6311958

OL- J M iTSCAL r e v i e w s e r i e s
Models and PajTêters

for Enviroêntal
Radiological ^ s e s s m e n t s
7 e Cf-!i\'ir.'A!. ! i\'; - o f 7 ,v i A T i o r - j ( ; r ; \ ' T f n

( V ' l C E O F S C I F I V T i F I C & !'EC.'HIVICAil ' N r O P r \ ^ A T I O W
UWITEO S T A T E S f J c P A P T M f . M r O F c N F R G Y
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.
DISCLAIMER
Portions of this document may be illegible in

electronic image products. Images are produced
from the best available original document.
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ABOUT THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER
The Office o f Scientific and Technical Information,

Technical Information Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
has been the national center for scientific and technical
information for the Department o f Energy (D O E ) and its
predecessor agencies since 1946. In developing and manag
ing d o e s technical information program, the Center
places under bibliographic control not only DOE-
Donald Paul Hodel originated information but also worldwide literature on
scientific and technical advances in the energy field and
Secretary
announces the source and availability o f this information.
Whereas the literature o f science is emphasized, coverage
Martha H esse Dolan is extended to D O E programmatic, socioeconomic,
A ssistan t S ecretary environmental, legislative/regulatory, energy analysis, and
M a n a g em en t a n d A dm inistration policy-related areas. To accomplish this mission, th e
Center builds and maintains computerized energy-
William S. Heffelfinger information data bases and disseminates this information
via computerized retrieval systems and announcement pub
D irector of A dm inistration
lications such as abstracting journals, bibliographies, and
update journals. Direct access to the Centers most
Joseph G. Coyne comprehensive data base, the Energy D ata Base, is avail
M anager able to the public through commercial on-line biblio
Office of Scientific a n d T echnical Inform ation graphic retrieval systems. The Energy Data Base and
many o f the Centers energy-related data bases are avail
able to DOE offices a n d contractors and to other govern
ment agencies via D O E /R E C O N , the Departments on
line information retrieval system. The Center has
developed and maintains systems to record and communi
cate energy-related research-in-progress information, to
ABOUT BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE maintain a register o f D O E public communications pub
TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER lications, to track research report deliverables from D OE
contractors, and to test and make available DOE-funded
Books published by the Center include under
computer software programs with scientific and manage
ment applications. The Center also maintains a full-scale
graduate, graduate, and workshop textbooks;
publishing capability to serve special publication needs o f
handbooks and manuals; reference books;
the Department. To effectively manage D O Es technical
monographs; specialized reviews; and DOE- information resources, the Centers program is one of con
sponsored symposium, workshop, and short- tinual development and evaluation o f new information
course proceedings. products, systems, and technologies.
POIiTIOWS @F THIS EEPORT RM
DOE/TIC 1 1 4 6 8
It lias li@ii repraciiissil frssfi tiie litst
availabfe copy to permit broadest DE81 0 2 7 1 5 4
possible avaliabiilty.
Models and Parameters

for Environmental
Radiological Assessments
Charles W. Miller, Editor

H ealth and Safety Research Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Prepared for the

Office of Nuclear Energy
U. S. Department of Energy
1984
J a m e s L. L ittlep a g e, Publication Editor
Editing, com position, proofreading, book design, illustrations, and page

makeup for this publication w ere performed by staff members of the Tech
nical Information Center, Office of Scientific and Technical Information.
P u b lis h e d b y
TEC HNICAL INFO R M AT IO N CENTER
OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC A N D TECHNICAL IN FO R M ATIO N
U. S . D E P A R T M E N T OF ENERGY
Library of Congress Cataloging in Pnblication Data
Main entry under title:
Modeis and parameters for environmental radiological s
(DOE critical review series)
Includes bibliographies and index.
DOE/TIC-11468 (DE81027154).
i. RadiationDosage. 2. RadioisotopesMigration. 3. Radioisotopes
Migration- -M athematical models. 4. Radioactive substancesMeasurement
Mathematical models. 5. Radioactive pollution. 6. Environmental health.
I. Miller, Charles W. II. United States. Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Nuclear Energy. III. United States. Department of Energy. Technical Information
Center. IV. Series. [DNLM: 1. Environmental Exposure. 2. Radiation Dosage.
3. Radiometrymethods.
WN 650 M689]
RA569.M57 1984. 363.179 84-14255
ISBN 0-87079-517-1
Available as DE81027154 (DOE/TIC-11468) for $12.00 from

National Technical Information Service
U. S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
Printed in the United States of America
1984
PREFACE
During all phases of the U. S. development of nuclear power, m athematical

models have been used to assess the potential impacts on man of radionuclide
releases to the environment. M any of these modeling techniques were developed
initially for use in the performance of environmental safety analyses for nuclear
facilities. W ith the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970
and the requirement of the U. S. N uclear Regulatory Commission for environ
m ental assessment of power reactors, the performance of environmental analyses
and hence the use of m athem atical models were greatly expanded.
During the past 12 years, a number of different models have been developed
for use in environmental assessment activities. There has also been a prolifera
tion of suggested values for the various input param eters used in these models.
As a result, two authors could be using the same model for basically the same
application but getting different results because of their selection of input
parameters.
The purpose of this book is to present a unified compilation of models and
param eters appropriate for assessing the impact of radioactive discharges to the
environment. Models and param eters presented are based on an extensive litera
ture review and evaluation performed primarily by members of the staff of the
Dosimetry and Biophysical Transport Section of the Health and Safety
Research Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This organization and its
predecessors have been performing radiological assessments for over 15 years.
The basic assessment methodologies currently used by the group are presented.
The book was compiled as a part of the U. S. Departm ent of Energy (DOE)
liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LM FB R ) safety effort. The work is sponsored
by the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400
with M artin M arietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Although the information contained in the book is applicable to LM FBR
assessment problems, essentially all the m aterial is equally applicable to other
PREFACE
nuclear facilities. The main radiological differences between the various facilities
are contained in the identity, physical-chemical form, and magnitude of the
radionuclides released and in the location and method of release.
The book is designed to serve a variety of readers. Persons requiring a gen
eral knowledge of environmental radiological assessment procedures may view
the book as a basic introduction to the concepts and terminology of the assess
ment field. Professional workers in the nuclear industry may find the volume
useful as a handbook since equations, tables, and example problems are given.
Students in various scientific disciplines can use the book as a basic introductory
text for applying their particular specialty to the broader area of radiological
assessment.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues who contributed
to the various individual chapters. W ithout their willing help and cooperation,
the book could not have been produced. I would also like to thank George L.
Sherwood of the DOE Office of N uclear Energy for encouraging the prepara
tion of the publication. Special thanks are extended to James L. Littlepage and
his colleagues at the DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information,
Technical Information Center, for their extensive editorial assistance during the
preparation of the book; their work greatly improved the readability of the
document.
The reader should not expect to find hard and fast rules for use in all radio
logical assessment situations. Reasoned scientific judgm ent must be exercised
when any of the models or param eter values contained in the book are used in a
specific assessment problem. Failure to use good scientific judgm ent can lead to
erroneous results whenever any assessment methodology is applied.
Charles W. Miller
H ealth and Safety Research Division
Oak R idge National Laboratory
CONTENTS
Preface III
1 Introduction 1
References 3
2 Comparison of Exposure Pathways 4

Atmospheric Releases 5
Aquatic Releases 7
Relative Contribution of Atmospheric Vs. Aquatic Releas 10
References 10
3 Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition 11

Atmospheric Dispersion 11
Deposition 15
Duration of Release 18
References 19
4 Terrestrial Food-Chain Transport 21

The NRG Regulatory Guide 1 .109 Terrestrial Food-Chain Models 22
Terrestrial Transport Input Parameters 25
References 35
5 Surface Water Transport 36

Model Without Sorption 36
Models with Sorption 38
References 39
CONTENTS
6 Aquatic Food-Chain Transport 41

The Basic Model 41
The Bioaccumulation Factor 42
References 52
7 Adult Dietary Intake and Inhalation Rates 55

References 56
8 External Dose-Rate Conversion Factors 57

References 70
9 Estimates of Committed Dose Equivalent from Internal

Exposures 71
References 95
10 Doses Resulting from Atmospheric Releases of Tritium 97

Methodology Comparison 98
Modified NGRP Methodology 99
References 101
11 Dose Equivalent Due to Atmospheric Releases of Carbon-14 103

Dose Rate to an Individual 104
Collective Dose 108
Results 113
References 115
12 Example Calculations 117

Environmental Concentrations 118
Dose Calculations 125
References ^ 137
13 List of Symbols 138
14 Uncertainties Associated with Predictions Derived

from Models and Parameters 144
Subject Index 147

1 m T R O D U C T IO N
By
Charles W. Milter
Currently, a num ber of environmental transport and dose calculation models

th at employ different data bases and assumptions are available to assess the
radiological impact of routine and accidental discharges. Objectives of the model
evaluation project initiated at O ak Ridge National Laboratory (O R N L ) are
identification of these models; evaluation of the structure, the simplifying
assumptions, and the data bases of the models; estimation of uncertainties iden
tified with the models; and, if possible, recommendation of the models and
param eters best suited to particular assessment situations. Recommendations
also are m ade for further environmental and biomedical research where needs
are identified. Models examined in this project to date include those developed
for the prediction of atmospheric and hydrologic transport and deposition, for
terrestrial and aquatic food-chain bioaccumulation, and for internal and external
dosimetry.
This book presents models and param eters deemed appropriate for assessing
the impact of radioactive discharges to the environment. Models and parameters
presented are based on results of the literature review and the evaluation con
ducted under the model evaluation project to date. Summaries are presented for
each of the transport and dosimetry areas listed above. Details concerning the
models and the param eter values discussed can be found in the literature cited.
For assessment purposes the simplest model th at can be acceptably validated
is deemed the most suitable for a given set of conditions (Shaeffer, 1979).
Models considered in this book are based substantially on recommendations
made by the model evaluation workshop (Hoffm an et al., 1978) held as a part
INTRODUCTION
of this project; however, additional analyses of model uncertainty also were used
in selecting the models included in this book (Little and Miller, 1979).
Whenever possible, the input param eter values used in assessment models
should be based on site-specific information; however, this often is not practical.
In the absence of site-specific information, default values m ust be selected for
each input param eter of the model. Often only a single value is chosen for each
param eter of interest. In reality, however, each input param eter has a distribu
tion of values associated with it (Shaeffer, 1979).
During the course of the model evaluation project, data for a num ber of
param eters have been examined in an attem pt to estimate the distribution of
values associated with a given param eter. However, it generally was found that
few of the param eters analyzed have a data base large enough to represent the
true distribution. Therefore, because the data considered do not necessarily
represent unbiased samples, the assumption th at the data considered represent
the true population of the param eter value of interest is essential to using these
particular param eter values (Hoffm an et al., 1979).
Information on the estimated distribution associated with a given param eter
value is presented whenever possible. If the data for a given param eter were log-
normally distributed, the data were log-transformed to produce a normal distri
bution, and estimates of the population mean, /r, and standard deviation, cr, of
the logarithms were determined. However, if the data were normally distributed,
estimates of the population mean and the standard deviation were made. When
this information is available for a given param eter, the cumulative probability
associated with any value chosen for the param eter can be determined
(Shaeffer, 1979; Hoffman et al., 1979).
Values of the various param eters used in an assessment calculation will
depend on the cumulative probability desired in the final answer. Therefore
recommendation of a single value for any param eter for use in assessment calcu
lations biases model predictions. Before choosing a param eter value, an assessor
should consult the cited literature to determine the potential effect of the previ
ously noted limitations on the final results. However, such an in-depth analysis
has not yet been performed for all the param eters and elements considered in
this report. Consequently, when the situation required selection of a value for a
param eter or element that had not recei i an in-depth analysis, the authors
relied on the best scientific judgm ent of the O R N L staff members most familiar
with the param eters of concern.
Dose conversion factors given in this report are based on model calculations
rather than on observations. Because of the impracticality of measuring dose in
human subjects, validating these models is not possible; these models, however,
are based on the best animal and human data currently available.
Separate chapters are devoted to the dosimetry of ^H and These
nuclides often are of special interest because of the importance of hydrogen and
carbon in biological systems and because ^H and *'* are present in the effluents
INTRODUCTION
of various fuel cycles. Also the half-lives of these nuclides are relatively long
compared with their global cycling times.
Initially this book discusses the various pathways by which man may be
exposed to radionuclides released to the environment. Next, a number of
chapters present the individual models and param eters that can be used to assess
the impact of these released nuclides on man. Finally, the book concludes with a
chapter containing example problems based on the information presented in the
other chapters.
Both the International System of Units (S I) and the more widely recognized
units are used in this report whenever feasible. Table 1 . 1, which contains the
relations between the various radiation quantities in each system, has been
included to assist the reader in converting from one set of units to the other.
Table 1.1
RELATIONS BETWEEN SI UNITS AND OTHER UNITS USED IN THIS REPORT
New SI unit Basic SI Old unit and

Quantity and symbol dimensions symbol Conversion
Exposure Coulomb Roentgen (R) 1 C/kg 3.9 X 10^ R

per kilogram
(C/kg)
Absorbed Gray (Gy) Joules per Rad (rad) 1 Gy = 100 rad
dose kilogram
(J/kg)
Dose Sievert (Sv) Joules per Rem (rem) 1 Sv = 100 rem
equivalent kilogram
(J/kg)
Activity Becquerel (Bq) Per second Curie (Ci) 1 Bq = 2.7 X 10'" Ci
( s - )
REFERENCES
Hoffman, F. O., et al., 1979, An Evaluation of Uncertainties in Radioecological Models, in

Proceedings o f the 12th Annual Symposium o f the German-Swiss Fachverband flir Strahlen-
schutz, Norderney, Federal Republic of Germany, Oct. 2-6, 1978, H. Kellermann (Ed.), Bun-
desforschungsanstalt fUr Fischerei, 2 Hamburg 55, Wtlstland 2.
, D. L. Shaeffer, C. W. Miller, and C. T. Garten, Jr., 1978, Proceedings o f a Workshop on the
Evaluation o f Models Used fo r the Environmental Assessment o f Radionuclide Releases,
Gatlinburg, Tenn., Sept. 6-9, 1977, DOE Report CONF-770901, Oak Ridge National Labora
tory, NTIS.
Little, C. A., and C. W. Miller, 1979, The Uncertainty Associated with Selected Environmental
Transport Models, DOE Report ORNL-5528, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
Shaeffer, D. L., 1979, A Model Evaluation Methodology Applicable to Environmental Assessment
Models, DOE Report ORNL-5507, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
2 C O M P A R ISO N OF
EXPO SU RE P A T H W A Y S
By
Craig A. Little
Releases of radionuclides to the environment from nuclear facilities are either

airborne or waterborne. Regardless of whether the release is airborne or water
borne, several pathways are available through which humans may be exposed to
the radioactivity contained in the release. This chapter illustrates the relative
contribution of various pathways of exposure to the total dose resulting from
both airborne and waterborne radionuclide releases from various nuclear facili
ties. This illustration is accomplished by a review of pathway comparisons per
formed for various facilities identified with the light-water reactor (L W R ) fuel
cycle.
Hoffman and Kayes paper, Terrestrial Exposure Pathways: Potential Expo
sures of M an from the Environmental Transport of W aste Nuclides (1976),
serves as the prim ary reference for the discussion of atmospheric releases; most
of the data mentioned in the Atmospheric Releases section of this chapter are
taken from tables published in th at paper. Soldats paper, Aquatic Exposure
Pathways Potential Exposure of M an from Environmental Transport of W aste
Radionuclides ( 1976), serves as the prim ary reference for the discussion of
aquatic releases.
Models discussed in this chapter are basically the same as those used in the
two aforementioned papers. As such, they serve the illustrative purposes
intended for this chapter; however, the reader should remember that no single
comparison or set of comparisons can define the critical pathway or pathways to
m an from a given type of nuclear facility. Any such definition depends on the
radionuclide composition of the release, the rate of release, the dietary and
behavioral habits of the human receptor, and the existence of a particular path
way at a given site.
5
ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES
Hoffman and Kaye (1976) calculated the maximum individual exposure

from the major terrestrial pathways for atmospheric releases from model LW R
fuel-cycle facilities. A fter assuming a generic location and respiratory param e
ters designed to maximize the exposure to humans via the particular pathway,
Hoffman and Kaye determined the dose resulting from each model facility to
the organs of some limiting individual (adult, child, or both). These doses were
then compared with applicable radiation standards to assess the significance of
the particular pathway. In their original report, Hoffman and Kaye listed the
principal nuclides for each facility and the principal exposure pathways for
organs of the limiting child or adult. R ather than reproduce their seven tables
here, we have summarized the information in Table 2.1. Readers desiring the
detail of the original report should see Tables 8 to 14 in Terrestrial Exposure
Pathways: Potential Exposures of M an from the Environmental Transport of
W aste Nuclides (Hoffm an and Kaye, 1976).
Several observations about the pathways can be made by using the informa
tion in Table 2.1. One such observation is that, for the considered release and
human behavioral conditions, milk is an extremely im portant pathway of
exposure, especially for children. O f the 31 entries in the principal pathways
for principal nuclides column in Table 2.1, 16 are milk ingestion. Milk inges
tion often was the most im portant pathway of radiation exposure when only
children were considered.
Milk ingestion was slightly less important for adults, but milk, vegetable,
and beef ingestion still accounted for one-half of the principal pathway entries.
Immersion in contaminated air was an important pathway for the boiling water
reactor and the fuel reprocessing plant. Inhalation was a principal pathway for
adults subject to releases from uranium mill and uranium conversion facilities
and for children living near uranium enrichment facilities. Exposure to contam
inated surfaces was relatively unimportant for the releases considered by
Hoffman and Kaye (1976).
As might be expected, the principal radionuclides released were not the same
for each type of facility. Releases early in the fuel cycle tend to be composed of
naturally occurring radionuclides, whereas the principal radionuclides released
by the reactor and reprocessing plant are more frequently fission
products.
In fact, the importance of the various pathways of exposure is very much a
function of the nuclides released; therefore the importance of any pathway
varies with different types of facilities and within the same type of facility. Key
determ inants are the particular radionuclides present and the emission control
equipment installed.
Studies similar to the one conducted by Hoffman and Kaye (1976) have
been performed by various authors; however, the studies have been for specific
COMPARISON OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Table 2.1
P H N O P A t PATHWAYS AND NUCXIDES FOR MAXIMALLY EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS
FROM MODEL FACILITIES IN THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE*
limitiiig Principal Reference Principal pathways for

Source receptor nuclides organ principal nuciidesf
Uranium mill Child 22Ra Bone, lung, Milk (93-94%)

thyroid,
total body
Adult 226Ra GI, liver Milk (58-59%)
238u GI Vegetables (58-80%)
210po Kidney, liver Vegetables (&77o)
230Th Kidney, liver Inhalation (97%)
210pb Liver Vegetables (80%)
Conversion Child ^^*Ra Lung, thyroid, Milk (93%)

facility total body
234u Lung Inhalation (93%)
Adult 230xh Bone, kidney Inhalation (97-98%)
226Ra Bone Milk (60%)
Uranium enrich Child 234y Bone Milk (56%)

ment facility 234y Lung Inhalation (92%)
Fuel fabrica Child 234JJ Bone Milk (56%)

tion plant
Boilmg water Child Ulj Thyroid Milk (99%)

reactor Kr Thyroid Immersion in air (100%)
Adult **Rb GI Inhalation (72%)
**Kr GI Immersion in air (100%)
Child/adult *Kr Bone, skin, Immersion in air (100%)
total body,
lung, liver,
kidney
14c Bone, total Milk (88%)
body
> Xe Skin Immersion in air (100%)
**Rb Lung, liver, Immersion in air (59-76%)
kidney
Fuel reprocessing Child o il Thyroid Milk (96%)

129| Thyroid, total Milk (59-75%)
body, kidney
Sr Bone, lung Milk (83-93%)
Bone, liver, Milk (54-96%)
total body,
kidney, lung
3'*CS Liver Milk (84%)
*C Bone, total Milk (88%)
body
(Table continues on next page.)
ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES
Table 2.1 (Contiiwed)
limiting Principal Reference Principal pathways for

S ource receptor nuclides organ principal nuclidest
Adult 129j Thyroid Milk (46% )

3>I Thyroid Milk (77%)
106Ru GI Beef (99%)
Child/adult K r Skin Immersion in air (100% )
Data taken from Tables 8 to 14 of Hoffman and Kaye (1976).

fRange of percentages indicates the contribution by the principal nuclide to the organs of
reference over the listed pathway.
types of facilities and for population dose commitments rather than for max
imum individual doses. Table 2.2 contains data from some of these studies.
Although the data shown in Table 2.2 are not identified by radionuclide, the
observations th at ingestion and inhalation are the most im portant pathways of
exposure hold true in Table 2.2 as well as in Table 2.1. The relative rankings of
the pathways, however, vary between and within facility types because of differ
ences in assumptions about radionuclide releases and environmental transport
factors.
AQUATIC RELEASES
I am aware of no paper th at examines the importance of various aquatic

pathways in a m anner directly comparable to that used in the Hoffman and
Kaye paper for atmospheric pathways (1976). A paper by Soldat (1976) that
appears in the same volume as Hoffman and Kayes work discusses only the
potential aquatic exposure pathways, including drinking water, aquatic foods,
swimming and boating, contam inated sediments, and crops and animal products
from irrigated farm s. Soldat (1976) goes on to say th at the importance of the
various pathways cannot be evaluated without knowing the release rates and
physicochemical form of the radionuclides, the type of water receiving effluent,
and how the water is used by humans.
Given these precautions, Soldat (1976) discusses several studies of population
doses from aquatic releases and attem pts to compare the importance of the vari
ous pathways. Results from the studies cited by Soldat (1976) and two addi
tional studies are summarized in Table 2.3. Different assumptions were used in
each of the studies; therefore care must be exercised when comparing them.
However, these four studies do reaffirm the point made in the atmospheric
section that, depending on the organ of concern, the type of release, the assump-
COMPARISON OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Table 2.2
FRACTION OF THE 50-YEAR DOSE COMMITMENT TO THE POPULATION
WITHIN SO MILES OF EACH FUEL CYCLE FACILITY FROM GASEOUS
RELEASES PER YEAR OF OPERATION OF THE FACILITY
Fraction of 50-mile population dose commitment
Contaminated
ground
Facility Immersion surface Inhalation Ingestion References
Mill* <1.0 X 10 2.0 X 10 4.9 X 10 9.5 X 10 ' Witherspoon (1974)

Mill* <1.0 X 10 1.1 X 10 ' 1.5 X 10 ' 7.4 X 10 ' Rohwer, Parzyck,
and K aye(1976)
Fuel fabrication
UO2 <1.0 X 10 3.2 X 10 ' 1.9 X 10 ' 4.9 X 10 ' Witherspoon (1974)
Mixed oxide <1.0 X 10 1.0 X 10 9.8 X 10 ' 8.0 X 10 Witherspoon (1974)
Fuel fabrication <1.0 X 10 7.4 X 10 ' 2.1 X 10 ' 4.4 X 10 Rohwer, Parzyck,
and K aye(1976)
Reprocessing* 2.2 X 10 1.2 X 10 ' 5.7 X 10' 9.9 X 10 Witherspoon (1974)
Reprocessing* 3.7 X 10 2.2 X 10 ' 1.3 X 10 ' 6.2 X 10 ' Rohwer, Parzyck,
and Kaye(1976)
Witherspoon (1974) and Rohwer, Parzyck, and Kaye (1976) considered both a mill and a repro
cessing plant; their results differ because of differences in source term and assumptions about the facil
ity.
tions made in calculating doses, and the relation between the calculated dose
and a dose limit, the importance of the pathway varies greatly. The only
apparent exception to this rule is the swimming pathway, which, for the studies
referenced, never contributed more than 3% of the total calculated dose.
Aside from the constant small contribution of the swimming pathway, the
relative importance of the various pathways changes frequently because of
changes in the assumptions used in the calculations. The drinking water path
way contributes from 8 to 97% of the total dose. The fish ingestion pathway
varies from negligible (less than 1%) to as much as 87%. Finally, the irrigation
pathway contributed from less than 1% to as much as 93%. However, it is
im portant to remember that the range of contributions of each pathway may not
be completely specified in Table 2.3. Site-specific considerations for almost any
param eter or variable in the dose equations may significantly alter the
contribution to dose of any given parameter.
Probably the most reasonable conclusion of this short review is that no single
aquatic pathway to man dominates the dose calculations. Rather, the only path
way th at is not very important primarily as a result of low exposure
possibility is the swimming pathway. The only time this pathway would be
likely to become im portant is if the other pathways were nonexistent at the site
being considered.
AQUATIC RELEASES
Table 2.3
FRACTION OF THE CALCULATED TOTAL IX KE FROM ONE OR MORE
MADIOMJCXIDES LISTED BY AQUATIC PATHWAY IN SEVERAL S T U D IK
Fraction of total dose contribotion

from radloincllde glrmi by
Source of Drinking Fish

Organ RadionncHde release water IngestiM In%atlMi Swfanmlng Reference
Total body Mixed LWR 0.54 0.46 NO* NO* t

Mixed LWR 0.27 0.54 0.19 NO t
Mixed LMFBR 0.89 0.03 0.06 0.03 Rohwer, Parzyck,
and Kaye (1976)
3H Waste burial 0.71 0.01 0.27 Little and
Cotter (1980)
Sr Waste burial 0.07 0.93 Little and
Cotter (1980)
' Rtt Waste burial 0.62 0.11 0.27 Little and
Cotter (1980)
' Cs Waste burial 0.11 0.75 0.14 Little and
Cotter (1980)
Thyroid Mixed LWR 0.97 0.03 NO NO t
Mixed LWR 0.63 0.13 0.25 NO 1
Waste burial 0.71 0.01 0.27 Little and
Cotter (1980)
Sr Waste burial 0.92 0.08 Little and
Cotter (1980)
o*Rb Waste burial 0.22 0.04 0.75 Little and
Cotter (1980)
Waste burial 0.13 0.87 Little and
Cotter (1980)
Bone Mixed LWR 0.52 0.48 NO NO t
Mixed LWR 0.08 0.71 0.21 NC t
Mixed LMFBR 0.97 0.03 Rohwer, Parzyck,
and Kaye (1976)
3H Waste burial 0.71 0.01 0.27 Little and
Cotter (1980)
Sr Waste burial 0.45 0.04 0.52 Little and
Cotter (1980)
**Ru Waste burial 0.62 0.10 0.28 Little and
Cotter (1980)
Cs Waste burial 0.11 0.80 0.09 Little and
Cotter (1980)
*No calculation (NO); pathway not considered.

tRobbins and Martin (1976) as cited by Soldat (1976).
iSchuckler, Kalckbrenner, and Bayer (1976) as cited by Soldat (1976).
fContribution of this pathway is less than 1% of the total.
10 COMPARISON OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION
OF ATMOSPHERIC VS.
AQUATIC RELEASES
Examination of the references cited in this chapter and other reference

sources indicates that, for both individual and population doses, atmospheric
releases from nuclear facilities are expected to contribute a larger fraction of the
dose to humans than are aquatic releases. One reason for this expectation is that
the source term for atmospheric releases generally is higher than the source
term for aquatic releases. Also humans tend to have more interaction with air
borne than with waterborne radionuclides. However, variations between sites can
be large enough that conditions prevailing at a specific site should be considered
when attem pting to determine the relative importance of aquatic or atmospheric
exposures in the calculation of a specific maximally exposed individual or popu
lation dose.
REFERENCES
Hoffman, F. O., and S. V. Kaye, 1976, Terrestrial Exposure Pathways: Potential Exposures of Man
from the Environmental Transport of Waste Nuclides, in Proceedings o f the International Sym
posium on the Management o f Wastes from the LWR Fuel Cycle, Denver, Colo., July 11-16,
1976, ERDA Report CONF-760701, pp. 524-538, Energy Research and Development
Administration, NTIS.
Little, C. A-, and S. J. Cotter, 1980, Estimated Radiological Doses to the Maximumly Exposed
Individual and Downstream Populations from Releases o f Tritium, Strontium-90, Ruthenium-
106, and Cesium-137 from White Oak Dam, DOE Report ORNL/TM-7039, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, NTIS.
Robbins, C., and J. A. Martin, Jr., 1976, Population Doses from Liquid Effluents into the Missis
sippi Basin, presented at the Twenty-First Annual Meeting o f the Health Physics Society, San
Francisco, Calif., June 27-July 2, 1976.
Rohwer, P. S., D. C. Parzyck, and S. V, Kaye, 1976, An Application of the Cumulative Exposure
Index (CUEX) as an Operational Radiological Protection Guide, in Proceedings o f the Ninth
Midyear Topical Symposium o f the Health Physics Society on Operational Health Physics,
Denver, Colo., Feb. 9-12, 1976, pp. 22-30, Pergamon Press, New York.
Schuckler, M., R, Kalckbrenner, and A. Bayer, 1976, Zukunftige radiologische Belastung durch
kerntechnische Anlagen im Einzugsgebiet des Oberrheins, Teil II, Belastung uber den
Wasserweg, pp. 724-726, Institut fUr Neutronenphysik und Reaktortechnik, Kemforschu ngszen-
tnim, Karlsruhe.
Soldat, J. K., 1976, Aquatic Exposure PathwaysPotential Exposure of Man from Environmental
Transport of Waste Radionuclides, in Proceedings o f the International Symposium on the
Management o f Wastes from the LWR Fuel Cycle, Denver, Colo., July 11-16, 1976, ERDA
Report CONF-760701, pp. 539-553, Energy Research and Development Administration,
NTIS.
Witherspoon, J. P., 1974, Population Exposure Estimates as Derived from an Environmental
Assessment of LWR Fuel Cycle Facilities. Part 1; Population Doses from Operating Facilities,
in Symposium on Population Exposures, Proceedings o f the Eighth Midyear Topical
Symposium o f the Health Physics Society, Knoxville, Tenn., Oct. 21-24, 1974, USAEC Report
CONF-741018, NTIS.
3 A T M O SP H E R IC DISPERSION
A N D DEPOSITION
By
Charles W. Miller
One of the principal ways that radionuclides from nuclear facilities reach the
environment is through discharges to the atmosphere. These discharges result in
doses to man as a result of:
1. Exposure to the contam inated air.
2. Exposure to surfaces and ingestion of foodstuffs contaminated by
radionuclides th at have been removed from the plume by deposition processes.
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION
Atmospheric dispersion calculations provide estimates of air concentration

resulting from atmospheric discharges of radionuclides. These air concentrations
are then used to calculate doses to man.
G aussian Plum e M odel

N ot only is the straight-line Gaussian plume model (Gifford, 1968) the most
widely used method of estimating downwind air concentrations of radionuclides
released to the atmosphere (Hoffm an et al., 1977; 1977a), but also it is the
most often verified atmospheric dispersion model (Little and Miller, 1979). For
a continuous point source and invariant meteorology, this model is given by
2
1 he JL
exp (3.1)
TruffyCTx 2 0-Z 2 <Ty
11
12 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION
where % ground-level air concentration (C i/m ^ or Bq/m^)

Q = release rate (C i/s or B q/s)
he = effective height of release to the atmosphere (m)
u = mean wind speed at the height of the plume (m /s)
(Ty, 0-2 = standard deviation of a Gaussian air concentration distribution in
the crosswind y and vertical z directions, respectively (m)
The average ground-level concentration in air over a sector 22.5 wide is often
used to estimate the impact of routine (i.e., continuous) radionuclide releases.
This concentration is given by;
1 I he
X = 2 : ^
xuo-2
exp
2 :I1 (3.2)
where x is the downwind distance of interest (m ) and u is the average wind

speed during the time period of interest (m /s).
The Gaussian plume has a number of theoretical limitations (Gifford,
1975). However, when used properly, it is a very practical tool for dispersion
modeling because it is:
1. M athem atically simple and flexible.
2. In accord with much, but not all, diffusion theory.
3. A reliable framework for the correlation of both field studies and
m athem atical and physical modeling studies of atmospheric diffusion (Gifford,
1975).
Dispersion Parameters. When the Gaussian plume model is used, the dispersion
parameters, Uy and a^, need to be carefully specified (Pasquill, 1974; Weber,
1976). A num ber of empirically determined graphs th at plot Uy and as a
function of downwind distance and atmospheric stability have been proposed
(Gifford, 1976). Geij3 et al. (1979) have published a useful set of comparisons
between some of these sets of graphs.
W hen possible, site-specific measurements should be used to specify Uy and
0-2 (H anna et al., 1977). When sets of standard curves are used instead, at least
two such sets should be used. One set of curves should be used to specify sur
face releases and one set to specify elevated releases. The Fasquill-Gifford
curves (Gifford, 1968), adjusted for averaging time and surface roughness, have
been suggested for use to specify surface releases (H anna et al., 1977; Hoffman
et al., 1978) (Table 3.1). The curves suggested by Gei/3 et al. (1979) or the
curves measured at Brookhaven National Laboratory (Singer and Smith, 1966)
have been recommended (H anna et al., 1977; Hoffman et al., 1978)
(Table 3.2) for elevated releases.
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION 13
Table 3.1
COEFFICIENTS FOR SPECIFYING THE PASQUILI^GIFFOBD
SYSTEM OF DISPERSION PARAMETERS FOR SIX STABILITY
CATEGORIES (Gei0 et !., 1979)
Atmospheric stability category
Coeffideiit* A B C D E F
ai -0.023 -0.015 -0.012 -0.0059 -0.0059 -0.0029

32 0.35 0.25 0.18 0.11 0.0881 0.0541
bi 0.88 -0.99 -1.19 -1.35 -2.88 -3.80
b2 -0.15 0.82 0.85 0.79 1.26 1.42
bj 0.15 0.017 0.0045 0.0022 -0.0421 -0.0551
*(T y = (ai In X + a 2> x; (1/2.15) exp (bj + b2 in x + b3 In x);

X = downwind distance (m).
Table 3.2
COEFFIOENTS FOR SPECIFYING TWO SYSTEMS OF DISPERSION
PARAMETERS FOR SIX STABILITY CATEGORIES (Gei/S et al., 1979)
Atmospheric stability category
System Coefficient* A B C D E F
Julich (Gei/3 et al., 1979) Py 0.66 0.66 0.63 0.53 0.41 7.56
% 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.87 0.52
(H < 75 m) Pz 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.26 0.13 0.56

9z 1.09 1.09 0.98 0.89 0.83 0.55
Julich (Gei/S et al., 1979) Py 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.43 0.46 7.56
qy 1.00 0.94 0.88 0.82 0.76 0.52
(H > 75 m) Pz 0.037 0.076 0.16 0.32 0.66 1.37
9z 1.28 1.12 0.96 0.88 0.63 0.47
(B2) (Bi) (C) (D)
Brookhaven (Hoffman Py 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.31

et al., 1978) qy 0.91 0.86 0.78 0.71
(measured at H = 108 m) Pz 0.41 0.33 0.22 0.062
qz 0.91 0.86 0.78 0.71
Pz X downwind distance (m).

As noted in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, and er^ depend on atmospheric stability.
A number of different methods for classifying stability have been proposed, but
these methods often give signficantly different results when applied to the same
meteorological data set (Pendergast, 1976; Miller, 1978). Until enough data
are available to provide for selection of the best method of classifying stability,
users of the Gaussian plume model must exercise care in choosing stabilities.
Selection of a stability category alone can result in a factor of four difference
between the lowest and the highest annual average air concentration estimated
from a given set of Uy and cr^ curves (Pendergast, 1976; Miller, 1978).
Release Height. Effective release height, h,., also is a critical param eter in
Eqs. 3.1 and 3.2 (Pasquill, 1974; Weber, 1976). The value of hg depends on
more than just the physical height, hp, of the stack (U. S. N uclear Regulatory
Commission, 1977)
he = hp + hpr ht c (3.3)
where hpj is the rise of plume above the release point because of buoyancy and
momentum (m ), ht is the maximum terrain height (above the stack base)
between the release point and the point for which the calculation is being made
(ht > 0) (m ), and c is the downwash correction factor (m). Values of hpr
usually are calculated by using models such as those suggested by Briggs
(1969). Models also have been proposed for calculating c (U. S, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 1977), However, whether or not estimates of hp,, ht,
and c should be included in estimates of hg for a given radiological assessment
will depend on the particular facility under consideration and its location.
Radioactive Decay. The Gaussian model, as expressed by Eqs. 3.1 and 3.2,
assumes no change ip the species of m aterial released as it is transported
downwind. This, of course, is not the case when the m aterial released is
radioactive. As a result, calculations using the Gaussian model to determine air
concentrations of radionuclides should be corrected to account for decay of the
m aterial during transit and subsequent buildup of daughter products (Moore et
a l, 1979).
O ther A tm osp h eric D ispersion M odels
A number of situations for which it may be difficult to choose proper input

param eters for the Gaussian plume model or for which the Gaussian model
may not apply commonly are encountered in radiological assessments. These
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION 15
situations include instances involving complex terrain, long-range transport,

time-varying meteorology, and variable release rates. As a result of these com
plications, a large num ber of more complex, seemingly more realistic, dispersion
models have been developed. However, these more complex models often
require a much more extensive input data base than the Gaussian model, a
computer with large storage capacity, and a long computer running time for
each simulation desired. Such conditions can severely limit the practicality of
using a more complex model in assessment activities. The trajectory model
(H effter and Taylor, 1975) is gaining acceptance as a tool for estimating
dispersion under time-variant meteorological conditions, especially on a con
tinental scale (Travis et al., 1979). In general, however, more field data are
needed to specify clearly when a given complex model should supplement the
straight-line Gaussian plume model in radiological assessments.
DEPOSITION
Particulates and reactive gases can deposit on the surface of the earth
through the processes of dry or wet deposition. These processes affect doses to
m an from atmospheric releases of radionuclides in two ways:
1. Deposited m aterial serves as a source of surface an d /o r food-chain con
tamination.
2. Deposition reduces the amount of m aterial transported downwind.
Dry D eposition
Dry deposition is the process by which particles and reactive gases deposit
on various surfaces (soil, grass, leaves, etc.) via impingement, electrostatic
interactions, chemical reactions, and other processes. The rate of deposition, d
(Ci m ~^ s ^ or Bq s~*) is given by (Van der Hoven, 1968)
d = xvd (3.4)
where x is ground-level air concentration (C i/m ^ or Bq/m^) and v^ is the dry

deposition velocity (m /s).
The deposition velocity defined in Eq. 3.4 is a transfer factor relating an air
concentration to a surface deposition rate. Field measurements of v^, however,
generally are based on measured concentrations in vegetation cut at a specific
height above ground (Hoffm an, 1977; Miller, Hoffman, and Shaeffer, 1978).
Thus an estimate of v<j appropriate for the total deposit on a unit area basis is
derived from a vj specific for deposition onto vegetation by (M oore et al., 1979)
. Vd(vegetation)
v<j(total) = -------------------- (3.5)
where r is the fraction of the total m aterial being deposited that is intercepted
by the surface of interest.
Values of Vj (vegetation) for forage grasses have been determined
(Heineman'n and Vogt, 1979):
1. 0.02 m /s for reactive gases (molecular iodine).
2. 0.001 m /s for small particulates (< 4 nm diameter).
3. 0.0001 m /s for relatively unreactive gases (C H 3I).
Using a mean forage grass interception fraction value of r = 0.57 (Chap. 4)
results in the following values of vj (total):
1. 0.035 m /s for reactive gases.
2 . 0.0018 m /s for small particulates.
3. 0.00018 m /s for relatively unreactive gases.
If the plume traverses surfaces other than grasslands, other values of v<j (total)
should be considered if they are available (M iller, Hoffman, and Shaeffer,
1978).
W e t D eposition
W et deposition is the process by which particles or gases are scavenged from

a plume by rain or snow and deposited on ground surfaces. The rate of deposi
tion onground surfaces from these processes, w (pCi m ^h ~ or
Bq m"^^ h *), is often estimated by (Moore, 1977):
~ 4>Xv&L (3.6)
where (p is the fraction of m aterial scavenged from a vertical column of air per
unit time (s*), Xva is the average air concentration in the vertical column
(C i/m ^ or Bq/m^), and L is the height of the vertical column of air (m). The
value chosen for L often is the depth of the tropospheric mixing layer (Moore,
1977).
Slinn (1978) has suggested that the wet-deposition rate for long-term aver
age situations can be calculated by using Eq. 3.4 and a wet-deposition velocity,
v^, th at is given by (Slinn, 1978):
hoP -7S
Vw = ----- = w,p (3.7)
X
DEPOSITION 17
where k<, = ground-level concentration in the precipitation (C i/m ^ or Bq/m^)

X ground-level air concentration (C i/m ^ or Bq/m^)
p = am ount of precipitation per unit time (m /year)
Wf = ko/Xo = washout ratio
Comparison of the results derived when annual average meteorological data

for Oak Ridge, Tenn., are used in the two methods (Eqs. 3.6 and 3.7) shows lit
tle difference in the outcomes th at the two methods produce for distances
beyond 1 km downwind from the source (M iller and Hoffman, 1979). For con
sidering wet deposition from a single event, however, Eq. 3.6 is the more
appropriate method to use (Hoffm an et al., 1978).
Plum e D epletion
Deposition processes deplete the airborne plume as it travels downwind. The

most common method of accounting for this removal is to reduce the release
rate of the m aterial. In the case of the Gaussian model (Eq. 3.1), this new
release rate, Q', is given for dry deposition by
V d (to ta l) f ^ e x p [-i/2 [h e M )1
total) J . (3.8)
Q' = Q exp
A num ber of other methods of accounting for plume depletion have been pro
posed, but until validation data become available for determining which one is
best, the continued use of Eq. 3.8 seems reasonable (M iller and Hoffman,
1979).
If wet deposition is estim ated by using Eq. 3.6 and a scavenging coefficient,
(j>, the reduced release rate is given by (M oore, 1977):
Q' = Q exp ( - 0 t ) (3.9)
where t is the time required for the plume to reach a given point downwind,
and 4> is averaged over the entire time period of interest, including periods
without precipitation. If Eq. 3.7 is used to estimate wet deposition, Eq. 3.8
may be used to estimate plume depletion by substituting v for v<j.
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION
G ravitational S ettlin g
Equations 3.4 and 3.8 apply when the gases or particulates in the plume are
small enough not to be significantly affected by gravity as they travel
downwind. If the plume contains larger particles, however, the gravitational set
tling may be approximated by tilting the plume downward. This is done by
replacing the effective stack height, hg, with (Moore, 1977)
vx
he J- (3.10)
where Vg is the gravitational fall velocity (m /s) and x is the downwind distance
of interest (m). It must be specified that he (vgx/u) g 0.
DURATION OF RELEASE
The straight-line point-source Gaussian plume model, Eq. 3.1 and 3.2 with
the modifications discussed previously, attem pts to define a mean concentration
field relative to a fixed location over some relatively long period of time (Gif
ford, 1975). The averaging time of the model is that of the diffusion data upon
which dispersion param eters are based. N ot all sets of dispersion parameters
have the same release or sampling time. For example, the Pasquill-Gifford
curves are based on a sampling duration of three minutes (H anna et al., 1977),
whereas the Julich param eters are based on releases that generally have a one-
hour duration (Gei/3 et al., 1979).
Frequently investigators are interested in calculating concentrations for
averaging times other than the one applicable for the dispersion parameters
being used. Gifford (1975) and H anna et al. (1977) suggest that this can be
accomplished by modifying Uy according to the following relationship:
O'yA (3 11)
OyB
where o-yA is the horizontal dispersion param eter averaged over some time
period of interest, tA; a is a unitless constant; and UyB is the original value of
the horizontal dispersion param eter based on diffusion data averaged over some
time period, tg.
A reasonable value for a is in the range of 0.25 to 0.3 for
Ih < tA < 100 h; for 3 min < tA < 1h, a equals approximately
0.2 (Gifford, 1975; H anna et al., 1977). A similar relationship could be applied
DURATION OF RELEASE 19
to (T but such variations in <Tz should not extend beyond a few kilometers
downwind of the release point.
For calculating average concentrations over long time periods, such as a sea
son or a year, Eq. 3.2 generally is used with a weighting for the fraction of the
time th at the wind blows toward the point of interest (Gifford, 1975). Joint
frequency distributions of wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability
can be constructed for many locations from climatological records.
Methods discussed in this chapter must be further modified to calculate
dispersion from sudden, explosive, or very-short-term (i.e., ts < 3 min)
releases of m aterial to the atmosphere. In general, the values of try and tr^ used
for such releases are different from the values (previously shown) for longer
time releases (Gifford, 1968). Also dispersion in the downwind direction must
be taken into consideration for very-short-term releases. However, virtually
nothing is known about the downwind dispersion param eter, (Gifford, 1975).
Accidental releases from most types of nuclear facilities are considered to be of
long enough duration for the methods discussed in this section to apply (U. S.
Atomic Energy Commission, 1974; M iller et al., 1980).
REFERENCES
Briggs, G. A., 1969, Plume Rise, AEC Critical Review Series, TID-25075, NTIS.
Gei/3, H., K. J. Vogt, H. S. Ehrlich, and G. Polster, 1979, Recent Results of Dispersion Experi
ments at Emission Heights of 50 and 100 m, in Proceedings o f the 12th Annual Symposium o f
the German-Swiss Fachverband fiir Strahlenschutz, Nordemey, Federal Republic of Germany,
Oct. 2-6, 1978, H. Kellermann (Ed.), Bundesforschungsanstalt fiir Fischerei, 2 Hamburg 55,
WUstland 2.
Gifford, F. A., Jr., 1968, An Outline of Theories of Diffusion in the Lower Layers of the Atmo
sphere, Chap. 3, in Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968, D. Slade (Ed.), TID-24190, U. S.
Atomic Energy Commission, NTIS.
1975, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Environmental Pollution Applications, Chap. 2, in
Lectures on Air Pollution and Environmental Impact Analyses, D. A. Haugen (Coordinator),
American Meteorological Society, Boston.
, 1976, Turbulent Diffusion-Typing Schemes: A Review, Nucl. S af, 17(1): 68-86.
Hanna, S. R., G. A. Briggs, J. Deardorff, B. A. Egan, F. A. Gifford, and F. Pasquill, 1977, AMS
Workshop on Stability Classification Schemes and Sigma CurvesSummary of Recommenda
tions, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 58(12): 1305-1309.
Heffter, J. L., and A. D. Taylor, 1975, A Regional-Continental Scale Transport, Diffusion, and
Deposition Model, Part I: Trajectory Model, NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL-ARL-50,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Md.
Heinemann, K., and K. J. Vogt, 1979, Messungen zur ablagerung and biologischen Halbwertszeit
von jod auf Vegetation, in Proceedings o f the 12th Annual Symposium o f the German-Swiss
Fachverband fiir Strahlenschutz, Nordemey, Federal Republic of Germany, Oct. 2-6, 1978,
H. Kellermann (Ed.), Bundesforschungsanstalt fUr Fisherei, 2 Hamburg 55, WUstland 2.
Hoffman, F. O., 1977, A Reassessment of the Deposition Velocity in the Prediction of the Environ
mental Transport of Radioactivity Releases, Health Phys., 32(5): 437-441.
, C. W. Miller, D. L. Shaeffer, and C. T. Garten, Jr., 1977, A Compilation of Computer Codes
for the Assessment of Radionuclides Released to the Environment, Nucl. S af, 18(3): 343-354.
, C. W. Miller, D. L. Shaeffer, C. T. Garten, Jr., R. W. Shor, and J. T. Ensminger, 1977a, ^

Compilation o f Documented Computer Codes Applicable to Environmental Assessment o f
Radioactivity Releases, DOE Report ORNL/TM-5830, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
, D. L. Shaeffer, C. W. Miller, and C. T. Garten, Jr., 1978, Proceedings o f a Workshop on the
Evaluation o f Models Used fo r the Environmental Assessment o f Radionuclide Releases,
Gatlinburg, Tenn., Sept. 6-9, 1977, DOE Report CONF-770901, Oak Ridge National Labora
tory, NTIS.
Little, C. A., and C. W. Miller, 1979, The Uncertainty Associated with Selected Environmental
Transport Models, DOE Report ORNL-5528, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
Miller, C. W., 1978, A Critique of the Determination of Atmospheric Stability Categories for
Assessing Airborne Releases of Radionuclides, Health Phys., 34(5): 489-492.
, S. J. Cotter, R. E. Moore, and C. A. Little, 1980, Estimates of Dose to the Population Within
Fifty Miles due to Noble Gas Releases from the Three Mile Island Incident, in Proceedings o f
the American Nuclear Society/European Nuclear Society Topical Meeting Thermal Reactor
Safety, Knoxville, Tenn., Apr. 6-9, 1980, DOE Report CONF-800403/V-1I, pp. 1336-1343,
American Nuclear Society, NTIS.
, and F. O. Hoffman, 1979, A Critique of Methods for Estimating Plume Depletion and Deposi
tion of Airborne Radionuclides, in Proceedings o f the 12th Annual Symposium o f the
German-Swiss Fachverband ftir Strahlenschutz, Nordemey, Federal Republic of Germany,
Oct. 2-6, 1978, H. Kellermann (Ed.), Bundesforschungsanstalt fur Fisherei, 2 Hamburg 55,
WUstland 2.
, F. O. Hoffman, and D. L. Shaeffer, 1978, The Importance of Variations in the Deposition
Velocity Assumed for the Assessment of Airborne Radionuclide Releases, Health Phys., 34(6):
730-734.
Moore, R. E., 1977, The AIRDOS-H Computer Code fo r Estimating Radiation Dose to Man from
Airborne Radionuclides in Areas Surrounding Nuclear Facilities, DOE Report ORNL-5245,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
, et al., 1979, AIRDOS-EPA: A Computerized Methodology fo r Estimating Environmental
Concentrations and Dose to Man from Airborne Releases o f Radionuclides, DOE Report
ORNL-5532, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
Pasquill, F., 1974, Atmospheric Diffusion, 2nd ed., Halsted Press, Division of John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York.
Pendergast, M. M., 1976, Estimating Diffusion Coefficients from Meteorological Data, DOE
Report DP-MS-76-64, Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, S.C.
Singer, I. A., and M. E. Smith, 1966, Atmospheric Dispersion at Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Int. J. A m W ater Pollut., 10(2): 125-135.
Slinn, W. G. N., 1978, Parameterizations for Resuspension and for Wet and Dry Deposition of
Particles and Gases for Use in Radiation Dose Calculations, Nucl. S af, 19(2): 205-219.
Travis, C. C., A. P. Watson, L. M. McDowell-Boyer, S. J. Cotter, M. L. Randolph, and D. E.
Fields, 1979, A Radiological Assessment o f Radon-222 Released from Uranium M ills and
Other Natural and Technologically Enhanced Sources, NUREG/CR-0573 (DOE Report
ORNL/NUREG-55), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1974, Proposed Final Environmental Statement, Liquid Metal
Fast Breeder Reactor Program, WASH-1535, GPO.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977, Regulatory Guide 1.111, Methods fo r Estimating
Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion o f Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-
Water-Cooled Reactors, Revision I, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Van der Hoven, I., 1968, Deposition of Particles and Gases, in Meteorology and Atomic Energy
1968, D. Slade (Ed.), TID-24190, pp. 202-208, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, NTIS.
Weber, A. H., 1976, Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters in Gaussian Plume Modeling, Part I.
Review o f Current Systems and Possible Future Developments, EPA-600/4-76-030a,
Environmental Protection Agency, NTIS.
TERRESTRIAL
4 FOOD-CHAIN
TRANSPORT
By
Laura M. McDowell-Boyer and Charles F. Baes III
A number of computer codes are available to quantitatively estimate the trans

port of radionuclides through terrestrial food chains following the release of the
nuclides to the atmosphere (Hoffm an et al., 1977). Most of these models were
derived from the model implemented by the H ERM ES computer code (Fletcher
and Dotson, 1971) that was developed for assessing transport in chronic, or rou
tine, release situations. Distinct from the HERM ES-based models is TERM OD
(Booth, Kaye, and Rohwer, 1971), which is a model developed for assessing ter
restrial transport under routine release conditions or following acute, or acciden
tal, radionuclide releases to the environment. All these models use equilibrium
transfer coefficients to quantify the transport between food-chain compartments
following deposition of airborne radionuclides on soil or interception by vegeta
tion.
The U. S. N uclear Regulatory Commissions (N R C ) Regulatory Guide
1.109 (1977) provides terrestrial food-chain transport models for use in assessing
transport of chronically released low-level effluents from light-water reactors.
Adapted from the H ER M ES model (Soldat, 1978), the N R C models are
representative of the types of models currently used (Moore et al., 1979), or
recommended for use (U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977; Soldat,
1978), to assess chronic release situations. Consequently the discussion in this
chapter pertains to the N R C models in particular. Initially a brief discussion of
the model structures and the potential shortcomings of such structures is
presented. Then param eter values available for use in the models are discussed
and presented.
21
22
THE NRC REGULATORY GUIDE 1 .1 0 9

