The 1957 UK Windscale Nuclear Accident Term Paper

Exclusively available on Available only on

Abstract

Windscale fire occurred in the UK in 1957 was regarded as the most serious atomic accident of the world. On the 10th of October 1957, at dawn, the number 1 reactor at Windscale plant caught fire. Due to damage in the Windscale’s No.1 Pile due to the fuel overheating, the radioactivity leaked into the atmosphere. Due to this impact, the graphite pile was under fire. More than 250,000 residents from 1500 miles, especially from the southern part of Cumberland had to be evacuated. In Windscale accident, thirty-two people were killed due to the fire accident at the Windscale atomic plant. The death toll also included 260 cases of thyroid cancer which scientists ascribed to the impacts of radioactive particles polonium escaped into the atmosphere and 13 grave cases of thyroid cancer.

This research essay recaptures the Windscale nuclear accident, compares the same with the Chernobyl accident and discusses in detail about the comprehensive emergency management (CEM) to be carried out at the nuclear plants all around the world to stop further occurrence of Windscale like nuclear accidents.

A brief history of the topics subject matter

Windscale fire occurred in the UK in 1957 was regarded as the most serious atomic accident of the world. On the 10th of October 1957, at dawn, the number 1 reactor at Windscale plant caught fire. There were two Windscale “Piles” which were conceived to produce tritium and plutonium exclusively for the UK’s atomic bomb programme. There exists a process namely release of so-called “Wigner” energy from the reactor core, and the fire occurred during such procedure. Wigner energy is a type of chemical potential energy, which is stocked up in the network structure of the graphite moderator, especially during the operation of this kind of nuclear reactor. (Walls & Livens, 2011, p.59).

Due to damage in the Windscale’s No.1 Pile due to the fuel overheating, the radioactivity was leaked into the atmosphere. Due to this impact, the graphite pile was under fire. Only after significant quantum of atmospheric contamination, the local firemen were able to control the fire. On the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), the Windscale fire ranked the level five and was the worst nuclear accident after the much more serious Chernobyl disaster that took place in 1986, which had a level seven which is the highest ever INES scale.

The main cause of the fire can be attributed to the poor knowledge on this type of energy for which Eugene Wigner was the discoverer. Wigner energy is being produced from the atomic fission, a process which is called as the annealing where the engineers at Windscale recurrently heated up the basic to permit the graphite to release the Wigner energy. At the time of the accident, it is observed that the heating was too fast and there was a rupture in a fuel canister and there was an exposure of uranium metal to the air. Not only, the uranium caught fire, but also it also set fire to other fuel presents at accident site and the core itself. About 8 tonnes of uranium caught fire at one point of time. (Taylor, 2007, p.15).

The atomic reactor was open to the atmosphere but due to advice by the scientist John Cockroft, a set of filters had been constructed and these filters were known as “Cockroft’s follies”, which had arrested some of the radioactive particles. However, at the accident site, about 20000 curies of radioactivity was released into the air which was in the guise of the radioactive isotope iodine 131. As per Hewitt and Collier (2000, p.189), without the filters, the radioactive release would have been much bad. (Taylor, 2007, p.16).

As per investigation carried out just after the accident revealed that the 2nd nuclear heating was carried out too fast and due to this, there was a burst by one of the fuel cartridges. At the final stage, when water was poured to cool the channels, there was an acknowledged substantial peril of an explosion and hence, there was every chance of large quantity release of radioactivity. (Hewitt & Collier, 2000, p.189).

Just after the accident, there was a close monitoring on milk suppliers as radioactive iodine can be easily witnessed into milk due to deposition on meadows and eating by cows. Thus, sale of milk originated from the part of Windscale nuclear plant was suspended for about one-a-half months to prevent spreading of radioactivity. (Hewitt & Collier, 2000, p.189).

Windscale has not only met an accident on October 1957 alone and there were subsequent accidents also happened there. At the reprocessing plant, another accident happened in 1973 with the discharge of radioactive materials into the plant functional province because of exothermic response on a process vessel with a rating of 4 levels. In Shellafield plant, there was a grave incident in 2005, which lead to huge quantum of radioactive materials which was controlled within the plant level with a rating of 3 levels. (Wakestein, 1978, p.359).

The design of Windscale project was planned in the early period of atomic technology and hence, the nuclear reactor’s built in the Windscale plant, it was not much known about the impact of graphite being exposed to neutrons as the incidents later demonstrated that this had the impact of creating displacement in its transparent construction resulting in the piling up potential energy. Moreover , there was less knowledge about the designing of reactors as the design employed had some inbuilt defects, which may have resulted in the Windscale nuclear disaster.(Modarres,1987).

An analysis of the societal, political, and economic impact of the event

Social issues

The radioactivity residues which were spewed from the exhaust pile of the air-cooling system was nailing down on adjacent communities. The disaster was grave in nature, the civil defence forces have to be rushed in to deal with the catastrophe. Further, more than 250,000 residents from 1500 miles, especially from the southern part of Cumberland had to be evacuated. As per a later report, the news about the atomic emergency was kept back from the public due to the fear of unnecessary chaos among public. Due to fallout spewing, radioactive cloud was witnessed as far away as Denmark and London. Radioactivity reading through Gamma-Ray patrols was detected at Sellafield station, which was found to be higher than the normal setting by more than hundreds of times but depicted no instant threat. (Howe, 1958, p.92).

When news of crisis was first revealed out, clothes of cyclists were found with radioactive, and it was one of the chains of scares prevailed in UK. However, amidst public scare, they were not informed that level of radioactivity was not harmful. When contamination due to radioactive fallout proved to be very serious, milk was ditched down into the sea with 6 to 10 miles wide and from a 30-mile –long coastal area. However, in the Windscale accident no one was made homeless or injured or dead. (Howe, 1958, p.93).

Thyroid was the part of the human body which was affected by radioactivity due to Windscale accident. There was a risk of thyroid cancer though the major of them being non-serious, but still needs medical treatment. After a few decades of radiation, the chances for thyroid cancer would be very minimal. (Cooper, Randle & Sokhi, 2003, p.150).

According to a full-scale research study published on the impacts of the Windscale nuclear accident, thirty-two people were dead due to the fire accident at the Windscale atomic plant. The death toll also included 260 cases of thyroid cancer which scientists ascribed to the impacts of radioactive particles polonium escaped into the atmosphere and 13 grave cases of thyroid cancer.( Ingram,2005,p.12).

Political Effect

In the mid-1940s, UK government had given much significance to proliferate nuclear weapons for the nation’s defence and in the late-1940s and the early 1950s, it was implemented. A poignant element of this UK government’s policy was the building of plutonium proliferation factory at Windscale in UK. (Prot, 2007, p.211).

Immediately, after cessation of Second World War, there was the commencement of race for nuclear arms’ stock pile by the so called the super-powers. The arms race compelled the UK government’s pursuit for augmenting their nuclear capabilities and the compulsion to stock pile atomic bombs in their military stockpiles. (Awosika, 2009, p.3)

To find an alternative source for the fossil –fuel energy which involves not only high cost but also responsible for global warming, there has been revamped efforts for the significance of nuclear –based energy source especially in the last decade. UK is not an exemption to this. The compulsion for alternate, clean energy is mainly due to the sky-crapping rate of $160 per barrel, of petrol which made many governments to think of nuclear energy as an alternate, viable energy replacing the costly fossil-fuel energy. (Scott, 2004, p.1955).

There had been significant political impacts due to Windscale file and the UKAEA (UK Atomic Energy Authority) became very firm, and it ordered the two Piles at Windscale to be closed down permanently. (Prot, 2007, p.212).

Accidents due to a nuclear plant explosion could be catastrophic and hence, the nuclear energy is the most hazardous is the opinion postulated by one school of doctrine. However, supporters for nuclear energy are of the opinion that the benefits and cost advantages outweigh the presumption that the extent of the nuclear accident is more disastrous. Opponents of the nuclear energy will always refer the nuclear accidents happened in Windscale in UK, Kyshtym in Ukraine and Chernobyl in Russia. Supporters of the nuclear energy are of the view that the nuclear energy should be regarded as a viable substitute for fossil fuel. The supporters of nuclear energy are of the view that the enormity of Chernobyl or Windscale accident is not likely to happen as there is enhanced and good comprehension on reactor physics as contrasted to the late 1990s. As contrasted other forms of energy, as per statistical records, the nuclear energy is having a better rating. (Awosika, 2009, p.1).

Economic Impact

In Windscale accident, there had been a not only national liability but also transboundary accountability with the prospects of creating diplomatic confrontation among the nations in the Europe especially with Ireland, Scandinavian countries and with the Isle of Man. (Jones, 2008, p.1). At the time of the fire accident that occurred in 1957, the Windscale atomic plant was under the control of UKAEA (United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority) which was responsible for both the civilian and military nuclear programmes. Thus, it is almost very difficult to find UKAEA accountable for accident as the programme which caused the accident was under the control of the military. However, in 1970s, UKAEA ventured into plutonium trade through its arm namely British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) to administer its business. For many incidents that occurred when BNFL is in-charge after 1970s and BNFL was fined £50,000 for trying to block a pipe and £10,000 for illegal discharge. (Hall, 1994, p.649).

Under the Vienna Convention, the British courts are empowered to fine the British company which is responsible for such accidents up to USD 5 million while the UK citizens who are affected would have to be compensated for their property damages, for their personal injuries and other incidental losses.

Under Vienna Convention, damages suffered by other countries like Isle of Man, Ireland if they are non-nuclear State. Under the Paris Convention, damages can be recovered if they have reciprocity with UK. In the case of cost of preventive measures in aftermath of nuclear accident, loss of income and environmental damages suffered are all have to be reimbursed with the State guarantee up to 300 million SDR and the liability up to SDR 150 million. (Awosika, 2009, p.9).

An international regime of nuclear liability acting as an ‘umbrella’ was created over the other regimes that are impacted by a nuclear accident under the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damages and annex.(CSC). Under this, a two tiers of compensation was established where both by the Installation State and other by the joint international fund for which all the signatory nations to contribute. 50% of damages suffered are to be reimbursed for transboundary damages whereas 50% damages suffered are to be reimbursed to both the outside and inside the Installation State. (Awosika, 2009, p.9).

The operators of the nuclear installations have to compensate any individual who demonstrated that radiation had damaged his property under the Nuclear Installations Act. For example, in Blue Circle Cement¹ Case, a company was triumphant in claiming damages for the leakage of radioactive into its manufacturing facilities. (Awosika, 2009, p.10).

A comparative analysis of a similar event in history

Chernobyl Nuclear Accident

The greatest ever nuclear accident occurred on 26 April 1986 in the Ukraine, in the erstwhile USSR and the accident was the result of human negligence and human error. It has been described as the world’s worst nuclear accident. Due to overheating, there was bad damage to one of the four nuclear reactors at the Chernobyl plant and as a result, it went out of control due to faulty, unauthorized experiment on one of the reactors. Over the period of 10 days, hazardous fission and highly radioactive products were spewed into the air. An invisible radioactive cloud was formed due to this accident, which blew over much of the Western Europe. (Park, 2001, p.246).

The radiation effect of the invisible radioactive cloud was such that many nations barred the foodstuff imports like milk, vegetables, fruits, fresh meat, freshwater fish, etc from nations within 1000 kms of Chernobyl so as to minimise the health perils to humans. In Poland, the radiation peril was so grave that it distributed stable iodine tablets and medicinal solutions as a preventive medicine to about 10 million youths and children. (Park, 2001, p.246).

The Chernobyl accident resulted in 31 instant deaths, about 1000 instant injuries and evacuation of about 135,000 residents from villages and towns in the vicinity of the accident site. USSR government estimated the aggregate expenses about USD $ 358,000 million had been incurred for clean-up operations, lost productivity and damaged farm land. Due to Chernobyl accident, about 100 million people in western USSR and throughout Europe had a mild exposure of low levels of radiation especially caesium-137 and iodine -131. There had been increased health issues in and around Chernobyl area due to a dramatic increase in the occurrence of anaemia , thyroid diseases , symptoms’ of radiation sickness , loss of appetite and vision , fatigue among humans and some bizarre birth imperfections among livestock.( Park ,2001,p.246).

From 1990 onwards, both in Ukraine and Belarus and in Russian Federation, the thyroid cancer cases per million populations started to surge. About 4837 cases of thyroid cancer among children diagnosed during 1886-2002. Agricultural activity from major areas within the area of Belarus and Ukraine in the Russian Federation, farm animal production and dairy production are still subject to severe control as quantifiable contamination is anticipated to prolong for future three centuries. Deposition of radioactive materials in forests prolongs to be issue from the nuclear accident due to efficient filtering aspects of trees. For example, almost all the trees in the forest in and around Chernobyl were destroyed due to radiation and had to be removed and to be administered as radioactive waste. (Howard, 2008, p.1).

As compared to Chernobyl disaster in 1996, the release of radiation was lesser in the Windscale fire. In Chernobyl accident, about 4837 cases of thyroid cancer among children diagnosed during 1886-2002. In Windscale accident, thirty-two people were dead due to the fire accident at the Windscale atomic plant. The death toll also included 260 cases of thyroid cancer which scientists ascribed to the impacts of radioactive particles polonium escaped into the atmosphere and 13 grave cases of thyroid cancer. In Chernobyl accident, USSR government estimated the aggregate expenses about USD $ 358,000 million had been incurred for clean-up operations, lost productivity and damaged farm land. In the case of cost of preventive measures in aftermath of the nuclear accident in Windscale, loss of income and environmental damages suffered are all have to be reimbursed with the State guarantee up to 300 million SDR and the liability up to SDR 150 million. (Awosika, 2009, p.9).

Application and analysis of the following emergency planning and responsive activities as they apply in the event

Mitigation

Due to the presumption that major accident will never happen, very little homework has been carried over to mitigate the outcome of a large outburst of radioactivity due to the reactor accident. In Windscale also, the engineers were not anticipated such an accident and hence, they were not able to mitigate the accident immediately. Mitigation process in an emergency planning will include the implementation of initiatives, which could radically minimize the number of residents impacted permanently by a worst reactor accident. It is suggested that Emergency Management Agency should demand local administrations and utilities to conceive a quick-retort competence which would move people away to sixteen kilometres from nuclear reactors. (Patterson, 1986, p.43).

Preparedness

Preparedness for nuclear accident includes conceiving procedures and plans that can be put quickly into action. This includes conceptualizing and analysing various accident circumstances and then to make a consultation with all other allied services, a fundamental organizational setup and to implement an envisaged retort variable as per the circumstances. Then, these flexible strategies will have to be kept on “not stand-by” and at frequent intervals, rehearsal has to be made. A well- structured preparedness program will consist of communication and command structures, the vigilant description of various officials and services associated with them and the imparting of necessary training. It is to be noted that all nuclear plants in, and around the world have such structures and plans in concurrence with national and local administrations. Hence, the International Atomic Agency and community have developed an exhaustive approach and programmes for nuclear accident management and for nuclear emergency preparedness. (OECD NEA, 2003, p.56).

Response

For any human activity, there exists no such thing as nil or zero risk. Accidents involving the exposure of the public and workers can happen in spite of very high magnitudes of safety measures preserved in all radiological activity and may have international ramifications like Windscale and Chernobyl incidents. (OECD NEA, 2003, P.57).

Application of safety measures, including preparedness as per the type of the nuclear plan and of the accident is known as Emergency Response. Giant nuclear plants, especially power plants are well devised with many barricades to arrest the sequence of a nuclear accident. (OECD NEA, 2003, P.58).

An action initiated to administer, control or lessen the instant impacts of an accident is known as the emergency response. It should be observed that emergency response plan is not either business continuity plan or a disaster recovery programme, an error often made by the top executives. (Broder, 2006, p.124).

Recovery

In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has done a tremendous task of making it compulsory the security and disaster recover planning especially for nuclear facilities. Further, periodic exercises and drills are also made mandatory by the NRC to train first responders from the adjoining communities and the employees of the nuclear plants. It is to be noted that both in Chernobyl and in Bhopal, in India, there was no disaster planning and hence there was a grave disaster. (Broder, 2006, p.xiv).

Prevention

Disaster prevention strategy at a nuclear plant will include the following: identification of incongruity at the nuclear plants and communication of information, initiating the emergency radiation check in the atmosphere, for managing the nuclear disaster emergency, it is essential to establish a headquarter , to launch a viable communication system for dissemination of information to residents and employees, for each of the related organization ,specific task should be assigned and dissemination of information to neighbouring residents to assuage the outcome of nuclear disaster etc.(NUPEC,2002,p.2).

There was a serious accident at the JCO’s Uranium Reconversion Plant on September 30.1999 in Japan. This accident made the officials to evacuate the residents and to offer shelters at safe indoors. Japan’s government learned serious lessons from this accident and from then onwards, it has started to give top significance to safety issues in the establishment and usage of nuclear energy. Japan has learnt the following lesson which is essential for the prevention of nuclear accidents in Japan, to initiate immediate initial actions, to have close interactions both with the local and central governments, strengthening of countrywide crisis response structure tailored to the features of nuclear accidents and to define the accountability of the nuclear operator who is accountable for the nuclear accident. (NUPEC, 2002, p.1)

The theory and practice of Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM) as it applies to the event

CEM (Comprehensive Emergency Management) promotes a wide holistic approach to administer and manage disasters. CEM concept has been unravelled first by the NGA report which explains the CEM as” government accountability and ability for administering all varieties of disasters and emergencies by synchronizing the activities of various agencies. The all- inclusive part of CEM includes all the four stages of accident or emergency activity namely “alleviation, attentiveness, retort and revival”. It pertains to all perils which include natural attack, man-made attack in a state, local –federal association. (Haddow , Bullock &Coppola , 2010, p.5).The four stages of and all –hazards approach to disaster prolong to serve as stepping stone for managers of emergency and significant conceptions for disaster researchers.(Phillips ,Neal and Webb,p.37).

Mitigation

In Windscale also, the engineers were not anticipated such an accident and hence, they were not able to mitigate the accident immediately. Mitigation process in an emergency planning will include the implementation of initiatives, which could radically minimize the number of residents impacted permanently by a worst reactor accident. For example, a destroyed nuclear reactor should be covered with a protective shield to safeguard against further discharge of radionuclide would be regarded as mitigation. The Piles in the Windscale had problems right from the inception to the operators. Top administration of Windscale plant neglected to mitigate the risk from this aspect. At Windscale, the stock piled Wigner energy if discharged in a wild manner will lead to soaring temperature and will result in fire, and the administration of Windscale failed to mitigate this risk. (Prot, 2007, p.222).

Preparedness

Adverse impacts of the nuclear accident could be minimized by implementing timely countermeasures. Some of the preparedness is sheltering, ordering the affected residents to remain in the house, to evacuate habitants out of the accident site, administering iodine prophylaxis, which is used to drench the thyroid gland with stable iodine to stop the ingestion of the iodine with radioactive and to implement countermeasures in the agricultural sector by putting a restriction to eat contaminated milk and foods, to restrict to cultivate on the contaminated lands, etc. None of the above mentioned preparedness had been implemented in the Windscale fire accident.

Response

Recovery

National Response Plan (NRP) has been initiated by the USA which spells out in what way the resources of the Federal Government will jointly engage with local, state, private sectors and tribal governments, mainly to react to “accidents of national importance.” Its main objective is to institute a complete, national, all-perils approach to domestic accident management through a range of activities, including avoidance, awareness, reaction and revival. (Broder, 2006, p.124). No such recovery measure was available at Windscale plant and UK government reaction was rather very slow and there seems to be no cooperation between various agencies in making the recovery process at Windscale plant when an accident took place.

Prevention

References

Awosika, O. (2009).The Windscale Nuclear Accident: Could It Have Been Avoided? Web.

Broder JF. (2006).Risk Analysis and the Security Survey. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Cooper J R, Randle K & Sokhi RS. (2003). Radioactive Releases in the Environment: Impact and Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Haddow G, Bullock J &Coppola DP. (2010).Introduction to Emergency Management 4th edition. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hall, T. (1994).Carried By the Wind out to Sea, Ireland and the Isle of Man: Anatomy of a Transboundary Pollution Dispute 6. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 640 at 647-648.

Hewitt G F& Collier J G. (2000). Introduction to Nuclear Power. London: Taylor & Francis.

Howard J. (2008). Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster. Encyclopaedia of Quantitative Risk Analysis and Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Howe, H. (1958). Accident at Windscale: World’s First Atomic Alarm. Popular Science, Vol.173, No.4.

Ingram, S. (2005).The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster. New York: Info Base Publishing.

Jones, S. Windscale and Kyshtym. (2008). A Double Anniversary. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 99, 1-6 at 4.

Modarres, R D. (1987). Development of Safety for Nuclear Power Plant, Nuclear Safety.

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. (2003). Nuclear Energy Today. Manila: OECD Publishing.

Park, CC. (2001). The Environment: Principles and Applications. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Patterson W C. (1986). Chernobyl: Worst but not First. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Aug-Sep 1986, p 43-46.

Prot JR. (2007). The Windscale Reactor Accident – 50 Years On. Journal of Radiological Protection, 27, 211-215.

Scott, MC. A (2004). Careful Nuclear Generated Electricity.Anals of Nuclear Energy, Vol.31, Issue 16, 1955-1957.

Taylor S. (2007). Privatisation and Financial Collapse in the Nuclear Industry: the Origins. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Wakestein, C. (1978).The Windscale Decision. The Political Quarterly, Vol.49, Issue 3, p.357-362.

Walls J, & Livens F. (2011).Nuclear Power and the Environment.London: RSC Publishing.

More related papers