ML20129C398

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1983 Annual Rept
ML20129C398
Person / Time
Site: Crane Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 12/31/1983
From: Hukill H
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To: Murley T
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20127A342 List:
References
FOIA-84-780 5211-84-2049, NUDOCS 8506050504
Download: ML20129C398 (6)
v • d • e


Text

r V~ x exw 47 yc 3-1

.tr M1 Nuclear GPU Nuclear Corporation

smS=~

o a

~

Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 0191 717 944 7621 TELEX 84 2386 Writer's Direct Dlal Nurnber:

March 1, 1984 5211-84-2049 Dr. Thomas E. Murley Region I, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA. 19406

Dear Sir:

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I (TMI-1)

Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Annual Report Enciosed is the 1983 Annual Report for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I.

This report is submitted per TMI-1 Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.B.

The Report contains the following information:

Attachment I Tabulation of Personnel Exposure Data for the calendar year 1983.

(T. S. Section 6.9.1.B.1.).

Attachment II Aircraft Movement Data from Harrisburg Internatienal Airport for the calendar year 1983.

(T. S. Section 6.9.1.B.2).

Attachment III Laak Reduction Program Test Information for the calendar year 1983.

(T. S. Section 6.9.1.B.3).

Attachment IV Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve and Pressurizar Safety Valve Challenges for the calendar year 1983.

(T. S. Section 6.9.1.B.4).

Sincerely, 8506050504 841217 PDR FOIA DETJEN84-700 PDR H. D.

. k1 1, Director, TMI-1 HDH:JGB:mle Attachments cc.: Director, Office of Insppetion and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com;nission Washington, D.C. 20555 (40 copies)

GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Public Utilities Corporation

TE (NR)

ATTACllHENT T NtstBER OF-PERSONNEL AND MAN RDIS BY 130RK AND JOB FUNCTIots PACE 2 ef 2 January 1, 1984 Through December 31, 1983

^- 5 '

THE UNIT 1 N

., ' l

's,

)-

Job Category Station Personnel Utility Personnel Contractor Person [nel -

d Job Function Number Rems Number Rees Number Rems REFUELING Haintenance Personnel 1

.002 0

.000 0

.000 Supervisory Personnel I

.000 0

.000 0

.000 TOTAL RY JOB FUNCTION Maintenance Personnel 214 178.589 8

5.907 291 449.136 i

operating Personnel 104 79.134 1

.028 8

5.753

[

Ilcalth Physics Personnel 112 53,191 6

.020 35 4.276 Supervisory Personnel 102 35.962 4

.031 43 22.827 Engineering Personnel 89

!!.855 36 1.282 140 40.662 Administrative Personnel 116.

8.873 27

.145 34 4.195

-1 CRAND TOTAL 737 367.604 82 7.413 551 526.849 l

1 i J

J e

f I

l-l 9

1 l

9

  • p=

e-

-O=9e <woup

--w=+si=a

TIAI l (PWO KITACI::lEttr 1 NUHitER 01' PERSONNEL A!!D HAN REMS HY WORK AND J0!! FUNCTION Page I of 2 January 1, 1983 Through December 31, 1983 TH1 UNIT 1 s5

. lob Category Station Personnel litility Personnel Contractor Personnel

'7

. Job

(

REAcr0R OPERATIONS /SURV.

liaintenance Personnel 147 1.747 1

.008 50

.201

'l

[

93 11.376 1

.013 3

.014 p 0perating Personnel IIcalth Physics Personnel 99 34.667 6

.020 27 2.819

~

Supervisory Personnel 80 2.374 4

.027 22

.061

?

