Transcript Presentation Title - Nuclear Energy Institute

Power Reactor Occupational Radiation Safety
The First 50 Years
Ralph Andersen, CHP
Senior Director – Radiation Safety & Environmental
Protection
Health Physics Society - 59th Annual Meeting
July 14 • Baltimore, MD
1
By Way of Introduction
HEALTH PHYSICS: The science concerned with the recognition,
evaluation and control of health hazards from ionizing radiation.
2
In the Beginning
3
The Early Days
1969-1979
Occupational
Dose Limit:
1.25 Rem/qtr
or
3 Rem/qtr w/
N-18
4
Rugged Individualism 1969-1979
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RP is responsible for RP
Minimal staffing, equipment and resources
Pen and paper technology
Variable training
Compliance driven
“Necessary Inconvenience”
Some knowledge transfer and information
exchange (e.g., EEI HP Committee)
5
No. of Operating Power Reactors
1969-1979
80
70
60
50
LWR
40
PWR
30
BWR
20
10
0
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
6
Average Collective Radiation Dose Per Reactor
(Person-Sv) 1969-1979
9
8
7
6
5
LWR
4
PWR
3
BWR
2
1
0
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
7
Average Measurable Dose per Worker (mSv/a)
Measurable Dose (mSv) 1969-1979
12
10
8
LWR
6
PWR
BWR
4
2
0
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
8
Individual Annual Dose Distribution (mSv/a) 1973-1979
Per Cent of Monitored Workers with Measurable Dose
40
35
30
25
>10
20
>20
15
>50
10
5
0
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
9
1980-1990
Occupational
Dose Limit:
1.25 Rem/qtr
or
3 Rem/qtr w/
N-18
10
Three Mile Island
11
NRC HP Appraisal Program (NUREG-0855)
12
NRC HP Appraisal Program
Example Questions (RP Organization)
• Does the Radiation Protection Manager have a
direct reporting chain to the Plant Manager?
• Does the RP organization have adequate
authority to ensure the RP program is
implemented (e.g., enforce adherence to
procedures, stop work, etc.)?
• Is the overall staffing level of RP technicians
adequate to perform assigned responsibilities
with the workload existing during normal and
outage conditions?
13
NRC HP Appraisal Program
Advice to HPs
• Don’t be satisfied with a program that merely meets the
formal regulatory requirements
• When something goes wrong and a problem surfaces, be
sure to search for the cause
• Take the time and effort to ensure that RP staff are
assigned specific duties for routine operations and
emergencies
• Make sure that the RP staff develops a depth of knowledge
and understanding of RP principles and practices
• Perform frequent audits of performance (versus
compliance)
• Emphasize effective and respectful communication
14
NRC HP Appraisal Program
Advice to Young HPs
“Another common mistake made by many of the
younger professionals is to treat the technicians
as lowly subordinates. This attitude can be very
costly for the young professional and can be
disastrous to the program. Cooperation is built
on trust and respect; it does not come
automatically with academic degrees and
positions.”
15
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
• The nuclear electric industry created the Institute of Nuclear Power
Operations in 1979. INPO’s mission is to promote the highest levels
of safety and reliability – to promote excellence– in the operation of
nuclear electric generating plants.
• INPO conducts periodic evaluations to promote the highest levels of
excellence in the operation, maintenance, and support of operating
nuclear plants. All evaluation visits are based on performance
objectives and criteria, developed by INPO with industry input and
review. The evaluations are performance-oriented, emphasizing
both the results achieved and the behaviors and organizational
factors important to future performance.
16
INPO
• The National Academy for Nuclear Training, which operates
under the auspices of INPO, embodies the U.S. commercial
nuclear utility industry’s commitment to high quality training
and professionalism. The Academy integrates the training
related efforts of nuclear utilities, the independent National
Nuclear Accrediting Board and the Institute’s training
activities.
• RP mission statement: To consistently promote the highest
standards in radiological safety. We identify gaps to excellence
and provide assistance to foster continuous improvement.
17
Transformation 1980-1990
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Organizational Changes
Increased Staffing and Resources
Improved Technology
Performance-based
Stop-Work Authority
ALARA
Accredited Training
Problem Identification and Resolution
18
No. of Operating Power Reactors
1969-1990
120
100
80
LWR
60
PWR
BWR
40
20
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
19
Average Collective Radiation Dose Per Reactor
(Person-Sv) 1969-1990
12
10
8
LWR
6
PWR
BWR
4
2
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
20
Average Measurable Dose per Worker (mSv/a)
1969-1990
12
10
8
LWR
6
PWR
BWR
4
2
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
21
Individual Annual Dose Distribution (mSv/a) 1973-1990
Per Cent of Monitored Workers with Measurable Dose
40
35
30
25
>10
20
>20
15
>50
10
5
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
22
1991 - Present
Occupational
Dose Limit:
5 rem TEDE
50 rem CDE
15 rem LDE
50 SDE
23
HP Science – Discrete Radioactive Particles
(DRP)
• Microscopic, high specific activity particles
containing Co-60 or fission products
• Become electronically charged as a result of
radioactive decay –highly mobile
• On the skin, DRPs can expose small amounts
of tissue to relatively high, localized doses
• Potential biological effects include reddening
or transient breaks in the skin
24
DRP Impacts
• Issue emerged in the late 80’s with use of more
sensitive portal monitors
• Some exposures exceeded the NRC SDE limit,
when applying existing skin dose criteria and
standards -enforcement and limitation of worker
access
• Extraordinary measures were implemented to
prevent regulatory overexposures
• Impacts not commensurate with actual health
detriment
25
Discrete Particle Impact
Refueling Floor Controls: Pre-Industry Focus
Refueling Floor Controls: Post-Industry Focus
Single Cotton PC’s
Specialized training for RP & radworker
Single step off pad (SOP)
Increased signage & designated “Discrete Particle”
zone with double SOP’s
Hand frisk (self-performed)
RP Tech performs initial survey on worker
Exist RCA via portals
PC’s removed with RP support
RP Tech performs second survey
“Sticky” pads used as SOP’s and “sticky” rollers for
decontamination (masslin not as effective)
Localized ventilation & downdraft equipment used
RWP approval by senior manager required
Increased survey frequency of the area required
Use of respirators increased
Double PC’s and “plastics” worn. Entire PC program
evaluated
Significant increase in industrial safety concerns (heat
stress, limited vision, etc.)
