ML20127N347
| ML20127N347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1992 |
| From: | Hinson C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Congel F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126E595 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212010196 | |
| Download: ML20127N347 (9) | |
Text
PDG NOV P 0 992 HEHORANDUM FOR:
Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards THRU:
LeMoine J. Cunningham, Chief Radiation Protection Branch
' N.
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
'py g U
FRON:
Charles S. Hinson, Health Physicist Radiation Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
ERRATA FOR 1991 LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA REPORT Following the issuance of the " LWR Occupational Dose Data for 1991" memorandum on October 28, 1992, the staff was informed of an error in the 1991 plant dose reported for the Cooper Nuclear Station. The actual total dose for Cooper in 1991, as substantiated by i. ant personnel, should be 405 person-rem, not 14 person-rem as listed in Ta)1es la, 3a, and 3b of the above listed report.
This revised dose will increase the average dose per reactor for BWRs from 314 to 324. The average dose per reactor for LWRs will change from 253 to 257 person-rem per reactor.
Attached are those pages of the 1991 dose data memorandum containing revised data resulting from the change in 1991 doses for the Cooper Nuclear Station.
Vertical lines in the right-hand column of each page indicate portions of the report which have been revised. These revised pages should be inserted into the original 1991 dose memorandum to replace the pages containing the incorrect data. Any questions on these corrections should be directed to Charles Hinson at (301) 504-1845.
N Charles S. Hinson, Health Physicist Radiation Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution: See next page
\\
0FC RPB:DRSS:NRR-RPBJpRSS:NRR RP):hASBf$ Rib CHinN:jumgp JWbton LJCMIghb NAME DATE 11/20/92 11[Tb/92 11/Ah92 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY I
DISK \\ DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\ errata.ch 1
180003 92'bWO!9C 3(h>v 4
2 DISTRIBUTION:
Central File, P1 37 L. Cunningham T. Essig J. Wigginton C. Hinson F. Congel P McKee R. Erickson C. Willis R. Cooper, R1 J. Stohr, RII C. Norelius, R!ll L. Callan, RIV R. Scarano, RV J. Joyner, RI W. Cline, Ril C. Pederson, Rlll J. Potter, Ril B. Murray, RIV G. Yuhas, RV R. Shortridge, Ril J. Reese, RV R. Anderson, TTC K. Raglin, TTC J. Fouchard, 2G5 J. Hickey, 6H3 D. Cool, NLS139 B. Morris, NLS007 C. Raddatz, NLS139 PRPB R/F R. Cunningham, 6H3 A. Roecklein, NLS139 R. Hartfield, P712 E. Butcher F. Combs
LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1991 This is a compilation and analysis of occupational radiation doses reported from j
light water cooted reactors (LWRs) for the year 1991. The information was derived from reports submitted to the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 20.407.
i in 1991 two new pressurized water reactors (PWRs) completed their first full year of commercial operation and are included in this year's summary for the first time (indicated by an asterisk in Tables 1 and 2). These new plants are Comanche Peak and Seabrook.
No new boiling water reactors (BWRs) completed their first year of operation in 1991.
Rancho Seco was removed from the compilation of reactor data this year since this reactor has been permanently shut down. Other reactors which are no longer included in the compilation of reactor data are Dresden 1, Humboldt Bay, Indian Point 1, Lacrosse, Three Mile Island 2, and Fort St. Vrain.
28521 The total cofiective dose for all 111 LWRs included in 1991 was eBASS-person rem (see Figure 1).
This is 3,45r[ person rem ($ddh less than last year's value of 36,592 person rem. The average collective dose per reactor for LWRs in 1991 was f59-257 person rem. This is Niless than the 1990 LWR average of 333 person rem per reactor (see Figure 1) and represents the largest drop in average co!!ective LWR doses sini:e 1984. The reason for the overall decline in average co!!ective dose per reactor in past years has been the continued increase in the number of operating plants and the decline of the total co!!ective dose at these plants (see Figure 2). The average measurable dose per worker for LWRs has experienced a similar trend, and in 1991 it decreased to 0.29' rem from the 1990 value of 0.33 rem (see Figure 3). The co!!ective dose per gross megawatt year (MWe year) has decreased from a value of 0.54 in 1990 to 0.38 in 1991 (see Figure 4).
in 1991, the total coIIective dose for PWR units was 16,522 person rem for 74 reactors.
The resulting average collective dose per reactor for PWRs in 1991 was 223 person rem per reactor (see Figure 1). This represents a 22% decrease from the 1990 value of 285 person rem per reactor. The average number of personnel with measurable doses per PWR decreased from 933 in 1990 to 796 in 1991. The average measurable dose per worker for PWRs in 1991 is 0.28 rem. This is about 10% less than the 1990 value of 0.31 rem.
