DOCSLIB.ORG

WINDSCALE 1957 Also by Lorna Arnold

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WINDSCALE 1957 Also by Lorna Arnold WINDSCALE 1957 Also by Lorna Arnold A VERY SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: British Atomic Weapon Trials in Australia Windscale 1957 Anatomy of a Nuclear Accident Lorna Arnold Foreword by Sir Alan Cottrell, FRS Second Edition MACMILLAN ©The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority 1992, 1995 Foreword© Sir Alan Cottrell 1992 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 2nd edition 1995 978-0-333-65036-3 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Totten ham Court Road, London WlP 9HE. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. First edition 1992 Second edition 1995 Published by MACMILLAN PRESS LTD Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 2XS and London Companies and representatives throughout the world ISBN 978-0-333-48253-7 ISBN 978-1-349-24008-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-24008-1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 95 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Contents List of Appendices viii Foreword by Sir Alan Cottrell, FRS ix Note on Documentation X List of Abbreviations xi Glossary xiv Introduction to the Second Edition XX Introduction xxi Figures xxiv 1 Britain's Atomic Bomb 1 2 Windscale's Origins 8 Design and construction 11 3 After Hurricane 19 A novel kind of organisation 19 The atomic bomb programme 20 The civil power programme 21 Future systems 24 The H-bomb programme 25 Commitments and resources 26 Windscale after Hurricane 29 The Windscale men 39 4 The Ninth Anneal 42 Monday, 7 October 44 Tuesday, 8 October 45 Wednesday, 9 October 47 Thursday, 10 October 47 Friday, 11 October 50 Saturday, 12 October 52 Environmental contamination 53 5 Damage Assessment and Damage Control 60 Consultations 60 Preliminary inquiries 64 Action: radiological surveys 71 v Vl Contents Action: cleaning up 73 The production programme: assessing the impact 75 6 The Penney Inquiry and the First White Paper 77 The Penney report 77 'What do we say?' 85 A matter of collective responsibility 86 Health and safety 87 Graphite 89 Further inquiries 92 The White Paper (Cmnd 302) 93 Telling the world 94 7 Three More White Papers 98 The first Fleck report, on the organisation of certain parts of the UKAEA (Cmnd 338) 98 The second Fleck report, on the organisation for control of health and safety in the UKAEA (Cmnd 342) 104 The third Fleck report, on technical evaluation (Cmnd 471) 110 The IPCS disagrees 117 Pile No.2 121 8 Causes: An Accident Waiting to Happen 124 Some sceptics 127 Reinterpreting the evidence 128 Conclusions 133 9 Appraisals and Reappraisals 136 First thoughts, 1957 137 Report to the Geneva Conference, 1958 138 Further thoughts from the MRC, 1959/60 139 Reassessments, 1963-76 143 After Three Mile Island, 197~88 144 Windscale under scrutiny 147 The worst nuclear accident in the world, 1986 151 Final words on the health impact? 152 10 Postscript 154 The end of an era 154 The Windscale piles: present and future 159 Contents Vll Appendices 161 Note on Sources 205 Notes and Riferences 208 Bibliography 225 Index 231 List of Appendices I Chronology of events, October 195 7-0ctober 1958 161 II Responsibilities and organisation of the IG 164 III Instruction of 14 November 1955 on Wigner releases 167 IV Summary of Wigner releases in Windscale piles, 1953-5 7 168 v Note on uranium fuel cartridges in the Windscale piles 169 VI Note on other cartridges in the Windscale piles 172 VII Emergency site procedure at Windscale 175 VIII Calculations of emergency levels for iodine-131 178 IX Estimates of fission product and other radioactive releases resulting from the 1957 fire in Windscale Pile No.1 184 X Estimates of total radiological impact of the radioactive releases resulting from the 1957 fire in Windsca1e Pile No.1 187 XI Report of Penney Inquiry 189 Vlll Foreword Lest we forget is the historian's motivator and justification; to capture the facts and record them coherently and fairly before they escape the grasp of fading memories and perishable docu­ ments, or are supplanted by myth and wishful fiction. In the historian's traditional theatres - politics, military struggle, national leadership, imperialism, social evolution, ecclesiastical power - there is no shortage of researchers, interpreters, presenters and commentators. But the twentieth century has seen the rise of other great human activities, notably in science and technology, and the historians of these are still rare; a handful of pioneers struggling to ensure that these new branches of history do not suffer such nebulous and fabulous beginnings as the classical ones. That is why we must be grateful to Lorna