TERRESTRIAL FOOD-CHAIN MODELS
The Regulatory Guide models consider the concentration of radionuclides

th at results in vegetation as a consequence of deposition onto plant tissues and
root uptake of nuclides initially deposited on soil. Some of the models also con
sider concentrations th at result in milk and beef as a consequence of grazing on
contam inated pastures or ingestion of contam inated feed by dairy and beef
cattle.
C o n cen tration s in V egetation
Regulatory Guide 1.109 uses the following equation for estimating the con
centration, C i ( x , 0 ) , of radionuclide i in and on vegetation at the location (x,0):
q'(x,6)-d,(,,)rMpsyi I vÊ i
, Bv[l - e x p ( - X i t b ) ] , , ^,
H-------------- ^ ------------- exp(--Xith) (4 1)
rAj
where C[(x,0) = the concentration of radionuclide i in and on vegetation at the

location (x,0) (pC i/kg or B q/kg)
dj(x,tf) = the deposition rate of radionuclide i onto ground at location
( x , 0 ) (pCi m ^ h or Bq m ~ ^ h ~ ')
r = the fraction of the total m aterial being deposited th at is inter
cepted by crops (dimensionless)
Xei = the effective removal rate constant for radionuclide i from
crops, where Xg; = Xi + Xw(h *)
te = the time period that crops are exposed to contamination dur
ing the growing season (h)
Xj == the radioactive decay constant of radionuclide i (h~*)
X the removal rate constant for physical loss by weathering
(h ~ )
Yy = the agricultural productivity (yield) of the edible portion of
vegetation (kg/m ^)
By = the concentration ratio for uptake of radionuclide i from soil
by edible parts of crops (pC i/kg or B q/kg plant tissue per
pC i/kg or B q/kg dry soil)
NRC REGULATORY GUIDE MODELS 23
tb = the period of long-term buildup for activity in soil (h)

P = the effective surface density for the top 15 cm of soil [kg(dry
soil)/m^]
th = a holdup tim e th at represents the time interval between har
vest and consumption of the food (h)
Regulatory Guide 1.109 (U. S. N uclear Regulatory Commission, 1977) makes

a distinction between the values of tg, Yy, and th appropriate for forage grasses
and those appropriate for crops and leafy vegetables.
C o n cen tration s in Milk
The concentration of radionuclide 1 in milk depends on the amount and the

contamination level of the feed consumed by the animal. To calculate the con
centration of radionuclide i in the animals feed, the Regulatory Guide uses the
following equation:
Cf(x,fl) = fp fs c f(x ,0 ) + (1 - fp fs) Cf{x,e) (4.2)
where Ci(x,0) = the concentration of radionuclide i in the animals feed

(pC i/kg or B q/kg)
fp = the fraction of the year th at animals graze on pasture (dimen
sionless)
fg = the fraction of daily feed that is pasture grass when the
animals graze on pasture (dimensionless)
C f( x , 0 ) = the concentration of radionuclide i on pasture grass, calculated
by using Eq. 4.1 with th 0 (pC i/kg or B q/kg)
Cj(x,$) the concentration of radionuclide i in stored feeds, calculated
by using Eq. 4.1 with th = 2160 h, or 90 d (pC i/kg or
B q/kg)
The following equation uses the Ci{x,6) value calculated in Eq. 4.2 to estimate
the concentration of radionuclide i in milk:
Q (x,0) = C!ix,d) Qp exp ( ~ Xitf) (4.3)
where Cf*(x,) = the concentration of radionuclide i in milk (p C i/L or B q/L )

Cj'(x,fl) = the concentration of radionuclide i in the animals feed
(p C i/k g or B q/kg)
Fn, = the average fraction of the animals daily intake of radionu
clide i th at appears in each liter of milk (the milk transfer
coefficient) (d /L )
24 TERRESTRIAL FOOD-CHAIN TRANSPORT
Qp = the amount of dry feed consumed by the animal per day

(k g /d )
Xj = the radioactive decay constant of radionuclide i (d ')
tf = the average transport time of the activity from the feed into
the milk and to the receptor (d)
C on cen tra tio n s in M eat
The radionuclide concentration in m eat (usually beef) depends on the

amount and the contamination level of the feed consumed by the animal. The
Regulatory Guide uses the value of C[(x,6) as calculated in Eq. 4.2 to estimate
the radionuclide concentration in m eat as
C f(x,0) = Ff Q (x ,8 ) Qp exp ( - X^t,) (4.4)
where C f(x,0) == the concentration of radionuclide i in animal flesh(pC i/kg or

Bq/kg)
Ff = the fraction of the animals daily intake of radionuclide i that
appears in each kilogram of flesh [the meat (usually beef)
transfer coefficient] (d /k g )
Ci(x,0) = the concentration of radionuclide i in the animals feed
(pC i/kg or Bq/kg)
Qp = the amount of dry feed consumed by the animal per day
(k g /d )
Xj = the radioactive decay constant of radionuclide i (d')
tj = the average time from slaughter of the animal to consumption
of the m eat (d)
The calculation for concentrations in beef assumes that beef cattle are on open
pasture for the same grazing periods as given for milk cattle.
D iscu ssion
A few potential shortcomings of these equilibrium-type models should be

mentioned. First, because the N R C models rely on estimated annual average
deposition rates to derive concentrations in crops, beef, and milk, seasonal fac
tors th at affect both deposition rates and agricultural processes during the year
are neglected. However, the importance of seasonal factors has not been investi
gated thoroughly enough to w arrant such neglect. For example, if a positive cor
relation exists between deposition rates and food-chain assimilation rates as
N RC REGULATORY GUIDE MODELS 25
I m ay be the case if one considers the relation between rainfall and crop
productivity then the use of annual average deposition rates in the N R C model
may lead to inadequate estimates of food compartment concentrations. Another
potential problem posed in simulating food-chain transport of nuclides using the
equilibrium approach provided in the Regulatory Guide is the inability to ex
plicitly account for radioactive daughter ingrowth th at occurs during transport
between trophic compartments. The N R C models use equilibrium concentration
factors to describe the apportionment of radioactivity between trophic levels at
the time of crop harvest or at the tim e of the milking or slaughter of cattle; thus
rates of nuclide transport between levels are ignored. As a result, it is not possi
ble to satisfactorily couple this steady-state approach with the necessary
dynamic approach th at must apply to nuclide decay chains.
TERRESTRIAL TRANSPORT
INPUT PARAMETERS
Frequently the difficulty in determining input param eter values for terres
trial transport models by using data from literature surveys is not highlighted
properly. Often bitter quarrels develop among investigators regarding what the
correct value should be. Several factors contribute to the difficulty identified
with determining the input param eter values. First, a rather large range of
measured values m any of which seem to apply to a given set of environmental
or experimental conditions usually can be identified in the literature. Further,
the needs, interests, and considerations of the assessor often will determine the
appropriate param eter value to be used. For example, an assessor determining
compliance with standards often will choose from the range of measured values
a num ber th at is highly unlikely to result in an underestim ate of exposure in
even the worst possible conditions. On the other hand, an assessor wishing to
compare various facilities with one another may select a more median or aver
age value from the range. A third assessor may know enough about a site to
determine th at a value outside of the range of measured values found in the lit
erature is appropriate for h is/h er purposes. Each of these approaches must be
judged within the context of the purpose and import of the assessment. None of
the approaches is necessarily more correct than any of the others; rather, the
results obtained from selection of particular param eter values must be judged
according to the merits of the approach taken and on the way that such results
are intended to be interpreted. Thus a high degree of subjectivity is inherent in
the param eter values used as input to terrestrial transport codes.
Another factor th at also should be noted is that very few param eter values
derived from empirical data reported in the literature reflect param eter values
as they apply in terrestrial transport models. Often experimental conditions in

the studies reported in the literature do not reflect normal or average situations.
Often im portant corollary information is not reported and must be approximated
or assumed. Also parameters in these studies often are defined in terms of the
objectives of the investigator and not necessarily in terms as defined in assess
ment models. This is especially true of the soil-to-plant concentration ratio for
plants. By, and of the beef and milk transfer coefficients, Ff and F^,, respec
tively, Thus the param eter values derived from data reported in the literature
are the products of a wide range of experimental conditions and procedures.
Several generic problems associated with literature values for By are given
below.
1. Resuspension. Often it is not clear whether the investigator was measur
ing m aterial taken up through the roots or m aterial resuspended and redeposited
on leaf surfaces or both. Generally, this uncertainty is greatest with respect to
field measurements taken in nonhumid environments.
2. Laboratory measurements. Most literature values are derived in controlled
laboratory experiments. Although resuspension often can be carefully controlled,
other serious problems are introduced. A major problem is the extrapolation
from laboratory conditions to field conditions. Pot experiments may tend to
overestimate plant accumulations if the roots are compacted into relatively small
volumes of highly contaminated soil. The action of soil microbiota, burrowing
animals, and earthworms is not accounted for in pot experiments. In addition,
leaching of m aterial from the soil in the pots may be unrealistically low when
sealed pots or saucers underneath draining pots are used. Further, overwatering
and pooling of leachate in saucers may present a nearly hyponic medium for
plant uptake. Such hyponic-like situations rarely occur in the field. Furthermore,
in the field, roots may spread out below contaminated zones. Actions of
earthworms and other burrowing animals may tend to disperse or remove con
tam ination. To further compound the probability of enhanced root uptake, plant
productivity often may be less in the artificial laboratory environment as com
pared with the field. Thus the effect of growth dilution on the bioaccumulating
substance can be less in the laboratory.
3. Inappropriate plants/parts. M any literature values reflect inappropriate
plants and plant parts for food-chain applications. Nuclide concentrations in
root, stem, and leaf may not be appropriate with respect to the part eaten by
man.
4. Inappropriate measurements. Inappropriate measurement techniques and
the measurement of nuclide concentrations at inappropriate times also confound
the application of literature values to model parameters. For example, concen
trations measured early in a plants ontogeny may not be indicative of the
concentration at the m ature or harvested stage of growth.
Sometimes data from experiments containing one or more of the flaws previ
ously described are all that is available with which to derive param eter values
TERRESTRIAL TRANSPORT INPUT PARAMETERS 27
for Bys. Thus, depending on their willingness to accept a certain degree of error
introduced by various experimental flaws in favor of increasing the data base
from which transfer factors are derived, various investigators may determine dif
ferent values and ranges of param eters used for input to terrestrial transport
codes.
One problem associated with values of F and Ff is the lack of empirical
data with which to derive values; consequently large uncertainties are associated
with the values. M any values for the Ff and F, param eters applied to beef and
to cows milk, respectively, are derived from experiments with goats, sheep, or
reindeer. Also the experimental design of available studies is such that the total
daily radionuclide intake is uncertain or unknown and the degree of equilibrium
achieved in the tissue being monitored is unknown.
Listed in Tables 4.1 to 4.6 are values of input parameters for the NRC
Regulatory Guide models. These values are listed as they are provided in the
Regulatory Guide and as they are used in Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(O R N L ) computer codes (M oore et al., 1979); Baes and Miller, in press) that
implement adaptations of the N R C models for the nuclides listed. (These
values should be regarded as interim values until more complete literature sur
veys are completed an d /o r new experimental data are obtained.) A distinction is
made between the param eter values used in calculating concentration in pasture
grasses and those used in calculating concentration in fresh vegetables and pro
duce consumed directly by man. The distinction is made in the O R N L imple
mentation by defining separate values of By and r (or r/Y y) for each of these
two categories. To calculate concentrations for pasture grasses, the O R N L
implementation uses Yv(i) and Byd) based on dry-weight concentrations in both
forage crops and soil for Yy and B. To calculate concentrations in fresh pro
duce consumed by man, the O R N L implementation uses Yy(2) and By(2) for Yy
and By values. The Yy(2) and By(2) values are based on fresh-weight concentra
tions in appropriate vegetation and dry-weight soil concentrations of an element.
The N R C values for By are indiscriminate with respect to vegetation type and
are based on fresh-weight concentrations in vegetation and on dry-weight con
centrations in soil.
The O R N L values are the result of an ongoing review of available empirical
data and represent average values over a sometimes wide range of experimental
and environmental conditions. Unfortunately the data for most nuclides listed in
Tables 4.2 to 4.5 are nonexistent or sufficiently incomplete to prevent the evalu
ation of uncertainties associated with these values. As a result, the user takes a
great risk in producing justifiable results when applying the given param eter
values to any one geographic site or situation. Most of the N R C values, and a
few of the O R N L values, were derived from a document by Ng et al. (1968)
th at provides average stable element concentrations in unassociated soil, meat,
milk, and vegetation. These values, then, are not substantiated and may be
totally invalid because no relationship between concentrations in each trophic
level can be established from the information provided.
A g ric u ltu ra l Productivity by

Unit A rea, Y,^ and Y(v2)
The O R N L values of agricultural productivity, in kilograms per square

meter, are used to derive the inverse values given in Table 4.1 in dry weight for
pasture grasses, Yy(i), and in fresh weight for leafy vegetables and produce in
gested directly by man, Y v(2). M ean values of the aforementioned param eters
and of ft, and <r (the mean and standard deviation of the log-transformed distri
bution, respectively) were derived from a review and analysis (Hoffm an and
Baes, 1979) of agricultural productivity. N uclear Regulatory Commission values
of comparable param eters also are given in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1
VALUES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND INTERCEPTION FRACTIONS
USED BY ORNL AND NRC IN THE REGULATORY GUIDE 1.109 MODELS
ORNL values
Comparable
Parameter Mean M <r NRC values
ri/Yv(i)(mVkg)t 2.0 0.61 0.44 7.14 (for iodine)

1.43 (for particulates)
l/Yv(2 )[mVkg (leafy)]$ 0.53 -0 .7 3 0.46 0.5
l/Yv(2 )[mVkg (nonleafy)]$ 1.75 0.43 0.52 0.5
r 2 0.20 1.0 (for iodine)
0.20 (for particulates)
*Mean (ft) and standard deviation (<r) of log-transformed data.

tNRC value calculated from r/Y , given in the Regulatory Guide. Y, for forage was
converted to dry weight by Healys method (Healy, 1968).
|A distinction is not made in the Regulatory Guide between leafy and nonleafy crops.
The NRC value is derived directly from Y, for each category.
The NRC value corresponds to r in the Regulatory Guide.
Interception Fractions for A bove-

Ground P la n t P ortion s, r, and rj
The fraction of atmospherically depositing radionuclides intercepted and ini

tially retained on aboveground portions of forage crops is symbolized in the
O R N L version by rj; and I 2 is used to represent the fraction of atmospherically
depositing radionuclides intercepted and initially retained on above-ground por
tions of leafy vegetables and fresh produce ingested by man, where rj, T2 < 1 .
The remaining fraction deposited on the soil and surfaces other than the vegeta
TERRESTRIAL TRANSPORT INPUT PARAMETERS '
tion is merely (1 tj) and (1 2). The N R C version of the models ases the
term r, which is independent of crop type.
M easurements of for specific values of Yv(d have been made and reviewed
(Hoffm an and Baes, 1979), and the resultant mean value of rj/Y yd) is given in
Table 4.1. M easurements of the interception fraction, T2 , specific for edible por
tions of leafy vegetables and fresh produce ingested directly by man are unavail
able. The value of r 2 is expected to be less than that of ri because vegetable
crops usually are cultivated with more spacing between individual plants. On a
unit area basis, this spacing of vegetable crops exposes more surface soil than
the dense spacing of forage crops. Therefore a value of 0.2 for r 2, provided in
the N R C Regulatory Guide 1.109 (1977) for r, currently is being used. These ri
and r 2 values are used for both wet and dry deposition.
P la n t/S o il Bioaccum ulation

Factor,
Table 4.2 shows the O R N L values of B(d; these values represent the trans
fer of elements from soil to grass. Table 4.3 shows the O R N L values of Bv(2>;
these values represent the transfer of elements from soil to portions of vegetables
and produce edible by man. The following definitions of Bv(d and Bv(2) apply:
radionuclide concentration in entire aboveground portion of

plant at m aturity per unit dry weight
radionuclide concentration in soil per unit dry weight
radionuclide concentration in edible portion of

plant at m aturity per unit fresh weight
Bv(2)
radionuclide concentration in soil per unit dry weight
Whenever results were available from empirical studies concerning root uptake
for each element, O R N L used arithm etic means of the results to obtain By
values. Comparable N R C values listed in Table 4.2 are derived from values of
By given in the Regulatory Guide. These N R C values are derived by assuming
a fresh-weight-to-dry-weight ratio of 4:1 [a 4:1 ratio was assumed in the docu
ment (N g et al., 1968) from which the N R C By values were taken] and con
verting to a dry-weight basis. Comparable N R C values listed in Table 4.3 are
taken directly from the Regulatory Guide.
Param eter By is interpreted as the elemental concentration existing in plant
tissues at m aturity as a result of an equilibrium soil concentration to which the
roots have been exposed during the growing season. However, with regard to
technetium, uptake of the element from the soil by the plant roots can be so
appreciable that nonequilibrium soil concentrations may exist in laboratory stud

ies concerning technetium uptake (Till, Hoffman, and Dunning, 1978). Because
no field data have been reported for technetium, the appropriate By cannot be
derived directly. The Bv(d for technetium is simply a conversion of the Bv(2)
value to represent a dry-weight concentration in forage. Because of the lack of
empirical data on different plant types, no distinction between plant portions or
species was m ade in this case.
Table 4.2
ORNL AND NRC VALUES OF FOR FORAGE AND FEED
Element ORNL valuet NRC valuet Element ORNL valuet NRC valuet
Na (2.1 X 10 ) 2.1 X 10 * Cs 1.5 X 10 * 4.0 X 10" 2

P (4.4) 4.4 Ba t 2.0 X 10"2
S (2.4) $ La t 1.0 X 10 2
Cr $ 1.0 X 10 3 Ce 3.9 X 10 ^ 1.0 X 10 2
Mn (1.2 X 10~) 1.2 X 10 * Pm 1.3 X 10 3 t
Fe (2.6 X I0 3) 2.6 X 10 3 Sm (1.0 X 10 2) ii*
Co (3.8 X 10^2) 3.8 X 10 2 Bu (1.0 X 10 ^) t
Ni (7.6 X 10^2) 7.6 X 10 2 Pb 1.4 X 10 * i
Zn (1.6) 1.6 Bi (6.0 X 10 *) t
Sr 1.2 6.8 X I0 2 Po 4.2 X 10 3 $
Y 1.1 X 10^2 1.0 X 10 ^ Ra 9.1 X 10 2 +
Zr (6.8 X 10 '*) 6.8 X I0 " Ac (1.0 X 10 2) t
Nh (3.8 X 10 ^) 3.8 X 10 2 Th 2.7 X 10 3 t
Tc 2.0 X 10^ 1.0 Pa (1.0 X 10 2) f-v
Ru 1.7 X 10"* 2.0 X 10 * U 6.1 X 10 3 i
Ag (6.0 X 10 *) 6.0 X 10 * Np (1.0 X 10 2) 1.0 X 10 2
Sb (4.4 X 10 ^) t Pu 2.0 X 10 3 $
Te (5.2) 5.2 Am 2.1 X 10 ^
I 2.0 X 10 * 8.0 X 10 2 Cm 4.8 X 10 '* $
By(j) represents the ratio between the dry-weight concentration of an element

in forage and its dry-weight concentration in soil (pCi/kg or Bq/kg dry forage per
pCi/kg or Bq/kg dry soil).
tThe ORNL values in parentheses and all NRC values are from Ng et al.
(1968). They represent concentration ratios between unrelated soil and vegetation;
thus they are highly questionable.
$No value given for this element.
Milk T ransfer C oefficien t, F_
The milk transfer coefficient, F^, represents the fraction of the total daily
intake of a nuclide th at is transferred to a liter of cows milk at equilibrium.
Values of can be derived from a variety of reported data according to the
methodologies described by N g et al. (1977).
Table 4.3
ORNL AND NRC VALUES OF 8 ,(2) FOR VEGETABLES, FRUITS, AND GRAINS
Element ORNL valuet NRC valnet Element ORNL valuet NRC valuet
Na (5 .2 X 1 0 ^) 5 .2 X 1 0 " Cs 1 .1 X 1 0 " 1 .0 X 1 0 "

P (1.1) 1.1 Ba t 5.0 X 10"
S (5 .9 X 1 0 ') t La t 2 .5 X 1 0 "
Cr t 2 .5 X 1 0 Ce 6 .2 X 1 0 " 2 .5 X 1 0 "
Mn (2 .9 X 1 0 ") 2 .9 X 1 0 " Pm (2 .5 X 1 0 ") t
Fe (6.6 X 10) 6 .6 X 1 0 Sm (2 .5 X 1 0 ") t
Co (9 .4 X 1 0 ") 9 .4 X 1 0 " Eu (2 .5 X 1 0 ") t
Ni (1 .9 X 1 0 ") 1 .9 X 1 0 " Pb 3 .9 X 1 0 " t
Zn (4 .0 X 1 0 ') 4 .0 X 1 0 ' Bi (1 .5 X 1 0 ') t
Sr 2 .9 X 1 0 ' 1 .7 X 1 0 " Po 2 .6 X 1 0 t
Y 4 .3 X 1 0 " 2 .6 X 1 0 " Ra 1 .3 X 1 0 " t
Zr (1.7 X 10) 1 .7 X 1 0 Ac (2 .5 X 1 0 ") t
Nh (9 .4 X 1 0 ") 9 .4 X 1 0 " Th 3 .5 X 1 0 t
Tc 5.0 X 10' 2 .5 X 1 0 ' Pa (2 .5 X 1 0 ") t
Ru 1 .6 X 1 0 " 5 .0 X 1 0 " U 2 .9 X 1 0 t
Ag (1 .5 X 1 0 ) 1 .5 X 1 0 ' Np (2 .5 X 1 0 ") 2 .5 X 1 0 "
Sh (1 .1 X 1 0 ") t Pu 2 .2 X 1 0 t
Te (1.3) 1.3 Am 4 .0 X 1 0 i
I 5 .5 X 1 0 " 2 .0 X 1 0 " Cm 1 .7 X 1 0 " t
By(2) represents the ratio between the fresh-weight concentration of an element

in vegetables, fruits, or grains and its dry-weight concentration in soil (pCi/kg or
Bq/kg fresh vegetation per pCi/kg or Bq/kg dry soil).
tT he ORNL values in parentheses and all NRC values are from Ng et al.
(1968). They represent concentration ratios between correlated soil and vegetation;
thus they are highly questionable.
tN o value given for this element.
To determine values (shown in Table 4.4), O R N L used literature sources

(whenever available) that reported empirically derived results. However, the
well-documented literature review by Ng et al. (1977) was the prim ary litera
ture source for many elements. References in which the chemical form of the
nuclide was administered orally to the cow and clearly was atypical of forms
found in the environment were excluded from the analysis of F^. Most of the
Fm values provided by N R C in the Regulatory Guide rely on values from Ng
et al. (1968). As for the analysis of By, the F, values given in Table 4.4 are ele
ment specific rather than nuclide specific.
M eat T ransfer C oefficien t, F,
The m eat transfer coefficient, Ff, represents the fraction of the total daily
intake of a nuclide th at is transferred to a kilogram of muscle in the meat-
Table 4.4
ORNL AND NRC VALUES OF F *
Element ORNL valuet NRC valuet Element ORNL valnet NRC valaet
Na (3.5 X 1 0 '^ ) 4 .0 X 1 0 ' Cs (5 .6 X 1 0 ) 1 .2 X 1 0 '

P (1 .6 X 1 0 ') 2.5 X 10' Ba 4.0 X 1 0 "
S (1 .6 X 1 0 ') 1 La 1 5 .0 X 1 0
Cr 2 .2 X 1 0 Ce (2 .0 X 1 0 ) 6 .0 X 1 0
Mn (8 .4 X 1 0 ) 2 .5 X 1 0 Pm (2 .0 X 1 0 )
Fe (5 .9 X 1 0 ) 1 .2 X 1 0 Sm (2 .0 X 1 0 )
Co (2 .0 X 1 0 ) 1 .0 X 1 0 Bu (2 .0 X 1 0 )
Ni (1 .0 X 1 0 ') 6 .7 X 1 0 Pb 9 .9 X 1 0
Zn (1 .0 X 1 0 ') 3 .9 X 1 0 ' Bi (5.0 X 1 0 " )
Sr (2 .4 X 1 0 ) 8 .0 X 1 0 ' Po (1.2 X 10) 1
Y (2 .0 X 1 0 ) 1 .0 X 1 0 Ra (5.9 X 10) S
Zr (8 .0 X 1 0 ') 5 .0 X 1 0 Ac (2 .0 X 1 0 ) 1
Nb (2 .0 X 1 0 ') 2 .5 X 1 0 Th (5 .0 X 1 0 )
Tc (9 .9 X 1 0 ) 2 .5 X 1 0 ' Pa (5 .0 X 1 0 ) 1
Ru (6 .1 X 1 0 ') 1 .0 X 1 0 U 1.2X 10" I
Ag (3 .0 X 1 0 ') 5 .0 X 1 0 ' Np (5 .0 X 1 0 ) 5 .0 X 1 0
Sb (2 .0 X 1 0 ) Pu 4 .5 X 1 0 * 1
Te (2 .0 X 1 0 ) 1 .0 X 1 0 Am (2 .0 X 1 0 ) 1
I 1 .0 X 1 0 ' 6 .0 X 1 0 Cm (2 .0 X 1 0 " )
*F represents the fraction of the daily elemental intake of the cow that
appears in each liter of milk at equilibrium (d/L).
tThe ORNL values in parentheses were taken from Ng et al. (1977), Values
not in parentheses were derived from a literature review at ORNL.
tM ost of the NRC values are from Ng et al. (1968).
No value given for this element.
producing animal at equilibrium. Thus equilibrium conditions are assumed to

exist when slaughter occurs.
An O R N L review of the available literature led to a derivation of some
values of Ff for beef cattle (Table 4.5). Values of Ff based on im mature cattle
(less than six months of age) were excluded from this analysis when data from
adult cattle were available. D ata for other rum inant species were included when
literature references for cattle were unavailable. Some O R N L values and all but
one of the N R C values of Ff were derived from N g et al. (1968). The deriva
tion involved dividing estimated average concentrations of each element in beef
by estimated daily elemental intakes by beef cattle. To estimate these latter
daily intakes, O R N L assumed an average daily fresh m atter intake by cattle of
40 k g /d (M oore et al., 1979); and N R C assumed 50 k g /d (U. S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 1977). These values were multiplied by the estimated
average concentration of an element in vegetation (N g et al., 1968). Values of
Ff given in Table 4.5 are element specific.
Table 4.5
ORNL AND NRC VALUES OF F,*
Element ORNL valuet NRC value Element ORNL valnet NRC value
Na (3.8 X 10-^) 3.0 X 10-2 Cs 1.4 X 10-2 4.0 X 10-2

P (5.7 X icr^) 4.6 X 10-2 Ba t 3.2 X 10-2
S (1.3 X 10-') t La t 2.0 X 10
Cr t 2.4 X 10-2 Ce [6.0 X 10-*] 1.2 X 10-2
Mn (1.0 X 10-^) 8.0 X 10-* Pm (6.0 X 10-2) t
Fe (5.0 X 10-^) 4.0 X 10-2 Sm (6.3 X 10-2) t
Co (1.7 X 10-2) 1.3 X 10-2 Eu (6.0 X 10-2) t
Ni (6.7 X 10-2) 5.3 X 10-2 Pb 9.1 X 10-^ t
Zn (3.8 X 10-2) 3.0 X 10-2 Bi (1.7 X 10-2) t
Sr [3.0 X 10-*] 6.0 X KT* Po 4.0 X 10-2 t
Y (5.8 X 10-2) 4.6 X 10-2 Ra 5.5 X KT* t
Zr (4.3 X 10-2) 3.4 X 10-2 Ac jl.6 X 10-} t
Nb (3.5 X 10-') 2.8 X 10-' Th {1.6 X lo i t
Tc (8.7 X 10-2) 4.0 X 10-' Pa {1.6 X 10-} t
Ru [1.8 X 10-2] 4.0 X 10-' U {1.6 X 10} $
Ag (2.2 X 10-2) 1.7 X 10-2 Np {1.6 X 10} 2.0 X 10
Sb (5.0 X 10-2) $ Pu 4.1 X 10-2 t
Te (9.6 X 10-2) 7.7 X 10-2 Am [1.6 X 10] t
I [7.0 X 10-2] 2.9 X 10-2 Cm [1.6 X 10] t
*Ff represents the fraction of the daily intake of the cow that, assuming equi
librium exists, appears in each kg of flesh at slaughter (d/kg).
tThe ORNL values in parentheses and most NRC values are from Ng et al.
(1968). They represent estimated concentrations in beef as a function of the
estimated average daily intake by cattle regardless of region where estimated;
thus they are highly questionable. The ORNL values in brackets were taken
from Ng et al. (1978); the ORNL values in braces are assumed, because of a
total lack of element specific data, to be the same as those for curium and ameri
cium; and the other values were derived from a literature review at ORNL.
$No value given for this element.
Anim al Feed C onsum ption (Qp), Grazing P attern s f f p f j,

and E ffective Soil S u rface D en sity (Pi
Values for the param eters Qp, fp, fj, and P (defined in The N R C Regula
tory Guide 1.109 Terrestrial Food-Chain Models section of this chapter) are
listed in Table 4.6. The O R N L values are given as arithm etic means and stan
dard deviations of their respective statistical distributions (Hoffm an and Baes,
1979). Arithm etic means and standard deviations, or n and a, respectively, of
the log-transformed distribution also are provided with the O R N L values.
Values to use for fp and fg, which describe grazing patterns of cattle, are not
provided in the Regulatory Guide; they are left to the users discretion.
Table 4.6
ORNL AND NRC VALUES OF Qp, fp, AND P
USED IN REGULATORY GUIDE MODELS
ORNL value
Comparable
Parameter Mean S. D. It a NRC value
Qf* [kg/d (dry)] 15.6 2.6 12.5t

fp* 0.40 0.22 t
f 0.43 0.13 t
P [kg/m^ (dry)] 215 5.36 O.II 240
Parameter normally distributed.

tConverted to dry weight by Healys method (Healy, 1968).
$Value left to users discretion by NRC.
IParameter lognormally distributed.
Tim e P aram eters t^ , tb, th. t,, and %
Param eters tg, tj,, tf, and t, all have been defined in The N R C Regulatory
Guide 1.109 Terrestrial Food-Chain Models section of this chapter, and the
values used at O R N L and by N R C are listed in Table 4.7. Values listed are
taken from the draft Regulatory Guide. Param eter tb, representing the period of
long-term buildup for activity in soil, is not assigned a specific value. Assign
ment of a value to tb is left to the users discretion at O R N L, but the N R C has
assigned tb a value of 1.31 X 10^ h (1 5 years).
Table 4.7
ORNL AND NRC VALUES OF %, t,, %, tf, AND t,
USED IN REGULATORY GUIDE MODELS
Parameter Value Units
tb I.3I X 10^ h
te(i) (forage grasses) 720 h
te(2) (crops and leafy vegetables) 1440 h
th(i) (forage) 0 h
th(2) (stored feed for animals) 2160 h
th(3 ) (leafy vegetables) 336 h
th{4 ) (produce) 336 h
tf 4 d
ts 20 d
*No value was assigned to tf, in ORNL implementa

tion of NRC models.
REFERENCES
Baes, C. F. Ill, and C. W. Miller, 1981, CRRIS: A Computerized Methodology for Assessing the
Human Impact of Radionuclides Released to the Atmosphere, presented at the 16th Annual
Health Physics Society Meeting, June 21-25, 1981, Louisville, Ky., abstract. Health Phys.,
41(6).
Booth, R. S., S. V. Kaye, and P. S. Rohwer, 1971, A Systems Analysis Methodology for Predicting
Dose to Man from a Radioactivcly Contaminated Terrestrial Environment, in Proceedings o f the
Third National Symposium on Radioecology, Oak Ridge, Tenn., May 10-12, 1971, USAEC
Report CONF-7I0501, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, NTIS.
Fletcher, J. F., and W. L. Dotson (Comps.), 1971, HERMESA Digital Computer Code for
Estimating Regional Radiological Effects from the Nuclear Power Industry, USAEC Report
HEDL-TME-7I-168, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Wash.
Healy, W. B., 1968, Ingestion of Soil by Dairy Cows, N. Zealand J. Agric. Res., II: 487-499.
Hoffman, F. O., and C. F. Baes III (Eds.), 1979, A Statistical Analysis o f Selected Parameters for
Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose o f Radionuclides. Final Report,
NUREG/CR-1004 (DOE Report ORNL/NUREG/TM-282), Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
NTIS.
, C. W. Miller, D. L. Shaeffer, and C. T. Garten, Jr., 1977, Computer Codes for the Assessment
of Radionuclides Released to the Environment, Nucl. Saf, 18(3): 343-354.
Moore, R. E., et al., 1979, AIRDOS-EPA: A Computerized Methodology fo r Estimating Environ
mental Concentrations and Dose to Man from Airborne Releases o f Radionuclides, DOE Report
Ng, Y. C., C. A. Burton, S. E. Thompson, R. K. Tandy, H. K. Kretner, and M. W. Pratt, 1968,
Prediction of the Maximum Dosage to Man from the Fallout of Nuclear Devices, in Handbook
fo r Estimating the Maximum Internal Dose from Radionuclides Released to the Biosphere,
USAEC Report UCRL-50I63, Part IV, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, NTIS.
C. S. Colsher, D. J. Quinn, and S. E. Thompson, 1977, Transfer Coefficients for the Prediction
o f the Dose to Man via the Forage-Cow-Milk Pathway from Radionuclides Released to the Bio
sphere, DOE Report UCRL-5I939, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, NTIS.
., W. A. Phillips, Y. E. Ricker, R. K. Tandy, and S. E. Thompson, 1978, Methodology for
Assessing Dose Commitment to Individuals and to the Population from Ingestion o f Terrestrial
Foods Contaminated by Emissions from a Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant at the Savannah
River PlantDraft Report, ERDA Report UCID-17743, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,
NTIS.
Soldat, J. K., 1978, Terrestrial Food Chain Transport of Radionuclides, in Proceedings o f a
Workshop on the Evaluation o f Models Used for the Environmental Assessment o f Radionu
clide Releases, Gatlinburg, Tenn., Sept. 6-9, 1977, DOE Report CONF-770901, Oak Ridge
Till, J. E., F. O. Hoffman, and D. E. Dunning, Jr., 1978, Assessment o f Tc Releases to the
AtmosphereA Plea for Applied Research, DOE Report ORNL/TM-6260, Oak Ridge
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977, Regulatory Guide 1.109. Calculation o f Annual
Doses to Man From Routine Releases o f Reactor Effluents for the Purpose o f Evaluating Com
pliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Revision I, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash
ington, D.C.
5 SURFACE WATER TRANSPORT
By
Craig A. Little
This chapter discusses models that the staff of the model evaluation project feels
are best suited to assess radionuclide releases from breeder reactors to hydro
logic (surface w ater) systems. The models considered are two-dimensional, either
longitudinal-transverse or longitudinal-vertical. The models also differ in their
capabilities to account for sorptive effects on the pollutant. The
Y otsukura-Sayre model (longitudinal-transverse) does not consider sorptions,
but the SERA TRA (longitudinal-vertical) and FETR A (longitudinal-transverse)
models do consider sorption and sediment transport. These models and their
param eter needs are discussed separately.
MODEL W ITHOUT SORPTION
The Y otsukura-Sayre model (Yotsukura and Sayre, 1976), a continuous

release equilibrium model, is basically the same as th at of Yotsukura and Cobb
(1972). These models employ an orthogonal curvilinear coordinate system to
describe the geometrical configuration of the channel. In its most fundamental
form, the model can be expressed as follows (U. S. N uclear Regulatory Com
mission, 1977):
K y D , - ^ -~(AD)C,i
36
MODEL WITHOUT SORPTION 37
where Ci = concentration of radionuclide i (activity or mass per volume)

u^ = stream velocity (m /s)
Dg = stream depth (m)
X* = distance downstream (m)
y = distance across stream (m)
Ky = lateral turbulent diffusion coefficient (m ^/s)
Xj = radioactive decay constant for radionuclide i = 0,693/h a lf life
(s ~ )
O f these parameters, all but Ky can be measured directly in the stream of

concern. However, Yotsukura and Cobb (1972) showed t hat the variable diffu
sion factor, KyUDg^ may be replaced by a constant factor, KyU^Dg^ where
KyUwD^ = KyUD2 dq (5.2)
where Q is the total river discharge (activity or mass per second) and q is the
transverse cumulative discharge measured outward from the near shore (activity
or mass per second). Further, Yotsukura and Cobb (1972) suggest th at Ky can
be determined by using the formula of Elder (1959):
Ky = /3DgU* (5.3)
where is a unitless constant, Dg is stream depth in m, and u* is the average

shear velocity in the y dimension. Therefore the only constant that m ay be con
sidered not site specific for the model is the constant /S. The value of in flume
studies ranges from about 0.11 to 0.23 (Yotsukura and Cobb, 1972). A value of
/3 = 0.72 was found in the Columbia River (Glover, 1964); however, Fischer
(1969) showed that secondary currents could increase the value of by as much
as a factor of 10. A value of /3 = 0.6 has been observed in the Missouri River
(Yotsukura, Fischer, and Sayre, 1970).
A model user interested in predicting the maximum concentration down
stream from the same point release should choose a value of ^ = 0. A zero /3
would result in no diffusion and, as seen from Eq. 5.1, would simplify the pre
diction of activity concentration to a function of decay and downstream distance.
This would effectively eliminate the consideration of transverse (or lateral) dis
tance and would maximize the activity concentration at any point in midstream.
A model user not interested in a conservative estimate will be faced with
deciding which value of 0 to use. From the review of Y otsukura and Cobb
(1972), the staff of the model evaluation project concludes th at p may range
from approximately 0.1 to 0.72 (and perhaps higher). The staff suggests, then.
that a user interested in accurate predictions of pollutant concentrations in

water should use a value of j8 greater than 0.1 and less than 1.0 .
MODELS WITH SORPTION
If the pollutant being assessed is not in a soluble form or if it has a marked

tendency to adsorb to sediments, as do many actinides, the user may wish to
employ a model that is capable of predicting sediment or particulate contami
nant transport. For such an application, the staff of the model evaluation
project suggests considering use of the FETR A model [discussed by Onishi and
Wise (1978)] in spite of the large number of input parameters it requires.
FETRA and a similar model, SERA TRA (Onishi, 1977a, 1977b), both estimate
sediment and pollutant concentrations downstream from some release site as a
function of time after the release. However, SERA TRA estimates concentra
tions longitudinally and vertically, whereas FETR A considers longitudinal and
lateral (transverse) distribution of the pollutant. These models are much more
complex than the Yotsukura model mentioned above; therefore both SERATRA
and FETR A will be discussed in general terms with specific parameters being
neglected.
Both SERA TRA and FETRA are time-dependent models that consist of
three submodels:
1. A sediment transport model.
2. A dissolved contaminant transport model.
3. A particulate contaminant transport model.
The sediment transport sections of FETRA and SERA TRA are capable of
accounting for effects of:
1. Convection and dispersion.
2 . Fall velocity and cohesiveness.
3. Deposition on the river bottom.
4. River bed erosion.
5. Tributary flow.
Necessary data include:

1. Concentration of each of j sediment types per unit volume of water.
2. Time after release.
3. Longitudinal, lateral, and vertical velocities.
4. Particle fall velocity of j sediment types.
5. Longitudinal, lateral, and vertical diffusion coefficients of j sediment
types.
6 . River width.
7. Flow depth.
8 . Sediment deposition and erosion rates for j sediment types.
MODEL WITH SORPTION 39
9. Estimates of several coefficients dealing with erodibility, critical shear

stress, and impaction probability on the river bottom for each of j sediment
types.
Basically, the same data are required for the particulate contaminant trans
port submodel. However, this submodel also takes into account the adsorption
and desorption of a dissolved pollutant by sediments and the removal of the
pollutant by chemical or biological means.
The dissolved pollutant submodels of FETRA and SERA TRA also account
for convection and dispersion of pollutant, adsorption and desorption of pollutant
from water, chemical and biological decay of pollutant, and the effects of
tributaries. In addition to data required for the two previous submodels, the dis
solved contaminant model needs data about:
1. Distribution coefficient between dissolved and particulate contaminant
adsorbed on each of the j sediment types.
2. Amount of particulate pollutant per unit mass of j sediments.
3. Mass of contaminant dissolved per unit volume of water.
4. Longitudinal, lateral, and vertical diffusion coefficients for dissolved con
taminant.
5. Chemical and biological decay rate of contaminant.
As the reader probably has noticed, a large amount of input data is needed
for the FETRA and SERA TRA models. Given the diversity of input data and
the difficulty in measuring some of the input parameters, it is doubtful that
either FETRA or SERA TRA would be used for a one-time assessment of a pol
lutant release into a river (e.g., an accidental release) unless input data previ
ously had been collected. However, if the model input data were available for a
particular site, the models would be well suited to estimate pollutant transfer
downstream following some accidental release. The staff of the model evaluation
project suggests FETRA and SERA TRA for those situations in which pollutant
sorption to sediments may be im portant or when the pollutant is a particulate.
REFERENCED
Elder, J. W., 1959, The Dispersion of Marked Fluid in Turbulent Shear Flow, J. Fluid M eek, 5(4);
544-560.
Fischer, H. B., 1969, The Effect of Bends on Dispersion in Streams, Water Resour. Res., 5(2):
496-506.
Glover, R. E., 1964, Dispersion o f Dissolved or Suspended Materials in Flowing Streams, U. S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 433-B, U. S. Geological Survey, GPO,
Onishi, Y., 1977a, Finite Element Models fo r Sediment and Contaminant Transport in Surface
Waters Transport o f Sediments and Radionuclides in the Clinch River, DOE Report BNWL-
2227, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, NTIS.
1977b, Mathematical Simulation o f Sediment and Radionuclide Transport in the Columbia

River, DOE Report BNWL-2228, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, NTIS.
, and S. E. Wise, 1978, Mathematical Simulation o f Transport o f Sediment and Kepone in the
James River Estuary, DOE Report PNL-2731, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle
Memorial Institute, NTIS.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977, Regulatory Guide 1.113. Estimating Aquatic
Dispersion o f Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose o f
Implementing Appendix I, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Yotsukura, N., and E. D. Cobb, 1972, Transverse Diffusion o f Solutes in Natural Streams, U. S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 582-C, U. S. Geological Survey, GPO.
H. B. Fischer, and W. W. Sayre, 1970, Measurement o f Mixing Characteristics o f the Mis
souri River Between Sioux City, Iowa and Plattsmouth, Nebraska, U. S. Geol. Survey Water
Supply Paper 1899-G, U. S. Geological Survey, GPO.
and W. W. Sayre, 1976, Transverse Mixing in Natural Channels, Water Resour. Res., 12(4):
695-704.
6 AQUATIC F O O D -C m m TRANSPORT
By
Roberta W. Shor
THE BASIC MODEL
Models th at describe the transfer of radionuclides from liquid effluents to man

via aquatic foods generally take the form (Soldat, Baker, and Corley, 1973;
Lyon, 1976; U. S. N uclear Regulatory Commission, 1977)
R| = UfpCwiBipDi^ exp (- A it,) ( 6 . 1)
where Ry = dose to organ j of an individual from radionuclide i via aquatic food

f (m rero/year or /iSv/year)
Ufp = ingestion rate of aquatic food by an individual (kg/year)
Cwi = concentration of radionuclide i in water (C i/L or B q/L )
Bip = the bioaccumulation factor, the equilibrium ratio of the concentra

tion of radionuclide i in aquatic food p to its concentration in water
(L /k g )
Djj = dose conversion factor for radionuclide i, aquatic food f, and organ j
(m rem /pC i or ^S v/B q)
Xj = radioactive decay constant of radionuclide i
tj = time from release to exposure (L or S)
41
42 AQUATIC FOOD-CHAIN TRANSPORT
M ethods of calculating Cî are described in Chap. 5 of this report, Uap is ^

examined in Chap. 7, and Dy is considered in Chap. 9. The remainder of this
chapter deals with the bioaccumulation factor Bjp,
THE BIOACCUM ULA TION FACTOR
The transfer of radionuclides from contaminated water to human food

through various trophic levels of aquatic life is represented by a single param e
ter, the bioaccumulation factor, Bjp. This param eter is defined by the ratio:
Q
Bip = (6.2)
Cwi
where Bjp and Ci are defined in Eq. 6.1 and Cjj is the equilibrium concentra
tion of the nuclide in the food chain organism or tissue. Its value usually is
tabulated by element for several trophic levels in freshwater and seawater
(Thompson et al., 1972; Freke, 1967; Vanderploeg et al., 1975; Lowman, Rice,
and Richards, 1971). Here the term Bjp refers equally to a radionuclide or its
stable element. The factor exp ( Xit^) in Eq. 6.1 accounts for the loss resulting
from radiodecay.
The Bjp term may refer to a wide variety of conditions within each class of
biota in marine and freshwater tabulations. Variations of Bjp values within one
class of tabulation are common. Some of the more significant factors associated
with these variations can be classified as the effect of sediments, the composition
of water, and biological diversity.
The chemical composition, the sediment particle size, the amount of sedi
ment in the water, the reactions of radionuclides with the sediments, and the
variety of biological interactions with sediments can cause large discrepancies in
Bjp values for sediment-interactive radionuclides (cesium, rare earths, transuran-
ics, etc.). As a corollary, the use of filtered or unfiltered water can cause mark
edly different Bjp values. Some researchers report both sets of Bjp values (fil
tered and unfiltered water) without recommending the use of either set (Gilat,
Laichter, and Shafrir, 1975).
Variations in stable element composition (or a stable element sufficiently
similar to the radionuclide to be a carrier for it) or in the nutrient composition
of natural waters can cause large differences in Bjp values within a single cate
gory. The effect is especially significant with stable elements (oi their ana
logues) that are biologically functional, such as potassium, calcium, manganese,
iodine, and iron. Mineral and nutrient compositions fluctuate greatly in fresh
and cstuarine waters.
THE BIOACCUMULATION FACTOR 43
Biological variations th at affect Bjp values within a category are numerous.

