ML20028G738
| ML20028G738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/28/1990 |
| From: | Hinson C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Congel F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007090198 | |
| Download: ML20028G738 (28) | |
Text
.,
ps%.
Qk
+
.b * 'y,' "'.[0, UNIT EO ST ATEs NUCLA AR REGULATORY COMM!S5 TON iQ 6
.g-
': j f *ASMINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
June 28, 1990
....+
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuctear Reactor Regulation THRU:
-LeMoine J. Curiningham, Chief fadiationProtectionBranch Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Charles S. Hinson, Health Physic 1st Radiation Protection Branch Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1989 Enclosed for your information is the 1989 occupational dose sumary for operating power plant f 641)ities. This summary contains a listing of the occupati.onal dose for each of the 108 nuclear plants included in the 1989 tabulatiun (including a listing of the number of people receiving dose in each dose range (required by 10 CFR 6 20.407) for each plant), a ranking of PWRs and BWRs in ascending orott of Collective dose per reactor for 1989, a listing of activities per#ormed (with corresponding person-rem doses) for the five PWR and five BWR sit 0s which had the highest per unit doses in 1989, and atner pertinent dose dati..
For the first time, this year's report contains a listing of the outage duration and corresponding outage doses for the five PWR and BWR sites which had the highest average doses per reactor in 1989. This report also contains some ways wnich outage doses can be reduced.
Six new LWRs (Braidwood 1 and 2, South lexas 1, and Palo Verde 3 - all PWRs, and fermi 2 and Nine Mile Point 2 - both BWRs) completed their first full year of comercial operation in 1989 and are included in this year's sunmary for the first time. The average colleci.ive dose per reactor for LWRs has continued its downward trend and averaged 344 person-rems in 1989. This is 141 lower than last year's LWR average and is the lowest LWR average collective dose per reactor since 1971.
In 1989 the PWR average dose per reactor of 296 person-rems was 12% lower than in 1988 and the CWR average dose per reactor of 439 person-rems was 17% lower than in 1988.
These 1989 average doses per reactor represent a continuation of the declining trend in doses per reactor which began in 1984 There are several reasons why the figures f or total and average doses per reactor and total number of operating LWRs contained in tnis report usually differ f rom ij the figures reported by INPO.
The cumulative annual LWR cose anc resulting
/
average dose per reacto.r may differ because tne staf1 uses a m ture of f
65 W Y v$
', ) [
June 28, 1990
'e 4
.i 2
calculatec and actual doses in arriving at the cumulative annual LWR dose The reason for dif f erences in the while INP0 uses only reported TLD doses.
total number of operating LWRs reported is that the NRC and INP0 use diff erent mininum operating times before a plant is included in the annual dose summaries.
This report was compiled by our contractor, SAIC, f rom data collected by Cnaries Hinson, NRR, and Barbara Brooks, RES.
Please address any questions to Charles S. Hinson, RPB/0 REP /NRR at (301) 492-1845.
)
/s/
J Charles S. Hinson, Health Physicist Radiation Protection Branch Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, o
Enclosures:
As stated
- DRLP:PRPS
- DRE :PRF6
- DRE':PRPb gg:... gginton :
u ham E :CHinson:
- J E :6/22/90
- 6/2(/90
- 6/26/90 UMENT NAME: LWR DOSE DATA 19B9 I
L l
l l
l
6 4
)
l LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1989 l
This is a compilation and analysis of occupational radiation doses reported J
~
The information from light-water-cooled reactors (LWRs) for the year 1989.
was derived from reports submitted to the Comission in accordance with 10 CFR I 20.407.
In 1989 six new LWRs completed their first full year of comercial operation and are included in this year's sumary for the first time (indicated in Tables 1 and 2 by (*)). These new plants are Braidwood I and 2, South Texas 1, and Palo Verde 3, all pressurized water reactors (PWRs); and fermi 2 and Nine Mile Point 2, both boiling water reactors (BWRs).
LWRs which no longer
~
appear in.the compilation of reactor data include Dresden 1, Humboldt Bay, Indian Point-1,.and Lacrosse. Three Mile Island 2, however, has been retained in this summary since it is still licensed, and workers are accumulating dose during the defueling and decomissioning operations.
The total collective. dose for all 108 LWRs included in 1989 was-37,101 person-rems (see Figure 1). This is about 3,000 person-rem (9%) less than last year's value of 40,841 person-rems, _ even though this year's compilation includes six additional LWRs. The average collective dose per reactor for This is about 14% 10wer than the 1988-LWR LWRs in 1989 was 344 person-rems.
average:of 400 person-rems per reactor and is the-lowest LWR average collective dose per reactor since before 1973 (see Figure 1). The reason for this. decline in average collective dose per reactor is the continued g
f-increase inithe number of operating plants and the _ decline of the total-l1 collective dose at these plants (see Figure 2).: The average measurable dose--
per worker for LWRs has experienced a similar trend, and in 1989 it dropped
.to 0.34 rem from last year's value of 0.40 rem (see Figure 3). The 1
l-
~
.i l
l collective dose per MWe-year has decreased as well from a value of 0.69 in 1988 to 0.60 in 1989 (see Figure 4).
In 1989, the total collective dose for PWR units was 21,306 person-rems for 72 reactors (four more than in 1988).
The resulting average collective dose per reactor for PWRs in 1989 was 296 person-rems per reactor (see Figure 1).
This represents a 12% decrease from the 1988 value of 336 person-rems per reactor. The average number of personnel with measurable dose per PWR decreased from 925 in 1988 to 901 in 1989. The average measurable dose per worker for PWRs in 1989 is 0.33 rem.
This is slightly less than the 1988
~
value of 0.36 rem.
In 1989, the total collective dose for BWR units was 15.795 person-rems for 36 reactors. The resulting average collective dose per unit for BWRs in 1989 was 439 person rems per unit. This is a sharp decrease (17%) over the 1988 value of 529 person-rems per unit and is the lowest BWR average dose per unit since 1973. The average number of personnel with measurable dose per BWR increased slig';.tly from 1,185 in 1988 to 1,232 in 1989.
- However, the average measurable dose per worker decreased sharply from 0.45 rem in 1988 to 0.36 rem in 1989.
The compilation in Table 1 represents a breakdown of the collective dose incurred at each LWR that had completed at least one full year of commercial operation by the end of 1989.
The dose figures listed in Table 1 are either actual total dose figures submitted by the licensee or were derived from data submitted by the licensee in response to the requirements et 10 CFR $
20.407.
Table 1 also lists the reactor type and the annual whie body dose distributions of each of the 1081.WRs in this year's compila'" n.
Figure 1 shows the average collective dose figures for pWRs, BWRs, and 1.WRs 2
1
a i
t for the years 1973-1989.
For the sixteenth consecutive year, the average collective dose per reactor for BWRs has remained higher than that for PWRs.
Figure 2 shows tne total number of operating reactors and the total collective dose per year plotted for the years 1973-1989.
Although the number of plants has increased each year, the collective dose incurred at these plants has leveled off at about the same collective dose as before the Three Mile Island accident.
Table 2a lists the 72 PWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1989.
As stated previously, the PWR average collective dose per reactor in 1989 was 296 person rems. The top thirteen PWR units in Table 2a reported collective doset in 1989 which were less than half of this 1989 average dose per reactor.
These units were Wolf Creek, Davis-Besse, Vogtle 6
1, Prairie Island I and 2, Summer, Three Mile Island 1 Yankee Rowe, Rancho Seco, Byron 1 and 2, Fort Calhoun, and Maine Yankee.
Nine PWRs reported doses in 1989 which were at least twice the average dose per reactor. These units, which appear as the bottom nine reactors in Table 2a, were Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, North Anna 1 and 2 Beaver Valley 1 and 2, Three Mile Island 2, Ginna, and Haddam Neck.
Table 2a and figure 4 also give the collective dose per gross HWe-year for PWRs to indicate their power generation performance as it relates to the collective dose incurred by the 4
workers at these plants.
In 1989, the collective dose per HWe-year for PWRs has dropped below 0.50 for the first time, to a value of 0.48.
This indicates a better than 2:1 ratio of HWe-years generated to collective dose accumulated during 1989.
Table 2b lists the three year average doses per PWR in ascending order, as well as the collective dose per reactor for the last three years.
Several PWRs, such as Prairie Island I and 2, and Davis-Besse, have consistently achieved very low collective doser and therefore appear at the top of Table 3
.. ~
1:
,.I d
t 2b. -The five PWR sites (eight units) with the highest doses in 1989 are-indicated with an asterisk to give an indication of:their performance over the -last three years.
Several of these PWRs are consistently among the highest ' dose plants as evidenced by their high three year averages.
Table 4 gives a breakdown of some of the-major activities which contributed to the collective dose received at'these high dose plants.
It appears.that ti.)
actis *iies which most frequently contributed to these high collective doses were-steam _ generator-related. work, refueling operations, installation and removal of scaffolding and shielding, and in service inspection work.
Table 3a lists the 36 BWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor' 6
for 1989._ The average BWR dose per reactor in'1989 was 439 person rems.
The _ top six BWR units in Table 3a reported-collective doses in 1989 which were-less than half of the average collective dose per reactor. These units were Big Rock Point, Duane Arnold, Pilgrim, and Browns ferry 1, 2 and 3.
There were only three units (0yster Creek and Brunswick I and 2) that reported doses which exceeded twice the average in 1989.
Table 3a and Figure 4 clso give the collective dose per gross MWe-year for BWRs to indicate their power generation performance as it relates to the collective dose incurred by the workers at these plants.
In 1989, the collective dose per_ MWe-year-for BWRs dropped below 1.00_ for the first time, to a value of 0.91.
As-shown in Figure 4, this parameter continues to decrease at both types of reactors,-but remains about twice as high for BWRs as for PWRs, one contributing factor being the larger power generation capacity of most PWRs.
Table.3bflists the three year average doses per BWR in ascending order, as well as the collective dose per reactor for the last three years.
A few r
'BWRs, such as Limerick and Big Rock Point, consistently achieve low collective doses and therefore appear at the top of Table 3b.
The five BWR
-sites (eight. units) with the highest doses per reactor fer 1989 are 4
l l
L
indicated with an asterisk to give an indication of their performance over the last three years.
Just as for PWRs, several of the highest collective dose BWRs for 1989 are also among the plants with the highest three year averages.
Table 4 gives a breakdown of some of the major activities which contributed to the collective dose received at these high dose plants.
The activities which most frequently contributed to these high collective doses were recirculation pipe replacement / crack repair, installation and removal of scaffolding and shielding, intergranular stress corrosion cracking related in-service inspection, and refueling work.
It appears that LWR doses are continuing on a downward trend from the peak doses seen in the early 1980s. Along with the completion of a majority of the THI-mandated fixes (a contributor to higher doses after the 1979 accident), one of the major reasons for this decreasing dose trend at LWRs may be the increased emphasis being placed by industry, the NRC (BNL ALARA Center), and INPO on the importance of effectively applying ALARA principles at LWRs.
Most of the plants contacted in gathering data for this report had ALARA coordinators on their staff whose job it is to ensure that ALARA principles are factored into all maintenance / operations work to reduce overall personnel exposures.
All plants contacted kept detailed records of job-specific doses incurred both durinc outages and non-outage periods.
Such a detailed dose tracking system 's a vital part of a good ALARA program.
The outage doses for the eight individual PWR and eight BWR units which had the highest collective doses in 1989 are shown in Table 4.
As can be seen from these data, on the average, over 80% of the annual collective l-l dose for these plants is accrued during outages.
This supports the findingt l
from an earlier study (Hemo from C. Hinson to L. Cunningham, " Representative Daily Collective 00ses at PWRs and BWRs During Both Outage and Non-Outage Conditions", March 1, 1990) which shows that the average daily outage doses exceed the average daily non-outage doses by a factor of 31 for PWRs and by 1
1 5
+
a factor of 9 for BWRs.
On the basis of the above, reducing the frequency and duration of plant outages (by detailed outage planning and scheduling of jobs to minimize critical path time) can lead to a lowering of a plant's annual collective dose.
There are several ways in which outage doses can be reduced.
The use of permanent scaffolding in high dose rate areas would eliminate the downtime necessary to erect and take down this scaffolding each outage and also would eliminate the corresponding personnel doses associated with scaffolding erection / tear-down.
For some of the plants listed in Table 4, doses associated with scaffolding erection / tear-down accounted for between 10 and 15 percent of the total outage dose.
Another means of reducing outage doses o
is to improve the'use of shielding.
Use of permanent shielding versus temporary shielding in high dose rate areas would reduce the doses associated with the installation / removal of temporary shielding during
- outages, in instances where it is not feasible to install permanent shielding, the installation of temporary shielding could be facilitated by installing permanent hooks / hangers in areas where this temporary shielding is required.
Use of these hooks / hangers would reduce the tine needed to hang this shielding.
Some other measures of reducing doses during outages are; 1) scheduling jobs to be performed un the same component or in the same area so that thcy are performed at the same time to eliminate duplication of setup preparations, 2) using skilled workers to perform difficult jobs, and
- 3) using the minimum number of personnel necessary to perform the job.
Another essential element of a good ALARA program is to have a strong management commitment to maintain plant personnel doses ALARA.
Plant personnel doses can be reduced by proper job planning, establishing l
realistic dose goals, and reducing area source terms. As the current generation of LWRs age, plant components require increased maintenance to 6
l
ensure that plant safety is maintained and doses are minimized.
A good ALARA program is necessary to prevent average LWR doses from increasing as the maintenance work done at these plants increases over the years.
7
{!J
{.
1l!!
!lf i
ll 1
I1 l
1 989
'N g 1
88 9
sN 1
789 x
1 s
6 89 i '
~
1 4
589 N
s s\\g 1
A 48 r
k 9
o 1
tc 3
a 8
e 9
[% vs
/
1 R
r 2
t e
89 P
1 e
r 1
s 1
8 a
o 9
e eD 1
Y r
u e
~
0 v
8 gi f
/
9 9
t i
l 1
F ce
/
9 l
7 lo
- V 7 C
1 e
8 g
79 a
\\
1 re
\\-
7 v
7 A
L'
//
9 1
679 i
1
@mW 7
R 5
7 aL 9
[
g 1
~ -
479 1
-\\k 37
.h l_-
[
- : - 4_
g
~
9
- _ i 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
1 0
9 8
7 5
4 3
2 1
1 1
1 u:
s u38eEg o3.@ni l
l Iil
. (Aso Jo wou - uosJod)
~
~
(cpuesnoyl ul) osou oA110:1!oO 8
8 R
8 8
?
8 R
S o
I g
I g
s
)
8 8
m i
e m
1 m
e o
j
,[
O e
.5, F
m
\\
I
?
o2
\\
8 n
o a
g u
D m
c 9
N m
m W
M 8
m lll}
m o
) o
.c ce
'T~8 LL.- e
\\
\\
CCz
=.
e
_ _. Re s
Z To k
5
\\
O Q
o&
1 v w
8 3 3 hW
)\\
S
-3 m
E 33 3
T-I I
y~
N O
l2
?
i
.1 I
y 8
8 8
R 8
8
?
8 8
i sJolocou 10 JegwnN l
9 l
l l
)
xk
.C. L ei 4
2 0
1 1
1 O
4 2
0 9
89 1
88 9
~
1 789 N
1 68 9
s 1
5 8
\\
9 1
4 8
S 9
W_
R 1
3 8
i 9
o t
1
/
a 2
s 8
e 9
\\
3 u
1 l
e a
n r
1 8
a r V 9
e ul Y
1 a
g u
w 0
iF n
8 n
9 A
~
1 e
97 g
9
/
a 1
re 8
v 79 A
g 1
ro 7
t 7
c r
a r o 9
g e
t e
1 k
c R
r a
o e r
6 e WR 7
P 9
r r
s e e 1
P P rek e o 5
s s r
7 o o o 9
WD D
/
il 1
=
4 7
~
9 D\\
1 3
7 9
~
1 4
2 0
8 4
2 o
1 1
1 e3I a o
>(e 8oO 5a LSj ! g o3 o
i 4
{
Figure 4 Collective Dose Per Mega-Watt Year 3.00 l
l A%
2.75 -
- BWR 7
k
- PwR 2.50 -
~ LWR l
h 2.25 -
5 -
2.00 - -
--~
3 tI*
y 1.75 -
o e 1.50 --- -k-'
-~'~
= =n 1.25-
%,..-,-n==
A a,
~9_
N
\\
=
3 y
0.75 y
%y g
0.50 0.25 0.00 1973 1974 1975 1976 1 77 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Year
e TABLE la. ANNUAL WIIOLE BODY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES CY 1989 Ntenber of Individuals with Whole Body Doses in the Ranges (rees er c5v)
TOM ~
TOTAL NtNDER COLLECTIVF PLANI NAME TYPE NUMBER WITH DO$E."
No Hea-Meas. 0.10- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75-1.00- 2.00- 3.00- 4.00- 5.00- 6.00- 7.00-MON 1-MEAS.
(Persen-surable <0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.C0 5.00 6.00 7.00 12.00 >l2.0 TORED EXP05UDE rem.c5d AR ONSAS 1.2 M
1.598 728 428 365 253 146 135
/
I 3.661 2.063 Til **
i PEAVER VAttEY 1.2 M
1.104 748 326 374 248 178 329 118 21 7
3.453 2.349 1.378 "
EIG ROCK PolNT BW 51 206' 63 48 21 17 50 11 2
469 418 177 PulN000 1.2*
M 1.889 673 - 362 258 115 38 14 3.349 1.460 320 BR M 5 FERRY 1.2.3 EVt 2.996 1.179 714 397 164 122 97 10 5.619 2.683 656 **
MtW5 WICK 1.2 M
798 1.771 517 395 274 215 506 156 10 4.642 3.844 1.786 BYRON 1.2 M
1.978 591 319 136 43 13 7
3.087 1.109 185 CAtt4WAY M
776 369 283 245 85 40 32 1
1.831 1.055 283 **
CAtVERT CLIFFS 1.2 M
1.141 1.040-285 237 9'
53 62 2.927 1.786 346 "
CATAb?A 1.2 M
1.392 748 429 303 121 33 20 3.052 1.660 364 Ct!NTON BW l.346-479 222 203 119 92 78 3
2.542 1.196 418 C005. 1.2 M
834 620 327 290 139 91 101 6
1 2.409 1.575 533 COOPER STATION BVR 2.207 566 213 161 114 60 88 3.409 1.202 382 M CRYSTAL RIVER 3 M
890 360 249 159 52 22 34 4
1.770 880 234 04VIS-EESSE M
1.258 312 49 27 13 1
2 1.662 404 38 **
CIA 8t0 CA84 YON I.2 M
1.798 665 365. 310 172 91 43 3.444 1.646 465 N E50fM 2.3 M
1.474 746 364 313 182 191 441 18 4
3.733 2.259 1.130 **
D".ME ARNotD M
1.867 143 80 62 49 32 57 2
2.292 C
194 FA tEY 1.2 PWP 347 872 421 382 225 90 192 18 2.553 2.206
.'49 **
ffRr81 2*
M 1.838 669 273 204 79 32 13 3.108 1.270 255 Fli2 PATRICK BW 109 450 155 126 116 60 113 5
2 1.736 1.027 377 "
FORT CALH00?t M
267 968 139 76 14 10 3
1.477 1.210 93 **
GIMA M
843 422 186 181 144 99 205 16 1
2.103 1.254 605 **
CAAND GUtr BW
- 418 1.002 329 293 161 84 92 6
3..,90 1.972 499 '.
iM O M NECK M
811 567
'234 227 147 97 154 28 1
2.266 1.455 596 i
Rt:215 M
S35 597 130 106 52 23 21 1.764 929 156 "
EtiCH 1.2 EVR 893 443 313 225 120 100 128 12 1
2.243 1.350 550 tore CREEK BWR I.020 1.019 282 258 135 74 93 12 2.893 1.873 455 **
IN01AN rolNT 2 M
605 497 279 302 225 183 511 92 4
2.698 2.093 1.436 "
INDIAN POINI 3 M
871 531 300 301 228 147 263 29 1
2.671 1.200 876 **
- EV*twEE M
338 173 108 118 75 34 60 2
9 08 570 233 **
1ASAttE 1.2 BW l.251 723 425 334 2E0 198 443 89 2
3.726 2.475 1.336 **
tIMTRICK M
5.534 1.026 439 259 57 25 11 1
7.352 1.818 302 c !NE YASKEE M
397 208 56 43 23 22 17 772 375 99 W 411EE 1.2 M
1.505 841 383 347 166 91 160 6
3.499 1.994 678 Indicates plants counted for the first tim in 1989 af ter cercleting their first full year of etwration.
- Inrficates actuel collective tbse reported by facility, otherwns* calculated by staf f.
o TABLE.la AttflUAL Wil0LE BODY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES (cont.)
CY 1989 heter of Iwf tviduals with Whole Body Doses in the Ranges (rems or c5v)
TOTAL.~ ~
TOTAL WUMBER COLLECTlvE -
mMER Vl!H 005E,.
PLANT EME TYFE 0.75-1.00- 2.00- 3.00- 4.00- 5.00- 6.00-7.00-
- 1041-MEA 5.
(Person-No Pea-Meas. D.10- 0.25- 0.50-surable <0.10 0.25 0.5G 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 12.00 12.0 TORED EiPOSURE rem.c5v)N MittSTONE POINT 1 M
477 258 137 133 FG 74 147 25 2
1.329 852 462 **
PiliSTOW. POINT 2.3 M
1.112 603 318 309 176 173 342 59 4
3.096 I.984 1.079 **
HnNTICEtto M
1.292 3E6 184 161 144 85
!al 20 1
2.394 1.102 507 **
M BBS 1.762 395 231 134 73 IIT 25 3.623 2.737 564 **
NORTH h ML 1.2 M
1.235 1.308 2%
309 239 166 450 114 16 3
4.0%
2.861 1.471 **
OEONEE 1.2.3 M
1.285 861 441 423 243 104 117 14 2
3.490 2.205 139 CYSitR CREEK M
285 1.249 257 277 166 108 263 70 5
2.680 2.395 910 **
PA' IS ADE S M
621 434 212 175 112 36 54 3
1.647 1.026 314 rAIO VERDE 1.2.3*
M 2.395 1.244
' 518 424 184 128 111 6
5.0I0 2.615 20 PEACH BOTTOM 2.3 8W 4.516 858 541 393 221 128 152 8
6.817 2.301 783 FERRY BWR 1.124 531 351 381 264 170 185 1
3.007 1.883 767 **
PltGRIM BW l.794 1.337 192 164 70 21 13 3.591 1,797 207 **
PGINT BE ACH 1.2 M
342 205 100 117 72 52 142 40 7
1 1.078 736 504
[ PRAIRIE IstAND 1.2 M
583 232 121 73 31 16 2
1 1.059 476 99 00AD CITIES 1.2 BW l.314 492 271 260 189 182 295 30 2
3,035 1.721 971 RAsco SECO M
1.102 399 110 52 25 to 1
1.705 603 81 "
RIVER efNo M
1.546 540 343 289 201 85 107 1
3.112 1.566 558 R0P!h50" 2 M
1.328 610 225 129 62 46 26 2.426 1.098 195 **
SatEH 1.2 F%
1.764 2.250 330 162 86 52 59 5
4.703 2.944 338 **
S h OsorRE 1.2.3 M
1.535 1.029 437 352 184 96 134 5
3.772 2.237 567 **
Sf 000Y A 1.2 M
2.111 825 437 299 164 100 174 8
4.118 2.007 657 **
$0UTH TEXA5 1*
M 1.803 507 266 165 30 16 5
2.792 989 161 **
ST. ttCIE 1.2 M
1.177 554 293 230 153 82 93 9
2.591 1.414 495 SPMR M
Bf.6 215 91 AS 17 2
1 1.240 374 52 *^
SW RY 1.2 M
1.037 1.928 336
,282 163 123 208 53 7
4.137 3.100 836
- SU50tT M N % 1.2 EW 2.018 149 400 38S 216 155 155 4.081 2.063 704 **
TH lE MILE 15t AND 1 M
255 533 77 27 15 6
7 925 670 54 **
THrEE Nite IStAMD 2 M
235 434 89 68 51 45 144 101 22 1.249 1.014 639 **
TR W M M
992 55 ~
294 214 106 73 107 7
2.352 1.360 421 "
i IUerET P0lMT 3.4 M
1.886 731 316 269 142 84 83 3.511 1.625 435 "
Vf % NT YANrEE EW 810 232 215 190 10P 50 36 1
1.642 832 2B8 I
v0 GILE 1 M
2.682 330 76 20 1
3,109 4:7 39 V45HING10N NLCLEAR 2 BW l.437 547 211 173 113 103 141 9
2 2.766 1.299 492 **
V4fEPTCR0 3 M
1.218 616 367 204 82 21 16 2.524 1.306 25,5 vnt r CEE tt M
2.594 M7 35 11 1
2.779 185 18 Ir dicates plants comted for the first tire in 198!9 af ter crepleting their first full year of operation.
- IMicates actual collecilwe dose reported by facility, otherwise calculated by staf f.
iII1,ljl!l)liI j{
f illl Illl llI l!lllIillJj1 1_
c
~
E i _
- - v T
eic.
24 G5t 3
i t.t E 6A 0 3 0 A t5 s T i0 e e E
371 Ml 0 r e l
P r 1 57 o
(
21 3 C
.E 52 7 01 5
R F
9 8 0 66 NMs W re M T a s2 932 AI f
4 4 9 M
I 64 0 E
1 R - D 69 51 s 1
LEl E 0 5 3 1 e 7
i R 99 639 3
A moo T
)
O T
2 8 53 Nv 1 80 T
1 2
tn 0
o 2
c I
(
S
- 0 E
000. 2 I
T 7 1 I
L
)
v 00 I
5 00 C
c A
6T m
r i
F e
t s
0 0 e
e R
00 E
56 W
(
O f
o P
00 1
1 1
1 s
e R
0 0 e
4 5 A
R y
o EL k
l 0 0 831 i f C
t 00 83 2 sf 1
U t a n
34 t
N i
t s s
r y D
e 00 I 2 550 b
i 0 0 2
7 1 9 f
E i
7 52 d
S L
23
- e N
1 t
kl E
y a
d C
o 0 0 E0 325 t u 3
86 6 I
B
- 0. C.
c 2
898 gl L
e 1 2 e a 4 38 9
c t
lo T8 t
A9 h
ee 50 54 24 S i s t
7 0 9
4 4 8 mh i
1 055 h
S t
01 325 EY i
w SC et O
s 05 39 235 e e 1 0 1 56 57, D
l t
78 1
f 1
a 00 e y r
Y d
538 t
i 9 l D
v 8?
t 50 50 4 37 2
9 l O
25 4 1 0 22 B
M 1
e 2
437 e
I 00 nf 965 E
1 y
i f
h o
rb 07 7 6
%0 05 a
9 8 86 t d r
1 2 e
1 685 t a
+
0':
t 1 7 9 t -
L b
1 1
s r
r A
s I.
67 23 5 7
,=
i a
4 2 1 4 5 4
f U
- e 0 34 937 N
e e 999 h +n N
21 4 t
A
- e 07 81 9 S
Nl r
b 1 7 257 1
oe 6
796 3
f v a
4 r
i o e 1
3 0 4 dt a
N s
$4 9 e c t e l
R el l
E oR S
T E
P WW H
t o L
ec Y
T B
sl A
t a n u T
e t s s s i c N. BWW pa R
t s s e e 8
T.
260 4
t t a a t
7 33 1
c c R
2 ii 7:
dM E
N I I T
r A
- 2 T
t P
t I sS s S
t t L t M
i 1 A T
m!
M C
T 1 T 0 3 0 Y I 7 T 1 F
5 1
- I!
"I'
- - ~, - -, - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - -----
4 4
.w i
j A.
t
...e...
e Er$g_[
wo g
a,;<
owog#
g' s519
- Ca*MCa 0 ".".
a.
2$,gB g
O U
A to 8
w-8 X
uh
~x 8
U<
v act w 6>
b s
u
.f 8
J er d
O am f
88 U
2
"~'
}
m SE i
- 4. 8-I E
m-
~a z+
w e
'8 b
U-w Ah G
d t$
C Ch m
- h. g.
N N
4Em W>
8 MOU S>
8 MN h
>.5
=
ss e
k N
N 61 we
~,
==l G 3
e
~k ON O
M g
.; T 5-
{
de r
e a+
s
.a r.
Q 4]L.
o
'kb F
'e f
Zeb b8 e
e
.gma.aC E
g 1,
+
At 2
d~
2h d
a*
v--
f h =e U
w k e}
I Y
%W t
l' tc g
x.
ff xx
~
wW5.
1
$TENf$$
E O g : hc i s.,
c e
ew e g :$
2 EvtENG' 15 l
,. _. +. -, - -,. _ - -. =., _ -, - -,
TABIC 24.
PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR $ LISTED IN ASCENDING OR P OF COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTO $
,v CY 1989 j
Collective Collective Average Collectise Dose Per Dose Per Dose )er Dose Per i
Reactor -
Site Worker Gross MWe Yr Sito Name (rems or cSv) (rems or cSv)(rems or cSv)
WOLF CREEK 18 13 0.10 2.0 DAVIS BESSE
$8 38 0.09 0.0 V0GTLE 1 38 38 0.09 0.0
)
PRAIRIE ISLAND 1,2 50 100 0.11 0.0 SUMMER 52 52 0.14 0.1 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 54 54 0.08 0.1 YANKEE-ROWE 62 62 0.13 0.4 RANCHO SECO
-81 81 0.13 0.5 BYRON 1,2 93 186 0.08 0.1 FORT CALHOUN 93 93 0.08 0.2 MAINE YANKEE 99 99 0.26 0.1 HARRIS 156 166 0.17 0.2 BPAIDWOOD 1,2*
160 320 0.11 0.1 SOUTH TEXAS 1*
161:
161 0.16 0.2 SALEM 1,2.