Engineering Personnel 77 2,411 17

.081 57

.230 I

fAdministrative Personnel 98 1.203 26

.017 27

.153 ROUTINE HAINTENANCE Haintenance Personnel 185 15.647

'l

.000 52

.301

(( Operating Personnel 71

.309 0

.000 3

.031 q

llealth Physics Personnel 78 1.622 0

.000 3

.007 Supervisory Personnel 55

.919 0

.000 8

.016 Engineering Personnel 21

.240 4

.012 19

.053 I

(DAdministrative Personnel 64

.137 0

.000 5

.030 INSERVICE INSPECTION tlaintenance Personnel 57 1.428 1

.002 48 1.030 40pcraLing Personnel 39

.659 1

.009 1

.005 Ilealth Physics Personnel 44

.347 0

.000 1

.000 Supervisory Personnel 31

.779 0

.000 4

.157 Engineering Personnel 17 1.584 10

.038 41 4.450 3 Administrative Personnel 9

.005 1

.100 9

.044 SPECIAl. HAINTENANCE tlaintenance Personnel 183 145.134 5

5.727 283 447.364

.OperaLing Personnel 74 57.840 1

.006 6

5.639 Nealth Physics Personnel 62 15.549 0

.000 6

.572 Supervisory Personnel 72 29.395 1

.004 29 22.262 Engineering Personnel 56 6.190 23 1.151 89 35.901 7 Administrative Personnel 47 6.098 2

.028 16 3.968 WASTE PROCESSION tlaintenance Personnel 90 14.631 3

.170 31

.240

. operating Personne1 67 8.950 0

000 2

.064 Ilealth Physics Personnel 57 1.006 0

.000 6

.878 Supervisory Personnel 23 2.495 0

.000 5

.331 Engineering Personnel 6

1.430

'~"

000 5

.028 1

. Administrative Personnel 11 1.430 0

.000 2

,000

ATIACM R1es37"

)

(D Ibl 543 mce4.-,w/690 T mr-I S.0 R nac<-]

6 !'O -

.he k oebns Ocse E%dy e.

0%y J o w e. 6 ra ham

[20h 241-N4 c4 M gtsu.e. [

8 LOl

?U 7k 6f< x.<.:4 D,

a

.Tb S b. %dr Jyj' a,.'.w'-.

./h$, rl d Wb!,.7[

i C t 'c<ua 6o')()'.)

.dzEY ec (w

<, A l.,'A..: 0 l

. h t L

, & d.

b w 'lN

.T. D Q '.

.cVes i,:CT,.0 &.!

l.c..

, o..

w

. u c #

.: e.,c.,

a d. J.

t

i l...

c c

p.s a.a u... el.

W

.tL-A' f

.~.y

.wt

(&

en etwa

-c.,,

..v. ~.

0 I ri.*., l.$5Y b t*

kJNC O kl%CIN O'

$- 3 7 $,33g C w aa i-5%-TiB f dD:>,I De s n00 re- / ~~ r G F *

  • Pre -r (<.

wo< h

  • 1 cs a~.,:7

\\26h}

e

?

- Pre-r?ece, io LJoA 120 f 137 O'ee,nge 5-

)

i

  • ;& y i! cs.

. - E.//y Cv w.f 45' 667- &'l7 v

- flujer.g. + $1 kill:

~

c 4%.

235 ggo

-W y w.f

,'!.c s 7 S-ye.

-at;t:T C'

. '~~ l 1 ' ' j '

l.h s_

20

\\

-we oP;.4,.:.s..

.J; r E :

- E,., e ( O. l.., '. /r) io TC -SC l

- +s e (,,e ;. A

't 'u

/

/

/0

.T

  • ?*d!"*W'Llh y,Lk a wvc.wht 12 s ( 0.)

s /> rt'.-h i

s SJ LJ A.h M. A 4 -Wsp.ed)

\\

,.s 2.W t

J+ gaffb

(

.,P ' {( c.g AW.hda p

., )

W n\\'d

,,.'v,5 1A o. w % f - d io p.vicdua a 7T

...hw cGw_

k *,, & W w

?*

h.:

.- / dSi.p

(.a al ~

sd )

AIo

( a4 fu.a) f'ah a to 2c h4<

L r<

enL (LL n$p w p u., dst p s lo-Ao-

' dd4).

Pob S Abu To n vc s-w(e,n) a 3-S g h i r o t-z g

A' 'a~3 i L) ow]4/,'

ls).l.cf % / % 0s s

O

~ A % N (:,e

, 2. 5 2.

U.(,, e bow o..d J, t y ceX Ec, (id f )'.

f.2W 4

F Rcs;.,i' i2.

tA..ri ' 73 e,. -

ag<

F,J,;ti 125I^

re a s.u. <

s-P., G f. 2 Ar W A r d.;

saw 30 k.e, 5

480 e,;,.

r;,,,

s 13 7 o

( 6 7-G 9 7

I

-._ e 7

+s y?-.

