ML20198D850
| ML20198D850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/28/1992 |
| From: | Congel F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198D856 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211060050 | |
| Download: ML20198D850 (28) | |
Text
TDC _
fog .. ,, -
^
[ UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20046
/ OCT 2 8199?
' ~
i, MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director & * -r o 3 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Frank J. Congel, Director E ~ H Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
LWR OCCVPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1991 Enclosed for your information is the 1991 occupational dose summary for operating U.S. nuclear power plant facilities. This summary contains a
- 11. ting of the occupational dose for each of the 111 nuclear plants included in the 1991 tabulation, a ranking of PWRs and BWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1991, a listing of activities performed (with corresponding person-rem doses) for the four PWR and four BWa sites which had the highest per unit doses in 1991, and other pertinent dose data. For each of the eight high dose sites, this report also contains a listing of the outage duration and corresponding outage doses. As can be seen ft looking at this data, nearly 87% of the annual collective dose for these plants was accrued during outage periods in 1991.
Two new PWRs (Comanche Peak and Seabrook) were added to this year's summary.
Both Comanche Peak and Seabrook completed their first full year of commercial operation in 1991. One PWR, Rancho Seco, has been dropped from the annual l listing since this plant has been permanently defueled and subsequent annual doses accrued at this reactor will be small. For 1991, the LWR collective dose per reactor was 253 person-rems. This is 24% lower than last year's average dose (333 person-rems) and is the lowest average LWR dose in 22 years.
. The average dose per reactor for PWRs was M3 person-rems in 1991. This represents a 22% decrease from the 1990 avert.go of 285 person-rems per reactor. The average dose per reactor for BWRs was 314 person-rems in 1991.
This is 26% lower than the 1990 average of 426 person-rems per unit.
In the eight years since the average collective LWR doses began to fall in 1984, the average dose per reactor has dropped by 500 person-rems (from 753 person-rems in 1983, to 253 person-rems in 1991). In the same time s)an, the average measurable dose per worker for LWRs has dropped by more than 1alf, from 0.66 rem in 1983, to 0.29 rem in 1991.
As part of a separate memorandum from the Radiation Protection Branch, copies of the enclosed report have been sent to the regional HP management, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of Research, the Public Document Room, and individuals in the nuclear industry who have expressed a interes}inthis report in the past. <
pyt-
,/ D QpP
/
/
/
Thomas E. Murley This report was compiled from data collected by Charles Hinson, NRR, and Charlene Raddatz, RES. Please address any questions concerning this report to Charles Hinson, RPB/DRSS/NRR at 504-1845.
Origintl t'. r: 70 -': J. 00:2:1 Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc: J. Taylor, EDO J. Sniezek, EDO F. Miraglia, NRR W. Russell, NRR J. Partlow, NRR D. Crutchfield, NRR F. Gillespie, NRR Qisitibution:
FCongel EButcher RErickson PMcKee LJCunningham-JWigginton .
CHinson RPB R/F Central Files 0FC RPB:DRSS:NRR RPR:QRSS:NRR R%8hybtR D:DRSS:NRR An /
NAME CHinsoNc JktYnton- Mk8km FJCongel If/ '
DATE 10/t9/92 N N \ lY/992 10 N 2' 10//P/92 _
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY ie,;1 DISK \ DOCUMENT NAME: A:\ LWR 91.2 n
_a
Enc 2.osure LWR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE DATA FOR 1991 This is a compilation and analysis of occupational radiation doses reported from light water cooled reactors (LWRs) for the year 1991. The information was derived from reports submitted to the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 20.407.
7.._,..-.....n..~,,,
in 1991 two new pressurized water reactors (PW13s) comp!pted .their first full year of commercial operation and are included in this year's summary for the first time (indicated by an asterisk in Tables 1 and 2). These new plants are Comanche Peak and Seabrook, No new boiling water reactors (BWRs) completed their first year of operation in 1991.
Rancho Seco was removed from the compilation of reactor data this year since this reactor has been permanently shut down. Other reactors which are no longer included in the compilation of reactor data are Dresden 1, Humboldt Bay, Indian Point 1, Lacrosse, Three Mile Island 2, and Fort St. Vrain.
The total collective dose for all 111 LWRs included in 1991 was 28,136 person rem (see Figure 1). This is 8,456 person rem (23%) less than last year's valuo of 36,592 person-rem. The average colleMive dose per reactor for LWRs in 1991 was 253 person-rem. This is 24% less than the 1990 LWR average of 333 person rem per reactor (see Figure 1) and represents the largest drop in average collective LWR doses since 1984. The reason for the overall decline in average collective dose per reactor in past years has been the continued increase in the number of operating plants and the decline of the total collective dose at these plants (see Figure 2). The average measurable dose per worker for LWRs has experienced a similar trend, and in 1991 it decreased to 0.29 rem from the 1990 value of 0.33 rem (see Figure 3). The collective dose per gross megawatt year (MWe-year) has decreased from a value of 0.54 in 1990 to 0.38 in 1991
.. (see Figure 4),
in 1991, the total collective dose for PWR units was 16,522 person rem for 74 reactors.
The resulting average collective dose per reactor for PWRs in 1991 was 223 person rem per reactor (see Figure 1). This represents a 22% decrease from the 1990 value of 285 person rem per reactor. The average number of personnel with measurable doses per PWR decreased from 933 in 1990 to 796 in 1991. The average measurable dose per worker for PWRs in 1991 is 0.28 rem. This is about 10% less than the 1990 value of 0.31 rem.
1
t In 1991, the total collective dose for BWR units was 11,614 person rem for 37 reactors.
The resulting average collective dose per unit for BWRs in 1991 was 314 person rem per unit. This is 26% lower than the 1990 value of 426 person rem per unit. The average number of personnel with measurable doses per BWR decreased from 1,124 in 1990 to 1,040 in 1991. The sverage measurable dose per worker also decreased from 0.38 rem in 1990 to 0.30 rem in 1991.
The compilation in Table ia represents a breakdown of the collective dose incurred at each LWR that had completed at least one full year of commercial operation by the end of 1991. Table t also licts the reactor type and the annual whole body dose distributions of each of the iM LWRs in this year's compilation. Table 1b presents the same type of dose breakdown for those LWRs which are either nu longer in operation or have been in operation for less than one year. The collective dose figures listed in Table 1 (a and b) are either actual total dose figures submitted by the licensee (indicated by a double asterisk) or were derived from data submitted by the licensee a response to the requirements of 10 CFR 20.407.
