ML20114A256
| ML20114A256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1985 |
| From: | Lundvall A BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8501280033 | |
| Download: ML20114A256 (150) | |
Text
B ALTI M OR E GAS AND ELECTRIC CHARLES CENTER.P. O. BOX 1475. BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 ARTHUR E. LUNDVALL. JR.
vict PREsaDENT sumv Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. 3. R. Miller, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Calvert Clliis Nuclear Power Plant Units Nos.1 & 2; Dockets Nos. 50-317 and 50-313 Request for 40-year Operating License Gentlemen:
Enclosed is our response to your questions dated November 7,1984, regarding ALARA measures and dose projections applicable to the additional years of p' ant service that would be authorized under the subject license amendment.
Please note that although you requested dose projections for the years 2009 to 2014, which is appropriate for Unit 1, the corresponding period for Unit 2 is from 2009 to 2016. Our projections are provided accordingly.
Also, our projected doses for these years do not include an estimate for decommissioning, since decommissioning is a one-time source of exposure that would not be appreciably affected by the proposed additional years of plant operation.
You had inquired as to the status of our agreement with the State of Maryland (reflected in Section 9.2.4 of the NRC Final Environmental Impact Statement) to evaluate the impact of plant operation on marine life three years after entering commercial service. Enclosed you will find a copy of the subject agreement along with documentation of subsequent findings. Please be aware that as a result of the favorable nature of these findings, the arbitration contemplated by the Agreement was never held.
If you should have any questions, please do not hestiate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
[
d-h
- AEL/BSM/vf
Enclosures:
- 1. Response to NRC !!/7/84 Request for AdditionalInformation.
- 2. Disposition of BG&E Agreement with the State of Maryland (various documents).
cc D. A. Brune, Esq.
G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Mr. D. H. Jaf fe, NRC
\\
Mr. T. Foley, NRC 0501200033 050122 k\\
PDR ADOCK C3000317
\\
P PDR k
a
January 22,1985 RESPONSE TO NRC 11/7/84 I
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l,
I 1
i l
l l
1.
ALARA MEASURES Calvert Cliffs stresses to its workers that it is each person's responsibility to maintain dose As Low As Reasonably Achievable.
To aid the individual in meeting this objective, a formalized ALARA Program, Calvert Cliffs Instruction CCI-809, began in August 1981. The implementing Radiation Safety Procedure, RSP l-115, followed. Both documents are appended for easy reference but are undergoing revision to reflect improvements in the program.
In November 1984, the Radiation Safety Section of the Nuclear Power Department (NPD) reorganized to reflect the importance of ALARA. See Figure 1 which depicts the Radiation Safety Section organization. Before November 1984, the core of the ALARA group was one Principal Senior Radiation Safety Technician (SRT) and a clerk who reported to the Supervisor of the applied Health Physics group. Now, the'ALARA group has a dedicated staff of nine (9) persons headed by the Supervisor of Radiation Controis-ALARA (RCA) elevating the Program Coordinator to the same level as the supervisors of the other Radiation Safety Units. As in the past, during high work periods, SRCA and staff will be sup-plemented with additional RSTs and laborers to handle the in-creased work volume.
To briefly describe its functions, RCA performs an ALARA review of all work that meets any or all of tha following criteria whole body dose estimateEk 3 person-rem; work to be performed in a general area ex-hibiting an exposure rateiht1R/h; all jobs requiring use of respiratory protection equipment; and/or any job or task as specified by Radiation Control-Operations (RCO) or RCA RCA strives to make recommendations or define actions tos eliminate the need for respiratory protection; apply radiological engineering controls; j
control surface and airborne contamination; significantly reduce the total personnel dose; and reduce the impact a job might have on surrounding work environment i
i
ALARA Measures Page 2 As an alternative to a formal ALARA Committee, RCA, in the pre-job review, interviews or consults key personnel of the departments or sections involved. As the projected total person-rem increases markedly, higher levels of supervision and management must approve the ALARA Review, e.g.,
Assistant General Supervisor - Radiation Safety (AGS-RS) at 25 person-rem, General Supervisor - Radiation Safety (GS-RS) at 50 person-rem and Manager, Nuclear Power Depart-ment (NPD) at 75 person-rem. In addition, the Senior Plant Health Physicist (SPHP) is available for advice, consultation, and review of any tasks with relatively high potential radiological hazard.
Functions of this unit receive audits by S?HP, Quality Assurance Department and an outside consultant.
While the entire procedure is appended, the ALARA review checklists used before, during and after a task are extracted and attached for quicker reference. Note that radiological and general safety con-siderations are made. Communications, procedures, special training, tools, and equipment, plant status, system flushing and shielding, are all evaluated as may be necessary. Exposure estimates are made before commencement of tasks and estimated exposures prevented (EEP) are computed af ter job completion.
RCA has been given the responsibility for preparing all Work Per-mits (referred to as Special Work Permit SWP) which afford the opportunity to more directly incorporate all ALARA recommendations.
RCA is charged with job site preparation and maintenance, instal-lation of radiological engineering controls, such as absolute filtered ventilation / vacuum systems, and contamination control devices, such as bags, drip pans, pens and tents. They are respon-sible for the application, inventory, inspection and removal of temporary shielding and will request and comply with results of engineering stress analysis, as necessary, i.e.,
if the shielding is to be attached to or affects safety related piping and equipment.
While it may not be possible to predict the nature of the ALARA Program in the final years of operation, it can be said that the program continues to evolve and improve. State-of-the-art tech-niques for accomplishing tasks remotely are evaluated. In the past two years, the new CE nozzle dams were installed in all four steam generators. Modifications were performed with remotely operated drills. The new nozzle dams are safer to use and more easily installed and removed, thus ultimately an overall personnel dose reduction will be realized. The remotely operated WEPA re-fueling pool wall decontamination system has successfully been used and has decreased both personnel dose and rad waste compared to all other techniques attempted.
AT. ARA Measures Page 3 With respect to ALARA goals, management requires that departments, sections, and units budget person-rem annually. RCA is available to assist all groups in this effort. Management approves all goals and factors the degree of compliance with these goals into employee performance evaluations. Corporate Management monitors person-rem totals and rad waste minimization as two of its plant performance indicators.
Also, on behalf of the workers, a formal ALARA suggestions and awards program is in place. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant's administrative radiation exposure limits (see Table I (from CCI-800A) copy attached) were further tightened in November 1983. In con-sideration of the probability of causation issue, it is recommended to the workers' general supervisors that they evenly spread dose to work crews such that an individual's running total dose be less than 10 ren over any five (5) conaecutive year period.
(Note Table II).
With regard to training, the Annual Employee Requalification Train-ing Program was expanded to include a review of significant radio-logical deficiencies noted on site and in the nuclear power industry, and the corrective / preventative measures taken. In addition, practical-factors exercises are included to enhance understanding and proper use of Special Work Permits and Anti-contamination cloth-ing requirements as well as personnel frisking techniques.
Improvements in the ALARA program scheduled for 1985 are:
the formalization of the ALARA Optimization Process; and the formalization and upgrade of the ALARA review of engineering modifications to buildings, systems, and components, largely through the development of ALARA Engineering checklists.
4
(
i
~3 FIGURE I RADIATION SAFETY SECTION ORGANIZATION VICE PRESIDENT, SUPPL.Y l
HANAGER, NUCLEAR POWER DEPARTMENT I
GENERAL SUPERVISOR, RADIATION SAFETY
- SECRETARI AL STENO Before 11/1/84 After 11/1/84 Plant llealth Physicists (3)
Plant llealtl6 Physicists (3)
Assistant General Supervisor - Radiation Safety--
Supervisor, Radiation Control Supervisor, Radiation Control-Operations (Applied llealth Physics Group)
(Applied llealth Physics Group)
I
- (Al. ARA Coordinator (1)
- Supervisor, Radiation Control-ALARA plus (1) clerk)
Principal Rad Safety Techs (2)
- Senior Rad Safety Techs (4)
- Junior Rad Safety Tech (1)
Clerk (1)
Supervisor, Radiologict1 Supp3rt Supervisor, Materials Processing (contained an AIARA support group)
Supervisor, Facilities Support I.
Supervisor, Dosimetry Supervisor, Dosimetry Additional Radiation Safety Techniciar a and laborers supplement the ALARA organization during outages
\\
CCI-800A Page 15 j
NON.C '- - 1
^,v FORinm..
TABLEI CALVERT CLIFF 5 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ADMINISTRATIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE LIMITS (REM)III
SUMMARY
INDIVIDUAL TYPE OF WEEKLY QUARTERLY ANNUAL TYPE EXPOSURE LIMIT LIMIT OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION WORKERS Less than All No occupational radiation exposure a!! owed 18 y.o.
18 y. o.
Whole Body 0.300 0.900(2) yf3 Skin 2.000 5.200 N/A Extremities 4.500 8.700 N/A 19 y.o. or Whole Body 0.300(3,7) 0.900III 4.000(2,3,9)
I I2'I'9I older 0.150")
2.000 Skin 2.000 5.200 N/A Extremities 4.500 3.700 N/A Fertile Whole Body 0.300(2,6)
, N/A(6) 4.000(2,3,9)
Females Skin 2.000 5.200 N/A Extremities 4.500 3.700 N/A Pregnant whole Body Entire pregancy duration limited to 0.900 rem (2)
Females Skin 2.000 5.200 N/A Extremities 4.500 S.700 N/A OTHER INDIVIDUALS Visitors Whole Body 0.010 per visit N/A Notes:
(1)
Effective dose equivalent (rem)- the effective summation of whole body dose equivalent due to exposures from external and internal radiation sources.
(2)
Maximum exposure limit.
(3)
Until quarterly dose accumulation reaches 0.900 rem (Alert Point).
(4)
For balance of the quarter.
(5)
Pending satisfaction of: (a) record check has been performed by Dosimetry and has verified complete dose history; and (b) the General Supervisor of the individual has specified and authorized a new quarterly limit, not to exceed 2.0 rem in a quarter or 4.0 rem in a year.
(6)
With the intent of limiting whole body exposure to 0.900 rem during nine (9) consecutive weeks (representing an averaged 0.100 rem /wk).
(7)
Within limits specified in Note (5)(b), the immediate supervisor of the individual may make adjustments of the weekly dose limits for the individual to accommodate special work needs by proper written direction to Dosimetry.
(3)
Recommend General Supervisor further restrict quarterly and annual d'ose accumulation to attempt to bring individuals running total for the last 5 years to less than 10 rem.
(9)
Further exposures require approval by the individual's General Supervisor and General Supervisor-Radiation Safety.
\\
TABLE II NUMBER OF PERSONNEL IN FOLLOWING EXPOSURE RANCES PER YEAR SPECIFIED YEAR 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 REFUELING OUTAGES 1
2 1
1 2
1 1
EXPOSURE RANCES NO EXPOSURE 413 507 648 950 929 160 433 0 - 0.10 654 462 477 485 508 1109 741 0.10 - 0.25 267 241 296 353 350 230 205 0.25 - 0.50 179 207 266 289 290 156 138 0.50 - 0.75 97 167 155 207 146 105 76 4
0.75 - 1.00 66 92 124 101 153 66 45 1.00 - 2.00 98 198 156 105 283 232 145 2.00 - 3.00 20 41 15 15 52 17 17 3.00 - 4.00 7
12 7
0 22 0
2 4.00 - 5.00 3
8 0
0 1
0 0
5.00 +
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 TOTAL DOSE (rem) 464.53 757.28 667.00 537.69 996.83 628.87 431.12 Average dose /
worker (rem) 0.258 0.391 0.311 0.215 0.365 0.303 0.239
DATE SERIAL NUMBER SWP NUMBER (S)
ALARA REVIEW FORM JOB STANDARD 0 RADIOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS
!. 30B DESCRIPTION II. LOCATION IIL RECOMMENDATIONS / REQUIREMENTS Required Not Required
- 1. Respiratory Protection 1.
( )
( )
- 2. Protective Clothing 2.
( )
( )
- 3. Special Dosimetry 3.
( )
( )
- 4. Access Control / Rad Con Coverage 4
( )
( )
- 5. Shielding 5.
( )
( )
- 6. Containment Device / Glove Bag 6.
( )
( )
- 7. Ventilation Device / Vacuum Cleaner 7.
( )
( )
- 8. Decontamination / Cover Area 8.
( )
( )
- 9. Pre-3ob Fabrication / Modification on Equipment / Components Prior to Entering the Controlled Area 9.
( )
( )
- 10. Pre-Selected Staging Area for Support of Job 10.
( )
( )
- 11. Communications 11.
( )
( )
- 12. Additional Lighting 12.
( )
( )
- 13. Mock-up/ Dry Runs Special Training 13.
( )
( )
- 14. Procedures 14
( )
( )
- 15. Special Tools / Equipment 15.
( )
( )
- 16. Plant Status / Decay Time 16.
( )
( )
- 17. System Flushing 17.
( )
( )
- 18. Man-Power / Man-Hours / Comfort 18.
( )
( )
- 19. Remote Instrumentation 19.
( )
( )
- 20. Pre-Job Briefing 20.
( )
( )
_ Continuation Sheets attached.
(//)
OTHER RSP 1-115-1 (1)
Rev.0
SERIAL NUMBER IV. PERSONNEL CONTACTED l
V. EXPOSURE ESTIMATE PERSON-REM VI. APPROVALS / REVIEWS PREPARED BY DATE A/C DATE i
SRC (GREATER THAN 25 PERSON-REM)
DATE GSRS (GREATER THAN 50 PERSON-REM)
DATE MGR-NPD (GREATER THAN 75 PERSON-REM)
DATE 1
l e
+
t l
l l
RSP 1-115-1 (2)
Rev.O
i DATE SERIAL NUMBER l
SWP NUMBER ALARA POST 308 REVIET REPORT I. JOB DESCRIPTION II. LOCATION III. DOSE INFORMATION ESTIMATED PERSON-REM FOR JOB PERSON-REM ACTUAL PERSON-REM RECEIVED PERFORMING JOB PERSON-REM ACTUAL PERSON-REM RECEIVED PERFORMING ALARA ACTIONS PERSON-REM l
TOTAL PERSON-REM FOR JOB PERSON-REM 1
IV. AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED A. PRE-30B REVIEW DEFICIENCIES FOUND N/A 1
B. PROCEDURE
S
_ DEFICIENCIES FOUND _ N/A C. TRAINING DEFICIENCIES FOUND N/A D. MAN-POWER / SUPERVISION /
COORDINATION
_ DEFICIENCIES FOUND _ N/A RSP 1-115-5 (1)
Rev.0
- u r- - + - - - - - _. -, -,,.,, _., _ _, _,, _,,
f*
SERIAL NUMBER IV. AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED (CONTINUED)
E. COMMUN! CATIONS
_ DEFICIENCIES FOUND _ N/A F. TOOLS / EQUIPMENT
_ DEFICIENCIES FOUND _ N/A G. HEALTH PHYSICS COVERAGE
_ DEFICIENCIES FOUND _ N/A H. SUPPORT GROUPS
_ DEFICIENCIES FOUND _ N/A i
I.
ALARA ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED
_ DEFICIENCIES FOUND _ N/A l
l
- 3. OTHER
_ DEFICIENCIES FOUND _ N/A
+
RSP 1-115-5 (2)
Rev.0
SERIAL NUMBER V. FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS NDH()pp:
.^
A. PERSONNEL PERFORMING TASK
,T - 4
, ; J 'n
..' ? Ov B. HEALTH PHYSICS l
C. OTHER l
D. DISPOSITION OF RECOMMENDATIONS GROUP / UNIT DATE SUPERVISOR WORK LEADER DATE OTHER DATE RSP 1-115-5 (3)
Rev. O
SERIAL NUMBER VI. EFFECTS OF ALARA ACTIONS ON RADIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS A. RADIATION LEVEL B. CONTAMINATION LEVELS C. AIRBORNE LEVELS D. PERSON-REM TOTAL E. INDIVIDUAL DOSES l
1 l
l F. OTHER l
l l
RSP l-115-5 (4)
_22 N I' 3 :.'.. c ' -
Rev.O l
l) -
g'.
. + - x. y i
3 SERIAL NUMBER l
VIL PERSONNEL IN ATTENDANCE AND/OR CONTACTED VIIL APPROVALS / REVIEWS PREPARED BY DATE A/C DATE SRC (GREATER THAN 25 PERSON-REM)
DATE GSRS (GREATER THAN 50 PERSON-REM)
DATE MGR-NPD (GREATER THAN 75 PERSON-REM)
DATE O
f RSP l-115-5 (5)
Rev.0
-ww W
e* - -
w-e4----+
m --es--
DATE SERIAL NUMBER SWP NUMBER ALARA REQUIREMENTS INSPECTION _
I. JOB DESCRIPTION II. LOCATION III. REQUIREMENTS Sat Unsat N/A
- 1. Respiratory Protection 1.
( )
( )
( )
- 2. Protective Clothing 2.
( )
( )
( )
- 3. Special Dosimetry 3.
( )
( )
( )
- 4. Access Control / Rad Con Coverage 4
( )
( )
( )
- 5. Shielding 5.
( )
( )
( )
- 6. Containment Device / Vacuum Cleaner 6.
( )
( )
( )
- 7. Ventilation Device / Vacuum Cleaner 7.
( )
( )
( )
- 8. Decontamination / Cover Area 8.
( )
( )
( )
- 9. Pre-Job Fabrication / Modification on Equipment / Components Prior to Entering the Control Area 9.
( )
( )
( )
- 10. Pre-Selected Staging Area for Support of Job 10.
( )
( )
( )
- 11. Communications 11.
( )
( )
( )
- 12. Additional Lighting 12.
( )
( )
( )
- 13. Mock-up/ Dry Runs /Special Training 13.
( )
( )
( )
- 14. Procedures 14
( )
( )
( )
- 15. Special Tools / Equipment 15.
( )
( )
( )
- 16. Plant Status / Decay Time 16.
( )
( )
( )
- 17. System Flushing 17.
( )
( )
( )
- 18. Man-Power / Man-Hours / Comfort 18.
( )
( )
( )
- 19. Remote Instrumentation 19.
( )
( )
( )
COMMENTS t
IV. APPROVALS / REVIEWS INSPECTION BY COPIES To
.t /C RSP l-115-6 Rev.O
2.
DOSE ASSESSMENT A.
Past Experience Since Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant has two (2) reasonably well operating Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, it was proposed to USNRC via telephone that we concentrate mainly on outage related work for years that data was available. In this way, it was estimated that 80% of worker dose could be accounted for and be reasonably representative of past plant experience.
An attempt has been made to digest as much exposure information as possible in the time allowed. All work permits for 1979 through 1983 were readily available and reviewed. However, only permits that resulted in significant total dose (greater than one person-rem as estimated with self-reading dosimetry) were processed.
Note, that while all work permit data is computerized, permits are not coded in a way to permit automatic sort by project or system / component. Consequently, all data had to be sorted and added manually. Where possible, some elected or mandated modi-fications are highlighted to aid, at least mentally, in normalizing total dose per year.
For each year, 1979 through 1983, a series of tables are provided all with the basic heading "Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 19__ Person-Rem by Major Project per Work Category and by Employee Job Function." Also in the heading are the following Major Projects (P) and Activities (A):
- P "19__ Standard Report for Personnel with Greater Than 100 mrem..." (plus an indi-cation of which unit (s) underwent a refuel-ing outage) l A's Reactor Operations and Surveillance Routine Maintenance Inservice Inspection Special Maintenance Waste Processing Refueling l
Comment:
A portion of the standard year-end report i
{
l l
l l
i l
l
p- -
1 2.
DOSE ASSESSMENT
-Page 2
- P "Rx(Reactor] Vessel and Coolant Pumps, Steam Generator and ISI Work Plus Rad Safety Unit Coverage for Unit Noted" A's Rx Unit I (Refueling related activities for Unit I...)
Rx Unit II (...or Unit II as applicable)
RCP Unit I (Reactor Coolant Pump related work)
RCP Unit II S/G Unit I (Steam Generator (Non-ISI) 4 related work)
S/G Unit II ISI Unit I (Major Inservice Inspection) l ISI Unit II Rad Con, Rad Support ALARA Support (actually, the dose indicated is due to Radiation Safety Section health physics for both plants for routine and outage activities excluding waste processing. Also, note that Chemistry is a separate section of NPD.)
Comment:
This report is intended to summarize the information contained in the Tables Rx, RCP, S/G, and ISI, Units I and II (as applicable) that follow:
l
- P
" Refueling Related Functions for Year and Unit Specified..."
A's Reactor Head Disassembly / Reassembly I
Reactor Head Stud Work Pool Seal Work Incore Instrumentation Work Neutron Water Shield Refueling Pool and Containment Decon Crane Work l
t l
- P
" Work Related to Reactor Coolant Pumps and Seals for Year and Unit Specified..."
A's RCP Seal Replacement RCP Motor Pool RCP Stud Work Decon/ Shielding for RCP Work Miscellaneous RCP Work l
t_
2.
DOSE ASEESSMENT Page 3
- P
" Steam Generator Related Work (Non-ISI) for Year and Unit Specified..."
A's S/G Modifications...
Major S/G Repairs...
Nozzle Dams Sludge Lancing Decontamination
- P
" Inservice Inspections of Steam Generators and Selected Components for_ Year and Unit Specified..."
A's Eddy Current Testing S/G Inspection of Secondary Side (S/G]
Inspection of [S/G) Hand Holes and Manways Miscellaneous hanger inspections weld inspections Comment:
Miscellaneous ISI work performed throughout year Activity descriptions contain references to the work category numbers assigned to the work permits when written. These code numbers are part of the computer record. The manner in which work was sorted and summed was independent of work category.
Data sheets were generated with a personal computer (TI99/4A) and use of "TI Multiplan". They are preceded by
" Guide for Reading Data Sheets"
" Activity Description Key" To conclude, an attempt was made to capture and summarize the exposure of our workers engaged in only the major project and activities prin-cipally associated with unit outages. Totals are compared to modi-fied " year-end" report of personnel with greater than 100 mrem only.
In this way, approximately 75% of the exposure for 1979-1983 is ac-counted for. See Table III. For quick reference, 1978 and 1984 com-parable totals are offered on that table.
e 2.
DOSE ASSESSMENT Page 4 b.
Projections An estimate of dose from decommissioning and extensive decontami-nation was not attempted. However, a method was developed for pre-dicting dose for years involving ot,e or two refueling outages devoid of major modifications.
It was based on adjusted year-end totals from 1979-1983 (see Table IV), does not take credit for an improving ALARA program, and yielded 420 and 720 person-rem for one and two outage years respectively.
Noting the projected refueling outage schedules for Units I and II,,ggju (Table V) assumi Eighteen-Month Fuel Cycles, for years 2009-99+4, there will be additional refueling outages. Barrine maior 37 4 modifications, total dose is predicted to be 4MNgTerson-rem (see
^
Table VI). About 30% dose savings might be realized if 24-month fuel cycle is approved.
No attempt was made to apportion this dose by work category vs personnel vs employer. But it can be seen in Table VII there is a continuing effort by BG&E to rely less on contracted work force and more on Company personnel.
This prediction is being treated as an upper value. Dose allowance for crud build-up will be offset by dose savings from a continually improving ALARA program. It is expected that state-of-the-art technologies will be in use including some robotics.
The quality of our volatile primary chemistry control program is evident in the fact that only approximately 50 steam generator tubes have been plugged in nearly 40 steam generator operating years of service. Therefore, steam generator replacements are not contemplated.
l~
A preventative maintenance program is in place to minimize need for j
major repairs. Finally, CCNPP benefits from the activities of the i
Plant Operating Experience Assessment Committee (POEAC) in antici-pating and solving potential problems.
+
e TABLE III
-DOSES FROM 1979-1983 YEAR-END REPORTS (1)
AND ANALYSIS OF WORK PERMITS (2)
FOR ONLY PERSONNEL WITH DOSE GREATER THAN 100 arem DOSE (rem)
YEAR REFUELING OUTAGE (UNIT)
(1)
(2)
(2) /(1) 1979 Unit I Unit II 704 656 0.93 1980 Unit I 604 424 0.70 1981 Unit II 502 334 0.66 1982 Unit I Unit II 941 800 0.85 1983 Unit I 590 427 0.72 For comparison only 1978 Unit I 412 1984 Unit II 398
TABLE IV ADJUSTHENTS TO PERSON-REM TOTALS 9
NUMBER OF TOTAL YEAR REFUELING OUTACES PERSON-REM ADJUSTMENTS BALANCE COMMENT /ADJUSDfENTS 1979 2
757 23 734 S/C Feedring modifications 1980 1
667 193 474 RCP Lube 011 Mod (122); S/C Platform Mod (15); Fire Protect & Aux Feedwater Hods (56) 1981 1
-538 117 421 S/G Platform Mod (20); Fire Protection
& Aux Feedeater Mods (97) 1982 2
997 223 764 S/G rim cut (35); S/G wide range level transmitter (28); S/G nozzle dam Mod (127); FP/AFW (43) 1983 1
629 248 381 S/G nozzle das mod (177); S/G wide range level transmitter (10); FP/AFW (15); Spent Fuel Racks (46)
- Adjustments for elected or mandated modifications which are considered one-time-only by this evaluator
TABLE V REMAINING AND PROJECTED REFUELING OUTAGES UNIT I UNIT II APPROXIMATE OUTAGES APPROXIMATE OUTAGES START DATES REFUELING #
START DATES REFUELING #
April 1985 7
Occober 1985 6
October 1986 8
April 1987 7
April 1988 9
October 1988 8
October 1989 10 April 1990 9
April 1991 11 October 1991 10 October 1992 12 April 1993 11 April 1994 13 October 1994 12 October 1995 14 April 1996 13 April 1997 15 October 1997 14 October 1998 16 April 1999 15 April 2000 17 October 2000 16 October 2001 18 April 2002 17 April 2003 19 October 2003 18 October 2004 20 April 2005 19 April 2006 21 October 2006 20 October 2007 22 April 2008 21 April 2009 23 October 2009 22 October 2010 24 April 2011 23 April 2012 25 October 2012 24 October 2013 26
/ge,/ :40/d 26' Ce hW 20/[
N
- Projected additional refueling outages
.p.(
i l
t
TABLE VI PROJECTED PERSON-REM FOR YEARS 2009-2014 YEAR
- OF REFUELING OUTAGES PROJECTED PERSON-REM 2009 2
720 2010 1
420 2011 1
420 2012 2
720 2013 1
420 2014
//
30**/20
,d
/
lotb'
- 2 O O
60 20t6 3600 jpd I.
l l
TABLE VII DISTRIBUTION OF WORKER DOSE AT CCNPP 1978-1984 i
kEFUELING TOTAL STATION UTILITY CONTRACTOR YEAR OUTAGES PERSON-REM PERSON-REM PERSON-REM PERSON-REM 1978 1
465 163 35 159 34 243 31
~
1979 2
757 212 28 152 20 394 52 1980 1
467 175 26 99 15 393 59 1981 1
538 143 27 67 12 328 61 1982 2
997 344 34 179 28 375 38 1983 1
629 324 52 165 26 140 22 1984 1
431 260 60 96 22 76 18
- Person-rem data from standard year-end reports
f a
CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 1979 - 1983 PERSON-REN BY MAJOR PROJECT PER WORK CATEGORY AND BY EMPLOYEE JOB FUNCTION
~
Guid7 for Rwding Data Shuts ompilations exist for Years 1979-81 EXHIBIT A efueling Outage (s) for year (s) specifie cast ons u.a. +11 p meammet m em meanse a m u u m rest nua, e een a mama um som ms in m umu mm en tauso
's imme te an our um e m put warm Standard Work attmn a n se a iccome m.:
m m
m ai e
ip Categories
.g.
ata from computer record 7
W'
- # of persons with dose >100 mrem s wans:E*""",*
- person-millirem for group stated im
- ster's E se 11 14
~
gorgtm somnar e su mer bYearwithonlyone
" ""ne a e im, E_efueling outage e
ta aun u asemma'TT. " '.
EXHIBIT B
"""*".3 J.!
e em mener pu em cause se a usum m nuns asema e i6ne Pts 3 as !!! m pus te grDT st? Cumut FW sti em tilfla WS tl 4383
'8 Is B I 5 !! EP 5 I etP W l' 5/l 9 ! 1/6511 !$18 l 181 g !! mega gegi EMTT *W ant we
- enstfs *C
?, nn am are vias surtstignantN~3~ ~
ht F.
a.
ese w.
yee was n.
a.
y.
gesta es ur
._v IUPEW11En f
5?afts t
(36 fd 3
cru 2nn
- e6n n
up E
that
.j-6 standard s'ersonne asstnem n
& Employer Designat9 imisets pans a cun a roject cumcis t:
escription Major
,,,,,,,,, y ; -
Work Title g
asmnsu o
/ tor this report type, i
data is grouped by activity ma enes Te ~
regardless of work category
. or i'E puse e a m a nemtse er 3 m s, a m open mranz in computer eemory
/
(WaIsaimmcnsereaaserspinrQ mest P im ::
Ac'IVI'T 4 la 1440 Rs Im M PE E4
!C11 !EM W te. WP l CM m raftINT W.I I!l/ESAlp f3,4.H -
ERE (3,4,H ISfm DIILI 18 84,1.41 2,41 14,4)
(2,4,H N, ' '8,--
n.