Benthic feeders ingest more sediment than surface feeders. Accumulation of
radionuclides may increase with increasing size and age of an organism. The dis
tribution of radionuclides among tissues of biota is species and growth related in
some cases (Pentreath and Fowler, 1979). Fish commonly incorporate radionu
clides by ingestion of food; however, in some instances, they may accumulate the
radionuclide from water or sediment. Thus generic Bjp values encompass a range
within a single category that reflects the diversity and complexity of aquatic life.
For this reason, the use of generic Bjp values usually is considered condi
tional. If a dose prediction to an individual in a maximally exposed group for a
particular critical pathway results in an exposure greater than some arbitrary
percentage of the limit set by regulatory agencies, remedial measures may be
indicated or a more site-specific Bjp value may be sought. Ten percent has been
suggested as an arbitrary percentage of the regulatory limit (Freke, 1967;
IC R P, 1979; IAEA, 1982). Preoperational assessment of health effects from
radionuclides expected to be released to the aquatic environment from a nuclear
establishment should reveal the most probable critical pathways. However, occa-
sion^lly, after operations have begun, the monitoring of foodstuffs discloses
unaaticipated critical pathways. An example is the appearance of " '"'Ag in
oysters in the River Bradford (United Kingdom) resulting from the operation of
the Bradford Power Station. For a limited time, the ^'"Ag-contaminated
oysters proved to be an unexpected critical pathway for East London oyster
eaters (Hetherington, 1975).
The radionuclide composition of aqueous nuclear releases differs from one
type of nuclear establishment to another; in fact, considerable variations may
exist among the aqueous effluents from light water power reactors (H unt, 1979;
Herm ann et al., 1975; Wrenn and Jinks, 1976). However, the radionuclides
from light water power reactors that are most frequently identified as those
leading to possible exposure to man by fish ingestion are ^^Cs, Sr, *^Sr,
Co, 5*Co, ^'I, and ^^Mn.
Perhaps the most comprehensively monitored areas are those waters in and
around the British Isles. Releases from twenty-seven installations that include
power stations, defense units, and one reprocessing plant are monitored in the
receiving waters. Sediments and foodstuffs from the relevant areas also are mon
itored. In 1977 the radionuclides found to contribute to significant exposure esti
mates to persons consuming the maximum amounts of fish and shellfish are
shown in Table 6.1. Four consumption patterns were surveyed. Cesium-137 con
tributed the largest exposure in three patterns. However, persons consuming
winkles (a large marine snail) acquired a greater dose from '*Ru, ^^Fu, ^ Pu,
and ^^*Am than from cesium radionuclides. Seaweeds from the United Kingdom
(U K ) shoreline revealed the presence of **^Ru, *^Cs, *^^Cs, ^Zr, ^Nb, Co,
and **^Ce, but they did not represent a significant exposure pathway (Hunt,
1979).
6
Table 6.1
RADIATION EXPOSURE FROM INGESTION OF FISH AND SHELLFISH FROM THE IRISH SEA IN 1977*
Estimated doset
Assumed rate of
Consumers consumption, kg/year Radionuclide mSv/year mrem/year
Local fishermen and families 82 fish (plaice) Sr 0.01 1

15 crab ' Ru 0.1 10
(local supplies) '3^Cs 0.18 18
Cs 1.1 110
2'"Am 0.15 15
Local fishermen and families 1.8 winkles (large snails) '* R u 0.21 21
(local supplies) > Cs 0.021 2.1
239pu 4 . 240p 0.07 6.5
^'"Am 0.24 24
Consumers associated with commercial 106 fish 90sr 0.01 1
fisheries (Whitehaven, Fleetwood, 26 crustaceans ' Ru 0.02 2
Movecombe Bay) 16 mollusca 3^Cs 0.07 6.5
' Cs 0.45 45
2'" Am 0.02 2
Typical member of fish-eating public 15 fish '3Cs 0.005 0.5
consuming fish landed at > Cs 0.05 5
Whitehaven/Fleetwood
Hunt (1979)
tICRP-26 effective dose limit to a maximum individual (whole body) is 500 mrem/year (5 mSv/year) and 1.5
rem/year (15 mSv/year to any single organ.
The most thoroughly studied bioaccumulation factors are those for *^Cs and
Sr and their stable elements in fish. Bioaccumulation factors of these elements
in freshwater systems are inversely related to the concentration of their chemical
analogues, potassium and calcium (Fleischman, 1973; Templeton and Brown,
1964). Vanderploeg et al. (1975) have correlated the data from several sets of
experiments to obtain an upper bound for Bjp for cesium in freshwater fish (all
tissues) as a function of potassium concentration in unfiltered waters of high
and low turbidity. Similarly, Vanderploeg et al. examined several studies for
the relation of strontium in fish muscle to the concentration of calcium in the
water. The following equations show these correlations (Vanderploeg et al.,
1975):
1. <50 ppm sediment in unfiltered water
Piscivorous fish, Bjp(Cs) = r^ i~ " (6-3)

l^Jw
V 1a 3
Nonpiscivorous fish, Bip(Cs) = ------ (6.4)
[K.]w
2. > 5 0 ppm sediment in unfiltered water
3 X 10^
Piscivorous fish, Bip(Cs) = ------ (6.5)
[K. Jw
1X10^
Nonpiscivorous fish, Bjp(Cs) = rr- ( 6 .6 )
iK-Jw
3. Fish muscle
Bjp(Sr) = exp {5.18 1.11 (s.e.) - 1.21 0.37 (s.e.) In [Ca]*} (6.7)
where [K]* is the equilibrium concentration of potassium in the water (ppm),

[Ca]w is the equilibrium concentration of calcium in the water (ppm), and s.e. is
the standard error of the mean.
Bioaccumulation factors and their range of values are shown in Tables 6.2
and 6.3. The source of the single recommended Bjp value is the reference not
included in parentheses. References included in parentheses give Bjp values in
the range of values shown. Most single values are from Thompson et al. (1972).
Table 6.2
BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS (L/kg wel weight) FOR VARIOUS ELEMENTS
IN FOOD FROM MARINE ENVIRONMENTS
Inverte
brates
Ele Fish soft
ment muscle Range References* parts Range References* Plants Range References*
Na lEO lE-1 to lE l 5(1,2) 2E-1 2E-1 to 2E1 1(2,3) lEO lE -1 to lEO 1( 2 )

P 3E4t 1E4 to 3E4 1( 2 ,3,5) 3E4 1E4 to 3E4 1(2,3,5) 3E3 3E3 to 1E5 1(2,5)
S 2E0 lEO to 1E2 1(2,3,5) 2E0 3E-1 to 5E0 1(2,3,5) 4E-1 4E-1 to lEO 1(2)
Or 4E2 7E1 to 4E2 1(2,3,5) 2E3 6E1 to 2E3 1(2,3,5) 2E3 2E1 to 3E4 1(2,4,5)
Mn 6E2 8E1 to 3E3 1(2,3,5) 1E4 2E3 to 1E5 1(2,3,5,12) 2E4 6E3 to 2E4 1(2,4,5)
Fe 3E3 4E2 to 3E3 1(2,3,5) 2E4 6E2 to 3E5 1(2,3,5,11) 5E4 7E2 to 7E4 1(2,4)
Co 1E2 3E1 to 6E2 1(2,3,5) 1E3 lE l to 1E4 1(2,3,5,11) 1E3 2E1 to 1E3 1(2,4)
Ni 1E2 1E2 to 5E2 1(2,3,5) 3E2 1E2 to 1E4 1(2,3,4,5) 3E2 3E2 to 1E3 1(2,4,5) >
o
Cu 7E2 7E2 to 1E3 1(3,5) 2E3 2E3 to 5E3 1(3,5) 1E3 1 c
Zn 2E3 3E2 to 2E4 1(2,3,4,5) 1E5 5E1 to 1E5 1(2,3,4,5) 1E3 8E1 to 3E3 1(2,4,5) >
H
Sr 2E0 1(2,3,4,5) 2E1 1(2,3,4,5)
O
lE-1 to 2E0 lE l to 5E1 lE l lEO to 1E2 1(2,4,5,11) Tl
Y 3E1 lE l to 3E2 1(2,3,5) 1E3 lE l to 1E3 1(2,5) 5E3 3E2 to 5E3 1(2,5) o
Zr 2E2 lEO to 2E2 1(2,3,4,5) 2E1 lEO to 2E4 1(2,3,4,5) 2E3 2E2 to 2E4 1(2,4,5) o
01
Nb 1E2 lEO to 1E2 8(2,3,5) 1E2 lE l to 1E2 1(2,3,5) 1E3 2E2 to 1E3 1(2,5,9) o
Tc lEi IE! to3E i 1(2,8) 5E! 5E1 to 1E3 1(2,5) 4E3 4E3 to 1E4 1(2) X
>
Ru !E1 5E-2 to ! E! 1(2,3,4,5) 1E3 !E1 to 2E3 1(2,3,4,5,11) 2E3 1E3 to 2E3 1(2,4,5,11) 5
Ag 3E3 ! E3 to 3E3 1(2,3,4,5) 3E3 3E2 to 1E5 1(2,3,4,5) 2E2 2E2 to !E3 1(2,9) H
po
Sb 4EI 4Ei to 1E3 1(2,3,5> 5E0 5E0 to 1E3 1(2,3,5,9) Ê3 lE 2 to 2 E 3 1(2,9) >
Te 1E3 lE l to !E3 1(3,5) lES . IE! to 1E5 1(3,5,9,12) 1E4 2E2 to 1E4 2(4,5) 2
I 1E2 , lEL to 3E2 12(1,2^4,5) 5E1 4E1 to 1E2 3(1,2,4,5) 1E3 to 1E4 1(2,4.5,9)
o
Cs l(i3 ,5 ,6 ) 3E0to IE2 li2 ,4 ,U ) H
if
'j!; * { ..-
Ba tEl -m m IE2 5.E2 5E2 tc

' S i t - ' K. a
La 3E1 tl- ............ 1(2,3,5,7) 1E3 5E3 3E3 to Sfei *"1(2,5) w
Ce 3E1 3E1 Xfy 3JE2 1(2,3,5,7) IE3 1E2 to 5E3 ^2.3.5,7,11) 5E3 lE l to 5E3 1(2,7,11)
S
Pm 3E1 3E1 to 1K2 1(2,3,5,7) 1E3 1E3 1(2,7) 5E3 1E3 to 5E3 1(2,5) o
>
Pb 3E2 3E2 to 5E4 K2,3,4) 1E3 4E1 to 2E5 1(2,3,4) 5E3 1E3 to 2E4 1(2,4) o
o
Bi 2B1 H2) 1E5 1E3 to 1E5 4(2,3) 1E3 2 c
Po 3E2 3E2 to 2E3 1(2) 2E4 2E4 1(2,3,11) 2E3 1E3 to 2E3 1(2) s
G
Ra 5E1 5E1 to 1E2 1(2,3) 1E2 1E2 to 1E3 1(2,3,11) 1E2 1(2) r
Th 1E4 1E3 to 1E4 2E3 1E3 to 6E3 1(2,3,11) 3E3 1E3 to 2E4 1(2)
>
1(2) H
Pa lE l I lE l 1(2,3) 6E0 6E0 to 1E2 1(2) O
U 3E0 lEO to lE l 1(2) lE l 1(2,3) 7E1 lE l to 7E1 1(2) Tl
Np lE l lEOto lE l 1(2) lE l lE l to 1E3 1(2,3) 6E0 6E0 to 1E3 1(2) o
Pu 3E0 3E0 to 3EI 1(2,10) 1E2 3E0 to 2E3 1(2,3,10,11) 4E2 4E2 to 3E3 1(2,10) H
Am 3E1 lE l to 3E1 1(2) 1E3 2E2 to 2E3 1(2,3,11) 5E3 2E3 to 5E3 1(2)
o
!
Cm 3E1 lE l to 3E1 1(2) 1E3 2E2 to 2E3 1(2,3) 5E3 2E3 to 5E3 1(2)
*References in parentheses refer to values in the ranges; references not in parentheses refer to the single value.
References are as follows:
Thompson et al. (1972).
International Atomic Energy Agency 211 (1978).
Lowman, Rice, and Richards (1971).
Bowen et al. (1971).
Freke (1967).
Gilat, Laichter, and Shafrir (1975).
Suzuki, Koyanagi, and Saiki (1975).
Ophel (1979).
International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Series, STI/PUB 611 (1982).
Hetherington (1975).
Pentreath and Fowler (1979).
Vanderploeg et al. (1975).
t3E 4 = 3 X 10 = 30,000.
TaUe 6.3
BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS (L/kg wet weight) FOR VARIOUS ELEMENTS IN FOOD FROM FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENTS
Inverte
brates
Ele Fish soft
ment nmscie Range References* Range References* Plants Range References*
Na 2E1 2E1 to 1E3 1 2E1 2E1 to 2E2 1 1E2 1

P 1E5 3E4 to 1E5 11(5) 1E5 2E4 to 1E5 1 1E2 1
S 8E2 3E2 to 1E3 1 1E2 1 1E2 1
Or 4E1 4E1 to 4E3 1(5,6) 2E1 2E1 to 2E3 ! 4E1 4E1 to 4E3 1
Mn 1E2 2E1 to 5E2 1(5,6) 4E4 2E3 to 1E5 1(3) 1E4 7E1 to 1E4 3(1,6)
Fe lE 2t 1E2 to 1E3 4(6) 3E3 1 1E3 1
Co 2E1 lE l to 1E3 1(3,6) 4E2 2E2 to 1E4 3(1) 1E4 2E1 to 1E4 3(1,6)
Ni 1E2 1 1E2 1 5E1 1
Cu 2E2 3E0 to 8E2 1(6) 1E3 1 1E3 1E3 to 2E3 1
Zn 1E3 5E2 to 8E3 1(6) 1E4 4E3 to 2E4 1 1E3 2E2 to 2E4 1(6)
Sr 5E0 2E0 to 2E 2t 1(3,6,12,13) 3E2 1(3) 1E3 3E0 to 2E3 3(1,6,9) >
Y 3E1 lE l to 1E2 1 1E3 1 5E3 1 O
G
Zr 3E0 lEO to 4E2 1(6) 7E0 1 1E3 7E1 to 1E3 1(6) >
6(8)
H
Nb 1E2 4E1 to 4E2 1E2 1 8E2 2E1 to 8E2 1(6) O
Tc 2E1 2E1 to 3E1 1 5E0 1 4E1 1 >n
O
Ru lE l lE l to 3E2 1(6) 3E2 1 2E2 lE l to 2E2 1(6) O
Ag 2E0 2E0to lE l 1(6) 8E2 1 2E2 1 o
Sb lEO lEO to 2E2 1(6) lE l 1 2E3 3E1 to 2E3 1(6)
o
X
Te 4E2 2 6E3 6E3 to 1E5 2(1) 1E3 2 >
I 2E1 !E1 to 8E2 1(3,6) 3E2 5E0 to 3E2 3(1) 8E2 4E1 to 8E2 3(1)
H
Cs 4E2 5E1 to 1E4 1(3,6,10,12) 1E3 6E1 to 1E4 3(1) 1E3 lE l to 2E3 3(1,6,9)
Ba 4E0 4E0 to 2E2 1 1E3 1 5E2 1
>
z
La 3E1 1 2E2 1 5E3 s Cfl
Ce 3E1 lE l to 2E2 1(6) 1E3 1 5E3 3E2 to 5E3 1(6) O
50
Pm 3E1 1 1E3 1 5E3 1 H
Pb 3E2 1E2 to 3E2 1 1E3 1 2E2 1
Bi 2E1 11 1E5 3 1E5 11
Po 5E1 5E1 to 5E2 1 2E4 1 2E3 1
Ra 5E1 3E1 to 1E2 1(6) 3E2 1 3E3 3E1 to 3E3 1(6,9)
Th 3E1 3E1 to 1E2 1( 6 ) 5E2 1 2E3 9E1 to 5E4 1(6,9)
Pa lE l 1 1E2 1 1E3 1
U lE l 2E0 to 2E1 1 1E2 1 1E3 4E0 to 1E3 1(9)
Np lE l lE l to 1E2 1 4E2 1 1E3 1
Pu 4E0 4E-1 to 5E2 1(7,8) 1E2 1 4E2 2E2 to 1E4 1(7)
Am 3E1 3E1 to 1E2 1 1E3 1 5E3 1
Cm 3E1 3E1 to 1E2 1 1E3 1 5E3 1
*References in parentheses refer to values in the ranges; references not in parentheses refer to the single value. References are as fol
lows:
1. Thompson et al. (1972).
2. Alabama Power Company (1971).
3. Vanderploeg et al. (1975).
4. Ophel (1979).
5. International Atomic Energy Agency (1982).
6. Herrmann et al. (1975).
7. Edgington, Wahlgren, and Marshall (1976).
8. Eyman, Trabalka, and Case (1976).
9. Kulikov (1973).
10. Ettenhuber and Rohnsch (1975).
11. Ng et al. (1968).
12. Fleischman (1973).
13. Templeton and Brown (1964).
tWater containing less than 0.15 g/L minerals.
iSee Eq. 6.7.
See Eqs. 6.3 through 6.6.
They are based on stable element concentrations of edible portions in wet weight
of aquatic organisms divided by the average stable element concentrations of
fresh waters or of the appropriate estuarine or coastal waters. Laboratory studies
were excluded from the Thompson compilation. The reviews of
Pentreath and Fowler (1979); Lowman, Rice, and Richards (1971); Bowen
et al. (1971); and Vanderploeg et al. (1975) discuss the influence of ecological
interactions on the bioaccumulation of selected elements in aquatic biota and
give Bjp values for a more limited number of elements than are given in
Thompsons work. The reference. International Atomic Energy Agency 211
(1978), lists a compilation of recommended Bjp values for marine biota and an
identification of the estimated critical pathway for each radionuclide (i.e., ^^Cs,
fish eaters).
Recommended Bjp values in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 are intended to represent the
higher part of the range in most cases. Therefore measured concentrations of
radionuclides in foodstuffs are expected to be lower than those calculated using
Bjp values. A comparison of measured and calculated concentrations in finfish
and shellfish is shown in Table 6.4 (Feldt and Kaye, 1980). Indeed, most of the
measured values are lower by at least a factor of two. The notable exception is
^^Cs in marine fish.
The large range of Bjp values found for most elements and biota, however,
suggests caution in the use of generic tabulations such as those given in Tables
6.2 and 6.3. A statistical analysis assuming a lognormal distribution of Bjp
values from those found in the literature for strontium, iodine, and cesium in
freshwater finfish is shown in Table 6.5. Presumably, the range of values for
strontium and cesium could be narrowed by applying the relations of cesium and
strontium concentrations in fish to the potassium and calcium concentrations in
water (Eqs. 6.3 to 6.7). However, site-specific Bjp values for cesium in freshwa
ter fish (filtered water) continue to show a considerable range as demonstrated
by Ettenhuber and Rohnschs (1975) data in Table 6 .6 . These data were gath
ered from fish taken from natural waters in the German Democratic Republic.
Despite the spread in many Bjp values, dose estimates (based on analyses of
aquatic food) to critical groups have remained acceptable fractions of the
recommended limits. According to data derived from monitoring, releases from
United Kingdom power stations to aquatic food are responsible for less than
0.1% of those limits. Exposure as a result of consuming fish and shellfish con
tam inated by releases from reprocessing plants was an order of magnitude
higher than that resulting from power plants. In fact, in 1972-1973, this expo
sure reached 3%* of the International Commission on Radiological Protection
(IC R P ) maximum dose limits to individuals.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency annual exposure limits to an
individual from the uranium fuel cycle are more stringent than those recom-
*An average member of critical groups.

Table 6.4
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND MEASURED RADIONUCLIDE
CONCENTRATIONS IN FINFISH AND SHELLFISH IN THE
OUTFALLS OF TWO N U ttE A R POWER STATIONS*
Computed Measured mean

Bioaccumulation concentration,:!: concentration,
Radionuclide Organism factort Bq/kg (pCi/kg) Bq/kg (pCi/kg)
Marine
5'*Mn Clam muscle 12,000 155 (4200) <0.7 (<20)
Co Clam muscle 600 17 (460) 7 1.5 (190 40)
32p <7 (<200)
Fish muscle 30,000 62 (1680)
5*Mh Fish muscle 600 8(210) 0.5 0.4 (14 10)
Co Fish muscle 100 3 (76) 1 0.7 (26 18)
3CS Fish muscle 30 I (25) 2 2 (58 58)
Freshwater
3H Fish muscle 0.9 322 (8700) 133 59 (3600 1600)
14c Fish muscle 4,500 7 (200) 4 5 (100 150)
32p Fish muscle 100,000 37 (1000) <7 (<200)
54Mn Fish muscle 100 1.6 (42) <0.7 (<20)
Co Fish muscle 20 0.4(11) <0.7 (<20)
' Cs Fish muscle 400 7(200) 4 2 (58 50)
"Feldt and Kaye (1980), cited R. L. Blanchard as the compiler of this table from reports of
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The reports are: Blanchard et al. (1976); Kahn et
al. (1974).
fBioaccumulation factors taken from the following references: for shellfish, Lowman, Rice,
and Richards (1971); for finfish, Thompson et al. (1972).
^Computed concentration = quantity discharged X dilution factor X bioaccumulation
factor.
Table 6.5
RESULTS OF A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ASSUMING
LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION OF Bjp (L/kg) FOR STRONTIUM,
IODINE, AND CESIUM IN FRESHWATER FINFISH*
E.e x .t s ,t Range
Sr 110 6.1 0.81 to 198

I 33 1.8 0.10 to 132
Cs 1300 2.4 0.50 to 8000
*From Hoffman (1979).

fX is the geometric mean.
|S g is the geometric standard deviation.
Table 6.6
BIOACCUMM-AHON FACTORS (L/kg wet wdght)
FOR CISIUM IN FIESHWATER FISH (FILTERED WATER) TAKEN
FROM NATUBAL WATERS IN THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
Bjp edible parts

of fish Number
---------------------------- ofspecles
Sites* Low High analyzed
Stechlinsee, oligotrophic lake 1034 to 6170 5

Muggellsee, river lake 84 to 2070 4
Oder, river 140 to 1100 5
Elbe, river 49 to 587 4
Greifswalder Bodden, bay on Baltic Sea 51 to 370 7
*Given in order of increasing potassium ion concentration.
mended by the ICRP, i.e., 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) to the whole body or any organ
except the thyroid for which the limit is 75 mrem (0.75 mSv) [Fed. Regist.
(Wash., D.C.), 1977]. Currently (1983) no reprocessing plants for spent fuel
from power plants are operating in the United States. However, extensive sur
veillance at two power plant sites show the average measured concentrations of
radionuclides of fish muscle taken in nearby downstream water to be slightly
above those of controls. The calculated annual dose to an individual eating
18 kg/year of such fish was 0.1 mrem (1 ftSv) or 0.4% of the total limit for the
fuel cycle (Kahn et al., 1974; Blanchard et al., 1976).
REFERENCES
Alabama Power Company, 1971, Environmental ReportConstruction Permit Stage for

Joseph M l. Farley Nuclear Plant, Dockets 50-348 and 50-364 and subsequent amendments.
Blanchard, R. L., W. L. Brink, H. E. Kolde, H. L. Krieger, D. M. Montgomery, S. Gold,
A. Martin, and B. Kahn, 1976, Radiological Surveillance Studies o f Oyster Creek BWR
Nuclear Generating Station, EPA-520/5-76-003, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cin
cinnati, Ohio.
Bowen, V. T., J. S. Olsen, C. L. Osterberg, and V. Ravena, 1971, Ecological Interactions of Marine
Radioactivity, in Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, pp. 200-223, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Edgington, D. N., M. A. Wahlgren. and J. S. Marshall, 1976, The Behavior of Plutonium in
Aquatic EcosystemsA Summary of Studies on the Great Lakes, in Environmental Toxicity o f
Aquatic Radionuclides: Models and Mechanisms, pp. 45-75, M. W. Miller and J. N, Stannard
(Eds.), Ann Arbor Press, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Ettenhuber, E., and W. Rdhnsch, 1975, The Fish/Water Accumulation FactorAn Important
Parameter for Determining the Environmental Capacity of Surface Water, in Impacts o f
Releases from Nuclear Facilities into Aquatic Environments, pp. 473-483, STI/PUB/406,
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
Byman, L. D., V, R. Trabalka, and F. N. Case, 1976, Plutonium 237 and 246: Their Production
and Use as Gamma Tracers in Research on Plutonium Kinetics in an Aquatic Consumer, in
Environmental Toxicity o f Aquatic Radionuclides: Models and Mechanisms, pp. 193-207,
M. W. Miller and J. N. Stannard (Eds.), Ann Arbor Press, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Fed. Regist. (Wash., D.C.I, 1977, Title 40, Code o f Federal Regulations, Part 190, Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, Vol. 42(9): 2858-2861, GPO.
Feldt, W., and S. V. Kaye, 1980, Aquatic Food Chains, in Proceedings of a Workshop on Accuracy
in Dose Calculations fo r Radionuclides Released to the Environment, Aachen, Germany, Sept.
10-14, 1979, K. H. Lindackers, H. Bonnenberg, and K. Briissermann (Eds.), Aldenhoven, Ger
many.
Fleischman, D. G., 1973, Accumulation of Artificial Radionuclides in Freshwater Fish, in
Radioecology, pp. 347-370, V. M. Klechkovskii, G. G. Polikarpov, and R. M. Aleksakhin
(Eds.), N. Kaner and H. Mills, Translators from the Russian, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York.
Freke, A. M., 1967, A Model for the Approximate Calculation of Safe Rates of Discharge of
Radioactive Wastes into Marine Environments, Health Phys., 13: 743-758.
Gilat, E., Y. Laichter, and N. H. Shafrir, 1975, Behavior of Cesium-137 in the Marine Environ
ment, in Impacts o f Nuclear Releases into the Aquatic Environment, pp. 63-75, STI/PUB/406,
Herrmann, H., M. Ruf, K. HObel, and W. LUnsmann, 1975, Radiological Effects of a Nuclear
Power Plant on a River System as Demonstrated by the Gundremmingen BWR on the Danube,
in Impacts o f Nuclear Releases into the Aquatic Environment, pp. 461-470, STI/PUB/406,
Hetherington, H. D., 1975, Panel Discussion, in Environmental Toxicity o f Aquatic Radionuclides:
Models and Mechanisms, pp. 305-323, M. W. Miller and J. N. Stannard (Eds.), Ann Arbor
Press, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Hetherington, J. A., D. F. Jefferies, and M. B. Lovett, 1975, Some Investigations into the Behavior
of Plutonium in the Marine Environment, in Impacts o f Nuclear Releases into the Aquatic
Environment, pp. 195-210, STI/PUB/406, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
Hoffman, F. O., 1979, Bioaccumulation Factors for Freshwater Fish, in A Statistical Analysis o f
Selected Parameters fo r Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose o f Radionuclides,
F. O. Hoffman and C. F. Baes III (Eds.), NUREG/CR-1004 (DOE Report
ORNL/NUREG/TM-282), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
Hunt, G. J., 1979, Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters o f the British Isles, 1977,
ISSN-0142-2499, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Lowestoff, England.
International Atomic Energy Agency, 1978, Report o f the Consultants Meeting to Review the
Radiological Basis o f the Provisional Definition and Recommendations fo r the Convention on
the Prevention o f Marine Pollution by Dumping o f Wastes and Other Matter, IAEA-211, Inter
national Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency, 1982, Generic Models and Parameters fo r Assessing the
Environmental Transfer o f Radionuclides in Predicting Exposures to Critical Groups from
Routine Releases, Safety Series, STI/PUB 611, in press. International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1979, Radionuclide Release into the Environ
ment: Assessment o f Doses to Man, ICRP Publication 29, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Kahn, B., et al., 1974, Radiological Surveillance Study at the Haddam Neck PWR Nuclear Power
Station, EPA-520/3-74-007, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Kulikov, N. V., 1973, Radioecology of Freshwater Plants and Animals, in Radioecology, pp.
323-335, V. M. Klechkovskii, G. G. Polikarpov, and R. M. Aleksakhin (Eds.), John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York.
Lowman, F. G., T. R. Rice, and F. A. Richards, 1971, Accumulation and Redistribution of
Radionuclides by Marine Organisms, in Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, pp. 161-199,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Lyon, R. B., 1976, RAMM: A System o f Computer Programs fo r Radionuclide Pathway Analysis (
Calculations, Report AECL-5527, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., NTIS (U. S. sales only).
Ng, Y. C., C. A. Burton, S. E. Thompson, R. K. Tandy, H. K. Kretner, and M. W. Pratt, 1968,
Prediction of the Maximum Dosage to Man from the Fallout of Nuclear Devices, in Handbook
fo r Estimating the Maximum Internal Dose from Radionuclides Released to the Biosphere,
USAEC Report UCRL-50163, Part IV, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, NTIS.
Ophel, I. L., 1979, personal communication.
Pentreath, R. J., and S. W. Fowler, 1979, Irradiation of Aquatic Animals by Radionuclide Incor
poration, in Methodology fo r Assessing Impacts o f Radioactivity on Aquatic Ecosystenhi,: pp.
129-171, Technical Report Series No. 190, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
Pillai, K. C., N. N. Dey, E. Mathew, and B. U. Kothari, 1975, Behavior of Discharged Kadk>nw- '
elides from Fuel Reprocessing Operations in the Aquatic Environment of Bombay HarbSur Bay,
in Impacts o f Nuclear Releases into the Aquatic Environment, pp. 277-299, STI/PtJB/406,
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. , <, ^
Preston, A., 1975, The Radiological Consequences of Releases from Nuclear Faeilities t the^'
Aquatic Environment, in Impacts o f Nuclear Releases into the Aquatic Environment, pp. 5-23/' ,
STI/PUB/406, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. ' f .
Soldat, J. K., D. A. Baker, and J. P. Corley, 1973, Applications of a General Computational Model
for Composite Environmental Radiation Doses, in Environmental Behavior o f Radionuclidesl
Released in the Nuclear Industry, Symposium Proceedings, pp. 483-498, STI/PUB/345, Inter* '
national Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. , <**
Suzuki, H., T. Koyanagi, and M. Saiki, 1975, Studies on Rare Earth Elements in Sey Wafer and -
Uptake by Marine Organisms, in Impacts o f Nuclear Releases into the Aquatic B/tvifqnment,
pp. 77-89, STI/PUB/406, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. - % J'
Templeton, W. L., and V. M. Brown, 1964, The Relationship Between Concentratkais of Calcium,
Strontium, and Strontium-90 in Wild Brown Trout SALMO TRUTTA L and the Concentra- -
tions of Stable Elements in Some Waters of the United Kingdom and the Implications in Radio
logical Health Studies, Int. J. A ir Water Pollut., 8; 49-75. . '
Thompson, S. E., C. A. Burton, D. J. Quinn, and Y. C. Ng, 1972, Concentration Factors o f ChemF
cal Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms, USAEC Report UCRL-50564 (Rev. 1), Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, Calif. ^
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977, Regulatory Guide 1.109. Calculation o f Aiftual
Doses to Man from Routine Releases o f Reactor Effluents fo r the Purpose o f Evaluating Com-
pliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Revision I, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash
ington, D. C. J '
Vanderploeg, . H. A., D. C. Parzyck, W. H. Wilcox, J. R. Kercher, and S. V. Kaye, 1975,
Bioaccumulation Factors fo r Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ERDA Report Q ll^ l4 5 0 6 ^ 'V
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS. . fe
Wrenn, M. E., and S. M. Jinks, 1976, The Dosimetric Implications of Releases to t)M Aquyt^ '
Environment from the Nuclear Power Industry, in Environmental Toxicity o f Aquatic Rodiom^^ '
elides: Models and Mechanisms, pp. 229-259, M. W. Miller and J. N. Stannard (Eds.), A ni
Arbor Press, Ann Arbor, Mich. *,
M
w
7 ADULT DIETARY INTAKE

A m IMHALATION R A T E S
-.,Epj^l?t!i M , Rupp
internal radiation dose to man that results from exposure to contaminated

, air, water, an d /o r food is determined in part by the amount of material that is
incorporated into the human body via food and inhalation pathways. Dietary
param eter! and inhalation rates considered in this study are as follows:
1. Consumption of milk, (L /year).
2. Consumption of water, (L /year).
3. Consumption of fruits, leafy vegetables, below-ground vegetables, other
vegetables, grain, beef, other meats and poultry, finfish, or shellfish, Ufp
(kg/year).
4. Volumetric inhalation rate, (m Vyear).
Table 7.1 presents the annual average values of ingestion and inhalation
,.'C rates for adult individuals. Although these factors undoubtedly are related to
I age and individual variability, only adult values are given in Table 7.1 because
the internal dose conversion factors provided in Chap. 9 are only for adult indi-
. I v ^ H s . A more detailed analysis of human dietary intake and inhalation rates
4 ^ is,-given elsewhere (Rupp, 1979).
Table 7.1
ESTIMATED VALUES OF INGESTION AND INHALATION

RATES FOR ADULT INDIVIDUALS
Item Average value Reference
kg/year
Fruits 68 U. S. Department of Agriculture (1965)
Leafy vegetables 18 Blanchard (1979*)
( T a b le c o n tin u e s on next p a g e .)
55
In
56 ADULT DIETARY INTAKE AND INHALATION RATES
Table 7.1 (C
Item Average value Reference
kg/year
Below-ground vegetables 28 U. S. Department of Agriculture (1965)

Other vegetables 45 U. S. Department o f Agriculture (1965)
Grains (flour equivalent) 35 U. S. Department o f Agriculture (1965)
Beef 32 U. S. Department o f Agriculture (1965)
Other meats, poultry 63 U. S. Department o f Agriculture (1965)
Finfish 4.4 U. S. N ational Marine Fisheries Service (1973--1974);
Rupp, Miller, and Baes (1980)
Shellfish 1.3 U . S. National Marine Fisheries Service (1973--1974);
Rupp, Miller, and Baes (1980)
L/year
M ilkt 112 U . S. Department o f Agriculture (1965)

Tap water 93 Cook, Eiler, and Forker (1975)
Other beverages 400 Cook, Eiler, and Forker (1975)
m^/year
Inhalation rate 8030 International Commission on Radiological

Protection (1974)
*Data averaged from Essig and Corley (1969); Soldat (1976a and 1976b); and U. S. Depart
ment of Agriculture (1977).
tincludes all milk drinks, fresh cream, ice cream, and small amounts o f cheese.
REFERENCES
Blanchard, R. L., 1979, Criteria fo r the Estimation o f Radiation Dose, unpublished.
Cook, C. B., D. A. Eiler, and O. D. Forker, 1975, Beverage Consumption Patterns in New York
State, J. Am. Diet. Assoc., 67(3): 222-227.
Essig, T. H., and J. P. Corley, 1969, Criteria Used to Estimate Radiation Doses Received by Per
sons Living in the Vicinity o f Hanford: Interim Report No. 2, USAEC Report BNWL-10I9,
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, NTIS.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1974, Report o f the Task Group on Reference
Man, ICRP Publications 23, Pergamon Press, New York.
Rupp, E. M., 1979, Annual Dietary Intake and Respiration Rates, in A Statistical Analysis o f
Selected Parameters for Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose o f Radionuclides,
F. O. Hoffman and C. F. Baes III (Eds.), NUREG/CR-1004 (DOE Report
ORNL/NUREG/TM-282), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
, F. L. Miller, and C. F. Baes III, 1980, Some Results by Age and Region of Recent Surveys of
Fish and Shellfish Consumption by U. S. Residents, Health Phys., 39(2): 165-175.
Soldat, J. K., 1976a, Radiation Doses from Iodine-129 in the Environment, Health Phys., 30: 61.
, 1976b, Reply to J. C. Thompson, Jr.s Comments on the Paper, Radiation Doses from Iodine-
129 in the Environment, by J. K. Soldat, Health Phys., 31: 288.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1965, Food and Nutrient Intake o f Individuals in the United
States, Spring 1965. Household Consumption Survey 1965-66, Report No. 11, Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
, 1977, Food Consumption, Prices and Expenditures. Supplement fo r 1975 to Agriculture
Economic Report AER-138, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service, 1973-1974, unpublished data.
8 E X T E m A L DOSE-RATE
COMWERSION FACTORS
By
DavM C. Kocier
From the environmental radiological assessments point of view, the central

problem in external dosimetry is to determine the dose to exposed individuals or
populations as a result of radiations emitted by radionuclides dispersed in the
environment. Immersion in a contaminated atmospheric cloud and irradiation
from a contaminated ground surface are the two primary modes of external
exposure for routine releases of radioactive effluents to the atmosphere from
nuclear fuel-cycle facilities.
When estimating external dose, the evaluator often assumes that the source
region can be regarded as effectively infinite or semi-infinite in extent and that
the radionuclide concentration is uniform throughout the source region. These
idealized assumptions lead to the concept of the external dose-rate conversion
factor, which is defined as the dose rate per unit radionuclide concentration.
For a particular radionuclide dispersed in the environment, the dose-rate factor
depends on the exposure mode, the energies and intensities of the radiations of
interest (photons or electrons) em itted by the radionuclide, and the particular
body organ of the exposed individuals or population for which the external dose
rate is derived.
Tables 8.1 to 8.4 list external dose-rate conversion factors for a selection of
radionuclides of potential importance in routine releases from nuclear fuel-cycle
facilities. The values in Tables 8.1 and 8.2 assume immersion in a semi-infinite,
uniformly contaminated atmospheric cloud, whereas the values in Tables 8.3
and 8.4 assume exposure at a height one m eter above a smooth, infinite, and
uniformly contaminated ground surface. Tables 8.1 and 8.2 differ only in the
57
58 EXTERNAL DOSE-RATE CONVERSION FACTORS
Table 8.1
EXTERNAL DOSE-RATE FACTOES FOR IMMERSION IN CONTAMINATED
AIR, Sf/year per Bq/cin^
Photons
C/lWil uus
Red Total
Skin Longs Oftries arrow Skeleton Testes body
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

"*C 5.9E-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
22Na 2.9E-01 2.7E 00 2.4E 00 2.7B 00 3.0B 00 3.5E 00 2.8E 00
^N a L IE 00 5.8E 00 5.0E 00 5.9E 00 6.0E 00 7.5B 00 6.1E 00
A r 8.8E-01 1.6E 00 1.4B 00 1.6E 00 1.7E 00 2.1E00 1.7E 00
5'*Mn 0.0 LOB 00 9.5E-01 L IE 00 1.2E 00 1.4E 00 L IE 00
Fe 0.0 1.8E-06 8.7E-07 5.8E-07 2.9B-06 1.6E-05 2.2E-05
5*Co 4.2E-02 1.2E 00 I.IEOO 1.2B00 1.3E00 1.6B 00 L3E 00
Co 7.2E-02 3.1E 00 2.8E 00 3.1E00 3,3B 00 4.1E 00 3.3E 00
N i 0.0 3.0E-06 1.5E-06 9.7E-07 4.8E-06 2.7E-05 3.8B-05
Zn 2.1E-D3 7.2E-01 6.6E-01 7.3E-01 7.8E-01 9.5E-01 7.7E-01
Kr 4.1E-D1 2.6B-03 2.4B-D3 2.7E-03 3.1B-03 3.5E-03 2.8E-03
Kr 6.6E-01 2.7E 00 2.4E 00 2.8B 00 2.9E 00 3.6E 00 2.9E 00
**Rb 4.6E 00 8.6E-01 7.6E-01 8.8E-01 9.1E-01 I.IBOO 9.1E-01
Sr 1.2E00 1.7B-04 1.6E-04 L7E-04 1.9E-04 2.3E-04 1.8E-04
Sr 2.9B-01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
90y 2.0E00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
91y 1.2E00 4.5E-03 4.1E-03 4.SE-03 4.8E-03 5.9E-D3 4.8E-03
nm y 5.2E-02 6.3E-01 5.7E-01 6.5E-01 7.3E-01 8.5E-01 6.8B-01
Zr LIE-01 9.1E-01 8.3E-01 l.OE 00 l.OE 00 1.2E 00 9.7E-01
Nb 6.9E-03 9.5B-01 8.6E-01 9.6E-01 L IE 00 1.3B 00 l.OE 00
T c 5.4E-02 5.7E-07 4.3E-D7 4.1E-07 9.9E-07 8.3B-07 6.3E-07
13Ru 3.8E-02 5.7B-T)1 5.1E-01 5.8B-01 6.7E-01 7.7E-01 6.1E-01
Ru 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
lC3Rh 0.0 8.2E-05 5.4E-05 2.9E-05 1.4E-04 3.7E-04 2.6E-04
106RJ, 3.1E00 2.5E-01 2.2B-01 2.5E-01 2.9E-01 3.3B-01 2.7E-01
noAg 2.5E 00 3.7E-02 3.4E-02 3.8E-02 4.2E-02 5.0E-02 4.0E-02
llOmAg 6.9E-02 3.4E 00 3.1B00 3.4E 00 3.7E 00 4.5E 00 3.6E 00
125sb 8.6E-02 5.0E-01 4.5E-01 5.1E-01 5,9E-01 6.8E-01 S.4E-0i
125mjg 1.7E-02 5.9E-03 4.2E-03 2.3B-03 l.OE-02 1.9E-02 1.2E-02
' T e 3.4E-01 5.6E-03 4.9B-03 5.8E-03 6.9E-03 7.6E-03 6.0E-03
127mjg LOB-02 2.0E-03 L4B-03 8.3E-04 3.4E~03 5.9E-03 3.9E-03
I29xe l.OEOO 6.3E-02 5.6B-02 6.4E-4)2 7 ^ t-0 2 8.6E-02 6.9E-02
i29mjg 4.4E-01 4.0E-02 3.6E-D2 4.0E-02 1 6 b -02 5.5B-D2 4.4E-02
1291 3.5E-03 5.6E-03 4.0E-03 2.1B-03 y /b ~ 0 3 1.6E-02 l.OE-02
131j 2.6E-01 4.4E-01 3.9E-01 4.6E-01 5.5E-01 6.0E-01 4.8E-01
' Xe 8.2E-02 3.5E-02 2.6E-02 2.3E-02 6.2E-02 5.7E-02 4.2E-02
133mxe 2.5E-01 3.1E-02 2.5E-02 2.9B-02 4.4E-02 4.8E-02 3.7E-02
X e 5.4E-01 2.8E-01 2.4E-01 2.9E-01 3.8E-01 3.9E-01 3.1E-01
!35mxe 1.8E-01 5.1B-01 4.5E-01 5.2E-01 5.9E-01 6.8E-01 5.4E~01
FACTORS FOR IMMERSION IN CONTAMINATED AIR 59
Table 8.1 (Continued)
Photons
<ii;;uufiis
Red Total
Skin Lungs Ovaries marrow Skeleton Testes body
'^Cs 2.3E-01 1.9E 00 1.7E 00 1.9E00 2.1E 00 2.5E 00 2.0E 00

'35cs 1.6E-02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
* Cs 2.3E-01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
137mBa I.3E-01 7.3E~01 6.6E-01 7.4E-01 8.2E-OI 9.7E-0I 7.8E-01
>^Ce 5.5E-02 1.9E-02 1.5E-02 1.6E-02 3.1E-02 2.9E-02 2.2E-02
144p, 2.6E 00 4.3E-02 3.8E-02 4.4E-02 4.6E-02 5.6E-02 4.6E-02
144mpj, 0.0 4.0E-03 2.9E-03 1.6E-03 7.2E-03 9.7E-03 6.5E-03
2.2E-02 4.0E-06 3.1E-06 3.4E-06 6.5E-06 5.6E-06 4.4E-06
>5iSm 0.0 3.4E-07 2.2E-07 1.2E-07 5.7E-07 1.6E-06 1.2E-06
*Êu 3.7E-01 1.6E 00 1.4E 00 1.6E 00 1.7E 00 2.IE 00 1.7E 00
>Eu 8.6E-03 6.0E-02 4.6E~02 4.4E-02 l.OE-OI 9.1E-02 6.9E-02
207j j 9.5E-01 2.7B-03 2.5E-03 2.8E-03 3.0E-03 3.6E-03 2.9E-03
208x1 1.2E 00 4.8E 00 4.1E00 4.9E 00 5.0E 00 6.2E 00 5.0E 00
209x1 1.4E 00 2.6E 00 2.3E 00 2.7E 00 2.9E 00 3.5E 00 2.8E 00
209pb 2.8E--01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210pb 0.0 l.lE -03 8.3E-04 5.2E-04 2. IE-03 2.3E-03 1.6E-03
2Pb 8.6E-01 6.2E-02 5.5E-02 6.3E-02 7.1E-02 8.2E-02 6.6E-02
212pb 1.6E-01 1.7E-0I 1.3E-01 1.6E-01 2.4E-0I 2.3E-01 1.8E-0I
214pb 4.3E-01 2.9E-01 2.4E-01 2.9E-01 3.7E-01 3.9E-01 3.1E-01
2>Bi 7.1E-01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
21lBi 1.5E-02 5.5E-02 4.7E--02 5.6B-02 6.9E-02 7.4E-02 5.9E-02
9.5E-OI 2.3E-01 2.1E-01 2.3E-01 2.5E-01 3.0E-01 2.4E-0I
8.2E-01 1.6E-01 1.4E-01 1.7E-01 2.0E-01 2.2E-01 1.8E-0I
214B1 I.3E 00 2.0E 00 1.7E 00 2.0E 00 2.IE 00 2.6E 00 2.1E 00
210po 0.0 l.lE -0 5 9.6E-06 l.lE -0 5 I.2E-05 1.4E-05 l.lE -05
213po 0.0 3.8E-05 3.4E-05 3.8E-05 4.2E-05 5.0E-05 4.0E-05
214po 0.0 l.OE-04 9.4E-05 l.lE -0 4 1.2E-04 1.4E-04 1.IE-04
ÎAt 0.0 2.9E-04 2.6E-04 2.9E-04 3.3E-04 3.8E-04 3.1E-04
2>5Rn 8.4E-03 6.6E-02 5.6E-02 6.8E-02 8.5E-02 9.0E-02 7.1E-02
220Rn 0.0 6.2E-4)4 5.6E-04 6.4E-04 7.2E-04 8.3E-04 6.7E-04
2 Rn 0.0 4.6E~04 4.1E-04 4.7E-04 5.4E-04 6.2E-04 4.9E-04
22lpr 9.3B-03 3.5E-02 2.8E-02 3.5E-02 5.0E-02 4.8E-02 3.8E-02
223pr 6.2E-0I 5.0E~02 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 7.6E-02 7.4E-02 5.6E-02
2 Ra 5.0E-02 1.5E-01 1.2E-01 1.4E-01 2.2E-0I 2.1E-01 1.6E-01
^^'Ra 2.7E-03 l.lB -0 2 9.4E-4)3 I.2E-02 1.6E-02 1.6E-02 1.2E-02
7.1E-02 5.4E~03 3.9E-03 2.3E-03 9.8B-03 1.2E-02 8.2E-03
226Ra 3.2E~03 7.6E-03 6.1E-D3 7.3E-03 l.lE -0 2 l.lE -0 2 8.3E-03
22%a 0.0 4.9E-12 2.4E-I2 I.6E-12 8.0E-12 4.5E-11 6.2E-11
5.3E-04 1.5E-02 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 2.4E-02 2. IE-02 I.6E-02
227Ac 0.0 I.3E-04 l.OE-04 I.lE-04 2.2E-04 1.9E-04 1.5E-04
Table 8.1 (Contiiraed)
Photons
Red Total
228Ac 6.9E-01 1.2 E 00 l.OEOO 1.2 E 00 1.3E00 I.5E 00 1.2E 00

22?Th 1.4E-02 1.2E-01 9.7E-02 1.2E-01 1.6E-01 I.6E-01 1.3E-01
228Th 1.3E-04 2.1E-03 1.6E-03 1.8E-03 3.4E-03 3.1E-03 2.4E-03
229Th 1.8E-02 9.3E-02 7.2E-02 7.6E-02 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 l.OE-01
230Th 0.0 3.8E-04 2.9E-P4 2.8E-04 6.5E-04 6.0E-04 4.7E-04
23lTh 4.6E-D2 I.2E-02 8.8E-03 8.3E-03 2.0B-02 1.8E-02 1.4E-02
2Th 3.7E-05 1.6E-04 1.2E-04 l.lE -0 4 2.8E-04 2.8E-04 2.2E-04
234Th 7.9E-03 8.1E-D3 6.1E-03 5.7E-4)3 1.4B-02 1.2E-02 9.3E-03
ip a 7.8E-03 3.4E-02 2.8E-02 3.4E-4)2 4.5E-02 4.7E-02 3.7E-02
233pa 1.6E-01 2.4E-01 2.0E-01 2.4E-^1 3.3E-01 3.3E-01 2.6E-01
234pa 5.3E-D1 2.4EOO 2 .2 E 00 2.4E00 2.7E00 3.2E 00 2.6E 00
234mpa 1.7E00 1.4E-02 1.3E-02 1.4E-02 1.6E-02 1.9E-D2 1.5E-02
232u 7.0E-05 2.3E-04 1.7E-04 1.6E-D4 3.8E-4)4 4.0E~04 3.2E-04
233u l.lE -0 6 2.4E-04 1.9E-04 2.0E-04 4.0E-04 3.6E-04 2.9E-04
234u 3.4E-05 l.lE -0 4 8.2E-05 7.5E-05 1.9E-04 2.2E-D4 1.8E-04
235u 5.0E-03 1.7E-01 1.4E-01 i.6E-01 2.5E-OI 2.4E-01 1.9E-01
236u 1.9E-D5 8.1E-t)5 5.8E-05 4.7E-05 1.5E-04 1.7E-04 1.4E-04
238u 1.3E-4)5 6.8E-D5 4.9E-05 3.8E-05 1.2E-04 1.5E-04 1.2E-4)4
237n p 1.2E-03 2.4E-02 1.8E-02 1.8E-02 4.1E-02 3.6E-02 2.8E-02
23Np 1.9E-01 1.9E-01 1.5E-01 1.7E-01 2.8E-01 2.6E-01 2.0E-01
238pu 0.0 3.2B-05 2.1E-05 1.4E-05 5.7B-05 l.lE -0 4 l.lE -0 4
239pu 0.0 6.5E-05 5.0E-05 5.3E-05 l.lE -0 4 1.2E-04 9.9E-05
240pu 0.0 3.3E-05 2.2E-05 1.5E-05 5.8E-D5 l.lE -0 4 l.lE -0 4
M'PU 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
242p 0.0 2.9E-05 2.0E-05 1.4E-05 5.2E-05 9.7B-05 8.9E-05
2îAm 1.5E-05 1.9E-02 1.4E-02 J.0E-t)2 3.4E-02 3.1 -4)2 2.3E-02
2.0E-06 5.3E-02 4.0E-02 3.4E-02 9.5E-02 8.1E-02 6.1E-02
2C m 0.0 3.4E-05 2.2E-^5 1.6E-D5 6.0E-05 1.3E-04 1.2E-4)4
2C m 7.7E-02 1.4E-^1 I.IE-OI 1.3E-0! 2.1E-01 2.0E-OI 1.5E-01
^C m 0.0 2.6E-05 1.7E-^5 l.lE -0 5 4.6E-05 l.lE -0 4 l.OE-04
units used to report the values. Table 8.1 uses SI units for dose equivalent (Sv)
and activity (Bq), whereas Table 8.2 expresses dose equivalent in mrem and
activity in fiCi. Tables 8.3 and 8.4 reflect the same relation. The tables show
electron dose-rate factors for the skin (defined as a layer of tissue at a depth of
70 fim below the body surface) and photon dose-rate factors for six body organs
for each exposure mode.
External dose-rate factors given in Tables 8.1 to 8.4 were obtained by using
the DOSFACTER computer code (Kocher, 1981a). This version of the code
(Text continues on page 69.)
Table 8.2
EXTERNAL DOSE-RATE FACTORS FOE IMMERSION IN CONTAMINATED
AIM, mrem/year per nC X /cvo?
Electrons
Red Total
Skin Lungs marrow Skeleton Testes body
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

14c 2.2E-F07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0
^^Na 1.1E4-09 9.8E-F09 8.8E-F09 l.OE-F10 l.lE-FlO 1.3E-F10 l.lE-FlO
^N a 4.0E+09 2.1E-F10 I.8E-I-10 2.2E-FI0 2.2E-F10 2.8E-F10 2.2E-F10
'Ar 3.2E+09 5.9E+09 5.3E+09 6.0E+09 6.3E-F09 7.7E-F09 6.3E+09
Mn 0.0 3.8E-F09 3.5E-F09 3.9E-F09 4.3E-F09 5.IE-F09 4.1E-F09

s^Fe 0.0 6.5E-F03 3.2E-F03 2.IE-F03 1.1E-F04 6.0E-F04 8.3E-F04
5C0 1.6E+08 4.4E-F09 4.0E-F09 4.5E-F09 5.0E+09 5.9E-F09 4.7E-F09
Co 2.7E4-08 I.2E-F10 l.OE-F10 I.2E-FI0 1.2E+10 1.5E-F10 1.2E+10
Ni 0.0 1.1E-F04 5.4E-F03 3.6E-F03 1.8E-F04 1.0E-F05 1.4E-F05
^*Zn 7.7E+06 2.7E-F09 2.4E-F09 2.7E-F09 2.9E-F09 3.5E-F09 2.8E-F09

*Kr 1.5E+09 9.7E4-06 8.7E-F06 1.0E-F07 1.1E-F07 I.3E-F07 I.OE+07
**Kr 2.4E+09 l.OE-F10 8.7E+09 l.OE-F10 l.lE-FlO 1.3E-F10 l.lE-FlO
88Rb I.7E +10 3.2E-F09 2.8E+09 3.2E-F09 3.4E+09 4.1E-F09 3.4E-F09
Sr 4.3E+09 6.3E+05 5.8E+05 6.4E+05 7.0E-F05 8.4E-F05 6.7E-F05
Sr 1.IE-1-09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

90y 0.0
7.3E+09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
S ly 4.5E-+09 I.7E-I-07 I.5E-F07 1.7E-F07 1.8E-F07 2.2E-F07 1.8E+07
9lmY I.9E-F08 2.3E-F09 2.1E-F09 2.4E-F09 2.7E-F09 3.1E+09 2.5E-F09
95zr 4.IE-b08 3.4E-F09 3.1E-F09 3.4E-F09 3.7E-F09 4.5E-F09 3.6E+09
^Nb 2.5E-b07 3.5E-F09 3.2E-F09 3.6E-F09 3.9E-F09 4.7E-F09 3.7E-F09

Tc 2.0E-F08 2.1E-F03 I.6E-F03 1.5E-F03 3.6E+03 3.1E-F03 2.3E-F03
' R u I.4E +08 2.IE-F09 1.9E-F09 2.2E-F09 2.5E-F09 2.8E-F09 2.3E-F09
' Ru 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
' Rh 0.0 3.0E-F05 2.0E+05 1.1E-F05 5.1E-F05 1.4E-F06 9.8E-F05
' Rh I.IE-FIO 9.2E+08 8.3E-F08 9.4E-F08 l.lE + 0 9 1.2E-F09 9.8E-F08

""Ag 9.4E+09 1.4E-F08 I.2E+08 1.4E+08 1.6E-F08 1.8E-F08 1.5E-F08
"""Ag 2.5B-F08 I.3E-FI0 l.lE-FlO I.3E +10 I.4E-F10 1.7E-F10 1.3E-F10
'25Sb 3.2E-F08 1.8E-F09 1.6E-F09 1.9E-F09 2.2E-F09 2.5E-F09 2.0E-F09
125myg 6.2E+07 2.2E-F07 1.6E-F07 8.6E-F06 3.8E-F07 6.8E-F07 4.5E-F07
' 2^Te I.3E-F09 2.1E-F07 I.8E-F07 2.1E-F07 2.6E-F07 2.8E-F07 2.2E-F07

127mye 3.7E+07 7.3E+06 5.3E-F06 3.1E+06 1.2E-F07 2.2E-F07 I.5E-F07
' T e 3.8B-F09 2.3E-F08 2.IE-F08 2.4E-F08 2.8E-F08 3.2E-F08 2.5E-F08
129mye I.6E-F09 1.5E-F08 I.3E-F08 1.5E-F08 1.7E-F08 2.0E-F08 1.6E-F08
'29i 1.3E+07 2.IE-F07 I.5E-F07 7.8E-F06 3.6E-F07 5.8E-F07 3.8E-F07
Photons
irons
Red Total
Skin Lungs Ofaries arrow Skeleton Testes body
I3li 9.7E-F08 1.6E+09 1.4E+09 1.7E+09 2.0E+09 2.2E+09 I.8E+09

Xe 3.0EH-08 1.3E+08 9.7E+07 8.5E+07 2.3E+08 2.1E+08 1.6E+08
133mxe 9.3E-1-08 l.lE + 0 8 9.3E+07 l.lE + 0 8 1.6E+08 i.8E +08 i.4E +08
35xe 2.0E-f09 l.lE + 0 9 8.8E+08 l.lE + 0 9 L 4E + 09 1.4E+09 i.JE +09
l35Xe 6.7E+08 1.9E+09 1.7E+09 1.9B+09 2.2E+09 2..3E+09 2.0E+09
>Cs 8.5E-1-08 7.0E+09 6.4E+09 7.2E+09 7.9E+09 9.4E+09 7.5E+09
> Cs 5.8E4-07 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0
Cs 8.4E+08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
137mga 4.7E+08 2.7E+09 2.4E+09 2.7E + 09 3 0E +09 3.6E+09 2.9E+09
>^Ce 2.0E4-08 7.2E+07 5.5E+07 6.1E+07 1.2B+08 l.lE + 08 8.1E+07
144pr 9.6E4-09 1.6E+08 1.4E+08 1.6E+08 1.7E+08 2.1E+08 1.7E + 08
144/wpj, 0.0 1.5E+07 l.lE + 0 7 6.0E+06 2.7E+07 3.6E+07 2.4E+07
>Pm 8.1E-F07 1.5E+04 l.lB + 0 4 1.3E+04 2.4E+04 2.1E+04 1.6E+04
>Sm 0.0 1.3E+03 8.3E+02 4.3E+02 2.1E+03 6.0E+03 4.4E+03
5Eu 1 4E-H09 5.7E+09 5.1E+09 5.7E+09 6.4E+09 7.6E+09 6.1E+09
*Eu 3.2E+07 2.2E+08 I.7E+08 1.6B+08 3.8E+08 3.4E+08 2.5E+08
2 0 7 jj 3.5E+09 l.OE+ 07 9.2E+06 l.OE+07 l.IE + 0 7 1.3E+07 l.lE + 0 7
208TJ 4.3E-f09 1.8E+10 1.5E +I0 1.8E+10 1.9E+10 2.3E+10 1.9E+10
209-j'j 5.1E+09 9.8E+09 8.6E+09 9.8E+09 l.lE + 1 0 1.3E+10 I.OE+10
209pb l.lE + 0 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210pb 0.0 4.2E+06 3.1E+06 I.9E+06 7.8E+06 8.3E+06 5.9E+06
211pb 3.2E+09 2.3E+08 2.0E+08 2.3E+08 2.6E+08 3.0E+08 2.4E+08
212pb 5.8E+08 6.1E+08 5.0E+08 5.8E+08 8.8E+08 8.5E+08 6.7E+08
214pb 1.6E-+09 l.lB + 0 9 9.0E+08 l.lE + 0 9 1.4E+09 1.4E+09 l.lE + 0 9
21081 2.6E-b09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2"Bi 5.7E+07 2.0E+08 1.7E+08 2.1E+08 2.6E+08 2.7E+08 2 2E+08
21281 3.5E+09 8.5E+08 7.6E+08 8.6E+08 9.3E+08 l.lE + 0 9 9.0E+08
21281 3.0E-F09 6.0E+08 5.3E+08 6.1E+08 7.3E+08 S.lE +08 6.5E+08
21^81 4.8E-F09 7.2E+09 6.4E+09 7.3E+09 7.8E+09 9.4E+09 7.7E+09
210po 0.0 3.9E+04 3.6E+04 4.0E+04 4.3E+04 5.2E+04 4.2E+04
212P0 0.0 1.4E+05 1.3E+05 1.4E+05 1.6E+05 1.9E+05 1.5E+05
21P0 0.0 3.8E+05 3.5E+05 3.9E+05 4.3E+05 5.IE +05 4.1E+05
21At 0.0 l.lE + 0 6 9.5E+05 l.lE + 0 6 1.2E+06 I.4E+06 i.IE + 0 6
2iORn 3.1E+07 2.4E+08 2.1E+08 2.5E+08 3.1E+08 3.3E+08 2.6E+08
220r 0.0 2.3E+06 2.1E+06 2.4E+06 2.7E+06 3.1E+06 2.,5E+06
222Rn 0.0 1.7E+06 1.5E+06 1.7E+06- 2.0E+06 2.3E+06 1.8E+06
22ipr 3.4E+07 1.3E+08 l.OE+08 1.3E+08 1.8E+08 1.8E+08 1.4E+08
223pr 2.3E+09 1.8E+08 1.5E+08 1.5E+08 2.8E+08 2.7E+08 2.1E+08
222Ra 1.8E+08 5.5E+08 4.5E+08 5.1E+08 8.1E+08 7.7E+08 6.0E+08
224Ra l.OE+ 07 4.2E+07 3.5E+07 4.3E+07 5.8E+07 5.8E+07 4.6E+07
Pbotons
Electrons
Red Total
2.6E+08 2.0E+07 1.5E+07 8.3E+06 3.6E+07 4.5E+07 3.0E+07