Figure 1 shows the average collective dose figures for PWRs, BWRs, and LWRs for the years 19731991. For the eighteenth consecutive year, the averigo collective dose per reactor for BWRs has remained higher than that for PWRs. The average collective dose for LWRs in 1991 is the lowest average LWR collective dose in 22 years. Figure 2 shows the total number of operating reactors and the total collective dose per year plotted for the years 1973 1991. Although the number of plants has increased each year, the collective dose for the 111 plants operating in 1991 is lower than the collective dose in 1977 when there were only 57 operating ieactors.
. Table 2a lists the 74 PWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1991.
As stated previously, the PWR average collective dose per reactor in 1991 was 223 person rem. The top fourteen PWR units in Table 2a reported collective doses in 1991 which were less than half of this 1991 average dose per reactor. Only five PWRs reported doses in 1991 which were at least twice the average dose per reactor. These units, which appear as the bottom five reactors in Table 2a, were Indian Point 2, Haddam Neck, Trojan, and Turkey Point units 3 and 4. Table 2a and Figure 4 also give the collective dose per gross MWe-year for PWRs to indicate their power generation performance as it relates to the collective dose incurred by the workers at these plants. In 1991, the 2
J
collective dose per MWe year of 0.32 for PWRs was below 0.50 for the third year in a row.
This indicates a better than 3:1 ratio of Mwe years generated to the collective dose accumula'ed during 1991.
Tables 2a and 3a list the values of 'CR' for each reactor which is defined to be the ratio of the annual collective dose delivered at individual doses exceeding 1.5 rem (cSv) to the total annual collective dose. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) recommends that this parameter remain in the range
. between 0.05 and 0.50, in 1991, only two reactors, Cooper Station and Duane Arnold, both BWRs, exceeded this recommended range.
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, such as Yankee Rowe and Pralrie Island 1 and 2, have consistently achieved very low collective doses and thereforts appear at the top of Table 2b. The four PWR sites (five units) with the highest
. doses in 1991 are indicated with an asterisk to give an indication of their performance over the last three years. Several of these PWRs are consistently among the highest dose plants as evidenced by their high three year averages. Table 4 gives a breakdown of some of the major activities which contributed to the collective dose received at these high dose plants, it appears that the activities which most frequently contributed to these high collective doses were steam generator related work, valve' maintenance and repair, installation and removal of scaffolding and insulation, and in service inspection work.
Table 3a lists the 37 BWRs in ascending order of collective dose per reactor for 1991 The average BWR dose per reactor in 1991 was 314 person rem. The top twelve.BWR units in Table 3a reported collective doses in 1991 which were less than half of the 1991
. average collective dose per reactor. There was only one unit, Oyster Creek, that reported doses which exceeded twice the 1991 average dose per reactor. Table 3a and Figure 4 also give the collective dose per gross MWe year for BWRs to indicate their power generation performance as it relates to th6 cIlective dose incurred by the workers at these plants in 1991, the collective dose per MWe year of 0.54 for BWRs was below 1.00 for the third consecutive year. As shown in Figure 4, this parameter continues to decrease at both types of reactors, but remains higher for BWRs than for PWRs. One contributing factor at this difference is the larger power generation capacity of most PWRs.
I 3
t . .
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. A few BWRs, such as Umerick 1 and 2, Fermi 2, and Big Rock Point, consistently achieve low collective doses and therefore appear at the top of Table 3b. The four BWR sites (six units) with the highest doses per reactor for 1991 are indicated with an asterisk to give an indication of their performance over the last three years. Just as for PWRs, several of the highest collective dose BWRs for 1991 are also among the plants with the highest three year averages. Table 4 gives a breakdown of some of the major activities which contributed to the collective dose received at these high dose plants. The activities which most frequently contributed to these high collective doses were valve maintenance and repair, in service inspection work, control rod drive (CRD) replacement and repair, installation and removal of scaffolding and insulation, and refueling activities.
As can be seen from the 23% drop in 1991, the LWR average collective doses continue on a downward trend frorg the peak doses seen in the early 1980s. Along with the completion of a majority o'. 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 may be the increased emphasis being placed by industry, the NRC (through the BNL ALARA Center), and INPO on the importance of effectively applying ALARA principles at LWRs.
Most of the plants contacted in gathering data for this report had dedicated Al. ARA coordinators on their staff for the purpose of ensuring that Al. ARA principles are factored into all maintenance and operations work to reduce overall personnel exposures. All plants contacted kept detailed records of job specific doses incurred both during outages, and non-outage periods. Such a detailed dose tracking system is a vital part of a good ALARA program. The outage doses for the five individual PWR and six BWR units which had the highest collective doses in 1991 are shown in Table 4. As can be seen from these data, on the average, nearly 87% 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 non outage doses by a factor of 31 for PWRs and by a factor of 9 for BWRs. In addition, the eleven LWRs which had the highest collective dWes in 1991 spent an average of 166 days down for outage work in 1991.
One way to reduce a plant's annual collective dose, therefore, is to reduce the frequency and duration of plant outages by detailed outage planning and scheduling of jobs to 4
4 l
.- i
minimize critical path time.
There are several ways in which outage doses can be reduced. The use of pemianent scaffolding in high dose rate areas would eliminate the downtime necessary to t e snd take down this scaffolding each outage and also would eliminate the corresp 'g personnel doses associated with scaffolding erection and tear down. Wider use of permanent scaffolding in high dose rate areas could contribute to the lowering of plant collective doses.
Another means of reducing outage doses is to improve the use of shielding. Use of permanent shielding versus temporary shielding in high dose rate areas would reduce the doses associated with the installation and removal of temporary shleiding during outages.
In instances where it is not feasible to install permanent shielding, the installation of temporary shielding could be facilitated by installin'g permanent hooks / hangers in areas where this temporary shielding is required. Use of these hooks / hangers would reduce the time needed to hang this shielding. Inflatable shields which can be filled with water 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 instr!!ation area and filled with water in situ. Other facilities have reported success using prefabricated plate lead or lead impregnated molded plastic. This type of shleiding 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. By practicing installation on mockups prior to shielding the actual component, shield 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. Proper identification and temporary storage of this insulation can reduce the amount of insulation which is misplaced or damaged due to improper storage and facilitates retrieval and installation of the insulation.