- -. e e.
e n.
e n.
l ausftung
- -of person / entries sinns as
.a
- s.s.
is i.,.,
ui, n, f i. 31 f
" $ l l
- 8.,'"
2j y5 a6 ' g ras on work permit (s) and u
l
- _,_j ose received per S.R.D
._ a a
a a
u izi l
8 1129 14431
!!95 l
EXHIBIT "A"
" Standard" Year-end Report (after Reg Guide 1.16) l EXHIBIT "B" Recap of Major Rx Containment Work and Radiation Safety Coverage for Year Specified l
l EXHIBIT "C" Representation of Information Supporting Exhibit "B"
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION KEY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION Crane Work Jib and Polar cranes; Operations, Maintenance, Modi-fications and Testing Decon Decontamination (See specific component / system)
Decon/ Shield for RCPs Decontamination of pumps, uhrouds and bays plus shielding of casings and Regen Heat Exchanger in area of RCPs Decon, RFP & CTMT Decontamination of Refueling Pool before and af ter refueling operations, and the Containment Building in general. Decon of specific components and sys-
- tems, i.e., Steam Generators and Reactor Coolant Pumps, reported elsewhere.
Decon, S/G Decontamination of steam generators by hydrolasing Eddy Current Testing In-Service Inspection of Steam Generator Tubes; S/G depending on year, usually included removal and replacement of primary manways, diaphragas, set up and testing of ECT equipment and installation of temporary nozzle dams.
ICI Incore Instrumentation work; only major items in-cluding such tasks as movement and work on UGS (upper guide structure) installation of hand rails, cleaning ICI guide tubes, removal and transfer 4
(to spent fuel pool storage area) of defective ICIs.
Inspect Hand Holes /
In-Service Inspection of Steam Generator hand hole Manways covers, manway covers and diaphragm; may include their removal and replacement depending on work permit in a given year.
l Inspection Sec Side Inspections of secondary side of steam generators; including such tasks as manway cover removal and replacement, (may be include.d with debris removal
(
task)
ISI Misc.
In-Service Inspection, miscellaneous; includes much of the dose due to inspection and repair of hangers, and cleaning, inspection and repair of welds of major systems and components in Containments and Auxiliary Buildings.
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION Neutron Water Water-filled bags used to attenuate neutrons which Shield stream from the reactor vessel annulus during power operation; work includes placement and filling, draining and removal, and as necessary, replace-ment of broken bags between refueling outages.
Nossle Dans Steam Generator modification; includes placement and removal of temporary nossle dans to perform modifications and the installation and removal of new quick-installation, more substantive nozzle dams.
Pool Seal Work Work associated with the installation and removal of refueling pool seal, inspection and testing.
RCP Reactor Coolant Pumps, to include:
- Pump Seal Replacement - decon, rebuild and replacement of coolant pump seals and major repairs and modifimtions to pump seal system.
- Pump Motor Work - may include any major mechanical repairs and/or modifications to lube oil system, motor overhauls, coupling inspections.
Pump Stud Work - examinations and/or repairs to pump casing studs.
- Miscellaneous - inspections, leak repair, oil pan gasket replacements, vent line and suction piping work, oil additions.
Rx Head Work may include such tasks as the disassembly and Dis /Reassem reassembly of the reactor vessel for refueling to include such major tasks as detensioning and re-tensioning of vessel head; flange cleaning and inspection; movement of interferences (duct work and cable trays): movement of head; missle shield; replacement of head gaskets and the like.
Rx Stud Work Including major tasks as cleaning and inspection and replacement or repair to damaged studs (2)
Major repairs - may include secondary side S/G Steam
=
Generators debris removal (and inspection), repairs to manway or handhole covers, feeding in-spection repairs or elbow replacement, tube plugging and/or staking.
[ Note: only approximately 50 tubes total have ever
e ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION been plugged in 4 S/Gs in operating history].
- Mods - modifications excluding the new CE design nozzle dams; including changes to S/G platforms, feedrings; rim cuts; in-stallations of wide range level transmitters.
Sludge Lancing Removal of sludge on tube sheet from secondary side of steam generators
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P. 19 PERSON-REM BY MJOR PROJECT PER MORK CATE60RY AND BY EMPLOYEE JOB FUNCTION PROJECT P 1979 STANDARD REPORT FOR PERSGINEL MITH GREATER THAN 100 wee (NOTE: Refueling Outages U! 6 Ull) Included ETIVITY A R: OP & SLNtV ROUT MINT INSERY INSP SPEC M!NT WASTEPROC REFUELIN6 (CATE60RY NO.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
PERS/E!FL P/E B ree B
res 8
wee I
ree e
ree e
roe I
wee SUITOTALS M!NTENAICE STATION R$
2 516 81 38060 6
3922 7 67830 36 17728 132 129056 '
UTILITY MU 26 5266 69 46155 117 46009 31 15868 243 113378 CONTRETOR MC 135 43495 173 102596 224 111052 8
1731 540 258874 SUITOT/NORKERS MN 2
242 248 348 0
75 0
915 SUITOT/ DOSE MD 516 84821 152673 224971 0
33327 0
500308 OPERATIONS STATION OS 24 12337 16 4404 5
920 31 10221 21 3191 97 31073 UTILITY OU 1
140 1
147 5
918 1
562 8
1767 CONTRACTOR OC 15 3533 21 11263 10 3999 1
139 47 19924 l
l l
SUITOT/ WORKERS OW 24 32 27 46 0
23 0
152 SUITOT/ DOSE OD 12337 8077 12330 15128 0
3892 0
51764 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 21 9564 1
157 12 3470 6
2455 40 15646 UTILITY HPU 47 16945 10 2756 1
349 58 20050 CONTRETOR HPC 16 4180 9
1509 3
426 14 54914 3
656 45 61685 SU8 TOT / WORKERS HPW 37 10 3
73 19 1
0 143 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 13744 1666 426 75329 5867 349 0
97381 SUPERVISORY STATION SS 8
1745 9
3343 2
318 10 6749 11 3126 40 15291 UTILITY SU 1
270 1
151 2
1415 1
473 5
2309 CONTRACTOR SC 3
840 4
1352 5
1329 12 3521 l
l :
SUITOT/uGRKERS SW 8
13 7
17 0
12 0
57 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 1745 4453 1821 9493 0
3599 0
21111 ENGINEERINE STATION ES 1
171 3
511 7
1883 7
2909 2
313 20 5787 UTILITY EU 3
897 3
897 CONTRETOR EC 10 2957 2
7455 29 15091 6
1349 47 26852 1,._
SUITOT/uGRKERS EW 1
13 12 36 0
8 0
70 SUITOT/ DOSE ED 171 3468 10235 18000 0
1662 0
33536
,!,_ l _,,,,:,_ :.
TOTAL WORKERS TW 72 310 297 520 19 119 0
1337 PERSON-REM PR 28513 104485 177485 342921 5867 44829 0
704100
CALVHT CLIFFS N.P.P.193 PERS(81-REM BY MAJOR PROJECT PG NORK CATE61Ntf AN8 BY E!FLOYEE JOB FUNCTION PROJECT PRx VESSEL N O COOLANT PulFS, STEAR GD ERATOR AN8 IS! NORK PLUS RAD SAFETY UNIT COVERAGE FOR UNIT NOT D ACTIVITY A Rs U ! % U !!
RCPU!
RCP U !! S/6 U I S/6 U 11 151 U I ISI U !! RA8 CON 1979 RAD SLFP ALARA SUPP YEAR PERS/EIFL P/E wee wee wee wee.
wee wee wee wee wee SUITOTAL l
i MAINTENANCE STATION MS 30797 17513 875 12241 4463 2129 3122 258 71398 UTILITY MU 11739 16410 807 1193
!!90 28993 29467 121 89920 CONTRACTOR MC 3148 1855 371 4065 9326 129358 128159 454 276736 SUITOT/ DOSE MD 45684 35778 2053 17499 14979 0
160400 160748 833 438054 (FDATIONS STATION OS 4106 605 557 10 78 511 49 5916 UTILITY 00 460 6510 812 209 1647 400 59 10117 CONTRACTOR OC 140 10234 10334 158 208M l l SUITOT/ DOSE OD 4566 7115 0
1509 219 0
11979 11245 266 36899 HEALTH PHYSICS STATIONHPS 1680 412 150 5
270 15066 17583 UTILITY HPU 4323 4532 70 5
17375 26505 CONTRACTOR HPC 2200 9478 22 708 95 70068 82571 SU8 TOT / DOSE HPO 8203 14422 0
220 22 0
718 365 102709 126659 SUPOVISORY STATION SS 4438 1610 808 170 633 10 169 7838 UTILITY SU 284 320 445 13 265 1327 CONTRACTOR SC 95 50 557 2981 2004 11 5698 l
SU8 TOT / DOSE SD 4817 1930 0
1303 727 0
3627 2279 180 14863 l
ENGINEERING l
STATION ES 463 50 20 2329 2260 245 53M UTILITY EU 35 1525 92 1652 CONTRACTOR EC 299 510 540
!!653 9453 10127 27 32609 SU8 TOT / DOSE ED 762 540 0
540 11708 0
13306 12479 272 39627 i
PERSON-RG PR 64032 59805 2053 21071 27655 0
190!!0 187116 104260 656102
l
~
4 CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P. 19 _, P D SINHIEN SY MAJ W PROJECT P D M CATE6 5 Y ANI BY ElFLOYEE J S F W CTI M PROJECT P REFLELINE RELATO FWCTINS FOR YEAR AN WIT SPECIFID 1979 UI KTIVITY A Rs HEAR R: STUS WORK POOL SEAL ICI / INCORE EUTRON MATER RFP 6 CTNT CRAIE WORK (CATE6MY NO.)
DIS /REASSN _ (3,4,6)
NORK (3,4,6) INSTR 1NI UORK SHIELD (4,6) DECW (4,5,6) (2,4)
(4,6)
(2,4,6)
PDS/E!FL P/E I wee i
ree I
wee I
wee i
ree i
ree 4
ru SUITOTALS l
l l
l l
l l
MINTDANCE STATION NS 50 7648 13 4139 9
790 61 12250 39 5705 9
245 181 30797 UTILITY NU 23 2849 14 2843 7
375 26 2290 21 2041 1
50 4
1291 96 11739 CONTRACTOR NC 11 1396 3
705 3
124 15 662 9
261 41 3148 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l SUITOT/ WORKERS MW 84 30 19 102 69 1
13 318 SUITOT/ DOSE MD 11913 7687 1289 15202 8007 50 1536 45684 OPDATIONS STATION 05 56 2389 22 1717 78 4106 UTILITY 00 2
18 3
292 1
55 3
62 2
33 11 460 CONTRACTOR OC 0
0 SUITOT/uGRKDS 0W 58 3
1 3
22 0
2 89 SUBTOT/ DOSE OD 2407 292 55 62 1717 0
33 4566 HEALT)IPHYSICS STATION HPS 1
50 7
1630 8
1680 UTILITY HPU 21 4323 21 4323 CONTRACTOR HPC 1
620 9
1580 10 2200 l
l l
l l
l SUBTOT/ WORKERS HPW I
0 0
1 0
37 0
39 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 620 0
0 50 0
7533 0
8203 SUPERVISORY STAT!0N SS 14 2394 4
1731 3
313 21 4438 UTILITY SU 3
224 2
60 5
284 CONTRACTOR SC 1
5 2
90 3
95 SUBTOT/WCRKERS 18 0
0 8
3 0
0 29 SUBTOT/ DOSE SD 2623 0
0 1881 313 0
0 4817 DEIEERING STATION ES 3
26 2
62 1
5 1
370 7
463 UTILITY EU 0
0 CONTRACTOR EC 6
299 6
299 l
1, i
SUBTOT/MORKB S EW 9
0 0
2 1
1 0
13 SUITOT/ DOSE ED 325 0
0 62 5
370 0
762 l
l l
TOTAL WORKERS TW 170 33 20 116 95 39 15 488 PBSON-REM PR 17898 7979 1344 17257 10042 7953 1569 64032
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P. 19 PERSolHIEN 3Y MJOR PROJECT PER M CATEGORY AS BY E!PLOYEE JOB FINCTION PROJECT P REFIELINE RELATED FWCTIONS FOR YE4R AN WIT SPECIFID 1979 UI!
ACTIVITY A R HEAD R: STUR W P0(R. SEAL ICI / !NCORE NEUTRON MATER RFP & CTNT CRANE M
_ 3,4,6)
M (3,4,6) INSTRW WORK SHIELD (4,61 DECOM (4,5,6) (2,4)
(CATE6G4Y110.)
DIS /REASSN
(
(4,6)
(2,4,6)
PDS/EllPL P/E I wee I
wee 6
wee I
wee I
wee 6
wee I
wee SUITOTALS l
MINTEMNCE STATION M 30 4063 21 2200 9
1045 32 6745 24 3440 116 17513 UTILITY NU 28 2935 30 4160 14 1150 30 4020 33 3815 3
330 138 16410 CONTRACTOR IIC 13 905 5
760 3
155 2
35 23 1855 SUITOT/Il0RKERS N 71 56 23 65 59 3
0 277 SUITOT/ DOSE M
7923 7120 2195 10920 7290 330 0
35778 OPERAilWB STATION OS 2
150 2
425 1
30 5
605 UTILITY OU 1
80 2
395 11 5855 1
110 1
60 1
10 17 6310 CONTRACTOR OC 0
0 SUITUT/letKERS ON 3
2_:
l l
l 11 3
2 1
0 22 SUITOT/ DOSE 00 230 395 5855 535 90 to 0
7115 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION IFS 3
412 3
412 UTILITY HPU 1
40 1
70 1
90 1
175 25 4157 29 4532 CollTRACTOR HPC 2
410 35 9068 37 9478 1,
SUST0T/WORKERSiPN 1
1 3
0 1
63 0
69 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 40 70 500 0
175 13637 0
14422 SUPERVISORY STATION SS 5
705 2
175 1
110 3
420 3
200 14 1610 UTILITY SU 1
50 1
B5 2
25 2
160 6
320 CONTRACTOR SC 0
0 SUBTOT/ WORKERS SU 5
3 2
5 5
0 0
20 SUBTOT/ DOSE SD 705 225 195 445 360 0
0 1930 EN61NEER1186 STATION ES 2
50 2
50 UTILITY EU 0
0 CONTRACTOR EC 2
160 2
345 1
5 5
510 SUBTOT/ WORKERS EM 2
2 0
1 0
2 0
7 SUITOT/ DOSE ED 160 345 0
5 0
50 0
"60
~
~~
TOTAL WORKERS 82 64 39 74 67 69 0
PER$0ll-REM PR 9058 9155 8745 11905 7915 14027 0
!?B05 l
CALVGT CLIFFS N.P.P.19[ PERS0lHIER BY RAJM PROJECT PER W CATE50RY AND BY ERPLO PROJECT P M RELATED TO REACTOR C00 UNIT PUWS & SEALS FOR YEAR AND UNIT SPfCIFID 1979 UI ACTIVITY A RCP SEAL _ RCP 1107M
. RCP STUD W K CON / SHIELD RISC. RCP (CATEGORY 110.1 REPLACE!Gli M 12,4)
(4)
FOR RCPs(4,5) m (2,4)
(2,4)
PERS/EWL P/E 4 wee B
wee B
wee B
wee I
wee I
wee I
wee SUIT 0TALS
! _,1 MINTDAllCE STATION NS 13 875 13 875 UTILITY NU 17 807 17 807 CONTRACTOR NC 4
371 4
371 l :
I SUITOT/IUtlERS Nil 0
0 0
0 34 0
0 34 SUBTOT/ DOSE
!!B 0
0 0
0 2053 0
0 2053 OPERATI0llS 0
0 STATION OS 0
0 UTILITY OU 0
0 CONTRACTOR OC l
SUITOT/ WORKERS 0W 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 SUITOT/ DOSE 00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 EALTH PHYSICS 0
0 STATION HPS 0
0 UTILITY HPU 0
0 CONTRACTOR HPC SUITOT/ WORKERS HPW 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 SUPERVISORY 0
0 STATION SS 0
0 UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC SUITOT/'JORKERS SN 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 SUBTOT/ DOSE SD 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ENGINEEnlil6 0
0 STATION ES 0
0 UTILITY EU 0
0 CONTRACTOR EC SUITOT/ WORKERS EM 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 SUITOT/ DOSE ED 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
='
TOTAL WORKERS TN 0
0 0
0 34 0
0 34 PERSON-REM PR 0
0 0
0 2053 0
0 2053
CALVERT CLIFFS II.P.P.195 PDSON-RER SY N4JW PROJECT PER W CATE60R) AS BY EMPLOYEE JOB PROJECT P W RELAT G TO REACTOR COOLANT PulFS & SEALS FOR YEAR AND Ulili SFICIFI D 1979 Ull ACTIVITY A RCP SEAL RCP MOTW RCP STUB NORK DECON/ SHIELD MISC. RCP (CATE611tf NO.)
REPLACBENT 'M (2,4)
(4)
FOR RCPst4,5) NRK (2,4)
(2.4) two.
PDS/ElrL P/E D wee 8
wee t
wee I
wee t
wee 8
wee 8
wee SUITOTALS MINTDANCE STATION N 4 10381 19 1860 65 12241 UTILITY W 11 1:08 1
5 12 1193 CONTRACTOR MC 3
545 2
195 17 3325 22 4M5 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l i
SWTOT/NINEEltS INI 60 21 0
0 18 0
0 99 SUIT 0f/ DOSE H
12114 7055 0
0 3330 0
0 17499 (PERATIONS STATION 05 3
557 3
557 UTILITY 00 3
812 3
812 CONTRACTOR OC 2
140 2
1M l
SUITOT/NOPKERS ON 6
0 0
0 2
0 0
B SUITOT/ DOSE 00 1369 0
0 0
140 0
0 1509 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 2
150 2
150 UTILITYIFU 1
70 1
70 CONTRACTORIPC 0
0 l
i SUITOT/NORKERSIPN 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 220 0
0 0
0 0
0 220 SUPERVISORY STATION SS 7
783 1
25 8
908 UTILITY SU 1
370 1
75 2
445 l
CONTRACTOR SC 1
50 1
50 l
l l
l l
l SUITOT/NORKERS 38 2
0 0
1 0
0 11 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 1153 100 0
0 50 0
0 1303 i
D6111EERill6 STATION ES 0
0 UTILITY EU 0
0 l
CONTRACTOR EC 1
540 1
540 i
i l
,,,, y l
SUITOT/ DOSE ED 540 0
0 0
0 0
0 540 TOTAL NORKERS TN 78 23 0
0 21 0
0 122 PDSON-RG PR 15396 2155 0
0 3520 0
0 21071 l
l l
l I
i I
cat <afCLiiF5N.P.P.19 PBS18HIEN SY MAJR PROJECT PS M CATEGORY AM BY EROYEE JOB FUNCTION PROJECT P STEM 60ERATR RELATG M (NON-ISI) FOR YEAR AND UNIT SPECIFI D U1 S/G work in '79 ACTIVITY A S/6 MBS ' MAJM S/6 MZZLE DMB SLUDGE KCON (3,4)
(CATE63YNO.)
(4)
REPAIRS (3,4) (3,4)
LANCING (4) feedring PERS/E R P/E I wee 3
wee 6
wee I
wee e
ree I
wee I
wee SU8 TOTALS I :
MINTENANCE STATION N 3
638 8
3825 11 4463 UTILITY MU 3
!!80 1
10 4
1190 CONTRACT R MC ' 26 9321 1
5 27 9326
?
SUITOT/NORKERS M 32 to 0
0 0
0 0
42 SUBTOT/ DOSE N
11139 3840 0
0 0
0 0
14979 OPEMTIONS STATION OS 1
10 1
10 UTILITY 00 2
17 3
192 5
209 i
CONTRACTOR OC 0
0 SUITOT/ M ERS ON 2
4 0
0 0
0 0
6 SUBTOT/ DOSE OD 17 202 0
0 0
0 0
219 l
l HEALTH PHYSICS STATIONles 0
0 UTILITY HPU 0
0 CONTRACTOR HPC 3
12 1
10 4
22 l
SUITOT/ M ERS HPN 3
1 0
0 0
0 0
4 SUBTOT/ DOSE HPD 12 10 0
0 0
0 0
22 SUPGVISollY i
i STATION SS 1
170 1
170 l
UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 4
557 4
557 3 !
I
-1 I
._I II l
-I SUITOT/ DOSE SD 557 170 0
0 0
0 0
727 EM61NEERINE STATION ES 1
20 1
20 UTILITY EU 1
35 1
35 CONTRACTOR EC 41 11653 41 11653 l
l_
SUITOT/NORKERS EN 43 0
0 0
0 0
0 43 SUITOT/ DOSE ED 11708 0
0 0
0 0
0 11708 I
I
- I
_. I l
-l l
I_
I l
l I
l PDSON-REM PR 23433 4222 0
0 0
0 0
27655
l I
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P. 19 POSIIHIEN BY MAJW PROJECT Pet unitt CATEEORY AS SY EWLOYEE JW FUNCTION PROJECT P IMRVICE luBPECT!WB OF STEM GEMMTORS AIG SELECTED COWOIENTS FW YEAR Aug UNIT SPECIFID 1979 UI ACTIVITY AEttYC:NIRENLINSPECTSEC. INEPECT HAIS MISC. IS!
MISC. 151 (CATEEORY NO.)
TESTINE S/6 SIDE (3,4) HOLES /MANNAYS uGRK (2,3,4) NORK (2,3,4) 13,4)
(3) hangers welds PERS/EWL P/E 8 wee t
wee t
was I
wee I
wee e
res 8
wee SUIT 0TALS l
l l
_I I
l l
i llAINTEllANCE STATION IIS 3
185 1
8 13 451 30 145 3
20 50 2129 UTILITY nu 53 9877 1
530 30 777 44 3311 67 14491 195 20993 CONillACT M MC 4
135 2
12 19 281 590 122820 47 6110 662 129338 l
SWTOT/umKDtS INI 60 4
62 0
M4 117 0
907 SWTOT/DOIE 11 9 10197 550 1509 0
127603 2H21 0
160480 OPGATIONS STATION OS 2
16 10 62 12 78 UTILITY 00 3
65 33 1585 3
17 39 IM7 CMTRACTOR OC 1
20 61 7825 11 2389 73 10234 SUITOT/IlWKERS ON 2
0 4
0 104 14 0
124 SUBTOT/ DOSE 09 16 0
85 0
9472 24 %
0 11979 IEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 1
5 1
5 UTILITY Hou 5
1 5
C0llTRACTOR HPC 4
80 1
10 20 488 2
130 27 708 l
l l
l l
l,,,1 SWTOT/umKERS 1991 4
0 1
0 22 2
0 29 SUBTOT/D0BE HPS 80 0
10 0
498 130 0
718 SU*ERVISORY STAT!0ll SS 1
30 2
390 2
63 5
150 10 633 UTILITY SU 13 1
13 CONTRACTOR SC 1
330 1
5 24 2543 3
103 29 2981 l
l l
l l
l l
SUITOT/umKERS SW 1
3 3
0 30 3
0 40 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 30 720 68 0
2706 103 0
3627 DIGINEERillE STATION ES 2
40 3
930 2
35 20 1323 27 2328 UTILITY EU 3
890 1
30 10 605 14 1525 CONTRACTOR EC 1
740 66 6485 9
2228 76 9453
)
l 1,_,,:
l l
l SUITOT/uGRKERS EN 2
7 3
0 96 9
0
!!7 i
SUITOT/ DOSE ED 40 2560 65 0
8413 2228 0
13306 l
_l l
-l TOTAL NORRERS Tu 69 14 73 0
916 145 0
1217 P0tSoll-REM PR 10363 3830 1737 0
148692 2545 0
190110
r' CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P.19J,f, PGt90HER BY MAJM PROJECT PUt WORK CATEGRY AS BY DPLOYEE JN FWCTIN PROJECT P INSERVICE INIPECTimE OF STEAR 60ERATORS ANO SELECTU COlFONENTS FOR YEM ANO WIT SPECIFID 1979 UI!
ACTIVITY A DIY CMRENT INSPECT SEC. INSPECT MAND MISC. IS!
MISC. 151 (CATESMY NO.)
TESTINE S/6 SIDE (3,4) HOLES /NANNAYS WORK (2,3,4) WORK l2,3,4)
I3'4I I3I hangers welds PERS/DFL P/E I wee I
wee I
wee I
wee 6
wee I
wee 6
wee SUIT 0TALS l :
~
MINTENANCE STAT!W MS 13 907 9
1320 7
665 3
230 32 3122 UTILITY MU 64 10930 8
1100 58 6866 56 10571 186 29467 l
CONTRACTOR MC 2
50 852 126839 5
1270 859 129159 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l_
l SUITOT/NORKERS MW 77 19 0
0 917 64 0
1077 SUITOT/ DOSE MO 11837 2470 0
0 134370 12071 0
160748 OPERATIONS STATI M OS 2
20 18 456 1
35 21 511 UTILITY 00 8
400 8
400 CONTRACTOR OC 1
50 67 7749 12 2535 80 10334 SUITOT/ WORKERS Ou 3
0 0
0 93 13 0
109 SulTOT/ DOSE 00 70 0
0 0
8605 2570 0
!!245 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 2
270 2
270 UTILITY HPU 0
0 CONTRACTOR HPC 2
40 3
55 5
95 i
SUBTOT/ WORKERS HPW 0
4 0
0 3
0 0
7 i
SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 0
310 0
0 55 0
0 365 SUPERVISORY STATION SS 1
10 1
10 UTILITY SU 1
50 4
215 5
265 CONTRACTOR SC 22 2004 22 2004 l
SUITOT/MORKERS Su 0
2 0
0 26 0
0 28 i
l SUBTOT/ DOSE SD 0
60 0
0 2219 0
0 2279 l
ENGINEERING STAT!DN ES 3
970 14 1290 17 2260 l
UTILITY EU 7
92 7
92 i
CONTRACTOR EC 2
2490 69 7637 71 10127 1._
i SUITOT/ WORKERS EW 0
5 0
0 90 0
0 95
$UITOT/ DOSE ED 0
3460 0
0 9019 0
0 12479 I.
l l
TOTAL WORKERS TW B0 30 0
0 1129 77 0
1316 PERSON-REM PR 11907 6300 0
0 154268 14641 0
197116
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P.1_ PDSill-RER SY HNIt PROJECT PB UMK CATEGORY AA8 SY ElrLOYEE JOB FUNCTION PROJECT P STAMARO REPORT FOR PERSOIEEL u!TN GREATR TMN 100 wee 1980 REFUELINE OUTAGE UI Includad ACTIV!TY A R OP G StilV ROUT MINT INEERVINIP SPEC MINT WASTE PROC REFUEL 1116 (CATEE MY NO.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
PDS/ElrL P/E 8 wee I
wee I
wee I
roe 8
wee I
wee I
wee SUITOTALS MAINTEllAEE STATION MS 3
599 44 11765 10 3484 83 57499 2
230 43 22233 185 95812 UTILITY MU 1
106 1
120 35 15145 99 35175 50 24424 186 74970 CONTRETolt MC 1
126 149 43875 17 4939 479 222925 3
335 649 272200 l :
SMTOT/uGRKERS Mil 5
194 62 661 2
96 0
1020 SUITOT/DOBE MD 831 55760 23570 315599 230 44992 0
442982 OPRATIONE STATION OS 23 11997 14 7365 6
787 34 8252 5
1864 10 3010 92 33275 UTILITY 00 12 4639 6
3613 18 8252 CollTRACTOR OC 20 3849 30 BI51 1
123 51 12823 SUITUT/uGRKERS OW 23 34 6
76 5
17 0
161 SUITOT/ DOSE 00 11997 11214 787 21742 1844 6744 0
54350 HEALTH PHYSICS STATIOltHPS 14 7144 2
507 2
247 4
1371 22 9269 UTILITY HPU 1
144 25 5633 26 5779 CONTRACTOR HPC 78 35641 2
245 6
1594 39 16518 9
2877 134 !6875 SUITOT/uGRKBSIFW 0
93 2
8 66 13 0
182 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 0
42931 245 2101 22398 4248 0
71923 SUPERVISORY STATION SS 2
276 4
1394 2
301 12 4309 1
101 10 8096 31 14477 UTILITY SU 0
0 i
CollTRACTOR SC 2
271 2
669 11 4035 2
483 17 5458 SUITOT/ WORKERS SW 2
6 4
23 1
12 0
48 SUITOT/ DOSE SO 276 1665 970 8344 101 6579 0
19935 D61NEERING STATION ES 6
1609 5
1077 2
371 13 3057 l
UTIL1TY EU 1
134 1
136 CONTRACTOR EC 5
1064 7
1657 19 5612 8
3376 39 11709 SUITOT/MORKERS EN 0
5 13 25 0
10 0
53 l
l SUITOT/ DOSE ED 0
1064 3266 6825 0
3747 0
14902 l
- _87 793 74 148 0
1464 i.
l TOTAL WORKERS TN 30 332 PERSON-RG PR 13104 112634 28838 354611 24593 70312 0
604092 i
I L
PERSO HIER BY MJ W PROJECT PER NORK CATEEORT AN8 31 EW LOYEE J W F W C EVERT CLIFFS N.P.P. 19 PR VESSEL ANS C00LMT PUNS, STEM EENEMTOR AN8 ISI NRK PLUS RAD SAFETY UNIT COVE PROJECT KTIVITY A Rs U 1 Rs U 11 RCP U 1 RCP U 11 S/E U 1 S/E U 11 ISI U !