/

Mel m /.h.x

~ ll a../ :c-b (l-lv.. 7 w z fi..../d :somo Abe, w L ' mr

~

-rF 3

r-w>h3's.l-Li& c'4 < /

  • j:

.bIce C

., p,..:,.

?. y eS.

,t,:.. '

./

eev~./

y y.,

N

4u.,r(,

,:, E.6...

s/ ? (c;! / t. ~/s4.cg.,,

L

' : !.< > a l.vefs (lost

, <l.ir J rd e.1

759, ho TL,r(rbe

/

Isn,, I,~6 k. (ud,e'lef) 4o

) Ed, v

.Ea'*

A

  • \\

,g R cs

..wr i2 (A

^2.y./,

.t r(,.s

'. mk' l ? O (.&)

i o

\\...: :!.. l s I e 6/y.,,...

' 1...,

.ei.. -

Ie I

c*c' c-fv.( c. /J.:/ s v tw?dth p's.g.g d l~ :fo J.,.,:j k u ad.,) bpliv. k

.w.. h f^e.yi.,i. hd [l /,t.f,/hk.

5 (,.qh

'C 4eA-

~a.

[i. g, s %T,,,,,,,..;

3T (h i

< e-. e us a 1..,

,e.

  • (*<navs.:.-@k(+pa

=

.--<! r i d J.,..: L q,., u (&$W st sz $

yAl,,,,. spa'+.&&,J. alt..<v(JUe

.h -1L.L p. aln~ +J>f 4 &.vle. Trl) as

.: d A w f S.i [e deu.R,. g h.;

13 l1)(so g $2. _

\\, P s.--

0.L % i s.ca d :,$;0.ed.s v ))

Od s

P e u. ( > j Lt e n b, p, m A.a,.,

lo7(d(@

4t i3 2~

@ auMa dd,,4 rod.@.dl. w a...., L 5, sm

,v a

}$f

$Lf

9 j)OS$ *
  • t e k i ek *,.C l y', lf'

[ g z,y G.p<:.4 n.o-, f' d6 %..J' lfb'.'b Ni g, ',,l,lty ) '

Q ( o e m,.] d,u 1 9.s,c. ) g

.n (yn

- a..,

e L....

i,,; J,,,l.j

,)

m. i,...<, ;,,

)0

  • ,.. e r. o r. f W., L.

(.. J ;..,. s

.e...,

/

.O

  • (

UNilllt %1 A1FS NUCLE AR REGUL A10ltY COMMISSION

[ ' 'g,..,,' i, wasmutans n c row.

L s,

OCT 0 71982 MEMORANCUM FOR: Gus C. Lainas Assistant Director forOperatingReactors,OL FROM:

R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection, OSI

.-~

SU6 JECT:

ENVIRONMENTWIMPACT APPRglSAL INPUT FOR THREE MILE

'1 ISLAND UNf 1 (g-1) ONCD-THROUGH STEAM 1

TM1

+}

(OTSG) TU(REP CT l

P Enclosed is the RA8 input to the EIA for the THI-I OTSG tube repair l

project. This review was performed by K Wangler, RIS/RA8.

)

\\

./

' s. D u cc.

bs-R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Division of Systems Integration 0-

Enclosure:

As stated CC' W. Pasciak M. Wangler J

n O

py;<,9 - amp p rf.

  • h 4

RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT SECTION INPUT TO THREE MILE ISLAND OTSG TUDE REPAIR PROJECT REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4.0 Radiological Assessment 4.1 Environmental Significance of Occupational Exposure General Public Utilities (GPU) has estimated that the once through steam generator (OTSG) tube repair project for the Three Mile Island Unit 1 (TMI-1) will require the expenditure of 270 person-rems.1 To determine the relative entironmental significance of the estimated maximum occupations 1 dose of 270 person-rems, comparisons were made with 1) the doses expected from normal operation of plants, and 2) other non-nuclear risks.

Most of the dose to nuclear plant workers results from external exposure to radiation coming from radioactive materials outside of the bddy rather than from. internal exposure from inhaled or ingested radioactive materi al s.

