%DONRleak071555; ]> July 15, 1955 memorandum from Dr. Clifford Beck to Dean J.H. Lampe Machine readable transcription Beck, Clifford K. Creation of machine-readable version: James M. Jackson Sanborn Creation of digital images: James M. Jackson Sanborn Conversion to TEI.2-conformant markup: James M. Jackson Sanborn ca. 20 kilobytes NCSU Libraries Raleigh, NC DONRleak071555

Publicly accessible

URL: http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/archives/etext

copyright 2000, by North Carolina State University

 September 7, 2000

Images of the document pages have been included. July 15, 1955 memorandum from Dr. Clifford Beck to Dean J.H. Lampe Clifford Beck

6 pp. Manuscript copy consulted UA 105.1

Nuclear Reactor

Prepared for the North Carolina State University Science and Technology Electronic Text Center

The lineation of the manuscript has been maintained and all end-of-line hyphens have been preserved.

Keywords in the header are a local Science and Technology Electronic Text Center scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.

Library of Congress Subject Headings July 15, 1955 English LCSH manuscript 24-bit color: 400 dpi July 15, 1955 memorandum from Dr. Clifford Beck to Dean J.H. Lampe

TO: Dean J. H. Lampe FROM: Dr. Clifford Beck

DATE: July 15, 1955

Re: Recent correspondence on reactor precedure: (Mr. Gilbert's report of trip attached.)

I noted with keen interest, some encouragement, and some concern the letter of July 11 to you from several members of the H & S Committee, relative to observations made by Dr. F. W. Gilbert of Chalk River, Canada, during his recent visits I had not had onportunity to comment on this letter before receiving a copy of your reply of July 13. I do have some comments to make on the obser- vations reported in the letter to you as well as one or two other items of importance in Mr. Gilbert's visit, and I feel that we must somehow get further clarification on one or two matters mentioned in your letter of reply.

I take it that the letter from Pike et al. was merely, as it states, a record of some of Mr. Gilbert's comments which might be used by others as infromation of interest. It could hardly be more, for he was here in a com- pletely unofficial capacity to offer assistance in dismantling our reactor. He was reluctant to discuss other matters, except on an informal basis, and I'm sure would not want to have a fragmentary record of his luncheon conver- sation take on the status of seasoned recommendations. The content of the written statements, however, and your prompt approval of these with the state- ment of intent to transmit them to the Chancellor for adoption, without their having been discussed by or even mentioned to other members of the Safety and Health Committee or the Reactor Staff leaves me somewhat astonished.

My concern with the statements recorded by Pike et al. is that they present per se the grave implication that these items are not now being done, which in several instances would indicate a highly negligent reactor staff, or worse,

that the reactor staff opposes them. Some of these items constitute standard practices at any reactor installation, though the members of the H S committee probably do not know whether or not they are followed here, since, they have never before expressed the slightest interest in them. My encouragement, on the other hand, is that at least some interest is here expressed in some areas of the Committee responsibility in which real contributions to the program at State College could be made... even though I must admit I would have been more encouraged had this interest led ot orderly and objective study and discussion in the Health and Safety Committee.

Closer examination of this whole matter a fragmentary post-facto recording of offhand, informal observations by a visiting scientist, by a segment of a supposedly responsible and deliberative committee, being forwarded to the Chancellor noted "and so recommend them to the Chancellor for action" marks a grave indictment against the committee and the implication of the framework within which it operates. In the past, there has been an unfortunate tendency for the committee to operate in fragemnts and for the chairman to make arbitrary decisions without discussion by the committee. Its overall effectiveness has been weakened thereby, and I should think this practice should be discouraged rather than otherwise.

As to Mr. Gilbert's 4-day visit with us, it was a pleasant and useful one to the reactor staff and to the students in the Special Nuclear Power Course, to whom he gave three most interesting lectures. We found his viewpoint in rather surprisingly close coincidence with our own with respect to the general. philosophy of reactor operation. I would hardly want to accept all his off- hand opinions as guiding principles for our operations, for his experiences, the nature and type of their project at Chalk River, etc., are quite different from our own, and we unfortunately cannot operate on the scale to which he is accustomed.

Nevertheless, Mr. Gilbert's opinions are well worth serious consideration, So much so, Dr. Menius and I felt after he had been here for some time, that we exerted particular efforts to have him pass on to members of the H & S Committee some of his ideas. I am interested in the ones of Mr. Gilbert's comments which they recorded, but offer some further post scripts so that some of the statements may not be misinterpreted.

1. The suggestion that there be a single full-time supervisor of the reactor: We all seem to be in unanimous agreement on this point, but our interpretation does not seem to coincide. As you will recall, Dean Lampe, for more then two years we have urged most strongly, in memoranda, budget requests and in other ways, that persons to assist with the operation of the reactor be provided. You and I have agreed on more than one occasion, that at least (1) an Operating Supervisor, or mature status, in a permanent staff position, and (2) a Reactor Operator, with semi-technical training (plus on-the-job experience) are clearly needed, (In fact, as I have informed you, the latter person will be required by the new law, beginning in September, unless a licensed Senior Staff member is to operate the reactor.) Funds for these positions, however, have not been available, and we have continued to do the best we could with the resources available. We have felt that teaching commitments and obligations have had priority over reactor operations and, as a consequence, the reactor has not been used with maximurn effectiveness, as I have informed you. I would emphatically disagree with the implication, however, that it has been operated unsafely in any way durirg the time it has been used.

