States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Radiation
(ffice of
Radiation Programs
Washington OC 20160
Summary of Occupational
Radiation Exposure at Nuclear
Power Plants
1969 through 1977
-------
Technical Note
ORP/TAD 79-11
SUMMARY OF OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE
AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
1969 THROUGH 1977
by
Donald N. Rasch
August 1979
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Foreward
The Office of Radiation Programs carries out a national program
designed to evaluate the exposure of man to ionizing and non-ionizing
radiation, and to promote development of controls necessary for
protection of the public health and assurance of environmental quality.
Within the Office of Radiation Programs, the Technology
Assessment Division has been conducting a program to assess the
performance of effluent controls systems at light water reactors as
compared to projections made of their performance and to evaluate the
effects on occupational exposures and low-level waste volumes resulting
from the addition of effluent control systems to reduce radioactivity
discharges. The purpose of this report is to investigate possible
correlations between radiation exposure to nuclear reactor personnel
and the additional waste management required of effluent control
systems to meet reduced effluent limits and environmental standards.
The analysis was confined to an evaluation of the compiled data on
occupational exposure to determine the possibility of an industry-wide
relationship. As such, no attempt was made to identify specific causes
of occupational exposure as, for example, the upgrading of plant safety
systems to comply with more stringent seismic design criteria.
Assessments of such specific sources of occupational exposures have
been conducted by others.
Readers of this report are urged to inform us of any omissions or
errors. Comments on the report are also welcome.
David S. Smith
Director
Technology Assessment Division
Office of Radiation Programs ANR-459
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No,
I INTRODUCTION 1
II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
III ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES 3
IV ANALYSIS OF OCCUPATIONAL COLLECTIVE EXPOSURES 5
V DISTRIBUTION OF CUMULATIVE DOSE PERCENTAGES 8
FIGURES
I Individual Occupational Exposures for All Commercial
BWRs from 1969 to 1977 13
II Individual Occupational Exposures for All Commercial
PWRs from 1969 to 1977 14
III Individual Occupational Exposures for All Commercial
Light Water Reactors from 1969 to 1977 15
IV-A Total Number of Man-Rem Per Year 16
IV-B Number of Reactors Operating or Initially
Critical Per Year 16
V-A Man-Rem Per GWe Per Year for the Actual Gross
Electrical Output 17
V-B Actual Gross Electrical Output (GWe) Per Year 17
VI-A Man-Rem Per GWe Per Year for Design Gross
Electrical Rating 18
VI-B Design Gross Electrical Rating (GWe) Per Year 18
VII Number of Man-Rem Per Reactor Per Year 19
VIII Combining Figures IX, X, and XI for Comparison 20
-------
IX Percentage Range (Envelope) of Individuals that
Received less than Dose for all PWRs 21
X Percentage Range (Envelope) of Individuals that
Received less than Dose for all BWRs 22
XI Percentage Range (Envelope) of Individuals that Received
less than Dose for all LWRs 23
XII Combining Figures XIII, XIV, and XV for Comparison 24
XIII, XIV, & XV Percentage of Individuals that Received
Less than Dose for all LWRs Per Year 25
XVI Combining Figures XVII, XVIII, and XIX for Comparison 28
XVII, XVIII, & XIX Percentage of Individuals that Receive
less than Dose for the PWRs Per Year 29
XX Combining Figures XXI, XXII, and XXIII for Comparison 32
XXI, XXII, and XXIII Percentage of Individuals that Received
less than Dose for the BWRs Per Year 33
-------
APPENDICES
A. Total of All Commercial Power Reactor's Individuals
Occupational Exposure Tables 36
B. Summary Tables for All Commercial Light Water Reactors 40
C. Percentage Tables of Individuals That Received Less than
Dose 44
-------
Summary of Occupational Radiation Exposures
at Nuclear Power Plants
1969 - 1977
I. INTRODUCTION
This report is a summary of radiation exposures to workers at
nuclear power plants as reported by the utilities or other owners for
the years 1969-1977. The purpose of this report is to provide an
analysis of occupational exposures at light water reactors to determine
if a correlation exists between such exposures and the additional waste
management activities required due to the installation and operation of
effluent control systems to meet more restrictive discharge limits and
environmental standards. The approach used involved a compilation of
the data and an assessment of the direction of the data over the years
as presumably advanced effluent treatmemt systems were added. No
attempt was made to determine what systems were added at specific
plants or to evaluate the greater numbers of exposures or greater
individual exposures at certain plants.
