WE ALMOST LOST

DETROIT
JOHN G. FULLER

READER'S DIGEST PRESS

Distributed by Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1975

FOREWORD

Nuclear power is an unforgiving technology. It allows no

room for error. Perfection must be achieved if accidents that
affect the general public are to be prevented.
WF ALMOST LOST DETROIT is a valuable addition to
the literature of the debate swirling around nuclear power.
The book is well researched; it provides fascinating reading
for anyone who is interested in the history of the nuclear
program. The author provides an in depth review of the
development of the Fermi liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor,
using the Fermi accident as a vehicle to discuss the
significance of the entire nuclear power industry, both in this
country and abroad. In the course of this absorbing story, the
causes and consequences of a number of nuclear accidents are
described in a manner that is easily understood. For this is not
a "technical" book meant only for the scientific community. It
is written in a free flowing style that can be easily followed
by the layman.
This book deals primarily with the accident at the Fermi
No. 1 liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor and the safety

problems the accident posed. One result was to set back the
liquid-metal fast-breeder program by many years. However,
the government is still promoting new designs of these
reactors for use in the next decade, and the problems exposed
in this book will not disappear. Meanwhile, the light-water
reactors that are currently being used in this country have
safety problems of their own, as this book demonstrates. For
example, a light-water reactor cannot undergo a low-order
nuclear explosion as can occur in a breeder reactor. But a
loss-of-coolant accident in a light-water reactor could lead to
a core meltdown. Thus, while the accident sequences are
different for the two types of reactors, the end result, the
possible release of radioactive material into the environmentis the same.
The developers of the Fermi breeder reactor were very
sincere, diligent, and highly qualified individuals to whom the
safety of the reactor was paramount. Extreme care was taken
to insure against the possibility of a serious accident
occurring. The scientists involved were most confident that
they had covered all possible problem areas. They had built
safeguards on top of safeguards. Yet in spite of the
precautions in the design and construction of the Fermi
reactor, and in spite of the reassurances by the scientists that a
serious accident could not happen, one did occur. The results
far exceeded the expectations of anyone involved with the
project. Fortunately, at the time of the accident, the reactor
was operating at a very low power level or the consequences
could have been much worse.
The Fermi accident and the others described in this book
demonstrate the fact that no matter how much diligence is
exercised in the design, construction, and operation of a
nuclear reactor things can and do go wrong. Design errors
occur, the unexpected happens, human error is a very real
possibility.

The nuclear industry in this country today is

experiencing many safety-related dilemmas. Several recent
problems have raised questions about the mechanical integrity
of the piping systems. Construction quality control has not
been good. Emergency diesel generator units have failed
frequently during tests. In one recent instance, two out of
three such safety units failed during a test: one because of a
faulty timer switch and the other because of water in the fuel
tank. In one incident the high-pressure emergency-corecooling system failed to operate when called upon because
several diodes had burned out. In that same incident a fourfoot-long piece of pipe that had been inadvertently left in the
reactor during construction jammed in a valve and prevented
it from closing. In another, and one of the most serious
accidents to occur in a large commercial power plant, a fire in
an electrical cable duct knocked out numerous electrical
circuits, many of them redundant circuits. The emergencycore-cooling-system was incapacitated. If it had been needed
it would not have been available. These examples are listed
merely as an indication of the type of problems that can arise.
It is interesting to note the recent shift in the nuclear
industry's position about the possibility of nuclear power
plant accidents. For many years, the industry vigorously
defended the nuclear power program as being essentially riskfree. Nuclear power was claimed to be perfectly safe. It was
said that no serious accidents would ever happen. Such a
position was of course necessary to promote the acceptance of
nuclear power by the general public. It has not been until just
recently that the proponents of nuclear energy have admitted
that accidents can and will happen, and the public should
prepare itself for such eventualities.
What is forgotten is that the public had a right to know
these risks years ago, when the initial decisions regarding the
acceptability of nuclear power were being made. Only now

are we learning that the public was deliberately misled and

deceived by the former Atomic Energy Commission regarding
the possibility of major nuclear reactor accidents and the
potential consequences of such accidents.
The discussion in this book of the WASH-740 update
report of 1964 is very enlightening. The reader is provided an
insight into the internal workings of the AEC by the quoting
of letters and memos of the AEC officials and consultants
who were involved in the study. What this book shows is that
the estimated consequences of a major accident were so
frightening the AEC and nuclear industry did not want them
revealed to the public. It was the fear of an adverse public
reaction that prompted the AEC to suppress the report, and
this is a good example of the attitude that has prevailed in the
nuclear power program. The public has been deliberately
misled into believing that there are no problems with nuclear
power, whereas there are very real problems. In addition to
the issue of reactor safety, other problem areas include
transportation, fuel processing, waste disposal, nuclear
material diversion, and sabotage.
In more than seven years of working with the AEC's
safety research program for light-water reactors, I had an
excellent opportunity not only to become familiar with the
AEC's research programs and safety analysis methods, but
also to observe the basic underlying philosophy of the AEC.
This attitude was primarily one of trying to prove that
existing reactors were safe rather than one of independently
assessing the adequacy of the safety systems. While many of
the scientists working on the safety research were
conscientious and tried to point out valid problems regarding
reactor safety, their questions were largely ignored. The
decisions regarding safety research programs were made by
the AEC in Washington, not by the scientists in the
laboratories. Worse, many of the managers in private industry

that ran the laboratories for the AEC were more interested in
keeping their contracts than they were in doing the research
as it should have been done. The managers' philosophy was
that the AEC was always right.
I left my job with Aerojet Nuclear Company, the AEC's
major safety contractor at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, because of a growing frustration with the safety
program. I became particularly concerned about the way in
which the AEC had continually misled the public about the
safety of nuclear reactors. Only favorable results regarding
the safety research were reported. I knew well the large
number of uncertainties and problems that were not freely
publicized; only a continuing pressure from citizen groups has
made these uncertainties known to the general public. And I
am concerned that the safety systems on the reactors
operating in this country have not been tested, and the
adequacy of these systems has yet to be proven.
The AEC, as a government agency, had an obligation to
serve the public in an unbiased manner. It did not. The new
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been formed specifically
to regulate, and not promote, the nuclear industry. But after
the first several months of operation, there does not appear to
be a truly unbiased view prevalent in the NRC.
The public has a right to know all the pertinent
information regarding not only the safety involved in nuclear
reactors, but all the other related problems. Only then can a
rational decision regarding the acceptability of nuclear power
be made.
Carl J. Hocevar
Union of Concerned Scientists
Cambridge, Mass.

WE ALMOST LOST DETROIT

ONE

The phone call came in sometime in the mid-afternoon of

Wednesday, October 5, 1966. The exact time is not recorded,
because it was never entered officially on the log of the
sheriff of Monroe County, Michigan. Sheriff Charles
Harrington, known as Bud, a lanky man with a lean, craggy
face, received it. An unidentified voice on the other end of the
line spoke sharply and briefly, saying it was Detroit Edison
calling-the major utility company in southeastern Michigan.
There was something wrong at the new Enrico Fermi Atomic
Power Plant, which Detroit Edison operated at Lagoona
Beach just a handful of miles away from the town of Monroe.
The cause of the problem was uncertain, but the caller said
that the situation should not be publicized, that no public alert
should be given. More information would follow.
Sheriff Harrington hung up the phone in his tiny office,
over-crowded by just one desk and his radio-communications
equipment. He went directly into the next door office of the
chief of police of the town of Monroe. Both agreed they
would not enter the information on the blotter, and would
keep it to themselves. Both men knew that a nuclear power

plant contains within it more potential radioactive fallout than

dozens of Hiroshima-type A-bombs. The Fermi plant was no
exception: It was new, it was untried, it was being tested. And
both knew that the ultimate action in case of a major atomic
plant accident was evacuation. Yet, if the public was given
any hint of the problem there could be mass panic. The two
officers decided to wait it out.
At about the same time, some one hundred miles away,
Captain Buchanan of the Michigan State Police in Lansing
was alerted by a similar phone call, again from a Detroit
Edison representative. The state police are responsible for the
civil defense of the state. But neither Captain Buchanan nor
Sheriff Harrington-nor even the nuclear experts-knew all the
possible consequences of a civilian atomic power plant
accident. In 1966, there were only four commercial nuclear
power plants in the entire country. There was no experience
to act on.
The only certainty was that the escape of radioactive
poisons due to a major reactor accident could be catastrophic.
The Atomic Energy Commission's (Aces) own figures were
already available in a study known as WASH-740. In the
worst case, for a relatively small reactor, the AEC estimated
3,400 people could be killed, 43,000 could be injured or
stricken with radiation poisoning, $7 billion in property
damage could occur, and an area the size of Pennsylvania
could be contaminated. These figures, however, were already
outmoded. A new study that nestled in the "Official Use
Only" files of the AEC went far beyond these estimates.
In any case, the only action specified by the AEC in the
event of such an accident was evacuation of the population
from the surrounding area. This was not a source of comfort
to Sheriff Harrington, Captain Buchanan, or anyone else
responsible for coping with the situation.

Hardly anyone in Monroe County was giving any thought that

day to the spanking new Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant at
Lagoona Beach on the shore of Lake Erie. The citizenry was
apathetic about it, except for the jobs it provided and the new
tax revenues it brought in. Everyone living in the clustered
towns of Monroe, Frenchtown, and Newport, surrounding
Lagoona Beach, had grown used to the old cumbersome
Detroit Edison coal-fired plant near the lake. They had come
to ignore the almost grotesque procession of giant
transmission towers that seemed to promenade across the
flatlands alongside the Dixie Highway, like skeletons of
enormous scarecrows dragging festoons of high-tension
wires.
The tang and wild beauty had long since gone out of the
marshes and wetlands near Lagoona Beach, once smothered
with lotus and wild rice. The wastes from paper mills and
steel companies joined with other sewage in the lake; Unsafefor-Swimming signs were everywhere.
Monroe and its satellite towns were undergoing
economic doldrums. Only an occasional festive muskrat
dinner brightened things up. Legend has it that when
Monroe's favorite son, General Custer, had left town on his
way to the disaster at the Little Big Horn, he had admonished
the citizens not to do anything until he got back. Some of the
more dour residents today claim that these instructions have
been followed to the letter. About the only occurrence of
public note that October 5 was that Hubert Humphrey, on a
mission to dedicate the Monroe Public Library, had arrived
fifty-one minutes late at the Custer Municipal Airport. Aside
from that, the community was listless.
An early morning frost had covered the corn and
soybean crops throughout the county, but the county
extension agent didn't seem too worried about it, though he
was concerned about the tomatoes and peppers. Dan Warner

of Ida Orchards wasn't at all concerned. "Frost is good for the

apples," he said. "It helps them ripen."
About a half hour's drive north from Monroe was
Detroit. The motor city went about its business putting cars,
trucks, and tractors together, but not all was happy there.
More than 40,000 Chrysler workers were about to be laid off;
holdups and burglaries were rising at an alarming rate, up
7,000 cases from the previous year. Round steak was selling
at 890 a pound at Kroger's, with sirloin going at a dime
higher. Movie goers filed in to see Dr. Zhivago at the United
Artists Theater, and The Sound of Music at the Madison.
Across the Detroit River, directly south and east,
Windsor, Ontario, went about its job of turning out steel,
machinery, and chemicals, as bored Canadian customs
officials waved an endless procession of cars through the
tunnel to and from Detroit.
Farther out on the western rim of the circle, Dearborn,
Pontiac, Willow Run, Ypsilanti, and other satellite towns of
Detroit were equally placid, dwelling mainly on ordinary
problems of everyday routine. In these and other suburbs,
housewives flooded the shopping centers, and visitors moved
peacefully in and out of the Henry Ford Museum in
Greenfield Village. Few in any of these communities knew
much about the Enrico Fermi Atomic Plant, except that it was
supposed to promise more electric power through some
nuclear magic. And, of course, it also provided jobs.
At 5739 Nelson Drive in Monroe, barrel-chested Frank
Kuron, an ironworker at the plant, was preparing to drive his
wife to the supermarket. He also wanted to pick up a fifth of
Canadian Club and a six-pack of Miller Hi-Life. Kuron, with
a rough, raw voice and an astoundingly good vocabulary, has
a capacity to stay cold sober when downing his after-work
boilermakers (a shot of Canadian, a swallow of beer). He is
chunky and solid, with a pleasant, gnarled face. He likes to

call himself The Polack, likes to follow current events, likes

to read books on the economic and political scene, likes to
salt away his money.
Kuron had been on the first gang that unloaded the red
iron, those bright-orange structural steel girders that created
the framework of the Fermi atomic plant buildings. The
girders had arrived by truck and barge some ten years earlier.
And from the time he had first picked up his pneumatic
impact wrench (he called it a yo-yo) to bolt the cold-bent
plates, beams, and the triangular gussets into place, Kuron
swore by the craftsmanship that went into the building. Most
of his working days over the past ten years had been spent on
the Fermi job. He had nothing but praise for the way it was
put together. He even had praise and respect for the "blue
hats"-the management engineers whose hard hats were
colored blue to distinguish them from the orange hats of the
subcontractors. There was a sharp distinction between the
blue hats and the white hats with their various stripes of
colored tapes that designated those of a laborer (a yellow
"X"), ironworker (a pink stripe), mason (gray), carpenter
(blue), and others.
For a decade, Kuron had watched the Fermi plant grow
from its red-iron skeleton into a new, gleaming white cluster
of buildings on the edge of Lake Erie, less than two miles
from his home. In between the low, squat office section and
the gaunt, looming cracker box that housed the
turbogenerators was the shiny white dome of the nuclear
reactor building. Underneath the dome was the nuclear
reactor itself, the atomic furnace that was just now, in
October of 1966, at the point of heralding a hopeful new era
of the peaceful atom for the Detroit area.
In the course of assigning the responsibilities for
evacuating communities in case of radiation contamination,

planners could not foresee practical problems that would

thwart their efforts. For the Michigan State Police, who bore
the responsibility for the whole state, the task of evacuating
Detroit would be flatly impossible because the automobile
city had put all its faith in motor transport. It had never built a
subway or elevated transit system. During commuting hours,
traffic was impossible. The streets were always jammed. The
freeways were worse in spite of an imposing web of them,
including the Edsel Ford, the Detroit Industrial, the
Southfield, and the Fisher Freeways-the latter being Interstate
75, the four-lane artery that led south to Monroe and Toledo,
Ohio. Coordination with the Canadian Civil Defense in
Windsor would be futile. The tunnels and bridges would he
packed to capacity.
Even in rural Monroe County, there would be 200,000
people in the area for Sheriff Harrington to worry about, more
than 20,000 of them in the town of Monroe itself. The winds
of Lake Erie could be fickle, often embracing every point of
the compass over a period of days. If those shifting winds
carried the colorless, odorless, tasteless radioactivity,
evacuation would be more difficult.
Most vulnerable were the houses scattered in a two-mile
radius around the site boundary. There were about 120 of
these around Port Sunlight; another 100 or so inland from
Swan Creek; 75 along Pointe Aux Peaux Road, and 25
between the Fermi plant and Dixie Highway. Another 500
houses-mainly cottages-sprawled along the narrow roads of
Stony Point where Frank Kuron lived. Once a resort area, it
was now converted to year-round living. It lay behind a
massive rocky breakwater that kept out the surly chop of Lake
Erie. If it came to evacuation, the residents of Stony Point had
little choice. They would have to make their way directly
toward the Pointe Aux Peaux Road in the direction of the
Fermi reactor, and move precariously along the site boundary

to whatever haven they could find from the ghostly plume of

radiation that might spring from the reactor building if its
containment shell were broken.
Back in his home on Stony Point later that afternoon,
Frank Kuron relaxed on his overstuffed sofa, oblivious to
what was taking place less than two miles away from his
home. Nor was he alone in his ignorance. The problem was
that no one, not even the engineers and operators in the Fermi
control room, knew exactly what was happening-aside from
the fact that at 3:09 that afternoon the radiation alarms had
sounded, a Class I alert had been issued, and the reactor
building had been automatically shut off from the rest of the
complex. What was to follow was anybody's guess. But
whatever it might be, it had been in the making for more than
a decade.
Some fifteen years before the radiation alarms went off, the
groundwork for the Fermi plant had been laid in Detroit. In
December of 1951 Walker L. Cisler had just been named
president of the Detroit Edison Company, one of the most
prestigious and largest utilities in the Midwest.
Cisler was both an idealist and a pragmatist, a dreamer
with visceral strength and an abrasive magnetism who seemed
to get things done. As an idealist, he extolled the virtues of
the human mind, claiming that it was the greatest motivator
on earth aside from God. He was a Cornell engineering
graduate of the class of 1922, and he had a handsome,
impassive face, with classic, chiseled features framed by
cropped white hair. His social consciousness was reflected in
his overseas work as a consultant on electric power for the
Marshall Plan, and the Agency for International
Development, plus a half a dozen other government agencies.
He engaged in scores of civic activities in Detroit. His
dedicated service to the public, however, was tempered by an

obsessional passion to ram through projects of his liking at

almost any cost. Some of his associates felt that his positivism
was often blind and overpowering. But it got the desired
results.
Besides being named president of Detroit Edison, Cisler
had just delivered a feasibility study to the Atomic Energy
Commission. It concluded that a nuclear power plant would
not only be practical for private enterprise, but could lead to a
whole new concept of meeting energy needs for an uncertain
future.
Cisler had been working on the idea for more than four
years, from the time he had been appointed by the AEC as a
member of an advisory group. He had received an AEC
blessing to go ahead with a joint plan between Detroit Edison
and Dow Chemical to examine exactly how nuclear power
could be tamed.
Back in 1951, experts believed the future of nuclear
power could be almost miraculous: A reactor could be built
that would not only create heat to power electrical generators,
but would produce more fissionable fuel than it used. It would
be called the breeder reactor, which meant just what it said.
The technique involved packing a blanket of raw,
sluggish Uranium-238 around a reactor core. This would
capture the excess neutrons that leaked out of the more
refined Uranium-235 in the center as the fuel went through
the fission or splitting process. While the heat was removed
from the core to make steam for electric power, the leaking
neutrons would smash into the blanket and change the
Uranium-238 into Plutonium-239, an able and super-elegant
fuel, but one that was not without its drawbacks. As a new,
man-made element, plutonium was not only the source of the
explosion of the nuclear bomb, but was also perhaps the most
deadly poison in the world. Once created, it would take

480,000 years before its radioactivity would decay to an

innocuous radiation level.
But the dreams of Cisler and other engineers and
scientists across the country, working to bring about a
brighter world in the closing days of 1951, were not bent on
destruction. These were men of hope, vision, enterprise,
brilliance, and determination. They were bent on taming this
poison if they could, harnessing it for the benefit of mankind.
But like everyone else, they were also fallible.
The Atomic Energy Commission's blessing for the
Edison-Dow plan to proceed to a "design phase" came
through on December 19, 1951. It came only one day before
the historic event that was to be recorded on the broad, rocky
flats of Idaho, some 2,000 miles to the west of Detroit.
That event took place in one of a lonely cluster of
buildings, among the first erected in the AEC's National
Reactor Testing Station, not far from Arco, and only forty
miles away from the town of Idaho Falls. Near the desolate
national monument known as the Craters of the Moon and
sandwiched between the Lost River range and Big Southern
Butte, the site was later to be designated as a Registered
National Historic Landmark.
Here, on December 20, 1951, sixteen tense men, under
the direction of the nuclear pioneer Walter Zinn, waited for
the results of their work on the nuclear power unit known as
Experimental Breeder Reactor No. 1, to become known as
EBR-I. While they watched, the control rods were gingerly
withdrawn from the nuclear core by a mechanical overhead
linkage, releasing the neutron population of its Uranium-235
fuel rods. The heat from the rods created steam, and suddenly
four ordinary 200-watt light bulbs began to glow. Walter Zinn
was the first to scrawl his name on the wall, followed by the
fifteen other scientists and technicians who signed in under

the improvised legend: Electricity Was First Generated Here

From Atomic Energy on December 20, 1951.
The modest success of EBR-I was a harbinger of hope
for Walker Cisler and his project. But there were marked
differences to consider. EBR-I was a sputtering firecracker
compared to the howitzer that a commercial reactor serving a
public utility would have to be. EBR-I supplied enough
electric light for one small building. Cisler's new plant would
have to produce some 200,000 kilowatts of power to make
any sense at all, even as a demonstration model. And, at best,
it would be barely enough to handle 60,000 homes.
There were other considerations, too. EBR-I sat in a
sparsely populated area. If anything went wrong, its small
size, minute power, and remoteness would cause a minimum
of damage to property and people. Cisler's new plant would
be sitting in the middle of a teeming megalopolis.
To Cisler, there was another factor in the historic event
at EBR-I. It was a government-owned reactor, wholly
designed and built by the AEC. Private industry was playing
only a supply role in its operation. Cisler believed devoutly in
private industry, with its incentives and its initiative.
Originally, he had dedicated his consulting work with the
AEC "to speed industrial activities in the atomic energy field,
including the development of atomic-electric power plants."
He was aware, as was everyone else, that the wartime
function of nuclear weapons could be handled in no other
way but by an enormous government program. Power plants,
he felt, were different.
Even with the coming of peace, there were weapon
priorities that had to be faced in the arms race with Russia;
there was strictly classified material to deal with, secrets to
guard. Cisler was wary of government monopoly or
encroachment on energy production. However, it seemed to
create in him the fire of Sir Galahad in search of the Holy

Grail. Armed with the authorization from the AEC, he set out
on his mission to bring together a viable group of utilities that
would join with him in mastering the intricacies of the new
art. This would also bring enough private capital into the
project, and demonstrate to both the AEC and the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy of Congress that the private
sector meant business, and could do a better job than
bureaucracy in developing the promise of nuclear power.
Cisler did his utmost to convince both manufacturers and
utilities that they must join in the battle, even if the ultimate
profits might be a long way off in the future.
It took ten months, but his power and persuasion paid
off. By October of 1952, he had created a Nuclear Power
Development Department at Detroit Edison, and had managed
to bring fifteen other utilities into the Edison-Dow breeder
reactor project. They included some of the best blue-ribbon
utilities in the country: from Consolidated Edison of New
York to New England Power to Philadelphia Electric. By
October 19, 1952, the AEC had approved the growing
membership in the project a unique cooperative venture that
no individual utility could handle alone, in either money or
expertise.
There was no question that both a heavy expenditure of
money and solid expertise were needed if private companies
were to catch up with the government's enormous nuclear
establishment that had grown out of wartime necessity.
In December of 1952, however, the entire nuclear
fraternity received a jolt. It was enough to make many sober
scientific minds wonder whether this new technology that
seemed to hold so much promise for the future of man was
worthy of pursuit.
The Canadian government's atomic research center, some two
hundred miles northwest of Ottawa, sits near the lonely

outpost village of Chalk River, Ontario. Life there, in the

close-by bedroom village of Deep River, can be pleasant for
the scientists and other workers, even if remote from the
mainstream of metropolitan living. There are the Staff Hotels
for visitors; there are also schools, clubs, churches, and one
movie house. On a hotel bulletin board, the notices posted
give a clue to the life there: Curling Is Fun-Try It This
Winter. Trailer for Sale Suitable for Snowmobile. Winter
Carnival February 7 to 9. A sharp word to those who posted
notices dominates the board: All Notices Must Be Dated and
Will Be Removed After 14 days. To which a whimsical
scientist had scrawled as a postscript: Date Is Missing from
This Notice.
As World War II drew to a close, Chalk River was
selected from several alternate sites for the Canadian nuclear
energy project. The reasons for its choice were specifically
spelled out by the Canadian government. The site had to be
isolated in case of an explosion, or emission of radioactive
dust into the atmosphere. It had to be some distance from a
town or a village. It had to have an ample supply of water to
cool the reactor.
Chalk River easily met the requirements and the NRX
experimental reactor was built on December 12, 1952. While
Walker Cisler continued to cajole, persuade, beg, and
convince his colleagues in the utility industry to support his
plans for the future, the NRX reactor at Chalk River was
going through a normal series of tests. They were experiments
conducted at low power to compare the difference in
reactivity (the ability to sustain a chain reaction) between fuel
rods that had been bombarded by a long period of radiation
and fresh fuel rods that had just been installed in the reactor.
The Canadian NRX reactor was also a midget compared
to the one Cisler's group had in mind. It was what is known as
a heavy-water reactor. Heavy water is a water molecule

containing a hydrogen isotope with a mass number greater

than 1. It is present in natural water about 1 part in 6,500 and
is extremely expensive to isolate but a highly effective
moderator. The heavy-water reactors are generally considered
safer than the light-water reactors (which use plain, natural
water as a coolant) on the drawing boards in the United
States. Canada preferred the former not only for safety
reasons, but because raw Uranium238, which it had in
plentiful supply, could be used. At the time, heavy-water
reactors were considered safer than the breeder reactors,
which were still in the early experimental stage. So safe, in
fact, was the design of the NRX, that it had some nine
hundred devices for shutting it down in an emergency and
only one for starting it up.
In any kind of reactor, the fuel (most often uranium) is
encased in metal sheaths that look very much like curtain
rods. In some reactors, the rods are thick, and chunks of fuel,
looking not unlike blackish Tootsie Rolls, are slipped into the
rods. Some fuel rods are thin, with the metal sheath bonded to
become part of them, depending on the type of the reactor.
The rods are then bunched in bundles, called subassemblies.
These are placed geometrically into a circular or octagonal
container inside the reactor vessel, and packed like a round
tin of cigarettes except for strategic spacing between the fuel
elements. The fuel makes up the heart of the reactor the core.
At strategic points among the fuel bundles, there are
several long slender control rods. They are composed of
cadmium or boron or graphite or some other material to stop
the nuclear reaction. When they are plunged down inside the
core, they drink up the fluctuating neutrons like a blotter and
shut the reactor down. When they are lifted out of the core,
the neutrons from the fuel begin sputtering (though invisibly
and silently) like a massive pack of Fourth of July sparklers in
a bucket. The neutrons then will crash into and split the atoms

in the fuel bundles. The splitting not only gives off an

enormous amount of heat, but sends two and a half more
neutrons out of an atom's nucleus to repeat the process.
Whatever kind of coolant is used light water, heavy
water, or liquid sodium-it keeps the fuel from melting from its
own heat. The coolant liquid bathes the hot fuel rods as it
flows around them, carrying away their heat, which is then
used to generate steam. The steam spins the turbines; the
details of steam generation vary with reactor designs.
Being experimental, the NRX reactor at Chalk River was
not designed for generating electric power. It was moderated
by heavy water, which meant that it used this rare and
expensive substance to slow down the neutrons so they would
have a better chance of hitting more atoms, thus enabling it to
use the natural Uranium-238 as fuel.
In the NRX control room on December 12, 1952, were a
dozen or so men, including the project head, research
physicists, a health physicist, operating superintendents, and
reactor operators. At about three that afternoon, they were set
to commence the routine experiments of the day. The
atmosphere was relaxed, and because the experiments were
being conducted at low power, there was little or nothing to
worry about. Danger increases in proportion to the amount of
power created. One small concern was that a special safety
circuit was not in operation at the time, but since it was
known, allowances would be made for this during the routine.
Just before the start of the experiment, an assistant
operator in the basement below the reactor opened, by
mistake, four valves that kept air pressure from raising the
control rods after the initial start-up. If the rods were to rise
the fuel in the reactor would immediately begin splitting
atoms at a faster, unplanned rate, leading to one of the most
feared circumstances of all a nuclear runaway. From that

point on it would be impossible to predict what would

happen.
At the control panel, the supervisor of the operation was
horrified when he saw red warning lights suddenly flash on
the panel board. He grabbed the phone, yelled to the operator
in the basement to stop what he was doing, then rushed down
to the basement, leaving his assistant in charge of the panel.
In the basement, he was relieved to find that not all the
valves were open. He closed the valves immediately, and was
sure the control rods had returned to their proper position.
He checked the air pressure, and it was good. Up in the
control room the red warning lights went off, indicating that
the control rods were where they should be.
What he did not know, nor did anyone else at the time,
was that in some inexplicable way the rods had jammed, and
had dropped down just far enough to turn off the warning
lights, but not far enough to choke off the reactivity which
was rising rapidly.
When the supervisor realized what was happening, he
grabbed the basement phone to call the control room,
intending to order his assistant to push buttons numbered 4
and 3 to stop the reactivity. Instead, he said: "Push number 4
and number 1."
Up at the control panel, in order to reach the two buttons,
the assistant had to put the phone down. The moment he did
so, the supervisor in the basement realized he had called out
the wrong numbers. He yelled into the phone but no one
heard him. The reactor began to run out of control-"above
critical" in the parlance of the nuclear engineer.
It took only twenty seconds to realize this. Meanwhile,
the power of the NRX reactor was doubling every two
seconds. By that time, the reactor was on its way to a fuel
meltdown. Four banks of control rods had been raised when
the assistant had pushed button number 1. He immediately

took the prescribed safety measure: He scrammed the reactor,

tripping it so that all the control rods would slide safely back
into place.
But, because of a lack of air pressure the control rods
were not forced back into place. The galvanometer, which
measures the electric current, indicated that the power level
was still climbing, on its way to disaster. The assistant at the
controls screamed over the phone for the supervisor to do
something about the air pressure, so that the control rods
would drop and stop the chain reaction. There was no way to
do this. The combination of errors had snowballed into an
uncorrectable situation.
Exactly forty-four seconds after the accidental pushing
of button number 1, a plant physicist realized that the only
thing left to do was to dump the heavy water from the reactor,
and thus cut off the fission process. There were thousands of
barrels of heavy water in the reactor-each barrel worth more
than a Cadillac. But it was the only option. The physicist
reached over and slammed the dump switch.
It took several seconds to see what would happen. The
power seemed to drop, but almost immediately another hazard
loomed up: The whole sealed reactor vessel might collapse
from the vacuum formed by the dumping. The operation was
halted, then cautiously resumed. A sigh of relief went up
when the instruments went back to normal, about thirty
seconds after the dumping had begun.
But the disaster was far from over. Someone looked
through an open basement door, and saw tons of water
rushing out of the reactor, flooding the basement area. The
supervisor and his assistant rushed with a bucket, carefully
handled at a distance, to take a sample. A quick test showed it
to be ordinary light water, but highly radioactive.
Then, four minutes after button number 1 had been
accidentally pushed, a dull rumble was heard. The huge, four-

ton lid on the reactor vessel, called a gasholder, rose in the

air. A spurt of water gushed out through the top of the reactor,
spilling over the building floor. Radiation alarms went off,
and the sensor near the steam fan showed lethal doses of
radiation escaping.
From a nearby building, a frantic phone call came in to
report that the readings in the atmosphere in that vicinity were
far above scale. The caller requested what was called an
emergency stay-in procedure. A siren sounded, alerting all
personnel to proceed to the nearest building, close all
windows and doors, and to use the telephone only in an
emergency.
With radioactive contamination rising rapidly by the
control room door-not yet deadly, but a warning gas masks
were issued to the crew at the control panel. But critical and
urgent discussions were impossible through the masks, and
the crew was forced to retreat to another, less contaminated
building.
At 3:45 P.M. the project director and the radiation
hazards control director gave the order to evacuate the entire
installation, including buildings and grounds. All but the
essential crew followed the prepared procedure: hurrying in
an orderly manner to the gates, holding a handkerchief over
the nose and mouth.
Meanwhile, the reactor crew, removing gas masks only
for the purpose of discussion, stood by helplessly as more
than a million gallons of highly radioactive water flooded the
basement of the reactor building. If they tried to stop the
water, the deadly melted fuel in the reactor might catch fire
and make the situation even more disastrous. The flooded
water contained ten times the amount of long-life
radioactivity that there was in the entire world in 1940. But
gradually, in several hours, the reactor tamed down.

Because of the small size of the reactor and its remote

location away from cities, the damage was minimal. The
painful process of decontamination was begun cautiously the
next day: scrubbing every square inch of surface in the eightstory-high NRX building by mop and sponge soaked in
detergent; burial of all the soiled cleaning materials; the
donning of hot, sweaty plastic suits and Scott-Pak respirator
masks; the hurried construction of a pipeline to a sandy valley
over a mile away to dump the million gallons of radioactive
water so that it wouldn't contaminate the nearby Ottawa
River. The swollen and melted fuel-a lethal source of
radiation from the melted uranium-had to be kept cool by
connecting water hoses to each rod.
The amount of radiation that each man would receive
during the decontamination job had to be rationed carefully.
Radiation doses are cumulative; the time of exposure must be
limited. Skilled operators were spared in the early clean-up
stages to prevent them from absorbing so much radiation they
would be unavailable later. Personnel from other departments
were solicited for the risky job and trained on a special mockup of the reactor. The simple job of removing one flange and
inserting a diaphragm in the coolant pipes took twenty men,
clad in full protective suits and gas masks, and working in
carefully planned relays. The radiation at this location was so
hot that only moments could be spent there.
There was evidence of a hydrogen-oxygen explosion
inside the reactor, along with the melted uranium that had
riddled and scarred the guts of the core. But the general
consensus was that Chalk River and the men working on the
NRX reactor were lucky. There was no explosion outside the
reactor. The uranium melting was contained.
As the melted fuel and broken steel were finally bagged,
and dragged away for burial, there was measurable relief in
the community of Chalk River. Especially when a post-

mortem review revealed that if one more control rod had

jammed, the increase in the fission products released into the
air could have wiped out the bedroom village of Deep River
and beyond.
From the accident came lessons for the entire
international nuclear community. One defect leads to anotherand another. One human error does the same. Most are
unpredictable. This snowballing throws off all the carefully
calculated engineering probability studies as to the chances of
a major accident. Most single errors might be controlled. It is
the errors compounding the errors that no computer can
foresee. Murphy's Law: "If anything can go wrong, it
will."-the bugaboo of all engineers would be stalking the
nuclear energy field, as everywhere else.
The awesome consequences of a full-scale nuclear power
plant accident automatically demand that the design,
construction, equipment, and the men behind it all must be
infallible. The Chalk River accident produced a major
question: Was infallibility possible?
With an untested breeder reactor, twenty times more
powerful than any that had been built before, situated in the
middle of a huge population center, this was the question that
Walker Cisler and his skilled team of engineers at Lagoona
Beach would have to answer.

TWO

Like everybody else in the business, Walker Cisler was

painfully aware of the lessons to be learned from the Chalk
River accident. He would have to keep in mind that the
breeder reactor his group was planning was not only more
dangerous and sensitive than the Canadian heavy-water
reactor, but so many times more powerful that the
consequences of an accident could be many orders of
magnitude more disastrous.
But problem-solving was a built-in characteristic of the
dynamic Cisler, and he began gathering men around him who
were confident that they could conquer any sort of safety
problem. To accomplish this they would have to examine
every possibility of an accident in infinite detail. They would
have to measure any conceivable combination where things
might go wrong, and make sure the design of the reactor
would provide for it. Even the most farfetched possibilities
would be considered and the means of protecting against
them flawlessly worked out.
All through 1953 and into 1954, the plans moved slowly.
It was no easy job to gather a staff that would have to meet
the criterion of infallibility, but the group that joined Cisler in

his project shared common motivations. They knew well the

growing need for new sources of power and energy-long
before the public ever gave any thought to the situation. And
as men of enterprise, they were confident and determined that
they could best meet this need through the concept of the
nuclear breeder, the unique machine that could make its own
fuel.
They had pride in both their vision and craftsmanship,
and they were not without vanity. They also had the necessary
incentive. Most important, there was a challenge here, and if
the question of safety could be solved, meeting the challenge
would not only eventually bring profit, but immense benefits
for society as well. Although there was still no official
government sanction for private industry to go ahead with a
nuclear power program, Cisler and his team were making sure
they would be ready for it when it came.
When Eisenhower signed the amended Atomic Energy
Act into law at the end of August, 1954, it was the signal to
move full speed ahead. For the first time, atomic facilities
could be owned by private companies. Cisler had already
gathered $2.5 million for the basic research on the reactor,
much of the research already having received tacit approval
from the AEC through an industrial committee set up by the
commission some years before.
Further impetus for Cisler's project was President
Eisenhower's appointment of Lewis Strauss, an investment
banker who had long been active in government affairs, as the
new chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. Strauss
was a strong supporter of getting nuclear power out of the
AEC and into the private sector. He was a brittle and
controversial figure, but like Cisler he had the capacity for
bulldozing a project through to the finish.
One of the first problems for Strauss to determine was
which type of reactor was practical for private industry. In

addition to the breeder, the type of reactor that Admiral

Rickover was successfully developing for submarines also
seemed logical. It was called the light-water reactor. The
basic principle was the same for both: the splitting of atoms
in the uranium core to produce heat, which in turn would
produce steam to turn the generators. But only the breeder
could capture the excess neutrons to create new fuel, and this
is what made it so appealing to the imagination. Under
Strauss's plan, public utilities would be encouraged to go
ahead with both. The light-water reactor, being more
predictable and less risky, would be taking the lead in
popularity among those utilities who feared the uncertain,
untested, unexplored quirks of the breeder.
Both types of reactors had safety problems. The fuel in a
light-water reactor cannot form a critical mass. But the high
pressures necessary for the light-water reactor made it subject
to critical failures. For example, the effect of long-term
radiation on the metals of the fuel rods was unpredictable. Or
under accident conditions, the molten core could fall into the
water. The 5,000F core could then cause a violent steam
explosion and breach the containment, spewing radioactivity.
There was also the possibility of earthquake, sabotage, or
human error.
The breeder reactor had special problems. Besides
producing plutonium, its core could turn into a critical mass.
It also was cooled by liquid sodium, a thick viscous fluid that
is subject to special risks. In contact with water or air, the
sodium could explode and flash into fire. In case of disaster,
events would occur one thousand times faster than with the
light-water models.
Cisler was confident all these problems could be solved.
He decided to forge ahead with his plans for the breeder
reactor, while other utilities in other parts of the country
generally favored the idea of the light-water reactor. Of major

importance was the offer of governmental aid. All the utilities

involved in developing either type of reactor would be
receiving considerable help. Design research would be made
freely available, and uranium fuel would be furnished at a
fraction of the cost that the AEC spent to produce it. And
since the plutonium produced by the breeder could be sold
back to the government, as the reactor continued to produce
more fuel than it consumed, the breeder reactor presented a
more attractive long-range picture.
It was so appealing that more blue-chip utilities joined in
with Cisler's breeder project. Dow Chemical, however,
withdrew to concentrate on the chemical aspects of the
nuclear field. At a later date, Ford and General Motors joined
in, too. The new consortium was named the Atomic Power
Development Associates, with Walker Cisler as president.
They would be facing endless meetings with the AEC as they
began to explore the potential of taming the mercurial atom.
The project staff was as aware of safety as anyone else,
and they would have to be considering both major and minor
dangers of a breeder reactor. The possibility of a runaway
meltdown is the most critical problem that any reactor,
breeder or otherwise, must face. When nuclear fuel, usually
uranium, melts like a candle into a waxy, drippy mass, it can
become unpredictable. It might melt down through the bottom
of the reactor vessel in what engineers call the "China
Syndrome" the molten mass of uranium heading down
through the earth toward China. If it forms into a thick mass,
it is possible for it to cause either a chemical or a small
nuclear explosion that might breach the containment building.
In turn, this could release a silent, odorless, tasteless,
colorless cloud of radioactive gases and particles into the
atmosphere. The resulting plume could contaminate, kill, and
injure as much or more than dozens, scores, or hundreds of
Hiroshima-type bombs-depending upon the size of the reactor

and the amount of fission products built up in the fuel as it

becomes depleted.
No scientist, even the strongest supporter of nuclear
power, disagreed that, if the unthinkable happened, there
would be a massive and unprecedented catastrophe.
None of the men in the AEC or private industry took this
responsibility lightly. They were as concerned as anyone
about their homes, their families, and their duty to the public.
When Cisler's staff met with AEC officials at the Detroit
Edison offices on November 10, 1954, in a guarded, classified
meeting, the safety issue was on everyone's mind. Present was
Walter Zinn, father of the EBR-I which had produced the first
token atomic electrical power, and Hans Bethe, the Nobel
laureate and physicist from Cornell, who was acting as a
consultant for Cisler's group.
The EBR-I was of critical importance to Cisler's project,
because it was a Tinker-Toy model of what would later be
built at Lagoona Beach. The enriched Uranium-235 fuel
would be almost the same for both reactors. If a runaway
meltdown should develop, and the fuel should reassemble
itself at the bottom of the reactor, it was entirely possible for
a breeder reactor like EBR-1, or the breeder planned for
Michigan, to turn itself into a mass similar to that of a nuclear
bomb, not with the same explosive power, but still a
significant contamination potential if the containment were
breached.
There were various names for this condition. Some
called it a "superprompt critical power excursion." Others
merely referred to it as "prompt critical." Whatever it was
called, it could create a chain reaction that might spin out of
control, and then nothing could be done to stop it. The major
consequence would very likely be a breach of containment,
and the spreading of radioactive fallout.

Zinn and Bethe agreed about what would happen if the

central section of the reactor core were to melt and run down
the tubes, and both made it clear that this could be a
disastrous event. If the fuel rods melted or warped, no one
could predict what kind of configuration might result. If it
were compact, Zinn felt, it could "disassemble the machine."
In plain language, this meant a nuclear explosion.
Although these possibilities were frankly admitted, the
men at the meeting were confident that engineering knowhow could make sure that this unthinkable possibility would
never happen. But the breeder, they felt, was the ultimate
answer to saving the world from a pending energy crisis.
They were convinced that their skills could conquer the
dangers and bring the benefits. Cisler was passionate in his
beliefs. "The breeder reactor," he said to his colleagues,
"would continuously produce amounts of fissionable material
in excess of that consumed. Thus breeder reactors would
augment rather than consume the world's supply of
fissionable materials."
The major question before these leading physicists and
engineers was never quite fully answered at the meeting: Was
it safe to place a developmental breeder reactor halfway
between Detroit and Toledo, within thirty miles of each city,
in the heart of an area embracing a population of over four
million?
In spite of the controversy that was to grow over the years,
the scientists who met at Detroit Edison on that November
day in 1954 were both inspired and determined to put the fastflying neutrons of Uranium-235 to work for the benefit of
society. Although their critics were saying that they were
making an unacceptable value judgment for the public, they
were dedicated to the task of building a reactor that would not
threaten their families, themselves, or the population. Their

foreknowledge of the potential dangers and their skill in

dealing with them would be their protective armor.
Shortly after the meeting, Walker Cisler announced that
ground breaking for the new fast-breeder would definitely
take place within the next five years. But Cisler's optimism
was not shared by another group absolutely necessary for the
building of the reactor: the insurance industry. With the
potential for a catastrophe created by any sort of reactor,
whether it be fast-breeder or light-water, it would be suicide
to begin operations without insurance.
The insurance men were chary and timid. They looked at
the nuclear power plants on the drawing boards, Cisler's
among them, with a fishy eye. The potential danger to the
public appeared so incredibly great that not a single insurance
company was interested in taking the gamble, not even
Lloyd's of London, the greatest of risk takers.
Chalk River had proven that accidents could happen.
There was still no realistic estimate as to exactly how many
people would be killed, maimed, or come down with
leukemia if an "energy release" hit a populated area. To
insure enriched uranium or plutonium could hardly be defined
as a conventional risk. As the most toxic substance known to
man, it has been estimated that even 1/30,000,000th of an
ounce of plutonium could bring on cancer if inhaled. And
what worried the insurers most were the plans being formed
by the AEC that called for the creation of several hundred
thousand pounds of plutonium by the end of the century, all
of it possessing a hazardous life span of a minimum of
480,000 years.
The insurance men were realists. And they were in
somewhat of a squeeze. They did not want the government to
take over the insurance function in this new, fast-moving
industry. Yet they had no firm data on which to estimate the
risk they would have to assume.

It was becoming a serious roadblock. Westinghouse

Electric, which became part of the elaborate conglomerate,
flatly stated that it would not be able to go ahead with the
construction of any atomic power plants unless it could get
protection against the enormous losses that would result from
a major nuclear accident. Westinghouse was joined by Con
Edison, the New York utility, which stated that it would not
think of operating its planned new light-water reactor if there
was no insurance available.
Charged with the strange and conflicting responsibility
of both regulating and promoting the fledgling nuclear
industry, the joint Committee on Atomic Energy of Congress
and the AEC were aware that, unless action was taken to
provide insurance protection, no atomic plants whatever
would be built or operated. Some proposals were being made
whereby the government might supplement whatever token
amount the insurance industry was willing to risk. One idea in
the wind was a proposal by Congressman Melvin Price and
Senator Clinton Anderson for a plan whereby the maximum
coverage would total only $560 million. Of this total the
industry was required to obtain as much insurance as the
private insurance pool would provide and the federal
government would provide the rest of the insurance up to a
maximum amount of $500 million. Since the private
insurance companies were willing to put up only $65 million
a drop in the bucket compared to the damages that might
result from a meltdown-the federal government's share was
$495 million. Critics of the proposal pointed out that, not only
would the public taxpayer be paying for private industry's
insurance, but that the ceiling limit might leave thousands of
victims unindemnified.
Cisler realized that all the engineering know-how he
could muster could not get around this obstacle. He began
pushing "war-risk insurance" from the government despite his

stand against government encroachment. He had not yet made

a formal proposal to the AEC to build the reactor. However,
the research and development work had moved ahead slowly
but persistently, and the formal application would not be far
off.
A good many scientists did not share Cisler's confidence in
the feasibility of building a commercial breeder reactor in a
heavily populated area. Among them was Dr. George L. Well,
a former research associate of the late Dr. Enrico Fermi at
Columbia-the man for whom Cisler's reactor would be named.
George Weil had been a member of the team of scientists that
had brought about the first sustained nuclear chain reaction
underneath Stagg Stadium in Chicago for the wartime
Manhattan Project. He had recently resigned as the chief of
the reactor branch of the division of research for the AEC,
and become a private consultant to companies interested in
going into atomic energy under the new government
incentives for so doing.
In April, 1955, several months after the secret meeting at
Detroit Edison, Well was asked confidentially by one of his
clients, a large utility company, whether it should join in with
Walker Cisler's pioneering effort. Weil gave the question
serious thought. His long experience, from the first splitting
of the atom at Stagg Stadium to his high responsibilities with
the AEC, had carried him through a painful process of
reexamination, and he had become specifically concerned
with what was happening in the growth of radioactive
poisons. He was not at all happy about it.
When he had started working with the Manhattan Project
during World War II, radium had been the only source of the
poisons. The entire amount in the world totaled a mere 1,000
curies of radium. The thinnest chip of radium is deadly. It

must be kept in a thick lead container and handled by remote

control.
But with the nuclear power plants being planned for the
future, it would be possible for a single nuclear power plant to
contain radioactive materials equal to 20 billion curies of
radium. With future projections showing hundreds of large
nuclear plants across the country over the next fifty years,
Weil began asking himself: "What kind of sword of Damocles
will be hanging over our heads now and in the future?"
Because of this, Well could not go along with the idea of
his client joining the Cisler power plant consortium. On April
26, 1955, he wrote a letter to them that said:
"it is my opinion that the time is not now ripe for the
construction of large scale developmental fast-breeder
reactors [the word fast referred to the high-speed neutrons].
The opinion is based on the following considerations:
"1. The technology of the fast-breeder reactors is in the
early stages of development.
"2. There are many difficult technical and engineering
problems which must be solved before commercially feasible
fast-breeder reactors can be constructed.
"3. The solution of these problems will involve a long
and costly program."
But there was also another very practical and subtle
thought underlying Weil's thinking: If there were to be only
one major nuclear plant accident (and even the AEC would
agree that this was entirely possible), the public outrage
would be so great because of the catastrophic loss of life and
injuries, that it would immediately spell the end of nuclear
power. Thus, the billions of dollars invested would be wiped
out-to say nothing of the estimated billions of dollars damage

caused by the accident. Was this precarious scaffold a

financially sound platform to build on?
Weil's letter went on to say that only small, pilot-scale
reactors should be attempted; the chance of success of the
Fermi reactor was small indeed. Because he was thinking in
terms of his client's benefit-risk outlook, his recommendation
was based purely on cold, profit-and-loss practicality. His
client agreed, and declined to join in the project.
In the months that followed the first classified meeting about
the Cisler plans, Alfred Amorosi was named technical
director of the project. His scientific design and research team
began examining every possible doubt about the safety of the
fast breeder. They were fortunate to have the experimental
reactor EBR-I out in Idaho Falls as a pilot plant. They would
be depending on it to provide test information about the
safety of their project.
Although the EBR-I was of such low power that it could
in no way act as a realistic blueprint for the full power
commercial reactor contemplated by the Detroit Edison
group, it could furnish a ground for experiments to forecast
stability and check weaknesses. Along with other
experimental reactors at the AEC test station in Idaho Falls,
the EBR-I also could supply information on what might
happen if there were a meltdown of the commercial reactor's
core.
Amorosi and his staff directed their attention to two
special danger areas in the design of the breeder reactor. One
concerned the ability of the reactor to decrease in reactivity as
its temperature rose an important safety concern when dealing
with split-second timing. For maximum safety, the reactor
should have what is called a "negative temperature
coefficient" to help control any sudden power surge by
keeping the power and temperature down.

