ML20058C713
| ML20058C713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/22/1993 |
| From: | Hinson C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Congel F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312020547 | |
| Download: ML20058C713 (23) | |
Text
_
,.,f UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20LSS N
1
\\
/
NOV P 21993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Safety I
and Safeguards THRU:
LeMoine J. Cunningham, Chief Radiation Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards FROM:
Charles S. Hinson, Health Physicist Radiation Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1992 Enclosed for your information is the 1992 occupational dose summary for operating U.S. nuclear power plant facilities.
This summary contains a listing of the occupational dose for each of the 110 nuclear plants included in the 1992 tabulation, as well as a listing of the number of people receiving doses in each dose range (as specified in 10 CFR & 20.407) for each of these plants.
In addition, this report contains a ranking of PWRs and BWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1992, a listing of activities performed (with corresponding person-rem doses) for the five PWR and five BWR sites which had the highest per unit doses in 1992, graphical i
representations of LWR dose data between 1973 and 1992, and other pertinent dose data.
For the five PWRs and five BWRs which had the highest per unit doses in 1992, this report indicates that a majority (nearly 90%) of the annual collective dose was accrued during outage periods.
In 1992, no new reactors were added to the status list of operating reactors (a LWR is added to the status list af ter it has completed its first full year of commercial operation).
Yankee Rowe, a PWR, was removed from the compilation of reactor data for 1992 since Yankee Rowe has been permanently shut down.
The average collective dose per reactor for the 110 LWRs included in the 1992 J
listing was 266 person-cSv (person-rem). This is 5% higher than the 1991 LWR average of 253 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor.
This slight increase in collective dose is a result of an increased number of refueling outages for i
BWRs in 1992.
The average dose per reactor for the 73 operating PWRs in 1992 was 219 person-cSv (person-rem).
This represents a 2% decrease from the 1991 average of 223 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor.
The average dose per reactor for the 37 i
operating BWRs in 1992 was 360 person-cSv (person-rem).
This is 11% higher than the 1991 average of 324 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor and is due, j
fwa fjuku O
- t. w i l
0020S6
&4nw @w
-n u
+~
u ~ ~
p,iu, m 9312O20547 931122 8
4 3
Frank J. Congel.
e primarily, to the 28% increase in the number of outage hours reported for refuelings at BWRs in 1992.
Although the average LWR dose per unit is up slightly from last year's average value, this average is still nearly 500 person-cSv (person-rem) less than the 1983 LWR average of 753 person-cSv (person-rem)(1983 is the year when the LWR average dose per unit last peaked).
In this same time span, the average measurable dose per worker for LWRs has dropped by more than half, from 0.66 rem in 1983 to 0.28 rem in 1992.
This report was jointly compiled by our contractor, SAIC, and Charles Hinson, NRR, NRC. Any questions concerning the content of this report should be directed to Charles Hinson at (301) 504-1845.
A Charles S. Hinson, Health Physicist Radiation Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
Central Files, P1 37 LJCunningham TEssig JWigginton CHinson FCongel PMcKee RErickson CWillis RCooper, RI JStohr, RII CNorelius, RIII DChamberlain, RIV RScarano, RV JJoyner, RI WCline, RII CPedersen, Rill JPotter, RII BMurray, RIV GYuhas, RV RShortridge, RII JReese, RIV RAnderson, TTC KRaglin, TTC JFouchard, 2 G5 JHickey, 6 H3 DCool, NLS 139 BMorris, NLS 007 CRaddatz, NLS 139 PRPB R/F PRPB S/F (LWR)
RCunningham, 6 H3 i
ARoecklein, NLS 139 RHartfield, P-712 EButcher FCombs, 6 H3 PDR, LL6 0FFICE RPB:DR$5;hRR RPhD,R55;hRR K %[
NAME Chins : c J
irton h
out 33 f0f,3 11//f/93 11t/f93 0FfICIAL RECORD COPY FILENAME: G:\\9200SE I
Enclosure LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1992 This is a compilation and analysis of occupational radiation doses reported from light-water-cooled reactors (LWRs) for the year 1992. The information was derived from reports submitted to the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 20.407.
In 1992 no new light water reactors (LWRs) were added to the list. of operating reactors (a LWR is added to the list after completing its first full year of commercial operation). Yankee-Rowe (a pressurized water reactor [PWR]) was removed from the compilation of reactor data this year since this reactor has been permanently shut down. Other reactors which are no longer included in the compilation of reactor data are Indian Point 1, Rancho Seco, and TSree Mile Island 2 (PWRs), Dresden 1, liumboldt Bay, and Lacrosse (boiling water reactors [BWRs]), and Fort St. Vrain (high temperature gas cooled reactor).
The total collective dose for all 110 LWRs included in 1992 was 29,309 person-cSv (person-rem) (see Table 1a). This is 3% higher than last year's value of 28,527 persomcSv (person-rem). The average collective dose per reactor for LWRs in 1992 was 266 person-cSv (person-rem). This is 5% higher than the 1991 LWR average of 253 person-cSv (person-rcm) per reactor (see Figure 1). The slight increase in l
collective dose is a result of an increased number of refueling outages for BWRs in 1992. The number of workers with measurable dose per reactor increased from 890 in 1991 to 938 in 1992 (see Figure 1). The number of operating reactors and power generation data are shown in Figure 2. The average measurable dose per worker for LWRs has decreased to 0.28 cSv (rem) from the 1991 value of 0.29 cSv (rem) (see Figure 3). The collective dose per gross megawatt-year (MWe-year) has increased i
from a value of 0.39 in 1991 to 0.40 in 1992 (see Figure 3).
in 1992, the total collective dose for PWR units was 16,000 person-cSv (person-rem) for 73 reactors. The resulting average collective dose per reactor for PWRs in 1992 was 219 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor (see Figure 1). This represents a 2%
decrease from the 1991 value of 223 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor. The average number of personnel with measurable doses per PWR increased from 81'4 in 1991 to 836 in 1992. The average measurable dose per worker for PWRs in 1992 is 0.26 cSv (rem). This is slightly less than the 1991 value of 0.27 cSv (rem).
1
In 1992, the total collective dose for BWR units was 13,309 person-cSv (person-rem) for 37 reactors. The resulting average collective dose per unit for BWRs in 1992 was 360 person-cSv (person-rem) per unit. This is 11% higher than the 1991 value of 324 person-cSv (person-rem) per unit.
The average number of personnel with measurable doses per BWR increased from 1,040 in 1991 to 1,138 in 1992. The average measurabie dose per worker also increased slightly from 0.31 cSv (rem) in 1991 to 0.32 cSv (rem) in 1992.
The compilation in Table la 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 1992. Table la also lists the reactor type and the annual whole body dose distributions of each of the 110 LWRs in this year's ccmpilation. Table 1b presents the same type of dose breakdown for those LWRs which are either no longer in operation or have been in operation for less than one year. The collective dose figures listed in Table 1 (a and b) are either actual total dose figures submitted by the licensee (indicated by a double asterisk) or were derived from data submitted by the licensee in response to the requirements of 10 CFR 20.407.
Figure 1 shows the average collective dose figures for PWRs, BWRs, and LWRs for the years 1973-1992. For the nineteenth consecutive year, the average collective dose per reactor for BWRs has remained higher than that for PWRs. The lower half of Figure 1 shows the number of workers with measurable dose per reactor for the years 1973-1992. Figure 2 shows the total number of operating reactors and the gross electricity generated plotted for the years 1973-1992.
Table 2a lists the 73 PWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1992.
As stated previously, the PWR average collective dose per reactor in 1992 was 219 person-cSv (person-rem). The top ten PWR units in Table 2a reported collective doses in 1992 which were 100 person-cSv (person-rem) or less. This is the annual dose that is being used as the goal for the advanced reactor designs. The five PWR sites with the highest collective doses all exceeded 423 person-cSv (person-rem) p_er teactor. These reactors were Millstone Point 2, Zion 1 and 2, Maine Yankee, Arkansas 1 and 2, and Crystal River 3. Although representing 11% of the 73 PWRs included in 1992, they contributed 26% of the total co!!ective dose at PWRs. Much of the collective dose accumulated at the plant with the highest average dose per 2
reactor (640 person-cSv (person-rem)] in 1992 was attributed to steam generator related work (including replacement), reactor coolant pump work, refueling, and preventive / corrective maintenance. (Note: Although the average dose per reactor at Millstone 2 and 3 was 640 person-cSv [ person-rem], Millstone 2 actually accrued 1264 of the site total of 1280 person-cSv [ person-rem]). In 1992, the collective dose per MWe-year of 0.30 for PWRs was below 0.50 for the fourth year in a row. This indicates a better than 3:1 ratio of MWe-years generated to the collective dose accumulated during 1992.
Tables 2a and 3a list the values of "CR" for each reactor which is defined to be the raCo of the annual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding 1.5 cSv (reral to the total annual collective dose. The United Nations ScierCfic Committee on the liffects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) recommends that this parameter remain in th e range between 0.05 and 0.50. In 1992, only one reactor, Big Rc.:k Point, a BWR, exceeded this recommended range.
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 1 and 2, and South Texas 1 and 2, have consistently achieved very low collective doses and therefore appear at the top of Table 2b. The five PWR sites (seven units) with the highest doses in 1992 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 4a gives a breakdown of some of the major activities which contributed to the collective dose received at these high dose plants. It appears that the activities which most frequently contributed to these high collective doses were steam generator related work, refueling, valve maintenance and repair, health physics surveys and inspections, in-serviceinspection, and reactor coolant pump maintenance.
Table 3a lists the 37 BWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1992.
The average BWR dose per reactor in 1992 was 360 person-cSv (person-rem). Two BWR units, Cooper Station and Millstone Point 1, reported collective doses in 1992 which were less than 100 person-cSv (person-rem). In 1992, the five BWR sites with the highest collective doses all exceeded 583 person-cSv (person-rem) cer reactor.
These reactors were River Bend 1, Fitzpatrick, Oyster Creek, Washington Nuclear 2, 3
)
l l
l and LaSalle 1 and 2. Although the six reactors at IF Je five sites represented only
)
16% of the 37 BWRs, they contributed 29% of the total collective dose incurred at BWRs in 1992. Some of the activities which contributed to the collective dose accumulated at the BWR site with the highest collective dose per reactor [710 person-cSv (person-rem)) were in-service inspection, valve maintenance and testing, replacement of reactor wates cleanup (RWCU) ring header,' decontamination riad cleaning, feedwater nozzle safe end replacement, refueling, and control rod drive (CRD) work.
Table 3a and Figure 3 also give the collective dose per gross MWe-year for BWRs to I
indicate their power generation performance as it relates to the collective dose incurred by the workers at these plants. in 1992, the collective dose per MW:-year of 0.65 for BWRs was below 1.00 for the fourth consecutive year. As shown in Figure 3, this parameter increased slightly for BWRs in 1992. Analysis of outage data i
for 1992 shows that the increase in co!!ective dose at BWRs for 1992 was primarily t
due to refueling and maintenance outages which would also have a negative effect l
on the amount of power generated. BWRs experienced a 28% increase in the number of outage hours reported for refueling. As in previous years, the collective dose per MWe-year remains higher for BWRs than for PWRs. One contributing factor for this difference is the larger power generation capacity of most PWRs.
Table 3b lists the three-year average doses per BWR in ascending order, as well as the i
collective dose per reactor for the last three years. A few BWRs, such as Limerick 1 and 2, Fermi 2, and Millstone Point 1, consistently achieve low collective doses and l
therefore appear at the top of Table 3b. The five BWR sites (six units) with the j
highest doses per reactor for 1992 are indicated with an asterisk to give an indication of their performance over the last three years. As was the case for PWRs, several of the highest collective dose BWRs for 1992 are also among the plants with the highest three-year averages. Table 4b 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 valve maintenance and replacement, in-service inspection work, health physics support, drywell work, CRD replacement and repair, and refueling activities.
I 4
i I
I As can be seen from Figures 1 and 3, respectively, the LWR average collective dose and the average measurable dose per worker have continued on a general downward trend from the peak dosa seen in the early 1980s. Along with the completion of a
[
majority of the TMi-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 ir.dustry, the NRC (through the BNL ALARA Center), and INPO on the importance of effectively applying ALARA principles at LWRs. A majority of the plants contacted in gathering data for this report had dedicated ALARA coordinators on their staff for the purpose of ensuring that ALARA principles and practices are factored into all maintenance and operations work to reduce overall personnel exposures. All plants contacted maintained detailed records of job-specific doses incurred during both outage and non-outage periods. Such a l
detai!cd dose tracking system is a vital part of a good ALARA program because it provides a good lessons learned data base for future reference and use.
Tables 4a and 4b list the activities contributing to the doses for the five PWR and five BWR sites which had the highest collective doses in 1992. These tables also list the outage dose and duration for each of these LWRs in 1992. As can be seen from these data, on the average, nearly 90% of the annual collective dose for these plants is accrued during outages. This supports the findings from an earlier study (Memo from C. Hinson (NRC), " Representative Daily Collective Doses at PWRs and BWRs During Both Outage and Non-Outage Conditions", March 1,1990) which showed that the average daily outage doses exceeded the average daily non-outage doses by a factor of 31 for PWRs and by a factor of 9 for BWRs. In addition, the ten LWR sites (thirteen units) which had the highest collective doses in 1992 spent an average of 142 days down for outage work in 1992. The total refueling outage hours for all LWRs for 1992 was 144,824 hours0.00954 days <br />0.229 hours <br />0.00136 weeks <br />3.13532e-4 months <br />. This represents a 9% increase over last year's total. The increase was due to a 28% increase in refueling time for BWRs. PWRs experienced a slight (1%) decrease in refueling outage hours for 1992. The irnpact of refueling outages is reflected in the increase in collective dose for BWRs, and the decrease for PWRs.
One way to reduce a plant's annual collective dose, therefore, is to reduce the frequency and duration of plant outages by detailed outage planning and scheduling of jobs to minimize critical path time. There are several ways in which outage doses 5
i; can be reduced. The use of permanent scaffolding in high dose rate areas would f
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 and tear-down. Wider use of permanent scaffolding or platforms in high dose rate areas (such as around steam generators and reactor coolant pumps) could contribute to the lowering of plant collective 'foses.
f Another means of reducing outage doses is to improve the use of shielding. Use of permanent shleiding versus temporary shielding in high dose rate areas would reduce the doses associated with the installation and removal of temporary shielding during i
outages. In instances where it is not feasible to install permanent shielding, the installation of temporary shielding could be facilitated by installing permanent i,
books /tiangers in areas where this temporary shielding is required. Use of these hooks / hangers would reduce the time needed to install this shielding in radiation areas.
inflatable shields which can be filled with water or lead shot have been used at many facilities. The advantages of using this type of shielding are that it is portable and a
{
large uninflated shield can be easily carried by an individual to the installation area and l
filled in-situ. Other facilities have reported success using prefabricated plate lead or lead-impregnated molded plastic. This type of shielding can be specifically molded for the component to be shielded. Because this shielding is " custom-made" for a specific component, it provides much more effective shielding thar. bulk shielding. Several facilities have realized considerable dose savings by using reactor head shields (during refuelings) and steam generator manway shields (for steam generator tube work). By practicing installation on mockups prior to shielding the actual component, shield installation time in the field can be reduced.
Tha removal and reinstaliation of component insulation to permit in-service inspection and testing can also be a fairly dose-intensivejob. Proper identification and temporary storage of this insulation can reduce the amount of insulation which is misplaced or l
damaged due to improper storage. Labelling of insulation also facilitates retrieval and installation of the insulation. Component / system flushing or decontamination prior to maintenance of the component or system can greatly reduce area dose rates and result in lower personnel doses. Several facilities are considering decontamination of l
the entire reactor coolant system. Robotics, which are playing a larger role every year in facilitating work functions at nuclear power plants, have led to a reduction in the 6
l i
.~,
overall doses received by plant personnel. Use of robots to perform such tasks as steam generator tube plugging, sleeving, and eddy current testing in PWRs has led to a tenfold reduction in personneldoses accrued during the performance of these tasks.
l Robotics have also been used to reduce doses during in-service inspection work, control rod drive changeout, and pipe welding. Mobile robots have been used by many utilities to perform remote surveillance and sampling functions in hostile or high dose environments. Many facilities have also installed remote video cameras in l
radiation areas. These cameras are used to observe jobs being performed in high radiation areas as well as to minimize the need for walkdowns in certain parts of the plant.
As of January 1,1904, alllicensees are required to implement the revised 10 CFR Part
- 20. These new regulations state, in part, that licensees shall maintain the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) ALARA. TEDE is defined as the sum of the deep-l dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). Severallicensees have found that, even though the use of respirators serves to minimize internal exposures, the reduced worker efficiency caused by the wearing of respirators in radiation areas often results in longer times spent at the job site. This, in turn, results in higher external doses to the workers than would be realized if they had not worn respirators. In many cases, the additional external dose received (from wearing a respirator) exceeds the internal dose saved by i
wearing a respirator. When this is the case, licensees would be maintaining the worker TEDE ALARA by not requiring workers to wear respirators. The NRC staff is encouraged by the successful efforts of severallicensees to maintain TEDE ALARA by the appropriate use of respirators and other techniques.
Some other measures of reducing doses during outages are; 1) scheduling jobs to be performed on the same component or in the same area so that they are performed at the same time to eliminate duplication of setup preparations,2) using skilled workers to perform difficult jobs,3) minimizing the number of work crew personnel used so that only the number of personnel necessary to perform the job are used, and 4) ensuring cooperation between different groups which may be working together on the same job.
7
The preceding paragraphs describe several dose reduction features which can be implemented to reduce doses to plant personnel during plant outages. One way in which overall plant dose rates can be reduced is to reduce the source of radiation in the plants. The primary source of radiation fields in nuclear power plants is cobalt-60.
l Cobalt is the major constituent of Stellite, a hardfacing material used in valve seats,
[
pump journals, and other wear resistant components. Therefore, an effectiva way to reduce the overall source of radioactivity at nuciear power plants is to reduce the amount of cobalt containing materialin contact with the primary coolant system. For i
plants which have yet to be built, this can be accomplished by specifying the use of non-or low cobalt containing plant components. For operating plants, however, components contributing large amounts of cobalt to the reactor coolant system need to be identified and replaced w h components with little or no cobalt content. For a
some components, non-cobalt replacement materials need to be developed which possess the same wear characteristics as the component to be replaced. Many j
utilities have already embarked on programs to reduce the sources of cobalt in their i
plants. These programs include plans for replacing selected LWR valves and piping, BWR control blades, and PWR fuel assembly hardware. Several PWRs which have replaced their steam generators in recent years have specified that the tubing in the l
replacement steam generators be fabricated of low cobalt inconel 690. As more plants implement such source reduction programs, overall dose rates at LWRs should begin to decline.
In addition to the implementation of ALARA design features, an 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 performing job planning (including ALARA reviews) well in advance, establishing realistic dose goals, and reducing area radiation sources. As the current generation of LWRs age, i
plant components require increased maintenance to ensure that plant safety is maintained and doses are minimized. A good ALARA program is necessary to prevent LWR doses from increasing as the maintenance work done at these plants increases over the years.
i l
r l
1 8
l s
s
i.
l Figure 1
[
Average Collective Dose and Number of Workers per Reactor 1973-1992 l
Averar a innus1 Collective Done
- r,--.,
- BWR
$1000- -
- PWR l
... mR t
s.x i
E
~
f,% f'%
i
!Bo, \\,
/
/
^
\\ \\
i t
-q/
es.y
].
~
L 400 -
w 3 2x 0
I 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Year r
i Average Annual Number of Workers with Measurable Dose r
1600 l - BWR 1430 ---
~
/
,1000 jw fNy
- ma i
g
8"W a.-
y Y,
%d
+ f k BDO-200 -.
0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1983 1931 1982 1983 19B4 1985 1986 1987 19BB 1989 1990 1991 1992 q
l Year 9
i
Figure 2 Number of Operating Reactors and Grcss Electricity Generated 1973-1992 Number of Operating Reactors 10 110M
'~
Bk'G 100 2-90 2-
@] PWR j-e 80 l-70 g 60 h-50
,--j d
L z 40
,fg 3-M-M A 30 2-L.
