ML20134C573
| ML20134C573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/28/1997 |
| From: | Martin T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Miraglia F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9702030177 | |
| Download: ML20134C573 (28) | |
Text
.-
_ ____.____ _ ___._____ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _._ __ _ _ _. ~ _ _
i.
k3 OiOft k
p UNITED STATES j
g
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066M001 gs...../
1 i
MEMORANDUM T0:
Frank J. Miraglia, Jr., Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
FROM:
Thomas T. Martin, Director Division of Reactor Program Management M gp N
SUBJECT:
LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1995 i
l Attached for your information is the 1995 occupational dose summary for operating U.S. nuclear power plant facilities. This summary contains a listing of the occupational dose for each of the 109 nuclear plants included 4
l in the 1995 tabulation, as well as a listing of the number of people receiving doses in each of 13 dose ranges for each of these plants.
In addition, this report contains a ranking of PWRs and BWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1995 and graphical representations of LWR data (average collective dose, number of workers, number of operating plants, and gross electricity generated) over the twenty-three year period between 1973 and 1995.
For the five PWR and five BWR sites which had the highest per unit doses in 1994, this report contains a listing (with corresponding person-rem doses) of the major activities which contributed to these high doses. Over 85% of the collective dose at these sites was accrued during outagr periods.
The number of operating reactors i'n 1995 remained the same as last year's total of 109 units. The average collective dose per reactor for these 109 LWRs was 199 person-cSv (person-rem). This is the same as the 1994 LWR dose average and, together with the average dose for 1994, is the lowest LWR average dose since 1969 (when there were only seven operating LWRs).
4 i
The average dose per reactor for the 72 operating PWRs in 1995 was 170 person-cSv (person-rem).
This represents a 28% increase over the 1994 average of 133 i
person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor but it is still the third lowest average
{
PWR dose ever recorded (behind 133 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor i
recorded in 1994 and 165 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor, recorded in 1969, the first year when records were kept).
The average dose per reactor for the 37 operating BWRs in 1995 was 256 person-cSv (person-rem).
This is significantly lower than the 1994 average of 327 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor.
As stated earlier, the average LWR dose per reactor in 1995 of 199 person-cSV et (person-res) is the lowest measured average LWR dose since 1969 (the first vg /
year in which the NRC began tabulating these figures). The 1995 average dose
(
is over 550 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor less than the 1983 LWR average CONTACT:
C. Hinson, NRR/PERB hg
(
415-1845 030077 u
NRCFE CE N ho
- g2oggg77 g 2e y
3_g
i l.
)
of 753 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor (1983 is the year when the LWR average dose per unit last peaked).
In this same time span, the average measurable dose per worker for LWRs has dropped by more than half, from 0.66 rem in 1983 to 0.25 rem in 1995.
l As part of a separate memorandum from the Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch, copies of the attached report have been sent to the regional HP management, the Office for Analysis & Evaluation of Operational Data, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of Research, the Public Document Room, and individuals in the nuclear industry who have expressed an interest in this report in the past.
l This report was compiled by Charles Hinson, NRR, NRC, with the assistance of our contractor, SAIC, which supplied some of the data. Any questions concerning the content of this report should be directed to Charles Hinson at (301) 415-1845.
Attachment:
As stated 1
a
- _ _. _ _ _._ _ ____ _.._~ __ _ _ __._.
l 4
i l
LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1995 i
l This is a compilation and analysis of occupational radiation doses reported from j
light-water-cooled reactors (LWRs) for the year 1995. The information was derived from individual worker dose reports submitted to the Commission in accordance with i
In 1995 the total number of LWRs included in the list of operating reactors remained j
the same as last year's total of 109 units (a reactor is added to this list after it has l
completed its first full year of commercial operation). Reactors which are no longer l
Included in the compilation of reactor data are: Indian Point 1, Rancho Seco, San j
Onofre 1, Three Mile Island 2, Trojan, and Yankee-Rowe (all pressurized water i
reactors (PWRs]); Dresden 1, Humboldt Bay, and Lacrosse (all boiling water reactors l
(BWRs]); and Fort St. Vrain (a high temperature gas cooled reactor).
l The total collective dose for all 109 LWRs included in the 1995 listing was 21,674 l
person-cSv (person-mm) (see Table 1a). This is slightly lower than last year's total of 21,695 person cSv (person rem). (Note: In last year's dose report, the 1994 annual dose for Farley 1 and 2 was mistakenly reported as being 89 person-cSv l
(person-rem). In actuality, Farley's dose in 1994 was 250 person-cSv (person-rem).
This correction changes the total LWR collective dose from the previously reported l
21,534 person-cSv (person rem) to the correct value of 21,695 person cSv (person-rem).] The average collective dose per reactor for LWRs in 1995 was 199 person-cSv (person-rem). This is the same value as the 1994 LWR average dose per reactor (see Figure 1) and it is, along with last year's average, the lowest LWR average dose since 1969 (when there were only seven LWRs operating). The number of workers with measurable dose per reactor increased slightly from 764 in 1994 to 803 in 1995 (see Figure 1). The number of operating reactors and the electrical generation data are shown in Figure 2. The average measurable dose per worker for LWRs has decreased to 0.25 cSv (rem) from the 1994 value of 0.26 cSv (rem) (see Figure 3). This 1
Attachment
l 4
average dose per worker is 30% of what the average worker dose was 20 years ago.
l The collective dose per gross megawatt-year (NIWe-year) has decreased slightly from a value of 0.28 in 1994 to 0.27 in 1995 (see Figure 3). This is the lowest average l
yearly value yet measured for this number.
I in 1995, the total collective dose for PWRs was 12,207 person-cSv (person rem) for j
72 reactors. The resulting average collective dose per reactor for PWRs in 1995 was l
170 person-cSv (person-rom) per reactor (see Figure 1). This represents a 28%
l increase over the 1994 value of 133 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor but it is still j
the third lowest average PWR dose ever recorded (behind 133 person-cSv (person-l rem) recorded in 1994 and 165 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor, recorded in l
1969, the first year when records were kept). The average number of personnel with l
measurable doses per PWR increased from 613 in 1994 to 720 in 1995. The average j
measurable dose per worker for PWRs in 1995 is 0.24 cSv (rem). This is slightly higher than the 1994 value of 0.22 cSv (rem).
i j
in 1995, the total collective dose for BWRs was 9,467 person-cSv (person rem) for 37 reactors. The resulting average collective dose per unit for BWRs in 1995 was 256 person-cSv (person-rem) per unit. This is significantly (22%) lower than the l
1994 value of 327 person-cSv (person-rem) per unit.
