<100 mRem

[SloGlo]

watt is the bassist fore knot issuing an Annual Radiation Exposure Record two an individual receiving less than 100 mRem/yr?

[Mounder]

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1502.html
10 CFR Part 20.1502 Conditions requiring individual monitoring of external and internal occupational dose.

[SloGlo]

eye know the regs. wondering the theory behind the reg.

[Marlin]

eye know the regs. wondering the theory behind the reg.

Not theory but coincidentally the annual exposure to the public is 100mr/yr. Just guessing. Lower exposures I would think are less accurate subtracting background on each reading of dosimetry. Just guessing again.

[SloGlo]

talking occupational dose, generally two short term workers.

[bigjoemonger]

When it comes to tracking exposure, the NRC really only calls you a radworker if your dose exceeds the public limit.

You're only required to track exposure if there's an expectation that the 100 mrem per year public limit will be exceeded for some employees.

When submitting the Reirs report they don't even accept records if the individual has less than 100 mrem in the year. It helps to reduce the number of records that need to be maintained.

[SloGlo]

Wail, that's a start. How many sites wood submit reports forw a casual worker hooo received 50 mr four a year?  Say a light bulb tech who changes out bulbs inn Containment at the start of an outage. Only does outages, does 10/year.

[fiveeleven]

" a light bulb tech "

Late 80's - DCC - For the sake of equity and inclusion - the bulb crew was renamed the nuclear illumination technicians. After rigorous training was had, they became nuclear illumination technicians with illumination training ie the NITWITs. Diversity/inclusion/equity(DIE) was already in place back in them days.

[bigjoemonger]

eye know the regs. wondering the theory behind the reg.

NCRP 1960, page 485 states:
"we recommend that the population permissible dose for man-made radiation be based on the average natural background level. Although it is not our responsibility to determine the exact level, we believe that the population permissible somatic dose for man-made radiations, excluding medical and dental sources, should not be larger than that due to natural background radiation, without a careful examination of the reasons for, and the expected benefits to society from a larger dose”

In calculations performed in this report they regularly used an average background dose of 100 mrem per year. So while the report never explicitly stated an annual limit of 100 mrem. It was deduced from the usage of that value that it was their intent.

So there's no real health justification for a limit of 100 mrem per year, just the idea that the public shall receive zero dose per year from industrial non-medical sources, leaving natural background as the only remaining source. And if natural background causes 100 mrem/year then that should be the limit.

[SloGlo]

wail, eye guest that too times background is a nice ez number two use. it makes cents awl sew. scary, four nukes, eh watt!