A Review of Criticality Accidents A Review of Criticality Accidents

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have contributed significantly to the completion of this second revision of A Review of Criticality Accidents. The relative importance of the contribution of each person is not intended by the ordering of names. Each person made a necessary contribution to the final document. For the Russian accident information: Gennadiy T. Kirillov—Tomsk-7 Mikhail I. Kuvshinov—Arzamas-16 Dimitri M. Parfanovich—Kurchatov Institute Aleksandr V. Romanov—Electrostal Igor G. Smirnov—Arzamas-16 Gennadiy S. Starodubtsev—Mayak A. P. Suslov—Mayak Vladimir Teryokhin—Chelyabinsk-70 Aleksandr G. Ustyugov—Novosibirsk Sergei Vorontsov—Arzamas-16 Isao Takeshita—Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute The U.S. authors are indebted to each of the above for answering innumerable questions, often by telephone, at home, late at night in Russia in order to accommodate a mid-morning meeting time in Los Alamos. In particular, we acknowledge that Igor G. Smirnov, Sergei Vorontsov, Mikhail I. Kuvshinov, and Vladimir Teryokhin endured about three hours of “interrogation” one night at one of the Los Alamos authors’ homes, and were recompensed only with a meal. On another occasion, after a similar evening of questions and discussion, Gennadiy Starodubtsev agreed to return two evenings later for another four-hour session, each time accepting only a meal as payment. These evening sessions took place after a full day of other business in Los Alamos. Gennadiy Starodubtsev was motivated by a personal desire to contribute to an accurate, complete recounting of the seven Mayak accidents. Barbara D. Henderson played a key administrative role in keeping the project on track in many regards. She has been involved with the project from the time it was only an ill-defined goal to the final product, a nearly eight-year span. Charles T. Rombough assisted with this project for more than two years. He has provided seamless transmission of information, text, figures, and photographs, in both English and Russian languages, in addition to producing electronic files of all intermediate drafts. Nellie Schachowskoj Shropshire and Olga Viddo provided both interpretation and translation services for the many meetings, telephone calls, emails, and intermediate drafts. Hugh C. Paxton once again, at the young age of 91 years, provided insightful and thoughtprovoking comments on the technical content. He also contributed sharp editorial comments. David R. Smith provided valuable comments on various drafts, particularly on lessons learned from the accidents. William R. Stratton provided valuable comments on early drafts of the report. ix
Tom Jones was invaluable in generating most of the schematics found in Part I and in Appendix B, under significant time constraints. Jerry McKamy of the Department of Energy and Chuck Nilsen of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were instrumental in recognizing the value of and providing financial support for this project. They both also exhibited a vanishing talent by not micromanaging the project, for which the authors are grateful. x
Page 1 and 2: LA-13638 Approved for public releas
Page 3 and 4: A Review of Criticality Accidents 2
Page 5: PREFACE This document is the second
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 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 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 and 118:
In the final experiment, the critic
Page 119 and 120:
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 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
9. Siberian Chemical Combine (Tomsk
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
13. Siberian Chemical Combine, 2 De
Page 149 and 150:
15. Electrostal Machine Building Pl
Page 151 and 152:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?