22^Ra 1.2B+07 2.8E+07 2.2E+07 2.7E+07 4.1E+07 3.9E+07 3.1E+07
228Ra 0.0 1.8E+02 9.0E+03 6.0E+03 3.0E+02 1.7E+01 2.3E+01
225Ac I.9E +06 5.4E+07 4.3E+07 4.6E+07 8.8E+07 7.8E+07 COE+07
22A c 0.0 4.8E+05 3.7E+05 4.1E+05 8.0E+05 7.1E+05 5.5E+05
8Ac 2.5E+09 4.3E+09 3.8E+09 4.3E+09 4.7E+09 5.6E+09 4.5E+09

5.3E+07 4.4E+08 3.6E+08 4.3E+08 6.0E+08 6.0E+08 4.7E+08
228Th 4.7E+05 7.8E+06 6.1E+06 6.5E+06 I.3E+07 l.lE + 0 7 8.8E+06
229Th 6.5E+07 3.4E+08 2.7E+08 2.8E+08 5.7E+08 5.0E+08 3.8E+08
230Th 0.0 1.4E+06 l.lE + 0 6 l.OE+06 2.4E+06 2.2E+06 1.7E+06
23Th I.7E+08 4.3E+07 3.2E+07 3.1E+07 7.5E+07 6.8E+07 5.2E+07

232xh I.4E +05 6.0E+05 4.4E+05 3.9E+05 l.OE+06 l.OE+06 8.2E+05
234xh 2.9E+07 3.0E+07 2.3E+07 2.IE +07 5.3E+07 4.5E+07 3.4E+07
23ipa 2.9E+07 1.2E+08 l.OE+08 1.2E+08 1.7E+08 1.7E+08 1.4E+08
6.0E+08 9.0E+08 7.5E+08 8.8E+08 1.2E+09 1.2E+09 9.7E+08
234pa 2.0E+09 9.0E+09 8.0E+09 9.0E+09 l.OE+10 1.2E+10 9.5E+09

234mp2 6.4E+09 5.3E+07 4.8E+07 5.3E+07 5.8E+07 7.0E+07 5.6E+07
232u 2.6E+05 8.4E+05 6.3E+05 6.1E+05 1.4E+06 I.5E+06 1.2E+06
233U 4.2E+03 8.9E+05 6.9E+05 7.4E+05 I.5E+06 1.3E+06 l.lE + 0 6
234u 1.3E+05 4.1E+05 3.0E+05 2.8E+05 7.1E+05 8.1E+05 6.8E+05
235u 1.8E+07 6.3E+08 5.0E+08 6.1E+08 9.4E+08 8.7E+08 6.8E+08

236u 7.0E+04 3.0E+05 2.2E+05 1.7E+05 5.4E+05 6.3E+05 5.3E+05
238u 4.7E+04 2.5E+05 1.8E+05 I.4E+05 4.5E+05 5.4E+05 4.6E+05
237Np 4.4E+06 8.8E+07 6.7E+07 6.7E+07 1.5E+08 1.3E+08 l.OE+ 08
239n p 7.1E+08 6.9E+08 5.5E+08 6.4E+08 l.OE+09 9.6E+08 7.5E+08
238pu 0.0 1.2E+05 7.8E+04 5.3E+04 2.1E+05 4.2E+05 4.0E+05

239p 0.0 2.4E+05 I.8E+05 1.9E+05 4.0E+05 4.3E+05 3.6E+05
240p^ 0.0 1.2E+05 8.0E+04 5.4E+04 2.1E+05 4.2E+05 3.9E+05
241pu 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
242pu 0.0 l.lE + 0 5 7.2E+04 5.0E+04 1.9E+05 3.6E+05 3.3E+05
2^>Am 5.6E+04 6.9E+07 5.IE +07 3.7E+07 I.3E+08 1.2E+08 8.4E+07

2Am 7.4E+03 2.0E+08 1.5E+08 1.3E+08 3.5E+08 3.0E+08 2.3E+08
2Cm 0.0 1.3E+05 8.2E+04 5.7E+04 2.2E+05 4.9E+05 4.5E+05
2Cm 2.8E+08 5.2E+08 4.2E+08 4.9E+08 7.7E+08 7.3E+08 5.7E+08
0.0 9.7E+04 6.2E+04 4.2E+04 1.7E+05 4.1E+05 3.8E+05
Table 8.3
EXTERNAL DOSE-RATE FACTORS FOR EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED
GROUND SURFACE, Sv/year per Bq/cm^
Electrons
Red Total
Skin Lungs Ovaries marrow Testes
3h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

14c 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Na 3.6E-05 5.0E-04 4.5E-D4 5.1E-04 5.6E-04 6.6E-04 5.3E-04
2^Na 1.9E-03 8.6E-D4 7.4E-04 8.7E-04 9.0E-04 l.lE -0 3 9.0E-04
A r 1.5E-03 2.8E-04 2.5E-04 2.8E-04 3.0E-04 3.6E-04 2.9E-04
5'*Mn 0.0 2.0E-04 1.8E-04 2.0B-04 2.2B-04 2.7E-04 2.1E-04

55pg 0.0 3.1E-08 4.2E-08
3.3E-09 1.7E~09 l.lB -0 9 5.4B-09
5Co 9.5E-D7 2.4E-04 2.1E-04 2.4E-04 2.6E-04 3.1E-04 2.5E-04
Co 0.0 5.5E-04 4.9E-D4 5.5E-04 5.8E-04 7.2E-04 5.8E-04
Ni 0.0 6.3B-D9 3.1E-09 2.1E-09 l.OB-08 5.8E-08 8.0E-08
Zn 0.0 1.3E-04 1.2E-4)4 1.3E-D4 1.4E-04 1.7E-04 1.4E-04

Kr 2.6E-04 5.4E-D7 4.9E-4)7 5.6E-07 6.3E-07 7.3E-07 5.8B-07
8Kr 7.7E-04 4.3E-04 3.7E-04 4.3E-04 4.5E-04 5.5E-04 4.5E-04
88Rb 5.1E-03 1.4E-04 1.2E-04 1.4B-04 1.5E-04 1.8E-04 1.5E-04
Sr 2.1E-03 3.2E-08 3.0E-08 3.3E-08 3.6E-08 4.3E-08 3.5E-OB
Sr 4.4E~05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

90y 3.4E-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
91y 2.2E-03 8.0E-07 7.2E-07 8.0E-07 8.5E-07 l.lE -0 6 8.4E-07
91m y LOE-04 1.3E-04 1.2E-04 1.3E-04 1.5E-04 1.7E-04 1.4E-04
Zr 6.9E~06 1.8E-04 1.6E-04 1.8E-04 2.0E-04 2.4E-04 1.9B-04
Nb 4.7E-06 1.9E-04 1.7E-04 1.9E-04 2.1E-04 2.5E-04 2.0E-04

Tc 0.0 1.3E-10 l.OE-10 9.8E-11 2.3E-10 2.0E-10 1.5E-10
' R u 1.2E~05 I.2E-04 LIE -04 1.2E-04 1.4E-04 1.6E-04 1.3E-04
Ru 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
lOSmj^h 0.0 8.9E-08 5.8E-08 3.1E-08 1.5E-07 4.2E-07 3.0E-07
*^Rh 4.4B-03 5.0E-05 4.5E-05 5.1E-05 5.7E-05 6.6E-05 5.3E-05

Ag 4.0E-03 7.4E-06 6.7E-06 7.5E-06 8.4E-06 9.9E-06 7.9E-06
nom^g 1.2E-05 6.4E-04 5.8E-04 6.5E-04 7.1E-04 8.5E-04 6.8E-04
> Sb L8E-05 LOE-04 9.2E-05 l.lE -0 4 1.2E-04 1.4E-04 l.lB -0 4
0.0 2.6E-06 1.8E-06 9.8E-07 4.SE-06 8.1E-06 5.3E-06
> Te 1.6E-04 1.2E-06 l.OE-06 1.2E-06 1.5B-06 1.6E-06 1.3E-06

> Te 5.8E-06 8.3E-07 6.0E-07 3.3E-07 1.4E-06 2.6E-06 1.7E-06
> Te 1.8E-03 1.3E-05 1.2E-05 1.3E-05 1.6E-05 1.8E-05 1.4E-05
129m pg 7.7E-04 8.0E-O6 9.5E-06 1.2E-05 9.3E-06
8.2E-06 7.3E-06
1291 0.0 5.1E-06 8.4E-06 5.5E-06
2.9E-06 2.1E-06 l.lE -0 6
FACTORS FOR EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED GROUND SURFACE 65
Photons
IL ilC V liU llS
Red Total
Blj 5.8E-05 9.4E-05 8.2E-05 9.6E-05 1.2E-04 1.3E-04 l.OE-04

> Xe 0.0 9.6E-06 7.2E-06 6.0E-06 1.7E-05 1.7E-05 1.2E-05
133mxe 0.0 7.9E-06 6.3E-06 6.8E-06 1.2E-05 1.4E--05 l.OE-05
5.6E-04 6.1E-05 5.1B-05 6.3E-05 8.2E-05 8.4E-05 6.6E-05
BSmxe 2.7E-04 l.OE-04 9.3E-05 l.lE -0 4 1.2E-04 1.4E-04 l.lE -0 4
13'tCs l.OE-04 3.8E-04 3.4E-04 3.8E-04 4.2E~04 5.0E-04 4.0E-04
135Cs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
137Cs 7.4E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
137mBa 2.9E-04 1.5E-04 1.3E-04 1.5E-04 1.6E-04 1.9E-04 1.6E-04
i-^Ce 0.0 4.5E-06 3.5E-06 3.8E-06 7.4E-06 6.8E-06 5.2E--06
I44pr 4.0E-03 7.2E-06 6.3E-06 7.3E-06 7.7E-06 9.4E-06 7.6E-06
144mpj. 0.0 1.5E-06 l.lE -0 6 6.1E-07 2.7E-06 3.7E-06 2.4E-06
>Pm 0.0 8.9E-10 6.9E-10 7.7E-10 1.5E-09 1.3E-09 9.8E-10
0.0 3.7E-10 2.4E-10 1.3E-10 6.1E-10 1.8E--09 1.3E-09
i*Êu 4.0E-04 2.9E~04 2.6E-04 2.9E-04 3.2E-04 3.8E-04 3.1E-04
* Eu 0.0 1.5E-05 l.lE -0 5 l.lE -0 5 2.6E-05 2.3E-4)5 1.7E-05
207t j 1.6E-03 5.2E-07 4.7E-07 5.2E-07 5.7E-07 6.8E-07 5.5E-07
208t 1 2.0E-03 7.3E-04 6.3E-04 7.4E-04 7.8E-04 9.5E-04 7.7E-04
209JJ 2.4E-03 4.7E-D4 4.1E--04 4.7E-04 5.2E-04 6.2E-04 5.0E-04
209pb 9.0E-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210pb 0.0 3.9E-07 2.8E-07 1.8E-07 7.1E-07 8.7E-07 6.9E-D7
2Ilpb 1.4E-03 1.2E-05 l.lE -0 5 1.3E-05 1.4E-05 1.7E-05 1.3E-05
212pb 3.3E-06 3.7E-05 3.0E-05 3.5E-05 5.3E-05 5.1E-05 4.0E-05
214pb 1.9E-04 6.2E-05 5.2E-05 6.2E-05 8.0E-05 8.4E-05 6.6E-05
2lBi l.lE -0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
21lBi 9.9E-08 1.2E-05 1.0E~05 1.2E-05 1.5E-05 1.6E-05 1.3E-05
2J2Bi 1.6E-03 4.2E-05 3.8E-05 4.3E-05 4.7E-05 5.6E-05 4.5E~05
213Bi 1.3E-03 3.4E-05 3.0E-05 3.5E-05 4.1E-05 4.6E-05 3.7E-05
214b ; 2.1E-03 3.4E-04 3.0E-04 3.4E-04 3.6E-04 4.4E-04 3.6E-04
210po 0.0 2.1E-09 1.9E-09 2.1E-09 2.3E-09 2.7E-09 2.2E-09
2!3po 0.0 7.4E--09 6.7E-09 7.5E-09 8.2E-09 9.8E-09 7.9E-09
214po 0.0 2.0E-08 l.SE-08 2.0E-08 2.2E-08 2.7E-08 2.1E-08
2Ât 0.0 5.8E-08 5.2E-08 5.9E-08 6.6E-08 7.7E-08 6.2E--08
2Rn 3.5E-08 1.4E-05 1.2E-05 1.5E-05 1.8E-05 1.9E-05 1.5E-05
220r
0.0 1.3E-07 l.lE -0 7 1.3E-07 1.5E-07 I.7E-07 1.4E-07
2Rn 0.0 9.5E-08 8.5E-08 9.7E-08 l.lE -0 7 1.3E-07 l.OE-07
22lFr 0.0 7.7E-06 6.2E-06 7.6E-06 l.lE -0 5 l.lE -0 5 8.4E-06
223pr 8.2E-04 I.2E-05 9.6E-06 9.4E-06 1.9E-05 1.9E-05 1.4E-05
223Ra 0.0 3.4E-D5 2.7E-05 3.1E-05 5.0E-05 4.7E-05 3.7E-05
224Ra 0.0 2.5E-06 2.0E-06 2.5E-D6 3.4E-06 3.4E-06 2 .7 E ^ 6
Table 8.3 (Contioaed)
Photons
Electrons
Red Total
5Ra 0.0 2.3E-06 1.7E-06 9.5E-07 4.2E-06 5.3E-06 3.6E-06

226Ra 0.0 1.7E-06 1.3E-06 1.6E-4)6 2.5E~4)6 2.3E-06 1.8E-06
228Ra 0.0 l.OE-14 5.0E-15 3.3E-15 1.6E-14 9.3E-14 I.3E-13
225Ac 0.0 3.4E-06 2.6B-4)6 2.8E-06 5.5B-06 5.0E-06 4.0E-06
22Âc 0.0 3.2E-08 2.4E-08 2.6E-08 5 .2 E ^ 8 5.9E-08 5. IE-08
228Ac l.OE-03 2.2E-04 1.9E-04 2.2E-04 2.4E-04 2.9E-04 2.3E-04

227Th 0.0 2.6E-05 2.1E-05 2.5E-05 3.6E-05 3.7E-05 2.9E-05
228xh 0.0 5.0E-07 3.8E-07 4.1E-07 8.1E-4)7 8.0E-07 6.6E-07
229Th 0.0 2.2E-05 1.7E-05 1.8E-4)5 3.6E-05 3.2E-05 2.5E-05
230Th 0.0 l.lE -0 7 7.6E-08 7.0E-08 1.8E-07 2.3E-07 2.1E-07
23lTh 0.0 3.0E-06 2.2E-06 2.IE~06 5.2E-06 5.8E-06 4.6E-06

232Th 0.0 5.3E-08 3.7E-08 3.1E-08 9.2E-08 1.6E-07 1.6E-07
234Th 0.0 2.0E-06 1.5E-06 1.4E-06 3.5E-06 3.1E-06 2.4E-06
23lpa 0.0 7.5E-06 6.2E-D6 7.4E-06 l.OE-05 l.lE -0 5 8.8E-06
0.0 5.3E-05 4.4E-05 5.2E-05 7.2E-05 7.3E-05 5.8E-05
234pa 3.6E-04 4.6E-04 4.1E.D4 4.6E-04 5.3E-04 6.2E-04 5.0E-04
234mpa 3.0E-03 2.7E-D6 2.4B-06 2.7E-06 3.0E-06 3.6E-06 2.9B-06
232u 0.0 7.7E-08 5.3E-08 4.7E-08 1.3E~07 2.5E-07 2.5E-07
233u 0.0 6.1E-08 4.6E-08 4.8E-08 l.OE-07 1.3E-07 1.2E-07
0.0 4.7E-08 3.1E-08 2.5E-08 8.0E-08 1.9E-07 1.9E-07
235u 0.0 3.8E-05 3.0E-05 3.6E-05 5.6E-D5 5.2E-05 4.1E-05
236u 0.0 3.8E-08 2.4E-08 1.8E.D8 6.5B-08 1.7E-07 1.7E-07
238u 0.0 3.3E-08 2.1E-08 1.5E-08 5.7E-08 1.5E-07 1.5E-07
237n p 0.0 5.9E-06 4.5E-06 4.4E-06 I.OE-05 l.OE-05 7.8E-06
23Np 6.8E-06 4.2E-05 3.3E-05 3.8E-05 6.3E-05 5.9E-05 4.6E-05
238pu 0.0 3.3E-08 1.9E-08 1.2E-D8 5.6E-08 2.1E-07 2.1E-07

239pu 0.0 2.4E-08 1.6E-08 1.5E-08 4.0E-08 9.4E-08 9.2E-08
240pu 0.0 3.2E-4)8 1.9E-08 1.2E-08 5.4E-08 2.0E~4)7 2.0E-07
241p 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0
242p 0.0 2.7E-08 1.6E-08 LOE-08 4.6E-4)8 1.6E-07 1.7E-07
3^*Am 0.0 5.4E-06 4.0E-06 2.9E-06 l.OE-05 9.6E-06 7.2E-06

3^3Am 0.0 1.3E-05 9.9E-06 8.5E-06 2.4E-05 2.1E-05 1.6E-05
3Cm 0.0 3.9E-08 2.2E-08 1.4E~08 6.5E-08 2.4E-07 2.3E-07
3Cm 0.0 3.2E-4)5 2.5E-05 2.9E-05 4.7E-05 4.5E-05 3.5E-05
^-^Cm 0.0 3.4E-08 1.9E-08 1.2E-08 5.6E-08 2.1E-07 2.1E-07
Table 8.4
EXTERNAL DOSE-RATE FACTORS FOR EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED
GROUND SURFACE, mrem/year per MCi/cm^
Photons
Electrons
Red Total
3H 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

*^C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
^N a I.3E+05 1.8E+06 1.7E+06 I.9E+06 2.1E+06 2.4E+06 2.0E-I-06
^N a 7.2E+06 3.2E+06 2.7E+06 3.2E+06 3.3E+06 4.1E+06 3.3E+06
'*>Ar 5.4E+06 l.OE+06 9.2E+05 l.OE+06 l.lE + 0 6 1.3E+06 l.lE + 0 6
^Mn 0.0 7.4E+05 6.8E+05 7.5E+05 8.2E+05 9.8E+05 7.9E+05

sspe 0.0 1.3E+01 6.2E00 4.1E00 2.0E+01 1.2E+02 1.6E+02
58Co 3.5E+03 8.7E+05 7.9E+05 8.8E+05 9.7E+05 1.2E+06 9.2E+05
Co 0.0 2.0E+06 1.8E+06 2.0E+06 2.2E+06 2.7E+06 2.1E+06
Ni 0.0 2.4E+01 1.2E+01 7.8E00 3.8E-F01 2.2E+02 3.0E+02
Zn 0.0 4.8E+05 4.4E-+-05 4.9E+05 S.3E+05 6.4E+05 5.1E+05

9.5E+05 2.0E+03 1.8E+03 2.1E+03 2.3E+03 2.7E+03 2.1E+03
Kr 2.9E+06 1.6E+06 1.4E+06 1.6E+06 1.7E+06 2.0E+06 1.7E+06
Rb 1.9E+07 5.1E-I-05 4.5E+05 5.2E+05 5.4E+05 6.7E+05 5.4E+05
Sr 7.9E+06 1.2E+02 l.lE + 0 2 1.2E+02 1.3E+02 1.6E+02 1.3E+02
Sr 1.6E+05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

90y 1.2E+07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
91y 8.2E+06 2.9E-F03 2.7E+03 3.0E+03 3.2E+03 3.9E+03 3.1E+03
9lm y 3.7E+05 4.8E+05 4.3E+05 4.9E+05 5.5E+05 6.4E+05 5.1E+05
Z r 2.5E+05 6.6E+05 6.0E+05 6.7E+05 7.3E+05 8.7E+05 7.0E+05
Nb 1.7E+04 6.8E+05 6.2E+05 7.0E+05 7.6E+05 9.1E+05 7.3E+05

^T c 0.0 4.9E+01 3.7E+01 3.6E+01 8.6E+01 7.3E+01 5.5E+01
103Ru 4.4E-F04 4.4E+05 3.9E+05 4.4E+05 5.1E+05 5.8E+05 4.7E+05
> Ru 0.0 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 3.3E+02 2.1E+02 l.lE + 0 2 5.5E+02 1.6E+03 l.lE + 0 3
lOfiRh 1.6E+07 1.8E+05 1.7E-I-05 1.9E+05 2.1E+05 2.5E+05 2.0E+05

"Ag 1.5E+07 2.7E+04 2.5E+04 2.8E+04 3.1E+04 3.7E+04 2.9E+04
llOmAg 4.6E+04 2.4E+06 2.1E+06 2.4E+06 2.6E+06 3.1E-I-06 2.5E+06
>Sb 6.6E+04 3.8E+05 3.4E+05 3.9E+05 4.5E+05 5.2E-I-05 4.1E+05
125mTe 0.0 9.5E+03 6.8E+03 3.6E+03 1.6E+04 3.0E+04 2.0E+04
i^Te 6.0E+05 4.4E+03 3.8E+03 4.5E+03 5.4E+03 6.0E+03 4.7E+03

127mjg 2.1E+04 3.1E+03 2.2E+03 1.2E+03 5.3E+03 9.5E+03 6.3E+03
2Te 6.6E+06 4.8E+04 4.3E+04 4.9E+04 5.8E+04 6.7E+04 5.3E+04
i29Te 2.8E+06 3.0E+04 2.7E+04 2.9E+04 3.5E+04 4.4E+04 3.4E+04
1291 0.0 l.lE + 0 4 7.7E+03 4.0E+03 1.9E+04 3.1E+04 2.0E+04
Tsble 8.4 (Continued)
Photons
Kliicvirvus
Red Total
Shin Lungs Ovaries marrow Skeleton Testes body
131J 2.1E-I-05 3.5E+05 3.0E-+-05 3.6E-I-05 4.3E-F05 4.7E-F05 3.7E+05

>Xe 0.0 3.6E+04 2.7E +04 2.2E-H04 6.3E+04 6.3E+04 4.6E+04
I33xe 0.0 2.9E+04 2.3E+04 2.5E+04 4.3E-I-04 5.2E-I-04 3.8E+04
Xe 2.1E+06 2.3E+05 1.9E-I-05 2.3E-I-05 3.0E-I-05 3.1E-I-05 2.5E+05
135mxe 1.0E-F06 3.8E-I-05 3.5E-F05 3.9E-I-05 4.5E-I-05 5.2E-I-05 4.1E+05
'^Cs 3.8E4-05 1.4E+06 I.3E +06 1.4E-I-06 1.6E-f-06 1.8E+06 L5E+06
' Cs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.7B+05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
i37Ba l.lE-l-06 5.4E+05 4.8E+05 5.4E+05 6.1E-I-05 7. IE +05 5.7E+05
Ce 0.0 1.7E-F04 1.3E+04 1.4B4-04 2.7E-I-04 2.5E+04 L9E+04
I44pr I.5E +07 2.6E+04 2.3E+04 2.7E+04 2.8E-H04 3.5E+04 2.8E+04
144mp, 0.0 5.6E+03 4.1E-I-03 2.3E-I-03 l.OE-l-04 1.4E+04 9,0E+03
'Pm 0.0 3.3EOO 2.6E 00 2.8E 00 5.4B 00 4.7E DO 3.6E 00
'5'Sm 0.0 1.4E00 8.9B+01 4.7E+01 2.3E 00 6.5E 00 4.9E 00
'5Eu 1.5E+06 l.lE-l-06 9.5E-I-05 LIE-!-06 1.2E-f06 1.4E+06 l.lE + 0 6
iSÊu 0.0 5.5E+04 4.1E+04 3.9E-F04 9.5E-F04 8.4E+04 6.3E+04
207x1 6.1E+06 1.9E+03 1.7E-I-03 1.9E-t-03 2.1E-F03 2.5E+03 2.0E+03
208-0 7.3E-F06 2.7E+06 2.3E+06 2.7E-I-06 2.9E-F06 3.5E+06 2.8E+06
2Cn 9.0E+06 1.7E-H06 1.5EH-06 1.7E-I-06 1.9E-F06 2.3E+06 1.8E+06
209pb 3.3E-I-05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
210pb 0.0 1.4E4-03 l.OE+03 6.4E-f-02 2.6E-I-03 3.2E+03 2.6E+03
2H pb 5.3E+06 4.6E-F04 4.1E+04 4.7E-I-04 5.3E-I-04 6.1E+04 4.9E+04
2'%b 1.2E+04 1.4E+05 l.lE-l-05 1.3E+05 2.0E+05 1.9E+05 1.5E+05
214pb 7.0E+05 2.3E-F05 1.9E-I-05 2.3E-1-05 3.0E-I-05 3.1E+05 2.5E+05
2I0B1 4.0E-F06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
"Bi 3.7E-1-02 4.3E+04 3.7B-I-04 4.4E-I-04 5.5E-I-04 5.9E+04 4.7E +04
21231 6.0E +06 1.6E+05 1.4E4-05 1.6E-F05 1.7E-h05 2.1E+05 L7E+G5
IBi 4.7E +06 1.3E+05 l.lE + 0 5 1.3E+05 1.5E-f-05 1.7E+05 1.4E+05
2'B1 7.SE-1-06 1.2E-+-06 1.1E4-06 1.3E-1-06 1.3E-I-06 1.6E+06 L3E+06
2!bpo 0.0 7.6E0O 6.9EOO 7.7E00 8.4E 00 l.OE+01 8.IE 00
2'3po 0.0 2.7E+01 2.5E+01 2.8E-F01 3.0E-F01 3.6E+01 2.9E+01
214po 0.0 7.4E-I-01 6.8E-F01 7.5E-F01 8.3EH-01 9.9E+01 7.9E+0I
At 0.0 2.1E-H02 1.9E-1-02 2.2E-F02 2.4E-F02 2.9E+02 2.3E+02
2'Rn 1.3E+02 5.3E-F04 4.5E +04 5.4E-F04 6.8E-I-04 7.1E+04 5.7E+04
2Rn 0.0 4.7E+02 4.2E-F02 4.8E-h02 5.4E-I-02 6.3E+02 50E +02
222Rn 0.0 3.5E+02 3.1E-I-02 3.6E-I-02 4.1E+02 4.7E+02 3.7E+02
22Ipr 0.0 2.8E-I-04 2.3E+04 2.8E-I-04 4.0E+04 3.9E+04 3.1E+04
223pr 3.0E-1-06 4.5E-F04 3.6E-f-04 3.5E-F04 7.1E-I-04 7.0E+04 5.3E+04
223Ra 0.0 1.2E+05 l.OE+05 l.lE-l-05 1.8E-i-05 1.7E+05 I.4E+05
224Ra 0.0 9.2E+03 7.5E-F03 9.3E-F03 1.3E-I-04 1.3E+04 I.OE+04
Photons
Electrons
Red Total
Skin Lungs Ovaries Skeleton Testes body
5Ra 0.0 8.5E-I-03 6.1E4-03 3.5E-F03 1.5E-I-04 1.9E-)-04 1.3E-F04

226Ra 0.0 6.2E-I-03 5.0E-I-03 6.0E+03 9.2E-f03 8.6E-f-03 6.8E+03
228Ra 0.0 3.8E-I-05 1.9E-F05 1.2E+05 6.1E-t-05 3.5E+04 4.8E-I-04
5Ac 0.0 1.3E-h04 9.7E-I-03 1.0E-h04 2.0E+04 1.9E-I-04 1.5E+04
227Ac 0.0 1.2E+02 8.8E-t-01 9.4E4-01 1.9E+02 2.2E4-02 I.9E +02
228Ac 3.7E+06 8.0E-t-05 7.2E-I-05 8.1E-t-05 9.0E+05 I.lE-t-06 8.5E+05
22Th 0.0 9.6E-f-04 7.9E +04 9.4E-I-04 1.3E4-05 1.4E+05 l.IE-l-05
228xh 0.0 I.8E-I-03 I.4E+03 1.5E-f03 3.0E+03 3.0E+03 2.4E+03
22Th 0.0 8.0E+04 6.2E-h04 6.5E+04 1.3E-I-05 1.2E+05 9.2E4-04
230Th 0.0 3.8E-F02 2.8E-F02 2.6E+02 6.6E-I-02 8.6E-F02 7.8E-F02
23lTh 0.0 1.1E-F04 8.3E+03 7.6EH-03 1.9E+04 2.1E-I-04 L7E+04
2xh 0.0 2.0E-I-02 1.4E-I-02 I.lE-l-02 3.4E+02 5.8E-I-02 5.7E+02
234xh 0.0 7.4E-F03 5.6E+03 5.1E-H03 1.3E4-04 1.2E-F04 8.9E-F03
23lpa 0.0 2.8E-F04 2.3E-f04 2.7E-F04 3.7E+04 4.1E-F04 3.2B+04
233pa 0.0 2.0E-F05 1.6E-f-05 1.9E4-05 2.7E+05 2.7E+05 2.1E4-05
234pa 1.3E-I-06 1.7E-F06 1.5E-I-06 I.7E4-06 2.0E+06 2.3E+06 1.8E-I-06
234mpa l.lE-l-07 l.OE-l-04 9.0E+03 l.OE+04 1.1E4-04 1.3E+04 l.lE-l-04
232u 0.0 2.9E-I-02 2.0E-F02 1.7E-h02 4.8E4-02 9.4E-I-02 9.1E+02
233U 0.0 2.3E-F02 1.7E4-02 I.8E-I-02 3.7E+02 4.9E+02 4.4E+02
234u 0.0 1.7E-t-02 l.lE + 0 2 9.1E-t-01 2.9E-F02 7.1E4-02 7.1E+02
235u 0.0 1.4E-F05 l.IE + 0 5 1.3E+05 2.1E+05 1.9E+05 1.5E-I-05
236u 0.0 1.4E+02 8.8E-I-01 6.5E-F01 2.4E-F02 6.3E+02 6.4E+02
238u 0.0 1.2E+02 7.6E-F01 5.5E-I-01 2.1E-+-02 5.5E+02 5.7E+02
237n p 0.0 2.2E-F04 1.7EH-04 I.6E+04 3.7E+04 3.7E-F04 2.9E+04
239n p 2.5E-f-04 1.5E-h05 1.2E-+-05 I.4E+05 2.3E+05 2.2E+05 1.7E-F05
238pu 0.0 1.2E-f-02 7.0E-I-01 4.5E+01 2.0E-t-02 7.5E+02 7.7E+02
239p 0.0 9.0E-f-01 6.0E+01 5.6E+01 1.5E+02 3.5E+02 3.4E+-02
240pa 0.0 1.2E-I-02 6.8E+01 4.4E-F01 2.0E-I-02 7.3E-F02 7.3E-I-02
241pu 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
242pu 0.0 l.OE-l-02 5.8E+01 3.BE+01 1.7E4-02 6.0E4-02 6.1E+02
^''Am 0.0 2.0E4-04 1.5E-I-04 l.lE + 0 4 3.7E+04 3.5E+04 2.7E+04
^Âm 0.0 4.9E-F04 3.6E+04 3.1E-I-04 8.8E-F04 7.7E+04 5.8E4-04
2Cm 0.0 1.4E+02 8.2E-i-01 5.3E+01 2.4E+02 8.8E+02 8.5E+02
2Cm 0.0 1.2E-I-05 9.4E+04 1.1E-F05 1.7E+05 1.7E4-05 1.3E+05
2'*^Cm 0.0 1.2E-F02 7.0E+01 4.4E+01 2.1E+02 7.8E+02 7.5E-F02
includes calculations of electron dose-rate factors for radiosensitive tissues of the

skin (Kocher and Eckerman, 1981) and improved organ dose-rate factors for
photons. The photon dose-rate factors were obtained by Eckerman et al. (1980)
and are based on organ doses for monoenergetic sources at the body surface
(O Brien and Sanna, 1976; O Brien, 1980) and on photon spectra at the body
surface from monoenergetic sources in a semi-infinite atmospheric cloud (Dili
man, 1974). Energies and intensities of the photons and electrons emitted by
each radionuclide were obtained from the recent compilation of Kocher (1981b).
Therefore dose-rate factors given here may be somewhat different from those
published previously (Kocher, 1979 and 1980; Miller et al., 1980).
Contributions from radioactive daughter nuclides produced in the decay of a
given parent radionuclide are not included in the dose-rate factors for the
parent radionuclide given in Tables 8.1 to 8.4. Thus, for example, even though
the intense 662-keV gamma-ray from the short-lived ' 'Ba daughter product
undoubtedly will be present in any source term containing ^Cs, the photon
dose-rate factors for '^'^Cs are zero. Therefore, when estimating external dose,
the evaluator must be careful to include the contributions from daughter
nuclides that build up, either during atmospheric transport or following deposi
tion on the ground, during the exposure period. Diagrams of radioactive decay
chains, including half-lives and branching fractions, and methods for including
contributions from buildup and decay of radioactive daughter products are
described by Kocher (1981b).
REFERENCES
Dillman, L. T., 1974, Absorbed Gamma Dose Rate for Immersion in a Semi-Infinite Radioactive
Cloud, Health Phys., 27: 571.
Eckerman, K. F., G. D. Kerr, and R. Raridon, 1980, Organ Doses from Isotropic and Cloud
Sources of Gamma Rays, Health Phys., 39; 1054.
Kocher, D. C., 1979, Dose-Rate Conversion Factors fo r External Exposure to Photon and Electron
Radiation from Radionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases from Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facili
ties, NUREG/CR-0494 (DOE Report ORNL/NUREG/TM-283), Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, NTIS.
, 1980, Dose-Rate Conversion Factors for External Exposure to Photon and Electron Radiation
from Radionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases from Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities, Health
Phys., 38: 543.
1981a, Dose-Rate Conversion Factors fo r External Exposure to Photons and Electrons,
NUREG/CR-1918 (DOE Report ORNL/NUREG-79), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tenn.
1981b, Radioactive Decay Data Tables: A Handbook o f Decay Data fo r Application to Radia
tion Dosimetry and Radiological Assessments, DOE/TIC-11026, U. S. Department of Energy,
NTIS.
, and K. F. Eckerman, 1981, Electron Dose-Rate Conversion Factors for External Exposure of
the Skin, Health Phys., 40: 467.
Miller, C. W., et al., 1980, Recommendations Concerning Models and Parameters Best Suited to
Breeder Reactor Environmental Radiological Assessments, DOE Report ORNL-5529, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
OBrien, K., 1980, Human Dose from Radiation of Terrestrial Origin, in Natural Radiation
Environment HI, Vol. 2, DOE Report CONF-780422, NTIS.
, and R. Sanna, 1976, The Distribution of Absorbed Dose in Humans from Exposure to Environ
mental Gamma Rays, Health Phys., 30: 76.
ESTIMATES OF COMM ITTED
9 DOSE EQUIVALENT FRO M
INTERNAL E X P O SU R E S
By
Donald E. Dunning, Jr., George G. Killough,
and H. Robert Meyer
An im portant step in assessing the radiological impacts resulting from the

operation of nuclear-related facilities is the estimation of doses received by indi
viduals and populations working at a facility or residing nearby. Estimates of
the 50-year committed dose equivalents resulting from inhalation and ingestion
of various radionuclides determined to be of potential importance in nuclear fuel
cycles are compiled from recent documents by Killough et al. (1978) and Dun
ning et al. (1979, 1981). The estimates are computed with the computer code
IN R E M II (Killough, Dunning, and Pleasant, 1978), which approximates the
solutions of differential equations th at model intake, translocation, and metabo
lism of a radionuclide and its progeny.
The IN R E M II code produces estimates of committed dose equivalent to
specified target organs following inhalation or ingestion of a radionuclide by a
reference individual. The International Commission on Radiological Protections
Task Group Lung Model (M orrow et al., 1966; International Commission on
Radiological Protection, 1972) is used to estimate deposition and retention of
inhaled particulates in the respiratory tract and subsequent absorption by blood
or clearance to the gastrointestinal (G I) tract. A four-segment catenary model
of the G I tract simulates the dynamics and absorption of radionuclides that are
ingested or swallowed after clearance from the respiratory tract. Retention in
other organs is represented by multicompartment models consisting of series of
decaying exponential terms. U ptake rate histories th at are based on simulations
of absorption from the respiratory and GI tracts and on blood-to-organ transfer
param eters are established for each source organ. These histories are convoluted
with the retention functions to produce estimates of time-integrated activity in
71
72 ESTIMATES OF DOSE EQUIVALENT FROM INTERNAL EXPOSURES
the source organs. For each source organ the time-integrated activity is multi
plied b y dosimetric S-factors (Snyder et al., 1974; Dunning, Pleasant, and Kil
lough, 1977, 1980) and summed over all source organs to give estimates of com
m itted dose equivalent to target organs of interest. Formation and decay of
radioactive daughters is treated explicitly by IN R E M II with each radionuclide
in the decay chain having its own uptake and retention parameters. Detailed
discussion of these models and assumptions is available in publications by Kil
lough et al. (1978), Dunning et al. (1979 and 1981), and Killough, Dunning,
and Pleasant (1978).
Computation of dose rates received in a given year by exposed individuals
often is useful when examining radionuclides released during fuel-cycle opera
tions. Depending on the effective half-lives of the radionuclides in the organs of
interest, annual dose rates can be approximated from the 50-year committed
dose as follows. For radionuclides that have short biological half-times of
residence or short radiological half-lives, the 50-year committed dose is approxi
mately equivalent to the annual dose rate in the first year after intake with an
annual dose rate of zero thereafter. All of the dose from a short-term ^^'*Rn
exposure, for example, is received during the first year following exposure.
Alternatively, for radionuclides of intermediate longevity in human beings, such
as in bone, dose is accrued at a declining rate over a long period of time in
accordance with the retention characteristics specific to the organ and the
nuclide of concern. Finally, elements which are eliminated very slowly from the
body (e.g., plutonium) and which possess very long physical half-lives will con
tinue to deliver dose at a relatively constant rate for the entire 50-year period of
interest. Thus, in this situation, the approximate annual dose rate can be
estimated as '/ s o of the committed dose. If an individual is exposed to effluents
over the 2 0 -year operating life of a nuclear facility, that persons annual dose
rate during the twentieth year would be about 20 times the annual dose rate
expected from one year of exposure.
Tables 9.1 to 9.4 list 50-year committed dose equivalents for inhalation and
ingestion of radionuclides of interest. W here a choice of the respiratory clear
ance classification or the Gl-to-blood absorption factor (fj) exists, depending on
the physical and chemical form of a particular radionuclide, the tables show
dose estimates for all applicable cases. A quality factor of 20 is used for alpha
particles. This factor is consistent with recommendations of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (1977).
Estimates of committed dose equivalent for lungs, total body, active bone
marrow, bone endosteum (the radiosensitive cell layer in bone), gonads (defined
as the maximum of the committed dose equivalents for testes and ovaries), and
lower large intestine wall are presented. Dose to the lungs is calculated as the
dose to the entire lung, often identified as the smeared lung dose, and includes
radioactivity accumulated in the nasal pharynx, tracheo-bronchial tree, pul
monary region, and respiratory lymph nodes. Estimates of committed dose
(Text continues on page 95.)
COMMITTED DOSE EQUIVALENTS FROM INHALED RADIONUCLIDES 73
Table 9.1
-YEAR COMMITTED DOSE EQUIVALENTS FROM INHALED RADIONUCLIDES,* Sv/Bq ishaled
Respiratory Lower
clearance Total Red Bone large
Nuclide classt f,$ Lungs body narrow endosteoml Gonads inttotine Effecsiw
(- ) 9.5E-01 3.4B-11 3.4E-11 3.3E-11 2.7E-1I 3.4E-11 3.6E-11 3.4B-II

14c (- ) 9.5E-01 I.7E-12 3.8E-12 6.5E-12 1.4E-11 I.5E-12 1.9E-12 2.9E-12
22Na D 9.5B-01 2.6E-09 2.5E-09 3.5E-09 4.3E-09 2.8E-09 2.0E-09 3.1E-09
32p D 8.0E-01 2.3E-09 9.6E-10 3.0E-09 5.5E-09 8.1E-10 LIE-09 1.4E-09
W 8.0E-01 2.7E-D8 l.OE-09 2.1E-D9 3.8E-09 5.7E-10 2.8E-09 4.2E-09
5'Mn D l.OE-01 l.lE -0 9 l.lE -0 9 1.6E-09 1 .6 E ^ LOE-09 l.lE -0 9 1.5E-09
W l.OE-01 6.8E-09 9.9B-10 l.lE -0 9 9.3E-10 7.6E-10 1.3E-09 1.9E-09
55pe W l.OE-01 9.1E-10 1.7&-10 2.9E-10 2.0E-10 3.0E-10 9.8E-11 4.2E-10
Y l.OE-01 7.7E-09 1.6E-10 1.4E-10 9.3B-11 I.4E-10 LIE-IO l.lE -0 9
59pe W l.OE-01 1.4E-08 1.5E-09 1.5E-09 L4E-09 1.7B-09 4.2E-09 3.6E-09
Y l.OE-01 2.3&-08 1.3E-09 L lE-09 9.2E-I0 LOE-09 4.0E-09 4.2E-09
5^Co W 5.0B-02 4.2E-09 2.2E-10 2.8E-I0 2.0E-10 L8E-10 6.6E-10 7.6E-I0
Y 5.0E-02 1.8E-08 6.1E-10 5.9E-10 4.5E-10 1.3E-10 6.6E-I0 2.6E-09
5*Co W 5.0E-02 8.2E-09 7.2B-10 6.5E-10 4.8E-10 7.0E-I0 2.0E-09 1.8E-09
Y 5.0E-02 L6E-08 L lE -09 9.3B-I0 7.0E-I0 6.4E-I0 2.0E-09 3. IE-09
Co W 5.0E-02 3.7E-08 4.6B-09 4.7E-09 4.0E-09 4.6ED9 7.5E-09 9.7E-09
Y 5.0E-02 3.8E-07 2.2E-08 I.7E-08 1.4E-08 5.0E-09 7.7E-09 6.5E-08
D 5.0E-D1 3.2E-09 3.8E-09 5.2E-09 4.8B-09 4.7E-09 3.8E-09 5. IE-09
W 5.0E-0I 6.9E-09 2.8E-09 3.7E-09 3.3E-09 3.2E-09 2.8E-09 4.2E-09
Y 5.0E-01 2.1E-08 3.3E-09 3.8E-09 3.3E-09 2.6B-09 2.3E-09 6.1E-09
*Rb D 9.5E-01 2.3E-D9 1.8E-09 3.0E-09 3.7E-09 3.0E-09 3.4E-10 2.9E-09
Sr D 2.0E-01 2.0E-09 l.lE -0 9 3.6E-D9 7.4E-09 5.9E-10 3.7E-09 1.5E-09
Y 1.0E-D2 8.7E-08 1.3E-09 7.1E-II 1.5E-10 1.2B-11 1.4E-08 1.2E-08
90sr D 2.0E-01 3.1E-09 6.5E-08 3.0E-07 5.9E-07 3.9E-09 3.8E-09 5.7E-OS
Y l.OE-02 3.0E-06 4.1E-08 3.2E-08 6.3E-08 9.9E-10 2.4E-07 3.9E-07
^'Sr D 2.0E-01 L2E-09 9.5E-11 LIE-IO 1.2E-10 1.4E-I0 7.0E-10 3.3E-10
Y l.OE-02 2.7E-09 7.4E-11 3.8E-II 3.8E-11 6.3E-11 1.2E-09 5.3E-IO
90y W l.OE-04 L lE-08 2.4E-10 1.4E-I0 2.4E-10 1.2E-I1 L lE-08 2.4E-09
91mY w l.OE-04 5.3E-11 2.5E-12 3.2E-12 4.9E-12 9.1E-13 8.1Er-12 9.0E-I2
91y w l.OE-04 5.5E-08 1.5E-09 2.3E-09 4.8E-09 2.0E-I0 1.4E-08 8.7E-09
5Zr w 2.0E-03 1.9E-08 1.3E-09 1.5E-09 2.1E-09 8.7B-10 4.2E-09 3.6E-09
Y 2.0E-D3 3.6E-08 I.5&-09 LOE-09 8.6E-10 6.3E-10 4.3E-09 5.7E-09
Zr w 2.0E-03 5.7E-09 1.8E-10 L lE -10 LOE-10 1.9E-I0 4.3E-09 1.3E-09
Y 2.0B-03 6.0E-D9 1.7E-10 7.2E-11 4.2E-I1 L9E-I0 5.2E-09 I.4E-09

Table 9.1 (Contiined)
Reiîratory Lower
Nnclide classt f]t Longs body marrow endo8teiini Gonads Intestine Effectire
N b y l.OE-02 8.5E-09 5.2E-10 4.3E-10 3.2E-10 4.4E-10 1.9E-09 L6E-09

97Nb Y l.OE-02 4.5B-12 1.2E-13 5.3E-14 4.2B-14 1.7E-14 3.8E-14 6.3E-13
Nb Y l.OE-02 2.9E-10 6.2E-12 1.9E-12 1.5E-I2 9.8E-13 2.5E-12 4,0E-11
^M o D 9.5E-01 1.2E-09 2.1E-10 1.9E-10 3.1E-10 9.6E-11 I.4E-10 6.2E-10
Y 5.0B-02 5.2E-09 1.3E-10 4.8E-11 3.5E-U 9.3E-11 5.5E-09 L2E-09
99mjg D 8.0E-0I 2.4E-11 2.6E-I2 3.9B-12 2.9E-12 3.1B-I2 4.5E-12 7.7E-I2
W 8.0B-01 5.0E-11 2.8E-12 3.4E-12 2.5E-12 1.9E-12 3.6E-12 9.7E-12
D 8.0E-01 2.9E-10 4.6E-11 6.6E-11 8.4E-11 6.5E-11 1.4E-10 1.9E-10
W 8.0E-01 1.5E-08 2.4E-10 5.8B-11 7.4E-11 5.7E-11 4.5E-10 2.0E-09
> Ru Y 4.0E-02 1.6B-08 5.3E-10 3.3E-10 2.5E-10 3.2E-10 3.2E-09 2.5E-09
>5Ru y 4.0E-02 9.9E-10 2.6B-11 l.lE-^11 7.2B-12 1.7E-11 3.2E-10 1.8E-10
106r Y 4.0E-02 l.lB -0 6 1.7E-08 2 .5 E ^ 2.7E-09 2.1E-09 3.7E-08 1.4E-07
103m ^ Y 4.0E-02 I.8E-11 2.7E-13 6.2B-15 5.6B-I5 3.9E-15 5.8E-14 2.3E-12
lO S m g i, Y 4.0E-02 l.lE -1 2 2.2B-14 4.8E-15 3.3E-15 7.9E-15 4.9E-13 1.9E-I3
'Rh Y 4.0E-02 1.3E-09 3.1E-U 9.0B-12 5.8B-i2 2.2E-11 1.4E-09 3.0E-10
Rh Y 4.0E-02 6.3Er-12 9.3E-14 3.9E-15 3.1E-15 5.2E-16 2.5E-16 7.6E-I3
'^Sb W 5.0E-02 7.7B-09 2.4E-10 1.4E-10 l.lE -1 0 2.8E-1D 7.3E-09 L7E-09
127mTe w 2.5E-01 3.3E-08 6.5E-10 6.8B-10 7.9B-10 6.8E-10 6.4E-09 5.2E-09
>^Te w 2.5B-01 6.8E-10 L4E-11 l.lB -11 8.3E-12 L4E-11 2.2B-10 I.2E-10
129mjg w 2.5E-01 4.3E-08 8.6E-10 9.1E-10 8.6E-10 i.lE -0 9 l.OE-08 6,9E-09
129je w 2.5E-01 2.9E-10 4.9E-12 1.7E-12 1.4E-12 2.1E-12 1.6E-12 3.8E-11
ISImXe w 2.5E-01 3.0E-09 L8E-I0 2.2E-10 1.5E-I0 3.6E-10 2.3E-09 1.7E-09
DiTe w 2.5E-01 L5E-10 3.1E-12 1.2E-12 LOB-12 9.7B-13 2.2E-13 3.8E-U
^^Te w 2.5E-01 7.7E-09 4.6E-10 5.6E-10 4.5E-10 6.5B~10 2.9E-09 3.9E-09
129| 9.5E-01 2.3B-10 5.5E-10
D 1.6E-10 1.5E-10 l.OB-10 i.2 B -n 4.0B-08
(Thyroid; 1.3E-06)
131J 9.5E-01 7.IE-10 1.7E-10
D 5.5E-11 6.0B-11 l.lB -11 9.2E-12 9.3E-09
(Thyroid; 3.1E-07)
1321 9.5E-01 3.1E-10 2.1B-11
D 1.3E-11 1.4B-11 6.7E-12 5.6E-12 2.6E-10
(Thyroid; 6.9E-09)
1331 9.5E-01
D 9.2B-10 5.5E-11 2.9E-11 3.1E-11 2.0E-11 6.2E-I2 2.1E-09
(Thyroid; 6.4E-08)
1341 9.5E-01
D 1.8E-10 9.3B-12 7.0E-12 6.6E-12 4.6E-12 2.0E-12 l.lE -1 0
(Thyroid; 2.6E-09)
Table 9.1 (Continuei)
Respiratory Lower
NicHde cm^T fit Lungs body marrow endostenm Gonads intestine Effectire
1351 D 9.5E-01 7.1E-10 3.8E-11 2.7E-11 2 .6 E-11 L8E-11 1.4E-11 7.0E-10

(Thyroid: 2.0E-08)
D 9.5E-01 9.3B-09 1.2B-D8 1.7E-08 1.6E-08 1.7E-08 l.OE-08 1.8E-08
>Cs D 9.5E-01 1.9E-10 i.2B-09 2.0E-09 2.3E-09 2.0E-09 2.3E-11 L8E-09
>Cs D 9.5E-01 1.9E-09 1.6E-09 2. IE-09 1.9E-09 2.2E-09 1.5E-09 2.3E-09
>3^Cs D 9.5E-01 4.5E-09 8.8E-09 1.3E-08 1.4E-08 1.3E-08 4.3E-09 L3E-08
BTmfia D l.OE-01 1.9E-12 8.7E-14 6.0E-14 4.7E-14 1.6E-14 LOB-14 3.2E-13
D l.OE-01 2.9E-09 5.6B-10 9.7E-10 1.4E-09 7.4B-10 4.8E-09 1.3E-09
>La W l.OE-04 5.5E-09 2 .8 E-1 0 2.3E-10 2.0E-10 4.5E-10 5.7E-09 L5E-09
'C e Y l.OE-04 1.7E-08 3.1E-10 8.2E-11 8.1E-11 5.6E-11 4.2E-09 2.5E-09
W l.OE-04 1.2ErD8 3.7E-10 2.5E-10 6.3E-10 7.5E-11 3.9E-09 2.1E-09
D l.OE-04 7.4E-10 8.8E-10 l.lB -0 9 3.2B-09 1.5E-10 1.4E-09 L8E-09
Ce Y 1.0E-O4 4.5E-D9 L IE -10 3.2E-11 2 . 1E-11 7.7E-11 4.4E-09 LOE-09
W l.OE-04 4.1E-09 1.2E-10 6.9E-11 I.IE -IO 6.9B-11 3.7E-09 9.3E-10
D l.OE-04 l.lE -0 9 1.7B-10 2.4B-10 5.5E-10 5.6B-I1 1.8E-09 5.8E-10
i^'Ce Y l.OE-04 8.5E-07 1.3E-08 2.4B-09 4.0E-09 1.7E-10 3.5E-08 l.lE -0 7
W l.OE-04 1.9E-07 L4E-08 2.2E-08 3.8E-08 L3E-09 3.3E-08 4.7E-08
D l.OE-04 5.1E-D9 4.7E-08 9.6B-08 1.6B-07 5.2B-09 L lE -08 9.3E-08
I43pr Y l.OE-04 1.4E-08 2.3E-10 8.3E-I2 2.2E-11 5.4B-13 6.9E-09 2.3E-09
W l.OE-04 1.2B-08 2.9E-10 1.5E-10 4.0E-10 LOB-11 6.2E-09 2.1E-09
D l.OE-04 LOE-09 5.8E-10 9.1E-10 2.4E-09 5.9B-11 2.3E-09 1.4E-09
i44mpy Y l.OB-04 7.8E-11 L IE -12 2.9B-14 3.4E-14 2.8B-15 9.7B-15 9.6E-12
W l.OE-04 7.2E-11 l . l E -12 2.3E-13 3.6E-13 1.7B-14 8.8B-15 9.0E-12
D l.OE-04 4.7B-11 l.lE -1 2 6.3E-13 L 0E-I2 4.8B-14 6.2E-14 7.6E-12
I44pr Y l.OE-04 1.8 E-1 0 2.6E-12 3.7E-14 4.5E-14 4.9B-15 L4E-14 2.2E-11
W l.OE-04 1.7E-10 2 .6 B-1 2 3.5E-13 5.6E-13 2.4E-14 1.6E-14 2.1E-11
D l.OB-04 1.2E-10 2.5E-12 1.2E-12 1.9E-12 7.9B-14 9.8E-14 1.9E-11
47Nd Y 1.0E-fl4 l.lB -0 8 2 .2 E-1 0 6.4E-11 6 .0 E-11 8.7B-11 5.9E-09 1.9E-09
W l.OE-04 9.1E-09 2 .8 E-1 0 L7B-10 3.8E-10 9.1E-11 5.3E-09 1.8B--09
D l.OE-04 l.OE-09 5.8E-10 7.4B-10 2.0E-09 L IE -10 2.1E-09 L3E-09
Y l.OE-04 8.9E-08 1.4B-09 L9B-10 I.2E-09 3.3E-11 1.7E-09 L lE -08
W l.OE-04 LOE-08 1.8E-09 9.7E-10 5.0E-09 1.7B-10 1.6E-09 4.3E-09
D l.OE-04 2 . 1E-1 0 6.6E-09 3.9E-09 2.4B-08 7.0B-10 5.0B-10 1.2E-08
Y l.OE-04 6.1B-05 5.0E-06 L6E-07 5.2B-06 1.6B-07 6.7E-09 9.9E-06
W l.OB-04 3.8E-06 9.7E-06 4.0E-07 1.3E-05 3.8E-07 6.0E-09 6.8E-06
D LOE-04 6.9B-08 3.BE-05 1.6E-06 5.0B-05 1.5E-06 L9E-09 2.5E-05
207-pi W 9.5B-01 2 .0 B-11 3.0E-13 L4E-14 L8E-14 1.4E-14 4.8E-17 2.5E-12
Table f . l (Continiied)
ResptatMy Lower
ciearance Total Red Bon large
NncHde cimt fit Li*gii body Gonads M eitlne Effectire
20ti W 9.5E-D1 2 .0 B -11 6.1E-13 3.5E-13 2.8E-13 6.9E-I4 3.2B-I4 2.7B-12

