Nuclear plant near-accidents that could've turned into full-blown meltdowns?
Several Russian nuclear subs come to mind. One in particular could have done quite a nice job irradiating Murmansk.
Brown's Ferry, Alabama in 1975 (fire damaged control cables and nearly led to meltdown)
Davis-Besse, Ohio in 2002 (inspection discovered football-sized corrosion area in pressure vessel that would have led to massive coolant leak and likely meltdown)
Davis-Besse, Ohio in 2002 (inspection discovered football-sized corrosion area in pressure vessel that would have led to massive coolant leak and likely meltdown)
Pelrhino wrote:
Gatordad699’s list is probably what you want but keep in mind that even a ‘full-blown meltdown’ isn’t’ a complete disaster since most Western design reactor containment was specifically and closely engineered to prevent them from becoming one. One of the main reasons a lot of us have ‘issues’ with History Learner’s “Fermi 1” disaster timeline is that it would not have breached the containment if it had melted down.
Chernobyl WAS a disaster of the size it was because it had no real containment system. Fukushima actually DID have a meltdown but it didn’t breach containment even though the containment was damaged by both the earthquake and tsunami. Something to keep in mind is while the effect of nuclear weapons and their fallout was not well understood in the 50s the operation, potential problems and such for stationary and mobile nuclear reactors was VERY well understood.
While this didn’t stop bad designs from slipping through the cracks occasionally, (SL1 is the prime example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1) in general even mobile reactors were given tough structures to prevent leakage in an accident. SL1 for example “only” had what was considered a ‘structural’ building housing it, (1/4 inch steel plate non-pressure retaining rather than steel and concrete pressure shell) and while it had been originally designed and built with multiple control rods (5 in a + pattern) an operational decision was made to make four of these ‘dummy’ rods and have only one (1) central control rod.
And it any accident SHOULD have produced a massive breach it was SL1! The core was shattered, THEN melted, partially vaporized and voided all its internal water as super-heated steam! (Which launched the reactor vessel over 9 feet to impact the exterior buildings ceiling) But the vessel remained intact enough to contain the core materials and survived the melt-down while the not-really a containment building it was in still managed to contain the majority of the released materials.
Randy
Gatordad699’s list is probably what you want but keep in mind that even a ‘full-blown meltdown’ isn’t’ a complete disaster since most Western design reactor containment was specifically and closely engineered to prevent them from becoming one. One of the main reasons a lot of us have ‘issues’ with History Learner’s “Fermi 1” disaster timeline is that it would not have breached the containment if it had melted down.
Chernobyl WAS a disaster of the size it was because it had no real containment system. Fukushima actually DID have a meltdown but it didn’t breach containment even though the containment was damaged by both the earthquake and tsunami. Something to keep in mind is while the effect of nuclear weapons and their fallout was not well understood in the 50s the operation, potential problems and such for stationary and mobile nuclear reactors was VERY well understood.
While this didn’t stop bad designs from slipping through the cracks occasionally, (SL1 is the prime example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1) in general even mobile reactors were given tough structures to prevent leakage in an accident. SL1 for example “only” had what was considered a ‘structural’ building housing it, (1/4 inch steel plate non-pressure retaining rather than steel and concrete pressure shell) and while it had been originally designed and built with multiple control rods (5 in a + pattern) an operational decision was made to make four of these ‘dummy’ rods and have only one (1) central control rod.
And it any accident SHOULD have produced a massive breach it was SL1! The core was shattered, THEN melted, partially vaporized and voided all its internal water as super-heated steam! (Which launched the reactor vessel over 9 feet to impact the exterior buildings ceiling) But the vessel remained intact enough to contain the core materials and survived the melt-down while the not-really a containment building it was in still managed to contain the majority of the released materials.
Randy
Middlesex_Toffeeman
Banned
If you want a British one...
Sellafield. Cumbria and some of Lancs becomes an exclusion zone, Britain's agriculture is badly hit, fun stuff happens.
Sellafield. Cumbria and some of Lancs becomes an exclusion zone, Britain's agriculture is badly hit, fun stuff happens.
We never had any serious incidents. But then again, we have only had 3 at max, one was shut down in 1997 and one is only for research. None were near populated areas so if there was a meltdown people would be evacuated as a precaution, not because they are in serious danger. The lcoests one to where i live is the research one and i'm not afraid of that thing at all. Wouldn't mind it was shut down either btw.
Of course any real meltdown, Chernobyl sized, would be terrible for Western Europe, no matter what reactor melts down, we have plenty of neighbours who have them too. There are enormous populated areas all around these reactors. A lot different from Chernobyl. Would need to evacuate a lot more people.
They had a couple of incidents in Belgium though...
Of course any real meltdown, Chernobyl sized, would be terrible for Western Europe, no matter what reactor melts down, we have plenty of neighbours who have them too. There are enormous populated areas all around these reactors. A lot different from Chernobyl. Would need to evacuate a lot more people.
They had a couple of incidents in Belgium though...