1 l
s*
~, - - - -.,
w e
I 1
t l2005 in 1991, the total collective dose for BWR units was44SM person rem for 37 reactors.
The resulting ga p, rage co!!ective dose per unit for BWRs in 1991 was dNper unit. This is G6% lower than the 1990 value of 426 person-rem per unit. The average number of personnel with measurable doses per BWR decreased from 1,124 in 1990 to 1,040 ln 19gi The average measurable dose per worker also decreased from 0.38 rem g
The compilation in Table ia represents a breakdown of the co!!ective dose incurred at each LWR that had completed at least one full year of commercial operation by the end of 1991. Table is also lists the reactor type and the annual whole body dose distributions of each cf the 111 LWRs in this year's compliation. Table ib presents the same type of dose breakdown for those LWRs which are either no longer in operation or have been in operation for less than one year. The collective dose figures listed in Table 1 (a and b) are either actual total dose figures submitted by the licensee (indicated by a double asterisk) or were derived from data submitted by the licensee in response to the requirements of 10 CFR 20.407.
Figure 1 shows the average collective dose figures for PWRs, BWRs, and LWRs for the years 19731991. For the eighteenth consecutive year, the average collective dose per reactor for BWRs has remained higher than that for PWRs. The average collective dose for LWRs in 1991 is the lowest average LWR collective dose in 22 years. Figure 2 shows the total number of operating reactors and the total collective dose per year plotted for the years 1973 1991. Although the number of plants has increased each year, the collective dose for the 111 plants operating in 1991 is lower than the co!!ective dose in 1977 when there were only 57 operating reactors.
Table 2a lists the 74 PWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1991.
As stated previously, the PWR average collective dose per reactor in 1991 was 223 person rem. The top fouricen PWR units in Table 2a reported collective doses in 1991 which were less than half _of this 1991 average dose per reactor. Only five PWRs reported doses in 1991 which were at least twice the average dose per reactor. These units, which appear as the bottom five reactors in Table 2a, were Indian Point 2, Hadden Neck, Trojan, and Turkey Point units 3 and 4. Table 2a and Figure 4 also give the collective dose per gross MWo year for PWRs to indicate their power generation performance as it relates to the collective dose incurred by the workers at these plants, in 1991, the 2
s 4
i collective dose per MWe year of 0.32 for PWRs was below 0.50 for the third year in a row.
This indicates a better than 3:1 ratio of Mwe years generated to the collective dose accumulated du.bg 1991.
Tables 2a and 3a list the values of 'CR' for each reactor which is defined to be the ratio of the annual co!!ective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding 1.5 rem (cSv) to the total annual collective dose. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) recommends that this parameter remain in the range between 0.05 and 0.50. In 1991, only two reactors, Cooper Station and Duane Arnold, 7
both BWRs, exceeded this recommended range.
Table 2b lists the three year average doses per PWR in ascending order, as well as the co!!ective dose per reactor for the last three years. Several PWRs, such as Yankee Rowe and Prairie Island 1 and 2, have consistently achieved very low collective doses and therefore appear at the top of Table 2b. The four PWR sites (five units) with the highest doses in 1991 are indicated with an asterisk to give an Indication of their performance over the last three years. Several of these PWRs are consistently among the highest dose plants as evidenced by their high three year averages. Table 4 gives a breakdown of some of the major activities which contributed to the collective dose received at these high dose plants. It appears that the activities which rr.ost frequently contributed to these high bollective doses were steam generator related work, valve maintenance and repair, inctallation and removal of scaffolding and insulation, and in service inspection work.
Tabte 3a lists the 37 BWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1991.
The average BWR dose per reactor in 1991 was-3Nperson rem. The top 5 eye BWR units in Table 3a reported collective doses in 1991 which were less than half of the 1991-average collective dose per reactor. There was only one unit, Oyster Creek, that reported doses which exceeded twice the 1991 average dose per reactor. Table 3a and Figure 4 also give the collective dose per gross MWe year for BWRs to indicate their power generation performance as it relates to the co!!ective dose incurred by the workers at these plants. In 1991, the collective dose per MWe year of 0.54 for BWRs was below 1.00 for the third consecutive year. As shown in Figure 4, this parameter continues to decrease at both types of reactors, but remains higher for BWRs than for PWRs. One contributing factor for this difference is the larger power generation capacity of most PWRs.
3 y
,.,.y w
=
TABLE la. ANNUALWHOLEBODY60SESATLICENSEDNUCLEARPOWERFACILITIES CY 1991 Ihsber of Individuals with Ltele Body !bses in tM Ranges (rees or c5v)
TOTAL TOTAL IRMBER CDLLECTIVE PLANT NAME TTPC c
trdM8ER VITM 005E No Mea-Meas.
