person-rem/km) 

### Truck Rail



### Figure 4.8. Normalized Incident-Free Cargo-Re lated Unit Risks for a Dose Rate of 1 mrem/h at 1 m for all Cargo Types Members of the Public, from the Waste Management Programmatic EIS (DOE, 1997b)A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 42 

### 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

HLW CH-TRUW RH-TRUW LLW Activated Metals LLMW Off-Link On-Link Stops



### Figure 4.9. Distribution of the Total Incident-F ree Dose to Members of the Public, Persons at Stops, and Off-link and On-link Recepto rs for all Cargo Types, from the Waste Management Programmatic EIS, Truck Transport (DOE, 1997b)

in these zones, as discussed in Section 6.1.3.2. Because the suburban and urban zones have significantly more people th an rural zones, the off-link dose is proportionately la rger. Likewise, the LLMW assessment used the same package size and dose rate information as the LLW assessment (see Table 4.2 and Section 6.1.1.2), a nd the LLMW information used in Figures 4.9 and 4.10 was taken from a single alternative with fewer LLMW shipment routes than those used in other alternatives, reflecting more travel th rough suburban and urban areas than on average.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 43 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

HLW CH-TRUW RH-TRUW LLW Activated Metals LLMW Off-Link On-Link Stops



### Figure 4.10. Distribution of the Total Incident-Free Dose to Members of the Public, Persons at Stops, and Off-link and On-link R eceptors for all Cargo Types, from the Waste Management Programmatic EIS, Rail Transport (DOE, 1997b)A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 44 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 45 

# 5. Routing and Risk Assessment Models

A short description of the computer codes used for shipment routing (TRAGIS, HIGHWAY, and INTERLINE) and transportation risk assessmen t (RADTRAN and RISKIND) are provided in this section. As discussed in Section 4, the combined use of these programs has led to a consistent and comprehensive methodology for c onducting DOE transportation risk assessments. Access to RADTRAN, HIGHW AY, and INTERLINE is provided by the TRANSNET system, which is discussed below.


## Q 5.1 TRANSNET System
TRANSNET is the electronic gateway system of databases, analysis codes, routing algorithms, and information packages available to those de aling with the transportation of radioactive materials. The TRANSNET codes and database s reside on a central computer and can be accessed by authorized users to either gain info rmation or to analyze radioactive material transportation systems. TRANSNET is accessible onl y through a secure shell. Information about the secure shell may be obtained by contacting on e of the contact persons. Upon receipt of a password, a user can access TR ANSNET with a personal comput er and modem and via the Internet. The TRANSNET system was first an nounced in 1987 and initially resided on a dedicated minicomputer, but now resides on a UN IX-based workstation. This service is sponsored by the DOE’s National Transportation Program, Office of Environmental Management (OEM). The TRANSNET system provides a means of transf erring technology and data to qualified users by permitting access to the most comprehensive a nd up-to-date transportation risk and systems analysis codes and associated databases.

Q Q 5.1.1 Codes and Databases Accessible through TRANSNET

The models and databases listed below are currently available on the TRANSNET system.

RADTRAN : RADTRAN evaluates radiol ogical consequences of inci dent-free transportation as well as risks from vehicular accidents occurr ing during transportation. SNL developed the original RADTRAN code in 1977 for the NRC in conjunction with the preparation of NUREG0170, Final Environmental Impact St atement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes (NRC, 1977a). The analytical capabil ities of the code were expanded and refined in later versions.

HIGHWAY and INTERLINE : The HIGHWAY and INTERLINE r outing models (Johnson et al., 1993a; b) were developed by ORNL to determine transportati on routes. The HIGHWAY model is used to develop several differe nt types of highway routes (co mmercial, quickest, shortest, or preferred routes for highway-r oute-controlled-quantity shipme nts). The INTERLINE model is used to calculate rail routes that reflect the r outing practices of railroad companies. Both models provide information on population density along routes. As of January 2002, the HIGHWAYA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 46 

### and INTERLINE routing models were supe rseded by a new routing model called the Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic Information System (TRAGIS) (Johnson and Michelhaugh, 2000). TRAGIS is a client-server system operating over th e Internet, and is accessed independently of TRANSNET. TRAG IS includes data from the 2000 census and results of TRAGIS analysis are easily incorporat ed into risk assessment studies. HIGHWAY and INTERLINE will not be updated, but will be main tained as part of TRANSNET to ensure availability for review or anal ysis of past risk assessments.

RAMPOST : The Radioactive Materials Post-notifi cation (RAMPOST) database is a compilation of the highway-route-controlled-quantity shipme nts that have been made since 1987. Data include shipment date, carrier, shipper, consig nee, and highway route segments. RAMPOST has not been maintained since 1998.

RMIR : The Radioactive Materials Incident Report (RMIR) data base contains information on transportation-related accidents and incidents involving radioactive materials from 1971 to 2000. RMIR was updated by SNL with new incidents and additions to the exis ting records of older incidents. With the advent of a new DOT da tabase (Hazardous Materi als Incident Summary Statistics and data) that re ports HAZMAT/RAD incidents, th e updating and maintenance of RMIR was terminated, effective 2001. However, SN L will retain historical data and respond to inquiries from customers.

TRANSNET also contains a bulletin board avai lable to all TRANSNET users. This bulletin board is used as a public forum for informa tion packages and other transportation systems located on the TRANSNET system.

Q Q 5.1.2 Points of Contact The following individuals can be contact ed for more information on TRANSNET: Pat Tode, Secretary Transportation Risk and Packaging Department Sandia National Laboratories Department 6141 Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718 Phone: (505) 845-8339 Ken B. Sorenson, Manager Transportation Risk and Packaging Department Sandia National Laboratories Department 6141 P.O. Box 5800, MS-0718 Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718 Phone: (505) 844-0074 Fax: (505) 844-0244 Email: kbsoren@sandia.govA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 47 

### David I. Chanin Transportation Risk and Packaging Department Sandia National Laboratories Department 6141 P.O. Box 5800, MS-0718 Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718 Phone: (505) 845-0231 Fax: (505) 844-0244 Email: dichani@sandia.gov


## Q 5.2 Routing Models
Computerized routing models ar e commonly used for transportation risk assessment to select highway and rail routes between origin and de stination sites. These models are used to determine the population characteri stics along routes, which are th en used as input to risk assessment models such as RADTRAN and RISKI ND. For prospective actions, routing models are often used to define “representative” routes . These representative routes are typically selected to be consistent with current routing pr actices and all applicable routing regulations and guidelines. However, they do not necessarily re present the actual routes that would transport radioactive material. Future cons iderations, including road or track work, new route segments, and traffic flows, could result in alternative routes being used.

Q Q 5.2.1 TRAGIS Routing Model TRAGIS replaced HIGHWAY and INTER LINE models, which were used to calculate routes but lacked the ability to display graphics of thos e routes. Additionally, many users had difficulty determining the proper node for f acilities and were confused by or misinterpreted the text-based listing from the routing models. TRAGIS improved the ease of selecting locations for routing, provided the capability to graphically display th e route calculated, and provided for additional geographic analysis of the route. TRAGIS is a web-based applica tion. It can be accessed at http://apps.ntp.doe.gov/tragis.htm. New users can link to a registrati on page from this home page. Another link is provided to the user’s manual. TRAGIS requires a user name and password for access. TRAGIS is designed for routes in the continen tal United States usi ng the rail, truck, and waterway transportation modes. The rail network us ed in the initial version of the model is the database used in the INTERLINE model. This database, developed for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in the mid-1970s, is not a fixed-scale database and was extensively modified by ORNL. A 1:100,000-scale rail database is under development and will be included in the TRAGIS model in the near future. The 1:100,000-scale truck database was developed from the U.S. Bureau of Census Topologically Integrated Geographic En coding and Referencing (TIGER) system. Information for the inland waterway systems is based on the 1:2,000,000-U.S. Geodata. Deep-water routes are depicted in TRAGIS as straight-line segments.

One TRAGIS feature is a consistent user inte rface in the model between the transportation modes. Functions are similar when running rail, truck, or waterway routes. Some variations willA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 48 

### occur, such as prompts requesting the name of th e railroad company when sites are selected for rail routing. Overall, when the user learns to use one portion of the TRAGIS system, it will not be difficult to use other portions of the model. TRAGIS allows the user to select the origin and de stination from a series of pick lists. The user selects the state from the first li st and the node from the second list. The rail portion of TRAGIS has a third list from which to select a specific railroad company. Users can view the database and determine the name of nodes. In addition to containing nodes for nearly every major city and intersection, the TRAGIS database contains hundreds of specialized nodes for locations of nuclear reactors, DOE sites, military installati ons, and other important facilities and sites. After an origin and destination are selected, th e model is ready to cal culate a route based on criteria established by option settings. A standa rd set of default criteria is active for each transportation mode in the model. Upon calculating a route, TRAGI S allows the user to display that route. Users can also obt ain a text listing and population de nsity information on the route. Population density statistics are used as i nput for risk assessment models. The population density distribution is calculated for each tran sportation segment of the route and is usually reported on a state-by-state basis. The populatio n information is based on the 2000 U.S. Census block group data. Option settings allow various para meters in the model to be ch anged for route calculations. Examples include adjusting the penalty factors fo r the mainline classifications for rail routing; using preferred routes, as specified in 49 CFR 3 97 Subpart D (“Routing of Class 7 [Radioactive] Materials”) for radioactive materials for truck rout es; and running alternative routes for different transportation modes in TRAGIS. TRAGIS also provides functions to temporarily modify the routing networks. The user can select individual nodes and links to be temporarily blocked in the network. Individual states can also be selectively removed from consideration. In the rail network, th e user can modify the transfer penalties between different rail systems at interchange locations.

Q Q 5.2.2 HIGHWAY Routing Model

Q Q Q 5.2.2.1 Description 

### The HIGHWAY model provides a fl exible tool to identify highw ay routes for transporting radioactive materials in the United States. The HIGHWAY database is essentially a computerized road atlas that currently desc ribes over 240,000 miles of highways. Complete descriptions of the interstate hi ghway system and all U.S. highways (except those that parallel a nearby interstate highway) are included in the da tabase. Many of the principal state highways and a number of local and county highways are al so identified. The database also includes locations of nuclear facilities and major airports. Several types of routes may be generated, depending on a set of user-supplied constraints. Routes are generated by minimizi ng the total impedance between th e origin and the destination. Basically, the impedance is defined as a function of distance and driving time along a particular highway segment. Several routing constraints can be imposed during the computations. One special feature of the HIGHWAY model is its ability to generate routes that maximize the use ofA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 49 

### the interstate highway system. Th is feature allows the user to ge nerate routes for shipments of radioactive materials that conform to the DOT routing regulations (HM-164). Occasionally, routes are needed that bypass major population areas. All highway segments located within urbanized areas containing more than 100,000 peopl e are identified in the HIGHWAY database. Routes generated using this information will not include roads in these urbanized areas unless no other route is available. Other f eatures of the model include the ab ility to generate routes that bypass a specific state, city, town, or a highway segment.

The HIGHWAY model has been enhanced to au tomatically generate alternative routes. Frequently, there are a number of routes between th e source and destination that vary slightly in distance and estimated driving time. With th e alternative routing feature, the HIGHWAY program offers a selection of different, but near ly equal, routes. The output generated by the HIGHWAY program includes a brief summary show ing the origin, destination, departure and arrival times, estimated driving time, and total distan ce. The mileage driven in each state is also listed, along with the mileage traveled on the va rious highway types. A more detailed route description is also available, along with geographic information for producing maps of routes. The HIGHWAY model was used to generate both routes and population de nsity statistics along routes for risk studies performed for DOE. The population density distri bution is calculated for each highway segment in the route and is usua lly reported on a state-by-state basis. The population data utilized for this calculation are based on the 1990 U.S. Census block group data. The HIGHWAY model is currently used for route planning and scheduling of the Safe and Secure Transport fleet by the DOE Albuquerque Operations Office’s Security Communications (SECOM) tracking system. Public access to the HIGHWAY model is current ly provided via the TRANSNET system.

Q Q Q 5.2.2.2 Peer Review, Validation, and Verification 

### A study by Maheras and Pippen (1995) provided independent verificati on that the routes generated using HIGHWAY are consistent with similar, commercially-available routing programs.
Q Q 5.2.3 INTERLINE Rail Routing Model

Q Q Q 5.2.3.1 Description 

### INTERLINE is an interactive pr ogram designed to simulate rou ting practices on the U.S. rail system. Because the rail industry is divided into a large number of independent, competing companies, INTERLINE breaks the U.S. rail netw ork into 94 separate subnetworks. Routing within each subnetwork is conduc ted independently to replicate the routing practices of an individual company. The database used by INTERLINE was originally obtained from the FRA a nd reflected the status of the U.S. railroad system in 1974. Over the past two decades, the database was extensively modified to reflect the line abandonments, cor porate mergers, shortline spin-offs, and other developments. An important element of the databa se is the transfer loca tions where traffic may move from one subnetwork to another. Because transfers between railroads increase cost and delay, penalties are assigned to these movements to replicate the tendency of traffic to remain on a single railroad’s line when possible. The mode l uses a label-setting al gorithm to find minimumA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 50 

### impedance paths within the individual subnetworks. A label-correcting routing is then used to find paths among the subnetworks. One benefit of this approach is that computer resource requirements are reduced. This feature allows IN TERLINE to run as an interactive program on either a mainframe or personal computer, despit e the large size of the network (approximately 16,000 links). The user may specify a number of parameters to control the routi ng calculations, although defaults are provided that repr esent typical practices in th e industry. By varying these parameters, the user can find alternative routes or examine the effect of restricting movement through specified areas, such as cities or railroa d systems. Another impo rtant capability is the estimation of short-line mileage be tween points. Short-line mileag es are distances that disregard the effects of competition among carriers and are the basis of freight rate calculations using class tariffs. In addition to including a descri ption of the U.S. railroad system, the INTERLINE database also includes a description of navigable inland and intracoastal waterways. Thus, the INTERLINE model is also able to generate likely barge and rail-barge intermodal routes. The output generated by the INTERLINE model includes a su mmary showing the orig in, destination, total distance, and distances along the projected railroad lines, as well as population densities along the route. The general route list ing identifies the major cities and all interchange points. A more detailed route description is also available, along with geographic in formation for producing maps of routes. The INTERLINE model has been used to genera te both rail routes and population density statistics for risk studies perf ormed for DOE. The population dens ity distribution is calculated for each rail segment in the route and is usua lly reported on a state-by-state basis. The population data utilized for this calculation are based on the 1990 U.S. Census block group data. Public access to the INTERLINE model is provided via the TRANSNET system.

Q Q 5.2.4 Points of Contact The individuals listed below can provide further information on the routing models introduced in Section 5.2. R. R. Rawl, NTP Program Manager Oak Ridge National Laboratory Bldg NTRC, MS 6472 P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6472 Street address: National Tran sportation Research Center 2360 Cherahala Blvd. Knoxville, TN 37932-1563 Phone: (865) 574-6461 Fax: (865) 574-3431 E-mail: rawlrr@ornl.govA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 51 

### P. E. Johnson, TRAGIS Task Leader Oak Ridge National Laboratory Bldg NTRC, MS 6472 P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6472 Street address: National Tran sportation Research Center 2360 Cherahala Blvd. Knoxville, TN 37932-1563 Phone: (865) 574-7450 Fax: (865) 574-3431 E-mail: johnsonpe@ornl.gov Rick Michelhaugh Oak Ridge National Laboratory Bldg. NTRC, MS 6472 P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6472 Street address: National Tran sportation Research Center 2360 Cherahala Blvd. Knoxville, TN 37932-1563 Phone: (865) 574-6819 Fax: (865) 574-3431 E-mail: michelhaugh@ornl.gov


## Q 5.3 Risk Models

Q Q 5.3.1 RADTRAN

Various versions of the RADTRA N code have been used in historical assessments. The following sections include a detailed descrip tion of RADTRAN 5, the version of RADTRAN now in use. RADTRAN 4 was used extensively until recently, and was used in the analyses described in Chapter 4. RADT RAN 5 is primarily an improve d version of RADTRAN 4. A brief discussion of the improvements incorpor ated in RADTRAN 5 is also included.

Q Q Q 5.3.1.1 Description 

### RADTRAN is a FORTRAN 77 comput er code designed to analyze the consequences and risks of radioactive material trans portation. RADTRAN I was develope d by SNL under contract to the NRC to serve as an analytical tool in preparing the Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Mate rial by Air and Other Modes (NRC, 1977a). The model and code were updated and expanded in subsequent versions of the model (Taylor and Daniel, 1982; Madsen et al., 1983, 1986; Neuhauser and Kanipe, 1992; Neuhauser et al., 2000). Public access to the RADTRAN 5 model is provided via the TRANSNET system. RADTRAN 4 may be accessed through TRANSNET, but is no longer main tained. TRANSNET must be accessed via a secure shell. RADTRAN estimates radiological risks associated with inci dent-free transportation of radioactive materials an d with accidents that might occur during transportati on. Incident-freeA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 52 

### (routine) transportation is de fined as transportation during which no incident, accident, packaging or handling abnormality, or other abno rmal event occurs. Documentation available for RADTRAN includes a technical manual, a user guide, and a programmer’s manual. Seven modes of transportation are addressed in RADTRAN: two highway modes (tractor-trailer and light-duty vehicle), rail, barg e, ship, cargo air, and passenger air. More than one mode may be used to transport a single package of radioactive material from its origin to its final destination. Each mode type is considered individually in assessing radiological impact. Parameters that may vary with the mode, such as velocity, shielding, and population distribution, have varying impact on population dose. For furthe r descriptions of transportation processes, see Wolff (1984) and L una et al. (1981). In RADTRAN, the population affected by incide nt-free transportation may be divided into population subgroups. The subgroups of transpor tation workers include crew members (for truck, barge, ship, van, and airc raft), railyard workers, insp ectors, and escorts. Other occupational groups include cargo handlers, warehous e personnel, passengers, flight attendants (passenger air mode only), and service station a ttendants. Members of the public sharing stop areas with the transporting vehicle, residents near stops, occupants of vehicles sharing the transport link with the radioactive cargo, and people along th e transport link on which the vehicle is moving constitute additional population groups . The last group (people along the route) is modeled as a uniformly distributed population on both sides of th e link with a variable density that may be specified by the user (except fo r air and ocean modes, which have no surrounding populations while in transit). The user may define population- density zones to account for different population densities. Urban, suburban, a nd rural zones for the entire route, or for each state along a route, may be designated and all ro ute segments aggregated into these zones.

RADTRAN contains related sets of models to estimate the radi ological consequences and risks of radioactive material transpor tation. The component models use (1) user-supplied input data, (2) parameter values from other RADTRAN calcula tions, and (3) standard values that may be read into the RADTRAN code. The sets of models are as follows:

• A package model, which includes both the mode l of the radiation source for incident-free transportation and the isotopic cont ent and properties of the cargo,

• Transportation models, including th e route segment and stop models,

• Population distribution models, including the resident populati on along the route, occupants of vehicles sharing the transportation link, pe ople at stops, and re sidents near stops,

• Accident-severity and package-behavior models , including conditional severity probabilities and release, aerosol, and respirable fractions,

• Meteorological dispersion model,

• Exposure pathway models for inhalation, ingestion, resuspension, cloudshine, and groundshine exposures,A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 53 

### • Health effects model, and

• Non-radiological fatality model.

The incident-free module calculate s values of incident-free popul ation dose using the source terms of the material model and the population distribution and transportation models. These models may be used to calculate doses from acci dents involving only immobilization of a vehicle with undamaged cargo or loss of gamma shield ing. RADTRAN calculates values of population dose for accidents that result in dispersal by using material, tr ansportation, populationdistribution, accident-severity, package-release, meteorological, and exposure pathway models. Calculated doses may be converted to estimated potential stochastic health effects using the health effects model, and traffic fatalities and health effects from vehicle emissions may be calculated using the non-radi ological fatality model.

Q Q Q 5.3.1.2 Incident-Free Transportation 

### The probability of incident-free transportation is considered equal to 1.0 even though it is actually equal to 1.0 minus the small probabi lity of an accident. Thus, incident-free transportation doses (consequen ces) and risk are indistingu ishable. The radiological consequences of incident-free transportation are the estimated collective population doses for the various population groups exposed to the pack age(s) being analyzed. RADTRAN calculates these population doses, which may be used, in tu rn, to estimate stochastic health effects.

Characteristics of radioactive material that a ffect incident-free tran sportation doses are the external vehicle dose rate, the critical dimensi on of the vehicle, and the fractions of gamma and neutron radiation. The external vehicle dose ra te (identified as the transport index (TI) for certain package types) is defined as the hi ghest radiation dose rate, in millirem per hour (mrem/h), from all penetrating radiation at 1 m from a vertical plane perpendicular to the outermost lateral edge of the vehicle. The TI is the external dose rate rounded up to the nearest tenth. The package dose rate is similarly defined as the highest radiation dose rate, in millirem per hour, from all penetrating radiation at 1 m (3.3 ft) from any accessible external surface of the package. The package dose rate affects doses to handlers, warehouse personnel, and other populations that handle or are exposed to indi vidual packages. No accommodation can be made in RADTRAN for package offset. To analyze incident-free conditions with RADTRAN, the vehicle do se rate and vehicle critical dimension model a shipment of radioactive material as a modified point s ource at the center of a sphere whose diameter is the cr itical vehicle dimension, and, for receptor distances less than two characteristic dimensions from the vehicle, as a line source. Characteristi cs of the transportation system are then incorporated into mode-specific models, which use a set of input parameters to describe the population around the package and othe r critical mode-depende nt characteristics, such as vehicle velocity, stop duration, and di stances from various receptors at stops. Population-density zones and popula tion densities for each route segment must be defined by the user, in addition to the characte ristics of the various subpopulati ons that receive off-link, on-link, passenger, crew, stop, handling, a nd storage doses. The user-a ssigned values describing these potentially exposed subgroups may vary by mode and population-density zone. The user isA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 54 

### given a wide latitude in adjusti ng parameters for analysis for a specific problem, but the accuracy of the results may be limited by the quali ty and quantity of the available data.

Q Q Q 5.3.1.3 Accident Risk 

### To calculate transportation accide nt risks, the consequences a nd probabilities of vehicular accidents must be calculated. The radiological consequences of an acci dent are the potential doses (or health effects) that might occur fr om (1) dispersion of a specified quantity of radioactive material beyond the immediate accident site and (2) direct exposure of persons to ionizing radiation from a vehicle that is stoppe d for a period of time or following damage to package shielding. The probability of an accident in which radioac tive material is released, the vehicle is immobilized, or shie lding is damaged is determined from the frequency of all accidents and from the conditional probabilities of accident occurrence sufficiently severe to damage shielding and/or package integrity. The frequencies of accidents by mode and route segment are usually estimated from historical da ta on accident rates. The spectrum of accident severity may be divided by the user into as ma ny as 30 accident-severity categories. The user assigns each accident-severity category a conditional probability such that if an accident occurs, it will be of a specified severi ty. Accident severities and th eir conditional probabilities do not depend on the nature of the package. Corre sponding package-respon se data (e.g., release fractions by accident-severity category) used to calculate consequences, which are package- and radionuclide inventory-dependent, also must be provided by the user. The accident module combines user-supplied data on packaging behavior (release fractions, etc.) and accident severity to assess radiological consequences (population doses) for various severities of accidents. Sepa rate calculations may be perf ormed for each accident-severity category in each population-density zone. Th e consequence value is multiplied by an appropriate probability of occurrence derived from hi storical accident data to give a risk value; the sum of these individual risk calculations is the total radiological acci dent risk. To perform consequence calculations for release accidents, di spersal from the releas e point (hypothetical accident site) to downwind deposition areas is calculated with either Pasquill atmosphericstability classes A through F or user-defined specifications. Included in the radiological consequence calculations are five exposure -pathways models – inhalation, groundshine, cloudshine, ingestion, and resuspension.

Q Q Q 5.3.1.4 Improvements in RADTRAN 5 

### RADTRAN 5 maintains the general overall objectives and much of the methodology of RADTRAN 4. In addition to grea tly improved stop models and be tter defined roles of package and vehicle models, improvements include more us er-definable input parameters, including more segment-specific parameters for a more route-spec ific analysis; the capability to treat individual stops separately; and the ability to treat individu al handlings separately. Additional parameters for crew exposure calculations are now available as well. Other changes for RADTRAN 5 include a maximu m individual accident dose calculation, a new ingestion dose model, and calculation of nonrad iological fatalities. The maximum individual accident dose calculation requires air dispersion input data similar to that required for the population accident dose calculations. The ne w ingestion dose model COMIDA2 (Abbot andA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 55 

### Rood, 1994a; b) is now used in the MACCS2 co de (Chanin and Young, 1997) . Nonradiological accident fatalities may now be estimated with user-supplied fatality rates.

Q Q Q 5.3.1.5 Peer Review, Validation, and Verification 

### Two independent reviews of the RADTRAN code ha ve been performed. Th e first release of the RADTRAN code was reviewed in NUREG-0170, Vol. 2 (NRC, 1977a). NUREG-0170, Vol. 2, contains the responses received and corresponding changes made af ter a public review of the draft version (NUREG-0034), for which the firs t release of RADTRAN was developed (NRC, 1977a). The Safety and Reliability Division of the Un ited Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority reviewed the RADTRAN 4 code as part of the effort to adapt the code for international release by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as INTERTRAN 2 (Hancox and Wilkinson, 1993). The reviewers concluded that RADTRAN 4 produced “reasonable estimates of radiation doses,” but found the route-related defaults unsuitable fo r use in the United Kingdom and potentially in other countries outside the Unite d States; they also recommended allowing the user to suppress the regulatory constraints (Hancox and Wilkinson, 1993). Validating a code such as RADTRAN 4 ensure s that each model embodied in the code acceptably represents the process it is intended to replicate. The validity of the RADTRAN calculations depends on the quality and accuracy of current understanding about radiological health, economic effects, and the accuracy and completeness of shipment data provided by the user. When improved information becomes av ailable (e.g., concerning the early and latent health effects from radiation), the RADT RAN equations are modi fied accordingly, and calculations are updated without altering basic operations of the code. RADTRAN 4 used a health-effects model based on the “Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences” (NRC, 1975). This model was supplanted in recent years; RADTRAN 5 uses the health model published by the National Research Council’s Comm ittee on the Biological Effects of Radiation (National Research Council, 1990). Empirical studies, such as the Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants (AEC, 1972), and Radiation Dose to Population (Crew and Passengers) Resulting from the Transportation of R adioactive Material by Passenger Aircraft in the United States (Barker et al., 1974), have contributed to the data RADTRAN uses to calculate doses.

Verification consists of demonstr ating that calculations are perf ormed correctly by the code. All calculations performed in R ADTRAN 4 were verified by pe rforming at least one hand calculation and comparing the re sults to those generated by th e code (allowing for round-off conventions). The results of these hand calculations are arch ived, along with other quality records, at SNL. An independent verifica tion of most RADTRAN 4 calculations was also performed by Maheras and Pippen (1995).

Q Q Q 5.3.1.6 Points of Contact 

### The RADTRAN computer code wa s developed and maintained by SNL, Risk Assessment and Transportation System Analysis Division, Albu querque, New Mexico. Technical Manual andA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 56 

### User’s Manual of RADTRAN 5 are also availabl e to users. Inquiries and comments concerning the RADTRAN 4 and 5 codes may be addressed to the following persons.

G. Scott Mills Transportation Safety and Security Department Sandia National Laboratories Department 6141 P.O. Box 5800, MS-0718 Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718 Phone: (505) 844-1947 Fax: (505) 844-0244 Email: gsmills@sandia.gov

Ken B. Sorenson Manager, Transportation Risk and Packaging Department Sandia National Laboratories Department 6141 Albuquerque, NM 87185 Phone: (505) 844-0074 Fax: (505) 844-0244 Email: kbsoren@sandia.gov

David I. Chanin Transportation Risk and Packaging Department Sandia National Laboratories Department 6141 P.O. Box 5800, MS-0718 Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718 Phone: (505) 845-0231 Fax: (505) 844-0244 Email: dichani@sandia.gov

Ruth Weiner Transportation Risk and Packaging Department Sandia National Laboratories Department 6141 P.O. Box 5800, MS-0718 Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718 Phone: (505) 856-5011 Fax: (505) 844-0244 Email: ruthweiner@ymp.gov

Q Q 5.3.2 INTERTRAN In 1981, Kemakta Konsult in Sweden adapted the second release of RADTRAN for international use. This program conversion, called INTER TRAN, was completed and documented in 1982. The current version, INTERTRAN2, is based on RADTRAN 4, and is available from the IAEAA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 57 

### in Vienna to member countries (Ericsson and Elert, 1982). An indepe ndent peer review of INTERTRAN2 was completed by SNL in 1999 under a contract with the DOE. INTERTRAN2 is a personal computer-based analysis tool for the assessmen t of the radiological consequences and risks associated with the tr ansport of radioactive materials for shipment conditions typically encountered in land, air, and sea transport. The INTERTRAN2 package comprises a series of calculational models embodi ed in the code to ca lculate the radiological consequences and risks by combining user-suppli ed data with radiological information provided by the code system. INTERTRAN2 analyses ar e performed like RADTRAN4 analyses, except that some country-specific paramete rs may be controlled by the user. The transport conditions provided for by INTERTRAN2 include both incident-free transportation and the occurren ce of abnormal transport condi tions, including incidents and accidents that may or may not result in radionuc lide releases and the subsequent (if any) dispersal in the environment. The INTERTRAN2 system allows the user to adju st the analysis to the specific problem being analyzed including modeling of multimodal shipments. It covers the broad range of radionuclides used in medicine, science, a nd technology, as well as nuclear materials and radioactive waste. The INTERTRAN2 computer code system also provides an advanced atmospheric dispersion code, TRANSAT, which may be used by experien ced users dealing with complicated weather situations. The transport incident centerline dose calculation program Transport Incide nt Center Line Dose and the LHS module, a LHS sampling program, are not included in the sta ndard version of the INTERTRAN2 package but may be downloade d separately or provided upon request.

The INTERTRAN2 code is written in Visual Ob jects, a 32-bit object- oriented language for Windows 95/98/2000 and NT. The INTERTRAN 2 input assembles and manages input databases, constructs input files for INTERTRAN2-RT4, and executes INTERTRAN2-RT4

cases. The INTERTRAN2-RT4 program is based on the RADTRAN4.019IOSI program, an SI-unit version of RADTRAN 4. INTERTRAN2-RT4 is a modified version of RADTRAN4.019IOS and was compiled for PC use. All supporting documentation, including the User Guid es for all related com puter codes, are also available to download from the contact persons listed below.

There are some limitations in INTERTRAN2 that the user should know. The RADTRAN 4 computer code, which is the basis of the INTERTRAN2-RT4, is not intended for on-site transport risk analysis. Also, chemical hazards, such as those from uraniumhexafluoride, are not included in the risk assessment model. The h ealth effect model INTERTRAN2 is out of date. This will be updated in due time.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 58 

### INTERTRAN (RADTRAN II) calculations were comp ared to actual measurements for certain handlers and vehicle crew member s in Italy (Permattei et al., 1985; DeMarco et al., 1983), and INTERTRAN was found to overestimate incide nt-free doses. The Italian findings do not constitute empirical validation, but do indicate that INTERTRAN is conservative, as expected.

Q Q Q 5.3.2.1 Points of Contact 

### Ron Pope International Atomic Energy Agency Transportation Safety Unit Division of Radiation and Worker Safety Department of Nuclear Safety P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Ann-Margret Ericsson or Clifford Jarnry AMC Konsult Abrahams bergsvågen 89 S-168 30 Bromma Sweden Phone: 46-8-634-07-35 Fax: 46-8-634-09-59 Email: amc@amckonsult.se cj@amckonsult.se

Q Q 5.3.3 RISKIND

Q Q Q 5.3.3.1 Background 

### The RISKIND computer program aids in the anal ysis of radiological consequences and health risks to individuals and the collective populat ion from exposures associated with the transportation of SNF or other radi oactive materials. It provides scenario-specific analyses when evaluating alternatives for majo r federal actions involving radio active material transport, as required by NEPA. In 1977, the NRC issued a report on the tran sportation of radioactive materials, Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes (NRC, 1977a). That report laid the groundw ork for the development of the RADTRAN computer program and its successors, currently RADTRAN 5 (Neuhauser et al., 2000), to estimate the collective p opulation risk from transporting radi oactive materials under incident-free or accident conditions. However, assessing risks to individuals, in addition to the collective population, is generally needed in NEPA revi ews when evaluating major federal actions involving transportation that co uld adversely impact the envi ronment. Traditionally, the collective populati on analysis was supplemented by other models so that consequences to individuals or population subgroups could also be estimated. These models are documented in DOE EA reports (see Table 4.1). Different models we re often used in the ea rlier reports, leading to inconsistencies and, frequently, the inappropriate use of models designed for other purposes. Incident-free impacts to individuals from routin e transport were sometimes not included or were estimated from hand calculations.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 59 

### Because of public comments and the need for a more complete and consistent methodology for assessing transportation risks to individuals, DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management funded the development of RI SKIND at Argonne Nati onal Laboratory. The program picks up where the collective population ri sk assessment ends by analyzing incidentfree and accident risks to indi viduals, thereby providing a comprehensive methodology for radiological transportation risk assessment and fulfilling obligations under NEPA.

Q Q Q 5.3.3.2 Scope 

### RISKIND provides an analysis for scenarios of concern to the public for NEPA documentation; that is, the calculation of incident-free and accident impacts for a particular radioactive material shipment at specific locations al ong a truck or rail transport rout e. Reflecting local concerns, public comments on transportation risk analyses fo r individuals frequently include requests for information on potential impacts to certain receptors:

• An individual stuck in traffic next to a radioactive materials shipment;

• An individual working near a he avily traveled transport route;

• An individual living near a heav ily traveled transport route, such as a shipment origin or destination site entrance;

• An individual near a rail grade-cros sing where accident rates are higher;

• Individuals in an area near a postulate d SNF transportation accident location;

• An individual eating locally-grown food follo wing an SNF transportation accident; and

• An individual drinking water that was contamin ated by an accidental release of radioactive material near a drinking water supply. The radiological consequences and health risks fr om these “what if” type of situations are of great interest and concern to the pub lic. Analysis tailored to a sp ecific situation is needed. In addition, substantial databases a nd technologies relevant to the transportation of SNF and other radioactive materials are avai lable through the efforts of va rious research organizations. RISKIND was developed to meet the information needs of the local community and incorporates the available databases and technologies. The RISKIND code was implemented to meet four objectives: 1. Calculate site- and route-speci fic radiological consequences and health risks to exposed individuals and the colle ctive local population, 2. Model the different exposure pathwa ys for specific exposure scenarios,

3. Estimate the amount of radioactive material rele ased in potential accident scenarios, and 4. Estimate cask accident responses specif ic to the transportation of SNF.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 60 

### To accomplish the first objective, RISKIND calcula tes radiological impacts at specific receptor locations for a variety of exposure scenarios. Comprehensive mathematical models capable of handling site-specific information at the time of exposure are used; such information includes specific receptor locations, expos ure conditions (including individua l air and food intake rates), and meteorological conditions. The model used to assess the potenti al acute health effects from short-term exposures is based on a model devel oped by Harvard University and the NRC (Evans, 1990) and the revised model of Abrahamson et al. (1989; 1991). The dose-to-risk conversion factors to estimate latent h ealth effects are taken from IC RP Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991). RISKIND meets the second objective by consider ing all environmental pathways, including short-term exposure from the initial passing ra dioactive cloud, accidental exposure from loss of the cask shield, and long-term exposure from ground deposition and ingestion from the foodchain pathways. Pathway analysis can be tailored to model impacts in a wide range of locations, from large metropolitan areas to rural agri cultural areas. To meet the third objective, a radionuclide s ource inventory was compiled from the database developed at ORNL in which the data are specific to the type of spent fuel (pressurized water reactor [PWR] or boiling water reactor [BWR]), cooling times, and burnup rates (Notz et al., 1987; DOE, 1992). User-supplied invent ories are also permitted for different types of SNF and other radioactive materials. To meet the fourth objective, the cask accident responses and th e radionuclide release fractions modeled by LLNL in a report for the NRC (Fisch er et al., 1987) were incorporated into RISKIND as default values. This LLNL/NRC report is commonly referred to as the “NRC Modal Study.” Other cask responses and release fractions supplied by the user may be used in place of the default values.

Q Q Q 5.3.3.3 Incident-Free Transportation 

### Exposure during incident-free transportation results solely from the external doses received by individuals from the neutron and gamma radiation emitted from the SNF cask or other radioactive material shipping package. Incident -free exposures include those when the transport vehicle is in transit or at a stop. The receptors for the in-transit exposure may include residents adjacent to a highway and the occupants of vehicl es sharing the traffic link with the transport vehicle. Exposed individuals at a stop may include the vehicle inspector, a gas station attendant, a nearby person in a traffic jam, and others. The model used by RISKIND to predict extern al exposure is based on dose rates derived specifically for a spent fuel cask and takes into account the ground/air scattering of the emitted gamma or neutron radiation (Chen and Yuan, 1988) . The model also allows adjusting the dose rate for changes in cask size (i.e., outer radius and length) and provides a realistic, though still somewhat conservative, estimate of the external doses to a receptor.

Q Q Q 5.3.3.4 Accident Conditions 

### Individual exposure can occur thr ough many environmental pathways if an accident releases the radioactive contents of the cask to the environment. In RISKIND, the estimated exposure, as well as the resulting health effects, are pres ented individually and for each potential pathway.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 61 

### Various scenarios were characte rized in RISKIND according to an array of SNF cask responses, as described in the NRC’s Modal Study (Fischer et al., 1987). In that study, all accidents are represented by discrete response regions (sever ity categories). These response regions range from likely events (with minor consequences ) to highly unlikely ev ents (with severe consequences). Twenty response regions are ch aracterized according to two major accident parameters: impact force and thermal force (i.e., heat from a fire). Thus, accident conditions would be affected by vehicle sp eed, object hardness, impact a ngle and orientation, and fire duration and location. In the Modal Study, the bounding case release fractions were also estimated for each response region. All potential accident scenarios are thus fully represented by the 20 response regions. To support a consistent estimate of a release, the SNF radionuclide source inventory is derived from a database developed by ORNL (Notz et al., 1987; DOE, 1992). In addition, potential release from “crud” (a mixture of reactor coolan t corrosion products) spalling off the fuel rods is also incorporated. The estimate of crud rele ase is based on a study by SNL (Sandoval et al., 1991). The atmospheric transport modul e in RISKIND includes models that simulate dispersion phenomena following a short-duration release. RISKIND’s transport model estimates levels of air and ground contamination based on specific me teorological conditions, geometry, and release elevation. Plume rise from the thermal buoyanc y of a release involvi ng fire and dispersion effects near the release are also considered. The uncertain eff ect of weather conditions on the calculated doses can be considered by construc ting a cumulative probability distribution of dose values using wind-rose data for a given site. Th is probabilistic dose distri bution then determines the median (50% weather probabi lity) and reasonable maximum (95% weather probability) dose values at a given receptor location. The pathway model includes exposure pathways from the cask’s direct extern al radiation (due to loss of shielding), external e xposure from the radioactive clo ud and ground contamination, and internal exposure from inhalation of radionuclides in the air and ingestion of contaminated foods and water.

Health effects to individuals are estimated in term s of expected acute or latent fatalities, latent nonfatal cancer incidence, and la tent adverse genetic effects fr om short-term exposure during initial plume passage and long-term exposure from deposited radioactive material. Acute fatalities are estimated with the la test NRC health effects model (E vans, 1990). The latent health effects are estimated by applying dose-to-risk co nversion factors suggested in ICRP Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991). The consequence model of RISKIND allows incor porating the consequence reduction benefits of indoor shielding, evacuation, interd iction of contaminated foods, and other protective actions (such as cleanup of contamination) to co mply with EPA PAG levels (EPA, 1992). Consequences can be presented either deterministic ally (i.e., with fixed accident parameters and weather conditions) or probabilis tically (i.e., analyzed over th e spectrum of accident response regions and weather conditions).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 62 Q Q Q 5.3.3.5 Peer Review, Validation, and Verification 

### RISKIND underwent two independent peer reviews. Members of the review panels were from government contractors, other na tional laboratories, state agen cies, the NRC, and the Naval Reactor Program. The first review was conducted before the release of the original program (Yuan et al., 1993), and the second review was conducted before the release of the current version (v. 1.11) of the RISKI ND program (Yuan et al., 1995). The models employed in RISKIND are well establis hed (i.e., validated) and are referenced in the RISKIND manual (Yuan et al., 1995 ). Further validation was also conducted in benchmark tests of the more important code models (Biwer et al., 1997). As new information becomes available, these models will be revised as appropriate in future versions of the program. The development of RISKIND is controlled by a quality assurance (QA) program at Argonne National Laboratory. Computations in the code are verified against separate spreadsheet calculations kept in a project file . Independent verification of th e calculations in the original release of the code was documented by Maheras and Pippen (1995). The major portions of the code’s latest release (RISKIND v.1.11) we re verified by Biwe r et al. (1997).

Q Q Q 5.3.3.6 Points of Contact 

### The individuals listed below may provide further information on the RISKIND program discussed in this section:

S.Y. Chen Environmental Assessment Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 S. Cass Ave. Argonne, IL 60439 Phone: (630) 252-7695 FAX: (630) 252-4611 E-Mail: sychen@anl.gov

Bruce M. Biwer Environmental Assessment Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 S. Cass Ave. Argonne, IL 60439 Phone: (630) 252-5761 FAX: (630) 252-4624 E-Mail: bmbiwer@anl.govA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 63 

# 6. Compilation of Assessment Input Data and Parameters

A variety of input data are requi red to perform a transportation ri sk assessment with the risk models discussed in Section 5 according to the methodology given in Section 4.1. Section 6 provides a compendium of such da ta, with references for the most important parameters required by transportation risk assessment computer progra ms. The references cited should be consulted for more in-depth information when appropriate.


## Q 6.1 Radiological Risks

Q Q 6.1.1 Package-Related The package size, external dose rate, and distance to crew are the most sensitive and important parameters when estimating the incident-free tran sportation doses. As package size increases, the near-field dose increases for a given package dos e rate; likewise, the larger the dose rate, the larger the population dose for a given package size. In accident conditions, the amount of radioactive material released from a transportation accident depends on the packaging of the material. The calculated accident risks are directly proportional to the am ount released, except in the case of direct external exposure to a da maged shipping package (loss of shielding).

Q Q Q 6.1.1.1 Packaging 

### The primary regulatory approach used to ensure safe ty in the transport of radioactive materials is specifying standards for the proper packaging. Many organizations at the fede ral, state, and local levels are involved in regulating the packaging and transportation of radioactive materials. As discussed in Section 2.4, primary regulatory authority is provided by the DOT under 49 CFR Part 173 (“Shippers - General Requirements for Shipments and Packaging”). For radioactive materials, additional regulations set by the NRC are provided in 10 CFR Part 71 (“Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material”). A ll DOE shipments are made in accordance with these regulations. Packaging for radioactive materials transport must be designed, constructed, and maintained to ensure that it will contain a nd shield the contents during nor mal transportation. For very radioactive material, the packaging must contain and shield the cont ents in severe accidents, as well. The type of packaging is determined by the radioactive hazard associated with the packaged material. The basic types of packag ing required by the applicable regulations are designated as Type A, Type B, or industrial (gen erally for low-specific-activity material). Some details about the characteristics and dimensions of Type A and T ype B containers are provided in Table 6.1.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 64



### Table 6.1. Dimensions and Characteristics of Common Radioactive Material Packagings

Packaging Empty Weight (kg) Max. Gross Wt. (kg) Capacity Length a (cm) Width/ Diameter a (cm) Depth a (cm) Type A Metal Drums 5-gallon 3 18.9 L 34.3 (31.8) 31.1 (28.6) 10-gallon 5.1 37.8 L 43.8 (40.0) 38.1 (35.6) 30-gallon 15.2 114 L 74.9 (71.1) 50.8 (45.7) 35-gallon 17.7 132 L 88.3 (85.1) 52.1 (45.7) 55-gallon 31.75 208 L 88.9 (84.5) 61.0 (57.2) 85-gallon 35 322 L 99.1 (96.2) 70.1 (66.6) Standard Waste Box (SWB) b 295 1,814 1.84 m 3 180 (174) 138 (132) 94 (93.2)

Type B TRUW TRUPACT-II c 5,436 8,732 14 55-gal drums

or 2 SWB 310 (191) 239 (185)

RH-72B d 3 55-gal drums 360 (310) 110 (67) SNF Casks (assemblies) NLI-1/2 (truck) 22,340 1 PWR or 2 BWR 496 (452) 120 (34)

TN-8L e (truck) 36,000 38,200 3 PWR 569 (428) 172 (23) (23)
TN-9 f (truck) 36,000 38,110 7 BWR 576 (452) 172 (15) (15)NAC-LWT (lightweight truck) 21,772 23,224 1 PWR or 2 BWR or 42 MTR 508 (460) 112 (34)

BMI-1 (truck) 9,915 10,732 Research/ test reactor 186 (137) 85 (39)

Model-2000 (truck) 12,746 15,218 HFIR or research reactor waste 334 (137) 183 (67)

IF-300 (rail) 53,979 63,504 7 PWR or 17-18 BWR 533 (458) 163 (95)

NAC-STC (rail) 95,413 113,400 26 PWR 490 (419) 221 (180)

a Exterior dimension and (in pare ntheses) interior dimensions. b Designed so that 2 SWBs can be inse rted in the TRUPACT II shipping cask.

c For transport of CH TRUW. Source: NUREG-0383 (NRC 1997). d For transport of RH TRUW. Source: NUREG-0383 (NRC 1997).

e Overweight truck cask; has three cubical interior cavities, each with the dimensions listed above. f Overweight truck cask; has seven cubical interior cavities, each with the dimensions listed above.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 65 

### Type A packaging, meeting the requirements of DOT Specification 7A (DOT-7A), as detailed in 49 CFR 178.350 (“Specification 7A; General Packag ing, Type A”), must withstand normal transportation conditions without the loss or dispersal of its ra dioactive contents. “Normal” transportation refers to all tr ansportation conditions except thos e resulting from accidents or sabotage. Approval of Type A packaging is ac hieved by demonstrating that the packaging can withstand specified testing condi tions intended to simulate normal transportation. Type A packaging, typically consisting of a 0.21-m 3 

### (55-gal) drum or SWB, is commonly used to transport wastes with low radioactivity levels. Type A packaging is routinely used in waste management for storage, transportation, and di sposal. Type A packaging does not usually require special handling, packag ing, or transportation equipment. A comprehensive listing of approximately 300 packagings that meet DOT-7A specifications can be found in Test and Evaluation Document for DOT Spe cification 7A Type A Packaging (DOE, 1997c). Table 6.1 lists the dimensions of some commonly used Type A packagings. Not listed are specialty packagings and metal, wooden, and fiberboard boxe s available in a wide variety of sizes (WHC, 1996; DOE, 1997c). Industrial packaging may be used to transport ce rtain LSA materials. Shipments of industrial packagings are excepted from certain pack aging specifications and marking and labeling requirements, but still must comply with ma ny administrative controls . Functionally, most industrial packagings are equivalent to Type A packaging because the contents must not leak under normal transport conditions. In addition to meeting the standards for Type A packaging, Type B packaging must also provide a high degree of assurance that package integrity will be maintained even during severe accidents with essentially no loss of the radioactive contents or serious impairment of the shielding capability. Type B packaging is required for sh ipping large quantities of radioactive material and must satisfy stringent testi ng criteria (specified in 10 CFR 71) . The testing criteria were developed to simulate conditions of severe hypo thetical accidents, including impact, puncture, fire, and immersion in water. The most widely recognized Type B packagings are the massive casks used to transport highly radioactive SNF from nuclear power stat ions. Large-capacity cranes and mechanical lifting equipment are usua lly needed to handle Type B packagings. Many Type B packagings are transported on trailers specifically designed for the package. Table 6.1 includes the dimensions of some Type B packagings.

Q Q Q 6.1.1.2 External Dose Rates 

### The radiological risk associated with routin e incident-free transportation results from the potential exposure of people to low levels of ex ternal radiation in the vicinity of a loaded shipment. External radiation from a shipping pa ckage must be below specified limits that minimize exposure of the handling personnel an d the public. Most radioactive material shipments are handled only in accordance with dir ections from the shipper and the receiver, in an “exclusive-use” shipment. The shipper and carrier must ensure that any loading or unloading is conducted by properly trained pers onnel with the appropriate equi pment. For this type of shipment (regardless of the material or packag e), the dose rate for external radiation during normal transportation must be maintained belo w the following limits (10 CFR 71.47 [“External Radiation Standards for All Packages”], and 49 CFR 173.441 [“Radiation Level Limitations”]):A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 66 

### • A dose of 10 mrem/h at any point 2 m (6.6 ft) fr om the vertical planes projected by the outer lateral surfaces of th e car or vehicle, and

• A dose of 2 mrem/h in any normally occupied po sition in the car or vehicle. This limitation does not apply to private carrier s if the exposed personnel are pr operly monitored as part of a radiation protection program. Additional restrictions apply to radiation le vels on the package surface; however, these restrictions do not affect the transportati on-related radiological risk assessment. The dose rate (mrem/h) at a distance of 1 m (3.3 ft ) from the lateral side of the transport vehicle and the fractions of gamma and neutron radi ation are input to the RADTRAN and RISKIND codes. Suggested dose rates when shipping differe nt radioactive waste types are discussed below and listed in Table 6.2 for situat ions when the specific waste ch aracteristics are not known. A significant neutron radiation com ponent is expected only in the case of HLW or SNF shipments.

Table 6.2. Default External Dose Rates for Shipments of Different Radioactive Waste Types

Waste Type Truck (mrem/h) Rail a (mrem/h) Fraction Gamma/ Neutron LLW b 1 at 1 m 1 at 1 m 1/0 LLMW c 1 at 1 m 1 at 1m 1/0 TRUW d CH 4 at 1 m 5.1 at 1 m 1/0 RH 10 at 1 m 20 at 1 m 1/0 HLW 10 at 2 m e 10 at 2 m e 0.65/0.35 f SNF 10 at 2 m e 10 at 2 m e 0.6/0.4 g

a Rail shipments are assumed to consist of a single railcar. b Average value of historical DOE LLW shipments (Morris, 1993).

c Based on comparisons of LLMW and LLW radiological characteristics (DOE, 1997b). d CH-TRUW shipments are assumed to have three and six TRUPACT-II containers per truck and rail shipment,

respectively. RH-TRUW shipments are assumed to have 1 and 2 RH-72B containers pe r truck and rail shipment, respectively. Truck dose rate values we re taken from DOE (1997a). Rail values were derived using the truck data and geometric considerations.

e Taken at the regulatory limit (10 CFR 71.47). f Estimated for Defense Waste Processing Facility v itrified HLW in a proposed cask design (DOE, 1995c). g RISKIND default (Yuan et al., 1995).



### Low-Level Waste For LLW shipments, the external dose rates from historical waste shipme nts (Morris, 1993) were examined for 10 years starting in fiscal year 1983 by using the Shipment Mobility Accountability Collection (SMAC) database system (Best et al., 1995). The SMAC database contains information about unclassified commercial freigh t shipments made by DOE and its contractors that was collected from site shipping and r eceiving documents. Available information for shipments of radioactive materials includes th e types of material shipped, the number of packages in each shipment, shipment weights, external dose rates, and package isotopicA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 67 

### inventories. An estimated two- thirds of all DOE unclassified sh ipments have been reported to the SMAC database. Of the 15,000 LLW ship ments recorded in the 10-year sample, approximately 2,500 reported external dose rates, with the average dose rate approximately 1 mrem/h at 1 m (3.3 ft) from the surface of a sh ipment. As a result, an average dose rate of 1 mrem/h measured at 1 m (3.3 ft) from the su rface of a shipment is recommended as a default value. However, shipment-specific dose ra te data should be used if available.

Low-Level Mixed Waste Because only limited data exist for historical LLMW shipments and because the radiological characteristics of LLMW are assumed to be si milar to LLW, the external dose rate for LLMW shipments is assumed comparable to that for LLW shipments. As with LLW shipments, an average dose rate of 1 mrem/h measured at 1 m (3.3 ft) from the surface of a shipment is recommended unless shipment-specific dose data are available.

Transuranic Waste

External dose rates can be derived from inform ation in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for WI PP (DOE, 1990), which presents site-specific external package dose rates for CH-TRUW and RH-TRUW packages. The average external package dose rates at 1 m (3.3 ft) were calculated to be 3 mrem/h a nd 7 mrem/h, respectively. Shipment-specific dose data can be used to scale the dose rates for the shipments of interest. These values should be conservative for most calculations, except possibly at Hanford. The WIPP Disposal Phase SEIS (DOE, 1997d), which supersedes the FSEIS, used bounding values of 4 mrem/h and 10 mrem/h for CH-TRUW and RH-TRUW packages, respec tively, to cover unexpected but possible shipment types at Hanford that exceeded the 3 mrem/h and 7 mrem/h values. The latter WIPP document also estimated site-specific package dose rates for CH- and RH-TRUW at those DOE sites with TRUW. High-Level Waste

The historical external dose rate data availa ble for HLW shipments are not extensive. The external dose rate is usually assumed to be the regulatory limit of 10 mrem/h at 2 m (6.6 ft) from the edge of the transport vehicle (DOE, 1997b). Si nce in practice, the dose rates may range well below the regulatory limit, this assumption provid es a conservative estimate. A gamma/neutron radiation ratio of 0.65/0.35 was estimated for v itrified HLW produced at the Defense Waste Processing Facility at SRS (DOE, 1995c). Ship ment-specific dose data should be used if available. Spent Nuclear Fuel Because of their large radionuclide inventories, shipments of SN F can have dose rates near the regulatory limit. Therefore, use of the regulat ory limit is suggested. However, the gamma dose rates from many past naval SNF shipments have averaged close to 1 mrem/h at 1 m (3.3 ft) (DOE, 1995b; U.S. Department of the Navy, 1996) with a comparable neutron dose rate of approximately 1 mrem/h at 1 m (3.3 ft) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1996), for a combined total of 2 mrem/h at 1 m (3.3 ft ), well below the regulatory lim it. A gamma/neutron radiationA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 68 

### ratio of 0.6/0.4 was selected as the default in RISKIND after reviewing commercial shipment estimates for PWR and BWR SNF (Yuan et al ., 1995). A gamma/neutron radiation rate of 0.5/0.5 is also frequently used for SNF (DOE, 2002).

Q Q 6.1.2 Crew Parameters

Q Q Q 6.1.2.1 Truck 

### A truck crew typically consists of one or tw o drivers. Many LLW ship ments have one driver (Madsen and Wilmot, 1982), while SNF shipments often have tw o (Hostick et al., 1992). Some shipments, such as SNF, might also require es corts in certain areas. The value suggested in RADTRAN 5 for truck crew is two. Values for several para meters are suggested in the RADTRAN 5 template files for SNF transportatio n. RADTRAN 5 also gives the option of using a STANDARD array of pre-assigned values for additional parameters (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 2000, pp 3-6 to 3-21). The user may substitute va lues for both suggested and standard values. Dose to the crew depends primarily on distan ce from the cargo, except when the truck cab is shielded to maintain the crew dose below the regulated occupational limit. For smaller packagings shipped in a regular tractor-trailer combination, th e distance between the crew and the package could be shorter than for a SNF cask transported on its own specially-designed trailer. The value suggested in RADTRAN is 3.1 m (10.2 ft). Table 6.3 lists the approximate distances for different shipment configurations. If the dose rate in the crew cabin is known, an effective distance can be input in conjunction with the proper dos e rate to match the recorded value. Table 6.3. Approximate Distances of Truck Crew to the Shipment Package

Shipment Configuration Distance to Package (m) RADTRAN suggested value a 3.10 Small packages in regular trailer b 2

CH-TRU 4.6 GA-9 SNF cask 5.8

a Source: Neuhauser and Kanipe (2000). b Approximate distance from truck cab to lead ing edge of trailer (Winkler et al., 1995).

Q Q Q 6.1.2.2 Rail 

### RADTRAN does not estimate a crew dose for rail shipments because of the shielding provided by locomotives and other railcars and the longer distances between the crew and the radiation source. Instead, a crew dose is estimated for ra ilyard workers inspecting and classifying railcars in railyards. Section 6.1.8 discusses the input for the rail crew dose estimated at these stops. Suggestions for rail inspector and railyard worker potential exposure scenarios are provided in Section 4.1.1.2 for MEI calcu lations using RISKIND.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 69 

### Q Q 6.1.3 Population Densiti es and Fractions of Travel Estimated transport risks for both incident-fr ee and accident transport are highly dependent on population density (the average number of people per unit area). Because population density can vary greatly over the length of a transport route, the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes (NUREG-0170, NRC, 1977a) divided the population density into three zones, corresponding approximately to rural, suburban, and urban areas. Although these ca tegorizations are not needed for RADTRAN 5 calculations, they were retained for c onvenience. RADTRAN 5 allows complete characterization of any route segment, and segmen ts may be designated rural, suburban, or urban by the user. Only rural segments can have an associated fraction of land under cultivation. Routing codes such as HIGHWAY, INTERLI NE, and TRAGIS provi de route-specific information on population density and fractions of travel in rural, suburban, and urban zones for transportation risk assessments. However, national average generic input data for these parameters may be required for assessments where the origin and destination sites have not yet been decided (e.g., see DOE, 1999b). Also, aver age population values should be used with RISKIND when conducting the accident conseque nce portion of the assessment because the actual location of a pot ential transportation accident would be unknown.

Q Q Q 6.1.3.1 Population Densities 

### National average population densities for each zone (rural, suburban, and urban) were suggested in NUREG-0170 (NRC, 1977a) based on 1970 census data for estimating the radioactive risks of a route when route-specific populat ion densities were not available. These values are presented in Table 6.4 in the same format as Appe ndix E of NUREG-0170. The population zone descriptions are given below. The corres ponding numbers based on 1990 census data were added for comparison. Table 6.5 provides a further breakdown of the 1990 census data.

The U.S. Bureau of the Census definition of an urbanized area has not changed significantly since NUREG-0170 was published in 1977. An urbani zed area is one that has a minimum of 50,000 persons and comprises one or more central places and the adjacen t densely settled area (the urban fringe) which has a de nsity of at least 1,000 persons/mi 2 

### (386 persons/km 2 

### ). Urban areas are defined as comprising all territory, popu lation, and housing units in urbanized areas and in places of 2,500 or more persons outside urba nized areas. Rural areas by default are those areas not classified as urban. NUREG-0170 suggested using the rural density va lue provided by the Bu reau of the Census (Department of Commerce [DOC], 1974) (6 persons/km 2 

### ). For the urban population zone, NUREG-0170 used a value of 3,861 persons/km 2 

### (10,000 persons/mi 2 

### ) to represent an urban housing area. This value is close to the 3,830 persons/km 2 

### that can be estimated for the central city in an urbanized area from 1970 census da ta (DOC, 1975). The value of 3,861 persons/km 2 

### forced NUREG-0170 to assume a population density of 719 persons/km 2 

### for the urban fringe in order to be consistent with the total urbani zed population and land area. This value of 719 persons/km 2 

### was taken to be the suburban population zone density.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 70 

### Table 6.4. Demographic Data for the United States

Fraction of Land Area Fraction of Population Population Density (persons/km 2 ) Population Zone NUREG0170 a 1990 Census b NUREG0170 a 1990 Census b,c NUREG0170 a,c 1990 Census b A. Urbanized Area 0.0098 0.017 0.583 0.636 1,303 1,002 1. Central City/Place 0.0018 0.0067 0.315 0.31 7 3,861 (3,830) 1,282 2. Urban Fringe 0.008 0.011 0.268 0.319 719 (735) 823 B. Other Urban Areas 0.0053 0.0075 0.152 0.116 719 (627) 422 C. Rural Areas 0.985 0.975 0.265 0.248 6 7

Model Used Urban (A.1) 0.0018 0.0067 0.315 0.317 3,861 (3,830) 1,282 Suburban (A.2+B) 0.013 0.019 0.420 0.435 719 (692) 766 Rural (C) 0.985 0.975 0.265 0.248 6 7

a Source: NRC (1977a). b Source: DOC (1993).

c Values in parentheses are the actual popul ation densities determined by the Census Bureau for the given population zone. As di scussed in the text,

NUREG-0170 used values close to these results. 

### Table 6.5. U.S. Population Density Data from the 1990 Census a

Category Population Percent Population Area (km 2 ) Percent Area Population Density (per km 2 ) Total 248,709,873 9,158,960 27.2 Urban 187,053,487 75.2 226,304 2.471 826.6 Inside urbanized area 158,258,878 63.6 158,028 1.725 1001.5 Central Place 78,847,406 31.7 61,504 0.672 1282.0 Place of: 1,000,000 or more 19,952,631 8.0 6,330 0.069 3152.3 500,000 to 999,999 10,107,184 4.1 6,891 0.075 1466.8 250,000 to 499,999 14,585,006 5.9 12,138 0.133 1201.6 100,000 to 249,999 14,602,452 5.9 13,370 0.146 1092.2 50,000 to 99,999 12,274,504 4.9 13,375 0.146 917.7 less than 50,000 7,325,629 2.9 9,400 0.103 779.3 Urban Fringe 79,411,472 31.9 96,524 1.054 822.7 Place of: 2,500 or more 62,775,855 25.2 66,546 0.727 943.3 100,000 or more 5,100,382 2.1 3,700 0.040 1378.5 50,000 to 99,999 11,752,941 4.7 8,137 0.089 1444.5 25,000 to 49,999 15,118,958 6.1 13,675 0.149 1105.6 10,000 to 24,999 18,482,502 7.4 21,089 0.230 876.4 5,000 to 9,999 8,679,826 3.5 12,975 0.142 669.0 2,500 to 4,999 3,641,246 1.5 6,971 0.076 522.4A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 71 

### Table 6.5. U.S. Population Density Da ta from the 1990 Census (Continued)

Category Population Percent Population Area (km 2 ) Percent Area Population Density (per km 2 ) Place of: Less than 2,500 1,078,903 0.4 2,576 0.028 418.8 2,000 to 2,499 362,540 0.1 726 0.008 499.5 1,500 to 1,999 276,809 0.1 675 0.007 410.0 1,000 to 1,499 240,177 0.1 533 0.006 451.0 Less than 1,000 199,377 0.1 643 0.007 310.2 Other Urban 15,556,714 6.3 27,402 0.299 567.7 Outside Urbanized Area 28,794,609 11.6 68,276 0.745 421.7

Place of: 25,000 or more 3,917,665 1.6 6,186 0.068 633.3 10,000 to 24,999 9,907,357 4.0 17,717 0.193 559.2 5,000 to 9,999 7,909,614 3.2 19,978 0.218 395.9 2,500 to 4,999 7,059,973 2.8 24,395 0.266 289.4 Rural 61,656,386 24.8 8,932,657 97.529 6.9 Place of: 1,000 to 2,499 7,050,858 2.8 35,574 0.388 198.2 2,000 to 2,499 2,074,977 0.8 9,952 0.109 208.5 1,500 to 1,999 2,381,156 1.0 11,616 0.127 205.0 1,000 to 1,499 2,594,725 1.0 14,007 0.153 185.3 Place of less than 1,000 3,801, 051 1.5 50,088 0.547 75.9 Other Rural 50,804,477 20.4 8,846,995 96.594 5.7

a Source: DOC (1993).



### The primary difference in the population zone de nsities between the 1970 and 1990 census data, as shown in Table 6.4, is that the urban zone drops in density from 3,830 to 1,282 persons/km 2



### . The majority of this change is due to the increas e in land area for central places by about a factor of four. In general, population densities increase with the population of a city or town, as shown in Tables 6.5 and 6.6. However, there is a wide variation, as shown in Figure 6.1, which plots population and population density for cities w ith populations greater than 100,000. Table 6.7 lists those cities with populations greater th an 1.5 million, and Table 6.8 lists cities with population densities greate r than 5,000 persons/km 2 

### . Even a city with a relatively small population, such as Paterson, New Jersey ( population 139,000) can ha ve a relatively high population density (6,391 persons/km 2 

### ). For cities with populations greater than 100,000 persons, the average populati on density is 1,864 persons/km 2 

### , with the median being 1,219 persons/km 2 

### . If New York City and its boroughs are not included (see Table 6.7), the average drops to 1,642 persons/km 2 

### and the median moves slightly to 1,216 persons/km 2



### .A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 72 

### Table 6.6. U.S. Population Density by Size of Place

Category Population Percent Population Area (km 2 ) Percent Area Population Density (per km 2 ) Total 248,709,873 9,158,960 27.2 Populations of: 1,000,000 or more 19,952,631 8.0 6,330 0.069 3,152.3 500,000 to 999,999 10,107,184 4.1 6,891 0.075 1,466.8 250,000 to 499,999 14,585,006 5.9 12,138 0.133 1,201.6 100,000 to 249,999 19,702,834 7.9 17,070 0.186 1,154.2 50,000 to 99,999 24,027,445 9.7 21,511 0.235 1,117.0 25,000 to 49,999 26,362,252 10.6 29,261 0.319 900.9 10,000 to 24,999 28,389,859 11.4 38,806 0.424 731.6 5,000 to 9,999 16,589,440 6.7 32,953 0.360 503.4 2,500 to 4,999 10,701,219 4.3 31,366 0.342 341.2 2,000 to 2,499 2,437,517 1.0 10,677 0.117 228.3 1,500 to 1,999 2,657,965 1.1 12,291 0.134 216.3 1,000 to 1,499 2,834,902 1.1 14,539 0.159 195.0 Less than 1,000 4,000,428 1.6 50,731 0.554 78.9 Other Urban 15,556,714 6.3 27,402 0.299 567.7 Other Rural 50,804,477 20.4 8,846,995 96.594 5.7 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Classifications: Large Urban (> 50,000) 88,375,100 35.5 63,940 0.698 1,382.2 Small Urban (5,000-50,000) 86,898,265 34.9 128,422 1.402 676.7 Rural ( < 5,000) 73,436,508 29.5 8,966,599 97.900 8.2



### The population densities used for transportation risk analyses we re generally obtained from the HIGHWAY (Johnson et al., 1993a) and INTERLINE (Johnson et al., 1993b) routing programs for truck and rail, respectively. These programs separated population dens ities into 12 ranges and reported the distance traveled in each range for a specified route. The original programs designed these ranges so that aggregating them into three larger range s (rural, <54 persons/km 2 

### ; suburban, 54 to 1,285 persons/km 2 

### ; and urban, >1,285 persons/km 2 

### ) would correspond to the averages of 6, 719, and 3,861 persons/km 2 

### as originally suggested in NUREG-0170. However, these programs were update d to use 1990 census data. 5


### More than 1,250 unique truck routes (HIGHW AY) and more than 1,080 unique rail routes (INTERLINE) were generated to support the trans portation analyses in four recent major EISs (DOE, 1995b; 1996a; 1997b; U.S. Department of the Navy, 1996). The average rural, suburban, and urban population densities along these rout es using 1990 census data are given in Table 6.9. As shown in the table, there is fairly close agreement between the truck and rail averages,

5 TRAGIS separates populations into 11 ranges, but maintains the aggregation scheme of HIGHWAY and INTERLINE.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 73 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 

## Population (x 1000)Population Density (persons/km2)



### Figure 6.1. Population Densities for U. S. Cities with Populations over 100,000

Table 6.7. U.S. Cities with over 1.5 Million Persons

City Population (1,000) Land Area (km 2 ) Population Density (persons/km 2 ) Philadelphia 1,553 349.7 4,440 Houston 1,690 1397.7 1,209 Queens Borough 1,951 283.2 6,888 Brooklyn Borough 2,286 182.5 12,524 Chicago 2,768 588.1 4,705 Los Angeles 3,490 1214.9 2,872 New York 7,312 799.9 9,140



### Table 6.8. U.S. Cities with Populatio n Densities Greater than 5,000 Persons/km 2

City Population (1,000) Land Area (km 2 ) Population Density (persons/km 2 ) Jersey City 229 38.5 5,936 San Francisco 729 120.9 6,029 Paterson 139 21.7 6,391 Queens Borough 1,951 283.2 6,888 New York 7,312 799.9 9,140 Bronx Borough 1,195 108.7 10,990 Brooklyn Borough 2,286 182.5 12,524 Manhattan Borough 1,489 73.5 20,251A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 74 

### Table 6.9. Comparing Population Density Data (persons/km 2 

### ) by Density Zone for the U.S.

Route Average Population Zone Truck a Rail b NUREG-0170 c 1990 Census d

Urban 2,260 2,390 3,861 1,282 Suburban 349 361 719 766 Rural 10 10 6 7

a Average population density from 1,2 58 routes generated using HIGHWAY. b Average population density from 1,0 88 routes generated using INTERLINE.

c Source: NRC (1977a). d Source: DOC (1993).



### with a maximum difference of approximately 6% fo r the urban values. However, there is a wide disparity between these average numbers and those originally propos ed in NUREG-0170. For perspective, Figures 6.2 and 6.3 plot the average route density as a function of the route distance for rural, suburban, and urban zones. As expect ed, the population densities in each zone vary widely for the shorter routes and converge as route length increases for both truck and rail.

Q Q Q 6.1.3.2 Fractions of Travel 

### The average fractions of travel in each of the three population zones for th e truck and rail routes, discussed in Section 6.1.3.1, are compared in Ta ble 6.10 with the values suggested in NUREG0170. For perspective, Figures 6.4 and 6.4 plot the av erage fraction of travel as a function of the route distance for the rural, s uburban, and urban zones. As with population densities, the fraction of travel in each zone va ries widely for the shorter routes and converges as route length increases for both truck and rail. Table 6.10. Comparing Fraction of Tr avel Data for the United States

Route Average Population Zone Truck a Rail b NUREG-0170 c

Urban 0.03 0.04 0.05 Suburban 0.19 0.19 0.05 Rural 0.78 0.77 0.90

a Average fraction of travel from 1,258 routes generated using HIGHWAY. b Average population density from 1,088 routes generated using

INTERLINE.

c Source: NRC (1977a).



### To maintain consistency when sp ecific route data are unavailable, the average fractions of travel in different population zones was determined using HIGHWAY and INTERLINE, as shown in Table 6.10, with the average populat ion densities in Table 6.9, al so determined with HIGHWAY and INTERLINE. Similar determinations can be made using TRAGIS. Note that, while RADTRAN 4 included a utility that allowed direct use of fractions of travel, RADTRAN 5 does not have such a utility. Fracti ons of travel cannot be used di rectly in RADTRAN 5 analyses.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 75 0 5 10 15 20 25

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Average Rural Population Density(persons/km2) 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Average Suburban Population Density(persons/km2) 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Average Urban Population Density(persons/km2)



### Figure 6.2. Average Population Densities Dete rmined for Truck Travel through Rural, Suburban, and Urban ZonesA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 76 0 5 10 15 20 25

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Average Rural Population Density(persons/km2) 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Average Suburban Population Density(persons/km2) 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Average Urban Population Density(persons/km2)



### Figure 6.3. Average Population Densities De termined for Rail Travel through Rural, Suburban, and Urban ZonesA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 77 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Percent Travel in Rural Zone 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Percent Travel in Suburban Zone 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Percent Travel in Urban Zone



### Figure 6.4. Average Fraction of Truck Trave l through Rural, Suburban, and Urban ZonesA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 78 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Percent Travel in Rural Zone 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Percent Travel in Suburban Zone 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Distance (km)Percent Travel in Urban Zone



### Figure 6.5. Average Fraction of Rail Travel through Rural, Suburban, and Urban ZonesA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 79 

### Q Q 6.1.4 Vehicle Speed The vehicle speed is used in the incident-free por tion of a radiological transportation risk assessment. In conjunction with the distance traveled, the vehi cle speed determines the amount of time the transportation crew, the on-link pop ulation, and the off-link population (including an MEI on the side of the route) ar e exposed to the low levels of external radiation from the shipping package.

Q Q Q 6.1.4.1 Truck 

### The truck speeds suggested in RADTRAN ar e listed in Table 6.11. These values are conservative, since a lower vehicle speed re sults in a larger estimated dose because Table 6.11. RADTRAN Suggested Vehicle Speeds

Population Zone Truck a (km/h [mph]) Rail (km/h [mph]) Rural 88.49 (55) 64.37 (40) Suburban 40.25 (25) 40.25 (25) Urban 24.16 (15) 24.16 (15)

a The 55 mph speed for rural areas also applies to suburban and urban freeways. Source: Neuhauser and Kanipe (2000).



### of the longer exposure period. Freeway speed of 27.5 mph (half of the rural freeway speed) and a corresponding fraction of the route is suggested to account for rush-hour traffic on urban and suburban freeways. The suggested freeway speed of 55 mph reflects the maximum interstate speed limit set to 55 mph in 1974 in response to the oil crisis of the time. However, speed limits have been raised significantly in recent year s for the interstate highway system, on which radioactive material shipments typi cally spend most of their travel time. Congress allowed states to raise their rural interstate speed limits to 65 mph in 1987 and repealed the maximum speed limits imposed on the states in the Nati onal Highway System Designation Act of 1995. The current maximum posted rural and urban inte rstate highway speed limits for each state are listed in Table 6.12. A number of states have truck speed limits as high as 75 mph in rural areas, a 36% increase over 55 mph, while a handful of st ates retained the rura l 55 mph speed limit for trucks. Some states have limits as high as 70 mph in urban zones, but this does not mean that all urban areas will be posted at the maximum allowed by the state. Allowances must also be made for weather, visibility, ro ad conditions, traffic dens ity, and construction delays. No federal regulations restrict the speed of HAZMAT shipments on the interstate highway system, but shippers of radioactive materials ma y require their carriers to maintain a maximum speed of 55 mph on the interstate highway system. A recent example is the transportation system established by DOE for transporting TRUW to the WIPP. The transportation plan calls for regulators installed on the tractor-trailer s for limiting highway speeds to a maximum of 55 mph.A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment

Page 80Table 6.12. Maximum Posted SpeedLimits for Passenger VehiclesaStateLimitedAccess RuralInterstatesLimitedAccessUrbanInterstatesEffective Datesof Limits onRuralInterstatesStateLimited AccessRural InterstatesLimited AccessUrbanInterstatesEffective Datesof Limits onRural InterstatesAlabama 70 70 5/9/96 Montana 75/Trucks 6565 5/28/99Alaska 65 55 1/15/88 Nebraska 75 65 6/1/96Arizona 75 55 12/8/95 Nevada 75 65 12/8/95Arkansas 70/Trucks 6555 8/19/96 New Hampshire 65 65 4/16/87California 70/Trucks 5565 1/7/96 New Jersey 65 55 1/19/98Colorado 75 65 6/24/96 New Mexico 75 55 5/15/96Connecticut 65 55 10/1/98 New York 65 65 8/1/95Delaware 65 55 1/17/96 North Carolina 70 65 8/5/96D.C. n/a 55 1974 North Dakota 70 55 6/10/96Florida 70 65 4/8/96 Ohio 65/Trucks 5565 7/15/87Georgia 70 65 7/1/96 Oklahoma 75 70 8/29/96Hawaii 55 50 1974 Oregon 65/Trucks 5555 6/27/87Idaho 75/Trucks 6565 5/1/96 Pennsylvania 65 55 7/13/95Illinois 65/Trucks 5555 4/27/87 Rhode Island 65 55 5/12/96Indiana 65/Trucks 6055 6/1/87 South Carolina 70 70 4/30/99Iowa 65 55 5/12/87 South Dakota 75 65 4/1/96Kansas 70 70 3/7/96 Tennessee 70 65 3/25/98Kentucky 65 55 6/8/87 Texas 70 70 12/8/95Louisiana 70 55 8/15/97 Utah 75 65 5/1/96Maine 65 55 6/12/87 Vermont 65 55 4/21/87Maryland 65 65 7/1/95 Virginia 65 55 7/1/88Massachusetts 65 65 1/5/92 Washington 70/Trucks 6060 3/15/96Michigan 70/Trucks 5565 8/1/96 West Virginia 70 55 8/25/97Minnesota 70 65 7/1/97 Wisconsin 65 65 6/17/87Mississippi 70 70 2/29/96 Wyoming 75 60 12/8/95Missouri 70 60 3/13/96aAs of July 2000. Speed limits for commercial use trucks, if different, are listed in italics.Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) (2000).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 81 Q Q Q 6.1.4.2 Rail 

### In RADTRAN the crew dose for rail transport is only assessed at stops in classification and switch yards and rail stations, because distan ce and shielding from the locomotive and other railcars during transport is expected to result in negligible crew doses. Therefore, the vehicle speed is used only for assessing the incident-free doses to the on- and off-link populations during transit. Table 6.11 lists the train speeds sugge sted in RADTRAN for rural, suburban, and urban population zones. In 1995, average freight train speeds were 19 mph east of the Mississippi Ri ver and 23 mph west of the Mississippi River, for a combined averag e of 22 mph (Association of American Railroads [AAR], 1996). These train speeds include terminal delay. Thus, the average speed for dedicated trains hauling radioactive waste is expected to be higher because they generally have fewer stops in switching yards and their shorter length allows for faster starting and stopping. On the other hand, dedicated trains may have a speed limit re striction. For example, a speed limit of 35 mph was self-imposed on all past shipments of naval SNF (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1996).