209n w 9.5B-01 1.8 B-11 4.3E-13 1.9B-13 I.7E-I3 3.3E-I4 2.IE-I3 2.4E-12
209pb w 8.0B-02 2.6E-10 4.2E-12 4.2E-13 I. 2 B-12 2.4B-14 1.8B-11 3.7E-11
aiopb w 8.0E-02 2.0B-06 9.5E-07 5.9E-07 5.3E-06 1.8E-07 1.3E-08 7.0E-07
2npb w 8.0E-02 3.8E-08 5.6E-10 1.2 B-10 l.OE-09 8.4E-I2 5.0E-13 4.6E-09
212pb w 8.0E-02 4.8E-07 7.9E-09 6.2E-09 4.5E-08 5.3E-10 4.0E-09 6.3B-08
2)4pb w 8.0E-02 3. IE-08 4.9B-10 1.4E-10 7.6E-I0 3.0B-11 7.5E-13 4.0E-09
210BI w 5.0B-02 2.9E-07 6.9E-09 2.4E-09 l.lE -0 9 2.3E-09 6.2E-09 5.4E-08
2HBi w 5.0E-02 2.5B-09 3.6E-I1 9.7E-13 4.2E-12 5.3E-13 3.6E-16 3.9E-I0
212BI w 5.0E-02 7.3E-08 l.lE -0 9 1.6 B-1 0 5.5E-10 8.6E-11 4.5E-12 9.5E-09
w 5.0E-02 2.6B-09 4.5B -II 8.9E-12 1.2E-11 4.4E-12 I.7B-12 3.5E-10
2>Bi w 5.0E-02 2.5E-08 3.9B-10 4.5E-II 1.5E-I0 2.5E-II 2.3E-13 3.2E-09
210po w l.OE-01 1.3B-05 3.6E-07 2.2E-07 l.OE-07 2.2E-07 2.4B-08 2.4E-06
D l.OE-01 3.1E-07 5.6E-07 7.3E-07 3.2E-07 7.0E-07 7.7E-09 2.7E-06
211po w l.OE-01 1.3E^11 1.8E-13 3.2E-17 l.lE -1 6 1.7E-17 1.9B-19 1.5E-12
D I.OE-01 1.3E-1I 1.8B-13 1.0E-I6 3.4E-16 5.4E-17 1.9E-I9 I.5E-I2
212po w l.OE-fll 8.0E-18 1.2E-19 l.OE-29 2.5B-29 5.7E-30 5.1B-62 9.7E-19
D l.OE-Dl 8.0E-18 1.2E-19 3.4B-29 8.1B-29 I.9E-29 8.8B-61 9.7E-I9
213po W l.OE-01 l.lE -1 6 1.5B-18 3.8E-22 l.lB -21 2.2E-23 6.3B-2I I.3E-I7
D l.OE-OI l.lE -1 6 1.5E-18 3.8E-22 l.lB -2 i 2.2E-23 6.3E-21 I.3E-I7
214po W l.OB-01 3.8E-1S 5.4E-17 8 .6 B-2 0 1.2B-18 4.2B-20 2.9B-21 4.5B-16
D I.OB-OI 3.8E-I5 5.4E-17 9.5E-20 1.2E-18 5.1B-20 2.7E-21 4.5B-16
W l.OE-01 7.0B-14 l.OE-15 2.8E-I6 2.5E-15 1.OB-17 4.2E-19 8.6B-I5
D l.OE-01 7.0E-I4 l.OE-15 2.8E-I6 2.5B-15 l.OE-17 4.2B-I9 8.6E-15
216po W l.OE-01 5.0B-I2 7.7E-I4 4.6E-14 3.5E-13 2.5E-15 1.6E-14 6.3E-13
D l.OE-01 5.0E-12 7.7E-I4 4.6E-14 3.5E-I3 2.5B-I5 1.6E-14 6.3E-I3
218po W l.OE-01 6.7B-09 I.IE-IO 3.8B-11 2.3E-10 6 .2 B-1 2 9.9B-I4 8.5E-I0
D l.OE-01 6.2E-09 l.OB-10 4 .6 E -II 2.5B-10 1.2 E -11 1.8E-13 8.1E-I0
2iAt D 9.5E-01 7.2E-13 LOB-14 1.2E-I6 I.7E-I6 6.2B-17 2.0B-17 8.7E-I4
2>^Rn (-) 0.0 2.5E-10 3.5E-I2 1.2E-13 l.lE -1 2 4.2E-15 1.5B-16 3.0E-II
22Rn (-) 0.0 5.8E-10 8.5E-12 6.8B-13 5.1E-12 3.3E-14 3.6E-13 7.0E-11
(-) 0.0 6.3E-10 9.2E-12 4.5E-13 2.8E-I2 7.3E-14 1.9E-15 7.6E-11
22iFr D 9.5E-0I LOE-08 I.6E-I0 5.1B-1I 2.0E-10 2.8E-1I 3.6B-I3 I.2B-09
TWe9.1 (CoBtiimsd)
Respiratory Lower
cleanaice Total Red Bone large
NucUde classt f ,f Lungs body marrow endosteunf Gonads intesttae Effecthe
W 2 .0 B-01 1.3E-D5 2.3E-07 2.7E-07 2.0E-06 6.0B-08 9.8E-08 1.7E-06

224Ra w 2.0E-01 2.4B-06 4.9E-08 8.4E-08 6.7Er-07 1.6E-08 6.7E-08 3.3ErD7
225Ra w 2 .0&-01 8.0E-06 1.7E-07 3.0E-07 2.4E-06 6.5E-08 3.2E-08 I.lE -0 6
226Ra w 2 .0 B-01 1.6E-05 1.3E-06 6.8E-07 6.2B-06 1.8E-07 4.9E-08 2.3E-06
^^Ra w 2.0E-01 1.7E-06 6.6E-07 2.8E-07 3.7E-06 1.5E-07 1.9E-08 4.6E-07
2A c Y l.OE-03 1.3E-05 2.0E-07 4.0B-08 3.1E-07 L lE -0 8 l.lE -0 7 1.6B-06
W LOB-03 1.2B-05 2.5E-07 4.8E-07 4.6B-06 6.8E-08 9.7E-08 1.7E-06
22Ac Y l.OE-03 6.2E-04 2.7B-05 1.2E-D4 L2B-D3 9.3E-06 4.8E-07 1.4E-04
W l.OB-03 2.7B-05 4.4&-05 3.3E-04 3.3B-D3 2.4E-05 5.9E-08 1.8E-04
228Ac Y l.OB-03 8.9E-08 1.8B-09 3.6E-09 3.9E-08 1.4E-10 5.6E-10 I.2E-0S
W l.OE-03 1.3E-08 2.3E-09 2.0E-08 2.2B-07 5.7E-10 3.0E-10 l.lE -0 8
227th Y 2.0B-D4 1.9E~05 2.9E-07 1.2B-07 l.lE -0 6 1.4E-08 7.0E-08 2.3E-06
W 2.0E-04 1.5E-D5 3.3E-07 1.2E-06 1.2E-05 3.4E-08 6.0E-08 2.3E-06
228Th Y 2.0E-04 2.6B-04 5.2E-06 l.OE-05 1.1E-D4 2.2E-07 7.9E-07 3.6E-05
W 2.0&D4 3.6B-fl5 5.8E-06 5.7E-05 6.2E-04 6.3E-07 1.9E-07 3.0E-05
229Th Y 2.0E-04 7.2B-04 2.9E-05 1.8E-fl4 2.1E-03 1.2E-06 3.9E-07 1.7E-04
W 2.0E-04 3.5E-05 3.8B-05 4.3B-(M 5.1E-03 1.2E-06 l.lE -0 7 2.1E-04
OTh Y 2.0E-D4 2.4B-04 l.OE-05 6.9E-05 1.1E~03 2.9E-07 2.8E-08 7.0E-05
W 2.0B-04 1.5E-05 1.5E-05 1.7E-04 2.6E-03 7.0E-07 2.5E-08 l.OE-04
231xh Y 2.0B-04 l.lE -0 9 2.7E-11 2.0E-11 2.0E-10 9.0E-12 l.lE -0 9 2.7E-10
W 2.0E-04 1.1E-D9 3.3E-11 6.8E-11 7.2B-10 l.lE -11 9.5E-10 2.6E-10
232Th Y 2.0E-04 2.2B~04 l.OE-05 7.3E-05 1.2E-03 2.9E-07 2.9E-08 7.2E-05
W 2 .0 E ^ 4 1.3E-05 1.6B-05 1.8B-04 3.0B-03 6.1E-07 2.5E-08 l.lE -0 4
234x1, Y 2.0B-04 6.7E-08 l.lE -0 9 l.lB -10 2.0E-10 2.3E-11 2.1E-08 9.8E-09
W 2.0B-04 4.9E-08 1.2E-09 1.8E-09 3.5E-09 1.7E-10 1.9E-08 8.0E-09
231pa Y l.OE-03 3.5E-04 3.7E-05 2.2E-04 2.5E-03 2.1E-05 4.7E-08 1.8E-04
W l.OE-03 1.6ED5 7.0E-05 5.0E-04 5.8B-03 4.8E-05 3.5E-08 3.1E-04
233pa Y l.OE-03 1.7E-08 3.5B-10 1.3E-10 l.lE -1 0 1.3E-10 4.7E-09 2.6E-09
W l.OE-03 1.2B~08 4.2E-10 3.2E-10 6.7E-10 2 .2 B -10 4.4E-09 2.2E-09
234mpg Y l.OE-03 8.6E-12 1.2E-13 7.6E-16 7.2E-16 3.6E-16 1.7E-15 l.OE-12
W 1.0&-03 8.5E-12 1.2E-13 3.0B-15 5.0E-15 l.OE-15 1.4E-15 l.OE-12
23^Pa Y l.OE-03 1.4E-09 5.7B-11 3.7E-11 2.3B-11 6 . 6E - 1 1 4.3E-10 2.9E-10
W l.OE-03 1.3B-09 5.7E-11 4.1E-11 3.6E-11 5.8E-11 3.6E-10 2.7E-10
232U Y 2.0B-03 6.4E-04 1.4E-05 2.4E-05 2.6E-04 5.0E-07 2.9E-07 8.7E-05
W 5.0E-02 1.9E-D5 2.1E-06 1.5B-05 1.7E-04 5.1E-08 3.5E-08 9.4E-06
D 5.0E-02 3.6B-07 5.5B-06 4.6E-05 5.2E-04 7.6E-08 1.4E-08 2.2E-05

Table 9.1 (CoMtlimei)
Respiratory Lower
clearMce Total Bone large
NucHde classt fit Langs My arrow eBdMteuni GiMds IntesdEie Effecti?
233y Y 2.0E-03 2.5E-04 4.5E-06 6.5E-08 9.7E-07 4.3B-09 2.9B-08 3 OE-05

W 5.0B-fl2 1.6B-05 7.0E-07 1.9B-07 2.8E-06 1.2E-08 2.5Er-08 2.1E-06
D 5.0E-02 2.9E-07 1.5E-06 6.2E-07 9.3E-06 4.0E-08 LIE-08 6.4E-07
234u Y 2.0E-03 2.5E-04 4.4E-06 6.5E-08 9.5E-07 4.3E-09 2.9E-08 3.0E-05
W 5.0E-02 1.6B-05 6.9E-07 I.8E-4)7 2.8E-06 L3&-08 2.5l>OS 2. IE-06
D 5.0E-D2 2.9B-07 1.5E-06 6.2B-D7 9.2E-06 4.2E-08 L lE -08 6.3E-07
235u Y 2.0E-03 2.2E-04 4.0E-06 5.1B-08 8.0E--07 4 .4 F ^ 9 6.8E-08 2.7B 05
W 5.0E-02 1.4E-05 6.2E-07 1.4E-07 2.3E-06 l.lE -0 8 3. IE-08 I.9E-06
D 5.0E-02 2.6B-07 1.4E-06 4.9B-07 7.7B-06 3.6E-08 L2E-08 5.5E-07
236u Y 2.0E-03 2.3E-04 4.2B-06 5.4E-08 8.6B-07 4.2E-09 2.8E-08 2.8E-05
W 5.0&-02 1.5E~05 6.5B-07 1.6&-07 2.5E-06 1.2E-08 2.4E-08 I.9E-06
D 5.0E-02 2.7B-07 1.4E-06 5.4E-07 8.3E-06 4.0E-08 L lE -08 5.9E-07
23?u Y 2.0E-03 4.7E-09 l.lE -1 0 5.3E-I1 3.2E -II 8.2E-11 30E -09 9.2E -I0
W 5.0B-02 4.2B-09 l.lE -lO 6.9E-I1 8.6E-11 7.6E-11 3.0E-09 8.5E-10
D 5.0E-02 6.0E-10 .8.7E-11 1.3E-10 3.0E-10 6.4E-1I 1.2E-09 3.7E-IO
238u Y 2.0E-03 2.2B-04 3.9E-06 5.4E-08 7.8E-07 4,0E-W 7.6E-08 2.7E-05
W 5.0E-02 1.4B-05 6.1E-07 1.5E-07 2.3E-06 LIE-08 3.1E-08 L8E-06
D 5.0E-02 2.5E-07 1.4B-06 5.1E-07 7.5E-D6 3.5E-08 LOE-08 5.5E-07
240y y 2.0E-03 3.5E-09 8.0E~11 3.1E-11 2.5E-10 3.6E-I1 2.5E-09 7.5E-I0
w 5.0E-02 3.2E-09 8.4E-I1 7.1E-1I 6.1B-10 3.8E-11 2.0E-09 7.0E-10
D 5.0E-O2 1.4B-09 8.3E-11 I.6B-I0 1.3E-09 5.2E-II L4E-09 5.2E-I0
237Np Y l.OE-03 2.6B-04 I.8E-05 8.1B-05 l.lE -0 3 l.lE -0 5 4.8E-08 9.3E-05
w l.OE-03 1.7E-05 3.3E--05 2.0B-04 2.8E-03 2.7E-05 4.3E-08 L5E-04
238Np Y l.OE-03 1.6E--08 9.4E-I0 3.7E-09 4.5E-D8 6.3E-I0 3.4E-09 4.9E-09
W l.OE-03 3.6E-09 2.0E-09 1.2B-08 1.4E-07 1.6E-09 2.9E-09 8.9E-09
239n p Y l.OE-03 2.8Er4)9 7.5E -II 4.7E-11 2.4E-I0 6.6E-11 3.2E-09 6.8E-10
W l.OE-03 2.7E-09 8.8E-1I 9.7E-11 7.7E-10 7.1E-11 2.7E-09 6.6E-10
240mj^p Y l.OE-03 4.4B-I1 7.5B-13 2.8E-13 2.5E-12 3.8E-I4 8..0E-I5 5 5E-I2
W l.OE-03 4.2E-II 7.9E-13 6.4E-13 7.0Er-12 9.7E-I4 L 0 E -i4 5.6E-I2
2Np Y l.OE-03 3.0B-10 8.0E-12 S.OEîa 2.5E-11 1.8E-12 2.4E-12 4.4E-I1
W l.OE-03 2.8E-10 8.5E-12 9.0E-I2 7 .IE -U 2.4E-12 2.1E-I2 4.3E-1 i
236pu Y 3.0E-05 1.5E-04 3.2E-06 4.9E-06 5.6B-05 5-8E-07 3.4E-08 2.1E-05
W 3.0E-05 1.8E-05 4.1E-06 2.2E-05 2.5E-04 2.8E-06 3.1E-08 1 8E-05
238PU Y 3.0E-05 2.7B-04 1.6E-05 7.0B-05 8.8E-04 9.3E-06 3,3E-08 8.3E-05
W 3.0E-05 1.8&-05 3.0E-05 1.8E-04 2.3E-03 2.4E-05 2.9E-08 L3E-04
239p Y 3.0E-05 2.7B-4)4 1.8E-05 8.2E-05 l.TE-03 l.lE -0 5 3. IE-08 9.4E-05
W 3.0E-4)5 1.7E-4)5 3.3E-05 2.0B-04 2.8E-03 2.7B-05 2.8E-08 I.6E-04
240pu Y 3.0E-05 2.7E-04 1.8E-05 8.2B-05 l.lE -0 3 l.lE -0 5 3.1E-08 9 3E-05
W 3.0E-05 1.7B-05 3.3E-05 2.0Er-04 2.8E-D3 2.7E-05 2.8E-08 L5E-04
Table 9.1 (Continned)
Respiratory Lower
clesiSBee Total Red Boae large
Nnclide classt frf Lungs body arrow endosteum Gonads Mwtiiie Effective
24Ipu Y 3.0E-05 1.2E-06 3.2E-f)7 1.8E-06 2.3E-05 2.4E-07 1.9E-10 1.5E-06

W 3.0E-05 4.7E-^9 6.7B-07 4.2E-06 5.2E-4)5 5.6E-D7 1.7E-10 2.9E-06
2Pu Y 3.0E-05 2.5E-04 1.7E-05 7.7E-05 l.lE -0 3 l.OE-05 3.0E-08 9.1 -4)5
W 3.0B-05 1.6E-05 3.2E-05 1.9E-04 2.8E-03 2.6E-05 2.6E-4)B 1.5B-04
243p Y 3.0B-05 3.7E-10 7.6E-12 7.3E-12 8.6E-11 1.6E-12 6.2E-11 6.2E-11
W 3.0E-05 3.2E-10 9.5E-12 2.1B-11 2.6E-10 3.6E-12 5.0E-11 6.5E-11
244pu Y 3.0E-05 2.5E-04 1.7E-05 7.3E-05 l.lE -0 3 l.OE-05 1.8E-07 9.0E-05
W 3.0E-05 1.6B-05 3.2B-05 1.8E-4)4 2.9E-03 2.5E-05 8.2B-08 1.5E-414
24iAm Y l.OE-03 2.8B-^4 1.9E-05 8.4E-4)5 l.lE -0 3 l.lE -0 5 3.4E-08 9.4E-05
W 1.0E-f)3 1.8E-4)5 3.5E-4)5 2.1E-04 2.6B-03 2.8E-05 3.1E-08 1.5B-04
242mAm Y l.OE-03 1.4E-4)4 1.7E-4)5 8.5E-05 9.1E-04 l.lE -0 5 4.7B-D8 7.3B-05
W l.OB-03 2.3E-06 3.4B-05 2.1E-04 2.2E-03 2.7B-^5 l.lE -0 8 1.4E-04
2Am Y l.OB-03 1.4E-07 2.4&^)9 1.8E-09 2.0Er^8 2.4E-10 7.6E-10 1.8E-08
W l.OE-03 4.4B-08 3.4E-09 1.5E-08 1.7E-07 2.0E-09 6.5E-10 1.6E-08
2A m Y l.OE-03 2.7B-04 1.9E-4)5 8.5E-05 l.lE -0 3 l.lE -0 5 i.OE-07 9.5B-D5
W l.OB-03 1.7B-05 3.5E-05 2.1E-04 2.8B-03 2.8E-05 5.2E-D8
22cm Y l.OB-03 4.9E-05 8.1E-07 5.3E-07 6.1E-06 7.0E-08 3.2B-08 6.3B-06
W l.OE-03 1.5E-05 9.6E-07 4.2B-06 4.5E-D5 5.5E~07 3.1E-08 4.8E-06
2C m Y 1.0E-D3 2.6E-04 1.3E-05 5.1E-D5 5.8E-04 6.8E~4)6 4.0E-08 6.6E-05
W l.OE-03 1.9E-05 2.3E-D5 1.4E-D4 1.6E-LI3 1.8E-05 3.9E-08 9.7B-05
^-^Cm Y l.OE-03 2.4E-04 l.OE-05 3.8E-05 4.4E-04 5.0E-06 3.5E-08 5.5E-05
W l.OB-03 1.9E-05 1.8E-05 l.lE -0 4 1.2E-03 1.4E-05 3.1E-08 7.7E-05
2C m Y l.OE-03 2.8E-04 1.9E-05 8.8E-05 l.lE -0 3 1.2B-05 3.6E-08 9.7B-4)5
W l.OE-03 1.8E-4)5 3.6B-05 2.2B-4)4 2.8E-03 2.9E-05 3.5E-08 1.6E-04
2^C m Y l.OE-03 2.8E-04 1.9E-4)5 8.6B-05 l.lE -0 3 I.IE-OS 3.3E-08 9.6E-05
W l.OE-03 1.8E-05 3.5E-05 2.1E-04 2.8E~03 2.8B-05 3.1E-08 1.6E-04
^^Cm Y l.OE-03 2.6E-04 1.8E-05 8.0E-05 l.lE -0 3 l.lE -0 5 4.9E-08 9.2E-05
W I.OE-03 1.6B-05 3.2E-05 2.0E-04 2.9E-03 2.6E-05 5.3B-08 1.5E-04
248cm Y l.OE-03 l.OE-03 7.0E-D5 8.0B~05 1.2E-03 4.2E-4)5 4.7B-07 2.4E-4)4
W l.OE-03 6.6E-05 1.3E-04 2.0B-04 2.9B-03 l.OE-04 8.7E-D7 2.9B-04
252cf Y l.OE-03 2.8B-04 5.8E-06 4.1E-06 4.4E-05 l.lE-4)6 9.3E-f)8 3.7E-05
W l.OE-03 3.7E--05 7.8B-06 2.1E-05 2.2E-04 5.3E-06 l.lE -0 7 2.4E-05
An activity median aerodynamic diameter (AMAD) of 1.0 micron is assumed for inhaled particulates.
fThis defines the International Commission on Radiological Protection Task Group Lung Model clearance
category for each radionuclide. D, W, and Y denote rapid, intermediate, and slow removal of activity from the
lung, respectively. Nuclides assumed to be in gaseous form are denoted by (-).
^Fractional absorption from the small intestine to blood.
Endosteum is defined for these calculations as a 10-micron layer of cells lining the interior surfaces of bone.
Table 9.2
FIFTY-VEAM COMMITTED DOSE EQUTVALENTC FROM INHALED RADIONUCUDK,* h/ m O
Respiratory Lower
ciearaiece Total Red Bone large
Nuclide classt Lmigs body marrow endostemn Gonads intestine Effectiye
3H (-) 9.5B-01 1.3B-04 1.2E-04 I.2E-04 9.SE-05 1.2E-04 1.3E-04 I.3E-04

l'*C (-) 9.5E-0I 6.2E-06 1.4E-05 2.4E-05 5.1E-05 5.4E-06 7.2E-06 I.lE -05
22N a D 9.5E-OI 9.8E-03 9.2E-03 1.3E-02 1.6E-02 l.OE-02 7.5E-03 l.lE -0 2
J2p
D 8.0E-0I 8.5E-03 3.6B-03 I.lE -0 2 2.0E-02 3.0E-03 3.9B-03 5.2E-03
W 8.0E-01 l.OB-01 3.9E-03 7.8E-03 i,4E-02 2.1E-03 l.OE-02 1.6E-02
5'*M n D l.OE-OI 4.2E-03 4.1B-D3 6.0E-03 5.9B-03 3.8E-03 4.0B-03 5 7E-03
W I.OE-01 2.5E-02 3.7E-03 4.0&.fl3 3.4E-03 2.8E-03 4.8E-03 7.2E-03
5^Fe W l.OE-OI 3.4E-03 6.3E-D4 l.lE -0 3 7.4B-04 l.lE -0 3 3.6E-04 I.6E-03
Y I.OE-OI 2.8E-D2 6.1E-04 5.0E-04 3.4E-04 5.2E-04 3.9E-04 4.0E-03
F e W I.OE-01 5.3E-D2 5.5E-03 5.7E-03 5.1E-03 6.2E-03 1.6E-02 1.3E-02
Y l.OE-OI 8.4E-02 5.0E-03 4.2E-03 3.4E-03 3.8E-03 1.5E-02 I.6E-02
Co W 5.0E-02 1.5E-02 8.0E-04 l.OE-03 7.2E-04 6.8E-04 2.4E-03 2.8E-03
Y 5.0E-02 6.5E-02 2.2B-03 2.2E-03 1.7E-03 4.8E-04 2.4E-03 9.6E-03
58C0 W 5.0E-O2 3.0E-02 2.6E-03 2.4E-03 1.8E-03 2.6E-03 7.4B-03 6.8E-03
Y 5.0E-O2 6.0E-02 4.2B-03 3.4E-03 2.6E-03 2.4E-03 7.4E-03 1.IE-02
Co W 5.0E-O2 1.4E-01 1.7E-D2 1.7E-02 1.5E.4)2 L7E-02 2.8E-02 3.6E-02
Y 5.0E-02 I.4E00 8.2E-02 6.4E-02 5.1B-02 I8E -02 2.8E-02 2.4B-01
Zn D 5.0E-01 1.2E-02 1.4E-02 1.9E-02 1.8 B-0 2 1.7E-02 1.4E-02 1.9E-02
W 5.0E-01 2.6E-02 l.OE-^2 1.4E-02 1.2E-02 L2E-02 l.OE-02 L6E-02
Y 5.0E-01 7.8B-02 1.2E-02 1.4E-02 1.2E-02 9.5E-03 8.4E-03 2.3E-02
sRe D 9.5E-01 8.5E-03 6.7E-03 l.lE -0 2 1.4E-02 i.lE -0 2 i.3E-03 l.lE -0 2
* S r D 2-OB-Ol 7.3B-03 3.9E-03 1.3E-02 2.7E-02 2.2E-03 1.4E-02 5.7E-03
Y LOE-02 3.2B-01 4.8E-03 2.6E-04 5.4E-04 4.3E-05 5.3E-02 4.3E-02
Sr D 2 0E-01 l.lE -0 2 2.4B-01 L IE 00 2.2E00 I.5E-02 L4E-02 2.IE-0I
Y i.OE-02 l.IE+O I 1.5E-01 1.2E-01 2.3E-01 3.6E-03 8.9E-OI i.5E 00
*Sr D 2.0E-01 4.6B-03 3.5E-04 4.1E-04 4.4E-fl4 5.1E-04 2.6E-03 1.2E-03
Y l.OE-02 9.9E-03 2.7E-04 1.4E-04 1.4E-04 2.3E-04 4.5E-03 2.0E-03
90y
W l.OE-04 4.0E-02 8.9E-04 5.0E-O4 9.1E-04 4.6B-05 4.1E-02 8.7E-03
9 I/ y W l.OB-04 2.0E-04 9.4B-06 1.2B-05 1.8E-05 3.4E-06 3.0E-05 3.3R-05
91y
w l.OE-04 2.1E-01 5.7B-03 8.5E-03 1.8E-02 7.3E-04 5.2E-02 3.2E-02
Zr w 2.0E-03 7.1E-02 4.7E-03 5.5E-03 7.8E-03 3.2E-03 1.5B-02 1.3E-02
Y 2.0E-03 L3E-01 5.5E-03 3.9E-03 3.2E-03 2.3E-03 L6E-02 2. IE-02
W 2.0E-03 2.1E-02 6.7E-04 4.0E-04 3.8E-D4 6.9E-04 L6E-02 4.8E-03
Y 2.0E-03 2.2E-02 6.SE-04 2.6E-04 1.5E-Q4 7.0E-04 L9E-02 5.2E-03
Table 9.2 (CoBCbmed)
Respiratory Lower
Total Red Boiie large
NucMOs ctosst fit body marrow endosteiunl Gonads intestine Effective
N b Y l.OE-02 3.1E-02 1.9E-03 1.6E-03 1.2E~03 1.6E-03 7.2E-03 6.1E-03

Y l.OE-02 1.7B-05 4.4B-07 2.0E-07 1.6E-07 6.4E-08 1.4E-07 2.3E-06
Nb Y l.OB-02 1. IE-03 2.3E-05 7.1E-06 5.5B-06 3.6E-06 9.4E-D6 1.5E-04
sMo D 9.5B-1 4.4E-03 7.9E-04 7.1B-04 l.lE -0 3 3.5E-04. 5.0E-04 2.3E-03
Y 5.0E-02 1.9E-02 4.8B-04 1.8B-04 1.3E-04 3.5E-04 2.0E-O2 4.4E-03
99mjg D S.OB-fll 8.8E-05 9.8E-06 1.4E-05 l.lE -0 5 1.2E-05 1.7E-05 2.9E-05
W 8 .0 B-01 1.8B-04 l.OE-05 1.2E-05 9.2E-06 7.0E-06 1.3E-05 3.6E-05
T c D 8 .0 B-01 l.lE -0 3 I.7E-04 2.4E-04 3.1B-04 2.4Er-04 5.1E-04 7.1E-04
W 8.0E-01 5.5E-02 8.9E-04 2.1E-04 2.7E-04 2.1E-04 1.7E-03 7.2E-03
'3Ru Y 4.0E-02 6.0E-02 2.0B-03 1.2E-03 9.2E-04 1.2E-03 L2E-02 9.4E-03
Y 4.0E-02 3.7E-03 9.7B-05 4.0E-05 2.6E-05 6.3E-05 1.2E-03 6.7E-04
' Ru Y 4.0E-02 4.2E00 6.2E-02 9.4E-03 l.OB-02 7.7E-03 L4B-0I 5.2E-01
'"Rh Y 4.0E-02 6.6E-05 9.9E-07 2.3E-08 2.1E-08 1.4E-08 2.1B-07 8.4E-06
Y 4.0E-02 4.1E-06 8.0E-08 I.8E-08 1.2E-08 2.9B-08 i.8E-06 6.9E-07
> Rh Y 4.0&-02 4.7E-03 l.lE -0 4 3.3E-05 2.1B-05 8.2E-05 5.1E-03 l.lE -0 3
106r 1j Y 4.0E-02 2.3E-05 3.4E-07 1.4E-08 l.lE -0 8 1.9E-09 9.4E-10 2.8E-06
27Sb W 5.0E-02 2.9E-02 8.8E-04 5.3E-04 3.9E-04 l.OE-03 2.7E-02 6.4B-03

mrnpg W 2.5E-01 1.2B-01 2.4E-03 2.5E-03 2.9E-03 2.5E-03 2.4E-02 1.9E-02
i27Te w 2.5B-01 2.5E-03 5.1B-05 4.1E-05 3.1E-05 5.3E-05 8.1E-04 4.5E-04
129mTe w 2.5B-01 1.6E-01 3.2E-03 3.4B-03 3.2E-03 4.1E-02 3.9B-02 2.6E-02
i29Te w 2.5E-01 l.lB -0 3 1.8B-05 6.3E-06 5.3E-06 7.8E-06 6.0E-06 1.4E-04
nimT w 2.5E-D1 l.lE -0 2 6.5E-04 8.3E-04 5.7E-04 1.3E-03 B.3E-03 6.3E-03
>3>Te w 2.5E-01 5.6E-04 l.lE -0 5 4.4E-06 3.8B-06 3.6B-06 8.0B-07 1.4E-04
>32Te w 2.5E-01 2.9E-02 1.7E-03 2.1E-03 1.7E-03 2.4E-03 l.lE -0 2 1.4E-02
129j D 9.5E-01 8.6E-04 2.0B-03 6.0E-04 5.6E-04 3.8E-04 4.3E-05 1.5E-01
(Thyroid: 5.0E 00)
U li D 9.5B-01 2.6E-03 6.1E-04 2,0E-04 2.2E-04 4.0E-05 3.4E-05 3.4E-02
(Thyroid: LIE 00)
132j D 9.5E-4)1 l.lE -0 3 7.8E-05 5.0E-05 5.3E-05 2.5E-05 2.1E-05 9.4E-04
(Thyroid: 2.5E-02)
1331 D 9.5E-01 3.4E-03 2.0E-04 l.lE -0 4 L lE -0 4 7.5E-05 2.3B-05 7.6E-03
(Thyroid: 2.4E-0I)
1341 D 9.5B-01 6.5E-04 3.4E-05 2.6E-05 2.5E-05 1.7B-05 7.4E-06 3.9E-04
(Thyroid: 9.5E-03)
Respiratory Lower
clearance Total le d Bone large
NncUde classt fit Lungs body arrow endosteiimi Gonads intestine Effectife
1351 D 9.5B-0I 9.8B-05

2.6E-03 L4E-04 9.5E-05 6.6B-05 5.3E-05 2.6E-03
(Thyroid; 7.3E-02)
D 9.5E-0I 3.4E-02 4.5E-02 6.2E-02 5.9E-02 6.4E-02 3.7B-02 6.5E-02
D 9.5E-01 7.1E-04 4.4E-03 7.5B~03 8.6B-03 7.5E-03 8.5E-05 6.7E-03
136CS D 9.5E-B1 7.2E-03 6.0E-03 7.9E-03 7.1E-03 8.2B-03 5.5E-03 8.4E-03
D 9.5E-01 1.7E-02 3.3E-02 4.9B-02 5.3E-02 5.0E-02 1.6 E-0 2 4.8E-02
137mBa D l.OE-01 7.2E-06 3.2E-07 2.2E-07 1.7E-07 6.0E-08 1.2B-06
3.8E-08
OBa D l.OE-01 L IE -02 2.1E-03 3.6E-03 5.2B-03 2.7E-03 1.8E-02 4.9E-03
La W l.OB-04 2.0E-02 LOE-03 8.5E-04 7.3E-04 1.7E-03 2. IE-02 5.5E-03
>Ce Y LOE-04 6.4E-02 l.lE -0 3 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 2. IE-04 1.5E-02 9.3E-03
W LOE-04 4.4E-02 1.4E-03 9.4E-04 2.3B-03 2.8E-04 1.4E-02 7.6E-03
D LOE-04 2.8B-03 3.3E-03 4.1E-03 1.2 E-0 2 5.5E 04 5.3E-03 6.5E-03
>Ce Y l.OE-04 1.7E-02 3.9E-04 1.2E-04 7.7B-05 2.9E-04 1.6 B-0 2 3.7E-03
W l.OE-04 I.5E-02 4.4E-04 2.5B-04 4.1E-04 2.6E-04 I.4E-02 3.4E-03
D 1.0&-B4 4.1E-03 6.4E-04 9.1E-04 2.0E-03 2.1B-04 6.8E-03 2.2E-03
i'Ce Y l.OE-04 3.IEOO 4.7B-02 8.9E-03 1.5E-02 6.3E-04 1.3E-01 4.0E-01
W I.OB-04 7.1E-01 5. IE-02 8.3E-02 L4E-01 4.7B-03 1.2 B-01 1.7E--0I
D l.OE-04 1.9E-02 1.7E-01 3.5E-01 6.1E-01 1.9E-02 4 0E-02 3.4E-0I
i4 3 p r Y 1.0E-D4 5.3E-02 8.6E-04 8.1E-05 6E-02 8.6E-03
3.1E-05 2 .0 E-O6
W l.OE-04 4.4E-02 l.lE -0 3 5.7B-04 I.5E-03 3.7E-05 2.3E-02 7.9E-03
D LOE-04 3.8E-03 2.1B-03 3.4B-03 8.9E-03 2.2B-04 8.7E-03 5.1E-03
144mpj. Y 1.3E-07
l.OE-04 2.9E-04 4.2E-06 1.IE-07 1.0B-O8 3.6E-08 3.6E-05
W L0B-D4 2.7E-04 4.2E-06 8.4E-07 1.3E-06 6.1E-08 3.3E-08 3.3B -05
D l.OB-04 1.7E-04 3.9E-06 2.3B-06 3.8E-06 1.8B-07 2.3B-07 2.8E-05
i4 4 p r Y 1.7E-07 8.3E-05
LOE-04 6.7E-04 9.7E-06 1.4B-07 I.8E-08 5.4E-08
W l.OE-04 6.4E-04 9.7E-06 1.3E-06 2.1B-06 9.1B-08 5.8E-08 7.9E-05
D LOE-04 4.6E-04 9.1E-06 4.3E-06 6.9E-06 2.9E-07 3.6E-07 6.9E-05
Y LOE-04 4.1E-02 8.3E-04 2.4E-04 2.2E-04 3.2E-04 2 .2 E-0 2 7. IE-03
W LOE-04 3.4E-02 LOE-03 6.5E-04 1.4E-03 3.4E-04 2.0EO2 6.5 E 0 3
D 1.0B-B4 3.7E-03 2.1E-03 2.7E-03 7.5E-03 4.2E-04 7.6E-03 4.8E-03
'Pm Y LOE-04 3.3E-01 5.3E-03 7.0B-04 4.3E-03 1.2E-04 6.4E-03 4.2E-02
W I.0E~O4 3.8E-02 6.6E-03 3.6E-03 2.2E-02 6.3E-04 6.0E-03 I.6E-02
D LOE-04 7.9E-04 2.5E-02 I.5E-02 9.1E-02 2 .6 E 0 3 1.9E-03 4.4E-02
'Sm Y LOE-04 2.2E+02 L9E-F01 3.0E-01 6.9E00 5.8E-01 2.5E-02 3.6E+01
W l.OB-04 I.4E +0I 3.6E-fOI 7.4B-01 I.7E +0I 1.4E00 2.2E-02 2.4E +0I
D LOE-04 2.6E-01 L4E-F02 3.0B00 6.7E-F0I 5.7EOO 6.9E-03 8.9E-1-0I
2 0 7 j[ W 6.5E-08
9.5E-01 7.5E-05 L IE -06 5.2E-08 5.0E-08 I.8B -I0 9.IE-06
Respiratory Lower
dearance Total Red Bone large
Nuclide c k s it Lmigs body marrow endostenmf Gonads intestine Effectire
208t i W 9.5E-01 7.2E-05 2.3E-06 1.3E-06 l.OE-06 2.6E-07 L2E-07 l.OE-05

209J1 W 9.5E-01 6.7E-05 1.6B-06 6.9E-07 6.4E-07 1.2E-07 7.8E-07 8.8E-06
209pb W S.OE-02 9.7E-04 1.6B-05 1.6E-06 4.5E-06 8.9E-08 6.7E-05 1.4E-04
210pb W 8.0B-02 7.3EOO 3.5B00 2.2E00 2.0E+01 6.7E-01 4.7E-02 2.6EOO
211pb W 8.0E-02 1.4E-01 2.1E-03 4.4E-04 3.9E-03 3.1E-05 1.9E-06 1.7E-02
212pb W 8.0E-02 1.8EOO 2.9B-02 2.3E-02 1.7E-01 2.0E-03 1.5E-02 2.3E-01
214pb W 8.0E-02 1.2B-01 1.8E-03 5.0E-04 2.8E-03 l.lE -0 4 2.8E-06 1.5E-02
W 5.0E-02 I.IEOO 2.5E-02 9.0E-03 4.0E-03 8.7E-03 2.3E-02 2.0E-01
w 5.0E-02 9.2E-03 1.3E-04 3.6E-06 1.5E-05 2.0E-06 1.3E-09 l.lE -0 3
w 5.0E-02 2.7B-01 4.2B-03 5.8E-04 2.0E-03 3.2E-04 1.6E-05 3.5B-02
w 5.0B-02 9.8E-03 1.6B-04 3.3E-05 4.3E-05 1.6E-05 6.2E-06 L3E-03
2MBi w 5.0E-02 9.4E-02 1.4E-03 1.7E-04 5.5E-04 9.1E-05 8.4E-07 1.2E-02
210po w l.OE-01 4.8E+01 1.3E00 8.3E-01 3.7E-01 8.0E-01 8.8E-02 8.8E00
D l.OE-01 1.2B(M) 2.1EOO 2.7E00 1.2E00 2.6E00 2.8E-02 9.9E00
2 Po w l.OE-01 4.6E-05 6.6B-07 1.2E-10 3.9E-10 6.1E-11 7.2E-13 5.6E-06
D l.OE-01 4.6E-05 6.6B-07 3.7E-10 1.3E-09 2.0E-10 7.2B-13 5.6E-06
212po W l.OE-01 3.0E-11 4.3E-13 3.8E-23 9.1E-23 2.1E-23 1.9E-55 3.6E-12
D l.OB-01 3.DE-11 4.3E-13 1.3E-22 3.0E-22 7.0E-23 3.3E-54 3.6B-12
W l.OE-Dl 3.9B-10 5.6B-12 1.4E-15 4.1E-15 8.1E-17 2.3E-14 4.7E-11
D l.OB-01 3.9B-10 5.6B-12 1.4E-15 4.1E-15 8.1E-17 2.3E-14 4.7E-11
214po W I.OE-01 1.4E-08 2.0B-I0 5.0B-13 4.5E-12 1.5E-13 l.lE -1 4 1.7E-09
D LOB-01 1.4E-08 2.0B-10 5.4B-13 4.5E-12 1.9E-13 9.9E-15 1.7E-09
215po W l.OE-01 2.6B-07 3.9B-09 l.OE-09 9.4E-09 3.7E-11 1.5E-12 3.2E-08
D l.OB-01 2.6B-07 3.9E-09 LOE-09 9.4E-09 3.7E-1I 1.5E-12 3.2E-08
2'Po W l.OE-01 1.8B-05 2.9E-07 1.7E-07 1.3E-06 9.2E-09 5.8E-08 2.3B-06
D l.OE-OI 1.8E-05 2.9B-07 1.7E-07 1.3E-06 9.2E-09 5.8E-08 2.3B-06
218po W l.OE-01 2.5B-02 3.9B-04 1.4E-04 8.6E-04 2.3B-05 3.7E-07 3.1E-03
D l.OE-01 2.3B-02 3.7E-04 1.7E-04 9.4E-04 4.5E-05 6.8E-07 3.0E-03
2iAt D 9.5E-01 2.7E-06 3.8E-08 4.6E-10 6.2E-10 2.3E-10 7.5E-11 3.2E-07
2 Rn (-) 0.0 9.1E-04 1.3E-05 4.5E-07 4.1E-06 1.5E-08 S.5B-10 l.lE -0 4
22Rn (-) 0.0 2.2E-03 3.1E-05 2.5E-06 1.9E-05 1.2E-07 1.3E-06 2.6E-04
222Rb (-) 0.0 2.3B-03 3.4E-05 1.7E-06 l.OE-05 2.7E-07 6.9E-09 2.8B-04
22ipr D 9.5E-01 3.7E-02 5.9B-04 1.9E-04 7.6E-04 l.OE-04 1.3E-06 4.6E-03

Table 9.2 (CMtiniied)
Reîratory Lower
elearaiice Total Red Bone large
Nneilde eteist fit Lmigi body marrow eadosteamf Gonads Intestliie EffectiTe
W 2.0B-01 4.7E+01 8.6E-01 l.OEOO 7.5E00 2.2B-01 3.6E-0I 6.2E 00

W 2.0E-01 8.8E00 1.8E-01 3.1E-01 2.5EOO 6.1E-02 2.5E-01 1.2E00
w 2.0E-01 3.0E+0I 6.4B-01 LIE 00 8.8E00 2.4E-01 1.2E-01 4.2E00
Ra w 2.0E-01 5.9E +0I 4.7E 00 2.5E00 2.3E+01 6.7E-OI L8E-01 8.5E 00
22Ra w 2.0E-01 6.5E00 2.5E00 1.7E00 L4E+0I 5.4E-01 7.0E-02 1.8E 00
22Ac Y !.0Er^3 4.9E+01 7.4B-01 1.5E-01 1.2E00 4.0B-02 4.0E-01 6.1E00
w 1.0E^3 4.3E+01 9.4E-01 1.8E00 1.7E+01 2.5E-01 3.6E-01 6.4E00
22A c Y LOB-03 2.3E+03 l.OE+02 4.5E+02 4.5E+03 3.5E+01 1.8E00 5.2E+02
W L0E-D3 9.9E+01 1.6E+02 1.2E+03 1.2E+04 9.1E+01 2.2E-01 6.8E+02
228ac Y l.OE-03 3.3E-01 6.8E-03 1.3B-02 1.4B-01 5.2E-04 2.1E-03 4.6E-02
W LOB-03 4.8B-02 8.5E-03 7.5E-02 8.1E-01 2.1E-03 LIE-03 4.2E-02
227Xh Y 2.0E-04 7.0E+01 LIE 00 4.5E-01 3.9E00 5.2E-02 2.6E-01 8.6E00
W 2.0E-04 5.4E+01 1.2E00 4.5E00 4.4E+01 1.3B-01 2.2E-01 8.5EOO
228rh Y 2.0B-04 9.7E+02 I.9E+01 3.7E+01 4.0E+02 8.3E-01 2.9E 00 1.3E+02
W 2.0B-04 1.3E+02 2.2E+01 2.1E+02 2.3E+03 2.3E00 7.IE-01 l.lE + 0 2
Y 2.0E-04 2.6E+03 I.lE + 0 2 6.6E+02 7.8E+03 4.3E00 1.4E00 6.4E+02
W 2.0E-04 1.3E+02 I.4E +02 1.6E+03 1.9E+04 4.3EOO 3.9E-01 7.8E+02
230a Y 2.0E-04 9.0E+02 3.8E+01 2.5E+02 4.0E+03 LIE 00 l.OE-OI 2.6E+02
W 2.0E-04 5.7E+01 5.6E+01 6.2E+02 9.8E+03 2.6E00 9.3E-02 3.8E+02
231xh Y 2.0E-04 4.3E-03 l.OB-04 7.6E-05 7.3B-04 3.3E-05 4.1E-03 9.9E-04
W 2.0E-04 4.0E-03 1.2E-04 2.5E-04 2.6E-03 3.9E-05 3.5E-03 9.8E-04
232Th Y 2.0E-04 8.0E+02 3.8E+01 2.7E+02 4.5E+03 LIE 00 LIE-01 2.7E+02
W 2.0B-04 4.9E+01 5.9E+01 6.5E+02 l.lE + 0 4 2.3E00 9.2E-02 4.2E+02
234Th Y 2.0B-04 2.5E-01 3.9E-03 4.IE-04 7.3B-04 8.3E-05 7.6E-02 3.6E-02
W 2.0E-04 1.8E-01 4.6E-03 6.6E-03 1.3E-02 6.3E-04 7.0E-02 3.0E-02
23'Pa Y l.OE-03 1.3E+03 I.4E +02 8.1E+02 9.4E+03 7.7E +0I 1.7E-01 6.6E+02
W LOB-03 6.1E+01 2.6E+02 1.8E+03 2.2E+04 1.8E+02 L3E-01 1.2E+03
233pg Y LOB-03 6.3E-02 1.3E-03 4.7E-04 4.2B-04 4.8E-04 1.7E-02 9.5E-03
W l.OB-03 4.5E-02 1.6B-03 I.2E-03 2.5E-03 8.3E-04 1.6E-02 8.1E-03
234mpg Y LOE-03 3.2E-05 4.5E-07 2.8E-09 2.7E-09 1.3E-09 6.2E-09 3.8E-06
W l.OB-03 3.2B-05 4.5E-07 L lE -08 L8E-08 3.8E-09 5.2E-09 3.8E-06
234pa Y l.OB-03 5.3E-03 2.1E-04 1.4E-04 8.5E-05 2.4E-04 1.6E-03 LIE-03
W l.OB-03 4.9B-03 2.1B-04 1.5E-04 1.3E-04 2.1E-04 1.3E-03 l.OE-03
232u Y 2.0B-03 2.4E+03 5.3E+0I 8.8E+01 9.5E+02 1.8E00 LIE 00 3.2E+02
W 5.0E-O2 7.2E +0I 7.6E00 5.7E+01 6.3E+02 1.9E-01 1.3E-01 3.5E+01
D 5.0&-02 1.3E00 2.0E+01 1.7E+02 1.9E+03 2.8E-01 5.1E-02 8.0E+01
Table 9.2 (Cmtbmed)
Respiratory Lower
Nnclide classt Lnnp body marrow endostairal Gonads EffectiTe
233u Y 2.0E-03 9.3E +02 1.7E+0I 2.4E-01 3.6E00 1.6E-02 l.lE -01 l.lE + 0 2
W 5.0B-02 5.9E+01 2 .6 EOO 7.0E-01 l.OE+OI 4.5E-02 9.4E-02 7.8EOO
D 5.0E-02 I.IEOO 5.7E00 2.3E00 3.5E+01 1.5E-01 4.1E-02 2.5E00
234u Y 2.0E-03 9.2E +02 1.6E+01 2.4E-01 3.5E00 I.6B-02 l.lE -0 1 l.lE + 0 2
W 5.0E-02 5.8E+01 2.5EOO 6.8E-01 I.OE+01 4.6E-02 9.4E-02 7.7E00
D 5.0B-02 I.IEOO 5.6EOO 2.3EOO 3.4E+01 1.5E-01 4.1E-02 2.5E00
235u Y 2.0E-03 8.3E +02 1.5E+01 1.9E-01 2.9E00 I.6E-02 2.5E-01 l.OE+02
W 5.0E-02 5.3E+01 2.3EOO 5.3E-01 8.5E00 4.1E-02 l.lE -01 6.9E00
D 5.0E-02 9.5E-01 5.1EOO 1.8EOO 2.8E+01 1.3E-01 4.4E-02 2.2E00
236u Y 2.0E-03 8.7E+02 1.6E+01 2.0E-01 3.2E00 I.5E-02 l.OE-OI I.0E+02
W 5.0E-02 5.5E+01 2.4E00 5.9B-0! 9.2E00 4.4E-02 8.8E-02 7.3EOO
D 5.0B-02 l.OEOO 5.3E00 2.0E00 3.1E+01 1.4E-01 3.9E-02 2.3E00
237u Y 2.0E-03 1.7E-02 4.0E-04 2.0E-04 1.2E-04 3.0E-04 1.3E-02 3.4E-03
W 5.0E-02 1.6E-02 4.1E-04 2.6E-04 3.2E-04 2.8E-04 l.lE -0 2 3.1E-03
D 5.0B-02 2.2E-03 3.2E-04 4.8E-04 l.lE -0 3 2.4E-04 4.5E-03 I.4E-03
Y 2.0E-03 8.2E+02 1.5E+01 2.0E-01 2.9E00 I.5E-02 2.8E-01 9.9E+01
W 5.0E-02 5.2E+01 2.3E00 5.6E-01 8.3E00 4.0E-02 I.IE-01 6.8E00
D 5.0E-02 9 .4 E ^1 5.0E00 L 9E 00 2.8E+01 1.3E-01 3.8E-02 2.1E00
240u Y 2.0E-03 1.3&D2 3.0E-04 1.2ED4 9.1B-04 1.3E-04 9. IE-03 2.8E-03
W 5.0E-02 1.2E-02 3.1E-04 2.6E-04 2.3E-03 1.4E-04 7.3E-03 2.6E-03
D 5.0E-D2 5.0B-03 3.IE-04 6.1E-04 4.9E-03 1.9E-04 5.IE-03 1.9E-03
23?Np Y l.OE-03 9.7E+02 6.6E+01 3.0E+02 4.2E+03 4.0E+01 1.8E-01 3.5E+02
W l.OE-03 6.2E+01 1.2E+02 7.4E+02 l.IE + 0 4 9.9E+01 1.6E+01 5.7E+02
238n p Y l.OB-03 5.9E-02 3.5E-03 1.4E-02 1.7E-01 2.3E-03 1.3E-02 1.8E-02
W LOE-03 1.3E-02 7.5E-03 4.3E-02 5.3E-01 6. IE-03 l.lE -0 2 3.3E-02
239n p Y l.OB-03 l.OE-02 2.8E-04 1.7E-04 9.1B-04 2.4E-04 I.2E-02 2.5E-03
W l.OE-03 9.8E-03 3.3E-04 3.6E-04 2.8E-03 2.6E-04 I.OE-02 2.4E-03
240m j^ p Y l.OE-03 1.6E-04 2.8E-06 l.OE-06 9.4E-06 1.4E-07 3.0E-08 2.1E-05
W l.OB-03 1.6E-04 2.9E-06 2.4E-06 2.6E-05 3.6E-07 3.8E-08 2. IE-05
Y l.OE-03 l.lB -0 3 3.0E-05 1.9E-05 9. IE-05 6.6E-06 8.9E-06 I.6E-04
W l.OE-03 l.OB-03 3.1E-05 3.3E-05 2.6E-04 8.8E-06 7.8B-06 1.6E-04
6pu Y 3.0E-05 5.6E+02 1.2E+01 1.8E+0I 2.1E+02 2.1E00 1.3E-01 7.9E+0I
W 3.0E-05 6.7E+01 I.5E+0I 8.IE+01 9.4E+02 l.OE+OI I.IE-OI 6.6E+01
238pu Y 3.0E-05 l.OE+03 6.0E+01 2.6E+02 3.3E+03 3.5E+01 1.2E-0I 3.1E+02
W 3.0E-05 6.7E+01 I.IE +02 6.7E+02 8.4E+03 8.9E+01 I.IE-OI 4.9E+02
239pu Y 3.0B-05 9.9E+02 6.7E+01 3.0E+02 4.2E+03 4.0E +0I I.IE-Ol 3.5E+02
W 3.0&-05 6.3E+0I 1.2E+02 7.6E+02 l.OE+04 l.OE+02 l.OE-Ol 5.7E+02
Y 3.0B-05 9.9E+02 6 .7E +0I 3.0E+02 4.2E+03 4.0E+01 I.IE-OI 3.5E+02
W 3.0B-05 6.3E +0I I.2E+02 7.6E+02 I.OE+04 l.OE+02 l.OE-01 5.7E+02
Table 9.2 (Contimied)
Respirator;f Lower
cleara ce Total Red Bo m large
jÛCuW c la * t f,t Limgs M y arrow endosteuml Gonads Intestine Effective
^-Wpu Y 3.0B-05 4.5E00 1.2E00 6.8E00 8.5E-f-01 9.0B-01 5.4E00 6.9E-04