Another subtle characteristic that could spell the

difference between safety and disaster was what was termed
the "Doppler effect." If this was negative, it was desirable,
because it slowed down the fissioning. If it was positive, it
was dangerous, because it could increase an already risky
power surge. The control of a reactor was often as delicate as
trying to adjust the hot water in a hotel shower at breakfast
time.
Both of these problems were carefully examined in
Washington on June 30, 1955, at another closed session of the
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. This was a
highly prestigious panel of technical and scientific specialists
formed by the AEC to screen all plans for nuclear power
plants. The panel was intensely interested in what Amorosi's
computations showed as far as these two built-in safety
devices were concerned.
Amorosi's figures showed that he was confident that the
"negative temperature coefficient" would serve as an
adequate brake in case of an unexpected temperature rise. His
computations on the Doppler effect, however, showed that it
would be positive meaning that it would add to the problems
if the reactor started to go out of control.
The specialists on the Advisory Committee took a long
hard look at these points at the Washington meeting. The
EBR-I, similar in concept to the Detroit breeder reactor, had
not been a perfect machine, by a long shot. It had been
showing its own problems with automatic built-in safety
checks. It was also having an oscillation problem, observers
having noted wide swings of unpredictable splitting of the
atoms.
The panel going over Amorosi's planning and progress
report in the closed session was somewhat ambivalent about
the entire picture. For example, shouldn't all the problems
with the EBR-I be straightened out before basing new plans

on its design? Or, if the EBR-I was showing the dangerous

"positive temperature coefficient," why should they expect
the larger commercial reactor not to have it? What would
happen to the stability of the reactor after plutonium was
formed? What if excessive fuel was loaded into the reactor?
What effect would the hot liquid sodium rushing through the
reactor have on these safety checks? None of the Detroit
Edison theories had been checked experimentally. How could
this be done safely?
Amorosi and the Detroit group contended at the meeting
that all this could be done after the reactor had been built at
Lagoona Beach. But several members of the Advisory
Committee did not think that was proper or safe.
The results of the June, 1955, meeting were ambiguous.
Later, in executive session, the Advisory Committee went
along with the calculations Amorosi had presented, but with
very clear reservations: "It must be recognized that the
assumptions on which these calculations are based have not
been established experimentally," their closed session report
read, "and must be so before the operation of such a reactor
could possibly be recommended for a site so close to a
populated area." [Italics added.] Then the report continued:
"If, as seems likely, this program includes start-up and lowpower transient experiments with the reactor itself at the
Michigan site before start-up, it must be established that such
experiments in themselves cannot lead to a containmentbreaching incident."
Among those who were determined that no such thing
would ever happen was young Walter McCarthy, head of
nuclear engineering for the Michigan project. Like Cisler,
McCarthy was a Cornell engineer, and he was a doer. Poised,
confident, and alert, he was a lanky Irishman who had tackled
the intricacies of nuclear reactors at Oak Ridge. He was also a

thinker, and he spent long weeks analyzing just what hazards

the fast-breeder might develop.
McCarthy's safety studies were infinitely complex and
exacting. Among other things, he was concerned about the
possibility of "an explosive energy release" occurring in the
core, which of course would be a bloodcurdling event of
unknown proportions. "Since the concentration and amount of
fissionable material in a fast power reactor is sufficient to
produce a number of critical masses if arranged compactly,"
he wrote in a cooperative study with an AEC physicist, "a
number of investigations have been made to consider the
redistribution and reassembly problem."
McCarthy was talking about the enormous danger of the
fuel in the reactor melting in microseconds, and rearranging
itself into an unpredictable shape that could explode, breach
the containment, and spew the massive amounts of
radioactive poisons into the air. Calculations up to this time
had shown that a severe meltdown accident in a commercialsized nuclear breeder plant could create an explosion equal to
a thousand or more pounds of TNT. McCarthy's analysis
indicated that there were many unknowns, few answers to
critical questions, many problems unsolved, and very little
experimental information in other important areas. Speaking
of the unknown area of the explosion possibility in a large
nuclear plant, McCarthy's paper concluded: "The possibility
that only a portion of such a reactor melts, undergoes a
relatively mild explosion which acts to compress other parts
of the core extremely rapidly, thus instigating a much larger
energy release [explosion], needs further investigation."
McCarthy had noted that the area of meltdown
investigation remained one of the central problems in fastbreeder safety studies. So much could occur so quickly that a
reactor could be destroyed before the control system would
have time to react. He also recognized that many of the

calculations regarding the new liquid sodium coolant, so

necessary to prevent an accident, were imperfect.
These were the sorts of problems that the engineers and
scientists working with Cisler were facing. But McCarthy had
the confidence that he and his fellow crew members could
overcome them. It was a challenge, and McCarthy reveled in
it. He and other staff members made frequent trips to the
sprawling, lonely AEC station at Idaho Falls to check out
their calculations in a series of mock-ups on the EBR-I
breeder and other small-scale reactors in the area.
Meanwhile, the insurance companies remained
unconvinced that a commercial nuclear reactor near a large
population center was an insurable risk. The entire pooled
insurance industry was not willing to offer any measurable
kind of protection beyond the $65 million token coverage.
And what was to happen with the EBR-I reactor in Idaho
Falls in November of 1955 did little to give the insurance
companies confidence.
One of the problems the AEC scientists had worried about
earlier was the sudden changes in fuel temperature at EBR-I.
A decision was made to run some tests and find out what was
causing the situation.
The central core of the EBR-I was shaped like a
hexagon. Packed tightly into it were some two hundred
stainless steel tubes called cladding. They looked very much
like curtain rods, less than half an inch in diameter. Inside
each were two pellets that looked like miniature Tootsie Rolls
which were made of highly enriched Uranium-235. Around
the central hexagon core were stacked the thicker rods of
what was called the inner blanket. These were made of raw
Uranium-238. They were bombarded by the leaking neutrons
from the core and converted into plutonium.

In an outer circle around both the core and the inner

blanket was an air-cooled outer blanket of Uranium-238
bricks. Down through this wall of bricks ran the control rods,
twelve of them. When they were withdrawn out of the pile,
the splitting of the atoms would begin; if inserted all the way
down, the splitting stopped. As a further safety measure, the
entire outer blanket could be dropped down out of the fission
action, providing for an emergency shutdown of the reactor.
The EBR-I reactor would be started at very low power
just a few watts. Then the power would be increased. Special
instruments were attached to key parts of the reactor
mechanism to keep track of the temperatures. They were
going to be allowed to rise to over 900F., not too many
degrees under the melting point of the fuel. It would be a
tricky operation. The control room staff would have to be
alert. And it was most essential that the operator at the control
be ready for an extremely rapid shutdown at exactly the right
moment. However, there was an experienced, knowledgeable
staff on hand, and there was little concern about their capacity
to handle the situation.
The experiment began normally at the very low-power
level of 11 watts-barely equal to the smallest of light bulbs.
The motor-driven control rods were slowly withdrawn out of
the core, and the fission reactivity increased up to 50 watts.
As the power level moved up to 500 watts, there were
confusing temperature readings among the special and
standard instruments. It became apparent that the reactor
might be on its way to an excursion-a sudden rapid rise in the
power level.
The plans, carefully laid out in advance, had prepared for
this sort of emergency. The scientist in charge was to give a
verbal command to the operator at the control panel. He, in
turn, was to immediately trip the fast-action control rods. The

slower, motor-driven rods could not handle the shutdown in

time.
With the temperature and power now definitely rising
out of control, the head scientist gave the command for the
operator to trip the fast control rods. They were dealing now
with a one-second leeway. By mistake, the operator hit the
button for the slower, motor-driven control rods.
The power continued to rise, doubling every two-tenths
of a second. The chief scientist then realized what had
happened. He reached over and hit the rapid shutoff button.
The safety rods responded but the power began increasing
again. The instruments went off scale.
Quickly, the scram button was pushed, which dropped
the Uranium-238 outer blanket to reduce the fission
reactivity. But within fifteen minutes, radioactivity was
registered in a cooling system some distance from the reactor,
and in the ventilation exhaust ducts.
The building was immediately evacuated. A healthphysics team moved in. They found low-level contamination
by radioactive fission gases, but fortunately no one was hurt.
Nearly half of the core of the small reactor had melted,
foaming and frothing as it did so. The temperatures had
reached over 2000F.-much more than the melting point of
the fuel and stainless steel cladding. The liquid sodium
coolant had boiled over, pushing the uranium outward from
the center of the core and blocking coolant channels. Partly
melted rods dropped into a molten mass below the core,
forming what is known as a eutectic mixture. The mass
finally chilled and froze. Fortunately, it did not turn itself into
a critical mass-an event that would have made an explosion a
strong possibility.
When the EBR-I crew began licking its wounds after the
excursion, they made several discoveries. One was that a
great many questions about the unsafe characteristics of the

breeder reactor remained unanswered. Another was that, with

the power of the reactor doubling every tenth of a second,
there was no margin for error. Still another was that the fuel
rods had probably bowed out of shape before the accident,
and had been the major cause of it.
But it was also obvious that, regardless of skill and
know-how, there had been both human and material
deficiencies. And if it had not been for the emergency
dropping of the blanket (the blanket "cup," it was called), the
reactor would have been one-half second away from either a
nuclear runaway or a "meltdown crash-down." In this
condition, the molten center of the core would freeze in a
tightly compact mass, followed by the upper part of the core
crashing down on it. The possibility of a low-order nuclear
explosion in such a case was real.
The EBR-I accident had serious implications for Cisler's
team. If the core of the EBR-I had been plutonium, there was
little question in the minds of experts that a disaster could
have occurred, even at the remote Idaho location. If the EBR-I
had been of the larger commercial size, the results of the
accident would certainly have been much more severe.
Because this reactor was critical to the design of the
Detroit reactor, there were ominous implications for the
future. It was obvious from the accident that human error
could not be ruled out. Yet with a commercial reactor in a
populated area, it somehow had to be. The words from the
carefully prepared scientific study of the accident by MIT
scientist T. J. Thompson would remain in the minds of the
Cisler group for a long time to come: "It is still a fact that
people and equipment are subject to failure. . . ."
The study of the accident left much conjecture, many
questions unanswered, and considerable doubt about what
actually happened. And the burning question also remained:
Would something like this happen in other reactors?

Several members of the joint Committee on Atomic

Energy were most disturbed, because, like the Fermi project
at Lagoona Beach, the EBR-I was a breeder reactor. It could
well reflect the type of problem that might have to be faced
with commercial reactors in the near future.
The accident was also sharply disturbing to the insurance
companies. They would ultimately be the ones to determine
whether any reactors would be built or not-unless the
government came through with the taxpayer-financed
insurance. The idea of "war-risk" insurance seemed totally
out of character with a peacetime venture. Yet there seemed
to be no other way out. The accident also punctuated the idea
that if a commercial reactor was so devastatingly threatening
as to require war-risk insurance, with damages equal to or
greater than the ravages of war, the risks would seem to be
too enormous to contemplate.
Henry Young, a vice-president of Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company, was particularly vexed by the situation.
No one as yet had come up with any realistic figures about the
highest amount of damages that might be leveled on the
public through a major nuclear accident. To Young, the
catastrophe hazard appeared to be many times as great as
anything previously known in industry. And he voiced his
fears to the joint Committee on Atomic Energy: "We have
heard estimates of catastrophe running not merely into
millions or tens of millions but into hundreds of millions and
billions of dollars. It is a reasonable question as to whether a
hazard of this magnitude should be permitted, if it actually
exists. Obviously there is no principle of insurance that can
be applied to a single location where the potential loss
approaches such astronomical proportions." Then he added:
"Even if insurance could be found, there is a serious question
whether the amount of damage to persons and property

would be worth the possible benefit accruing from atomic

development." [Italics added.]
So the nagging question was: If nuclear power plants were
safe, why wouldn't the insurance companies back them up?
Or as another critic put it: "If the insurance companies don't
believe the AEC's promise that there is little chance of an
accident, why should the people living in the same region
believe it?"
If this attitude were to prevail, Cisler's dream would
never come true. But neither he nor the AEC nor the
congressional Joint Committee were about to back off in spite
of the Chalk River and EBR-I accidents-or the seemingly
impassable roadblock as far as insurance was concerned.

THREE

By the first week in January, 1956, Cisler had officially

applied for a construction permit at the Lagoona Beach site
and was waiting for permission from the AEC to proceed. He
formed another non-profit combine called the Power Reactor
Development Company to carry out the actual construction
and operation of the reactor. The new combine consisted
mainly of companies that had joined him purely for the design
work of the reactor. The earlier combine had been called the
Atomic Power Development Associates, and the two units
became known as the APDA and the PRDC, joining the
proliferation of acronyms in the atomic energy field that were
growing like a spilled box of Scrabble letters. What counted
was that the two organizations were really Walter Cisler, and
the new reactor was to be named the Enrico Fermi Atomic
Power Plant. The first cost estimate for the project came to
$40 million.
The preparation of the license application for the new
Fermi plant was a massive job. It amounted to many thick,
bound volumes of hundreds of pages covering every aspect of
the operation from design and fabrication to an analysis of the

expected hazards. The philosophy laid down by Cisler was to

design the plant so that no credible malfunction or accident
could release any of the deadly radioactive fission products
from the reactor. Further, if the incredible should happen,
there must be no way that the tightly sealed containment
building could be breached by an explosion or a dreaded
sodium-air reaction that could eat up all the oxygen and
collapse the building.
The safety hazards section of the license application was
prepared with meticulous care by Cisler's staff. Every
conceivable type of accident was spelled out in detail, and the
ways of controlling it assessed. One possibility concerned a
surge of reactivity of the chain reaction during the operation
or during the loading of the fuel. Another was the fast
reassembly of the material in the core during a meltdown
when the uncontrolled fuel would pile up dangerously. Either
could lead to a nuclear runaway or explosion.
These possible accidents were divided between those
which were considered "credible," and those which were
thought to be "hypothetical." The "hypothetical" group was
defined as being so improbable that they were incredible. In
either classification, the license application examined such
possibilities as primary sodium system leaks (bringing fire
and explosion on contact with air or water), loss of plant
electric supply (with the loss of coolant and a runaway
meltdown), the dropping of a core subassembly during
refueling (another uncontrolled meltdown possibility), the
failure of the safety rods to fall (another runaway situation),
and the ultimate meltdown accident one that the containment
shell failed to hold.
Because there was no experience to work on regarding
many of the possible ways a runaway meltdown might go,
much of the theory had to depend on guesswork. It was like
trying to predict how the logs in a fireplace might fall as they

burned. One of the most feared conditions would be that of a

secondary accident after the first part of the meltdown had
chilled and frozen. The slightest disturbance of a pile of
melted fuel could cause unpredictable havoc. Yet the written
application was forced to note that "no experimental data"
were available on this.
Because of the importance of the containment shellthe
last barrier between a meltdown and the publicthe plans for
its construction were elaborate. Hans Bethe had calculated
that the containment would have to stand the force of a
nuclear explosion equal to that of five hundred pounds of
TNT, although there were other nuclear scientists who
claimed the explosion could be much greater. Some
independent studies indicated it could be up to twenty times
that force.
Two Fermi consultants studied what might theoretically
happen to a containment building that would have to hold a
blast equal to five hundred pounds of TNT. They calculated
that the blast wave would deform the wall permanently, but
that the steel and concrete would keep the deformations
within tolerable limits. They estimated that the operating
floor would crack, but not endanger the containment vessel.
They were uncertain whether the materials inside the reactor
itself, including the sodium piping and the reactor vessel,
would fracture and form missiles. However, if such missiles
were formed, the scientists did not think they would break
through the containment walls.
The missile problem had to be considered from both
inside and out of the big reactor dome. The velocity of a
tornado had never been measured, but it was known that it
could hurl huge objects with deadly power. It was thought
that a 35-foot telephone pole weighing 1,600 pounds, going
150 miles an hour, could be slammed against a nuclear power
plant building by a tornado, and that the containment shell

should be designed to withstand this. When it was discovered

that it was practically impossible to design for such a
contingency, the criteria were relaxed so that the shell would
only have to protect against a four-inch by twelve-inch
wooden plank.
One exterior hazard that still hangs over every nuclear
plant is the possibility of heavy modern aircraft falling into it.
Because the probabilities would be so small, this factor was
generally dismissed. Other considerations were earthquakes
and floods which would be equally dangerous.
Armed with the written application, estimates, and
blueprints, the men of the Fermi project met to present their
case to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in
early June of 1956. The decision to permit Cisler to go ahead
with the actual construction of the reactor rested heavily on
this meeting. He gathered his best men around him, among
them Amorosi, McCarthy, and Hans Bethe, and the group met
at the AEC's Argonne National Laboratories, outside of
Chicago. The chairman of the Advisory Committee was the
highly regarded atomic scientist C. Rogers McCullough of
Monsanto Chemical. He headed the group of a dozen nuclear
experts, including Dr. Edward Teller.
The meetingand the eventual approval of the
construction permit for the Fermi reactorcentered around
one very important question brought up by the AEC's division
of civilian application. "Is there sufficient information to
allow the AEC to state with reasonable assurance that a
reactor of the type under consideration can be constructed and
operated at the site selected without undue risk to the health
and safety of the public?"
There were also a lot of ancillary questions: Would the
reactor be stable enough so that there would be no risk of a
meltdown? Would a disastrous nuclear explosion result from
the manner in which the fuel arranged itself in a meltdown?

Would the design of the containment building really hold the

radioactive debris safely? Could experiments be carried out at
Lagoona Beach before a full-power operation, without the
experiments themselves being too much of a safety risk?
Could even the start-up tests at low power be conducted
safely? How safe would the Fermi reactor be after substantial
amounts of plutonium had built up in the core blanket, where
it would be bred?
These were not easy questions. But they were vital as far
as the public was concerned. On everybody's mind was the
EBR-I accident. Walter Zinn talked about it at the meeting,
and showed pictures of the melted, twisted core. There was
still a big question mark as to why the accident had happened.
The destruction of this reactor core had made many tests for
the Fermi plant impossible to carry out. A new EBR-II was
being constructed, but this would be completed too late to
serve as a model if the Fermi plant was already under
construction, as Cisler hoped it would be. But also, neither
the EBR-I nor the EBR-II could really test what would
happen to the bigger commercial reactor once it went into
operation. Other plans for adequate checking out of the Fermi
design were either too premature to be of use, or simply
inadequate.
One suggestion was that a few fuel rods of enriched
Uranium-235 could be assembled with a Uranium-238
blanket around them, then placed in a pot of liquid sodium
and brought to a meltdown condition for testing. But even a
simple assembly like this would take well over a year to
create. Elaborate safety precautions would be needed, even
with the smallest collection of enriched uranium.
Cisler's group, pushing for approval, pointed out that the
Naval Ordnance Laboratory had estimated that the design
would hold an explosion of five hundred pounds of TNT.
Some of the arguments for approval, however, seemed weak

in the light of public safety in the Detroit area. The start-up

test program at the Lagoona Beach site was going to be relied
on to check out whether or not an unpredictable surge of
power or temperature would be a. characteristic of the new
Fermi reactor. The Cisler team argued that, since the tests
would be at a low-power level, there would be less chance of
runaway meltdown. The general attitude of the Advisory
Committee had been that there should be no chance
whatsoever of a runaway meltdown.
Another point that was discussed had ominous
implications. The critical testing of the reactor would be
carried out only when the wind direction was favorable for
"minimum population exposure" in the event of a radiation
accident. This implied a suggestion of insecurity in the
safeguards that were supposed to be so airtight. But beyond
that, the wind direction on the Ohio shore of Lake Erie was
notoriously fickle. And regardless of the wind direction, there
would be a considerable number of people exposed,
especially the several hundred homes in the Stony Point area.
Left unanswered was what would happen to the stability
of the Fermi reactor after the plutonium had built up, and
after the thin rods of fuel had been battered by constant
radiation. Also left up in the air was what would happen if the
fuel melted, and the reactor was still unable to be kept under
control. The secondary aspects of an accident were often
more terrifying than the accident itself.
Cisler and the Fermi group left the meeting in a mist of
uncertainty, as the Advisory Committee continued in
executive session. The latter group was facing a rather
awesome responsibility to the public. But as an independent
arm of the AEC it was also faced with the policy directive
from Chairman Lewis Strauss to push hard for the
development of commercial atomic power. This conflict was
mounting constantly, as other utilities began cautiously to get

in on the tempting new source of energy. The anomaly lay in

the continuing position of the AEC and the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy to regulate on one hand and promote on
the other. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
was the only real regulation force. But, inasmuch as it
actually reported to the AEC, its independence was in
question.
After Cisler's group had gone, the Advisory Committee
argued long and ponderously about the wisdom of giving a
go-ahead to the Fermi project. The twelve experts spent two
more days trying to come to a yes-or-no answer to the AEC's
civilian application division's question: Was there enough
information to say that the Fermi plant could be built without
undue risk to the health and safety of the public?
Special studies on the outside limits of danger from a
nuclear power plant were already underway. Congress had
asked the AEC to estimate in exact terms how many people
would be killed and maimed, and what sort of property
damage would result from a hypothetical major reactor
accident near a large city somewhere in the U.S. To that end,
the AEC had commissioned a study by a group of scientists
and engineers at the Brookhaven National Laboratory on
Long Island. This study would come to be known as the
WASH-740 report. The results of the study would have an
important impact not only on the development of atomic
power reactors but on the willingness of private insurance
companies to cover such plants. Further, Cisler had launched
his own studies at the University of Michigan to determine
what would happen if there were a major nuclear accident at
the Fermi site itself. Preliminary rumblings about what both
the AEC and the University of Michigan studies might come
up with were not at all reassuring. Some rumors were that
estimates for the worst possible type of accident at the Fermi
plant would run to more than 100,000 killed.

It would take until the following year 1957 before the

official figures on both studies would be released.
By the end of the third day, the Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards finally reached a decision. Rogers
McCullough, the chairman, sat down on June 6, 1956, to
carefully frame a letter to K. E. Fields, the general manager of
the AEC in Washington. Fields was responsible for running
the commission, under Chairman Strauss and the four other
commissioners of the AEC board.
McCullough began the letter with the guarded statement
that the proposed Fermi plant represented a greater step in the
state of atomic power than any existing reactor. Then he
listed the conclusions of the advisory group:
"1. Even though there are no facts or calculations
available to the Committee that clearly indicate the proposed
reactor is not safe for this site, the Committee believes there
is insufficient information available at this time to give
assurance that the PRDC [Fermi] reactor can be operated at
this site without public hazard.
"2. It appears doubtful that sufficient experimental
information will be available in time to give assurance of safe
operation of this reactor unless the present fast [breeder]
reactor program of the A.E.C. is amplified and accelerated as
detailed below.
"3. It is impossible to say whether or not an accelerated
program would give sufficient information to permit safe
operation of this reactor at the Lagoona Beach site on the
time schedule presently proposed."
McCullough then went on to list the steps that would
have to be taken to provide enough information to make an
informed judgment. The power surge problem with the EBRI, for instance, would have to be clearly understood so that
there would be no danger of a similar accident happening at

Fermi. The EBR-I accident had been within a half-second of

disaster. If anything like that happened in the Detroit area
with the larger Fermi reactor, almost certainly the future of
atomic power plants would be cut off before they could get
off the ground.
McCullough also noted that provisions would have to be
made to keep the fuel elements of the Fermi reactor from
bowing out of shape, as had happened in the EBR-I. Any time
the thin rods bearing the fuel moved into a more compact
shape, the splitting of the atoms could intensify and begin to
run away.
There would also have to be assurance that any start-up
tests slated for the Fermi site would be checked out in
advance, in an unpopulated area. Unless a "negative
temperature coefficient"-needed to wipe out a sudden surge of
power was available to prevent a meltdown, no chances could
be taken. The whole pre-testing program should be fully
verified to make sure that there could be no meltdown "under
any conceivable circumstances of control mal-operation," as
McCullough put it in his letter.
He continued by commenting that the Advisory
Committee as a whole "was not satisfied with the evidence
presented that no credible supercriticality accident resulting
from meltdown could breach the container. It is felt that a
more extensive theoretical and experimental program to
examine all the possibilities needs to be established and
pursued vigorously. . . ."
Most important, McCullough pointed out, were "mockup experiments, to insure subcritical distribution of melted
fuel, and to assure that free fall of core parts cannot
reassemble a critical mass suddenly." In other words, if the
fuel melted and suddenly dripped into a thick mass at the
bottom of the core, an explosion could result that would be
unpredictable. (Some studies have noted that the fuel could

become compacted a deadly condition-as it bashed into the

other metals in the core to cause one explosion, which in turn
could cause another one much larger than the first. A small
meltdown or small explosion would not necessarily spell the
end of the danger.)
McCullough congratulated Cisler's group for its
pioneering effort to advance nuclear power, but concluded:
"The Committee does not feel that the steps to be taken
should be so bold as to risk the health and safety of the
public."
The letter boiled down to three things. First, the planned
Fermi reactor would probably be a threat to public safety.
Second, there wasn't enough experimental information to
make it safe. Third, the situation could not be corrected in
time for the schedule proposed by Cisler.
The moment it was received by Strauss, the letter was
marked "Administratively Confidential." For three weeks,
neither the public nor the joint Committee on Atomic Energy
heard anything further about whether the construction permit
for the Fermi plant had been approved or turned down. Plans
for the Fermi reactor seemed to be floating in limbo. No
construction permit had been issued, but neither was there
any word of rejection.
On June 28, twenty-two days later, Chairman Strauss
went to testify before the House Appropriations Committee
on an entirely different matter. During the routine questioning
by the congressmen, Strauss casually mentioned that he was
going to attend the ground-breaking ceremonies for the new
Fermi plant at Lagoona Beach, Michigan, on August 8 only a
little more than a month away.
The full effect of his comment was not felt until the next
day, when Thomas E. Murray, a fellow-member of the
Atomic Energy Commission board, went before the same
House committee and told them in no uncertain terms that the

designs that the Detroit Edison Company had submitted to the

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards were not
satisfactory, and had been turned down by that committee
over three weeks before. He went on to say that the fastbreeder reactor was classified by experts as the most
hazardous of all the reactors. Further, no construction permit
had been issued by the AEC.
Beyond that, Commissioner Murray made it known that
Chairman Strauss had marked the Advisory Committee report
secret, overruling accepted practices. Obviously, there was a
storm brewing among the five AEC commissioners
themselves, with Strauss and Murray squaring off for battle.
When the news of what had happened hit the joint
Committee on Atomic Energy, Congressman Chet Holifield
and Senator Clinton Anderson broke out in unison to
condemn Lewis Strauss's cavalier action. As chairman of the
joint Committee, Anderson demanded that the AEC make the
safety report public immediately, since it raised serious
questions about the safety of the Fermi reactor, and that it was
so close to Detroit. He said the joint Committee would get at
"the full facts involved in the precipitate action" Strauss had
taken. Holifield joined him in the protest, charging that the
safety warning by the Advisory Committee had been
deliberately suppressed.
Governor Soapy Williams and the fiery Senator Pat
McNamara of Michigan immediately joined the chorus.
Williams wired the AEC demanding that it release the safety
report for public scrutiny. "It is my constitutional duty to
protect the people of Michigan," the governor's telegram
stated.
The only response from Strauss was that there would be
"no public answer" to the telegram. Rumors had it that
Strauss had agreed with Cisler that the Fermi construction
should begin immediately, in the hope that the technical

problems could be solved before an operating permit would

be issued. Meanwhile, Strauss rejected Governor Williams's
request to make the safety report public.
Senator Anderson kept pressing. He sent a telegram to
Governor Williams, telling him not to take "no" for an
answer. "Is the State of Michigan going to be kept in the
dark?" Anderson asked in the telegram. If so, how would
Michigan know how to guide its actions in dealing with the
safety hazards that were obviously looming in the Fermi
reactor?
It wasn't until mid July, more than a month after the
Advisory Committee's letter had been written, that Cisler's
group made any comment. A brief statement to the press said
Senator Anderson's allegations were untrue, and that the
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards had simply
requested more information on the design of the Fermi reactor
and more experimental confirmation of some of the factors
involving it.
On July 18, the AEC finally decided to acknowledge
Governor Williams's request for more information. K. E.
Fields assured Williams in a long telegram that the "health
and safety of the public would be protected" in issuing a
construction permit for the Fermi reactor. But, on the grounds
that it was a preliminary and internal document, Fields
refused to reveal what was in the safety report. He went on to
say: "I believe that there is some misunderstanding as to the
function of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards,
and the report it has submitted.
"The committee is a committee of consultants
established by the commission for the purpose of giving the
commission technical advice on matters relating to reactor
safety. The commission has received advice from the
committee in a letter setting forth certain views as to technical
matters involved in the safety of the reactor which the Power

Reactor Development Company [the official name for Cisler's

group to build the Fermi reactor] proposes to build at
Monroe, Michigan.
"The advice received from the committee will be taken
into consideration along with the advice and views of other
commission technical staff members on safety and other
pertinent matters in passing on the application of the company
for a facilities license and construction permit under the
licensing provisions of the law and the commissions
regulations."
The telegram seemed to forecast approval of the Fermi
construction license. The assumption was correct. On August
4, 1956, the AEC issued the construction permit. It was just
four days before the planned ceremonies at Lagoona Beach.
Outcries were not long in coming. Even though the AEC
assured critics that the plant would not be allowed to operate
until safety was certain, the protests grew. Senator Anderson
called the AEC approval a "star chamber" proceeding, and
announced that the joint Committee of Congress would begin
an immediate investigation. He said that the question of
safety must be answered before permission was given to
build, rather than afterward. With between $40 and $50
million being invested in the plant, he said, there would be
enormous pressures to let the plant operate, even though
safety risks still existed.
Holifield was also incensed. He called for a repeal of the
license and demanded that President Eisenhower step in and
rescind the construction permit on the grounds of inadequate
public safety. He added: "If I were Governor of Michigan, I
would take legal steps to prevent the construction of a reactor
that has not yet been declared free of hazard." He noted that
the accident of the EBR-I in Idaho had come perilously close
to being a disaster, and that it was many times smaller than

the Fermi reactor, and completely isolated from large

communities.
Both Anderson and Holifield agreed that they would ask
the next Congress to rescind the power of the AEC to grant
licenses to private utilities. In addition, they would write into
the AEC law a provision that all safety factors must be
brought openly before the public before any permission to
build or operate would be granted.
But Governor Williams was silent. He seemed to be
reassured by the long AEC telegram. And Cisler's
organization hailed the issuing of the construction permit as
confirmation of their safety precautions. "We are confident,"
Cisler told a reporter, "that the reactor presents no hazard
whatever. We would not think of building or operating it if
we were not sure of this."
Regardless of the storm of controversy, the groundbreaking ceremony at Lagoona Beach on August 8 was an
historic occasion. As the breezes from Lake Erie teased the
flags and the bunting, the speeches glowed with optimism.
Strauss was on hand, as promised, and the only thing
tempering the festivities were the thunderheads that were
certain to intensify as the first shovelful of Michigan dirt
signaled the beginning of the construction.
The biggest thunderclap that followed the ceremonies
came from Walter Reuther, president of the United Auto
Workers. Senator Anderson had placed a call to him after
Commissioner Murray's disclosure that the safety committee's
recommendations had been ignored, and suggested that
Reuther's union should bring a suit against the Fermi project.
It didn't take Reuther long to act. By the end of August,
he had made a public charge against both the AEC and the
Power Reactor Development Company. He demanded a
public hearing based on the fact that the AEC had issued the
construction permit against the advice of its own safety

committee. He also reminded the public that during a recent

congressional hearing, Strauss had called the fast-breeder the
most dangerous of all reactors. Referring to the letter from the
Advisory Committee, which had finally been made public, he
noted that the safety report had said that it was uncertain
whether a meltdown and fuel reassembly could cause an
explosion that would breach the container. Then he added: "In
everyday language, this means that the reactor might convert
itself into a small-scale atomic bomb." Beyond that, Reuther
claimed that building such a plant would endanger at least
three million people in a thirty-mile radius around the plant.
A Cisler spokesman countered by saying that the Fermi
project had only received a construction license, and that an
operating permit would not be issued until the plant had been
built and checked out.
Almost inevitably, the issue began to shift from public
safety to politics. Both Anderson and Holifield had been
pushing for a public atomic power reactor program to
supplement that of private industry, on the theory that nuclear
power was too complex and costly for private industry to
handle alone. A bill on this line had recently been defeated in
Congress.
Cisler, usually quiet and soft-spoken, reacted vigorously
to Reuther's demands. He tied them to the pressure to give
private industry a back seat. "We are headed down the road to
a socialist state," he told the Detroit Free Press. He later
added that opponents of private power were "prepared to use
any subterfuge to keep atomic power development in the
hands of the government." He announced that the safety issue
was a subterfuge, that the key to the controversy was public
versus private power. "I think they are hitting below the belt,"
he said.
But there were others who felt that the issue was one of
safety, and safety alone. They believed that the political

controversy was only a minor offshoot, and that the reactors

should be guaranteed safe whether they were public or
private. As Reuther explored the ways and means of bringing
charges against the AEC to halt the Fermi project, Michigan
Senator Pat McNamara, an outspoken critic of the project,
rose in the Senate chambers to say:
Mr. President, I have been keenly interested in the efforts
of the Power Reactor Development Company to build a fastbreeder reactor near Monroe, Michigan.
As a Senator from the State of Michigan, it is my job to
be interested in what happens in the State of Michigan,
particularly when it involves the Federal Government.
Shortly after PRDC made its initial moves to build the
reactor, I began to get suspicious of the motives of PRDC and
the methods it was using.
As time went on, it became apparent that PRDC was
receiving not only aid and comfort from the Atomic Energy
Commission but something approaching outright collusion to
steamroller through this project.
First and foremost in my mind was the vastly important
question of safety of the proposed reactor.
Safety, of course, is important when one deals with
atomic energy in any capacity.
But why is safety of such paramount importance at the
PRDC reactor?
One has only to look at the map of Michigan, Mr.
President.
Lagoona Beach, the site of this reactor, is just outside
Monroe, a city of well over 20,000 inhabitants.
And Monroe, Mr. President, is only about 30 miles from
Detroit, a city of over 2 million, and surrounded by populous
suburbs.
That is why safety is so important.

Up to now, the A.E.C. has appeared to run roughshod

over the safety question. And there are many questions to be
answered.
Were these questions raised solely by laymen-who know
little or nothing about the complexities and technicalities of
atomic reactors?
No. They were raised by the A.E.C.'s own Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
And its questions to date have never been answered.
Aiming his righteous indignation directly at Walker
Cisler, he set down his objections in a stinging letter to the
Fermi reactor chief:
Dear Mr. Cisler:
Let me make my own position clear at the outset. I reject
the myth you have concocted that this is solely a fight
between public and private power interests.
I would be more than happy if this work in the peacetime
uses of atomic energy could be carried by private enterprise.
I also, under normal conditions, would be extremely
happy that this work was to be done in Michigan, with
Michigan companies playing a leading role.
What I object to is the sanctimonious approach you are
making to the public.
You attempt to put across the notion that this work can
be done by private enterprise without a dollar of the
taxpayer's money being involved you underplay the safety
questions-and you charge that any interference or questioning
of your scheme is "politics."
Cisler responded by moving doggedly ahead with the
construction. At the end of the month, the construction crews

began pumping tons of liquid cement into the rocky base at

the site a process called grouting. It would fill the fissures and
create a solid foundation for the reactor. By October 1, the
excavations for the foundations had begun. By the end of
October, the contracts for the huge reactor vessel weighing
350 tons, and three stories high-had been signed. It would be
a giant stainless steel pot, like an elongated pressure cooker,
with walls up to two inches thick. This in turn would be
encased in another pot with a domed top. By December, the
pouring of concrete for the foundations had begun. Slowly,
the projectnow estimated at $50 millionwas beginning to
take shape.
As 1957 began, the momentum of the elaborate project
was gaining swiftly. But the first week in January brought
other developments too: The public hearings requested by
Walter Reuther began. His United Auto Workers were joined
in the battle by two other unions, the International Union of
Electrical Workers and the United Paper Workers of America
both AFL-CIO. It was the first public hearing ever held on the
safety of a nuclear power plant. With the construction already
in progress, the stakes were high. Walker Cisler wanted to get
on with the job, unhindered by defending the reactor at
hearings or lawsuits. He was convinced that he could make
the reactor safe after it was completed, in spite of the
reservations of the Advisory Committee report. "In my
opinion, it is the most outstanding project in the world today,"
he told a reporter.
Reuther, in a letter to Cisler, pointed out that he had
demanded the hearing because the UAW had 500,000
members living in the Detroit-Toledo area whose lives could
be jeopardized if the Fermi plant were completed and went
into operation. He urged that Cisler cancel the plans for the
Lagoona Beach site, and build a prototype fast-breeder
reactor at a remote site away from a large population. "A

similar but smaller reactor operated by the A.E.C. in Idaho

went wild in November, 1955," he said, "and for six months
was so radioactive it couldn't be taken down for repair. The
permit issued by the A.E.C. admits there is uncertainty as to
whether there is a credible condition of meltdown and
reassembly of the fuel of the reactor which would result in an
explosion that would breach this gas-tight building
surrounding the reactor." He compared the situation with the
construction of power reactors in Great Britain. They were
building one reactor at Dounreay, on the farthest tip of
Scotland. They had built another at Windscale, in the
borderland Lake District, away from cities and where the
population was scattered.
The hearings began on January 8, 1957. They were to
drag out for over two years. At the opening session, the Fermi
group presented six expert witnesses, with Hans Bethe among
them. Bethe insisted, in spite of many expert reports to the
contrary, that the plant could be built without undue hazards
to the lives and health of the public. In a counterattack,
Reuther quoted the AEC's own Advisory Committee's
warning about the lack of safety, and emphasized that an
unproven and experimental reactor had no business being
placed between Detroit and Toledo. He asked that the
construction permit be rescinded.
Not the least interesting of Reuther's contentions was
that the flight pattern for instrument approaches to the Grosse
Ile Naval Air Station passed directly over the Fermi site. At
least thirty-six approaches a day were made by the Navy
planes. While it might be unlikely for one of the planes to
plow into the reactor buildings, the results of such an accident
would be so catastrophic that the question was: Should this be
risked at the expense of the population?
Cisler's group presented 322 pages of written testimony
in defense of the Fermi plant. Because of the volume of

material, the hearings were adjourned to permit the hearing

examiner to absorb all the arguments. As the hearings
dragged into March, Cisler reiterated his stand that the
arguments on safety would have no bearing until the plant
was ready for operation in late 1959. Reuther reiterated his
stand that the lives of an enormous number of people were at
stake, and that the AEC's own experts had charged that even
testing at the Fermi site was unsafe.
The question was still dangling as to what were the
potential catastrophe figures for a major accident in a
commercial reactor in a heavily populated area. But in midMarch, just as the steel construction work was beginning to
rise at Lagoona Beach, the first estimates of potential
casualties from a reactor accident were officially released by
the AEC. They came from the WASH-740, or Brookhaven
report, which dealt with the problem of what would happen if
the engineered safeguards of a reactor failed to function, and
the deadly fission products were released into the atmosphere.
The results were so appalling that even the most devout
believer of fission power was stunned and shocked.

FOUR

When the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy had

nudged the AEC into making the WASH-740 study, it had
been hoped that the safety picture would be encouraging
enough to reassure the private insurance companies and bring
them into the fold. The Fermi reactor and the other nuclear
plants planned throughout the country were still without any
assurance they could get adequate insurance coverage. For the
potential claims of all people killed and injured by an
accident there was still only a token $65 million, timidly
offered as a ceiling by a pool of the entire insurance industry.
Thus the results of the WASH-740 study had been
awaited anxiously for nearly a year. The study group had
been set up to try to define the outside limits of damage that
would result from a major nuclear accident. To calculate the
results, the group took the case of an imaginary reactor,
situated thirty miles from an imaginary major city, on a large
body of water, and in a low population density area. This
happened to be very similar to the Fermi site, but was not
intended to represent any particular reactor.

The study was to be objective. There would be no

deliberate attempt to make it either unduly pessimistic or
optimistic. It would be forced to examine the worst possible
case, but the AEC admitted: "This study does not set an upper
limit for the potential damage; there is no known way at
present to do this."
The conditions assumed that the radioactive fission
products in the core would have twenty-four hours after an
accident to partially decay before the containment vessel was
breached and the fallout released. In the case chosen, fifty
percent of these fission products would escape into the
atmosphere.
Even though an exuberant AEC public information man
once tried to soften the ugly potential of fallout by defining
the radioactive poisons as "sunshine units," any fission
product inhaled or absorbed by the skin is deadly. And since
they can't be seen, heard, felt, smelled (except by a rat, oddly
enough), or tasted, these poisons are insidious. Among the
most deadly of the fission products are Cesium-137,
Strontium-90, Iodine-131, and Plutonium-239. There are
others: halogens, rare earths, and what are called noble gases,
because they refuse to mix in with the common herd of the
atomic family. Some decay rapidly, and remain lethal for only
hours or days. Others, like plutonium, take up to 24,000 years
to lose half their radioactive potency. Ten tons of plutonium
could produce nearly 200,000 billion particles of dust. Each
particle is capable of producing lung cancer. Normally
plutonium would not be released from a light-water reactor,
but if even a very small quantity should be, it could be
harmful.
Strontium-90 masquerades as calcium, and dives into the
human system straight for the bones. Iodine-131 pretends to
act like normal iodine, and goes for the thyroid and salivary
glands. The entire ghoulish family of fission products emit

alpha, beta, or gamma rays that have little respect for the cells
of the body.
The figures that emerged from the group's carefully
calculated studies were not encouraging. If the assumed
accident happened under what is known as a common
nocturnal inversion condition, the lethal cloud of radioactive
gases and particles would kill an estimated 3,400 people
within 15 miles of the plant. Severe radiation sickness would
fell another 43,000 people up to 44 miles away from the
accident. Another 182,000 people up to 200 miles away from
the source would be exposed to a dose that would double the
chances of cancer. Property damage alone would amount to
$7 billion about 10 percent of the government receipts at the
time in 1957.
The problem of evacuation the only real answer to a
massive release of radioactivity was even more discouraging.
From a hypothetical accident like the one proposed, 66,000
people would have to be rapidly moved out of a 92-squaremile area, stretching to a point as far as 100 miles downwind
from the damaged plant. For slower evacuation, 460,000
people would have to be moved out of their homes, up to 320
miles downwind from the accident.
Projecting these figures to a major accident at an atomic
plant near New York City, the accident could affect homes as
far away as Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Portland, Maine, or
Richmond, Virginia. If the same thing happened in a nuclear
plant near Chicago, the effects could be felt as far away as St.
Louis or almost to Des Moines, or Louisville, Kentucky. A
major Detroit accident could, under these conditions, affect
Toronto, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, or Chicago.
The release of these WASH-740 figures in March, 1957,
brought on another storm of controversy, casting a shadow on
the steel skeleton rising on the edge of Lake Erie. In a letter
accompanying the report, the AEC hastened to explain that

the casualty and damage estimates were unrealistically high,

because they were based on the worst possible combination of
circumstances. Critics of the AEC pointed out that the figures
represented lower damage from radiation than could be
expected, and that genetic damage and the danger of cancer
had been overlooked altogether in the report. It also, they
said, failed to take into consideration the radiation scattered
back after it had been deposited on the ground.
Cisler was now facing not only the threat of Walter
Reuther's lawsuit, but the possibility that he would be unable
to get sufficient insurance to put the Fermi plant into
operation, even if it was cleared for an AEC operating
license. He still had hopes for his own study, then in progress
at the University of Michigan, which was considering the
possible effects of an accidental release of fission products
specifically from the Fermi plant. But it would not be finished
for two or three months.
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was aware of
the problem of persuading insurance companies to insure
against such mammoth risks. The committee wanted to foster
atomic power, in spite of its concern over the untested
breeder reactor. Not only were the private companies unable
to offer coverage to the power plants, but they were making it
impossible for any home owner to be protected from any
damage to his house as the result of a nuclear accident. Every
home owner policy excluded this sort of damage. The same
applied to automobile policies. No coverage would be
provided if an automobile were so damaged.
As a result of this impasse and in spite of their concern
about the safety of a breeder so near Detroit, Senator Clinton
Anderson and Congressman Melvin Price were pushing hard
to put through what would become the Price-Anderson Act,
providing government insurance for nuclear energy plants up
to $500 million. In addition, the utility companies would be

required to get as much private insurance as they could in

order to qualify for this protection-to date the $65 million
offered by the private insurance pool.
An interesting feature of the Price-Anderson Act loudly
protested by the critics fighting fission power was that none
of the utilities or manufacturers of the reactors would be
responsible for any of the damage to the public beyond that
ceiling. With $7 billion estimated in property damages by
WASH-740, added to untold billions in death and injury
claims, those suffering from the results would have to make it
on their own beyond the $560 million ceiling. Not only were
the utilities protected from financial loss that might result
from their own negligence, but the taxpayers would be paying
for their insurance through the Price-Anderson Act.
Those who supported the atomic energy program argued
that without this government-subsidized insurance, not a
single reactor would be built by private industry. The counterargument was that if the reactor builders and operators didn't
have enough confidence in the safety of the atomic plants to
assume responsibility for the risks, they shouldn't be building
them at all.
Meanwhile, welded sections of the reactor building were
swung into place, and the structures at Lagoona Beach began
to take shape. At the end of May, 1957, 10,000 people
swarmed over the Fermi site for an open-house to present the
project to the public. Locally, there had been no opposition.
In fact, an inter-county board of town supervisors from six
surrounding counties passed a resolution favoring the Fermi
plant and praising its objectives.
Less than two months later, in July of 1957, the
University of Michigan issued its study on what would
happen if the fission products were accidentally released from
the Fermi reactor. Any hopes that this study would be more

encouraging than the infamous WASH-740 report were

shattered.
The report had been conducted by Dr. Henry J. Gomberg
of the Engineering Research Institute of the University of
Michigan at Ann Arbor. Gomberg was an articulate and softspoken nuclear engineer who looked like a successful
businessman and spoke of the intricacies of the atom in calm,
measured tones. He was director of the university's institute
for the development of peaceful uses of atomic energy, as
well as professor of nuclear engineering. The repot t was to
become known by his name--the Gomberg Report.
In his attempt to evaluate the likely effects of fission
products on the surrounding population, several possible
conditions were assumed. Critics, however, could not help but
focus on the most pessimistic of the situations studied when
the report was finally circulated. This involved the release of
all the poisonous fission products during a time of
temperature inversion, where a warm layer of air would
clamp the cooler air to the ground like a lid over a box.
If the poisonous plume of radiation moved steadily
toward Detroit, traveling on a wind coining roughly from
west southwest, the estimated number of people receiving 450
rads-the level at which half the exposed population would be
expected to die came to 133,000. (Rad is the nomenclature for
Radiation Absorbed Dose.) Another 181,000 would receive
150 rads, with nausea and the probability of leukemia or other
forms of cancer probably tripled within 10 years. Nearly
250,000 people would receive 25 rads a dose that could be
allowed in an emergency, yet represented an undesirable
level.
In an inversion condition with a 4-mile-an-hour wind, it
would take 20 hours for the plume of radiation to travel 80
miles. Any point on this circumference would sweep to the
Indiana border on the west and Cleveland on the east. In

Michigan, it would reach almost to Lansing on the west, Flint

to the north, and Port Huron to the east, along with Sarnia,
Ontario.
In spite of the pessimism of the report, Cisler and his
team of engineers continued to move forward at full speed,
confident they could avoid any fuel accident that would create
these unspeakable conditions. The Gomberg-University of
Michigan study was not publicly circulated at the time, and
the WASH-740 report received little attention from the
national press. The reports were extremely technical and
filled with massive charts, formulae, and graphs
undecipherable by the layman. Few critics of nuclear power
were able to grasp the full significance of the potential
dangers.
The rationale for going ahead with the Fermi reactor and
the other nuclear projects across the country in the face of
these awesome estimates of potential catastrophe was based
on several reasons, which were often repeated and reviewed.
Typical was a statement by Alton Donnell, who headed
Cisler's design group, the Atomic Power Development
Associates, at a Detroit press conference. "There is no
question that the potential hazard due to the release of fission
products from an atomic reactor can be great. However,
reactors are designed such that, even in the event of a most
extreme power excursion, no large energy release is involved.
And multiple lines of containment are provided to prevent the
release of fission products to the atmosphereFurthermore,
the designs, in which all reasonable precautions have been
taken, are reviewed by the Atomic Energy Commission, and
actual construction is inspected by the Commission and other
government agencies. Supervisors and operators are trained
and checked before they are permitted to operate a reactor."
The position of the critics, typified by George Weil, the
consultant who had advised his client against joining the

Cisler consortium, was this: AEC assurances to the contrary,

there was a clear-cut risk of a nuclear explosion in a fastbreeder reactor, along with a very clear possibility of
breaching the plant containment structure. "No matter how it
is phrased," Well stated, "nuclear and explosive energy, rapid
reassembly of the fuel into a supercritical configuration and a
destructive nuclear excursion, rapid core meltdown followed
by compaction into a supercritical mass, or compaction of the
fuel into a more reactive configuration resulting in a
disruptive energy release, the meaning is clear: Liquid-metal
(sodium) fast-breeder reactors are subject to superprompt
critical conditions. And, as the A.E.C. well knows, this
technical terminology translated into layman's language is an
atomic bomb."
Other opponents of nuclear power felt strongly that the
billions that would be spent in fission power plants could be
channeled into alternate sources of energy-sources that
wouldn't offer such harrowing dangers that fission accident
and the eternal burial of plutonium wastes would entail. For a
stop gap, there was enough coal to last for nearly a thousand
years. Meanwhile, the problems of solar energy and fusion
reactors could be worked out. Coal liquefaction or
gasification was slow, expensive, and awkward but much
cheaper than a nuclear accident.
Further, the critics continued to insist that there was no
such thing as human infallibility, either among welders or
AEC inspectors. Beyond that, they emphasized that all the
engineering skill in the world could not prevent an inept or
psychotic control room operator from plunging the reactor
into a hopeless cataclysm. Added to that was the very real
potential of sabotage. And the critics repeated another protest:
Why should the taxpayer pay for the insurance of a utility
company. And why should these plants be built if they were
so dangerous and uninsurable? Why should Congress set an

arbitrary limit of $560 million for victims of a disaster, with

only the $65 million token insurance coverage from the
pooled insurance industry?
The Price-Anderson insurance act was passed by
Congress in September, 1957, and one more obstacle in
Cisler's course was removed. It was still uncertain whether
the UAW would file its protests in the courts, rather than in
the AEC hearing rooms, where the case was required to be
aired first. It was highly unlikely that the AEC would rule
against itself in the hearings, which were droning on
monotonously over the months. Therefore, it appeared almost
certain that Walter Reuther would seek a court-enforced
injunction, the only step that would have sufficient clout to
stop the Fermi plant from going into operation.
Meanwhile, the tall, muscular, cigar-chewing Walter
McCarthy, with a loping gait and a passionate desire to get on
with things, was still a prime spark plug behind the Cisler
dream. He did not have much patience with pessimism or
critics. But neither was he insensitive to what had to be done
to make the Fermi reactor an example of the best possible
answer to the energy crisis. He recognized that there was an
honest but passionate difference between the two schools of
thought about the safety of the Fermi reactor. He felt that the
insurance supplied by the joint Committee was a reflection of
the opinion of the people. He was convinced that most people
thought that nuclear energy was good for the country, and
therefore good for them. He felt that if some people got hurt
from an accident, the rest were more than willing to pass the
hat to pay for the damages, because of the urgent necessity for
more power. As a firm believer that business is business, he
was convinced that, because a great portion of the country's
taxes came from business, it was only fitting that the
government foot the bill for the necessary insurance to get
nuclear power off the ground.

As far as the ominous figures reflected by WASH-740

and the University of Michigan studies were concerned,
McCarthy believed that any such accidents would be
impossible because of the containment precautions. He did,
however, share the common fear about creating plutonium. It
could be stolen; it could be separated; it could be used as a
threat. But to do so would take considerable amounts of
money, equipment, and scientific brains. There was no
question in McCarthy's mind that plutonium would have to be
guarded carefully, even if it meant setting up a special armed
force to do so. He was firmly in favor of shooting anyone who
tried to steal Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239. But his
conclusions all added up to the fact that he would rather have
the needed electrical power and work out the plutonium
problem later on.
Thermonuclear-or fusion-power had been proposed as an
answer to the energy deficit. McCarthy felt it was too big a
question mark. Though there would be no nuclear waste or
danger of a meltdown, there had been no breakthrough in
fusion. McCarthy agreed that, if it were available, it would be
foolish not to choose it over fission. There was no doubt in
McCarthy's mind that when the country was faced with five
hundred fast-breeder reactor power plants as planned for the
future, it would literally change the face of society. But we
would have to adjust to this half a trillion dollars worth of
ultimate investment, regardless of the guarding and safety
problems.
McCarthy moved swiftly in his grasp of the massive
details of the Fermi project. Working first for Cisler's design
company in reactor physics, shielding, control, safety, and
computer operations, he moved effortlessly into the
construction operation, the Power Reactor Development
Corporation. Here his responsibilities took on operations,
licensing, and finance for the Fermi plant.

