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 2002 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page ii
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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. Pope1

Sandia National Laboratories: R. Luna, R. Yoshimura, R. Weiner 

Science Applications International, Inc.: S. Maheras2

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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page iv

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page v

Contents 

Figures vi

Tables vi

Foreword xi

Acronyms xiii

Acknowledgments xvii

1. Introduction 1

2. Review of Current DOE Transportation Risk Assessments Requirements and 

Guidance 3

3. Historical Development of DOE Transportation Analyses 15

4. Transportation Methodology and Historical Review 23

5. Routing and Risk Assessment Models 45

6. Compilation of Assessment Input Data and Parameters 63

7. References 135

8. Glossary 149

Appendix A: Discussion Papers on Emerging Transportation Risk Issues A-1 

Appendix B: Correspondence and Documentation Relating to the Formation and 

Organization of the Transportation Risk Assessment Working Group B-1 

Appendix C: Isotopic Properties C-1 

Appendix D: Radionuclide Food Transfer Factors D-1 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page vi

Figures 

Figure 4.1. Technical Approach for Transportation 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 Dose 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 Dose to Members of the Public (persons at stops and 

off-link and on-link receptors) by Rail Transport 39

Figure 4.6. Incident-Free Cargo-Related Unit Risks Normalized 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 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, 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 Determined for Truck Travel through Rural, Suburban, and 

Urban Zones 75

Figure 6.3. Average Population Densities Determined for Rail Travel through Rural, Suburban, and 

Urban Zones 76

Figure 6.4. Average Fraction of Truck Travel through Rural, Suburban, and Urban Zones 77

Figure 6.5. Average Fraction of Rail Travel through Rural, Suburban, 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 Severity Category for Truck Accidents 99

Figure 6.9. Scheme for NUREG-0170 Classification by Accident Severity Category for Rail Accidents 100

Figure 6.10. NRC Modal Study SNF Cask Response 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 Shipments of Different Radioactive Waste Types 66
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Density 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 than 5,000 Persons/km2 73

Table 6.9. Comparing Population Density Data (persons/km2) 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 Tracka 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 Railroadsa 85

Table 6.17. Metropolitan Areas with Commuter Rail Systems 86

Table 6.18. Indoor/Outdoor Air Concentration 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 Occurrences for Accidents by Severity Category and Population Density Zone 101

Table 6.23. Estimated Severity Fractions (Conditional 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 Accidents by SNF Type for the NRC Modal Study Cask 

Response Regions 107

Table 6.28. Release Fractions for Transportation Accidents Involving Graphite SNF for the NRC Modal 

Study Cask Response Regions 108

Table 6.29. Accident Release Fractions for SNF Shipments by Truck 109

Table 6.30. Accident Release Fractions for SNF Shipments by Rail 110

Table 6.31. Representative DOE LLW Radionuclide 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 DOE Sites in 1995 115

Table 6.34. Estimated Radionuclide Compositions (Ci/canister) for HLW Canisters at DOE Sitesa 117

Table 6.35. Radionuclide Inventories (Ci) for Representative SNF Typesa 120

Table 6.36. Breathing Rates for Inhalation Exposures 125

Table 6.37. Percentage of Farmland by State in the Contiguous United Statesa 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 μm) and Fatalities per Kilometer for all Truck Classes and 

Rail 134
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page viii
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page ix

A Resource Handbook on DOE 

Transportation Risk Assessment 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page x

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 transportation risk assessments conducted for DOE environmental impact 

statements and environmental assessments prepared pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). The TRAWG is composed primarily of members of DOE program offices 

and draws heavily upon the technical expertise, insights, and practical 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 problems. These discussion papers 

are intended to provide practical advice to program managers and technical personnel 

responsible for preparing NEPA documents and other transportation risk assessments. 

To enhance future versions of this handbook, comments and suggestions regarding the 

usefulness of the material in the different sections 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.gov 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page xii

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Response, 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 Highway 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 Commission on Radiological Protection 

IDB integrated database (of DOE radioactive waste) 

IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environment Laboratory (formerly Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory [INEL]) 

INEL Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

LCF latent cancer fatality 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Traffic Safety Administration 

NPTS National Personal Transportation Survey 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 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 Materials Post-Notification 

rem roentgen equivalent man 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RH-TRUW remote-handled transuranic waste 

RMIR Radioactive Materials 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 Geographic Encoding and Referencing System 

TMI Three Mile Island 

TRAGIS Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic Information System 

TRAWG Transportation Risk Assessment Working Group 

TRIGA training, research, and isotope reactor 

TRUW transuranic waste 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page xv

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

WVDP West Valley Demonstration 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) 

km2

 square kilometer(s) 

lb pound(s) 

m meter(s) 

mi mile(s) 

mi2

 square mile(s) 

mph mile(s) per hour 

nCi nanocurie(s) 

s second(s) 

yr year(s) 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page xvi

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Environmental Management (EM). Ashok Kapoor of the 

NTP, Albuquerque, NM has provided 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 special thanks to Carol Borgstom, Director, Office of National 

Environmental Protection Policy Act 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 offering 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 members and their supporting technical staff, who 

represent various DOE headquarters organizations, field offices, and national laboratories, for 

supporting this project. 

Our special recognition is extended to Mr. John Amish and his editorial staff at Argonne 

National Laboratory and staff at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in providing valuable 

contributions. Finally, we also express our appreciation to the secretarial staff of NTP for 

document production and distribution. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page xviii

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 1

1. Introduction 

This resource handbook contains useful information to streamline radioactive 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 description of comprehensive and generally acceptable transportation 

risk assessment methodology (i.e., models); and a compilation of supporting data, parameters, 

and generally accepted assumptions. This handbook also includes a discussion paper that 

addresses cumulative impacts (Appendix A). The discussion paper illustrates the evolving and 

sometimes unresolved issues encountered in transportation risk assessment. Other topics, such 

as sabotage, environmental justice, and human factors, may be addressed in the future. This 

resource document was developed as the first primary reference book providing useful 

information for conducting transportation risk assessments for radioactive material in the NEPA 

context. 

Although this resource handbook is primarily intended 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 assessments often provide the best information 

possible to support transportation planning, operations, evaluation, public information, program/ 

budget prioritization, and performance measurement. The majority of information provided in 

this handbook is widely applicable and not limited to NEPA applications. Consequently, this 

handbook provides a useful resource for those conducting 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 address the shipment of virtually all types of 

radioactive materials and wastes. This experience has provided considerable understanding of 

the risks posed by transportation and has led to a significant amount of information concerning 

assessment methods, input parameters, and assumptions. 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 will 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 transportation 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 heavily upon the technical expertise, insights, and 

practical experience of persons 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 among DOE programs, and expediting the 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 2

assessment review and approval process. Discussion papers produced by the TRAWG Technical 

Subcommittee, the first one presented in Appendix A, provide useful insights into the underlying 

issues for both program managers and technical staff responsible for preparing NEPA documents 

or other transportation risk assessments. A record of the initial correspondence and the inaugural 

meeting of the TRAWG, including 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 possible, these transport 

modes are generally considered secondary for waste shipments. It is anticipated that information 

concerning air and water shipments will be included in future updates to this handbook. In 

addition, the handbook is limited to those risks incurred during the actual shipment of radioactive 

materials; risks incurred during packaging and loading 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. Section 2 summarizes existing guidance on preparing 

transportation risk assessments and pertinent federal regulations 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 assessments. Reference documents cited in the handbook 

are listed in Section 7. A glossary of transportation assessment-related terms is provided in 

Section 8. Appendices C and D provide more detailed data on radionuclide input parameters. 

Appendix A is the first in a collection of papers that discuss issues often encountered when 

conducting transportation risk assessments. These issues include environmental justice, 

sabotage, uncertainty of results, human factors, hazardous chemicals, ecological impacts, and 

cumulative impacts. The first discussion paper summarizes previous NEPA experience and 

offers insight into the current state of knowledge and experience 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 3

2. Review of Current DOE 

Transportation Risk Assessments 

Requirements and Guidance 

A brief summary of the risks posed by transporting 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 transportation 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 summarizes regulations of other federal agencies pertaining to the 

shipment of radioactive materials that must be addressed in these types of assessments. 

Q 2.1 Radioactive Material Transportation Risks 

The transportation of radioactive materials involves a risk both to crew members and members of 

the public. Part of this risk results from the nature of transportation 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 characteristics and potential hazards of the material being 

transported. These risks are considered “cargo-related” risks. 

For radioactive materials, the cargo-related impacts 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 and during accidents. 

During routine operations, the external radiation field of the cargo must be below limits specified 

in federal regulations. During transportation-related accidents, human exposures may occur 

following the release and dispersal of radioactive materials via multiple environmental pathways, 

such as exposure to contaminated ground, contaminated air, or ingestion of contaminated food. 

The potential exposures to the general population from transporting radioactive materials, 

whether during routine operations or from postulated 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 several years from the time of exposure). The 

correlation of radiation dose and human health effects for low doses has been traditionally based 

on the “linear/no-threshold hypothesis,” which has been described by various international 

authorities on protection against radiation. This hypothesis implies, in part, that even small 

doses of radiation cause some risk of inducing 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 health risk from radiation have been derived primarily from human 

epidemiological studies of past exposures, such as Japanese survivors of the atomic bomb in 

World War II and persons exposed during medical applications. The types of cancer induced by 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 4

radiation are typically not unique and are similar to other cancers that commonly occur among 

the population. Radiation-induced cancers are generally expressed 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 transportation 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 possible, all agencies of the Federal Government must 

include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other 

major federal actions significantly affecting the environment, a detailed statement 

by the responsible official on (1) the environmental impact of the proposed action, 

(2) any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided 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 productivity, and (5) any irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources that 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 environment.” [“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 Environmental Quality (CEQ), which promulgates 

regulations to promote compliance with NEPA’s “action-enforcing” requirements. These 

regulations interpret the terms of NEPA and define the responsibilities of federal agencies with 

respect thereto (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508). The regulations state 

that an agency proposing an action may prepare an EA if it has not determined under its NEPA 

regulations that the action is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an EIS. The 

purpose of an EA is to provide evidence and analysis for an agency determination of whether an 

EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.9). If an agency determines that an EIS is required, the EA would 

facilitate the preparation of the EIS. If an agency determines that 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 regulations, 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 exclusions (Appendices A 

and B), that “normally require EAs but not necessarily 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 removed in distance, but are 

still reasonably foreseeable” (40 CFR §1508.8). A cumulative impact is defined as an “impact 

on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 high-level waste (HLW). Both the physical rail 

system and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) highway routing regulations for 

transport of these types of waste (discussed in Section 2.4.2) effectively restrict the number of 

available transportation routes within a geographic area. Hence, successive shipments or 

campaigns of radioactive materials through the same 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 environment. Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA 

provides that all agencies of the Federal Government shall “study, develop, and describe 

appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves 

unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” The CEQ regulations 

[40 CFR §1508.9(b)] require that 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 preparation of an EIS and to be operative even if an agency makes a 

finding of no significant environmental impact (River Road Alliance, 1986). Moreover, DOE’s 

NEPA procedures for applying a categorical exclusion to a proposed action require that the 

action must pose no unresolved conflicts 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 appropriate range of alternatives to be considered 

through the “rule of reason.” Under the rule of reason, an agency is not required to consider all 

possible alternatives for each aspect of a proposed action. Rather, the agency need consider 

“only a reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives” (Natural 

Resources Defense Council [NRDC], 1972). The same 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 alternatives depends on the nature of the proposal and the 

circumstances of each case. In general, the smaller the impact of the proposed action, the less 

extensive the search for alternatives an agency may be required to undertake. However, 

reviewing courts have generally insisted that an agency consider 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 waste may require considering a full spectrum of alternatives 

(i.e., transportation mode and route alternatives) that would adequately protect the human 

environment. 

The “rule of reason” governs not only which alternatives 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 reasons for the agency’s choice and its rejection of 

available alternatives. While an agency is not required to select any particular alternative and the 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 6

examination of alternatives need not be exhaustive, it must “be sufficient to demonstrate 

reasoned decision making” (Fritiofson, 1985). Therefore, an agency contemplating a major 

action including transportation of radioactive waste would generally perform an appropriate risk 

assessment for each alternative (within the full spectrum of available and appropriate 

transportation mode alternatives) to develop a well-reasoned decision. However, DOE 

frequently has no choice regarding routes, and the risk from transportation 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 the overall costs of doing so are exorbitant or the means to 

obtain such information are not known. The 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 human 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 reasoned 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 obtained 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 information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) a 

statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to 

evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human 

environment; (3) a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is 

relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant 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 “reasonably foreseeable” includes impacts that 

have catastrophic consequences, even if their probability 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 risks associated with the 

transportation of radioactive materials and consistent with NEPA requirements. 

An EIS or other environmental study previously prepared 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) and 1506.4]. An agency does, however, have an 

obligation to independently evaluate any document (including an EIS, EA, or other 

environmental report) prepared by others upon which the agency intends to rely in complying 

with NEPA (40 CFR §1507.2). If such analyses satisfy an agency’s obligation to study the 

potential effects of its own proposed action, the agency has no obligation to prepare its own 

study. However, an agency may not substitute compliance with standards or regulations 

administered by another agency for required NEPA analysis (Calvert Cliff’s Coordination 

Committee, 1971). This issue is of particular significance in SNF, TRUW, and HLW 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 7

transportation, since the packaging and transportation of such materials is extensively regulated 

by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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 requirements 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 conducting transportation 

risk assessments exist. 

Guidance concerning the preparation of risk assessments for DOE NEPA activities is contained 

in Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental 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 discussed in the Green Book (DOE, 1993): 

The term “scale” refers to the spectrum of significance of environmental impact. 

Generally, those proposals with greater potential for significant environmental 

impact require more analysis than those proposals with very small environmental 

impacts. ... 

In other words, in using the sliding 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 transportation. With respect to transportation 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 analyzed alternative, or, more generally, 

when transport is in any respect a major factor (e.g., transportation of 

construction materials for a proposed major dam), the environmental impacts of 

such transport should be analyzed, even when DOE is not responsible for the 

transportation. Transportation impacts include those from transport to a site, 

on-site, and from a site, when such activities are reasonably construed as part of 

the proposed action or analyzed alternative. If not otherwise analyzed, include 

any necessary loading or unloading activities in the transportation impact 

analysis. 

As with the choice of alternatives, apply a sliding scale approach to the 

transportation analysis. The nature of the proposed action and analyzed 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 consider (see subsection 6.4). 

Recommendations 

• Analyze all transportation links that are reasonably foreseeable parts of the 

proposed action or analyzed alternative, 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 that 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 Commission, or State authorities. 

• Evaluate both routine (i.e., incident-free) transport and accidents. (Accidents 

are discussed in subsection 6.4.) Give special 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 the 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 alternative, 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 transportation impacts from the proposed 

action and other transportation activities over the same time period in the 

same area.) 

• In determining the cumulative impact from transportation 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 transportation risk assessments are the potential human 

health effects from exposure to low doses of radiation or exposure to chemicals. The principal 

human health effect from radiation 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 environmental impacts.” The difficulty lies in 

quantifying the potentially significant health effects (e.g., number of deaths) on the basis of 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 9

potential exposure. The Green Book provides the following guidance when evaluating 

carcinogenic effects from radiation exposure (DOE, 1993): 

When providing quantitative estimates of carcinogenic effects of radiation 

exposure, express population (or collective) effects as an estimated number of 

fatal cancers, and express maximum individual effects as the estimated maximum 

probability of the death of an individual. Evaluate effects for involved workers, 

noninvolved workers, and the general public under both routine operations and 

accident scenarios. 

Although the Green Book provides a general overview of what a DOE NEPA transportation 

assessment should include, recommendations are not provided regarding 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 Framework discusses inclusion of packing and loading/ 

unloading activities if the primary activity addressed by the EA or EIS is transportation. Such 

activities must be included if they are part of the proposed action. The analysis should consider 

the number of workers involved, protective equipment used, and the sequence of events followed 

during packing or loading/unloading (i.e., time-motion studies), including movement of the 

material within the facility. 

As recommended in the Framework, analysis of transportation activities 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 definition), stops required along the route, and any 

necessary intermodal transfers. Incident-free transportation impacts to consider include the 

radiological dose and resultant health effects to the general public and workers (crew and others 

at stops). Members of the public to consider include persons alongside the route (pedestrians or 

persons living or working on the sides of the route), sharing the route (persons traveling on the 

same route), and at stops (e.g., persons at rest areas or refueling areas). In addition, impacts to a 

maximally exposed individual (MEI) along the route (e.g., a person living next to the transport 

route) should be determined. 

The Framework suggests that the focus of the analysis for radiological effects from accident 

conditions should be the largest reasonably foreseeable 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 the collectively exposed population and the MEI. 

Nonradiological effects, such as health effects resulting from vehicle emissions (e.g., fugitive 

dust and engine emissions) and hazards from vehicle accidents (e.g., fatalities) 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 Framework is referenced and provides the basis for 

the transportation analysis. For impact assessment, the computer codes HIGHWAY (Johnson 

et al., 1993a) and INTERLINE (Johnson et al., 1993b) are the recommended routing models. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 analyzing 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 changes 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 principles that help define how risk assessments 

should or can be used within the DOE (DOE, 1999a). 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 credibly. Included are general 

principles; principles for risk assessment, management, and communication; and principles for 

priority setting using risk analysis. The principles of risk assessment adopted by the DOE 

include the following (DOE, 1999a): 

• Departmental programs should employ the best reasonable, obtainable information from the 

natural, physical, and social sciences to assess risks to health, safety, and the environment. 

• Characterizations of risks and of changes in the nature or magnitude of risks should be both 

qualitative and quantitative  that is, both descriptive and mathematical  consistent with 

available data. The characterizations should 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 appropriate hazards to human health and the 

environment (such as acute and chronic risks, including cancer and non-cancer risks). In 

addition to considering the full population at risk, attention should be directed to 

subpopulations (including future generations) that may be particularly 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 develop procedures to maximize its use. 

• Departmental programs should strive to adopt consistent approaches to evaluating the risks 

posed by hazardous agents or events. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 11

Q 2.4 Other Federal Regulations 

Q Q 2.4.1 Packaging 

Regulations that govern the transportation of radioactive materials are designed to protect the 

public from the potential loss or dispersal of these materials. The regulations also protect against 

routine doses of radiation during transit. The primary regulatory approach for ensuring safety is 

specifying performance standards for the proper packaging of materials. 

The DOT and the NRC are the primary federal agencies responsible for regulating the transport 

of radioactive materials. Table 2.1 lists the most relevant DOT and NRC 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 Relevant 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 460.2 (“Departmental Materials Transportation and 

Packaging Management”) and their respective guides (DOE G 460.1-1 and DOE G 460.2-1). 

The DOT is responsible for regulating transportation of all HAZMAT; its regulations apply to 

shippers and carriers. The regulations most pertinent to radioactive materials are given in 49 

CFR 173 (“Shippers – General Requirements for Shipments and Packaging”), Subpart I 

(“Radioactive Materials”). Under these regulations, DOT is specifically responsible for the 

design and performance specifications of packages 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”), focus 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 12

Q Q 2.4.2 Routing 

The radioactive materials highway routing regulations of the DOT are prescribed in 49 CFR 397 

Subpart D (“Routing of Class 7 [Radioactive] Materials”). The objectives of the regulations are 

to reduce the impacts of transporting radioactive materials, to establish consistent 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 potential hazards by avoiding 

populous areas and minimizing travel times. Furthermore, the regulations require that the carrier 

of radioactive materials ensure that the vehicle is operated on routes that minimize radiological 

risks and that accident rates, transit times, population density and activity, time of day, and day 

of week are considered in determining risk. 

The regulations require that a shipment of a “highway 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 interstate to destination, when making necessary repair 

or rest stops, or when emergency conditions make continued use of the 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 interstate system. Under its authority to regulate the 

safety of interstate transportation, the DOT can prohibit state and local bans and restrictions as 

“undue restraint of interstate commerce.” State or local bans can also be preempted if 

inconsistent with the regulations. The DOT has published Guidelines for Selecting Preferred 

Highway Routes for Highway Route Controlled Quantity Shipments of Radioactive Materials

(DOT, 1992) to aid in implementing 49 CFR 397 Subpart D. 

Currently, DOT has no railroad routing regulations specific to the transportation of radioactive 

materials. Railroad companies in the United States 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 pathways if an accident leads to a release of 

radioactive material to the environment. The Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan 

(FRERP) (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 1998) establishes a coordinated 

response by federal agencies when requested by state, tribal, or local government officials during 

a peacetime radiological emergency. The DOE has primary responsibility for providing 

assistance unless the radioactive source is unknown, unidentified, or from a foreign country, in 

which case the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) becomes the primary coordinating 

federal agency. 

The EPA has issued a set of protective action guides (PAGs) (EPA, 1992) to aid public officials 

when responding to an accident involving radioactive materials. Under emergency conditions, 

maximum individual dose limits for both first responders and members of the public are 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 time of the initial release 

and for the intermediate phase of an accident, taken up to one year after the accident for purposes 

of dose projection. 

In most cases, doses to individuals located downwind during the early phase of the accident are 

primarily from inhalation of the contaminated airborne 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 actions are not comparable to or 

greater than the risk posed by the accidental release itself. Protective actions include such 

measures as sheltering and evacuation in the early phase following an accident if the individual 

dose is expected to exceed 1 rem. If the release occurs over a short time (seconds), there may 

not be time to implement protective actions. However, 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 because an accident can occur along any 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 inhalation of resuspended contamination and 

external exposure to contaminated surfaces (groundshine) and radiation from airborne 

contamination (cloudshine). The PAGs suggest interdiction, evacuation, and relocation as a 

protective action if the first-year dose to a single individual is expected to exceed 2 rem. For 

doses less than 2 rem, the PAGs suggest that surface contamination be reduced to levels as low 

as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and recommend 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 assessment. Therefore, although interdiction, evacuation, 

and cleanup can be introduced into the risk assessment, 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 14

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 15

3. Historical Development of DOE 

Transportation Analyses 

During the 1970s and into the 1980s, the transportation 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 awareness after the reactor accident at Three Mile 

Island (TMI) in 1979 resulted in increased 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 transportation risk assessments up to the present time 

following the repercussions from TMI. Changes brought about by public concerns and 

involvement in the NEPA process are discussed in Section 3.3. Section 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 Commission (AEC) in a generic study entitled 

Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive 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 applied the WASH-1238 transportation 

environmental impacts data to the shipment of other high-level nuclear wastes. Public hearings 

were held on both of these documents. As a result 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 extremely 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 transportation of radioactive materials. The Final Environmental 

Impact Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes

(NUREG-0170 [NRC, 1977a]) was a generic study performed primarily with conservative 

engineering assumptions and national average data. The study extensively examined the potential 

environmental impacts of shipping radioactive materials by various modes of transportation. It 

has served as a benchmark EIS upon which most subsequent EAs and EISs relating to 

radioactive waste transportation have relied for methodology, data, and/or analysis. NUREG0170 assessed both the incident-free radiological consequences of such transportation and the 

likelihood and magnitude of radiological consequences associated with potential accidents. The 

assessment concluded that the overall radiological risk involved in all shipments of radioactive 

materials was small. 

Soon after publication of NUREG-0170, DOE prepared 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 Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 16

[DOE, 1980b], Final EIS for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [DOE, 1980c]), relying substantially 

on NUREG-0170 for generic data and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with 

transportation. 

Subsequent DOE review of specific proposed shipments of foreign and domestic SNF invariably 

concluded that the environmental effects of the 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 would be insignificant in comparison with impacts 

previously identified and evaluated in the earlier EISs. After several 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 required for actions that an agency determines are categorically 

excluded under its NEPA compliance procedures.): 

Actions that are “substantially the same as other actions for which the 

environmental effects have already been assessed in a NEPA document and 

determined by DOE to be clearly insignificant and where such assessment is 

currently valid” (45 FR 20695, March 28, 1980). 