Track condition determines the maximum allowabl e speed on a given segment of railroad. The FRA regulates the maximum speed for freight and passenger trains on five classes of track, as shown in Table 6.13. Tracks are cat egorized by condition into classe s 1 through 5, with tracks in the best condition as class 5 (def initions of track classes are gi ven in 49 CFR 213 (“Track Safety Standards”). It is DOE practice to ship radioactive material over the best track class possible to minimize the chance of accidents. However, many past shipments, most notably shipments of SNF, have still been made under restricted sp eed conditions (Glickman and Golding, 1991). The railroads would prefer that SNF transport be conducted without speed or routing restrictions unless “there is an unacceptable risk of a cask being breached should an accident occur when the train is being moved under normal operating practices” (AAR, 1997a). Table 6.13. Maximum Train Operating Sp eeds on Different Classes of Track a

Maximum Allowable Speed (mph) Track Class Freight Trains Passenger Trains Class 1 10 15 Class 2 25 30 Class 3 40 60 Class 4 60 80 Class 5 80 90

a Source: 49 CFR 213.9 (“Classes of Track: Operating Speed Limits”).



### Q Q 6.1.5 Traffic Volumes and Vehicle Occupancy Traffic volumes and vehicle occupancy are us ed in the on-link population exposure model for routine incident-free transport. The estimated population dose is directly proportional to each of these parameters.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 82 Q Q Q 6.1.5.1 Traffic Volumes 

### Truck For truck transport, the U.S. interstate highway system will be used to the maximum extent when transporting radioactive material s (see Section 2.4.2). An anal ysis of traffic volumes on the interstate highways should, therefor e, reasonably estimate average tr affic flows. The most recent data available from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) maintained by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) were use d. These data consisted of the interstate universe records for 1993 through 1997. Table 6.14 presents the annual average daily tr affic (AADT) per lane for the four population zones used by the FHWA. The final row, urba nized areas with populations of 50,000 persons or more, is the average of the two preceding urbani zed area zones in the table. Analysis of weekday travel patterns has shown that the major ity of traffic (about 93% or more) in both rural and urban zones occurs between the hours of 5 a.m. and 10 p.m. (Festin, 1996). To obtain a reasonable hourly average for input into risk models, the AADT values were divided by 17 h/d, as presented in Table 6.14. Figures 6.6 and 6.7 di splay the percent of daily traffic for weekdays in rural and urban zones, respectively. Rush -hour vehicle density may be double the average hourly density. Table 6.14. Average Traffic Volumes on the U.S. Interstate System

Average AADT a per Lane Hourly Average per Lane Based on a 17-h Day b Population Zone 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Avg. Rural Area (pop. < 5,000) 4,329 4,511 4,434 4,607 4,742 255 265 261 271 279 266

Small Urban Area (pop. 5,000 to 49,999) 6,252 6,269 6,453 6,657 6,832 368 369 380 392 402 382

Urbanized Area (pop. 50,000 to 199,999) 10,341 8,435 8,363 8,324 8,561 608 496 492 490 504 518

Urbanized Area (pop. 200,000 or more) 14,446 14,489 14,445 14,772 15,060 850 852 850 869 886 861

Urbanized Area (pop. 50,000 or more) 13,243 13,508 13,416 13,695 13,974 779 795 789 806 822 798

a AADT per lane for the U.S. interstate system. b Approximately 93% or more of traffic on weekdays in the United States occurs between 5 a.m. and 10 p.m. (Festin, 1996).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 83 0.00% 3.00% 6.00% 9.00%

12M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Hour of DayPercent of daily traffic

1978 1983 1992 1995 

### Figure 6.6. Weekday Rural Highway Tra ffic, 1978-1995 (Source: Festin, 1996)

More than 90% of the interstate highway system in rural zones has two lanes of traffic in each direction (DOT, 1997a). The rural average of 266 vehicles per hour per lane was multiplied by 2 to obtain the value of 530 vehicles per hour show n in Table 6.15. Similarl y, the suburban value of 760 vehicles per hour was obtained from the small urban area value of 382 vehicles per hour per lane. Approximately 50% of urban interstate highways have more than two lanes of traffic in each direction (DOT, 1997a); thus the urbanized area value of 798 vehicles per hour per lane in Table 6.14 was multiplied by 3 to obtain a sugges ted value of 2,400 vehicles per hour for urban areas, as shown in Table 6.15. Table 6.15 also shows the default valu es used in NUREG-0170. Good agreement is observed; the largest differe nce is approximately 20% between the urban values.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 84 0.00% 3.00% 6.00% 9.00%

12M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Hour of DayPercent of daily traffic

1978 1983 1992 1995 

### Figure 6.7. Weekday Urban Highway Tr affic, 1978-1995 (Source: Festin, 1996)

Table 6.15. One-Way Traffic Volumes for Truck Transport

Population Zone Suggested NUREG-0170 a Urban 2,400 b 2,800 Suburban 760 c 780 Rural 530 d 470

a Sources: NRC (1977a); suggested valu es used in RADTRAN (Neuhauser and

Kanipe, 2000). b Assumes three lanes in an urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or more

persons.

c Assumes two lanes in a small urban ar ea with a population of 5,000 to 49,999

persons. d Assumes two lanes in a rural area with a population of less than 5,000 persons.



### Rail Data for Class I railroads (those with operati ng revenues of $259.4 million or more in 1998) are used for freight rail traffic. These railroads accounted for 71% of the mileage operated and 91% of the freight revenue generate d in 1998 (AAR, 1999). As shown in Table 6.16, the U.S. annual average traffic volume per mile of railroad (whether single or parallel tr acks) was 3,983 trainsA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 85 

### Table 6.16. National Average Traffic Volumes on Class I Railroads a

Year Freight Train Miles per Mile of Road Operated per Year 1994 3,599 1995 3,665 1996 3,719 1997 3,923 1998 3,983

a Sources: AAR (1995; 1996; 1997b; 1998; 1999).



### per year in 1998 (AAR, 1999), up slightly from 3,923 trains per year in 1997 (AAR, 1998). Assuming continuous 24-hour opera tion, traffic flow on average is 0.45 train per hour. If 12-hour operation is assumed, the rate increases to 0.91 tr ain per hour, which is close to the RADTRAN suggested value of one train per hour in rural areas. Intercity passe nger train service by AMTRAK adds approximately 0.15 train per hou r for 24-hour operation, or 0.30 train per hour for 12-hour operation (AAR, 1999). However, ma ny of AMTRAK’s routes are overnight runs between major cities. AMTRAK trains run primar ily over track owned by the freight railroads, using approximately one quarter of the freigh t railroad network (AAR, 1999). AMTRAK owns only about 3% of the rails ove r which it operates (AAR, 1999).

The values for rail traffic volumes discussed above are based on nationa l average statistics and thus are valid for rural, suburban, and urban area s. Certain suburban/urba n areas have additional rail traffic volumes from commuter rail systems th at operate over local po rtions of the freight railroad network. Table 6.17 lists the major metr opolitan areas with significant commuter rail systems. For these areas, the average number of vehicles per hour, expressed as passenger cars per hour for commuter rail traffic only, is 13.3 rail cars per hour for a 12-hour operational period (American Public Transit Association [APTA, 1998] ). Each commuter train typically has two to four cars, suggesting that appr oximately three to six trains per hour pass by a given location. The RADTRAN suggested value of five trains per hour for suburban and urban areas is in reasonable agreement with the addition of the fr eight and commuter rail traffic values presented here for the metropolitan areas listed in Table 6.17. However, locations with heavy commuter rail operations, such as New York City, Phil adelphia, and Chicago, may have significantly higher traffic volumes. Other metropolitan areas without commuter rail traffic would likely have average rail traffic volumes clos er to that estimated for rural areas, approximately 1 train per hour. The estimated traffic volumes presented here are expected to be slightly conservative national average values for radiological transportation risk assessment. Volumes will tend to be lower or higher depending on the specific rail route chosen, and not all routes consist of parallel track. In order to receive an on-link population dose estima te as calculated by RADTRAN parallel track (or a rail siding) is necessary for another train to pass or be passed by a rail shipment.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 86 

### Table 6.17. Metropolitan Areas with Commuter Rail Systems

City Transit Agency Number of Stations Baltimore Mass Transit Administration, Maryland DOT 41 Boston Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 102 Chicago Regional Transportation Authority (N ortheast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation) 234

Chicago Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District 18 Dallas Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority 3 Los Angeles Southern California Regional Rail Authority 44 Miami Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority 17 New Haven Connecticut DOT 8 New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority Long Island Railroad 134 New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Railroad 106 New York New Jersey Transit Corporation 158 Philadelphia Pennsylvania DOT 14 Philadelphia Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 181 San Diego North San Diego C ounty Transit District 8 San Francisco Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 34 Syracuse ON TRACK 3 Washington, D.C. Virginia Railway Express 18 Source: APTA (1998).

Q Q Q 6.1.5.2 Vehicle Occupancy 

### Truck

Recent traffic studies have shown that vehicl e occupancies on the nation’s roads average approximately 1.5 persons per vehicle (Grush an d Gross, 1995). Two studies were reviewed — one for the 1990 National Personal Transportati on Survey (NPTS) and one conducted by the National Highway and Traffic Sa fety Administration (NHTSA). An occupancy average of 1.50 was found in the NPTS study, and a value of 1.45 was found in the NHTSA study. Both studies considered cars, vans, and light trucks, but results were not limited to highway traffic. Including persons riding on buses is not expected to increase this number significantly because buses represented only about 0.3% of th e total annual vehicle miles on rural interstate highways and less than 0.2% of the total a nnual vehicle miles on urban interstate highways in 1995 and 1996 (DOT, 1997a). An average value of 1.5 is 75% of the current default value of 2 for truck transport in RADTRAN (Ne uhauser and Kanipe, 1992).

Rail On freight trains, a typical train crew would consist of an engine er, a conductor (foreman), and a brakeman (helper). Three persons per train is also the RADTRAN rail default. However, some train service may require additiona l brakemen or other train crew, such as a fireman. On through freight trains, trains th at do not drop off or pi ck up railcars along their route, the crew could consist of only an engineer and conductor.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 87 

### The number of persons on a passenger train is, of course, much higher. For AMTRAK in 1995, 33 million train miles, 292 million railcar m iles, and 5,545 million passenger miles were recorded (DOT, 1996a). Therefore, the average nu mber of passengers per railcar was 19, with an average of 8.8 railcars per train, giving approxima tely 170 passengers per train plus the crew. For commuter rail traffic, the average number of passengers in a railcar was 35 in 1996 (APTA, 1998).

Q Q 6.1.6 Urban Travel

Q Q Q 6.1.6.1 Fraction of Travel during Rush Hour 

### The fraction of travel during rush hour applie s to both the suburban and urban portions of the aggregate model in RADTRAN for truck transport. It does not apply to ra il transport. In the model, the shipment speeds in suburban and ur ban zones are halved and the traffic volumes doubled during rush hour for incident-free calcul ations. The user designates the rush-house fraction. Weekday urban traffic patterns for 199 5 (Figure 6.7) show that about four 1-hour periods (one around 7 a.m. and three around 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.) have a percentage of traffic above the average for the working hours. These four hours account for approximately 30% of the daily traffic. The fraction of travel during rush hour depends on driving constraints for the shipment. If two drivers are used for round- the-clock driving, the fraction of travel during rush hour might be 0.17 (4/24), twice the RADTR AN default of 0.08. However, to minimize exposure and transit time, routing by the trucking company should be able to maintain a value significantly lower than 0.17.

Q Q Q 6.1.6.2 Fraction of Urban Travel on City Streets 

### Unless a radioactive materials shipment needs to fo llow a detour, stop for fuel or repairs, or the origin or destination sites are in urban areas , the shipment should remain on the interstate highway system (see Section 2.4.2) when passing th rough urban areas, and relatively little or no time should be spent on city streets. As shown in Table 6.10, the route aver age fraction of travel in urban zones for more than 1,250 HIGHWAY rout es is 0.03, which includes both interstate and local street travel.

Q Q Q 6.1.6.3 Urban Pedestrian Ratio 

### The urban pedestrian ratio is the ratio of pede strians per square kilometer of sidewalk to population per square kilometer of ove rall urban area. This ratio is used for calculations related to truck movements on urban city streets. A sugg ested value of 6 may be used in RADTRAN, as suggested by Finley et al. (1980), which used data from a study of the pedestrian environment in New York City (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1975).

Q Q 6.1.7 Shielding Factors

Q Q Q 6.1.7.1 Inhalation 

### A common measure of the air filtration (shelter ing) provided by an indoor environment is the indoor/outdoor air concentrati on ratio. As shown in Table 6.18, a wide range of possible indoor/outdoor air concentration ra tios is possible. When applie d to inhalation exposure, a dose reduction factor (DRF), the fract ion of airborne contaminant re maining airborne after passage indoors, can be defined as the ra tio of indoor to outdoor pollutant concentrations in tegrated fromA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 88 

### the start of contaminant cloud passage to infin ity (Fogh et al., 1997). That is, the “inhalation shielding factor” in RISKIND or the “buildi ng dose factor” in RADT RAN for urban areas. Thus, DRFs will approach the indoor/outdoor concen trations for plumes of long duration. DRFs decrease with a decrease in bu ilding ventilation rates and an increase in particulate deposition velocity (Kocher, 1980). Table 6.18. Indoor/Outdoor Air Concentration Ratios for Application as DRFs

Pollutant Structure Measured Indoor/Outdoor Ratio Reference Total suspended particulates Homes and public buildings 0.16 to 0.51 Yocum et al., 1971

0.1–20 μ m dust particulates Old/new homes/university buildings < 0.1 to 0.42 Alzona et al., 1979

Ca, Fe, Zn, Pb, Br Homes and public and commercial buildings 0.043 to 0.85 (excluding Zn) Cohen and Cohen, 1979

Particulates, iodine, noble gases Wood or concrete construction Calculated DRFs of 0.072 to 1 Kocher, 1980

Be-7 Danish and Finnish homes 0.23 to 0.86 Christensen and Mustonen, 1987 Various radioisotopes Danish home 0.1 to 0.5 Roed and Cannell, 1987 Noble gGases, methyl iodide, elemental iodine, aerosols 0.1 to 2 μ m Homes, large buildings, manufacturing facilities Calculated DRFs of 0.004 to 1 Brenk and De Witt, 1987



### In RADTRAN, the building dose factor may be used in accident calculat ions of inhalation dose to account for the sheltering provided by buildin g ventilation systems in urban areas. The RADTRAN suggested value is 0.0086, as suggested by Finley et al . (1980), for particulates in buildings with central air conditioning (which typically consist of f ilters, precipitators, and dehumidifying coils). However, noble gases have an estimated building dose factor of 1. For other continuous build ing intake systems, particulates have an estimated value of 0.65 (Finley et al., 1980). The DRF depends on a number of variables, such as how much outside air can move into a building (how “leaky” or “tight” is it), whethe r windows are open or closed, and the rate of forced air ventilation. Most larg e urban cities have significant areas of closely spaced singleand multiple-family homes less likely to filter th e air as efficiently than would newer urban office buildings. Even with building ventilation turned off, as might be the case with indoor sheltering following an accident releasing radioa ctive materials, the exchange rate between indoor and outdoor air can still be significant (Engelmann, 1992). The DRF provided by a structure is also depende nt on the particle size of the contaminant. Larger particles (such as plutonium) with higher deposition velocities are associated with lower DRFs (and, therefore, lower doses) than smaller particulates and volatile radionuclides, such as iodine and cesium, with lower de position velocities (Fogh et al., 1997).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 89 Q Q Q 6.1.7.2 External Radiation 

### RISKIND and RADTRAN pr ovide shielding factors to account for sheltered locations that reduce the estimated external radiation dose to pers ons near the transport route. Pedestrians are assumed to be unshielded. The shielding factor accounts for the reduction of gamma ray exposure afforded by occupied structures during in cident-free transport, a nd it is also used in calculations involving accidents with loss of shielding. Many risk assessments take a conservative approach and assume no shielding in any population zone. The two primary considerations that determine th e shielding factor are the amount of time spent indoors and the amount of shielding provided by the occupied structure. On average, persons 12 years of age and older spend about 21 hours a day indoors, 1.5 hours a day outdoors, and 1.5 hours a day in a vehicle (Robinson and Thomas, 1991) . Therefore, the shielding factor depends on the type of occupied structure. However, activity patterns can be quite different for rural and urban areas. Shielding from gamma radiation must account for th e type and thickness of material between the radiation source and the receptor. If shielding is considered, the RADTRAN standard value for the urban shielding factor (0.018) is based on 1-ft-thi ck concrete block walls, which provide a large degree of protection. The suburban stan dard value of 0.87 provides much less protection and is based on wood frame construction with 6-in.-thick walls. No shielding is assumed in rural areas (i.e., a shielding factor of 1). More information on the shielding characteristics of building materials can be found in Finley et al. (1980) and in Schleien (1992).

Q Q 6.1.8 Stop Parameters

Q Q Q 6.1.8.1 Truck 

### During truck transport, stops may be required fo r refueling, inspection, repair, and crew needs. Up to 20 different stops may be modeled in RADTRAN 5. Input parameters for the RADTRAN 5 stop model are the number of persons exposed to external radiation from the cargo at the stop, the area around the carg o occupied by these persons or their distance from the cargo, the exposure time, and the external dose rate. RISKIND can model MEIs at truck stops and local populations for single events by using the time sp ent at a given stop. Additional input for local populations is the number of persons within minimum and maximum radii from the stopped shipment. Table 6.19 lists truck stop parameters from ot her sources. Hostick et al. (1992) reported on a time/motion study involving a 4,500-km overweight SNF shipment. During the 62-hour transit period, approximately 6 hours and 24 minutes were spent at weigh stations , rest areas, and truck stops, giving a distance-dependent stop time of 0.0014 h/km. A previous study of 24 shipments (seven fuel cycle, one hospital waste, and 16 LLW) suggested a distance-dependent stop time of 0.0092 h/km (Madsen and Wilmot, 1982). In the la tter study, the distance-dependent stop time was less for two-driver truck crews and on shorte r trips (<16 hours) for on e-driver truck crews. The number and distance of persons both inside a nd outside of buildings exposed to radioactive material shipments at stops vary. Averag e recorded values are listed in Table 6.19.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 90 

### Table 6.19. Truck Stop Parameters

Source Distance Dependent Stop

Time (h/km) Number of Persons Exposed Exposure Distance (m)

Madsen and Wilmot (1982) Suggested 0.0092 25 20 One driver (< 16 h trip) 0.00072 - 0.0075 Two driver (> 16 h trip) 0.0073 - 0.019 Two drivers 0.0014 - 0.0085 Hostick et al. (1992) a 0.0014 32 b 76.2 Griego et al. (1996) NA c 7 d up to 16 m d

a SNF shipment with two drivers. b Average from nine truck stops.

c Not applicable. d Average of persons observed outside (11 observations) at three truck stops.

Q Q Q 6.1.8.2 Rail 

### The stop model in RISKIND is the same for bot h truck and rail. Specific scenarios involving MEIs and local populations can be assessed. Pote ntial exposure scenarios for rail inspectors and railyard workers are provided in Secti on 4.1.1.2 for MEI calculati ons with RISKIND. The occupational population dose at a single 30-hour rail cla ssification stop, documented in Appendix B of Neuhauser et al (2000), is part of the RADTRAN 5 code. The number of classification stops per rail tr ip is usually two, to account for initial and final railyard classifications (Wooden, 1986), but may be defined by the user. Occupational dose at stops along the route is calcula ted using a user-defined distance-dependent worker exposure factor (DDWEF) as a multiplier for the classification stop dose. The RADTRAN 5 standard value for the DDWEF is 0.0018 per km (Wooden, 1986; Ostmeyer, 1986). Similar to the truck shipments, part of the nonoccupational collec tive population dose at railroad stops is modeled using a distan ce-dependent stop time. As determined by Ostmeyer (1986), the RADTRAN suggested value is 0.033 h/km for general freight service or 0.0036 h/km for dedicated rail service. The total stop time for each route segment is determined by multiplying the segment length by the per-kilometer stop time, and a stop for each route segment is then modeled in the same way as for truck stops. The population density for the route segment is usually used, and the distance fr om the cargo is usually 30 to 8 00 m for en-route stops and 400 to 800 m for the 30-hour rail classification stop.

Q Q 6.1.9 Accident Rates Accident rates determine the frequency of acci dents that might occur during transport of radioactive materials. Saricks and coworkers (Saricks and Kvitek, 1994; Saricks and Tompkins, 1999) performed extensive studies on accident rate s for truck and rail transport. For each transport mode, accident rates were generically defined as the number of accidents in a given year per unit of that travel mode. Therefore, the rate is a fractional value — the accidentinvolvement count is the numera tor, and vehicular activity (tot al traveled distance) is theA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 91 

### denominator. Accident rates are derived from mu ltiple-year averages that automatically account for such factors as heavy traffic and adverse weather conditions. For assessment purposes, the total numbers of expected accidents, injuries, or fatalities are calculated by multiplying the total shipping distance for a specific case by the appr opriate accident, injury, or fatality rate.

Q Q Q 6.1.9.1 Truck 

### For truck transportation, the rates presented in Saricks and Kvitek (1994 and Sarieks and Tompkins (1999) are provided specifically for h eavy combination trucks involved in interstate commerce. Heavy combination trucks are rigs consisting of a separabl e tractor unit containing the engine and one to three fr eight trailers connected to each other and the tractor. Heavy combination trucks are typically used for shippi ng radioactive wastes. Truck accident rates are computed for each state on the basis of statis tics compiled by the DOT Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) from 1986 to 1988. Saricks and Kvitek ( 1994) present accident involvement counts, estimated kilometers of travel by state, and th e corresponding average accident involvement rate for the three years investigated. These state-spec ific truck accident rates for interstate highways in rural and urban areas and also for primary and secondary highways ar e provided in Table 6.20. The interstate highway rates are suitable for mo st transportation risk assessments because the interstate system generally provides the safest and quickest route for shipments. Saricks and Kvitek (1994) also point out that shippers and carriers of radioactive material generally have a higher-than-average awareness of transportation risk and prepare cargos and drivers for such shipments accordingly. This pr eparation should have the twofold effect of reducing component and equipment failure and m itigating the contribution of human error to accident causation. These effects were not considered in the compilation of data. Saricks and Tompkins (1999) updated 1986–1988 statistics with those from 1994–1996 to include heavy combination truck accident statistics. These newer accident rate data from Saricks and Tompkins (1999) are provided alongside the older data from Saricks and Kvitek (1994) in Table 6.20. Part of the impetus behind the 1999 st udy was to complete the interstate highway system network. Uncompleted links in the interstate network still remained in a few states as of 1988. Such discontinuity required shipments to leave multilane, access-controlled highways and traverse more hazardous two-lane roads. Anothe r factor was the recent increase in speed limits in many states. Direct comparison of accident rates between the two studies cannot be made because of the way accidents are now reporte d. The following excerpt from Saricks and Tompkins (1999) discusses the differences in the data used for the two studies:A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment

Page 92Table 6.20. Combination Truck Accident Rates by StateAccidents/kmSaricks and Kvitek (1994)Saricks and Tompkins (1999)InterstateStateInterstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total Primary SecondaryAlabama2.82E−07 5.22E−07 2.88E−07 3.77E−07 1.26E−07 4.68E−07 1.85E−07 5.16E−07 3.96E−07Arizona1.32E−07 8.10E−08 4.00E−09 1.07E−07 1.60E−07 2.71E−07 1.76E−07 2.12E−07 1.45E−07Arkansas1.34E−07 2.33E−07 2.30E−08 1.48E−07 1.73E−07 4.82E−07 2.09E−07 4.69E−07 6.84E−07California1.60E−07 4.50E−08 1.79E−07 8.30E−8 1.64E−07 1.92E−07 1.76E−07 1.15E−07 2.22E−07Colorado4.46E−07 3.81E−07 5.46E−07 4.34E−07 2.76E−07 6.28E−07 3.60E−07 4.11E−07 4.42E−07Connecticut9.04E−07 3.47E−07 3.19E−06 8.82E−07 4.60E−07 2.67E−07 3.23E−07 2.56E−07 9.09E−07Delaware5.18E−07 8.04E−07 1.31E−06 7.25E−070.00E+002.56E−07 2.56E−07 7.35E−07 4.81E−07Florida6.90E−08 7.50E−08 3.75E−07 8.90E−08 1.21E−07 2.25E−07 1.50E−07 3.73E−07 6.33E−07Georgia*a* *6.69E−07 1.65E−07 4.87E−07 2.28E−07 6.15E−07 4.04E−07Idaho2.95E−07 5.12E−07 5.19E−07 3.95E−07 2.30E−07 1.73E−07 2.22E−07 4.93E−07 2.29E−07Illinois2.22E−07 2.74E−07 1.38E−06 2.96E−07 1.76E−07 8.75E−07 3.53E−07 6.40E−07 1.78E−07Indiana2.25E−07 1.38E−07 4.30E−08 1.69E−07 1.92E−07 4.58E−07 2.43E−07 4.72E−07 2.80E−07Iowa1.12E−07 1.72E−07 2.47E−07 1.48E−07 1.78E−07 3.54E−07 2.02E−07 4.03E−07 1.24E−07Kansas2.84E−07 5.17E−07 3.14E−07 3.83E−07 2.04E−07 4.48E−07 2.56E−07 5.11E−07 1.38E−07Kentucky3.10E−07 1.03E−06 5.33E−07 5.18E−07 1.46E−07 5.13E−07 1.99E−07 5.74E−07 8.80E−07Louisiana * * *2.21E−07 1.30E−07 3.54E−07 1.88E−07 3.53E−07 2.39E−07Maine4.39E−07 1.88E−07 7.39E−07 4.12E−07 2.44E−07 9.03E−07 2.93E−07 5.44E−07 2.28E−07Maryland5.40E−07 8.16E−07 2.75E−06 7.41E−07 3.95E−07 3.08E−07 3.46E−07 3.56E−07 1.24E−06Massachusetts8.60E−08 1.81E−07 1.29E−06 1.55E−07 6.47E−07 1.42E−07 2.68E−07 3.43E−07 4.61E−06Michigan2.83E−07 9.50E−08 6.17E−07 2.15E−07 1.59E−07 3.16E−07 2.12E−07 2.68E−07 8.10E−08Minnesota1.71E−07 1.90E−07 1.31E−07 1.76E−07 2.06E−07 2.66E−07 2.29E−07 4.19E−07 2.16E−07Mississippi4.80E−08 8.70E−08 3.90E−08 6.30E−08 1.19E−07 2.01E−07 1.35E−07 4.48E−07 6.50E−08Missouri4.64E−07 5.38E−07 9.29E−07 5.36E−07 1.78E−07 5.18E−07 2.61E−07 5.36E−07 2.49E−07Montana6.20E−07 6.08E−07 3.50E−07 5.81E−07 2.52E−07 1.00E−06 2.89E−07 5.38E−07 1.02E−07Nebraska3.19E−07 5.82E−07 4.97E−07 4.34E−07 1.77E−07 6.97E−07 2.09E−07 3.62E−07 9.90E−08Nevada2.25E−07 3.80E−07 2.90E−08 2.45E−07 1.57E−07 6.33E−07 1.97E−07 4.35E−07 3.17E−07New Hampshire2.63E−07 3.86E−07 6.79E−07 3.81E−07 1.39E−07 2.20E−08 1.18E−07 4.36E−07 3.33E−07A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessmen t

Page 93Table 6.20. Combination Truck Accident Rates by State (Continued)Accidents/kmSaricks and Kvitek (1994)Saricks and Tompkins (1999)InterstateStateInterstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total Primary SecondaryNew Jersey5.65E−07 2.67E−07 2.88E−06 4.93E−07 7.65E−07 2.77E−07 4.24E−07 6.80E−07 9.69E−07New Mexico1.13E−07 1.02E−07 1.03E−07 1.08E−07 1.92E−07 9.64E−07 2.35E−07 4.77E−07 1.22E−06New York * * *3.45E−07 2.93E−07 5.69E−07 3.98E−07 3.16E−07 9.48E−07North Carolina3.46E−07 3.14E−07 3.69E−07 3.34E−07 2.28E−07 5.92E−07 2.97E−07 5.17E−07 6.37E−07North Dakota3.02E−07 4.87E−07 1.37E−07 3.42E−07 9.90E−08 4.40E−07 1.18E−07 1.99E−07 4.00E−08Ohio1.64E−07 3.80E−08 9.10E−08 1.16E−07 2.27E−07 3.16E−07 2.52E−07 4.42E−07 1.10E−06Oklahoma2.68E−07 3.16E−07 2.31E−07 2.76E−07 1.47E−07 3.76E−07 1.91E−07 3.61E−07 1.73E−07Oregon * * *2.16E−07 2.20E−07 3.99E−07 2.48E−07 4.17E−07 1.63E−07Pennsylvania5.14E−07 7.26E−07 2.15E−06 6.79E−07 3.60E−07 3.02E−07 3.48E−07 7.21E−07 7.92E−07Rhode Island3.15E−07 3.66E−07 6.54E−07 3.52E−07 1.98E−07 2.27E−07 2.16E−07 1.37E−07 1.67E−06South Carolina * * *4.69E−07 1.83E−07 3.13E−07 1.99E−07 6.27E−07 2.27E−07South Dakota2.33E−07 2.49E−07 1.54E−07 2.29E−07 2.09E−07 8.57E−07 2.18E−07 3.94E−07 1.49E−07Tennessee1.23E−07 2.81E−07 1.55E−07 1.59E−07 1.48E−07 7.97E−07 2.48E−07 5.56E−07 6.26E−07Texas6.00E−07 6.96E−07 7.36E−07 6.58E−07 1.56E−07 2.74E−07 2.00E−07 2.78E−07 1.09E−07Utah2.90E−07 3.05E−07 9.04E−07 3.40E−07 2.41E−07 2.52E−07 2.44E−07 3.70E−07 5.00E−07Vermont1.88E−07 5.27E−07 1.43E−07 2.98E−07 1.38E−070.00E+001.33E−07 6.30E−07 6.80E−07Virginia3.93E−07 1.98E−07 1.60E−08 2.65E−07 2.54E−07 2.63E−07 2.56E−07 4.67E−07 5.03E−07Washington2.65E−07 1.75E−07 1.23E−07 2.05E−07 2.50E−07 1.61E−07 2.10E−07 2.62E−07 7.30E−08West Virginia1.72E−07 3.71E−07 1.38E−07 2.15E−07 3.10E−07 2.95E−07 3.07E−07 1.17E−06 7.87E−07Wisconsin4.49E−07 3.96E−07 1.57E−06 5.51E−07 1.74E−07 5.29E−07 2.18E−07 2.80E−07 3.24E−07Wyoming6.74E−07 7.41E−07 5.56E−07 6.78E−07 3.42E−07 2.98E−07 3.40E−07 3.41E−07 3.70E−07Mean Rate3.15E−07 3.66E−07 6.54E−07 3.52E−07 2.03E−07 3.58E−07 2.44E−07 3.94E−07 3.98E−07Total Rate3.00E−07 2.78E−07 4.56E−07 3.21E−07−b−−−−A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 94 

### Until March 4, 1993, Part 394 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations required motor carriers to submit accident reports to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in th e so-called “50-T” reporting format. The master file compiled from entering the data on these reports in FHWA’s Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) was the basis of accident, fatality, and injury rates developed for the 1994 Argonne National Laboratory documen t [Saricks and Kvitek 1994]. By Final Rule of February 2, 1993 [58 FR 6726], the reporting requirement was removed; instead of submitting reports, carriers were now required to maintain a register of accidents meeti ng the definition of an accide nt (see below) for a period of one year after such an accident occu rred. Carriers were to make the contents of these registers availabl e to FHWA agents investigating specific accidents. They were also required to give “...all reasonabl e assistance in the investigation of any accident including providing a full, true , and correct answer to any question or inquiry,” to reveal whether hazardous mate rials other than spilled fuel from the fuel tanks were released, and to furnish copies of all state-required accident reports [49 CFR 390.15]. The reason for this change in rule was the emergence of an automated state acci dent reporting system compiled from law enforcement accident reports that, pursuant to pr ovisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA ) of 1991 [PL 102-240, 105 STAT. 1914], was being established under the Moto r Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). Under Section 408 of Title IV of the Mo tor Carrier Act of 1991, a component of ISTEA, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to make grants to states in order to help th em achieve uniform implementation of the police accident reporting sy stem for truck and bus accidents recommended by the National Governors’ Association. Unde r this system, called SAFETYNET, accident data records generated by each state follow identical formatting and content instructions; the records are ente red on approximately a weekly basis into a federally maintained database. This database is in turn compiled and managed by a DOT contractor as part of the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). Motor carrier reporting rules in 49 CFR 390.5 define an accident as an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a public road that results in (1) a fatality and/or (2) bodily injury to a person that requires medical treatment away from the accident scene; and/or (3) one or more involved motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a re sult of the accident such that the vehicle must be towed from the scene. Sp ecifically excluded from this definition of “accident” are occurrences involvi ng only boarding and alighting from a stationary vehicle, involv ing only the loading or unloadi ng of cargo, or involving a passenger car or other multipurpose pa ssenger vehicle owned by the carrier that is transporting neithe r passengers for hire nor placard-quantity hazardous materials. The latter exclusions repres ent a key difference between this definition and the immediate reporting requirements for hazardous materials incidents under 49 CFR 171.15, which stipulate the following criteria:

• FatalityA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 95 

### • Injury requiring hospitalization

• Total property damage in excess of $50,000 (tow-aways may not meet this threshold, but total damage could meet this criterion wit hout a tow-away)

• An evacuation of the general publ ic lasting at least one hour

• Closure of one or more major transportati on arteries or faci lities for at least one hour

• Alteration of an aircraft’s r outine flight plan (not rele vant to surface modes)

• Fire, breakage, spillage, or suspect ed radioactive contamination during shipment of radioactive material

• Fire, breakage, spillage, or suspected contamination during shipment of etiologic agents

• Release of a marine pollutant in quantity exceeding 450 liters (119 gal) for liquids or 400 kg (882 lb) for solids

• A decision by the carrier that a repor table situation (e.g., continuing danger to life at the scene) exists. Thus, reportable accidents under MCSAP are far more exclusionary than for reportable hazardous materials situati ons, which include not only release of cargo wherever it may occur but also impacts on uninvolved parties (i.e., the general public) and also give reporting discretion to carriers not authorized under law-enforcement-based incident accounting systems.

Q Q Q 6.1.9.2 Rail 

### The FRA divides rail accidents /incidents into three major cat egories for reporting purposes (DOT, 1998): (1) highway-rail grad e crossing incidents, (2) tr ain accidents, and (3) other incidents. The definition of each is given in the following excerpt from Saricks and Tompkins (1999):

Under 49 USC 20901, rail carriers must file a re port with the Secretary of Transportation, not later than 30 days after the end of each month in which an accident or incident occurs, that states the nature, cause, and circumstances of the reported accident or incident. The form at for such reports is provided by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under 49 CFR 225.11. The criteria for a reportable accident or incide nt currently encoded in 49 CFR Part 225 are as follows:

• An impact occurs between railroad on-tra ck equipment and (a) a motorized or non-motorized highway or farm vehicle, (b) a pedestrian, or (c) other highway user at a highway-rail crossing.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 96 

### • A collision, derailment, fire , explosion, act of God, or other event involving the operation of standing or moving railroad on-track equipment results in aggregate damage (to on-track equipmen t, signals, track and/or other track structures, and/or roadbed) of more than $6,300 (as of 1998).

• An event arising from railroad operation that results in (a) the death of one or more persons; (b) injury to one or more persons, other than railroad employees, that requires medical treatm ent; (c) injury to one or more employees that requires medical treatment or results in restriction of work or motion for one or more days, one or more lost work days, transfer to another job, termination of employment, or lo ss of consciousness; and/or (d) any occupational illness of a railroad employee diagnosed by a physician. Certain types of railroad carriers are exempted from these requirements, specifically (1) those owning or operating on track entirely within a facility not part of the general freight railroad syst em; (2) rail urban mass transit operations not connected to the general railroad transportation system; and (3) those owning or operating an exclusively passenger -hauling railroad entirely within an installation isolated from the general fr eight railroad system. (The definition of isolation, or insularity, of operations in this last category excludes any situations involving one or more at-grade crossi ngs of (active) public roads or other railroads, bridges over public roads or commercially navigated waterways, or operations conducted within 30 feet of any other (active) railroad.) Partial relief from requirements is also available for rail carriers with 15 or fewer employees covered by the hours of service law of 49 USC 21101-21107, or that own or operate track exclusively off the general sy stem. For purposes of this analysis, the entities subject to full re porting requirements are suffi ciently comprehensive. Carriers covered by these requirements must fulfill several bookkeeping tasks. FRA requires submittal of a monthly stat us report, even if there were no reportable events during the period. Accide nts and incidents must be reported on the FRA standardized form, but certain ty pes of incidents require immediate telephone notification. Logs of both repor table injuries and on-track incidents must be maintained by each railroad on which they occur, and a listing of such events must be posted and made avail able to employees and to the FRA, along with required records and reports, upon re quest for them. The consolidated data entries extracted from the FRA reporti ng forms are consolidated into anaccident/incident database that separates reportable accidents from gradecrossing incidents. These are annually pro cessed into event, fatality, and injury count tables as part of the Accident/Incident Bulletin. Rail accident rates are computed and presented si milarly to truck accident rates in Saricks and Kvitek (1994); however, for rail transport, the unit of haulage is the railcar. State-specific rail accident involvement, injury, and fatality rates are based on statistics compiled for 1985 to 1988 by the FRA. As provided in Table 6.21, rail acc ident rates include both mainline accidents and those occurring in railyards. The updated repor t by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) compiles FRAA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 97 

### Table 6.21. Rail Accident Rates by State

Saricks and Tompkins (1999) Saricks and Kvitek (1994)

Accidents per Car-km State Accidents Per Car-km Grade Crossing Incidents per Car-km Total Mainline Only Alabama 2.96E–08 1.67E–07 4.80E–08 2.75E–08 Arizona 1.65E–08 1.86E–08 1.75E–08 1.30E–08 Arkansas 7.56E–08 1.62E–07 6.78E–08 3.54E–08 California 4.98E–08 5.82E–08 5.10E–08 2.51E–08 Colorado 3.67E–08 3.35E–08 1.73E–08 1.02E–08 Connecticut 3.06E–06 3.66E–07 2.83E–07 1.01E–07 Delaware 3.88E–07 3.88E–07 1.77E–07 1.11E–07 District of Columbia 2.29E–06 1.09E–07 1.17E–06 7.81E–07 Florida 4.63E–08 9.56E–08 4.02E–08 2.21E–08 Georgia 3.06E–08 1.04E–07 6.44E–08 2.84E–08 Idaho 6.41E–08 7.39E–08 7.01E–08 4.14E–08 Illinois 9.53E–08 7.43E–08 1.07E–07 2.97E–08 Indiana 4.56E–08 1.85E–07 4.64E–08 1.93E–08 Iowa 6.31E–08 1.02E–07 1.47E–07 7.16E–08 Kansas 4.41E–08 6.13E–08 3.61E–08 1.75E–08 Kentucky 2.82E–08 8.21E–08 4.48E–08 2.44E–08 Louisiana 1.25E–07 3.86E–07 1.24E–07 4.28E–08 Maine 2.62E–07 4.37E–07 3.78E–07 1.85E–07 Maryland 4.49E–08 4.10E–08 5.62E–08 2.58E–08 Massachusetts 2.39E–07 2.33E–07 1.17E–07 4.97E–08 Michigan 1.55E–07 3.78E–07 1.65E–07 7.19E–08 Minnesota 7.59E–08 1.11E–07 8.48E–08 3.16E–08 Mississippi 1.42E–07 2.47E–07 1.15E–07 8.51E–08 Missouri 3.62E–08 5.01E–08 5.28E–08 2.56E–08 Montana 3.42E–08 1.83E–08 1.73E–08 1.10E–08 Nebraska 4.60E–08 3.75E–08 4.63E–08 2.56E–08 Nevada 5.77E–09 3.71E–09 3.23E–08 2.19E–08 New Hampshire 2.61E–07 3.05E–07 2.15E–07 1.72E–07 New Jersey 1.99E–07 1.75E–07 1.24E–07 4.82E–08 New Mexico 1.14E–08 1.10E–08 9.40E–09 6.60E–09 New York 2.03E–07 5.53E–08 8.32E–08 4.30E–08 North Carolina 6.10E–08 2.88E–07 5.70E–08 2.27E–08 North Dakota 4.42E–08 3.17E–08 2.41E–08 1.80E–08 Ohio 3.46E–08 1.08E–07 4.73E–08 2.12E–08 Oklahoma 5.14E–08 1.07E–07 4.66E–08 2.72E–08 Oregon 9.73E–08 9.33E–08 1.25E–07 5.77E–08 Pennsylvania 9.38E–08 6.96E–08 4.38E–08 2.69E–08 Rhode Island 4.03E–06 4.03E–06 1.05E–06 0 South Carolina 6.92E–08 3.42E–07 5.11E–08 3.31E–08 South Dakota 1.18E–07 1.05E–07 1.02E–07 9.09E–08A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 98 

### Table 6.21. Rail Accident Rates by State (Continued)

Saricks and Tompkins (1999) Saricks and Kvitek (1994)

Accidents per Car-km State Accidents Per Car-km Grade Crossing Incidents per Car-km Total Mainline Only Tennessee 4.43E–08 9.83E–08 5.59E–08 1.88E–08 Texas 5.05E–08 1.05E–07 7.12E–08 3.16E–08 Utah 5.87E–08 5.94E–08 5.78E–08 2.31E–08 Vermont 1.74E–07 1.07E–07 1.52E–07 1.16E–07 Virginia 4.66E–08 8.35E–08 4.35E–08 1.91E–08 Washington 8.46E–08 8.93E–08 3.49E–08 1.44E–08 West Virginia 3.17E–08 5.30E–08 9.61E–08 7.42E–08 Wisconsin 1.27E–07 2.55E–07 1.65E–07 7.66E–08 Wyoming 2.40E–08 4.90E–09 3.10E–08 1.97E–08 Mean Rate 2.74E–07 2.16E–07 5.57E–08 2.66E–08 Total 5.39E–08 8.64E–08

− a

−

a

− = rate not provided.



### accident data from the years 1994–1996. Accident ra tes and grade crossing incidents from this latter report are presented in Tabl e 6.21. Separate accident rates sp ecific to the ra ilroad mainline and railyards were not derived in the update. Us e of the overall, combined accident rate is appropriate for general freight shipments becaus e railcars will be subj ect to marshalling in railyards along the route. On the other ha nd, dedicated rail shipments spend less time in railyards and the overall rate may overestimate th e accident rate. Many grade crossing incidents are not reportable accidents, but may involve injuries and fatalities, as presented in Section 6.2.1.2.

Q Q 6.1.10 Accident Release Parameters

The amount of radioactive mate rial released from a transp ortation accident depends on the packaging of the material and the severity of the a ccident. In an effort to quantify such releases for risk assessments, release fractions for different types of packaging were estimated for a series of accident severity categories.

Q Q Q 6.1.10.1 Accident Severity Categories 

### The severity of an accident depends on such fact ors as impact speed and geometry, type of object impacted, crush, puncture, fire, and immersi on. Clarke et al. ( 1976) studied accident characteristics involving shipments by airplane, truck, and train. The study focused on shipments with smaller, multiple packages. A follow-up study by Dennis et al. (1978) focused on larger package (greater than 2 tons) shipments (e.g., SNF) made by truck or train. Other studies focused primarily on accidents involving SNF shipments (Wilmot, 1981; Fischer et al., 1987; Sprung, et al., 2000). A recent study considered the severiti es of tractor semi-trail er accidents and their application to HAZMAT transport (Clauss et al., 1994).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 99 

### NUREG-0170 A method widely used to characte rize the potential sever ity of transportation -related accidents is described in the NRC report NUREG-0170 (N RC, 1977a). The NRC method divided the spectrum of transportation accide nt severities into eight categories. The NUREG-0170 accident classification scheme is shown in Figure 6.8 for truck transportation and in Figure 6.9 for rail transportation.

VII

VI VII VIII

VII VI V

IV V VI VII

III IV V VI VII

II III IV

IV III I

0.5 1 1.5 2 0 6.7 22 89 220 440 1330 2220

1300 ° 

### Kelvin Fi r e Du r ation ( hou r s )Crush Force (103newtons)



### Figure 6.8. Scheme for NUREG- 0170 Classification by Accident Severity Category for Truck Accidents (Source: NRC, 1977a)

Severity is described as a function of the mechan ical force and thermal force (fire) magnitudes to which a package may be subjected during an ac cident. The mechanical criterion for truck shipments in the NUREG-0170 analysis was the crus h force, using the resu lts from Foley et al. (1974). For train shipments, puncture and impact speed were considered the primary mechanical forces, using data from Clarke et al. (1976). Becaus e all accidents can be described in these terms, severity is independent of the specific acci dent sequence. In other words, any accident in which a package is subjected to forces within a ce rtain range of values is assigned to the accident severity category associated with that range. The scheme for accident severity in NUREG-0170 takes into account all credible transportation-rela ted accidents, including those with low probability but high consequences and those wi th high probability but low consequences.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 100 

### VII

VI VII VIII

VII VI V

IV V VI VII

III IV V VI VII

II III IV

IV IV

III I

0.5 1 1.5 2 0 8.0 24 40 64 97 130 160

1300 ° 

### Kelvin Fi r e Du r ation ( hou r s )Pucnture and Impact Speed (kilometers/hours)



### Figure 6.9. Scheme for NUREG-0170 Classification by Accident Severity Category for Rail Accidents (Source: NRC 1977a)

The fractional occurrences for accidents in the accident severity cate gory and the population density zone used in NUREG 0170 are shown in Table 6.22. Category I accidents are th e least severe but the most frequent; Category VIII accidents are very severe, resulting in the largest releases of radioactive material , but are very infrequent. To determine the expected frequency of a given accident’s severity, the conditional probability in the category is multiplied by the baseline accident rate. Each population density zone has a distinct baseline accident rate and distribution of accident severities related to differences in average vehicular velocity, traffic density, and other factors, including location (rural, suburban, or urban). Category VIII accidents are extremel y rare, occurring approximately once in every 70,000 truck or 100,000 rail accidents involvi ng a radioactive waste shipment. Modal Study The responses of SNF casks under a range of highway and railway accident conditions were investigated by LLNL for the NRC (Fischer et al., 1987). The results of the NRC Modal Study are often used to categorize pot ential SNF transportati on accidents. In the NRC Modal Study all potential damage to a shipping cask during an accid ent is categorized according to two principalA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 101 

### Table 6.22. Fractional Occurrences for Accident s by Severity Category and Population Density Zone

Fractional Occurrence by Population Density Zone Severity Category Fractional Occurrence Rural Suburban Urban Truck I 5.5E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 8.0E-01 II 3.6E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 8.0E-01 III 7.0E-02 3.0E-01 4.0E-01 3.0E-01 IV 1.6E-02 3.0E-01 4.0E-01 3.0E-01 V 2.8E-03 5.0E-01 3.0E-01 2.0E-01 VI 1.1E-03 7.0E-01 2.0E-01 1.0E-01 VII 8.5E–05 8.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 VIII 1.5E–05 9.0E-01 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 Rail I 5.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 8.0E-01 II 3.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 8.0E-01 III 1.8E-01 3.0E-01 4.0E-01 3.0E-01 IV 1.8E-02 3.0E-01 4.0E-01 3.0E-01 V 1.8E-03 5.0E-01 3.0E-01 2.0E-01 VI 1.3E–04 7.0E-01 2.0E-01 1.0E-01 VII 6.0E–05 8.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 VIII 1.0E–05 9.0E-01 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 Source: NRC (1977a).



### variables: the cask structural and therma l responses induced by cask impact and fire, respectively. Twenty cask respons e regions (or categories) based on varying levels of cask strain and temperature are categorized to represent the entire spectrum of transportation accidents, ranging from regions with high probability and lo w impacts to regions with low probability and high impacts. These cask response regions and th e conditional probabilities of occurrence for combined mechanical and thermal loads, shoul d an accident occur, are shown in Figure 6.10. The most important accident conditions that de fine the mechanical loads imposed on a cask during an accident are those associated with va rious impacts. Because of the large weight, hardness, and rigidity of SNF cas ks, loads caused by crushing, proj ectiles, or other mechanisms are far less damaging than loads caused by impacts w ith hard, massive objects. As in any impact involving a motor vehicle or tr ain, the damage sustained woul d depend on vehicle speed, angle of impact, hardness of the object struck, and orientation of the ve hicle and object at the time of impact. The temperature of an accident-generated fire is the most important consideration when assessing potential cask functi onal degradation. The cumulative heat affecting a cask depends not only on the temperature and duration of the fire , but also on the extent to which the cask is exposed. Data on fire temperatur es and durations may be obtained from descriptions of severe accidents (see the RMIR available via TRANSNET) ; however, conservative estimates of fire temperatures and durations can be calculated ba sed on pertinent information about the accident,A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 102 

### Figure 6.10. NRC Modal Study SNF Cask Respon se Regions and Conditional Probabilities (Source: Fischer et al., 1987).

such as the maximum fuel volume carried by a t ypical tank truck and the nature of the product being shipped. Another accident condition required to describe cask response is the location of a cask relative to the fire during an accident. If the severity of a single, well-defined accident needs to be assessed, the above information can be used with the Modal Study methodology to obtain the resu lt with hand calculations. The modal study methodology for determining SNF transportation accident severities is also incorporated in the RISKIND computer code (Y uan et al., 1995), where the user can enter the pertinent accident characteristics and the progr am will determine the appropriate severity category. Reexamination of SNF Shipment Risk: NUREG/CR-6672 More recently, a reexamination of the behavior of spent fuel casks in severe accidents was conducted by Sprung et al. (2000). Accident event trees were cons tructed for both truck and rail transport of SNF casks. Based on the structural and thermal response ch aracteristics of two generic cask designs, 31 truck accide nt scenarios leading to a poten tial release of radioactivity were assigned to 18 accident severity categorie s. Likewise, 25 train accident scenarios were assigned to 20 accident severity categories. Table 6.23 lists the conditional probabilities associated with each case.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 103 

### Table 6.23. Estimated Severity Fractions (Co nditional Probabilities) for SNF Shipments a

Truck Cask Steel-DU-Steel Steel-Land-Steel Case 3 PWR Assemblies 7 BWR Assemblies 1 PWR Assembly 2 BWR Assemblies 1 1.53E–08 1.53E–08 1.53E–08 1.53E–08 2 5.88E–05 5.88E–05 6.19E–05 6.19E–05 3 1.81E–06 1.81E–06 2.81E–07 2.81E–07 4 7.49E–08 7.49E–08 6.99E–08 6.99E–08 5 4.65E–07 4.65E–07 4.89E–07 4.89E–07 6 3.31E–09 3.31E–09 9.22E–11 9.22E–11 7 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.30E–12 3.30E–12 8 1.13E–08 1.13E–08 1.17E–08 1.17E–08 9 8.03E–11 8.03E–11 1.90E–12 1.90E–12 10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 11 1.44E–10 1.44E–10 1.49E–10 1.49E–10 12 1.02E–12 1.02E–12 2.41E–14 2.41E–14 13 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 14 7.49E–11 7.49E–11 6.99E–11 6.99E–11 15 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.30E–15 3.30E–15 16 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 17 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 18 5.86E–06 5.86E–06 5.59E–06 5.59E–06 19 0.99993 0.99993 0.99993 0.99993 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000

Rail Cask Monolithic Steel-Land-Steel Case 24 PWR Assemblies 52 BWR Assemblies 24 PWR Assembly 52 BWR Assemblies 1 4.49E–09 4.49E–09 8.20E–06 8.20E–06 2 1.17E–07 1.17E–07 5.68E–07 5.68E–07 3 4.49E–09 4.49E–09 4.49E–09 4.49E–09 4 3.05E–05 3.05E–05 2.96E–05 2.96E–05 5 1.01E–06 1.01E–06 8.24E–07 8.24E–07 6 1.51E–08 1.51E–08 1.10E–07 1.10E–07 7 7.31E–08 7.31E–08 6.76E–08 6.76E–08 8 2.43E–09 2.43E–09 1.88E–09 1.88E–09 9 3.61E–11 3.61E–11 2.51E–10 2.51E–10 10 9.93E–10 9.93E–10 4.68E–09 4.68E–09 11 3.30E–11 3.30E–11 1.31E–10 1.31E–10 12 4.91E–13 4.91E–13 1.74E–11 1.74E–11 13 3.82E–11 3.82E–11 3.70E–11 3.70E–11 14 1.27E–12 1.27E–12 1.03E–12 1.03E–12A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 104 

### Table 6.23. Estimated Severity Fractions (C onditional Probabilities) for SNF Shipments a 

### (Continued)

Rail Cask Monolithic Steel-Land-Steel Case 24 PWR Assemblies 52 BWR Assemblies 24 PWR Assembly 52 BWR Assemblies 15 1.88E–14 1.88E–14 1.37E–13 1.37E–13 16 5.69E–11 5.69E–11 4.15E–10 4.15E–10 17 3.61E–14 3.61E–14 2.51E–13 2.51E–13 18 4.91E–16 4.91E–16 1.74E–14 1.74E–14 19 1.88E–17 1.88E–17 1.37E–16 1.37E–16 20 6.32E–06 6.32E–06 4.91E–05 4.91E–05 21 0.99996 0.99996 0.99991 0.99991 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000

a Source – Sprung et al. (2000).

Q Q Q 6.1.10.2 Release Fractions 

### The human health hazard from radioactive materi al shipment accidents results from exposure to material released from the shipping package or when cask shielding is decreased or lost. Once released to the environment, any amount of the rel eased fraction that is aer osolized (the airborne radioactive plume) will be dispersed by atmospheri c turbulence. This plume of material is a source of external exposure (clouds hine). The respirable fraction of this aerosolized material may also contribute to inhalation exposure. Over time and distance, the aerosolized material that does not exhibit ideal gas behavior will deposit on the ground, where it (1 ) remains a source of external exposure (groundshi ne); (2) may contaminate foodstuffs, thereby contributing to exposure via ingestion; and (3) may again contribu te to inhalation and cloudshine exposure via resuspension. The estimated radiological accide nt impacts in the different exposure pathway analyses will vary linearly with the amount of material released. Radiological consequences are cal culated by assigning package release fractions to each accident severity category. The release frac tion is defined as the fraction of the radioactive material in a package that could be released during an accident of a certain severity. Release fractions take into account all mechanisms necessary to releas e radioactive material from a damaged package to the environment. Release fractions vary acco rding to the package type and the physical form of the waste. Type B packagings, such as SN F casks, are designed to w ithstand the forces of severe accidents and, therefore, have smaller rele ase fractions than Type A packagings, such as 55-gal drums. The physical form of the waste also determines the aerosolized and respirable fractions. Many solid materials are difficult to release in par ticulate form and are, therefore, relatively nondispersible. Conversely, liquid or gaseous mate rials are relatively eas y to release if the container is compromised in an accident. A co mpendium of experimental data was assembled from which airborne release fr actions and respirable fractions may be derived for specific materials (DOE, 1994b).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 105 

### NUREG-0170 Package release fractions for accidents of each severity category are given in Table 6.24 for generic Type A and Type B packages, as suggested in NUREG-0170 (NRC, 1977a). These values are conservative because of the lack of data on package failure under severe conditions. Table 6.25 provides estimates for the aerosol an d respirable fractions commonly used in transportation risk assessments based on data in NUREG-0170 for different types of materials. Table 6.24. Package Release Fractions from NUREG-0170

Release Fraction by Package Type Severity Category Type A Type B Truck I 0 0 II 0.01 0 III 0.1 0.01 IV 1 0.1 V 1 1 VI 1 1 VII 1 1 VIII 1 1 Rail I 0 0 II 0.01 0 III 0.1 0.01 IV 1 0.1 V 1 1 VI 1 1 VII 1 1 VIII 1 1 Source: NRC (1977a). 

### Table 6.25. Aerosol and Respirable Fractions of Released Material

Material Aerosol Fraction Respirable Fraction Immobile 1×10 − 6 0.05 Loose Chunks 0.01 0.05 Large Powder 0.05 0.05 Small Powder/Nonvolatile Liquids 0.1 0.05 Spent Fuel Particulates 1 0.05 Volatile Solid 1 1 Other 1 1 Gas 1 1 Flammable 1 1 Source: Neuhauser and Kanipe (1992); deri ved from data in NUREG-0170 (NRC, 1977a).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 106 

### Transuranic Waste Considerable effort was expended by the DOE in citing and constructing an underground repository for the disposal of the nation’s TRUW at the WIPP in Carlsbad, New Mexico. The site received its firs t shipment in March 1999. Initial shipments consisted of CH-TRUW contained in TRUPACT-II containers, a Type B packaging. Shipments of RH-TRUW will be made in RH-72B Type B casks. More information on the TRUPACT-II and the RH-72B containers is available in DOE (1990) and DOE (1997d). Table 6.26 pr esents the latest estimated release fractions for TRUW shipped in TRUPACT-IIs for CH-TRUW or RH-72Bs for RHTRUW (DOE, 1997d). These fractions were derive d for use in the severity category scheme developed in NUREG-0170 and incorporate the aeros olized and respirable fractions based on the general characteristics of the TRUW. Table 6.26. Total Respirable Release Frac tions for TRU Waste Type B Containers

Accident Severity Category CH-TRU (TRUPACT-II) RH-TRU (RH-72B) I 0 0 II 0 0 III 8 × 10 − 9 6 × 10 − 9 IV 2 × 10 − 7 2 × 10 − 7 V 8 × 10 − 5 1 × 10 − 4 VI 2 × 10 − 4 1 × 10 − 4 VII 2 × 10 − 4 2 × 10 − 4 VIII 2 × 10 − 4 2 × 10 − 4 Source: DOE (1997d). 

### Spent Nuclear Fuel Perhaps the most familiar example of a radioactive material shipment is SNF in its massive Type B shipping cask. As discussed in Section 6.1.1.1, the packaging is the primary focus of regulations designed to prevent th e release of radioactive materials to the environment from a transportation accident. The Type B shipping casks licensed by the NRC for SNF shipments were engineered to prevent accidental releases in all but the most severe cases. Because NUREG-0170 was based on best en gineering judgments of cask response, the NRC conducted a rigorous analysis of potential releases from SNF cas ks as part of its Moda l Study (Fischer et al., 1987). Both the Modal Study and NUREG/CR-6672 in corporated sophisticated structural and thermal engineering analyses of cask responses to impact and thermal loads. The casks studied met only the minimum regulatory requirements. The Modal Study considered three mechanisms necessa ry in the establishment of a leak path for radioactive releases. The first is the diffusion of material from cr acked pellets within the fuel rod to the outer fuel rod cladding; the second is a di ffusing material leak from a breach in the fuel rod cladding into the interior of the shipping cask; and the third is a leak to the outside environment of the gases, vapors, and aerosolized pa rticles previously released to the interior of the cask.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 107 

### Before radioactive material is released into the cask cavity, the fuel-rod cladding must be breached during an accident as a result of high imp act or high temperature. The percentage of fuel rods breached under various impact and fire c onditions in a transportation accident is estimated in the Modal Study. After a fuel rod is breached, radioactive gases, volatiles, and solids can potentially escape into the cask cavity. Only rod burst and oxidation were considered significant release mechanisms in the Modal Study. It was conservatively assumed that all the released materials in the cask cavity would be released to the envir onment if a leak path developed in the containment (Fischer et al., 19 87). A leak path is assumed to occur for any transportation accident resulting in a maximum strain in the inner containment shell greater than 0.2%, or in a lead midlayer th ickness temperature exceeding 500 ° F.

The estimated radionuclide fractions for five t ypes of radionuclides and the 20 Modal Study cask response regions released and dispersed to th e atmosphere under the above assumptions are presented in Table 6.27. Radi onuclides are grouped by physical and chemical behavior: particulates; ruthenium, cesium, and iodine isotopes (considered to be in the form of vapors); and noble or inert gases. Table 6.27 al so gives release fractions deri ved for aluminum and metallic SNF (DOE, 1995b). Release fractions developed for graphite fuels ar e given in Table 6.28. Table 6.27. Release Fractions for Transporta tion Accidents by SNF Type for the NRC Modal Study Cask Response Regions

Release Fraction b Vapors Cask Response Region a Inert Gas Iodine Cesium Ruthenium Particulates Modal Study c R(1,1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R(1,2), R(1,3) 9.9 × 10 − 3 7.5 × 10 − 5 6.0 × 10 − 6 8.1 × 10 − 7 6.0 × 10 − 8 R(2,1), R(2,2), R(2,3) 3.3 × 10 − 2 2.5 × 10 − 4 2.0 × 10 − 5 2.7 × 10 − 6 2.0 × 10 − 7 R(1,4), R(2,4), R(3,4) 3.9 × 10 − 1 4.3 × 10 − 3 2.0 × 10 − 4 4.8 × 10 − 5 2.0 × 10 − 6 R(3,1), R(3,2), R(3,3) 3.3 × 10 − 1 2.5 × 10 − 3 2.0 × 10 − 4 2.7 × 10 − 5 2.0 × 10 − 6 R(1,5), R(2,5), R(3,5),R(4,5), R(4,1), R(4,2), R(4,3), R(4,4) 6.3 × 10 − 1 4.3 × 10 − 2 2.0 × 10 − 3 4.8 × 10 − 4 2.0 × 10 − 5

Aluminum and Metallic SNF d R(1,1) 0 0 0 0 0 R(1,2),R(1,3) 9.9 × 10 − 3 1.1 × 10 − 7 3.0 × 10 − 8 4.1 × 10 − 9 3.0 × 10 − 10 R(2,1),R(2,2),R(2,3) 3.3 × 10 − 2 3.5 × 10 − 7 1.0 × 10 − 7 1.4 × 10 − 8 1.0 × 10 − 9 R(1,4),R(2,4),R(3,4) 3.9 × 10 − 1 6.0 × 10 − 6 1.0 × 10 − 6 2.4 × 10 − 7 1.0 × 10 − 8 R(3,1),R(3,2),R(3,3) 3.3 × 10 − 1 3.5 × 10 − 6 1.0 × 10 − 6 1.4 × 10 − 7 1.0 × 10 − 8 R(1,5),R(2,5),R(3,5),R(4,5), R(4,1),R(4,2), R(4,3),R(4,4) 6.3 × 10 − 1 6.0 × 10 − 5 1.0 × 10 − 5 2.4 × 10 − 6 1.0 × 10 − 7

a R(N1,N2) represents the NRC Modal Study designation of discrete severity (cask response) regions, with N1 representing the imp act

strain and N2 representing the temperature caused by fire. b The release fraction represents the fraction of the total fuel inventory in the cask th at would be released into the atmospher e.

c Source: Fischer et al. (1987); values used for special-case co mmercial, university, foreign, a nd non-DOE research reactor SNF

(Table I-27) in DOE (1995b). d Applicable to N Reactor, SRS production reactor, and DOE research/test reactor fuel, Table I-28 (DOE, 1995b). Release fraction s derived from Shibata et al. ( 1984) and Fischer et al. (1987).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 108 

### Table 6.28. Release Fractions for Transportati on Accidents Involving Graphite SNF for the NRC Modal Study Cask Response Regions

Release Fractions b Cask Response Region a Inert Gas c Strontium, Cerium d Antimony e Cesium d Ruthenium, Rhodium e Particulates f R(1,1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 R(1,2),R(1,3),R(1,4), R(2,1),R(2,2),R(2,3), R(2,4),R(3,1),R(3,2), R(3,3),R(3,4),R(4,1), R(4,2),R(4,3),R(4,4) 5.3 × 10 − 3 3.7 × 10 − 7 1.0 × 10 − 6 2.4 × 10 − 7 7.3 × 10 − 8 1.0 × 10 − 9

R(1,5),R(2,5),R(3,5), R(4,5) 1.2 × 10 − 2 5.0 × 10 − 6 1.0 × 10 − 6 9.1 × 10 − 6 7.3 × 10 − 8 1.0 × 10 − 9

a Source: Table I-29 (DOE, 1995b), R(N1,N2) represents the NRC Moda l Study designation of discrete severity (cask response) regi ons, with N1

representing the impact strain and N2 re presenting the temperature caused by fire. b The release fraction represents the fraction of the total fuel inventory in the cask th at would be released into the atmospher e.

c Thermally induced, from NUREG/CR-0722, Table 40, all fuel (Lorenz et al., 1980). d Empirical data from the Fort St. Vrain Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 8, Table A.3-1 (PSC no date).

e Thermally induced semivolatiles from incore failed fuel; 1% fuel failure, 100% respirab le; release fraction from Lorenz et al. (1980). f Impact-induced nonvolatiles, 1% incore failed fu el, 5% respirable, release fraction of 2 × 10 − 6 (from Wilmot [1981]).



### In NUREG/CR-6672 (Sprung et al., 2000), potential re lease fractions were also developed for PWR and BWR SNF in generic casks. Tables 6. 29 and 6.30 list the estimated release fractions for PWR and BWR assemblies in truck or rail sh ipments, respectively. These release fractions were assumed to be the total re spirable release fraction (of the amount released, the aerosolized fraction = 1, respirable fraction = 1).

Q Q 6.1.11 Radionuclide Profiles and Data

Once radioactive material is released and di spersed in the environment, the associated radiological hazard depends on the isotopic compos ition of the material (radiological profile). The following subsections first di scuss typical radiologi cal profiles for the different radioactive waste types and then the rele vant radiological pr operties of the individual isotopes.

Q Q Q 6.1.11.1 Profiles 

### In the following sections, typical radiological profiles are discussed for LLW, LLMW, TRUW, SNF, and HLW. The profiles prov ide a point of reference concer ning typical characteristics and should not be used in calculations in lieu of site- or project-specific data.

Low-Level Waste

LLW includes all radioactive waste that is not cl assified as HLW, SNF, TRUW (greater than 100 nCi/g), or by-product material , as defined in Section 11e(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. LLW contains no hazardous waste constituents and is classified as either CH or RH, depending on whether the dose at the waste surfa ce is less or greater th an 200 mrem/h. Based on the types and levels of radioactive emissions, it is further categorized as alpha (combined activity of transuranic radionuclides with half-lives greater than 20 y ears between 10 and 100 nCi/g) orPage 109 A

Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessmen tTable 6.29. Accident Release Fractions for SNF Shipments by TruckRelease Fractions for PWR Fuel Assemblies in Truck Casks Release Fractions for BWR Fuel Assemblies in Truck CasksCaseKr Cs Ru Particulates CRUD Case Kr Cs Ru Particulate CRUD1 8.0E–01 2.4E–08 6.0E–07 6.0E–07 2.0E–03 1 8.0E–01 2.4E–08 6.0E–07 6.0E–07 2.0E–032 1.4E–01 4.1E–09 1.0E–07 1.0E–07 1.4E–03 2 5.4E–03 1.6E–10 4.0E–09 4.0E–09 4.5E–043 1.8E–01 5.4E–09 1.3E–07 1.3E–07 1.8E–03 3 1.5E–02 4.5E–10 1.1E–08 1.1E–08 1.3E–034 8.4E–01 3.6E–05 3.8E–06 3.8E–06 3.2E–03 4 8.4E–01 4.1E–05 4.9E–06 4.9E–06 3.1E–035 4.3E–01 1.3E–08 3.2E–07 3.2E–07 1.8E–03 5 9.8E–02 2.9E–09 7.3E–08 7.3E–08 1.2E–036 4.9E–01 1.5E–08 3.7E–07 3.7E–07 2.1E–03 6 1.4E–01 4.1E–09 1.0E–07 1.0E–07 1.7E–037 8.5E–01 2.7E–05 2.1E–06 2.1E–06 3.1E–03 7 8.4E–01 3.7E–05 4.0E–06 4.0E–06 3.2E–038 8.2E–01 2.4E–08 6.1E–07 6.1E–07 2.0E–03 8 8.2E–01 2.4E–08 6.1E–07 6.1E–07 2.0E–039 8.9E–01 2.7E–08 6.7E–07 6.7E–07 2.2E–03 9 8.9E–01 2.7E–08 6.7E–07 6.7E–07 2.2E–0310 9.1E–01 5.9E–06 6.8E–07 6.8E–07 2.5E–03 10 9.1E–01 5.9E–06 6.8E–07 6.8E–07 2.5E–0311 8.2E–01 2.4E–08 6.1E–07 6.1E–07 2.0E–03 11 8.2E–01 2.4E–08 6.1E–07 6.1E–07 2.0E–0312 8.9E–01 2.7E–08 6.7E–07 6.7E–07 2.2E–03 12 8.9E–01 2.7E–08 6.7E–07 6.7E–07 2.2E–0313 9.1E–01 5.9E–06 6.8E–07 6.8E–07 2.5E–03 13 9.1E–01 5.9E–06 6.8E–07 6.8E–07 2.5E–0314 8.4E–01 9.6E–05 8.4E–05 1.8E–05 6.4E–03 14 8.4E–01 1.2E–04 1.1E–04 2.4E–05 6.5E–0315 8.5E–01 5.5E–05 5.0E–05 9.0E–06 5.9E–03 15 8.4E–01 1.0E–04 8.9E–05 2.0E–05 6.4E–0316 9.1E–01 5.9E–06 6.4E–06 6.8E–07 3.3E–03 16 9.1E–01 5.9E–06 6.4E–06 6.8E–07 3.3E–0317 9.1E–01 5.9E–06 6.4E–06 6.8E–07 3.3E–03 17 9.1E–01 5.9E–06 6.4E–06 6.8E–07 3.3E–0318 8.4E–01 1.7E–05 6.7E–08 6.7E–08 2.5E–03 18 8.4E–01 1.7E–05 6.7E–08 6.7E–08 2.5E–0319 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Source: Sprung et al. (2000).A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment

Page 110Table 6.30. Accident Release Fractions for SNF Shipments by RailRelease Fractions for PWR Fuel Assemblies in Rail CasksRelease Fractions for BWR Fuel Assemblies in Rail CasksCaseKr Cs Ru Particulates CRUD Case Kr Cs Ru Particulate CRUD1 4.1E–01 1.2E–08 2.5E–07 2.5E–07 1.4E–03 1 8.9E–02 2.7E–09 5.3E–08 5.3E–08 8.9E–042 8.0E–01 8.6E–06 1.3E–05 1.3E–05 4.4E–02 2 8.0E–01 8.6E–06 1.3E–05 1.3E–05 4.4E–023 8.0E–01 1.8E–05 1.9E–05 1.9E–05 6.4E–02 3 8.0E–01 1.8E–05 1.9E–05 1.9E–05 6.4E–024 1.4E–01 4.1E–09 1.0E–07 1.0E–07 1.4E–03 4 5.4E–03 1.6E–10 4.0E–09 4.0E–09 4.5E–045 1.8E–01 5.4E–09 1.3E–07 1.3E–07 1.8E–03 5 1.5E–02 4.5E–10 1.1E–08 1.1E–08 1.3E–036 8.4E–01 3.6E–05 1.4E–05 1.4E–05 5.4E–03 6 8.4E–01 4.1E–05 1.8E–05 1.8E–05 5.4E–037 4.3E–01 1.3E–08 2.6E–07 2.6E–07 1.5E–03 7 9.8E–02 2.9E–09 5.9E–08 5.9E–08 9.8E–048 4.9E–01 1.5E–08 2.9E–07 2.9E–07 1.7E–03 8 1.4E–01 4.1E–09 8.3E–08 8.3E–08 1.4E–039 8.5E–01 2.7E–05 6.8E–06 6.8E–06 4.5E–03 9 8.4E–01 3.7E–05 1.5E–05 1.5E–05 4.9E–0310 8.2E–01 8.8E–06 1.3E–05 1.3E–05 4.5E–02 10 8.2E–01 8.8E–06 1.3E–05 1.3E–05 4.5E–0211 8.9E–01 9.6E–06 1.5E–05 1.5E–05 4.9E–02 11 8.9E–01 9.6E–06 1.5E–05 1.5E–05 4.9E–0212 9.1E–01 1.4E–05 1.5E–05 1.5E–05 5.1E–02 12 9.1E–01 1.4E–05 1.5E–05 1.5E–05 5.1E–0213 8.2E–01 1.8E–05 2.0E–05 2.0E–05 6.5E–02 13 8.2E–01 1.8E–05 2.0E–05 2.0E–05 6.5E–0214 8.9E–01 2.0E–05 2.1E–05 2.1E–05 7.1E–02 14 8.9E–01 2.0E–05 2.1E–05 2.1E–05 7.1E–0215 9.1E01 2.2E–05 2.2E–05 2.2E–05 7.4E–02 15 9.1E–01 2.2E–05 2.2E–05 2.2E–05 7.4E–0216 8.4E–01 9.6E–05 8.4E–05 1.8E–05 6.4E–03 16 8.4E–01 1.2E–04 1.1E–04 2.4E–05 6.5E–0317 8.5E–01 5.5E–05 5.0E–05 8.9E–06 5.4E–03 17 8.4E–01 1.0E–04 8.9E–05 2.0E–05 5.9E–0318 9.1E–01 1.4E–05 1.8E–05 1.5E–05 5.1E–02 18 9.1E–01 1.4E–05 1.8E–05 1.5E–05 5.1E–0219 9.1E–01 2.2E–05 2.3E–05 2.2E–05 7.4E–02 19 9.1E–01 2.2E–05 2.3E–05 2.2E–05 7.4E–0220 8.4E–01 1.7E–05 2.5E–07 2.5E–07 9.4E–03 20 8.4E–01 1.7E–05 2.5E–07 2.5E–07 9.4E–0321 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Source: Sprung et al. (2000).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 111 

### nonalpha (transuranic activity is less than 10 nCi/ g) and as Class A, B, or C according to the criteria of 10 CFR Part 61. LLW can contain many different radionuclides in ac tivity levels ranging fr om trace quantities to thousands of curies. Represen tative DOE LLW radionuc lide compositions are divided into five categories by the Integrated Database (IDB) (DOE, 1996b): (1) uranium and thorium – waste materials for which the principal hazard results from naturally-occurring uranium and thorium isotopes; (2) fission products – waste materials contaminated with beta- or gamma-ray-emitting radionuclides that originate from fission pr ocesses (primary examples are cesium-137 and strontium-90); (3) induced activity – waste mate rials contaminated with beta- or gamma-rayemitting isotopes that are generated through neutr on activation (of major c oncern is cobalt-60); (4) alpha – waste material contaminated w ith low levels (betw een 10 and 100 nCi/g) of transuranic isotopes, excluding alpha-emitting ra dionuclides listed under uranium and thorium; and (5) other – mixture or not defined. Standa rd relative concentrations of the individual radionuclides constituting each category as developed in the IDB are shown in Table 6.31. Table 6.31. Representative DOE LLW Radi onuclide Composition by Percent Activity

Uranium/Thorium Fission Product Induced Activity Alpha <100 nCi/g Other

Isotope Percent Activity Isotope Percent Activity Isotope Percent Activity Isotope Percent Activity Isotope Percent Activity Tl-208 0.0017 Co-60 0.08 Cr-51 4.95 Pu-238 2.62 H-3 1.22 Pb-212 0.0045 Sr-90 7.77 Mn-54 38.1 Pu-239 0.2 C-14 0.06 Bi-212 0.0045 Y-90 7.77 Co-58 55.4 Pu-240 0.7 Mn-54 6.76 Po-212 0.0029 Zr-95 1.27 Fe-59 0.49 Pu-241 96.4 Co-58 6.24 Po-216 0.0045 Nb-95 2.83 Co-60 0.87 Am-241 0.004 Co-60 18.03 Ra-224 0.0045 Tc-99 0.02 Zn-65 0.19 Cm-242 0.056 Sr-90 8.48 Ra-228 0.0269 Sb-125 2.93 Cm-244 0.02 Y-90 8.48 Ac-228 0.0269 Te-125m 0.73 Total 100 Tc-99 0.12 Th-228 0.0045 Ru-106 6.39 Total 100 Cs-134 13.98 Th-231 0.0259 Rh-106 6.39 Cs-137 18.45 Th-232 0.273 Cs-134 0.38 Ba-137m 17.45 Th-234 33.197 Cs-137 17.31 U-238 0.73 Pa-234m 33.197 Ba-137m 16.38 Pa-234 0.0034 Ce-144 14.67 Total 100 U-235 0.0258 Pr-144 14.67 U-238 33.197 Pm-147 0.06 Sm-151 0.11 Total 100 Eu-152 0.09 Eu-154 0.09 Eu-155 0.06 Total 100 Source: DOE (1996b).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 112 

### The IDB indicates that the unit activities for LLW at the various DOE sites ranges from 9 to 27 Ci/m 3 

### . Since this range was based on information in the 1986–1988 Solid Waste Information Management System (SWIMS) and the nati onal Low-level Waste Management Program (LLWMP) data access system, radioactive decay ma y have reduced much of this activity to lower levels, depending on the exact composition of the radionuclides at e ach site. Reviews of the IDB individual LLW physical form radioactivity and volume inve ntories at each site suggest a much wider range of values for the unit ac tivities, which vary gr eatly depending upon the physical form and whether stored or disposed wast e is considered. However, this range is subject to great uncertainties and covers materials th at would not be shipped in Type A packaging because of their exceedingly high activities.