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Sources for the data assessed in this report were the annual and
semi-annual operating reports issued by licensees under the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.407 of the Nuclear Regulatory
-------
Commission (NRC). The data were compiled and analyzed as individual
exposures, population exposures and cumulative percentages exceeding a
given exposure level to aid in interpretation. The results are given
in both tabular and graphical form.
The major conclusion of this assessment is that occupational
exposure levels vary widely from plant to plant and in some cases from
year to year. It appears this variation is due largely to unusual
operating characteristics or situations at certain plants and perhaps
to differences in management practices. This conclusion is further
supported by the finding that wide variations exist in both individual
exposure levels and in occupational collective exposures.
A second conclusion is that Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs)
contribute more occupational collective exposure on a per plant basis
than Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs). This holds true for
comparisons against both electrical output and plant rating. However,
attempts to relate the greater exposures at BWRs with maintenance
activities proved unsuccessful. It may well be that differences in
plant design leads to inherently greater occupational exposures at BWRs.
Based on this analysis no definitive correlation can be found
between the direction of occupational exposure data and the assumed
introduction of advanced effluent treatment systems at light water
-------
reactors. Although the data indicate an increasing direction on an
occupational collective exposure per reactor basis, the variability in
exposures from year to year at specific plants does not support a
relationship between such exposures and the assumed introduction of
advanced treatment systems. Since there is also a potential problem of
interference from increased maintenance due to aging, it is concluded
that if such a relationship exists it will only be found by a plant
specific analysis approach.
III. Analysis of Reported Individual Occupational Exposures
The total number of exposed individuals from Boiling Water Reactors
(BWRs) was compared graphicly to the total number of exposed
individuals from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs). From the graphic
pictures (Figures I and II), a similar breakdown was noticed for both
the PWRs and the BWRs. In both cases a peak was observed in the range
between 1.0 to 2.0 Rem. Through investigation, it was discovered that
this is not a peak but an extention of the previous range. The
previous range (0.0 to 1.0 Rem) was broken down to a set of smaller
ranges. If these smaller ranges were all added together the graph
would peak at 0.5 Rem and have a smooth downward curve through the
ranges in which the fluctuation occurs.
-------
The number of individuals exposed in each range increased each
year. This is attributed to the increase in the number of plants. In
1977, though, there were no new BWRs that went critical, yet the number
of individuals exposed continued to rise in each range. This could
lead to the conclusion that the age of the plant contributes to the
increase in the number of individuals exposed, for example, increased
waste management activities may cause an increase in the number of
exposures.
The data from BWRs and PWRs were combined for the total for all
commercial LWRs, Figure III. This view of the LWRs gave nothing
unusual; it was exactly what was expected, an increase in each range
but identical to both the BWRs (Figure I) and the PWRs (Figure II).
For the years 1969 through 1972, the data for the number of
individuals in the exposure ranges of "Not Measurable" to 1.0 Rem were
combined into one range (0-1.0 Rem). The number of individuals in this
range was broken up in order to provide an idea of the exposure
distribution in the lower ranges; it also makes the data uniform from
1969 through 1977. This was done by percentage interpolation of the
data for the years 1973 to 1977. This method gives the best picture of
the range breakdown from the early years. Although the margin of error
for this method is unknown, the yearly total of man-rem for each period
-------
was the same as those calculated in earlier NRC reports. Therefore,
the assumption is made that this method gives the best picture of the
breakdown for the lower exposure ranges from 1969 through 1972.
IV. Analysis of Occupational CollectivQ Exposures
The occupational collective exposures calculated for the years 1969
thru 1977 were obtained by using the mid-point of each exposure and
multiplying by the number of individuals exposed in that range.
Figure IV-A is a plot of the occupational collective exposures and
indicates a uniform yearly increase. The rise in man-rem can be
explained by the increasing number of reactors (Figure IV-B) each
year. The fluctuation of the pattern was thought to result from
maintenance on the reactors, refueling, and, in certain cases as is
discussed below, the exposures due to unusual situations at a
particular plant.
During the years 1976 and 1977, no new BWRs started up, but the
collective dose increased by 37 percent or 7000 man-rem, as can be seen
in Figure IV-A. It is believed that the aging of the plants
contributes to the increase in man-rem, especially since maintenance
operations are expected to increase as the reactors age.