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.
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 plugging, sleeving, and eddy current testing in PWRs has led to a tenfold reduction in personnel doses accrued 5
l t
~
during the pe formance 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 perform remote surveillance and sampling j functions in hostile or high dose environments.
J Some other measures 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 j same time to eliminate duplication of setup preparations,2) using skilled workers to i
perform difficult jobs,3) minimizing the work crew personnel so that only the number of i personnel necessary to perform the job are used, and 4) ensuring cooperation between different groups which may be working togethet on the same job.
l Ancther essential element of a good Al. ARA program is to have a strong r.tanagement >
l commitment to maintain plant personnel doses Al. ARA. Plant personnel doses can be a reduced by performing job planning -(including Al. ARA reviews) well in advance, i estliblishing realistic dose goals, and reducing area source terms. As the current i generation of LWRs age, plant components require increased maintenance to ensure that plarit safety is maintained and doses are minimized. A good ALARA program is neosssary to prevent LWR doses from inereasing as the maintenance work done at these plants increases over the years.
9 1
'l i
6
E E k $ $ @ $ k ! o l
-E 2 l _G -
l
,i l {lj' .g f[ $
E
- ~
( ?
jY
?
a l > .g
,7 f */f
/ / .g -
/
a g / --f i/ -Q N g t -
- E s
\ \
r l -g y
,8 i !
8 / / / ~"
fi i
8 A
/ /m \' -3
% 4 g
< **v, f i ,.
, /
y !, ,
-g -
N>\ r g e
ses x 3
s i m
=
1 ,
- , N s / -
=g
! \ .??
- b R
~
g ! g a a a a a 5 a a 8 murduosJed)
Jopt..isd 4S00 aAlpalloo 60eJoAy 7
, i! ., < ' '
0 0 g 2 1 o o p o " 0 jg 7 o
- ' 0 1 1 1 1
_ - 9 9
1 0
9
, 9 1
7 9 8
9 1
N 4 8
8 9
> 1 f ,9 7
8 1
6 8
,, 9 1
_ 5
_ -- 8 9
e s
o f Q
\ 1 4
D . 9 6
f
~
e v
1 it c 3 R
le l
9 o " 1 C
d 2 r n 8 a
. 9 e 2 a 1 Y e
r rs %
u o '
1 8
i gc t - ' 9 1
F ae i
F f
o r
~ -
j 0
8 9
1 e
b m
u
- 7 9
//
9 N 1 l
T t
a o [ -
8 7
9 1
i f ~ 7 7
9
. e 1 s
r s o e da D 3 6 I e v 7 R id e
, 9 1
fo A
/}
r o e
b n lC 5 i
- a 7 u t o ' 9 N T 1 I
c c
c c
c
[ / .
4 7
9
, . 1 3
7
~ ~ ~
9 1
. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 0
1 9 8 7 s 3 2 1
>Ea '
73EoM E e={o $ga E,
=
li
2 0 _
1 1 8 6 4 2 1 9
9 _
1
% _ 0 9
9 1
- 9 m
7698 1
\ 8
% y 8
. , - a9 1
Y
=
- 7 8
9
. 1
\
N %
6 8
9 1
% % g 5
8
, 9
^\ 1
- \
k
- _
4 8
9 S
R
/ N 1
3
. W N 8 9
L _
1 t
a s
e p _ 2 8
r a
9 e 3l u _ 1 Y
e Va r %' _
ul _ 1 8
ga , _ 9 F nu i _ 1 n -
- A - _
0 8
e l
- _ 9 g _
1 a
r
[I e ( 9 v 7 i A 9 1
8 7
0 1
1 g' 7 7
9
~
da i
v r r f '
1 e o o 6 i
R r
k:
o t
c a
e
/ 7 9
1 e
P Wr R r
- s e
k r P e
e P
e e # # -
7 5
- /
I ro s s 9 o e -
1 W D D -
/ _- 4 7
1 h%
w 9
_ 1
(+
- e ~- 7 3
- . - - 19
- 2 0 9 4 2 0 I 1 1 5 ' RS 3 2"5Ex ? :s55 8O3 j=:aE=Ecg ot
i M
3 1
2 g ,
,t
,m . 1 ' o
,0 5
2 0
0 0
s Qy W t
9 6
9
'z 1
s W 1
3
- ~ 7 6
9 x
1 sl 6 8
9
% s ~
1
~
x {
5 8
9 3 1 x \
\\-
r a
\k e
Y t
t a
W -
a / , 2 r xx g 8 a e
e 9 1 y 4Me r
u gP e r
- 1 8
gx i
9 1
F es D
o ~ g f/
g e
v g
g i
t c
C l
l e
o q/ / ,
/
\
3
/
/7, N U y ~t y 9 1
6 7
9 1
R
\ - i, 5 i 7 9
W B ~ 1 i
, - g {
m s
5 7
2 5
2 2
->4,1-
/
t
,~
0 5
0 5
2 0
M O
LgugtT ii
TABLE la. ANNUAL WHOLE BODY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES CY 1991 !
. t J
t l Mur6er of Indtviduals with Whole Body Doses in the Rangrs (rs== =r c5v) TOTAL TOTAL NupeER COLLECTIVE !