Arnold and her colleagues, pre-eminently Margaret Gowing, who are endeav­ ouring to capture our fading technological history. The Windscale accident of 1957 is the equivalent of a wartime battle. All the same basic elements are there: misjudgements, professional rivalries, brilliant improvisation, desperate de­ cisions and heroic actions, all wrapped in a cloud of uncertainty as dense as any fog of war. As a beautiful account of epic endeavour, exposing human character in all its complexity as realistically as in any battle, Lorna Arnold's story grips the reader by its sheer fascination; a true adventure, expertly told by a professional historian. SIR ALAN COTTRELL ix Note on Documentation In accordance with the practice of official histories com­ missioned by the Cabinet Office, references to official papers that are not yet publicly available have been omitted; notes are confined to published material or documents in the Public Record Office. The author and publishers are grateful to the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office for permission to reproduce and quote Government documents. She also acknowledges her in­ debtedness to the authors and publishers of all those books that have been mentioned in this work. X List of Abbreviations AEA Atomic Energy Authority. Used to refer to the AEA Board, or the whole organisation (see also UKAEA) AERE Atomic Energy Research Establishment (Harwell) AEX Atomic Energy Executive (consisting of the full-time AEA Board Members) AGR Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor AHSB Authority Health and Safety Branch AM Code-name for tritium, hence applied to the cartridges containing rods of lithium-magnesium (Li-Mg) alloy irradiated in the piles to produce tritium ARC Agricultural Research Council AWRE Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (Aldermaston); transferred from the AEA to the Ministry of Defence in 1973, now A WE BCDG Burst Cartridge Detection Gear, used to detect and locate faulty fuel elements in the piles so that they could be discharged before causing trouble BEPO Experimental low power, air-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor at Harwell, commissioned in 1948 BNFL British Nuclear Fuels Limited, created in 1971 by hiving off the Production Group from the AEA (now British Nuclear Fuels plc) CEA Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique (France) CEA Central Electricity Authority (the predecessor of the CEGB) CEGB Central Electricity Generating Board, set up in 1957 CO MARE Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment CSAR Chief Superintendent of Armament Research Xl Xll List of Abbreviations DFR Dounreay Fast Reactor, a 60 megawatt experimental reactor at Dounreay, in the north of Scotland; commissioned in 1959 ENEA European Nuclear Energy Agency GLEEP Low energy research reactor, air-cooled and graphite-moderated, at Harwell; commissioned in 1947 IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ICI Imperial Chemical Industries ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection IG The Industrial Group of the AEA, with headquarters at Risley, near Warrington, Lancashire (now Cheshire) IGY International Geophysical Year IPCS Institution of Professional Civil Servants LM Code-name for polonium-210; also applied to the cartridges containing bismuth oxide which were irradiated in the piles to produce polonium-210 MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food MHLG Ministry of Housing and Local Government MRC Medical Research Council NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization Nil Nuclear Installations Inspectorate NRPB National Radiological Protection Board PEC Production Executive Committee PERG Political Ecology Research Group PIPPA A type of dual-purpose, gas-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor, designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium with electricity as a by-product PIRC MRC Committee on Protection against Ionising Radiations PRO Public Record Office QFE Quartz fibre electrometer R&D Research and development R& DB Research and Development Branch (Industrial Group) R & DB (W) Research and Development Branch, Windscale List of Abbreviations xiii RPD Radiological Protection Division of the Authority Health and Safety Branch, located at Harwell SRD Safety and Reliability Directorate su Sunshine units (used for strontium-90) TEC Technical Evaluation Committee (the Fleck Committee) TX Technical Executive Committee, set up by the AEA's Industrial Group immediately after the 1957 Windsca1e accident UKAEA United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, set up in 1954 (see also AEA) UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation USAEC United States Atomic Energy Commission (1946-74) Glossary Alpha radiation See Ionising radiation. Atomic bomb (A-bomb) Bomb in which the explosive power is derived from the fission of plutonium or uranium-235. Becquerel (Bq) A measure of radioactivity, equivalent to the activity of a radionuclide that decays at the rate of one nuclear disintegration per second (I d.p.s.). It is named after Henri Becquerel who discovered the radioactivity of uranium.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Testimony of L Wayne,D Dupont,B Norton,M Kaku,M Pulido, R Kohn
