How Close Did Windscale Come to a Major Nuclear Disaster?

  • Thread starter Delta Force
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Fire
In summary, the Windscale Fire was a serious incident that could have become much worse due to the actions taken in trying to control the reactor. Despite efforts to cool the reactor with air fans and carbon dioxide, the fire only intensified and temperatures reached 1,300 degrees Celsius. The decision to pump water into the core also failed to stop the fire. However, the Reactor Operator and Fire Chief successfully shut off air flow to the reactor, preventing further damage. It was later found that the graphite never caught fire, but the reactor was severely damaged and continued to have significant nuclear heat. Without filtration equipment installed by Sir John Cockcroft, the release of radiation could have been much worse. The British government's rush to produce nuclear materials for their
  • #1
Delta Force
81
7
The Windscale Fire seems like it had the potential to become a much more serious incident due to actions taken in trying to get the reactor under control. First the operators ran the air fans at high speed to try to cool the reactor, but that only made the fire even more intense. Then crews injected carbon dioxide into the reactor, but the temperatures were so hot that the fire stripped oxygen from the flames. The reactor was reaching temperatures of up to 1,300 degrees Celsius and at risk of structural collapse when the decision was made to pump water into the core, but even that failed to stop the fire. At that point the reactor building was evacuated except for the Reactor Operator and Fire Chief, who made a successful effort to shut off air flow to the reactor. Although it was later found that the graphite never caught fire, it was severely damaged and the reactor continued to have significant nuclear heat. Even now there are concerns that the reactor could achieve criticality during decommissioning efforts.

Even if the incident itself had failed to progress into something worse, things could have been worse if not for Sir John Cockcroft's insistence that filtration equipment be installed to reduce radiation release in the event of a reactor fire. The Windscale site also hosted a twin production reactor to the one that caught fire, as well as four Magnox reactors, two of which were operational at the time of the fire.

Just how bad could things have gotten at Windscale?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
I assume you are referring to the 1957 fire. Catastrophising about the worst possible outcome, 60 years after it happened is a bit pointless. If the fire had spread within the reactor then there could have been significantly more contamination released. It is also possible that it could have melted down, but probably not become a nuclear explosion. I think it is safe to say that everyone involved did the best they could under the circumstances with the information available. Are you asking what they could have done differently so as to make the situation worse ?
 
  • #3
Delta Force said:
Just how bad could things have gotten at Windscale?
Had they not turned off the cooling fans, presumably, the fire would have continued and the release of volatile and gaseous fission products would have continued until the fire consumed available fuel. Fortunately, Tom Tuohy made the critical decision to turn off the fans, which cut off the air feeding the flames. The pile design was flawed in the sense that it lacked a fire suppression system, and the operators lacked a plan to preclude a fire in the pile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tuohy

There was a lot of criticism of the air cooled design, but the British government was in a rush to produce material for their program before some deadlines of international agreements limiting or suspending such activities. One must recognize that Britain and the world had just come out of a brutal world war (WW II) in which new technologies, long range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, were introduced. Britain helped the US program, but after being excluded, felt compelled to develop their own program. Indeed, the Soviet Union, and subsequently China, were set on developing their on nuclear capability.

After the war, the Sellafield site was briefly in the ownership of Courtaulds for development as a factory, but was reacquired by the Ministry of Supply to adapt the site for the production of materials for nuclear weapons, principally plutonium, and construction of the nuclear facilities commenced in September 1947. The site was renamed Windscale (after Windscale Nook, a bluff on the north bank of the River Calder) to avoid confusion with the Springfields uranium processing factory near Preston. The building of the nuclear plants at Windscale Works was a huge construction project, requiring a peak of 5000 workers. The two air-cooled and open-circuit, graphite-moderated Windscale reactors (the "Windscale Piles") constituted the first British weapons grade plutonium-239 production facility, built for the British nuclear weapons programme of the late 1940s and the 1950s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#History
 
  • Like
Likes Delta Force
  • #4
Baluncore said:
Are you asking what they could have done differently so as to make the situation worse ?

I'm wondering how bad things could have gotten if Cockcroft's Follies had not been fitted to the reactor, as well as if the water injections could have caused a reactor explosion. At Three Mile Island the operators were very concerned about the hydrogen bubble in the pressure vessel being introduced to oxygen and an ignition source. At Windscale the reactor already had oxygen and an ignition source to which hydrogen was essentially being introduced to through the water injections.
 

1. What caused the Windscale Fire?

The Windscale Fire was caused by a combination of human error and a design flaw in the reactor. The operators of the reactor were conducting an experiment to increase the reactor's power output, but they did not follow proper safety procedures. Additionally, the reactor's design made it vulnerable to overheating and catching fire.

2. How did the Windscale Fire impact the surrounding area?

The Windscale Fire released a significant amount of radioactive material into the surrounding area. The immediate impact was felt by the workers at the reactor and the nearby community, who were exposed to high levels of radiation. The long-term impact is still being studied, but it is believed that the fire caused an increase in cancer rates in the surrounding area.

3. Could the Windscale Fire have been prevented?

In hindsight, there were several safety measures that could have prevented the Windscale Fire. Proper safety procedures should have been followed during the experiment, and the reactor's design should have been improved to prevent overheating. However, at the time, nuclear safety protocols were not as advanced as they are today, and the risks associated with nuclear power were not fully understood.

4. How did the Windscale Fire impact nuclear safety regulations?

The Windscale Fire was a wake-up call for the nuclear industry and governments around the world. It highlighted the potential dangers of nuclear power and the need for stricter safety regulations. As a result, nuclear safety protocols and regulations were significantly improved, and nuclear accidents have become much less common.

5. Is the site of the Windscale Fire still radioactive?

Yes, the site of the Windscale Fire is still radioactive, but the levels of radiation have significantly decreased since the accident. The site has been cleaned up and monitored regularly to ensure the safety of workers and the surrounding community. However, some areas may still have higher levels of radiation, and access is restricted to these areas.

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
8K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top