IS! U II RAB CDN 1980 RAD SUPP KARA SUPP YEM PERS/EWL P/E ree wee ree wee wee ree nos ree ree SUITOTAL MINTENAME 2004 75 54853 STATION NS 31947 20827 UTILITY NU 39298 24413 5
15879 179 79774 CONTRACTOR K 7553 113628 13753 1973 283 137190 SUITOT/ DOSE NO 78798 0
158868 0
13758 0
19856 0
537 271817 OPERATIONS STATION OS 7449 923 6
289 2370 11037 at 5
7816 UTILITY 00 4860 2863 CONTRACTOR OC 174 4545 383 8
170 5280 SUITOT/ DOSE 09 12483 0
8331 0
389 0
385 0
2545 24133 HEALTH PHYSICS 30 15244 17616 STATION HPS 2037 305 9070 9090 UTILITY HPU 20 CONTRACTORHPC 4907 574 5
515 65267 71268 l_
SU3707/ DOSE HPD 6964 0
879 0
5 0
545 0
89581 97974 STATION SS 12524 918 2
175 154 13773
$UPERVISORY 754 UTILITY SU 754 CONTRACTOR SC 667 2755 387 213 4022 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 13191 0
4427 0
389 0
388 0
!$4 18549 STATION ES 618 726 28 1942 29 3343 ENGINEERINE 5
171 UTILITY EU 10 156 CONTRACTOR EC 2676 4643 70 30 712 8131 SU8 TOT / DOSE ED 3304 0
5525 0
98 0
1972 0
74 11645 1,
PERSON-REN PR 114740 0
178030 0
14639 0
231 4 0
93563 424118
CEVERT CLIFFS II.P.P.19I PDIS-RElf If IIAJM PROJECT PER M CATEERY AND BY ElrLOYEE J0 PROJECT F RERELIE lELATS FUKillIE FW YDR AS LNt!T SPECIFID 1990 UI KTIVITY A R LEAD R STUI M PO E SD L ICI / IllCNE EUTRoll NATB RFP 6 CTMT CRANE M (CATEGN Y NO.)
DIS /REASSR _(3,4,6)
M (3,4,6) INSTipt M SHIELD (4,6) DECON (4,5,61 (2,4)
(4,6) 12,4,6)
POS/DFL P/E I wee I
wee I
was -
I roe I
wee I
roe e
res SUIT 0TES l
i MAINTDIANCE STATIO11 MS 84 9360 14 2617 93 15027 23 2968 17 1800 13 95 244 31947 UTILITY HU 89 11192 61 10480 80 10974 28 2860 38 2211 4
1581 300 39298 CONTRACTOR MC 3
97 7
292 12 153 1
44 97 6952 3
15 123 7553 l
SUITOT/MORKERS Mil 176 B2 0
185 52 152 2C 667 SUITOT/ DOSE HB 20649 13389 0
26154 5872 11043 1691 78798 OPDATIONS STATION OS 16 2304 5
215 14 586 11 12!8 38 3099 1
7 85 7449 UTILITY OU 14 1361 5
1342 16 1793 3
361 1
3 39 4860 CollTRETOR OC 1
35 3
139 4
174 1
SUITOT/ M D S 011 30 11 0
30 14 42 1
128 SUITOT/ DOSE 00 3465 1592 0
2379 1599 3241 7
12483 HEETH PHYSICS STAT 10N HPS 2
1170 6
490 1
30 5
347 14 2037 UTILITY HPU 1
20 1
20 CONTRACTOR HPC 11 1500 13 2236 1
5 14 1156 1
10 40 4907 l
SU8 TOT / WORKERS HPW 14 0
0 19 2
19 1
55
$UIT07/ DOSE HPD 2690 0
0 2726 35 1503 10 6964 SIFERVISORY STAT!DN SS 20 2596 6
754 25 7085 7
678 17 1405 1
6 76 12524 UTILITY SU 0
0 i
CONTRACTOR SC 1
71 1
20 4
540 1
36 7
667 I._
-1 I._.
l l
l SUITOT/ DOSE SD 2667 774 0
7625 678 1441 6
13191 DGINEERIll6 STAT 10N ES 1
30 2
270 3
279 2
39 8
618 UTILITY EU 1
10 1
10 CCNTRACTOR EC 4
28 1
290 13 2358 18 2676
~
~~~ ~
~
~
SUITOT/W0llKERS 5 3
0 16 0
2 27
~
~~~
SUITOT/ DOSE ED 68 560 0
2637 0
39 0
3304 1:
TOTE WORKERS TV 247_
103 0
279 75 233 23 960 PERS0ll-REM PR 29739 16315 0
41521 8184 17267 17'4 114740
CEVERT CLIFFS N.P.P.19k PDSINHER SY MAJN PROJECT PER m CATEEORY AS BY EIFLOYE PROJECT P W RELATES 70 REACTOR COEANT PtIFS 6 SEES FM YEAR ANO LFi!T SPECIFID 1980U!
ACTIVITY A RCP SEE RCP MTR RCP STUI m DECON/SNIELD MISC. RCP (CATEGORY N.)
REPLACE! GIT ' M (2.41 (4)
FOR RCPs(4,5) NORK (2,4)
(2,4)
Luke 011 four System PERS/EfrL P/E 4 wee I
roe B
er se I
res t
wee I
wee 4
won SUITOTES MINTEMNCE ST4 TION M 87 13311 18 1275 19 4229 4
210 28 1902 156 20827 UTILITY MU 35 7298 29 3507 45 13006 11 522 120 24413 CONTRACTOR MC 4
390 299 107967 7
IBO 89 5083 399 113628 I,_.
SUBTOT/uMKERS W 126 346 71 4
128 0
0 675 SUITOT/ DOSE MB 20999 112749 17503 210 7407 0
0 158068 OPERATIONS STATION OS 4
310 8
328 4
101 1
70 7
114 24 923 UTILITY 00 2
709 33 112 5
2024 2
18 42 2863 CONTRACTOR OC 1
20 24 4239 7
286 32 4545 l
SUITOT/ WORKERS Ou 7
65 9
1 16 0
0 98 SUITOT/ DOSE 00 1039 4679 2125 70 418 0
0 8331 IEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS I
45 2
260 3
305 UTILITY HPU 0
0 CONTRACTOR HPC 3
100 4
81 3
250 2
143 12 574 SUITOT/uGRKERS HPW 3
5 0
5 2
0 0
15 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 100 126 0
510 143 0
0 879 SUPERVISORY Ef4 TION SS 6
665 4
86 2
97 4
70 16 918 l
i UTILITY SU 2
727 2
7 1
10 1
10 6
754 i
CONTRACTOR SC 1
52 12 1893 8
810 21 2755 1
SUITOT/uGRKERS SW 9
18 2
1 13 0
0 43 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 1444 1986 97 10 890 0
0 4427 ENGINEERING STATION ES 10 519 1
20 3
187 14 726 l
UTILITY EU 1
70 4
86 5
156 CONTRACTOR EC 1
135 12 1569 1
40 27 2899 41 4643 1,_,
SUITOT/uGRKERS EM i
22 3
0 34 0
0 60 l
SUITOT/ DOSE ED 135 2088 130 0
3172 0
0 5525 1
i,,,:
1!
l l
TOTAL NORKERS TM 146 456 85 11 193 0
0 891 1
PDSON-REM PR 23717 121628 19855 800 12030 0
0 178030 l
CALY S T CLIFFS N.P.P. 19 PDSINHtEN BY MAJOR PROJECT PER M CATEGORY AND BY EROYEE JOB FUNCTIM PROJECT P STEAR E D ERAT (It RELATD NORK (NON-ISI) FOR YEAR AND UNIT SPECIF!D 1980 U!
ACTIVITY A S/6 MOBS _ MAJOR S/6 N0ZILEDANS SLUD6E DECON 13,4)
(CATEGINtY NO.)
(4)
REPA!RS (3,4) (3,4)
LANCING (4)
Platform PDS/E R P/E I wee t
wee I
wee I
wee t
wee 8
wee I
wee SUIT 0TALS
~
1,_,
NAINTEINCE STATION MS 0
0 UTILITY MU 1
5 1
5 CONTRACTOR NC 112 13753 112 13753 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
SUITOT/MONKERS M 113 0
0 0
0 0
0 113 SUITOT/ DOSE MB 13758 0
0 0
0 0
0 13758 OPERATIONS STATION DS 3
6 3
6 UTILITY Ob 0
0 CONTRACTOR OC 7
!83 7
383 SUBTOT/MONERS ON 10 0
0 0
0 0
0 10 i
SUITOT/ DOSE 00 389 0
0 0
0 0
0 389 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 0
0 UTILITY HPU 0
0 CONTRACTOR HPC 1
5 1
5 SUITOT/MORKERS HPN 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
5 SUPERVISORY STATION SS 1
2 1
2 UTILITY SU 0
0 l
CONTRACTOR SC 4
387 4
387 i
i SUITUT/ M ERS SN 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
5 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 389 0
0 0
0 0
0 389 DEINEGING STATION ES 1
28 1
28 UTILITY EU 0
0 CONTRACTOR EC 5
70 5
70 SUITOT/MORKERS EN 6
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 SulTOT/ DOSE D
98 0
0 0
0 0
0 98 I
TOTAL NORKERS TN 135 0
0 0
0 0
0 135 PERSON-REM PR 14639 0
0 0
0 0
0 14639 l
l
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P.19h PutSIIHtER BY MAJW PROJECT PER ulult CATESORY AIS BY ElrLOYE PROJECT P INSERVICE INIPCCT!WB 0F STDM EDERATORS AS SELECTD C0lF01ENTS FOR YE4R ANO WIT SPECIFID 1990UI ACTIVITY A EMY C:stRElli INSPECT SEC. INSPECT HAW MISC. ISI MISC.ISI (CATEEORY M.)
TESTIIIE S/6' S11lE (3,4) HEES/MANUAYS WORK (2,3,4) M0ltK (2,3,4) 13,4)
(3) welds PUTS /DFL P/E 8 wee I
wee I
res 8
wee e
ree 4
wee 4
eroe SUIT 0TALS l
1 MINTEMNCE STAT!ON NS 3
22e 10 996 7
782 20 2004 UTILITY NU 29 6955 2
920 44 2927 44 5077 119 15879 CONTRACTOR NC 31 1973 31 1973 SUITOT/MORKERS W 32 2
34 0
0 82 0
170 SUITOT/ DOSE M
7181 920 3923 0
0 7032 0
19056 OPERATIOll5 STATION OS 2
19 1
90 6
76 2
104 299 UTILITY 00 2
88 2
80 CONTRACT 0ft DC 1
8 1
8 l
SUBTOT/MORKERS ON 2
1 6
0 0
5 0
14 SUIT 07/ DOSE OD 19 90 76 0
0 200 0
385 HDLTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 1
30 1
30 UTILITY HPU 0
0 CONTRACTOR HPC 4
450 1
30 1
35 6
515 l
SUITOT/IIORKERSIFU 4
0 1
0 0
2 0
7 SUITUT/ DOSE HPD 450 0
30 0
0 65 0
545 SUPERVISORT l
STATION SS I
130 1
45 2
175 UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 1
180 1
15 1
18 3
213 l
SUITOT/MORKERS SN 0
2 2
0 0
1 0
5 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 0
310 60 0
0 18 0
388 ENGINEER!ll6 STATION ES 1
7 5
1620 2
130 1
185 9
1942 UTILITY EU 0
0 CONTRACTOR EC 1
20 1
10 2
30 I.
l
-. I l
SUITOT/ DOSE D
7 1620 150 0
0 195 0
1972 l
TOTAL NORKERS TN 39 to 66 0
0 92 0
207 POS0lHtEM PR 7657 2940 4239 0
0 8310 0
23144 l
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P.19b PERSON-REM BY MJOR PROJECT PER m CATE65Y AM BY EFLOYEE PROJECT P STANDAR8 REPORT FOR PERSOMEL NITH GREATER TMN 100 wee 1981 REFUELING OUTAGE Ull INCLUBES ACTIVITY A R OP 6 SLNtV ROUT MINT INSERY INSP SPEC MINT MSTE PROC REFUELING (CATE60RYNO.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
~
PERS/EFL P/E I wee I
wee I
wee I
wee I
wee I
wee I
wee SUITOTALS t
i MINTEMNCE STATION MS 6
832 63 1481 4
1134 84 37020 35 15202 192 68069 UTILITY NU 7
2505 24 6056 9 30136 28 14124 68 52821 j
CONTRACTOR NC 50 !!042 14 3534 535 2338u 2
269 5
919 606 249650 1.
SUITOT/MGRKERS M 6
120 42 628 2
68 0
Su SUIT 07/ DOSE M9 832 28248 10724 301022 269 30245 0
371340 QPERATIONS STATION OS 43 15819 16 3353 1
152 28 12064 2
486 14 2321 104 34195 UTILITY 00 2
347 1
123 11 4306 8
2207 22 6983 CONTRACTOR DC 3
901 14 2993 7
975 25 85H 49 13435 l
l l
l l
SUITOT/ M ERS ON 4 32 9
64 2
22 0
175 i
SUITOT/ DOSE 00 16720 6693 1250 24936 486 4528 0
54613 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 18 4303 2328 13 6424 11 4470 53 17525 UTILITY HPU 14 2372 14 2372 CONTRACTOR HPC 7
2352 12 4859 1
121 62 24044 30 7758
!!2 39134 SUITOT/MORKERS HPN 25 23_
1 75
_55 0
0 179 SUITOT/ DOSE HP0 6655 7187 121 30468 14600 0
0 59031 SUPERVISORY STATION SS 1
117 1
327 6
2274 1
317 5
2026 to 5061 UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 3
591 1
103 10 2464 2
462 16
!620
~
~~~
~
SUITOT/MORKERS T
4
~E 16 0
30 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 117 918 103 4738 317 2488 0
8681 ENGINEERING STATION ES 2
308 1
203 5
834 1
106 9
1451 UTILITY EU 1
318 1
318 CONTRACTOR EC 7
1315 1
156 13 4157 6
1112 27 6740 l-l l -
l l
SUITOT/ DOSE ED 0
1623 359 5309 0
1218 0
8509 l.
l l
I 1
l TOTAL WORKERS TN 78 188 55 802 60 104 0
1297 PERSON-REM PR 24324 44669 12557 3H473 15672 38479 0
502174
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P.19]J. PDSON-REM BY MJM PROJECT PER NORK CATESORY ANI BY EWLOY PROJECT PR VESSEL ANS COOLMT PUNS, STEM EDEMTOR ANO 151 NRK PLUS RAD SAFETY UNIT COYERAGE FOR WIT NOTE 9 ACTIVITY A RU1 7: U 11 RCP U !
RCP U !! S/EU! S/E U !!
IS! U !
ISIU!! RA8 CON 1981 RAD SUPP ALARA SUPP YEAR PDS/ENPL P/E wee wee wee wee -
wee wee wee wee wee SUITOTAL MINTDANCE STATION NS 28130 13283 21 966 252 42652 UTILITY NU 29393 8677 39 5087 98 44094 CONTRACT R NC 12377 1 % 096 19481 17 442 138413 SUITOT/B06E NO 0
69900 0
128056 0
19541 0
6370 792 225159 OPERATIONS STATION OS 6992 1118 2
til 3639 11862 UTILITY OU 2741 2630 126 5497 CONTRACTOR OC 1440 3617 274 30 1150 6519 SUBTOT/ DOSE 00 0
11181 0
7365 0
276 0
267 _
4789_
23878 HEALTHPHYSICS STATION HPS 1277 160 11142 12579 UTILITY HPU 226 4278 4504 CONTRACTOR HPC 5993 444 59 446 4d251 55193
- i. :
SUITOT/ DOSE HPO O
7270 0
330 0_
59 0
446 43671 72276
$UPERVISORY STATION SS 4315 689 120 181 5305 UTILITY SU 0
CONTRACTOR SC 902 489 130 470 1991 5Elfdi/00SE
~50 0
52if 0
1178 0
13E~~~~0 590 181 7296
~~~~
ENGINEERING STATION ES 99 62 1
504 40 7%
UTILITY EU 267 427 694 CONTRACTOR EC 91 1250 19 2332 5
3497 SUITOT/ DOSE ED 0
457 0
1739 0
20 0
2336 45 5097_
PERSON-REM PR 0
94025 0
139168 0
20026 0
11009 o9478 3337%
F CALVERT CL1FFS N.P.P. 19 PER$lli-AER BY MAJOR PROJECT PER WORK CATE50RY ANO SY ElrLOYE JOB FUNCTION PROJECT P REFUELINE RELATED FUNCTIONS FOR YEAR ANO UNIT SPECIFIED 1991 UI!
ACTIVITY A R KAB R: STUI WORK POOL SEAL ICI / INCORE E UTRON MATER RFP & CTNT CRAuf WORK (CATE60RYNO.)
DIS /REASSM _ (3,4,6)
NORK (3,4,6) INSTRUM UORK SHIELD (4,6) DECON (4,5,6) (2,4)
(4,6)
(2,4,6)
PER$/EMPL P/E 8 eres I
wee e
vos e
roe e
ree e
ree e
ree SUIT 0TALS i
MAINTENANCE STATION MS 68 15656 12 140 48 8416 6
729 14 3061 15 128 163 29130 UTILITY MU 69 17559 24 960 39 5605 5
456 16 2768 2045 164 29393 CONTRACTOR MC 58 3086 3
29 1
to 97 9238 3
14 162 12377
- .._ i.
SUBTOT/uGRKERS MW 195 0
39 88 11 127 29 489 SUBTOT/ DOSE MB 26301 0
1129 14031 1185 15067 2187 69900 QPERATIONS STATION OS 4
289 2
15 5
93 7
496 21 6099 39 6992 UT!LITY OU 18 2225 1
17 5
476 2
23 26 2741 CONTRACTOR OC 2
!!2 1
13 1
74 3
1249 7
1448 I
I I
l I
l l
SUBTOT/ DOSE 00 2626 0
32 542 570 7348 23 11181 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 2
20 2
300 5
957 9
1277 Ut!LITT HPU 0
0 CONTRACTOR HPC 5
163 2
44 1
70 19 5716 27 5993
,_ i _.
l SU5iOT/ WORKERS HFW 7
0 0
2 3
24 0
36 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 183 0
0 44 370 6673 0
7270 SUPERVISORY STATION SS 9
2378 4
855 3
276 9
806 25 4315 UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 2
158 1
60 1
40 4
614 8
902 l
l l
I l.
SUITOT/ WORKERS SW 11 0
0 5
4 13 0
33 SUITOT/ DOSE 50 2566 0
0 915 316 1420 0
!217 ENGINEERING STATION ES 2
99 2
99 UTILITY EU 3
104 1
29 1
135 5
267 C3NTRACTOR EC 1
31 1
60 2
91 I_
....I-. l.-..
SLITOT/uGRKERS Eu 6
0 1
2 0
0 0
9 SUITOT/ DOSE ED 234 0
28 195 0
0 0
457 l
I.
-I 3
I-I...-. 3...
I- -
3.-
I.
TOTAL WORKERS Tu 243 0
43 108 26 188 31 639 PERSON-REM PR 41910 0
1189 15767 2441 30508 2210 94025
1 CALM CLIFF 3 N.P.P.19[ PERSS-REN IT RAJW PRNECT PER W CATEEORY AND SY DrLOYEE JO PROJECT P W llELATU TO REACT 3 COEANT PUlFS 6 SERS FM YEAlt Am WIT SPECIFID 1901 Ul!
ACTIVITY A ItCP SEAL RCP MOTOR RCP STW NORK IECS/SillELD RISC. RCP.
(CATEGORY NO.)
IIEPLACE E ' M (2,4)
(4)
F0ft ilCPst4,5) W (2,4) 12.4) two PERS/E!FL P/E I wee I
wee I
wee I
wee I
wee 3
wee t
was SUBTOTES l
i 1
I t
l l
t l
IIAINTEll4NCE STATION MB 25 5276 13 836 12 2073 6
252 47 48 4 103 13283 UTILITY Mu 6
1%7 16 1073 17 4107 23 2350 62 8677 CONTRACTOR HC 290 91511 29 91 %
59 5439 378 1%096 l_t I
,,,,,,,i.
,1 SUBTOT/ M EltS MN 31 319 58 6
129 0
0 543 SUITOT/ DOSE HD 6343 93420 154M 252 12635 0
0 129056 OPERATIONS STATION 08 3
210 2
4 5
390 8
367 5
147 23 1118 UTILITY OU 3
216 6
109 5
1711 6
594 20 2630 CMTRACTOR OC 1
265 9
1962 6
1390 16 3617
.t I
i I
l_t I
I SUITOT/ M EKS 011 7
17 10 8
17 0
0 59 SUITOT/ DOSE 00 691 2075 2101 367 2131 0
0 7!65 HEETH PHYSICS STATION HPS 2
160 2
160 UTILITY HPU 5
226 5
226 CONTRACTOR HPC 1
55 5
389 6
444 1,
I i,
I
-I I
SUITUT/WO R D S HPN 1
5 5
2 0
0 0
13 SUITOT/ DOSE HPO 55 389 226 160 0
0 0
830 SUPERVIS0ftY STATION SS 3
330 2
108 4
251 9
689 UT!LITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 10 409 10 489 3
I I_!
l _,,,I SUITOT/uCRKERS SN 3
10 0
2 4
0 0
19 SUBTOT/ DOSE S0 330 489 0
108 251 0
0 1178 DGINEERING STATION ES 1
40 1
22 2
62 UTILITT EU 1
48 1
314 2
65 4
427 CONTRACT 0ft EC 1
67 9
!!26 1
57 10 1250
_l
,,,,,I I
I I
I 1
1 1,
l SUITOT/u0M ERS G 2
8 2
0 4
0 0
16
$UITOT/00$E D
115
!!26 354 0
144 0
0 1739 I
I i
Il1 t
_l
_1, t
,,,,,l I
I
!l 154 0
0 650 TOT E M ERS Tu 44 359 75 18 PZRSON-REM PR 7534 97499 19087 987 15161 0
0 139168
F CRYS T CLIFFS N.P.P. 19 P950HG BY MAJR PROJECT PB NORK CATEGORY AND BY EMPLOYEE JOI FWCTIM PROJECT P STEAN 6EIERATR RELATED NORK ING H SI) FOR YEAR AND LRlli SPECIFIED 1981 0 II ACTIY!TY A S/E M006 MAJM S/6 N0ZILE DANS SLUD6E DECON 13 41 (CATEGORY NO.)
(4)
' REPAIRS (3,4) 13,4)
LAICING (4)
Platform PUS /EWL P/E e wee t
wee t
wee a
wee a
wee I
wee t
wee SUITOTALS l_
l 1__
1 M!NTDANCE STATIM MS 1
21 1
21 UTILITY MU 5
39 5
39 CONTRACTOR MC 155 19401 155 19401 1
l_
_1 SUITOT/NWlERS M 161 0
0 0
0 0
0 161 SUITOT/ DOSE MD 19541 0
0 0
0 0
0 19541 OPGAi!ONS STATION OS 1
2 1
2 UTILITY 00 0
0 CollTRACTOR OC 5
274 5
274 I I I.
I I!
I
_I I
l I
I I
I I
SUITOT/ DOSE 00 276 0
0 0
0 0
0 276 HEALTHPHYSICS STAi!ON HPS 0
0 UTILITY HPU 0
0 ColliRACTCR HPC 1
59 1
59 l
l__!
SUITOT/MDS WN 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 SUITOT/ DOSE WD 59 0
0 0
0 0
0 59 SUPOVISORY STATION SS 0
0 UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 5
130 5
130 SUITOT/u0M U S SN 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
5 SUITOT/ DOSE SO 130 0
0 0
0 0
0 130 D61NEUINE STAi!DN ES 1
1 1
1 UTILITY EU 0
0 CONTRACTOR EC 2
19 2
19 I
l.
I
_l..
I l
l lJ J!
Sulf 0TIDOSE D
20 0
0 0
0 0
0 20
_I
.l. _!.
J I!
J J
l
.l I.
TOTAL HOM U S IN 176 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 20026
CEVERT CLIFFS N.P.P. 19 PUSINHtER BY RAJOR PROJECT PER M CATEGORY AND BY ElrLOYEE JOB FUNCTION PROJECT P INIUVICE INSPECTIONS OF STEAM SEIERATORS AND SELECTD CoirclEllTS FOR YEAR AND UNIT SPECIFIED 1981 Ul!
ACTIVITY A D0Y CINulENT INSPECT SEC. INSPECT HANS MISC. ISI MISC. ISI (CATE6(ItY NO.)
TESTING S/6' $1DE (3,41 MOLES /MANN4YS m (2,3,4) m (2.3,4)
(3,4)
(3)
PDS/GPL P/E I wee I
wee t
wee I
wee t
wee I
wes I
wee SUITOTES 1
IIAINTDANCE STATION MS 4
25?
14 659 1
48 19 966 UTILITY IRI 48 4970 11 100 13 017 72 5807 CONTRACTOR MC 3
17 3
17 I,_,,3 SUITOT/ M ERS IIN 52 29 14_
0 0
0 0
94
$UITOT/ DOSE MB 5229 776 845 0
0 0
0 6870 OPHATI0llS STATION OS 2
11 1
100 3
UTILITY OU 1
16 5
54 2
54 9
126 CONTRACTOR OC 1
30 1
30 SUITOT/MORKERS ON 4
6 2
0 0
0 0
12 SUBTOT/ DOSE OD 57 154 56 0
0 0
0 267 HEALTH PHYSICS STAT 10N HPS 0
0 UTILITY HPU 0
0 CONTRACTOR HPC 4
406 1
40 5
444
~
~
~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~~
SUITOT/ M ERS t
0 0
0 0
0 5
SUITOT/ DOSE HPO 406 40 0
0 0
0 -
0 446 SUPERVISORY STATION S3 1
120 1
120 UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 1
140 1
330 2
470
,,i _,
_1 l
l l
l l
l l
l SUITOT/MORKERS SN 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
3 SUBTOT/ DOSE SD 140 450 0
0 0
0 0
590 D61NEDING STATION ES 1
63 4
441 5
504 UTILITY E'J 0
0 CONTRACTOR EC 2
12 6
2320 8
2332 I
3I 1
l lI..
