ML20149M623
| ML20149M623 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/16/1997 |
| From: | Emch R, Hinson C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Martin T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9701240035 | |
| Download: ML20149M623 (27) | |
Text
._
=_
s
@ KlCy e
e t
UNITED STATES i
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "o
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 January 16, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0:
Thomas T. Martin, Director Division of Reactor Program Management THRU:
Richard L. Emch, Jr., Chief
[
Radiation Protection Section
/
Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Division of Reactor Program Management FROM:
Charles S. Hinson, Health Physicist Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Division of Reactor Program Management
SUBJECT:
LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1995 Enclosed 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 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 outage periods.
The number of operating reactors in 1995 remained the same as last year's i
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 t
average dose since 1969 (when there were only seven operating LWRs).
The average dose per reactor for the.72 operating PWRs in 1995 was 170 person-T)gy cSv (person-res).
This represents a 28% increase over the 1994 average of 133 person-cSv (person-res) per reactor but it is still the third lowest average \\(
J 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).
CONTACT:
C. Hinson, NRR/PERB 415-1845 9701240035 970116 PDR ORG NRRA NPC HLE Eg CDPyj$[j n-m we
e 2-January 16, 1997 The average dose per reactor for the 37 operating BWRs in 1995 was 256 person-cSv (person-res). This is significantly lower than the 1994 average of 327 person-cSv (person-res) per reactor.
'As stated earlier, the average LWR dose per reactor in 1995 of 199 person-cSv (person-res) is the lowest measured average LWR dose since 1969 (the first year in which the NRC began tabulating these figures). The 1995 average dose is over 550 person-cSv (person-ren) per reactor less than the 1983 LWR average of 753 person-cSv (person-res) 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.
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 Distribution:
Central Files, tTSC3 CMiller REmch TEssig JWigginton CHinson CWillis JWiggins, RI AGibson, RII GGrant, RIII TGwynn, RIV JWhite, RI KBarr, RII TKozak, RIII JPotter, RII BMurray, RIV RShortridge, RII RBores, RI WRankin, RII KRaglin, TTD NShah, RIII JNoggle, RI RAnderson, TTC JHickey, T8A33 JMcCormick-Barger, RIII BMorris, T3D2 TERB R/F TERB S/F(LWR)
ARoecklein, T9C24 FCombs, T8F5 MThomas, T9C24 JGlenn, T9C24 PUBLIC WBeecher, 02G5 EJordan, T4D18 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\9500SE To recilve a copy of this doc e t, indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy w/o attachment, "E" = copy w/ettechnent "W" = No copy 0FC PERB 6
SC/PERB E
NAME CHinson:TLCON REnch k [
///8 7 7 DATE I /10 / 9 7
/
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
.-- ~.
e Jennery 16, lo97 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-res) per reactor.
As stated earlier, the average LWR dose per reactor in 1995 of 199 person-cSv (person-res) is the lowest measured average LWR dose since 1969 (the first year in which the NRC began tabulating these figures).
The 1995 average dose is over 550 person-cSv (person-ren) per reactor less than the 1983 LWR average of 753 person-cSv (person-res) per reactor (1983 is the year when the LWR average dose per unit last peaked).
In this same time span, the average i
measurable dose per worker for LWRs has dropped by more than half, from 0.66 rem in 1983 to 0.25 rem in 1995.
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 h
i t
T 1
l LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1995 This is a compilation and analysis of occupational radiation doses reported from light-water-cooled reactors (LWRs) for the year 1995. The information was derived j
from individual worker dose reports submitted to the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2206.
l l
In 1995 the total number of LWRs included in the list of operating reactors remained
)
the same as last year's total of 109 units (a reactor is added to this list after it has i
completed its first full year of commercial operation). Reactors which are no longer 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
[BWRs]); and Fort St. Vrain (a high temperature gas cooled reactor).
The total collective dose for all 109 LWRs included in the 1995 listing was 21,674 person-cSv (person-rem) (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 (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 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
1 i
l average dose per worker is 30% of what the average worker dose was 20 years ago.
j 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
}
yearly value yet measured for this number.
i l
in 1995, the total collective dose for PWRs was 12,207 person-cSv (person-rem) for
)
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%
)
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-i rem) recorded in 1994 and 165 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor, recorded in j
1969, the first year when records were kept). The average number of personnel with j
measurable doses per PWR increased from 613 in 1994 to 720 in 1995. The average i
measurable dose per worker for PWRs in 1995 is 0.24 cSv (rem). This is slightly l
higher than the 1994 value of 0.22 cSv (rem).
4 3
in 1995, the total collective dose for BWRs was 9,467 person-cSv (person-rem) for i
j 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 1994 value of 327 person-cSv (person-rem) per unit.
The average number of l
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) in 1994 to 0.27 cSv (rem) in 1995.
i 1
)
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 j
and of 1995. Table 1a also lists the reactor type and the annual whole body dose
{
distributions for each of the 109 LWRs in this year's compilation. Table 1b presents j
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 j
listed in Table 1 are actual total dose figures submitted by the licensee in response to the requirements of 10 CFR 20.2206.
i 2
- ~ -.
I l
i 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 i
j 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 l
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 j
is a plot of the total number of operating reactors and the gross electricity generated 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),
l even though the number of operating reactors leveled out five years ago.
I l
Table 2a lists the 72 PWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1995.
As stated previously, the PWR average collective dose per reactor in 1995 was 170 person-cSv (person-rem). The number of PWRs which reported collective doses of f
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, j
only four PWRs reported average collective doses of 100 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor or less. One hundred person-cSv (person-rem) is the annual dose limit that is being used as the goal for the advanced reactor designs. The five PWR sites (six i
individual reactors) with the highest collective doses in 1995 all exceeded t
l 398 person-cSv (person-rem) oer reactor. These reactors were Maine Yankee, Indian Pt. 2, Palisades, Haddam Neck, and Zion 1 and 2. Although representing only 8% of 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 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, outage support, valve work, decontamination, refueling activities, and in-service inspection. In 1995, the collective dose per MWe-year for PWRs was 0.22.