0.10- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75-1.00- 2.00- 3.00-4.00-5.00- 6.00- 7.00-fot1-MEAS.
(Person-surable <0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 12.00 *12.0 TURED EI?c5URE res.c5v)
ARrMSAS 1.2 M
1.547 1.164 425 288 114 43 30 3.611 2.064 351 **
BEAvtR VAltEY 1.2 M 1.171 70 350 314 144 86 82 13 2.230 1.07 495 **
SIG Rock Po!NT eve 30 231 25 35 41 40 58 19 4
1 465 435 2 21.
BRAIDWOOD 1.2 M
1.428 504 354 426 172 91 87 7
3.059 1.641 550 **
BROWN 5 FERRY 1.2.3 M 2.563 822 482 330 136 38 7
4.378 1.815 354 **
BRUNSWICK 1.2 EWR 1.652 1.220 462 362 185 136 213 7
4.233 2.586 778 **
8TRGN 1.2 M
1.483 446 269 189 87 60 26 2.565 1.077 268 **
CALLAWAY I M
972 209 55 15 1
1.252 280 21 **
-CALVERT CLIFF 5 1.2 M 1.167 1.561 261 119 23 6
4 3.141 1.9 74 132 **
CATAWBA 1.2 PWR 1.54 0 192 388 415 154 68 52 2
3.411 1.871 462 **
CLINTON BWR 1.542 412 257 195 115 18 3
2.552 1.010 233 COMANCHE PEAK
- PVR 3.401 584 248 107 31 11 4
4.386 985 148 COOK 1.2 PWR 1.325 598 149
$8 7
3 2.141 815 69 **
COOPER STATION BWR 2.382 400 190 183 128 90 108 3.481 1.099 h**'y405 U
CRYSTAL RIVER 3 PWR 904 520 180 83 27 to 1
1.725 821 116 OAVI5-BE5SE M
973 487 255 122 56 47 33 1.973 1.000 216 **
01A8t0 CANYON 1.2 M 2.060 773 531 379 196 89 71 1
4.120 2.040 546 **
ORESDEN 2.3 WR 1.600 667 378 325 171 155 257 18 3
3.644 2.044 1.005 **
DuANE ARNOLD BWR 1.721 125 57 46 20 14 41 33 2.057 336 202 FARLEY 1.2 M
59 1 616 345 250 195 81 106 32 to 2.236 1.645 648 **
FERMI 2 BWR 1.965 539 358 269 50 6
1 3.188 1.223 228 FITZPATRICK BWR 1.242 796 155 112 69 47 85 5
2.511 1.269 333 FORT CALHOVN M
766 162 52 42.
13 10 5
1.050 284 57 GINNA M
889 320 182 198 113 71 63 1.836 947 328 **
GRAND GULF SWR 1.396 425 126 99 32 10 4
3 2.095 6*9 94 **
HADUAM NECK PVR 786 371 195 178 123 81 193 27 1.954 1.168 590 **
HARRIS PWR 912 384 180 148 85 48 27 1.784 872 226 **
HATCH 1.2 M
1.167 792 438 395 302 202 343 34 2
3.675 2.508 1.161 **
HOPE CREEK 1 BWR 952 922 281 237 122 66 69 3
2.652 1.700 373 **
INDIA 4 POINT 2 M 1.927 381 203 146 67 65 155 73 4
3.021 1.094 1.468 **
IN01A4 POINT 3 PWR 759 191 56 46 6
1.058 299 40 KIVAUMEE PWR 408 189 IDF 88 37 10 35 26 3
903 495 221 LASALLE 1.2 BWR 1.316 732 313 312 239 144 235 10 3.301 1.985 606 **
LINERICK 1.2 SWR 2.143 830 243 63 8
1 6
3.294 1.*31 106 **
MAlhE YANKEE M
637 220 14 66 37 16 13 1.053 426 105 Indicates plants counted for the first time in 1991 after cryplettr=9 tNir first isU year of geration.
- Indicates actual colleestre d>se reported by factitty, otherwise calculated by staff.
TABLE la. _ ANNUAL nfHOLE 800Y DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES (Continued)
CY 1991 ihmiser of Individaals with Wele Body Doses in the Ranges (reme er c5v) itRAL i
TUTAL meWER COLLECT 19E PumT MAME TYPE mm0ER v1TM 805E 4
i ho pha-fleas.' O.10- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75-1.00- 2.00- 3.00- 4.00- 5.00- 5.00- 7.00-pent-MEAS.