PLANT NAME T'YPE NtMBER WITH 005E ;
No Mea- Meas. 0.10- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.00- 2.00- 3.00- 4.00- 5.00- 6.00- 7.00- MONI- MEAS. (Person-surable <0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 12.00 >12.0 TORE 0 EXPOSURE ram.c5v)
ARKANSAS 1.2 PWR 1.547 1.164 425 288 114 43 30 3.611 2.064 351 **
BEAVER VALLEY 1.2 PWR 1.171 70 350 314 144 86 82 13 2.230 1.059 495 **
SIG ROCK POINT BWR 30 231 25 36 41 20 58 19 4 1 465 435 226 BRA 10WD00 1.2 NR 1,428 504 354 426 172 91- 87 7 3.069 1.641 550 **
BROWNS FERRY 1.2.3 BWR 2.563 822 482 330 136 38 7 4.378 1.815 354 ** I BRUNSVICK 1,2 BWR 1.652 1,220 462 362 186 136 213 7 - 4.238 2.586 778 **
BYROM 1.2 WR 1.488 446 269 189 87 60 26 2.565 1.077 268 **
CALLAWAT 1 NR 972 209 55 15 1 1,252 280 21 **
CALVERT CLIF75 1.2 PWR 1.167 1.561 261 119 23 6 4 3.141 1.974 132 **
CATAWBA 1,2 PWR 1.540 792 388 415 154 68 52 2 3.411 1.871 462 **
CLINTON BWR 1.542 412 267 195 115 18 3 2.552 1.010 233 CDMANCHE PEAK
COOPER STATION BWR 2.382 400 190 183 128 90 108 3.481 1.099 14 **
C CRTSTAL RitiR 3 NR 904 520 180 83 27 10 1 1.725 821 116 DAVIS-BESSE WR 973 487 255 122 56 47 33 1.973 1.000 216 **
OIABLO CANYON 1.2 PWR 2.080 773 531 379 196 89 71 1 4.120 2,040 546 **
ORE 50EN 2.3 BWR 1.600 667 378 325 III 155 267 78 3 - 3.644 2.044 1.005 **
DUANE ARNOLD BWR 1.721 125 57 46 20 14 41 33 2,057 336 202 FiJtLET 1,2 WR 591 616 345 250 195 81 106 32 20 2.236 1.645 648 ** t FERMI 2 BWR 1.965 539 358 269 50 6 1 3.188 1.223 228- ,
FITZPATRICK BWR 1.242 796 155 112 69 47 85 5 2.511 1.269 '333 [
FORT CALHOUN NR 766 162 52 42 13 10 5 1.050 284 57 i GINNA PWR 889 320 182 198 113 71 63 1.836 947 328 **
GRAND GULF BWR 1,396 425 126 99 32 10 4 3 2,095 699 94 ** '
HADOAM NECK PWR 786 371 195 178 123 81 193 27 1.954 1.168 590 ** ,
HARRIS PWR 912 384 180 148 85 48 27 1.784 872 226 **
HATCH 1,2 BWR 1,167 792 438 395 302 202 343 34 2 3.675 2.508 1.161 **
HOPE CREEK 1 BWR 952 922 281 237 122 66 69 3 2.652 1,700 3 73 **
INDIAN POINT 2 PWR 1.927 381 203 146 67 65 155 73 4 3.021 1.094 1.468 **
INDIAN POINT 3 NR 759 191 '56 46 6 1.058 299 40 KEWAUNEE - PWR 408 189 107 88 37 10 35 26 3 9C3 495 221 :j i
LASALLE 1.2 BWR 1.316 132 313 312 239 144 ' 23 5 10 3,301 1.985 806 ** t LIMERICK 1.2 BWR 2.143 830 243 63 8 1 6 3.294 1.151 106 **
MAINE TANKEE PWR 637 220 14 ' 66 37 16 13 1.063 426 105 a
Indicates plants counted for the first time in 1991 after cogleting their first full year of operation.
- Iidicates actual collective dose reported by facility, otherwise calculated by staff.
TABLE la. ANNUAL WHOLE BODY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES (Continued)'
CY 1991 Nunt>er of Individuals with Whole Body Doses in the Ranges (rems or c5v) TOTAL r TOTAL NUPSER COLLECTIVE PLANT NAME TYPE N'JMBER WITH DOSE No Mea- Meas. c.10- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.00- 2.00- 3.00- 4.00- 5.00- 6.00- 7.00- MONI- MEAS. (Person-
, surable <0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 12.00 >12.0 TORED EXPOSLME rem.c5v)
MCGUIRE 1.2 PWR 1.639 818 401 302 123 51 28 3.362 1.723 361 **
MILLSTONE POINT 1- SWR 828 502 202 157 113 87 90 3 1.982 1.154 409 MILLSTONE POINT 2.3 PWR 780 472 190 148 107 81 84 2 1.864 1.084 381 MONTICELLO DWR 277 299 137 165 124 97 127 15 1.241 96# 465 **
NINE MILE POINT 1.2 , BWR 1.656 882 294 180 97 51 39 3.199 1.543 292 **
-NORTH ANNA 1.2 M 1.168 1.139 245 276 149 91 140 45 3.253 2.085 629 **
OCONEE 1.2.3 FWR 1.398 178 451 383 182 81 81 10 3.364 1.966 551 **
OYSTER CREEK BWR 205 1.439 393 .407 282 180 324 62 2 3.294 3.039 1.185 **
PALISADES PWR 729 789 263 180 64 17 2 2.044 1.315 til PALO VERDE 1.2.3 M 2.621 980 442 414 201 91 112 2 4.863 2.242 605 **
PEACH BOTTOM 2.3 BWR 2.334 899 659 497 281 155 195 16 5.036 2.702 924 **
PERRY BWR 958 255 148 102 48 28 19 1.558 600 146 **
PILGRIM BWR 1.608 1.753 328 271 250 121 113 4.444 2.836 605 **
POINT BEACH 1.2 PWR 469 266 129 124 76 57 70 2 1.193 724 265 **
~
ro . PRAIRIE ISLAND 1.2 PWR 714 301 151 96 24 10 4 1.300 586 98 **
QUA0 CITIE5 1.2 BWR 1.770 753 337 273 173 83 95 6 2 3.492 1.722 509 **
RIVER 8END 1 BWR 1.377 475 133 85 56 27 4 2.157 780 144 R081N50N 2 PWR 890 436 189 135 69 30 26 1.775 885 193 ** ,
SALEM 1.2 PWR 2.118 3.299 448 215 91 66 58 24 6.319 4.201 458 **
SAN ONOFRE 1.2.3 PWR 2.215 881 311 212 180 72 37 1 4.029 1.814 412 **
SEA 8R00K
- PWR 1.283 426 184 73 13 3 1.992 699 92 SEQUDYAH 1.2 PWR 2.085 762 380 292 182 108 190 14 4.013 1.928 698 **
SOUTH TEXA5 1.2 PWR 1.691 515 257 218 94 38 22 2.835 1.144 257 ** ,
ST. LUCIE 1.2 ' PWR 1.231 502 230 206 138 103 98 4 1 2.513 1.282 479
' SUMMER 1 PWR 856 367 255 185 79 43 55 1,840 984 291 ** ,
SURRY 1.2 M 1.780 599 291 284 178 88 102 4 1 3.327 1.547 510 ** i SUSQUEHANNA 1.2 BWR 2.015 701 413 375 202 105 47 1 3.859 1,844 507 **
THREE M".E ISLAND 1 PWR 549 951 319 197 47 22 6 2.091 1.542 198 **
TROJAN PWR 1.280 587 313 219 131 82 135 25 4 2.776 1.496 567 **
TURKEY POINT 3.4 . PWR . 2.072 664 333 352 266 162 282 28 4.159 2.087 939 **
VERMONT YANKEE BWR 902 82 76 65 50 17 20 1.212 310 118 V0GTLE 1.2 PWR 1.227 509 310 294 156 53 35 2.584 1.357 362 **
WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 BWR 1.926 431 181- 191 114 77 89 4 1 3.014 1.088 387 **
WATERFORD 3 '
PWR 1.147 486 347 279 92 51 43 3 2.448 1.301 364 WOLF CREEK 1 PWR 787 326 228 235 133 46 42 1.797 1.010 331 Indicates plants counted for the first time in 1991 after cogleting their first full year of operation.