    _ _ __ l I - PA N E L- [ " * u hv/s3 | CNEMICAI, REACTIONS I | Introduction 1. In 1957,~a very serious fire occurred at a non-power reactor located at Vindscale, England. Although the reactor was a production reactor, it had a number of sinhities to the UCIA reacter-- fuel containing uranium metal clad in aluminum, with a graphite moderator / reflector, and normal operation at relatively low temperatures, which permitted build-up of stored "Vigner" energy in the graphite. Release of that r stored energy contributed to the cause of the fire, which resulted in extensive daanse and 20,000 curies of iodine-131 being released to the environment. Milk contaminated with I-131 had to be disposed of in an area of 200 square miles around the reactor because of the accident. , l 2 In 1960, the UCIA Argonaut-type reactor began operation. Its Hasards Analysis did not addrissa Vigner energy storage, and a brief paragraph ; dismissed the potential for fire largely based on the assertion that | "none of the anterials of construction of the reactor are infh==mble." (p.62) 3. As the Windacale fire showed, and as shall be discussed in detail below, that assertion is dangerously untrue.* The graphite can burns i the uranium metal can burns the angnesium can burns even the aluminum ' under sono circumstances will burn. And ignoring Vigner energy can like- vise be dangerous. 4 It has further been asserted that the only chemical reaction of signif- icance to be considered for the UCIA reactor is a water reaction with aluminum, and that aluminum weald have to be in the form of metal filings | for such a reaction to occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Covert Plutonium Production from Unconventional Uranium Sources
    International Journal of Nuclear Security Volume 2 Number 3 Article 7 12-31-2016 Evaluation Of Covert Plutonium Production From Unconventional Uranium Sources Ondrej Chvala University of Tennessee Steven Skutnik University of Tennessee Tyrone Christopher Harris University of Tennessee Emily Anne Frame University of Tennessee Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/ijns Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, Engineering Education Commons, International Relations Commons, National Security Law Commons, Nuclear Commons, Nuclear Engineering Commons, Radiochemistry Commons, and the Training and Development Commons Recommended Citation Chvala, Ondrej; Skutnik, Steven; Harris, Tyrone Christopher; and Frame, Emily Anne (2016) "Evaluation Of Covert Plutonium Production From Unconventional Uranium Sources," International Journal of Nuclear Security: Vol. 2: No. 3, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.7290/v7rb72j5 Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/ijns/vol2/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Nuclear Security by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/ijns. Chvala et al.: Evaluation Of Covert Plutonium Production From Unconventional Uranium Sources International Journal of Nuclear Security, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2016 Evaluation of Covert Plutonium Production from Unconventional Uranium Sources Tyrone Harris, Ondrej Chvala, Steven E. Skutnik, and Emily Frame University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Department of Nuclear Engineering, USA Abstract The potential for a relatively non-advanced nation to covertly acquire a significant quantity of weapons- grade plutonium using a gas-cooled, natural uranium-fueled reactor based on relatively primitive early published designs is evaluated in this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Monica Mwanje on How Inclusion and Diversity Will Shape the Future of the Industry