He had a passion for detail, and he handled it well. In

preparing first for the construction permit and later for the
operating license, he had to continue to consider every
conceivable contingency.
In the light of the two devastating estimates of casualties
from a possible accident, he dogged every step of the
planning and construction. Particular care would have to be
taken with the control rods.
The EBR-I reactor had been saved by the dropping away
of the entire Uranium-238 blanket, just half a second before
tragedy occurred. But, in order to reduce the size and
complexity of the reactor vessel that held the core, the Fermi
reactor design would not have that sort of emergency backup.
Both McCarthy and his colleague Amorosi were aware
that the boron control rods they planned to use would have
some disadvantages, but they were not considered safety
problems. Control rods, when they were dropped down into
the core shut down the reactor by "poison control." The boron
in the control rods served to drink up the fast spraying
neutrons, stopping them from colliding with the fuel, and
cutting off the chain reaction. In other words, the control rods
"poisoned" the fission process, and stopped it from
proceeding, unless, of course, there was an accidental
meltdown.
One problem in the use of boron rods was that they
tended to capture many neutrons that could be used to leak
into the raw uranium blanket and produce plutonium, and thus
created less new plutonium fuel. For this reason, the rods
rested high above the core when the reactor was running, so
that they wouldn't absorb too many of the neutrons. This
produced another disadvantage, in that there would be a delay
after a scram signal had been pushed to stop the reactor.
However, both Amorosi and McCarthy felt that there
was greater reliability in the new design because of a more

simple control rod design, which would more than make up

for the disadvantages.
Beyond that, the Fermi reactor design called for ten
control rods. Eight of them would be safety rods for an
emergency situation. Only two of them would be used for
starting up and shutting down the reactor under normal
operating conditions.
The main concern the scientists faced was the unusual
conditions that could lead to "an explosive release of nuclear
energy," one of the terms that physicist George Well had
referred to in plain language as an "atomic bomb." Scientists
working on a nuclear power plant always carefully avoided
the use of that term. In fact, constant public relations
statements were issued by the AEC that a reactor simply
couldn't explode like an atomic bomb. How these statements
could be made in direct contradiction to many sober and
reliable studies by qualified scientists remained a puzzle.
However, McCarthy and Amorosi were basically prudent
men, and they did not ignore the potential dangers, regardless
of whether the possible explosion was called a "disassembly
leading to a high-energy release" or "an atomic explosion."
McCarthy's analysis showed that a prediction for these
destructive effects for some reactors could equal an explosion
of "up to a thousand-or even more-pounds of TNT," although
he did estimate that this force would not exceed the force of
five hundred pounds for the Fermi plant.
He went on to say in his analysis for the Fermi license
application: "Of course, the calculation of a severe accident in
a real power reactor means dealing with complex geometry
and irregularities in composition. The conditions and cause of
the reaction are really not known precisely, and the course of
the accident prior to the large nuclear burst is usually very
complex. Nevertheless, idealized calculations provide some
gauge of the severity of the accident."

Aware of their very heavy responsibilities, the Fermi

engineers examined and put into the plans every possible
design factor that would eliminate the dangers as the project
moved ahead. They considered what would happen if a fuel
element were dropped into a just-critical reactor. They
checked the control rods and looked at every conceivable
situation in which the reactivity could be increased within a
reactor. They reexamined the possibility of water getting in
contact with the syrupy sodium coolant, causing a violent fire
and explosion. Most important was what would happen if
somehow the sodium coolant were prevented from flowing
through the fuel subassemblies. This would cause the fuel to
melt like an ice-cream cone on a blistering August day.
All through McCarthy's painstaking license application
analysis, there are phrases that reflect the frustrations of many
scientists:
"There are few answers available to these questions . . ."
"These are problems that remain to be solved."
"Theoretical prediction remains to be accomplished."
"Computational errors of 5-10 or 20% may be discussed,
knowing full well that the inherent errors involved in
idealizing the general problem are much greater."
"Hence, the situation on the equation of state for
uranium remains obscure."
It was difficult enough for McCarthy and the rest of
Cisler's team to handle the overpowering technical problems
they were facing, without having to defend themselves against
Reuther's persistent attacks against the wisdom of permitting
the Fermi reactor to operate when its construction was
finished. To date, Reuther's attempts to try to cut off the
construction permit seemed to be getting nowhere.
Meanwhile, the structures on the Lagoona Beach site
were rising on the edge of Lake Erie, proud and gleaming.
The smooth, white dome of the containment building was

completed on September 21, 1957. Because it represented the

final stalwart barrier between a nuclear runaway meltdown
and the safety of the public, it had received the most lavish
care and attention.
It was stoutly built. The lower portion was a vertical
cylinder, with one-inch-thick walls. All the joints were
double-butt welded, and every welded joint was x-rayed. The
building was tested under internal pressure of forty pounds to
the square inch, then subjected to a soap film bubble test to
check for leaks. The results were verified by an AEC
engineer.
Elaborate environmental and meteorological studies
were also carried out by the Fermi reactor crew. Monroe
County sprawled over 562 square miles of mostly flatland.
There were some 3,000 farms in the county, 250 of them
dairy farms with sizable herds. There was the corn, the
soybeans, the wheat, the orchards. An escape of radioactive
fallout could be disastrous not only to people, but to farm
products. Radioactive iodine and the lingering Strontium-90
could be ingested by cows grazing on the contaminated
pastures, and passed along to children and adults through the
milk. The same could happen with fish caught and eaten.
Wells could be contaminated with radioactive wastes.
The University of Michigan meteorological studies, a
further supplement to the hazards report, concluded that there
would be ample time to warn well-users in the event of a
release of contaminated liquid, and to warn civic and
industrial users of Lake Erie water who had intakes downcurrent from the Fermi plant site. At worst, the warnings
would prevent use of contaminated water and farm products,
should any escape of fission products spew out over the
countryside.
But just sixteen days after the soap film was spread over
the containment shell to check for leaks in the Fermi

structure, another shock wave hit the nuclear fraternity. And

even though it happened thousands of miles away from
Lagoona Beach, Michigan, its impact would be felt there and
at every other nuclear installation planned or under
construction throughout the country and the world.

FIVE

The two towers of the Windscale atomic reactors, more than

four hundred feet high, rise on the edge of the Irish Sea, near
a village named Seascale. To the north along England's
Cumberland coast is Whitehaven, seven miles away, just at
the point where Solway Firth turns in to form a bay that
helped shape the borderlands of Scotland and England. Here,
history is found under every rock. To the west of the giant
Windscale towers lies the rapturously beautiful Lake District,
hailed by Wordsworth for its meadows, yew trees, mountains,
and streams. "Through primrose tufts, in that sweet
bower/The periwinkle trailed its wreaths/" he once wrote.
"And 'tis my faith that every flower/ Enjoys the air it
breathes."
It was uncertain, in October of 1957, that the flowers or
the rich, verdant farmland along the coast and in the Lake
District were totally enjoying all the air they breathed. The
nearby port of Whitehaven, an industrial and coal mining city,
poured a generous amount of bitter industrial smoke over the
region, while the Windscale nuclear plant released an

undetectable flow of controlled effluent, all of it under the

allowable limits of radiation, however.
During these first days of October, life in the Lake
District and along the Cumberland coast was moving along at
its gentle pace, enlivened by the fresh employment the
Windscale atomic energy installation brought with it. Some
3,000 jobs had been provided, a boon to the laborer and to a
tidal influx of physicists and scientists who blended into the
sparsely populated region effortlessly. They brought new
blood into the pubs and country inns, so much so that the tiny
Scawfell Inn at Seascale was able to support an extra cocktail
lounge at its seaside perch.
Very little notable activity was taking place during that
week. Workington and Oateshead had battled to a one-to-one
tie on the soccer field before a crowd of nearly 8,000. A
forty-six-year-old mother of eight children blamed four drinks
for inspiring her to lift seven wine glasses, a toy car, three
pairs of socks, and a child's vest from the counters at
Woolworth's in Whitehaven. She stoutly claimed, however,
that she had at least paid for some sugar and sweets. At the
village dump at Cleator Moor, it was noted that the rats were
growing almost as big as the cats.
It was of mild interest that Alsatian dogs had recently
been stationed around the perimeters of the atomic plant, but
this was understandable because plutonium was being
manufactured there as part of Britain's weapons program.
Fortunately, the dogs were trained to bark rather than bite.
Outside the chain-wire fence that surrounded the massive
exhaust towers of Windscale Pile # 1 and Pile # 2, sheep
quietly grazed on the bald, rolling hills that ended abruptly at
the sea. John Bateman of Yottenfews Farm, adjoining the
village of Carterbridge, near the gates of the Windscale
atomic works, was busy with his dairy herd in which he took
a great deal of pride.

The gaunt towers of Windscale were landmarks; they

could be seen from miles away. Their square shape set them
off from the usual round chimney. At the top, a large filter
gallery almost seventy feet wide jutted out from the slender
stem of the chimney. It was large enough to house a narrowgauge railway track to facilitate the changing of the giant,
fiberglass filters after they became fully contaminated with
the radioactivity brewed in the giant reactor below.
The filters were important. They stood as sentinels
against a sudden surge of fission products that might
accidentally puff up from a mishap among the 1,500 channels
of uranium cartridges that with silent, imperceptible power
split the atoms to make plutonium.
Windscale Pile # 1 was quite a different sort of reactor
from the Fermi plant at Lagoona Beach. Its neutrons were
moderated by giant blocks of graphite, rather than liquid
sodium. But like all fission reactors, Windscale dealt with
uranium, a fuel so temperamental that it allowed very little
margin for error.
The uranium cartridges in the Windscale reactors were
surrounded by the graphite which looks like and is quite
similar to the lead in a lead pencil. It is nothing more than a
very pure form of carbon. It serves to slow down the neutrons
in the reactor so they have a better chance of hitting the
nucleus of the other uranium atoms.
Very early in the morning of Monday, October 7, 1957,
the huge blowers that kept the uranium cartridges cool in the
reactor were shut down in order to begin a process called a
Wigner release, involving the graphite blocks in the reactor.
Over a period of time, graphite will soak up a lot of extra
energy like a blotter as it undergoes a constant battering by
fast neutrons. Five years previously, the graphite in the
Windscale reactor had suddenly released this stored-up
energy in an uninvited burst of heat. Fortunately, the uranium

had not caught fire. But definite safety measures were taken
to stop such an unwelcome event in the future.
At regular intervals the reactor was shut down, and the
uranium and graphite were invited to heat up very gradually
under controlled conditions. This was done simply by
shutting down the air that cooled them. In this way, the
graphite could slowly get rid of its stored-up energy, and
everything could then continue with no chance of a sudden
outburst. The condition was named after physicist Eugene
Wigner, and was sometimes called "Wigner's Disease."
Curing this strange disease and fever could be a tricky
business. It was like cooking a roast in a hot oven. If it is too
hot, the fat could catch on fire. The device used in place of an
oven thermometer was called a thermocouple, but its function
was the same. When the reactor was shut down early that
October morning, every precaution was taken to make sure
that it was completely closed down. The thermocouples, so
critical in the process, were thoroughly checked and the bad
ones replaced.
The preparations were meticulous and painstaking. It
took all night and through most of the day until the plant was
ready to start the Wigner release. At about 7:30 on Monday
evening, the signal was given to start the nuclear heating.
This was carried on through the night until Tuesday morning
when the heating from the uranium was stopped. But after an
hour or so, the operators in the control room noticed that,
instead of coasting along in the controlled heating condition,
the "oven thermometers" showed that the graphite
temperature was dropping. It should have been rising under
its own momentum.
The physicist in charge was aware that in the past the
process often had to be jogged with an extra heating, so the
order was given to repeat the process. For some unexplained
reason, he did not have an operating manual or detailed

instructions on hand, but it would be a simple matter to

handle any problem with the instrument readings he had
carefully checked. The go-ahead was given shortly after
eleven on Tuesday morning.
But very suddenly, a rapid rise in the temperatures of the
uranium cartridges was noted. Immediately, the cadmium
rods were shoved into the core to let the fuel cartridges cool.
Somehow the "feel" of the reactor seemed different much the
way a car feels to the driver when something indefinable is
wrong. The graphite temperature continued to rise. The
instrument readings were confusing and conflicting.
The erratic conditions carried through until Wednesday
night. When it became apparent that the situation was not
going to correct itself, some of the ventilation was cut, just as
a furnace is damped down. Some cooling air was provided to
reduce the graphite temperatures.
It seemed to work. But at 5:40 on Thursday morning, the
radiation meters near the top of the smokestack and the filters
soared high on the needles. Then, just as suddenly, readings
began to drop again.
By 8:10 AM Thursday, the radiation meters as well as
the graphite temperature began to rise again. Another attempt
to cool the reactor with forced air failed. All it did was raise
the readings of the radiation meters high up on the stack. The
fumes going up the flue were radioactive now, and the filter
instruments showed it. Tom Tuohy, general manager of the
Windscale works, and Kenneth Ross, the national operations
director, were trying desperately to analyze the situation and
to decide what to do about it. All the signs now pointed to a
burst uranium fuel element and to a uranium fire. This could
lead to an unpredictably serious situation.
Outside the health physics building, the readings rose to
ten times the normal count. The situation was not vet critical,
but it was ominous. Somehow, they would have to locate any

burning fuel cartridges, force them out of the reactor. and

keep the pile cool until the graphite and the rest of the
uranium cooled down. Tom Hughes, the works manager
under Tuohy, struggled with Ross's help to bring into action a
cumbersome machine known as a scanner. When passed over
the enormous face of the reactor, the scanner could sniff out
where the hot spots were. But the scanner was overheated,
and could not be budged. Just the previous day, it had been
checked and was in perfect working order.
New air samples showed more high radiation readings.
There appeared to be a critically bad burst. The diseased
cartridges had to be located and quickly removed. A
cumbersome hoist platform, a clumsy sort of an elevator that
ran up the face of the reactor, was made ready. Hughes and
Ron Gausden, the reactor manager, donned protective suits
and masks, climbed onto it, and elevated it to the spot where
one thermocouple showed a high temperature. With extreme
care, they opened one of the inspection holes and peered in.
There was no question about it. The uranium was
glowing cherry-red, with blue flames licking at the graphite
surrounding it in the huge, three-story-high concrete block
that held the hundreds of round fuel elements lying
horizontally in it in separate channels. Between 100 and 200
channels seemed to be burning. Six other workers were
brought in-all that could fit on the hoist platform. Then,
working in quick shifts, a series of sweating, half-suffocating
crews tried to punch the flaming rods of uranium out of the
huge cylindrical drum with long steel rods.
But the uranium cartridges were bent, swollen, and
wedged tightly. All that the crew was able to do was to
disgorge the surrounding channels to make some kind of a
fire break. Various shifts worked all through Thursday, with
only partial success. Meanwhile, tanks of carbon dioxide

were brought in, in an attempt to cool the flames. But the heat
was too great. The fire continued.
The last resort would be to drown the reactor in water. It
was impossible to predict when the other fuel elements in the
core would burst into flame, loading the high chimney's filter
with an impossible burden of fission products: radioactive
iodine, strontium, and other gases. At least the particles, it
was hoped, would be held back by the filters. But even if they
held, the gases would escape.
The use of water was an agonizing decision. But if the
fire kept up, the only possible answer would be the
evacuation of the whole region-the farms, the villages of the
Lake District, the towns and cities and ports on the shore of
the Irish Sea.
Health physicists were everywhere. Film badges were
checked and rechecked by a special process on the spot.
Personal dosimeters-devices that clip on the pocket like
fountain pens and that record body exposure to radiation were
supplied to everyone. Extra staff was called in to man the
infirmary. The men who peered into the open plug holes
received extra doses of radiation in the face and head, but
because their film badges were not worn on the head, the
extra doses they received were indeterminable. The managers
of the plant canteens were ordered to put their food under
cover.
Meanwhile, other health physicists were scurrying
around the twisted roads of the region in panel trucks to check
the radiation readings in a wide area around the Windscale
reactor. The readings were rising, and they were beginning to
cause great concern to the health physicists. However,
practically no one in the neighboring villages and farms had
any idea that anything was wrong. If they noticed the health
physics trucks, it was assumed they were on a routine
radiation check, a fairly common occurrence.

The worried officials at Windscale watched the

barometer the wind direction indicator-and the temperature
with considerable concern. The weather condition would be
critical in the case of any massive escape of the deadly fission
products.
Throughout the day on Thursday the ground wind was
light and blew the effluent from the stack away from the
shore and out over the Irish Sea. But by night, it shifted. It
pushed the plume coming from the stack down the coast, past
the village of Seascale, through Millom, and on to the sizable
Lancashire community of Barrow-in-Furness. It was a city of
over 60,000, with immense steel works, flour and pepper
mills, and many acres of docks.
More serious than the shift in the wind was the nocturnal
inversion. The warm air, a few hundred feet above the
ground, trapped the radioactivity coming out of the huge
stack, so that it spread along the meadows, the pastures, the
trees, the homes, the cattle, the livestock. A survey van,
moving to the cinder railroad track at Seascale, only a mile or
so away from Windscale, checked the gamma rays and found
them reading above scale.
The citizens there were unruffled; they still knew
nothing about what was happening. Another van moved to the
north, toward Gosforth, Calder Hall, and St. Bees Head. The
reading along Calder Farm Road came to ten times the
acceptable level for continuous lifetime breathing.
The health physics manager made some fast
computations. Evacuation might become a necessity. No
public warning had yet been issued, however, and it was only
reasonable to try to hold off as long as possible. The health
specialists were worried about three kinds of danger: gamma
radiation to the whole body, inhalation of the fission
products, or ingestion of them through contamination of the
food crops or meat and milk products.

Usually internal doses are worse than external ones. The

skin doesn't absorb radioactive poison as readily as the lungs
and intestinal tract. The first readings indicated that the area
of most concern would be from ingestion. But the
concentrations were not yet high enough for the health
physicists to take immediate action. Much would depend on
the amount of Iodine-131 deposited on the pasture lands.
When ingested by the cattle, this poison would go swiftly into
their milk, which in turn would strike at the most vulnerable
targets: infants and children. It was ironic that there was no
established tolerance level for radioactive iodine in milk.
There was also the fear of the deadly Strontium-90. A
series of long consultations among the medical and healthphysics authorities began, as the men in the control room
continued to fight the fire and rack their brains as to the best
course of action.
It was becoming more and more apparent that the reactor
had to be flooded with water. By now, it was nearly four days
since the treatment for "Wigner's Disease" had begun. The
use of water would mean the ruin of the multimillion-dollar
reactor, without question. But the alternative was unthinkable.
Literally, the life of Wordsworth's countryside, as well as its
citizens, was at stake.
Drowning the reactor in water would be extremely
hazardous. The water could possibly create enough hydrogen
gas pressure to smash the chimney filters and release the fullscale poisonous fission products into the atmosphere. It was
decided to hold off, but all would be made ready. Large fire
hoses were moved into position.
Rumors had now become rife, but actual facts were
sparse. Farmers, workers, and their families were bewildered
and uninformed. Those who had a brother or father at the
Windscale plant knew only that something was wrong. The
workers had been warned, but told that there was no hazard to

the public. A public information spokesman for Windscale

made a brief and cryptic statement: "There was not a large
amount of radioactivity released. The amount was not
hazardous and, in fact, it was carried out to sea by the wind.
There has been no injury to any person. There is no danger of
the reactor's exploding."
In fact, the radioactivity was not being carried out to sea
by the wind, nor had it ceased to be a concern, as the
announcement implied. It was coming down the coast, over
land. The only other official news that filtered out of the plant
was that the reactor "was likely to be out of operation for
some months because of an accident in which some of the
uranium cartridges became red hot." As the announcement
was being made, the sister reactor at Windscale Pile # 2 was
shut down so that the workers there could come to the aid of
their sweltering colleagues who were desperately trying to
unload the blazing fuel.
The Windscale reactor fuel rods were loosely packed,
and not as likely to explode as were those designed for a fastbreeder, such as the Fermi reactor. This, at least, was one
favorable aspect. But the Windscale reactor was estimated to
hold some 150 million curies of radiation. If it were all
released, the fallout would be just slightly less than that from
the atomic bomb dropped over Hiroshima.
People in the village of Seascale seemed calm enough,
even though the word had been bruited about that some men
had been sent home from the plant. A reporter from the
Manchester Guardian asked: "Isn't anyone worried about
radioactivity here?"
"It's too late to worry about that now," he was told by a
farmer, in a wry tone. "And anyway, they say the wind is
blowing in the right direction." But then the villager thought a
moment, and added: "I am told they found more dust than
usual in Seascale this morning."

All through Thursday, the men in the control room

continued to hold back the fatal decision to open up the hoses
on the blazing fuel. It was a Hobson's Choice. The continuous
fire in the reactor would eventually crack the defense of the
filters whether water was used or not. Some protection might
still remain, however, from some of the particulate matter, if
not from the gases. The effect of the water on the cherry-red
uranium was a deep imponderable. The reactor could "bump"
with a milder hydrogen blast, or it could backfire violently.
Whether the water would be used or not, at 1:55 Friday
morning, Kenneth Ross picked up the phone and called the
chief constable of Cumberland at Penrith, some twenty miles
away. He told him that an emergency standby should be set
up. Hundreds of policemen were roused from their beds. It
was the first official notice of the real trouble brewing.
The same warning went out to hundreds of men on the
night shift at the chemical plants next to the reactor. Work
was to stop. The workers were to assemble in the canteens.
Construction work on the new atomic installation, Calder
Hall, was stopped. No one was allowed to go outdoors.
Through the night and until dawn on Friday, the control
room staff watched the instruments for any hopeful sign that
the temperatures might be falling. But by seven o'clock, it
became obvious they could hold off no longer.
Now the change of shift was due. The night shift,
huddled indoors in the canteens, would have to be released,
and the day shift put safely undercover, before the hoses were
turned on. A little before nine o'clock, Friday morning, the
shift change was completed. The men of the day shift were
indoors, under shelter. The crew on the hoist, still sweltering
and vainly trying to unload the fuel from the reactor, was sent
out of the building, along with all the other control room
crew. Only Tuohy, Ross, and Bill Crone, the fire chief,
remained in the reactor building. As Ross later told reporter

Chapman Pincher of the Daily Express: "I was never so

frightened in my life."
There was an eighty-foot ladder to the concrete top of
the reactor. Tuohy and Chief Crone hauled the fire hoses up
to the top, sweltering and choking through their masks. At
just before nine o'clock, the first hose was turned on, very
lightly, very cautiously. The men jumped behind a heavy steel
door, and waited for the "bump." It didn't occur. They
increased the water pressure and waited again.
There was no hydrogen explosion. But there was steam.
Live and hot, it flashed up the chimney. However, the fire
crisis was over. The hoses were turned on to high pressure to
continue all through the day. The pile was cold by noon
Saturday.
If the fire crisis was over, the escape of radioactivity
from the stack was not. The picture was confusing, because
the radioactivity counts were both rising and falling in an
unpredictable, spotty fashion. The long series of tests and
meetings of the health physicists had continued through
Friday and into Saturday.
The assumption was that the main risks would come
from Iodine-131 and Strontium-90. It gradually emerged that
the radioactive iodine had come through the giant chimney
filters as the main culprit, although strontium leakage was not
ruled out by any means. The tests completed by the middle of
Saturday afternoon showed that the radioactive iodine had
definitely been deposited on the pastures and foliage, and was
a clear threat to infants and children in the area. Danger to the
thyroid would be critical. Just how wide an area was involved
was still uncertain.
By late Saturday evening, the medical group agreed that
no chances could be taken, and that milk in the area would
have to be immediately confiscated. The Milk Marketing
Board for the county of Cumberland was notified, along with

the police. The target was twelve dairy farms within a twomile area of the Windscale plant.
John Bateman, at Yottenfews Farm, was roused out of
bed by motorcycle police at 1:30 Sunday morning. He was
told to keep his milk inside the cans until the scientists could
come and check for contamination. One by one, the local
farmers were awakened and given their orders.
It was revealed that the sample of the Friday milk supply
ran to six times the permitted concentration (arbitrarily
established at the time) of the radioactive iodine. This was
small comfort to mothers with young children. The medical
officers insisted that the external radiation was not enough to
produce genetic damage. The farmers were assured that they
would be compensated for any losses they suffered, but one
farmer said plaintively: "We've never worried about
radioactivity until now."
In spite of the reassurances, more farms were added to
the banned list as the radiation vans continued to monitor the
region. By Monday morning, October 14, the list of milk
seizures jumped from 12 to 90 farms in the area. By
afternoon, the list had grown to 150 farms under the ban.
Milk sales in Carlisle, about 40 miles away, dropped 15
percent as housewives shunned it. Meanwhile, over 10,000
gallons of milk had piled up in the dairies. Imported milk was
brought into the area for children and infants.
By Tuesday, the milk alarm had grown to enormous
proportions. It stretched down the coast to Barrow-in-Furness,
a hundred miles away by road, and to Millom. Together, they
represented a population of 80,000. The Atomic Energy
Authority would only say that the measured level of
radioactivity in milk samples "taken on a gradually extending
survey has not fallen off as rapidly as was anticipated."
The banned area now covered two hundred square miles.
The sales of canned and powdered milk soared. In spite of it,

the citizens of the area took the matter with typical British
calm. "You never know what's going to happen next, do
you?" said a cheery waitress in Barrow. "You have to be so
careful with these radioactivities."
The swelling supplies of the contaminated milk would
have to be shipped to the Milk Marketing Board's depot in
Egremont. Here thousands of gallons would be
unceremoniously dumped into "sea sewers," through which
the milk would vanish into the Irish Sea, with the very clear
probability of contaminating the aquatic life. With the whole
stretch of coast under the milk ban, the problem of holding
the milk before it could be shipped to Egremont became
acute. A vaguely issued announcement said that the farmers
could feed the milk to calves, but this was in direct opposition
to a statement by the chief of the Windscale operation who
said: "While this would be entirely harmless to adults and to
pigs, I would hesitate to give it to young children or calves."
There were also widespread fears about the water
supplies. But the Atomic Energy Authority assured the
populace that there would be no danger from that source. The
health physicists began a series of blood tests on the cattle to
see how much radioactive iodine had been absorbed by the
animals grazing on the contaminated meadows. New
warnings went out regarding animals that were to be
slaughtered, instructing anyone killing an animal to remove
the thyroid gland.
Farmers grew increasingly impatient with the vague and
confusing information supplied them by the Windscale
authorities. They wondered why it was all right to drink the
milk on the Thursday of the accident, but not on Monday.
Why had the ban been extended down the coast so slowly?
What would happen to cattle breeding? What about the
property values of the land itself? Meanwhile, the men
working at Windscale and Calder Hall received hot buckets of

water and soap to scrub with before lunch. But they weren't
told just how much contamination there was around the
installations.
The miners in Whitehaven held a protest meeting to
complain about the possible radioactive contamination of the
mines through the ventilation ducts. New workers were
brought up from Lancashire as "unexposed" workers to labor
in the more contaminated areas. Radiation exposure is
cumulative. Those who receive a more than normal dose must
be kept away from any contamination until a long time has
elapsed.
The tons of water poured into the fire were also loaded
with radiation. It added to the exposure of workers in the
immediate area of the reactor. An RAF helicopter was
brought in to make tests 150 feet above the top of the
chimney, photographing the filters down through the chimney
opening as it did so. In faraway Devon, some three hundred
miles to the south, some farmers who were unlucky enough to
buy some West Cumberland cattle were ordered by the police
to destroy them.
The confusion continued all through October as an
official inquiry was conducted by the Atomic Energy
Authority. For the most part, the public attitude settled down
to: "They must know what they're doing. They'd tell us if
anything were wrong." One worker at the plant said with a
twinkle: "We're all radioactive here. What we don't know,
won't hurt us."
But others were less charitable. A local official said: "If
things are bad, we want to know. And if they aren't, we've a
right to be told in words we can understand." Reporter Judith
Hart interviewed a scientist at Windscale who had packed his
wife and children off to the south of England when the fire
broke out.

"We've known for years what was going on," he said.

"The accident has brought it into the public eye, that's all. But
radioactive waste has been coming out of that chimney and
landing all over the countryside since the reactor started up.
Not just radioactive iodine, but strontium and all that other
stuff. We're all right-we think. But we don't know how our
children will be later on. But it's no use worrying about it. We
don't worry-we've just got to get used to living with it."
Reporter Hart got two different answers to one question:
Can strontium and cesium and other radioactive substances
get through the filters in addition to the radioactive iodine?
The official answer was: "Only a gas like iodine can get
through. No particles can get through at all. So there has
never been any question of strontium or any other fission
product in particulate form getting through."
But the chief medical officer of Windscale had a
different story. He said: "The filters cannot be 100 percent, of
course. They hold back big bits of dust. But particles of
micron size can get through." A micron is 1/1000th of a
millimeter. Fission products of this size are deadly. The
radioactive iodine can be released both as a particle and as a
gas. The problem, here and elsewhere, was that because
radiation damage is so stealthy it was impossible to assess
fully.
The official inquiry was intense but muted. It had all the
earmarks of a coroner's inquest. Only a portion of the final
report was made public. The investigating committee
concluded that it was unlikely "in the highest degree" that
anyone was harmed by the fallout, even though radioactive
strontium finally was discovered in it, in addition to the
iodine. It was noted that the strontium levels "in some
pastures" indicated that a "watch" should be kept on the milk
from these places.

No single individual was blamed or punished. In fact, the

staff was praised for devotion to duty, which they obviously
deserved. The accident happened because of a group error
that revealed "certain weaknesses of organization." The report
added: "Certain gaps in our scientific knowledge were
revealed, and require early attention."
What was discovered in the inquiry was that even though
the thermocouples and other instruments had been thoroughly
checked, several were in error. This led to maneuvers which
increased the extent of the disaster. The meters read lower
than they should have. But there was human error, too. The
combination was disastrous, especially in the newly
developing and rapidly expanding field of nuclear reactors
where there was no room for fallibility.
The milk ban was finally lifted several weeks after the
accident. The farmers were compensated. The check for
possible Strontium-90 deposits continued. But Windscale
would be closed and sealed forever as an operating reactor, its
multimillion-dollar investment written off. Even so, it could
not be touched or examined for ten years, because it was so
radioactively hot. Hundreds of workmen, and millions of
dollars, would be required to dismantle it safely. It would
have to be guarded forever. The tall, gaunt towers remained
as a landmark, looking out over the Irish Sea and back toward
the mountains and streams of Wordsworth's Lake District a
region they had almost raped and violated. As one British
scientist put it: "The towers of Windscale remain as a
monument to man's ignorance."
The accident was a grim warning to all who were in the
process of expanding nuclear power. The engineers and
scientists at the Fermi plant at Lagoona Beach, along with
everyone else in the nuclear field, studied the accident
intently. As complex as the Windscale reactor was, it was not

as complex--nor as potentially dangerous--as the Fermi

breeder reactor rising on the banks of Lake Erie in Michigan.
Whatever the types of fission reactors being designed or
built in the world, they all faced the problem of dealing with
uranium or plutonium, or both. The distances that the fallout
from an accident could be felt was revealed when it was
announced at a scientific meeting in London during the spring
of 1958 that "an unusually large amount of fission products
appeared in the air over London during the twenty-four hours
ending October 12, 1957" the day when the Windscale
accident reached its peak.
Windscale is nearly three hundred miles away from
London.

SIX

For Cisler and his group the Windscale accident meant

doubling their safety efforts for the Fermi reactor, as the
construction moved slowly but steadily toward the day when
the first tests would be made. By April of 1958, the huge
reactor vessel itself had begun its 1,500-mile barge and
railroad journey to arrive at Lagoona Beach by the first of
May. At the same time, Cisler and the legal and technical
staff of the Fermi project were preparing a position summary
to present to the AEC about the inherent safety of the reactor.
The presentation would call for the continuation of the
construction program as an essential part of the nation's
reactor development program.
Even as Cisler and his associates were preparing their
case, another ominous blast rocked the industry. It took place
at Chalk River, Canada this time with a reactor known as the
NRU, a sister to the NRX that had threatened that lovely
community almost six years earlier.
Since early 1958, there had been a series of problems
with the NRU fuel rods, which were clad in aluminum
sheathing. Fission products had been building up, as well as

contamination in the tank system of the reactor core. In

addition, the instruments for detecting problems in the fuel
were beginning to become unreliable. On Friday, May 23,
1958, after a week of steady operation, the power started to
rise inexplicably and the reactor suddenly shut itself down by
automatic controls. The crew in the control room were at a
loss to know why, but they decided to try another start-up.
Immediately, the automatic controls scrammed the action.
Several alarm systems went off.
There was evidence of high radioactivity in the heavy
water that cooled the reactor. What the faulty instruments
didn't show was that there was violent damage to one of the
fuel rods- a situation of potentially great danger. But three
fuel rods showed that they were loaded with hot radioactivity.
It was obvious that they had to be removed from the core.
Removing a fuel rodnot to be confused with a control
rod, which contains no uraniumfrom any reactor is a fussy
and precarious chore. The NRU reactor required a giant
railroad-type crane that rolled on tracks on a platform over
the top of the core. Mounted on the crane was a two-storyhigh, tube-like affair called the fuel removal flask. It was
filled with heavy water, and looked like a thin smokestack on
a ship. When properly positioned, a hollow metal snout would
slide down from the flask and slip into a hole at the reactor
top, like an enormous mosquito sinking its proboscis into a
victim. The snout would then clamp hold of the top of the
long fuel rod and pull it back into the narrow belly of the fuel
removal flask, which was filled with heavy water as a coolant.
There the fuel rod would be allowed to cool until some of its
radioactivity decayed. Then the rod would be dumped into a
storage bay not unlike an underground swimming pool filled
with ordinary water.
It was a delicate operation. An exposed rod releases
deadly radiation, and can burst into flames unless it is cooled

by water. After hauling one of the hot rods away, the crane
returned on its railroad tracks to pick up the second one, the
rod known as J-18. But this rod was swollen and warped, and
couldn't slip up into the flask. A bigger entrance snout had to
be installed. In doing so, it wasn't noticed that the heavy water
in the huge tubular flask had drained out through a broken
valve.
Even a small piece of irradiated uranium fuel is
potentially deadly. A single irradiated fuel rod exposed to the
air could release some 10,000 rads or more each hour. It takes
only 450 rads to kill fifty percent of the people exposed to it,
if they are without protective suits. Any container or cask
used for moving an irradiated fuel rod around must always be
kept filled with a liquid coolant. The coolant's loss means
inevitable disaster, since no steel container can hold back
radiation without it. The rays have no respect for mere metal.
Late on Wednesday evening, May 24, the big tube flask
was positioned exactly over the hole where J-18, the badly
damaged fuel rod, was resting inside the reactor. Very
gingerly, the rod was raised partway up, and brought to rest
still within the heavy shielding of the reactor vessel. At this
point, the crew discovered that the heavy water had drained
out of the tube. There was no time to lose.
Only more water could prevent disaster, but some of the
most critical pumps had automatically locked themselves off
because of the loss of water-. The operator on the railroad
crane took the only possible action. He tried to shove the rod
back into the reactor. It jammed. Then he hit the button to
extract the rod again, while other members of the crew in
protective suits and masks rushed to bring emergency hoses to
the deck on the top of the reactor where the crane sat.
The damaged fuel rod had now been without cooling
water for nearly ten minutes. The snout of the crane finally
picked up the burning fuel rod, and telescoped it back into the

tube flask. A signal light flashed on the panel of the crane. It

indicated that at least the fuel rod was up inside the tube. The
operator hit the switch to move the crane along the tracks to
let the hoses get at it. By now, the fuel rod had been without
cooling for twelve minutes.
There were several safety devices on the railroad crane
that prevented it from moving unless the tubular flask was
operating properly. Certain switches could not operate unless
others were off. These were called electrical interlocks. They
were built to prevent certain maneuvers of the crane that
could cause danger. Under the present emergency situation,
however, it was necessary to risk the dangers, but the
electrical interlocks would permit no such thing.
As the crane operator punched the switch to move the
crane, the drive motors immediately stopped because of the
safety interlocks. Almost at the same moment, the radiation
alarms went off loudly. A control valve on the tube opened
when it shouldn't have. Men, sweating in spacesuits, rushed to
close it. Another safety interlock prevented this. By now the
meters showed the radiation rising from a hundred rads each
hour, up the scale to several hundred, climbing toward the
lethal 450-rad mark. The entire supervisory staff was called
from their homes.
The crew, counting on their protective suits and masks,
jumped the safety switch, the way an auto ignition is
circumvented with wire. The clumsy crane began moving its
precarious cargo toward the storage "swimming pool." It
reached the point where the emergency cooling hose could be
attached. Ordinary water was hosed into the enormous flask
to try to cool the viciously hot uranium.
Because of the broken valve, the water streamed through
the tube, all of it heavily contaminated, past the red-hot
radioactive uranium rod, and flooded down on the crane
platform. The poisoned water then cascaded down to the main

floor and into the lower basement levels. The crew, hiding
behind the giant crane to shield themselves from the
radioactivity, watched the snout of the tube closely. As it
passed over the repair pit which was sunk in the floor of the
crane gallery, they were horrified to see a short piece of the
now-blazing fuel rod drop out of the snout and into the open
pit.
All but a skeleton crew was ordered out of the building.
The operator stayed with the crane and moved it to the
opening above the storage bay, so the highly contaminated
water could pour into the "swimming pool" storage area
below. As the water gushed down the shaft, the molten
uranium in the pit continued blazing, filling the building with
deadly fission products.
Outside the building, managers, draftsmen, accountants,
engineers, and bookkeepers all of whom had not been
constantly and directly working around the reactor and
building up cumulative doses of radiation the way the reactor
crews did met with the plant supervisors to volunteer service
in the emergency. The radiation fields directly over the
blazing pit now registered over 1,000 rads an hour an
unquestionably fatal dose for any measurable length of time,
with or without protective suits and respirators.
The amateur office crew was suited up with masks. Each
was provided with a bucket of sand. The job: to run into the
building, up a long, precarious steel stairway, dash to the pit,
and throw the bucket of sand on the burning molten uranium.
A scout was sent ahead to scramble up the stairway, spot the
exact location and condition of the fire, and report to the
sand-bucket man.
Then they went inbookkeepers, managers, and
scientistsand they didn't mind admitting they were scared.
The first one in was an accountant. He poured the sand
quickly over the fiery, misshapen fuel-rod fragment, dashed

back down the ladder-like stairway, and out into the fresh air
again. In the brief moments he was in the building, in spite of
the protective clothing and mask, he had absorbed his entire
permissible radiation allowance for the year.
The others continued, one at a time, like a grotesque
track relay team on an obstacle course, covered with plastic
suits and snoods, monstrous-looking Canadian army combat
masks, rubber gloves over cloth ones, and slippery plastic
overshoes over rubbers. With over 1,000 rads coming up from
the pit, they were ordered to keep line-of-sight observations
of the fire to a minimum. Several monitors showed that the
radiation was so "hot" that it sent the meters off the top of
their 1,000-rad scale.
The fire was out within fifteen minutes, but the lethal
radiation was everywhere. A courageous crane operator went
back to drive the snout down into the shaft of the storage bay
to stop the heavily contaminated water that was still gushing
out of the tube. Another inserted a plug into the hole where
fuel rod J-18 had once rested. The clean-up job began
immediately, just before midnight.
Using a borescope, which is like a flexible periscope of a
submarine, they looked into the debris of the reactor vessel.
They found finely divided uranium powder, which seemed to
have sintered welded together into cinders from the high
temperatures created by the accident. There was evidence of
an explosion, perhaps from a chemical reaction between
uranium and water. The blazing fuel of J-18 that had spread
so much contamination was found to be just one small scrap
of a rod of uranium, only twelve inches long.
The clean-up job was prodigious. The first problem was
to get the scrap of uranium and sand, still lethally hot from
radiation but no longer burning, out of the pit. Teams of six
men, working only sixty seconds at a time, ventured into the
building. Here they worked with twenty-four-foot-long hoes

and shovels to scrape the sand and uranium onto a skid and
then cover it with more sand. A large semi-trailer truck was
backed into the reactor building. A four-foot-thick wall of
concrete blocks was placed between the space for the uranium
and the driver's cab. The area around the truck was so
radioactive that no one could get near it. The crane operators,
working in two-minute shifts, had to lower the skid onto it by
touch.
It took until 8 A.M. on May 25 to safely lower the
twelve-inch-long fragment of uranium onto the trailer truck.
Every road in the area was cleared of traffic and people.
Slowly, the truck with its tiny load of uranium buried in sand
moved the one-mile distance to the burial ground. Each speck
was vacuumed up, then the road surface was either washed
with a fire hose, or the exposed part of the road surface had to
be physically dug up, removed, and buried.
Other staff and office workers were called in to remove
all the remaining sand and debris in the repair pit. The health
physicists did some fast computing and agreed that it would
be safe to let the workers take up to five rads of exposure-the
maximum allowable annual limit. They worked in ghostly
shifts of one and a half minutes each, fully armored with
clothes and masks. Again they used the clumsy, twenty-fourfoot-long hoes, rakes, and shovels, dumping the debris into
garbage cans radiating up to two hundred rads as soon as the
remaining crumbs of the uranium and sand filled them.
As the clean-up job continued through Sunday night,
closed circuit TV cameras were installed so that supervisors
could keep watch over the clean-up crews, and the crews
could study their work areas in advance before entering the
lethal atmosphere. Practically all the doors in the reactor
building were sealed off. Throughout the first week after the
accident, the radiation readings were terribly high some still
over 1,000 rads each hour.

Special suction equipment was employed a device called

a Vacu-blast which has a nozzle that could be manipulated by
long holders. It was painful work. The vacuums would often
clog. To remove even a radioactive piece of paper from the
vacuum required the use of long poles with adhesive-coated
tips.
By the end of the first week, almost all the plant
personnel had taken all the radioactive exposure they could
afford. In their place, the Canadian government sent in nearly
three hundred members of the Canadian armed forces. They
vacuumed, then repeatedly wet-mopped the floors, covering
the cleaned areas with polyethylene sheets of paper. The
basement areas, ravaged by contaminated water, were
continuously wet-mopped with damp rags. The scrubbed
areas were given "swipe tests" with filter paper. The filter
papers were then brought to the radiation monitors for
checking. Steeplejacks were brought in to scrub every inch of
the eight-story-high walls.
The materials were those that any housewife would use:
hand mops, rags, water, and detergent. Every surface,
everywhere, had to be decontaminated.
About three months after the accident, the
decontamination battle had been won. There was still more
mopping up to do, but the radiation had fallen off to
reasonably safe levels. Because of the precautions taken, no
injuries were reported, although effects of radiation injuries
can remain dormant for up to fifty years.
But the accident was sobering. There were some 1,000
fuel rods in the reactor. They were made of the unenriched,
natural Uranium-238. If the fuel had been that of a breeder
enriched Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 the effects of the
accident would have been catastrophic.

As the final clean-up was being done at Chalk River, the fuel
rods for the Fermi reactor were being fabricated by the
Sylvania-Corning Nuclear Corporation in Hicksville, Long
Island. In contrast to the chunky, lower-grade rods of the
Chalk River reactor, the Fermi fuel rods, sometimes called
fuel pins, were literally as thin as Fourth of July sparklers,
and four or five times as long. But they packed a much greater
wallop. To load the core of the Fermi plant would take a
million dollars worth of rods, made of the potent enriched
Uranium-235, which would be packed tightly into the small
but powerful core. The tight packing and the richer fuel
would increase the potential danger of the reactor, because
the tighter uranium is packed, the more hazardous it is. But
Walker Cisler, acutely aware of the safety problems, was
constantly taking greater pains to explain to the communities
the care that was being taken to make the plant at Lagoona
Beach a model of safety. Speaking one evening to the
Monroe, Michigan, Business Men's Association at the local
country club, he said that full precautionary measures would
be taken to bar the possibility of any sort of explosion. He
cited the control rod system which would automatically shut
down the reactor if improperly operated, the "negative
temperature coefficient" which would also automatically shut
off the reactor if the temperature and reactivity started to go
out of control.
"Through these measures and many others which I have
not mentioned," he told the businessmen, "we are confident
the reactor plant presents no hazard whatever. We would not
think of building or operating it if we were not sure of this."
Asked about the furor in Washington concerning the
hidden safety report of the Advisory Committee, and the
UAW protests against the plant, Cisler said: "It is a little hard
to understand this controversy. I think it comes about largely
through lack of understanding of the vast amount of work that

has been done and remains to be done before the plant goes
into operation. In our minds," he concluded, "there are no
safety questions that cannot be resolved before the plant starts
up."
There were few who doubted Cisler's sincerity. He was a
man dedicated to the social good, and his motivations were
honest. But subjective value judgments were involved, and
this was what made the issue so difficult to resolve among
men of goodwill on both sides of the fence. Whose judgment
was correct, and how could it be determined?
Cisler, McCarthy, Amorosi, and the rest of the
management staff of the Fermi project were competent,
conscientious, and responsible people. If they had been
building an ordinary, coal-fired generating plant, no one
would have contested them. A violent accident or explosion
in a plant like that could be expensive and could injure a
handful of people, but it could not affect an area the size of a
state, or kill thousands of people. This was where the valuejudgment process came in. This was why the fight was
intensifying between the critics and the creators of the atomic
power plants.
Behind both sides there appeared to be two of the most
driving forces motivating men: fear and guilt. Many of the
advocates of fission energy harbored strong guilt feelings
about the hideous threat that the splitting of the atom had
hung over mankind. Harnessing the atom for peace would
assuage that guilt. The opponents of fission energy had strong
fears about permitting future generations to face a perpetual
threat that would be caused by the thousands of nuclear
power plants planned for construction by the year 2000. Their
theory was that even if men like Cisler, McCarthy, and
Amorosi turned out to be infallible, the men who worked for
them, the manufacturers who supplied them, the shippers who
transported the fuel rods, the inspectors who checked for

quality assurance, the AEC safety committees who monitored

them, could not all be equally infallible. Human error was
impossible to escape, and safeguards were as fallible as the
men who designed them.
At the time of the NRU accident, nuclear mishaps in the
United States were showing a disturbing trend. Nine serious
transportation accidents involving nuclear materials were
revealed in 1958 by the AEC. One of them took place at
Hanford, Washington, where a tank trailer carrying 1,500
gallons of radioactive uranium overturned. Its brakes had
failed on a hill. Traffic was shut off. Firemen rushed to the
scene and hosed the roadway. The contaminated fluid was
flushed into a ditch. Painstakingly, the dirt was dug up and
hauled away to be buried. Another trailer truck carrying
uranium gas also overturned in Bardstown, Kentucky, with
some escape of gas. The AEC claimed that no one was
injured in any of the accidents, but this did little to allay the
opposition's concern about extending nuclear power.
The long, drawn out proceedings instigated by Walter
Reuther and the AFL-CIO were finally coming to a lumbering
head before the AEC. There was a lot at stake. Fermi
construction estimates now looked as if they would soar to
the $70 million mark, nearly twice that of the earliest
estimate. The AEC was supplying more than $4 million worth
of research and equipment. Reuther and the UAW were
already preparing to take the case to the courts, once the
obligatory AEC hearings were completed. But the AEC
hearings did nothing, in fact, to slow down the construction
on the Fermi site. All through 1958, the steel skeletons of the
various buildings were fleshed out with concrete.
Construction began on the non-nuclear steam generating
station. An "Atomic Information Center" was built on the site
to inform school groups, educators, civic leaders, and

professional groups about the project. Nearly 1,000 persons a

week flowed through it.
Contracts were signed for three special steam generators,
at a cost of $1,375,000. These were designed with special
steel tubes to transfer heat from the closed-circuit pipes
bearing the molten sodium from the reactor, hot enough to
vaporize the water surrounding the tubes, without being
exposed to it. Meteorological tests continued to check the air
diffusion character of the Lagoona Beach location. The huge
steel intermediate heat exchanger shell, thirty-one feet long
and weighing twenty-three tons, arrived by truck from its
manufacturer in Dunkirk, New York. Progress reports were
continually being filed with the AEC and the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy, who reviewed them and called for more.
At the beginning of May, 1959, the reactor vessel plug, a
238,000-pound stainless steel "cork" designed to seal the neck
of the reactor vessel, arrived from Combustion Engineering
by rail. It was symbolic in one way, because it arrived just a
few weeks before the final decision by the AEC was sealed
and delivered. On May 26, 1959, the AEC ruled to continue
the construction permit. The decision came as no surprise.
The question now was, would Reuther and the unions bring
action in the courts where the decision would be
independent?
If that prospect worried Cisler, he didn't show it. He
continued to build up a staff of highly skilled scientists and
engineers. In addition to Walter McCarthy, there was William
Olson, an electrical engineer with long power plant
experience at Detroit Edison. Wayne Jens, the assistant
technical director, and Eldon Alexanderson, the reactor
engineer, were also high on the Fermi team.
These men, and others with them, were given
concentrated courses, both in the AEC's own installations and

in nuclear reactors in England. Nothing was spared in

developing their expertise.
But with all this meticulous planning, problems began to
crop up even before the nuclear fuel was brought to the
Lagoona Beach site. In August of 1959, a series of tests was
begun with the liquid sodium coolant that would be so vital in
the operation of the reactor.
Pure sodium is such a tricky substance; it must be
handled with extreme care. It is never found free in nature,
and it is a good thing it isn't. It's a killer compared to its mild
and useful cousins found in everyday things, such as table salt
(sodium chloride) and baking soda (sodium bicarbonate).
In its original form, pure sodium is a dry, silvery powder.
To attain the liquid form needed for the breeder reactor, it
must be kept over 210F. The liquid won't boil until it reaches
over 1600. Inside the reactor, the waxy, lustrous, shiny syrup
keeps the fuel rods from melting and heats up to 1000 to
create the steam for the electric power. It drinks up the
radioactivity like a sponge, and becomes highly irradiated.
No leaks can be tolerated, because the moment sodium
comes in contact with air or water, violent explosion and fire
result.
The design of the Fermi reactor was developed with
great respect for this chemical killer, for sodium has many
advantages, too. It transfers heat beautifully, and would not
need forced circulation if the pumps failed. Its high boiling
point would allow lower pressure inside the pipes and vessel.
But if it boiled inside the core or if its flow was blocked,
there might be a runaway meltdown. If it leaked from the
reactor after it had become radioactive, the resulting fire and
explosion would be disastrous.
That is why the preliminary tests were so necessary
before the fuel was installed at the Fermi plant. They began
quietly enough in an abandoned gravel pit about twenty miles

north of Lagoona Beach. But on August 24, 1959, a sodium

explosion suddenly erupted to blast the residents of nearby
Trenton and Riverview. Half a dozen people were
hospitalized, and scores suffered lesser injuries. Many homes
were damaged.
It was a serious accident, but even more sobering was the
thought of the disaster that would have resulted had the
sodium been radioactive. As it was, it was a setback for the
Fermi reactor, which, even in its incomplete non-nuclear
state, was revealing itself as a prized tiger beautiful, sleek,
powerful, and awesome, but very necessary to watch, cage,
and contain.
Safety devices were checked and rechecked by the Fermi
engineers; others were added to, and the whole safety system
strengthened. Aside from the problem of another sodium
explosion, there were other considerations. The prevention of
a meltdown was of the highest priority. There was the
awesome possibility of the "China Syndrome," where the
molten uranium collects at the bottom of the reactor vessel
and melts through the earth.
The bottom of a reactor is really similar in a way to a
giant coffee pot. The reactor core is held up from the bottom
by support grids, not unlike a coffee percolator, except that it
is lower in the pot. Under the reactor core is an empty space
called the plenum. In the core over a hundred subassemblies
are packed vertically; long, square wrapper cans each holding
140 fuel pins tightly in place. The sodium rushes into the
bottom of the "coffee pot" under pressure, and squirts up
through subassembly nozzles to cool the blistering hot fuel
pins to keep them from melting, and to take the heat away
through pipes to make steam. The sodium is then cooled in a
closed-circuit system, and pushed back through the core
again. Even though sodium is a "coolant," the rods are never
cool in conventional terms. They are always hot enough to

transfer 1000 of heat to the sodium, which in turn transfers

this high temperature by sealed pipes to a boiler, where the
steam is made to turn the turbines.
In the remote chance that the sodium coolant was
blocked off and the pins melted, the molten mass would
collect in the bottom of the coffee pot, either to continue
melting in the China Syndrome, or to create an explosion.
To prevent the fuel from forming into such a dangerous
mass was a primary, absolute safety necessity. Consequently,
Amorosi and his designers had already provided for a coneshaped stainless steel pillar on the bottom of the vessel, like a
blunt, inverted ice-cream cone. It was about a foot high. If the
worst should happen, and the melted uranium dripped like
candle wax down to the bottom, it was hoped that the cone
would spread the stuff out thinly, like a pancake, rather than
having it form into the thick mass that could lead it to a meltthrough or explosion.
For further protection, they designed a metallic sheet
made from zirconium that would be spread across the bottom
of the reactor. Zirconium is extremely resistant to molten
uranium, and would help protect against the China Syndrome.
But if the bottom was protected, why not the surface of
the cone itself? Al Amorosi thought it over. As an added
safety protection for the cone, he decided it might not be a
bad idea to cover the cone with zirconium plates. It was being
super-cautious to do so, but with the accidents that were
happening around the world with reactors, it wouldn't hurt to
be too careful. Amorosi wrote a memo about the idea,
indicating that it would be easier to implement it than to have
to justify not doing so, when the AEC's Advisory Committee
came around for another look.
But because of an oversight, the change was not noted on
the "as built" blueprints. No one knew at the time that an
ominous error was being made.

