ML20054C552
| ML20054C552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000047 |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1968 |
| From: | Madsen G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Robert Carlson US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054C553 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-311, FOIA-Z81-311 NUDOCS 8204210315 | |
| Download: ML20054C552 (1) | |
Text
._ _ --
- o q
s"'
UNITED STATES
[ k 't ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION h.
OlVISION OF COMPL. LANCE
.l
'4 i
REGION I
/y g
i r
970 BROAD STREET NEWARK. NEW JERSEY 07102 AREA CCD E' 201-TELEPMCN E: 645 IN REPLY REFUt TO:
CO:I:GLM June 18, 1968 R.
T.
Carlson, Senior Reactor Inspector Region I, Division of Compliance U.
S. ARMY MATERIALS AND MECHANICS RESEARCH CENTER CO REPORT NO. 47/68-2 The reactor modifications have been completed in accordance with the DRL authoriration.
I feel that this subject can now be considered closed.
The presence of a water leg overpressure device still concerns me.
In theory, the pressure resulting from an MCA should not blow the water from the device; however, I would feel better about the whole matter if the device were designed to be resettable after relief.
The presently available holding device, for installation or removal of beam tubes with the pool full of water, will do the job; however, I still feel that it is operationally undesirable to perform this operation when the reactor is loaded.
The present operating staff is fully adequate for the present mode of operation.
With some modifications, they could handle a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day operation; however, if this should become a reality, I would ask them to justify l
their position.
1 1
i The presence of extraneous material in the heat exchanger is another good example of a need for close quality control during construction.
l.
$ k:
~
f : w' G.
L. Madsen l
Reactor Inspector B204210316 011 l'
A
__