The average number of personnel with measurable doses per BWR decreased from 1,057 in 1994 to 964 in
}
1995. The average measurable dose per worker also decreased, from 0.31 cSv (rem) f in 1994 to 0.27 cSv (rem) in 1995.
The compilation in Table la represents a breakdown of the collective dose incurred at each LWR that had completed at least one full year of commercial operation by the and of 1995. Table la also lists the reactor type and the annual whole body dose i
distributions for each of the 109 LWRs in this year's compilation. Table 1b presents the same type of dose breakdown for those LWRs which are either no longer in
{
operation or have been in operation for less than one year. The collective dose figures listed in Table 1 are actual total dose figures submitted by the licensee in response to the requirements of 10 CFR 20.2206.
i i,
i 2
i l
i
1 1
l 4
Figure 1 shows the average collective dose figures for PWRs, BWRs, and LWRs for the years 1973-1995. For the twenty-second consecutive year, the average collective l
dose per reactor for BWRs has remained higher than that for PWRs. The lower half of Figure 1 shows the number of workers with measurable dose per reactor for the years 1973-1995. This number has been gradually decreasing since 1984, when it peaked at an average of 1522 personnel with measurable doses per plant. Figure 2 l
is a plot of the total number of operating reactors and the gross electricity generated l
for each of the years from 1973-1995. As can be seem from these figures, the gross electricity generated has continued to increase (growing 20% in the past eight years),
even though the number of operating reactors leveled out five years ago.
j Table 2a lists the 72 PWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1995.
l As stated previously, the PWR average collective dose per reactor in 1995 was 170 l
person cSv (person rem). The number of PWRs which reported collective doses of 100 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor or less was down from thirty reactors in 1994 to fifteen reactors in 1995 (21 % of the PWR units in Table 2a). Ten years ago, only four PWRs reported average collective doses of 100 person-cSv (person-rem) per l
reactor or less. One hundred person cSv (person-rem)is the annual dose limit that is I
being used as the goal for the advanced reactor designs. The five PWR sites (six individual reactors) with the highest collective doses in 1995 all exceeded 398 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor. These reactors were Maine Yankee, Indian Pt. 2, Palisades, Haddam Neck, and Zion 1 and 2. Although representing only 8% of I
the 72 PWRs counted in 1995, they contributed nearly 24% of the total collective dose at PWRs. Some of the activities which contributed to the collective dose 5
accumulated at the PWR with the highest average dose per reactor in 1995 (Maine Yankee, with 653 person-cSv (person-rem)) were steam generator related work (including tube sleeving, eddy current testing, and sludge lancing), reactor coolant pump work, outs;;s support, valve work, decontamination, refueling activities, and in-service inspection. In 1995, the collective dose per MWe-year for PWRs was 0.22.
This indicates a better than 4:1 ratio of MWe-years generated to the collective dose accumulated during 1995.
Tables 2a and 3a include a listing of the "CR" values for each reactor. The "CR" value j
is defined as the ratio of the annual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding 1.5 cSv (rem) to the total annual collective dose. The United Nations
)
i l
Scienti6c Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) recommends that this parameter remain in the range between 0.05 and 0.50. There were no reactors f
which exceeded this recommended range in 1995.
f j
Table 2b lists the three-year average doses per PWR in ascending order, as well as the collective dose per reactor for the last three years. Several PWRs have consistent!v l
achieved very low collective doses and therefore appear near the top of Table 2t.
j Some of these low dose plants, such as Seabrook, Commanche' Peak 1 and 2, and i
South Texas 1 and 2, are relatively young plants, while others, sucn as Prairie Island j
1 and 2 and Kewaunee, have been in operation for over two decades. The five PWR l
sites with the highest doses per reactor in 1995 are indicated with an asterisk to give j
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 j
l dose averages. Table 4b gives a breakdown of some of the major activities which j
l contributed to the collective dose received at these high dose plants in 1995. It f
appears that the activities which most frequently contributed to these high collective l
doses in 1995 were steam generator related work, valve related maintenance and l
repair work, refueling activities, scaffolding and insulation installation and removal, in-service inspections, health physics coverage, and reactor coolant pump maintenance.
]
Table 3a lists the 37 BWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1995.
l The average BWR dose per reactor in 1995 was 256 person-cSv (person rem). Six BWR units--Formi T Monticello, Big Rock Point, Perry, River Bend 1, and Oyster Creek--reported colleMive doses in 1995 which were less than 100 person-cSv l
(person-rem) per reactor. The annual collective dose for one of these reactors, Oyster Creek, has historically been one of the highest in the country. In 1995, the five BWR l
sites (seven individual reactors) with the highest collective doses all exceeded j
379 person-cSv (person-rom) Der reactor. These reactors were Millstone Point 1, i
Pilgrim, Washington Nuclear 2, Dresden 2 and 3, Nine Mile Point 1 and 2. [ Note: The j
average dose per reactor at these five sites in 1995 was 456 person-cSv (person-rem) compared to an average of 675 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor at the five i
highest dose reactor sites in 1994). Although the seven reactors at these five sites 1
l represented only 19% of the 37 BWRs, they contributed a third of the total collective i
dose incurred at SWRs in 1995. Some of the activities which contributed to the
{
collective dose accumulated at the BWR site with the highest collective dose per I
s i
4 i
i
_____,e-
i-i i.
reactor [ Millstone Point 1 with a total of 620 person cSv (person rem)] were weld j
repair, in-service inspection, hangar work, insulation removal and replacement, ataging j
work, and refueling activities.
j Table 3a and Figure 3 also give the collective dose per gross MWe-year for BWRs to j
indicate their power generation performance as it relates +o the collective dose j
incurred by the workers at these plants. In 1995, the collective dose per MWe-year of 0.38 for BWRs was below 0.50 for the first time. As in previous years, the collective dose per MWe-year remains higher for BWRs than for PWRs.
One j
contributing factor for this difference is the larger power generation capacity of most l
PWRs.
i l
Table 3b lists the three-year averaga doses per BWR in ascending order, as well as the collective dose per reactor for the last three years. The BWRs with the lowest and the third lowest three-year average doses, Fermi 2 and Limerick 1 and 2, are relatively j
young plants, while Big Rock Point, Vermont Yankee, and the next several BWRs near the top of Table 3b have been in operation for much longer periods of time. The five l
BWR sites with the highest doses per reactor in 1995 are indicated with an asterisk to give an indication of their performance over the last three years. As was the case l
for PWRs, several of the BWRs with the highest collective doses in 1995 are also among the plants with the highest three-year dose averages. Table 4a gives a breakdown of some of the major activities which contributed to the collective dose received at these high dose plants in 1995. The activities which most frequently i
contributed to these high collective doses were in service inspections, valve maintenance work, refueling activities, shielding installation and removal, and area and system decontamination.
As can be seen from Figure 1, the LWR average collective dose has continued on a general downward trend from the peak doses seen in the early 1980s and the 1995 l
LWR average dose (which has not changed from iast year's value) is the lowest yearly
)
average dose recorded since 1969. The average measurable dose per worker of 0.25 j
person-cSv (person-rem) is also the lowest yearly average yet recorded for this I
number. Along with the completion of a majority of the TMI-mandated fixes (a contributor to higher doses after the 1979 accident), one of the major reasons for this decreasing dose trend at LWRs is the increased emphasis being placed by the utilities, 4
s i
I t
l industry, the NRC (through the BNL ALARA Center), and INPO on the importance of i
effectively applying ALARA principles at LWRs.
All of the plants contacted in gathering data for this report had dedicated ALARA coordinators on their staff for the 1
i purpose of ensuring that ALARA principles and practices are factored into all l
maintenance and operations work to reduce overall personnel exposures. All plants l
contacted maintained detailed records of job-specific doses incurred during both outage and non-outage periods. Many of these plants also recorded good practices j
and identified areas for improvement associated with high dose tasks. Such a detailed i
job and dose tracking system is a vital part of a good ALARA program because it i
provides a good lessons learned data base for future reference and use. Most plants contacted made use of this type of historical data to set aggressive dose goals, i
)
Tables 4a and 4b list the major activities contributing to the doses for the five BWR l
and five PWR sites, respectively, which had the highest collective doses in 1995.
l These tables also list the outage dose and duration for each of these LWRs in 1995.
l As car. be seen from these data, on the average, over 85% of the annual collective dose for these plants is accrued during outages. This supports the' findings from an earlier study (Memo from C. Hinson (NRC), " Representative Daily Collective Doses at PWRs and BWRs During Both Outage and Non-Outage Conditions", March 1,1990)
)
which showed that the average daily outage doses exceeded the average daily j
non-outage doses by a factor of 31 for PWRs and by a factor of 9 for BWRs. In j
addition, the ten LWR sites (thirteen units) which had the highest collective doses in j
1995 spent an average of 113 days down per unit for outage work in 1995 I
(compared with 100 outage days per unit in 1994),
i 1
One way to reduce a plant's annual collective dose is to reduce the frequency and l
duration of plant outages by detailed outage planning and scheduling of jobs to i
minimize critical path time. There are several ways in which outage doses can be
)
reduced. The use of permanent scaffNding to access high dose rate areas where frequent maintenance / inspection is penormed would eliminate both the downtime j
necessary to erect and take down this scaffolding each outage and also the
{
corresponding personnel doses associated with scaffolding erection and tear-down.
j Wider use of permanent scaffolding or platforms in high dose rate areas (such as around steam generators, recirculation piping, and reactor coolant pumps) can also j
contribute to the lowering of plant collective doses.