SEVEN

Two months after the AEC had ruled in favor of the Fermi
operation, the U.S. Court of Appeals reviewed the AFL-CIO
suit spearheaded by Walter Reuther. The brief was filed on
July 25, 1959, but because of delays in the court process, oral
arguments were not heard in Washington until March 23,
1960 eight months after the suit had been filed.
The shocking outcome was delivered on June 10, 1960,
when the Court of Appeals ruled that the construction permit
for the Fermi plant was illegal. Building would have to stop
within fifteen days.
The experts in Cisler's office were thunderstruck. If the
ruling held, the economic repercussions would be awesome.
Cisler replied by petitioning for a rehearing within a week.
The AEC joined in the petition. But on July 25, 1960, one
year after the court action had been brought by the unions, the
Court of Appeals denied the petition. Construction was to
stop. Millions of dollars would be frozen in economic limbo.
Neither Cisler nor the AEC were ready to give up,
however. Almost immediately they announced that they

would appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The move
was backed by the Department of justice, which supported the
AEC. While the case was being appealed, construction
continued. Life went on as usual at Lagoona Beach as more
giant, heavy equipment arrived. The molten sodium was
injected into the full system. The construction permit was
renewed by the AEC for another year. Mrs. Enrico Fermi,
widow of the world-famous physicist, came to inspect the
plant named in her husband's honor. The remaining months of
1960 swept by, with the Fermi crew doggedly moving ahead
in spite of the Supreme Court appeal, which hung over the
project.
On January 3, 1961, some 1,700 miles to the west of the
Lagoona Beach construction site, the three-man crew of a
reactor known as the SL-1, in Idaho Falls, was well into its
duties on the 4 P.M. to midnight shift. The reactor was
designed to be plunked down in the middle of the arctic to
bring light and heat to remote military bases, so it produced
only two hundred kilowatts, enough for about one dozen
homes. Because it was small, it was being serviced by only
three men at night. There was Richard Legg, in his midtwenties, an electrician's mate for the Navy who had
completed eight months of training at a military nuclear
power school. He had worked for more than a year on the
reactor. There was the reactor operator, John Byrnes, also in
his mid-twenties, and an Army specialist. He had nearly a
year and a half's experience at his post. The third man on the
shift was Richard McKinley. He was only twenty-two, and a
trainee, fresh from another Army training program.
The three men had lots to do that clear, cold night. The
reactor building, looking like a fat, tall corn silo, sat on the
flat plains about forty miles from the town of Idaho Falls, the
AEC's bedroom community where the families of the three

men lived. Though the reactor itself was small, it was part of
a huge AEC testing station-an area covering 892 square miles,
almost as large as Rhode Island. In addition to the SL-1, there
were sixteen other experimental reactors scattered throughout
the vast sagebrush and desert complex. By 9 P.M., however,
most of the employees in the other facilities would be gone,
except for the night crew and the fire and security personnel.
The SL-1 crew was working a lonely shift. To the west,
the Lost River range loomed like a vague, dark silhouette.
Highway U.S. 20 skirted near the southern boundary of the
reserve; Idaho 88 paralleled it nearly thirty miles to the north.
Both sliced partly into the AEC complex, and few headlights
could be seen along the straight, flat stretches of the roads.
For the past two months things had not been going well
in the belly of SL-1. The cadmium control rods had been
highly uncooperative, with a tendency to stick and jam.
Considering the SL-l's highly enriched Uranium-235 fuel, this
was not a situation to be taken lightly. A critical and supercritical condition could emerge within millionths of a second.
Worse, on several occasions, steam had seeped into the
control room without warning. There was evidence of crud
gathering in the coolant water. There was also swelling and
bowing of boron plates installed on the fuel elements as a
"poison" to keep the atom-splitting from going into a runaway
chain reaction, by drinking up the excess neutrons.
The guts of any reactor take a beating, both from
irradiation and corrosion. As a result, the tendency of control
rods to stick had to be watched very carefully. In fact, orders
had been issued to all crews that they must "exercise" the
safety and control rods regularly to make sure they would
respond promptly to achieve either a routine shutdown or an
emergency scram. The exercising consisted of raising and
lowering the rods from different heights to make sure they
were running free. But by two days before Christmas, on

December 23, 1960, it had become obvious that the reactor

would need considerable maintenance work and inspection,
and it was shut down for the holiday week.
To shut down the reactor, the control rods had been
pushed down snugly into the core to stop the chain reaction.
Part of the routine job required disconnecting the control rods
from the motors and gears that hauled them in and out of the
reactor. Only five of the nine control rods were in use at the
time, the others remained in the core. The important one was
rod number 9, which alone could start up the reactor from its
central position.
Previous crews had completed most of the inspection
and maintenance work by the time Legg, Byrnes, and
McKinley reported for duty on the afternoon of January 3,
1961. They inherited a relatively simple job, as noted in their
Night Order Book: To reassemble the control rod drives and
prepare the reactor for start-up.
At some time before nine o'clock that evening, the crew
scribbled a laconic notation in the logbook: "Replacing plugs,
thimbles, etc., to all control rods." As casual as the log entry
was, the crew would have to be extremely careful of control
rod number 9. To connect it to the machinery that moved it,
they had to lift the rod four inches by hand. This meant
standing on top of the reactor vessel and hauling the rod up
very carefully, so that this distance would not be exceeded.
Although there was an ample safety margin in inches, a
sudden tug on a heavy, sticky, seven-foot rod could yank it
too high. If this happened, the reactor could surge out of
control in a fraction of a second. But the crew had done this
job before, and were well trained for it.
To work on this routine, the three men were all in the
reactor area, which was connected by a stairway to the sheetmetal building that housed the now-empty control room,
repair shops, and offices. Normally, there would have been

nearly sixty men working on the regular daytime shift. The

nighttime duties were light and made the larger crews
unnecessary. The Combustion Engineering Company handled
the management of the reactor on contract to the government,
and they were not required to be on hand beyond the normal
working day. However, John Byrnes, a qualified chief
operator, could call on the civilian managers at any time of
day or night if the occasion demanded it.
The first sign of trouble came at exactly 9:01 P.M., when
an automatic radiation alarm sounded at the AEC fire brigade
stations and the security headquarters several miles away
from the SL-1. Immediately, the alarm was broadcast from the
security headquarters communications system over the AEC
private radio network connecting all the Idaho installations
and staff homes. At the same time, the personnel radiation
monitor at the gate house of another facility, one mile away
from the SL-1, also sounded the alarm.
Forty miles away from the site, in the town of Idaho
Falls, Ed Vallario, the health physicist supervisor, was in the
process of putting his children to bed when the radio alert
sounded. He grabbed his Scott respirator and protective
coveralls, picked up his colleague Paul Duckworth, and raced
along U.S. 20 to the west, toward the reactor. At the same
time, the AEC fire brigade and security forces speeded
toward the reactor from their headquarters eight miles away,
pulling up at the site at 9:10.
They were greeted by silence. The buildings were intact;
the lights were still on. There was no fire, no smoke. No one
was visible, no one greeted them. Security patrolmen opened
the gate of the wire fence, moved cautiously toward the big
silo that housed the reactor, then on toward the building
where the control room was. The firemen went on ahead of
them. They were wearing protective suits including two pairs
of coveralls taped tightly at wrists and ankles, overboots,

masks, and radiation meters. So far, everything appeared

normal.
They reached the SL-l administration building, watching
their meters carefully. There was still no sign whatever of the
three-man crew. There was only a ghostly silence. The
assistant fire brigade chief cautiously entered the building.
His meter, which registered only up to 25 rads an hour, went
off the scale. He retreated. Within moments, a health
physicist from a neighboring reactor arrived at the scene. He
and a fireman cautiously moved into the building, toward the
control room. There was still not a sign of the crew. Their
meters smacked up to 25 rads, and they also were forced to
retreat.
Shortly after 9:30, two more physicists from one of the
sixteen other experimental reactors arrived, one of them with
a meter registering up to 500 rads an hour a potentially lethal
dose to the unprotected. The new crew moved into the
administration building, toward the control room. As they
approached it, their meter jumped to 200 rads. They rushed
back out of the building, then held a conference. With the
radiation levels registering so high, the probes would have to
be rationed among many different rescue workers. No one
worker could be allowed to expose himself to this high a
reading more than once or twice, and then only for a matter of
seconds, even with mask and suit protection. In such
situations timing is all important. Very brief exposures to
lethal radiation can be tolerated with protective devices, but
they are still dangerous.
Another probe by a new crew was made. This time, they
dashed up the stairs to the entrance of the reactor building
itself. It was a shambles. Burned and twisted metal was
strewn everywhere. They could see none of the crew that had
been on duty. Not even bodies. The crew's meters hit the

potentially lethal 500 rads. There was nothing to do but

retreat again.
If the reading were a lethal 500 rads at the entrance, it
was obvious that inside the building the radiation would be
viciously higher-far above the killer threshold. A dose of
several minutes to a crewman, unprotected by mask and suit,
would hit him with acute radiation sickness within half a day.
He would feel nothing at the moment of exposure, but
then would come the ominous symptoms that forecast almost
certain death: nausea, vomiting, weakness, followed by
apparent recovery for a few weeks. Meanwhile, his red and
white blood cells and platelets would be dying. His blood
would be suffocating, as the oxygen in it depleted. Then there
would begin bleeding from the nose, gums, and intestines,
leaving the victim open for infection. The hemorrhaging
would kill him.
It was not a pretty picture for the rescuers to face. But
there were men in there somewhere, and the job had to be
done. Vallario and Duckworth arrived about 10:30, just after
the AEC-Idaho operations officer broadcast a Class-I disaster.
The decision to enter the reactor building itself would have to
be made by Vallario as the ranking SL-1 health physics
supervisor. He was quickly filled in on the situation, the
enormous radiation readings, and the fact that no men or
bodies had been seen. Neither Vallario nor Duckworth wasted
any time. They grabbed their Scott-Pak masks and dashed into
the building. They knew the risk they were taking, but they
allowed themselves three minutes. They assigned three other
rescuers to stand by.
They scrambled up the stairs to the reactor building, and
looked in at the shambles. Then they entered. Their meters
soared to double the lethal dose-1,000 rads. As they moved in
past the threshold, they saw two of the three men lying to the

side of what had once been the top of the reactor. One was
still and lifeless. The other was moving.
They picked up the man who was still alive and put him
on a stretcher. Their three-minute allotment was almost up.
They carried the stretcher to the top of the stairs leading down
to the control room, then rushed out of the building to
summon the standby crew. Within seconds, the crew of five
were back. Part of the team checked the second victim who
was barely visible. He was dead. The others picked up the
stretcher, ran and stumbled out of the building to a waiting
panel truck. The radioactivity from the man on the stretcher,
who now seemed more dead than alive, was intense. The
truck spun out fast to meet an ambulance at a roadblock
established where Fillmore Boulevard met U.S. 20, several
miles away. The doctor, fully shielded, examined the victim.
He was now dead, with his body continuing to give off lethal
radiation. It was not safe to take the body anywhere but back
to the SL-1 site. The ambulance returned there with its tragic
burden.
Meanwhile, another team scrambled to the reactor
building, into the 1,000-rad atmosphere. The second body
was still on the reactor floor, as if blown aside by the twisted
wreckage. The third was still nowhere to be seen. Time was
running out.
Then they looked up to the ceiling, one story above the
reactor floor. The third crew member was impaled there. Part
of the reactor rod was through his groin and out his shoulder.
He was obviously dead. The rescue team left the building.
A decontamination trailer arrived at the scene. The
rescue crews who had entered the building were stripped of
their clothes, cleaned and washed, and rushed to the
dispensary for further decontamination. Up to 30 rads had
leaked through their clothing-not enough to present
immediate clinical symptoms.

Further attempts at recovering the two bodies in the

reactor building were stopped for the night. It would only
expose more workers to extreme radiation at a time when the
entire situation needed slow and careful assessment. No one
knew what the chances were for a secondary nuclear accident.
The radiation levels, for the time being, were so lethal that
extreme care would have to be taken. All workers were
ordered back to a roadblock established on U.S. 20.
It was not until 6 A.M. the following morning that the
decision was made to remove the first body from the
ambulance which by now was badly contaminated by the
radiation emitted by the corpse. With extreme care, the
clothing was removed from the body by a team of five men,
heavily gloved, suited, and masked. Some of the clothing
stubbornly stuck to the skin and hair. The body was still
emitting up to 400 rads. Only the frame of the victim's film
badge detector remained. It was impossible to tell how much
he had actually absorbed.
Carefully, they placed the body back in the ambulance.
The corpse was covered completely with lead aprons in an
attempt to reduce the radiation. Then the ambulance was
taken across the broad, flat desert toward the Chemical
Processing Plant the only place where it could be completely
shielded. Here the facilities for handling deadly, used fuel
rods were such that thick concrete sealed-off areas for "hot"
fuel processing were available. With the amount of radiation
coming from the body, conventional burial was out of the
question at the time.
At the processing plant, attempts were made to further
decontaminate the corpse, but it was useless. The radiation
count remained inordinately high. All decisions about burial
would have to wait. The body was packed in water, alcohol,
and ice, in the hope that some of the uranium would leach
out. Meanwhile, careful plans were made to remove the

second body from the floor of the reactor. (It was now
obvious that the removal of the third body, impaled on the
ceiling, would take long days of planning before it was even
attempted.)
To get the second body out of the reactor building, the
crews rehearsed the planned routine carefully. Because the
radiation exposure load had to be spread over many people,
jobs had to be broken down into several steps, each team
accomplishing only part of the plan. It took until 7:30 P.M.
the following evening for this to begin. The maximum
permissible working time was set at one minute for any
individual. There were two health physicists and two military
men assigned. One of the physicists held a stopwatch at the
entrance to the reactor operating floor. The other stood by in
the control room, where the body was first to be taken.
The rest of the four-man team rushed into the reactor
floor. One took the shoulders; the other the legs. Their oneminute limit expired when they were halfway down the stairs
to the control room. They kept on going, placed the body on a
blanket in the control room, and retreated. Another team
dashed in. They took the four corners of the blanket, and
moved swiftly out of the building with it to a waiting
ambulance. The second body was also taken to the Chemical
Processing Plant.
There was still the third body, plus the condition of the
reactor to be coped with. It was impossible to climb onto the
structural beam next to the body. The beam itself was both
heavily contaminated and precarious. The readings went as
high as twice the lethal dose 1,000 rads on both the beam and
the body. A photographer sent in to photograph the position
was permitted only thirty seconds to film the grisly scene. It
was obvious that it would take many days working under
these conditions to extricate the body. An entire relay of
teams was set up to begin the task.

First, the outside door was opened to allow a large crane

to be positioned just outside it. Then closed-circuit TV
cameras were positioned inside the reactor building. A large
net was prepared and fixed on the crane boom, underneath the
body in the ceiling. The TV cameras failed to operate
properly, and one of the teams had to be wasted in order to
see that the net was in a proper position. Four other teams
were assigned to climb through the outside door to the height
of the ceiling and free the body, so that it would fall into the
net. Another crew handled the crane outside the building. No
team was permitted more than sixty seconds in the reactor
building. Six days after the accident, at nearly five in the
morning, the body was dropped into the net, and the recovery
operations were completed. The teams could now turn their
attention to assessing what had happened to cause the
tragedy, and what condition the reactor was in.
Fortunately, the SL-1 was not a breeder. It was not as
dangerous as the Fermi reactor. Its fuel was less compact, it
was a fraction of the power of Fermi or other commercial
reactors, and there was no danger of a sodium explosion. Nor
was there much possibility of a secondary meltdown. Quick
preliminary tests, done immediately after the accident, had
indicated that the core was subcritical-that is, shut down with
no further chain reaction, and unable to sustain one.
Fortunately, the release of fission products to the atmosphere
had been reasonably light. There had been no fire, no burning
of uranium to release the pent-up clouds that, even with the
small size of the core, could have been devastating to the
surrounding areas.
Small as the core was, the energy released by the
accident
was
found
to
be
the
result
of
1,500,000,000,000,000,000 atoms splitting within a fraction
of a second. Over the next months, crews probing the mystery
continued to run in and out of the area for sixty-second

intervals. The radiation was so "hot," and continued to be so,

that longer shifts were not permitted. The new crews were
told: "Look-we can't send anyone in to guide you. When we
say 'Go!'-go in and do your assigned job. When we hit the
bell, no matter where you are or what you are doing-come
out!" One executive was assigned a precarious job. A welder's
torch had set fire to some cloth bags packed with round, lead
pellets, which were used to screen off radiation from the open
reactor. The pellets had spewed over the reactor building
floor like buckshot. His job was to shovel up what he could
into buckets. He was allowed forty-five seconds. He ran into
the building. The pellets were everywhere, spinning him as if
he were on roller skates. Barely able to keep his footing, he
shoveled desperately, filling only one bucket. It was so heavy
he could barely drag it to the doorway.
It was clear that a nuclear excursion-the euphemistic
term for a nuclear accident had taken place. This was
surmised by the detection of many radioactive isotopes found
on the victims' belongings: a sample shaken out of the
clothing; a radioactive cigarette lighter screw belonging to
one of the victims; radioactive copper in a watch band of
another; activated gold found in a wedding ring worn by the
third. All revealed varied fission products such as Cobalt-58,
Chromium-51, Yttrium-91, and gross fission products. Other
tests showed that the energy was not large but it was large
enough to lift the reactor vessel a three-story-high cylinder as
wide as a smokestack- out of its hole, and smash it against the
ceiling. It was speculated that the nuclear excursion created a
giant "water hammer" which smacked against the shield at the
top of the reactor and lifted it up with tremendous force, and
that it all happened within two to four seconds. The excursion
itself was apparently over within 1 /500th of a second.
What had caused the accident was still only a guess. The
prevailing theory was that one of the operators had lifted the

central control rod number 9. Perhaps it had stuck, and he

yanked too hard. Perhaps he had tried to "exercise" it again.
Perhaps he had been under emotional strain, and was not
concentrating on the job. Whatever had happened in that
lonely spot on January 3, 1961, would never be known. The
significance was that, again, men were not infallible.
As one scientist, T. J. Thompson of MIT, speculated:
"Perhaps the operator decided to exercise the rod without
thought as to the consequences of the action. It is also
possible, however, that an operator in anger, in a moment of
careless fun, or in an act of deliberate sabotage raised the rod
suddenly. But all these are sheer conjecture." Fortunately, the
SL-1 system was not pressurized, as in the commercial plants,
and the fission product after-heat was not enough to make the
core molten which would have caused further melting or fire.
Less than ten percent of the poisons were released from the
building.
The official probe by the AEC dragged on for months.
As the inquiry began, the first urgent problem was that of the
burial of the victims. They were still resting in a radiationproof vault of the Chemical Processing Plant on the AEC's
reserve, packed in water, ice, and alcohol in the attempt to
leach the uranium and fission products from them. But by
January 23, twenty days after the accident, the radiation count
had dropped enough to consider giving the bodies a decent
burial. Even then, because the exposed hands and heads had
received so much radiation, they had to be severed from the
victims' bodies and buried with other radioactive waste.
While the investigators were picking over the shambled
carcass of SL-1, the first shipment of enriched Uranium-235
arrived for the Fermi reactor at Lagoona Beach, on June 9,
1961. The fuel pins, designed to breed 106 kilograms of
plutonium each year, were almost a yard long, and clad in

zirconium. They were thin, less than the thickness of a lead

pencil, and 140 of them were packed into a stainless steel
cartridge to make up a subassembly.
They were separated by egg-crate-like supports. That
would stop them from bowing or warping -two very
dangerous situations that could cause an unpredictable chain
reaction. There were 105 subassemblies to be stacked
vertically into the Fermi core. But for the moment, they
would be stored in the Fermi vaults until the AEC cleared an
operating license to permit the loading of the reactor.
The Supreme Court appeal was now pending and a
decision was expected soon.
Walter Reuther continued to assail the AEC for
permitting the Fermi construction to continue in the face of
both the impending Supreme Court decision and the fatal
accident at Idaho Falls. Now he released a study of forty
atomic reactor accidents, many of them minor, but all
potentially serious, and linked this with the SL-l tragedy.
"This study," he said, "plus the explosion at Idaho Falls,
confirm the validity of the trade union opposition to the
construction of the untested fast-breeder reactor near Detroit.
"The Detroit plant, built in spite of an appeal by
intervening unions, is 300 times larger than an experimental
model EBR-I which exploded in Idaho in 1955." Then
referring to the SL-l accident, he said: "It is clear that
thousands of people would have been overexposed to
radiation if the SL-1 had been built in a populated area, just
as the fast-breeder reactor is being built in the first
commercial size in the Toledo-Detroit metropolitan area."
Coincidentally, the AEC issued its first accident report
on the SL-1 on June 11, 1961 the day before the U.S.
Supreme Court was due to give its verdict on the FermiLagoona Beach case. The upshot of the AEC investigation
was not one of great assurance to the public. It said: "We

cannot say with any certainty what initiated the SL-1

explosion, and it is possible that we may never know." The
report pointed out that the condition of the reactor core and
control system had deteriorated to such an extent that a
prudent operator would never have allowed operation of the
reactor without a thorough review. It revealed that portions of
the reactor had bowed and warped, and that the sticking of the
control rods had been an old and familiar problem.
The report discussed the rod-dropping tests several days
before the accident, which showed that three of the five rods
simply did not drop as they should have, to cut off the atomsplitting in case of an emergency. Why the reactor was kept
going under these conditions was never explained. The
ultimate cause of the accident was only a theoretical guess:
Control rod number 9 must have been pulled out too far and
too fast. The specter of human fallibility was still stalking the
peaceful uses of atomic energy.
Even in its death throes, the SL-1 remained dangerous. It
would take months and years to disassemble the machine, and
its radioactive wreckage and grave would have to be guarded
practically forever.
The day after the AEC report appeared, the Supreme
Court assembled in Washington to give its verdict on the
Fermi case. Just what effect the disaster at Idaho Falls would
have, neither Cisler nor Reuther knew. The case was to be the
first contested licensing proceeding involving the AEC.
The struggle had begun in the summer of 1956. Now,
five long years later, in the spring of 1961, it was coming to a
head. It had cost time and money to both Cisler and Reuther
vast amounts. It would be a landmark case, the first that
challenged the gargantuan capability of the atom to bring
either enormous benefit or enormous catastrophe, depending
on what was to happen in the future.

EIGHT

The Supreme Court decision came through on schedule. It

was a clear-cut victory for Walker Cisler. The vote was seven
to two. The decision stated plainly that the AEC had been
within its rights in permitting the Fermi reactor to be built.
Final construction could proceed unhindered.
In delivering the majority decision, justice Brennan
stated that the AEC had found "reasonable assurance for
present purposes, and that is enough to satisfy the arguments
of law." Brennan added that it was clear in the face of the law
that Congress intended a step-by-step plan to provide the
construction permit as the first step, to be followed by the
operating license if the construction conditions were met.
Only Justices Black and Douglas dissented. They
referred to the AEC's own safety committee report in their
minority opinion which said: "Plainly these are not findings
that the safety standards have been met. They presuppose . . .
that safety findings can be made after the construction a
finished. But when that point is reached, when millions have
been invested, the momentum is on the side of the applicant,
not on the side of the public. The momentum is not only

generated by the desire to salvage an investment. No agency

wants to be the architect of a white elephant. . . ."
Then, referring to both the majority opinion that gave the
Fermi plant a clear go-ahead, and the Atomic Energy Act, the
minority opinion concluded: "This legislative history makes
clear the time when the issue of safety must be resolved is
before the Commission issues a construction permit." This
decision, the report went on to say, "is, with all deference, a
lighthearted approach to the most awesome, the most deadly,
the most dangerous process that man has ever conceived."
The decision was a bitter disappointment for Walter
Reuther. There would be some chance of challenging the
operating license later, but the momentum seemed to weigh
heavily against any possibility of stopping a project that had
already reached an investment of some $80 million dollars.
The Monroe Evening News, elated that the project
would continue to bring employment and additional taxes to
Michigan and to the community, hailed the decision as
"another notable stride forward." The local residents and
press, however, had heard only one part of the story. The
voices of protest were dim and distant. Hardly anyone outside
of devout atomic-plant watchers had heard of Chalk River,
Windscale, or the SL-1; few knew the implications of a
runaway meltdown. Reuther's battle had been fought in
Washington, far away from Lagoona Beach and Monroe,
Michigan. the whole concept of nuclear power was too new,
the dangers too obscure and technical for the lay press to
grasp. Some newspapermen, like Saul Friedman of the Detroit
Free Press did, but his was a voice in the wilderness.
The Supreme Court decision, of course, gave Walker
Cisler and his team new life. A renovated buoyancy emerged
at the site. Construction activity was brisk, and the rest of
1961 whisked by in a frenzy of activity.

As 1962 began, Walter McCarthy moved up to become

the assistant to General Manager Robert Hartwell, as well as
serving as secretary and assistant treasurer of the Power
Reactor Development Company, Cisler's combine.
McCarthy's theoretical grasp of the intricate nuclear physics
involved in the breeder matched his engineering and
executive skills.
His preparation of the many stages of the Hazard
Summary Report, required by the AEC before an operating
license could be issued, was detailed and exacting. It was
continually reviewed by the AEC. McCarthy was required to
examine every possible type of danger.
His report exuded confidence and authority. "Even if a
leak occurs in the primary system," he wrote, "cooling can be
maintained and the core will not melt down. . . . Every
precaution has been taken to prevent gross meltdown of the
core with the possibility of an ensuing energy release."
Like most nuclear scientists in the field, he preferred to
use "energy release" to "explosion." It seemed to be part of an
unwritten code, just as "incident" was constantly used instead
of "accident," "excursion" was used instead of "runaway,"
and "rapid critical assembly" was used in place of "potential
atomic bomb." Having been faced with the slings and arrows
of their critics, they were, of course, gun-shy and defensive.
They could never tell when their words would be used against
them.
In looking at what McCarthy considered the "maximum
hypothetical accident," he was supremely confident that even
what he called "this highly unlikely event" would not breach
the containment vessel.
But other scientists, equally or even better qualified,
were to disagree with this assumption some years later.
George Well was only one of many who was to equate a
critical mass which created a blast with an atomic explosion.

Professor Henry W. Kendall of MIT was later to reveal that

the safety assurances put forth by the AEC for the light-water
nuclear reactors were "gravely defective," and that the nuclear
power plants being designed were a serious threat to the
health and safety of the public. This applied, he was to point
out in a later report, to all atomic power plants, without
exception. His studies were to be resolved in a paper written
in collaboration with Daniel Ford of Harvard, and issued for
the Union of Concerned Scientists that was based in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. They wrote:
The safety systems in presently operating nuclear power
plants are crude and untested. A number of design
weaknesses in these safety systems have been confirmed.
Moreover, there is extensive evidence that the workmanship
going into nuclear power plant construction is far from
adequate. The increasing number of quality assurance
problems, maintenance deficiencies, management review
oversights, and operator errors is disturbing. The A.E.C. has
itself acknowledged that there have been a number of "near
misses" in the brief operating history of commercial reactors,
accidents that could have resulted in major public health
incidents. An official A.E.C. assessment of some of the
operating records of the nuclear reactor program is that
absence of direct injury to the general public to date is
"largely the result of good luck."
Rumblings against the breeder reactor also grew slowly
and were to be singled out by prominent scientists across the
country. Eventually, they were to group together to voice
their protests. They included such prominent figures as Dr.
James Watson of double-helix fame; Dr. Harold Urey of the
University of California; Dr. Linus Pauling and Dr. Paul
Erlich, both of Stanford; Dr. George Wald, the Nobel laureate

of Harvard; Dr. John Gofman of the University of California

at Berkeley, and many others.
Their combined statement against the fast-breeder
reactor was to be finally published several years later, and
was uncompromising. "The reactor cooling system will utilize
liquid sodium," they wrote, "which is highly reactive and
burns on contact with air or water. Breeder reactors operate
closer to the melting point of their structural materials, and
they generate and use much larger quantities of
plutonium...Plutonium can be fashioned relatively easily into
a crude nuclear weapon. In an energy economy based on
breeder reactors (some hundreds of them by the year 2000
according to A.E.C. projections), enormous quantities of
plutonium will have to be handled and transported. The
potential for accidental release or theft by unauthorized
persons will be unprecedented."
The statement added: "Federal funds being sought for the
hasty demonstration and deployment of breeder reactors
should be spent instead on such basic problems as reactor
safety, waste storage and plutonium management. Of equal
importance is increased Federal funding of other energy
options, including solar power, controlled thermonuclear
fusion, coal gasification, geothermal power, fuel cells,
magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), and use of agricultural
wastes and garbage..."
The threat of future proliferation of plutonium did not
shake Walker Cisler's confidence. He was looking forward to
the day when the uranium in the core would be replaced by
pure plutonium, which he considered more efficient in spite
of the dangers. "That is what our goal is," he said to the joint
Committee on Atomic Energy of Congress. "We want to get
to the point where we can fuel that reactor with plutonium.
This is really what is behind our purpose. I am just hopeful
that we can mobilize all of the know-how that exists

anywhere in the world to enable us to put a plutonium loading

in that reactor at the earliest possible time."
But as Saul Friedman pointed out in the Detroit Free
Press, even Dr. Glenn Seaborg, the new AEC chairman and a
co-discoverer of plutonium, called it the "ornery element." Its
tricky chemistry, its capacity to create a flood of fission
products at its birth, the need to process it in remote places,
and its capacity to leap into a chain reaction, all were
qualities that had to be weighed most soberly.
Even Dr. Edward Teller, one of the foremost nuclear
proponents, was later to express his serious doubts about the
breeder and plutonium as a fuel. "In order for a [fast-breeder
reactor] to work economically in a sufficiently big power
producing unit," he wrote, "it probably needs quite a bit more
than one ton of plutonium. I do not like the hazard involved."
Dr. Teller was also to go on record as saying that not a single
atomic power plant should be built above the ground, yet
every plant built or planned was above ground.
Within a year after his promotion, Walter McCarthy
himself, with David Okrent, wrote, in a section of the classic
textbook Technology of Nuclear Reactor Safety (MIT Press):
"At this stage [1963] of our knowledge of the course of
violent disassemblies in large fast reactors of complex
geometry, perhaps a word of caution should be added. The
possibility that only a portion of such a reactor melts,
undergoes a relatively mild explosion which acts to compress
other parts of the core extremely rapidly, thus instigating a
very much larger energy release, needs further investigation."
Even before the Supreme Court decision, and the
euphoria it inspired, bad luck at Lagoona Beach seemed to be
constant. Beginning in 1959, the fuel rod tests had shown that
they would only be able to serve one-third of the hoped-for
time before they burned out. The sodium coolant showed that
it would strip the ribs that kept the dummy fuel pins at a safe

distance from each other. The dummy fuel pins were for
testing only. If they had been real, an alarmingly dangerous
condition would have been created. In 1960, there was a fourto six-month delay, as tests showed that the fuel pins would
swell and block the essential coolant from passing through the
reactor. The potential power of the reactor had to be cut in
half because of the tests on the fuel pin behavior. The sodium
reacted with the graphite shielding, and much of the latter had
to be replaced. It took fifteen months and $2.5 million to do
so. The machinery dome design had to be changed, because it
was found that the 288,000-pound plug to seal the top of the
reactor could become a deadly missile and shatter the
containment. All of this was reported to the AEC. There was
no cover-up. The incidents simply dramatized the incredible
problems encountered in this uncharted sea of complexity.
To add to these problems, in the fall of 1962 a
subassembly stuck, more sodium plugged, more graphite
deteriorated when it shouldn't have, and the enormous fuel
lifting device failed. It took months to make the repairs.
The construction permit had to be extended, and the
delays seemed endless, both technical and administrative.
After all the years of monitoring the construction, the special
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety- the committee that
had had so many reservations about the safety of the Fermi
reactor, met in October of 1962 to give consideration as to
whether the plant was now safe enough to operate.
Under the committee's scrutiny at the meeting was
whether or not to load the fuel into the reactor, and begin tests
that would use only 1/400th of its ultimate power. Because
the reactor was going to operate at only a fraction of its
designed power, the Advisory Committee cleared the way for
permission to be granted to operate at this low level, subject
to a thorough review before the power could be advanced up

to its operating level of 200,000 kilowatts, the next step in its

evolution.
But Reuther and the AFL-CIO unions had not given up.
After having lost the battle against the construction license,
they planned to fight the pending operating license at public
hearings scheduled to begin in December of 1962. On
December 11, they requested a delay in the hearing until
January 3, 1963, to prepare their case. And, as if to punctuate
the request, a dramatic event happened the next day violating
the law that had governed all the planning of the Fermi
reactor: Sodium and air must never meet.
An operator sat at the console in the control room
watching the instruments as the liquid sodium was rushing
through the loop of massive piping that would eventually
create the steam for the generator. Suddenly, the temperature
rose on one of the dials. He reached over and hit a safety
button to dump water out of the generator system. Only
seconds later, an automatic safety disc burst. The sodium
rushed out of a faulty relief vent. The moment it hit the air, it
flared up violently. Fortunately, the nuclear fuel had not yet
been loaded into the reactor, and the sodium was not
radioactive. No one was hurt. But the unions protested
vigorously that if the fuel had been loaded in the reactor,
there would have been a disastrous release of fission
products.
The accident brought the Michigan Attorney General's
office onto the scene, and the public safety issue was
dramatically thrust into the picture again. The sodium
explosion was only a minor symbol of what could happen.
The attorney general's office, along with other state agencies,
were chary and circumspect about the whole matter. A
provisional approval by the Michigan Department of Health
was sent to the AEC, but it made clear that the state reserved
the right to alter its position. The agency also indicated that

the whole situation might have to be reviewed in the light of

the sudden sodium leak.
The health department also asked the AEC to make sure
that the monitoring devices for radiation be kept to strict
standards, and that no leakage or radioactive materials be
allowed to get out of hand. The department was especially
interested in the emergency evacuation plans, not only
because of the dangers of escaping radiation, but because of
the contagion and health problems that could arise from
moving thousands of people out of their homes.
The Radiation Emergency Procedures had already been
worked out by the Fermi plant staff, and they were elaborate.
The shift supervisor would notify all plant personnel over the
plant intercom, or by the blast of an air horn. The air horn
signals were defined and worked out. Reactor engineers,
operating staff, and health physicists would report to the
control room to help the shift supervisor. Others of the staff
would go to assigned shelter areas. Staff having to evacuate
any building were to bring with them all radiation monitoring
devices; plant guards would prohibit any but emergency
personnel from going into the reactor site. Evacuation routes
away from the plant would use both lanes, and traffic would
be stopped to be monitored or decontaminated, at the Pointe
Aux Peaux Road buildings, where first aid and sodium burn
kits were available. The public information staff would he
responsible for any plant visitors, whether they were at the
Exhibits Building or on tour. All visitors would be checked
for contamination. They would have their own film badges
and pencil dosimeters.
Plant nurses and doctors were listed, and ambulance
phone numbers posted. Any victim receiving more than
twenty-five rads, or with a contaminated burn, would be taken
by ambulance to the University Hospital at Ann Arbor, about
twenty miles away. Specific officials such as Sheriff Bud

Harrington and the state police were to be notified. They

would be responsible for whatever measures were to be taken
outside the plant.
The sodium accident elicited the outcries of the critics
all over again. Several Washington reporters, including Esther
Von Waggoner Tufty, protested that no approval should be
given for the start-up of the plant until the explosion was fully
explained. But the average citizen had only a little inkling of
the potential dangers. In fact, the town fathers of Frenchtown,
the local township just northwest of Lagoona Beach, wrote a
comforting note to the AEC, saying that they backed the
Fermi reactor a hundred percent. While some critics looked at
the townsmen as mice walking into a bobcat's cage, the
sentiments were genuine. "All questions have been
answered," the town fathers wrote the AEC, "and the
complete information which has been furnished has
astounded us beyond measure. While not experts in matters of
engineering and safety, we are impressed by the drive for
excellence in these fields. Recognizing that safety,
undoubtedly, is the most important factor in your
consideration of these matters, we wish to pinpoint our
favorable impression of the actions taken in the regard by the
Power Reactor Development Company."
In spite of the sodium accident, the new year of 1963
began brightly for the Fermi plant. The AFL-CIO
representatives were rebuffed at the new AEC hearings in
Washington and the local township meetings concerning the
operating license. In fact, the union men were so indignant
that they walked out of the hearings, leaving the road
practically clear for the Fermi license to be granted
uncontested. But it still took five months longer for the
license to become effective.
After a final AEC inspection, the Fermi crew began
loading the Uranium-235 fuel assemblies on July 13, 1963. It

was an eventful day, and the procedure had been carefully

rehearsed beforehand. A cask car, running on tracks, and
looking like a stunted white freight locomotive, was loaded
with several subassemblies at a time. The operator, sitting in
an open cab, manipulated a control board that moved the car
and actuated a gripper encased in a housing. The car crawled
along the tracks until it snuggled next to the huge shielded
dome of the reactor vessel. Here the gripper would seal itself
to an exit pipe. Then the cask car would slowly lower its
expensive fuel assembly down the long pipe in the reactor
vessel to a lazy-susan sort of container, where the
subassembly would be picked up by the offset handling
mechanism-a giant automated lobster-like claw that would
swing the fuel over to the round honeycombed grid that made
up the guts of the reactor core.
Loading a reactor is like taking a bath in a pool full of
crocodiles. A fuel loading accident could be as catastrophic in
some ways as a reactor meltdown. If a fuel subassembly
dropped, or was bent or damaged, there could be a disaster.
The NRU accident at Chalk River, Canada, had shown what
even a fraction of one fuel rod could do. It took six weeks to
insert ninety-nine fuel subassemblies to prepare the Fermi
reactor for the initial start-up. By noon on August 23, 1963,
the engineers and operators and executives gathered in the
control room. And as the Fermi plant was on the threshold of
going critical, the pressures were building for a new study one
that would have a major impact on the entire atomic power
plant front, including Fermi.
There was excitement and anticipation as the control
rods began to be raised, cautiously, slowly. At exactly 12:35
p.m. the instruments showed that the chain' reaction had
begun-and could be sustained.
With the achieving of criticality, another long period of
testing would begin before the reactor would be cleared for

full operation. There were mountains of minutiae to be

checked. The characteristics of the core would have to be
plotted carefully in order to observe the behavior of the fuel
under operating conditions. In the light of past experience,
many bugs would have to be ironed out.
The problems continued through the first five months of
1964 in endless procession, with the reactor power still kept
down to a fraction of its capacity. The cask car acted up now
and then. The number 4 safety rod delatched, putting it out of
action. A rotating plug stuck, making fuel changes
impossible. A sodium pump was shut down for repairs. A
new machinery dome had to be built, because the original
didn't fit exactly. There were instrument problems, and
sudden, dangerous, and unexpected gains in reactivity.
As the Fermi plant was undergoing its struggles and successes
on the shores of Lake Erie, other, less complicated light-water
atomic reactors were beginning to spring up throughout the
country. In the year that Fermi was ready to "go critical,"
there were ten of these plants, with many others in the
planning stage. They were of two types: boiling-water and
pressurized-water reactors. They used lower grade uranium
compared to the Fermi design; they were easier to build, and
used water rather than sodium to cool the fiery uranium fuel
rods.
Nuclear plants already were operating in Pennsylvania,
Illinois, New York, Nebraska, South Carolina, Ohio,
Minnesota, and Washington-in addition to Big Rock,
Michigan. Most of these were not designed to produce more
than 200,000 kilowatts of electricity, but they were necessary
forerunners of future reactors. Although much larger than the
small experimental reactors at Idaho Falls, the new designs
eventually would have to produce a million kilowatts or more

to be economical for the utility companies that would be

building them.
Increasing the size of these reactors meant, of course,
increasing the danger. In turn this would demand more and
better engineering safeguards. It also meant that the AEC and
the insurance companies would have to take a cold, hard look
at the original WASH-740 safety report, which had been
prepared back in 1957. For with new and larger atomic power
plants looming on the horizon, the old estimates of 3,400 dead
and $7 billion worth of property damage simply would not
apply if the same type of accident happened to the newer
giants.
On the other hand, many improvements in reactor design
and safeguards had been made since the 1957 report. Perhaps
these new safeguards could present a brighter safety picture
for the public. In any case, it was obvious that the WASH-740
study would have to be brought up to date. Only in this way
could a realistic picture for future insurance legislation be
obtained.
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in Washington
realized the importance of this, and in the spring of 1964 it
instructed the AEC to set up a new study. The Price-Anderson
insurance act was up for reappraisal, and it would have to be
extended in some form, or the entire atomic power program
would grind to a halt.
The responsibility for the new study fell on the
experienced shoulders of Clifford Beck, the deputy director
of regulation for the AEC. While he would head a steering
committee for the new report, technical experts from the
Brookhaven National Laboratory would actually develop the
study, as they had in the WASH-740 report.
If any of the men beginning the new study that spring
could have foreseen the problems they were going to face, or

what was going to happen to their painstaking efforts, they

might never have begun it.

NINE

William Lyons Phelps once said that great literature is never

written by committees. The rewrite of WASH-740 was not
destined to be an exception to the rule.
Cliff Beck headed up the steering committee of nine or
ten scientists from various AEC divisions that represented a
confusing array of departmental acronyms. Ken Downes of
the Brookhaven group was project director for the academic
task force that would be doing most of the spadework on
contract for the AEC. The Brookhaven group would be
working mostly in their Long Island laboratories, away from
the day-to-day traffic of the AEC Washington offices. They
would be a semi-independent group under the somewhat
jittery eyes of their official AEC colleagues.
Cliff Beck launched an early meeting in August, 1964,
with a rundown of what he hoped to accomplish. The new
report would have to skate on a thin line, he told the
committee. It would have to avoid the twin pitfalls of
overpessimism, which could severely bruise public
acceptance of nuclear energy, or underpessimism, which
would look like a whitewash of the atomic power plant

dangers. Most of the committee agreed that, because the

possibility of a catastrophic accident could not be ruled out, a
major job was to estimate the maximum damage to people
and property that would be created by a runaway meltdown of
the newer atomic power plants planned to spread across the
country in the early 1970's.
There were two clear areas that would have to be
carefully studied. One was the estimates of death and
destruction from a major accident. The other was the chances
of such a major disaster happening. The August, 1964,
meeting did not neglect this latter point which posed some
difficult problems.
Ken Downes and his scientific group from Brookhaven
were convinced that nuclear power stations hadn't been
around long enough for them to make any rational kind of
probability estimate. This point created an immediate hairline
crack between the philosophies of the AEC and the
Brookhaven groups. AEC's Dr. R. L. Doan said bluntly that
there must be a compromise between the scientist's desire for
nice calculations and an approximate grasp of the real
probabilities. Ken Downes, however, felt that the assigned
job was to discover exactly how much damage would result
from a catastrophe, regardless of the chances of it happening.
There was a muffled edginess developing between the
two groups. Already, there was a blizzard of interoffice
memos stacked in the in-and-out baskets of both Brookhaven
and Washington desks. It was determined, however, that the
report would cover basically the new, large light-water
reactors, considered safer than the breeder type being built on
Lagoona Beach.
F. P. Cowan, a Brookhaven health physicist, passed
along the gossip on the early August meeting to his boss:

The general guidelines for the project were decided on.

However, they don't plan to meet again until the end of
September (everyone is goofing off to Geneva) and, since the
final rough draft is due October 31, the Steering Committee
won't do much steering. . . .
They shuddered at the idea of treating cases of a reactor
located in a city, but didn't forbid it. Since conditions
anticipated during the next decade are to be considered, it is
almost certain that we must consider cases where reactors go
to populations or vice versa. . . .
What Cowan didn't mention was that all atomic power
plants would have to be located in or near a city, in order to
make them economically possible. The high cost of
transmission lines would make them prohibitive in cost
otherwise. Yet, to even consider an accident at an atomic
power plant in a heavily populated location was enough to
make the most sanguine scientist shudder.
Radiation inventory increased with each generation of
reactors. Cowan became more concerned with establishing
what radiation doses would be lethal, and figuring what
changes might be made in the old study. He noted: "First
paragraph is pretty pessimistic, and we might make it a little
more favorable this time. . . . If we wished to refine matters a
little, we could use 100 [rads] to 300 as illness, 300 to 600 as
half deaths and half serious illnesses, and over 600 as fatal."
Scientists varied in their views of the exact lethal doses, but
450 to 500 rads were generally considered enough to kill half
the people exposed to it.
His other notes were less formal: "Find out from
Tompkins if F.R.C. is planning any Strontium-90
mischief. . . . In general, our Strontium-90 reasoning is too
casual to pass muster at this time." And, in regard to a
radiation "dose to the gut," he wrote: "Unfortunately we

probably can't get away with the crudities of WASH-740 even

though the nature of the project probably justifies them. . . ."
He was referring to the damage Strontium90 could do as a
residue in milk or crops, and similar damage by radiation
absorbed in the digestive system.
To the layman, this casual bandying about of such
commentary might seem somewhat chilling. It could be
especially so in referring to the potential radiation damage to
the very young. He mentioned that one of his colleagues was
". . . influenced by the widely publicized claim that thyroid
cancer in children has occurred at levels of exposure of 150 to
200 rad. In considering infants, the above value of 170 rad
would be satisfactory, but the intake to produce this dose will
be one-tenth that for adults. . . ."
To nuclear scientists, however, this was a job to be faced
and done. It was the climate in which they lived and worked.
They could not stop and think too much, like the layman, of
the implications of such a disaster, or it would render them
ineffective in their routine, just as a virologist faces deadly
viruses every working day of the year without fear.
By its very nature, Cowan's job as a health physicist
could never bring much comfort to the average citizen.
Radiation of any kind was simply not a pleasant thing, and
never could be, regardless of the one AEC attempt to refer to
it as "sunshine units." Its end result, always and without fail,
was the ionizing of the atoms in the body, a process the body
atoms were never built for. If a molecule in the body is hit
directly, it becomes a biological cripple, and worthless. Other
irradiated molecules can enter the body indirectly and can
seek out the DNA-the blueprint or computer that tells the cell
what to do-with the same results.
The stuff Cowan dealt with for the study was of this
nature. He broke down the hazards into two groups. One was
the indirect hazard that ionizing radiation had on the trees,

crops, milk, land, homes, and the general environment. The

other was the direct hazard-the irradiating of humans.
Cowan noted in his report for the AEC committee that
the problem of a fission product released from an atomic
power plant was much simpler than that of a nuclear bomb.
The release from the power plant probably would not be
complicated by a major blast or fire. But still there were
complexities.
Certain vegetation could die in a matter of days from
relatively low gamma exposure. Other fallout from an atomic
power plant of some 10,000 rads was enough to kill the
dominant trees of the deciduous forests. Lower exposure
could kill most pines and evergreens. "This means," Cowan
said in his appraisal, "that gross changes in natural ecological
systems can be anticipated following a reactor release
whenever the 3-4 days exposure to the general environment is
in the range of thousands of roentgens. . . . It seems probable,
however, that most crop plants exposed to such high levels of
radioactivity from a reactor release would be contaminated to
the extent that they could not be decontaminated and they
would constitute a total loss."
Cowan went on to consider that the principal long-term
hazard to man would arise from the internal "emitters"
absorbed through the food chain the damage from Iodine-131,
the bone-seeking Strontium-90, and Cesium-137. About the
only possible "treatment" would be to abandon the land or rip
up the vegetation and deep-plow the soil that was left. But he
was concerned about the lack of adequate data on all these
poisons.
This was to be a constant problem throughout the study:
the lack of sufficient information. The damage to a one-yearold child from inhaling radioactive iodine, for instance, could
only be guessed as being three times as bad as that for an
adult. Allen Brodsky, a research associate from the University

of Pittsburgh, wrote Cowan that he was having trouble with

what was, or what was not, a safe limit for various doses of
the fission products from an atomic plant accident. He ended
a letter to Cowan: "Wish me luck in defining `acceptable.' "
From a different vantage point, Stan Szawlewicz of the
AEC's reactor development division notified his boss that the
new study was being put together to help solve the insurance
question, and also to overcome the obsolescence of the tired
WASH-740. He mentioned in his memo "the fond hope that
some of the pessimism reflected in the WASH-740 models
could be reduced by new information." He hoped now that
improved calculational techniques, and discretion in selecting
the type of accidents, would reduce the awesome figures of
the old 1957 study.
Szawlewicz seemed a little edgy about Ken Downes. He
found Downes unwilling to change or admit the need to
change the basic accident assumption in the new big reactors
on the horizon: that they carried with them so many more
poisonous fission products than the smaller reactors in the old
study. He was worried about Downes's choice of the worst
conceivable accident to study, where all the fission products
would be released.
He had other concerns, similar to Cowan's. Reactors in
or very near cities would be a problem. The study of other
than the light-water reactors was left open. Reactors such as
the Fermi liquid-metal fast-breeder were a problem ". . . since
the report could very easily show unfavorable safety
comparison between reactor types to the detriment of the
industry. . . ." He was disgruntled at Ken Downes's selection
of such a big sample accident, since it could create
uncertainty and disagreement, and would dominate the
meetings.
There were other snowflakes in the blizzard of memos.
Jim McLaughlin, an AEC radiation physics man, wrote to

Allan Lough of the biology and medicine division: "The

A.E.C. should not place itself in the position of making the
location of reactors near urban areas nearly indefensible. . . ."
He was interested, too, in what the odds were of an accident
happening.
McLaughlin's rough figuring showed that the chances
based on experience to date would be three accidents in ten
years, when the 1,000 planned reactors were built across the
country. Others went along with this estimate, although
everybody agreed that no one could reliably make any
probability estimate now or in the immediate future. There
simply wasn't enough data to go on.
Dr. Bernard Pasternack, a consulting NYU
biostatistician, basically agreed with McLaughlin's estimate,
stating that three or more accidents among 1,000 reactors in
ten years was virtually a hundred percent certainty.
Pasternack also warned about progressive changes in a
reactor's condition. Over the months and years, parts would
get swollen and worn out from the intense radiation inside
their guts. There was little data to go on in this respect. The
Brookhaven team continued to insist that it simply would not
work on the probability picture. They threw the problem back
to Cliff Beck, with the implication that it would be
charlatanism for anyone to make a prediction on the
possibility of a disastrous accident in a reactor, without a long
history of reactor operation to base a prediction on.
The memos continued to pile up, none of them reflecting
that much coherent sense could come out of the study. M. E.
Smith, a Brookhaven meteorologist, found his probe into
available facts on weather conditions in the case of fallout
extremely unfruitful. He found that many statistics were
"pretty uncertain," "almost unbelievable," "largely useless,"
"described in uncomplimentary terms," and concluded: "I
don't quite see how anyone really knows."