169 338 0.06 0.1 CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 173 346 0.10 0.5 CATAWBA 11,2
-182
-364 0.11 0.1 SAN ONOFRE 1,2,3 189 567 0.08 0.1 R0PINSON 2 195 195 0.18 0.6
' TURKEY POINT 3,4 217 434 0.13 0.3 DIABLO CANYON 1,2 233 466 0.14 0.1 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 234-234
.0.27 0.7 KEWAUNEE 239 239 0.42 0.5
'40 720 0.09 0.2 PALO VERDE 1,2,3*
t OLONEE 1,2,3 246 738 0.11 0.1 ST LUCIE 1,2 248 496 0,18 0.2 POINT BEACH 1,2 252 504-0.34 0.3 WATERFORD 3 265 265-0.20 0.3 000K'),2 267 534 0,17 0.2 CALLAWAY 283 283 0.27 0.3 PALISADES
<314 314 0.31 0.7 SEQUOYAH 1,2-329 658 0.16 0.2 MCGUIRE 1,2 339 678 0.17 0.2 ZION 1,2 342 684 0.27 0.2 ARKANSAS 1,2 356 712
.0.17 0.?
FARLEY 1,2 375 750 0.17 0.3 SURRY 1,2 418 836 0.13 0.9 i-TROJAN '
421-421 0.31 0.6 MILLSTONE POINT 2,3-540 1,080' O.27 0.4 L
HADDAM NECK 595 596 0.41 1.7 L
GINNA 605 605 0.48 1,6
/THREE MILE ISLAND 2' 639 639 0.63 E
BEAVER VALLEY 1,2 689-1,378 0.29 0.7 NORTH ANNA 1,2 736 1,472 0.26-0.6-
- 1NDIAN POINT 3 876 876 0.49 1.5 INDIAN POINT 2 1,436 1,436 0.69 2.7 Indicates plants counted for.the first time in 1989 after completing their first full year of operation.
16
-ww e-w+m-mn..+
TABLE ib.
PRESSUo'IED WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING ORDER Of THREE YEs. AVERAGE COLLECTIVE DOSE PER RL '0R 1989
+
Collective Dose Per Reactor ihree Year (Person rem or person cSv)
Average Site Name 1987 1988 1989 PRAIR!E ISLAND 1,2 68 100 50 72 138 38 V0GTLE DAVIS BESSE 47 307 38 131 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 149 210 54 138 YOLF CREEK 134 297 18 150 RANCHO SECO 300 78 81 153 160 BRAIDWOOD 1,2 161 SOUTH TEXAS 169 156 HARRIS YAt4KEE ROWE 218 227 62 169 CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 206 146 173 175 KEWAUNEE 226 210 239 225 SAN ONOFRE 1,2,3 232 260 189 227 WATERFORD 3 156 259 265 227 CATAWBA 1,2 225 278 182 228 CALLAWAY 393 27 283 234 SALEM 1,2 300 252 169 240 POINT BEACH 1,2 277 205 252 245 FORT CALHOUN 389 272 93 251 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 488 64 234 262 DIABLO CANY0t1 1,2 168 439 233 280 BYRON 1.2 769 230 93 283 SEQUOYAH 1,2 210 330 329 29 ?.
PALO VERDE 1,2,3 335 344 240 297 OCONEE 1,2,3 381 290 246 306 FARLEY 1,2 299 276 375 316 ST. LUCIE 1,2 476 306 248 343 COOK 1,2 333 468 267 356 SUMMER 560 511 52 374 TROJAN 363 401 421 395 MILLSTONE P01!4T 2,3 253 40E 540 398 ARKAt4SAS 1,2 191 694 356 413 Git 4NA 344 295 605*
415 ROBINSON 2 499 564 195 419 BEAVER VALLEY 1,2 210 265 689*
424 TURKEY POINT 3,4 686 369 217 424 Z10t1 1,2 347 630 342 440 MCGUIRE 1,2 522 552 339 471 INDIAti P0lt4T 3 500 93 876*
490 PAllSADES 456 730 314 500 SURRY 1,2 356 771 418 515 MAlliE YAt4KEE 722 725 99 515 NORTH At4NA 1,2 761 56 736*
517 HADDAM NECK 750 237 596 528 THREE MILE ISLAND 2 977 917 639*
844 INDIAN POINT 2 1,217 235 1,436*
963 Annual NR Averages:
371 335 296 Total Reactors included:
64 66 72 Indicttes high dose-per-reactor sites for 1989.
17
IAULL Ja.
SUlllNG WAILK KLMLIUnd L13 8 Lu in MOLLnvenu ORDr" 0F COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACT 00 CY 1989 Collective Collective Average Collective Dose Per Oose Per Oose Per Oose Per Reactor Site Worker Gross HWe.Yr Site Name (rems or cSv) (rems or cSv)(rems or cSv)
BIG ROCK POINT 177 177 0.42 3.5 DUANE ARNOLO 194 194 0.46 0.5 PILGRIM 207 207 0.12 1.0 BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 219 657 0.08 1
FERMI 2*
255 255 0.20 0.4
)
HATCH 1,2 278 556 0.21 0.2 NINE MILE POINT 1,2*
282 564 0.10 0.5
)
VERMONT YANKEE 288 288 0.35 0.7 LIHERICK 302 302 0.17 0.5 SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 352 704 0.17 0.2 FITZPATRICK 377 377 0.37 0.5 COOPER STATION 382 382 0.32 0.7 PEACH BOTTOM 2,3 392 784 0.17 0.8 CLINTON 418 418 0.35 1.2 MILLSTONE POINT 1 462 462 0.54 0.8 HOPE CREEK 465 465 0.25 0.6 QUA0 CITIES 1,2 486 972 0.28 0.4 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 492 492 0.38 0.7 GRAND GULF 498 498 0.25 0.5 MONTICELLO 507 507 0.46 1.6 RIVER BEND 558 558 0.36 1.0 DRESDEN 2,3 565 1,130 0.25 0.5 LASALLE 1,2 693 1,386 0.28 0.5 PERRY 767 767 0.41 1.2 BRUNSWICK 1,2 893 1,786 0.23 0.9 OYSTER CREEK 910 910 0.38 3.2 Indicates plants counted for the first time in 1989 after completing their first full yeTr of operation.