During the early and mid-1980s, DOE made several shipments of SNF from both foreign and 

domestic origins to DOE’s Idaho National Engineering Laboratory3

 (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 shipments. Instead, the agency continued to rely 

upon NUREG-0170, certain other environmental analyses giving generic consideration to 

transportation environmental impacts, and the above-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 the accident, the NRC prepared and published the Final 

Programmatic Environmental Statement Related 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 nuclear wastes and that TMI wastes not acceptable for storage at a 

commercial facility should be sent to a federal 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 agreement 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 17

The TMI EIS (NRC, 1981) also evaluated the environmental impacts of the cleanup and 

generally addressed the risks involved in transporting the core debris. Relying primarily on 

NUREG-0170 and NRC (1981), DOE concluded that the transportation of the core debris from 

TMI to INEL fell within its NEPA compliance guidelines’ categorical exclusion. (DOE 

requested transportation consultants at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and ALK 

Associates, Inc., evaluate potential rail routing alternatives as identified by rail carriers). No 

serious challenge to DOE’s decision not to prepare a transportation EA or EIS was initiated, 

although interested parties expressed 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 and consideration of alternatives to a proposed 

action but does not mandate any particular agency decision or outcome. Therefore, judicial 

decisions reviewing agency compliance ensure that the agency has adequately considered and 

disclosed the environmental impact of its proposed actions, and that the agency’s decision is not 

arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Under this standard, a court may determine 

whether the agency has considered 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 materials is City of New York v. U.S. Dept. of 

Transp., 715 F.2d 732 (2nd Cir. 1983), cert. denied 465 U.S. 1055 (1984) (City of New York, 

1984). This case concerned the validity of the DOT’s the regulations governing the highway 

routing of highway-route-controlled-quantity shipments of radioactive materials. The City of 

New York challenged the regulations on several grounds, including the following: (1) the EA 

prepared by DOT did not comply with the requirements of NEPA, and (2) DOT’s determination 

that the adoption of the regulations would not significantly affect the environment was arbitrary 

and capricious. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found DOT’s EA 

to be deficient on several grounds and invalidated the 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 upholding the regulations. 

The written opinions of the Federal District Court and the Second Circuit in City of New York v. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation are valuable for the depth of their examination 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 policies regarding NEPA compliance in transporting 

radioactive waste arose from 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 reprocessing facility at the SRS in South Carolina. 

Before the shipments began, the Northwest Inland 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 18

DOE contended that the shipments were categorically excluded from NEPA’s environmental 

analysis requirements under the agency’s NEPA compliance guidelines. The Coalition argued 

that the studies relied upon were outdated, generic, or programmatic EISs that did not fully 

analyze all of the risks posed by the proposed shipments. The Coalition specifically noted that 

the studies contained no analysis of ocean transport risks of radioactive materials and, as generic 

studies, did not include any route-specific information or route-selection analysis. 

The district court ruled that 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 accounted for and, further, ruled that the proposed 

shipments were a major federal action that could significantly affect the human environment, 

requiring preparation of an EIS. 

On appeal, DOE abandoned its reliance on the 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, reversing 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 conduct its own analysis specific to the conditions 

under which the shipments would be implemented (NIWC, 1988). 

On December 11, 1986, while the appeal in the Northwest Inland Waters 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 Taiwan by sea to Portsmouth, Virginia, and then 

overland by truck to the SRS. These shipments 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. Subsequently, DOE prepared and published a new EA 

(DOE, 1988c) analyzing the environmental impacts 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 densities and using very little site and/or routespecific information or criteria. 

On December 12, 1988, the Sierra Club 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 required DOE to prepare an EIS, rather than an 

EA, for the proposed Phase II shipments or, in the alternative, that 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 transportation and delivery of the Phase II SNF rods were subsequently 

completed without incident. 

On June 19, 1991, with litigation pending on the Phase II shipments, DOE filed a new EA (DOE, 

1991) with the district court covering shipment of an additional 118 spent fuel rods from Taiwan 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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. Specifically, two east coast ports, Charleston, 

South Carolina, and Wilmington, North Carolina, were considered as east coast alternatives to 

the use of the port at Hampton Roads, and the Phase III risk calculation program (RADTRAN 4) 

used actual population densities instead of conservative estimates for all areas located along the 

overland routes. 

The RADTRAN 4 accident-risk calculations considered a broad range of possible accidents 

involving different types and degrees of stress that could be placed on a shipping cask and the 

consequences such accidents would have on the integrity 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 credible,” effectively assuming that such an accident 

could not occur. 

The Phase III EA mooted the Sierra Club’s claims against the Phase II EA, and the Sierra Club 

amended its complaint to reflect its belief that 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 Phase III EA on several grounds. Principally, it 

contended that DOE should have considered 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 risk calculations by failing to include all low 

probability/high consequence accidents in the overall 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 Charleston and Wilmington as alternative east coast 

ports to Hampton Roads did not cover the full spectrum of possible routing alternatives, and that 

the agency’s action was, therefore, not reasonable and constituted an abuse of discretion. The 

court noted that of the 11 east coast ports identified by the Sierra Club for possible routing of 

shipments, the EA analyzed only the second, third, and fourth most densely populated ports 

(selecting the port with the highest risk factor of the three), and that the EA did not consider 

other commercial ports with lower population densities or military ports in rural areas. 

Furthermore, the court observed that DOE never 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 involved extensive judicial 

examination and discussion of several scientific, technical, and risk assessment methodology 

issues raised by plaintiffs regarding agency compliance with NEPA in the transportation of SNF 

and HLW. Some of the key rulings or pronouncements from these cases are summarized below. 

Judicial Review of Scientific/Technical Issues: A reviewing court must generally defer to the 

expertise of an agency when assessing difficult issues of scientific and/or technical dispute, so 

long as the agency’s determination does not appear to be arbitrary and capricious (issues 

considered in the cases included transportation cask properties/reliability, dose conversion 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 20

factors, and both incident-free and accident-related radiation exposure factors). When specialists 

express conflicting views, an agency has the discretion 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 required to have a rational basis (i.e., to be within a 

range of opinion generally accepted by the scientific community, or justifiable in light of current 

scientific thought). 

Risk Assessment Methodology: The use of an overall (probabilistic) risk assessment 

methodology, in particular the RADTRAN 4 model and code, to calculate the risks associated 

with the transportation of radioactive 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 transportation route have been exposed to this minimal 

dose of additional radiation repeatedly (from historic 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 the 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 conditions, 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 consequences 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 transport 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 that may have an effect specific to the shipping 

of radioactive materials (e.g., an error in sealing the casks after SNF rods have been loaded 

inside, or human error in the design or manufacture of the casks). To the extent that such factors 

can be identified, a probability of occurrence can be supported by past events, and an accidental 

release of radionuclides could result, these factors should be considered in a transportation risk 

assessment to the extent practicable. 

Sabotage: To the extent that sabotage could create forces that caused a release of radionuclides, 

it should be considered in a transportation consequence assessment. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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, Norfolk, Newport News, Pearl Harbor, Portsmouth, 

and Puget Sound). While insufficient data are available 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 are by truck, with the exception of Naval SNF. 

In addition to the naval SNF, these projected shipments include about 546 shipments of specialcase commercial SNF from 11 non-DOE origins; 1,008 shipments of foreign research reactor 

SNF through eight potential ports of entry; 519 shipments of domestic university research reactor 

SNF from 35 university reactors; and 1,007 intrafacility shipments of DOE-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 commercial sites and five DOE sites throughout the 

United States to a geologic repository. 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 must be used, about 53,000 truck shipments and 300 rail shipments 

(of naval SNF) would be needed (DOE 2002, Appendix 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 radioactive waste are also expected to increase 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). Anticipated 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 regionalization strategy chosen (DOE, 1997b). 

The volume and national scope of these anticipated shipments present some unique issues that 

must be addressed in light of legal challenges. 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 routing and accident parameters; (2) the incorporation 

of consequence analysis using the RISKIND model and code, which is also used to analyze 

health effects to the MEI (RADTRAN continues to analyze risks to populations along routes and 

at stops4

); 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 management of naval SNF (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 1996). This approach has enabled DOE to address concerns raised by stakeholders with 

regard to its previous NEPA assessments. 

 

4

 Either RADTRAN or RISKIND can be used for all of these analyses. However, population and route analysis can 

be done more efficiently with RADTRAN, while consequence and MEI analysis can be done more efficiently with 

RISKIND. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 22

Because a number of anticipated shipments will be made by different programs from several 

sites and will traverse the country, in some cases using the same transportation corridors, 

transportation analysis should examine the cumulative radiological exposure risks to 

transportation crews, cask handlers, and persons residing along 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 include 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 barge transportation and 

intermodal transfers, as well as alternative routes. This EIS also presents alternative routes and 

modes, rather than choosing a particular route or transportation mode. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 the past, identified any apparent 

trends, and evaluated the assessment results to identify ways in which future assessments can be 

streamlined. This section provides 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, previous assessment results are briefly evaluated and 

presented to provide some perspective on expected assessment results. 

Section 4.1 presents a discussion of a standardized transportation risk assessment approach 

identified after review of a large number of recent 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 discussions 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 (HIGHWAY [Johnson et al., 1993a] and INTERLINE 

[Johnson et al., 1993b]) with the transportation risk assessment 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 respond 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 results 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 risk assessment identified in this review is summarized in Figure 4.1 and discussed in detail in this 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 individuals, as well as for the MEIs. 

The accident assessment consists of two components: (1) an accident risk assessment where risks 

are calculated for the collective population living and working along the transportation route that 

considers the probabilities and consequences of a range of possible transportation-related accidents, including low-probability accidents that have high consequences, and high-probability 

accidents that have low consequences; and (2) an accident consequence assessment that considers 
Page 24

Routing Models (HIGHWAY / INTERLINE) 

Total Shipping Distance

• Accident Fatality Rate

Total Shipment Distance

Accident Fatality RateEmission Rate

••

Material Characteristics

• Physical• Radiological• Packaging

Accident

Assessment

Accident Parameters

• Accident Rates• Severity Spectrum• Meteorology

Accident Risk(Probability x

Consequence)

Accident

Consequence

Number of

Shipments

Vehicle-Related Risks

Cargo-Related Risks

RADTRAN

LEGEND

ModelDatabaseOutput

Case Definition

• Site Inventories

RISKIND

RADTRAN

RISKIND

Routine

Assessment

Collective

Populations

Individuals

• Origin/Destinations

• TRAGIS

Figure 4.1. Technical Approach for Transportation Radiological Risk Assessments 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 25

only the radiological consequences to a population group and MEIs from severe transportationrelated accidents postulated to result in the largest releases of radioactive material. 

All radiological impacts are calculated in terms of dose and associated health effects in the 

exposed populations. The radiation dose calculated is the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), 

as specified in 10 CFR Part 20 (“Standards for Protection against Radiation”), which is the sum 

of the effective dose equivalent (EDE) from exposure to external radiation and the 50-year 

committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) (International Commission on Radiological 

Protection [ICRP], 1977) from exposure to internal radiation. Doses 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 populations. In most cases, federal 

regulations require that individual members of the public not 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 program 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 annual limit for radiation workers (10 CFR 20.1201). 

Generally, assessment models provide 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 latent 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 potential number of expected LCFs based on 

comprehensive studies of people historically exposed 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 workers and 0.0005 LCF/person-rem of exposure for 

members of the general public (ICRP, 1991). The latter 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 risks associated with transporting 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 developed by Sandia National Laboratories (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 version, RADTRAN 5 (Neuhauser et al., 2000), was 

released in mid-2000, but this handbook reviews assessment experience with the RADTRAN 4 

code (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 1992; 1993). Unless explicitly stated, the RADTRAN models 

discussed in this handbook are common to both versions. RADTRAN is discussed in more detail 

in Section 5.3.1. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 26

As a complement to the RADTRAN calculations, the RISKIND computer code (Yuan et al., 

1995) estimates scenario-specific doses to MEIs for routine operations and accidents and 

estimates population impacts for the accident consequence assessment. The RISKIND computer 

code was originally developed by Argonne National Laboratory for the DOE Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management specifically to analyze radiological consequences to individuals 

and population subgroups associated with transporting SNF. The most recent version of the code 

accommodates all types of radioactive waste shipments. 

The RISKIND calculations supplement the results for collective risk calculated with 

RADTRAN. Whereas the results for collective risk 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, the RISKIND analyses address 

hypothetical questions, such as, “What if I live next 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 radiation 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 transportation 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 transportation 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 are calculated for all 

persons in vehicles sharing the transportation 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. 

• Persons at Stops. Collective doses are calculated for 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 transportation, 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 the collective dose to workers. 

The RADTRAN calculations for routine dose are based on generically expressing 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 for each exposed population group depends on 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 27

parameters such as the radiation field strength, source-receptor distance, duration of exposure, 

vehicular speed, stopping time, traffic density; and route characteristics, such as population 

density. The RADTRAN manual contains derivations of the equations and descriptions of these 

parameters (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 1995; Neuhauser 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-destination pairs. TRAGIS (Johnson and 

Michelhaugh, 2000) determines representative highway or rail routes for each unique pair. 

HIGHWAY (Johnson et al., 1993a) and 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 across each route segment is then calculated for 

truck and rail modes by using estimated site-specific radioactive material inventories and 

information on shipment capacity. For shipments 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 being 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 for a number of hypothetical exposure scenarios. 

The receptors include transportation crew members, departure inspectors, and members of the 

public exposed during traffic delays, 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 exposure specific to that receptor. The distances 

and durations of exposure for the scenarios listed here are similar to those given in previous 

transportation risk assessments (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 dosimetry program. Therefore, the maximum 

allowable dose would be 5 rem/yr. As an administrative 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 exposure 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). Shipments 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 the 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 28

number of shipments entering or exiting the site, 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 near 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 direct external exposure and exposure from 

radiation scattered from the soil and air. The RISKIND model calculates dose (rem per hour) as 

a function of distance for stationary exposure and rem per event for moving shipments from a 

radioactive material shipment based on the shipment dimensions. The code approximates the 

shipment as a cylindrical volume source, and the calculated dose includes secondary radiationscattering contributions from buildup (scattering by waste contents), cloudshine (scattering by 

air), and groundshine (scattering by ground). The dose rates calculated with RISKIND have 

been comparable with output from existing radiation 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 pollutants during shipment, independent of the nature of 

the shipment. The health end point assessed under routine transport conditions is the excess 

(additional) latent mortality caused by inhalation of vehicular emissions. 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 fugitive 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 available for rural and suburban areas. 

Risks are summed over the entire route and over all shipments for each alternative. This method 

was used in several reports to calculate risks from routine transport of radioactive wastes (DOE, 

1987; 1990; 1995b; 1996a; 1997b). Lack of information 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 areas. As discussed in Section 6.2.2, revised and 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 29

updated risk factors based on the work of Rao 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 fundamentally from the risk analysis for routine 

transportation because accident occurrences are stochastic 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 consequence (dose) and the probability 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 transportation-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 spectrum of accident severity is 

divided into a number of categories. Each category of severity represents a conditional 

probability of occurrence — that is, the probability that an accident, if one occurs, will be of a 

particular severity. Release fractions, 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 material. The models take into account the 

transportation mode and the packaging type. The accident rates, the definition of accident 

severity categories, and the release fractions for such an analysis are discussed further in Section 

6. 

For accidents involving the release of radioactive material, RADTRAN assumes that airborne 

material is dispersed into the environment according 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 the passing radioactive cloud, 

• External exposure to contaminated soil, 

• Internal exposure from inhaling airborne contaminants, and 

• Internal exposure from ingesting contaminated food. 

For the ingestion pathway, state-specific food transfer 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 ingesting 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 Transportation 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 RADTRAN accident risk 

assessment considers the entire range of accident severities and their related probabilities. On 

the other hand, the RISKIND accident consequence assessment analyzes the potential impacts of 

a given accident by focusing on accidents that would result in the largest releases of radioactive 

material to the environment. This enables estimates of accident consequences for maximum, 

reasonably-foreseeable accident scenarios. Maximum, reasonably-foreseeable accidents have 

very low probabilities of occurrence, but are not “worst case” accidents. DOE analyzes 

maximum, reasonably-foreseeable accidents and presents their consequences separately from 

their probabilities in NEPA documents. 

The severe accidents considered in the consequence assessment are characterized by extreme 

mechanical and thermal forces. In all cases, these 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-consequence 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 accident rates for this severity category and the 

shipping distance for each alternative. 

The RISKIND model is used to assess accident consequences for two reasons. First, it can 

model the complex atmospheric (or site-specific) dispersion resulting from severe accidents. 

The atmospheric dispersion is modeled as an instantaneous release by using standard Gaussian 

puff methods. In addition, because severe accidents typically involve fires, modeling the 

potential radiological consequences takes into account physical phenomena resulting from the 

fire, such as buoyant plume rise. Second, RISKIND can estimate the dose to MEIs near an 

accident. RISKIND determines the MEI’s location on the basis of the atmospheric conditions 

assumed at the time of the accident and the 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 previously for the accident risk assessment. Although 

remedial activities (e.g., evacuation or ground cleanup) after the accident would reduce the 

consequences, these activities are often not considered in the consequence assessment because 

emergency responses would not be uniform along a given transport route. 

Because predicting the exact location of a severe transportation-related accident 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 atmospheric conditions at the time 

of an accident, two different atmospheric conditions are often considered. The first case assumes 

neutral atmospheric conditions (Pasquill stability class D, 4 m/s wind speed), and the second 

assumes stable conditions (Pasquill stability class F, 1 m/s wind speed). 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 31

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

Vehicle-related accident risk refers to transportation accidents that result in fatalities unrelated to 

the shipment’s cargo. This risk represents fatalities 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 reviewed to identify the transportation risk 

assessment methodologies used and compare the results. An initial screening investigation was 

conducted to limit the number of NEPA documents 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 assessment methodologies and detailed results of the 

transportation impact assessments. 

Typically, brief descriptions of the risk assessment methodology and results of the transportation 

impact assessments were presented in the main 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 listed in Table 4.1. The table also shows the 

predominant radioactive cargo being transported, the transportation modes considered, and the 

assessment computer codes and models. The documents listed are the only ones among the 

nearly 100 screened that contained significant transportation risk assessment sections. 

As previously mentioned, a generally standardized assessment approach, 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 applied and accepted in a number of 

high-profile NEPA assessments. The approach combines four primary computer codes: 

RADTRAN and RISKIND for risk and consequence assessment, and HIGHWAY and INTERLINE 

for routing analysis. Note, however, that HIGHWAY and INTERLINE were superseded by 

TRAGIS. 
Page 32 Table 4.1. Reviewed DOE NEPA Documents Containing Comprehensive Transportation Risk A

Document 

Number NEPA Document Predominant Cargo Transportation Mode Routing Models Collective Risk Models Inciden

ME

Mod

DOE/ EIS-0113 

Draft EIS Disposal of Hanford Defense HLW, TRUW, and Tank Wastes 

HLW, TRUW Truck, rail Not provided RADTRAN II Not evalu

DOE/ EIS-0200-F 

Waste Management Programmatic EIS for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste 

LLW, low-level mixed waste (LLMW), HLW, TRUW 

Truck, rail HIGHWAY, 

INTERLINE 

RADTRAN 4 RISKIND 

DOE/ EIS-0203-F 

DOE Programmatic SNF Management and INEL ER and Waste Management Final EIS 

SNF Truck, rail HIGHWAY, 

INTERLINE 

RADTRAN 4 RISKIND 

DOE/ EIS-0218F 

Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor SNF 

SNF Truck, rail HIGHWAY, 

INTERLINE 

RADTRAN 4 RISKIND 

DOE/ EIS-0226-D 

Draft EIS for Completion of the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) and Closure or Long-Term Management of Facilities at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center 

LLW, TRUW, contaminated soils, low specific activity (LSA) materials 

Truck, rail HIGHWAY, 

INTERLINE 

RADTRAN 4 RISKIND 

DOE/ EIS-0240 

Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium Final (EIS) 

Uranium compounds Truck INTERSTAT RADTRAN 4 Not evalu

DOE/ EIS-0245F 

Final EIS for Management of SNF from K Basins at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington 

SNF, HLW Truck, rail HIGHWAY, 

INTERLINE 

RADTRAN 4 RISKIND 

(worker o

DOE/ EIS-0249 

Medical Isotopes Production Project: Molybdenum-99 and Related Isotopes EIS 

Medical isotopes Air, truck HIGHWAY RADTRAN 4 Not Prov

(aircraft passenge

DOE/ EIS-0250D 

Draft EIS for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of SNF and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada 

SNF Truck, rail HIGHWAY, 

INTERLINE 

RADTRAN 4 RISKIND 
Page 33

Table 4.1. Reviewed DOE NEPA Documents Containing Comprehensive Transportation Risk Assessm

Document 

Number NEPA Document Predominant Cargo Transportation Mode Routing Models Collective Risk Models Inciden

ME

Mo

DOE/ EIS-0251 

Department of the Navy Final EIS for a Container System for the Management of Naval SNF 

SNF Rail INTERLINE RADTRAN 4 Mathema

Formulas 

DOE/ EIS-0269 

Programmatic EIS for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride 

Uranium compounds Truck, rail HIGHWAY, 

INTERLINE 

RADTRAN 4 RISKIND 

DOE/ EIS-0275 

Final EIS S1C Prototype Reactor Plant Disposal 

Reactor components Truck, rail HIGHWAY, 

INTERLINE 

RADTRAN 4 Mathema

Formulas 

DOE/ EIS-0283 

Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final EIS 

Plutonium and uranium compounds 

Truck HIGHWAY RADTRAN 4 RISKIND 

DOE/ EIS-0026-S-2 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Draft Supplemental EIS 

TRUW Truck, rail HIGHWAY RADTRAN 4 Not ident

DOE/ EA-0441 

EA of Transportation, Receipt, and Storage of Fort St. Spent Fuel at the Irradiated Fuel Storage Facility at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant 

SNF Truck Not provided RADTRAN 4 Not evalu

DOE/ EA-0912 

EA of Urgent Relief Acceptance of Foreign Research Reactor SNF 

SNF Truck, rail HIGHWAY RADTRAN 4 Not ident

DOE/ RW-0073 

EA, Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada Research and Development Area, Nevada 

SNF Truck, rail HIGHWAY, 

INTERLINE 

RADTRAN II Cited refe

(Sandqui1985) 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 coupled 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 either 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 estimate 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 continually updated and expanded since its inception and estimates 

the radiological risks to collective populations associated with 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 dose for persons living along the transportation route, sharing the 

transportation route, and at rest stops along the transportation route. RADTRAN also calculates 

the collective population dose to crew members and other workers. The potential radiation dose 

estimated using RADTRAN strongly depends on the external dose rate and the cargo size. 

RADTRAN estimates the “cargo-related” collective population risks associated with potential 

transportation accidents by considering both the consequences of each type of accident and the 

probability of an accident occurring. The exposure pathways consider inhalation, groundshine, 

cloudshine, and ingestion. For each NEPA document researched, the “cargo-related” risk 

associated with transportation accidents was 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 associated LCF estimates to MEIs under routine and 

accident transportation conditions. The radiological impacts to these individuals were estimated 

with such computer models as RISKIND and GENII, as well as mathematical formulas. Many 

of the most recent documents used the RISKIND code for both accident consequence and MEI 

assessments (see Table 4.1). 

To address both NEPA requirements and public concerns related to transportation operations, 

site-specific “cargo-related” impacts are estimated for MEIs under routine and accident 

conditions. The RISKIND computer code (Yuan et al., 1995) was originally developed by 

Argonne National Laboratory in response to public 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 estimated 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 modeled 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 35

pathways incorporated into RISKIND include external radiation (routine, accident), inhalation 

(accident), groundshine (accident), cloudshine (accident), and ingestion (accident). Since the 

development of the RISKIND computer code, many of the more recent NEPA documents (see 

Table 4.1) have incorporated this 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” radiological risk posed by transportation-related 

activities, the NEPA transportation assessments also addressed vehicle-related nonradiological 

risks. These risks are independent of the radioactive nature of the cargo and would be incurred 

for similar shipments of any commodity. Vehicle-related risks during routine transportation 

operations would be associated with potential exposure to increased vehicular emissions, 

primarily in urban environments. Most of the transportation risk assessments reviewed utilized 

the “per-kilometer” unit risk factors developed by Rao et al. (1982) to estimate 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 risks were estimated in each NEPA document using 

“per-kilometer” unit risk factors 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 varying numbers of shipments over different routes of varying 

distances and population densities, the transportation assessments are compared based on the 

average impacts estimated for each kilometer traveled (“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 results. 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 risks 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 across 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 either included unit risks or provided sufficient 

information that appropriate unit 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 Transportation 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 EISWM PEIS SC1

Prototype

EIS

FRR

Urgent

Relief EA

Depleted

UF6

DPEIS

Hanford

Tank EIS

NEPA Document

Collective 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 indicates that the risks 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 stops for rest and fuel; Figure 4.3 indicates that 

approximately 90% of the dose to the public from truck shipments of radioactive material occurs 

during these routine stops. Those persons residing or working along transport routes (off-link 

population) receive less than 10% of the public dose during incident-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 unit 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 dose from rail shipments is accumulated during the stops, with 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-Free Dose to Members of the Public (persons 

at stops and off-link and on-link receptors) by Truck Transport 

most of the remaining dose being delivered to persons living along the rail corridor, as shown in 

Figure 4.5. 