The poisonous fission products released within and on

the boundaries of cities was a ticklish subject, because of the
high potential of deaths, and destruction to a large population.
The tendency of some of the committee was to push this kind
of problem under the rug. But Smith disagreed. He told his
colleagues this danger should be studied, "owing not only to
the fact that this is likely to occur within ten years, but also
that many people consider city reactors desirable as an
alternative to sulfur dioxide pollution."
Brookhaven's I. A. Singer felt that nearly everyone
basically agreed, without liking it, that the reactor near-or-in
the city had to be considered. Singer noted: "Don't really
know what the leak rate will be in any given accident, since
the shielding deteriorates in time." If there was deterioration
at any point in the reactor vessel, pipes, or containment shell,
the damage, of course, increased.
The heat from the meetings in the summer of 1964 had
barely cooled when another major meeting was held on the
fresh, green, campus-like grounds of the Brookhaven
Laboratories in October. By now there were definite straws in
the wind that the AEC steering committee in Washington was
getting somewhat liverish about the relative academic purity
of the Brookhaven working committee.
As the head of the Brookhaven committee, Ken Downes
opened the October meeting by saying that his group had
been asked to answer the question about the maximum
damage that could result from an atomic power plant
accident. In light of the many AEC memos expressing
opposition to Downes's sample accident case, this was like
putting up a red flag at the very start. It gave an immediate
signal that there wasn't much hope for a better picture than
the one that the WASH-740 report had projected.
U. M. Staebler of the AEC reactor development division
jumped back to the question of why the Brookhaven people

refused to work on the probability question, which at least

might show that the chances of a catastrophic accident were
very slim. Again the answer was that any statistician who
proposed such a scheme in the light of such meager data
would have to be a "fringe member of the statistical
community." An attempt was made by some of the AEC
group to see if it could be proved that a hundred percent
melting of the core was impossible. Brookhaven contended
that there was no basis for this. The after-heat was enough to
complete the entire melting of the core and to produce the
resultant catastrophe if the containment was breached. To
analyze the "maximum damage" sample case, Brookhaven
had arbitrarily assumed an opening in the containment
building the size of a doorway.
This, their computations showed, was enough for all the
fission products to escape. It would take about an hour for
half the core to melt; a day for all of it to melt. If a city was
involved the results would be catastrophic, and there would
be deaths as far as seventy-five miles away from the atomic
power plant, with destruction far beyond that. Not even the
meteorology figures could change the end results to any
measurable extent. If the wind moved out, it would reach
further out to kill. If it hung still, it would kill more people in
the city. "A catastrophe still results," Downes told the
meeting.
It was a pessimistic picture, and it got worse as Downes
went on. The results his computer had come up with in the
new study were "very horrible," he confirmed far worse than
the WASH740 estimates:
instead of 3,400 deaths, there would be 27,000.
instead of 43,000 injured, there would be 73,000.
instead of $7 billion in property damage, there would be
$17 billion.

In other words, the death figures for the new reactorswith their larger fuel loads and higher power had risen to
eight times the original toll. The injury figures had almost
doubled. The property damage had more than doubled. The
burning question was, and would continue to be: What would
happen to the entire atomic power plant industry if these
figures were released to the public?
Downes admitted that the results were "frightening." Dr.
Winsche, Downes's superior, verified this by adding that
unless some "mechanism" could be found to make their
assumptions impossible, "the numbers looked pretty bad." As
one final lunge at optimism, someone asked Ken Downes if
he had taken the evacuation of a population from their homes
into account. Downes said that this had been considered in
their computations, but was found to make little difference in
the results.
Dr. W. D. Claus of the AEC division of biology and
medicine made the understatement of the day when he said
that he was concerned about the direction the meeting was
taking. It appeared to him to be a mixture of arbitraryalthough possibly expert choice of accident characteristics,
with practically no basis for attaching a money value to a
"holocaust." (The word "holocaust" was eliminated from the
official minutes of the meeting.) He would like to see various
types of accidents related to their probabilities so that liability
experts could put dollar estimates on them. Dr. Kruper
reminded him that this had already been done in the rough
figures by Jim McLaughlin, and they were terrifying: three
accidents in ten years when 1,000 reactors were completed.
Even though these figures were provisional and unscientific,
they held out no promise for more cheerful results when more
operating experience was available.

The major difficulty seemed to be that no one could rule

out a nuclear catastrophe, although the AEC group was
doggedly convinced that it would not happen. They had
nothing to base this confidence on except that a catastrophe
hadn't happened yet.
On this note, the meeting adjourned for a lunch break,
but the AEC group under Cliff Beck lost no time in gathering
for a private huddle of their own. The AEC members tried to
redefine just what the purpose of the report should be. To get
around a full scientific exploration of the tricky probability
question, Beck suggested that a whole section could be
devoted to that. The AEC group, however, all agreed that the
probability question should be developed and answered, in
spite of Brookhaven's obvious slurs about shoddy statisticians
who would accept such an assignment.
David Okrent, the one AEC man to have come in from
Chicago for the meeting, told the group that it appeared to
him that the committee was unhappy about "the catastrophic
results of the figures." He said it seemed that they "secretly
hoped that some other group would supply optimistic
probabilities which could be applied." This evasion of facts
disturbed him very much.
Okrent, who had written a textbook chapter on breeder
accidents with Walter McCarthy, came to the defense of what
Ken Downes had said by pointing out that, when anyone
looked back at the former hazard reports, it was obvious that
those accidents that were once considered incredible could
now be considered credible. Therefore, Downes was right if
the objective of the study was to show the worst that could
happen.
What worried AEC's Doan most was that the
catastrophic figures in the new study would "strengthen the
opposition to further nuclear power." But Beck countered that
the results of the new report "could not be ignored just

because they were unpleasant." Doan agreed with Beck that

they would have to put more into the study of the probability
odds, and how this would affect the engineering safeguards.
Without this, they felt, the report would not be appropriate for
release to the public.
By the time their off-the-cuff meeting was over, they
barely had time to grab something to eat and rejoin the
Brookhaven group for the afternoon session. Cliff Beck
explained the conclusions of the closed AEC meeting: That
the first section of the new report would have to deal with the
probability question, in spite of Brookhaven's objection that
such a study would be meaningless. The rest of the new
report would deal with the consequences of accidents in terms
of the different types of fission products. It would also cover
the type of accidents, and would include the minor ones as
well as Brookhaven's estimates for the big, catastrophic
accident. They would shoot for a first draft to be completed
by December.
By now the scuttlebutt about the pending report had
provoked a tremendous amount of curiosity, interest, and
apprehensionespecially on the part of the public utilities,
reactor manufacturers and suppliers. A bad report could be
ruinous to the nuclear power industry.
The industry group began flooding Cliff Beck with
offers to help in the study. Beck had been parrying with them.
But he did feel that the first draft of the report should be
given to the safety committee of the Atomic Industrial Forum
for review. This organization consisted of every important
corporation involved in the atomic energy power plant
industry. In addition to the obvious ones, like General
Electric, Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox, and other reactor
builders, it included many universities and foreign companies.
Walker Cisler had been a founding father, first president, and

a director of the organization back in 1952. Its more than six

hundred members made up the guts of the nuclear industry.
There was no doubt that the reaction of the Atomic
Industrial Forum to the figures that were now being
developed by the Brookhaven experts would bring enormous
pressure on the two committees studying the problem, but
everyone agreed that the Forum should be consulted. Dr.
Doan felt that it would be interesting to find out what an
outside group like the Forum would suggest for the new
report. He was convinced that it would be very difficult for
them to come up with concrete proposals. Like their own
group, they would have to resolve the dilemma that hung over
their heads: They needed the Price-Anderson Act insurancebut at the same time it was "difficult to prove that reactors are
safe enough to build," as Doan put it.
The meeting came to an end on this note, with Cliff
Beck's final wry comment that "the report may surprise some
people." There was no question that it was likely to. Some
facts that emerged in the discussion were particularly
disturbing. For example, the new reactors would contain 50 to
100 times the amount of Strontium-90 in an atomic bomb; in
fact, the bomb was somewhat less dangerous to a local area as
far as this was concerned, because the bomb blew strontium
straight up in the air. The reactors would spread it silently
along the ground.
For Stan Szawlewicz, the study had taken a critically bad
turn. As chief of AEC's research and reactor development,
Szawlewicz was motivated by the strong desire to push the
reactor construction program forward at all possible speed.
He revealed that he was distressed by the very pessimistic
results of the calculations. He was also disturbed by the
dangers of publishing the new report as the facts were
emerging.

Szawlewicz was convinced that those who opposed the

construction of new atomic power plants in their cities or
towns would seize on the disaster figures and ignore any
qualifying statements. He felt that experimental proof of the
effectiveness of the containment vessel was difficult and
expensive to achieve. He wrote in a memo reviewing the
October meeting: "The results of the hypothetical B.N.L.
[Brookhaven National Laboratory] accident are more severe
than those equivalent to a good-sized weapon, and these
correlations can readily be made by experts if the B.N.L.
results are published." He also noted that the Brookhaven
figures could easily be applied to the moderate-sized reactors
being built, which would show the consequences to be almost
as bad as the bigger plants. "This might have serious
consequences in obtaining site approval for such reactors," he
wrote.
Szawlewicz suggested that perhaps the ground rules for
the study could be changed, so that only those accidents that
did not breach the containment vessel would be presented. He
felt that the steering committee should meet and discuss what
the new report would do to block the whole progress of
reactor development and construction, before publication, not
after when it might be too late.
He was joined in this conviction by Howard Hembree,
also of the reactor development division of the AEC, who
suggested that corporations like the Phillips Petroleum
Company be brought in to help steer the Brookhaven
scientists back onto what he and Szawlewicz thought was the
right track.
Hembree called Ken Downes from Washington as a
follow-up to the October meeting, and began exerting
pressure to have him bring the nuclear manufacturers and
private contractors into the arena. Downes obviously didn't
like the pressure from Hembree, who was not even a member

of the AEC steering committee. When Hembree offered him

the "assistance" of the Phillips Petroleum Company, Downes
replied stiffly that the company was available to him through
his own direct contacts, and it was also within his authority to
ask industry to review his work at any time. But Brookhaven
did not want to do this until it had clarified its own thinking.
Further pressure wasn't long in coming. Within a day of
Hembree's phone call to Downes, Bill Cottrell and George
Parker of the Union Carbide Company, which operated the
AEC's Oak Ridge National Laboratory on contract, descended
on Ken Downes to express their disappointment with the
ground rules of the WASH-740 update. The Union Carbide
men were anxious that Downes should include some of their
own research on fission product behavior. In a letter
following his visit, Cottrell wrote to Ken Downes:
Although we have no responsibility for your study, we
are vitally concerned with the results and the impact that it
will have on the nuclear community. Our disappointment in
the ground rules for the study is mild relative to our
apprehension regarding the publication of the results of a
study with such narrow objectives. We know from experience
as well as association that difficult concepts such as those to
which your study is addressed are readily misinterpreted.
Furthermore, there are many who would knowingly distort the
information to further their own interests. While the small
technical group for which the report is intended would
certainly apply the results properly, the study's very existence
originated from a public interest so that sooner or later, the
study will be subject to public scrutiny. . . .

We feel quite strongly that your present study will be

subject to much misunderstanding and misinterpretation and
will have a net result that will be quite detrimental to the
exploitation of the potential benefits of nuclear science and
technology. Accordingly, we would not wish to be associated
with the report and request that you do not acknowledge our
assistance in any manner. . . .
It was only one of many memos, letters, and discussions
to follow, nearly all of them expressing an overriding fear of
what would happen if the results of the study were made
available to the average citizen or critical scientist.
Szawlewicz continued to be the AEC bird dog of the
opposition to the Brookhaven stance on the report. He wrote
to Staebler on November 27, 1964, to say: "The impact of
publishing the revised WASH-740 report upon the reactor
industry should be weighed before publication. A very strong
section on the low probability of accident occurrence must be
presented to counteract the expected effects of the
hypothetical accident calculations."
Szawlewicz also felt that if the catastrophic accident
showed even small odds on happening, entirely new postaccident counter-measures should be developed. These would
include remotely operated machines or robots for closing
doors or valves, or bulldozing earth-fill against the breach of
containment.
At a special meeting of the Phillips Petroleum men with
other AEC reactor development experts, pessimism still ran
deep. An Oak Ridge representative felt that the only thing to
be done was to urge that "the report not be issued in its
present form." The upshot of the meeting was summarized as:
1. Persuading the AEC steering committee to steer the
issuance of the report in a "reasonable direction," and

2. A double check by Phillips of the Brookhaven figures

in the hope that some factors had been overlooked that might
reduce the disastrous figures that had emerged.
Meanwhile, Cowan, Brookhaven's health physics expert,
was groping to find meaningful estimates of the amount of
radiation exposure the public could take. It was important to
establish the maximum dose of radiation that would trigger
the necessity for immediate evacuation of people from their
homes. "Some areas," Cowan wrote, "will be contaminated to
levels such that external exposures due to fallout will be very
high and, hence, a figure for urgent evacuation is needed.
Here, the action is necessary to forestall exposures that are
potentially genuinely harmful. Thus, I believe that 25 rads in
one day would be a reasonable figure." (Since a "safe limit"
for an atomic worker was 3/10ths of a rad for a week's
duration, Cowan was being very generous in his allowance.)
Cowan also noted that the eventual figures set in England
after the Windscale accident was 20 rads for children and
pregnant women, 30 rads for others, and up to 60 rads for a
limited group of workers.
Fear continued to grow about the results of the study
getting out to the general public. Corporations who were
working on contract for the AEC were especially concerned.
A letter from Union Carbide to Hembree typified this fear:
"Perhaps it may be worth noting that the initial reaction of
ORNL [Oak Ridge National Laboratory] was one of
disappointment in the choice of ground rules, and also one of
great apprehension regarding the publication of the results of
a study with such narrow objectives." It was hard to define
what was meant by "narrow objectives." The main concern of
industry was simply that the figures were so overwhelmingly
staggering that a storm of protest was sure to arise if they got
out to the public.

While the internal struggles were going on in Washington and

Brookhaven, troubles continued to boil all through 1964 at
the Fermi site, although the reactor was merely going through
tests. An oscillator rod disassembled, the number 5 safety rod
tube was damaged, sodium pumps failed, the enormous cask
car "locomotive" was continually breaking down, the steam
generators often leaked and failed to work properly, welds
cracked, the number 1 safety rod dropped unexpectedly and
its bellows leaked, and many leaks were found in the
operating floor seals of the containment building.
With the fast-breeder reactor being promoted as the hope
for the future, such troubles did not augur too well. As far as
the AEC-Brookhaven study was concerned, the breederpotentially the most dangerous of all reactors-continued to be
ignored in its estimates. There was enough trouble with the
light-water reactors, which had a far more simple design, and
were somewhat more predictable.
The entire new study was a hypersensitive matter. One
AEC commissioner, John G. Palfrey, addressing the Atomic
Industrial Forum in California at the beginning of December,
1964, was supposed to discuss it with the industry group.
Instead, he said: "It would be possible for me to begin and
end my speech in 30 seconds. . . . The Brookhaven study is
not ready yet, and the Price-Anderson [insurance] report is
still in draft form, and has not been reviewed by the
Commission. . . .
"I think I should beg off the Brookhaven study because
my guesses on what it will say or should say could be
irresponsible chatter on a ticklish subject that needs accurate
reporting."
What Commissioner Palfrey didn't realize was that by
bringing the new study up so glaringly in the public eye, he

was digging himself and the AEC a hole that later on would
be very difficult to get out of.
Meanwhile, more meetings of the Brookhaven and AEC
study groups did nothing to cheer up the situation. In fact,
much of the discussion centered on how the gory details of an
atomic power plant accident could possibly be released to
either Congress or the public.
Advertising by the utilities had painted a lovely picture
of pollution-free power plants that were paragons of virtue.
Promises of absolute safety to the public had been lavishly
presented in newspaper, television, and radio advertisements.
A bright new era of power was being presented with all the
consummate skills of Madison Avenue. The average citizen,
without detailed knowledge of what went on inside a nuclear
reactor, was being lulled into a feeling of euphoria, while
inside the AEC and Brookhaven conference rooms there was
casual discussion of contamination that could cover an area as
large as the state of Pennsylvania, kill 27,000 people at one
crack, and knock out a perilously high percentage of the
Gross National Product.
It had all begun so quietly. The congressional Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy had merely asked the AEC for
a report so that the committee could decide whether it could
get the government off the hook on the insurance problem.
Now the figures were coming out so horrendously that the
AEC was hoist with its own petard. The plans for the study
had been announced publicly. There was no way to back
down.
The meetings continued, with endless haggling. The
scientists reviewed how an accident would begin: with the
melting at the center of the fuel rods, then with the stainless
steel grid and cladding drooping to a messy puddle that would
drop to the bottom of the reactor vessel while the operating
crews stood by, helpless to stop the disaster. Then the hot,

uncontrollable fuel would spallchew upthe concrete

base. Most of the damage would come from the radiation
released in the first two hours, leaving two or three hours for
evacuation. In homes near the accident, Brookhaven chemist
Anita Court noted, there was very little that could be done;
the doses were higher and would be received sooner. With a
large city population, evacuation would be difficult, if not
impossible. Ken Downes commented that even shelter would
not be helpful. The air turnover rate in a house was high.
There was no natural mechanism to reduce the amount of
fallout released. Nothing that had developed in reactor design
or construction since the 1957 report could alter the results.
Cliff Beck made it clear that he would like to avoid
publishing the actual figures that Brookhaven had come up
with. But Cowan immediately asked how this could be done
without the joint Committee on Atomic Energy, or anybody
else, knowing that many of the results would be 50 to 100
times worse than in the old report.
David Okrent summoned the courage to say that there
was no alternative to a public document. He felt that the
report should be done "without glossing over the fact that the
consequences are worse." This in turn might lead to
considering the possibility of underground locations for
reactors.
This concept reflected Edward Teller's conviction that no
atomic power plant should be built above the ground. But the
costs would be substantially higher. Okrent was intent on the
premise that the AEC commissioners should get the data so
that they would realize what they were facing in the way of
such potential damage.
The one hope that seemed to predominate at the
meetings was that if the probability, the odds, the chanceswhatever one called it-could be shown to be small, the impact
of the numbers on the public mind would not be so great.

Cliff Beck suggested that even if they couldn't specify

definite numbers, they could say that "the probability is
believed to be extremely small."
The ultimate upshot was a decision to have Brookhaven
work up a draft of the report, specifically marked "For
Official Use Only." But the main and knotty question still
dangled in the wind. As Szawlewicz put it in his own notes:
"The results of the study must be revealed to the Commission
and the J.C.A.E. [Joint Committee on Atomic Energy]
without subterfuge, although the method of presentation to
the public has not been resolved at this time."
Hardly any member of either the AEC or Brookhaven
group failed to reflect a sense of futility. Like the Fermi
scientists, they too were men of goodwill, sound intellect, and
with a sense of moral obligation to themselves and to society.
But they had opened Pandora's box, and were now faced with
the inevitable problem of what they were going to do.
A small hope suddenly emerged when it was discovered
that a company known as the Planning Research Corporation
was already undertaking some probability studies for a
different AEC division, and would be able to temporarily
switch over to the reactor problem. The company, a
California-based research group, was not considered a "fringe
member of the statistical community"; they freely admitted
that there was the lack of data to work with, and agreed to
settle for "quasi-quantitative" predictions, rather than precise
ones. With considerable hope and interest, the committees
awaited the first attempt by Planning Research Corporation to
put a definite figure on the odds of a reactor accident. It just
might determine whether they could issue the new report to
the public; or whether another atomic power plant would ever
be built.

TEN

At the beginning of 1965, the Planning Research Corporation

sent its first working paper to Cliff Beck. About the only
thing that the research group could report with any degree of
accuracy was based on the 1,500-reactor years of experience
that had been achieved up to 1965. A "reactor year" figure is
simply the number of individual years that all the reactors in
the country had been running. It would be the same as 150
reactors running for 10 years each. Or 300 reactors running
for 5 years. Or 500 reactors running for 3 years. By about
1985, there would be 500 reactors, the projected figures
showed.
Using a complicated method that assumed that
catastrophic accidents would happen according to random
tables, the results of the study turned out to be something just
short of horrendous. The report showed:
We are 95 per cent confident . . . that the probability of
occurrence of a catastrophic accident during a reactor year is
less than 1 in 500 . . .
This figure would mean that in 1985, when 500 reactors
were spread across the country with at least one in almost

every state, there would be the possibility of one major

catastrophic accident every year. And when the AEC reached
its goal of 1,000 atomic power plants, the possibility would
rise to one major holocaust somewhere in the United States
every six months.
Furthermore, the figures considered only a meltdown
accident. They did not take into account an accident that
could be triggered by an earthquake, or an aircraft or a missile
or even a meteor hitting the reactor facility. Earthquakes were
a very real factor in California. Nor did the researchers
consider transportation accidents with irradiated fuel
assemblies. In transporting these for reprocessing, the
assemblies were packed in containers that could only
withstand a fall of 30 feet, a collision of equal impact, or a
30-minute fire at 1400F. The question was: What about a
drop of 35 feet, or a 40-minute fire? Although control room
operator error was considered, nothing was said about
psychotic behavior in the control room, or the seizure of an
atomic power station, or stolen plutonium that could be made
into a bomb.
But whatever the situation, the figures were totally
unacceptable. The Planning Research Corporation was aware
of this, and had already developed a method for taking the
curse off their computations. First, they emphasized that the
chances were less than 1 in 500 reactor years. Then, because
of the paucity of data to go on, they relied on a systems
engineering analysis that was, as they called it, "probabilistic
in spirit" and based on the "judgment of experts." In this way
they could set up what they called certain "chains of events"
that had to occur before a catastrophe took place. Through
this device they were able to suggest that the odds against a
catastrophe were something like 1 in 100 million, or even
less.

No one, not even the researchers themselves, felt that

either the low or the high estimate were realistic. They
admitted the dilemma in the report for Cliff Beck, in which
they pointed out that "We simply do not have enough data."
Brookhaven was having its own difficulties in trying to
draft a low-key statement on the results of a catastrophic
accident. Phrasing was important, and the search for
euphemisms was obvious. The Brookhaven writers tried to be
frank, but always ended up with clumsy attempts at smooth
and tranquil words. Their memos and reports constantly
reflected the conflict between what they felt was scientifically
accurate, and what the AEC and industry pressure was
forcing them to consider. On some points they would give in;
at others they would balk.
The introduction of the new Brookhaven report pointed
out that every nuclear reactor creates radioactive nuclei as a
by-product. It went on to say that fission products, "if
released to the atmosphere in large quantities could cause
damage to the general public. A major effort of the nuclear
industry and the Atomic Energy Commission is pointed
toward preventing such a release. Thus far, efforts have been
successful but it is recognized that there is no absolute
guarantee that this will always be the case."
The basic conclusion of the old, 1957 WASH-740 report
was reiterated:
It could not be proven that fission products would not be
released as a result of a major accident in a nuclear power
plant, although the probability of a large-scale release was
believed to be extremely low.
The conclusion of the new study was almost piquant:
"The result of all this work can be summed up with almost
distressing simplicity." They saw no reason to believe that the

extent of damages would ever "be less than those estimated in

WASH740."
This statement would not make supporters of nuclear
power plants stand up and cheer, especially when it was
followed in the body of the report by a sentence saying that,
in examining the most pessimistic accident, all the facts lead
"to enormous potential damages. . . ."
The report continued in a suffocating but honest cloud of
gloom. As far as estimates of the liability for damage was
concerned, they would come to "an appreciable fraction of the
Gross National Product of the United States." The report went
on to describe the way the fuel would melt in an accident.
This was followed by the description of how the fission
products could escape in a "Gaussian plume" the pattern
revealed in visible smoke as it fans out into the atmosphere
from a chimney. In a fission product release, of course, no
one can see the plume; it would simply be there.
The report showed how weather could affect the release.
Under certain conditions during the day, less than 200 people
might receive a 1,200-rad dose, more than twice the lethal
exposure. But the same release at night from a reactor in the
center of a city might fatally injure about 45,000 people.
The figures showed how the personal and property
damage could cover as much as 600,000 square miles, with
contamination by Iodine-131, Strontium-90, Cesium-137, the
rare earths, and other fission products. The fission products
were broken down as to what they would do to the whole
body, the bone, the thyroid, the lungs, the skin, and the
gastrointestinal tract. Monetary estimates of damages played
an important part in the draft too, stressing the likelihood of
$17 billion worth of destruction. This aspect, in fact, was too
heavily emphasized for even some of the Brookhaven men.
M. E. Smith and his associate I. A. Singer, both of the
Brookhaven group, wrote to Ken Downes that there was some

important alterations they wanted to see made. What bothered

them most was the emphasis on material damage: "Both of us
reacted most unfavorably to the cold, hard-cash tone of the
draft. All of us understand what the Commission had in mind
in having us review this problem, but we do not see why
Brookhaven's report needs to be couched solely in monetary
terms. . . . What we are really trying to say is that we still find
that a large release could result in a major catastrophe and an
enormous area contaminated. I suggest that we remove the
dollar comments entirely, except perhaps in the historical
section. . . ."
On the AEC side, the working draft of the probability
section was undertaken by Cliff Beck personally. It, too,
opened with a reference to the old WASH-740 report, whose
ghost seemed never to die. Beck reiterated this statement
regarding the "exceedingly low" probability of a catastrophic
reactor accident: "One fact must be stated at the outset: no
one knows now or will ever know the exact magnitude of this
low probability of a publicly hazardous reactor accident." He
followed this up with: "It still must be admitted that the
theoretical possibilities for such major accidents do in fact
exist." Then he went on to quote the Planning Research
Corporation figures, and to say that past history had shown a
favorable indication of the stability of reactors.
Beck's draft added, however, that "there have been
discovered incipient failures which would have to be
classified in the category of 'near-misses' of serious accidents.
For example, in three reactors, two or three of the stud bolts
on the head closure of the main pressure vessel were found to
be cracked from stress corrosion. Failure of a sufficient
number of these bolts would have resulted in the head being
blown off, with high probability that the force would
penetrate the walls of the containment building.

"In another reactor two main control rod shafts were

found to be cracked from stress corrosion," Beck's report
continued. "In three reactors significant cracks were found in
the piping of the main primary coolant system. In another
reactor, four of the stud bolts which held the bonnet in place
on the main primary system flow-control valves were found
to be cracked."
He concluded his draft with a reference to the possibility
of a big, disastrous accident: "The possibility that such
accidents might occur cannot be excluded, and there has been
accumulated some evidence that a few failures may have
almost occurred which could have resulted in more serious
accidents than any which have thus far been experienced. . . ."
On January 19, 1965, a new meeting of the AECBrookhaven groups was called. It was only a warm-up for a
meeting scheduled with the industry group of the Atomic
Industrial Forum to be held later toward the end of the month,
but the intramural meeting was heady enough. It began
quietly. Cliff Beck praised the excellence of the Brookhaven
draft report, indicating that it was close to the target. He was
sure that the industry group would be convinced that there
was no real way to reduce the damage figures, and that they
would concentrate on the probability section to give "the best
possible perspective."
The meeting had not moved along very far before the
nitpicking began, in spite of Beck's high praise of the
Brookhaven draft. Dr. Doan objected to the fact that
engineered safeguards had not been factored into the report,
and felt that people would say: "Look how far we have come
with engineered safeguards, yet look how big an accident we
get." He also went right to the point that the results of the
Brookhaven part of the study could be summed up "with
distressing simplicity." It was the only colorful comment in
the report, and this phrase said a lot in a few words.

There was a great deal of fishing in trying to find ways

to soften the impact of the casualty and destruction figures.
For example, might a nuclear bomb be more likely to go off
and wipe out a city, than an atomic power plant? Dr. Doan
suggested that they pick out some huge plant making a
noxious product, and compare the damage from a major
accident in such a place. Szawlewicz came up with Fort
Detrick. Ken Downes joined in by offering the comparison
with a nitrate ship that could blow up in a harbor. But Cliff
Beck thought such ideas would be questionable.
After a hasty lunch, the discussion got back to the
probability figures from the Planning Research Corporation.
Dr. Doan said he felt that the reader had a right to expect
something more than futility from the report, that it should
indicate what had been done to prevent accidents, and thus
lift the "pall of doom" from the situation. Then he added that
if nothing reassuring could be said, perhaps they should stop
building reactors.
It was generally admitted that there were still major
problems in the construction of the atomic power plants.
Brookhaven's Dr. Winsche emphasized that there was great
confidence that a given accident will not happen, but they
couldn't assure the public that it would not.
The official minutes of the meeting continued with: "Dr.
Beck noted the problems of radiation embrittlement in steel
and the number of defects already found in just one reactor,
with a great number of reactors just like it. Thus, it is not at
all assured that the conditions assumed in this report cannot
happen. He felt that we cannot predict if, or when it might
happen."
Beck punctuated this by saying that the figures brought
together by the consulting research team had to be taken with
a grain of salt. He felt that all that could be said was that the
probability is extremely low. One of the Brookhaven men

said that this was the reason why Brookhaven hadn't wanted
to tackle the job. The minutes revealed the subtle difference
in attitude between the AEC and the Brookhaven men.
The afternoon session turned to the subject of "near
misses." Szawlewicz argued that if these were covered, "care
should be taken to avoid implying that a catastrophe could
have followed."
One of the things that concerned Cliff Beck was the
statement that kept cropping up in the various drafts. He felt
that they could not keep repeating on every other page that
"the probability is very low," or the accident is "highly
improbable." Since the report frankly recognized that serious
accidents are possible, it should not claim that they cannot
happen, even though there was confidence that they wouldn't.
Doan agreed. He was concerned that there was a possibility of
some of the critics picking this up and taking legal action
against further construction of atomic power plants, on the
grounds that the new report showed that the AEC was being
irresponsible in granting licenses. Along this line, someone
suggested dropping the term "near miss," and Beck went
along with the suggestion.
The meeting dwindled to an end by 3:25 that afternoon.
There was at least one thing certain: The first draft of the
AEC-Brookhaven study would be stamped "For Official Use
Only."
Szawlewicz might have been contentious, but he knew how to
put his finger on a problem. In a report to his superiors he
boiled it down to this: (a) If the engineered safeguards are
assumed to work, then there is no public liability problem. (b)
If they are assumed to fail, then it is difficult to describe an
accident level that represents a true upper limit for liability
purposes.

But this was partially answered by Cliff Beck's "Official

Use Only" draft of January 21, 1965. In it, he said: "In any
machinery as complex as a reactor facility, it is inevitable that
structural failure, instrument malfunctions, operator's efforts
and other mishaps will occur, despite the most careful design
and rigid schedules of maintenance and administrative
control. Such has been the experience with reactor
installations."
According to this, engineered safeguards could not
always be assumed to work. And therein lay the rub. Beck's
new draft emphasized this by adding: ". . . despite all
precautions, a complete assurance against any such
possibilities can never be fully established." The draft also
pointed out that ". . . simple mathematics would show that the
probability of catastrophic accidents, at the 95 per cent level
of confidence, is not more than I in 500 reactor years of
operation. The actual probability is certainly a great deal
smaller, but the extent of reactor operation is simply
insufficient to demonstrate this."
The papers prepared by the Brookhaven and AEC groups
were dutifully sent out in draft form to the members of the
industry group that made up the representatives of the Atomic
Industrial Forum. There was statement after statement in the
drafts that would not exactly charm the industry men. Such
phrases as "the emergency core cooling system cannot be
made foolproof," or, "conceivably the damages could be
substantially greater" than in WASH-740; or, "it cannot be
assumed that these safeguards are 100 per cent effective every
time."
By the time January 28, 1965, arrived the day for the
Washington meeting with the industrial group everyone had
had a chance to go over the latest draft of the study, and
everyone had his own ideas ready and waiting to nibble at it,

if not actually to bite and snap. Cliff Beck opened the meeting
at 10:20 A.M., thanking the industry men for pitching in to
help with a difficult problem. While he didn't redefine the
problem, its definition was easy to infer: How can you tell
everybody in the country that an atomic plant could kill and
destroy thousands of people, wipe out an enormous portion of
the landscape and the Gross National Product, and expect
them to like it? It was a challenge for the most suave public
relations man in the world, and the committeemen were
engineers and scientists, totally unskilled in the art.
The problem was particularly difficult because many of
the industry men had hoped the situation might have
improved since the old days of WASH-740. Instead the new
figures showed that it was worse. Beck told the meeting that,
although the accident experience to date had been good, there
had been a number of "incidents" which had "been disturbing
from the point of view of potentially serious accidents." He
outlined the plan for the study: There would be two chapters,
one on probability, handled by Beck and the AEC team. The
second chapter would be the one on the consequences of an
accident, handled by Ken Downes and the Brookhaven group.
The latter chapter would not include all the details, and would
more or less summarize the inescapable conclusion: "No
inherent basis had been found on which to conclude that the
consequences of a major accident would be less than those
given in WASH-740, but could actually be greater."
This statement would be enough to make every insurance
man in the country burn his actuarial tables. And as far as
enticing the private insurance companies and thus taking the
taxpayer off the hook, the government would have to continue
to shield the utility companies from damage suits. But as
Beck reminded the meeting, the AEC had promised the joint
Committee on Atomic Energy that a report would be written
and produced. In other words, they were stuck with it.

Harold Vann, chairman of the industry group, admitted

that there was a need to be frank, but he wanted to know more
about the "model" accident Ken Downes had chosen. Downes
explained that he picked the most likely event to cause an
accident: the loss of coolant. Whether a reactor was a sodiumcooled breeder like Fermi, or a water-cooled pressurized
reactor of the common run, the coolant liquid rushing through
the fuel rods could never be lost without disaster-even in a
portion of the core. With the loss of the coolant came the
melting of both the fuel and its cladding, the rise to blistering
temperatures, and the release of the lethal fission products to
the environment.
He added that Brookhaven had chosen "not to get
involved in the matter of probability, and had avoided talking
in emotional terms, such as the number of deaths." (In the
draft, he had avoided listing the awesome death figures that
had been computed.) And he repeated the assertion that the
possible size of the area of such a disaster might be equal to
that of the state of Pennsylvania. There was no way the
computations could cut down on these figures to any
measurable degree.
Harold Vann's reaction was a natural one. He asked
whether it would not be fair to conclude from these results
that additional reactors should not be built.
Downes felt that Brookhaven was not saving that.
Rather, it was saying that "complete reliance must be placed
on engineered safeguards." Yet all the conversation at the
meetings s had reluctantly pointed to the fact they could not
be relied on. In many cases, the "engineered safeguards" had
created the accident, or made things worse. Further, the
safeguards themselves could be destroyed in the initial
accident, leaving the way wide open for a runaway. As Cliff
Beck admitted later in the meeting, safeguards had been
available in the SL-1 case at Idaho Falls, but the accident

itself had inactivated them. A piece of machinery, turned into

a missile by the start of an accident, could wipe out both the
coolant system and the containment shell, as Beck noted.
Other industry representatives at the meeting noted that
it appeared that Brookhaven had chosen the most unfavorable
weather conditions for their accident model. But
Brookhaven's Smith replied that the meteorological
conditions they had used for the study "actually could have
been somewhat worse." Forrest Western, an AEC safety man,
said that it wasn't quite clear that the worst accident case was
the one involving the worst weather conditions or the one
involving the most people.
This brought up the question: Was there a real difference
between an accident occurring in a country atomic power
plant and one located in a city? Downes had already studied
this question. He said that there wasn't too much difference in
regard to what he called "the killing distance." He noted that
for present-day sites, the wind could be assumed to head
toward a city, and the radiation to fan out to cover a wide
section of it when it reached there. If the power plant was in
the city, its plume of radiation might cut a fairly narrow stripe
through the city itself, fanning out beyond the city limits. It
seemed that about the same amount of people would be killed
either way. The narrow plume would hit a more concentrated
population within a city; the wide plume would cover more
territory with somewhat less intensity.
Cliff Beck reminded the meeting that they had to get the
report out for the joint Committee on Atomic Energy by early
spring, since the Price-Anderson Act insurance hearings were
coming up at that time. But the industry men balked. They felt
that it would be better to wait for any "improved" results that
might come from the continuing computations of the Planning
Research Corporation probability studies. Marlin Remley, an
industry representative from Atomics International pointed

out that if the figures showed one chance in 500 reactor years
for a catastrophe, and this were true, then the risk simply
would not be acceptable. The question then would be: What
would be acceptable? He even thought they should consult
with the National Safety Council.
Dr. Merrill Eisenbud, a consultant from the NYU
Medical Center, felt that it would be hard to present the
picture even of small probabilities of an accident. He said that
a low probability of leukemia due to fallout would be of more
concern to a mother than the relatively high probability of an
auto accident injuring the child. R. G. McAllister, a radiation
specialist from the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,
brought up the question of human fallibility. The chances, for
instance, of a ship blowing up at a Texas pier and killing over
five hundred people would have been computed as very low.
But it happened in Texas City in 1947 through human
fallibility.
Forrest Western, a veteran investigator of the SL-1
accident at Idaho Falls, spoke up again to say that it was
always the unknown that was difficult to judge, especially in
a "rapidly changing field such as nuclear technology. One
cannot foresee the rise of some unknown problem." He added
that "there may be some limit to the risks that man may accept
in terms of the size of the consequences even with a very
small probability of occurrence. Nevertheless progress must
continue, and one must face the question of whether to
continue building more and larger reactors, even though the
possible results of an accident might involve the area the size
of Pennsylvania."
The meeting was now skirting the question of technology
judgment versus the value judgment of the average man. Yet
the average man would have no choice in the ultimate
decisions. It was being decided for him. He was not only
unable to act: he knew nothing about the apocalyptic casualty

and destruction figures being talked about. Without this

information, the ordinary citizen would have no motivation to
act anyway. What was worse, as Marlin Remley brought up,
if another study were done in 1970, the results would be even
more frightening. Future reactors were being planned at
twenty times the size of the reactors being discussed: 20
million kilowatts instead of 1 million.
At this point in the meeting Harold Vann, the industry
chairman, suggested a lunch recess.
It was clear that neither the meeting nor the details revealed
by the Brookhaven report were pleasing to the Atomic
Industrial Forum. Harold Vann was very concerned by the
overall conclusions drawn by the study. He doubted that large
reactors would ever be built in view of the Brookhaven
figures and the siting difficulties. The general opinion of the
industry team was that all the work done by Brookhaven
should be condensed into a few simple statements that merely
said the results would be worse than those published in the
WASH-740 version.
But Ken Downes felt that the full report had to be issued
whether they wanted to or not. He said that too many people,
including all five AEC commissioners, were familiar with the
detailed effort underway at Brookhaven. While it wasn't
stated at the meeting, this was the critical point about the
whole affair. A definite report was expected, not only by the
AEC commissioners and the joint Committee on Atomic
Energy but by many private citizens and scientists who had
learned about the planned publication from the congressional
hearings that had prompted them. Everyone working on the
study was caught in a vise. If an attempt was made to bury the
report, or to deny it, all hell would break loose in the press
and among the outside scientific fraternity.

The afternoon session of the meeting showed the results

of the private caucus the industry members had held after
lunch. They tried valiantly to knock down the pessimistic
estimates that Ken Downes and his Brookhaven fellows had
amassed. The death rate was challenged by Atomic Industrial
Forum members, but Downes defended the figures he had
gathered on the basis of a 1,200-rad dose that would kill fifty
percent of the people exposed to it over a four-day period.
This was a more than liberal allowance. Less than half this
amount would do the same damage if the exposure came in
one quick dose rather than spread over four days.
With this, the meeting ended. The new AEC-Brookhaven
study posed a threat to industry that was so enormous that a
chain reaction of desperation was bound to follow, one that
would spread into the highest offices of the AEC. One thing
seemed clear: The public must not see these appalling figures.

ELEVEN

At the Fermi reactor in Lagoona Beach, there was little time

to think about the new Brookhaven study. Walter McCarthy
was taking the lead in pushing through the infinitely complex
details that would enable the reactor to generate up to
200,000 kilowatts, the next stage in moving toward the design
target goal of twice that amount.
This was not an easy job. In addition to laboriously
detailed reports on operations and safety, there were
application hearings held by the AEC every step of the way.
Since the Fermi reactor had been "brought to critical" in
August of 1963, McCarthy was continuing to punch it
through an elaborate series of tests to check out the design of
the plant, and to iron out the many kinks that had slowed
down the progress. "Bringing to critical" is simply like
starting a car engine, and letting it idle. The reactor had been
successfully started up over three hundred times; hundreds of
exercises had been made involving the loading of the core,
the behavior of the fuel, and the primary sodium cooling
system on which so much depended.
Every setback that the Fermi reactor had suffered in its
tests received McCarthy's personal attention. The bad check

valves on the sodium pumps had been replaced with those of

new design to prevent them from slamming, as they had
during the tests. There had been slight, unexpected increases
in reactivity power surges not called for in the routine.
McCarthy was sure he had this under control, and was well
aware that a large increase in reactivity could mean a superprompt critical condition of great danger.
One mistake had taken place in loading a fuel
subassembly, but no damage had occurred. McCarthy saw to
it that the procedures were revised to take care of this sort of
situation in the future. Radiation leaks seemed under control,
as well as the single safety rod that had failed. The design of
the "cask car"-that clumsy electric locomotive that carried the
fuel-had been modified, and new instruments added.
McCarthy was planning what was called a "power ascension
program" which would take several months to creep toward
the present goal of 200,000 kilowatts.
He realized that the hazards at this power level would be
far larger than at the first experimental level. But he was
convinced that the design of Fermi would allow no such thing
as a sodium-water reaction within the vessel. The only type of
"energy release" he felt it was necessary to worry about was
an uncontrolled nuclear release that could only be caused by
"a rapid reassembly of a critical configuration of nuclear fuel
as a result of a gross meltdown of the core."
In presenting the case to the AEC to gain permission for
the new rise in power, he pointed out that there were only
three ways the Fermi core could possibly have a complete
meltdown. One was a local melting in the core, which could
spread to the rest of the core. Another was the loss of the
sodium coolant from the primary system, with the fission
product decay heating up the uncooled core. The third was a
high power level that the coolant couldn't handle. This could
start the sodium boiling, and a meltdown would follow.

"In my opinion," McCarthy told the AEC, "the design of

the reactor makes any of these occurrences incredible." Then
he added, somewhat contradictorily, "Let me state that I
consider melting due to a local lack of cooling within a core
assembly to be highly unlikely but nevertheless a credible
event." McCarthy was too much of a realist not to add the last
qualification. But like those on the AEC and Brookhaven
study committees, he was enamored of the phrase "highly
unlikely."
While McCarthy was in the process of persuading the
AEC to let him move ahead with the higher power level for
the Fermi reactor, the industry members who had attended the
volatile AEC-Brookhaven meeting at the end of January,
1965, were already beginning to let their displeasure be
known concerning the public release of the report. Even
before a final AEC decision to publish the report, industry
was determined to quash it.
The resistance manifested itself softly at first. A small
industry "working group" looked for every straw in the wind.
They asked Brookhaven if some of the enormous fission
products wouldn't "plate out" be trapped--on the surfaces of
the piping and containment vessel and thus cut down some of
the damage to the public. But this had already been weighed
and evaluated by Brookhaven, and had been found to make
little, if any, difference in the catastrophic results.
The first sign of heavy pressure came in a letter from
Atomic Industrial Forum's Harold Vann to Cliff Beck. In
going over the drafts of the AEC study, he said: "This review
has raised serious questions concerning the validity of the
ground rules underlying the example accident analysis and, as
a consequence, serious concern with the technical content of
the draft report."
Vann questioned the whole purpose of the report. "To
permit publication of the report without further exhaustive

review," he wrote, "would, in our opinion, constitute a serious

disservice to the [AEC] Commission, to the industry, and to
the public. . . .
"If the Commission feels obligated to report to the joint
Committee prior to the Committee's consideration of the
Price-Anderson [insurance act] extension, we recommend that
the Commission forward to the [congressional] Committee an
interim letter indicating that a re-assessment of the 1957
report is under way but is not yet complete.
."
Then Vann went on to recommend that the AEC initiate
an entirely new and "much more comprehensive study."
Even if Beck had wanted to go along with these ideas, he
was still faced with the threat of being accused of a
whitewash or cover-up of the real facts that had come up in
the study. No one liked the results, of course. Even Ken
Downes didn't appear to be happy with the monstrous facts
that had emerged from his deliberations.
But maybe Harold Vann did have one good idea. Perhaps
the interim letter to the joint Committee on Atomic Energy
would smooth over the situation and buy time. It could be
brief, and therefore not involve all the devastating numbers
and predictions. It could suggest, rather than specify, the
results.
Whatever Beck's reasoning, he decided to give Vann's
interim letter idea a try. He sat down and drafted a letter to
Congressman Chet Holifield, Chairman of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy, on February 26, 1965. It read,
in part:
The Honorable Chet Holifield Chairman
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy Congress of the
United States
Dear Mr. Holifield:

During the Joint Committee hearings last year, you

suggested that concurrently with the anticipated consideration
of extending the Price-Anderson Indemnity Act, consideration
should also be given to updating the 1957 report prepared by
the Atomic Energy Commission with the assistance of
Brookhaven National Laboratory on "Theoretical Possibilities
and Consequences of Major Accidents in Large Nuclear
Power Plants." This report is identified as WASH-740.
Pursuant to your suggestion, we have asked the
Brookhaven National Laboratory to re-evaluate its earlier
study in light of today's technical information and current
upward trends in power reactor sizes. It is the purpose of this
letter to summarize the results of the laboratory re-evaluation,
and to interpret the significance of these findings in the
context of the 1957 calculations and in the context of present
engineering practices and licensing procedures. . . .
Then, after a lengthy review of both the old and new
studies, Beck continued:
It is only in the highly improbable instance where these
and all other engineered safeguards fail simultaneously that a
loss of coolant accident could result in a public hazard.
Calculations show that the upper limits in damages that could
result from this hypothetical sequence of circumstances
would not be less, and under some circumstances could be
substantially more than the upper limits of the maximum
consequence accident reported in the 1957 study.
The higher inventory of fission products in the larger
core would suggest that their unimpeded release to the
atmosphere under the worst weather conditions, would result
in higher radiation exposures and increased levels of
contamination. This, however, is offset a little by the fact that
recent experimental work has shown that a somewhat smaller

fraction of fission products may be released from melting fuel

than was assumed to be the case in the 1957 study. Another
factor which makes difficult a precise comparison of the two
sets of calculations is that the upper limits of radiation
exposure and contamination in both instances are highly
sensitive to unpredictable weather conditions. Much more
important to the current re-assessment of the public hazards
associated with power reactor operations than any refinement
in our ability to calculate the damages that could result from a
highly improbable maximum consequence accident is our
increased understanding and appreciation of the engineered
safeguards that have been developed to reduce both the
probability and consequences of such an accident. . . .
After another long exposition of background on the studies,
the letter continued:
To sum up, we cannot categorically state that a power
reactor will not experience a major accident even though we
have had none during the eight years since the first power
reactor went into operation. At this date, we have much more
reason for believing that the likelihood of an accident
occurring is even less than we believed it to be in 1957. Nor
can we categorically state that one or more of the multiple
engineered safeguards routinely incorporated in all power
reactors will not at some time during the life of the reactor
fail to meet its performance specifications. The probability of
an accident occurring, however, before the malfunction of
more than one safeguard has been detected or simultaneously
with the failure of more than one essential safeguard appears
to be very remote.
Sincerely,
C. K. Beck

After drafting the letter, Beck sent it to the AEC for

approval, where it sat for over a month. Meantime he
responded to Harold Vann in a letter that made it clear that
Brookhaven had strictly followed the instruction to appraise
the potential damages of the "upper limit" accident case. Then
he continued with: "Of course the picture would be totally
incomplete and inaccurate if the report contained only the
theoretical calculations of consequence of possible accidents.
Hence, as in the original WASH-740, we fully intend, if any
report is issued at all, to have parallel, accompanying
discussions of improbabilities of accidents, safeguards against
accidents, contributions of safety research, a brief resume of
the excellent record of power reactors, etc. But, as you know,
this qualitative account will always appear weak beside the
shocking results of the `upper limit' case, if not in some of the
lesser cases."
Beck let slip here a phrase that was most formidable. It
was: "if any report is issued at all." If it were not to be issued,
there would be as many repercussions as if the statistics were
issued, and perhaps even more. He continued in the letter to
Vann to say: "Your recommendations that we defer the report
on the present study until we can report it in proper
perspective on the basis of, and along with, a comprehensive
study to find quantitative bases for probabilities of accidents,
the dependability and effectiveness of safeguards in
preventing accidents and limiting their consequences, etc., is
one that presents us with a real problem. I don't mind leaving
off any report of the present study indefinitely, but doubt the
wisdom of committing ourselves to the study you recommend.
I frankly have not thought of a way to go about it, who would
do it, or what sort of outcome would emerge." He ended the
letter: "Hopefully, we can find a simple way out of the
dilemma, but this is not yet certain. I am continuing,

therefore, to work with BNL on a more adequate version of a

revised report."
By March of 1965, the American Public Power
Association, a group of investor utilities, had joined in the
fray, expressing "concern over the possible findings and
subsequent public impact of the revision." One harried
publicity man for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company told a
meeting of the American Nuclear Society: "My task here, of
course, is not to poke fun at the AEC, and I don't intend to do
that. I have simply pointed out several areas which I believe
they could consider improving in order to make it easier to
get on with our chore of public understanding.
"One last suggestion along these lines would be to do us
a great big favor by cancelling the now-in-progress up-dating
of the Brookhaven Report. . . . No amount of pointing to the
disclaimers in the three-page covering letter in the front of the
report could overcome those chilling words `3,400 killed,
43,000 injured, $7 billion in property damage' which rolled so
glibly off their tongues from the depth of this theoretical
[1957] study of the possible consequences of a major
accident. . . ."
His apprehension, as a publicity man, was
understandable. If he had trouble with the old figures, how
could he possibly explain the 27,000 killed, 73,000 injured,
and $17 billion damages of the new, unpublished report?
Pacific Gas and Electric had been pointing out in lavish
advertisements for years how its nuclear power plants were
"good, clean and safe neighbors." One of their newspaper
advertisements read: "The safety record of commercial
nuclear power plants is unmatched in industrial history. . . .
There have been no nuclear-caused deaths. Not even a
significant injury." The same advertisement goes on to say
that the reason homeowner policies have a nuclear exclusion
clause is because of the Price-Anderson government

insurance, neglecting to add that this insurance is paid by the

public and would only cover a fraction of the potential
damages from a major accident.
By the time St. Patrick's Day arrived, Beck was ready to
take a vital step. He would lay the cards on the table for all
five AEC commissioners. He summed up and reviewed the
whole picture of the struggles of the special committees to
come up with some kind of reassuring report. "It is an
inescapable calculation," he wrote to the AEC
commissioners, "that given the same hypothetical accidents as
those considered in the original BNL study, damages would
result possibly ten times as large as those calculated in the
previous study. [Different estimates of damages during the
study made these figures fluctuate.] Nothing has been
discovered in the interim which assures that such accidents
cannot happen, even though we are convinced that the
probability of such accidents is believed to be lower than the
low estimates of the likelihood of such accidents made at the
time of the original study."
He then informed the commissioners that the Atomic
Industrial Forum had strongly urged that the new Brookhaven
study not be published in any form at the present time, and
that a letter, such as the one he had drafted, be sent to the
congressional committee instead.
On March 31, 1965, the Commission approved a
watered-down letter, and a watered-down version of the new
Brookhaven report, to be called an "unclassified version." All
the terrifying numbers of deaths, injuries, and property
damage were missing. None of the details of damage to
infants, adults, and crops was specified. All the report
amounted to was that the writers had to come to the
"inescapable conclusion" that the theoretically calculated
damages would "not be less, and under some circumstances

would be substantially more, than the consequences reported

in the earlier study."
There were vague promises that "later reports" would
reveal the methods of calculation for this conclusion. The
official commitment made for a thorough study and updating
of WASH-740 was tossed aside.
Stan Szawlewicz, a manifest realist, sensed clearly the
problems that would arise from the watered-down version. In
his Official Use Only comments on the new version, he said:
"The length of the discourse suggests that a lot more has been
done than what appears in print and will inevitably lead to
key questions as to just what were the consequences of the
Brookhaven study. . . . The real unpublished results of the
BNL study shows very simply that the consequences (number
of people killed) is directly proportional to the increased
fission product inventory of the larger reactor. . . . In practical
terms, it is difficult to assign a meaningful probability number
to such an accident and little consolation can be derived from
the statement that it should be very small. . . ."
He went on to make many suggestions for a more
positive approach in a different kind of report for the public
that would be more reassuring. His final comment showed
this concern: "In a general way, the increase in reactor size
and fission product inventory appears to be the major
difference between the old and new hypothetical accident
calculations with improved treatment of meteorology. This
suggests that future similar analyses of even larger reactor
sizes . . . can give even more catastrophic results. If we
emphasize the `potential' of such reactors to do damage, as is
the case with the hypothetical accident studies, we doubt if
they will ever be built."
The eventual letter to Chet Holifield, signed by Glenn
Seaborg, AEC chairman, was so scraped to the bone that it
said practically nothing except that the likelihood of major

accidents "is still more remote," the "consequences could be

greater," and that the Price-Anderson Act insurance was
needed more than ever, and should be extended.
Although the report that the joint Committee was
promised by the AEC had somehow vanished into thin air, the
congressional committee held the insurance hearings on the
Price-Anderson Act in June of 1965, anyway. There was no
new evaluation to go on. The minutes of the AECBrookhaven meetings were safely locked behind closed
doors, unavailable to the congressmen who had asked for
them.
It seemed obvious to some observers that, if the
estimated destruction figures had been brighter because of
better engineered safeguards, the insurance companies and
the utilities would have had confidence to take on the
insurance burden. But all the utilities that testified at the
hearing stated flatly that they would stop building any atomic
power plant under construction and never plan another one
unless the government took on the mammoth responsibility of
protecting the public, and relieving them of any damage suits.
It was the government indemnity supplied by the taxpayer or
else. In spite of the appalling potential damage figures, still
hidden from the public, the Price-Anderson insurance act was
extended by Congress without protest.
In a sort of a farewell memo to the steering committee,
Cliff Beck said that the final handling of the "revised
Brookhaven report" has been made up of "a long series of
complicated maneuvers and negotiations during efforts to
arrive at a final written document which would be acceptable
to all responsible parties. During these efforts it simply was
not possible to accomplish the many discussions, drafts and
re-drafts through the awkward mechanism of a widely
scattered steering committee."