18
- w - mm 1Atti hk Boll 1 fig WAlLK KL ALlOKb LjblLU 44, MJu.nuo,u vnw s. n we M EE YE'" AVERAGE COLLECTIVE DOSE PER Rr*CTOR 1989
~'
j.
yI Collective Dose Per Reactor Three Year i'
(Person rem or person cSv)
Average
$tti nam 1987 1988 1989 (g _
L5MERICK 175 53 302 177 BIG ROCK POINT 222 170 177 190 VERMONT YANKEE 303 124 288 238 COOPER STATION 103 251 382 245 255 FERMI 2 130 418 CLINTON HOPE CREEK 117 287 465 290 SUSQUEHAliNA 1,2 311 258 352 307 i
BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 394 385 219 332 RIVER BEND 378 107 558 340 GRAt40 GULF 420 147 498 355 NINE MILE POINT 1,2 141 854 282 390 MONTICELLO 568 110 507 395 WASHit4GTON NUCLEAR 2 406 353 492 417 QUAD CITIES 1,2 388 414 486 429 MILLSTONE POINT 1 684 144 462 430 105 767*
PERRY HATCH 1,2 408 701 278 462 DUANE ARNOLD 667 614 194 492 DRESDEN 2,3 623 705 565*
631 FIT 2 PATRICK 940 786 377 701 PILGRIM 1,579 392 207 726 BRUNSWICK 1,2 710 874 893*
825 LASALLE 1,2 697 1,236 693*
875 PEACH BOTTOM 2,3 1,098 1,165 392 885 OYSTER CREEK 522 1,504 910*
979 Annual BWR Averages:
52' 529 439 Total Reactors included:
34 34 36 Indicates high dose per reactor sites for 1989.
19 l
l
~
TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1989 PWRs with Hioh Collective Dose Indian Point 2 (1438 rems) (outage dose / duration:
1237 rems /106 days)
Steam Generator (S/G) girth weld crack and feedwater nozzle repair (247 rems)
Hiscellaneous support to various groups (161 rems)
Miscellaneous maintenance (138 rems)
S/G work (Total of 124 rems)
Eddy current testing 37 rems Sludge lancing - 31 rems Remove and replace manways 22 rems Foreign object retrieval 7 rems Refueling (Total of 120 rems)
Remove and replace auxiliaries - 52 rems Reactor head work 25 rems fuel shuffle 12.5 rems Reactor cavity decon - 5 rems Plant modifications (Total of 93 rems)
Core exit thermocouple - 50 rems HP Support (78 rems)
Scaffolding (78 rems)
Radwaste support (Total of 61 rems)
Decon in containment 21 rems General decon 37 rems Install live loaded packing in 100 valves (57 rems)
In service Inspection of pressurizer (Total of 56 rems)
Asbestos removal - 40 rems Scaffolding - 8 rems General shielding (41 rems)
Reactor coolant pump work and rework (30 rems)
Radwaste and shielding (24 rems)
Miscellaneous maintenance in containment (21 rems)
Chemical decon of regenerative heat exchanger (13 rems)
Resistance Temperature Device (RTD) work (6 rems)
Snubber inspection (5 rems) 20
.s I
TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE l
DOSE' AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1989 (CONTINUED)
Indian Point 3 (876 rems) (outage dose / duration:
852 rems /142 days)
- Steam generator replacement (Total of 541 rems)
Preparation and closecut (insulation, interference removal) -
176 rems Welding - 121 rems HP and decon - 108 rems Machining (pipe decon) 42 rems Cutting 39 rems Rigging - 30 rems Testing - 25 rems Modifications (elimination of Resistance Temperature Device (RTD) by pass 'oop) (80 rems)
Routine (59 rems)
~
Valve motor operator modification (35 rems)
Refueling (28 rems)
Miscellaneous (20 rems)
In-service testing (16 rems)
North Anna, 1, 2 (1472 rems) (Outage dose / duration:
Unit 1-517 rems /141 days, Unit 11 647 rems /77 days)
Primary / secondary side steam generator work (Total of 490.4 rems)
Unit 1 - 185.8 rems Unit 2 - 304.6 rems Large bore snubber removal / replacement (Total of 136.3 rems)
Unit 1 - 81.9 rems Unit 2 - 54.4 rems Valve maintenance in reactor containment (Total of 128 rems)
Unit 1 - 63.8 rems Unit 2 - 64.2 rems In-service Inspection (Total of 118.9 rems)
Unit 1 - 55.2 rems Unit 2 - 63.6 rems 21 i
t TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1989 (CONTINVED)
Operations /HP walkdowns, surveys, valve lineups (Total of 69.5 i
Unit 2 - 39.7 rems Refueling (Total of 64.2 rems)
I Unit-1 32.2 rems 4
Unit 2 32.0 rems Snubber / hanger inspection / repair (Total of 62.8 rems)
+
[
Unit 1 33.3 rems
. Unit 2 e 29.5 rems Decon in reactor containment (Total of 49.8 rems)
L Unit 1 - 18.7 rems Unit 2 - 31.0 rems
- Miscellaneous work on pressurizer (Total--of 44.4 rems) 1-
-Unit 16.4 rems Unit 2 - 27.9 rems t
Berver Valley 1,2-(1378 rems) (Outage dose / duration: Unit I-875 rems /116 days, U11t 11333 rems /73 days)
^
,_Vnit 1
-- Resistance-Temperature Device (RTD) manifold elimination (141.3 rems)
Steam generator work (Total of.127.7. rems)
"B" S/G - 100% ECT (eddy current testing), tube plugging -
41.6 rems "A' S/G - 100% ECT (eddy current-testing), tube plugging -
.37.1 rems
'"C" S/G - 100% ECT (eddy current testing), tube plugging -
^
26.8 rems Surveillance'(106;9. rems)
Chemical =decon of 3 S/Gs (63.1 rems)
In-service Inspection exams (49.6 rems)
Scaffolding (45.5 rems)
Refueling (41.3 rems) l 22 p
..__..~.._u.._._...._..._--,_.__.__.___..._______.._._
i TABLE 4 e
ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1989 (CONTINUED) j Area decon (39.3 rems)
Mechanical maintenance inside crane wall (37.7 rems)
Loose part work (30.1 rems)
Secondary side foreign object search and retrieval (29 rems)
)
Main reactor coolant pump seal overhaul (23 rems)
Unit II Lar9e bore snubber reduction (57 rems)