26
DRP
Everyone Stepped Up
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
INPO summarized industry experience and recommended best practices to
control and minimize exposures
NCRP published Report No. 106 estimating negligible stochastic health effects
from DRPs
NRC funded Brookhaven (BNL) to study health effects and develop guidance –
demonstrated through pig-skin studies that DRPs do not pose any serious
health detriment
EPRI did collaborative research that confirmed BNL conclusions regarding
negligible health detriment
NCRP issued Report No. 130 including a dose-limiting guideline of 50 rads
averaged over 10 square centimeters.
NRC issued a policy statement on discretionary enforcement for DRP
exposures until a new rule was issued
NRC issued a final rule in incorporating the use of averaging exposure over 10
square centimeters for SDE
27
Insights
• Implementation of new technologies or methods
may produce unanticipated outcomes
• Controlled-restricted areas, TEDE-ALARA,
Alarming Dosimeters and Centralized Remote
Monitoring are additional examples
• These are change management issues and often
need specific orientation or training for all
affected parties and an effective communication
plan
• Pilot programs, table tops and preimplementation walkthroughs are useful
28
No. of Operating Power Reactors
1969-2014
120
100
80
LWR
60
PWR
BWR
40
20
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
29
Average Collective Radiation Dose Per Reactor
(Person-Sv) 1969-2013
12
10
8
LWR
6
PWR
BWR
4
2
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
30
Average Measurable Dose per Worker (mSv/a)
1969-2011
12
10
8
LWR
6
PWR
BWR
4
2
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
31
Individual Annual Dose Distribution (mSv/a) 1973-2011
Per Cent of Monitored Workers with Measurable Dose
40
35
30
25
>10
20
>20
15
>50
10
5
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
32
Fukushima
33
Fukushima
• Facilitated full engagement of the US nuclear
power HP community with the international
HP community
• More useful exchange than expected, despite
cultural and governmental differences
• Expanded existing information exchange and
benchmarking opportunities
34
Occupational Radiation Protection in Severe Accident
Management:
Sharing Practices and Experiences
Co-sponsored by OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Hosted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
Washington DC, USA
17-18 June 2014
35
Continuous Learning Opportunities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
HPS Powernet
HPS Power Reactor Sessions
INPO Operating Experience Network
INPO Workshops
EPRI Research Projects and Workshops
NEI Radiation Protection Forum
ISOE Network and Workshops
And many others
36
Looking Ahead
•
•
•
•
•
Major Revisions to NRC Regulations
Source Term Reduction
Focus on RP Fundamentals
Focus on Specialized Workers and Tasks
Workforce
37
Revisions to Regulations – Knowledge Transfer
and Retention Opportunity
• USEPA 40 CFR 190
• USNRC 10 CFR 20
• USNRC Appendix I to 10 CFR 50
• And many, many USNRC regulatory guides
38
Source Term Reduction
Where the Dose Comes From
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduce cobalt inventory
Improve water chemistry control and filtration
Eliminate hot spots
Reduce number of high radiation areas
Install permanent shielding
Maintain excellent fuel performance
39
RP Fundamentals
“It’s not about stopping the work when you
think that something is wrong. It’s about
stopping the work when you don’t know that
everything is right.”
40
Focus on Specialized Workers & Tasks
Where the Dose Is
41
Nuclear Industry Employment
Distribution by Age
Total Employment:
30%
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2013–62,170
25%
2011 - 59,700
2009 - 57,200
Employees
20%
2007 - 55,900
2005 - 57,900
15%
2003 - 58,400
10%
5%
0%
18-22
23-27
28-32
33-37
38-42
43-47
Age Range
Source: 2013 NEI Pipeline Survey Results, Contractors and vendors not included
48-52
53-57
58-62
42
63-67
Some Closing Thoughts
• Remind yourself from time to time why you got into Health
Physics –it helps to refocus
• Radiation protection is much about culture, communication
and trust –not just dose
• Learn from experience -it is always possible to do better the
next time and the next tine and the next time
• Change is often desirable and sometimes necessary –but
think about and plan for unintended consequences
• Reach out broadly for peer information exchange and
networking –it actually does “take a village…”
• Set the best possible example for the next generation
43
Thanks for the Memories
44
Acknowledgements
• Ellen Anderson, Jerry Hiatt, Jim Slider and
Janet Schlueter at NEI
• Roger Pedersen at NRC
• Roger Shaw at Shaw and Associates
• Inid Deneau at Landauer
• Nuclear Suppliers Association
• All dose data from NRC NUREG 0713 series
• And many others
45