Beck then thanked the members for their assistance, and

finally confessed that the "revised Brookhaven report" had
not been completed. Thus, by the end of June, 1965, the
whole matter seemed to be resting peacefully in its grave.
It did so, in fact, until the middle of August, a year after
the mess had started. At this time, John Palfrey, the AEC
commissioner who had begged off talking about the new
Brookhaven report in his California speech, received a short
letter from David Pesonen. Pesonen was a young lawyer
intent on protecting the environment in Bodega Bay, near San
Francisco. He wrote:
August 14, 1965
Dear Commissioner Palfrey:
In your address to the meeting of the Atomic Industrial
Forum in San Francisco last December, you mentioned that
the Brookhaven Report (WASH-740) was in process of being
updated and would be ready shortly.
So far I have seen no notice that the report has been
completed and made available.
Can you advise as to its current status. If it is completed,
how may one obtain a copy?
Commissioner Palfrey wrote back on August 27. He said:
Dear Mr. Pesonen:
The results of the re-examination of the Brookhaven
Report were described in a letter from Dr. Seaborg to
Chairman Holifield, and this was entered into the record of
the hearings of the Price-Anderson. I enclose a copy of that
letter for your information.
Pesonen was not satisfied. The letter to Holifield was far from
a report or a study. It was two pages filled with vague

generalities. He replied to the commissioner on September 13,

1965:
September 13, 1965
Mr. John G. Palfrey, Commissioner
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Washington, D.C. 20545
Dear Commissioner Palfrey:
Thank you for your letter of August 27th, forwarding a
copy of Chairman Seaborg's letter of June 18th to
Congressman Holifield, concerning government indemnity for
power reactors and the scheduled up-dating of the
Brookhaven Report, WASH740.
However, my letter was concerned with the current
status of the Brookhaven up-dating, which you mentioned in
your address on Price-Anderson at the AIF meeting in San
Francisco last December. Specifically, you said that the
Brookhaven report's revision "is not ready yet," and I was
interested in when it will be ready.
Chairman Seaborg's letter suggests that such a study has
been completed when he states that "a restudy of the
theoretical consequences of hypothetical accidents by our
staff and that of Brookhaven has led us to fairly predictable
conclusions."
I get the impression that your letter to me is not entirely
responsive to my original request. When will the "restudy"
mentioned by Chairman Seaborg be available for public
inspection?
Sincerely,
David E. Pesonen
Commissioner Palfrey's reply stated flatly that no new
report was "in existence or contemplated." However, Palfrey
modified his stance somewhat by saying that two "technical

reports" on meteorology and health physics would be coming

out of Brookhaven "for public distribution." There was no
mention of Brookhaven's major effort the detailed impact of a
theoretical power plant accident on the population and the
land.
Pesonen had no idea of the appalling figures that had
emerged from the restudy, but it was becoming obvious that
something was being covered up by the AEC, and he was
determined to get at it.
Pesonen also wrote occasional articles for magazines on
a freelance basis, and he began digging. He found that the
Price-Anderson Act was the only way the utilities could be
protected from damage suits resulting from death, injury, and
destruction from a nuclear accident. So Pesonen got busy, and
wrote an article he submitted to The Nation called "Atomic
Insurance: The Ticklish Statistics." It appeared on October
18, 1965. In it, Pesonen suggested that the AEC was
suppressing a new report concerning the consequences of a
major accident in a large nuclear power plant. Pesonen didn't
know this for sure, but he had guessed enough from
Commissioner Palfrey's evasiveness to suggest it.
The article jolted the PR men in the AEC's division of
public information. Duncan Clark, director of the AEC's press
problems, lost no time in developing a ready-made "boilerplate" response for the entire board of commissioners, who
would undoubtedly be faced with some embarrassing
questions as the result of the article. The stock answer
Duncan Clark prepared for the commissioners was this:
Q David Pesonen has suggested in an article in The
Nation magazine that the A.E.C. has suppressed a report
which deals with the theoretical consequences of a major
accident in a large nuclear power plant. He refers to this

report as an updating of the 1957 Brookhaven report. Is this

so?
A. In connection with Congressional consideration of an
extension of the Price-Anderson indemnity law for an
additional 10 years to August 1, 1977, members of the A.E.C.
staff and the staff of Brookhaven National Laboratory
reviewed the 1957 study on theoretical consequences of a
major accident in a large nuclear power plant (known as the
Brookhaven report).
While this review was going on, no one knew what the
results would be or the form they would take, but the process
was commonly referred to as the "updating of the Brookhaven
report."
No new report is in existence or contemplated. It was the
judgment of the persons from Brookhaven and the A.E.C.
staff at the conclusion of their review that no detailed
refiguring of the 1957 report was needed to provide the
Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy with the
information it needed to consider extension of PriceAnderson indemnity.
For someone familiar with the elaborate goings-on at the
frequent AEC-Brookhaven meetings, the publicity
department's reply might seem ludicrous. But to the average
outsider, it sounded quite plausible and disarming.
The boiler-plate copy was prepared just in time, because
inquiries began coming in promptly in response to the article.
On November 8, 1965, Senator Abe Ribicoff sent along to the
AEC a letter from one of his Connecticut constituents. He
accompanied it with a brisk note: "I would appreciate a full
report on the matter raised in Miss Taylor's letter."
Miss Taylor was a citizen of Glastonbury, Connecticut,
and was concerned. When she read Pesonen's article in The
Nation, she found it provoked many questions in her mind. "If

the Atomic Energy Commission is in fact suppressing the

consequences of a major accident in a large nuclear power
plant, this is certainly cause for public concern," she said in
her letter to the senator. "Moreover, since privately-owned
public utility corporations are in effect guaranteed a
reasonable profit by the mode in which their rates are set,
why should they be pressing for the development of a source
of power which carries with it the possibility of disaster? I
hope you will be able to give this matter some attention, as it
is certainly a situation which needs to be investigated and
exposed for public consideration."
Harold Price, the AEC director of regulation, answered
Ribicoff with a letter that neatly incorporated the language of
Duncan Clark's carefully prepared statement:
Nov. 29, 1965
Dear Senator Ribicoff:
This is in response to your referral of November 8
requesting information on questions arising from publication
of an article in the October 18, 1965, issue of The Nation
entitled, "Atomic Insurance: The Ticklish Statistics." This
article was cited by Miss Patricia Taylor in her letter to you
of October 24.
The article by Mr. David Pesonen suggests that the
Atomic Energy Commission may have suppressed a "report"
dealing with the theoretical consequences of a major accident
in a large nuclear power plant. The "report" referred to by Mr.
Pesonen is described in the article as an updating of the 1957
report, "Theoretical Consequences of a Major Accident in a
Large Nuclear Power Plant." This 1957 report, made public at
the time, was prepared at the Commission's request and was
submitted to the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy in connection with its consideration of proposed
legislation which ultimately resulted in enactment of the

Price-Anderson Act in 1957. The report is commonly referred

to as the "Brookhaven Report," since it was prepared
primarily by a group of scientists from the Commission's
Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York.
In connection with the recent Congressional extension of
the Price-Anderson Act, members of the AEC staff and the
staff of the Brookhaven National Laboratory reviewed the
1957 report. The reviewers determined at the conclusion of
their study that no detailed refiguring was required to provide
the joint Committee on Atomic Energy with the information it
needed to consider extension of the indemnification
legislation. The conclusions of their review were set forth by
Chairman Seaborg in his letter of June 18, 1965, to the Joint
Committee (copy of which is enclosed), which was made
public. A copy of a letter from Commissioner Palfrey to Mr.
Pesonen, dated October 8, 1965, also is enclosed, which gives
further information on the review. . . .
In the brief history of atomic power plant development,
there had now been three thorough and reasonably objective
studies made of the possible consequences of a major power
plant accident. Each one of them had brought forth figures of
doomsday proportions. In the maximum cases, WASH-740
predicted 3,400 dead with the smaller reactors of the 1950's.
The University of Michigan study under Professor Henry J.
Gomberg had shown a potential for 133,000 dead from the
Fermi reactor at Lagoona Beach. The WASH-740 update had
come up with 27,000 dead, although the AEC was pretending
that this update didn't exist.
Somehow, the public relations men at the AEC would
have to get around the dilemma, because some kind of study
had been announced. A few solutions were gradually
emerging. One was the launching of a long and handsome
report called WASH1250; its title was eventually to become

"The Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors." It was a laundered

version of the restudy, presenting none of the destruction and
casualty figures.
Another was the AEC's launching, a few years later, of a
$3 million probability study of reactor accidents, under the
direction of Professor Norman Rasmussen of MIT. The
decision to attempt this after the failure of the earlier
probability study was based on the hope that somehow the
wizardry of statistics could be shaped to come up with a more
favorable picture. Nonetheless, there were many on the
Brookhaven and some on the AEC committee who were
convinced this could not be done. As Clifford Beck wrote in
his appraisal of the attempt to figure the odds on a major
accident: "Here is encountered the most baffling and
insoluble enigma existing in our technology: it is in principle
easy and straightforward to calculate potential damages that
might be realized under such postulated accident conditions;
there is not even in principle an objective and quantitative
method of calculating probability or improbability of
accidents or the likelihood that potential hazards will or will
not be realized." [Italics added.]
Professor Rasmussen would be facing stiff examination
when he eventually got around to publishing his figures nine
years later.

TWELVE

At the Fermi reactor at Lagoona Beach, things looked bright

at the start of the new year of 1966, in spite of the chilling
January winds whipping in from Lake Erie. The overriding
excitement of the operating tests, which were just beginning
to push toward the point where electric power could be
produced, was tempered by the exacting routines that
governed safety.
The step-up operation would inch with meticulous care
and caution toward the first goal of 200,000 kilowatts of
thermal power in eight carefully plotted steps that would take
up the large part of a year. At the start, the reactor would
barely peak up above the 1,000-kilowatt level. It would creep
toward 20,000 kilowatts by the fourth step, and at the sixth
step, it would move halfway to the goal. As the tests passed
the 80,000-kilowatt level, it would be able to pump out some
token electricity to Detroit Edison's customers. This would be
a landmark day, after the years of frustration and delays and a
cost that had now reached well over $100 million.
There was drama in the invisible storm of neutrons that
the fuel rods sprayed at each other as they shot out with

blinding speed. The operator at the control board could only

sense this power through his instruments and dials. But as the
control rods slowly withdrew, and the instrument readings
reflected this silent power when the huge pumps sent the
sodium syrup through the system, vibrations were felt in the
floor of the control room that hinted at the reactor's awesome
power.
There were, of course, all kinds of automatic safety
devices. When the safety rods were withdrawn after reloading
the Fermi reactor, they automatically stopped at two different
check positions so that the count rate could be checked before
proceeding further. The only way the process could continue
was by a single key in the possession of the shift supervisor.
If everything checked out at that point, he could override the
interlock only by inserting the key and turning it. Otherwise,
it could not proceed. Most important, and what would be
watched constantly, was to make sure that the coolant flowed
properly at all times. The design of Fermi was such that if the
coolant should be lost because of a pump failure, the reactor
would scram itself automatically, and auxiliary pony motors
would take over immediately. These precautions were
necessary as the boiling point of sodium could never be
reached without disaster.
Even though it was constantly disclaimed, a nuclear
explosion could occur if a fast-breeder reactor like Fermi was
brought to "superprompt critical." The final studies on the
EBR-I meltdown had shown that if the shutdown attempt had
taken place one-half second later than it did, the reactor
would have exploded. Some computer models of breeder
accidents showed that if fuel damage and melting took place,
and if some of the coolant were shoved out of the tiny
channels between the fuel rods and assemblies, the fuel could
be jammed and compacted together to turn the neutrons into a
hornet's nest of activity. Then a small explosion might occur

that would push the fuel rods even closer together. The closer
the fuel rods are packed, the greater the unwanted power
surge. After that: a larger explosion adding to the first. In
other words, a small unplanned power surge inserted into the
core would lead to a small explosion, feeding the reactor with
a large power surge, followed by a large explosion.
Just as burning logs fall and set others on fire, so could
the fuel assemblies crash and fall, leaving unpredictable gaps
in the once tidy core and blocking other coolant channels. A
rule of thumb had been established that the size of an "energy
release" is proportionately larger in a big core than in a small
one. Comparing the Fermi reactor with the midget EBR-I, an
explosion in the Fermi core could be up to fifty times the
designed limit of its containment shell. But the carefully
studied Hazard Report filed with the AEC for the Fermi
reactor dismissed this idea as "incredible."
Another dangerous threat would be if the fuel melted and
mixed with the sodium coolant. This in turn could cause a
sodium vapor explosion that could be even more violent than
a nuclear burst. It was obvious that there was little, if any,
margin for error.
But the crew that had worked so long and so patiently
was forewarned and forearmed about these types of problems.
They worked with confidence during the meticulous process
of edging the power up slowly, week after week, toward the
80,000-kilowatt level. The men putting the final touches on
the reactor, before it would actually produce electricity for
the first time, were a dedicated lot.
There was the swashbuckling Walter McCarthy. Tall and
wiry, he moved about with an air of brash confidence and
restrained tension. He displayed a dry Irish wit that seemed to
soften his impatience with any form of bungling. His passion
for detail was enormous.

Like Cisler, he was a Cornell man, but, in contrast to

Cisler, he was freewheeling and hyperthyroid in his
movements and action. Cisler's body language was frozen and
sphinx-like. McCarthy's was explosive, abrupt, and dynamic.
Cisler, who spent a considerable amount of time at the Fermi
site, would think and examine and reflect with an air of
pontifical restraint. At one test he stayed until nearly four in
the morning to observe and counsel.
Wayne Jens, a technical assistant for Fermi, was in
marked contrast to McCarthy. A graduate of Purdue and the
University of Wisconsin, he was reflective and incisive in his
thinking. He and McCarthy complemented each other; they
worked together smoothly.
Eldon Alexanderson, assistant superintendent and
reactor engineer, matched Cisler's quality of restraint and soft
speech, but somewhat as if there was a fire inside he wanted
to let out. He was meticulous, precise, somewhat of a worrier.
Under Bill Olson, the on-the-line chief of the operation, he
was responsible for an infinite number of details as they
pushed toward the milestone target of 80,000 kilowatts-the
point where the reactor would be able for the first time to
send a portion of its electrical power over the grid on the
Detroit Edison system.
These firing-line scientists looked on their work as a
magnificent challenge that they could not only handle, but
conquer. The plans, specifications, blueprints, invoices, bills
of lading, and engineering reports made up a nightmarish
jigsaw puzzle that would dismay all but the lionhearted.
Even such a thing as the operating license was a maze of
complexities. One paragraph read that the Fermi reactor was
now licensed ". . . to receive, possess and use 41,900
kilograms of depleted Uranium-238 contained in radial
blanket subassemblies and the axial blanket sections of core
subassemblies, 17,500 pounds of depleted Uranium-238

constituting shielding for the cask car, 14,245 pounds of

depleted Uranium-238 contained in derbies, blanket rods,
simulated fuel pins, and solid specimens, 250 grams of
Thorium-232 as foils or other shapes suitable for neutron
spectrum measurements, 0.1 gram of Uranium-234 and 0.1
gram of Uranium-236 in fission counters, pursuant to Act and
Title 10, CFR, Chapter 1, Part 40, `Licensing of Source
Material.' "
Hundreds and hundreds of specifications like this had
flowed through the process of putting this giant Swiss watch
of a reactor together. And through it all, there could be no
mistake. What if 0.1 gram of Uranium-236 got thrown out
with the packing carton? Stranger things than that had
happened, and gone unnoticed. One by one, McCarthy, Jens,
Alexanderson, and the team checked, double checked, triple
checked every item with the passion of a tent-meeting, pulpitpounding pastor. Could there be any leakage of the sodium
coolant? Were the battery-powered pony motors ready to
pump the sodium automatically on the loss of normal electric
power? Would the automatic scram work as designed? And
most of all, was the "maximum credible accident" that was
covered so thoroughly in McCarthy's Hazard Summary
Report really the worst that could happen? In McCarthy's
opinion, the worst was covered as his hazard summary read:
"The melting of some or all of the fuel in one core
subassembly, due to either complete or partial plugging of the
nozzle of that subassembly. . . . I have described the
mechanics of meltdown and the basis for my opinion that if
fuel melting occurs, it will be confined to the subassembly in
which it happens."
The nozzle was a snout at the bottom of the tall, slim
stainless steel wrapper can of curtain-rod-like fuel pins. The
gooey sodium syrup would rush up through the thin spaces
between the pins, and keep them cool and tame. At the same

time, it would convey the heat away from them, as it rushed

over to the steam generator building through closed pipes to
indirectly create steam. The pipes would be hot enough to
boil the water that surrounded them in the heat exchanger,
without their sodium contents ever coming directly into fatal
contact with the water.
If the coolant flow was ever blocked, McCarthy's
computations figured that the meltdown would not spread
from the single plugged-up subassembly. This was very
important. If it spread to others, there would be hell to pay.
Some scientists were sure that if the melting spread to other
subassemblies, the results could lead to disaster, as the
molten, waxy uranium fell down through the core. Here the
question of the mild-sounding but terrifying condition known
as "secondary criticality" would have to be faced.
The zirconium-plated, inverted ice-cream cone at the
bottom of the coffee-pot-like reactor would play a big part
here. If some of the hot thick molasses-like uranium
substance were poured over the inverted cone, the chances
were it would spread out thinly into a shape that would
probably not go into a critical stage. But, like a ton of thick
mud dropping down through a jungle gym, it was hard to tell
exactly what shape might form. If a thick glob of it landed in
a hunk and froze at that position, the slightest disturbance
could set off an explosion, or, as the engineers preferred to
call it, an "energy release." What could be done if this
happened inside the sealed-off reactor, so drenched with the
opaque liquid sodium that no one could tell what shape the
molten fuel was in?
There would be days, perhaps weeks, of tense, anxious
suspense, as readings and procedures were worked out. The
crew probing an accident would have to walk on eggs as they
tried desperately to figure out what they could do about it.
There could be no "reactor-nauts"the term they used for the

space-clad mechanics-sent down into the bowels of the

reactor vessel now. It would be so radioactive that no one
could survive in it, regardless of masks and protective
clothing. During the previous sodium leak, the crew had been
able to get down inside the viscera of the reactor because
there had been only the sodium to worry about. That was
before the fuel had been put in, and there was no
radioactivity. The danger to the crew then had been bad
enough; the dangers now would be unthinkable.
But McCarthy's careful analysis did not neglect the
possibility of "secondary criticality"-a condition that could be
far worse than the initial accident. He was most confident that
such a thing would not result from a meltdown. However, just
to be on the safe side, he had assumed in his analysis that it
would happen. The silent splitting of quadrillions of neutrons
would increase rapidly in three seconds. Then they would spit
even faster as the melting increased. The faster this happened,
the greater the "energy burst." McCarthy, along with Hans
Bethe, was sure this would not be more than the equivalent of
five hundred pounds of TNT, which the containment shell
was designed to hold.
It was this 500-pound TNT estimate that was a special
bone of contention in some quarters. Some critics claimed
that the Fermi Hazard Report estimates were much too low,
and that they had been set simply because this was the limit
that the containment shell could be designed for without the
cost soaring impractically high. If an "energy burst" zoomed
up to fifty times the Fermi estimate, which some critics
thought possible, all the neat figures and computations would
be hellishly violated at the expense of Detroit, the state of
Michigan, and all the ships on Lake Erie. P. M. Murphy, a
General Electric nuclear energy executive was to say a few
years later: "It is, in our view, unlikely that one will be able to
design for the worst accident permitted by the laws of nature,

and end up with an economically interesting system, even

after additional research and development has been carried
out."
While the painstaking tests were going on at the Fermi plant
during the first few months of 1966, the last spasms of the illstarred Brookhaven report update were taking place. Even the
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards could not get
access to the complete Brookhaven files, since it was not an
official part of the AEC. Although this committee was the
only thing that resembled a scrawny watchdog in the entire
AEC oligarchy, it had been blatantly ignored before, back in
the fifties. (This was when Lewis Strauss had buried the
Advisory Committee's letter expressing alarm and concern
about the Fermi plans.) Therefore, the hiding of more bad
news from the Advisory Committee was not unexpected.
Cliff Beck attended one of the Advisory Committee
meetings in the late spring of 1966. He made it plain to the
safety group that the techniques used by Brookhaven needed
"much more editing before publication is possible." He also
added specifically and rather defensively that he didn't want
"the conclusion written down." But the Advisory Committee
was not satisfied with this. They wanted the exact
conclusions, and they wanted to see them in writing.
By now, Ken Downes and his Brookhaven colleagues
had reached the conclusion that "if commitments on the
publication of such a report had not been publicly made, they
probably would choose not to complete the report." When this
was brought up at the Advisory Committee meeting,
temperatures began rising and frustration began bulging at the
seams. The result was that the Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards told the AEC men to direct Brookhaven
to compile the conclusions and come up with the significant

findings that had been worked over in the laborious WASH740 restudy.
If Brookhaven was worried about disclosing this, in the
light of all the pressure to squash the report out of existence,
the Advisory Committee suggested that the figures and
conclusions could be supplied in an informal, unsigned
memo, so that the source would be unidentified. It could be
completely anonymous. Both Brookhaven and Cliff Beck
protested that this would require too many man hours,
although there is no evidence that they told the Advisory
Committee about the endless drafts of the restudy that were
hidden away.
The Advisory Committee refused to be stalled, however.
They said that if they didn't get the straight, amassed facts, it
might be necessary for them to write a letter to the AEC
commissioners about the situation.
There was flak everywhere as a result of this conflict. It
was followed by massive attempts at stalling. The Advisory
Committee stepped out of the usual tangle of bureaucratic
confusion and persuaded Brookhaven's Winsche to
"volunteer" to appear before them at the Argonne
Laboratories, near Chicago, and bring along with him "some
written pages."
When Cliff Beck heard about this, he was upset. He
didn't want anything left around in writing at all. He asked the
Advisory Committee to wait, but they flatly refused. They
said that if they couldn't have written material, they at least
wanted information that could be written on a blackboard, so
that the Advisory Committee could copy it down.
When Beck told Dave Okrent, who was now on the
Advisory Committee, that he would have to be away during
the time for a suggested meeting, Okrent told Beck that this
would be great, because then the AEC men would not

officially know what information had been given out at the

meeting, and therefore Beck would be off the hook.
But in spite of all the maneuvering behind the scenes, the
real results of the Brookhaven restudy of the old WASH-740
report were kept out of sight. Instead the AEC publicity men
went to work to shape what they hoped would be convincing
reasons why the promised report would not be forthcoming.
Elaborate phrases and stock answers continued to be supplied
to all the AEC commissioners, so that they could answer any
queries from the public, the Congress, or the press. Some
statements were: "The Commission has no plans to update the
report WASH-740," or, "There have accumulated more than
780-reactor years without a single radiation fatality or serious
radiation exposure." The men who, at great personal risk, had
dragged out two bodies from the SL-1 reactor, and scraped
the third one from the ceiling into a net might have gone
through some head-scratching when they read the latter
statement, not to mention those who risked their lives to
prevent disaster at Windscale and Chalk River.
In the meantime, the publicity men welcomed people like
Philip Abelson, editor of the prestigious Science magazine,
who wrote a glowing piece in May of 1966. "We are now in a
new era," Abelson's editorial went. "Atomic energy has
proved relatively safe, reliable, and clean. Radioactive wastes
can be contained. The bookkeeping cost of nuclear power has
become competitive. . . . A continuing effort is being made to
guarantee reactor safety. . . . In the contest between
conventional and nuclear power, the balance is shifting
rapidly. In a few years most new major planned installations
are likely to be nuclear."
The AEC publicity men were not happy with responses
like the one by Sheldon Novick of Washington University,
that soon appeared in the letters-to-the-editor column of the

same publication. Abelson, however, was gentleman enough

to print it in his own publication.
"Abelson repeats the often-heard comment that electric
power will be increasingly produced in the country by nuclear
reactors," Sheldon Novick wrote. "In view of the many
unfavorable aspects of nuclear energy, the scarcity of
Uranium-235, the enormous expense of reactor development,
and the inherent pollution and explosion hazards, it is
puzzling that the efforts of scientists and the resources of the
United States have not been directed toward developing a less
hazardous energy source. Still less comprehensible is the
pressure to proceed with construction of reactors in a fullscale commercial program before the dangers involved are
better understood. After all, we have a century or so to find a
replacement for fossil fuels."
The last sentence was important. With many centuries of
coal available, why the rush into a catastrophe and disaster
that was entirely possible, if not probable? Coal, if it did
nothing else, would buy time-especially on a crash
liquefaction and gasification program. That would reduce
pollution problems. Land damage? Yes, but land restoration
in some areas was possible at a fraction of the cost of a single
nuclear runaway.
Letters like Novick's, however, did nothing to dim the
enthusiasm of the Fermi crews as they continued their tests,
and climbed up the ladder to what they were sure would be
certain success. Thanks to the joint Committee of Congress
and the taxpayer-financed Price-Anderson Act, there was
nothing to worry about now in the way of insurance. Even if
the impossible happened, and the 133,000 estimated by the
University of Michigan study were killed by a major accident
at Fermi, the reactor corporation would be totally exempt
from any claims brought against it for death or injury or
property damage. In this hypothetical case, the claims could

run anywhere from $10 billion to $30 billion, and the utility
company could continue in business as usual and not have to
worry about its assets being touched. But the Price-Anderson
law provided an absolute ceiling of $560 million in accident
insurance. It simply put a lid on the amount that would be
paid out to the sufferers that happened to be unfortunate
enough to live in Michigan or northern Ohio.
Under the Michigan University theoretical accident toll
of 133,000, death claims alone from the accident could run to
over $7 billion, if a miserly $50,000 per death was allowed by
the courts. But the total amount to be paid out to the victims
would be the $495 million government portion under the
Price-Anderson law restrictions, plus $65 million offered by
insurance companies. This would divide into about $4,000
per life lost. But the injured and property damage would also
have to receive a share. If the Brookhaven estimated property
destruction of $17 billion were added to this, the total
damages could come to over $24 billion. The Price-Anderson
provision would leave a gap of over $23 billion. Congress
would undoubtedly try to come to the rescue with some kind
of emergency aid, but how could the taxpapers be able to
gather that much money in addition to their own tax burdens?
The only thing to do was think positively and pray that
nothing would happen-and to make sure that the Fermi reactor
and its crew were infallible. There was still that undeniable
inspiration to reach for an historical engineering first: the first
breeder reactor to pump out electrical power over commercial
transmission lines. It would be a soothing poultice for the
Fermi engineers after the long stretch of tribulations.
August 6, 1966, was the day that it finally came about.
Starting that Friday afternoon, and for fifty-two hours, the
scorching hot sodium churned through the pipes and created
enough steam at 100,000 kilowatts of heat to produce 33,000
kilowatts of electric power. Ironically, however, this was less

than half of what the standby oil generator at the Fermi site
could turn out. It was, however, as Walker Cisler proudly
said, "the highest power level yet reached by a breeder reactor
plant."
But the triumph was short-lived. Not only had the costs
now mounted to $120 million over a span of a decade of
problems, but setbacks still plagued the project. There had
been troubles showing all along during the 1966 test program
with the thermocouples-those "oven thermometers" that were
sprinkled among the fuel subassemblies to make sure the fuel
was staying in line as far as fuel temperature was concerned.
One of the subassemblies, known as M-091, had been
particularly temperamental all through the tests. It was hard to
tell from the readings whether it was too hot, or the device
was not registering correctly. Subassembly M-140 was
showing similar signs of discontent. So were several others.
Since any hot spot in a single subassembly could be a
harbinger for disaster, these anomalies were watched and
checked very carefully. And there were more problems with
safety rod number 3. Steam generator leak repairs joined with
all the other problems to keep the Fermi reactor out of any
major action until October rolled around.
In fact during the brief moments of triumph on August 6
and 7, three subassemblies showed abnormal temperatures. It
was decided to shift their positions around in the egg-cratelike structure that held the core together. In this way, an
added check could be made to see if the fault was with the
instruments or whether the subassemblies were actually
abnormal. Actually, the high temperature readings were
strongly suspected of being false, because all the other
subassemblies around them were reading comfortably normal.
By October 4, 1966, the Fermi engineers had things in
good enough shape to make another try at reaching their firststage high-power goal. They planned to run the reactor for a

while at idling speed, slowly raising the temperature of the

viscous sodium fluid to a little over 500F., a temperature
high enough to make pressurized water boil, but not sodium.
There were three routine tests to make, mainly checking
pressures and temperatures. At eight o'clock at night on
October 4, the system was ready to make the approach to
criticality with the slow withdrawal of the control rods. It
took until 11:08 P.M. for criticality to be reached, that point
at which the reactor would stand by for the next step.
Here, the process was stopped for the control room
operators to check everything out. The readings on the
instruments were exactly as predicted for the amount of
distance the control rods had been withdrawn. This is an
important check, because the higher the long, thin control
rods are pulled out of the core, the greater the power that
should be coming through. If the rods are out some distance
and the power is less than predicted, it is an immediate sign of
trouble.
There was no trouble apparent at this time, however.
Things looked good for the big push which was to begin at 8
A.M., October 5. The Fermi crew was naturally itchy to get
on with the job after so many ceaseless delays.
The first problem that was discovered on the morning of
the fifth was a malfunction in one of the steam generator
valves. It took until nearly 2 P.M. to clear it up. Then another
power push was made. But this was barely started before
there was trouble with the boiler feed-water pump.
Again the control rods were pushed back in to reduce the
power while this was taken care of. After another start-up,
there was a brief hold to put the reactor on automatic control.
Then the power began rising again. By 3 P.M., the power was
up to about twenty percent of its 100,000-kilowatt limit in the
current series of tests.

It was at this point that Mike Wilber, the assistant

nuclear engineer in the control room, noticed some erratic
changes in the neutron activity of the reactor. However, this
situation had been noticed before at about the same power
level. It had been thought to be a pickup of electronic noise in
the control system. The control system had not been affected
when this had happened in the past. But just to be on the safe
side, the reactor was put on manual control again, and the
reactor behavior watched carefully.
In a few moments the apparent noise disappeared from
the instrument readings. Again, the reactor was put on
automatic control. Any decision at the control board now
would be critical.

THIRTEEN

Just a few minutes after the first signs of ill behavior at the
control panel of the Fermi reactor, at 3:05 P.M. to be exact,
Mike Wilber noticed another problem. For the amount of heat
and power that was coming out of the reactor, the control rods
should have been raised only six inches out of the core.
Instead, they were a full nine inches out. This was not a
comfortable situation. Further, the reactivity signal was again
moving crazily and Wilber's first thought was that the core
temperature was too high.
The instruments that showed the temperatures of the
individual subassemblies were rather awkwardly installed,
about twenty or thirty feet away from the main control board,
behind the relay panel a wide bank of instruments stretching
along the width of the control room.
The operator stopped the power increase immediately,
and Wilber went behind the control board to check the core
outlet temperature instruments. He scanned them quickly. It
was immediately obvious that two subassemblies were
showing high outlet temperatures: M-140 and M-098. Each
tall, slim can that wrapped a bundle of slender fuel pins had

its own designation in the core, just as a crossword puzzle has

its squares identified. M-140 has been acting up before. It still
wasn't clear whether it was the instrument that was off, or
whether the subassembly itself was actually overheating. The
instrument had been reshuffled to a new position to check
this, because of the previous misbehavior. But M-098 had
never been a problem child. And it had never been moved
from its original position.
It was hard to get a complete picture of the blistering hot
core, because only one out of every four subassemblies was
equipped with a thermocouple. A most disturbing thing was
that M-140 should be reading about 580. It was now showing
over 700.
Suddenly, as Wilber was standing in front of the
temperature instruments behind the control panel, radiation
alarms went off. It was exactly 3:09 P.M. The air horn began
blasting two blasts every three seconds. Then, over the
intercom, a laconic announcement: "Now hear this. Now hear
this. The containment building and the fission product
detector building have been secured. There are high radiation
readings, and they are sealed off. Do not attempt to enter.
Stay out. Both buildings are isolated. This is a Class I
emergency. Stand by for further instructions. Stand by for
further instructions."
The crew began scrambling about on its assigned
emergency procedures. All doors and windows were closed.
The fresh air intakes in all buildings were shut down. Plant
guards closed off the entrances to the site. The health physics
team rushed to the control room. Someone-no one remembers
who-phoned the local Monroe County Sheriff's office and the
state police headquarters at Lansing.
A Class I emergency was in effect at Lagoona Beach,
and no one could say what would happen next.

Regardless of how well trained and prepared the Fermi crew

was to meet emergencies, the situation in the control room
was tense and dangerous. A sudden appearance of radiation,
of poisonous fission products leaking out of the reactor vessel
and into the containment building needed immediate expert
attention and extremely cautious action. There were plenty of
words covering the situation, including Walter McCarthy's
own analyses of the past. There was nothing comforting about
his reminders:
Without the capacity for improved heat removal, melting
of the fuel element alloy begins 27 seconds after the onset of
an accident.
Or:
Fast reactors gain reactivity if the fuel is rearranged in a
denser condition.
Here was a delicate situation. The alarms had gone off.
Radiation was leaking. Some core temperatures were
inexplicably high. Direct inspection of the core of the reactor
vessel was impossible. Even if the containment building were
not sealed off, there was no way to see if the fuel rods were
melting, how much damage to the core had been sustained,
what direction the accident was taking, or the shape of any
melted fuel.
There was plenty of past theory to go on, both from
McCarthy's previous analyses and others. J. R. Dietrich had
written in the Technology of Nuclear Reactor Safety, a
nuclear engineer's Bible:
Any accident which can cause a compaction of the fuel
may produce a very serious increase in reactivity.

But was there compaction of the fuel? Would there be?

Decisions would have to be made quickly, and they would
have to be made carefully. A wrong decision might be worse
than none at all.
The maintenance engineer, Ken Johnson, was at his desk
in his office, not far from the control room when the alarms
went off. He ran down the short corridor to the relay room,
where there was a panel of gauges monitoring the radiation
levels. They were reading high, especially in the containment
building. His first thought was whether there was anyone in
it. No one could enter without clearance. The only entrance
and exit to the containment shell was through an enormous
double door that formed an air lock. Anyone entering would
have to step into a chamber and wait for the outer door to
close. Then the inner door-as thick and enormous as that of a
huge bank safe would open. The process was timed for thirty
seconds. Johnson picked up a phone and called Bob Carter,
his maintenance foreman. He asked for an immediate count of
the crew. They were all present and accounted for.
Johnson quickly scanned the possibilities of what had
caused the radiation alarm. One thought was that one of the
seals that kept the argon gas from leaking into the
containment building had failed. The argon gas was critical. It
sat invisibly inside the reactor vessel and kept the oxygen
from hitting the sodium, which would flash into a fire or an
explosion if these two elements combined.
At this point, the reactivity rate was unclear, and the
situation was confused. Johnson's thought about the argon gas
was that it would have some radioactivity in it under normal
conditions. Of course, if the fuel had melted, it would be
highly radioactive, as the fission products would have burst
out of the spalled fuel cladding and saturated everything in
the reactor core with their poisons.

At the control room console, the operator had begun to

pull down the power as soon as the radiation alarm sounded,
dropping the rods slowly to see if the reactor could be brought
under control. No one knew yet what had happened, or why it
had happened. There were almost endless possibilities, and
any decision had to rest on a careful assessment of all the
instruments. On the panels in the control room, there were
over two hundred dials, gauges, and warning lights alone-not
counting those on the control console.
A natural impulse, of course, would be to scram the
reactor immediately. But there were problems with this.
Thermal shock, due to sudden changes in the sodium
temperature, had to be guarded against, in both the blazing
hot core and the channels that carried the coolant.
This sort of problem left the operating crew between the
devil and a runaway meltdown. Yet how could any engineer
or reactor operator be cool enough to handle the complexities
in a crisis situation? Even if a technician memorized every
factor, every golden rule laid down in the industry's Bible,
how could they be correlated in the seconds-or minutes, if
they were lucky that were allowed in a nuclear accident
crisis?
Mike Wilber was still trying to put his finger on what
was happening inside the reactor core; he was checking and
rechecking the instruments. So far, at least, the radiation was
not threatening the control room, and it was within reasonable
limits where it was coming out of the tall stack. It had not yet
reached intolerable limits outside the containment shell.
Already, a team of health physicists under John Feldes was
circling the outside of the containment building with Geiger
counters. The readout on the fission product monitor-which
later proved not at all reliable-showed moderate radiation
around most of the area, but there were high radiation levels
near the number 1 pump, and the area was roped off.

In an emergency situation such as this, time is crucial;

confusions and complications create frustrating delays. One
complication was that a Fermi instrument engineer had been
working on the fission product monitor, checking the
calibration on the panel. When he saw the steep climb in
radiation at the time of the alarm, he thought immediately that
he had merely triggered a false alarm while working with the
instruments. But the temperature readings on the
subassemblies and other indicators showed that something
was happening in the core that was very real. And so at 3:20
P.M., eleven minutes after the radiation alarm had gone off,
the decision was made to manually scram the reactor. The
question: Was this too soon or too late?
All the rods went down into the core normally, except
one. It stopped six inches from the full "down" position. This
was no time to take a chance. A second manual scram signal
was activated. The reluctant rod finally closed down fully.
Ken Johnson made his way to the control room. The red
light in the corridor which had read REACTOR ON, was no
longer on, so he knew now that the reactor had been
scrammed. The control room was quiet; operators for the new
shift were coming in; several staff members were checking
instruments and charts, trying to find out what the trouble
was. Johnson knew immediately that it was something
serious, something a lot more than a faulty seal. He found
Mike Wilber very concerned about the situation, especially
the high temperature readings in the core. All the signs
seemed to be pointing to a fuel melting situation, and there
wasn't a nuclear engineer in the business who didn't know
what that could mean.
Walter McCarthy was in a conference in downtown Detroit
when it happened. He got a call from Bill Olson, the plant
supervisor, who told him that there definitely was evidence of

fuel damage, that the reactor had been scrammed, and that the
containment building had been isolated with high radiation
levels. McCarthy called his wife to say he wouldn't be home
for dinner. Then he tried to reach Walker Cisler, who was in
New York at the time. He couldn't reach Cisler, so he took off
immediately for Lagoona Beach.
When he arrived at the Fermi control room, there was
still confusion as to what had happened. The critical question
remained: Was there fuel melting or not? With direct
observation impossible, the problem would boil down to
instruments, deduction, and a prayer. The only hope for future
inspection was to drain the thousands of gallons of the thick,
opaque sodium out of the reactor, and then, with infinite care,
to try to probe the bowels of the core to see what had
happened. This was, of course, impossible at the moment.
McCarthy didn't need to be reminded of the words of J.
R. Dietrich in the nuclear engineer's Bible:
In all but the smallest and most compact fast reactors, the
agglomeration of even a fraction of the total fuel into a
compact mass will usually result in a highly super-critical
assembly

Some kind of fuel melting was suspected by Mike

Wilber, and if his theory was correct, the melting could be in
more than one fuel subassembly. The question here was: How
much fuel had melted, what was the condition of the core, and
what were the chances of a secondary accident?
Again, Dietrich had given a very clear and terrifying
picture of this:
In a fast reactor, the dynamic portion of a reactor accident
cannot be considered to end with the general melting or
thermal failure of fuel elements. On the contrary, it is

conceivable that the serious portion of the accident may only

begin at that point.

It didn't take long to deduce that there was definitely fuel

melting, and that it wasn't confined to a single subassembly. If
there was melting in several subassemblies, it would create a
situation that would require extreme caution.
Almost immediately after he arrived at the plant,
McCarthy called a meeting. Every available key man of the
Fermi team was there Olson, Wilber, Jens, Amorosi, Johnson,
and others-some of whom had nursed the plant from its
infancy, for over a decade. Alexanderson was to arrive later.
The prime questions were: Is the reactor secure? Would
it stay secure? What could be done to explore the accident
that wouldn't trigger a secondary accident more terrible than
the first? The urgent, burning priority was to make sure that
no hazardous condition existed in the core. The potential
hazard was of course enormous, and the lack of experience in
handling fast-breeder accidents made the situation fraught
with danger. Further, no provision had been made in the
design for investigating and recovering damaged fuel
elements.
To say that the Fermi team was sitting on top of a
powder keg would be a major understatement. The threat of a
secondary accident was, as McCarthy was to say later, "a
terrifying thought"
However terrifying the situation, it was staring the Fermi
crew in the face. The keynote was uncertainty. There were
few road maps to go by. No one at the hastily called meeting
knew exactly what had happened within the reactor core. No
one knew what would happen if they tried to look inside it or
how to look inside it. The most probable cause of fuel melting
was the blocking of the sodium coolant.

McCarthy took command by saying: "We will go at this

very, very, slowly." Before any kind of exploration of the
condition of the reactor, a procedure would have to be
written. It would have to be checked and double checked
before any attempt to put it into action would be permitted.
Again, there could be no margin for error.
Outside of the tense atmosphere in the Fermi plant
conference room, there was no outward sign of trouble at
Lagoona Beach. Speculation about a peacetime nuclear
accident had been kept in such a low profile by the AEC that
hardly anyone would be likely to think about it. A coal mine
disaster, a chlorine explosion, an ammunition ship blowing
up-all were tragic sorts of things that could happen. But none
of them threatened to contaminate a whole state or to kill in
such potentially massive quantities. None would threaten the
soil, the vegetation, the water tables, the air for thousands and
thousands of years.
There were a couple of public laws in Michigan, dating
as far back as 1953, which provided for the attempt to cope
with such a possible catastrophe. The department of public
health was named the official radiation control agency. But
how could a cloud of radiation that could fan out to cover an
area the size of a state be controlled, even by the most expert
public health officer? The department of state police was
designated as the coordinator of civil defense activities if and
when the governor proclaimed an emergency. But how could
a handful of state police handle a gigantic exodus from the
city of Detroit or even from Monroe County?
The scene was almost unimaginable. Trucks, cars, buses
stalled in massive traffic jams along the superhighways. Long
streams of people carrying blankets, pots, pans, children
moving out of Detroit toward Ann Arbor, Lansing, Grand
Rapids, Ontario-themselves places of dubious safety under
the silent plume of radiation. And yet, in the AEC meetings at

Brookhaven the only answer that had come up in the

discussions was evacuation.
The state of Michigan plan reads with simple eloquence:
In the event that an incident occurs which releases radioactive
materials in concentrations that may be a public health hazard,
this plan will be implemented. Implementation will commence
by proclamation of an emergency by the Governor or by the
order of the Director of the Department of Public Health. . . .

This department will:

perform monitoring, evaluate data, and establish emergency
response actions.

But what would these actions be?

The Michigan radiation emergency plan had many
provisions. One of them was that the state police would notify
the bordering states and provinces of the approaching danger.
But what in turn could these states or provinces do, aside
from the vagaries of "establishing emergency response
actions?" What is the "response action" for a cone of
radiation that will settle an invisible mantle of contamination
only God knows where?
The plan included neat and tidy classifications of
exposure conditions. There were three main classes: "Whole
body exposure, including eyes, gonads, and blood forming
organs," exposure to "the thyroid of a one-year-old child,"
and "liquid discharges." The only real answer was to vacate
the area.
The plan itself seemed an exercise in futility. But so was
the meeting in the conference room of the Fermi plant. The
few confirmed facts that could be accurately determined at
the time were that, because of the combined readings of

several meters, there had not only been fuel melting, but there
had been "fuel redistribution," meaning that the fuel had
shifted as well as melted. This would automatically leave the
way open for further and more serious accidents to happen.
And there was still the question as to whether the reactor had
been scrammed soon enough.
McCarthy, still trying to reach Cisler on the phone,
directed the meeting toward getting at the possible cause of
the accident. He was afraid now that the two hot
subassemblies were not the only ones that had melted. But he
could not be sure because only one in four had temperature
gauges throughout the core. It would be sheer luck if M-140
and M-098 were the only ones involved.
Many explanations of what might have happened were
brought up at the meeting: broken fuel pins, strainers, foreign
material on the pins, fuel swelling, and other possibilities that
might have blocked the coolant from coming through the
subassemblies. Somehow, somewhere, the
melted
subassemblies must have been starved from their protective
sodium coolant, either by some foreign matter that blocked
the nozzle, or by the flow behavior of the sodium itself.
McCarthy laid down two programs. One was to work out
a detailed analysis and experimental program to find out just
what the chances of a secondary accident could be. The other
was to try to find out what the cause was, and to try to get the
reactor back into service.
But the first problem would be the one hanging over not
only the heads of the crew, but the entire state of Michigan as
well.

FOURTEEN

In addition to facing "hair-raising decisions" and terrifying

thoughts, the men who sat in the control and conference
rooms at Lagoona Beach also faced a deep sense of concern
and frustration. Practically all the rules in the book warned of
a secondary potential that could be far worse than the original
melting. And the slightest disturbance of a partially melted
core could easily set off that more powerful secondary
accident.
Worse, the primary accident itself had gone beyond the
confident predictions for a "maximum credible accident" of
both McCarthy and Hans Bethe. McCarthy had stated flatly
that only one subassembly could melt in the Fermi reactor.
The instruments already showed that two were affected, and
there were probably more. He had also stated that the reactor
would shut down automatically in such a situation. It had not;
it had required a manual shutdown. Hans Bethe had testified
that a core meltdown accident was "incredible and
impossible." Both were experts, and both were wrong.
Now, with the reactor shut down, and no one knowing
what possible shape the core and the melted uranium were in,
what could be believed about the other predictions?

Cisler, finally contacted, remained calm in the face of

the tragedy. McCarthy recapitulated what had happened,
trying to deduce why the accident had occurred, but without
having much real evidence to work on.
With the belated scramming of the reactor, the radiation
leakage had begun to drop off. It was some comfort, but the
concern was what might now happen in the core. The only
way to get at the core was through the fuel-loading
contraption, the awkward and clumsy Lazy Susan mechanism
that provided no vision of what was going on, and that could
easily jar a partly melted core into a secondary accident. It
was like trying to look inside a gasoline tank with a lighted
match. How could they explore a reactor drenched in
radioactive poisons without the risk of wiping out Detroit and
a big chunk of Michigan with it? Ironically, hardly anyone in
Detroit, or the state of Michigan, had any idea of the potential
danger they were in.
As the afternoon of October 5 wore on, Sheriff Bud
Harrington sat in his miniature office in the Monroe Town
Hall, but no further phone call about the incident came in.
Captain Buchanan of the Michigan State Police heard no
more about the alert that day either.
Frank Kuron, the barrel-chested ironworker, was in his
living room in Stony Point, two miles away from the reactor,
his feet propped up on a footrest, watching the Baltimore
Orioles take the Los Angeles Dodgers in the first game of the
1966 World Series by a score of three to two. Pitcher
Drabowsky was having a good day, striking out eleven batters
in the process. It was a good day for the Polish, Kuron was
thinking.
Other Michigan citizens were equally unconcerned. No
news of the accident had been broadcast that afternoon or
evening, but McCarthy made it a point to call the local
Monroe paper to give out a brief but very ambiguous

statement to appear the next morning. The communique was

couched in terms reminiscent of a wartime battle report. It
mentioned nothing about any fuel melting, merely stating that
the "radioactivity level of the argon gas" was "observed to
rise substantially." It went on to mention that this resulted in
the automatic sealing of the building ventilation system. The
release was a masterpiece of understatement, but it would get
McCarthy off the hook if rumors began spreading around
town that something was awry at Lagoona Beach. The irony
of the situation was that even if any citizen in the area had
known that a meltdown was in the works at the Fermi reactorwhich no one did-there would be little alarm. The situation
was too new, too obscure, too unfathomable for anyone
untrained in the overwhelming technicalities of nuclear
engineering. It was a case of ignorance not only being bliss,
but comfortably reassuring.
In one way, the understatement might have been good in
the light of what was to happen in Sweden several years later.
One November day in 1973 an enterprising producer for
Swedish radio decided to produce a fictional drama about an
actual atomic power plant in southern Sweden. He wanted to
point out to the public what a horrible catastrophe it would be
if the reactor went into a major accident. Just as Orson Welles
had unwittingly done in his notorious radio dramatization of
The War of the Worlds back in the 1930's, the Swedish
producer shaped his radio drama so that it sounded so vividly
real to both Swedish and Copenhagen listeners that most of
the population went into shock. Panic hit suddenly in
southern Sweden-where the fictional meltdown was described
as taking place-and much of Denmark across the way.
Every hospital in hundreds of square miles went into a
full alarm situation. The population rushed to fallout shelters.
Fire stations called in emergency crews. The phone system in
both Denmark and Sweden broke down within half an hour.

In Copenhagen, doctors rushed into the main hospitals to

stand by for supposed radiation victims. People with trucks
began loading them up with furniture and possessions.
Householders rushed to seal off windows and doors. Within
ten minutes, the roads were jammed with refugees, traffic was
in a hopeless tangle, and total panic had set in. Even
reassurances and disclaimers that followed the broadcast
failed to calm things down.
It was a tragic scene, all the result of a new Orson
Welles situation but it dramatized powerfully what could
happen if a real reactor accident were announced in a heavily
populated area.
But the accident at the Fermi site was very real. Even
though the control rods were shoved down into the core, there
was no assurance that a secondary accident could not take
place. This was the problem the Fermi engineers faced-and
what Detroit and its surroundings would face if the worst did
happen as a result of probing into the causes.
Under these conditions, there is little wonder that the
Fermi engineers talked of "hair-raising decisions," and
"terrifying thoughts." In effect, they were sitting on top of a
volcano, which, if left alone, might be all right; but, if they
tried to take a peek inside, it might erupt. Yet they were
forced to take some action. They could not walk away from
the accident, even if they wanted to. Aside from the hundredplus million investment at stake, it would be impossible to
leave a hot reactor sitting there, loaded with deadly fission
products, soaked in radioactive sodium, and choked in an
unknown configuration of melted uranium. The reactor could
not be sealed in a tomb of cement and forgotten about. Sooner
or later, its poisons would eat down through the base, no
matter how thick, and contaminate the water table and soil
below it. A cement tombstone, even if poured lavishly over
the core, would eventually sweat out the buried poisons and

continue the contamination for thousands of years. Not only

that, but if the concrete became wet when it was irradiated,
there could be what is called a "radiation dissociation" of the
water to hydrogen and oxygen which would actually create an
explosive mixture, turning the entombed reactor into a bomb.
It was too late to go back to the drawing boards.
The lights burned all through the night at Lagoona Beach
as McCarthy, Cisler, and the others pondered over the
situation. They kept a close eye on the weather situation. That
afternoon the wind had been blowing from the west, and if
the unthinkable had happened it would have swept the
radioactive cloud out over Lake Erie, losing some of its
radioactive punch by the time it reached Pennsylvania to the
east. However, by nightfall, there was considerable nocturnal
inversion the worst kind of condition for a deadly plume of
radiation. And by the next day, the wind had shifted to 220, a
course that would take any radioactive fallout smack into the
lap of Windsor and much of Detroit. Under these conditions,
especially, a secondary accident with breach of containment
could not be allowed to happen.
It is a strange thing that in a situation of harrowing,
unthinkable tragedy and drama an atmosphere of silence and
calmness can take over and dominate the scene. With the
realization of the potential for death and destruction, no one
could fail to be nervous. But practically no one showed it.
Emotions were deep-frozen in the coils of the engineering and
scientific minds. It was a deceptive calm that permeated the
control room as the second day of the meltdown began.
For several days, the only thing the Fermi crew could do
was gather ideas, and write up procedures as to how to
carefully carry them out. But the time bomb was still ticking,
quietly and relentlessly. During those days, the weather grew
less and less cooperative, with the wind shifting so that any
escape of radiation would cover the maximum population of

Detroit and its sprawling suburbs. The day of the accident

marked the beginning of a warm spell, so any escaping
radiation would tend to hang lazily under the nocturnal
inversion conditions that existed through each night-the warm
air trapped by the cool lid that boxed it in. It was, in fact,
perfect Indian Summer weather-the worst possible kind for
any ground release a time when the haze from burning leaves
hangs heavy and stagnant in the air, creating a smoky veil that
lingers pungently for days.
The most frightening thing for the scientists and engineers
was not knowing the cause of the trouble. There were guesses
at the meetings as to how long it would take to find out what
had gone wrong inside the bowels of the reactor. Some
figured it would take a year, if all went well and no secondary
accident took place. Some guesses were that it would take
even longer.
Finally they decided to run some cautious tests. In one
tense and timid exploration, the control rods were withdrawn
one at a time to test the reactivity situation, and then shoved
back into the core. On reading the instruments, it was
confirmed that fuel melting had definitely taken place.
But there was still no clue as to why. They carried out
another check of the rate at which the liquid sodium flowed.
By deduction, the test showed that no more than six complete
subassemblies could have melted. In checking the flow of the
sodium, a microphone was placed cautiously on a control rod
extension to see if any clue might turn up from the sounds
inside the reactor. A clapping noise was immediately
detected. It slowed down when the flow of sodium slowed.
But this offered little enlightenment.
The reactor had now been closed for a month, and the
endless meetings and cautious tests still had produced no clue
either to the cause of the problem or its solution. Tired,

exhausted, frustrated, and concerned, McCarthy looked to the

outside for suggestions. The situation demanded the best
brains in the nuclear field, and he set about getting them.
They arrived in Detroit from all over the world: from France,
from England, from Scotland, from all over the United States,
specialists and experts who would try to hold a conference
and diagnose a patient that was unable to be viewed or even
poked at.
The international "medical" consultation lasted for
hours. Every aspect of the patient's condition was surveyed. It
was agreed that, in view of the time that had elapsed, some
bolder action might be taken to explore the secrets held inside
the core.
They even considered trying to remove the damaged
subassemblies. Knowing the dangers of a fuel-loading or fuelremoving process, even under normal conditions, it was not a
step to be taken lightly. The second accident at Chalk River,
Canada, where only a single piece of unenriched uranium had
almost caused a major disaster, had dramatized that. The
Fermi fuel was highly enriched, tightly packed, and much
more threatening than the simple, chunky piece of Uranium238 that had so thoroughly ravaged the NRU reactor at Chalk
River.
A decision had to be made. The engineers could no
longer wait and watch. Inside the bowels of the reactor vessel
was a maze of unknown geometry. Exploring it could be
disastrous if the wrong steps were taken. A slight jar or bump
under the wrong conditions could catapult the reactor into a
helpless runaway. But somehow that wrecked fuel had to be
hauled out, and the unknown faced.
Finally, a consensus was reached. A surgical incision
had to be made, and the scalpels prepared for an operation to
remove the diseased fuel.

The situation changed from one of trepidation to one of

crisis.
There was practically no experience to go on, and any attempt
to remove melted fuel from the reactor was fraught with
catastrophic potentialities. To get at the damaged
subassemblies meant raising the giant hold-down device that
sat on the top of the core like an enormous spider. If any of
the fuel subassemblies were sticking to its huge fingers when
it was lifted, there could be hell to pay.
In an atmosphere of controlled tension, the Fermi
engineers began the job. Using every measuring instrument in
the core that could apply, the hold-down device was raised
very slowly. It worked. Apparently nothing was stuck to its
claws. This was a major source of relief. Then, very slowly
and cautiously, a mechanical arm was swept over the top of
the core to check on whether any of the subassemblies were
poking up above the top level of the core. Again, there was
success. The chances of a secondary accident appeared less
with each step.
Then the big lobster claw that would sweep over the core
to lift out the subassemblies was brought into action. A
special weight gauge was installed on it. All this was being
done blindly of course. There was no way the reactor shield
tank could be opened to look inside. It was blistering with
radioactivity, and filled with the argon gas that kept the
sodium away from the air.
The idea was that any subassembly that had melted
would weigh less than the normal ones. In this way, the
damaged fuel could be located, and with luck, removed and
examined far away from the reactor in what is known as a hot
cell. Here, everything is handled by remote control, behind
heavy shielding and lead glass windows up to four feet thick.
For this process, the damaged fuel would have to be shipped

to Columbus, Ohio, in special casks. This alone was a

formidable job, facing the constant bugaboo of a
transportation accident that in itself could be deadly.
The detective work that began a month after the accident
continued week after week, month after month, at a snail's
pace. It was essential to learn exactly how much fuel had
melted to eliminate the possibility of a secondary critical
accident in case some of the fuel shifted during the
exploration process. The investigators finally learned that not
two, but four subassemblies had been damaged, with two of
them stuck together.
It took from October, 1966 to January, 1967 to determine
this, and from January to May, 1967 to remove the damaged
subassemblies. Removing them was a precarious and
overwhelmingly difficult five-month-long job. Special optical
devices and cameras were devised. Part of the thick, opaque
sodium syrup had to be drained from the reactor, although
there was no provision for this in the reactor's design. A
shielded viewing window had to be inserted in the plug at the
top of tile vessel. A borescope placed on the end of a flexible
tube was pushed down into the reactor.
By August, 1967, more of the sodium was drained out to
expose the meltdown pan at the very bottom of the reactor
vessel. So far, even the warped and twisted subassemblies
gave no clue as to the cause of the accident an accident, they
said, that could never happen. By September, nearly a year
after the meltdown, they were able to lower a periscope
through a stainless steel pipe that was shoved down through a
hole in the plug that circled the top of the reactor vessel. A
quartz light was rigged to slide down it. The device finally
reached the meltdown pan, forty feet down, at the very
bottom of the reactor. There, the inverted ice-cream cone,
known as the conical flow guide, sat as the alleged guardian

to spread out any melted uranium that had spilled down onto
the meltdown pan.
As the periscope scanned the bottom of the vessel, it
became apparent that there was no melted uranium there. But
there was something else. Manipulating the forty-foot-long
periscope and light, the engineers saw what looked for all the
world like a crushed beer can, lying innocently on the
meltdown pan. Here, at last, could be the cause of blockage of
the coolant nozzles of the subassemblies; a flattened piece of
metal that could easily starve off the sodium and allow the
uranium to melt, the cladding to rupture, the subassemblies to
warp and twist, and the fission products to burst out.
But how did the beer can get there? Had some worker
carelessly dropped it from his lunch pail and unwittingly
nullified all the carefully planned safety devices that would
protect against a meltdown? And was it a beer can? And if
not, what was it? The detective story wasn't over yet.
As the Fermi engineers worked and sweated to get at the
mystery, the critics began firing salvos at Cisler, McCarthy,
and the rest of the crew. Sheldon Novick, a concerned
environmentalist of Washington University in St. Louis, and
editor of the magazine Science and Citizen, hit hard at the
Fermi project in his magazine when he wrote that the accident
far exceeded the worst envisioned, and could have meant
disaster for citizens in the Detroit area. "The huge quantities
of radioactivity involved and the proximity of Detroit made
the prospect terrifying indeed," he wrote. Then he continued:
"It should be emphasized that the maximum credible accident
was assumed to occur at a power level 15 times that at which
the actual accident occurred. In other words, the actual
accident was not only `incredible,' it might have been far
worse." Novick concluded that the only answer was to shut
down the Fermi plant forever.

McCarthy rose to his own defense and claimed that there

was no danger at any time. George Weil called the Fermi
reactor "a costly project which might have ultimately led to
an explosion and release of radioactive elements" with a
"second accident potentially catastrophic to surrounding
populated areas." Leo Goodman, another critic, accused
McCarthy of "taking reckless chances with lives in the
Detroit area," and added: "What happened was precisely what
we have been predicting since 1956. If they continue to
operate the plant, they are likely to have another meltdown
and nuclear runaway an uncontrolled reaction." In fact,
Goodman strongly opposed his daughter studying law at the
nearby University of Michigan because Ann Arbor was too
close to the Fermi site.
Whatever the critics were saying, McCarthy and Cisler
were determined to uncover the mystery of the so-called beer
can, and get the plant back into operation. Cisler, however,
was subdued and seemed to have lost his fire. He said: "The
Fermi plant will be more valuable as a research facility than
as a source of electric power." Critics pointed out that, up
until the time of the accident, more than $120 million had
gone into the project, and that the Fermi plant had been able
to produce only fifty-two hours of electricity over a ten-year
period. It had been able to produce no plutonium fuel
whatever.
Now the reactor had lain fallow for a year since the
accident, with no hope of operating until the beer can or
whatever it was-was removed from the bottom plenum and
months of checking and repairs were done if indeed that was
at all possible. The attempt to retrieve the metal object and
several other scraps of metal that showed up in the remotecontrolled photographs was described by McCarthy as: "Like
taking out an appendix through the nostrils." It was a

laborious, painful, frustrating job, requiring manipulations

and dexterity that the reactor was never designed for.
The first problem was to identify the crushed metal more
clearly. There were fifteen optical relay lenses in the pipe that
reached to the bottom of the reactor. The first pictures failed
to give enough clarity. Somehow, they had to find a device
that would shove the object nearer the camera, and flip it over
so they could get a better view from all sides. To do this, it
was necessary to cut a hole in a coolant pipe halfway up the
side of the vessel, with two right-angle turns in it. A sealed
glove box was put over the hole to keep in the radiation,
while Ken Johnson got to work to design a flexible, bicyclechain type of tool to slide down the second pipe, in the
attempt to bring the object nearer the periscope. It was a
delicate fishing expedition. Terminating the flexible, bikechain tool with a short piece of wire with a small hook at the
end seemed to work best.
"We could then pull the piece of metal closer to the
periscope, turn it over, and photograph it from all angles,"
Ken Johnson said. But even these pictures, viewing the object
from many angles, failed to give a clue as to what the object
was. The beer-can theory seemed less and less probable,
however. Nuclear scientists everywhere in the country were
asked to look at the pictures, and they agreed on one thing:
The piece of metal bore no resemblance to anything used in
the construction of the reactor.
This failed to faze McCarthy. "We're no longer
concerned as to how the metal piece got into the reactor
core," he said at the time. "The problem now is to get the
piece of metal out of the core, and get the plant back into
operation as soon as possible. We're pretty well satisfied that
it may have entered the base of the core through the sodium
intake pipe, and then was carried by the sodium against the

base of the subassembly tubes, shutting off the flow of the

coolant and causing the subassemblies to overheat."
But with more special tools to be designed, and with
safety still a major concern every step of the precarious way,
McCarthy knew that there would be no chance of getting the
reactor back into action for many months. His most optimistic
guess was that the middle of 1968, nearly two years after the
accident, would be the earliest time that Fermi could run
again. Meanwhile, the identity of the crushed-metal culprit
and how it got into the reactor remained a mystery.
News of the Fermi meltdown was kept quiet, but it continued
to attract the attention of critics. The scientists among them
knew that, no matter what the Fermi engineers would admit to
in the way of terror or concern, it could be only a fraction of
what their inner feelings were. If they weren't scared to death
when the accident happened, they would not be human. And,
as 1968 began, the critics gathered more artillery against the
Fermi breeder to say nothing of the whole concept of any
fission atomic plant.
George Well, one of the most competent and qualified of
the critics, amplified his position this way: "Under current
plans for the accelerated growth of nuclear fission to meet our
energy requirements, we are committing ourselves to the
nightmarish possibility of a radioactive-poisoned planet.
Today's nuclear power plant projects are a dead end street.
There are too many, too large, too soon, too inefficient; in
short, they offer too little in exchange for too many risks. The
commitment of billions of dollars to the development of
breeders . . . would almost certainly be an irreversible
decision, foreclosing any serious consideration and adequate
federal funding of alternative energy sources. . . . With
determined efforts to harness fusion, solar, and other energy

systems, we may well escape the threat of ecological

radioactive disaster."
Meanwhile, McCarthy's hope of fishing out the
mysterious piece of metal, and getting the reactor back into
action by the middle of 1968 was fading every day, as the
retrieval process demanded more and more engineering
ingenuity.
With only two ways to reach the bottom of the reactor-the long straight tube down from the top, and the double-bent
sodium coolant pipe, teams had to work at each of these
outlet points, coordinating their efforts together. The long,
straight tube served as the periscope viewing station from
forty feet above the base. The bent sodium pipe served as the
channel for the special tools. They were designed to snip
samples of the crushed metal, pull them up through the tube
for examination and ultimately to identify them. The tools,
created at enormous expense, were dubbed such names as the
"hawk-bill cutter," and the "organ pipe tool," and were of
unbelievable complexity. The shifts worked twelve hours a
day, fishing down through the two pipes and manipulating the
tools and light by remote control. Ken Johnson worked from
the top of the reactor, forty feet up, while Phil Harrigan, his
assistant, worked the snake-like tool from the side of the
reactor, thirty-five feet away from the base. An intercom
system kept them in touch. All the work was done in
specially-built locked-air chambers to avoid radiation.
Johnson worked the quartz light like a hockey stick,
trying to maneuver the elusive hunk of metal into the jaws of
Harrigan's retrieval tool, with Harrigan working blind and
following Johnson's instructions. The lenses in the periscope
would cloud up, and it would take a day to clean them.
Finally, at 6:10 p.m. on a Friday night, almost a year and
a half after the meltdown, the crushed metal was firmly
gripped by the tool Harrigan was operating. It was drawn

slowly up the coolant pipe. It took an hour and a half to lift it

up. With the temperature inside the reactor at 350, the metal
was given time to cool as it was drawn up to the surface.
It was examined carefully, and finally identified.
Ironically, it was one of the five triangular pieces of
zirconium that had been installed as an added safety measure
to protect the upside-down, cone-shaped flow guide.
Somehow, one of the five pieces had worked loose and
clogged the coolant nozzles. It had been installed back in
1959 and forgotten. It wasn't even on the blueprints.

FIFTEEN

The "terrifying thoughts" about the accident at the Fermi

plant did nothing to squash the enthusiasm of the supporters
of fission power who countered rational questions with flimsy
answers. Was there no possible way to guarantee an
emergency cooling system for the light-water reactors? Build
them anyway, and hope for the best. Was the breeder reactor
erratic, dangerous, unproven, and untamed? Forget Fermi, and
plan another one, a bigger one, in Tennessee. Was there
absolutely no solution whatever for the safe and eternal burial
of radioactive wastes? Worry about that later. Was there no
safe way to transport spent fuel by truck or train or air? Ship
it anyway, and take the chance.
This was the situation in April, 1968, as McCarthy and
his crew were trying to figure out how they could clean up the
Fermi reactor and get it working again. But the accident had
already lost them eighteen months of valuable time and the
outlook seemed dim. Estimates for the clean-up job ran
anywhere from another year to a year and a half-if not longer.
McCarthy displayed some signs of humility when he said
late in the autumn of 1968: "Fermi is a long way from being a

financial success. It can never be economically competitive. It

is an experimental reactor, built so that we could learn the
engineering and economics involved. We have learned
enough and trained enough men to justify the project." But
aside from admitting that, with the Fermi project, "perhaps
we were a little ahead of our time," he boldly told reporter
Chester Bulgier of the Detroit News two years after the Fermi
accident: "The breeder reactor is the world's hope for
increasing energy to meet the world's needs, because it can
make more fissionable fuel than it consumes." The Edison
Electric Institute, a trade organization consisting of all the
important industrial and utility nuclear energy groups, backed
up this position. In a report issued at the time, the industrial
group urged the development by 1985 of a fast-breeder more
than twice Fermi's size.
Milton Shaw of AEC's division of reactor development
also concurred. "I'm more convinced than ever that this is the
way to go," Shaw said. "I'm not discouraged at all by the
problems Fermi has encountered because they are problems
which are amenable to engineering solutions. The fastbreeder sodium plant will be a tremendous boon to mankind."
Shaw obviously meant what he said. He continued to
push for bigger budgets each year, nearly half the total AEC
budget going into breeder development. Billions of dollars
were being ladled into fission reactors of all types with the
breeder program jumping to nearly half a billion a year by the
mid-1970's.
With such lavish funds becoming available, it did not
take long for Cisler to get his mind set on another breeder
reactor at Lagoona Beach, one that would be several times
larger than the ill-fated Fermi plant. And despite the
contention that no experiments should be done in a populated
area, he was promoting a major role for the old Fermi reactorthe irradiation and testing of new types of nuclear fuel.

McCarthy agreed with him on the experimental fuel

question. "We are really using antique fuels now," he said. "A
plutonium core is being developed for Fermi, and even more
potential is shown by uranium and plutonium oxides."
McCarthy's engineers moved ahead, straining to give the
Fermi reactor artificial respiration, painfully hauling out hot
fuel subassemblies one by one, checking them over, throwing
some away, keeping others. It was not until the last weeks of
1968, more than two years after the accident, that the
remaining pieces of the zirconium "safety" plates that had set
the meltdown on its way were fished out of the reactor. Then
it took until February, 1970, more than three years after the
accident, to get AEC permission to reload the reactor with
new fuel.
By May of 1970, the Fermi No. 1 plant was nearly ready to
resume operation. With the AEC inspectors prowling
everywhere, extra care and caution were being tendered to the
process. Nerves were frayed. Workers in the 10-by-10-foot
room holding the sodium transfer tank were meticulously
preparing that phase of the operation when suddenly two
hundred pounds of radioactive sodium burst out of the pipes.
Other pipes broke loose and doused the sodium with water.
The sodium flashed immediately, then exploded. Argon gas
was rushed into the building. The fire and explosion were
contained, but no one could enter the building for two days,
and then only with extreme caution.
Again luck held. With determination and obstinancy, the
Fermi engineers pushed on. In the middle of July, 1970, the
plant was fired up again, and a whole new series of tests were
begun. Slowly, they began pushing toward the re-licensed
200,000-kilowatt heat level. By October, they had reached it.
But at the same time, the Michigan Public Service
Commission was taking a hard look at the operation. Not only

were there safety problems, but Detroit Edison was pouring

more money into the shaky and wavering Fermi project at the
expense of both its utility rate payers and its investors.
Moreover, the other corporations that had so enthusiastically
joined the Power Reactor Development Corporation were
now backing out. The risks, both financial and safety, were
too high. The only one who seemed eager to try to hoist Fermi
out of its financial morass was a Japanese organization that
was willing to pay cash just to learn the business.
To keep the plant on its feet, Detroit Edison was paying
the AEC $65,000 a month for the use of the uranium fuel. The
amount of electricity produced since Fermi began operations
was practically nothing. Even running at its capacity, the
power produced would cost up to fifteen times as much as
coal. Its only raison d'etre, therefore, was that of a
demonstration plant. Even so, it was doing very little
demonstrating. The total costs for the project had now edged
up to $132 million, and in January, 1971, the AEC license
was due to expire.
By the license expiration date, no one else would put up
any more money. Grudgingly, the AEC extended the license
until June of 1971. It dropped the fuel charges, which were
running up close to $750,000 a year.
The situation was complicated by Detroit Edison's plans
to build a light-water fission reactor-to be called Enrico Fermi
Plant Unit No. 2-next to the dying Fermi No. 1 breeder site,
and later, a third one was to join it. The amount of fission
products that these three reactors together could generate
would be almost beyond comprehension.
This fact, combined with the total lack of a proven
emergency cooling system for light-water reactors, was
ominous not only for Detroit, but for almost any other
populated area in the country where the same thing was
happening. According to the plans created in 1971, there

would be more than fifty of these giant light-water reactors

scattered around the country by 1974. From then on, the pace
would quicken. Almost one thousand atomic power plants
were planned for the end of the century. And while the
problems with the light-water reactors were different from
those of the sodium-cooled breeder, they were just as serious.
If a major pipe broke, and if the cooling water was lost, there
could be a catastrophe. There wasn't a nuclear engineer in the
business who would deny it.
A senior AEC engineer at the Oak Ridge Laboratory told
Robert Gilette, who was writing a series of articles for
Science, the prestigious publication of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science: "What bothers
me most is that after 20 years we are still making purely
subjective judgments about what is important and what is not
in reactor safety. Purely by decree some things, like the
rupture of a reactor pressure vessel, are ruled impossible. To
decide these things without some objective measure of
probabilities is, to me, almost criminal."
He wasn't alone in his thinking. Another Oak Ridge
scientist, Philip Rittenhouse, compiled a list of nearly thirty
of his professional associates "who consider the present
safety standards seriously deficient in a large number of
fundamental technical assumptions."
Frank Kuron agreed. He was back working at Lagoona Beach
this time on the red iron of the new reactor, Fermi No. 2. But
in contrast to the workmanship he had admired in the Fermi
No. 1 reactor, he wasn't pleased with the new job. No one
quite seemed to know what he was doing, Kuron felt. It wasn't
like the old days, a decade and more before, when the
welding was clean and tight.
But worse than that, there was trouble with the
excavation for the new reactor. Unlike the neat, dry hole for

Fermi No. 1, the new one was flooding with water. Wells for
all the homes in Stony Point were running dry. Blasting of
rocks was splitting cement doorsteps and plaster in the area.
There were problems with the steel reinforcement rods for the
new containment building.
"They had to be right on the money," Kuron said, "but
they weren't. In fact, we had to tear out eight rods that were
an inch or so short. We had to take them out before we
poured that floor. Okay, what happened in the end was that
this floor started to crack up. There was so much water
around, they had two de-watering pumps going twenty-four
hours a day. The damn building could have been floating
away. They tried high-pressure grouting. It didn't work. So we
got a floor full of cracks."
It was at this time that Kuron ran into Tom Morgan, a
lean, laconic auto worker, from West Virginia. Morgan was a
trustee on the Frenchtown Township Board, and a shrewd,
intuitively intelligent maverick. Like Kuron, he had little
formal education, but his vocabulary and insights were
impressive. He was extremely interested in what Kuron had to
say about the workmanship on the new Fermi No. 2 reactor,
because he had been boning up on the entire atomic power
plant picture in line with his responsibilities to the local
citizens. He had managed to read through, thumb, and
underline a yard-high stack of hearings of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy, and could discuss highly
technical problems with the best of them.
What disturbed Morgan most, as a town trustee, was the
flood of complaints he was getting from the local citizenry
about the continuous dynamiting at the Lagoona Beach site,
and the damage to both homes and wells. But more than that,
he was informed enough to realize that if the blasting was
shattering cement in the homes, it could have serious
repercussions at the Fermi No. 1 plant. At the time of the

October, 1966, meltdown, both men had been blissfully

unaware of the potential for disaster sitting on their doorstep.
Now they got together to make it their business to find out
just what was going on at Lagoona Beach. They called
themselves The Polack and The Hillbilly, and it wasn't long
before the AEC in Washington began to realize they had to be
treated with respect as they began awakening the local
population to the real problems underlying fission power
plants.
Meanwhile, Cisler was petitioning the AEC for another
extension of the license to go into a testing program for new,
more exotic fuels. But by January, 1972, the Fermi plant had
operated less than thirty days at its licensed capacity, for a
total of 378 hours without producing meaningful electricity or
breeding any large amount of plutonium. And the AEC was
beginning to mumble about Fermi No. 1 being a white
elephant that would have to be replaced by another breeder in
another part of the country to carry the program forward. In
spite of the failures and setbacks, the AEC was determined to
get a breeder going with a new design. Hopefully it would not
have the temperament of Fermi No. 1.
With the fate of the Fermi No. 1 breeder still uncertain,
construction for Fermi No. 2 went on, the blasting for it
shattering and splitting concrete walks in the Stony Point
area. By the end of April, 1972, Tom Morgan's desk was
inundated with letters from an angry citizenry. Mrs. Donald
Bolton of Avenue F, Stony Point, wrote: "We are being
blasted off the face of the earth, but today at 12:02 PM it was
terrible. We have been shaken so much, our floors are
dropped down from the walls. We don't know where to turn."
Mrs. Ed Whiteside of Lakeview Avenue wrote: "The plaster
in my house is getting cracks in it. We have a sturdy, wellbuilt house, but these blasts are slowly deteriorating it. If
nothing is done, it wouldn't take long to get enough women to

form a picket line." Other comments included: "Even our dog

is scared." "The corner of our front porch started to sink."
"Every time there is a blast, I find a new crack in my walls."
There wasn't much time to worry about how the blasting
was affecting Fermi No. 1, however. On August 27, 1972,
when the AEC issued a "Denial of Application for License
Extension and Order Suspending Operations," the
announcement was made that the plant would be closed
forever. In the document was a sharp command to "reduce
expenditures to the minimal amount practicable consistent
with assuring the safety of the public and the protection of the
environment, and submit a dismantling plan." There was the
possibility of a hearing on the matter, but this was only a
matter of form. It could not save the project.
The mood of McCarthy's staff was bitter, sad, and
truculent. It was exacerbated by the AEC's decision to build a
new breeder near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, then estimated at
$700 million, now $1.74 billion, with much financing from
former Fermi contributors. Ironically, the Oak Ridge reactor
was already being referred to as "the first demonstration
breeder reactor in the United States"-as if Fermi No. 1 had
never existed.
Gathering cogent and coherent evidence, Tom Morgan
and Frank Kuron made a frontal attack on both Detroit Edison
and the AEC, appearing at hearings in Lansing, Monroe
County, and Washington, D.C. What worried both Kuron and
Morgan was not only the blasting, but the workmanship on
the new Fermi No. 2 light-water plant. They were also
worried about the radioactive guts of the old Fermi plant,
which would have to be guarded forever. There were 30,000
gallons of radioactive sodium that had to be stored in metal
drums, with no place to dispose of them. There was the hot
core and the blanket and every piece of pipe and machinery
that glowed with radioactive poisons. There was even the

question as to whether the $4 million dollars set aside by the

AEC was enough to bury the dead carcass of the plant. Was
this, Kuron and Morgan asked, the inheritance for the future
of atomic energy plants all over the country? Was it to be the
same problem for the new plant that was rising Phoenix-like
on the ashes of the old?
Kuron was acutely disillusioned. "I didn't used to be
against atomic power plants," he said. "But now I can't help
seeing how many mistakes are being made every day at
Lagoona Beach. There's no pride of workmanship the way
there used to be, and the quality control is for nothing. It
wasn't a week after I got back to work, when they poured a
floor of eighty yards of concrete and the whole thing gave
way. It dropped three floors to the basement. If it hadn't been
lunchtime, everyone working on it would have been killed.
And what about these cracks in the floor of the main
building? I'll bet you that they can't be corrected by highpressure grouting, or anything else. The first Fermi plant was
built well, and look what happened to it. Who knows what's
gonna happen to this one. But I don't want to be around when
they start up Fermi No. 2, especially with that concrete the
way it is."
If the complaints had been confined to one Detroit
Edison reactor, it would have been bad enough. But evidence
was pouring in from all over the country about other
lackluster and ineffectual construction. A secret 191-page
AEC study was in the works that would soon reveal that
among 30 operating reactors, 850 "abnormal occurrences"
had been reported. No one knew how many were unreported.
About four out of ten of these were traced to design and
manufacturing errors. Others were the result of operator
mistakes, faulty maintenance, poor control of the building
process, executive goofs, and bad quality control. The AEC
report said that these developments raised ". . . a serious

question regarding the current review and inspection

practices, both on the part of the nuclear industry and the
AEC. This is particularly true when the increasing number of
operating reactors which will be on-line in the 1980s and
1990s is considered."
This was the nightmare almost every thinking man in the
nuclear fraternity was worrying about. When the year 2000
was reached, and with 1,000 reactors in operation, the
nightmare would be even greater. A senior reactor safety
engineer at the AEC's Idaho Falls installation made no bones
about it when he said: "This is being advertised as a no-risk
business, and that's not true. We don't know that reactors are
unsafe, but we're concerned about their being as safe as the
manufacturers would like you to believe. Maybe it's time the
AEC told the public that if people want to turn their lights on,
they are going to have to expect to lose a reactor now and
then, and possibly suffer great dislocations and property
losses as well."
But the AEC was not about to deal itself such a blow.
Not only had it buried the figures of the WASH-740 update,
but it had proceeded with the decision to pay out $3 million
for a new probability study that might prove more palatable to
the public. The acid test of this projected study, of course,
would be whether or not the insurance companies would take
over the coverage of the atomic power plants, and get the
American taxpayer off the hook by eliminating the PriceAnderson insurance act.
The AEC itself, however, seemed to recognize that the
study could, in fact, be useless. In stating the study's
objectives, the AEC announcement declared: "It is recognized
that the present state of knowledge probably will not permit a
complete analysis of low-probability accidents in nuclear
plants with the precision that would be desirable." But if this
were so, critics began asking, why were $3 million being

spent on it? More alarming was the AEC statement that the
new study would "rely heavily on work currently being done
by some reactor vendors . . . ," adding that industry's own
Edison Electric Institute would be called on for information.
It was quickly pointed out that this would be equivalent to
instructing a high school senior to create his own final exam.
The man the AEC found to tackle the study was a
professor at MIT named Norman Rasmussen. He was a strong
supporter of fission atomic power plants, and made no bones
about it. There was no question of his competence as a
scientist, but he was put in a difficult position. It would be the
insurance company underwriters who would be his ultimate
judges and jury. If, for instance, the Rasmussen numbers
showed that the chances of an atomic power plant accident
were infinitely small, and the insurance companies did not
immediately take over from the Price-Anderson government
insurance, it would indicate clearly that the report amounted
only to statistical gymnastics. As Ralph Nader was to say
later: "If nuclear power is so safe, why won't the insurance
industry insure it?"
Meanwhile, echoes of the Fermi No. 1 meltdown lingered.
Remaining anonymous, an engineer at the Fermi project
analyzed the accident: "Let's face it, we almost lost Detroit."
His statement was circulated widely and it was hardly a
reassuring thought. The fact remained, however, that they did
not lose Detroit. Working with a reactor more complex than
the SL-1 model at Idaho Falls, or the one at Windscale, or at
Chalk River, McCarthy and his team were able to avoid what
could have been an incredible disaster, by their planning,
their expertise, their ingenuity, the low power level-and some
luck.
It is often said that good ball players make their own
luck. But why should the population of Detroit be faced with

even the potential of such a disaster? Why should one of the

best nuclear engineers in the world be faced with such a
dangerous situation that he would say, with a measure of
relief, that Detroit had been saved?
It was Eldon Alexanderson who would preside over the
burial of Fermi No. 1. His job was to figure out how to take
apart a core full of three and a half tons of radioactive
uranium (speckled with enough plutonium to cause a decided
uneasiness), thirty thousand gallons of radioactive sodium,
and a vessel so bombarded with radiation that no one could
enter it even in a protective suit. The bets were that the $4
million set aside to do the job wouldn't come anywhere near
handling it. In Minnesota, after a decision was made to close
it down, a far less complicated reactor had been given burial
rites costing $7.5 million. One short-cut idea of
Alexanderson's was to remove as much of the radioactive guts
from the Fermi reactor vessel as possible, and seal it up. But
it would still be hot. And there was no way to guarantee that
corrosion wouldn't occur, or that water wouldn't leak out of
the mausoleum in generations to come.
The nuances of the decommissioning were incredibly
complex. Although the reactor was in the state known as
subcritical, there could be a reactivity accident with little or
no warning. Even a loud noise could actuate some
mechanisms that could threaten the workers. The sodium
could always hit air or water to create a tinder-box situation.
It constantly had to be bathed in argon gas or nitrogen to
avoid this. Health physicists continually had to monitor the
reactor with Geiger counters. All kinds of contaminated
equipment had to be dismantled and stored in what were
called equipment decay tanks.
All unused penetrations into the reactor vessel had to be
covered and seal-welded, including the heating and
ventilating ducts. The uranium-packed subassemblies would

have to be chopped up in three sections to ship out of the

plant to a burial ground. But first they had to be submerged in
"swimming pools" to cool off for months.
The casks used to ship the subassemblies were cylinders,
nine feet in diameter, weighing eighteen tons each. They had
to be sealed in a coolant, shielded with seven inches of lead,
and mounted on flat-bed truck trailers to be shipped out. But
since the casks were tested only for a thirty-foot fall and a
thirty-minute fire, what might happen in the event of a shock
impact or fire beyond those arbitrary limits was too
frightening to contemplate. Dr. Marc Ross of the department
of physics of the University of Michigan, has concluded that,
if fire or impact distorted the shipping cask of a typical fuel
shipment, the leakage of cesium from it would be particularly
lethal, both directly through breathing it and indirectly
through contamination of the food chain. Children, infants,
and weakened adults would die if they were half a mile
downwind from the accident.
Even the loading of the cut-up fuel assemblies was a
precarious process. Each fuel unit was on the verge of
becoming critical, even in the cooling water. But other
problems had to be faced. Plutonium is so hazardous that no
way has yet been found to permanently store it underground.
It must be kept in recoverable containers and constantly
monitored, while some solution is sought for the problem a
problem not just for the Fermi plant, but for the nationwide
atomic power plant scene. There were six private burial
grounds for contaminated materials in the United States.
None of them would accept the irradiated sodium or the
blanket material which had bred small amounts of plutonium.
Grudgingly, the AEC agreed to consider handling the material
itself, but no firm plan was made. The question dangled, and
the price of dismantling soared above the $4 million mark.

The atmosphere inside the Fermi No. 1 plant became

more and more like a mausoleum. "The decommissioning
effort continues," Alexanderson said ruefully to a reporter in
March of 1974. "Much of it is accompanied by a sinking
feeling by staff personnel, as disassembly of many
components gradually and irrevocably reduced the plant from
the largest operating breeder reactor in the world to a fully
decommissioned, partially dismantled status. It is very sad to
see its demise. . . ."
To add to the sadness and desolation of the scene at
Lagoona Beach, things were not going well with the
construction of the new reactor, Fermi No. 2. Although its
two new massive cooling towers, shaped like enormous
smoke pots, loomed as a landmark seen from miles away,
confidence in the project was slipping. Then, at the end of
1974, work on the second Fermi plant came to an abrupt halt.
Financing for construction simply was not forthcoming. The
whole complex, once filled with the clatter of trucks, cranes,
and 1,600 helmeted workers, became a ghost town. Silence
took over from the sound of pneumatic drills and power
wrenches. The huge new reactor vessel, arriving by barge,
had been eased into the reactor building and left there without
its umbilical connections to the control room. The
administration building stood as a red-iron skeleton. The
concrete shells of the other buildings stood gaunt and empty,
some with temporary sheet-iron roofs, amid the mud and the
scattered disarray of a half-finished construction job. The
scene caused one viewer to mumble: "There're more muskrats
and rabbits around here than people. . . ."
On the other side of the site, the hollow shell of what had
once been the Fermi No. 1 reactor sat by the gray waves of
Lake Erie. In a shed next to the reactor building, triple decks
of shiny black steel drums, all marked DANGER:
RADIOACTIVE SODIUM, sat in a roped-off area 30,000

gallons of it that nobody wanted, or was willing to cart away.

It was a problem no one had ever faced up to before, or really
knew how to cope with.
Near the stacks of drums sat a box-like structure, about
the size of an enlarged phone booth, marked cryptically by the
work crew "Merlin's Box." It was here that the liquid sodium
had been poured into the barrels through sealed pipes before
it "froze" into the deadly chalky powder inside the drums.
Some three hundred cubic feet of radioactive junk cladding,
rods, sawed-up metal from the spent guts of the reactor-were
also scattered about the site, waiting to be carted away if
takers approved by the AEC could be found. The radioactive
blanket assemblies, specked with plutonium, still rested in
"swimming pool" storage vaults. As welders made the final
seals on the "hot" reactor vessel, plans were being made for
the guards to set up their vigil monitoring the shell with
Geiger counters for generation after generation.
There were no trash barrels to hold this poisonous
legacy. The dead Fermi breeder had spawned a $130 million
ghost-a ghost that cannot be laid to rest.

AUTHORS EPILOGUE

Of all my experiences in preparing the lengthy research for

this hook there is one scene that stands out vividly. It
occurred on a cold, wet January day. A strong wind was
sweeping in from Lake Erie and I was going through the
remains of the Fermi No. 1 plant with Eldon Alexanderson.
He escorted me into the gaunt buildings that once had housed
the huge breeder reactor in which so much hope had been
placed for the peaceful use of the atom.
There was an eerie hollowness to the buildings. The
sound of our footsteps echoed loudly. Only a skeleton crew
remained, and around the dome of the reactor vessel welders
were sealing the last seams to close the empty core forever. A
handful of engineers worked glumly in the control room,
where panels from which instruments had been removed were
left with gaping holes. In a connecting building, the deep
"swimming pools" could be viewed from a narrow bridge that
crossed them. Fuel assemblies from the reactor were hanging
upright in the clouded water, carefully separated from each
other by enough space so that no new fissionable reaction
could start up.

Nearby, in a darkened storage area, were rows of fiftygallon drums of radioactive sodium, six hundred of them
piled three-deep in their shiny black casings, sitting mutely
behind a rope barrier that warned against intrusion. This was
the dangerous residue that nobody wanted--at any price. It
symbolized the agonizing problem of how to dispose of the
unwelcome wastes that were piling up at other reactors across
the country. Being so close to them was not a comforting
experience.
The research for the book led me on many crisscrossing
paths: up into the cold but lovely country at Chalk River,
Canada; out to the desolate mountains and flatlands in Idaho;
over to the shores of the Irish Sea at Windscale; down to the
lower Rhone in France; to Sweden and Switzerland. All
through these journeys over many months, I listened to those
who swore that nuclear energy would save the planet; I also
listened to those who swore that it would destroy it. The more
I traveled, the more I listened, and the more it became
apparent that the answers being sought in this great debate
would not be based on technical judgments. Instead, they
would be judgments based on the indisputable facts that had
emerged from two decades of experience with nuclear energy
as a source of peacetime energy.
Any layman who cares to study these facts-and there are
a jungle of them-can learn enough to make his own judgment.
And he can do so without being told what to think by either
the passionate supporters of nuclear energy or their equally
passionate critics. Propaganda on both sides is heavy and
loaded. But the facts can speak for themselves. They emerge
clear and unassailable:
1. The AEC (now split into the NRC and ERDA) damage
estimates regarding a major accident are conceptually
catastrophic.

2. No one can buy insurance of any kind to cover such a

catastrophe. No coverage at all is available for individuals,
homes, or automobiles.
3. No solution has been found to handle the
accumulation of poisonous radioactive wastes.
4. In one year, 1974-1975, nearly half of the more than
fifty reactors in the United States had to be checked twice
within a six-month period to see if there were cracks in their
cooling pipes.
5. No realistic protection is available against terrorists
seizure of nuclear plants or fuel, or against fuel-transport
accidents.
6. Because of the billions of dollars allocated for nuclear
fission power development, no realistic allocations have been
available for developing alternate sources of energy such as
solar, thermonuclear fusion, coal gasification and
liquefaction, and others.
The idea for this book sprang from a suggestion by
Bruce Lee, editor of the Reader's Digest Press, who
mentioned to me at lunch one day that there ought to be a
dramatic theme for a novel about a nuclear power plant that
faces a meltdown crisis. The idea intrigued me and I worked
up an outline. But the more we discussed the idea the more
we worried that a fictional account might produce just a scare
book. What we needed were facts. Thanks to the efforts of the
Reader's Digest's Washington office, we obtained 5,000 pages
of AEC documents that included the working papers of the
Brookhaven-AEC meetings. Now we knew we were on the
track of a significant story. The assignment was made.
My personal research began in Washington, when I
talked to scientists, engineers, and executives of the AEC, and
to members of the joint Committee on Atomic Energy. I also
talked to critics, who gave their side of the story. I visited

nuclear plants in Maryland and Pennsylvania, and then went

on to visit Canadian scientists in Ottawa and Chalk River,
where the NRX and NRU accidents had taken place. I spent
several weeks in Michigan, not only in Monroe and Lagoona
Beach, but in Detroit, Ann Arbor, Lansing, and Midland,
interviewing state and union officials, utility executives, state
police, and health and legislative officials. At the enormous
acreage of the Idaho Falls installations, where three men had
died a gruesome death at the SL-1 reactor, I was taken around
several experimental reactors. I traveled to Boston to get the
point of view of both the pro and con forces at MIT. At each
location, I picked up new leads for research.
As my travels continued, it became obvious that the story
of the life and death of the Fermi breeder reactor, from its
inception to its demise, was a more powerful one than any
that could be invented. It also became apparent that the most
damning evidence against the development of atomic power
came, not from the critics, but from its most avid supporters.
The minutes of the long-drawn-out Brookhaven-AEC
meetings were appalling in their implications. What was even
more appalling was the AEC's desire to keep them from
reaching the public. Nearly every scientist and engineer I
interviewed acknowledged there was no real solution to the
burial or transportation of plutonium. And statement after
statement by nuclear fission advocates showed that Murphy's
Law If anything can go wrong, it will-would occur sooner or
later.
As I was working on the book, the $3 million Rasmussen
study emerged. Suddenly, the public was being reassured.
They were told that the chance of 1,000 people being killed
by a reactor accident was about one in a million. This was the
opposite of what my reporting had uncovered. There were
other factors about the Rasmussen study that disturbed me.
Sabotage was not even considered. Only two plants were used

as pilots for the study, and they were light-water reactors.

Breeder reactorsthe most deadly of allwere ignored.
Psychotic behavior and human error on the part of operators
received no attention. All of the reservations of the WASH740 Brookhaven report were bypassed. The dangers of fuel
transportation, storage, and burial of radioactive wastes were
skipped over. And while the report assumed complete
evacuation in the area of damaged plants, no allowance was
made for the futility of this operation.
After the Rasmussen report was issued, William Bryan,
an aerospace engineer, pointed out in a congressional hearing
that the study was an exercise in futility, because it had used
analytical methods that had been completely discarded by the
aerospace industry as unreliable. Ralph Nader described it in
part as "fiction." Then an independent group of scientists
headed by Rasmussen's fellow MIT colleague, Dr. Henry
Kendall, prepared a review of Rasmussen's report. (Kendall
and his staff were sponsored by the Union of Concerned
Scientists and the Sierra Club.) Kendall's analysis, based on
the methodology used in the Rasmussen report, indicated that
a major nuclear power plant accident could kill or injure more
than 120,000 people. In addition, the validity of the
methodology itself was questioned. Taking the three reactors
at Indian Point just outside of New York City for an example,
the review concluded that no effective evacuation could
possibly be made in the event of an accident where 16 million
people lived within a forty-mile area.
I continued my research. The trail led to Windscale,
England, where the accident with Windscale Pile No. 1 had
occurred in 1957, sending radiation gauges soaring in
London, three hundred miles away. But when I arrived, I
found that only a short time earlier a second accident had
occurred a "blow back" in the plutonium-processing plant-and
the entire installation had been temporarily closed.

Roaming the beautiful countryside of the Lake District, I

was able to track down scientists, workers from the plant, and
a number of union executives. I interviewed them in their
homes, or in the pubs in Whitehaven. The seriousness of the
second accident had come to public attention in an
unexpected fashion. A housewife in Whitehaven was having a
cup of tea in bed at 8 A.M. on October 25, 1973, waiting for
her husband to come home from the night shift at the
Windscale plant. Her husband arrived with strange news:
Two health physicists were coming to their house to make a
Geiger-counter reading of their bed and furniture. The wife
barely had time to get dressed before they arrived. The results
were negative, but the homes of other workers didn't fare as
well.
Seven men, whose fate is not yet known, were placed
under observation to check the dust from their lungs. (The
smallest speck of plutonium can cause lung cancer.)
Meanwhile, panic spread among the families of the others
involved in the accident. John Noctor, the union
representative at the plant, told me: "In the last two months, I
have been approached by three women from Cleator Moor
and Egremont who are no longer sleeping with their
husbands."
Their fears had been confirmed when special bedsheets
and pillowcases were issued to contaminated workers who
had been told their sweat might contain radioactive poisons.
One man reported for work only to have his underwear
confiscated. Many of the thirty-three men reported to have
plutonium poisoning were reluctant to talk about their family
problems at a union meeting. Some were afraid to tell their
wives for fear of losing them. But the wives learned about the
problem from gossip at the corner shop. Today, the story is
far from closed. Union officials are sponsoring long-term

lawsuits for what they feel will inevitably be a series of death

cases from plutonium poisoning.
All of this fortified a statement issued by Dr. Harold
Urey, who had organized a group of leading scientists who
declared that the handling and disposal of plutonium could
never be solved, and that the billions earmarked for the
development of the breeder reactor should be channeled into
safer alternatives: the cleaning up of coal emissions and a
crash development of solar energy. Such a transferral of
funding away from nuclear development and into solar
energy, they believed, would create a dramatic shift toward
the practical realization of a power source that would
combine safety with an inexhaustible, nonpolluting fuel
supply.
But was this just a visionary dream? Many competent
scientists did not think so, especially in the light of the
faltering reactor program. As 1975 got underway, The Wall
Street journal, Newsweek, The New York Times, and other
publications made many uncomfortable facts evident:

The shutdown of roughly half the power reactors in the

country for the second time in six months had made many
investors jittery.
Construction delays at nearly a hundred plants all over the
country were clouding the industry's future.
Costs of the planned demonstration breeder plant at Clinch
River, Tennessee, had jumped from an estimated $700
million to more than $1.7 billion. In public discussions,
government spokesmen do not acknowledge the existence
of Fermi No. 1., but they indicate that breeder plants will be
necessary in the future.
The vulnerability of nuclear plants to earthquakes had not
been solved.