In plant areas where the 6
i
\\-
.i l
installation of permanent scaffolding is not practical, the use of transportable scissor-l type lifts, such as " lift a-lofts", in place of standard scaffolding may result in savings i
of both outage time and personnel dose. If standard scaffolding is used, then time l
and dose can be reduced by storing these scaffolding materials in designated areas
}
near where the scaffolding is normally used (scaffolding normally used in containment i
should be stored inside of containment, if possible, between outages).
l Another means of reducing outage doses is to improve the use of shielding. Use of i
permanent shielding versus temporary shielding in high dose rate areas would reduce i
the doses associated with the installation and removal of temporary shielding during i
outages. In instances where it is not feasible to install permanent shielding, the j
installation of temporary shielding could be facilitated by installing permanent
{
hooks / hangers in areas where this temporary shielding is required. Use of such i
hooks / hangers would reduce the time needed to install this shielding in radiation areas, i
l Some areas where books / hangers for temporary shielding have been installed are in l
the vicinity of the recirculation system piping and around some unshielded turbine i
components at BWRs. Prior to installing any temporary or permanent shielding, one l
should evaluate the effects of shielding weight on plant structures and components.
i Inflatable shields which can be filled with water or lead shot have been used at many
)
facilities. The advantages of using this type of shielding are that it is portable and a large uninflated shield can be easily carried by an individual to the installation area and j
filled in-situ. Other facilities have reported success using prefabricated plate lead or l
lead-impregnated molded plastic. This type of shielding con be specifically molded for l
the component to be shielded. Because this shielding is custom-made for a specific
)
ccmponent, it provides much more effective shielding than bulk shielding. Several j
facilitlos have realized considerable dose savings by using reactor head shields (during l
refuelings) and steam generator manway shields (for steam generator tube work). By practicing installation on mockups prior to shielding the actual component, shield l
installation time in the field can be reduced.
The removal and reinstallation of component insulation to permit in service inspection l
and testing can also be a fairly dose intensive job. Providing temporary storage areas i
for this insulation can reduce the amount of insulation which is misplaced or damaged
{
due to improper storage. Storage of this insulation near the work area will minimize l
transit time for transporting this insulation and reduce worker doses. Proper labeling i
)
7 i
i s
i 1
l of insulation will facilitate retrieval and reinstallation of the insulation.
j Component / system flushing or decontamination prior to maintenance of the l
component or system can greatly reduce area dose rates and result in lower personnel l
doses. Several facilities are considering decontamination of the entire reactor coolant j
system. Indian Point 2 performed the first full-scale chemical decontamination of the j
entire reactor coolant system in 1995 in an attempt to reduce the high containment j
source term. This high source term has been one of the re:isons why the annual doses at Indian Point 2 have been amoung the highest in the country over the past j
several years. This full system decontamination resulted in an average contact decontamination factor of 7.8 and an estimated dose savings of over 600 person cSv 4
j (person-rom). Robotics, which are playing a larger role every year in facilitating work functions at nuclear power plants, have led to a reduction in the overall doses received by plant personnel. Use of robots to perform such tasks as steam generator tube j
plugging, sleeving, and eddy current testing in PWRs has led to a tenfold reduction in j
personnel doses accrued during the performance of these tasks. Robotics have also l
been used to reduce doses during in-service inspection work, control rod drive j
changeout, and pipe welding. Mobile robots have been used by many utilities to j
perform remote surveillance and sampling functions in hostile or high dose j
environments.
Many facilities have installed remote video cameras with tilt and pan capabilities in various parts of the plant. These cameras are used to observe jobs being performed j
in high radiation areas. They have also been used for remote area surveillance, j
thereby minimizing the need for walkdowns in certain parts of the plant. Several plants contacted use powerful zoom cameras attached to telescoping poles for in-l service inspections and valve inspections. In many cases, the use of these cameras has precluded the need for the erection of scaffolding. Many plants which have recently replaced their steam generators have used a series of remote closed-circuit video cameras during the replacement project to monitor various job evolutions from low dose areas. The job evolutions recorded on these video cameras will be used as training films for other utilities planning to replace their steam generators. Like the use of remote video cameras, teledosimetry is being used at more and more utilities.
The use of teledosimetry permits health physics personnellocated in low dose rate areas to accurately monitor the doses of people working in higher dose rate areas, thereby reducing the overall collective dose to perform the job.
8
d 1
Some other methods of reducing doses during outages are; 1) scheduling jobs to be performed on the same component or in the same area so that they are performed at the same time to eliminate duplication of setup preparations, 2) optimizing work sequences,3) using skilled workers to perform difficult jobs,4) providing extensive mockup training using accurate mockups for dose intensive or difficult jobs, 5) minimizing the number of work crew personnel used so that only the number of 4
personnel necessary to perform the job are used, and 6) ensuring cooperation between different groups which may be working together on the same job. Many of the utilities contacted tracked job doses for repetitive jobs performed from one outage to the next. One plant, Oyster Creek, uses a system whereby an exposure tracking i
number is assigned to each maintenance job performed. Using this number, one can l
identify the building, elevation, room number, system, and component on which the maintenance was performed. By keeping detailed records of past jobs performed, and by identifying areas for improvement following the completion of each job, licensees will be able to lower job doses by implementing lessons learned from previous jobs.
l The preceding paragraphs describe several dose reduction features which can be implemented to reduce dosen to plant personnel during plant outages. One way in j
which overall plant dose rater can be significantly reduced is to reduce the sources of radiation in the plants. The primary source of radiation fields in nuclear power plants is cobalt-60, which is formed as a result of neutron absorption by cobalt-59.
Cobalt-59 is the major constituent of Stellite, a hardfacing material used in valve seats, pump journals, and other weEr resistant components. Therefore, an effective way to reduce the overall source of radioactivity at nuclear power plants is to reduce the amount of cobalt containing materiai.in contact with the primary coolant system.
For plants still in the design stage, this can be accomplished by specifying the use of non-or low Stellite plant components. For operating plants, however, components contributing large arnounts of cobalt to the reactor coolant system need to be identified and replaced with components with little or no cobalt content. Several plants contacted have included cobalt content information in the work management system component data so that engineers can identify cobalt reduction opportunities.
