skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Response to concerns of the EM review committee

Abstract

During the technical review of the stacked versus cast Electromagnetic Calorimeter on June 24 at the SSC Laboratory, certain questions were raised about the technical reliability of the cast lead EMC. The committee asked for specific response to the following concerns: (1) Deflections resulting from a structure weakened to accommodate longer shower maximum {eta} strips. (2) Assembly plans and scenarios considering the deflections as outlined in question 1. (3) Compatibility with shower max. (4) Positioning of source tubes. (5) Subsequent to the last review an additional question has been raised about stress levels in the lead/bulkhead connections. We will present responses to each of these questions, and are prepared to answer any additional questions the committee may raise.

Authors:
; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Argonne National Lab., IL (United States). High Energy Physics Div.
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE; USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)
OSTI Identifier:
7077595
Report Number(s):
ANL-HEP-TR-92-67; SDC-92-00299
ON: DE92041152
DOE Contract Number:
W-31109-ENG-38
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; 43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS; SHOWER COUNTERS; SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER; MEASURING INSTRUMENTS; RADIATION DETECTORS; STORAGE RINGS; 440104* - Radiation Instrumentation- High Energy Physics Instrumentation; 430303 - Particle Accelerators- Experimental Facilities & Equipment

Citation Formats

Hill, N.F., Guarino, V., and Nasiatka, J.. Response to concerns of the EM review committee. United States: N. p., 1992. Web. doi:10.2172/7077595.
Copy to clipboard
Hill, N.F., Guarino, V., & Nasiatka, J.. Response to concerns of the EM review committee. United States. doi:10.2172/7077595.
Copy to clipboard
Hill, N.F., Guarino, V., and Nasiatka, J.. Sat . "Response to concerns of the EM review committee". United States. doi:10.2172/7077595. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7077595.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_7077595,
title = {Response to concerns of the EM review committee},
author = {Hill, N.F. and Guarino, V. and Nasiatka, J.},
abstractNote = {During the technical review of the stacked versus cast Electromagnetic Calorimeter on June 24 at the SSC Laboratory, certain questions were raised about the technical reliability of the cast lead EMC. The committee asked for specific response to the following concerns: (1) Deflections resulting from a structure weakened to accommodate longer shower maximum {eta} strips. (2) Assembly plans and scenarios considering the deflections as outlined in question 1. (3) Compatibility with shower max. (4) Positioning of source tubes. (5) Subsequent to the last review an additional question has been raised about stress levels in the lead/bulkhead connections. We will present responses to each of these questions, and are prepared to answer any additional questions the committee may raise.},
doi = {10.2172/7077595},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Sat Aug 01 00:00:00 EDT 1992},
month = {Sat Aug 01 00:00:00 EDT 1992}
}
Copy to clipboard
Technical Report:
View Technical Report (2.57 MB)
DOI:  10.2172/7077595
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

  • ; ;
    During the technical review of the stacked versus cast Electromagnetic Calorimeter on June 24 at the SSC Laboratory, certain questions were raised about the technical reliability of the cast lead EMC. The committee asked for specific response to the following concerns: (1) Deflections resulting from a structure weakened to accommodate longer shower maximum {eta} strips. (2) Assembly plans and scenarios considering the deflections as outlined in question 1. (3) Compatibility with shower max. (4) Positioning of source tubes. (5) Subsequent to the last review an additional question has been raised about stress levels in the lead/bulkhead connections. We will presentmore » responses to each of these questions, and are prepared to answer any additional questions the committee may raise.« less

  • This report documents the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff review of public comments provided in response to the NRC`s proposed amendments to 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, which establish new requirements for the environmental review of applications for the renewal of operating licenses of nuclear power plants. The public comments include those submitted in writing, as well as those provided at public meetings that were held with other Federal agencies, State agencies, nuclear industry representatives, public interest groups, and the general public. This report also contains the NRC staff response to the various concerns raised, and highlightsmore » the changes made to the final rule and the supporting documents in response to these concerns.« less

  • This volume contains several appendices. Appendix A contains the list of individuals and organizations providing comments at various stages of the rulemaking process. The names of commenters at the public meetings are listed in the order that they spoke at the meeting; those who submitted written comments are listed by docket number. Appendix B contains the summaries of comments made. Each comment summary is identified by a unique comment number. Appendix C presents the concerns and NRC staff responses. Each concern embodies one or more comments on similar or related issues. The associated comment numbers are referenced for each concern.more » The concerns are organized by topic areas. A three-letter identifier for the topic, followed by a number, is assigned to each concern.« less

  • ;
    SLAC Archives and History Office (AHO) backlog of unprocessed material is over 3,000 cubic feet and growing. Because much of this material was directly transferred to off-site storage, the provenance and contents are a mystery. The costs of off-site storage, lack of knowledge of the contents, and the impending federal regulations in 2009 concerning storage facilities all suggest the need for a long-term plan for the backlog. AHO presents these options to SLAC management: (1) Continue with the status quo, adding new accessions to OffSite Records Management, LLC (hereinafter referred to as OffSite) storage; (2) Pull the backlog back amore » segment at a time for box-level processing, determine what is in each box, get rid of extraneous material, and return what is left to OffSite storage; (3) Gradually retrieve the backlog for thorough, folder-level processing and then transfer to the Federal Records Center in San Bruno (hereinafter referred to as FRC) or the Archives side of the operations at the National Archives and Records Administration in San Bruno (hereinafter referred to as NARA); and (4) Gradually retrieve the backlog for a combination of box-level processing with return to OffSite storage and thorough folder-level processing with transfer to FRC or NARA.« less

  • This document summarizes a comprehensive review of NRC requirements for Nuclear Piping by the US NRC Piping Review Committee. Four topical areas, addressed in greater detail in Volumes 1 through 4 of this report, are included: (1) Stress Corrosion Cracking in Piping of Boiling Water Reactor Plants; (2) Evaluation of Seismic Design; (3) Evaluation of Potential for Pipe Breaks; and (4) Evaluation of Other Dynamic Loads and Load Combinations. This volume summarizes the major issues, reviews the interfaces, and presents the Committee's conclusions and recommendations for updating NRC requirements on these issues. This report also suggests research or other workmore » that may be required to respond to issues not amenable to resolution at this time.« less