The cumulative values of radi oactivity and volume of all LLW disposed through 1995 suggests that 4 Ci/m 3 

### is a reasonable unit activity for disposed waste. The an alogous number for just the year 1995 is about twice that activity, 8 Ci/m 3 

### . As a result of these cons iderations and to provide somewhat conservative estimates for calcula tions, a representative activity of 20 Ci/m 3 

### is recommended. For a standard 55-gal st eel drum with a volume of about 0.2 m 3 

### , this activity level results in a drum containi ng about 4 Ci. Because of the aforementioned radioactive decay, the fact that most drums have significant void fractions, and th e fact that LLW with high unit activities would not be shipped in Type A packag ing, the 4 Ci value should be conservative for most Type A packages of LLW. Simple scaling may be performe d to extrapolate results to LLW inventories where the activities are known. Representative radionuclide profiles for each LL W shipment may be defined to approximate the shipment radionuclide content as a linear comb ination of the radionuclid e profiles in the six categories. These data can be combined with activity levels reported by generating sites to estimate the activities of individual radionuclide s in the LLW at each site. By assuming the results of radioactive release ca lculations are properly weighte d, isotopic concentrations account for individual shipments characteristics.

Low-Level Mixed Waste

LLMW is material that is both hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and a low-level radioactive waste. LLMW contains RCRA-regulated chemicals or special waste types in a form or concentration sufficient to render the waste hazardous under the guidelines of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 261 [“Identi fication and Listing of Hazardous Waste”]). Although asbestos-contamina ted wastes are not hazardous under federal RCRA rules, friable asbestos waste is considered a hazardous waste in several states. The WM PEIS (DOE, 1997b) treated low-level radioactive waste contaminated with asbestos as LLMW.

LLMW is classified as either CH or RH, depending on whether th e dose at the waste surface is less or greater than 200 mrem/h. The handling category determines the level of protective shielding required to safely store and process the material. LLMW is also classified as either alpha LLMW (combined activity of transuranic radionuclides with half-lives greater than 20 years between 10 and 100 nCi/g) or nonalpha LLMW (transuranic activity less than 10 nCi/g). The alpha classification of LLMW is important in determining the choice of waste treatment facilities because in some states, facilities that process alpha-containing wastes cannot be used for wastes with minimal transuranic activity.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 113 

### The radiological profiles for LLMW are assumed to be similar in radionuclide content and overall activity level to the radi ological profiles desc ribed above for LLW. Thus, calculations of radioactive release consequences should treat the isotopic compositions the same way as LLW.

Transuranic Waste DOE defines TRUW as “without regard to source or form, waste that is contaminated with alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides with half-liv es greater than 20 years, and concentrations greater than 100 nCi/g at the time of assay” (DOE, 1988d). This lower limit is interpreted as being per gram of waste matrix; the limit doe s not include the weights of added external shielding or waste containers (including any ri gid liners) (DOE, 1996c). By definition, TRUW includes isotopes of neptunium, plutonium, amer icium, curium, and californium. In addition, wastes containing U-233 and Ra-226 may be managed as TRUW. Packaged TRUW is classified as either CH or RH, depending on whether the dose at the waste surface is less or greater than 200 mrem/h. CH-TRUW is typically contained in 0.21-m 3 

### (55-gal) drums or in SWBs, and little or no shielding is required. RH-TRUW is typically contained in drums, canisters, or concrete casks. It gene rally requires additional shielding during handling and transportation, and special equipment a nd facilities for handling, treatment, and transportation. The need for sh ielding and/or RH is due to the energetic gamma and neutron emissions from some of the transura nic and fission product contaminants. TRUW has been generated since the 1940s as part of the nuclear defense research and production activities of the federal government. Several types of opera tions generate TRUW: (1) nuclear weapons development and manufacturi ng, (2) prior plutonium r ecovery, (3) research and development, (4) environmental restorat ion and decontamination and decommissioning activities, (5) waste management programs, and (6 ) testing and research at facilities under DOE contract. Before 1970, all DOE-generated TRUW was dis posed of on-site in shallow landfill-type configurations. In 1970, the AEC concluded th at waste containing long-lived alpha-waveemitting radionuclides should be more isolated fr om the environment. As a result, all TRUW generated since the early 1970s was segregated from other types of waste and placed in temporary storage pending shipment and final disposal in a permanent geologic repository (DOE, 1992). The TRUW generated since 1970 is described as retrievably stored and is the primary focus of DOE’s Waste Management Pr ogram. The TRUW generated before 1970 is known as nonretrievably stored or buried TRUW and may ultimately be the focus of DOE environmental restoration activities. The radiological profiles for TRUW vary widely from site to site. The radiological profiles presented here are taken from the WIPP Dispos al Phase SEIS (DOE, 1997 d). Profiles are shown in Tables 6.32 and 6.33 for stored CH- and RH-TRUW, respectively. High-Level Waste HLW is the highly radioactive waste generate d from the chemical reprocessing of SNF and weapons production targets to r ecover special nuclear material s, primarily plutonium andA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 114



### Table 6.32. Radionuclide Inventories (Ci) of CH-TRU Waste Stored at DOE Sites in 1995

Isotope ANL-E ARCO USAMC ETEC Hanford INEEL LBL LANL LLNL MOUND Pu-238 2.11E+00 3.70E+02 – 1.11E–01 8.05E+04 5.98E+04 2.32E–04 1.15E+05 7.65E+01 4.97E+02 Pu-241 5.43E+01 – – 6.22E+00 3.78E+04 1.50E+05 4.48E–07 1.62E+03 1.63E+03 – Pu-239 3.28E+01 – 1.80E+01 1.79E+00 2.63E+04 4.01E+04 8.45E–06 7.91E+04 1.64E+02 6.28E+00 Am-241 5.89E+00 – – 5.19E–01 4.73E+03 9.01E+04 9.17E–02 1.17E+04 1.44E+02 – Pu-240 9.42E+00 – – 6.12E–01 6.14E+03 9.84E+03 5.14E–03 1.01E+02 6.44E+01 – Cs-137 – – – – 6.83E+02 6.04E+01 – 4.81E+01 1.66E–06 – Ba-137m – – – – 6.46E+02 5.71E+01 – 4.55E+01 1.57E–06 – Cm-244 – – – – 6.83E+01 4.93E+02 8.70E–02 1.56E+02 6.54E+01 –

Y-90 – – – 2.00E–01 6.92E+02 1.96E+00 – 4.44E+01 – – Sr-90 – – – 2.00E–01 6.92E+02 1.96E+00 – 4.44E+01 – – U-233 3.00E–02 – – 1.20E–11 8.00E+01 8.99E+02 4.81E–03 4.46E+01 5.95E–09 – Pu-242 1.00E–02 – – 5.00E–05 3.80E–01 9.45E–01 1.01E–02 4.85E+02 2.02E–02 – U-234 – 1.05E–03 – 1.93E–06 5.37E+01 6.18E+00 4.73E–09 6.06E+00 3.29E–03 2.47E–02 Pa-233 – – – 9.49E–07 2.72E–01 8.53E–01 6.32E–06 00>3.22E–02 4.71E–04 – Np-237 – – – 9.49E–07 2.72E–01 8.53E–01 6.32E–06 3.22E–02 4.71E–04 – Co-60 – – – – – 6.24E+01 – 7.91E–06 – – Eu-155 – – – – 1.06E–03 3.83E–01 – 2.41E–01 – – Cf-252 – – – – 3.52E+01 2.19E–03 – – – – Pb-212 – – – – 5.18E–02 2.62E+01 – 6.16E–03 – – Ra-224 – – – – 5.18E–02 2.62E+01 – 1.32E–03 – – Bi-212 – – – – 5.18E–02 2.62E+01 – 1.32E–03 – – Po-216 – – – – 5.18E–02 2.62E+01 – 1.32E–03 – – Rn-220 – – – – 5.18E–02 2.62E+01 – 1.32E–03 – – Th-228 – – – – 5.18E–02 2.62E+01 – 1.32E–03 – – U-232 – – – – – 2.53E+01 – 1.67E–03 – – Np-239 9.52E–02 – – – 9.01E–02 3.79E–01 3.85E–02 3.83E+00 2.45E–02 – Isotope U of MO NTS ORNL PGDP Pantex RFETS RFETS Residues SRS Total

Pu-238 – 3.15E+04 3.50E+03 – – 3.43E +02 8.14E+03 5.53E+05 8.52E+05 Pu-241 6.32E–03 2.40E+02 4.79E+04 – – 5. 23E+04 1.02E+06 1.12E+05 1.42E+06 Pu-239 2.46E–02 2.76E+03 2.72E+03 5.57E+01 5. 55E–02 9.98E+03 1.74E+05 9.35E+03 3.44E+05 Am-241 3.24E–01 2.84E+02 1.61E+03 – – 1. 10E+04 1.09E+05 2.01E+03 2.30E+05 Pu-240 – 2.66E+01 9.48E+02 – – 7.22E +03 3.98E+04 2.31E+03 6.64E+04 Cs-137 – 3.60E–01 1.33E+00 – – – – 7.51E+00 8.01E+02 Ba-137m – 3.41E–01 1.26E+00 – – – – 7.11E+00 7.57E+02 Cm-244 – 2.28E+02 1.06E+03 – – – – 1.17E+03 3.24E+03

Y-90 – 3.10E–01 1.48E+03 – – – – 6.98E+00 2.22E+03 Sr-90 – 3.10E–01 1.48E+03 – – – – 6.98E+00 2.22E+03 U-233 1.78E–09 1.81E+00 1.77E+02 1.42E–03 – 1.29E+01 – 3.75E+00 1.22E+03 Pu-242 – 8.70E–02 2.37E–01 – – 9.63E–05 – 3.75E–01 4.87E+02 U-234 2.98E–13 1.26E–02 1.57E+01 – – 4.81E–03 – 2.56E+01 1.07E+02 Pa-233 2.28E–04 5.78E–03 7.32E–01 5.50E+01 – 1.70E–02 – 8.59E+00 6.55E+01 Np-237 2.28E–04 5.78E–03 7.27E–01 5.50E+01 – 1.70E–02 – 8.59E+00 6.55E+01 Co-60 – – 1.84E–06 – – – – 3.56E–01 6.28E+01 Eu-155 – 3.80E–03 – – – – – 5.28E+01 5.34E+01 Cf-252 – 1.70E–02 1.60E–01 – – – – 3.62E–01 3.58E+01 Pb-212 – 1.64E–02 2.83E–01 – – – – 9.20E–03 2.66E+01 Ra-224 – 1.71E–02 2.83E–01 – – – – 9.20E–03 2.66E+01 Bi-212 – 1.64E–02 2.83E–01 – – – – 9.20E–03 2.66E+01 Po-216 – 1.64E–02 2.83E–01 – – – – 9.20E–03 2.66E+01 Rn-220 – 1.64E–02 2.83E–01 – – – – 9.20E–03 2.66E+01 Th-228 – 1.64E–02 2.83E–01 – – – – 9.20E–03 2.66E+01 U-232 – 1.65E–02 2.90E–01 – – – – 8.94E–02 2.57E+01 Np-239 – 1.22E+00 1.49E+01 – – – – 7.55E–01 2.13E+01 Source: DOE (1997d).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 115 

### Table 6.33. Radionuclide Inventories (Ci) for RH-TRU Waste Stored at DOE Sites in 1995

Isotope ETEC Hanford INEEL KAPL LANL ORNL WVDP TOTAL Y-90 2.62E+00 6.46E+03 1.70E+03 5.70E+ 01 1.24E+02 3.52E+04 1.96E+01 4.36E+04 Sr-90 2.62E+00 6.46E+03 1.70E+03 5.70 E+01 1.24E+02 3.52E+04 1.96E+01 4.36E+04 Cs-137 2.62E+00 6.98E+03 1.90E+03 5.71 E+01 1.35E+02 9.78E+03 5.35E+01 1.89E+04 Ba-137m 2.48E+00 6.61E+03 1.80E+03 5.40 E+01 1.28E+02 9.25E+03 5.06E+01 1.79E+04 Pu-241 – 4.67E+03 4.81E+01 7.77E–01 – 3.97E–07 – 4.72E+03 Eu-152 – – 1.14E–01 – 5.09E–04 3.66E+03 – 3.66E+03 Eu-154 – – 7.90E–01 1.40E+00 3.50E–02 1.77E+03 – 1.78E+03 Cm-244 – – 9.63E–02 – – 9.44E+02 – 1.10E+03 Co-60 2.30E+00 3.36E+02 1.30E+01 2. 75E–01 4.17E+00 6.14E+02 – 9.70E+02 Pu-239 4.00E–01 3.35E+02 2.98E+01 3. 30E–03 9.28E+01 9.85E+01 – 5.59E+02 Am-241 5.85E–02 1.93E+02 4.68E+01 5.07E–02 – 2.42E+02 5.39E–01 4.83E+02 Eu-155 – – 3.35E–01 1.81E–01 1.77E+00 3.51E+02 – 3.53E+02 Pu-240 – 1.67E+02 2.48E+01 3.10E–03 – 1.07E+00 – 1.93E+02 Th-231 4.73E–10 1.46E–01 6.42E–03 – 8.78E–03 1.86E+02 – 1.86E+02 U-235 4.73E–10 1.46E–01 5.38E–03 – 8.78E–03 1.86E+02 – 1.86E+02 Pu-238 – 4.67E+01 6.09E+01 9.27E–01 3.90E+00 2.81E+01 1.98E+01 1.69E+02 Cm-243 – – 1.45E–02 – – 1.48E+02 – 1.48E+02 Cs-134 – – 5.38E+01 4.73E+00 2.42E–02 9.57E+00 – 6.81E+01 U-233 – 4.15E–01 3.91E–01 – – 5.73E+01 – 5.81E+01 Pm-147 – – 1.49E+01 4.34E+00 1.13E+01 – – 3.34E+01 Rh-106 – – 6.65E–02 4.98E–01 3.38E–01 3.21E+01 – 3.30E+01 Ru-106 – – 6.65E–02 4.98E–01 3.38E–01 3.21E+01 – 3.30E+01 Pr-144 – – 3.93E+00 1.54E+00 1.58E–02 1.51E+01 – 2.05E+01 Ce-144 – – 3.98E+00 1.56E+00 1.60E–02 1.20E+01 – 1.75E+01 C-14 – – 4.00E–02 – – 6.11E+00 – 6.15E+00 Kr-85 – – 5.95E+00 – – – – 5.95E+00 Sb-125 – – 9.81E–01 5.33E–01 2.79E+00 – – 4.30E+00 Cf-252 – – – – – 3.86E+00 – 3.86E+00 Ni-63 – – 3.50E+00 – – – – 3.50E+00 U-238 – 1.03E–02 3.57E–03 – 2.00E–05 3.37E+00 – 3.38E+00 Pa-234m – 1.03E–02 1.38E–03 – 2.00E–05 3.37E+00 – 3.38E+00 Th-234 – 1.03E–02 1.38E–03 – 2.00E–05 3.37E+00 – 3.38E+00 U-232 – – – – – 1.76E+00 – 1.76E+00 Po-216 – 1.49E–03 2.65E–05 – – 1.68E+00 – 1.69E+00 Bi-212 – 1.49E–03 2.65E–05 – – 1.68E+00 – 1.68E+00 Pb-212 – 1.49E–03 2.65E–05 – – 1.68E+00 – 1.68E+00 Ra-224 – 1.49E–03 2.65E–05 – – 1.68E+00 – 1.68E+00 Rn-220 – 1.49E–03 2.65E–05 – – 1.68E+00 – 1.68E+00 Th-228 – 1.49E–03 2.65E–05 – – 1.68E+00 – 1.68E+00 U-234 – 1.29E+00 1.51E–01 4.98E–06 1.11E–05 2.02E–03 4.94E–04 1.45E+00 Po-212 – 9.54E–04 1.70E–05 – – 1.07E+00 – 1.07E+00 Te-125m – – 2.39E–01 1.30E–01 6.88E–01 – – 1.06E+00 Source: DOE (1997d).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 116 

### enriched uranium. HLW is liquid before it is tr eated and solidified, and is considered a mixed waste if it contains h azardous components regulated under RCRA . It exists at the four sites where it was generated: the Hanford Site, INEEL, SRS, and the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP). In 1992, DOE decided to phase out reprocessing in support of national defense activities and now stores HLW in large tanks at the four s ites. However, additional HLW may be generated by waste management activities. Because the current forms of HLW (e.g., liquid solu tions or calcine) are generally not suitable for transportation, interim storage, or final di sposal, current plans ca ll for all HLW to be immobilized at the site where it was produce d. The immobilized material is generally a nondispersible, robust waste that is formed in cylindrical stainless steel canisters approximately 300 cm (118 in.) high and 61 cm ( 24 in.) in diameter (Folga et al., 1996). Under the NWPA, as amended, the current DOE HLW program is directed at disposing of treated (i.e., immobilized) HLW in a national geologic reposit ory. The canisters of immobilized HLW would be stored onsite following production until a national geologic repository became available. Canisters would then be transported either by truck or rail in specially designed casks to the repository for permanent disposal. Historically, no shipment s of immobilized HLW have occurred in the United States. The radiological profiles for HLW vary widely from site to site. Of interest here are the waste compositions as packaged in the canisters. The radiological profiles and activities presented are taken from the WM PEIS (DOE, 1997b) and are s hown in Table 6.34. These profiles reflect the latest inventories of HLW compos itions at sites projected to exis t following the pretreatment and treatment operations necessary to achieve the vitrified forms to place in the HLW canisters. Many of the radionuclides now pres ent in the untreated form w ould be fractionated to some extent into the high-volume, low-radioactiv ity LLW residuals following these operations. Spent Nuclear Fuel SNF is irradiated nuclear fuel discharged from a nuclear reactor. Within the DOE complex, significant differences exist in ra dioactive material content, fuel material design, cladding design, reactor operating history, and st orage history (cooling time). Th ese differences translate into different material release ch aracteristics under accident c onditions. To account for these variations, the following repres entative SNF types are consider ed herein: (a) SRS production reactor fuels, (b) Hanford N-Reactor fuels, (c) gr aphite fuels, (d) specia l-case commercial reactor fuels, (e) university research/test reactor fuels, (f) DOE research/test r eactor fuels, (g) foreign research reactor fuels, and (h) non-DOE research r eactor fuels. Naval fuels are not considered in this report. The radiological profiles assumed in this manual were taken from the DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel and Idaho National Engineering L aboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (SNF/INEL PEIS) (DOE, 1995b) and are shown in Table 6.35. Conservative radiological profiles (i.e., prof iles leading to releases more hazardous than the actual profile s) were developed to provide reasonable bounds for shipping accident calculations.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 117 

### Table 6.34. Estimated Radionuclide Compositio ns (Ci/canister) for HLW Canisters at DOE Sites a

Radionuclide Hanford INEEL SRS WVDP Fe-55 1.80E+01 2.76E+00 Co-60 1.50E+00 1.70E+02 3.03E+00 Ni-59 1.09E–01 2.40E–02 4.16E–01 Ni-63 1.21E+01 2.98E+00 3.02E+01 Se-79 3.15E–03 1.70E–01 1.38E–02 Rb-87 8.72E–07 Sr-89 5.35E–13 4.27E–05 Sr-90 2.98E+04 2.09E+03 4.68E+04 2.63E+04 Y-90 2.98E+04 2.09E+03 4.79E+04 2.63E+04 Y-91 1.38E–10 7.57E–04 Zr-93 1.05E+00 1.12E+00 1.07E+00 Zr-95 2.92E–09 1.00E–02 Nb-93m 6.16E–01 7.15E–01 Nb-94 9.65E–05 Nb-95 6.73E–09 2.12E–02 Nb-95m 1.25E–04 Tc-99 7.51E+00 3.08E+00 4.28E–01 Ru-103 3.37E–18 1.68E–08 Ru-106 4.18E+01 2.47E–15 2.25E+03 5.54E–02 Rh-103m 3.04E–18 1.64E–08 Rh-106 4.18E+01 2.47E–15 2.26E+03 5.54E–02 Pd-107 3.02E–02 1.47E–02 4.33E–02 Ag-110m 2.22E–03 1.26E–01 Cd-113m 8.53E+00 8.34E+00 Cd-115m 3.20E–18 1.21E–09 In-113m 1.01E–07 Sn-113 1.01E–07 Sn-119m 6.80E–03 Sn-121m 7.76E–02 7.90E–02 6.86E–02 Sn-123 3.65E–05 2.55E–01 Sn-126 3.65E–01 4.42E–01 4.09E–01 Sb-124 1.15E–14 7.12E–08 Sb-125 2.54E+02 8.50E+02 2.86E+01 Sb-126 5.10E–02 6.16E–02 5.74E–02 Sb-126m 3.65E–01 4.42E–01 4.09E–01 Te-125m 6.20E+01 7.00E+00 Te-126m 2.76E+02 Te-127 6.55E–06 1.20E–01 Te-127m 6.66E–06 1.23E–01 I-129 1.29E–05 Cs-134 9.31E+01 3.97E–06 3.37E+02 2.03E+01 Cs-135 2.02E–01 9.94E–02 6.34E–01A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 118 

### Table 6.34. Estimated Radionuclide Compositio ns (Ci/canister) for HLW Canisters at DOE Sites (Continued)

Radionuclide Hanford INEEL SRS WVDP Cs-137 3.61E+04 2.49E+03 4.34E+04 2.83E+04 Ba-137m 3.40E+04 2.36E+03 4.16E+04 2.68E+04 Ce-142 9.61E–06 Ce-144 8.00E+01 1.45E–18 9.87E+03 2.56E–03 Pr-144 8.00E+01 1.45E–18 9.87E+03 2.56E–03 Pr-144m 9.60E–01 1.19E+02 Nd-144 4.86E–10 Pm-146 4.26E–02 Pm-147 5.21E+03 1.78E–04 2.42E+04 3.45E+02 Sm-147 2.00E–06 Sm-151 6.98E+02 2.48E+02 3.31E+02 Eu-152 1.40E+00 3.69E+00 1.43E+00 Eu-154 1.45E+02 6.61E–01 6.20E+02 3.75E+02 Eu-155 1.37E+02 4.75E+02 9.37E+01 Gd-153 1.35E–05 Tb-160 9.49E–13 1.12E–06 Tl-207 3.22E–02 Tl-208 1.13E–03 1.27E–02 Pb-209 8.25E–04 Pb-211 3.23E–02 Pb-212 3.53E–02 Bi-211 3.23E–02 Bi-212 3.53E–02 Bi-213 8.25E–04 Po-212 2.26E–02 Po-213 7.86E–04 Po-215 3.23E–02 Po-216 3.53E–02 At-217 8.25E–04 Rn-219 3.23E–02 Rn-220 3.53E–02 Fr-221 8.25E–04 Fr-223 4.32E–04 Ra-223 3.23E–02 Ra-224 3.53E–02 Ra-225 8.25E–04 Ra-228 5.97E–03 Ac-225 8.25E–04 Ac-227 3.23E–04 Ac-228 5.97E–03 Th-227 3.18E–02 Th-228 3.53E–02A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 119 

### Table 6.34. Estimated Radionuclide Compositio ns (Ci/canister) for HLW Canisters at DOE Sites (Continued)

Radionuclide Hanford INEEL SRS WVDP Th-229 9.25E–04 Th-230 2.36E–04 Th-231 3.54E–04 Th-232 6.45E–03 Th-234 3.14E–03 Pa-231 5.97E–02 Pa-233 9.18E–02 Pa-234m 3.14E–03 U-232 1.34E–02 2.72E–02 U-233 1.58E–06 3.55E–02 U-234 4.57E–03 3.43E–02 1.65E–02 U-235 U-236 4.21E–04 1.13E–03 1.10E–03 U-237 U-238 3.51E–03 1.05E–02 3.14E–03 Np-236 3.72E–02 Np-237 1.56E–01 8.90E–03 9.18E–02 Pu-238 4.43E–01 1.48E+03 3.26E+01 Pu-239 1.17E+00 1.29E+01 6.39E+00 Pu-240 3.93E–01 8.68E+00 4.68E+00 Pu-241 1.26E+01 1.67E+03 3.17E+02 Pu-242 7.61E–05 1.22E–02 6.37E–03 Am-241 2.84E+02 1.10E+01 2.10E+02 Am-242 2.21E–01 1.44E–02 1.16E+00 Am-242m 3.79E–02 1.45E–02 1.17E+00 Am-243 5.79E–03 1.36E+00 Cm-242 1.82E–01 3.50E–02 9.63E–01 Cm-243 5.56E–03 5.27E–01 Cm-244 5.03E+00 1.08E+02 3.00E+01 Cm-245 6.72E–06 3.46E–03 Cm-246 5.34E-07 3.93E–04 Total 1.37E+05 9.03E+03 2.34E+05 1.10E+05

a Blanks indicate that radionuclide not pres ent or at negligible concentration.

Source: Folga et al. (1997)A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 120 

### Table 6.35. Radionuclide Inventories (C i) for Representative SNF Types a

Radionuclide SRS Production

Reactor b Hanford N-Reactor c Graphite Reactor d Special-Case Commercial e University Research/Test Reactor f DOE Research/Test Reactor g Foreign Research/Test Reactor h H-3 1.21E+01 3.09E+01 3.25E+00 7.98E+00 1.31E+01 Mn-54 7.48E+02 Fe-55 6.12E+02 Co-58 1.25E+02 Co-60 6.28E+02 3.55E+00 Kr-85 2.62E+02 5.89E+02 2.35E+03 2. 23E+03 8.60E+01 9.75E+01 3.63E+02 Sr-89 4.28E+01 1.45E+02 2.75E+03 Sr-90 3.21E+03 6.80E+03 1.57E+04 2. 75E+04 9.30E+02 7.23E+02 3.16E+03 Y-90 3.21E+03 6.80E+03 2.73E+ 04 9.30E+02 7.23E+02 3.16E+03 Y-91 9.77E+01 3.67E+02 4.56E+03 Zr-95 1.48E+02 7.00E+02 6.48E+03 Nb-95 3.20E+02 1.52E+03 1.28E+04 Ru-103 7.47E+00 4.88E+01 8.44E+02 Rh-103m 6.74E+00 4.40E+01 8.44E+02 Rh-106 7.64E+00 5.94E+02 3.65E+03 Rh-106m 2.54E+03 Ru-106 7.64E+00 5.56E+01 5.94E+02 2. 52E+02 1.36E+02 3.65E+03 2.54E+03 Sn-123 2.48E+01 2.71E+01 Sb-125 1.26E+02 3.36E+ 02 1.21E+02 1.19E+02 Te-125m 4.11E+00 2.96E+01 2.87E+01 Te-127 2.08E+00 3.32E+01 Te-127m 2.12E+00 3.37E+01 5.57E+01 Te-129m 1.14E+00 2.31E+01 I-129 1.48E-02 Cs-134 1.48E+02 1.49E+02 7.45E+03 4. 85E+03 1.10E+02 9.15E+01 1.16E+03 Cs-137 3.18E+03 8.39E+03 1.65E+04 3. 85E+04 9.72E+02 1.04E+03 3.19E+03 Ba-137m 3.01E+03 7.94E+03 3.62E+04 9.20E+02 9.80E+02 Ce-141 3.86E+00 1.49E+01 6.97E+02 Ce-144 1.51E+01 3.24E+01 3.77E+03 9. 01E+01 1.47E+03 7.76E+03 2.55E+04 Pr-144 1.51E+01 3.77E+03 1.47E+03 7.76E+03 2.55E+04 Pr-144m 1.11E+02 Pm-147 1.07E+02 2.24E+03 6.32E+ 03 8.81E+02 2.65E+03 7.02E+03 Pm-148m 4.68E+01 Sm-151 5.4E+01 2.91E+01 Eu-154 9.48E+02 4.18E+01 Eu-155 1.38E+02 1.00E+02 2.27E+01 U-232 1.8E+01 U-233 2.4E+01 U-234 1.81E

− 04 U-235 4.00E

− 03 2.90E

− 03 7.91E

− 03 U-236 5.50E

− 03 3.34E

− 03 U-238 6.51E

− 03 Pu-238 6.84E+01 5.06E+01 4.20E+02 1. 36E+03 1.00E+00 1.48E+00 3.03E+00 Pu-239 7.69E

− 01 1.10E+02 1.67E+02 1.57E

− 01 4.05E+01 5.50E-01 Pu-240 5.23E

− 01 5.97E+01 2.06E+02 6.70E

− 02 3.61E+01 2.09E+00 Pu-241 9.52E+01 4.47E+03 3.06E+02 4. 32E+04 5.88E+00 1.39E+03 2.13E+02A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 121 

### Table 6.35. Radionuclide Inventories (Ci) fo r Representative SNF Types (Continued)

Radionuclide SRS Production

Reactor b Hanford N-Reactor c Graphite Reactor d Special-Case Commercial e University Research/Test Reactor f DOE Research/Test Reactor g Foreign Research/Test Reactor h Am-241 1.97E+00 9.33E+01 9.66E+02 4.57E

− 02 4.74E+00 4.07E

− 01 Am-242m 9.00E

− 03 Cm-242 1.81E

− 01 5.25E+00 Am-243 4.38E

− 04 Cm-244 6.90E+02 7.14E-03

a Blank indicates that radionuclide not pres ent or at negligible concentration. b Inventory based on one fuel assembly from a tritiu m producing charge, 10 years cooling out of reactor.

c Inventory based on Mark IA N- Reactor fuel, 10 years cooling out of reactor, average burnup 3,000 megawatt- days per metric ton uranium. d Inventory based on six Fort St . Vrain fuel blocks, 1,600 days cooling out of reactor, average burnup of 70,000 megawatt-days p er metric ton uranium.

e Inventory based on one PWR fuel assembly , 10 years cooling out of reactor, averag e burnup 33,000 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium. f Inventory based on 19 TRIGA fuel rods (70% enrichment; 122 g/rod uranium-235 be ginning-of-life), 1 year cooling out of reactor , 20.2% average

burnup.
g Inventory based on E BR-II Mark-V fuel, 1 year cooling out of reactor, total burnup of 317 megawatt-days h Inventory based on 40 fore ign TRIGA fuel elements, 1 year cooling out of reactor, average burnup of 31 grams uranium-235 per f uel element



### SRS production reactor SNF was assumed to include both the spent driver fuel used to power the production reactors and the irradiated plutonium ta rget material currently in storage at SRS. Spent driver fuel stored at SRS includes fuel used in tritium and plut onium production. Analysis of these two fuel types showed that typical fu el used for tritium production contains a higher fission product and transuranic i nventory than that used for pl utonium production. Analysis of the typical irradiated plutonium target material characteristics also showed that the radionuclide inventory would be bounded by the inventory in spent tritium produc tion driver fuel. Therefore, for analysis purposes, both spent driver fuel a nd irradiated plutonium target material were assumed to have the characteristics of spent tritium production driver fuel. Table 6.35 shows the radionuclide inventory developed based on published reports to re present SRS production reactor SNF (WSRC, 1990; 1991).

Characterization data for Hanford N-Reactor SNF were based on Mark IA fuel irradiated to an average burnup of 3,000 megawatt-days per metr ic ton of uranium and assumed a 10-year cooling time since removal from the reactor. Th e 10-year cooling time is conservative because the N-Reactor was last operated in 1987. Tabl e 6.35 shows the radionuclide inventory used to represent Hanford N-Reactor SNF. Most of the spent graphite fuel under DOE res ponsibility is from the Fo rt St. Vrain reactor owned by Public Service of Colorado. Some Fort St. Vrain SNF is already in storage at INEEL, but most is still at the reactor site awaiting transport to a DOE f acility. Smaller amounts of other graphite SNF are also in storag e at INEEL. Characteristics for graphite SNF are, therefore, based on Fort St. Vrain SNF. Table 6.35 shows th e radionuclide inventory used to represent graphite reactor SNF based on six Fort St. Vrain fuel bl ocks irradiated to an average burnup of 70,000 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium and assuming a cooling time of 1,600 days (Block, 1993). The 1,600-day (about 4.3-year) coo ling time is conservative because the reactor was shut down in August 1989.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 122 

### SNF from various commercial reactors is currently in storage at various DOE sites, mostly at INEEL. Special-case commercial SNF at INEEL includes core debris from the damaged TMI Unit 2 reactor. Commercial SNF includes both BWR and PWR SNF, with the latter analyzed here because it is more prevalen t and typically contains the hi ghest levels of radioactivity (Fischer et al., 1987). Table 6.35 shows the radionuc lide inventory used to represent commercial SNF based on one PWR fuel assembly irradiat ed to an average burnup of 33,000 MW-days per metric ton uranium and assuming a cooling time of 10 years (Fischer et al., 1987). The 10-year cooling time is conservative because the majority of special-case commercial SNF currently in storage at DOE sites was at least 10 years ol d by June 1995. RISKIND (Yuan et al., 1995) can provide a BWR or PWR SNF radionuclide inventor y according to input values for fuel burnup, cooling time, and metric tons of ur anium by using data from DOE (1992). Domestic university research and test reactors represent a variety of reactor types and fuel designs. High-enriched training, research, and isotope reactor (TRIGA) SNF was chosen to represent university reac tor SNF because it is one of the largest groups of university SNF and because it is a rod-type fuel expected to have the highest release of fi ssion products under severe accident conditions. The radionuclide inventory of high-enriched TRIGA fuel was calculated with the ORIGEN2 computer code (Croff, 1980) by assuming a 17-year reactor operating cycle based on operation of the Texas A&M University TRIGA reactor. To faci litate the modeling of accident consequences, the radionuclide inve ntory generated by the ORIGEN2 program was truncated to eliminate minor contributors to do se. The radionuclides eliminated accounted for less than 1% of the to tal dose. Additional details are av ailable in Enyeart (1995). Table 6.35 shows the radionuclide inventory representative of university re search and test reactor SNF based on 19 TRIGA fuel rods irradiated to an average burnup of 20.2% and assuming a cooling time of one year. DOE research and test reactors are also repres ented by a variety of reactor types and fuel designs. Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-I I) Mark-V SNF was chosen to represent DOE research and test reactors because it was one of the last DOE rese arch and test reactors operating and Mark-V fuel was the last generation of EBR-II fuel. The high plutonium content of Mark-V fuel increases the relative hazard of the radi onuclide inventory compared to other DOE SNF types. The radionuclide invent ory of the Mark-V fuel was calculated with the ORIGEN2 computer code by assuming a typical EBR-II operating cycle. To facilitate the modeling of accident consequences, the radionuclide inve ntory generated by the ORIGEN2 program was truncated to eliminate minor contributors to do se. Again, the radionuclide s eliminated accounted for less than 1% of the total dose. Additional de tails are available in Enyeart (1995). Table 6.35 shows the radionuclide inventory representative of DOE research and test reactor SNF based on one Mark-V fuel assembly irradiated to a bur nup of 7.88% and assuming a cooling time of one year. Foreign research and test reac tors use a number of different fuel designs. DOE evaluated the characteristics of foreign research reactor SNF types in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel (DOE, 1996a). On the basis of that evaluation, a shipment of 40 TRIGA-type SNF elements resulted in the hi ghest potential release of radioactivity in the event of an accident. To provide a bounding analys is for that EIS, foreign TRIGA-type SNF was selected to represent all foreign research reactor SNF. To facilitate the modeling of accidentA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 123 

### consequences, the radionuclide inventory genera ted by the ORIGEN2 program was truncated to eliminate minor contributors to dose. The radionu clides eliminated accounted for less than 1% of the total dose. The radionuclide inventory of a single shipping cask, shown in Table 6.35, is based on a reactor operating period of three years, with a burnup of 31 grams of U-235 per fuel element, followed by a cooling period of one year. Non-DOE research reactor types are generally si milar to domestic university research and test reactors. Therefore, TRIGA reactor SNF was also chosen to represent non-DOE research reactor SNF.

Q Q Q 6.1.11.2 Isotopic Data 

### Appendix C lists half-lives, photon energies, and dose conversion fact ors for most isotopes; these characteristics are discussed in general terms below. Physical Properties Half-Life. The half-life is the characteristic decay pe riod for a specific radioactive isotope after which half of the original amount remains. A co mpilation of half-lives for most isotopes can be found in ICRP Publication 38 (ICRP, 1983) and Firestone an d Shirley (1998). Photon Energy. The photon energy of the gamma radi ation emitted by decaying radioactive isotopes is used to estimate the groundshine dose in RADT RAN. A compilation of photon energy for most isotopes can be found in ICRP Publication 38 (ICRP, 1983) and Firestone and Shirley (1998). Food Transfer Factor/Soil Transfer Factor. The ingestion calculations in RISKIND incorporate the transfer factors suggested in Regu latory Guide 1.109 (NRC, 1977b). For ingestion calculations in RADTRAN, the food and soil tran sfer factors account for the activity (curies) incorporated in or deposited on food ingested per curie deposited per square meter of land cultivated. The summed factors are used in the accident ingestion calcu lations to provide the amount of activity in food consumed relative to the amount deposited on the ground surface. RADTRAN uses national average factors in the ingestion dose code COMIDA. The user can enter food transfer factors and parameters into COMIDA. Stat e-specific food transfer factors have been developed for each isotope. These ma y be used in COMIDA, or directly with the ground deposition calculated by RADTRAN. Appe ndix D contains more information on food transfer factors. Deposition Velocity of Aerosol Particles. Airborne contaminant part icles from the resulting plume eventually deposit onto the ground surf ace following an accidental release to the atmosphere. The deposition velocity is the ratio of the deposition rate to the air concentration expressed in units of velocity. Typical depos ition velocities are generally less than 0.01 m/s (Sehmel, 1980; McMahon and Denison, 1979). Ho wever, the deposition velocity depends on such variables as particle size and type, surf ace roughness, and atmospheric stability. Values will tend to be higher over some areas of farmland with taller cr ops, wooded areas, and suburban/urban areas. The frequently used de position velocity of 0.01 m/s for particles and aerosols is the median terminal velocity for 10- μ m-diameter spherical particles (Schleien and Terpilak, 1987). The RISKIND default is 0.01 m/s for all aerosols except gases.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 124 

### Dose Conversion Factors

Cloudshine Dose Conversion Factor. The cloudshine dose conversion f actor is used to estimate dose on the basis of external exposure from i mmersion in contaminated air. These dose conversion factors are provided in DOE (1988a) and more recently in Federal Guidance Report 12 (EPA, 1993a).

Groundshine Dose Conversion Factor. The groundshine dose conve rsion factor is used to estimate dose on the basis of external exposure from contaminated soil. These dose conversion factors are provided in DOE (1988a) and more recently in Federal Guidance Report 12 (EPA, 1993a). CEDE for Inhalation. These factors are used to estimate dose on the ba sis of internal exposure from inhaling contaminated air. These dose c onversion factors are provided in DOE (1988b) and in Federal Guidance Report 11 (EPA, 1988). CEDE for Ingestion

. These factors are used to estimate dose on the basis of internal exposure from ingesting contaminated food. These dose conversion factors are provided in DOE (1988b) and in Federal Guidance Report 11 (EPA, 1988).

Q Q 6.1.12 Miscellaneous Parameters

Q Q Q 6.1.12.1 Breathing Rate 

### The breathing rate is used in RADTRAN and RISKIND to estimate inhalation exposure following an accident that released radioactive ma terials. Suggested values for this parameter are given in Table 6.36. These va lues are averages based on assu med daily activities for adults. Detailed assumptions can be found in the table re ferences. More information on variations due to age, gender, and activity can also be found in EPA (1985), Layton (1993), Linn et al. (1992), and Shamoo et al. (1992).

Q Q Q 6.1.12.2 Land Under Cultivation 

### The “land under cultivation” parameter is the fr action of rural area devoted to food-chain land use in both RADTRAN and RISKI ND. Table 6.37 lists the percentage of farmland by state (DOC, 1994), where a farm is defined as any establishment from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produc ed and sold or would normally be sold during the year. 

## Q 6.2 Vehicle-Related Risks
In addition to the radiological car go-related risks posed by transpor tation activities, risks are also present from vehicle-related causes. These risks are independent of the radioactive nature of the cargo and would be incurred with similar shipme nts of any commodity. The vehicle-related risks are assessed for both incident-free conditions and accidents.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 125 

### Table 6.36. Breathing Rates for Inhalation Exposures

Breathing Rate Reference m 3 /s m 3 /yr RADTRAN standard value 3.3 × 10 − 4 10,000 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 a 2.5 × 10 − 4 8,000 Average Adult b 2.3 × 10 − 4 7,300 Maximum Adult b 3.5 × 10 − 4 11,000 Indoor Activity b Average 1.8 × 10 − 4 5,500 Maximum 2.5 × 10 − 4 7,800 Outdoor Activity b Average 3.9 × 10 − 4 12,000 Maximum 8.3 × 10 − 4 26,000

a From NRC (1977b); 22 m 3 /d average based on recommendations found in ICRP

(1975) of 21 m 3 /d for adult females and 23 m 3 /d for adult males. Default value used in RISKIND. b From EPA (1989).



### Table 6.37. Percentage of Farmland by State in the Contiguous United States a

State Percent Farmland State Percent Farmland State Percent Farmland Alabama 26.0 Maine 6.4 Ohio 54.4 Arizona 48.2 Maryland 35.8 Oklahoma 73.1 Arkansas 42.4 Massachusetts 10.5 Oregon 28.7 California 29.0 Michigan 27.7 Pennsylvania 25.1 Colorado 51.2 Minnesota 50.4 Rhode Island 7.4 Connecticut 11.6 Mississippi 33.9 South Carolina 23.2 Delaware 47.1 Missouri 64.8 South Dakota 92.3 Florida 31.2 Montana 64.1 Tennessee 42.3 Georgia 27.0 Nebraska 90.2 Texas 78.1 Idaho 25.4 Nevada 13.2 Utah 18.3 Illinois 76.6 New Hampshire 6.7 Vermont 21.6 Indiana 68.0 New Jersey 18.0 Virginia 33.3 Iowa 87.7 New Mexico 60.3 Washington 36.9 Kansas 89.1 New York 24.7 West Virginia 21.2 Kentucky 53.7 North Carolina 28.7 Wisconsin 44.5 Louisiana 28.1 North Dakota 89.3 Wyoming 52.9 Contiguous U.S. 49.8

a Percentage of land in farms.

Source: DOC (1994)A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 126 

### Q Q 6.2.1 Accident Injuries and Fatalities The vehicle-related accident risk refers to the potential for transportation-related accidents that result in injuries or fatalities due to physical trauma unrelated to the cargo being shipped. State average rates for transportation-rela ted injuries and fatalities are available. Vehicle-related risks are presented in terms of estimated injuries and fatalities per shipment-km for the truck and rail options.

Q Q Q 6.2.1.1 Truck 

### State-level injury and fatality rates for heavy tr actor-trailer combinations involved in interstate commerce are available in reports by Saricks an d coworkers (Saricks and Kvitek, 1994; Saricks and Tompkins, 1999). Tables 6.38 and 6.39 present th e injury and fatality rates, respectively. As discussed in Section 6.1.9.1, thes e rates are not directly comparable because of accident reporting differences.

Q Q Q 6.2.1.2 Rail 

### Accident rates can be derived for an entire train or a single railcar . In either case, the number of accidents estimated for a shipping campaign woul d be approximately the same when using dedicated trains, or general freight trains, since most accidents are the resu lt of railcar derailment (DOT, 1997b). However, the apportionment of injuri es and fatalities on a railcar or train is not straightforward because of two c onsiderations. First, approximately half of the injuries and fatalities are a result of accidents at rail crossi ngs (DOT, 1997b) in which the lead locomotive is usually involved in a collision. Second, a large portion of the re maining injuries or fatalities occur in rail switching (c lassification) yards. The first consideration suggests that the injury an d fatality rates are inde pendent of train length, and the rates should be based on specific trains (C ashwell et al., 1986). Therefore, if a shipment of radioactive material was considered a single ra ilcar in a regular train with an average of 66 railcars (five-year average numbe r of railcars in a freight trai n [AAR, 1997b]), the injury or fatality rate for a shipment would be 1/66 th 

### (the railcar’s “contribution” to the shipment risk) that of a dedicated train shipment. Thus, the total injury and fatal ity risks for shipping by dedicated trains would be higher than by regular trains unless the dedica ted train had as many or more railcars than a regular train. The second consideration suggests that the injury and fatality rates are railcar dependent. A train does not exist in the classification yards until all its railcars are assembled together; thus, injuries and fatalities cannot be assigned to any one given train. The defau lt is then to assign injury or fatality rates per railcar-km by dividing the total number of injuries or fatalities by the total number of railcar-km traveled for a given period of time. In this implementation, the total casualty risks for a shipping campaign will be the same whether regular or dedicated trains are used, since the same number of railcars are sh ipped and the same number of railcar-km are traveled. The second consideration also has another aspect . Since dedicated trains spend less time in railyards undergoing classification, the injuries and fatalities associ ated with railyards are not as relevant to dedicated trains as they are to regu lar trains. From this viewpoint, the casualty risksA Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessmen t

Page 127Table 6.38. Combination Truck Injury Rates by StateInjuries/kmSaricks and Kvitek (1994)Saricks and Tompkins (1999)InterstateStateInterstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total PrimarySecondaryAlabama 1.48E–07 3.17E–07 1.41E–07 2.13E–07 1.24E–07 4.66E–07 1.83E–07 5.62E–07 4.22E–07Arizona 1.17E–07 6.30E–08 0 9.20E–08 1.65E–07 2.89E–07 1.82E–07 2.20E–07 2.77E–07Arkansas 9.80E–08 2.08E–07 2.30E–08 1.24E–071.95E–07 4.09E–07 2.20E–07 4.38E–07 5.94E–07California 1.24E–07 3.40E–08 1.44E–07 6.40E–081.68E–07 1.82E–07 1.74E–07 1.12E–07 2.67E–07Colorado 3.15E–07 2.65E–07 3.72E–07 3.03E–072.82E–07 5.47E–07 3.45E–07 3.95E–07 3.67E–07Connecticut 6.13E–07 2.64E–07 2.37E–06 6.16E–074.61E–07 1.71E–07 2.55E–07 1.89E–07 7.09E–07Delaware 3.42E–07 5.95E–07 8.31E–07 5.11E–07 0 3.46E–07 3.46E–07 7.18E–07 3.08E–07Florida 5.50E–08 6.00E–08 3.04E–07 7.10E–081.28E–07 2.36E–07 1.58E–07 4.12E–07 7.92E–07Georgia*a* * 4.59E–07 1.75E–07 4.37E–07 2.26E–07 6.43E–07 3.71E–07Idaho 3.07E–07 4.74E–07 5.62E–07 3.94E–07 2.12E–07 1.18E–07 1.99E–07 3.54E–07 1.69E–07Illinois 1.50E–07 1.30E–07 4.97E–07 1.64E–071.49E–07 8.23E–07 3.20E–07 6.12E–07 1.55E–07Indiana 1.40E–07 1.11E–07 3.40E–08 1.15E–071.81E–07 4.36E–07 2.30E–07 4.42E–07 2.32E–07Iowa 8.60E–08 1.34E–07 1.80E–07 1.13E–07 1.46E–07 3.78E–07 1.76E–07 3.48E–07 8.80E–08Kansas 2.54E–07 4.81E–07 2.53E–07 3.45E–071.91E–07 3.66E–07 2.28E–07 4.09E–07 1.12E–07Kentucky 2.21E–07 7.30E–07 3.17E–07 3.61E–071.33E–07 5.52E–07 1.94E–07 5.28E–07 8.12E–07Louisiana * * * 1.84E–07 1.32E–07 4.57E–07 2.16E–07 4.46E–07 2.85E–07Maine 3.12E–07 1.70E–07 6.55E–07 3.33E–07 1.53E–07 4.52E–07 1.75E–07 5.00E–07 1.63E–07Maryland 4.59E–07 6.89E–07 1.94E–06 6.06E–073.98E–07 3.41E–07 3.66E–07 4.32E–07 1.34E–06Massachusetts 5.10E–08 1.27E–07 9.46E–07 1.04E–074.99E–07 1.13E–07 2.09E–07 3.02E–07 4.39E–06Michigan 2.61E–07 1.03E–07 6.68E–07 2.20E–071.29E–07 3.04E–07 1.87E–07 2.61E–07 1.38E–07Minnesota 8.40E–08 1.51E–07 1.13E–07 1.21E–071.46E–07 2.08E–07 1.69E–07 3.28E–07 1.86E–07Mississippi 3.90E–08 8.80E–08 2.50E–08 5.70E–081.10E–07 1.85E–07 1.25E–07 4.55E–07 5.00E–08Missouri 3.14E–07 3.85E–07 5.69E–07 3.65E–071.63E–07 5.53E–07 2.59E–07 5.06E–07 2.23E–07Montana 2.56E–07 3.14E–07 1.17E–07 2.58E–071.79E–07 4.69E–07 1.93E–07 3.95E–07 2.00E–08Nebraska 1.97E–07 3.52E–07 2.51E–07 2.59E–071.17E–07 6.58E–07 1.50E–07 3.54E–07 5.40E–08Nevada 1.48E–07 2.52E–07 2.60E–08 1.62E–071.58E–07 5.67E–07 1.93E–07 3.72E–07 2.54E–07NewHampshire1.63E–07 2.40E–07 4.02E–07 2.34E–07 1.14E–07 0 9.40E–08 4.17E–07 2.22E–07A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment

Page 128Table 6.38. Combination Truck Injury Rates by State (Continued)Injuries/kmSaricks and Kvitek (1994)Saricks and Tompkins (1999)InterstateStateInterstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total PrimarySecondaryNew Jersey 3.91E–07 2.37E–07 2.15E–06 3.79E–07 8.00E–07 2.69E–07 4.28E–07 6.86E–07 1.13E–06New Mexico 1.15E–07 9.40E–08 1.10E–07 1.08E–07 1.86E–07 8.92E–07 2.25E–07 4.62E–07 1.06E–06New York * * * 1.85E–07 2.56E–07 4.49E–07 3.28E–07 2.71E–07 1.00E–06North Carolina 3.17E–07 3.22E–07 2.99E–07 3.16E–07 2.19E–07 6.37E–07 2.99E–07 5.53E–07 6.22E–07North Dakota 1.89E–07 3.61E–07 1.62E–07 2.53E–07 8.40E–08 4.80E–07 1.07E–07 1.63E–07 0Ohio 1.40E–07 4.00E–08 1.17E–07 1.07E–07 2.02E–07 2.85E–07 2.25E–07 4.40E–07 1.07E–06Oklahoma 2.89E–07 3.18E–07 2.31E–07 2.85E–071.36E–07 3.34E–07 1.74E–07 3.05E–07 1.59E–07Oregon * * * 1.36E–07 1.69E–07 3.82E–07 2.02E–07 2.94E–07 5.70E–08Pennsylvania 3.83E–07 5.90E–07 1.78E–06 5.33E–07 3.28E–07 2.68E–07 3.15E–07 7.28E–07 6.42E–07Rhode Island 2.27E–07 2.73E–07 4.69E–07 2.56E–07 2.35E–07 3.12E–07 2.84E–07 8.60E–08 2.33E–06South Carolina * * * 3.30E–07 2.20E–07 2.65E–07 2.26E–07 6.96E–07 2.27E–07South Dakota 1.72E–07 1.63E–07 1.03E–07 * 1.38E–07 5.71E–07 1.95E–07 2.94E–07 0Tennessee 9.20E–08 2.43E–07 1.35E–07 1.27E–071.44E–07 7.70E–07 2.41E–07 5.85E–07 4.67E–07Texas 5.47E–07 5.25E–07 5.46E–07 5.37E–07 1.42E–07 2.53E–07 1.83E–07 2.53E–07 9.20E–08Utah 2.53E–07 2.49E–07 6.77E–07 2.84E–07 2.22E–07 2.08E–07 2.18E–07 3.73E–07 4.35E–07Vermont 1.52E–07 3.80E–07 8.00E–08 2.20E–07 1.08E–07 0 1.04E–07 6.13E–07 4.40E–07Virginia 3.10E–07 1.73E–07 1.20E–08 2.16E–072.46E–07 2.49E–07 2.47E–07 5.39E–07 4.81E–07Washington 1.80E–07 1.18E–07 9.70E–08 1.40E–07 2.14E–07 1.49E–07 1.85E–07 2.11E–07 5.10E–08West Virginia 1.12E–07 2.59E–07 6.40E–08 1.40E–07 2.80E–07 2.78E–07 2.79E–07 9.91E–07 7.13E–07Wisconsin 3.33E–07 3.13E–07 1.10E–06 4.10E–071.45E–07 4.33E–07 1.81E–07 2.51E–07 3.16E–07Wyoming 3.23E–07 3.34E–07 2.84E–07 3.23E–072.84E–07 0.00E+00 2.74E–07 1.86E–07 2.35E–07Mean Rate 2.27E–07 2.73E–07 4.69E–07 2.56E–071.89E–07 3.36E–07 2.28E–07 3.82E–07 3.30E–07Total Rate 2.25E–07 2.17E–07 3.33E–07 2.39E–07−b−−−−a* = data not provided by state.b−= rate not providedA Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessmen t

Page 129Table 6.39. Combination Truck Fatality Rates by StateFatalities/kmSaricks and Kvitek (1994)Saricks and Tompkins (1999)InterstateStateInterstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total PrimarySecondaryAlabama 8.60E–09 4.15E–08 1.17E–08 2.19E–08 1.84E–08 3.29E–08 2.09E–08 6.34E–08 7.84E–08Arizona 9.40E–09 1.07E–08 0 9.40E–09 2.13E–08 3.56E–08 2.33E–08 4.97E–08 1.20E–08Arkansas 6.20E–09 5.14E–08 0 2.22E–08 2.28E–08 6.61E–08 2.78E–08 8.88E–08 7.10E–08California 7.00E–09 2.20E–09 5.90E–09 3.60E–092.56E–08 1.39E–08 2.06E–08 1.98E–08 3.81E–08Colorado 1.14E–08 2.05E–08 2.83E–08 1.75E–082.45E–08 3.38E–08 2.67E–08 6.58E–08 5.83E–08Connecticut 1.45E–08 1.70E–08 9.20E–08 1.91E–08 5.11E–08 1.01E–08 2.20E–08 1.17E–08 9.09E–08Delaware 5.60E–09 3.79E–08 1.60E–08 2.35E–08 0 1.66E–08 1.66E–08 1.35E–07 7.69E–08Florida 7.70E–09 1.06E–08 3.51E–08 1.07E–082.62E–08 1.74E–08 2.38E–08 5.92E–08 6.12E–08Georgia*a* * 1.95E–08 1.86E–08 2.37E–08 1.96E–08 8.30E–08 6.74E–08Idaho 3.80E–09 5.52E–08 3.64E–08 2.49E–08 2.06E–08 0 1.78E–08 7.46E–08 2.54E–08Illinois 8.30E–09 1.27E–08 4.08E–08 1.10E–081.39E–08 5.33E–08 2.38E–08 7.84E–08 2.30E–08Indiana 6.70E–09 1.42E–08 3.20E–09 8.60E–091.22E–08 3.51E–08 1.66E–08 7.66E–08 4.02E–08Iowa 9.40E–09 2.14E–08 8.60E–09 1.34E–08 1.05E–08 2.68E–08 1.26E–08 6.14E–08 7.30E–09Kansas 5.20E–09 4.68E–08 1.01E–08 2.29E–081.88E–08 5.52E–08 2.66E–08 9.35E–08 1.72E–08Kentucky 1.28E–08 5.30E–08 1.08E–08 2.29E–081.50E–08 3.22E–08 1.75E–08 6.60E–08 6.25E–08Louisiana * * * 9.20E–09 1.77E–08 4.90E–08 2.59E–08 5.73E–08 3.28E–08Maine 9.10E–09 0 1.86E–08 7.80E–09 2.34E–08 0 2.16E–08 6.58E–08 2.17E–08Maryland 6.50E–09 4.43E–08 6.39E–08 1.99E–084.03E–08 1.62E–08 2.69E–08 3.66E–08 8.99E–08Massachusetts 8.00E–10 6.10E–09 4.19E–08 3.80E–09 6.23E–08 1.30E–08 2.53E–08 3.93E–08 5.22E–07Michigan 1.07E–08 6.40E–09 3.14E–08 1.07E–081.23E–08 1.52E–08 1.33E–08 3.96E–08 1.22E–08Minnesota 3.00E–09 2.16E–08 1.50E–09 1.20E–081.72E–08 2.02E–08 1.83E–08 7.69E–08 7.84E–08Mississippi 2.50E–09 5.40E–09 6.00E–10 3.40E–091.81E–08 2.46E–08 1.93E–08 9.26E–08 1.62E–08Missouri 1.24E–08 3.16E–08 1.21E–08 1.97E–081.23E–08 4.30E–08 1.99E–08 9.68E–08 3.25E–08Montana 1.36E–08 2.90E–08 2.33E–08 2.03E–081.44E–08 3.12E–08 1.52E–08 7.97E–08 2.04E–08Nebraska 1.37E–08 2.74E–08 1.38E–08 1.87E–08 1.10E–08 6.58E–08 1.43E–08 5.75E–08 0Nevada 6.60E–09 1.67E–08 3.30E–09 8.90E–091.14E–08 8.89E–08 1.79E–08 1.05E–07 7.94E–08New Hampshire 0 2.06E–08 8.90E–09 1.18E–08 1.49E–08 0 1.22E–08 5.77E–08 5.56E–08A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment

Page 130Table 6.39. Combination Truck Fatality Rates by State (Continued)Fatalities/kmSaricks and Kvitek (1994)Saricks and Tompkins (1999)InterstateStateInterstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total PrimarySecondaryNew Jersey 1.21E–08 1.50E–09 3.91E–08 7.10E–09 6.56E–08 1.56E–08 3.06E–08 4.57E–08 1.15E–07New Mexico 1.18E–08 1.13E–08 7.60E–09 1.10E–08 1.93E–08 9.01E–08 2.32E–08 6.99E–08 5.56E–08New York * * * 1.24E–08 1.38E–08 2.04E–08 1.63E–08 4.61E–08 1.03E–07North Carolina 1.49E–08 1.78E–08 1.38E–08 1.62E–08 2.92E–08 5.08E–08 3.33E–08 6.71E–08 1.10E–07North Dakota 1.02E–08 1.76E–08 0 1.11E–08 4.80E–09 4.00E–08 6.80E–09 9.80E–09 0Ohio 3.90E–09 2.60E–09 6.90E–09 3.90E–09 1.32E–08 1.41E–08 1.35E–08 6.07E–08 9.88E–08Oklahoma 1.33E–08 2.12E–08 7.70E–09 1.47E–082.06E–08 2.70E–08 2.18E–08 4.88E–08 7.10E–09Oregon * * * 2.04E–08 1.12E–08 2.47E–08 1.33E–08 5.85E–08 4.07E–08Pennsylvania 1.35E–08 4.09E–08 5.03E–08 2.43E–08 2.97E–08 2.12E–08 2.79E–08 1.02E–07 9.29E–08Rhode Island 8.80E–09 2.32E–08 1.96E–08 1.49E–08 3.70E–08 7.10E–09 1.80E–08 1.71E–08 6.67E–07South Carolina * * * 2.60E–08 2.57E–08 2.88E–08 2.61E–08 8.61E–08 3.95E–08South Dakota 6.10E–09 1.53E–08 2.93E–08 1.27E–08 4.20E–09 1.43E–07 6.20E–09 5.38E–08 2.13E–08Tennessee 1.00E–08 2.60E–08 3.90E–09 1.30E–081.63E–08 5.59E–08 2.24E–08 6.97E–08 1.21E–07Texas 1.30E–08 2.86E–08 8.32E–08 2.70E–08 1.97E–08 1.93E–08 1.95E–08 4.77E–08 1.84E–08Utah 1.19E–08 1.60E–08 2.27E–08 1.39E–08 2.21E–08 5.90E–09 1.80E–08 8.25E–08 2.17E–08Vermont 0 2.81E–08 0 9.70E–09 4.30E–09 0 4.20E–09 3.36E–08 2.40E–07Virginia 1.61E–08 9.90E–09 0 1.16E–08 1.76E–08 1.91E–08 1.80E–08 7.28E–08 7.73E–08Washington 1.80E–09 7.50E–09 8.30E–09 5.30E–09 1.47E–08 8.00E–09 1.17E–08 2.54E–08 0West Virginia 1.68E–08 6.80E–08 8.40E–09 2.78E–08 1.67E–08 1.28E–08 1.60E–08 1.78E–07 1.70E–08Wisconsin 9.10E–09 3.21E–08 2.51E–08 2.22E–086.60E–09 7.70E–09 6.7E–09 3.62E–08 3.68E–08Wyoming 1.08E–08 2.42E–08 0 1.24E–08 2.08E–08 0 2.01E–08 6.22E–08 3.70E–08Mean Rate 8.80E–09 2.32E–08 1.96E–08 1.49E–08 1.91E–08 2.37E–08 2.03E–08 5.82E–08 4.62E–08Total Rate 9.60E–09 1.78E–08 1.71E–081.42E−08−b−−−−a* = data not provided by state.b−= rate not providedA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 131 

### are lower for dedicated trains th an for regular trains. Saricks and Kvitek (1994) provide two sets of national average injury and fatality rate s based on railcars. The first set, 5.37 × 10 − 7 

### injuries and 2.35 × 10 − 8 

### fatalities per railcar-km, includes all in juries and fatalities. The second set, 7.83 × 10 − 8 

### injuries and 6.50 × 10 − 10 

### fatalities per railcar-km, is consistent with the same type of truck transportation risks by exclud ing a large portion of casualties in railyards (primarily due to trespassers). However, there are no such equiva lent risks in truck tran sportation. Thus, it is more appropriate to use rates that include all injuries and fatali ties because they occur during a necessary portion of the rail shipment proces s. The updated report by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) includes all injuries and fatalities in ra tes at the state level, as given in Table 6.40. At this time, there are no clear guidelines as to whether dedicated tr ains should be assigned higher casualties than waste shipments by regular train because casualties are independent of train length, or whether dedicate d trains should be assigned lower casualties because they spend less time in rail switching yards.

Q Q 6.2.2 Vehicle Emissions Vehicle-related risks during incident-free tran sportation include incremental risks caused by potential exposure to airborne particulate matter from fugitive dust and vehicular exhaust emissions. As discussed in Section 4.1.1.3, the h ealth end point assessed under routine transport conditions is the excess (additional) latent mo rtality that may be caused by inhalation of vehicular emissions. These emissions are primarily in the form of diesel exhaust and fugitive dust (resuspended particulates from the roadwa y). Epidemiological evidence suggests that increases in ambient PM 10 

### (particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 μ m) air concentrations may lead to in creases in mortality (EPA, 1996a; b). Currently, it is assumed that no threshold exists and that the dose-response functions for most health effects associated with PM 10 

### exposure, including premature mortality, are linear over the concentration ranges investigated (EPA, 1996a). In the short- and long-term, fatalities may result from life-shortening respiratory or cardiovascular diseases (EPA, 1996a; Ostro and Chestnut, 1998). The long-term fatalities also are assumed to include those from cancer. A risk factor for latent mortality from polluta nt inhalation, generated by Rao et al. (1982), is 1 × 10 − 7 

### /km (1.6 × 10 − 7 

### /mi) of truck travel in an urban area (1.3 × 10 − 7 

### /railcar-km for rail travel). This risk factor is based on regression analyses of fugitive dust and sulfur dioxide effects and particulate releases from diesel exhaust on mo rtality. Excess latent mortality is assumed equivalent to latent fatalities. Total emi ssion fatalities for a shipment are estimated by multiplying this emission risk factor by the distan ce traveled in urban zones. If a major shipping campaign is involved with repeated shipments, the estimated emission impacts should be doubled to account for round-trip travel of the tr ansport vehicle, as was done for the WM PEIS (DOE, 1997b). However, Rao’s ri sk factors are based on an ar ea with a population density of 3,861 persons/km 2 

### . Such densities are only found in urban areas such as Manhattan in New York City.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 132 

### Table 6.40. Rail Injury and Fatality Rates by State

Injuries Fatalities

State NonTrespasser

Injuries/ Car-km Trespasser Injuries/ Car-km All Injuries/ Car-km NonTrespasser Fatalities/

Car-km Trespasser Fatalities/

Car-km All Fatalities/

Car-km

Alabama 7.53E–08 4.70E–09 8.00E–08 1.48E–08 6.38E–09 2.12E–08 Arizona 5.15E–09 5.15E–09 1.03E–08 1.78E–09 8.92E–09 1.07E–08 Arkansas 6.37E–08 1.54E–09 6.52E–08 2.43E–08 3.09E–09 2.74E–08 California 1.93E–08 1.45E–08 3.38E–08 7.33E–09 2.78E–08 3.52E–08 Colorado 1.38E–08 3.77E–09 1.76E–08 6.54E–09 3.52E–09 1.01E–08 Connecticut 9.14E–08 1.25E–08 9.14E–08 4.57E–08 6.85E–07 7.31E–07 Delaware 2.26E–07 6.47E–08 2.91E–07 3.23E–08 6.47E–08 9.70E–08 District of Columbia 1.04E–07 1.25E–08 1.17E–07 1.38E–08 2.18E–07 2.18E–07 Florida 4.47E–08 2.10E–08 6.58E–08 1.64E–08 2.98E–08 4.63E–08 Georgia 3.39E–08 1.11E–08 4.50E–08 1.02E–08 7.35E–09 1.75E–08 Idaho 2.20E–08 1.83E–09 2.38E–08 1.34E–08 4.89E–09 1.83E–08 Illinois 3.40E–08 9.46E–09 4.35E–08 1.29E–08 1.28E–08 2.58E–08 Indiana 6.14E–08 1.37E–08 7.51E–08 2.02E–08 8.29E–09 2.85E–08 Iowa 4.11E–08 1.57E–09 4.27E–08 9.42E–09 2.88E–09 1.23E–08 Kansas 2.07E–08 8.71E–10 2.16E–08 7.66E–09 2.26E–09 9.92E–09 Kentucky 3.43E–08 8.28E–09 4.26E –08 6.13E–09 8.58E–09 1.47E–08 Louisiana 1.90E–07 1.71E–08 2.08E–07 4.35E–08 1.41E–08 5.76E–08 Maine 1.22E–07 5.24E–08 1.75E–07 1.38E–08 6.44E–08 7.82E–08 Maryland 2.05E–08 1.67E–08 3.72E–08 1.38E–08 3.08E–08 3.08E–08 Massachusetts 6.46E–08 7.76E–08 1.42E–07 2.59E–08 2.00E–07 2.26E–07 Michigan 1.80E–07 2.49E–08 2.05E–07 3.91E–08 2.40E–08 6.31E–08 Minnesota 3.14E–08 8.49E–09 3.99E–08 1.31E–08 3.09E–09 1.62E–08 Mississippi 1.03E–07 4.87E–09 1.08E–07 3.89E–08 1.82E–09 4.08E–08 Missouri 1.90E–08 2.00E–09 2.10E–08 7.30E–09 4.15E–09 1.15E–08 Montana 6.93E–09 2.23E–09 9.16E–09 1.98E–09 3.22E–09 5.20E–09 Nebraska 1.18E–08 6.72E–10 1.24E–08 5.88E–09 1.51E–09 7.39E–09 Nevada 1.85E–09 8.24E–10 2.68E –09 1.65E–09 1.03E–09 2.68E–09 New Hampshire 1.31E–07 1.25E–08 1.31E–07 4.36E–08 6.44E–08 4.36E–08 New Jersey 6.63E–08 5.57E–08 1.22E–07 2.39E–08 1.56E–07 1.80E–07 New Mexico 7.56E–09 3.47E–09 1.10E–08 2.45E–09 4.49E–09 6.95E–09 New York 2.07E–08 3.08E–08 5.15E–08 1.26E–08 4.78E–08 6.03E–08 North Carolina 1.05E–07 2.94E–08 1.34E–07 2.24E–08 5.25E–08 7.49E–08 North Dakota 1.41E–08 3.91E–10 1.45E–08 4.70E–09 1.96E–09 6.65E–09 Ohio 3.82E–08 2.87E–09 4.10E–08 1.47E–08 5.91E–09 2.06E–08 Oklahoma 5.78E–08 7.80E–09 6.56E–08 1.91E–08 3.55E–09 2.27E–08 Oregon 1.87E–08 1.95E–08 3.81E–08 6.49E–09 1.54E–08 2.19E–08A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 133 

### Table 6.40. Rail Injury and Fatality Rates by State (Continued)

Injuries Fatalities

State NonTrespasser

Injuries/ Car-km Trespasser Injuries/ Car-km All Injuries/ Car-km NonTrespasser Fatalities/

Car-km Trespasser Fatalities/

Car-km All Fatalities/

Car-km Pennsylvania 1.84E–08 1.23E–08 3.06E–08 9.35E–09 1.29E–08 2.22E–08 Rhode Island 2.69E–06 1.25E–08 2.69E–06 1.38E–08 1.34E–06 1.34E–06 South Carolina 9.36E–08 1.15E–08 1.05E–07 2.56E–08 4.49E–08 7.05E–08 South Dakota 4.02E–08 1.25E–08 4.02E–08 8.53E–09 6.44E–08 8.53E–09 Tennessee 2.58E–08 6.45E–09 3.23E–08 1.11E–08 7.07E–09 1.81E–08 Texas 4.73E–08 1.17E–08 5.90E–08 1.28E–08 1.18E–08 2.47E–08 Utah 1.76E–08 5.87E–09 2.35E–08 2.02E–08 5.22E–09 2.54E–08 Vermont 1.33E–08 1.25E–08 1.33E–08 1.38E–08 1.33E–08 1.33E–08 Virginia 2.39E–08 7.45E–09 3.14E–08 6.27E–09 1.49E–08 2.12E–08 Washington 2.45E–08 1.61E–08 4.06E–08 5.08E–09 1.95E–08 2.45E–08 West Virginia 1.14E–08 1.28E–08 2.41E–08 3.31E–09 6.15E–09 9.46E–09 Wisconsin 1.07E–07 7.19E–09 1.14E–07 1.72E–08 7.19E–09 2.43E–08 Wyoming 1.35E–09 1.25E–08 1.35E–09 1.18E–09 1.18E–09 2.36E–09 Total 3.33E–08 7.75E–09 4.10E–08 1.05E–08 1.02E–08 2.08E–08 Mean Rate 1.04E–07 1.25E–08 1.17E–07 1.38E–08 6.44E–08 7.82E

− 08 Source: Saricks and Tompkins (1999).