I This indicates a better than 4:1 ratio of MWe-years generated to the collective dose l
accumulated during 1995.
i l
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 j
exceeding 1.5 cSv (rem) to the total annual collective dose. The United Nations i
3 I
l t
l 4
l, j
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) recommends that l
this parameter remain in the range between 0.05 and 0.50. There were no reactors which exceeded this recommended range in 1995.
j Table 2b lists the three-year average doses per PWR in ascending order, as well as the j
collective dose per reactor for the last three years. Several PWRs have consistently achieved very low collective doses and therefore appear near the top of Table 2b.
Some of these low dose plants, such as Seabrook, Commanche Peak 1 and 2, and l
South Texas 1 and 2, are relatively young plants, while others, such as Prairie Island 1 and 2 and Kewaunee, have been in operation for over two decades. The five PWR 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. Several of these PWRs are consistently among the highest dose plants as evidenced by their high three-year dose averages. Table 4b gives a breakdown of some of the major activities which I
contributed to the collective dose received at these high dose plants in 1995. It l
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-f service inspections, health physics coverage, and reactor coolant pump maintenance.
2 Table 3a lists the 37 BWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1995.
}
The average BWR dose per reactor in 1995 was 256 person-cSv (person-rem). Six
{
BWR units--Fermi 2, Monticello, Big Rock Point, Perry, River Bend 1, and Oyster
{
Creek--reported collective doses in 1995 which were less than 100 person-cSv j
(person rem) per reactor. The annual collective dose for one of these reactors, Oyster j
Creek, has historically been one of the highest in the country. In 1995, the five BWR j
sites (seven individual reactors) with the highest collective doses all exceeded 379 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor. These reactors were Millstone Point 1, Pilgrim, Washington Nuclear 2, Dresden 2 and 3, Nine Mile Point 1 and 2. [ Note: The l~
average dose per reactor at these five sites in 1995 was 456 person-cSv (person rem) l compared to an average of 675 person-cSv (person-rem) per reactor at the five j
highest dose reactor sites in 1994]. Although the seven reactors at these five sites j
represented only 19% of the 37 BWRs, they contributed a third of the total collective j
dose incurred at BWRs in 1995. Some of the activities which contributed to the l
collective dose accumulated at the BWR site with the highest collective dose per a
4 i
~
i t
j reactor [ Millstone Point 1 with a total of 620 person-cSv (person-rem)] were weld l
repair, in service inspection, hangar work, insulation removal and replacement, staging l
work, and refueling activities.
i Table 3a and Figure 3 also give the collective dose pc gross MWe year for BWRs to l
Indicate their power generation performance as it relates to the collective dose i
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 l
collective dose per MWe-year remains higher for BWRs than for PWRs.
One contributing factor for this difference is the larger power generation capacity of most PWRs.
Table 3b lists the three-year average doses per BWR in ascending order, as well as the 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 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 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 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 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 LWR average dose (which has not changed from last year's value) is the lowest yearly average dose recorded since 1969. The average measurable dose per worker of 0.25 person-cSv (person-rem) is also the lowest yearly average yet recorded for this 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, 5
j industry, the NRC (through the BNL ALARA Center), and INPO on the importance of l
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 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 j
contacted maintained detailed records of job-specific doses incurred during both j
outage and non-outage periods. Many of these plants also recorded good practices and identified areas for improvement associated with high dose tasks. Such a detailed j
job and dose tracking system is a vital part of a good ALARA program because it provides a good lessons learned data base for future rosarence and use. Most plants j
l contacted made use of this type of historical data to set aggressive dose goals.
i j
Tables 4a and 4b list the major activities contributing to the doses for the five BWR 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 can be seen from these data, on the average, over 85% of the annual collective j
dose for these plants is accrued during outages. This supports the findings from an j
earlier study (Memo from C. Hinson (NRC), " Representative Daily Collective Doses at PWRs and BWRs During Both Outage and Non Outage Conditions", March 1,1990) which showed that the average daily outage doses exceeded the average daily non-outage doses by a factor of 31 for PWRs and by a factor of 9 for BWRs. In addition, the ten LWR sites (thirteen units) which had the highest collective doses in 1995 spent an average of 113 days down per unit for outage work in 1995 j
(compared with 100 outage days per unit in 1994).
I j
One way to reduce a plant's annual collective dose is to reduce the frequency and duration of plant outages by detailed outage planning and scheduling of jobs to minimize critical path time. There are several ways in which outage doses can be j
reduced. The use of permanent scaffolding to access high dose rate areas where 1
frequent maintenance / inspection is performed would eliminate both the dowotime 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 j
around steam generators, recirculation piping, and reactor coolant pumps) can also i
contribute to the ' lowering of plant collective doses.
In plant areas where the i
f 6
5 i
)
}
installation of permanent scaffolding is not practical, the use of transportable s type lifts, such as " lift-a-lofts", in place of standard scaffolding may result in of both outage time and personnel dose. if standard scaffolding is used, then time i
and dose can be reduced by storing these scaffolding materials in designated area j
near where the scaffolding is normally used (scaffolding normally used in containme should be stored inside of containment, if possible, between outages).
L 1
l Another means of reducing outage doses is to improve the use of shielding. Use permanent shielding versus temporary shielding in high dose rate areas would reduce
}
f the doses associated with the installation and removal of temporary shieldin outages.
In instances where it is not feasible to install permanent shielding, the installation of temporary shielding could be facilitated by installing permanent l
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 ar j
Some areas where hooks / hangers for temporary shielding have been installed are the vicinity of the recirculation system piping and around some unshielded turbine a
components at BWRs. ' Prior'to installing any temporary or permanent shielding, one should evaluate the effects of shielding weight on plant structures and components l
Inflatable shields which can be filled with water or lead shot have been used a
{
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 an filled in-situ. Other facilities have reported success using prefabricated plate lead or lead-impregnated molded plastic. This type of shielding can be specifically molded for
{
{
the component to be shielded. Because this shielding is custom-made for a specific component, it provides much more effective shielding than bulk shielding. Several
{
facilities have realized considerable dose savings by using reactor head shields j
refuelings) and steam generator manway shields (for steam generator tube work).
}
practicing installation on mockups prior to shielding the actual component, shield j
installation time in the field can be reduced.
The removal and reinstallation of component insulation to permit in-service inspection and testing can also be a fairly dose-intensive job. Providing temporary storage areas for this insuistion can reduce the amount of insulation which is misplaced or damaged k
due to improper storage. Storage of this insulation near the work area will minimize transit time for transporting this insulation and reduce worker doses. Proper labeling i
t 1
7
+
~
m
~
of insulation will facilitate retrieval and reinstallation of the insulation.
I Component / system flushing or decontamination prior to maintenance of the component or system can greatly reduce area dose rates and result in lower personnel doses. Several facilities are considering decontamination of the entire reactor coolant system. Indian Point 2 performed the first full scale chemical decontamination of the
{
entire reactor coolant system in 1995 in an attempt to reduce the high containment i
source term. This high source term has been one of the reasons why the annual j
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 I
(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 staam generator tube j
plugging, sleeving, and oddy current testing in PWRs has led to a tenfold reduction in personnel doses accrued during the performance of these tasks. Robotics have also been used to reduce doses during in-service inspection work, control rod drive changeout, and pipe welding. Mobile robots have been used by many utilities to l
perform remote surveillance and sampling functions in hostile or high dose i
environments.
j Many facilities have installed remote video cameras with tilt and pan capabilities in l
various parts of the plant. These cameras are used to observe Joos being performed in high radiation areas. They have also been used for remote area surveillance, l
thereby minimizing the need for walkdowns in certain parts of the plant. Several j
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 j
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 j
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.
l The use of teledosimetry permits health physics personnellocated in low dose rate j
areas to accurately monitor the doses of people working in higher dose re.'.e areas, thereby reducing the overall collective dose to perform the job.
~
8
}
4
i l
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 j
the same time to eliminate duplication of setup preparations, 2) optimizing work l
sequences,3) using skilled workers to perform difficult jobs,4) providing extensive j'
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 personnel necessary to perform the job are used, and 6) ensuring cooperation between j
different groups which may be working together on the same job. Many of the utliities contacted tracked job doses for repetitive jobs performed from one outage to j
the next.
One plant, Oyster Creek, uses a system whereby an exposure tracking l
number is assigned to each maintenance job performed. Using this number, one can j
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 i
will be able to lower job doses by implementing lessons learned from previous jobs.
j The preceding paragraphs describe several dose reduction features which can be j
implemented to reduce doses to plant personnel during plant outages. One way in l
which overall plant dose rates can be significantly reduced is to reduce the sources i
of radiation in the plants. The primary source of radiation fields in nuclear power j
plants is cobalt-60, which is formed as a result of neutron absorption by cobalt-59.
]
Cobait-59 is the major constituent of Stellite, a hardfacing material used in valve i
seats, pump joumals, and other wear resistant components. Therefore, an effective j
way to reduce the overall source of radioactivity at nuclear power plants is to reduce l
the amount of cobalt containing materialin contact with the primary coolant system.
i 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 amounts 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 j
plants. These programs include plans for replacing selected valves and piping, control i
2 8
i
i i
f l
blades at BWRs, turbine blades, and fuel assembly hardware at PWRs. In an attem to expedite overall source term reduction, several BWRs have accelerated their i
i programs to replace their existing control blades (which contain cobalt-based pins and i
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
{
replacement steam generators be fabricated of low cobalt inconel 690.
As more plants implement such source reduction programs, overall dose rates at LWRs should i
continue to decline.
I 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
{
j plant personneldoses ALARA. Without the support of the corporate office and upper i
I 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 scope several months before the outage provides the health physics department with a knowledge of exactly what jobs will be performed during the upcoming outage and f
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 i
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.
l 4
l i
10 i
1
)
^
- e Figure 1 Average Collective Dose and Number of Workers pec 3eactor 1973 - 1995 I
Average AnnualCollective Dose 1200
'3
===== BWR 1000 -
- PWR A
[
suuu LWR E. 800 -
gf k
t L
i y v )w fa fkf*)
3 v
% _.Y
] 200 ww
-~
=
\\br%r
=
' =.
t
^
0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 19 Year a
Average AnnualNumber of Woders with Measurable Dose 3
i 1M i
.i 4
- s=
1.
A
)
W YQ y
] '*
[.D""h(TN \\/%
B g
r NN ta y,
- \\w#
49y l..
1 7: /
s-200 0
197319741975197819771978197919801981 198219831984198519t$
i Year 1
i
i r
a Figure 2 Number of Operating Reactors and Gross Electricity Genera J
- * * % nee. re 120 n-i-g=
l
_l l
I 1=+
ale BIEIRIE IB
'E" a+
m E BIE E151515 K I a4 B B B ele BIElEIE El i
j n:
- m E E E E E ele ElElBIE g i
3 m:
- a B B B B B B B B B BIE ElElEIE El i
1 w{
a E E E E E E E E E B B EIE ElElBIE R[
1 *:
B B B B B B B B BB B B B Elg ElEl ele E
=
E E E E E E E E E EE E E E BIE ElBIBIE E
=
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ele BIElEIE E
,oj i
i E E E E E E E E E1B B E E E E E ele ElElElE E io;EEEEEEEE3jEEEEEE l
o:
E ele ElElElE Ei 197319741975197619771978197919M 19811982198319 1 921993 1994 199 Year b W Generated w
j l
j a--%
\\
mi p/
i
=:
- p mp to
- sl d
{
-f A
i
- n.,
e w
p l
gn :
d s
p l lp /
2anun="**F
- c;f o"
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 198
]
1993 1994 1995 Year 4-9 4
i t
1 Figure 3 Average Measurable Dose per Worker and Collective Dose per Mega i
Average Measurath Dose perWorker i
1.1 i
i.o _
l
- swn 9
0.9 -
A A
E 0.83fb
- PWR j
0.,
0%f V
\\
_tR
%=&#'5A\\
0.5 ~
W a
g h,b o4 -
4
>(
3 0.3
- w. ' - rg;.m 4
l 4
' '" E4, s.
n2
% ~f~
a =_%.r.,-@&
5
~
0.1 ~
0.0 '
s 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 l
Year i
Conective DoseperMegawatt Year 3.0
'^
l I
I I
!E 2s IA UM I
~
l 2.4 ;
lh
/
l{ l ii I Il '"
Il l
- PWR h2.oj)!