20. -
10 1973 1974 1975 1976 ' 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 ' 198B 1989 1990 1991 1992 Year Gross Electricity Generated 0
i i
i l
l== = EWB j j =
70 -
ww-PnB
$N
.nn, LWR
/
50 e
/
/
f y
j30-
,,# %mu # "
W I
20 FAY" 10 ]
I o
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 19S4 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 I
Year 10 j
i Figure 3 Average Measurable Dose per Worker and Collective Dose per Megawatt-Year 1973 - 1992 Average Measurable Dose per Worker I
i i
i 1.0 BWR
]
og_
= PWh di
(
(
X X
-ww, LWR.-
e f
I"
- \\
f
+
k\\.#'*
- \\\\
1,;:
v v
g %w 3
a
~:.w,_::rg 04-g 0.3 s
02 I
r 0.1 0.3,
l 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 j
Year Collective Dose per Megawatt-Year 3.0 I
i i
i 2.s swr h
jg j
4
- ~52.4 t
,/ X
/
\\
rwa 3:
k I
%g E ".2j 2
2 m LWR i F ( V\\
/r m L
i n
/
\\
{
1.6 -
3f
( Ar 4
g
\\
l
- m m_
s s
i a
V 'n N4'/
_,N L E
\\
/ \\--_j
\\
A y o8 v
%g%%j s.
NZA 5
0.4 -
N 02 05,
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1dB2 1dB3 IdB4 1dB5 1986 1NB7 1dBS 1N89 1h30 1991I t
Year I
11 i
i t
i l
. TABLE la.
ANNUAL WOLE BODY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES CY 1992 Nurnber of Individuals with Vhole Body Doses in the Ranges (c5v or rem)
TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER COLLECTIVE PLANT NAME TYPE NtNBER WITH DOSE No Mea-M as.
0.10- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75-1.00- 2.00- 3.00-4.00- 5.00- 6.00- 7.00-MON!-
MEAS.
(Person-surable <0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 12.00 >12.0 TORED EXP05tRE c5v.rm)
ARKANSAS 1,2 PVR 1,370 1,3 53 646 528 266 161 135 24 4,484 3.114 876 **
BEAVER VALLEY 1,2 M
1.504 605 397 282 92 15 23 2,918 1.414 289 **
BIG ROCK P0lNT BVR 24 272 29 22 39 35 67 20 9
3 520 496 277 BRAIDWOOD 1.2 M
1,421 393 348 222 56 26 13 1
2.480 1.059 228 **
BROWNS FERRY 1.2.3 BVR 3,837 1,259 679 457 169 68 26 6,495 2,658 516 **
BRUN5VICK 1.2 BVR 2.313 1.329 627 348 182 89 108 7
5,003 2.690 623 **
BYRON 1,2 M
1.644 426 289 231 56 14 5
2,665 1,021 199 **
CALLAVAT 1 M
174 357 322 243 101 50 54 1,907 1,133 336 **
CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 M
1.623 1.291 284 182 88 62 72 3,602 1,9 79 330 **
CATAVBA 1.2 M
1,748 562 342 366 163 57 25 3,263 1.515 414 CLINTON BWR 1,360 426 216 232 144 119 54 4
2.555 1,195 431 COMANCHE PEAK M 3,832 651 261 135 61 14 6
4.960 1,128 188
- COOK 1,2 M 1.213 879 416 331 167 84 11 3.167 1.9 54 492 **
N COOPER STATION BVR 2.287 289 18 56 21 11 8
2.750 463 84 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 M 1.025 538 296 276 139 70 82 2
2,428 1,403 424 **
OAVIS-8 ESSE PVR 714 238 28 21 1.001 287 19 **
DIABLO CANYON 1,2 PVR 2.087 811 477 317 135 53 51 3.937 1,850 459 DRE50EM 2,3 BVR 2.139 794 291 222 212 124 163 6
3,951 1.812 619 **
DUANE ARNOLD BVR 1.940 297 166 166 135 103 143 13 2,983 1.043 502 **
FAdLEY 1.2 M
616 677 403 403 199
- 96 215 20 5
2.634 2.018 805 **
FERMI 2 BVR 1,413 545 325 239 85 16 3
2,626 1.213 245 FITZPATRICK BVR 1,209.1,211 402 290 168 125 163 15 3.583 2,374 674 **
FORT CALHOUN M
693 285 156 158 114 54 35 1,495 802 272 61NNA M
818 288 ISS 185 108 56 30 1,650 832 261 **
GRAND GlU 8VR 1.556 9 52 409 374 153 69 69 6
3.588 2.032 484 **
HADDAM NECK PVR 744 375 141 124 96 39 22 1,541 797 202 **
HARRIS Pk'R
- 797 420 199 188 67 37 19 1,727 930 213 **
HATCH 1.2 BVR 1,166 602 283 296 207 117 108 1
1 2.781 1.615 550 **
HOPE CREEK 1 BVR 1.087 891 241 217 136 106 102 1
2,781 1,694 436 **
INDIAN POINT 2 M
646 296 83 63 23 7
17 1,135 489 97 **
INDIAN POINT 3 PVR 982 491 233 168 79 22 to 1,985 1.003 212 KEVAUNEE M
476 183 93 107 37 18 12 926 450 122 LASALLE 1.2 BVR 1.211 766 422 404 229 176 388 33 3,629 2.418 1.167 **
LIMERICK 1,2 BVR 1,899 745 340 276 129 44 24 1
3.458 1.559 330 **
MAINC YANKEE PVR 673 391 196 219 193 87 102 1
1,862 1,189
-461 **
- Indicates actual collective dose reported by facility, otherwise calculated by staff.
~.
-.-. - ~ -
TABLE la.
(Continued)
[
ANNUAL WOLE BODY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES' CY 1992 Nunber of Individuals with VSole Body Doses in the Ranges (c5v er rem)
TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER COLLECTIVE PLANT NAME TYPE HlNBER VITH DOSE No Mea-Meas. 0.10- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75-1.00- 2.00- 3.00-4.00- 5.00- 6.00- 7.00-MON!-
MEAS.
(Person-surable, <0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 12.00 312.0 TORED EXPOSURE cSv, rem)
MCGUIRE 1.2 M 1.765 734 369 301 106 42 67 3.384 1.619 418 MILL 5 TONE POINT 1 BVR 231 142 51 52 32 20 32 9
579 348 99 **
MILLSTONE POINT 2.3 NR 2.117 1.306 559 478 291 179 297 80 5.307 3.190 1,280 **
MONTICELLO BVR 409 222 79 78 34 15 25 1
863 454 114 **
NINE MILE POINT 1.2 BVR 1.737 677 383 343 196 86 109 6
3.537 1.800 563 **
NORTH ANNA 1,2 NR 870 1.208 276 258 178 84 134 21 3,029 2.159 576 **
OCONEE 1.2.3 NR 1.408 651 477 457 203 84 81 1
3,362 1.9 54 612 OYSTER CREEK BVR 318 1.458 451 415 191 133 117 5
1 3.089 2.771 657 **
PAllSADES WR 222 672 181 204 96 46 67 1
1.489 1.267 295 **
PALO VERDE 1.2.3 NR 2.357 915 385 333 150 90 96 11 1
4,338 1.981 541 **
PEACH BOTTOM 2.3 BVR 2.801 870 406 309 151 85 84 6
4.712 1,911 502 **
PERRY BVR 976 381 298 381 208 101 112 2.463 1,487 571 **
w PILGRIM BWR 1,692 641 307 189 139 48 8
3.024 1,332 281 **
POINT BEACH 1,2 NR 460 190 119 124 69 41 10 4
1.077 617 256 **
PRAIRIE ISLAND 1.2 NR 978 376 170 157 78 36 28 1.823 845 211 **
QUA0 CITIES 1,2 BVR 1,579 738 440 413 249 176 363 34 3.992 2.413 1.157 **
RIVER BEND 1 BVR 1.620 778 366 342 209 144 178 5
3.642 2.022 710 **
R081N50N 2 PVR 929 483 283 251 148 66 34 2
2.196 1.267 3 52 **
SALEM 1.2 NR 2.231 3.259 629 291 129 35 32 1
6.607 4,376 431 **
SAN ONOFRE 1,2,3 PVR 2.148 871 308 258 156 51 1
3,799 1,651 324 **
SEABROOK NR 1.188 410 207 130 46 11 2
1.994 806 147 SEQUDYAH 1.2 NR I.821 662 391 355 177 16 52 1
3.535 1.714 465 **
SOUTH TEXAS 1.2 NR 1.789 478 231 166 43 4
1 2,712 923 147 **
ST. LUCIE 1.2 M 1.520 ' 563 356 219 66 32 15 2,771 1.251 264
$UMMER 1 PVR 825 170 50 17 12 1,074 249 27 **
SURRY 1.2 NR 1.232 583 319 373 199 90 91 5
2.892 1.660 539 **
SUSQUDIANNA 1.2 BVR 1.778 643 361 333 231 126 179 12 3,663 1,885 724 **
THREE MILE ISLAND 1 NR 429 461 65 27 2
3 987 558 34 **
TROJAN NR-1.226 315 128 95 18 8
3 1.793 567 84 **
TURKEY POINT 3,4 NR 1.376 613 311 244 116 42 48 2.750 1,374 325 **
VERMONT YANKEE BVR 999 276 181 197 121 62 78 6
1,920 921 381 V0GTLE 1.2 PVR 1,033 366 269 294 168 106 59 2.295 1.262 426 **
VASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 BVR 2.013 536 233 232 185 135 155 13 3.502 1.489 MP **
VATERFORD 3 NR 1.201 607 351 172 47 22 14 2.414 1.213 VOLF CREEK 1 NR 657 304 61 45 17 7
12 1.103 446 7e
- Indicates actual collective dose reported by facility, otherwise calculated by staff.
. ~.
1 TABLE la.
(Continued)
ANNUAL WHOLE BODY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES i
CY 1992 L
Nwrber of Individuals with VSole Body Doses in the Ranges (c5v or rem)
TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER COLLECTIVE PLANT NAME TYPE NtNBER WITH 005E i
No Mea-Meas. 0.10- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75-1.ro-2.00- 3.00- 4.00- 5.00- 6.00- 7.00-MON!-
MEAS.
(Person-surable <0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6 00 7.00 12.00 $12.0 TORED EXPOSURE c5vrem) o ZION 1,2 N4 1.677
'?
233 261 165 110 380 70 3,409 1.732 1.043 **
P t
TOTALS:
73 WRs 56.859 28.220 12,503 10,259 4,926 2.287 2.602 245 6
117,907 61,048 16.000 TOTALS:
37 6WRs 39.594 17,740 8,094 6,883 3,955 2,339 2,866 204 11 3
81.689 42.095 13,309 TOTALS:
110 LWRs 96,453 45.960 20,597 17.142 8,881 4,626 5,468 449 17 3
199,596 103.143 29,309 j
5 I
i i
t
- Indicates actual collective dose reported by facility. otherwise calculated by staff,
.m.--...,.-...
...... _...~. _ _,~........ _ _ _ _.__ ~.. _....~ _.... -. - - _. _... - _ -. - -..... _ _ _. _ _ _ - - _. _..... ~ _ _. _.,, - -... _ _.
~
TABLE lb.
ANNUAL WHOLE BODY 00SES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES FACILITIES NOT IN OPERATION OR IN OPERATION LESS THAN ONE YEAR CY 1992 N*r of Individuals with Vhole Body Doses in the Ranges (c5v or rem)
TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER COLLECTIVE PLANT NAME TYPE NtNBER WITH DOSE No Mea-Meas. 0.10- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75-1.00- 2.00- 3.00-4.00-5.00- 6.00- 7.00-MONI-MEA 5.
(Person-surable <0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 12.00 >12.0 TORED EXPOSURE c5v rem)
Bell.EFONTE M
119 14 133 14 1-FORT ST VRAIN
- HTGR 520 144 36 21 12 1
734 214 25 *
- HUME w. oAY
- EVR 167 8
175 8
0 INDIAN POINT 1
- M (Reports =lth Indian Point 2)
LACROSSE
- BVR 759 3
17 8
787 28 6
RANCHO SECO
- PWR 189 55 9
6 259 TO 7
SHOREHAM LNR 1.568 113 1.681 113 2 **
THREE MILE ISLAND 2*
M 154 165 31 26 9
6 65 13 469 315 157 **
WATTS BAR 1.2 M
179 26 4
209 30 1 **
YANKEE-ROVE
- M 486 102 102 55 34 19 12 810 324 94 **
5 TOTALS:
10 4.141 630 199 116 55 26 77 13 5.257 1.116 293 l
1 r
Indicates plants that are no longer in ccmercial operettor..
- Indicates actual collective dose reported by facility, ct*wlse calcuhM by 41eff.