### More recent estimates of latent fatalities were developed by Biwer and Butler (1999) to expand the applicability of vehicle emission risk to a ll truck classes and to non-urban as well as urban areas. Rao et al. (1982) only consid ered the heavy-duty truck class in urban areas. The methods used by Rao et al. (1982) were revised in conjunc tion with updated epidemiological data related to the health effects of airborne particulates (PM 10 

### ) on human health. In addition, Biwer and Butler (1999) attempted to reconcile their results with estimates of LCFs presented in the EPA’s Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study (EPA, 1993b). The resultant estimates were presented on a per-kilometer basis (Table 6.41) assu ming a population density of 1 person/km 2 

### on either side of the transport route. Latent emission fatalities incl uding, but not limited to, cancer fatalities, may be estimated by multiplying the appropriate risk factor by the distance and corresponding population density alo ng a selected route segment.

As discussed in Biwer and Butler (1999), there are large uncertainti es in the human health risk factors used to develop emission risks. In addition, because of the conservative assumptions made to reconcile results with those presente d in the EPA study (EPA, 1993b), latent fatality risks estimated using the data in Table 6.41 may be near an upper bound. Use of the risk in Table 6.41 for truck class VIIIB will give estimated fatalities comparable to those from accident fatalities in some cases. This result is due in part to new, higher incremental mortality risks estimated for a given exposure to increased PM 10 

### levels than was used by Rao et al. (1982) in deriving the old emission risk factors. The questi on as to what exactly constitutes a fatality as a direct consequence of increased PM 10 

### levels from vehicle emissions is still open, but long-term fatalities have been associated with increased levels of PM 10 

### (Biwer and Butler, 1999).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 134 

### Table 6.41. Estimated Vehicle Emissions (10 μ m) and Fatalities per Kilometer for all Truck Classes and Rail

Truck Class Truck Weight (tons) Tire/Brake Particulates (g/km) Fugitive Dust (g/km) Diesel Exhaust (g/km) Total Emissions

(g/km) Unit Risk (fatalities/km) a

LDDV 2.0 0.013 0.104 0.132 0.250 2.14 × 10 − 11 I 3.0 0.013 0.191 0.167 0.372 3.19 × 10 − 11 IIA 4.3 0.013 0.322 0.121 0.456 3.92 × 10 − 11 IIB 5.0 0.013 0.411 0.160 0.584 5.01 × 10 − 11 III 9.8 0.016 1.120 0.195 1.331 1.14 × 10 − 10 IV 9.8 0.016 1.120 0.267 1.403 1.20 × 10 − 10 V 9.8 0.016 1.120 0.276 1.412 1.21 × 10 − 10 VI 16.5 0.016 2.467 0.259 2.741 2.35 × 10 − 10 VII 16.5 0.016 2.467 0.344 2.826 2.43 × 10 − 10 VIIIA 16.5 0.016 2.467 0.483 2.965 2.55 × 10 − 10 VIIIB 40.0 0.030 9.310 0.400 9.740 8.36 × 10 − 10 Railcar NA b NA 0.931 0.48 1.41 1.2 × 10 − 10

a Unit risk is based on a population density of 1 person/km 2

. c NA = not applicable. Source: Biwer and Butler (1999).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 135 

# 7. References

AAR: See Association of American Railroads. Abbott, M.L., and Rood, A.S., 1994a, "COMIDA: A Radionuclide Food-Chain Model," Health Physics 66(1):17-29. Abbott, M.L., and Rood, A.S., 1994b, COMIDA: A Radionuclide F ood-Chain Model for Acute Fall-out Deposition , EGG-GEO-10367, Idaho National Engi neering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Abrahamson, S., et al., 1989, Health Effects Model for Nuclear Power Accident Consequence Analysis, Low LET Radiation, Rev. 1, NUREG/CR-4214, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Abrahamson, S., et al., 1991, Health Effects Model for Nuclear Power Plant Accident Consequence Analysis, Modifications of Mode ls Resulting from Recent Reports on Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Rev. 1, Part II, Addendum 1, NUREG/CR-4214, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. AEC: See U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Alzona, J., et al., 1979, “Indoor-Outdoor Relation ships for Airborne Pa rticulate Matter of Outdoor Origin,” Atmospheric Environment 13:55-60. American Public Transit Association, 1998, 1998 Transit Fact Book , Member Services Division, Information Services Department, Washington, D.C., Feb.

APTA: See American Public Transit Association. Association of American Railroads, 1995, Railroad Facts , Economics, Policy and Statistics Department, Washington, D.C., Sept. Association of American Railroads, 1996, Analysis of Class I Railroads, 1995 , Policy, Legislation, and Economics De partment, Washington, D.C.

Association of American Railr oads, 1997a, Comments on DOE’s Draft Solicitation for the Acquisition of Waste Acceptan ce and Transportation Services, HR-561, Draft RFP No. DERP01-97RW00320, Law Department, Washington, D.C., May 14. Association of American Railroads, 1997b, Railroad Facts , Policy, Legislation and Communications Department , Washington, D.C., Sept. Association of American Railroads, 1998, Railroad Facts , Policy, Legislation and Communications Department , Washington, D.C., Oct.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 136 

### Association of American Railroads, 1999, Railroad Facts , Policy, Legislation and Communications Department , Washington, D.C., Oct.

Baltimore Gas & Electric v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 105 (1983). Barker, R., et al., 1974, Radiation Dose to Population (Crew and Passengers) Resulting from the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Passenger Aircraft in the United States , IAEA-SM-184/15, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria. Bentz, E.J., Jr., et al., 1997 “Legal Precedents Regarding Use and Defensibility of Risk Assessment in Federal Transportation of SNF and HLW,” presented in WM’97 Conference on HLW, LLW, Mixed Wastes and Environm ental Restoration — Working Towards a Cleaner Environment , University of Arizona , Tucson, Ariz., March 2-6. Best, R.E., et al., 1995, “Shipment Mobility/A ccountability Collection (SMAC),” in the 11 th 

### International Conference on the Packaging a nd Transportation of Ra dioactive Materials (PATRAM ‘95), Las Vegas, Nev., Dec. 3-8. Biwer, B.M., and J.P. Butler, 1999, “Vehicle Emi ssion Unit Risk Factors for Transportation Risk Assessments” Risk Analysis 19:1157-1171. Biwer, B.M., et al., 1997, RISKIND Verification and Benchmark Comparisons , ANL/EAD/TM-74, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., August. Block, M., 1993, Letter from Block (Project Engi neer, Public Service Company of Colorado, Denver) to H.K. Pippen (Science Applications In ternational Corporation, Idaho Falls, Idaho) regarding “Spent Fuel Cask Characteristics,” Jan. 24. Brenk, H.D., and H. De Witt, 1987, “Indoor Inha lation Exposure After Nuclear Accidents,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 21:117-223. Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109, 1123-25 (D.C. Cir 1971). Cashwell, J.W., et al., 1986, Transportation Impacts of the Commercial Radioactive Waste Management Program , SAND85-2715, Sandia National Labor atories, Albuquerque, N.M. Chanin, D., and M.L. Young, 1997, Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, User's Guide, SAND97-0594, Sandia National Labor atories, Albuquerque, N.M. Chen, S.Y., and Y.C. Yuan, 1988, “Calculation of Radiation Dose Rates from a Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipping Cask,” Transactions of American Nuclear Society 56:110-112. Christensen, G.C., and R. Mustonen, 1987, “The Filtering Effect of Buildings on Airborne Particles,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 21:125-128. City of New York v. U.S. Dept. of Trans p., 715 F.2d 732, 743 (2nd Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1055 (1984).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 137 

### Clarke, R.K., et al., 1976, Severities of Transportation Accidents , SLA-74-0001, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., July. Clauss, D.B., et al., 1994, A Statistical Description of the Types and Severities of Accidents Involving Tractor Semi-Trailers , SAND93-2580, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., June. Cohen, A.F., and B.L. Cohen, 1979, Infiltration of Particulat e Matter into Buildings , NUREG/CR-1151, prepared by Sandia National La boratories for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulat ory Research, Washington, D.C., Nov. Croff, A.G., 1980, ORIGEN2 – A Revised and Updated Version of the Oak Ridge Isotope Generation and Depletion Code, ORNL-5621, Oak Ridge Nationa l Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., July. DeMarco, I., et al., 1983, “Evaluation of Doses to Workers and General Public from the Carriage of Pharmaceuticals - An Application of the INTERTRAN Code,” in PATRAM’83, International Symposium on Packaging and Tran sportation of Radioact ive Materials, New Orleans, LA. Dennis, A.W., et al., 1978, Severities of Transportation Acci dents Involving Large Packages , SAND77-0001, Sandia National Laborat ories, Albuquerque, N.M., May. DOC: See U.S. Depart ment of Commerce. DOE: See U.S. Department of Energy. DOT: See U.S. Department of Transportation. Engelmann, R.J., 1992, “Sheltering Effectiveness Against Plutonium Provided by Buildings,” Atmospheric Environment 26A:2037-2044. Enyeart, T., 1995, Maximum Reasonably Foreseeable Accide nts for Offsite Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel, Engineering Design File EIS-TRANS-34, Rev. 1, Science Applications International Corp., Id aho Falls, Idaho, March. Ericsson, A.M., and M. Elert, 1982, INTERTRAN - A Model for World-Wide Risk Assessment of the Transportation of Radioactive Materials , prepared by Kemakta Konsult for the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, Stockholm, Sweden.
Evans, J.S., 1990, Health Effects Models for Nuclear Power Plant Accident Consequence Analysis; Low LET Radiation; Part I: Introduction, Integration, and Summary, NUREG/CR-4214, SAND85-7185, Rev. 1, Part 1, prep ared by Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Mass., unde r contract to Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., for U.S. Nuclear Re gulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 138 

### Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998, Guidance for Developing State, Tribal, and Local Radiological Emergency Response Planning and Preparedness for Transportation Accidents , FEMA REP-5, Rev. 2, Draft #3, Washington, D.C., March 31. FEMA: See Federal Emergency Management Agency. Festin, S.M., 1996, Summary of National and Regional Travel Trends: 1970 - 1995 , U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Hi ghway Administration, Office of Highway Information Management, Washington, D.C., May. Finley, N.C., et al., 1980, Transportation of Radionuclides in Urban Environs: Draft Environmental Assessment , NUREG/CR-0743, SAND79-0369, pr epared by Sandia National Laboratories for U.S. Nucl ear Regulatory Commission, Transportation and Product Standards Branch, Office of Standards Development, Washington, D.C., July. Firestone, R.B., and V.S. Shirley (editors), 1998, Table of Isotopes (8th edition update), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, April. Fischer, L.E., et al., 1987, Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway and Railway Accident Conditions , NUREG/CR-4829, UCID-20733, prepared by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif., for th e U.S. Nuclear Regulat ory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Researc h, Division of Reactor System Safety, Washington, D.C., Feb. Fogh, C.L., et al., 1997, “Size Specific Indoor Ae rosol Deposition Measurements and Derived I/O Concentrations Ratios,” Atmospheric Environment 31:2193-2203. Foley, J.T., et al., 1974, “Quantit ative Characterization of the Environment Experienced by Cargo in Motor Ca rrier Accidents,” Proceedings of the 4 th 

### International Symposium on Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials , Miami Beach, Fla., Sept. 22-27. Folga, S.M., et al., 1996, High-Level Waste Inventory, Characte ristics, Generation, and Facility Assessment for Treatment, Storage, and Dispos al Alternatives Considered in the U.S. Department of Energy Waste Management Pr ogrammatic Environmental Impact Statement , ANL/EAD/TM-17, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., Dec. Fritiofson v. Alexander, 772 F.2d 1225, 1236 (5th Cir. 1985). Glickman, T.S., and D. Golding, 1991, “New Persp ectives on Transporting Nuclear Wastes in Dedicated Trains,” Resources 104:10-14. Griego, N.R., et al., 1996, Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model Input Parameters for Truck Stops , SAND96-0714C, Sandia National Labor atories, Albuquerque, N.M. Grush, W., and B. Gross, 1995, Vehicle Occupancy, A Comparison of Household Survey Data and Roadside Observation Data , U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Informa tion Management, Washington, D.C., Sept.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 139 

### Hancox, J.J., and H.L. Wilkinson, 1993, “A Review of INTERTRAN/RADTRAN and Associated Codes,” SRD/RMD 93/37/REP, pres ented at the IAEA Coordinated Research Programme Meeting, Cologne, Germany, Jan. Hostick, C.J. et al., 1992, Time/Motion Observations and Dose Analysis of Reactor Loading, Transportation, and Dry Unloading of an Overweight Truck Spent Fuel Shipment , PNL7206, Pacific Northwest Laborat ory, Richland, Wash., April.

ICRP: See International Commi ssion on Radiological Protection. IIHS: See Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2000, “M aximum Posted Speed Limits for Passenger Vehicles as of July 2000,” http://www.iihs.or g/safety_facts/state_laws/speed_limit_laws.htm , accessed October 2000.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1975 , Reference Man: Anatomical, Physiological and Metabolic Characte ristics, ICRP Publication No. 23 , Pergamon Press, Oxford.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1977, Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 26, Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 1, No. 3.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1983, Radionuclide Transformations, Energy and Intensity of Emissions , ICRP Publication 38, Pergamon Press, New York, N.Y.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1991, Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection , ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon Press, New York. Johnson, P.E., and R.D. Michelhaugh, 2000, Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic Information System (Web TRAGIS) Users Manual, ORNL/TM-2000/86, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., fo r U.S. Department of Energy, National Transportation Program, Albuquerque, N.M., April. Johnson, P.E. et al., 1993a, HIGHWAY 3.1 — An Enhanced Highway Routing Model: Program Description, Methodology, and Revised User’s Manual , ORNL/TM-12124, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Depa rtment of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Trans portation Management Division, Washington, D.C., March. Johnson, P.E. et al., 1993b, INTERLINE 5.0 — An Expanded Railroad Routing Model: Program Description, Methodology, and Revised User’s Manual , ORNL/TM-12090, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Depa rtment of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Trans portation Management Division, Washington, D.C., March.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 140 

### Kocher, D.C., 1980, “Effects of Indoor Residence on Radiation Doses from Routine Releases of Radionuclides to the Atmosphere,” Nuclear Technology 48:171-179. Layton, D.W., 1993, “Metabolically Consistent Br eathing Rates for Use in Dose Assessments,” Health Physics 64:23-36. Linn, W.S. et al., 1992, “Documentation of Activity Patterns in ‘High Risk’ Groups Exposed to Ozone in the Los Angeles Area,” In: Proceedings of the Second EPA/AWMA Conference on Tropospheric Ozone , Atlanta, Nov. 1991, pp. 701-712, Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pa. Lorenz, R.A., et al., 1980, Fission Product Release from Highly Irradiated LWR Fuel , NUREG/CR-0722, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., Feb. Luna, R.E., et al., 1981, Nuclear Waste Transportation , SAND81-2242J, TTC-0264, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M. Madsen, M.M., and E.L. Wilmot, 1982, Truck Transportation of Radioactive Materials , SAND82-1952C, Sandia National Labor atories, Albuquerque, N.M. Madsen, M.M., et al., 1983, RADTRAN II User Guide , SAND-2681, TTC-0399, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M. Madsen, M.M., et al., 1986, RADTRAN III , SAND-2681, TTC-0470, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M. Maheras, S.J., and H.K. Pippen, 1995, Validation of the Transportation Computer Codes HIGHWAY, INTERLINE, RADTRAN 4, and RISKIND , DOE/ID-10511, prepared by Science Applications Internati onal Corporation for the U.S. Depart ment of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho, May. McMahon, T.A., and P.J. Denison, 1979, “Empirical Atmospheric Deposition Parameters — A Survey,” Atmospheric Environment 13:571-585. Morris, R., 1993, personal communication from Morris (Science Applica tions International Corp.) to F.A. Monette (Argonne National Labora tory), Dec. 9. National Research Council, 1990, Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation , Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations (BEIR V), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288, 294 (D.C. Cir 1988). Neuhauser, K.S., and F.L. Kanipe, 1992, RADTRAN 4: Volume 3, User Guide , SAND89-2370, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M, Jan.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 141 

### Neuhauser, K.S., and F.L. Kanipe, 1995, RADTRAN 4: Volume 2, Technical Manual, SAND89- 2370, Sandia National Laborator ies, Albuquerque, N.M. Neuhauser, K.S., and F.L. Kanipe, 2000, RADTRAN 5 User Guide , SAND2000-1257, Transportation Safety and Security Analysis Department, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., May. Neuhauser, K.S., et al, 2000, RADTRAN 5 Technical Manual, SAND2000-1256, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., May.

NIWC: See Northwest Inland Waters Coalition. Northwest Inland Waters Coalition v. U.S. Dept . of Energy, et al., Case No. C86- 132T (W.D. WA 1986). Northwest Inland Waters Coalition v. U.S. Dept . of Energy, et al., Case No. 86-4383 (9th Cir. 1988). Notz, K.J., et al., 1987, Characteristics of Pote ntial Repository Wastes , DOE/RW-0184, Vols. 1-6, prepared by Oak Ridge Na tional Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilia n Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, D.C.

NRC: See U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NRDC: See Natural Resources Defense Council. Ostmeyer, R.M., 1986, A Revised Rail-Stop Model for In cident-Free Transport of Nuclear Waste , SAND85-2149, Sandia National Labor atories, Albuquerque, N.M., Feb. Ostro, B., and L. Chestnut, 1998, “Assessing the Hea lth Benefits of Reduc ing Particulate Matter Air Pollution in the United St ates,” Environ. Res. A 76:94–106. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 1981, “Peer Review Report on the IAEA Radioactive Material Transportation Risk Model-INTERTRAN,” supp orted by the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract No. DE-AC06-76R LO 1830, Richland, Wash. Permattei, S, et al., 1985, “Assessment of Indivi dual and Collective Doses to Transport Workers and Population from Transport of Irradiated Fuels,” in Chairman’s Report, Technical Committee on the Assessment of the Radiologi cal Impact from the Tr ansport of Radioactive Materials , TTC-556, Addendum, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria. PNL: See Pacific Northwest Laboratory. PSC: See Public Service Company of Colorado.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 142 

### Public Service Company of Colorado, no date, Ft. St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Rev. 2, Public Service Company of Colorado, Denver, Colo. Pushkarev, B., and Zupan, J.M, 1975, Urban Space for Pedestrians , MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Rao, et al., 1982, Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Radioactive Material , SAND81- 1703, TTC/0236, Sandia National Labor atories, Albuquerque, N.M. Resnikoff, M., 1983, The Next Nuclear Gamble: Transportation and Storage of Nuclear Waste, New York Council on Economic Pr iorities, New York, N.Y. River Road Alliance, Inc. v. Corps of Engin eers, 764 F.2d 445, 452 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1055 (1986). Robinson, J.P, and J. Thomas, 1991, Time Spent in Activities, Locations, and Microenvironments: a California-National Comparison Project Report , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. Roed, J., and R.J. Cannell, 1987, “Relationship Between Indoor and Outdoor Aerosol Concentration Following the Chernobyl Accident,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 21:107-110. Sandoval, R.P., et al., 1991, Estimate of CRUD Contribution to Shipping Cask Containment Requirements , SAND-88-1358, Sandia National Labor atories, Albuquerque, N.M., Jan. Sandquist, G.M., et al., 1985, Exposures and Health Effects from Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation , RAE-8339/12-1, Rogers and Associates Engineering Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah. Saricks, C., and T. Kvitek, 1994, Longitudinal Review of State-Level Accident Statistics for Carriers of Interstate Freight , ANL/ESD/TM-68, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., March. Saricks, C., and M. Tompkins, 1999, State-Level Accident Ra tes of Surface Freight Transportation: A Re-Examination , ANL/ESD/TM-150, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. Schleien, B., 1992, The Health Physics and Radiological Health Handbook, revised edition, Scinta, Inc., Silver Spring, Md. Schleien, B., and M. Terpilak, 1987, Health Physics and Radiological Health Handbook , Nucleon Lectern Associates, Inc., Olney, Md. Sehmel, G.A., 1980, “Particles and Gas Dry Deposition: A Review,” Atmospheric Environment 14:983-1011.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 143 

### Shamoo, D.A., et al., 1992, “Effectiveness of Tr aining Subjects to Es timate Their Level of Ventilation,” J. Occ. Med. Tox. 1:55-62. Shibata, T., et al., 1984, “Release of Fission Products from Irradi ated Aluminide Fuel at High Temperatures,” Nuclear Science and Engineering 87:405-417. Sierra Club v. Watkins, et al., CA-88-3519 (D.D.C. 1991). Sprung, J.L., et al., 2000, Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates , NUREG/CR6672, Vol. 1, SAND2000-0234, prepared by Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., for U.S. Nuclear Regul atory Commission, Office of Nu clear Material Safety and Safeguards, Spent Fuel Project O ffice, Washington, D.C., March. Steinman, R. L. 2000. Evaluation of the Radiological Risk s Associated with the Routine Transport of Radioactive Ma terial Within Michigan , Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, June. Taylor, J.M., and S.L. Daniel, 1982, RADTRAN II: Revised Computer Code to Analyze Transportation of Radioactive Material , SAND76-0243, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1972, Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants , WASH-1238, Director ate of Regulatory Standards, Washington, D.C., Dec. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1974, Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle , WASH-1248, Fuels and Materials Directorate of Licensing, Washington, D.C., April. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1974, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1974 , 95 th 

### edition, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1975 , 96 th 

### edition, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Supplementary Reports, Urbanized Areas of the United States and Puerto Rico , 1990 CPH-S-1-2, Economics and Statistics Admi nistration, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., Dec. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994, 1992 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 51, United States, Summary and State Data , AC92-A-51, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy, 1980a, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Storage of U.S. Spent Nuclear Power Reactor Fuel , DOE/EIS-0015, Washington, D.C., May U.S. Department of Energy, 1980b, Final Environmental Impact St atement for Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste , DOE/EIS-0046, Washington, D.C., Oct.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 144 

### U.S. Department of Energy, 1980c, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) , DOE/EIS-0026, Carlsbad, N.M., Oct. U.S. Department of Energy, 1986, Environmental Assessment on Shipment of Taiwanese Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel, Phase I , DOE/EA-0321, Washington, D.C., Dec. U.S. Department of Energy, 1987, Analysis of Radiation Doses from Operation of Postulated Commercial Spent Fuel Transportation Systems , DOE-CH/TPO-001, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Wash., Nov. U.S. Department of Energy, 1988a, External Dose-Rate Conversion Factors for Calculation of Dose to the Public , DOE/EH-0070, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health, Office of Environmental Guidance and Compliance, Washington, D.C., July. U.S. Department of Energy, 1988b, Internal Dose Conversion Factors for Calculation of Dose to the Public , DOE/EH-0071, Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health, Washington, D.C., July. U.S. Department of Energy, 1988c, Environmental Assessment on Shipment of Taiwanese Research Reactor Spent Fuel (Phase II), DOE/EA-0363, June. U.S. Department of Energy, 1988d, “Radioact ive Waste Management,” DOE Order 5820.2A, Washington, D.C., Sept. 26. U.S. Department of Energy, 1990, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant , DOE/EIS-0026-FS, Washington, D.C., Jan. U.S. Department of Energy, 1991, Environmental Assessment of the Risks of the Taiwan Research Reactor Spent Fuel Project, DOE/EA-0515, June. U.S. Department of Energy, 1992, Characteristics of Pote ntial Repository Wastes, Vols. 1-4, DOE/RW-0184-R1, prepared by Oak Ridge Na tional Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., July. U.S. Department of Energy, 1993, Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, Office of NEPA Oversight, Washington, D.C., May. U.S. Department of Energy, 1994a, U.S. Department of Energy Radiological Control Manual , Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safe ty, and Health, Washington, D.C., April. U.S. Department of Energy, 1994b, DOE Handbook, Airborne Re lease Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonr eactor Nuclear Facilities , DOE-HDBK-3010-94, Washington, D.C., Dec. U.S. Department of Energy, 1995a, Framework for Assessing the Effects of Radioactive Materials Transportation in DOE NEPA Documents , prepared by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif., Jan.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 145 

### U.S. Department of Energy, 1995b, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering L aboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement , DOE/EIS-0203-F, Office of Environmental Management, Idaho Op erations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho, April. U.S. Department of Energy, 1995c, Safety Analysis Report, Vitrifie d High Level Waste, Type B Shipping Cask , DOE/EM-52368 Pt. 2, prepared by General Nuclear Systems, Inc., Columbia, S.C., March. U.S. Department of Energy, 1996a, Final Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Conc erning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel , DOE/EIS-0218F, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., Feb. U.S. Department of Energy, 1996b, Integrated Database Report-1995 : U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics , Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., Dec. U.S. Department of Energy, 1996c, Transuranic Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, DOE/WIPP-069, Rev. 5, Carlsbad, N.M., April. U.S. Department of Energy, 1997a, EM NEPA Technical Guidance Handbook , Draft, Office of Environmental and Regulatory Analysis, Washington, D.C., July 18. U.S. Department of Energy, 1997b, Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste , DOE/EIS-0200-F, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., May. U.S. Department of Energy, 1997c, Test and Evaluation Document for the U.S. Department of Transportation Specification 7A Type A Packaging , DOE/RL-96-57, Rev. 0, Vol. 1, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Wash., availa ble online at: http://www.hanford.gov/pss/t&p/ dot7a/pdot7a.htm. U.S. Department of Energy, 1997d, Waste Isolation Pilot Plan t Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement , DOE/EIS-0026-S-2, Carl sbad Area Office, Carlsbad, N.M., Sept. U.S. Department of Energy, 1999a, “DOE’s Principles for Using Risk Analysis,” http://www.em.doe.gov/irm/principl.html , accessed Jan. 11. U.S. Department of Energy, 1999b, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride , DOE/EIS-0269, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, Germantown, Md., April. U.S. Department of Energy, 1999c, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclea r Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste atA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 146 

### Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada , DOE/EIS-0250D, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, North Las Vegas, Nev., July. U.S. Department of Energy, 2002, Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclea r Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada , DOE/EIS-0250, Office of Ci vilian Radioactive Waste Management, North Las Vegas, Nev., July. U.S. Department of the Navy, 1996, Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Container System for the Management of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel , DOE/EIS-0251, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Nuclear Propulsion Directorate, Code 08, Nava l Sea Systems Command, Nov. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1992, Guidelines for Selecting Preferred Highway Routes for Highway Route Controlled Quantity Shipments of Radi oactive Materials , DOT/RSPA/ HMS/92-02, Research and Special Programs Ad ministration, Washington, D.C., Aug. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996a, National Transportation Statistics 1997 , DOT-VNTSC-BTS-96-4, Bureau of Transporta tion Statistics, Wash ington, D.C., Dec. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996b, Truck and Bus Accident Factbook 1994 , prepared by the Center for National Truck Statistics, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute for the Federal Highway Administ ration, Office of Motor Carriers, Washington, D.C., Oct. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997a, Highway Statistics 1996 , Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Informa tion Management, Washington, D.C., Oct. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997b, Accident/Incident Bulletin No. 165 , Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, D.C., Aug. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998, Railroad Safety Statistics, Annual Report 1997 , Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, D.C., Sept. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, Development of Statistical Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessments , EPA 600/8-85-010, Office of Health and Environmental A ssessment, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Limiting Values of Radi onuclide Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Facto rs for Inhalation, Subm ersion, and Ingestion , Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA 520/1-88-020, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Office of Radiatio n Programs, Washington, D.C., Sept. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989, Exposure Factors Handbook , EPA 600/8-89-043, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C., July.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 147 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents , EPA 400-R-92-001, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993a, External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil , Federal Guidance Report No. 12 , EPA 402-R-93-081, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, D.C., Sept. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993b, Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study , EPA 420-R-93-005, Office of Mobile Sources, Emissi on Planning and Stra tegies Division, Ann Arbor, Mich., April. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996a, Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessm ent of Scientific and Te chnical Information , EPA-452/R-96-013, Office of Air Qual ity Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C., July. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter , Vols. 1-3, EPA-600/P-95-001aF, Office of Air Qu ality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C., April. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion, 1975, “Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences,” Appendix VI to Reactor Safety Study , WASH-1400, Washington, D.C. U.S. Nuclear Regulat ory Commission, 1977a, Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Mate rial by Air and Other Modes , NUREG-0170, Office of Standards Development, Washington, D.C., Dec. U.S. Nuclear Regul atory Commission, 1977b, Calculation of Annual Dose to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpos e of Evaluating Compli ance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Rev. 1 , Regulatory Guide 1.109, Washington, D.C. U.S. Nuclear Regul atory Commission, 1981, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Related to Decontamination and Dis posal of Radioactive Waste Resulting from March 29, 1979 Accident at Three M ile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 , NUREG-0683, March. U.S. Nuclear Regul atory Commission, 1997, Directory of Certificates of Compliance for Radioactive Materials Package , NUREG-0383 (Rev. 20), Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D.C. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission, 1998, “NRC Issues Certifi cate to General Atomics for Transportation Cask for Spent Nuclear Fuel,” release No. 98-197, Office of Public Affairs, www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/nrarcv/nr98/98-197.htm , accessed Oct. 16, 1999.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 148 

### Weiner, R.F., et al., 1991, “An Approach to Assessing the Impact s of Incident-Free Transportation of Radioactive Materi als: II. Highway Transportation,” Risk Analysis 11(4):661-666, Dec. Westinghouse Hanford Corporation, 1996 , The Hanford Site Radioactive Hazardous Materials Packaging Directory , WHC-EP-0893, Richland, Wa sh., available online at: www.hanford.gov/pss/t&p/prhmpd.htm. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, 1990, Reactor Operation Safety Information Document (U), WSRC-RP-89-820, Aiken, S.C. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, 1991, Support Facilities Descriptions for the New Production Reactor at Savannah River, Volume 1, Heavy Water Reactor (U), WSRC-RP-89- 263, Vol. 1, Version 4, Aiken, S.C., April. WHC: See Westinghouse Hanford Corporation. Wilmot, E.L., 1981, Transportation - Accident Scenar ios for Commercial Spent Fuel , SAND80-2124, Sandia National Laborat ories, Albuquerque, N.M., Feb. Wilmot, E.L., et al., 1983, A Preliminary Analysis of Cost and Risk of Transporting Nuclear Waste to Potential Candidate Commercial Repository Sites , SAND83-0867, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M. Winkler, C.B., et al., 1995, Parameter Measurements of a Highway Tractor and Semitrailer , UMTRI-95-47, prepared by the Univ ersity of Michigan Transpor tation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Mich., for the Vehicle Research and Test Center, Nati onal Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Ea st Liberty, Ohio, Dec. Wolff, T.A., 1984, The Transportation of Nuclear Materials , SAND84-0062, TTC-0471, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M. Wooden, D.G., 1986, Railroad Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel , SAND86-7083, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., March. WSRC: See Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Yocom, J.E., et al., 1971, “Indoor/Out door Air Quality Relationships,” J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 21:251-259. Yuan, Y.C., et al., 1993, RISKIND — A Computer Program for Calculating Radiological Consequences and Health Risks from Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel, ANL/EAIS-6, Rev. 0, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. Yuan, Y.C., et al., 1995, RISKI ND — A Computer Program fo r Calculating Radiological Consequences and Health Risks from Tran sportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel, ANL/EAD-1, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 149 

# 8. Glossary

The following glossary of transportation/packag ing terms is provided for the purpose of this handbook.

A

Accident : A deviation from normal operations or activ ities associated with a hazard which has the potential to result in an emer gency [see emergency definition]. Acute exposure : A single, brief exposure to a toxic substance. Affected persons : Individuals who have been exposed and/or injured as a result of an accident (see accident definition) involvi ng any type of HAZMAT (see hazardous material definition), to a degree requiring special attenti on (i.e., decontamination (see d econtamination definition), first aid, or medical service). Agency : Any organization that acts in the place of a government and by its authority (e.g., The FEMA) is an agency of the federal government Alpha particle : A positively charged particle emitted by certain radioactive materials (see radioactive materials definition). It is made up of two neutrons [see neutrons definition] and two protons (see protons definition) bound together and, hence, is identical to the nucleus of a helium atom. It has low-penetrating power and short ra nge. The most energetic alpha particle will generally fail to penetrate the skin.

Annual limit on intake : The derived limit for the amount of ra dioactive material taken into the body of an adult worker by inhalatio n or ingestion in a year. Annua l limit on intake is the smaller value of intake of a given radi onuclide [see radionuclide definition] in a year by the reference man (International Commission Radiological Protect ions Publication 23) th at would result in a committed effective dose equivalent [see effec tive dose equivalent definition] of 5 rem (0.05 sievert) or a committed dose equivalent of 50 rems (0.5 sievert) to a ny individual organ or tissue. (DOE Radiological Control Manual. DOE/EH-0256T, Rev. 1. April 1994) As low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) : Means keeping radiation exposure as low as is reasonably achievable, taking into account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to the benefits to public health and safet y, other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and the utilization of atomic energy in the public interest.

Assessment : See consequence assessment. Association of American Railroads (AAR) : An organization advo cating the interests of railroads in the public policy arena. The AAR wo rks to enhance the productivity of the railroad industry through research and development, a nd other support programs. The organization facilitates a seamless intermodal interchange by electronically exchanging information among railroads, their customers, and their supplie rs. Although AAR’s most visible activity is representation of its members before Congress, regulatory agencies, and the courts, most ofA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 150 

### AAR’s employees and budget are focused on operat ions, maintenance, safety, theoretical and applied research, economics, finance, accountin g, communications, electronic data exchange, and public affairs.

B Barge : A non-self-propelled vessel. (49CFR171.8) Beta particle : A charged particle emitted from a nucleus during radioactive decay (see decay definition), having a single electrical charge an d a mass equal to 1/1837 that of a proton (see proton definition). A negatively charged beta part icle is identical to an electron (see electron definition). A positively charged beta particle is called a positron. Large amounts of beta radiation may cause skin burns, and beta emitte rs are harmful if they enter the body. Beta particles are easily stopped by a th in sheet of metal or plastic. Boiling water reactor (BWR) : A light-water reactor in which water, used as both coolant and moderator, is allowed to boil in the core. The resulting steam can be used directly to drive a turbine. By-product material : Any radioactive material (except special nuclear material) yielded in or made radioactive by exposure to the radiation in cident to the process of producing or utilizing special nuclear material. (10CFR50.2)


## C

Canister : The metal receptacle surrounding the waste form that facilitates handling, storage, transportation, and/or disposal.

Carrier : A person engaged in the tran sportation of passengers or pr operty by land or water as a common, contract, or private carrier, or by civil aircraft. (10CFR71.4)

Cask : A container for shipping or storing radioactiv e material of greater than A1 or A2 (see A1 and A2 definitions) quantities.

Chronic effect : Effect of exposure to a hazardous material [see hazardous material definition] that develops slowly after many e xposures or that recurs often. Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System : The composite of sites, facilities, systems, equipment, materials, information, activities, an d personnel required to perform those activities necessary to manage SNF (see spent nuclear fuel definition) and high-level radioactive waste disposal.

Commercial motor vehicle : Any self-propelled or towed ve hicle used on public highways in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property where the vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combin ation weight rating 10,001 or mo re pounds; or the vehicle is designed to transport more than 15 passengers, incl uding the driver; or the ve hicle is used in the transportation of HAZMAT (see hazardous material definition) in a quant ity requiring placarding under regulations issued by the Secretary (of Transportation) under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 151 

### Common carrier : The most accepted characteristics: avai lability of service to anyone seeking a transportation movement, publicatio n of rates, provision of the service on schedule, service to designated points or a designated area, and service of a given cla ss of movement and commodity. Consequence : The result (i.e., health or other environm ental effect) of a release of radioactive or HAZMAT (see radioactive and hazardous mate rial definitions) to the environment. Consequence assessment : The evaluation and interpretatio n of radiological or other HAZMAT [see hazardous material definition] measurements and other information to provide a basis for decision making. (DOE Order 5500.1B) Contact-handled (CH) : Waste containers that can be handled without shielding. Contact-handled (CH) transuranic waste (TRUW) : Packaged TRUW whos e external surface dose rate does not exceed 200 millire m (see millirem definition) per hour.

Containment : A protective action that prevents an a dversary force from es caping from and/or removing a DOE safeguards and security intere st from DOE or DOE contractor control. A protection strategy of the same name. An en closure designed to retain fission products accidentally released from a reactor core (e.g., c ontainment structure for a nuclear power plant or production reactor). Barriers or other physical co nfinements of airborne or liquid material released or which could be rel eased into the environment.

Contamination : A hazardous substance dispersed in materi als or places where it is undesirable.

Contract carrier : A carrier, whatever mode, that pr ovides service according to contractual agreement. The contract specifies charges to be applied, the character of the service, and the time of performance. There are no specified rate s under regulation, but the charges applied must be made public. Curie (Ci) : A measure of the radioactivity (see radio activity definition) of 1.0 gram of radium, equal to 37 billion disintegrations per second.

D Decay : The decrease in activity of any radionuclide (see radionuc lide definition) over time, due to spontaneous emission of radiat ion from its atomic nuclei of e ither alpha particles (see alpha particles definition), beta particles (see beta particles definition) or gamma rays (see definition). The rate of decay for a radionuclide is relate d to its half-life (see half-life definition).

Decontamination : The removal of hazardous substances from employees and their equipment to the extent necessary to preclude the occurrence of foreseeable adverse h ealth effects. (29 CFR 1910.120)

Dedicated train : Train service, as opposed to regular train service, that may include certain restrictions such as consisti ng of a locomotive, caboose, buffe r cars, one or more cars of radioactive, and no other freight; may not travel at any time fast er than 35 miles per hour; and must stop when it meets, passes, or is passed by a nother train. Special ro uting restrictions may also apply in which the railroad will attempt to avoid highly populated ar eas. As a separatelyA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 152 

### operating train with its own crew, the special trai n will avoid some rail yards and sidings that are engaged in railcar swit ching, e.g., train make-up.

DOE Orders : Written, permanent, and temporary Departmental directives affecting more than one DOE organization which establish or change policies, organization, methods, standards, or procedures; guide, instruct, and inform employ ees in their work; require action or impose workload; give information essential to the admi nistration or operation of the Department; or transmit other information to employees or cont ractors of the Department when use of DOE publications would not be practicab le. Issuances used for perman ent or long-lasting directives.

Dose : Refers to either the amount of energy abso rbed by body tissue due to radiation exposure, or the amount of biological damage done by this absorbed energy. Absorbed energy is measured in gray or rad; biological damage , in sievert or rem. Various term s, such as dose equivalent (see dose equivalent definition), EDE (see effective dose equivalent definition) and collective dose, are used to evaluate the amount of biological dama ge a worker or member of the public sustains when exposed to ionizing radiation. These terms are used to describe th e differing interactions of radiation with tissue as well as to assist in the management of personnel exposure to radiation. Dose equivalent (H) : The product of the absorbed dose (D) (in rad or gray) in tissue, a quality factor (Q), and all other rad defi nition modifying factors (N). Do se equivalent is expressed in units of rem (see rem definition) (o r sievert) (1 rem = 0.01 sievert). Dosimetry : The theory and applicati on of the principles and tec hniques involved in measuring and recording radiation dose s (see dose definition).

E Effective dose equivalent (H E 

### ) : The summation of the products of the dose equivalent received by specified tissues of the body (H T 

### ) and the appropriate weighting factors (W T 

### ) — that is (H E 

### = Σ W T 

### H T 

### ). It includes the dose (see dose definition) from radiation sources internal and/or external to the body. The EDE is expressed in un its of rem (see rem definition) (or sievert).

Effective half-life : The time required for a radionuclide [see radionuclide definition] contained in a biological system, such as in humans, to re duce its activity by half, as a combined result of radioactive decay (see decay defini tion) and biological elimination. Emergency : An emergency is the most serious even t and consists of any unwanted operational, civil, natural-phenomenon, or security occurren ce which could endanger or adversely affect people, property, or the e nvironment. (DOE Order 5500.1B) Emergency response : The implementation of planning a nd preparedness during an emergency involving the effective decisions, actions, and app lication of resources that must be accomplished to mitigate consequences and recover from an emergency.

Enriched uranium : Uranium (see uranium definition) containing more U-235 than the naturally occurring distribution of uranium isotopes (see isotopes definition).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 153 

### Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) : Detailed written statements as required by NEPA Section 102(2)(C). (40 CFR 1508.9) A documen t required for major federal projects or legislative proposals significantl y affecting the environment.

Exclusive use : The sole use of a conveyance by a singl e consignor and for which all initial, intermediate, and final loading and unloading are car ried out in accordance with the direction of the consignor or consignee.

F Facility : Any equipment, structure, system, process, or activity that fulfills a specific purpose. Examples include accelerators, storage areas, fusion research devi ces, nuclear reactors, production or processing plants , coal conversion plants, ma gnetohydrodynamics experiments, windmills, radioactive waste disposal systems a nd burial grounds, testing laboratories, research laboratories, transportation activities, and acco mmodations for analytical examinations of irradiated and unirradiated components. (DOE Order 5500.1B) Fission products : The nuclei (fission fragments) formed by the fission of heavy elements plus the nuclides (see nuclide definition) formed by the fission fragment in radioactive decay (see decay definition).

G Gamma rays : High energy, short wavelength electr omagnetic radiation emitted from the nucleus. Gamma radiation frequently accompanie s alpha (see alpha defi nition) and beta (see beta definition) emissions and always accompanie s fission. Gamma rays are very penetrating and are best stopped or shielded agai nst by dense materials, such as lead or depleted uranium (see depleted uranium definition). Gamma rays are esse ntially similar to x-rays but are usually more energetic and are nuclear in origin.

H

Half-life : The time required for the activity of radionuclide (see radionuclide definition) to decrease to half of its initial value due to radioactive decay (see decay definition).

Hazard : A process, condition, or asset which has th e potential to adversely impact the health and safety of personnel, the public, the environm ent, or national security. Hazards are divided into three classes: a) Low: h azards which present minor onsite and negligible offsite impacts to people, the environment, or national security. b) Moderate: hazards which represent considerable potential onsite impacts to the pe ople or the environment, but at most only minor offsite impacts to people, the environment, or national security. (DOE Order 5500.1B). c) High: hazards with the potential for onsite and offsite impacts to larg e numbers of persons or with the potential for major impacts to the environment or national security. (DOE Order 5500.1B) Hazardous material (HAZMAT) : Any solid, liquid, or gaseous material that is toxic, flammable, radioactive, corrosive, chemically reactive, or unstable upon prolonged storage in quantities that could pose a th reat to life, property, or the environment (this definition is applicable to DOE orders and is not to be conf used with the term “hazardous material substance”A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 154 

### defined in Section 101(14) of Comprehensiv e Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 and in [40 CFR 300.6]). Al so defined by 49 CFR 171.8 as a substance or material designated by the Secret ary of Transportation to be cap able of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when tr ansported in commerce and which has been so designated. See definition of hazardous substance.

Hazardous substance : As defined by Section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, any s ubstance designated pursuant to Section 311(b) (2) (A) of the Clean Water Act; any element, compound, mixt ure, solution or substance designated pursuant to Section 102 identified under or listed pur suant to Section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (but not including any waste listed under Sectio n 307[a] of the Clean Water Act); any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act; and any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture pursuant to Section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The term does not includ e petroleum, including cr ude oil or any fraction thereof, which is not otherwise specifically liste d or designated as a haza rdous substance in the first sentence of this paragraph, and the term does not include natural ga s, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas).

Hazardous waste : Those solid wastes designated by OSHA 40 CFR 261 due to the properties of ignitability, corrosivity, r eactivity, or toxicity. (DOE Or der 5500.2A) Any material that is subject to the Hazardous Waste Ma nifest requirements of the EPA specified in 40 CFR Part 262. High-level [radioactive] waste (HLW) : The highly radioactive waste material that results from the reprocessing of SNF, including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste, that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and other highly ra dioactive material that is determined, consistent with existing law, to require permanent isolation (DOE M 435.1-1)

HIGHWAY : an interactive computer code that is us ed to calculate routes in accordance with HRCQ regulations (49 CFR 397.101) for spent-fu el shipment in the United States.

I

Incident : Any deviation from normal operations or activ ities which has the potential to result in an emergency (see emergency definition). Incident-free transportation: Shipment activities without a ccidents or other unexpected or unusual occurrences.

Indian tribe : Any Indian tribe, band nation, or othe r organized group or community of Indians recognized as eligible for the services provide d to Indians by the Secr etary of the Interior because of their status as Indians, including any Al aska Native village, as defined in Section 3(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1602(c)].

INTERLINE : An interactive computer code used to predict rail routes for radioactive waste (see radioactive waste definition) shipments in the United States.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 155 

### Intermodal transfer : The physical transfer of a package of cargo from one mode of transportation (e.g., highway, rail, or barge) to another to eff ect continuous movement of the shipment to destination wit hout releasing the contents. Ionizing radiation : Any radiation that causes displacement of electrons (see electron definition) from atoms or molecules, thereby producing ions. Isotopes : One of two or more atoms with the same atomic number (the same chemical element) but with different atomic weights. An equivalent statement is that the nuclei of is otopes have the same number of protons but diffe rent numbers of neutrons. Isotope s usually have very nearly the same chemical properties, but somewh at different physical properties.

J

K



## L Labeling : Each person who offers for transportation or transports a HAZMAT (see hazardous material definition) in any packages or containm ent (see containment definition) devices listed in 49 CFR 172.400 shall label the pack age or containment device with labels specified for the material in the table listed in 49 CFR 172.101. Latent cancer fatalities (LCFs): Fatal cancer that occurs a period of time after exposure to radiation. Typically used as the end point in radiological risk assessments and calculated by multiplying the collective dose to a populati on by health effects conversion factors. Legal-weight truck (LWT) : Refers to the total gross-weight of a motor vehicle, together with its cargo, which is within the prescribed ma ximum limits of the state, and not requiring overweight permits. Limited quantity : When specified as such in a section a pplicable to a particular material, means the maximum amount of a HAZMAT (see hazardous material definition) for which there is a specific labeling or packaging exception. Local government : Any county, city, village, town, dist rict, or political subdivision of any state, Indian tribe or authorized tribal organi zation, or Alaska Native village or organization, including any rural community or unincorporated town or village or any other public entity. Low-level (radioactive waste) (LLW) : Radioactive material that is not high-level radioactive waste (see high-level radioactive waste defi nition), SNF (see SNF fuel definition), TRUW, byproduct material (as defined in Section 11e(2) of the AEA of 1954 as amended, or naturally occurring radioactive material (DOE M 435.1-1). Low specific activity (LSA) materials : Means the following: (1) uranium (see uranium definition) or thorium ores and physical or chemi cal concentrates of those ores; (2) unirradiated natural or depleted uranium or unirradiated natural thorium; (3) tritium oxide in aqueous solutions provided the concentration does not exceed 5.0 millicurie per millil iter; (4) material in which the radioactivity (see radioactivity definiti on) is essentially uniformly distributed and inA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 156 

### which the estimated average concentration of c ontents does not exceed amounts listed in 49 CFR 173.403; and (5) objects of nonradioactive material externally contaminat ed with radioactive material, provided that the radioactive materi al is not readily disp ersible and the surface contamination (see contamination definition), when averaged over an area of 1 square meter, does not exceed 0.0001 millicurie per square cen timeter of radionuclides (see radionuclides definition) for which the A2 quantity is not more than .05 Ci, or 0.001 millicurie per square centimeter for other radionuclides.

M Marking : A descriptive name, identification number, instructions, cautions, weight, specification, or United Nations marks, or comb inations thereof, required by this DOT on outer packaging of HAZMAT (see hazardous material definition). Maximally exposed individual (MEI) : A hypothetical individual lo cated at a position that maximizes potential radiation exposure from inci dent-free transport or a potential release of radioactive material resulting from accident conditions. Maximum reasonably foreseeable accident: A transportation accident with a probability of occurrence of more than 1 × 10 − 7



### . Millirem : A unit of radiation dosage equal to one -thousandth of a rem (see rem definition). According to federal standards, an individual is allowed to receive up to 500 millirem per year from nuclear fuel cycle activities.

Mixed waste : Waste containing both radioactive and hazardous components as defined by the Atomic Energy Act and the RCRA, respectively. Monitoring : The use of sampling and detection equipm ent to determine the levels of radiation or other toxic materials.

Motor carrier : A motor common carrier and a motor contract carrier.

Motor common carrier : A regulated person or company enga ged in carrying people or freight for a fee.

Motor contract carrier : A person, other than a motor co mmon carrier, providing motor vehicle transportation of passengers for compensation und er continuing agreement with a person or limited number of persons.

N National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 : The Act which established the national policy to protect the environmen t, requiring environmental impact statements for major federal actions that have the potential for significant impact on the environment, and established the CEQ.

Neutron : An uncharged elementary pa rticle with a mass slightly greater than that of the proton (see proton definition); found in the nucleus of every atom heavier than hydrogen. A freeA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 157 

### neutron is unstable and decays (see decay definition) with a half-life (see half-life definition) of about 13 minutes into an electron (see electr on definition), proton, and neutrino. Neutrons sustain the fission chain reaction in a nuclear reactor. Shielding for neutrons is usually large quantities of materials such as wa ter, paraffin, or polyethylene.

Nuclear reactor : An apparatus designed or used to su stain nuclear fission in a self-supporting and controlled chain reaction. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) : The federal agency re sponsible for regulating commercial nuclear power plants and other co mmercial nuclear operations pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and covere d by provisions under Section 170(a) of that Act. This federal agency has a broad statutory authority over transpor tation of radioactive material similar to that of the DOT. Under a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies, however, NRC limits its activities to performing safety evaluations of packages and issuing certificates of compliance for Type B p ackages and packages for fissile material (see fissile material definition). The NRC prescribes rules for monitoring of packages on receipt, for limiting the exposure of individual s to ionizing radiation, and for in-transit security of certain materials. NRC imposes DOT shipping requirem ents by reference and inspects against them, and enforces those requirements. Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) : An Act passed in 1982, and amended in 1987, that directs the DOE to design, site, and construct a geologic repository for the disposal of defense high-level radioactive waste (see high-leve l radioactive waste definition) and SNF (see spent nuclear fuel definition) from civilian (commercial) nuclear re actors. The NWPA also established the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management within DOE to ca rry out these responsibilities.

O Off-link population : All persons living alongside of a transportation route. On-link population : Persons in all vehicles sharing the transporta tion route. This group includes persons traveling in the same or the opposite direction as the shipment, as well as persons in vehicles passing the shipment.

P Package : Protective material together with its radi oactive contents as presented for transport. Packaging : For radioactive materials, the assemb ly of components necessary to ensure compliance with the packaging requirements of 49 CFR 173. It may consist of one or more receptacles, absorbent materials, spacing struct ures, thermal insulation, radiation shielding, and devices for cooling or absorbing mechanical shocks. The conveyance, tie-down system, and auxiliary equipment may sometimes by designate d as part of the packaging. (49 CFR 173.403)

Placard : Represents the hazard class(es) of the material(s) contained within the freight container, motor vehicle or rail car. A warn ing sign made of a durable material and placed on the exterior sides of a transport vehicle.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 158 

### Plume : Airborne material spreading from a partic ular source. Used to denote dispersal of particles, gases, vapors, and aerosols in the atmo sphere. Occasionally referred to as a cloud (for example, a “radioactive cloud”). A release of material into the atmosphere for a short duration may also be denoted as a “puff.” Plume exposure pathway : The principal exposure sources for this pathway are: Whole body external exposure (gamma radiation) and/or contact exposure to skin or eyes (hazardous substances) from contact with materials from the plume and from deposited material. Inhalation and absorption of constituents in the passing plume.

Preferred route : A preferred route consists of either or both: (1) an interstate system highway for which an alternative route is not designated by a state rout ing agency (see state routing agency definition), and/or (2) a state-designate d route selected by a state routing agency in accordance with the DOT Guidelines for Selec ting Preferred Highway Routes for Highway Route Controlled Quantity Shipments of Radioac tive Materials, or an equivalent routing analysis. Pressurized water reactor (PWR) : A nuclear reactor in which heat is transferred from the core to a heat exchanger via water kept under high pressure so that high temperatures can be maintained in the primary system without boiling the water. Steam is generated in a secondary circuit.

Private carrier : Provides a service for the movement of goods owned by the vehicle operator. Protective action (protective response) : Physical measures, such as evacuation or sheltering, taken to prevent potential health hazards resu lting from a release of HAZMAT (see hazardous materials definition) to the environment from adversely affecting workers or the nearby population. Protective Action Guide [or Guideline] (PAG) : A radiation personnel exposure level or range beyond which protective action should be considere d. PAG values should reflect a balance of risks and costs to onsite personne l, public health and safet y, and the environment weighed against the benefits obtained from protective actions. (DOE Order 5500.1B)

R

Rad : Unit of absorbed dose (see dose definition). One rad is equal to an absorbed dose of 100 ergs per gram or 0.01 joules per kilogram (0.01 gray).

Radiation level : The radiation dose rate expressed in millirem (see millirem definition) per hour (mrem/h).

Radioactive material : With respect to transportation regul ations, any material having a specific activity greater than 0.002 microcuries per gram ( μ Ci/g).

Radioactive waste : Solid, liquid, or gaseous material that contains radionuclides (see radionuclides definition) regulat ed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and of negligible economic value considering costs of recovery.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 159 

### Radioactivity : The property possessed by some atoms of spontaneously emitting radiation in the form of rays and particles from its nucleus. Radioisotopes of elements lose particles and energy through this process and decay (see decay definition) or transform into other elements

Radionuclide : See nuclide.

RADTRAN : A computer code developed by SNL for an alysis of the consequences and risks of radioactive material (see radioactive materials definition) transportation. RADTRAN is used to estimate radiological risks associated with incide nt-free transportation of radioactive materials and with accidents that might occur during transportation.

Railroad : Classifications based on tr affic density/utilization measur es which are indicative of the level of maintenance and investment applied to various rail line classes. All common carrier railway lines are subject to the Federal Railway Administration regulations intended to promote safety on the rail network.

1. Mainline - Class A : A traffic density measure of 20 million gross tons or more per year per route or route segment.

2. Mainline - Class B : A traffic density measure of at leas t 5 to less than 20 million gross tons per year per route or route segment.

3. Branchline - Class A - A traffic density measure, 5 million gross tons or more per year per route or route segment.

4. Branchline - Class B - A traffic density measure of at least 1 to less than 5 million gross tons per year per route or route segment. (Railroa d Revitalization and Regul atory Reform Act of 1976, PL 94-210)

5. Main track : A track, other than an auxiliary tr ack, extending through yards or between stations, upon which trains are operated by timetab le or train order, or both, or the use of which is governed by a signal system. (49 CFR 218.5)

6. Class of track : The maximum allowable operating speed s for freight and passenger trains as established by the FRA. There ar e five such classes of track.

Release : As defined by Section 101(22) of th e Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), me ans any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, inje cting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the abandonment or discar ding of barrels, containe rs, and other closed receptacles containing any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant), but excludes: any release which results in exposure to a person so lely within a workplace; emissions from the engine exhaust of a motor vehicle, rolling stock, aircraft, vessel, or pipeline pumping stations engine; release of source, byproduct, or special nucl ear material from a nucle ar incident, as those terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, if such release is su bject to requirements with respect to financial prot ections established by the NRC unde r Section 170 of such Act; or, for the purposes of Section 104 of CERCLA or any other response action, any release of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material (see spec ial nuclear material definition) from anyA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 160 

### processing site designated under Section 102(a)(1) or 302(a) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978; and the normal a pplication of fertilizer. For purposes of the National Contingency Plan release also means threat of release.

Rem : Unit of dose equivalent (see dose equivalent definition). Dose equivalent in rem is numerically equal to the absorbed dose in rad (see rad definition) multiplied by the quality factor, distribution factor, and any other necessary modifying factors (1 rem = 0.01 sievert).

Remote-handled transuranic waste : Packaged TRUW (see tran suranic waste definition) whose external surface dose (see dose defi nition) rate exceeds 200 millirem (see millirem definition) per hour. Test specimens of fissi onable material irradiated for research and development purposes only and not for the produc tion of power or plutoni um may be classified as RH TRUW. Reprocessing : The process by which SNF (see spent nucl ear fuel definition) is separated into waste material for disposal and material such as uranium (see uranium de finition) and plutonium for reuse.

Risk : A quantitative or qualitative expression of possible loss that considers both the probability that a hazard will cause harm and the consequences of that event.

RISKIND : Computer code developed by DOE for analyzing radiologica l consequences and health risks to individuals a nd the collective population from e xposures associated with the transportation of SNF (see spent nuclear fuel definition) and other radioactive material.

S Safety analysis : A documented process to systemati cally identify the hazards of a DOE operation; to describe and analyze the adequacy of the measures taken to eliminate, control, or mitigate identified hazards; and to analyze and evaluate potential accidents (see accidents definition) and their associated risks. Sheltering : An in-place, immediate protective action wh ich calls for people to go indoors, close all doors and windows, turn off all sources of outside air, listen to radio or television for emergency information, and remain indoors until official notification that it is safe to go out. Shipment : Refers to the cargo entered as the load on a shipping paper, moving from one origin to one destination, and the associated regulated shipping activities. Shipper : The person (or his or her agent) who tende rs a shipment for tran sportation. The term includes persons who prepare packages for ship ment, and offer packages to a carrier for transportation by signature on the shipping paper.

Solid waste : Any discarded material that is not excluded by 40 CFR 261.4(a) or that is not excluded by variance granted under 40 CFR 260.30 and 260.31.

Source term : The amount of material available for release.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 161 

### Special form radioactive material : This is radioactive material which satisfies the following conditions: (1) it is either a singl e solid piece or is contained in a sealed capsule that can be opened only by destroying the capsule; (2) the piece or capsule has at least one dimension not less than 5 millimeters; (3) it satisfies th e requirements of 10 CFR 71.75 (10 CFR 71.4). Spent fuel assemblies : Nuclear fuel is fabricated into sm all pellets. These pellets are encased into strong cylindrical rods. An assembly is a gr oup of these rods fastened together. Referred to as a “bundle” for some boiling water reactors [see boiling water reactors definition]. Spent nuclear fuel (SNF) : Fuel that has been withdraw n from a nuclear reactor following irradiation, the constituent elements of which ha ve not been separated by reprocessing. SNF includes (1) intact, non-defective fuel assemblies; (2) failed fuel asse mblies in canisters (see canister definition); (3) fuel assemblies in canisters; (4) consolidated fuel rods in canisters; (5) nonfuel components inserted in PWR (see pr essurized water reactor definition) fuel assemblies; (6) fuel channels attached to BW R (see BWR definition) fu el assemblies; and (7) nonfuel components and structural pa rts of assemblies in canisters.

T

Threshold limit value - time weighted average (TLV-TWA) : Concentration of toxic materials for a normal 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek to which nearly all workers may be exposed day after day without adverse effect.

Toxic chemicals : A chemical or chemical category listed in 40CFR372.65.

Train : Except as context require, means a loco motive, or more than one locomotive coupled, with or without cars.

Train accident : A passenger, freight, or work trai n accident described in 49 CFR 225.19(c) (a “rail equipment accident” involving damage in excess of the current reporting threshold, $6,600 in 1998), including an accident i nvolving a switching movement.

Train incident : An event involving the movement of rail road on-track equipment that results in a casualty but in which railroad property da mage does not exceed the reporting threshold. Transport index : The dimensionless number placed on radioactive labels to designate the degree of control to be exercised by the carrier during transportation of a radioactive material (see radioactive material definition) package. Transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste : Waste containing more th an 100 nanocuries of alpha [see alpha definition] emitting transuranic isotopes, with half-lives (see half-life definition) greater that twenty years, per gram of waste. Transuranic (TRU) waste : TRUW is radioactive waste co ntaining more than 100 nanocuries (3,700 becquerels) of alpha-emitting transuranic is otopes per gram of wast e, with half-lives greater than 20 years, except for: (1) high-level ra dioactive waste; (2) wast e that the Secretary of Energy has determined, with the concurrence of th e Administrator of the EPA, does not need the degree of isolation required by the 40 CFR Part 191 disposal regulations; or (3) waste that the NRC has approved for disposal on a case-by-case basis in acc ordance with 10 CFR Part 61.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page 162 

### Type A package : A Type A packaging (see Type A packaging definition) along with its limited radioactive contents which are limited to A1 or A2 value. Type A packaging : A packaging designed to retain the integrity of containment (see containment definition) and shielding requi red by regulation under normal conditions of transport as demonstrated by the required test. Type B package : A Type B packaging (see Type B packaging definition) together with its radioactive contents. Type B packaging : Packaging designed to retain the in tegrity of containm ent and shielding by regulation when subjected to the normal conditio ns of transport and hypothetical accident (see accidents definition) test conditions as required.

U Uranium (U) : A heavy, naturally radioactive, meta llic element (atomic number 92). Its two principally occurring isotopes [see isotopes definition] are U-235 and U-238. U-235 is indispensable to the nuclear i ndustry because it is the only isot ope existing in nature to any appreciable extent that is fissi onable by thermal neutrons. U-238 is also important because it absorbs neutrons (see neutrons definition) to produce a radioac tive isotope that subsequently decays to Pu-239, an isotope that also is fissionable by thermal neutrons.

Uranium hexafluoride : A colorless, water insoluble corrosive chemical compound in the nuclear fuel cycle. With the application of h eat, uranium hexafluoride (UF6) becomes a gas used to separate U-235 (the uranium isotope required for reactor fuel) from other uranium isotopes.

V

W

Waste form : Radioactive waste (see radioactive waste definition) material, and any encapsulating or st abilizing matrix. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) : Research and demonstration facility located at Carlsbad, New Mexico. WIPP is designed to dispose of TRUW left from the research and production of nuclear weapons.

WIPP corridor : The designated route for overland tr ansport of HAZMAT (see hazardous material definition) from DOE facilities to the WIPP.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page A-1 

### Appendix A

DISCUSSION PAPERS ON EMERGING TRANSPORTATION RISK ISSUES

This appendix presents papers from transportation risk experts that identify and provide the latest information available on issues related to tran sportation risk assessments. This appendix does not set DOE policy. The discussion papers refl ect only the authors’ views and opinions. Although only one paper is currently presented, othe rs will be added (as appropriate) in future revisions of this handbook.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page A-2 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page A-3 

### Discussion Paper No. 1- Cumulati ve Impacts of Transportation

Abstract This issue paper on cumulative impact arose fr om a need to scope out the cumulative nature, both in activity and time, of tr ansportation risk to the comm unity. This discussion paper summarizes previous NEPA experience from which a consistent approach can be derived. It also highlights the key elements and offers insight in to the current state of knowledge and experience of cumulative impact. Applicati on of the procedures discussed in this paper should consider future advances in knowledge and information to satisfy NEPA requirements.

1 INTRODUCTION CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.25) re quire that the scope of envi ronmental impact statements (EISs) include cumulative impacts. In 40 CF R 1508.7, CEQ defines cumulative impacts as: The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Feder al or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions ta king place over a period of time. In DOE EISs and environmental assessments (EAs ), incident-free and ac cident transportation impacts are typically estimated for people along, near, or sharing transportation routes. These impacts are often presented for the total duration of the alte rnatives, although annual impacts may also be presented. Often, these impacts are known as the “total transportation impacts” of a proposed action or alterna tive, and are not the same as the cumulative impacts of transportation, because cumulative impacts are estimate d across several projects or activities. For incident-free transportation impacts, three meas ures of impact are usua lly presented: (1) the radiological impacts to people along, near, or sharing transportation routes, (2) the nonradiological impacts from vehicle exhaust em issions to people along transportation routes, and (3) the radiological impacts for MEIs. The fi rst two measures of im pact are estimated over the entire transportation network. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider these impacts, along with transportation impacts from other projects or activities, in a cumulativ e impacts analysis, if there is a reasonable belief that the impacts would be coincident with impacts from the other transportation projects or activities. This is often the case for projects that would use a large portion of the interstate highway system over the same time period. Since it is unlikely that the MEI would be the same person for several projects, it is inappropriate to include these impacts in a cumulative impacts analysis. For transportation accident impacts, three measures of impact are usually presented in DOE EIs and EAs: (1) radiological accident risks, (2) nonradiological traffic fatalities, and (3) the radiological consequences for the maximum r easonably foreseeable accident. Radiological accident risks and nonradiological traffic fatalit ies are estimated over th e entire transportation network. However, the radiolog ical consequences from ma ximum reasonably foreseeable accidents are usually estimated at specific types of locations, such as urban or rural areas. SinceA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page A-4 

### it is not reasonably foreseeable that two of th ese transportation accidents would occur in the same location, it is inappropriate to include th ese impacts in a cumulative impacts analysis.

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Existing Requirements/Guidance The requirements for cumulative impacts analys es are contained in the following documents: 1. “CEQ Regulations for Implementing Pr ocedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act,” 40 CFR 1500-1508.

2. Considering Cumulative Impacts Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997).

3. Recommendations for the Preparation of En vironmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements (DOE, 1993). (The guidance in this document is particularly appropriate for DOE projects.) 2.2 History and Experience A large-scale transportation cumulative impacts analysis was performed for the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Environmental Impact Statement (DOE, 1995). The analysis was divided into radiological impacts and vehicular accident impacts. Radiological impacts were further divided into the impacts from (1) historical shipments of SNF and waste, (2) shipments associated with th e alternatives evaluated in the EIS, (3) shipments associated with other reasonably foreseeable actions unrelated to the alternatives eval uated in the EIS, and (4) general radioactive materials transportation unrelated to a particular action. The radiological analysis concentrated on the off-site impacts of incident-free transpor tation, because off-site transportation yields larger doses to members of the public than on-site transportation. The collective dose to the general population and to workers was chos en to quantify transportation cumulative impacts. These doses were usually estimated with the RADTRAN 4 computer code and expressed as cancer fatalities. Individual do ses were not estimated because of the difficulty in identifying a MEI for shipments throughout the United States over an extended period of time. Historical shipments were included in the cumulative impacts analysis because 40 CFR 1508.7 specifically includes past actions in the definition of cumulative impacts. The EM was chosen to quantify transportation cumulative impacts phase s of the historical shipments was on SNF shipments that either originated or terminated at the Hanford Site, the INEL, the SRS, the Oak Ridge Reservation, or the Nevada Test Site. Beca use of the structure of the EIS, historical radioactive waste shipments to the INEL were also evaluated. Data were generally available back to 1971; data were extrapolated back to th e start of operations at each of the five sites because a satisfactory jus tification could not be found to stop at any other point in time. This lack of data and the consequent need for extr apolation were disclosed in the EIS, and, to a limited extent, the extrapolation was validated. All dose assessments were made by using 1990 census data; no attempt was made to use alternativ e census data or to reco nstruct the highway or rail system as it existed in earlier decades. Ag ain, the potential for uncertainty in the analyses was disclosed in the EIS.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page A-5 

### For the shipments associated with the alternatives evaluated in the EIS, a range of doses was presented. These doses were estimated with th e RADTRAN 4 computer code and were also expressed as cancer fatalities. The doses for shipments associated with other re asonably foreseeable actions were obtained from the NEPA documents for those actions. Both DOE actions and actions by other federal agencies were included, based on the de finition of cumulative impacts in 40 CFR 1508.7. Most of these doses were estimated with various versions of RADTRAN. The cumulative transportation impacts analysis did not reestimate the doses fr om other NEPA documents, but instead included the doses that were presented in those documents. A tiered a pproach determined which doses from the other NEPA documents would be included in the analysis for DOE (1995). If an ROD was available for a particular action, the doses asso ciated with the alterna tive chosen in the ROD were included. If an ROD was not available, th e doses associated with the preferred alternative were included. If no preferred alternative was identified, a range of dos es that included the alternatives with the smallest and largest tr ansportation doses was presented. Because NEPA requires evaluating a no-action alternatives, whic h usually do not involve transportation, this often meant that doses ranged from zero to so me maximum value. If an action had not progressed to the preparation of a NEPA documen t, that action was not regarded as reasonably foreseeable. General radioactive materials transportation was included in the cumulative impacts analysis because the definition of cumulative impacts in 40 CFR 1508.7 does not differentiate between actions taken by federal or non-federal agencies a nd private persons; all must be included in the cumulative impacts analysis. The doses for genera l radioactive materials transportation were derived from those presented in NUREG-0170 (NRC, 1977) and Weiner et al. (1991a-b). NUREG-0170 derived doses for the years 1943 through 1982. The year 1943 corresponded to the start of operations at the Oak Ridge Reserv ation. The Weiner et al. (1991a-b) reports were used to derive doses for 1983 through 2035. The year 2035 corresponded to the end of SNF management activities evaluated in the EIS. The uncertainty created by using these extrapolations was disclosed in the EIS. Vehicular accident impacts were chosen as th e other measure of transportation cumulative impact. This measure was chosen because far more fatalities result from the trauma impacts of radioactive materials transportati on traffic accidents than from the radiological impacts. In the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Manage ment Environmental Impact Statement (DOE, 1995), the number of traffic fatalities estimated for sh ipments associated with the alternatives was compared to the baseline number of traffic fataliti es in the United States. In addition, the number of historical traffic fatalities associated with radioactive materials transportation accidents was also compared to the baseline number of traffic fatalities in the United States over a similar time period. A brief description of historical transportation accide nts involving SNF going back to 1949 was also presented. The best available cumulative impact data incl uded impacts that may have been double-counted. Where identifiable, instances of double counting were removed, but litt le effort was made in this area because the existing approach was conservati ve (i.e., overestimated impacts), and continued refinement was not viewed as cost-effective.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page A-6 

### This approach for estimating the cumulative radiol ogical impacts of trans portation has been used in several other DOE EISs, such as the Neva da Test Site EIS (DOE , 1996a), the Container System EIS (U.S. Department of the Navy [U SN], 1996), the Waste Management PEIS (DOE, 1997), the Foreign Research Reactor EIS (DOE , 1996b), the Surplus Plutonium Disposition EIS (DOE, 1999a), and the Yucca Mountai n Repository DEIS (DOE, 1999b).

3 PROPOSED APPROACH Cumulative transportation impacts could be analy zed within the framework established in the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Manage ment Environmental Impact Statement (DOE, 1995). Historical transportation impacts would be estimated to the degr ee practicable and extrapolated to the beginning of operations at the sites analyzed in the EIS. The transportation impacts associated with other reasonably foreseeable actions would be included in the cumulative impacts analysis by using a tiered approach ba sed on other relevant NEPA documents (when available). The cumulative impacts analysis w ould include all reasonably foreseeable future actions; generally these will coincide with the timeframe evaluated in the EIS. General transportation impacts woul d be estimated from the star t of operations at the sites analyzed in the EIS to the conclusion of the actions analyzed in the EIS. Accident impacts would also be evaluated in the cumulative transportation impacts analysis. The analysis would focus on vehicular accident fataliti es. Radiological accident risks would also be included, but it is anticipated that these risks will be a small fraction of the number of vehicular accident fatalities. The radiological consequenc es of maximum reasonably foreseeable accidents would not be included in the cumulative imp acts analysis, because it is not reasonably foreseeable that two such transportation acci dents would occur in the same location. To streamline the preparation of cumulative transportation impact analyses, the NTP could maintain a list of transportation impacts from EI Ss and EAs in the format described above. This collection would enable analysts of individual EAs and EISs to easily incorporate information, such as the transportation impacts associated wi th the alternatives eval uated in other EAs and EISs or the impacts of histori cal shipments from other DOE NE PA documents. The NTP could be responsible for gathering the da ta necessary to compile and mainta in the list. It is anticipated that the list would be updated at each stage of the NEPA process for a project (e.g., at the draft EIS, at the final EIS, and at the ROD). Compilin g and maintaining the list would be coordinated through NEPA compliance officers and NEPA document managers. 4 REFERENCES for discussion paper no. 1 Council on Environmental Quality, 1997, Consider ing Cumulative Impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy, 1993, Recommendati ons for the Preparati on of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, Office of NEPA Oversight, Washington, D.C.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page A-7 

### U.S. Department of Energy, 1995, Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmen tal Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Stat ement, DOE/EIS-0203-F, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy, 1996a, Final Environm ental impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada, DOE/EIS-0243, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, Aug. U.S. Department of Energy, 1996b, Final Enviro nmental Impact Statement on a Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy C oncerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel, DOE/EIS-0218F, Assistant Se cretary for Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., Feb. U.S. Department of Energy, 1997, Final Wast e Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, St orage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste, DOE/EIS-0200-F, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy, 1999a, Surplus Plut onium Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0283, Office of Fissile Material Disposition, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy, 1999b, Draft Enviro nmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, DOE/EIS -0250D, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Las Vegas, Nevada. U.S. Department of the Navy, 1996, Final Enviro nmental Impact Statement for a Container System for the Management of Naval Spen t Nuclear Fuel, DOE/EIS-0251, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Nuclear Propulsion Directorate, Code 08, Nava l Sea Systems Command, Nov. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission, 1977, Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Materi al by Air and Other Modes, NUREG-0170, Washington, D.C. Weiner, R.F., et al., 1991a, “An Approach to Assessing the Impacts of Incident-Free Transportation of Radioactive Materials: I. Air Transportation,” Risk Analysis 11(4):655- 660. Weiner, R.F., et al., 1991b, “An Approach to Assessing the Impact s of Incident-Free Transportation of Radioactive Materials: II. Highway Tran sportation,” Risk Analysis 11(4):661-666.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page A-8 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-1 

### Appendix B

CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENT ATION RELATING TO THE FORMATION AND ORGANIZATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION RISK ASSESSMENT WORKING GROUPA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-2 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-3A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-4A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-5A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-6A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-7A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-8A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-9A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-10A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-11A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-12A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-13 

### Transportation Risk Assessm ent Working Group (TRAWG)

Mission 

### The mission of the TRAWG is to im prove the efficiency and effec tiveness of transportation risk assessments conducted for DOE Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and EA prepared under the NEPA of 1969.

Vision 

### The vision of the TRAWG includes reducing tran sportation risk-assessmen t preparation time and cost, ensuring technical adequacy of such assessments, promoting consistency among DOE programs, and expediting the assessme nt review and approval process.
Responsibilities 

### The specific responsibilities of the TRAWG include the following.

• coordinating among DOE programs

• harmonizing the transportation risk assessment approach within DOE

• providing support to ong oing NEPA projects

• performing expert peer revi ew and approval functions
Membership 

### The TRAWG is composed primarily of members of DOE program offices and seeks to draw upon the technical expertise, insigh ts, and practical experience of those across the DOE complex. Technical Sub-Group The technical subgroup, composed of technical experts (DOE and support contractors), charged with carrying out the specific as signments provided by the TRAWG. Responsibilities The responsibilities of the tech nical group include the following.