2.2 A
n 111 I ll
- twa f I I II II L I il
% uj l u:' V I I I
IdIN ^ l'
,, iA
\\ //l
~
'+t, I
T E
fh ju"i
%[/.I%' l\\l I
e N N.
A /\\
3 I
NN A
{
v
~
l l P-i'N N
1,,j:
4 I
I I
NOK 7A
~
i 02,
I I
I
- 2GM 0.0 f I
3 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Year l
4-10
~--
TABLE 1s ANNUAL WHOLE BODY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES CY 1MS Numbee of huRviduele alth Whols Jody Dosee in the Rangee (cSvoe reme)
TOTAL PUWITIMeet TOTAL NUteER COLLECTIVE NURSER WITH DOSE TYPE No RAmen.
Remme.
0.10-0 25-050-0.75-t.00- 2 00-3 00-4 00-5 00- t 00-7 00-312 0 hpore.
AEAS.
(person-EuPoeure
<0.10 0 25 0 50 0 75 1 00 2.00 3 00 4 00 5 00 8 00 7 00 12.00 TORED DOSE c3v. rem)
ARKANSAS 12 PWR 1.437 1244 532 301 107 39 38 BEAVER VALLEY 12 PWR 1221 494 305 350 163 64 90 1
3.see 2250 See 810 ROCK POINT SWR 124 113 25 34 11 6
16 320 205 54 2.757 1.538 453 BR40 WOOD 12 PWR 1224 454 324 235 84 15 12 BROWNS PERRY 1.2.3 OWR 2.400 1205 8 77 438 115 23 2
2.358 1.134 238 1
BRUNSWICK 1.2 SWR 1.534 1237 481 473 207 151 108 4.191 2.957 983 4.940 2.540 dos BYRON 12 PWR 1.340 308 291 203 133 50 34 2.458 1.107 308 CALtAWAY t PWR 958 524 200 198 50 19 11 CALVERT CUPPS 1.2 PWR 1.007 See 300 200 79 40 7
2.020 1.082 107 CATAWSA 12 PWR 1.720 753
- 3 387 129 73 57 3.812 1.882 482 2.810 1203 235 CUNTON BWR 920 300 307 322 138 29 18 COtt4NCHE PEAK 1.2 PWR 500 495 238 151 70 22 5
1.537 951 179 2.110 1.182 Ste COOK 1.2 PWR 1.159 479 375 174 58 16 8
COOPER STATION DWR 1.121 404 200 219 87 24 11 2.450 1,310 203 CRYSTAL f4VER 3 PWR 851 195 14 1.000 20s 8
2.210 1.005 228 DAVIS 4E88E PWR 750 240 14 2
DBASLO CANYON 12 PWR 1.730 927 327 222 95 32 42 1.048 250 7
DRE8 DEN 2.3 WWR 2.100 807 500 455 281 175 215 3.354 1.015 288 DUAPE ARNOLD SWR 757 408 241 211 116 98 57 4.588 2.482 875 PARLEY 1.2 PWR 759 5 72 379 342 123 87 75 3
1.916 1.129 357 PERet2 SWR 1.440 304 OS to 1
1.830 300 28 i
2.350 1.581 483 FIT 2 PATRICK OWR 1.100 528 279 210 114 77 41 PORT CALHOUN PWR 505 258 19 1 124 82 17 5
2,437 1.240 327 GINNA PWR 8 73 374 193 100 35 15 12 1.222 027 13e ORANO GULF WWR 1.138 788 330 253 115 58 38 1.811 738 138 HADOAM NECK PWR 785 208 183 190 130 91 124 2
2.727 1.580 342 HARRIS PWR 912 018 223 148 45 15 21 1.791 1.005 442 HATCH 1.2 30 970 519 314 285 150 78 107 5
1,900 1.008 174 HOPE CREEK 1 SWR 819 000 354 201 82 19 18 1
2.390 1.571 198 2.428 1.458 488 IN08AN POINT 2 PWR 500 901 385 327 108 115 90 e
INDIAN POINT 3 PWR 907 308 100 54 6
2 1.545 638 87 2.540 1.000 548 DeWAUNEE PWR 284 148 101 102 34 18 12 875 415 100 LASALLE 12 DWR 198 000 378 343 247 92 57 2.818 1.823 512 UAERICK 12 SWR t.006 See 344 227 50 32 19 1
RMfNE YANNEE PWR OSS 217 228 249 100 88 192 24 3
1.828 1 167 853 3.800 1.581 200 AfCOUIPE 1.2 PWR 2283 793 338 103 24 3
RALLSTONE POWT 1 585 32s 175 ted 79 53 Se 14 1
1.505 910 620 3.542 1250 138 RSLLSTONE POINT 2.3 PWR 1.105 000 326 305 148 SS 178 25 t
2.798 1J891 416 i
MONTICELLO SWR 582 08 95 51 14 2
NfME ASLE POINT 12 BWR 1.238 794 548 442 248 t12 153 11 792 200 44 3.543 2.304 759 l
i
.... ~. -. - - - - - - - - -
-~ "
^' " ~ ~ ' ~ ^ ^
==
a TABLE 1a (Contenmod)
I ANNUAL WHOLE BODY DOSES AT UCENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACluTIES CY 1995 Pt.AftT NARIE Number af IndMehsele udIh Whole Body Deeen in the Menses (cSv or reme)
TOTAL TOTAL NURSER COLLECTIVE TYPE No RAmee.
henne.