. _.. -. _ _,. _... ~
=
1 t
i TABLE 2a PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING ORDER OF COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR i
1992 l
Collective Collective Average Collectivt Dose Per Dose Per Dose Per Dose Per Reactor Site
~ Worker Gross MWe Yr CR Site Name (rems or cSv) (rems or cSv)(rems or cSv)
I e
DAVIS BESSE 19 19 0.07 0.0 0.00 SUMMER 1 27 27 0.11 0.0 0.00 THREE MILE ISLNO 1 34 34 0.06 0.0 0.00 f
SOLITH TEXAS 1.2 74 147 0.16 0.1 0.01 WOLF CREEK 1 78 78 0.17 0.1 0.12 i
TROJAN 84 84 0.15 0.2 0.03 INDIAN POINT 2 97 97 0.20 0.1 0.13 BYRON 1,2 100 199 0.19 0.1 0.02 i
PRAIRIE ISLAND 1.2 106 211 0.25 0.3 0.10 SAN ONOFRE 1.2.3 108 324 0.20 0.2 0.02 BRAIDW300 1.2 114 228 0.22 0.1 0.05 KEWAUNEE 122 122 0.27 0.3 0.07 POINT BEACH 1.2 128 256 0.41 0.3 0.24 ST. LUCIE 1.2 132 264 0.21 0.2 0.04 BEAVER VALLEY 1.2 145 289 0.20 0.2 0.06 l
SEABROOK 147 147 0.18 0.2 0.01 i
TURKEY POINT 3.4 163 325 0.24 0.3 0.11 CALVERT CLIFFS 1.2 165 330 0.17 0.3 0.16 PALD YERDE 1.2.3 180 541 0.27 0.2 0.19 t
CDMANCHE PEAK 188 188 0.17 0.2 0.02 HADDAM NECK 202 202 0.25 0.4 0.08 OCONEE 1.2.3 204 612 0.31 0.3 0.10 CATAWBA 1.2 207 414 0.27 0.2 0.05 HCGUIRE 1.2 209 418 0.26 0.2 0.12 INDIAN POINT 3 212 212 0.21 0.4 0.04 1
HARRIS 213 213 0.23 0.3 0.07 i
V0GTLE 1.2 213 426 0.34 0.2 0.10
(
SALEM 1.2 216 431 0.10 0.4 0.06 WATERFORD 3 226 226 0.19 0.2 0.05 DIABLO CANYON 1.2 230 459 0.25 0.2 0.09 l
SE0'J0YAH 1.2 233 465 0.27 0.3 -
0.09 COOK 1.2 246 492 0.25 0.6 0.12 GINNA 261 261 0.31 0.6 0.09 SURRY 1.2 270 539 0.32 0.4 0.15 l
FMT CALHOUN 272 272 0.34 0.9 0.10
~
N3RTH ANNA 1.2 288 576 0.27 0.4 0.27 i
PALISADES 295 295 0.23 0.5 0.18 i
CALLAWAY 1 336 336 0.30 0.3 0.12 i
ROBINSON 2 352 352 0.28 0.7 0.09 FARLEY 1.2 403 805 0.40 0.6 0.28 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 424 424 0.30 0.7 0.16 ARKANSAS 1.2 438 876 0.28 0.6 0.18 4
MAINE YANKEE 461 461 0.39 0.7 0.17 ZION 1.2 522 1.043 3.60 0.9 0.44 I
MILLSTONE POINT 2.3 640 1.280 0.40 1.1 0.33 l
i 16 1
i
~
i TABLE 2b PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING ORDER OF THREE YEAR AVERAGE COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR 1990 - 1992 i
Collective Dose Per Reactor Three Year (Person-rem or person c5v) Average Collective Site Name**
1990 1991 1992 Dose per Reactor PRAIRIE 15UJO 1,2 94 49 106 83 50lHN TEXA5 1,2 103 129 74 102 CALVERT CLIFF 5 1,2 152 66 165 128 BYRON 1.2 217 134 100 150 POINT BEACH 1,2 189 133 128 150 BRAIDWOOO 1,2 93 275 114 161 FIWAUNEE 145 221 122 163 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 264 198 34 165 OCONEE 1.2.3 135 184 204 174 HARRIS 85 226 213 175 SAN ONDFRE 1.2.3 295 137 108 180
.i PALO VERDE 1.2.3 166 202 180 183 BEAVER VALLEY 1.2 174 248 145 189 COOK 1.2 290 35 246 190 l
SALEM 1.2 136 229 216 194 WOLF CREEK 1 195 331 78 201 INDIAN POINT 3 358 40 212 203 FORT CALHOUN 290 57 272 206 1
V0GTLE 1.2 233 181 213 209 WATERFORD 3 47 364 226 212 DIABLO CANYON 1.2 162 273 230 221 i
SUMMER 1 376 291 27 231 DAVIS BESSE 489 216 19 241 MCGUIRE 1,2 364 181 209 251 1
ST. LUCIE 1.2 389 240 132 253 CALLAWAY 1 442 21 336 266 5URRY 1,2 288 255 270 271' CATAWBA 1.2 405 231 207 281 NORTH ANNA 1.2 295 315 288 299 TROJAN 258 567 84 303 i
GINNA 347 328 261 312 FARLEY 1.2 229 324 403 318 210N 1.2 348 87 522*
319
)
ROBINSON 2 437 193 352 327 ARKANSAS 1.2 381 176 438*
332 TURKEY POINT 3,4 365 470 163 332 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 476 104 424*
335-MILLSTONE POINT 2,3 297 191 640*
376 HADDAM NECK 421 590 202 404 MAINE YANKEE 682 105 461*
416 PALISADES 766 211 295 424 SEOUDYAH 1,2 839 349 233 474 INDIAN POINT 2 608 1.468 97 724 Annual PWR Avera9es:
289 229 221 Total Reactors Included:
71 71 71
- Indicates high dose per reactor sites for 1992
- Only PWRs which were in operation for all three years (19901992) are included.