-------
An attempt was made to determine if the occupational collective
dose could be related to maintenance activities, which presumably could
be observed by comparing the electrical rating of the plants to actual
power production. The comparison was made by plotting the occupational
collective exposure annually against the electrical output (Figure V-A)
and against the electrical rating (Figure VI-A). It can be seen from
these graphs that the occupational collective exposure remained
constant on an output basis (Figure V-A) for the 1974 to 1977 period
whereas it had a steady increase on a rated capacity basis for this
same period (Figure VI-A). On the basis of this analysis it was
concluded that no significant increasing trend could be identified with
maintenance or waste management activities. However, it can be
postulated that occupational exposures should be decreasing on specific
bases due to increased capacity of individual plants and the learning
curve as experience is gained. If this is the case, the exposures per
installed capacity and per output would be decreasing with time. The
actual increases experienced as shown in Figures V-A and VI-A for 1974
to 1977 could then potentially be related to increased maintenance
activities, especially for BWRs, or to increased waste management.
The most obvious finding of this analysis is that the BWRs
contribute more to occupational collective exposure than the PWRs on a
per plant basis. This holds true for comparisons against both
-------
electrical output and plant rating. Since 1971 with only 1973 as an
exception, occupational collective exposure at BWRs, on the specified
bases, have exceeded the collective exposures at PWRs.
The sharp increase in 1973 for the PWR data as seen in both
Figures V-A and VI-A was further assessed. The total man-rem for PWRs
for 1973 was 9,379. Of this 56 percent or 5,262 man-rem was
contributed by one plant, Indian Point 1, 2, and 3. Since the
occupational collective exposure at Indian Point for 1972 and 197M was
913 man-rem and 912 man-rem respectively, it was concluded that the
anomalies in the data resulted from unique operations at this facility.
This anomaly with the PWR data suggested a similar situation might
*
exist with the BWR data. The year 1977 was chosen for additional
investigation because of the significant increase in exposure over the
previous year while no additional plants were brought on line. The
range of occupational collective exposures at 17 BWRs for 1977 was 225
to 3,532 man-rem with an average of about 1,300 man-rem. The data for
the 18th plant, Millstone Point 1, were incomplete and not considered.
The mean value for the 17 BWRs during 1977 was about 1,080 man-rem.
While not as dramatic as the PWR data, these BWR data indicate that the
situation at any given BWR plant can be expected to vary widely. It
appears that fluctuations in the data for LWRs can be caused by plant
specific operations.
-------
V. Distribution of Cumulative Dose Percentages
Cumulative distribution plots are often helpful in assessing data
when sufficient data are available to provide statistical
meaningfulness. Since sufficient data were available in this analysis,
the percentage of individuals that received less than the upper limit
of a dose range was plotted per year for all light water reactors, PWRs
and BWRs. From these plots (Figures XII to XXIII), an envelope
(Figures VIII to XI) of the upper and lower limits of the percentage
for all the years combined was developed. The development of the
envelopes came from taking the highest and lowest percentage from the
tables (Appendix C) for the combined years from 1969 to 1977. The
upper limit indicates the most desirable case since it represents the
largest percentage of individuals that receive less than or equal to a
given dose. Conversely, the lower limit indicates the least desirable
case since it represents the smallest percentage of individuals for the
same dose. The envelopes give a picture of the dose distribution which
can be used to estimate the potential effectiveness of reduced exposure
limits to workers to compare a single plant to others of its type for
self analysis.
The plots of the envelopes give a clear picture of the dose
percentages. Comparing the BWRs to the PWRs (Figures IX and X or
Figure VIII), PWRs had a wider band in the lower dose ranges (less than
-------
1 rem), while in the intermediate dose range. (1 to 5 rem) the PWRs
remain to the right of the BWRs. This would indicate that the BWRs
exposure percentages appear more desirable than the PWRs at the lower
ranges. However, the BWRs have a wider band in the higher dose ranges
(greater than 5 rem) and by using only the lower limit or boundary the
PWRs would appear to have the more desirable percentages.
The data for 1977, however, indicate that there may be an
increasing trend for the 1 to 5 rem exposure range at BWRs. In the
exposure range from U to 5 rem were U28 individuals at BWRs as compared
to 148 at PWRs for 1977. The data for 1976 in the H to 5 rem range
were 267 at BWRs and 182 at PWRs. While it is not clear that there is
a trend in these data, it appears to be departure from the nine year
data composite as shown on Figures IX and X.
The envelope for all light water reactors combined is a narrow band
that falls mainly between the BWR and the PWR envelopes (Figure XI or
Figure VIII). Therefore, the total envelope gives the best picture in
percentage terms to individual exposures in the commercial nuclear
power plants today.