- Indicates actual collective dose reported by facility, otherwise calculated by staff.
? .
. . ~ . . . . ~ . . .. - - . . . - . - .-. - -- -- - - - . - . . . . - . _ . . - - . _
TABLE la. ANNUAL WHOLE BODY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES (Ccntinued)
CY 1991 Musder of Individuals with Whole Body Doses in the Ranges (rene or c5v) TOTAL TOTAL NUleER COLLECTIVE PLANT MAME TYPE NtMBER WITH DOSE f No Mea- Meas. 0.10- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.00- 2.00- 3.00- 4.00- 5.00- 6.00- 7.00-MONI- MEAS. (Person-surable <0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 12.00 >12.0 TORED EXP05URt. ram.c5v) ,
YANKEE-ROWE PWR- 618 . 59 46 34 15 4 4 180 162 46 **
ZION 1.2 PWR 1,841 410 237 172 61 14 8 2.743 902 173 **
, TOTALS: 74 PWRs 58.860 27.864 11.869 9.262 4.539 2.360 2.651 345 33 117.783 58.923 16.522 TOTALS: 37 8WRs 37.527 17.384 7.076 5.732 3.409 1.975 2.602 299 14 1 16.019 38.492 11.614 TOTALS: 111 LWRs 96.387 45.248 18.945 14,994 7.948 4.335 5.253 644 47 1 193.802 97.415 28.136.
U l
i i
Indicates plants counted for the first time in 1991 after ctmpleting their first full year of operation.
- Indicates actual collective dose reported by facility, otherwise calculated by staff.
TABLE Ib. ANNUAL WHOLE BODY DOSES AT LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES FACILITIES NOT IN OPERATION OR IN OPERATION LESS THAN ONE YEAR .
' Nunber of Individuals w!th Whole Sody Doses in ttw Ranges (rene or c5v) TOTAL TOTAL NUleDt COLLECTivt PLANT NAME TYPE NUMBER WITH 00$E No Mea- Meas. 0.10- 0.25- 0.50- 0.75- 1.00- 2.00- 3.00- 4.00- 5.00- 6.00- 7.00- MONI- MEAS. (Person-surable <0.10 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 12.00 >l2.0 TORED EXPOSURE res.c$v)
BELLEFONTE PWR 9 9 0 0 FORT ST. VRAIN
- HTGR 525 63 9. 2 1 1 601 76 5 **
LACROSSE
- BWR 344 19 10 11 2 386 42 8-RANCHO SECO
- PWR 286 86 6 9 387 101 9
$HDREHAM BWR 562 13 1 576 14 1 TMtEE MILE ISLAND 2* ' PWR 57 99 14 9 8 16 7 210 153 37 **
WATTS BAR 1.2 PWR 137 6 . 143 6 0 TOTALS: 8 1.920 286 40 31 10 17 8 2.312 392 60 5
t 4
Indicates plants that are no longer in c a mercial operation.
3 ** Indicates actual collective dose reported by factitty, otherwise calculated by staff.
i e
ORDER OF COLLECTIVE DOSE PER REACTOR CY 1991 J
Collective Collective Average Collective Dose Per Dose Per Dose Per Dose Per Reactor Site Worker Gross'MWe-Yr CR Site Name' (rems or cSv) (rems or cSv)(rems or cSv)
CALLAWAY l 21 21 0.07 0.0 0.00 COOK 1,2 35 69 0.08 0.0 0.00 INDIAN POINT 3 40 40 0.13 0.0 0.00 YANKEE-ROWE 40 40 0.25 0.3 0.07 i
PRAIRIE ISLAND 1,2 49 98 0.17 0.1 0.03
. FORT CALHOUN 57 57 0.20 0.1 0.07 CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 66 132 0.07 0.1 0.02 ZION 1,2 87 173 0.19 0.2 0.03 SEABROOK* 92 92 0.13 0.1 0.00 MAINE YANKEE 105 105 0.25 0.1 0.09 l CRYSTAL RIVER 3 116 116 0.14 0.2 0.01 SOUTH TEXAS 1,2 129 257 0.22 0.1 0.06
- POINT BEACH 1,2 133 265 -
0.37 0.3 0.22 BYRON 1,2 134 268 0.25 0.1 0.07 SAN ONOFRE 1,2,3 137 412 0.23 0.2 0.07 2
COMANCHE PEAK
- 148 148 0.15 0.2 0.02
. ARKANSAS 1,2 176 351 0.17 0.2 0.06
- MCGUIRE 1,2 181 361 0.21 0.2 0.06 V0GTLE 1,2 181 362 0.27 0.2 0.07 OCONEE 1,2,3 184 551 0.28 0.2 0.16
. MILLSTONE POINT 2,3 191 381 0.35 0.5 0.18 ROBINSON 2 193 193 0.22 '
0.3 0.10 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 198 198 0.13 O.3 0.02 PALO VERDE 1,2,3 202 605 0.27 0.2 0.15
, PALISADES 211 211 0.16 0.4 0.01 1
DAVIS-BESSE 216 216 0.22 0.3 0.1 L KEWAUNEE 221 221 0.45 0.5 0.46 HARRIS 226 226 0.26 0.3 0.09 SALEM 1,2 229 458 0.11 0.3 40.23 CATAWBA 1,2 231 462 0.25 0.3 0.10 ST. LUCIE 1,2 240 479 0.37 0.3 0.18 BEAVER VALLEY 1,2 248 495 0.47 0.4 0.19 SURRY 1,2 255 510 0.33 0.4 0.18 DIABLO CANYON 1,2 273 546 0.27 0.3 0.10 BRAIDWOOD 1,2 275- 550 0.34 0.4 0.15
- SUMMER 1 291 291 0.30 0.5 -0.14 NORTH ANNA 1,2 315 629 0.30 0.4 0.35 FARLEY 1,2 324 648 0.39 0.4 0.35 GINNA -
328 328 0.35 0.8 0.14 WOLF CREEK 1 331 331 0.33 0.5 0.10 SEQUOYAH 1,2 349 698 0.36 0.4 0.25 WATERFORD 3 364 364 0.28 0.4 0.11 TURKEY POINT 3,4 470 939 0.45 3.6 0.30
-TROJAN 567 567 0.38 3.1 0.31 HADDAM NECK 590 590 0.51- 1.3 0.36 INDIAN POINT 2 1,468 1,468 1.34 3.2 0.21
- Irdicates plants counted for the first time in 1991 af ter conpletirg their first futt year of operation.
15
inMLL ILM5 MVLKMut LULLttilvt UU3L rtn ntMLlun 1991 4
Collective Dose Per Reactor Three Year I (Person-rem or person-cSv) Average Collective Site Name 1989 1990 1991 Dose per Reactor SEABROOK --- 6 92 ---
COMANCHE PEAK --- 8 148 ---
PRAIRIE ISLAND 1,2 50 94 49 64 YANKEE-ROWE 62 246 40 116 SOUTH TEXAS 1,2 161 103 129 125 ,
CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 173 152 66 130 l BYRON 1,2 86 217 134 146 l FORT CALHOUN 93 290 57 147 HARRIS 156 85 226 156 BRAIDWOOD 1,2 148 93 275 172 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 54 264 198 172 V0GTLE 1,2 32 233 181 172 SALEM 1,2 169 136 229 178 WOLF CREEK 1 18 195 331 181 OCONEE 1,2,3 228 135 184 182 COOK 1,2 247 290 35 190 POINT BEACH 1,2 252 189 133 191 KEWAUNEE 239 145 221 202 PALO VERDE 1,2,3 240 166 202 203 SAN ON0FRE 1,2,3 189 295 137 207 DIABLO CANYON 1,2 233 162 273 222 .
WATERFORD 3 265 47 364 225 SUMMER 1 52 376 291 240 DAVIS-BESSE 38 489 216 248 CALLAWAY l 283 442 21 249 ZION 1,2 312 348 87 249 CATAWBA 1,2 167 405 231 268 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 234 476 116 275 ROBINSON 2 195 437 193 275 MCGUIRE 1,2 310 364 181 285 ST. LUCIE 1,2 248 389 240 292 MAINE YANKEE 99 682 105 295
. ARKANSAS 1,2 356 381 176 304 FARLEY 1,2 375 229 324 309 SURRY 1,2 418 288 255 320 MILLSTONE POINT 2,3 540 297 191 342 TURKEY POINT 3,4 217 365 470* 350 BEAVER VALLEY 1,2 689 174 248 370 TROJAN 421 258 567* 415 INDIAN POINT 3 876 358 40 425 GINNA 605 347 328 427 PALISADES 314 766 211 430 NORTH ANNA 1,2 736 295 315 448 SEQUOYAH 1,2 329 839 349 506 HADDAM NECK 596 421 590* 536 INDIAN POINT 2 1,436 608 1,468* 1,171 Annual PWR Averages: 282 281 223 Total Reactors Included: 72 74 74
- trdicates high dose per-reactor sites for 1991.
16
unutn ur tvu.tc u vt uust rtn ntnuun CY 1991 4
i Collective Collective Average- Collective i' Dose Per Dose Per Dose Per Dose Per Reactor Site Worker Gross MWe-Yr CR i Site Name (remsorcSv)(remsorcSv)(remsorcSv) 1
' COOPER STATION 14 14 0.01 0.0 5.79 LIMERICK 1,2 53 106 0.09 0.1 0.04 GRAND GULF 94 94 0.13 0.1 0.11 VERMONT YANKEE 118 118 0.38 0.2 0.13 BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 118 354 0.20 0.8 0.01 RIVER BEND 1 144 144 0.18 0.2 0.02 *
. PERRY 146 146 0.24 0.1- 0.10 i NINE MILE POINT 1,2 146 292 0.19 0.2 0.10 l DUANE ARNOLD 202 202 0.60 0.4 0.56 BIG ROCK POINT 226 226 0.52 3.8 0.48 3 5
FERMI 2 228 228 0.19 0.3 0.00
} CLINTON 233 233 . 0.23 0.3 0.01 SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 254 507 0.27 0.3 0.07 0.5 QUAD CITIES 1,2 255 509 0.30 0.18
. FITZPATRICK 333 333 0.26 0.8 0.23 4
HOPE CREEK 1 373 373 0.22 0.4 0.16 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 387 387 0.36 0.8 0.21 BRUNSWICK 1,2 389 778 0.30 0.8 0.23 LASALLE 1;2 403 -806 0.41 0.4 0.25 MILLSTONE POINT 1 409 409 0.35 1.9 0.18 MONTICELLO 465 465 0.48 1.1 0.29 i PEACH BOTTOM 2,3 467 934 0.35 '
O.8 0.20 DRESDEN 2,3 503 1,005 0.49 1.5 0.40 3
HATCH 1,2 581 1,161 0.46 1.0 0.30 PILGRIM 605 605 0.21- 1.5 0.14 OYSTER CREEK 1,185 1,185 0.38 3.4 0.34 p
1 17
. --. _ - . . . , _ ~ . .