Your staternent, Dean Lampe, that "two positions were created in the Physics Department toward the establishment of a Reactor Staff", as implying a fulfill- ment of the need for the ful-time Reactor Supervisor referred to by Gilbert etc., which had been diverted by the Physics Department to "graduate study and teaching" does not present a correct view. Joe Lundholm and Harold Lamonds came to State

College as graduate students, in research associate positions created by funds allocated from the Office of Ordnance Research to the Physics Department. They have been continuously in such positions since their arrival. In providing these funds, OOR recognized that they were contributing to the training of students, and require us to submit an account of their (the students) progress each year. Neither Mr. Lamonds nor Mr. Lundholm has taught a class at State College to my knowledge. Mr. Lamonds has performed superbly as Instrumentation Supervisor. Mr. Lundholm's performance as Reactor Supervisor has been erratic and less satisfactory butand on the whole he has made many significant contri- butions. The term Reactor Supervisor for Mr. Lundholm is misleading. Our staff bulletins describe very clearly what is intended. He has complete respon- sibility for coordinating all activities, supervising maintenance, and main- taining records, when the reactor is not operating. During reactor operations the person in charge must be either Menius, Murray or Beck. Responsibility during operation cannot be delegated to a student, or to anyone other than a mature and experienced person and such a person we do not have. Our most urgent need, is for a mature staff member, experienced in reactor operation, who can be made responsible for all the duties of an Operating Supervisor and who can carry with judgement and discretion the responsibility delegated from the Director, despite pressures from staff members and visiting scientists who might be in position to exert undue influence on a student. In fact there has been considerable difficulty on this very point with Lundholm, for activities in pregress when the reactor is not operating.

No such person, in fact, no person at all, has been provided from college budgets to assist in operating the reactor. We have had occasional persons in temporary position whom we have been able to obtain with miscellaneous funds assorted sources.

2. Some of Mr. Gilberts suggestions on improving the log of operations

were good. Our records have been adequate for our use, but for quick inspection, etc., some improvements can be made.

3. The comment on reproting of incidents involving safety by the Reactor Director is quite sound. On this point, however, repeated requests by the Director to the H & S Committee for the type, nature, and frequency of reports which would be most useful and helpful to the committee have gone completely unheeded, except for one instruction from the chairman that "every thing which might be of interest to the Committee be reported." This is an absurd request and simply reflects the fact that the Committee has not devoted any effort to this improtant problem, The A.E.C., who also are interested in the safety of the reactor, have given clear and orderly outlines of reports which are to be sub- mitted; monthly, quarterly, and annually, have indicated under what conditions special reports should be submitted, and have indicated when regular and special inspections might be expected and what things are of key importance in those inspections.

4 & 5. The authority and scope of Safety Committee: I think no one would question the general philosophy expressed in these statements. I reserve for discussion elsewhere certain observations with respect ot their activation at State College.

6. Written descriptions and approval of non-routine operations are quite customary. Mr. Gilbert observed that our procedures and contamination control measures were entirely satisfactory for our present level of operation but pointed out that they would not be adequate at considerably higher levels. I concur.

7. a. & b. Mr. Gilbert's suggestions concerning evaluation of consequences of catastrophe to the reactor were misunderstood, I believe, by Mr. Pike, et al, Mr. Gilbert is thoroughly familiar with A.E.C. Reactor Safeguard procedures,

which require such studies in great detail before a reactor is approved and had in fact compared some of our studies of this nature with some of their own. Perhaps Mr. Gilbert was suggesting how really extensive the considerations of safety must be. The report of these studies for the Raleigh Research Reactor is contained in the reports to the Reactor Safeguard Committee, copies of which are in the hands of the Committee Members.

7c. The advisability and value of quarterly urine analyses for radioactivity is a highly debatable matter, and has many complicating factors.

7d. Records of film badges have been kept regularly and consistently since before the reactor operation began. Full reports are obtained each two weeks from Brookhaven National Laboratory, are carefully studies by the reactor staff and the Safety officer and are permanently filed with the other reactor operation records.

8. Redesign of the reactor not only must satisfy the local 'safety experts' but must go as well to the A.E.C. Reactor Safeguard Committee for approval.

It is encouraging to note the interest of the members of the H & S Committee in some of the broader and more important aspects of safety responsibility suggested by Mr. Gilbert. Attention to such matters as these requires a much larger exertion of effort and a much higher level of conception than is demanded by treatment of the never-ending incidents and trivial details of day to day operations. Unless the H & S Committee can rise above these latter, at least for a portion of its time and unless it can develop cohesiveness of action and purpose, its contribution to the progress of programs at State College will con- tinue to be, as it has been, little more than book-keeping record of activities of those who are struggling to evolve a framework of safe procedures and policies shile trying to achieve at least some research progress.