The NEPA transportation documents reviewed considered 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 NEPA 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 regulatory maximum based on the size of the package and the shipment 

type. When correcting for the dose rate from the various cargo types (normalized to a dose rate 

of 1 mrem/h at 1 m), the routine cargo-related risks for truck transport 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 shipments of radioactive material. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 EISHanford

Tank EIS

Depleted

UF6

DPEIS

SC1

Prototype

EIS

NEPA Document

Collective 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 transportation analyses were conducted for the Waste 

Management Programmatic EIS for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive 

and Hazardous Waste (DOE, 1997b). Potential shipments of these wastes involve a variety of 

effective package sizes and external 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 less than 200 mrem/h is defined as contact-handled (CH) TRUW 

(CH-TRUW). TRUW packages having an external 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, the dose rate was set to 1 mrem/h based on an 

average of about 2,500 reported external dose rates from historical 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 extensive 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 39

historical data for HLW shipments do not exist. For TRUW shipments, the external package dose 

rates were based on information provided in the Supplemental Final EIS for the WIPP (DOE, 

1990). 

Figure 4.7 displays the average incident-free per kilometer unit risk 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 normalized risk decreases from LLW (16 m effective 

package size for truck) to HLW (3 m effective package size for truck) shipments. 

The differences in shipment routes are reflected in the average distribution of the incident-free 

dose to off-link and on-link receptors and to receptors 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, respectively. 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 transport, most of the remaining dose, close to 50% 

on average, is received by the off-link population, 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-Free Dose to Members of the Public (persons 

at stops and off-link and on-link receptors) by Rail Transport 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 EISFRR

Urgent

Relief EA

HEU EIS SC1

Prototype

EIS

NEPA Document

Collective 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 

Waste Type at 1 m (mrem/h) 

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 among all shipment types are primarily due to 

variations in distances traveled in different population zones (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 similar 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 and 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% travel 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 HLW

Unit Risk (person-rem/km)

Truck

Rail

Figure 4.7. Incident-Free Cargo-Related Unit 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 HLW

Normalized Unit Risk (person-rem/km)

Truck

Rail

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 (DOE, 1997b) 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-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, 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 than rural zones, the off-link dose is proportionately larger. 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), and 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 through suburban and urban areas than on average. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Receptors for all Cargo Types, from the Waste 

Management Programmatic EIS, Rail Transport (DOE, 1997b) 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 44

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 assessment (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 conducting DOE transportation risk assessments. 

Access to RADTRAN, HIGHWAY, 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 dealing with the transportation of radioactive 

materials. The TRANSNET codes and databases reside on a central computer and can be 

accessed by authorized users to either gain information or to analyze radioactive material 

transportation systems. TRANSNET is accessible only through a secure shell. Information about 

the secure shell may be obtained by contacting one of the contact persons. Upon receipt of a 

password, a user can access TRANSNET with a personal computer and modem and via the 

Internet. The TRANSNET system was first announced in 1987 and initially resided on a 

dedicated minicomputer, but now resides on a UNIX-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 transferring technology and data to qualified users 

by permitting access to the most comprehensive and 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 radiological consequences of incident-free transportation as 

well as risks from vehicular accidents occurring during transportation. SNL developed the 

original RADTRAN code in 1977 for the NRC in conjunction with the preparation of NUREG0170, Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by 

Air and Other Modes (NRC, 1977a). The analytical capabilities of the code were expanded and 

refined in later versions. 

HIGHWAY and INTERLINE: The HIGHWAY and INTERLINE routing models (Johnson et al., 

1993a; b) were developed by ORNL to determine transportation routes. The HIGHWAY model 

is used to develop several different types of highway routes (commercial, quickest, shortest, or 

preferred routes for highway-route-controlled-quantity shipments). The INTERLINE model is 

used to calculate rail routes that reflect the routing practices of railroad companies. Both models 

provide information on population density along routes. As of January 2002, the HIGHWAY 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 46

and INTERLINE routing models were superseded 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 the Internet, and is 

accessed independently of TRANSNET. TRAGIS includes data from the 2000 census and 

results of TRAGIS analysis are easily incorporated into risk assessment studies. HIGHWAY and 

INTERLINE will not be updated, but will be maintained as part of TRANSNET to ensure 

availability for review or analysis of past risk assessments. 

RAMPOST: The Radioactive Materials Post-notification (RAMPOST) database is a compilation 

of the highway-route-controlled-quantity shipments that have been made since 1987. Data 

include shipment date, carrier, shipper, consignee, and highway route segments. RAMPOST has 

not been maintained since 1998.

RMIR: The Radioactive Materials Incident Report (RMIR) database 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 existing records of older 

incidents. With the advent of a new DOT database (Hazardous Materials Incident Summary 

Statistics and data) that reports HAZMAT/RAD incidents, the updating and maintenance of 

RMIR was terminated, effective 2001. However, SNL will retain historical data and respond to 

inquiries from customers. 

TRANSNET also contains a bulletin board available to all TRANSNET users. This bulletin 

board is used as a public forum for information packages and other transportation systems 

located on the TRANSNET system. 

Q Q 5.1.2 Points of Contact 

The following individuals can be contacted 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.gov
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 are commonly used for transportation risk assessment to select 

highway and rail routes between origin and destination sites. These models are used to 

determine the population characteristics along routes, which are then used as input to risk 

assessment models such as RADTRAN and RISKIND. For prospective actions, routing models 

are often used to define “representative” routes. These representative routes are typically 

selected to be consistent with current routing practices and all applicable routing regulations and 

guidelines. However, they do not necessarily represent the actual routes that would transport 

radioactive material. Future considerations, 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 INTERLINE models, which were used to calculate routes but 

lacked the ability to display graphics of those routes. Additionally, many users had difficulty 

determining the proper node for facilities 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 the route calculated, and provided for additional 

geographic analysis of the route. 

TRAGIS is a web-based application. It can be accessed at http://apps.ntp.doe.gov/tragis.htm. 

New users can link to a registration 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 continental United States using the rail, truck, and 

waterway transportation modes. The rail network used 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 Encoding 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 interface in the model between the transportation 

modes. Functions are similar when running rail, truck, or waterway routes. Some variations will 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 48

occur, such as prompts requesting the name of the 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 destination from a series of pick lists. The user 

selects the state from the first list 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 installations, and other important facilities and sites. 

After an origin and destination are selected, the model is ready to calculate a route based on 

criteria established by option settings. A standard set of default criteria is active for each 

transportation mode in the model. Upon calculating a route, TRAGIS allows the user to display 

that route. Users can also obtain a text listing and population density information on the route. 

Population density statistics are used as input for risk assessment models. The population 

density distribution is calculated for each transportation segment of the route and is usually 

reported on a state-by-state basis. The population information is based on the 2000 U.S. Census 

block group data. 

Option settings allow various parameters in the model to be changed for route calculations. 

Examples include adjusting the penalty factors for the mainline classifications for rail routing; 

using preferred routes, as specified in 49 CFR 397 Subpart D (“Routing of Class 7 [Radioactive] 

Materials”) for radioactive materials for truck routes; 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, the 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 flexible tool to identify highway routes for transporting 

radioactive materials in the United States. The HIGHWAY database is essentially a 

computerized road atlas that currently describes over 240,000 miles of highways. Complete 

descriptions of the interstate highway system and all U.S. highways (except those that parallel a 

nearby interstate highway) are included in the database. Many of the principal state highways 

and a number of local and county highways are also 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 minimizing the total impedance between the 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 of 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 49

the interstate highway system. This feature allows the user to generate 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 people 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 features of the model include the ability to generate routes that 

bypass a specific state, city, town, or a highway segment. 

The HIGHWAY model has been enhanced to automatically generate alternative routes. 

Frequently, there are a number of routes between the source and destination that vary slightly in 

distance and estimated driving time. With the alternative routing feature, the HIGHWAY 

program offers a selection of different, but nearly equal, routes. The output generated by the 

HIGHWAY program includes a brief summary showing the origin, destination, departure and 

arrival times, estimated driving time, and total distance. The mileage driven in each state is also 

listed, along with the mileage traveled on the various 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 density statistics along 

routes for risk studies performed for DOE. The population density distribution is calculated for 

each highway segment in the route and is usually 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 currently 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 verification 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 program designed to simulate routing 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 network into 94 separate subnetworks. Routing 

within each subnetwork is conducted independently to replicate the routing practices of an 

individual company. 

The database used by INTERLINE was originally obtained from the FRA and 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, corporate mergers, shortline spin-offs, and other 

developments. An important element of the database is the transfer locations 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 model uses a label-setting algorithm to find minimum 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 INTERLINE to run as an interactive program on 

either a mainframe or personal computer, despite the large size of the network (approximately 

16,000 links). 

The user may specify a number of parameters to control the routing calculations, although 

defaults are provided that represent typical practices in the 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 railroad systems. Another important capability is the 

estimation of short-line mileage between points. Short-line mileages 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 description 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 summary showing the origin, destination, total 

distance, and distances along the projected railroad lines, as well as population densities along 

the route. The general route listing identifies the major cities and all interchange points. A more 

detailed route description is also available, along with geographic information for producing 

maps of routes. 

The INTERLINE model has been used to generate both rail routes and population density 

statistics for risk studies performed for DOE. The population density distribution is calculated 

for each rail segment in the route and is usually 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 Transportation Research Center 

 2360 Cherahala Blvd. 

 Knoxville, TN 37932-1563 

Phone: (865) 574-6461 

Fax: (865) 574-3431 

E-mail: rawlrr@ornl.gov 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Transportation 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 Transportation 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 RADTRAN code have been used in historical assessments. The 

following sections include a detailed description 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. RADTRAN 5 is primarily an improved version of RADTRAN 4. A 

brief discussion of the improvements incorporated in RADTRAN 5 is also included. 

Q Q Q 5.3.1.1 Description 

RADTRAN is a FORTRAN 77 computer code designed to analyze the consequences and risks 

of radioactive material transportation. RADTRAN I was developed by SNL under contract to the 

NRC to serve as an analytical tool in preparing the Final Environmental Statement on the 

Transportation of Radioactive Material 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 maintained. TRANSNET must be accessed via 

a secure shell. 

RADTRAN estimates radiological risks associated with incident-free transportation of 

radioactive materials and with accidents that might occur during transportation. Incident-free 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 52

(routine) transportation is defined as transportation during which no incident, accident, 

packaging or handling abnormality, or other abnormal 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, barge, 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 further descriptions of transportation processes, see 

Wolff (1984) and Luna et al. (1981). 

In RADTRAN, the population affected by incident-free transportation may be divided into 

population subgroups. The subgroups of transportation workers include crew members (for 

truck, barge, ship, van, and aircraft), railyard workers, inspectors, and escorts. Other 

occupational groups include cargo handlers, warehouse personnel, passengers, flight attendants 

(passenger air mode only), and service station attendants. 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 the 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 the link with a variable density 

that may be specified by the user (except for 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, and rural zones for the entire route, or for each 

state along a route, may be designated and all route segments aggregated into these zones. 

RADTRAN contains related sets of models to estimate the radiological consequences and risks 

of radioactive material transportation. The component models use (1) user-supplied input data, 

(2) parameter values from other RADTRAN calculations, 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 model of the radiation source for incident-free 

transportation and the isotopic content and properties of the cargo, 

• Transportation models, including the route segment and stop models, 

• Population distribution models, including the resident population along the route, occupants 

of vehicles sharing the transportation link, people at stops, and residents 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 53

• Health effects model, and 

• Non-radiological fatality model. 

The incident-free module calculates values of incident-free population 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 accidents involving only immobilization of a vehicle 

with undamaged cargo or loss of gamma shielding. RADTRAN calculates values of population 

dose for accidents that result in dispersal by using material, transportation, 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-radiological 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 probability of an accident. Thus, incident-free 

transportation doses (consequences) and risk are indistinguishable. The radiological 

consequences of incident-free transportation are the estimated collective population doses for the 

various population groups exposed to the package(s) being analyzed. RADTRAN calculates 

these population doses, which may be used, in turn, to estimate stochastic health effects. 

Characteristics of radioactive material that affect incident-free transportation doses are the 

external vehicle dose rate, the critical dimension of the vehicle, and the fractions of gamma and 

neutron radiation. The external vehicle dose rate (identified as the transport index (TI) for 

certain package types) is defined as the highest 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 individual packages. No accommodation can be made 

in RADTRAN for package offset. 

To analyze incident-free conditions with RADTRAN, the vehicle dose rate and vehicle critical 

dimension model a shipment of radioactive material as a modified point source at the center of a 

sphere whose diameter is the critical vehicle dimension, and, for receptor distances less than two 

characteristic dimensions from the vehicle, as a line source. Characteristics 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 other critical mode-dependent characteristics, 

such as vehicle velocity, stop duration, and distances from various receptors at stops. 

Population-density zones and population densities for each route segment must be defined by the 

user, in addition to the characteristics of the various subpopulations that receive off-link, on-link, 

passenger, crew, stop, handling, and storage doses. The user-assigned values describing these 

potentially exposed subgroups may vary by mode and population-density zone. The user is 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 54

given a wide latitude in adjusting parameters for analysis for a specific problem, but the accuracy 

of the results may be limited by the quality and quantity of the available data. 

Q Q Q 5.3.1.3 Accident Risk 

To calculate transportation accident risks, the consequences and probabilities of vehicular 

accidents must be calculated. The radiological consequences of an accident are the potential 

doses (or health effects) that might occur from (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 stopped for a period of time or following damage to 

package shielding. The probability of an accident in which radioactive material is released, the 

vehicle is immobilized, or shielding 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 data on accident rates. The spectrum of accident 

severity may be divided by the user into as many 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 severity. Accident severities and their conditional probabilities do not 

depend on the nature of the package. Corresponding package-response 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. Separate calculations may be performed for each accident-severity 

category in each population-density zone. The consequence value is multiplied by an 

appropriate probability of occurrence derived from historical accident data to give a risk value; 

the sum of these individual risk calculations is the total radiological accident risk. To perform 

consequence calculations for release accidents, dispersal from the release 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 greatly improved stop models and better defined roles of package 

and vehicle models, improvements include more user-definable input parameters, including more 

segment-specific parameters for a more route-specific analysis; the capability to treat individual 

stops separately; and the ability to treat individual handlings separately. Additional parameters 

for crew exposure calculations are now available as well. 

Other changes for RADTRAN 5 include a maximum individual accident dose calculation, a new 

ingestion dose model, and calculation of nonradiological fatalities. The maximum individual 

accident dose calculation requires air dispersion input data similar to that required for the 

population accident dose calculations. The new ingestion dose model COMIDA2 (Abbot and 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 55

Rood, 1994a; b) is now used in the MACCS2 code (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 have been performed. The 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 after a public review of the 

draft version (NUREG-0034), for which the first release of RADTRAN was developed (NRC, 

1977a). 

The Safety and Reliability Division of the United 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 for use in the United Kingdom and potentially in 

other countries outside the United States; they also recommended allowing the user to suppress 

the regulatory constraints (Hancox and Wilkinson, 1993). 

Validating a code such as RADTRAN 4 ensures 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 available (e.g., concerning the early and latent 

health effects from radiation), the RADTRAN equations are modified 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 Committee 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 Radioactive 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 demonstrating that calculations are performed correctly by the code. All 

calculations performed in RADTRAN 4 were verified by performing at least one hand 

calculation and comparing the results to those generated by the code (allowing for round-off 

conventions). The results of these hand calculations are archived, along with other quality 

records, at SNL. An independent verification 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 was developed and maintained by SNL, Risk Assessment and 

Transportation System Analysis Division, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Technical Manual and 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 56

User’s Manual of RADTRAN 5 are also available 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 INTERTRAN, was completed and documented in 1982. 

The current version, INTERTRAN2, is based on RADTRAN 4, and is available from the IAEA 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 57

in Vienna to member countries (Ericsson and Elert, 1982). An independent 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 assessment of the radiological 

consequences and risks associated with the transport of radioactive materials for shipment 

conditions typically encountered in land, air, and sea transport. The INTERTRAN2 package 

comprises a series of calculational models embodied in the code to calculate the radiological 

consequences and risks by combining user-supplied data with radiological information provided 

by the code system. INTERTRAN2 analyses are performed like RADTRAN4 analyses, except 

that some country-specific parameters may be controlled by the user. 

The transport conditions provided for by INTERTRAN2 include both incident-free 

transportation and the occurrence of abnormal transport conditions, including incidents and 

accidents that may or may not result in radionuclide releases and the subsequent (if any) 

dispersal in the environment. 

The INTERTRAN2 system allows the user to adjust the analysis to the specific problem being 

analyzed including modeling of multimodal shipments. It covers the broad range of 

radionuclides used in medicine, science, and 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 experienced users dealing with complicated weather 

situations. 

The transport incident centerline dose calculation program Transport Incident Center Line Dose 

and the LHS module, a LHS sampling program, are not included in the standard version of the 

INTERTRAN2 package but may be downloaded separately or provided upon request. 

The INTERTRAN2 code is written in Visual Objects, a 32-bit object-oriented language for 

Windows 95/98/2000 and NT. The INTERTRAN2 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 Guides for all related computer 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 health effect model INTERTRAN2 is out of date. 

This will be updated in due time. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 58

INTERTRAN (RADTRAN II) calculations were compared to actual measurements for certain 

handlers and vehicle crew members in Italy (Permattei et al., 1985; DeMarco et al., 1983), and 

INTERTRAN was found to overestimate incident-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 analysis of radiological consequences and health 

risks to individuals and the collective population from exposures associated with the 

transportation of SNF or other radioactive materials. It provides scenario-specific analyses when 

evaluating alternatives for major federal actions involving radioactive material transport, as 

required by NEPA. 

In 1977, the NRC issued a report on the transportation of radioactive materials, Final 

Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes

(NRC, 1977a). That report laid the groundwork for the development of the RADTRAN 

computer program and its successors, currently RADTRAN 5 (Neuhauser et al., 2000), to 

estimate the collective population risk from transporting radioactive materials under incident-free 

or accident conditions. However, assessing risks to individuals, in addition to the collective 

population, is generally needed in NEPA reviews when evaluating major federal actions 

involving transportation that could adversely impact the environment. Traditionally, the 

collective population 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 were often used in the earlier reports, leading 

to inconsistencies and, frequently, the inappropriate use of models designed for other purposes. 

Incident-free impacts to individuals from routine transport were sometimes not included or were 

estimated from hand calculations. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 RISKIND at Argonne National Laboratory. The 

program picks up where the collective population risk assessment ends by analyzing incidentfree and accident risks to individuals, 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 along a truck or rail transport route. Reflecting local concerns, 

public comments on transportation risk analyses for 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 heavily traveled transport route; 

• An individual living near a heavily traveled transport route, such as a shipment origin or 

destination site entrance; 

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

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

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

• An individual drinking water that was contaminated by an accidental release of radioactive 

material near a drinking water supply. 

The radiological consequences and health risks from these “what if” type of situations are of 

great interest and concern to the public. Analysis tailored to a specific situation is needed. In 

addition, substantial databases and technologies relevant to the transportation of SNF and other 

radioactive materials are available through the efforts of various 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-specific radiological consequences and health risks to exposed 

individuals and the collective local population, 

2. Model the different exposure pathways for specific exposure scenarios, 

3. Estimate the amount of radioactive material released in potential accident scenarios, and 

4. Estimate cask accident responses specific to the transportation of SNF. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 60

To accomplish the first objective, RISKIND calculates 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, exposure conditions (including individual air and food intake rates), 

and meteorological conditions. The model used to assess the potential acute health effects from 

short-term exposures is based on a model developed 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 health effects are taken from ICRP Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991). 

RISKIND meets the second objective by considering all environmental pathways, including 

short-term exposure from the initial passing radioactive 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 agricultural areas. 

To meet the third objective, a radionuclide source 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 inventories are also permitted for different types of SNF and 

other radioactive materials. 

To meet the fourth objective, the cask accident responses and the radionuclide release fractions 

modeled by LLNL in a report for the NRC (Fischer 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 vehicles 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 external 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 through 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 presented individually and for each potential pathway. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 61

Various scenarios were characterized 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 (severity categories). These response regions range 

from likely events (with minor consequences) to highly unlikely events (with severe 

consequences). Twenty response regions are characterized 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 speed, object hardness, impact angle 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 coolant corrosion products) spalling off the fuel rods is 

also incorporated. The estimate of crud release is based on a study by SNL (Sandoval et al., 

1991). 

The atmospheric transport module 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 meteorological conditions, geometry, and release 

elevation. Plume rise from the thermal buoyancy of a release involving fire and dispersion 

effects near the release are also considered. The uncertain effect of weather conditions on the 

calculated doses can be considered by constructing a cumulative probability distribution of dose 

values using wind-rose data for a given site. This probabilistic dose distribution then determines 

the median (50% weather probability) and reasonable maximum (95% weather probability) dose 

values at a given receptor location. 

The pathway model includes exposure pathways from the cask’s direct external radiation (due to 

loss of shielding), external exposure from the radioactive cloud 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 terms of expected acute or latent fatalities, latent 

nonfatal cancer incidence, and latent adverse genetic effects from short-term exposure during 

initial plume passage and long-term exposure from deposited radioactive material. Acute 

fatalities are estimated with the latest NRC health effects model (Evans, 1990). The latent health 

effects are estimated by applying dose-to-risk conversion factors suggested in ICRP Publication 

60 (ICRP, 1991). 

The consequence model of RISKIND allows incorporating the consequence reduction benefits of 

indoor shielding, evacuation, interdiction of contaminated foods, and other protective actions 

(such as cleanup of contamination) to comply with EPA PAG levels (EPA, 1992). 

Consequences can be presented either deterministically (i.e., with fixed accident parameters and 

weather conditions) or probabilistically (i.e., analyzed over the spectrum of accident response 

regions and weather conditions). 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 national laboratories, state agencies, 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 RISKIND program (Yuan et al., 1995). 

The models employed in RISKIND are well established (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 the 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) were verified by Biwer 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.gov
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 63

6. Compilation of Assessment Input 

Data and Parameters 

A variety of input data are required to perform a transportation risk 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 data, with references for the most important parameters required 

by transportation risk assessment computer programs. 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 transportation doses. As package size increases, 

the near-field dose increases for a given package dose 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 amount released, except in 

the case of direct external exposure to a damaged shipping package (loss of shielding). 

Q Q Q 6.1.1.1 Packaging

The primary regulatory approach used to ensure safety in the transport of radioactive materials is 

specifying standards for the proper packaging. Many organizations at the federal, 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”). All 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 and shield the contents during normal transportation. For very 

radioactive material, the packaging must contain and shield the contents in severe accidents, as 

well. The type of packaging is determined by the radioactive hazard associated with the 

packaged material. The basic types of packaging required by the applicable regulations are 

designated as Type A, Type B, or industrial (generally for low-specific-activity material). Some 

details about the characteristics and dimensions of Type A and Type B containers are provided in 

Table 6.1. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 64

Table 6.1. Dimensions and Characteristics of Common Radioactive Material Packagings 

Packaging Empty 

Weight (kg) 

Max. 

Gross 

Wt. (kg) 

Capacity Lengtha

(cm) 

Width/ 

Diametera

(cm) 

Deptha

(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 m3

 180 (174) 138 (132) 94 (93.2) 

Type B 

TRUW 

 TRUPACT-IIc 5,436 8,732 14 55-gal drums 

or 

2 SWB 

310 (191) 239 (185) 

 RH-72Bd

 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-8Le (truck) 36,000 38,200 3 PWR 569 (428) 172 (23) (23) 

 TN-9f (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 parentheses) interior dimensions. 

b Designed so that 2 SWBs can be inserted 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 Transportation 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 Packaging, Type A”), must withstand normal 

transportation conditions without the loss or dispersal of its radioactive contents. “Normal” 

transportation refers to all transportation conditions except those resulting from accidents or 

sabotage. Approval of Type A packaging is achieved by demonstrating that the packaging can 

withstand specified testing conditions intended to simulate normal transportation. Type A 

packaging, typically consisting of a 0.21-m3

 (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 disposal. Type A packaging does not usually 

require special handling, packaging, 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 Specification 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 boxes available in a wide variety of sizes (WHC, 

1996; DOE, 1997c). 

Industrial packaging may be used to transport certain LSA materials. Shipments of industrial 

packagings are excepted from certain packaging specifications and marking and labeling 

requirements, but still must comply with many 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 shipping large quantities of radioactive material 

and must satisfy stringent testing criteria (specified in 10 CFR 71). The testing criteria were 

developed to simulate conditions of severe hypothetical 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 stations. Large-capacity 

cranes and mechanical lifting equipment are usually 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 routine incident-free transportation results from the 

potential exposure of people to low levels of external radiation in the vicinity of a loaded 

shipment. External radiation from a shipping package must be below specified limits that 

minimize exposure of the handling personnel and the public. Most radioactive material 

shipments are handled only in accordance with directions 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 personnel with the appropriate equipment. For this type of 

shipment (regardless of the material or package), the dose rate for external radiation during 

normal transportation must be maintained below 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 66

• A dose of 10 mrem/h at any point 2 m (6.6 ft) from the vertical planes projected by the outer 

lateral surfaces of the car or vehicle, and 

• A dose of 2 mrem/h in any normally occupied position in the car or vehicle. This limitation 

does not apply to private carriers if the exposed personnel are properly monitored as part of a 

radiation protection program. 

Additional restrictions apply to radiation levels on the package surface; however, these 

restrictions do not affect the transportation-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 radiation are input to the RADTRAN and RISKIND 

codes. Suggested dose rates when shipping different radioactive waste types are discussed below 

and listed in Table 6.2 for situations when the specific waste characteristics are not known. A 

significant neutron radiation component 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) 

Raila 

(mrem/h) 

Fraction Gamma/

Neutron 

LLWb 1 at 1 m 1 at 1 m 1/0 

LLMWc 1 at 1 m 1 at 1m 1/0 

TRUWd 

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 me 10 at 2 me 0.65/0.35f

SNF 10 at 2 me 10 at 2 me 0.6/0.4g

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 per truck and rail shipment, 

respectively. Truck dose rate values were 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 vitrified 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 shipments (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 freight shipments made by DOE and its contractors 

that was collected from site shipping and receiving documents. Available information for 

shipments of radioactive materials includes the types of material shipped, the number of 

packages in each shipment, shipment weights, external dose rates, and package isotopic 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 67

inventories. An estimated two-thirds of all DOE unclassified shipments have been reported to 

the SMAC database. Of the 15,000 LLW shipments 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 shipment. As a result, an average dose rate of 

1 mrem/h measured at 1 m (3.3 ft) from the surface of a shipment is recommended as a default 

value. However, shipment-specific dose rate 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 similar 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 information in the Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (FSEIS) for WIPP (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 and 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, respectively, 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 available 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). Since in practice, the dose rates may range well 

below the regulatory limit, this assumption provides a conservative estimate. A gamma/neutron 

radiation ratio of 0.65/0.35 was estimated for vitrified HLW produced at the Defense Waste 

Processing Facility at SRS (DOE, 1995c). Shipment-specific dose data should be used if 

available. 

Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Because of their large radionuclide inventories, shipments of SNF can have dose rates near the 

regulatory limit. Therefore, use of the regulatory 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 limit. A gamma/neutron radiation 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 two drivers. Many LLW shipments have one driver 

(Madsen and Wilmot, 1982), while SNF shipments often have two (Hostick et al., 1992). Some 

shipments, such as SNF, might also require escorts in certain areas. The value suggested in 

RADTRAN 5 for truck crew is two. Values for several parameters are suggested in the 

RADTRAN 5 template files for SNF transportation. 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 values for both suggested and standard values. 

Dose to the crew depends primarily on distance 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, the 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 dose 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 valuea 3.10 

Small packages in regular trailerb 2 

CH-TRU 4.6 

GA-9 SNF cask 5.8 

a

 Source: Neuhauser and Kanipe (2000). b

 Approximate distance from truck cab to leading 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 railyard 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 calculations using RISKIND. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 69

Q Q 6.1.3 Population Densities and Fractions of Travel 

Estimated transport risks for both incident-free 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 categorizations are not needed for RADTRAN 5 

calculations, they were retained for convenience. RADTRAN 5 allows complete 

characterization of any route segment, and segments 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, INTERLINE, and TRAGIS provide 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, average population values should be used with 

RISKIND when conducting the accident consequence portion of the assessment because the 

actual location of a potential 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 population densities were not available. These values are presented 

in Table 6.4 in the same format as Appendix E of NUREG-0170. The population zone 

descriptions are given below. The corresponding 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 urbanized area is one that has a minimum of 

50,000 persons and comprises one or more central places and the adjacent densely settled area 

(the urban fringe) which has a density of at least 1,000 persons/mi2

 (386 persons/km2). Urban 

areas are defined as comprising all territory, population, and housing units in urbanized areas and 

in places of 2,500 or more persons outside urbanized areas. Rural areas by default are those 

areas not classified as urban. 

NUREG-0170 suggested using the rural density value provided by the Bureau of the Census 

(Department of Commerce [DOC], 1974) (6 persons/km2). For the urban population zone, 

NUREG-0170 used a value of 3,861 persons/km2 (10,000 persons/mi2) to represent an urban 

housing area. This value is close to the 3,830 persons/km2

 that can be estimated for the central 

city in an urbanized area from 1970 census data (DOC, 1975). The value of 3,861 persons/km2

forced NUREG-0170 to assume a population density of 719 persons/km2 for the urban fringe in 

order to be consistent with the total urbanized population and land area. This value of 719 

persons/km2

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

Page 70

Table 6.4. Demographic Data for the United States 

Fraction of Land Area Fraction of Population Population Density 

(persons/km2

) 

Population Zone NUREG0170a

1990 

Censusb

NUREG0170a1990 

Censusb,c

NUREG0170a,c1990 

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 0.317 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 population densities determined by the Census Bureau for the given population zone. As discussed in the text, 

NUREG-0170 used values close to these results. 

Table 6.5. U.S. Population Density Data from the 1990 Censusa 

Category Population Percent 

Population Area (km2

) Percent 

Area 

Population 

Density (per km2

) 

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 0.076 522.4 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 71

Table 6.5. U.S. Population Density Data from the 1990 Census (Continued)

Category Population Percent 

Population Area (km2

) Percent 

Area 

Population 

Density (per km2

) 

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 densities 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/km2. 

The majority of this change is due to the increase 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 with populations greater than 100,000. Table 6.7 

lists those cities with populations greater than 1.5 million, and Table 6.8 lists cities with 

population densities greater than 5,000 persons/km2

. Even a city with a relatively small 

population, such as Paterson, New Jersey (population 139,000) can have a relatively high 

population density (6,391 persons/km2

). For cities with populations greater than 100,000 

persons, the average population density is 1,864 persons/km2, with the median being 1,219 

persons/km2

. If New York City and its boroughs are not included (see Table 6.7), the average 

drops to 1,642 persons/km2

 and the median moves slightly to 1,216 persons/km2. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 72

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

Category Population Percent 

Population 

Area 

(km2

) 

Percent 

Area 

Population 

Density 

(per km2

) 

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 were 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 densities 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 ranges (rural, <54 persons/km2

; 

suburban, 54 to 1,285 persons/km2; and urban, >1,285 persons/km2) would correspond to the 

averages of 6, 719, and 3,861 persons/km2

 as originally suggested in NUREG-0170. However, 

these programs were updated to use 1990 census data.5

More than 1,250 unique truck routes (HIGHWAY) and more than 1,080 unique rail routes 

(INTERLINE) were generated to support the transportation 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 routes 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 Transportation 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

(km2

) 

Population Density 

(persons/km2) 

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 Population Densities Greater than 5,000 Persons/km2

 

City Population

(1,000) 

Land Area 

(km2

) 

Population Density 

(persons/km2) 

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 20,251 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 74

Table 6.9. Comparing Population Density Data (persons/km2) by Density Zone for the U.S. 

Route Average Population Zone 

Trucka

 Railb NUREG-0170c

 1990 Censusd

Urban 2,260 2,390 3,861 1,282 

Suburban 349 361 719 766 

Rural 10 10 6 7 

a Average population density from 1,258 routes generated using HIGHWAY. b

 Average population density from 1,088 routes generated using INTERLINE. c

 Source: NRC (1977a). 

d

 Source: DOC (1993). 

with a maximum difference of approximately 6% for the urban values. However, there is a wide 

disparity between these average numbers and those originally proposed 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 expected, 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 the truck and rail routes, 

discussed in Section 6.1.3.1, are compared in Table 6.10 with the values suggested in NUREG0170. For perspective, Figures 6.4 and 6.4 plot the average fraction of travel as a function of the 

route distance for the rural, suburban, and urban zones. As with population densities, the 

fraction of travel in each zone varies widely for the shorter routes and converges as route length 

increases for both truck and rail. 

Table 6.10. Comparing Fraction of Travel Data for the United States 

Route Average Population Zone 

Trucka

 Railb NUREG-0170c

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 specific 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 population densities in Table 6.9, also 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. Fractions of travel cannot be used directly in RADTRAN 5 analyses. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Determined for Truck Travel through Rural, 

Suburban, and Urban Zones 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Determined for Rail Travel through Rural, 

Suburban, and Urban Zones 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Travel through Rural, Suburban, and Urban Zones 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Zones 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 79

Q Q 6.1.4 Vehicle Speed 

The vehicle speed is used in the incident-free portion of a radiological transportation risk 

assessment. In conjunction with the distance traveled, the vehicle speed determines the amount 

of time the transportation crew, the on-link population, and the off-link population (including an 

MEI on the side of the route) are 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 are listed in Table 6.11. These values are 

conservative, since a lower vehicle speed results in a larger estimated dose because 

Table 6.11. RADTRAN Suggested Vehicle Speeds 

Population Zone Trucka 

(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 years for the interstate highway system, on which 

radioactive material shipments typically 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 National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. 

The current maximum posted rural and urban interstate 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 states retained the rural 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, road conditions, traffic density, and construction delays. 

No federal regulations restrict the speed of HAZMAT shipments on the interstate highway 

system, but shippers of radioactive materials may 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-trailers for limiting highway speeds to a maximum of 

55 mph. 
Page 80 Table 6.12. Maximum Posted Speed Limits for Passenger Vehiclesa

State 

Limited 

Access Rural 

Interstates 

Limited 

Access 

Urban 

Interstates 

Effective Dates 

of Limits on 

Rural 

Interstates 

State Limited Access Rural Interstates Limited Acces

Urban Interstates 

Alabama 70 70 5/9/96 Montana 75/Trucks 65 65 Alaska 65 55 1/15/88 Nebraska 75 65 Arizona 75 55 12/8/95 Nevada 75 65 Arkansas 70/Trucks 65 55 8/19/96 New Hampshire 65 65 California 70/Trucks 55 65 1/7/96 New Jersey 65 55 Colorado 75 65 6/24/96 New Mexico 75 55 Connecticut 65 55 10/1/98 New York 65 65 Delaware 65 55 1/17/96 North Carolina 70 65 D.C. n/a 55 1974 North Dakota 70 55 Florida 70 65 4/8/96 Ohio 65/Trucks 55 65 Georgia 70 65 7/1/96 Oklahoma 75 70 Hawaii 55 50 1974 Oregon 65/Trucks 55 55 Idaho 75/Trucks 65 65 5/1/96 Pennsylvania 65 55 Illinois 65/Trucks 55 55 4/27/87 Rhode Island 65 55 Indiana 65/Trucks 60 55 6/1/87 South Carolina 70 70 Iowa 65 55 5/12/87 South Dakota 75 65 Kansas 70 70 3/7/96 Tennessee 70 65 Kentucky 65 55 6/8/87 Texas 70 70 Louisiana 70 55 8/15/97 Utah 75 65 Maine 65 55 6/12/87 Vermont 65 55 Maryland 65 65 7/1/95 Virginia 65 55 Massachusetts 65 65 1/5/92 Washington 70/Trucks 60 60 Michigan 70/Trucks 55 65 8/1/96 West Virginia 70 55 Minnesota 70 65 7/1/97 Wisconsin 65 65 Mississippi 70 70 2/29/96 Wyoming 75 60 Missouri 70 60 3/13/96 a As 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 Transportation 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 distance 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 suggested in RADTRAN for rural, suburban, and urban 

population zones. 

In 1995, average freight train speeds were 19 mph east of the Mississippi River and 23 mph west 

of the Mississippi River, for a combined average 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 restriction. 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 allowable 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 categorized by condition into classes 1 through 5, with tracks in 

the best condition as class 5 (definitions of track classes are given 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 speed 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 Speeds on Different Classes of Tracka

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 used 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 Transportation 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 materials (see Section 2.4.2). An analysis of traffic volumes on the 

interstate highways should, therefore, reasonably estimate average traffic flows. The most recent 

data available from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) maintained by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) were used. These data consisted of the interstate 

universe records for 1993 through 1997. 

Table 6.14 presents the annual average daily traffic (AADT) per lane for the four population 

zones used by the FHWA. The final row, urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 persons or 

more, is the average of the two preceding urbanized area zones in the table. Analysis of 

weekday travel patterns has shown that the majority 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 display 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 AADTa per Lane Hourly Average per Lane 

Based on a 17-h Dayb

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 Transportation 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 Day

Percent of daily traffic

1978 1983 1992 1995

Figure 6.6. Weekday Rural Highway Traffic, 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 shown in Table 6.15. Similarly, 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 suggested value of 2,400 vehicles per hour for urban 

areas, as shown in Table 6.15. Table 6.15 also shows the default values used in NUREG-0170. 

Good agreement is observed; the largest difference is approximately 20% between the urban 

values. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Day

Percent of daily traffic

1978 1983 1992 1995

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

Table 6.15. One-Way Traffic Volumes for Truck Transport 

Population Zone Suggested NUREG-0170a

Urban 2,400b 2,800 

Suburban 760c 780 

Rural 530d 470 

a

 Sources: NRC (1977a); suggested values 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 area 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 operating 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 generated 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 tracks) was 3,983 trains 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 85

Table 6.16. National Average Traffic Volumes on Class I Railroadsa

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 operation, traffic flow on average is 0.45 train per hour. If 12-hour 

operation is assumed, the rate increases to 0.91 train per hour, which is close to the RADTRAN 

suggested value of one train per hour in rural areas. Intercity passenger train service by 

AMTRAK adds approximately 0.15 train per hour for 24-hour operation, or 0.30 train per hour 

for 12-hour operation (AAR, 1999). However, many of AMTRAK’s routes are overnight runs 

between major cities. AMTRAK trains run primarily over track owned by the freight railroads, 

using approximately one quarter of the freight railroad network (AAR, 1999). AMTRAK owns 

only about 3% of the rails over which it operates (AAR, 1999). 

The values for rail traffic volumes discussed above are based on national average statistics and 

thus are valid for rural, suburban, and urban areas. Certain suburban/urban areas have additional 

rail traffic volumes from commuter rail systems that operate over local portions of the freight 

railroad network. Table 6.17 lists the major metropolitan 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 railcars 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 approximately 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 freight 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, Philadelphia, and Chicago, may have significantly 

higher traffic volumes. Other metropolitan areas without commuter rail traffic would likely have 

average rail traffic volumes closer 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 estimate 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 Transportation 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 (Northeast 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 County 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 vehicle occupancies on the nation’s roads average 

approximately 1.5 persons per vehicle (Grush and Gross, 1995). Two studies were reviewed — 

one for the 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) and one conducted by the 

National Highway and Traffic Safety 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 the total annual vehicle miles on rural interstate highways and 

less than 0.2% of the total annual 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 (Neuhauser and Kanipe, 1992). 

Rail 

On freight trains, a typical train crew would consist of an engineer, a conductor (foreman), and a 

brakeman (helper). Three persons per train is also the RADTRAN rail default. However, some 

train service may require additional brakemen or other train crew, such as a fireman. On through 

freight trains, trains that do not drop off or pick up railcars along their route, the crew could 

consist of only an engineer and conductor. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 miles, and 5,545 million passenger miles were 

recorded (DOT, 1996a). Therefore, the average number of passengers per railcar was 19, with an 

average of 8.8 railcars per train, giving approximately 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 applies to both the suburban and urban portions of the 

aggregate model in RADTRAN for truck transport. It does not apply to rail transport. In the 

model, the shipment speeds in suburban and urban zones are halved and the traffic volumes 

doubled during rush hour for incident-free calculations. The user designates the rush-house 

fraction. Weekday urban traffic patterns for 1995 (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 RADTRAN 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 follow 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 through urban areas, and relatively little or no 

time should be spent on city streets. As shown in Table 6.10, the route average fraction of travel 

in urban zones for more than 1,250 HIGHWAY routes 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 pedestrians per square kilometer of sidewalk to 

population per square kilometer of overall urban area. This ratio is used for calculations related 

to truck movements on urban city streets. A suggested 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 (sheltering) provided by an indoor environment is the 

indoor/outdoor air concentration ratio. As shown in Table 6.18, a wide range of possible 

indoor/outdoor air concentration ratios is possible. When applied to inhalation exposure, a dose 

reduction factor (DRF), the fraction of airborne contaminant remaining airborne after passage 

indoors, can be defined as the ratio of indoor to outdoor pollutant concentrations integrated from 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 88

the start of contaminant cloud passage to infinity (Fogh et al., 1997). That is, the “inhalation 

shielding factor” in RISKIND or the “building dose factor” in RADTRAN for urban areas. 

Thus, DRFs will approach the indoor/outdoor concentrations for plumes of long duration. DRFs 

decrease with a decrease in building 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 μm 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 μm 

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 calculations of inhalation dose 

to account for the sheltering provided by building 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 filters, precipitators, and 

dehumidifying coils). However, noble gases have an estimated building dose factor of 1. For 

other continuous building 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), whether windows are open or closed, and the rate of 

forced air ventilation. Most large urban cities have significant areas of closely spaced singleand multiple-family homes less likely to filter the 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 radioactive materials, the exchange rate between 

indoor and outdoor air can still be significant (Engelmann, 1992). 

The DRF provided by a structure is also dependent 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 deposition velocities (Fogh et al., 1997). 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 89

Q Q Q 6.1.7.2 External Radiation 

RISKIND and RADTRAN provide shielding factors to account for sheltered locations that 

reduce the estimated external radiation dose to persons 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 incident-free transport, and 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 the 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 the 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-thick concrete block walls, which provide a 

large degree of protection. The suburban standard 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 for 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 cargo 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 spent 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 other 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 latter study, the distance-dependent stop time 

was less for two-driver truck crews and on shorter trips (<16 hours) for one-driver truck crews. 

The number and distance of persons both inside and outside of buildings exposed to radioactive 

material shipments at stops vary. Average recorded values are listed in Table 6.19. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 32b 76.2 

Griego et al. (1996) NAc 7d up to 16 md 

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 both truck and rail. Specific scenarios involving 

MEIs and local populations can be assessed. Potential exposure scenarios for rail inspectors and 

railyard workers are provided in Section 4.1.1.2 for MEI calculations with RISKIND. 

The occupational population dose at a single 30-hour rail classification stop, documented in 

Appendix B of Neuhauser et al (2000), is part of the RADTRAN 5 code. The number of 

classification stops per rail trip 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 calculated 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 collective population dose at railroad 

stops is modeled using a distance-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 from the cargo is usually 30 to 800 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 accidents that might occur during transport of 

radioactive materials. Saricks and coworkers (Saricks and Kvitek, 1994; Saricks and Tompkins, 

1999) performed extensive studies on accident rates 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 numerator, and vehicular activity (total traveled distance) is the 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 91

denominator. Accident rates are derived from multiple-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 appropriate 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 heavy combination trucks involved in interstate 

commerce. Heavy combination trucks are rigs consisting of a separable tractor unit containing 

the engine and one to three freight trailers connected to each other and the tractor. Heavy 

combination trucks are typically used for shipping radioactive wastes. Truck accident rates are 

computed for each state on the basis of statistics 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 the corresponding average accident involvement rate 

for the three years investigated. These state-specific truck accident rates for interstate highways 

in rural and urban areas and also for primary and secondary highways are provided in Table 6.20. 

The interstate highway rates are suitable for most 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 preparation should have the twofold effect of 

reducing component and equipment failure and mitigating 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 study 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. Another 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 reported. The following excerpt from Saricks and 

Tompkins (1999) discusses the differences in the data used for the two studies: 
Page 92 Table 6.20. Combination Truck Accident Rates by State Accidents/km 

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

Interstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total Primary Se

Alabama 2.82E−07 5.22E−07 2.88E−07 3.77E−07 1.26E−07 4.68E−07 1.85E−07 5.16E−07 3Arizona 1.32E−07 8.10E−08 4.00E−09 1.07E−07 1.60E−07 2.71E−07 1.76E−07 2.12E−07 1Arkansas 1.34E−07 2.33E−07 2.30E−08 1.48E−07 1.73E−07 4.82E−07 2.09E−07 4.69E−07 6California 1.60E−07 4.50E−08 1.79E−07 8.30E−8 1.64E−07 1.92E−07 1.76E−07 1.15E−07 2Colorado 4.46E−07 3.81E−07 5.46E−07 4.34E−07 2.76E−07 6.28E−07 3.60E−07 4.11E−07 4Connecticut 9.04E−07 3.47E−07 3.19E−06 8.82E−07 4.60E−07 2.67E−07 3.23E−07 2.56E−07 9Delaware 5.18E−07 8.04E−07 1.31E−06 7.25E−07 0.00E+00 2.56E−07 2.56E−07 7.35E−07 4Florida 6.90E−08 7.50E−08 3.75E−07 8.90E−08 1.21E−07 2.25E−07 1.50E−07 3.73E−07 6Georgia *a * * 6.69E−07 1.65E−07 4.87E−07 2.28E−07 6.15E−07 4Idaho 2.95E−07 5.12E−07 5.19E−07 3.95E−07 2.30E−07 1.73E−07 2.22E−07 4.93E−07 2Illinois 2.22E−07 2.74E−07 1.38E−06 2.96E−07 1.76E−07 8.75E−07 3.53E−07 6.40E−07 1Indiana 2.25E−07 1.38E−07 4.30E−08 1.69E−07 1.92E−07 4.58E−07 2.43E−07 4.72E−07 2Iowa 1.12E−07 1.72E−07 2.47E−07 1.48E−07 1.78E−07 3.54E−07 2.02E−07 4.03E−07 1Kansas 2.84E−07 5.17E−07 3.14E−07 3.83E−07 2.04E−07 4.48E−07 2.56E−07 5.11E−07 1Kentucky 3.10E−07 1.03E−06 5.33E−07 5.18E−07 1.46E−07 5.13E−07 1.99E−07 5.74E−07 8Louisiana * * * 2.21E−07 1.30E−07 3.54E−07 1.88E−07 3.53E−07 2Maine 4.39E−07 1.88E−07 7.39E−07 4.12E−07 2.44E−07 9.03E−07 2.93E−07 5.44E−07 2Maryland 5.40E−07 8.16E−07 2.75E−06 7.41E−07 3.95E−07 3.08E−07 3.46E−07 3.56E−07 1Massachusetts 8.60E−08 1.81E−07 1.29E−06 1.55E−07 6.47E−07 1.42E−07 2.68E−07 3.43E−07 4Michigan 2.83E−07 9.50E−08 6.17E−07 2.15E−07 1.59E−07 3.16E−07 2.12E−07 2.68E−07 8Minnesota 1.71E−07 1.90E−07 1.31E−07 1.76E−07 2.06E−07 2.66E−07 2.29E−07 4.19E−07 2Mississippi 4.80E−08 8.70E−08 3.90E−08 6.30E−08 1.19E−07 2.01E−07 1.35E−07 4.48E−07 6Missouri 4.64E−07 5.38E−07 9.29E−07 5.36E−07 1.78E−07 5.18E−07 2.61E−07 5.36E−07 2Montana 6.20E−07 6.08E−07 3.50E−07 5.81E−07 2.52E−07 1.00E−06 2.89E−07 5.38E−07 1Nebraska 3.19E−07 5.82E−07 4.97E−07 4.34E−07 1.77E−07 6.97E−07 2.09E−07 3.62E−07 9Nevada 2.25E−07 3.80E−07 2.90E−08 2.45E−07 1.57E−07 6.33E−07 1.97E−07 4.35E−07 3New Hampshire 2.63E−07 3.86E−07 6.79E−07 3.81E−07 1.39E−07 2.20E−08 1.18E−07 4.36E−07 3
Page 93

Table 6.20. Combination Truck Accident Rates by State (Continued) 

Accidents/km 

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

Interstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total Primary Se

New Jersey 5.65E−07 2.67E−07 2.88E−06 4.93E−07 7.65E−07 2.77E−07 4.24E−07 6.80E−07 9New Mexico 1.13E−07 1.02E−07 1.03E−07 1.08E−07 1.92E−07 9.64E−07 2.35E−07 4.77E−07 1New York * * * 3.45E−07 2.93E−07 5.69E−07 3.98E−07 3.16E−07 9North Carolina 3.46E−07 3.14E−07 3.69E−07 3.34E−07 2.28E−07 5.92E−07 2.97E−07 5.17E−07 6North Dakota 3.02E−07 4.87E−07 1.37E−07 3.42E−07 9.90E−08 4.40E−07 1.18E−07 1.99E−07 4Ohio 1.64E−07 3.80E−08 9.10E−08 1.16E−07 2.27E−07 3.16E−07 2.52E−07 4.42E−07 1Oklahoma 2.68E−07 3.16E−07 2.31E−07 2.76E−07 1.47E−07 3.76E−07 1.91E−07 3.61E−07 1Oregon * * * 2.16E−07 2.20E−07 3.99E−07 2.48E−07 4.17E−07 1Pennsylvania 5.14E−07 7.26E−07 2.15E−06 6.79E−07 3.60E−07 3.02E−07 3.48E−07 7.21E−07 7Rhode Island 3.15E−07 3.66E−07 6.54E−07 3.52E−07 1.98E−07 2.27E−07 2.16E−07 1.37E−07 1South Carolina * * * 4.69E−07 1.83E−07 3.13E−07 1.99E−07 6.27E−07 2South Dakota 2.33E−07 2.49E−07 1.54E−07 2.29E−07 2.09E−07 8.57E−07 2.18E−07 3.94E−07 1Tennessee 1.23E−07 2.81E−07 1.55E−07 1.59E−07 1.48E−07 7.97E−07 2.48E−07 5.56E−07 6Texas 6.00E−07 6.96E−07 7.36E−07 6.58E−07 1.56E−07 2.74E−07 2.00E−07 2.78E−07 1Utah 2.90E−07 3.05E−07 9.04E−07 3.40E−07 2.41E−07 2.52E−07 2.44E−07 3.70E−07 5Vermont 1.88E−07 5.27E−07 1.43E−07 2.98E−07 1.38E−07 0.00E+00 1.33E−07 6.30E−07 6Virginia 3.93E−07 1.98E−07 1.60E−08 2.65E−07 2.54E−07 2.63E−07 2.56E−07 4.67E−07 5Washington 2.65E−07 1.75E−07 1.23E−07 2.05E−07 2.50E−07 1.61E−07 2.10E−07 2.62E−07 7West Virginia 1.72E−07 3.71E−07 1.38E−07 2.15E−07 3.10E−07 2.95E−07 3.07E−07 1.17E−06 7Wisconsin 4.49E−07 3.96E−07 1.57E−06 5.51E−07 1.74E−07 5.29E−07 2.18E−07 2.80E−07 3Wyoming 6.74E−07 7.41E−07 5.56E−07 6.78E−07 3.42E−07 2.98E−07 3.40E−07 3.41E−07 3Mean Rate 3.15E−07 3.66E−07 6.54E−07 3.52E−07 2.03E−07 3.58E−07 2.44E−07 3.94E−07 3Total Rate 3.00E−07 2.78E−07 4.56E−07 3.21E−07 −b − − − 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 the 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 document [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 meeting the definition of an accident (see below) for a period 

of one year after such an accident occurred. Carriers were to make the contents 

of these registers available to FHWA agents investigating specific accidents. They 

were also required to give “...all reasonable assistance in the investigation of any 

accident including providing a full, true, and correct answer to any question or 

inquiry,” to reveal whether hazardous materials 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 accident reporting system compiled from law enforcement 

accident reports that, pursuant to provisions of the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 [PL 102-240, 105 STAT. 1914], 

was being established under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program 

(MCSAP). Under Section 408 of Title IV of the Motor Carrier Act of 1991, a 

component of ISTEA, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to make 

grants to states in order to help them achieve uniform implementation of the 

police accident reporting system for truck and bus accidents recommended by the 

National Governors’ Association. Under this system, called SAFETYNET, 

accident data records generated by each state follow identical formatting and 

content instructions; the records are entered 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 result of the accident such that the 

vehicle must be towed from the scene. Specifically excluded from this definition of 

“accident” are occurrences involving only boarding and alighting from a 

stationary vehicle, involving only the loading or unloading of cargo, or involving 

a passenger car or other multipurpose passenger vehicle owned by the carrier 

that is transporting neither passengers for hire nor placard-quantity hazardous 

materials. The latter exclusions represent 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: 

• Fatality 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 without a tow-away) 

• An evacuation of the general public lasting at least one hour 

• Closure of one or more major transportation arteries or facilities for at least 

one hour 

• Alteration of an aircraft’s routine flight plan (not relevant to surface modes) 

• Fire, breakage, spillage, or suspected 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 reportable 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 situations, 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 categories for reporting purposes 

(DOT, 1998): (1) highway-rail grade crossing incidents, (2) train 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 report 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 format for such reports is provided by the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under 49 CFR 225.11. The criteria for a 

reportable accident or incident currently encoded in 49 CFR Part 225 are as 

follows: 

• An impact occurs between railroad on-track 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 Transportation 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 equipment, 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 treatment; (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 loss 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 system; (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 freight railroad system. (The definition of 

isolation, or insularity, of operations in this last category excludes any situations 

involving one or more at-grade crossings 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 system. For purposes of this analysis, the 

entities subject to full reporting requirements are sufficiently comprehensive. 

Carriers covered by these requirements must fulfill several bookkeeping tasks. 

FRA requires submittal of a monthly status report, even if there were no 

reportable events during the period. Accidents and incidents must be reported on 

the FRA standardized form, but certain types of incidents require immediate 

telephone notification. Logs of both reportable 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 available to employees and to the FRA, along 

with required records and reports, upon request for them. The consolidated data 

entries extracted from the FRA reporting forms are consolidated into an 

accident/incident database that separates reportable accidents from gradecrossing incidents. These are annually processed into event, fatality, and injury 

count tables as part of the Accident/Incident Bulletin. 

Rail accident rates are computed and presented similarly 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 accident rates include both mainline accidents and 

those occurring in railyards. The updated report by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) compiles FRA 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 97

Table 6.21. Rail Accident Rates by State

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

State Accidents Accidents per Car-km 

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–08 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 98

Table 6.21. Rail Accident Rates by State (Continued)

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

State Accidents Accidents per Car-km 

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 rates and grade crossing incidents from this 

latter report are presented in Table 6.21. Separate accident rates specific to the railroad mainline 

and railyards were not derived in the update. Use of the overall, combined accident rate is 

appropriate for general freight shipments because railcars will be subject to marshalling in 

railyards along the route. On the other hand, dedicated rail shipments spend less time in 

railyards and the overall rate may overestimate the 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 material released from a transportation accident depends on the 

packaging of the material and the severity of the accident. 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 factors as impact speed and geometry, type of object 

impacted, crush, puncture, fire, and immersion. 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 severities of tractor semi-trailer accidents and their 

application to HAZMAT transport (Clauss et al., 1994). 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 99

NUREG-0170

A method widely used to characterize the potential severity of transportation-related accidents is 

described in the NRC report NUREG-0170 (NRC, 1977a). The NRC method divided the 

spectrum of transportation accident 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

V VI VII

IV V VI VII

III IV V VI VII

II III IV

I III IV

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

6.7

22

89

220

440

1330

2220

1300° Kelvin Fire Duration (hours)

Crush Force (103 newtons)

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 mechanical force and thermal force (fire) magnitudes to 

which a package may be subjected during an accident. The mechanical criterion for truck 

shipments in the NUREG-0170 analysis was the crush force, using the results 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). Because all accidents can be described in these 

terms, severity is independent of the specific accident sequence. In other words, any accident in 

which a package is subjected to forces within a certain 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-related accidents, including those with low 

probability but high consequences and those with high probability but low consequences. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 100

VII

VI VII

VIII

V VI VII

IV V VI VII

III IV V VI VII

II III IV

IV

IV

I III

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

8.0

24

40

64

97

130

160

1300° Kelvin Fire Duration (hours)

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 category and the population 

density zone used in NUREG 0170 are shown in Table 6.22. 

Category I accidents are the 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 extremely rare, occurring approximately once in every 

70,000 truck or 100,000 rail accidents involving 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 potential SNF transportation accidents. In the NRC Modal Study all 

potential damage to a shipping cask during an accident is categorized according to two principal 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 101

Table 6.22. Fractional Occurrences for Accidents 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 thermal responses induced by cask impact and fire, 

respectively. Twenty cask response 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 low impacts to regions with low probability and 

high impacts. These cask response regions and the conditional probabilities of occurrence for 

combined mechanical and thermal loads, should an accident occur, are shown in Figure 6.10. 

The most important accident conditions that define the mechanical loads imposed on a cask 

during an accident are those associated with various impacts. Because of the large weight, 

hardness, and rigidity of SNF casks, loads caused by crushing, projectiles, or other mechanisms 

are far less damaging than loads caused by impacts with hard, massive objects. As in any impact 

involving a motor vehicle or train, the damage sustained would depend on vehicle speed, angle 

of impact, hardness of the object struck, and orientation of the vehicle and object at the time of 

impact. 

The temperature of an accident-generated fire is the most important consideration when 

assessing potential cask functional 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 temperatures 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 based on pertinent information about the accident, 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 102

Figure 6.10. NRC Modal Study SNF Cask Response Regions and Conditional Probabilities 

(Source: Fischer et al., 1987). 

such as the maximum fuel volume carried by a typical 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 result with hand calculations. The 

modal study methodology for determining SNF transportation accident severities is also 

incorporated in the RISKIND computer code (Yuan et al., 1995), where the user can enter the 

pertinent accident characteristics and the program 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 constructed for both truck and rail 

transport of SNF casks. Based on the structural and thermal response characteristics of two 

generic cask designs, 31 truck accident scenarios leading to a potential release of radioactivity 

were assigned to 18 accident severity categories. 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 103

Table 6.23. Estimated Severity Fractions (Conditional Probabilities) for SNF Shipmentsa

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–12 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 104

Table 6.23. Estimated Severity Fractions (Conditional Probabilities) for SNF Shipmentsa

(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 material 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 released fraction that is aerosolized (the airborne 

radioactive plume) will be dispersed by atmospheric turbulence. This plume of material is a 

source of external exposure (cloudshine). 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 (groundshine); (2) may contaminate foodstuffs, thereby contributing to 

exposure via ingestion; and (3) may again contribute to inhalation and cloudshine exposure via 

resuspension. The estimated radiological accident impacts in the different exposure pathway 

analyses will vary linearly with the amount of material released. 

Radiological consequences are calculated by assigning package release fractions to each accident 

severity category. The release fraction 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 release radioactive material from a damaged package 

to the environment. Release fractions vary according to the package type and the physical form 

of the waste. Type B packagings, such as SNF casks, are designed to withstand the forces of 

severe accidents and, therefore, have smaller release 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 particulate form and are, therefore, relatively 

nondispersible. Conversely, liquid or gaseous materials are relatively easy to release if the 

container is compromised in an accident. A compendium of experimental data was assembled 

from which airborne release fractions and respirable fractions may be derived for specific 

materials (DOE, 1994b). 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 and 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); derived from data in NUREG-0170 (NRC, 1977a). 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 first 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 presents the latest estimated 

release fractions for TRUW shipped in TRUPACT-IIs for CH-TRUW or RH-72Bs for RHTRUW (DOE, 1997d). These fractions were derived for use in the severity category scheme 

developed in NUREG-0170 and incorporate the aerosolized and respirable fractions based on the 

general characteristics of the TRUW. 

Table 6.26. Total Respirable Release Fractions 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 the 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 engineering judgments of cask response, the NRC conducted a 

rigorous analysis of potential releases from SNF casks as part of its Modal Study (Fischer et al., 

1987). Both the Modal Study and NUREG/CR-6672 incorporated 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 necessary in the establishment of a leak path for 

radioactive releases. The first is the diffusion of material from cracked pellets within the fuel rod 

to the outer fuel rod cladding; the second is a diffusing 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 particles previously released to the interior of 

the cask. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 impact or high temperature. The percentage of 

fuel rods breached under various impact and fire conditions 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 environment if a leak path 

developed in the containment (Fischer et al., 1987). 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 thickness temperature exceeding 500°F. 

The estimated radionuclide fractions for five types of radionuclides and the 20 Modal Study cask 

response regions released and dispersed to the atmosphere under the above assumptions are 

presented in Table 6.27. Radionuclides 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 also gives release fractions derived for aluminum and metallic 

SNF (DOE, 1995b). Release fractions developed for graphite fuels are given in Table 6.28. 

Table 6.27. Release Fractions for Transportation Accidents by SNF Type for the NRC 

Modal Study Cask Response Regions 

Release Fractionb

Cask Response Region Vapors a

Inert Gas 

Iodine Cesium Ruthenium 

Particulates 

Modal Studyc

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 SNFd

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 impact 

strain and N2 representing the temperature caused by fire. b

 The release fraction represents the fraction of the total fuel inventory in the cask that would be released into the atmosphere. c

 Source: Fischer et al. (1987); values used for special-case commercial, university, foreign, and 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 fractions 

derived from Shibata et al. (1984) and Fischer et al. (1987). 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 108

Table 6.28. Release Fractions for Transportation Accidents Involving Graphite SNF for 

the NRC Modal Study Cask Response Regions 

Release Fractionsb

Cask Response 

Regiona Inert Gasc Strontium,

Ceriumd Antimonye

 Cesiumd Ruthenium, 

Rhodiume Particulatesf

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 Modal Study designation of discrete severity (cask response) regions, with N1 

representing the impact strain and N2 representing the temperature caused by fire. b

 The release fraction represents the fraction of the total fuel inventory in the cask that would be released into the atmosphere. 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% respirable; release fraction from Lorenz et al. (1980). f

 Impact-induced nonvolatiles, 1% incore failed fuel, 5% respirable, release fraction of 2 × 10−6 (from Wilmot [1981]). 

In NUREG/CR-6672 (Sprung et al., 2000), potential release 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 shipments, respectively. These release fractions 

were assumed to be the total respirable 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 dispersed in the environment, the associated 

radiological hazard depends on the isotopic composition of the material (radiological profile). 

The following subsections first discuss typical radiological profiles for the different radioactive 

waste types and then the relevant radiological properties 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 provide a point of reference concerning 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 classified 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 surface is less or greater than 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 years between 10 and 100 nCi/g) or 
Page 109

Table 6.29. Accident Release Fractions for SNF Shipments by Truck 

Release Fractions for PWR Fuel Assemblies in Truck Casks Release Fractions for BWR Fuel Assemblies i

Case 

Kr Cs Ru Particulates CRUD Case Kr Cs Ru Parti

1 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–2 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–3 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–4 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–5 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–6 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–7 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–8 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–9 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–10 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–11 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–12 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–13 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–14 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–15 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–16 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–17 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–18 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–19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Source: Sprung et al. (2000). 
Page 110 Table 6.30. Accident Release Fractions for SNF Shipments by Rail Release Fractions for PWR Fuel Assemblies in Rail Casks Release Fractions for BWR Fuel Assemblies 

Case 

Kr Cs Ru Particulates CRUD Case Kr Cs Ru Parti

1 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 5.3E2 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 1.3E3 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 1.9E4 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 4.0E5 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 1.1E6 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 1.8E7 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 5.9E8 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 8.3E9 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 1.5E10 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 1.3E11 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 1.5E12 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 1.5E13 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 2.0E14 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 2.1E15 9.1E01 2.2E–05 2.2E–05 2.2E–05 7.4E–02 15 9.1E–01 2.2E–05 2.2E–05 2.2E16 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 2.4E17 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 2.0E18 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 1.5E19 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 2.2E20 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 2.5E21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Source: Sprung et al. (2000). 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 activity levels ranging from trace quantities to 

thousands of curies. Representative DOE LLW radionuclide 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 processes (primary examples are cesium-137 and 

strontium-90); (3) induced activity – waste materials contaminated with beta- or gamma-rayemitting isotopes that are generated through neutron activation (of major concern is cobalt-60); 

(4) alpha – waste material contaminated with low levels (between 10 and 100 nCi/g) of 

transuranic isotopes, excluding alpha-emitting radionuclides listed under uranium and thorium; 

and (5) other – mixture or not defined. Standard 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 Radionuclide 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 112

The IDB indicates that the unit activities for LLW at the various DOE sites ranges from 9 to 

27 Ci/m3

. Since this range was based on information in the 1986–1988 Solid Waste Information 

Management System (SWIMS) and the national Low-level Waste Management Program 

(LLWMP) data access system, radioactive decay may have reduced much of this activity to 

lower levels, depending on the exact composition of the radionuclides at each site. Reviews of 

the IDB individual LLW physical form radioactivity and volume inventories at each site suggest 

a much wider range of values for the unit activities, which vary greatly depending upon the 

physical form and whether stored or disposed waste is considered. However, this range is subject 

to great uncertainties and covers materials that would not be shipped in Type A packaging 

because of their exceedingly high activities. 

The cumulative values of radioactivity and volume of all LLW disposed through 1995 suggests 

that 4 Ci/m3 is a reasonable unit activity for disposed waste. The analogous number for just the 

year 1995 is about twice that activity, 8 Ci/m3. As a result of these considerations and to provide 

somewhat conservative estimates for calculations, a representative activity of 20 Ci/m3

 is 

recommended. For a standard 55-gal steel drum with a volume of about 0.2 m3

, this activity 

level results in a drum containing about 4 Ci. Because of the aforementioned radioactive decay, 

the fact that most drums have significant void fractions, and the fact that LLW with high unit 

activities would not be shipped in Type A packaging, the 4 Ci value should be conservative for 

most Type A packages of LLW. Simple scaling may be performed to extrapolate results to LLW 

inventories where the activities are known. 

Representative radionuclide profiles for each LLW shipment may be defined to approximate the 

shipment radionuclide content as a linear combination of the radionuclide profiles in the six 

categories. These data can be combined with activity levels reported by generating sites to 

estimate the activities of individual radionuclides in the LLW at each site. By assuming the 

results of radioactive release calculations are properly weighted, 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 [“Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste”]). Although asbestos-contaminated 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 the 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 113

The radiological profiles for LLMW are assumed to be similar in radionuclide content and 

overall activity level to the radiological profiles described 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-lives 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 does not include the weights of added external 

shielding or waste containers (including any rigid liners) (DOE, 1996c). By definition, TRUW 

includes isotopes of neptunium, plutonium, americium, 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-m3

 (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 generally requires additional shielding during handling 

and transportation, and special equipment and facilities for handling, treatment, and 

transportation. The need for shielding and/or RH is due to the energetic gamma and neutron 

emissions from some of the transuranic 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 operations generate TRUW: 

(1) nuclear weapons development and manufacturing, (2) prior plutonium recovery, (3) research 

and development, (4) environmental restoration 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 disposed of on-site in shallow landfill-type 

configurations. In 1970, the AEC concluded that waste containing long-lived alpha-waveemitting radionuclides should be more isolated from 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 Program. 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 Disposal Phase SEIS (DOE, 1997d). 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 generated from the chemical reprocessing of SNF and 

weapons production targets to recover special nuclear materials, primarily plutonium and 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Transportation 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 5.70E+01 1.24E+02 3.52E+04 1.96E+01 4.36E+04

Cs-137 2.62E+00 6.98E+03 1.90E+03 5.71E+01 1.35E+02 9.78E+03 5.35E+01 1.89E+04

Ba-137m 2.48E+00 6.61E+03 1.80E+03 5.40E+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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 116

enriched uranium. HLW is liquid before it is treated and solidified, and is considered a mixed 

waste if it contains hazardous 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 sites. However, additional HLW may 

be generated by waste management activities. 

Because the current forms of HLW (e.g., liquid solutions or calcine) are generally not suitable 

for transportation, interim storage, or final disposal, current plans call for all HLW to be 

immobilized at the site where it was produced. 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 repository. 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 shipments 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 shown in Table 6.34. These profiles reflect the 

latest inventories of HLW compositions at sites projected to exist following the pretreatment and 

treatment operations necessary to achieve the vitrified forms to place in the HLW canisters. 

Many of the radionuclides now present in the untreated form would be fractionated to some 

extent into the high-volume, low-radioactivity 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 radioactive material content, fuel material design, cladding design, 

reactor operating history, and storage history (cooling time). These differences translate into 

different material release characteristics under accident conditions. To account for these 

variations, the following representative SNF types are considered herein: (a) SRS production 

reactor fuels, (b) Hanford N-Reactor fuels, (c) graphite fuels, (d) special-case commercial reactor 

fuels, (e) university research/test reactor fuels, (f) DOE research/test reactor fuels, (g) foreign 

research reactor fuels, and (h) non-DOE research reactor 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 Laboratory 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., profiles leading to releases more 

hazardous than the actual profiles) were developed to provide reasonable bounds for shipping 

accident calculations. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 117

Table 6.34. Estimated Radionuclide Compositions (Ci/canister) for HLW Canisters at 

DOE Sitesa

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–01 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 118

Table 6.34. Estimated Radionuclide Compositions (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–02 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 119

Table 6.34. Estimated Radionuclide Compositions (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 present or at negligible concentration. 

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

Page 120

Table 6.35. Radionuclide Inventories (Ci) for Representative SNF Typesa

Radionuclide 

SRS 

Production 

Reactorb

Hanford 

N-Reactorc

Graphite 

Reactord

Special-Case 

Commerciale

University 

Research/Test 

Reactorf

DOE 

Research/Test 

Reactorg

Foreign 

Research/Test 

Reactorh

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+02 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 121

Table 6.35. Radionuclide Inventories (Ci) for Representative SNF Types (Continued) 

Radionuclide 

SRS 

Production 

Reactorb

Hanford 

N-Reactorc

Graphite 

Reactord

Special-Case 

Commerciale

University 

Research/Test 

Reactorf

DOE 

Research/Test 

Reactorg

Foreign 

Research/Test 

Reactorh

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 present or at negligible concentration. b

 Inventory based on one fuel assembly from a tritium 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 per metric ton 

uranium. e

 Inventory based on one PWR fuel assembly, 10 years cooling out of reactor, average burnup 33,000 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium. f

 Inventory based on 19 TRIGA fuel rods (70% enrichment; 122 g/rod uranium-235 beginning-of-life), 1 year cooling out of reactor, 20.2% average 

burnup. g

 Inventory based on EBR-II Mark-V fuel, 1 year cooling out of reactor, total burnup of 317 megawatt-days h

 Inventory based on 40 foreign TRIGA fuel elements, 1 year cooling out of reactor, average burnup of 31 grams uranium-235 per fuel element 

SRS production reactor SNF was assumed to include both the spent driver fuel used to power the 

production reactors and the irradiated plutonium target material currently in storage at SRS. 

Spent driver fuel stored at SRS includes fuel used in tritium and plutonium production. Analysis 

of these two fuel types showed that typical fuel used for tritium production contains a higher 

fission product and transuranic inventory than that used for plutonium 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 production driver fuel. Therefore, 

for analysis purposes, both spent driver fuel and 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 represent 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 metric ton of uranium and assumed a 10-year 

cooling time since removal from the reactor. The 10-year cooling time is conservative because 

the N-Reactor was last operated in 1987. Table 6.35 shows the radionuclide inventory used to 

represent Hanford N-Reactor SNF. 

Most of the spent graphite fuel under DOE responsibility is from the Fort 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 facility. Smaller amounts of other 

graphite SNF are also in storage at INEEL. Characteristics for graphite SNF are, therefore, 

based on Fort St. Vrain SNF. Table 6.35 shows the radionuclide inventory used to represent 

graphite reactor SNF based on six Fort St. Vrain fuel blocks 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) cooling time is conservative because the reactor 

was shut down in August 1989. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 prevalent and typically contains the highest levels of radioactivity 

(Fischer et al., 1987). Table 6.35 shows the radionuclide inventory used to represent commercial 

SNF based on one PWR fuel assembly irradiated 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 old by June 1995. RISKIND (Yuan et al., 1995) can 

provide a BWR or PWR SNF radionuclide inventory according to input values for fuel burnup, 

cooling time, and metric tons of uranium 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 reactor 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 fission 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 facilitate the modeling of 

accident consequences, the radionuclide inventory generated by the ORIGEN2 program was 

truncated to eliminate minor contributors to dose. The radionuclides eliminated accounted for 

less than 1% of the total dose. Additional details are available in Enyeart (1995). Table 6.35 

shows the radionuclide inventory representative of university research 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 represented by a variety of reactor types and fuel 

designs. Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) Mark-V SNF was chosen to represent DOE 

research and test reactors because it was one of the last DOE research 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 radionuclide inventory compared to other DOE SNF 

types. The radionuclide inventory 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 inventory generated by the ORIGEN2 program was 

truncated to eliminate minor contributors to dose. Again, the radionuclides eliminated accounted 

for less than 1% of the total dose. Additional details 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 burnup of 7.88% and assuming a cooling time of one 

year. 

Foreign research and test reactors 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 highest potential release of radioactivity in the 

event of an accident. To provide a bounding analysis for that EIS, foreign TRIGA-type SNF was 

selected to represent all foreign research reactor SNF. To facilitate the modeling of accident 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 123

consequences, the radionuclide inventory generated by the ORIGEN2 program was truncated to 

eliminate minor contributors to dose. The radionuclides 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 similar 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 factors for most isotopes; these 

characteristics are discussed in general terms below. 

Physical Properties 

Half-Life. The half-life is the characteristic decay period for a specific radioactive isotope after 

which half of the original amount remains. A compilation of half-lives for most isotopes can be 

found in ICRP Publication 38 (ICRP, 1983) and Firestone and Shirley (1998). 

Photon Energy. The photon energy of the gamma radiation emitted by decaying radioactive 

isotopes is used to estimate the groundshine dose in RADTRAN. 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 Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC, 1977b). For ingestion 

calculations in RADTRAN, the food and soil transfer 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 calculations 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. State-specific food transfer factors 

have been developed for each isotope. These may be used in COMIDA, or directly with the 

ground deposition calculated by RADTRAN. Appendix D contains more information on food 

transfer factors. 

Deposition Velocity of Aerosol Particles. Airborne contaminant particles from the resulting 

plume eventually deposit onto the ground surface 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 deposition velocities are generally less than 0.01 m/s 

(Sehmel, 1980; McMahon and Denison, 1979). However, the deposition velocity depends on 

such variables as particle size and type, surface roughness, and atmospheric stability. Values 

will tend to be higher over some areas of farmland with taller crops, wooded areas, and 

suburban/urban areas. The frequently used deposition velocity of 0.01 m/s for particles and 

aerosols is the median terminal velocity for 10-μm-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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 124

Dose Conversion Factors 

Cloudshine Dose Conversion Factor. The cloudshine dose conversion factor is used to estimate 

dose on the basis of external exposure from immersion 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 conversion 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 basis of internal exposure 

from inhaling contaminated air. These dose conversion 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 materials. Suggested values for this parameter 

are given in Table 6.36. These values are averages based on assumed daily activities for adults. 

Detailed assumptions can be found in the table references. 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 fraction of rural area devoted to food-chain land 

use in both RADTRAN and RISKIND. 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 produced and sold or would normally be sold during the year. 

Q 6.2 Vehicle-Related Risks 

In addition to the radiological cargo-related risks posed by transportation 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 shipments of any commodity. The vehicle-related 

risks are assessed for both incident-free conditions and accidents. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 125

Table 6.36. Breathing Rates for Inhalation Exposures 

Breathing Rate Reference 

m3

/s m3/yr 

RADTRAN standard value 3.3 × 10−4 10,000 

NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109a 2.5 × 10−4 8,000 

Average Adultb 2.3 × 10−4 7,300 

Maximum Adultb 3.5 × 10−4 11,000 

Indoor Activityb 

 Average 1.8 × 10−4 5,500 

 Maximum 2.5 × 10−4 7,800 

Outdoor Activityb 

 Average 3.9 × 10−4 12,000 

 Maximum 8.3 × 10−4 26,000 

a

 From NRC (1977b); 22 m3/d average based on recommendations found in ICRP 

(1975) of 21 m3

/d for adult females and 23 m3/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 Statesa

State Percent 

Farmland State PercentFarmland 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 Transportation 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-related 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 tractor-trailer combinations involved in interstate 

commerce are available in reports by Saricks and coworkers (Saricks and Kvitek, 1994; Saricks 

and Tompkins, 1999). Tables 6.38 and 6.39 present the injury and fatality rates, respectively. 

As discussed in Section 6.1.9.1, these 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 would be approximately the same when using 

dedicated trains, or general freight trains, since most accidents are the result of railcar derailment 

(DOT, 1997b). However, the apportionment of injuries and fatalities on a railcar or train is not 

straightforward because of two considerations. First, approximately half of the injuries and 

fatalities are a result of accidents at rail crossings (DOT, 1997b) in which the lead locomotive is 

usually involved in a collision. Second, a large portion of the remaining injuries or fatalities 

occur in rail switching (classification) yards. 

The first consideration suggests that the injury and fatality rates are independent of train length, 

and the rates should be based on specific trains (Cashwell et al., 1986). Therefore, if a shipment 

of radioactive material was considered a single railcar in a regular train with an average of 66 

railcars (five-year average number of railcars in a freight train [AAR, 1997b]), the injury or 

fatality rate for a shipment would be 1/66th (the railcar’s “contribution” to the shipment risk) that 

of a dedicated train shipment. Thus, the total injury and fatality risks for shipping by dedicated 

trains would be higher than by regular trains unless the dedicated 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 default 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 shipped 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 associated with railyards are not as 

relevant to dedicated trains as they are to regular trains. From this viewpoint, the casualty risks 
Page 127

Table 6.38. Combination Truck Injury Rates by State 

Injuries/km 

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

Interstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total Primary Se

Alabama 1.48E–07 3.17E–07 1.41E–07 2.13E–07 1.24E–07 4.66E–07 1.83E–07 5.62E–07 4Arizona 1.17E–07 6.30E–08 0 9.20E–08 1.65E–07 2.89E–07 1.82E–07 2.20E–07 2Arkansas 9.80E–08 2.08E–07 2.30E–08 1.24E–07 1.95E–07 4.09E–07 2.20E–07 4.38E–07 5California 1.24E–07 3.40E–08 1.44E–07 6.40E–08 1.68E–07 1.82E–07 1.74E–07 1.12E–07 2Colorado 3.15E–07 2.65E–07 3.72E–07 3.03E–07 2.82E–07 5.47E–07 3.45E–07 3.95E–07 3Connecticut 6.13E–07 2.64E–07 2.37E–06 6.16E–07 4.61E–07 1.71E–07 2.55E–07 1.89E–07 7Delaware 3.42E–07 5.95E–07 8.31E–07 5.11E–07 0 3.46E–07 3.46E–07 7.18E–07 3Florida 5.50E–08 6.00E–08 3.04E–07 7.10E–08 1.28E–07 2.36E–07 1.58E–07 4.12E–07 7Georgia *a * * 4.59E–07 1.75E–07 4.37E–07 2.26E–07 6.43E–07 3Idaho 3.07E–07 4.74E–07 5.62E–07 3.94E–07 2.12E–07 1.18E–07 1.99E–07 3.54E–07 1Illinois 1.50E–07 1.30E–07 4.97E–07 1.64E–07 1.49E–07 8.23E–07 3.20E–07 6.12E–07 1Indiana 1.40E–07 1.11E–07 3.40E–08 1.15E–07 1.81E–07 4.36E–07 2.30E–07 4.42E–07 2Iowa 8.60E–08 1.34E–07 1.80E–07 1.13E–07 1.46E–07 3.78E–07 1.76E–07 3.48E–07 8Kansas 2.54E–07 4.81E–07 2.53E–07 3.45E–07 1.91E–07 3.66E–07 2.28E–07 4.09E–07 1Kentucky 2.21E–07 7.30E–07 3.17E–07 3.61E–07 1.33E–07 5.52E–07 1.94E–07 5.28E–07 8Louisiana * * * 1.84E–07 1.32E–07 4.57E–07 2.16E–07 4.46E–07 2Maine 3.12E–07 1.70E–07 6.55E–07 3.33E–07 1.53E–07 4.52E–07 1.75E–07 5.00E–07 1Maryland 4.59E–07 6.89E–07 1.94E–06 6.06E–07 3.98E–07 3.41E–07 3.66E–07 4.32E–07 1Massachusetts 5.10E–08 1.27E–07 9.46E–07 1.04E–07 4.99E–07 1.13E–07 2.09E–07 3.02E–07 4Michigan 2.61E–07 1.03E–07 6.68E–07 2.20E–07 1.29E–07 3.04E–07 1.87E–07 2.61E–07 1Minnesota 8.40E–08 1.51E–07 1.13E–07 1.21E–07 1.46E–07 2.08E–07 1.69E–07 3.28E–07 1Mississippi 3.90E–08 8.80E–08 2.50E–08 5.70E–08 1.10E–07 1.85E–07 1.25E–07 4.55E–07 5Missouri 3.14E–07 3.85E–07 5.69E–07 3.65E–07 1.63E–07 5.53E–07 2.59E–07 5.06E–07 2Montana 2.56E–07 3.14E–07 1.17E–07 2.58E–07 1.79E–07 4.69E–07 1.93E–07 3.95E–07 2Nebraska 1.97E–07 3.52E–07 2.51E–07 2.59E–07 1.17E–07 6.58E–07 1.50E–07 3.54E–07 5Nevada 1.48E–07 2.52E–07 2.60E–08 1.62E–07 1.58E–07 5.67E–07 1.93E–07 3.72E–07 2New Hampshire 

1.63E–07 2.40E–07 4.02E–07 2.34E–07 1.14E–07 0 9.40E–08 4.17E–07 2
Page 128 Table 6.38. Combination Truck Injury Rates by State (Continued) Injuries/km 

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

Interstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total Primary Se

New 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 1New 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 1New York * * * 1.85E–07 2.56E–07 4.49E–07 3.28E–07 2.71E–07 1North 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 6North 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 Ohio 1.40E–07 4.00E–08 1.17E–07 1.07E–07 2.02E–07 2.85E–07 2.25E–07 4.40E–07 1Oklahoma 2.89E–07 3.18E–07 2.31E–07 2.85E–07 1.36E–07 3.34E–07 1.74E–07 3.05E–07 1Oregon * * * 1.36E–07 1.69E–07 3.82E–07 2.02E–07 2.94E–07 5Pennsylvania 3.83E–07 5.90E–07 1.78E–06 5.33E–07 3.28E–07 2.68E–07 3.15E–07 7.28E–07 6Rhode 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 2South Carolina * * * 3.30E–07 2.20E–07 2.65E–07 2.26E–07 6.96E–07 2South Dakota 1.72E–07 1.63E–07 1.03E–07 * 1.38E–07 5.71E–07 1.95E–07 2.94E–07 Tennessee 9.20E–08 2.43E–07 1.35E–07 1.27E–07 1.44E–07 7.70E–07 2.41E–07 5.85E–07 4Texas 5.47E–07 5.25E–07 5.46E–07 5.37E–07 1.42E–07 2.53E–07 1.83E–07 2.53E–07 9Utah 2.53E–07 2.49E–07 6.77E–07 2.84E–07 2.22E–07 2.08E–07 2.18E–07 3.73E–07 4Vermont 1.52E–07 3.80E–07 8.00E–08 2.20E–07 1.08E–07 0 1.04E–07 6.13E–07 4Virginia 3.10E–07 1.73E–07 1.20E–08 2.16E–07 2.46E–07 2.49E–07 2.47E–07 5.39E–07 4Washington 1.80E–07 1.18E–07 9.70E–08 1.40E–07 2.14E–07 1.49E–07 1.85E–07 2.11E–07 5West 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 7Wisconsin 3.33E–07 3.13E–07 1.10E–06 4.10E–07 1.45E–07 4.33E–07 1.81E–07 2.51E–07 3Wyoming 3.23E–07 3.34E–07 2.84E–07 3.23E–07 2.84E–07 0.00E+00 2.74E–07 1.86E–07 2Mean Rate 2.27E–07 2.73E–07 4.69E–07 2.56E–07 1.89E–07 3.36E–07 2.28E–07 3.82E–07 3.3Total Rate 2.25E–07 2.17E–07 3.33E–07 2.39E–07 −b − − − −

a * = data not provided by state. 

b

− = rate not provided 
Page 129

Table 6.39. Combination Truck Fatality Rates by State 

Fatalities/km 

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

Interstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total Primary S

Alabama 8.60E–09 4.15E–08 1.17E–08 2.19E–08 1.84E–08 3.29E–08 2.09E–08 6.34E–08 Arizona 9.40E–09 1.07E–08 0 9.40E–09 2.13E–08 3.56E–08 2.33E–08 4.97E–08 Arkansas 6.20E–09 5.14E–08 0 2.22E–08 2.28E–08 6.61E–08 2.78E–08 8.88E–08 California 7.00E–09 2.20E–09 5.90E–09 3.60E–09 2.56E–08 1.39E–08 2.06E–08 1.98E–08 Colorado 1.14E–08 2.05E–08 2.83E–08 1.75E–08 2.45E–08 3.38E–08 2.67E–08 6.58E–08 Connecticut 1.45E–08 1.70E–08 9.20E–08 1.91E–08 5.11E–08 1.01E–08 2.20E–08 1.17E–08 Delaware 5.60E–09 3.79E–08 1.60E–08 2.35E–08 0 1.66E–08 1.66E–08 1.35E–07 Florida 7.70E–09 1.06E–08 3.51E–08 1.07E–08 2.62E–08 1.74E–08 2.38E–08 5.92E–08 Georgia *a * * 1.95E–08 1.86E–08 2.37E–08 1.96E–08 8.30E–08 Idaho 3.80E–09 5.52E–08 3.64E–08 2.49E–08 2.06E–08 0 1.78E–08 7.46E–08 Illinois 8.30E–09 1.27E–08 4.08E–08 1.10E–08 1.39E–08 5.33E–08 2.38E–08 7.84E–08 Indiana 6.70E–09 1.42E–08 3.20E–09 8.60E–09 1.22E–08 3.51E–08 1.66E–08 7.66E–08 Iowa 9.40E–09 2.14E–08 8.60E–09 1.34E–08 1.05E–08 2.68E–08 1.26E–08 6.14E–08 Kansas 5.20E–09 4.68E–08 1.01E–08 2.29E–08 1.88E–08 5.52E–08 2.66E–08 9.35E–08 Kentucky 1.28E–08 5.30E–08 1.08E–08 2.29E–08 1.50E–08 3.22E–08 1.75E–08 6.60E–08 Louisiana * * * 9.20E–09 1.77E–08 4.90E–08 2.59E–08 5.73E–08 Maine 9.10E–09 0 1.86E–08 7.80E–09 2.34E–08 0 2.16E–08 6.58E–08 Maryland 6.50E–09 4.43E–08 6.39E–08 1.99E–08 4.03E–08 1.62E–08 2.69E–08 3.66E–08 Massachusetts 8.00E–10 6.10E–09 4.19E–08 3.80E–09 6.23E–08 1.30E–08 2.53E–08 3.93E–08 Michigan 1.07E–08 6.40E–09 3.14E–08 1.07E–08 1.23E–08 1.52E–08 1.33E–08 3.96E–08 Minnesota 3.00E–09 2.16E–08 1.50E–09 1.20E–08 1.72E–08 2.02E–08 1.83E–08 7.69E–08 Mississippi 2.50E–09 5.40E–09 6.00E–10 3.40E–09 1.81E–08 2.46E–08 1.93E–08 9.26E–08 Missouri 1.24E–08 3.16E–08 1.21E–08 1.97E–08 1.23E–08 4.30E–08 1.99E–08 9.68E–08 Montana 1.36E–08 2.90E–08 2.33E–08 2.03E–08 1.44E–08 3.12E–08 1.52E–08 7.97E–08 Nebraska 1.37E–08 2.74E–08 1.38E–08 1.87E–08 1.10E–08 6.58E–08 1.43E–08 5.75E–08 Nevada 6.60E–09 1.67E–08 3.30E–09 8.90E–09 1.14E–08 8.89E–08 1.79E–08 1.05E–07 New Hampshire 0 2.06E–08 8.90E–09 1.18E–08 1.49E–08 0 1.22E–08 5.77E–08 
Page 130 Table 6.39. Combination Truck Fatality Rates by State (Continued) Fatalities/km 

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

Interstate Primary Other Total Rural Urban Total Primary S

New 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 New 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 New York * * * 1.24E–08 1.38E–08 2.04E–08 1.63E–08 4.61E–08 North 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 North Dakota 1.02E–08 1.76E–08 0 1.11E–08 4.80E–09 4.00E–08 6.80E–09 9.80E–09 Ohio 3.90E–09 2.60E–09 6.90E–09 3.90E–09 1.32E–08 1.41E–08 1.35E–08 6.07E–08 Oklahoma 1.33E–08 2.12E–08 7.70E–09 1.47E–08 2.06E–08 2.70E–08 2.18E–08 4.88E–08 Oregon * * * 2.04E–08 1.12E–08 2.47E–08 1.33E–08 5.85E–08 Pennsylvania 1.35E–08 4.09E–08 5.03E–08 2.43E–08 2.97E–08 2.12E–08 2.79E–08 1.02E–07 Rhode 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 South Carolina * * * 2.60E–08 2.57E–08 2.88E–08 2.61E–08 8.61E–08 South 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 Tennessee 1.00E–08 2.60E–08 3.90E–09 1.30E–08 1.63E–08 5.59E–08 2.24E–08 6.97E–08 Texas 1.30E–08 2.86E–08 8.32E–08 2.70E–08 1.97E–08 1.93E–08 1.95E–08 4.77E–08 Utah 1.19E–08 1.60E–08 2.27E–08 1.39E–08 2.21E–08 5.90E–09 1.80E–08 8.25E–08 Vermont 0 2.81E–08 0 9.70E–09 4.30E–09 0 4.20E–09 3.36E–08 Virginia 1.61E–08 9.90E–09 0 1.16E–08 1.76E–08 1.91E–08 1.80E–08 7.28E–08 Washington 1.80E–09 7.50E–09 8.30E–09 5.30E–09 1.47E–08 8.00E–09 1.17E–08 2.54E–08 West 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 Wisconsin 9.10E–09 3.21E–08 2.51E–08 2.22E–08 6.60E–09 7.70E–09 6.7E–09 3.62E–08 Wyoming 1.08E–08 2.42E–08 0 1.24E–08 2.08E–08 0 2.01E–08 6.22E–08 Mean 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 Total Rate 9.60E–09 1.78E–08 1.71E–08 1.42E−08 −b − − − 

a * = data not provided by state. 

b− = rate not provided 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 131

are lower for dedicated trains than for regular trains. Saricks and Kvitek (1994) provide two sets 

of national average injury and fatality rates based on railcars. The first set, 5.37 × 10−7 injuries 

and 2.35 × 10−8 fatalities per railcar-km, includes all injuries 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 excluding a large portion of casualties in railyards (primarily due to 

trespassers). However, there are no such equivalent risks in truck transportation. Thus, it is 

more appropriate to use rates that include all injuries and fatalities because they occur during a 

necessary portion of the rail shipment process. The updated report by Saricks and Tompkins 

(1999) includes all injuries and fatalities in rates at the state level, as given in Table 6.40. 

At this time, there are no clear guidelines as to whether dedicated trains should be assigned 

higher casualties than waste shipments by regular train because casualties are independent of 

train length, or whether dedicated 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 transportation 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 health end point assessed under routine transport 

conditions is the excess (additional) latent mortality 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 roadway). Epidemiological evidence suggests that 

increases in ambient PM10 (particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to 10 μm) air concentrations may lead to increases 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 PM10 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 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 travel). 

This risk factor is based on regression analyses of fugitive dust and sulfur dioxide effects and 

particulate releases from diesel exhaust on mortality. Excess latent mortality is assumed 

equivalent to latent fatalities. Total emission fatalities for a shipment are estimated by 

multiplying this emission risk factor by the distance 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 transport vehicle, as was done for the WM PEIS 

(DOE, 1997b). However, Rao’s risk factors are based on an area with a population density of 

3,861 persons/km2

. Such densities are only found in urban areas such as Manhattan in New York 

City. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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–08 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 all truck classes and to non-urban as well as urban 

areas. Rao et al. (1982) only considered the heavy-duty truck class in urban areas. The methods 

used by Rao et al. (1982) were revised in conjunction with updated epidemiological data related 

to the health effects of airborne particulates (PM10) 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) assuming a population density of 1 person/km2

 on either 

side of the transport route. Latent emission fatalities including, but not limited to, cancer 

fatalities, may be estimated by multiplying the appropriate risk factor by the distance and 

corresponding population density along a selected route segment. 

As discussed in Biwer and Butler (1999), there are large uncertainties in the human health risk 

factors used to develop emission risks. In addition, because of the conservative assumptions 

made to reconcile results with those presented 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 PM10 levels than was used by Rao et al. (1982) in 

deriving the old emission risk factors. The question as to what exactly constitutes a fatality as a 

direct consequence of increased PM10 levels from vehicle emissions is still open, but long-term 

fatalities have been associated with increased levels of PM10 (Biwer and Butler, 1999). 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 134

Table 6.41. Estimated Vehicle Emissions (10 μm) 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 NAb NA 0.931 0.48 1.41 1.2 × 10−10

a

 Unit risk is based on a population density of 1 person/km2. c NA = not applicable. 

Source: Biwer and Butler (1999). 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Food-Chain Model for Acute 

Fall-out Deposition, EGG-GEO-10367, Idaho National Engineering 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 Models 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 Relationships for Airborne Particulate 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 Department, Washington, D.C. 

Association of American Railroads, 1997a, Comments on DOE’s Draft Solicitation for the 

Acquisition of Waste Acceptance 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 Transportation 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 Environmental Restoration — Working Towards a 

Cleaner Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., March 2-6. 

Best, R.E., et al., 1995, “Shipment Mobility/Accountability Collection (SMAC),” in the 11th

International Conference on the Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials 

(PATRAM ‘95), Las Vegas, Nev., Dec. 3-8. 

Biwer, B.M., and J.P. Butler, 1999, “Vehicle Emission 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 Engineer, Public Service Company of Colorado, 

Denver) to H.K. Pippen (Science Applications International Corporation, Idaho Falls, Idaho) 

regarding “Spent Fuel Cask Characteristics,” Jan. 24. 

Brenk, H.D., and H. De Witt, 1987, “Indoor Inhalation 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 Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M. 

Chanin, D., and M.L. Young, 1997, Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, User's Guide,

SAND97-0594, Sandia National Laboratories, 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 Transp., 715 F.2d 732, 743 (2nd Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 

U.S. 1055 (1984). 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Particulate Matter into Buildings, 

NUREG/CR-1151, prepared by Sandia National Laboratories for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 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 National 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 Transportation of Radioactive Materials, New 

Orleans, LA. 

Dennis, A.W., et al., 1978, Severities of Transportation Accidents Involving Large Packages, 

SAND77-0001, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., May. 

DOC: See U.S. Department 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 Accidents for Offsite Transportation of 

Spent Nuclear Fuel, Engineering Design File EIS-TRANS-34, Rev. 1, Science Applications 

International Corp., Idaho 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, prepared by Harvard School of Public 

Health, Harvard University, Boston, Mass., under contract to Sandia National Laboratories, 

Albuquerque, N.M., for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Highway 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, prepared by Sandia National 

Laboratories for U.S. Nuclear 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 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 

of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Division of Reactor System Safety, Washington, D.C., Feb. 

Fogh, C.L., et al., 1997, “Size Specific Indoor Aerosol Deposition Measurements and Derived 

I/O Concentrations Ratios,” Atmospheric Environment 31:2193-2203. 

Foley, J.T., et al., 1974, “Quantitative Characterization of the Environment Experienced by 

Cargo in Motor Carrier Accidents,” Proceedings of the 4th 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, Characteristics, Generation, and Facility 

Assessment for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Alternatives Considered in the U.S. 

Department of Energy Waste Management Programmatic 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 Perspectives 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 Laboratories, 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 Information Management, Washington, D.C., Sept. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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, presented 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 Laboratory, Richland, Wash., April. 

ICRP: See International Commission on Radiological Protection. 

IIHS: See Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2000, “Maximum Posted Speed Limits for Passenger 

Vehicles as of July 2000,” http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/state_laws/speed_limit_laws.htm, 

accessed October 2000. 

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1975, Reference Man: Anatomical, 

Physiological and Metabolic Characteristics, 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 (WebTRAGIS) Users Manual, ORNL/TM-2000/86, prepared by Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., for 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. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental 

Restoration and Waste Management, Transportation 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. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental 

Restoration and Waste Management, Transportation Management Division, Washington, 

D.C., March. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Breathing 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 Laboratories, 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 International Corporation for the U.S. Department 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 Applications International 

Corp.) to F.A. Monette (Argonne National Laboratory), 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 141

Neuhauser, K.S., and F.L. Kanipe, 1995, RADTRAN 4: Volume 2, Technical Manual, SAND89-

2370, Sandia National Laboratories, 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 Potential Repository Wastes, DOE/RW-0184, 

Vols. 1-6, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., for 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 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 Incident-Free Transport of Nuclear 

Waste, SAND85-2149, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., Feb. 