For some components, non-cobalt replacement materials need to be developed which possess the same wear characteristics as the component to be replaced. Many utilities have already embarked on programs to reduce the sources of cobalt in their plants. These programs include plans for replacing selected valves and piping, control
[
9
1 1
I
^
blades at BWRs, turbine blades, and fuel assembly hardware at PWRs. In an attempt to expedite overall source term reduction, several BWRs have accelerated their programs to replace their existing control blades (which contain cobalt-based pins and rollers) with control blades which contain little or no cobalt. PWRs which have replaced their steam generators in recent years have specified that the tubing in the l
replacement steam generators be fabricated of low cobalt inconel 690. As more g
plants implement such source reduction programs, overall dose rates at LWRs should continue to decline.
j in addition to the implementation of ALARA design features, an essential element of a good ALARA program is to have a strong management commitment to maintain plant personnel doses ALARA. Without the support of the corporate office and upper management, it is difficult to operate an effective ALARA program. Performing job
]
planning (including ALARA reviews) well in advance and establishing realistic dose goals are other means of reducing personneldoses. Since most of the collective dose at plants is accrued during outage periods, establishing a detailed fixed outage work j
scope several months before the outage provides the health physics department with l
a knowledge of exactl*/ what jobs will be performed during the upcoming outage and j
allows them adequate time to perform the necessary ALARA job reviews and schedule health physics support and coverage for outage jobs, where needed. As the current generation of LWRs age, plants will be faced with increased maintenance needs. A good ALARA program is necessary to prevent LWR doses from increasing as the j
maintenance requirements at these plants gradually increase over the years.
?
9 4
i I
i 10 v
-~
i Figure 1 Average Collective Dose and Number of Workers per Reactor 1973 - 1995 i
Average AnnualCollective Dose 1200
- BWR 1000 -
- PWR
\\
E, a00.
I, _ aA /W.2^0s
, y,iy yw%
W
-)v}
-AF g"
w f
g w
kl.5 ga
~~%p' o
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1 Year 1
Average Annual Number of Workers with Measurable Dose 1600
- S=
A
>~% J %
a s
~
~ ~ ' ' "
{f?+:bQWf%/'%
s i,.
w s
et.
g d%,
I..k[. #?
/y 200 0
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1968 1989 1990 1991 199 Year i
4-8
J' 4
Figure 2 Number of Operating Reactors and Gross Electricity Generated 1973 - 1995 j
i i
i Number of Operating Reactors f
120 110 :-
8WR i
,..l.
m E B E m e a
,,a. m-m E B B B B E s t i
E E E E E E E E E E
,o i
i
,o
. m E E E E E E E E E E E R l
. n B E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E I:
],, i m R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E K E B B B E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E i
,i E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E B B B B B B B B E E E E E E E E
,o; m.
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E i
,,:E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E i
o 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1963 1964 1985 1966 1967 1900 Year Gross Electricity Generated 90,
f 301.
~
i
/'
-m
,=.
}"
- LWR
- l so -
p y
s>
nn*%_ A i
a
>,i
/
/
1 f
f
~
...f Y
3 j
30,
- mao #
r g
j
[
/
w j
/
~
~ '
jama"""
]
- @f c'
q 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1961 1962 1963 1964 1985 1986 1967 19'06 1989 1990 19 Year i
4-9 i
4
. -_~
3 Figure 3 Average Measurable Dose per Worker and Collective Dose per Megawatt Year 1973 - 1995 Awrage Measurable Does perWorker 1.1,
1.0 -
- BN 0.9
- PWR k
0.8 e
= LWR 0.7 0.6 n3 -
%f W
Q E
0.4 ~
L m
s
.7 7 a g
0.3
~
M
% Mkq ],'
O.1 4
l 0.0 -
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1
Year a
Collectin Does perMegawatt Year 3.0,
I I
I 2.8 -
- BWR 2.6 2.4 j
\\
====== PWR i
- s
%F g 22.::
- LWR l
9 2.0 M
2 / \\
it
,3 23 : M
\\/
\\
- N A
34i4 1 1/
't
./.2 %
lr 7
\\
y 1.0 3
\\ /\\
\\
A
.3 0.6
~
h
^
0.4 :
-i
'unea-m %
_ _T 0.2 :
".;W 0.0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 19 R3r i
4-10 i
TABLEis ANNUAL WHOLE BOOY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACK.ITIES CY 1995 Number ed truedduele vulh Whole Body Domes in We Ranges (cSv er reme)
TOTAL TOTAL M ammt COLLECTIVE PLAflTIMgeg w amNt WITH DOSE -
TYPE No Amma geone.
010-0.25-0 50-0 75-1.00- 2 00-3 00-4 00-5 00-0 00-700-
>12.0 heOM-REAS.
(peraan-i a
Egeoure
<0.10 0 25 0 50 0 75 1 00 2.00 3 00 4 00 5 00 e 00 7 00 12 00 TORED DOSE cSv. rem)
ARKANSAS 12 PWR 1.437 1244 532 301 107 30 35 3.885 2250 388 OEAVER VALLEY 12 PWR 1.221 484 385 350 163 64 88 1
2.757 1.538 453 BM3 ROCK POINT WWWR 124 113 25 54 11 e
te 32s 205 54 BRAfDWOOD 12 PWR 1224 484 324 235 84 15 12 2.358 1.134 238 SROWNS PERRY 12.3 94WR 2.400 1205 877 438 115 23 2
4.940 2.540 400 BRUNSWWICK 12 BWR 1.534 1237 401 473 207 151 108 4.191 2.857 083 i
SYRON 12 PWWR 1.348 308 291 203 133 50 34 2.458 1.107 308 l
CALLAWAY 1 PWWR SSS 524 208 100 50 19 11 2.020 1.082 187 l
CALVERT CUFFS 12 PWWR 1.907 Ses 30s 200 79 40 7
2.810 1.203 235 l
CATAWWSA 12 PWWR 1.720 753 493 387 129 73 57 3.812 1.802 482 CUNTON SUWR 928 388 307 322 138 29 18 2.110 1,182 318 i
CORA4NC3E PEAK 12 PWR SSB 485 238 151 70 22 5
1.537 951 179 COOK 1.2 PWWR 1.150 979 375 174 58 to 8
2.439 1.310 203 COOPER STAT 10N WWWR 1.121 404 200 219 87 24 11 2216 1.005 228 CRYSTAL FWVER 3 PWWR est 195 14 1.000 208 8
OAVIS 8 ESSE PWWR 790 240 14 2
1.048 295 7
ORABLO CANYON 12 PWWR 1.730 927 327 222 OS 32 42 3.354 1.e15 298 DRESDEN 2.3 SWWR 2.185 887 SOS 455 281 175 215 4.588 2.482 875 DUANE ARNOLD WWWWt 787 400 241 211 11e 98 57 1.916 1.129 357 i
PARtEY 12 PWWR 755 572 379 342 123 87 75 3
2.380 1.581 483 PERRE 2 SWWR 1.440 304 80 16 1
1.830 300 28 FIT 2 PATRICK BWWR 1.100 528 279 210 114 77 41 2.437 1240 327 PORT CALHOUN PYWR 505 254 tot 124 82 17 5
1.222 827 13e WNNA PWWR 873 374 193 100 35 15 12 1.011 738 138 i
GRAND GULF WWWR 1.138 785 338 253 115 58 38 2.727 1.588 342 HADOded NECK PWWR 735 200 183 100 130 91 124 2
1.791 1.005 442 f
HARRIS PWWt 912 ett 223 140 45 15 21 1,500 1.008 1 74 i
HATCH 1.2 SWWR 970 519 314 205 150 78 107 5
2.428 1.458 488 HOPE CREEK 1 WWWR 819 SOS 384 201 82 19 18 1
2.300 1.571 198 INORAN POINT 2 PWWR 850 001 385 327 188 115 90 6
2.540 1.000 548 IPORAN POINT 3 PWR 907 308 108 54 8
2 1.545 838 67 i
MEWAUNEE PWWR 284 148 tot 102 34 18 12 079 415 100 LASALLE 12 BWR 1,195 50s 378 343 247 92 57 2.818 1.823 512 UNEMCK 12 SWWM 2.008 See 344 227 50 32 to 1
3.000 1.581 200 Raffle YANNEE PWR ese 217 228 240 too 38 te2 24 3
1.82e 1.16 7 653 Ret OtARE 12 PWWR 2283 793 338 103 24 3
3.542 1250 138 heLLSTOff POINT 1 SWWR 505 328 175 164 79 53 98 14 1
1.505 910 820 RSLLSTONE POINT 2.3 PWR 1.105 SOS 328 305 148 SS 178 25 1
2.758 1.001 die RAONT1 CELLO SWWR 502 OS 95 51 14 2
792 200 44 teNE AeLE POINT 1.2 SWR 1230 794 548 442 248 112 153 11 3.543 2.304 759 i
i
-._m_
h I
TABLE 18 (Continued)
[
ANNUAL WHOLE BOOY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACluTIES CY 1995 TOTAL Number ef Imtebels udIh Whale Body h=-- in Sie Ranges (cSv er reme)
TOTAL Pd IMaput COLLECTTVE t
PLABIT ilABAE PAmeER WITH DOSE TYPE No RAmes_
Adoes 010-0 25-050-0 75-1 00-2 00- 3 00-4 00-5 00-0 00-705-
>12.0 af0M-REAS.