Experience shows that the dose to nuclear plant workers varies from reactor to reactor and from year to year. For radiological impact purposes, it can be projected by using the experience to date with modern PWRs. Recently licensed 1000-MWo PWRs' are operated in accordance with the post-1975 regulatory requirements and guidance that place increased emphasis on maintaining occupational exposure at nuclear' plants ALARA. These requirements and guidance are outlined primarily in 10 CFR Part 20,2 Standard Revicw Plan Crapter 12 (NUREG-0800), and

y ___ _ -

m Regulatory Guide 8.8f "Infomation Relevant to Ensuring that Occupa-tional Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be As t.ow As Is Reasonably Achiwable."

GPU's proposed implementation of these requirements and guidelines for the OTSG tube repair project for THI-1 has been reviewed by the NRC Staff, and the results of that rwiew are reported in the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report.

Table 4.1 shows the occupational dose history for Tit!-1.5,6With the addition of 270 person-rems for the OTSG tube repair project, the average annual ' dose for the 7 years of dose history at Unit 1 (1974 through 1981) will be approximately 280 person-rens. Occupational exposure estimates were not specifically considered in the TMI-1 and 2 FES.

Table 4.2 summarizes the annual occupational radiation doses at U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors for the years 1969 through 1981.6 Average collective occupational dose infomation for 239 PWR reactor years of operation is available for those plants operating between 1974 and 1981.

(The year 1974 was chosen as a starting date because the dose data for years prior to 1974 are primarily from reactors with average rated capacities below 500 MWe).

These data indicate that the average reactor annual collective dose at PWRs has been about 440 person-rems, with some plants experiencing

)

I

a P

r

. [

an merage plant life-time annual collective dose to date as high as 1300 person-rems.6, 8 These dose merages are based on widely vary ng year y doses at PWRs..The wide range of annual collective i

l doses experienced at PWRs in the United States results from a number of factors such as the amount of required maintenance and the amount of reactor operations and inplant surveillance.

Although the dose for some plants.far exceeds the merage of 440 i

person-rems for PWR's, these doses are included in the merage and are considered nomal det tations from the merage, particularly since such maintenance contributes to effective and safe plant operation and since it is carried out with procedures that maintain i

exposures ALARA. As Table 4.2, shows, the 270 person-rems estimate for OT5G tube repair project is less than the historical average for a single unit in a year.

t He further calculate that 270 person-rems, the occupational dose f

estimate for the OTSG tube repair project, corresponds to a risk of less than 0.04 premature fatal cancer in the exposed work force population. We also calculate that 270 person-rems corresponds to a risk of less than 0.07 genetic effect to the ensuing five T

generations. These risks are based on risk estimators derived in the BEIR 1 Report' and WASH-1400 from data for the popu-11 lation as a whole. New infomation in the BEIR !!! Report

-[

t f

'l I

l l

h L

would lead to an even lower estimated risk for premature fatal These risks are incremental risks (risks in addition cancers.

to the normal risks of fatal cancers and genetic effects we all

~ face continuously).

For a population of 1000 these normal risks, which are unrelated to THI-1 Nuclear Station, would be expected to result in about 190 cancer deaths and about 60 genetic effects in the existing rhulation (genetic effects are genetic diseases or malfunctions),9'I2 plus about 300 more genetic effects among their descendants.

I To make the health risk associated with radiation dose more under-

~

standable, risk comparisons can be made with non-nuclear activities commonly participated in by many individuals. One rem of radiation is numerically comparable to a lifetime mortality risk of about, 10 ~4.

In addition to comparing the risk of potential fatal cancers for an exposed individual to the risk of the natural incidence of fatal cancers, the risk to nuclear plant workers can be compared to risks incurred in other occupations by use of average mortality rates.

As indicated in Table 4.3 the risk to a nuclear power plant worker ex-posed at the industry wide average exposure is comparable to that of workers in other industries **. Based on these comparisons, the

    • The risk to a maximally exposed worker would be'about 15 times higher t

than the risk to an average plant wnrker shown in Table 4.3.