    www.nuclearinst.com The professional journal of the Nuclear Institute Vol. 16 #6 u November/December 2020 u ISSN 1745 2058 Monica Mwanje on how inclusion and diversity will shape the future of the industry BRANCH The latest updates from your region ROBOT WARS The future of contamination testing YGN Staying connected in a virtual world FOCUS ANALYSIS NET ZERO Why glossy marketing won’t New capabilities in radioactive Could nuclear-produced fix the gender diversity materials research hydrogen be the answer problem to climate change? u Network u Learn u Contribute u CNL oers exciting opportunities in the burgeoning nuclear and environmental clean-up eld. CNL’s Chalk River campus is undergoing a major transformation that requires highly skilled engineers, scientists and technologists making a dierence in the protection of our environment and safe management of wastes. PRESIDENT’S PERSPECTIVE 4 Gwen Parry-Jones on building a new normal NEWS, COLUMNS & INSIGHT 6-7 News 23 8-9 Branch news 10-11 BIG PICTURE: Robot Wars 12 Letters to the Editor 13 BY THE NUMBERS: Russia’s nuclear plans 14-15 MEMBER VALUE: Supporting diversity 18 News 19 Supply chains in the nuclear industry FEATURES 20-22 FOCUS: Fixing the gender diversity problem – by Jill Partington of Assystem 23-25 ANALYSIS: New capabilities in radioactive material research - by Malcolm J Joyce, Chris Grovenor and Francis Livens 26-27 NUCLEAR FOR NET ZERO: Could nuclear-produced hydrogen solve climate issues? - by Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan of LucidCatalyst 20 YOUNG GENERATION NETWORK
    [Show full text]
  • Endless Trouble: Britain's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
    Endless Trouble Britain’s Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) Martin Forwood, Gordon MacKerron and William Walker Research Report No. 19 International Panel on Fissile Materials Endless Trouble: Britain’s Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) © 2019 International Panel on Fissile Materials This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License To view a copy of this license, visit ww.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 On the cover: the world map shows in highlight the United Kingdom, site of THORP Dedication For Martin Forwood (1940–2019) Distinguished colleague and dear friend Table of Contents About the IPFM 1 Introduction 2 THORP: An Operational History 4 THORP: A Political History 11 THORP: A Chronology 1974 to 2018 21 Endnotes 26 About the authors 29 About the IPFM The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) was founded in January 2006 and is an independent group of arms control and nonproliferation experts from both nuclear- weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states. The mission of the IPFM is to analyze the technical basis for practical and achievable pol- icy initiatives to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. These fissile materials are the key ingredients in nuclear weapons, and their control is critical to achieving nuclear disarmament, to halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to ensuring that terrorists do not acquire nuclear weapons. Both military and civilian stocks of fissile materials have to be addressed. The nuclear- weapon states still have enough fissile materials in their weapon stockpiles for tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. On the civilian side, enough plutonium has been sepa- rated to make a similarly large number of weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Radiation Health Effects
    (C) Safety In Engineering Ltd Radiation health effects and nuclear accident consequences – an overview Jim Thomson www.safetyinengineering.com 1 Radiation doses and radiological hazards (C) Safety In Engineering Ltd • Other issue - Doserate effects - uncertain Dose/risk• Normal cancer risk ~ 30% Additional Cancer Risk 5% Region where data are available, e.g. from Hiroshima-Nagasaki Gradient = 5%/Sv survivors Delayed health effects (cancers) – the linear dose -risk hypothesis Region of interest for societal risk in nuclear Effective dose (Sv) reactor accidents 1 Sv 100% Risk due to radiation sickness Acute effects (radiation sickness) Effective dose (Sv) 3 4 5 2 Radiation doses and radiological hazards (C) Safety In Engineering Ltd • The Emergency Reference Level (ERL) = 300mSv effective dose • Very small fractionsRadiological of a reactor core’s inventory wouldhazards yield a major radiological hazard to the public if released off-site, e.g. typically a release of about one-millionth of the I-131 inventory in a reactor would equate to the Emergency Reference Level (ERL) for someone at the site boundary. Isotopes Characteristics Iodine - 131 Volatile. Beta/gamma thyroid-seeker. Short half life (8d). Effects can be mitigated by swallowing iodate tablets. Caesium - 137 Volatile. Permeates whole body (mimics sodium). Actinides May be air-borne by fine (e.g. Plutonium, Curium, particles of U 3O8 in accidents. Americium isotopes) Alpha lung and bone seeker. Very long half lives. 3 Radiation doses and radiological hazards (C) Safety In Engineering Ltd 4 different terms used:Radiological hazards DOSE is measured in Grays (Gy). 1 Gy = 1 Joule of radiation energy absorbed per kg of organ tissue DOSE-EQUIVALENT is measured in Sieverts (Sv).