1 I
3.
l._
SUBTOT/MERS EN 3
.10 0
0 0
0 0
13 SUITOT/ DOSE ED 75 2761 0
0 0
0 0
2836 i_
.3
-I I
PERSON-REM PR 5907 4181 921 0
0 0
0 11009
CALVOTCLIFFSN.P.P.19bPERS(8HIENSYHAJRPROJECTPGMCATEEMYAMSYEMPLOYEEJOSFWCT PROJECT P STAN84R8 REPORT FOR PDSGINEL WITH HEATER THAN 100 ree 1982 REFUELI N OUTA6ES UI 6 Ull Included ACTIVITY A Rs OP 6 SURV ROUT MINT IllSERY INSP SPEC MINT WASTEPROC REFUELIE (CATEEWtY:40.1 (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
~
PERS/DFL P/E 4 wee I
roe 6
wee I
wee I
wee 8
ree t
wee SU8 TOTALS l
MINTDIANCE STATION NS 104 27M1 8
8403 180 108348 5
2713 69 45200 366 192073 UTILITY IIU 4
1277 33 6435 95 75497 155 83571 7
1819 58 27588 352 196187 CMTRACTOR NC 62 14472 69 72425 286 121M4 23 5865 4
731 444 214897 l
l l
l l
l SUOTOT/MERS M 4
199 172 621 35_
131 0
1162 SUOT;T/ DOSE MO 1277 48308 156325 313323 10397 73527 0
603157 OPGATIONS STATION OS 80 33334 21 5308 4
1314 35 14197 24 10504 20 4945 IS4 71682 UTILITY 00 3
356 8
2900 35 16013 14 5963 60 25212 CONTRACTOR OC 28 5558 14 3052 13 5551 30 9171 1
204 3
1155 89 2491 SUBTOT/ M ERS ON 108 38 25 100 25 37 0
333 SUlTOT/ DOSE 00 40892 8716 9745 39381 10708 12%3 0
121585 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 19 6951 18 5534 30 15436 17 13491 1
105 85 41517 UTILITY HPU 17 4719 2
321 59 20601 57 15076 7
1351 142 42M8 CONTRACTOR HPC 43 20919 19 5937 24 5553 72 30548 M 20279 12 4919 210 88155 l
l l
SUITOT/ M ERS HPN 79 39 26 161
!!4 20 0
437
$UOTOT/ DOSE HPD 32589
!!792 5553 66585 48846 6375 0
1717M SUPERVISORY STATION SS 3
442 6
1897 2
1102 9
2014 20 5455 UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 5
706 8
2366 1
124 1
199 15 3395 SUITOT/MORKD S SN 0
8 0
14 3
10 0
35 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 0
1148 0
4263 1226 2213 0
8850 ENINEGIE l
STATION ES 8
1317 1
866 13 4432 1
133 23 6748 l
UTILITY EU 1
198 1
t 837 3
21 4 l
CONTRACTOR EC to 1778 15 4318 53 1842 to 1982 88 26540 SUITOT/ M D S D 0
19 17 67 0
11 0
114 SU8 TOT / DOSE ED 0
3293 6295 23731 0
2115 0
!!434 i.
l
_963 177 209 0
2001 TOTAL M BS TN 191 303_
238 PDSON-RG PR 74758 73257 177918 447283 71257 96293 0
940766
CALVERTCLIFFSN.P.P.19$.PDSON-RENSYMAJORPROJECTPERN8RKC.iTE60RYANDBYEWLOYEEJOBF PROJECT PR VESSEL AND COOLANT PU N S, STEAN EENERATOR ANB ISI NORK PLUS RAD SAFETY UNIT COVERAGE FOR UNIT NOTED ACTIVITY A Rs U !
'Rs U !!
RCP U I RCP U !! S/6 U ! S/6 U 11 ISI U !
ISI U !! RAD CON 1982 RAS SUPP ALARA SUPP YEAR PERS/EMPL P/E wee wee area wee wee wee wee wee wee SU8 TOTAL RAINfENANCE STATION NS 50342 47199 145M 5132 2509 4444 4792 3131 914 133049 UTILITY nu 35597 33634 4933
!!40 42865 21674 68852 10620 3058 222373 CONTRACTOR RC 5799 3619 5469 7
4379
!!3530 10155 1059 7M 144783 SUBTOT/ DOSE MS 91738 84452 24968 6279 49753 139M8 83799 14810 4738 500205 OPERATIONS STATION OS 7601 5923 814 1596 408 888 1015 4304 5U5 20145 UTILITY 00 6422 6267 2474 363 3554 217 330 789 332 20744 CONTRACTOR OC 1939 883 585 108 919 6838 29 2091 123 13515 l
l i
SUBTOT/ DOSE 00 15962 13073 3873 2067 4881 7943 1374 7184 6051 62408 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 990 205 731 487 2599 406 111 386 34846 40761 UTILITY HPU 5169 1544 1333 3004 2852 12 310 691 38500 53415 CONTRACTOR HPC 7377 7559 1460 707 SOM 5905 1548 1618 63068 97308 SUBTOT/ DOSE HPD 13536 9308 3524 4198 13517 6323 1969 2695 136414 191484 SUPERVISORY STATION SS 2378 370 47 390 89 18 689 825 4806 UTILITY SU 9
7 40 8
15 79 CONTRACTOR SC 666 63 284 152 563 4
583 8
2323 I
IUBTOT/ DOSE SD 3053 440 331 0
582 652 30 1287 833 7208 ENGINEERING STATION ES 1109 389 10 1897 1069 807 988 15 6284 UTILITY EU 184 8
1334 327 4
1857 CONTRACTOR EC 8025 251 25 5
6130 9438 4162 2720 20 30776 I.....__
I_
I
===__ _
SUBTOT/ DOSE ED 9134 824 25 15 8035
!!B41 4969 4035 39 38917
. i.._
. i..- _
l
.i. ~
PERSON-REM PR 133423 108097 32721 12559 76768 166427 92141 30011 148075 800222
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P. 19 P D SON-RER SY MAJOR PROJECT PER WORK CATEGORY ANS BY EMPLOTEE J08 FUNCTION PROJECT P REFUELING RELATED FWCTIONS FOR YEAR ANS UNIT SPECIFIED 1982 UI ACTIVITY A R HEA8 R: STUS WORK POOL SEAL ICI / INCORE NEUTRON MATD RFP 6 CTMT CRANE WORK (CATE50RYNO.)
O!S/REASSM _(3,4,6)
NORK (3,4,6) INSTRUM WORK SHIELD (4,6) DECON (4,5,6) (2,4)
(4,6)
(2,4,6)
PERS/ElrL P/E I wee 4
wee i
eres t
wee I
wee I
wee t
wee SulT0TALS l
MINTEMNCE STATION MS 163 32514 23 1448 5
802 91 9010 32 3402 4
89 64 3077 382 50342 UTILITY MU 105 19065 30 2468 4
820 49 6099 20 3351 5
90 28 3704 241 35597 CONTRACTOR MC 5
335 6
43 4
52 11 154 4
51 59 5164 89 5799 SUITOT/uGRKERS MW 273 59 9
144 63 13 151 712 SUITOT/14SE MD 51914 3959 1622 15161 6907 230 11945 91738 OPERATIONS STATION CS 105 4333 5
456 1
28 5
455 20 1968 8
291 5
70 149 7601 UTILITY OU 25 3618 1515 2
172 16 798 6
273 4
46 64 6422 CONTRACTOR OC 6
1077 1
30 4
200 1
51 17 573 29 1939 l
SUITOT/WORKD S CW 136 17 3
25 27 8
26 242 SUITOT/ DOSE 00 9028 2001 200 1461 2292 291 689 15962 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 6
228 1
20 4
60 8
682 19 990 UTILITY HPU 21 1662 9
640 4
139 5
526 2
120 29 2002 70 5169 CONTRACTOR HPC 6
385 10 410 3
125 5
430 1
to 26 6008 1
9 52 7377 i,
i i
SulTOT/uGRKERS HPW 33 20 7
14 3
63 1
141 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 2275 1070 264 1016 130 8772 9
13536 SUPOVISORY STATION SS 18 1825 3
187 5
313 2
53 28 2378 UTILITY SU 1
9 1
9 CONTRACTOR SC 3
245 1
325 1
10 1
86 6
666 l
l l
l l
SUITOT/ WORKERS SW 21 4
0 6
0 0
4 35
$UITOT/ DOSE SD 2070 512 0
323 0
0 148 3053 EMINEDING STATION ES 15 503 2
300 1
160 2
76 1
70 21
!!09 UTILITY EU 0
0 CCNTRACTOR EC 16 579 14 7446 30 8025
,,,,,_,i_
l _
1,_,,
SUITOT/ WORKERS EW 31 16 1
2 0
0 1
51 SUITOT/ DOSE D
1002 7746 160 76 0
0 70 9134
~[
~54
~iii
~ 5585
~
~~
~~~~
TOTALIORKERSi 494 116
~30 191 9
PERSON-REM PR 66369 15288 2246 18037 9329 9293 12861 133423
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P.19b PDSGIHtER If MJOR PROJECT PER NORK CATE50RY ANI IT ElrLOYEE J PRCJECT P REFMLlH6 RELATD FUNCTIONS FGA YEAR AND UNIT SPECIFID 1982 Ull ACTIVITY A R HEA8 R STUB NORK POOL SEAL ICI / INCORE NEUTRoll NATD RFP & CTRT CRANE WORK (CATEGORY No.)
O!S/REAESN 43,4,6)
NORK (3,4,6) INSTRUM WORK SHIELD (4,6) DEtoll (4,5,6) (2,4)
(4,6)
(2,4,6)
PERS/ENPL PIE I wee I
wee e
um 0
wee I
wee I
wee t
wee SU8 TOTES CINTENANCE STATI N RS 124 17342 15 867 65 15330 40 9C34 8
1217 90 3387 332 47199 UTILITY Mu 66 9822 to 1800 44 10822 28 7579 12 392 21 3219 181 33634 CONTRACTOR MC 27 853 1
13 33 2753 61 3619 SUITOT/ WORKERS NN 217 25 0
109 68 21 134 574 SUITOT/ DOSE RS 28037 2647 0
26152 16415 1622 7359 84452 OPDATIONS STATION 05 29 1155 2
61 6
700 9
774 23 3129 4
105 73 5923 UTILITY OU 19 3579 4
293 12 1551 7
838 1
6 43 6267 CONTRACTOR OC 4
392 3
124 2
24 1
3 9
340 19 883 SUITOT/WORIDS 0W 52 6
0 21 18 24 14 135_
$UITOT/ DOSE 00 5126 354 0
2375 1636 3131 451 13073 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 3
18 1
35 5
152 9
205 UTILITYHPU 1
50 4
39 19 1250 2
205 26 1544 CONTRACTCR HPC 6
470 1
10 3
276 23 6803 33 7559 1
SUITOT/ WORK B S HPW 7
0 0
4 8
47 2
68
$UITOT/ DOSE HPD 520 0
0 28 350 8205 205 9300 SUPDVISORY STAT!0ll SS 3
71 5
280 3
19 11 370 7
1 7
UTILITY SU 1
48 2
63 CCNTRACTOR SC 1
15
- l -
I l
-l I
li!
. i l.
I SUITOT/ DOSE SD 86 0
0 280 0
0 74 440 ENGINEDING STAT!0N ES 3
54 2
138 2
108 4
89 389 2
132 4
184 UTILITY EU 2
52 1
22 4
251 CONTRACTOR EC 3
229 3
I
-I 3!
I l._ ! __ I._ I
.l l-3.-.1 SUITOT100SE ED 335 0
0
!!B 108 0
243 824 i.
_l
-l TOTALWORKU$ il 288 31 0
141 96 92 162 810 PDS0lHtEM PR 34104 3021 0
28973 19709 12958 10332 108097
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P.19,N, PRISHIS SY MJW PROJECT PER M CATEEMY AM BY ElrLOYEE JOB FUNLTION PR8 JECT P W RELATD TO REACTOR COEANT PWr$ n NALS FW YEAR AND talli SPECIFID 1982 UI ACTIVITY A RCP SD L RCP MTOR RCP STUI M DECON/Sil! ELD RISC. RCP (CATEGORY NO.)
REPLACDElli M (2,4)
(4)
FOR RCPst4,5) m (2,4) 12.4) three PBS/ElrL P/E I wee I
wee I
wee I
wee t
wee I
wee 6
wee SUIT 0TALS l
MINTEllANCE STATION NS 47 107 4 17 3303 2
43 10 474 76 14566 UTILITY M 10 1688 13 2491 8
720 3
34 34 4933 CONTRACTOR NC 6
148 1
1 2
38 29 5282 38 549 SUITOT/NORKD S Mll 63 0
31 12 42 0
0 148_
SUITOT/ DOSE MD 12582 0
5795 801 5790 0
0 24968 OPGATIONS STATION 05 3
185 13 629 16 814 UTILITY OU 8
!!51 8
1255 3
68 19 2474 CONTRACTOR OC 3
422 3
163 6
585
_i SUITOT/WORKUS ON 14 0
8 13 6
0 0
41 SUITOT/ DOSE 00 1758 0
1255 629 231 0
0 3873 HEALTHPHYSICS STATIONHPS 8
496 5
225 1
10 14 731 UTILITY HPU 1
20 26 1313 27 1333 CollTRACTOR HPC 4
675 1
10 14 775 19 140 I
I._
SUITOT/uGRKERS HPN 13 0
1 45 1
0 0
60 SUITOT/ DOSE HP0 1191 0
10 2313 10 0
0 3524
$UPERVISORY STAT!DN $$
1 47 1
47 UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 1
5 2
279 3
284 I
I I
l.
. !...:. _I -
SUITOT/uGRKERS $N 2
0 0
0 2
0 0
4 SUBTOT/ DOSE Sa 52 0
0 0
279 0
0 331 DGINEERING l
STATION ES 0
0 UTILITY EU 0
0 CONTRACTOR EC 3
15 1
10 4
25 l.
l 3l l
.l l _ l.
i.
3 SUITOT/ M ERS Er 0
0 0
3 1
0 0
4
$U8T0Tl00$E ED 0
0 0
15 10 0
0 25 l
. l
_!_.L I._..
I....
_.I.
PD',311-REM PR 1583 0
7%0 3758 6320 0
0 32721
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P. Itk PGISHIEN SY MAJW PROJECT PG WIK CATESMY ANI BY DrLOYEE JOB F PROJECT P NRK IELATE8 70 IIEACTOR COEANT PulFS n NALS FM YEAR ANI im!T SPECIFID 1982 Ull ACTIVITY A RCP SEAL ACP MOTW RCP STUI WORK KCON/ SHIELD MISC. RCP (CATEGORY NO.)
REPLACD Wif _uM K (2,4)
(4)
FOR RCPst4,5) NORK (2,41 (2.4) one PDS/EMPL P/E e wee I
wee 4
wee I
wee 4
wee I
wee I
wee SUITOTALS I
I I
I 1
I I
I CINTDANCE STATION M8 15 3993 6
356 11 783 32 5132 UTILITY Mtl 4
843 2
84 5
213 11 1140 CONTRACTOR MC 1
5 1
2 2
7 I
1 I
SUITOT/uGREERS lel 20 0
0 8
17 0
0 45
$UITOT/00E M8 4841 0
0 440 998 0
0 6279 OPDATIONS STATION OS 3
71 19 1525 22
!!96 UTILITY 00 2
196 4
177 6
363 CONTRACTOR C; I
78 1
5 1
25 3
tot i:
l l
l l
I I!
SUITOT/WONK DS Ou 6
0 0
20 5
0 0
31 SUITOT/ DOSE 00 335 0
0 1530 202 0
0 2067 HEALTH PHYSICS STAi!ON HPS 2
215 5
272 7
487 UTILITY HPU 2
179 26 2925 28 3004 CONTRACTOR HPC 1
28 11 679 12 707
.I
-I l!
I I-I _ l I..
SUITOT/uGRKDS HPW 5
0 0
42 0
0 0
47 SUITOT/ DOSE HPS 422 0
0 3776 0
0 0
4198
$UPDVISORY STAi!ON SS 0
0 UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 0
0 3
I-I!
I _. I.
I I-l _ f 3
I. _ I
.l.
l SUITOT/ DOSE SD 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Ell 61NES!n6 STATION ES 1
10 1
10 UTILITY EU 0
0 CONTRACTOR EC 1
5 1
5 I
l_
l I
1 3
- l. _3 l
l_. -
SUITO'/uGRK D S EW l
0 0
1 0
0 0
2 Sulf 0T/00$E ED 10 0
0 5
0 0
0 15 l
7 33.
i t
- 7.
..i.g r
i i
g:y 7
t :
I PERSON-REM PR 5608 0
0 5751 1200 0
0 12559 i
i
CR VERT CLIFFS N.P.P. 19 PERISHE BY MJOR PROJECT PER NORK CATEGORY AND BY EROTEE JOI FWCTION PROJECT P STEAN GDGATM RELATO NWIK (NON-!SI) FOR YEAR AW UNIT SPECIFIED 1982 UI ACTIVITY A S/E NOBS _MJOR S/E N0ZILEDANS SLUDGE DECON (3,4)
(CATE6M T NO.)
(4)
REPAIRS (3,4) 13,4)
LANCING (4)
Pull /ER P/E I wee 4
wee 6
wee 6
wee 0
eres I
wee I
wee SUITOTALS l_,1 I
I I
I I
f I
I MIIITDIANEE STATIOll MS 13 454 9
1583 3
470 25 2309~
UTILITY NU 35 19479 13 390 42 23996 90 42865 CONTRACTOR NC 85 4379 05 4379 i_!
l_
1 I
_t SUITOT/uGNKERS M 133 22 45 0
0 0
0 200 SUBTOT/ DOSE M8 23314 1973 24444 0
0 0
0 49753 OPDATIONE STATION OS 5
192 2
130 2
62 1
24 10 408 UTILITY OU 9
3429 3
17 3
100 15 3554 CONTRACTOR OC 19 641 3
259 1
19 23 919 l _,1 I
I I
_t _.:
SUITOT/ WORKERS ON 33 8
6 0
1 0
0 48 SUITOT/ DOSE OD 4262 406 189 0
24 0
0 4001 NEALTHPHYSICS STATION HPS 14 2061 7
260 2
131 3
147 26 2599 UTILtTY HPU 17 2005 4
47 21 2852 CONTRACTORHPC 16 3184 4
500 2
197 9
4185 31 8064 l
l.
- l. _!
l_
1 I_!
E. _ !
I I
SUITOT/NORKERS HPN 47 11 4
0 16 0
0 78 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 8050 760 328 0
4379 0
0 13517 SUPERVISORY STATION $$
3 380 1
10 4
390 UTILITY SU 1
80 1
40 CONTRACTOR SC 3
152 3
152 1
.l._l I
I
!.. -.I
.l 3 _l
_.l SUITOT/ DOSE 50 572 10 0
0 0
0 0
582 ENGINEERING STATION ES 1
40 7
1957 8
1997 UTILITY EU l
8 i
B CCNTRACTOR EC 7
3500 12 2550 19 6130
..l 3-l II l._ !
l l-l l.
l._!
SutTOT/uGREERS EN 8
20 0
0 0
0 0
28 SUITOT/ DOSE ED 3620 4415 0
0 0
0 0
8035 I.I_.I_
!_.l
- l. _l I
l l.
l.
I...
3 l
....! _ l TOTAL WOMERS Tu 228 62 55 0
17 0
0 362 PERSON-REM PR 39018 7564 24993 0
4403 0
0 76764 Rim Cut (90% of Dose)
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P.19b POSIIHIEN SY MAJW PROJECT PER NRK CATEBORY ANO BY EMPL PROJECT P STDft GEletATR RELATD UNK tulRI-ISI) FM YEAR ANO WIT SPECIFIEll 1992 UII ACTIVITY A S/S M006 _ MAJOR S/6 IIOZILE DANI SLUS6E DECW (3,4)
(CATEEORY NO.)
(4)
REPAIRS (3,4) (3,4)
LANCING (4)
WRLT POS/ElFL P/E I wee I
wee 4
won 4
wee I
roe 0
wee I
wee SUIT 0TALS I
T CINTENANCE STAi!ON n$
6 223 15 1351 9
2587 1
40 3
263 34 4464 UTILITY MU 6
170 17 647 90 19978 17 979 120 21674 CONTRACTOR RC 141 25942 2
177 96 87411 239 113530 SUITOT/WONEDS M 153 34 185 1
20 0
0 393 Sulf 07/ DOSE MD 26333 2175 109076 40 1242 0
0 139668 OPDAi!ONE STATION OS 6
51 3
203 6
634 15 800 UTILITY OU 4
55 4
76 1
16 2
70 11 217 ColliRACTOR OC 12 1326 17 5512 29 6838
.i _
i SUITOT/uGRKERS OW 22 7
24 0
2 0
0 55
$UITOT/ DOSE GD 1432 279 6162 0
70 0
0 7943 HDLTH PHYSICS STAi!ON HPS 1
19 4
238 1
35 1
94 1
20 8
406 UTILITY HPU 2
12 2
12 CONTRACTOR HPC 3
33 25 4704 7
398 12 770 47 5905 SU8 TOT / WORKERS HPW I
7 28 8
13 0
0 57 Sulf 0T/00SE HP0 19 271 4751 492 790 0
0 6323 SUPOVISORY STATION SS 1
29 2
43 1
17 4
89 UilLITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 4
86 1
390 2
67 1
20 8
563
!_.!_l_I l._
_I 3
SUITOT/uGRKERS SW 5
3 3
0 1
0 0
12 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 115 433 84 0
20 0
0 652 DGINEDING STATION ES 3
359 3
430 1
222 2
58 9
1069 UTILITY EU 2
106 2
1229 4
1334 CONTRACTOR EC 4
34 3
920 37 4187 29 4297 73 9430 l
I L.l
_I -
3
_I l
3._ !
I
-I SUITOT/uORsERS Eu 9
6 40 31 0
0 0
86 SUITOT/ DOSE EO 499 1350 5637 4355 0
0 0
!!841 l
l.
l
_l
- 1. _
I!
l f
I _.i TOTAL WOM ERS TW 190 57 290 40 36 0
0 603 PDSON-RD PR 28400 4506 126510 4887 2122 0
0 166427
CALV0tfCLIF'SN.P.P.19kPDSolHIERBYMAJORPROJECTPERNORKCATEGORYAWBYEROYEEJOBF PROJECT P INSERVICE INEPECTIONS OF STEAR 60GATORS ANO SELECTD Cor0NENTS FOR YEA ACTIVITY A DIY CURABEL INEPECT SEC. INSPECT HANO RISC. ISI MISC. ISI (CATEGORY No.)
TESTING S/6 SIDE (3,4) HOLES /MANNAYS WORK (2,3,4) WORK (2,3,4)
(3,4)
(3) welds iTRS/ER P/E I aree I
wee I
ree e
ree I
eres e
ree e
ree SUIT 0TALS
't MINTDIANCE STATIOll MS 6
2700 1
75 45 2017 52 4792 UTILITY IRI 106 47728 1
10 299 21114 406 68052 CollTRACTOR MC 10 1486 125 8669 135 10155 SUITOT/uGRK D S Mil 122 2
0 0
0 449 0
593 SUITUT/ DOSE MD 51914 85 0
0 0
31900 0
83799 QPGATIONS STAT 10ll OS 6
373 12 642 18 1015 UTILITY OU 2
122 13 208 15 330 7
29 7
29 CONTRACTOR OC 1
I I
SUITOT/ DOSE 00 495 0
0 0
0 879 0
1374 HEALTH PHYSICS STAil0N HPS 2
31 3
80 5
UTILITY HPU 3
94 11 216 14 310 CONTRACTOR HPC 17 1528 1
20 18 1548 1,,,
-l l
l
-I SUBTOT/Il0RKERS HPW 22 0
0 0
0 15 0
37 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 1653 0
0 0
0 316 0
1969
$UPERV!SORY 1
18 STAT!DN SS 1
18 8
1 8
UTILITY SU 4
1 4
CONTRACTOR SC SUITOT/uGRKBS SW 1
0 0
0 0
2 0
3 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 18 0
0 0
0 12 0
30 DIGINEHIM STATI0li ES 4
306 1
60 6
441 11 807 0
0 l
UTILITY EU l
CONTRACTOR EC 9
2243 3
910 10 1009 22 4162 g
-I SUITOT/ DOSE D
2549 970 0
0 0
1450 0
4969
-I
-I I.
I PERSON-RG PR 56429 1055 0
0 0
34457 0
92141 l
l L
~
CALVHT CLIFFS N.P.P.19.b rDSM-RER BY RNOR PROJECT PG NME CATGORY AND BY PROJECT P INSERVICE IIEPECT!WE lF STEM 60EMTORS AND SELECfD COW 9ENTS FOR YEAR ANI WIT SPECIFID 1982 UI!
ACTIVITY A D DY CW RENT _lNSPECT SEC. INSPECT HAS MISC. ISI MISC. !$1 (CATEGORY NO.)
TESTINE S/E SIDE (3,4) NOLES/MANAYS WORK (2,3,4) NORK (2,3,4)
(3,4)
(3) weids POS/EWL P/E !
wee I
wee I
wee 3
wee 3
wee s
wee e
wee SUIT 0TALS l'
CINTDANCE STATI M MS 5
245 2
77 39 2009 46 3131 L'TILITY W 30 2537 1
15 143 8%8 174 10620 CONTRACTOR MC 30 1059 30 1059 SUITOT/uGRKERS W 35 3
0 0
0 212 0
250 SUITOT/ DOSE MD 2782 92 0
0 0
11934 0
14810 OPDATIONS STATION DS 3
337 1
100 73 3847 77 4304 UTILITY 00 9
371 1
15 12 403 22 789 CONTRACTOR OC 27 2091 27 2091 SUETOT/uGRKERS ON 12 2
0 0
0 112 0
126 SUBTOT/ DOSE OD 708
!!5 0
0 0
6341 0
7184 HEALTHPHYSICS STATICN WS 4
158 3
22B 7
386 UTILITY HPU 1
1 2
690 3
691 CONTRACTOR HPC 16 1410 1
8 5
200 22 1618
~ ' ~ ~ ~
~
SUBTOT/uGRK B S HPN 21 4
0 0
0 7
0 32 i
SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 1569 234 0
0 0
890 0
2695 I
SUPERVISORY STATION SS 2
150 8
539 10 689 UTILITY SU 1
15 1
15 CONTRACTOR SC 2
180 1
390 1
13 4
583 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 330 390 0
0 0
567 0
1287 D61NEERING l
STATION ES 1
80 2
350 9
558 12 988 l
UTILITY EU 1
190 6
137 7
327 CONTRACTOR EC 4
1690 3
920 4
110 2720 l_
l
-I l _. __ l l
I SUITOT/ DOSE D
1960 1270 0
0 0
805 0
4035 l
I __ l _.! __ I 1
PDSON-RG PR 7349 2103 0
0 0
20559 0
30011 1
CALVRT CLIFFS N.P.P.19k PDSON-REM BY MJW Plt 0 JECT PG MORK CATGORY AND BY D Plt 0 JECT P STANIARS REPWT FOR PUtSONEL NITH EREATR TlWI IM was 1983 REFLELINE DUTAGE UI INCLUDG ACTIVITY A R OP & SWV 110UT MINT INEERV INSP SPEC MINT hASTEPROC REFUELINE lCAftEORY NO.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
PDtS/DFL PIE I wee 3
wee I
wee
,I wee I
wee 4
wee I
wee SUITOTALS MINTEMKCI STAT! W MS 4
1107 9
1347 16 2996 205 14637?
2 302 44 21721 282 173852 UTILITY M 33 6251 159 138140 2
365 16 3832 210 148588 CONTRACTOR MC 4
55' 127 53942 7
2241 2
554 143 57299 l_,1 SUBTOT/INNIKDt3 INI 4
9 53 491 11 64 0
632 SWTOT/ DOSE MO
!!O7 1347 9799 338461 2900 26107 0
379729 OPDATIONS STATION OS 16 2390 1
222 80 42179 1
112 6
1003 104 45906 UTILITY 00 3
1096 1
247 4
1343 CONTMCTOR OC 2
413 10 3493 12 3906 l
SUITOT/MORKDtS ON 16 1
2 93 1
7 0_
120 SUBTOT/ DOSE OD 2390 222 413 46768 112 1250 0
51155 I
HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 3
417 2376 1
237 59 439"!
24 13885 2
453 93 61319 6
1887 2
254 8
2141 UTILIT) HPU 69 34029 34 18756 7
!!69 110 53954 CONTRACTOR HPC l
1 SU8 TOT /uGRKERSIfW 3
4 1
134 60 9
0 211 SUilTOT/ DOSE HPS 417 2376 237 79867 32995 1622 0
117414 l
SUPERVISORY l
STATION SS 1
165 6050 1
345 13 6560 6
6149 6
6149 UTILITY SU 6
3673 3673 CONTRACTOR SC l
-l l
i
-l SUITOT/WGtKERS Su 0
0 1
23 0
1 0
25 SUITOT/ DOSE SD 0
0 165 15872 0
345 0
16382 ENEINEDING 28 16516 STAT!DN E3 2
345 1
1328 2
438 23 14405 4
796 4
796 UTILITY EU I
CONTRACTOR EC 2
472 20 7077 2
236 24 7785 i
SUITOT/WORKDtS EM 2
1 4
47 0
2 0
56 SUITOT/ DOSE D
345 1329 910 22278 0
236 0
25097
_I 1
TOTAL WORKERS TU 25 15 61 788 72 83 0
1044 PERSON-REM PR 4259 5273 11524 503246 35915 29560 0
589777 l
~
I l
CALVERT CLIFFS N.P.P.19$ PERSON-REN SY MAJOR PROJECT PER NORK CATE60RY ANS SY EFLO PROJECT PR VESSEL ANS C00UWT PurS, STEAM SOERATOR ANS IS! NORK PLUS RAD SAFETY UNIT COVERAGE FOR UNIT NOTES ACTIVITY A RU!
II: U !!
RCP U !
RCP U !! S/6 U ! S/6 U !!