innLL ILMn MVLAMut LULLLLl4VL WVJL rLn nLnwoun 1991 Collective Dose Per Reactor Three Year (Person rem or person-cSv) Average Collective Site Name 1989 1990 1991 Dose per Reactor LIMERICK 1,2 266 88 53 109 FERMI 2 255 83 228 189 BIG ROCK POINT 177 232 226 212 VERMONT YANKEE 288 307 118 238 COOPER STATION 343 379 14 245 BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 219 437 118 258 NINE MILE POINT 1,2 282 350 146 259 SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 352 220 254 275 MILLSTONE POINT 1 462 131 409 334 PEACH BOTTOM 2,3 369 189 467 342 HOPE CREEK 1 465 196 373 345 PILGRIM 207 225 605* 346 MONTICELLO 507 94 465 355 GRAND GULF 498 482 94 358 CLINTON 372 553 233 386 RIVER BEND 1 558 489 144 397 QUAD CITIES 1,2 450 514 255 406 DUANE ARNOLD 194 861 202 419 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 492 536 387 472 PERRY 767 638 146 517 LASALLE 1,2 693 474 403 523 HATCH 1,2 278 728 581* 529 FITZPATRICK 377 884 333 531 DRESDEN 2,3 565 700 503* 589 BRUNSWICK 1,2 893 774 389 685 OYSTER CREEK 910 310 1,185* 802 Annual BWR Averages: 432 426 314 Total Reactors Included: ,
36 37 37
- Indicates high dese-per reactor sites for 1991, s
18
TABLE 4 -
ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1991 PWRs with Hlah Collective Doses Indian Point 2 (1468 rem) 1991 outage dose / duration: 1400 rem /164 days Average daily outage dose - 8.54 rem / day Average daily operating dose - 0.34 rem / day
- Steam generator work (Total of 584 rem)
Girth weld repair - 387 rem Primary side work (tube plugging, eddy current testing) - 126 rem
, Secondary side work (sludge lancing, foreign object removal) - 71 rem l - Maintenance (corrective and preventive) (Total of 157 rem) l Motor-operated valve acceptance tests - 48 rem Valve replacement - 39 rem
- Plant modifications (98 rem)
( - In service inspection (40 rem)
- Reactor coolant pump work (24 rem)
- Outage support work Scaffolding and insulation - 100 rem Radiation protection - 99 rem Radwaste - 55 rem
. Supervisory tours and inspections - 52 rem Operations (including valve tagouts) - 39 rem Temporary Shielding - 21 rem i
- 19 i
i
TABLE 4 l ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE 2
DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1991 (Continued)'
! Haddam Neck (590 rem) 1991 outage dose / duration: 542 rem /83 days j Average daily outage dose - 6.53 rem / day Average daily operating dose 0.17 rem / day 74-day refueling outage lasted from mid October 1991 through mid March 1992 for a total
- - Steam generator work (Total of 212 rem)
Steam generator maintenance and inspection - 108 rem Explosive plug repair - 89 rem
- Maintenance and inspection (2nd S/G) - 15 rem j - Valve work (Total of 116 rem) j Valve repairs - 72 rem Loop stop valve live loading - 19 rem Loop bypass valve work - 15 rem Loop stop valve thermocouple repair - 10 rem
- - Health Physics coverage (Total of 98 rem) '
Outside containment - 70 rem Inside containment - 28 rem
! - Refueling (60 rem) 1 - Operations department support (30 rem)
- In service inspections (28 rem) j - Repair of radwaste storage tank (26 rem) l - Insulation replacement (21 rem) l
- Radwaste decontamination trash removal (20 rem)
- Reactor coolant pump seal repair / replacement (19 rem)
- Instrumentation and control support (16 rem) _
- Administrative inspections (12 rem) l' e
i 1-4 20 i.
I e -- .. ..,.,.,-n.v . - - , , ,,..,-n..,,. . .a.,,,w,,,.e,,..,.-,,yn., ..w,.,,-.n--..~,..
TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1991 (Continued)
Trojan (567 rem) Outage dose / duration: . 551 rem /303 days Average daily outage dose - 1.82 rem / day
- Average daily operating doce - 0.26 rem / day
- Steam generator work (Total of 302.9 rem)
. Tube plugging, plug removal, plug weld repair - 90.2 rem i
Tube sleeving, plugging - 63.9 rem Eddy current testing - 63.0 rem Tube pull, plug removal.- 52.2 rem Nozzle dam installation - 23.3 rem S/G manway insertion / removal - 10.3 rem
- Health Physics coverage for steam gener'a tor work (48.4 rem)
- Reactor coolant pump work (Total of 25.0 rem)
Rotor lamination repair - 13.6 rem Seal inspection and repair .- 11.4 rem
- Modifications to containment recirculation sump (18.4 rem)
' In-Service inspection (12.2 rem) o I
s e
a n
l 1 21 1
4 a
- w,- - w,- r-w-n~w m
TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO H'.dH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1991 (Continued) g Turkey Point 3,4 (939 rem) Unit 3 outage dose / duration: 447 rem /276 days Unit 4 outage dose / duration: 520 rem /301 days
- Painting (l'otal of 192.6 rem)
Containment (Unit 3) - 62.6 rem Containment (Unit 4) - 78.3 rem Auxiliary Building - 51.7 rem
- RTD (resistant temperature detector) bypass piping removal (Total of 154.1 rem)
Unit 3 - 63.1 rem
- Unit 4 - 91.1 rem
- - Replace insulation after in service inspection (Total of 35.1 rem)
Unit 3 - 17.0 rem Unit 4 - 18.0 rem
- Health Physics general entry, routine surveys (Total of 33.5 rem)
Unit 3 - 16.4 rem
. Unit 4 - 17.0 rem
- Modify pressurizer relief line supports - Unit 4 (32.7 rem)
- Steam generator eddy current testing - Unit 4 (27.2 rem)
- Tension, detension, remove, replace reactor head studs - Unit 3 (23.2 rem) l r -
l t
22
TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1991 (Continued) l BWRs with Hlah Collective Dotts Oyster Creek (1185 rem) Outage dose / duration: 1016.8 rem /152 days Average daily outage dose 6.69 rem / day Average daily operating dose - 0.79 rem / day
- Valve maintenance / repair (Total of 98.1 rem)
Repair / replace elec+ro motive and safety relief valves - 33.1 rem MSIV (main stream isolation valve) maintenance - 30.7 rem Repair U37-31 valve - 18.2 rem Valve repair in drywell - 16.1 rem l . - ISO-condenser pipe replacement (95.1 rem)-
- CRD (control rod drive) work (Total of 64.8 rem) l- Remove / replace shootout steel and CRD shields - 23.5 rem
- Exchange CRD - 22.1 rem Rebuild HCUs (hydraulic control units) - 19.2 rem
- Install / remove scaffolding in drywell (53.7 rem) ,
- Weld crown reduction (Total of 35.9 rem)
Recirculation system - 18.8 rem Drywell - 17,1 rem .