Emergency core cooling systems for light-water reactors

still remained untested.
Thousands of kilograms of plutonium are unaccounted for,
some of which might be missing from government
inventories.
At least three new congressional hearings on nuclear safety
were scheduled to be held in 1975.
A referendum was being prepared in California to prohibit
the building of nuclear power plants in that state.
Belgium has instituted a moratorium on new nuclear
facilities until its engineers produce a new reactor study. In
France, four hundred scientists have asked the government
not to allow any more nuclear plants until the public
understands the hazards of such operations. The Swedish
government is limiting nuclear operations in that country.

It was obvious that none of these negative factors could

solve the critical need for increased energy production. If the
nuclear power plants were not only dangerous but far more
expensive than anyone believed, what could realistically
replace them?
A consensus of opinions was emerging, even though
there were many variations. Among them were:
1.

2.

There was growing agreement that the continuation of

fission power plants might be suicidal, and that the program
must be stopped, even if it meant a delay of fifteen or
twenty years in easing the energy crisis.
To answer the short-term energy problem, the country's 500
to 800 years' supply of coal reserves should be used,
accompanied by the swiftest possible program to convert
coal to liquid and gas form so as to eliminate the sulfur
dioxide emissions. Further, all strip mining should be tied
into land reclamation.

3.
4.

5.

6.

There should be a voluntary cutback on energy use.

Funds going into fission power plants should be
rechanneled into accelerated development of thermonuclear
fusion.
There should be intensive research and development of
alternate sources of energy, including geothermal, wind,
and solar. Privately financed projects, such as an
experimental house built by the Pennsylvania Power &
Light Company show that a house can be both heated and
cooled by solar energy for less than half the operating cost
of conventional power sources.
There should be both a crash and a long-term program for
the eventual total development of every form of solar
energy, which would not only furnish an inexhaustible fuel
source but also create less environmental damage.

What the consensus showed was that alternatives to

fission power should be developed. But it would require a
rethinking of priorities. Take, for example, the search for
thermonuclear power, known as nuclear fusion (in contrast to
fission). Unlike the fission power plants (such as the Fermi
reactor and others planned), fusion produces little radiation
waste to bury; it presents no danger of meltdown or explosion
or breaking of the containment; and there is no problem of
depletion of fuel, which the light-water reactors would be
facing. There is enough deuterium-the basic fuel for fusion
reactors-in the ocean waters to supply the potential demand
for energy for more than a trillion years (longer than the
estimated life span of the sun). According to AEC's Dr. Artlin
Frass, tritium, the one villainous fission product of the
thermonuclear fusion program, would create only 1/1,000,000
of the biological damage of the iodine-131 of the fission
power plant.

What has held back the development of fusion power is

that no final breakthrough has yet been made in harnessing
this source of energy for peacetime use. One major reason for
this has been a lack of research funds. By the mid-1960's, the
entire budget for exploring fusion power was only around $20
million, about the cost of a National Football League
franchise. The untested breeder reactor is slated to add up to a
$5 billion cost to the taxpayer by 1985.
Those who have been working on thermonuclear power
acknowledge that the highly complex problems of fusion,
both theoretical and practical, are prodigious and far more
intricate than with the light-water or breeder fission reactors.
As yet, no one has made the breakthrough that would signal
the mastery of the thermonuclear process. The main problem
has been to reach a point where the energy produced by a
fusion reactor is more than the energy that has to be put into it
to create fusion. No one knows when that point will be
reached. Many have been pessimistic that it can be achieved
at all. The science of plasma physics is new and baffling. But
one thing is certain: Vast sums of money are needed, and they
have not been forthcoming from the AEC, or its successor
agencies established in 1975.
But promising signs are beginning to appear. At
Princeton, new thermonuclear experiments have jacked up the
heating of plasma to more than double the previous levels.
Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and the Lawrence Radiation
Laboratory have reported progress in approaching the point
where the energy put into the thermonuclear process might be
matched by that created. KMS Fusion, in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, reported in May, 1974, that its laser fusion process
had actually reached the breakeven point. Projections from
former AEC scientists show that an experimental
thermonuclear reactor could be developed in the 1980's, with
commercial fusion possible in the late 1990's. The

significance of this projection a possibility of commercially

viable fusion by the late 1990's-must be weighed against the
problems facing the breeder reactor program, whose
commercial potential has been delayed from 1980 to 1990. In
other words, if with only a minimum of federal funding the
development of thermonuclear fusion is already a potential
alternative, then it must be given more consideration than it
has had in the past.
There are other alternatives. There is the energy of the
sun itself. The world in the future will need some one
quintillion British thermal units of energy per year. The sun,
if it could be harnessed, could bring a gift of 3,600 times that
amount to the surface of the earth. Neither the power from the
sun nor thermonuclear fusion would rape the surface of the
earth in a desperate search for fast-depleting fuel, nor would
they burden it with enormous burial grounds of nuclear
wastes.
But the problem with solar energy has been the same as
that of thermonuclear power and other alternatives. Is it
practical? Can it be realistically harnessed within the needed
time span? William Heronemus, the engineering professor of
the University of Massachusetts, is convinced that solar
energy could become a reality in a very short time, providing
national priorities were reordered. He blames the huge power
group of the AEC, the utilities, and the reactor manufacturers
for the dominance of fission power. He is convinced that our
fission policy is a threat to the survival of mankind on earth,
and he has showed figures to demonstrate that solar plants
could be phased in to produce a significant amount of energy
by the year 2000. But again, it depends on our priorities,
which have, so far, been stacked against solar energy.
Between 1950 and 1970, its development received a miserly
$100,000 a year. And while, in 1975, the figure was raised to
$50 million in research funds, it cannot compare to the $500

million that has been allocated for the breeder reactor

program.
It took Frank Kuron and Tom Morgan nearly twenty years to
comprehend the dangers nuclear energy presented to their
community. Today, many more thousands across the country
are beginning to realize the same thing. More than 100,000
signatures have been gathered for a petition against nuclear
fission power plants by a Washington environmentalist group.
The Federal Energy Administration could not find a single
public-interest organization to testify in favor of nuclear
power at hearings in Chicago. There is no evidence that
ERDA (Energy Research and Development Administration)
or the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), which took
over the AEC functions in early 1975, will change the
headlong rush to give priority to fission power.
There must be more public debate about the subject than
there has been in years past. It is obvious that the government
must create a more rational energy program than it has done
to date. The tide of public opinion toward nuclear energy is
shifting. If an enlightened public can now help a rechanneling
of the billions of dollars spent for fission power toward the
funding of research programs for alternative sources of
power, there could be real hope for both easing the energy
crisis and keeping our planet safe and clean.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Grateful appreciation is expressed to the following people

who helped supply material for this book by interviews and
other research assistance:
Eldon Alexanderson, Hugh Anderson, Marion Anderson,
Edward Bauser, Robert Bird, Robert Blackburn, Richard
Blackledge, Ruth Cashin, Walker Cisler, Patrick Clawson, David
Convey, Bill Crozier, Irene Dickinson, Dan Ford, Ruth Fort,
Raymond Fraley, Franklin Gage, Bjorn Gillberg, Bernard Giraud,
Henry Gomberg, Leo Goodman, Virginia Gough, John Harkness,
John Harris, Reginald Hayden, Robert Hirsch, Carl Hocevar, Bob
Hughes, Frank Ingram, Wayne Jens, Henry Kendall, Chiroro
Kikuchi, Doug Kirkpatrick, Herbert Kouts, Frank Kuron, Sheila
Lalwani, Virginia Lawton, Howard Lipton, Amory Lovins, James
Lyman, Joseph Marrone, William Maxwell, Walter McCarthy, Helia
Miido, Tom Morgan, Ralph Nader, Thomas Nemzek, John Noctor,
Eagan O'Connor, Gil Omenn, Walter Patterson, William Ralls,
Norman Rasmussen, Dixie Lee Ray, Judith Robinson, Marc Ross,
Richard Sandler, Bridgid Scanlon, Vern Schneider, Milton Shaw,
Mary Sinclair, Earl Sliper, Conrad Spohnholtz, Vern Strickland, Hal

Tracey, Marc Valantin, Joseph Van Hart, William Voight, George

Weiland numerous others whose help is much appreciated.
I would also like to thank my editors at Reader's Digest Press,
Bruce Lee and Nancy Kelly, for their editorial guidance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. June, July, 1955.
Minutes of 13th meeting.
Alabama Journal. August, 1972. "The Economics of Atomic
Power."
Anderson, M. 1974. Fallout on the Freeway: The Hazards of
Transporting Radioactive Wastes in Michigan. PIRGIM.
Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. 1973. Heavy Water: A
Layman's Guide.
Atomic Energy Office. 1957. Accident at Windscale No. 1
Pile on 10th October 1957. Presented to Parliament by
the Prime Minister. Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. What's a Breeder?
---------. 1973. Nuclear Power Expected to Save U. S.
Equivalent of 3 Billion Gallons of Oil This Winter.
---------. Nuclear Industry. 1973. Vol. 20. No. 3.
---------. Nuclear Industry. 1973. Vol. 20, No. 6.
---------. Nuclear Industry. 1973. Vol. 20, No. 7.
Atomic Power Development Associates, Inc., Power Reactor
Development Company. February 1967. Report on
October 5, 1966, Fuel Damage Incident at the Enrico
Fermi Atomic Power Plant.
Asimov, I. 1972. Electricity and Man. U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission.
---------. 1972. Worlds Within Worlds: The Story of Nuclear
Energ . Vol. 1. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

---------. 1972. Worlds Within Worlds: The Story of Nuclear

Energy. Vol. 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Bernstein, J. 1969. The Elusive Neutrino. U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission.
Boutrais, M., et al. 1973. Sodium Analysis and Purification.
Aerosols Trapping in Phenix Reactor. Phenix Project.
Pont-St-Esprit, France.
British Nuclear Energy Society. March 1974. International
Conference: Fast Reactor Power Stations.
---------. 1974. The Status of the Fuel Elements for SNR 300
with Consideration of the Technical and Economical
Aspects. Paper to be presented at the British Nuclear
Energy Society International Conference on Fast Reactor
Power Stations.
---------. Conference on Fast Reactor Power Stations,
Institution of Civil Engineers. 1974. United States
LMFBR Demonstration Plant Activities.
Burnham, D. January, 1975. "Atomic Reactors May Have to
Shut." New York Times.
Business Week. October, 1973. "Building a Fire under
Magnetohydrodynamics."
CBS News "Face The Nation." December, 1973. Guest: Ray,
D. L., chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.
Chernick, C. 1967. The Chemistry of The Noble Gases. U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission.
Cisler, W. October, 1970. Testimony before Michigan Public
Service Commission.
Cockermouth Urban District Council, The. 1970.
Cockermouth: Birthplace of William and Dorothy
Wordsworth. Cumberland Newspapers, Ltd.
Columbia Record, The. November, 1972. "Energy Facility
Closes."
Commissariat a 1'Energie Atomique et Electricite de France.
1971. Prototype Fast Reactor Power Station Phenix.

Courtenay, A. 1973. Let's Halt Awhile in Great Britain.

Hastings House, Publishers, Inc., New York.
Cowper, G. Health Physics Instrumentation: Atoms for
Development. Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.
Curtis, R., and Hogan, E. 1969. Perils of the Peaceful Atom.
Ballantine Books, Inc., New York.
Daniels, F. 1964. Direct Use of the Sun's Energy. Ballantine
Books, Inc., New York.
Detroit Edison Company. 1963. Chronological Record of
Atomic Power Development Activities.
Detroit Evening News. February, 1963. "Big Names Build
Atomic Project."
-. November, 1969. "Visited by Soviets."
Detroit Free Press. January, 1957. "Stage Set for A-Plant
Battle."
January, 1957. "Air Base May Figure In A-Feud."
January, 1963. "The Problems Were Many at A-Plant."
September, 1965. "Expert O.K.'s Monroe A-Plant."
August, 1966. "Fermi Atom Plant Yields Electricity in First
Trial Run."
. November, 1967. "Is a Beer Can to Blame for Fermi
Plant Shutdown?"
. November, 1967. "Is Beer Can Behind A-Plant
Failure?"
. August, 1972. "AEC Decides to Shut Fermi Nuclear
Plant."
December, 1972. "Atom Plant Will Close-But How?"
February, 1974. "A-Plant Problems Mushroom: Utility's
Nuclear Nightmare."
Detroit News. November, 1966. "Could Fermi Plant Level
Detroit?"
February, 1970. -Fermi Atom Plant to Resume Work."

October, 1970. "Baby Death Rise Linked to A-Plant." April,

1974. "Annual Meeting Hits a Sour Note. Edison
Holders List Complaints."
Donnell, A. "Key to Nuclear Fuel Conservation . . . The En
rico Fermi Power Plant." Allis-Chalmers Electrical
Review.
Donnelly, W. 1972. Atomic Energy: Increase in the PriceAnderson Indemnification. The Library of Congress.
Dunbar, W. July, 1964. Nuclear Excursion Accidents: Their
Causes and Consequences. Unpublished paper.
Electric World. January, 1973. "Fermi I: Success or Failure?"
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Power Reactor
Development Company. April, 1962. License
application. Technical Information and Hazard Summary
Report.
-. August, 1965. Radiation Emergency Procedures
Operating Procedure No. 704.
Evening Mail. (Whitehaven, England.) October 23, 1973.
"Some Wives Fear For Their Marriages-Windscale
Union Convenor."
. October 25, 1973. "Whitehaven Wife in Breakfast Scare as
Atom Men Test Bed."
Federal Disaster Assistance Program Handbook. July, 1972.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Emergency
Preparedness.
Feldes, J. G. November, 1962. Testimony to U.S.A.E.C. for
Power Reactor Company on application for Provisional
Operating License.
Frigerio, N. 1966. Your Body and Radiation. U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission.
Gifford, F. A. Jr. Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
October, 1962. Letter to Seaborg, G. T., chairman, U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission.

Gillberg, B. November, 1973. "Sweden: Doubts of Nuclear

Power." Environment.
Glasstone, S. 1968. Controlled Nuclear Fusion. U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission.
, and Thomas, S. 1970. Atomic Energy and Your World. U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission.
-. 1972. Inner Space: The Structure of the Atom. U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission.
Gofman, J. 1972. The Case for a Nuclear Moratorium.
Environmental Action Foundation.
Gomberg, H. J., et al. July, 1957. Report on the Possible
Effects on the Surrounding Population of an Assumed
Release of Fission Products into the Atmosphere from a
300-Megawatt Nuclear Reactor Located at Lagoona
Beach, Michigan. Atomic Power Development
Associates, Inc.
, and Charatis, G. April, 1974. Recent Results of Laser
Induced Fusion Tests at KMS Fusion. Paper presented at
ANS First Topical Meeting on The Technology of
Controlled Nuclear Fusion, San Diego, Calif.
Goodman, L. September, 1965. Report on Accidents and
Malfunctions Changes and Modifications of Detroit
Edison Fast Reactor.
Gould, W. 1973. Energy Options for the Future. Atomic
Industrial Forum, Inc.
Green, J. July, 1974. "A New Era in Energy?" Detroit Sunday
News Magazine.
Greenwood, J. 1964. Contamination of the NRU Reactor in
May, 1958. Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.
Gschneidner, K. 1964. Rare Earths: The Fraternal Fifteen.
U.S Atomic Energy Commission.
Hammond, A. L. November, 1971. "Breeder Reactors: Power
for the Future." Science.

-. 1972. "The Fast-breeder Reactor: Signs of a Critical

Reaction." Science.
Hanauer, S., chairman, Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards. December, 1969. Letter to Seaborg, G. T.,
chairman, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory. 1972. Fast
Flux Test Facility Design Safety Assessment.
Hansen, G. 1958. Elementary Fast Neutron Critical
Assemblies: Proceedings of the Second U.N.
International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic
Energy. Vol. 12.
Haubold, W., and Jung, J. 1974. Impurity Monitoring
Techniques for LMFBR Sodium Systems. Paper
presented at British Nuclear Energy Society International
Conference on Fast Reactor Power Stations.
Hicks, E., and Menzie, D. 1965. Theoretical Studies on the
Fast Reactor Maximum Accident. Proceedings of the
Conference on Safety, Fuels, and Core Design in Large
Fast Power Reactors. Argonne National Laboratories.
Hogerton, J. 1963. Nuclear Reactor. U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission. 1963.
Atomic Fuel. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Hughes, R.
February, 1973. "Fermi A-Plant Gingerly Dismantled."
United Press International.
Hurst, D. 1964. The Accident to the NRX Reactor. Part II.
Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.
Jackson, B. 1971. Epicenter. Berkley Publishing Corporation,
New York.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. April, 1959. Indemnity
and Reactor Safety: Hearings before the J.C.A.E. U.S.
Government Printing Office.
. 1961. SL-1 Accident: AEC Investigation Board Report.
U.S. Government Printing Office.

. April, 1962. Indemnity and Reactor Safety: Hearings

before the Subcommittee on Research, Development,
and Radiation of the J.C.A.E. U.S. Government Printing
Office.
. 1971. Controlled Thermonuclear Research. Hearings
before the J.C.A.E. Part I. U.S. Government Printing
Office.
. February, 1972. AEC Authorizing Legislation Fiscal
Year 1973: Hearings before the J.C.A.E. U.S.
Government Printing Office.
September, 1972. Liquid-metal Fast-breeder Reactor
Demonstration Plant: Hearings before the J.C.A.E. U.S.
Government Printing Office.
. 1973. Understanding the "National Energy Dilemma."
U.S. Government Printing Office.
April, 1973. Membership, publications, and other pertinent
information through 92d Congress, 2d Session. U.S.
Government Printing Office.
. 1973. Current Membership. U.S. Government Printing
Office.
1973. AEC Authorizing Legislation Fiscal Year 1974. Part
III. Hearings before the J.C.A.E. U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Kastner, J. 1968. The Natural Radiation Environment. U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission.
-. 1973. Nature's Invisible Rays. U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission.
Klickman, A. E. Atomic Power Development Associates, Inc.
January, 1971. Letter to Sandler, R., Senate Commerce
Committee.
KMS Industries. May, 1974. "KMS Announces Major New
Progress in Obtaining Energy from Laser-Fusion." LeCompte,
R., and Wood, B. 1968. Atoms at the Science Fair. U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission.

Lewis, R. 1972. The Nuclear-Power Rebellion. The Viking

Press, Inc., New York.
Lewis, W. 1963. The Accident to the NRX Reactor on
December 12, 1952. Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.
LMFBR Nuclear Safety Program Annual Report, 1971. U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission.
Loewenstein, W., and Okrent, D. 1958. Physics of Fast Power
Reactors: Proceedings of the Second U.N. International
Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. Vol. 12.
Love, S. 1972. The Case for Reassessing the Fast-breeder.
Testimony. Environmental Action Foundation.
Lovins, A. November, 1973. World Energy Strategies: Facts,
Issues, and Options. Earth Resources Research, Ltd.
. March, 1973. "The Case Against the Fast-breeder
Reactor." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Lyerly, R., and Mitchell, W. 1967. Nuclear Power Plants.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Manchester Guardian. October 12, 1957. "Uranium Becomes
Red Hot in Atomic Pile: Workers warned after
Windscale accident but `no hazard to public.' "
. October 13, 1957. "Ban on Farm Milk Near Windscale:
Radio iodine content found to be six times too much:
Threat to children?"
. October 16, 1957. "Milk from 200 Square Miles Goes
into the Sea."
. October 17, 1957. "Workers at Calder Hall Ask for
Information: New cattle-slaughtering precautions."
. November 9, 1957. "Why Windscale Went Wrong: Errors of
Men and Instruments."
Marrone, J. 1967. "Nuclear Insurance-Future of the Nuclear
Liability Pools." The National Underwriter.
. 1971. "Nuclear Liability Insurance-A Brief History
Reflecting the Success of Nuclear Safety." Nuclear
Safety.

McBride, J. 1971. The End of the Cycle: Transportation,

Reprocessing, and Waste Management. Atomic
Industrial Forum Workshop.
McCarthy, W. J., Jr. November, 1962. Testimony to U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission for Power Reactor
Company on application for Provisional Operating
License.
McCarthy, W. J., Jr., and Jens, W. H. November, 1967.
"Enrico Fermi Fast-breeder Reactor: The reactor's fuel
damage incident and its significance to future design."
Nuclear News.
McCullough, C. R., chairman, Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards. July, 1955. Letter to Fields, K. E.,
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
. June, 1956. Letter to Fields, K. E., U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission.
Mellhenny, L. 1968. Careers in Atomic Energy. U.S. Atomic
Energy
Commission.
McNamara, P. August, 1957. Remarks made in the U.S.
Senate.
Meyer, R., et al. 1965. A Parameter Study of Large Fast
Reactor Meltdown Accidents. Proceedings of the
Conference on Safety, Fuels, and Core Design in Large
Fast Power Reactors. Argonne National Laboratories.
Michigan (State of) Water Resources Commission.
December, 1962. Statement of position re operation of
breeder reactor by Power Reactor Development
Company.
Michigan State Health Commissioner. December, 1962.
Statement of position with reference to the application of
the Power Reactor Development Company for a
provisional operating license for the nuclear facility at
Lagoona Beach.

Michigan, Township Board, Frenchtown Township, Monroe

County. December, 1962. Statement of Township
Board's position on the application of the Power Reactor
Development Company for provisional operating license.
. October, 1973. State of Michigan Nuclear Power Plant
Emergency Plan. (Working Draft.)
Michigan Weekly Free Press. January, 1974. "Nixon: AEC to
Set
Radiation Standards."
Miller, J. N. June, 1972. "Just How Safe Is a Nuclear Power
Plant?" Reader's Digest.
Mitchell, W. 1972. Grasmere and the Wordsworths. Galava
Printing
Company, Ltd., England.
Morgan, T. April, 1972. Letter to Miner, S. U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission.
Mozola, A. J. 1970. Geology for Environmental Planning in
Monroe County, Michigan. State of Michigan
Geological Survey Division.
Nader, R. 1973. Letter to the Hon. Dixy Lee Ray, chairman,
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Nicholson, R. Methods for Determining the Energy Release
in Hypothetical Reactor Meltdown Accidents, APDA150.
Nolan, J., et al. 1974. Fast Flux Test Facility: Paper for
presentation at British Nuclear Energy Society
International Conference on Fast Reactor Power
Stations, London, 1974.
Novick, S. June, 1966. "Reactions to Nuclear Reactors."
Science.
. June, 1967. Bad Day at the Fermi Plant: A LittleReported
Atomic Accident. Scientist and Citizen.
. 1969. The Careless Atom. Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston, Mass.

. July/August, 1974. "Nuclear Breeders." Environment.

Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association and Mutual
Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters. 1973. Safiy in Nu
clear Industry Reflected by Insurance Refunds. Insurance
Informa
tion Institute.
Nuclear Energy Liability Policy. Nuclear Energy Liability
Insurance Association.
Okrent, D., et al. 1955. Fast Reactor Physics: Proceedings of
the U.N. International Conference on Peaceful Uses of
Atomic Energy. Vol. 5.
Pennsylvania Insurance Department. 1973. Citizen's Bill of
Rights and Consumer's Guide to Nuclear Power. Perry,
H. March, 1974. "The Gasification of Coal." Scientific
American.
Pesonen, D. E. October, 1965. "Atomic Insurance. The
Ticklish Statistics." The Nation.
Plymouth County Nuclear Information Center. "Do You
Know What Plutonium Is?"
Pollard, W. The Mystery of Matter. U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission.
Power Reactor Development Company. November, 1966.
Letter to Price, H., director of Regulation, Atomic
Energy Commission.
October, November, December, 1966. Monthly reports on
operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant.
. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. December, 1968.
Report on the Fuel Melting Incident in the Enrico Fermi
Atomic Power Plant on October 5, 1966. Submitted to
Atomic Energy Commission.
. Docket No. 50-16. Application to U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission for amendment of Provisional Operating
License.

. 1972. Request to Atomic Energy Commission for

extension of expiration date of Provisional Operating
License.
. May, '1973. Request for Extension of License
Expiration Date.
Price, E. R., Director, Division of State and Licensee
Relations. Amendments to Indemnity Agreement No. B20. Amendment No. 2, July 1962; No. 3, July 1963; No.
4, June 1964; No. 7, January 1966; No. 9, July 1966.
Radiation Research Society. May, 1971. Papers from 19th
Annual Meeting.
Ray, J. H., et al. July, 1957. Calculated Criticality of the
Enrico Fermi Reactor during a Hypothetical Slow
Meltdown Accident. Nuclear Development Corporation
of America.
Rocks, L., and Runyon, R. 1972. The Energy Crisis. Crown
Publishers, Inc., New York.
Rohrer, E., et al. 1961. New Criticality Excursion Machines.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Ross, M. 1974. The Possibility of Release of Cesium in a
Spent-Fuel Transportation Accident. Unpublished paper.
Singleton, A., Jr. 1968. Sources of Nuclear Fuel. U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission.
Sternglass, E. 1972. Low-Level Radiation. Ballantine Books,
Inc., New York.
Stockholm Conference Eco. Various issues. 1972.
Supreme Court of the United States. October term, 1960.
Power Reactor Development Company, Petitioner v.
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFLCIO, et al.
Thalgott, F. 1957. Fast Reactor Safety: EBR-1. U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission. et al. 1958. Stability Studies of the
EBR-I, Marks i to iii. International Atomic Energy
Agency.

Thompson, T., and Beckerley, J. (eds.) 1964. The Technology

of Nuclear Reactor Safety. Vol. 1. The M.I.T. Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Tinker, J. March, 1973. "Breeders: risks man dare not run."
New Scientists.
University of Chicago (The). 1973. Energy for the Future: A
Symposium.
U.S. Government House of Representatives Report N1883.
1965. Extending and Amending the Price-Anderson
Indemnity Provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
As Amended.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. September, 1961.
Amendment to Indemnity Agreement No. B-20 between
Power Reactor Development Company and the Atomic
Energy Commission.
. Advisory Committiee on Reactor Safeguards. October,
1962. Letter to Seaborg, G. T., Atomic Energy
Commission.
. The New Force of Atomic Energy-Its Development and
Use.
. March, 1962. Indemnity Agreement No. B-20 between
Power Reactor Development Company and the Atomic
Energy Commission.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. December, 1962. Order
Denying Motion for Postponement of hearing in the
matter of Power Reactor Development Company's
Application for Provisional Operating License. 1968.
Nuclear Power Reactor Plant Siting.
March, 1969. Proceedings at Atomic Energy Commission
Symposium, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. Biological
Implications of the Nuclear Age. Vol. 16. 1970. Atomic
Energy Basics.
June, 1970. Request for Authorization of Change No. 23 in
the Technical Specifications in the matter of Power

Reactor Development Company Provisional Operating

License No. DPR-9.
. August, 1971. Supplement to Safety Evaluation by the
Division of Reactor Licensing in the matter of Enrico
Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2.
. 1971. Science information available from the Atomic
Energy Commission.
1972. WASH-1139. Nuclear Power 1973-2000. 1972.
WASH-1509.
March, 1972. Draft Environmental Statement, Enrico Fermi
Atomic Power Plant Unit 2.
. April, 1972. Environmental Statement: Liquid-metal
Fast-breeder Reactor Demonstration Plant.
. August, 1972. Power Reactor Development Company.
Docket No. 50-16 Denial of Application for License
Extension and Order Suspending Operations. -. 1973
Financial Report.
Reports File EF2 1,796. May, 1973. Enrico Fermi Atomic
Power Plant Unit 2, Detroit Edision Company.
Dewatering of RHR Complex During Construction.
. July, 1973. WASH-1250 Report: The Safety of Nuclear
Power Reactors (Light Water-Cooled) and Related
Facilities. (Final Draft.)
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1973. National Reactor
Testing Station. 1973. Atomic Energy Commission
Research and Development Laboratories.
. Nuclear Terms: a Glossary.
Vollrath, J. A. February, 1972. Memories of the Monroe
Piers. The Monroe County Library System.
Webb, R. E. January, 1971. Letter to Klickman, A. E., Atomic
Power Development Associates, Inc.
. January, 1971. Some Autocatalytic Effects During
Explosive Power Excursions in Fast Nuclear Reactors. . July,
1973. The Explosion Hazard of the LMFBR.

Weil, G. L. July, 1971. Nuclear Energy: Promises, Promises.

. July 1973. Letters to Augustine, R. E., National
Intervenors.
Weinberg, A. 1972. The Safety of Nuclear Power. Atomic
Industrial Forum, Inc.

INDEX

Abelson, Philip, 191

accidents, nuclear (see also
safety), 2, 28, 63
at EBR-1, 33-34, 35, 36, 37, 42,
45, 50, 54, 66, 116, 183
at Fermi reactor, 183-184, 195220,223
at NRU reactor, 88-95, 128,
191, 213, 237
at NRX reactor, 14-18, 25, 37,
191, 237
at SL-1 reactor, 107-115, 116,
191, 238
at Windscale reactor, 74-87,
146, 191, 239-240
caused by fuel meltdown, 31,
152
caused by human error, 14, 15,
34, 64, 90, 97, 114, 238
caused by plane crash, 55
caused by sabotage, 237, 238
hypothetical studies of, 39-41,
44, 55-56, 131-164, 180-181

accidents, nuclear (cont.)

and material transportation, 97,
232, 238
reports of actual, 115
and sodium, 100, 125
and wind direction, 6, 43, 77 78,
79, 80, 161-162, 211
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards, 102
June 1955 meeting, 29-30, 31
June 1956 meeting, 41-42, 43
October 1962 meeting, 124
safety report issued by, 44-45,
46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 55, 96,
189
and WASH-740 report update,
188-190
AEC, see Atomic Energy
Commission
AFL-CIO, 54, 98, 127
Alexanderson, Eldon, 99, 185,
186, 202, 231, 233, 235

American Public Power

Association, 171
Amorosi, Alfred, 28, 29, 41, 66,
67, 96, 97, 101, 102, 202
Anderson, Senator Clinton (see
also Price-Anderson Act),
26, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51
sponsorship of insurance
legislation, 60
APDA, see Atomic Power
Development Association
argon gas, 199, 209, 214, 223
Argonne National Laboratories,
41,190
atomic bomb, 63, 67, 142
atomic energy, see nuclear
energy Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, 20, 119
Atomic Energy Authority, 83,
84 investigation by the, 84,
85-86
Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC), 2, 8, 9, 20, 22, 25,
27, 37, 38, 43, 63, 153,
238, 245
classified meeting of, 23
commissioners of, 172-173
and Fermi reactor construction
permit, 49, 99, 104
and Fermi reactor operating
permit, 115, 127, 223,
224, 227
investigation of SL-1 accident,
114,116

National Reactor Testing

Station, 9, 104-105
petition to U.S. courts, 103
public relations of, 67,
190, 191
reaction to WASH-740 report,
59
steering committee report, 130,
131-132, 136, 138, 139,
140, 143, 145, 155-156,
158-159, 230, 236, 237,
238
study of operating reactors, 229
Atomic Industrial Forum, 142,
147, 156, 159-164, 167, 173,
176
Atomic Information Center, 98
"Atomic Insurance: The
Ticklish
Statistics" (Pesonen), 177
AEC reply to, 177-178
Atomic Power Development
Asso
ciation (APDA), 22, 38, 63
atomic power plants, see
nuclear
power plants, commercial
Babcock & Wilcox, 142
Beck, Clifford (see also Atomic
Energy Commission,
steering committee report),
130, 131, 132, 140, 141,
142, 149, 172, 173, 181

and AEC-WASH-740 report,

155--156, 157, 158-159, 160,
162, 167-168, 175, 189, 190
letter to Harold Vann, 1.70
171
letter to Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, 168-170 Bethe,
Hans, 23, 40, 41, 188
testimony on safety of Fermi
reactor, 55, 207
Black, Justice Hugo L., 118
borescope, 93, 215
boron control rods, 13, 66-67,
105
breeder reactors (see also light
water reactors; names of in
dividual reactors), 8, 12, 21,
22, 23, 35, 66, 122, 222, 228,
238, 240, 241, 243
"fast," 28, 32, 51
Brennan, Justice William J., Jr.,
118
Bryan, William, 239
Brookhaven National
Laboratory (see also
Downes, Ken; WASH-740
report), 44, 130, 167, 171,
179
Buchanan, Captain, 2, 208
Bulgier, Chester, 222
Byrnes, John, 104, 106,
107
cadmium, control rods, 13, 74,
105

Canadian Government, nuclear

energy project (see also
Chalk River, Ontario), 12,
94 cancer (see also
leukemia), 25, 58, 62, 134,
240
Carter, Bob, 199
Cesium-137, 58, 85, 135, 154,
232
Chalk River, Ontario:
accidents at, 14-18, 25, 37, 88
95, 128, 191, 213, 237
description of, 11-12
as site of NRU reactor, 88
as site of NRX reactor, 12, 19
"China Syndrome," 22,
100-101 Cisler, Walker L.,
7, 9, 10, 18, 21-22, 24, 32,
53, 201, 205, 227
and application for Fermi
construction permit, 38-41
creation of Nuclear Power
Development Department,
11
creation of Power Reactor
Development Company,
38
designing breeder reactor, 19
and Fermi reactor accident, 205,
208, 211, 216-217
personality and background, 78,184-185
petition to Courts, 103 responds
to Reuther attack, 51

speech before Business Man's

Association, 96
cladding, 33, 160
Clark, Duncan, 177, 179 Claus,
Dr. W. D., 140
coal, 64, 122, 191-192, 237,
240,
242
Combustion Engineering Com
pany, 98, 106-107 Consolidated
Edison Company
11, 25
containment structure (see also
En
rico Fermi Power Plant, con
tainment structure), 6, 39, 40,
46, 63, 65, 138-139 control
rods, 9, 39, 66
boron, at Fermi reactor, 66
67
cadmium, at SL-1 reactor,
105-106,116
at EBR-1 reactor, 33
fast-action, 34
motor-driven, 33, 34
at NRX reactor, 14-15
role of, 12
coolant (see also liquid sodium
coolant), 12, 39
loss of, effects of, 160, 166-167,
169, 183, 205
role of the, 13, 90

core, see reactor core Cottrell,

Bill, 144-145 Court, Anita,
148 Court of Appeals, 103
Cowan, F. P. 132-133, 134, 135,
146, 149
critical mass, 31, 35, 46, 63
Crone, Bill, 81
Daily Express (England), 81
decontamination, 17, 95,
110, 111 Detroit Edison
Company, 1, 2, 7,
8, 24, 29, 185, 223, 224, 228
Detroit Edison Company (cont.)
and Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards, 29-30,
31, 47
Nuclear Power Development
Department, 11
Detroit Free Press, 51, 119, 122
Detroit, Michigan, 4, 24,
52, 60,
115, 116, 188, 210 deuterium,
243
Dietrich, J. R., 198
Doan, Dr. R. L., 132, 141, 142,
156, 157, 158 Donnell, Alton,
63 "Doppler effect," 29-30
dosimeters, 77
Douglas, Justice William 0., 118
Dow Chemical, 8, 22
Downes, Ken (see also
WASH-740
report, update of), 131, 132,

136, 138, 139, 141, 144, 148,

154, 156, 160, 189
at Atomic Industrial Forum,
160, 161, 163-164 Duckworth,
Paul, 107, 109
EBR-1, 9, 23, 28, 30
accident at, 33-34, 35, 36, 37,
42, 45, 50, 54, 66, 116, 183 fuel
temperature changes at, 32
location of, 10
as pilot for Fermi reactor, 32,
42
EBR-II, 42
Edison-Dow breeder reactor
project, see Enrico Fermi
Power Plant
Edison Electric Institute, 222,
230 Eisenbud, Dr. Merrill,
162 Eisenhower, Dwight
D., 20, 49
electricity:
created by fission reactor, 8, 13,
191, 193
energy release, explosive, 31,
63, 67, 166, 184, 187
Energy Research and
Development
Administration, 236, 245
Enrico Fermi Power Plant (see
also Cisler, Walter L.;
Detroit Edison Company;
McCarthy, Walter), 1, 3, 4,
241

accidents at, 183-184, 195-220,

223
construction of, 5, 53-54, 56, 69
construction permit for, 38-41,
46, 47-49, 55, 66, 69, 99,
103, 104, 119
containment structure of, 6, 39,
40, 69, 70, 188
cost of, 38, 54, 193, 217, 224,
234
decommissioning of, 231-234
ground-breaking for, 47, 50
heat exchanger at, 98, 186
local opinion of, 61, 119,
126127
operating license for, 68, 115,
124, 127, 185, 223, 224
safety of, 19, 50, 67-69, 88, 96,
183-184
staff at, 19-20, 22, 23, 32,
6869,96
suspension of operations at,
228, 235
Enrico Fermi Plant Unit No. 2,
224, 225, 227, 233
ERDA, see Energy Research
and Development
Administration
Erlich, Dr. Paul, 121
eutectic mixture, 35
evacuation, 6, 59, 77, 78, 125,
139,
148, 204, 239

Experimental Breeder Reactor

No. 1, see EBR-I
Federal Energy Administration,
245
Feldes, John, 200
Fermi, Dr. Enrico, 26
Fermi, Mrs. Enrico, 104 Fields,
K. E., 44, 48
fission, 8, 13, 21, 34, 66, 219,
221,
222, 242, 245
fission products (see also names
of individual fission
products), 58, 60, 61, 62,
63, 76, 87, 122, 134, 153,
169, 173-174, 198,
199,224
at NRU reactor, 88-89
at SL-1 reactor, 114, 115
at Windscale reactor, 78, 85
Ford, Daniel, 121
Ford Motor Company, 22 fossil
fuels (see also coal), 191
Frass, Dr. Artlin, 243
Freidman, Saul, 119, 122
fuel cells, 121
fuel reassembly, see critical
mass fuel removal flask,
89 fuel rods, 12, 21, 23
as cause of EBR-1 accident, 35,
45
description of, 13
for Fermi reactor, 95

at NRU reactor, 88, 89, 90-91,

92
at Windscale reactor, 80
fusion power, 65-66, 237, 242244
galvanometer, 15
Gausden, Ron, 76 General
Electric, 142. 188 General
Motors Company. 22
Gilette, Robert, 225
Gofman, Dr. John, 121
Gomberg Report, see Michigan,
University of, study on safety
of Fermi reactor
Gomberg, Dr. Henry J., 61, 180
Goodman, Leo, 216
government insurance, see
Price
Anderson Act; insurance in
dustry; "war-risk insurance"
graphite, 12, 73, 74, 75
Grosse Ile Naval Air Station, 55
halogens, 58
Harrigan, Phil, 220
Harrington, Sheriff Charles, 1,
126, 197, 208
Hart, Judith, 85 Hartwell,
Robert, 120
Hazard Summary Report, 120,
123, 184, 186, 188, 221-223,
231
heavy-water (see also lightwater

reactors), 89, 90
dumping of, 16-17
reactors, 12, 13
Hembree, Howard, 143, 144,
146 Heronemus, William,
244 Holifield,
Congressman Chet, 47,
49, 50, 51, 168, 174, 176
Hughes, 'Fin, 75, 76
Idaho Falls, Idaho:
site of EBR-1 reactor, 28, 29,
32
site of SL-1 reactor, 104
insurance industry (see also
PriceAnderson Act; "warrisk insurance"), 24-25,
26, 32, 44, 129, 230, 236
reaction to EBR-1 accident, 3637
reaction to WASH-740 studies,
57, 160
International Union of Electrical
Workers, 54 Iodine-131,
58, 69, 78, 82, 84, 135
Jens, Wayne, 99, 185, 186, 202
Johnson, Ken, 198-199,
201, 202, 217-218
Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, 10, 26, 36, 37, 43,
46, 49, 65, 98, 122, 179,
180, 192, 226, 237

and AEC-WASH-740 report,

130, 148, 149, 160, 162,
168, 174
concern about insurance, 60
Justice, U.S. Department
of, 104
Kendall, Henry W., 120-121,
239
paper for Union of Concerned
Scientists, 121
KMS fusion, 244
Kuron, Frank, 4-5, 6, 208, 225,
226,228-229,249
Lagoona Beach, Michigan, 1, 3,
52
Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,
244
Legg, Richard, 104, 106
leukemia, 25, 62, 162
Liberty Mutual Insurance Com
pany, 36, 162
light-water reactors, 12, 13, 21,
224, 225, 238, 241
liquid sodium coolant (see also
coolant; sodium-air
reaction; sodium, pure),
13, 21, 32, 63, 101, 186,
205, 215, 236
accidents with, 100, 125, 184,
187
at EBR-1 reactor, 34
flammability of, 21, 68, 121

tests with, 99, 100

Los Alamos, 243-244
Lough, Allan, 136
McAllister, R. G., 162
McCarthy, Walter, 31, 41, 6469,
96, 97, 99, 119-120, 165-166,
186, 188, 190
background of, 184-185
coauthor of "Technology of
Nuclear Reactor Safety," 123
and Fermi reactor accident,
201, 202-203, 205, 206, 207,
208, 211, 212, 216-217, 218
Hazard Summary Report, 120,
123, 184, 186, 188, 221-223,
231
safety studies by, 31-32, 165
166,186,188,190 McCullough,
C. Rogers, 41, 44
45,46
McKinley, Richard, 104, 106
McLaughlin, Jim, 136, 140
McNamara, Senator Pat,
48, 52
53
magnetohydrodynamics (MHD),
122
Manchester Guardian
(England),
80
Manhattan Project, 27

meltdown (see also accidents,

nuclear), 15, 22, 29, 237
at Fermi reactor, 200, 201, 202,
209, 212
runaway, 23, 26, 34, 35, 39-40,
42, 46, 63, 69, 100
studies of, 31, 32, 39, 183, 186
Michigan Department of Health,
125,204
Michigan Public Service
Commission, 223
Michigan State Police, 2, 6,
197, 204,208
Michigan, University of, 44, 60
Engineering Research
Institute, 61
meteorological studies, 69-70
study on safety of Fermi
reactor, 61, 62, 65, 180,
192
Milk Marketing Board (Eng
land), 82
Monroe County, Michigan, 1, 3,
6,69
Monroe, Michigan (town), 1, 3,
6, 52,96
Monroe Evening News, 119
Morgan, Tom, 226-227, 228,
245 Murphy, P. M., 188
Murray, Thomas E., 47
Nader, Ralph, 231, 239

Naval Ordnance Laboratory, 42

"negative temperature
coeffi
cient," 29, 45, 96
neutrons, 8, 13, 14. 21, 33, 66,
67,
73
New England Power Company,
11
noble gases, 58
Noctor, John, 240
nocturnal inversion, 58, 62. 78,
211-212
Novick, Sheldon. 191. 200
NRC, see Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
NRU reactor, accident at. 88-95.
128, 191, 213, 237
NRX reactor, accident at, 14.
18. 25, 37, 191, 237
nuclear energy (see also fission;
fusion), 8, 236, 245
nuclear excursion, 113-114
nuclear fission, see fission
nuclear power plants,
commercial
(see also names of individual
reactors), 2, 9, 20, 51, 121,
129,241
nuclear reactors, see breeder
reactors; names of
individual reactors
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 236,245

nuclear research, government

aid to, 21-22
Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
146, 225,243
Oak Ridge, Tennessee: site of
breeder reactor, 228
Okrent, David, 123, 140-141,
149,
190
coauthor of Technology of
Nuclear
Reactor Safety, 123
Olson, William, 99, 185, 202
Pacific Gas and Electric Com
pany, 171-172
Palfrey, John G., 147, 175-177,
180
Parker, George, 144 Pasternak,
Dr. Bernard, 137
Pauling, Dr. Linus, 121
Pennsylvania Power &
Light
Company, 242
Pesonen, David, 175-179, 180
Philadelphia Electric
Company,
11
Phillips Petroleum Company,
143, 144, 145
Pincher. Chapman, 81
Planning Research Corporation,
150, 151-152, 155, 157,
162

plutonium, 22, 25, 33, 35, 64,

65, 67, 122, 233, 240, 241
Plutonium-238, 8
Plutonium-239, 58, 65, 95
Power Reactor Development
Company (PRDC), 38, 49,
52, 66, 120, 127, 224
PRDC, see Power Reactor
Development Company
Price, Harold, 179
Price-Anderson Act (see also
insurance industry; "warrisk insurance"), 142, 147,
169, 172, 177,179180,230
extension of, 130, 162, 168,
174, 176,179-180
passage of, 64
provisions of, 60-61, 192
Price, Congressman Melvin, 26
sponsorship of insurance
legisla
tion, 60
radiation, 2, 6, 125, 237, 240
cumulative doses of, 17,
84 "dissociation," 210-211
from EBR-1 accident, 34
effect of long-term, 21
estimated by University of
Michigan study, 62
at Fermi reactor, 197, 198,
204-205, 208

gases, 22, 34, 59 "Gaussian

plume," 154 isotopes, 113
lethal dose of, 133, 146, 154,
169
at NRU reactor, 91, 92, 93 at
NRX reactor, 16, 17, 18 of
plutonium, 8
at SL-1 reactor, 108, 109-111,
113, 115
Radiation Absorbed Dose (rad),
62, 90, 92, 93, 108
radiation alarms, 7, 16, 197,
199
Radiation Emergency
Procedures,
125-126
radium, 27
rare earths, 58, 154
Rasmussen, Professor Norman,
180, 181, 230-231, 238-239
reactor core, 8, 13, 23, 29, 63
of the EBR-1 reactor, 32-33,
34,35
energy release in the, 31, 32
of the Fermi reactor, 203, 208
plenum area of the, 101
regulatory agencies, see
Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safe
guards: Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy
Remley, Martin, 162, 163
Reuther, Walter, 50
attacks against AEC and

PRDC, 50-51, 52, 64, 69 court

case on construction per
mit and, 103, 119
and public hearings on Fermi
operating license, 124
and public hearings before
AEC, 54, 98, 99
Ribicoff, Senator Abraham,
178, 179-180
Rickover, Admiral Hyman G.,
20 Rittenhouse, Philip,
225 Ross, Kenneth, 75, 80,
81 Ross, Dr. Marc, 232
safety (see also accidents;
Atomic Energy
Commission, steering
committee report;
Michigan, University of,
report; WASH-740
report):
devices, 29, 33, 91, 100, 169,
182, 183
at Fermi reactor, 182, 183
and Fermi reactor construction
permit, 41, 52, 54-55
at NRX reactor, 12-13 problems
of, 20, 21, 22, 23, 121,
122
studies, 31, 32, 39, 44, 68,
131164, 238-239, 241
at Windscale reactor, 73-74
"Safety of Nuclear Power
Reactors, The," 180

sand, used at NRU reactor

accident, 92-93
scanner, 75-76
Science, 191, 216, 225
scramming, 15, 34, 67, 89, 200,
201, 207, 208
Seaborg, Dr. Glenn, 122, 174,
176, 180
Shaw, Milton, 222
Singer, I. A., 137-138, 154 SL-1
reactor, 104
accident at, 107-115, 116, 191,
238
Smith, M. E., 137, 154, 161
sodium-air reaction, 39,
100, 125 sodium, pure (see
also liquid so
dium coolant), 99, 100
solar energy, 64, 122, 237, 240
241, 242, 244-245 Staebler, U.
M., 138, 145 steam, 13
created by fission, 8, 9
generators, 98
steering committee report, see
Atomic Energy Commission,
steering committee report
Strauss, Lewis, 20-21, 43,
46, 48,
51, 189
testimony before House Appro
priation Committee, 47
Strontium-90, 58, 69, 79,
82, 85,

86, 133, 135, 142, 154 Supreme

Court, 104, 115, 116,
118-119
Sylvania-Corning Nuclear
Corpo
ration, 95
Szawlewicz, Stan, 135-136,
143,
145, 149, 156, 157, 158, 173
174
Technology of Nuclear Reactor
Safety
(McCarthy and Okrent), 123
Teller, Dr. Edward, 41, 123,
149
"Theoretical Consequences of a
Major Accident in a Large
Nuclear Power Plant," see
WASH-740 report
thermal shock, 200
thermocouple, 74, 76, 86, 193,
197
thermonuclear power, 65-66,
122, 237,242-244
Thompson, T. J., 35-36, 114
tritium, 243
Tufty, Esther Von Waggoner,
126 Tuohy, Tom, 75, 81
Union Carbide Company, 144,
146
Union of Concerned Scientists,
121, 239

unions, see AFL-CIO; names of

individual unions; Reuther,
Walter
United Auto Workers (UAW),
50, 54, 96
United Papers Workers of
America, 54, 64
uranium, 22, 25, 73 Uranium235, 8, 24, 65, 191
enriched, 23, 33, 95, 105, 115,
127
Uranium-238, 8, 12, 14, 33, 34,
66, 95, 185
Urey, Dr. Harold, 240
utility companies, see names of
individual companies
Vallario, Ed, 107, 109
Vann, Harold, 160, 161, 163,
167-168,170
Wald, Dr. George, 121
"war-risk insurance" (see also
Price-Anderson Act;
insurance industry), 26, 36
WASH-740 report, 2, 44, 62,
65, 129, 130, 133, 169,
173, 180
estimates of casualties and
property damage, 56, 5759, 60, 172
WASH-740 report (cont.)
update of, 131-150, 153-155,
169, 172, 175, 176, 178, 179,

180, 230, 237, 238 WASH1250 report, 180 waste

conversion, 122 water:
used to flood Windscale reactor,
76, 79, 81
used at NRU reactor accident,
91
Watson, Dr. James, 121
Well, Dr. George L., 26--27, 28,
63, 67, 120, 216, 219 Western,
Forrest, 161 Westinghouse
Electric Corpora
tion, 25, 142
Wilber, Mike, 195, 196, 197,
200,
201,202
Wigner release, 73, 74, 78 wind
direction:

as a factor in a radiation acci

dent, 6, 43, 77-78, 79, 80,
161-162, 211
Williams, Governor G. Mennen,
48,50
Windscale, Great Britain, 55, 71
72, 79, 84, 85 Windscale
reactor, 71-74
accidents at, 74-87, 146, 191,
239-240
Winsche, Dr. Warren E., 139,
157,190
Young, Henry, 36-37
Zinn, Walter, 9, 23, 42
zirconium, 101, 102, 115,
187, 220,223

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John G. Fuller is the author of the best sellers Incident at Exeter, The
Interrupted Journey, and The Day of St. Anthony's Fire, as well as
the highly acclaimed 200,000,000 Guinea Pigs and Arigo: Surgeon
of the Rusty Knife. His latest book, Fever.!, won honorable mention
by The New York Academy of Sciences. Fuller is also a playwright
and has written, directed, and produced a number of TV
documentaries. He lives in Weston, Connecticut.