-------
This was expected since:
NI Na Ni + Na
P - TI, P = Ta , and PL= Ti + Ta
where: P = percent of individual receiving less than dose D for
the BWRs
P = percent of individual receiving less than dose D for
the PWRs
P. = percent of individual receiving less than dose D for
Li
the LWRs
N. = Number of individual in all dose ranges up to and
including dose range D for BWRs
N = Number of individual in all dose ranges up to and
3.
including dose range D for PWRs
T = Total number of individuals from all dose ranges for
PWRs
10
-------
T = Total number of individual from all dose ranges for BWRs
Dose D = upper limit of any dose range
From these formulas, P. falls between P and P. . Therefore,
L P D
the upper limit of the envelope for the LWRs must fall between the
upper limits of the BWR and PWR envelope. This holds true for the
lower limits of the LWR envelope. This explains why the LWR envelope
is narrower than both the BWR and PWR envelopes.
The number of individuals receiving exposures above 5 rem for the
1977 data was 93 for PWRs and 175 for BWRs. Almost all of these
exposures for PWRs occurred at two plants: Surry which had
64 individuals and Zion which had 19 individuals above the 5 rem
level. The BWR data followed the same trend with three plants
contributing most of the exposures above 5 rem; Pilgrim had 112, Nine
Mile Point had 20, and Oyster Creek had 13 individuals.
The 1976 data for PWRs included 150 exposures above 5 rem: 72
individuals at Surry and 67 individuals at Indian Point. BWR data for
1976 totaled 143 exposures above the 5 rem: level including
83 individuals at Pilgrim and 34 at Quad Cities. These data tend to
confirm the conclusion that many of the higher exposures appear to be
the result of unusual operations at specific plants.
11
-------
VI Further Readings
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sixth Annual Report of the Operation
of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's Centralized Ionizing Radiation
Exposure Records and Reports System - by Ms. Barbara Brooks
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-0322 Ninth Annual
Occupational Radiation Exposure Report. 1976 - by Ms. Barbara Brooks
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NREG-0323 Occupational Radiation
Exposure at Light Water Cooled Power Reactors 1976 - by
Ms. Linda Johnson
Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. (AIF) - Compilation and Analysis of Data
on Occupational Radiation .Exposure Experienced at Operating Nuclear
Power Plants
Individual plant data for 19&9 through 1977 is available upon request
by writing to:
David S. Smith
Director, Technology Assessment Division
Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-459)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
12
-------
INDIVIDUAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE FOR ALL
COMMERCIAL BWR'S FROM 1969 TO 1977
105
10"
o
u.
o
10*
10
1K90
1970*
1972*
0.10
1973*
1174 A
10
DOSE-REM
19750
1971
FIGURE I
13
1977
-------
INDIVIDUAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE FOR ALL
COMMERCIAL PWR'S FROM 1969 TO 1977
105
DOSE-REM
19410 1IT1 * 1973* 19730 1977*
1976 1972 1974 A 1171
FIGURE II
14
-------
105
INDIVIDUAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE FOR ALL
COMMERCIAL LIGHT REACTORS FROM
1969 TO 1977
CO
<
B
S
CQ
103
10*
10
0.10
1.0
DOSE-REM
INK
1l7t'
1171
1172
1173 o 197S 1977 °
1174 A 1971
FIGURE III
10
15
-------
10
cc
10'
10'
10
TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-REM PER YEAR
TOTAL
BWR'S
PWR'S
NUMBER OF REACTOR THAT WERE
OPERATING OR INTIAL CRITICAL^
TOTAL
PART A
CO
cc
u
LU
CC
10
PART B
1969 70 71
72 73 74
YEARS
FIGURE IV
16
75 76 1977
-------
10
MAN-REM PER GWe yr PER YEAR FOR
THE ACTUAL GROSS ELECTRICAL OUTPUT
BWR'S
o>
£
CD
cc
X
TOTAL
PART A
10
ACTUAL GROSS ELECTRICAL
OUTPUT (GWe yr) PER YEAR
0>
CD
10
PART B
1969 70
75 76 1977
-------
10'
cu
C3
LU
CC
2
10
10'
10
MAN-REM PER GWe PER YEAR FOR
DESIGN GROSS ELECTRICAL RATING
BWR'S
TOTAL
PWR'S
DESIGN GROSS ELECTRICAL RATING
(GWe) PER YEAR
TOTAL
PWR'S
BWR'S
1969 70 71
72 73 74
YEARS
FIGURE VI
75 76 1977
PART A
PART B
18
-------
J~
to
cc
o
DC
<
10
THE NUMBER OF MAN-REM
PER REACTOR PER YEAR
1969 70 71
72 73 74
YEARS
FIGURE VII
19
75 76 1977
-------
KtdlUU »KKU (OT INVUOri 0» MUVOUtL
THAI IIUUO lilt IMAN OOU
%8$?£i8^':i*'
rtKlNUGE KlkNCC IDA (NVflOP) OF HWVKXJAl
THAI KICCVEO LESS THAN DOSE
i-
rCRCtNTAU MNGE (OR ENVELOP0F HOIVDUAl
THAI HECCVEO IESS IHAN DOSE
I"
FIGURE VIII
20
-------
PERCENTAGE RANGE (OR ENVELOP) OF INDIVIDUAL
THAT RECIEVED LESS THAN DOSE
100.0
99.9
99
95
j
o
3
a
c 80
ALL PWR'S
CO
CO
a
u.
o
cc
tu
a.
