ML20033E012
| ML20033E012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/10/1989 |
| From: | Hinson C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Congel F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033E004 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908170190 | |
| Download: ML20033E012 (2) | |
Text
.
.. /p cssg'g UNITED STATES 8'
,. f g
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGT ON. D. C. 20$$$
i,
,.p
- 4 AUG 101989 MEMORAhDUM FOR:
Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THkU:
LeMoine J. Cunninghara, Chief P.adiation Protection Branch Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of huclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Charles S. Hinson, Health Physicist Radfation Protectiori branch Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
$UBJECT:
LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1988 Enclosed for your information is the 1988 occupational dose susanary for operat-ing power plant facilities. This sumary contains a listing of the occupa-tional dose for each of the 102 nuclear plants included in the 1988 tabulation (including a listing of the number of people receiving dose in each dose rangt
{ required by 10 CFR 20.4C7) for each plant), a ranking of PWRs and BWRs in ascending orner of collective dose per reector for 1988, a listing of activi-ties performed (with corresponding person-rem coses) for the five PWR and five BWR sites which had the highest per unit doses in 1988, and other pertinent dose data.
The average collective dose per reactor for light-water-cooled reactors (LWR) has continued to drop, although at a slower rate, and averaged 400 perton-rems per reactor in 1988. This is five percent lower than last years value and is the lowest LWR average collective dose per reactor since 1974.
It should be noted that the figures for average cose per reactor and total number of operating LWRs contained in this report differ from the figures reported earlier by INP0 for 1988. There are several reasons for this differ-ence.
For the average dose per reactor, the staff uses the dose anta reported to the hRC in the licensee's 10 CFR 20.407 report.
10 CFR 20.407 requires that each licensee report the number of people receiving dose in each of severL1 cose renges.
In addition to reporting this data, most licensees (nearly 90 percent in 1988) also supply the actual total record TLD dose for the year.
The staff uses this TLD total dose for the facilities annual dose when provioed. However, for those 1acilitics which do not provide an actual TLD collective dost, the staff must calculate the total dose by suming the proc-ucts of the nunber of people in each dose range by the midpoint dose for each O
8 % gI7 p198 ;2g ) X h
)
Frank J. Congel AUG 101989 dose range. This results in a total dose which is usually larger than the actual TLD dose due to the averaging method used.
INPO, on the other hand, monitors actual TLD doses from reactor licensees on a quarterly basis, and so the INP0 reported annual plant doses are based entirely on measured TLD data froni each of the plants. This is why the values reported by the NRC and INPO for total cumulative annual LWR dose and resulting average dose per reactor differ.
The staff's figures for total number of operating LWRs is based on the total nunber of plants which have completed at least one full year of operation at the end of the dose year.
For example a plant which goes into consnercial operation in February of the dose year would not be counted since it will not have operated for a full year by the end of the dose year. Not including plants which have less than a full year's operation ensures that the dose data is consistent and eliminates the inclusion of dose data for plants which may heve only operated for a few months or so.
INPO does not include a plant in its annual dose compilation until the plant has accumulated 18 months of consnercial operating time. Therefore, if a plant goes commercial during the first six months of the year, it will be counted as being operational by INPO at the end of the following year. However, if a plant goes commercial during the second half of the year, INPO will not include that plant in its tally until its second full year of operation because it would not have been opera-tional for a full 18 months by the end of the following year (e.g., plant going commercial in Novenber of 1987 (Perry) would not be counted by INP0 until 1989, while it would be included in the NRC's compilation for 1988 since it would have accumulated a full year of commercial operation by the end of 1988). This differtnce in methods used to " qualify" plants for inclusion in the annual lant compilation usually results in the NRC's tabulation including more plants
-p(102 in 1988) than INPO's tobulation (97 in 1988).
This cifference in the number of operating plants also results in differing annual average doses per reactor.
This report was compiled by our contractor, SAIC, from dat6 colle!ded by Charles Hinson, NRR, end Barbara Brooks, RES.
Please address anJ westions to Charles S. Hinson, RPB/DREP/NRR at (301) 492-3148.
Original sinned by Charles S. Hinson, Health Physicist Radiation Protection Branch Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As Stated pistribution: See next page g-(sPd RPB:DREP g SC:RPggiEEP C
CSHinson:aaw JEWi nton LJCunningham 08/g /89 08/6/89 08
/89 e
me e
a-.
.m-
--~
ev--
.