Good evening folks. Does anyone here recall this “incident”. From research it seems it wasn’t the best idea. We all learn from or mistakes though. Shame there was loss of life. He idea seemed very good but I wasn’t even thought of in 1961
SL-1 nuclear reactor incident 1961
- Thread starter 53' Stude
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2024
- Messages
- 1,592
I guess along with the Byford Dolphin that's one you don't want to see detailed images of...
Most good knowledge is paid-for in blood. Going critical from retrieving just one rod is not a good design, designing this rod to be retrievable quickly is not good design neither.
I'm mostly impressed by Adm. Rickover's lead of the submarine reactors' project. The story goes that he told the scientists working on the first ones that he won't allow any leaks. The answer was that some leakage is statistically impossible to avoid when you have a lid with rods that go through it and control mechanisms to bring them up and down. His answer was "Keep in mind that your own kids might end up drafted to serve on these submarines".
The scientists then ended up making the reactor fully monoblock with no lid. Just like a cap. The control mechanism for the rod was using the internal surface of the vessel as the stator for the motor that would move them up and down. Or at least - that's sortakinda how I remember it.
Most good knowledge is paid-for in blood. Going critical from retrieving just one rod is not a good design, designing this rod to be retrievable quickly is not good design neither.
I'm mostly impressed by Adm. Rickover's lead of the submarine reactors' project. The story goes that he told the scientists working on the first ones that he won't allow any leaks. The answer was that some leakage is statistically impossible to avoid when you have a lid with rods that go through it and control mechanisms to bring them up and down. His answer was "Keep in mind that your own kids might end up drafted to serve on these submarines".
The scientists then ended up making the reactor fully monoblock with no lid. Just like a cap. The control mechanism for the rod was using the internal surface of the vessel as the stator for the motor that would move them up and down. Or at least - that's sortakinda how I remember it.
Yes good book. There are others as well.
Not sure/don't remember if the YouTube nuke guy Kyle Hill has a video on it
Found it:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2024
- Messages
- 1,592
Here's the official report of the accident from Google Books. It's in the public domain, also available in most libraries.
When I hired on (a long time ago) at a company which did work on submarine reactors the film about SL-1 was shown to us and was classified as Confidential Restricted Data. Needed a security clearance to see it. It was a very informational film.
The history of INL is fascinating as well.
https://inl.gov/proving-the-principle/
Includes a section on SL1
https://inl.gov/proving-the-principle/
Includes a section on SL1
Decades ago, I watched a government documentary report on the incident. It was part of a safety training.
Rickover also originated the "one stuck rod" design criteria, where it must always be possible to use the control rods to stop / prevent a chain reaction even while any one of the control rods may be stuck at (or inadvertently moved to) the worst possible position. It had been adopted by the whole reactor industry not just for Navy reactors.
The original SL-1 as designed had five control rods and would be safe with one stuck rod. However its core had since been redesigned and rebuilt as an experiment on a compact central assembly of more highly active fuel, so the outer four control rods were no longer necessary or installed. In that configuration of course it could not meet one stuck rod.
The original SL-1 as designed had five control rods and would be safe with one stuck rod. However its core had since been redesigned and rebuilt as an experiment on a compact central assembly of more highly active fuel, so the outer four control rods were no longer necessary or installed. In that configuration of course it could not meet one stuck rod.
Last edited:
