Re: [Phys-l] Japan situation : information, or lack thereof

[William Maddox <maddox@physics.auburn.edu>]

From: WC Maddox

I was on the Enterprise shortly after you. It had been refueled so Xenon 
was not a problem during operation but could still cause a delay in 
restarting a reactor.
When I was on the Enterprise in the Reactor Dept. some reactors were 
frequently down due to corrosion producing holes in the small tubes in 
the steam generators. I spent some time sitting on top of a reactor 
watching a display while someone ran an eddy current probe in and out of 
the thousand plus small tubes to detect a hole.  Once while I was aboard 
the other operational reactors were unavailable for a short time due to 
loss of cooling water for steam due to blocked pipes in an incident 
similar to one you describe below. At least we did not need a tow.  The 
reactors were the PWR type.

End Message


> It is true that Enterprise has 8 reactors, but I have not heard that
> it ever got down to one operating reactor.*I served on board
> Enterprise (albeit not in the reactor department) from 1967-69*, at
> the tail end of a fuel cycle (I left the ship as is pulled into
> Norfolk for its second refueling). The reactor officer was a friend
> of mine and so I knew something about how the reactors were
> operating, since the fuel was nearing the end of its useful life he
> had to nurse the reactors with some care. If they were put under much
> stress the xenon fraction in the fuel rods would zoom up and the
> reactors could scram due to the high neutron capture x-section of
> xenon, so our maneuvering was somewhat limited, and all major power
> changes had to be scheduled in advance so as to avoid the xenon
> effect. But I do not believe that any of the reactors ever shut down
> other than intentionally while I was on board. This may have happened
> either before or after my time, but not while I was there.
>
>
>
> As to getting in and out of Pearl Harbor. I was aboard Enterprise
> when her condenser intakes got clogged with mud as she was getting
> underway. It was a bit embarrassing, but caused only an ignominious
> tow the 200 yards from the "sticking point" back to the pier, and a
> several-hour delay in sailing. We cleaned the pipes, waited for high
> tide and we were on our way. I suspect that following that incident
> the harbor was dredged to a few feet deeper. After all, those hogs
> displace around 100,000 tons and draw upwards of 36 feet when loaded.
> Not as much as a supertanker, but those guys never even come into
> port. They off-load at pumping stations often several miles out to
> sea.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing details on when "the Big E" was reduced
> to a single reactor.
>
> Hugh