O to-025-0 50-0 75-1 00- 200- 300- 4 00-5 00-8 00-7 00-
>12.0 IWOPa.
blEAS (person-NURSER WITH DOSE Bqueoure
<0.10 0 25 05 O.75 1 00 2 00 3 00 4 00 5 00 8 00 7 00 12.00 TORED DOSE cSv. rem)
NORTH ANN 412 PWR 1.3 73 844 403 297 113 58 37 1
OCOfEE 12.3 PWR 1.751 708 477 208 74 ft 16 4
2.924 1.551 387 I
OYSTER CREEK BWR 538 472 178 88 15 5
3 3.337 1.588 304 PAUSADES PWR 484 403 214 288 140 102 SS 7
12ee 781 30 PALO VER0E 1.2.3 PWR 1.723 824 3e8 332 161 83 77 1
1.804 1230 482 PEACH 90TTORA 2.3 SWR 1.747 es3 437 290 120 62 48 3.887 f.940 See 3.50s 1.875 482
~
PERRY SWR 1.150 338 194 51 4
peLefund WWR 853 325 284 277 224 124 80 2.147 1294 482 1,74p 587 64 POINT BEACH 1.2 PWR 437 171 120 101 78 30 30 PRAffEEleLAND 12 PWR 58f 220 119 104 43 12 1
905 548 190 OUAD CITIES 12 WWR 1213 829 438 382 2 73 145 184 1.000 499 107 i
fWWER SEND 1 BWR 1.522 414 148 83 14 7
3 3254 2.041 738 MOWN 80N 2 PWR OS2 402 258 200 75 19 16 2.180 GOT 85 8ALERA1.2 PWR 822 SOS 277 153 47 15 14 1.817 1.195 218 1.920 1.058 215 t
SAN ONOPRE 2.3 PWR 3.304 783 448 379 220 82 22 SEASROOK MWR 1.293 445 243 99 13 5.218 1.914 455 SEQUOYAH 12 PWR 1,084 72 7 400 272 133 48 33 1
2.003 000 102 SOUTN TEXAS 12 PWR 1.71%
705 372 249 90 41 19 3.198 1.405 291 3.382 1.618 354 ST. LUQE 1,2 PWR 1.003 953 3ee 324 114 05 Se 7
esameR1 PWR 801 217 37 3
2.581 1.408 413 SURRY 1.2 PWR 1.000 957 358 343 113 58 45 8
2.082 1.883 408 1.084 257 13 SUSQUEHANN412 SWR 1.900 808 431 338 143 74 81 THREE RSLEISLAND 1 PWR 705 983 273 174 57 22 1
3.342 1.773 dit TURfeV POINT 3 PWR 1.197 SOS 328 218 87 17 7
2.330 1.142 215 VERRAONT YAN 4 2.005 1.220 213 E
.WR 1254 25 25 i.
71 1.
.1 737 i82 VOGTLE12 PWR 853 400 27J 100 75 15 14 1.005 953 199 WAEDONGTON NUCLEAR 2 WWR 1218 772 290 200 191 104 57 2.910 1.894 458 WATERPORD 3 PWR 1.035 G20 202 137 28 9
7 2.10 0 1.002 153 WOLF CREEK 1 PWR 987 208 25 8
1 1.199 242 14 ZION 12 PWR 1.400 SOS 302 388 225 tot 221 4
3.303 1.807 797 TOTALS: 37 WWRe 31.338 15.284 7.000 9.332 3.117 1.987 1.380 32 1
88.984 35.e59 s.487 TOTALS: 72 PWRe 49.597 23.311 12250 8.947 3.79 7 f.790 1.717 93 4
101.584 51.887 12207 TOTALS: 100 LWRe 81.032 38.575 20.245 15279 8.884 3.338 3.077 125 5
108.558 87.528 21.874
s 4
TABLE 1b ANNUAL WHOLE BODY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACR ITIES FACILITIES NOT IN OPERATION OR IN OPERATION l.ESS THAN ONE YEAR CY 1998 Number d indviduele udth Whole Body Dosee in tPm Rangee (cSv or reme)
TOTAL PUWET NAtat TOTAL NUheER COLLECTIVE NURSER WITH DOSE TYPE No these.
RAmee.
0 10 O 25- 050-0 75 t c3 2 00-3 00-4 00-5 00- 6 00-7.00-
>12.0 hpCH-IRAS.