It l

should be noted that the mortality rates in Table 4.3 are for average workers and not for the worker at maximum risk.

staff concludes that the risk to an average plant worker is within the range of the riski associated with other occupations.

In addition, since the dose to an individual worker is controlled by 10 CFR Part 20, any increase in individual risk as a result of the repair program is not considered significant.

i Some have criticized occupationally related cancer estimates as being overly conservative.I3 However, most experts feel the risk estimates in Table 4.3 relating to occupational exposure to low-LET radiation are also overestimates.

In our opinion, the comparisons just presented are reasonable ones.

The risks of occupational exposures in the range of 0.5 rem per year to 5 rem per year do not significantly affect a typical worker's total risk of mortality.

In summary, the NRC staff has drawn the following conclusions regarding occupational radiation dose. GPU's estimate of 270 person-rems for the OTSG tube repair project at TM1-1 is reasonable.

This dose _ falls within the normal range of annual occupational doses which have been observed in recent years at operating reactors.

Although the doses resulting from the OTSG tube repair program will increase the annual occupational dose average of THI-1 to approxi-mately 280 person rems, this is still less than the annual average for all PWR's.8 GPU has taken appropriate steps to ensure that occupational q

e m

t r doses will be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and ALARA.

The additional health risks due to these doses over normal risks are quite small, less than one percent of normal risk to the project work force as a whole. The risk to an average individual in the work force will be lower than the risk incurred from participation in many common-place activities. The individual risks associated with exposures in-volved in the OTSG tube repair program will be controlled and limited so as not to exceed the limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20 for occupa-tional exposure. For the foregoing reasons, the Staff concludes that the environmental im:act due to occupational exposure will not signifi-cantly affect the quality of the human environment.

4. 2 Public Radiation Exposure GPU has estimated the amount of radioactivity that will be released in liquid and gaseous effluents as a result of.the OTSG tube repair project.

Those estimates are presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 I4 10 16 presents effluent releases for years 1979, 1980 and 1981 from 7

TMI-1 and the FES annual average release estimates. Table 4.4 shows that the expected releases from the OTSG tube repair program project are small compared to both the FES estimates and TMI-l's actual annual releases.

Therefore, on the basis of this comparison, we conclude that the off-site entironmental impact that may occur during the period of this 4

I

, rocedure will be significantly smaller than that which occurs during p

normal operation.

We have estimated the doses to individual members of the public as well as the population as a whole in the area surrounding TMI-1 based on the radioactive effluents which GPU estimated for the OTSG tube repair project (summarized in Table 4.4) and on the calculational 17 methods presented in Regulatory Guides 1.109, and 1.113 Using a maximum liquid release source tenn 1.5 x 10-4 curies of Cesium 134

~

~4 and 6.1 x 10 curies of Cesium 137 (Table 4.4) we calculated the maximum individual total body dose

  • for an adult to be less than 0.001 mrem for the operation. This is equivalent to a dose of about 0.004 percent of the limits of 40 CFR' Part 190. The annual limits of-40 CFR Part 190 are 25 millirems to the total body or any organ except the thyroid and 75 millirems to the thyroid. The doses to the popula-

-3 tion of 2,200,000 within 50 miles was estimated to be less than 4.5 x 10 person-rems to the total body from liquid effluents.

"Our calculations (using the LADTAP Computer Program) for the maxi-mum individual total body dose for an adult considered the following pathways:

1.

consumption of fish (21 kilograms per year) caught in the discharge -

area, and 2.

drinking water (730 liters per year) from the discharge area.

A conservative dilution factor of 1 or no dilution was assumed for each of the abwe two pathways in our evaluation of radiological exposure due to the rel' eases of Cesium from TM1-1 via liquid ef fluents which are expected to result from the repair' program.

~

described in U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev.1 (posure mo The LADTAP 11 proaram impicments the radiological exAppendix A) for radioactivity releases in liquid ef fluent.

8-By comparison, every year the same population of about 2,200,000 will receive a cumulative total body dose of more than 220,000 pe rson-rems from natural background radiation (about 0.1 rem per year per person) in the vicinity of TMI-1. Thus, the population total body

~ dose from the tube repair project is less than 2.04 x 10~0 percent of the annual dose due to natural background. On this basis, we conclude that the doses to individuals in unrestricted areas and to the population within 50' miles due to liquid ef fluents from the OTSG tube repair pro-ject will not be environmentally significant.