    [Show full text]
  • Chernobyl: Worst but Not First
    (reprinted with permission from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, August/September 1986, www.thebulletin.org) Chernobyl: worst but not first Until Chernobyl, only two nuclear reactor accidents had spread significant amounts of ionizing radiation beyond the site of the mishap: a fire at the Windscale No. 1 plutonium production pile in northwest England in 1957, and a 1961 accident at an experimental prototype reactor in Idaho which killed three servicemen. Both the Stationary Low-Power reactor (SL-1) involved in the Idaho accident and the Windscale reactor were of novel and inadequate design; in a sense they were accidents waiting to happen. For that reason the Western nuclear industry now - perhaps too hastily - discounts those two accidents as minimally relevant to nuclear safety in the 1980s. It could make a similar mistake about Chernobyl. The Windscale No. 1 pile was the first large-scale reactor built in Britain; a second was built beside it. Each was cooled by blowing air through the fuel channels in the graphite core and discharging the air directly back to the atmosphere through a tall stack. This primitive system was dictated by the political urgency of Britain's bomb program, but it made the responsible scientists and engineers acutely nervous. While Sir John Cockcroft, head of Britain's Harwell nuclear center, was on a visit to Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the late 1940s, the reactor malfunctioned, sending radioactivity up the stack to settle on the site. Cockcroft returned to Britain insisting that a way be found to ensure that fuel damage in a Windscale reactor would not release uncontrolled radioactivity into the surroundings.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Batten1 University of Exeter a Significant Moment in The
    Richard Batten Ex Historia 79 Richard Batten 1 University of Exeter A Significant Moment in the Development of Nuclear Liability and Compensation: Dealing With the Consequences of the Windscale Fire 1957. Introduction The fire at the Windscale Nuclear plant in October 1957 transformed an installation which was once a grand symbol of technological pride into a ‘dirty relic of an early nuclear age’. 2 Nuclear power became associated with destruction, accidents and unimaginable apocalyptic images which reinforced human fallibility and the erratic nature of nuclear material. 3 However, Britain’s post- war society was oblivious to the threat of a nuclear reactor experiencing a meltdown. In fact, during the fifties, politicians, scientists and the general public hoped that Britain’s ambitious atomic energy programme would offer an escape from its dependence on coal for the country’s energy requirements and restore the nation’s industrial prestige. David Edgerton pointed out in Warfare State that techno-nationalism had become a powerful ideology within the realities of ‘austerity Britain’. 4 By investing in nuclear technology, Britain was not only creating the right conditions for the country’s scientific growth but was also supporting its engineering and power- generating development. Hence, nuclear power was a key facet of Britain’s post-war future.5 1 Richard Batten's ( [email protected] ) academic interests include the development of nuclear power in the United Kingdom, the experiences of British agriculture in the twentieth century, and the social history of Britain during the First World War. He holds a BA (Hons.) in English and History (2007) and an MA in History (2008).
    [Show full text]
  • The New Nuclear Forensics: Analysis of Nuclear Material for Security
    THE NEW NUCLEAR FORENSICS Analysis of Nuclear Materials for Security Purposes edited by vitaly fedchenko The New Nuclear Forensics Analysis of Nuclear Materials for Security Purposes STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. GOVERNING BOARD Sven-Olof Petersson, Chairman (Sweden) Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar (Indonesia) Dr Vladimir Baranovsky (Russia) Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria) Jayantha Dhanapala (Sri Lanka) Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger (Germany) Professor Mary Kaldor (United Kingdom) The Director DIRECTOR Dr Ian Anthony (United Kingdom) Signalistgatan 9 SE-169 70 Solna, Sweden Telephone: +46 8 655 97 00 Fax: +46 8 655 97 33 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.sipri.org The New Nuclear Forensics Analysis of Nuclear Materials for Security Purposes EDITED BY VITALY FEDCHENKO OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2015 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © SIPRI 2015 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of SIPRI, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • England's Atomic Age. Securing Its Architectural and Technological Legacy
    77 England’s Atomic Age. Securing its Architectural and Technological Legacy Wayne D. Cocroft Introduction Wales where a pilot uranium isotope separation plant was constructed.3 The building has been listed by Cadw. This paper presents a brief overview of places in England For many reasons, including cost, the threat from aerial that have been associated with atomic research, including the bombing and concerns that vital resources would be drawn early nuclear weapons programme, and especially those plac- away from more pressing tasks British knowledge and sci- es that have been afforded statutory protection. It describes entists were transferred to the US atomic bomb project – the the infrastructure of the civil nuclear power industry and how Manhattan Project. But, after the passing of the McMahon this legacy is being remediated to release land for new us- Act in 1946 the UK was denied access to US atomic work es. It concludes with a discussion of how Historic England‘s and embarked on its own nuclear weapons programme. Dur- strategy for the documentation of post-war coal and oil-fired ing this period the weapons and civil research programmes power stations that might be applied to the nuclear sector. often worked closely together drawing on a relatively small pool of scientific experts. Early history The development of the British atomic bomb From the late 19th century scientists in the United King- dom were part of an international community of pioneers The early research facilities allocated to the project were working to understand the structure of the atom. Important modest and included a small section of the Royal Arsenal, centres included the physics building at the University of Woolwich, and a redundant 19th century fortification, Fort Manchester, built in1900, where Ernest Rutherford, a New Halstead, Kent.