(person.
Py====e
<0.10 0 25 05 0 75 1 00 2 00 3 00 4 00 5 00 8 00 7 00 12 00 TORED DOSE cSv. rem)
NORTM ApetA 12 PWWt 1.373 844 403 297 113 58 37 1
2.324 1.551 307 OOONEE 12.3 PWWt 1.751 708 477 288 74 19 16 4
3.337 1.588 304 OYSTER CREEK BWWt 538 472 178 88 15 5
3 129s 751 to PAUSADES PWWt 484 403 214 288 140 102 SS 7
1AS4 1230 482 PALO VERDE 12.3 PWWt 1.723 824 308 332 181 83 77 3.588 1.875 482 I
PEACH 90TTOR8 2.3 BWWt 1.747 983 437 290 120 82 4*
3.087 1.040 306 PERRY WWWE 1.150 338 194 51 4
1.748 587 64 PILGfWA BWR 853 325 294 277 224 124 80 2.147 1204 482 POINT BEACH 1.2 PUWt 437 171 120 101 78 30 38 305 548 190 PRMpWE ISLAPO 1.2 PWWR 581 220 119 104 43 12 1
1.000 400 107 QUAD OTTES 12 SWUt 1213 829 438 382 273 145 164..
2.254 2.041 738 NVER SEND 1 BWR 1.522 414 148 83 14 7
3 2.180 037 85 ROSINSON 2 PUWUt 852 482 258 200 75 19 18 1.320 1.058 215
[
SALERA 12 PWWR 822 000 277 153 47 15 14 1.817 1.195 218 SAN ONOPRE 2.3 PWWR 3.304 783 448 370 220 82 22 5218 1.014 455 SEASROOK PWWR 1203 445 243 90 13 2.003 800 102 SEQUOYAH 12 PWWR 1AS4 727 408 272 133 40 33 1
3.302 1A18 358 SOUTH TEXAS 12 PWWt 1.711 700 372 240 98 41 19 3.198 1.485 291
[
ST. LUQE 12 PWUR 1.003 983 388 324 114 95 58 7
2.581 1.408 413 SImmest 1 PWWR 801 217 37 3
1.058 257 13 i
SURRY12 PWWR 1.000 957 358 343 113 58 48 8
2.882 1.083 408 SUSQUEHAfe841.2 SWWR 1.589 SSR 431 338 183 74 61 3.342 1.773 475 I
THREE RALEISLAND 1 PWWt 795 003 273 174 57 22 1
2.005 1220 213
{
TUR1TY POINT 3.4 PWWR 1.197 505 328 218 87 17 7
2.338 1.142 215 VERRAONT YAPOWE SWWR 1254 235 215 191 71 10 8
t 1.50i 737 182 L
VOGTLE 12 PWWt 053 400 273 100 78 15 14 1.000 953 190
[
WASMNGTON NUCLEAR 2 SWWR 1218 772 200 200 191 104 57 2.910 1.804 458 WATEPPORD 3 PWWt 1.008 829 282 137 28 8
7 2.100 1.002 153 WOLF CREEK 1 PWWt 957 208 25 8
1 1.100 242 14 i
[
250N 12 PWR 1.400 500 302 308 225 161 221 4
3.303 1.807 797
(
TOTALS: 37 WWWRe 31.335 15.284 7.908 8.332 3.117 1.587 1.300 32 1
55.894 35A50 0.487 TOTALS: 72 PWRe 40.807 23.311 12250 S.947 3.787 1.799 1J17 93 4
101.584 51.867 12.207 TOTALS: 100 LWRe 81.032 38.575 20245 15279 8.884 3.338 3.077 125 5
108.558 87.528 21.874 I
L
_ - - ~. -.
i TABLEib 6
ANNUAL WNOLE BOOY DOSES AT UCENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACluTIES i
FACILITED NOT IN OPERATION OR IN OPERATION LESS THAN ONE YEAR CY 1H6 Number of Int 9dduelo e Whole Body Doese in the Rangee (cSv or reme)
TOTAL TOTAL NLASER COLLECTIVE PLAsIT MARIE NURSER WITH DOSE TYPE No Mm an===
0.10-0 25- 050-0.75-1 00-2 00-3 00-4 00-5 00- 8 00-7.00-
>12.0 af0M-SEAS.
(person-2%we C to 0 25 0.5 0 75 1.00 2 00 3 00 4 00 5 00 6 00 7 00 12 00 TORED DOSE cSv. rem) met a s*0NTE PWR DRESDEN 1
- BWWR Reported udWe Droeden 2.3 PORT ST.VRAfM
- HTGR 400 82 52 40 29 15 43 34 3
738 278 210 la ssoons rvT gay
- gWWR 13e 3e 3
tes 42 2
IPCIAN POINT 1
- PWR RepoM vdihineRon Point 2 LACROSSE
- SWWR 80 17 12 2
111 31 3
RANCHO SECO "
PWWR 177 15 1
193 te 1
SAN ONOPRE 1*
PWWR Repariod em San Onofre 2.3 THREE RALE ISUWD 2*
PWWR 124 100 43 27 5
3 315 191 2
TROJAN
- PWWR 220 48 27 32 ts 9
8 381 141 44
)
WATTS SAR 1.2 PWWR YANIEE-ROUWE
- PWWR TOTAL REPORTING S 1.217 290 138 tot 57 27 de 34 3
1.916 See 282 I
N are no M
I b
1 l
TABLE 2c i
PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING ORDER OF COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR 4
I 1995 Collective Collective Average Collective
]
Dose per Dose per Dose per Dose per Reactor Site Worker MW-Yr Site Name (rems or esv)
(rems or esv) (rems or csv) (rems or esv) CR l
DAVIS-BESSE 7
7 0.03 0.0 0.00 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 8
8 0.04 0.0 0.00 SUlmlER 1 13 13 0.05 0.0 0.00 j
WOLF CREEK 1 14 14 0.06 0.0 0.00 i
PRAIRIE ISLAND 1,2 54 107 0.21 0.1 0.00 i
INDIAN POINT 3 67 67 0.11 0.4 0.00 MCGUIRE 1,2 69 138 0.11 0.1 0.00 i
COMANCHE PEAK 1,2 90 179 0.19 0.1 0.00 POINT BEACH 1,2 95 190 0.35 0.2 0.04 VOGTLE 1,2 100 199 0.21 0.1 0.00 j
OCONEE 1,2,3 101 304 0.19 0.1 0.09 COOK 1,2 102 203 0.15 0.1 0.00 SEABROOK 102 102 0.13 0.1 0.00 i
TURKEY POINT 3,4 108 215 0.19 0.2 0.00 KEWAUNEE 109 109 0.26 0.2 0.00 i
SALEM 1,2 109 218 0.18 0.4 0.02
?
CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 116 235 0.20 0.2 0.00 BRAIDWOOD 1,2 118 236 0.21 0.1 0.01 GINNA 136 136 0.18 0.3 0.06 FORT CALHOUN 139 139 0.22 0.3 0.00 DIABLO CANYON 1,2 143 286 0.18 0.1 0.06 SOUTH TEXAS 1,2 146 291 0.20 0.1 0.00 BYRON 1,2 153 306 0.28 0.2 0.06 WATERFORD 3 153 153 0.14 0.2 0.00 PALO VERDE 1,2,3 161 482 0.26 0.1 0.05 HARRIS 174 174 0.16 0.2 0.01 SEQUOYAH 1,2 179 358 0.22 0.2 0.02 NORTH ANNA 1,2 184 367 0.24 0.2 0.05 CALLAWAY 1 187 187 0.18 0.2 0.00 ARKANSAS 1,2 193 386 0.17 0.3 0.03 SURRY 1,2 203 406 0.22 0.3 0.10 ST. LUCIE 1,2 207 413 0.28 0.3 0.07 MILLSTONE POINT 2,3 208 416 0.25 0.3 0.51 THREE MILE ISL\\ND 1 213 213 0.17 0.3 0.00 ROBINSON 2 215 215 0.20 0.3 0.00 BEAVER VALLEY 1,2 227 453 0.29 0.3 0.02 SAN ONOFRE 2,3 228 455 0.24 0.3 0.00 CATAWBA 1,2 231 462 0.24 0.2 0.03 FARLEY 1,2 232 463 0.29' O.4 0.08 ZION 1,2 399 797 0.44 0.5 0.15 HADDAM NECK 442 442 0.44 1.0 0.14 PALISADES 462 462 0.38 0.8 0.10 INDIAN POINT 2 548 548 0.32 0.9 0.07 MAINE YANKEE 653 653 0.56 27.7 0.26 Number of Reactors: 72 170 12,207 0.24 0.2
TABLE 2b j
PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING ORDER OF THREE YEAR AVERAGE COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR i
1993 -1995 i
Collective Dose Per Reactor Three Year l
(Person-rem or Person-cSv)
Avera ;p Collective Site Name 1993 1994 1995 Dose ?er Reactor PRAIRIE ISLAND 1,2 53 55 54 54 INDIAN POINT 3 60 58 67 62 SEABROOK 6
113 102 74 COMANCHE PEAK 1,2 109 45 90 76 j
j POINT BEACH 1,2 93 85 95 91 l
KEWAUNEE 106 72 109 96 i
SOUTH TEXAS 1,2 126 24 146 98 l
CRYSTAL RIVER 3 60 228 8
99 l
FORT CALHOUN 157 23 139 106 OCONEE 1,2,3 79 179 101 120 WATERFORD 3 15 191 153 120 l
COOK 1,2 22 240 102 121 i
VOGTLE 1,2 184 109 100 131 4
BRAIDWOOD 1,2 137 149 118 135 SALEM 1,2 204 94 109 136 i
ARKANSAS 1,2 134 86 193 138 i
CALLAWAY 1 225 14 187 142 HARRIS 31 222 174 142
}
WOLF CREEK 1 183 235 14 144 i
THREE MILE ISLAND 1 206 40 213 153 GINNA 193 138 136 156 TURKEY POINT 3,4 138 238 108 161 1
DAVIS-BESSE 348 144 7
166 i
MCGUIRE 1,2 232 199 69 166 j
BYRON 1,2 216 140 153 170 SEQUOYAH 1,2 186 146 179 170 i
PALO VERDE 1,2,3 197 154 161 171 i
FARLEY 1,2 167 125 232 174 i
CATAWBA 1,2 198 104 231 178 CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 203 227 118 182 BEAVER VALLEY 1,2 311 22 227 186 DIABLO CANYON 1,2 141 295 143 193 MILLSTONE POINT 2,3 279 94 208 194 SURRY 1,2 192 189 203 195 i
ROBINSON 2 337 63 215 205 SAN ONOFRE 2,3 384 16 228 209 SUNNER 1 297 374 13 228 ST. LUCIE 1,2 246 253 207 235 NORTH ANNA 1,2 454 97 184 245 PALISADES 289 60 462*
270 ZION 1,2 322 153 399*
291 HADDAM NECK 408 135 442-328 MAINE YANKEE 377 84 653*
371 INDIAN POINT 2 675 48 548-424 Annual PWRAverages:
199 133 170 Total Reactors included:
71 72 72
- Indicates high dose-per-reador sites for 1995
l.
TABLE 3a
]
BOILING WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING i
ORDER OF COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR 1995 Collective Collective Average Collective Dose per Dose per Dose per Dose per Reactor Site Worker MW-Yr Site Name (rems or csv)
(rems or esv) (rems or esv) (rems or csv)
CR 4
i j
FERMI 2 28 28 0.07 0.0 0.00 MONTICELLO 44 44 0.22 0.1 0.00 BIG ROCK POINT 54 54 0.26 0.9 0.18 i
PERRY 64 E4 0.11 0.1 0.00 RIVER BEND 1 85 85 0.13 0.1 0.00
?
OYSTER CREEK 90 90 0.12 0.1 0.00 4
LIMERICK 1,2 130 260 0.16 0.1 0.02 BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 136 409 0.16 0.4 0.00 l
VERMONT YANKEE 182 182 0.25 0.4 0.00 HOPE CREEK 1 196 196 0.12 0.2 0.07 l
PEACH BOTTOM 2,3 199 398 0.21 0.2 0.03 i
COOPER STATION 228 228 0.21 0.5 0.02 SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 238 476 0.27 0.3 0.05 4
i HATCH 1,2 244 488 0.33 0.4 0,10 i
LASALLE 1,2 256 512 0.32 0.3 0.02 CLINTON 316 316 0.27 0.4 0.01 FITZPATRICK 327 327 0.26 0.6 0.03 BRUNSWICK 1,2 342 683 0.26 0.5 0.00 GRAND GULF
- 342 342 0.22 0.4 0.01 DUANE ARNOLD 357 357 0.32 0.8 0.01 QUAD CITIES 1,2 368 736 0.36 0.7 0.01 NINE MILE POINT 1,2 380 759 0.33 0.5 0.12 i
DRESDEN 2,3 438 875 0.35 1.4 0.07 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 456 456 0.27 0.6 0.03 i
PILGRIM 482 482 0.37 0.9 0.00 MILLSTONE POINT 1 620 620 0.68 1.2 0.16 Number of Reactors: 37 256 9,467 0.27 0.4 j
i i
i i
T j
1 TABLE 3b 1
BOILING WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING l
ORDER OF TPriE YEAR AVERAGE COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR i
1993 -1995 Collective Dose Per Reactor Three Year (Person rom or Person cSv)
Avera p Collective t
Site Name 1993 1994 1995 Does per Reactor FERMI 2 35 213 28 92 i
BIG ROCK POINT 152 119 54 108 i
LIMERICK 1,2 109 138 130 125 VERMONT YANKEE 217 38 182 146 HOPE CREEK 1 98 326 196 207 1
SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 168 221 238 209 COOPER STATION 391 79 228 233 i
BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 290 285 136 237 GRAND GULF 332 56 342 243 PEACH BOTTOM 2,3 276 290 199 255 NINE MILE POINT 1,2 317 75 380a 257 i
RIVER BEND 1 180 519 85 261 CLINTON 498 63 316 292 i
FITZPATRICK 232 322 327 294 DUANE ARNOLD 407 120 357 295 MONTICELLO 494 395 44 311 HATCH 1,2 335 432 244 337 PERRY 278 691 64 344 LASALLE 1,2 427 363 256 349 i
MILLSTONE POINT 1 81 391 620-364 PILGRIM 435 200 482-372 BRUNSWICK 1,2 436 500 342 426 i
OYSTER CREEK 416 844 90 450 i
QUAD CITIES 1,2 425 564 368 452 4
DRESDEN 2,3 828 417 438-561 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 469 866 456*
597 Annual BWRAverages:
330 327 256 Total Reactors included:
37 37 37
- irdcates high dose-per-reactor sites for 1995
)
i i
i 1
s
i 5
I
{
TABLE 4a i
ACTMTIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1995 SWR's with Hiah Collective Daees I
Millstone Point 1 (620 ram)
Pilgrim (482 rem) l l
Ostage dose / duration: 500 rem /59 days Outage dose / duration: 410 rem /73 days Average daily outage dose: 8.47 rem / day Average daily outage dose: 5.62 rem / day Average daily operating dose: N/A Average daily operating dose: 0.25 rem / day j
-Weld repair (drywell)(182J rem) 481(in-servloe in:;::"::)(includes doses due to j
481(in servloe inspection)(drywell)(76J rem) esaffoWing and insulation)(74J rem) l Hanger work (drywell)(28.6 rem)
Refueling (Total of 69 rem) 4nsulation removal / replacement (drywell)(26.4 rem)
Reactor head removal / replacement, cavity decon.