W 3.0E-05 1.7B-02 2.5E00 1.6E-E0I 1.9E+02 2.1E00 l.lE-FOl 6.2E-04
Y 3.0E-05 9.4E-I-02 6.3E+01 2.9E-f-02 4.2E+03 3.8E-I-01 3.4E-F02 l.lE -0 1
W 3.0E-05 6.0E-I-01 1.2E+02 7.2E+02 1.IE-1-04 9.5E-I-01 5.6E-E02 9.7E-D2
2Pu Y 3.0E-05 1.4B-03 2.8&-05 2.7E-05 3.2E-04 5.8E-06 2.3B-04 2.3B-04
W 3.0E-05 1.2E-03 3.5E-05 7.8E-05 9.6E-04 1.3E-05 2.4E-04 1.9E-04
Y 3.0E-05 9.4E+02 6.3E-E02 2.7E+02 4.2E+03 3.8EH-01 3.3E+02 6.5E-01
W 3.0E-05 5.9E+01 1.2E+02 6.8E+02 l.lE -f0 4 9.4E-F01 5.6E-I-02 3.0E-01
2Am Y l.OE-03 l.OE+03 6.9E-t-01 3.1E+02 3.9E-F03 4.1E-E01 3.5E-t-02 1.3E-01
W 1.0ED3 6.7E+01 1.3E+02 7.8E+02 9.7EH-03 l.OE-1-02 5.6E-I-02 l.lE -0 1
242m ^ Y l.OE-03 5.3E+02 6.2E+01 3.2E-F02 3.4E+03 4.2E-E01 2.7E-F02 1.7B-01
W l.OB-03 8.3E00 1.3E+02 7.7E+02 8.2E-E03 l.OE-l-02 5.0E-F02 4.1E-02
2Am Y l.OB-03 5.2E-01 8.8E-03 6.6E-03 7.5E-02 8.7E-04 6.7B-02 2.8E-03
W l.OE-03 1.6E-01 1.2B-D2 5.7E-02 6.1B-f)l 7.4E-03 5.9E-D2 2.3E.-03
M3Am Y l.OE-03 l.OE+03 6.9E+01 3.IE +02 4.2E-F03 4.2E-f01 3.5E-h02 3.7E-01
W 1 .0 M 3 6.5E+01 1.3E+02 7.8E+02 l.OE-t-04 l.OE-l-02 5.8E-E02 1.9E-01
242Cm Y l.OE-03 1.8E+02 3.0E00 2.OE0O 2.3E-E01 2 .6 B-01 2.3E4-01 1.2E-01
W l.OE-03 5.7E+01 3.5EOO 1.5E+01 1.7E-1-02 2 .OE 0O 1.8E+01 l.lE -01
2Cm Y l.OE-03 9.6B+02 4.8E+01 1.9E+02 2.2E-I-03 2.5E-F01 2.5E-F02 i.5E -0!
W 1.0E-D3 7.1E+01 8.7E+01 5.1E+02 5.8E+03 6.8E-F01 3.6E-E02 1.4E-01
^C m Y l.OE-03 8.9E+02 3.9E+01 1.4E-I-02 1.6E-f-03 1.9E-I-01 2.0E-E02 1.3E-01
W l.OE-03 7.0E+01 6.8E+01 4.0E-f02 4.6E+03 5.3E-E01 2.8E-H02 I.IE-O i
2Cm Y l.OB-03 l.OE+03 7.1E+01 3.3E-I-02 4.2E+03 4.3E+01 3.6E-E02 1.3E-01
W 1 .0 M 3 6.6E+01 1.3E+02 8.0E+02 l.OE+04 l.lE-t-02 5.9E-I-02 1.3E-01
2Cai Y l.OE-03 l.OE+03 7.1E+01 3.2E+02 4.1E+03 4.2E-E01 3.6E+02 1.2E-01
W l.OB-03 6.6E+01 1.3E+02 7.9E-I-02 l.OE+04 l.lE-l-02 5.8E+02 l.lE -01
Y l.OE-03 9.6E+02 6.5E+01 3.0E+02 4.3E-E03 3.9E-E01 3.4E-E02 1.8E-D1
W 1.0BD3 6.1E+01 1.2E-f02 7.3E4-02 l.lE + 0 4 9.7E+01 5.7E-E02 2 .0 B -01
2 C in Y l.OB-03 3.8E+03 2.6E+02 3.0E+02 4.3E-1-03 1.6E+02 8.8E+02 1.8E 00

W l.OE-03 2.4E+02 4.8E+02 7.4E+02 l.lE-1-04 3.8E-h02 l.lE-f-03 3.2E 00
252cf Y l.OE-03 l.OE+03 2.1E+01 1.5E+01 1.6E-I-02 3.9E00 1.4E-E02 3.4E-01
W l.OE-03 1.4E+02 2.9E+01 7.7E+01 8.2E+02 2.0E-1-01 8.8E+01 4.0E-01
An activity median acrodyiainic diameter (AMAD) of 1.0 micron is assumed for inhaled particulates.
tThis defines the International Commission on Radiological Protection Task Group Lung Model clearance
category for each radionuclide. D, W, and Y denote rapid, intermediate, and slow removal of activity from the lung,
respectively. Nuclides assumed to be in gaseous form are denoted by (-).
^Fractional absorption from the small intestine to blood.
{Endosteum is deflned for these calculations as a 10-micron layer of cells lining the interior surfaces of bone.
Table 9.3
FIFTY-YEAR COMMITTED DOSE EQUIVALENTS FROM INGESTED RADIONUCLIDES,
Sv/Bq ingested
Lower
Total Red iBone large
NncUde ft* Lungs body marrow endosteumf GoBais Effectife
3H 9.5E-01 2.3E-11 2.2E-11 2.2E-11 1.8E-11 2.2E-1I 3.9E-11 2.4E-11

14c 9.5E-01 2.3E-10 5.2E-10 9.1E-10 1.9E-09 2.0E-I0 3.9E-10 4.2E-10
9.5E-01 7.0E-09 3.7E-09 5.3E-09 6.5E-09 4.2E-09 3.6E-D9 S.0E-^9
32p 8.0E-0! l.lE -0 9 1.3B-09 4.0B-09 7.3E-09 l.lE -0 9 6.6E-T)9 2.0E-09
5Mn l.OB-01 6.3E-I0 3.3E-10 4.8E-10 3.7E-10 9.7E-I0 2.2E-09 8.1E-10
55pe l.OB-01 1.9E-10 9.4B-11 1.7E-10 1.2E-10 L8E-10 1.9E-10 2.1E-10
5Fe LOB-01 1.6E~09 7.9B-10 LOE-09 8.3E-10 1.9E-09 8.2E^T)9 2.0E-09
5Co . 5.0E-02 8.1E-11 5.0E-11 9.6E-11 4.8E-11 1.9E-10 I.2E-09 2.1E-10
5*Co 5.0E-02 2.8E-10 2.1E-10 2.6E-10 1.2E-10 l.lE -0 9 3.9E-09 8.4E-10
Co 5.0E-02 2.3E-09 L2E-09 1.5E-09 L lE -09 3.3E-09 l.iE -0 8 3.0E-09
Zn 5.0B-01 7.7E-09 3.4E-09 4.7E-D9 4.3E-09 4.5E-09 4.1E-09 5.2E-09
*Rb 9.5B-01 4.7B-09 2.7E-09 4.5E-09 5.7E-09 4.6E-09 1.7E-09 4.6E-09
2.0E-01 2.3E-10 4.9E-10 1.4E-09 2.9E-09 2.3E-10 2.3E-08 2.4E-09
l.OB-02 I.2E-11 1.3B-10 7.0E-11 1.5E-10 1.2E-11 2.9EN)8 2.5E-09
Sr 2.0E-01 L6E-09 2.6E-08 1.2E-07 2.3E-07 1.6E-09 2.1E-08 2.4E-08
LOE-02 8.1E-11 1.4E-D9 5.8E-09 1.2B-08 8.1E-11 2.6E-08 3.1E-09
Sr 2.0E-01 l.lB -1 0 9.6E-11 8.6E-11 6.1E-11 2.5E-10 4.4E---09 7.6E-10
l.OE-02 7.0E-11 8.2E-11 5.5E-11 2.0E--11 2.5E-I0 5.2E-09 8.5E-10
90y l.OB-04 1.9E-14 1.4E-10 1.8E-13 3.2E-13 I.8E -I4 3.1EN)8 2.9E-09
917MY l.OE-04 1.3E-11 2.5E-12 2.2E-12 8.7E-13 6.9E-12 2.4E-11 1.4E-11
91y l.OE-04 7.4E-13 1.2E-10 3.1E-12 5.3E-12 3.6E-12 3.0E-08 2.6E-09
2.0&-03 1.3E-10 1.5E-10 L8E-10 8.9E-11 8.2E-10 7.7E-09 l.OE-09
^Zx 2.0E-03 1.2E-10 1.9E-10 1.3E-10 4.5E-11 6.2E-10 I.8E^08 2.3E-09
5Nb l.OB-02 1.4E-10 1.4E-10 1.8E-10 8.7E -I! 8.1E-10 3.9E-09 7.0E-10
9 7 m j^ LOE-02 8.7E-13 1.7E-13 9.4E-14 4.3E-14 2.4E-13 7.1E-13 1.3E-12
^Nb l.OB-02 1.9E-11 7.8E-12 4.2B-12 1.6E-12 1.4E-11 4.7E-1! 6.7E-11
Mo 9.5E-01 3.4E-10 3.2E-10 3.IE-10 5.0E-10 1.6E-10 7.7E-10 8.6E-10
5.0E-02 4.8E-11 I.OE-IO 6.8E-11 4.3E-11 2.2E-10 L3E-08 L3E-09
Tc 8.0E-01 1.2E-11 4.2E-12 7.0E-12 4.4E-12 l.OE-11 2.4E-11 L6E-1!
Tc 8.0E-01 8.6E-11 5.8E-11 8.7E-11 l.lE -1 0 8.6E-11 8.6E-10 2.7E-10
>3Ru 4.0B-02 1.8E-10 1.4E-10 1.8E-10 l.lE -lO 5.9E-10 6.5E-09 8.4E-10
>5Ru 4.0E-02 4.5E-11 3.4E-11 2.4E-11 9.6E-12 9.9E-11 1.4E-09 3.IE-10
106r u 4.0E-02 2.3E-D9 1.6E-09 2.2E-T19 2.6E-09 2.4E-09 7.0ET)8 7.8E-09
103mRh 4.0E-02 4.6E-14 2.4E-13 LIE-14 6.3E-15 4.0E-14 1.4E-I2 3.1E-12
lOSmRh 4.0E-02 3.2E-14 1.7E-14 7.3E-15 3.9E-15 2.2E-14 1.4E-I2 2.8E-13
>5Rh 4.0E-02 1.3E-11 2.8E-11 1.5E-11 8.0E-12 5.9E-11 3.8E-09 4.0E-10
'*Rh 4.0E-02 9.0E-14 5.1E-14 5.0E-15 2.9E-15 3.9E-15 6.5E-15 1.2E-12
127sb 5.0E-4)2 1.3E-I0 1.7E-10 1.5E-10 7.0E-11 6.2E-10 1.9E-08 L9E-09
127m'j-g 2.5E-01 7.0E-10 2.1E-10 7.0E-10 8.3E-10 7.IE-10 l.OE-08 1.5E-09
'"Te 2.5E-01 2.7E-11 1.4E-11 2.0E-11 1.5E-11 2.7E-I1 L2E-09 1.9E-10
(Table contioues on next page.)
Table $.3 (Cootimied)
Lower
Total Red Bone large
NucUde f ,* Lungs body marrow endostenmt Gonads intestine Effective
129mxe 2.5E-D1 1.4E-09 3.5E-10 l.lB -09 l.OE-09 1.4E-B9 2.3E-08 3.2E-09
i T e 2.5E-D1 3.9E-12 4.7B-12 1.8B-1 2 1.3E-12 3.1E-12 3.6E-11 5.5E-11
is im je 2.SE-01 4.8B-10 2.1E-10 3.6E-10 2.1E-10 9.3E-10 7.6E-09 2.3E-09
i3 iT e 2.5E-D1 6.9E-12 3.1E-I2 1.3E-12 7.5E-13 2.4E-12 3.6E-12 6.2E-11
i32Te 2.5E-fll l.OE-09 4.1B-10 7.3B-10 5.7E-10 1.2E-09 7.9E-09 4.8B-09
1291 9.5E-01 2 .2 B-1 0 8 .6 B-1 0 2.5E-10 2.4E-10 1.6E-10 1.8E-11 6.3E-08
(Thyroid: 2.1E-06)
Uli 9.5E-01 l.OE-10 2.5B-10 7.9E-11 9.0E-11 1.6E-11 1.4E-11 1.5E-08
(Thyroid: 4.9E-07)
132| 9.5E-D1 3.7E-11 3.2B-11 2.3B-11 2 .8 E-11 1.6E-11 1.4E-11 5.6E-10
(Thyroid: 1.8B-08)
1331 9.5E-01 6.1E-11 7.2E-11 4.6E-11 5.0E-11 3.7E-11 l.lE -11 3.7E-09
(Thyroid: 1.2E-07)
1341 9.5E-01 2.5E-11 1.4E-11 1.4E-11 1.4E-11 1.3E-11 6.0B-12 2.6B-10
(Thyroid: 7.9E-09)
1351 9.5E-01 6.7B-11 4.8E-11 4.2B-11 4.4E-11 2.5E-11 1.4E-09
3.7E-I1
(Thyroid: 4.3E-08)
9.5E-01 4.3E-08 1.8E-08 2.5E-08 2.4E-08 2.6E-08 1.6E-08 3.0E-08
>Cs 9.5E-01 3.0E-09 1.8E-09 3.0E-09 3.5E-09 3.0B-09 1.4E-10 3.0E-09
>Cs 9.5E-01 5.8E-09 2.4E-09 3.2E-09 2.9E-09 3.5E-09 2.7E-09 3.8B-09
Cs 9.5E-01 2.7E-08 1.3E-08 2.0E-08 2.2B-08 2.0B-08 7.0E-09 2.2E-08
137mga l.OE-01 1.3E-12 1.4E-13 7.9E-14 4.3B-14 9.4B-14 1.2B-13 9.8E-13
*Ba l.OE-01 2.5E-10 3.0E-10 3.6E-10 3.4E-10 l.OE-09 2.7E-08 2.6E-09
'L a l.OE-04 2.5E-10 2.8B-10 2.8E-10 9.SE-11 1.3E-09 1.8B-08 2.3B-09
l.OE-04 1.3E-11 4.6E-11 3.3E-11 I.tE-11 L IE -10 8.6E-09 7.8E-10
i C e l.OB-04 3.4E-11 8.2E-11 5.0E-11 1.6E-11 2.1E-10 1.2E-08 1.2E-09
i-^ C e 1.0&-04 9.4E-12 2.7E-10 3.7E-11 4.0E-I1 6.5E-11 6.6E-08 5.6E-09
143?, l.OE-04 1.3B-14 5.8B-11 1.9E-13 5.0E-13 1.2E-14 1.3E-09
1.5E-08
144mpy l.OE-04 2.5E-13 8.9E-13 2.4B-14 l.lB -1 4 5.0E-14 6.6B-13 1.3E-11
144p, 1.0&-04 3.1E-13 3.2B-14
1.8E-12 1.5E-14 7.4B-14 9.7E-13 3.2E-11
>'Nd LOE-04 2.IE-11 7.3B-11 4.9E-11 1.5E-11 1.8B-10 1.3B-08 1.2E-09
P m 1.OB-134 1.5E-13 1.4B-11 8.2E-13 5.1E-12 1.5E-13 3.2E-09 2.7E-10
>^ S m l.OB-04 3.2E-10 8.0E-09 3.3E-10 l.OE-08 3.2E-10 1.2E-08 6.2E-09
207x1 9.5E-01 3.6E-14 1.7E-13 2.8B-14 3.5E-14 2.8E-14 2.8E-15 3.7E-12
208TI 9.5E-01 6.8E-12 8.5E-13 4.6E-13 2.8E-13 5.7E-13 6.6E-13 6.8E-12
209x1 9.5E-01 3.7B-12 5.1E-13 2.4B-13 1.6E-13 2.4E-13 2.5E-12 5.0E-12
209pi5 8 .0 E -02 1.3E-14 4.3E-12 2.2E-13 6.5E-13 1.3E-14 1.9E-10 6.1E-11
210pb 8.0E-02 8.2E-08 4.5E-07 2.7E-07 2.6E-06 8.2E-08 5.5E-09 2.1E-07
211pb 8.0E-02 3.3E-12 l.OE-11 1.7E-11 1.4E-10 2.3E-12 2.3B-11 1.2Er-10
212pb 8.0E-02 2.3E-10 6.9E-10 4.3E-09 3.2E-08 5.0E-10 2.0B-08 4.8E-09
214pb 8.0E-02 2.3E-11 1.5E-1! 1.7B-11 8.2E-11 1.4E-11 2.8E-11 1.3B-10
2)081 5.0E-432 3.4E-10 7.3E-10 3.4E-10 1.6E-10 3.4E-10 1.5B-08 7.9E-09
^"Bi 5.0E-02 l.lB -13 2.7E-13 2.7E-14 4.0E-14 2.4E-14 9.6E-15 6.3E-12
Table 9.3 (Condiiiied)
Lower
NncUde fl* Lungs body marrow endostîmt Gonads intestuie EffectiTe
212BI 5.0E--02 4.1E-I1 3.4E-11 2.8E-1I 8.2E-11 3.!Er-lI I.2E-I0 3.IB -I0
5.0E-02 4.5E-11 I.4B-11 9.2E-I2 5.5E-I2 2.1E-11 4.2E-I1 l.lE -lO
21431 5.0E-D2 1.8E-11 8.0E-12 4.0E-12 I.lE-11 5.7E-12 6.6E-12 8.3E-11
210po l.OE-01 1.4&D7 L IE -07 1.4E-07 6.5E-08 L4E-07 4.8E-08 5.5E-07
211po l.OE-01 6.3E-17 8.3E-16 3.4E-18 2.0E-I8 3.6E-I8 4.5E-18 2.3E-I4
212po l.OB-01 9.4E-41 5.3E-22 1.7E-40 4.0E-40 9.4B ^1 L6E-50 I.5E-20
213po l.OB-01 1.4E-23 8.5E-21 2. IE-22 6.0E-22 1.2E-23 6.8B-20 2.2E-19
214po l.OE-01 1.9E-20 3.5B-19 4.0E-20 6.0E-19 I.9E-20 1.3B-21 7.0B-18
215po l.OE-fll 3.1E-18 1.4E-17 3.9E-17 3.5E-16 2.3E-I8 I.9E-17 1.9E-I6
216po LOB-01 1.2E-15 5.0E-15 3.3E-14 2.5E-13 2.3E-15 8.0E-14 3.3E-14
l.OB-01 2.5E-12 2.3E-I2 4.4E-12 2.6E-11 L7E-12 3.5E-12 2.2E-11
2>At 9.5E-01 5.3E-16 2.IE -I6 l.lE -1 6 6.8E-17 2.5E-I6 4.9E-16 2.6E-15
22ip r 9.5B-01 2.1E-11 1.2&-11 3.1E-1I 1.2E-10 1.8E-11 4.5E-12 4.9E-I1
2.0E-01 7.3E-08 6.1E-08 3.3E-07 2.5E-06 7.3E-08 2.3E-07 1.9E-07
^^''Ra 2 .0 E-01 2.3B-08 2.0E-08 l.lE -0 7 8.9E-07 2.2E-08 L8E-07 7.1E-08
5Ra 2 .0 B-01 7.0E-08 5.7E-08 3.1E-07 2.4E-06 7.0E-08 2.6E-08 1.7E-07
226Ra 2.0E-01 1.6E-07 9.2E-07 5.9E-07 5.5E-06 1.6E-07 9.0E-08 3.7E-07
22*Ra 2.0E-01 l.lE -0 7 4.6E-07 2.0B-07 2.6E-06 L lE -07 1.9E-08 2.0E-07
225ac l.OB-03 5.9B-09 5.5E-09 L 6 ErD8 9.8E-08 8.3E-09 2.3E-07 3.1E-08
22A c l.OB-03 3.0E-08 3.6E-07 2.7E-06 2.7B-05 2.0E-07 6.7E-09 L5E-06
228Ac l.OE-03 5.6E-I1 5.4E-11 1.2E-10 9.4E-10 1.4E-I0 1.7E-09 4.2E-10
227xh 2.0E-04 l.OB-09 L4E-09 7. IE-09 5.9E-08 1.2B-09 8.8E-08 LOE-08
228Th 2.0E-04 2.0E-09 l.OE-08 l.OE-07 L lE -0 6 2.1E-09 1.3E-07 5.7E-08
229TJ, 2.0E-04 2.7B-09 6.3E-08 7.2B-07 8.5E-06 2.7E-09 5.8B-08 3.5E-07
2Xh 2.0E-04 1.2B-09 2.5E-08 2.8E-07 4.4E-06 L2E-09 4.8E-08 L7E-07
231x1, 2.0E-04 2.2B-12 2.2E-11 6.IE-12 3.4E-I2 2.2E-11 3.4E-09 3.6E-I0
232X1, 2.0E-04 l.!ErD9 2.6E-08 2.9E-07 4.9E-06 LOE-09 4.2E-08 1.9E-07
234Th 2.0E-O4 3.8E-I2 1.7E-10 1.2E-1I L lE -11 2.7E-11 4.3E-08 3.7E-09
231pa l.OE-03 5.9E-08 5.8E-07 4.1E-06 4.8E-05 4.0E-07 5.2E-08 2.6E-06
233pa l.OE-03 3.3B-11 7.0E-11 5.9E-11 2.5E-11 2.4E-10 9.8E-09 9.4E-10
234mp^ l.OB-03 l.lE -1 4 6.1E-14 9.5E -I6 4.7E -I6 2.3E-15 9.8B-I5 1.6E-I2
234pa l.OE-03 I.3E-10 8.4E-II 8 . 1B-11 2.8E-II 3.4E-I0 2.3E-09 5.9E-I0
232u 2.0E-03 3.1E-08 3.9E-08 2.3Et4)7 2.2E-06 3.1E-08 5.5E-08 L2E-07
5.0E-02 7.6E-07 9.8B-07 5.8E-06 5.6E-05 7.6E-07 5.3E-08 3.1E-06
2 .0 E-01 3.1E-06 3.9E-06 2.3E-05 2.2E-04 3.1E-06 4.7E-08 1.2E-05
233u 2.0E-03 1.9E-10 6.5E-09 2.6E-09 3.8E-08 I.6E-I0 4.9E-08 6.8E-09
5.0E-02 4.7E-09 1.6E-07 6.5E-08 9.6E-07 4.1E-09 4.7E-08 7.0E-08
2 .0 E-01 1.9B-08 6.3E-07 2.6E-07 3.8B-06 L6E-08 4.1E-08 2.7E-07
234y 2.0B-03 1.9E-10 6.4E-09 2.5E-09 3.8E-08 L7E-10 4.9E-08 6.8E-09
5.0E-02 4.6E-09 1.6E-07 6.2E-08 9.4E-07 4.3E-09 4.7E-08 6.9E-08
2 .0 B-01 1.9E-08 6.2E-07 2.5E-07 3.8E-06 1.7E-08 4.1E-08 2.7E-07
235y 2.0E-03 2.0E-10 5.8E-09 2.0E-09 3.1E-08 3.8E-IO 5. IE-08 6.6E-09
Table 9.3 (Contioaed)
Lower
Nnclide ft* Langs body marrow eD d o sten t Gonads intestine Effective
5.0E-02 4.4E-09 1.4E-07 4.9E-08 7.9&-07 3.9E-09 4.9E-08 6.0E-D8

2.0E-01 1.7E-08 5.6E-07 1.9E-07 3.1E-06 1.5E-08 4.3E-08 2.3E-07
236u 2.0E-03 1.8E-10 6.0E-09 2.2E-09 3.4E-08 1.6E-10 4.6E-08 6.3E-09
5.0E-02 4.5E-09 1.5E-D7 5.4E--0S 8..5E-07 4.1E-09 4.5E-08 6.4E-08
2.0E-01 1.8E-08 5.9E-07 2.2E-07 3.4E-06 I.6E-08 3.9E-08 2.4E-07
237U 2.0E-03 2 .3 E -li 5.5E-11 5.6E-U 1.8E-! I 1.8E-10 7.9E-09 7 7E-10
5.0E-02 2.9E-11 6.0E-11 6.5E-1 i 4.8E-11 1.7E-10 7.5E-09 7.5E-10
2.0E-01 4.8E-U 7 ,4 E -il 9.4E-11 1.4E-10 1.6E-10 6.4E-09 7.0E-10
2381J 2.0B-03 1.7E-10 5.7E-09 2.1E-09 3.1E-08 1.5E-10 4.6E-08 6,0E-D9
5.0E-02 4.1E-09 1.4E-07 5.1E-08 7.7E-07 3.6E-09 4.4E-08 5.9E-08
2.0E-01 1.7E-08 5.5E-07 2.IE-07 3.1E-06 i,5E-08 3.8E-08 2.3E-07
240u 2.0E-03 2.7E-11 7..8E-U 2.6E -11 1.3E-S1 1.2E-10 9.1E-Q9 I 2E-09
5.0E-02 3.2E-H 8.0E-11 4.0E-11 1.3E-10 1.2E-I0 8.8E-09 i.lE -0 9
2.0E-01 4.7E-11 8.7E-11 8.7E-U 5.2E-10 1.2E-10 7.6E-D9 l.lE -0 9
237pjp I.OE-03 3.3E-08 2.7E-07 1.7E-06 2.3E-05 2.2E-07 5.5E-08 L3E-06
23Sn p i.OE-03 7.0E-U l.lE -1 0 1.7E-10 1.2E-09 3.8E-10 8.7B-09 l.OE-09
l.OE-03 2.4E-11 5.6E-I1 4.5E-11 2.0E-11 1.6E-iO 7.9E--09 8.1E-10
240^p l.OE-03 1.9E-12 5.6E-13 1.4E-13 7.3E-14 2.4E-13 2.7E-I3 8.6E-12
2 N p LOE-03 3.4E-11 i.iE - n 7.6E-12 2.9E-12 2 .5 E -n 4.7B-11 7.SE-11
236p 3.0B-05 i.OE-10 1.2E-09 5.6E-09 6.5E-08 7.1E-10 5.9E-08 8.9E-09
3 .0 E ^ 5 8.7E-iO 7.6E-09 4.5E-08 5.6E-07 6.0E-09 .i.eE-Og 3.7E-08
239pa 3.0E-05 9.8E-10 8.5E-09 5.1E-08 7.0E-07 5 7E--09 5.3E-08 4.2E-08
2>Pu 3.0B-05 9.8E-iO 8.5E-09 5.0E-08 7.0E-07 6.7E-09 5.3E-08 4.2E-08
--sipu 3.0E-05 2.0E-11 1.7B-10 LOE-09 1.3E-08 1.4E-10 2.7E-10 7.;3E-iO
242p 3.0E-05 9.3E-10 8.0E-09 4.8E-08 7.0E-07 6.4E-09 5.0E-08 4.1E--08
243pu 3.0E-05 1.7E-12 6.4E-12 1.8E-12 1.4E-I2 4.4E-12 4.0E-10 8.9E -11
244p 3.0B-05 i.OE-09 8.1E-09 4.5E-08 7.1E-07 6.7E-09 8.2E-08 4.4E-08
i.OE-03 3.4E-08 2.8E-07 1.7E-06 2.2E-05 2.3E-07 .5.7E--08 i-2E-06
l.OE-03 3.3E-08 2.8E-07 1 7E-06 1.8E-05 2.2E--07 9.2E-09 l.lE -0 6
l.OE-03 4.3E-12 .3.9E-11 L3E-10 1.4E-09 2.4E-11 2.5E-09 3.7E-10
l.OE-03 3.4B-08 2.8E-07 I.7E-06 2.3E-05 2.3E-07 6.0E-08 1.3E-06
2C m l.OE-03 7.4E-10 7.0E-09 3.8E-08 4.1E-07 5.0E-09 6.2E-f)8 3.2E-08
i.OE-03 2.2E-08 1.9E-07 l.IE -06 1.3E-05 1.5E-D7 6.6E-08 7-9E-07
l.OE-03 1.7E-08 1.5E-07 8.9E-07 1 OE-05 1.2E-07 6.0E-08 6.2E-I37
l.OEr-03 3.5E-08 2.9B-07 1.8E-06 2.3E-05 2.4E-07 5.9E-08 1.3E-06
l.OE-03 3.4E-08 2.9E-07 1.8E-06 2.3E-05 2.3E-07 5.6E-QS 1.3B-Q6
''C m i.OE-03 3.3E-08 2.7E-07 1.6E-06 2.3E-05 2-2E-D7 6.iE-08 1.3E-06

l.OE-03 1.6E-07 !,lE -0 6 1.6E-06 2.4E-05 8..7E-07 2.9E-07 2.3E-06
252Cf l.OE-03 8.9E-09 6.3E-08 1.8E-07 I.9E-06 .5.3E-08 I.5E-07 I.8E--07
Fractional absorption from the small intestine to blood.

tEndosteum is defined for these calculations as a 10-mscron layer of cells lining rior surfaces
of bone.
Table M
FIFTY-YEAm COMMTrTED DOSE EQUIVALENTS FKOM INGESTED RADIONUCLIDES,
rem/pCi iiigestei
Lower
Total Red Borne large
NocHde fi* Lmgs k#iy arrow endostenmt Gonads intesttoe Effectife
9.5E--01 8.4E-05 8.3E-DS 8.3E-05 6.6E-05 8.3E-05 1.4E-04 9.0E-OS

,4c 9.5E-4M 8.5E--04 I.9E-03 3.4E-03 7.0E-03 7.4E-04 1.5E-03 1.5E-03
22Na 9.5E-0I 2.6E-D2 I.4E-02 I.9E-(52 2.4E-02 I.6E-02 1.3E-02 1.9E-02
32p 8.0E-0I 1.5E-4)2
4.1E-03 4.7E-03 2.7E-02 4.0E-03 2.4E-02 7.5E-03
5Mn l.OE-^1 2.3E-03 1.2E-03 1.8E-03 1.4E-4)3 3.6E-03 8.0E-03 3.0E-03
sspe l.OE-01 7.1E-D4 3.5E-04 6.4E-04 4.4E-04 6.6E-04 7. IE-04 7.8E-04
l.OE-01 6.1&-03 2.9E-03 3.7E-D3 3.1E-03 6.9E-03 3.0E-02 7.6E-03
^-'Co 5.0E-D2 3.0E-04 1.8E-04 3.6E-04 L8E~D4 7.0E-04 4.6E-03 7 JE -0 4
C o 5.0E-02 l.OE-03 7.6E-04 9.7E-04 4.6E-04 3.9E-03 1.4E-02 3.1E-03
Co 5.0E-O2 8.6E-03 4.4E-D3 5.4E-03 4.0E-03 1.2E-02 4.9E-02 l.iE -0 2
**Zn 5.0E-01 2.9E-02 1.3E-02 1.7E-02 1.6E-02 1.6E-02 1.5E-02 1.9E-02
**Rb 9.5D-OI 1.7E-02 l.OE-02 1.7E-02 2.1E-02 1.7E-02 6.5E-03 1.7E-02
8^Sr 2.0E-01 8.6E-04 1JE--03 5.2E-D3 l.lE -0 2 8.6E-D4 8.7E-02 8.9E-03
l.OE-02 4.3B-05 4.9E-D4 2.6E-04 5.4E-04 4.3B-05 l.lE -01 9.2E-03
Sr 2.0E-01 6.0E-03 9.4E-02 4.3E-01 8.6E-D1 6.0E-03 7.8E-02 8.7E-02
l.OB-02 3.0E-04 5.0E-03 2. IE-02 4 JE -0 2 3.0E-04 9.6E-02 l.lE -0 2
Sr 2.0E-D1 4.2E-04 3.5E--fl4 3.2E-04 2.3E-04 9.4E-04 1.6E-02 2.8E-03
l.OE-02 2.6E-04 3.0E-D4 2.0E-04 7.5E-05 9.2E-04 1.9E~02 3.1E-03
90y l.OE-04 7.0E-08 5.1E-04 6.6E-07 1.2E-06 6.7E-08 1.2E-0! l.lE -0 2
Slmy 1.0E~04 4.6E-4I5 9.4E-D6 8.3E-06 3.2E-06 2.6E-D5 8.8E-05 5.2E-05
91y I.OE-04 2.7E-06 4.4E-D4 I. IE-05 2.0E-05 1.3E-05 l.lE -01 9.5E-03
95Zr 2.0E-4)3 4.7E-04 5.4E-04 6.6E-04 3.3E-04 3.0E-03 2.9E-02 3.7E-03
Zr 2.0E-D3 4.6E-TI4 7.2E-D4 4.8E-04 1.7E-04 2.3E-03 6.6E-02 8.5E-03
5Nb l.OE-02 5.2E--04 5.0E-04 6.7E-04 3.2E-04 3.0E-03 I.5E-02 2.6E-03
97mN|j l.OE-02 3.2E-06 6.3E-07 3.5E-07 1.6E-07 9.0E-07 2.6E-06 4.7E-06
l.OE-02 6.9&DS 2.9E-05 1.6E-D5 6.0E-06 5.4E-05 I.7E-04 2.5E-04
Mo 9.5E-01 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 l.lE -0 3 1.8E-03 6.0E-04 2.8E-03 3.2E-03
5.0E-02 1.8E-04 3.8E-04 2.5E-04 1.6E-04 8.0E-04 5.0E-02 5.0E-03
xc 8.0E-D1 4.4E-D5 1.5E-05 2.6E-05 I.6E-05 3.8E-05 8.8E-05 5.8B-05
Tc 8.0E-D1 3.2E-04 2.1E-04 3.2E-04 4.1E-04 3.2E-04 3.2E-03 l.OE-03
R u 4.0E-02 6.8&-04 5.3E-04 6.5E-04 4.0E-04 2.2E-03 2.4E-02 3.1E-03
'R u 4.0E-02 1.7E-04 1.2B-04 9.0E-05 3.6E-05 3.7E-04 5.2E-03 I.IE-03
> Ru 4.0E-D2 8.5E-03 5.9E-03 8.3E-03 9.6E-03 9.0E-03 2.6E-01 2.9E-02
4.0E-02 1.7E-07 9.0E-07 4.0E-08 2.3E-08 1.5E-07 5.3E-06 l.lB -0 5
lOSmîj 4.0E-02 1.2E-4)7 6.3E-08 2.7E-08 1.4E-08 8.0E-08 5.0E-06 l.OE-06
>5Rh 4.0E-D2 4.9E-4)5 l.OE-04 5.7E-05 3.0E-05 2.2E-04 1.4E-02 1.5E-03
i Rh 4.0E-02 3.3E-D7 1.9E-07 1.9E-08 l.lE -0 8 1.5E-08 2.4E-08 4.5B-06
12Sb 5.0E-02 4.7E-D4 6.1E-04 5.4E-04 2.6E-04 2.3E-03 7.0E-02 7.0E-03
i27Te 2.5E-01 2.6E-03 7.6E-D4 2.6E-03 3.1E-03 2.6E-03 3.8E-02 5.7E-03
i27Te 2.5E-01 l.OE-04 5.3E-05 7.5E-05 5.6E-05 9.9E-05 4.4E-03 7.2B-04
Lower
Nuclide f, Longs body arrow MMtostemt Gonads intestine Effectff'e
n sm je 2.5E-01 5.1E-03 1.3E-03 4, IE-03 3.8E-03 5.2E-03 8.6B-02 1.2E-02

T e 2.5E-01 1.4&D5 1.7E-05 6.6E-06 5.0B-06 l.lB -0 5 1.3B-04 2.0B-04
I S lm je 2.5B-01 L8E-03 7.8E--04 1.3E-03 7.9E-04 3.4B-03 2.8E-02 8.4E-03
B iT e 2.5E-01 2.6E-05 1.2E-05 4.7E-06 2.8E-06 8.8E-06 1.3E-05 2.3E-04
T e 2.5E-01 3.8E-03 L5E-03 2.7E-03 2. IE-03 4.4E-03 2.9E-02 1.8B-02
129J 9.5B-01 8.2E-04 3.2E-03 9.4E-04 8.8E-04 5.9E-04 6.7B-05 2.3E-01
(Thyroid: 7.8E 00)
13!i 9.5E-01 3 7E-04 9. IE-04 2.9E-04 3.3E-04 6.1E-05 5.3E-05 5.5E-02
(Thyroid: L8E 00)
132j 9.5E-01 1.4E-04 1.2B-04 8.5E-05 l.OB-04 5.9E-05 5.1B-05 2.1B-03
(Thyroid; 6.5E-02)
133J 9.5B-01 2.2E-04 2.6E-04 1.7E-04 1.8E-04 1.4B-04 4.0E-O5 1.4B-02
(Thyroid: 4.5E-01)
1341 9.5B-01 9.4E-05 5.0E-05 5.2E-05 5.3E-05 4.9E-05 2.2B-05 9.5E-04
(Thyroid; 2.9E-02)
1351 9.5E-01 2.5E-04 L8E-04 I.6E-04 I.6E-TI4 1.4E-04 9.3B-05 5.0E-03
(Thyroid: 1.6E-01)
>34CS 9.5E-01 I.6E-01 6.8E-02 9.3E-02 8.9E-02 9.7E-02 5.7E-02 LIE-01
5CS 9.5E-01 L lE -0 2 6.6E-03 l.lE -0 2 L3E-02 l.lB -0 2 5.3B-04 l.lE -0 2
136Cs 9.5E-01 2.1E-02 9.0E-03 I.2E-02 LIE-02 1.3E-02 l.OE-02 1.4E-02
9.5E-01 LOE-OI 4.9E-02 7.4E-02 8.0E-02 7..5E-02 2.6E-02 8.2B-02
137mBa l.OB-01 4.8E-06 5.IE-07 2.9E-07 L6E-07 3.5E-07 4.3E-07 3.6E-06
>Ba l.OB-01 9.2E-04 L lE-03 1.3E-03 I.3E-03 3.7E-03 9.9E-02 9.6E-03
>La I.OE-04 9.4E-04 l.OE-03 l.OE-03 3.5E-04 4.9E-03 6.6E-02 8.6E-03
> '"C e l.OE-04 4.9E-05 L7E-04 1.2E-04 4.0E-05 4.0E-04 3.2E-02 2.9B-03
i C e l.OE-04 1.2E-04 3.0E-04 I.9E-04 5.9E-05 7.9B-04 4.3E-02 4.5E-03
t4 4 c e l.OE-04 3.5E-05 l.OE-03 I.4E-04 1.5E-04 2.4E-04 2.5E-01 2.1E-02
P f l.OE-04 4.6E-08 2.2E-04 7. IE-07 I.9E-06 4.6E-08 5.5E-02 4.7B-03
144mp|, l.OE-04 9,iE -07 3.3E-06 8.9F.-08 4.2E-08 1.8E-07 2.5E-06 4.9E-05
l4 4 p r l.OE-04 L lE -0 6 6-8E-06 I.2E-07 5.6E-08 2.7E-07 3.6E-06 1.2B-04
147Nd l.OE-04 7.9E-05 2.7E-04 I.8E-04 5.7B-0S 6.6E-04 4.7E-02 4.4E-03
147p l.OE-04 5.4E-07 5.0E-05 3.0E-06 1.9E-05 5.5E-07 1.2E-02 l.OB-03
l.OE-04 12E-03 3.0E-D2 6.2E-04 I.4E-02 1.2E-03 4.3E-02 2.2E-02
2 0 7 jj 9.5E-01 1.3E-07 6.2E-07 I.OE-07 I.3E-07 1.0B-4)7 l.OB-08 1.4B-05
208n 9.5B-4)1 2.5E-05 3.2E-06 I.7E-06 l.OE-06 2.1E-06 2.4E-06 2.5E-05
209TI 9.5E-01 1.4E-05 1.9E-06 8.8E-07 5.8E-07 8.9B-07 9.2E-06 1.9B-05
209pb 8.0E-02 4.8E-08 L6E-05 8.3E-07 2.4E-06 4.8E-08 7.2B-04 2.3E-04
210pb 8.0B-02 3.0E-01 L7E 00 I.OEOO 9 6E 00 3.0B-0I 2.0E-02 7.8E-OI
2n?b 8.0&-02 L2E-05 3.9E-05 6.IE-4)5 5.3E-04 8.4E-06 8.6B-05 4.6E-04
212pb 8.0E-02 8.4E-04 2,6E~03 L6E-02 I 2E-01 1.9E-03 7.6E-02 1.8E-02
214pb 8.0E-02 8.3E-05 5.6E-05 6.5E-05 3.0E-04 5.2B-D5 l.OE-04 4.7E-04
2">Bi 5.0E-02 1.2E-03 2-7E-03 1.3E-03 5.9E-04 I.2E-03 5.7E-02- 2.9E-02
2 Bi 5.0E-O2 4. IE -07 l.OE-06 I.OE-07 I.5E-07 S.SE-08 3.6E-08 2..3E-05
COMMITTED DOSE EQUIVALENTS FROM INGESTED RADIONUCLIDES 93
Tsble 9.4 (CoDtinued)
Lower
Nuclide tl* Lungs body marrow endosteomt Gomds intestine Effective
212BI 5.0E-02 1.5E-04 1.3E-04 LOE-04 3.0E-04 L IE -04 4.4E-04 L2E-03

213b I 5.0E-02 1.7E-04 5.2E-05 3.4E-05 2.0E-05 7.7E-05 L5E-04 4.1E-04
5.0E-02 6.7E-05 3.0E-05 1.6E-05 4.2E-05 2.1E-05 2.4E-05 3.1E-04
210po l.OE-01 5.2E-01 4.1E-01 5.4E-01 2.4E-01 5.2E-01 1.8 B- 0 I 2 .0 E 00
2H po LOE-01 2.3E-I0 3. IE-09 I.3 E -II 7.5E-12 I.3E-11 1.7E-I1 8.5E-08
212po l.OB-Ol 3.5E-34 2.0E-15 6.3E-34 I.5E-33 3.SE-34 5.9E-44 5.5E-14
l.OE-Ol 5.0E-17 3.2E-I4 7.6E-16 2.2E-15 4.4E-17 2.5E-13 8.0E-13
2!4po LOE-01 7.1E -I4 1.3B-12 2.4E-I3 2.2E-12 7.0E-14 4.8E-15 2.6E -II
l.OB-Dl I.2E-I1 5.3E-1I I.4E-1C 1.3E-09 8.5E-12 7.0E-11 7.0E-10
216po l.OE-01 4.4E-09 L8E-08 1.2B-07 9.3E-07 8.4E-09 3.0E-07 1.2E-07
2)8po LOE-01 9.4E-06 8.6E-06 1.6E-05 9.6E-05 6.4E-06 1.3E-05 8.0E-05
2>Ât 9.5E-01 2.0B-09 7.9E-10 4.1E-10 2.5E-10 9.1E-10 1.8E-09 9.5E-09
22ipr 9.5E-01 7.7B-05 4.4E-05 l.lB -0 4 4.5E-04 6.8E-05 1.7E-05 1.8E-04
223Ra 2.0E-0I 2.7E-01 2.3E-01 1.2 E 00 9.2E00 2.7E-01 8.7E-0I 6.9E-01
2.0E-01 8.4E-02 7.5E-02 4.1E-01 3.3E00 8.3E-02 6.6E-01 2.6E-01
2.0E-01 2.6E-01 2.1E-01 L IE 00 8.7E 00 2.6E-01 9.7E-02 6.2E-01
326Ra 2.0E-01 5.9E-01 3.4E00 2 .2 E 00 2.0E+01 5.9E-01 3.3E-01 L 4E 00
328Ra 2.0E-01 4.1E-01 I.7E 00 I.3E 00 9.8E00 4.0E-01 7.1E-02 7.9E-01
225ac l.OE-03 2.2E-02 2.0E-02 6.1E-02 3.6E-01 3.1E-02 8.7E-01 L lE-01
22A c l.OE-03 L lE -01 L 3E 00 l.OE+01 l.OE+02 7.5E-01 2.5E-02 5.5E00
33Ac l.OE-03 2.1E-04 2.0E-04 4.4E-04 3.5E-03 5.3E-04 6.3E-03 1.6E-03
323Xh 2.0E-04 3.7B-03 5.1E-03 2 .6 B-0 2 2.2E-0I 4.3E-03 3.3E-01 3.8E-02
22Th 2.0E-04 7.5E-03 3.8E-02 3.8E-01 4.1E 00 7.8E-03 4.7E-01 2.1E-01
229t 1j 2.0E-04 LOE-02 2.3E-01 2 .6 EOO 3.2E +0I 9.9E-03 2.1E-01 1.3EOO
230t Sj 2.0E-04 4.6E-03 9.2E-02 I.OEOO 1.6E+01 4.3E-03 1.8E-01 6.3E-01
23lTh 2.0E-04 8.2E-06 B.OB-05 2.3E-05 1.3E-05 8.2E-05 1.2E-02 1.3E-03
232Xh 2.0E-04 4.0E-03 9.6E-02 L IE 00 I.8E +01 3.7E-03 1.5E-01 6.9E-0I
234t 5j 2.0E-04 1.4E-05 6.4E-04 4.4E-05 3.9E-05 LOE-04 1.6E-01 1.4E-02
231pa l.OE-03 2.2E-01 2 . 1E 00 L5E+01 1.8E+02 L 5E 00 1.9E-01 9.5E00
233pa LOB-03 L2E-04 2.6E-04 2.2E-04 9.4E-05 9.0E-04 3.6E-02 3.5E-03
234mpg l.OE-03 4.1E-08 2.3E-07 3.5E-09 L7E-09 8.5E-09 3.6E-08 5.9E-06
334pa LOE-03 4.6E-04 3.1E-04 3.0E-04 LOE-04 I.3E-03 8.6E-03 2.2E-03
232u 2.0E-03 1.3B-03 8.4B-02 7.1E-01 7.8E 00 L lE -03 2.0E-01 3.4E-01
5.0E-02 3.2B-02 2 . 1E 00 L8E+01 2.0E+02 2.9E-02 2.0E-01 8.2E 00
2.0E-01 1.3E-01 8.3E00 7.1E+01 7.8E+02 L lE-01 L7E-01 3.3E+01
233u 2.0E-03 7.0B-04 2.4E-02 9.6E-03 1.4E-01 6.1E-04 1.8E-01 2.5E-02
5.0E-02 1.7B-02 5.8E-01 2.4B-01 3.5E 00 1.5E-02 1.7E-01 2.6E-01
2.0E-01 6.9E-02 2.3E00 9.6E-01 1.4E+01 6 . IE-02 L5E-01 I.OEOO
234y 2.0B-03 6.9B-04 2.4E-02 9.3E-03 1.4E-01 6.4E-04 L8E-01 2.5E-02
5.0E-02 1.7E-02 5.8E-01 2.3E-01 3.5E 00 L6E-02 1.7E-01 2.6E-01
2.0E-01 6.9E-02 2.3EOO 9.3E-01 1.4E+01 6.3E-02 L5E-01 9.9E-01
235u 2.0E-03 7.4E-04 2.2E-02 7.4E-03 L2E-01 L4E-03 I.9E-01 2.4E-02
Table f .4 (C sitim ei)
Lower
Total E ei ! large
rNuciiov f,* Lings boiy arrow endosteiunt Gonads intestfaie Effective
5.0E-02 1.6E-02 5.2E-01 1.8B-01 2.9EOO 1.4E-02 1.8E-01 2.2E-01

2.0E-01 6.5E-02 2.1EOO 7.2&-01 1.2E+01 5.6E-02 1.6E-01 8.5E-01
236u 2.0E-03 6.5E-04 2.2E--02 8.0E-O3 1.3E-01 6.0E-04 1.7E-01 2.3B-02
5.0E-O2 1.6E-02 5.4E--01 2.0E-01 3.1E00 1.5E-02 1.6E-01 2.4&-01
2.0E-01 6.5E--02 2.2E 00 B.OE-D! 1.3E+01 5.9E-02 1.4E-01 9.1E-01
23?u 2.0E-03 8.5E-05 2.0E-04 2. IE-04 6.8E~05 6.6E-04 2.9E-02 2.9E-03
5.0E-02 l.lE -0 4 2.2E-4I4 2.4E-04 1.8E-04 6.4E-04 2.8E-02 2.8E-T13
2.0E-01 1.8E-04 2.7E-04 3.5E-04 5.1E-04 5.9E-4)4 2.4E-02 2.6B-03
238u 2.0E-03 6.1E-04 2.1&-02 7.6E-03 l.lE -01 5.4E-04 1.7E-01 2.2E-02
5.0B-02 1.5B-02 5.1B-01 1.9&TH 2.8E 00 1.3E-02 1.6E-01 2.2B-01
2.0E-01 6.1E-4)2 2.OE0O 7.6E-01 l.lE + 0 1 5.4E-02 1.4E-01 8.4B-01
240u 2.0E-03 1.0E-D4 2.9E-04 9.6E-fl 5.0E-05 4.5E-04 3.4E-02 4.3E-03
5.0E-02 1.2E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-C 'E-04 4.4E-04 3.2E-02 4.2E-03
2.0E-O1 1.8E-04 3.2E--04 3.2E-04 1.9E-03 4.3E-04 2.8B-02 3.9E-03
237pjp 1.0E-f)3 1.2E-01 I.OEOO 6.1E 00 8.7E+01 8.1E-01 2.0E-O1 4.7E 00
238n p l.OE-03 2.6B-04 4.0E-04 6.2E-04 4.4E-03 1.4E-4)3 3.2E-02 3.9E-03
239n p l.OE-03 8.9E-05 2.1E-04 1.6E-04 7.6E-05 5.8ED4 2.9E-02 3.0B-03
240mjjp l.OE-03 6.9E-06 2.1E-06 5.2E-07 2.7E-07 8 .8 M 7 l.OE-06 3.2E-05
240n p 1.0B-4)3 1.3E-04 4.0E-05 2.8E-05 1.1E-D5 9.3E-4)5 1.7E-04 2.9E-04
236pu 3.0E-05 3.8E-04 4.5E-03 2.1E-02 2.4E-01 2.6E-03 2.2E-01 3.3E-02
238pu 3.0E-05 3.2E-03 2.8E-02 1.7E-01 2.1E00 2.2E-02 2.1E-01 1.4E-01
239p 3.0E-415 3.6E-03 3.1E-D2 1.9E-4)1 2.6EOO 2.5E-02 2.0E-01 1.6E-01
240pu 3.0E-D5 3.6E-03 3.1B-02 1.9E-0I 2.6E00 2.5E-02 2.0E-01 1.6E-01
241pu 3.0E-05 7.5E-05 6.2E-D4 3.9E-4)3 4.8E-02 5.1 E-04 9.9E-04 2.8E-03
242pu 3.0B-05 3.5E-D3 3.0E-D2 1.8E-01 2.6E00 2.4E-02 1.9B-01 1.5E-01
243pu 3.0E-05 6.2E-06 2.4E-05 6.8E-06 5.0E-06 1.6E-05 1.5E-03 3.3E-04
244pu 3.0E-05 3.7E-D3 3.0B-02 1.7E-01 2.6E 00 2.5E-02 3.0E-01 1.6E-01
2Am l.OE-03 1.2E-01 I.OEOO 6.4E 00 8.0E4-01 8.5E-01 2.1E-01 4.6E00
242m 1.0E-D3 1.2E-01 I.OEOO 6.3E 00 6.7E+01 8.3E-01 3.4B-02 4.2E00
2Am l.OE-03 1.6E-05 1.4E-04 4.9E-04 5.2E-03 8.9E-05 9.3B-03 1.4E-03
l.OE-03 1.3B-01 I.OEOO 6.4E 00 8.5E+01 8.5E-01 2.2B-01 4.7E 00
2Cm l.OE-03 2.7E-03 2.6E-02 1.4B-01 1.5E00 1.8E-02 2.3B-01 1.2E-01
2Cm l.OE-03 8.3E-412 7.1EA11 4.2E 00 4.8E+01 5.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.9E00
l.OE-03 6.4E-02 5.6&D! 3.3EOO 3.8E+01 4.4E-01 2.2B-01 2.3E 00
2Cm l.OB-03 1.3E-01 LIE 00 6.6E00 8.6E+01 8.7E-01 2.2E-01 4.8E00
l.OE-03 1.3E-01 I.IEOO 6.5EOO 8.4E+01 8.7EA)1 2.1E-01 4.8E 00
l.OE-03 1.2E-01 9.9E--01 6.0E 00 8.7E+01 8.0E-01 2.3E-01 4.7E00
l.OE-03 5.8E-D1 4.0E00 6.1E00 8.8E+01 3.2EOO I.IEOO 8.7E 00
252cf l.OE-03 3.3E-4I2 2.3E-01 6.5E-01 6.9E00 1.9E-01 5.7B-01 6.7E-01
Fractional absorption from the small intestine to blood.