    [Show full text]
  • Neutronics Analysis of a Modified Pebble Bed Advanced High Temperature Reactor
    NEUTRONICS ANALYSIS OF A MODIFIED PEBBLE BED ADVANCED HIGH TEMPERATURE REACTOR THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jorge Abejón Orzáez Ingeniero Industrial, Diplôme d’Ingénieur ****** The Ohio State University 2009 Thesis Committee: Approved by: Dr. Thomas E. Blue, Advisor __________________ Dr. Xiaodong Sun, Co-Advisor __________________ Advisor Nuclear Engineering Graduate Program ABSTRACT The objective of this research is to, based on the original design for the Pebble Bed Advanced High Temperature Reactor (PB-AHTR), develop an MCNPX model of the reactor core with the objective to attain criticality and to breed new fuel. A brief but complete description of a first approach to the PB-AHTR will be provided and a MCNPX model will be run in order to ascertain the difficulties of that configuration. On the second part, a modification of the original model will be evaluated and compared in order to resolve the difficulties encountered in the original design. Finally, in an effort to optimize the design, an evolutionary approach will be analyzed, based on the previous model, and conclusions will be attained ii Dedicated to my family and friends iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Blue and Dr. Sun for all their guidance and assistance throughout my time as a graduate student. I would like to thank John Kulisek as a reference, guide and friend throughout my entire Master’s Degree program. I would like to thank Jeremy Chenkovich and Steven Stone for their help and their patience with me in my first steps in the Master’s Degree program.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Radioactive Waste Containing Graphite: Overview of Methods
    energies Review Management of Radioactive Waste Containing Graphite: Overview of Methods Leon Fuks * , Irena Herdzik-Koniecko, Katarzyna Kiegiel and Grazyna Zakrzewska-Koltuniewicz Centre for Radiochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry, Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology, 16 Dorodna, 03-161 Warszawa, Poland; [email protected] (I.H.-K.); [email protected] (K.K.); [email protected] (G.Z.-K.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-22-504-1360 Received: 30 July 2020; Accepted: 4 September 2020; Published: 7 September 2020 Abstract: Since the beginning of the nuclear industry, graphite has been widely used as a moderator and reflector of neutrons in nuclear power reactors. Some reactors are relatively old and have already been shut down. As a result, a large amount of irradiated graphite has been generated. Although several thousand papers in the International Nuclear Information Service (INIS) database have discussed the management of radioactive waste containing graphite, knowledge of this problem is not common. The aim of the paper is to present the current status of the methods used in different countries to manage graphite-containing radioactive waste. Attention has been paid to the methods of handling spent TRISO fuel after its discharge from high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGR) reactors. Keywords: graphite; irradiated graphite; graphite processing; radioactive waste; waste management; waste disposal; spent TRISO fuel 1. Introduction As of December 31, 2018, 451 nuclear power reactors were in operation and produced 392,779 MWe of electricity. Fifty-five reactors, with a net capacity of 57,441 MWe, were under construction, while 172 reactors were permanently shut down [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Arms Race
    WINDSCALE AND THE POST-WAR NUCLEAR ARMS RACE Windscale, 1956, with the impressive James Chadwick works with Major General Leslie Groves And so, Attlee decided to independently pursue Piles on the right. as part of the Manhattan Project. the research of nuclear science and creation of an atomic bomb. In 1945, he created the Gen The special relationship Churchill had so carefully 75 Committee, also known as the Atomic Bomb cultivated began to fracture after the war ended. Committee, which established the government’s Considering the new technology and information uncovered nuclear policy. He knew he would need some of during the Manhattan Project to be a joint discovery, Britain’s sharpest minds to successfully develop Britain had expected that the sharing of advancements Britain’s nuclear technology and brought some of in the nuclear field would continue in peacetime. But the the country’s most prominent scientists on board, death of Roosevelt in 1945 would mark the end of wartime fresh from their time working on the Manhattan collaboration between the two countries, as President Project. Although these scientists had gained key Truman brought to a conclusion the agreements previously experience in the States and returned home with reached with Britain and Canada, going so far as to valuable knowledge, none of them had a complete introduce the Atomic Energy Act in 1946 which classified picture of how their research came together to US atomic secrets. With this act, it became a federal create a nuclear weapon, having been limited in their offence to reveal such nuclear secrets, deeming it a matter roles.
    [Show full text]