17 1
}
r i
TABLE 3a i
i BOILING WATER REACTCid LISTED IN ASCENDING i
i ORDER OF COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR 1992 I
Collective Collective Average Collective Dose Per Dose Per Dose Per Dose Per
\\
Recctor Site Worker Gross HWe-Yr CR i
Site Name (rems or cSv) (rems or cSv)(rems or cSv)
COOPER STATION 84 84 0.18 0.1 0.07 MILLSTONE POINT 1 99 99 0.28 0.2 -
0.47 -
HONTICELLO 114 114 0.25 0.2 0.19 LIMERICK 1.2 165 33; 0.21 C.1 0.06 i
BROWNS FERRY 1.2.3 172 516 0.19 0.5 0.04 FERMI 2 245 245 0.20 0.3 0.01 PEACH BOTTOM 2.3 251 502 0.26 0.3 0.16 HAICH 1.2 275 550 0.34 0.4 0.16 BIG ROCK POINT 277 277 0.56 8.5 0.52 PILGRIM 281 281 0.21 0.5 0.02 NINE MILE POINT 1.2 282 563 0.31 0.6 0.17 I
DRESDEN 2.3 310 619 0.34 0.7 0.22 BRUNSWICK 1.2 312 623 0.23 1.7 0.16 i
SUSQUEHANNA 1.2 362 724 0.38 0.5 0.23
)
VERMONT YANVEE 381 381 0.41 0.9 0.19 CLINTON 431 431 0.36 0.7 0.12 7
HOPE CREEK 1 436 436 0.26 0.5 0.18 j
GRAND GULF -
4 84 484 0.24 0.5 0.14 DUANE ARNOLD 502 502 0.48 1.2 0.28 PERRY 571 571 0.38 0.7 0.15 j
QUAD CITIES 1.2 579 1.157 0.48 1.2 0.31 l
LASALLE 1.2 584 1.167 0.48 0.8 0.32 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 612 612 0.41 0.9 0.24 OYSTER CP.FEK 657 657 0.24 1.2 0.16 i
FIT'JATRICK 674 674 0.28 0.24 l
i RIVER BEND 1 710 710 0.35 2.1 0.21 1
1 18 i
i l
i 1
TABLE 3b BOILING WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING j
-ORDER OF THREE YEAR AVERAGE COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR i
1990 - 1992 Collective Dose Per Reactor Three Year j
(Person rem or person cSv) Average Collective Site Name**
1990 1991 1992 Dose per Reactor LIMERICK 1.2 88 53 165 102 i
FERMI 2 83 228 245 185 i
l MILLSTONE POINT I 131 409 99 213 MONTICELLO 94 465 114 224 BROWNS FERRY 1.2.3 437 118 172 242 BIG ROCK POINT 232 226 277 245 NINE MILE POINT 1.2 350 146 282 259 VERMONT YANKEE 307 118 381 269 i
SUS 0'JEHANNA 1.2 220 254 362 278 i
COOPER STATION 379 405 84 289 PEACH BOTTOM 2.3 189 467 251 302 HOPE CREEK 1 196 373 436 335 GRAND GULF 482 94 484 353 i
PILGRIM 225 605 281 370
.f CLINTON 553 233 431 406 RIVER BEND 1 489 144 710*
448 j
QUAD CITIES 1.2 514 255 579 449 PERRY 636 146 571 452 LASALLE 1.2 474 403 584*
487 BRUNSWICK 1.2 774 389 312 492 l
DRESDEN 2.3 700 503 310 504
)
WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 536 387 612*
$12 l
DUANE ARNOLD B61 202 502 522 HATCH 1.2 728 581 275 328 FITZPATRICK 884 333 674*
630 l
OYSTER CREEK 310 1.185 657*
717 Annual BWR Averages:
426 324 360 Total Reactors Included:
37 37 37 I
j
- Indicates high dose per-reactor sites for 1992
- Only BWRs which were in operation for all three years (19901992) are included.
19
TABLE 4a ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1992 PWRs with Hiah Coffective Dosen Cryetal River (424 rem)
Ostage coseedstaton-398 remrr7 days Zion 1 and 2 (1043 rem)
Outage doserdsraion (U 1): 763 rem /168 days Average da3y outage dose: 5.16 rem / day Outage doso>duraton (U 2): 270 fem /210 days Average da# operatng dose: 0.09 rem / day Average da!!y outage dose (U 1): 454 remmay Ave age daty outage dose (U 21: 129 rem / day Steam generator related work (primary side)(Total of 69.8 rem)
Average daly ope sting dose: N A Manway cover removal /repla:ement 7.3 rom Channel head washdown.1.8 rom Unit 1 Nozzle dam instattanon/ removal. 43 rom Eddy current tesang 20.4 rem
-Steam generator reisted wot (Total of 148.1 rem)
Tube plugging' stabilizer innerton 27.o rem Tube steevngylvgging.793 rem Tube *pulF for 6nspecaon 9.0 rem Eddy current testng - 46.4 rem
-Va've maintenance (refuel outage)(Totalof 54 4 rem)
Seconda y side maintenance / repair 22.1 rem Repa*#epair reactor butdhg vafves 21.4 rem
-Va!ve vna;ntenance work (119 8 rem)
Repa*/repaur va!ves in letdown cooler room 20.3 rem
-M.scellaneous mod.fcaton wot (675 rom)
MOV (motor-operated vatve) testing and maintenana - 12.7 rem
-b service inspectons (66.9 rem)
Sca* fold insta!atio@erreva! (retset outage) (535 rem)
-RWPrad chem seveys (643 rem) r 44ea'th physics refuel outage support (42 A rem)
-Decontaminaton work (49.8 rem)
-Reactor daassemb'y' head h?t/ refuel sequencm/ reactor reassembly
-Snubber inspecnon/repsr/testng (46.4 rem)
(40.6 rem)
-Refuehng (Total of 41.4 rem)
-hstanation of pe<manent reactor buhding access platforms (28.7 rem)
Reactor d.sassembly 22.0 rem hsulaton re'ncvakreplacement (retsel outa ge) (28.7 rem)
Reactnr toassembly - 19 4 rem
-Steam generator sludge removal and support (secondary side)(19.6 rem)
. Tours and inspectons (25.8 rem)
-Rep'acornent of reactor coolant pump rotatng assembly (refwel outage)
(14.5 rem)
Unit 2
-Steam generator sleevinyplugging (74.7 rem)
-Va've ma;ntenance (?6 4 rem)
-bsevce irrGactons (20.7 rem)
-RWPhad chem surveys (20.4 rem)
-M scellaneous low dose work (174 rem)
Arkansas 1 and 2 Outage dose'daraton (U 1): 489 rem /70 days M!!! stone 2 Outage doseidsraton*: 1091 terrV232 days (575 rem)
Ostage dose %raton (U 2): 296 rem /79 days (1264 rem)
Average da) outage dose: 4.7 remeday Average dady outage dose (U 1): 6 99 rem / day Average daPy operating dose: 0.08 rem / day Average da.fy ostage dose (U 2): 3.75 rem / day
- (Mistone 2 rep! aced its steam generators in 1992)
Average da3y operaing dose (U 1): 0.13 rem eay Average d9y ope aung dose (U 2): 0.12 rem day
-Steam generator related wo*k (Totaf of 677.3 rem)
S/G replacement project - 6302 rem Unit 1 hsta'lation of permanent SG platforms - 27 rem 3/G disposa! 20.1 rem
-Steam generator re!sted wot (89.3 rem)
-B:anket rad:aton work permits (722 rem)
-b servce inspectons (68.7 rem)
-Reactor coolant pump work (42.0 rem)
-Design change pachges (68 4 <em)
-Retsehng (36.5 rem)
Reiseing operatons (50 0 rem)
-PreventWe'correctve maintenance (33 4 rem)
Routne maantenance (33.9 rem)
-Stagir% hielding (28.2 rem)
-HP operatons tanctons (29 8 rem)
