CDRL Company Dose Restriction Level Simon Morris HSED Radiation Protection Adviser British Energy Generation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Session No. 4 Implementing the State’s Safety Programme Implementing Service Providers SMS
Advertisements

Major Accident Prevention Policy (MAPP) and Safety Management System (SMS) in the Context of the Seveso II Directive.
Better Regulation Provider Advisory Group 2 October 2009 Alan Rosenbach, Head of Strategy and Innovation, CQC Molly Corner, Strategy Development and Innovation.
SIEP HSE Management System
OHS Worksite Inspections February Health & Safety Systems > The goal of any health & safety system is to eliminate or reduce as far as is practicable.
School for drafting regulations Nuclear Safety Decommissioning Vienna, 2-7 December 2012 Tea Bilic Zabric.
1 Risk evaluation Risk treatment. 2 Risk Management Process Risk Management Process.
PART IX: EMERGENCY EXPOSURE SITUATIONS Module IX.1: Generic requirements for emergency exposure situations Lesson IX.1-2: General Requirements Lecture.
1 Developing and Maintaining Policing at Height Capabilities Jez Hunter MIOSH.
Protection Against Occupational Exposure
OH&S Management System
Session No. 3 ICAO Safety Management Standards ICAO SMS Framework
BSBPMG403A Apply Cost Management Techniques Apply Project Cost Management Techniques Project Cost Processes C ertificate IV in Project Management
Hazards Identification and Risk Assessment
Two of the most important pieces of the health and safety legislation affecting educational establishments across the UK are the Health and Safety at.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Outline Learning Objectives Introduction IRRS review of regulations and guides Relevant safety standards.
Improvement of TEPCO’s ALARA Process Shiro TAKAHIRA Tokyo Electric Power Company Radiation Protection Group ISOE-ATC Symposium October 12, 2006, Yuzawa,
Project management Topic 7 Controls. What is a control? Decision making activities – Planning – Monitor progress – Compare achievement with plan – Detect.
Responsible Care® Awareness for Managers 1. DISCUSSION POINTS 2 WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE CARE®? FEATURES OF RESPONSIBLE CARE® HOW DOES RESPONSIBLE CARE® ADD.
Authorization and Inspection of Cyclotron Facilities Radiation Protection of Staff.
Management Approaches. Construction Management Customer appoints Design team and Management team.
RER/9/111: Establishing a Sustainable National Regulatory Infrastructure for Nuclear and Radiation Safety TCEU School of Drafting Regulations November.
Radiation Safety Regulations
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Uday Dessai, MS, Ph.D., M.P.H. Director, Microbiology Division Office of Public.
OHSAS Occupational health and safety management system.
4´th ISOE European Workshop on Occupational Exposure Management at NPP´s March 2004 – Lyon France “ALARA” versus reactor safety concern - A practical.
ALARA IMPLEMENTATION AT UKRAINIAN NPPs T. Lisova, Nuclear Energy Department, Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine Y. Roshchyn, National Nuclear Energy.
DOE vs OSHA Worker Safety and Health Regulation. DOE vs. OSHA Regulations OSHA regulations (29 CFR) were original published following passage of the Occupational.
Every employer must ensure, as far as is reasonable practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all his employees More specifically, employers must.
1 Activitiesfor Dose Reduction Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Chubu Electric Power Co.,Inc. November 2005.
Control of occupational exposure when working within a reactor containment building at power Matthew Lunn British Energy Generation Ltd. Sizewell B Power.
X-Ray Personnel Security Screening Systems Update Presented to TEPRSSC October 1, 2003 Gaithersburg, MD.
EC/IAEA/ISOE Workshop Portoroz Slovenia April 2002 Electronic Personal Dosimetry Presented by Andy Weeks.
BY GAMINI SENANAYAKE.  Legislation applicable to staff and public Ionising radiation regulations 1999  Legislation applicable to patients – Ionising.
Version 1.0, May 2015 BASIC PROFESSIONAL TRAINING COURSE Module X Operational safety including operational feedback Case studies This material was prepared.

OH&S Management System
By: Prof. Dr. Halimu Shauri Consultant Sociologist
Radiological impacts from nuclear industrial facilities on the public and the environment : Their magnitude and the next 50 years forecast Sylvain Saint-Pierre.
Nuclear decommissioning: Turning waste into Wealth
Legislative and Regulatory Framework
OH&S Plant Obligations make
UK implementation of the BSS Directive
Current Plant Performance
DOE Worker Safety and Health Policy
Transposition of Requirements set out in the Basic Safety Standards for Nuclear Facilities in Lithuania Gintautas KLEVINSKAS Albinas MASTAUSKAS Radiation.
WP 3 How to assess implementation of ALARA
The Success of the ALARA Principle – the View of an Inspector
Review From the previous chapter, we understand that maintenance policy stream down from corporate strategy. It has to be integrated with management so.
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF IMPROVED PATCHING WINDOW USING FAIR
Flooding Walkdown Guidance
OH&S Management System
Version 0.1Assessment Method Overview - 1 Process Assessment Method An objective model-independent method to assess the capability of an organization to.
Key Findings and Resource Strategy
The Public Sector Equality Duty
Optimization of radiation protection at Bohunice NPP
Cleaner production Assessment in Dairy Processing
IAEA General Conference Regulatory Cooperation Forum Regulatory Approach Prescriptive vs Performance Based David Senior Executive Director -
USNRC IRRS TRAINING Lecture18
14th Irish National Radon Forum
Margin Management Configuration Management Benchmarking Group
Statistics beyond the National Level –Regional Experiences
The Public Sector Equality Duty
REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEW DOSE LIMIT FOR LENS OF THE EYE
Basic overview of an EMS
Comparison of Performance Indicators of Different Types of Reactors Based on the ISOE Data H. Janžekovič, M. Križman.
G. Valtchev, M. Neshkova, A. Nikolov Nuclear Power Plant Kozloduy
Radiation Protection Handbook
BASIC PROFESSIONAL TRAINING COURSE Module X Operational safety including operational feedback Case studies Version 1.0, May 2015 This material.
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & THE GLOBAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
Presentation transcript:

CDRL Company Dose Restriction Level Simon Morris HSED Radiation Protection Adviser British Energy Generation

BEG Annual Collective Dose Man mSv

CDRL Influences Predecessor devised a 15 mSv CDRL Previous achievements / future expectations Source related dose constraints (BEG sites only) Revised dose limits for year 2000 onwards Tolerability of an exposure or risk acceptable, tolerable & unacceptable Trivial < 3 uSv/h Acceptable to 10 mSv Tolerable mSv Unacceptable >20 mSv RISK

BEG CDRL Policy Maximum dose that can be planned for a person whilst working on a BEG site in advance of work. HSED Director authority to > CDRL. CategoryRestriction Level Employees and Contractors aged 18 years or over (not being a trainee or other person). 10 mSv effective dose per calendar year. Any female employee who has informed her employer that she is pregnant. 1 mSv equivalent dose to the surface of the abdomen for the remainder of the pregnancy.

Pre-Work ALARP Assessments Report Dose constraints applied to planned tasks Expressed as individual or collective dose Work planning if > 0.5 mSv/month RPS > 3 mSv or 10 man mSv ALARP report prepared by HP > 6 mSv or 100 man mSv ALARP report issued by SHP and sent to HSED Director > 10 mSv exceptional case requiring sanction from HSED Director

1mSv/h

0.6mSv/h 0.2mSv/h 1.0mSv/h

Practice Hunterston B & Hinkley Point B in-vessel outage strategy with single contractor 1999 BEG did not plan for emergent work 1999 Collective dose 880 man mSv and 18 exceeded target dose of 10 mSv 2000 changed to include emergent work In-vessel team size is capability limited CDRL compliance considered difficult

2000 Team Prediction Document 1053 man mSv Large No > CDRL Hunterston B impact on Hinkley Point B Continued employment for 2000 HSED forecast of 2.9 man Sv for 2000 compared with target of 3 man Sv

BEG Health Physics Involvement HSED considered predictions pessimistic Suggested 650 man mSv for 2000 No need to > CDRL HSED perform outage self regulation review Pre-work ALARP assessments provided by both sites and reviewed by HSED Both sites produced post outage reviews Hinkley confirmed no request to > CDRL

2000 Outage Dose Comparison Station Planned Collective Dose man-mSv Actual Collective Dose man-mSv Individual target Dose mSv Max individual Dose mSv Hunterston B Hinkley Point B Sizewell B

Plant Failure May 2000 a Hunterston reactor suffered a boiler tube failure, output reduced BEG assured regulator to inspect and repair After statutory outage completion, reactor shutdown with dose prediction < CDRL BUT inspections revealed that extensive repairs were required (across 2000 – 2001)

Circulator entry point Swagepiece repairs 0.3mSv/h 0.5mSv/h Bifurcation repair area.

CDRL Implications of Work Estimate of additional 2500 man mSv Finite specialist manpower Relevant experienced manpower required Manpower already close to CDRL Pre-Work ALARP assessments provided and reviewed by HSED HSED Director authorised doses > CDRL & specific conditions (CRPA consultation) CEO, Regulator, Contractor, Trade Union and Safety Representatives all involved

Applied Measures Proven dose reduction good practices Alternative bottom vessel entry requiring removal of gas circulator Benefits of improved safety and psychological well being Improved manpower flexibility, productivity and dose sharing Contractor adopted alternative work management methodologies Decision made to perform immediate inspections at Hinkley Point B

Dose Performance#1 BEG Dose performance by year 1999 Man mSv 2000 Man mSv 2001 Man mSv Hunterston B Hinkley B Sizewell B Company

Dose Performance#2 39 of 130 contractors who undertook vessel entry > CDRL in at Hunterston B & 6 at Hinkley B 2000 highest = mSv Hunterston B 2000 highest = 13.8 mSv Hinkley B ALARP Investigation reports completed Hunterston B repair 2000/1 was 1307 Man mSv (cf. 2500) 2001 highest = 8.6 mSv Hunterston B & nil > CDRL

Lessons CDRL a motivator that resulted in reduced individual and collective dose Post ALARP reviews invaluable for dose management & reduction improvement Independent self-regulated function influential Burden to monitor BEG CDRL performance, consolidation of ADS & EPD for improvement ALARP considerations integrated into project plans for management decision Review strategy for reactor in-vessel work, with some remote inspection

CDRL Company Dose Restriction Level Simon Morris HSED Radiation Protection Adviser British Energy Generation