A Review of Criticality Accidents A Review of Criticality Accidents

More documents

Recommendations

Info

D. MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS 1. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 11 February 194580,81 The Dragon assembly; UH 3 pressed in styrex; single excursion; insignificant exposures. The Dragon assembly was the first fissile system designed to generate prompt power excursions and was probably the first reactor of any kind whose reactivity exceeded prompt criticality. * This was accomplished by intent on 18 January 1945; the temperature rise is quoted as 0.001°C 74 and the yield (not quoted) can be estimated to have been about 2 × 10 11 fissions. The Dragon was made of enriched UH 3 pressed with a special plastic, styrex, into small cubes of average chemical composition UC 4 H 10 . The configuration for the final experiments, containing only 5.4 kg of this material, was diluted with polyethylene and reflected by graphite and polyethylene. The reactor was made prompt critical for about 1/ 100 of a second by dropping a slug of the active material through a vertical hole in the remaining portion, which was stacked on a 3/8 inch steel table. 2. National Reactor Testing Station, 29 November 1955 82,83 Design of the EBR-1 fast neutron reactor was started in 1948 with the objectives of establishing possible breeding values and demonstrating the feasibility of cooling a metal fueled reactor with liquid metals. These objectives were met, and in early 1952, the plant furnished more than enough electrical power for the reactor and the reactor building; excess steam was blown to the condenser. The reactor core consisted of cylindrical, highly enriched uranium rods slightly less than 1/2 inch in diameter canned in stainless steel with a bonding of NaK between the rod and can. The total core mass of about 52 kg of uranium was bathed in a stream of NaK, which served as a coolant. The final experiment was designed to investigate coefficients of reactivity and, in particular, to study a prompt positive power coefficient without coolant flow. To do this, the system was placed on a period of 60 seconds at a power of 50 watts. About 3 seconds later the power was 1 megawatt, the period had decreased to 0.9 seconds, and core temperatures were rising significantly. The signal to scram the system was given, but by error the slow moving motor driven control rods were actuated instead of the fast acting scram—dropping part of the 104 The falling slug of active material was contained in a steel box, its path closely defined by four guides. Generally, the fission energy did not contribute to the quench of the excursion; the burst size was determined by the background fission rate and the stacking configuration on the table. Thus, the burst size could be varied by moving a reflector nearer the assembly or by increasing the background fission rate. Both techniques were often employed, and this may have been the case in the final experiment because the bursts were being made steadily larger. During the final excursion of about 6 × 10 15 fissions, the UH 3 cubes became so hot that blistering and swelling occurred. The whole system had expanded about 1/8th of an inch. In the final excursion, the core material was damaged but no active material was lost, there was no contamination, and no one received any radiation. EBR-1; enriched uranium fast breeder reactor; single excursion; insignificant exposures. natural uranium blanket under gravity—as had been done to conclude similar experiments. This change in reactivity caused a momentary drop in power, but was inadequate to overcome the natural processes (very slight bowing inward of the fuel elements) adding reactivity to the system. After a delay of not more than 2 seconds, the fast scram was actuated, both manually and by instruments, and the experiment completed. It was not immediately evident that the core had been damaged. Later examination disclosed that nearly one-half the core had melted and vaporized NaK had forced some of the molten alloy into the reflector. Theoretical analysis showed that the excursion was stopped by the falling reflector, after the power reached a maximum of 9 to 10 megawatt. The total energy release was close to 4.6 × 10 17 fissions. The theoretical analysis was carried further in an attempt to determine if the core would have shut itself off in a non– catastrophic manner. The conclusion was that the energy release could have been nearly 2.5 times the observed yield but would not have resulted in violent disassembly of the core. During this accident no one received more than trivial radiation from airborne fission products, and direct exposure was essentially zero. * R. Feynman pointed out the similarity of the procedures used in these experiments to tickling the tail of a dragon, thus it has been called the “Dragon Experiment.” The name is often applied to the class of prompt-burst experiments where reactivity is added and subtracted mechanically and where quenching mechanisms dependent upon the fission energy released do not contribute significantly to the shutdown process.
3. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 3 July 1956 43,45 Honeycomb critical assembly; U(93) metal foils moderated with graphite; single excursion; insignificant exposures. The machine in which this excursion occurred is typical of several then in existence. The Los Alamos machine consisted of a large matrix of 576 square aluminum tubes, 3 inches × 3 inches × 6 feet, split down the middle with one-half of the matrix moveable on tracks. The “honeycomb” in the disassembled state is shown in Figure 62. Generally, the facility had been used to simulate design features of complicated reactors because of the versatility in arrangements of uranium foil and various moderating materials. Inhomogeneous stackings in this and similar machines have the least inherent negative reactivity feedback of any critical assemblies in existence today. This conclusion stems from the apparent lack of any significant quenching mechanism, short of vaporizing the uranium foils, and the absence of a sufficiently fast acting scram mechanism. The stacking on 3 July 1956 consisted of 58 kg of enriched (93% 235 U) uranium in the form of 2 and 5 mil foils arranged between slabs of graphite with some beryllium reflector surrounding the core. The total mass of graphite was 1,139 kg. At the time, some changes had been made in the reflector and graphite moderator, and criticality was being approached too rapidly for routine measurements. While the cart was moving at about 0.2 inch per second, the system became prompt critical, a burst occurred, and the scram system retracted beryllium control rods (reducing reactivity) and reversed the motion of the cart. The burst yield was 3.2 × 10 16 fissions. Apparently this was a Dragon type excursion in that the excess reactivity was added and subtracted mechanically. There was no damage and no contamination. Because it was remotely controlled from a distance of 1/4 of a mile, no one received any radiation. Figure 62. The LASL Honeycomb assembly machine. The movable section (right) is in the withdrawn position and the aluminum matrix is only partially loaded. 105
Page 1 and 2:
LA-13638 Approved for public releas
Page 3 and 4:
A Review of Criticality Accidents 2
Page 5 and 6:
PREFACE This document is the second
Page 7 and 8:
Tom Jones was invaluable in generat
Page 9 and 10:
C. OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Page 11 and 12:
FIGURES 1. Chronology of process cr
Page 13 and 14:
51. MSKS and assembly involved in t
Page 15 and 16:
A REVIEW OF CRITICALITY ACCIDENTS A
Page 17 and 18:
3 Black Sea Baltic Sea Obninsk Norw
Page 19 and 20:
North Atlantic Ocean Irish Sea Wind
Page 21 and 22:
1. Mayak Production Association, 15
Page 23 and 24:
time of the accident. However, the
Page 25 and 26:
determined by a radiation control p
Page 27 and 28:
consequences of this accident, the
Page 29 and 30:
Figure 10. Drum in which the 1958 Y
Page 31 and 32:
The entire plutonium process area h
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
During the next shift, radiation sa
Page 37 and 38:
9. Siberian Chemical Combine, 14 Ju
Page 39 and 40:
The accident investigation determin
Page 41 and 42:
10. Hanford Works, 7 April 1962 18,
Page 43 and 44:
heater and stirrer were turned off
Page 45 and 46:
vessel 64-A was added. The dissolut
Page 47 and 48:
additional reflection afforded by t
Page 49 and 50:
15. Electrostal Machine Building Pl
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
ased on a radiation survey, that th
Page 55 and 56:
0.5 m 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.5 m 3.0 m 1.4 m
Page 57 and 58:
The investigation identified severa
Page 59 and 60:
19. Idaho Chemical Processing Plant
Page 61 and 62:
20. Siberian Chemical Combine, 13 D
Page 63 and 64:
To Glovebox 6 7 8 6 From Glovebox 6
Page 65 and 66:
on a 0.4 m square pitch grid. The b
Page 67 and 68: competing reactivity effects proved
Page 69 and 70: Figure 35. The precipitation vessel
Page 71 and 72: B. PHYSICAL AND NEUTRONIC CHARACTER
Page 73 and 74: Material Fissile Mass: Fissile mass
Page 75 and 76: 235 U Spherical Critical Mass (kg)
Page 77 and 78: Table 10. Accident Fission Energy R
Page 79 and 80: • Accidents in shielded facilitie
Page 81 and 82: • Senior management should be awa
Page 83 and 84: Table 11. Reactor and Critical Expe
Page 85 and 86: 3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2
Page 87 and 88: 5. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 3
Page 89 and 90: eflector of 236 kg when he noticed
Page 91 and 92: 3. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
Page 93 and 94: At the equatorial plane, the two ha
Page 95 and 96: Figure 48. The Los Alamos Scientifi
Page 97 and 98: Figure 50. Burst rod and several se
Page 99 and 100: On 11 March 1963, the facility chie
Page 101 and 102: 13. Chelyabinsk-70, 5 April 1968 57
Page 103 and 104: 14. Aberdeen Proving Ground, 6 Sept
Page 105 and 106: completed the construction of the l
Page 107 and 108: C. MODERATED METAL OR OXIDE SYSTEMS
Page 109 and 110: 63,65,66, 67 4. Chalk River Laborat
Page 111 and 112: 7. Centre dÉtudes Nucleaires de Sa
Page 113 and 114: a technician prescribing the loadin
Page 115 and 116: the room to drain the water out of
Page 117: In the final experiment, the critic
Page 121 and 122: III. POWER EXCURSIONS AND QUENCHING
Page 123 and 124: Figure 64. Energy model computation
Page 125 and 126: References 1. Stratton, W. R. A Rev
Page 127 and 128: 50. Paxton, H. C. “Godiva Wrecked
Page 129 and 130: 92. Stone, R. S., H. P. Sleeper, Jr
Page 131 and 132: criticality accident: The release o
Page 133 and 134: prompt criticality: State of a fiss
Page 135 and 136: 1. Mayak Production Association, 15
Page 139 and 140: 5. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
Page 143 and 144: 9. Siberian Chemical Combine (Tomsk
Page 147 and 148: 13. Siberian Chemical Combine, 2 De
Page 149 and 150: 15. Electrostal Machine Building Pl
Page 153 and 154: 19. Idaho Chemical Processing Plant
Page 155 and 156: 21. Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrat
Page 157 and 158: This report has been reproduced dir
show all

A Review of Criticality Accidents A Review of Criticality Accidents

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?