151 U !
151U!! RAS CON 1983 RAS SUPP ALARA SUPP YEAR PERS/EMPL P/E wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee SU8 TOTAL MINTEMNCE STATION R$
41545 11031 23819 4168 249 00812 UTILITY NU 11751 5510 139447 9470 1187 167345 CONTRACTOR NC 3356 2529 23491 1583 911 31870 l
SU8 TOT / DOSE MD 56652 0
19070 0
186757 0
15221 0
2347 280047 OPERATIONS STATION OS 1772 1880 2913 2624 9189 UTILITY 00 9
61 2
72 CONTRACTOR OC 18 421 332 7
778 SU8 TOT / DOSE 1799 0
1941 0
3334 0
332 0
2655' 10039 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 2404 1206 3266 81 42186 49143 UTILITY WU 279 164 114 3
2148 2708 CONTRACTOR HPC 6750 2546 7061 174 27555 44086 l
SUBTOT/ DOSE HPD 9433 0
3916 0
10441 0
258 0
71889 95937 SUPERVISORY STATION SS 1098 160 4235 275 122 5890 UTILITY SU 2
7256 42 7300 CONTRACTOR SC 33 3034 3067 l
- 1. _,,,_ :,,,
1.,
l l
l SU8 TOT / DOSE SD 1133 0
160 0
14525 0
317 0
122 16257 ENGINEERINE STATION ES 245 52 13924 139 8
14368 UTILITY EU 61 76 1965 2102 CONTRACTOR EC 151 7209 527 7887 l
SU8 TOT / DOSE ED 306 0
279 0
23098 0
666 0
8 24357 PERSON-REM PR 69323 0
25366 0
238155 0
16794 0
76999 426637
C E YERT CLIFFS N.P.P. 19 M PERSON-R G BY MAJOR PROJECT PER W CATE60RY AND BY E!FLOYEE JOB F PROJECT P REFUELING RELATED FUNCTIONS FOR YEAR ANO UNIT SPECIFIED 1983 UI ACTIVITY A Rs E AR 83 STUS M POOL SE E ICI / INCORE NEUTRON MATO RFP 6 CTRT CRANE M (CATEM NO.)
DIS /REASSN (3,4,6)
M (3,4,6) INSTRUM M SHIELD (4,6) DECON (4,5,6) (2,4)
(4,6)
(2,4,6)
PERS/DFL P/E I wee I
wee I
wu 8
wee I
wee 4
wee I
wee SUIT 0TES l_ i __ l l
l CINTENANCE STATION MS 97 14883 20 3612 96 13388 37 8423 1
103 55 1136 306 41545 UTILITY MU 45 4969 5
535 37 5113 7
526 2
32 23 576 119 11751 CONTRACTOR NC 2
219 1
200 6
693 3
139 11 2078 2
27 25 3356 SUOTOT/ WORKERS N 144 0
26 139 47 14 80 450 SUITOT/ DOSE MD 20071 0
4347 19194 9088 2213 1739 56652 OPBATIONS STATION OS 27 1014 1
39 11 568 2
128 3
23 44 1772 UTILITY OU 1
9 1
9 CONTRACTOR OC 2
18 2
18 l
SUITOT/ M ERS OW 27 0
1 12 2
0 5
47 SUITOT/001E 00 1014 0
39 577 128 0
41 1799 EETH PHYSICS STATIONHPS 8
305 7
294 4
525 12 1280 31 2404 UTILITY HPU 1
5 1
8 1
62 3
204 6
279 CONTRACTOR HPC 8
830 11 531 12 1000 30 4389 61 6750 SUBTOT/u0RKERS HPW 17 0
0 19 17 45 0
98 SUBTOT/COSE HPD 1140 0
0 833 1587 5873 0
9433 SUPERVISORY STATION SS 7
936 1
122 3
32 1
8 12 1098 UTILITY SU 1
2 2
CONTRACTOR SC 2
33 2
33
- l l
l SUITUT/ M ERS Su 9
1 3
0 0
2 15 0
SBTOT/ DOSE 50 969 0
122 32 0
0 10
!!33 EN61NEERING STATION ES 8
170 1
5 1
45 2
25 12 245 UTILITY EU 2
61 2
61 CONTRACTOR EC 0
0 l_
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
SUITOT/ WORKERS EW 10 0
0 1
1 0
2 14 SWTOT/ DOSE ED 231 0
0 5
45 0
25 306 l :
TOTAL M ERS TW 207 0_
28 174 67 59 89 624 PERSON-REM PR 23425 0
4508 20641 10848 8084 1815 69323
CALVDtf CLIFFS N.P.P.19N PER$0HER BY MAJOR PROJECT PER MORK CATE60RY ANS BY PROJECT P MORK RELATU TO REACTM COOLANT PUWS 6 SEALS FOR YEAR ANI WIT SPECIFID 1983 UI ACTIVITY A RCP SEAL RCP MOTOR RCP STUI WORK DECON/ SHIELD MISC. RCP (CATEGORYNO.)
REPLACDENT _uGRK (2,4)
(4)
FOR RCPsf4,5) m (2,41 (2,4) two PDS/EWL P/E I wee I
wee 4
wee I
wee I
wee I
wee I
wee SUITOTALS i
MAINTENANCE STATION MS 36 7272 3
72 46 3687 85 11031 UTILITY MU 7
860 16 3956 2
137 11 557 36 5510 CONTRACTOR MC 15 2417 2
112 17 2529 i
SUITOT/uGRKERS MN 43 19 0
17 59 0
0 138 SUITOT/ DOSE NO B132 4028 0
2554 4356 0
0 19070 OPERATIONS STATION OS 6
837 1
360 1
92 6
591 14 1980 UTILITY OU 2
61 2
61 CONTRACTOR OC 0
0 SUITOT/ E KERS OW 6
1 0
1 8
0 0
16
$UITOT/ DOSE 00 937 360 0
92 652 0
0 1941 HEALTH PHYSICS STATION HPS 8
238 9
611 9
357 26 1206 UTILITY HPU 2
79 2
85 4
164 CONTRACTOR HPC 14 872 15 1674 29 2546 l
SUBTOT/ WORKERS HPW 24 0
0 26 9
0 0
59 SUITUT/ DOSE HPD
!!B9 0
0 2370 357 0
0 3916
$UPERVISORY STATION SS 1
80 1
65 1
15 3
160 UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC 0
0 SUITOT/ WORKERS SW 1
1 0
0 1
0 0
3 SUBTOT/ DOSE SD 80 65 0
0 15 0
0 160 DEINEERING STATION ES 1
10 1
42 2
52 UTILITY EU 2
76 2
76 CONTRACTOR EC 1
151 1
151 1
l l
SUITOT/uGRKERS EW I
1 0
1 2
0 0
5 l
SUITUT/ DOSE ED 10 151 0
42 76 0
0 279 I
TOTAL WORKERS 75 22 0
45 E9 0
0 221
~
PERSON-RG PR 10248 4604 0
5058 5456 0
0 25366 l
i
CALVERTCLIFFSN.P.P.19kPERSON-REMBYMAJORPROJECTPERNORKCATE60RYANDBYElFLOYEEJOBFUNCT PROJECT P STEAll SDERATOR RELATD WORK (191-ISI) FOR YEAR ANIP UNIT SPECIFID 1983 UI ACTIVITY A S/6 M005 MAJOR S/6 N0ZILE DAMS SLbDGE DECOM (3,4)
(CATEGORYNo.)
(4)
' REPAIRS (3,4) 13,4)
LANCINE (4) debris removal PDS/ElFL P/E 8 wee t
wee i
wee I
wee I
wee I
wee I
wee SUIT 0TALS l
l MINTEllANCE STATION MS 51 B669 11 4M5 36 9727 12 758
!!0 23819 UTILITY llu 5
til 40 1837 211 136977 9
522 265 139447 CONTRACTOR MC 9
256 3
510 33 5361 40 17364 85 23491 1,,,:
SUITOT/ WORKERS INI 65 54 280 61 0
0 0
460 SUITOT/ DOSE RO 9036 7012 152065 18644 0
0 0
186757 OPDATIONS STAT!DN OS 5
569 12 2075 6
220 2
49 25 2913 UTILITY OU 0
0 CONTRACTOR OC 2
104 4
317 6
421
,,_,1 SUITOT/ WORKERS OW 7
12 10 2
0 0
0 31 SUITOT/ DOSE OD 673 2075 537 49 0
0 0
3334 HEALTH PHYSICS STAT!DilHPS 3
780 7
668 10 1466 6
352 26 3266 UTILITY HPU 2
114 2
114 CONTRACTOR HPC 3
569 4
254 33 3847 9
2391 49 7061 im 1._
SUBTOT/ WORKERS HPW 6
11 45 15 0
0 0
77 SUITOT/ DOSE HPD 1349 922 5427 2743 0
0 0
10441 SUPERVISORY STAT!0ll SS 7
53 2
60 6
4122 15 4235 UTILITY SU 1
2 10 7254 11 7256 CONTRACTOR SC 3
1393 2
610 5
1031 10 3034 SUBTOT/ WORKERS SW 10 5
21 0
0 0
0 36 SUBTOT/ DOSE SD 1446 672 12407 0
0 0
0 14525 ENGINEERING STATION ES 5
1735 20 9840 5
1786 5
563 35 13924 UTILITY EU 2
170 6
1795 8
1965 CallTRACTOR EC 5
3989 1
320 14 2900 20 7209 SUBTOT/ WORKERS EW 10 23 25 5
0 0
0 63 SUITOT/ DOSE ED 5724 10330 6481 563 0
0 0
2!098 TOTAL WORKERS Tu 98 105 381 83 0
0 0
667 PERSON-REM PR 19228 21011 176917 21999 0
0 0
238155 WRLT (53%)
2 tubes (47%)
CEVERT CLIFFS N.P.P.19k PERSON-RD BY MAJOR PROJECT PU NORK CATEGORY AND BY EM PROJECT P INSERVICE INSPECTIONS OF STEAR GD ERATORS AND SELECTED COMPONENTS FOR YEAR ANS 1963 UI ACTIVITY A DOY CURRENL INSPECT SEC. INSPECT HAND MISC. ISI MISC. ISI (CATEGORY NO.)
TESTING S/6 SIDE 13,4) HOLES /MANu4YS WORK (2,3,4) NORK (2,3,4)
(3,4)
(3) welds PUS /EIFL P/E 4 wee I
res 8
wee, I wee 8
wee I
wee i
ree SUIT 0TES I
MAINTENANCE STATION MS 35 3159 13 423 11 586 59 4!68 ~
UTILITY MU 46 5113 41 2014 36 2343 123 9470 CONTRACTOR MC 19 851 15 349 8
383 42 1583 l
l i
SUITOT/WORKUS MW 100 0
69 0
0 55 0
224 SUITUT/ DOSE R8 9123 0
2786 0
0 3312 0
15221 OPDATIONS 0
0 STATION OS 0
0 UTILITY 00 CONTRACTOR OC 1
276 1
46 1
10 3
332 SUITOT/ WORKERS Ot 1
0 1
0 0
1 0
3 SUBTOT/ DOSE 00 276 0
46 0
0 10 0
332 HEETH PHYSICS 3
81 STATIONHPS 3
81 UTILITY HPU 1
3 1
3 5
174 CONTRACTOR HPC 5
174 SUITOT/uGRKERS HPW 8
0 1
0 0
0 0
9 SUBTOT/ DOSE HPD 255 0
3 0
0 0
0 25B SUPERVISORY STATION SS 2
75 1
200 3
275 1
42 1
42 UTILITY SU 0
0 CONTRACTOR SC SulTOT/43RKERS Su 2
0 0
0 0
2 0
4 l
0 0
0 242 0
317 1
D61NEERIM6 6
139 STATION ES 4
110 2
29 0
0 UTILITY EU CONTRACTOR EC 2
182 2
63 2
2S2 6
527 l
SUBTOT/ WORKERS EN 6
0 4
0 0
2 0
12 l
SUITOT/ DOSE ED 292 0
92 0
0 282 0
666 t
. __.i TOTAL WORKERS TW 117 0
75 0
0 60 0
252 PERSON-PEN PR 10021 0
2927 0
0 3846 0
16794 1
l t
CCI-809A
-r - Q-8k CALVERT CLIFFS INSTRUCTION 809A ALARA PROGRAM
REFERENCES:
(1)
Regulatory Guide 8.3 -Information relevant ta ensuring that occupational exposures at Nuclear Power Plants will be as low as reasonably achievable. Rev. - 3, 6/73.
(2)
Regulatory Guide 3.10 " Operational Philosophy for Maintaining Occupational Radiation Exposures As Low As Reasonably Achievable." Rev. - 1,9/75.
(3)
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Strndards for Protection Against Radiation. 1979.
(4)
Draft - NUREG-0761 - Radiation Protection Plans for Nuclear Power Reactor License.
ATTACHMENTS: (1)
ALARA Suggestion Program-Suggestion Form (2)
ALARA Suggestion Program-Suggestion Log (3)
ALARA Suggestion Program-Suggestion Worksheet (4)
List of Effective Pages L
INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Calvert Cliffs ALARA Program is to aid and direct efforts relating to maintaining personnel exposure to radiation and radioactive material at Calvert Cliffs As Low As Reasonably Achievable - ALARA.
II.
CANCELLATION This CCI cancels and supersedes CCI-809 dated August 21, 1931.
IIL RESPONSIBILITIES A.
Manager-Nuclear Power The Manager-Nuclear Power has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that personnel exposure at Calvert Cliffs is maintained ALARA. The Manager - Nuclear Power will approve all ALARA reviews for jobs estimated to exceed 75 person-rem.
e CCI-809A ~
Page 2 B.
General Supervisor-Radiation Safety (GSRS)
The GSRS is responsible for administering and reviewing the ALARA program on the staff level. The GSRS will approve all ALARA reviews for jobs estimated to exceed 50 person-rem.
C.
Supervisor-Radiation Control (SRC)
The SRC is responsible for administering and reviewing the ALARA program at the line supervision level. The SRC will approve all ALARA reviews for jobs estimated to exceed 25 person-rem.
D.
Radiation Control Unit /ALARA The Radiation Control Unit /ALARA is responsible for administering and reviewing the ALARA program at the implementation level. The SRC will assign a Radiation Control Shift Supervisor (RCSS) and an ALARA Coordinator (A/C) to provide the necessary direction and supervision for implementing the ALARA program. The i/C will approve all ALARA reviews.
E.
Radiological Support Unit (RSU)
The Radiological Support Unit is respo,sible for providing the necessary resources such as materials, equipment, and manpower to support the implementation of ALARA action requirements.
IV.
SPECIFICATIONS AND DEFINITIONS A.
Exposure Estimate -is a statement of the expected cost of a job in terms of total personnel radiation exposure as monitored by Self Reading Cosimeter (SRD). Exposures are estimated for each RWP and SWP, and may also be estimated for a specific period of time such as a refueling outage.
B.
Person-Rem Goal -is a commitment setting total personnei dose at a level high enough that it is reasonably attainable, yet low enough that a positive
i CCI-809A Page 3 effort must be put forth by all radiation workers in order to achieve the goal. Person-rem goals are based on the analysis of past performance, factoring in lessons learned, and predicated on future work schedules / scope. They are proposed by specific departments or sections for a specified time period in terms of total personnel dose by Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (TLD).
C.
ALARA review criteria:
1.
Whole body exposure for the job estimated to be greater than 3.0 person-rem.
2.
Work is to be performed in a general area exposure rate field greater than 1.0 R/h.
3.
All jobs requiring respiratory protection.
f+.
Any job or task specified by the ALARA Coordinator, the Radiation Control Shift Supervisor, or the Supervisor-Radiation Control.
7' D.
Types of written ALARA Reviews:
1.
ALARA Job Review - provides recommendations and requirements to minimize exposure for any RWP or SWP which meets the ALARA review criteria specified in section IV C of this procedure.
2.
ALARA Standard Review - provides recommendations and requirements for several similar jobs with low potential radiological hazards.
3.
ALARA Radiological Requirements (ARR) Review - provides detailed, step-by-step, requirements to minimize and control personnel i
l exposure for a single job of significant radiciogical concern.
I i
e CCI-809A Page 4 V.
CONDUCT OF ALARA REVIEWS A.
Job / Task Origination It is the responsibility of the lead unit performing the job to provide the required information necessary for the Radiation Control Unit to evaluate and determine the need for ALARA action. It is essential that accurate information such as man-hours at the actual job site, location of the job, and job description are provided so that person-rem estimations and ALARA actions can be properly assessed and implemented.
B.
Radiation Control Unit /ALARA The Radiation Control Unit /ALARA, upon receipt of a RWP or SWP request, will evaluate the job and determine the need for ALARA action.
The A/C will make use of any available surveys, maintenance procedures, previous reviews for similar jobs, and work experience to determine i
ALARA recommendations and requirements. The A/C will consid'er radiological engineering techniques to significantly reduce total job exposure, to eliminate need for respiratory protection, to control surface and airborne contamination, and to reduce the amount of radioactive waste generated. A cost versus benefit approach will se utilized to decide wnat ALARA actions should be taken. Both the personnel exposure and monetary aspects of costs and benefits will be analyzed. For the purpose of the cost / benefit analysis, a value of $3,000 per person-rem will be used. The A/C will routinely review the progress and status of high exposure jobs to identify unforseen circumstances causing an increase in personnel exposure for the job, and to eliminate or reduce the effect of such circumstances. The A/C will determine the requirements for post-job review to obtain historical data for use in future reviews for similar jobs.
CCI-809A Page 5 Copies of each ALARA review will be forwarded to the responsible units 2
for notification, reference, etc. as deemed necessary by the A/C.
C.
Radioloalcal Support Unit The Operational Maintenance Assistance Radiological Team (OMAR) will implement the actions previously determined by the Radiation Control Unit /ALARA. The specific details of implementing ALARA actions will be coordinated between the work unit performing the job, the Radiation Control Unit, and the Radiological Support Unit by the RCSS and/or A/C.
D.
Responsible Unit / Group Performin2 Job / Task The responsible unit or group supervisor performing the job will ensure that his personnel attend the pre-job briefing, if required, on the ALARA requirements being implemented, and the importance of maintaining exposure ALARA.
VL REPORTS The A/C will periodically provide written reports to plant supervision on current status and effectiveness of the ALARA Program.
VII.
PERSON-REM GOALS A.
Department managers will select an appropriate person-rem goal for their personnel for the upcoming year. The goals from all departments will be totalled to arrive at the Annual Person-rem Goal for Calvert Cliffs. The Annual Person-rem Goal will be approved by Corporate Management.
B.
Radiation Control Unit - ALARA, upon request, will make available to department managers dose information from previous years for sections and work units in their departments.
C.
Person-rem Goals for vendor and contractor companies will be selected by the manager responsible for their activities at Calvert Cliffs.
CCI-809A Page 6 VIH. ALARA SUGGESTION PROGRAM Successfulimplementation of the ALARA philosophy requires the strong and overt support of Management. To be effective, the ALARA program requires the involvement of radiation workers. In many instances, the workers are the first to recognize radiological conditions which may benefit from certain ALARA actions that could be taken during subsequent, similar tasks.
A.
ALARA Suggestion Origination Any radiation worker may submit an ALARA action suggestion by writing it in the ORIGINATOR section of an ALARA Suggestion Program - Suggestion Form (Attachment 1). The suggestion should be signed by the originator to a!!ow the Radiation Control Unit /ALARA to provide a direct response, whether or not the suggestion is accepted / implemented. The Suggestion Form should then be forwarded via the originators supervisor to the Radiation Control Unit /ALARA.
B.
ALARA Suggestion Review When received, the suggestion will be !cgged and assigned the next sequential serial number from the ALARA Suggestion Program - Suggestion Log (Attachment 2). The A/C will review each suggestion using the ALARA Suggestion Program - Suggestion Worksheet (Attachment 3) as a guideline for a cost versus benefit analysis. Based on the analysis, the A/C will recommend that the suggestion De accepted or rejected, complete the ALARA section of the Suggestion Form, and forward the Suggestion Form, and Worksheet if applicable, to the SRC for disposition. A copy of the Suggestion Form wi!! be maintained with the Suggestion Log by the Radiation Control Unit /ALARA.
CCI-809A Page 7 C.
ALARA Suggestion Disposition 1.
If a suggestion is recommended by the A/C to be accepted, then it is reviewed by the SRC and GSRS for approval. The Disposition section of the Suggestion form will be signed by the SRC and the GSRS a' d n
returned to the A/C for implementation.
2.
If a suggestion is recommended for rejection by the A/C, then the basis for rejection will be written in the ALARA section of the Suggestion Form, the SRC will review the Suggestion Form and sign the Disposition section, and the Suggestion Form will be returned to the originator.
3.
The originators of all suggestions will receive a reply to their suggestion via the SRC, and the GSRS as applicable.
IX.
RECORDS A.
ALARA Program records generated by use of RSP-1-115 will be maintained along with Radiation Safety Records in accordance with CCI-807
" Radiation Safety Records Management."
4 B.
ALARA Suggestion Program records will be maintained in the Radiation Control Unit office for a period of two years.
Meets Quality Assurance Requirements SUBMITTED:
/
E[
!,hf dM--
7
'- s GSOQK POSRC:
N-86 l
APPROVED:
)
uAull Plant Superintendent Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant l
l l
r i
CCI-809A ATTACHMENT (1)
ALARA SUGGESTION PROGRAM SUGGESTION FORM I.
ORIGINATOR ASP #
(Assigned by ALARA)
SUGGESTION:
(Use additional sheets if necessary)
/
ORIGINATOR DATE TIME NOTED:
/
SUPERVISOR DATE TIME II.
ALARA RECEIVED:
/
DATE TIME A/C INT A/C COMMENTS / RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMEND:
ACCEPT RE3ECT
/
ALARA COORDINATOR DATE TIME j
III.
DISPOSITION SRC:
IMPLEMENT GSRS:
IMPLEMENT REJECT REJECT FORWARDED TO GSRS i
SRC REVIEWED DATE GSRS REVIEWED DATE l
l
y
)
'l CCI-809A ATTACitMENT (2)
ALARA SUGGESTION PROGRAM SUGGliSTION LOG SEltlALA tiltlEl DESCillPTR)N ItECOMMENDATION DISPOSITION COMMENTS N___-_
Sh8 W&.W N#'* 6 6 N6 aump pe mume enume e M me. gemmm.pr g
4=gt eeram e e g 6T emmero smM e@emo gy-ee e me m me e w ea www eeg N**e
- supuse-me-duu>d ammuu 6 MNW.E666_
--mW@
eswage--
Mwe 6-wwsh erww M e 6. m m e g e+e e go.ee*gm h-M.im e MqiwWh a.meP-augemi u W wm me pe NM&M 9666m, M5eG 4OON.GPe&W
_ h6
. pm 6 g-Sg um sh e &
w g NWW yee e me w ee m e 9
u, 6
6ee e--
4Sume a4 m'@=
m-m.
e ew se
,em 6 W-4
+
em>a' 9m M6m r5eem
- Deme W
- w-
,eWigW-.
CCI-809A ATTACHMENT (3) e ALARA SUGGESTION PROGRAM SUGGESTION WORKSHEET ASP #
'I:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SUGGESTIO'N:
ESTIMATED PERSON REM PREVENTED IN A 5 YEAR PERIOD:
COST ANALYSIS EST MONETARY IMPLEMENTATION COST EST DOSE IMPLEMENTATION COST (MILLIREM X 3)
BENEFIT ANALYSIS EST MONETARY SAVINGS DUE TO REDUCTION IN WORKTIME EST \\tONETARY SAVINGS DUE TO PERSON-REM REDUCTION (MILLIREM X 3)
EST MONETARY SAVINGS DUE TO RAD WASTE REDUCTION GROUP (S) AFFECTED BY SUGGESTION:
ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS OF SUGGESTION?:
ANY BENEFITS OF SUGGESTION NOT PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED?:
3 J
ALARA COORDINATOR DATE
CALVERT CUPPS RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP g_gg3 Page g
ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O Nuclear Power Ptant 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to standardize and detail the functions of the ALARA group and to analyze the effectiveness of the program designed to maintain personnel exposures as low as reasonably achievable. This procedure details the various review and analytic functions performed by the Radiation Control Unit's ALARA group. Radiation Work Permits (RWP) and Special Work Permits (SWP), which exceed ALARA action guidelines, are reviewed and data from several sources is analyzed to determine what, if any, ALARA action is warranted.
2.0 REFERENCES
2.1 CCI-800,"Calvert Cliffs Radiation Safety Manual" 2.2 CCI-809,"ALARA Program" 2.3 Radiation Safety Procedures - Series 1, 2, and 3 3.0 SPECIFICATIONS AND DEFINITIONS 3.1 ALARA Job Review - provides recommendations and requirements to minimize exposure for any RWP or SWP which meets guidelines specified in Section 3.9 of this procedure.
3.2 ALARA Standard Review - provides recommendations and requirements for several similar jobs with low potential radiological hazards.
3.3 ALARA Radiological Requirements (ARR) Review - provides detailed, step-by-step, requirements to minimize and control personnel exposure for a single job of significant radiological concern.
l 3.4 Estimated Exposure Prevented (EEP) - is an estimated exposure that personnel l
did not receive on a job due to specific ALARA actions performed in conjunction with the job.
CALVERT CUFFS RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP g,gg3 Page 2
ALARA PROCEDURE g
0
.ce..,
, pi.
3.5 Option 6 - is a report from the Dosimetry Unit titled "Calvert Cliffs Man-Rem Range by Work Code." This report is divided into two (2) categories, " Work Code" and " Job Code."
3.5.1 Work Code - divides total dose among the following groups:
Welder Carpenter Electrician Instrument and Control Technician i
l HP - Technician Piping / Iron OMAR Rad-Waste Handling Laborer Chemistry Engineer Adminstration QA/QC Mechanical l
l Security ISI Power Plant Operators 3.5.2 Job Code - divides total dose between Plant, Utility, and Contractor workers in the following groups:
Maintenance Operating
RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP l-115 Page 3
ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O u.ci.. po-m.n Health Physics Supervisory Engineering 3.6 Organizational Radiation Exposure Summary Report - is a report provided by the Dosimetry Unit that divides total dose among all the groups or units working at Calvert Cliffs.
3.7 Exposure Estimate - is a statement of the expected cost of a job in terms of total personnel radiation exposure as monitored by Self Reading Dosimeter (SRD).
Exposures are estimated for each RWP and SWP, and may also be estimated for a specific period of time such as a refueling outage.
3.8 Person-Rem Goal - is a commitment setting total personnel dose at a level high enough that it is reasonably attainable, yet low enough such that a positive I
effort must be put forth by all radiation workers in order to achieve the goal.
Person-Rem Goals are based on the analysis of past performance, factoring in lessons learned, and predicated on future work schedules / scope. They are proposed by specific departments or sections for a specified time period in terms of total personnel dose by Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (TLD).
3.9 An ALARA review shall be performed for any job or task which meets any or all of the following:
3.9.1 Whole body exposure estimate greater than or equal to 3.0 person-rem.
3.9.2 Work to be performed in a general area exposure rate field greater than or equal to 1.0 R/h.
3.9.3 All jobs requiring the use of respiratory protection equipment.
l 3.9.4 Any job or task that is specified by the ALARA Coordinator, the Rad Con Shif t Supervisor, or the Supervisor of Radiation Control.
l (OBSERVE NOTE ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
CALVERT CLIFF 5 RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP 1 113 Page 4
ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O Nuclew Poww Mont
- NOTE -
A written ALARA review shall be performed on those jobs where ALARA can make recommen-dations or define actions that could:
eliminate the need for respiratory protection apply radiological engineering controls control surface and airborne contamination significantly reduce the total personnel exposure reduce the affect the job will have on surrounding work areas.
- NOTE -
If a written ALARA review will not be performed, the ALARA person making the evaluation will initial the ALARA review line on the SWP.
4.0 PRECAUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 4.1 Temporary shielding shall be installed and removed in accordance with RSP 2-216,"The Services of the Operational Maintenance Assistance Radiological Team (OMAR)." Engineering must perform a stress analysis on the following types of equipment before temporary shielding can be installed on the equipment:
4.1.1 Safety related piping and equipment.
4.1.2 Hangers supporting safety related piping and equipment.
4.1.3 Non safety related piping, hangers, or equipment that is located such that if the item supporting the shielding collapsed, damage could occur to a safety related component.
- NOTE -
A stress analysis is not required for installation of temporary shielding on safety related equipment if the shielding is independently supported by scaffolding or some other means.
CALVERT CUFFS RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP l 115 Page 5
A1. ARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O noci.., e.- eim 4.2 All written ALARA reviews shall be signed by the ALARA Coordinator (A/C).
4.2.1 The Supervisor-Radiation Control (SRC) will review and sign the ALARA reviews for all jobs with an exposure estimate greater than 25 person-rem.
4.2.2 The General Supervisor-Radiation Safety (GSRS) will review and sign the ALARA reviews for all jobs with an exposure estimate greater than 50 person-rem.
4.2.3 The Manager-Nuclear Power will review and sign the ALARA reviews for all jobs with an exposure estimate greater than 75 person-rem.
