When Exelon Generation shut down Three Mile Island Unit 1 in September 2019, managers were so certain that the reactor would never run again that as soon as they could, they had workers drain the oil out of both the main transformer and a spare to eliminate the chance of leaks. The company was unable to find a buyer because of the transformers’ unusual design. “We couldn’t give them away,” said Trevor Orth, the plant manager. So they scrapped them.

Now they will pay $100 million for a replacement.

The turnaround at the reactor—now called the Crane Clean Energy Center—highlights two points: how smart Congress was to step in with help to prevent premature closures with the zero-emission nuclear power production credit of 0.3 cents per kilowatt-hour (only two years too late), and how expensive it is turning out to be to change course.

We welcome ANS members with long careers in the community to submit their own stories so that the personal history of nuclear power can be capured. For information on submitting your stories, contact nucnews@ans.org.

When I graduated from Scranton University in 1956 with a B.S. in physics, I was in awe of the nuclear era and determined to be part of a nuclear future. Fortunately, I landed a position with Pratt & Whitney Aircraft as part of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program. The position included a one-year assignment as a visiting staff member at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Craig Piercy
cpiercy@ans.org

This month’s Nuclear News features our inaugural 40 Under 40 list of the brightest rising stars in the nuclear field.

The time has clearly come for this feature. The current resurgence of nuclear isn’t just a technological transformation; it’s also a changing of the guard. Consider this: For the first time in modern history, the American Nuclear Society has more members under the age of 40 than over the age of 60.

Of course, for as long as I can remember, the nuclear workforce has always been a bit of a double-humped demographic camel. Picture a nuclear workforce age chart and you will see two distinct peaks, or what a statistician might call a “bimodal distribution.” “Peak 1” is on the right and is centered over the Baby Boomer generation, many of whom entered the industry in its heyday of the 1960s and ’70s. These are the men and women who built the nuclear enterprise as we know it today.

Julie and Jim Byrne on their wedding day, May 22, 1976.

As I was finishing my studies at the University of Pittsburgh and about to graduate with a degree in civil engineering, I talked to a local navy recruiter about a position with the Seabees. He told me there were no Seabee billets, but that the navy had a nuclear power program that might interest me. When I said yes, it wasn’t long before I was whisked off to Washington, D.C., to interview with someone named Admiral Hyman Rickover. The one thing they told me was to stand up to “the kindly old gentleman.”

The day started with technical interviews and then I was ushered into the admiral’s office. I was a typical college student, and I spent my money on food and beer and not on haircuts. On seeing me, Admiral Rickover told me that I looked like a girl. After a bit of back-and-forth, he asked me a couple of other questions. His last comment to me was that I must know something and to get out of his office.

Nuclear powerhouse Constellation announced today the signing of a 20-year power purchase agreement with Microsoft that will pave the way for the restart of Three Mile Island Unit 1—under a new name to honor Chris Crane, former chief executive of Exelon when Constellation was part of the larger company.

N. Prasad Kadambi

We welcome ANS members who have careered in the community to submit their own Nuclear Legacy stories, so that the personal history of nuclear science and technology can be captured. For information on submitting your stories, contact nucnews@ans.org.

I graduated with a mechanical engineering degree from Osmania University in Hyderabad, India, and took up nuclear engineering when I was awarded a scholarship by an organization called His Exalted Highness The Nizam of Hyderabad’s Charitable Trust. That scholarship enabled me to do graduate work at Pennsylvania State University, and I enrolled there in 1966. One of the terms of the scholarship was that I return to India after graduation. Hence, I returned to India in 1972 after receiving my Ph.D. and began working at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai.

Augustine today, at home.

Augustine in 1991, during his years at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory.

We welcome ANS members who have careered in the community to submit their own Nuclear Legacy stories, so that the personal history of nuclear power can be captured. For information on submitting your stories, contact nucnews@ans.org.

In college I started in physics, but in 1977, during my sophomore year, I decided to pick a more practical major: nuclear engineering. Like many young people, I wanted to make the world a better place.

During my junior year, the Three Mile Island accident occurred. Many of us in nuclear engineering wondered whether we had chosen the wrong major, but our professors assured us there was a future in nuclear power. It seemed at the time a common-sense solution to the predicted shortages of oil and gas, and it was far safer than coal. I stayed the course and ended up getting my bachelor’s and master’s degrees in nuclear engineering.

. . . and today.

Halil Avci in 1975 . . .

We welcome ANS members who have careered in the community to submit their own Nuclear Legacy stories, so that the personal history of nuclear power can be captured. For information on submitting your stories, contact nucnews@ans.org.

For me, going into nuclear engineering was an adventure. In 1968, as a 17-year-old in a small village in western Turkey, I took a government exam designed to select students to send abroad for college. I had to pick a major and a country before the exam, so I picked nuclear engineering and America because they both seemed exciting and full of potential. I came to the United States with the intent to obtain my bachelor’s degree and return to Turkey without delay, because I was told that I was needed to work on the construction of Turkey’s first nuclear power plant starting in 1974. That nuclear plant project did not materialize as planned, nor did I return to Turkey as expected.

On the company’s earnings call this month, Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez was asked if there is a possibility of restarting the shuttered Three Mile Island plant—as is being proposed for the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan.

“We’re not unaware that opportunity exists for us,” Dominguez said. “We’re obviously seen what’s happened with Palisades and I think that was brilliant. Brilliant for the nation. … We are doing a good bit of thinking about a number of different opportunities, and that would probably certainly be one of those that we would think about.”

Joseph Hendrie, Brookhaven National Laboratory physicist, NRC chair, and ANS past president (1984–1985), passed away in his home in Bellport, N.Y., on December 26 at the age of 98.

Hendrie, an American Nuclear Society member since 1956, was a leader in the nuclear community for much of his 45 years in nuclear reactor safety research. He served as the deputy director for technical review of the Atomic Energy Commission’s Directorate of Licensing from 1972 to 1974 and then was appointed chair of the NRC in 1977 (serving a second stint as chair in 1981—the only person to serve two nonconsecutive terms in that role).

Human factors engineering and risk analysis are part of every instrumentation and control upgrade and new reactor plan—from design and licensing to implementation and operation—and applications continue to evolve.

Craig Piercy
cpiercy@ans.org

If you keep tabs on nuclear in popular culture, you know that Netflix recently released a four-part series entitled Meltdown: Three Mile Island. Nominally listed as a “documentary,” the series starts out with a generally accurate chronology of the 1979 event. However, it soon veers off the rails into an uncorroborated conspiracy theory of how the cleanup team risked “wiping out the entire East Coast” in their haste to complete the job on time. Nuclear Newswire has done a fantastic job of unpacking the distortions and outright falsehoods in “Meltdown: Drama disguised as a documentary."

Netflix showrunners were clearly more interested in maximizing the number of eyeballs on their content than in the accuracy of the information they present. But should that make us angry? Netflix is not a news organization; they are a highly algorithm-driven purveyor of video entertainment. Their “recommendation engine” knows what we want, and we happily let them spoon-feed us our next binge watch.

The Three Mile Island accident in 1979 was the most-studied nuclear reactor event in the U.S. There is a plethora of research about the accident available to the general public, including the president-appointed Kemeny Commission report and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Rogovin inquiry report (split into volume one, and volume two, parts one, two, and three), which are the two detailed government-sponsored investigations into the accident. There are also thousands of documents in the NRC’s ADAMS database available to the public, an excellent overview by NRC historian Samuel Walker Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective, as well as the Nuclear News special report from April 1979, and articles written by ANS members like William Burchill about the accident and the many changes it forced on the industry. If the producers of Meltdown: Three Mile Island—available on Netflix—had read any of those documents instead of relying mostly on input from antinuclear activists, their “documentary” might have been presented with at least some sense of balance and credibility.

Instead, similar to a recent Science Channel documentary on the Three Mile Island accident, Meltdown focuses on drama instead of science. This four-part miniseries does not attempt to provide a balanced set of facts from the technical community and instead relies heavily on nonexpert opinions and anecdotal statements to tell a story that easily falls apart under even the faintest scrutiny.

Nuclear News reached out to multiple ANS members who were involved with either the accident response or the clean up to help provide a critical look at some of the more egregious statements made in the documentary.

This week’s Throwback Thursday post is again about Three Mile Island—this time looking at the coverage from the pages of the December 1979 issue Nuclear News about the Kemeny Commission. The twelve-person commission, announced by President Carter immediately after the accident in April 1979, was headed by John Kemeny—then president of Dartmouth College—with orders to investigate the causes and any consequences of the accident.

Part one of this article, published in the May 2019 issue of Nuclear News[1] and last Friday on Nuclear Newswire, presented insights from the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island-­2 and addressed several issues raised by a previous Nuclear News piece on the accident[2]. Part two discusses safety improvements that have been made by both the industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the past 40 years.

The accident at Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant on March 28, 1979, was an extremely complex event. It was produced by numerous preexisting plant conditions, many systemic issues in the industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, unanticipated operator actions, previously unrecognized thermal-­hydraulic phenomena in the reactor coolant system (RCS), and the unprecedented challenge of managing a severely degraded core.

This week’s #ThrowbackThursday post features the special report published by Nuclear News in April 1979—one month after the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Titled “The ordeal at Three Mile Island,” the report provides readers with a quick review of the accident, how it happened (as much as was known at the time), its immediate effects on the general public, and the public discourse that followed. It should come as no surprise that the report covers some negative responses from the public and politicians of the time, but it concludes with the responses of some policy leaders who tried to put the accident into perspective.

Following up to last week’s #ThrowbackThursday post, we are again turning to the April 1984 issue of Nuclear News, reviewing the coverage in that issue about the five-year anniversary of the Three Mile Island-2 accident.

This week for the #ThrowbackThursday post, we are again turning to the April 1984 issue of Nuclear News, which was highlighted in February when we looked at the start of the federal program to convert research reactors from the use of high-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium. This week, however, we are reviewing the coverage presented in that issue about the five-year anniversary of the Three Mile Island-2 accident.

In September, cable television’s Science Channel aired an episode on power plant catastrophes as part of its series Deadly Engineering, with one principal segment on the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. The episode contains several inaccuracies and distortions—perhaps the biggest mistake being that the TMI accident was featured in Deadly Engineering at all, since no deaths or long-term adverse health trends resulted from the accident.

Leaving that aside, the episode includes other errors that executives at Science Channel should have caught and corrected before airing. They also should have made sure to include knowledgeable scientific reviewers from both sides of the nuclear issue, which they did not.

The biggest falsehood in the episode comes very near the beginning, with the horribly erroneous claim that most of eastern Pennsylvania was made permanently uninhabitable by the accident. Incredibly wrong, and likely believable and very frightening to some viewers.