50
30
10
.1
.3
.5 .7 1
DOSE-REM
FIGURE IX
21
7 10
-------
PERCENTAGE RANGE (OR ENVELOP) OF INDIVIDUAL
THAT RECIEVED LESS THAN DOSE
100.0
99.9
99
ALL BWR'S
CO
o
CO
CO
IU
95
80
< 50
a
I 30
o
i-
§ 10
cc
0.1
.1
.3
.7 1
DOSE-REM
FIGURE X
22
10
-------
PERCENTAGE RANGE (OR ENVELOP)OF INDIVIDUAL
THAT RECIEVED LESS THAN DOSE
UJ
CO
o
ca
GO
GO
Ul
§
O
UL.
O
LU
O
DC
100.0
99.9
99
95
80
50
30
10
ALL COMMERCIAL LIGHT WATER REACTORS
0.1
I I
.1
.3 .5 .7 1
DOSE-REM
FIGURE XI
7 10
23
-------
I'lmiNiAr.i nr imnvuuAi IMAI mrnvio
llll MIAN HUM HIM All I.MMMLIII.Ml
tH.HI WAI hi IIIAM'lHi
i ..
a
_lI 1 1_
.1 -I ) S 7 I J J J I 10
OOSC-llfM
FIGURE XII
1000
n.i
n
a M
| 30
a
| .»
PtnctNT/ir.E OF mo'VinuAi DIAI HECIEVED
USS TH,1.'I LOlt fOII Al L Clif.iMtnCIAL
UuHF V/AIEfl PfACIOHS
r-ni
im-\ \
^^
.1 I tl SI II
I M
3 "
i'
24
PEflCENlAOE OF IHDlVIOUAL
LESS THAN COSE fOH All ClIMI.IUICIAL
l:CHT
-n //
.^
//
<£<
,-^>''\ -A
J i-
I J
-------
UJ
CO
o
CO
CO
100.0
99.9
99
95
80
50
30
PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT RECIEVED
LESS THAN DOSE FOR ALL COMMERCIAL
LIGHT WATER REACTORS
1975
V
1977
o
cc
10
0.1
.1
.5 .7 1 2
DOSE-REM
FIGURE XIII
25
10
-------
CO
CO
CO
CO
u.
o
100.0
99.9
99
95
80
50
30
10
PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT RECIEVED
LESS THAN DOSE FOR ALL COMMERCIAL
LIGHT WATER REACTORS
1974-
0.1
.1
.7 1 2
DOSE-REM
FIGURE XIV
26
10
-------
PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT RECIEVED
LESS THAN DOSE FOR ALL COMMERCIAL
LIGHT WATER REACTORS
100.0
99.9
99
. 95
80
50
30
o
S 10
oc
Ul
0.
CO
o
a
CO
1969
0.1
.1
.3 .5 .7 1
DOSE-REM
FIGURE XV
27
10
-------
of iNNvvMiM. HIM ntctvto
tiss IHAN DOM ronnviis
IM
»
8
I
S
I "
5 »
y;
1 .1 I 13 » I
FIGURE XVI
PCRCCNTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT IdCIEVtO
LESS TIIAK COSE FOB PV/D'S
.1 J > 1 .7 I
USt-RfM
1000
«)
a '
s
?.
!
«
wp;vinuAL THAI RCCICVCD
LESS THAU QOSE fO.1 P'A'S'S
._>...! 1
* I 18
28
-------
100.0
99.9
99
u, 95
o
CO
CO
CO
80
50
30
o
S 10
cc
PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT RECIEVED
LESS THAN DOSE FOR PWR'S
1977
1976
0.1
.1
.3
.7 1 2
DOSE-REM
FIGURE XVII
29
7 10
-------
LLI
CO
CD
O
CO
CO
CO
Q
100.0
99.9
99
95
80
50
30
PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT RECIEVED
LESS THAN DOSE FOR PWR'S
1972
o
oc
UJ
10
0.1
_L
J.
.1
.3
.7 1 2
DOSE-REM
FIGURE XVIII
30
10
-------
UJ
CO
CD
a
z
V)
CO
UJ
_J
CO
Q
100.0
99.9
99
95
80
50
30
PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT RECIEVED
LESS THAN DOSE FOR PWR'S
1970
UJ
CJ
10
0.1
I
I
1
, I
.1
.7 1 2
DOSE-REM
FIGURE XIX
31
10
-------
M M.I III I'M III MhVlMIAl IMA)
II!.*. HIM mi on,( initt
1*1
III
B
i: u
»
V..
~l
I J 171 2 ) J
FIGURE XX
mo
wt
n
C l
E
a 10
or i!;;i.;it)H,M m«t RICIEVEO
IISS 1HAH IHt MSi: fOR fcV.'S S
.< l J
111 I ) i I 10
DOU-UU
rERCLNIAGE CF IXDIVOilAl 1HAI KfCltVED
LtSS WAN 1HC OOit IOR tWH S
1000
111
K
I »
ti
I >
t
f .0
32
-------
100.0
99.9
99
95
LI
ft
a 80
CO en
co 50
PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT RECIEVED
LESS THAN THE DOSE FOR BWR'S
1975
1977
30
o
cc
LU
O.
10
0.1
I
.1
.2 .3
.7 1
DOSE-REM
FIGURE XXI
33
10
-------
100.0
99.9
99
Ul or
co 95
CO
CO
CO
a
80
50
z 30
LU *n
O 10
CC
PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT RECIEVED
LESS THAN THE DOSE FOR BWR'S
1974
0.1
I
.1
.3
.7 1 2
DOSE-REM
FIGURE XXII
7 10
34
-------
100.0
99.9
99
95
80
50
i 30
CO
o
CO
CO
PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT RECIEVED
LESS THAN THE DOSE FOR BWR'S
1971
oc
ui
a.
10
0.1
I
.1
.2 .3 .5 .7 1 2
DOSE-REM
FIGURE XXIII
5 7 10
35
-------
Appendix A
Total of All Commercial Power Reactor's
Individual Occupational Exposures Tables;
36
-------
INDIVIDUAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE
BREADOWN FOR ALL COMMERCIAL PWR'S
Number Of Individuals
Not
Measurable
.10
1.0-.25
25-. 50
50-. 75
75-1.0
1.0-2.0
2.0-3.0
3.0-4.0
4.0-5.0
5.0-6.0
6.0-7.0
7.0-8.0
8.0-9.0
9.0-10.0
10.0+
Man-Rem
Totals
1969
330
209
116
96
58
43
64
20
15
9
3
2
409
965
1970
1084
525
252
200
132
95
328
95
131
64
100
10
2402
3016
1971
1611
767
359
279
203
141
506
67
51
48
13
8
1901
4053
1972
2505
1209
542
425
302
215
723
169
84
45
24
11
1
2906
6255
1973
10099
3963
1004
643
431
436
1711
1249
225
168
198
46
24
6
10117
20203
1974
15028
4046
1425
1111
636
535
1351
734
198
51
15
5
2
6648
25137
1975
11448
4918
1669
1319
880
713
1707
906
191
103
43
8
1
8460
23946
1976
14335
6331
2591
2190
1317
1450
2809
1344
346
182
89
36
10
9
5
1
14220
33045
1977
1206
2697
1055
413
141
45
29
12
8
1
13513
34072
37
-------
INDIVIDUAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE
BREAKDAN FOR ALL COMMERCIAL LIGHT WATER REACTORS
Number Of Individuals
Not
Measurable
.10
10-. 25
25-. 50
50-. 75
75-1.0
1.0-2.0
2.0-3.0
3.0-4.0
4.0-5.0
5.0-6.0
6.0-7.0
7.0-8.0
8.0-9.0
9.0-10.0
10.0+
1969
1481
722
387
300
204
161
495
93
44
20
5
2
1970
3963
1656
855
657
599
344
966
142
158
82
102
11
1
1971"
4651
1924
965
750
525
399
1161
223
129
101
14
8
1972
8470
3054
1311
1193
798
590
1691
442
179
99
43
21
9
6
6
1973
18263
7104
1878
1286
762
730
2536
1592
426
666
23 f
66
39
16
7
1974
21861
7187
2938
2161
1215
1022
2466
1376
470
226
86
30
6
1975
24535
10493
4196
2925
1707
1383
3976
1828
446
410
171
66
24
12
,0
1
1976
27487
13293
5202
2513
2524
2368
4848
2252
747
449
183
69
25
11
5
1
1977
25052
13610
6199
4875
3247
2520
6059
1878
1099
500
140
66
36
21
6
Man-Rem
Total