fEndosteum is defined for these calculations as a 10-micron layer of cells lining interior surfaces
of bone.
COMMITTED DOSE EQUIVALENTS FROM INGESTED RADIONUCLIDES 95
equivalent for a more extensive set of organs may be found in references by Kil-
lough et al. (1978) and Dunning et al. (1979 and 1981).
The quantity labeled Effective in Tables 9.1 to 9.4 represents a weighted
average of committed dose equivalents to specific organs as defined by Interna
tional Commission on Radiological Protection (IC R P ) Publication 26 (1977).
This quantity, which is referred to as the effective committed dose equivalent,
provides an indication of the expected stochastic health risk (somatic and
genetic) from a given radionuclide exposure. It includes consideration of critical
organs (i.e., organs receiving maximum dose) as well as organs of particular
radiosensitivity. Specific tissues considered are gonads, breast, active bone m ar
row, lungs, bone endosteum, and thyroid; the weighting factors for these tissues
are 0.25, 0.15, 0.12, 0.12, 0.03, and 0.03, respectively. Also included are the five
remaining organs receiving the highest doses; each of these has a weighting fac
tor of 0.06. The interpretation of effective committed dose equivalent used in
this chapter differs from that of the IC R P to the extent that ICRP Publication
30 (1979) excluded from consideration any organ dose that is less than 10% of
the maximum dose to any of the organs listed above.
The effective committed dose equivalent is equal to the committed dose
equivalent th at is delivered at a uniform whole-body rate and results in the same
expected number (but possibly dissimilar distributions) of stochastic health
effects as the particular combination of organ dose equivalents considered. It
has the advantage of providing a concise index of the overall health detriment
expected from nonuniform internal exposures. In addition, as compared with
organ-specific dose estimates, it exhibits reduced sensitivity to variations in
metabolic models, absorption parameters, respiratory clearance characteristics,
and other assumptions (Dunning and Killough, 1981). The effective dose com
m itted equivalent provides a single index of response to internal radiation expo
sure; consequently, it has many potential uses in radiation protection activities.
Estimates of committed dose equivalent shown in Tables 9.1 to 9.4 reflect
the models and param eter values described by Dunning et al. (1981). Those
values are associated with large uncertainties and are subject to periodic revi
sion. The estimates presented here predate the completion of ICRP Publication
30 (1979, 1980, 1981) and in some cases may differ significantly from the
IC R P recommendations.
REFERENCES
Dunning, D. E., Jr., S. R. Bernard, P. J. Walsh, G. G. Killough, and J. C. Pleasant, 1979,

Estimates o f Internal Dose Equivalent to 22 Target Organs fo r Radionuclides Occurring in
Routine Releases from Nuclear Fuel-Cycle Facilities, Vol. II, NUREG/CR-0150, Vol. 2
(DOE Report ORNL/NUREG/TM -190/V2), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
and G. G. Killough, 1981, A Comparison of Effective Dose Equivalents from Three Major
Internal Dose Compilations, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 1(1): 3-9.
, G. G. Killough, S. R. Bernard, J. C. Pleasant, and P. J. Walsh, 1981, Estimates o f Internal

Dose Equivalent to 22 Target Organs fo r Radionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases from
Nuclear Fuel-Cycle Facilities, Vol. Ill, NUREG/CR-0150, Vol. 3 (DOE Report
ORNL/NUREG/TM -190/V3), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
, J. C. Pleasant, and G. G. Killough, 1977, SFACTOR: A Computer Code fo r Calculating Dose
Equivalent to a Target Organ per Microcurie-Day Residence o f a Radionuclide in a Source
Organ, NUREG/CR-1523 (DOE Report ORNL/NUREG/TM-85), Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, NTIS.
, J. C. Pleasant, and G. G. Killough, 1980, SFACTOR: A Computer Code fo r Calculating Dose
Equivalent to a Target Organ per Microcurie-Day Residence o f a Radionuclide in a Source
OrganSupplementary Report, NUREG/CR-1523 (DOE Report ORNL/NUREG/ TM-
8 5 /S l), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1972, The Metabolism o f Plutonium and
Other Actinides, ICRP Publication 19, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
, 1977, Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP
Publication 26, Ann. ICRP, 1(3): 2-47, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
, 1979, Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, ICRP Publication 30, Ann. ICRP,
2(3/4), Pergamon Press, Oxford.
, 1980, Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, ICRP Publication 30, Part 2, Ann.
ICRP, 4(3/4), Pergamon Press, Oxford.
, 1981, Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, ICRP Publication 30, Part 3, Ann.
ICRP, 6(2/3), Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Killough, G. G., D. E. Dunning, Jr., S. R. Bernard, and J. C. Pleasant, 1978, Estimates o f Internal
Dose Equivalent to 22 Target Organs fo r Radionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases from
Nuclear Fuel-Cycle Facilities, Vol. I, NUREG/CR-0150, Vol. 1 (DOE Report ORNL/
NUREG/TM -190/V1), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
, D. E. Dunning, Jr., and J. C. Pleasant, 1978, INREM II: A Computer Implementation of
Recent Models fo r Estimating the Dose Equivalent to Organs o f Man from an Inhaled or In
gested Radionuclide, NUREG/CR-0114 (DOE Report ORNL/NUREG/TM-84), Oak Ridge
Morrow, P. E., D. V. Bates, B. R. Fish, T. F. Hatch, and T. T. Mercer, 1966, Deposition and
Retention Models for Internal Dosimetry of the Human Respiratory Tract, Health Phys., 12(2):
173-206.
Snyder, W. S., M. R. Ford, G. G. Warner, and S. B. Watson, 1974, A Tabulation o f Dose
Equivalent per Microcurie-Day fo r Source and Target Organs o f an Adult fo r Various
Radionuclides, USAEC Report ORNL-5000, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
D O SE S R E S U L T im FRO M
10 A TM O SP H E R IC R E LE A SE S
OF TRITIUM
By
Elizabeth L. Etnier
Various methodologies exist for the estimation of ingestion dose from continuous
atmospheric releases of tritium (Bush, 1972; Evans, 1969; National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1979; Moore et al., 1979; U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977; N g et al., 1978; Vogt, 1979). Most of
these methodologies are based on the specific activity model in which the tri
tium content of plant or body water, related to the content of stable hydrogen, is
assumed to be the same as that of water in air; however, the resulting dose esti
mates may vary depending on the equilibrium assumptions used for vegetation,
beef, and milk.
Bush (1972), Evans (1969), the National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements [N C R P, (1979)], and Moore et al. (1979) base their dose
calculations on the assumption th at under conditions of chronic exposure, body
hydrogen or body water is uniformly labeled with tritium (the to H ratio is
1.0). However, their approaches are somewhat different in that Bush (1972) and
Evans (1969) estimate dose based on the average energy delivered by tritiated
water (HÔH) to body water that contains a tritium concentration of 1 nC i/L .
The N C R P (1979) and Moore et al. (1979) follow the food and water ingestion
pathways using the assumption that the dose from tritium intake by the various
pathways is dependent on pathway contribution to total water intake.
The U. S. N uclear Regulatory Commission [U SN R C , (1977)] and Ng et al.
(1978) follow a pathway analysis, but they assume various uptake*.fractions for
tritium in plants, beef, and milk. As a result, the U SN R C (1977) methodology
derives doses approximately Vi those estimated by the N C R P (1979) and Moore
97
98 DOSES FROM ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES OF TRITIUM
et al. (1979) methodologies. Doses estimated by the latter two methods are a
factor of two higher than doses estimated by the N g et al. (1978) approach.
Vogt (1979) recommends modifying the basic specific activity model so that
it will consider the water supply of plants from the soil water, from precipitation
deposited on the leaves, and from humidity. He suggests that consideration of
these contributions to a plants water supply will lead to more conservative
tritium dose estimates.
A review of the literature available for estimating dose from atmospheric
releases of tritium and for the range of reported values for the input parameters
has been undertaken at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Till, Etnier, and
Meyer, 1981; Rohwer and Etnier, 1980; Etnier, 1980). Parameters considered
include: quality factor, biological half-life, air-to-water dilution, absolute hu
midity values, and organic binding of tritium.
METHODOLOGY COMPARISON
Four methodologies for estimating dose to man from atmospheric releases of

tritium have been reviewed and compared in a report by Till, Etnier, and .Meyer
(1981). Methodologies reviewed were the direct specific activity calculation of
Evans (1969), the models recommended by the N C R P (1979) and the U SN R C
(1977), and the computer program AIRDO S-EPA of Moore et al. (1979).
The complexity of these methodologies varies from the simple calculation of
Evans (1969) to the complete pathway analysis found in the U SN R C (1979)
and Moore et al. (1979) models. W here possible, for purposes of comparison,
the reviewers used identical values for input parameters (e.g., quality factor and
absolute humidity). Chronic exposure conditions were assumed, and tritium was
assumed to exist in the atmosphere entirely as tritiated water vapor (^HOH) at
a concentration of 1 pCi/m^ (37 mBq/m^). Concentrations of tritium in air,
food, and water were assumed to be identical. Results of this comparison are
listed in the first column of Table 10.1. Note that, when using the Evans
(1969), N C R P (1979), and Moore et al. (1979) methodologies, little difference
is apparent in the calculated dose for chronic tritium exposure conditions when
equal tritium concentrations in air, food products, and drinking water are
assumed. The dose estimate that results from using the U SN R C (1977) model
is lower by almost a factor of three because of the model assumptions regarding
tritium uptake in plants and beef.
Inclusion of generic site-specific data representing situations where the tri
tium concentration in food and drinking water differed from the atmospheric
concentrations was found to affect the estimated dose calculations. Tritium con
centration in food items was assumed to be 50% of that in the atmosphere at the
point of interest; water concentrations were assumed to be 1% of the atmo
spheric concentrations. Results of using this site-specific data for each of the
four methodologies are listed in the second column of Table 10.1; as the results
METHODOLOGY COMPARISON 99
Table 10.1
SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL DOSE FROM CHRONIC
EXPOSURE TO 1 p a /m * (37 mBq/m*) OF TRITIUM IN
AIM (CALCULATED BY FOUR METHODOLOGIES)*
Inctading certain
No site-specific site-specific d ata ,|
Methodology data,t mrein mreoi
Evans(1969) 1.5 X 10-*

National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements (1979) 1.6 X 10-* 5.5 X 10-*
AIRDOS-EPA, Moore et al., (1979) 1.7 X 10-* 5.3 X 10-*
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1977) 5.9 X 10-* 1.4 X 10"*
Calculations are made for 6 g H 2 0 /m* and a quality factor of 1.0 for tritium
betas.
tThis assumes that all food products are grown at the point of interest and that
the specific activity of tritium in drinking water equals that in the atmosphere.
tThis assumes that (1) all food products are grown at another location where the
air concentration of tritium is 50% of that at the point where the dose is calculated
and (2) the tritium concentration in drinking water is 1% of that in atmospheric
moisture.
The methodology proposed by Evans does not provide for the inclusion of site-
specific data.
show, doses may be reduced by as much as a factor of 3 to 4 by including data

of a site-specific nature. Therefore the capability of models to incorporate site-
specific data is an im portant feature in the assessment of dose to individuals
from atmospheric releases.
Till, Etnier, and Meyer (1981) conclude in their report that in tritium
modeling a complete pathway analysis may not be necessary; however, the capa
bility to include certain site-specific data (such as the fraction of food products
harvested from a location other than the point of interest) is important. The
N C R P (1979) model, in a slightly modified form, is recommended as suffi
ciently simple and accurate for tritium dose calculations from chronic releases.
MODIFIED NCRP METHODOLOGY
The N C R P methodology (N C R P, 1979) is used to estimate dose from

chronic releases of tritium , and it assumes th at the dose from tritium via the
various pathways of exposure depends on the pathways relative contributions to
water intake. Contributions to the total water intake of a reference man are
listed in Table 10.2. The annual dose for 3.0 L /d of water intake is described by
the following expression:
R = jl.22C + 1.27C + 0.29Cf2 + 0 .2 2 C a ]-^ X D RF (1 0 .1 )^ ^
where R == annual dose from tritium (mrem or Sv)

C = concentration of tritium indrinking water (p C i/L or B q/L )
Cfi = concentration of tritium inthe water in food (p C i/L or B q/L )
Cf2 = concentration of tritium oxidized to water upon the metabolism of
food (p C i/L or B q/L )
Ca = concentration of tritium inatmospheric water (p C i/L or B q/L )
D R F = dose rate factor for tritium (m rem /year per p C i/L or Sv/year per
B q/L )
Table 10.2
CONTRIBUTIONS TO TOTAL WATER
INTAKE OF REFERENCE MAN
Source Intake, L/d
Drinking water 1.22

Food productsf 1.27
Oxidation of foodf, 0.29
Inhalationf 0.13
Skin absorption 0.09
Total LOO
Data from NCRP (1979).

tin food0.72 L/d; in milk0.53
L/d; and in juice0.02 L/d.
Ôxidation of food0.25 L/d; oxi
dation of milk0.04 L/d; and oxidation
of juice0.002 L/d.
ITritium entering the body as organ
ically bound hydrogen, which is oxidized
to ^HOH during metabolism.
TThis assumes an absolute humidity
of 6 g HjO/m^ in air.
Two minor modifications to the N C R P methodology have been recom

mended by Till, Etnier, and Meyer (1981) in an effort to m aintain the sim
plicity of the model and yet allow for incorporation of the dose from food
products grown at locations other than the release site.
The revised model is described by the following equation, which is a modifi
cation of Eq. 10.1.
R = fl.22Cw + 1.56 2 Cf5 + 0 .2 2 C a ]-^ X DRF ( 10.2 )

I n = 1,2,3,... j3 0
MODIFIED NCRP METHODOLOGY 101
where R = annual dose from tritium (mrem or Sv)

Cw = concentration of tritium in drinking water (pC i/L or B q/L )
Cfn = concentration of tritium in water of food products grown at location
n (p C i/L or B q/L )
= fraction of food products grown at location n that is consumed at
the reference location (dimensionless)
Ca = concentration of tritium in atmospheric water (pC i/L or B q/L )
DRF = dose rate factor for tritium (m rem /year per pC i/L or Sv/year per
B q/L )
If the concentrations of tritium in food products and in drinking water are

not known, Till, Etnier, and Meyer (1981) recommend that the concentration in
food be assumed to equal 50% of that in air* at location n and that the concen
tration in drinking water be assumed to equal 1% of that in air at location n.
This modified N C R P model incorporates the simplicity of the specific activity
and N C R P approaches and allows for the use of site-specific information on tri
tium concentrations in food products grown both locally and at a distance. Use
of such a model is recommended by Till, Etnier, and Meyer (1981) for estimat-
ina the radiation dose from chronic exposure to ^HOH in the environment.
R EFERENCES
Anspaugh, L. R., J. J. Koranda, W. L. Robison, and J. R. Martin, 1973, The Dose to Man via
Food-Chain Transfer Resulting from Exposure to Tritiated Water Vapor, in Tritium, pp.
405-422, A. A. Moghissi and M. W. Carter (Eds.), Messenger Graphics, Phoenix, Ariz.
Bush, W. R., 1972, Assessing and Controlling the Hazard from Tritiated Water, Report AECL-
4150, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario, Canada.
Etnier, E. L., 1980, Site-Specific Absolute Humidity Data for Use in Tritium Dose Calculations,
Health Phys., 39(2): 318-320.
Evans, A. G., 1969, New Dose Estimates from Chronic Tritium Exposures, Health Phys., 16;
57-63.
Moore, R. E., et al., 1979, AIRDOS-EPA: A Computerized Methodology for Estimating Environ
mental Concentrations and Dose to Man from Airborne Releases o f Radionuclides, DOE
Report ORNL-5532, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
Murphy, C. E., Jr., and M. M. Pendergast, 1979, Environmental Transport and Cycling of Tritium
in the Vicinity of Atmospheric Releases, in Proceedings o f International Symposium on the
Behaviour o f Tritium in the Environment, San Francisco, Calif., Oct. 16-20, 1978, S. Freeman
(Ed.), pp. 361-371, STI/PUB 498, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
*The reader should note that, although this value has been widely accepted in the assessment of
tritium released to the atmosphere, the 50% value is based upon the model published by Anspaugh et
al. (1973). More recent contradictory information published by Murphy and Pendergast (1979) indi
cates that, under chronic exposure conditions, the concentration of tritium in vegetation may be
nearly equal to that in air. Therefore, because of the importance of the value assumed in the calcula
tion of dose, additional research to determine the concentration of tritium in food products relative
to the concentration in air is needed.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1979, Tritium in the Environment,
NCRP Report No. 62, Washington, D. C.
Ng, Y. ., W. A. Phillips, Y. E. Ricker, R. K. Tandy, and S. E. Thompson, 1978, Methodology
for Asssndng Doss Co!xns:;;r.e:;t to Individuals and to the Population from Ingestion o f Ter
restrial Foods Contaminated by Emissions from a Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant at the
Savannah River Plant, ERDA Report U CID-17743, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, NTIS.
Rohwer, P. S., and E. L. Etnier, 1980, Estimates of Dose to Man from Environmental Tritium, in
Tritium Technology in Fission, Fusion, and Isotopic Applications, Proceedings o f the American
Nuclear Society Topical Meeting, Dayton, Ohio, Apr. 29-M ay 1, 1980, pp. 1-8, CONF-
800427, American Nuclear Society, LaGrange, III.
Till, J. E., E. L. Etnier, and H. R. Meyer, 1980, Updating the Tritium Quality FactorThe Argu
ment for Conservatism ii> Trnium Technology in Fission, Fusion, and Isotopic Applications,
Proceedings o f the Amencan hiaclear Society Topical Meeting, Dayton, Ohio, Apr. 29-May 1,
1980, pp. 14-18, CONF-800427, American Nuclear Society, LaGrange, 111.
, E. L. Etnier, and H. R. Meyer, 1981, Methodologies for Calculating the Radiation Dose to
Man from Environmental Releases of Tritium, Nucl. S a f, 22(2): 205-213.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977, Regulatory Guide 1.109, Calculation o f Annual
Doses to Man from Routine Releases o f Reactor Effluents fo r the Purpose o f Evaluating Com
pliance with 10 CFR Part 50, ippendix I, Revision 1, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash
ington, D. C.
Vogt, K. J., 1979, Models for the Assessment of the Environmental Exposure by Tritium Released
from Nuclear Installations, in Proceedings o f International Symposium on the Behaviour o f
Tritium in the Environment, San Francisco, Calif., Oct. 16-20, 1978, S. Freeman (Ed.), pp.
521-534, STI/PUB 498, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
D O SE EQUIWALEMT DUE TO
11 A T M O SP H E R IC RELEASES
OF C A R B O N -14
By
George G. Killough, lohn E. Till, Elizabeth L. Etnier,
Brian D. Murphy, and Richard J. Raridon
C arbon-14 is released in various chemical forms from nuciear facilities with the
particular form depending on the type of facility. In boiiing-water reactors
(BW Rs) the C02-bound component of ' C effluent constitutes more than 95%
of the total emission; whereas, in the case of pressarized-water reactors
(PW Rs), measurements made in German reactors have shown that this com
ponent varies between 0.8% and 81%, with carbon monoxide, methane, and
other hydrocarbons accounting for the rest (Schwibach, R iedd, and
Bretschneider, 1978). Only the COa-bound component can enter m ans food
chain through photosynthetic fixation in the vicinity of the release, but eventual
oxidation of the other *'^C-labe!ed chemical species also makes them available to
photosynthetic processes.
In this chapter we present methods for estimating the dose to iadividuals and
populations from releases of *^C02 to the atmosphere.'* These methods are
based on a steady-state relation of specific activities from the point of plio-
tosynthetic fixation through the food chain to man. The long half-life (5730
years) and the environmental mobility of result in exposure of the world
population to the residue of a release over a long time. Therefore we give partic-
*Research described in this chapter was sponsored by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Division of Safeguards, Fuel Cycle, and Environmenta! Research, under Interagency Agreement
DOE-40-550-75 with the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-840R21400 with
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
103
104 DOSE EQUIVALENT DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES OF *'C
ular attention to estimating components of collective dose that correspond to dif

ferent stages of mixing of the released **C through the environmental system.
Illustrative calculations for two points of release in the United States are dis
cussed. These sites Morris, 111., and Barnwell, S. C. offer regional contrasts
in agriculture and meteorology and have been considered by other investigators
for hypothetical airborne releases of radionuclides (e.g., M achta, Ferber, and
Heffter, 1 9 7 4 ).
DOSE RATE TO AN INDIVIDUAL
First we consider the ingestion pathway.

It will be assumed that the ''CO 2 in the effluent plume mixes with the non
radioactive CO 2 that is present in its ambient concentration. This concentration
varies considerably in diurnal and seasonal cycles and is locally influenced by
vegetation, industrial CO 2 sources, and weather patterns. In the absence of site-
specific data, the value 0.18 gC/m^, which corresponds to 330 ppm CO 2 by
volume, is suggested (Baes et al., 1976). We assume that an atmospheric trans
port model is used to estimate the ground-level atmospheric concentration Xn
(Ci/m ^ or TBq/m^) of *^C, which corresponds to a release rate Q (C i/s or
T B q/s), at a location in the vicinity of the point of release. Then the ambient
specific activity. An" (C i/gC or T B q/gC ), of the airborne carbon at that point
is calculated as
A"" (T B q/gC ) ( 11 . 1)
where the subscript n is used to denote the particular location (e.g., numbered
points on a grid).
Because photosynthetic processes are active only during daylight and (with
certain exceptions) during a fairly well defined growing season (determined by
crops and location), it is important that the meteorological data used in predict
ing atmospheric transport of 'CO 2 from its point of release be typical of day
time and the months of the year that constitute the growing season. Killough
and Rohwer (1978) showed by means of an example that a factor-of-three
underestimate of the dose to a maximally exposed individual is possible if annu
ally averaged meteorological data, with nighttime observations included, are
substituted for the recommended season- and daytime-specific data.
The chemical reactions and physical processes associated with photosynthesis
and respiration result in isotopic fractionation of ^C and C with respect to
'^C; the result is that the and ratios in the plant tissue are less
than the corresponding ratios for the ambient airborne C O 2. The percent differ
ence for ''*C is theoretically twice that for when corrections for radioactive
DOSE RATE TO AN INDIVIDUAL 105
decay of the former isotope are made (Bowen, 1960). C arbon-13 abundances in
a variety of materials have been extensively documented (Craig, 1953). In
plants the degree of fractionation varies among species, and the difference is
particularly pronounced between plants of the photosynthesis pathways desig
nated as C 3 (most food crops) and C 4 (sugar cane, corn, sorghum) (Sm ith and
Epstein, 1971). The maximum '^C discrepancy between airborne CO 2 and plant
tissue occurs for C 3 plants and is about 2.7%; therefore for *'*C the effect is no
greater than about 5.4% (Keeling, Mook, and Tans, 1979; Smith and Epstein,
1971). The average percent difference in food crops would be less. In view of
this small magnitude, we neglect the photosynthetic fractionation effect in our
dose estimates and assume that the specific activity of carbon fixed in plant tis
sue at location n, is equal to An'f
C arbon-14 reaches man by his direct consumption of contaminated plant
m atter or m eat or dairy products of animals that have fed on such plant matter.
The fractionation effect in the assimilation of carbon by m an and higher
animals is insignificant in comparison with photosynthetic fractionation. M ore
over, nearly all of the carbon in the body (all but about 0 .0 1 %) is sustained by
dietary intake of carbon as opposed to inhalation (Buchanan, 1951; Killough
and Rohwer, 1978). Therefore, if animals feed on plant m atter of specific activ
ity AJ*", we assume for the steady-state model th at the carbon in food products
derived from these animals has the same activity, which in turn equals AJ. We
stress that the applicability of such a model is limited to the case of chronic
release at a constant rate so that equilibrium between plants and animals and
their exposure environment for *'*C exists.
To calculate the dose equivalent rate to man due to ingestion of ^C, we use
the equation
M
A air
f)ig = (DRF)ig 2 ( 11.2 )
n=! G
where )jg = dose equivalent to organ i due to ingestion of (throughout, we

use the subscript g for ingestion) (rem /year or Sv/year)
(DRF)ig ^ dose rate factor for organ i (rem /year per C i/g C or Sv/year per
T B q/gC )
M = total number of locations considered
G = annual average intake of dietary carbon derived from the n-th
location (gC /year)
G = total annual average intake of dietary carbon (gC /year)
A f = estimated average daytime specific activity of ambient airborne
carbon during the growing season at location n (C i/gC or
T B q/gC )
Dose rate factors, (DRF)jg, for various organs i were given by Killough and
Rohwer (1978), and some of these are shown in Table 11.1. The report on
106 DOSE EQUIVALENT DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES OF 'C
Table 11.1
CARBON-14 DOSE EQUIVALENT RATE PER UNIT A CTm X Y IN DIETARY CARBON
FOR VAMOUS ORGANS OF REFERENCE MAN*
Risk, Sv->,
10* Sv/year from ICRP
Reference organ per TBq/gC Publication 26t
Gonads 22 0.004
Breast 35J 0.0025
Red marrow 99 0.002
Lung 25 0.002
Thyroid 26 0.0005
Total endosteal cells 90 0.0005
Remainder! 3611 0.005
0.0165
Effective dose
equivalent rate (DRF)jff 40
Killough and Rohwer (1978). For inhalation, 10 ^ times these factors is suggested.
tICRP (1977).
iFowler and Nelson (1981).
Consists of the five organs, other than those listed, that receive the highest dose equiv
alent rate.
IFAverage dose equivalent rate for the five organs.
Reference M an by the International Commission on Radiological Protection

(ICR P, 1975) recommends a value of G = 300 g C /d ( = 1.1 X 10* gC /year)
for a male adult.
W e call the readers attention to the Effective Dose Equivalent R ate in
Table 11.1. This quantity is computed as a weighted average of the organ dose
rates shown, with weights proportional to the risk factors shown from ICRP
Publication 26 (ICR P, 1977). Multiplying the effective dose equivalent rate by
the total risk per sievert of uniform whole-body radiation (0.0165/Sv) yields an
estimate of the expected number of fatal stochastic health effects per unit time
induced by the radiation. The effective dose equivalent rate is useful for estim at
ing the collective dose equivalent commitment (see the Collective Dose sec
tion) from which the expected number of stochastic health effects may be
obtained directly by using the aforementioned risk factor.
Estimation of the dose rate to an individual due to ingestion of *^C requires
an assumption about the distribution of the sources of the individuals food
throughout the area near the point of release. Table 11.2 gives the fraction of
carbon in some common foodstuffs to assist in making the calculation once this
distribution is available.
DOSE RATE TO AN INDIVIDUAL 107
Table 11.2
FRACTIONAL CARBON CONTENT FOR EDIBLE PORTION OF SELECTED FOODS*
(Values are giren in grains of carbon per kflograin)
Grain for
Vegetables and fruits Vegetables and fruits human consumption
Lettuce 20 Tomatoes 25 Corn 118

Cabbage 32 Grapes 83 Spring wheat 391
Celery 24 Apples 70 Soybeans 465
Spinach 28 Peaches 56 Oats 431
Broccoli 42 Pears 76 Barley 395
Cauliflower 35 Plums 62 Rye 396
Brussels sprouts 65 Strawberries 44
Potatoes 95 Snap beans 47
Oranges 55 Summer squash 21
Sweet corn 118 Blueberries 74
Sugar cane 438 Blackberries 69 Meat and poultry
Peanuts 574 Cranberries 57
Carrots 49 Currants 67 Beef 228
Dry beans 198 Gooseberries 48 Lamb 289
Sweet potatoes 137 Black raspberries 89 Pork 402
Cantaloupes 25 Asparagus 30 Turkey 254
Dry peas 395 Chicken 156
Pecans 659 Honey 365
Unprepared. Based on protein, carbohydrate, and fat content (50, 44, and 76% car
bon, respectively) given by Watt and Merrill (1950) for the various foods.
Inhalation, with dose rate factors that are about 0.01% of those for ingestion
(Table 11.1), is ordinarily a minor exposure pathway for *^C. For completeness
we give the equation for the inhalation dose rate as
air
Dih = (DRF)ih A,n (11.3)
where 6 jj, = dose rate to organ i due to inhalation of (the subscript h is

used for inhalation throughout) (rem /year or Sv/year); (DRF),}, = dose-rate
factor for organ i [ 1 0 ^ X (DRF)jg from Table 11.1] (rem /year per C i/gC or
Sv/year per TB q/gC ); A f = annual-average specific activity of airborne car
bon where the exposed individual lives and works (C i/gC or TB q/gC). Because
this exposure pathway is not limited by the operation of photosynthesis, A f
should be estimated on the basis of meteorological data sampled day and night
through all seasons.
108 DOSE EQUIVALENT DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES OF C
COLLECTIVE DOSE
The collective dose to a population due to a release of radioactive m aterial is
the sum of dose commitments th at result to all individuals in the population
from exposure to the material. One way of expressing this quantity is
H (t,,t 2) Dp(t)Np(t) dt (11.4)

p
where H (ti,t 2 ) is the collective dose accumulated between times tj and t 2 (man
rem or man Sv). The index p ranges over subpopulations for which Dp(t) and
Np(t) denote the average individual dose rate and subpopulation size, respec
tively, at time t. In our calculations a subpopulation was defined by each county
or state considered in the partitioning of food production, with the subpopula
tion consisting of the group of consumers of the food produced in the particular
county or state. The quantity H (ti,t 2) can be defined in term s of organ-specific
dose equivalent rate or effective dose equivalent rate (Table 11.1); in this chap
ter we consider only the latter interpretation.
Estimation of collective dose from **C released to the atmosphere requires
prediction of environmental transport of the as it moves through successive
stages of environmental dilution until it is globally distributed. Distributions of
population and agricultural production, relative to the released material, must
also be considered in order to quantify the exposure. For material released in
the United States, we consider four stages of environmental mixing, as did
M achta, Ferber, and Heffter (1974) in their study of atmospheric transport of
^^Kr:
1. Regional, which we define as the area within a circle of 100-km radius
around the point of release. This distance corresponds to an average plume
travel time of about six hours.
2. Continental, which consists of all N orth American territory outside the
100 -km regional circle above which significant time-integrated concentra
tions of released *'* are predicted.
3. Global-initial, which we define in terms of transport time beyond the con
tinental area until two years after the time of release, at which time
interhemispheric mixing is essentially complete.
4. Global-long-term, which takes into account the exposure of the world popu
lation over extended t ime (~ 4 6 ,0 0 0 years or eight half-lives of *^C). Dur
ing this period radioactive decay and exchanges of carbon among world
reservoirs are considered.
Each of the four mixing stages listed above requires a different approach to
transport modeling and collective dose estimation. W e outline these approaches
in the remainder of this section in the context of the illustrative calculations we
have done for two points of release in the United States Morris, 111., and
Barnwell, S. C.
COLLECTIVE DOSE 109
Regional
A t the regional scale we used the Atmospheric Transport Model (a Gaussian

plume model) to predict ground-level air concentrations of (Culkowski and
Patterson, 1976). The assumed release height was 100 m. To estimate plume
depletion, we considered radiological decay but not the loss of by fixation in
vegetation. For the ingestion pathway, the joint distribution of wind speed, wind
direction, and Pasquill-Gifford stability category are based on weather-station
data th at correspond to daylight hours during the local growing season. Agricul
tural yield data are obtained for each county within the 100 -km circle, and frac
tions such as those in Table 11.2 are used to convert the yield to grams of car
bon in edible parts. For each county, the carbon produced is assumed to have
the same specific activity as the airborne CO 2 predicted for th at location, and
with this information, one estimates the terabecquerels of available for
ingestion. For beef, pork, and poultry, we follow the same procedure, assuming
th at the environmental system is in steady state with a constant release rate,
th at the animals are locally fed, and that the carbon in their tissues is of the
same specific activity as the local airborne CO 2. The available (one
years crop) is converted to collective dose by multiplication with the appropri
ate factor from Table 11.1. For location n,
= G-*(DRF)eff A f S <^jYjn (H -5)

j
where ftg, = collective dose rate at location n due to ingestion of (man
rem /year or man Sv/year)
G = total annual average intake of dietary carbon (gC /year)
(DRF)eff = effective dose equivalent rate (rem /year per C i/gC or Sv/year
per T B q/gC ) (see Table 11.1)
A f = annual-average specific activity of airborne carbon where the
exposed individual lives and works (C i/g C or TB q/gC )
4>j = grams of carbon in the edible portion of foodstuff j per kilogram
produced (g /k g produced) (e.g.. Table 11.2)
Yjn = annual yield of foodstuff j at location n (kg/year)
Ordinarily we would evaluate for a unit annual release rate (1 C i/year

or 1 TB q/year), in which case its units would be man rem /C i or man Sv/TBq.
Summation of ftg n over n for all locations in the region (usually counties) gives
the collective dose rate or dose per unit release for the ingestion pathway that is
associated with environmental uptake of *'*C that is photosynthetically fixed
within the region. N ote that the affected population is not specified and cannot
automatically be identified with the population residing within the region. Food
may be exported from the region; or food that is uncontaminated or contami
nated at levels different from those typical of the region may be imported.
110 DOSE EQUIVALENT DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES OF "C
All agricultural data used in our calculations were taken from the compila
tion of Shor, Baes, and Sharp (1982) and are based on U. S. agricultural cen
sus data for the year 1974.
The component of regional collective dose due to inhalation depends on the
distribution of population and the airborne concentration of *'*C0 2 . The equa
tion is
f t h . = (DRF)hA N (11.6)
where fl|, =collective dose rate at location n due to inhalation of ' 'C (man
rem /year or man Sv/year)
(DRF)h == effective dose equivalent rate from inhalation of '^C
[ = 10 ^ X (DRF)eff] (rem /year per C i/gC or Sv/year per
TB q/gC )
An*"^ = annual-average specific activity of airborne carbon where the
exposed individual lives and works (C i/gC or TB q/gC )
N = number of people residing near location n
In our calculations, this component was negligible.
C ontinental
Prediction of longer-range atmospheric dispersion of the gaseous *'*C calls for

the use of models that predict trajectories of material in the troposphere and
account for spreading of the plume and loss of material from it by radiological
decay.
We have performed calculations with a long-range atmospheric trajectory
model (Begovich, Murphy, and Nappo, 1978) to predict ground-level air concen
trations of ''C throughout much of N orth America due to releases from the
specified locations. As in the regional-scale calculation, estimation of collective
dose depends on Eq. 11.5: but agricultural production data from Shor, Baes, and
Sharp (1982) are summarized by state, this somewhat coarser spatial resolution
being satisfactory for the larger scale.
The continental-scale wind fields vary significantly from month to month; in
an attem pt to take this variability into account, we predicted distributions for
each of the months April through October of 1975 and computed a suitable
average for each state to correspond to the local growing season. In the few
areas with growing seasons too long to be comprehended by these months, the
averages are possibly biased, but the effect is unlikely to be visible in the sum
mary figures presented in this chapter. Limitations such as this one and the use
of wind-field data for only the year 1975 can be removed by more extensive cal
culations.
COLLECTIVE DOSE 111
G lo b a l-In itia l
W e now consider a period of two years, during which the initial pulse of
injected into the northern troposphere at ground level diffuses throughout the
troposphere and approaches a state of uniform concentration. Some fraction is
lost to the stratosphere and by exchange of CO 2 with the ocean and terrestrial
plants. Following the general procedure proposed by M achta, Ferber, and
H effter (1974), we have simulated this progression with a simple two-
dimensional model of the troposphere that is based on the diffusion equation
ix =
+ [k ^ MX (11.7)
1
K z ^ z
at dx * dx dz
where x " air concentration of (C i/m ^ or Bq/m^)

X= northward distance coordinate
z = vertical distance coordinate
Kx = turbulent diffusivity for horizontal mixing
Kz = turbulent diffusivity for vertical mixing
MX ~ loss in concentration due to radioactive decay and exchanges
with the stratosphere, the ocean, and land biota
W ith an initial ground-level pulse of 1 Ci or 1 TBq at 45N , we solved Eq. 11.7
by assuming K* and constant and setting boundary conditions corresponding
to reflecting barriers at the ground (z == 0 ), the tropopause (z 10 km), and
at the north and south poles. Param eter values were K* = 3 X 10 m^/s,
Kz = 5 m ^/s (M achta, Ferber, and Heffter, 1974), and m = 1.21 X 10"* +
(In 2 ) /1 2 year *, where the first term is the radiological decay rate coefficient
and the second term is based on the approximately 12 -year relaxation half-time
observed for bomb **C in the atmosphere after the intensive testing of the early
1960s [data for various latitudes are shown by Nydal, Lbvseth, and Gulliksen
(1979)]. For the initial two-year period, we have estimated cumulative popula
tion exposure, E (m an Ci year/m ^ or man TBq year/m ^), by summation over
latitude bands of 20 degrees:
1 .cyears x^+i
E y f f x(x, z = 0 , t) dx dt
T X k+i - Xk -*0
X population of latitude band k (11.8)
where x = Xk and Xk+i are the limits of latitude band k. Table 11.3 shows
the individual contributions and the total, which is then converted to collective
dose equivalent as follows:
112 DOSE EQUIVALENT DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES OF C
(DRF)eff E
H (0 ,2 years) (11.9)
0.18
where 0.18 gC/m ^ is the carbon concentration corresponding to 330 ppm CO 2

by volume. Table 11.4 gives the estimate of H(0, 2 years).
The foregoing formulation is not intended to suggest high resolution in the
simulation of actual delivery of radiation dose to the population. A lag of one
to two years has been observed between increases in the atmospheric levels of
^C th at result from weapons testing and corresponding increases in specific
activity in tissues of human beings (Nydal, Lovseth, and Syrstad, 1971).
TaUe 11.3
DISTRIBUTION OF EXPOSURE BY LATITUDE TWO YEARS AFTER
RELEASE OF 1 TBq OF C AT 45N
Integrated
Latitude concentration, Population, Exposure,
band Ifl-M TBq year/m^ 10* 10" man TBq yr/m*
70 90N
50 -70N 35 475 166
30 50N 34 1210 411
10 30N 31 1474 457
10 S-10N 27 433 117
3 0 -10S 23 130 30
50 30S 20 58 12
70-50S 18 2 0.4
90 70S
Total 1193 4
G lobal-Long-T erm
After the initial mixing period of two years, we substitute a reservoir model
for the carbon cycle in which the reservoirs (atmosphere, terrestrial plants,
ocean) can be considered as globally aggregated. The model used for our calcu
lations is described by Killough (1980) and considers the dynamics of non
radioactive carbon ( "C + '^C) and ' ^C. Dilution of the '^C specific activity by
rising levels of fossil CO 2 (from which all *'C has decayed away) are taken into
account (the Suess effect). The world population is assumed to rise to 10* indi
viduals by the year 2075 and to remain constant at that number. Integration of
the differential equations that define the model gives time histories X (t), Y (t)
equal to the atmospheric content of *'*C (TBq or Ci) and CO 2 (gC), respec-
RESULTS 113
Table 11.4
SUMMARY OF COLLECTIVE DOSE PREDICTIONS FOR RELEASE
OF Me TO THE ATMOSPHERE, mail S?/TBq
Point of release
Mixing stage Morris, III. Barnwel, S. C.
Regional 2 .K - 2 ) 2 .2 (-3 )
Continental
United States 5 .9 (-2 ) 3 .7 (-2 )
Canada 3 (~3)* l( -3 )
Mexico 3 (-5 )* 4 (- 4 )*
First pass 6 .2 (-2 ) 3 .8 (-2 )
Global-initial (2 years) 2 .7 (- l) 2 .7 (- l)
Global-long-term
10,000 years 57 57
Infinite time 86 86
Probable overestimate. Based on estimates for region nearest the

U. S. boundaries, where concentration is highest, and on total popula
tion of province or country.
tively, at time t, where X (t) considers only from the simulated source under
study. We estimate the dose rate to an individual at time t as
(DRF)eff X (t)
6 (t) = ----------------------------------------------- ( 11 -10 )
The collective dose accumulated between times ti and t 2 is then computed from
Eq. 11.4, and the summation is reduced to a single term representing the entire
world population.
To obtain the complete collective dose commitment corresponding to a
release, Eq. 11.4 m ust be evaluated as ta-ôo. In practice this requirement
means an integration range of 46,000 years. For *'*C the complete collective dose
commitment greatly exceeds collective dose estimates for periods of tens or even
hundreds of years. The results for 10,000 years and infinite time are shown in
Table 11.4.
RESULTS
Table 11.4 summarizes our estimates of collective dose per unit release of
*'*C0 2 to the atmosphere from the Morris, III, and Barnwell, S. C., sites for
each of the four mixing regimes discussed previously. The factor-of-ten contrast
in the regional estimates for the two sites is due to a combination of meteoro
logical and local agricultural productivity differences.
ll'* DOSE EQUIVALENT DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES OF 0
The estimates shown in Table 11.4 for Canada and Mexico are relatively
crude and probably somewhat too high. In the absence of agricultural data
comparable to those of Shor, Baes, and Sharp (1982) that were used for the
United States, we combined predicted concentrations in these countries with
total population or (in the case of C anada) with populations of the provinces to
obtain estimates of collective dose. Moreover, the concentrations probably are
overpredictions inasmuch as they were based on limited areas of Canada and
Mexico near the U. S. borders where the concentrations would be higher than
averages over the entire land areas (this procedure was necessary because our
wind trajectories were bounded by a window defined by longitudes 105W
and 48W , and latitudes 25N and 51N).
The long-term global estimates of Table 11.4 greatly dominate those for the
first pass and the initial global mixing period. This effect has often been noted
(e.g., NBA, 1980), and there is some disagreement as to how the long-term col
lective dose estimates should be weighed in assessing radiological effects of a
release of 'C. This question is beyond the scope of the present chapter. We
note only that despite the preponderance of the long-term values, regional- and
continental-scale estimates of collective dose are likely to be of interest given the
short time over which these components of dose are delivered. Moreover, we
defend the added effort involved in estimating collective dose corresponding to
the several atmospheric mixing stages, as given in Table 11.4, by pointing out
th at for gaseous effluents with shorter radiological half-lives or physical or
chemical properties that enhance their transfer from the atmosphere to other
environmental reservoirs, the relationships can be quite different. We cite tri
tium in the form of tritiated water as an excellent example (NBA, 1980).
Several limitations of the methods discussed in this chapter need to be noted:
1. The chemical form of the gaseous release of is quite important in
predicting its environmental behavior. The assumption that the release is carbon
dioxide maximizes the estimate of collective dose at the earlier stages of mixing
but does not palpably decrease the long-term global estimates.
2. Failure to account for plume depletion due to fixation of in vegetation
at the regional and continental scales results in possible overprediction of collec
tive dose. The importance of this effect for **C cannot be given here but will be
assessed in a future publication.
3. The assumption that the total yield of contaminated crops and animal
products will be consumed is of course pessimistic, but we are not able to
recommend a correction. Loss of *''C in preparation of food also would reduce
the dose, but it would presumably have a slighter effect than the previously
mentioned factor.
4. The agricultural statistics summarized by Shor, Baes, and Sharp (1982)
cannot take into account home vegetable gardens whose produce would not be
reflected in agricultural census figures.
5. Our two-dimensional model of the troposphere used to estimate the global
collective dose for the initial two years after release is quite crude. In their
RESULTS 115
study of ^Kr, M achta, Ferber, and Heffter (1974) represented the entire atmo
sphere with a two-dimensional diffusion model th at allowed K* and to vary
with location according to experience in fitting fallout data. More refined two-
dimensional models include velocity terms based on atmospheric circulation
[e.g.. Hyson, Fraser, and Pearman (1980)].
6 . W e have already alluded to our use of wind-field data for seven months
(April through October) of the year 1975. One might prefer results in which the
predicted concentrations for a particular month represent averages for that
month over several years wind data. It might also be desirable to make such
predictions for all twelve months in order to take into consideration winter crops
and cattle feeding on pasture in regions where winters are mild.
7. As previously explained, our estimates of collective dose for C anada and
Mexico are based on rather crude overpredictions.
8 . Limitations affecting the long-term global estimates are discussed by Kil
lough (1980).
Notwithstanding these limitations, we believe that the calculations reported
here amply demonstrate the feasibility of applying the methods outlined in this
chapter to assessments of releases of to the atmosphere.
REFERENCES
Baes, C. F., Jr., H. B. Goeller, J. S. Olson, and R. M. Rotty, 1976, The Global Carbon Dioxide
Problem, ERDA Report ORNL-5194, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
Begovich, C. L., B. D. Murphy, and C. J. Nappo, Jr., 1978, RETADD: A Regional Trajectory and
Diffusion-Deposition Model, DOE Report ORNL/TM-5859, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
NTIS.
Bowen, H. J. M., 1960, Biological Fractionation of Isotopes, Int. J. Appl. Radlat. h o t., 7: 261-272.
Buchanan, D. L., 1951, Uptake and Retention of Fixed Carbon in Adult Mice, J. Gen. Physiol., 34:
737-759.
Craig, H., 1953, The Geochemistry of the Stable Carbon Isotopes, Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 3:
53-92.
Culkowski, W. M., and M. R. Patterson, 1976, A Comprehensive Atmospheric Transport and D iffu
sion Model, ERDA Report ORNL/NSF/EATC-17, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NTIS.
Fowler, T. W., and C. B. Nelson, 1981, Health Impact Assessment o f Carbon-14 Emissions from
Normal Operations o f Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities, EPA 520/5-80-004, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Hyson, P., P. J. Fraser, and G. I. Pearman, 1980, A Two-Dimensional Transport Simulation Model
for Trace Atmospheric Constituents, J. Geophys. Res., 85(C8): 4443-4455.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), 1977, ICRP Publication 26, Ann.
ICRP, 1(3): 2-47.
, 1975, Report o f the Task Group on Reference Man, ICRP Publication 23, Pergamon Press,
Oxford.
Keeling, C. D., W. G. Mook, and P. P. Tans, 1979, Recent Trends in the X / ' X Ratio of Atmo
spheric Carbon Dioxide, Nature, 277: 121-123.
Killough, G. G., 198(X A Dynamic Model for Estimating Radiation Dose to the World Population
from Releases of C to the Atmosphere, Health Phys., 38: 269-300.
116 DOSE EQUIVALENT DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES OF 'C
and P. S. Rohwer, 1978, A New Look at the Dosimetry of Released to the Atmosphere as
Carbon Dioxide, Health Phys., 34: 141-159. ^
Machta, L,, G. J. Ferber, and J, L. Heffter, 1974, Regional and Global Scale Dispersion of for
Popuiation-Dose Calculations, in Physical Behaviour o f Radioactive Contaminants in the A tm o
sphere, pp. 411-426, STI/PU B/354, Internationai Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), 1980, Radiological Significance and Management o f Tritium, Car
bon-14, Krypton-85, Iodine-129 Arising from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Energy
Agency/Organisation for Fxxinomic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
Nydal, R., K. Ldvseth, and S. Gulliksen, 1979, A Survey of Radiocarbon Variation m Nature Since
the Test Ban Treaty, in Radiocarbon DatingProceedings o f the 9th International Radiocarbon
Conference, University of California at Los Angeles and San Diego, June 20-26, 1976,
R. Berger and H, E. Suess (Eds,), pp. 313-323, University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif.
, R., K. Lovseth, and O. Syrstad, 1971, Bomb *^C in the Human Population, Nature, 232:
418-421.
Schwibach, J., H. Riedei, and J. Bretschneider, 1978, Investigations into the Emission o f Carbon-14
Compounds from Nuclear Facilities, Its Measurement and the Radiation Exposure Resulting
from the Emission, Report No. V-3062/78-EN, Commission of the European Communities.
Shor, R. W., C. F. Baes III, and R. D, Sharp, 1982, Agricultural Production in the United States
by County: A Compilation o f Information from the 1974 Census o f Agriculture for Use in Ter
restrial Food-Chain Transport and Assessment Models, DOE Report ORNL-5768, Oak Ridge
Smith, B. N., and S. Epstein, 1971, Two Categories of *^C/*^C Ratios for Higher Plants, Plant
Physiol., 47: 380-384.
Watt, B. K,, and A. L. Merrill, 1950, Composition o f FoodsRaw, Processed, Prepared, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Handbook No. 8.
12 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
By
Charles W. Miller
Previous chapters of this book present models and param eter values th at can be
used to assess the impact on man of radionuclides released to the environment
from nuclear facilities. This chapter illustrates how these models and param eter
values are used in numerical calculations. Example problems for a limited num
ber of nuclides are solved for environmental concentrations and for subsequent
doses th at result to humans from releases to the atmosphere and to surface
waters. Examples considered are far from exhaustive when compared to what
might be encountered in a real assessment situation; however, these cases can be
of assistance to persons attem pting such calculations for the first time or to per
sons who need to understand how such calculations are made. Also these prob
lems can be used as a partial check of computer implementations of material
contained in this report.
Along with the solution of these example problems are citations of the equa
tion, methodology, or param eter value being used, identified by chapter and sec
tion title. The reader should consult the referenced locations for a complete defi
nition of all the terms used in solving the sample problem.
Answers are provided in both the old units and the new SI units. An exam
ple of the standard format in which these units are presented is
X = 8.7 X 10 * Ci/m ^ or (3.2 X 10 Bq/m)
In previous chapters, whenever information could be obtained on the statisti

cal distribution identified with the parameters, the information was given. In
117
this chapter, however, meac values of these param eters are used in the example
calculations. Selection of the mean value was an arbitrary choice for illustrative
purposes only; use of the mean value here does not constitute a recommendation
th at mean values be used for all assessment calculations. In addition, release
rates used in these example problems were chosen arbitrarily. No relationship
between the release rates selected and actual release rates from any nuclear
facility is intended.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS
R e le a se s to th e A tm osp h ere
Air Concentrations from a Ground-Level Release. Assume an annual release of

1 X 10 ^ Ci of ^ 'l 2 from a ground-level (hg = 0 m) source under Pasquill
atmospheric stability category D. Because of the release height, the
Pasquill-Gifford values of and should be used in the Gaussian plume
model, Eq. 3.1. From Table 3.1, for a downwind distance of x ~ 2000 m,
ffy = (ai In X + a 2)x
= [-0 .0 0 5 9 (In 2000) + 0.11](2000)
= 130 m (12.1)
and
<Tz = exp (bj + b 2 In x -h bs In^ x)
exp [ - 1 .3 5 + 0.79 (In 2000) + 0.0022 (In 2000)^]
56 m (12.2)
Equation 3.8 for plume depletion cannot be solved analytically. However,

values of the ratio Q '/Q , the plume-depletion fraction, for Vj = 1 cm /s and
u = 1 m /s can be obtained from Fig. 5.5 of Meteorology and A tom ic
Energy 1968 (Van der Hoven, 1968). For a downwind distance of 2000 m, a
release height of 0 m, and Pasquill D stability. Fig. 5.5 gives Q '/Q = 0.35.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS 119
Assume th at the actual wind speed for the release being considered here is
3 m /s. Further assume that Vd(total) = 3.5 cm /s (see the Dry Deposition
section of Chap. 3) and v = 1.3 cm /s (M iller and Hoffman, 1979). This
results in a total deposition velocity of 4.8 cm /s. The value of Q '/Q noted above
can now be changed to reflect the assumed release conditions by
5 1 5 1
Q 2 Q
(1 m /s )(4.8 c m /s)
(0 .3 5 ) (3m /s)(lcm /s)
0.19 (12.3)
T his result indicates th at the deposition processes considered here result in an

air concentration at 2000 m which is 19% of the air concentration th at would be
expected if these deposition processes were not considered.
The half-life, of is 8.05 d; therefore the radiological decay constant,
Xj, is 9.96 X 10~^s~' (U. S. Departm ent of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1979).
Equation 3.1 can be used to calculate the ground-level, centerline air concen
tration. W hen decay and plume depletion are accounted for, Eq. 3.1 becomes
Q '5 1
X = is exp iTSl
T U ffyffj; u Q
Q = 1 X 1 0 "^C i/y ear = 3.2 X 10 " C i/s
3.2 X 10~* C i/s

exp (9.96 X 10 ) (0.19)
7r(3m /s)(130m )(56 m)
8.9 X 10 Ci/m ^ or (3.3 X 10 Bq/m) (12.4)

The 22.5 sector average air concentration, based on Eq. 3.2, is given by
2.032Q 9L
x = exp
xutr^ u Q
(2.032)0.2 X 10~*Ci/s) 2000

exp (9.96 X 1 0 " 0 (0.19)
(2 0 0 0 m )(3 m /s)(5 6 m)
3.7 X 10 *-% or (1.4 X 10 Bq/m^) (12.5)
Air Concentration from an Elevated Release. Assume an annual release of 100

Ci of *Kr from a 100-m tall stack. Because krypton is a nonreactive gas and
because it has a half-life of 10.76 years (U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 1979), radiological decay and plume depletion need not
be considered in this calculation. Using the Brookhaven dispersion parameters
for this elevated release and assuming class Bj stability and a downwind dis
tance of 2000 m. Table 3.2 gives
Pz^
= (0.33)[(2000m)*]
-2 3 0 m (12.6)
If u 4 m /s, the 22.5 sector-averaged air concentration for this release is,
from Eq. 3.2,
2
2.0320 exp 1 he
Y = --------^
XUffz 2
(2.032)(3.2X 10~Ci/s) 1 100 m

exp
(2000 m )(4 m /s)(230 m) 2 230 m
3.2 X 10 ^Ci/m ^ or (1.2 X 10 * Bq/m^) (12.7)