In summary, the. radioactive releases resulting from the OTSG tube repair program will be less than those due to nonnal plant operation. The.se releases are clso much less than the estimates presented in the FES.

The doses due to these releases are small compared to the limits of 40 CFR Part 190 and to the annual doses from natural background radiation.

Therefore, the radiological impact of the OTSG tube repair project will f

not-significantly affect the quality of the human erwironment.

4.3 Conclusion Based on our review of the proposed OTSG tube repair program, we conclude that:

(1) The estimated occupational exposure of 270. person-rems for the

^

OTSG tube repair project is less than the expected range of doses t

incurred at light water power reactors in a year.

9 e

i'

---,-=,,ea,--i__.-------m r.

3, c --

n

,---+y

9-(2) Workers are limited by regulation to 3 rems / calendar c;uarter with a maximum annual dose of 12 rems given that workers satisfy cer-tain dose history criteria. Since the dose to an individual worker is controlled by 10 CFR 20 any increase in individual risk as a -

result at the repair is not considered significant.

Although the collective dose to plant workforce increases as a result of this repair, the estimated impacts to the worker. population are not significant.

(3) General Public Utilities has taken appropriate steps to ensure that. occupational dose will be maintained as-low-as-reasonably-achiev able and within the limits of 10 CFR 20. -

(4) Offsite doses resulting frcan the project will be:

(a) smaller-than those incurred during nomal operation of, TMI-1 and (b) negligible in comparison to the dose members of the public in the vicinity of iMI-1 receive from natural background radiation.

On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the preposed OTSG tube repair project at the TMI-1 will not significantly affect the e,uality,

of the human environment.

\\

We have.retiewed this proposed OTSG tube repair project relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and the Council of Emironmental Quality's Regulations 40 CFR Part 1500. We have detennined that the proposed action will not significantly affect the quality of the human erw f ronment.

On the basis of the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that there will be no significant erwironmental impact attributable to the proposed

. action. Hav.ing made this conclusion, the Conmission has further con-cluded that no emironmental impact statement for the proposed action need be p'repared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.

O f

e e

6 O

e

a&

TABLE 4.1 3

ANNUAL. COLLECTIVE OCCUPATIONAL DOSE AT THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT NO. 1*

COLLECTIVE OCCUPATIONAL DOSE (person-rems)

YEAR ~ '

1975' 37 1976 143 1977 180 252 1978 722**

1979

- 1980

~

~

166**

1981

- 179**

  • First comercial operation 9/74
    • From preliminary data compiled 'oy Gordon Lodde, Porter Consultants, TMI 4

.h e

e D

e0 F

Q

s ASLE-4.2 ANNUAL OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION DOSES AT U.S. CDP 3.ERCIAL NUCLEAR P0tlER REACT (person-rems per reactor unit)

BNR Hich PWR Averace_

tow -

Year.

Averace

~

195 42 298 1959 155 127 44 1639 1970 684 255 50 768 1971 307 61 1032 285 197'2 464 380 85 5262 1973

.783 507 71 -

1430 1974 331 701 21 2022 1975 318 549 58 2648 1975 460 -

328 87 3142 1977 396 48 3621 604 1978 429 733 31 2140 1979 510 1,135'.

22 3526 -

~

578

~

ISSO 2254*

935*

Ss*

1981' 655*

U.S. NRC, RPS, RA3, from data supplied by.

operating reactor sites in compliance with 10 CFR Part 2,0, Section 20 i

  • Calculated by C. H nson, 9

e e

e 9

4 9

e

a TABLE 4.3 Incidence of, job-related mor.talities Mortality Rates occupational Group (premature deaths per 10s person years)

~

+1300 Underground metal miners

  • 420 Smelter workers" 190 61 Mining **

35 Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries **

Contract construction **

33 Transportation and public utilities **

24 23 Nuclear plant worker ***

7 Manufacturing **

Wholesale and retail trade **

6 3.

F.inance, insurance, and real estate **

3 Serv.ces**

i 10

. Total private sector **

Y "The President's Reoort on Occuoational Safety and Health, Report on Occupational Safety and Health by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare," E. L. Richardson, Secretary, May 1972.

    • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, " Occupational Injuries and Illness in the United States by Industry, 1975," Bulletin 1981, 1978.
      • The nuclear plant workers' risk is equal to the sum of the radiation-related risk and the nonradiation-related risk. The estimated occupational risk associated with the industry-wide average radiation dose of 0.8 rem is about j

11 potential premature deaths per 10s person' years due to cancer, based on the risk estimators described in the following text. The average non-l radiation-related risk for seven U.S. electrical utilities over the period is about 12 actual premature deaths per 10s person years as shown 1970-1979 in Figure 5 of-the paper by R. Wilson and E. S. Koehl, "Occue=tional Risks of Ontario Hydro's Atomic Radiation Workers in Perspective,'~ r. esented at Nuclear Radiation Risks, A Utility-Medical Dialog, sponsored by the Inter-national Institute of Safety and Health in Washington, D.C., September 22-23, 1980..(Note that the estimate of 11 radiation related premature cancer

~

deaths describes a potential risk rather than an observed statistic.)

~

4

_._,m.m.,,..,_,.y,_-...,,.,,,,..,r.-

--r_.__.. _.,,...

y..,

~

TABLE 4.4 i

RADI0 ACTIVE El-FLUENTS FROM TilREE MILE ISLAND UNIT NO.1 7

. Three Mile Island No.1 FES Estimate'ot Type of Radioactive Estimates for Releases Relehses (Ci):'

Annual Releases

-Effluent During OTSG Tube Repair (Cl)

,1979 1980 1981 (C1)

Gaseous b

2.:2(+3) 4.6(-3) 5.8(-2) 3.6(+3) lloble Gases Negligible b

lodine & Particulates" tiegligible.

1.2(-2) 2.9(-4) 5.l(-4) 2.2(-1) b Tritium flegligible 6.4(+)

1.8(+1) 1.5(-2) d Liquid Mixed fission and 7.6 (- 4) 7.2(-1) 1.8(-1) 8.6(-2) 3.0(0) activation products (Cs 134 and Cs 137) i Irl tiur$

flegligible 7.l(1) 3.3(1) 7.l(0) l'.0(+3)

" Radioactive half lives R daus or more bBelow lower limits of detectability for plant instrumentation 2.2(+3) = 2.2 x 10+3,

c d

ilo estimate was given in FES

REFERENCES h

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 OTSG Tube Repair Program

.l.

prepared by General Public Utilities, August 1982.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Code of Federal Regulations, iO C l2. 'Part 20, " Standards For Protection Against Radiation," cs of January 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C..

1981.

" Standard Review Plan," Chapter 3.

NUREG-0800, " Radiation Protection," in:

12, July 1981 (formerly issued as NUREG-75/087).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, Regulatory Guide 8.8, Revision 3 "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposure 4.

at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be as low as Is Reasonably Achievable,"

June 1978.

NUREG-0713, Vol.1, Occt:pational R'adiation Exposure at Commerical Nuclear 5.

Power Reactors,1979, U.S.N.R.C., March 1981.

6. - NUREG-0713, Vol. 2, Occupational Radiation Exposure at Ccmmerical Nuclear Power Reacto'rs,,1980, U.S.N.R.C., December 1981.

Final Environmental Statement related to operation of Three Mile Island Unit 1, United States Atomic Energy Comission, December 1972.

7.

NUREG-0692, Final Environmental Statement Related to Steam Generator 8.

Repair at Surry Power Station, Unit 1, July 1980.

The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, "SEIR Report," repoit of the Advisory Com6itte'e on the Biological Effects 9.

of Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, November 1972.

WASH-1400, " Reactor Safety Study - An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S.

10.

Comercial Nuclear Power Plants," U.S.N.R.C., October 1975.

The Effects on Population of Exposures-to low Levels of Ionizing Radiation "8EIR III Report," report of the conmittee on the Biological Effects of

' 11.

lonizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences :. National Research Council, 1980.

1979 Cancer Facts and Figures, American Cancer Society.

12.

R. Peto, " Distorting the Epidemiology of Cancer, the' Need for a More 13.

Balanced Overview," Nature 284, 297-300 (March 27, 1980).