• providing technical input a nd assistance to the TRAWG

• defining assessment approaches and methodology

• collecting and ev aluating data

• preparing reports and deliv erables, as scheduled The technical sub-group receives direction fr om and reports direc tly to the TRAWG.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page B-14 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-1 

### Appendix C

ISOTOPIC PROPERTIESA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-2 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-3 

### Table C.1 contains listings of the isotopic data discussed in Section 6.1.11.2. Bla nk entries in the table indicate an absence of data in the given reference. Table C.1. Isotopic Data

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Ac-223 2.2 m 0.0062 4.66E–18 2.07E–16 Ac-224 2.9 h 0.2 1.89E–16 9.00E–15 8.03E–10 3.56E–08 Ac-225 10 d 0.018 1.58E–17 7.21E–16 3.00E–08 2.92E–06 Ac-226 29 h 0.13 1.24E–16 6.03E–15 1.15E–08 3.56E–07 Ac-227 21.773 y 0.0002 1.57E–19 5.82E–18 3.80E–06 1.81E–03 Ac-228 6.13 h 0.9708 9.28E–16 4.78E–14 5.85E–10 8.33E–08 Ag-102 12.9 m 3.3532 3.18E–15 1.67E–13 2.75E–11 9.11E–12 Ag-103 65.7 m 0.7651 7.41E–16 3.68E–14 4.02E–11 1.58E–11 Ag-104 69.2 m 2.6834 2.58E–15 1.32E–13 6.22E–11 1.92E–11 Ag-104m 33.5 m 1.1739 1.12E–15 5.82E–14 4.55E–11 1.69E–11 Ag-105 41 d 0.5254 5.11E–16 2.45E–14 5.52E–10 1.26E–09 Ag-106 23.96 m 0.7108 7.04E–16 3.39E–14 2.28E–11 8.92E–12 Ag-106m 8.41 d 2.8219 2.72E–15 1.38E–13 1.75E–09 1.93E–09 Ag-108 2.37 m 0.0178 1.99E–17 9.28E–16 Ag-108m 127 y 1.6267 1.60E–15 7.80E–14 2.06E–09 7.66E–08 Ag-109m 39.6 s 0.0111 9.71E–18 1.92E–16 Ag-110 24.6 s 0.0306 3.82E–17 1.78E–15 Ag-110m 249.9 d 2.7505 2.65E–15 1.36E–13 2.92E–09 2.17E–08 Ag-111 7.45 d 0.0263 2.67E–17 1.29E–15 1.37E–09 1.66E–09 Ag-112 3.12 h 0.6571 6.33E–16 3.34E–14 4.41E–10 1.79E–10 Ag-115 20 m 0.7069 6.61E–16 3.61E–14 4.31E–11 1.90E–11 Al-26 7.16E+05 y 2.6756 2.49E–15 1.36E–13 3.94E–09 2.15E–08 Al-28 2.24 m 1.7788 1.62E–15 9.28E–14 Am-237 73 m 0.3696 3.54E–16 1.70E–14 1.78E–11 6.47E–12 Am-238 98 m 0.8911 8.50E–16 4.33E–14 3.56E–11 2.32E–10 Am-239 11.9 h 0.2393 2.22E–16 1.04E–14 2.67E–10 1.24E–10 Am-240 50.8 h 1.0287 9.84E–16 5.00E–14 6.83E–10 4.96E–10 Am-241 432.2 y 0.0325 2.75E–17 8.18E–16 9.84E–07 1.20E–04 Am-242 16.02 h 0.0183 1.57E–17 6.15E–16 3.81E–10 1.58E–08 Am-242m 152 y 0.0051 3.02E–18 3.17E–17 9.50E–07 1.15E–04 Am-243 7380 y 0.056 5.35E–17 2.18E–15 9.79E–07 1.19E–04 Am-244 10.1 h 0.8071 7.79E–16 3.85E–14 5.38E–10 4.47E–09 Am-244m 26 m 0.0015 2.61E–18 6.13E–17 2.10E–11 1.90E–10 Am-245 2.05 h 0.0323 3.10E–17 1.46E–15 4.88E–11 2.18E–11 Am-246 39 m 0.6994 6.74E–16 3.28E–14 4.54E–11 1.71E–11 Am-246m 25 m 1.018 9.75E–16 5.03E–14 2.54E–11 9.02E–12 Ar-37 35.02 d 0.0002 0.00E+00 1.27E–19A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-4 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Ar-39 269 y 0 3.38E–19 9.10E–18 Ar-41 1.827 h 1.2836 1.20E–15 6.50E–14 As-69 15.2 m 1.0125 1.01E–15 4.89E–14 3.62E–11 1.32E–11 As-70 52.6 m 4.0954 3.90E–15 2.04E–13 1.13E–10 3.42E–11 As-71 64.8 h 0.5738 5.56E–16 2.74E–14 4.07E–10 3.44E–10 As-72 26 h 1.7938 1.75E–15 8.78E–14 1.64E–09 1.10E–09 As-73 80.3 d 0.016 5.95E–18 1.90E–16 1.91E–10 9.34E–10 As-74 17.76 d 0.7585 7.47E–16 3.65E–14 1.07E–09 2.15E–09 As-76 26.32 h 0.43 4.24E–16 2.13E–14 1.41E–09 1.01E–09 As-77 38.8 h 0.0087 8.95E–18 4.31E–16 3.44E–10 2.85E–10 As-78 90.7 m 1.2522 1.20E–15 6.32E–14 1.81E–10 7.22E–11 At-207 1.8 h 1.3247 1.26E–15 6.52E–14 2.36E–10 6.55E–10 At-211 7.214 h 0.0391 3.62E–17 1.59E–15 1.07E–08 2.76E–08 At-215 0.1 m 0.0001 1.91E–19 9.22E–18 At-216 0.3 m 0.0015 1.41E–18 6.24E–17 At-217 0.0323 s 0.0003 3.03E–19 1.48E–17 At-218 2 s 0.0067 4.18E–18 1.19E–16 Au-193 17.65 h 0.1595 1.53E–16 6.83E–15 1.56E–10 7.82E–11 Au-194 39.5 h 1.0671 1.00E–15 5.29E–14 5.08E–10 2.76E–10 Au-195 183 d 0.0846 7.84E–17 3.21E–15 2.87E–10 3.50E–09 Au-195m 30.5 s 0.2014 1.93E–16 9.37E–15 Au-198 2.696 d 0.4051 4.01E–16 1.94E–14 1.14E–09 8.87E–10 Au-198m 2.3 d 0.5772 5.53E–16 2.66E–14 1.44E–09 1.31E–09 Au-199 3.139 d 0.0888 8.45E–17 4.08E–15 4.82E–10 4.05E–10 Au-200 48.4 m 0.272 2.63E–16 1.37E–14 5.46E–11 2.40E–11 Au-200m 18.7 h 2.0866 2.04E–15 1.01E–13 1.22E–09 5.93E–10 Au-201 26.4 m 0.0534 5.33E–17 2.57E–15 1.68E–11 7.23E–12 Ba-126 96.5 m 0.1631 1.62E–16 7.03E–15 2.46E–10 9.92E–11 Ba-128 2.43 d 0.0761 7.60E-17 2.86E–15 2.84E–09 8.20E–10 Ba-131 11.8 d 0.4589 4.52E–16 2.10E–14 4.98E–10 1.81E–10 Ba-131m 14.6 m 0.0766 7.46E–17 3.04E–15 3.28E–12 1.25E–12 Ba-133 10.74 y 0.4019 3.97E–16 1.78E–14 9.19E–10 2.11E–09 Ba-133m 38.9 h 0.0668 6.59E–17 2.62E–15 5.66E–10 1.68E–10 Ba-135m 28.7 h 0.0601 6.00E–17 2.32E–15 4.60E–10 1.36E–10 Ba-137m 2.552 m 0.5965 5.86E–16 2.88E–14 Ba-139 82.7 m 0.0427 4.59E–17 2.17E–15 1.08E–10 4.64E–11 Ba-140 12.74 d 0.1827 1.80E–16 8.58E–15 2.56E–09 1.01E–09 Ba-141 18.27 m 0.8451 8.15E–16 4.16E–14 5.65E–11 2.18E–11 Ba-142 10.6 m 1.0473 1.01E–15 5.15E–14 3.01E–11 1.11E–11 Be-7 53.3 d 0.0493 4.89E–17 2.36E–15 3.45E–11 8.67E–11 Be-10 1.60E+06 y 0 4.12E–19 1.12E–17 1.26E–09 9.58E–08A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-5 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Bi-200 36.4 m 2.3933 2.32E–15 1.16E–13 4.92E–11 1.78E–11 Bi-201 108 m 1.3388 1.29E–15 6.51E–14 1.27E–10 5.17E–11 Bi-202 1.67 h 2.713 2.61E–15 1.33E–13 9.71E–11 3.42E–11 Bi-203 11.76 h 2.384 2.23E–15 1.20E–13 5.80E–10 2.24E–10 Bi-204 11.22 h 3.0638 Bi-205 15.31 d 1.6903 1.58E–15 8.49E–14 1.08E–09 1.17E–09 Bi-206 6.243 d 3.2781 3.14E–15 1.61E–13 2.27E–09 1.77E–09 Bi-207 38 y 1.5398 1.48E–15 7.54E–14 1.48E–09 5.41E–09 Bi-210 5.012 d 0 1.05E–18 3.29E–17 1.73E–09 5.29E–08 Bi-210m 3.00E+06 y 0.2567 2.50E–16 1.22E–14 2.59E–08 2.05E–06 Bi-211 2.14 m 0.0467 4.58E–17 2.22E–15 Bi-212 60.55 m 0.1855 1.79E–16 9.24E–15 2.87E–10 5.83E–09 Bi-213 45.65 m 0.1331 1.32E–16 6.39E–15 1.95E–10 4.63E–09 Bi-214 19.9 m 1.5082 1.41E–15 7.65E–14 7.64E–11 1.78E–09 Bk-245 4.94 d 0.2342 2.20E–16 1.04E–14 6.52E–10 1.19E–09 Bk-246 1.83 d 0.9513 9.15E–16 4.59E–14 5.68E–10 4.63E–10 Bk-247 1380 y 0.1054 1.01E–16 4.71E–15 1.27E–06 1.55E–04 Bk-249 320 d 0 6.85E–21 8.21E–20 3.24E–09 3.75E–07 Bk-250 3.222 h 0.8866 8.51E–16 4.38E–14 1.57E–10 2.04E–09 Br-74 25.3 m 4.5488 4.04E–15 2.38E–13 5.05E–11 2.33E–11 Br-74m 41.5 m 4.0823 3.79E–15 2.08E–13 8.16E–11 4.43E–11 Br-75 98 m 1.2157 1.20E–15 5.84E–14 4.94E–11 3.54E–11 Br-76 16.2 h 2.6329 2.44E–15 1.34E–13 3.66E–10 4.32E–10 Br-77 56 h 0.3208 3.09E–16 1.51E–14 8.24E–11 7.46E–11 Br-80 17.4 m 0.0796 7.89E–17 3.85E–15 1.58E–11 7.62E–12 Br-80m 4.42 h 0.024 1.70E–17 3.11E–16 7.45E–11 1.06E–10 Br-82 35.3 h 2.6419 2.55E–15 1.30E–13 4.62E–10 4.13E–10 Br-83 2.39 h 0.0075 8.13E–18 3.82E–16 2.47E–11 2.41E–11 Br-84 31.8 m 1.7875 1.60E–15 9.41E–14 4.91E–11 2.61E–11 C-11 20.38 m 1.0195 1.01E–15 4.89E–14 3.29E–12 3.29E–12 C-14 5730 y 0 1.61E–20 2.24E–19 5.64E–10 5.64E–10 Ca-41 1.40E+05 y 0.0004 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.44E–10 3.64E–10 Ca-45 163 d 0 4.61E–20 8.63E–19 8.55E–10 1.79E–09 Ca-47 4.53 d 1.0627 1.00E–15 5.36E–14 1.76E–09 1.77E–09 Ca-49 8.716 m 3.1646 2.63E–15 1.73E–13 Cd-104 57.7 m 0.2585 2.50E–16 1.14E–14 6.30E–11 2.04E–11 Cd-107 6.49 h 0.034 2.98E–17 6.02E–16 6.76E–11 2.94E–11 Cd-109 464 d 0.0263 2.25E–17 2.94E–16 3.55E–09 3.09E–08 Cd-113 9.3E+15 y 0 6.99E–20 1.45E–18 4.70E–08 4.51E–07 Cd-113m 13.6 y 0 2.63E–19 6.94E–18 4.35E–08 4.13E–07 Cd-115 53.46 h 0.2329 2.31E–16 1.12E–14 1.54E–09 1.14E–09A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-6 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Cd-115m 44.6 d 0.0219 2.34E–17 1.17E–15 4.37E–09 1.95E–08 Cd-117 2.49 h 1.0869 1.03E–15 5.45E–14 3.03E–10 1.22E–10 Cd-117m 3.36 h 2.0443 1.88E–15 1.05E–13 3.21E–10 1.18E–10 Ce-134 72 h 0.0262 2.79E–17 4.71E–16 2.81E–09 2.21E–09 Ce-135 17.6 h 1.7761 1.75E–15 8.54E–14 9.37E–10 4.29E–10 Ce-137 9 h 0.0355 3.65E–17 8.81E–16 2.79E–11 1.13E–11 Ce-137m 34.4 h 0.0529 5.31E–17 1.96E–15 5.94E–10 3.82E–10 Ce-139 137.66 d 0.1595 1.56E–16 6.73E–15 3.09E–10 2.45E–09 Ce-141 32.501 d 0.0762 7.38E–17 3.43E–15 7.83E–10 2.42E–09 Ce-143 33 h 0.2824 2.79E–16 1.29E–14 1.23E–09 9.16E–10 Ce-144 284.3 d 0.0207 2.03E–17 8.53E–16 5.68E–09 1.01E–07 Cf-244 19.4 m 0.0019 1.14E–18 6.91E–18 5.15E–11 2.68E–09 Cf-246 35.7 h 0.0013 7.88E–19 5.48E–18 3.86E–09 1.62E–07 Cf-248 333.5 d 0.0013 7.74E–19 4.73E–18 9.04E–08 1.37E–05 Cf-249 350.6 y 0.3351 3.28E–16 1.58E–14 1.28E–06 1.56E–04 Cf-250 13.08 y 0.0012 7.37E–19 4.50E–18 5.76E–07 7.08E–05 Cf-251 898 y 0.1317 1.22E–16 5.58E–15 1.31E–06 1.59E–04 Cf-252 2.638 y 0.0012 7.22E–19 5.06E–18 2.93E–07 4.24E–05 Cf-253 17.81 d 0 6.45E–20 1.08E–18 3.78E–09 8.43E–07 Cf-254 60.5 d 0 2.40E–21 1.47E–20 6.55E–07 7.93E–05 Cl-36 3.01E+05 y 0.0001 6.73E–19 2.23E–17 8.18E–10 5.93E–09 Cl-38 37.21 m 1.4884 1.34E–15 7.87E–14 6.36E–11 3.62E–11 Cl-39 55.6 m 1.4381 1.35E–15 7.29E–14 4.96E–11 3.06E–11 Cm-238 2.4 h 0.0771 7.10E–17 3.25E–15 9.20E–11 1.44E–09 Cm-240 27 d 0.002 1.05E–18 6.00E–18 1.69E–08 2.17E–06 Cm-241 32.8 d 0.5015 4.85E–16 2.31E–14 1.21E–09 3.97E–08 Cm-242 162.8 d 0.0018 9.56E–19 5.69E–18 3.10E–08 4.67E–06 Cm-243 28.5 y 0.1342 1.25E–16 5.88E–15 6.79E–07 8.30E–05 Cm-244 18.11 y 0.0016 8.78E–19 4.91E–18 5.45E–07 6.70E–05 Cm-245 8500 y 0.0956 8.70E–17 3.96E–15 1.01E–06 1.23E–04 Cm-246 4730 y 0.0015 7.85E–19 4.46E–18 1.00E–06 1.22E–04 Cm-247 1.56E+07 y 0.3156 3.10E–16 1.50E–14 9.24E–07 1.12E–04 Cm-248 3.39E+05 y 0.0011 6.00E–19 3.39E–18 3.68E–06 4.47E–04 Cm-249 64.15 m 0.0191 1.94E–17 9.36E–16 2.70E–11 5.22E–11 Cm-250 6900 y 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.10E–05 2.54E–03 Co-55 17.54 h 1.9942 1.93E–15 9.78E–14 1.18E–09 5.65E–10 Co-56 78.76 d 3.5801 3.29E–15 1.83E–13 3.41E–09 1.07E–08 Co-57 270.9 d 0.1252 1.15E–16 5.61E–15 3.20E–10 2.45E–09 Co-58 70.8 d 0.9756 9.50E–16 4.76E–14 9.68E–10 2.94E–09 Co-58m 9.15 h 0.002 9.32E–21 8.77E–20 2.46E–11 2.54E–11 Co-60 5.271 y 2.5043 2.35E–15 1.26E–13 7.28E–09 5.91E–08A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-7 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Co-60m 10.47 m 0.0068 4.42E–18 2.17E–16 9.82E–13 5.74E–13 Co-61 1.65 h 0.0906 9.02E–17 3.94E–15 7.11E–11 2.86E–11 Co-62m 13.91 m 2.6978 2.52E–15 1.37E–13 3.10E–11 9.50E–12 Cr-48 22.96 h 0.4358 4.23E–16 2.06E–14 2.47E–10 2.37E–10 Cr-49 42.09 m 1.055 1.04E–15 5.03E–14 4.98E–11 1.96E–11 Cr-51 27.704 d 0.0325 3.08E–17 1.51E–15 3.98E–11 9.03E–11 Cs-125 45 m 0.6783 6.69E–16 3.22E–14 1.96E–11 1.12E–11 Cs-126 1.64 m 1.0858 1.09E–15 5.24E–14 Cs-127 6.25 h 0.4199 4.14E–16 1.93E–14 2.12E–11 1.59E–11 Cs-128 3.9 m 0.9004 8.94E–16 4.32E–14 Cs-129 32.06 h 0.2815 2.79E–16 1.24E–14 5.89E–11 4.29E–11 Cs-130 29.9 m 0.5167 5.12E–16 2.45E–14 1.55E–11 8.07E–12 Cs-131 9.69 d 0.0228 2.39E–17 3.28E–16 6.67E–11 4.50E–11 Cs-132 6.475 d 0.705 6.93E–16 3.34E–14 5.12E–10 3.32E–10 Cs-134 2.062 y 1.5551 1.52E–15 7.57E–14 1.98E–08 1.25E–08 Cs-134m 2.9 h 0.0267 2.59E–17 9.05E–16 1.33E–11 1.18E–11 Cs-135 2.30E+06 y 0 3.33E–20 5.65E–19 1.91E–09 1.23E–09 Cs-135m 53 m 1.5857 1.54E–15 7.76E–14 1.50E–11 6.68E–12 Cs-136 13.1 d 2.1656 2.09E–15 1.06E–13 3.04E–09 1.98E–09 Cs-137 30 y 0 2.85E–19 7.74E–18 1.35E–08 8.63E–09 Cs-138 32.2 m 2.361 2.19E–15 1.21E–13 5.25E–11 2.74E–11 Cu-57 233 m 1.0631 Cu-60 23.2 m 3.8978 3.63E–15 1.98E–13 5.21E–11 1.87E–11 Cu-61 3.408 h 0.8285 8.15E–16 3.99E–14 1.18E–10 5.06E–11 Cu-62 9.74 m 1.0067 1.00E–15 4.86E–14 Cu-64 12.701 h 0.1906 1.87E–16 9.10E–15 1.26E–10 7.48E–11 Cu-66 5.1 m 0.0847 8.78E–17 4.46E–15 Cu-67 61.86 h 0.1153 1.11E–16 5.41E–15 3.55E–10 3.32E–10 Dy-155 10 h 0.5824 5.60E–16 2.77E–14 1.56E–10 6.00E–11 Dy-157 8.1 h 0.3565 3.51E–16 1.63E–14 7.60E–11 2.16E–11 Dy-159 144.4 d 0.045 4.65E–17 1.25E–15 1.20E–10 6.56E–10 Dy-165 2.334 h 0.026 2.69E–17 1.20E–15 9.81E–11 3.62E–11 Dy-166 81.6 h 0.0402 4.01E–17 1.40E–15 1.79E–09 2.02E–09 Er-161 3.24 h 0.9142 8.83E–16 4.42E–14 9.26E–11 2.45E–11 Er-165 10.36 h 0.0376 3.84E–17 1.11E–15 2.23E–11 8.08E–12 Er-167m 2.28 s 0.0968 Er-169 9.3 d 0 8.10E–20 1.74E–18 4.06E–10 5.64E–10 Er-171 7.52 h 0.3812 3.73E–16 1.78E–14 3.91E–10 1.52E–10 Er-172 49.3 h 0.5223 5.15E–16 2.47E–14 1.14E–09 1.11E–09 Es-250 2.1 h 0.3971 3.78E–16 1.90E–14 3.20E–11 1.30E–09 Es-251 33 h 0.0984 9.09E–17 4.13E–15 2.00E–10 1.28E–09A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-8 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Es-253 20.47 d 0.0011 8.18E–19 1.83E–17 9.10E–09 1.07E–06 Es-254 275.7 d 0.0191 1.27E–17 1.93E–16 8.47E–08 1.11E–05 Es-254m 39.3 h 0.4695 4.60E–16 2.25E–14 4.83E–09 1.51E–07 Eu-145 5.94 d 1.4577 1.38E–15 7.22E–14 9.12E–10 7.41E–10 Eu-146 4.61 d 2.504 2.42E–15 1.23E–13 1.54E–09 1.05E–09 Eu-147 24 d 0.4968 4.83E–16 2.32E–14 5.36E–10 9.55E–10 Eu-148 54.5 d 2.1772 2.12E–15 1.06E–13 1.55E–09 3.87E–09 Eu-149 93.1 d 0.0632 6.41E–17 2.25E–15 1.24E–10 5.10E–10 Eu-150a 12.62 h 0.0468 4.65E–17 2.21E–15 4.05E–10 1.82E–10 Eu-150b 34.2 y 1.4964 1.46E–15 7.17E–14 1.72E–09 7.25E–08 Eu-152 13.33 y 1.1545 1.10E–15 5.65E–14 1.75E–09 5.97E–08 Eu-152m 9.32 h 0.2934 2.86E–16 1.42E–14 5.40E–10 2.21E–10 Eu-154 8.8 y 1.2415 1.19E–15 6.14E–14 2.58E–09 7.73E–08 Eu-155 4.96 y 0.0605 5.90E–17 2.49E–15 4.13E–10 1.12E–08 Eu-156 15.19 d 1.3293 1.23E–15 6.75E–14 2.48E–09 3.82E–09 Eu-157 15.15 h 0.2619 2.61E–16 1.17E–14 6.59E–10 3.01E–10 Eu-158 45.9 m 1.0567 1.01E–15 5.27E–14 7.71E–11 2.54E–11 F-18 109.77 m 1.022 1.01E–15 4.90E–14 3.31E–11 2.26E–11 Fe-52 8.275 h 0.7404 7.27E–16 3.54E–14 1.51E–09 5.92E–10 Fe-55 2.7 y 0.0016 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.64E–10 7.26E–10 Fe-59 44.529 d 1.1888 1.12E–15 5.97E–14 1.81E–09 4.00E–09 Fe-60 1.00E+05 y 0 1.48E–20 1.95E–19 4.12E–08 2.02E–07 Fm-252 22.7 h 0.0011 7.56E–19 5.03E–18 3.10E–09 1.14E–07 Fm-253 3 d 0.0829 7.70E–17 3.53E–15 1.37E–09 1.56E–07 Fm-254 3.24 h 0.0012 8.28E–19 6.57E–18 4.69E–10 1.57E–08 Fm-255 20.07 h 0.0136 8.22E–18 1.10E–16 2.80E–09 7.21E–08 Fm-257 100.5 d 0.1108 1.03E–16 4.66E–15 4.08E–08 6.32E–06 Fr-219 21 m 0.0034 3.43E–18 1.66E–16 Fr-220 27.4 s 0.0121 1.05E–17 4.92E–16 Fr-221 4.8 m 0.031 2.98E–17 1.46E–15 Fr-222 14.4 m 0 3.38E–18 1.17E–16 6.64E–10 3.32E–09 Fr-223 21.8 m 0.0594 5.65E–17 2.29E–15 2.33E–09 1.68E–09 Ga-65 15.2 m 1.1762 1.16E–15 5.65E–14 2.42E–11 9.07E–12 Ga-66 9.4 h 2.4733 2.22E–15 1.29E–13 1.30E–09 5.03E–10 Ga-67 78.26 h 0.158 1.49E–16 7.20E–15 2.12E–10 1.51E–10 Ga-68 68 m 0.9507 9.41E–16 4.58E–14 9.24E–11 3.74E–11 Ga-70 21.15 m 0.0075 9.82E–18 4.62E–16 2.03E–11 8.52E–12 Ga-72 14.1 h 2.711 2.50E–15 1.39E–13 1.25E–09 5.02E–10 Ga-73 4.91 h 0.3156 3.05E–16 1.48E–14 2.79E–10 1.03E–10 Gd-145 22.9 m 2.2574 2.08E–15 1.15E–13 3.36E–11 1.22E–11 Gd-146 48.3 d 0.2501 2.46E–16 9.95E–15 1.12E–09 1.03E–08A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-9 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Gd-147 38.1 h 1.3372 1.30E–15 6.45E–14 7.42E–10 4.07E–10 Gd-148 93 y 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.89E–08 8.91E–05 Gd-149 9.4 d 0.4202 4.12E–16 1.92E–14 5.41E–10 6.18E–10 Gd-151 120 d 0.0638 6.38E–17 2.20E–15 2.23E–10 2.40E–09 Gd-152 1.08E+14 y 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.34E–08 6.58E–05 Gd-153 242 d 0.1055 1.06E–16 3.71E–15 3.17E–10 6.43E–09 Gd-159 18.56 h 0.0499 5.02E–17 2.21E–15 5.35E–10 2.64E–10 Ge-66 2.27 h 0.6868 6.70E–16 3.25E–14 5.68E–11 8.56E–11 Ge-67 18.7 m 1.4064 1.38E–15 6.86E–14 3.52E–11 1.64E–11 Ge-68 288 d 0.0041 2.16E–20 7.37E–20 2.89E–10 1.40E–08 Ge-69 39.05 h 0.8734 8.44E–16 4.27E–14 1.01E–10 2.27E–10 Ge-71 11.8 d 0.0041 2.18E–20 7.47E–20 2.60E–12 3.31E–11 Ge-75 82.78 m 0.0341 3.44E–17 1.68E–15 2.54E–11 1.92E–11 Ge-77 11.3 h 1.0863 1.05E–15 5.32E–14 1.55E–10 2.85E–10 Ge-78 87 m 0.278 2.71E–16 1.34E–14 7.19E–11 7.75E–11 H-3 12.35 y 0 0.00E+00 3.31E–19 1.73E–11 1.73E–11 Hf-170 16.01 h 0.5492 5.37E–16 2.52E–14 5.73E–10 3.23E–10 Hf-172 1.87 y 0.1178 1.13E–16 4.06E–15 1.21E–09 8.60E–08 Hf-173 24 h 0.4075 3.96E–16 1.85E–14 2.71E–10 1.29E–10 Hf-175 70 d 0.3691 3.63E–16 1.69E–14 4.92E–10 1.51E–09 Hf-177m 51.4 m 2.2519 2.20E–15 1.06E–13 7.43E–11 2.67E–11 Hf-178m 31 y 2.358 2.31E–15 1.12E–13 5.68E–09 6.65E–07 Hf-179m 25.1 d 0.9012 8.82E–16 4.21E–14 1.46E–09 2.73E–09 Hf-180m 5.5 h 1.0078 9.89E–16 4.74E–14 1.98E–10 6.30E–11 Hf-181 42.4 d 0.5554 5.46E–16 2.62E–14 1.27E–09 4.17E–09 Hf-182 9.00E+06 y 0.2394 2.33E–16 1.14E–14 4.29E–09 8.98E–07 Hf-182m 61.5 m 0.933 9.10E–16 4.43E–14 3.93E–11 1.68E–11 Hf-183 64 m 0.7515 7.34E–16 3.63E–14 6.87E–11 3.16E–11 Hf-184 4.12 h 0.2505 2.40E–16 1.14E–14 5.82E–10 2.31E–10 Hg-193 3.5 h 0.2027 1.92E–16 8.69E–15 9.23E–11 5.01E–11 Hg-193m 11.1 h 1.0455 9.99E–16 5.05E–14 4.65E–10 2.08E–10 Hg-194 260 y 0.0027 2.05E–19 6.92E–19 7.78E–08 4.90E–08 Hg-195 9.9 h 0.2038 1.94E–16 9.20E–15 1.09E–10 5.58E–11 Hg-195m 41.6 h 0.2139 2.02E–16 9.63E–15 6.21E–10 4.14E–10 Hg-197 64.1 h 0.07 6.42E–17 2.66E–15 2.59E–10 1.92E–10 Hg-197m 23.8 h 0.0943 8.70E–17 4.05E–15 5.14E–10 3.23E–10 Hg-199m 42.6 m 0.1861 1.77E–16 8.36E–15 2.44E–11 1.82E–11 Hg-203 46.6 d 0.2381 2.32E–16 1.13E–14 3.09E–09 1.98E–09 Hg-206 8.15 m 0.1057 Ho-155 48 m 0.3868 3.82E–16 1.79E–14 3.50E–11 1.21E–11 Ho-157 12.6 m 0.4928 4.83E–16 2.24E–14 5.42E–12 1.41E–12A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-10 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Ho-159 33 m 0.3661 3.58E–16 1.60E–14 6.92E–12 1.76E–12 Ho-161 2.5 h 0.0615 6.15E–17 1.73E–15 1.35E–11 4.20E–12 Ho-162 15 m 0.1676 1.63E–16 7.35E–15 2.27E–12 6.36E–13 Ho-162m 68 m 0.5756 5.51E–16 2.74E–14 2.61E–11 6.80E–12 Ho-164 29 m 0.0296 3.03E–17 9.05E–16 6.73E–12 2.35E–12 Ho-164m 37.5 m 0.0472 4.63E–17 1.32E–15 1.44E–11 5.14E–12 Ho-166 26.8 h 0.029 3.01E–17 1.42E–15 1.51E–09 8.48E–10 Ho-166m 1200 y 1.747 1.70E–15 8.45E–14 2.18E–09 2.09E–07 Ho-167 3.1 h 0.3654 3.59E–16 1.73E–14 8.90E–11 2.94E–11 I-120 81 m 2.7294 2.56E–15 1.38E–13 2.08E–10 1.20E–10 I-120m 53 m 5.2972 5.02E–15 2.65E–13 1.34E–10 7.15E–11 I-121 2.12 h 0.4188 4.09E–16 1.94E–14 5.39E–11 3.21E–11 I-122 3.62 m 0.9458 9.40E–16 4.56E–14 I-123 13.2 h 0.1717 1.66E–16 7.28E–15 1.43E–10 8.01E–11 I-124 4.18 d 1.0982 1.05E–15 5.38E–14 8.60E–09 5.23E–09 I-125 60.14 d 0.042 4.27E–17 5.22E–16 1.04E–08 6.53E–09 I-126 13.02 d 0.4548 4.47E–16 2.15E–14 1.92E–08 1.20E–08 I-128 24.99 m 0.085 8.77E–17 4.16E–15 2.43E–11 1.28E–11 I-129 1.57E+07 y 0.0246 2.58E–17 3.80E–16 7.46E–08 4.69E–08 I-130 12.36 h 2.1385 2.10E–15 1.04E–13 1.28E–09 7.14E–10 I-131 8.04 d 0.3815 3.76E–16 1.82E–14 1.44E–08 8.89E–09 I-132 2.3 h 2.2804 2.21E–15 1.12E–13 1.82E–10 1.03E–10 I-132m 83.6 m 0.3222 3.15E–16 1.53E–14 1.42E–10 8.10E–11 I-133 20.8 h 0.6071 5.97E–16 2.94E–14 2.80E–09 1.58E–09 I-134 52.6 m 2.6252 2.53E–15 1.30E–13 6.66E–11 3.55E–11 I-135 6.61 h 1.5762 1.47E–15 7.98E–14 6.08E–10 3.32E–10 In-109 4.2 h 0.6722 6.46E–16 3.21E–14 7.64E–11 3.21E–11 In-110a 69.1 m 1.5569 1.51E–15 7.62E–14 2.86E–10 8.32E–11 In-110b 4.9 h 3.0494 2.96E–15 1.49E–13 9.39E–11 3.66E–11 In-111 2.83 d 0.4053 3.90E–16 1.86E–14 3.59E–10 2.27E–10 In-111m 7.7 m 0.4694 In-112 14.4 m 0.2677 2.64E–16 1.26E–14 6.46E–12 2.44E–12 In-113m 1.658 h 0.2576 2.54E–16 1.21E–14 2.83E–11 1.11E–11 In-114 71.9 s 0.0027 2.70E–18 1.39E–16 In-114m 49.51 d 0.0944 9.15E–17 4.18E–15 4.61E–09 2.40E–08 In-115 5.1E+15 y 0 1.81E–19 4.50E–18 4.26E–08 1.01E–06 In-115m 4.486 h 0.1611 1.58E–16 7.39E–15 9.33E–11 3.59E–11 In-116m 54.15 m 2.4732 2.32E–15 1.25E–13 5.93E–11 2.06E–11 In-117 43.8 m 0.6921 6.79E–16 3.31E–14 2.59E–11 9.95E–12 In-117m 116.5 m 0.0909 8.96E–17 4.19E–15 1.15E–10 4.78E–11 In-119 2.4 m 0.7689 7.53E–16 3.74E–14A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-11 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) In-119m 18 m 0.0112 1.69E–17 6.14E–16 2.88E–11 1.20E–11 Ir-182 15 m 1.3398 1.31E–15 6.50E–14 3.45E–11 1.31E–11 Ir-184 3.02 h 1.9083 1.82E–15 9.38E–14 1.88E–10 6.21E–11 Ir-185 14 h 0.6008 5.52E–16 2.94E–14 3.00E–10 1.48E–10 Ir-186a 15.8 h 1.6409 1.56E–15 8.06E–14 5.86E–10 2.46E–10 Ir-186b 1.75 h 0.9637 9.30E–16 4.65E–14 Ir-187 10.5 h 0.3632 3.51E–16 1.68E–14 1.42E–10 5.67E–11 Ir-188 41.5 h 1.5839 1.46E–15 8.01E–14 7.73E–10 4.17E–10 Ir-189 13.3 d 0.0813 7.69E–17 3.21E–15 2.84E–10 4.46E–10 Ir-190 12.1 d 1.4427 1.41E–15 6.86E–14 1.47E–09 1.73E–09 Ir-190m 1.2 h 0.0019 3.81E–20 1.27E–19 8.54E–12 8.24E–12 Ir-190n 3.1 h 1.5546 1.53E–15 7.39E–14 Ir-191m 4.94 s 0.0747 6.91E–17 3.02E–15 Ir-192 74.02 d 0.8179 8.03E–16 3.91E–14 1.55E–09 7.61E–09 Ir-192m 241 y 0.161 1.55E–16 7.63E–15 4.23E–10 1.04E–07 Ir-194 19.15 h 0.0903 9.16E–17 4.54E–15 1.43E–09 7.84E–10 Ir-194m 171 d 2.3353 2.30E–15 1.12E–13 2.46E–09 1.85E–08 Ir-195 2.5 h 0.0585 5.52E–17 2.32E–15 9.25E–11 3.75E–11 Ir-195m 3.8 h 0.4319 4.07E–16 1.93E–14 1.76E–10 6.74E–11 K-38 7.636 m 3.1868 2.92E–15 1.64E–13 K-40 1.28E+09 y 0.1563 1.46E–16 8.05E–15 5.02E–09 3.34E–09 K-42 12.36 h 0.2759 2.66E–16 1.46E–14 3.06E–10 3.67E–10 K-43 22.6 h 0.9699 9.55E–16 4.67E–14 2.08E–10 1.87E–10 K-44 22.13 m 2.2671 2.04E–15 1.19E–13 4.67E–11 2.24E–11 K-45 20 m 1.8662 1.69E–15 9.67E–14 3.01E–11 1.39E–11 Kr-74 11.5 m 1.1687 1.15E–15 5.59E–14 Kr-76 14.8 h 0.435 4.20E–16 2.03E–14 Kr-77 74.7 m 1.016 9.99E–16 4.86E–14 Kr-79 35.04 h 0.2574 2.47E–16 1.21E–14 Kr-81 2.10E+05 y 0.0117 6.15E–18 2.67E–16 Kr-81m 13 s 0.1308 1.24E–16 6.14E–15 Kr-83m 1.83 h 0.0026 3.80E–19 1.50E–18 Kr-85 10.72 y 0.0022 2.64E–18 1.19E–16 Kr-85m 4.48 h 0.1581 1.52E–16 7.48E–15 Kr-87 76.3 m 0.793 7.32E–16 4.12E–14 Kr-88 2.84 h 1.9545 1.74E–15 1.02E–13 La-131 59 m 0.6709 6.61E–16 3.14E–14 3.22E–11 1.40E–11 La-132 4.8 h 2.0105 1.90E–15 1.00E–13 4.30E–10 1.48E–10 La-134 6.67 m 0.6978 6.93E–16 3.35E–14 La-135 19.5 h 0.0357 3.71E–17 9.21E–16 3.66E–11 1.60E–11 La-137 6.00E+04 y 0.0242 2.57E–17 4.06E–16 1.23E–10 2.37E–08A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-12 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) La-138 1.35E+11 y 1.2364 1.16E–15 6.20E–14 1.59E–09 3.70E–07 La-140 40.272 h 2.3149 2.16E–15 1.17E–13 2.28E–09 1.31E–09 La-141 3.93 h 0.0429 4.54E–17 2.39E–15 3.74E–10 1.57E–10 La-142 92.5 m 2.7529 2.46E–15 1.44E–13 1.79E–10 6.84E–11 La-143 14.23 m 0.0939 9.71E–17 5.18E–15 3.77E–11 1.62E–11 Lu-169 34.06 h 1.0409 9.86E–16 5.09E–14 5.49E–10 3.64E–10 Lu-170 2 d 2.4841 2.24E–15 1.28E–13 1.23E–09 6.96E–10 Lu-171 8.22 d 0.6973 6.80E–16 3.25E–14 7.85E–10 8.07E–10 Lu-172 6.7 d 1.8882 1.81E–15 9.25E–14 1.53E–09 1.35E–09 Lu-173 1.37 y 0.1296 1.28E–16 5.10E–15 2.95E–10 6.09E–09 Lu-174 3.31 y 0.1256 1.20E–16 5.46E–15 3.01E–10 1.07E–08 Lu-174m 142 d 0.0633 6.04E–17 2.18E–15 5.77E–10 6.86E–09 Lu-176 3.6E+10 y 0.4913 4.78E–16 2.32E–14 1.98E–09 1.79E–07 Lu-176m 3.68 h 0.0143 1.47E–17 5.87E–16 1.73E–10 7.21E–11 Lu-177 6.71 d 0.035 3.39E–17 1.62E–15 5.81E–10 6.63E–10 Lu-177m 160.9 d 1.0031 9.77E–16 4.67E–14 1.99E–09 1.98E–08 Lu-178 28.4 m 0.1398 1.34E–16 7.09E–15 3.32E–11 1.26E–11 Lu-178m 22.7 m 1.1086 1.09E–15 5.23E–14 2.76E–11 8.84E–12 Lu-179 4.59 h 0.0309 3.13E–17 1.52E–15 2.17E–10 9.13E–11 Md-257 5.2 h 0.1136 1.08E–16 5.03E–15 1.89E–10 1.55E–08 Md-258 55 d 0.0062 4.51E–18 5.08E–17 3.19E–08 4.47E–06 Mg-28 20.91 h 1.3705 1.30E–15 6.79E–14 2.18E–09 1.33E–09 Mn-51 46.2 m 0.9977 9.91E–16 4.80E–14 7.51E–11 3.10E–11 Mn-52 5.591 d 3.4576 3.29E–15 1.72E–13 2.05E–09 1.54E–09 Mn-52m 21.1 m 2.4088 2.30E–15 1.20E–13 4.88E–11 1.83E–11 Mn-53 3.70E+06 y 0.0013 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.92E–11 1.35E–10 Mn-54 312.5 d 0.836 8.12E–16 4.09E–14 7.48E–10 1.81E–09 Mn-56 2.5785 h 1.6915 1.58E–15 8.61E–14 2.64E–10 1.02E–10 Mo-90 5.67 h 0.8273 7.96E–16 3.93E–14 7.19E–10 3.34E–10 Mo-93 3500 y 0.0106 5.34E–18 2.52E–17 3.64E–10 7.68E–09 Mo-93m 6.85 h 2.2504 2.12E–15 1.13E–13 3.22E–10 1.04E–10 Mo-99 66 h 0.15 1.47E–16 7.28E–15 1.36E–09 1.07E–09 Mo-101 14.62 m 1.368 1.29E–15 6.87E–14 2.97E–11 1.12E–11 N-13 9.965 m 1.0201 1.01E–15 4.90E–14 Na-22 2.602 y 2.1925 2.10E–15 1.08E–13 3.10E–09 2.07E–09 Na-24 15 h 4.1212 3.61E–15 2.18E–13 3.84E–10 3.27E–10 Nb-88 14.3 m 4.1264 4.01E–15 2.02E–13 2.40E–11 7.27E–12 Nb-89a 66 m 1.9253 1.90E–15 9.26E–14 1.31E–10 4.83E–11 Nb-89b 122 m 1.3909 1.32E–15 6.98E–14 2.77E–10 1.11E–10 Nb-90 14.6 h 4.2244 3.84E–15 2.17E–13 1.46E–09 6.19E–10 Nb-93m 13.6 y 0.0019 9.39E–19 4.44E–18 1.41E–10 7.90E–09A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-13 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Nb-94 2.03E+04 y 1.5737 1.53E–15 7.70E–14 1.93E–09 1.12E–07 Nb-95 35.15 d 0.7658 7.48E–16 3.74E–14 6.95E–10 1.57E–09 Nb-95m 86.6 h 0.0683 6.26E–17 2.93E–15 6.22E–10 6.59E–10 Nb-96 23.35 h 2.4721 2.39E–15 1.21E–13 1.27E–09 6.19E–10 Nb-97 72.1 m 0.6554 6.45E–16 3.18E–14 6.30E–11 2.24E–11 Nb-97m 60 s 0.7281 7.12E–16 3.55E–14 Nb-98 51.5 m 2.426 2.33E–15 1.21E–13 1.02E–10 3.31E–11 Nd-136 50.65 m 0.2932 2.90E–16 1.27E–14 9.62E–11 3.12E–11 Nd-138 5.04 h 0.0431 4.45E–17 1.27E–15 6.89E–10 2.78E–10 Nd-139 29.7 m 0.4055 4.00E–16 1.90E–14 1.63E–11 5.73E–12 Nd-139m 5.5 h 1.5715 1.52E–15 7.63E–14 2.94E–10 1.01E–10 Nd-141 2.49 h 0.0753 7.55E–17 2.88E–15 9.18E–12 2.78E–12 Nd-141m 62.4 s 0.7594 7.42E–16 3.70E–14 Nd-147 10.98 d 0.1402 1.39E–16 6.19E–15 1.18E–09 1.85E–09 Nd-149 1.73 h 0.3841 3.77E–16 1.81E–14 1.26E–10 6.05E–11 Nd-151 12.44 m 0.9163 8.82E–16 4.48E–14 2.13E–11 8.43E–12 Ne-19 17.22 s 1.022 1.02E–15 4.92E–14 Ni-56 6.1 d 1.7207 1.66E–15 8.41E–14 1.05E–09 1.12E–09 Ni-57 36.08 h 1.9219 1.80E–15 9.69E–14 1.02E–09 5.11E–10 Ni-59 7.50E+04 y 0.0024 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.67E–11 7.31E–10 Ni-63 96 y 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.56E–10 1.70E–09 Ni-65 2.52 h 0.5486 5.15E–16 2.79E–14 1.68E–10 9.32E–11 Ni-66 54.6 h 0 3.49E–20 6.16E–19 3.24E–09 2.25E–09 Np-232 14.7 m 1.2032 1.16E–15 5.80E–14 1.01E–11 3.39E–10 Np-233 36.2 m 0.0908 8.39E–17 3.85E–15 1.99E–12 5.87E–13 Np-234 4.4 d 1.4422 1.33E–15 7.26E–14 7.43E–10 5.49E–10 Np-235 396.1 d 0.0071 3.65E–18 5.10E–17 6.56E–11 1.12E–09 Np-236a 115000 y 0.1363 1.20E–16 5.36E–15 2.34E–07 2.81E–05 Np-236b 22.5 h 0.0507 4.67E–17 2.14E–15 3.70E–10 2.23E–08 Np-237 2.14E+06 y 0.0346 2.87E–17 1.03E–15 1.20E–06 1.46E–04 Np-238 2.117 d 0.553 5.29E–16 2.72E–14 1.08E–09 1.00E–08 Np-239 2.355 d 0.1731 1.63E–16 7.69E–15 8.82E–10 6.78E–10 Np-240 65 m 1.3134 1.27E–15 6.31E–14 6.40E–11 2.20E–11 Np-240m 7.4 m 0.3371 3.27E–16 1.62E–14 O-14 70.599 s 3.3189 O-15 122.24 s 1.0208 1.01E–15 4.91E–14 O-19 26.91 s 0.957 Os-180 22 m 0.0645 6.02E–17 2.30E–15 1.42E–11 4.71E–12 Os-181 105 m 1.2222 1.17E–15 5.94E–14 9.86E–11 3.62E–11 Os-182 22 h 0.4348 4.25E–16 2.01E–14 6.59E–10 3.73E–10 Os-185 94 d 0.7189 7.04E–16 3.43E–14 6.11E–10 2.80E–09A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-14 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Os-189m 6 h 0.0018 3.13E–20 1.06E–19 1.81E–11 8.07E–12 Os-190m 9.9 m 1.5884 1.56E–15 7.60E–14 Os-191 15.4 d 0.0795 7.38E–17 3.21E–15 6.23E–10 1.13E–09 Os-191m 13.03 h 0.0091 7.19E–18 2.75E–16 1.04E–10 8.20E–11 Os-193 30 h 0.0733 7.23E–17 3.40E–15 8.77E–10 5.41E–10 Os-194 6 y 0.0017 1.14E–18 2.75E–17 2.94E–09 1.81E–07 P-30 2.499 m 1.0219 1.02E–15 4.94E–14 P-32 14.29 d 0 2.91E–18 9.90E–17 2.37E–09 4.19E–09 P-33 25.4 d 0 4.46E–20 8.23E–19 2.48E–10 6.27E–10 Pa-227 38.3 m 0.0222 1.99E–17 8.54E–16 3.55E–10 1.32E–08 Pa-228 22 h 1.1414 1.09E–15 5.54E–14 1.13E–09 1.19E–07 Pa-230 17.4 d 0.6522 6.26E–16 3.13E–14 1.68E–09 3.98E–07 Pa-231 32760 y 0.0482 4.07E–17 1.72E–15 2.86E–06 3.47E–04 Pa-232 1.31 d 0.9385 9.06E–16 4.56E–14 9.65E–10 2.47E–08 Pa-233 27 d 0.204 1.95E–16 9.35E–15 9.81E–10 2.58E–09 Pa-234 6.7 h 1.919 1.84E–15 9.34E–14 5.84E–10 2.20E–10 Pa-234m 1.17 m 0.0115 1.53E–17 7.19E–16 Pb-195m 15.8 m 1.5986 1.55E–15 7.68E–14 2.45E–11 8.37E–12 Pb-198 2.4 h 0.4389 4.25E–16 2.04E–14 4.43E–11 2.08E–11 Pb-199 90 m 1.4761 1.39E–15 7.31E–14 6.01E–11 1.97E–11 Pb-200 21.5 h 0.2089 1.98E–16 9.20E–15 4.67E–10 2.14E–10 Pb-201 9.4 h 0.758 7.33E–16 3.63E–14 1.92E–10 7.09E–11 Pb-202 3.00E+05 y 0.0021 1.34E–19 4.52E–19 1.05E–08 2.65E–08 Pb-202m 3.62 h 2.043 1.99E–15 9.96E–14 1.53E–10 4.83E–11 Pb-203 52.05 h 0.3118 3.01E–16 1.44E–14 2.93E–10 1.43E–10 Pb-204m 67.2 m 2.1048 Pb-205 1.43E+07 y 0.0023 1.50E–19 5.06E–19 4.41E–10 1.06E–09 Pb-209 3.253 h 0 3.01E–19 8.12E–18 5.75E–11 2.56E–11 Pb-210 22.3 y 0.0048 2.48E–18 5.64E–17 1.45E–06 3.67E–06 Pb-211 36.1 m 0.0505 5.08E–17 2.49E–15 1.42E–10 2.35E–09 Pb-212 10.64 h 0.1483 1.43E–16 6.87E–15 1.23E–08 4.56E–08 Pb-214 26.8 m 0.2497 2.44E–16 1.18E–14 1.69E–10 2.11E–09 Pd-100 3.63 d 0.1289 1.20E–16 4.65E–15 1.16E–09 1.06E–09 Pd-101 8.27 h 0.337 3.22E–16 1.53E–14 1.12E–10 5.03E–11 Pd-103 16.96 d 0.0144 1.09E–17 7.68E–17 2.13E–10 4.24E–10 Pd-107 6.50E+06 y 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.04E–11 3.45E–09 Pd-109 13.427 h 0.0117 1.12E–17 2.51E–16 5.87E–10 2.96E–10 Pm-141 20.9 m 0.744 7.28E–16 3.60E–14 2.53E–11 8.56E–12 Pm-142 40.5 s 0.8676 8.66E–16 4.22E–14 Pm-143 265 d 0.3154 3.10E–16 1.46E–14 2.79E–10 2.94E–09 Pm-144 363 d 1.5627 1.54E–15 7.48E–14 1.17E–09 1.45E–08A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-15 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Pm-145 17.7 y 0.031 3.26E–17 7.09E–16 1.28E–10 8.23E–09 Pm-146 2020 d 0.7532 7.41E–16 3.59E–14 9.91E–10 3.96E–08 Pm-147 2.6234 y 0 3.41E–20 6.93E–19 2.83E–10 1.06E–08 Pm-148 5.37 d 0.5745 5.48E–16 2.89E–14 2.94E–09 2.95E–09 Pm-148m 41.3 d 1.9999 1.96E–15 9.68E–14 2.07E–09 6.10E–09 Pm-149 53.08 h 0.0106 1.13E–17 5.41E–16 1.07E–09 7.93E–10 Pm-150 2.68 h 1.4313 1.36E–15 7.17E–14 2.70E–10 9.79E–11 Pm-151 28.4 h 0.3205 3.15E–16 1.51E–14 8.09E–10 4.73E–10 Po-203 36.7 m 1.6435 1.56E–15 8.12E–14 5.41E–11 2.14E–11 Po-205 1.8 h 1.5811 1.51E–15 7.80E–14 6.49E–11 3.65E–11 Po-207 350 m 1.3313 1.28E–15 6.51E–14 1.68E–10 5.45E–11 Po-209 102 y 0.0031 Po-210 138.38 d 0 8.29E–21 4.16E–19 5.14E–07 2.54E–06 Po-211 0.516 s 0.0078 7.61E–18 3.81E–16 Po-212 0.305 u 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Po-213 4.2 u 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Po-214 164.3 u 0 8.13E–20 4.08E–18 Po-215 0 0.00178 s 0.0001 Po-216 0.15 s 0 1.65E–20 8.29E–19 Po-218 3.05 m 0 8.88E–21 4.48E–19 Pr-136 13.1 m 2.1012 2.02E–15 1.03E–13 2.23E–11 6.68E–12 Pr-137 76.6 m 0.5005 4.93E–16 2.36E–14 3.85E–11 1.29E–11 Pr-138 1.45 m 0.8132 8.13E–16 3.92E–14 Pr-138m 2.1 h 2.4781 2.40E–15 1.21E–13 1.39E–10 3.65E–11 Pr-139 4.51 h 0.1222 1.22E–16 5.17E–15 3.52E–11 1.56E–11 Pr-142 19.13 h 0.0584 5.78E–17 3.15E–15 1.42E–09 7.79E–10 Pr-142m 14.6 m 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.81E–11 9.98E–12 Pr-143 13.56 d 0 7.01E–19 2.10E–17 1.27E–09 2.19E–09 Pr-144 17.28 m 0.0318 3.78E–17 1.95E–15 3.15E–11 1.17E–11 Pr-144m 7.2 m 0.0126 1.30E–17 2.79E–16 Pr-145 5.98 h 0.0131 1.56E–17 7.36E–16 4.18E–10 1.82E–10 Pr-147 13.6 m 0.863 8.39E–16 4.15E–14 2.10E–11 8.22E–12 Pt-186 2 h 0.74 7.24E–16 3.53E–14 1.10E–10 3.58E–11 Pt-188 10.2 d 0.2019 1.94E–16 8.86E–15 8.96E–10 8.48E–10 Pt-189 10.87 h 0.3251 3.14E–16 1.48E–14 1.43E–10 4.84E–11 Pt-191 2.8 d 0.3043 2.96E–16 1.34E–14 3.94E–10 1.66E–10 Pt-193 50 y 0.0021 1.19E–19 3.98E–19 3.21E–11 6.14E–11 Pt-193m 4.33 d 0.0128 1.04E–17 4.15E–16 4.90E–10 2.37E–10 Pt-195m 4.02 d 0.0764 6.87E–17 2.84E–15 6.91E–10 3.29E–10 Pt-197 18.3 h 0.025 2.27E–17 1.01E–15 4.35E–10 1.53E–10 Pt-197m 94.4 m 0.0834 7.77E–17 3.49E–15 8.46E–11 3.31E–11A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-16 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Pt-199 30.8 m 0.2019 2.00E–16 9.73E–15 2.92E–11 1.23E–11 Pt-200 12.5 h 0.0605 5.65E–17 2.55E–15 1.30E–09 4.50E–10 Pu-234 8.8 h 0.0685 6.26E–17 2.85E–15 1.78E–10 7.40E–09 Pu-235 25.3 m 0.0947 8.65E–17 3.92E–15 1.72E–12 6.17E–13 Pu-236 2.851 y 0.002 9.81E–19 6.35E–18 3.15E–07 3.91E–05 Pu-237 45.3 d 0.0523 4.65E–17 2.02E–15 1.20E–10 5.33E–10 Pu-238 87.74 y 0.0018 8.38E–19 4.88E–18 8.65E–07 1.06E–04 Pu-239 24065 y 0.0008 3.67E–19 4.24E–18 9.56E–07 1.16E–04 Pu-240 6537 y 0.0017 8.03E–19 4.75E–18 9.56E–07 1.16E–04 Pu-241 14.4 y 0 1.93E–21 7.25E–20 1.85E–08 2.23E–06 Pu-242 376300 y 0.0014 6.67E–19 4.01E–18 9.08E–07 1.11E–04 Pu-243 4.956 h 0.0256 2.41E–17 1.03E–15 9.02E–11 4.44E–11 Pu-244 8.26E+07 y 0.0012 5.58E–19 2.97E–18 8.97E–07 1.09E–04 Pu-245 10.5 h 0.4167 4.04E–16 1.99E–14 7.34E–10 3.55E–10 Pu-246 10.85 d 0.1403 1.33E–16 6.01E–15 3.66E–09 5.92E–09 Ra-222 38 s 0.0091 9.00E–18 4.39E–16 Ra-223 11.434 d 0.1341 1.28E–16 6.09E–15 1.78E–07 2.12E–06 Ra-224 3.66 d 0.0099 9.57E–18 4.71E–16 9.89E–08 8.53E–07 Ra-225 14.8 d 0.0136 1.33E–17 2.79E–16 1.04E–07 2.10E–06 Ra-226 1600 y 0.0067 6.44E–18 3.15E–16 3.58E–07 2.32E–06 Ra-227 42.2 m 0.1666 1.59E–16 7.41E–15 6.10E–11 7.68E–11 Ra-228 5.75 y 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.88E–07 1.29E–06 Rb-77 3.7 m 1.8311 Rb-79 22.9 m 1.3578 1.34E–15 6.51E–14 2.79E–11 1.33E–11 Rb-80 34 s 1.246 1.25E–15 6.07E–14 Rb-81 4.58 h 0.6233 6.07E–16 2.96E–14 3.91E–11 3.51E–11 Rb-81m 32 m 0.01 5.43E–18 1.88E–16 6.35E–12 5.43E–12 Rb-82 1.3 m 1.0933 1.09E–15 5.30E–14 Rb-82m 6.2 h 2.9099 2.81E–15 1.43E–13 1.12E–10 7.83E–11 Rb-83 86.2 d 0.5044 4.92E–16 2.39E–14 2.08E–09 1.33E–09 Rb-84 32.77 d 0.9187 8.90E–16 4.47E–14 2.70E–09 1.76E–09 Rb-86 18.66 d 0.0945 9.31E–17 4.81E–15 2.53E–09 1.79E–09 Rb-87 4.7E+10 y 0 8.80E–20 1.82E–18 1.33E–09 8.74E–10 Rb-88 17.8 m 0.6286 5.95E–16 3.36E–14 4.71E–11 2.26E–11 Rb-89 15.2 m 2.0711 1.91E–15 1.06E–13 2.65E–11 1.16E–11 Re-177 14 m 0.6202 5.90E–16 2.96E–14 1.46E–11 6.45E–12 Re-178 13.2 m 1.2177 1.13E–15 6.09E–14 1.56E–11 6.09E–12 Re-180 2.43 m 1.1834 1.15E–15 5.72E–14 Re-181 20 h 0.7712 7.49E–16 3.65E–14 2.81E–10 1.74E–10 Re-182a 12.7 h 1.1793 1.12E–15 5.78E–14 2.01E–10 1.09E–10 Re-182b 64 h 1.8862 1.79E–15 9.16E–14 9.18E–10 7.72E–10A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-17 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Re-184 38 d 0.8913 8.64E–16 4.29E–14 5.91E–10 1.39E–09 Re-184m 165 d 0.3895 3.75E–16 1.82E–14 7.97E–10 3.98E–09 Re-186 90.64 h 0.0205 2.04E–17 9.19E–16 7.95E–10 8.64E–10 Re-186m 2.00E+05 y 0.0192 1.46E–17 5.00E–16 1.08E–09 9.76E–09 Re-187 5E+10 y 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.57E–12 1.47E–11 Re-188 16.98 h 0.0576 5.91E–17 2.87E–15 8.31E–10 5.44E–10 Re-188m 18.6 m 0.0802 7.56E–17 3.02E–15 1.83E–11 1.11E–11 Re-189 24.3 h 0.0693 6.74E–17 3.22E–15 4.67E–10 3.36E–10 Rh-99 16 d 0.6076 5.88E–16 2.85E–14 6.08E–10 8.36E–10 Rh-99m 4.7 h 0.6854 6.60E–16 3.29E–14 7.77E–11 2.34E–11 Rh-100 20.8 h 2.7666 2.54E–15 1.41E–13 8.56E–10 3.75E–10 Rh-101 3.2 y 0.2689 2.55E–16 1.21E–14 6.26E–10 1.07E–08 Rh-101m 4.34 d 0.3067 2.96E–16 1.41E–14 2.67E–10 2.02E–10 Rh-102 2.9 y 2.1395 2.08E–15 1.04E–13 2.82E–09 3.24E–08 Rh-102m 207 d 0.4863 4.76E–16 2.31E–14 1.27E–09 1.29E–08 Rh-103m 56.12 m 0.0017 1.25E–18 8.80E–18 3.14E–12 1.38E–12 Rh-105 35.36 h 0.0776 7.62E–17 3.72E–15 3.99E–10 2.58E–10 Rh-106 29.9 s 0.2048 2.12E–16 1.04E–14 Rh-106m 132 m 2.915 2.80E–15 1.44E–13 1.74E–10 5.77E–11 Rh-107 21.7 m 0.3122 3.07E–16 1.50E–14 1.63E–11 6.53E–12 Rn-218 35 m 0.0007 7.45E–19 3.65E–17 Rn-219 3.96 s 0.0561 5.49E–17 2.68E–15 Rn-220 55.6 s 0.0003 3.81E–19 1.85E–17 Rn-222 3.8235 d 0.0003 3.95E–19 1.91E–17 Ru-103 39.28 d 0.4687 4.63E–16 2.25E–14 8.24E–10 2.42E–09 Ru-105 4.44 h 0.7841 7.69E–16 3.81E–14 2.87E–10 1.23E–10 Ru-106 368.2 d 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.40E–09 1.29E–07 Ru-94 51.8 m 0.5347 5.18E–16 2.54E–14 9.37E–11 3.58E–11 Ru-97 2.9 d 0.2399 2.28E–16 1.09E–14 1.88E–10 1.22E–10 S-35 87.44 d 0 1.68E–20 2.43E–19 1.98E–10 6.69E–10 Sb-115 31.8 m 0.909 8.97E–16 4.32E–14 1.96E–11 7.04E–12 Sb-116 15.8 m 2.158 2.03E–15 1.08E–13 1.90E–11 6.27E–12 Sb-116m 60.3 m 3.143 3.01E–15 1.55E–13 6.70E–11 2.07E–11 Sb-117 2.8 h 0.1847 1.77E–16 7.97E–15 2.08E–11 6.78E–12 Sb-118 3.6 m 0.8111 Sb-118m 5 h 2.5846 2.46E–15 1.27E–13 2.56E–10 7.09E–11 Sb-119 38.1 h 0.0231 2.17E–17 2.16E–16 9.62E–11 5.69E–11 Sb-120a 15.89 m 0.452 4.47E–16 2.13E–14 9.51E–12 3.54E–12 Sb-120b 5.76 d 2.4693 2.35E–15 1.22E–13 1.54E–09 1.10E–09 Sb-122 2.7 d 0.4411 4.36E–16 2.13E–14 1.97E–09 1.39E–09 Sb-124 60.2 d 1.8171 1.71E–15 9.15E–14 2.74E–09 6.80E–09A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-18 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Sb-124m 93 s 0.3518 3.47E–16 1.70E–14 Sb-124n 20.2 m 0.0002 7.12E–20 6.75E–19 5.91E–12 2.80E–12 Sb-125 2.77 y 0.4307 4.25E–16 2.02E–14 7.59E–10 3.30E–09 Sb-126 12.4 d 2.8336 2.78E–15 1.37E–13 2.89E–09 3.17E–09 Sb-126m 19 m 1.5482 1.52E–15 7.50E–14 2.54E–11 9.17E–12 Sb-127 3.85 d 0.6884 6.76E–16 3.33E–14 1.95E–09 1.63E–09 Sb-128a 10.4 m 1.9864 1.94E–15 9.69E–14 1.59E–11 4.75E–12 Sb-128b 9.01 h 3.0931 3.02E–15 1.51E–13 1.19E–09 4.56E–10 Sb-129 4.32 h 1.4367 1.38E–15 7.14E–14 4.84E–10 1.74E–10 Sb-130 40 m 3.2636 3.16E–15 1.60E–13 7.83E–11 2.80E–11 Sb-131 23 m 1.8637 1.76E–15 9.37E–14 8.21E–11 3.88E–11 Sc-43 3.891 h 1.0962 1.08E–15 5.26E–14 2.06E–10 7.00E–11 Sc-44 3.927 h 2.1369 2.07E–15 1.05E–13 3.87E–10 1.33E–10 Sc-44m 58.6 h 0.2799 2.72E–16 1.35E–14 2.79E–09 2.05E–09 Sc-46 83.83 d 2.0094 1.93E–15 9.98E–14 1.73E–09 8.01E–09 Sc-47 3.351 d 0.1083 1.04E–16 5.14E–15 6.04E–10 4.98E–10 Sc-48 43.7 h 3.3491 3.18E–15 1.68E–13 1.96E–09 1.11E–09 Sc-49 57.4 m 0.001 4.93E–18 1.93E–16 6.80E–11 2.75E–11 Se-70 41 m 0.9988 9.81E–16 4.73E–14 1.39E–10 4.75E–11 Se-72 8.4 d 0.0343 Se-73 7.15 h 1.0873 1.07E–15 5.16E–14 4.34E–10 1.24E–10 Se-73m 39 m 0.2439 2.40E–16 1.17E–14 4.19E–11 1.25E–11 Se-75 119.8 d 0.3942 3.77E–16 1.85E–14 2.60E–09 2.29E–09 Se-77m 17.45 s 0.0875 8.18E–17 4.03E–15 Se-79 6.50E+04 y 0 2.07E–20 3.03E–19 2.35E–09 2.66E–09 Se-81 18.5 m 0.0092 1.13E–17 5.24E–16 1.70E–11 6.97E–12 Se-81m 57.25 m 0.0181 1.34E–17 6.18E–16 5.67E–11 2.39E–11 Se-83 22.5 m 2.4289 2.30E–15 1.21E–13 4.35E–11 1.48E–11 Si-31 157.3 m 0.0008 3.01E–18 1.17E–16 1.46E–10 6.03E–11 Si-32 450 y 0 3.10E–20 5.24E–19 5.90E–10 2.74E–07 Sm-141 10.2 m 1.405 1.36E–15 6.87E–14 2.70E–11 8.29E–12 Sm-141m 22.6 m 1.9842 1.91E–15 9.71E–14 5.33E–11 1.58E–11 Sm-142 72.49 m 0.0943 9.49E–17 3.79E–15 1.69E–10 5.82E–11 Sm-145 340 d 0.0652 6.84E–17 1.61E–15 2.46E–10 2.98E–09 Sm-146 1.03E+08 y 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.51E–08 2.23E–05 Sm-147 1.06E+11 y 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.01E–08 2.02E–05 Sm-151 90 y 0 5.03E–21 3.61E–20 1.05E–10 8.10E–09 Sm-153 46.7 h 0.0619 6.22E–17 2.28E–15 8.07E–10 5.31E–10 Sm-155 22.1 m 0.1032 1.02E–16 4.65E–15 1.93E–11 6.79E–12 Sm-156 9.4 h 0.1207 1.17E–16 5.43E–15 2.76E–10 1.89E–10 Sn-110 4 h 0.3013 2.93E–16 1.37E–14 4.13E–10 1.36E–10A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-19 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Sn-111 35.3 m 0.5095 4.92E–16 2.45E–14 1.95E–11 7.34E–12 Sn-113 115.1 d 0.0228 2.13E–17 3.82E–16 8.33E–10 2.88E–09 Sn-117m 13.61 d 0.1579 1.51E–16 6.82E–15 7.97E–10 1.17E–09 Sn-119m 293 d 0.0114 1.04E–17 1.01E–16 3.76E–10 1.69E–09 Sn-121 27.06 h 0 1.05E–19 2.37E–18 2.44E–10 1.38E–10 Sn-121m 55 y 0.0049 4.89E–18 6.02E–17 4.19E–10 3.11E–09 Sn-123 129.2 d 0.0068 8.37E–18 4.03E–16 2.27E–09 8.79E–09 Sn-123m 40.08 m 0.1395 1.35E–16 6.55E–15 2.93E–11 1.25E–11 Sn-125 9.64 d 0.3126 3.01E–16 1.58E–14 3.33E–09 4.18E–09 Sn-126 1.00E+05 y 0.0565 5.47E–17 2.11E–15 5.27E–09 2.69E–08 Sn-127 2.1 h 1.9096 1.80E–15 9.59E–14 2.10E–10 8.75E–11 Sn-128 59.1 m 0.6657 6.57E–16 3.00E–14 1.49E–10 5.83E–11 Sr-80 100 m 0.008 1.85E–18 6.53E–18 3.38E–10 1.36E–10 Sr-81 25.5 m 1.3858 1.37E–15 6.68E–14 6.14E–11 2.28E–11 Sr-82 25 d 0.0078 1.82E–18 6.43E–18 6.61E–09 1.66E–08 Sr-83 32.4 h 0.8013 7.71E–16 3.86E–14 6.70E–10 4.11E–10 Sr-85 64.84 d 0.5118 5.00E–16 2.42E–14 5.34E–10 1.36E–09 Sr-85m 69.5 m 0.2195 2.12E–16 1.05E–14 6.46E–12 2.30E–12 Sr-87m 2.805 h 0.3203 3.15E–16 1.52E–14 3.58E–11 1.16E–11 Sr-89 50.5 d 0 2.27E–18 7.73E–17 2.50E–09 1.12E–08 Sr-90 29.12 y 0 2.84E–19 7.53E–18 3.85E–08 3.51E–07 Sr-91 9.5 h 0.6974 6.77E–16 3.45E–14 8.39E–10 4.49E–10 Sr-92 2.71 h 1.3388 1.25E–15 6.79E–14 5.43E–10 2.18E–10 Ta-172 36.8 m 1.5496 1.48E–15 7.59E–14 4.30E–11 1.53E–11 Ta-173 3.65 h 0.5848 5.68E–16 2.75E–14 2.12E–10 8.64E–11 Ta-174 1.2 h 0.6273 6.09E–16 2.97E–14 5.29E–11 1.82E–11 Ta-175 10.5 h 0.9329 8.79E–16 4.55E–14 2.45E–10 1.03E–10 Ta-176 8.08 h 2.1449 1.97E–15 1.09E–13 3.74E–10 1.26E–10 Ta-177 56.6 h 0.0671 6.57E–17 2.53E–15 1.22E–10 8.29E–11 Ta-178a 9.31 m 0.1086 1.04E–16 4.61E–15 Ta-178b 2.2 h 1.0233 1.00E–15 4.75E–14 7.93E–11 2.24E–11 Ta-179 664.9 d 0.0324 3.16E–17 1.09E–15 7.39E–11 1.76E–09 Ta-180 1E+13 y 0.5598 5.45E–16 2.59E–14 9.82E–10 6.62E–08 Ta-180m 8.1 h 0.0485 4.76E–17 1.71E–15 5.90E–11 2.52E–11 Ta-182 115 d 1.2943 1.23E–15 6.40E–14 1.76E–09 1.21E–08 Ta-182m 15.84 m 0.2517 2.41E–16 1.11E–14 7.50E–12 3.61E–12 Ta-183 5.1 d 0.293 2.83E–16 1.31E–14 1.46E–09 1.41E–09 Ta-184 8.7 h 1.6122 1.57E–15 7.80E–14 7.60E–10 3.09E–10 Ta-185 49 m 0.1928 1.89E–16 8.73E–15 5.49E–11 2.27E–11 Ta-186 10.5 m 1.5598 1.53E–15 7.53E–14 2.08E–11 6.57E–12 Tb-147 1.65 h 1.5897 1.54E–15 7.78E–14 1.61E–10 5.63E–11A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-20 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Tb-149 4.15 h 1.6139 1.53E–15 8.02E–14 2.76E–10 1.98E–09 Tb-150 3.27 h 1.6793 1.62E–15 8.26E–14 2.74E–10 8.43E–11 Tb-151 17.6 h 0.8922 8.73E–16 4.20E–14 4.03E–10 1.69E–10 Tb-153 2.34 d 0.2293 2.25E–16 9.89E–15 2.92E–10 2.04E–10 Tb-154 21.4 h 2.3516 2.13E–15 1.21E–13 7.96E–10 3.20E–10 Tb-155 5.32 d 0.1398 1.38E–16 5.56E–15 2.44E–10 2.10E–10 Tb-156 5.34 d 1.826 1.74E–15 8.94E–14 1.40E–09 1.08E–09 Tb-156m 24.4 h 0.0253 2.61E–17 7.75E–16 2.04E–10 2.06E–10 Tb-156n 5 h 0.0044 3.68E–18 1.16E–16 9.12E–11 5.86E–11 Tb-157 150 y 0.0033 2.67E–18 6.78E–17 3.35E–11 2.49E–09 Tb-158 150 y 0.7978 7.72E–16 3.84E–14 1.19E–09 6.91E–08 Tb-160 72.3 d 1.1243 1.08E–15 5.54E–14 1.82E–09 6.75E–09 Tb-161 6.91 d 0.0352 3.47E–17 1.02E–15 7.89E–10 9.20E–10 Tc-93 2.75 h 1.4587 1.35E–15 7.38E–14 4.37E–11 1.92E–11 Tc-93m 43.5 m 0.7244 6.48E–16 3.73E–14 2.00E–11 9.06E–12 Tc-94 293 m 2.6705 2.59E–15 1.30E–13 1.56E–10 7.27E–11 Tc-94m 52 m 1.8589 1.79E–15 9.18E–14 7.57E–11 3.81E–11 Tc-95 20 h 0.7964 7.72E–16 3.84E–14 1.26E–10 6.76E–11 Tc-95m 61 d 0.675 6.53E–16 3.23E–14 3.93E–10 1.05E–09 Tc-96 4.28 d 2.5057 2.43E–15 1.22E–13 7.45E–10 6.42E–10 Tc-96m 51.5 m 0.0515 4.72E–17 2.24E–15 8.61E–12 6.26E–12 Tc-97 2.60E+06 y 0.0113 6.48E–18 3.33E–17 4.63E–11 2.68E–10 Tc-97m 87 d 0.0095 6.18E–18 4.64E–17 3.36E–10 1.32E–09 Tc-98 4.20E+06 y 1.4127 1.38E–15 6.86E–14 1.32E–09 6.18E–09 Tc-99 2.13E+05 y 0 7.80E–20 1.62E–18 3.95E–10 2.25E–09 Tc-99m 6.02 h 0.1263 1.21E–16 5.89E–15 1.68E–11 8.80E–12 Tc-101 14.2 m 0.334 3.28E–16 1.61E–14 1.14E–11 4.84E–12 Tc-104 18.2 m 1.9812 1.85E–15 1.01E–13 5.11E–11 2.22E–11 Te-116 2.49 h 0.073 7.13E–17 2.29E–15 1.96E–10 7.18E–11 Te-121 17 d 0.5773 5.70E–16 2.70E–14 4.54E–10 5.15E–10 Te-121m 154 d 0.2168 2.10E–16 9.90E–15 2.08E–09 4.31E–09 Te-123 1E+13 y 0.0197 1.95E–17 2.15E–16 1.13E–09 2.85E–09 Te-123m 119.7 d 0.148 1.43E–16 6.51E–15 1.53E–09 2.86E–09 Te-125m 58 d 0.0355 3.61E–17 4.53E–16 9.92E–10 1.97E–09 Te-127 9.35 h 0.0048 5.18E–18 2.42E–16 1.87E–10 8.60E–11 Te-127m 109 d 0.0112 1.13E–17 1.47E–16 2.23E–09 5.81E–09 Te-129 69.6 m 0.0594 6.01E–17 2.75E–15 5.45E–11 2.42E–11 Te-129m 33.6 d 0.0376 3.78E–17 1.55E–15 2.89E–09 6.47E–09 Te-131 25 m 0.4204 4.10E–16 2.04E–14 2.44E–10 1.29E–10 Te-131m 30 h 1.4253 1.37E–15 7.01E–14 2.46E–09 1.73E–09 Te-132 78.2 h 0.2335 2.28E–16 1.03E–14 2.54E–09 2.55E–09A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-21 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Te-133 12.45 m 0.9288 8.94E–16 4.60E–14 4.73E–11 2.49E–11 Te-133m 55.4 m 2.3128 2.22E–15 1.14E–13 2.26E–10 1.17E–10 Te-134 41.8 m 0.8856 8.67E–16 4.24E–14 6.63E–11 3.44E–11 Th-226 30.9 m 0.0087 7.75E–18 3.59E–16 2.50E–10 9.45E–09 Th-227 18.718 d 0.1101 1.04E–16 4.88E–15 1.03E–08 4.37E–06 Th-228 1.9131 y 0.0032 2.35E–18 9.20E–17 1.07E–07 9.23E–05 Th-229 7340 y 0.0958 8.54E–17 3.83E–15 9.54E–07 5.80E–04 Th-230 77000 y 0.0015 7.50E–19 1.74E–17 1.48E–07 8.80E–05 Th-231 25.52 h 0.0256 1.85E–17 5.22E–16 3.65E–10 2.37E–10 Th-232 1.405E+10 y 0.0013 Th-234 24.1 d 0.0093 8.32E–18 3.38E–16 3.69E–09 9.47E–09 Ti-44 47.3 y 0.1347 1.32E–16 5.53E–15 6.25E–09 2.75E–07 Ti-45 3.08 h 0.8704 8.61E–16 4.18E–14 1.62E–10 5.82E–11 Tl-194 33 m 0.7793 7.62E–16 3.70E–14 6.15E–12 2.49E–12 Tl-194m 32.8 m 2.3185 2.27E–15 1.11E–13 2.65E–11 1.21E–11 Tl-195 1.16 h 1.2707 1.18E–15 6.34E–14 2.11E–11 1.25E–11 Tl-197 2.84 h 0.4087 3.91E–16 1.93E–14 1.82E–11 1.34E–11 Tl-198 5.3 h 2.0057 1.87E–15 1.01E–13 6.86E–11 4.44E–11 Tl-198m 1.87 h 1.1951 1.17E–15 5.69E–14 4.30E–11 2.89E–11 Tl-199 7.42 h 0.249 2.40E–16 1.13E–14 2.21E–11 1.88E–11 Tl-200 26.1 h 1.3106 1.25E–15 6.42E–14 1.82E–10 1.27E–10 Tl-201 3.044 d 0.0934 8.73E–17 3.78E–15 8.11E–11 6.34E–11 Tl-202 12.23 d 0.4676 4.59E–16 2.18E–14 3.98E–10 2.66E–10 Tl-204 3.779 y 0.0011 1.48E–18 5.59E–17 9.08E–10 6.50E–10 Tl-206 4.2 m 0.0001 1.99E–18 6.73E–17 Tl-207 4.77 m 0.0022 3.76E–18 1.62E–16 Tl-208 3.07 m 3.3745 2.98E–15 1.77E–13 Tl-209 2.2 m 2.0317 1.90E–15 1.02E–13 Tl-210 1.3 m 2.7357 Tm-162 21.7 m 1.7805 1.64E–15 9.01E–14 2.18E–11 5.93E–12 Tm-166 7.7 h 1.8702 1.75E–15 9.35E–14 3.34E–10 1.02E–10 Tm-167 9.24 d 0.1456 1.43E–16 6.06E–15 6.26E–10 7.97E–10 Tm-170 128.6 d 0.0054 5.91E–18 2.23E–16 1.43E–09 7.11E–09 Tm-171 1.92 y 0.0006 6.41E–19 2.15E–17 1.16E–10 2.47E–09 Tm-172 63.6 h 0.4771 4.46E–16 2.41E–14 1.85E–09 1.32E–09 Tm-173 8.24 h 0.3882 3.84E–16 1.85E–14 3.37E–10 1.30E–10 Tm-175 15.2 m 1.0528 1.02E–15 5.13E–14 1.83E–11 6.26E–12 U-230 20.8 d 0.0029 1.80E–18 5.23E–17 2.44E–07 5.26E–06 U-231 4.2 d 0.082 7.07E–17 2.95E–15 3.20E–10 3.22E–10 U-232 72 y 0.0021 1.01E–18 1.42E–17 3.54E–07 1.78E–04 U-233 1.585E+05 y 0.0013 7.16E–19 1.63E–17 7.81E–08 3.66E–05A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-22 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) U-234 2.445E+05 y 0.0017 7.48E–19 7.63E–18 7.66E–08 3.58E–05 U-235 7.04E+08 y 0.1559 1.48E–16 7.20E–15 7.19E–08 3.32E–05 U-236 2.3415E+07 y 0.0015 U-237 6.75 d 0.1429 1.33E–16 5.97E–15 8.57E–10 9.54E–10 U-238 4.47E+09 y 0.0013 5.51E–19 3.41E–18 6.88E–08 3.20E–05 U-239 23.54 m 0.0526 5.15E–17 2.17E–15 2.09E–11 1.01E–11 U-240 14.1 h 0.0076 4.23E–18 3.93E–17 1.20E–09 6.13E–10 V-47 32.6 m 0.9951 9.87E–16 4.79E–14 4.73E–11 1.90E–11 V-48 16.238 d 2.9141 2.78E–15 1.45E–13 2.32E–09 2.76E–09 V-49 330 d 0.0009 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.66E–11 9.33E–11 W-176 2.3 h 0.1773 1.71E–16 7.02E–15 1.34E–10 2.88E–11 W-177 135 m 0.9026 8.73E–16 4.26E–14 6.71E–11 1.76E–11 W-178 21.7 d 0.0144 1.30E–17 4.62E–16 2.75E–10 7.32E–11 W-179 37.5 m 0.0599 5.86E–17 1.83E–15 2.74E–12 9.47E–13 W-181 121.2 d 0.0404 3.93E–17 1.40E–15 9.31E–11 4.09E–11 W-185 75.1 d 0 1.84E–19 5.37E–18 5.38E–10 2.03E–10 W-187 23.9 h 0.4806 4.69E–16 2.28E–14 7.46E–10 1.67E–10 W-188 69.4 d 0.0019 1.92E–18 9.04E–17 2.54E–09 1.11E–09 Xe-120 40 m 0.4321 4.23E–16 1.94E–14 Xe-121 40.1 m 1.815 1.69E–15 9.14E–14 Xe-122 20.1 h 0.0684 6.83E–17 2.46E–15 Xe-123 2.08 h 0.6336 6.09E–16 3.03E–14 Xe-125 17 h 0.2713 2.65E–16 1.19E–14 Xe-127 36.41 d 0.2802 2.73E–16 1.25E–14 Xe-129m 8 d 0.0512 5.29E–17 1.06E–15 Xe-131m 11.9 d 0.02 2.06E–17 3.89E–16 Xe-133 5.245 d 0.0461 4.61E–17 1.56E–15 Xe-133m 2.188 d 0.0407 4.07E–17 1.37E–15 Xe-135 9.09 h 0.2485 2.42E–16 1.19E–14 Xe-135m 15.29 m 0.429 4.24E–16 2.04E–14 Xe-138 14.17 m 1.125 1.03E–15 5.77E–14 Y-86 14.74 h 3.5892 3.39E–15 1.79E–13 1.14E–09 4.65E–10 Y-86m 48 m 0.2205 2.13E–16 1.06E–14 6.61E–11 2.69E–11 Y-87 80.3 h 0.4572 4.46E–16 2.15E–14 6.58E–10 4.74E–10 Y-88 106.64 d 2.6922 2.47E–15 1.37E–13 1.62E–09 7.59E–09 Y-90 64 h 0 5.32E–18 1.90E–16 2.91E–09 2.28E–09 Y-90m 3.19 h 0.629 6.16E–16 3.01E–14 1.91E–10 1.27E–10 Y-91 58.51 d 0.0036 5.74E–18 2.60E–16 2.57E–09 1.32E–08 Y-91m 49.71 m 0.5301 5.23E–16 2.55E–14 1.12E–11 9.82E–12 Y-92 3.54 h 0.2516 2.53E–16 1.30E–14 5.15E–10 2.11E–10 Y-93 10.1 h 0.0889 9.12E–17 4.80E–15 1.23E–09 5.82E–10A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-23 

### Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued)

Dose Conversion Factors c Nuclide Half-Life a Photon Energy b (MeV) Groundshine d (Sv-m 2 /Bq-s) Cloudshine e (Sv-m 3 /Bq-s) Ingestion f (Sv/Bq) Inhalation f (Sv/Bq) Y-94 19.1 m 1.1104 1.07E–15 5.62E–14 5.33E–11 1.89E–11 Y-95 10.7 m 0.8939 7.99E–16 4.79E–14 2.75E–11 1.02E–11 Yb-162 18.9 m 0.1366 1.33E–16 5.66E–15 2.05E–11 6.04E–12 Yb-166 56.7 h 0.0859 8.61E–17 2.86E–15 1.14E–09 8.04E–10 Yb-167 17.5 m 0.2673 2.60E–16 1.09E–14 5.01E–12 2.26E–12 Yb-169 32.01 d 0.3097 3.04E–16 1.29E–14 8.12E–10 2.18E–09 Yb-175 4.19 d 0.0396 3.91E–17 1.87E–15 4.76E–10 4.38E–10 Yb-177 1.9 h 0.1874 1.80E–16 9.23E–15 8.68E–11 3.93E–11 Yb-178 74 m 0.0349 3.47E–17 1.67E–15 1.07E–10 4.39E–11 Zn-62 9.26 h 0.4389 4.30E–16 2.07E–14 9.85E–10 5.57E–10 Zn-63 38.1 m 1.0998 1.09E–15 5.32E–14 5.92E–11 2.20E–11 Zn-65 243.9 d 0.5842 5.53E–16 2.90E–14 3.90E–09 5.51E–09 Zn-69 57 m 0 7.18E–19 2.16E–17 2.40E–11 1.06E–11 Zn-69m 13.76 h 0.4166 4.12E–16 1.99E–14 3.55E–10 2.20E–10 Zn-71m 3.92 h 1.5519 1.53E–15 7.50E–14 2.43E–10 1.05E–10 Zn-72 46.5 h 0.1519 1.41E–16 6.90E–15 1.49E–09 1.35E–09 Zr-86 16.5 h 0.2877 2.69E–16 1.28E–14 1.04E–09 5.94E–10 Zr-88 83.4 d 0.4025 3.91E–16 1.88E–14 4.03E–10 6.58E–09 Zr-89 78.43 h 1.165 1.13E–15 5.68E–14 9.25E–10 6.41E–10 Zr-93 1.53E+06 y 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.48E–10 8.67E–08 Zr-95 63.98 d 0.7388 7.23E–16 3.60E–14 1.02E–09 6.39E–09 Zr-97 16.9 h 0.1793 1.74E–16 9.02E–15 2.28E–09 1.17E–09

a Source: ICRP 38 (ICRP, 1983).

Listed X, γ , and γ + radiations from column labeled “y(i)xE(i)” in ICRP 38 (ICRP, 1983). The dose conversion factors are given as provided in the re ferences. For changing to other commonly used units, the conversions are: 1 Sv = 100 rem and 1 Ci = 3.7 × 10 10 Bq. External exposure from contam inated ground surface (EPA, 1993). External exposure from air immersion (EPA, 1993). For internal exposure, the largest eff ective committed dose equivalent value for each isotope was selected (EPA, 1988).



### REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1983, Radionuclide Transformations, Energy and Intensity of Emissions , ICRP Publication 38, Pergamon Press, New York, N.Y. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Limiting Values of Radi onuclide Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Facto rs for Inhalation, Subm ersion, and Ingestion , Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA 520/1-88-020, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Office of Radiatio n Programs, Washington, D.C., Sept. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993, External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil , Federal Guidance Report No. 12, EPA 402-R-93-081, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Office of Radia tion and Indoor Air, Washington, D.C., Sept.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page C-24 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-1 

### Appendix D

RADIONUCLIDE FOOD TRANSFER FACTORSA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-2 

### This page intentionally left blank.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-3 

### Ingestion food transfer factors a nd the methodology used to generate them are presented in this appendix. These transfer factors are used by RADTRAN to assess population doses from ingestion of foodstuff grown on contaminated ground following an accidental release of radioactive material during a tran sportation accident. The transfer factors, which are expressed in terms of curie of activity available in foodstuff per curie of activity deposited on the ground, were based on state-leve l agricultural data. Three types of food pathways are considered: crops, milk, and meat . It is assumed that once a radionuclide enters the foodstuff, it will eventually be consumed by humans; no crop interdiction or reduction credit (such as cl eaning by washing) is assumed. Th e calculated transfer factors would therefore be strongly influenc ed by local agricultural productivity. D.1 Methodology The method used to calculate food ingestion transf er factors of radionuclides from an accidental release is similar to that used in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC, 1977) and Commentary No. 3 of the National Council on Radiation Pr otection and Measurements (NCRPM) (NCRPM, 1989). For accidental releases to the atmosphere, particulates are retain ed by vegetation in the food chain via three mechanisms. The first is di rect deposition from the initial passing plume, the second is deposition onto the vegetation from contaminants resuspended from soil, and the third is retention by root uptake. Because of the particular phy sical and chemical behavior of radionuclides such as tritium and carbon-14 in the environment, and for the sake of completeness, transfer factors for these ra dionuclides are calculated separately. D.1.1 Direct Deposition For the direct deposition from the initial plum e, the amount of radioa ctivity retained on the vegetation is calculated by:

di i d

v ei e i h 

### C = < X > V Pr Y exp [-( t + t )] λ λ , (D.1)

where

C di 

### = concentration retained in vegetation (Ci/kg);

<X i 

### > = time-integrated air concentration of the initial passing plume (Ci-yr/m 3 

### );

V d 

### = deposition velocity, assumed for particulates to be 3.16 × 10 5 

### m/yr (0.01 m/s); r = fraction of deposited activity intercepte d and retained by the edible portion of the crop (dimensionless, assumed to be 0.25); P = probability that an accident will oc cur during the growing season (assumed to be 0.5);

Y v 

### = standing crop biomass of edible portion of vegetation at harvest, assumed to be 2 kg/m 2 

### for crops and 0.72 kg/m 2 

### for pasture grass;A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-4 

### λ ei 

### = effective decay constant for removal of the radionuclide deposited on vegetation (1/d), where λ e 

### = λ i 

### + 0.693/t w 

### , t w 

### = 0.0383 yr (14 d);

t e 

### = time period of aboveground crop exposure to contamination during the growing season, assumed to be 0.165 yr (60 d) fo r crops and 0.082 yr (30 d) for pasture grass;

λ i 

### = radioactive decay constant (yr); and

t h 

### = time period between harvest of vegetati on and consumption, assumed to be 0.038 yr (14 d) for crops by human consumption and 0 yr for pasture grass for animals. The deposited concentration C di 

### can derive the transfer factor s based on the local agricultural foodstuff affected by the release. D.1.2 Resuspension Following the initial deposition, th e radionuclide will eventually settle on the ground, where it can be resuspended into the air and once agai n become available for deposition onto the vegetation. The time-integrated concentration of ra dioactivity retained in vegetation is calculated by:



### < C > = X (t) V r( 1-e ) Y exp(- t )dt si 0 Ri d - t

v ei i h ei e ∞ 

### ∫ λ 

### λ λ , (D.2)

where

<C si 

### > = time-integrated radioactivity concentrat ion in vegetation due to resuspension (Ciyr/kg), and

X Ri 

### (t) = resuspended air concentration at time t (Ci/m 3 

### ). The time-integrated concentration <C si 

### >, if multiplied by the annual crop yield P c 

### (kg/m 2 

### -yr), represents the amount of to tal radioactivity transfe rred via crop ingestion. The resuspended air concentration in Equation D.2 is calculated by the following (Momeni et al., 1979):

X Ri 

### (t) = G i 

### (t) R(t) , (D.3)

where G i 

### (t) is the deposited ground concentration at time t, and R(t) is the resuspension coefficient at time t.

i io g i 

### G (t) = G exp [-( + ) t] λ λ 

### (D.4)

where G io 

### is the initial depositi on concentration (in Ci/m 2 

### ), which is equal to <X i 

### >V d 

### , λ g 

### = 0.603/t g 

### ,t g 

### , which is the ground removal half- life, assumed to be 50 yr, andA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-5 

## ( ) R(t) = F exp t , 0 t t F , t t Iw s

E s 

### − ≤≤ ≤    λ 

### (D.5)

where

F I 

### = initial resuspension factor (10 -5 

### /m),

F E 

### = final resuspension factor (10 -9 

### /m),

λ w 

### = 0.693/t w 

### , t w 

### = 0.1368 yr (50 d), and

t s 

### = 1.823 yr. The basic formulation of the above expressi on for the resuspension factors and the decay constant was derived from experimental measurements (Volchok, 1971; Anspaugh, 1973; Anspaugh, et al., 1974; NRC, 1974). By using Equations D.3 through D.5, the time -integrated concentration for Equation D.2 becomes

< C > = G < T > V r(1- e ) Y exp(- t ) Si io i d - t

v ei i h ei e λ 

### λ λ , (D.6)

where



## ( ) ( ) 

# [ ] 

# { } ( ) ( ) 

# [ ] < T > = F 1 exp t F exp t i I
giw g i ws E
g i g is 

### λ λλ λ λλ λ λ λ λ + + − − ++ + + − + . (D.7)

D.1.3 Root Uptake 

### The time-integrated concentration of radioactivity in vegetation via root up take is calculated by:

< C > = G (t) B (i) exp (- t ) dt

= G B (i) (+) exp (- t ) ri 0 i v i h

io v g i i h ∞ 

### ∫ ρ λ

ρ λ λ λ 

### (D.8)

where

<C ri 

### > = time-integrated radioactivity concentr ation in vegetation from root uptake (Ciyr/kg);

G i 

### (t) = ground concentration at time t, given in Equation D.4;A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-6 

### B v 

### (i) = concentration ratio for the transfer of the element to the edible portion of a crop from dry soil (Ci/kg plant pe r Ci/kg soil) (Table D.1); 6 

### and

ρ = areal density for the effective root zone in dry soil, assumed to be 240 kg/m 2



### . The time-integrated concentration <C ri 

### >, when multiplied by the annual crop yield P c 

### (kg/m 2 

### -yr), gives the total amount of radioactivit y transferred via crop ingestion. D.1.4 Transfer Factor for Crops



### The transfer factor is defined as the fraction of the radioactivity deposit ed on the ground that is retained in foodstuff and available for human co nsumption. For crops, the transfer factor is obtained by:

ci i c

io c 

### f = < C > G P (D.9)

where

f ci 

### = food transfer factor via crops (Ci/m 2 

### )/(Ci/m 2 

### );

<C i c 

### > = <C c di 

### > + <C c si 

### > + <C c ri 

### >, the total time-integrated concentration in crops (Ci-yr/kg); <C c di 

### >, <C c si 

### >, <C c ri 

### > = time-integrated radioactivity concentration in crops via various pathways (Ci-yr/kg);

G io 

### = initial ground deposition concentration (Ci/m 2 

### ); and

P c 

### = local crop yield (kg/m 2 

### -yr). The data for crop yield (P c 

### ) for the 48 contiguous states are presented in Table D.2. The concentrations <C c si 

### > and <C c ri 

### > are derived according to Equations D.1 and D.2. Because the direct deposition would only affect the harvested crops during the first year of deposition, the time-integrated crop concentration <C di 

### > is equal to C di 

### (Equation D.1) times 1 yr.

D.1.5 Transfer Factor for Milk 

### The concentration in milk can be calculated by:

< C > = F < C > Q exp(- t ) i m mi i p f i f 

### λ , (D.10.)

where

C i m 

### = time-integrated concentration of radionuclide i in milk (Ci-yr/L);

F mi 

### = transfer factor from pasture grass to milk for radionuclide i (Ci/L)/(kg/d) (see Table D.1);

6 All tables cited in the text are at the end of the appendix.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-7 

### <C p i 

### > = <C p di 

### > + <C p si 

### > + <C p ri 

### >, the time-integrated concentration of radionuclide i in animal feed (Ci-yr/kg);

<C p di 

### >, <C p si 

### >, <C p ri 

### > = time-integrated concentrations in pasture grass as derived by Equations D.1, D.2, and D.8 (Ci-yr/kg); Q f 

### = amount of feed consumed by an animal per day, assumed to be 50 kg/d; and

t f 

### = transport time from milk to human consumption, assumed to be 2 d. Again, because the direct deposition would only a ffect the animal feed for the first year of deposition, the time-integrated crop concentration is multiplied by 1 yr. Thus, the transfer factor via the milk pathway is obtained by:

m i mi m io 

### <C > f = P, G (D.11)

where

f mi 

### = the food transfer factor via milk (Ci/m 2 

### )/(Ci/m 2 

### ), and

P m 

### = local milk production (L/m 2 

### -yr). The data for milk production are given in Table D.2.

D.1.6 Transfer Factor for Meat 

### The concentration in meat is calculated by:

< C > = F < C > Q exp(- t ) i b bi i p f i f 

### λ , (D.12)

where

<C b i 

### > = time-integrated concentration of ra dionuclide i in animal flesh (Ci-yr/kg);

F bi 

### = transfer factor from pasture grass to an imal flesh for radionuclide i (Ci/kg)/(Ci/kg) (see Table D.1);

t b 

### = transport time from slaughter to huma n consumption, assumed to be 20 days; and

<c p i 

### >, Q f 

### = same as defined in Equation D.10. Thus, the transfer factor via meat is obtained by:

bi i b

io b 

### f = < C > G P , (D.13)

whereA Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-8 

### f bi 

### = food transfer factor via meat (Ci/m 2 

### )/(Ci/m 2 

### ) and

P b 

### = local meat production (kg/m 2 

### -yr). The data for meat production are provided in Ta ble D.2. The concentration of radionuclide i in the animal's feed, assumed to consist of fresh pa sture grass and stored feeds, is calculated by:



### > C < ) f

- (1 f + > C < ) f

- (1 + > C < f f = > C < s i s p s i p t i s p p i 

### , (D.14)

where

f p 

### = fraction of the year the animals are grazing on pasture,

f s 

### = fraction of the daily feed that is pasture grass when the animals graze on the pasture,

t i 

### <C > = time-integrated concentration of radionuclide i on pasture grass (t h 

### = 0) (Ci-yr/kg), and

s i 

### <C > = time-integrated concentration of radionuclide i in stored feeds (t h 

### = 90 days) (Ciyr/kg), and

If it is assumed that f p 

### = 0.5 and f s 

### = 1.0, Equation D.14 becomes:

< C > = 0.5 < C > + 0.5 < C > i p i t i s 

### . (D.15)

Half of the radionuclide concentration in animal feed is assumed to be derived from grazing; the other half is assumed to be stored feed.

D.1.7 Transfer Factor for Tritium



### The calculation of the tritium concentration is also adapte d from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC, 1977). For accidental releases, an e quilibrium ratio is assumed for the tritium concentration; the ratio is established between the contaminated atmospheric environment and local vegetation. Thus, the time-integrated tritiu m concentration in vegetation is estimated by:

H > x < Pf 0.375 = /H) (0.5 (0.75) > x < Pf = > C < T T v T 

### , (D.16)

where

v T 

### <C > = time-integrated concentration of trit ium in vegetation grown at the location of interest (Ci-yr/kg), P = probability that an accident will occur during the growing season (0.5),A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-9 

### f = fractional equilibrium ratio (dimensionless),

<x T 

### > = time-integrated air concentration of tritium at the location of interest (Ci-yr/m 3 

### ), 0.75 = fraction of total plant mass that is water (dimensionless), 0.5 = ratio of tritium concentration in plant water to tritium concentration in atmospheric water (dimensionless), and H = absolute humidity of the atmosphe re at the location of interest (kg/m 3 

### ) (see Table D.2). The fractional equilibrium ratio is assumed to be linearly proportional to the total release time and the vegetation growing season. Conservative ly assuming a one-day accidental release and a 90-day growing season, f is estimated to be 0.11. Similarly, the time-integrated tritium concentration in water is:

< C > = 0.5 Pf < x > H T w T 

### . (D.17)

Because the half-life of tritium (12.35 years) is much longer than the vegetation growing season and the period between harvest a nd consumption, the decay in tritium during these time periods is not considered. By further assuming that Equation D.9 applies equa lly to crops, as well as pasture grass, and with the addition of the drinking water pathway for the animals, the following time-integrated concentrations are obtained:

crops, < C > = < C > T c T v 

### (D.18)

milk, < C > = F C Q C Q T m mi < > + < > T v f T w

w       

### (D.19)

meat, < C > = F C Q C Q T b bi < > + < > T v f T w

w       

### (D.20)

where

F mi, 

### F bi 

### = transfer factors from pasture grass to milk or meat for tritium, (Ci/L)/(Ci/kg) for milk and (Ci/kg)/(Ci/kg) for meat (Table D.1), Q f 

### = amount of feed consumed by an animal per day (50 kg/d), and Q w 

### = amount of water consumed by an animal per day (50 kg/d).

The total amount of tritium tran sferred to humans via food pathways is then estimated by:

T T c c T m m T b b 

### C = < C > P + < C > P + < C > P 

### , (D.21)A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-10 

### where P c 

### , P m 

### , and P b 

### represent the local annual yield da ta for crops, milk, and meat. The parameter C T 

### is given in units of Ci/m 2



### . D.1.8 Transfer Factor for Carbon-14 

### According to NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC, 1977), carbon-14 is released in oxide form (CO or CO 2 

### ). The carbon-14 concentration in vegetati on is calculated by assuming that its ratio to the natural carbon in vegetation is the same as that to the at mosphere surrounding the vegetation. Following NRC Regulatory Guide 1. 109, the time-integrated concentration in vegetation can be derived by:

<C v 14 

### > = Pf<x 14 

### > (0.11/0.00016) = 6.88 × 

### 10 2 

### Pf <x 14 

### > , (D.22)

where

<C v 14 

### > = time-integrated concentration of carbon- 14 in vegetation grown at the location of interest, P = probability that an accident will occur during the growing season (0.5), f = fractional equilibrium ratio, estimated to be 0.11 (dimensionless), 0.11 = fraction of total plant mass th at is natural carbon (dimensionless),

0.00016 = concentration of natural carbon in the atmosphere (kg/m 3 

### ), and

<x 14 

### > = time-integrated air concentration of carbon-14 (Ci-yr/m 2 

### ). Again, the half-life of carbon- 14 (5,730 yr) is much greater th an the vegetation growing season so that its decay during this period need not be considered. By assuming that Equation D.14 applies equally to crops and pa sture grass, the following time-i ntegrated concentrations are obtained:

crops, < C > = < C > 14 c 14 v 

### 1 (D.23)

milk, < C > = F < C > Q 14 m m14 14 v f 

### 2 (D.24)

meat < C > = F < C > Q 14 b b14 14 v f 

### 3 (D.25)

where

F m14 

### , F b14 

### = transfer factors from pasture grass to m ilk and meat for carbon-14, (Ci/L)/(kg/d) for milk, and (Ci/kg)/(kg/d) fo r meat (Table D.1), and Q f 

### = same as defined in Equation D.10.

The total amount of carbon-14 tr ansferred to humans via food pathways is estimated by:A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-11 14 14 v c 14 m m 14 b b 

### C = < C > P + < C > P + < C > P 

### , (D.26) 

### where the parameters have been defined in E quation D.14, and carbon-14 is given in units of Ci/m 2



### . D.2 Comparison of Transfer Factors



### Intermediate results were obtained for the three food pathways studied. The ratios of the timeintegrated concentrations ove r the initial ground concentratio ns were calculated and are presented in Table D.3. These ratios are <C c i 

### >/G io 

### for crops, <C m i 

### >/G io 

### for milk, and <C b i 

### >/G io 

### for meat. When multiplied by the respective state yield data, these ratios represent the transfer factors; that is, the equivalent of curies in foodstuff per curies deposited on the ground. Results of the foodchain transfer factors from accidental releases are presented in Table D.4. Table D.5 contains three data samples for locations repres enting the states of Illinois and Nevada and the U.S. national average. Because agricultural yi elds in different locations vary widely, the calculated food transfer coefficients deviate accordi ngly. A complete set of transfer factors for selected radionuclides keyed to individual states, as well as the U.S. average, is presented in Table D.6. Contributions from each food source (i.e., crops, milk, and meat) also vary from isotope to isotope, as well as from state to state. Exam ples between Illinois (crop state) and Wisconsin (dairy state) are given in Table D.5. While transfer factors are predominantly from crop ingestion for the state of Illinoi s, ingestion via milk products is significant for the state of Wisconsin.

D.3 References 

### Anspaugh, L.R., 1973, Relationship between Resuspended Plutonium in Air and Soil, NVO-140, U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. Anspaugh, L.R., et al., 1974, Resuspension Element Status Repor t, The Dynamics of Plutonium in Desert Environments, NVO-142, U.S. Departme nt of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. Momeni, M.H., Y. Yuan, and A.J. Zielen, 1979, The Uranium Dispersion and Dosimetry (UDAD) Code, Version IX, NUREG/CR-0553, ANL/ES-72, prepared by Argonne National Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

National Council on Radiation Prot ection and Measurements, 1989, Screening Techniques for Determining Compliance with Environmental St andards — Releases of Radionuclides to the Atmosphere, NCRP Commentary No. 3, Rev. of Jan. 1989. Ostmeyer, R.M., 1986, An Approach to Estimating Food Ingestion Exposures for Nuclear Waste Transportation Accidents , SAND 85-1722, Sandia National Laboratories. Saricks, C.L., et al., 1989, Data Base of Accident and Agricultu ral Statistics for Transportation Risk Assessment, ANL/EAIS/TM-2, Argonne National Laboratory.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-12 

### Till, J.E., and H.R. Meyer, 1983, Radiological Assessment, NUREG/CR-3332, ORNL-5968, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission, Sept. U.S. Department of Energy, 1986a, Environmental Assessment, Deaf Smith Site, Texas, DOE/RW-0069, Vols. 1-3, Office of Civili an Radioactive Waste Management, May. U.S. Department of Energy, 1986b, Environmental Assessment, Reference Repository Location, Hanford Site, Washington, DOE/RW-0070, Vols. 1-3, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, May. U.S. Department of Energy, 1986c, Environmental Assessment, Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada Research and Development Area, Nevada, DOE/RW-0071, Vols. 1-3, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, May. U.S. Nuclear Regulat ory Commission, 1974, Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program, Vol. II, WASH-1535. U.S. Nuclear Regulat ory Commission, 1977, Calculation of Annual Dose to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpos e of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Rev. 1, Regulatory Guide 1.109. Volchok, H.L., 1971, “Resuspension of Plutoni um-239 in the Vicinity of Rocky Flats,” Proc. of Environmental Plutonium Symposium , LA-4756, Los Alamos Scie ntific Laboratory, pp. 99- 103.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-13 

### Table D.1. Transfer Coefficients Applicable to Food Chain Pathways for Various Elements

Transfer Coefficients Index (i) Element Soil-to-Plant B v (i) (dimensionless) Grass-to-Meat F b (i) (d/kg) Grass-to-Milk F m (i) (d/L) 1 Hydrogen 4.8 1.2 × 10 -2 1.0 × 10 -2 2 Helium 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Lithium 8.3 × 10 -4 1.0 × 10 -2 5.0 × 10 -2 4 Beryllium 4.2 × 10 -4 1.0 × 10 -3 1.0 × 10 -4 5 Boron 1.2 × 10 -1 8.0 × 10 -4 2.7 × 10 -3 6 Carbon 5.5 3.1 × 10 -2 1.2 × 10 -2 7 Nitrogen 7.5 7.7 × 10 -2 2.2 × 10 -2 8 Oxygen 1.6 1.6 × 10 -2 2.0 × 10 -2 9 Fluorine 6.5 × 10 -4 1.5 × 10 -1 1.4 × 10 -2 10 Neon 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 Sodium 5.2 × 10 -2 3.0 × 10 -2 4.0 × 10 -2 12 Magnesium 1.3 × 10 -1 5.0 × 10 -3 1.0 × 10 -2 13 Aluminum 1.8 × 10 -4 1.5 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -4 14 Silicon 1.5 × 10 -4 4.0 × 10 -5 1.0 × 10 -4 15 Phosphorous 1.1 4.6 × 10 -2 2.5 × 10 -2 16 Sulfur 5.9 × 10 -1 1.0 × 10 -1 1.8 × 10 -2 17 Chlorine 5.0 8.0 × 10 -2 5.0 × 10 -2 18 Argon 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 Potassium 3.7 × 10 -1 1.2 × 10 -2 1.0 × 10 -2 20 Calcium 3.6 × 10 -2 4.0 × 10 -3 8.0 × 10 -3 21 Scandium 1.1 × 10 -3 1.6 × 10 -2 5.0 × 10 -6 22 Titanium 5.4 × 10 -5 3.1 × 10 -2 5.0 × 10 -6 23 Vanadium 1.3 × 10 -3 2.3 × 10 -3 1.0 × 10 -3 24 Chromium 2.5 × 10 -4 2.4 × 10 -3 2.2 × 10 -3 25 Manganese 2.9 × 10 -2 8.0 × 10 -4 2.5 × 10 -4 26 Iron 6.6 × 10 -4 4.0 × 10 -2 1.2 × 10 -3 27 Cobalt 9.4 × 10 -3 1.3 × 10 -2 1.0 × 10 -3 28 Nickel 1.9 × 10 -2 5.3 × 10 -3 6.7 × 10 -3 29 Copper 1.2 × 10 -1 8.0 × 10 -3 1.4 × 10 -2 30 Zinc 4.0 × 10 -1 3.0 × 10 -2 3.9 × 10 -2 31 Gallium 2.5 × 10 -4 1.3 5.0 × 10 -5 32 Germanium 1.0 × 10 -1 2.0 × 10 1 5.0 × 10 -4 33 Arsenic 1.0 × 10 -2 2.0 × 10 -3 6.0 × 10 -3 34 Selenium 1.3 1.5 × 10 -2 4.5 × 10 -3A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-14 

### Table D.1. Transfer Coefficients Applicable to Food Chain Pathways for Various Elements (Continued)

Transfer Coefficients Index (i) Element Soil-to-Plant B v (i) (dimensionless) Grass-to-Meat F b (i) (d/kg) Grass-to-Milk F m (i) (d/L) 35 Bromine 7.6 × 10 -1 2.6 × 10 -2 5.0 × 10 -2 36 Krypton 0.0 0.0 0.0 37 Rubidium 1.3 × 10 -1 3.1 × 10 -2 3.0 × 10 -2 38 Strontium 1.7 × 10 -2 6.0 × 10 -4 8.0 × 10 -4 39 Yttrium 2.6 × 10 -3 4.6 × 10 -3 1.0 × 10 -5 40 Zirconium 1.7 × 10 -4 3.4 × 10 -2 5.0 × 10 -6 41 Niobium 9.4 × 10 -3 2.8 × 10 -1 2.5 × 10 -3 42 Molybdenum 1.2 × 10 -1 8.0 × 10 -3 7.5 × 10 -3 43 Technetium 2.5 × 10 -1 4.0 × 10 -1 2.5 × 10 -2 44 Ruthenium 5.0 × 10 -2 4.0 × 10 -1 1.0 × 10 -6 45 Rhodium 1.3 × 10 1 1.5 × 10 -3 1.0 × 10 -2 46 Palladium 5.0 4.0 × 10 -3 1.0 × 10 -2 47 Silver 1.5 × 10 -1 1.7 × 10 -2 5.0 × 10 -2 48 Cadmium 3.0 × 10 -1 5.3 × 10 -4 1.2 × 10 -4 49 Indium 2.5 × 10 -1 8.0 × 10 -3 1.0 × 10 -4 50 Tin 2.5 × 10 -3 8.0 × 10 -2 2.5 × 10 -3 51 Antimony 1.1 × 10 -2 4.0 × 10 -3 1.5 × 10 -3 52 Tellurium 1.3 7.7 × 10 -2 1.0 × 10 -3 53 Iodine 2.0 × 10 -2 2.9 × 10 -3 6.0 × 10 -3 54 Xenon 0.0 0.0 0.0 55 Cesium 1.0 × 10 -2 4.0 × 10 -3 1.2 × 10 -2 56 Barium 5.0 × 10 -3 3.2 × 10 -3 4.0 × 10 -4 57 Lanthanum 2.5 × 10 -3 2.0 × 10 -4 5.0 × 10 -6 58 Cerium 2.5 × 10 -3 1.2 × 10 -3 6.0 × 10 -4 59 Praseodymium 2.5 × 10 -3 4.7 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6 60 Neodymium 2.4 × 10 -3 3.3 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6 61 Promethium 2.5 × 10 -3 4.8 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6 62 Samarium 2.5 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6 

### 63 Europium 2.5 × 

### 10 -3 

### 4.8 × 

### 10 -3 

### 5.0 × 

### 10 -6 64 Gadolinium 2.6 × 10 -3 3.6 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6 65 Terbium 2.6 × 10 -3 4.4 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6 66 Dysprosium 2.5 × 10 -3 5.3 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6 67 Holmium 2.6 × 10 -3 4.4 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6 68 Erbium 2.5 × 10 -3 4.0 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-15 

### Table D.1. Transfer Coefficients Applicable to Food Chain Pathways for Various Elements (Continued)

Transfer Coefficients Index (i) Element Soil-to-Plant B v (i) (dimensionless) Grass-to-Meat F b (i) (d/kg) Grass-to-Milk F m (i) (d/L) 69 Thulium 2.6 × 10 -3 4.4 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6 70 Ytterbium 2.5 × 10 -3 4.0 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6 71 Lutetium 2.6 × 10 -3 4.4 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -6 72 Hafnium 1.7 × 10 -4 4.0 × 10 -1 5.0 × 10 -6 73 Tantalum 6.3 × 10 -3 1.6 2.5 × 10 -2 74 Tungsten 1.8 × 10 -2 1.3 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -4 75 Rhenium 2.5 × 10 -1 8.0 × 10 -3 2.5 × 10 -2 76 Osmium 5.0 × 10 -2 4.0 × 10 -1 5.0 × 10 -3 77 Iridium 1.3 × 10 1 1.5 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -3 78 Platinum 5.0 × 10 -1 4.0 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -3 79 Gold 2.5 × 10 -3 8.0 × 10 -3 5.0 × 10 -3 80 Mercury 3.8 × 10 -1 2.6 × 10 -1 3.8 × 10 -2 81 Thallium 2.5 × 10 -1 4.0 × 10 -2 2.2 × 10 -2 82 Lead 6.8 × 10 -2 2.9 × 10 -4 6.2 × 10 -4 83 Bismuth 1.5 × 10 -1 1.3 × 10 -2 5.0 × 10 -4 84 Polonium 1.5 × 10 -1 1.2 × 10 -2 3.0 × 10 -4 85 Astatine 2.5 × 10 -1 8.0 5.0 × 10 -2 86 Radon 0.0 0.0 0.0 87 Francium 1.0 × 10 -2 2.0 × 10 -2 5.0 × 10 -2 88 Radium 3.1 × 10 -4 3.4 × 10 -2 8.0 × 10 -3 89 Actinium 2.5 × 10 -3 6.0 × 10 -2 5.0 × 10 -6 90 Thorium 4.2 × 10 -3 2.0 × 10 -4 5.0 × 10 -6 91 Protactinium 2.5 × 10 -3 8.0 × 10 2 5.0 × 10 -6 92 Uranium 2.5 × 10 -3 3.4 × 10 -4 5.0 × 10 -4 93 Neptunium 2.5 × 10 -3 2.0 × 10 -4 5.0 × 10 -6 

### 94 Plutonium 2.5 × 

### 10 -4 

### 1.4 × 

### 10 -5 

### 2.0 × 

### 10 -6 95 Americium 2.5 × 10 -4 2.0 × 10 -4 5.0 × 10 -6 96 Curium 2.5 × 10 -3 2.0 × 10 -4 5.0 × 10 -6 97 Berkelium 2.5 × 10 -3 2.0 × 10 -4 5.0 × 10 -6 98 Californium 2.5 × 10 -3 2.0 × 10 -4 5.0 × 10 -6 99 Einsteinium 2.5 × 10 -3 2.0 × 10 -4 5.0 × 10 -6 100 Fermium 2.5 × 10 -3 2.0 × 10 -4 5.0 × 10 -6 Source: NRC (1977).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-16 

### Table D.2. Summary of State a 

### Agricultural Production for Land in Farms and Absolute Humidity Data

State Percent of Land in

Farms b Crops b (kg/km 2 ) Dairy b (L/km 2 ) Meat b (kg/km 2 ) Mean Absolute Humidity c

(kg/m 3 ) Alabama 31.4 1.76 × 10 4 2.00 × 10 3 7.19 × 10 3 1.07 × 10 -2 Arizona 52.0 4.15 × 10 3 1.85 × 10 3 6.36 × 10 2 5.75 × 10 -3 Arkansas 44.1 3.58 × 10 4 2.78 × 10 3 9.77 × 10 3 9.55 × 10 -3 California 32.1 4.29 × 10 4 1.63 × 10 4 3.41 × 10 3 6.60 × 10 -3 Colorado 50.6 2.52 × 10 4 1.64 × 10 3 2.24 × 10 3 5.75 × 10 -3 Connecticut 14.2 4.36 × 10 3 2.32 × 10 4 5.97 × 10 3 6.60 × 10 -3 Delaware 53.0 1.45 × 10 5 1.24 × 10 4 4.98 × 10 4 6.60 × 10 -3 Florida 37.0 5.94 × 10 4 6.82 × 10 3 3.47 × 10 3 1.38 × 10 -2 Georgia 33.1 3.15 × 10 4 4.26 × 10 3 8.84 × 10 3 1.07 × 10 -2 Idaho 26.4 5.37 × 10 4 4.79 × 10 3 1.22 × 10 3 4.90 × 10 -3 Illinois 80.7 3.29 × 10 5 8.36 × 10 3 6.70 × 10 3 7.50 × 10 -3 Indiana 70.9 2.54 × 10 5 1.14 × 10 4 1.00 × 10 4 7.50 × 10 -3 Iowa 91.0 3.17 × 10 5 1.25 × 10 4 1.74 × 10 4 6.60 × 10 -3 Kansas 89.9 9.40 × 10 4 2.90 × 10 3 6.01 × 10 3 7.50 × 10 -3 Kentucky 55.8 5.05 × 10 4 1.04 × 10 4 3.14 × 10 3 8.40 × 10 -3 Louisiana 31.3 2.17 × 10 4 3.84 × 10 1.98 × 10 3 1.23 × 10 -2 Maine 7.4 1.51 × 10 4 4.11 × 10 3 1.62 × 10 3 7.50 × 10 -3 Maryland 40.6 8.79 × 10 4 2.81 × 10 4 1.59 × 10 4 7.50 × 10 -3 Massachusetts 12.2 4.55 × 10 3 1.35 × 10 4 1.57 × 10 3 6.60 × 10 -3 Michigan 30.0 7.84 × 10 4 1.62 × 10 4 2.24 × 10 3 7.50 × 10 -3 Minnesota 54.4 1.46 × 10 5 2.28 × 10 4 5.83 × 10 3 8.40 × 10 -3 Mississippi 41.1 2.70 × 10 4 3.34 × 10 3 4.65 × 10 3 1.07 × 10 -2 Missouri 66.3 6.76 × 10 4 7.38 × 10 3 5.56 × 10 3 4.40 × 10 -3 Montana 65.1 1.84 × 10 4 4.11 × 10 2 8.39 × 10 2 4.90 × 10 -3 Nebraska 91.7 1.31 × 10 5 3.06 × 10 3 7.51 × 10 3 5.95 × 10 -3 Nevada 14.2 1.03 × 10 3 3.59 × 10 2 1.58 × 10 2 4.90 × 10 -3 New Hampshire 8.2 1.04 × 10 3 7.11 × 10 3 6.63 × 10 2 6.60 × 10 -3 New Jersey 19.2 3.23 × 10 4 1.15 × 10 4 1.59 × 10 3 6.60 × 10 -3 New Mexico 60.6 2.60 × 10 3 1.17 × 10 3 6.61 × 10 2 5.75 × 10 -3 New York 30.3 2.72 × 10 4 4.10 × 10 4 2.07 × 10 3 6.60 × 10 -3 North Carolina 33.0 4.65 × 10 4 6.05 × 10 3 9.51 × 10 3 9.55 × 10 -3 North Dakota 90.7 9.23 × 10 4 2.58 × 10 3 1.14 × 10 3 4.90 × 10 -3A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-17 

### Table D.2. Summary of State a 

### Agricultural Production for Land in Farms and Absolute Humidity Data (Continued)

State Percent of Land in

Farms b Crops b (kg/km 2 ) Dairy b (L/km 2 ) Meat b (kg/km 2 ) Mean Absolute Humidity c

(kg/m 3 ) Ohio 58.7 1.49 × 10 5 1.94 × 10 4 5.55 × 10 3 6.60 × 10 -3 Oklahoma 73.7 3.10 × 10 4 2.97 × 10 3 3.87 × 10 3 8.40 × 10 -3 Oregon 28.8 1.47 × 10 4 2.37 × 10 3 9.18 × 10 2 6.60 × 10 -3 Pennsylvania 28.9 3.62 × 10 4 3.61 × 10 4 6.13 × 10 3 6.60 × 10 -3 Rhode Island 9.3 1.28 × 10 4 7.64 × 10 3 2.06 × 10 3 6.60 × 10 -3 South Carolina 28.9 2.78 × 10 4 3.29 × 10 3 3.22 × 10 3 9.55 × 10 -3 South Dakota 90.1 5.04 × 10 4 4.06 × 10 3 3.20 × 10 3 5.75 × 10 -3 Tennessee 47.4 3.34 × 10 4 9.90 × 10 3 3.72 × 10 3 8.40 × 10 -3 Texas 78.3 2.19 × 10 4 2.53 × 10 3 3.26 × 10 3 9.87 × 10 -3 Utah 18.6 2.66 × 10 3 2.48 × 10 3 5.72 × 10 2 4.90 × 10 -3 Vermont 26.5 2.48 × 10 3 4.50 × 10 4 1.27 × 10 3 6.60 × 10 -3 Virginia 37.1 2.75 × 10 4 9.08 × 10 3 4.61 × 10 3 8.40 × 10 -3 Washington 38.7 5.13 × 10 4 8.48 × 10 3 1.71 × 10 3 5.75 × 10 -3 West Virginia 23.1 5.41 × 10 3 2.53 × 10 3 1.62 × 10 3 6.60 × 10 -3 Wisconsin 49.5 7.53 × 10 4 7.47 × 10 4 4.20 × 10 3 5.75 × 10 -3 Wyoming 54.0 5.77 × 10 3 2.47 × 10 2 6.39 × 10 2 4.90 × 10 -3 U.S. Average 43.6 5.58 × 10 4 6.71 × 10 3 3.07 × 10 3 6.00 × 10 -3

a For the 48 contiguous United States. b Source: Saricks et al. (1989). The annual yield data for P c , P m , and P b (see Equations B.1, B.11, and B.13) are

obtained by multiplying the percent of land in farms (as shown in the first column) by the respective data for production of land in farms.

c Source: Till and Meyer (1983).A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-18 

### Table D.3. Ratios of Time-Integrated Concen tration to Initial Ground Concentration for Crop, Milk, and Wheat Food Pathways

Ratio of Time-Integrated Media Concentration to Ground Concentration a Isotope Crops (yr-m 2 /kg) Milk (yr-m 2 /L) Meat (yr-m 2 /kg) Americium-241 7.43 × 10 -3 1.22 × 10 -5 4.89 × 10 -4 Americium-243 7.46 × 10 -3 1.23 × 10 -5 4.90 × 10 -4 Carbon-14 b 1.20 × 10 -4 7.18 × 10 -5 1.86 × 10 -4 Cesium-134 6.77 × 10 -3 2.70 × 10 -2 8.83 × 10 -3 Cesium-137 8.38 × 10 -3 2.98 × 10 -2 9.91 × 10 -3 Cerium-144 5.88 × 10 -3 1.19 × 10 -2 2.28 × 10 -3 Cobalt-60 7.28 × 10 -3 2.37 × 10 -3 3.06 × 10 -2 Curium-244 7.41 × 10 -3 1.21 × 10 -5 4.84 × 10 -4 Europium-154 7.06 × 10 -3 1.20 × 10 -5 1.14 × 10 -2 Iodine-131 7.18 × 10 -5 4.51 × 10 -4 4.61 × 10 -5 Plutonium-238 7.36 × 10 -3 4.88 × 10 -6 3.41 × 10 -5 Plutonium-239 7.46 × 10 -3 4.90 × 10 -6 3.43 × 10 -5 Plutonium-240 7.46 × 10 -3 4.90 × 10 -6 3.43 × 10 -5 Plutonium-241 7.20 × 10 -3 4.81 × 10 -6 3.36 × 10 -5 Ruthenium-106 6.42 × 10 -3 2.09 × 10 -6 8.06 × 10 -1 Strontium-90 9.12 × 10 -3 2.01 × 10 -3 1.51 × 10 -3 Tritium b 8.73 × 10 -5 1.02 × 10 -5 1.22 × 10 -5

a The ratios are expressed by <C c i >/G io for crops, <C m i >/G io for milk, and <C b i >/G io for meat. b Data provided are based on an assumed deposition velocity (V d ) of 0.01 m/s.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-19 

### Table D.3. Ratios of Time-Integrated Concen tration to Initial Ground Concentration for Crop, Milk, and Wheat Food Pathways

Ratio of Time-Integrated Media Concentration to Ground Concentration a Isotope Crops (yr-m 2 /kg) Milk (yr-m 2 /L) Meat (yr-m 2 /kg) Americium-241 7.43 × 10 -3 1.22 × 10 -5 4.89 × 10 -4 Americium-243 7.46 × 10 -3 1.23 × 10 -5 4.90 × 10 -4 Carbon-14 b 1.20 × 10 -4 7.18 × 10 -5 1.86 × 10 -4 Cesium-134 6.77 × 10 -3 2.70 × 10 -2 8.83 × 10 -3 Cesium-137 8.38 × 10 -3 2.98 × 10 -2 9.91 × 10 -3 Cerium-144 5.88 × 10 -3 1.19 × 10 -2 2.28 × 10 -3 Cobalt-60 7.28 × 10 -3 2.37 × 10 -3 3.06 × 10 -2 Curium-244 7.41 × 10 -3 1.21 × 10 -5 4.84 × 10 -4 Europium-154 7.06 × 10 -3 1.20 × 10 -5 1.14 × 10 -2 Iodine-131 7.18 × 10 -5 4.51 × 10 -4 4.61 × 10 -5 Plutonium-238 7.36 × 10 -3 4.88 × 10 -6 3.41 × 10 -5 Plutonium-239 7.46 × 10 -3 4.90 × 10 -6 3.43 × 10 -5 Plutonium-240 7.46 × 10 -3 4.90 × 10 -6 3.43 × 10 -5 Plutonium-241 7.20 × 10 -3 4.81 × 10 -6 3.36 × 10 -5 Ruthenium-106 6.42 × 10 -3 2.09 × 10 -6 8.06 × 10 -1 Strontium-90 9.12 × 10 -3 2.01 × 10 -3 1.51 × 10 -3 Tritium b 8.73 × 10 -5 1.02 × 10 -5 1.22 × 10 -5

a The ratios are expressed by <C c i >/G io for crops, <C m i >/G io for milk, and <C b i >/G io for meat. b Data provided are based on an assumed deposition velocity (V d ) of 0.01 m/s.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-20 

### Table D.4. Comparison of Part ial Transfer Factors for Crops (f vi 

### ), Milk (f mi 

### ), and Meat (f

bi 

### ) between Two Representative States

Illinois Wisconsin Crops Milk Meat Crops Milk Meat Isotope f vi f mi f bi f vi f mi f bi Americium-241 1.98 × 10 -3 8.29 × 10 -9 2.66 × 10 -6 2.80 × 10 -4 4.57 × 10 -7 1.03 × 10 -6 Americium-243 1.99 × 10 -3 8.30 × 10 -8 2.66 × 10 -6 2.81 × 10 -4 4.58 × 10 -7 1.03 × 10 -6
Carbon-14 a 3.19 × 10 -5 4.87 × 10 -7 1.01 × 10 -6 4.51 × 10 -6 2.68 × 10 -6 3.90 × 10 -7 Cesium-134 1.80 × 10 -8 1.83 × 10 -4 4.79 × 10 -5 2.55 × 10 -4 1.01 × 10 -3 1.86 × 10 -5 Cesium-137 2.23 × 10 -3 2.01 × 10 -4 5.38 × 10 -5 3.15 × 10 -4 1.11 × 10 -3 2.08 × 10 -5 Cerium-144 1.57 × 10 -3 8.08 × 10 -6 1.24 × 10 -5 2.21 × 10 -4 4.46 × 10 -5 4.80 × 10 -6 Cobalt-60 1.94 × 10 -3 1.60 × 10 -5 1.66 × 10 -4 2.74 × 10 -5 8.85 × 10 -5 6.43 × 10 -5 Curium-244 1.97 × 10 -3 8.20 × 10 -8 2.62 × 10 -6 2.79 × 10 -4 4.52 × 10 -7 1.02 × 10 -6 Europium-154 1.93 × 10 -3 8.01 × 10 -8 6.21 × 10 -5 2.72 × 10 -4 4.47 × 10 -7 2.40 × 10 -5 Iodine-131 1.91 × 10 -5 3.05 × 10 -6 2.50 × 10 -7 2.70 × 10 -6 1.68 × 10 -5 9.68 × 10 -8 Plutonium-238 1.96 × 10 -3 3.30 × 10 -8 1.85 × 10 -7 2.77 × 10 -4 1.82 × 10 -7 7.17 × 10 -8 Plutonium-239 1.99 × 10 -3 3.32 × 10 -8 1.86 × 10 -7 2.81 × 10 -4 1.83 × 10 -7 7.20 × 10 -8 Plutonium-240 1.99 × 10 -3 3.32 × 10 -8 1.86 × 10 -7 2.81 × 10 -4 1.83 × 10 -7 7.20 × 10 -8 Plutonium-241 1.92 × 10 -3 3.26 × 10 -8 1.82 × 10 -7 2.71 × 10 -4 1.80 × 10 -7 7.20 × 10 -8 Ruthenium-106 1.71 × 10 -3 1.41 × 10 -8 4.38 × 10 -3 2.42 × 10 -4 7.79 × 10 -8 1.69 × 10 -3 Strontium-90 2.43 × 10 -3 1.36 × 10 -5 8.18 × 10 -6 3.43 × 10 -4 7.50 × 10 -5 3.17 × 10 -6
Tritium a 2.33 × 10 -6 6.90 × 10 -8 6.63 × 10 -8 4.29 × 10 -7 4.96 × 10 -7 3.35 × 10 -8

a Data provided are based on an assumed deposition velocity (V d ) of 0.01 m/s.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-21 

### Table D.5. Comparison of Transfer Factors from Contaminated Land to Foodstuff for Selected Radionuclides

Data Obtained by Current Method Isotope Data Used in Previous Assessments a Illinois Nevada United States
Americium-241 2.800 × 10 -6 1.98 × 10 -3 1.08 × 10 -6 1.83 × 10 -4 Americium-243 2.800 × 10 -6 1.99 × 10 -3 1.09 × 10 -6 1.84 × 10 -4 Carbon-14 b 0.000 3.34 × 10 -5 2.50 × 10 -8 3.40 × 10 -6 Cesium-134 3.100 × 10 -5 2.03 × 10 -3 2.53 × 10 -6 2.58 × 10 -4 Cesium-137 3.100 × 10 -5 2.49 × 10 -3 2.92 × 10 -6 3.07 × 10 -4 Cerium-144 0.000 1.59 × 10 -3 9.58 × 10 -7 1.51 × 10 -4 Cobalt-60 6.200 × 10 -5 2.12 × 10 -3 1.85 × 10 -6 2.27 × 10 -4 Curium-244 2.800 × 10 -6 1.98 × 10 -3 1.08 × 10 -6 1.83 × 10 -4 Europium-154 0.000 1.99 × 10 -3 1.30 × 10 -6 1.93 × 10 -4 Plutonium-238 2.800 × 10 -6 1.96 × 10 -3 1.06 × 10 -6 1.81 × 10 -4 Plutonium-239 2.800 × 10 -6 1.99 × 10 -3 1.08 × 10 -6 1.83 × 10 -4 Plutonium-240 2.800 × 10 -6 1.99 × 10 -3 1.08 × 10 -6 1.83 × 10 -4 Plutonium-241 2.800 × 10 -6 1.99 × 10 -3 1.04 × 10 -6 1.77 × 10 -4 Ruthenium-106 0.000 6.09 × 10 -3 1.88 × 10 -5 1.25 × 10 -3 Strontium-90 1.500 × 10 -5 2.45 × 10 -3 1.45 × 10 -6 2.32 × 10 -4 Tritium b 0.000 2.46 × 10 -6 3.12 × 10 -9 2.97 × 10 -7

a RADTRAN data file used for EA estimation (D OE 1986a; b; c) was based on fallout data and a generic personal utilization factor (e.g., 200 kg per 33,000 m 2 for crops) as derived by Ostmeyer (1986). b Data provided are based on an assumed deposition velocity (V d ) of 0.01 m/s.A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-22 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors a

State Nuclide AL AZ AR CA CO CT DE H-3 5.69E–08 4.26E–08 1.59E–07 2.10E-07 1.76E-07 5.53E-08 1.21E-06 BE-10 4.66E-05 1.73E-05 1.29E-04 1.07E-04 9.95E-05 7.43E-06 6.43E-04 C-14 1.11E-06 3.89E-07 2.77E-06 2.22E-06 1.81E-06 4.62E-07 1.46E-05 N-16 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 F-18 7.65E-19 1.19E-18 1.51E-18 6.43E-18 1.03E-18 4.01E-18 8.11E-18 NA-22 2.52E-04 1.28E-04 5.28E-04 6.63E-04 2.53E-04 3.64E-04 3.01E-03 NA-24 4.42E-10 6.85E-10 8.71E-10 3.72E-09 5.96E-10 2.31E-09 4.68E-09 P-32 1.71E-05 8.57E-06 3.56E-05 4.41E-05 1.67E-05 2.45E-05 2.03E-04 CA-41 1.41E-04 6.62E-05 3.67E-04 3.88E-04 2.68E-04 9.87E-05 1.87E-03 SC-46 6.03E-05 1.40E-05 1.36E-04 7.05E-05 6.82E-05 1.73E-05 7.60E-04 CR-51 9.24E-06 4.06E-06 2.42E-05 2.39E-05 1.75E-05 5.42E-06 1.23E-04 MN-54 3.70E-05 1.42E-05 1.03E-04 8.80E-05 8.05E-05 6.66E-06 5.13E-04 MN-56 2.27E-18 3.52E-18 4.48E-18 1.91E-17 3.06E-18 1.19E-17 2.41E-17 FE-55 2.40E-04 4.73E-05 4.99E-04 2.07E-04 1.93E-04 8.87E-05 2.93E-03 FE-59 7.07E-05 1.44E-05 1.48E-04 6.42E-05 5.91E-05 2.64E-05 8.63E-04 CO-57 8.73E-05 2.25E-05 1.99E-04 1.17E-04 1.04E-04 3.03E-05 1.10E-03 CO-58 4.88E-05 1.29E-05 1.12E-04 6.74E-05 5.98E-05 1.71E-05 6.19E-04 CO-60 1.09E-04 2.81E-05 2.49E-04 1.46E-04 1.31E-04 3.77E-05 1.38E-03 NI-59 1.15E-04 5.06E-05 2.91E-04 2.91E-04 2.00E-04 7.95E-05 1.51E-03 NI-63 1.03E-04 4.56E-05 2.57E-04 2.60E-04 1.74E-04 7.56E-05 1.34E-03 NI-65 4.64E-17 7.20E-17 9.15E-17 3.90E-16 6.26E-17 2.43E-16 4.92E-16 CU-64 9.35E-11 1.45E-10 1.85E-10 7.87E-10 1.26E-10 4.90E-10 9.91E-10 ZN-65 2.14E-04 1.09E-04 4.52E-04 5.66E-04 2.22E-04 3.04E-04 2.56E-03 ZN-69M 4.93E-10 7.65E-10 9.72E-10 4.15E-09 6.65E-10 2.58E-09 5.22E-09 ZN-69 1.79E-25 2.78E-25 3.54E-25 1.51E-24 2.42E-25 9.39E-25 1.90E-24 SE-79 3.52E-03 1.92E-03 8.89E-03 1.10E-02 6.32E-03 3.73E-03 4.58E-02 BR-82 1.61E-08 2.47E-08 3.20E-08 1.34E-07 2.20E-08 8.30E-08 1.72E-07 BR-83 1.11E-15 1.73E-15 2.20E-15 9.36E-15 1.50E-15 5.83E-15 1.18E-14 BR-84 2.29E-37 3.55E-37 4.52E-37 1.93E-36 3.09E-37 1.20E-36 2.43E-36 BR-85 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 KR-85 1.52E-03 6.36E-04 3.82E-03 3.64E-03 2.59E-03 9.57E-04 1.99E-02 RB-86 2.25E-05 1.34E-05 4.70E-05 7.01E-05 2.33E-05 3.96E-05 2.66E-04 RB-87 6.39E-04 2.72E-04 1.48E-03 1.48E-03 8.63E-04 5.71E-04 8.04E-03 RB-88 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RB-89 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SR-89 1.51E-05 6.28E-06 4.23E-05 3.89E-05 3.34E-05 4.35E-06 2.09E-04 SR-90 5.44E-05 2.21E-05 1.53E-04 1.37E-04 1.21E-04 1.34E-05 7.54E-04 SR-91 1.09E-12 1.69E-12 2.15E-12 9.18E-12 1.47E-12 5.72E-12 1.16E-11 SR-92 1.47E-17 2.28E-17 2.89E-17 1.23E-16 1.98E-17 7.69E-17 1.56E-16 Y-90 5.49E-09 2.14E-09 1.57E-08 1.35E-08 1.26E-08 7.13E-10 7.70E-08 Y-91M 1.98E-32 3.07E-32 3.91E-32 1.67E-31 2.67E-32 1.04E-31 2.10E-31A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-23 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

Y-91 2.39E-05 7.36E-06 6.09E-05 4.29E-05 4.06E-05 4.96E-06 3.18E-04 Y-92 5.28E-18 8.19E-18 1.04E-17 4.44E-17 7.12E-18 2.76E-17 5.59E-17 Y-93 1.73E-14 2.69E-14 3.41E-14 1.46E-13 2.33E-14 9.07E-14 1.83E-13 ZR-93 2.26E-04 4.36E-05 4.75E-04 1.93E-04 1.91E-04 7.42E-05 2.77E-03 ZR-95 8.95E-05 1.76E-05 1.89E-04 7.90E-05 7.79E-05 2.90E-05 1.10E-03 ZR-97 1.32E-13 1.67E-13 2.89E-13 9.17E-13 2.10E-13 5.24E-13 1.51E-12 NB-93M 1.56E-03 2.47E-04 3.04E-03 8.77E-04 8.79E-04 5.91E-04 1.85E-02 NB-94 1.67E-03 2.68E-04 3.28E-03 9.64E-04 9.64E-04 6.33E-04 1.99E-02 NB-95M 1.30E-07 3.59E-08 2.74E-07 1.72E-07 1.16E-07 8.05E-08 1.59E-06 NB-95 3.14E-04 5.04E-05 6.15E-04 1. 81E-04 1.79E-04 1.21E-04 3.74E-03 NB-97 1.99E-24 3.09E-24 3.93E-24 1. 67E-23 2.69E-24 1.04E-23 2.11E-23 MO-93 3.29E-04 1.34E-04 8.59E-04 7. 90E-04 6.16E-04 1.57E-04 4.39E-03 MO-99 1.69E-08 1.73E-08 4.00E-08 9. 64E-08 2.98E-08 4.95E-08 2.05E-07 TC-99M 3.23E-12 5.01E-12 6.37E-12 2.72E-11 4.36E-12 1.69E-11 3.42E-11 TC-99 6.08E-03 1.15E-03 1.22E-02 4. 65E-03 4.03E-03 2.63E-03 7.29E-02 TC-101 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 RU-103 5.26E-04 8.08E-05 1.03E-03 2. 80E-04 2.90E-04 1.94E-04 6.25E-03 RU-105 6.87E-18 1.07E-17 1.36E-17 5. 78E-17 9.27E-18 3.60E-17 7.28E-17 RU-106 1.83E-03 2.81E-04 3.57E-03 9. 68E-04 1.00E-03 6.78E-04 2.18E-02 RH-103M 3.30E-24 5.12E-24 6.51E-24 2.78E-23 4.45E-24 1.73E-23 3.50E-23 RH-105 2.43E-08 3.44E-08 5.05E-08 1. 88E-07 3.56E-08 1.13E-07 2.67E-07 RH-106 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 PD-107 9.41E-03 4.11E-03 2.61E-02 2. 51E-02 2.04E-02 3.70E-03 1.29E-01 PD-109 7.27E-10 1.13E-09 1.44E-09 6. 12E-09 9.81E-10 3.81E-09 7.71E-09 AG-110M 1.66E-04 1.18E-04 3.55E-04 6.33E-04 1.99E-04 3.49E-04 1.97E-03 AG-111 2.53E-06 3.00E-06 5.27E-06 1. 63E-05 3.40E-06 9.70E-06 2.85E-05 CD-113M 1.55E-04 6.06E-05 4.43E-04 3.83E-04 3.57E-04 1.97E-05 2.17E-03 CD-115M 3.00E-20 4.66E-20 5.92E-20 2.53E-19 4.05E-20 1.57E-19 3.18E-19 IN-113M 1.14E-21 1.77E-21 2.26E-21 9.62E-21 1.54E-21 5.99E-21 1.21E-20 SN-113 2.70E-04 4.93E-05 5.43E-04 1. 99E-04 1.84E-04 1.06E-04 3.24E-03 SN-119M 3.77E-04 6.82E-05 7.57E-04 2.74E-04 2.55E-04 1.48E-04 4.53E-03 SN-121M 4.82E-04 8.73E-05 9.71E-04 3.51E-04 3.28E-04 1.88E-04 5.80E-03 SN-123 2.86E-04 5.21E-05 5.76E-04 2. 11E-04 1.95E-04 1.13E-04 3.44E-03 SN-125 6.59E-06 1.40E-06 1.33E-05 6. 01E-06 4.75E-06 3.18E-06 7.93E-05 SN-126 4.91E-04 8.93E-05 9.90E-04 3. 61E-04 3.37E-04 1.91E-04 5.91E-03 SB-124 2.53E-05 9.23E-06 6.46E-05 5. 36E-05 4.40E-05 1.01E-05 3.35E-04 SB-125 6.04E-05 2.14E-05 1.53E-04 1. 24E-04 1.03E-04 2.30E-05 7.98E-04 SB-126 2.07E-06 8.70E-07 5.22E-06 5. 00E-06 3.56E-06 1.30E-06 2.71E-05 SB-126M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SB-127 3.73E-08 2.09E-08 1.00E-07 1. 24E-07 7.82E-08 3.43E-08 5.01E-07 TE-125M 1.70E-04 3.14E-05 3.49E-04 1. 31E-04 1.27E-04 6.16E-05 2.06E-03 TE-127M 2.76E-04 5.10E-05 5.66E-04 2. 14E-04 2.07E-04 9.91E-05 3.35E-03 TE-127 5.53E-12 8.58E-12 1.09E-11 4. 65E-11 7.46E-12 2.90E-11 5.86E-11 TE-129M 9.34E-05 1.73E-05 1.91E-04 7. 25E-05 6.95E-05 3.41E-05 1.13E-03A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-24 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

TE-129 2.93E-24 4.55E-24 5.78E-24 2. 46E-23 3.95E-24 1.53E-23 3.11E-23 TE-131M 3.57E-10 4.43E-10 7.88E-10 2. 44E-09 5.71E-10 1.38E-09 4.11E-09 TE-131 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1. 40E-45 0.00E+00 1.40E-45 1.40E-45 TE-132 5.01E-08 1.91E-08 1.27E-07 1. 11E-07 8.71E-08 2.33E-08 6.62E-07 TE-133M 2.36E-27 3.67E-27 4.66E-27 1. 99E-26 3.19E-27 1.24E-26 2.50E-26 TE-134 5.80E-32 9.00E-32 1.14E-31 4. 88E-31 7.82E-32 3.04E-31 6.15E-31 I-129 1.01E-04 4.74E-05 2.65E-04 2. 79E-04 1.95E-04 6.84E-05 1.35E-03 I-130 2.52E-11 3.91E-11 4.98E-11 2. 12E-10 3.40E-11 1.32E-10 2.67E-10 I-131 7.74E-07 6.04E-07 1.88E-06 3. 39E-06 1.35E-06 1.55E-06 9.70E-06 I-132 8.76E-18 1.36E-17 1.73E-17 7. 37E-17 1.18E-17 4.59E-17 9.29E-17 I-133 2.27E-10 3.51E-10 4.48E-10 1. 91E-09 3.06E-10 1.19E-09 2.40E-09 I-134 1.04E-28 1.61E-28 2.05E-28 8. 75E-28 1.40E-28 5.45E-28 1.10E-27 I-135 8.55E-13 1.33E-12 1.69E-12 7. 20E-12 1.15E-12 4.48E-12 9.07E-12 CS-134M 5.69E-16 8.82E-16 1.12E-15 4.78E-15 7.67E-16 2.98E-15 6.03E-15 CS-135 9.92E-05 5.58E-05 2.46E-04 3. 17E-04 1.71E-04 1.16E-04 1.28E-03 CS-136 3.67E-06 3.04E-06 8.52E-06 1. 68E-05 5.81E-06 8.43E-06 4.47E-05 CS-137 8.62E-05 5.00E-05 2.11E-04 2. 81E-04 1.44E-04 1.10E-04 1.10E-03 CS-138 2.33E-39 3.61E-39 4.59E-39 1. 96E-38 3.14E-39 1.22E-38 2.47E-38 CS-139 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-137M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-139 1.21E-23 1.87E-23 2.38E-23 1. 01E-22 1.63E-23 6.31E-23 1.28E-22 BA-140 1.96E-06 7.02E-07 5.11E-06 4. 15E-06 3.59E-06 6.15E-07 2.63E-05 BA-141 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-142 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 LA-140 2.63E-10 1.06E-10 7.58E-10 6. 70E-10 6.18E-10 3.67E-11 3.70E-09 LA-141 6.12E-18 9.50E-18 1.21E-17 5. 15E-17 8.26E-18 3.21E-17 6.49E-17 LA-142 9.41E-25 1.46E-24 1.86E-24 7. 91E-24 1.27E-24 4.93E-24 9.97E-24 CE-141 9.58E-06 3.78E-06 2.63E-05 2. 31E-05 2.02E-05 2.61E-06 1.31E-04 CE-143 1.55E-10 1.77E-10 3.57E-10 9. 78E-10 2.65E-10 5.28E-10 1.84E-09 CE-144 3.79E-05 1.46E-05 1.04E-04 8. 94E-05 7.92E-05 9.37E-06 5.20E-04 PR-143 2.56E-06 7.80E-07 6.48E-06 4. 54E-06 4.30E-06 5.35E-07 3.39E-05 PR-144 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 PR-144M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ND-147 1.30E-06 4.27E-07 3.42E-06 2. 55E-06 2.40E-06 2.43E-07 1.75E-05 PM-146 6.39E-05 1.91E-05 1.60E-04 1. 10E-04 1.04E-04 1.38E-05 8.44E-04 PM-147 6.14E-05 1.83E-05 1.54E-04 1. 06E-04 1.00E-04 1.33E-05 8.11E-04 PM-148M 1.80E-05 5.50E-06 4.5E-05 3.20E-05 3.03E-05 3.75E-06 2.39E-04 PM-148 1.29E-07 4.54E-08 3.50E-07 2. 79E-07 2.62E-07 2.08E-08 1.76E-06 PM-149 1.91E-09 7.49E-10 5.47E-09 4. 74E-09 4.42E-09 2.40E-10 2.68E-08 PM-151 1.30E-11 5.72E-12 3.70E-11 3. 56E-11 3.00E-11 4.12E-12 1.81E-10 SM-147 7.21E-05 2.17E-05 1.82E-04 1. 25E-04 1.19E-04 1.54E-05 9.53E-04 SM-151 7.02E-05 2.10E-05 1.76E-04 1. 21E-04 1.15E-04 1.51E-05 9.27E-04 SM-153 8.24E-10 3.25E-10 2.37E-09 2. 06E-09 1.92E-09 1.07E-10 1.16E-08 EU-152 6.57E-05 1.96E-05 1.65E-04 1. 13E-04 1.07E-04 1.42E-05 8.67E-04A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-25 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

EU-154 6.50E-05 1.94E-05 1.63E-04 1. 12E-04 1.06E-04 1.40E-05 8.58E-04 EU-155 6.35E-05 1.90E-05 1.59E-04 1. 09E-04 1.04E-04 1.37E-05 8.39E-04 EU-156 3.33E-06 1.01E-06 8.42E-06 5. 86E-06 5.55E-06 7.02E-07 4.41E-05 GD-153 4.55E-05 1.44E-05 1.17E-04 8. 50E-05 8.03E-05 8.97E-06 6.09E-04 TB-160 2.85E-05 8.81E-06 7.27E-05 5. 15E-05 4.87E-05 5.84E-06 3.79E-04 HO-166M 6.87E-05 2.12E-05 1.75E-04 1.24E-04 1.17E-04 1.41E-05 9.13E-04 W-181 2.93E-05 1.12E-05 8.03E-05 6. 84E-05 6.11E-05 6.83E-06 4.02E-04 W-185 2.19E-05 8.37E-06 6.01E-05 5. 14E-05 4.58E-05 5.15E-06 3.01E-04 W-187 3.21E-11 4.75E-11 6.51E-11 2. 58E-10 4.52E-11 1.58E-10 3.47E-10 TL-207 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 TL-208 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 PB-209 1.62E-16 2.52E-16 3.21E-16 1. 37E-15 2.19E-16 8.51E-16 1.72E-15 PB-210 7.65E-05 3.10E-05 2.18E-04 1. 95E-04 1.76E-04 1.44E-05 1.07E-03 PB-211 3.83E-37 5.94E-37 7.55E-37 3. 22E-36 5.16E-37 2.00E-36 4.06E-36 PB-212 1.58E-12 2.45E-12 3.12E-12 1. 33E-11 2.13E-12 8.28E-12 1.67E-11 BI-210 1.42E-07 5.21E-08 3.65E-07 3. 04E-07 2.51E-07 5.52E-08 1.89E-06 BI-211 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 BI-212 4.99E-27 7.74E-27 9.84E-27 4. 19E-26 6.73E-27 2.61E-26 5.29E-26 BI-213 8.00E-32 1.24E-31 1.58E-31 6. 73E-31 1.08E-31 4.19E-31 8.48E-31 PO-210 6.83E-05 1.74E-05 1.58E-04 9.19E-05 8.63-05 1.98E-05 8.70E-04 PO-212 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-213 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-215 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-216 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 AT-217 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E +00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-221 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-223 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 RA-223 6.09E-06 2.31E-06 1.28E-05 1. 16E-05 5.75E-06 5.99E-06 7.35E-05 RA-224 6.24E-08 5.12E-08 1.44E-07 2. 82E-07 9.74E-08 1.42E-07 7.60E-07 RA-225 1.17E-05 4.01E-06 2.45E-05 1. 98E-05 1.07E-05 1.00E-05 1.41E-04 RA-226 2.39E-04 6.25E-05 5.00E-04 2. 96E-04 2.08E-04 1.38E-04 2.90E-03 RA-228 2.28E-04 5.98E-05 4.78E-04 2. 83E-04 1.98E-04 1.33E-04 2.78E-03 AC-225 5.62E-06 1.02E-06 1.15E-05 4. 24E-06 4.23E-06 1.92E-06 6.82E-05 AC-227 3.65E-04 6.42E-05 7.43E-04 2. 61E-04 2.62E-04 1.26E-04 4.41E-03 AC-228 3.79E-16 5.89E-16 7.49E-16 3. 19E-15 5.12E-16 1.99E-15 4.02E-15 TH-227 3.36E-06 1.31E-06 9.63E-06 8. 30E-06 7.77E-06 4.03E-07 4.72E-05 TH-228 3.76E-05 1.46E-05 1.08E-04 9. 26E-05 8.67E-05 4.50E-06 5.27E-04 TH-229 4.82E-05 1.88E-05 1.38E-04 1. 19E-04 1.12E-04 5.73E-06 6.77E-04 TH-230 4.83E-05 1.88E-05 1.38E-04 1. 19E-04 1.12E-04 5.74E-06 6.78E-04 TH-231 4.61E-12 2.25E-12 1.30E-11 1. 38E-11 1.05E-11 2.44E-12 6.36E-11 TH-232 4.83E-05 1.88E-05 1.38E-04 1. 19E-04 1.12E-04 5.74E-06 6.78E-04 TH-234 5.49E-06 2.14E-06 1.57E-05 1. 36E-05 1.27E-05 6.56E-07 7.70E-05 PA-231 1.00E+00 6.57E-01 1.00E+00 1. 00E+00 1.00E+00 1. 00E+00 1.00E+00 PA-233 6.00E-01 8.91E-02 1.00E+00 2. 94E-01 3.08E-01 2.25E-01 1.00E+00A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-26 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