Ostro, B., and L. Chestnut, 1998, “Assessing the Health Benefits of Reducing Particulate Matter 

Air Pollution in the United States,” Environ. Res. A 76:94–106. 

Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 1981, “Peer Review Report on the IAEA Radioactive Material 

Transportation Risk Model-INTERTRAN,” supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Contract No. DE-AC06-76RLO 1830, Richland, Wash. 

Permattei, S, et al., 1985, “Assessment of Individual and Collective Doses to Transport Workers 

and Population from Transport of Irradiated Fuels,” in Chairman’s Report, Technical 

Committee on the Assessment of the Radiological Impact from the Transport 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 Transportation 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 Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M. 

Resnikoff, M., 1983, The Next Nuclear Gamble: Transportation and Storage of Nuclear Waste,

New York Council on Economic Priorities, New York, N.Y. 

River Road Alliance, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers, 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 Laboratories, 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 Rates 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 143

Shamoo, D.A., et al., 1992, “Effectiveness of Training Subjects to Estimate Their Level of 

Ventilation,” J. Occ. Med. Tox. 1:55-62. 

Shibata, T., et al., 1984, “Release of Fission Products from Irradiated 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 Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards, Spent Fuel Project Office, Washington, D.C., March. 

Steinman, R. L. 2000. Evaluation of the Radiological Risks Associated with the Routine 

Transport of Radioactive Material 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, Directorate 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, 95th

edition, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1975, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1975, 96th

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 Administration, 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 Statement for Management of 

Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste, DOE/EIS-0046, Washington, D.C., Oct. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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, “Radioactive 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 Potential Repository Wastes, Vols. 1-4, 

DOE/RW-0184-R1, prepared by Oak Ridge National 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, Safety, and Health, Washington, D.C., April. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1994b, DOE Handbook, Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and 

Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 145

U.S. Department of Energy, 1995b, Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and 

Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0203-F, 

Office of Environmental Management, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho, April. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1995c, Safety Analysis Report, Vitrified 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 Concerning 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., available online at: http://www.hanford.gov/pss/t&p/ 

dot7a/pdot7a.htm. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1997d, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0026-S-2, Carlsbad 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 Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at 

Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, DOE/EIS-0250, Office of Civilian 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, Naval Sea Systems Command, Nov. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1992, Guidelines for Selecting Preferred Highway Routes 

for Highway Route Controlled Quantity Shipments of Radioactive Materials, DOT/RSPA/ 

HMS/92-02, Research and Special Programs Administration, Washington, D.C., Aug. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996a, National Transportation Statistics 1997, 

DOT-VNTSC-BTS-96-4, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, 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 Administration, Office of Motor Carriers, Washington, 

D.C., Oct. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997a, Highway Statistics 1996, Federal Highway 

Administration, Office of Highway Information 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 Assessment, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air 

Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion, 

Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA 520/1-88-020, prepared by Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory for the Office of Radiation 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 Transportation 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, Emission Planning and Strategies Division, Ann 

Arbor, Mich., April. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996a, Review of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, 

EPA-452/R-96-013, Office of Air Quality 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 Quality Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, N.C., April. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975, “Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences,” 

Appendix VI to Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977a, Final Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes, NUREG-0170, Office of 

Standards Development, Washington, D.C., Dec. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977b, Calculation of Annual Dose to Man from Routine 

Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 

50, Appendix I, Rev. 1, Regulatory Guide 1.109, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1981, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement Related to Decontamination and Disposal of Radioactive Waste Resulting from 

March 29, 1979 Accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, NUREG-0683, 

March. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 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 Commission, 1998, “NRC Issues Certificate 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 148

Weiner, R.F., et al., 1991, “An Approach to Assessing the Impacts of Incident-Free 

Transportation of Radioactive Materials: 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, Wash., 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 Scenarios for Commercial Spent Fuel, 

SAND80-2124, Sandia National Laboratories, 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 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, 

Ann Arbor, Mich., for the Vehicle Research and Test Center, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, East 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/Outdoor 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, RISKIND — A Computer Program for Calculating Radiological 

Consequences and Health Risks from Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel, ANL/EAD-1, 

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 149

8. Glossary 

The following glossary of transportation/packaging terms is provided for the purpose of this 

handbook. 

A 

Accident: A deviation from normal operations or activities associated with a hazard which has 

the potential to result in an emergency [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) involving any type of HAZMAT (see hazardous material definition), to 

a degree requiring special attention (i.e., decontamination (see decontamination 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 range. The most energetic alpha particle will 

generally fail to penetrate the skin. 

Annual limit on intake: The derived limit for the amount of radioactive material taken into the 

body of an adult worker by inhalation or ingestion in a year. Annual limit on intake is the smaller 

value of intake of a given radionuclide [see radionuclide definition] in a year by the reference 

man (International Commission Radiological Protections Publication 23) that would result in a 

committed effective dose equivalent [see effective dose equivalent definition] of 5 rem 

(0.05 sievert) or a committed dose equivalent of 50 rems (0.5 sievert) to any 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 safety, 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 advocating the interests of 

railroads in the public policy arena. The AAR works to enhance the productivity of the railroad 

industry through research and development, and other support programs. The organization 

facilitates a seamless intermodal interchange by electronically exchanging information among 

railroads, their customers, and their suppliers. Although AAR’s most visible activity is 

representation of its members before Congress, regulatory agencies, and the courts, most of 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 150

AAR’s employees and budget are focused on operations, maintenance, safety, theoretical and 

applied research, economics, finance, accounting, 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 and a mass equal to 1/1837 that of a proton (see 

proton definition). A negatively charged beta particle 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 emitters are harmful if they enter the body. Beta 

particles are easily stopped by a thin 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 incident 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 transportation of passengers or property by land or water as a 

common, contract, or private carrier, or by civil aircraft. (10CFR71.4) 

Cask: A container for shipping or storing radioactive 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 exposures or that recurs often. 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System: The composite of sites, facilities, systems, 

equipment, materials, information, activities, and 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 vehicle used on public highways in 

interstate commerce to transport passengers or property where the vehicle has a gross vehicle 

weight rating or gross combination weight rating 10,001 or more pounds; or the vehicle is 

designed to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver; or the vehicle is used in the 

transportation of HAZMAT (see hazardous material definition) in a quantity requiring placarding 

under regulations issued by the Secretary (of Transportation) under the Hazardous Materials 

Transportation Act. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 151

Common carrier: The most accepted characteristics: availability of service to anyone seeking a 

transportation movement, publication of rates, provision of the service on schedule, service to 

designated points or a designated area, and service of a given class of movement and commodity. 

Consequence: The result (i.e., health or other environmental effect) of a release of radioactive 

or HAZMAT (see radioactive and hazardous material definitions) to the environment. 

Consequence assessment: The evaluation and interpretation 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 whose external surface 

dose rate does not exceed 200 millirem (see millirem definition) per hour. 

Containment: A protective action that prevents an adversary force from escaping from and/or 

removing a DOE safeguards and security interest from DOE or DOE contractor control. A 

protection strategy of the same name. An enclosure designed to retain fission products 

accidentally released from a reactor core (e.g., containment structure for a nuclear power plant or 

production reactor). Barriers or other physical confinements of airborne or liquid material 

released or which could be released into the environment. 

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

Contract carrier: A carrier, whatever mode, that provides 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 rates under regulation, but the charges applied must 

be made public. 

Curie (Ci): A measure of the radioactivity (see radioactivity definition) of 1.0 gram of radium, 

equal to 37 billion disintegrations per second. 

D 

Decay: The decrease in activity of any radionuclide (see radionuclide definition) over time, due 

to spontaneous emission of radiation from its atomic nuclei of either 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 related 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 health effects. (29 CFR 

1910.120) 

Dedicated train: Train service, as opposed to regular train service, that may include certain 

restrictions such as consisting of a locomotive, caboose, buffer cars, one or more cars of 

radioactive, and no other freight; may not travel at any time faster than 35 miles per hour; and 

must stop when it meets, passes, or is passed by another train. Special routing restrictions may 

also apply in which the railroad will attempt to avoid highly populated areas. As a separately 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 152

operating train with its own crew, the special train will avoid some rail yards and sidings that are 

engaged in railcar switching, 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 employees in their work; require action or impose 

workload; give information essential to the administration or operation of the Department; or 

transmit other information to employees or contractors of the Department when use of DOE 

publications would not be practicable. Issuances used for permanent or long-lasting directives. 

Dose: Refers to either the amount of energy absorbed 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 terms, 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 damage a worker or member of the public sustains 

when exposed to ionizing radiation. These terms are used to describe the 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 definition modifying factors (N). Dose equivalent is expressed in 

units of rem (see rem definition) (or sievert) (1 rem = 0.01 sievert). 

Dosimetry: The theory and application of the principles and techniques involved in measuring 

and recording radiation doses (see dose definition). 

E 

Effective dose equivalent (HE): The summation of the products of the dose equivalent received 

by specified tissues of the body (HT) and the appropriate weighting factors (WT) — that is 

(HE = Σ WTHT). It includes the dose (see dose definition) from radiation sources internal and/or 

external to the body. The EDE is expressed in units 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 reduce its activity by half, as a combined result of 

radioactive decay (see decay definition) and biological elimination. 

Emergency: An emergency is the most serious event and consists of any unwanted operational, 

civil, natural-phenomenon, or security occurrence which could endanger or adversely affect 

people, property, or the environment. (DOE Order 5500.1B) 

Emergency response: The implementation of planning and preparedness during an emergency 

involving the effective decisions, actions, and application 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 153

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Detailed written statements as required by NEPA 

Section 102(2)(C). (40 CFR 1508.9) A document required for major federal projects or 

legislative proposals significantly affecting the environment. 

Exclusive use: The sole use of a conveyance by a single consignor and for which all initial, 

intermediate, and final loading and unloading are carried 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 devices, nuclear reactors, 

production or processing plants, coal conversion plants, magnetohydrodynamics experiments, 

windmills, radioactive waste disposal systems and burial grounds, testing laboratories, research 

laboratories, transportation activities, and accommodations 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 electromagnetic radiation emitted from the 

nucleus. Gamma radiation frequently accompanies alpha (see alpha definition) and beta (see 

beta definition) emissions and always accompanies fission. Gamma rays are very penetrating and 

are best stopped or shielded against by dense materials, such as lead or depleted uranium (see 

depleted uranium definition). Gamma rays are essentially 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 the potential to adversely impact the health 

and safety of personnel, the public, the environment, or national security. Hazards are divided 

into three classes: a) Low: hazards 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 people 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 large 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 threat to life, property, or the environment (this definition is 

applicable to DOE orders and is not to be confused with the term “hazardous material substance” 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 154

defined in Section 101(14) of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act of 1980 and in [40 CFR 300.6]). Also defined by 49 CFR 171.8 as a substance or 

material designated by the Secretary of Transportation to be capable of posing an unreasonable 

risk to health, safety, and property when transported 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 substance designated pursuant to Section 311(b) 

(2) (A) of the Clean Water Act; any element, compound, mixture, solution or substance 

designated pursuant to Section 102 identified under or listed pursuant to Section 3001 of the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act (but not including any waste listed under Section 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 include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction 

thereof, which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance in the 

first sentence of this paragraph, and the term does not include natural gas, 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, reactivity, or toxicity. (DOE Order 5500.2A) Any material that is 

subject to the Hazardous Waste Manifest 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 radioactive material that is determined, consistent with existing 

law, to require permanent isolation (DOE M 435.1-1) 

HIGHWAY: an interactive computer code that is used to calculate routes in accordance with 

HRCQ regulations (49 CFR 397.101) for spent-fuel shipment in the United States. 

I 

Incident: Any deviation from normal operations or activities which has the potential to result in 

an emergency (see emergency definition). 

Incident-free transportation: Shipment activities without accidents or other unexpected or 

unusual occurrences. 

Indian tribe: Any Indian tribe, band nation, or other organized group or community of Indians 

recognized as eligible for the services provided to Indians by the Secretary of the Interior 

because of their status as Indians, including any Alaska 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 Transportation 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 effect continuous movement of the 

shipment to destination without 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 isotopes have the 

same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. Isotopes usually have very nearly the 

same chemical properties, but somewhat 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 containment (see containment definition) devices listed in 

49 CFR 172.400 shall label the package 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 population 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 maximum limits of the state, and not requiring 

overweight permits. 

Limited quantity: When specified as such in a section applicable 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, district, or political subdivision of any 

state, Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, 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 definition), 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 chemical 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 milliliter; (4) material in 

which the radioactivity (see radioactivity definition) is essentially uniformly distributed and in 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 156

which the estimated average concentration of contents does not exceed amounts listed in 49 CFR 

173.403; and (5) objects of nonradioactive material externally contaminated with radioactive 

material, provided that the radioactive material is not readily dispersible and the surface 

contamination (see contamination definition), when averaged over an area of 1 square meter, 

does not exceed 0.0001 millicurie per square centimeter 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 combinations thereof, required by this DOT on outer 

packaging of HAZMAT (see hazardous material definition). 

Maximally exposed individual (MEI): A hypothetical individual located at a position that 

maximizes potential radiation exposure from incident-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 equipment 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 engaged in carrying people or freight 

for a fee. 

Motor contract carrier: A person, other than a motor common carrier, providing motor vehicle 

transportation of passengers for compensation under 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 environment, 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 particle with a mass slightly greater than that of the proton 

(see proton definition); found in the nucleus of every atom heavier than hydrogen. A free 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 electron 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 water, paraffin, or polyethylene. 

Nuclear reactor: An apparatus designed or used to sustain nuclear fission in a self-supporting 

and controlled chain reaction. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): The federal agency responsible for regulating 

commercial nuclear power plants and other commercial nuclear operations pursuant to the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and covered by provisions under Section 170(a) of that 

Act. This federal agency has a broad statutory authority over transportation 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 packages and packages for fissile material (see 

fissile material definition). The NRC prescribes rules for monitoring of packages on receipt, for 

limiting the exposure of individuals to ionizing radiation, and for in-transit security of certain 

materials. NRC imposes DOT shipping requirements 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-level radioactive waste definition) and SNF (see spent nuclear fuel 

definition) from civilian (commercial) nuclear reactors. The NWPA also established the Office 

of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management within DOE to carry out these responsibilities. 

O 

Off-link population: All persons living alongside of a transportation route. 

On-link population: Persons in all vehicles sharing the transportation 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 radioactive contents as presented for transport. 

Packaging: For radioactive materials, the assembly 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 structures, thermal insulation, radiation shielding, and 

devices for cooling or absorbing mechanical shocks. The conveyance, tie-down system, and 

auxiliary equipment may sometimes by designated 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 warning sign made of a durable material and placed on 

the exterior sides of a transport vehicle. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 158

Plume: Airborne material spreading from a particular source. Used to denote dispersal of 

particles, gases, vapors, and aerosols in the atmosphere. 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 routing agency (see state routing 

agency definition), and/or (2) a state-designated route selected by a state routing agency in 

accordance with the DOT Guidelines for Selecting Preferred Highway Routes for Highway 

Route Controlled Quantity Shipments of Radioactive 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 resulting 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 considered. PAG values should reflect a balance of 

risks and costs to onsite personnel, public health and safety, 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 regulations, any material having a specific 

activity greater than 0.002 microcuries per gram (μCi/g). 

Radioactive waste: Solid, liquid, or gaseous material that contains radionuclides (see 

radionuclides definition) regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and of 

negligible economic value considering costs of recovery. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 analysis of the consequences and risks of 

radioactive material (see radioactive materials definition) transportation. RADTRAN is used to 

estimate radiological risks associated with incident-free transportation of radioactive materials 

and with accidents that might occur during transportation. 

Railroad: Classifications based on traffic density/utilization measures 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 least 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. (Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 

1976, PL 94-210) 

5. Main track: A track, other than an auxiliary track, extending through yards or between 

stations, upon which trains are operated by timetable 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 speeds for freight and passenger trains as 

established by the FRA. There are five such classes of track. 

Release: As defined by Section 101(22) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, 

emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the 

environment (including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed 

receptacles containing any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant), but excludes: any 

release which results in exposure to a person solely 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 nuclear material from a nuclear incident, as those 

terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, if such release is subject to requirements 

with respect to financial protections established by the NRC under 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 special nuclear material definition) from any 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 application 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 transuranic waste definition) 

whose external surface dose (see dose definition) rate exceeds 200 millirem (see millirem 

definition) per hour. Test specimens of fissionable material irradiated for research and 

development purposes only and not for the production of power or plutonium may be classified 

as RH TRUW. 

Reprocessing: The process by which SNF (see spent nuclear fuel definition) is separated into 

waste material for disposal and material such as uranium (see uranium definition) 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 radiological consequences and 

health risks to individuals and the collective population from exposures associated with the 

transportation of SNF (see spent nuclear fuel definition) and other radioactive material. 

S 

Safety analysis: A documented process to systematically 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 which 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 tenders a shipment for transportation. The term 

includes persons who prepare packages for shipment, 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page 161

Special form radioactive material: This is radioactive material which satisfies the following 

conditions: (1) it is either a single 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 the requirements of 10 CFR 71.75 (10 CFR 71.4). 

Spent fuel assemblies: Nuclear fuel is fabricated into small pellets. These pellets are encased 

into strong cylindrical rods. An assembly is a group 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 withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following 

irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been separated by reprocessing. SNF 

includes (1) intact, non-defective fuel assemblies; (2) failed fuel assemblies in canisters (see 

canister definition); (3) fuel assemblies in canisters; (4) consolidated fuel rods in canisters; 

(5) nonfuel components inserted in PWR (see pressurized water reactor definition) fuel 

assemblies; (6) fuel channels attached to BWR (see BWR definition) fuel assemblies; and (7) 

nonfuel components and structural parts 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 locomotive, or more than one locomotive coupled, 

with or without cars. 

Train accident: A passenger, freight, or work train 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 involving a switching movement. 

Train incident: An event involving the movement of railroad on-track equipment that results in 

a casualty but in which railroad property damage 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 than 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 containing more than 100 nanocuries 

(3,700 becquerels) of alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes per gram of waste, with half-lives 

greater than 20 years, except for: (1) high-level radioactive waste; (2) waste that the Secretary of 

Energy has determined, with the concurrence of the 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 accordance with 10 CFR Part 61. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 required 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 integrity of containment and shielding by 

regulation when subjected to the normal conditions of transport and hypothetical accident (see 

accidents definition) test conditions as required. 

U 

Uranium (U): A heavy, naturally radioactive, metallic 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 industry because it is the only isotope existing in nature to any 

appreciable extent that is fissionable by thermal neutrons. U-238 is also important because it 

absorbs neutrons (see neutrons definition) to produce a radioactive 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 heat, 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 stabilizing 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 transport of HAZMAT (see hazardous 

material definition) from DOE facilities to the WIPP. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 transportation risk assessments. This appendix does 

not set DOE policy. The discussion papers reflect only the authors’ views and opinions. 

Although only one paper is currently presented, others will be added (as appropriate) in future 

revisions of this handbook. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page A-2

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page A-3

Discussion Paper No. 1- Cumulative Impacts of Transportation 

Abstract 

This issue paper on cumulative impact arose from a need to scope out the cumulative nature, 

both in activity and time, of transportation risk to the community. This discussion paper 

summarizes previous NEPA experience from which a consistent approach can be derived. It also 

highlights the key elements and offers insight into the current state of knowledge and experience 

of cumulative impact. Application 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) require that the scope of environmental impact statements 

(EISs) include cumulative impacts. In 40 CFR 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 (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. 

In DOE EISs and environmental assessments (EAs), incident-free and accident transportation 

impacts are typically estimated for people along, near, or sharing transportation routes. These 

impacts are often presented for the total duration of the alternatives, although annual impacts 

may also be presented. Often, these impacts are known as the “total transportation impacts” of a 

proposed action or alternative, and are not the same as the cumulative impacts of transportation, 

because cumulative impacts are estimated across several projects or activities. 

For incident-free transportation impacts, three measures of impact are usually presented: (1) the 

radiological impacts to people along, near, or sharing transportation routes, (2) the 

nonradiological impacts from vehicle exhaust emissions to people along transportation routes, 

and (3) the radiological impacts for MEIs. The first two measures of impact 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 cumulative 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 reasonably foreseeable accident. Radiological 

accident risks and nonradiological traffic fatalities are estimated over the entire transportation 

network. However, the radiological consequences from maximum reasonably foreseeable 

accidents are usually estimated at specific types of locations, such as urban or rural areas. Since 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page A-4

it is not reasonably foreseeable that two of these transportation accidents would occur in the 

same location, it is inappropriate to include these impacts in a cumulative impacts analysis. 

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

2.1 Existing Requirements/Guidance 

The requirements for cumulative impacts analyses are contained in the following documents: 

1. “CEQ Regulations for Implementing Procedural 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 Environmental 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 the alternatives evaluated in the EIS, (3) shipments associated 

with other reasonably foreseeable actions unrelated to the alternatives evaluated 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 transportation, 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 chosen to quantify transportation 

cumulative impacts. These doses were usually estimated with the RADTRAN 4 computer code 

and expressed as cancer fatalities. Individual doses 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 phases 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. Because 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 the start of operations at each of the five sites 

because a satisfactory justification could not be found to stop at any other point in time. This 

lack of data and the consequent need for extrapolation 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 alternative census data or to reconstruct the highway or 

rail system as it existed in earlier decades. Again, the potential for uncertainty in the analyses 

was disclosed in the EIS. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 the RADTRAN 4 computer code and were also 

expressed as cancer fatalities. 

The doses for shipments associated with other reasonably 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 definition 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 from other NEPA documents, but instead included 

the doses that were presented in those documents. A tiered approach 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 associated with the alternative chosen in the ROD 

were included. If an ROD was not available, the doses associated with the preferred alternative 

were included. If no preferred alternative was identified, a range of doses that included the 

alternatives with the smallest and largest transportation doses was presented. Because NEPA 

requires evaluating a no-action alternatives, which usually do not involve transportation, this 

often meant that doses ranged from zero to some maximum value. If an action had not 

progressed to the preparation of a NEPA document, 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 and private persons; all must be included in the 

cumulative impacts analysis. The doses for general 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 Reservation. 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 the other measure of transportation cumulative 

impact. This measure was chosen because far more fatalities result from the trauma impacts of 

radioactive materials transportation traffic accidents than from the radiological impacts. In the 

Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Environmental Impact Statement (DOE, 1995), 

the number of traffic fatalities estimated for shipments associated with the alternatives was 

compared to the baseline number of traffic fatalities 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 accidents involving SNF going back to 

1949 was also presented. 

The best available cumulative impact data included impacts that may have been double-counted. 

Where identifiable, instances of double counting were removed, but little effort was made in this 

area because the existing approach was conservative (i.e., overestimated impacts), and continued 

refinement was not viewed as cost-effective. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page A-6

This approach for estimating the cumulative radiological impacts of transportation has been used 

in several other DOE EISs, such as the Nevada Test Site EIS (DOE, 1996a), the Container 

System EIS (U.S. Department of the Navy [USN], 1996), the Waste Management PEIS (DOE, 

1997), the Foreign Research Reactor EIS (DOE, 1996b), the Surplus Plutonium Disposition EIS 

(DOE, 1999a), and the Yucca Mountain Repository DEIS (DOE, 1999b). 

3 PROPOSED APPROACH 

Cumulative transportation impacts could be analyzed within the framework established in the 

Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Environmental Impact Statement (DOE, 1995). 

Historical transportation impacts would be estimated to the degree 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 based on other relevant NEPA documents (when 

available). The cumulative impacts analysis would include all reasonably foreseeable future 

actions; generally these will coincide with the timeframe evaluated in the EIS. 