(person-Ebposerc
<010 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)
BELLEPONTE PWR ORE 8 DEN 1
- HTOR 450 82 52 40 29 15 43 34 3
HUhWOLDT RAY
- WWR 190 30 3
73e 278 210 INOBAN POINT 1
- PWR Reported mesiinden Point 2 tes 42 2
LACROesE
- WWR 80 17 12 2
111 31 3
RANCHO SECo
- PWR 177 15 1
193 ts 1
SAN ONOPRE 1*
PWR Reported e Son Onefre 2.3 THREE RALEISLAND 2*
PWR 124 10e 43 27 9
3 315 tot 2
TROJAN
- PWR 220 48 27 32 19 9
8 WATTS BAR 12 PWR 301 141 44 YANMEE-ROWE
- PWR TOTAL MEPORTING S 1.217 200 138 101 57 27 de 34 3
1.918 000 282 l
i I
i F
- th plante that are no Boeger in commercial opereuen r
l
l TABLE 2a
- i PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING ORDER OF COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR j
1995 Collective Collective Average Collective Dose per Dose per Dose per Dose per 1
Reactor Site Worker MW-Yr Site Name (rems or esv) (rems or csv) (rems or csv) (rems or esv)
CR l
DAVIS-BESSE 7
7 0.03 0.0 0.00 j
CRYSTAL RIVER 3 8
8 0.04 0.0 0.00 SUlWNER 1 13 13 0.05 0.0 0.00 WOLF CREEK 1 14 14 0.06 0.0 0.00 PRAIRIE ISLAND 1,2 54 107 0.21 0.1 0.00 INDIAN POINT 3 67 67 0.11 0.4 0.00 MCGUIRE 1,2 69 138 0.11 0.1 0.00 j
COMANCHE PEAK 1,2 90 179 0.19 0.1 0.00 i
POINT BEACH 1,2 95 190 0.35 0.2 0.04 VOGTLE 1,2 100 199 0.21 0.1 0.00 OCONEE 1,2,3 101 304 0.19 0.1 0.09 i
COOK 1.2 102 203 0.15 0.1 0.00 i
SEABROOK 1G2 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 1,2 118 235 0.20 0.2 0.00 i
BRAIDWOOD 1,2 118 236 0.21 0.1 0.01 GINNA 136 136 0.18 0.3 0.06 i
FORT CALHOUN 139 139 0.22 0.3 0.00 DIABLO CANYON 1,2 143 286 0.18 0.1 0.06 i
SOUTH TEXAS 1,2 146 291 0.20 0.1 0.00 BYRON 1,2 153 306 0.28 0.2 0.06 i
WATERFORD 3 153 153 0.14 0.2 0.00 i
PALO VERDE 1,2,3 161 482 0.26 0.1 0.05 HARRIS 174 174 0.16 0.2 0.01 2
SEQUOYAH 1,2 179 358 0.22 0.2 0.02 i
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 i
l ST. LUCIE 1,2 207 413 0.28 0.3 0.07 j
MILLSTONE POINT 2,3 208 416 0.25 0.3 0.51 THREE MILE ISLAND 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 i
SAN ONOFRE 2,3 228 455 0.24 0.3 0.00 i
CATAWBA 1,2 231 462 0.24 0.2 0.03 l
FARLEY 1,2 232 463 0.29 0.4 0.08 ZION 1,2 399 797 0.44 0.5 0.15 HADDAM NECK 442 442 0.44 1.0 0.14 i
PALISADES 462 462 0.38 0.8 0.10 I
INDIAN POINT 2 548 548 0.32 0.9 0.07 MAINE YANKEE 653 653 0.56 27.7 0.26 i
e Number of Reactors: 72 170 12,207 0.24 0.2 i
i
TABLE 2b s
PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING
{
ORDER OF THREE YEAR AVERAGE COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR 1993 -1995 I
Collective Dose Per Reactor Three Year 3
(Persone or Person <Sv)
Avereye Collective Site Name 1993 1994 1995 Dose Per Reactor i
i PRAIRIE ISLAND 1,2 53 55 54 54 INDIAN POINT 3 60 58 67 62 i
SEABROOK 6
113 102 74 i
COMANCHE PEAK 1,2 109 45 90 76 POINT BEACH 1,2 93 85 95 91 i
KEWAUNEE 10G 72 109 96 l
SOUTH TEXAS 1,2 126 24 146 98 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 60 228 8
99 FORT CALHOUN 157 23 139 106
{
OCONEE 1,2,3 79 179 101 120 i
WATERFORD 3 15 191 153 120 i
COOK 1,2 22 240 102 121 i
VOGTLE 1,2 184 109 100 131 BRAIDWOOD 1,2 137 149 118 135 SALEM 1,2 204 94 109 136 l
ARKANSAS 1,2 134 86 193 138 i
CALLAWAY 1 225 14 187 142 HARRIS 31 222 174 142 i
WOLF CREEK 1 183 235 14 144 l
THREE MILE ISLAND 1 206 40 213 153 i
GINNA 193 138 136 156 TURKEY POINT 3,4 138 238 108 161 1
DAVIS-BESSE 348 144 7
166 MCGUIRE 1,2 232 199 69 166 i
BYRON 1,2 216 140 153 170 1
SEQUOYAH 1,2 186 146 179 170 PALO VERDE 1,2,3 197 154 161 171 l
FARLEY 1,2 167 125 232 174 i
CATAWBA 1,2 198 104 231 178 i
CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 203 227 118 182 i
BEAVER VALLEY 1,2 311 22 227 186 I
DIABLO CANYON 1,2 141 295 143 193 MILLSTONE POINT 2,3 279 94 208 194 SURRY 1,2 192 189 203 195 ROBINSON 2 337 63 215 205 SAN ONOFRE 2,3 384 16 228 209 SUMWlER 1 297 374 13 228 s
i ST. LUCIE 1,2 246 253 207 235 i
NORTH ANNA 1,2 454 97 184 245 i
PALISADES 289 60 462*
270 ZION 1,2 322 153 399*
291 HADDAM NECK 408 135 442*
328 i
MAINE YANKEE 377 84 653*
371 l
INDIAN POINT 2 675 48 548*
424 Annual PWRAverages:
199 133 170 j
Total Reactors included:
71 72 72
- Indicates Ngh dose-per reactor sites for 1995 1'
4 i
1 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 esv) (rems or esv) (rems or csv) (rems or csv)
CR FERMI 2 28 28 0.07 0.0 0.00 l
MONTICELLO 44 44 0.22 0.1 0.00 BIG ROCK POINT 54 54 0.26 0.9 0.18 PERRY 64 64 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 LIMERICK 1,2 130 260 0.16 0.1 0.02 BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 136 409 0.16 0.4 0.00 VERMONT YANKEE 182 182 0.25 0.4 0.00 HOPE CREEK 1 196 196 0.12 0.2 0.07 PEACH BOTTOM 2,3 199 398 0.21 0.2 0.03 COOPER STATION 228 228 0.21 0.5 0.02 SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 238 476 0.27 0.3 0.05 HATCH 1,2 244 488 0.33 0.4 0.10 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 DRESDEN 2,3 438 875 0.35 1.4 0.07
)
WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 456 456 0.27 0.6 0.03 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
4': e I'
TABLE 3b
{#
BOILING WATER REACTORS LISTED IN ASCENDING 4
{
ORDER OF THREE YEAR AVERAGE COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR 1993 -1995 iL Collective Dose Per Reactor Three Year (Person 4 repair (drywell)(182J rem)
- 4..(in servloe inspection)(drywell)(75A rem) 881(in servies inspection) (includes doses due to Hanger work (dryweN)(28.6 rem) esafleiding and inssistion)(74J rem) i Refueling (Total of 69 rem) insulation removal / replacement (drywell)(26.4 rem)
Remotor head remov0t:;" _ _.f. savity decon.