- In-service Inspection in drywell (29.6 rem)
- Replace RWCU (reactor water cleanup) penetration (27.2 rem) ,
. Reactor reassembly (refueling) (26.6 rem)
- Remove / replace insulation in drywell (23.2 rem)
- Chemical decontamination - recirculation and RWCU (22.1 rem)
- Intermediate / source range monitor maintenance (21.9 rem)
- Install / remove drywell shielding (20.3 rem)
- Core spray weld overlays (20.0 rem)
- lGSCC (intergranular stress corrosion cracking) inspections (19.9 rem)
. - Refurbish "A" Evaporator (19.5 rem) l 23 l
l
TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1991 (Continued)
Pilgrim (605) rem) 1991 outage dose / duration: 447 rem /105 days Average daily outage dose - 4.26 rem / day Average daily operating dose - 0.61 rem / day
-In service inspection (includes staging and insulation doses) (Total of 56.7 rem)
Drywell general area ISI - 12.5 rem Recirculation nozzle ISI - 17.2 rem Core spray and feedwater ISI - 6.5 rem
- Valve work (Total of 42.7 rem)
RHR valve repair 37.2 rem Replace CRD valve - 1.8 rem Replace RST check valves - 3.7 rem
- Refueling (Total of 29.1 rem)
Reactor disassembly - 5.1 rem Reactor reassembly - 24 rem
- Radiation Protection coverage in drywell (11.4 rem)
- Inspection of torus coating (9.8 rem)
- MOV (motor-operated valve) preventive maintenance (9.7 rem)
- Snubt.uc work (8.6 rem) i - Installation of vibration monitoring equipment (7.5 rem)
- Temporary shielding (6.2 rem)
Replace 16 CRDs (control rod drives) (5.7 rem) l - Recirculation pump seal replacement (4.9 rem)
L
! 24 l .
. .. - - - . . . ~ . .- ... . - ..-.- - .
~
. TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1991 (Continued) l* Hatch 1,2 (1161 rem) Unit 1 outage dose / duration: 562 rem /72 days Unit 2 outage dose / duration: 516 rem /69 days Average daily outage dose: 7.65 rem / day Average daily operating dose: 0.39 rem / day
- Insulation removal and replacement (Total of 58 rem)
. Unit 1 - 16 rem
- Unit 2 - 42 rem
- - In service inspection in drywell (Total of 58 rem)
! Unit 1 43 rem
- Unit 2 - 15 rem i
- Mechanical and electrical work (Total of 56 rem)
Unit 1 - 34 rem l Unit 2 - 22 rem
- Recirculation motor work - Unit 2 (46 rem)
- Control rod drive removal / rebuilding (Total of 41 rem)
Unit 1 - 10 rem i Unit 2 - 31 rem
- - Health physics coverage (Total of 37 rem)
Unit 1 - 24 rem 1
Unit 2 - 13 rem l - Chemical decontamination (Total of 31 rem)
Unit 1 - 11 rem Unit 2 - 20 rem
! - Valve repair Unit 1 (reactor water heat exchanger) (23.5 rem) '
. ., - Weld overlays - Unit I (22 rem)-
- Operations (Total of 22 rem) i Unit 1 - 12 rem I
Unit 2 - 10 rem
- Pump work - Unit 1 (reactor water cleanup system) (21 rem) l - Modification of pipe restraints - Unit 1 (13 rem) -
- - Shielding removal and installation - Unit 2 (12 rem)
, - Scaffolding - Unit 2 (12 rem) i - Refueling - reactor vessel disassembly and assembly - Unit 2 (11 rem)
- Radiation contamination and control - Unit 1 (11 rem) 25 r
i 0
. _ . . . . . . . . . ~ . , , . . , - . , ,
TABLE 4 ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH COLLECTIVE DOSES AT SELECTED PLANTS IN 1991 (Continued)
Dresden 2,3 (1005 rem) Unit 2 outage dose / duration: 187 rem /153 days Unit 3 outage dose / duration: 407 rem /146 days Average daily outage dose: 0.5 rem / day Average daily operating dose: 0.95 rem / day -
- General access - both units (159 rem)
- Valve maintenance - Unit 3 (Total of 127 rem)
Recirculation discharge valve - 20 rem LPSI (low pressure spray injection) valve 18 rem RHR (residual heat removal) valve - 10 rem Safety valve - 10 rem Reactor sample isolation valve - 12 rem
- Radwaste - both units (Total of 125 rem)
Sample radwaste upgrade project - 67 rem Sludgc spills cleanup - 21 rem
- Reactor vessel (RV) work (Total of 49 rem)
RV disassembly / assembly to latch separator - Unit 2 - 37 rem RV disassembly for refueling - Unit 3 - 12 rem
- Drywell lighting modifications - Unit 3 (45 rem)
- Recirculation pump motor bearing replacement (Total of 39 rem)
Unit 2 - 17 rem Unit 3 - 22 rem
- riant modifications - both units (Total of 38 rem)
Sample panel- 25 rem RV level instrumentation - 6 rem Cable upgrade - 7 rem
- Recirculation pump shaft replacement - Unit 2 (31 rem)
- Control rod drive (CRD) work - Unit 3 (Total of 25 rem)
CRD rebuild - 13 rem CRD pull /put - 12 rem
- In service inspection - Unit 3 (22 rem)_
- Asbestos removal- Unit 3 (21 rem)
- Replacement of intermediate and source range monitor cables - Unit 3 (20 rem)
- Temporary shielding in drywell (15 rem) 26
_ _ _ . _