1744 4520 4558 7139 14805 13852 20260 26248 32554
3914 9509 10850 17912 35606 41044 52173 61977 65306
38
-------
INDIVIDUAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE
BREAKDOWN FOR ALL .COMMERCIAL BWR'S
Number Of Individuals
.Not
Measurable
.10
10-. 25
25-. 50
50-. 75
75-1.0
1.0-2.0
2.0-3.0
3.0-4.0
4.0-5.0
5.0-6.0
6.0-7.0
7.0-8.0
8.0-9.0
9.0-10.0
10. 0+
Man-Rem
Total
1969
1151
513
271
204
146
118
431
73
29
11
2
1335
2949
1970
2852
1131,
603
457
467
249
638
47
27
18
2
1
1
2118
6493
1971-
3040
1157
606
471
322
158
655
156
78
53
1
2657
6797
1972
5965
1845
952
768
496
375
968
273
95
54
19
10
8
6
6
4233
11840
1973
8164
2195-
874
643
331
294
825
343
201
72
37
20
15
10
7
4688
14031
1974
6833
3141
1513
1050
579
487
1115
642
272
175
71
25
4
7204
15907
1975
13047
5575
2527
1606
887
670
2269
917
255
307
128
58
23
12
0
1
11800
28282
1976
13152
6962
2611
2323
1207
918
2039
908
401
267
94
33
15
2
12028
30932
1977
12776
5582
3028
2453
1687
1314
3362
823
686
359
95
37
24
13
5
" 1904
3224
39
-------
Appendix B
Summary Tables of Data for All
Commercial Light Water Reactors:
40
-------
BOILING WATER REACTuRS
Years
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Total
Man-Rera
1335.0
2118.2
2657.0
4232.5
4688.0
7203.6
1179.9
12028.3
19040.7
t Of
#
6
9
11
14
16
22
23
25
25
Reactors
MR/Reactor
222.5
235.4
241.5
302.3
293.0
327.4
513.0
481.1
761.6
Installed
GWe
1.645
3.644
5.227
7.185
9.315
14.368
15.189
17.075
17.075
Capacity
MR/GWe
811.55
581.28
508.32
589.07
503.27
501.36
776.87
704.44
1115.12
Electric
GW-YRe
0.29
1.54
1.92
3.52
4 -.50
5.57
6.80
8.23
10.09
:al Out Put
MR/GW-YRe
4603.4
1375.5
1385.7
1202\3
1041.8
1293.3
1735.3
1461.5
1887.1
MR=MAN-REM
41
-------
PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS
Years
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
total
Man-Rem
409.1
2402.0
1900.6
2906.1
10117.4
6647.9
8460.0
14219.6
13513.0
// Of Reactors
//
5
7
8
12
21
28
31
36
39
MR/Reactor
81.8
343.1
237.6
242.2
481.8
238.4
272.9
395.0
346.5
Installed Capasity
GWe
1.935
3.132
3.937
6.739
13.968
19.352
22.366
26.828
29.388
MR/GWe
211.42
766.92
482.75
431.24
724.33
343.53
378.25
530.03
459.81
Electrical Out Put
GW-YRe
0.99
1.25
1.81
2.65
4.94
7.77
13.40
15.59
18.73
MR/GW YRe
413.2
1921.6
1050,1
1096.6
2048.1
855.6
631.3
912.1
721.5
MR=MAN-REM
42
-------
ALL LIGHT WATER REACTORS
Years
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Total
Man-Rem
1744.2
4520.2
4557.6
7138.6
14805.4
13851.5
20259.9
26247.9
32553.7
# Of
Reactors
# MR/Reactor
11 158.6
16
19
26
37
50
54
61
64
282.5
239.9
274.6
400.1
277.0
375.2
430.3
508.7
Installed Capacity
GWe
3.58
6.776
9.164
13.924
23.283
33.72
37.555
43.903
46.463
MR/GWe
487.21
667.09
497.34
512.68
635.89
410.78
539.47
597.86
700.64
Electrical Out Put
1.28
2.79
3.73
6.17
9.44
13.34
20.20
23.82
28.82
MR/GWYRe
1362.7
1620.1
1221.9
1157.0
1568.4
1038.3
1003.0
1101.9
1129.6
MR=MAN-REM
43
-------
Appendix C
Percentage Tables of Individuals that
Recieved Less than Dose;
44
-------
THE PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL
THAT RECIEVED LEST THAN DOSE