Ground Deposition. The rate of dry deposition onto the earths surface is given
by Eq. 3.4 as
d = xvd ( 12.8)
Using the information contained in the Air Concentrations From a Ground-

Level Release section of this chapter for a ground-level atmospheric release of
*^*l2 yields
v<j = 3.5 cm /s
X = 3.7 X 10~*Ci/m ^
and
d = xVd
= (3.7 X 10"' Ci/m ^)(3.5 X 1 0 '^ m /s)
= 1.3 X 10 * C im 2s
= 4.7 X 1 0 -2 p C i m - ^ h - or ( I .7 X 1 0 - 2 B q m - 2 h - ) (12.9)
Concentration on Grass. The concentration in and on grass as a result of

the deposition rate calculated above is given by Eq. 4.1 as
r[ i - exp ( - Xfiite)] , By[ 1 - exp ( - Xitj,)]

C f = di 1---------- e x p ( - X it h ) (1 2 .1 0 )
YvXEi PXi
The input param eter values for this case are
di = 4.7 X 1 0 - 2 p C i m - 2 h - '( E q . 12.9)

r/Y y = 2 m ^/kg (Table 4.1)
Xei = 6.4 X 10~2 h"* (Hoffm an and Baes, 1979)
te==720 h (Table 4.7)
By = 2.0 X 10 (Table 4.2)
Xj = 3.6 X 10~2 h~* (U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1979)
P = 215 kg/m2 (Table 4.6)
tb = 8.76 X 10^ h (assumed)
th = 0 (Table 4.7)
The resulting concentration of ^'T in or on the grass is
Q = i5 p C i/k g or (5.6 X 10~> Bq/kg) (12,11)
Concentration on Fresh Produce. Equation 12,10 also can be used to esti

mate the concentrations in and on fresh produce as a result of the deposition of
^*1 considered above. Assuming the fresh produce is leafy vegetables, the input
param eter values for this case are
d i= 4.7 X 10 2 p C im 2 h (Eq. 12.9)
r= 0.2 (Table 4.1)
1/Yv 0.53 m^/kg (leafy) (Table 4.1)
Xej = 6.4 X 10 ^ h ~ (Hoffman and Baes, 1979)
te = 1440 h (Table 4.7)
B^ - 5.5 X 10"^ (Table 4.3)
X; = 3.6 X 10 ^ h * (U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1979)
P = 215 kg/m^ (Table 4.6)
tb 8.76 X 10^ h (assumed)
t h = 336 h (Table 4.7)
Entering these values into Eq. 12.10 results in a concentration of "'I in or on

leafy vegetables of
Ci" = 2.3 X 10 *pC i/kg or (8.5 X 10 ^ Bq/kg) (12.12)
Concentration in M ilk. Assume that both beef and dairy cattle are getting
100% of their food from the grass considered in the Concentration on Grass
section of this chapter. The resulting concentration of *^*I in milk produced by
these dairy cattle is, from Eq. 4.3,
Ci = F C fQ F ex p (-X itf) (12.13)
The input param eter values are

F,n = 1.0 X 10 ^ d /L (Table 4.4)
C>= 15 pC i/kg(E q. 12.11)
Qf = 15.6 kg /d (Table 4.6)
tf= 4 d (Table 4.7)
Xi = 8.6 X 10 ^ d * (U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1979)
resulting in
C|^ = 1.7 p C i/L or (6.3 X lO '^ B q/L ) (12.14)
Concentration in Beef. Similarly, the concentration of in beef can be

found by using Eq. 4.4
Cf = FfC i^Q F e x p ( - X it,) ( 1 2 .1 5 )
and the new input values of
Ff = 7 X lO 'M /k g (Table 4.5)
and
ts = 20 d (Table 4.7)
This calculation results in
C f 2.9 X 10 ' pC i/kg or (1.1 X 10 ^ B q/kg) (12.16)
R elease to S u rface W ater
Surface W ater Concentration. The fundamental form of the model for surface
water concentration without sorption is given by Eq. 5.1. This model cannot be
solved in general, however, without resorting to computerized numerical tech
niques. If, however, a vertical line source emitting at a constant rate (W C i/s)
is assumed, a closed form solution of Eq. 5.2 can be obtained (U. S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 1977). If we further assume a uniform, straight, rec
tangular channel in which the water flows, the solution to Eq. 5.2 is given by
(U. S. N uclear Regulatory Commission, 1977).
mrb
1 + 2 2 xp cos (12.17)
Qw n=l Uwuy
where is the total river discharge (activity or mass per second), b is the
cross-stream location of sampling point (m), the cosine function is in radians.
and the other param eters are as defined for Eq. 5.2. Input parameters derived
by using flow parameters based on Hudson River data (Yeh, 1979), and a
discharge rate of 1 fiC i/s of *^^Cs are
W = 1 X 10~Ci/s
Qy, 1600 m^/s
Ky = 5 m^/s
u = 0.6 m /s
y = 600 m
X* = 200 0 m
b= 200 m
when we consider only the first three terms of the series expansion (n = 3),
(1 X 10~^C i/s)
* (1600m ^/s)
n V (2 0 0 0 m )(5 m ^/s) ny (2 0 0 m)
1+ 2 2 exp cos'
1 n=l (0.6m /s)(600 m)^ (600 m)
= (6.2 X 1 0 " )[I + 2(0.16 + 0.04 + 0.02)]
= 8 .9 X 10~C i/m 3
= 8.9 X 10~'^ C i/L or (3.3 X lO '^ B q /L ) (12.18)
Concentration in Fish. Assume that freshwater finfish inhabit the stream con
sidered in Eq. 12.18. The concentration Ci (C i/k g ) of *^Cs in these fish is given
by
C f BipCwi (12.19)
If we further assume that no site-specific information is available on the concen

tration of potassium in this stream, we can obtain a mean value of B|p from
Table 6.3. This results in
C f = (400 L/kg)(8.9 X 10~^ C i/L )
= 3.6 X 10'* C i/kg or (1.3 X 10* Bq/kg) ( 12.20)

125
DOSE CALCULATIONS
External D o se s
Immersion in Contaminated Air. The external dose rate to an individual

immersed in contaminated air is given by (M oore et al., 1979)
RiT = D f Xi (12.21)
where Ry is the dose rate to organ j as a result of immersion in air contami

nated with radionuclide i (m rem /year or Sv/year), Dy is the dose conversion
factor as a result of immersion in air for radionuclide i and organ j (m rem /year
per /iCi/cm^ or Sv/year per Bq/cm^), and Xi is the concentration of radionu
clide i in air (/aCi/cm^ or Bq/cm^). In the A ir Concentrations from a Ground-
Level Release section of this chapter, a 22.5 sector-averaged air concentration
for a ground-level release of '^ 'l 2 was
Xi = 3.6 X 10-*^Ci/m ^
= 3 .6 X 1 0 - V C i/cm ^
From Table 8.2 the dose conversion factor for the beta (electrons) dose rate to
the skin from '^lais
Dy = 9.7 X 10* m rem /year per ftCi/cm^
Therefore for this release the annual beta (electron) dose rate to the body sur
face is
Ry = (9.7 X 10* m rem /year per cm^//iCi)(3.6 X 10~^Ci/cm^)
= 3.5 X 10 m rem /year or (3.5 X 10 ' Sv/year)
Similar calculations can be performed for other organs listed in Table 8.2. The
resulting gamma- and X-ray (photon) dose rates for all organs considered com
plete the following table:
Organ_____ Dose rate, m re m /y e a r (Sv/year)
Skin 3.5 X lO 'Ô .S X 10 *^)

Lungs 5.8 X 10 (5.8 X 10 *)
Ovaries 5.0 X 10 (5.0 X 10 *)
Red marrow 6.1 X 10 (6.1 X 10 *)
Skeleton 7.2 X 10 (7.2 X 10 *)
Testes 7.9 X 10 (7.9 X 10 *)
Total body 6.5 X 10 (6.5 X 10 *)
In the Air Concentration from an Elevated Release section of this chapter,

Eq. 12.7 gives an air concentration for an elevated release of ^Kr,
Xi = 3.2 X 10 * C i/m
= 3.2 X 10 * MCi/cm
The following annual electron and photon dose rates for this release condition
are found by using Eq. 12.21 and Table 8.2:
Organ_____ Dose rate, mrem/year (Sv/year)
Skin 4.8 X 10 (4.8 X 10 *)

Lungs 3.1 X 10 5(3.1 X 10 *)
Ovaries 2.8 X 10 **(2.8 X 10 *)
Red marrow 3.2 X 10 ^(3.2 X 10 *)
Skeleton 3.5 X 10 ^ (3.5 X 10 *)
Testes 4.2 X 10 ^(4.2 X 10 ^)
Total body 3.2 X 10 ^ 3 .2 X 10 *)
Exposure to Contaminated Ground. The external dose rate to an individual as a

result of exposure to a radionuclide deposited on the ground is calculated by
using the following equation (Moore et al., 1979):
R f = di ^ ~ ex M -M sb ) (8.64 x 10^) (12.22)
where Ry = dose rate to organ j as a result of exposure to ground contami

nated with radionuclide i (mrem/year or Sv/year)
di = ra te of deposition onto ground of radionuclide i (/tCi cm s *
or Bq cm s *)
DOSE CALCULATIONS 127
Xx = radioactive d e c a y constant Xj. + environmental decay constant X

( d - )
tsb = time allotted for surface buildup (d)
Djj = dose conversion factor for radionuclide i and organ j as a result of
s u r f a c e exposure to an infinite plane at a point 1 m above ground
(mrem/year per /tCi/cm^ or Sv/year per Bq/cm^)

8.64 X lO'* = s/d
In the Ground Deposition section of this chapter, Eq. 12.9 gives a dry deposi
tion rate onto the earths surface resulting from a ground-level release of
di = 1.3 X 10~ C im 2s *
~ 1.3 X 10 *V C icm 2 s -
If w e assume a one-year surface buildup time and no losses from the surface as
a result of weathering effects, then
Xt = X, = 8.61 X 10 2d
tsb = 365 d
and
|l- e x p [ - ( 8 .6 1 X 1 0 - ^ d - = ) ( 3 6 5 d ) ] }
R f = (1.3 X lO-'^MCi/cm-^s"
(8.61 X 10~^d ')
X (8.64 X 1 0 ^ s /d )D f
= (1 .3 X 10 V C i/cm 2 )D if
Values of Djj for various organs can be found in Table 8.4. For the beta (elec
tron) dose rate to the skin from *^*I,
Dy = 2.1 X 10^ mrem/year cm^/ftCi
Therefore, for this tissue,
Ry = (1.3 X 10~AiCi/cm^)(2.1 X 10^ mrem/year cxtP'/nCi)
= 2.7 X 10~'* mrem/year or (2.7 X 10 Sv/year)

Similar calculations for the remaining organs listed in Table 8.4 complete the
following table of electron and photon dose rates:
Organ Dose rate, mrem/year (Sv/year)
Skin 2.7 X 10 '*(2.7 X 10 )

Lungs X 1 0 ' (4.6 X 10')
Ovaries X 1 0 ' (3.9 X 10')
Red marrow 4.7 X 1 0 ' (4.7 X 10')
Skeleton 5.6 X 1 0 ' (5.6 X 10')
Testes 6.1 X 1 0 ' (6.1 X 10')
Total body 4.8 X 1 0 ' (4.8 X 10')
Internal D o se s
Inhalation Dose. Dose rate to various organs of the body as a result of inhaling
contaminated air is given by (Moore et al., 1979)
Ry^ = XiUaV>ij^ (12.23)

where Ry' == dose rate to organ j as a result of breathing air contaminated with
radionuclide i (rem/year or Sv/year)
Xi = concentration of radionuclide i in air (/uCi/m^ or Bq/m^)
= human volumetric breathing rate (m^/year)
Dy' = dose conversion factor for radionuclide i and organ j as a result of
breathing contaminated air (rem/juCi or Sv/Bq intake)
From Table 7.1,
Ua^p = 8.03X lO^mVyear
From the Air Concentrations from a Ground-Level Release section of this

chapter, Eq. 12.5, the value for is
Xi = 3.6 X 10 ^Ci/m^
= 3.6 X 10 *MCi/m^
From Table 9.2 for the thyroid,
Dy' = 1.1 xem/fiCi

The resulting annual dose rate to the thyroid for this release of '^*I2 is
R if = (3.6 X 10~*MCi/m^)(8.03 X lO ^m V yearX l.l rem/fiCi)
= 3.2 X 10~ rem /year
= 3.2 X 10 ^ m rem /year or (3.2 X 10 Sv/year)
Doses to the remaining organs listed in Table 9.2 also are estimated by applying
Eq. 12.23. Estimates of the doses to the organs are as follows;
Organ_________ Dose rate, mrem/year (Sv/year)
Thyroid 3.3 X 10 (3.3 X 10 )

Lungs 7.5 X 10 (7.5 X 10 " )
Total body 1.8 X 10 (1.8 X 10 " )
Red marrow 5.8 X 10 (5.8 X 10 " )
Bone endosteum 6.4 X 10 (6.4 X 10 " )
Gonads 1.2 X 10 (1.2 X 10 " )
Lower large intestine 9.8 X 10 * (9.8 X 10 " )
Effective 9.8 X 10 (9.8 X 10 " )
Note that inhalationcalculations are not made for *Kr, because it isassumed
that theinhalation doses fromnoble gases are insignificant whencompared to
air immersion doses.
Ingestion Doses. Calculation of dose to humans as a result of ingestion of con

taminated food is analogous to the calculation of inhalation doses as expressed
by Eq. 12.23 (Moore et al., 1979).
Ri^ = CfUfDi^ (12.24)
where R- = dose rate to organ j as a result of eating food contaminated with

c f = concentration of radionuclide i in the food of interest (jaCi/kg or
/iC i/L or Bq/kg or Bq/L)
U f = rate of intake of the food of interest containing radionuclide i
(kg/year or L/year)
d I = dose conversion factor for radionuclide i and organ j as a result of
ingestion of contaminated food (rem/^Ci or Sv/Bq intake)
Ingestion o f Fresh Produce. The concentration that results in leafy veg

etables from the ground-level ^*I2 release considered in this section was found
to be (see the Concentration on Fresh Produce section of this chapter, Eq.
12. 12)
Cf = Cf = 2.3 X 1 0 - pCi/kg
= 2.3 X IQ -^ MCi/kg
Assuming that all of the leafy vegetables a person consumes are grown in the
area affected by the release being considered, Table 7.1 gives an annual average
adult intake rate for leafy vegetables of
Ufv = Ufp = 18 kg/year
Table 9.4 indicates that the ingestion dose conversion for i = and j = thy
roid is
Dy = 1.8 rem//xCi
It follows from Eq. 12.24 that the dose rate to the thyroid in this example is
Ry = (2.3 X 1 0 - /tCi/kg)( 18 kg/year)(1.8 rem//tCi)
= 7.5 X 10 rem/year
= 7.5 X 10 ^rem/year or (7.5 X 10 * Sv/year)
Dose rates to other organs from the ingestion of in leafy vegetables also are
calculated from Eq. 12.24:
Thyroid 7.5 X 10 * (7.5 X 10 *)

Lungs 1.5 X 10 (1.5 X 10 ")
Total body 3.8 X 10 (3.8 X 10 ")
Red marrow 1.2 X 10 (1.2 X 10 " )
Gonads 2.5 X 10 ^ (2.5 X 10 >2)
Lower large intestine 2.2 X 10 '^(2.2 X 10 " )
Effective 2.3 X 10 '*(2.3 X 10 )
Ingestion o f Milk. As indicated in the Concentration in Milk section of

this chapter, the concentration of in milk for the release being considered
here is
C f = C i ^ = 1.7pCi/L
= 1 .7 X 1 0 V C i / L
Assuming that all of the milk a person consumes comes from the area surround
ing the release being considered, Table 7.1 gives the following annual average
adult intake rate for milk:
U fv = U a = 1 1 2 L /y e a r
Appropriate dose conversion factors can be found in Table 9.4. For i = ^*1 and
j = thyroid, the dose conversion factor is
Dy = 1.8 rem//iCi
When we apply Eq. 12.24, we fin d that the dose rate to the thyroid is
R f = (1 .7 X 10^ V C i/L )(l 12 L/year)(1.8 rem/^Ci)
= 3.4 X 1 0 '* r e m / y e a r
= 3.4 X 10 * mrem/year or ( 3 .4 X 1 0 ~ * S v /y e a r)
Similar calculations for the dose rate to other organs as a result of the ingestion
of *^*I in milk are included in the following:
Organ_________ Bose rate, mrem/year (Sv/year)
Thyroid 3.4 X 10 * (3.4 X 10 )

Lungs 7.0 X 10 (7.0 X 10 *)
Total body 1.7 X 10 '*(1.7 X 10 )
Red marrow 5.5 X 10 (5.5 X 10 *)
Bone endostrum 6.3 X 10 (6.3 X 10 *)
Gonads 1.2 X 1 0 ( 1 . 2 X 10 ')
Lower large intestine 1.0 X 10 (1.0 X 10 *)

Effective 1.0 X 10 M L0 X 10 ^)
Ingestion @f Meat. Dose to various organs as a result of ingestion of in

meat also can be found by using Eq. 12.24 and the following input parameters:
Cf = C f = 2.9 X 10~* pCi/kg(Eq. 12.16)
= 2.9 X 10" V C i/k g
U fp = 32 kg/year (Table 7.1)
Dy = values for various organs found in Table 9.4
Assuming that the person consumes only beef raised in the area influenced by
the release under consideration and converting from rems to millirems, dose
rates that result are as follows:
Organ_________ Dose rate, rem/year (Sv/year)
Thyroid 1.7 X 10~2(1.7 X 10 )

Lungs 3.4 X 10 (3.4 X 10 " )
Total body 8.4 X 10 (8.4 X 10 " )
Red marrow 2.7 X 10 (2.7 X 10 " )
Gonads 5.7 X 10 (5.7 X 10 ^)
Lower large intestine 4.9 X 10 (4.9 X 10 " )
Effective 5.1 X 10 *(5.1 X 10 )
Ingestion o f Fish. Equation 12.24 also can be used to calculate dose as a

result of the ingestion of fish containing " Cs. As calculated in the Concentra
tion in Fish section of this chapter, Eq. 12.20,
Ci = C f = 3.6 X 10 C i/kg
= 3.6 X 10 V C i/k g
Table 7.1 gives, for freshwater finfish,
u f = Ufp = 4.4 kg/year
Dose conversion factors for i = " Cs also are found in Table 9.4. For j == total
body.
Di^= 4 .9 X lO-^rem/MCi
Assuming that all of the fish consumed by this person contains C;, the resulting
annual dose rate to the total body is
Rjj = (3.6 X 10~'/[iCi/kg)(4.4 kg/year)(4.9 X lO^^rem/^Ci)
= 7.8 X 10 ^ rem/year
= 7.8 X 10 ^ mrem/year or (7.8 X 10 ^ Sv/year)
Similar calculations give the additional results included below for the other
organs listed in Table 9.4:
Total body 7.8 X lO'^ (7.8 X 10 ^)

Lungs 1.6 X 10 * (1.6 X 10 )
Red marrow 1.2 X 10 * (1.2 X 10 )
Bone endosteum 1.3 X 10 * (1.3 X 10 )
Gonads 1.2 X 10 * (1.2 X 10 )
Lower large intestine 4.1 X 10 ^(4.1 X 10 *)
Effective 1.3 X 10 * (1.3 X 10 )
Tritium and C arbon -14 D o se C alculations
Tritium Doses. Assume that is released from an elevated source under the
meteorological and location conditions considered for the *Kr release in the
Air Concentration from an Elevated Release section. From this section,
X = 3.2 X 10 *2ci/m H E q. 12.7)
Q = 100 Ci/year
= 3.2 X 10 C i/s
Therefore,
i 3.2 X 10 *^Ci/m^
Q 3.2 X 10 C i/s
= 1.0 X 10 s/m^ (12.25)

Also assume for this release that Q = 1 X 10 * Ci/s; therefore the air con
centration from Eq. 12.25 is
X == 1.0 X 10 ^Ci/m^
= l.OpCi/m^
Total annual dose as a result of the intake of can be calculated by using Eq.
10. 2 .
R - (1.22Cw + 1.56 2 Q A + 0.22Ca) X DRF (12.26)
The specific activity of in the air, represented by Cg, is given by (Etnier,

1980)
where Hg is the absolute humidity (g H20/m^ air). Values of Hg for the United
States have been published by Etnier (1980). If a value of Hg = 6 g/nP is
assumed for this example, then
C = 1 p C i/m ^
6g/m ^
= 1.7 X 1 0 p C i/g
- 1.7X 10 'pC i/m l
= 1.7 X lO^pCi/L (12.27)
Assume further that n = 1; = 1; C* = 0.01 pCi/L; = 1.7 X 10^

pCi/L; and Cfn = 8.5 X 10* pCi/L.
For this calculation, we will use a total-body DRF of 9.5 X 10 ^
mrem/year per pCi/L (NCRP, 1979). This value is derived from basically the
same dose conversion factors presented in Chap. 9. By using Eq. 12.26, the
resulting total-body dose is
R =[1.22(0.01 pC i/L ) + 1.56(8.5 X 10* pCi/L) + 0.22(1.7 X lO ^ p C i/L ) ]
X X 9.5 X 10~^ m r e m /y e a r p e r p C i/L
= 5.4 X 10 ^mrem/year or (5.4 X 10 *Sv/year)
Carbon-14 Doses. Assume that is released with the considered in the

preceding section. As a result, from Eq. 12.25,
- ^ = l . O X 1 0 * s/m ^
Q
for this release situation also. I f Q = 5.0 X 10 C i/s, then
X = 5 .0 X 10 ^Ci/m^
= 5 .0 X 10 V C i/m ^
According to Eq. 11.2, the dose equivalent to organ i resulting from the
ingestion of *'*C, Djg, is given by
M
Dig - (DRF)ig 2 Af (12.28)
n*=l
From Eq. 11.1,
A f = (12.29)
0.18
Table 11.1 presents values of (DRF)jg in units of (10* Sv/year per TBq/gC).
Included in the following table are corresponding values of (D RF)jg in units of
(mrem year per |tCi/gC):
p R F ) ig (DMF)ig
10 Sv/year m rem /year
Referrace organ per TBq/gC per MCl/gC
Gonads 22 8.1 X lO'*

Breast 35 1.3 X 10
Red marrow 99 3.7 X 10
Lung 25 9.2 X lO'^
Thyroid 26 9.6 X 10^
Total endosteal cells 90 3.3 X 10
Remainder 36 1.3 X 10
Effective 40 1.5 X 10
Assume that the dose from *'*C due to the ingestion of beef is of interest.
Table 11.2 indicates that beef contains 228 gC/kg. From Table 7.1 we find a
beef consumption rate of 32 kg/year. Therefore
G = (228 gC/kg)(32 kg/year)
= 7.3 X 10^ gC/year (12.30)
Assume the Reference Man value of G = 1.1 X 10 gC/year that is given in

Chap. 11. Therefore
Gn 7.3 X 10^
6.6 X 10"2 (12.31)
G 1.1 X 10
Applying Eq. 12.27 to calculate the dose to total endosteal cells from the *'*C in
this beef and assuming n = 1 gives
5.0 X 10~ nCi

Dig = (3.3 X 10 mrem/year per gC//tCi)(6.6 X 10 ^)
0.18 gC
= 6.0 X 10 ^mrem/year or (6.0 X 10 Sv/year)
Similar applications of Eq. 12.27 complete the doses, listed below, for due
to the ingestion of this beef:
Organ Dose rate, m rem /year (Sr/year)
Gonads 1.5 X 10"2(1.5 X 10'

Breast 2.4 X 10''2 (2.4 X 10'
Red marrow 6.8 X 10''2(6.8 X 10'
Lung 1.7 X 10'2(1.7 X 10')
Thyroid 1.8 X 10'2(1.8 X 10'
Total endosteal cells 6.0 X 10'2(6.0 X 10' )
Remainder 2.4 X 10''2 (2.4 X 10'
Effective 2.8 X 10''2 (2.8 X 10'
Doses due to other food products can be calculated in a similar manner.
REFERENCES
Etnier, B. L., 1980, Regional and Site-Specific Absolute Humidity Data for Use in Tritium Dose
Calculations, Health Phys., 39(2): 318-320.
Hoffman, F. O., and C. F. Baes III (Eds.), 1979, A Statistical Analysis o f Selected Parameters fo r
Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose o f Radionuclides. Final Report,
NUREG/CR-1004 (DOE Report ORNL/NUREG/TM-282), Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
NTIS.
Miller, C. W., and F. O. Hoffman, 1979, A Critique of Methods for Estimating Plume Depletion
and Deposition of Airborne RadionucUdes, in Proceedings o f the 12th Annual Symposium o f the
German-Swiss Fachverband fu r Strahlenschutz, Nordemey, Federal Republic of Germany, Oct.
2-6, 1978, H. Kellermann (Ed.), Bundesforscbungsanstalt fttr Fischerei, 2 Hamburg 55,
Wiistland 2.
Moore, R. E., et al., 1979, AIRDOS-EPA: A Computerized Methodology fo r Estimating Environ
mental Concentrations and Dose to Man from Airborne Releases o f Radionuclides, DOE Report
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1979, Tritium in the Environment,
NCRP Report No. 62, Washington, D.C.
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1979, Radiological
Health Handbook, Publication No. 2016, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977, Regulatory Guide 1.113. Estimating Aquatic Disper
sion o f Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases fo r the Purpose o f Implement
ing Appendix I, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Van der Hoven, I., 1968, Deposition of Particles and Gases, in Meteorology and Atomic Energy
1968, D. Slade (Ed.), TID-24190, pp. 202-208, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, NTIS.
Yeh, G., 1979, personal communication.
13 LIST OF SYM BOLS
Aa" Average ambient specific activity o f airborne carbon at point n

(C i/gC or TBq/gC)
Bip Bioaccumulation factor, the equilibrium ratio of the concentration
of radionuclide i in aquatic food p to i t s concentration in water
( L /k g )
Bv Concentration ratio for uptake of radionuclide i from soil by edi

ble parts of crops (pCi/kg plant tissue per pCi/kg dry soil or
Bq/kg plant tissue per Bq/kg dry s o i l )
Radionuclide concentration in entire above-ground portion of

plant at maturity per unit dry weight
Bv(!)
Radionuclide concentration in soil per unit dry weight
Radionuclide concentration in edible portion of

plant a t maturity per unit fresh weight
By(2)
Radionuclide concentration in soil per unit dry weight
b Cross-stream location of sampling point (m)

Cg Concentration of tritium in atmospheric water (pC i/L or Bq/L)
Cgi Equilibrium concentration of the nuclide in the food-chain organ
ism or tissue
Cfi Concentration of tritium in the water in food (pC i/L or Bq/L)
Cf2 Concentration of tritium oxidized to water upon the metabolism of
food (pCi/L or Bq/L)
Cfn Concentration of tritium in water of food products grown at loca
tion n (pCi/L or Bq/L)
C Concentration of tritium in drinking water (pCi/L or Bq/L)
138
LIST OF SYMBOLS 139
Cwi Concentration of radionuclide i in water (C i/L or Bq/L)

C f ( x ,0 ) Concentration of radionuclide i in animal flesh (pCi/kg or Bq/kg)
Q ^ ( x ,0 ) Concentration of radionuclide i in milk (pC i/L or Bq/L)
Cf{x,0) Concentration of radionuclide i on pasture grass (pCi/kg or
Bq/kg)
C( Concentration of radionuclide I in the food of interest (/xCi/kg or
AiCi/L or Bq/kg or Bq/L)
cf{x,e) Concentration of radionuclide i in stored feeds (pCi/kg or Bq/kg)
Qix,e) Concentration of radionuclide i in and on vegetation at location
( x , 0 ) (pCi/kg or Bq/kg)
[C a ]w Equilibrium concentration of calcium in the water (ppm)

c Downwash correction factor (m)
Ds Stream depth (m)
Dig Dose equivalent to organ i due to the ingestion of *^C (rem/year
or Sv/year)
Dih Dose rate to organ i as a result of inhalation of *^C (rem/year or
Sv/year)
Dp(t) Average individual dose rate to subpopulation p at time t (rem /t
or S v/t)
Dibr Dose conversion factor for radionuclide i and organ j as a result of
breathing contaminated air ( r e m / j t C i or Sv/Bq intake)
nfi8 Dose conversion factor for radionuclide i and organ j as a result of
surface exposure to an i n f i n i t e plane at a point 1 m above
ground (mrem/year per /tCi/cm^ or Sv/year per Bq/cm^)
Dose conversion factor as a result of immersion in air for radionu
clide i and organ j (mrem/year per ftCi/cm^ or Sv/year per
Bq/cm^)
Dose conversion factor for radionuclide i and organ j as a result of
ingestion of contaminated food f (rem/ftCi intake or Sv/Bq
intake)
DRF Dose rate factor for tritium (mrem/year per pC i/L or Sv/year
per Bq/L)
(DRF)eff Effective dose equivalent rate resulting from the ingestion of '^C
(rem/year per C i/gC or Sv/year per TBq/gC)
(DRF)h Effective dose equivalent rate from inhalation of (rem/year
per C i/gC or Sv/year per TBq/qC)
(D R F )ig Dose rate factor for organ i due to ingestion of '^C (rem/year per
C i/gC or Sv/year per TBq/gC)
(D R F )ih Dose rate factor for organ i due to inhalation of *^C (rem/year
per C i/gC or Sv/year per TBq/gC)
d Rate of deposition (C; m '^s~' or B q m~^s~*)
d i(x ,0 ) Deposition rate of radionuclide i onto ground at location {x,6)
(pCi m ^ h ~ or Bq m ^ h ')
140 LIST OF SYMBOLS
E Estimated cumulative global population exposure for first two

years following a release of (man Ci year/m^ or man TBq
year/m^)
Ff Fraction of the animals daily intake of radionuclide i that appears
in each kilogram of flesh [the meat (usually beef) transfer coef
ficient] (d/kg)
Fm Average fraction of the animals daily intake of radionuclide i that
appears in each liter of milk (the milk transfer coefficient)
(d /L )
fp Fraction of the year that animals graze on pasture (dimensionless)
fs Fraction of daily feed that is pasture grass when the animals graze
on pasture (dimensionless)
G Total annual average intake of dietary carbon (gC/year)
G Annual average intake of dietary carbon derived from location n
(gC/year)
H (ti,t 2 ) Collective dose accumulated by a population between times ti and
t 2 as a result of a release of radioactive material (man rem or
man Sv)
Ha Absolute humidity (gH20/m^ air)
Hg_n Collective dose at location n because of ingestion of **C (man
rem/year or man Sv/year)
Collective dose at location n because of inhalation of *^C (man
rem/year or man Sv/year)
he Effective height of release to the atmosphere (m)
hp Physical height of effluent stack (m)
hpr Rise of plume above the release point because of buoyancy and
momentum (m )
hj Maximum terrain height (above the stack base) between the
release point and the point for which the calculation is being
made (ht < 0)(m )
[K] Equilibrium concentration of potassium in the water (ppm)
Kx Turbulent diffusivity for horizontal mixing
Ky Lateral turbulent diffusion coefficient for a stream (m^/s)
Kx Turbulent diffusivity for vertical mixing
ko Ground-level concentration in the precipitation (Ci/m^ orBq/m^)
L Height of the vertical column of air (m)
M Total number of locations n considered
N Number of people residing near location n
Np(t) Size of subpopulation p at time t (persons)
P Effective surface density for the top 15 cm of soil (kg dry soil/m^)
p Amount of precipitation per unit time (m /year)
Q Release rate to the atmosphere (C i/s or.B q/s)
LIST OF SYMBOLS 141
Q' Release rate to the atmosphere reduced to account for plume

depletion effects (C i/s or B q/s)
Qf Amount of dry feed consumed by the animal per day (kg/d)
Total river discharge (activity or mass per second)
q Transverse cumulative discharge measured outward from the near
shore (activity or mass per second)
R Annual dose from tritium (mrem or Sv)
Dose rate to organ j as a result of breathing air contaminated with
Ry* Dose rate to organ j as a result of exposure to ground contami
nated with radionuclide i (mrem/year or Sv/year)
R Dose rate to organ j as a result of immersion in air contaminated
with radionuclide i (mrem/year or Sv/year)
Rjj Dose rate to organ j of an individual from eating food f contami
nated with radionuclide i (rem/year or Sv/year)
r Fraction of the total material being deposited that is intercepted
by the surface of interest (dimensionless)
ri Fraction of atmospherically depositing radionuclides intercepted
and initially retained on above-ground portions of forage crops
(dimensionless)
t2 Fraction of atmospherically depositing radionuclides intercepted
and initially retained on above-ground portions of leafy vege
tables and fresh produce ingested by man (dimensionless)
s.e. Standard error of the mean
t Time (s or h)
tb Period of long-term buildup for activity in soil (h)
te Time period that crops are exposed to contamination during the
growing season (h)
tf Average transport time of the activity from the feed into the milk
and to the receptor (d)
th A holdup time that represents the time interval between harvest
and consumption of the food (h)
tf Time from release to exposure (h or s)
tg Average time from slaughter of the animal to consumption of the
meat (d)
tsb Period of long-term buildup for activity on the surface (h)
Human volumetric inhalation rate (m^/year)
Uap Rate of human consumption of fruits, leafy vegetables, below-
ground vegetables, other vegetables, grain, beef, other meats
and poultry, finfish, or shellfish (kg/year)
UM Rate of human consumption of milk (L/year)
U J Rate of human consumption of water (L/year)
142 LIST OF SYMBOLS
Uf R a teof intake of the food of interest containing radionuclide i

(kg/year or L/year)
u Mean wind speed at the height of the plume (m /s)
u Average wind speed during the time period of interest (m /s)
u * Average shear velocity in the y dimension of a stream (m /s)
Uw Stream velocity (m /s)
Vd Dry deposition velocity (m /s)
Vg Gravitational fall velocity (m /s)
Vw Wet deposition velocity (m /s)
W Emission rate of a vertical line source into a stream (C i/s or
B q/s)
Wf Washout ratio (w, = k^/x)
X (t) Global atmospheric content of from source of interest at time
t (Ci or TBq)
X Downwind distance of interest (m)
Xno Northward distance coordinate
x Distance downstream (m)
Y Crosswind distance (m)
Y (t) Global atmospheric content of CO 2 at time t (gC)
Yjn Annual yield of foodstuff j at location n (kg/year)
Yy Agricultural productivity (yield) of the edible portion of vegeta
tion (kg/m^)
Yy(i) Agricultural productivity in dry weight for pasture grasses
(kg/m^)
Yy(2 ) Agricultural productivity in fresh weight for vegetables and pro
duce ingested directly by man (kg/m^)
y Distance across stream (m)
z Vertical distance coordinate (m)
a, j3 Unitless constants
8a Fraction of food products grown at location n that i s consumed at
the reference location (dimensionless)
X ei Effective removal rate constant for r a d i o n u c l i d e i from crops
where Xe, = X; + X, (t )
X j Radioactive decay constant X, + environmental decay constant X
(d -')
X; Radioactive decay constant of radionuclide i (t ')
Xy, Removal rate constant for physical l o s s by weathering (t~*)
H Mean value of the logarithms of a lognormally distributed data set
MX Loss in concentration as a result of radioactive decay and
exchanges with the stratosphere, the ocean, and land biota
a Standard deviation of a logarithm of a lognormally distributed
data set
LIST OF SYMBOLS 143
(Ty, Standard deviation of a Gaussian air concentration distribution in

the crosswind y and vertical z directions, respectively (m)
ffyA Horizontal dispersion parameter averaged over some time period
of interest, t^
ffyB Original value of the horizontal dispersion parameter based on dif
fusion data averaged over some time period, ts
<j> Fraction of material scavenged from a vertical column of air per
unit time (s )
<f>j Grams of carbon in the edible portion of foodstuff j per kilogram
produced (g/k g produced)
X Ground-level air concentration (Ci/m^ or Bq/m^)
Xn Ground-level air concentration of ''C at location n (Ci/m^ or
T B q /m ^)
Xva Average air concentration in the vertical column (Ci/m^ or
Bq/m^>
M Rate of deposition on ground surfaces from wet deposition
processes (pCi m~^ h * or Bq h ')
UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED
14 W ITH PREDICTIONS DERIVED
FROM MODELS AND PARAMETERS
By
F. Owen Hoffman, Charles W. Miller, and Craig A. Little
Whenever models are used for radiological assessment purposes, their predic
tions will contain some degree of uncertainty because:
1. All models are only approximations of reality. As such, the mathematical
structure of the model and the quantification of model parameters may not
b e directly applicable to actual events occurring at a specific location over a
given period of time.

2. Data used to estimate model parameters are inherently variable. Estimates
of variability are given for only a few of the parameters presented in, this
document. Furthermore, the models presented herein are determinisUp;
therefore they do not account for the effects of parameter variability.
These sources of uncertainty should be considered when predictions from
environmental transport and dosimetry models are used for decision-making pur
poses. When the consequences of misprediction are small, scientists can use the
models and parameters in this book to perform initial assessments of the dose to
man from a given radionuclide release. However, in situations where predicted
quantities approach relevant dose limits or other levels that require implementa
tion of radiological protection measures, efforts should be undertaken to test and
to improve the accuracy of the predictions.
In general, predictions are less certain when the models and parameters in
this document are used to evaluate short-term emissions than when they are
144
UNCERTAINTIES WITH MODEL AND PARAMETER PREDICTIONS 145
used to evaluate the effects of long-term emissions averaged over time periods of
months or years. The uncertainty is also expected to be greater for estimated
doses to critical groups within a population than for collective doses estimated
for entire populations. Increased time and space averaging can reduce uncertain
ties resulting from parameter variability; the remaining uncertainties, however,
will result primarily from errors due to bias in the model structure and to the
selection of representative parameter values.
In view of these considerations, the most appropriate use of these models and
parameter values is for the evaluation of environmental concentrations and
radiological exposures resulting from relatively low-level, routine emissions. For
assessment of annual dose rates or committed dose equivalents to members of
critical population groups, we recommend reevaluation to ensure that the values
used in the model parameters in this book are appropriate for the characteristics
of the specific group for which the assessment is being performed. Such a
reevaluation is most warranted when dose estimates approach to within an order
of magnitude of dose limits. For assessment of short-term releases of radionu
clides and for sites dominated by complex terrain and/or coastal meteorology,
the uncertainty in the dose calculations may be much larger than an order of
magnitude. Therefore it may be necessary to derive model parameters and to
adjust model structure to account for conditions prevailing at a given site.
ABSTRACT
This book presents a unified compilation of models and parameters appropriate

for assessing the impact of radioactive discharges into the environment. Both
routine and accidental releases are considered. Models presented in this book
include those developed for the prediction of atmospheric and hydrologic trans
port and deposition, for terrestrial and aquatic food-chain bioaccumulation, and
for internal and external dosimetry. Summaries are presented for each of the
transport and dosimetry areas previously mentioned, and details are available in
the literature cited. Models and parameters presented in this book are based on
the results of an extensive literature review and evaluation performed primarily
by members of the staff of the Health and Safety Research Division at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
SUBJECT IN D E X
Absolute humidity, for tritium calculation, definition, 41

98, 134 effect of biological variations on, 42-43
Agricultural productivity (Y,), 28 effect of chemical analogue concentrations
Annual dose rates, approximated from 50-yr on, 42-43
dose commitments, 72 effect of sediment reactions to radio
Aquatic food chain nuclides on, 42-43
dose from, 41 effect of stable element concentrations
regulatory limits on dose from, 44, 52 on, 42
Aquatic releases effect of water composition on, 42
important exposure pathivays, 8 for freshwater biota, 48-49 (Table 6.3)
important radionuclides, 9 for marine biota, 46-47 (Table 6.2)
Atmospheric dispersion, 11-15 plant to soil (B,,), 22, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31
Gaussian plume model, 11-14 Biological variations, effect on
other models, 14-15 bioaccumulation factor, 42-43
parameters
Brookhaven National Laboratory Carbon content in foods, 107
system, 12-13 Carbon-14
Gei/3 (Jiilich) system, 12-13 in boiling-water reactors, 103
Pasquill-Gifford system, 12-13 collective (population) dose, from
Atmospheric releases continental model, 110
important exposure pathways, 6-7 from global-initial model, 111-112
important radionuclides, 6-7 from global-long-term model,
112-113
Beef, consumption rate of, 55-56 from regional model, 109-110
Beverages, consumption rate of, 55-56 dose-rate factors for, 106
Bioaccumulation factor (Bjp), 41-51 dose rate to individual from, 104-107
for cesium (site specific), 50, 52 effective dose equivalent rate from, 106
(Table 6.6) environmental mobility of, 103
147
148 SUBJECT INDEX
health effects from, 106 Drinking water

possible pathways of exposure, from as important exposure pathway, 8-9
ingestion, 104-106, 109 containing tritium, 97-101
from inhalation, 107, 110
in pressurized-water reactors, 103 Effective dose equivalent, 73-94 (Tables 9.1
sample dose calculations for, 135-137 to 9.4), 95
specific activity of, 103, 104, 107, 109 for carbon-14, 106
Carrier element (see Chemical analogue Environmental concentrations
concentrations) sample calculations, atmospheric,
Centerline air concentration, sample elevated release, 120
calculation, 119 ground-level release, 118-120
Chemical analogue concentrations, effect on sample calculations, surface water,
bioaccumulation factor, 42-43, 45 123-124
Chemical reactions associated with ^C, Environmental decay constant (X)
104-105 use in dose calculation, 126-127
Computer codes Environmental monitoring of radionuclides
surface water transport, 38-39 in aquatic food, 43, 50
terrestrial food chain, 21 in receiving water, 43
Concentration of radioactivity External exposure to radiation
sample calculations, in beef, 123 air immersion, 57, 125-126
in fish, 124 contaminated ground surfaces, 57,
on fresh produce, 122 126-128
on grass, 121-122 dose-rate factors, 57-70
in milk, 122-123 sample calculations, 125-128
in surface water, 123-124
Consumption rates for adults, 55-56 Ff(meat transfer coefficient), 24, 26, 27,
Crops 31-33
holdup time after harvest (tj,), 23, 34 F (milk transfer coefficient), 23, 26, 27,
length of growing season (te), 22, 34 30-32
Feed consumption by animals, Qf, 24, 33-34
Deposition velocity FETRA (surface water transport model),
dry (va), 15, 119, 121 38-39
use in sample calculation, 119, 121 Fifty-year committed dose equivalents
wet (v,), 16, 119 ingestion, 71, 87-94 (Tables 9.3 and
use in sample calculation, 119 9.4)
inhalation, 71, 73-86 (Tables 9.1 and
Dose calculations (sample) 9.2)
carbon-14, 135-137 Finfish, consumption rate of, 55-56
external exposure, air immersion, Fish ingestion, as important exposure
125-126 pathway, 8-9
contaminated ground surfaces, Food-chain contamination, seasonal factors
126-128 in, 24
internal exposure, ingestion, 129-133 Freshwater biota
inhalation, 128-129 bioaccumulation factors for, 48-49
tritium, 133-135 (Table 6.3)
Dose factors Fruit, consumption rate of, 55-56
external, air immersion, 58-63 (Tables
8.1 and 8.2) (Tables 9.3 and 9.4)
contaminated ground surfaces, 64-69 Gaussian plume model, discussion of use, 11
(Tables 8.3 and 8.4) Gl-to-blood absorption factor (f|), 72, 87-94
internal, ingestion, 87-94 (Tables 9.3 Grain, consumption rate of, 55-56
and 9.4) Gravitational fall velocity, 18
inhalation, 73-86 (Tables 9.1 and 9.2) Grazing patterns (fp and f,), 23, 33-34
SUBJECT INDEX 149
ICRP (International Commission on Radio for aquatic food transfer equation, 41

logical Protection) (see International atmospheric, 11-19
Commission on Radiological Protection) internal exposures, 71
Important pathway structures statistical analysis for bioaccumulation
adult, 5-7 factors, 50-52
child, 5-7 uncertainties in, 42-43, 144-145
Ingestion
as important exposure pathway, Pasture, fraction of year grazed (fp), 23,
from aquatic releases, 7-9 33-34
from atmospheric releases, 5-7 Plant-to-soil bioaccumulation factor (Bj,),
dose from beef, 132 22, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31
dose from carbon-14 in food, 104-106, Plume depletion, 17, 119, 120
135-137 Principal radionuclides
dose from drinking water, 97-101 aquatic, 7, 43-45, 51
dose from fish, 44, 132-133 sediment reactions with, 42, 43
dose from fresh produce, 130 atmospheric, 5-7
dose from milk, 131
dose from tritium, 97-101, 133-135 Quality factor, 72
fifty-year committed dose equivalents,
87-90, 91-94 Radiation dose
Inhalation from aquatic releases, 41, 44, 52,
as important exposure pathway, from 132-133
atmospheric releases, 5-7 regulatory limits, 44, 52
dose, sample calculations, 128-129 from atmospheric releases, 128-137
fifty-year committed dose equivalents, ingestion, sample calculations, 130-137
73-86 (Tables 9.1 and 9.2) inhalation, sample calculations, 128-129
rate, 55-56 Radioactive daughter ingrowth, in food
INREM II (internal dose equivalent model), chain, 25
71 Radioactive decay, for internal exposure, 72
Intake rates, adult, 55-56 Radioactive decay constant, use in dose
Interception fraction (r), 22, 28-29 calculations, 119, 126-127
International Commission on Radiological Radioactivity releases
Protection (ICRP) aquatic, 7
dose limits to maximum individual, 44 atmospheric, 5
Task Group Lung Model, 71 Resuspension, 26
International System of Units (SI), relation Retention on inhaled particulates, model, 71
to others, 3
Irrigation, 8 Sample calculations
of air concentration, from elevated
Marine biota, bioaccumulation factors for, release, 120
46-47 (Table 6.2) from ground-level release, 118-120
Meat of carbon-14 dose, 135-137
consumption rate of, 55-56 of external dose, air immersion,
hold-up time after slaughter (t,), 24, 34 125-126
transfer coefficient (Ff), 24, 26, 27, 31-33 contaminated ground surfaces,
..Milk 126-128
consumption rate of, 55-56 of internal dose, ingestion, 129-133
hold-up time for (tf), 24, 34 inhalation, 128-129
transfer coefficient (?), 23, 26, 27, of surface water concentration, 123-124
30-32 of tritium, 133-135
Model facilities, 6 Sector-average air concentration, sample
Model predictions, uncertainties in, 144-145 calculation, 120
Models Sediments, effect on bioaccumulation factor.
150 SUBJECT INDEX
42, 43 milk transfer coefficient, 30-31, 32

SERATRA (surface water transport model), plant-to-soil bioaccumulation factor, 29-30
38-39 time factors, 34
S-factors, 72 Tritium
Shellfish, consumption rate of, 55-56 chronic exposure, 97-99
SI units (International System of Units), concentration in atmospheric water,
relation to others, 3 100 , 101
Smeared lung dose, definition, 72 concentration in drinking water, 100, 101
Soil concentration in food, 100, 101
buildup of activity in (t|,), 23, 34 concentration oxidized to water upon
surface density (P), 23, 33, 34 food metabolism, 100
Source term, 10 dose estimates, 97-101, 133-135
Specific activity ingestion dose, 97-101, 133-135
for C, 103, 104, 107 methodology comparison, 98-99
model, for tritium, 97, 98 modified NCR? model, 99-101
Stable element concentrations, effect on pathway analysis, 97-99
bioaccumulation factor, 42 sample dose calculations, 133-135
Statistical analysis of bioaccumulation site-specific data, 98, 99, 101
factors, 51 (Table 6.5) specific activity model, 97, 98
Surface buildup (t^,), use in dose calculation, uniform labeling, 97, 98
126-127 uptake fractions, 97, 98
Surface water models
continuous-release equilibrium, 36 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
with sorption, 36 dose limits, 51-52
without sorption, 38 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Swimming (immersion in water), 8-9 (USNRC)
Regulatory Guide 1.109, 21-22
Terrestrial food-chain models meat food chain, 24
problems with input for, 24-25 milk food chain, 23-24
subjectivity of input for, 25 shortcomings, 24-25
USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, 22 tabulated input for, 28, 30-34
concentrations in meat, 24 vegetation, 22-23
concentrations in milk, 23
concentrations on vegetation, 22 Vegetables, consumption rate of, 55-56
Terrestrial transport input parameters, Vegetation, calculating radionuclide concen
26-34 trations in, 22-23
agricultural productivity, 28
animal feed consumption, 33-34 Water, consumption rate of, 55-56, 100
beef (meat) transfer coefficient, 31-32, 33 Weighting factors for effective dose
effective soil surface density, 33-34 equivalent, 95
grazing patterns, 33-34
interception fraction, 28-29 Yotsukura-Sayre model, 36
D IS C L A IM E R
This book was prepared as an account o f w ork sponsored by an agency o f (he

U nited S tates Governnm nt. N either th e U nited S tates G overnm ent nor any agency
thereof, n o r any o f th eir em ployees, makes any w arranty, express o r im plied, or
assum es any legal liability o r responsibility for th e accuracy, com pleteness, or
usefulness of any inform ation, apparatus, p roduct, o r process d i s c l o ^ , or
represents th a t its use w ould n o t infringe privately ow ned rights. Reference herein
to any specific com m ercial p roduct, process, or service b y trade nam e, tradem ark,
m anufacturer, o r otherw ise, d oes n o t n e i^ s ^ rity co n stitu te o r im ply its
e n d o r n n t, recom nw ndation, or favoring by th e U nited S tates Governm ent or
any agency thereof. T he views and opinions o f a u th o rs expressed herein do not
necessarily state o r reflect th o se o f th e U nited S tates Governm ent o r any agency
thereof.
U. s. SOvERNVEN'- PRIN'ING OFFICE: 1 9 S F - 5 i 4 - 0 E 3 , '10326

6311958

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6311958

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OL- J M iTSCAL r e v i e w s e r i e s

Models and PajT^eters

7 e Cf-!i\'ir.'A!. ! i\'; - o f 7 ,v i A T i o r - j ( ; r ; \ ' T f n

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

Portions of this document may be illegible in

The Office o f Scientific and Technical Information,

Models and Parameters

Charles W. Miller, Editor

Prepared for the

J a m e s L. L ittlep a g e, Publication Editor

Editing, com position, proofreading, book design, illustrations, and page

Available as DE81027154 (DOE/TIC-11468) for $12.00 from

Printed in the United States of America

During all phases of the U. S. development of nuclear power, m athematical

2 Comparison of Exposure Pathways 4

3 Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition 11

4 Terrestrial Food-Chain Transport 21

5 Surface Water Transport 36

6 Aquatic Food-Chain Transport 41

7 Adult Dietary Intake and Inhalation Rates 55

8 External Dose-Rate Conversion Factors 57

9 Estimates of Committed Dose Equivalent from Internal

10 Doses Resulting from Atmospheric Releases of Tritium 97

11 Dose Equivalent Due to Atmospheric Releases of Carbon-14 103

12 Example Calculations 117

13 List of Symbols 138

14 Uncertainties Associated with Predictions Derived

Subject Index 147

Currently, a num ber of environmental transport and dose calculation models

New SI unit Basic SI Old unit and

Exposure Coulomb Roentgen (R) 1 C/kg 3.9 X 10^ R

Hoffman, F. O., et al., 1979, An Evaluation of Uncertainties in Radioecological Models, in

Releases of radionuclides to the environment from nuclear facilities are either

Hoffman and Kaye (1976) calculated the maximum individual exposure

limitiiig Principal Reference Principal pathways for

Uranium mill Child 22Ra Bone, lung, Milk (93-94%)

Conversion Child ^^*Ra Lung, thyroid, Milk (93%)

Uranium enrich Child 234y Bone Milk (56%)

Fuel fabrica Child 234JJ Bone Milk (56%)

Boilmg water Child Ulj Thyroid Milk (99%)

Fuel reprocessing Child o il Thyroid Milk (96%)

Table 2.1 (Contiiwed)

limiting Principal Reference Principal pathways for

Adult 129j Thyroid Milk (46% )

Data taken from Tables 8 to 14 of Hoffman and Kaye (1976).

I am aware of no paper th at examines the importance of various aquatic

Fraction of 50-mile population dose commitment

Mill* <1.0 X 10 2.0 X 10 4.9 X 10 9.5 X 10 ' Witherspoon (1974)

Fraction of total dose contribotion

Source of Drinking Fish

Total body Mixed LWR 0.54 0.46 NO* NO* t

*No calculation (NO); pathway not considered.

Examination of the references cited in this chapter and other reference

Atmospheric dispersion calculations provide estimates of air concentration

G aussian Plum e M odel

where % ground-level air concentration (C i/m ^ or Bq/m^)

where x is the downwind distance of interest (m ) and u is the average wind

Atmospheric stability category

ai -0.023 -0.015 -0.012 -0.0059 -0.0059 -0.0029

*(T y = (ai In X + a 2> x; (1/2.15) exp (bj + b2 in x + b3 In x);

Atmospheric stability category

(H < 75 m) Pz 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.26 0.13 0.56

(B2) (Bi) (C) (D)

Brookhaven (Hoffman Py 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.31