14.. General Public Utilities, IMI, Unit No.1. Se.niannual Monitoring Reports,

- January 1, 1979 through June 30, 1979 and July 1,1979 through Decemb 1979.

e

v.-

2

15. See footnote 14. Semiannual Monitoring Reports, January 1980 through June 30, 1980 and July 1,.1980 through December 31, 1980.
16. See footnote 14. Semiannual Monitoring Reports, January 1981 through June 30, 1981 and July 1, 1981 through December 31, 1981.

Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine 17.

Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with'10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I" (Revision 1), U.S.N.R.C., October 1977.

Regulatory Guide 1.113. " Estimating Aquatic l Dispersion of Effluents from 18.

Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for tne Purpose of Implementing Appendix 1," U.S.N.R.C.

User'.s Manual for LADTAP II "A Computer Program for Calculating Radiation Exposure to Man from Routine Releases of Nuclear Reactor Liquid Effluents."

19.

NUREG/CR-1276,U.S.N.R.C.(May1980).

NCRP No. 45, " Natural Background Radiation in the United States," National 20.

Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1975.

.R O

I e

h

  1. 4&

G e

e e

p-

.u.

t

..;, %.4

';I: ? 3 T.:,iE5 a

[^

"i NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COTvM11SSION

. d_,

3 ;'r.br$1f,5 1

..miwrom o e :nm

.:2 OCT 13 7953

~

Cocket No.:

S0-289 MD10RAiDUM FOR: Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors, DL FROM:

Daniel R. tiuller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection, DSI SUSJECT:

SUPPLEitENT TO SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT INPUT FOR RETJRN TO SERVICE OF TMI-1 STEAM GENERATORS (TAC #a7484)

PLANT NAME: Three Mile Island Unit 1 LICENSI:!G STAGE: OR DOCKET NUMBER:

S0-289 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: ORE #4; J. VanVliet, FM DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE: SSER Input For Return to Service of itI-l's OTSG REVIEW STATUS: Ccaplete The Radiation Protection Section of the Radiological Assessment Branch has c::coleted its review of Revision 3 of Ti1I-l's plant safety assessment for return to service after the OTSG repair (Topical Report 008). This report.

centains finalized person-rem exposures as well as the total number of tubes plugged during the OTSG project. The attached Safety Evaluation Report Sup-clement updates exposure and tube number data which are contained in the August 25, 1983 TMI-1 OTSG Safety Evaluation Reoort.

This review was performed by C. Hinson, ROS/RAB.

,/ f

.$'?!?

.ff.

,,y,

/lJ

/. l /. -

f

/ / ~' c.'a *

.,,.. g ( /

Caniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Division of Systems Integration

Enclosure:

SSER Input For Return to

' Service of TMI-l cc: w/ encl.

R. l*attson J. Stolz

[J."anVliet Silver

  • '*'^'2,I M 8-

~~

F. Congel

0. Lynch gpp C. Hinson

/>

,7_...

INPUT TO SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT FOR RETURN TO SERVICE OF TMI-l STEAM GENERATORS Following comoletion of the OTSG Renair Program, GPU issued Revision 3 to Tooical Report 008, which included revised oerson-rem exoosure and tube recair numbers for TMI-1. The total exposure for the OTSG project was 1233 cerson-rens.

Of this total, 579 Derson-rems weredue to kinetic exnansion alone.

The Salance of 654 person-rems was expended for other portions of the crocram such as prepara-The licensee tory' work, tube plugging, end milling, cleanup, and testina.

plugged 347. tubes prior tc kinetic e.5pansion. An additional 886 tubes were clugged as part of the OTSG program. Tube plugging and stabilization accounted

' for over half of the non-kinetic exoansion exoosure. The balance of this-exoosure was due to RCS insoection. eddy current testina, end milline, cleanup, and testing. The total exposure for the OTSG program of 1233 person-rens is comparable to exposures from steam generator renairs at other facilities and is acceotable. The licensee's dose reduc-ion technicues used durino the GTEG recair are described in the August 25,1983 TMI-1 Safety Evaluation Recor:(

9 s=

h

- - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20129C398&oldid=4252664"