FOR THE YEARS 1969-1977 FOR TIIEBWR's
PERCENT OF INDIVIUALS
Dose-Rem 1969 197Q Ig71 1972 1973 19?4 19?5
Not
Measurable 39.03 43.92 44.73 50.38 58.19 42.96 46.13 42.52 39.62
.10 56.43 61.34 61.75 65.96 73.83 62.70 65.84 65.03 56.93
.25 65.62 70.63 70.66 74.00 80.06 72.21 74.78 73.47 66.33
.50 72.53 77.67 77.59 80.49 84.64 78.81 80.46 80.98 73.93
.75 77.48 84.86 82.23 84.68 87.00 82.45 83.59 84.88 79.17
1.0 81.49 88.70 86.13 87.85 89.10 85.52 85.96 87.85 83.24
2.0 96.10 98.52 95.76 96.02 94.98 92.53 93.99 94.44 93.67
3.0 98.58 99.25 98.06 98.33 97.42 96.56 97.23 97.37 96.22
4.0 99.56 99.66 99.21 99.13 98.85 98.27 98.13 98.67 98.35
5.0 99.93 99.94 99.99 99.59 99.37 99.37 99.22 99.53 99.46
6.0 100 99.97 100 99.75 99.63 99.82 99.67 99.84 99.75
7.0 99.99 99.83 99.77 99.77 99.87 99.95 99.87
8.0 100 99.89 99.88 100 99.95 99.99 99.94
9.0 99.95 99.95 99.99 100 99.98
10.0 100 100 99.99 100
10.(M- 10°
45
-------
THE PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL
THAT RECIEVED LEST THAN DOSE
FOR THE YEARS 1969-1977 FOR THE LIGHT WATER REACTORS
PERCENT OF INDIVIDUALS
Dosc-Rem 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
Not
Measurable 37.84 41.39 42.86 47.29 51.29 53.33 47.03 44.35 38.36
.10 56.29 58.81 60.60 64.34. 71.24 70.77 67.14 65.80 59.20
.25 66.17 67.80 69.49 71.66 76.52 77.93 75.18 74.19 68.69
.50 73.84 74.71 76.41 78.32 80.13 83.20 80.79 78.25 76.16
.75 79.05 81.01 81.24 82.77 82.27 86.16 84.06 82.32 81.13
1.0 83.16 84.63 84.92 86.01 84.32 88.65 86.71 86.14 84.99
2.0 95.81 94.78 95.62 95.51 91.44 94.47 94.33 93.96 94.26
3.0 98.19 96.28 97.68 97.97 95.91 98.01 97.83 97.60 97.14
4.0 99.31 97.94 98.87 98.97 97.11 99.15 98.69 98.80 98.82
5.0 99.82 98.80 99.80 99.53 98.98 99.70 99.47 99.52 99.59
6.0 99.95 99.87 99.93 99'.77 99.64 99.91 99.80 99.82 99.80
7-0 100 99.99 100 99.88 99.82 99.99 99.93 99.93 99.90
8.0 100 99.93 99.94 100 99.97 99.97 99.96
9-0 99.97 99.98 99.99 99.99 99.99
10.0 100 100 99.99 99.99 100
10.0-+ 100 100
46
-------
THE PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL
THAT REC1EVED LEST THAN DOSE f
FOR THE YEARS 1969-1977 FOR THE PWR S
PERCENT OF INDIVIDUALS
Dose-Rem 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
Not
Measurable 34.20 35.94 39.75 40.05 49.99 59.78 47.97 43.38 38.96
10 55.85 58.67 59.38 69.60 75.88 68.51 62.54 62.5< 62.54
25 67.88 61.70 67.53 68.04 74.57 81.55 75.48 70.38 71.86
50 77.82 68.34 74.41 74.84 77.76 85.97 80.99 77.01 78.97
75 83.83 72.71 79.42 79.66 79.89 88.50 84.67 80.99 83.54
i-O 88.29 75.86 82.90 83.10 82.05 90.63 87.64 85.38 87.08
2-0 94.92 86.74 95.39 94.66 90.52 96.00 94.77 93.88 94.99
,3-0 96.99 89.89 97.70 97.36 96.70 98.92 98.56 97.95 98.10
4-0 98.55 94.23 98.30 98.71 97.81 99.71 99.35 98.99 99.31
5-0 99.48 96.35 99.48 99.42 98.64 99.91 99.78 99.55 99.72
6-0 99.79 99.67 99.80 99'.81 99.62 99.79 99.96 99.82 99.85
7-° 100 100 100 99.98 99.85 99.99 99.99 99.92 99.94
8-0 100 99.97 100 100 99.95 99.97
9.0 100 99.98 99.99
10.0 99.99 100
10.0- + 100
ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1979 -311-132/148
47
------- |