PA-234M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 U-232 4.49E-05 1.82E-05 1.27E-04 1. 14E-04 1.02E-04 9.41E-06 6.25E-04 U-233 4.70E-05 1.90E-05 1.33E-04 1. 19E-04 1.07E-04 9.71E-06 6.56E-04 U-234 4.70E-05 1.90E-05 1.33E-04 1. 19E-04 1.07E-04 9.71E-06 6.56E-04 U-235 4.70E-05 1.90E-05 1.33E-04 1. 19E-04 1.07E-04 9.71E-06 6.56E-04 U-236 4.70E-05 1.90E-05 1.33E-04 1. 19E-04 1.07E-04 9.71E-06 6.56E-04 U-237 2.42E-07 1.10E-07 6.79E-07 6. 80E-07 5.45E-07 1.0E-07 3.34E-06 U-238 4.70E-05 1.90E-05 1.33E-04 1. 19E-04 1.07E-04 9.71E-06 6.56E-04 NP-236 4.55E-05 1.77E-05 1.30E-04 1. 12E-04 1.05E-04 5.42E-06 6.38E-04 NP-237 4.55E-05 1.77E-05 1.30E-04 1. 12E-04 1.05E-04 5.42E-06 6.38E-04 NP-238 1.34E-09 5.31E-10 3.85E-09 3. 37E-09 3.14E-09 1.63E-10 1.88E-08 NP-239 2.64E-09 1.05E-09 7.61E-09 6. 65E-09 6.20E-09 3.14E-10 3.71E-08 PU-236 3.73E-05 1.48E-05 1.08E-04 9. 38E-05 8.78E-05 4.21E-06 5.26E-04 PU-237 1.24E-05 4.88E-06 3.56E-05 3. 10E-05 2.91E-05 1.39E-06 1.74E-04 PU-238 4.03E-05 1.59E-05 1.16E-04 1. 01E-04 9.47E-05 4.54E-06 5.67E-04 PU-239 4.08E-05 1.61E-05 1.18E-04 1. 02E-04 9.59E-05 4.60E-06 5.74E-04 PU-240 4.08E-05 1.61E-05 1.18E-04 1. 02E-04 9.59E-05 4.60E-06 5.74E-04 PU-241 3.94E-05 1.56E-05 1.14E-04 9. 89E-05 9.26E-05 4.44E-06 5.54E-04 PU-242 4.08E-05 1.61E-05 1.18E-04 1. 02E-04 9.59E-05 4.60E-06 5.74E-04 PU-244 4.08E-05 1.61E-05 1.18E-04 1. 02E-04 9.59E-05 4.60E-06 5.74E-04 AM-241 4.16E-05 1.62E-05 1.19E-04 1. 03E-04 9.61E-05 4.99E-06 5.84E-04 AM-242M 4.14E-05 1.61E-05 1.19E-04 1.02E-04 9.56E-05 4.96E-06 5.81E-04 AM-243 4.18E-05 1.63E-05 1.20E-04 1. 03E-04 9.64E-05 5.00E-06 5.86E-04 CM-242 2.84E-05 1.10E-05 8.12E-05 6. 99E-05 6.55E-05 3.39E-06 3.98E-04 CM-243 4.21E-05 1.64E-05 1.20E-04 1. 04E-04 9.71E-05 5.03E-06 5.90E-04 CM-244 4.15E-05 1.62E-05 1.19E-04 1. 02E-04 9.58E-05 4.97E-06 5.82E-04 CM-245 4.55E-05 1.77E-05 1.30E-04 1. 12E-04 1.05E-04 5.42E-06 6.38E-04 CM-246 4.54E-05 1.77E-05 1.30E-04 1. 12E-04 1.05E-04 5.42E-06 6.38E-04 CM-247 4.55E-05 1.77E-05 1.30E-04 1. 12E-04 1.05E-04 5.42E-06 6.38E-04 CM-248 4.55E-05 1.77E-05 1.30E-04 1. 12E-04 1.05E-04 5.42E-06 6.38E-04 CF-252 3.83E-05 1.49E-05 1.09E-04 9. 43E-05 8.83E-05 4.58E-06 5.37E-04 State Nuclide FL GA ID IL IN IA KS H-3 1.27E-07 9.86E-08 2.12E-07 2.46E-06 1.74E-06 3.21E-06 8.31E-07 BE-10 1.69E-04 8.56E-05 1.06E-04 2.02E-03 1.37E-03 2.21E-03 6.49E-04 C-14 3.05E-06 1.89E-06 1.82E-06 3.34E-05 2.35E-05 3.83E-05 1.13E-05 N-16 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 F-18 3.11E-18 1.73E-18 1.54E-18 8.35E-18 9.98E-18 1.40E-17 3.22E-18 NA-22 4.89E-04 4.10E-04 2.43E-04 3.02E-03 2.60E-03 4.33E-03 1.25E-03 NA-24 1.80E-09 1.00E-09 8.87E-10 4.82E-09 5.77E-09 8.10E-09 1.86E-09 P-32 3.21E-05 2.76E-05 1.58E-05 1.93E-04 1.69E-04 2.82E-04 8.18E-05 CA-41 4.76E-04 2.58E-04 2.88E-04 5.08E-03 3.56E-03 5.71E-03 1.67E-03 SC-46 1.05E-04 9.10E-05 5.74E-05 1.08E-03 7.96E-04 1.35E-03 4.11E-04 CR-51 3.07E-05 1.68E-05 1.87E-05 3.35E-04 2.34E-04 3.76E-04 1.10E-04A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-27 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

MN-54 1.37E-04 6.86E-05 8.62E-05 1.64E-03 1.11E-03 1.79E-03 5.25E-04 MN-56 9.24E-18 5.15E-18 4.56E-18 2.48E-17 2.97E-17 4.17E-17 9.56E-18 FE-55 2.73E-04 3.39E-04 1.27E-04 2.33E-03 1.89E-03 3.43E-03 1.07E-03 FE-59 8.48E-05 1.00E-04 4.05E-05 7.40E-04 5.93E-04 1.06E-03 3.31E-04 CO-57 1.64E-04 1.34E-04 9.15E-05 1.70E-03 1.24E-03 2.09E-03 6.30E-04 CO-58 9.48E-05 7.57E-05 5.32E-05 9.86E-04 7.17E-04 1.20E-03 3.62E-04 CO-60 2.05E-04 1.68E-04 1.14E-04 2.12E-03 1.55E-03 2.61E-03 7.88E-04 NI-59 3.53E-04 2.04E-04 2.10E-04 3.69E-03 2.61E-03 4.21E-03 1.23E-03 NI-63 3.07E-04 1.81E-04 1.82E-04 3.16E-03 2.25E-03 3.63E-03 1.06E-03 NI-65 1.89E-16 1.05E-16 9.32E-17 5.07E-16 6.06E-16 8.51E-16 1.95E-16 CU-64 3.81E-10 2.12E-10 1.88E-10 1.02E-09 1.22E-09 1.72E-09 3.94E-10 ZN-65 4.27E-04 3.49E-04 2.15E-04 2.75E-03 2.33E-03 3.85E-03 1.12E-03 ZN-69M 2.01E-09 1.12E-09 9.90E-10 5.38E-09 6.43E-09 9.04E-09 2.07E-09 ZN-69 7.29E-25 4.06E-25 3.60E-25 1.96E-24 2.34E-24 3.29E-24 7.54E-25 SE-79 1.17E-02 6.49E-03 6.89E-03 1.15E-01 8.21E-02 1.31E-01 3.80E-02 BR-82 6.55E-08 3.64E-08 3.25E-08 1.86E-07 2.15E-07 3.05E-07 7.08E-08 BR-83 4.53E-15 2.52E-15 2.24E-15 1.22E-14 1.45E-14 2.04E-14 4.69E-15 BR-84 9.32E-37 5.19E-37 4.60E-37 2.50E-36 2.99E-36 4.20E-36 9.64E-37 BR-85 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 KR-85 4.52E-03 2.66E-03 2.69E-03 4.77E-02 3.37E-02 5.45E-02 1.60E-02 RB-86 4.77E-05 3.78E-05 2.37E-05 2.69E-04 2.38E-04 3.90E-04 1.11E-04 RB-87 1.53E-03 1.07E-03 8.56E-04 1.40E-02 1.04E-02 1.71E-02 5.01E-03 RB-88 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RB-89 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SR-89 5.76E-05 2.84E-05 3.61E-05 6.76E-04 4.62E-04 7.39E-04 2.17E-04 SR-90 2.07E-04 1.02E-04 1.30E-04 2.45E-03 1.67E-03 2.68E-03 7.85E-04 SR-91 4.44E-12 2.47E-12 2.19E-12 1.19E-11 1.42E-11 2.00E-11 4.59E-12 SR-92 5.97E-17 3.33E-17 2.95E-17 1.60E-16 1.92E-16 2.69E-16 6.18E-17 Y-90 2.16E-08 1.04E-08 1.37E-08 2.60E-07 1.76E-07 2.82E-07 8.29E-08 Y-91M 8.06E-32 4.49E-32 3.98E-32 2.16E-31 2.58E-31 3.63E-31 8.33E-32 Y-91 6.69E-05 4.05E-05 4.06E-05 7.72E-04 5.35E-04 8.74E-04 2.59E-04 Y-92 2.15E-17 1.20E-17 1.06E-17 5.76E-17 6.89E-17 9.68E-17 2.22E-17 Y-93 7.04E-14 3.92E-14 3.48E-14 1.89E-13 2.26E-13 3.18E-13 7.29E-14 ZR-93 2.70E-04 3.20E-04 1.30E-04 2.43E-03 1.93E-03 3.46E-03 1.08E-03 ZR-95 1.12E-04 1.27E-04 5.47E-05 1.02E-03 8.04E-04 1.43E-03 4.44E-04 ZR-97 5.34E-13 2.87E-13 2.82E-13 2.66E-12 2.36E-12 3.52E-12 9.17E-13 NB-93M 1.06E-03 2.07E-03 3.30E-04 5.78E-03 6.25E-03 1.30E-02 4.34E-03 NB-94 1.17E-03 2.23E-03 3.80E-04 6.69E-03 7.04E-03 1.45E-02 4.80E-03 NB-95M 1.82E-07 1.92E-07 8.89E-08 1.46E-06 1.18E-06 2.07E-06 6.32E-07 NB-95 2.16E-04 4.18E-04 6.88E-05 1.20E-03 1.28E-03 2.66E-03 8.84E-04 NB-97 8.10E-24 4.51E-24 4.00E-24 2.17E-23 2.60E-23 3.65E-23 8.38E-24 MO-93 1.07E-03 5.89E-04 6.49E-04 1.18E-02 8.23E-03 1.33E-02 3.89E-03 MO-99 6.72E-08 3.54E-08 3.73E-08 4.57E-07 3.63E-07 5.57E-07 1.53E-07 TC-99M 1.31E-11 7.32E-12 6.49E-12 3.53E-11 4.22E-11 5.93E-11 1.36E-11A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-28 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

TC-99 5.39E-03 8.31E-03 2.13E-03 3.65E-02 3.38E-02 6.49E-02 2.08E-02 TC-101 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RU-103 3.41E-04 6.95E-04 1.01E-04 1.79E-03 2.00E-03 4.24E-03 1.42E-03 RU-105 2.80E-17 1.56E-17 1.38E-17 7.50E-17 8.97E-17 1.26E-16 2.89E-17 RU-106 1.18E-03 2.42E-03 3.45E-04 6.09E-03 6.88E-03 1.46E-02 4.90E-03 RH-103M 1.34E-23 7.48E-24 6.63E-24 3.60E-23 4.31E-23 6.05E-23 1.39E-23 RH-105 9.87E-08 5.40E-08 5.03E-08 3.72E-07 3.73E-07 5.42E-07 1.34E-07 RH-106 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PD-107 3.56E-02 1.77E-02 2.22E-02 4.09E-01 2.81E-01 4.49E-01 1.31E-01 PD-109 2.96E-09 1.65E-09 1.46E-09 7.94E-09 9.50E-09 1.33E-08 3.06E-09 AG-110M 4.27E-04 2.96E-04 2.20E-04 2.51E-03 2.15E-03 3.43E-03 9.60E-04 AG-111 8.90E-06 5.25E-06 4.52E-06 3.63E-05 3.55E-05 5.29E-05 1.35E-05 CD-113M 6.10E-04 2.93E-04 3.86E-04 7.37E-03 4.99E-03 8.00E-03 2.35E-03 CD-115M 1.22E-19 6.81E-20 6.03E-20 3.28E-19 3.92E-19 5.51E-19 1.26E-19 IN-113M 4.66E-21 2.59E-21 2.30E-21 1.25E-20 1.49E-20 2.10E-20 4.82E-21 SN-113 2.46E-04 3.70E-04 1.01E-04 1.79E-03 1.60E-03 3.04E-03 9.73E-04 SN-119M 3.39E-04 5.15E-04 1.37E-04 2.44E-03 2.19E-03 4.18E-03 1.34E-03 SN-121M 4.36E-04 6.60E-04 1.77E-04 3.15E-03 2.83E-03 5.39E-03 1.73E-03 SN-123 2.61E-04 3.92E-04 1.06E-04 1.89E-03 1.69E-03 3.22E-03 1.03E-03 SN-125 6.72E-06 9.19E-06 2.88E-06 4.84E-05 4.26E-05 7.92E-05 2.50E-05 SN-126 4.50E-04 6.73E-04 1.84E-04 3.29E-03 2.93E-03 5.56E-03 1.78E-03 SB-124 7.47E-05 4.39E-05 4.51E-05 8.31E-04 5.80E-04 9.41E-04 2.78E-04 SB-125 1.74E-04 1.04E-04 1.05E-04 1.93E-03 1.35E-03 2.19E-03 6.48E-04 SB-126 6.22E-06 3.64E-06 3.71E-06 6.58E-05 4.65E-05 7.52E-05 2.20E-05 SB-126M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SB-127 1.43E-07 7.19E-08 8.72E-08 1.50E-06 1.05E-06 1.68E-06 4.85E-07 TE-125M 1.73E-04 2.36E-04 7.63E-05 1.40E-03 1.18E-03 2.18E-03 6.89E-04 TE-127M 2.83E-04 3.83E-04 1.25E-04 2.30E-03 1.93E-03 3.57E-03 1.13E-03 TE-127 2.25E-11 1.25E-11 1.11E-11 6.04E-11 7.22E-11 1.01E-10 2.33E-11 TE-129M 9.52E-05 1.30E-04 4.20E-05 7.67E-04 6.47E-04 1.20E-03 3.79E-04 TE-129 1.19E-23 6.64E-24 5.88E-24 3.20E-23 3.82E-23 5.37E-23 1.23E-23 TE-131M 1.44E-09 7.73E-10 7.61E-10 7.33E-09 6.45E-09 9.66E-09 2.53E-09 TE-131 1.40E-45 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.40E-45 2.80E-45 4.20E-45 1.40E-45 TE-132 1.49E-07 8.72E-08 8.98E-08 1.64E-06 1.15E-06 1.86E-06 5.47E-07 TE-133M 9.61E-27 5.36E-27 4.75E-27 2.58E-26 3.08E-26 4.33E-26 9.94E-27 TE-134 2.36E-31 1.31E-31 1.16E-31 6.33E-31 7.57E-31 1.06E-30 2.44E-31 I-129 3.46E-04 1.86E-04 2.10E-04 3.72E-03 2.61E-03 4.18E-03 1.22E-03 I-130 1.03E-10 5.72E-11 5.07E-11 2.75E-10 3.29E-10 4.63E-10 1.06E-10 I-131 2.78E-06 1.52E-06 1.58E-06 2.24E-05 1.69E-05 2.66E-05 7.50E-06 I-132 3.57E-17 1.99E-17 1.76E-17 9.57E-17 1.14E-16 1.61E-16 3.69E-17 I-133 9.23E-10 5.14E-10 4.56E-10 2.49E-09 2.97E-09 4.17E-09 9.59E-10 I-134 4.23E-28 2.36E-28 2.09E-28 1.14E-27 1.36E-27 1.91E-27 4.38E-28 I-135 3.48E-12 1.94E-12 1.72E-12 9.34E-12 1.12E-11 1.57E-11 3.60E-12 CS-134M 2.31E-15 1.29E-15 1.14E-15 6.21E-15 7.42E-15 1.04E-14 2.39E-15A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-29 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

CS-134 2.28E-04 1.34E-04 1.31E-04 2.03E-03 1.50E-03 2.40E-03 6.91E-04 CS-135 3.20E-04 1.82E-04 1.87E-04 3.04E-03 2.20E-03 3.52E-03 1.02E-03 CS-136 1.24E-05 7.12E-06 6.85E-06 8.86E-05 6.97E-05 1.09E-04 3.04E-05 CS-137 2.72E-04 1.58E-04 1.57E-04 2.49E-03 1.82E-03 2.91E-03 8.40E-04 CS-138 9.48E-39 5.28E-39 4.68E-39 2.54E-38 3.04E-38 4.27E-38 9.80E-39 CS-139 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-137M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-139 4.91E-23 2.73E-23 2.42E-23 1.32E-22 1.57E-22 2.21E-22 5.07E-23 BA-140 6.07E-06 3.44E-06 3.71E-06 6.92E-05 4.79E-05 7.76E-05 2.29E-05 BA-141 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-142 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 LA-140 1.06E-09 5.02E-10 6.72E-10 1.28E-08 8.67E-09 1.39E-08 4.06E-09 LA-141 2.49E-17 1.39E-17 1.23E-17 6.69E-17 7.99E-17 1.12E-16 2.58E-17 LA-142 3.83E-24 2.13E-24 1.89E-24 1.03E-23 1.23E-23 1.73E-23 3.96E-24 CE-141 3.46E-05 1.76E-05 2.16E-05 4.05E-04 2.77E-04 4.45E-04 1.31E-04 CE-143 6.29E-10 3.32E-10 3.42E-10 3.80E-09 3.14E-09 4.76E-09 1.28E-09 CE-144 1.35E-04 6.95E-05 8.43E-05 1.59E-03 1.09E-03 1.75E-03 5.13E-04 PR-143 7.07E-06 4.31E-06 4.28E-06 8.14E-05 5.65E-05 9.23E-05 2.74E-05 PR-144 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PR-144M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ND-147 4.00E-06 2.27E-06 2.46E-06 4.69E-05 3.23E-05 5.24E-05 1.55E-05 PM-146 1.71E-04 1.07E-04 1.03E-04 1.95E-03 1.36E-03 2.23E-03 6.62E-04 PM-147 1.64E-04 1.03E-04 9.88E-05 1.88E-03 1.31E-03 2.14E-03 6.36E-04 PM-148M 4.99E-05 3.04E-05 3.02E-05 5.75E-04 3.99E-04 6.51E-04 1.93E-04 PM-148 4.41E-07 2.32E-07 2.75E-07 5.23E-06 3.58E-06 5.77E-06 1.70E-06 PM-149 7.55E-09 3.62E-09 4.79E-09 9.13E-08 6.19E-08 9.90E-08 2.91E-08 PM-151 5.22E-11 2.49E-11 3.28E-11 6.12E-10 4.17E-10 6.67E-10 1.95E-10 SM-147 1.95E-04 1.21E-04 1.18E-04 2.24E-03 1.56E-03 2.54E-03 7.55E-04 SM-151 1.88E-04 1.17E-04 1.13E-04 2.15E-03 1.50E-03 2.45E-03 7.29E-04 SM-153 3.28E-09 1.56E-09 2.08E-09 3.96E-08 2.68E-08 4.29E-08 1.26E-08 EU-152 1.76E-04 1.10E-04 1.06E-04 2.01E-03 1.40E-03 2.30E-03 6.82E-04 EU-154 1.74E-04 1.09E-04 1.05E-04 1.99E-03 1.39E-03 2.27E-03 6.74E-04 EU-155 1.70E-04 1.06E-04 1.02E-04 1.94E-03 1.35E-03 2.21E-03 6.58E-04 EU-156 9.12E-06 5.60E-06 5.52E-06 1.05E-04 7.29E-05 1.19E-04 3.54E-05 GD-153 1.33E-04 7.80E-05 8.12E-05 1.54E-03 1.07E-03 1.74E-03 5.15E-04 TB-160 8.03E-05 4.83E-05 4.88E-05 9.28E-04 6.43E-04 1.05E-03 3.11E-04 HO-166M 1.93E-04 1.16E-04 1.17E-04 2.23E-03 1.54E-03 2.52E-03 7.47E-04 W-181 1.04E-04 5.36E-05 6.49E-05 1.23E-03 8.38E-04 1.35E-03 3.96E-04 W-185 7.81E-05 4.01E-05 4.87E-05 9.19E-04 6.29E-04 1.01E-03 2.97E-04 W-187 1.30E-10 7.20E-11 6.55E-11 4.25E-10 4.58E-10 6.56E-10 1.57E-10 TL-207 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TL-208 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PB-209 6.61E-16 3.68E-16 3.26E-16 1.77E-15 2.12E-15 2.98E-15 6.84E-16 PB-210 3.02E-04 1.45E-04 1.91E-04 3.62E-03 2.46E-03 3.93E-03 1.15E-03A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-30 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

PB-211 1.56E-36 8.68E-37 7.69E-37 4.18E-36 4.99E-36 7.02E-36 1.61E-36 PB-212 6.43E-12 3.58E-12 3.17E-12 1.73E-11 2.06E-11 2.90E-11 6.65E-12 BI-210 4.26E-07 2.48E-07 2.58E-07 4.76E-06 3.32E-06 5.38E-06 1.59E-06 BI-211 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BI-212 2.03E-26 1.13E-26 1.00E-26 5.45E-26 6.51E-26 9.15E-26 2.10E-26 BI-213 3.26E-31 1.81E-31 1.61E-31 8.74E-31 1.04E-30 1.47E-30 3.37E-31 PO-210 1.36E-04 1.06E-04 7.72E-05 1.45E-03 1.05E-03 1.76E-03 5.28E-04 PO-212 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-213 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-215 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-216 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 AT-217 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-221 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-223 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RA-223 1.00E-05 9.39E-06 4.94E-06 7.06E-05 5.89E-05 1.01E-04 3.00E-05 RA-224 2.08E-07 1.20E-07 1.14E-07 1.48E-06 1.16E-06 1.82E-06 5.09E-07 RA-225 1.81E-05 1.77E-05 8.86E-06 1.32E-04 1.09E-04 1.89E-04 5.67E-05 RA-226 3.21E-04 3.48E-04 1.55E-04 2.58E-03 2.10E-03 3.70E-03 1.13E-03 RA-228 3.05E-04 3.33E-04 1.47E-04 2.44E-03 1.99E-03 3.51E-03 1.08E-03 AC-225 5.77E-06 7.79E-06 2.58E-06 4.78E-05 3.99E-05 7.36E-05 2.32E-05 AC-227 3.51E-04 5.02E-04 1.50E-04 2.78E-03 2.38E-03 4.45E-03 1.42E-03 AC-228 1.54E-15 8.60E-16 7.62E-16 4.14E-15 4.95E-15 6.96E-15 1.60E-15 TH-227 1.33E-05 6.36E-06 8.41E-06 1.60E-04 1.09E-04 1.74E-04 5.11E-05 TH-228 1.48E-04 7.10E-05 9.37E-05 1.79E-03 1.21E-03 1.94E-03 5.70E-04 TH-229 1.90E-04 9.13E-05 1.21E-04 2.30E-03 1.56E-03 2.50E-03 7.33E-04 TH-230 1.91E-04 9.13E-05 1.21E-04 2.31E-03 1.56E-03 2.50E-03 7.34E-04 TH-231 1.86E-11 8.91E-12 1.16E-11 2.11E-10 1.45E-10 2.31E-10 6.72E-11 TH-232 1.91E-04 9.14E-05 1.21E-04 2.31E-03 1.56E-03 2.50E-03 7.34E-04 TH-234 2.17E-05 1.04E-05 1.37E-05 2.62E-04 1.78E-04 2.84E-04 8.34E-05 PA-231 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.30E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 PA-233 3.46E-01 7.86E-01 8.55E-02 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 PA-234M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 U-232 1.74E-04 8.47E-05 1.10E-04 2.08E-03 1.41E-03 2.26E-03 6.63E-04 U-233 1.83E-04 8.88E-05 1.15E-04 2.18E-03 1.48E-03 2.37E-03 6.96E-04 U-234 1.83E-04 8.88E-05 1.15E-04 2.18E-03 1.48E-03 2.37E-03 6.96E-04 U-235 1.83E-04 8.88E-05 1.15E-04 2.18E-03 1.48E-03 2.37E-03 6.96E-04 U-236 1.83E-04 8.88E-05 1.15E-04 2.18E-03 1.48E-03 2.37E-03 6.96E-04 U-237 9.55E-07 4.62E-07 5.97E-07 1.10E-05 7.54E-06 1.20E-05 3.52E-06 U-238 1.83E-04 8.88E-05 1.15E-04 2.18E-03 1.48E-03 2.37E-03 6.96E-04 NP-236 1.79E-04 8.60E-05 1.14E-04 2.17E-03 1.47E-03 2.35E-03 6.91E-04 NP-237 1.79E-04 8.60E-05 1.14E-04 2.17E-03 1.47E-03 2.35E-03 6.91E-04 NP-238 5.37E-09 2.54E-09 3.41E-09 6.51E-08 4.40E-08 7.04E-08 2.07E-08 NP-239 1.06E-08 5.02E-09 6.74E-09 1.29E-07 8.70E-08 1.39E-07 4.08E-08 PU-236 1.50E-04 7.11E-05 9.54E-05 1.82E-03 1.23E-03 1.97E-03 5.78E-04A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-31 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

PU-237 4.97E-05 2.35E-05 3.16E-05 6.02E-04 4.08E-04 6.52E-04 1.91E-04 PU-238 1.62E-04 7.66E-05 1.03E-04 1.96E-03 1.33E-03 2.12E-03 6.23E-04 PU-239 1.64E-04 7.76E-05 1.04E-04 1.99E-03 1.35E-03 2.15E-03 6.31E-04 PU-240 1.64E-04 7.76E-05 1.04E-04 1.99E-03 1.34E-03 2.15E-03 6.31E-04 PU-241 1.58E-04 7.50E-05 1.01E-04 1.92E-03 1.30E-03 2.08E-03 6.09E-04 PU-242 1.64E-04 7.76E-05 1.04E-04 1.99E-03 1.35E-03 2.15E-03 6.31E-04 PU-244 1.64E-04 7.76E-05 1.04E-04 1.99E-03 1.35E-03 2.15E-03 6.31E-04 AM-241 1.64E-04 7.87E-05 1.04E-04 1.98E-03 1.34E-03 2.15E-03 6.31E-04 AM-242M 1.63E-04 7.83E-05 1.03E-04 1.97E-03 1.34E-03 2.14E-03 6.28E-04 AM-243 1.65E-04 7.90E-05 1.04E-04 1.99E-03 1.35E-03 2.16E-03 6.34E-04 CM-242 1.12E-04 5.36E-05 7.08E-05 1.35E-03 9.16E-04 1.47E-03 4.30E-04 CM-243 1.66E-04 7.95E-05 1.05E-04 2.01E-03 1.36E-03 2.18E-03 6.38E-04 CM-244 1.63E-04 7.84E-05 1.04E-04 1.98E-03 1.34E-03 2.14E-03 6.29E-04 CM-245 1.79E-04 8.60E-05 1.14E-04 2.17E-03 1.47E-03 2.35E-03 6.90E-04 CM-246 1.79E-04 8.59E-05 1.14E-04 2.17E-03 1.47E-03 2.35E-03 6.90E-04 CM-247 1.79E-04 8.60E-05 1.14E-04 2.17E-03 1.47E-03 2.35E-03 6.91E-04 CM-248 1.79E-04 8.60E-05 1.14E-04 2.17E-03 1.47E-03 2.35E-03 6.91E-04 CF-252 1.51E-04 7.23E-05 9.55E-05 1.82E-03 1.23E-03 1.98E-03 5.80E-04 State Nuclide KY LA ME MD MA MI MN H-3 2.93E-07 4.78E-08 1.43E-08 5.12E-07 2.68E-08 2.63E-07 7.61E-07 BE-10 2.18E-04 5.23E-05 8.76E-06 2.89E-04 4.96E-06 1.79E-04 6.03E-04 C-14 4.13E-06 1.00E-06 1.78E-07 6.35E-06 2.17E-07 3.29E-06 1.09E-05 N-16 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 F-18 7.18E-18 1.47E-18 3.75E-19 1.42E-17 2.00E-18 5.99E-18 1.52E-17 NA-22 8.76E-04 2.04E-04 4.49E-05 1.79E-03 1.68E-04 6.75E-04 1.96E-03 NA-24 4.15E-09 8.48E-10 2.17E-10 8.21E-09 1.15E-09 3.46E-09 8.77E-09 P-32 5.79E-05 1.35E-05 2.99E-06 1.20E-04 1.12E-05 4.44E-05 1.29E-04 CA-41 6.75E-04 1.58E-04 2.90E-05 1.01E-03 5.09E-05 5.52E-04 1.77E-03 SC-46 1.36E-04 3.60E-05 6.30E-06 2.51E-04 5.42E-06 9.93E-05 3.49E-04 CR-51 4.28E-05 1.01E-05 1.82E-06 6.31E-05 2.80E-06 3.49E-05 1.13E-04 MN-54 1.78E-04 4.26E-05 7.15E-06 2.36E-04 4.44E-06 1.47E-04 4.92E-04 MN-56 2.13E-17 4.36E-18 1.11E-18 4.22E-17 5.93E-18 1.78E-17 4.51E-17 FE-55 3.68E-04 1.05E-04 1.93E-05 8.67E-04 2.52E-05 2.34E-04 8.56E-04 FE-59 1.14E-04 3.21E-05 5.91E-06 2.61E-04 7.78E-06 7.47E-05 2.70E-04 CO-57 2.19E-04 5.65E-05 1.00E-05 3.91E-04 1.09E-05 1.63E-04 5.60E-04 CO-58 1.26E-04 3.24E-05 5.75E-06 2.23E-04 6.31E-06 9.47E-05 3.25E-04 CO-60 2.74E-04 7.06E-05 1.25E-05 4.89E-04 1.36E-05 2.03E-04 7.00E-04 NI-59 5.02E-04 1.19E-04 2.19E-05 7.77E-04 3.95E-05 4.07E-04 1.30E-03 NI-63 4.42E-04 1.04E-04 1.95E-05 6.95E-04 3.72E-05 3.57E-04 1.14E-03 NI-65 4.36E-16 8.91E-17 2.28E-17 8.62E-16 1.21E-16 3.64E-16 9.21E-16 CU-64 8.79E-10 1.80E-10 4.59E-11 1.74E-09 2.44E-10 7.33E-10 1.86E-09 ZN-65 7.55E-04 1.76E-04 3.84E-05 1.52E-03 1.40E-04 5.85E-04 1.70E-03 ZN-69M 4.63E-09 9.46E-10 2.42E-10 9.16E-09 1.29E-09 3.86E-09 9.79E-09A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-32 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

ZN-69 1.68E-24 3.44E-25 8.79E-26 3.33E-24 4.68E-25 1.40E-24 3.56E-24 SE-79 1.76E-02 4.06E-03 7.85E-04 2.79E-02 1.88E-03 1.44E-02 4.46E-02 BR-82 1.50E-07 3.07E-08 7.83E-09 2.96E-07 4.14E-08 1.25E-07 3.18E-07 BR-83 1.05E-14 2.14E-15 5.46E-16 2.07E-14 2.91E-15 8.73E-15 2.21E-14 BR-84 2.15E-36 4.40E-37 1.12E-37 4.26E-36 5.98E-37 1.80E-36 4.55E-36 BR-85 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 KR-85 6.38E-03 1.52E-03 2.78E-04 9.88E-03 4.71E-04 5.14E-03 1.66E-02 RB-86 8.94E-05 2.03E-05 4.60E-06 1.82E-04 1.86E-05 7.01E-05 1.98E-04 RB-87 2.32E-03 5.53E-04 1.08E-04 4.08E-03 2.65E-04 1.83E-03 5.72E-03 RB-88 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RB-89 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SR-89 7.61E-05 1.80E-05 3.09E-06 1.02E-04 2.67E-06 6.30E-05 2.08E-04 SR-90 2.72E-04 6.47E-05 1.10E-05 3.62E-04 8.52E-06 2.25E-04 7.48E-04 SR-91 1.02E-11 2.09E-12 5.35E-13 2.03E-11 2.85E-12 8.55E-12 2.17E-11 SR-92 1.38E-16 2.82E-17 7.20E-18 2.73E-16 3.83E-17 1.15E-16 2.91E-16 Y-90 2.78E-08 6.62E-09 1.10E-09 3.58E-08 5.74E-10 2.31E-08 7.73E-08 Y-91M 1.86E-31 3.80E-32 9.71E-33 3.68E-31 5.17E-32 1.55E-31 3.93E-31 Y-91 8.65E-05 2.13E-05 3.61E-06 1.27E-04 2.28E-06 6.89E-05 2.34E-04 Y-92 4.96E-17 1.01E-17 2.59E-18 9.81E-17 1.38E-17 4.14E-17 1.05E-16 Y-93 1.63E-13 3.32E-14 8.49E-15 3.22E-13 4.52E-14 1.36E-13 3.44E-13 ZR-93 3.57E-04 1.01E-04 1.83E-05 8.11E-04 1.98E-05 2.31E-04 8.48E-04 ZR-95 1.47E-04 4.13E-05 7.44E-06 3.26E-04 7.84E-06 9.66E-05 3.53E-04 ZR-97 1.10E-12 2.30E-13 5.53E-14 2.06E-12 2.63E-13 9.18E-13 2.44E-12 NB-93M 1.45E-03 4.75E-04 9.17E-05 4.77E-03 1.42E-04 6.67E-04 2.82E-03 NB-94 1.60E-03 5.21E-04 1.00E-04 5.17E-03 1.53E-04 7.58E-04 3.16E-03 NB-95M 2.71E-07 7.08E-08 1.39E-08 5.88E-07 3.10E-08 1.90E-07 6.29E-07 NB-95 2.97E-04 9.70E-05 1.87E-05 9.69E-04 2.94E-05 1.39E-04 5.83E-04 NB-97 1.87E-23 3.82E-24 9.77E-25 3.70E-23 5.20E-24 1.56E-23 3.95E-23 MO-93 1.46E-03 3.47E-04 6.16E-05 2.13E-03 8.10E-05 1.18E-03 3.88E-03 MO-99 1.25E-07 2.69E-08 6.05E-09 2.21E-07 2.50E-08 1.04E-07 2.90E-07 TC-99M 3.03E-11 6.20E-12 1.58E-12 6.00E-11 8.44E-12 2.53E-11 6.41E-11 TC-99 7.60E-03 2.26E-03 4.37E-04 2.09E-02 7.64E-04 4.36E-03 1.62E-02 TC-101 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RU-103 4.63E-04 1.55E-04 2.99E-05 1.58E-03 4.46E-05 2.02E-04 8.86E-04 RU-105 6.45E-17 1.32E-17 3.37E-18 1.28E-16 1.80E-17 5.39E-17 1.36E-16 RU-106 1.60E-03 5.38E-04 1.04E-04 5.49E-03 1.55E-04 6.93E-04 3.04E-03 RH-103M 3.10E-23 6.33E-24 1.62E-24 6.13E-23 8.62E-24 2.59E-23 6.55E-23 RH-105 2.16E-07 4.47E-08 1.11E-08 4.17E-07 5.64E-08 1.80E-07 4.67E-07 RH-106 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PD-107 4.78E-02 1.13E-02 1.96E-03 6.54E-02 2.14E-03 3.95E-02 1.30E-01 PD-109 6.83E-09 1.40E-09 3.57E-10 1.35E-08 1.90E-09 5.70E-09 1.44E-08 AG-110M 8.05E-04 1.79E-04 4.07E-05 1.56E-03 1.68E-04 6.46E-04 1.80E-03 AG-111 1.90E-05 3.99E-06 9.77E-07 3.70E-05 4.81E-06 1.57E-05 4.12E-05 CD-113M 7.86E-04 1.87E-04 3.12E-05 1.01E-03 1.61E-05 6.52E-04 2.19E-03A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-33 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

CD-115M 2.82E-19 5.76E-20 1.47E-20 5.58E-19 7.84E-20 2.35E-19 5.96E-19 IN-113M 1.07E-20 2.20E-21 5.61E-22 2.13E-20 2.99E-21 8.97E-21 2.27E-20 SN-113 3.39E-04 1.01E-04 1.92E-05 9.14E-04 2.91E-05 1.95E-04 7.37E-04 SN-119M 4.65E-04 1.40E-04 2.65E-05 1.27E-03 4.02E-05 2.66E-04 1.01E-03 SN-121M 5.98E-04 1.79E-04 3.39E-05 1.62E-03 5.10E-05 3.42E-04 1.30E-03 SN-123 3.58E-04 1.07E-04 2.03E-05 9.68E-04 3.08E-05 2.06E-04 7.79E-04 SN-125 9.67E-06 2.75E-06 5.34E-07 2.45E-05 1.03E-06 6.01E-06 2.13E-05 SN-126 6.16E-04 1.84E-04 3.48E-05 1.66E-03 5.19E-05 3.55E-04 1.34E-03 SB-124 1.01E-04 2.43E-05 4.28E-06 1.50E-04 4.96E-06 8.10E-05 2.68E-04 SB-125 2.33E-04 5.66E-05 9.93E-06 3.50E-04 1.11E-05 1.87E-04 6.21E-04 SB-126 8.76E-06 2.08E-06 3.81E-07 1.35E-05 6.40E-07 7.07E-06 2.28E-05 SB-126M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SB-127 2.08E-07 4.79E-08 8.97E-09 3.08E-07 1.82E-08 1.73E-07 5.43E-07 TE-125M 2.32E-04 6.81E-05 1.26E-05 5.86E-04 1.64E-05 1.41E-04 5.27E-04 TE-127M 3.79E-04 1.11E-04 2.05E-05 9.51E-04 2.63E-05 2.30E-04 8.62E-04 TE-127 5.19E-11 1.06E-11 2.71E-12 1.03E-10 1.44E-11 4.33E-11 1.10E-10 TE-129M 1.28E-04 3.75E-05 6.96E-06 3.22E-04 9.16E-06 7.77E-05 2.90E-04 TE-129 2.75E-23 5.62E-24 1.44E-24 5.44E-23 7.65E-24 2.30E-23 5.82E-23 TE-131M 2.94E-09 6.17E-10 1.47E-10 5.48E-09 6.94E-10 2.45E-09 6.53E-09 TE-131 1.40E-45 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.20E-45 0.00E+00 1.40E-45 4.20E-45 TE-132 2.04E-07 4.90E-08 8.71E-09 3.07E-07 1.15E-08 1.64E-07 5.39E-07 TE-133M 2.22E-26 4.54E-27 1.16E-27 4.39E-26 6.17E-27 1.85E-26 4.69E-26 TE-134 5.45E-31 1.11E-31 2.84E-32 1.08E-30 1.51E-31 4.54E-31 1.15E-30 I-129 4.89E-04 1.15E-04 2.09E-05 7.25E-04 3.55E-05 4.01E-04 1.28E-03 I-130 2.37E-10 4.84E-11 1.24E-11 4.69E-10 6.59E-11 1.98E-10 5.01E-10 I-131 4.74E-06 1.05E-06 2.23E-07 8.09E-06 7.79E-07 3.91E-06 1.14E-05 I-132 8.23E-17 1.68E-17 4.30E-18 1.63E-16 2.29E-17 6.87E-17 1.74E-16 I-133 2.13E-09 4.35E-10 1.11E-10 4.21E-09 5.92E-10 1.78E-09 4.50E-09 I-134 9.77E-28 2.00E-28 5.10E-29 1.93E-27 2.72E-28 8.15E-28 2.07E-27 I-135 8.04E-12 1.64E-12 4.20E-13 1.59E-11 2.24E-12 6.71E-12 1.70E-11 CS-134M 5.34E-15 1.09E-15 2.79E-16 1.06E-14 1.49E-15 4.46E-15 1.13E-14 CS-134 3.64E-04 8.31E-05 1.68E-05 6.12E-04 4.90E-05 2.96E-04 8.93E-04 CS-135 4.94E-04 1.13E-04 2.23E-05 8.01E-04 5.81E-05 4.03E-04 1.24E-03 CS-136 2.24E-05 4.90E-06 1.08E-06 3.99E-05 4.20E-06 1.84E-05 5.21E-05 CS-137 4.28E-04 9.79E-05 1.96E-05 7.09E-04 5.46E-05 3.48E-04 1.06E-03 CS-138 2.19E-38 4.47E-39 1.14E-39 4.33E-38 6.08E-39 1.83E-38 4.62E-38 CS-139 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-137M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-139 1.13E-22 2.31E-23 5.91E-24 2.24E-22 3.15E-23 9.45E-23 2.39E-22 BA-140 8.04E-06 1.94E-06 3.36E-07 1.16E-05 3.13E-07 6.50E-06 2.17E-05 BA-141 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-142 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 LA-140 1.37E-09 3.25E-10 5.43E-11 1.75E-09 2.99E-11 1.14E-09 3.81E-09 LA-141 5.75E-17 1.18E-17 3.00E-18 1.14E-16 1.60E-17 4.80E-17 1.22E-16A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-34 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

LA-142 8.84E-24 1.81E-24 4.61E-25 1.75E-23 2.46E-24 7.37E-24 1.87E-23 CE-141 4.55E-05 1.09E-05 1.85E-06 6.18E-05 1.54E-06 3.75E-05 1.24E-04 CE-143 1.22E-09 2.60E-10 6.03E-11 2.22E-09 2.66E-10 1.02E-09 2.78E-09 CE-144 1.77E-04 4.24E-05 7.21E-06 2.41E-04 5.57E-06 1.46E-04 4.85E-04 PR-143 9.14E-06 2.26E-06 3.82E-07 1.34E-05 2.43E-07 7.27E-06 2.47E-05 PR-144 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PR-144M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ND-147 5.17E-06 1.26E-06 2.12E-07 7.28E-06 1.26E-07 4.17E-06 1.41E-05 PM-146 2.21E-04 5.47E-05 9.29E-06 3.30E-04 6.02E-06 1.75E-04 5.96E-04 PM-147 2.12E-04 5.26E-05 8.93E-06 3.17E-04 5.79E-06 1.68E-04 5.72E-04 PM-148M 6.45E-05 1.59E-05 2.70E-06 9.48E-05 1.70E-06 5.13E-05 1.75E-04 PM-148 5.68E-07 1.37E-07 2.30E-08 7.68E-07 1.27E-08 4.64E-07 1.57E-06 PM-149 9.73E-09 2.32E-09 3.86E-10 1.25E-08 1.98E-10 8.08E-09 2.71E-08 PM-151 6.93E-11 1.63E-11 2.80E-12 9.18E-11 2.60E-12 5.76E-11 1.90E-10 SM-147 2.52E-04 6.24E-05 1.06E-05 3.74E-04 6.80E-06 2.00E-04 6.81E-04 SM-151 2.43E-04 6.03E-05 1.02E-05 3.63E-04 6.62E-06 1.93E-04 6.56E-04 SM-153 4.22E-09 1.01E-09 1.67E-10 5.42E-09 8.77E-11 3.51E-09 1.18E-08 EU-152 2.27E-04 5.64E-05 9.57E-06 3.39E-04 6.19E-06 1.80E-04 6.14E-04 EU-154 2.25E-04 5.57E-05 9.45E-06 3.35E-04 6.12E-06 1.78E-04 6.06E-04 EU-155 2.19E-04 5.44E-05 9.24E-06 3.28E-04 5.99E-06 1.74E-04 5.92E-04 EU-156 1.18E-05 2.92E-06 4.94E-07 1.74E-05 3.16E-07 9.38E-06 3.19E-05 GD-153 1.72E-04 4.21E-05 7.12E-06 2.47E-04 4.34E-06 1.38E-04 4.67E-04 TB-160 1.04E-04 2.56E-05 4.33E-06 1.52E-04 2.71E-06 8.28E-05 2.82E-04 HO-166M 2.49E-04 6.14E-05 1.04E-05 3.64E-04 6.52E-06 1.99E-04 6.75E-04 W-181 1.36E-04 3.26E-05 5.53E-06 1.84E-04 4.08E-06 1.12E-04 3.73E-04 W-185 1.02E-04 2.45E-05 4.15E-06 1.38E-04 3.09E-06 8.40E-05 2.80E-04 W-187 2.93E-10 6.02E-11 1.52E-11 5.72E-10 7.89E-11 2.44E-10 6.26E-10 TL-207 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TL-208 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PB-209 1.53E-15 3.12E-16 7.97E-17 3.02E-15 4.24E-16 1.27E-15 3.23E-15 PB-210 3.93E-04 9.34E-05 1.57E-05 5.11E-04 1.03E-05 3.26E-04 1.09E-03 PB-211 3.59E-36 7.35E-37 1.88E-37 7.11E-36 1.00E-36 3.00E-36 7.60E-36 PB-212 1.48E-11 3.03E-12 7.75E-13 2.94E-11 4.13E-12 1.24E-11 3.14E-11 BI-210 5.73E-07 1.38E-07 2.43E-08 8.48E-07 2.73E-08 4.62E-07 1.53E-06 BI-211 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BI-212 4.68E-26 9.57E-27 2.45E-27 9.27E-26 1.30E-26 3.91E-26 9.90E-26 BI-213 7.52E-31 1.54E-31 3.92E-32 1.49E-30 2.09E-31 6.27E-31 1.59E-30 PO-210 1.78E-04 4.58E-05 7.99E-06 3.06E-04 6.97E-06 1.34E-04 4.63E-04 PO-212 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-213 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-215 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-216 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 AT-217 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-221 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-35 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

FR-223 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RA-223 1.65E-05 4.03E-06 8.44E-07 3.45E-05 2.60E-06 1.22E-05 3.74E-05 RA-224 3.75E-07 8.22E-08 1.82E-08 6.72E-07 7.06E-08 3.08E-07 8.73E-07 RA-225 2.89E-05 7.22E-06 1.49E-06 6.14E-05 4.23E-06 2.11E-05 6.60E-05 RA-226 4.72E-04 1.25E-04 2.43E-05 1.04E-03 5.15E-05 3.27E-04 1.09E-03 RA-228 4.50E-04 1.19E-04 2.32E-05 9.93E-04 4.95E-05 3.11E-04 1.04E-03 AC-225 7.67E-06 2.25E-06 4.13E-07 1.91E-05 4.87E-07 4.64E-06 1.75E-05 AC-227 4.67E-04 1.39E-04 2.58E-05 1.22E-03 3.15E-05 2.73E-04 1.05E-03 AC-228 3.56E-15 7.29E-16 1.86E-16 7.05E-15 9.92E-16 2.97E-15 7.54E-15 TH-227 1.71E-05 4.07E-06 6.77E-07 2.19E-05 3.38E-07 1.42E-05 4.75E-05 TH-228 1.90E-04 4.54E-05 7.55E-06 2.45E-04 3.76E-06 1.58E-04 5.30E-04 TH-229 2.45E-04 5.84E-05 9.71E-06 3.15E-04 4.83E-06 2.04E-04 6.83E-04 TH-230 2.45E-04 5.85E-05 9.72E-06 3.15E-04 4.83E-06 2.04E-04 6.83E-04 TH-231 2.54E-11 5.94E-12 1.05E-12 3.49E-11 1.40E-12 2.12E-11 6.86E-11 TH-232 2.45E-04 5.85E-05 9.72E-06 3.15E-04 4.84E-06 2.04E-04 6.83E-04 TH-234 2.79E-05 6.64E-06 1.10E-06 3.58E-05 5.51E-07 2.31E-05 7.76E-05 PA-231 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.38E-01 1.00E+00 3.74E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 PA-233 4.74E-01 1.65E-01 3.23E-02 1.00E+00 5.07E-02 1.81E-01 8.48E-01 PA-234M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 U-232 2.28E-04 5.41E-05 9.13E-06 2.99E-04 6.38E-06 1.89E-04 6.28E-04 U-233 2.39E-04 5.67E-05 9.57E-06 3.13E-04 6.61E-06 1.98E-04 6.59E-04 U-234 2.39E-04 5.67E-05 9.57E-06 3.13E-04 6.61E-06 1.98E-04 6.59E-04 U-235 2.39E-04 5.67E-05 9.57E-06 3.13E-04 6.61E-06 1.98E-04 6.59E-04 U-236 2.39E-04 5.67E-05 9.57E-06 3.13E-04 6.61E-06 1.98E-04 6.59E-04 U-237 1.29E-06 3.02E-07 5.27E-08 1.74E-06 5.94E-08 1.07E-06 3.50E-06 U-238 2.39E-04 5.67E-05 9.57E-06 3.13E-04 6.61E-06 1.98E-04 6.59E-04 NP-236 2.31E-04 5.50E-05 9.15E-06 2.97E-04 4.56E-06 1.92E-04 6.43E-04 NP-237 2.31E-04 5.50E-05 9.15E-06 2.97E-04 4.56E-06 1.92E-04 6.43E-04 NP-238 6.93E-09 1.65E-09 2.74E-10 8.85E-09 1.40E-10 5.76E-09 1.93E-08 NP-239 1.37E-08 3.25E-09 5.41E-10 1.74E-08 2.73E-10 1.14E-08 3.81E-08 PU-236 1.93E-04 4.60E-05 7.64E-06 2.46E-04 3.74E-06 1.61E-04 5.39E-04 PU-237 6.39E-05 1.52E-05 2.53E-06 8.15E-05 1.24E-06 5.32E-05 1.78E-04 PU-238 2.08E-04 4.96E-05 8.23E-06 2.66E-04 4.03E-06 1.73E-04 5.81E-04 PU-239 2.11E-04 5.02E-05 8.34E-06 2.69E-04 4.09E-06 1.75E-04 5.88E-04 PU-240 2.11E-04 5.02E-05 8.34E-06 2.69E-04 4.09E-06 1.75E-04 5.88E-04 PU-241 2.04E-04 4.85E-05 8.05E-06 2.60E-04 3.95E-06 1.69E-04 5.68E-04 PU-242 2.11E-04 5.02E-05 8.34E-06 2.69E-04 4.09E-06 1.75E-04 5.88E-04 PU-244 2.11E-04 5.02E-05 8.34E-06 2.69E-04 4.09E-06 1.75E-04 5.88E-04 AM-241 2.11E-04 5.03E-05 8.37E-06 2.71E-04 4.17E-06 1.75E-04 5.88E-04 AM-242M 2.10E-04 5.01E-05 8.33E-06 2.70E-04 4.15E-06 1.74E-04 5.85E-04 AM-243 2.12E-04 5.05E-05 8.39E-06 2.72E-04 4.18E-06 1.76E-04 5.90E-04 CM-242 1.44E-04 3.43E-05 5.70E-06 1.85E-04 2.84E-06 1.19E-04 4.01E-04 CM-243 2.13E-04 5.09E-05 8.46E-06 2.74E-04 4.21E-06 1.77E-04 5.94E-04 CM-244 2.10E-04 5.01E-05 8.34E-06 2.70E-04 4.16E-06 1.75E-04 5.86E-04A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-36 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

CM-245 2.31E-04 5.50E-05 9.15E-06 2.96E-04 4.55E-06 1.92E-04 6.43E-04 CM-246 2.31E-04 5.50E-05 9.14E-06 2.96E-04 4.55E-06 1.91E-04 6.42E-04 CM-247 2.31E-04 5.50E-05 9.15E-06 2.97E-04 4.56E-06 1.92E-04 6.43E-04 CM-248 2.31E-04 5.50E-05 9.15E-06 2.97E-04 4.56E-06 1.92E-04 6.43E-04 CF-252 1.94E-04 4.62E-05 7.69E-06 2.49E-04 3.83E-06 1.61E-04 5.40E-04 State Nuclide MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ H-3 9.38E-08 4.32E-07 1.74E-07 1.52E-06 3.12E-09 8.35E-09 9.04E-08 BE-10 8.81E-05 3.45E-04 9.12E-05 9.23E-04 1.15E-06 9.17E-07 4.74E-05 C-14 1.78E-06 6.37E-06 1.55E-06 1.59E-05 2.50E-08 6.22E-08 9.48E-07 N-16 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 F-18 1.69E-18 6.01E-18 3.30E-19 3.47E-18 6.20E-20 7.19E-19 2.70E-18 NA-22 3.42E-04 1.04E-03 1.53E-04 1.65E-03 7.28E-06 5.85E-05 2.70E-04 NA-24 9.75E-10 3.47E-09 1.90E-10 2.01E-09 3.58E-11 4.15E-10 1.56E-09 P-32 2.28E-05 6.88E-05 9.88E-06 1.07E-04 4.86E-07 3.92E-06 1.79E-05 CA-41 2.57E-04 9.72E-04 2.31E-04 2.34E-03 4.09E-06 1.61E-05 1.68E-04 SC-46 7.53E-05 2.31E-04 5.41E-05 5.71E-04 9.33E-07 1.30E-06 2.82E-05 CR-51 1.67E-05 6.29E-05 1.52E-05 1.55E-04 2.54E-07 8.62E-07 1.03E-05 MN-54 7.11E-05 2.80E-04 7.39E-05 7.47E-04 9.39E-07 8.99E-07 3.90E-05 MN-56 5.02E-18 1.78E-17 9.79E-19 1.03E-17 1.84E-19 2.14E-18 8.00E-18 FE-55 2.52E-04 6.49E-04 1.32E-04 1.45E-03 3.12E-06 7.09E-06 7.51E-05 FE-59 7.55E-05 1.99E-04 4.10E-05 4.50E-04 9.47E-07 2.20E-06 2.37E-05 CO-57 1.14E-04 3.59E-04 8.35E-05 8.76E-04 1.48E-06 2.96E-06 4.74E-05 CO-58 6.45E-05 2.06E-04 4.82E-05 5.05E-04 8.44E-07 1.71E-06 2.75E-05 CO-60 1.42E-04 4.49E-04 1.04E-04 1.10E-03 1.85E-06 3.66E-06 5.91E-05 NI-59 1.98E-04 7.26E-04 1.69E-04 1.73E-03 3.13E-06 1.26E-05 1.25E-04 NI-63 1.74E-04 6.33E-04 1.45E-04 1.49E-03 2.80E-06 1.20E-05 1.11E-04 NI-65 1.02E-16 3.65E-16 2.00E-17 2.11E-16 3.76E-18 4.36E-17 1.64E-16 CU-64 2.07E-10 7.35E-10 4.03E-11 4.25E-10 7.58E-12 8.79E-11 3.30E-10 ZN-65 2.94E-04 9.07E-04 1.38E-04 1.48E-03 6.19E-06 4.90E-05 2.31E-04 ZN-69M 1.09E-09 3.87E-09 2.12E-10 2.24E-09 3.99E-11 4.63E-10 1.74E-09 ZN-69 3.96E-25 1.41E-24 7.72E-26 8.14E-25 1.45E-26 1.69E-25 6.32E-25 SE-79 6.39E-03 2.38E-02 5.20E-03 5.30E-02 1.14E-04 6.28E-04 4.70E-03 BR-82 3.55E-08 1.27E-07 7.40E-09 7.77E-08 1.29E-09 1.49E-08 5.61E-08 BR-83 2.46E-15 8.74E-15 4.80E-16 5.05E-15 9.02E-17 1.05E-15 3.92E-15 BR-84 5.06E-37 1.80E-36 9.87E-38 1.04E-36 1.86E-38 2.15E-37 8.07E-37 BR-85 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 KR-85 2.56E-03 9.34E-03 2.20E-03 2.24E-02 3.96E-05 1.48E-04 1.56E-03 RB-86 3.22E-05 1.00E-04 1.34E-05 1.44E-04 7.48E-07 6.55E-06 2.87E-05 RB-87 9.55E-04 3.22E-03 6.65E-04 6.91E-03 1.64E-05 8.83E-05 6.15E-04 RB-88 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RB-89 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SR-89 2.96E-05 1.17E-04 3.04E-05 3.08E-04 4.09E-07 6.77E-07 1.72E-05 SR-90 1.07E-04 4.22E-04 1.10E-04 1.11E-03 1.45E-06 2.03E-06 6.08E-05A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-37 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

SR-91 2.41E-12 8.57E-12 4.70E-13 4.95E-12 8.84E-14 1.03E-12 3.84E-12 SR-92 3.24E-17 1.15E-16 6.32E-18 6.66E-17 1.19E-18 1.38E-17 5.17E-17 Y-90 1.10E-08 4.38E-08 1.17E-08 1.18E-07 1.43E-10 9.71E-11 6.04E-09 Y-91M 4.37E-32 1.56E-31 8.53E-33 8.99E-32 1.60E-33 1.86E-32 6.98E-32 Y-91 3.85E-05 1.40E-04 3.58E-05 3.66E-04 4.92E-07 4.55E-07 1.85E-05 Y-92 1.17E-17 4.15E-17 2.27E-18 2.40E-17 4.28E-19 4.96E-18 1.86E-17 Y-93 3.82E-14 1.36E-13 7.46E-15 7.86E-14 1.40E-15 1.63E-14 6.10E-14 ZR-93 2.41E-04 6.37E-04 1.34E-04 1.47E-03 2.91E-06 5.16E-06 7.08E-05 ZR-95 9.69E-05 2.61E-04 5.57E-05 6.07E-04 1.18E-06 2.03E-06 2.93E-05 ZR-97 2.85E-13 1.04E-12 1.13E-13 1.16E-12 8.91E-15 9.39E-14 3.86E-13 NB-93M 1.39E-03 2.86E-03 4.64E-04 5.63E-03 1.64E-05 4.10E-05 2.65E-04 NB-94 1.50E-03 3.15E-03 5.19E-04 6.25E-03 1.78E-05 4.40E-05 2.96E-04 NB-95M 1.49E-07 4.14E-07 7.83E-08 8.54E-07 2.23E-09 1.01E-08 6.68E-08 NB-95 2.81E-04 5.84E-04 9.49E-05 1.15E-03 3.35E-06 8.56E-06 5.53E-05 NB-97 4.40E-24 1.56E-23 8.58E-25 9.04E-24 1.61E-25 1.87E-24 7.02E-24 MO-93 5.82E-04 2.19E-03 5.40E-04 5.49E-03 8.52E-06 2.39E-05 3.42E-04 MO-99 3.55E-08 1.33E-07 2.00E-08 2.04E-07 9.47E-10 8.83E-09 4.09E-08 TC-99M 7.13E-12 2.54E-11 1.39E-12 1.47E-11 2.62E-13 3.04E-12 1.14E-11 TC-99 5.86E-03 1.35E-02 2.38E-03 2.75E-02 7.46E-05 2.32E-04 1.59E-03 TC-101 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RU-103 4.63E-04 9.37E-04 1.50E-04 1.84E-03 5.40E-06 1.27E-05 8.21E-05 RU-105 1.52E-17 5.40E-17 2.96E-18 3.12E-17 5.57E-19 6.46E-18 2.42E-17 RU-106 1.61E-03 3.25E-03 5.16E-04 6.34E-03 1.88E-05 4.43E-05 2.83E-04 RH-103M 7.29E-24 2.59E-23 1.42E-24 1.50E-23 2.67E-25 3.10E-24 1.16E-23 RH-105 5.31E-08 1.92E-07 1.54E-08 1.60E-07 1.81E-09 2.02E-08 7.88E-08 RH-106 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PD-107 1.84E-02 7.23E-02 1.84E-02 1.86E-01 2.64E-04 5.98E-04 1.11E-02 PD-109 1.61E-09 5.71E-09 3.13E-10 3.30E-09 5.90E-11 6.84E-10 2.56E-09 AG-110M 2.64E-04 8.75E-04 1.19E-04 1.25E-03 6.54E-06 5.94E-05 2.63E-04 AG-111 5.00E-06 1.75E-05 1.58E-06 1.65E-05 1.60E-07 1.72E-06 6.81E-06 CD-113M 3.10E-04 1.24E-03 3.31E-04 3.34E-03 4.04E-06 2.69E-06 1.71E-04 CD-115M 6.63E-20 2.36E-19 1.29E-20 1.36E-19 2.43E-21 2.82E-20 1.06E-19 IN-113M 2.53E-21 8.99E-21 4.93E-22 5.19E-21 9.27E-23 1.08E-21 4.03E-21 SN-113 2.62E-04 6.16E-04 1.13E-04 1.30E-03 3.24E-06 8.52E-06 6.83E-05 SN-119M 3.64E-04 8.50E-04 1.55E-04 1.78E-03 4.49E-06 1.17E-05 9.34E-05 SN-121M 4.67E-04 1.09E-03 2.00E-04 2.30E-03 5.75E-06 1.49E-05 1.20E-04 SN-123 2.78E-04 6.51E-04 1.20E-04 1.37E-03 3.43E-06 9.00E-06 7.21E-05 SN-125 6.66E-06 1.63E-05 2.94E-06 3.33E-05 8.92E-08 3.21E-07 2.16E-06 SN-126 4.77E-04 1.12E-03 2.07E-04 2.37E-03 5.88E-06 1.51E-05 1.24E-04 SB-124 4.23E-05 1.55E-04 3.83E-05 3.91E-04 5.94E-07 1.40E-06 2.31E-05 SB-125 9.92E-05 3.61E-04 8.93E-05 9.13E-04 1.38E-06 3.10E-06 5.31E-05 SB-126 3.51E-06 1.28E-05 3.03E-06 3.09E-05 5.41E-08 2.00E-07 2.14E-06 SB-126M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SB-127 7.42E-08 2.89E-07 6.75E-08 6.82E-07 1.27E-09 5.94E-09 5.37E-08A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-38 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

TE-125M 1.71E-04 4.22E-04 8.27E-05 9.28E-04 2.08E-06 4.57E-06 4.61E-05 TE-127M 2.78E-04 6.88E-04 1.36E-04 1.52E-03 3.39E-06 7.31E-06 7.52E-05 TE-127 1.22E-11 4.34E-11 2.38E-12 2.51E-11 4.48E-13 5.20E-12 1.95E-11 TE-129M 9.41E-05 2.32E-04 4.54E-05 5.10E-04 1.15E-06 2.57E-06 2.55E-05 TE-129 6.47E-24 2.30E-23 1.26E-24 1.33E-23 2.37E-25 2.75E-24 1.03E-23 TE-131M 7.67E-10 2.81E-09 3.14E-10 3.22E-09 2.37E-11 2.48E-10 1.03E-09 TE-131 0.00E+00 1.40E-45 0.00E+00 1.40E-45 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TE-132 8.42E-08 3.09E-07 7.53E-08 7.69E-07 1.22E-09 3.39E-09 4.76E-08 TE-133M 5.22E-27 1.86E-26 1.02E-27 1.07E-26 1.91E-28 2.22E-27 8.33E-27 TE-134 1.28E-31 4.55E-31 2.50E-32 2.63E-31 4.70E-33 5.45E-32 2.04E-31 I-129 1.86E-04 7.07E-04 1.69E-04 1.72E-03 2.94E-06 1.12E-05 1.21E-04 I-130 5.57E-11 1.98E-10 1.09E-11 1.15E-10 2.04E-12 2.37E-11 8.89E-11 I-131 1.50E-06 5.57E-06 1.00E-06 1.02E-05 3.40E-08 2.72E-07 1.44E-06 I-132 1.94E-17 6.88E-17 3.78E-18 3.98E-17 7.10E-19 8.24E-18 3.09E-17 I-133 5.01E-10 1.78E-09 9.83E-11 1.04E-09 1.84E-11 2.13E-10 7.98E-10 I-134 2.30E-28 8.17E-28 4.48E-29 4.72E-28 8.43E-30 9.78E-29 3.67E-28 I-135 1.89E-12 6.72E-12 3.69E-13 3.88E-12 6.93E-14 8.04E-13 3.01E-12 CS-134M 1.26E-15 4.47E-15 2.45E-16 2.58E-15 4.61E-17 5.35E-16 2.00E-15 CS-134 1.29E-04 4.66E-04 9.30E-05 9.53E-04 2.53E-06 1.68E-05 1.03E-04 CS-135 1.77E-04 6.53E-04 1.38E-04 1.41E-03 3.29E-06 1.96E-05 1.35E-04 CS-136 6.89E-06 2.49E-05 3.98E-06 4.09E-05 1.69E-07 1.48E-06 7.10E-06 CS-137 1.52E-04 5.55E-04 1.14E-04 1.16E-03 2.92E-06 1.86E-05 1.19E-04 CS-138 5.14E-39 1.83E-38 1.00E-39 1.06E-38 1.89E-40 2.19E-39 8.21E-39 CS-139 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-137M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-139 2.66E-23 9.47E-23 5.19E-24 5.47E-23 9.77E-25 1.13E-23 4.25E-23 BA-140 3.37E-06 1.26E-05 3.18E-06 3.24E-05 4.58E-08 8.12E-08 1.80E-06 BA-141 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-142 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 LA-140 5.34E-10 2.15E-09 5.74E-10 5.79E-09 7.03E-12 5.42E-12 2.99E-10 LA-141 1.35E-17 4.81E-17 2.64E-18 2.78E-17 4.96E-19 5.76E-18 2.16E-17 LA-142 2.08E-24 7.39E-24 4.05E-25 4.27E-24 7.63E-26 8.85E-25 3.32E-24 CE-141 1.81E-05 7.06E-05 1.83E-05 1.85E-04 2.47E-07 3.81E-07 1.02E-05 CE-143 3.33E-10 1.24E-09 1.65E-10 1.68E-09 9.55E-12 9.46E-11 4.14E-10 CE-144 7.11E-05 2.77E-04 7.19E-05 7.28E-04 9.58E-07 1.32E-06 3.94E-05 PR-143 4.09E-06 1.48E-05 3.78E-06 3.87E-05 5.21E-08 4.87E-08 1.95E-06 PR-144 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PR-144M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ND-147 2.22E-06 8.30E-06 2.15E-06 2.19E-05 2.85E-08 2.40E-08 1.11E-06 PM-146 1.00E-04 3.58E-04 9.11E-05 9.34E-04 1.27E-06 1.23E-06 4.70E-05 PM-147 9.62E-05 3.44E-04 8.76E-05 8.98E-04 1.22E-06 1.18E-06 4.52E-05 PM-148M 2.88E-05 1.04E-04 2.67E-05 2.73E-04 3.68E-07 3.41E-07 1.38E-05 PM-148 2.35E-07 9.05E-07 2.38E-07 2.41E-06 3.03E-09 2.28E-09 1.23E-07 PM-149 3.83E-09 1.54E-08 4.10E-09 4.14E-08 5.00E-11 3.30E-11 2.12E-09A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-39 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

PM-151 2.64E-11 1.06E-10 2.75E-11 2.77E-10 3.71E-13 6.82E-13 1.58E-11 SM-147 1.14E-04 4.09E-04 1.04E-04 1.07E-03 1.45E-06 1.38E-06 5.37E-05 SM-151 1.10E-04 3.95E-04 1.00E-04 1.03E-03 1.40E-06 1.34E-06 5.18E-05 SM-153 1.66E-09 6.65E-09 1.78E-09 1.79E-08 2.17E-11 1.50E-11 9.19E-10 EU-152 1.03E-04 3.69E-04 9.39E-05 9.62E-04 1.31E-06 1.26E-06 4.85E-05 EU-154 1.02E-04 3.65E-04 9.27E-05 9.50E-04 1.30E-06 1.24E-06 4.78E-05 EU-155 9.95E-05 3.56E-04 9.05E-05 9.28E-04 1.27E-06 1.22E-06 4.67E-05 EU-156 5.30E-06 1.91E-05 4.88E-06 4.99E-05 6.75E-08 6.36E-08 2.52E-06 GD-153 7.52E-05 2.77E-04 7.13E-05 7.28E-04 9.62E-07 8.45E-07 3.68E-05 TB-160 4.61E-05 1.68E-04 4.30E-05 4.40E-04 5.89E-07 5.36E-07 2.22E-05 HO-166M 1.11E-04 4.03E-04 1.03E-04 1.05E-03 1.41E-06 1.29E-06 5.32E-05 W-181 5.48E-05 2.13E-04 5.55E-05 5.62E-04 7.34E-07 9.40E-07 3.01E-05 W-185 4.11E-05 1.60E-04 4.16E-05 4.22E-04 5.51E-07 7.15E-07 2.26E-05 W-187 7.05E-11 2.53E-10 1.73E-11 1.80E-10 2.49E-12 2.83E-11 1.08E-10 TL-207 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TL-208 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PB-209 3.59E-16 1.28E-15 7.00E-17 7.38E-16 1.32E-17 1.53E-16 5.73E-16 PB-210 1.53E-04 6.14E-04 1.62E-04 1.64E-03 2.05E-06 2.18E-06 8.68E-05 PB-211 8.45E-37 3.01E-36 1.65E-37 1.74E-36 3.10E-38 3.60E-37 1.35E-36 PB-212 3.49E-12 1.24E-11 6.81E-13 7.17E-12 1.28E-13 1.49E-12 5.57E-12 BI-210 2.40E-07 8.83E-07 2.19E-07 2.24E-06 3.36E-09 7.66E-09 1.31E-07 BI-211 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BI-212 1.10E-26 3.92E-26 2.15E-27 2.26E-26 4.04E-28 4.69E-27 1.76E-26 BI-213 1.77E-31 6.29E-31 3.45E-32 3.63E-31 6.49E-33 7.52E-32 2.82E-31 PO-210 9.13E-05 2.95E-04 7.07E-05 7.38E-04 1.16E-06 1.70E-06 3.77E-05 PO-212 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-213 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-215 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-216 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 AT-217 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-221 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-223 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RA-223 7.55E-06 2.20E-05 3.69E-06 4.00E-05 1.36E-07 8.90E-07 4.64E-06 RA-224 1.16E-07 4.18E-07 6.65E-08 6.83E-07 2.84E-09 2.48E-08 1.19E-07 RA-225 1.40E-05 4.02E-05 6.98E-06 7.59E-05 2.39E-07 1.43E-06 7.87E-06 RA-226 2.68E-04 7.34E-04 1.40E-04 1.53E-03 3.91E-06 1.66E-05 1.14E-04 RA-228 2.56E-04 7.00E-04 1.33E-04 1.45E-03 3.73E-06 1.60E-05 1.09E-04 AC-225 5.67E-06 1.41E-05 2.81E-06 3.14E-05 6.79E-08 1.31E-07 1.49E-06 AC-227 3.60E-04 8.66E-04 1.68E-04 1.90E-03 4.29E-06 8.54E-06 8.97E-05 AC-228 8.38E-16 2.98E-15 1.64E-16 1.72E-15 3.08E-17 23.57E-16 1.34E-15 TH-227 6.73E-06 2.70E-05 7.21E-06 7.27E-05 8.76E-08 5.43E-08 3.70E-06 TH-228 7.51E-05 3.01E-04 8.04E-05 8.11E-04 9.77E-07 6.02E-07 4.13E-05 TH-229 9.66E-05 3.87E-04 1.04E-04 1.04E-03 1.26E-06 7.71E-07 5.32E-05 TH-230 9.67E-05 3.88E-04 1.04E-04 1.05E-03 1.26E-06 7.72E-07 5.32E-05A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-40 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

