Nuclear Plant Workers Averaged the Lowest Radiation Dose Ever in a Year in 2007

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s compilation of 2007 nuclear power plant worker doses at U.S. reactors shows the average annual collective dose per plant is 97 person-rem, the lowest ever, and is two-thirds of the dose recorded 10 years ago.
To determine a plant's collective dose, hundreds of workers’ individual doses are added up and the result is expressed in person-rem. The average American receives a dose of about 360 millirem every year from all radiation sources; the average nuclear plant worker in recent years received about an additional 160 millirem each year on the job. NRC regulations allow workers at nuclear power plants to safely receive a job-related dose of up to 5,000 millirem each year.

Here is a chart of the data since 1973.

Comments

Anonymous said…

Great work by everyone!

August 20, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Joffan said…

The NRC is unfortunately giving more support to the totally bogus concept of "collective dose". There is no such thing as collective dose, in any useful sense.

"Average dose" is perhaps a useful statistic of the valuable work done in progress in radiation awareness and exposure reduction. "Collective dose" is not.

August 20, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Anonymous said…

NRC's "360 mrem background radiation" needs to be corrected.

That came from NCRP in 1987. There were 300 mrem from natural background, plus 60 mrem from man-made background, of which 57 mrem was from diagnostic medical sources.

NCRP per capita diagnostic medical radiation is now 320 mrem, according to a report at the April 2008 NCRP Annual meeting by subcommittee chairman Fred Mettler. (This is primarily from a great increase in CT scan number and dose, plus increased use of nuclear medicine.)

So background dose is/will now be 625 mrem?

August 26, 2008 at 4:28 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog