Land Pollution Case - Seveso Dioxin Cloud, Italy - 1976

7/25/2019 Land Pollution Case - Seveso Dioxin Cloud, Italy - 1976

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/land-pollution-case-seveso-dioxin-cloud-italy-1976 1/10

Radiation Exposure Case: Windscale

Fire: UK-October1957



Introduction The Windscale fire of 10 October 1957 was the worst nuclear ac

Great Britain's history

The fire took place in Unit 1 of the two-pile Windscale facility onorthwest coast of England in Cumberland (now Sellafield, Cu

The fire burned for three days and there was a release of radioa

contamination that spread across the UK and Europe. Of particular concern at the time was the radioactive isotope io

which may lead to cancer of the thyroid, and it has been estimthe incident caused 240 additional cancer cases.



History of the Problem After the Second World War, the British government embarked

programme to build nuclear weapons.

Skipping the lower-performance uranium-based weapons in fabased on plutonium, a plutonium-breeding reactor system wasto produce this material, which is not found in nature.

The design was based on the graphite-moderated B Reactor buHanford Site, which was known to British physicists who had binvolved in the Manhattan Project during the war.

The reactors were built in a short time near the village of SeascCumberland. They were known as Windscale Pile 1 and Pile 2, large concrete buildings a few hundred feet apart.



The first indication of an abnormal condition was provided bysamplers about ½ mile away. Radioactivity levels were 10 timesnormally found in the air, and sampling closer to the reactor bconfirmed radioactivity releases were occurring.

Inspection of the core indicated the fuel elements in approxim

channels were overheated. After several hours of trying different methods to extinguish th

reactor core was flooded with water, and the plant cooled dow

The steps taken to save the reactor however, proved futile. Thecompletely ruined.



Contributing Factors

Factors contributing to the event were:1. The inability to adequately monitor the core for damage

2. Use of uranium metal, rather than uranium dioxide, as fuel. Thas a lower melting point than the oxide.

3. Rather than re-tool or redesign to ensure proper and safe ope

existing materials were pushed to limits in ways in which thenever designed to be used.

4. The design of the reactors were dodgy, hence the ionizing raddangerous levels had been leaking for days.



Reactor Design

Two reactors for the production of plutonium had been hurriethe late 1940s/early 1950s. Both reactors were essentially block

with aluminum-clad rods of uranium, with other elements runthrough the otherwise solid graphite.

Air was blown from one side over the graphite and with the rod

them, while hot air was pulled out of the other end and ventedlarge discharge stalks.

Filters, hastily added at the last minute at the urging of one pr were placed at the top of each stack.



Population at Risk The best efforts of the agencies in charge was the concern that

the surrounding area my have been hazardously contaminatedsampling indicated the stalk filter had removed almost all of thradioactive particulates, but permitted the radioactive gases toreleased. As a result, milk within a radius of 500km of the site w

destroyed for about a month.



The Aftermath British leaders covered up the real cause of the accident and bl

Windscale’s heroic workers. This was an effort to get their handnuclear weapons design by the U.S. officials.

Health wise, it was also a disaster. The Windscale release of iodcaesium-137 and xenon-133 are thought to have caused at least

cases. In the aftermath of the accident, it was believed that an estima

terabecquerels (20,000 curies) of radioactive materials had beeinto the countryside. No effort was made to relocate or evacuataway from the surrounding areas



Findings The following findings were made public after the accident by

of Enquiry:

The primary factor for the cause of the accident was the seconheating applied too soon and too rapidly.

The steps taken by the operators in dealing with the accident w

efficient and displayed considerable devotion to duty. That the measures adopted to deal with the accident were adeq

there was no immediate damage to health of the public or planbut it queried technical and organizational deficiencies.



Conclusion Today, the Windscale site has remained in the foray of discussi

period of fifty years, partly because of the heroics of a group ofand also because the entire incident could have been avoided. cover-up and the exhibition of incompetence by the governmemakes it an interesting topic of discussion for anyone particula

and interested in the topic. A lot still remains to be done in theimplementation of the strict liability provisions. The Windscaalso serves as a good evaluation tool for examining the progresdate in the area of safety and emergency responses.

Documents

Land Pollution Case - Seveso Dioxin Cloud, Italy - 1976