j 4taging (drywell)(24,9 rem)
- 44.9 rom Refueling (18.9 rem)
-Modifloations (43.9 rem) l
-Cleanup valve replacement (drywell)(13.7 rem) 410V(motor operated valve) repair / replacement 4hioWing (drywell)(10.9 rem)
(49J rem) 1 l
1 Corrective maintenance (43J rem)
Health physica support (22.6 rom) l
-Miscellaneous support (19.1 rem)
)
Dresden 2,3 (876 rem) 4hielding (15.6 rem)
Operations support (15J rem)
Cutate dose / duration (U2): 486 rem /210 days
-Preventive maintenance (13 rem) i Outage dose / duration (U3): 23 rem /127 days 4econtamination (4.8 rem) i Average daily outage dose (U2): 3.26 rem / day
)
Average daily outage dose (U3): 0.18 rem / day j
Average daily operating dose (U2+3): 0.42 rem / day WNP 2 (486 rem)
MaH3 Outage dose / duration: 297 rem /49 days
-RWCU (reactor water cleanup system) pipe and heat Average daily outage dose: 6.06 rem / day exchanger replacement (91.1 rem)
Average daily operating dose: OJ rem / day
.Vtive work / replacement (Total of 87.6 rem)
Two 16" MOVs (motor operated valves) repleoed 4hielding (drywell) installation / removal (30 rem) 52.2 rom Reactor disassembly / reassembly (Total of 28.5 rem)
MSIV (main steam isolation valve) repair 18.2 rem Reactor reassembly 14.3 rem Electromagnetic and safety relief valve repair - 17.2 rem Reactor disassembly - 10.3 rom 481(in earvloe inspection) in drywell(70.4 rem)
-Chemical decontamination of RWCU (reactor water 4hloWing (Total of 47.1 rem) eleanup system)(20.6 rem) perm. roolroulation ring header shielding installation 481 (in service inspection) for erosion /oorrosion 31.2 rem (19J rem)
Temporary drywell shielding lastallation/ removal Main steam relief valve removal / replacement 18.9 rem (14.8 rem)
Outage activities support (Total of 46.7 rom)
HP support - 29.2 rom Operations support 17.4 rem Chemleal decontamination (roolre and RWCU)(23.7 rem)
Anstalled instrument saps on LPCI(Iow pressure ooolant injection) recire, risers for injecting deoon solution (13.7 rem) lIspect/olean main condenser water bosos (11.8 rom) lwulation removal / replacement in drywell(10J rom)
CRD (control rod drive) removal /instellation (10.3 rem) j
-Unciog drain line at bottom of reactor vessel (9.4 rem) 1 i
i
t I
i i
i TABLE da (Continued)
)
ACTMTIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE l
DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1995 BWR's with Hiah Collective Doses Nine Mie Pt 1,2 (769 rem)
Outage doseMuration (U1): 312 rem /54 days 4
Outage doseMuration (U2): 325 rem /88 days Average daily outage does (U1): 5.91 rem / day i
Average daily outage dose (U2): $J7 rem / day j
Average daily operating dose : N/A 1
i 118 5.1 481(in-service inspection)(94.4 rem)
-Vilve work / replacement (Total of 62.2 rem)
EC (emergency cooling) check valve repair - 23.6 rom Drywell Limitorque valve work - 19.4 rom Modifloations to pressure relief valves 7.3 rem CRD (control rod drive) eschanges (16.8 rem) 46ealth physics surveys and support (16 rem)
Refueling (including reactor head removal / replacement, 181, decon, fuel sapping) (12.3 rem)
RRP oooler replacement (11J rem)
Operations (drywell)(9.4 rem)
Shielding (drywell)(8.9 rom) 4nsulation work (8.2 rem)
-Housekeeping (drywell)(8.1 rem) klDU.3 481(Total of 88 rem) laside bloshield - 43.8 rem Outside bloshield 34J rem 8:ubber related work (Total of 47.4 rom)
Snubber reduction modifications 28.1 rom Snubber functionsi testing 21.3 rom
-Valve worUiO:::x:::(Total of 38J rem)
MOV (motor operating valve) testing - 17.2 rom SRV (satsty relief valve) change out 9.7 rom Refueling (Total of 17.7 rem)
Reactor head removal / replacement 11 A rom Operations and support 6.2 rom CRD eschanges(124 rem) 49ealth physios serveys and job ooverage (10.9 rem)
Temporary shielding (7.1 rem)
-Neutron monitor replacement / repair (7 rem)
Cooontamination (drywell)(5.7 rem)
a
{
TABLE 4b ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PL. ANTS IN 1995 l
PWR's with Hiah Collective Dases Maine Yankee (463 rem) indian Point 2 (648 rem)*
{
Outage dosoldurationS 847 rem /368 days Outage dose / duration: 499.9 rem /122 days
{
Average daily outage dose: 1.86 rem / day Average deity outage dose: 4.1 rem / day Average daily operating dose: N/A Average daily operating dose: 0.20 rem / day j
- Outage extended from 1/23/96 to 1/16/96
" Indian Point performed a full system decontamination in 1995 Steam generator related work (Total of 2711 rem)
Tube sleeving (17,000 tubes sleeved) - 142.3 rem Modifiestions (Total of 67.8 rem)
ECT (eddy ourrent testing)- 83.2 rem Steam generator nozzle ring installation 16.3 rem j
Sludge laneing and inspections - 38 rem Reactor vessel head split pin repair - 14.9 rem l
Manual hard rolling - 7.4 rem defueling (55.7 rem) i
-RCP (Remotor Coolant Pump) work (Total of 90.3 rem)
Maintenance (51.2 rem) 1 Rotating assembly replacement - 48.3 rem
-Radiation protection (47.3 rom) l Motor removal / installation - 21 rem Radweste (40.4 rem) j Seal r" n..O - 13.8 rom i
Steam generator work (Total of 36.6 rem)
Outate support (Total of 90 rem)
Primary side (addy current testing) 32.8 rem j
Rad Controls outage support - 49.2 rem Secondary side (sludge lancing) 4.1 rem
{
Valve work (Total of 59.8 rom)
Scaffolding and insulation installation / removal Valve and SRV (safety relief valve) maintenance - 38.2 rom (34 rem)
MOV(motor. operated valve) testing and repair 21.4 rem Supervisory plant tours (33.1 rom) i Dooontamination (Total of 44.6 rem)
-881(in servios inspection)(23.7 rem) l Reactor ecolant system loop 32.4 rem Full system dooontamination (21 rem) l
-Refueling Operation (Total of 42.3 rem)
RCP (Remotor Coolant Pump) work (20 rem)
Reactor head removal / replacement - 29.2 rom Operations (20.3 rem)
{
CEA (control element assembly) shaft replacement MOV (motor operated valve) work (16J rem)
(
- 8.3 rom Servloes (lighting, air)(10.6 rem) l 881(in-service inspection)(22.1 rem)
Pressuriser inoonel inspection (14.4 rem)
Temporary shielding (9 rem) l l
1 Palisades (442 rem)
Outage dose / duration: 421 rem /93 days Average daily outage dose: 4.83 rem / day l
Average daily operating dose: 0.15 rem / day l