4.2.4 ALARA reviews may be signed by designated alternates when the responsible individual is absent.
5.0 PREREQUISITES 3.1 When possible, ALARA reviews will be based on actual radiological conditions vice estimates.
5.1.1 Air activity information should be from samples taken in the actual work location under conditions which approximate the work process.
5.1.2 Exposure / dose rate information should be obtained from surveys of the actual work location. Exposure rate information should not encompass a large range. For example, a general area exposure rate of "less than I to 100 mR/h" would be unacceptable.
5.1.3 Surface contamination information should be an average of smear results from the actual work location.
3.1.4 In the event that an ALARA review must be performed based on estimated radiological conditions, this fact must be noted on both the SWP and the review.
The job shall be reevaluated when actual
RADIAT!ON SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP l-115 Page 6
ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O u.es..,e.
,m radiological conditions are known. If the actual radiological conditions are significantly different than the estimated condition, the ALARA review shall be amended or rewritten as applicable.
5.2 Individuals performing ALARA reviews will be quallfled in accordance with applicable Radiation Safety Section procedures, and will be authorized by the SRC.
6.0 PROCEDURE 6.1 ALARA Reviews 6.1.1 The RCSS or Special Work Permit Coordinator (SWPC) will forward all RWP/SWP's requiring review to the Radiation Control Unit - ALARA Coordinator (A/C) in accordance with RSP l-106 "Special Work Permits."
A survey of the work area should be performed for RWP/SWP preparation and this survey shall be forwarded with the permit and/or "SWP/ALARA Review Request Form" (RSP l-106-3) to the A/C.
6.1.2 The A/C will make use of any available surveys, maintenance procedures, previous reviews for similar jobs, and work experience to
(
determine ALARA recommendations and requirements.
A cost versus benefit approach will be utilized to decide what ALARA actions should be taken. Both the personnel exposure and monetary aspects of costs and benefits will be analyzed. For the purpose of the cost / benefit analysis, a value of $3,000 per person-rem will be used.
RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP l-115 Page 7
ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O we.. p.
ei.m Form RSP l-115-1 will be used as a checklist of items / actions to be analyzed, but will not necessarily be the only ' items / actions analyzed. The emphasis of reviews will be on permanent actions as opposed to temporary. For example, consideration will be given to removal of sources rather than use of temporary shielding, and prevention of contamination rather than decontamination.
6.1.3 ALARA Job Review - This type of review will normally be used for unique jobs of significant radiological concern. Each job review will be for a single job, which may or may not be repeated, therefore this review could be used for a repetitive SWP or RWP after being amended, as needed, based on previous job history.
Form RSP l-115-1 "ALARA Review Form" will be used to list ALARA actions to be taken.
Form RSP 1-115-2 "ALARA Continuation Sheet" should be used to expound on the actions noted on RSP l-115-1. An ALARA serial number shall be assigned to each review from N "ALARA Review Index" Form RSP l-115-3 which is kept in the front of the File Index Log. Originals of all reviews, when completed, will be kept in chronological order in the File Index Log.
^
After the review is completed, the ALARA portion of the SWP shall be filled in.
The estimated person-rem for the job will be calculated and recorded on the SWP and on the "SWP Tracking Record"(RSP l-115-4).
CALVERT CUPPs RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP l-115 Page g
ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O Nuciem Poww Plant j
If OMAR action is required, an "OMAR Work Request" (RSP 2-216 f ) shall be completed. The SWP/RWP, a copy of the review, and the OMAR Work Request will be forwarded to the RCSS/SWPC. The RCSS/SWPC will complete the SWP and forward the OMAR Work Request to the OMAR Coordinator.
6.1.4 ALARA Standard Review - this type of review will be used for a variety of similar SWP's for which it is not feasible to employ special ALARA actions to reduce personnel exposure, nor eliminate the need for respiratory protection due to the nature of the work, or where the radiological hazards involved are minimal.
The review will be performed, written, and filed in the same manner as an ALARA Job review.
When an SWP is submitted for which an applicable standard review is in existence, the SWP number will be recorded on the "ALARA l
l Review Form." An "ALARA Review Amendment Form" will be used to add or delete recommendations or requirements for that specific SWP.
6.1.5 ALARA Radiological Requirements (ARR) Review - this type of review will be used for single jobs where radiological conditions are such that the best radiological controls and ALARA action can be accomplished by following a step-by-step plan for performing the job and interfacing Radiation Control coverage.
Forms RSP l-115-1 and RSP l-115-2 will be used to document the review. Each ARR review will be routed to all supervisors / work leaders for the groups that will be involved in the task to solicit their comments prior to finalizing the review.
CALVERT CLIPPS RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP l-115 Page 9
ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O Nuclear Power Ptont An ARR review will be written and filed in the same manner as an ALARA Job review. Attached and included in an ARR review will be a step-by-step plan for performing the job. The first section of the plan will explain the purpose of the plan. The second section will list precautions and prerequisites. The third section will list in order the actual steps to be performed, which may include reference to estab!!shed procedures.
6.1.6 ALARA Post Job Review Report - When a work permit is terminated the A/C will determine if a post-job review is necessary. If a post. job review is desired, an "ALARA Post-Job Review Report," Form RSP 1-115-5, will be completed. The serial number will be the same number used for the original review. The post-job review will be kept in the i
File Index Log with the original review when completed. The ALARA Post Job Review Report may be performed after the completion of the job. However, on long duration jobs, the ALARA Post Job Review Report process should start during the performance of the job. By soliciting information from the personnel involved in the job during the job, a better critique of the work process may be provided and adjustments can be made to the requirements. When the ALARA Post Job Review Report is to be performed will be determined by the A/C.
Post Job Review Reports will be reviewed by the A/C, SRC, GSRS, and Manager-Nuclear Power as app!! cable.
6.1.7 ALARA Requirements Inspection - The A/C will determine which jobs require an inspection. When an inspection is necessary, Form RSP 1-115-6, "ALARA Requirements Inspection," will be completed. The
_ _ _ ~
RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP l-115 Page 10 ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O men.=r.a non serial number will be the same number used for the original review.
The inspection report will be kept in the File Index Log with the original review. Copies may be circulated to the groups involved for review, training, and/or information.
6.1.8 The actual exposure for each permit will be compared with the estimate for that permit at least weekly. When it appears that the actual exposure has or may have exceeded the estimate, the job will be reviewed by the A/C.
If the A/C determines that the condition warrants further action, the A/C will bring the situation to the attention of the appropriate General Supervisor (s) via the Supervisor-Radiation Control.
6.1.9 Personnel exposures in general will be reviewed by ALARA at least monthly. The A/C will bring any potential problems to the attention of the appropriate supervisory personnel.
6.1.10 Changes to reviews.
Form RSP l-115-7, "ALARA Review Amendment Form," will be used to document any amendments to or deviations from the recommendation / requirements of any review.
This form will identify the change and will provide the reasoning behind the change. The ALARA Review Amendment Form will be signed by the A/C and/or the RCSS.
If OMAR action is required and is effected by the change, then the person initiating the change will either amend the "OMAR Work Request" or initiate a new work request.
CALVERT CLIPP5 RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP l-115 Page gg ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
o mes.n e.- eim All changes to reviews will be reviewed by the A/C, SRC, GSRS, and Manager-Nuclear Power if applicable.
6.1.11 If a job must be performed for which the SWP requires an ALARA review when there are no personnel available that are quallfled to i
perform the review, then the SWP should be written without the review i
and the review performed as soon thereafter as practical. For jobs which should require special ALARA actions (shielding, vent rigs, etc.),
either the A/C, the RCSS, or the SRC, in that order, will be contacted by phone and a verbal review conducted.
Performance of verbal reviews will be documented in the " Window" Radiation Control Smooth Log, and the written review will be performed as soon thereafter as practical. A copy of the SWP shall be sent to the A/C as notification that a review is required.
6.1.12 Estimated Exposure Prevented - Each SWP submitted for ALARA review will be evaluated to determine whether action can be taken, beyond normal radiological controls, which could significantly reduce personnel exposure. The A/C will determine if such actions can be j
taken, then the EEP for that SWP should be tracked. The EEP will take into account the exposure prevented by the special ALARA actions and the exposure expended implementing the special ALARA actions.
4 If the job duration is reduced by eliminating the need for respiratory protection, by conducting a pre-job briefing, and/or by the use of engineering controls, then that time can be used to calculate the EEP using the following prescription.
Eliminating the need for respiratory protection may increase the EEP by up to 25% of the jobs total exposure depending on the nature of the job. A pre-job
RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP g,gg3 Pege 12 ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
o Nuclear Power Plant briefing may increase the EEP by up to 10% of the jobs total exposure depending on the complexity of the job. The EEP due to engineering controls should be calculated based on exposure rate in the work area and the actual time saved.
If shielding is used to reduce personnel exposure, surveys of the work area shall be performed prior to and after installation of the shielding. The EEP will be calculated based on the difference in exposure rate and length of time to complete the job. The EEP will l
be reduced by the exposure expended to install, inspect, and remove the shielding.
If engineering controls, such as reach rods, special tools, robots, i
etc., are used to increase the distance between personnel performing a job and the source (s) of radiation in the work area, then the corresponding decrease in exposure rate and the time required to complete the job will be used as the basis for calculating the EEP.
Eliminating or reducing personnel exposure to radioactive materials, by the use of engiming controls shall be considered when calculating the EEP.
l EEP is recorded on Form RSP l-115-4.
l 6.2 Establishing Annual Person-Rem Goals 6.2.1 Department managers will select an appropriate person-rem goal for their personnel for the upcoming year based on past performance, lessons learned, and future job schedules / scope. The goals from all departments will be totalled to arrive at the Annual Person-rem Goal for Calvert Cliffs. The ALARA Coordinator will submit the Annual Person-rem Goal to Corporate Management for approval.
r 1
~ CALVERT CLIFPS RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP l_119 Page ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O Nuclear Power Plant 9
6.2.2 Radiation Control Unit - ALARA, upon request, will make available to department managers dose information from previous years for sections and work units in their department.
6.2.3 Person-rem goals for vendor and contractor companies will be selected by the manager responsible for their activities at Calvert Cliffs.
6.3 Records and Report Preparation Weekly, Monthly, and Annual Reports will be generated by Radiation Control -
ALARA using information from the following records.
6.3.1 Respirator usage tracking - completed Forms RSP 2-305-1," Respirator Use/ Air Activity Worksheet," are received from the Rad-Con Shift Supervisor (RCSS). The " Respirator Tracking Record," Form RSP l-115-8, is used to record the number of respirators used for each RWP/SWP. The tracking records are kept in the Respirator Usage Log. A record is maintained in the front of the log to show the number of respirators used for the week and for the year-to-date.
6.3.2 SWP tracking - each SWP's number, job description, estimated exposure, and date activated are recorded on Form RSP l-115-4,"SWP Tracking Record." When the SWP is terminated, the termination date is entered on the tracking record. At the end of the year a final i
i exposure report for all SWP's is obtained from the Dosimetry Unit. The i
final exposure (SRD) for each SWP is entered on the tracking record I
l and on the A snas copy of each SWP. If applicable, the EEP is then l
calcv'?.hc aa logged on the tracking record.
The SWP Tracking I
Recon ano Le final exposure report are filed in the SWP Tracking Log.
l
{
CALVERT CLIPPS RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP g,gg3 Page gg ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
0 m cs.., e, e.
6.3.3 Exposure tracking by RWP/SWP - the number of workers and their total exposure on each RWP and selected SWP's is recorded on the " Exposure Tracking Record," Form RSP l-115-9. The tracking record is filed in the Exposure Tracking Log. The weekly exposure data is obtained from the Dosimetry Unit's " Man-Rem by Permit Number Report." The year-to-date exposure data is obtained from the Dosimetry Unit's " Work Permit Exposure Report."
The year-to-date exposure data is SRD readings unless special dosimetry is used.
6.3.4 Dose tracking by work groups - exposure / dose data for selected work groups is recorded on a " Work Unit Tracking Record," Form RSP l-115-10 and is filed in the Exposure Tracking Log. Data must be manually C
extracted from the Dosimetry Unit's " Organizational Radiation I.
Exposure Summary Report," which lists the number of people in each
[
group, the total whole body dose for each group from the most recent
)
monthly TLD readings, and the total exposure for each group (by SRD) since the most recent monthly TLD reading.
I
~
Weekly - each group's exposure will be extracted from the " Current i
l SRD" column of the report and recorded in the " Exposure for Week"
\\
i column of the tracking record.
Monthly - each group's dose will be extracted from the "WBS" column of the report and recorded in the " Monthly TLD Dose" column of the tracking record.
The year-to-date dose will be l
calculated by adding together all monthly TLD doses. The result 1
i will be recorded in the " Yearly Total" column of the tracking record.
l l
, _. ~ _ - -
CALVERT CUFPS RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP g,gg3 Page g3 ALARA MOCEDURE Rev.
o sua.. p.
m.m A TLD versus SRD ratio will be calculated monthly for each work group. This will be done by totaling the " Exposure for Week" column
.1_. :
and dividing that by the appropriate " Monthly TLD Dose" column total. The resulting ratio will be recorded in the "TLD/SRD" column i-of the " Work Unit Tracking Record."
The monthly work group dose can be used to calculate the total dose
'I ' "-:
for each department, the percentage of yearly goal for each 2
department, and the total dose for all personnel at Calvert Cliffs, and as a data base for proposing future person-rem goals.
j 6.3.5 Exposure tracking for all plant personnel - exposure / dose data plant-wide is recorded weekly on Form RSP l-115-11, " Plant Exposure Tracking Record."
The " Weekly Exposure (SRD)" is determined from the Dosimetry Unit's " Organizational Radiation Exposure Summary Report." This information is also recorded in the appropriate column as Outage or Non-outage exposure.
The
" Monthly Exposure (TLD)"
is determined from the
" Organizational Radiation Exposure Summary Report."
l A running total of exposure is maintained using the " Yearly Exposure l
6.4 Weekly Report 6.4.1 The weekly report will include the total plant exposure (from SRD only) and total number of respirators used for the week. The report will include a list of the highest respirator use and highest exposure permits i
for the week as determined by the A/C.
RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP 1.111
)
Page ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
0 1
noci, p.- ei=
6.4.2 Exposure information will be obtained from the various reports available from the Dosimetry Unit. Respirator use information will be obtained from the " Respirator Use/ Air Activity Worksheet" Form RSP 2-305-1.
6.4.3 The weekly report will be distributed to department managers, general supervisors, supervisors, and work leaders. Vendor and Contractor representatives may receive a weekly report upon request.
6.5 Monthly Report 6.5.1 The monthly report will include the total plant dose (TLD only) and total number of respirators used for the month. A brief discussion of jobs involving significant radiological concerns will be included. The year-to-date TLD dose for each department will be presented as a percentage of each department's radiation dose goal. The following will be included as attachments to the monthly report:
A graphic representation of dose as a percentage of total dose by job code for the month and for the year-to-date.
l 1
(
A tabulation of radiation exposure information for all RWP's and t
selected SWP's on Form RSP l-115-12 " Monthly RWP/SWP Report."
6.5.2 Information for the monthly report will be obtained as in section 6.4.2 j
of this procedure.
6.5.3 The monthly report will be distributed to department managers and general supervisors.
Vendor and Contractor representatives may l
receive a monthly report, if requested.
l E
CALVERT CUPPS RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP g,gg3 Page 17 ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O wei.
e.- ei.ni 6.6 Annual Report 6.6.1 The annual report will provide an overview of dose, exposure, and ALARA information for the year.
6.6.2 The annual report will be distributed to department managers and general supervisors.
6.7 ALARA Sumnestion Pronram To aid in worker participation in the Radiation Safety and ALARA programs, a formalized ALARA Suggestion Program (ASP) has been estabilshed.
The adminstration of ASP is described in CCI-809. All suggestions will be forwarded to the A/C. The A/C will review the suggestion and take appropriate action.
The originators of all suggestions will receive a reply to their suggestion from the A/C via the SRC, and the GSRS if applicable.
7.0 ACCEPTANCE CRrfERIA None 8.0 RECORDS AND ATTACHMENTS Procedure review and record retention will be in accordance with CCI-805 and CCI-807.
}
8.1 This procedure requires POSRC approval and will receive internal review biennially.
8.2 Original records or certified copies thereof generated by use of this procedure and intended to be filed with RWP/SWP will be retained as the RWP/SWP.
8.3 Records retention 8.3.1 Length - life of plant 8.3.2 Frequency - annually
.v RADIATION SAFETY PROCEDURE RSP f.1 15 Page ALARA PROCEDURE Rev.
O Nuclear Povset Plant 8.3.3 Radiation Safety File Number for year (YY) i Attachments to RWP - RS0605011YY Attachments to SWP - RS0606011YY Attachments to Refueling SWP - RS0607011YY 8.4 Other tracking records and reports will be maintained in the Rad-Con Office for a period of two years.
DATE SERIAL NUMBER SWP NUMBER (S)
ALARA REVIEW FORM O 3OB O STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS I. JOB DESCRIPTION II. LOCATION III. RECOMMENDATIONS / REQUIREMENTS Required Not Required
- 1. Respiratory Protection 1.
( )
( )
- 2. Protective Clothing 2.
( )
( )
- 3. Special Dosimetry 3.
( )
( )
- 4. Access Control / Rad Con Coverage 4.
( )
( )
- 5. Shielding 3.
( )
( )
- 6. Containment Device / Glove Bag 6.
( )
( )
- 7. Ventilation Device / Vacuum Cleaner 7.
( )
( )
- 8. Decontamination / Cover Area 8.
( )
( )
- 9. Pre-Job Fabrication / Modification on
~
Equipment / Components Prior to Entering the Controlled Area 9.
( )
( )
- 10. Pre-Selected Staging Area for Support of Job 10.
( )
( )
- 11. Communications 11.
( )
( )
- 12. Additional Lighting 12.
( )
( )
- 13. Mock-up/ Dry Runs Special Training 13.
( )
( )
- 14. Procedures 14.
( )
( )
- 15. Special Tools / Equipment 15.
( )
( )
- 16. Plant Status / Decay Time 16.
(')
( )
- 17. System Flushing 17.
( )
( )
l
- 13. Man-Power / Man-Hours / Comfort 18.
( )
( )
- 19. Remote Instrumentation 19.
( )
( )
l
- 20. Pre-Job Briefing 20.
( )
( )
Continuation Sheets attached.
l M
OTHER 1
l i
RSP l-115-1 (1)
Rev.0
SERIAL NUMBER IV. PERSONNEL CONTACTED V. EXPOSURE ESTIMATE PERSON-REM VI. APPROVALS / REVIEWS PREPARED BY DATE A/C DATE SRC (GREATER THAN 25 PERSON-REM)
DATE GSRS (GREATER THAN 50 PERSON-REM)
DATE MGR-NPD (GREATER THAN 75 PERSON-REM)
DATE l
l l
l RSP 1-115-1 (2) l Rev. 0 L
a 9
DATE SERIAL NUMBER SWP NUMBER PAGE OF ALARA CONTINUATION SHEET l
l RSP 1-115-2 l
Rev.0 l
W e
ALARA REVIEW INDEX ALARA SWP/RWP DATE S/N NUMBER JOB DESCRIPTION O
5 0," !. ;i..
RSP l-115-3 Rev.O
PEE M
E L
R A
-N U O T S C R A EP D
ETA M
ITS E
R R
E O
T C
E D
R E
E T G
TA N
AV I
I K
DT C
C A
A RT PW S
N O
ITP I
R C
SE D
B O
J 4
R E
5 P B 1
1 W M A
B C
A B
C A
B C
A B
C A
B C
O S
l U
N Pv Se RR 7
DATE SERIAL NUMBER SWP NUMBER ALARA POST JOB REVIEW REPORT
- 1. JOB DESCRIPTION
- 11. LOCATION III. DOSE INFORMATION ESTIMATED PERSON-REM FOR JOB PERSON-REM ACTUAL PERSON-REM RECEIVED PERFORMING JOB PERSON-REM ACTUAL PERSON-REM RECEIVED PERFORMING ALARA ACTIONS PERSON-REM TOTAL PERSON-REM FOR JOB PERSON-REM IV. AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED A. PRE-JOB REVIEW
_ DEFICIENCIES FOUND _ N/A
B. PROCEDURE
S
_ DEFICIENCIES FOUND _ N/A i
C. TRAINING
_ DEFICIENCIES FOUND _ N/A i
i D. MAN-POWER / SUPERVISION /
COORDINATION DEFICIENCIES FOUND N/A RSP l-!!5-5 (1)
Rev.0
x s
___m.__.m..
-_m
_.~_._....
TERIAL NUMBER IV. AREAS TO'BE ADDRESSED (CONTINUED)
E. COMMUNICATIONS DEFICIENCIES FOUND _N/A F. TOOLS / EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES FOUND _N/A m
G. HEALTH PHYSICS COVERAGE DEFICIENCIES FOUND _N/A H. SUPPORT GROUPS DEFICIENCIES FOUND _N/A I.
ALARA ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED DEFICIENCIES FOUND _N/A i
l l
- 3. OTHER DEFICIENCIES FOUND _N/A P
eD RSP 1-115 5 (2) l Rev.0 I
SERIAL NUMBER V. FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS A. PERSONNEL PERFORMING TASK
[Qn.
P B. HEALTH PHYSICS C.OTHER D. DISPOSITION OF RECOMMENDATIONS GROUP / UNIT DATE SUPERVISOR WORK LEADER DATE OTHER DATE RSP l-115-5 (3)
Rev.0
r SERIAL NUMBER VI. EFFECTS OF ALARA ACTIONS ON RADIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS A. RADIATION LEVEL
.,c
'n,i.
B. CONTAMINATION LEVELS C. AIRBORNE LEVELS D. PERSON-REM TOTAL E. INDIVIDUAL DOSES F. OTHER RSP !-115 5 (4)
Rev.O
e SERIAL NUMBER VII. PERSONNEL IN ATTENDANCE AND/OR CONTACTED VIII. APPROVALS / REVIEWS PREPARED BY DATE A/C DATE SRC (GREATER THAN 25 PERSON-REM)
DATE GSRS (GREATER THAN 50 PERSON-REM)
DATE MGR-NPD (GREATER THAN 75 PERSON-REM)
DATE 1
RSP l-1!$-5 (5)
Rev.0
DATE SERIAL NUMBER SWP NUMBER ALARA REQUIREMENTS INSPECTION
!. JOB DESCRIPTION IL LOCATION III. REQUIREMENTS Sat Unsat N/A
- 1. Respiratory Protection 1.
( )
( )
( )
- 2. Protective Clothing 2.
( )
( )
( )
- 3. Special Dosimetry 3.
( )
( )
( )
- 4. Access Control / Rad Con Coverage 4.
( )
( )
( )
- 5. Shielding 5.
( )
( )
( )
- 6. Containment Device / Vacuum Cleaner 6.
( )
( )
( )
- 7. Ventilation Device / Vacuum Cleaner 7.
( )
( )
( )
- 8. Decontamination / Cover Area 8.
( )
( )
( )
I
- 9. Pre-Job Fabrication / Modification on Equipment / Components Prior to Entering the Control Area 9.
( )
( )
( )
- 10. Pre-Selected Staging Area for Support of Job 10.
( )
( )
( )
- 11. Communications 11.
( )
( )
( )
- 12. Additional Lighting 12.
( )
( )
( )
l
- 13. Mock-up/ Dry Runs /Special Training 13.
( )
( )
( )
- 14. Procedures 14.
( )
( )
( )
- 15. Special Tools / Equipment 15.
( )
( )
( )
- 16. Plant Status / Decay Time 16.
( )
( )
( )
- 17. System Flushing 17.
( )
( )
( )
l
- 18. Man-Power / Man-Hours / Comfort 18.
(-)
( )
( )
l
- 19. Remote Instrumentation 19.
( )
( )
( )
COMMENTS I
1 IV. APPROVALS / REVIEWS l
INSPECTION BY COPIES TO A/C RSP 1-115-6 Rev.0 4
i DATE SERIAL NUMBER SWP NUMBER PAGE OF ALARA REVIEW AMENDMENT FORM PREPARED BY:
COPIES TO:
REVIEWD BY:
A/C GSRS (if greater than 50 person-rem)
SRC MGR-NPD (if greater than 25 person-rem)
(if greater than 75 person-rem)
RSP 1-115-7 Rev.0
RESPIRATOR TRACKING RECORD PERMIT NUMBER WEEK ENDING SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI TOTAL e
RSP l-115-8 l
Rev.0
f e
EXPOSURE TRACKING RECORD PERMIT NUMBER NO.OF WEEKLY YEARLY WEEK ENDING WORKERS TOTAL TOTAL REMARKS e
I RSP l-115-9 Rev.0
e WORK UNIT TRACKING RECORD UNIT REPORT CODE EXPOSURE MONTHLY YEARLY TLD/SRD WEEK ENDING FOR WEEK TLD DOSE TOTAL RATIO RSP 1.!!5-10 Rev.0
PLANT EXPOSURE TRACKING RECORD WEEKLY NON-OUTAGE OUTAGE MONTHLY YEARLY WEEK ENDING EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE (SRD)
(SRD)
(SRD)
(TLD)
(SRD & TLD) e RSP 1.!!5-11 Rev.0
7 MONTHLY RTP/SWP REPORT RWP/
EXPOSURE EXPOSURE
% OF MAJOR GROUP SWP#
MONTHLY YEAR ESTIMATE ESTIMATE USING PERMIT h
I I
l i
RSP l-!!5-12 l
Rev.0 L
~
January 22,1985 DISPOSITION OF BG&E AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MARYLAND (various documents)
,,('o wu
.de of f4aglanh
""EMa-(
%1oard of Tinblir$Iarhs w 3 3.-.
5" Jetnanalis.f3nrvimtb ga n=6,"4.sr.
i 4 w('.
8""""
January 9, 1969 37 Mr. Austin E. Penn Chairman of the Board Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Baltimore Gas and Electric Building Baltimore, Maryland
Dear Mr. Penn:
The Board of Public Works at its meeting on December 17, 1968, considered your request that the Board approve the application for a permit requested by you from the Corps of Engineers to construct a revetment and a jetty and to dredge and place fill in the Chesa-peake Eay near Lusby, Calvert County, Maryland.
After considerable discussion by the representatives of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and the Department of Chesapeake
(
Bay Af fairs, the following agreement was approved by the Board of Public Works:
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company will immediately remove 1.
the oysters from Flag Pond natural oyster bar and transplant said oysters on a natural oyster bar designated by the Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs under supervision of that Agency.
Tha Company is authorised to proceed with construction of 2.
a revetment and a jetty and to dredge and place fill in Chesapeake Bay near Lusby, Calvert County, Maryland as described in Public Notice dated 5 November 1969, Department of Army, Baltimore District Corps of Engineers HABOP-P (Baltimore Gas and Electric Company) 112, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company will immediately deposit 3.
to the credit of the Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs, to
$200,000 be expended exclusively by that Agency for rehabilitation of natural oyster bars of Calvert County for loss from the destruction of Flag Pond natural oyster bar by construction of the Uuclear PoNer Plant (including the construction referred to in #2 above, and the intaho and dischargo channals to to applied for later).
Baltimore Cas and Electric Company and the Dapartment of 4
Chesapeake Bay Affairs will cach appoint ona represcatative to un
(,
Arbitration Ecord.
Those two representatives will then select a third, neutral member of said Board.
w.
- e Mr. Austin Penn
'(
Baltimore Gas and Electric Cdmpany January 9, 1969 7
Page 5.
Arbitration will take place three years ofter the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant has commended normal operation.
6.
The Arbitration Board is limited only to the determination It will determine what allowance in excess of $200,000, of damages.
if any, is warranted by the damage to Flag Pond Oyster Bar resulting from all the construction and the operation of the nuclear power plant.
7 In no event will such allowance in excess of the initial
$200,000 exceed an additional $200,000, i.e., in no event will the total possible allowance be less than $200,000 or more than $400,000.
It is, therefore, in order for you to proceed to make arrange-ments with the Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs for the removal of oysters from Flag Pond and to transplant them.
Very truly yours,
{
,,Lw.ov/ t<tb
- ??
/
Andrew Heubeck, Jr.
Secretary AH:blk cc:
Mr. Joseph H. Manning L
m G
.)
p nu:
R Agreemnt Botwoon Baltimore Gas,nd Electric Company and State of Maryland 1
On Tuesday, December 17, 1968, the Board of Public Works held a public meeting to consider, among other things, the issuance of a permit to the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company for the construction of a revet-ment and jetty and to dredge and place fill in the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr.
Joseph H. Manning, Director of the Department of Chesapeake Bay Af f airs',
and Mr. Edward S. Oi,gges, Special A'ssistant Attornoy General, appeared to s
advise the Board that the plans of the Company to dredge and fill on Flag Pond natural oyster bar, would, if carried out, result in destruction of a natural oyster bar estimated to be worth approximately $500,000 to the Stato as a capital asset. Mr. George W. Della, 111, legislativo counsel to the Company, and Mr. Austin E. Penn, Chairman of the Board and Chief
(
Executive Officer, expressed willingness to provido reasonable ccmpensation to the Stato, but objected to the computation producing the 5500,000 sum on
'the ground that it excluded several relevant factors from consideration.