4taging (drywell)(24.9 vom)
- 44.9 rem
(
-Refueling (18.9 rem)
Modifloations (43.9 rem) j Cleanup valve n;":::T:::(drywell)(13.7 rem)
MOV(motor. operated volve) r;:', -;'- :mont 4hielding (drywell)(10.9 rem)
(40J rem) l Corrective maintenance (43J rem)
Health physics support (22.6 rem) 4
-Miseeneneses seppert (10.1 rem)
Dresden 2,3 (878 rem) 4hielding (1s.s reen)
Operations support (153 rem) 1 Ostage doseMuration (U2): 686 rem /210 days
-N. _.% maintenance (13 rem) l Outage doseMuration (U3): 23 rem /127 days Dooontamination (8.8 rem) l AveraSe daily outage dose (U2): 3.28 rem / day AveraSe daily omtate dose (U3): 0.18 reen/ day Average daily operating dose (U2+3): 0.42 reen/ day i
WNP 2 (484 rem) unita Outage doseMuradon: 297 rem /49 days j
RWCU (reactor water cleanup system) pipe and heat Average daily outage dose: 6.06 remiday 2
exchanger replacement (91.1 rem)
)
Valve work / replacement (Total of 87.8 rem)
Average daily operating dose: OJ remMay Two 18" MOVs (motor operated valves) n;' ::I
- 8 2.2 ro m 4hioiding (drywen) instaMation/ removal (30 rem) i MSIV (main steam isolation valve) repair - 18.2 rom
-Remotor d'- ::xt:,W--- xbly(Total of 28J rem)
Reactor r- _..i:/ - 14.3 rem l
Electromagnetic and safety relief valve repair - 17.2 rem Roseter d"
- --1"y - 10.3 rem j
181 (in earvloe inspection) in drywell (70.4 rom)
Chemical deoontamination of RWCU (remotor water j
4hielding (Total of 47.1 rem) eieanup eystem)(20.8 rem) perm. roeireelation ring header shielding installation 488 (in servloe ' :;::^': ) for erosionloorrosion f
- 31.2 rom (19J rem) i Temporary dryweN shioMing installation / removal Main senem relief valve remov04_;" :n:::
i 15.9 rem (14.8 rom) i Outage activities seppert (Total of 46.7 rem) i Np empport - 29.2 rem j
Operations support 17.4 rom Chemical decontamination (rooire and RWCU)(23 7 rem) j inetsited instrument esps on LpCI(Iow pressure coolant j
injection) roolrc. risers for injecting deoon solution i
(13.7 rem)
{
inspect / clean main condenser water boxes (11.8 rom) j 4nsulation tornov0', _;" ::c:nt in drywoN (10A rom) i CRD (control rod drive) removal / installation (10.3 reen)
)
Unclog drale line at bottom of reactor vessel (9.4 rem) a j
i l
1
.J 1
,f 3 i
i 1
TABLE 4a (Continued)
ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1995 BWR's with Hiah Collective Mer:
Nine leis Pt 1,2 (789 rem)
Outage deseMaration (U1): 312 rem /56 days j
Outage deseMarstion (U2): 325 rem /65 days j
Average damy outage does (U1): s.e1 rem / day i
Average daily outage does (U2): 8J7 rem / day Average daily operating does : N/A 1
481(in eervise inspection)(94.4 rem)
Naive work's-/:::
- (Total of $2.2 rom)
EC (emergency oooling) check vafw repair - 23.6 rom Drywell Limiterque valve work - 19.4 rem 4
l Modifloahons to pressure relief val res - 7.3 rem CftD (control red drive) exchanges (18.8 rom) 4 40ealth physios surveys and support (16 rem)
T_r :" ;(including remotor head removal /re;':::;.;;t, l
181 deson, fuel sipping) (12.3 rem) 4tRP oooler 7:;' ::x;;;(11 A rom) i Operations (drywell)(9.8 rem) 4hioWing (dryweN)(8.9 rem) insulation work (8.2 rem)
-Housekeeping (drywell)(5.1 rem) i EnlL2 i
-181(Totalof 88 rem)
Inside biochield - 43.8 rom Outside bioshioW 34J rem 4embber related work (Total of 47.4 rem)
Snubber redestion modifloations - 28.1 rem i
Snutber functional testing - 21.3 rem l
- alve wortC:;" ::-- M(Totalof 38J rom)
RACV(meter operating valve) testing 17.2 rom Say (astety remet valve) ohange out - s.7 rem j
-4tofbelleg (Tetal of 17.7 rom) i Roaster head.c.;;i ll _;'::
- 1-11J rem
}
Operations and support 6.2 rem aD enehanges(12J rem) i aseann physios serveys and Job oevwage (19.9 rem)
Temporary shielding (7.1 rom) 4 j
49everen monitor replacement /repah' (7 rem)
Cooostamination (drywell)(8.7 rem)
}
]
i I
t i I j
J TABLE 4b ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE I
DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1995 1
PWR's with Hiah Collective Doses j Maine Yankee (453 rem) indian Point 2 (648 rem)*
I outage deseMerstion*: es7 rem /358 days outage doselduration: 499.9 runI122 days j Average daily estage deos: 1.48 rem / day Average daily outage dose: 4.1 rem / day Average daily operating dose: 0.20 remiday l Average daily operating dese: N/A
- ladian Point pertermed a full system j " Outage estended tom 1/23/96 to 1/18/96 decontamination in 1995 i
Steam generator related work (Total of 272.1 rom) 1 Tche miseving (17,000 tubes sleeved) 142.3 rem 84edifications (Total of 47.8 rem) 1 steam generator nozzle ring installation - 16.3 rem ECT (addy servent testing)- 83.2 rem Remotor vessel head spilt pin repair - 14.9 rem i