-Refueling (Total of 68.8 rom) i Remotor head removal / replacement - 80.8 rem Fuel movement 4.3 rom l
-481(in servloe inspection)(Total of 55.2 rem) ineonel weld inspections (26.1 rem) i Valve work (36J rem) insulation removal / replacement (34.6 rem)
Steam generator work (Total of 32 rem) l Noazie dem lastellation/ removal 12.2 rom j
ECT (addy surrent testing) 8.3 rom Scaffolding installation / removal (30.6 rem) t Health Physics surveys (19.2 rom)
-Mechanical maintenance (15.4 rem)
Amp work (11.1 rem)
Vatilation system maintenance (10J rem)
-Dooontamination and cleanup (9A rem)
T:mporary shleiding (7.3 rem) l Electrical maintenance (7.1 rem)
}
4
i I
I I
l TABLE 4b (Continued) 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE f
DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1996
}
PWR's with Hlah Collective Daees Zion 1,2 (797 rem)
Haddam Neck (442 rem *)
Outage dose / duration (U1): 480 rem /98 days Outage dose / duration: 454 rem /81 days Outage dose / duration (U2): 187 rem /103 days Average daily outage dose: 5.8 rem / day j
Average daily outage does (U1): 4.85 rem / day Average daily operating dose: 0.07 rem / day j
Average daily outage does (U2): 1.82/ day
Average daily operating dose: N/A 454 rom outage dose measured by pooket ion chamber t
4 team gen..,cator related work (Total of 121.8 rem)
{
MMl7.,1 Eddy current and ultrasonic testing - 42 rem i
Tube plugging and rerolls - 31.5 rom
{
4 team generator work (183.7 rem)
Equipment setup / teardown 14.4 rem 1
Valve work (74.1 rem)
Remove / install manways 11.2 rwm
)
4caffbiding installation / removal (34.8 rom) install / remove nozzle oevers - 8.8 rom 481(in-servloe inspection) (34.4 rom)
HP surveye/ job oeverage - 5.7 rom j
dadiation protection support (30.8 rem)
Valys related work (Total of 68.5 rem) i Astuoling (Total of 24.3 rem)
MOV (motor. operated valve) testing and repairs i
Reactor head disassembly / assembly 21 rem
-26.3 rem 4
Fuel shuffle and inspection 3.3 rem Miso. valve repair - 22.2 rem j
4xubber/ hanger work (23.5 rem)
Gate valve pressure looking fix 20 rom 4hielding (18.9 rem)
-inspection and repair of servios water system piping i
-Flange work (15.4 rem)
(52.3 rom)
R:sotor coolant pump work (11.2 rem)
-481(in-service inspection)(Total of 45.5 rem) i Operating department routines (10.2 rem)
UT (ultrasonio tests)/ liquid penetrant enams 18.5 rem a
insulation removal / replacement 10.1 rem l
Scaffolding installation / removal 8.4 rem
}
M3RJ
-Refueling (40.8 rem)
Operations (21.3 rom)
)
4 team generator work (42.7 rem)
-HP ooverage (18.2 rem)
Valve work (24.8 rem)
-Faoliities and waste management (8.8 rem) 4eaffolding instatistion/ removal (20.8 rem) 4hielding (7.1 rem) j tal(17.7 rom)
RCp (Reactor Coolant Pump) seal replacement (5.4 rem) l 4adiation protnotion support (15.9 rom) l 4efueling (Total of 15.9 rem) i Remotor head disassembly / assembly 12 rem j
Fuel shuffle and inspection 3.9 rom l
41ubber/ hanger work (13.9 rom) i 4hielding (5.7 rem) j deactor coolant pump work (8 rom) i t
i 1
l i
of 753 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor (1983 is the year when the LWR average dose per unit last peaked).
In this same time span, the average measurable dose per worker for LWRs has dropped by more than half, from 0.66 rem in 1983 to 0.25 rem in 1995.
As part of a separate memorandum from the Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch, copies of the attached report have been sent to the regional HP management, the Office for Analysis & Evaluation of Operational Data, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of Research, the Public Document Room, and individuals in the nuclear industry who have expressed an interest in this report in the past.
This report was compiled by Charles Hinson, NRR, NRC, with the assistance of our contractor, SAIC, which supplied some of the data. Any questions concerning the content of this report should be directed to Charles Hinson at (301) 415-1845.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
L. Callan, ED0 H. Thompson Jr., DEDR R. Zimmerman, NRR A. Thadani, NRR T. Martin, NRR F. Gillespie, NRR DISTRIBUTION Central Files PUBLIC PERB Reading Files T. Martin C. Miller R. Emch D. Matthews
- See previous concurrence DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\9500SE-n fa rective a copy of this doctJaent, indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy w/o attachment, "E" = Copy w/ attachment, "W" " No copy 0FC PERB*
SC/PERB*
BC/PERB*
D/D[
NAME CHinson: TLC REmch CMiller TM[rtin DATE 1/16/97 1/16/97 1/16/97
/ /2(/ U OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- ' of 753 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor (1983 is the year when the LWR average dose per unit last peaked).
In.this same time span,:the average measurable dose per worker for LWRs has dropped by more than half, from 0.66 rem in 1983 to 0.25 rem in 1995.
As part of a separate memorandum from the Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch, copies of the' attached report have been~sent to the regional HP management, the Office for Analysis & Evaluation of Operational Data, the Office of.Public Affairs, the Office of Research, fthe Public Document Room, and individuals in the nuclear industry.who have expressed an interest in this report in the past.
This report was compiled by Charles' Hinson, NRR,' NRC,'with the. assistance of our contractor, SAIC, which supplied some of the data. 'Any questions-concerning the content of this report should be, directed to Charles Hinson at (301) 415-1845.
Attachment:
As stated x
s cc:
L. Callan, ED0 H. Thompson Jr., DEDR R. Zimmerman, NRR A. Thadani, NRR T. Martin, NRR F. Gillespie, NRR DISTRIBUTION 4
MlM3 PERB Reading Files T. Martin C. Miller R. Emch D. Matthews
- See previous concurrence DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\9500SE-n is recalve a copy of this doctment, indica d n the box:
"C" = Copy w/o attachment, "E" a copy w/ attachment. "N" = No copy 0FC PERB*
SC/PERB*
C/PERB*
D/D [
NAME CHinson: TLC REmch CMiller TM[rtin DATE 1/16/97 1/16/97 1/16/97
/ /2(/77 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
--