'Sinco the parties' opening statements revealed their basic disagreement to be. over the amount of compensation and procedures, the Governor directed that the parties retire to his office for negotiation of those points.
This negotiation resulted in the adoption by the two parties of the following agreement which was submitteg! to and approvec by tne Ecard lof Public Works:
..y ;[....
)*I'I,fpj.;
1.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company will immodiately remove tno
.i'
}
p.u.
i U?.
.E'
' bysters f rom FI,ag Pond natural oyster bar and transplant said oystors on a i
i I
I 9: ),7... ' natural oyster bar-dosignated by the Department of Chesapeake B3y Af f airs
{
j 9.,
j k
if,ry,'$3.,. )under supervision of that, Agency.
go, j'.Q.?
'{f
. Hy 2.
The Company is authorized to proceed with construction of a n,
l ledelseof ar.d a jetty and to drodge and placo fill in Ches i
'f,p f.
i 1.Q'N.',
E.
i
- I,.s
?
_m
.....g.
.s 4
.s, h%h it?1 ijy>.4 Lusby, Calvert County, Maryland as described in Public Notice dated
~
5 November 1968, Department of Army, Baltimore District Corps of Engineers NABOP-P (Baltimore Gas and Electric Company) 112.
- 3.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company will immediately deposit
$200,000 to the credit of the Department of Chosapoake Bay Af fairs, to be expended exclusively by that Agency for rehabilitation of natural oyster bars of Calvert County for loss from the destruction of Flag Pond natural oyster bar by construction qf the Nuclear Powor Plant (including the con-struction referred to in #2 above, and the intako and discharge channels to be applied for later) shall be expended for oyster repletion in that County.
~
4.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and the Department of Chesapeake Bay Af fairs will each appoint one representative to an
(
Arbitration Board.
These two representativos will than select a third, neutral member of said Board.
5.
Arbitration will take placo throo years af ter the Calvert Clif fs Nuclear Power Plant has commenced normal operation.
6.
The Arbitration Board is limited only to the determinat!on of damages.
It will determine what allowance in excess of $200,000, if any, is warranted by. the damago to Flag Pond Oys ter Oar resulting f rom all the construction and the operation of tho. nuclear power plant.
7.
In no event will'such allowance in excess of the initial.
$200,000 exceed an addit!'nal $200,000, i.e., in no evont will the total o
possibio allowance bo less than $200,000 or more than $400,000-C.
4 m
L
l
,. j U$*C
\\
0-8.
An arbitration. agreement will bo drafted by iho Baltimore 3'
Gas and Electric Company and submittod to the Deparimont of Chesapeako l
4' Bay Af fairs for approval by the Attornoy General.-
~
e
} }
~.
~
I s
Austin E. Pent ChairmanoftheBohrd eu.
1/2/69 C
l e
e S
q eg e
8 L.
y e
8 g
i
=
).
a.
O
.~
y Record o the 3
r h1anland Power Plant Siting Act APRIL,1977 Vol. 8, No.1 AQUATIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT AT CALVERT CLIFFS by Dr. WoIIram A. Rociskus. Martin Marietta Envoronmental Technology Center he proposalin 1967 to construct a CAUSES OF IMPACT IMPACT ASSESSMENT nC<'ar power plant at Calvert Cliffs The once-through cooling system RATIONALE AND PROCEDURES on the Bay's western shore touched off of each unit uses 2700 cubic feet per The primary goal of the assessment he:t;d controversy. At public hearings second (cfs) of Bay water, which is program is to find to what extent the and in the court room, opponents and heated 5.5'C (10'F) dunng its 4-plant operation damages the Bay's proponents projected impacts ranging minute transit tnrough the plant. The resources. The assessment provides from virtual annihilation of Bay fisheries continuous discharge and mixing of factual bases for two pending regulatory t3 beneficial enharcement of produc-this heated water with ambient water decisions: 1) determining if cooling creates a thermal plume, i.e., an area of towers must be retrofitted to ensure tinty.
Based on the totality of data available water around the plant where tempera-the protection and propagation.of It the time and expert opinions, in-tures are higher than those in the sur-balanced indigenous populations in'the cluding a report from the Governor's rounding B sy.
Bay; 2) deciding what changes in the Task Force on Nuclear Power Plants in The path of cooling water flow operation or design of the once-through Maryland (Eaton,1969). a construction and areas where plant-organism inter-cooling system rr.ay be needed to mini-permit was granted. A once-through actions occur are shown diagramm&u-mize stress on organisms.
Cooling system was approved, with the cally in Figure 1 Organisms passing pr;viso that cooling towers be retro-through the %-in. mesh protective Since at was first proposed in 1967. Calvert fitted should a monitonng program show screens circulate through the plant with Chffs and its site have been subject to l
thit the environmental impact was un-the cooling water (i.e., are " entrained"),
intense investigation and study by several acc:ptable.
experiencing thermal and mechanical organizabons. Ongoeng aquatic monetonng at Calvert Chffs is funced by the Baltimore An extensive multi-disciolinary stress (shear and pressure forces from as monitonng effort. supported and carried pumps and high velocity flow through
,ea h and De pm Admin str out by state, federal, industnal, and narrow condenser tubes).* Larger tion, and the Maryland Power Plant Siting educatiorial organizations, was begun organisms may be trapped on the intake Program. Monitonng is carried out by the
,in order to co!!ect pre-screen (impinged) for up to one hour Benedict Estuanne Laboratory of the see box) trational data. Additional studies before being wasned into a trough and Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadet.
trJ started when the plant began thence returned to the Bay. Organisms pnia and tne Cnesapeake Biological crition in May 1975. in order to look in the Bay near the plant may encounter Laboratory of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuanne plant-induced changes. Many of the therma: plume and be exposed to
'e Studies. The Environmental Techno'ogy
- r ese investigations will continue as elevated temperatures for vanous n ings hf V it 2 goes on line this spring. Pre-times. These three kinds of plant-c mb nes I th prog
'ional data and results of the first organism interactions are the major groups for the Power Plant Siting Pro-y operational monitonng are the sources of stress which might cause gram. Radiological monitoring is carned M5is for the preliminary assessment of impact on the ecosystem.
out by BG&E and PPSP (and will be the topic of a subsequent article).
l Unit 1 aquatic impact presented here.
.y,e,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,,,,,,,,,,,,7,,,,
at Calvert clotts: no maior chemocas stresses are emposed l
9 e
C 9
A second analytical method tests spatial differences between locations near me plaM Mem M Muence on itMPINCEMENT!
ENTRAIN m f l DISCHARGE iPlumes i
EFFECf5 the environment is expected to be l
l l
greatest) and control or reference stations up to 4 miles away (remote from potating I
plant influence). The near-plant and l trash intake may jPact Screens Condenser i
gay control stations are matched for simi-u utn DisenarW tanty of habitat. Preoperational data SAy Emcayment
'l $/ ;
w
-g i
3 Condwt
- g~ ~J ' * *
- establish vanations in population size p
->I Q'%
and/or Community Composition among Pig. e
[
%,,, y stations that are expected to occur f
,1, l
's naturally. If differences in these i
jD "" O measures consistently exceed the range l
of natural vanations observed pre-l A.
II.
C.
operationally, then plant influence is
(
r,a t suspected. To illustrate this analytical pse c coci.no.mer no. erousa m. c-cw. mane w,
.. aa mcmeas e me n
approach, phytoplankton productivity data are shown in Figure 3 (Table 1 sawacooas A croaaisme m v e.no a oa v man an w
- ..cr aw.,ow.cor tom.nen uca item 17; data from Mountford et al., l nour =. a n a ano emoom e..cr as.am a vouen saa e.ac. = e. s.'
1976). The data were collected at loca-Umm =T E n*o*e E ' S E N S n Y E T c.Y' C.*., C **
tions near the plant (triangles) and at '
sites beyond plant influence (squares weer
- c. organisme m v eacouan smaa pum. mmwn, s asa < rca nioc.ev e m.
and circles). Values observed at the plant site do not differ statistically from '
impact assessment consists of two Moreover, plant-induced changes (if those recorded elsewhere. These data !
basic steps: (1) detection and quantifica-any) must be separated from natural demonstrate that the plant did not alter '
tion of power plant effects on aquatic and other man-induced changes that the phytoplankton productivity duringd biota; and (2) evaluation of the signifi-occur seasonally, annually, or with no its first year 01 operation.
I cance of these effects in altering obvious periodicity. One of the estab-Judging the ecological s'gnificance <
resos e yield and ecosystem stability.
lished methods collects data for several of changes in populations depends Ln T4 determine damage caused by years prior to plant operation in order to the group of biota involved. Forexample.
entrainment, the number and condition characterize non-plant related vanation, plant-related mortalities of recreational cf organisms are measured as they enter If data collected *after plant startup fall or commercially valuable species may and leave the plant with the cooling water outside the established range of natural be negligible compared to depletions (Table 1; items 3, 4, and 5). Impinge-variation at any one station. the plant is from other causes. When the species ment damage for each species is suspected of being the causative agent, being considered are planktonic or.
determined from samples taken from the Ichthyoplankton data (Taele 1; stem bottom dwellers Omportant gnmanly as screenwash trough. These measure-
- 13) can be used to illustrate this links in the Bay food chain). propagation '
ments show which and to wnat extent method. Monthly fish larvae abundances of losses along the chain must be con-species are adversely affected in-plant at a single sampling station were tested sidered. Changes in comrnunity struc-(Tcble 1; item 14). Plume effects are statistically to determine if the densities ture rr ust be exammed to ensure that determined by measuring changes in observed since plant operations began populations of nuisance species have abundance or distnbution of organisms differed from those observed prior to not bee enhanced to the detnment of in the area of the Bay exposed to tem-operation. No significant difference was more 'va'oable species.
perature nses (Table 1; items 6-13.16.17).
found, indicating that plant operations To learn how losses of organisms were not causing detectable larval de-3 to entrainment, impingement. and pletions. The data (from Lubbers and ume effects alter population sizes in Mihursky.1977) are plotted in Figure 2 '
the Bay populations must be monitored to show the range of densities before over considerable stretches of the Bay.
and after the plant began operation.
2
p e
. hs. - -
Table if Condensed summary of maior findings from Calvert Cidfs monitoring studies Program sponsors are indicated iPPSP. Maryland Power Plant S. ting Program BG&E - Baltimore Gas & Electric Company. EADA - Energy Researcri and Deveicomeet Ad*mnistrationi PARAMETERS STAT:CN SAMPL:NC $
STTDY mDINGS MzAScaED tcCAT:Cet raEccENCT
- 1. Tidal and seasonal Temperature Catfan area and September.
Area of plume with temperatures t'C er effects oathermal reference stat on Novembe r.
more over ambient averaged less thaa plume saape and Ma rch. 1975 90 acres not exceeding 20o acres: high.
posittam iPPSP) est excess temperatures repeatedly encountered were 2*C.
- 2. Water caemistry Temperature, salinity Plaat Site and Monthly No differences between stations la any (SC&Z)
DC. pH. turbidity.
refe rence variable except tarbidity and oxygen:
bacterta. auttients, stations observed differences were btologically heavy metals, biological sa:.mpo rta nt.
ozygea demand
( 83Ce 2
'Myt=p"a nto n
- ATP* conc entra tions Intake a nd outfall Monthly during Decilmes in ATP concestratioafre!!ecting strat=: est plaat ope ration biorr.a se and v attlity) were greatest from hly ta September: they did not 8
exceed 30'..
I4
- 4. Psyt:p1.ankton C uptake and chloro-latake and outfan Qua rte rly.1975 Declines ta productivity and biomass terra =me..:
pay 11 concestrarian were abserved pr:.rnartly La September 1
(PpSPr ar.d November: declines were on the order of 10 30'..
l S. Zoopiantsa' Abundance, species Istake and outfall Mot.thly during Zosplankton tosses averaging 3C'.1.s j
tatratam er.:
composition. condition pla st ope ra tion 1975 ar.d 18'. La 19*6 were observed:
(EC&I:
(livel deadt los ses were attributable to meenamical I
rather taas enerrnal stress.
1
- 16. Prir :ary C14 cxation under Plant Site and Monthly No sigstlicaet dif.ferences in biomass or j
prstactid!y cesstaat conditiors.
reference productivity between stattone before or (EROA, chlorophyll conces.
s tatio ns after plant c;-rations. Some increases in trations particulate carbon observed susce 1975.
- 7. Prim.a ry C2 changes la light Plant Site and Monthly No sigiiticant differences between pra. t.v.tr and dark botGee, reference seat.oaa before or after plant aperat.ons.
(3CLI.
chloropayll conc es.
ecations trations
- 8. phyt:p;arstan Types. numbers, and Plant Site and Monthly No significant differences between samp'img concentrat: ens of reference stattsas before or after plant operattor.:.
fBC&E.
phytopla daten s tatio ns t
- 9. Zooplaneton Types. numbers aad Plant Site and Monthly Surn.mer dessities at a;.1 stations were studies ISDAl concestratism of reference lower in 1975 chaa tr. prevsous years.
organisms 1% Zaop;a-2:sa Types. av.meers.
Plant $ste and Qua rte rly.1976 Preliminary revuw of data suggests as trud.es f ??SP) concentratian, and re fe rence differences between statssar in all condition slive. dead) s tat 4.ca s erwasured vartables.
l of organisms l11.?.e*ueearvey Numbers and types of Plant S.te and marterly Severa'. spec:es ha e increased in abun.
a*: s et.tr.e nt organisms, bioma s s.
refe rence dance ac ose Plant S.te since operatto ts g
seme s evy, and grass size of s ta tio n s began.
(Z2CA. PPSP) s ediment yster tray Length, width, meat Plant Site and Qua rte rly Crowth rates at all stations is 1875 were
.tud:e s a BCLC consition, v.abtairy refe rence generally *awer than is previoue years, sta tions except spas growits at Plant S.te <as ensanced: mortalit:e s did sse d:!fer
'See %ssary eno of Tme sissifica.:.ly.
3
... o. swu a e s
P s
PARAMETERS STATICN SAMP!.1NG $
I MEASURED LCCAT!CN TREQtlENCY '
TI.
CS i
'13. ::hthyop;anatos
?Aambers. species Plant Site and Monthly or No importast corrsriercial er recreattoaal a
andte s reference bawe ekly spectes spawn at Calvert C1Misa plaat.
FERDA. PPSP) sta tion s related depletions of any species were not endeat.
M. Tiafish and crab Numbers species Ir.take screens 5 days per Spot. croaker, menhades. anchovy and irr.pingement week hogchoker comprised > 9F. of a!! f.sh e:ady 13 CLE) impinged; mortality from irnplasement euried between spectes. ranging from 100% of anchovy to < !!. of hogcaoner; large summers of blue crabs were impinged La summer and fall; mortality wa s < 1%
!!. 31ce crab study Numbers, stae. weight.
Plant Site and Biweekly.
Large year.to. year variation La catch at
.3CLE) and sea in crab pot reference May.
each station was seen, but changes were catches stations November act attesbutable to plant operation. Crab weight was higher at ttte Plant Site than at reference stations La 1975; but not ta 1976.
- 16. Tinfish set Species, numbers, sise Plant Site and Monthly and No differences were found between sarveys reference quarterly stations la fisa density or community (3C4 E. PP$P) stations compo sition: the dominant species were the same as those dominating impinge.
me at.
- 17. TirSeh acoustic Fish density.
Plant Site and S eptember. a nd Densittee of Bay ancasvies in the plume s: Adie s*(PPSP) distributica referenc e
- November, area tesded to be lower than at reference stations 1975; March, stations: no aggregataoss of large fish 1976 seen; ao evidence of migratory blockage wa s found.
% Witiple sameias as erweral stanons are generally taken; stauens and schedeles osertsp for most studes C t. CSS A P.Y A:austic Survey. Method of determining fisa densitses and diserthstions using sonar
(
ATP. adenostne trip'hosphate, a chemical indicator of ce!! vtantlity 2enthic forganismal argansams livazg in or en the bottom, e.g., shellfish, worms I4. radios:tive carboa used to tr:easure rata of pectosynthes6s by plaats sprtrr.ary production)
C Ichthyoplanktsa. fish eggs and larvae Phytoplanktsa. microscopie plaats in the water column responsible for primary producetetty in the Bay Zooplankton. microscootc maimals in the water :stumn wnich feed on phytoplankton and are eaten by young fiss d
/
^
w.
L
o
=
...,w.
3.Ts
. w., n?
1m :. pr.o r,.a.i c.s.,,.
n.
a
.n g
. c ~~.
- a n.
.. =,,n,n m,
.r, =,
m m
m-ooermee, w,an am.sm, f
c i
a n.
m -
y.
7*
5m :
}
l
- n. +
c,. >
4,,.
w, % > u,a44 isa..c=.i:
i a 5
1
- w e = = m.t - - - -
I am -
4 e
<5 50
'E 3
o RESULTS TO DATE AND Plume mapping shows that, on the
' o DISCUSSION average. temperature rises exceeding 1*C n
are confined to a 90-acre area of the Eay.
no.-
Since assessing impact implies a This is minute compared to the 30.000-comparison of impaired resources with acre surface area of the Bay contained
'5:
those available for all kinds of exploita-within a tidal excursion distance on tion or predation, we have sought to learn either side of Calvert Cliffs. The maxi-g theextentof plantperturbationof theBay.
mum excess temperatures measured in The amount of water used by the plant and the discharge plume are generally less the size of the thermal plume generated than 2* C. Plume location varies with tidal o
can be placed in a regional perspective stage (Fig. 4), keeping the area of Bay u
I by companson with the flow and local bottom chronically exposed to excess ctser,zer3 [ gg g g g
[
area of the Chesapeake.
temperatures of 1'C to no more than 45 ect
.,iy Ju'ne JJtv Ad se'ix. Oct.
Average tidal water flow through a acres. The relative sizes of the measured Bay cross section at Calvert Cliffs is thermal plume and the receiving body
(
800,000 cfs. If tidal oscillations are indicate little possibility for thermal ignored, the average net flow down the modification of the Bay ecosystem. This Bay in its upper layer, into which cooling type of scaling argument is particularly Figure 2 Surface fish larval densities water is dsdaged, is M.M d M a@cade b caw Ns bemse nis a at a sarnpling station near the plant during chard,1969). For comparison, the annual habitat for species widely distributed,n i
the peak spawning penod (t.ubbers and average fresh water inflow to the Bay the Bay and is not used as a spawning or Mahursky,1977).
above the Calvert Cliffs plant site is nursery area for commercially or recrea-about 41,500 cfs. Unit 1 condenser flow of tionally important species. This observa-2700 cfs per unit is therefore equivalent to tion is supported by results of biological about 1% of the non-tidal flushing (via surveys.
surface flow) and about 0.25% of tidal Detailed descriptions of all Calvert flow.
Cliffs studies, sampling methods, and 5
L
c.
-l h
sampling schedules cin be f;und List (2) TLoon s
(b). SLACK nEronE whera (PPSP.1975; PPSP 1976), cbt9r
'N EDS able from M rtin Marctta Corporativ D\\f
\\,
A summ;ry cf findings (MMC.1977) 9 e
given in condensed form in Table 1. Fe
'I
'I measurable plant effects on importar
\\,
Bay species have been observed. an these are too localized or transient to t s
consequential in a regional context. Th l
.i.
Intake conclusion is supported by the followin
/
h' Channet findings:
s -
N.
N'
- No damage to either indivir uals or popt n,
^7, ' e'
..c.'
//,'
lations of blue crabs is evident:
- /'.h.f
- Oyster data show no deferenous effect
. j',' 4
.'s.
\\
iN on either growth or mortality. No signit g'
e
,N N
'/
, /k cant piant-related uptake of copper b l \\ *N.../I.
.,'e,'/
g'*%s
/ 5.,_y'.,,$(
l A
N
.. J 9
oysters in 1he plant vicinity has bee
.. /
f observed;
.'/'
w-
- Surveys have confirmed that no finfish c i
(
d,'..
l.
. ',)y's*
h.'
recreational or commercial importanc use the Calvert Cliffs area as a majc h
,s., '*-
spawning site. Losses of fish eggs an larvae through entrainment will nc directly have impact on any importar species; g
- Of the estimated 2.9 million fish impinge D' \\
(c) EBB
- w. % \\ (d) SLACK BETCRE in 18 months. 95% consisted of fiv s
~"
FLOCD species: menhaden, spot. croaker. Ba
\\
anchovy and hogchoker; the same fiv speCles dominate net Catches at the Piar
[.
?
.M Site and at reference stations. No signif i
9 cant differences in abundance or specie composition were found between nea and far sampling stations. mdicatin l
7 '-
that the plant operates as a non-selectiv predator. impinging fish in proportion t
{
their abundance in the area. Acoust:
~
surveys show that the plant is nc attracting fish to tr.e plant area. Irr
}
j-
- -.},,/ l j
pingement losses have not measurabi g,r 3
W
^
' ge..
depleted near-plant populations. Th-s seemingIy large numbers of fish impinge.
l
.i g f.
%'e i
W.,
appear less than consequential wne N.
f=--
I compared to the magnitude of non-plar't
. e,'
%s ce,.
related kills Sufficient data are availabt h:
,.f,Y
, 0 '<'X.' '..
comparisons directly: the total irr i
on one species (mennaden) to make suc-g Ns
' '/.
i d
h pengement of menhaden in 1975 wa
- a 7'y approximately a quarter of one percer-
\\.
of the annual average commercial catc.
.3 from the Chasapeake Bay Bndge to th Virginia inne The 1975 total impinge Figure 4 Surface (0 5-m depth) thermal plume locations in November 1975 during four tidal ment was less than 16. of the reporte-stages, ambient temperature was 16 6* C. Numbers on dotted lines are depth contours 1975 naturally occurnng kills in Marylan.
in feet.
and less than 0.2% of the 1974 reporte O
e.e L
n:tura' kills. Ther3 is no riason to suspect Mors int;nsiva studi'.s. scheduled far this Monitoring dits havs permittid tha thit plant cropping at this rata cin act to yur, htv3 been d; signed to giv3 e f armir listing of tha mtny and diverst impacts ther th3 siza of thi Sty menhaoen popu-undIrstinding of ths Extant, pirsistenc2, hypothGsiz3d prior to plant optration.
fation.
and consequences of phytoplankton The data are definitive in showing that An unusual declar:e from preopera-and zooplankton population alterations.
most of the preoperationalconcernswere tional levals in Zooplankton populations Supporting data from studies at other not well founded. Continued monitoring End shifts in some phytoplankton popu-generating stations indicate that rapidly will further improve the reliability of the liticn parameters appeared in 1975 and reproducing organisms, such as phyto-operational data base and examine the
_t Absence of consistent differences plankton and zooplankton, have quickly environment during two-unit operation.
seen near-plant and reference station compensated for cropping due to in-plant Special emphasis will be given those values. however, makes it questionable losses (Coutant.1974).
impact issues not yet fully resolved.
whether these Changes are plant related.
REFERENCES Coutant C C 1974 Eva4ation o'.n*atra amente ects cp r.e t e
a Key personnei envolved in Calvert Chffs monitonng studies discussed en this in so.ced erortsnop on Entra
+at ana nntane screen.ng article are hsted Delow togetner witn their affshation* and area of empertise.
- L Jeassa, so i Jonas Mop =ms ua. vers tv sammore uo neor,r No is Mr. George ADDE ANSP (Genedict Crabs and Oysters Eaton W D 1969 Nuclear power plaats in Maryiano Gover.
"*' s vast Force on Nuc' ear Ptseer Piants Ann.coseg uq Estuanne Laboratory)
Dec '969 Or. Ehzabern Bauereis BG&E Estuanne Biology
'**** ' ""d J "'"*'s"'n"electr'C stafson operateor's on T7 "*'****'o" 'a 'co'occ as enects Gt nuclear steF Or Walter Boynton CBL Estuanne Biology estumme sys' ** F*"n Progress **oort to EmeA un.ver.
s.tv of Marviano Ceefer for Environmentas and Estuarine Dr. Donald Heinle CBL Zooplantton Stoo.es RW No TN8CSL MMC 7977 Summary of current hndengs CaivertCliMs n cisar u
Dr. Fred Honiand MMC Benthic Ecology powe, s ant mouai.e.non to,mg,,ogram suom.ttee io
"*7,M *sabI a '""'
Mr. Nort*ert Lassann BG&E Environmental Engineenng uount.oro n. G co snow a conanoe ano A sacneser e
Dr. Josepn Mihursky CBL Estuanne Biology 1976 Paytopianaton produc,tivity aad 0.orrass in Some
,,,,,,go,,,,,,,,,,,, yoo,,,,,,
o,,,,t camere cwes Dr. Myron Meiler PPSP impact Assessment Nu,c at Power Piant. Benmore Gas & Eectne Co Maecn.
g Mr. Charles Moore ANSP Fishenes Biology PPSP '975 Calven Cw's mon.iormg program stuov auctio.
tsons Prepareo av M srtin Mar.eaa Corporat on 8ashmore.
Dr. Ray Morgan COL Fisheries Biology mea 'o* ine Marv'aac Waer m nt St.na P eg am Depart-M3-a y Neu m pesou,ces annacos,s ua e
Or Kent Mountford ANSP Phytopiankton PPs> 1976 voameo Covert Ci.ns mon.ionng program CesCr'Dhons Prepa'eG De Varfin ' Jane'ta CorporMion Dr. Tibor Polgar MMC Ouantitative Ecology ea t-o,e us
.o, tne v,uana %.c mani s.nng No.
Dr. Wilham Ricrikus MMC Fisheries Biology p,$'(.[D b r Ibr' oba via 4e. D h ao s ran % y w e N.ee or Sandy Sage ANSP Zooplankton m nts maaaooi.s va n Econ cna.r+.n, oec iw9 a
Dr. Eileen Setzler CBL lehthyoplankton C
Mr. Jacit Stout 8'G &E Environmental Engsneenn9 The Record of the &tarylandPower Mr. John Wisson C8L Fishenes Biology Plant S, ting Act is puchsned by the Maryland Department of Natural Re-
. Addresses ANsP - Actdemy of Naturai sciences of Posta.19tn and Tme Parmway Pva. Pa 19103 7ess technical hegnhqnts, and note v.ortny information retevant to Mary.
BG&E - Ba bmare Gas & Electnc Co.1020 Gas & E'ectnc Biog. Barto. Ma 21203
'and's Power P' ant Siting Program.
C8L - Chesapeas e Beolog caitao. university of Maryiand. Mallowmg Point heid station.
Address cuestions or comments to Pt 1. Ponct *reder'ca. Ma 20678 Record, Power Plant Siting Program, Oe.
Muc - Mart n Manetta corporanon.1450 s Roiting acad. Baito. ud 2t227 Ca'tment of Natural Resources, State r
i Of bce Builde?. Arinacoiis. Md. 214o1 PPsP - Marviand Power Piant Sitieg Program 7
a h
l l
l l
I
)
CGS 0. COULTER Louts N. PHIPPS. JR.
s:c stany
$ TATE oF MARYLAND Ospurv stengramy DEPARTMENT OF NATUR AL RESOURCES TAWEs STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANNAPOLIS 21401 March 19, 1982 The Honorable Harry Hughes Executive Department Office of the Governor State House Annapolis, MD 21404
Dear Governor Hughes:
The 1981 Cumulative Environmental Impact Report prepared pursuant to the Maryland Power Plant Siting Act is forwarded. The Report is an analysis of the cumulative impact of electric power plants on Maryland's environment.
Eighty-seven percent of Maryland's electricity is currently generated using coal and nuclear fuels and it is likely that coal will displace even more oil by the end of the decade. Increased coal use with its concommitant potential for air, groundwater and surf ace water impacts from combustion, transport and disposal will require thorough investigation in determining appropriate conditions on the construction and operation of coal-fired power plants.
Monitoring results show that nuclear plants (Calvert Cliffs, Peach Bottom and Three Mile Island) are not exceeding regulatory constraints.
Establishment of a functioning system by the federal government for handlit.g spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste is critical for the continued operation of nuclear power plants in the United States beyond the l
early 1990's. The federal government should be encouraged to determine methods and locations for these vastes as soon as possible.
I i
The information contained in this report demonstrates the importance of l
the State's capability to collect and analyze technical data to insure that Maryland continues to have an adequate supply of electricity without degrading its natural resources or the human environmeat.
Sincerely yours, l
l
% 4, X
James B. C ulter JBC/ksa Enclosure
p h e,
. : i, *...c -
.;.{w.ss..., e' ::'.v c.