j Sledge laneing and inspostions - 38 rom itefueling (55.7 rem) 84antal hard rolling - 7A rem 84aintenanoe (61.2 rem) l RCP (Reaster Coolant Pump) work (Total of 90.3 rem)
Jtadiation, :^- 2: - (47.3 rem) j Rotating assembly.c;':::- :2 - 45.3 rem Radweste (dOA rem) 1 Motor removal / installation - 21 rem Steam generator work (Total of 36.6 rem)
}
Seal. :;' r "-13.8 rom Primary side (eddy current testing) - 32.5 rem
{
Outege support (Total of 90 rem)
Seoondary side (siedge lancing) - 4.1 rom Red Controis outage support - 89.2 rom Soaffolding and insulation installation / removal j
j
-Valve work (Total of 59.6 rem)
Valve and SRV (safety relief valve) maintenance - 38.2 rem (34 rem) 1 840V (motor operated valve) testing and repair.1 A rom 4upervisory plant tours (33.1 rem) 2
-881(in servloe inspostion)(23.7 rem)
/
{
-Decontamination (Total of 48.8 rem)
Full system deoontamination (21 rem)
Reactor coolant system loop - 32A rom 4tCP (Reastor Coolant Pump) work (20 rem) 4
-ftefueling Operation (Total of 42.3 rem)
Raastor head removal / replacement 29.2 rem Operations (20.3 rom)
CEA(control element assembly) shaft rep! : n:nt MOV (motor operated valve) work (1SJ rem)
Services (lighting, air)(10.6 rem) 8.3 rem 481(in-servise inspection)(22.1 rem)
Pressuriser ineonel inspootion (14.4 rem)
-Temporary shielding (9 rem) l, j
Palisades (442 rem) l Ostage doselduration: 421 rem /93 days Average daily outage dose: 4J3 rem / day l
Average dauy operating dose: 0.15 rem / day ftefueling(Totalof 44J rem)
Itsestor head remover. :;': r :"-50J rem Feel movement 4.3 rem
-888 (In earvlee inspostion)(Total of 45.2 rem) ineonelweld inspestkms (ze.1 run) 1
-Vahm weet(3sA run) inssisuon ranew.:,n;:::: cr (34.s run)
Steam generater work (Total of 32 rem) i Nozzle dam lastallation/ removal - 12.2 rom ECT (eddy current testing) 8.3 rom
-Seaffolding lastaRetion/ removal (30.6 rem) 1
-Health Physics surveys (19.2 rem) 84echanical maintenance (15A rem) 4 Pump work (11.1 rem) l
-Ventilation system maintenance (10J rom)
Dooontamination and cleanup (9A rem)
-Temporary shielding (7.3 rem) 4 Electrical maintenance (7.1 rem) i
h j
w 14
)
l TABLE 4b(Continued)
ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE i
DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1995 i
a PWR's with Hiah Collective Doses i
l l
7.lon 1,2 (797 rem)
Haddam Neck (442 rem")
Outage doseMuration (U1): 440 remf99 days Outage doseMuration: 484 rem /81 days Outage deseMurstion (U2): 167 remI103 days Average daily o.rtage dose: 5.6 rem / day Average daily outage does (U1): 4.08 rem / day Average daily operating dose: 0.07 rem / day Average daily outage does(U2): 1.42/ day
- 442 rom total year does measured by TLD, j
Average daily :; l ;- dose: N/A 484 rom outage does measured by pocket ion chamber 4 team generator related work (Total of 121.8 rem) l glgLt Eddy surrent and ultrasonic testing - 42 rem Tube plugging and rerells - 31J rem i
j 4 team generator work (183.7 rom)
Equipment estarts. -14.4 rem i
-Valve work (74.1 rem) ftemove/ install manways -11.2 rom l
4estfolding installation / removal (34.8 rem) lastelltremove nogale oevers - 8.6 rem 481(in-servioe inspection) (34.4 rom)
HP surveys / job ooverage 5.7 rem Jtadiation protnotion support (30.6 rem)
-Valve related work (Total of SSA rem)
Jtefueling (Total of 24.3 rom)
MOV (motor operated valve) testing and repairs
{
lteactor head disassembly / assembly - 21 rem
-28.3 rem Fuel shuffle and inspection - 3.3 rem Misc. valve repair 22.2 rem l
4Ithberthanger work (23J rem)
Gate valve pressure looking fix - 20 rem j
4hielding (15.9 rem) 4nspection and repair of service water system piping Flange work (15.4 rom)
(513 rem)
-ftesotor ooolant pump work (11.2 rem) 481(in.eervise inspection)(Total of 45.5 rem)
. Operating department routines (10.2 rem)
UT (ultrasonic tests)/iiquid penetrant exams - 16.5 rom lasulation removal / replacement - 10.1 rom I
Seafleiding installation / removal - S.4 rem 4t*f**line (40.s rem)
Maa.2
<;1 As (21.3 rem) 4tsim generator work (42.7 rem) 44P ooverage (19.2 rem)
Valve work (24.6 rem)
Foolleties and waste management (8.8 rem) 4esfloiding installation / removal (20.8 rom) 4hielding (7.1 rom) 4tCP (Reactor Coolant Pump) seat replacement (5.4 rom)
]
481(17.7 rem) 4tadiation protection support (15.9 rom) 4tefueling (Total of 15.9 rom) j lteactor head disassembly / assembly - 12 rem Feel shuffle and inspection - 3.9 rem 4xbberthanger work (13.9 rem) l 4hielding (5.7 rom) j Jteestor asolant pump work (5 rom) i 4
i l
i 4
. -