United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Protecting People and the Environment

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Question 102: Under 10 CFR 20.1302 (b) (2) (ii), (a) do

the words, "If an individual were continually present in an

unrestricted area," mean that under these provisions it

should be assumed a hypothetical individual is there, or

(b) should occupancy studies be made in applying this

section?

Answer: (a) Yes. (b) No. Supplemental response:

Although this question came from a nuclear power plant, it

seems unlikely that a nuclear power plant would choose to

use this option [10 CFR 20.1302 (b) (2)], with its

conservative assumptions, to demonstrate compliance with

the annual dose limit in 10 CFR 20.1301 (a) (1). It seems

more likely that a nuclear power plant would prefer to use

the option of 10 CFR 20.1302 (b) (1) which does not involve

the conservative assumptions (effluent concentrations "at

the boundary of the unrestricted area" and an

"individual...continuously present in an unrestricted

area"). Nuclear power plants and other uranium fuel cycle

facilities must meet the more restrictive public dose

limits of 40 CFR 190. As noted in the statement of

considerations (56 FR 23374, third column), demonstration

of compliance with the limits of 40 CFR 190 will be

considered to demonstrate compliance with the 0.1-rem

annual limit of 10 CFR 20.1301 (a) (1) for most facilities.

This demonstration of compliance would be consistent with

the option of 10 CFR 20.1302 (b) (1). See the answer to

the related Question 68. (Reference: 10 CFR 20.1302).









Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 29, 2012