General transportation impacts would be estimated from the start 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 fatalities. 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 consequences of maximum reasonably foreseeable accidents 

would not be included in the cumulative impacts analysis, because it is not reasonably 

foreseeable that two such transportation accidents 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 EISs 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 with the alternatives evaluated in other EAs and 

EISs or the impacts of historical shipments from other DOE NEPA documents. The NTP could 

be responsible for gathering the data necessary to compile and maintain 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). Compiling 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, Considering Cumulative Impacts under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1993, Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental 

Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, Office of NEPA Oversight, 

Washington, D.C. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page A-7

U.S. Department of Energy, 1995, Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 

Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0203-F, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996a, Final Environmental 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 Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed 

Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent 

Nuclear Fuel, DOE/EIS-0218F, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, 

Washington, D.C., Feb. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1997, 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. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1999a, Surplus Plutonium Disposition Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, DOE/EIS-0283, Office of Fissile Material Disposition, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1999b, Draft Environmental 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 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, Naval Sea Systems Command, Nov. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977, Final Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Transportation of Radioactive Material 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 Impacts of Incident-Free 

Transportation of Radioactive Materials: II. Highway Transportation,” Risk Analysis 

11(4):661-666. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page A-8

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-1

Appendix B 

CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTATION RELATING TO THE 

FORMATION AND ORGANIZATION OF THE 

TRANSPORTATION RISK ASSESSMENT 

WORKING GROUP 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-2

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-3
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-4
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-5
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-6
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-7
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-8
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-9
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-10
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-11
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-12
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-13

Transportation Risk Assessment Working Group (TRAWG) 

Mission 

The mission of the TRAWG is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness 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 transportation risk-assessment preparation time and 

cost, ensuring technical adequacy of such assessments, promoting consistency among DOE 

programs, and expediting the assessment 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 ongoing NEPA projects 

• performing expert peer review and approval functions 

Membership 

The TRAWG is composed primarily of members of DOE program offices and seeks to draw 

upon the technical expertise, insights, 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 assignments provided by the TRAWG. 

Responsibilities 

The responsibilities of the technical group include the following. 

• providing technical input and assistance to the TRAWG 

• defining assessment approaches and methodology 

• collecting and evaluating data 

• preparing reports and deliverables, as scheduled 

The technical sub-group receives direction from and reports directly to the TRAWG. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page B-14

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-1

Appendix C 

ISOTOPIC PROPERTIES 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-2

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-3

Table C.1 contains listings of the isotopic data discussed in Section 6.1.11.2. Blank entries in the 

table indicate an absence of data in the given reference. 

Table C.1. Isotopic Data 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–19 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-4

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–08 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-5

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–09 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-6

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–08 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-7

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–09 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-8

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–08 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-9

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–12 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-10

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–14 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-11

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–08 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-12

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–09 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-13

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–09 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-14

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–08 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-15

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–11 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-16

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–10 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-17

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–09 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-18

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–10 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-19

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–11 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-20

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–09 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-21

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–05 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-22

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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–10 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-23

Table C.1. Isotopic Data (Continued) 

Dose Conversion Factorsc

Nuclide Half-Lifea

Photon 

Energyb

(MeV) 

Groundshined

(Sv-m2/Bq-s) 

Cloudshinee

(Sv-m3/Bq-s) 

Ingestionf

(Sv/Bq) 

Inhalationf

(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 references. For changing to other commonly used units, the 

conversions are: 1 Sv = 100 rem and 1 Ci = 3.7 × 1010 Bq.

External exposure from contaminated ground surface (EPA, 1993). 

External exposure from air immersion (EPA, 1993). 

For internal exposure, the largest effective 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 Radionuclide Intake and Air 

Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion, 

Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA 520/1-88-020, prepared by Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory for the Office of Radiation 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 Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, D.C., Sept. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page C-24

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-1

Appendix D 

RADIONUCLIDE FOOD TRANSFER FACTORS 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-2

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-3

Ingestion food transfer factors and 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 transportation 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-level 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 cleaning by washing) is assumed. The calculated transfer factors 

would therefore be strongly influenced by local agricultural productivity. 

D.1 Methodology 

The method used to calculate food ingestion transfer 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 Protection and Measurements (NCRPM) (NCRPM, 

1989). For accidental releases to the atmosphere, particulates are retained by vegetation in the 

food chain via three mechanisms. The first is direct 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 physical and chemical behavior of 

radionuclides such as tritium and carbon-14 in the environment, and for the sake of 

completeness, transfer factors for these radionuclides are calculated separately. 

D.1.1 Direct Deposition 

For the direct deposition from the initial plume, the amount of radioactivity retained on the 

vegetation is calculated by: 

 di i d

v

C = < X > V ei e i h

Pr

Y exp [-(λ λ t + t )] , (D.1) 

where 

 Cdi = concentration retained in vegetation (Ci/kg); 

 <Xi> = time-integrated air concentration of the initial passing plume (Ci-yr/m3); 

 Vd = deposition velocity, assumed for particulates to be 3.16 × 105

 m/yr (0.01 m/s); 

 r = fraction of deposited activity intercepted and retained by the edible portion of the 

crop (dimensionless, assumed to be 0.25); 

 P = probability that an accident will occur during the growing season (assumed to be 

0.5); 

 Yv = standing crop biomass of edible portion of vegetation at harvest, assumed to be 2 

kg/m2 for crops and 0.72 kg/m2 for pasture grass; 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-4

λei = effective decay constant for removal of the radionuclide deposited on vegetation 

(1/d), where λe = λi + 0.693/tw, tw = 0.0383 yr (14 d); 

 te = time period of aboveground crop exposure to contamination during the growing 

season, assumed to be 0.165 yr (60 d) for crops and 0.082 yr (30 d) for pasture 

grass; 

λi = radioactive decay constant (yr); and 

 th = time period between harvest of vegetation 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 Cdi can derive the transfer factors based on the local agricultural 

foodstuff affected by the release. 

D.1.2 Resuspension 

Following the initial deposition, the radionuclide will eventually settle on the ground, where it 

can be resuspended into the air and once again become available for deposition onto the 

vegetation. The time-integrated concentration of radioactivity 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 

 <Csi> = time-integrated radioactivity concentration in vegetation due to resuspension (Ciyr/kg), and 

 XRi(t) = resuspended air concentration at time t (Ci/m3

). 

The time-integrated concentration <Csi>, if multiplied by the annual crop yield Pc(kg/m2

-yr), 

represents the amount of total radioactivity transferred via crop ingestion. 

The resuspended air concentration in Equation D.2 is calculated by the following (Momeni et al., 

1979): 

 XRi(t) = Gi(t) R(t) , (D.3) 

where Gi(t) is the deposited ground concentration at time t, and R(t) is the resuspension 

coefficient at time t. 

 Gi io (t) = G g i exp [-( + ) t] λ λ (D.4) 

where Gio is the initial deposition concentration (in Ci/m2

), which is equal to <Xi>Vd, λg = 

0.603/tg,tg, which is the ground removal half-life, assumed to be 50 yr, and 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-5

( ) R(t) = F exp t , 0 t t

F , t t 

Iw s

E s

− ≤≤

≤







λ

 (D.5) 

where 

 FI = initial resuspension factor (10-5/m), 

 FE = final resuspension factor (10-9/m), 

λw = 0.693/tw, tw = 0.1368 yr (50 d), and 

 ts = 1.823 yr. 

The basic formulation of the above expression 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 Si io i d exp(- t )

- t

v ei

i h

λ ei e

λ λ , (D.6) 

where 

( ) { } [ ] ( ) ( ) < T > = [ ] ( ) F

1 exp t 

F

i exp t

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 uptake 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 

 <Cri> = time-integrated radioactivity concentration in vegetation from root uptake (Ciyr/kg); 

 Gi(t) = ground concentration at time t, given in Equation D.4; 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-6

 Bv(i) = concentration ratio for the transfer of the element to the edible portion of a crop 

from dry soil (Ci/kg plant per Ci/kg soil) (Table D.1);6

 and 

ρ = areal density for the effective root zone in dry soil, assumed to be 240 kg/m2

. 

The time-integrated concentration <Cri>, when multiplied by the annual crop yield Pc(kg/m2

-yr), 

gives the total amount of radioactivity transferred via crop ingestion. 

D.1.4 Transfer Factor for Crops 

The transfer factor is defined as the fraction of the radioactivity deposited on the ground that is 

retained in foodstuff and available for human consumption. For crops, the transfer factor is 

obtained by: 

 ci

i

c

io

f c = 

< C >

G

P (D.9) 

where 

 fci = food transfer factor via crops (Ci/m2

)/(Ci/m2); 

 <Ci

c

> = <Cc

di> + <Ccsi> + <Ccri>, the total time-integrated concentration in crops (Ci-yr/kg); 

<Cc

di>, <Ccsi>, <Ccri> = time-integrated radioactivity concentration in crops via 

various pathways (Ci-yr/kg); 

 Gio = initial ground deposition concentration (Ci/m2

); and 

 Pc = local crop yield (kg/m2

-yr). 

The data for crop yield (Pc) for the 48 contiguous states are presented in Table D.2. The 

concentrations <Cc

si> and <Ccri> 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 <Cdi> is equal to Cdi (Equation D.1) times 1 yr. 

D.1.5 Transfer Factor for Milk 

The concentration in milk can be calculated by: 

 < Ci > = F < C > Q exp(- t ) m mi i

p

f λi f , (D.10.) 

where 

 Ci

m = time-integrated concentration of radionuclide i in milk (Ci-yr/L); 

 Fmi = 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-7

 <Cp

i> = <Cpdi> + <Cpsi> + <Cpri>, the time-integrated concentration of radionuclide i in 

animal feed (Ci-yr/kg); 

<Cp

di>, <Cpsi>, <Cpri> = time-integrated concentrations in pasture grass as derived by 

Equations D.1, D.2, and D.8 (Ci-yr/kg); 

 Qf = amount of feed consumed by an animal per day, assumed to be 50 kg/d; and 

 tf = transport time from milk to human consumption, assumed to be 2 d. 

Again, because the direct deposition would only affect 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 

 fmi = the food transfer factor via milk (Ci/m2

)/(Ci/m2), and 

 Pm = local milk production (L/m2

-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: 

 < Ci > = F < C > Q exp(- t ) b

bi i

p

f λi f , (D.12) 

where 

 <Cb

i> = time-integrated concentration of radionuclide i in animal flesh (Ci-yr/kg); 

 Fbi = transfer factor from pasture grass to animal flesh for radionuclide i (Ci/kg)/(Ci/kg) 

(see Table D.1); 

 tb = transport time from slaughter to human consumption, assumed to be 20 days; and 

<cp

i>, Qf = same as defined in Equation D.10. 

Thus, the transfer factor via meat is obtained by: 

 bi

i

b

io

f = b

< C >

G

P , (D.13) 

where 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-8

 fbi = food transfer factor via meat (Ci/m2)/(Ci/m2) and 

 Pb = local meat production (kg/m2

-yr). 

The data for meat production are provided in Table D.2. The concentration of radionuclide i in 

the animal's feed, assumed to consist of fresh pasture grass and stored feeds, is calculated by: 

< C > = f f < C > + (1- f ) < C > + f (1-f ) < C >s

p s i

s

p i

t

p s i p

i , (D.14) 

where 

 fp = fraction of the year the animals are grazing on pasture, 

 fs = fraction of the daily feed that is pasture grass when the animals graze on the 

pasture, 

t <C > = time-integrated concentration of radionuclide i on pasture grass (t i h = 0) (Ci-yr/kg), 

and 

s <C > = time-integrated concentration of i radionuclide i in stored feeds (th = 90 days) (Ciyr/kg), and 

If it is assumed that fp = 0.5 and fs = 1.0, Equation D.14 becomes: 

 < Ci > = 0.5 < C > + 0.5 < C > p

i

t is . (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 adapted from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 

(NRC, 1977). For accidental releases, an equilibrium ratio is assumed for the tritium 

concentration; the ratio is established between the contaminated atmospheric environment and 

local vegetation. Thus, the time-integrated tritium concentration in vegetation is estimated by: 

H

< x >

< C > = Pf < x > (0.75) (0.5/H) = 0.375 Pf T

T

v

T , (D.16) 

where 

v <C > = time-integrated concentration of trit T 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-9

 f = fractional equilibrium ratio (dimensionless), 

 <xT> = time-integrated air concentration of tritium at the location of interest (Ci-yr/m3

), 

 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 atmosphere at the location of interest (kg/m3

) (see Table 

D.2). 

The fractional equilibrium ratio is assumed to be linearly proportional to the total release time 

and the vegetation growing season. Conservatively 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 and consumption, the decay in tritium during these time periods 

is not considered. 

By further assuming that Equation D.9 applies equally 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, < CT > = < C > c T

v (D.18) 

 milk, < CT > = F C Q C Q m mi < > + < > T

v

f T

w

w





 



 (D.19) 

 meat, < CT > = F C Q C Q b

bi < > + < > T

v

f T

w

w





 



 (D.20) 

where 

 Fmi, Fbi = 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), 

 Qf = amount of feed consumed by an animal per day (50 kg/d), and 

 Qw = amount of water consumed by an animal per day (50 kg/d). 

The total amount of tritium transferred to humans via food pathways is then estimated by: 

 T Tc c Tm m T

b C = < C > P + < C > P + < C > Pb , (D.21) 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-10

where Pc, Pm, and Pb represent the local annual yield data for crops, milk, and meat. The 

parameter CT is given in units of Ci/m2

. 

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 CO2). The carbon-14 concentration in vegetation is calculated by assuming that its ratio 

to the natural carbon in vegetation is the same as that to the atmosphere surrounding the 

vegetation. Following NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, the time-integrated concentration in 

vegetation can be derived by: 

 <Cv

14> = Pf<x14> (0.11/0.00016) = 6.88 × 102

Pf <x14> , (D.22) 

where 

 <Cv

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 that is natural carbon (dimensionless), 

0.00016 = concentration of natural carbon in the atmosphere (kg/m3

), and 

 <x14> = time-integrated air concentration of carbon-14 (Ci-yr/m2

). 

Again, the half-life of carbon-14 (5,730 yr) is much greater than 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 pasture grass, the following time-integrated concentrations are 

obtained: 

 crops, < C14 > = < C > c 14

v 1 (D.23) 

 milk, < C14 > = F < C > Q m m14 14v

f 2 (D.24) 

 meat < C14 > = F < C > Q b

b14 14v

f 3 (D.25) 

where 

Fm14, Fb14 = transfer factors from pasture grass to milk and meat for carbon-14, (Ci/L)/(kg/d) for 

milk, and (Ci/kg)/(kg/d) for meat (Table D.1), and 

 Qf = same as defined in Equation D.10. 

The total amount of carbon-14 transferred to humans via food pathways is estimated by: 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-11

 14 14v c 14m m 14

b C = < C > P + < C > P + < C > Pb , (D.26) 

where the parameters have been defined in Equation D.14, and carbon-14 is given in units of 

Ci/m2

. 

D.2 Comparison of Transfer Factors 

Intermediate results were obtained for the three food pathways studied. The ratios of the timeintegrated concentrations over the initial ground concentrations were calculated and are 

presented in Table D.3. These ratios are <Cc

i>/Gio for crops, <Cmi>/Gio for milk, and <Cbi>/Gio

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 representing the states of Illinois and Nevada and the 

U.S. national average. Because agricultural yields in different locations vary widely, the 

calculated food transfer coefficients deviate accordingly. 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. Examples 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 Illinois, 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 Report, The Dynamics of Plutonium 

in Desert Environments, NVO-142, U.S. Department 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 Protection and Measurements, 1989, Screening Techniques for 

Determining Compliance with Environmental Standards — 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 Agricultural Statistics for Transportation 

Risk Assessment, ANL/EAIS/TM-2, Argonne National Laboratory. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 Regulatory Commission, Sept. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1986a, Environmental Assessment, Deaf Smith Site, Texas,

DOE/RW-0069, Vols. 1-3, Office of Civilian 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 Regulatory Commission, 1974, Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program,

Vol. II, WASH-1535. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977, Calculation of Annual Dose to Man from Routine 

Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 

50, Appendix I, Rev. 1, Regulatory Guide 1.109. 

Volchok, H.L., 1971, “Resuspension of Plutonium-239 in the Vicinity of Rocky Flats,” Proc. of 

Environmental Plutonium Symposium, LA-4756, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, pp. 99-

103. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 

Bv(i) 

(dimensionless) 

Grass-to-Meat

Fb(i) 

(d/kg) 

Grass-to-Milk

Fm(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 × 101 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 × 10-3
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 

Bv(i) 

(dimensionless) 

Grass-to-Meat

Fb(i) 

(d/kg) 

Grass-to-Milk

Fm(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 × 101 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 × 10-6
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 

Bv(i) 

(dimensionless) 

Grass-to-Meat

Fb(i) 

(d/kg) 

Grass-to-Milk

Fm(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 × 101 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 × 102 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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-16

Table D.2. Summary of Statea Agricultural Production for Land in Farms and Absolute 

Humidity Data 

State 

Percent 

of Land in 

Farmsb

Cropsb

(kg/km2

) 

Dairyb

(L/km2

) 

Meatb

(kg/km2

) 

Mean 

Absolute 

Humidityc

(kg/m3

) 

Alabama 31.4 1.76 × 104 2.00 × 103 7.19 × 103 1.07 × 10-2

Arizona 52.0 4.15 × 103 1.85 × 103 6.36 × 102 5.75 × 10-3

Arkansas 44.1 3.58 × 104 2.78 × 103 9.77 × 103 9.55 × 10-3

California 32.1 4.29 × 104 1.63 × 104 3.41 × 103 6.60 × 10-3

Colorado 50.6 2.52 × 104 1.64 × 103 2.24 × 103 5.75 × 10-3

Connecticut 14.2 4.36 × 103 2.32 × 104 5.97 × 103 6.60 × 10-3

Delaware 53.0 1.45 × 105 1.24 × 104 4.98 × 104 6.60 × 10-3

Florida 37.0 5.94 × 104 6.82 × 103 3.47 × 103 1.38 × 10-2

Georgia 33.1 3.15 × 104 4.26 × 103 8.84 × 103 1.07 × 10-2

Idaho 26.4 5.37 × 104 4.79 × 103 1.22 × 103 4.90 × 10-3

Illinois 80.7 3.29 × 105 8.36 × 103 6.70 × 103 7.50 × 10-3

Indiana 70.9 2.54 × 105 1.14 × 104 1.00 × 104 7.50 × 10-3

Iowa 91.0 3.17 × 105 1.25 × 104 1.74 × 104 6.60 × 10-3

Kansas 89.9 9.40 × 104 2.90 × 103 6.01 × 103 7.50 × 10-3

Kentucky 55.8 5.05 × 104 1.04 × 104 3.14 × 103 8.40 × 10-3

Louisiana 31.3 2.17 × 104 3.84 × 10 1.98 × 103 1.23 × 10-2

Maine 7.4 1.51 × 104 4.11 × 103 1.62 × 103 7.50 × 10-3

Maryland 40.6 8.79 × 104 2.81 × 104 1.59 × 104 7.50 × 10-3

Massachusetts 12.2 4.55 × 103 1.35 × 104 1.57 × 103 6.60 × 10-3

Michigan 30.0 7.84 × 104 1.62 × 104 2.24 × 103 7.50 × 10-3

Minnesota 54.4 1.46 × 105 2.28 × 104 5.83 × 103 8.40 × 10-3

Mississippi 41.1 2.70 × 104 3.34 × 103 4.65 × 103 1.07 × 10-2

Missouri 66.3 6.76 × 104 7.38 × 103 5.56 × 103 4.40 × 10-3

Montana 65.1 1.84 × 104 4.11 × 102 8.39 × 102 4.90 × 10-3

Nebraska 91.7 1.31 × 105 3.06 × 103 7.51 × 103 5.95 × 10-3

Nevada 14.2 1.03 × 103 3.59 × 102 1.58 × 102 4.90 × 10-3

New Hampshire 8.2 1.04 × 103 7.11 × 103 6.63 × 102 6.60 × 10-3

New Jersey 19.2 3.23 × 104 1.15 × 104 1.59 × 103 6.60 × 10-3

New Mexico 60.6 2.60 × 103 1.17 × 103 6.61 × 102 5.75 × 10-3

New York 30.3 2.72 × 104 4.10 × 104 2.07 × 103 6.60 × 10-3

North Carolina 33.0 4.65 × 104 6.05 × 103 9.51 × 103 9.55 × 10-3

North Dakota 90.7 9.23 × 104 2.58 × 103 1.14 × 103 4.90 × 10-3
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-17

Table D.2. Summary of Statea Agricultural Production for Land in Farms and Absolute 

Humidity Data (Continued) 

State 

Percent 

of Land in 

Farmsb

Cropsb

(kg/km2

) 

Dairyb

(L/km2

) 

Meatb

(kg/km2

) 

Mean 

Absolute 

Humidityc

(kg/m3

) 

Ohio 58.7 1.49 × 105 1.94 × 104 5.55 × 103 6.60 × 10-3

Oklahoma 73.7 3.10 × 104 2.97 × 103 3.87 × 103 8.40 × 10-3

Oregon 28.8 1.47 × 104 2.37 × 103 9.18 × 102 6.60 × 10-3

Pennsylvania 28.9 3.62 × 104 3.61 × 104 6.13 × 103 6.60 × 10-3

Rhode Island 9.3 1.28 × 104 7.64 × 103 2.06 × 103 6.60 × 10-3

South Carolina 28.9 2.78 × 104 3.29 × 103 3.22 × 103 9.55 × 10-3

South Dakota 90.1 5.04 × 104 4.06 × 103 3.20 × 103 5.75 × 10-3

Tennessee 47.4 3.34 × 104 9.90 × 103 3.72 × 103 8.40 × 10-3

Texas 78.3 2.19 × 104 2.53 × 103 3.26 × 103 9.87 × 10-3

Utah 18.6 2.66 × 103 2.48 × 103 5.72 × 102 4.90 × 10-3

Vermont 26.5 2.48 × 103 4.50 × 104 1.27 × 103 6.60 × 10-3

Virginia 37.1 2.75 × 104 9.08 × 103 4.61 × 103 8.40 × 10-3

Washington 38.7 5.13 × 104 8.48 × 103 1.71 × 103 5.75 × 10-3

West Virginia 23.1 5.41 × 103 2.53 × 103 1.62 × 103 6.60 × 10-3

Wisconsin 49.5 7.53 × 104 7.47 × 104 4.20 × 103 5.75 × 10-3

Wyoming 54.0 5.77 × 103 2.47 × 102 6.39 × 102 4.90 × 10-3

U.S. Average 43.6 5.58 × 104 6.71 × 103 3.07 × 103 6.00 × 10-3

a For the 48 contiguous United States. b

 Source: Saricks et al. (1989). The annual yield data for Pc, Pm, and Pb (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 Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-18

Table D.3. Ratios of Time-Integrated Concentration to Initial Ground Concentration for 

Crop, Milk, and Wheat Food Pathways 

Ratio of Time-Integrated Media 

Concentration to Ground Concentrationa

Isotope Crops 

(yr-m2

/kg) 

Milk 

(yr-m2/L) 

Meat 

(yr-m2/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-14b

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

Tritiumb

8.73 × 10-5 1.02 × 10-5 1.22 × 10-5

a

 The ratios are expressed by <Cc

i>/Gio for crops, <Cmi>/Gio for milk, and <Cbi>/Gio for meat. b

 Data provided are based on an assumed deposition velocity (Vd) of 0.01 m/s. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-19

Table D.3. Ratios of Time-Integrated Concentration to Initial Ground Concentration for 

Crop, Milk, and Wheat Food Pathways 

Ratio of Time-Integrated Media 

Concentration to Ground Concentrationa

Isotope Crops 

(yr-m2

/kg) 

Milk 

(yr-m2/L) 

Meat 

(yr-m2/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-14b

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

Tritiumb

8.73 × 10-5 1.02 × 10-5 1.22 × 10-5

a

 The ratios are expressed by <Cc

i>/Gio for crops, <Cmi>/Gio for milk, and <Cbi>/Gio for meat. b

 Data provided are based on an assumed deposition velocity (Vd) of 0.01 m/s. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-20

Table D.4. Comparison of Partial Transfer Factors for Crops (fvi), Milk (fmi), and Meat 

(fbi) between Two Representative States 

Illinois Wisconsin 

Isotope Crops Milk Meat Crops Milk Meat 

fvi fmi fbi fvi fmi fbi

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-14a 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

Tritiuma 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 (Vd) of 0.01 m/s. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 

Assessmentsa 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-14b 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

Tritiumb 0.000 2.46 × 10-6 3.12 × 10-9 2.97 × 10-7

a

 RADTRAN data file used for EA estimation (DOE 1986a; b; c) was based on fallout data and a 

generic personal utilization factor (e.g., 200 kg per 33,000 m2

 for crops) as derived by Ostmeyer 

(1986). b

 Data provided are based on an assumed deposition velocity (Vd) of 0.01 m/s. 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk Assessment 

Page D-22

Table D.6. Food Transfer Factorsa 

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 0.00E+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-31 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-03 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-04 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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+00 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 0.00E+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-04 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-11 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-15 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-03 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-04 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-09 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-03 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-16 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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+00 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-04 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-05 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-08 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-09 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-05 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-04 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-08 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-07 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-05 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-05 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-05 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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+00 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-24 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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+00 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-06 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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 USb

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-05 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-04 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-06 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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-04 
A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation 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/m2 available through ingestion pathways per 1 μCi/m2 of radionuclide deposited on the ground. b

 U.S. average.