-M sceiiaeous outage wo k (27.6 rem)
-Decorotasidry tadwaste (25 6 rem)
-MOV (motor. operated va've) work (162 rem)
-Chemical decontaminaton (19.1 rem) bservice inspecton (14.0 rem)
-LPI (low pressure injecton) hanger inspectorvmamtenance (18.5 rem)
-Reactor vessel insa:ation (14.0 terr)
-Va've ma;ntenance (165 rem)
-Operatons fancnons (12.1 rem)
-instar.abon of reactor baild ng coohrg cons (10.8 rems)
-hspecrewalkdowns (9.2 rem)
Unit 2
-Sieam generator related work (Tota: of 53 9 rem)
Primay s.de wora 37.7 rem Seconda y side work - 17.3 rem
-HP oporabona (21.1 rem)
-Routine maintenance (21.0 rem)
-Retsetng operatons (20 4 rem)
Mains Yankee (461 rem)
Outage doserduration: 425 rem /89 days
-In serwoe inspectons (19.1 rem)
Average daMy outage dose: 4.79 rem / day
-Reactor coolant pamp maintenance (145 rem)
Average daily operating dose: 0.13 rem / day
-DeccWlaund'ytadwaste (13.3 rem)
-Va've maintenance (12 6 rem)
-Steam generator rotated wo* (Totaf of 76.2 rom)
-Des gn change packages (10.7 rem)
ECT (eddy co rent testing)*epair 545 rem
-inspectons/matAdowns (5.7 rem)
Sisdge tanong (secondary side)- 21 A rom
-Snubber inspectoTma.ntenanca (5.7 rem)
-Ref rbishment of reactor cootant pump rotating assembly (402 rem)
-b.seryk.a inspectons (39.7 rem)
-MOV (moto operated va!ve) project (32.0 vom)
-Refsehng (head I,ft, remove reinsta!! m:ssile shield) (24 5 rem) r
-Steam generator access ptatform improvernent (195 rem) 20 1
TACLE 4b ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1992 BWRs with Wah Cotteetive Doses River Band 1 (710 rom)
Outage doseduraton: 635 rerrv180 days Fitzpatrick (674 rem)
Outage doseducaton: 674 reW366 days Average dady outage dose: 313 rewday Average daHy outage dose: 1 A4 rem / day Average daily operating dose: 0 41 renvoey Average da% operating dose: M'A 4eennceinspecoon(Totalof 98 rem)
-Replamtoverhau!/ repair MOVs(motorsperated va'ves) (854 rem)
Nozzle wdds 87 rom Appendia R (fire protecnon) mod.ficadons (68.2 rem)
Snubbers - 11 rom
-Replace /cverhaut/ repair miscotlaneous valves (64.9 rem)
-VaNo maimenance'testng potaf of 74 rem)
-hservice inspecton (61.7 rem)
Uve loading and repaarng-21 rem
-Operations survelliancas (493 rom)
Signatre testnD (tor reactor isolaton) 20 rem
-Routne maintenance potal of 46.9 rem)
(IRT/fLRT (locarinteg ated leak rate tesong)- 19 rem Mechanca!- 35.9 rem LOV (motor-operated vnNo) refurthshment 14 rem Doctreal.11.0 rem 44eplace RWCU (reactor water cleanup) ring header (71.3 rem)
-Refueting (Total of 45.5 rom)
-Decontaminatavdoa ung pota! of 58.3 rem)
Reptace/ repair CRDs (comrot rod drives)- 22.6 rem Chemcal decon of RWCU and recrcnAaton pipng 35.3 rem Debebefusi 6.7 rem Decon of drywel - 12 rem Head reassembly - 63 rem Cleaning of suppresson pool.11 rem Head d:sassembly-4.0 rem Jeedwater nozzle safe end replamment (47 rom)
-Hea'th physics surveil!ance (293 rem)
-Refuelmg (33 rem)
-Decontaminaton work (245 rem)
-CRD (control rod drive) work pota! of 30.2 rem)
-Replace core sprey (19.1 rom)
Removal and replacement - 20 fem Plant cleanup
- tool decorvdestudge torus (19.1 rem)
Mechanical rebuild (50 CRDMs) - 102 rem
-Radwaste (18.1 rem)
Replacement of recircutaton pump impatiers ( A and B) (29 rem)
-Pa;ntinydrywel preservaten (12.8 rem) bspecton of residaa! heat removal he at exchanDers (A and C) (16 rem)
-Reptaco pumps (10.6 rem)
-Rep;acerr nt of sevm waior pping (11 rem)
-Valve LLRT (local leak rate testing) (103 rem)
-inspectons planning (10.3 rem)
-t&C survemances (9 5 rem)
-Snubber inspectorvremovavreptacoment (8.3 rem)
Oyster Creek (657 rem)
Outage desotraton (14R outage *):
LaSalle 1 and 2 (1167 rem)
Outage dosewraton (U 1-refuehng).
i 678 rem /80 days 345 remr123 daye Average dady outage dose (14R outage):
Outage doseiduraton (U 2-rebeling a forced):
-l 8 48 rem / day 560 reW98 days Average da% operating dose (1992):
Average dah outage dose (U 1): 2.80 rem / day i
0 76 rem / day Average dady outage dose (U 2): 5 71 rem / day
- (Since 46 days of the 81-day 14R outage Average daay operating dose: N'A 1
ertended into 1993, some of the doses nsted below were incurred in 1993)
Unit 1
-Nant maintenance (155 rem)
P; ant mod.fcatons (55 rem)
-Oceratons (77 rem)
-MOV (motoreperated va've) wors (limitorque repairs) (34 rem) 1
-RCS augmented IGSCC (r.tergranutai
. oston eraming)
-Reactor vessel d,sassemb'y' reassembly (31 rem)
I inspectons (68 rem)
-Shielding in d ywell (20 rem)
-Dywei! corrosion rn:tigaton work (56 rem)
-HP suppo t (contractor) (16 rem)
-D ywell sca' folding and insulaton (14R outage) (55 rem)
-SRV (safety reief valve) removaUinsta!!ation (8 SRVs) (t 6 rem)
Radcon actvitses (42 rem)
-CRD (control rod dnve) exchange (10 dnves) (10 rem)
-CRD (control rod drive) procurement' exchange (15 CRDs) (31 rem)
-D ywell s%elding (30 rem)
Unit 2
-Enchange sa'ety and re!ief vanes (22 rem)
-Va've rna.ntenance and overhaul (20 rem)
. Rant mod,fcatons ($3 rem)
Reactor 6sassemb'yreassemb+ytrebe! f6oor work (19 rem)
-CRD (control rod drive) eachange (31 d ives) (60 rem)
-MOV (motoroperated vatve) wot (lim; torque repairs) (46 rem)
-Reactor vesse! dsassembly#eassembly (3r, rem)
-SRV (sate'y rebef valve) removaginsta'latio 1(18 SRVs) (33 rem)
-LPRM (Iow power range rnonitor) rep acement (21 stnnss) (26 rems)
-Va've mantenance (necessitated by LLRT (localleak rate test) fa:Iu'es)(26 rem)
Washington Nuclear 2 Outage dose %<aton (rebeling): 469 reW75 days 2
(612 rem)
Ave age daJy outage dose (rebeling): 625 rem / cay Average daay operating dose: M A 1
Aservice inspecton (75 rem)
-Refueling (50 rem)
-CRD (corstrol rod drtve) rebuild.ng (30 dri es) (33 rom) v
-MSRV (maa steam rol,ef va've) setpomt verificaton (37 rom)
-Hea'th phys' s support (dyweti) (19 rem) e
-Recrculation va!ve modication (19 rem)
-Penetraton sea! work (15 rem) 21