ML20215E314
| ML20215E314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Berkeley Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1968 |
| From: | Maslach G CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, BERKELEY, CA |
| To: | Rich Smith US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215E220 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-811 294-68, NUDOCS 8612220097 | |
| Download: ML20215E314 (2) | |
Text
.:
y
(
(
A UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKEIEY
,g$
r 10 0 BERKELEY
- DAVIS
- 1RVINE
- LOS ANCELES
- RIVERSIDE
- SAN DIECO
- SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA. SANTA CRUZ gg69 '#963 a traiu a me resine se san==.
COLLEGE oF ENGINEERING BEREELEY. CALIFORNIA 94720 March 4, 1968 294-68
'Y
't '
7 Mr. R. W. Smith, Director 4
9 0
Division of Compliance, Region V
[/g,8 g 2111 Bancroft Way Berkeley, California
Dear Mr. Smith:
of V
6 This letter is intended as a reply to your letter of January 25 regarding the recent inspection of our TRIGA reactor facility by Mr. R. T. Dodds. I have consulted the Reactor Supervisor, Professor l
Lawrence Ruby, and the Reactor Administrator, Professor Hans Mark, regarding the four items of noncompliance noted by Mr. Dodds. I am outlining below our position regarding each of the items listed by Mr. Doddo as well as the corrective measures which have been taken.
Item a) The linear power channel is calibrated by measuring the rate of rise of the pool water temperature at a reactor power level at which the rate of temperature rise produced by a calibrated electrical heater is known (50 kilowattc). The measured rate of temperature increase in l
September 1967 detemined by the Chief Reactor Operator from an estimated straightlinefittotheexperimentalpointsvac0.400C/ hour. Using the same procedure, the value established by General Atomic durin6 the reactor acceptancetestsinSeptember1966was0380C/ hour. Thus with no adjustment of our instrumentation, it appeared as though we were operating at 5% over i
licence power. At the time of the September 1967 power calibration, l
neutron flux measurements in the center of the core of the reactor were also l
perfomed.
It was found that these measuremento differed by only 1.6% from l
the neutron flux measured during the original calibration in September 1%6.
Ao a result of these power calibration and flux measurements, the Reactor Supervisor ordered no readjustment of the instrumentation because, in his opinion, the reproducibility of the temperature rice measurement vna no better than,tS%. Following the inspection, the power calibration data I
taken in September 1967 van reanalyzed. A least squares fit to the l
cxperimentally measured temperatures van made and the rate of temperature riseobtainedfromthiscurvevaa0361C/ hour.
If the least squaroc straight line fit to the data is taken as being a more accurate approach, then we vould conclude that we were operating 5% below our licensed power level. Our pooition regarding this item in that, within the accuracy l
obtainabic in succccaive power calibrations, we have been operating at the licensed power level of 1000 kW.
Technically, we were in violation of our licence cince the linear power channel should have been react to the power l
calibration result obtained in September 1967 We believe that it would be l
i l
8612220097 861216 i
l OEORCE86-811 PDR pg,
O, F
k q
Mr. R. W. Smith Page 2 March 4, 1968 desirable to perform more accurate power calibrations and vill try to devise methods for doing this before the next power calibration of the reactor.
Item b) The safety channel scram point was set at 115% to 118% of indicated full power. The scram point was reset to 110% of indicated full power on January 15, 1968.
Item c) The reactor was operated for some time on January 10, 1968, with only the reactor operator present on the console. On January 12, 1968, all members of the reactor staff were cautioned that they must strictly observe the rule that at least two people must be present in the reactor room whenever the reactor is in operation. A vritten memorandum on this matter was distributed on January 24, 1968.
Item d) The continuous air monitor was recalibrated on September 30, 1967, and it should have been recalibrated on August 10, 1967 To avoid a recurrence of such a delay, we are currently noting on each monthly reactor check-out sheet the next due date for recalibration of our principal health physics inctrumentation.
In summary we recognize that we were operating in violation of our technical specifications on the items listed. In each case, corrective action has already been taken.
~
Sincerely yours, 6*4.f
.LA tP George J. Maslach L/
Dean ec: Professor Hans Mark Reactor Hazards Committee