Question 7 of 7: Nuclear Energy Worker Dose Limits and Airborne Exposure
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. 98-Phys-B1 Radiation Physics, National Examination
May 2015 — a three-hour open-book examination in which any
non-communicating calculator is permitted. The cover page states the exam has 7
questions worth a total of 100 points, of which only 80 points' worth need be answered
for full marks; every question and sub-part is nonetheless answered in full below so the paper
remains a complete study resource. The cover page also invites the candidate to submit a
written statement of any assumptions made where a question is open to interpretation —
this licence is used in Question 1(a) (proton-mass vs. hydrogen-atom-mass convention), Question
3(d) (single effective attenuation coefficient for the polychromatic X-ray beam) and Question
5(c) (reading "the body" as the thyroid uptake compartment, consistent with the biological
half-life given). The exam's own page-6 marking-scheme summary is internally inconsistent for
two questions (it prints "15 points" for both Q2 and Q3, but their own per-sub-part marks,
given beside each sub-part on the question pages, sum to 18 and 17 respectively); the
sub-part marks are used below since only that reading makes the paper's own stated 100-point
total add up exactly ($12+18+17+18+18+10+7=100$).
Reference texts. K. S. Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics
(nuclear masses and binding energy, radioactive decay); F. H. Attix, Introduction to
Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry (X-ray production, photon attenuation);
J. R. Cember and T. E. Johnson, Introduction to Health Physics, 5th ed. (internal
dosimetry, effective half-life, shielding, radiation survey practice); J. E. Turner,
Atoms, Radiation, and Radiation Protection, 3rd ed. (radiation interactions,
detectors, health-physics standards).
Question 7: Nuclear Energy Worker Dose Limits and Airborne Exposure (7 marks)
Given. Facility-assigned dose ceiling 10 mSv over a 6-month temporary NEW
contract; at the 3-month mark, external dose 2.5 mSv plus the tabulated airborne exposures
above; DAC defined for a 2,000 h/y (40 h/week) reference work-year.
Find. (a) whether 10 mSv/6 months is within the Canadian regulatory NEW
dose limit; (b) the worker's total (external + committed internal) effective dose at 3 months
and whether it is within the prescribed limit, and whether the remaining 3 months should be
radiation-free.
Approach. Compare the facility's 10 mSv/6-month ceiling against the CNSC
regulatory NEW dose limit for part (a); for part (b), convert each nuclide's air concentration
to a fraction of its DAC, weight by actual hours exposed (from the given exposure durations at
the 40 h/week reference rate implied by 2,000 h/y), sum to total DAC-hours, convert to a
committed effective dose via the ALI-to-20 mSv relationship, add the external dose, and compare
the running total against the prescribed limit.
Part (a) — is 10 mSv/6 months within regulatory limits? Under the
CNSC Radiation Protection Regulations, a nuclear energy worker's effective dose limit is
50 mSv in any one-year dosimetry period (and 100 mSv over any 5-year period). Pro-rating the
annual limit linearly over a 6-month contract gives an indicative half-year allowance of
$$50\text{ mSv/y}\times\tfrac{1}{2} = 25\text{ mSv}$$
$$\boxed{10\text{ mSv} < 25\text{ mSv (pro-rated)} < 50\text{ mSv (annual limit)} \implies \text{within regulatory limits}}$$
The facility's own 10 mSv administrative ceiling for this contract is in fact considerably more
conservative than the regulatory limit itself.
Part (b) — total dose at 3 months. The reference work-year of
2,000 hours corresponds to $2{,}000/50=40$ hours per week (a standard work week), so each
nuclide's actual DAC-hours of exposure is (concentration/DAC) $\times$ (weeks $\times$ 40 h):
$$\begin{aligned}
{}^{125}\text{I}:&\ \tfrac{0.4}{1.2}\times(2\times40)=0.333\times80=26.7\text{ DAC-h}\\
{}^{131}\text{I}:&\ \tfrac{0.4}{0.8}\times(2\times40)=0.500\times80=40.0\text{ DAC-h}\\
{}^{89}\text{Sr}:&\ \tfrac{8}{16}\times(1\times40)=0.500\times40=20.0\text{ DAC-h}\\
{}^{90}\text{Sr}:&\ \tfrac{0.08}{0.32}\times(1\times40)=0.250\times40=10.0\text{ DAC-h}
\end{aligned}$$
$$\text{Total} = 26.7+40.0+20.0+10.0 = 96.7\text{ DAC-h}$$
One full working year at the DAC (2,000 DAC-h) corresponds to one Annual Limit on Intake,
defined to deliver a 20 mSv committed effective dose, so the committed internal dose from this
airborne exposure is
$$\boxed{D_{\text{internal}} = \frac{96.7}{2{,}000}\times20 = 0.967\text{ mSv}}$$
Adding the measured external dose,
$$\boxed{D_{\text{total,3mo}} = 2.5 + 0.967 = 3.47\text{ mSv}}$$
Against a straight-line half of the facility's 10 mSv contract ceiling for the elapsed 3
months (5.0 mSv), $3.47<5.0$ — the worker is within the prescribed limit
at the 3-month checkpoint (and far inside the regulatory 25 mSv half-year pro-ration from part
a).
Part (b), continued — should the remaining 3 months be radiation-free?
The remaining allowance against the facility's own 10 mSv contract ceiling is
$10-3.47=6.53$ mSv for the final 3 months. If the worker's exposure rate over the remaining
period simply continues at the same average pace as the first 3 months ($\approx3.47$ mSv per
quarter), the projected 6-month total would be $\approx2\times3.47=6.93$ mSv — still
comfortably under both the facility's 10 mSv ceiling and the regulatory 25 mSv half-year
pro-ration.
$$\boxed{\text{Remaining allowance }6.53\text{ mSv} > \text{projected further accrual }\approx3.47\text{ mSv}}$$
No — the worker does not need to be reassigned to radiation-free work;
there is ample margin under the prescribed limit to continue in radiation work for the
remaining three months, subject to ALARA practice and continued dose monitoring.