Inspection and surveillance (36.2 rems)
Refueling (21 rems)
Non-destructive exam inspection (21.8 rems)
Steam generator work (Total of 30.3 rems)
"A" S/G - 100% ECT, tube plugging - 15.6 rems "C" S/G - 100% ECT, tube plugging - 14.7 rems Three Mile Island ' (639 rems)
Continued dufueling and decommissioning operations Ginna (605 rett') (Outage dose / duration:
440 rems /64 days)
Steam generator work (Total of 710 rems)
"A" S/G tube sleeving, plugging, peripheral tube sleeving, ECT (eddy current testing) - 122 rems "B" S/G tube sleeving, pluggino, peripheral tube sleeving, ECT-(eddy current testing) - 88 rems Refueling (34.5 rems)
Motor operated valve inspection ard refurbishment in containment (29.5 rems)
Motor operated valve inspection and refurbishment in Aux / Int buildings (21.8 rems)
Heat exchanger inspection and refurbishment (Component Cooling Water, Spent fuel Pool, Non Regenerative and Residual Heat Removal) (17.4 rems) 23
TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1989 (CONTINUED)
Residual Heat Removal pump recirculation valve refurbishment (15.8 rems)
S/G snubber replacement (8.7 rems)
Pressurizer block valve replacement (8.5 rems) 10 year in-service Inspection work (5.2 rems)
Reactor head vent solenoids (4.3 rems)
BWRs with Hioh Collective Doses Oyster Creek (910 rems) (Outage dose / duration:
1820 rems /1.24 days *)
(*Since outage spanned 1988 and 1989, portion of job dose accrued in 1989 is listed first and total job dose is shown in parentheses)
Observation, inspection, minor maintenance (134 (239) rems)
Radiation exposure controls (69 (155) rems)
Scaffolding in drywell (54 (164) rems)
Routine plant operations (52 (92) rems)
Recirculation pump seal maintenance (43 (44) rems)
Reactor refueling and internals inspection (36 (58) rems)
Auxiliary cleanup pump repair (22 (30) rems)
Installation of new reactor cavity wall liner coating (19 (32) rems)
Miscellaneous tool decontamination (17 (43) rems)
Miscellaneous system insulation removal and installation (16 (35) rems)
Recirculation system weld repair (15 (39) rems)
Main steam valve maintenance (13 (70) rems)
IGSCC (intergranular stress corrosion cracking) related in-service Inspection, IGSI (induction heat stress improve nent),
and weld crown reduction (12 (334) rems)
Brunswick 1, 2 (1786 rems) (Approximately 88% of the dose was accrued during the outages at each unit)
Replacement of recirculation pipe (476 remt)
MSIP (mechanical stress iq.rovement program) on piping (81 iers) 24
~
} f o'.
TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1989 c
(CONTINUED)
Recirculation valve upgrade (72 rems)
Refueling activities and vessel inspection (70 rems)
Replacement of mirror insulation (54 rems)
Pipe replacement (service water 'B' loop vital header) (48 rems)
Refueling floor work (45 rems)
Motor-operated valve maintenance (40 rems)
IGSCC (intergranular stress corrosion cracking), non-destructiveexaminspection(37 rems)
Control rod drive removal and replacement (34 rems)
Drywell cleanup (30 rems)
Chemicaldecontamination(18 rems) o Perry _(767 rems) (Outage dose / duration:
697 rems /164 days)
Scaffoldingandinsulation(lll-rems)
Reactor water cleanup heat exchanger work (66 rems)
Miscellaneous valve work (54 rems)
ALARA activities (planning) (31 rems)
Control rod dr.ive work (27 rems)
In-service Inspection /non destructive exams (23 rems) l Control valve work. (*D' recirculation pump) (21 rems)
Neutron instrumentation (incore probes,-startup/ intermediate range monitors) replacement- (18 rems)
Inboard isolation valve ('A' feedwater header) rework (17 rems)
Limitorque work (16 rems)
Cable replacement in'drywell (14 rems)
Main steam isolation valve work (13 rems)
' LaSalle 1, 2 (1386 rems) (Outage dose / duration:
699 rems /10 weeks)
Drywell cooling modifications (157 rems)
In-service Inspection (96 rems)_
Control rod drive work (38 rems)
Install and remove control rod shields, rmove shootout steel, decontamination work (32 rems) 25
I
,s s,
TABLE 4 ACTIVlilES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTivi DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1989 i^
(CONTINUED)
Reactor head disassembly (30 rems)
Drywelldecontamination-(Unit 1)(27 rems)
Feedwaterregulatorvalvework(26 rems)
Scaffolding (23 rems)
HPtechniciansurveysupport(Unit 1)(22 rems)
Dewater resins for radwaste shipment (17 rems)
Deco'ntaminationandfirewatch(16 rems)
Reactor cavity decontamination (Unit 1) (16 rems)
HP technician routine surveys in liquid radwaste area (15 rems)
- Radwaste barrel decontamination for shipping (15 rems) j
-- Inspection walkdown in drywell (Unit 1) (14 rems) i g
Dresden 2, 3 (1130 rems)(Outagedose/ duration:
677 rems /12 weeks)-
9 Au,tomaticandmanualwelding, grinding,andinspectionof
,reactorwatercleanupline(81 rems)_
Routine tasks (maintenance walkdown) (53 rems)
Decontamination (37 rems)
- - Automatic and manual welding, grinding, and inspection of l
recirculation'dischargerisers(36 rems)
< insulation removal (25 rems) l
-:Orywell cable pull and replacement (21 rems)
- Manual welding, grinding,- and inspection of recirculation discharge risers (18 rems)
Refueling-(14 rems)
Scaffolding (6 rems) l
- - g 26
._________;