(Persen-serable <0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 12.00 >12.0 TURES DPE5WE rum.c5v)
YANKEE-a0WE M
$18 59 46 34 15 4
4 700 152 40 **..
Z10N 1.2 M
1.841 410 237 172 61 14 8
2.743 902 173 **
I-e 4
4 TOTALS:
- 74 PWRs 58.860 27.064 11.869 9.262 4.539 2.360 2.651 345 33 117.783 50.922 14.522 TOTALS:
37 SWRs 37.527 17.384 7.016 5.732 3.409 1.975 2.602 299 14 1
76.019 30.492
- ".:: ; 12005" TOTALS:
111 LWs 96.387 45.246 18.945 14.994 7.948 4.335 5.253 644 47 1
193.002 97.415 M.!% y 2MU U
i 1'
t
?
i i
}
l:
' Indicates plants counted for the first time in 1991 after completing tielr first fell yeer of operetten.
- Indicates actuel collective dose reported by fact 11ty, otherwise calculated by staff.
e t
- + -
w 4w
TABLE 3a. BOILING WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING ORDER OF COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR CY 1991 Collective Collective -
Average Collective Dose Per Dose Per Dose Per Dose Per Reactor Site Worker Gross MVe Yr CR Site Name (remsorcSv)(remsorcSv)(remsorcSv)-
o,2 o COOPER STATION 4 c"I Aos" 4hel- 0.11 9A- 04
-5r79-l c LlHERICK 1,2 53 106 0.09 0.1 0.04 GRAND GULF 94 94 0.13 0.1 0.21 VERHONT YANKEE 118 118 0.38 0.2 0.13 BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 118 354 0.20 0.8 0.01 RIVER BEND 1 144 144 0.18 0.2 0.02 PERRY 146 146 0.24 0.1 0.10 NINE HILE POINT 1,2 146 292 0.19 0.2 0.10 DUANE ARNOLD 202 202 0.60 0.4 0.56 BIG ROCK POINT 226 226 0.52 3.8 0.48 FERH1 2 228 228 0.19 0.3 0.00 CLINTON 233 233 0.23 0.3 0.01 SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 254 507 0.27 0.3 0.07 QUAD CITIES 1,2 255 509 0.30 0.5 0.18 FITZPATRICK 333 333 0.26 0.8 0.23 HOPE CREEK 1 373 373 0.22 0.4 0.16 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 387 387 0.36 0.8 0.21 BRUNSWICK 1,2 389 778 0.30 0.8 0.23 LASALLE 1,2 403 806 0.41 0.4 0.25
'd"HILLSTONE POINT 1 409 409 0.35 1.9 0.18 HONTICELLO 465 465 0.48 1.1 0.29 PEACH BOTT0H 2,3 467 934 0.35 0.8 0.20 DRESDEN 2,3 503 1,005 0.49 1.5 0.40 HATCH 1,2 581 1,161 0.46 1.0 0.30 PILGRIH 605 605 0.21 1.5 0.14 OYSTER CREEK 1,185 1,185 0.38 3.4 0.34 s
17
THR(( YE k kVER G5 CbtL[CTih['D65$"PEk~RUAET6R
' ~ " ~ ' " ~ '
'"~
~~
1991 Collective Dose Per Reactor Three Year (PersonramorpersoncSv)
Average Collective Site Name 1989 1990 1991 Dose per Reactor L1HERICK 1,2 266 88 53 109 FERHI 2 255 83 228 189 BIG ROCK P0lHT 177 232 226 212 VERHONT YANKEE 288 307 118 238
- COOPER STATION 343 379
--14-405
--N5-3%
BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 219 437 118 258 HINE MILE POINT 1,2 282 350 146 259 SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 352 220 254 275 HILLSTONE POINT 1 462 131 409 334 PEACH BOTTOM 2,3 369 189 467 342 HOPE CREEK 1 465 196 373 345 PILCRIM 207 225 605*
346 MONTICELLO 507 94 465 355 t* GRAND GULF 498 482 94 358 CLINTON 372 553 233 386 RIVER BEND 1 558 489 144 397 QUAD CITIES 1,2 450 514 255 406 DUANE ARNOLD 194 861 202 419 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 492 536 387 472 PERRY 767 638 146 517 LASALLE 1,2 693 474 403 523 HATCH 1,2 278 728 581*
529 FITZPA1 RICK 377 884 333 -
531 DRESDEN 2,3 565 700 503*
589 BRUNSWICK 1,2 893 774 389 685 OYSTER CREEK 910 310 1,185*
802 Annual BWR Averages:
432 426
-314-324 Total Reactors included:
36 37 37 4
? Nicates high dose per reactor sites for 1991, e
18 i