4lMpgg.s PPSP-CEIR-3 umWwrm
' f, e
i Fjgc a:
," # 4 C / ' n
'O.J;(
,,[
' hl..' [\\,
%rkT**0hoiv 3
.j POWER PLANT J'iJ g CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
/4d V p# p
/
s I
/
i, i
1 NWw 3p February 1982
- \\
t I
f i
l 1'
[
MARYLAND POWER PLANT SITING PROGRAM 4
[
OEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 8 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ME!JTAL HYGIENE 8 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND CCMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5 DE-PARTMENT OF STATE PLANNihG B DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 3 DEPART.
' ~ '
- MENT OF AGRICULTURE E COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY a PU3LIC SERVICE d
COMMISSION l
~
PPSP-CEIR-3 n
POWER PLANT CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FEBRUARY 1982 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Coussents and regtests for additional copias thould be addressed to Editor, Cumulative Environmental Impset Report, Power Plant Siting Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Taves State Office Building, Annapolis, Maryland 21401
B FOREWORD The Cumul'ative Environmental Impact Report is issued every two years as required by the Maryland Power Plant Siting Act.
It is a compilation of all 5
studies relating to the cumulative impact of power plants on Maryland's environment. Chapters were prepared under contract with principal responsibility for content and completion vested in a member of the Power Plant Siting Program Staff. Principal authors and their PPSP staff counter parts are herewith acknowledged for their contribution to this effort:
Matt Kahal, Exeter Associates, Inc.; Howard Mueller, PPSP Chapter I Matt Kahal, Exeter Associates, Inc.; Howard Mueller, PPSP Chapter II Chapter III - Sally Campbell, MMC; Randy Roig, PP9P Chapter IV
- William Richkus, MMC; Randy Roig, PPSP Rich McLean, PPSP Chapter V Howard Mueller, PPSP Chapter VI CLcipter VII - Ed Portner, APL; Pete Dunbar, PPSP Chapter VIII - Ed Portner, APL; Pete Dunbar, PPSP Chapter IX
- Randy Roig, PPSP Chapter X
- Tom Magette, PPSP Chapter XI
- Paul Miller, PPSP I gratefully acknowledge Dr. Jorgen Jensen for his contributions in putting this publication together; Karen Spencer and Daphne Heaphy for their patient, competent, and cheerful typing of numerous drafts; the many others l
without whose contributions this publication could never have been completed.
Thank you.
1 I
[
Paul E. Miller Editor, CT.IR-III l
ii
1 SDMMARY l
1 Chaoter I - Power Demands in the State of Marvland For decades prior to the early 1970's energy consumption grew steadily in the United States while energy prices remained stable. The most important factor sustaining this pattern was the availability of inexpensive oil, imported mainly from the Middle East. These trends were brought,to an abrupt end in 1973 by the Arab oil embargo and subsequent events. Skyrocketing prices and limited availability brought about sharp declines in energy usage.
Thus by 1980 the energy consumption was only marginally higher than in 1973.
The transient effects of the 1973 embargo have largely died out, and new trends in the pattern of energy production and consumption have emerged. The long range annual growth rate for total energy consumption has fallen from 4.1 percent for the 1960-1973 period to an expected 1.6 percent for the 1980-1995 period.
Prior to 1973 the national annual growth rate for electric energy was about 7.3 percent. It is projected that the demand will grow by 3.2 percent 3
per year through 1995, while the demand for the other energy forms will 4
stagnate. Increased demand for electric energy coupled with increased coal utilization by the industry is largely responsible for the proportional increase in coal usage over other primary fuels.
1 This Chapter presents a detailed discussion of the electric utility industry in Maryland. Projections of the future demand for electricity, utilizing econometric models, are presented. The total of the peak demands of the utilities serving Maryland is forecast to increase at an annual rate of 2.5% through 1990.
The potential for reduction of the growth rate of electricity demand through implementation of conservation measures and load management is dis-cussed. Load management can be accomplished through use of devices such as radio controlled water heaters or through a ratemaking policy reflecting the time-varying marginal cost of producing electricity.
Chapter II - Power Sucolv in the State of Maryland
(
The increasing demand for energy prior to the early 1970's was met primarily by increasing natural gas and petroleum production and by higher g
)
imports of petroleum. As a consequence of the 1973 oil embargo the nation's supply of primary energy has shif ted toward greater reliance on coal and nuclear energy. In 1973 oil and gas accounted for about 78 percent of the primary energy supply while coal and nuclear energy combined provided 19 percent of the supply. By 1985 it is expected that these percentages will be 1
62 and 33 respectively.
The pattern of electric power supply in the United States reflects the conditions of the primary energy market (slower demand growth and higher fuel prices) as well as changes in the regulatory environment. The Fuel Use Act fj of 1978 prohibits use of oil or natural gas as a primary fuel for new I
generating units and for existing units which can be converted from oil to I
I iii
I coal. These various factors are expected to cause the nation's electric utilities to increase the use of coal and nuclear fuel from about 48 percent in 1973 to about 74 percent and about 81 percent in 1985 and 1990 respectively.
Generation capacity of utilities serving Maryland is 33 percent oil and gas fired and 66 percent from coal and nuclear. Since oil and gas fired plants are operated less of ten than coal and nuclear power plants, the E
electricity actually produced by oil and gas fired plants amounted to only
[,
12% of the total, compared to 87% produced by coal and nuclear power plants.
By 1990, installed capacity is expected to be 25 percent oil and gas fired and 70 percent fired by coal and nuclear.
The generation profile and capacity expansion plan for each of the utilities serving Maryland are presented in this Chapter.
These plans provide for adequate capacity reserve margins throughout the period of the current Ten-Year Plan.
Chapter III - Air Impact Power plants contribute about 30 percent of the particulates, about 63 percent of the sulfur oxides, and about 28 percent of the nitrogen oxides emitted by all sources in Maryland. Only negligible amounts of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are contributed by the power plants.
For the three major pollutants emitted by power plants, air quality shows a trend toward improvement for particulates and sulfur oxides, while the level of nitrogen oxides has been relatively constant during recent g
years. All areas of the State are in compliance with the National Ambient g
Air Quality Standards for sulfur and nitrogen oxides. A state implementation plan has been prepared to bring the Baltimore Metropolitan nonattainment region into compliance with the primary federal standards by 1982 and the secondary (and more stringent) standards by 1986.
The theoretical and experimental work on mathematical models for predic-
[
ting air quality impacts is discussed in this Chapter.
E i
Federal regulatory measures have impacted Maryland in two ways. The g
first relates to the " emission offsets" policy of the Clean Air Act.
The g
State is presently exploring the establishment of an offset " market" for the Baltimore area. The second area of impact relates to coal conversion.
Eight l
units of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company are under " prohibition orders" which, should they become final, will prohibit burning of oil or natural gas at these units. Since six of the units are located in or near i
nonattainment areas for particulates the environmental consequences of these
[
j conversions must be carefully examined.
E l
I Chapter IV - Acuatic Impact Power plants can cause aquatic impact in several ways:
- 1) by entraining fish eggs, larvae or other organisms into the cooling system where they will l
be exposed to thermal, mechanical and thermal stresses; 2) by impinging fish and crabs on intake screens; and 3) by discharging heat and chemicals into receiving waters.
iv
r
^
Since aquatic co=namities generally are characteristic of the salinity l
zonas they inhabit, the cumulative impact of power plant operations has been p.-
assessed by salinity / habitat zones.
k'd Because of the high reproductive rates of the plankton and good tidal mixing at the existing plants in mesohaline regions of the Bay (Chalk Point, Morgantown, Calvert Cliffs and Wagner), significant depletion of plankton populations has not occurred. Ichthyoplankton is entrained by these plants, l
[
but spawning occurs throughout the Bay for the species of fish present here, so local depletions are insufficient to decrease Bay populations. Impingement Q
totals are small compared to mortality due to other causes. In addition, j
efforts to reduce these totals are now underway at all major plants. Habitat modification effects, usually more subtle in nature, have minor, localized impacts as described in this chapter. Coupled together, the power plant monitoring studies show a low cumulative impact on the mesohaline environment, gb The major area of concern within the tidal fresh /oligohaline region is the impact of cooling water withdrawals upon the nursery and spawning areas of striped bass and other anadromous species. Possum Point and Vienna have the highest potential for impact. The estimated maximum total annual striped bass loss would be about 1.0 percent of the adult population in the Maryland portion of the Bay.
Data collected recently at Baltimore Harbor plants show that there are abundant and diverse biota present in their vicinity. Measured impacts due g
to entrainment, impingement, and habitat modification are uniformly small or M
not present and restricted to the vicinity of the discharge. No evidence of cumulative impact on the Bay ecosystem has been found. Temporally cumulative impacts observed have been restricted to the immediate vicinity of discharge and in some cases have been beneficial rather than deleterious.
Recent data from riverine plants have revealed impacts localized to the discharge area. No cumulative river-wide ef fects are evident on the Potomac River. The role of the Conowingo hydroelectric facility in the decline of fisheries in the Susquehanna River remains a significant concern. Studies currently underway address this issue.
l Chapter V - Radiological Impact l
The nuclear power plants affecting Maryland are Calvert Cliffs, on the Chesapeake Bay (the only nuclear plant operating in Maryland), Peach Bottom, E
and Three Mile Island, both on the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. Data used in the assessment of the radiological impact of these plants come from several monitoring programs described in this Chapter. Because the amount of radioactivity released under stringent regulatory control is very small, l
determination of power plant impact is complicated by the problem of separating power plant ef fects from the background due to radioactivity from natural sources or weapons-test fallout. For instance, fall-out from weapons testing by the Chinese in 1978 introduced a dominant f actor into the monttoring measurements.
V
I Releases of gaseous and liquid effluents from the plants, and the atmos-pheric and aquatic distribution of radionuclides, as determined from the monitoring programs, are presented. For the Calvert Cliffs plant it was found that Sr-89 is the only radionuclide detectable in the atmosphere that g
can be attributed to plant releases. The impact of the very low concentra-E tions of this element is deemed insignificant. Several power plant related bioaccumulable radionuclides (Co-58, Co-60, Zn-65, and Ag-110m) are routinely detected at low levels in Bay biota, with the exception of edible finfish.
The maximum detected concentrations would result in radiation doses to man which are orders of magnitude below doses resulting from the natural radio-active sources in the Bay environment. Consumption of seafood containing the highest radionuclide concentrations measured would result in a plant-related k
increment of less than 0.2 percent of the dose due to the natural background.
At Peach Bottom, I-131 attributable to the plant has been detected in the air and in milk on several occasions. I-131 from the Chinese weapons test and apparently from Three Mile Island has also been detected at the same r
locations. Radiation doses from all these low I-131 levels are, however, well within the federal guidelines for power plant operations.
Liquid effluents containing power plant radionuclides have produced detectable concentrations (of Zn-65, Cs-134, and Cs-137) in sediments and biota of the conowingo Pond, the lower Susquehanna River, and the upper Bay.
Consumption of Conovingo Pond water and contaminated finfish exclusively at g
the highest radionuclide concentrations would represent about 1 percent of r
the natural background radiation dose.
The accident at Three Mile Island resulted in detectable, low level con-centrations of Xe-133 and I-131 in air samples in Maryland. 1-131 was not detected in cow's milk in Maryland nor were radionuclides attributed to that power plant detected in the Susquehanna River in Maryland. The plant is currently prohibited from discharging any accident-related water.
This chapter also discusses the radiological on-site and off-site plan-ning required by Federal regulations.
Spent fuel is currently stored at.ne nuclear power plants because spent fuel reprocessing was prohibited from 1977 to 1981 in this country. Although this prohibition is now lifted it is not expected that reprocessing or off-site storage of spent fuel will be possible until middle or late 1980's.
Storage of spent fuel is not considered to present a significant environ-mental threat. Assuming present licensed capacity, and retaining the capacity to discharge one full core, the projected date of the last refueling that can be discharged to the spent fuel pool at Calvert Cliffe is April g
1990. Under the same conditions, Peach Bc.ttom has ability to store fuel gi on-site until 1986 for Unit 2, and 1987 for Unit 3.
Chapter VI - Socioeconomic Impact The construction and operation of a power plant may have significant economic and social impact upon the community where it is located. The effects include changes in population and land use patterns, traffic conges-tion, changes in income, employment, and business activity, as well as vi
i changes in local government tax revenues and spending. The magnitude of these changes depends on the size, location, and composition of the affected communities.
Early studies of the impacts caused by the Calvert Cliffs plant cen-struction showed the needs for a means of predicting impacts on the pre-dominantly rural communities which are the proposed sites for future power plants in Maryland. A computerized model was developed and subsequently used to estimate the social and economic effects of the expansion of the Vienna power plant. The plant is located on the border between Dorchester and Wicomico counties. These counties and their urban centers, Cambridge and Salisbury, will be affected, y
The conclusions of this study are that: 1) the local economy can well absorb the effects of increased employment during construction; 2) the demand for additional housing can easily be met; 3) additional public services can be provided within the existing frame work; 4) traffic congestion will be minimal; 5) during the construction period neither Vienna nor Cambridge will experience significant fiscal effects while Wicomico and Dorchester counties will have a net increase in revenues, Salisbury is expected to suffer a small construction period deficit; 6) during the operating period Dorchester County will have a substantial net surplus whereas the effect on Wicomico County and 3
the cities will be negligible.
Expansion of the Vienna plant will lead to the strengthening of Eastern Shore rail. traffic because of the need for coal transport.
Chapter VII - Noise Impact i
i Noise associated with power plants can ecme from the primary generating facility, from cooling towers, from coal handling equipment, or from L
vehicular traffic associated with the plant operation.
A procedure for evaluating the impact of noise on people has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The State of Maryland has established regulations restricting the noise levels.
The results of a noise evaluations at six proposed and existing Maryland power facilities are described in this Chapter.
Charter VIII - solid Waste Manazement l
Power plant operatica generate large quantities of solid waste, mainly y
flyash and scrubber sludge, and to a lesser extent bottom ash and boiler
?
slag. Waste product utilization is desirable and usually possible. Bottom ash and some flyash is currently being sold for reuse. The remaining quantities are placed in managed land fills. This chapter discusses the potential problems of managing solid waste disposal.
There are no utility flue gas desulfuriaation systems operating in Maryland and hence no sludge disposal impact. Flyash and bottom ash disposal i
methods vary among the utilities. BG&E markets some of its flyash. All utilities operate land fills at various places.
vii
Previously utilized disposal sites are currently being studied by the Power Plant Siting Program to determine if they are affecting the environ-ment and if remedial measures are necessary.
Chanter II - Groundwater Four Maryland power plants use groundwater for their operation.
The reduction of water available to other users and the lowering of the water level or "potentio-metric surface" surrounding the point of withdrawal is evaluated.
Withdrawal at the Calvert Clif fs and Vienna plants have no adverse l
effect on the aquifers involved. At the Morgantown plant the water level in the lower of the two aquifers used has dropped substantially but no other user is affected. At the Chalk Point plant the withdrawal from the Magothy Aquifer could have significant impact on other users in the area. PEPCO has indicated that future withdrawals will come mainly from new wells in the deeper Patapsco aquifer which is not tapped by other users in the areas, and which contains an adequate amount of water.
Chanter X - Transmission Lines
(
Construction of transmission lines has several impacts common to all major construction projects such as wediment run-off, disturbance of wild life habitats, and deforestation. In addition, electrical effects such as radio and television interference, audible noise, ozone production, and spark discharges can be present near transmission lines. Finally the presence of a transmission line may cause aesthetic impacts, possibly affecting property values.
l The electric effects are only present at high voltage lines (500 KV and j
above) and even then only in the immediate vicinity of the line, usually within the power line right-of-way. The other effects can be minimized through judicious routing of the transmission corridor, avoiding as much as possible unique or environmentally sensitive areas.
i This Chapter discusses the various factors that are important in the routing of transmission line corridors.
I It is concluded that no health effects associated with transmission i
linas have been found. Electric effects can generally be avoided. Aesthetic l
Lapact and impact on land value have been studied and no conclusive results
- emerge, viii e
w
IM e
Chapter XI - Cooline Towers Salt drift from the natural draft cooling tower at Chalk Point deposits less than 8 kg/ha-month off site. This rate is below the rate at which foliar damage was evident in commercial crops (20 kg/ha-month). Predicted off-site deposition rates for the tower proposed at DP&L's Vienna expansion are less than 25 kg/ha-month and. reduction in crop yield is estimated to be a f ew percent at the power plant site boundary and smaller off-site.
M 5
E M
. E I
d l X E
E E
iX
e p
RECOMMENDATIONS 1.
It is recommended that administrative or legislative methods be found to further consolidate and streamline the currsat regulatory procedures for power plants.
When the Power Plant Siting Act was enacted in 1971, all state permits impinging on site suitability were incorporated under the Public Service Commission certificate so that there was a single regulatory proceeding for power plants in the State. Since 1971 new environmental requirements at the federal level have resulted in additional permits for water quality and solid waste disposal. Decisions on these permits are only partially incorporated in the PSC process.
2.
Present requirements in law for a 10-year plan f rom each electric utility should be extended to 15 years. Present trends indicate that 8-10 years are required to locate, license, and construct a fossil-fueled plant and 10-15 years are required for a nuclear plant.
I 3.
The continued disposal of low level radioactive waste and the establishment of national capability for high level radioactive waste disposal are critical to the continued operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.
Negotiations should be concluded which will allow Maryland to enter an interstate agreement for continued disposal of low level radioactive vaste. Af ter January 1,1986, States which have concluded such regional agreements will be allowed by federal law i
to exclude waste from outside their region.
In addition, the f ederal government should be encouraged to determine methods and locations for storage of high level wastes as soon as possible.
4.
The present State policy of considering both the need and the proposed rour.e for a given transmission line simultaneously has resulted in failure to consider these facilities until they are imminently needed.
A preferable approach would be to identify and approve corridors needed f or long term growth, with permission for construction granted i
at a later time, when short term need can be demonstrated. This would ellow the selection of corridors which would be more acceptable from both environmental and developmental points of view.
Incorporation of these corridors into county plans, on a basis similar to that used for identification of transportation corridors, would provide for orderly planning, and prevent land use conflicts.
'R R
R R
B
f -
8 g.
....,.....x....-
..,, ~
'f
' I* ;
?
3 ,.
~
..e-ai. s
-. ~. '
Y
.., % _. ;k. -
4-
?,
=J ;
[
\\
- . \\
_,,+
jy f.Q i ~
- l 6; l
.'..., x
~.
y t
sp~
_ l, f s Y ; ).y m-+
- p. g. ':g,.wh-b QQ l *
.f &
'f*
._,Q - :t 5
.}.W.l%.'. <
. r.
+
.q.
, c yy s_ w 2 ~.: - m
. m g.'dEe l
, a. y [.
4.4~
-t d'
J'"'
a..
pef d.
..j*_-r'
'.'.;;'; 7,'
4 '.
f (. ' h.$,'R'ff *. f ~.*I...,% T '$ . l C' l, ~ ' ^ _,' ' [ . _ : [, q ( _&.1 %k$~.(. .. f f.N'- _ &. ' '.Q ? y ' '~ ' ' j, '- Q.: j. - y,r I. ' hThhr M / O" iI. [I/ Q&%?[ffg[an. .,+%.t ~.) cv _ '; 7)f;'.,a f....% ;:' f ~f ..,,l}k Q:. g u.m. v* v w .,(4,,.,y lv-n.9 *n'.,.. '.,n.o..,,. 2 ~.. <., 5 . h"g . =. .m,. :. ~ 2 Rt. ,%.. m m'..g -
- s. m. ;.: w.f+
- vf;.;.
6 a, ,,.s , J..
- p.
'.5m: ay., t ,...t (*.g ,...'t. y,[, L... a ,/ v v... .r .,.. ~. t.-- -p ... [ %,.. *. " ~. -' s :- ,.v. 'j 1.': - G ,....,,-.g...C.. }. 9. M.. f..', .,,,,.g. . sM ^Q =.-.:. :. y= g.n 2: - g . y 4. ; g.g& 9... -, a
- i. ~~
...g... .[=\\$ -a'--- - L -..C .-+L ,.,. 3 7,, ' ;.., .'.p l. z_-,.'
- e.,.
3, : , M. g'M,
- y. p..
- M* -
+ D-4 ~%- . _.g. _ 9 *',: . p. = : :.:, _ _, _ _,, _ _, 2. s - pre. -x.wrr ~ e Q ..-+.e.. h.' g,g-} A.. l 'g.* beb ,d .. /.,*F i~ ,.. }. (pg ;#,. . s 3.,.. ' y.1. ' *.3'*p. - l _' ,,Q . apr u;* l t +t,C- ' 3-M,. Q 'h. %, . j
- tqs
, },, h I.f t-ph..e ; p., equ :g ' & (.- #:y. r.. m.;;..c.. - p/- - ~ .: C'- ,.s g yf f k%%M %
- 3. M N
?. M L V R M.' ' 3 R L i c i% w gf - .~l ,j 9 g 3.w%-. .e : %y, - . *? n L e g" -.f,',._.i.*..'s ~ .f c.r
- 2 "-.
- y
)' L. y,
- r,4
..:. -.. e.. S. 4 y } m; e,se e.o y L. a., Q,. a.. .a '5J ]1 'e. 4 .g p. ...., ~ - } '.Yp, *9., ~ c -,' i _ et - 's .&j [ 4. en:,7 ,.~~? ~ ~ ^ ~. * * * *_ m' fy} t E'* y, y,5,- b3;. - s , Q g.y. _ y tv ^- s.,, y f 4% d"'.4 'L. .a. eg9q '1.W;&*s% /*
- ,. 4. '
[._ e, ? + e .., f; J h M F Y h}* a 4 '.s t '[' '% /- % M 'T ' L' ~ K,.;.M,&W. +w%,J' N^..4. . ^ r w 2. L%gy q',.7 y,n:4,* .s,., a.Q ~* ~ph... W +, ;..,,. p., h7 '? [ [~ ~ 3 .,% h.h ~ W ,'.'3** w.y w >w.. R. w. . : -, p ns 4. .. a M. u.c % Q ',yf g@f.& % N ';- ~ n ' ' ~. Q, W Z', ? - Y." ;l. l g@} jf [ A f**@af. l h. y m.... v.- m: v.. - s? r ww sc$ ;+.. f*>'*.R ' d A hNU';."m%. fhNw. ' ' ~ ?*. r ..O ~quk as~f - l.' ^ . j .,ve 9 * ,L ..~ .wsw; w-v,.,,. -*g. p; w: n m % m w ! h ~%,, ' s ~
- ..+'w
~ s. - g%, \\, sg YsY.*Y { !,'+ % .,:% N C '- JY jf..h ', 8 ' ' JP
- v. g w,..,. g. g. ;.,
,. w v. u. . ~ ~. .4 t : v.
- ' m.
4y..,,... ~g-y., Lp,,- . w.., .t l. v.m,*@Wa q.m. W,;L'4 j. ,,.3 a,. ; ^ ~ t ;;,.; ysc. g. %4..:. --2 .4 4..._.4+ p;.,;;g3.. s% o..g.. . p y g. u. u)>., y .f. .s. 6,q.2 MM224$5ANMk,.v+DISi.%89amm.d fv.A
c-3 il 7 1 m A 7 OYSTER POPULATION DENSITY i ON FLAG POND BAR NEAR THE CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN CENTRAL CHESAPEAKE BAY 1983 s 'PI a George R. Abbe 1 t Report No. 84-3 l i l l t! Benedict Estuarine Research Laboratory Benedict, MD 20612 of the o I J l Division of Environmental Research Academy of Natural Sciences = 19th and the Parkway Philadelphia, PA 19103 t a l l l March 12, 1984 i -*T-'i
l 1 ABSTRACT . } A survey of the Flag Pond Oyster Bar near the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in central Chesapeake Bay was con-l ducted during 1983. Based on results of a.1979 survey, seven ~ !^ areas within the bar were selected for study in the spring and y six were examined again in the fall. Locations within areas a were sampled by divers who removed all oyster components (shells, boxes, and live oysters) from within three 0.33-m2 2 replicates at two positions at each site and brought them to the surface for examination. l A total of 1010 samples were collected from 169 locations which yielded 1064 marketable oysters (.> 76 mm), 6282 sub-legal I oysters. (< 76 mm), and 203 spat (< 25 mm). Of the seven areas .J examined, four had moderate oyster densities, and three had low densities. Overall densities of marketable oysters were 3.2 2 2 l per m and sub-legal oysters were 20.5 per m. These densities compare well with densities in 1979 of 1.4 and 0.6 per m2 for legal and sub-legal oysters, respectively. The large increase in small oysters resulted from heavy spat sets during 1980-82. Analysis of the data using a nested analysis of variance re-vealed for most components in spring that variance among areas variance among locations > variance between positions > variance among replicates (p<0.01). In the fall the vari-l j ances among areas and among locations did not differ signifi-l cantly; otherwise the results were similar to spring. l i Present population size of Flag Pond Bar is estimated at i 54,400 bushels of oysters, nearly eight times the 7080 bushels j i estimated in 1979. This estimate should increase during the next 2 years as sub-legal oysters enter the_ legal size class. i l I e
~ ] TABLE OF CONTENTS } Page Aestract 1 m e Introduction. 1 e I Materials and Methods 3 Description of Study Area 3 Sampling 3 Statistical Analysis 3 i Results and Discussion 7 1983 Studies 7 Comparison with Earlier Surveys 22 References Cited 25 't l Appendix A. Spring Sampling Data 26 o Appendix B. Fall Sampling Data 33 C e a b = m e W W ii
1--
,.-v-r ,,, i,,.,- --- - % -,.,--, - - --r-y -w
e e INTRODUCTION The American oyster, Crassostrea virginica Gmelin, in- ~ habits estuaries along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts as far north as,the Gulf of St. Lawrence, although it is more abundant south of Cape Cod than it is to the north. Within their range, oysters may be found wherever salinities are between 5 /oo and ~ 30 /oo, provided other requirements are met including a solid substrate, good water movement, temperatures between 0* and 32*C, and an adequate food supply (Galtsoff, 1964). Much of Chesapeake Bay meets these requirements for j
- oysters, and thus has supported a highly productive oyster-fishery for over a century, although its productivity has been
] declining during much of that time. The largest oyster harvest 5 in. Maryland was in 1885 when 15 million bushels were landed { (Kennedy and Breisch, 1981). Since the early years of the 20th I century, however, when annual landings averaged about 4 million . bushels, the decline continued until 1934 when. the harvest.was onl'y 1.8 million bushels. For the next half century annual landings averaged only about 2.5 million bushels with low landings in the mid 1960s of about 1.4 million annually (Kennedy and Breisch, 1981). One of the main causes of reduced oyster harvests has been and continues to be reproductive failure over a multi-year period. In a model developed to help estimate future oyster harvests in Maryland, Ulanowicz, caplins and Dunnington (1980) showed that the setting of yeung oysters (spat) varied directly .4 with the cumulative high salinity during.the spawning season and inversely with the harvest during the previous season. From 1966 to 1979 there were 10 years of near total reproduc-tive failure in Maryland (Bay-wide average) and 4 years when it was just fair (Krants, Davis and Webster, 1982). In general, the fair years were ones of high cumulative excess salinity ~ (Ulanowicz, Caplins and Dunnington, 1980), and the poor ^ years were ones of low salinity. Above average salinities again prevailed during 1980-82, and thus increased spat setting ~ .4 as
r . 1 should have occurred.
- Krantz, Davis and Webster (1982) determined that 1980 spat settlement was one of the three j
highest since 1931, averaging 191 spat per Maryland bushel throughout the Maryland portion of the Bay. The.1981 spatfall averaged 99 per bushel and 1982 averaged 75 (Krantz aild Davis, 1983). Although there 'are many areas in Chesapeake Bay that support oyster populations, low density or harvesting diffi-culty may limit the extent to which some of these areas can be worked. The Flag, Pond Bar on the western shore of Chesapeake Bay near the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) is such an example. This bar consists of 275 ha (680 acres) of Bay bottom (ANSP, 1968), much of which is shifting sand (inshore) or soft mud (offshore, depth > 9 m), both unsuitable for oysters. The average density of marketable oysters on the productive areas of this bar was estimated at 1.44 per m or 2 about 72 bushels per hectare (29 bushels per acre) assuming 200 q oysters per bushel (Abbe, 1980). In some areas where oysters I were found, however, many were attached to large rocks which effectively reduced the actual catchable densities. In 1980 and 1981 the Maryland Department of Natural Re-sources planted shells on various portions of Flag Pond Bar,to t serve as cultch, and the 1980-82 sp a sets that followed were e t j above average. In 1981 the density of spat was 140 per bushel I on natural bottom in the area and-1060 on planted shell } l l (Krantz, Davis and Webster, 1982). No detailed studies have been made since 1979, however, so the success of the 1980-82 i spatfalls is unknown. l The present study was conducted to determine changes in population density in certain areas of the bar that have occurred since 1979 as a result of shell planting and increased spat setting. It also serves as a statistical evaluation of l the distribution of oysters within an oyster bar. 2 _}}