TH-231 9.41E-12 3.75E-11 9.43E-12 9.51E-11 1.42E-13 4.18E-13 6.08E-12 TH-232 9.67E-05 3.88E-04 1.04E-04 1.05E-03 1.26E-06 7.72E-07 5.32E-05 TH-234 1.10E-05 4.40E-05 1.18E-05 1.19E-04 1.43E-07 8.83E-08 6.05E-06 PA-231 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 4.40E-02 1.08E-01 6.00E-01 PA-233 5.14E-01 9.88E-01 1.47E-01 1.00E+00 5.96E-03 1.46E-02 8.14E-02 PA-234M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 U-232 8.90E-05 3.55E-04 9.34E-05 9.43E-04 1.20E-06 1.42E-06 5.05E-05 U-233 9.34E-05 3.72E-04 9.81E-05 9.90E-04 1.25E-06 1.46E-06 5.29E-05 U-234 9.34E-05 3.72E-04 9.81E-05 9.90E-04 1.25E-06 1.46E-06 5.29E-05 U-235 9.34E-05 3.72E-04 9.81E-05 9.90E-04 1.25E-06 1.46E-06 5.29E-05 U-236 9.34E-05 3.72E-04 9.81E-05 9.90E-04 1.25E-06 1.46E-06 5.29E-05 U-237 4.86E-07 1.94E-06 4.94E-07 4.99E-06 7.06E-09 1.68E-08 3.00E-07 U-238 9.34E-05 3.72E-04 9.81E-05 9.90E-04 1.25E-06 1.46E-06 5.29E-05 NP-236 9.10E-05 3.65E-04 9.76E-05 9.84E-04 1.18E-06 7.28E-07 5.01E-05 NP-237 9.10E-05 3.65E-04 9.76E-05 9.84E-04 1.18E-06 7.28E-07 5.01E-05 NP-238 2.71E-09 1.09E-08 2.92E-09 2.94E-08 3.54E-11 2.33E-11 1.51E-09 NP-239 5.35E-09 2.15E-08 5.77E-09 5.81E-08 6.98E-11 4.46E-11 2.97E-09 PU-236 7.57E-05 3.05E-04 8.17E-05 8.23E-04 9.86E-07 5.87E-07 4.19E-05 PU-237 2.50E-05 1.01E-04 2.70E-05 2.72E-04 3.26E-07 1.94E-07 1.39E-05 PU-238 8.16E-05 3.29E-04 8.81E-05 8.88E-04 1.06E-06 6.33E-07 4.52E-05 PU-239 8.26E-05 3.33E-04 8.92E-05 8.99E-04 1.08E-06 6.41E-07 4.58E-05 PU-240 8.26E-05 3.33E-04 8.92E-05 8.99E-04 1.08E-06 6.41E-07 4.58E-05 PU-241 7.98E-05 3.21E-04 8.61E-05 8.68E-04 1.04E-06 6.19E-07 4.42E-05 PU-242 8.26E-05 3.33E-04 8.92E-05 8.99E-04 1.08E-06 6.41E-07 4.58E-05 PU-244 8.26E-05 3.33E-04 8.92E-05 8.99E-04 1.08E-06 6.41E-07 4.58E-05 AM-241 8.32E-05 3.33E-04 8.92E-05 8.99E-04 1.08E-06 6.68E-07 4.58E-05 AM-242M 8.28E-05 3.32E-04 8.87E-05 8.95E-04 1.08E-06 6.64E-07 4.56E-05 AM-243 8.35E-05 3.35E-04 8.95E-05 9.02E-04 1.09E-06 6.70E-07 4.59E-05 CM-242 5.67E-05 2.27E-04 6.08E-05 6.13E-04 7.38E-07 4.54E-07 3.12E-05 CM-243 8.41E-05 3.37E-04 9.01E-05 9.09E-04 1.09E-06 6.74E-07 4.63E-05 CM-244 8.29E-05 3.32E-04 8.89E-05 8.96E-04 1.08E-06 6.65E-07 4.56E-05 CM-245 9.10E-05 3.65E-04 9.75E-05 9.83E-04 1.18E-06 7.27E-07 5.01E-05 CM-246 9.09E-05 3.64E-04 9.74E-05 9.83E-04 1.18E-06 7.27E-07 5.00E-05 CM-247 9.10E-05 3.65E-04 9.76E-05 9.84E-04 1.18E-06 7.28E-07 5.01E-05 CM-248 9.10E-05 3.65E-04 9.76E-05 9.84E-04 1.18E-06 7.28E-07 5.01E-05 CF-252 7.64E-05 3.06E-04 8.19E-05 8.26E-04 9.95E-07 6.13E-07 4.21E-05 State Nuclide MN NY NC ND OH OK OR H-3 3.40E-08 2.32E-07 1.51E-07 1.18E-06 1.05E-06 2.30E-07 5.39E-08 BE-10 1.31E-05 6.58E-05 1.23E-04 6.34E-04 6.71E-04 1.80E-04 3.28E-05 C-14 3.16E-07 1.98E-06 2.56E-06 1.04E-05 1.20E-05 3.44E-06 6.09E-07 N-16 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 F-18 8.80E-19 1.52E-17 2.46E-18 2.90E-18 1.41E-17 2.71E-18 8.48E-19 NA-22 1.06E-04 1.25E-03 5.17E-04 9.24E-04 1.95E-03 5.74E-04 1.14E-04A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-41 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

NA-24 5.08E-10 8.76E-09 1.42E-09 1.67E-09 8.15E-09 1.57E-09 4.90E-10 P-32 7.11E-06 8.32E-05 3.46E-05 5.89E-05 1.28E-04 3.81E-05 7.54E-06 CA-41 5.07E-05 4.50E-04 3.65E-04 1.60E-03 1.91E-03 5.04E-04 9.72E-05 SC-46 1.31E-05 4.15E-05 1.13E-04 3.30E-04 3.85E-04 1.37E-04 2.06E-05 CR-51 3.13E-06 2.54E-05 2.36E-05 1.05E-04 1.23E-04 3.28E-05 6.21E-06 MN-54 1.07E-05 5.69E-05 9.94E-05 5.15E-04 5.47E-04 1.45E-04 2.67E-05 MN-56 2.61E-18 4.51E-17 7.31E-18 8.60E-18 4.19E-17 8.05E-18 2.52E-18 FE-55 4.92E-05 1.46E-04 3.94E-04 6.73E-04 9.27E-04 4.21E-04 5.50E-05 FE-59 1.47E-05 4.69E-05 1.18E-04 2.16E-04 2.92E-04 1.28E-04 1.71E-05 CO-57 2.05E-05 8.68E-05 1.70E-04 5.19E-04 6.14E-04 2.08E-04 3.27E-05 CO-58 1.16E-05 5.08E-05 9.62E-05 3.02E-04 3.56E-04 1.19E-04 1.88E-05 CO-60 2.56E-05 1.08E-04 2.13E-04 6.49E-04 7.68E-04 2.60E-04 4.08E-05 NI-59 3.97E-05 3.41E-04 2.83E-04 1.16E-03 1.41E-03 3.82E-04 7.22E-05 NI-63 3.58E-05 3.16E-04 2.50E-04 9.90E-04 1.23E-03 3.34E-04 6.32E-05 NI-65 5.34E-17 9.21E-16 1.49E-16 1.76E-16 8.57E-16 1.64E-16 5.14E-17 CU-64 1.08E-10 1.86E-09 3.01E-10 3.54E-10 1.73E-09 3.32E-10 1.04E-10 ZN-65 8.97E-05 1.05E-03 4.43E-04 8.45E-04 1.71E-03 4.98E-04 9.91E-05 ZN-69M 5.67E-10 9.78E-09 1.59E-09 1.87E-09 9.10E-09 1.75E-09 5.46E-10 ZN-69 2.06E-25 3.56E-24 5.77E-25 6.79E-25 3.31E-24 6.35E-25 21.99E-25 SE-79 1.47E-03 1.56E-02 9.11E-03 3.61E-02 4.74E-02 1.22E-02 2.46E-03 BR-82 1.83E-08 3.15E-07 5.18E-08 6.40E-08 2.97E-07 5.73E-08 1.78E-08 BR-83 1.28E-15 2.21E-14 3.58E-15 4.22E-15 2.05E-14 3.95E-15 1.23E-15 BR-84 2.64E-37 4.54E-36 7.38E-37 8.67E-37 4.23E-36 8.12E-37 2.54E-37 BR-85 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 KR-85 5.02E-04 4.09E-03 3.67E-03 1.49E-02 1.80E-02 4.94E-03 9.21E-04 RB-86 1.08E-05 1.39E-04 4.84E-05 8.32E-05 1.95E-04 5.38E-05 1.15E-05 RB-87 2.23E-04 2.09E-03 1.40E-03 4.35E-03 6.04E-03 1.75E-03 3.25E-04 RB-88 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RB-89 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SR-89 4.69E-06 3.00E-05 4.14E-05 2.13E-04 2.31E-04 6.05E-05 1.13E-05 SR-90 1.65E-05 1.00E-04 1.49E-04 7.72E-04 8.30E-04 2.18E-04 4.07E-05 SR-91 1.26E-12 2.16E-11 3.51E-12 4.13E-12 2.01E-11 3.87E-12 1.21E-12 SR-92 1.69E-17 2.91E-16 4.72E-17 5.56E-17 2.71E-16 5.20E-17 1.63E-17 Y-90 1.59E-09 8.21E-09 1.52E-08 8.20E-08 8.61E-08 2.26E-08 4.19E-09 Y-91M 2.28E-32 3.93E-31 6.38E-32 7.50E-32 3.66E-31 7.02E-32 2.19E-32 Y-91 6.02E-06 2.55E-05 5.53E-05 2.41E-04 2.60E-04 7.56E-05 1.30E-05 Y-92 6.07E-18 1.05E-16 1.70E-17 2.00E-17 9.74E-17 1.87E-17 5.85E-18 Y-93 1.99E-14 3.43E-13 5.57E-14 6.55E-14 3.19E-13 6.13E-14 1.92E-14 ZR-93 4.54E-05 1.13E-04 3.75E-04 7.11E-04 9.26E-04 4.09E-04 5.39E-05 ZR-95 1.81E-05 4.61E-05 1.50E-04 3.01E-04 3.86E-04 1.66E-04 2.22E-05 ZR-97 1.24E-13 2.02E-12 4.11E-13 8.72E-13 2.35E-12 4.88E-13 1.35E-13 NB-93M 2.90E-04 5.59E-04 2.26E-03 1.37E-03 2.97E-03 2.13E-03 2.18E-04 NB-94 3.13E-04 6.13E-04 2.44E-03 1.62E-03 3.34E-03 2.32E-03 2.41E-04 NB-95M 3.36E-08 2.16E-07 2.30E-07 4.32E-07 6.62E-07 2.52E-07 3.85E-08A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-42 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

NB-95 5.89E-05 1.20E-04 4.57E-04 2.86E-04 6.14E-04 4.33E-04 4.46E-05 NB-97 2.29E-24 3.95E-23 6.41E-24 7.54E-24 3.68E-23 7.06E-24 2.21E-24 MO-93 1.04E-04 7.60E-04 8.27E-04 3.71E-03 4.24E-03 1.15E-03 2.13E-04 MO-99 1.28E-08 1.95E-07 5.08E-08 1.47E-07 2.89E-07 6.39E-08 1.60E-08 TC-99M 3.72E-12 6.41E-11 1.04E-11 1.22E-11 5.96E-11 1.15E-11 3.58E-12 TC-99 1.24E-03 4.12E-03 9.36E-03 9.87E-03 1.72E-02 9.34E-03 1.12E-03 TC-101 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RU-103 9.64E-05 1.60E-04 7.56E-04 4.08E-04 9.33E-04 7.08E-04 7.01E-05 RU-105 7.91E-18 1.36E-16 2.21E-17 2.60E-17 1.27E-16 2.44E-17 7.62E-18 RU-106 3.35E-04 5.53E-04 2.63E-03 1.38E-03 3.20E-03 2.46E-03 2.42E-04 RH-103M 3.80E-24 6.55E-23 1.06E-23 1.25E-23 6.09E-23 1.17E-23 3.66E-24 RH-105 2.55E-08 4.30E-07 7.70E-08 1.25E-07 4.42E-07 8.79E-08 2.60E-08 RH-106 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PD-107 3.07E-03 2.21E-02 2.57E-02 1.29E-01 1.43E-01 3.72E-02 7.06E-03 PD-109 8.37E-10 1.44E-08 2.34E-09 2.75E-09 1.34E-08 2.58E-09 8.06E-10 AG-110M 9.28E-05 1.28E-03 3.92E-04 7.92E-04 1.78E-03 4.51E-04 1.03E-04 AG-111 2.26E-06 3.66E-05 7.30E-06 1.19E-05 3.92E-05 8.29E-06 2.31E-06 CD-113M 4.48E-05 2.31E-04 4.30E-04 2.32E-03 2.44E-03 6.39E-04 1.18E-04 CD-115M 3.46E-20 5.96E-19 9.67E-20 1.14E-19 5.54E-19 1.06E-19 3.33E-20 IN-113M 1.32E-21 2.27E-20 3.68E-21 4.33E-21 2.11E-20 4.06E-21 1.27E-21 SN-113 5.37E-05 1.50E-04 4.18E-04 4.92E-04 7.88E-04 4.22E-04 5.04E-05 SN-119M 7.47E-05 2.05E-04 5.81E-04 6.67E-04 1.08E-03 5.85E-04 6.94E-05 SN-121M 9.56E-05 2.60E-04 7.45E-04 8.63E-04 1.39E-03 7.51E-04 8.91E-05 SN-123 5.69E-05 1.59E-04 4.42E-04 5.19E-04 8.32E-04 4.47E-04 5.33E-05 SN-125 1.44E-06 6.19E-06 1.05E-05 1.36E-05 2.25E-05 1.08E-05 1.41E-06 SN-126 9.75E-05 2.66E-04 7.61E-04 9.04E-04 1.44E-03 7.69E-04 9.19E-05 SB-124 7.36E-06 4.68E-05 6.05E-05 2.60E-04 2.94E-04 8.27E-05 1.49E-05 SB-125 1.72E-05 1.05E-04 1.42E-04 6.03E-04 6.82E-04 1.94E-04 3.45E-05 SB-126 6.85E-07 5.57E-06 5.03E-06 2.06E-05 2.47E-05 6.79E-06 1.27E-06 SB-126M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SB-127 1.56E-08 1.59E-07 1.04E-07 4.76E-07 5.84E-07 1.47E-07 2.96E-08 TE-125M 3.38E-05 8.61E-05 2.70E-04 3.95E-04 5.69E-04 2.82E-04 3.49E-05 TE-127M 5.47E-05 1.38E-04 4.40E-04 6.52E-04 9.33E-04 4.59E-04 5.70E-05 TE-127 6.36E-12 1.10E-10 1.78E-11 2.09E-11 1.02E-10 1.96E-11 6.13E-12 TE-129M 1.86E-05 4.84E-05 1.49E-04 2.17E-04 3.14E-04 1.55E-04 1.92E-05 TE-129 3.37E-24 5.81E-23 9.43E-24 1.11E-23 5.41E-23 1.04E-23 3.25E-24 TE-131M 3.29E-10 5.34E-09 1.11E-09 2.40E-09 6.32E-09 1.32E-09 3.62E-10 TE-131 0.00E+00 4.20E-45 0.00E+00 1.40E-45 4.20E-45 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TE-132 1.52E-08 1.05E-07 1.20E-07 5.12E-07 5.90E-07 1.64E-07 2.99E-08 TE-133M 2.72E-27 4.69E-26 7.61E-27 8.95E-27 4.36E-26 8.37E-27 2.62E-27 TE-134 6.67E-32 1.15E-30 1.87E-31 2.20E-31 1.07E-30 2.06E-31 6.43E-32 I-129 3.62E-05 3.17E-04 2.63E-04 1.17E-03 1.39E-03 3.66E-04 7.06E-05 I-130 2.90E-11 5.00E-10 8.12E-11 9.55E-11 4.66E-10 8.94E-11 2.80E-11 I-131 4.54E-07 6.16E-06 2.15E-06 7.14E-06 1.16E-05 2.77E-06 6.28E-07A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-43 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

I-132 1.01E-17 1.74E-16 2.82E-17 3.32E-17 1.62E-16 3.11E-17 9.71E-18 I-133 2.61E-10 4.49E-09 7.30E-10 8.63E-10 4.18E-09 8.04E-10 2.51E-10 I-134 1.20E-28 2.06E-27 3.35E-28 3.94E-28 1.92E-27 3.69E-28 1.15E-28 I-135 9.85E-13 1.70E-11 2.75E-12 3.24E-12 1.58E-11 3.03E-12 9.48E-13 CS-134M 6.54E-16 1.13E-14 1.83E-15 2.15E-15 1.05E-14 2.02E-15 6.30E-16 CS-134 3.35E-05 3.92E-04 1.85E-04 6.41E-04 9.33E-04 2.40E-04 4.97E-05 CS-135 4.29E-05 4.75E-04 2.54E-04 9.57E-04 1.30E-03 3.37E-04 6.85E-05 CS-136 2.30E-06 3.27E-05 9.95E-06 2.83E-05 5.24E-05 1.24E-05 2.90E-06 CS-137 3.85E-05 4.40E-04 2.19E-04 7.84E-04 1.11E-03 2.86E-04 5.88E-05 CS-138 2.68E-39 4.62E-38 7.50E-39 8.82E-39 4.30E-38 8.25E-39 2.58E-39 CS-139 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-137M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-139 1.39E-23 2.39E-22 3.88E-23 4.56E-23 2.23E-22 4.27E-23 1.34E-23 BA-140 5.55E-07 3.20E-06 4.79E-06 2.17E-05 2.39E-05 6.66E-06 1.20E-06 BA-141 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-142 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 LA-140 7.77E-11 4.19E-10 7.40E-10 4.03E-09 4.24E-09 1.11E-09 2.06E-10 LA-141 7.05E-18 1.21E-16 1.97E-17 2.32E-17 1.13E-16 2.17E-17 6.79E-18 LA-142 1.08E-24 1.87E-23 3.03E-24 3.56E-24 1.74E-23 3.33E-24 1.04E-24 CE-141 2.86E-06 1.73E-05 2.54E-05 1.27E-04 1.38E-04 3.67E-05 6.79E-06 CE-143 1.31E-10 2.06E-09 4.77E-10 1.23E-09 2.73E-09 5.87E-10 1.54E-10 CE-144 1.11E-05 6.41E-05 9.98E-05 4.99E-04 5.38E-04 1.44E-04 2.65E-05 PR-143 6.41E-07 2.70E-06 5.87E-06 2.54E-05 2.75E-05 8.01E-06 1.38E-06 PR-144 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PR-144M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ND-147 3.40E-07 1.52E-06 3.16E-06 1.47E-05 1.57E-05 4.42E-06 7.79E-07 PM-146 1.58E-05 6.51E-05 1.44E-04 6.08E-04 6.62E-04 1.95E-04 3.33E-05 PM-147 1.52E-05 6.26E-05 1.39E-04 5.85E-04 6.36E-04 1.88E-04 3.20E-05 PM-148M 4.51E-06 1.90E-05 4.14E-05 1.79E-04 1.94E-04 5.65E-05 9.72E-06 PM-148 3.50E-08 1.66E-07 3.31E-07 1.64E-06 1.74E-06 4.75E-07 8.56E-08 PM-149 5.53E-10 2.86E-09 5.32E-09 2.88E-08 3.02E-08 7.91E-09 1.47E-09 PM-151 4.21E-12 2.89E-11 3.67E-11 1.93E-10 2.10E-10 5.41E-11 1.03E-11 SM-147 1.79E-05 7.42E-05 1.64E-04 6.96E-04 7.56E-04 2.22E-04 3.80E-05 SM-151 1.74E-05 7.17E-05 1.59E-04 6.71E-04 7.29E-04 2.15E-04 3.67E-05 SM-153 2.40E-10 1.26E-09 2.30E-09 1.25E-08 1.31E-08 3.43E-09 6.36E-10 EU-152 1.63E-05 6.71E-05 1.49E-04 6.27E-04 6.82E-04 2.01E-04 3.43E-05 EU-154 1.61E-05 6.62E-05 1.47E-04 6.19E-04 6.73E-04 1.99E-04 3.39E-05 EU-155 1.57E-05 6.47E-05 1.44E-04 6.05E-04 6.57E-04 1.94E-04 3.31E-05 EU-156 8.32E-07 3.48E-06 7.62E-06 3.27E-05 3.55E-05 1.04E-05 1.78E-06 GD-153 1.16E-05 5.04E-05 1.08E-04 4.83E-04 5.19E-04 1.49E-04 2.59E-05 TB-160 7.19E-06 3.05E-05 6.61E-05 2.90E-04 3.13E-04 9.07E-05 1.57E-05 HO-166M 1.73E-05 7.33E-05 1.59E-04 6.94E-04 7.50E-04 2.18E-04 3.76E-05 W-181 8.49E-06 4.78E-05 7.70E-05 3.85E-04 4.14E-04 1.11E-04 2.04E-05 W-185 6.37E-06 3.61E-05 5.77E-05 2.89E-04 3.11E-04 8.33E-05 1.53E-05A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-44 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

W-187 3.52E-11 6.00E-10 1.02E-10 1.44E-10 5.87E-10 1.15E-10 3.49E-11 TL-207 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TL-208 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PB-209 1.87E-16 3.22E-15 5.23E-16 6.15E-16 3.00E-15 5.76E-16 1.80E-16 PB-210 2.29E-05 1.32E-04 2.13E-04 1.14E-03 1.21E-03 3.16E-04 5.90E-05 PB-211 4.40E-37 7.59E-36 1.23E-36 1.45E-36 7.06E-36 1.36E-36 4.24E-37 PB-212 1.82E-12 3.13E-11 5.09E-12 5.98E-12 2.92E-11 5.60E-12 1.75E-12 BI-210 4.14E-08 2.61E-07 3.42E-07 1.49E-06 1.68E-06 4.70E-07 8.47E-08 BI-211 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BI-212 5.74E-27 9.89E-26 1.61E-26 1.89E-26 9.21E-26 1.77E-26 5.53E-27 BI-213 9.21E-32 1.59E-30 2.58E-31 3.03E-31 1.48E-30 2.84E-31 8.87E-32 PO-210 1.57E-05 5.87E-05 1.36E-04 4.46E-04 5.11E-04 1.69E-04 2.68E-05 PO-212 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-213 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-215 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-216 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 AT-217 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-221 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-223 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RA-223 2.01E-06 1.90E-05 1.15E-05 2.12E-05 3.83E-05 1.27E-05 2.23E-06 RA-224 3.88E-08 5.49E-07 1.68E-07 4.70E-07 8.77E-07 2.08E-07 4.86E-08 RA-225 3.57E-06 3.06E-05 2.15E-05 3.95E-05 6.80E-05 2.37E-05 3.97E-06 RA-226 5.94E-05 3.54E-04 4.15E-04 7.60E-04 1.15E-03 4.53E-04 6.75E-05 RA-228 5.69E-05 3.40E-04 3.97E-04 7.19E-04 1.10E-03 4.32E-04 6.43E-05 AC-225 1.10E-06 2.47E-06 8.95E-06 1.36E-05 1.90E-05 9.37E-06 1.16E-06 AC-227 7.05E-05 1.51E-04 5.71E-04 7.77E-04 1.13E-03 5.88E-04 7.05E-05 AC-228 4.37E-16 7.53E-15 1.22E-15 1.44E-15 7.01E-15 1.35E-15 4.21E-16 TH-227 9.69E-07 4.95E-06 9.34E-06 5.05E-05 5.30E-05 1.39E-05 2.57E-06 TH-228 1.08E-05 5.51E-05 1.04E-04 5.64E-04 5.91E-04 1.55E-04 2.87E-05 TH-229 1.39E-05 7.09E-05 1.34E-04 7.26E-04 7.61E-04 2.00E-04 3.70E-05 TH-230 1.39E-05 7.10E-05 1.34E-04 7.27E-04 7.62E-04 2.00E-04 3.70E-05 TH-231 1.66E-12 1.38E-11 1.31E-11 6.65E-11 7.51E-11 1.91E-11 3.72E-12 TH-232 1.39E-05 7.10E-05 1.34E-04 7.27E-04 7.62E-04 2.00E-04 3.70E-05 TH-234 1.58E-06 8.08E-06 1.53E-05 8.25E-05 8.65E-05 2.27E-05 4.20E-06 PA-231 8.01E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 5.29E-01 PA-233 1.09E-01 1.67E-01 8.45E-01 2.80E-01 8.82E-01 7.71E-01 7.17E-02 PA-234M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 U-232 1.35E-05 7.88E-05 1.24E-04 6.54E-04 6.98E-04 1.83E-04 3.41E-05 U-233 1.41E-05 8.22E-05 1.30E-04 6.87E-04 7.32E-04 1.92E-04 3.58E-05 U-234 1.41E-05 8.22E-05 1.30E-04 6.87E-04 7.32E-04 1.92E-04 3.58E-05 U-235 1.41E-05 8.22E-05 1.30E-04 6.87E-04 7.32E-04 1.92E-04 3.58E-05 U-236 1.41E-05 8.22E-05 1.30E-04 6.87E-04 7.32E-04 1.92E-04 3.58E-05 U-237 8.17E-08 6.12E-07 6.78E-07 3.48E-06 3.85E-06 9.91E-07 1.90E-07 U-238 1.41E-05 8.22E-05 1.30E-04 6.87E-04 7.32E-04 1.92E-04 3.58E-05A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-45 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

NP-236 1.31E-05 6.68E-05 1.26E-04 6.84E-04 7.17E-04 1.88E-04 3.48E-05 NP-237 1.31E-05 6.68E-05 1.26E-04 6.84E-04 7.17E-04 1.88E-04 3.48E-05 NP-238 3.90E-10 2.04E-09 3.75E-09 2.05E-08 2.15E-08 5.61E-09 1.04E-09 NP-239 7.69E-10 4.01E-09 7.41E-09 4.05E-08 4.24E-08 1.11E-08 2.06E-09 PU-236 1.08E-05 5.58E-05 1.05E-04 5.74E-04 6.01E-04 1.57E-04 2.91E-05 PU-237 3.59E-06 1.85E-05 3.47E-05 1.90E-04 1.99E-04 5.19E-05 9.64E-06 PU-238 1.17E-05 6.02E-05 1.13E-04 6.18E-04 6.47E-04 1.69E-04 3.14E-05 PU-239 1.18E-05 6.09E-05 1.15E-04 6.26E-04 6.56E-04 1.71E-04 3.18E-05 PU-240 1.18E-05 6.09E-05 1.15E-04 6.26E-04 6.56E-04 1.71E-04 3.18E-05 PU-241 1.14E-05 5.88E-05 1.11E-04 6.05E-04 6.33E-04 1.65E-04 3.07E-05 PU-242 1.18E-05 6.09E-05 1.15E-04 6.26E-04 6.56E-04 1.71E-04 3.18E-05 PU-244 1.18E-05 6.09E-05 1.15E-04 6.26E-04 6.56E-04 1.71E-04 3.18E-05 AM-241 1.20E-05 6.11E-05 1.16E-04 6.25E-04 6.55E-04 1.72E-04 3.18E-05 AM-242M 1.19E-05 6.08E-05 1.15E-04 6.22E-04 6.52E-04 1.71E-04 3.17E-05 AM-243 1.20E-05 6.13E-05 1.16E-04 6.27E-04 6.57E-04 1.72E-04 3.19E-05 CM-242 8.17E-06 4.16E-05 7.88E-05 4.26E-04 4.47E-04 1.17E-04 2.17E-05 CM-243 1.21E-05 6.18E-05 1.17E-04 6.32E-04 6.62E-04 1.74E-04 3.22E-05 CM-244 1.20E-05 6.09E-05 1.15E-04 6.23E-04 6.53E-04 1.71E-04 3.17E-05 CM-245 1.31E-05 6.68E-05 1.26E-04 6.83E-04 7.16E-04 1.88E-04 3.48E-05 CM-246 1.31E-05 6.68E-05 1.26E-04 6.83E-04 7.16E-04 1.88E-04 3.48E-05 CM-247 1.31E-05 6.68E-05 1.26E-04 6.84E-04 7.17E-04 1.88E-04 3.48E-05 CM-248 1.31E-05 6.68E-05 1.26E-04 6.84E-04 7.17E-04 1.88E-04 3.48E-05 CF-252 1.10E-05 5.61E-05 1.06E-04 5.74E-04 6.02E-04 1.58E-04 2.92E-05 State Nuclide PA RI SC SD TN TX UT H-3 2.50E-07 2.27E-08 7.19E-08 6.11E-07 1.84E-07 1.52E-07 1.61E-08 BE-10 8.58E-05 9.58E-06 6.31E-05 3.49E-04 1.23E-04 1.35E-04 4.18E-06 C-14 2.34E-06 2.29E-07 1.21E-06 6.23E-06 2.54E-06 2.66E-06 1.15E-07 N-16 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 F-18 1.29E-17 8.76E-19 1.18E-18 4.51E-18 5.74E-18 2.43E-18 5.81E-19 NA-22 1.17E-03 8.82E-05 2.14E-04 8.80E-04 6.71E-04 4.87E-04 5.51E-05 NA-24 7.46E-09 5.06E-10 6.80E-10 2.60E-09 3.31E-09 1.41E-09 3.36E-10 P-32 7.85E-05 5.89E-06 1.42E-05 5.78E-05 4.46E-05 3.24E-05 3.68E-06 CA-41 4.63E-04 4.09E-05 1.81E-04 9.47E-04 4.18E-04 3.88E-04 2.18E-05 SC-46 7.09E-05 7.86E-06 4.67E-05 2.20E-04 8.96E-05 1.09E-04 3.83E-06 CR-51 2.70E-05 2.47E-06 1.17E-05 6.17E-05 2.61E-05 2.52E-05 1.28E-06 MN-54 7.20E-05 7.91E-06 5.11E-05 2.83E-04 1.01E-04 1.09E-04 3.49E-06 MN-56 3.84E-17 2.60E-18 3.50E-18 1.34E-17 1.70E-17 7.23E-18 1.73E-18 FE-55 2.61E-04 2.74E-05 1.42E-04 5.80E-04 2.78E-04 3.52E-04 1.46E-05 FE-59 8.03E-05 8.35E-06 4.31E-05 1.79E-04 8.51E-05 1.06E-04 4.43E-06 CO-57 1.25E-04 1.30E-05 7.16E-05 3.42E-04 1.43E-04 1.65E-04 6.52E-06 CO-58 7.19E-05 7.44E-06 4.09E-05 1.97E-04 8.21E-05 9.41E-05 3.73E-06 CO-60 1.56E-04 1.62E-05 8.96E-05 4.27E-04 1.79E-04 2.07E-04 8.12E-06 NI-59 3.55E-04 3.14E-05 1.37E-04 7.02E-04 3.16E-04 2.97E-04 1.68E-05A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-46 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

NI-63 3.26E-04 2.84E-05 1.20E-04 6.09E-04 2.81E-04 2.60E-04 1.54E-05 NI-65 7.83E-16 5.32E-17 7.14E-17 2.73E-16 3.48E-16 1.48E-16 3.53E-17 CU-64 1.58E-09 1.07E-10 1.44E-10 5.51E-10 7.02E-10 2.98E-10 7.11E-11 ZN-65 9.89E-04 7.46E-05 1.85E-04 7.73E-04 5.73E-04 4.20E-04 4.64E-05 ZN-69M 8.32E-09 5.65E-10 7.58E-10 2.90E-09 3.70E-09 1.57E-09 3.75E-10 ZN-69 3.03E-24 2.05E-25 2.76E-25 1.06E-24 1.34E-24 5.70E-25 1.36E-25 SE-79 1.51E-02 1.24E-03 4.46E-03 2.26E-02 1.14E-02 9.59E-03 7.03E-04 BR-82 2.68E-07 1.82E-08 2.48E-08 9.56E-08 1.20E-07 5.13E-08 1.21E-08 BR-83 1.88E-14 1.28E-15 1.71E-15 6.56E-15 8.35E-15 3.54E-15 8.46E-16 BR-84 3.87E-36 2.62E-37 3.52E-37 1.35E-36 1.72E-36 7.29E-37 1.74E-37 BR-85 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 KR-85 4.34E-03 3.90E-04 1.76E-03 9.05E-03 4.00E-03 3.84E-03 2.07E-04 RB-86 1.28E-04 9.37E-06 2.04E-05 8.33E-05 6.91E-05 4.59E-05 5.93E-06 RB-87 2.11E-03 1.75E-04 6.28E-04 2.98E-03 1.58E-03 1.40E-03 1.01E-04 RB-88 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RB-89 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SR-89 3.50E-05 3.61E-06 2.14E-05 1.18E-04 4.37E-05 4.55E-05 1.67E-06 SR-90 1.19E-04 1.26E-05 7.68E-05 4.25E-04 1.55E-04 1.64E-04 5.72E-06 SR-91 1.84E-11 1.25E-12 1.68E-12 6.43E-12 8.19E-12 3.47E-12 8.29E-13 SR-92 2.48E-16 1.68E-17 2.26E-17 8.65E-17 1.10E-16 4.67E-17 1.12E-17 Y-90 1.05E-08 1.19E-09 7.94E-09 4.45E-08 1.55E-08 1.69E-08 5.09E-10 Y-91M 3.34E-31 2.27E-32 3.05E-32 1.17E-31 1.49E-31 6.30E-32 1.50E-32 Y-91 3.65E-05 4.10E-06 2.63E-05 1.39E-04 5.10E-05 5.79E-05 1.85E-06 Y-92 8.91E-17 6.05E-18 8.12E-18 23.11E-17 3.96E-17 1.68E-17 4.01E-18 Y-93 2.92E-13 1.98E-14 2.66E-14 1.02E-13 1.30E-13 5.51E-14 1.32E-14 ZR-93 2.26E-04 2.48E-05 1.38E-04 5.77E-04 2.62E-04 3.39E-04 1.28E-05 ZR-95 9.10E-05 9.99E-06 5.59E-05 2.38E-04 1.07E-04 1.37E-04 5.13E-06 ZR-97 1.74E-12 1.21E-13 2.00E-13 8.53E-13 8.38E-13 4.17E-13 7.85E-14 NB-93M 1.35E-03 1.43E-04 7.01E-04 2.32E-03 1.33E-03 1.87E-03 8.04E-05 NB-94 1.46E-03 1.56E-04 7.65E-04 2.57E-03 1.46E-03 2.03E-03 8.69E-05 NB-95M 2.55E-07 2.25E-08 8.78E-08 3.66E-07 2.03E-07 2.11E-07 1.29E-08 NB-95 2.78E-04 2.94E-05 1.43E-04 4.75E-04 2.73E-04 3.79E-04 1.65E-05 NB-97 3.36E-23 2.28E-24 3.06E-24 1.17E-23 1.49E-23 6.34E-24 1.51E-24 MO-93 8.41E-04 8.00E-05 4.07E-04 2.16E-03 8.79E-04 8.81E-04 4.02E-05 MO-99 1.71E-07 1.22E-08 2.52E-08 1.16E-07 9.07E-08 5.27E-08 7.73E-09 TC-99M 5.45E-11 3.70E-12 4.97E-12 1.90E-11 2.42E-11 1.03E-11 2.45E-12 TC-99 6.90E-03 6.84E-04 3.13E-03 1.15E-02 6.36E-03 8.03E-03 3.84E-04 TC-101 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RU-103 4.32E-04 4.67E-05 2.32E-04 7.57E-04 4.36E-04 6.22E-04 2.61E-05 RU-105 1.16E-16 7.87E-18 1.06E-17 4.05E-17 5.16E-17 2.19E-17 5.22E-18 RU-106 1.50E-03 1.62E-04 8.05E-04 2.61E-03 1.51E-03 2.16E-03 9.09E-05 RH-103M 5.57E-23 3.78E-24 5.08E-24 1.94E-23 2.48E-23 1.05E-23 2.51E-24 RH-105 3.68E-07 2.52E-08 3.72E-08 1.50E-07 1.69E-07 7.71E-08 1.66E-08 RH-106 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-47 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

PD-107 2.45E-02 2.41E-03 1.32E-02 7.22E-02 2.79E-02 2.81E-02 1.16E-03 PD-109 1.23E-08 8.34E-10 1.12E-09 4.29E-09 5.46E-09 2.32E-09 5.53E-10 AG-110M 1.15E-03 8.33E-05 1.74E-04 7.35E-04 6.11E-04 3.82E-04 5.28E-05 AG-111 3.16E-05 2.18E-06 3.43E-06 1.39E-05 1.49E-05 7.23E-06 1.43E-06 CD-113M 2.97E-04 3.35E-05 2.25E-04 1.26E-03 4.38E-04 4.77E-04 1.43E-05 CD-115M 5.07E-19 3.44E-20 4.62E-20 1.77E-19 2.25E-19 9.55E-20 2.28E-20 IN-113M 1.93E-20 1.31E-21 1.76E-21 6.74E-21 8.59E-21 3.64E-21 8.69E-22 SN-113 2.80E-04 2.89E-05 1.41E-04 5.28E-04 2.78E-04 3.60E-04 1.59E-05 SN-119M 3.86E-04 3.99E-05 1.95E-04 7.27E-04 3.84E-04 5.00E-04 2.20E-05 SN-121M 4.93E-04 5.10E-05 2.51E-04 9.35E-04 4.92E-04 6.42E-04 2.81E-05 SN-123 2.96E-04 3.05E-05 1.49E-04 5.58E-04 2.94E-04 3.81E-04 1.68E-05 SN-125 8.92E-06 8.46E-07 3.67E-06 1.40E-05 7.77E-06 9.21E-06 4.79E-07 SN-126 5.04E-04 5.22E-05 2.57E-04 9.64E-04 5.04E-04 6.57E-04 2.86E-05 SB-124 5.50E-05 5.42E-06 2.91E-05 1.52E-04 6.10E-05 6.36E-05 2.67E-06 SB-125 1.25E-04 1.25E-05 6.80E-05 3.55E-04 1.41E-04 1.49E-04 6.13E-06 SB-126 5.92E-06 5.33E-07 2.42E-06 1.25E-05 5.48E-06 5.26E-06 2.82E-07 SB-126M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SB-127 1.56E-07 1.32E-08 5.32E-08 2.81E-07 1.30E-07 1.13E-07 7.22E-09 TE-125M 1.70E-04 1.81E-05 9.43E-05 3.71E-04 1.82E-04 2.37E-04 9.70E-06 TE-127M 2.75E-04 2.94E-05 1.54E-04 6.06E-04 2.96E-04 3.86E-04 1.57E-05 TE-127 9.34E-11 6.34E-12 8.51E-12 3.26E-11 4.15E-11 1.76E-11 4.20E-12 TE-129M 9.44E-05 1.00E-05 5.19E-05 2.04E-04 1.00E-04 1.30E-04 5.37E-06 TE-129 4.95E-23 3.36E-24 4.51E-24 1.73E-23 2.20E-23 9.32E-24 2.23E-24 TE-131M 4.60E-09 3.21E-10 5.40E-10 2.31E-09 2.23E-09 1.12E-09 2.08E-10 TE-131 2.80E-45 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.40E-45 1.40E-45 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TE-132 1.19E-07 1.14E-08 5.80E-08 3.03E-07 1.24E-07 1.27E-07 5.75E-09 TE-133M 3.99E-26 2.71E-27 3.64E-27 1.39E-26 1.77E-26 7.52E-27 1.80E-27 TE-134 9.79E-31 6.64E-32 8.92E-32 3.42E-31 4.35E-31 1.85E-31 4.41E-32 I-129 3.27E-04 2.92E-05 1.31E-04 6.91E-04 3.01E-04 2.82E-04 1.54E-05 I-130 4.26E-10 2.89E-11 3.88E-11 1.49E-10 1.89E-10 8.03E-11 1.92E-11 I-131 5.56E-06 4.15E-07 1.05E-06 5.04E-06 3.31E-06 2.23E-06 2.54E-07 I-132 1.48E-16 1.00E-17 1.35E-17 5.16E-17 6.58E-17 2.79E-17 6.66E-18 I-133 3.82E-09 2.59E-10 3.49E-10 1.34E-09 1.70E-09 7.22E-10 1.72E-10 I-134 1.76E-27 1.19E-28 1.60E-28 6.13E-28 7.81E-28 3.31E-28 7.90E-29 I-135 1.44E-11 9.80E-13 1.32E-12 5.04E-12 6.42E-12 2.72E-12 6.50E-13 CS-134M 9.60E-15 6.52E-16 8.75E-16 3.35E-15 4.27E-15 1.81E-15 4.32E-16 CS-134 3.69E-04 2.89E-05 8.85E-05 4.31E-04 2.47E-04 1.91E-04 1.71E-05 CS-135 4.54E-04 3.65E-05 1.23E-04 6.15E-04 3.26E-04 2.65E-04 2.11E-05 CS-136 2.91E-05 2.13E-06 4.77E-06 2.19E-05 1.62E-05 1.02E-05 1.33E-06 CS-137 4.17E-04 3.30E-05 1.05E-04 5.17E-04 2.87E-04 2.27E-04 1.93E-05 CS-138 3.93E-38 2.67E-39 3.58E-39 1.37E-38 21.75E-38 7.41E-39 1.77E-39 CS-139 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-137M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-139 2.04E-22 1.38E-23 1.85E-23 7.10E-23 9.05E-23 3.84E-23 9.16E-24A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-48 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

BA-140 3.92E-06 4.04E-07 2.34E-06 1.25E-05 4.76E-06 5.09E-06 1.92E-07 BA-141 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-142 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 LA-140 5.27E-10 5.87E-11 3.89E-10 2.18E-09 7.63E-10 8.24E-10 2.53E-11 LA-141 1.03E-16 7.01E-18 9.42E-18 3.61E-17 4.59E-17 1.95E-17 4.65E-18 LA-142 1.59E-23 1.08E-24 1.45E-24 5.54E-24 7.06E-24 2.99E-24 7.15E-25 CE-141 2.07E-05 2.16E-06 1.29E-05 7.09E-05 2.62E-05 2.77E-05 9.96E-07 CE-143 1.79E-09 1.26E-10 2.35E-10 1.05E-09 9.08E-10 4.91E-10 8.09E-11 CE-144 7.83E-05 8.29E-06 5.07E-05 2.78E-04 1.02E-04 1.09E-04 3.78E-06 PR-143 3.87E-06 4.35E-07 2.79E-06 1.47E-05 5.40E-06 6.14E-06 1.96E-07 PR-144 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PR-144M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ND-147 2.11E-06 2.37E-07 1.54E-06 8.30E-06 3.00E-06 3.36E-06 1.05E-07 PM-146 9.48E-05 1.06E-05 6.78E-05 3.55E-04 1.31E-04 1.50E-04 4.82E-06 PM-147 9.10E-05 1.02E-05 6.52E-05 3.41E-04 1.26E-04 1.44E-04 4.63E-06 PM-148M 2.73E-05 3.06E-06 1.97E-05 1.04E-04 3.81E-05 4.33E-05 1.38E-06 PM-148 2.23E-07 2.52E-08 1.66E-07 9.11E-07 3.23E-07 3.58E-07 1.10E-08 PM-149 3.68E-09 4.14E-10 2.78E-09 1.56E-08 5.42E-09 5.90E-09 1.77E-10 PM-151 3.27E-11 3.31E-12 1.92E-11 1.06E-10 3.97E-11 4.06E-11 1.55E-12 SM-147 1.08E-04 1.21E-05 7.72E-05 4.05E-04 1.49E-04 1.71E-04 5.47E-06 SM-151 1.04E-04 1.17E-05 7.46E-05 3.91E-04 1.45E-04 1.65E-04 5.30E-06 SM-153 1.60E-09 1.80E-10 1.20E-09 6.76E-09 2.35E-09 2.55E-09 7.72E-11 EU-152 9.75E-05 1.09E-05 6.98E-05 3.65E-04 1.35E-04 1.54E-04 4.96E-06 EU-154 9.64E-05 1.08E-05 6.90E-05 3.61E-04 1.34E-04 1.53E-04 4.90E-06 EU-155 9.42E-05 1.06E-05 6.74E-05 3.53E-04 1.30E-04 1.49E-04 4.79E-06 EU-156 5.02E-06 5.63E-07 3.60E-06 1.90E-05 6.98E-06 7.95E-06 2.54E-07 GD-153 7.12E-05 8.01E-06 5.18E-05 2.76E-04 1.00E-04 1.13E-04 3.58E-06 TB-160 4.36E-05 4.90E-06 3.15E-05 1.67E-04 6.11E-05 6.93E-05 2.20E-06 HO-166M 1.05E-04 1.18E-05 7.57E-05 4.00E-04 1.47E-04 1.67E-04 5.30E-06 W-181 5.91E-05 6.31E-06 3.91E-05 2.14E-04 7.81E-05 8.37E-05 2.86E-06 W-185 4.45E-05 4.74E-06 2.93E-05 1.61E-04 5.86E-05 6.28E-05 2.15E-06 W-187 5.12E-10 3.49E-11 4.92E-11 1.94E-10 2.32E-10 1.02E-10 2.31E-11 TL-207 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TL-208 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PB-209 2.74E-15 1.86E-16 2.50E-16 9.57E-16 1.22E-15 5.17E-16 1.23E-16 PB-210 1.61E-04 1.74E-05 1.11E-04 6.21E-04 2.21E-04 2.36E-04 7.71E-06 PB-211 6.46E-36 4.38E-37 5.89E-37 2.25E-36 2.87E-36 1.22E-36 2.91E-37 PB-212 2.67E-11 1.81E-12 2.43E-12 9.31E-12 1.19E-11 5.03E-12 1.20E-12 BI-210 3.08E-07 3.05E-08 1.65E-07 8.70E-07 3.45E-07 3.61E-07 1.50E-08 BI-211 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BI-212 8.42E-26 5.71E-27 7.67E-27 2.94E-26 3.74E-26 1.59E-26 3.79E-27 BI-213 1.35E-30 9.17E-32 1.23E-31 4.71E-31 6.00E-31 2.55E-31 6.08E-32 PO-210 9.06E-05 9.85E-06 5.82E-05 2.84E-04 1.14E-04 1.34E-04 4.76E-06 PO-212 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-49 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

PO-213 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-215 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-216 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 AT-217 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-221 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-223 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RA-223 1.92E-05 1.53E-06 4.58E-06 1.90E-05 1.25E-05 1.07E-05 9.26E-07 RA-224 4.90E-07 3.57E-08 8.01E-08 3.66E-07 2.71E-07 1.71E-07 2.24E-08 RA-225 3.20E-05 2.62E-06 8.43E-06 3.50E-05 2.19E-05 1.99E-05 1.56E-06 RA-226 4.32E-04 3.88E-05 1.57E-04 6.50E-04 3.54E-04 3.78E-04 2.21E-05 RA-228 4.14E-04 3.71E-05 1.49E-04 6.19E-04 3.38E-04 3.61E-04 2.12E-05 AC-225 5.32E-06 5.81E-07 3.13E-06 1.24E-05 5.95E-06 7.87E-06 3.07E-07 AC-227 3.37E-04 3.67E-05 1.96E-04 7.57E-04 3.71E-04 4.97E-04 1.96E-05 AC-228 6.41E-15 4.35E-16 5.84E-16 2.24E-15 2.85E-15 1.21E-15 2.88E-16 TH-227 6.39E-06 7.24E-07 4.88E-06 2.74E-05 9.51E-06 1.04E-05 3.09E-07 TH-228 7.13E-05 8.07E-06 5.45E-05 3.05E-04 1.06E-04 1.16E-04 3.44E-06 TH-229 9.17E-05 1.04E-05 7.01E-05 3.93E-04 1.37E-04 1.49E-04 4.43E-06 TH-230 9.18E-05 1.04E-05 7.02E-05 3.94E-04 21.37E-04 1.49E-04 4.43E-06 TH-231 1.45E-11 1.35E-12 6.83E-12 3.74E-11 1.50E-11 1.44E-11 6.77E-13 TH-232 9.18E-05 1.04E-05 7.02E-05 3.94E-04 1.37E-04 1.49E-04 4.43E-06 TH-234 1.04E-05 1.18E-06 7.97E-06 4.47E-05 1.55E-05 1.69E-05 5.04E-07 PA-231 1.00E+00 3.81E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.16E-01 PA-233 4.79E-01 5.16E-02 2.52E-01 7.76E-01 4.71E-01 6.85E-01 2.93E-02 PA-234M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 U-232 9.56E-05 1.03E-05 6.44E-05 3.58E-04 1.29E-04 1.37E-04 4.58E-06 U-233 9.99E-05 1.07E-05 6.76E-05 3.76E-04 1.35E-04 1.44E-04 4.79E-06 U-234 9.99E-05 1.07E-05 6.76E-05 3.76E-04 1.35E-04 1.44E-04 4.79E-06 U-235 9.99E-05 1.07E-05 6.76E-05 3.76E-04 1.35E-04 1.44E-04 4.79E-06 U-236 9.99E-05 1.07E-05 6.76E-05 3.76E-04 1.35E-04 1.44E-04 4.79E-06 U-237 6.69E-07 6.50E-08 3.52E-07 1.94E-06 7.49E-07 7.46E-07 3.15E-08 U-238 9.99E-05 1.07E-05 6.76E-05 3.76E-04 1.35E-04 1.44E-04 4.79E-06 NP-236 8.64E-05 9.79E-06 6.61E-05 3.70E-04 1.29E-04 1.40E-04 4.17E-06 NP-237 8.64E-05 9.79E-06 6.61E-05 3.70E-04 1.29E-04 1.40E-04 4.17E-06 NP-238 2.61E-09 2.94E-10 1.97E-09 1.11E-08 3.85E-09 4.18E-09 1.25E-10 NP-239 5.12E-09 5.78E-10 3.89E-09 2.19E-08 7.60E-09 8.25E-09 2.47E-10 PU-236 7.18E-05 8.14E-06 5.51E-05 3.10E-04 1.07E-04 1.17E-04 3.46E-06 PU-237 2.38E-05 2.69E-06 1.82E-05 1.03E-04 3.55E-05 3.86E-05 1.14E-06 PU-238 7.74E-05 8.77E-06 5.94E-05 3.34E-04 1.16E-04 1.26E-04 3.73E-06 PU-239 7.84E-05 8.89E-06 6.02E-05 3.38E-04 1.17E-04 1.27E-04 3.78E-06 PU-240 7.84E-05 8.89E-06 6.01E-05 3.38E-04 1.17E-04 1.27E-04 3.77E-06 PU-241 7.57E-05 8.58E-06 5.81E-05 3.27E-04 1.13E-04 1.23E-04 3.65E-06 PU-242 7.84E-05 8.89E-06 6.02E-05 3.38E-04 1.17E-04 1.27E-04 3.78E-06 PU-244 7.84E-05 8.89E-06 6.02E-05 3.38E-04 1.17E-04 1.27E-04 3.78E-06 AM-241 7.90E-05 8.95E-06 6.04E-05 3.39E-04 1.18E-04 1.28E-04 3.82E-06A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-50 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

AM-242M 7.86E-05 8.91E-06 6.01E-05 3.37E-04 1.17E-04 1.28E-04 3.80E-06 AM-243 7.93E-05 8.98E-06 6.06E-05 3.40E-04 1.18E-04 1.29E-04 3.83E-06 CM-242 5.38E-05 6.10E-06 4.12E-05 2.31E-04 8.01E-05 8.74E-05 2.60E-06 CM-243 7.99E-05 9.05E-06 6.10E-05 3.42E-04 1.19E-04 1.30E-04 3.86E-06 CM-244 7.88E-05 8.92E-06 6.02E-05 3.37E-04 1.17E-04 1.28E-04 3.80E-06 CM-245 8.64E-05 9.78E-06 6.60E-05 3.70E-04 1.29E-04 1.40E-04 4.17E-06 CM-246 8.63E-05 9.78E-06 6.60E-05 3.70E-04 1.28E-04 1.40E-04 4.17E-06 CM-247 8.64E-05 9.79E-06 6.61E-05 3.70E-04 1.29E-04 1.40E-04 4.17E-06 CM-248 8.64E-05 9.79E-06 6.61E-05 3.70E-04 1.29E-04 1.40E-04 4.17E-06 CF-252 7.26E-05 8.22E-06 5.55E-05 3.11E-04 1.08E-04 1.18E-04 3.50E-06 State Nuclide VT VA WA WV WI WY US b H-3 1.52E-07 1.28E-07 2.82E-07 2.43E-08 9.58E-07 5.02E-08 2.97E-07 BE-10 8.85E-06 8.14E-05 1.53E-04 1.04E-05 2.97E-04 2.43E-05 1.88E-04 C-14 1.02E-06 1.78E-06 2.76E-06 2.60E-07 7.58E-06 4.47E-07 3.40E-06 N-16 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 F-18 1.50E-17 4.14E-18 4.08E-18 7.18E-19 4.61E-17 1.65E-19 3.64E-18 NA-22 1.16E-03 5.06E-04 5.04E-04 8.91E-05 3.90E-03 5.97E-05 5.53E-04 NA-24 8.66E-09 2.39E-09 2.36E-09 4.15E-10 2.66E-08 9.50E-11 2.10E-09 P-32 7.74E-05 3.38E-05 3.31E-05 5.98E-06 2.60E-04 3.94E-06 3.63E-05 CA-41 3.07E-04 2.86E-04 4.51E-04 4.10E-05 1.60E-03 6.40E-05 5.34E-04 SC-46 8.73E-06 6.84E-05 8.61E-05 1.13E-05 1.78E-04 1.78E-05 1.15E-04 CR-51 1.60E-05 1.78E-05 2.88E-05 2.53E-06 9.29E-05 4.22E-06 3.44E-05 MN-54 1.08E-05 6.64E-05 1.25E-04 8.46E-06 2.52E-04 1.96E-05 1.53E-04 MN-56 4.45E-17 1.23E-17 1.21E-17 2.13E-18 1.37E-16 4.89E-19 1.08E-17 FE-55 6.90E-05 2.33E-04 2.06E-04 4.38E-05 5.49E-04 5.28E-05 2.98E-04 FE-59 2.29E-05 7.04E-05 6.52E-05 1.30E-05 1.77E-04 1.60E-05 9.27E-05 CO-57 3.61E-05 1.07E-04 1.39E-04 1.75E-05 3.44E-04 2.68E-05 1.82E-04 CO-58 2.15E-05 6.12E-05 8.08E-05 9.87E-06 2.01E-04 1.53E-05 1.05E-04 CO-60 4.42E-05 1.34E-04 1.74E-04 2.18E-05 4.27E-04 3.36E-05 2.27E-04 NI-59 2.36E-04 2.19E-04 3.32E-04 3.23E-05 1.21E-03 4.82E-05 3.95E-04 NI-63 2.26E-04 1.96E-04 2.90E-04 2.93E-05 1.11E-03 4.18E-05 3.44E-04 NI-65 9.09E-16 2.51E-16 2.48E-16 4.35E-17 2.80E-15 9.98E-18 2.21E-16 CU-64 1.83E-09 5.07E-10 4.99E-10 8.78E-11 5.63E-09 2.01E-11 4.45E-10 ZN-65 9.68E-04 4.31E-04 4.38E-04 7.53E-05 3.29E-03 5.23E-05 4.82E-04 ZN-69M 9.66E-09 2.67E-09 2.63E-09 4.62E-10 2.97E-08 1.06E-10 2.35E-09 ZN-69 3.51E-24 9.71E-25 9.56E-25 1.68E-25 1.08E-23 3.86E-26 8.53E-25 SE-79 1.24E-02 7.93E-03 1.15E-02 1.19E-03 5.26E-02 1.49E-03 1.31E-02 BR-82 3.11E-07 8.64E-08 8.55E-08 1.49E-08 9.56E-07 3.56E-09 7.66E-08 BR-83 2.18E-14 6.03E-15 5.94E-15 1.04E-15 6.71E-14 2.39E-16 5.30E-15 BR-84 4.49E-36 1.24E-36 1.22E-36 2.15E-37 1.38E-35 4.93E-38 1.09E-36 BR-85 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 KR-85 2.73E-03 2.78E-03 4.22E-03 4.10E-04 1.46E-02 6.28E-04 5.06E-03 RB-86 1.31E-04 5.16E-05 5.14E-05 9.05E-06 4.32E-04 5.30E-06 5.43E-05A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-51 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

RB-87 1.68E-03 1.15E-03 1.46E-03 1.85E-04 6.97E-03 2.09E-04 1.71E-03 RB-88 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RB-89 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SR-89 1.10E-05 2.88E-05 5.30E-05 3.72E-06 1.24E-04 8.07E-06 6.44E-05 SR-90 3.11E-05 1.02E-04 1.90E-04 1.31E-05 4.22E-04 2.92E-05 2.32E-04 SR-91 2.14E-11 5.91E-12 5.82E-12 1.02E-12 6.57E-11 2.35E-13 5.20E-12 SR-92 2.88E-16 7.95E-17 7.83E-17 1.38E-17 8.84E-16 3.16E-18 6.99E-17 Y-90 8.86E-10 1.01E-08 1.96E-08 1.25E-09 3.75E-08 3.06E-09 2.41E-08 Y-91M 3.88E-31 1.07E-31 1.06E-31 1.86E-32 1.19E-30 4.26E-33 9.43E-32 Y-91 3.33E-06 3.52E-05 5.90E-05 4.94E-06 1.15E-04 1.01E-05 7.44E-05 Y-92 1.03E-16 2.86E-17 2.81E-17 4.95E-18 3.18E-16 1.14E-18 2.51E-17 Y-93 3.39E-13 9.38E-14 9.23E-14 1.62E-14 1.04E-12 3.72E-15 8.24E-14 ZR-93 3.37E-05 2.18E-04 2.04E-04 24.03E-05 4.55E-04 5.19E-05 2.95E-04 ZR-95 1.33E-05 8.76E-05 8.53E-05 1.60E-05 1.88E-04 2.11E-05 1.22E-04 ZR-97 1.95E-12 5.98E-13 6.48E-13 1.01E-13 6.21E-12 3.98E-14 6.18E-13 NB-93M 3.11E-04 1.26E-03 6.27E-04 2.66E-04 1.94E-03 2.59E-04 1.12E-03 NB-94 3.34E-04 1.36E-03 7.09E-04 2.86E-04 2.15E-03 2.83E-04 1.25E-03 NB-95M 1.70E-07 1.61E-07 1.56E-07 2.92E-08 7.21E-07 3.03E-08 2.01E-07 NB-95 6.90E-05 2.55E-04 1.30E-04 5.39E-05 4.14E-04 5.25E-05 2.30E-04 NB-97 3.90E-23 1.08E-23 1.06E-23 1.87E-24 1.20E-22 4.28E-25 9.48E-24 MO-93 4.25E-04 6.00E-04 9.85E-04 8.43E-05 2.87E-03 1.49E-04 1.19E-03 MO-99 1.82E-07 6.40E-08 7.62E-08 1.04E-08 6.08E-07 6.21E-09 7.71E-08 TC-99M 6.33E-11 1.75E-11 1.72E-11 3.03E-12 1.95E-10 6.95E-13 1.54E-11 TC-99 2.79E-03 5.59E-03 3.82E-03 1.12E-03 1.41E-02 1.13E-03 5.84E-03 TC-101 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RU-103 8.06E-05 4.15E-04 1.94E-04 8.86E-05 5.61E-04 8.60E-05 3.61E-04 RU-105 1.35E-16 3.72E-17 3.66E-17 6.45E-18 4.14E-16 1.48E-18 3.27E-17 RU-106 2.81E-04 1.44E-03 6.66E-04 3.08E-04 1.93E-03 2.98E-04 1.25E-03 RH-103M 6.47E-23 1.79E-23 1.76E-23 3.10E-24 1.99E-22 7.10E-25 1.57E-23 RH-105 4.21E-07 1.22E-07 1.25E-07 2.08E-08 1.31E-06 6.22E-09 1.15E-07 RH-106 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PD-107 1.05E-02 1.85E-02 3.30E-02 2.45E-03 8.65E-02 4.92E-03 3.98E-02 PD-109 1.43E-08 3.94E-09 3.88E-09 6.83E-10 4.38E-08 1.56E-10 3.46E-09 AG-110M 1.21E-03 4.48E-04 4.71E-04 7.67E-05 3.97E-03 4.36E-05 4.87E-04 AG-111 3.57E-05 1.07E-05 1.10E-05 1.84E-06 1.12E-04 6.34E-07 1.03E-05 CD-113M 2.41E-05 2.85E-04 5.55E-04 3.53E-05 1.06E-03 8.67E-05 6.81E-04 CD-115M 5.88E-19 1.63E-19 1.60E-19 2.82E-20 1.81E-18 6.46E-21 1.43E-19 IN-113M 2.24E-20 6.20E-21 6.10E-21 1.07E-21 6.89E-20 2.46E-22 5.45E-21 SN-113 8.66E-05 2.44E-04 1.73E-04 4.84E-05 5.37E-04 5.19E-05 2.67E-04 SN-119M 1.17E-04 3.38E-04 2.37E-04 6.73E-05 7.30E-04 7.19E-05 3.67E-04 SN-121M 1.47E-04 4.33E-04 3.05E-04 8.61E-05 9.30E-04 9.24E-05 4.71E-04 SN-123 9.12E-05 2.58E-04 1.83E-04 5.12E-05 5.67E-04 5.49E-05 2.82E-04 SN-125 4.52E-06 6.61E-06 5.12E-06 1.28E-06 2.09E-05 1.31E-06 7.33E-06 SN-126 1.49E-04 4.43E-04 3.16E-04 8.78E-05 9.56E-04 9.47E-05 4.87E-04A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-52 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

SB-124 2.31E-05 4.21E-05 6.79E-05 6.01E-06 1.82E-04 1.08E-05 8.34E-05 SB-125 4.97E-05 9.80E-05 1.57E-04 1.41E-05 4.10E-04 2.53E-05 1.94E-04 SB-126 3.70E-06 3.81E-06 5.81E-06 5.59E-07 2.00E-05 8.63E-07 6.96E-06 SB-126M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 SB-127 1.17E-07 8.78E-08 1.39E-07 1.25E-08 5.53E-07 1.84E-08 1.61E-07 TE-125M 3.85E-05 1.57E-04 1.25E-04 3.03E-05 3.25E-04 3.51E-05 1.88E-04 TE-127M 6.03E-05 2.54E-04 2.05E-04 4.90E-05 5.26E-04 5.73E-05 3.07E-04 TE-127 1.08E-10 3.00E-11 2.95E-11 5.19E-12 3.33E-10 1.19E-12 2.63E-11 TE-129M 2.23E-05 8.62E-05 6.90E-05 1.67E-05 1.82E-04 1.93E-05 1.03E-04 TE-129 5.74E-23 1.59E-23 1.56E-23 2.75E-24 1.76E-22 6.30E-25 1.40E-23 TE-131M 5.15E-09 1.59E-09 1.73E-09 2.67E-10 1.64E-08 1.09E-10 1.66E-09 TE-131 4.20E-45 1.40E-45 1.40E-45 0.00E+00 1.12E-44 0.00E+00 1.40E-45 TE-132 5.87E-08 8.61E-08 1.37E-07 1.24E-08 3.97E-07 2.13E-08 1.67E-07 TE-133M 4.63E-26 1.28E-26 1.26E-26 2.22E-27 1.42E-25 5.08E-28 1.12E-26 TE-134 1.14E-30 3.14E-31 3.09E-31 5.44E-32 3.49E-30 1.25E-32 2.76E-31 I-129 2.12E-04 2.05E-04 3.28E-04 2.92E-05 1.14E-03 4.67E-05 3.88E-04 I-130 4.94E-10 1.37E-10 1.35E-10 2.37E-11 1.52E-09 5.43E-12 1.20E-10 I-131 5.54E-06 2.32E-06 2.96E-06 3.69E-07 1.96E-05 3.00E-07 3.16E-06 I-132 1.72E-16 4.75E-17 4.67E-17 8.22E-18 5.28E-16 1.89E-18 4.17E-17 I-133 4.44E-09 1.23E-09 1.21E-09 2.13E-10 1.36E-08 4.89E-11 1.08E-09 I-134 2.04E-27 5.64E-28 5.55E-28 9.76E-29 6.27E-27 2.24E-29 4.95E-28 I-135 1.68E-11 4.64E-12 4.56E-12 8.03E-13 5.15E-11 1.84E-13 4.07E-12 CS-134M 1.11E-14 3.08E-15 3.03E-15 5.34E-16 3.42E-14 1.22E-16 2.71E-15 CS-134 3.35E-04 1.75E-04 2.30E-04 2.74E-05 1.28E-03 2.77E-05 2.58E-04 CS-135 3.89E-04 2.28E-04 3.18E-04 3.49E-05 1.58E-03 4.01E-05 3.61E-04 CS-136 3.02E-05 1.15E-05 1.36E-05 1.88E-06 1.03E-04 1.26E-06 1.42E-05 CS-137 3.70E-04 2.02E-04 2.73E-04 3.14E-05 1.45E-03 3.35E-05 3.07E-04 CS-138 4.56E-38 1.26E-38 1.24E-38 2.19E-39 1.40E-37 5.01E-40 1.11E-38 CS-139 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-137M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-139 2.36E-22 6.53E-23 6.43E-23 1.13E-23 7.26E-22 2.59E-24 5.74E-23 BA-140 1.22E-06 3.25E-06 5.48E-06 4.51E-07 1.30E-05 8.81E-07 6.77E-06 BA-141 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BA-142 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 LA-140 5.98E-11 4.96E-10 9.67E-10 6.10E-11 1.89E-09 1.50E-10 1.18E-09 LA-141 1.20E-16 3.32E-17 3.27E-17 5.74E-18 3.69E-16 1.32E-18 2.91E-17 LA-142 1.84E-23 5.10E-24 5.02E-24 8.83E-25 5.67E-23 2.02E-25 4.48E-24 CE-141 5.88E-06 1.74E-05 3.16E-05 2.28E-06 7.19E-05 4.90E-06 3.86E-05 CE-143 1.96E-09 6.44E-10 7.35E-10 1.06E-10 6.39E-09 5.32E-11 7.24E-10 CE-144 1.92E-05 6.77E-05 1.23E-04 28.86E-06 2.71E-04 1.93E-05 1.51E-04 PR-143 3.56E-07 3.74E-06 6.22E-06 5.26E-07 1.21E-05 1.07E-06 7.86E-06 PR-144 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PR-144M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 ND-147 1.80E-07 2.03E-06 3.56E-06 2.76E-07 6.87E-06 5.94E-07 4.46E-06A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-53 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

PM-146 8.77E-06 9.16E-05 1.50E-04 1.30E-05 2.92E-04 2.60E-05 1.90E-04 PM-147 8.42E-06 8.80E-05 1.44E-04 1.25E-05 2.80E-04 2.50E-05 1.82E-04 PM-148M 2.46E-06 2.64E-05 4.39E-05 3.71E-06 8.53E-05 7.55E-06 5.55E-05 PM-148 1.79E-08 2.16E-07 3.96E-07 2.81E-08 7.57E-07 6.41E-08 4.91E-07 PM-149 2.96E-10 3.53E-09 6.87E-09 4.35E-10 1.31E-08 1.07E-09 8.44E-09 PM-151 1.17E-11 2.60E-11 4.83E-11 3.33E-12 1.17E-10 7.21E-12 5.84E-11 SM-147 9.86E-06 1.04E-04 1.71E-04 1.48E-05 3.33E-04 2.96E-05 2.17E-04 SM-151 9.61E-06 1.01E-04 1.65E-04 1.43E-05 3.21E-04 2.87E-05 2.09E-04 SM-153 1.44E-10 1.53E-09 2.98E-09 1.89E-10 5.73E-09 4.65E-10 3.66E-09 EU-152 9.01E-06 9.42E-05 1.54E-04 1.34E-05 3.00E-04 2.68E-05 1.95E-04 EU-154 8.91E-06 9.31E-05 1.52E-04 1.33E-05 2.97E-04 2.65E-05 1.93E-04 EU-155 8.71E-06 9.10E-05 1.49E-04 1.30E-05 2.90E-04 2.59E-05 1.89E-04 EU-156 4.63E-07 4.84E-06 8.03E-06 6.84E-07 1.56E-05 1.38E-06 1.01E-05 GD-153 6.16E-06 6.89E-05 1.18E-04 9.50E-06 2.27E-04 1.99E-05 1.48E-04 TB-160 3.88E-06 4.22E-05 7.09E-05 5.89E-06 1.37E-04 1.21E-05 8.93E-05 HO-166M 9.34E-06 1.01E-04 1.70E-04 1.42E-05 3.29E-04 2.91E-05 2.14E-04 W-181 1.31E-05 5.19E-05 9.46E-05 6.78E-06 2.04E-04 1.49E-05 1.16E-04 W-185 1.01E-05 3.90E-05 7.11E-05 5.09E-06 1.54E-04 1.12E-05 8.72E-05 W-187 5.90E-10 1.67E-10 1.68E-10 2.87E-11 1.83E-09 7.60E-12 1.52E-10 TL-207 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TL-208 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PB-209 3.18E-15 8.80E-16 8.67E-16 1.52E-16 9.79E-15 3.49E-17 7.74E-16 PB-210 2.99E-05 1.44E-04 2.76E-04 1.81E-05 5.73E-04 4.26E-05 3.38E-04 PB-211 7.50E-36 2.07E-36 2.04E-36 3.59E-37 2.30E-35 8.23E-38 1.82E-36 PB-212 3.10E-11 8.56E-12 8.43E-12 1.48E-12 9.52E-11 3.40E-13 7.52E-12 BI-210 1.25E-07 2.38E-07 3.87E-07 3.37E-08 1.02E-06 6.15E-08 4.76E-07 BI-211 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 BI-212 9.77E-26 2.70E-26 2.66E-26 4.68E-27 3.00E-25 1.07E-27 2.37E-26 BI-213 1.57E-30 4.34E-31 4.27E-31 7.51E-32 4.82E-30 1.72E-32 3.81E-31 PO-210 1.56E-05 8.41E-05 1.15E-04 1.33E-05 2.47E-04 2.21E-05 1.50E-04 PO-212 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-213 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-215 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 PO-216 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 AT-217 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-221 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 FR-223 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 RA-223 1.68E-05 9.63E-06 9.49E-06 1.71E-06 6.06E-05 1.43E-06 1.12E-05 RA-224 5.08E-07 1.93E-07 2.28E-07 3.17E-08 1.72E-06 2.11E-08 2.37E-07 RA-225 2.65E-05 1.70E-05 1.66E-05 3.05E-06 9.83E-05 2.71E-06 2.01E-05 RA-226 2.72E-04 2.84E-04 2.70E-04 5.17E-05 1.19E-03 5.46E-05 3.54E-04 RA-228 2.62E-04 2.72E-04 2.57E-04 4.95E-05 1.14E-03 5.21E-05 3.37E-04 AC-225 8.49E-07 5.11E-06 4.16E-06 9.84E-07 9.70E-06 1.18E-06 6.27E-06 AC-227 5.50E-05 3.24E-04 2.46E-04 6.35E-05 5.87E-04 7.34E-05 3.80E-04A Resource Handbook on DOE Tr ansportation Risk Assessment

Page D-54 

### Table D.6. Food Transfer Factors (Continued)

AC-228 7.44E-15 2.06E-15 2.02E-15 3.56E-16 2.29E-14 8.16E-17 1.81E-15 TH-227 4.36E-07 6.18E-06 1.21E-05 7.63E-07 2.28E-05 1.89E-06 1.48E-05 TH-228 4.78E-06 6.90E-05 1.34E-04 8.51E-06 2.54E-04 2.10E-05 1.65E-04 TH-229 6.11E-06 8.88E-05 1.73E-04 1.09E-05 3.27E-04 2.71E-05 2.13E-04 TH-230 6.11E-06 8.89E-05 1.73E-04 1.10E-05 3.27E-04 2.71E-05 2.13E-04 TH-231 7.86E-12 9.92E-12 1.75E-11 1.32E-12 5.18E-11 2.50E-12 2.08E-11 TH-232 6.11E-06 8.89E-05 1.73E-04 1.10E-05 3.27E-04 2.71E-05 2.13E-04 TH-234 7.07E-07 1.01E-05 1.97E-05 1.24E-06 3.72E-05 3.08E-06 2.42E-05 PA-231 6.81E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.40E-01 1.00E+00 6.86E-01 1.00E+00 PA-233 9.24E-02 4.59E-01 1.80E-01 1.00E-01 5.66E-01 9.29E-02 3.64E-01 PA-234M 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0. 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 U-232 2.04E-05 8.44E-05 1.60E-04 1.07E-05 3.39E-04 2.46E-05 1.95E-04 U-233 2.08E-05 8.84E-05 1.67E-04 1.12E-05 3.54E-04 2.58E-05 2.05E-04 U-234 2.08E-05 8.84E-05 1.67E-04 1.12E-05 3.54E-04 2.58E-05 2.05E-04 U-235 2.08E-05 8.84E-05 1.67E-04 1.12E-05 3.54E-04 2.58E-05 2.05E-04 U-236 2.08E-05 8.84E-05 1.67E-04 1.12E-05 3.54E-04 2.58E-05 2.05E-04 U-237 3.03E-07 4.94E-07 8.91E-07 6.47E-08 2.38E-06 1.31E-07 1.07E-06 U-238 2.08E-05 8.84E-05 1.67E-04 1.12E-05 3.54E-04 2.58E-05 2.05E-04 NP-236 5.77E-06 8.37E-05 1.63E-04 1.03E-05 3.08E-04 2.55E-05 2.00E-04 NP-237 5.77E-06 8.37E-05 1.63E-04 1.03E-05 3.08E-04 2.55E-05 2.00E-04 NP-238 2.16E-10 2.50E-09 4.90E-09 3.06E-10 9.35E-09 7.61E-10 6.00E-09 NP-239 3.94E-10 4.93E-09 9.66E-09 6.04E-10 1.84E-08 1.50E-09 1.19E-08 PU-236 4.64E-06 6.96E-05 1.37E-04 8.51E-06 2.57E-04 2.13E-05 1.68E-04 PU-237 1.54E-06 2.30E-05 4.52E-05 2.82E-06 8.52E-05 7.04E-06 5.55E-05 PU-238 5.00E-06 7.50E-05 1.47E-04 9.18E-06 2.77E-04 2.30E-05 1.81E-04 PU-239 5.07E-06 7.60E-05 1.49E-04 9.30E-06 2.81E-04 2.32E-05 1.83E-04 PU-240 5.06E-06 7.59E-05 1.49E-04 9.29E-06 2.81E-04 2.32E-05 1.83E-04 PU-241 4.89E-06 7.33E-05 1.44E-04 8.98E-06 2.71E-04 2.24E-05 1.77E-04 PU-242 5.07E-06 7.60E-05 1.49E-04 9.30E-06 2.81E-04 2.33E-05 1.83E-04 PU-244 5.07E-06 7.60E-05 1.49E-04 9.30E-06 2.81E-04 2.33E-05 1.83E-04 AM-241 5.29E-06 7.65E-05 1.49E-04 9.44E-06 2.81E-04 2.33E-05 1.83E-04 AM-242M 5.27E-06 7.61E-05 1.48E-04 9.39E-06 2.80E-04 2.32E-05 1.82E-04 AM-243 5.31E-06 7.67E-05 1.50E-04 9.47E-06 2.82E-04 2.34E-05 1.84E-04 CM-242 3.61E-06 5.21E-05 1.02E-04 6.43E-06 1.92E-04 1.59E-05 1.25E-04 CM-243 5.35E-06 7.73E-05 1.51E-04 9.54E-06 2.84E-04 2.36E-05 1.85E-04 CM-244 5.27E-06 7.62E-05 1.49E-04 9.40E-06 2.80E-04 2.32E-05 1.83E-04 CM-245 5.76E-06 8.36E-05 1.63E-04 1.03E-05 3.08E-04 2.55E-05 2.00E-04 CM-246 5.76E-06 8.36E-05 1.63E-04 1.03E-05 3.07E-04 2.55E-05 2.00E-04 CM-247 5.77E-06 8.37E-05 1.63E-04 1.03E-05 3.08E-04 2.55E-05 2.00E-04 CM-248 5.77E-06 8.37E-05 1.63E-04 1.03E-05 3.08E-04 2.55E-05 2.00E-04 CF-252 4.86E-06 7.03E-05 1.37E-04 8.67E-06 2.58E-04 2.14E-05 1.68E-04

a Values are interpreted as 1 μCi/m 2 available through ingestion pathways per 1 μCi/m 2 of radionuclide deposited on the ground. b U.S. average.